Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
92-102073 (2)
FILE CITY OF • EIDIMZFIL Pr,'33530 1ST WAY SOUTH • FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON 98003 December 29, 1992 Mr. Peter Constable Assistant Project Manager Weyerhaeuser Real Estate Co. 33650 - 6th Avenue South Tacoma, WA 98477 RE: Weyerhaeuser Real Estate Co. Application No. PRE92-0050 Dear Mr. Constable: Thank you for meeting with the City's Community Development Review Committee (CDRC) regarding a pre-application meeting for the subject application. This committee includes representatives from the Federal Way Water and Sewer, Fire and School Districts, and staff from the City's planning, public works, building and parks departments. The following is a summary of comments from our meeting. For your convenience, I have listed comments under categories of site plan requirements, code requirements, and SEPA review. Comment sheets from CDRC members are also enclosed. Where appropriate, I have noted pertinent ordinance sections. Site Plan Requirements Please see attached Site Plan Review information bulletin for application requirements. Code Requirements The following are requirements of City codes which have not been addressed in the proposed site design: 1. Streams/Drainage Corridors - The application may be subject to the regulations of the Federal Way Zoning Code (FWZC) Section 80.75 - 110, as the existing drainage corridors may actually be streams. If they are found to be streams, FWZC Sections 80.90 and 80.105.3 apply. Mr. Peter Constable December 29, 1992 Page 2 Intrusions, such as those proposed, are permitted within stream setbacks only if approved under Section 80.105.3, requiring a review under Process II, and subject to criteria of section 80.105.3. Culverts are permitted in streams only if approved under Section 80.90, requiring a review under Process I, and subject to criteria of section 80.90.3. If a development, use or activity that requires approval through Process I is part of a proposal that also requires approval through Process II, the entire proposal will be decided upon using that other process (Process II), if the Planning Director determines that this will result in more efficient decision making. A decision as to whether or not the application will be reviewed under Process II will be made based upon review of the formal application and supplemental material. The applicants shall submit a study to determine whether or not the drainage corridor is a stream, and if so, what type (see below). Margaret Clark, Senior Planner has previously requested a survey to determined the actual location of sensitive areas (NGPE, drainage corridor/stream, and 40% slopes). 2. Geologically hazardous area - With no topography plan, it can not be determined if the proposed driveways will encroach into a geologically hazardous area. Per a site visit, it appears that 40% slopes may exists on lots #3 and #4. In addition, the geologically hazardous area definition within the FWZC also lists other criteria which may define a geologically hazardous area. If property contains or is within 25 feet of a geological hazardous area, Chapter 80, Sensitive Areas of the FWZC applies. Section 80.65 states: "Development activities, land surface modifications or landscaping may not occur on or within 25 feet of a geologically hazardous area, unless no reasonable alternative exists and then only if the development activity or land surface modification will not lead to or create any increased slide, r Mr. Peter Constable December 29, 1992 Page 3 seismic, or erosion hazard. Without a topographic survey, it has not been demonstrated that the subject proposal is the only feasible option in obtaining access to lots three, four, five, and/or nine. Lot number three appears to contain very steep slopes (30-40%+). Any slopes forty percent or greater are considered a steep slope hazard area. A site visit by Jeff Sharp, Engineering Plans Examiner, during the spring of 1992, revealed water seeping from the ground on portions of Lot #8. A Subsurface Exploration, Geotechnical Engineering, and Geological Hazards Report was prepared for the site on October 12, 1987. The report describes on site subsurface water movement. Under the FWZC definitions section, the existence of groundwater seepage, in addition to 15% slopes and permeable sediment (predominately sand and gravel), constitutes a Landslide Area. Prior to granting approval for development activity within a geologically hazardous area, the City may require the applicant to submit information to assist in the decision (FWZC Section 80.62.2). Pursuant to FWZC Section 80.65.3, if the City approves any development activity, conditions as listed in the section may be imposed, but are not required, as part of the approval. FWZC Section 80.65.3 lists the five conditions. Additional information may be required by Public Works at the time of application to address this issue. Environmental Elements If an application for site plan review is submitted to the City, an environmental review will also be required. This is in conformance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). A checklist is enclosed. CDRC Comments The following pre-application information is also enclosed: 1 . Federal Way Public Works - See attached memo to Stephen Clifton from Ron Garrow (12/10/1992). r Mr. Peter Constable December 29, 1992 Page 4 2. Federal Way Water District - See attached memo to Stephen Clifton from Rick Gilmore (12/3/1992). Requests of the Applicant The following shall be submitted along with an application related to the pre- application: 1. A study/report to determine whether or not the drainage corridor is a stream, and if so, what type. 2. Information such as a geotech/soils and groundwater study, and topography plan to determine if areas of the site might be defined as geologically hazardous under the definitions section. 3. Copies of the existing driveway easement (rec. no. 8611191433) regarding access to Lots three and four, off S.W. 293rd Street. A copy of the Road and Utilities easement (rec. no. 8704171493) should also be submitted. As discussed during the September 24, 1992 CDRC meeting, variance or modification requests to land use requirements may be included as part of an application. Please contact me to discuss any potential request(s) prior to application submittal. This will provide an opportunity for me to assist you in understanding what process will be required and whether or not the Department is likely to support any request(s). If you have any questions, please give me a call at 661-4109. S � fton Senior Planner c: Community Development Review Committee Members Enclosures: a. Federal Way Public Works b. Federal Way Water and Sewer District Comments c. Master Use Application d. SEPA Checklist e. Major Steps for Process I and II Permits Bulletin. f. Site Plan Review Bulletin. CITY OF • vv -- Y PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM TO: Stephan Clifton FROM: Jeff Sharp For Your Information DATE: December 10, 1992 SUBJECT: WRECO - Buenna Springs East PRE92-0050 After reviewing the materials submitted for the proposed site the following comments and findings address issues that need to be resolved prior to developing the site. 1. The applicant must demonstrate that no other alternatives exist to access the lots that were created by the previous boundary line adjustment. Consideration should be given to access easements over adjoining lots. 2. The topography that was previously asked for must be submitted to the city prior to any determination of SEPA. It is understood that the applicant is currently working on the topographic map. 3. If an intrusion into the NGPE is allowed, it would only be one that has the least impact to the stream, that the NGPE protects. A pipe style of culvert would not be allowed. Box culverts/bridges may be considered a possibility. 4. The vertical datum block shall include the phrase "DATUM: K.C.A.S." on all sheets where elevations are called out. 5. The maximum cut or fill slope that is unretained, shall be 2 horizontal to 1 vertical. 6. All drawings shall be drafted/plotted on 24" x 36" mylar sheets with permanent black ink. Site plans shall be drawn at a scale of 1"=20' or larger. Drawings submitted for plan review shall be printed on 24" x 36" paper. 7. Provide an Erosion/Sedimentation Control plan, details and a construction sequence for the proposed development that conforms to the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM). PP\.doc COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA OF: December 3 , 1992 ATTN: Stephen Clifton Senior Planner FROM: Federal Way Water and Sewer SUBJECT: Agenda Item No. 6 - Weyerhaeuser Real Estate Company Preapplication Meeting with Staff COMMENTS: General: If crossing water and sewer lines or easements with construction activity, we would request the District be notified of the nature and extent of the construction. Sewer: There may need to be some sewer line relocation to maximize use of some lots . By: C9fg Date : CITY OF FEDERAL WAY TECHNICAL COMMITTEE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: November 23, 1992 TO: Community Development Review Committee (CDRC) Members Kathy McClung, Land Use Administrator Greg Moore, Development Services Coordinator Ron Garrow, Senior Engineer Joe Stevens, Parks Director Dick Mumma, Building Official Rick Gilmore, Supervisor of Technical Services, FW Water and Sewer Pat Kettenring, Assistant to the Fire Marshal, KC Fire District #39 Brent Beden, Operations Lieutenant, FW Police Department Max Osburn, Administrations Lieutenant, FW Police Department Linda Becker, FW School District #210 FROM: Stephen Clifton, Senior Planner PROJECT PLANNER: Stephen Clifton PHONE NO.: 661-4109 PLEASE RESPOND BY: December 3, 1992 *****************************************************************x*** TYPE OF PERMIT REQUIRED: Pre-Application meeting. FILE NO.: PRE92-0050 PROJECT NAME: _ Weyerhaeuser Real Estate Company PROJECT ADDRESS: In the vicinity of the NW1/4 of S6, T21, R4. The approximate location is at the end of a cul-de-sac on a private road in the vicinity of the vacated row's S.W. 294th Street and 5th Avenue S.W. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Subject proposal is to construct two independent driveway crossings that will provide access to three lots in one case and one lot in the other. The proposed driveways would require culverts to be placed within the established native growth protection easements to maintain an uninterrupted and free flow of the drainage corridor. The drainage corridor may be a minor stream. APPLICANT: PHONE NO.: Peter Constable Weyerhaeuser Real Estate Company 33650 6th Avenue S. Tacoma, WA 98477 924-3005 PROJECT BACKGROUND: Please see attachments to the application and SEPA checklist. SEPA: Will be required. 114, c -7- o Po c e c107-4 v/ e , ( ° E-DEVELOPMENT INFORM [ON FEDERAL WAY BUILDING SECTI.,.1 661-4118 21g ir2ue r / PROJECT NAME OCCUPANCY TYPE CONSTRUCTION 1. Submit with completed application for permit, seven complete sets of plans of 24"x36" maximum dimension(include architectural, structural,electrical,drainage,utilities,and landscaping). Provide three each 81/i"x11" and three full size site plans for addressing multiple building sites. _ 2. At submittal provide two sets of structural calculations prepared by a professional engineer, registered in the State of Washington. 3. At submittal provide two copies of soil investigations and reports, as specified in Chapter 29 of the Uniform Building Code. 4. At submittal provide two sets of energy code calculations, including lighting budget. Washington State Energy Code (1991). _ 5. Provide two copies of King County Health Department approved drawings. _ 6. At the time of submittal, those regulations which are currently in effect shall be applicable to all project plans and specifications. The City of Federal Way has currently adopted all Uniform Codes, 1991 editions. 7. Washington State Barrier Free Standards apply. 8. Special inspection by an approved testing laboratory is required for site welding, high-strength bolting, piling operations,sprayed-on fireproofing,structural masonry,and cast-in-place concrete. Include testing lab form and personnel credentials with building permit submittal for Building Section approval prior to construction. 9. Separate permits are required for demolition, signs, rack storage, rockeries, etc., refer to Washington State Department of L & I for electrical permits. Plumbing and mechanical should be included on the main application for permits, described in #1 above. 10. Revisions to submitted drawings will be subject to additional plan review fees, if on larger sheets than 8' "x11". _ 11. Minimum estimated fireflow (gpm) _ 12. Provide TWO FULL SIZE SITE PLANS APPROVED BY THE }hDERAL WAY POSTMASTER, showing approved locations, when installing gang-type mail boxes. 13. No building or portion of a building shall be occupied or used for storage prior to the issuance of the CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 14. No work shall start prior to the issuance of the permit. No 1\ ��- ( }) / 15. Other: - PREPARED BY DATE DE.., ,, j,-FF esgiv, ppezie., a)ogie,4 ‘v- ei-i .s-- - -- 110.-- co ,_„0,, ,r,,_,.,,,,„ 1 ✓ ��. , I u �,c,o VJ • 6 6► 4 1 57i �t �-r k c-r-- tz-DJ(,- �ru �R�rw�t►ki.5 rct crelb - 1 a`i 1 42C ni G/le i'o (,.) 1-4,../ -fir 7 b 6 ,l' - y, 3 7 WEYERHAEUSER REAL ESTATE COMPANY Community Development Review Committee 12/3/1992 Meeting PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Subject proposal is to construct two independent driveway crossings that will provide access to three lots in one case and one lot in the other. The proposed driveways would require culverts to be placed within the established native growth protection easements to maintain an uninterrupted and free flow of the drainage corridor. The drainage corridor may be a minor stream. ISSUES: ENCROACHMENT INTO SENSITIVE AREAS A. Streams/Drainage Corridors The application may be subject to the regulations of FWZC Section 80.75 - 110 of the FWZC, as existing drainage corridors may actually be streams. • If they are found to be streams, FWZC Sections 80.90 and 80.105.3 would apply. Culverts are permitted in streams only if approved under Section 80.90, requiring a review under Process I, and subject to criteria of this section. Other intrusions such as those proposed, are permitted within stream setback only if approved under Section 80.105.3, requiring a review under Process II, and subject to criteria of this section. Both requests will be reviewed under Process II as required by code. The applicants should submit a study to determined whether or not the drainage corridor is a stream, and if so, what type. Margaret Clark has already requested a survey to determined the actual location of sensitive areas (NGPE, drainage corridor/stream, and 40% slopes). December 3, 1992 site visit revealed water running through drainage corridors/streams. B. Geologiacally hazardous area. With no topography plan, it can not be determined if the proposed driveways will encroach into an geologiacally hazardous area. Per a site visit, it appears that 40% slopes may existing on lots #3 and #4. If property contains or is within 25 feet of a geological hazardous area then Chapter 80, Sensitive Areas of the FWZC applies. Section 80.65 states: "Development activities, land suiface modifications or landscaping may not occur on or within 25 feet of a geologically hazardous area, unless no reasonable alternative exists and then only if the development activity or land suiface modification will not lead to or create any increased slide, seismic, or erosion hazard. A survey requested by Margaret should help to determine whether or not this section applies. Without a topographic survey, the applicants can not prove that subject proposal is the only feasible option to obtaining access to lots #3, 4, 5, and 9. Lot number 3 appears to contain very steep slopes (30-40% +). In addition, a site visit by Mr. Sharp during the spring of 1992, revealed water seeping up through portions of Lot #8. The applicants should also submit information such as a geotech/soils and groundwater study, to determine if areas of the site might be defined and geologically hazardous under the definitions section. Prior to granting approval for development activity within a geologically hazardous area, the City may require the applicant to submit various types of information to assist in the decision (FWZC Section 80.62.2). Pursuant to FWZC Section 80.65.3, if the City approves any development activity, conditions as listed in the section may be imposed, but are not required, as part of the approval. FWZC Section 80.65.3 lists the five conditions. A Subsurface Exploration, Geotechnical Engineering, and Geological Hazards Report was prepared for the site on October 12, 1987. Further information may be required. Questions for the applicant: 1. Have they considered creating an access easement across the east edge of Lot #8 in order to access Lot #9. 2. Have they considered using an existing driveway easement (rec. no. 8611191433) to access Lots #3 and #4, off S.W. 293rd Street. A copy of the Road and Utilities easement (rec. no. 8704171493) should also be submitted. 3. Was information regarding the above mentioned easements submitted to Margaret. Requests of the applicant. 1. The applicants should submit a study to determined whether or not the drainage corridor is a stream, and if so, what type. 2. The applicants should also submit information such as a geotech/soils and groundwater study, to determine if areas of the site might be defined and geologically hazardous under the definitions section. 3. Submit copies of the existing driveway easement (rec. no. 8611191433) regarding access to Lots #3 and #4, off S.W. 293rd Street. A copy of the Road and Utilities easement (rec. no. 8704171493) should also be submitted. Only if these have not been provided to Margaret sc VII / pre92050 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM December 2, 1992 TO: Stephen Clifton, Senior Planner FROM: Margaret H. Clark, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Chronology of Buenna Springs East -- Weyerhauser Development Buenna Springs East (Redondo Bay) and Pleasant Hill (Fronville) were originally part of the same development created through a boundary line adjustment. At this point in time, none of the lots in Buenna Springs East have been sold. Weyerhauser is in the process of responding to correspondence from the City dated September 11, 1992 (attached) which outlines what needs to be done by Weyerhauser in order to re-record the survey and subsequent sale of lots. BACKGROUND INFORMATION I. In approximately 1988, Tim Graddon constructed two private roads in this development without any permits from King County. Based on the materials submitted, it appears that the following environmental studies were prepared for the Graddon Company by various professionals in order to determine the layout of the road and the siting of the new lots: August 20, 1987: An overview of the geologic data obtained to date and a proposal for additional subsurface studies was prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. for the Graddon Company. October 12, 1987: A Geotechnical Report was prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. for the entire site (both Pleasant Hill and Buenna Springs Fast except Tracts 1 through 4 of Pleasant Hill). This report identified Four Development Zones: a. Suitable -- The residential lots within this zone were judged to be suitable for placement of standard foundations. However, specific recommendations were made for construction of buildings (Refer to full report for specific recommendations). b. Intermediate 1 -- All requirements for the suitable development zone apply to these lots except that additional area drainage, such as a curtain drain or landscaped drainage swales may be necessary to intercept surface and near surface water. c. Intermediate 2 --This zone has specific precautions for home construction relative 1 to the old mass wasting areas, existing natural drainage and moderate to steep slopes (Refer to full report for specific recommendations). d. Difficult -- The Geotechnical Report recommended that there should be no construction allowed within this zone except for roads and utilities. Furthermore, structures are recommended to be located no more than 25 feet from this zone area, unless a site specific study is preformed to allow a closer setback. The Report also addressed structural fill for homes and roadways, drainage considerations, road construction, and other considerations. February 8. 1988: A Buildability Analysis was prepared by Rex Humphrey, a geologist based on the August 20, 1987 geologic data and the October 12, 1987 Geotechnical Report prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. for the Pleasant Hill and Buenna Springs East with the exception of Tracts 1 through 4 of Pleasant Hill. This analysis indicated that special design considerations and provisions are recommended on eight of the 34 lots due to conditions identified by the geotechnical studies. Mr. Humphrey further recommended that an engineering geologist or soils specialist be utilized during the excavation and construction of all lots to monitor changes in site conditions or unforeseen problems. March 8, 1988: A report titled "Drainage Assessment/Buenna Springs Development Project" originally prepared July 1987 was submitted by the Graddon Company to king County BALD. This report states that slopes 33% or greater would be protected (Does not reference where this requirement/authority originated). II. King County became aware of the construction of the road and the Grading Section required that Graddon apply for a grading permit. As part of the grading permit, a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS) was issued on April 7, 1988 with a number of mitigating conditions to be met prior to issuance of the grading permit. These conditions related to Landslide Prone Areas, Roadway Stability/Use, Drainage, the acquisition of a State Hydraulics Permit Approval, and Approval of the State of Washington's Department of Game for rare and endangered species. III. June 28, 1988: Correspondence from Iry Bertig, King County BALD to Steve Graddon. This correspondence stated that a grading permit was required because of the materials moved. The grading permit required a drainage plan and was also subject to the sensitive areas provision of the Zoning Code. As part of the grading permit, SEPA review was required and the following was supposed to be addressed: a. Native Growth Protection Easements. b. Building Setback lines. 2 c. Potential Slide Area Covenants. d. Fire Marshall Approval of Street Grades -- The Fire Marshall had indicated that he would approve the existing street grades. e. Drainage Plans. As part of this correspondence, Iry Bertig stated that in order to change the lot lines, Graddon should apply for a "lot line adjustment." If such an application is in conformance with the above stated conditions, King County would review the proposed lots to assure that the minimum lot area and widths are met thus assuring that an exception to the subdivision law is proper. October 24, 1988: Lot Line Adjustment 8808003 approved by King County based on the following conditions: a. Recording of Survey and Covenants b. Lots 25, 26, and 27 will be subject to further geotech review at the time of building permit application. October 26, 1988: Lot Line Adjustment 8808003 recorded under Recorder's Number 8810260832 (Included a map that appeared to show the new lot lines). November 1, 1988: Record of Survey (Job No. 88-008-009 dated October 10, 1988) which covers both Pleasant Hill and Buenna Springs East recorded under Recorder's Number 8811019020. However, on December 22, 1988, the Grading Permit was cancelled by King County Grading Section because the earthwork had been completed according to previously submitted grading plans. Correspondence also stated that the on-site sensitive areas seem to have been addressed previously in the approved lot line adjustments for this project. IV. Jim Baliweber of the King County Grading Section confirmed in an August 31, 1992 telephone conversation, that since the grading permit was cancelled, the conditions of the MDNS were never required to be fulfilled. All that the Grading Section did was to make sure that the cuts and fills were balanced and that erosion/sedimentation controls were adequate, in other words, they simply ensured that the requirements of the King County Grading Code were met. BUENNA.2 3 CITY OF r"""""`^ \)\> ■ / 33530 1ST WAY SOUTH • FEDERAL WAY. WASHINGTON 98003 September 11, 1992 Mr. Peter Constable Weyerhaeuser Real Estate Company WRE 1-1 Tacoma, WA 98477 RE: Buenna Springs East Dear Mr. Constable: Thank you for providing the City with the background information and maps on the Buenna Springs East project. A review of these materials reveals that Buenna Springs East is essentially a "reorganization" of an original plat entitled Buenna Vista. The "reorganization" of the property occurred prior to the City of Federal Way's incorporation while the property was within the jurisdiction of King County and was not accomplished through any statutory re-plat process under either state law or King County code. Instead, a portion of the original plat of Buenna has been proposed to be reconfigured into new building sites through a boundary line adjustment and by the filing of covenants. It is unclear whether Weyerhaeuser was the owner of the property at the time that these actions occurred. However, the City of Federal Way Community Development Department and the Weyerhaeuser Corporation are now faced with attempting to fashion a method and procedure that preserves the development potential of the property while, at the same time, ensures that Federal Way staff has information sufficient to make an orderly, thorough review of the site as future lot owners seek building permits from the City. Based upon our review of the materials submitted and site visits by staff, the City has the following concerns that must be addressed prior to any permits being approved for the development or individual lots within the "reorganization" of Buenna Springs East. These modifications do not represent substantial reconfiguration. 1. As designed, the lots extend into the roadway. It is recommended that the entire roadway be placed in a separate tract in order that the required setbacks (front 1 yard 20 feet, side and rear yard 5 feet) can be provided in relationship to the edge of the roadway. As currently designed, because as much as 20 feet of some lots are located within the area designated as roadway, buildings on these lots may actually be able to be located within the roadway itself. Further, Section 115.90(2)(b) of the Federal Way Zoning Code precludes those portions of lots located within the roadway easement from being included as calculations for lot coverage. 2. Please provide square footage for each lot area (not including those portions presently shown within the roadway). At the time of the reorganization, the zoning was RS 9600 which is also the present City of Federal Way zoning. Therefore, all lots must meet the minimum area zoning of 9,600 square feet. 3. Lots numbered 4, 5 and 9 do not appear to have a legal access to right of ways or the private road easement. For Lots 5 and 9, this is due to location of Native Growth Protection Easements and/or streams which present a barrier to the road easement. Lot 4 does not appear to have any road frontage or access via an easement. 4. Thank you for your extensive materials previously provided to the City. Although most of the following information has been provided in the previously submitted documents, in order to have all information necessary for review of a development permit on one map, please provide mylar drawing(s) meeting the city's as-built standards which includes the following: a) Two (2) foot or less contours of the current site grading; b) Delineation of the 40% grade break-lines; c) Locations of all stream/drainage channels; d) Location of lot lines (Please refer to comments under #1); e) All recorded easements; f) Roadway improvements; g) Drainage facilities; • h) Other existing utilities. 2 5. Lots numbered 2, 9, 16-20 and 25-28 inclusive appear to contain slopes steeper than 40 percent. This is based upon the grading plan by Concept Engineering, Inc. dated 10/12/87. However, based on the environmental information prepared for the project, the intent was to protect slopes 33% and greater. The boundaries of the Native Growth Protection Easements (NGPE) on the survey must be revised in order to correspond to the 40% brealdine. In addition, a 15 foot building set back line (BSBL) must be designated beyond the NGPE. This conforms to King County's policy at that time relating to NGPE's and BSBL's which the City accepts as pertaining to this development. 6. All streams on-site must be located within a NGPE, a minimum of 30 feet in width, measured 15 feet on each side of the centerline of the stream. As in the case of steep slopes, an additional 15-foot BSBL must be provided beyond the boundaries of the NGPE. This requirement is also based on King County's policies in effect when the "tracts" were created. Based upon the "Road Plan and Profile" by Concept Engineering, Inc. dated 10/12/87 and the "Lot Layout" by ESM, Inc. dated 6/30/92, Lots 5, 6, 9, 10, 18, 19 and 20 appear to have Native Growth Protection Easements that do not meet these requirements. 7. The City will require that all environmentally sensitive areas associated with steep slopes and streams be adequately buffered as described in #5 and #6 above by being placed within a Native Growth Protection Easement (NGPE). Since the intent of a NGPE is that it remain in its natural undisturbed state, the following language is recommended: "BUILDING SETBACKS AND NATIVE GROWTH PROTECTION EASEMENTS Structures, fill, and obstructions (including but not limited to decks, patios, fences, outbuildings or overhangs beyond 18 inches) are prohibited beyond the building setback line (BSBL), within 25 year floodplains (if applicable) and within the Native Growth Protection Easement as shown. Dedication of a Native Growth Protection Easement (NGPE) conveys to the public a beneficial interest in the land within the easement. This interest includes the preservation of native vegetation for all purposes that benefit the public health, safety, and welfare, including control of surface water and erosion, maintenance of slope stability, visual and aural buffering, and 'protection of plants and animal habitat. The NGPE imposes upon all present and future owners and occupiers of the land subject to the easement, the obligation, enforceable on behalf of the public by the City of Federal 3 Way, to leave undisturbed all trees and other vegetation within the easement. The vegetation within the easement may not be cut, pruned, covered by fill, removed or damaged without express permission from the City of Federal Way Department of Community Development or its successor agency. Before and during the course of any grading, building, construction, or other development activity on a lot subject to the NGPE, the common boundary between the easement and the area of development activity must be fenced or otherwise marked to the satisfaction of the City of Federal Way." A review of the covenants shows that there is reference to "Maintenance of trails, paths, and walkways in the Common area" (Article IX Allocation of Maintenance Responsibilities). There is also reference in Section 14.4 of Article XIV to vegetation within the NGPE being pruned to allow walking trails. The majority of the common area is greenbelt/NGPE's to be designated for the protection of environmentally sensitive areas. Therefore, language in the covenants relating to allowable activity in the NGPE should be modified so that it is consistent with the recommended language above. There is also reference to a Master Landscape Plan. The City would like to review this plan to ensure that there is no conflict with the NGPE's including the Greenbelt Areas. 8. The covenants should be amended to state that all future changes to established lot lines and easements must be reviewed under the appropriate procedure by the City of Federal Way. This merely states the existing legal requirement. This also requires deletion of Section 15.2, Article XV of the Covenants, which states that a lot may be divided or combined by approval of all lot owners and the filing of _ an Amendment to the Declaration. 9. Based on a review of the constructed road and storm drainage system, the Federal Way Public Works Department is requesting that the actions described in Column 2 be done to bring the system into compliance. However, if undue hardship will result, the City is willing to accept the actions described in Column 3. 4 As-Built condition of system 6/92 Action required to Action City will bring system into accept compliance with design standard at time of construction 1. Catch basin #12 discharges Provide oil/water As stated in Column directly into a stream separator in type 2 2. without an oil/water structure to protect separator. Outfall not stream. Provide and protected with rip rap pad. install rip rap pad to prevent erosion. 2. Catch basin 6 and 7 are type Replace type 1 No Correction 1 structures that have invert structures with type 2 Required. elevations more than 5 feet structures. below the rim. 3. Vertical curves are Regrade roads to Install street light at substandard with respect to provide a stopping Station 4+00. Install stopping sight distance. sight distance of 125 speed limit sign of 15 feet. Street lighting mph at plat entrance. • and signage may be other mitigating requirements. 4. Landing at intersection of . Regrade 3rd Ave. SW Install street light at 3rd Ave SW and SW 293rd to provide maximum intersection. St. is steeper than allowable slope in the requirements of King Co. landing area. Street Road Standard section 2.08. lighting may be another mitigating requirement. 5. Cul-de-sac curb returns are Construct curb returns / at i iarnn 25 foot radii. to a minimum 35 foot • a radius. 6. Horizontal curve at PC Provide a 5afoot If Weyerhaeuser does station 3+00 has a centerline er fow not own or cannot centerline radius of 34.01 speed curve design. acquire the land, the feet. City will reconside 5 "h�1 y✓ A �" ` As-Built condition of system 6/92 Action required to Action City will bring system into accept compliance with design standard at time of construction 7. Catch basin sumps are filled Clean sediment and As stated in Column with silt, trash and grates. trash from structures. 2. Reinstall grates into frames. 8. Catch basins 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, Regrout to provide As stated in Column 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 and the water tight structure. 2. control manhole have defective grouting around pipes, frames and/or adjustment bricks. 9. Catch basin #2 and detention Provide and install As stated in Column tank riser does not have locking bolts on solid 2. locking bolts. lid. 10. 36"0 CMP culvert at Sta Clean out culvert pipe As stated in Column 3+85 is 1/4 full of silt and to remove sediment 2. outlet is not protected with a and provide rip rap rip rap pad. pad to prevent erosion. 11. Concrete curb and asphalt Remove and replace As stated in Column treated base (ATB) at Sta effected curbing, ATB 2. 11+35, 40' right is cracked and gravel base. and is sloughing away to the Rebuild effected area north. to 95% compaction with side slopes graded at 2 horizontal to 1 vertical. 6 Please do not hesitate to call if there is a question as to any of this information. Sincerely, Carolyn A. Lake Acting City Attorney cc: City of Federal Way Gregory D. Moore,AICP, Development Services Manager Kathy McClung,Land Use Administrator Richard Mumma,Building Official Margaret H.Clark,Senior Planner Stephen Clifton,Senior Planner Deb Barker,Planning Technician Ron Garrow, Senior Development Engineer Cary Roe,Surface Water Manager Jeff Sharp,Engineering Plans Reviewer Karen Lancaster,Engineering Technician BUD:NA.LTR • • CITY OF C� DEPAR 01T OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT \> Y r� 7 APPLICATION NO. Date November 19, 1992 PRE92 00b Agent Name of Applicant Weyerhaeuser Real Estate Company Owner WRECO Address 33650 6th Avenue South Phone 924-3005 Signature Property Location In the vicinity of S. W. 294th Street & 5th Avenue S. W. Kroll Page 14 Zone RS.9,600' Legal Description In the vicinity of the NWT of Section .6 T21N, R4E, W.M. Project Description Driveway crossings for a Lots 3, 4, 5 and b Lot 9, Parcel Number(s): 119600 - 1590. - 08 (Lot 5) end 119600 - 3105 - 00 (Lot 9)• Type of Permit Required: SEPA Notice Sign Checklist Mailed. Board . Site Plan Review R R. * Land Surface Modification R R Boundary Line Adjustment Binding Site Plan R R R Short Subdivision * * * Subdivision R R * Shoreline R • R: Variance ' R R R Conditional Use R Use.-Process I R R -_* Use-Process ld R R R Use-Process III R R R Qus si-Judicial Rezone R R: R Variance, .. R* R: R Comp. Plan/Rezone R R ytl�"L�te� men Annexation R It cotatwb timi! —Lot Line Elimination _ R = Required * = Optional by City ur' j` j g18 33530 1ST WAY SOUTH • FEDERAL WAY,WASHINGTON 98003 • (206)661-4000 Recycled Paper:. . Land Management Division Weyerhaeuser Tacoma,Washington 98477 Tel(206)924 2372 Real Estate Company Fax(206)924 3007 Weyerhaeuser RECEIVED BY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT November 19, 1992 Ms. Margaret Clark. NOV 1 9 1992 Senior Planner City of Federal Way 33530 First Way South Federal Way, WA 98003 RE: Redondo Bay (AKA Buenna Springs East) Pre- Application Submittal Package - Driveway Crossings Dear Ms. Clark, Enclosed are the requisite eight copies of the driveway crossing project that I am submitting for the Federal Way Development Review Committee to review as a pre- application. A listing of the documents enclosed within each submittal packet is included on the proposal description sheet. I understand that, once submitted, I can anticipate a letter from the Development Review Committee indicating their preliminary review and comments within two to three weeks. I also understand that there is no fee for this type of review by the City. Please let me know if any additional information is needed and thank you for your assistance in this project. Sincerely, Peter S. Constable Land Management Division cc: Michael J. Massoth Richard R. Wilson, Esq. RECEIVED BY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT NOV 1 9 1992 PRE-APPLICATION MEETING - PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, KING COUNTY DRIVEWAY CROSSINGS (Lots 3, 4, 5 and Lot 9) November 19, 1992 This is a proposal for the construction of two independent driveway crossings that will provide access to three lots in one case and one lot in the other. The proposed driveway locations will require culverts to be placed within the established native growth protective easments in order to maintain an uninterrupted and free flow of the drainage corridor. The drainage corridors are intermittent in nature and primarily serve to discharge storm water runoff from upland properties. The property subject to this pre-application meeting are as follows (corresponding tax identification numbers are included): Lot 3 119600-1580-08 Lot 4 119600-1581-07 Lot 5 119600-1590-06 Lot 9 119600-3105-00 Attached to this proposal are the following documents: 1. Three site maps. a detailed site map showing the locations of the crossings, an overall Redondo Bay map showing the general vicinity of the project site, and a copy of the King County Assessor's map. 2. June 15, 1992 Weyerhaeuser Real Estate Company (WRECO) memo to file regarding State Department of Fisheries site review (re: Buenna Springs MDNS) addressing stream classification. 3. June 11, 1992 WRECO memo to file regarding King County BALD (Grading Section) site review addressing stream and wetlands classification. 4. April 7, 1988 Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance for the overall Buenna Springs project (AKA Redondo Bay). , Pre-Application Meeting Proposal Description Driveway Crossings 11/19/92 Page 2 5. Abstract (not dated) addressing the Buenna Springs Development Project -Proposed Native Growth Protection Buffers for all On-site Drainage Corridors/Buffer Determinations. 6. SEPA checklist dated 11/18/92 and specific to this driveway crossings project. -tn I 17121VCOAY CV0d5 i+ r-7 S 3,q, S 'C't ' —I-4' 4 ,..,,., 03 I C� CO I COZ -I0 v -1700 '- Om—�Z Om--Im 1 �l N 40' 40' on- cam*m / '. M O ' w> x \�z n co z � o c -- -t,C6 D -1e�Xm N• �zN � m I1 m �< I FZI - 1'R W6JA`f m 20' -_--- 0 0 .;:4 - 'DRIVE LIAR( cgossiN4 N 00'58'34" E 170.00' \ I I \ 1\ z 4, r-1 rn 9\V FNIU r - o /7 L--i-----r- )- I -- - i'' 6 0 00 1 m cn ` of w I m cn I I o CilI \ rj — ( W7 O UZ 0 mc,:j i 0 N .mm=� ` l\ o o mz II a I n i. CO 0 O o ':----\ co rn-- -1-1 b rr \ \ \1\j m IT (/) N Z \ \ cn \v X LZ � �i 5 N 00'58'34" E 170.00' o Cs. a? P IC O ^ ,..,D'—a-` \ r Ir l o\ \ ,:i_i ., \\�\ \�\,00'S8'34" E 170. 0' ti L o 0 0 I o \ �� 130.00' ` 40. 0N.) , �� I C� o � Cs? � 4/ 0/ \ �� � N 00' ` o / 1/ `\ � I +il,` '� z o I ( � N 00'58'34" E 170.00' 0� �� (23 z 1g, CO CAD o �'� :T.- �' I I (�.`�7 4, -S.ep V� I- — z i' �► \\ v I �_ I 1 \ . �� o ND 6. -� .i� \\II _02-\ 'S�\ 1 ' �\ \. t� c f O� �- / io ICY j \, �l '\\1 1 N 00'58'34"\� \210.00'c� � i _ 38'34" E oN o I ( ' I \ I ► \ I oo i m cn >•" 170.00' ! i'8'S 8 L 1 I \I ► \ I 0,m z z o — N I I .-/i i =j/ I V N 00'S8'3 E \ - .• ,. �\ l'.:}-. . IN 1 1.5 )' % N 00'58'34' E 130.00' z I IIV! ,�/� • \ ` N / --� -- -- ---ate �/I z /O J _ g oI C5j4-- _ • Z 1 /�/� f— , ro 1c)1 0 l\, r--11 N I� // � N et r 5 00 m 4- \ 1 Iv! I I o 0 .� / �/ f a; °�°n D O i I ' 11 N 00'58'34" E 130.00' 80.00' 0I I o rn z // U, O ti. ,,. *1 0'0 N 00'58'34" E 170.00' S L J o Nam 1G I I L / co { an'. 1 } cn D An, ;J 00'58'3a., F 130 On' , I III I �111 ( 0 I VICINITY MAP n NOT TO SCAL I P 1 SOJNO S. 272nd` S PvC' S W. 292nd Q J ST. SITE �' 7 • a © S.W. 292nd STREET v, 4 t2 s � �0- Q 1 C7 r - - � i'NGDASH QO\�2a 4 ^3 6 30 S. 320th ST.NOT TO SCALE \ 1© FP a_ 3\\ O (A2© Co p OA ? w S.W. 293rd STREET coGy�-\N S. 348th ST. W Q tie\ ® , Q in 75' 75' 25' — — C (V 0 8130 SF j SCHOOL '', 1 _n 2 n b 1 FEDERAL WAY HIGH 9750 SF 'r' 2 DECATUR HIGH 3 3 LAKOTA JR. HIGH 50' 75' S0' N 4 SACAJAWEA JR. HIGH 70' 70' 75' 50' 1J.1 0 5 ADELAIDE ELEMENTARY 3 4 5 GREENBELT tZ 6 LAKE GROVE ELEMENTARY 11900 SF 11900 SF 16750 SF ] 7 NAUTILUS ELEMENTARY t00 Q 0 ST. FRANCIS COMMUNITY HOSPITAL b 0^ b' / - �/ 6 / ROAD AND 'P OB REDONDO MARINA N UTILITY In/ ; 13000 SF EASEMENT WEYERHAEUSER/K.C. AQUATICS CENTER 6 6 6 0 SEATAC MALL 70' 70' //' it \\ n 115' © LAKOTA SHOPPING PLAZA 25; i \ __� © GOLF COURSE o' 1o0' 50' " 100' 0 35' �/ 1 TWIN LAKES (PRIVATE) ' / 175;_f�— it0 -- — 2 NORTH SHORE (PUBLIC) ' /11380 SF N / OQ PARK -, / 8 0 n/ 6 1 SALT WATER (STATE) / / 1:` I 'l 10 'O 2 SACAJAWEA j 9 1 ( 14300 SF 3 STEEL LAKE / 1380 I ` \• 4 LAKOTA / 5' ' ‘ \110' - 90' _%/-75' 75' 1 95'�\ 65' n © CITYDHALLASH POINT (STATE) `o 1 i 1 9 GREENBELT 0 PARK AND RIDE ^- ..-- 6 12750 SF/ I 13630 SF \\O N % / 16• n 17 18 I • N / 16060 SF 11990 SF /O' 150' I 1 _ � � 1 0l 1 r / i I '2I / a 1 � 20 j l /' \ SS. 37' T{' 'OI 14580 SF / 40' / 128' / �� 80'; / 75' / _75'_�5O'���--- /6 90' 150' / / \ / �6: 95' N 90' ` GREENBELT / b o 6 .1 6 18830 SF �' N• / / 25 '' 26 27 / r 28 u 29 i/ 6 0 \'� 30 / 6 / 13600 SF 12750 SF 12750 SF/GREENBELT h 25500$F / h / r 11050 SF / ' h \ \ I / / / / ` \ I 80' 75' 75' 75' 100' / 115' 90' \ .\150' I I. 240' . / / / / / / b / /- NATIVE GROWTH PROTECTION EASEMENT n 35 / Q^ / 40810 SF / / -•-•-.- BUILDING SETBACK LINE / / J / ROAD AND -' // UTILITY EASEMENT 240' 1251 ;t() Ilt1LZ.51 " II " 1 . J 1 0 1 " I " 1 ,. I - i ' 1 - i 0 i - i . 1 4 ZJI :„....•ix I •1 It 44 t I 1 I p, ) ' .k 14 449;7 1 (co4A I-26Ir ) . r/14°,1 S.C. dteit..5.37 A A -,--doi v 425 40 40 125 <-- 7501 -*' —.754 — •'4',1 52 5is 5 251Y' 16; /Ix i )6 19 /4 /3 /a /f / 9 6 7 ,41 5 4- 3 2 I .0,, Af 4.0 /6 15 /4 13 12 11 /0 9 8 e . _ilt 1!) CD e ' 4 I -- .— 7 /. ---, '....4 .1.- Ali7'i .) P',. / A 4 ›..,.-/ itqh OP ,..,) '4,0) t, . . • X 1 .70 -, V sek01 75.el ' 1 (5 -0.01i-rs• -75.01 -'irft._ - 41 50 1 O.•... • 1(1 1--11-1 it • \I" 0 be,t, ,i!,s, 6 c, t.-..t •• ,.. c, . 0 r..% 1,11(!, 1;\ -• ,,,p,;ca {Rti ., ,i***; r,1 t 1 . 0, 4 , ,,,,,, ,,,_....— -7 Ae's ,t, x : 11411 1917 etl. C3 32 / 30 Z9 28 27 26 25 211 3 22 2, 20 /9 /8 17 14q 32 31 3 D 2.9 28 E7 26 25 2' • A 25 4 6o .' 25 X '34,.- l'‘i , f. 2515 .i,j1 35 251 1 4 1 1 1 1 Al 58464 ‘th',‘ %.5 Z it 9CO° 4011)1 tio O.j." '1 41 i 4 tED I x 1, 0 1 . 40 1 0, 1 Ki • ...- 4 , .4 001° El'..,..• 115.01 .. f X . vk sci AfrEpt--1--; l" 70 ' - ' '66 2i'S-Fct. *i : ,._tv'' „ r*;s06 f - . ___ !Y ' • -1- I tlif: - :1›...,...-„ ,-,•• 4 ;if, I l• a4j1 / 1X V 25' 25 X , -7,4 ' 3,': N"'" 1-73. • ........ v, ...„,. IWO °•"'" ' _ ( i ' 2 / ,ti.ii /6 / /4 /3 /2 l • : Ati'" 16'O. 4 '2- / i.,'4 lb 15 /4 /3 /2 11 /0 9 8 r, 1 10 A• °Al/ I: .• "460 4,0 V f ° , 0 %. -. tp-) -IP WI ;or 10-(0) •• eI'.10 ; I- 1 ., .... ... 31°4 ' *,\ tw- , , th 0.. 1 ,) 1 ., ., , Hein•-y r r 1 4 -- *0.01 ...• •-,: .....„,--7:-=---7', ,.., ft.... i ilk , _.... ....--1 i ....- 05.01)M N\ . -7 < Z i C) ,..f0t. i /8. ‘----",., :61 it kJ n DP- ,, a ; tii- i,.1 vs , . vt, ,.,.o / il. ,317.0 .4) 1 \ , t4)1( t ... Kir,0 63 i 1 Lt ..--. ".' `-' .3tAz (..: 4)$ Ls I -- (so.of -S' ti /8 i )“'S 1--ji 2 3/1 30 ag 28 27 26 25 4 23 22 2/ 20 / / i /7 I-44 Ll 32513/ 30 29 28 27 26 25 2, 1 k 5 40 40/25 41 ) 25tmi ../_.2 0121;12-- ic Nkr Ix x 015) 10.-„; 0-, 0 . • , :LI , .. E6mi- ./viil i '% gel. -'!' r • --T --- ‘ 0 -is oft ela %&pi „0 i ii6,62 A ;tr.?, 6. „iv , 4* ,. ST 7. ,,,,, ... - _•r7f:„. .t, ..600,4„ . so.,. f„,.,,,--::,",10.0 1,---. \st:14, ....„..z.4.-„t., ett i -. .14-j •••,,:,1 • „• 00 %,- 1 1 1, i•,...,,, , 1 if„.....,..wil‘siiit—.7, vA -. .5.'e-'":-s•597,1,9 v-/22...A ei v 1 , . X • NC ' '• ...... ....; ys • —I'm— ' 2.....'25 ,,o.01, 25 1 a 1 An /6 / /4 13 12 I/ /0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 / ,, if,, 1,, 14 /3 12 11 10 { t Lb i -- .F. , • x i y 4 o _,.00- 1 1•3••,;) 0 „eeti- ,,,, v GI r")' t,... -,10 ovc,a0 6S6 0 n O , 154- 0, 0,0- `tt 00 ." , ;I d ••. 4' 5° - . .' 0, 005 r. . ,t 'b I '6 i . , - \It fey, \I te) ;,,- ISO! -..,q1,-"- 7$.6,1 4,4/.:75 , • It too -. ,•••-- 115.02 -..11• ‘,0-01 Ai,, Igo Clol ,u 7.--,-- 24C 1 •< <-1 C) o4 ti \----...........s.....:-„I 5 C g ,.... 41 --1.-____, \-------1- 5 to -.. n fe rt.," o t ..z.„..„-----1 Tv A . <1:? * .4611 7 r•- ,01`' 5. .. .... opt9A - t. /8 /7 32 3, 30 29 28 27 24325 24 23 22 2 / 20 19 /6 17 > 32 3/ 30 29 ab 27/26 25 2 2 8° I 25,f i 25 13‘° 25, 1 t ' - 1' t'' ,/ • H 101:1Zt,.e.,..%ir.,_- .•i .0; t , . - I ._., vAc. Is c. .397/ss ,P.*:y- , _, INTEROFFICE COMMUNICATION AWeyerhaeuser Date June 15, 1992 From Peter S.Constables Location ''RE 1-1 • subject Redondo Bay(aka Buenna Springs)Telephone Conversation with Joe Robel To Memo to File (incl.in Approvals,Reviews,etc. Binder) Joe Robel is the Habitat Manager for the State Department of Fisheries (DOF). Mr. Robel was the responsible official representing the DOF in response to King County's request for a determination of whether or not the Applicant of Record (The Graddon Company) would be required to aquire a State Hydraulics Permit Approval (HPA) as addressed in the MDNS of 4/7/88. This telephone conversation is a follow-up to the 6/11/92 telephone conversation with Jim Ballweber of BALD regarding the classification of stream or drainage corridors. 1. Mr. Robel stated that he had made two site visits, meeting with Mr. Geoff Bowie of The Graddon Company as well as Officials from King County BALD. 2. Mr. Robel's review and inspection of the site conditions and the State's records concluded that the water courses were considered to be "drainage corridors" and not streams. Mr. Robel stated that the reason for this determination was based on the fact that the water courses had intermittent flow characteristics resulting from surface water run-off and also contained barriers at lower elevations that precluded fish from utilizing the water courses. 3. The findings and conclusions of Mr. Robel's review are summarized as follows: a. The drainage corridors are natural features of the land and not man- made and should be preserved as such. b. The natural drainage corridors serve as a natural surface water run- off feature and should be maintained in there existing open configuration. Memo to File Redondo Bay Telephone Conversation-Joe Robel 6/15/92 c. With respect to corridor crossings (i.e. roadways), Mr. Robel indicated that additional design consideration should be given to address slope stability, channel disturbance, and scouring effects of water flow characteristic changes. 4. Mr. Robel's mailing address and telephone number are as follows: Mr. Joseph Robel Habitat Manager Washington State Department of Fisheries P.O. Box 43155 Olympia, WA 98504-3155 (206)753-2980 cc: Joseph Robel State Department of Fisheries Jim Ballweber Commercial/Multifamily Products Section- K.C. BALD INTEROFFICE COMMUNICATION AWeyerhaeuser pate June 11, 1992 from Peter S.Constable LocationWRE 1-1 Subject Redondo Bay(aka Buenna Springs) Telephone Conversation with James Ballweber To Memo to File (incl.in Approvals,Reviews,etc.Binder) James Ballweber is currently the Lead Grading Inspector in the Commercial/Multifamily Products Section of the King County Building and Land Development Division (BALD). During the Buenna Springs Grading Permit Application process Jim was the Lead Grading Inspector in the Parks, Recreation and Resources Department at BALD. I have contacted and met with Jim on several occasions to familiarize myself with the Redondo Bay project and to further supplement our project files. The following represents a summary of my notes from our telephone conversation this day. Regarding Stream Classifications: 1. Jim stated that the Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS) directed the applicant (The Graddon Company) to "aquire State Hydraulics Permit Approval (HPA) for all existing stream and wetlands crossings prior to the issuance of the grading permit." (Item D. of the 4/7/88 MDNS) 2. The County requested that the State Department of Fisheries (DOF) review, inspect and classify the subject site with respect to the HPA. Mr.Joe Robel, Habitat Manager for the DOF,visited and inspected the site in response to the County request. Mr. Robel's inspections concluded that there were no streams on site. What the County believed to be streams, the DOF recognized as being drainage corridors needed for surface water run-off conditions. It was further recognized that the DOF did not have jurisdiction over the drainage corridors. King County could not classify the drainage corridors as streams either because their Sensitive Areas Ordinance did not yet exist thereby placing the responsibility of classifying the drainage corridors within the jurisdiction of the State. Memo to File Redondo Bay Telephone Conversation-Jim Ballweber 6/11/92 Regarding Wetlands: 3. Jim described various events that took place prior to the DOF making their site visit focusing primarily on the work of Cindy Baker, Earth Scientist , Subdivision Section BALD. Ms. Baker had visited the site and determined that there were areas that could be classified as being wetlands. She determined this by applying a set of criteria that was accepted and common to the industry at the time. The criteria Ms. Baker used was outlined by the 1987 Department of Fish and Wildlife Manual which described that three criteria must be satisfied on all three counts before an area can be classified as being a wetland. The criteria included the following: A. Soil Conditions, B. Flora and Fauna Species, and C. Hydrologic Conditions 4. Jim described that since the DOF had classified the drainage corridors as not being streams, the third criteria could not be satisfied and therefore no areas inspected on the site could be classified as being wetland areas. Regarding the City of Federal Way: 5. Jim mentioned that Margaret Clark, Senior Planner for the City of Federal Way had inquired on several occasions about the history and other related issues to the Buenna Springs project (west and east). Jim stated that he had conveyed the same information to Ms. Clark as he had to me during this conversation. cc: James Ballweber Commercial/Multifamily Products Section- K.C. BALD Joseph Robel State Department of Fisheries KIng County Building Br Land Development Division Parks,Planning and Resources Department 3600-136th Place Southeast Bellevue,Washington 98006-1400 pril 7, 1988 Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance ffective Determination Date: April 12, 1988 'ile: 2966-54 . Buenna Springs 'roponent: Steve Gradon/The Graddon Company 640 NW Gilman Blvd. Issaquah, WA 98027 791-1720 ,roposal Description: . grading permit to legalize the driveways, surface water control facilities, :nd utili ies for the 1890s plat of Buenna in the RS9600 (Single Family Resid-) mtial, , inimum lot size 9, 600 square feet) zone. Approx. 19,000 cubic yards )f earth have been moved. The # of lots would be reduced to approx. 34. ;ocat /n: North of SW 296th St and south of SW 293rd St and east of 7th Ave. S 7 and west of 2nd Ave_ SW. VTR: W 06-21-04 - _ :igation for this proposal includes: .. Landslide Prone Areas //1. Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, establish NGPE's and ap- propriate BSBL for the following areas as shown by Concept Engineering plans for the Buenna Project submitted 03/1/88. Additional geotechnical studies may be required to determine final precise line location: F a. The stream/wetland and slope area south of the intersection of 6th Place SW and SW 295th Place, extending to the top of each slope and in- cluding the approximate areas of Block 35, lots 12-16, 28-32, and Block 36, lots 1, 2, 17, and 18 ; b. The stream and slope area west and east of the two SW 295th Place cul-de-sacs, extending to the top of each slope, approximately Block 35, lots 1-8 and 17-24 and Block 28, lots 18-22 (southern portion) ; 34, lots ro c. The slide area south of SW 295th Place, approximately Block 8-16; - ,c,co d. The slide area, approximately Block 33, lots 25-33 and 14-16; e. Any slide areas and below top of slope on Block 33, lots 10-13. ✓2. Prior to issuance of the grading permit submit location of proposed building sites and lots together with supportive geotechnical documenta- tion for the approximate areas of Block 29, Lots 20-27 and Block 34, Lots 3-7, excluding drainage and/or NGPE requirements. 3 . Submit a geotechnical report for review and approval by BALD geotech- nical staff for the following areas: a. Block 36, lots 4-8, 20-24. Discuss the fact that cuts and fills will not be allowed downslope from the roadway; b. Lots in Block 35 which are not affected by conditions A or C. Page 2 File # 2966-54 c. Block 29 , lots 3-12 , 21, and 27 . Discuss the fact that no cuts or fills shall be allowed on lots 20-28 for protection of the roadway. d. Block 34 , lots which are not affected by conditions A or C. e. Supply further soils information, as required for safety investiga- tion, as per BALD staff review. B. Roadway Stability/Use Portions of SW 295th Place have been located in a slide prone area. In ad- dition, the roadway grade is equal to or exceeds 20%. To determine the roadway stability and use, the following shall be completed: " 1D Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, submit a geotechnical report for review and approval by BALD staff. This report shall include but not be limited to borings of the roadway and stability analysis. 2. Fire Marshall approval prior to issuance of the grading permit. '3 . Comply with 1979 KC road standards except where 1987 standards require Mess. C. Drainage. - Prior to issuance of the grading permit: �1. All drainage courses not associated with slope instabilities shall be protected by a NGPE and BSBL. The NGPE shall be established by either the edge of the 25 year floodplain or 15' from top of channel bank, whichever is greater. If slope instabilities exist, NGPE shall be established at top of slope. 2. --Because of downstream off-site erosion, a minimum 2-year stormwater release rate is required, or 100-year flow conveyance to Puget Sound. mne-hundred year flow conveyance shall be via pipe from the site. Utilize adequately sized subdrainage systems as reviewed and approved by BALD staff to protect the integrity of the roadway and potential residential building sites. D. Acquire State Hydraulics Permit Approval for all existing stream and wetland crossings prior to the issuance of the grading permit. E. Obtain site review and written plans approval from the State of gashington's Department of Game (phone # 586-1449) for rare and endangered species prior to the issuance of the grading permit. the Building and Land Development Division has determined that an environ- nental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C, WAC 197-11, Ind KCC 20.44 . This decision was made after review of a completed environ- nental checklist, other information on file at the Division's Office, and nitigation proposed and/or required as part of this project. The proposal 3r required mitigation is now part of the proposed action. The conditions Ind/or agreements are deemed necessary to mitigate environmental impacts Ldentified during the environmental review process. any interested party may submit written comments on this proposal. Written ;omments or appeals will be accepted until April 27, 1988. uny appeal shall state with specificity the reasons why the determination �L �uld be reversed. ALL APPEALS MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A NON-REFUNDABLE .00 FILING FEE. Page 3 vile # 2966-54 Comments or appeals should be addressed to: King County Building and Land Development Division 3600 - 136th Place SE Bellevue, WA 98006 ATTN: SEPA Center Phone: (206) 296-6662 PLEASE REFERENCE FILE NUMBERS WHEN CORRESPONDING. SIC� ssponsible /ficial LEGEND: NGPE = NATIVE GROWTH PROTECTION EASEMENT BSBL = BUILDING SETBACK LINE KC BALD = KING COUNTY BUILDING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION /y S Buenna Springs Development Project Proposed Native Growth Protection Buffers for all onsite Drainage Corridors / Buffer Determinations New development adjacent to a drainage corridor is required by the King County Sensitive Area Ordinance to maintain a corridor sufficient to maintain or restore the natural functions of the drainage habitat. The drainage habitat functions to be maintained or restored include surface water storage and conveyance, groundwater recharge, water quality, aesthetics, and fish and wildlife habitat. For purposes relating drainage corridors to development limitations , King County uses an abbreviated drainage classification system based upon the WAC 222-16-030 (Water Typing System) . These drainages have been mapped according to "type" by the Washington Dept. of Natural Resources. Drainages on the Buenna Springs property are considered to be Type 4: Segments of natural waters that are not classified as Type 1, 2,or3 . General characteristics include: 1) perennial or intermittent; 2 ) segments upstream from Type 1,2,and 3 water until channel width becomes less than 2 feet between ordinary high-water marks . or Type 5 : Not classfied as Type 1,2, 3,or4. General characteristics include: 1) perennial or intermittent seepage; 2 ) ponds and drainage-ways having short periods of spring or storm runoff. Roadside ditches that do not convey natural drainage flows are not considered Type 5. Type 1 classification is the highest rating and includes major waters inventoried as "Shorelines of the State" under Chapter 90. 58 RCW. Type 5 is the lowest rating of this classification system. According to WAC 222-16-040 (Temperature Sensitive Waters) all Type 4 and Type 5 Waters are excluded from the shade requirements specified in WAC 222-30-040. During the later part of summer ( 1987 ) the Graddon Company Science Division and Don Shimano Associates surveyed and assessed the drainage corridors existing on the subject property. Protective drainage buffer distances were determined for these corridors on the site. Criteria used to map the biological buffers were 1) Size and width of the corridor; 2 ) Significant vegetation present; 3 ) Riparian bank steepness and stability; 4 ) Channel width; and 5 ) Runoff chacteristics ie. sheetflow, seepage, erosion, and biofiltration. In accordance with WAC 222-16-030 ( 6 ) ;g - evenly spaced measurement points of every 50 feet were used along the normal drainage channel for every drainage corridor on the project. Additional environmental considerations were applied to drainage planning by professional landscape architectural perspectives . These perspectives added onsite aestethic views , offsite corridor views , as well as environmental signs of instability. Onsite geotechnical study results were directly applied to ravine slope assessment with overall protection of slopes greater than 33% . Lotlines and boundary lines were also considered which expanded the native growth protection areas . Independent (contracted) geotechnical and landscape architectural studies were applied to the onsite drainage buffer determinations. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of Checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about our proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply." complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Use of Checklist for Non-project Proposals: Complete this checklist for non-project proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." In addition, complete the Supplemental Sheet for Non-project Actions (part D). For non-project actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project." "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. 2 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Driveway Access a. Lots 3,4,5 b. Lot 9 2. Name of applicant: Weyerhaeuser Real Estate Company. 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: WRE 1-1 Peter Constable Tacoma, WA 98477 (206)924-3005 4. Date checklist prepared: November 18, 1992 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Federal Way. 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Complete by Fall 1993. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. The MDNS dated 4/12/88 for Buenna Springs. Buenna Springs is the overall development (approximately 34 lots all within the RS-9600 zone) of which this proposed project represents a driveway crossing. At Lot Number 5 for access to Lots 3, 4,5 and at Lot Number 9 for its own access. 3 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. No. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Not known. 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 proposed project consists of a. A driveway crossing to provide access to Lots 3,4, & 5 and b. A driveway crossing to provide access to Lot 9. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The proposed project is located within a portion of the NE4 of Section 6, T21N, R4E, W.M. The approximate street location is at the end of a cul de sac on a private road in the vicinity of the vacated row's S.W. 294 Street and 5th Avenue S.W. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH 4 a. General description of the site (circle one)P rollm h hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other. Project site is within an established drainage corridor adjacent to flat and rolling terrain. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Not known. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, mulch)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Silty gravelly fine sand. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Structural fill for driveway. Quantities are not known at this time. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Minor clearing and construction is anticipated during dry summer months. Disturbed areas would be minor. Straw bales, siltation fences, and/or other appropriate protection systems would be used. The finished project with revegetation measures in place is anticipated to reduce any erosion potential to existing levels. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Driveway surface is approximately 5% of Lots 4 and 5 (Lot 3 excluded). Driveway coverage for Lot 9 is about 8%. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any. Establish appropriate grass along roadside and all other distb,r}'ed areas. 5 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Minor dust emissions may result from construction activity. Post construction emissions will only be related to driveway traffic. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any. Not applicable. 3. WATER a. Surface. 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year- round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. The proposed driveway crossings are through established drainage corridors which the state has acknowledged that they are not within their jurisdiction. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Yes. Proposed project is the crossing of the intermittent drainage corridors. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. Quantity unknown. It is anticipated that less than 400 cy of fill will be needed. Source of fill material is unknown. 6 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description,-purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No withdrawls or diversions will result. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No. b. Ground. 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to groundwater? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. None. Site will be served by sanitary sewer lines. c. Water Runoff (including storm water). 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Water runoff is contained within the existing drainage channel. This channel will be maintained in its open, free flowing state through an appropriately designed culvert. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No. 7 d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any. Protective drainage and slope buffers. 4. PLANTS a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site. • x deciduous tree: . de maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: ir, cedar, pine, other x shrubs x grass pasture crop or grain x wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage other water plant: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Vegetation will be covered over in the driveway crossing fill areas. Fill areas will be revegetated. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any. Revegetation of grasses. 5. ANIMALS a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site. 8 birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, ethey sparrows, seagulls mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. No. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any. Not applicable. 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. Project has no energy needs. The crossing will provide for utility crossing for each project lot and may parallel existing sanitary sewer and water line crossings. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any. Not applicable. • 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. No. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any. None. b. Noise. 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment operation, other)? Short term construction impact resulting from on-site trucks and other equipment. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Minor noise from short term construction activity. The completed project will not create noise. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any. Not applicable. 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE • 10 a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Residential. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No. c. Describe any structures on the site. None. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? RS-9,600. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Originally designated as an urban area (1988). Unknown if any changes have changed this designation. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Not applicable. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. The drainage corridors that the proposed driveways crossings are within designated Native Growth Protective Easement (NGPE) areas. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? None. The driveway crossings would provide access for either one or three lots depending on which crossing. 11 j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any. Not applicable. 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any. Natural buffers, NGPE areas, and a revised set of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Not applicable. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Not applicable. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any. Not applicable. 10. AESTHETICS a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? The driveway crossing would be at a grade sufficient to allow for drainage into the existing storm drainage system. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None. 12 c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any. Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? None. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Not applicable. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any. Not applicable. 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Saltwater State Park, Dash Point. 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 Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions with updated Amendments will limit uses and activities within NGPE areas'. 13 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, nation, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any. Not applicable. 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. S.W. 293rd and Third Avenue S.W. b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Closest public transit stop is Eastbound along Dash Point, 9 or 10 blocks away. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? None. The project primarily serves to provide driveway type access to Lots 3, 4, 5, and 9. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No new improvements are needed to existing private road. 14 e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. Unknown volume. Probably less than 30 vehicular trips per day (Lots 3, 4, 5 and 9 considered). Peak volumes would likely occur during morning and evening rush hours. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any. All driveways to be constructed to Federal Way or 1987 King County Road standards; whichever applies. 15. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. No. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None. 16. UTILITIES a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, MP refuse service, telephone, .anitary sew• ' septic system, other. (c. c.c) : existing infrastructure . soon to be installed (by Spring 1993) b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. See 16.a. above. 15 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: ////7 A- . .BUENNA ,__.)" 1--)t- INC3' -S • i.t. I) . ' • . , . • THE GRADDON COMPANY , --- -- • 2 , , • • oc...E..ao '• . .11 - . : DON SHI\IONO ASSOCIATES 0 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS , I . • - I . . , - ' •t1).' i 1 co.. . . Ot • • • • , r r•••• onA.owrn....c.0 r........71..os , • on 10 voo TOO , .:.,- ',...- , . 'I i m - I .- --.. , , . . ..r . I .1.'. , . . , -.,,, I.I , , , SI ral 1.r...7-'--=-27•7---- .1...,- t--:2 • , . , OCALI 0 MC, I, '•--. '..-- • ' , , . s 3 . •, 4. ,I• -• ' 5 ..#0: . , . •.T• ; .. -\ . ' ' kfors0000 .=• s ' ( : l• . „ . ‘, •ir - • . ,t- - . ' ' J s ' ,/ , 7 ''. '• \ " ,- Ti' -J./:',"-'4".-*". „--'---- ' . \ / ). r ‘A r i , 1 . • • -r—-r--:— - / ‘, 77,:-. . / ,):••y _______......• 7;1.7 "......„/ , 405 /. 810•4...L.I.wro.• rCOLOOMIL IL PLANT.= LaG•4112.MIAMI..0.3•4 -) I ' 1 I I .,,/.01.0 21' CAOF..T.G vs.,,,,,„:„. 'sr' j Aki • 41111b. __ I ' I ' I 0. . `..... ...... ..,#7.10.1 to Pt. •.....4, • tro.*...LA.irn• f .1!.. •:: 1 • ti.iiii lif 71 • . ,„ , • • ,' ,' ' k• I I I ,' ..' .!, , .. r i , • 1 j . I'. / !.":.• ' Ar • i / 1 ' ' -.---'•... • I • . t / 1 / ' ' • 1,/ ,, * IP r \ C.,44....... .vart,...U. :.• ,, I it,. • • i i i/ i,' / ''' ' ' s• ' I I , ......" , / ..., N 11 1 , , • • , • ' ;' r , 40 • ' ' s...---- . ' ' ss`,a` ; f . . - • ,•,, ,, , , ,,,,.. , , . .,, • I i .I .• "...• •••'• V . k . . ,1!„ 1 i !..t- . _... OC.00.......1.11 . I / . • ./.. • /, / /,, , ...." . • _ 1....,#` . • •".‘ • ,„:„ ff --- -F--, , ' - - - .4 WV- -----'. -_:',, jA. i • ,. .-- ' I' 1 Viiiir' - 3'.2". "'"""7..-....# ,,,„0,•,.. • , # , , ' 0 . .... . ' • •\ , , ' S I , • • • „ '' • „ 1 ..' ' .t' ' •- *41 , c 16 ---. , i. s I •? x(t , , w.,.L.w..m • I.- C 10.„,' . . . ' tri ' 7 ------- - tl .'' .' 1 • , -,1,F ,, ) 7/ .. 44 ,„(--_-_,-.5.,,,,...;-__-____ ____L_-_-_,s,•,, , ,,:-------------:, -..... :i : '.,:ii ,.#1, .. i t _.„.., ....,....-- . ,---- i'P'.i.... • , , -- -.) arti- ,- • ------#: •#0,2 ‘. • de-.....s.„,,,,, L"-7.7 1 ,' '. ••-!,,,-.: .2.,.*#,,`,%, _ . ---- 1. • # , .. - • • . " . , No. 4' • . , .1 1 . ..„,—.0.11. i is....4, -100,00,/0.„.1,". , ----.,.-:.,- . ...--. ...1 • 4:::41 17 •.....•.1,... s •• • , st: .,, , I , ,...'... I I ,," , ..,06,1 ',L.,.- ,,....... ,--• II I, :.,' , .. • ..r.Sf.e,,.......,„..-1.\ ...... Ix .1 . :111 2..h." •,..,., • - ''. S , / o /e . . , •ew MR., 44",• • s_ • • , ‘•. , • .2_,.. /I:W.:. . 477.... 1.,. „..> SW 21311.•L .03::/... -.. • r .. _, . I • • , 01_111101„,,,...' . .....,..•••i --s:D V).----':- ' /' sigr All-tli , 1.•!".-.1 f.. t ; f ;TA,— jr,,,,,\,_ .... ., ,„.. ........ .... _... „ ... ..... ...., , , , :Ix , , , „ , , , ,-.--.."'----:'' •- - ---- - • -•'''s .\ ' '-' I. ' '' '''/-i #1 i '' I . ''1. tiA.-7';w'45.2_%5) .... -- 1 - ,' J`i-- • ' ."4;1512t,:rr`i ! ,, \ -•,,,,,.. . , il ,r, ,/ '..--___--," _v.."' ,..,,,-... P :f, '''''',-•:'. _ . / _ .--•:•'__ Altr-, ,-,---' t 66,c,a -'.. 1% t ' --- .... 1, , / / s % % - .4/ ..:11 •i ,1 / . ...sr.. • st ,......, ......-'-' -- • •Orn 0....\ Jr&...144 . . ..4 . 4 ) • 1 .....---- ,.--*... ,.. ; -131:1:, it-. _ .......----. ,..FOOTT01.00(O, i."lo-• _ - '. \i, ; / ......'l .....-....,,,,,... ,/ • ..2..' '( I i • . ,f. ...-., . ‘, 4..1 i •-- ,.....-- -0!. -____.. i. 41/4,--. ,.: -,_ ,• •;., , \ s• s,44. , __ __ ,' k . 'V, /' r--, -1,47*-• -•‘• ‘ \ 1., tt l* 1 ., I e ..... o._iI. es,....... a •••• fit. , ., i • .._.1 . 1.,-v '43 , , , . • _"It)0.....0... s • • ,# I. ' \ .1 \ • 11 , „"" i• ,,,. AL% •t.orrpwl 'mil • ...4.11111wir XT....0o . , • ,-- i • • t .,- „ I I I t,.. i/. • • / / r / t I A 19 , ' .,;•/Pr ' • •4, 20 .- 52i :!.. ‘‘a -`, \i‘2% .fit:P4:45111M:;' ,...._.i..,.. , I r /2 1 * .‘ -..1- '1'..:'7.----2-‘,61:s' , \‘',:\ 7‘ -‘'.:--s----'3' .'‘.... ‘11, ‘ ,\',I ,1 1 '1 - 1 eir -1 I ' - / . -1-4,,,.., t *,• . , .._-_ __:.- -? , --— - . -- -.../ .,. -...-,---....•...••• •S \ ‘ 't ' •1 .. ••..'''••• . • • -.....• • i 1 I . ‘ . • r ( / i ' it I ! f (.. •I \Al••... 1 ..-Pa,P43 / : - - fiki is- •‘ 10 , , , • ri •.4 Al 1 * \ \ '‘ . ' j'.,,,,„..f f,•,-,F,:,;&-- ' , , :t,- '..:1 -, ,•4,-...- 1--., ',. •, , , „--,, \ \ s...-_-.2.1„. ,.' ' I g %, •• , li, I i, it ' . 1 I • ' • .: t • s • I V V I ‘‘ : t,i:: I • 1 .., .. . 'vs,•••............r''I"1. .1 I -". , ... ... V -....4 e, • -- ,r- - . - . . • , , _ , s , _-- . s - - ,- \ • • --- I" '‘' I -1 - I / ,n,....1 ; l 1/8 \''' ,'-#--,A" ; '• '• - '`.. ‘ # t , e ... .1 • 4.1 „,, .' i I ‘. tr.(L•• -• ...•-:t i, ' •.__ ...... : ' '.. .' ,/;• ‘s;-::L . , , . • o ,-... ./. ...)." ). l'A vf 's - 0\ fli.'// 1:•.0 . • V , \ . i.,‘ I '.... •• '' .‘". .‘:;Z • rl- 1 N .:., . •••_-------:2-... , s A ' ; ,,. 21 . •=e / ,,' ,' N,..."..."„/' ,:.-f.,...s.r. 1.3.1 a.in.a >' /..i:As Aff..•,.. „ . ,. ,, ,, : ;‘,.,, s ' 4--• -- '-- •- 1 /i / , _,'' -- ---"J-(.:-,- :;1::,..---A .t. 'ilt. To*ral"::: i I 1 . t „ ?.;,._:: •.„• '• ,/,' / kt .'ii..smo co...-Ews__..4._.-.---:-t.i.,,, -...-i...:,. 1 , . • ‘.,4_./1.,...s'‘::).: ..:..{. ....!I ,k1,1 ;'",s.,,‘... d .,1/;P / ' ; . I .."' ,I.' e'n"E"."e''...1 i :-.. ''S.**.• • ' i . • ' '-... / „.................. L I. . . s‘ \ / .5"3.)-4ss ‘`. .- , r * /33 I-. .':_-___---,i" ••.s. ,i .,•, , , 1 s‘ •, s‘ , ,...,_ ..- ,, .,, ,r kJ:: 0/ ,.---- 1•,?__kt \ •,• • -• • , ,‘ • • ,,,, , T3. • .4....., v • , , , . - --/-- -... \ \ s i , t-. r • ,• ' ' • • --_ • -----, , •A,A, -„,-2,s,&%",,,'_ - • .. , , • .. • ....--- -..._„- ,,......„ ...,.....„•,.,•„s, ••• .„ ,. ., ._ . ., _„ ....,,,,.*,.. ...........,,:igl.:___ --„ ,‘ , _ , . • \.,,, : ---;')// i /,' ..-- „ ... -. , s ,,' ,,. ,f- . ---.... '' .71 .2.•,,,, ,.,,---- '-. . • ..,..t ,/. s ,,40 '- • , .• ', .:•• s . ,,-,e- .. ...... , . . .. _ ..,„....„,,,,,,• i , , ,, • .,„, , . . .__ ._ ., : - -, i -___-- • .•:,. :::-/ ,•,:: . „ ..... .....„, -.. • . . A PORTION OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 6, TWP. 21 N., RGE. 4 E., W.M. a REVISIONS NO. DESCRIPTION/DATE BY z z J z o Q v �\ � / O O 00 z O Q mZ►� ■ 0 O Z �- (Q z Q :) '_A V/ 00 00 ■� z W zg Q .0 Q �--� o J 0 w U w > O w W Q 4 �' 7 I..L /� LL ^A z p - / z z wCL cn Q Q C� z O o uJ a Fm z z <C w 00 � Q o _lU Y v � wco �- J w M 0 Q <C Z z a: 0 >- Q z W o z Z V JOB NO. 1 29-27--922. DWG. NAME BSE-LOTS DESIGNED B7': DRAWN E3 r": C.A.G. CHECKED BY: R.S.M. DATE: 05-- 30--9'2 DATE OF PRINT JUN 3 0 i992