No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUTC PKT 03-15-2010City of Federal Way City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee City Hall Council Chambers March 15, 2010 5:30 p.m. MEETING AGENDA Electronic version 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PUBLIC COMMENT (3 minutes) 3. COMMITTEE BUSINESS Topic Title/Description A. Approval of Minutes: March 1, 2010 B. Preliminary Plat Approval for Norpoint Heights C. C E. F. S 356"' at SR 99 Intersection Improvement Project — Project Acceptance SR 99 HOV Lanes Phase III (Dash Point Road to S 284"' Street) Improvement Project — Project Acceptance and Retainage Release S 348"' St at 1� Avenue S Intersection Improvement Project — Bid Award Citywide Pedestrian Improvement Program Presenter LeMaster Lee Mulkey Action Page or Info 2 Action 5 Action 138 Action Roberts 140 Action Mulkey 142 Action Hannahs 145 Action Council Date Time N/A 5 min. 4/06/2010 5 min. Consent 4/06/2010 5 min. Consent 4/06/2010 5 min. Consent 4/06/2010 5 min. Consent 4/06/10 10 min Consent 4. OTHER 5. FUTURE MEEfINGS/AGENDA ITEMS: The next regularly scheduled meeting will be Monday, April 5, 2010. 6. ADJOURN Committee Members ��Y � Dini Dudos, Chair Cary M. Roe, P.E., Directo� ofPan�CS, Pub/ic Won�rs and Emerr�rcy Maaagement 1im Ferrel% Member Da�lene LeMaster, Adminislratrve stssisbnt II Jack Devey, Member 253�835-2701 G.•�LUTC�LUTCAgeirdas a�Summaries 1010�3-15-i0 LUTCAgpnda.abc City of Federal Way City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee March 1, 20t0 5:30 PM City Hall City Council Chambers MEET[riG SUMMARY Committee Members in Attendance: Committee Chair Dini Duclos and Committee Members Jim Ferrell and Jack Dovey present. Council Members io Attendance: Counci( Member Burbidge Staff Members in Attendance: Director of Parks, Pub(ic Works and Emergency Management Cary Roe, Director of Community Development Services Greg Fewins, Pianning Manager [saac Conlen, Deputy Public Works Director Marwan Salloum, Street Systems Project Engineer Brian Roberts, Senior Planner Margaret Clark, Associate Planner Matt Herrera, Street Systems Engineer Jeff Huynh, Assistant City Attorney Peter Beckwith, and Administrative Assistant II Darlene LeMaster. 1. CALL TO ORDER Committee Chair Duclos called the meeting to order at 5:31 PM. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment: 3. BUSINESS ITEMS Forward Topic Titte/Description • to Council A. Approval of the February 22, 2010 LUTC Minutes Committee approved February 22, 20i0 LUTC minutes as presented. Moved: Dovey Seconded: Ferrell Passed: Unanimousiy, 3-0 B. 2010 Asphalt Overlay Program — Bid Award Jeff Huynh presented information on this item. There was no public comment. Mr. Huynh stated that the City has done business with Woodworth in the past (2006) as the contractor for the overlay program. Woodworth is capable of completing the job to the City's satisfaction. Committee Member Ferrell asked who had performed more recent overlay programs and where did their bid fall in the bids for the 2010 program. Mr. Huynh replied that tfiere were five bidders for this project. Tucci and Sons was awarded the contract for this project for the past three years. Their bid for the 2010 program ranked second, approximately $75,000 higher than Woodworth's bid. Committee Member povey asked how often the City actuatly spends the (0% contingency that is approved by Council as part of the contract. Director Roe stated that staff is typically successful in not spending the 10% contingency. Historically, if the council approves spe�►ding of the engineer's estimate plus a 10% contingency and the bid comes in low enough, staff may add overlay schedules into that year's project. For the 20t0 Overlay, all bid schedules were inctuded in the original bid, therefore, no extra schedules are being added and staff does not anticipate spending the contingency. NIA 3/16/2010 Consent Committee forwarded Option #1 as presented. Moved: Dovey Seconded: Ferrelt Passed: Unanimously, 3-0 Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 2 March 1, 2010 C. Resolution for Grant Funding for Transportation Improvement Projects —[-5 at S 320 Street Off Ramp 3/16/2010 Consent D. E. F. G. Brian Roberts presented information on this item. There was no public comment. Council Member Burbidge commended staff on their success in securing grant funds. Committee forwarded Option #1 as presented as wetl as amended the motion to include forwarding Option t from [tem U, "Local Agency Agreement with WSDOT for Design of I-5 at S 320` Street Off Ramp". Moved: Dovey Seconded: Ferrell Passed: Unanimously, 3-0 Loeal Agency Agreemeut with WSDOT for Desiga of [-% at S 320`� Street Ot�' Ramp There was no presentation as the Committee moved to inciude the staff recommendation in the motion for Item C. . Proposed Text Amendment to EWRC — Accessory Dwetling unit (ADU) Size Calculatioa, Minimum Lot Size and Housekeeping Amendments Matt Herrera presented information on this item. There was one public comment: Sam Pace, Housing Specialist, Seattle-King County Association of Realtors — Mr. Pace spoke in favor of the proposed text amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission. Councilmember Burbidge commented that accessory dwelting units have successfutly existed within Federal Way for many years. Committee forwarded Option i�l as presented. Moved: Dovey Seconded: Ferrell Passed: Unanimously, 3-0 Proposed Text Amendment to FWRC — Appraisat Requirements Matt Herrera presented information on this item. There was one public comment: Sam Pace, Housing Specialist, Seattle-King County Association of Realtors — Mr. Pace spoke in favor of the proposed text arreendments as recommended by the Planning Commission. Committee forwarded Option #1 as presented. Moved: Dovey Seconded: Eerrell Passed: Unanimously, 3-0 Proposed Text Amendment to FWRC — Short Subdivision Notice Matt Herrera presented information on this item. There was one public comment: Sam Pace, Housing Specialist, Seattle-King County Association of Realtors — Mr. Pace spoke in favor of the proposed text amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission. Committee member Qovey asked how you know how many signs are needed. Mr. Herrera responded that that is subjective and a judgment call on the side of staff. Committee member Dovey stated he thought there should be some guidetines or criteria on determining how many signs to post. Mr. Herrera said that the City of DesMoines has language in their code that identifies cr�teria and guidelines for signage. Committee member Eerrell is interested in having staff add some prescriptive language to the text amendment, making it clear how much 3/16/2010 Consent 3/16/10 Ordinance 1 �` Reading 3/16/10 Ordinance 1" Reading 3/16/10 Ordinance 1 �` Reading G:U.iJfCU.UTC Agendas a�d Summaries 201011-01-f 0 Miwusdoc Land Use/Transportation Committee H. I. 4. OTHER None frontage and how many right of ways determine the amount of signage required for short subdivisions notice. Committee forwarded Option #2 as moditied in order to clarify criteria for appropriate signage. Moved: Ferrell Seconded: Dovey 2010 Compre6ensive Plan Amendmeats Selectiou Margaret Clark presented information on this item. There was no public comment. Committee Member povey inquired about the Song site-specific request and wanted to know how ihe re-zoning might affect the vaiue of land and the business owner. Ms. Clazk stated that the land owner requested to be re-zoned to Neighborhood Susiness (BN). Rezoning the land woutd add value to the land and would be consistent with the other parceis of land at each corner of Military Road and S 320`�' St. The nursery currentiy leasing the Song properiy is not in compliance with the iand use. The business wilt benefit by this, making it compiiant with the tand use. 1fie business owner wii( have to make structural changes to the structure in order to comply with retail code regulatians. Asst. Attorney Beckwith stated that the business owner is in agreement with the re-zone request. Committee forwarded ail three citizen-initiated requests (L1oydNaliani, Song and ST Fabrication) as presented. Moved: Ferrell Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unaaimously, 3-0 2010 Planning Commission Work Program Margaret Clark presented information on this item. There was no pubiic comment. Committee member povey suggested adding "urban rabbits" to the "urban chicken" code amendment. Staff reiterated that the Code altows Council to add additional tasks at any time, should the need arise. Staff wili do their part to accomplish those tasks that are ready to go now or that can be accomplished more easily. This may change the order in which the tasks are accomptished, but witl maximize efficiency overaiL Committee forwarded the 2010 Planning Commission Work Program as presented. Moved: Ferrell Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously, 3-0 5. FUTURE MEETING The next regular LUTC meeting wili be Monday, March 15, 2010 at 5:30 PM in City Councit Chambers. 6. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 6:41 PM. Attest: COMMIITEE APPROVAL: Dini Duclos, Chair March 1, 2010 3/16/10 Pubiic Hearing 3I16/2010 Consent Darlene LeMaster, Administrative Assistant II Jim Ferrell, Member Passed: Unanimousiy, 3-0 Jack Dovey, Member G:ILUTCi[,UTC Agendas and Summaries 2010�3-01-10 Minutes.doc COUNCIL NIEETING D:aTE: �pri15, 20t0 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL [TEM #: __ _ _ _ __ AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: NORPOIVT HE[GHTS P[�Li�[[NAItY PLAT APPL[CATION� FILE 08-100329-00-SU POLLCY QUESTION: SfiALL TE{E PROPOSED l4-LAT NORPOINT HEIGHTS PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION BE APPROVED? COMr'ICfTEE: Lr1ND USE r��i D TRANSPORTATtON COMMITTEE (�LUTC� CATEGORY: � Consent ❑ Ordinance MEETING DATE: M1ICI1 1 J, 2010 ❑ Pnblic Hearing ❑ City CouncilBusiness � Resolution ❑ Other STAF REPORT $Y: DBVid Lee, Associate Plannec DEe'r: C Development Project Description: Preliminary plat for the suixiivision ofan undeveloped 3.0 acre parcel into 14 siagle fattuly loLs. Zoning is RS 7.2lS.0. Attachments: Eagle Manor Hearing E�miner recommendation dated Much 2, 2010; Preliminary plat staffreport dated Jannary 29, ?OtO, with exhibits including preliminary plat map; and ciratt City Councii Resolution for Notpoint Heights Preliminary Plaf. Options Considered: t. Adopt the Hearing Examiner [Zecommendation and approve the Norpoint Heights Preliminary Plat Resolution. Z. Reject the Hearing Examiner Recommeadation. 3. City Council may adopt its ow•n recommendapons and approve the Nocpoint Heights Preliminary Plat Resolu6on. 4. City Council mxy adopt its own recommendations and disapprove the Nrnpoint Heights Preliminary Plai Resolu6oa Sra� RECO1�rniENDaT[ov: Council approvat of the Norpoint Heights Preliminary Plat resoluNon, based on the findings, conctusi a r e c o n�m e n dation of the Federal Way Hearing Examiner (OpNon #1). C[TYMANAGERAPPRO�'A(.: � - ► DIItECTORAPPROVAi,: _�i . �' Comrnittee Couucil Committee Council COMMITTEE RECOMMEi�TDAT[O!v: " 1 rriove Option # 1 to the Full City Council, for the April S, 2010, City Counci! consent agenda. " Dini Duclos, Chair Jim Ferrell, Member Jack Duvey, Member PROPOSED CflUNCII, 1�IOT[ON: " ! niove adoption of the Hearing E.zaminer recommendations and aPprova! of the Norpoint Heightr Preliminary Plat Resolutiort. " (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BYCITYCLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ APPROVED COLJNCII. BILL # ❑ DE1�tIED 1� reading � TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACT[ON Enactment reading ❑ MOVED TO SECOND RE�D[NG (ordinances only) ORDINANCE # REVLSEI3 — 02/flb/2006 RESOLUTION # Doc. I.D. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TH� CITY OF FEDER.AL WAY, WASHINGTON, APPROVING NORPOINT HEIGHTS PRELIMINARY PLAT, FEDERAL WAY FILE NO. 08-100329-00 SU_ WHEREAS, the owner, Land Mark Homes, Inc., applied to plat approval to subdivide certain real property known as N foiu ( t 4) single-famiiy residential lots located at Norpoi� , f/ Way) near SW 353�' Stceet in Federal Way WA; and,.,f/f� WHEREAS, on August 12, 2009, an issued by the City's State Environmental VVt-�1ZEAS, the Federal Way Hearing Norpoint Heights WHERE�s, fo,. ,'1��,,,�.��'Kg the conc�,��n of Federal Way for preliminary ine of 3.0 acres into {Tacoma) 27, Avenue SW (Federal ion of Nonsio zificance (DNS) was to Chapter 43.21C; RCW; and a public hearing concerning on March-2, 2010, the Federal Way Hearing 'Ff/ v:iF// � .. \\• \." Examiner issued a writte�t� , ort a f tion c ining findings and conclusions, and recommendmg �f . .� .�,;.. ._.�.�l.tip ���� ' ���I 1 % - • ��� `+ approval a�:;�:��:::;�_=__�ights , aryplat subjec Y'o conditions set forth therein; and the F Federal Code to March ay `. ouncil has jurisdiction and authority pursuant to Section 20-127 of the ,;��;% �, deny, �modify a preliminary plat anci/or its conditions; and \�. \ � 10, the City Council Land Use and Transportation Committee cot�sidered the record and the Heariri�`��i recommendation on Nocpoint Heights preliminary plat, pursuant to Chapter 20 ti��ti� ti,:;:. ���\= ,, . of Federal 6Y'ay Ciry Code, Chapter 58.17 RCW, and all other applicable City codes, and voted to forward a recommendation for approval of the proposed Norpoint Heights preliminary piat to the full Ciry Cowici7, with no changes to the Hearing Examiner recommendation; and �'V[-t�2Eas, on April 6, 20 i 0, the City Council considered the record and the Hearing Exa�iner Resolution rVo.09- Page 1 of 4 Rev i/10 A) 6 recommendation on Norpoint Heights preliminary plat, purst�ant to Chapter 20 of Fecleral Way City Code, Chapter 58.17 RCW, and all other applicabie City codes. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: ��i:,<;x,� Section 1 AdoQtion of Findings of Fact and Conc usions. .f:�:,,.:_,:/��... .: f,,.<. .. ;:,. .�:;�r��.. —«.;��i. . :•:..F•s�:.;: :;: ,,•�; , ... :•-f: :��:�• � x.� :>:.• ;� , ..,.. ��" :`':F:� '�i%�I 1. The fmdings of fact and conclusions of the H�cuirig%�Examiner?��' :��::.�:.. „ ,::,_: �_::<>: Recommendation, attached hereto as Exlubit A and incorpa�� by this reference, ;�:;�;:<�=�`= \i�i . , .: , .. v'::.:.1 findings and conclusions of the Federal Way Ciry Cot�ie��� ` Any f �<��'�<� `��' :_:.;.:::,. conclusion deemed to be a fmd'mg, shall be treated as such� ;=:;:;� 2. Based on, inter alia, the an� : recomme�idation, and conditions of approval as provisions for the public roads, alleys, other pi grounds, schools and ry ��F� ��1�%i;f ^j'f,i,'::jf''f,.;�i"•'�'�f i'f� �/. /� J �'-/�� " .�i�i::... t/.v� providea.�'b�%5itiewal� :.,:<,�� ;;�;: :;;>:: <;,,;� �:;;;,:<.::.>� ;�.. from'��ol. ".'F,.> �:r� »;.;; %�f;�:::;. 3. "� 1�:' ;�F�<The transit ions 2, 2010 Report and adopted as the to be a co° and any Report and Hearing Examiner's subdivision makes appropriate and for suc�i'�open spaces, drainage ways, streets or �lf � potable vi?��er supplies, sanitary waste, parks and recreation, play ,:, ;;;;�,. ��� �'�;�:-:.. � �'F,;� ���araiit� as are required by City code and state law, and features to assure safe walking conditions forstudents whowalkto and public use �� interest will be served by the preliminary plat approval granted herein. —;:. ;,. s`; ,, Section 2. A�,� pproval. Based u}�on the recommendation of the Federal Way Heanng xamuier . fr. , .F//! `'��/�/� "%,r` and findings and conclusions contained therein as adopted by the City Council immediately above, Norpoint Heights preliminary plat, Federal Way File No_ 08-100329-00 SU, is hereby approved, subject to conditions as contained in the March 2, 2010, Report and Recommendation of the Federal Way Hearing Examiner {Exhbit A). Section 3_ Conditions of Approval Inte ral. The conditions of approval of the preliminary plat are all Resolution No.09- Page 2 of 4 Rev 1/10 7 integral to each other with respect to the Ciry Councit finding that the public use and interest will be servedby the platting or subdivision of the subject pro�erty. Should any court having jurisdiction over the subject matter declare any of the conditions invalid, then, in said event, the proposed preliminary plat approval granted in this �S� resolution shall be deemed void, and the preliminary plat shall be remanded to ' ity of Federal Way Hearing `�����„' :\.� . . Examiner to review the impact� of the invalidation of any condition or ons and conduct such additional ���. ,������ �. . proceedings as are necessary to assure that the proposed p lat makes �� �opriat � ions for the public health, ,./�//��i,.fi: �ii f safety, and general welfare and other factors as required by �_';,� hapter 58.17 and �� ` ble Ciry ordinances, rules, and reg�tations, and forward such recommendat��`t`�"�i the City ; ,F,,, f�fi/.. . i� !,/'''r Section 4. Severabilitv. If any section, sentence, cla`�`�'' "' ;:::::.:.. ��� invalid or unconstitutional by a court of co' �"' ����i�#������trisdiction, si�� affect the validity or constitutionality of any o��ei .:�,.:. ;f,�f. ; Section 5. Correc ' '�?�.'�, ', ty Cleric .,..:..,�� ,,� ..,.::::�::�,. �f �F�.;,F�1,/.','. �� �;!',,: - �fs::::i:. necessary corrections " „ ord'mance "�uding, references, ordinance hereby Way City Cou� RESOL for further of this resolution should be held to be or unconstitutionality shall not �hrase of this resolution ordinance are authorized to make limited to, the correction of scrivener/clerical errors, ��,,,,�,�.����n nurii���s and any references thereta ;•„/.'l,.� ::�:�r:yi%l.:�: i J}�: � F�!f i:. ����?:"� . ,` � .. .. .:: f::���:j��:%:•i�. ��• : � "o.:..::�ie.%}<•:.. f�lnf�.�-. :.: •ffF/f.,,�IAf//r/ act consistent ��i the authority and prior to the effective date of the ive D''�''�;;This res�lution shall be effective irnmediately upon passage by the Federal CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON this day of Resolution No_�9- 20_ CITY OF FEDERAL WAY Page 3 of 4 Rev 1/ 10 � ATTEST: Resolution No.09- MAYOR, LINDA KOCHMAR 9 Page 4 of 4 Rev 1/10 DEN U�PHY ALLACE F.L.L.C. A T T n R N E Y S A T L A W N. Kay Richards Legal Assistant 206. 4�7.2231 krichards@omwlaw. com March 2, 2010 Carol A. McNeiliy, CMC City Clerk Ciry of Federal Way P. O. Box 9718 Federal Way WA 98063-9718 Re: Final Decision for Norpoint Heights Preliminary Plat, 08-100329-00-SU Deaz Ms. McNeilly: At the request of Phil Olbrechts, enclosed is the executed original of the above-referenced document, as well as a Declaration of Mailing_ Very truly yours, OGDEN M[JR.PHY WALLACE, P.L.L.C. ��� , N. Kay Richards, Legal Assistant to Phil Oibrechts /nkr Enclosures Estobl;shsd 1902 A/4lember of the Internotionat lawyers Nerwork with independent member law firm> worldwide 160) fihh Avenue, $uiie 2100 • Seattle, WA 98101-1686 - 206 447.7000 • Fax: 206.4470215 • Web: wvwv.omwlaw.com (PA076883Z.DOC;li13041.900000\ } 10 DECLAR�TION OF I�IAILING Norpoint Heights Preiiminary Plat Federai Way File Nos. 0$-100329-00-SU and 08-100330-00-5E - I, N. Kay Richards, make the foliowing declaration: 1. I am a resident of the State of Waslungton, over the age. of 18 years, not a party to this action, and competent to be a witness herein. 2_ On the 2nd day of March, 2010, I mailed, via First Class U.S. Mail, a true and conect copy of the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision and this - Deciaration of Service to the following:. David Litowitz Landmark Homes, Inc. P.O. Box 26I 16 Federal Way, WA . 98063 Stuart Scheuerman � ESM Consulting Engineers 33915 First Way South, Suite 200 Federal Way, WA 98063 I declare under penalty of perjury under the Iaws of the State. of Washington that the foregoing is true and conect. _ E�CIJTED at Seattle, Washington, this 2nd day of March, 2010. w N. Kay Ric ds _ ,� {PA0768827_DOC;1113041.1500301) 11 .BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY Phi! Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner RE: Norpoint Heights 48-100329-00-SU FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND RECOMNIENDATION INTRODUCTION The applicant requests approval of a preliminary plat to subdivide 3 acres into 14 single-family lots. The Examiner recommends approval, but contingent upon the drainage pond meeting public drainage pond standards. The primary issue in this application was .the slope of a drainage pond. The proposed drainage pond sarisfied slope standazds for private ponds but not for public ponds. Pubiic dedication of drainage ponds is required by City regulations "as appropriate." City staff provided very compelling and voluminous testimony on the need for public dedication of all residential drainage ponds. Staff recommended denial if the applicant insisted on maintaining private ownership of the ponds. After the Examiner closed the verbal testimony portion of the hearing, staff and the applicant submitted a written agreed-upon conceptual plan for a drainage pond that at this stage appears to comply with public slope standards. The parties atso submitted some recvmmended conditions of approval to cover private ownership should it not be possibie to conform the conceptual drainage pond to the standards for public drainage ponds. There was no ac�ompanying explanation as to why private ownership for the ponds would be appmpriate in this case. Unfortunately, the staff s evidence for public ownership was so compelling that the Examiner has no evidentiary basis to conclude that a private owned drainage pond will provide for adequate infrastructure or be consistent with public health, safety and welfare as required by the City's subdivision standards. ORAL TESTIMONY David Lee — Associate Ptanner for Federal Way S#aff Mr. Lee began by giving a brief description of the project proposal. Staff finds that four of the five criteria for subdivision appraval have not been met due to the extreme stope of the stormwater facilities. Storm�vater requirements require the dedication of the stormwater facility to the Ciry. The City is unwiliing to accept dedication due to the steep slopes. The slopes constitute a maintenance hazard. Staff recommends denial of the plat as designed due to the stormwater facility. However, Staff is willing to cvnsider conditioning for approval of the preliminary plat upon the applicant meeting stormwater facility requirements. Staf� acknowledged that conditioning approval on a facility that meets stormwater standards could result in a redesign of the plat that would require additional public review. {PA0�68757.DOC;lU3041.900000\ ) Prel'uninary Plat Recommendation p. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation � 12 William Appleton — Surface Water Manager for City of Federal Way Mr. Appieton began by addressing why the proposal does not meet four of the five subdivision criteria. Essentially the pond does not meet the side slope standards necessary for City ownership and is therefore not consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare. The City finds that it wouid be appropriate and necessary for the facility to be dedicated to the City, and under the current slope design, it does not meet the requirements or standards of acceptance. Under the current design, one of the side siopes in the pond is approximately fifty percent steeper than is generally allowed; which presents safety and maintenance problems. In regazds to why the City desires to have these types of facilities under City control, retention ponds serve many important services that the City can best manage. Additionaliy, the ponds impact other City surface water facilities, and thus if not maintained properly, can have negative impact on City and eventually State waters. If these faciiities are private, they are required to be maintained and operated at City standazds. In addition, responsibilities for facilities, for which the property owners aze responsible, must be shown on the plat documentation. Eventually, this means that homeowners in the development would themselves be responsible for maintenance of the facility and would also be responsible for costs af improper function. Past experience has shawn that private ownership of such facilities has failed to meet City standards and has caused difficuIties for the City and homeowners. City ownership also ensures quick and appropriate response to any spill or other concern. In the past 20 years, Mr. Appleton cannot think of a facility which the City has not accepted for maintenance. Although other cities take other means of management of stormwater faci�ities, Mr. Appleton believes that taking on the facilities initially, rather than waiting for noncompliance of private ownership, avoids increased costs and damages in the long term. Not only the facility, but also the entire plat, would likely need to be redesigned in order to meet the slope requirement necessary for City acceptance. In response to the statements by the applicant: There are private stormwater retention areas in the City, but these were facilities accepted by King County prior to the incorporation of Federal Way. Commercial developments are permitted to have privateiy owned ponds, which is essentially allowed because only a single entity is in charge of maintaining the facility which provides greater assurance of appropriate maintenance as well as simpler enforcement. The stormwater design proposed by the applicant meets the 1998 Manual standards but does not meet the City's maintenance standards. Landscaping, or maintenance of landscaping, is only one aspect of the maintenance necessary for upkeep of the pond facility. Eric LeBrie — ESM Consulting Engineers Mr. LeBrie, and ESM Consulting, is generally in agreement with the majority of Staffls eonclusions within the staff report, except for the stormwater slope requirements_ He pointed out that private ownership of stormwater facilities is pernussible under the FWCC a�d that there are plenty of privately owned facilities. Additionally, if this project were for commercial development, the pond would not be at issue, because those may be privately owned and maintained, thus allowing for fifty percent siopes in the pond, or even vertical slopes. There aze (PA0768757.DOC;1\13041.9000001 } Preliminary Plat Recommendation p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation 13 also areas within the FWCC which state that some facilities should be maintained privately and that dedication is only necessary where appropriate. The property cannot accommodate a 3-to-1 (3: t) slope. The road is pushed as far south as can be pushed, and the road is planned at its minimum permitted width. Forcing 3: i side slopes in this pond wotild essentially mean that the bottom of the pond would come to a point and the volume requirements cannot be met. Because of this, the pond was designed with a 2-to-1 (2:1) side slope. Private ownership is being advocated because the property owners cannot meet the design requirements for a City-maintained pond for that area. Additionally, the applicants are designing the pond in conformance with the 1998 Surface Water Manual. The difference arises in design due to differing requirements between publicly and privately owned ponds. Where the requirements that the City pointed out for publicly owned ponds are true, privately owned ponds have much iess stringent standazds, per the Manual. In , regazds to contentions by staff that maximization of lots on site are the driving force, that is simply not true, because even with the removal of lots 13 and 14, the pond requirements still could not be met. Also, �the applicant believes that there aze instances when the management and maintenance of such sites is more appropriate in private hands. Private landscape maintenance of a 7,500-square-foot pond can likely be done more efficiently, and probably just better, than the City. Safety concerns are likely to only relate to professional maintenance workers, because a 6-foot fence is also required. Nothing in the Federal Way regulations mandate publicly owned ponds and it is common in other jurisdictions to allow private ownership. Upon rebuttal: . Mr. LeBrie would argue that the site in question would have similar constraints as a commercial property and that water runoff would be similaz as well. Fear of a HOA not existing in the future should not be a reason for denial. In regards to whether a change would be minor or not, a reduction of lots would result in a simply administrative alteration. EXHIBITS See list of exhibits at p. 12 of the January 19, 2010, staff report prepared by David Lee. In addition, the following exhibits were presented and entered into the record during the public hearing: L: PowerPoint by David Lee M: 2/3/10 Memo from Davicl Lee regarding conditions of approval. N. 2/3/lO letter from Brianne Gastfield to Dave Lee regarding stormwater design. O. 2/3/10 "Storm Urainage Pond Alternative". P. 2/10/10 Memo from David Lee regarding conditions of approval. � FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural: Applicant. David Litowitz on behalf of Landmark Homes, Inc. {PA0�537i7.DOC;l113041.900000\ } Prei'sminary Plat Recommendation p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation 14 2_ I-Iearin�. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the application at 2:00 p.m. at Federa( Way City Hail on January 27, 2010. He lefi the record open through February 3, 2010 in order to provide staff an opportunity to provide cunditions of approval should the applicant provide a stormwater detention facility with 3:1 slopes_ The Examiner extended the record to February 10, 2010, in order to provide staff and the applicant with additional time to agree upon a stormwater facility design_ Substantive: 3. Site/Provosal Description. The applicant proposes to subdivide an approximate three- acre parcel of land into 14 lots for establishment of single-family residences. Street improvernents, water, sewer, util'tties, storm di�ainage control improvements, and other related infrastructure improvements will be installed to service the plat. Currently the site is undeveloped and partialiy wooded, with 27 significant trees and thick shrubbery. Of the 27 trees, 11 will be removed. 4. Characteristics of the Area. The property is situa.ted in the southwestern portion of Federal Way and just north of Tacoma. The area is generally developed with residential housing of differing varieties. The land to the east is multi-family developments, and to the north, west, and south aze single-family zoning districts with single-family homes. 5. Adverse Impacts. The project has und"ergone a SEPA review and was issued a DNS_ Staff received no comments or appeals. The staff in their analysis of the project identified no significant adverse impacts and none were discemable from the record except ihat the initially proposed stormwater detention facility constituted a safety and maintenance hazard, as further discussed below. 6. Adequacv of Infrastructure and Public Services. As mitigated by staff, adequate infrastructure witl serve development as follows: Draina�e: Stormwater desigr► was the most contentious issue of this application. The applicants proposed 2:1 slopes for their storm drainage pond. S#aff testified that a maxitnurn of 3:1 slopes was authorized for publicly dedicated detention facilities. Slopes tha# are 3:1 aze consistent with the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM), but not with the requirements for dedication to the City. Staff testified that since Federal Way has been incorporated, all stormwater detention facilities are publicly dedicated. The Examiner finds that, as testified by staff, public dedication is necessary to ensure safe and proper maintenance. As testified by staf� home owner associations are o$en unretiable and it becomes difficu(t for City staff to compel maintenance. Covenants can be added to allow staff to maintain the pond at the expense of the homeowner association, but these covenants can be very difficult to enforce since ultimate responsibility is ultimately divided amongst the property owners of the subdivision. In this case, after the verbal testimony portion of the hearing was closed, the applicant and Staff were able to negotiate a conceptual design that appears to comply with the 2:1 slope requirement of public detention facilities. This in part was accomplished by {PA0768757.DOC;1\130d1.900000\ } Preliminary Plat Recommendation p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation 15 displacing a 2:1 slope into an adjoining tract to be owned and maintained by a homeowner's association. In case the stormwater faciiity ultimately could nat meet public facility requirements, the staff agreed to allow the facility to stay in private ownership. There was no expianation in the post verbal hearing written materials as to how staff could conclude that private ownership was safe and appropriate after having spent considerabte time testifying that it was not. In short, staff provided very compelling and somewhat voluminous testimony justifying mandatory public dedication of residential stormwater facilities, and then agreed to private dedication with no explanation or evidence as to why this would be acceptable in this particular case. There is substantiai evidence supporting a requirement for public dedication and none for private dedication. Given the evidence, the Examiner cannot fmd that private dedication will provide for sufficient and safe maintenance. The design of the stormwater facility will have to be publicly dedicated and meet public faciliry requirements. If the facility cannat meet public dedication requirements, it will not satisfy the conditions of approval recommended by the Examiner. Other than the slope issue for the drainage pond, the stormwater facilities of the project meet the requirements of the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) as modified by the City. The facilities are adequate if they can be publicly dedicated. Transportation: As proposed and as requir�d by the FWCC, the subdivision will be accessed through SW 353 Street, which connects to Norpoint Way NE_ All lots are then accessed directly by SW 353` Street. The City's traffic engineer has reviewed the project and concluded that the proposed street layout is consistent with the FWCC and comprehensive plan in ptace at the time of the comptete application. In addition, SW 353` Street will be constructed to City Standard roadway section "W ' requirements, including a 28-foot paved roadway with curb and gutter, a four-foot plan#er strip with street trees, streetlights, and utility strip. Street lighting is also required. The Public Works Department and South King County Fire and Rescue have also approved preliminary roadway design and curve radii as proposed. Vehicular Access and eirculation. Concurrency analysis was performed to deternune whether there is adequate roadway capacity to accommodate the development and also to identify traffic mitigation. The report identifies eight Transportation Improvement Plan projects impacted by the proposal and results in a$24,723 pro-rata mitigation payment to address the problems (Exhibit A, page 5-6). The applicant may either make this payment or complete the identified improvements. Pedestrian Svste�n: As proposed and required, the plat complies with the FWCC subiiivision code requirements for on- and off-si#e pedestrian circulation; and as such a sidewalk will be provided along the length of SW 353` Street. Full street improvements inciude a four-foot-wide planter strip, five-foot-wide sidewalk, and three-foot-wide utility strip. The Federal Way School District has reviewed the plan and did not have any comments regarding school access or configuration. {PA0768757.DOC;IU3041.900000\ } Preliminary Plat Recommendation p. S Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation 16 • Open Space: The applicant has proposed to opt in favor of the permitted fee in lieu option rather than provide on-site open space. The fee in lieu of open space shall be calculated at 1 � percent of the assessed value of the property, based on King County assessment, at the time of final ptat approval. • Water: The applicant proposes to serve the subdivision with a public water supply and distribution system managed by the Lakehaven Utility District. The January 22, 2008, Certificate of Water Availability indicates Lakehaven's capacity to serve the proposed development. If additional hydran#s or other fire protection systems are indicated, a Developer Extension Agreement (DEA) may be required. • Sewa�e: The applicant proposes to serve the proposed plat by a public sewer system managed by Lakehaven Utility District . A January 22, 2008, Certificate of Sewer Availability indicates the district`s capacity to serve the proposed development through a Developer Extension Agreement (DEA) between the applicant and the district. • Schoots: As part of the Ciry's review of the proposal, the preliminary plat application was referred to the Federal Way School District for review. A school access analysis submitted by the applicant indicates that the site is located in the service areas of Sherwood Forest Elementary, Illahee Junior High School, and Todd Beamer Senior High School. School service areas are review�d annually and ma.y be adjusted to accommodate enrollment growth and new development. All students will be served by bus access, and bus stops are at: 27�' Avenue SW & 351� Place for the elementary and junior high, and at SW 349�' Place & Coronado Park for the high school. Bus stops are subject to change, as student needs increase and roads are developed. School impact fees will be collected at the time of building permit issuance. Currently those fees amount to $4,218.00 per single-family housing unit School impact fees are determined on the basis of the District's Capital Facilities Plan and are subject to annual adjustment and update. The applicant's School Access Anatysis concludes that without pedestrian improvements between Norpoint Way and the end of 27�' Ave. S.W., "there is no other realistic access to the existing school bus stops" from the proposed development. The project will be conditioned to ensure that this issue is addressed. Fire Protection: South King Fire and Rescue requires tliat a fire hydrant be located within 350 feet of each lot. The Certificate of Water Avaiiability from Lakehaven Utiliry District indicates that water will be available to the site in sufficient quantity to satisfy fire flow standards for the proposed deveiopment. The exact number and location of fire hydrants will be reviewed and approved by South King Fire and Rescue. {PA0768757.DOC;1\t304L900000� y Preliminary Plat Recommendation p. 6 Findings, Conciusions and Recommendation 17 CONCLUSIOIYS OF LAW Procedural: 1. Authority of Hearin� Examiner: FWCC 20-110 (4) and (5) provide the Exarniner with the authority to conduct a hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council on preliminary plat applications. Substantive: 2_ Zoning Desi�nation: Single-Family — High Density, RS7.2 and Singte-Family — High Density, RS5.0 3. Review Criteria and Application. FWCC 20-126(c) governs the criteria for preliminary plat approval. Those criteria are quoted in italics below and applied to the application under corresponding Conclusions of Law. FWCC 20-12b(c): Decisional Criteria. A Hearing Fxaminer shall use the�'ollowing criteria in reviewing the preliminary plat artd may recommend approval of the plat to the Ciry Council if (1) It is consistent with the compreherrsive plan, '` 4. The application is subject to the adopted Federai Way Gomprehensive Plan (FWCP), which designa#es the property as Single-Family — High Density. The proposed land use of a Single-Family housing development is permitted within the RS 7.2 and RS 5.0 zones and is consistent with density allowances and policies applicable to this land use as established in the FWCP_ FWCC 20-126(c)(2): It is consistent with all applicable provisions of the Chapter, including those adopted by reference�-om the comprehensive plan: 5. As discussed in the staffreport, the project complies with all applicable criteria in FWCC Chapter 20 except for stormwater detention requirements that apply to pubiic facilities. FWCC 20-183(a) provides that stormwater facilities must meet the requirements of the KCSWDM. Section 5.3.1(c) of the KCSWDM, which apparently only app(ies to public facilities (the staff report does not make this distinction and the Examiner does not have access to #he KCSWDI�, requires that at least 25% of the pond perimeter will be a vegetated soil slope no steeper than 3H:1 V. FWCC 20-183(c) provides tl�at stormwater facilities will be publicly dedicated "as appropriate." As previously deternuned, all residential storcnwater detention facilities are publicly dedicated and public dedication is necessary in order to ensure consistent, safe and adequate maintenance. Consequentiy, public dedication is "appropriate" and hence required under FWCC 20-183(a). As a publicly d�dicated facility, the facility must satisfy the slope requirements of KCSWDM Section 5.3.i(c). The project is conditioned accordingly. FWCC 20-126(c)(3): It is consiste�t with public health, safety, and welfare. 6. The proposed preliminary plat would permit development of the site consistent with the current Single-Family High Density land use classification of the FWCP and map. Proposed {PA07687i7.DOC;1\13041.9000001 } Prel'uninary Plat Recommendation p. 7 Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation 18 access and fire hydrant l�cations must meet all requirements of South King Fire and Rescue, and alt future structures are required to be sprinklered. Future development of the plat in accordance with applicabte codes and regulations. Ivlitigation measures require payments and/or improvements for adequate infrastructure. As previously discussed, the project will also be conditioned to provide for public dedication of its stormwacer facility and in so doing will have to meet the slope requirements for public facilities. One issue related to public hea(th, safety and welfare that is curiously missing from the City's conditions of approval are pedestrian impcovements for safe walking couditions to schooi bus stops. The applicanYs own analysis indicates that there is no access to school bus stops without pedestrian improvements between Norpoint Way and the end of 27�' Ave SW, see Ex. I, p. 8. The project will be conditioned to provide necessary pedestrian improvements. As recommended with conditions, the project is consistent with public health, safety, and welfare. FWCC 20-126(c)(4): It is consistent with the design criteria listed in FWCC 20-2: 7. The proposed preliminary pla# would promote the ptuposes identified in FWCC Section 20-2 and the standards and regulations therein, as identified in the staff report, including effective use of land, promotion of safe and convenient travel on streets, and provision for the housing needs of the community. One exception is the design_, standards for the stormwater pond. As discussed elsewhere, public dedication is necessary, consequently compliance with the design standards of publicty own.ed facilities is required. The project is conditioned accordingly_ 8. FWCC 20-125{c)(5): It is consistent with the development standards listed in FWCC 20-1 SI through 20-157, and 20-178 through 20-187_ 9. Deveiopment of this site is required to compiy with the provisions of FWCC Chapter 20, "Subdivisions," Chapter 18, "Environmental Protection," Chapter 22, "Zoning," and all other applicable local and state development codes and reguiations. As proposed, and as recommended by the Heazing Examiner, the preliminary plat application complies with all applicable statutes, codes, and regulations, with the exception of the pond retention facility. However, as conditioned, the application will be in compliance. RECOMMENDATION The Examiner recommends that the Ciry Council approve the preliminary plat as set forth in the staff report of David Lee, dated January 19, 2010, subject to the foliowing conditions: Public Works Conditions: l. Pedestrian improvements to assure safe walking conditions to school bus stops as detailed in the School Access Analysis. Final location and design of the school access path shall be approved by the Federal Way School District and the Federal Way Public Works Department prior to issuance of construction permits for infrastructure improvements. (PA0768757.DOC;1\l3041.9000001 } Preliminary Plat Recommendatioa p. 8 Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation 19 2. Design of the storm�vater drainage pond shall be consistent with the conceptuai design presented in Exhibit O. In addition the stortnwater drainage pond shall be subject to the following: • It must be demonstrated through the final engineering design and review process that the design meets all design criteria for Public ponds, per the 1998 King County S�uface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM). • The Ciry will accept the pond for operations and maintenance, after Fina( Plat recording and upon successful completion of the City Code required post- construction two-year maintenance period. • ApprovaUagreement from the property owner(s) on the north side of the pond, for a wall to be constructed on that adjacent property, and any walls built on parcels/property other than within the pond tract will be owned and maintained by those adjacent property owners. • Third-party structural review/approval of all walls associated with the pond. • Walls to meet design criteria set forth by a Licensed Professionai Geo-Technical Engineer and third party review will be required. Ptanning Conditions: �. = 1. Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant must submit to the City of Federal Way � fee in-lieu-of open space, calculated on 15 percent of the most recent assessed value of the property at the time of fmal plat. 2. . A copy of the Home Owners Association (HOA)/Covenant Agreement must be recorded prior to recording of the plat. The HOA/Covenant Agreement must contain language which governs the responsibility of owning/maintaining common landscaping tracts along Norpoint Way NE and the non-public landscaping tract in and around the stortnwater detention facility. � 3. The power easement for Puget Soutid Energy that runs north/south along the eastem portion of the proposed preliminary plat must be shown on the final recorded plat. Additionally, the buildable areas of each lot shall be shown outside of the easement. Dated this 28�' day of February, 2010. Phil Olbrechts Hearing Examiner City of Federal Way {PA0�6875�.DOC;lU3041_9000001 � Preliminary Plat Recommendation p. 9 Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation 20 '4.0 ) f i/1 �'-: -- ' �� ����..:." .� . � � ? �,.i .� +� �m�:� .zea:d.i� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT TO THE FEDERAL WAY HEARING EXAi�1INER Norpoint Heights Preliminary Plat Federal Way Fi1e No. 08-100329-00-SU Related File No: 08-100330-00-SE PUBLIC HE;�RIIVG JAM7,�RY 27, 2010 2:00 P.1�1. FEVERac. Wav Ci�r H:�[.[. CITY COUNCIL CHr1�ERS 33325 8`" Avenue South Table of Contents I. Generallnformation .......................................:....... .............2 ............ .. ....... . .............. ....................... II. Consulted Departments and Agencies ....................... . ........... ........ ................ ................................. 3 III. State Environmental Policy Act ............................................ __.3 ....................................................... IV. Natural Environment .............................•----............- .......3 ................................................................ V. Neighborhood Characteristics ............................ ...4 ......................••-•--•--..._...----........-----•..._..._.......... VI. General Design ......................................... ..................................................•---................................4 VII. Transportation ................................................................... .........5 •---.......-•• ...................•--••-•-•-----..... VIII. Public Services .........................................•------.._.....-•-•-•- _....6 ........................................................... IX. Utilities .......................................................... .................................••----.....-----••--•-........................_ 7 X. Analysis of Decisional Criteria ................................ g ....................................................................... XI. Findings of Fact ......................................••.......- ...................10 ........................................................ XII Recommendation ....................................................................... ..........12 ...-•-• ................................. XIII. List of Exh�bits ...................................................... .......12 ................................................................ Report Prepared by: David Lee, Associate Planner - January 19, 2010 21 File No: 08-100329-00-SU (SEPA Reiated File No: OS-100330-SE) Engineer: ESI�t Consulting Engineers — Stuart Scheuerman 339 L� i" Wa}� South, Suite 200 Federal �Vay, �VA 98063 O�vner: Landmark Homes, Inc. — David Litowitz PO Box 2611 b Federal 1�Vay, WA 98063 Action Requested: Prelim4nary plat of a 14-lot single-family residenkial subdivision as provided for under Federal Way Ciry Code (FWCC) Chapter 20, "Subdivisions and requiring approval pursuant to FWCC Section 20-110. Staff Representative: Associate Planner David Lee, 253-835-2622 Staff Recommendation: Denial of Preiiminary Plat I. GErrERat.IrrFOw�ia,�r[o�v A. Description of tlte Proposal - The proposal is to subdivide 3.0 acres into 14 residential single- family lots. Street improvements, cvater, sewer, ualiries, storm drainage control irnprovements, and other related infrastructure improvements will be installed to service the plat. The preliminary site plan, along with a concephtal urility, and gradin� plan by ESM Consuiting, are enclosed (Exhibit A). Additionally, the tree retention plan, street tree plan, landscape plan, and details plan, resubmitted August 25, 2009, have also been enclosed (Exhibit D)_ B. Location - The subject property is located at Norpoint Way NE (Tacoma) & 25' Avenue SW (Federal Way) near SW 3�3'� Street in Federal Way, WA (Exlu�bit B). C. Parced No_ - 2 5 2 1 03-9026. Legal description is shown on the plat. D. Size of Properry - The subject site has a land area. of 130,680 square feet (3.0 acres). E. Land Use and Zoni»g - Direction Zoning Comprehensive Plan Site RS 7.2/�.0 SF - High Density North RS 7.2 SF - High Density South RS �.0 SF - High Density East RM 1800/2400 Mulri-Family West N/A-Tacoma N/A Existing Land Use Single-Family Residential Single-Family Residential Single-Family Residential Multi-Family Residential N/A F. Back�rou�icl - The preliminary plat of Norpoint Heights was subrrutted on January 22, 2008 (Exhbit C). The agplication was determined com�lete on February 21, 2008. Staff Report to the Federal �Vay Hearing F�aminer Norpoint Heighis Prelimin.�+ry Plat Page 2 Fiie No. 08-100329-00-SU/aa. i n. szz�s 22 I I. CONSULTED DEPARTf�'[ENTS :�ND AGENCIES The foltowing deparhnents, agencies, and individuals were advised of this application_ A_ Community Development Revie�.�- Committee (CDRC), consisting of the Federal W ay Community De��elopment Serr�ices Planning and Building Di��isions; Public Works Engineering and Traffic Divisions; Parks, Recreation, and Cultaral Resources Deparhnent; South King Fire and Rescue; Lakehaven Utility District; City o£Tacoma; and Federal Way Public Schools_ CDRC comments have been incorporated into this report tvhere applicable_ B. All property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the site were mailed notices of the comptete preliminary p(at application (Exhibit D). The site was also posted and notice published in the newspaper and on the Citv's official notice boazds_ C. In accordance with the Srate E�rviro�zmental Policy Act {SEPA) and FWCC Chapter 18, "Environmental Protection," all property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the site and all affected agencies, �cere notified of the proposed action and the Citv's environmentai decision. In addition, the site �ras posted and notice placed in the ne�vs}�aper and on the Citv's official notice boards. III STATE ENVIRONI�[ENT,�rL POLICY ACT An Environmental Determination of Not�.signifccance (DNS) was issued by the City of Federal Way for the proposed action on August 12, 2009 (Extubit E). This determinarion was based on review of information in the project file, including the environmental checklist (Exh�bit F), and staff evaluarion of the environmental checklist for the Norpoint Heights Subdivision (Exhibit G), resulting in the conclusion that the proposal would not result in probable significant adverse irn�acts on the environment, provided the subdivision is designed in accordance with city codes and policies. No comments or appeals on the SEPA decision �vere submitted to the Ciry. IV. NATURAL ENVQ20M1-IENT A. Soils — The 1973 King County soils survey map lists the soils type as Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loa.m (AgB)_ Alder�vood soils are eharacterized as moderately well drained soils that have a weakly consolidated to strongiy consolidated substratum at a depth of 24 — 40 u►ches. AgB soils are descnbed as capable for urban development, runoff is slow, and erosion hazard is s}ight. Typical soils excavation will occur with the street construction, at the site of the prc�posed on-site water qualitylflow control treatment faciliry, and for utility installation. The pretiminary clearing and grading pian depicts clearing limits for conshucrion of the following facilities: street right-of- way, surface water pond, demolition of existing structures, and utiliry development. B. Topography — ESM Consulting, has prepared a conceptual storm drainage analysis for the project (June 26, 2009, Exhibit H). The soils characterisrics are descn�bed in detail 'm the report. The City of Federal Way Environmentally Sensitive Areas Map does not reveal this site to be in a problem area relative to landslide, seismic hazard, erosion, steep slope hazards, or 100-year flood plain. Stafl'Report to the Federal Way Hearing Facaminer Norpoint Heighis Preliminary Plat Page 3 File No. 08-100329-00-SU/nY tn sz� 23 C_ vegetution - The site is currently partially wooded with thick shrubbery. A mixture of conifer and deciduous trees reside on the property. A tree s�uvey (Exhibit D) was submitted �vith the application as part of the required landscape plan. There are a total of 27 significant trees on the subject property. The applicant has proposed to remove 11 of these trees. Pursuant to FWCC Section 22-1568, no tree replacement is required. Retained significant trees outside of open space areas would be regulated under F'ederul Way Revised Code (FWRC) 19_ 120.130 "Tree & Vegetation Retention Requirements,-" at the time of individual home construction. D. bYetlunds - There are no wetlands on site or �vithin 200 feet of the subject praperty. No wetlands or surface �vaters are known to exist on or around the property, and no wetlands or streau� are identified on the City's environmentally sensitive areas maps. E. Wildlife and Habitat - No wilcllife species recognized as priority species are lrnovvr to inhabit the site or the nearby vicinity. V. NEIGHBORHOOD C�RACTEWSTICS Yicinity - The property is situated in the soufhwestern portion of the City along the Tacoma/Federal Way border, in a single-family residential area with RS 7.2, RM 1800, and RM2400 zoning encorr�assing the subject property. The site is currently undeveioped The land to the east is multi- family developments by the names of Coronado Village and Crystal Pointe Apartments- T�►e properties directiy north, west, and south are single-family zor�ed (RS 7.2) and developed �vith single- family homes. VI. GENERAL DESIGN A. Density and Lot Size - Pursuant to FWCC Section 20-153, a11 lots in conventional subdivisions shall meet the density and minimum lot size requirements—in this instance, 7,200 square feet per lot in the northern quadrant, and 5,000 square feet per lot in the southern half of the proposed development. The proposed 141ots eaeh meet these minimum sizes• B. Lot Layout - With the exception of lots 1, 6, & 12, all of the prc�osed lots are of rectangular shape. The subdivision is accessed through SW 353`� Street, which is perpendicnlar and connects to Norpoint Way NE. All building setback lines tBSBL) are depicted on the preliminary plat map, and each lot contains an adequate building area. A 50-foot-wide Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) easement runs north to south within the eastern portion of the site, traversing lots 4-10; however, the properties' builda.ble areas are shown outside of the easement and. should not impact the easement C. Open Space - To provide adequate recrearional �porttunties commensutate with new residential development, FWCC Chapter 20, "Subdivisions," requires setting aside land on site for open space, or a fee in lieu payment. The applicant has proposed the fee in lieu �Sion rather than providing on-site open space. The fee in lieu of c�en space shall be calculated on 15 percent of the assessed value of the property based on a current King County assessment at the time of final plat approval. At the applicant's discretion, the market value may be based on an appraisal conducted by an MAI certified appraiser or another professional appraiser approved by the Parks Director. StaffReport to the Federal Way Hearing Examiner Norpoint Heights Prelirtrinary P}at Page 4 File No. 08-100329-0OSU/o�. i.n s»� 24 D_ Suhdivision Access an�l Roa�livr�y Syste►n - The subdivision is accessed through S�V 353` Street, «-hich connects to No�oint Way NE (arterial street). Section VII of this report provides a detailed descnption of the proposed road�vay system and improvements. E. Pedests•ian Systern - A side�valk �vill be pro�ided along the length of SW 3�3` Street. Specifically, full street improvements include a four-foot-�vide planter strip, five-foot-wide sidewalk, and three-foot-�tiride utility strip. The Federal Way School District has reviewed the plans and does not ha.ve any comments at this time regarding school access paths or confi�uration. F. Landscape Bu�'ers - In accordance with FWCC Chapier 20, "Subdivisions," landscape buffers are spec�ed only �vhen the plat is adjacent to an incomparible zoning district. The proposed plat is bordered on all sides by single-family and multi-family residenrial zoning; therefore, no perimeter buffers are required_ A Type lIi landscape buffer 10' in tividth (Tract "A'"lEachibit A3) is provided along the length of Norpoint Way NE (west praperry line) in accorda.nce to FWCC Section 20-178(a). V I1. TRaivsroRTaTTOrr A_ St� Im�rovements -1�Vith the exception of lots 1, 6, & 12, a11 of the pr�osed iots are of rectangulaz shape. The subdivision is accessed throug}► SW 353'� Street, which connects to Norpoint Way NE. All lots are then accessed directly by SW 353� Street. The City's Traffic Engineer has reviewed the project and concluded that the praposed street layout of the IVorpoint Heights subdivision is consistent with the adopted codes and comprehensive pian in place at the time of the com�lete application. SW 353�' Street, which connects to Noipoint Way NE, shall be constructed to City Standard roadway section "W" as follotivs: a 28-foot paved roadway with ciub and gutter, a four-foot pianter strip with street trees, five-foot sidewalk, and a three-foot utility strip with streetlights, along all margins (52-foot right-of-way). The exisring right-of-way width aud pavement width appear to meet current standards; therefore, the applicant will be required to construct the planter strip, sidewalk, street trees, s�eetlights, and utility strip as a condition of this plat. Street lighring is required on all streets, pursuant to FWCC Section 22-1522. The Public Works Department and South King Fire and Rescu.e have approved pretiminary road�vay design and curve radii as proposed. B. Off-Site Traffic Mitigation - Per FWCC Chapter 19, Article IV, a concurrency permit is required for the development. At the applicant's request, a concurrency analysis was performed by the City to determine whether there is adequate roadway capaciry to accommodate the development and identifies traffic mitigarion consistent with RCW 82.02. The staffreport of the Concurrency anaiysis identified 8 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) projects itr�actedby one or more PM peak hour trips resulting in $24,723.00 in pro-rata mitigarion necessary to address any failures of the City's Level of Service (LOS) standard. Concurrency application No. 08-100331- 00 is hereby incorporated in full. The tabte below lists current TIP projects impacted by the proposed development and the apprapriate pro-rata contnbution. The applicant has the option of building the below-menrioned irr�rovements or paying the $24,723.00. Sta11'Repcxt to We Federal Way Hearing Examiner Norpoint Heights Prelirrrrinary Plat Page 5 Fite No_ 08-100329-0O�U/o�. r n. szz3F 25 VIII PUBLIC SERVICES A. Schools — As part of th� City's initial revie�v of the proposat, the preliminar_y plat applica.tion was referred to the Federal Way Schoot Uistrict for comments. Comments from the school district indicate Sherwood Forest Elementary, Illahee Jr. High School, and Todd Beamer Senior High School will serve the proposed subdi� There is school bus transportation to all three schools. The praposed sidewalk from the develapment will provide safe access to bus stops. Bus stc�s are at: 27` Avenue SW & 351�` Place (Shenvood Forest Elementary SchooUIliahee Middle 5chool); SW 349 Place & Coronado Park (Todd Beamer High Schooi). The applicant provided on ]une 10, 2008, a School Access Analysis (Extubit I}. The school access analysis identifies a safe path of travel for students walking to and from school. In summary, a safe route of school-related pedestrian travel witl be provided by new pedestrian pathways, of on average, five-font asphalt walking pathn�xt ro the dr+ving s�rrface. A fi�ll derailed analy�i� of each pedestrian pathway to the schools is provided for within the School Access Anadysis. It should be noted, howeaer, due to the distance created by the location of the new subdivision and the existing schools, it is highly unlikely that pedestrian travel wiIl occur with any frequency. Final location and design of the school access path shall be approved by fihe Federal Way School District and the Federal Way Public Works Department prior to issuance of construction perrrrits for infrastructure in�rovements. School service areas aze reviewed annually and may be adjusted to accommoda.te enrollment growth and new deveiopment. School im�act fees, as authorized by City ordinance and collected at the time of building pemrit issuance, are currently $4,218.00 per single-family housing unit. School impact fees aze determined on the basis of the district's Capital Facilities Plan and are subject to annual adjustment and update. B. Parks �c Open Space — The applicant has chosen to satisfy the open space requirement of FWCC Section 20-155 via a fee in lieu payment, which is recommended to be approved by the City of Federal Way Parks Director. The fee in lieu of open space payment shall be calculated on l� percent of the most recent assessed or appraised value of the properiy. Stafl'Repciri to the Federal Way Hearing Exa�taner Norpi�int Heights PrelinanaryPlat Page 6 File No. 08-100329-00-SU/no�. t.n. s� 26 C_ Fire Protection — The Certificate of t3'ater Availabiliry from the Lakeharen Utility District indicates that water �vill be available ta the site in sufficient quantity to satisfy fire fiow standards for the proposed development. South King Fire and Rescue requires that a fire hydrant be located �vithin 3�0 feet of each lot. The exact number and Iocation of �re hydrants �uill be reviewed and approved by South King Fire and Rescue. IX. UTn,I�Es A_ Sewage Disposal — The applicant proposes to serve the proposed plat by a public sewer system managed by Lakehaven Utility District. A January 22, 2008, signed Certificate of Sewer �ivuil�biliry (Exlubit J) indicates the district's capacity to serve the pro�osed development through a Develo�er Extension Agreement (DEA) beriveen the applicant and the district. B. T3'Urer Suppl}- — The applicant proposes to serve the subdivision with a public water suppty and distr�bution system managed by the Lakehaven Urility District. A January 22, 2008, signed Cert�cate of Water Availability (Exhibit K) indicates I.akehaven's capaciry to serve the proposed development. If additional hydrants or other fire protection systems are indicated, a Development Extension Agreement may be required C. Druinage Facilities — Development of the site will create additional runoff from new impervious surfaces such as streets, driveways, and rooftops. Storm drainage facilities are subject to the 1998 King Cotrnty Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) and the City's amendments to the manual. The applicant's resubmitted August 25, 2009, preliminary Conceptual Storm Drainage Analysis (Exhibit H) by ESM Consulring Engineers, LLC �vas reviewed by the City's Public Works Deparnnent. The conceptual storm drainage plans submitted do not meet the Cit��'s requirements for the following reasons: 1_ Design Criteria — Per the requirements for Detention Ponds (Section 5_3.1.1. — Side Slc�es, item #3) of the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual and City Addendum: "Pond iv�rlls may be vertical retaining walls, provided: (a} they are constructed of reinforced concrete per Section 5.3.3 (p. S-3S); (b) a fence is provided along the top of the wall; {c) at least 2S% of the pond perimeter wild be a vegetated soil slope not steeper than 3K 1 V; and (d) the design is stamped by a licensed structural civil engineer. " The pond, as currently designed, does not provide the 3:1 slope as required in item (c). 2. Maintenance — The application proposes the storm drainage pond to be a}mvately held irrr�rovement to m�aximize the amount of lots poss�ble within this plat. Historically, privately- owned scorm drainage ponds do not receive regular maintenance, and therefore the ponds do not function praperly. Ponds that go un-maintained and become overgrown with vegetarion also lose their starage volume capacity and may go into overflow mode prematurely, which can cause adverse impacts and potentially property damage downstream of the pond. Ponds that are owned and maintained by the City's Surface Water Management division aze regularly maintained so that they function property and maintain their storage capacity. 3. �Vater Quality — By keeping these drainage systems public, the City can also ensure that they meet the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II Permit requirements. Sia tl' Report to the Fede�al Way Hearing Exartaner Page 7 Narpoint Heights Prelirtgnary t'!at File Na. 08-100329-00-SU/n« t.n. s� 27 4_ Consistent with Cih- Polic�� - Ail ponds in ne�v subdivisions ha�e been dedicated to the City for ownership. In order for the City to have approved and accegted them those ponds met the des ign criterion that was in place at that time. �. Safety - The current pond design proposes a 2:1 stape, which is 50% steeper than a 3:1 slope, and does not meet the design criteria noted above. A 3: i slope creates a less hazardous slape for those maintaining the pond using mowers and other power equipment, and the 3:1 slape allows for easier egress from the pond in the event of accidentat falls into the pond Life- safety issues are not modified. Additionally, a landscape tract encornpassing the new storm���ater tract will be dedicated to the homeowners' associarion. The maintenance agreement for the private landscape tract shall be included on the face of the plat and the language shall be approved by the City. X. ANALYSIS OF DECISIONA►L CRiTERW The FWCC establishes review procedures and decisional criteria for deciding upon various types of land use applications_ Pursuant to FWCC Chapter 20, "Subdivisions," Section 20-I 10, preliminary plat applications are submitted to the Hearing Examiner for public hearing_ The preliminary plat application and the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner are submitted to the City Council for approval or disapproval. Hearing Examiner Preliminary Plat Decisional Criteria - Pursuant to F�VCC Secrion 20-126(c), the Nearing Examiner may recommend appro�at of the proposed preliminary plat only if the following decisional criteria are met. Decisional criteria and staff responses are provided below. 1. The project is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Staff Comment: The application is subject to the adopted 2003 Federa! Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP), which designates the properry as Single Family - High Density. The proposed land use, Single-Family Residential plat, with 7,200 square-foot rninimum lot size (RS-72) and 5,400 square-foot minimum lot size (RS-S.0), is consistent with density allowances and policies . applicable to this land use as established in the FWCP. The application is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan Policies- a. LUP 14: Maintain and protect the character of existing and future single-family neighborhoods through strict enforcement of #he City�s land use regulations. b. LUP 17: Encourage the development of transportation routes and faciliries to serve single- farnily neighborhoods. Special attention should be given to pedestrian circulation. 2. The project is cor►sistent with alI applicable provisions of the chaptcr, including those adopted by reference from the comprehensive plan. Staff Comment: The preliminary plat application is required to comply with the provisions of the FWCC Chapter 18, "Environmental Polic}�'; Chapter 20, "Subdivisions�'; Chapter 22, "Zoning"; and all other applicable cc�des and regularions. Future development of the residential subdivision will be required to corr�ly with all applicable development.codes and regulations. As praposed, the proposed preliminary plat does not meet the requirements of FWCGSection 20-183, which is a component of Chapter 20, "Subdivisions", and therefore daes not meet this criteria. StalTRepcxi to the Federal Way Hearing Examiner Norpoint Heights Prelirrrinary Plat Page 8 File tio. 08-100329-00-SU/n�. i n szz� 28 FWCC Section 24-183 stipulates: (a) All land divisions sh�rll he provided 3vitli adeqtiate stornr drailiaJe systef�z designed an�l constructed in uccor�lunce with the surface water management reqt�irements in FWCC 21-26 et sey_, a�td the sto�•m �rnd surface iti�ater utiliry regirirerrterrts in Fi�VCC 16-76 et seq_ (h) As f°equired by the director o public �vorks land divisions shall provide stornt�4.citer detention or reterttion f�rcidities_ Such required systems should include bio-filtration siLzrles, o�Iwater separation clevices, or uny other appropriate systems approved by tbe public works director. (c) As appropriute, clie storm drui�zage system s/�a1d he dedicated ro tlie ciry upon uppi•oval of the final recorded document. The City of Federal Way's Public Works Department has concluded that the storm drainage pond does not meet FWCC Section 20-183 (a), as it does not meet the design requirements set forth in the adopted Surface Water Design Manual as fdlows: Per the requirements for Detention Ponds (Section 5.3.1. i. — Side Slopes, item #3) of the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual and City Addendum: "Pond walls may be vertical retaining walls, provided_• (a) they are constructed of reinforced concrete per Section 5.3.3 (p_ 5-35); (b) a fence is provided along the top of the wall; {c) at least 2S% of the pond perimeter ►vill be a vegetated soil slope not steeper than 3K-1 Y,• ancf {d) the desig►r is stamped by a licensed structural civil engineer. " The pond, as currently designed, does not provide the 3:1 slope as required in item (c). Additionally the Public Works Department has concluded that, per FWCC Section 20-183(c), it would be apprapriate to dedicate the storm drainage pond tract to the City for the following reasons: Maintenance — Ponds that are owned and maintained by the City�s Surface Water Management division are regularly maintained so that they function properly and mamtain their storage capacity. Historically, privately-owned storm drainage ponds do not receive regulaz maintenance, and therefore the ponds do not function properiy. Ponds that go un- maintained and become overgrown with vegetation also lose their storage volume capacity and may go into ovei mode premat�.u�ely, which can cause adverse im�acts and potentially praperiy damage downstream of the pond. 2. W�ter Quality — By keeping these drainage systems public, the City can ensure that they meet the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II Permit requirements_ 3. Consistent with City policy — All ponds in new subdivisions have been dedicated to the Ciry for ownership. In order for the City to have approved and accepted them, those ponds met the design criterion that was in place at that rime. The Public Works Department can only recommend approval of the plat if the storm drainage pond is designed to meet all of the design criteria for publicly-ocvned ponds. 3. The project is consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare. Staff Cornment: The proposed preliminary plat does not meet this requirement. The proposed preliminary plat would pernut development of the site consistent with the current Single Family - Stat1'Report to the Fe�ra1 Way Hearing Examiner Norpoint Heights Preliminazy Plat Page 9 File No. 08-100329-00-SL 1 D 52236 29 High Density land use classification of the F�VCP and map. However, the current pond design proposes a 2:1 slope, which is ��% steeper than a 3:1 stope, and does not meet the design criteria. A 3:1 slope creates a less hazardous slope for those maintaining the pond using mo�vers and other po�ver equipment and the 3:1 siope allows for easier egress from the pond in the event of accidental falls into the pond_ This is a life-safety issue and is not modi�ied 4. It is consistent �vith the design criteria listed in Section 20 2. Staff Cornment: The proposed preliminary plat would not promote the purposes identified in FWCC Section 20-2_ As stated in Criteria 3, the storm drau�age facility design does not promote the health, safety and general welfare in accordance with standards established by the state and the city. S. It is consistent with the development standards listed in Sections 20-I51 through 157, and 20-158 through 187_ Staff Comment: The preliminary plat application is required. to co�1y with the provisions of the FWCC Chapter 18, "Environmental Folicy"; Chapter 20 "Subdivisions"; Chapter 22, "Zoning"; and all other applicable codes and regulations. Future devetop�nt of the residential subdivision will be required to comply �vith all applicable development codes and regulations. As praposed, and as enumerated in Criteria 2, the praposed preliminary plat does not meet the requirements of FWCC Secrion 20-t 83 �vhich is a component of Chapter 20 "Subdivisions", and therefore does not meet this criterion. XI . FiNDINGS OF FACT Based on an analysis of the proposed action, environmental record, and related decisianal criteria, the Deparhnent of Community Development Services finds that: 1. The proposal includes the subdi�ision of 3.0 acres into 14 residential single-fa.m�ly lots and a stormwater detenrion facility. 2. The preliminary plat application is sub}ect to the 2003 FWCP, and the codes and regulations in effect at the time the application �vas deemed complete, which was February 21, 2008. 3_ The subject property is designated Single Family - High Density in the 2003 FWCP. 4. An Environmental Determination of Nonsig�zificance (DNS) was issued far this proposed acrion on August 12, 2009. No appeals of ihe SEPA decision were submitted to the City. 5. Zoning for the site is RS-72 {minimum lot size 7,200 square feet) and RS 5.0 (mmimum lot size is 5,000 square feet). The property is situated in the southwestem portion of the City along the TacomalFederal �'Vay border, in a single-family residenrial area with RS 7.2, RM 1800, and RM2400 zoning encompassing the subject property. The land to the east is multi-family develapments by the names of Coronado Village and Crystal Painte Apartments. The properties directly north, west, and south are single-family zoned (RS 7.2) and develaped with single-family homes. The proposed residential subdivision and density is consistent with applicable zoning and subdivision regulations_ 6. Pursuant to FWCC Section 20-1�3 on this 3.0-acre parcel, the 14 prc�osed lots comply with applicable density requirements. Staf1'Rep�[ to the Federal Way Hearing Examiner Norpoint Hei�ts Preliminary Plat Page 10 File No_ 08-100329-00-SU/o� � o s1�F 30 7. As proposed, each lot contains an adequate size and shape building em-elope to contain a future single-family residence. Building setback lines {BSBL) are identified on the preiiminary ptat T�P- There are a totat of 27 significant trees on the subject property_ The applicant has proposed to remove 11 of these trees. Pursuant to F1�VCC Section 22-1�53, no tree replacement is required. Retained significant trees outside of open space areas would be regulated under FWRC i 9.120.130, `°Cree & Vegetation Retention Requirements," at the time of individual home construcrion. 9. Development of the site �vill create additional runoff from new imper�ious surfaces such as streets, driveways, and rooftops. Storm drainage faciIities are subject to the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manuul (KCSWDM) and the City's amendments to the manual. The applicant's resubmitted August 2�, 2009, preliminary Conceptual Storm Drainage Analysis (EYt►ibit 13) by ESM Consulting Engineers, LLC t�-as revie�ved b�� the Cit���s Public Works Department. The conceptual storm drainage ptans submitted do not meet the City's requirements far the following reasons: a) Desiga Criteria— Pe� the requirements for Detention Ponds (Section 53.1.1. — Side Slopes, item #3) of the 1998 King County Surface Ff'ater �esign Manual and Ciry Addendum: "Pond walls may be vertical retaining �alls, provided: (a) they are constructed of reinforced concrete per Section S.3_3 (p. 5-35); (h) � fence is provided along the top of the wall; (c) at least 2S% of the pond perinzeter will be a vegetuted soil slope not steeper thun 3H.-1 V,- and (d) the design t,s stamped by a licensed structural civil engineer. " The pond, as currently designed, does not provide the 3:2 slope as required in item (c). b) Maintenance — Historically, privately-owned storm drainage ponds do not receive reguiar maintenarice, and therefore the ponds do not funcrion properly. Ponds that go un-maintained and become overgrown �vith vegetation also lose their storage volume capacity and �y go into overflow mode prematurely, which ca.n cause adverse iYr�acts and potentially property dama.ge downstream of the pond Ponds that are owned and maintained by the City's Surface Water Management division are regularly maintained so that they function prc�perly and maintain their storage capaciry. c) Water Quality — By keeping these drainage systems public, tiie City can also ensure that they �et the National Potlutant Discharge Elinunation System (NPDES) Phase II Permit requirements. d) Consistent with City Poticy — All ponds in new subdivisions have been dedicated to the City for ownership. In order for the City to have approved and accepted them, those ponds met the design criterion that wa.s in place at that time_ e) Safety — The current pond d�ign proposes a 2:1 slope, which is SU% steeper than a 3:1 slope, and does not meet the design criteria noted above. A 3:1 slope creates a less hazardous slape for th�e maintaining the pond using mowers and other power equipment, and the 3:1 slope allows for easier egress from the pond in the event of accidental fa11s into the pond Life- safety issues are not modified. 10. The City's Traffic Engineer has reviewed the project and concluded that the proposed street tayout of the Norpoint Heights subdivision is consistent with the adopted codes and cornprehensive plan in place at the time of the corr�lete application Staff'Report to the Federal Way Hearing Exarrriner Norpoint Heights Preliminary Plat Page 1 l File No. 08-i W329-00-SU/n�. i.�. sn� 31 11. A safe route of pedestrian travel �vill be provided by constn�ction of a five-foot side�valk next to the dri� ing surface, separated by an extruded asphalt curb from the project site along SW 353r Street. Final location and design of the school access path shaIi be approved by the Federal Way School District and the Federal Way Pubiic VVorks Departmeni prior to issuance of construction permits for infrastructure improcements. 12. Water and sewer facilities are available from the Lakehaven Utility District and are adequate to serve the proposed development. It is the applicant's responsibility to secure all necessary water and sewer services from the utility provider. 13. The applicant has chosen to satisfy the open space requirement of FWCC Section 20-155 via a fee in lieu payment, which has been recommended for approval by the City of Federal Way Parks Director. The fee in lieu of �en space payment shall be calculated on 15 percent of the most recent assessed or appraised value of the praperty at the time of finai plat approval. 14. The praposed preliminary piat is pernutted by FWCC Chapter 20 "Subdivisions and Chapter 22 "Zoning_" 15. The proposed subdivision and all attachments have been reviewed for compliance with the FWCP; FWCC Chapter 18, "Environmental Protection"; Chapter 20 "Subdivisions"; Chapter 22, "Zoning"; and all other applica.ble codes and regulations_ As propased, the preliminary plat is not consistent vvith the FWCP and a11 applicable codes and regularions. Section X of this staffreport is hereby incotporated into the Findings of Fact. XIi RECOA4MMENDATION Based on review of this application and pertinent decisional criteria, the Department of Community Development Services recommends denial of the preliminary plat as submitted as it does not meet the decisionaI criteria of FWCC Section 20-126{c). However, if the applicant eiects to meet the requirements of Criteria 2 of the Decisional Criteria of FWCC Section 20-126(c) as listed in Section X of this staff report, and as stated in Finding #9 under Section XI "Findings of Fact", sta.ff can recommend approval of this preliminary plat with conditions. An approved engineering plan must be submitted prior to City Council approval of the prelinunary plat. XII I. LIST oF EXi�BITs Exhibit A- Preliminary Site Plan - Prepazed by ESM; stamped "Received" by the City of Federai Way August 25, 2009 Exhibit B - Vicinity Map E�ibit C- Master Land Use Application - Stamped "Received" by the City of Federal Way Jannazy 22, 2008 Exhibit D- Tree Retention, Street Tree, Landscape & Details Plan {See E�ibit A) Exhibit E- Dete,�minatian of Nonsignificance Issued by the City of Fe�eral Way Exhibii F- Environm�tal Cliecklist - Stamped "Received" lanuary 22, 2008 hy the City of Federal Way Exhibit G- Staff Evalnation of Envirotuneital Checklist Exhibit H- Preluninary Te�hnical Information Report - Prepared by ESM; Stamped "Resvbmitted" by the City of Federal Way Jnne 26, 2009 Exhibit I- School Access Analysis - Prepared by ESM; Stamped "Received�' January 22, 2008 Exhibit J- Sewer Availability Certificate - Stamped "Recei��ed`' Januar} 22, 20U8 Euhibit K- Certificate of Watea' Availability- Stamped "Received" lanuac}� 22, 2008 Stafl'Report to the Federai Way Hearuig Examiner I`'orpoint Heights prelirrrinaryPlat Page 12 File No. 08-100329-00-SU/nM. iD. srn6 32 Note: Copies of exhibits are not enclosed with all copies of this report. All exh�bits ha�e been provided to the Hearine E:caminer_ - TRANSAIITTED TO T} P.�R?IES LISTED HEREAFTER: Federat Way Hearing Exammer Applicant Agent: ESM Consulting Engineers 3391� l�` Way South, #200 Federal Way, WA 98063 Stall' Report to the Federal Way Hearing Examiner Norpoint Height� Preliminary Plat Page 13 File No. 08-100329-00-SU/�«. �.n. szzw 33 �:;':;;.:;�+i; �. �. . ;Ak:;. ;:...,> :::iii�:: :; .. ;::.>, :; "'.:: :; : E �. ;. �: i�;!; '�::: DATE- TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Mr. Olbrechts, February 3, 2010 MEMORANDUM Community Development Services Department Mr. Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner David Lee, Associate Planner / City of Federal Way NORPOINT HEIGHTS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (08-100329-00-SLn This memo serves as an addendum to the Staff Report dated prepared on January 19, 2010 for the January 27, 2010 hearing for the Norpoint Heights Preliminary Plat. If the hearing examiner is to recommend approval based on the items submitted for the hearing, the following are staff recommended conditions for approval: Plauning Conditions: 1. Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant must submit to the City of Federal Way the fee-in-lieu of open space, calcuiated on 15 percent of the most recent assessed value of the property at the time of final plat. 2. A copy of the Home Owners Association (HOA)/Covenant Agreement must be recorded prior to recording of the plat. The HOA/Covenant Agreement must contain language which governs the responsibility of owning/maintaining common landscaping tracts along Noipoint Way NE and the non-public landscaping tract in and around the stormwater.detention facility. 3. The power easement for Puget Sound Energy that runs north/south along the eastern portion of the proposed preliminary plat must be shown on the final recorded plat. Additionally, the buildable areas of each lot shall be shown outside of the easement. Public Works Conditions: Storm water flow control and water quality pond Conditions of Approval: If a Public (City-owned) pond: 34 1) Design to meet the criteria set foith in the 1998 King County Surface Water Design for public ponds. If a Private pond: 1) A Drainage Release Covenant shall be shown on the face of the Final plat, and a separate D�•ainage Release Covenant shall also be recorded against each individual lot. Z) The Covenant shall include the following: a) Maintenance of the storm water pond shall be per the requirements of Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Sections 16.35.020, 16.35.030, and 16.35.040, and as amended by the City, State, or Federal requirements. b) Each lot/property owner shall have equal ownership of the storm water tract. c) Each lot/property owner shall bear equal responsibility for operation and maintenance of the storm water tract, storm water pond, and all appurtenances within the pond and tract. d) Maintenance responsibilities may be performed by the homeowners or agent on behalf lot/property owners; however, operation and maintenance responsibilities remain with each individual lodproperty owners. e) Maintenance responsibilities include, but are not limited to: landscape maintenance, fence repair, storm water structure repair, and all cleaning associated with the pond infrastructure. fl An Operations and Maintenance (O & M) Manual shall be prepared by the applicant prior to Final Plat Approva.L The applicant shall submit a copy of the O& M manual to the City's Public Works Department for review and approval. The O& M Manual shall provide specific criteria for response and handling of discharges of hazardous wastes into the pond facility_ The O& M Manual shall be recorded with the Final Plat docurrtents. g) An easement to the City for ingress and egress to inspect and monitor the poad and appurtenant facilities. 3) A note shall be shown on the Final plat, indicating the private pond tract shall not be further subdivided, may not be developed with any building or structure, and may not be used for financial gain. However, as of February 3, 2010, staff was able to agree with the appiicant/agent (ES1Vn on a conceptual drainage plan. The newly resubmitted detention/water quality pond drawing (stamped "Resubmitted Feb 3, 2010"), alang with the applicant's narrative and a cursory staff comment letter have been included with this memo. Staff is possibly willing to recommend approval based on this conceptual drawing, however staff would like more time in determining whether or not staff will recommend approval. Si�cerely, David Lee Associate Planner 35 $ a� �m �� �s 8 8 �� �3 �a Sa ;S � � WALL TO 8E CONSTRUCTED ON PRIVATE PROPERTY �� � --------'_._-} I .� -- S' sEPARArioN eErwEEN EMERCENCY OVERF ELEVATION AND TRACT LINE. .�� �� �.. '�-- ADJUSTED LOT LINE �-CURRENT PROPOSED `T , LINE TO BE ADJUSTED 1 R�susMirr�o FEB � 4 � 2010 CfTY OF FEDERAL WAY 9UII.piNG DEPT. N W O 2 Y � � O Z J = Z � � = o �,, a Z � � � � � Z � �O M - � � � � !ki � � .�� z � ��� �� -o 3 N Z U ffi m $ �me '' q 3 0 � V o.� z � 3 '> 3 i � � N � m 3 � 3 y� ; �� � V6 DETENTION/WATER QUALITY POND SCALE = i "=20' � � � m � w � � PRELIMINARY PLAT for NC�I�POINT HEIC'HTS � , prepared for ; LAN DMARK HOIV� ES P.O. BOX 26116 ; FEDERAL WAY, WA 98093-3116 prepared by � 33915 1 st Way SOUth M200 FEDERAL WAV,WASHINOTON 98003 Phone:;263)838•6113 �1 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY FILE NO. 08-1 eSM JOB NO. 14b3-002-007 9HEET 1 OF $ j ; , � Sheet Index Sht" Nn. Qsss�tiQtian PP-01 COVER PP-02 EXISTING CONORIONS PP-03 pREl1MINARY PIAT PP-04 PREUMMIARY CLEARING, GRADING k LA-01 I,MIpSCAPE PLAN �xHiei�--� � PAGE..�— � NesueMrrn A�4 Y 6 (G�Y crr e°iou ° u- oie PLAN Vicinity Map EXISTING CONDITIONS I � r�,i�m �.x.u� x�ms �� � . � � W � � � f , � i � � � � I � a i � I aw� I � �I �'� '�'�".ry � .� \ y :� I e . � � �w pp��yy����"" �...r�.��.. rww�iwnw I�MIY � MMMVYtl'iYi mIP �1LLW.Y I '� � I I rlq� .� � ��'nvi"� b :�LYin�Y__�.._.__ . M•p Nw �asa+wea v q m`�e:,e'�no.i rwwrv,.o..�ux \�. .�cau� » i - -w.'`� ^ - t m � eR ux." a.. m � lcr�:� mm""!-!w � i,. w: "�'faa. ,"', ��� -ss �r�'n °-- �•� ���i}� �uu�au 99�e ��« ' s r � ` ` ` �.manwl �u...wiuitur�s w nvf � wa wnv�rc� w � -� .. � g � . r . � M • q �sm� w� . .g., �n�23'.. � ��d YY _ . � �. .' .'`�+new.INi°,. winr w'� :°:.c 5tlef I � I �aar� 'u"o>w �rc ' i fi l� r — °"^%'� `� �'i�`-" t -.�- �L �_r �iroWnw4��r�. ..' >r — 2p I �` lu. a 'riy �'°>• ��,� , /R� \ � �� � � ry fi� i g . i f ..:; ��o.�°wu.cuwu �, �w `�' � uwrur.e ,g �; `u�' '.Kn` �•' � i T � � i � I. ��innWri ' \ �t sr +a�i wnMe —h--w �� y� � � w�mn!ew / �i M . �� ��u; ' i ' � `-' �e � i � �dr .i�w"'"'""""" � I I ' %� o c�,� �r �, a i�: �: ,t i i i� � .... i K9 i i i� \ "3. "�`.n'�"rnM �wr.e,. � �"°����� X � � i � � �g� � dd • ; � � �n. � '� �i� � `\ � � 4 � $ ai � ,� �! i : .��. 1 ; .;� �14 � i � , _' . � I � I �I �'~ $ ��� 4YlMw.� �; $ p Y � , I ; I ; : / �( '•. \ � I#� I _' I \ . �� qV4u:RC � ll �; Y R �� � , �AC: 1 I . I� i + • � I i i ., �� � � ��.�° � „' : _ , -' :,� ,r ._,,,. ' � � I � `'•. � " - � ' �' ' ' , ��' � � ��� ,� ' �'�/ � i .; +� ii� � "" �.� � .. . �I 'i � ,��_�_�_�_�Y�_...__�_�6 v.ym�uM \\ �11 � �. � :'• � \ I P�f�� I � vn . T a �v!n ; � xi r \•, i , . i �. 1' '. 1 � 1 I ....n' � Y�wa w axi w mi � I � ` �u_� / I . � � . I � �� \� � ' ... �'� � � a��� `� � � I _ _ _ I � � f -_, _ �� � '•I I� � b .�"' � I � I �`9�� .� i �� �. l �iM ��u � � i, 8 v`�'� i g i °�, . r � a ; � ;w .,,�,� y � � � , I I � '`�' �@ � �' \� �� �; ✓ � i . " i + �. i �' � ! � , � � ., n ' , I : ��� �.; M '� �� '.,; ;, I �� i `� � `�'� � ° � �'� \ � 1 '', I ` ���� j '' �'i ,� °^,��.� " ^^ �, �, ,'; . ' '', a j ' ' E `, . .�np«.in.� � ( " `� ` 11 ' ' � i e -i _. i � � r„ ' � , e , . ', g '� meo� �retNO� � � � �� � . � � � � iG�•., i. �► _ _ ` I � I eo ,�,,,,� B w.�w�snawo ' I � , . i I ! � nwu��...rww.� . .m. i i i *� � i i � �.�.� � x' -"' , � i � i • � � m wwnm...i � �i un.0 :'`� I l 1�; � A �S � i i i� �''� � k . � I� �' o m.w.V.�«.� � �.�n:,�:: � ,� ( 3�,� ��; ° vc� 1 g � i'� r R +'�'. M, I <I o ...+iawwnw , N , ,; »i I .. .iosr :eAn � I � � � 9 a� ` ��� . �r i � i �� � �` � I � � �I anmr.roa (: � : c i . I � I .. r : � � I �i w aunw I� �� nri a i f 1 �i I� .��'�� rv� , � i , ; , � a .,..� . ; � �„� ,� �.r _ � ; � ���, � � ,ry ! ,�.� j ���; �.�.�.��.,�'� ;___�. r_ „ -� � ��, ' ,� ""�� ;i xc �� , .'� ' � ,o� � I M1 � �F' ' ,o„ ' :� ee.■K. I � �;' � � � a�° I �I —._ .+�� --.- wuxraa I LE6LL OESCRIPiIONS' ! ! i � � . � _.-- d�u u�r �' �Y � ' Yt -- rmrro�w . I� �ICO1�u�saaw�w u� I I •\ , rv ww �n- a�/Iiu�WYnfMM IIO�i��f 4AYLFY�m1R I'.IU wnou'� W wimn�r�axo� m�wr N� i ����s. � Sw 35�Ih SI^ r wnn w i wu'� a m""u� � . I i, . �'i� �� b eu - Q - �-- - �--d - n - ymr�r+wrn�a I waaxe�mewaaM�•wwwn +� � . . . ��cw � a�+s E)CHIBITI //":'� --+.w•..�. � u�°�S�n:."1p`m"'�'":�:�&v II `row ensis a ecnmrxs: __ -- -o- aasneiue I �aar�iae aMxsww�wwrmi. . � � 'b I , c+„ 1°r \'4� e rrw.mv.w��snrvaM PHGE�Of � aw+s�e xai �w sa.a � . . . 4tl . . ='-_. � �� � � � p1F � aw�� ����� �� �'a; � uw. �� wix�mv�vamk�•rw�mma.� �'•. 1 ��� 1 1 1 �"` pO°P0M "° P KINC C0. PAPCEI N0. 352101-9a1fi, 904! �Nx I p�M[i4R��ilMpp�h.wM�Y�WAWM�neAw 1 � F n�ntt.l..� a � � �� I 7 * '� YERTMAL DA7UN: . 1 1 Y g,y rrR i wn naumwwnm_ i ``\ � m � . � w�s �au.m�.�.wnro�.� � � i � "^1 '• ��. kY8Y15� � p rw � a�vbw ienrn�. �rw °� � � w « w�� n. »+ � robos c�r� xa. e. b ro+aa - � ` ��c. '� m,w�ar.t " *M.w�• P �saije.��oae�� �__'_'�'_..._'_'.�'._'_'_."___.Y.' � ��y n.i �(ll _.� ����; _�_ � . C I µ.\ , A ARK HOM S- 2' TOPO RAPHIC MAI � ^' "" 'im.�'".vr �• � x rw+.r�RS�s�wwr wM ° `�.,�� � wu m a�wwwuwrnommrw� i�e _x_n.�_ 291h 51 NE � w uoxo,aww�uarmaqtaoo-awy ��4-�-.'-_ '�, �■ ai r� ■i �usp ia �� nw e ans�ma.ui � i ! A POFlTION OF THE NW CORNER OF SECTION 25, 70WNSHIP 21, HANQE 3 EAST, W.M. � \ � ..._. ..� � .. 9 II 'f%tlrtwoiuu ""� �i � I . tlflZ066f021 60'�48'tlo � � • . 00'd14619]0 OQ3149U'A I i � R�i 60�0lbUB0 00{ IX1 ��ER AOPE .V+En I � . '. . XWN( M'qy) PCP OE RECWMSES NlPONi I � �- /� . , _ . �e � 9, � L _ I eosoaaooao ' � - ^ ,� _ � ¢� V � r--v�--.L , ssvrY wum.x� � n ��'_" ' . � I *RC�� •�1 _�� � . � ' � �rwx� --� — . . _ u[ v eM �ui 4[toni 9 �� . . . " riq D � '��} ' °� � � 4�YY' � � �"-� -�`��'� "� -7�'._�� _I I � ! �) u.� wn emme � �„ r ��, � � i i i� ��i_�,_ r � ,, i —� *'-__-y- . i �. o �„�..0 " ��:,� �e " *�, � � � 1 �l �, I\\\���ir q st B I B � iro�eoorro r�eleooC SCALE: P'- 40' f o. '� eezaauoo� ` ��! I � y�I � � � C . 1 i ' x ' I � e .o — ���, l\` y � ' � y � I li r I � / 1 / f I I .� II I ' ; I / i ' �+� 1. �-_0 � w CONTOUR INTEPVAL � 2' a , ow,� d ��'' �'• _.. ` i � r � � � ,_ .._ , � __ � � ° � � e w �:� `1_.. _.._._. ..._. _ . � )� ea am� /I � � � ', yvo� I � I $ ��}� ..i i � j ', � �. � ] y � , �� ' I M00'D[ . ., �t Y S .y�`; PSYIWPoI) i p � I � � � � � ., � \ , \'y' . ._ I ` . . .. .` __'__.____ � � si F ` � � i+bVlAfRO ( ��� � ` � �r� � � I I I1 I , l t�t �]� 4f 1: � ' ' / � ( B 1 .. 3 ' &I�D/blF MFA IXI'1015 �-tY �WLL BE �SINiC1ED UU! 10 � �' E� \ � ) 1 ' � ..,. v / '.VWY#.50 , imidUt�IFO �i I g iaun vwcw wro ecw[u/rura uscY[nrs. �c .auairu roei a- 0 a� � � a i � � �,� � � � / � � � 1 � � i i� � �c u�[s. � ��� � ' ' �I � . \1\ \\ I� I � J � / /i\i i � I\\ \�� �./ /II `� ' \\ t tl I �� , �' __ _ "`�ti \ � - - . _ - =�__ � � -4�rt / � i - ,; C ..\ i . � , �1.. ._ . � i ne�monSITE STATISTICS � 4�� ,J„ • � r � �_ • y y�� � m�o.arEwowxc�:'��� r.�zs�' e� � T � 3 � i � � � � �� � . ...' .. . .. . .. . .� ., . � � �\ �� . xcx , r�wi wm, w� ceosa-�i ia ~ 3 3 � � �1F, � y 1 3 � I ��'�E � vrm�� �12 `\�� \' i I � � ,�� � �' N wmEron: �' apwcn surt+tvnm az . �� � � I,. i � T �M y \ 1� qry"'�" ".�'r � I I( �� n x i. \ i i \ 7 ,; � `: . I . �, �ows cv+ran no. c. S ��a�ia \ ' 1 � I� f I �.� I il 1 :\ � � �� �4s. ss rreisoo�eo ,�` �� nrm.�w ru ve�n "z �� E eaa0000�e2 �\ � � y I so a. i�\/ ��` 1 �; A s' I' ) 9°m�s` �. .(ry�1r iwHr � I \ \ P,': i 9 � w-as=owe � I �b EM[�NFW: OM EQAUL/1Nfi ENOMECNS LLL � I P '�.! . J391! 1N 1G11 SWlN SVIIE /400 � 1 i /\ I ..L. 1_ � I I��°°pe I 1 �! � \ I` i� i is.�i- a-�eiiiwe ceos� � ��� 'S� r ' �\ � rreieoo niwc[� Nuueem I. usio.wma s nsio�w�e !y, \• 1 , ,� \: ' ZptlNC/1.'OYP PV11:� MS1.2 Y Al.O. MVL11-fIMILr k SINCIC FMqlv NIGX DENSItt ;j g � I' ' PIlGPOSEU USL � PElI�ENfVl - 4WOLE fluNlv '(� `` usa0000rro @� � r � r I � , '� \ . \ P$ sr : - - - I wnurc snru: w�nuvcw uwn asxci � � �` , . ! � _ .. . . w•rzn: . waw,�w Nun asmrci (Q ''. � � " � I � �* � � � I ,,�\ � \�, \\�: � rwe wsmicr: rawv� w�r Fmc oomin No. sH �p , , I ,I r / '.....�A I. I.� � I ', �I � �� � _ ' BN�onw sE�e�« i.�c, ,canwxL U.e. wn. cow��u„w�S ' W �., G� 1M�aY t� I \ t '`. 1I I: � IZ � ....I �, 4�\ ....+�.... � �� I POWER: T/GW� ELEC�PoC NO/ OR PYCfT YOUND ENLRO� � `� e9ep000�eo �� �& �,``as ��u I I�+ea�r I I eo� sr ; i B �\ " � \: treyeoo�iao , � rne w nueo sea� ' wo ner p• 6 ., � I ��� I+ � I: 5 t � ) �� i � � B ��E: }, I rreteoo' rze. . sa rrnes . i�a.saa so. n. � �y �, � s p+s) ; � � i) I � i �ox w�x wrcmwus roa . at.MS w. n.: . ;� .: : r 1 I I � SU0.f/CE M2X OUStIW WPtM10V4 SwKN:E . O.Ou I eae0000vo �`, eae0000vo � uHOaonv� � � ��J :. I a .... �; ; � � ; ; � 1 �'Mi � ... . - :.o� . en.sun sr. _ . ..... ...' . ......... I . \ '� I � Y�PE0.4pUS ��i,CE . 9e,�19J s.F. t � TRACT L . an�mt n.r i 4. __ jr — '"_ -�,.. .'+ 4.i " -- �_ .—�—_. �ia a s�ixu. �BE�� ^ CVKR[0 MYI n" E wrEnau z � ° s° suni�c[s W S � z� u ���� x y . RiSiE MPEMIOUS . 0.0) AC. + 4,p6S S.F. s . ezx�3otl8� Y '..— �. , asL�c aw�96 swrc..R . a.ow nc. • � �� � 1 1 �� 8380000064 ` iul a I iul � I. ; MYI� � 4�.�'ze o]s�f5.f1 %y s.f. i O � E `•, esa0000rn �' I,,� �.� � nccess tAU.t rnce . i,azo zr, : Z eam000z�o i 1 I a+o� . �� w�oowc mr,cr . i�uo s,r. = y = z �� NA MM MG (1�xUS PWOWnY, KYE95 iHnCf. SroflMwnlER � 1 + ' I . iRACi) � YIAfO f.f. � 2oY �CRE9. � Z= �\ ' H2tl00909B6 \�N P6SO�Of Q O � eaaooaozn � ' � d39D00o09] �� I 2�'tl30UCi .. � �� p • � Z A W eaeoouo�ao��` I a`�q � r Y �� 1� ,�� I y �� .s . or � � � O sae0000z�z eae00000ee eaeo�000ee �+ , .. . �. xm �. . aox • � � ..'_'.'_"__...._.._.._.. ___.......__ ._._ ...._...._...._..""'a.."". . . . � � . ' v. � rnnex� j "P" � a.°:,,,. I � wnc'e.�"ao°�'m�'��m) coxe. aina r i• t (E� � 3 x.or.ea.xw nnn wtrtn rnt � mvJ � ��HIBIT_ �� '� � � � '— _, ,� - s• wa ava ro ce-xa PAGE�OF �� � 5 ..a _—� �6 � s�oEwix aoewwc 7 �a�nw e wn � , mr���R�a[ cawrerzo ounn <mmicu suM.c�c F I �� °, � '° # " k^• ��. 1 ! e.mm � c a'4.u+ , ��� � e• ux. �a�w,cteo otatr� cxuaxco sura�c»w arsc mwsc -- � _ � d � ccwitrto sueaw�o¢ � �!, �i-� � �� � - � ��' � � j SECTION A-A -- � TYPB'W' pOAD SECTION -�-- SECTION GC � � �, ,� � _ 4Y„ � CUL-DE-SAC SECTION B-e F PP_02 j ROADWAY CROSS-SECTION "Z" MODIFIED PRIVATE DRIVEWAY/NON-MOTQ_Rl�,j,�i ! 7 Hot to scw o� . . CITV # 08•100329-00-SU 2 a. 5 wa�. �. _...- -------`-----'--� � I � � . . ' . � _. . __._�__ ____._" _'_ ' � �I . ..�_"__'_._'__'�'.�.__'____'—_..._'___"'_--'_' __. _ _._-_ � c� m � � ; o fG �'� °\ fD ti � ' LANDSCAPE _ � W TRACT(TYPE III) PIAf�f 1' InNMl1 IM�n W NWlOIv �r�' i ,� I „�, I 3 I �nar�o�d�ej j '� ! ! I � � C ��Jj�, i �'7+' � l.'F I I� i� �\ � � �_ ._.. _..._ _>. `�-�-�� --�-r-- +— �'--- �_� _ `— �___ 1 _ � � - '�. � � �f�„—i ?—' -- � � i � �i . l�� -�� i �� i �� i � J ����� �i i �� `�� I��1 I I � � � GW�YMI ( I I NUTA / i � ` I I \ �' �� � � � �� j � c+� � �� 11 \h�• . �� i� � � I 1 (�-.'��' � it'%2MqM I ' �\ 1 � / � ..� , 1 , I � ��{ (. �. �� // I � i � �'9B`N � � � � 1 q \` \ �� � � �� I �. p vO�F N�f x/ �',1 �'�� Cupaffo�ypcAsby."Ca�Hewllla� $4an ` tM.nw�� �x sv i�� � � t � � SorLiusuop�tlna � °� � --- --- -- ---- --�-- 1 ` 1 1 1'CEU I I I .- . 0'FlA I I Ius � � � �� �IMnnu�M1oWl � � � �... ..� ��. .. �\.\ �� � ��� � I I M I T 1 1 1 .. • ` 1� 4 1I II i JI I t \\ / 1 � �� �V �1 �"'�`"71 1 \ �.st!5;� AroNa 1 �' 1 � \ � LANDSCAPE • TRAC7�TYPE111� �'" s:. r .; . ' { _ aYZSxamr+�, �Y�_ ' - --=� __ � _ �� r ]. �o� ,�� U � �� Es. 1L fl1IL IRPR'IRY ro� � �: a.�<woer.ouas�ar ia� ��. wwm[ n ro ee wm�w �/�mn��,a ac mor nn simrnoro m onc�a. . � ��� RHEw fvMpRRnII�SIOKf 4 �HIW 4Mtp K0� Mp UM MGtIlIMLL RCp.L A WI. 01 1' OWY['�• iMSNt PG1 NMM COUNh A YWUW�wt�IT'.MO�M4M,�L� �W MG4OOY Q�OOYfLt..WCqMUMR�NVbhU xIG M]' Oi WIW6 Stlq1W[. LWrounOCWiIIYA�HIlD�O iYWtl KD{ I011[C[M A WI. Uf l:•IIK-YfqYY Mltlt YYLW. Mllut 1NRC i0 U �M MPIroVN. . x� 3�.,� '� w+oSCMiuxwtoMCAVl�'Orwna iuu�nart Wavl ewu e6 � M�ix dnno tu+nnNlrs� ra�muu �-a x rcrt \ � m.uW3CNBi.YMS10�Wf OfMYttll �� YYtlY ._� s e.rwcca�iwmwcnra�un �++i �w�qw��sn�m� ro ww mwawms ra� rxE wnw a wu.ee.. smc�, 3 q14M101 tII�SLNLLYI�MM IAl[fT IOqipl. MNM.Otl119 LWL R WOL M qIC[. 30 %2MAOROhA�'� tl avOwMIC�MMp,W 0/kl�Hn16w11M lacu a�PfLK6 �� iwo�auw�i4M • a�iwl�ru&I aROw��I. iMCV e�c rw. lHFile � d]TCIRCUMRAB�4LWQ�DMFNIN�NDIOAPIMWfM WFI.L NMKM6D. YRll MOPd1IdW0�NO MM[ NOOROU! 1100L 5�81[Y. IAL FVHIS IOMECM�MYMY. BONYKAN C i1 c.SIOtW �NMHNMlPW �� �. B. iNLl. �qUA Mq 011011ML'01�IIL tl.W11111[ BPFC1f6, IM vN11Ci1CB.�NN CW' �e r 8 � E.6RitMCNitiR9]LINLtlCM01lCRDWPNOCONSIRUCIqM �a enwn ox wia�wu wx. w+m ro x wKmr. xod�aw. wru rowrzo wnex w inF. I crF.wwanuceona+aaox�«oocqww�r �� NNA9L �M�. 0[GY. WAMNL OEfECi'J M,D VREO fPE[. BuBSt�NtI0x5 y 00C.<MKCImBYMGAYWWIINAWYOMYlOX &IILL N01 BE W➢E MIINWI iME LYNM Of M VNO%M[ MfMECI OR WMER. �� __- ..I I �I�LL�EMtiI1LE0M�NlOFlIp!!. 11.YNIF11 SWL. B[ AIP%Xp f0 MVMNp NHI WifRNL IINIIL [SV9114X[0, " ( C.FwCC➢?I.'IM/[NfORwNC9ulaMAMiBUNG9 � ; nIM�DSC.VNqS�MLBFC6lMLED/JiDMN11NNEDM y coNVaaMU+Cewm�rwccalsx PLANT MATERIALS LIST � � - � SYMBOIOUNiiIlYBpiAWCA4NMAE COMMONNAMF � SIiPJ0.FJMqfS � iREes ,- ` ,.d''.......+ � � 1NWnIMdCfqlsWrtY 6'lMRICKNttW4(�SIEMMIN.� � , � �wN�YW�W.Cadlwwlb�f "CmNrxebYGOMMCyDrw P.FUl40FIQ4,5NClELF,�ERYOC aurxnW�MV .Il�ewl,]Yac.mancMaNMn.maMwtl ' . � 'I' .� y�YT'�'Fl��AYl. GI7V DiTMIL 8"VB ' f.D ���'�`�`��� o- _�9__Cp WIONIMOtsusN Owa1pM11w100oQ�'ootl ISOIbG � � r wn Wxrvvbn HrPUIwDONr ��mP�70bc \ I � ,�y_furyvKn : m�wum wmwnswrcaram uarmp4antkanenwe4'qop��+oiewicc � �„_ ,7wae. a`caMSn+m� Gola�nnmeqeteyWSUwn ]po� p.rponlcaa�cani� -� � :�u"�tucn . .....�—�-�--:ae a+wb.. w.�«nn+eumanran zro •�wwor.mune�, \ � sw wn�awom,o�carv�+ w,wie��wwaswwa iew3Pa� ��i'q � n vxeMwm'owNm e.«p.m�ti�cM�brry z+"Ur« � \. _..._ � VibWnmeP�� EuicOOanCraiban'IWm RP'Nb'oc.Nl.avu� ''�� � �aw Roq.�eewc�.�•rc�.,w�.�r�winwru��.w � � � 1,(toYqMOOtlOwINN�.lO1l3�OtldeCqoMh1lMOqW, IO�Mqtlow/wCO1 1 �-"—��� Na�w-a...i �nu � � � �._��--GRI3SAN%PONDUPUND9.501iWwGOwPNSmItlRYpDaH.'AS&nNwRaUN�eu�.SE[GHOMIE.IlUNpnoqe. � � HrORO5eP.0lx%tOW6uoEPBIwtl1E4000tlIdN�MOMwootllOxmW�n.46W�1?44]Iir1Yw�EW�bw�sbaseNNNCerePacMkambal `� /'MRPIE � .. ��I :: . � 6�, � TREE LEGEND SIGNIFICANT TREE REQUIREMENTS � � � COiT�lNOOD 1REE � p OF E%ISTINC iREES tYpA. OR CREAiER= )q �� �j H�2ELNUT ■� OF SICMFICPNT TREES �; 27 ,AV �.'�� I � PLDER 1REE �/ OF NON SIGNIiICANY TREES = 7(8 alder, 1 mcple) 'a `.m'"wnorscNA ' 'r `,. 4 . ` � 1: '��" 5 �?,� •� ��� ��CEppR TttEE � 9 OF�SICENFICANi IREES REq11RE� TO REMAIN (258) �7 � ---.- i� j� �'vat t� �! a' m�s s�oxN To a�unw = is (svz ro rur,�) L'� , !� � .. � ,_ 1 1 � u�APLE TREE xoa: � siarFlCµr atts ua xEaMrto m�ww rrn ,,� 4 iNE FWS I�WI7WN�L 1REE5 IMLL 9E PRFSfRKO 91BJEC1 - ...1 F�,F —" �j M�ADRONATflEE. lOpUdNCRFWIREMEMIS. i � 7 n" 'a°.aW."°.� ."�m �ae w� nes `�' . lYEpFlED mEf rncl9l r lea --- • M m luvNC 11N rtrNf) �� . T_ 1fPW0 G'4N �,� . � tT 1 � � I r i�o a rMw :• mccircu wac� s w . : �:�'JWI I � / Y eflNO OViM M F .sYECn'rco Pv+�Iwc " "°'" � �`°' PNUE�.OF � / � 8P[CfkD IPMCl1 � StY. � �' '/+ v rpp � � mr .. j� � • ��I�/]�uf WnttWxw w.w�nc w7� rl �� t""�"''�"' PERMIT N0. wn,na� ww..a/snCCS nr�. «une rwnuzu .w�c„ . . "°"� ^""'"°'°" � �'�'a°"°' �'°�� �' �.°°.� "°"`�� CITY OF FEDERAL WAY fCW nVM SqL MWMO 1 W 01 iNW eMiM 590. MOYxUi�rR��Ti' w�i . ��S A lYrt1 W ��Y YMa f011 WOW� q ���������__� ��_�y�w /Ii1P NY 46� onamc • wn. ra� �vn — — py�?n .�rw'a' kF-nmr.m�.°�--- ."p' °�.'."�, �^� mc[ ar nwwo a au�wc ao r"� '�" _.�, ia �� �w. a ���� � �� ow,w� rwiac. . APPROWU. DATE:. 11 1 1 d,=1G11�' I.�,', �( ����' . I��I� .�I TNE OPER >MPANY i53dV1�lUf0 WAY, WA. RK HOMES & 1 "=30' J 1•1 iioFi Tree pdanOng 8 Staking Detall � ,. d � � a j 4 ��:: �� y �:�, " Nor oint Hei hts Prelimina Plat p g rJ/ ��, I ,� � ��_ .;�,�� M � �� � �M:i�X ! 3.� ,»� } �YA� u;.6�" �F' . 1%t�'..wk�i�. �,� f � � ����' �" : a� . w��✓�Ak�;, ���w�ls'r(�'`S° ".d���`t � � ��' � � �� � "_ _' � y��1 ���� � ` 1 ` �. � � 7 �. y- �� �� � � � ' �.. � �tY.ry.,' ".}',� — � � �: � �� � �' �..�e�ir� F .; � i j� F „ W� �" I i �� ��� � ��� � � a '�y ���� i��•�� ���' x+��e�'&;yr .4Yt'r�.;� �5,����',FS �1� �. ��:��;:�:,�-.. � �---- _ �,.�� � � ao� ,; � ��i e `�� �, ��� ota k�"'��� - W ���� , �° �E ' �� , ,~� ��J ;�{�. :� � 1 ,'�:1�2.�� Q'> � �\ �\�\��������� r Y yky '�-. ��r�, ��.� � `� � ''�x _ ��,�e,�'� �,� � ` \ � � \� ��\� �� \ �� �K �, �,��, �������� �� �` � ; i '�'.,,' r3�k ���\\�A`��: �� � : ;+ � � `�� \� � �A \ � ��� � ; ''.�� : ���\��\�� ��\ \ � � .i � �4 �� �\�V� VA �� � � �S � .1 j � A�A�A�� � ;�� � ,e: ; � �� �;� \ � �l '` I \� \\C\�� ��\ �� ; \�\� �` I � W1I111� i: $ 3 i n � 3 ,:`;: ''�' � � �. t M■ ■ Q� Federal Way Proposed subdivision of 3 acres into a 14-1ot single family subdivision � Legend !._:.___�1 Parcel3 Paved Edge of Roadway Q Federal Way Gly Umits S��@ N 'd' 0 500 1000 1500 Feet ,- , ; � � : %� ; ,, _ °,:.�. _. _ _ , ,,;,° , � . , . � _ , - � , , ,,,�.� e �_ � � , , 3 � .,� - � _ ;-� �..or.F .... i P. .. ._.._........._..-..__ MASTER LAND USE APPLICATION �. � , . � �� � .r � , ? ' � DEPART�tENT OF COMbiUN[TY DEVEGOPMEYT SERVICES - � � � � � ' i: � '� � � ��;� 33325 8` Avenue South �t� �� PO Box 9718 ������� ���'r•� ��; t� i� ��;, Federal Way WA 98063-9718 ,. �,-� 1; � � `t � 2�3-835-2607;Fax 253-835-2609 ��� �y {� w��vu�.c i tvu t�fzder�►lway.com �l� ��;1%:a V'"�4o Y�� I ��.�5 APPL[CATION NO(S) C�� - 1 ���� � � �. , v � �� �) G �.,� �.�� Date �'� r � �� ' � �� Project Name Norpoint Heights Property Address/Location SV�+ 3�3rd Street Parcet Nuraber(s) ��� Z 'J��ld� — ���� Project Description Subdivide about 3.0 acres into 14 sing(e fami ;• residentia( lots, access road and stormwater tract. Type of Permit Required Annexation Binding Site Plan Boundary Line Adjustment Comp Plan/Rezone Land Surface Modification Lot Line Elimination Preapplication Conference Process I (Director=s Approvai) Process iI (Site Plan Review) Process i[I (Project Approval) Process IV (Heazing Examiner's Decision) Process V (�asi-Judicial Rezone) Process VI � SEPA w/Project SEPA Only Shoreline: Variance/Conditional Use Short Subdivision X Subdivision Variance: CommerciaUResidential Required Information RS-�.0 & EZS-7.2 Zoning Designation Muiti-fumilv & HD sangte famitti Comprehensive Plan Designation $200,000 +/ Vaiue of Existing improvements $500,000 +/- Vaiue of Proposed Improvements International Buiiding Code (IBC): Residetitial occupancy Type WOOd - Type V Construction Type Applicant Name: I.aaldmark rt-[omes, i�ic. David Litowitz or i_arry Address: PO Sox 26116 CityJScate: Federal Way, Vi�'A Zip: 98093-� 1 16 Phone: 253 -9?7-6116 Fax: 253-927-�652 Email: dj ito�ti;c ast.net Signature: `� ` �- �, (�� �.. � ,; 4i:�"�l Agent (if differ t th � Appticant) Name: ESM Consultit�� Engineers - Stuart Scheuerman Address: 339I� lst Wat S. Suite ?OQ City/State: Federa! VVay, Vt%A Zip: 98003 Phone: 2j3_g38-6�,�t*3 Fax: ?r53-838-710� -� Emait: �tuar�.sc�ei�er�i�an!aesmcivil.com Owner Name: I _andmark Homes, Inc. David Lito�vitz or Larry Address: PO BoY ?b 11G ciryisr�ce: Federal �i%'ay_ WA zia= 9809�-3i lb Phone: 2_i3-927-6 t 16 Fax: ?�3-927-�6�2 Email: �']�to c c ast.�tet , Signariue��� 1.��l�'�"1 Bulietin #003 - August 18, 2004 Page 1 of l 4 -� k:lHandouts�[vtasLer Land Use Application EXHIBIT D Tree Retention, Street Tree, Landscape & Details Pian See Exhibit A 44 .. __„`\ —�..,,,.,.,� � � ' --� ' 'a : .:� R �-�. � illc .'. ...;: ::. � - ��: -;;. �, � t jM � , .. ._... p -' , . :..,. Y .. .._..�.... _.. ..: __. . �. .. .. �—. _ z __..�_..._ A NOTICE OF EIVVIRONMEN'TAL DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Norpoint Heights Preliminary Plat File No. 08-100330-00-SE Description: Applicant: Location: Proposal to subdivide 3.0 acres into a 14-lot single-family subdivision including infrastructure and stormwater facilities. Landmark Homes Inc., PO Box 26116, Federal Way, �VA SW 352`� Street & 27`� Avenue SW (Parcel #252103-9026) Lead Agency: City of Federal Way Department of Communiry Development Services Staff Contact: David Lee, Associate Planner, 253-835-2622 The lead agency for this proposal has deternuned that it does not ha.ve a probable significa.nt adverse impact on the environmen� An environmental irnpact sta.tement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was ma.de after review of a completed environmental checklist, Federal Way Comprehensive Ptan, final staff evaliaation for this action, and other municipal policies, plans, rut�s, and regularions designated as a basis for exercise of substanrive authoriry under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act Rules pursuant to RCW 43.31C.060. This information is availa.ble to the public on request. This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2). The iead agency will not act on this proposal for t4 daqs from the date below. Comments must be submitted by August 26, 2009. You may appeal this determination to Greg Fewins, Director of Community Development Services, at the Ciry of Federal Way {33325 8�' Avenue South, PO Box 9718, Federal Way, WA 98063-9718) no later than 5:00 p.m on September 9, 2009. The appeai must be in the form of a written letter stating the reason for the appeal of the deternunation. The appeal letter must make specific factua.l objecrions. Pubtished in the Federal Way �rror on August 12, 2009. Doc. LD. Sf069 45 �>.--.: . � � � � . �, . , , ; ,�. � , � � � _x � ��� � �� ��� . '� � w �� �� � « .�� � ��� _� i� C1TY OF Federal VVay DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNTI'Y DEVELOPMENf SERYICES 33325 8`� Avenue South PO Box 9718 Federal Way WA 98063-9718 253-835-2607;Fax 253-835-2609 www.citvoffederalway.com ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PURPOSE OF CAECKLLST The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter 43.21C, requires all govemmental agencies to consider the environmentai impacts of a proposal before maldng decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide infonnation to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposai, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EiS is required. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about our proposal_ Governmental ageneies use tius checklist to determine whether the envu-onmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring prepazation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be abie to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. ff you do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not knSw" or "does not apply." Complete answers ta questions now may avoid unnecessary deiays later. Some questions ask about govemmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and iandmazk designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist qnestions apply to all parts of your proposai, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different pazcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposai or its environmental eff�ts. The agency to which you submit fihis checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to detemuning if there may be significant adverse impact. USE OF CHECHI,IST FOR NON PROPOSALS Complete this checklist for non-project pmposals, even though questions may be answered "dces not apply." In addition, compiete the Supplementai Sheet for Non-Project Actions. For non-proj�t actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectiveiy. ���'�=:����� ��,�� 2 � ���� Bulletin #O50 — December 22, Z005 Page 1 of 18 k:Wandouts�Environ °`�� ��'' 46 �� A. $ACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if appiicable: Norpoint Heights Subdivision 2. IJame of appiicant: Landmaric Homes, Inc. ��- ' : �� � �.� .. �� _�`� � �;e„ •.� .� . . _ �..� �,,,=� ..__ .. _ 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: PO Box 26116 Federal Way, WA 98093-3i 16 Contact - David Litowitz at 253-927-6116 4. Date checktist prepared: January 2008 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Federai Way b. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Summer/fafi 2008 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further acrivity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepazed, or will be prepared, direcdy related to this proposal. There are no known sensitive areas on or around this site. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals direcdy affecting the proQerty covered by your proposai? If yes, explain. None known Bulletin #O50 - December 22, 2005 Page 2 of 18 4 � klHandouu�Environmcntal Checklist - � : ; „ ; 1_.�9 ; .._ _.,_._� _._.__ .>____ �' � s �� �� � Ary .,.e, w��,,� 3 _ .__- _� b�:._�_..._�..,. 10. List any government approvals or pernuts that will be needed for your proposal, if known. From the City af Federai Way, SEPA, PreGminary Plat Approvai From the City of Tacoma; Right-of-Way p�rmit, Work Order approvai. 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. The project is subdividing 3.05 acres (after SLA is ftnalized with part of the property to the north) into 14 single family residential lots, constructing about 500 feet of residential roadway along with a cui-d�sac. Access wiil be off Norpoint Way within the City of Tacoma. A pedestrian pathway will be built from the end of the new road to 25th Ave. SW. Sewer and water will be instaUed to and though the site. There wil! be an o�-site stonnwater quality and quantity facility discharging to the City of Tacoma. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise locarion 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 azea, 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 aze not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any pemut applications related to this checklis� � This project is located just o#f the new Norpoint Way NE buiit in northeast Tacoma a coupte oF yeaes ago, at the curve to the west. It's in Sec. 25, T.21 N.,R3 E. WM. There is no address this parcel, but the address next door is 35210 27th Ave. SW Federat Way, 98023. Parcel number is 252103-9048. This parcel is currently in a BLA iand use process at Federai Way with parcel 252103-9026. B. ENVatolvlatEN'rar. E[,E�vTs 1. EAttTH a. General description of the site (circle one): flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other. The site generally has between 0 and 14% grades over the site, sloping from east to west. b. What is the sieepest siope on the site (approximate percent siope)? Approximetly 14% siope is the steepest on the site. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, ciay, sand, gravel, peai, mulch)? I#' you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any Qrime fazmland. The Pierce County Soils Map indicates the on-site soils are Alderwood gravetly sandy loam. These soils are moderately weli drained soils, classified as class "C" soils. Bulletin #O50 — December 22, 2005 Page 3 of 18 4 8 k:Wandouts�Environmental Chxklist „� ; �_ ; � _ � �' .r� � �� � �._. _�,.�,, u� .:;� � w :- �,_ wa .. _ .. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soits in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. N4 Sl��S Of !1t1St2bl ��i!s in this ar�a. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Lndicate sounce of fill. The preliminary estimated quantity of grading for the storm water pond and roadway is 4600 c.y. of cut and about 50 c.y. of ftli. Most imported materiais wili be for the construction of the roadway. The materials wi8 come from local gravei pits and asphait plants. f. CouId erosion occur as a resuit of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Erosion can occur with clearing and grading of the site. Erosion control wiU be devetoped using the City of Federal and KCSWDM guidelines during the final design phase of the project. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project conswction (for exampie, asphalt or buildings)? Tfie overall site has about 3.05 acres. Of this, about 0.63 acres will be covered with a roadway, and about 1.29 ac. will be covered with buildings and driveways (4,000 sf x 14 iots) for a total o# about 1.91 acres or 63% of the site could be covered with impervious surface. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any. Follow the erosion contro! guidelines from Federai Way and KCSWDM. 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during consiruction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. During construction, some dust and equipment emissions would be produced. After construcbon was finished, only automative emissions would be produced. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or oclor that may affect your proposal? ff so, generally describe. Probably only auto emissions from the surrounding streets Bulletin #O50 — Decembu 22, 2005 Page 4 of 18 4 9 k:�tIandouLS�Envuonmentai Checklist y; , � � � � �.,.� . �„ . �„ � �.,z �� � � `' .� � . tl , , c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any. Th?re is n� pre�osed meas to ra_d�ace ernissions. 3. WATER a. Surface. 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of die site (including year- round and seasonal streams, saltwater, laices, ponds, wetiands)? ff yes, describe type and provide names. ff appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into_ There is no water �ies on o� afound this site. 2) �11 the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. No 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 affeeted. Indicate the source of fill material. None are proposed. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No surface water withd�awais or diversions are proposed. 5) Does the proposai lie within a 100-year floodplain? If sa, note location on the site plan. There is no 100-year floodpiains on or near this site. Bulletin �050 — December 22, 2005 Page 5 of 18 5 p k:�Handouu\Env�ronmental Che�klist . . . � �.�.. ' _ . �� �� _ 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No discharge of waste materials are proposed. b. Ground. 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to groundwater? Give generat description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. The proposed stormwater �acitities are a surface water detention/wetpond faciGty which is not proposed to infiltra#e. 2) Describe wasce material that will be discharged into the ground froin sepric tanks or other sources, if any (for example: domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; ete.). 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. No septic systems are proposed. Sewer uvill go to Lakehaven Utility District treatment plant. c. Water Runoff (including stormwater) 1) Deseribe the source of runoff (including stomlwater) and method of collection and disposal, if any (inciude quantities, if lmown). Where wiil this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. The only runoff is from this site. Stormwate� from this project, �oads and homes will flow to an on-site detention/water qualiry fiaciiity. After detention and treatment, it wiil flow into the City of Tacoma conveyance system starting at the projec� This system goes directly to an outlet at Commencement Bay. it appears this conveyance system was sized fior this developmsnt. 2} Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No Bulletin #O50 — December 22, 2005 Page 6 of 18 51 k:lHandouts�Environmental Checklist ;�:�' �< �° -� � � '� _ - � �' � ' _� � = t : - � � .: __.:.. ..,. �' , _ � �°��� ..__� d. Proposed measures to reduce or controi surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any. The projec# proposes to provide a ievel 1 detention facility and a basic water quality faciiity, (wetpond) to mitigaYe any increase in runoff from the site. 4. Pt�►N'ts a Ch�k or circle types of vegetation found on the site. X deciduous rree: alder, maple, aspen, other X evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other X shrubs X grass _ pasture _ crop or grain _ wet soil plants: cattaii, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other _ water pJ.aret: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other _ olher rypes of vegetation b. What kind and amoant of vegetation will be removed or altered? During fhe constructoin of the roadway and stofmwater faciiities, only a few larger trees will be removed aiong with underbrush, grasses and otfier smali ptant materiais_ c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. There are no know threa#ened or endangered species on or around this site. d. Proposed landscapiug, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any. A landscape buffer is required along Norpoint Way and around the stormwater faci�ies. Street trees are required along the new street and each new home will have some landscaping around it. Bulletin #O50 — December 22, 2U05 Paae 7 of 18 5 2 k:Wandouts�EnvironmenW Checklisc 5. ANIMALS :� � � ��. _ , - ' �_.at � �: �_ a. �ircie a�iy birus and anirnais which irave been ubserved un ur near ti�e siie or are icnown io be on or near the site. birds: hawk, heron, eagle ongbir s ther mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, sheilfish, other b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. There are no known threatened or endangered species an or around this site. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. There is no known migration route on or near this site. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wiidlife, if any. No proposed mitigation proposed. 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating manufacturing, etc. The proposed new homes are expecfed to use electric and natural gas for heating, lights. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No reduced in any solar energy by adjacent properties is expected from this project. This project is generally lower than most surrounding properties. Bultedn �1050 - December 22, 2005 Page 8 of 18 53 k:lHandouGs�Environmental Checklist ;�- ;, , , � _ ;� , - _ .. �� = t - ° --� �' .,� � _ � � _ 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. None proposed. 7. ENVIRONMENT.AL HEALT�[ a. Are there any environmeatal heaith hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. Any project that proposes to develope raw land could create an environmental hazard assaciated with heavy equipment, construction, or the development of residentia! homes. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. No special emergency services are expected to be needed at this site. 2) Proposed measures to reduce orcontrol environmental health hazards, if any. No measures proposed b. Noise. 1) Whax types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment operation, other)? Traffic would be the oniy item, but it shouid not be a major impact. 2) What type,s and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or long-term basis (for example: traf#ic, construction operation, other)? Indicate w�at hours noise would come from the site. There wiil be some shor# term construction type noise, land clearing, grading, utility instaila6on, etc. Long term there should be minor traffic noise. Bulletin #Q50 - December 22, 2005 Page 9 of 18 5 4 k:�i-Iandouts�Ettvironmentai Checklist �>` _� .,. ' '_.� 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any. No mitigation for noise is proposed except to foUow the City of Federai requirements. 8. L.41�m AIVU SEIORELIxE Uss a What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The site is currently vacant and after the BLA wi#h the property to the north, wili stay vacant. There is a power line running though the site but there is only one pole which is on the site. The sunounding prope�ties are ai! devefoped with singie family homes or larger apartment buildings. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No c. Describe any structures on the site. As noted above, there are no home or outbuildings on the sxisting site and after the SLA there wiii still be no structures on the site. d. Wiil any structures be demolished? If so, what? � e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? RS 5.0 and RS 7.2 f. What is the current comprehensive plan desi_gnation of the site? The northerly section is multi-family and the southerty section is single family high density_ Bulletin �50 - December 22, 2005 Page l0 of 18 5 5 klHandouu�Environc►�ntal Chxklist ��; � - � � � , . , , ,; , , - -� :.. w ...,_._ Y ..-_. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? N/A h. Has any part of the site been classified as an environmentatly critical area? If so, specify. No i. Approximately how many peopie would reside or work in the compieted project? An estimated number would be '14 single fiamily lots x 2.5 persons per lo# = 35 people. j. Approximately t�ow many peopie would the completed project displace? None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any. None proposed 1• Proposed measares to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected iand uses and plans, if any. Since most of the surrounding land has #he same use {single family homes� this project would be compatible. 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. There are 14 single famiiy lots proposed. They wili probably be in the middle to upper income housing. Bulluin #O5� — DECember 22, 2005 Page 11 of 18 5 6 k:�Handouu�Errviron�nW Checklist � � + ♦ � �._ .. _ - - �* � b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. No units wiii be eliminated. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any. IVo mi6gation measures are proposed for any housing impacts. 10. AESTxsr[Cs a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not inciuding antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? Most of the s+ngle family homes are expected to be two story, generaily around 25 to 30 feet high. Some could be at the maximum height which is 35 feet. The expected exterior building materiaf may be a hardi plank type product. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? The exisfing residenfial homes to the east are about the same height or a little highe� then this s+te, so there may be some change. Resider►ts to the north, south and west are about the same elevations, but most views should not be impacted. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any. The proposed homes would be built similar or better than the surround+ng homes, reduang any aesthetic impacts. 11. LtGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? There should be very little light or gtare during construction, since construction times are limited to daylight hours. After consiruction only iight from st�eet iights, houses or occasional vehicles would be apparent. Bull�in #050— Decembec 22, 2005 Page 12 of 18 5 � k:�Handouts�Environmental Checklist � � � _. �# _ 1 % � Y� + ° � 1 A =:v3 .__..�. .�,__r ,' .� -'. . �,.,.��' �:�:_.�`:,.�___��.:� b_ Couid iight or glaze from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? The light or glare from the finished project is not expected to be a safety hazard or interfere with any views. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? No off-site ligh# or glare is expected to affect this praject. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any. No mitigafion is proposed to reduce or control light or glare. 12. RECREATiON a. What designated and informal recreationai opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Coronada Park is just north o# the site and a small part if this park is along the north boundary. Madrona Traii, a designated open space is also jus# no�thwest of the site. i"he BPA trail and other parks are in the vicinity of the project. b. Would the proposed displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any. The project proposes, at least in pa�t, to "pay in iieu" of providing open space as mitigation to reduce or control impact to recreation facilitiss_ Balletin �1050 — December 22, 2005 Page 13 of 18 5 g k:�iandoutslEnvironmental Checiclist � :� :- � - � .. -'. ; E �t.f _ 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVA"ITON a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, nation, state, ar local preservation registers la�own to be on or next to the site? If so, generaily describe. There are no known historic or culturai areas loca#ed on or near this site. b. Genera.11y describe any landmazks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or culturat importance lmown to be on or next to the site. There are no landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, or cultural areas on or around this site. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any. There is no proposed mi6gallon to reduce or control impacts. 14: TRANSPORTATION a: Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The project proposes to construct a!ow volume residential street with a cul-de-sac near the end. This street wiil connect inta a newly constructed Norpoint V1/ay NE in the City o# Tacoma. See Plans. b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Pierce County Transit has route # 61 (Northeast Tacoma) which comes up Norpoint Way NE to 29th NE and tums either east or west. This is approximatly 1,000 feet south-of this project. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the pmject eliminate? Using two parking spaces per lot, there would be 14 x 2= 28 parking spaces. Bulletin #O50 — December 22, 2005 Page 14 of 18 59 k:lHandoutslEnvironmental Checklist �� �.;. � ; ; ; � �� � � x._� � �.�._ � �`: , _ " _= �-�=: _._,�._ _.. : d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, a:,t includizg uriveways? If so, generaiiy descrii�e (indicate whether pubIic or private). The proposaf is to build a iocal residentail street with a cul-de-sac near the end. This road will connect to IVorpoint Way NE within the City of Tacoma. Oniy minor changes #o this road is expectecl, remove curb/guttertsidewalk and replace with the new roadway. This new road wili be a public road. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of� water, rail, or air transportation? ff so, generally describe. No f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed pcoject? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. The proposal is #or '!4 single family lots. Using a indusfry standard of 10 trips per single family lot as a base; 10 x 14 = 140 estimated trips per day. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any. Construci a new roadway per Federal Way Road standards. 15. PUSLIC SERVICEs a Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police pmtection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. There will be an increase in public services fiar #his project. This is a standard residential development which generatly uses ai! public services, similar to ail residentiai developments. Bnlletin #O50 — December 22, 2005 Page 15 of 18 ( p k�I-IandoutslEnvinon�ntai Chxkiist Y 3 � _ - � ; . .� _w. . ._. � �.. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Consiruct #he on-site road system and connect to the existing Norpoint Way NE street. 16. U�.rrtEs a. Circle utilities cuaentiy available at the site: � septic system, other b. Describe the utilities that are proposal 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. !t appears the majority of #he site will be within Tacama Power Service Area, even though an overhead PSE power line goes though the site. Gas is expected to be avaitable to #he site. Water and sewer services wi!! be supplied by Lakehaven Utility District. Refiuse servics comes from Waste Management. Telephone service comes from several providers in the area. C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. SIGNATURE: ��� �. � � DATE SUBMITTED: � I� J 1 � Builetin #O50 — December 22, 2005 Page t6 of 18 61 k:�EIandouts�F_nvironmencal Ch�klist . �_ _ a _ . . � fMr;' :, � - E fy �-� � ,. � ! ��.;.r� k„ .._. .�a_i.. i 3 ,_ '� ' ..�..___. 'o_ � ;�s--=_. � �!. S�,�PLE���.°ra:, S��r �ag Nar.t-��o.i��'r ����s Because these questions are very generai, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment When answering these questions, be awaze of the proposal, of the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, and if they are likely to affect the item at a greater intensiry or at a faster rate than if die proposai were not implemented. Respond briefty and in general terms. l. How would the proposai be likely to increase discharge to waxer; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Any disturbance to native land could cause an increased discharge to water, emissions to air, producfion, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances, or produce noise. This development, similar to most residential housing developments, wi1! require the development of roads, u6liUes and new homes, which wiU require the use of power, gas for cars and ather toxic or hazardous produces. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases: The project wili be design, built and managed using curren# city, state and federal s#andards and guidelines. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect glants, animais, fish, or marine life? The project will eventuaily remove most existing plants/vegetation from the site, which will be replaced with normat landscaping around residentiai homes. Any wildiife a�imais currentiy within the project area will be disturbed_ Stormwater from tt►e site wiU be directed to on-site water quantity and quality facilities which wi11 fielp ireat the new surface water from this development which rlischarges into Commencement Bay, This water #reatment wi11 help improve the wafer quality before it is discharged into the marine environment. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life: There are no proposals fo protect o� conserve plants or animals on the site and the proposed onsite sto�rnwater facilities will heip protect fish and marine environment 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy of natural resources? The project will likely use energy from naturai resources for heating ofi the homes, operating vehicles, electrical usage and similar usages normaity used in residentiai communities, all of which are depte6ng natural energy resources. Only a national commitment towards the develapment of renewable energy resources will change this depletion. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and naturai resources: The homes wilt likely have a!I the new high effiaency appliances and built with reguiated insulation reyuiremen#s and high affect furnaces and water heaters, which all help to conserve energy. Bulietin #OSO - Dxember 22, 2005 Page 17 of 18 6 2 klHandoutslEnvironmental Chxklist �< a � z�� ;r _ . t � � � - ��� ,.. �. _ . - g - �- _ --_ -.._ 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally critical areas or areas designated (or zlig�biz or ur�uer study) ior �overnmentai proteciion; such as parics, wiidemess, wiid and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? This project is a smal! parcei surrounded by singte fiamiiy deveiopments and apa�tmsnts. There is no environmentally criticai areas on or near this site. The new residents moving into this new development couid likely use or effect off-site environmental critical areas. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts: There are no proposais with this praject to avoid impacts to off-site environmental cri6cal areas. 5. How would the proposat be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would ailow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans. N/A Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts: N/A 6. How would the proposat be tikely to increase demands on transportation or public service and utilities? The project is a standardl4 lot residentiat subdivision, which will have 14 new residents which will eventually increase demands on transportation, pubiic services a�d utiGties, simiiiar to most residential subdivisions. Proposed measures to reduce of respond to such demands: This project will pay many mitigation costs, impact fees, surcharges, system devefopment fees along with many permit fees and finally the new residents will pay property taxes and other govemment fees for most if not all services. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the pmtection of the environment. This project is expected to be design, buil# and managed based upon current laws and protections with no expected conflicts. Bulletin A050 — December 22, 2005 Page 18 of 18 6 3 k:�EIandouts�Environr►�c►tal Checklist _;'� - � � -�, � �"� � � �� �i;%' ::��-<:;{A:�--��,,. a � � .. � --- - _ _ __ � ' J � - < :-. :t . �i�' � �:3�= , . , � _�,: , _ � ." i r ���� �' � � �.,-������._ �.��_���.x�� __�_:.� DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Staff Evaluation for EnvironmentaI Checklist Norpoint Heights Preliminary Plat SW 352 Street & Z7�' Avenue SW (Parcel #252103-9026) File No: 0&100330-00-SE, Related File No: 0&100329-00-SU NoTE: The purQose of this staf�' evaluation is to provide a technicat staff evaluatiou of the proposed action; suppler�nt infom�ation contained in the environrnental checklist and expanded studies; provide technical information unavailable to the applicant; correct inaccurate information; and reco�nend measuresto the responsible official to mitigate identified environmental impacts. Technical i�eports and attaclunentsE referenced above may not be attached to all copies of this decision. Copiec of exhibits, reparts, attac�iiienls; or other documents may be revieived and/or obtained by contacting David Lee, Associate Planner, 33325 8�' Avenue South, PO Box 9718, Federal Way, WA 98063-9718_ Phone: 253-835-2622_ I. SUNIl�iARY OF PROPOSED ACTiON Proposal to subdivide 3.0 acxes into a 14-lot single-family subdivision including infrashucture and stormwater faciliries. II. GErrERai, Ir�oxmaTTON Project Name: Norpoint Heights Preliminary Plat Applicant: Landmark Homes Inc., PO Box 26116, Federa.l Way, WA Agent: ESM Consulting Engineers, 33915 1�` Way South, #2�0, Federal Way, WA Location: SW 352"� Street & 27`�Avenue SW (Parcel #252103-9026) Zoning: RS 7.2 / RS 5.0 Comp Plan Designation: Single-Family Residential High-Density The follo�ving information was submitted as part of the application. l. SEPA Checklist 2_ Site Plans 3 _ Title Report 4. Master Land Use Application 5. King County Quarter Section Map III REViEW PROCESS The proposed action is subject to State Environmental Policy Act (SEPAj review because it does not meet the exemptions contained in WAC 197-11-800(27). 64 IV. BACKGROUND/PROPOSAL The application was submitted on Jarivary 22, 20f1�,�a�id �eemed corr�lete on February 21, 2008. V. REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The following lists the elements contained within the environmental checklist submitted for the prc�osed facility. The numbers in the staff evaluation correspond to the nim�bers in the environmental checklist_ If staff concurs with #he applicani's response, this is so stated. If the response to a particular item in the checklist is found to be inadequate or clarification is needed, there is additional staff comment and evaluation. A. BACKGROUPTD 1-12. Concur with the checklist. B. ElwatolvMErrcai. Ei.,E�iv�rs 1.. Earth: a-h Concur with the checklist. ��� � ��� - --�-.-......._,_ ��� � � �� ; � ; 2. Air: a-c. Concur with the checklist. 3. Water: a. (1) —(6) Concur with the checklist b. { 1) —{2) Concur with the checkiist. c. (1) —(2) Concur with the checklist. d Concur with the checklist. 4. Plants: a-d. Concur with the checklist_ 5. Animats: a-d Concur with the checklist. 6. Energy and Natural Resources: a-c. Concw with the checklist 7. Environmental Health: a_ (1) —(2) Concur with the checklist_ b. (i) —(3) Concur with the checklist. 8. Land and Shoreline Use: a-d and g-L Concur with the checklist. e. The Com�rehensive Pian designarion of the site is Single Family High-Density. Staff Evaluation for EnvQOnmental Checklist Pa� 2 Norpoint Heights Preliminary Plat File Na 08-i00330-00-SFlo�. �.n s�on 65 f. Concur with the checklist. 9. Housing: a-c_ Concur with the checklist_ 10. Aesthetics: a. Concur with the checklist. ,� ., _... . ,� � '� r ,,: � i � � � � � �t�-:. x� , �._.,,,, a � 1 ,� � °_� . __,_.,_.� b. The height iimit for this zane is 30 feet above average buiiding elevation. All new single-family hor�s would be limited to this height maximum. c. Concur with the checklist. 11. Light and Glare: a-d Concur with the checklist. 12. Recreation: a-c_ Concur with the checklist. 13. Historic and Culturai Preservation: a-c. Concur �vith the checklist. 14. Transportation: a-g. Concur with the checklist. 15. Public Services: a-b. Concur with the checklist. 16. Utilities: a-b. Concur �vith the checklist. VI. CONCLUSION The proposal can be found to not have a probable significa.nt adverse im�act on the environment pursuant to a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS). This DNS is based on impacts identified within the environmental checklist, attachments, and the above Stuff Evaluation for Environmentnl Checklist, and is supported by pla.ns, poIicies, and regulations fonnally adopted by Federal Way for the exercise of subs#anrive authority under SEPA to approve, condition, or deny groposed actions. The City reserves the right to review any future revisior�s or alterations to the proposal to determine the environmental significance or nonsignificance of the proposal at that tnne. Prepared by: David Lee, A.ssociate Planner Staff Evaluation for Environn�ental Checklist Norpoint Heights Prelirrrinary Plat Date: August 12, 2009 Page 3 File Na 08-10i)330-00-SFJn� t n sio» 66 � ' � . t d ,� e F ' , ; � � ,, .,. , . t...a_ ,._ : _ ..__ _._ ____ _ � � t � E r � s�� �. � �4. 4 a -az. � _. ..w.,,., ..,.. _.-. ��_ __.-� . _ ._. . _. NORPOINT NE16HT� SUBDIYISION PreGminary Techoicat lr�rmation Report December 2807 Revised: June 26. 2009 Prepared for Landmark Homes. Inc. PO Box 26116 Federat Way. WA 98039 Submitted by ESM Cor►sulting Engineers, lLC 339151� Way South. Suite 200 Federa! Way. WA 98003 253.838.bi 13 tel 253.838.7104 #ax �? ���,���!°�`?°� �$ ;: ? i =:$ � �� ��'� � � � . � �"�"`'., www.esmcivil.com ��`'�' `.' ;�,���` ���CR�-1L. 4�,�Y 1,'i �i�.�3i!R<(.�' t � ' � ����. 67 �, �°'�',::_ _<4�� ._ ._ _ �: __ � TECHNICAL iNFORMATION REPORT FOR tVorpoin� Heights Subdivision Prepared for: Landmark Homes Inc. PO Box 26116 Federa! Way, WA 98093-3116 Prepared by: ESM Consulting Engineers 33915 i Way South, Suite 200 Federal Way, WA 98003 � June 26, 2009 '�••-•C Ciry of Federal Way Job No.1453-002-007 Date 68 � � r �,.. TABLE O� C4t�lTENTS ` - j ' _ - '� �� ` 1. PROJECT OVERVIEW._..__...__..�...._....._..._..._........_..._.._............_......_.._.._..�............_..._._ ...............�...�......_.._...�. 1-1 Projec# Overview Vicinity Map (Figure i ) Review of 8 Core Requirements and 5 Speciai Requirement of 1998 KCSWDM Summary Overall Summary of Mitigation Basin Map Soils Map 2. PRELiMiNARY CONDITlQNS SUMMARY......._ ................._..__..................._.._._...._......�..._..._....._......_.... 2-1 3 . OFF-SITE ANALYSIS._._�._.._.__....._.._.�.w...__._..___......._.._._..........._......._.__._..___....._..._...._...�._.___Y..._...M.. 3-1 Off-Si#e Analysis Figure li1- A, Basin Map Fgure III - B, Downstream Row Path Figure il! - C, Conveyance System Pipe Summary Shee# 4. WATER QUAMiTY & QUALITY FACiLITY ANALYSiS AND DESIGN_...._..__.._._._....�... 4-1 Water Quantity Design Water Quality Design/Workshee# 5. SPECIAL RE�RTS AND S'ft1DiES...._.__..__....._...._.._.._..__.._..__.._.._........._..__...._...._.�_._..._.____._ 5-i Geotechnicai Report 6. ESC AN�4LYSIS AND DESIGN_�....__...__.._..�.._.__........._._......_........____........_...........w..._......_...�...._..._... 6-1 frosion Control Plan �.- , 69 SECTION i PROJECT OVERVIEW , �� � ". :,�� _ � . ' . r � ,_... �.-- _ ��" -_. The Norpoint Heights Subdivision is located west ofi 25th Avenue SW, south of SW 352" S#reet, east of No�point Way in Tacoma and bordering the King County and Pierce Coun#y line. The north side of the property abuts residential developments and a smali park. The east side of the property abut a residential subdivisions, the south side abuts a singie famiiy home and a apartment complex and wes# sides abuts Norpoint Way NE located within the City of Tacoma, Section 24, Township 21 Morth, Range 3 East. The project contains just over 3 acres. Tfie site does not have any buildings to remove. It is currently covered with heavy underbrush and trees. There is one power pole on the site which is in a 50 foot wide power line easement. The property generally slopes in a westerly direction, with slopes generaily around 14 percent or less on the site. The access to the site wi11 come from Norpoint Way NE in Tacoma, with an interior road probably named SW 353rd St. The proposal is to develop 14 single-family residential lots add an access road with curb, gutter and sidewalks off Norpoint Way, and add a pedestrian access to 25fh Avenue SW The sanitary sewer and water wilf come from Lakehaven Utility District. There is a small sewer pump station near the northwest corner of this site which this site will u#ilize. Access will be from an existing utility easement. Water wiU run though the site, from south to north, connecting to an existing water system along the south property line and running north though the site and extending though an existing park over to 25th Ave. SW . The site is located within Federal Way's "Lower Puget Sound" drainage basin. The entire si#e will flow to a combination detention water quality facility before discharging to the City of Tacoma's conveyance system which discharges straigh# down Norpoint Way to Commencement Bay. The sys#em design wil! be guided by both the City ofi Federal Way and the City of Tacoma stormwater design guidelines. Both jurisdictions generally allow continuous rainfali runoff modeling, which since the site is in King County, wiA be KCRTS along with other requirements set forth in the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDMj and in the 2003 City of Tacoma Surface Water Management Manuai. A water quality facility will be part of the detention pond creating a combined detention wetpool facility using the requirements set forth in the 1998 King County SurFace Water Design Manual (KCSWDM). This site is in the City of Federal Way's Basic Water Quaiity Area. The downstream conveyance system will be analysis using the 2043 City of Tacoma Surface Water Managemen# Manual, which in this case will be the ra#ional method. See Section It! for Overali Summary of Conclusions and Proposed Mitigation 1-1 �o � ��� � � :,;,;.��, £ � ���3 � ��� �� � . :dt:( Y:.>.x ;4 t � �'i> I a,,"`� � i �..._ ;:;;��;w� �.,, _ . r �� �n8 ���` °� ,�^ ��°'; � r' �w�-kx w..N' N � " � �'� SW �. /'� V � $ �i � � ��,� 0 : m ° o � � `°c� ^ E c « G1 ` �o �o � W N ti � a .� w � w 0/ d � N N . a � o a c � m w .- �- z — a C a 'o N � N a � = q L J y � k¢ N N ry N .-. � $ Z � � ^ � V �^� p cf •� p ( � DESCRIPTI�NS OF TtiE SOILS This section descriues the soil seaies and map- ng units in the King County Area. Each soil ries is desczibed and then each mapping unit in ;hat sezies. Unless it is specifically mentioned �therwise, iL is to be assumed that what is stated . �out the soii series hoids tiue for the mapping :its in tfi at sezies_ Thus, to get full infozmation about any one mapping unit, it is necessary to read �oth the description of the mapping unit and the :scription of the soil series to rrhich it beiongs. An important part of the description of each soil series is the soii p�ofile, that is, the sequence of layeas from the surface downwazd to �ck or other underlying mater�iai. Each series �ntains two descriptions of this profile. The first is bz�ief and in terms famiiiar to the layman_ The second, detaiied and in technical teYms, is for _ientists, engineers, and others who need to make zorough and precise studies of soils. Unless it is otheiwise stated, the colozs given in the descriptions are those of a moist sozl_ As mentioned in the section "Ho�a This Survey Was 3de," not all mapping units aie members of a soil series. Urban iand, for example, does not belong to a sail series, but nevertheless, is listed in iphabetic order along with the soi3 series. Following the name of each mapping unit is a symbol in patentheses. This symbol identifies the mapping unit on the detailed soil map. L-isted at he end of each description of a mapping unit is the apability unit and woodland group in which the raapping unit has been placed. Tt;e woodland desig- nation and the page for the description of each apability unit can be found by �eferring to the Guide to htapping i3nits" at the back of this survey. Th� acreage and propoztionate extent of each mapping unit are shown in table 1. Many of the :erms used in describing soils can be found in the ;lossary at the end of this survey, and more de- �ailed informa.tian about the tezminology and methods of soii mapping can be obtained from the Soil Sarvey lanual (19), Alderw�d Series The A1de2wood series is madF up of moderateiy rell drained soils that have a�eakly consolidated co strongiy consoiidated substratum az a depth of 24 to 40 inches_ These soils axe on uplands. �fheY 'ozmed under conifers, in glacial deposits. Slopes ire 0 to 70 percent. The annual pz•ecipitatian is 35 to 60 inches, most of which is rainfall, bet�een Octobez• and May. The mean ar�nual air temperature is ibout SO° F. ThE frost-free season is 150 to 200 �ays. Eiavation aanges from 100 to 80� feet. In a repZ•esentative profile, the suzface layex and subsoil axe very daak b=own, daz•k-brown, and ;rayish-brown gravelly sandy loam about 27 inches th3ck. The substiatum is grayish-brown, weakly consolidated to strongly consolidated glacial till that extends Lo a depxh of 60 inches and more. Alderwood soils are used for timber, pasture, berries , roi�r ci-ops , and urban development . They are the most extensive soils in the survey area. � Aiden�ood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slapes {AgC)•--1'his soil is roiiing_ Areas are irregular in shape and range from 10 to about 600 acres in size. Representative pzofile of Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes, in woodland, 450 feet east and 1,300 feet south of th? north quarter corner of sec. 15, T. 24 N., R, b E.: A1--0 to 2 inches; very daxk bzo�n t10YR 2/2) gravelly sandy loam, daz•k grayish brown (lOYR d/2) dry; weak, fine, granular struc- ture; slightly ha=d, friabie, nonsticky, nonplastic; many =oots; strongly acid; abrupt, wavy boundary. 1 to 3 inches thick. g2--2 to 12 inches, dazk-brown {lOYR 4/3) graveliy sandy loam, broam (lOYR S/"s) dry; moderate, medi�s, subangular biocky structure; slightly hazd, friable, nonsticky, nonplastic; �any roots; strongly acid; clea�, wavy boundary. 9 to 14 inches thick. 83--12 to 27 inches, grayish-brovm (2.SY S/2) grauelly sar�y ioam, light gray (2.SY 7/2) d=y; many, medium, distinct mottles of iight olive broirn (2 _5Y 5/b) ; ha;d, friable, non- sticky, nonplastic; many aoots; medium acid; abrupt, wavy boundary. 12 to 23 inches thick. I;C--27 to 60 inches, grayish-brown (2.SY SI2), weakly to strongly consoiidated till, light g�ay (2-5y 7/Z) drY; common, mediwa, distinct motties of light olive bro�,m and yellowish brown (2•SY 5/b and 10YR 5/b); massive; no roots; mediim+ acid_ Many feet thick. The A hoxizon ranges from vezy dark brown to dark brown. The B horiaan is dark biown, grayish larvj,m, and dark yellowish brown. The consolidated C hozizon, at a depth of 24 to 40 iaches, is mostiy gzayish brown mottled with yellowish brown, Some layeas in the C ho�izon siake in watez. In a few areas, ther� is a thin, gray or grayish-bsoi+n A2 horizon. In most areas, this horizon has been destroyed through lvgging operations. Soiis included wi#h this soil in napping make up no more than 34 percent of the total acreage. Some ar•eas aie up to 3 percent the poorly d�ained Norma, eellingham, Seattle, Tukwila, and Shaicar soils; some are up to S percent the vezy gravelly £verett and Neilton soils; and some are up to i5 percent Aidenaood soils that have siopes t�ore gentle or steeper Lhan 6 to 15 pearent. Some areas in New- castle Niils are 25 percent 8eausite soils, sarae northeas t of Duvall aze as a�uch as 25 percent Ovail soils, and some in the vicinity of Dash Point are lt} percent Indianola and Kitsap soils. Also included are small areas of Alderwood soils that have a graveily loam surface iayer and subsoil_ ' , . . . ��� . �,.,�' � � _._. - - - f � e�° ` ; y '° � � $ ....�`_�J.�,�w....r��.-.�' �� . . _.. .. _ � x . > 'i � - _ ... w-" � _' _ . �2 Pez�eability is moder•ately rapid in the surface layea and subsoil and very 5�01J in the substratvm_ Roots penetrate easily to the c�nsolidated substza- tum where they tend to mat on the surface_ Some zoots enter the substratum thi•ough cracl:s. Water moves on top af the sabstratum in winter. Available water capacity is low. Rusioff is sloia ta medium, and the hazard of erosion is moderate. This soii is used for timber, pasture, berries, and rotiv czops, and for urban development. Capability unit IVe-2; woodland group 3d1. Alderwood gra.velly sandy loa�n, 0 to 6 percent slopes (AgB),--This soil is nearly ievel and uridulating. It is similar to Aiderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to i5 percent siopes, but in places its suxface layei is 2 to 3 inches thicker. Areas axe irregular in shape and range from 10 acres to slightiy more than 600 aci�es in size. Some aaeas are as much as 15 percent included tJorma, Bellingham, Tukwila, and Sha3eaz soiis, all of mhich are poorly drained; and some areas in the vicinity of Enwaclaia are as much as 10 percent Buckley soils, Runoff is slrn�, and the erosion hazard is slight. 'i'his Alderwood soi1. is used foz timber, pasture, berries, and row crops, and for urban development. Capability unit IVe-2; moodland group 3d2. Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, i5 to 30_percent slo es (AgD) .--Depth to the sni�stratum in this soil varies within short distances, but is commonly about 40 inches. Areas axe elongated and zange from 7 to about 250 acres in size. Soils included with this soi3 in mapping make up no moie than 30 pez•cent of the total acreage. Swne areas aae up to 25 percent Everett soils that have slopes of 15 to 30 per•cent, and some areas axe up to 2 percent 8eliingham, Norma, and Seattle soils, which are in depxessions. Some azeas, especially on 5qvak Mountain, in Newcastle Hills, and north of Tiger Mountain, are 25 percent 8eausite and (}vali soils. Beausite soils aze underlain by sandstone, and Ovall soils by andesite. Runof# is medium, and the erasion hazaxd is severe. The slippaga potentia2 is moderate. This Aiderwood saii is used mostly fox timbea. Some azeas on the lower parts of slopes are used foa pasture. Capability unit VIe-2; woodland group 3d1. Aiderwood and Kitsap soils, very steep (AI:F),-- This mapping unit is abaut 50 percent Alderwood graveily sandy loam and 25 percent Kitsap silt loam, Slopes are 2S to 70 peicent. Distzibution of the soi2s varies gYeatly within shart distances. About i5 percent of some mapped areas is an inc2uded, unna�ned, very deep, moderately coar•se textuaed soil; and about 10 pexcent of some a=eas is a very deep, coaxse-textured Indianola soil. Drainage and permeability vary_ Runoff is =apid to vezy rapid, and the ezosion hazazd is severe to very severe. The slippage potential is severe. These soiis az•e used for timbea, Capability unit VIIe-1; woodland group 2d1. 10 Arents, Alder�aood hfateiial Arents, Aldenuood material consists of Aldenvood soils that have been so disturbed through urban- ization Yhat they no ionger can be classified with the Alder�aood series. These soils, however, have many similar features. 7'!ie upper part of the soil, to a deptil of 20 to 40 inches, is brown to dark- biown gravelly sandy loam. Below this is a grayish- brown, consolidated and impervioas substratum. Slopes genezally range from 0 to 15 percent. These soils are used for uaban development. Arents, Alderwood material, 0 to 5 percent si�es (AmB).--In many areas thas soil is level, as a result of shaping during construction foz uiban facilities. Areas are rectangulaz in shape and range from 5 acYes to about 400 acres in size. Repsesentative paofile of Arents, Aldezwood materia3, 0 to 6 percent siopes, in an urban area, 1,3fl0 feet west and 3�0 feet south of the northeast corner of sec. 23, T. 25 N_, R_ S E.: 0 to 26 inches, dark-bxown {1flYR 4/3) gravelly sandy loam, pale bzown (lOYR 5J3) d�y; massive; slightly hard, very fziable, nfln- stic}:y, nonplastic; many roots; medium acid; abrupt, smooth boundary. 23 to 29 inches thi ck . 26 to 6a inches, grayish-brown (2.5Y S/2) weal:ly consolidated ta strongly consolidated glacial till, light bro�vnish gzay (2.5Y b/2) dry; common, madium, prominent mottles of yeliowish brown (lOYR S/6) moist; massive; no zoots; mediwn acid_ 1�1any feet thick. The upper, very friable part of the soii exten�s to a depth of 20 to 40 inches and ranges from dark grayish brown to dark yel3owish brown. Some areas are up to 30 percent incl�ed soils that are similar to this soil materiai, but either shalivwer or deeper over the compact substratum; and some areas are 5 to 30 pe7cent very gravelly Everett sails and sandy Indianola soils. This Arents, Aiderwood soil is �aoderately well drained. Permsability in the upper, disturb�d soil material is modezately rapid to moderately slow, depending on its compaction during constructian. The substratum is very siow2y pe�eabie. Roots penetrate to and tend to mat on the surface of the consolidated substiatum_ Some roots enter'the substratum through cracks. iYafier moves on top of the subst�atinn in winter_ Available water capacity is lola. Runoff is slow, and the erosion hazard is slight. This soil is used for arban development. Ca- pability unit IYe-2; woodland group 3d2. Arents, Alderwood material, 6 Lo 15 percent slvpes (AmC).--This soil has convex slopes. Areas are rectangular in shape and r�ange fiom lU acaes to about 450 acres in siae. 73 � _" �. �� * �ti �� � _..'_ � � �. . � ...� � REVIEW O� STORMWRTER REQUIREMENTS FRONf C1TY OF FEDERAL WAY AND THE CITY OF TACOMR Since this project is within the City of Federal Way but discharges stormwater to the City of Tacoma's system, this review will focus on both Cities' stormwater manuals. The City of Federal Way follows the 1998 KCSWDM, which has eight core requirements and five special requirements. The City of Tacoma's 2003 Surface Water Management Manual has ten minimum requirements and two additional requirements. KCSWDM - Core Reauirement No. 1- Discharae at the Natural Location TSWMM - Minimum Requirement No. 4- Preservation of Natural Drainaqe Svstems and Outfalls City of Federal Way: The entire site drains west #o the City of Tacoma under existing and proposed conditions. It will drain to an existing conveyance system which flows straight south in Norpoint Way all the way to Commencement Bay. City ofi Tacoma: The entire site generally drains w+est eventually discharging to a catch basin at the sta�t of the City of Tacoma's stormwater conveyance system in Norpoint Way. Fiows stay in the City of Tacoma and continue in a conveyance system to Commencement Bay. KCSWDM - Core ReQuirement No. 2- Offsite Analvsis TSWMM - Additional ReQuirement No. 1- Off-Site Analysis and MitiAation City of Federal Way: "AI! proposed projects must submit an offsite anafysis report that assesses potential offsite d�ainage impact associated with development of #he project site and proposes appropriate mitigation of those impacts." (See Sec#ion 111 of this report) City of Tacoma: Since the site flows to Tacoma, this submittal includes a downstream analysis as described in Volume t11 Chapter 4 of the City of Tacoma's Surface Water management Manual. (See Section Ili of this repo�t, Offsite Analysis, for this in#ormation). KCSWDM - Core Reauirement Wo. 3- Flow Controi TSWMM -Additional ReQUirement No. 7- Flow Control City of Federal Way: The flow control facility will be located within the City of Federal Way. Based on the City of Federal Way s#andards, the proposed onsite improvements (buildings, driveways and the private access road) will introduce more than 90,000 square feet of new impervious area; therefore, onsite storm water flow control is required. The project would propose 1-5 74 � �� �' � „ to design a detention pond to a Level 1 Flow Control standard as set forth in the 1998 KCSWDM. City of Tacoma: Afthough the flow control facility will be located in the City of Federal Way, it will discharge to the City of Tacoma's conveyance system; therefore the flow control needs to be designed with this in mind. Per the TSWMM, Figure 3-4, the proposed onsite improvements (buitdings, driveways and the private access road) wiii introduce more than 10,000 square feet of effective impervious area; but not to Leach Creek or F1ett Creek Watershed, nor does it discharge to fresh water. lt does not discharge #o an open system so a qualitative downstream analysis in required. (See downstream analysis) This analysis indica#es that the existing conveyance system will contain the design flows, so flow control, per #he City of Tacoma may not be required. However, since it is in Federal Way, it is required. The project proposes to design a detention pond using a "continues rainfallrunoff modeling", which, since the si#e is in King County, w+ll be KCRTS. It will discharge at a Level 'i per the KCSWDM, which means it matches the existing si#e conditions 2 and 10 year peaks. KCSWDM - Core Requirement No. 4- Convevance Svstem TSWMM - Additional Requirement No. 1- Off-Site Analvsis City of Federal Way: "All engineered conveyance system element� for proposed projects must be analyzed, designed and constructed to provide a minimum level of protection against overtopping, flooding, erosion, and structural failure as specified". The City of Federai Way's conveyance requirements for a new system are per Section '1.2.4.1. The conveyance sys#em must be designed with sufficient capacity to convey and con#ain (a# a minimum) the 25-year storm peak flow, assuming developed conditions for onsi#e tributary areas and existing conditions for any offsite tributary areas. The means to check the capacity o# the proposed conveyance system for the Norpoint Heights Subdivision was Tab1e 3.2, page 3-10 of the 1998 KCSWDM. Insofar as the project Natural Discharge Area is less than 10 acres and the majority ofi the tributary area is detained, the King County Runoff Time Series (KCRTS) with 15-minute #ime steps runoff computation method wili be used for the capacity analysis of the site. The new conveyance system analysis and design will be done during the final stage of this project. City of Tacoma: The City of Tacoma's conveyance requi�ements for a new system are per Volume 111, Chapter 4. All pubfic and private pipe systems less than 24 inches in diameter shali be designed to convey the 10-year 24-hour peak flow rate without surcharge. All conveyance systems shall be designed for the fuli-deveioped conditions. The fuNy developed conditions for the project site shall be derived #rom the percentage of proposed and existing impervious area. For off-site #ributary areas, typical percentage of a . ,; ; _ � _ _ ... i-6 - � >� �.: 75 _ . _ _.,��:..w.• �. ';� impervious area for fuliy developed conditions is provided in Tabie 4.1. Conveyance systems shall be modeled as if no detention is provided upstream. KCSWDM - Core Requirement No 5- Temporarv Erosion and Sedimentation Control TSWMM Minimum Requirement No 2- Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Wil! apply during the final design review. KCSWDM - Core Requirement No 6- Maintenance and Operations TSWMM - Minimum Requirement No. 10 - Operation and Maintenance Will apply during the finai design review. KCSWDM - Core Requirement No 7- Financial Guarantees and Liabilitv TSWMM - Additional Reuuirement No. 2- Financial Liabilitv Wiil apply during the final design review_ KCSWDM - Core ReQUirement No. 8- Water Qualitv TSWMM - Minimum Requirement No. 6- Runoff Treatmen# Since this project is in the City of Federal Way, but discharges to the City of Tacoma, it needs to be developed for both jurisdictions. lt appears both will accept a combined detentionlwetpond #acility. City of Federal Way: All proposed projects must provide water quality {WQ) facitities to treat the runoff from new and/or replace pollution-generating impervious surfaces and pollution-generating pervious surfaces. The si#e is located within a Basic Water Quality Treatment Area as identified on the City of Federal Way Water Quali#y Applications Map. � City of Tacoma: The following projec#s require construction of stormwater treatment facilities (See Table 3.1 TSWMM) Projects in which the total of the effective poltution-generating impervious surface (PGIS) is 5,000 square feet or more in a threshold discharge area of the project, or Projects in which the total of pollution-generating pervious surface (PGPS) is three- quarters (314) of an acre or more in a th�eshold discharge area, and from which there is a surface discharge in a naturai or man-made conveyance system firom the site. � ' ��� �° : . � r _ � ,z , 3 4 .;, � .. _ 1-7 � � � f j "; � � 7 6 ±,. 3 _. �, , ,. _ _ The Norpoint Heights Subdivision proposal wiil utiiize the proposed combined deten#ion/wetpoo! facility as mitigation for water quality. KCSWDM Special Requirement No 1- Other Adopted Area-Specific Requirements No other specific requirements are known for this site. KCSWDM -Special Requirement No 2- FloodalainlFloodwa� Delineation The 100-year Flood Piain does not enter this si#e. KCSWDM -Special Requirement No. 3� Flood Protection Facilities This requirement does not apply since the project is outside any defined floodpiains. KCSWDM —Special Rectuirement No. 4- Source Controls "Water quality source controls prevent rainfall and runoff from coming into contact with pollutants, thereby reducing the iikelihood that pollutants will enter public waterways and violate water quality standards." A combined detention and wetpoof facility is proposed for water quality treatment of runoff from the paved surface subject to vehicuiar traffic, prior to discharge into the downstream public drainage system. KCSWDM -Special Repuirement No. 5- Oil Control After reviewing Section '1.3.5 of the KCSWDM, this site witl not be classified as a high use site, and oil control will not be required. TSWMM - Minimum Requirement No. 1- New Development A!I new development shail be required #o comply with Minimum Requirement # 2. In addition, new deveiopment that exceeds certain thresholds shall be required to comply with additional minimum requirements as follows: The following new development shall comply with Minimum Requirements # 1 through #5: Crea#es or adds 2,000 square feet, or greater, of new, replaced, or new plus - reptacet� impeniious suifiace area, or - _ _ _ ______ _ ----_ Has iand disturbing activity of 7,000 square feet or greater. In addition to compiying with the Minimum fioilowing new deveiopmen# shali compiy wit� 10. 1-8 7! Requirements #1 through #5, #he iv9inimum Requiremen#s # 6 through ' � � � . . 4 -... . � _. . . .. _. � : , � , w 4 �t - ..J� ..,' "'_ _ Creates or adds 5,000 square feet, or more, of new impervious surface area, :•Ir or Converts % acres, or more, of native vegetation to tawn or landscaped area, Converts 2.5 acres, or more, of native vegetation to pasture. The � Norpoint Heights Residential Subdivision proposal wili utilize a combined detention and we#pool facility as mitigation fior stormwater impacts. TSWMM -Minimum Requirement No 2- Const Stormwater Poliution Prevention SWPP � All new developments and redevelopments shall compiy with Construction SWPP Elements # 1 through 12, These requirements will apply during the final design review. T51I4�MlUi -�tiinimum Reoc�iremeni No, 3- Source Controi of i�otlution All known avaiiabie ard reasar�able source contro! BMP's shall ba applied to aA projects. Source ccr,trol BMP's shall be selected, designed, and maintained accordi�g to this manuai. These requirements will apply during the final design review. TSWMM - Minimum Rectuirement No 5- On-Site Stormwater Manaaeme�t The infiltration and disposal systems described in this Minimum Requirement shall oniy be used with the pre-approvai of the City. The soils under the Norpoint Heights Project are Alderwood soils which are generally not too good #or infiltration systems. No infiltration systems are proposed. TSWMM - Minimum Requirement No. 8- Wetland Protection The Norpoint Heights site does not contain any recorded wetlands. TSWMM - Minimum ReQUirement No. 9- Basin Planning; No geographic specific requirements are known to exist downstream of this project. �.; � r � �, � ; = � ;�-_ r_ _ ��. . . 1-9 �s SUMMARY Since this site is within the City of Federal Way but access and stormwater discharges to the City of Tacoma, any design would have to accommodate the requirements of both jurisdictions. The standards established for the finro jurisdictions are similar enough to provide an acceptable design for both Cities. The stormwater runoff from the project site will be collected from the access road, roof, grass and landscaped areas, and conveyed through a pipe system to a combined detention wetpond facility and then discharge to the City of Tacoma conveyance system. OVERALL SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS & PR�POSED MITIGATION The summary of Section III "Off-Site Analysis", within this TIR indica#es this system is adequate #or the discharge from the proposed combined detention lwet pond facility design using the leve! 1 design parameters. No other mitigation is proposed. Soils Information The King County Soils Survey by the US Soils Conservation Service (1973) generalizes the soils in the vicinity of this project as Alderwood Series; AgC. These soils are made up ofi mostly poorly draini�g soils that have a weakly consolidated to strongly consolidated substratum at a depth of 24 to 40 inches. �-10 ; � s , rtti �� �,�sF __ � � .,_ 79 - .. , . ,...,�, �'^° � � -.-- � �� _ .._._ SEGTION !I PRELIMlNARY COlVDITIONS SUNiMARY There are no preliminary conditions yet. 2-1 so � w $ � - - � ` ; - ,. .. � � : _ , ..,.�= _ - .� �= SECTION II1 OFFSITE ANALYSIS This off-site review wiH follow both the City of Federal Way and City of Tacoma guidelines. Citv of Federal Wav: (This portion follows the KCSWDM) The following is a Preliminary Level I Downstream Anaiysis, which looks at the drainage system 1/4 mile downstream of the site along with the five tasks outiined under the Leve! 1 Downstream Analysis. (See Overali Drainage Map in Appendix). The five Tasks are: Task 1- Study Area Definition and Maps Task 2 - Resource Review Task 3 - Field inspection Task 4- Drainage System Description and Problem Screening Task 5 — Mitiga#ion Task 9- Study Area Definitions and Maps See Figure 111 - A within this report is an overall map showing the project site and #he downstream drainage path going south. Task 2 - Resource Review Since the site discharges to the City o# Tacoma a review of their downstream system was conducted. From this review, flowrs go immediately into a conveyance system which goes direc#ly to main storm line which goes directly to Commencement Bay. There is no area which will have adverse affects or problems downstream of the project site. Task 3 - Field lnspection A site inspection was conducted on 11-30-07 of the downstream system and the study area. The inspection revealed that this area is generally a mixture o# older homes with some newer homes and developments scattered #hrough-out the study area. Starting at the Pierce County/King County fine, any flows would generally start in the new conveyance sys#em built with the new Norpoint Way roadway improvements just a coupie of years ago in the City of Tacoma. Flows will s#ay within this closed conveyance system for the entire 'I /4 mile downstream review, and on to Commencement Bay. Task 4- Drainage System Description ar+d Problem Screening At the end of this proposal in Norpoin# Way there is a new storm system built with this new road. The system staris with a coupie o# catch basins on either sid� of the new �� 3 , �� . '� �� 3 si � : � �; �::� _ , .. . .. ._ s.._ �. } - road. From these catch basins there are 8" storm lines going northeriy to a Type 2 manhole. From this manhole there is a new 10" main storm line running in a northwest direction to a second type 2 manhole. A 12 line continues in a westerly direct to a cast- in-place manhole over an exis#ing 36" storm line. This line runs in a north-south direction. Flows go south in this 36" main line to 29th Street NE were it tums east over to Norpoint Way were i# turns again and continues south in Norpoint Way . Task 5 — Mitigation Since there are no known drainage issues with the downstream system, the proposed mitigation would be to follow Federal Way's "�evei 1" detention and their "Basic" water quality requirements in #he 1 998 KCS WDM. Citv of Tacoma: (This portion follows the TSW MM) The following is a Qualitative Anaiysis under Additional Requirement #1 - Off-Site ,� Analysis and Mitigation" as defined in the TS WMM, page 3-33. This Quantitative Anaiysis has five tasks that are: Task 1- Define and map the study area, Task 2- Review all available infiormation on the study area, Task 3- Field inspect the study area, Task 4- Describe the drainage system, and its exis#ing and predicted problems through observations and hydrauiic modeling of the City specified �es9gn storm event described in Chapter 4 �/olume !i!. Task �-Define and Map the Study Area See Figure 111 - B within this report represents an overaH map showing the project site and the downstream drainage path going generaliy south. This map generally shows #he drainage basins that flow into this system. The study area is generally residential with a few roads. Task 2- Review a11 available information on the study area. A review of the available infiormation was conducted wi#hin the City of Tacoma Surface Water Management Manual along with the City of Tacoma's Public Works web site. Per the TSWMM, this area is within the "Northeast Tacoma" wa#ershed area, which on page 2- 13 describes this area as generally residential with open spaces and undeveloped land. Most of this watershed discharges directly to Commencement Bay. The sub-basin this project flows to discharges directly to Commencemen# Bay. Flow control requirements, as defined in this section, call for projects which do not discharge to a creek or caulch, which would include this p�o'tect, but are instead piped all 3-2 s 2 - � �� � � � .� . ._ _ the way to a marine out#a1f, require an offsite analysis for capacity. (This is done under Task 4) This section also indicates that none of the stormwater discha�ges in this area are to fish bearir�g streams. This would indicate that enhanced treatment for water quality is not required. Task 3-Field lnspecf the study area A site inspection was conducted on .1'I-30-07 of.the downstream system and the study area. The inspection revealed that this area is generaliy a mixture of older homes with some newer homes and developments scattered throughout the study area. Starting at the Pierce CountylKing County 1ine, any flows would generally start in the new conveyance system built with the new Norpoint Way roadway improvements just a couple of years ago in the City of Tacoma Flows will stay within this closed conveyance system for the entire ?4 mile downstream review, and on #o Commencement Bay: The enclosed conveyance system generatly starts at the new access road for this Norpoint Heights Subdivision. Flows continue in a northwest direction until it enters the main 36" line running nor�h/south in 59 Ave. NE . NE. Flows continue flowing south in 59�' Ave . NE until it reaches 29& S#. E. where it turns east and then south again in Norpoint Way NE. Flows stay in Norpoint Way NE almos# all the way to Commencement Bay. The conveyance sys#em veers off this road near the bottom of the hill and discharges in a sma11 cove nex# to Commencement Bay. There did not appear to be any excessive erosive areas along the conveyance system's path. Task 4- Describe the drainage system, and its existing and predicted problems through observations and hydraulic modeling of the City specijied design storm event described in Chapter 4 Volume lll The following section reviews the existing conveyance system with developed basins using S#ormshed a hydraulic modeling programs. lt appears tfie downs#ream conveyance system is sized eorrectly for the deveioped drainage basin in a 10 year storm event, see priniou#. Per City of Tacoma requirements, oniy the conveyance system between a project and a 24" or iarger main line needs to be reviewed, which is what is enclosed. 3-3 `� ? 8 3 � �� � _��;: , , __ . t , ._ ��C f - __.__ 7 " i �f _� _. .\ t ,�� � , ; ( ; � � _ .�. i�i�`' . �'r,_ 0 ,� � � � if! ,�., __�. ,� � ,; , � � i \����- �= _ i C� I�O. �-,: ;: � _. � [� ` , �, � ` -- �\�`. Convuyance Basin = 2�9,332 sf or 5.26 acres + 4� �� ��- . � . � ' , \ . y f t � i � 1 1 1 � i � :� f .._... _ .t . , t t..� < , � . ,� . ; � � , ao r : 1 � � i �', ,�, � , � 1:� • G- r . .. ....._.,.. , ; .,,.._. _.,....:.F �' f .: � . �i�' `,1 Y e j i�l i 8 '' t t i: E o .r'iaa� ; _ � I � ' �'; � ' � _ �' � � ZONING=RS 7.2 ' y '��� ' � ' �� u .�,tr°•: l , 3Z 1NG=RS :U' ° � � i -� : f .. .' � s,a,�, � ; � � � �52 ' +aC1UTrt5 74 i L 1 Yio 9.� � ' : i t31 i / . � � � p � p � ! : 1 e • 1 I _.. � -- , -_ .. , . .. • #, `� . \ 14 new homes x 4,OU0 sf each = � 56,OU0 sf or 1.29 acres 1 existing hor�e x 2,876 sf or U-Ob6 acres Roadway/sidewatks 29,2b8 sf. or 0.67 acres 7otat i�ervlous surface is 88,244 sf or 2•02 acres To grass ar ea = 141,188 sf or 3•24 ncres j ,, = i '' � N Ct WKIERiII E � j �i � � i '° . ! 'I , G, +- - Y-; � � ' � w: i . �'� ',,t'� � � 1 `• � '� O,j i � 1�"�✓',1 ,' �� ' ��t �� ��� i t ' j ��,-� i -�' t , T��-- �—�.�"'�'^� �'"./�?�' s �� *� ...,� ' � tawd �'"�' � 'c ��3Pa�v'�'; —�� j ' . ! : b ` — -' ,�.. s � - ? m. r ]6 ,'°' ' � _ �c : I � � i �. �: ., � - •: .._. . � : � ; i . °"'_. 'a:' z� s � � ,m, � ' - � t " ` 1 ' ' � ij : Oeft g W�f 9� !� �`.� t �� '. � :1 � ' S � N ��f ' � : )t77 F i :i � � : �' i�• ' � ,. � i � ExtsnNC w�1Er+ � 7 y � _ � � , . � e „ r �O � � ; DRAiNAGE BASiN FOR THE , = PUBLIC COT�tVEYAt�10E SYSTEM � TO 3fi' L.lNE IN 58TH AVE. NE �. % CONSUL7fNG ENGiNEe�iS i.L� ° °D 339i5 tat Way Soufh #200 � � I '� � � I � : Federai Way. WA 98003 i j i[p(81y, VAY t233i 878-61f3 9p7Np,� <125) AS-6N� W 9 www•esr►clvil�cor� 0 .L�M�� �s�� 962-2608 r r CivN £npinoe►in8 Land Surveying Lond Plarmin8 ; P�UC Vorkr � Pro�ect Hww9anent 1 londscope Arch�tact� i _ \'- 84 d �� _._.. _,�:__ .. . 9 : 7po ar : � ,°°�_ � , a i �R t /�: ..,.... .: � � � 7mi 9 . �� � � ���, ,� � I rw i � � " �•c� �_ �'�1� � 1 t� t � �`�.c�` � � Q � �� } � 1 9 t'� . + � C) � � �'�9�.�� i i p i � `�� `, � ' 1 � i ' � �`— �, f � � � • ` I j � � � �' --• i ; � � . � ,� 1 � i � � .'.\ � i � � % � _� �. { ���;�. ,- �� � _ ._ p ._ ; � �, �� � � �,� � �� ` � ,---.• -_. _ . ,� . ,.. . ..: ........ JOB N�- i453-002 DRAWING NAME = DRA�NAGE 8ASINS DATE � 1-8-OS DRAWN 1 SLS SHEE T 1 [l� 1 - FlGIJRE 1�-A �, � �,. �.,a. �. �� ,� -,�-�`� ' � marormc =a�oxdwa _-� � tarvas Ik+Wed -? Q tbdes um� . : a�ooz � N-0D3 : �uorora� ih eA�� �86 95d � � ` ,: Z.6�e NSSt�fr J , «� ;�a, i g�:$�ilJ . a�`��{�e���.�.�^t��.l�: _ � -� I' �stan Cleued:1�:48:33 Tnesdac, December 0�, 2Q07 Record Id: $ ' -- -- Desi�alitlbad � Rsioa�l �. ID�TaWc: � ta Compesite C Cak Q ��� ;Snb c ng,lewns (�0�7 .13 ac �35 aad[ods{�0.9i1) � !2 �c t�� Ditettir ConaMe� TC Cale i�ye IIesuiptioe _ _ L:nath � �( CoeR �11"ess cooU �3th ' m:m-a�ade � mdpipe ---� ^ �590.OD R �.00Si :O.iWO� -- ROD1EIl1'D � TfIIt1i jiiatided{ L'SL�G Fedcra114ar ,Lt'D j18 rrj \OTZERO REI aTI1�£ R�170ti.11 2teac6ID ea (ac) TC (mie) �Aou (ds} j FuU Q (efs);,Fell ntio `aDept6 (!t) � Sixe �o�'d (lUs)�tVai (fUs) 1 P-001 �S.'_700 !�?35 i 3-6930 3�1733 j 0.85 ; bSli-1 5.8181 + p 53700 j �?7l t 3.6313 � a.3173 � Ob7_ i OS6�i0 II':'Diam�S_76�12 S.a969 �Fwm lode To A�"ode cb ioss ft) :app (ft) � ead (ft)!Jmct Loss {ti :H�F Loss E�e� (l�,laa FJ (G)� � � c �^� � � . : 385.5798 ; �� N-00? j I+T-003 3863557 ;03:85 � 0.46'�'!3 � --•--- 386.0 i 39U.S°_QO ; .`: �' �I N-00] { N-Od2 359.81-04 ; ---•-• ! ---- � ------ : 389.814a 3 395_a900 ; Lieared ro: ES3i Cauuim� Eupmeas iLC �laws in a Rational lfl year event from 5.27 acres, is 2.7 CFS. � or� � �-�"t��ce � � ; �� �"r�-c��� � ss uio / Hed B-401 7T �n # r .. . �= : � �� _ � �':.�. � ra G I! l r'_ ��_� � � .- Conveyance from the Project Site to the Existing 36" Storm Line in 59`" Ave. NE �.tiia}5�'S �7ri-t+�.'a��'n,� . , ,� ,� ! �_ r^� r+'� Or'1 SECTION IV WATER QUANTITY AND QUALlTY ANALYSIS AND DESIGR As indicted in previous sections, this project proposes to provide flow control as required by both the City of Federal Way and the City of Tacoma. WATER QUANTITY Area-Specific Flow Control Standards Under the City of Federal Way, this project would be subject to Core Requirement #3 (Flow Contro!) which, a# a minimum, would need to comply with one of the three area- specific flow control standards: Leve! 1, Level 2, or Levei 3, whichever applies per the #hreshold informa#ion de#ailed in Section 1.2.3.1 of the 1998 KCSWDM. King Coun#y Department of Natura! Resources has determined by the King County Ftow Control Applications Map that a Level 1 Fiow Cont� appiica#ion would be appropriate for this area. The City of Federal Way's F1ow Controi Map also shows this area as a Level 1_ KCRTS will be used for flow control modeiing of the development. Under the City of Tacoma, per the Figure 3-4 of the TSWMM, the proposed onsite improvements (buildings, driveways and the private access road) will introduce more than 10,000 square feet of effective impervious area. However, i# does not discharge to Leach Creek or F1ett Creek Watersheds, nor does i# discharge to fresh water, so only a qualitative downstream analysis in required. The analysis in the previous section shows the existing conveyance system wili con#ain the proposed flows, so the only control required #rom Tacoma is a level 1. The proposal is to design a detention pond using a"continues rainfalUrunoff modeiing", which, since #he site is in King County, will be KCRTS. It will discharge, per Table 1.2.3.A of the KCSWDM, "match the existing 2-year to '! 0-year peak flow, which is generaliy a Level 1. Existing Site Hydrology Existing conditions on #he Norpoint Heights Subdivision site consists of underbrush, trees, one power pole, no buildings and gravel driveway al! in a fo�est condition. There is only basin, Basin A(See Figure IV-A). Using KCRTS the site will be modeled as ti11 forest inciuding a portion of Norpoint Way NE righ#-of-way, as detailed in the area delineation table below: BASIN BASIN 1� Tt3TAL AREA (Ac) 3.13 TABLE IV.1 ed Pond Tribut IMPERV: (Ac) 0.00 J 0.00 � 3.13 4-1 s� � �: _ _ �,. Area T1LL T1LL GRASS FOREST ��,,� .� �_, Runoff files for the existing conditions were performed using KCRTS software in the SeaTac Region with: 1.0 Scale Factor, 1-hour Time Step, and Reduced Rainfail Data. The results of the analysis are shown as follows: Flow Frequency Analysis (Existing Conditions) Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:predev.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 0.197 2 2/09/Ol 18:00 0.054 7 1/06/02 3:00 0.147 4 2/28/03 3:00 0.005 8 3/24/04 20:Ofl 0_087 6 1/05/OS 8:00 0.151 3 1/18/06 21:00 0_128 5 11/24/06 4:00 0.252 i 1/09/OS 9:00 Computed Peaks Developed Condi#ions -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period 0.252 1 100.00 0.990 0.197 2 25.00 0.960 0.151 3 10.00 0.900 0.147 4 5.00 0.800 0.128 5 3.00 0.66'7 0.087 6 2.00 O.SOC 0.054 7 1.30 0.231 0.005 8 1.10 0.091 0.234 50.00 0.98fl The developed conditions wili consis# of the Norpoir�t Heights Subdivision, new roadway, pond, and landscape areas in Basin A. (See Figure IV) The sizing wiil use a 4,000 s.f. roof area fior each of the homes along with about 5,300 sf of impervious p�ivate d�iveway. Developed land use types are delineated in the table below: .BASiN BASIN A TABLE N.2 Developed Pond Tributa Area TOTAI. IMPERV. 11LL AREA (Ac) GRASS (Ac) (Ac) 3.13 2.03 1.05 TILL BYPASS )REST IMPERV. {Ac) {Ac) 0.00 0.05 Runoff files for the proposed conditions were performed using KCRTS software in the SeaTac Region with: Scale Factor = 1, '! -hour Time Step, and Reduced Rainfall Data. The results of the analysis are shown as follows: 4� �... . �' - . . ._ _ . :a � , _ . � � � ;� � Flow Frequency Analysis (Developed Conditions and Bypass Flow Rate) Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:dev.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS1 4.586 6 0.481 8 0.704 3 0.525 7 0.632 4 0.623 5 0.764 2 i.18 1 Computed Peaks 2/09/O1 2:00 1/OS/02 16:00 2/27/03 7:00 8/26/04 2:00 10/28J04 16:00 1j18/06 16:00 10/26/06 0:00 i/o9/os s:oo Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:bypass.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 0.012 7 2/09/O1 2:00 0.011 8 1/05/02 16:00 0.�15 3 12/08/02 16:OA 0.012 6 8/26/04 2:00 0.015 4 10/28/04 16:00 0.013 5 1J18/L'b 1E:00 0.018 2 10/26/Ob 0:00 0.023 1 1/09/08 6:00 Computed Peaks -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period 1.18 1 100.00 0.990 0.764 2 25.00 0.960 0.704 3 10.00 0_900 0.632 4 5.00 0.800 0.623 5 3.00 0.667 0.586 6 2.00 0.500 0.525 7 1.30 0.231 0.481 8 1.10 0.091 1.04 50.Oa 0_980 --- Frequency Analysis------- - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period 0.023 1 100.00 0.990 0.018 2 25.00 0.960 0.015 3 10.00 0.90a 0.015 4 5.00 0.80a 0.013 5 3.00 0.66"7 0.012 6 2_00 0.500 0.012 7 1.30 0.231 0.011 8 1.10 0.091 0.022 50.00 0.98C The allowable release rates from the pond for Basin A per the Level 1 Flow Control are shown beiow: BASIN A STORM EVENTS 2 Year 10 Year Pond EXISTING �ow �►� tcFS� 0.09 O.i 5 TABLE iV.3 ibutarv Flow Rates �.ow �► icFS) 0.59 0.70 BYPASS �ow RA� 0.01 0.02 ALL0INED RELEASE RATE � �• � The data shown below demonstrate the required sizing for the detention pond per the Levei 1 Fiow Control analysis. Basin A Pond Bottom Length: 88.5 ft Pond Bottom Width: 29.5 ft Side Slope: 3 H: 1V Orifice #9: Ht = 0.0', Dia. = 1.32" �� � ._ _� � _ � =�;_ - ;. �=' ._ _ Ori�c� #2: Ht = 4.0', Dia. = 1.26" Effective Storage Depth: 5.00 ft Storage Volume: 23,427 ft Type of Facility Side Slope: Pond Bottom Length: Pond Bottom Width: Pond Bottom Area: Top Area at 1 ft. FB: Effective Storage Depth: Stage 0 Elevation: Storage Volume: Riser Head: Riser Diameter: Number of orifices: Detention Pond 3.00 H:1V 88.56 ft 29.52 ft 2614. sq. ft 8161. sq. ft 0.367 acres 5.00 ft 901.00 ft 23427. cu. ft 0.538 ac-ft 5.00 ft 12.00 inches 2 Orifice # Height Diameter (ft} (in? 1 0.00 1.32 2 4.00 1.26 Top Notch Weir: None Outflow Rating Curve: None Stage (ft) 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.07 0.08 0.10 0.11 0.21 0.31 0.41 0.51 0.61 0.71 0.81 0.91 1.01 1.11 1.21 1.31 1.41 1.51 1.61 1.71 1.81 1.91 2.Oi 2.11 2.21 i.31 2.41 2.51 Elevation {ft) 901.00 901.Oi 901.03 901.04 901.05 901.07 901.08 9fl1.10 901.11 901.21 901.31 901.41 901.51 901.61 901.71 901.81 901.91 902.01 902.11 902.21 902.31 902.41 9fl2.51 902.61 902.71 902.81 902_91 903.01 903.Z1 903.21 903.31 903.41 9U3.51 Full Head Discharge (CF5) 0.105 0.043 Storage (cu_ ft) {ac-ft) 0. 0.000 26. 0.001 79. 0_002 105_ 0.002 132. 0.003 185. 0.004 211. 0.005 265. 0.006 292. 0.007 565. 0.013 545. 0.019 1132. 0.026 1427. 0.033 1729. 0.040 2039. 0.047 2356. 0.054 2681. 0.062 3014. 0.069 3355. 0.077 3703. 0.085 4060. 0.093 4424. 0.102 4797. O.i10 5177. 0.119 5566_ 0.128 5963. 0.137 6369. 0.146 6783. 0.156 7206. 0.165 7637. 0.175 8477. 0.185 8526. 0_196 8983. 0.206 Pipe Diameter (in) 4.0 Discharge (cfs) 0_0�0 0.005 0.008 0.010 0.011 0.012 0_013 0.015 0.016 0.022 0.026 0.030 0.034 0.037 0.040 0.042 0.045 0.047 0.049 0.052 0.054 0.056 0.058 0.060 0.061 0.063 0.065 0.067 0.068 0.070 3.07i 0.073 0.074 PerCOlation (cfs) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0_00 0.0� 0.00 0.00 Surf Area (sq. ft) 2614. 2621. 2636. 2543. 2650. 2664. 2671. 2685. 2693. 2765. 2837. 2913. 2985. 3050. 3135. 3212. 3289. 3367. 3445. 3524. 3604. 3685. 3766. 384 8 . 3931. 4015. 4099. 4184. 4269. 4356. 4z43. 4531. 4619. 4� � �, r � � � ��., > �� � � :��:, ¢ � e � � s �,-, -_ _. � �� . -� �°_� a �-� ��. �.�'� � �� " ¢ y � .�_ ..� �-w...r�'3v":... ., ' . _ ..._._. ._ 2.61 2.71 2.81 2.91 3.01 3.11 3_21 3.31 3.41 3.51 3.61 3.71 3.81 3.91 4.00 4.01 4.03 4.04 4.05 4.07 4.08 4.09 4.11 4.12 4.22 4.32 4.42 ?.52 4.62 4.72 4.82 4.92 5.00 5.10 5.20 5.30 5.40 5.50 5.60 5.70 5.80 5.90 5_00 6.10 6.20 6.30 6.40 6.50 6_60 6.70 6.80 6.90 7.00 Hyd Inflow 1 1.18 2 0.59 3 0.59 4 0.62 5 0.70 6 0.37 7 0.48 903.6i 903.72 903.81 903.°.l 904.01 904.11 904.21 904:31 904.41 904.51 904_61 904.71 904.81 904.91 905.00 905.01 905.03 905.04 905.05 905.07 905.08 905.09 905.11 905.12 905.22 905.32 905.42 905.52 905.b2 905.72 905.82 905.92 906.00 906.10 906.20 906.30 906:40 906.50 906.60 906.70 906.80 906.90 907.00 907.10 907.20 907.30 907.40 907.50 907.60 907.70 907.$0 907.90 908.00 Outf low 0.89 fl . 42 0.15 0_14 D_13 0.09 0.08 9450. 9925. iO409. 10903. 11406. 11917. 12439. 12969. 13509. 14fl59. 14618. 15187. 15766. 16355. T6893. 16953. 17074. 17134. 17195. 17317_ 17378. 17439. 17561. 17623. 18242. 18872. 19512. 20162. 20822. 21493. 22174. 228b6. 23427. 24138. 24860. 25592. 26336. 2'7090. 27856. 28633. 29420. 30219. 31030. 31852. 326$5. 33530. 34386. 35254. 35134. 37026. 37930. 38846. 39773. 0.217 0.228 0.239 0.250 0.262 0.274 0.286 0.298 0.310 0.323 0.336 0.349 0.362 0.375 0.388 0.389 0.392 0.393 Q.395 0.398 0.399 0.400 0.403 0.405 0.419 0.433 0.448 0.463 0.478 0.493 0.509 0.525 0.538 0.554 0.571 0.588 0.605 0.622 0.639 0.657 0.675 0.694 0.712 0.731 0.750 0.770 0_789 0.809 0.830 0_850 0.871 0.892 0.913 Peak Stage Elev 5.18 906.18 5.09 905.09 5.00 906.00 4.70 905.70 4.56 905.56 3.fi5 904.65 2.70 903.70 0.076 0.077 0.079 0.080 0.081 0.083 0.084 0.085 0.087 0.088 0.089 0.090 0.092 0.093 0.094 fl.094 0.095 0.097 0.104 0.103 0.107 0.108 0.109 0.110 O.li7 0.122 0.127 0.131 0.135 0.139 0.142 0.146 0.148 0.460 1.030 1.760 2.550 2.840 3.100 3.330 3.550 3.760 3.960 4.150 4.320 4.500 4.660 4.820 4.970 5.120 5.270 5.410 5.550 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0_00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0_00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 A.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 U.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 Storage (Cu-Ft) (Ac-Ft) 24687. 0.567 24048_ 0.552 23424. 0.538 21338. 0.49U 20456. 0.470 14858. 0.341 9901. 0.227 4709. 4799. 4889. 4981. 5073. 5166. 5259. 5354. 5449. 5544. 5641. 5738. 5836. 5935. 6024. 6034. 6054_ 6064. 6074. 6094. 6104. 6114. 6134. 6i44. 6245. 6347. 6449. 6552. 66%. 6760. 6865. b971. 7057. 7164. 7272. 7380. 7490. 7600. 7711. 7822. 7934. 8047. 8161. 8275. 8391_ 8506. 8623. 8740. 8858. 8977. 9096. 9217. 9338. � ._,� �� . - � r=- ��,_.�e._. 4� 8 0.53 0.07 2.18 903.18 7527. O.i73 Hyd R/D Facility Tributary Reservoir POC Outflow outflow Inflow Inflow Target Calc 1 0.89 0.02 ******** ******* 0.91 2 0.42 0.01 ******** ******* 0.43 3 0.15 0.01 ******** 0.15 0.15 4 0.14 0.01 ******** ******* 0.14 5 0.13 0.01 ******** *s**:** 0.14 b 0.09 0.01 ******** 0.09 0.09 � 0.08 0.01 *+****** ******* 0.08 8 0.07 0.01 ****t*** **�**** fl.07 ----------------------------- ---- Route Time Series through Facility Inflow Time Series File:dev_tsf Outflow Time Series File:rdout POC Time Series File:dsout Inflow/outflow Analysis Peak Inflow Discharge: i.18 CFS at 6:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Peak Outflow Discharge: 0.893 CFS at 9:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Peak Reservoir Stage: 5.18 Ft Peak Reservoir Elev: 906.18 Ft Peak Reservoir Storage: 24687. Cu-Ft . 0.567 Ac-Ft Add Time Series:bypass.tsf Peak Summed Discharge: 0.912 CFS at 9:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Point of Compliance File:dsout.tsf Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:dsout.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 0.426 2 2f09/O1 1b:00 0.079 7 12/28/Ol 16:00 0.135 5 2/28/03 6:00 0.072 8 8/26/04 4:00 0.092 6 1/OS/OS 8:00 0.140 4 1/18/06 21:00 0.152 3 li/24/06 6:00 0.912 1 1/09/OS 9:00 Computed Peaks -----Flow Frequency Analysis------ - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period 0_912 1 100.00 0.990 0.42b 2 25.00 0.960 0.152 3 10.00 0.900 0.140 4 5.00 0.800 0.135 5 3.00 0.667 0.092 6 2.00 0.500 0.079 7 1.30 0.231 0.072 8 1.10 0.091 0.750 50.00 0.98C TABLE IV.4 Pond Flow Sum BASiN A ALLOWED ST�RM EVENTS RELEASE RA ,__.:, 2 Year O.D9 10 Year 0.15 E � .RE.LEASE RATE �CFS� 0.09 O.i 5 Aiso see Appendix for complete computer prin#outs for Basin A. � � � . � _a�`-'�. 9 2 -+� 46 WATER QUAI.{TY As indicted in previous sections, this project also proposes to provide water quality control as required by both the City of Federal Way and the City of Tacoma. Reviewing the Federal Way Surface Water Resources Map, the "basic water quality" is required for this project. Under the City of Tacoma, since this project does not discharge to fish bearing stream, it would not need enhanced treatment fior water quafity, but it will be a project with a to#al of 5,000 square fieet or more ofi pollution-generating impervious surface (PGIS) in a threshold discharge area, so it would be subject to the "Basic Treatment" options. The proposed Norpoin# Heights Residential Subdivision will utilize a combined detention/wetpool facility as mitigation for water quality. Since the bottom of the proposed detention/wetpoo! fiacility is less #han 1,500 SF, no access road to the bottom is proposed. The following is a wet pond calculation shee# from King County; - , ��' _ . �: � � L ,� � . . ' _ , .� . - - 4�3 , _ �-- KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WTER DESIGN MANUAL WETPQND SIZING WORKSHEET Summary of the 1998 Surface Water Design Manual Requirements Projeci Name: Norpoint Heights 1453-002-007 METHOD OF ANALYSIS (see p. 6-68) Step 1) Determine Volume factor, f Basic Size? f = [,arge Size? f = 3 Consult WQ requirement(Section i.2.8) 4.5 to determine if basic or large size needed Step 2) Determine rainfall R for mean annual storm Rainfall (R) 0.039 (feet) Required from Figure 6.4.1.A Step 3) Calculate runoff from mean annual storm V ={0_9A 0.25A�+ O. IOA�+ 0.01 A�) * R A; tributary area of impervious surface A� tributary area of till grass A iributary area of till forest A tributary area of outwash grass R= rainfail from mean annual storm Vt volume of runoff from mean annual storm Step 4) Calcuiate wetpool volume V f = Voiume factor V = volume runoff, mean annual storm V� = Volume of the wetpool 88293 (f� 45588 (ft 0 (ft -- 0 ��) 0.039 (ft) 3544 (ft ) Determine now Determine now Determine now Determine now From Step 2 3 (unitless) From Step 1 3544 (ft Erom Step 3 --- 10631 (�)� C , �_-��., `� ,��,,,� �� � �_., . Step 5) �etermine wetpool dimensions a) Determine geometry of first celi Volume in first cel! 3189 (ft') Dep#ii h lst cell (minus sed. Stor.) 3(ft) Determine horizontal xs-area at surface at mid-depth using A,,,, = V, A„„ 1063 {f�) Mid-width 33 (ft) Mid-length __ 33 {ft) Z= Side slope length: _(H): i(V) 2(h/2 * Z) _ Find top dimensions by adjusting for shape geometrics Top width Top Len�t6 �- 94 - `�� ��� �� � � ��, [:. � F. i 25-35%0 of totai See Section 5.4. t .2 2 (ft) 3:1 recommended 6 (ft) 39 (fr) ---- j9 �ft� � 1490 (�) - . . __ ,. . . � �' � �' # � ,. - �,: _ _ , , � i998 Surface Water Design Manvai I:\esm jobs\l025�documents\CALC-003.x1s b) Determine gemoetry of second cell Volume in second ce(1 Depth h of 2nd cell Determine horizontal xs-area aT mid depih using A m �d — V� a /h A m�d = Mid-width Mid-length Determine xs-area at surface Z= Side slope length: _(H): i(V) 2(h/2 * Z) _ Top width T,�, length A,,� _ Adjust Ce112 width to match cell 1 Adjust Cel! 2 length using A,� Geomehy check: overall pond L: W at mid depth = 3: 1 Pond width (mid-depth) Cell 1 length (mid-depth) Cell 2 length (mid-depth) Pond length (mid-depth) = cel 1+2 Lmid � Wmid Must be 65-75% See Section 6.4.1.2 7441 (ft') 3 {ft) Used to check L: W 1860 (ft'") 43 (ft) 43 (8) 3:1 recommended 1 (ft) 3 (ft) 46 (ft) 46 (ft) 2i28 (ft ) 39 (ft) 55 (ft) 33 (ft) 33 (ft) 52 (ft) 85 (ft) 2.60 Step 6) Adjust shape of �ond tQ blend into site (re�omzneneded) . Use the same side-slopes and depth as above March pond surface area for each cell Make sure L:W raiio sti113:1, or if one-celled, 4:1 Step '� Design rest of pond (see Criteria p. 6-72) Internat Benn Inlet & Outlet Primary overflow Access Other Design Details (Sections 6.2.2, p. 6-18, 6.2_3, p.20 and 6.2.4, p. 6-22) Sequence of Facilities Setbacks Sideslopes, fencing, embankment Total wetland surface area estimate Surface area 1 st cell + 2nd cell + area for internal berm + area for access ramp _ ��) Pius setbacks, access roads, 1fl0-yr conveyance 95 �-��, ��` .. ��/ 1998 Surface Water Design Manuai I_\esm jobs\1025\documents\CALC-003.x1s SECTION V SPECIAL REFORTS AND STUDIES Enclosed a soils report and infiltration report is part of this preliminary Technical Information Report. 5� � -_ �� � .�. . . ; �s'� . _ ��.: � , � ,� -= _. .. Ph.253-896-1O1i Fx.253-$9b-2b33 GeoResources, LLC 5007 Patific Hwy. E, Saite ?A �'e, WashingtAn 984?A-2549 January i 6, 2048 Landmark Homes� Inc. PO Box 26i i 6 Federa! Way, WA 98093-21 i 6 Attettfion: Mt. Larry Kirtg Mr. David Litawi#z Geoted�rucai Englneering Services Prop�ed Residenfi�al Davelopmer� Norpoint Residential P1a# Browr�s Poirtt Area Federal Way, Washingt�n Job: Lrandmari�cHm.Norpoint.RG iNTRODUCTlt3N AND SCOPE This report summarizes our site observanons and provldes geotechntcai recommendations an� deslgn criterta for the proposed Nor�int Resider�tia! Plat �o be located r�c►cth o# Norpoin� Way in ihe Brow�s Polni area of Federa! Way, Washington. The general iocation of ti3e site is shown on the �cin9ty Map, Figure 1. Our un�e�s#andir�g o# tha p�oject is bas�d on o�ir discuss�ons wlth you and Mr. Stuart Scheuerman of ESM (chr11 engineerj, a review of the pretim�nary ptans provlded, and on our e�e�ience in the area. We understa�d tl�at current plans call #or creatMg a new roadway for approxlmately 94 resldential lo#s wit�i associated driveways and utilities. The�site coMlguratlon and topography is illustrated an ttie Sfite Ptan, Figure 2. The pu�poss af our servlces is to evaluate the sur�ace and subsurface cond'dions at #he site as a basis 1or addressing ttie Federal Way Criticat Areas �rdinance as we11 as addressing fhe poten�a! of t�e site soils for supporting a stonnwater det�ntion pond. We have also inctuded geoiechnicai �ecommendations and deslgn crite�ia for the project. We received y�ur written authoriza#i�n on December 28, 2007. Spec{flcally, the scope of senrices for this project wiit lnclude the followln�: 1. Rev�ewing the avaaabie geologic, hydrogeoiogic ant� geotechnical da#a ior the site 2. 3. 4. 5. �area. Evaluating the shatlow subsurface condltlons a# the si�e by obseniing open test pits at the site. Addressing the approp�ate geotechnicat regulatory requiremen�s for #he praposed s+te development, per any City o# Federat Way CAO requirements. Providtng geotechntcal recommendations ior site grading including site preparaiion. subgrade preparation, �11 ptaceme�t cr�terta, suitabllity of on-sita soiis for use as structural fifl, temporary anc! permanent cut and ffll slopes, and drainage and e�asion conirof ineasures. Providlr�g recommenda�o�s and design crlteria for c�r�ver�ttonat faunda�on and �loor stab support, fnctuding aliowabie bearing capacity, subgrade moduius,laterai reststance values and estimates of settlement. � 97 '- �. ��� �_. ' , _ � � � -*�,= �.. � ._. . : � i.andmarlcHm.hlorpoin�R� January 16, 2008 Page 2 6. Providir�g racommendations and design criteria for ti�e design of convendonal subgrade/retaining wails, including backfill and drainage requirements �ate�at deslgn loads, and laterai resistance values. 7. Providing rec�rnmenda#tons ior pavement subgrade preparaaon. 8. Praviding appropr}a#e IBC selsmic design parameters #or tt�e proposed residen�ai structures. SiTE GOND{T10NS Surtac� Conditions The proposed Norpoin# resident3al plat is located in an area ofi estabiished nesldeMial developrnent. The subjec# praperty consists of fwo adjoining tax parceis that a�e generaiiy re�tanguiar in shape. Tfie site is bounded by Worpoint Way NE on t�e West. existmg residential dsvelo}xnerrt on the east, north, and south. Tha King — Pierce Cocuriy line t�isects extreme southvu�st c,omer o# the site. The slte c�figura�txf for proposed developmer�t is �lustrated on the Stte Plan, �tgure 2. The project site is siivated on fhe west margin of a locai t�r�aphic ridge. The gramd surface at the site is generally flat to gently sio�ing tn the no�east po�+on of the site and ger�iy to moderatefy stoping to the wes# tn the rema�ning area. Stopes at the s[te range fram approximately 5 percent to 20 percent, The site is currentiy vegetated with young aider and mapte, and scattered small coni�ers with a low understory o# vine ma�ie, r�ative wandering biacktferry, and occasionat hucklebeRy. hdiy and satal Locatizeai areas oi invas�ve biackberry and grasses oc�ur. No evidence crf star+ding water, seeps or springs were obs�erved on the si�e. No ev�dence of erosion cx s�pe ir�stabilit�+ was observed a# the sHe or the adjacerrt areas. Si#e Soits Atthough ihe subject properry is located in sn area that is not mapped by the Sfl3! Survey tar Pierce County {US�A Naiural Resource Conservation Service web soil surveyj, the adjacent properties io the no�th are mapped as being underlain by the Aldervrv�ood graveliy sandy k�am (1C} soiis thai form on 6 to 1S percen# sfopes The Aiderwoot� soifs ate derived from glaciai filf and are ciass�isd as having a"moderate" potenUa! for erosion when e�osed. An excerpt from #he NRCS sotls map for #he s�te area is inctuded as Figure 3. As prevlousfy sta#sd, we abserved no evidence ot slgn(ficant erosion at the site at the �me of our slta vis'st. Stte Geofogy According to the Geologfe map of the Tacoma Nortt� 7.5 m/nute Quadrangla Pisa.�e Counfy, Wash/ngton in revlew (Troost, K.G.� Booth, D.B., and Borden, R.K.), the site is in an area ur�de�airi by giaclal ot�twash deposits {Qvr) and glaciat tUl (Qvt). The outwash and �il deposits were deposited during the Vashon stade o1 the Fraser Gfacia�on, approximately 12,Ofl0 to 15,000 years ago. The outwash deposi#s generally consist of a pooriy slratified mixtura of sand and gravel ihat may �ocaliy conialn siit. cobbies or boulders. Tha Vashon g�ci�al �Il was deposited at the base of the advancing g�aclal !ce and subsequer�ily overr3dden by the giadai ice. As such, #he glacial �It is considered densety consolidated offer high strength characteris#ics. The outwash depasits are considered normalfy consotidaled and affer moderate s�reng#h cnaracterlstics. An excerpt of #he Geologic Map is attached as Figure 4. �� ; - : . ___ _ �` � �- � �� .�� _<:. `'_ ��` . 98 Let�dmarkHm.Norpalnt.Ra January i 8, 20(l8 Page 3 Subsurface Conditions Dur interpretation of the subsurface conditions at the sita are based on ouf site observations. data revisw and experience in the area. The e�ctsUng open test pits observed at the site ranged from 4.5 to 7 fest in depth and ganerally conf'irmed the mapped strat�graphy. In general� the test pits encountered Y� to 1-#00# of forest dufl and topso7 manding sanai and gravei wi#h va�iabfe amounts of sllt and cobbles. We interpret this sand and gtavei material to be recessionai outwash deposits. The �es# plts on fhe sout�west porbon of the s�te encountered the sand and gravei to depths of up 3o B feet Glacial �'ti was enca�ntered at depths of 5 to S feet below the ground surface. Tes# pits in the norttieast portion ofi the site enc�s.�Mered beiween 3 and 4 feet of oulw�ash sar�d and gravel over gfadal b'f1. Tfie recessiona! outwash sand with gravef soils were in a medlum dense to dense condition. 'fis autwash was unde�tain by dense to very dense glacia! till. AEthough no groundwater seepage was observed, localized mottling was observed in the upper portion of the giaaal tiU in several ot the test pits in the wsst pc�riton fl# the siie. This would suggest a seasonal perched groimdwater condi�on, likely above the dense giacial tili. Perched groundwa#er #ypicaiiy develops when the vsrtical tr�filtra#ion of preclpl#ati�n ihrough a more pem�eabie soli is slowed at depth by a deeper� less permeabte soIi type. The greatest volume of perched water wlq tikeiy occur in late spring or early summer foliowing the wet weather season. Landslide Hazard tndica#ors -- per Ci#y of Federa! Way Municipai Code, Chapter 16.24 The C�ty �f Federa! Way Municlpai Code, Chapter 18.24 defines geotogkaily hazardaus areas because of thelr susceptlbility to erosian, lar►dsliding, selsmic or other g$ological even#s are not sulted to commercial, residentiai or indust�lai development cansistent with pubfic heafth or safety concerns. L.andstide hazard areas are ihose areas potentlatiy subject to episodic downsio� movemer�: of a ma�s of so3i ar rock inciutiing but noi Iim3ted to the follawing areas: a. Any area wlth a combinaiion of: i. Siopes greater #han 15 percent; 2. Permeabie sed�ment (predominately sand and gravei) overiying relatively impermeabie sedlment or bedrock (typicaQy sl�t and ciay); and 3. Sprl�gs vr groundwater seepage. b, Any area which has shown movement during the Nofocene epoch, from i4,0� yea�s ago to the present, or v+r�ich is underlaln by ranass wastage deb�is o# tha# epoch. c. Any area poten#ially unstable as a resutt of rapid stream �ncision, stream bank erosior+ or undercutting by wave ac#ivn. d. Any area foCa#ed in a ravine or on an active alluvlal fan� presentiy or potenf�aily subject to inundatlon by de#�ris flows or itooding. e. Thase areas idanti�ied by the United Sfa#es Depa�ment of Agricutture Soil Cor�servation Servrce as having a severe timitatlon for building site devetopment. f. Those areas mapped as Class U{unstable), UOS {unstable oid si'�des), and URS {crostable recent sildes) by the Department of Ecak�gy. g, S1o�es having gradients grea#er than 8U percent subject ta ra�kiail during seismic shaking. Erosian Hazards — pe� City of �ieraf 1Nay Chapter 18.24 The City of Federal Way Municipai Code� Chapter 18.24 de�ines erosfor� hazard areas as generaliy r�nsistl�g of areas having sevsre ta very severe erosion hazard due to na#ura! �gen#s such �s �Ind, raln, splash, frost acti�n or stream flaw. The Everett and Harsline sais mapped in the site area are listed as having a pmoderatep potentfat for eroston when e�osed. 'fiese soiis are afso listed as befng wetl drained to mode�ately well dratned and havl�g a rapid to moderateiy rapld permeab�lity� respectively. - _._ _ .. 9 9 +� '� < y �� ; _ _ ..�. _;.. . - - __ _ Lendmarkhtm.No�point,RG January 18, 20Q8 Page 4 No evidence of erosion or siope instabtlit�r wras observed at the site a# the �me of our sfte visit. Selsrnic Hazards - per Ctty o! Federal Way Chapter 9 8.24 The City of Federal Way Municipal Cade, Chapter 18.24 defines seismic t�azard areas as fhose areas subjec# to severa rlsk oi eart�quake damage as a rasult ai seismically induced ground shaking, slope fallure, settlement or soii liquefacl�n, or surface fauiqng. Thsse conditions occur in areas underiain by cahesionfess solis oi 1ow density usua�y � association with a shallflw graundwater table. Ac�rding to the Selsmic Zone Map of the United States co�#alned in Flgure i 6-2 of ihe i 997 IBC (lntemationai Building Code), the project site ts located withln Se1smlc Risk Zone 3. Based on the subsurface condi#tons obsen+ecJ at the site, we iMe�pret #he structuraf site condi�ons to corresponds wi#h a setsmic Soit Proil�e #ype SD, (Site C1ass "0") as deflned by Table 16i�.1.� in the 2003 iHC documents. Thts is based on the likeiy rar�ge ofi equivalent SPT (Standard Peneira#ion Test) blaw coun#s for the soil types �served in fhe site area. These conditlons were assumed ta be represerrtative for the cond�ions beyond the depths explflred. Structures loca#ed at the s1�e that are c�nstructed in accordance with the appropriate seismic criteda wlti have the same r3sk as other designed structures in the Pu� Sound area. conrc�.us�o�s Based on #he results af aur data rev�ew, site reconnaissance� subsurface explorations and our experienc� in the area, tt is flur opinton that the sfte is suitabie for#ha proposed residentiai plat developman#. Gradng a# tt�e site 1s expscted io be limited to lc�calized cuts and �iNs to meet the daslgn grades. Cornrentiona4 foofings may be ub'laed in afeas ofi medium dense ia dense r�ative soi1� or where tiie oid fitl materiai is recompacted foliawing removai of the large orgar�ic debds. The infittration oi stormwater �noff frorn #he roadways wlii not likety be feasibfe at this site. The tnii{tra�on of roo# runo#F is feaslble based on �he amourst of grading tha# axurs at the sits. Pertinent canclusions and geotechnical recommendat+ans regar3d'+ng the design and c�nstructian o# the proposed developme►rt are presenied bel4w. Landsilde Hazards- per C�ty of Federai Way Chapter'i8.24 The City of Federal Way Municlpal Code, Chap#er 18.24 uses #he above reierenced checklist #o define a landslide ttazard area. Slopes grea#er than 15 percent were observ�d on the sits, but r�o imparmeable sediment o� groundwater seepage were observed. No areas of htstoric mass movement is mapped or observed on the site. No areas o# stream inc�sion, strsam banic eroslon or undercu#ting by wave action were obsenred at the time of our site v�sii. No ravines or o�► an acliva alluviai fan were observed Qn or adjacen# to the si�e at the t�nne of our slte visit. The USDA SCS maps �he Everett and Harsiine soils an the si#e as having "modecate" 11mi3ations for buifding sfte developmen#. No siQpes grea#er than SO percent were observed on #he siie at the t3me of our visit. Based on our observations of tha si#e and rev�ew o# pubfished infortna#ion, ihe site does no# havs any abovs listed indlcators and therefore is not c�ass�ied as an active landsfide haza�d area. S#�eep �I�,c� H�a� 1ndJaators - r�er City of Federa! Wa� Munldpat Code, t�a�ter 18.24 The City of Federal Way Municipai Code, Chapter 18.24 de��es steep slape hazard areas as tfiose areas wit� a siope of 44 percent or greater and with a ve�ical reiiel of 10 or more feet, a verticai rise of 10 feef or more for every 25 feet of hor3zor�i distance. A s! �S 100 - . , � �_._ ,. � �---� $ { � � S +s*'A $� ?'. X �S `91. ' .1 ; 'Lts � .. -r_=,u+��_a � ...'. _ _ __,.. __.,. i.andmarkt�lm.Notpot�t.Ra January 16, 2008 Pa� 5 delineated by es#ablished its toe and top and rneasured by averaging the indinafion over at least i0 fee# of vertica! re(ief. We d1d not observe any siopes of 4fl percent or greater on the site. Erosion Hazards — per City ot Federa! Way C[�apter i 8.24 Based on our site observations and explorations, it is our �inian that r,or�ve�iona! erosion control measures wi11 provtde adequate erosion mitigation at trds site. We rec:ommend that #emporary and psrmanent erosion con#roi measures be installed ar�d mairrtained dur(ng c�struction or as soon as praciicai therea!#er, to limit the �flux of water on#o expc�sed soiis andlor disturbed araas. Erosion conirol measures should inciude, but should no� be timited to, bemns and swates with check darrys ta dlrect surface water runoff, ground cove�lproisction tn exposed areas and silt fences where appropriate. Graded areas shouid be shaped to avold co�cen#rations of runof# onto cu� or fll! slopes, na#urai stapes or other erQSion-sensl�ve a�eas. Temporary ground cover/protection such as jute ma##ing, exce�sfor ma#tlr�, waad chips or ciear plast�c shes#ing rnay be used uniil the permanent erasia� pro#ec�n is establlshed. . Seismlc Hazards — per C9ty of Federal Way Chapter f 8.24 The City of �ederal 1Nay Munfc(pal Code, Chapter 18.24 deiines selsmic hazard areas as those areas subject to sev�re risk of earthquake damage as a resuft of setsmicaliy induced ground shaking, stope fafture, satttement or soif liquefaction, or surfar.e iau!#ing. These condi�ons occur in areas underlaln by cohasloniess sotis oi 1ow density usuai�r in association with a shailow groundwater table. Basea! on our review of the subsurtace condi�or�, we conclude that the site soi�s are not sus�eptible io liquefact+�on. The near-surface soils are ger,eratlY i� a medium dense to oonditlon and ths sta�c wa#er tabte is located betow the soiis encaunterad at the site. Shaking af the already dense soii is not apt to produce a der�ser ctir�igura�on and subsequen�y excess pure water pressures ar� no# likely to be produced. uquefactlon ts a phenomenon where there i� a reducc#ion or compiete loss of soi! strengih due #a an inerease in water pressure. The increase in pore water ptessure is induce� by seismic vibra�ons. l..i�uefaction malnly affects geologlcalfy �ece�t deposi� ot loose, fine-grained sands that are below the groundwater table. Based on the der+sity and coarse-grained nature of the gtadally derived solfs observed on ihe siie, and the ladc of a groundwater tabie� it is our opinion #haf the risk for liquefacfion to occu� at ttils s�e du�ing an eartf�quake is negligibie. Site Preparotion . Areas to be graded shoutd be ci�a�ed of deteterious mattet including any existing structures� foundaUons, abandoned utiiity l�r�es, debris and vege#atior�. The poriions of the site sfil� covered witli vegetation should be stripped of ar�y forest dufii a�d organic-laden soils. These mater+als can be stockpiies and later used ior eroslon conirol or shouid be remc�ved from the site. Where piacemen# o# f�i materiat is r�quired the stripped/e�osed subgrade areas shoutd be compact�d to a�rm and unyielding surface pr�or to placement of any mi. Excavafrons #or debris removal should be backfllled with structurat ilti compacted to #he densi#tes described in #he "5tructural Fll!" sec#ion of this repart. We recammend that a member oi our staff evaivate the exposed subgrade cond'�#ions a#ier removal of vege#atian and topsoil stripping is com�ieted an� prior to placement of structural fili. The expased subgrade soil shauld be proot-rc�lled with heavy n�bbe� ti�ed 10 � . ,�: '� � �e- x� � ,� �:'.` ;.. . _�._;�. _; , LandmarkHm.iVorpolr�LRG �enuary � s. 2oos Page 6 equipment during dry weather or prflbed with a 1/2-Inch-diame#er steel rvd during wat weatfier conditlons. Any soft, loose or atherwise unsui#abis areas dellneated dur+ng proofrot�ing or probing shautd be recampa�#ed, it practical� or over-excavated and replaced with stn+c#urai fill, based on �#he recommendations ofi our slte representative. The areas �of o!d fiil rnateria! should be evaluated during grading operations #o de#ermine if they need mifigation; recompacfion or removai. Structurai Fiti Ail ma#erial ptaced as fiii assoc(ated with mass gradin�, as utiliiy trench ba�kflll, under buiiding areas, ar under roadways sho�ld ba placed as st+vctural fiii. The structura! iili should be piaced !n horizontal liffs of approprta�te thickness to attow adequate and untf�sm compac#ion of each liffi. Fili should be cornpacted to at least 95 perceni of MDD (maximum dry denslty as determined ln accordance with ASTM D-155�. The appropriate lif� thickness will d�per�d on the fiU characterlstics and compac4or� equipmen# used. Vlte rec�mmend #�at the appropriate lift thickr�ss be evaluated by our fieid represeritative during txmstruc#ian. We recommend that our representative be present during sfte �rading activifies to observe the work at�d perform field dens�ty► #ests. The suitabitity of material for use as structu�at filt will depend on the gradat�on and moisture content of the soii. As the amourrt of #ines (mater�al passing US No. 2UU sieve) increases, so� becomes increasingly sensitive to smalf changes In moisture content and adequate t�m�ctian b�comes more dffitcuit to achieve. During wret i+veather, we recomrne�d use o? we11-graded sand and gravel ww�fhh less than 5 percent {by welght) passing #he US No. 20{� sieva based on t�at fraction passing the 314-inch sleve, such as Gravel Badcfiti for Walls {9 9# prolonged dry weather prevaiis du�ng the earthwork and foundat+�n installation phase of cansin�ctlon, higher fines content (up to 1� ta 12 percent) will be acceptable. Material placed #or structural fi[i should be free of debris� organ[c matter, trash and cobbles g�ea#er than 6-inches in diameter. The moisture cari#ent o# the flll rnateria! should be adjusted as necessary for proper campaction. Suitabtfity of O�-Si#e N[ater�als as FI11 Durir� dry weather constnac�on� any non-arganlc on-site sail may be conskiered for use as sfructura! f�l; provtded it meets tf3e crlteria descn'bed above ln the st+vcturai fitl secfion and can be r�mpacted as recamm�nded. lf #�e soil material is over-optlmum in moisture cxurten# when excavated, it wUt be necessary to asra#e or dry Ihe soii prtor to pfacement as stru�tural iill. We generally did not observa tfi�e site salis to b� excessively mais� at #he �me oi our subsurface expforatlon program. The na#ive outwash soils at the sl�e generally canslst of sand with varying amounts of gravel, cabbies ar�d siit. These soils are generafly comparabie tfl "comman pit rur+" materia! and wifi be s�ri#abfe for use as structural tNt provlded #t�e moisture content is mairrtained wi�h9n 4 percen# of the optimum mois#ure level. The undsrlyin� glacia! tttl soiis contain a higher flnes cantent and will likety be unsuttabie for use as strucit�ral flti �ur�ng or fotlowing extended perivds ofi wet �reather. We recommend #ha# compieted graded-areas be resficted from tra#iic or protected prior to wet wea�er condi�lons. The graded areas may be �rotected by paving, plac�r�g asphatt-treat$d base, a layer of #ree-draln�ng materiai such as pit run sand and gravel or c{ean crushed racic ma#erial con#alning iess than 5 p�rcent flt3es, or some coml�na�on of #he above. �_ . . � �� � . 1�2 .. , .. ts� �' . . ... 1.andrt�adsHm.Norpofnt.RG Jant�ary 1 B, 2008 Page 7 CU# 8f1d Fitl SIOpeS All job site safety issues and preca�.�tions are the responsibll"�fy oi the coMractor providing serv�ces/work. The following cut/fill slope guidelines are provided for planning pur�oses onty. Temporary cut stopes witf likely be necessary during grading operations or utilily inslaAatbn. As a generai gulde, temporary slopes o# 1.5H:1 V(Horizontal:Vertical) or flatte� may be used #or temporary cs�ts in the upper 3 to 4#eet of the sotl� that are weathefed to a loose/medium dense condi�ion, where as temporary stopes as s#eep as 3/4H:i V can be used iri the very dense unweafhered giacial till. Where ground water seepage is encoun#ered, fiatter temporary slopes may be required. These guidelines assume tha# al1 su�tece loads are kept a1 a mfnlmum distance of at least one haf� the depth of the cut away from the top of the stope and that significant seepage ls not present on the sfope far,e. Flatter cut slopes wib be necessary whsre significant ravel�ng or s�epage occurs. We recflmmend a maximum siope of 2H:1 V for permanent cut and fiN slopes in areas of inedinm dense sand and grave{. it shouhi be �ecognized tha# stopes of this nature do ravei and requlre �casivnal maintenance. Where raveiing or maintenance is unacceptable� we recommend that flattar slopes or re#alning systams be cansid�red. iNhere 2H:1 V siopes are no# feasible a� these solls, retaintng struc#ures shoulr� be considered. Wi�e�e retaining structures are greatar #han 4#eet in hetght (bottom ofi foc�ing #o top af structure) or have slopes of greater than 15 percer�t ataove them, they should be engineered. Foundat�on Sup�rt Based on the encourrtered subsurface soil cond�ians encountered across the site, we recommend that spread fooiings for the new residences be founded an dense to very dense native g�cial tili flr an stnacturai fili �a# extends to suitabie t�ative sails. The soi! a# the base af the excava�ons shauki be d�sturbed as Utt�e as possible. Atl ioose, soft or unsultabls ma#e�a1 shflutd be removed or recompac#ed, as approprlate. A representabve from our �irm should observe the ioundafk�n excavati�ns to determine if suitable bearing surfaces have been prepared, particutarly in the a�eas where the foundador� w!u be situated o� #i!! material. We recommend a minimum widih t�f 2 feet for isolated foo�ngs and at least 16 inches #or continuaus waq faotings. Ali footing ef$ments shoutd be embedded at leas# 18 inches below grade for frost prote�tion. Foo�ngs fvunded as dascdbed abave can be designed usl�g an allowaWe saii bea�ir�g capacity of 2,600 psf (pounds per square foof) for cmmbined dead and long term Ihre loads. Tha welghf of the footing and any overiyyi�r�g back�ll may be neglecterl. The aliowabfe bearing value may be increased by one-third for fransient loads such as those induced by seismic events or wind loads. La#era! k�ads rnay he raslsied by friction on the base of foo#ngs and itoor s�abs and as passlve pressu�e o� the sides of footings. WE recommend #hat an ailowabfe coefflcient of frlctian of 4.35 be used to catcula#e fr�tior� b�tween the conc�ete and the undedying st�it. Passlve pressure may be d�termined using an ailowable equtvalent fiuirf d�nsirt�► of 300 pcf �pounds per cubtc #aot}. Fac#ors ai safie�y have been appiied to these vatues. Vlle estimate that se#tlemer�ts of #ootings deslgned and constructed as recvmmended wili be less than i inch� fc�r the ar�ticipated load conditions, wi#h differentiai settiements between comparably toaded footings of i/2 Inch or 1ess. Mos# of the sei�ements should occur essentiaAy as loads are being appTied. However, disiurbance o1 the foundaUon subgrade du�ng conshc»cHon could resul# ln larger settlerner�s than predicted. _ Fioor Siab Support � "�` j�. � � - � ��, �;; 103 - LandmarkHm.No�o1�t.Rt� JanuBry 18, 2008 Page 8 Stabs-on-grade, # constructed, should be supported on the medivm dense r�ative sa'!s or on struc#urai fil! prepared as described above. Aray arsas of ald fi11 rnateriai shfluid be evatuated during grading acttvity for suitabilily of structural support. Areas ot slgnificant organk debrls should be �emoved. We recommend #hat floor slabs be direc#!y unde�lain by a cap�'ilary break materiai w1#h minimum 6-inch thickness of coarse sand, pea gravei, ar gravel cantaining less than 3 percent fines. The drainage material shoutd be p[aced tn one lift and compacted to an unytekJing condition. A s�mthe�c vapor barrier is recommended io con#roi motsture migta�on througfi the slabs. This is af �articular Importance wf�e�e mvisture mtgradon through the slab 3s an issue, such as where adhesives are used to anchor carpet or tile tc� the stab. A thir� layer of sand may be placed over the vapor barrler and imrnedlateiy below the siab #o protec� the lir�er d��ing stest and/or cor�crete placernen#. A sabgrade modulus of 400 kcf (kips per cubic #oo#) may be used for floor slab deslgn. W� estimate tha# seEtiemeni of ihe #loor slabs destgned and cons#ructed as recommended, wrtl! be 1/2 tnch or iess over a span of �0 #ee�. Pavement Subgrades Pavement subgrade areas shouid be prepared as previousiy described tn the siie prepara�on sectlon ot this report. The prepared subgrade shautd be evatuated by proofroflir� with a#ulty-loaded dump trucic or equ�valent pofn# load equipment. Saft, loose or we# areas #nat are dlsdosad shouid be recompacted or removed, as appropriate. Over-excavated areas should be back�fied with compacted structural flll and sub-base materlal. Site Drainage Atl ground surfaces, pavements ar�d sidewaiks at the site stiauld be sioped away from the struct�re. SurFace water na�off sho�td be coritroNed by a system o# curbs, berms� dralnage swales, and or ca#cf� basins, and cAnveyed to an apprapriate discharge po"snt. 8ased on aur site evaluatian, it is our opinion that the intil�ration of stormwa#er at #he site should be iimi#ed to rflof water #rom the tndfvidual residenc�, if appropriate, We unders#and that run-ofi #rom ihe new resident�al driveways and roadway areas wif! be coilected and conveyed to an engineered s#orrnwa#er detention pond to be iocated in the southwest comer o# the subject property. Any em�ankment consiructton requlreti should be completed with su'�table si�#y so1ls (greater than 25 perceni #ines by weight or minus No. 200 US Sieve). A�tema�veiy, the embankment may be iined with a suitabfe norrpermeable liner materiai. Where infiltration is u#ilized #or the individual residences, wa recammend an InfiltraCwn rate o# 15 minutes per inch for the sandy solts. An approp�iate #actor o# safety should be u#ilized. LtMITATtONS Wa t�ave prapared #his repo�t ior use by Landma�lc Homes, Inc. and other membera of the desi�n team, for use in the design of a portlon of thls proJect. The data c+sed in preparing this reAart and thls repor# shautd be provided to prospective contractors for U�eir bidding or esUymating purposes only. Our report, conclusions and inter�retaiions are based o� data from others and limited site �econnaissar�ce� and shoutd not be construed as a warranty c3f the suk�urfac,�e conditions. Variatlons in subsurface conditions are possible betweea tfie exp3ora�ons anci may aiso oc�ur w�ti� time. A coMingency f�r unanticipated oondit��ns stwuld be incf�ed t� the budget and scheduie. Suiflclent mor�itoring, iesting ar�d consul#ation sho�d be provided by our firm during c�onstruction to con�rm thaf the condi�ons encaurrtered are consistent with #hose ���: � ��; 104 = , � �. ,.� i � �+� �, � -.�.�-r�-�.�� � -.�- .. ,.W.,.:.:.� Lan�narkNm.Norpolnt.RG .fannary 18, 2008 Page 9 indicated by the expiorations, to pravide rec:ommendatlons for design changes shauld the conditior�s revealed during the war�c differ firom those an�apated, and ta evaluate whsther earthwark and faur�ation 1�staliation activitles camply w�th contract plans and speci�cations. 'fhe scope of our services does na# include servicss �elated to environmer�tal remedia�on and construciion sa#ety precautians. Our recommendations are no# intended to direct the contra�to�s metiiods, techniques, sequences o� procedu�es, except as specificaily described in our �eport for consldera�on ln design. ff there are arry changes in ths loads, grades� locations, cwr►ftgurations or lype of faci�ties to be cons#ntcted, the concluslons and recommendatlons presented in thls report may nvt be fuliy applicabte. if such r.hanges a�e made, we shouki be glven the opportuntty to review our recommenda�ons and provide written mod'�icatior�s or ver�ica#ons, as approprlate. ♦ ♦ ♦ We have appreciated the oppc�rtunity to be of serv�ce to you on this project. lfi yo� have any yuestions or comments, please do not hesi#ate to cafi at yaur eariiest cornrenier�ce. Respec#futly submitted, GeoResources, L!C Brad Biggerstaf#, LEG G1ert Coad� PE P�lncipal Princtpal eaawa�e R� At� Aptue 1-81b Wcbtiqr Iu�aP f�Ce P-8po anA Exptotatla� Plan f�pute 8—tJb�A 8C8 SWb laep Ryuro4—tlSCiBlA� Flplua 6—SoA CWtIB�a� b�stem Aywa 6 �Ts�t?R Lnps + , � �� 1�5 � �: �.. ��. �PlRES 1fl 1391 d = �. {' 'r �'t��i��'�3���i� �.�.�'i 5047 Pacif'�c Highway East, 5ulte 20 F'�ie, Washington 88424 Phane: 253-896-1U11 �ex: 253-896-2C33 ����. ��te �icin�ty Map Norpoint Resldentiai Pta# Browns Polrrt Area Federal Way, Washington 106 Fiie: Lertdmerk�tm.NorpolM.SVM .fanue�I2�Q8 �� Not to Scais P'�uie ) Approxlma#e Slte i.ocatlon '�::�:��il�i :� � � __.�__ . _. _. �'�,G� �J�,,._:���.._... _ tg ?-. 4 ' a ,. c � s -s-�^-• c �, �<<- t ,� J' � I F .Y � � � � � � �� q j £'�' } ._ _ . .. I .. � V' E � �� � �'L' et J s t �. . y..f4�3`,.�{�f' f '�-s9 1 i�, c� s ( ��: �) - � ` ~ f r k 1� .�}.� g t � �i�� z� r y � .�.� �. F'�' i� ., 'a ' . t. j � �� � 4. ,`3 �' 2 " : �.'�""� � . � r `, '` �� - 4� t �r q {� s �'."� ��� "� -� ` �E �,= ' _ i � ' p ; �r r k �e.; ��-"- -.e� r � a E o a ' s { � � � �z.. 4' ;�r `S-�i�s -� '� FY �� `{ ' �F� 8 y�' ,�.t° ��. . 3 te��.� Jlf$4� � K�.._�� 6. 1 ��r�� f� �[�i�' �:.�.� : � � <- j �s , �3 � ��� . �� � : ,.� .. ;.,, i � �.t �;a��$` "�.� f� � �-�.. �,�i �+�.�.� g c �'� ` ir . .,f r t �/<,1 � ��.r-+ .� � i'. � tt -- �' � ° r ��r �--v"���: f � . � - � , ,� � � � s �� f �""� J � z F��: .� � ` . � � �- s - a.� � 4 � �� f ��d LC �rM� 4 r� � ` t . "�� j � � c' �. � � ti' S " L ..' •f"�� - , i F _�`� .�' � f .. �a ���_i d a _�.t � ��; �a � y � r� x� zs� ` + r y T �!. � e�. . �srY3 ,,;I���= c A tt�6���ia ,�. _ �e �£ '"�� '�'�z" �' � � � ��- �t" � � � . . � \ i . ` .:' 1!!G �' � �2 a � } � � f �s..�"fSE`.� , * �-� � �'�f".,.,,� �� r`��( �;•.� � s.J, ..�t . s� s `wstE � � � � �- � h , � 3 _� ;�I�s� � .'. �8"���, �' g F k ��` �� ������t al� ka.? ��n.. �`�; 3- • \ i. I. '�+'4�' "`ct`�. --.,r°„ . +:r` x ��� '�� d �' `\�_ .' �� � ��..�..f � - . �{��.1,�� 4C ���� 1 � .d� Z It� �..-� � � . ``�� .�kl � . � �� s�i�c3' �g°tr . ;�.:a � far�„� �' � aea.••€{zs r ', ��t'Cw� '` --tit �`' 'rC i^ ' .. ` . y �� � ���� E�(;� �> �T �� s t (y . f v v�, �'� . c �e n � �r"`_ r + �.'�,"°": j`� -�:L..� ,e- Rs+ ` 1�'���a�'.�,�-- ���'?'�" �� t '��a£��6 y �„!, . _ �.: F F - �I Ct C �, �:.,� � .�, �, v �. _ + � ; �,� M � � : 1 � � � c _- ���y� < ! s :.� � �-� � �.� y � g tus � � e !'°.-., ��� � � , � � t t $` �c . K" �. c ,ti� �. � �.,�?� �"�� r }i 1i� �, ,.. #', �_��� Fx `S"Q { �G^t "f+✓. � r 1� 4 ; . M � � �,� '� '�'�' ' �T L ��+°1/ .�� E � , MY[ . �z S g} i -4 � �� c "` ` 9�F �. � €. : .,, 1 . r . tgr � �� �3�`<� f� # -� -i- .Ju�� � � �� 2 `€ � �. !�'.`��- a.. � .� �.J�i�- ��� �y y r SwT-��°"��"' `i E..�:s` S..IS�! 1E �' �7 � i, � �.b . � ;~4i��J'�. .['� � #+�,g t-+ � � d`,r, d� � � u % 6� � � . s ✓s:. � "� � r " ' i ° ' f�` '',t i rt� cg i'E•u..Ty,_ �' _ ��' c T tic ��^a"� y - ��� $ �'� M1 � .-ia. � �1��� �� gi"+`�� .. ,. fi " >� t�� � }: _ � � ;: �� „ ;` � ` � ���� � , ; F ��g d � c # �� ` , � �. '�°^� {; ��� °��f ,.. � �� rs � F ,�.� � ��, : � � t ?!a �!� � yY •- ' ; y�. - <• �. �'f 7'�y "' .r -�. ` "y- (��� �� s$ .z y - .7i � � � . . .. � ' , � � � �i�.�i t * . ". � .� y;� as it' �7#S � 34°s .,�. fT ��e�y tt_ 1( � p � � � r' `^_ . (= £ ""'` . 7'3 �' '�`rt` ' n� j � t . ' �i i� � � .i� . ��• � S. �-• ��,� a �" � �� ' ���� r � L �� � A i� � � ,.. ��. � � � - �� z � ���`�';� '� _ r .t � -�-����_.�M ^s> � . � �� ��� F _ -'� Y .. ',� '�� *-'� r� �. :.� r- �--� ¢'��s �'t:�'�' ,.�I�'�j�"e— f-,. ��---r- �� �t� t �' _, �«` -: -!� tt � � ,c 'E � � : s�' .ea`��f k -~� f , � ��;.d(� g... � .� t _ � Fk� f � �d� r .� `L, �y,�£ �• �` � y , [;�. 1.�. �`F'S� '��s'°Sp! ..4 �f � L� P� 3 �� ���� � ��.,��, i . 1�.. � 5 4� �` i:a'��'� fi � g` �1....w z � h j_��r� € > sF ` s' ✓��-.£ F "�'° : i . >� 3 `�� i "-� �ft XIr`�� {�� "s�� i�� � � �F%�� ,�''� .''\, r F SF f "Q"` 3 �i.� o¥•� t`1� , Z���� .. �.-> zk FC �. P �'` ` p S � � � � { r ; ^. �.. � � y,.,....r,, � 5�� t/ �.r -s � � � 1� � ,s� � 't�� S��`'� t,.'_ ss.s.R�"� �� f �� r . , �- � 4 4 AE! " - i � � ! f " T " -� E � Z 4 �` -^�.� �'�1' k tr` } s ' tc ;. T „�,•:� `�. {R"`.b,ffi �li_i` 1 �� i i.�� t�t`t��t�c"� i�`� �a 4 "� �, - � t �' �� � ° � s t:fs sf rr� c �: � "� ,, �#����-�—� ;�� �, x#:.... .�. Yg f! d> { ., ! � �.t �: *aCs.P + � i€ L , ,� -°� � t I ��� �-����1'�` ,"l ` 2= <�ctf y� , c„�ew. � �st �8F' " � E '4`� ,� . ' ,�' ; ,.t �a 4' ,,,,r v,�c _�� Iv=�:.'°� _.__• �.__... . .°._._ . E� .. _ -•�3�.1 a.`��` �t.�. „ _ .a d �� ' , i �:S ��,.n �� � s , JI � " � 4t. > � �i a ix .`� , `. ;I�`gf�: __ ,.� _ - ;c - - - '-:: 4 � - ` - � - ,�,: r -:s pa: 6 — - ' ' ' Ext�rp#s from the Qeoinglc map of tite Tacoma North 7.5-m�nute Quadrangle, Washingion: U.S Troast, KG., Booth, D.B., and 8arden, R.K. c,. ��_.� cJ �eoFtesourc�s, �.�.� 5007 Paci�c Highway East, Suite 20 F�fe, Vlfashingfon 98424 Phate: 2�3-896-10i i Fax: 253-896-2�i3 U��a� �eolog�c �ap Norpoint Rasidential Plat Browns Poln# Area Federal Way, Washington 109 fn� t.�nan,��m .NorpolM.USGS .�,»ry 2aoe � �� ;� � �� W SC��B Flgure 4 Approximate Sl#e Locatiun S01L CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM MAJOR DlViSiQNS �q���' GROUP NAME SYMBOL C3flAVF1 Ci.FAN {�W 1NBi.-0i�ADED t3RAVEL, F1NET0 COARSE QAAVEi. t�RAVEi. t'OARSE QP POORLY-0FiApED t�RAVEL {i1�Ap4ED More tban SO% SOILS O( Coatse fract�t OFWVEL aM SILTY C3�iAYEI. Fielah�ed on Wp7�i �lNES No. 4 £leve C�C �AYEY GFiAVEi. Nbte 8tan 5096 BAND CLEAN SAND SW WELLAHADED SAMD. t� TO COARSE SAND Re�ed � Na �0 Sieve SP POORLY-0RAUED 6JIi+iD AAor+e 1ltstt 5096 � Ot Coarse FtacUon SAND SM SILYlf SAND Passes 1MTH FlNES No. 4 Sieve SC CLAYEY SAND SlLT AND CIAY iNORQANiC ML SIL7 � C3, CLAY C3FaA1N� SOILS Lk�utd L1mR less Utan 50 OR{3ANIG aL OfiGANiC SILT, �aANlC C,LAY SIL7 AND ClAY INQAGANIC MN SiI.T OF �-UCiH i'�.A571C}T1(, ElASTIC SiLT More then b096 P�� CH CLAY OF H1 t'LA FA'f ClAY No. 200 Sieve �q� 111�� . '� 60 � more ORt�WIC OH �AOANlC [�AY. OAC�WtC S0.T H!(�NLY OR(�AAN1C S()tl�S P'f' PEA7 NO'iES: i. F'ield ciass�foation Is basec! Uii v4serai eXatr�in8tian ot soA k� geaerat aa�rdartCe w�h ASThA D248&90. 2 Salt dass�tion us�ng lab�aiory tesLs is based on ASTA+1 ti2487-90. S. �tt d sall denslty a t�nslstency ars based on �tetpt�a�n a( bla�n► c� da1a, v1s�i appearance oi soiis. �d or test c�la. SO1L fiAOtSTLiRE MODIFlERS: f�ry- Abse�ce a( moisture� dr�'to it� toudt A�tst 1)amp� but t�o vls�e water Wet Vlsibie t�ee water ar eaturated, nsu�y soii is obffiMed trom belaw water table < _ � �-- ��� � GeoResources, LLC 5007 Pscific Highway Eest, Sun'te 20 Ftte, wast�ington ss42a Phona: 253-896-101 i Fax: �3-896-2fi33 So#i Ciassification System Norpoln# ResldeMlal Piat Browns Pofr�t Area 11 a Federal Way, Washington . � � �: JoH� LandmarkHm.Norpok�t.uscs J Jenuary zooe � Ftgu�s s Tes# Pl# TP -1 location: nortt►west slie erea (SEE Figure 2) Deoth (tt,1 So11 Tme Desc�iption Q.0 - 0.5 DuffCfopsoil. 0.5 - 3.5 SP Org brawn SAND with gravet (loose ta medium der�se, moist} 3.5 - 4.5 SM Brown sfi#y SAND with gravel, occaslona! cobbles tmedium dense to dense, moist). (wea tili?j 4.5 - 5.5 SM Brn Gry sitty SAND w/ gvt cobbles tdense, moist io damp) (wea tie?) M�or caving obsetvect. No groundwater seepage observed.. I Test Pit TP -2 Location: westem property line (SEE Figure 2) Depth (f#.) Saq Twe Descriation � 0_0 - 3.5 SP Orc,� brown SAND wfth gravei� min. sl�� occasionat t�bbies, orgar�s (roots) (toase to med. dense� molst) 3.5 - 4.0 SM Gray brown slity SAND with gravel, occasfanat cab6les� {dense� mo�st) (local mo�lfng) � 4.Q - 6.0 SM Srovvn/Gray silty SAND wl gravei, r�bblas (der�se, moist) Minor caving observed. No groundwater seepage obssrved � Test Pit 'i'P 3�ocat�► east of TP-1 {SEE flgure 2} peath ift.) Soi1 Typa Desarbfion I 0.0 - fl,5 Duftfi`opsol9 0.5 - 3.5 SP Org brown SAN� with gravet, occasionai cabbles� orgar�ics (loose to med. derase, maisi). 3.5 • 5.0 SM Gray brown s11#y SAND wfth o�cldtzed gravef� Interbedded coarse sand ienses � (dense. ma�ist). Minar caving vbserved. � No grounrlwater seepage absQrved. Test Pit TP-�4 �ocatton SW site area (SEE Figure 2) Oeath (�t.l Soii Tvoe DescriQtion � � U.0 - 0.5 DuffCTopsoll. fl.� - 5.5 SP Org brown SANa witt+ siti, gravel, occ. bouiders (laose to med, de�se, molst) � 5.� - 6.5 8M Gray sliry SAND with g�avei. (dense ta v. dense, moist) (til[?) TetmMated at 101� �eet bgs. No caving observed. No groundwa#er seepage abservad. Sampie (S-3) talcen at i0 feet beiow ground surtace. GeoResOUrCeS, LLC soo� Qacm� Higr►way r�st, sulte 20 �s, irvasran�ton ss4� Phone: 253-8�-109 y Fax: 253-89S-2.S33 �_� �� � � _ � � � .�-_ Test Pit Logs Norpolnt Resldential Si#e 1 �ederai Way, Washington .f08B LandmarkHm.Norpo3ntTF � January 2008 � Flge�re 6 �� SECTION VI EROSIOI� & SEDIMENTATlON CONTROL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Any proposed TESP facilities will be designed per City of Federal Way's requirements during the final design phase of the project. �� � �' � � � _ ,-� �.��. .. . ..� f .��• � - �� . . (�1� 2 • ' ' , � � � .. r : _ ���. _ � _ , � _ . . -�� -�. 113 KCRTS Output Pond Sizing per KCSWDM Section 3.2.2 Pre-Devetoped Land Use Condition 3.13 0.00 0.000000 0.00 0.00 0.000000 0.00 0.00 0_000000 0.00 C.00 0.000000 0.00 0.00 0.000000 0.00 0.00 0.000000 0.00 0.00 0.000000 0.00 0.00 0.000000 predev.tsf ST 1.00000 Flow Frequency Analysis Time 3eries File:predev.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak {CFS ) 0.197 2 2/09/O1 18:00 0.054 7 1/06IO2 3:00 0.147 4 2/28/03 3:00 O.fl05 8 3/29/09 20:00 0.08� 6 1/OS/05 8:00 0.151 3 1118/06 21:00 0.128 5 11/29/06 4:D0 0.252 1 1/09J08 9:00 Computed Peaks Tili Forest Till Pasture Till Grass OutwasY: Forest Outwash Pasture Outwash Grass Wetland Impervious -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CF5) Period 0.252 1 100.00 0.990 0.197 2 25.00 0.960 0.151 3 10.00 0.90a 0.147 4 5.00 0.800 0.128 5 3.00 0.667 0.087 6 2.00 0.500 0.054 7 1.30 0.231 0.005 8 1.10 0.091 0.234 50.00 0.980 Developed Land Use Condition o.00 a.00 o.000000 0.00 0.00 0.000000 1.05 0.00 0.000000 0.00 0.00 0.000000 0.00 0.00 0.000000 0.00 0.00 0.000000 0.00 0.00 0.000000 2.03 0.00 0.000000 dev.tsf ST 1.00000 Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:dev.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 0.586 6 2/09I01 2:00 0.481 8 1/05/02 15:00 0.704 3 2/27/03 7:00 0.525 7 8/26/04 2:00 0.632 4 10/28/04 16:00 0.623 5 1/18/06 16:00 0.764 2 10/26/06 O:QO 1.i8 1 1/09/08 6:00 Computed Peaks Till Forest Till Pasture Till Grass Outwash Forest Outwash Pasture Outwash Grass Wetland Impervious � `� ���,� � �� _ ; .. � . . t 3 ; - �: � - - _�.. -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period i.18 1 100.00 0.990 0.764 2 25.00 0.960 0.704 3 10.00 0.9D0 ° 0.632 4 5.00 0.800 0.623 5 3.00 0.667 0.586 6 2.00 0.500 0.525 7 1.30 0.231 0.481 8 1.10 0.091 1.04 50.00 0.980 A 1114 Bypass Land Use Condition 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 " 0.05 bypass.tsf ST 1.00000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0. 00 0.00 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 Till Forest Till Pasture Till Grass Outwash Forest Outwash Pasture Outwash Grass Wetland Impervious Flow Frequency Analysis Time 5eries File:bypass.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- Fiow Rate Rank Time of Peak {CFS) 0.012 7 2/09/O1 2:00 O.Oil 8 1/05/02 16:00 0.015 3 12/08J02 18:00 0.012 6 8/26/04 2:00 0.015 4 10/28/04 16:00 0.013 5 1/18/06 16:00 O.OiB 2 10/26/05 0:00 0.023 1 1/09/O8 6:00 Computed Peaks Retention/Detention Facility Type of Facility Side Slope: Pond Bottom Length: Pond Bottom Width: Pond Bottom Area: Top Area at 1 ft. FB: Effective Storage Depth: Stage 0 Elevation: Storage Voliune: Riser Head: Riser Diameter: Number of orifices: -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period 0.023 1 i0D.00 0.990 0.018 2 25.00 0.960 0.015 3 10.00 0.900 0.015 4 5.00 0.800 0.013 5 3.00 0.667 0.012 6 2.00 0.500 O.Oi2 7 1.30 0.23i 0.011 8 1.10 0.091 0.022 50.00 0.980 Detention Pond 3.00 H:lv 88.56 ft 29.52 ft 2614. sq. ft 8161. sq. ft 0.187 acres 5.00 ft 901.00 ft 23427. cu. ft 0.538 ac-ft 5.00 ft 12.00 inches 2 Orifice # Height Diameter (ft) (in} 1 0.00 1.32 2 4.00 1.26 Top Notch Weir: None Outflow Rating Curve: None Stage {ft) 0.00 O.al 0.03 0.04 0.05 Full Head Discharge {CFS) 0.105 0.043 Pipe Diameter {in) 4.0 r �� ;�,� `���' . . .. . „ ;; Elevation Storage Discharge Percolation (ft) {cu. ft) (ac-ft) (cfs) (cfs) 901.00 0. 0.000 0.000 0.00 9Gi.t�i 26. O.GGi O.u05 0.00 901.03 79. 0.002 O.OD8 0.00 901.04 105. O.p02 0.010 0.00 901.05 132. 0.003 0.011 O.aO Surf Area (sq. ft) 2619. 2621. 2636. 2643. 2650. ' �`<< T. ��' A-� 15 o.o� 0.08 0.10 0.11 0.21 0.31 0.41 0.51 0.61 0.71 0.81 0.91 1.01 1.11 1.21 1.31 1.4i 1.51 1.61 1.71 1.81 1.91 2.01 2.11 2.21 2.31 2.41 2.51 2.61 2.71 2.81 2.91 3.01 3.T1 3.21 3.31 3.41 3.51 3.61 3.71 3.81 3.91 4.00 4.01 4.03 4.09 9.05 4.07 4.08 4.09 4.11 4.12 9.22 4.32 4.42 4.52 4.62 4.72 4.82 4.92 5.00 5.10 5.20 90i.07 901.08 901.10 901.11 901.2i 901.31 901.41 901.51 901.61 901.�1 901.81 901.91 902.01 902.11 902.21 902.31 902.41 902.51 902.61 902.71 902.81 902.91 903.01 903.11 903.21 903.31 903.41 903.51 903.61 903.71 903.81 903.91 904.41 904.11 904.21 904.31 904.4i 904.51 909.61 904.71 904.81 904.91 905.00 905.01 905.03 905.04 905.05 905.07 905.08 905.09 905.11 905.12 905.22 905.32 905.42 905.52 905.62 905.72 905.82 9�5.32 906.00 906.10 906.20 185. 211. �05. 292. J6S. 845. 1132. 1427. 1729. 2039. 2356. 2681. 307.4 . 3355. 37D3. 4060. 4424. 4797. 5177. 5566. 5963. 6369_ 6783. 7206_ 7637. 6077. 8526. 8983. 9450. 9925. 10409. 1G903. 1140b. 11917. 12439. 12969. 13509. 14059. 14618. 15187. 15766. 15355. 16893. 16953. 17074. 17134. 17195. 17317. 17378. 1�439. 17561. 17623. 18242. 18872. 19512. 20162. 20822. 21493. 22174. 228oS. 23427. 24138. 29860. 0.004 0.005 0_006 0.007 O.a13 0.019 0.026 0.033 0.090 0_047 0.059 0.062 0.069 0.077 0.085 0.093 0.102 0.110 O.i19 0.128 0.137 0.146 0.156 0.165 0.175 0.165 O.i95 0.206 0.217 0.228 0.239 0.250 0.262 0.274 0.286 0.298 0.310 0.323 0.335 0.349 0. 362 0.375 0.388 0.389 0.392 0.393 0.395 0.398 0.399 0.400 0.403 0.405 0.919 0.433 0.948 0.463 0.478 0.493 0.509 C.5i5 0.538 0.554 0.571 0.012 0.013 0.015 O.D16 0.022 0.026 0.030 0.034 0.037 0.040 0.092 0.095 0.047 0.049 0.052 0.054 0.056 C.058 0.060 0.061 0.063 0.065 0.067 0.068 0.070 0.071 0.073 0.074 0.076 0.077 0.079 0.080 0.081 0.083 0.084 0.085 0.087 0.088 0.089 0.090 0.092 0.093 0.094 0.094 0.095 0.097 0.100 0.103 0.107 0.108 0.109 0.110 0.117 0.122 0.127 0.131 0.135 0.139 0.142 G.i4o' 0.198 0.460 1.030 0.00 0.00 0.00 0_00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.OQ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0_00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 u.0� 0.00 0.00 �.00 2664. 2671. 2685. 2693. 2765. 2837. 2911. 2985. 3060. 3135. 3212. 3289. 3367. 3445. 3524. 3604. 3685. 3766. 3845. 3931. 4015. 9099. 4184. 4269. 4356. 4443. 4531. 4619. 9709. 4799. 4689. 9981. 5073. 5166. 5259. 5359. 5449. 5544. 5691. 5738. 5836. 5935. 6024. 6034. 6059. 6064. 6079. 6094. 6104. 6119. 6134. 6144. 6295. 6347. 6449. 6552. 6656. 6760. 6865. ti971. 7057. 7169. 7272. A-�'16 . . � � ', � .._ . - �, . � �° a . . � , ,� �., . -.. � � _� � 5.30 5.40 5.50 5 . 60 5.70 5.80 5.90 6.00 6.10 6.20 6.30 6.40 6.50 5.60 6.70 6.80 6.90 7.00 Hyd Inflow 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 a Hyd 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 1.18 0.59 0.59 0.62 0.70 0.37 0.48 0.53 905.30 906.40 906.50 906.60 906.70 906.80 906.90 907.00 907.10 907.20 907.30 907.40 907.50 907.60 907.70 907.80 9fl7.90 908.00 Outflow R/D Facility Outflow 0.89 0.42 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.89 0.42 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.09 0.08 0.07 25592. 26336. 27090. 27856. 28633. 29420. 30219. 31030. 31852. 32685. 33530. 34386. 35254. 35134. 37026. 37930. 38846. 39773. 0.588 0.605 0.622 0.639 0.657 0.675 0.694 0.712 0.731 0.750 0.770 0.789 0.809 0.830 0.850 0.871 0.892 0.913 Peak Stage Eiev 5.18 906.18 5.09 906.09 5.00 906.00 4.70 905.70 4.56 905.56 3.65 904.65 2.70 903.70 2.18 903.18 1.�60 2_550 2.840 3.100 3.330 3.550 3.760 3.960 9.150 4.320 4.500 4.660 4.820 4.970 5.120 5.270 5.410 5.550 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Storage (Cu-Ft) (Ac-Ft) 24687. 0.567 24048. 0.552 23424. 0.538 21338. 0.490 20456. 0.470 14858. 0.341 9901. 0.227 7527. 0.173 7380. 7490_ 70'00. �711. 7622_ 7939. 8097. 816i. 8275. 8391. 8506. 8623. 8790. 8858. 8977. 9096. 9217. 9338. POC Outflow Target Calc ******* 0.91 *�***** 0.43 0.15 0.15 ******* 0.14 ******* 0.14 0.09 0.09 *****�* 0.08 ******* 0.07 Tributary Inflow 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 Reservoir Inflow *****�*� ,.���**�� «*****�* +****�#* **�****� *����*** ***�**�* **��+��* ---------------------------------- Route Time Series through Facility Inflow Time Series File:dev.tsf Outflow Time Series File:rdout POC Time Series File:dsout Inflow/Outflow Analysis Peak Inflow Discharge: Peak Outflow Discharge: Peak Reservoir Stage: Peak Reservoix Elev: Peak Reservoir Storage: 1.1$ CFS at 0.893 CFS at 5.18 Ft 906.18 Ft 24687. Cu-Ft 0.567 Ac-Ft �� � ��� ' �� �' ' "� � � � 6:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 9:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Add Time Series:bypass.tsf Peak Summed Discharge: 0.912 CFS at 9:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Point of Compliance File:dsout.tsf A-�41 � Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:rdout_tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 0.420 2 2/09/01 16:00 0.077 7 12/28/O1 17:00 0.133 S 2/28/03 7:00 0.069 8 8/26/04 6:00 0.089 6 1/05I05 15:00 0.138 4 1/18/06 23:00 0.148 3 11/24/06 8:00 0.893 1 1/09/08 9:00 Computed Peaks Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:dsout.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- Fiow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 0.926 2 0.079 7 0.135 5 0.072 8 0.092 6 0.140 4 0.152 3 0.912 1 Computed Peaks 2/09/O1 16:00 12/28/Ol i6:00 2/28/03 6:00 S/26/04 4:00 1/05/05 8:00 1/18/06 21:00 11/29/06 6:00 i/09/08 9:00 -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) (ft) Period 0.893 5.18 1 100.00 0.990 0.420 5.09 2 25.00 0.960 0.148 5.00 3 10.00 0.900 0.138 4.70 4 5.00 0.800 0.133 4.56 5 3.00 0.667 0.089 3.65 6 2.00 0.500 0.077 2.70 � 1.30 0.231 0.069 2.18 8 1.10 0.091 0.735 5.15 50.00 0.980 -----Flow Frequency Analysis- - - Peaks - - Rank Return (CFS) Period 0.912 1 100.00 0.926 2 25.00 0.152 3 10.00 0_140 4 5.00 0.135 5 3.00 0.092 6 2.00 0.079 7 1.30 0.072 8 1..10 0.750 50.00 A c� 18 Prob 0.990 0.960 0.900 0.800 0.667 0.500 0.231 0.091 0.980 ' �a r � � _ ��� ' �: 8 3 � _ *R � F ��. _ }�. - k y ! $ E � _,, a...,�..+��.. . ° � �`��' � � �. - � , . _ � . . __ �_.._. r._.__-< .._.___:: SCHOOL ACCESS ANALYSIS For Norpoint Heights Subdivision Prepared For Landmark Homes PO Box 26116 Federal Way, WA 98093-3116 ESM Consulting Engineers, LLC. No.1453-007-002 January 2008 �, � �...,, � -�' a=°� 3��` a,-� . - ,� r— :, ._ � �- ��= � ;4 ., . .. . ,�;'�, �} `� � ;� �;,,{, � � =_;JS... 119 "'� - _. , . e�;;-. } �,u -. I � _ � i_ 6 : i -, 4 3 �_Ym c ' __��..,:.. --.. _ -�..-__.__,_ .._- x ' Ya.` �Qi-,. ..— � � ¢�: �' k 1 i � i "�� " �.*s s ,_ ? F 'A �-a; �s�w .R.,_. -�=....-... 'o�'� . .�� --�_.��.�.:__ TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Project Overview 11. Existing Conditions lIL Mi�gation Recommendations Appendix Overall Site Map Sherwood Forest Elementary School Boundary Map Illahee Middle School Boundary Map Todd Beamer High School Boundary map Photos r.e�ryobs�l a531oo2�cioa,me is.doc 120 �:� . � ��r= : ��F ._ , .. _ , _ .. :: , , �.,--� __ � � SECTION I PROJECT OVERVIEW 121 SECTION 1 . PROJECT OVERVIEW The foilowing is a student access analysis for this project . � � � ., � _ _ �` . The proposed project, Norpoint Heights Subdivision, is located west of 25�' Avenue S.W., south of S.W. 345th Piace, north of SW 356 St and west of Norpoin# Way NE in Tacoma, containing approximately 3.0 acres. The proposed plat shows 14 single family residentia! lots. This project wiil be served by the foUowing schoois: Sherwood Forest Elementary School - The proposed project is outside the 1 mile radius so the students will receive school bus transportation. The closest existing bus stop is located at 27�' Avenue S.W. and 351 St Place, see map. lliahee Middie School - The proposed project is outside of the 1 mile radius so the students will receive school bus transportation. The closest exis�ng bus stop is located at 27 Avenue S.W. and 351 St Place, see map. Todd Beamer High Schooi- The proposed project is outside the 1 mile radius so the students will receive school bus tra�sportation. The closest exisfiang bus stop is located at S.W. 349�' at 2609 (Coronado ParW See school boundary maps in Appendix 122 £ZT SNOWt7N0� JNIISIX3 li N011�3S ,._ � � =�:�;� � �,., ___ _. __... . � � ..� SECTIOId ii EXISTlNG CONDITIONS �= � � � � � . � �., _. _ - _ The existing student access route conditions are documented with a description, overali location map and photos located in this report This site is somewhat isolated because access will be off Nor�oint Way in Tacoma AI#hough a pedestrian access is proposed to connect to 25 Ave. SW, the e�asting school bus stops are not near this area Access to the exisfing school bus stops are somewhat blocked by a newly constructed water quality swaie along Norpoint Way. The access to Sherwood Forest Elementary School bus stop is only available by crossing a newly constructed biofiltration swaie built for the Norpoint Way improvements. Ifi this swale was crossabie, studen#s would come out of this development and foliow the sidewalks along Norpoint Way� to the non-existent intersection with 27�' Ave. SW. There are sidewalks along 27 Ave. SW to the bus pick-up point about a block away. The bus stop is at 27�' Ave. SW and SW 351 �` Place. There are sidewalks on all the roads except over the biofiltration swale beiween Norpoint Way and the end of 27 Ave. SW. lt appears pedestrians have been crossing the swale at this point See photos #1 thru 4 showing the access route and pick-vp areas. The middfe school bus stop for Iliahee Junior High School students is at the same location as the Sherwood Forest Elementary School, 27�' Ave. S.W. and SW 351 �` Place. (See above) The high school bus stop for Todd Beamer High School students is at S.W. 348�'. Place at 2609 (Coronado Parl� This site is north of this project and north of the elementary and middle school bus stop, see map. (See photo #2) 124 .�:- , � ��� ._ �=-. � � : _ ,, ,. ... � , , = _..:.. __:._. --- � SECTION fil MIIIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS 125 SECTION Ili MITIGATION RECOMMENDAl10NS - �' : �� - . �:, � '�.: �.W . , � � _ The foliowing is a proposal from the developer for access to aN of the school bus pick up locafions. It appears the pedestrian access to ali the bus stops in Federai Way wouid require pedestrian improvements between Norpoint Way and the end of 27�' Ave. SW. This would require about 75 feet of new sidewalks and a wooden bridge over the newly constructed biofiltration swaie along Norpoint Way. There is no other realistic access to the existing school bus stops from this proposed development See photos # 5 & 6. i26 �,:, x -� r � �� � � �� fi � � � _ x . .. i � � � . ._..v-s.._ ���. .. �_ ._,. _. .__ . � � ; � 5 - ,..ss- ;^- � .. _._... -. ». � -� - F: � � # � . � �.i_ .....g .�....'"',..-_ ,. .... ro. _..g_ � � i �.� .. . . ... :. .:_ �-< <.._.�.4' �a� PHOTO # 1 — PICK-UP AREA PHOTO # 2— PICK UF AREA � �: _ : � . . . . _ . _ € e=_.__. _ �� � � � r � •, , � �; t , -� ��:, , .� � �. . . � _. . _ _._— -. i28 PHOTO # 3 - WAIKING ROUTES PHOTO # 4 - WALKING ROUTES �., �� PHOTO # 5 - CROSSING AREA . _ � �__ � r � � ' PHOTO # 6 - CROSSING AREA �Iwsww)wf Y�einiefa 129 , �_- Sg � . �... �.2_. �. 9 � .. � , � �.`` � � � �..�. * r °�� �; � � �: ��:':� �, �__ `F_ _. � . �; APPENDIX 130 � • � . � Y � 4 .A�.,�z,, �u. , x + %fa : w ... .Y �, Ci � � y � h ; l:' �� . J �� � � � � � � �� �, � � •� � � �k�n +� a ?, �' a ,� . ,. , ' �.. ° t 5 � " � � ni � �� , �.. 'J�'M�TI�tl►'� t� ,g� � �.d8 J ��.sy I'1.�� Gg'4 r^' ��+.,I ir'; Gy * �'�9' . ,. f7�7 R��:, v ��S , ' . � ,� �; � a � �r, '"` 1'°"".,`'. I � 2„� �r�► `° �� � �, '�� , ,Y .�. � � � r M � � �' `� .. F �� <. r ' ,as!� ',Tn >,'W �," '• f04l�YaY ;�111 rf LSIQC" ., ,.. ... . . . ; c�+� . :A;-ri"`1C', CH:�t .,,r.ar._.. ... ..� . m 1 s�,, IDLE SCHOOL K-UP AT 27TM =.SW ANQ 3W �T PL CHOOL PIGK-UP ,T � �►vE.sw ,T SW 361 ST ST. Y ���R ,. I;i"1 �"SU�����t-s(.� fq � ��: !� .. �� � �� k ._,. ?n�� � �, ;� � p .� ! P � ;` ;�� , ri� �„� � ,�" , -� � r �a "�r ,� � � � s F � b ' � � �� � r5.�. � I � �{ , , �' � � , ;�.. � ,� PR4JECT SITE 0 HIGH SCHOOL PI'CK-lJP AT SW349TH AT 26�9 CORC?NADO PARK ELEMENTART SCH004 PICK-UP AT SW 349TH �L AT CORONADO PARK 6 I� $)5!' , ? �� ti ; �fl1A ki,�..�� ��! �� ; lCMF � � , 1s ..,i�� �� ,lCMF 'Y'"�� � f.C'�'.��d�+r� t AAu � •�., ,taapr� _ .„�lJ�y� ��rci r f!!B }�� ;•1���.�tM(�� �_�$� 1 �' � '� �M�fRN. --� � E� tW ANf�7!! � ". ssqFi �; �t ��f7� a � � .. _....._t i S7d1 1 ��, ,, ttRr � �' �� �j_➢��IRf� ::• I ,'�� fN6�i� � S � � fASf yH � � �� �' ��7.Z . � � � � ��� G � , � �„ � � ��, � '�, , , � ` � : �s_o � , w .�.,.. } �. � � � ��� � ! I r �. ,y�d, ks � '� y � ,, � i ^ a � � �� �"�' `Y � � I . �!t 1� � . �`� �`�'� �� � µ i�►��'� ��l .��f �.. f ;, i ':, � M�ieironr�"�� � � ' �,»t�n I `,�' • � �°��� � -, ��, � ����� _�_..__._. — -- .-� _'-+�4'',�,, �.� ti �s � � �� `r�,' ��� `� ,. n" ,.. M'� �ra ,�im�l��''��' ,,'., t �I�� � �� I �„ � J ' � i � � fAqy �' c �i� � �.: _., :� '�'°I�° �S� ,,I�ka ` _ , , ,� r a ,,� I� �. , I �� - � � �- � • � � � � �� „ . � � � � ,,. Af � � �,r� � � ... _ . .. .. ,. 'svu� aeatrw^sr sw. serH ss ' 1 � . �� �1 � 7 � �......, �: i �� . � . SwiIOYw ��wi ..,�� ..� �� .. NDRPOINT HEIGHTS SCHOUL ACCESS RE1/IE'Irllf. 1-9-08 f74! y i �..�:f � � �..: F�� . i,,,; . � - . _.., ;., , ��� t '<,:;...� .. '�� � �;� a � .,,:� �� ,�..a ,i:4'!. Elementary �chvv! Bc�unda�es � w N � ��µ§ h �n Y "k, �wap.«. �+�'�� , �. +., ! � �, ��� � r1 , k� ,�...;y,;,;r;. �liiddl� S��a�i B��nd�ries I.egend ��► 3otwoh BoundaAas � HawraeMidlmStlhooe \ � IG&�M&kfaSntcf � ta�tlClA�iddalacfal � Sa�qatieeMiddaS� � 9�Me[taNidie9lao� � 9equ�rae�Mitlrf'e9Cqd � F-� W W PI�O►JECT ;, ..� � :_.� �,�� �� � k ;� �.-+ W �P ■ �r�►�w ■ High Schaol Boundaries � Leqend s�os 9auxdaetee � om. +», F.a.a�whr �� � TatlOsns -� "`^�... ,. ��:'< �,�.,� ; ,� 4 � ,s'*. s. " ,*`.. . ";�,.� r V ,........ w�„�,,., ....�... 8 �....�, � �"` ..,.. '' �� i ,4 '"} " � � .'+,��' i � r �,. � :,� ' � , i '���_�, '� 31405 18th Ave. So. Federal Way, WA 98003-5433 Te1253.945.2000 www.fwps.org August 25, 2009 City of Federat Way David Lee Department of Communiiy Development POBox9718 Federal Way WA 98063-9718 RE: NORPOINT HEIGHTS (08-104329-00-SU) Uear Mr. Lee, � • Federal Way = Public Schools � � aFcE�v�� s�r [;r;i,S hr': �i.'�i i lY J�VF_1_:�?h!1 �NT D cFra�i i?.�1 �fi�: i , � � � � Zr�;��: �, L. �� �^' 3 � �-.: .:.. : i _ :. , � : : . � � �'`��: �.._,� ��•. - ._ _... �?�: �,� s'. k , ' � a ,; Y € �', - - ° 3_ _ _ �_�. , : '++.e��. . y'-:x: � ..e.. � —"' ._....: The Federal Way School District recently received information on Norpoint Heights, a proposed 14-lot single-family subdivision. The project is located at SW 352"� and 27�' Ave SW. Under current boundaries, this development is in the Sherwood Forest Elementary, Illahee Middle School and Todd Beamer High School service areas. School service areas are reviewed each year and necessary boundary changes may be made to accommodate enrollment increases. Students living in this area receive school bus transpc�rtation to Sherwood Forest Elementary, illahee Middle School, and Todd Beamer High School. Bus stops are reviewed � annually as studeni transportation needs change. The closest stop for Sherwood Forest Elementary and Illahee Middle School is on 27�' Ave SW at SW 351�` Si.. The closest stop for Todd Beamer High School is on SW 349�' Pl at 26fl9 (Coronado Park). Student safety must be considered for all students who would walk to the schools and to school bus stops from this development. Sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students are factors the district must consider as we comment on development within our service areas. We ask the developer to prepare a"School Access Analysis" to the elementary, middle school and high school from this proposed development. Attached aze guidelines for preparing this analysis. The most rec;ent Federal Way School District Capital Facilities Plan indicates a student yield of .7194 from new single-family housing. This development could add 10 to 11 new students. These are averages only; ttie actuai number vi s�udents . vary. T'r,is may �::,ate a r�eeci for additicnal space, equipment xnd siaff. This impact is mitigated by the collection of impact fees. 1fie District appreciates the opportunity to comment on this proposed development. Sincerely, l I �-. .t�� Tanya Nascimento � Enroilment Anal t � "l� ��� cc: Sally McLean, Chief Financial Officer David Remman, Safety Off`icer Cindy Wendland, Transportation Director School Principals 135 Norpoint Keighu.doc a -.�.� s , ���� �,� �� ,� a�+ 3 Department of Development and Envir�n�men�ai` S`�rvices Building Services Division 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest � �`° , .. _ „ _> =. - Ren#on, Washington 98057-5212 � 206-296-6600 TTY 206-296-7217 � �. 1• 11 �"?���� � � ��,�� sa9 d�'°"1����d�c'� �'i������ �'-�q .t � �' �.. ��� r�5s �.���.�.., , �.u'� . �� � � '� .�'�-�� : �-'� �"� �`�� ��-�--� �� ''�-r ���� � *' �� i- �3�'������ r ��R� � ��`�.�.;,�. ���a '� �� • / �`� E sc1�.r �, '`� a zt . : .r � �.*.:s`Y �� . : :.�, �? .,�:.�. For alternate formats, cali 206-29�-6600. This certificate provides the Pubiic Health - Seattle & King County Department and the Department of Developrnent and Environmentai Setvices with information necessary to evaivate development proposals. Do not in this box ❑ BuiJding Permit �Preliminary Plat or PUD �'� ❑ Sho�t Subdivision ❑ Rezone or other. ApplicanYs name: � Proposed use: � LOCatiolt {attach map and legai description if necessary)_ �sa�o3- � Sewer agency information: 1. ❑ a. .- ►: � � � ry � = L� ,;' . � -�` - 9oa6 � Sewer senricecan � P��ded by side sewer connection only to an existing size sewer feet from the site and the sewer system has the capacity to serve the proposed use. --_ ��_S. Sewer service wiil require an improvement to the sewer system ofi e � � � � �� �� �'(� � � � �' . ->r, feet of sewer trunk or lateral to reach the site and� g�-� J .fl1� .. - ; � � . � �{2) The construction of a c611ection system on the site; and/or � � ; ,.7� ❑ �3) Other (describe): ., ; F .� + � ---- - __- - -9 ___ __ � � ? .,:! �� �.� ' �,� �- � �-�-._.�,--__. _ 2. a. The sewer system improvement is in conformance with a Coun#y approvecl sewer comprehensive plan. ; ` OR , ,,,� ❑ b. The sewer system improvement will require a sewer comprehensive plan amendme�t. 3. � a. The proposed project is within the corporate limits of the district or has been granted Boundary Review Board „� approval for extensio� of senrice outside tfie district or city. OR ❑ b. Mnexation or Boundary Review Board (BRB) approval will be oecessary to provide service. 4. Service is subject to the following: a. b. c. Connection charge: Easement(sj: � Other. ✓ r ��.� i �i � � � . , ,��� .�� -���.� s r� a�l� ii.C�� ���L: _'�a� �� ���� he Distriet, at its sote discretion, reserves tfie right to delay or denv sewer service h9sea n�� ��.,A,.;w �:�;rg«:.,..e :., n:.....:_..._...,.�.__ ,.__________ r_ __._� __ . LAKEHAVEN UTILITY DISTRICT Agency name �NCsR . �T�{-t , '�'_ Title sewer avaitabili#y form.doc b-cert-sewer.pdf ����iJ t��jc� fZ.` � � ignatory name ' �� Si nature � f � � � g e J f:�;4.�: r` •• '� � 136 1 � 02-07-2002 Page 9 of 1 I certity that the above sewer agency information is true. This certification shalJ be valid for one year from date of signature. '� ;' We6 date: 04/26J2007 y �.� \ -., 1 , . ; ; 3 f� � �i17C�.� .1 yi`� a � ��', #+� ''" . Departrnent of Development and Environmentai Services - . ✓ Building Services Division ��"`�`r, ' �:.;�= , >>�� l ,;,µ ,' � F �_: ` � 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest ^� ; � '� ERU , °. ;;; Renton, Washington 98057-5212 � FOC 8It2!'tlatG' f01"171atS cail 206-296-6600. 206-296-6600 T7Y 206-296-7217 This certificate provides the Public Heatth - Seattle & King County Department and the DepaRment of Deveiopment and Environmentai Services wi#h informatio� necessary to evaluate development propo Do not write in this box ❑ Building Permit � Preliminary Plat or PUD ✓ ❑ Short Subdivisioo ❑ Rezone or other. ApplicanPs name: �" jt �• �. � Proposed use: ,,o / y .�� � LoCation (attac�i map and legal description if necessary): !1:'. ,°'.� �.� !a� ,� � %� '°" � ✓ Name ,L-�� C '� �� ✓ ✓ � ���� 1. ❑ F�E1 2. (� ❑ Ci;! a. Watei can be provided by service connection only to an e�asting feet from the site. OR b. Water service will require an improvem nt to the water system of: ��� � ::� �� `� �,« ,/�feet of water main to reach the site; andt� �j (2} The construdion of distribu�ion s on�he sjte.; a�-'� �(3) Other desaibe • �� � - • �'�: � p ..Gi:..i�; 1ES ���'� � �' _ _ �iG r 1�-�L'. �L�i.. i w �: �' , �'� (size) water main that is � � .. , � � i 1 ���� �. �— � . = ✓ t'� v � �i t a. The water system is in conformance wnth a County-approved water comprehensive plan. ✓ OR b. The water system improvement is not in conformance with a County approved water comprehensive plan and wiit require a water comprehensive plan amendmenk (This may cause a delay in issuance of a permit or approval.j a. The proposed project is within the corporate limits of the district, or has been granted Boundary Review Board approval � for extension of service oatside the district or aty, or is within the Eounty approved service area of a private water purveyor. OR ❑ b. Mnexadon or Boundary Review Board (BRB) approval will be necessary to provide service. 4. � a. Water is or will be avaifable at the rate of flow and duration indicated below at no less than 20 psi measured at the nearest fire hydrant _ (, j-� _{..'�, �✓ fee# from the buiiding/property (or as mariced on the attached map): Rate of flow at Peak Demand: ❑ less than 500 gFun (approx, gpm) � 50� �o-gc,3g-g�m � � app 9Pm or more ,/ ❑ flow test of gPm ❑ cala�aBon of 9Pm _ Durafion: ❑ Iess than 1 hour ❑ 1 hour to 2 hours � 2 hours or more ✓ Ofher; ' OR (Note: Commercial building permits which indude muftffamity structures requrre flow t c!r ), .�. = �.:��i�i �. � ` ❑ b. Water system is not capabte of provitiing fire flow. � __'__ 5. pt a. Water system has certificates of water rights or water right daims sufficienrto provi�� � :� �� � OR � ❑ b Water t -�.-:a�-t._.�..._;:�- • sys em does not currently have necessary water rights or water right daims.. Comments/cflndidons: ��tc+��l��:Z �C'7`cT.�w�Jr.S t�'�--{:.�q3��V r ���t3f4'��7 ✓ certify that the above water purveyor informa6on is true. This certification shall be vafid for one year front date of signature. LAKEHAVEN UTILITY DISTRICT ��[�{.,,,.; �-����(Zc� Agency name , Stgnatory name � �-- , =1� �#� 7��: . _ - ' . / T�tle ' ` .� < r� ..-e � % � � .s " ignature � ` Date ��' ✓- � _ '� _ The Dlstrict, at its sole discretion, reserves the right to delav or denv water servicP ha�p� ���.,.,., :ter availability form Re��. 05-19-2003 pa�P 9 nf 1 COUNCIL MEETING DATE: Apri16, 2010 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL [TEM #: SUBJECT: South 356�' Street at SR 99 Intersection Improvements Project — Project Acceptance and Retainage Release POLICY QUESTtON Shoutd the Council accept the South 356`� Street at SR 99 Intersection Improvements Project constructeci by Ceccanti, [nc. as complete? _ COMMTfTEE Land Use and Transportation Committee CATEGORY: � Coasent ❑ Ordinance ❑ City Counci! Business ❑ Resolution STAFF REPORT BY: Marwan Satloum, P Public Works Director MEETING DATE March 15 , 2010 ❑ Public Heariog ❑ „ Other EP1': Public Works Attachments: Memorandum to the Land Use and Transportation Committee dated March 15, 2010. Optioas Considered: 1. Authorize final acceptance of the South 356`�' Street at SR 99 Intersection [mprovements Project constructed by Ceccanti, Inc., in the amount of $2,651,936.55 as complete. 2. Do not authorize final acceptance of the completed South 356`� Street at SR 99 Intersection Improvements Project constructed by Ceccanti, Inc.. as complete and provide direction to staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends forwarding Option 1 to the April 6, 20 i Agenda for approval. CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: �� � DtRECTOR APPROVAL commiuee counci� Council Consent c��i CONIMITTEE RECOMMENDATION Forward Option 1 to the April 6, 2010 Council Consent Agenda for approval. Dini Duclos, Chair Jim Ferrell, Member Jack Dovey,_Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION "1 move approval of final acceptance of the South 356` Street at SR 99 Intersection Improvements Project constructed by Ceccanti, Inc., in the amount of $2, 6S 1, 936.55 as complete " (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BYC/TY CLERRS OFFICE� COUNC[L ACTION: ❑ APPROVEU COUNCIL BILL � ❑ DEIYIED l readiag � TABLED/DEEERREDINO ACT[ON Enactmeat reading � MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordiwnces only) ORDINANCE # REVISED - 07J06/2006 RESOLUTION # 138 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: March 15, 2010 TO: VIA: FROM: SUBJECT: Land Use and Transportation Committee Brian Wilson, City ManagerlPolice Chief r` Marwan Salloum, P.E., Deputy Public Works Director John Mulkey, P.E., Street Systems Project Engineer 5�'�' South 356�' Street at SR 99 Intersection Improvements Project — Project Acceptance and Retainage Release Prior to release of retainage on a Public Works construction project, the City Council must accept the work as complete to meet State Department of Revenue and State Department of Labor and Industries requirements. The above-referenced contract with Ceccanti, Inc. is complete. The final construction contract amount is $2,b51,936.55. This is $244,256.85 below the $2,896,193.41 (including contingency) budget that was approved by the City Council on February 17, 2009. K:\LUfq2010\03-15-10 S356th Street @ SR 99 Intersecaon Improvem�n� $roject - Project Acceptance.doc COUNCIL MEETING DATE: April 6, 2010 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL ITEM #• SUBdECT: Pacific Highway South HOV Lanes Phase III (Dash Point Road to South 284`� Street) Improvement Project — Project Acceptance POLICY QUESTION Should the Council accept the Pacific Highway South HOV Lanes Phase III (Dash Point Road to South 284�` Street) Improvement Project constructed by SCI Infrastructure, LLC as complete? COMMITTEE Land Use and Transportation Committee CATEGORY: � Consent ❑ City Councit Business ❑ Ordinance ❑ Resolution MEETING DATE March 15 , 2010 ❑ Public Hearing ❑ 1 Other STAFF REPORT BY Marwan Salloum, P.E., Deputy Public Works Director�SEPT: Public Works Attachments: Memorandum to Land Use and Transportation Committee dated March 15th, 2010. Options Considered: 1. Authorize final acceptance of the Pacific Highway South HOV Lanes Phase III (Dash Point Road to South 284`� Street) [mprovement Project constructed by SCI Infrastructure, LLC in the amount of $15,153,162.28 as complete. 2. Do not authorize final acceptance of the completed Pacific Highway South HOV Lanes Phase [II CDash Point Road to South 284�' Street) [mprovement Project constructed by SCI Infrastructure, LLC as complete and provide direction to staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Option l. CTTY MANAGER APPROVAL: S Y� ` D[RECTOR APPROVAL: Committee Council Council COMMIITEE RECOMMENDATION Forward Option 1 to the April 6, 2010 Council Consent Agenda for approval. Dini Duclos, Chair Jim Ferrell, Member Jack Dovey, Member PROPOSED COUNC[L MOTION "l move to accept the Pacific Highway South HOi' Lanes Phase III {Dash Point Road to South 284` Street) Improvement Project constructed by SCI Infrastructure, LLC in the amount of $ iS, l 53,162.28 as complete. " (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY ClTY CLERKS OFFlCE) COONCIL ACTION: ❑ APPROVED COUNCIL BILL # ❑ DENIED l� reading � TASLED/DEFERRED/lY0 ACTiON Enactmeat reading ❑ MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) ORDINANCE # REV[SED - 02/06/2006 RESOLUTION # i��17 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: March 15, 2010 TO: Land Use and Transportation Committee VIA: Brian Wilson, City Manager/Police Chief ; FROM• Marwan Salloum, P.E., Deputy Public Works Directo -! ��� ' Brian Roberts, P.E., Street Systems Project Engine� Pacific Highway South HOV Lanes Phase III (Dash Point Road to South 284"' Street) SUBJECT: Improvement Project — Project Acceptance BACKGROUND: Prior to release of retainage on a Public Works construction project, the City Council must accept the work as complete to meet State Department of Revenue and State Deparhnent of Labor and Industries requirements. The above-referenced contract with SCI Infrastructure, LLC is complete. The final construction contract amount is $15,153,162.28. This is $1,421,647.72 below the $16,574,810.00 (including contingency) budget that was approved by the City Council on Aprii 3, 2007. cc: Projxt Fsle k:Uutc�20tOM3-l0 P�ific Highway Soufh HOV Phase III- Project acceptance.doc 141 COUNCIL MEETING DATE: Apri16, 2010 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL ITEM #: AGENDA BILL SUBJECT S 348`� Sireet at 1�` Avenue S Intersection Improvement Project — Bid Award Por.tCtt QUEST[otv: Should the Cotu►cil award the S 348"' Street at 1�` Avenue S Intersection Improvements Project to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder? COMMITTEE Land Use and Transportation Committee CATEGORY: � Consent ❑ Ordinance ❑ City Council Business ❑ Resolution STAFF REPORT BY: Marwan Salloum, P.E Public Works Deputy Director MEETING DATE March 15 , 2OIO ❑ Public Hearing ❑ Other EM': Public Works Attachments: Memorandum to the Land Use and Transportation Committee dated March 15, 2010. Options Considered: i. Award the S 348"' Street at 1�` Avenue S Intersection Improvements Project to Construct Company, LLC., the lowest responsive, responsible bidder in the amount of $1,866,107.16 and approve a 10% contingency of $186,610, for a total of $2,052,717.16, and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract. Award of Schedule B(Lakehaven's portion of the pmject) is contingent upon Lakehaven Utility District Board approval to awazd Schedule B as bid. 2. Reject all bids for the S 348"' Street at 1�` Avenue S Intersection Improvements Project and d'uect staffto rebid the project and return to Committee for fuRher action. 3. Do not award the S 348�' Street at 1�` Avenue S Intersection Improvements Project to the lowest responsive, responsibte bidder and provide direction to staff. STAE�' RECOMMENDAT[ON: Staff recommends Option 1. CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: �� D[RECTOR APPROVAL: Committee Camcil ittee Council COMM[TTEE RECOMMElvDAT10N Forward Option 1 to the April 6, 2010 Council Consent Agenda for approval. Dini Duc(os, Chair Jim Ferrell. Member Jack Dovev, Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION "Award the S 348` Street at 1'� Avenue S Intersection Improvements Project to Construct Company, LLC., the lowest responsive, responsible bidder in the amount of $1,8b6,107.16 and approve a 10% contingency of SI86,610, for a total of $2,052,717.16, and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract. Award of Schedule B (Lakehaven 's portion of the project) is contingent upon Lakehaven Utility District Board approval to award Schedule B as bial. " (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BYCITYCLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ APPROVED COUNCIL BILL # � DENIED 1� rad'wg ❑ TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION Enactment readiag ❑ MOVED TO SECOND 1tEADING (ordinances only) ORDINANCE # REV[SED - 02/06/2006 RESOLUTION # 142 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: VIA: FROM: SUBJECT: March 15, 2010 Land Use and Transportation Committee Brian Wilson, City Manager/Police Chief Marwan Salloum, P.E., Deputy Public Works Director John Mulkey, P.E., Street Systems Project Engineer 5(L S 348�' Street at l�` Avenue S. Intersection improvement Project — Bid Award BACKGROUND Seven (7) bids were received and opened on February 18, 2010, for the S 348`� Street at i�` Avenue S. Intersection Improvement Project. See attached Bid Tabulation Summary. The lowest responsive, responsible bidder is Construct Company, LLC. with a total bid of $1,866,107.16. The low bid received was (36%) below the engineer estimate. Reference checks on Construct Company, LLC. by City staff indicates that the contractor has performed similar work. As a result, City staff believes Construct Company, LLC. can successfully complete this project to the City's satisfaction. Therefore, the lowest responsive, responsible bidder is Construct Company, LLC. in the amount of 1,866,107.16. PROJECT ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES: Planning and Design ROW Acquisition Constcuction Cost (Bid Amount) 10 % Construction Contingency PSE (Cost for duct and vault relocation) Co n st ru c tion Management TOTAL PROJECT COSTS AVAILABLE FUNDIIVG: Grant Funding (Urban Vitality Grant)** Utility Taac (2006 Budget) REET (2004 Budget) Fund transfer from Project 141 (SR 99 Phase III) Mitigation Interest Lakehaven utility relocation TOTAL AVAILABLE BUDGET BALANCE $ 450,000 175,000 1,866, t 07 186,610 50,000 436,100 $3,163,817 $ 1,498,582 432,000 79,000 1,800,000 285,725 66,551 69,057 $ 4,230,915 $1,067,098 " The Urban ['itality Grant is a SO'�o grant match of project construction cost with a maximum of S 1.996,335 available funding cc: Project File 3 K:�LUTC�2010\03-15-10 S348tli Street at ist Ave I�tersection Impro�r�s Project - Bid Awarcl.doc � $ � � � � i��` ` � f . �; � 3 � � # e $ 8 �; ` �� � 8$88�888$$&888$88RY8888@8�$6$88.5.88$$$$�88$$8$88$ 88$$$BR$68$$8$8$d8SRQ$$q$$ $@.9�a AAi a M�»i » i4 r 0 YA A N i a� AR w 88 $����$�:��$���� &888&888886$ $8$888888K'YS8$68A88$88�"$$889 fi188q$$8 888886$888q8888988$x88$R88868$SBB » Sa88�$$8�88 ��.�:� 9 `��?'s�3@�R�$:�@���9hil<�AdPq�$ �Fac� 9?_�5g_ g��»saxtt"�a x x:sna�„nsqc�a ._» ;��� da�,� .aa» ns�i<��»r"r! a:,p=s»«v_asttc_s2s �e 8 88 81 Cp , 8$8Q88S 1 C86 8 K'K'$83 1 M�=8$88q8$$$q�'ICK',8888$$8xi8$8888H88$8888�C889,$�51$Bq5tq7q81C88qQ6�6$$$$R5{p$��8$ '���:.att���3���.a�»sx�ic���:�$@attggsa»a9:��fi�R:�=�&����ry���$s���»=6�5x��.:�»S�G�&ay��$��i��cttatt�sttF s»aM 3« 9»= » x a�sxi » aa» »$ »� �n»�a" " � ssea�easasesaaaaseaaaessaas�asaae�ea assssaeseassss.aaesaeaa$e 888�88$$$$$$888° �4��a»�Y�£&�� » » � ;,Gt« eses�eesees��aa�e� 5���»��A��» �� � p !7 p« � p " 88$$$$�8a$$$a@8888 �3��»Y��9»�����aze sa asaasaeseassssa �� ��St��itl9�^������ a»» $ Y{A� � ' 3a��as^ea�a a��a�e.�s$esaa�gsqm�flw�flefla��tR���t'°°8 s&��»�fl$��?�stst��tsEfl� � „ �B»�:.»»» A- - & ..»s�»�» » »�» » tt» �xax�a�ac„» a»��� �� a » „ a»a�u» 6� $8 $88$$$$$8$$89,$8$8$$ �� ��n3�3�� �@tt��nan:e $::�X$a��aa»«tt�»fl BB�c@��$@�� �@$ ��°:»9 ��� a:=&8 tt a� � @��»d�aa��d�� 8 c� 8 tt» ���tt�p��� � __��e 4 �»= » �� . � »»dad�� � n� � �' � a��as� M � �s �� „ a»� aseaesasaeaeaeaeeasaeeeaeeseaeeaa�seesaeaaeaea�asasaaaeaseaaes asassssesasaesaeaesaaeasaa�aaasaaa s�sas aeaeaa sassss � @@.����.��3��@��ff��i��������G������e9�w�� �� ����� ���@&���t�g�i�.A���»�4 8¢� e � �8'' "� $ d @@���������������&� p � � � I„�. �..R � n���;�.. ��_� xswsa Fazg�»a�aa,:aaaag�:F n gix�R �����a» a» x aa� aa=�=»�aa:."aaaa� �.. ttax ��sa» �Fd�i"ti�^ wdaa»:ct» �:xiaaa ..n � I S$8 $$88$$$8$SS�SQ88$$8 � ������»�i�x�$�a�sn�s���»: »� �@��"�a&:��Y�B��=���������$����a9xi�����@^:�»9���»��d�-��@»d�cawsa�$ �����������$a����� ¢ w a»x» � x �=a „ ze Tiii�ff »��»„m �a �FSS " � �aa » « �i»� �` $ sa==aa. KaN�#g��tk�.�t�taRa�sz.ie.u�at���e�,s,a.�s1R taQa$���.k�q€ta8d��?RRR�fl$��R¢e:.9�8.8mt��9a� � R�!!" �x°»gatttta�s»� �aa» »��a�����" „» RSiA oa„� a: a�a��ac�»:.�x a»tt s�a aa» ttaaaaaA�sta �� » » "` » » � »» ""^»' » �� 8$$8Q�'888886$$5�89,$88$S 86$$86 88888$88$$8888$8888R$Ax$88888$8$$88$888%{$$$8$. $88888$$$8$8$$88$&8 �@.$§�.s5����@$@ttg�axn» &�� »;�galYB�F� ���� ���8 � ��&.����&�& �$�@�»�:3 6 �� �$a���attrittg�tt�� � 3 »� �3t��$ ���� � ��»» p � � � ��^ � » � �x � � »� � � � '��xx .. »� �� '�� �i�» tt�` »a:¢ 8 ���i a tt ��u�° ;������ $� ���i ��Y ��l ��� ��� � d� ���� � ��� «A� aR �R RP���a i����� � ��e ��� ��� �_ � � ,. �I � .� �� COUNCIL MEETING DATE: April 6, 2010 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUB.TECT: Citywide Pedestrian Improvements Program ITEM #• POL[CY QUESTION Should Council approve the installation of Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons at locations identified by prioritization criteria? COMMITTEE Land Use and Transportation Committee CATEGORY: � Consent � City Council Business ❑ Ordinance ❑ Resolution MEETING DATE March 15 , 201 O � Pubtic �Iearing ❑ Other STAFF REPORT BY: Jesse Hannahs, P.E., Senior Traffic Engineer ���� DEPT: Public Works At the December 15, 2009, Council meeting, the Council approved installation of two Rectangulaz Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB's) systems on S 324�' Street and authorized staff to create a program to utilize the remaining budget from the SW 356�' Street & BPA Trail Crossing RRFB project to increase pedestrian safety at locations within the city. Staff have formulated criteria to prioritize additional RRFB locations with the goals of increasing pedestrian safety and mobility. Attachment: Memorandum to Land Use and Transportation Committee dated March 15, 2010. Options Considered: 1. Approve prioritization criteria and direct staff to move forward instatling Pedestrian Crossing Improvements based upon priority location list as funds and future grant programs permit. 2. Do not accept prioritization criteria and provide direction to staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends forwarding Option i to the Apri16 2010 City Council Consent Agenda for approval. � � CTTY MANAGER APPROVAL: '�� DIRECTOR APPROVAL: ,' Comminee omm�ttee Council COMMTITEE RECOMMENDATtON Forward Option 1 to the April 6, 2010 City Council Consent Agenda for ap�rovaL Dini Duclos, Chair Jim Ferrell, Member Jack Dovey, Mecnber PROPOSEU COUNCIL MOTION ""I move to authorize staff to move forward with "Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Improvements " based upon the proposed prioritization criteria as funds and future grant programs permit. " � (BELOW TO BECOMPLETED BYCITYCLERKSOFF[CE) COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ APPROVED ❑ DEN[ED ❑ TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACT[ON � MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordirrances only) REVISED - OZ/06/2006 COUNC[L BiLL # 1� re�ding Enactment reading ORD[NANCE # RESOLUTION # 145 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: VIA: FROM: March 15, 2010 Land Use and Transportation Committee Brian WiLson, Interim City Manager/Police Chief Jesse Hannahs, P.E., Senior Traffic Engineer SUBJECT: Citywide Pedestrian Improvements Program BACKGROUND: At the December 15, 2009, Council meeting, the Council authorized the installation of Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB's) on S 324�` Street at the existing pedestrian crossings near 17�' Avenue S and Belmor Park. This approvai also created a new "Citywide Pedestrian Improvements Project" and authorized City staff to create a prioritization (ocation list to install additional RRFB's utilizing this projecYs funding. Staff has identified and evaivated criteria to create a prioritization location list considering pedestrian safety and mobility. Criteria and weight were given to detertnine existing and potential locations in which pedestrian crossings are most likely to occur in addition to iocations where RRFB's would be needed to provide for pedestrian safety. The intention of the Citywide Pedestrian [mprovements Program is to provide safety for pedestrians. Pedestrian coilision history shows where past col(isions have occurred and where a need for further safety measures exists. As such, documented pedestrian coilision history is a critical component of the prioritization criteria and thus has been weighted on a scale double that of the other criteria. 9-Year Pedestrian Point Collision History Scale Total Fatal 0 - - 1 1 - 2 2 - 3 3 - 4 4 1 5 5 - 6 6+ 2+ Existing roadway, traffic and crosswalk location criteria were developed. Locations with greater crossing distances and higher traffic volumes were scored higher as such conditions determine a higher need for pedestrian safety features. Locations where the roadway cross-section is greater than 79 feet were not considered for placement of mid-block pedestrian crossings. These locations consist exctusively of cross- sections with HOV lanes. T'he pedestrian crossing distance at such locations is too great to conclude that an RRFB system would provide for adequate pedestrian safety. Distance to the nearest marked pedestrian crosswalk determines if alternate pedestrian crossings are avaiiable in the vicinity and thus, the likelihood that a new or improved crosswalk would generate more pedestrian traffic. i46 Roadwa & Traffic Crosswalks Point Roadway Distance to Scale Crossing Average Daily Nearest {ft) Width (ft) Traffic (ADT/Lane) Existing Marked ** Crosswaik 0 0- 24 0- 1499 0- 299 0.5 25 - 34 1500 - 2499 300 - 599 1 35 - 44 2500 - 3499 600 - 899 1.5 45 - 54 3500 - 4499 900 - 1199 2 55 - 64 4500 - 5499 1200 - 1499 2.5 65 - 74 5500 - 6499 1500 - 1799 3 75 - 79 6500+ 1800+ Criteria were established to determine locations in which pedestrians were likely to use a marked crosswalk as well as tocations which tend to be utilized by more vu(nerable pedestrians. These criteria included frontage to schools or the presence of safe walking routes to schools. Safe walking routes are designated by school districts for Elementary Schools and Middle Schools. Feasible wallcing routes for High Schoois were also considered. Separation of tand uses by a roadway was considered based upon land uses which would tend to attract more pedestrians. Point School Frontage or parks, Recreation & Libraries Roadway SeparaNng Scale Safe Walking Routes Land Uses 0 - - - 0.5 Qotential High School Private Indoor Recreational Facilities & Single Family Walkin Route Private Outdoor < 25 acres Residentiai Onl t High School Frontage FW Open Space < 25 acres & Private Muiti-Family Outdoor Recreation > 25 acres Residential 1.5 Middle School Walking FW Open Space > 25 acres & State Single Family from Route Parks/Lands CommerciaUOffice 2 Middle School Dumas Bay Center, Senior Center, KC CommerciaUOffice from Fronta e A uatic Center & We erhaeuser Trails CommerciaUOffice Designated Elementary Multi-Family from 2'S School Safe Route FW Neighborhood Parks CommerciaVOffice Elementary School FW Community Parks, FW Designated 3 Frontage Traiis, FW Community Center & KC City Center Area Libraries Existing Transit Ridership Data for Bus Stops in the icnmediate vicinity along with nearby bus stops were considered as riders are likely to cross the roadway to get to/from a stop. King County Metro dces not collect data for Dial a Ride Transit (DART) stops thus daily ridership assumptions were made for these stop locations. Cost feasibility was also considered based upon preliminary estimates for complete location costs which include number of RRFB's needed, median island and curb ramp construction, lighting needs, etc. 147 An additionai 1.5 points were given to tocations where desired countermeasures would address vehicular safety issues. Countermeasures included restriping to provide two-way teft turn lanes, designated bus stops or right turn lanes and addition of o-curb to restrict vehicular movements which have already been restricted via signage. Based upon this criteria weighting system, a prioritized location list has been created. Existing locations with pedestrian crossing treatments were also analyzed to check the validity of the criteria, however previously implemented safety measures have reduced safety concerns as demonstrated in the eight year pedestrian accident history. A totai of 12 criteria were evaluated for a total score of 40.5 points possible. The following is a priority location list of the highest ranking twenty five (25) existing, future and potential locations with subsequent point totals. Over fifty pedestrian crosswalk locations were evaluated including those with existing midblock crossings, locations where past pedestrian accidents have occurred and locations where citizens have in the past expressed a desire for a mid-biock pedestrian crosswalk. Some potential locations were immediately dismissed as sight distance requirements were not adequately met or the roadway cross section was too great to provide for desired pedestrian safety and thus forty six (46) locations were rated. Existing locations with pedestrian crosswalk flashing beacon systems of various designs are highlighted but are not proposed for further upgrades at this time. 148 Priority Proposed Reference Location � Existing System Number Installation Street Points 1 S 324 ST 17 AV S (225' East) 9 9.5 RRFB 2 S 324 ST Beimor Park (West Leg) 'i9A RRFB 3 21 AV SW SW 338 ST (165' South) 1g.5 Pushbutton Activated Beacon 4 S 320 ST Library & 10 AV S Between 17.5 5 SW Campus DR 17 AV SW (175' East) �7.fl Pushbutton Activated Beacon 5 S 317 ST 25 PL S (East l) 17A 7 SW 320 ST 10 PL SW (200' East) 16S 8 1 WY S 1 PL S (North �eg) 16A Pushbutton Activated Beacon 8 Military RD S S 286 PL (South Leg) 16.0 8 S 348 ST 6 AV S (120' East) 16.0 8 SW 320 ST 14 WY SW & 13 AV SW Between 16.0 12 SW 312 ST 14 AV SW (West Leg) 15.5 Pushbutton Activated Beacon 13 11 PL S S 322 PL (400' North) 15.0 13 SW 336 ST 26 PL SW (East Leg) 15.0 13 SW 312 ST 8 AV SW (West Leg) 15.0 • 16 S 304 ST 16 AV S (West Leg) 14.5 16 SW 330 ST West Campus Trai! 14.5 Pushbutton Activated Beacon 16 S 288 Si' Camelot DR (200' East) 14.5 19 S 308 ST 14 AV S {West Leg) 14.0 19 S 312 ST Steel Lake Pa�ic 14A 19 S Star Lake RD 25 DR S/Mark Twain (North Leg) 14.0 22 20 AV S S 320 ST (575' North) 13.0 22 SW 320 ST SW 323 ST (500' East) 93.0 22 1 WY S S 340 ST (North Leg) 13.0 25 Weyerh Suser WY S 344 ST (600' South) 12.5 25 1 AV S S 308 ST (South Leg) 12.5 Constant Beacon 25 SW 320 ST 18 AV SW (200' East) 12.5 It could be noted that the placement of a marked crosswalk at one tocation may subsequently lower the scoring of other nearby locations. Staff will also continue to pursue other funding sources to procure pedestrian improvement instaltations through existing and future grant funding programs. Attachment: LUTC memo dated December 7, 2009. cc: Project File Day File 149 COUNCIL MEETING DATE: December 15, 2009 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL ITEM # : S. e . Su6.1EC[: Rectangular Rapid Fiashiag Beacor►s on S 324� Street (Belmor Paric Pedestrian Lnproveinents) POLtCY QUFST[ON Should Councii approve ihe installation of Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beaoons on S 324` Street at Beima� Park and 17' Aveaue S? CoMMITTEB: Land Use and Transportation Committee CATEGORY: ❑ Cosseat ❑ Ordiasace � �� �o„o�;, B�;,,� ❑ Resolutio� � _� � Member Dini Ductos, Member STAFF REPORT BY Rick Pec�, P E , City Traffic Engine�r D�T' �btic W°rks At the November 2, 2009, Committee meeting, the Committee requested scaff reti►iew the history of the Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB's) instaited at BPA Trail and SW 356�' Street for a�licabitity to address padestrian crossing concerns on S 324'� Street at Belmor Par1� . Attachmeat: Memorandum to Land Use and Transportation Committee dated December 7, 2009- Opiioes Coosidered: t. 'fransfer the remain�g fu� baiance from the BPA Trai1 at SW 356 Street project to a new "Citywide Pedestrian Gossing Improvements" project, and instat! Rectangular Rapid Flsshing Beacons on S 324� Streec at Belmor Park and at 17"' Avenae S as weit as other locatic�ns identified by staff. 2. Do not install Rectaagular Rapid Flashing Beacons on S 324� Street and provide direction to staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recomm�ds Option 1_ d CffY MANAGER APPROVAL:��� �, � D,�� a DIRECTOR APPROVAL caomia�e CO1MtMITTEE RECOMMENDATION Cammittee recon►mends forwarding Option 1 to the December 15 2009 Cily Council Consent Agenda for approvat. �'� Chair POSED CO MOTiON "' I e o transfer the remalning fund balance from the BPA Trail at SW 336`� Street project to a new "Citywide edestricm Crossing Improvements " projec� and i»stall Rectangular Rapid Flashing Bec�ons on S 324' S[reet at Belmor Pcrrk cmd at 17`�" Avenue S as well as other locations ide,rtified by sta,�`.' „ � BELOW TO BECOMPLElED aYCITYCLER6SOFPlC� (`A[JIVCIL ACTION: (� 4P?ROVED � DENtED ❑ TA6LEDIDEF£RREDJNO ACCION O MOYED TO SECOND READlNG (ardina�eces a�ly) REVISED - 0?lU6/2006 150 MEE'ruvG DA't'E: I)ecembe.� 1, 2009 ❑ Pablic Heariug � Ot�er COUNCIL BlLL K l�` ceadi�g E��tt�eatrtadi�y ORDiIYANiCE # RFSOId17'[ON � CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: December 7, 2009 TO: Land Use and Transportatioa Committee VIA: Brian Wilson, interim City Manager FROM: Rick Perez, P.E., Ciry Trat�ic Engineer � RedaagalRr Rapid Flashiag Beaco�rs on S 3?,� Street ' (B� ParIF Pedestrian lmprovements) At the November 2, 2009, Committee meeting, che Commiaee requesced sraff review d►e hiscory of the Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons {RRFB's) instailed at BPA Trail arid SW 356�' Street for applicabiliry to address pedestrian crossing concems on S 324'� Str�et at Belmoc Park. The concerns at SW 356� Street at BPA Tcai! began upon the completion of Madrona Pazk. Ou Octobe� 7, 2008, City Coiittcil aipproved d�e installation of an RRFB at this locatioa if this pcojoct were successful, staff wouid continue with implecnenting simi(ar instailatioas, using the funding from the BPA Trail crossin8 P�J��- The RRFB was installed � June 15, 2009. No pedestrian collisions have be.en t+epc��ted at the BPA Trail crossing, eith� before or since the installation of the RRFB's. Staff observations and citiven reports suggest greaHy improved driver yieiding behavior. Staffs concern that an increase in yielding to pedestrians might increase rear-end coilisions has not been reaGzed As such, staff considets the RRFB iastaltation successful in improving pedestrian comfort in crossing SW 356'� Strcet wiihout adversely affexring saf�y, and therefore recommends that RRFB's be considered for additionai instaflations asing the remaining project fuads. As such, staff proposes to tcansfer the remaining fund balance fcom the BPA Trait at SW 356'� Strcet Pedestrian Improvement to a new "Citywide Pedestrian Ln�ovements" project, and evaluate and insta[[ RRFB's at the tocations original(y identified as well as other locaqau identified tl�mugh a Euioritization proc$ss yet to be compiet,ed. Having preveously evaluated die �edestrian safety issues on S 324� Street, staff proposes instal�tion of RRFB at two tocations oa S 324 Strcer. at the Belmor Park access, and the marked cnosswalic east of i 7 Avenue S, the latter of which has beeA a cantinuing source of citizea concems and a consistent recad of pedestrian cotlisions of about 1 every 2 or 3 years. Based on the i�istory of the BPA Traii at SW 356' Stroet project, staff estemates each installation would cost approximately $30,000, although staff proposes to use King County to procure and install the devices, which staff believes coutd reduce fuiai projcct costs. As such, � would rrot be returniag to Council for bid awanis, as procurement costs would be less than 520,000 for each instaliation. Att�chmenr. i. LUTC memo dated J�e 20, 2(f05. 2. LUTC memo dated November 2, 20U9 a: Proje« Fue Day Fik 151 �1 �-1 G��hment 1 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: June 20, 2005 TO: [.and Use and Transportatia� Committee VIA: David H. i1+[oseley; City Manager . FROM: Ricic Perez, P.E., City TratTc C�gineer SUBJECT: Belrmr Park Sajety Improveneeats POWCY OUEST[ON• What improven�eats should be consmscted to improve pedestrian safety at Bel�nor Park? BACKC[tOUND• A pedestrian fatality occumed on lanuary 2005 on S 324� Street at the entrance of Belmor Park. Betmar Padc residenis p�esented the City witfi a petition requesting additional strcet lighting, �eplacement of the "handicap warning" signs with crosswalk warnin� signs with flashing amber beacons, aod a"pushbutton-activated tra�"� light". tt is unciear if Ehe latter is a proposal for a pedestrian signal or mecety a pedestrian-activated flasher_ Staff has responded with the repiacement of the handicap warning signs witt� tlua�escent yeilow gree+i pedestriaa warni�gs signs, and the instaHation (�►ow underway) of a street light at each side of S 324'� St�eet at die crosswatk. We also collected turning �novement counts (inctuding pedestrian crossings) at the entrance to Belmof Parl: and speed data on S 324"' Ste•eet. Collision history since 1497 was also reviewed. Staff reviewed several guida��ce docurneats for ameliorating pedestriaa collisio�u. Particularly useful is the iatest guidanee from Federa) Highways Administration, whicfi updates �esearch on pedestrian collisians and lists peclestrian countenneasures in order of p�eference. Staff wi11 also be meeting with management of d�e Commons to review these aiternatives and staff reco�neadatiot�s. � OP'rlOtvs: Positives _: _._ ._. . _....,_ . __ ---- i. p�iesirian � Reduces pedestriac� crossing distance to 24 Refuge istand feet at time in one directio� only • Creates two-way ieft turn lane between � (7'� Avenue S and 23`� Avenue S, improving driveway access to the Commons & Beimor Park 2. Pedestrian Signat 3_ Traffic Signal 4. Raised Crosswalk Negatives • Costs S 10,000 — i 8,OU0 • Reduces eastbound direction o� S 324'" Street to one tane_ • Eastbound buses block single tane at bus stops ■ im�xoves pedestrian safery -• Incceases co!lisions for vehicles • Coscs S I 50,000 � Does �ot meet federa! guidelines for sipna! installatio� . _. ._.._. _ __ .. -- - . . _._ . . . - - - . _ . . . _ ■ Improves pedestrian safety • increases collisions for vehieles � Less vehicte coti+sions than pedestrian � Costs 5250,400 signal • Does not meet federal guidelines for signal installation ■ Reduces vehicle speeds ' Contrary to funcfwn as minor arteria! •[mproves percentage of vehicles yietding • Disruptive to trnasit to pedestrians • - c ss,aw _. K:�Ltf{C�20p5�0(i'2(Fd5 8elmor Pai1c Saf�ety It�provenlentS.doC 152 5. Ove�size signs � Costs SS{►0 • Provides perception of i�proved safety 6_ Mast Arm ■ Provides pe�ception of improved safety mounted sig��s � ..._. _ ... _ ,- 7. Flashing ■ P�ovides pe�ception of improved safety Ycilow f3eacons . _ .. . __ . _.. . 8. ln-pavemeni • Some studies sfiow a short-term safet� Flashers improvemeet ' Staff R�ommeadation: ■ No proven be�iefit • Costs 57000 � No proven benefit • Costs S ! 6,440 • No proven benefit � Costs $22,(�0 � High maiatenance cost ■ No proven tong-term benefit Authorize optioa 1 to provide a pedestrisa refuge island and restripe S 324"' Street, coovertiag tt�e eastbound ioside iaue to a iwaway left-turn lane. Committee Recommendation: Forward option 1 to ihe Jaly 19� City Couneil Consent Agenda. APPROVAL OF COMMiTTEE REPORT: Jack Dovey, Chair lVlic�el Park, Member Eric Faisou,:Member K:\LUTC1Z005W6-20-OS 8elrrar Park S�ely impro�.doc s 153 �-l�acl�m�n:� �. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: Noven►ber 2, 2009 TO: i..and Use and Transportation Committee YIA: Brian Wilson, Interim City Manager FROM: Rick Perez, P.E., City Traffic Engiaeer � SUBJLCf: Belmor Park Safdy L�prnvunents BACKGROUND• At tlie OdNober 20, 2009, Council requestsd staff review the history of safety issues on S 324 Street in the vicinity of Betmor Park's entrance in response to citizen concerns. Attach� is the June 20, 2005 memo, outlining the issue and alternatives ccNtsidered- To swamarize, one fatal pedestrian collision occurred in 2005, pcompting Belraor Park resideats to petition the Ca�ncil to install additional street lighting, flashing amber beacons with updated viiarning si$ns, and a traff� s�8na1 iacluding pedestrian actuation. Staff reviewed coliision history and vehicular and pedestrian volume data in proposing the rec�mmended actions, which included the installatioa of improved street lighting, replacement of handicapped watning signs with f�uorescent yeliow gre� padestrian v�+arning signs, restriping S 324� Street from l7 Avenue S to 23` Avenue S to replace the inside eastbound lane with a two-way teft-tum lane, and the installation of a pedestrian refuge isiand. Couticil approved the staffrecommendation on July t9, 2005, and the improvements wer�e instaHed by d�e end of 2005. In addition, Police instailed a speed reader board on S 324'' Strcet eastbouftd appcaaching the Belma� Park entrance. Collision history since this instailation has been r�edaced by SD'/o. ComQaring the coliision history of the segment of S 324`� Stre� beiween 17'�' Avenne S and 23" Avenue S fcom three years pria to �nstaliation (2002-2004) to three years fotlowing instailation {2006-2008), the number of reported collisions d�ped from eight to four. Although no further action appears warranted at tfiis time, both the Belmor Park and 17 Av�ue S pedestrian crossings were note� as potentiat future locations for the itatatlation of Rectangular Rapid Ftashing Beacons. Staff wit! provide an analysis of our piiot project at BPA Trail at S W 356'" Street for these devices in early 20 t0, once 2049 collision ttata has. been processed. Attachmen� i. LUTC memo dated June 2fl, 2005. cs: Proj�a Fik Dayr File 154