15-100197 (2)CITY OF
Federal Way
Nick Wecker
Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.
1821572 d Avenue South
Kent WA 98032
Re: File #15-100197--OO-PC, PREAPPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
ARCO Pacific Hwy Development, 35505 Pacific Hwy South, Federal Way
F i L
CITY HALL
33325 8th Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
(253) 835-7000
www.cityoffederalway.com
Jim Ferrell, Mayor
1 0 1, R 1 IT=-§-7M-M-7T 1=1
Review Committee (bRC)-On February 5, 2015. We hope that the information discussed at that meeting
was helpful in understanding the general requirements for your project as submitted.
This letter summarizes comments iven to you at the meeting -by the members of the DRC-�61-*Afficaylkgr.,—�
who reviewed your project and provided comments include staff from the City's Planning and Building
Divisions and Public Works Department, and representatives from Lakehaven Utility District and South
King Fire and Rescue. Where appropriate, pertinent Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) sections are
noted and/or enclosed. The items listed below do not include all regulations applicable to the subject
proposal. In preparing your application, all pertinent portions of the city's land use code must be
consulted. In preparing your formal application, please refer to the complete F)vVRC and other relevant
codes for all additional requirements that may apply to your project. Various comments from other
agencies have either been included as enclosures to this letter or have already been provided to you.
The key contact for your project is Leila Willoughby -Oakes, 253 83 5 -2644 or 16ita.willoughby-
oWmf9kitvoff6derdWmcom,. For specific questions about your project, please contact the appropriate
DRC representative as listed below. Otherwise, any general questions about the preapplication and
Lfermitting process can be referred to your key contact.
PROJECT DESCRIIPTION
The applicant proposes to develop 5 acres with a vehicle service station including an AM/PM
convenience store, fueling stations, and carwash; a truck fiiel stop with fueling stations, accessory retail,
and a restaurant; and a fast food restaurant containing a drive -through. A commercial subdivision
(binding site plan) will follow the vehicle service station development. The proponent, proposes the
r�,hased development in the aforementioned order.
MAJOR ISSUES
Outlined below is a summary of the major issues of your project based on the plans and information
submitted for preapplication review. These issues can change due to modifications and revisions in the
plans. These major issues only represent comments that the DRC consider most significant to your project
and do not include all of the comments provided under "Department Comments." The major issues
Mr. Weeker
February 26, 2015
Page 2
entire department comments made in the next section of this letter.
0 Planning Division
• Per FV*`RC 19.240.020(1), a truck stop use may not locate on property adjoining a low or medium
density residential zone. Property to the west of this site is designated medium density residential;
as such, this phase of the proposal cannot be approved under a formal application.
• The applicant must submit a full Wetland Delineation Report.
• A portion of the site is located within a designated I 0-year wellhead protection zone. Therefore, a
Hazardous Materials Inventory Statement is required. After a Hazardous Inventory Statement
submission, a hydrogeological critical area assessment report may be required with a Use Process
III.
6 Public or Development Services Division
• The project will be required to provide flow control, water quality, Best Management Practices,
and oil control per the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM). The
project must meet standards for Conservation Flow Control and Enhanced Basic Water Quality.
If this site has an on -site closed depression, additional flow control may be required.
• Per Section 2.3.1.1. of the KCS , the Public Works Department will likely require a hydro -
geologic report.
Public or Traffic Division
0 Comments to follow in separate correspondence.
=14 11 1 1 1
DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
Outlined below are the comments made by the representatives of each department present at the
preapplication conference. Each section should be read thoroughly. If you have questions, please contact
the representative listed for that section.
1. Zoning Designation and Land Use — The subject property is located in a Commercial Enterprise
(CE) zoning district. Due to the variety of uses, the following outlines a) if the use is permitted, b)
bulk zoning regulations by use, and c) any special regulations that may apply. The following is only a
portion of the CE zoning regulations governing the proposed uses. The applicant should consult the
Use Zone Charts referenced below prior to submitting a Master Land Use application.
Property Lines an d Subject Property —
As submitted, all development phases represent the "subject property." Subject property is
defined as, "an entire lot or parcel, or series of lots or parcels, on which a development, activity or
15-100197 Doc, ID: 67846
use exists or will occur, or which an activity or condition subject to development regulations
exists or will occur."
• Required setbacks are measured from the property line�� which includes boundaries of shared
access easements. Pursuant to the definition of property line, the western property line setback
shall be measured from the recorded casement between Brooklake Community Center and the
subject property.
• At the time of a Process IR application, the applicant must designate the front property line2 of
the vehicle servicing station. There are two primary vehicular access points.
a. A vehicle servicing station and carwash (including a convenience store) are permitted uses in
the CE zone subject to FWRC 19.240.050.
i. Setbacks — I Oft. (side yard/rear), 20 ft. (front); unless a vehicle service station includes a
mini -mart in the front yard, with a street -oriented entrance, and gas pump island(s) are at
the rear and/or side(s) of the mini -mart, then the minimum front yard setback is the same
as the perimeter landscape buffer required by FWRC Chapter 19.125. Reference the
enclosed definition ofproperry line to determine front property line.
I Maximum Height — 40 ft. Above Average Building Elevation (AABE)
iii. Parking— I for every 300 sq. ft. of gross floor area (GFA), excluding areas under pump
island canopies and including the car wash. Parking spaces required — 15.
lzm/ = �El
v. Fuel canqpygas pump — Gas pump islands, canopies, and covers over pump islands may
not be located closer than 20 ft. from any property fine.
I RAIs I I I W I I K I FEW 09414r-a VORI I r's Q 104
113��
b. A fast food restaurant is a permitted use in the CE zone subject to FWRC 19.240.110.
i. Setbacks — 5 ft. (side-yard/rear), 5 ft. (front).
ii. Maximum Height — 40 ft. AABE
iii. Parking — I stall for every 80 sq. ft. of GFA. Parking spaces required — 46; must provide
one outdoor waste receptacle for every eight parking stalls (6 receptacles).
iv. Lot Coverage — None
1 Per FWRC 19.05.160, "property line" is defined as those lines enclosing the subject property and those lines defining a
recorded vehicular access easement or tract.
2 Per F)VRC 19.05.160(l), "front property line" is any property line that is adjacent to a primary vehicular access. If the subject
tweA ii aceit A more than one Win& vehicular access, the e
ON
ilicant shall desi&.i
popuny 1111c, uwwut U11 Lim ur,11111aull III U11S �iUULIUII, CAL;C,9)L L11VF1VP;01LY 11110-ZCtJUL;011L_J_f W) WACIldl If P1 filfidl Y--uVffCA, COT
be designated as a primary vehicular access.
15-100147 Doc, ID: 67846
v. Double Queue Drive -through — Access to and from drive -through facilities must be
approved by Public Works. Per FWRC 19.240.110 (4), drive-througli facilities must be
designed so that vehicles will not block traffic in the street while waiting in line and will
not unreasonably interfere with on -site traffic flow. Department requirements for drive -
through facilities are found within the Community Design Guidelines referenced.
c. A truck stop, including general retail and restaurants are penuitted uses in the CE zo
subj ect to FWRC 19.240.020, 19.240.0 70, and 19.240. 110. 1
i. Use Restrictions —The following provisions restrict the location of truck stops adjacent t*"
residential zones. Parcels zoned RS3 5.0 adjoin the western lot line of the subject
property. Medium density zones include the RS35.0 zone per FWRC 19.05.130.
Per F)vVRC 19.240.020(l), truck stops may not be located on property that adjoins a
low or medium density residential zone.
Per FIT)KC 19.240.020(l 0), the subject property must be designed so that truck
parking, loading, and maneuvering areas; areas where noise generating outdoor uses,
storage, and activities may occur, and vents and similar features are located as far as
possible from any residential zone, conforming residential use, natural systems, and
public rights -of -way.
"IN INW I=
circulation/maneuvering pathways, and activities.
ii. Setbacks — 20 ft. along residential and 15 ft. along all other zones (side yard/rear), 20 ft.
(front).
�v. Parking — I stall for every 3 0 0 sq. ft. of retail GFA, parking spaces required — 10; 1 for
every 100 sq. ft. of restaurant GFA, parking spaces required — 29. Parking is determined
on a case -by -case basis for a truck stop use. Per FVTRC 19.13 0.13 0, the applicant shall
locate a parking area for a use, other than a detached dwelling unit, as far as possible
from any adjoining single-family zone. The proposed site plan depicts 14 truck stalls and
a two-way access vehicle easement adjacent to a single family parcel. A formal land use
application must comply with the requirements of FVvIRC 19.130.240, which prohibits
parking in required side yards.
vi. Truck Fuel Canopy —Gas pump islands, canopies, and covers over pump islands may not
be located closer than 20 ft. to any property line.
15-100197 Doe ID: 67846
parking as compact, per FWRC 19.130.170. Please note the site plan parking calculations
do not reflect stated building areas; this parking requirement assessment is subject to
change.
2. Land Use Applications —
a. A Use Process III application is required. Use Process III is an administrative land use review
conducted by city staff with a final decision determined by the Director of Community
Development.
U
H
Binding Site Plan (BSP) — The site plan proposesnew lot lines. Preliminary approval establishing
new lot lines and recordation of the BSP map are required. A BSP is an administrative review
conducted by staff with a final decision determined by the Director of Community Development
Lr tit cal'sati
r ROM •
out
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Environmental Review — The proposal requires
environmental review. The applicant has requested concurrent approval for all phases, exceeding the
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) exemptions set forth in WAC 197-11-800(2)(h), and the
flexible thresholds set forth in FWRC 14.15.030(d)-.1
a. Installations of impervious underground tanks have a total capacity exceeding 10,000 gallons.
b. Cumulative building area and parking spots exceed the flexible thresholds adopted by the city
office, commercial, recreational, service, or storage buildings up to 12,000 sq. ft. of GFA and 40
parking spaces.
Environmental review will not he required if you choose to move forward with a Phase exempt from
SEPA (i.e. Binding Site Plan).
Environmental review is a component of a Use Process III and a completed environmental checklist
will be required. A threshold determination must be made by the Director of Community
Development prior to a Use Process III decision.
4. Public Notification — Process III applications and SEPA determinations require notice. Within 14
days of issuing the Letter of Complete Application, a Notice of Application for the Land Use Process
III will be published in the Federal Way Mirror, posted on the subject property, posted on three City
notice boards, and mailed to all property owners located within 300 feet of the site. A mailed notice is
required for projects which are located 300 feet from property zoned SE (suburban estates), RS
(single-family residential) or RM (multifamily). The subject property abuts an RS35.0 zoning district.
Notice for the SEPA determination will be given simultaneously. The applicant is required to submit
one set of stamped mailing envelopes, a list of addresses and a map showing the subject property and
the 3 00-foot buffer for the mailing. The GIS Division can provide this service for a nominal fee.
Please see the enclosed handout for further information.
Public notice (on -site boards, city notice boards, and newspaper publication) of a binding site plan
application is required per FVVRC 18.30.080 within 14 days of completeness, with a 15-day comment
period.
15-100197 Doc, ID: 67846
5. Land Use Timeframes — The Planning Division will notify the applicant of application status within
28 days of submittal. If the application is determined complete, staff will issue a Letter of Complete
Application. FWRC limits the administrative review to 120 days from the date of complete
application. The review timeframe is suspended at any time the additional information is required by
the City. The applicant must submit requested information within a 1 80-day timeframe, unless an
extension is granted pursuant to FWRC 19.15.050(2).
a. Phasing Implications — Process III decisions expire pursuant to FVvrRC 19.15.100(2). An
applicant must substantially complete construction for the development activity and comple-1
land use decision conditions listed within five years. Refer to 19.15.100(2) for phased
construction.
Critical Areas — The subject property is located within the I 0-year Wellhead Protection Zone. The
applicant is required to submit a Hazardous Materials Inventory Statement (enclosed) that discloses
the approximate quantities of hazardous materials that will be stored, handled, treated, used, produced,
recycled, or disposed of in connection to the proposed uses. The development review committee
determines if a hydrogeological assessment report will be required pursuant to FWRC 19.185.050(c).
The applicant may submit the Inventory Statement before the formal application to prepare required
studies. If required, the report is peer reviewed by a third -party at the applicant's expense.
NO
ullill a We earion report r `f .f ry
a qualified environmental professional. The -r• will be reviewed by the city's third party reviewer
at the applicant's expense. The Direct Services Program is available for this project (see enclosed
handout).
Mm-
_94. F 17V771107777 -
the site, occurring on December 12, 2014. This included the pumping of ponded surface water in
forested areas to a Lakehaven sanitary sewer manhole. No work may occur on the subject property
prior to the issuance of construction approvals, by the city.
7. Tree Retention and Replacement — A tree/vegetation retention plan shall be submitted with the
Process III application. The plan must be prepared by a registered landscape architect and may be]
incorporated into the overall landscape plan. These plans shall be incorporated into the clearing a
grading drawings and shall become part of all construction documentation.
Existing trees and vegetation in good health, and not considered to be invasive species, shall be
retained on the subject property to the maximum extent possible. Site and building development shall
take into consideration the location • existing stands • healthy trees r• on site and •.�I adjacent
properties. I
In the CE zone minimum tree density requirements are 20 tree units per acre. The subject property
requires 83 tree units. A tree unit is a value placed on the size of a retained tree and a replacement tree
(i.e., the larger the tree the higher the value). Retained trees are valued higher at a ran e of I to 3 tree
- a - it .-I . - - W."Mr-ril - - - I
11"1111111 WIN 11101 11 1 0 1111111111110101111611
15-100197 DocID: 67846
Mr. Wecker
February 26, 2015
Page 7
met with retained and/or replaced trees, and if replacement trees achieve minimum species mid si,"-'
requirements per F)ATRC 19.120.150. 1
1 11 scaping are c -- UO3MIJ-1 - I M ee
unit requirements. Replacement trees are assigned tree units from 0.5-1.5 based on specific size. Tree
unit calculations are provided in FWRC 19.120.130-(2).
8. Clearing and Grading — The applicant shall obtain clearing and grading plan approval as a
component of Process III approval. Consult F)ATRC 19.120.040(l) for items that are required to be
included on the plan including the anticipated amounts of cut and fill.
9. Landscaping and Screening — A landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a Washington State
licensed landscape architect shall be submitted with the formal application. Follow the general
guidelines outlined in F)vVRC 19.125.040(l) through (28) when preparing the site plan and planting
schedule. The following regulations are specific to your proposal:
Perimeter Landscaping
a. Given the unique characteristics of the site, any parking along the westerly property line abutting
RS35.0 zoning must reduce visual impacts of parking areas and buffer by providing Type I
landscaping within required perimeter landscape area per FVVRC 19.125.070(5)(b). Per FV�RC
19.125.060.9(a), the applicant must install a 5-foot Type III landscaping along all property lines
abutting access easements and public rights -of -way. Type III landscaping type is defined per
FV*TRC 19.125.050 and shall include a mixture of evergreen and deciduous trees, large shrubs a
minimum of 24 inches in height at the time of planting, and groundcover.
b. Per FWRC 19.125.040.19, landscaping and fencing shall not violate the sight distance safety
requirements at street intersections and points of ingress/egress for the development.
c. Per FWRC 19.125.040.18, landscaping proposed to be located within or adjacent to utility
easements shall be reviewed by the respective utility agency(ies).
d. Commercial development parking lots must contain a minimum of 22 sq. ft. of Type IV
landscaping, within the surface parking area, per parking stall when 50 or more parking stalls al -
provided (FWRC 19.125.070(2)(a)(i)(B)). The development exceeds 49 spaces.
Perimeter landscaping may not be included within the calculation of parking lot landscaping. Ns -
parking lot landscaping calculations were provided with this submittal. When submitting for land
use approval, please show how the parking lot landscaping and perimeter landscaping achieves
dimensions and calculation requirements.
f, Permanent curbing shall be provided in all landscape areas with or abutting parking areas. Basedl
upon appropriate surface water considerations, other structural barriers may be substituted for
curbing, such as concrete wheel stops. I
15-100197 Doc, ID: 67846
•
g. Parking areas adjacent to Pacific Highway and SW 356Street shall add substantial shrub
plantings to the required Type III perimeter landscape type per F)ArRC 19.125.070(5)(a).
h. Per FWRC 19.125.060.9(a), Type I landscaping 15 feet in width shall be provided along the
perimeter of the property abutting a residential zoning district, in this case the western property
line. Type I landscaping is defined under FVVRC Chapter 19.125.050.
V
j. Per FNMC 19.125.070(3), landscape islands are to be incorporated into parking lot site design at
the end of all rows of parking. Landscapin•g islands are to be a minimum of 64 sq. ft. and a
maximum of 305 sq. ft., and a minimum of six feet in width.
k. Typical 90-degree design standards are 9'xl8' stalls with 25' drive aisles. Up to 25 percent of the
required stalls maybe designated compact at 8'xl5' with 25.5' drive aisles. Please find parking
design criteria enclosed.
10. Community Design Guidelines — All projects except single family are subject to a Process M review
and must comply with the provisions of FWRC 19.115. The following design guidelines that apply to
th e proposal are noted below; however, please note Community Design Guidelines shall be applied in
2:)
their entirety. The applicant shall submit a written narrative or design brief identifying how the
proposal complies.
a. Site Design — FVI 19.115.050, refer to all sections of this chapter for site design standards.
Key sections include:
i. (1) General Criteria (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g)
ii. (2) Surface Parking Lots (a), (b), (c), and (e)
iii. (4) Pedestrian Circulation and Public Spaces (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f)
iv. (5) Landscaping
v. (6) Commercial service (a) and (b)
b. Building Fagade Modulation and Screening Options —As several buildings have east/west (fast
food restaurant) and north/south (AM/PM and truck retail/restaurant) building facades exceedinV
60 feet and are visible from the right-of-way, they must incorporate at least two of the following
treatments:
L Facade modulation. Minimum depth: two feet; minimum width: six feet; maximum width:
60 feet. Alternative methods to shape a building, such as angled or curved facade elements,
off -set planes, wing walls and terracing, will be considered; provided, that the intent of this
section is met.
ii. Landscape screening. Eight -foot -wide Type R landscape screening along the base of the
facade, except Type W may be used in place of Type 11 for facades that are comprised of
50 percent or more window area, and around building entrance(s).
iii. Canopy or arcade. As a modulation option, canopies or arcades may be used only along
facades that are visible from a right -cif -way. Minimum length: 50 percent of the -length of
the facade using this option.
15-100197 Doc- ID: 67846
iv. Pedestrian plaza. Size of plaza: Plaza square footage is equal to one percent of the gross
floor area of the building, but it must be a minimum of 200 square feet. If this treatment is
chosen, the plaza should be clearly visible and accessible from Pacific Highway S and S
3 5 6h Street.
c. Entrance Facades — Shall front on, face, • be clearly recognizable from the right-of-way
incorporate windows and other methods of articulation. Building entrances shall be
architecturally emphasized and shall include transparent glass. I
d. District Guidelines — FVv`RC 19,115.090(3)(a)-(f) directs key building and site design in the CE
zoning district and apply to this project
e. Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) — Find the enclosed CPTED checklist
to be submitted with the formal land use application.
f. Drive -through — The following standards apply to drive -through facilities; refer to traffic's
comments for additional requirements:
i. Drive-thru windows and stacking lanes are not encouraged along facades of buildings that
face a right-of-way. If they are permitted in such a location, then they shall be visually
screened from such street by Type III landscaping and/or architectural element, or
combination thereof; provided, such elements reflect the primary building and provide
appropriate screening.
ii. The stacking lane shall be physically separated from the parking lot, sidewalk, and
pedestrian areas by Type III landscaping and/or architectural element, or combination
thereof; provided, such elements reflect the primary building and provide appropriate
separation. Painted lanes are not sufficient.
iii. Drive-thru speakers shall not be audible off site.
iv. A bypass/escape lane is recommended for all drive-thru facilities.
11. Garbage and Recycling Enclosure — Garbage collection is provided by Waste Management Inc. in
the City of Federal Way. Per FWRC 19.125.150, design of the enclosure area should be consistent
with the architectural design of primary structures. The enclosure shall be screened from the abutting
property by a 100 •` sight -obscuring fence or wall. Storage areas shall not interfere with the
primary use • the site. The enclosure area shall be located so that collection of materials by trucks
will not burden pedestrian or vehicular movement. Solid Waste and Recycling Design
Considerations (enclosed) supply guidelines for commercial development. See Public Works - Solid
Waste and Recycling comments. The storage area shall be located in areas where impacts associated
with noise and odors are minimized, and where its location would not be incompatible with
pedestrian and vehicle traffic.
12. Signage — See F)vVRC 19.140 for specific sign requirements. Separate sign permits are required.
Contact a Development Specialist for more information at 253-835-2607.
13. Rooftop Mechanical Equipment — Per FWRC 19.110.070, heating ventilation and air conditioning
elevator equipment, and similar appurtenances that extend above the roofline must be surrounded bl,
solid sight -obscuring screen that is integrated into the architecture of the building and obscures the I
15-100197 Doc ID: 67846
Mr. Wecker
February 26, 2015
Page 10
view of the appurtenances from adjacent streets and properties. Please provide screening details on
the elevation drawings.
14. Rockeries — See FVV`RC 19.120.120 for specifies about retaining wall requirements of • location,
landscaping and material composition.
a. •. FVVRC 19.120.120-7, • and retaining walls visible from a public • or
adjacent property shall be composed of rock, brick, or other textured/patterned wall styles as
approved by the planning and public works directors. Rockeries and retaining walls shall be
landscaped in accordance with the applicable standards in Chapter 19.125 FWRC, Article 1,
Landscaping.
15. Application Fees — As development fees change annually, please • the Permit Center at 253-
835-2607 or perrnitcenter@cityoffederalwaycom, for an updated fee list prior to submitting your
application for Use Process III, SEPA checklist, Binding Site Plan, concurrency, engineering review,
and building permit.
Land Use Issues — for water
I . Surface water runoff control and water quality treatment will be required per the 2009 King County
Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) and the City of Federal Way Addendum to the 2009
KCSWDM. This project meets the requirements for a Full Drainage Review. At the time of land use
site plan submittal, a preliminary Technical Information Report (TIR), addressing the relevance of the
project to the eight core and five special requirements of the KCSWDM will be required. A Level I
downstream analysis shall also be provided in the preliminary TIR. Any onsite closed depressions
must be identified and evaluated for flow control purposes.
Based on KCSWDM Section 2.3. 1. 1, TIR Section 6, a hydrogeologic report is likely to be required.
This is due to proximity of the site to Hylebos Wetland, a I 0-year groundwater recharge area onsite,
and the proposed use which includes underground fuel tanks, truck parking, car wash, and several
•h- businesses.
2. The f• must meet Conservation flow control and Enhanced Basic Water Quality criteria as
outlined in the KCSWDM. In addition, this is considered a high -use site requiring oil control per
Special Requirement #5 in the KCSVvDM. Be§t Management Practices must be implemented to
augment flow control. All car wash drains and fueling pads must drain to sanitary sewer.
3. If infiltration is proposed, soil logs prepared by a licensed geotechnical engineer or septic designer
must •` provided to verify infiltration suitability.
4. Detention and water quality facilities must be above ground (i.e. open pond). Underground facilities
are allowed • with approval from the City • Federal Way • Management Division.
5. The proposed location of the detention pond appears to block an access easement. This will need to
be resolved prior to City approval.
15-100197 Doc, ID: 67846
Mr. Wecker
February 26, 2015
Page 11
6. If more than one acre will be disturbed during construction, a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit may be required. Information regarding this permit can bi
obtained from the Washington State Department of Ecology at
or by calling 360-407-6437.
7. If work is to be done below the ordinary high watermark, a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA)
permit may be required. Information regarding this permit can be obtained from the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife, at bq]L)://www..wa. g��dfWhabftqpgodjLnj or by calling the
office of Regulator Assistance at 360-407-7037.
Right -of -Way Improvements
See the Traffic Division comments from Erik Preston, Senior Traffic Engineer, for traffic related items.
Building (or EN) Permit Issues
1. Engineered plans are required for clearing, grading, road construction, and utility work. Plans must be
reviewed and approved by the City. Engineering review fees are $824.50 for the first 12 hours of
review, and $68.00 per hour for additional review time. A final TIR shall be prepared for the project
and submitted with the engineering plans. Both the TIR and the plans will require the signature/seal
of a professional engineer registered/licensed in the State of Washington.
2. The Federal Way Development Standards Manual (including standard detail drawings, standard
notes, and engineering checklists) is available on the City's website atwww.q!tvoffidq1glwaVxoM to
assist the applicant's engineer in preparing the plans and TIR.
3. The applicant shall provide a geotechnical report that addresses design pavement thickness for the
roadways.
4. Bonding is required for all street improvements and temporary erosion and sediment control measures
associated with the project. The bond amount shall be 120 percent of the estimated costs of the
improvements. An administrative fee deposit will need to accompany the bond to cover any possible
legal fees in the event the bond must be called. Upon completion of the installation of the
improvements, and final approval of the Public Works Inspector, the bond will be reduced to 30
percent of the original amount and held for a two-year maintenance period.
The developer will be responsible for the maintenance of all storm drainage facilities (including the
detention and water quality facilities) and street systems during the two-year maintenance period.
During that time, the Public Works Inspector will make periodic visits to the site to ensure the
Rz-t ce—xv6"i e it 21 -t te-t Q,-t ce &Q_k*2jLOt ents. UD on s ati sfactory c om-o I etion o f the two -
NFORIS SMINJUJINIOEX-7291rN VL%AM41QEK7,J IM I OIL! L-JWIJ WN I MAI.I.&IMMW
I E WIN, q M, Ing "MIN
road s ana arainage Tacifilies, incivaing SROR PIMS, I C111aill L11r, FUS-PURS1 It I I I LX ill 1 11 1
owners.
6. When topographic survey information is shown on the plans, the vertical datum block shall include
the phrase "DATLTM: N.G.V.D.-29" or "DATUM: K.C.A.S.," on all sheets where vertical elevations
are c0led out.
15-100197 Doc. DD: 67946
7. Drawings submitted for plan review shall be printed on 24" x 36" or 22" x 34" paper. All final
approved drawings shall be drafted/plotted on 24" x 36" or 22" x 34" mylar sheet with permanent
black ink. Site plans shall be drawn at a scale of I represents 20', or larger. Architectural scales are
not permitted on engineering plans.
8. Provide cut and fill quantities on the clearing and grading plan. Erosion control measures, per
Appendix D, 2009 KCS)vVDM, must be shown on the engineering plans.
9. The site plan shall show the location of any existing and proposed utilities in the areas affected by
construction.
PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURAL SERVICES
F teve Ikerd, Parks and Facilities Manager. 253-835-691.1. stevejker4aki
John Hutton, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director, 253-835-6910,
ITO or Me
-rag]— rrAf'3
PUBLIC WORKS TRAFFIC DIVISION
(Erik Preston, PE, 253-835-2744, erikprestop pcityoffederah a L_com) y
Comments to follow in separate correspondence.
PUBLIC WORKS - SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING DIVISION (Rob Van Orsow, 253-835-2770,
robv(@,cityofl'ederalw:ay.coti,i
Solid Waste & Recycling Design Considerations
The proposal contains three main structures (ARCO/car wash, Fast Food, and Retail/Restaurant), and
each shall only require the minimum 65 sq. ft. of space dedicated to allow tenant recycling. The applicant
shall provide more detailed structural building plans to confirm if the provisions of F)VRC 19.125.150 are
rtet.
Three affiliated trash enclosures are 117 sq. ft. +/- in area.
The applicant shall widen the enclosures by two feet to allow a minimum of 15 ft. clearance when
gates are opened, and accommodate front load dumpster service for two dumpsters (one for garbage
and one for mixed recyclables). This would ensure compliance with FVVRC 19.125.150. It would also
allow space for a grease barrel, etc. if needed.
0 Collection vehicle front load access is suitable for the ARCO/car wash and Truck Retail/Restaurant
and does not need to be revised.
Pleaserelocate the Fast Food enclosure; ft is situated in a way that trucks cannot access it if vehicles
are parked directly to the north. A more suitable location would be where the enclosure is located for
the Truck Stop Retail/Restaurant.
15-100197 Doc,.ID: 67846
W Wecker
February 26, 2015
Page 13
Please note other provisions contained in the Solid Waste &.RecY cling Design Guidelines - regarding
gates, gate pins, and tenant access into their site plans.
BUILDING DIVISION (Scott Sproul, 253-835-2633, scott.sprout{ a cit off ederalway.com
International Building Code (IBC), 2012
Washington State Amendments WAC 51-50
International Mechanical Code (IC), 2012
Washington State Amendments WAC 51-52
Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC), 2012
Washington State Amendments WAC 51-56 & WAC 51-57
International Fire Code (IFC), 2012
Washington State Amendments WAC 51 -54
National Electric Code (NEC), 2012
Accessibility Code, ICC/ANSI Al 17.1 - 2009
International Residential Code, 2012
Washington State Amendments WAC 51-51
Washington State Energy Code, 2012 WAC 5 1 -11
Building Criteria
Occupancy Classification: A-2, M, B
Type of Construction: A-B
Fire Protection: Fire sprinkler system required on buildings over 5000 sq ft and A-2 occupancies with an
occupant load of 100 or greater. Fire alarm system required on building over 3 000 sq ft.
Wind/Seismic: Basic wind speed 85 Mph, Exposure, 25# Snow load, Seismic Zone D-1
A complete building permit application and commercial checklist. (Additional copies of application and
checklists may be obtained on our web site at wwNv,citvoffWera1,Aay.com.)
Submit 5 — sets of drawings and specifications. Specifications shall include: —2— Soils report,
Structural calculations, — 2 — Energy calculations, and —2— Ventilation calculations. Note: A
Washington State Registered architects' stamp is required for additions/alterations (new or existing) of
4,000 gross floor area or greater unless specifically listed as an "exempt" structure per the Revised Code
of Washington (RCW).
Energy code compliance worksheets are required to be completed and included with your permit
application.
15-100197 Doc. 11): 67946
A wet stamp and signature is required on all sheets of plans and on the cover page of any calculations
submitted.
Federal Way reviews plans on a first in, first out basis; however, there are some small projects with
inconsequential review requirements that may be reviewed out of order.
Review Timing
The first comment letter can be expected within 7 to weeks of submittal date. Re -check of plans will
occur in one to three weeks after re -submittal.
Fiinuet p7ans. A-MiRMIMP1111 I LL09, �UU;tWUL0 13 111OUJIN V1
what changes have been made from the original drawings. Plans for all involved departments will be
forwarded from the Department of Community Development.
Other Permits & Inspections
l en- mechanical Plumbing fire s ion istems ar �
Wir I M UWi Are ss . rewired for electrical
I I I Ivy 1 lu VAL, IN &J �z to) Magog I r 1 UM $17,111111 W, 1 NK I 1VA I I I MA #J 9 M 0 99KAM I I I I I UJ I LW-J I I 17d I I 1RUGLAM I N1 I REV011110MV
111166411 MT11 M-1111hoNOl - I
Mo—
All concerned departments (Planning, Public Works, Electrical, & Fire) must sign off before the Building
Department can final the structure for occupancy. Building final must be approved prior to the issuance of
a Certificate of Occupancy.
Site -Specific Requirements
• Buildings with exterior walls less than ten feet from the property line, will be required to have
exterior walls of not less than one hour fire resistive construction (IBC table 602).
• Separate permits are required for each building.
• Electrical permits are through the City of Federal Way.
• Fire sprinkler system is required for buildings over 5000 sq. ft. If the proposed fast food building has
an occupant load over 100, a fire sprinkler system would be required per IBC 903.2.1.2.
• The information provided is based on limited plans and information. The comments provided are not
intended to be a complete plan review and further comments are possible at time of building permit
plan review.
17'ater
A Certificate of Water Availability (application form enclosed) issued separately by Lakehaven may
be required to be submitted with any land use and/or building permit applications (check with land
15-100197 Doa ID: 67846
•
15-100197 Doc ID: 67846
rates: 5/8"x3/4"=$250.00 (typical for fire -protection, flow -detection -only meters); I "=$310.00;
11/2"=$600.00; 2"=$710.00.
• Capital Facilities Charge(s)-Water, per Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU): $ = TB D by
Lakehaven, based on applicant's estimated annual domestic & irrigation water usage. The
property has no available water system capacity credits. Please contact Lakehaven for further
detail.
• CPILOE ("PHS/348-356" & "1968 IMPROVEMENTS (B)"): $4,071.42.
• Other (describe): $None anticipated.
Sewer
• The site has no existing or previous sewer service connections.
• A separate Lakehaven sewer service connection permit (application form enclosed) is required for
each new connection to the sanitary sewer system in accordance with standards defined in
Lakehaven's current 'Fees and Charges Resolution'. Minimum pipe slope for gravity sewer service
connections is 2%. In addition to all other sewer service installation standards, installation of a Type
monitoring manhole is typically required on the private building sewer line, for all new or
modified non-residential connections. Also, installation of an externally -located grease interceptor is
required for all new restaurants & food service establishments, size to be determined by applicant's
engineer.
• Lakehaven design & operation standards are attached for Waste Enclosure, Fueling Island & Vehicle
Wash areas.
• New private, sewer easement may be required across new BSP lot(s), for the benefit of the portion of
the other BSP lot's sewer service line(s) across said adjacent property. This private easement shall
cover off -site property along the route of the affected. portion of the sewer service line(s) from the
edge of public right-of-way or Lakehaven easement to the each applicable BSP lot.
• Based on the proposal submitted, preliminary estimated Lakehaven sewer service connection
fees/charges/deposits (2015 schedule) will be as follows. Actual connection charges will be
determined upon submittal of service connection application(s) to Lakehaven. Sewer connection
charges for this property are due afthe time of application for service. All Lakehaven fees, charges
and deposits are typically reviewed & adjusted (if necessary) annually, and are subject to change
without notice
• Sewer Service Connection Permit Fee, per building: $3 60.00.
• Capital Facilities Charge(s)- Sewer, per ERU: $ = TBD by Lakehaven, based on applicant's
estimated annual domestic water usage. Sewer system capacity credits are available for this
property from system capacity charges previously assessed, paid directly to Lakehaven, and/or
credited to the property for 8.44 ERU. Please contact Lakehaven for further detail.
• Other (describe): $None anticipated.
General
All comments herein are valid for one (1) year and are based on the proposal(s) submitted and
Lakehaven's current regulations and policies. Any change to either the development proposal(s) or
Lakehaven's regulations and policies may affect the above comments accordingly.
15-100197 Doc„ID: 67846
Mr. Wecker
February 26, 2015
Page 17
• A Certificate of Water Availability shall be provided indicating the fire flow available at the site.
• This project will require 2 fire hydrant(s). One existing fire hydrant on the public street is available for
this project; the second hydrant shall be installed on the property.
• Fire hydrant locations are subject to the approval of the Fire Marshal or his/her designee.
• Fire hydrants shall be in service PRIOR to and during the time of construction.
Fire Apparatus Access Roads
• Fire apparatus access roads shall be provided when any portion of the facility or any portion of an
exterior wall of the first story of the building is located more than 150 feet from fire apparatus access as
measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility.
• Designated fire lanes may be required for emergency access. This may be done during the plans check or
after the facility is in operation.
,OWhen required, approved signs or other approved notices shall be provided and maintained for fire
apparatus access roads to identify such roads and prohibit the obstruction by parking and other
obstructions.
0 Fire apparatus access road gates shall comply with South King Fire and Rescue Administrative
Policy Guideline No. 1003.
0 Fire apparatus access roads shall be installed and made serviceable PRIOR to and during the time
of construction.
Fire -Extinguishing Systems
• An automatic fire sprinkler system is required. The system shall be installed where the total floor area
included within the surrounding exterior walls on all floor levels, including basements, exceeds 5,000
square feet, including A-2 occupancies where the fire area has an occupant load of 100 or more. Fire
walls shall not be considered to separate a building to enable deletion of the required automatic fire -
extinguishing system.
• The system demand pressure (to the source) required in a hydraulically designed automatic fire spfinkler
system shall be at least 10 percent less than the correlative water supply curve pressure.
• A separate permit is required for the installation of the Fire Sprinkler System. I
• A fire alarm system is required.
• An automatic fire detection system shall be installed in all buildings exceeding 3,000 square feet gross
floor area. This fire detection system shall be monitored by a central and/or remote station confonning to
the current requirements of the National Fire Protection Association standards and/or the fire chief or
designee (FWRC Chapter 8, Article IL Division 4).
• A separate permit is required for the installation of the Fire Alarm System. A complete fire alarm system
is required for buildings not protected by a Fire Sprinkler System.
Installation of Underground Flammable/Combined Liquid Storage Tanks
1, seDarate Dermit is reauired for the installation of flammable and combustible liquid storage tanks.
MT!" 'M
Specifications.
15-100197 Doc, ID: 67846
CLOSING
This letter reflects the information Wovided at the prea lication meeting, and is intended to assist you in
Ap
preparing plans and materials for formal application. We hope • found the comments useful to your
project. We have made every effort to identify major issues to eliminate surprises during the City's
review of the formal application. The completion of the preapplication process in the content of this letter
does not vest any future project application. Comments in this letter are valid ,.• • year, per FVVaC
19.40.070(4), if the applicant submits a complete development application substantially similar to the
subject of the preapplication review within one calendar year.
As you • this is a preliminary review only and t• not take the place • the full review that will
ffifffff-R&'Mr
materials submitted.
-= 1p J 14- ICTISTURS�-W IC pr4J0CL-1dE t UNTIT 771711777 1771co ant 71ITTL
information regarding development requirements outlined above. In addition to this preapplication letter,
please examine the complete FVY'RC and other relevant codes carefully. Requirements that are found in
the •f'- that are not addressed in this letter are still required for • project.
If you have questions about an individual comment, please contact the appropriate department
reGiresentative noted above. An - - eneral,,tuestions can be directed towards the kepvl%ro�ect contact � Leila
Willoughby -Oakes, 253-835-2644. We look forward to working with you.
Sincerely,,
Leila Willoughby -Oakes
Associ,qte Pla-i'ller
enc: Bulletin 001 'Process III Submittal Requirements'
Bulletin 003 'Master Land Use Application'
Bulletin 042 'Parking Lot Design Criteria'
Bulletin 056 'Hazardous Materials Inventory Checklist'
Bulletin 043 'Binding Site Plan (BSP)'
Bulletin 050 'Environmental (SERA) Checklist'
Project Resubmittal Form
Application for Certificate of Availability (Lakehaven)
Developer Extension Agreement Application
Solid Waste & Recycling Design Considerations
Lakehaven Utility Map
Mailing Labels Handout
c: BalbiT Birk, Birk Environmental LLC, 11220 SE 265h Place, Kent, WA 95030
Ann Dower, Senior Engineering Plans Reviewer
Erik Preston, PE, Senior Traffic Engineer
Scott Sproul, Assistant Building Official
Brian Asbury, Lakehaven Utility District
Vince Faranda, South King Fire and Rescue
15-100197 Doc ID: 67846
CITY OF '01 Pre -application Conference Sign in Sheet
Federal Way
Project Name: ARCO Facility- Pacific ffighway
Address: 35505 Pacific Hw-y.
File Number: 15-100197-00-PC
IF 2 ;q,3
C IF-4 c, 7 2-(�S V 3 c -(
REVISED WETLAND ADDENDUM
PropertyWestern Pacifle
Federal
January 2, 2001
• 1 �
QP na-
RM
Project Number:
Prepared By:
rem
Logan Fe�dtral Way Inc.
c/o Mr. Cory Martin
Pacific West Development
P.O. Box 860
Renton, Washington 98057
�jstised
010HIS11w]
5 711 Northeast 63rd Street
Se�ttle, Washington 98115
(206) 525-8122
January 23, 2001
RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES, INC
5711 Northeast 63rd St, Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 525-8122
Project Manager
Current Project Personnel:
Kenneth J. Raedeke, Ph.D.
Certified Senior Ecologist, ESA
Dorothy A:,. Milligan Raedeke, M.S.
Wildlife Biologist
Richard W. Lundquist, M.S.
Wildlife Biologist
Wildlife andi'llet an ...
M. Fredericks, M.S.
Fisheries Biologist
.A,my Payne, B.S.
Soil Scientist
Claude McKenzie, B.A.
'Landscape Architect
Lisa C. Danielski, B.A.
5711 Northeast 63rd St.
RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES, INC
Seattle, WA 98115
(206) 525-8122
This r• documents the results • • recent and current field • • the
Western Pacific Property in Fedeial Way, Washington. The purpose • our 1999
investigation was to determine if there have been substantial changes in the delineated
boundary of the Hylebos 18 wetland boundary since it was delineated in 1993 by
Raedeke Associates, Inc. (1993) • approved • the U.S. Army Corps • Engineers
also investigated off -site areas along the property boundary to assess wetland
features that could extend buffers or setba:cks on the subject property. The results were
presented in an addendum report (Raedeke Associates, Inc. 1999). Based on the review
of the site • .r• summary •• the reviewer for the city • The Federal Way,
Sheldon & Associates, Inc. (2000), requested additional information: 1) a survey of the
modified northeast boundary of the Hylebos 18 wetland, 2) a depiction • the standard
200 •• buffer • existing condition maps, 3) a delineation of the r• 18 west
• boundary that extends west off site, to determine the location of the standard
200-foot buffer, and • additional information regarding a small wetland • to the
north • make a rating and • determination.
The purpose of this report is to provide the requested information in addition to the
results of our 1999 investigation. Raedeke Associates, Inc. conducted field investigations
of the Western Pacific property July 8 and September 15, 1999, November 14 and
December 14, 2000, and January 5, 2001. During the site visits, we collected general
descriptions of vegetation, soil, and hydrologic conditions to document our observations,
and extend the flagged boundary of Hylebos 18 as requested. Tables 2-10 present field
data from our 1999 investigation and Tables 11 -15 provide additional observations of the
off -site wetland to the northeast.
Western Pacific Property — Revised Wedand Addendum Raedefi-ep Associates, Inc.
Januaty 23, 2001
2
borders the property in the northeast and the southwest portions of the study area
(Raedeke Associates, Inc. 1993).
2.1 DEFINITIONS AND METHODOLOGIES
Wetlands and streams are protected by federal law as well as by state and local
regulations. Federal law (Section 404 of the Clean Water Act) generally prohibits the
discharge of dredged or fill material into the nation's waters, including wetlands, without
a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE 1997). The COE makes the final
determination as to whether an area meets the definition of a wetland, and thus, if it is
under their jurisdiction, and whether any permits are required for any proposed
alterations.
The COE wetland definition was used to determine if any portions of the study area could
be classified as wetland. A wetland is defined as an area "inundated or saturated by
surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under
normal circumstances does support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life
in saturated soil conditions" (Federal Register 1986:41251).
We based our investigation upon the guidelines of the COE Wetlands Delineation
Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987), as revised in the Washington State Wetlands
Identification and Delineation Manual published by the Washington Department of
Ecology (WDOE 1997). The VIDOE wetland manual is required by state law for all local
jurisdictions (including King County), is consistent with the 1987 COE wetland
delineation manual with respect to wetland identification and delineation, and
incorporates subsequent amendments and clarifications provided by the COE (1991 a,
1991b, 1992, 1994). Generally, as outlined in the 1987 wetland delineation manual,
wetlands are distinguished by three diagnostic characteristics: hydrophytic vegetation
(wetland plants), hydric soil (wetland soil), and wethind hydrology.
We used the Braun-Blanquet cover -abundance scale and plotless sampling methodology
to describe homogenous plant "cover types" in representative areas of both wetland and
uplands (Mueller-Doboiland Ellenburg 1974). The locations of additional wetland
flags placed on the site in our current studies have been surveyed by Hugh G. Goldsmith
& Associates, Inc. and plotted on an existing conditions map (Figure 1).
Western pacific Property — Revised Wetland.Addenduni aaedeke Associates, A'11c.
January 23, 2001
'
3 '-
'
�
2.2 BACKGROUND
Raedeke Associates, Inc.'s staff delineated the on -site wetland area (a portion of Hylebos
18, as designated in the King County 1990 inventory; King County 1991) during field
investigations in September 1989 and March 1990. Additional hydrologic observations
were gathered in March 1993 (Raedeke Associates, Inc. 1993). The wetland boundary
flags and soil pit locations verb Surveyed by Hugh G. Goldsmith & Astociate$� Inc. Our
staffreyiewed the wdland boundaries with COE Staff M*tlie field in September 1993, and
the COE confirmed the wetland delineation asflagged in the field and depicted on the
survey map included in the 1993 report. The COE wetland boundary confirmation was
valid for a period of three years. In January 1997, the� COE granted the applicant's
request for an extension of their confirmation of the wetland boundaries. That
confirmation expired in September 1998. In October 2000, we received a copy of the
comments from the City of Federal Way and the rev . iew memorandum by Sheldon &
Associates requesting additional information ' and clarification. In response to these
w,g-j:wrmj-u.WT4ff,vnducted site visits in November and December 2000, and January 2001,
to delineate the wetland boundary further off -site from the west property boundary, and
investigate the off -site wetland to the northeast, as they may affectAhe development of
the Western Pacific property.
western Pacific Property — Revised Wetland Addendum Raedeke Associates, Inc.
5
Western Pacific property - Revised Wetland Addendum Raedeke Associates, Inc.
January 23, 2001
in
As determined from our previous investigations, the on -site wetland extends off -site to
the west and north as part of the larger Hylebos 18 wetland, which encompassed 2.14
acres on the property. Based on the revised delineation (Figure 1) the on site wetland
area now totals 2.27 acres. Drained hydric or transitional soils continue in a topographic
low trough to the southern boundary. This southerly topographic low was excluded from
the wetland boundary based on hydrologic observations in early spring of 1990 and 1993
in a series of soil logs (Raedeke Associates, Inc. 1993), and this determination was
confirmed by COE staff in 1993.1
Prior to our 1999 field surveys, the approximate location of the previously confirmed
wetland boundary was re -staked in the field by Pathmann Surveying. Based on our
review of current field conditions, the current on -site wetland boundary in general
appears to be consistent with the previously approved wetland boundary. The wetland
boundary as delineated by Raedeke Associates, Inc. staff and surveyed by Goldsmith &
Associates, Inc. for our 19-93 report still accurately reflects the wetland boundary, except
at the northeast end near the north property line (Figure 1). The majority of the wetland
boundary is defined by a distinct topographic break at the base of upland slopes
corresponding with a change in soil characteristics and subtle changes in vegetation, as
described in our 1993 report (Raedeke Associates, Inc. 1993).
We examined areas on either side of the boundary of 'the south -easternmost lobe of the
on -site wetland to describe the current conditions and compare them with previous
observations. One area was described within the south end of the'wetland finger near
Soil Log 17, where the vegetation was dominated by an overstory of red alder, with
scattered western red cedar, and a dense tall shrub layer of vine maple, with herbaceous
cover consisting of false -lily -of -the -valley, scattered, skunk cabbage, water parsley, and
horsetail (Table 2, Plot E).
The soil profile for this area was generally consistent with that described previously for
Soil Log 17, with a dark organic -rich surface horizon to 9 inches, over a sandy layer to 15
inches, and a heavier silt loam layer below 15 inches. The profile was moist throughout
during our July 1999 visit, with saturation at about 15 inches. Based on our previous
investigations, this area was considered to have wetland hydrology and included within
the wetland.
This area was similar in some ways to the area described just south of the wetland finger
(outside the wetland boundary) near previous Soil Logs 11 and 12. The vegetation
consisted of an overstory of red alder and vine maple, with an herbaceous layer
Western Pacific Property — Revised Wetland Addendum Raedeke A ss q c ia tes, inc.
January 23, 2001
6
The soil in this area consisted, of a dark brown surface horizon with subsoil that included
a light brown to yellowish layer of ash or diatomaceous earth, similar to the profile
described at Soil Log 3 from the 1993 report. The soil profile was dry during our
September 1999 visit, in contrast to other areas observed within the wetland boundary on
the same day. This is consistent with the early spring 1990 observations in this general
vicinity (Soil Logs 1, 2, 3 and 4). Although the area has hydrophytic vegetation, our
current observations remain consistent with the earlier determination by our staff and the
COE that this area lacks wetland hydrology.
3.2 OFF -SITE PERIMETER
•
SON i
The soil in this area was moist to saturated at the surface during our September 1999, and
November and December 2000 field visits. The wetland soils are very similar to what
was described as Soil Log 19 in the 1993 delineation (Raedeke Associates, Inc. 1993). In
the adjoining upland (upslope from Plot BI), red alder, western hemlock, and western red
cedar trees provide overstory cover for salmonberry, vine maple, Indian plum, Pacific
blackberry, and sword -fern (Table ' 8, Plot 132). This may be a transitional vegetative
community, but the soil is similarto the upland soil described as Soil Log 21 in 1993
(Raedeke Associates, Inc. 1993).
Vlesiern pacific property- Pevised Weiland Addendum .01aedekeASS-oci-a2es, Inc.
January 23, 2001
An outlet to an 18-inch culvert (under Pacific Highway South) is located just south of the
southeast comer of the property and coincides with the head of a ditch that extends
westerly along the southern property boundary. Water, when present, flows from the
outlet through the ditch for a short distance and then may flow diffusely, in a westerly
direction into a topographical low south of the site (Raedeke Associates, Inc. 1993).
The ditch drains to a topographic I ' ow dominated by a vegetative community consisting of
big -leaf maple and black cottonwood trees with common snowberry, Himalayan
blackberry and bracken -fern understory. This vegetative community is not indicative of
wetland conditions (Table 9, Plot C I). Although we did not sample within the off -site
topographic low area, the soil along the property boundary in this location is relatively
bright (chroma above 3) with a sandy texture and was dry during our September 1999 site
visit. Based on these observations, the low area doe's not appear to contain a wetland area
within 100 feet or the Western Pacific Pf0pV1 LY UUU11UaLY
No wetland areas were found along the remainder of the southern boundary within at
least 100 feet of the property. An area described near the southwest corner was
gland (fiverett/Alderwood) soils described elsewhere on the site.
3.2.2 Northeast Off -site Wetland
Based on our reconnaissance of the northern property boundary, only one wetland feature
was observed along the boundary between the east end of Hylebos 18 and Pacific
Highway South. Our preliminary observations in 1999 indicated that the area was very
small and just off site. Based on their review of the site in 2000 for the City of Federal
Way, Sheldon & Associates, Inc. (2000) staff concurred that a wetland feature was
present, and requested additional information to determine the approximate size, rating,
distance from the property boundary, and whether it was connected to Hylebos 18. This
was to determine whether any buffer would be required on this wetland that Would extend
onto the Western Pacific property. We obtained permission from the neigh -boring
property owner to conduct a reconnaissance of the wetland, to make 'these determinations,
but not to delineate the boundaries or have them surveyed.
Thus, we did not conduct a formal delineation or mark the off -site boundaries or sample
plot locations with plastic flagging. Based upon further investigation in November and
December 2000, the south boundary of the wetland appears to extend to the north
boundary of the Western Pacific property, about 25 feet east of a concrete monument
along the property line (Figure 1). The wetland is an isolated depressional feature
bounded on the east by a topographic break and fill from an old dirt road and the
Western Pacific Property — Revised Wetland Addendum Raedeke Associates, Irc.
January 23, 2001
fillslopes of a developed area further east. No surface drainage features were evident, as
the area is bounded by upland soils and vegetation communities to the north, west, and
south. There is no evident hydrologic connection between this wetland and Hylebos 18.,
The areas to the west and northwest consist Of alder forest, with an understory of
salmonberry, red elderberry, Indian plum, and ferns, with non-hydric, sandy soils (Tables
11-14).
The wetland area had been cleared and logged since our 1999 field investigations. Since
the wetland was cleared of most vegetation, we noted the vegetation bordering the cleared
area, the stumps of logged trees, and leaves that remained in the wetland (Tables 14 and
15). We also used notes from our previous visit in September 1999 to identify the
vegetation that existed prior to clearing, During this September visit, we noted an
under story of sal monberry, Pacific blackberry, red elderberry, lady -fern, and sedge and
horsetail species as the primary vegetation, by visual observation only. Based on these
observations, the offsite wetland would likely be classified as a palustrine, broad-leaved
deciduous, forested wetland (PFO I).
The soils in the main southern end of the wetland are a black organic muck (10YR 2/1)
over gray (2.5Y 4/2) and light olive brown (2.5Y 5/4) fine sandy loams with mottles
(Table 15). The soils were saturated at the surface from 0-3 inches and became drier with
depth during our November and December 2000 field visits. The north end had mottled
subsoil at varying depths, but no saturation was observed (Table 14).
Upland soils on the west edge of the wetland were bright chroma silt loams, a dark
yellowish brown (1 OYR 3/4) over dark brown and (I OYR 3/3) and brown silt. loams
(Tables 11). Similar soils were recorded to the west and northwest (Tables 12 and 13).
Without flagged or surveyed boundaries, the precise area of this wetland could not be
determined. The wetland was about 15 feet wide at the south end along the Western
Pacific property boundary and appeared to be up to 25 to 30 feet wide along most of its
length. Based on soil profile observations, the lowest, wettest portion occurred within 70
feet of the Western Pacific property boundary, Extending further north., the soils bad
some hydric characteristics, such as mottled subsoils, but became more transitional in
appearance across a broad area, without saturation in the upper portions. Thus, hydrology
could not be confirmed in the potential north end of the wetland area. Based on our
observations, the wetland could therefore be from 70 feet to as much as 115 feet long (in
a north -south direction). Consequently, the approximate area of the wetland appears to
total between 2,000 and 3,000 square feet.
Based on its small size and apparent single vegetation class, the off -site wetland does not
meet the criteria for a Category I or II wetlarid according to the City of Federal Way
(1999) Environmentally Sensitive Areas Ordinance. If it is smaller than 2,500 square
Raedeke Associates, Inc.
jxfes.- P-d Wedard Addendum
-n Pacific Prone
January 23, 2001
9
feet, no buffer is required. If it is greater than 2,500 square feet, it would be rated as a
Category HI wed'and, which typically requires a buffer of 25 feet. Thus, at most, a 25-
foot buffer may be required for this wetland along the no boundary of the Western
Pacific property.
Western Pacific Property — Revised Wetland Addendum Raedeke Associates, Inc.
January 23, 2001
m
•. r • r -� i � r •''
/
rr• �i _ r -• r •
• • • - r- • ri . J• i �/ /
Based on a reconnaissance by visual observation only along the property boundaries, we
searched for potential wetlands within at least 100 feet of the property in response to a
request from the City of Federal Way.. Except for a small offsite wetland depression
along the north property line near the northeast comer (Figure 1), no additional areas that
could meet the definition ofwetland were observed along the perimeter of the site. The
wetland line along the west property boundary extends to the southwest beyond the
MEM
Based on our November and December 2000 observations, the small off -site wetland
along the north property boundary in the Northeast comer of the offsite property is
an
isolated depressionl wetland not hydrologically connected to the Hylbos 18 wetland.
Without permission to flag the boundary and, have the flags surveyed, eyed, the size of the
wetland could only be roughly approximated and appears to total between 2,000 and
3,000 square feet. because the wetland may be greater than. 2,500 square feet but less
than 10,000 square feet and has one wetland class, palustrine, forested broad-leaved
deciduous (PF01) from observations prior to logging, it could qualify as a Category Ill
Wetland according to the City of Federal Way (lq) regulations. Category Ill wetlands
of this size typically require a 25-foot buffer; Because the offsite wetland essentially
abuts the north property boundary, a 25-foot buffer, if required, would extend into the
northern portion of the Western Pacific property.
Western Pacific Property -Revised Wetland Addendum Raedeke Associates, Inc.
January 23, 2001
IF
Mllnualv$'
We have prepared this report for the exclusive use of Logan Federal'Way, Inc. and
Pacific West Development, L.L.C.. No other person or agency may rely upon the
information, analysis, or conclusions contained herein without permission from them.
The determination of ecological system classifications, functions, values, and boundaries
is an inexact science, and different individuals and agencies may reach different
conclusions. With regard to wetlands, the final determination of their boundaries for
regulatory purposes is the responsibility of the various resource.agencies that regulate
development activities in wetlands. We cannot guarantee the outcome of such •-
determinations. Therefore, the conclusions of this letter should be reviewed by the
appropriate regulatory agencies prior • any construction activities.
We warrant that the work performed conforms to standards generally accepted ill Our
-,ld ' and was geibared substafitiall�-A in accordance with then -current technical guidelines
and criteria. The conclusions of this letter represent the results of our analysis of the
information provided by the project proponents and their consultants, together with
information gathered in the course of this study. No other warranty, expressed or
implied, is made.
Western Pacific Property —Revised Weiland Addendum Raedeke Associates, Inc.
January 23, 2001
19
Cooke, S. 1997. A field guide to common wetland plants of Western Washington and
Northwestern Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society. Seattle, Washington.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Mississippi. 100 pp. I -
Federal Way, City of. 1999. Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Ordinance No. 99-353.
Adopted November 16, 1999,
Federal Register. 1986. 40 CFR Parts 320 through 330: Regulatory programs of the
Corps of Engineers; final rule. Volume 51, No. 219, pp. 41206-41260, U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington; D.C.
Hickman, J. 1993. The Jepson manual: higher plants of California. Univ. of Cal. Press,
1400 pp.
Hitchcock, C., and A. Cronquist. 1976. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. Univ. of
Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. 730 pp.
King County. 1991. Sensitive Areas Map Folio. King County Wetlands Inventory.
King County Environmental Division: Parks, Planning and Resources Dept.,
March, 1991.
Mueller-Dombois, D. and H. Ellenburg. 1974. Aims and methods of vegetation ecology.
John Wiley and Sons, New York. 547 pp.
Pojar, J., and A. MacKinnon. 1994. Plants of the Pacific Northwest Coast, Washington,
Oregon, British Columbia, and Alaska. B.C. Ministry of Forests; B.C. Forest
Service; Research Program.
Raedeke Associates, Inc. 1993. Wetland Assessment of the Western Pacific Property,
Federal Way, Washington. May 3, 1993 report to International Equity (USA),
Ltd., Renton, WA. 39 pp.
Sheldon & Associates Inc. 2000. Federal Way Business Center, Review of Wetland
Assessment. October 24, 2000 memorandum to Jim Harris, City Planner, City of
Federal Way. 3 pp.
Western Pacific Property — Revised Weiland Addendum Raedeke Associates, fnc.
January 23, 2001
HK
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1991a. Special notice. Subject: Use of the 1987
wetland delineation manual. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District.
August 30, 1991.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1991b. Memorandum. Subject: Questions and answers
on the 1987 manual. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington D.C, October
7, 1991. 7 pp. including cover letter by John P. Studt, Chief, Regulatory Branch.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1992. Memorandum. Subject: Clarification ani
interpretation of the 1987 methodology. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Washington D.C., March 26,,1992. 4 pp. Arthur E. Williams, Major General,
U.S.A. Directorate of Civil Works.
U.S. Arm y Corps of Engineers. 1994, Public Notice. Subject: Washington Regional
Guidance on the 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual. U.S. Corps of Engineers,
Seattle District. May 23 1994.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1997. Final regional conditions, 401 water quality
certification conditions, Coastal Zone management consistency responses,
Nationwide permits for the Seattle District Corps of Engineers for the state
p
Washington. March 5, 1997. Special Public Notice. Seattle District. 72 p I
Washington Department of Ecology. 1997. Washington state wetland identification and
delineation manual. March 1997. 'Pub. no. 965-94. 88 pp. plus appendices.
Western Pacific Property — Revised Wetland Addendum Raedeke Associates, Inc.
January 23, 2001
15
Table 1. SdenfifiO and cQMMOA 11211110S of PIO= With a$sigaeo Wetland Indicata Status (WIS)
(Pwed 15", 1993). Scienti& hAints ftm, Hft6hcb& and C� (0%), Pojar and
MOPKintion �1 994), 1UddftAft (190, and Cooke (1997).
Scientific Namel
Common Name
WISI, 2
TREES
Acer circinatum
Vine maple
FAC-
Acer macrophylluin
Big -leaf maple
FACU
Alnus rubra
Red alder
FAC
Populus balsamifiera
Black cottonwood
FAC
Thuja plicata
Western red cedar
FAC
1suga heterophylla
Western hemlock
FACU-
Acer circinatum
Vine maple.
FAC-
Cornus sericea
Red -osier dogwood
FACW
Malusfitsca
Western crabapple
FACW
Oemleria cerasiformis
Indian plum
FACU
Rubus discolor
Himalayan blackberry
FACU
Rubus spectabilis
Salmonberry
Rubus ursinus
Pacific blackberry
FACU
Sambucus racemosa
Red elderberry
FACU
Ilex aquifiblium
English holly
UPL
Lonicera involucrata
Black twin -berry
FAC+
HERBS
Athyrium filix femina
Lady -fern
FAC
Dryopteris expansa
Wood -fern
FACW
Equisetuin spp.®
Horsetail
FACW'
Lysichi.ton americanum
Skunk cabbage
OBL
Western pacific property —Revised Wetland Addendum Raedeke Associates, Inc.
January 23, 2001
16
Maianthemum dilatatum False lily -of -the -valley FAC
'Polystichum Munitum Sword-fem FACU
Pteridium aquilinitin Bracken -fern FACU
The following codes are used:
®= Genera with species having a narrow range of WIS ratings that were averaged and were
then included in our vegetation plot calculations.
# = Genera with species having a wide range of WIS ratings, not included in our vegetation
plot calculations.
WIS ratinp with a minus SyMbot arc IcOfts• d "dFier," while fw plus pyi0o indicates
11weftee, Ve , . dMed•spi )M r44ge for the
cles. pbuits not iebti to ecies are shown Avith ft
species common to this region.
Western Pacific Property — Revised Wetland Addendum Raedeke Associates, Inc.
January 23, 2001
Table 2.
wetland lobe, Plot E,
Log
S ,ION
Cover
t:ove�r
Class
vvi.��...
Index
Midpoint and
Index
Value
Midpoint
Value
WIS Value
Scientific Name
Trees
4
62.5
3.0
187.5
Alnus rubra
3
3-7.5
3.3
124.9'
Ater circinaturra
2.5
3.0
7.5'
Thu a plicata
1
Shrubs
Herbs62.5
, 187.5
um rasa 5.0
1 2.5 2.0
Weighted Mean Index. ....... ...........
.
% of dominant species with a WIS Hydrophytic vegetation
index of 3.0 or less ,. ��s 7 , (1987 methodology):. Yes
Veg Notes skin ..t I g . ig r k € . ll., 1. ....,*.......
........ ....
..., .,..
.., ...�.
HabitatFeatures ....:.;.......... ..... ..., ....<.
(snags, logs, etc.) ........, .
Field Date: 7/8/99 Observers: rl, me Project Number: 99046401
Table 2. Continued ---
SOIL
Soil pit number,,.... Field observations confirm mapped type? ❑ Yes No
Map Unit (Series/Phase) e l*t1 . )A0L-- On hydric list? III Yes ❑ No
Map Symbol S.k................................................................................................... Hydric inclusion? ❑ Yes lg No
Profile: Matrix Color Mottle Quantity, Mottle Color
Depth Horizon (moist) Size, Contrast (moist) Texture
0-9 black (10YR 2/1) organic
9-15 gray (10YR 5/1) sand
15+ grayish brown (10YR present (j silt loam
512)
Soil Profile e,.CPt.l.pCll i11.Ct 01.,0..r.lttBil.,0...-..,-,.....>.» ...,.;,,..... ...,...*
Notes: ..,........ ,-,...
....; ....... ..........
Hydric Soil Indicators (check):
m — Histosol _ Aquic Moisture Regime — Concretions
Histic Epipedon — Reducing Conditions = High Organic Surface (sandy soils)
- Sulfidic Odor 7 Gley/Low Chroma - Organic .Streaking (sandy soils)
Hydric Soil Criteria Met? g Yes = No
Rationale fla0)tr..Otgii,04C8q,0.tiil.otal101�.tOOtle.ltit(............. „.......... .,a.,..,., .
HYDROLOGY Field Date: 7/8/99
Field Observations: Recorded Data (gauge or well):
Depth of pit ..
o1 �.:. ...... ....*.... ....
Depth to saturation . .,..
Notes (inlet/outlet, etc.):
Depth to free water/water table NIA ................ t..9.3':.bQ1Q.W..$. xf:a.g0.A...
Inundationdepth ,. %9ila g.1.7...� 9Q)...............................................................................
Otherindicators: .... ..... ....- ... ............ .. ...........................................
Wetland Hydrology? 7 Yes —No
Rationale: mo[5.Ur.1..i.9�.�. Visitse.water..table.cpaan!e .in.upper..�r.Qfile.�1..QQ�....................................:...................
CLASSIFICATION
Wetland Criteria Met? Z, Yes -. No
Classification P..allaatrills,..for.aster.,.ktl�ad:( a.Y.trif..S).a&i�.uQus..Wailand.(P..FS7,.)............:............................
Field Date: 7/8/99 Observers: rl, me Project Number: 99046-001
Table I Continued.
SOIL Field observations confirm mapped type? c3 Yes s No
Soil pit number D ...................
Map Unit (Series/Phase) On hydric list? [3 Yes g No
-
Map Symbol aWC ........ loam, 615% ...... . Hydric inclusion? a Yes [3 No
Profile: Matrix Color Mottle Quantity, Mottle Color
Depth Horizon (moist) size, Contrast (moist) Texture
0-12 black (10YR 211) sandy loam
12-24 gray (10YR 511) sandy loam
24+ grayish brown (10YR present silt loam
5/2)
Soil Profile fm
Notes: oepQrt ...... . ......
Hydric Soil Indicators (check):
Histosol — Aquic Moisture Regime Concretions
Histic Epipedon — Reducing Conditions High Organic Surface (sandy soils)
Suffidic Odor Gley/Low Chroma = Organic Streaking (sandy soils)
Hydric Soil Criteria Met? Z Yes — No
Rationale ganiqAND J29�3� ...
.... ............... . . ......................
HYDROLOGY Field Date: 7/8199 Field Observations: Recorded Data (gauge or well):
Depthof pit 2,4± ............................................................. ....... —.-- .....
Depth to saturation 22 .................... Notes (inlet/outlet, etc.):
Depth to free water/water table NIA ................. ............ . .............
Inundation depth NIA-- . ..... ____ ........ .. ... . . ..... -- ...........
........... .......
Other indicators: ....... . . . ..... ........... ..
........
Wetland Hydrology? Yes Z No
...........
Rationale: [aQK..Q.f..y.vW.Qr1aW.s ..
g.Q. ntr as Udt..Q.th e, r .. 1.9.9.9 .. QD.5,erat.=
CLASSIFICATION
Wetland Criteria Met? —, Yes Z. No
Classification .. ....... --, ......
................. ...... . ...... ...... ..... ....
Field Date. 7/8/99 Observers: rl, me Project Number: 99046-001
Table 4. Field survey -,ita, Plot Al, (inside wetland edge near rthern property
boundary).
I
VeGETATIONproduct of
Index Class Index Midpoint and
Scientific Name Value Midpoint Value WIS Value
—freeg
Shrubs 4 3.3 208.1
1 Acer ircinatum (s)
Sambucus racemosa
40.1
Rubes sectaii/s
2
15.0
2.7
Herbs
—
Athyfium rilix-femina
1
2.5
3.0
7.5
Equisetum SPP.
1
2.5
2.0
5.0
Lysichiton americanum
1
2.5
1.0
2.5
Dryopteris expansa
+
2.5
2.0
5e0
145.0
459.0
sums
Weighted Mean Index: ............... 312 ..............
% of dominant species with a WIS Hydrophytic vegetation
index of 3.0 or less: ....... (1987 methodology): No
" ..............
Veg Notes na
hydrir .........
.....................................................................
HabitatFeatures ........ ........... . .......
(snags, logs, etc.) .... — ...... ...... . . —.— .......... . . -..a.., ........... ..
Field I Date: 9/15/99 Observers: 0, ap Project Number: 99046-001
Table 4. Continuek"—)
SOIL
Soil pit number Al .. ........w. Field observations confirm mapped type? C3 Yes B No
Map Unit (Series/Phase) -5.eattlammok ............ .............................. On hydric list? il Yes C3 No
Map Symbol .... . .... ............... . ........ --- Hydric inclusion? E3 Yes 13 No
Profile: Matrix Color Mottle Quantity, Mottle Color
Depth Horizon (moist) Size, Contrast (moist) Texture
0-8 black (1 OYR 2/1) silt loam
8+ silty clay loam
Soil Profile reY.Ailly—r"ay10a M
Notes: ... 1-..--------'---- ..... . ........... ....... . . ........ . . ...................
Hydric Soil Indicators (check):
Histosol Aquic Moisture Regime Concretions
Histic Epipedon Reducing Conditions High Organic Surface (sandy soils)
Sulfidic Odor Z Gley/Low Chroma = Organic Streaking (sandy soils)
Hydric Soil Criteria Met? 3 Yes No
Rationale
HYDROLOGY Field Date: 9/15/99,
Field Observations: Recorded Data (gauge or well):
Depthof pit 1.0 ................................................................. ......
.. . ...... . . . **"'** . . .......... .
Depth to saturation ... Notes (inletioutlet, etc.):
Depth to free waterlwater table NIA................ . . ........
Inundationdepth NLA ................................................ ...... . .. ...... ......................
Otherindicators: ............... .......................................................................................................................................................................
Wetland Hydrology? Z. Yes — No
r'f ...............
Rationale:
weUrld.0.1i9.a-tas ........................................................................................................................................... ...................
CLASSIFICATION
Wetland Criteria Met? Z Yes — No
Classification r ...........................................................
.......... — ...... .......
Project Number: 99046-001
Field Date: 9/15/99 Observers: rl, ap
Table 5. Field surve. ata, plot A2, (upland near northern pr
rty boundary).
_-
VSG TiO1�
Goner
cover
Class
WIS _
Index
Product of
Midpoint and
Index
Scientific Name
Value
Midpoint
Value
WIS Value
Trees
Anus ruby;
37.5
3y0
112,5
7hula plicata
1
2.5
10
7.5
Shrubs
cer cir inat= j
4
5 .5
3.3
205.1
Sambucus racemosa
2
15.0
4.0
60.0
Herbs
Polystichum munitum
1
2.5
4.0
10.1
thyrrii-temine
1
2.5
3.0
7.5
Dryopteris expansa
1
2.5
2.0
5.0
SUMS
125.0
410.6
Weighted Mean Index: .............
% of dominant species with a WIS
Hydrophytic vegetation
index of 3.0 or less: i„ ,.,
(1987 methodology):
No
VegNotes
..... ....--... ............
...... ...,,
......:.....
HabitatFeatures
,.....,..
...».... ..,........ .... ».....
.......... .
(snags, logs, etc.) ..
,.,.. ,.
..., ..,....,
Field Date: 9/15/99 Observers:
rl, ap Project Number:
99046-001
Table 5. Continued. ----------
SOIL
Soil pit number AZ........ . Field observations confirm mapped type? E3 Yes x No
Map Unit (SeriesiPhase) On hydric list? 13 yes 11 No
loam, 6-15%
Map Symbol Ew.0 .................. ......... . ....................... . ............... . ......... . .. . . Hydric inclusion? [3 Yes No g
Profile: Matrix Color Mottle Quantity, Mottle Color
Depth Horizon (moist) Size, Contrast (moist) Texture
Soil Profile
Notes: ds.e__ .......... ... . .. . .........
Hydric Soil Indicators (check):
Histosol — Aquic Moisture Regime — Concretions
Histic Epipedon — Reducing Conditions — High Organic Surface (sandy s(As)
Sulfidic Odor Z. Gle y/Low Chroma — organic Streaking (sandy soils)
Hydric Soil Criteria Met? — yes E., No
Rationale
mmu Rity,_ ......
Field Date: 9/15/99
HYDROLOGY Recorded Data (gauge or well):
Field Observations:
Depthof pit IQ". ................................... .......................... .... ........
Depth to saturation ........ Notes (inletloutlet, etc.):
Depth to free water/water table ING ............... 5.QiLPr.Q.fJJ-e.-dry ..............................................................................
Inundationdepth NJA................................................ .......
Other indicators: . ..... . .... ___ ..... ...... . . ........ .... .......
Wetland Hydrology? = Yes Z No
Rationale: .......
..... ......... . .. . ...... ............ .. . ....
CLASSIFICATION
Wetland Criteria Met? Yes iZ No
Classification . .......... ...... ........ . .............
Field Date: 9115/99 Observers: rl, ap Project Number: 99046-001
Table 6. Field SUM,
Jata for topographic low, Plot C2, (cer,
of southern property
boundary near Soil Pit 1 (1993 rept.).
VEGETATION
Cover
over
WIS
Product of
Index
Class
Index
Midpoint and
Scientific Name
Value
Midpoint
Value
WIS Value
Tress
Ara
lnus rub
3
37.5
3.0
112.5
Fraxinus latifolia
3
37.5
2.0
75.0
Weighted Mean Index: ............ . Z5-----
% of dominant species with a WIS Hydrophytic vegetation
index of 3.0 or less: ........... 1.0120 .......... (1987 methodology): Yes
Veg Notes .. . ...... . ... ....... . . ....... .......... . ..
---- .............. .................. ...... --- ......
HabitatFeatures ..... . .... - ........ . ...... ---- ......
(snags, logs, etc.) ........ . -- . . . .......
Field Date: 9/15/99 Observers: rl, ap Project N umber: 99046-0 1
Table 6. Continuek
SOIL type? C3 Yes 11 No
Soil pit number ........................ Field observations confirm mapped
Map Unit (Series/Phase) . ..... On hydric list? 2 Yes E3 No
Map Symbol ....... -- ........ -,- . ............ Hydric inclusion? [3 Yes ig No
Profile: Matrix Color Mottle Quantity, Mottle Color
Depth Horizon (moist) Size, Contrast (moist) Texture
Soil Profile
Notes:
Hydric Soil Indicators (check):
Histosol - Aquic Moisture Regime = Concretions
Histic Epipedon - Reducing Conditions High organic Surface (sandy soils)
Sulfidic Odor Z, Gley/Low Chroma = Organic Streaking (sandy soils)
Hydric,, Yes
Soil Criteria Met? 7 No
Rationale............................................. ; ........................................................................................
............. ...... . . .........
HYDROLOGY Field Date: 9115/99
Field Observations: Recorded Data (gauge or well):
Depth of pit awo.c.5ample .. W .. 1.4 ............................ .........
Depth to saturation .... . . Notes (inlettoutlet, etc.):
Depth to free water/water table ... .................... Ory .. Wroghpulpmflie ........................................................................
Inundation depth ... __-- ............... ...... ....... ........ -""- ....... . . ...........
Other indicators: .. ..... ....... ... . ........ .. . ...
Wetland Hydrology? - Yes Z, No
Rationale: lld ......... ..........
......... . ........... .... . . ........ . . ..... ........ I ...... ... . ...
..............
CLASSIFICATION
Wetland Criteria Met? -, Yes E No
Classification..........................................................................................................
.... ........ ........ . ... . ......
Field Date: 9/15/99 Observers: ri, ap Project Number: 99046-001
Table 7. Field serve ita for wetland extension, Plot B 1, (OF ite, west of western
property bowl ).
VS[ETATION Cover Cover WIS Product o
Index Class Index Midpoint and
Scientific Name Value Midpoint Value WIS Value
7r—®®
Shrubs
Rubus spectbllis _ 4 62.5 2.7 166.9
Acer c rcinatum (s) 15.0 3, 50.0
Herbs
A;A-"an 3 37.5 3,9 112.5
Weighted Mean Index;........... ...Z5,... ....... .
% of dominant species with a WIS Hydrophytic vegetation
index of 3.0 or less: —51.n.....,... (1987 methodology): Yes
VegNotes ,.. ; ....<.-,,................. .. ......... ..... .....,,
HabitatFeatures .........,.,,... , ....,. ,,. ,........ ,....,
(snags, logs, etc.) ,..$. .., . ...
Field Date: 9115/99 Observers: d, ap Project Number: 99046-001
" LL Table 7. Continued.'
rt SOIL
Soil pit number 131.................. Field observations confirm mapped type? g Yes ❑ No
Map Unit (Series/Phase) ............................................. On hydric list? ll Yes ❑ No
Map Symbol SK,... ..r, » .................. ................. Hydric inclusion?
p Yes g No
Profile: Matrix Color Mottle Quantity, Mottle Color
Depth Horizon (moist) moist Texture
.,, moist Size, Contrast (moist)
Soil Profile sail.11it&daf.1.E1..t9.lpll"......>..
Notes: ..» .......> �....,., .:.........
Hydric Soil Indicators (check):
=_ Histosol "Aquic Moisture Regime — Concretions
Histic Epipedon = Reducing Conditions _ High Organic Surface (sandy soils)
Sulfidic Odor w, Gley/Law Chroma — Organic Streaking (sandy soils)
Hydric Soil Criteria Met? Z.. Yes —No
Rationale s .G Cld ,.11t tl t.. 1 $ ..e .glG ili tl3 a ......>.. ........ . ......... ...,.
HYDROLOGY Field Date: 9/15/99
Field Observations: Recorded Data (gauge or well):
Depth of pit doff-5AM I.M9.01y •.,. ... ......... ,
Depth to saturation ..., >. _....«»• Notes (inletloutlet, etc.):
Depth to free water/water table ....:a Il..mpj�k,gR,;�tl�rsled.at.�caund..;zurfaa ..............................
Inundation depth ., ........,...
........ ......... .... »..., .......,»..,.» ».
Other indicators: . '_..."" "
Wetland Hydrology? Z. Yes — No
Rationale. iI,.IGral.t..dale*al.gltld..aIaG,at.ptalr(ltt..la
CLASSIFICATION
Wetland Criteria Met? �; Yes _ No
classification ° P..11�.t[1fi�.�QC�S.��i�...�i:d-l0.a-ye r..�i�.uaus..Wtland.�PFRi.)
Field Date: 9/15/99 Observers: rl, ap Project Number: 99046-001
Table S. Field sure .y data for wetland extension, Plot B2, k-,Iand west of western
property boundary).
VEGETATION
Cover
--Uover
wis
P duct of
Index
Class
Index
Midpoint and
Scientific Name
Value
Midpoint
Value
WIS Value
Trees
Alnus rubra
4
62.5
3.0
187.5
1 Thuid pficata
1
2.5
3.0
7.5
7suga heterophylle
+
2.5
4.3
10.8
Shrubs
Rubus spectabilis
5
87.5
2.7
233.6
Acer circinaturn FS)
2
15.0
3.3
50.0
Oemleila cerasiformis
1
2.5
4.0
10.0
Rubus ursinus
1
2.5
4.0
10.0
Herbs
Polystichum munitum
1
2.5
4.0
10.0
Weighted Mean Index:Q............ —
% of dominant species with, a WIS Hydrophytic vegetation
index of 3.0 or less: ffi.&.7 ........... (1987 methodology): Yes
VegNotes ... ... . ... . ............. ....... .. . .... _— .. . ........... . .. . ..... ..... . .........
Habitat Features ...... ...... ...... .
(snags, logs, etc.) ...
Field Date: 9115/99 Observers: rl, ap Project Number: 99046-001
Table o ti d`
SOIL
Soil pit number 5Z................ Field observations confirm mapped type? g Yes p No
Map Unit (Series/Phase) F—yer.W..AURIWOQd.-ga elly..S.wdy On hydric list? ❑ Yes g No
loam,
Map Symbolw...;w.x Hydric inclusion? ❑ Yes X No
Profile: Matrix Color Mottle Quantity, Mottle Color
Depth Horizon (moist) Size, Contrast (moist) Texture
Soil Profileddiit.'lfkl1.1?lf�.,.(..It)t.1,geCtyat9�at�.tr.„r:...,,,..
Notes: with.Qut.ms Me-A..............................................................................................................................................................
Hydric Soil Indicators (check):
Histosol = Aquic Moisture Regime — Concretions
Histic Epipedon — Reducing Conditions _ High Organic Surface (sandy soils)
— Sulfidic Odor — Gley/Law Chroma — Organic Streaking (sandy soils)
Hydric Soil Criteria Met? - Yes Z No
Rationale............................... .................................... ...................................................................
HYDROLOGY Field Date: 9/15199
Field Observations: Recorded Data (gauge or well):
Depth of pit �u9eC.SerC)ldie.QRIX .............................. . ...a........, ......... ..... ........
..
Depth to saturation Notes (inlettoutlet, etc.):
Depth to free water/water table ....................... ...... ...,,.,, ....... , . ...........
Inundation depth ., .,,.....,
....... ..».., . ....... .
Otherindicators: �..,,... ��.....,.. , . a .. .............. ., ...
Wetland Hydrology? — Yes L No
Rationale: laCK.Qf.RRS.Iti.Y...l[!diGs�tQf...af..wt�tl ad.h .t lca�!.ar..hydria.;aail..................................................................
CLASSIFICATION
Wetland Criteria Met? - Yes Sz No
classification uRlanal.d�idu�us.faret........................................................... ................................................................
Field Date: 9/15/99 Observers: rl, ap Project Number: 99046-001
Table_�data for topographic low, plot C 1, (so, `,east property comer,
southwesto: ditch «
�GIrTATION --
k0over
Index
�.•
Class
..._
Index
Midpoint and
Value
Midpoint
Value
WIS Value
Scientific Name
Trees
2.5
4.0
10.
AcerY macrophyllum
+
2.5
.0
7,5
r r
populus balsam a
+
Shrubs
3
-
37.5
4.0
150.0
Symphoncarpos albus
4.0
150.0
Rubus discolor
3
37.5
2.7
40.1
Rubus specfabills
2
»
150
5.0
Comus sericea
+
2.5
2.0
Weighted Mean Index: ,..., ..y. 305
% of dominant species with a WIS Hydrophytic vegetation
index of 3.0 or less: 4.Q...0 ...»», (1987 methodology) No
Veg Notes ...... ..........w, .
Habitat Features « ..
Field Date:
.. .. Project Number: 99046-001
Table 9. Continued.
SOIL
Soil pit number Field observations confirm mapped type? [3 Yes 13 No
Map Unit (Series/Phase) meratt: AUe rwo ad - Cc a 04 ... . .... — On hydric list? C3 Yes X No
sandy loam, 6-15%
Map Symbol . ..... Hydric inclusion? E3 Yes S No
Profile: Matrix Color Mottle Quantity, Mottle Color
Depth Horizon (moist) Size, Contrast (moist) Texture
Soil Profile ................. ........ .
Notes: .... ... -- . ........ . .. ...
Hydric Soil Indicators (check):
Histosol Aquic Moisture Regime = Concretions
Histic Epipedon Reducing Conditions High Organic Surface (sandy soils)
Suffidic Odor Gley/Low Chroma Organic Streaking (sandy soils)
Hydric Soil Criteria Met? — Yes — No
Rationale ap .. d Qg Y.1 m..(J.Q.YRA1131X1.RQ ............
................................................................................................................... * ............. * ........... * ...... ---- .......
HYDROLOGY Field Date: 9/15199
Field Observations: Recorded Data (gauge or well):
Depthcf pit N/A ............................................................... -1- .................. . .................................... -- . . . ............
". . . .... . .... .. . ....
Depth to saturation ....... Notes (inlettoutlet, etc.):
Depth to free water/water table ....................... ...... ... . . . ...... -- ....... — ... . .
Inundation depth ... . ... ........... .. .................... ...............
Other indicators:
Wetland Hydrology? — Yes - No
hydr.w.fty-tig) ..........................................................................................................................................................................
Rationale
CLASSIFICATION
Wetland Criteria Met? —Yes 7, No
Classification. . ....... . ....... ............ . . . ............ --- .......... . ....... ......... .. .......... -- . ......... *-,-,* ......... .
Field Date: 9/15/99 Observers: d, ap Project Number: 99046-001
1—untinuco
SOIL
Soil pit number ........................ Field observaticins confirm mapped type? Cg Yes 13 No
Map Unit (Series/Phase) y.
Map Symbol 6-15% On hydric list? [3 Yes Ig No
........ Hydric inclusion? [3 Yes 8 No
Profile: Matrix Color Mottle Quantity, Mottle Color
Depth Horizon (moist) Size, Contrast (moist) Texture
Soil Profile /4 .sju bs.ojJJ..Si M jig r.JtQ..'5g.tJ. LP.Q. Z.I..fr ................................................................
Notes:
Hydric Soil Indicators (check):
Histosol = Aouic Moisture Regime Concretions
Histic Epipedon = Reducing Conditions High Organic Surface (sandy soils)
Sulfldfc Odor = Gley/Low Chrome = Organic Streaking (sandy soils)
Hydric Soil Criteria Met? Yes 7 ,.; No
Rationale
. ............... . ...... .......
HYDROLOGY Field Date: 9/15/99
Field Observations: Recorded Data (gauge or well):
Depth of pit ............................. ....... ...... .......
Depth to saturation .... .... ...... .......... -.1- . . .... .......... .......
Depth to free water/water table ........................ Notes (inlet/outlet, etc.):
cll
. ........ . . ........ ..............
Inundation depth .....................,..Wy.... . ............... ....... . .......
Other indicators: .. . ...................
Wetland Hydrology? Yes —,, No
Rationale:
CLASSIFICATION
Wetland Criteria Met? .—, Yes Z No
Classification
..................................................................................
Field Date: 9/15/99 Observers: rl, ap Project Number: 99046-001
Table 10. Field survey,-.4ta topographic low southwest property )mer, Plot C3,
(southwest comer along property boundary).
VEGETAT1614 *�C;7e;• i WiXIS Product of
Index Class Index Midpoint and
Scientific Name Value Midpoint Value WIS Value
Trees
Alnus rubra 4
plicate 1 4. U J.%.
1
IR
Rubus spectabilis
5
87.5
2.7
233.6
. Sim—bucus racemosa
3
37.5
4.0
150.0
Acer circinatum (s)
3
37.5
3.3
124.9
Oe ' le cerasiformis
2
15.0
4.0
6U
H—erbs—
Urtica dioica
2
15,0
2.7
40.1
Pteridium aquillnum
1
2.5
4.0
10.0
Polystichum munitum
+
2.5
4.0
10.0
sums
262.5
823.6
Weighted Mean Index: .......
% of dominant species with a WIS Hydrophytic vegetation
index of 3.0 or less: ............ 50-0.0 ........... (1987 methodology): No
VegNotes ....... . .. . ......... .......
............. ......
Habitat Features .......
(snags, logs, etc.) . ......... -- ....... ........ . .........
Field Date: 9/15/99 Observers: 0, ap Project Number: 99046-001
Table 11 Property North of Western,Pacific, Plot
Located in shrub area on westedge of cleared wet area
VEGETATION Cover over
Class
WIS
Index
Product of
Midpoint and
Index
Value Midpoint
Value
WIS Value
Scientific Name
Trees
4 62.5
3.0�
187.5
Alnus rubra
Shrubs
5 87.6�.
� 2 �
ea 233.E
t�o?s spectataitls
4.0
, am ucus racemosa
Herbs
Dryoptens expanse 1 2.5 2.0 5.0
SUMS~ ®_ 167.5 486.1
Weighted Mean Index: ...,......:
% of dominant species with a WIS Hydrophytic vegetation
index of 3.0 or less:.(1987 methodology): Yes
VegNotes........ ................. ........... ,.... . ..
Habitat Features..................................................,..,
(snags, logs, etc.) .... ...... ... .a - ..
Field Date: 11/14/00 Observers: DG, RI_ Project Number: 99046-001
Table 11 Continued.
�K
SOIL
Soil pit number F.................... Field observations confirm mapped type? ❑ Yes g No
Map Unit (Series/Phase) F_Y9r.eft:ald:~rwQnd.90VPRY. .5iaady. On hydric list? ❑ Yes M No
Map Symbol E WC....................loam .... Hydric inclusion? S Yes ❑ No
Profile: Matrix Color Mottle Quantity, Mottle Color
Depth Horizon (moist) Size, Contrast (moist) Texture
SANDY LOAM
0-6 brown - dark brown
(1 OYR 4/3)
6-14 + light olive brown (2.5Y common, coarse, faint dark yellowish SANDY LOAM
5/3) brown (10YR 4/6)
14+ Jight olive brown (2.5Y common, coarse, faint dark yellowish SILT LOAM/LOAMY
5/3) brown (10YR 416) SAND
Soil Profile ;�Qils..0 rusli�hl>J!.mal t..at..1. ..........................................4............................................................
Notes: ......,. ».... .............
Hydric Soil Indicators (check):
Histosol 7 Aquic Moisture Regime J Concretions
Histic Epipedon _ Reducing Conditions High Organic Surface (sandy soils)
-- Sulfidic Odor Gley/Low Chroma _ Organic Streaking (sandy soils)
Hydric Soil Criteria Met? - Yes ® No
Rationale Qnlu..faiRt. mQ.tfina.in.uPper.12.A.r e—matrix.Orp.ma,im.tirigbt.................... :.......................................
HYDROLOGY Field bate: 11/14/00
Field Observations: Recorded Data (gauge or well):
Depthof pit 14: .... ___ ...... ,... .,> ............... WA.......................................................................... ...............................
Depth to saturation 5JJ9h11y.mQhM..at.1.4............
Notes (inlet/outlet, etc.):
Depth to free water/water table D.Qnp ............ DQlle............................................................................................................
Inundation depth am ....... __....... ..,.,. ...., ....., , .....»»..................... ....».
Otherindicators: ............................................................................................................................................................................
Wetland Hydrology? —Yes �g No
Rationale: na..iodiestora.ak.this.timea.nQo�..aum.dlrrin�.thy.gr.iaQ..ss<asQa.................................................
CLASSIFICATION
Wetland Criteria Met? -Yes ®No
Classification T.ratlS.itio[?aJ..f.QreS#.(114<:W.tl�rtd,.........................................................................................................
Field Date: 11/14/00 Observers: DG, RL Project Number: 99046-001
Table 12 Property North of Western Pacific, Plot G
Located in deciduous forest 30 feet west 0f Plot F west of cleared area
— -
VEGETATION Cover iloven
WIS
Product of
Index Class
Index
Midpoint and
Scientific Name Value Midpoint
Value
WIS Value
'Trees
A In us wbra, --5-887 5
3.0
262.5
Shrubs
ubes ecta I bft 5 8-7.5
1�afi�bucus racemosa 2 15.0
--4.0
Herbs
Reridium aquillnum 1 2.5
4.0
10,0
SUMS 192.5566.1
Weighted Mean Index: ..............219..............
% of dominant species with a WIS Hydrophytic vegetation
index of 3.0 or less: .......r,0 (1987 methodology): Yes
VegNotes ... ........... ........... -- ..... .............. .. ........... .. . ... ..... -""* ...........
.......... -- .... ... ...... ...... . ...... ........ ......
(snags, logs, etc.) ...... . ....
Field Date: 11/14/00 observers: RL, DG Project Number: 99046-001
Table 12 Continued.
SOIL _
Soil pit number Q.................... Field observations confirm mapped type? X Yes ❑ No
Map Unit (Series/Phase) On hydric list? ❑ Yes No
Map Symbol Ew.C,,.... , „ loam .„.., Hydric inclusion? ❑ Yes H No
Profile: Matrix Color Mottle Quantity, Mottle Color
Depth Horizon (moist) Size, Contrast (moist) Texture
0-8 dark yellowish brown SANDY LOAM
(10YR 3/4)
78-12 dark brown (10YR 3/3) SANDY LOAM
�12-18 light olive brown (2.5Y SANDY LOAM
513)
SoilProfile ............. ................................................................................ ................
Notes: ..„.,............... ....... .. .»..w.
Hydric Soil Indicators (check):
Histosol — Aquic Moisture Regime - Concretions
Histic Epipedon — Reducing Conditions — High Organic Surface (sandy soils)
— Sulfidic Odor ` Gley/Low Chroma — Organic Streaking (sandy soils)
Hydric Soil Criteria Met? Yes Z, No
Rationale.................................................................................. .....
HYDROLOGY Field Date: 11/14/00
Field Observations: Recorded Data (gauge or well):
Depthof pit 1+ N/A ...............................................................................................................
Depth to saturation 5ilghtJy.m.Qhs.La1. 2-J.0......
Notes (inletloutlet, etc.).
Depth to free water/water table wrie ............
Inundation depth op IIR.................................. ...»...., ....... , ..u..„» . .....
Otherindicators: .......................................................................................................................................................................................
Wetland Hydrology? _ Yes 5g No
.Rationale: I7Q..indi.QatQ.rA........................................ .......................................................................
CLASSIFICATION
Wetland Criteria Met? 7 Yes ...x No
Classification UA1.aftS�e.deG1'.duOu.S.fQC.aS#..........................................................................................................................
Field Date: 11/14/00 Observers: RL, DG Project Number: 99046-001
Table 13 property Oorth, of Westem Pacifict Plot H
t�o6atorl insroall�ob$ra•c 1'swale', North of Plot G
VEGET—ATION
Cover
..... . . .........
over
Class
WIS
Index
Product of
Midpoint and
Index
Value
Midpoint
value
WIS Value
Scientific Name
Trees
87.5
----
10
262.5
Inns rubra
--
Shrubs
4
62.5
- .7
i ubusspecta XS
4.0
—1-60YU
mbucus racemosa
3
.5
150.0
lCerrrtarra cares/ Q rs
I
3
12 '.5
illex-aqui Ilum
XMI
L— sums 227.5--- 741.9
Weighted Mean Index: .............
% of dominant species with a WIS Hydrophytic vegetation
index of 3.0 or less: .......... „50-40-Q ....... (1987 methodology): No
VegNotes ........ ..... ........... . . ........ -* ....... *"** ............ ...... ",
.... - ......... ... .... ............. ...... ...... ......
Habitat Features ..... ...... ............... ................. * ............. ..... ..
(snags, logs, etc.) .. . .... . ... . ........ . .... ..... . .............. ..
Field Date: 11/14/00 observers: RL, DG Project Number: 99046-001
Table 13 Continued.
SOIL
Soil pit number H .................... Field observations confirm mapped type? H Yes [3 No
Map Unit (Series/Phase) On hydric list? [3 Yes K No
Map Symbol �w.Q.-- ......... lloam..,,....,,,,.....-........, . ....... ...... ...... Hydric inclusion? [3 Yes W No
Profile: Matrix Color Mottle Quantity, Mottle Color
Depth Horizon (moist) Size, Contrast (moist) Texture
0-6darkbrown (11 OYR 3/3) SANDY LOAM
6-12 brown - dark brown SANDY LOAM
(I OYR 4/3)
--- 18-24 olive brown (2.5Y 4/3) SANDY LOAM
SoilProfile 3.. i R c h..du ff . hi; y.e r ......... ; ..................................................................................................................................................
Notes: ..." ........... ....... ---- ...... - ............. .... . .. ...... . - ...... .- ..... ....... ........ ......
Hydric Soil Indicators (check):
Histosol 7.. Aquic Moisture Regime Concretions
Histic Epipedon F7, Reducing Conditions High Organic Surface (sandy soils)
Sulfidic Odor Gley/Low Chroma r Organic Streaking (sandy soils)
Hydric Soil Criteria Met? — Yes X No
Rationale ....... ... ...... ............. .
..............................
HYDROLOGY Field Date: 11/14100
Field Observations: Recorded Data (gauge or well):
Depthof pit Z4:t .......... ....... ....... . ..... —, NIA....-.- ... ... -1-1- .........
.... -- ......... .... . ......... -- . ..... -.- .......
Depth to saturation Wne ........................................... Notes (inlet/outlet, etc.):
Depth to free water/water table wrlp . ............ 0.qM-1- ....... ...... ........
Inundationdepth nanie .............................................. - ........ .........
Otherindicators: ......... . ....... -- .. . ... ....... .......... - ...... -- ... .... --- .................... . ............................... -
Wetland Hydrology? Yes Z., No
Rationale: ...............................................................................................................................
- ... 1-1---- ..... ........ ..... .... ... --- ........ ... -1- -.- ........ . . .......
CLASSIFICATION
Wetland Criteria Met? --i Yes X., No
classification................................................................................................
............. .
Field Date: 11/14/00 Observers: RL, DG Project Number: 99046-001
"FT
Ji I 5f 7-7
Mill!
I
sums
Weighted Mean Index: ...........
% of dominant species with a WIS
index of 3.0 or less: ......
97.5
Hydrophytic vegetation
(1987 methodology): Yes
FM
Veg Notes .............
............... .......... ....... .......... ...... ...... ...... - . . .... --
HabitatFeatures ..... . . ... .......... ---- .... . . . ......................... ......... . ...... ***** ......
(snags, logs, etc.) ....... ..................... - ... ...... -'-- ........ - .... ........ ......... ......
Field Date: 11/1412000 Observers: RL, DG Project Number: 99046-001
Table 14 Continued.
SOIL
Soil pit number I ...................... Field observations confirm mapped type? H Yes [3 No
Map Unit (Series/Phase) Eyer.eit.-.Oid.QrW.00d.gravORY...siArldy, On hydric list? [3 Yes N No
Map Symbol . loam
..... ..... ...... Hydric inclusion? M Yes [3 No
Profile: Matrix Color Mottle Quantity, Mottle Color
Depth Horizon (moist) Size, Contrast (moist) Texture
0-17 brown dark brown SILT LOAM
(1 OYR 4/3)
17-24 grayish brown (2.5Y light olive brown SILT LOAM
512) (2.5Y 5/6)
(7.5Y 5/2) COURSE SANDY
24+ LOAM
Soil Profile ........ .............. ........ .... . .. ..... ...... ........
Notes: ....... .... . ........ . ......... .... . . .. ...... ........
Hydric Soil Indicators (check):
Histosol Aquic Moisture Regime Concretions
Histic Epipedon J Reducing Conditions = High Organic Surface (sandy soils)
Sulfldic Odor = Gley/Low Chroma. Organic Streaking (sandy soils)
Hydric Soil Criteria Met? - Yes -E No
Rationale.. 12.Jache.s ....................................................................
.......... ...... ........... ........... ....... - .........
HYDROLOGY Field Date: 11/14/2000
Field Observations: Recorded Data (gauge or well):
Depth of pit Z4;t...... .......... -- ...... .......... . . ...... -- ....... .. . ...
...........
Depth to saturation pqnp . .. . .... ..... . .................... --, Notes (inlet/outlet, etc.):
Depth to free water/water table nma ............ aline ............................................................................................................
Inundationdepth opne ............................................. ........... - .......... -.', ........... -- ..... . ....... . ......... .
Otherindicators: ....................................................................................................................................
Wetland Hydrology? ❑ Yes Z. No
Rationale: o.g..w.etJ.and.hy.drg.199Y..Indig.qtqr5 ...............................................................................................................................
.......... - ............. .... ......... -'— .......... ........
CLASSIFICATION
Wetland Criteria Met? E] Yes X No
Classification
.51.r.o.mmunity ................................................. -- . ..... ......... . . .
................... ........ ....... . ..... .
Field Date: 11/1412000 observers: RL, DG Project Number: 99046-001
Table 15 Continued.
SOIL
Soil pit number J ..................... Field observations confirm mapped type? [3 Yes X No
Map Unit (Series/Phase) On hydric list? [3 Yes N No
Map Symbol EW.C- ... loam ........ Hydric inclusion? pg Yes [3 No
Profile: Matrix Color Mottle Quantity, Mottle Color
Depth Horizon (moist) Size, Contrast (moist) Texture
0-3 black (I OYR 2/1) ORGANIC
common, medium, dark yellowish FINE SAN
3-15 dark grayish brown DY LOAM
(2.5Y 4/2) distinct brown (1 OYR 416)
common, medium, light olive brown FINE SANDY LOAM
15-18 light brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2) faint (2.5Y 5/4)
SoilProfile ........ ............. ......... ...... -- . ............. ....... ........ .................... .......
Notes: ...... -- ...... .......... ....... . .........
Hydric Soil Indicators (check):
- Histosol Aquic Moisture Regime Concretions
J
Histic Epipedon Z Reducing Conditions High Organic Surface (sandy soils)
Sulfidic Odor 5< Gley/Low Chroma Organic Streaking (sandy soils)
Hydric Soil Criteria Met? Z Yes 7 No
Rationale ),Qw..r,.brQ.ma.uv.ith.m.oLtle6 ..........................................................................................
.... . ........
HYDROLOGY Field Date: 11/14100
Field Observations: Recorded Data (gauge or well):
Depthof pit .... . . ....... . . . NIA ..... . .. .. . .... . .... ...... ...... . . . ......
Depth to saturation Q.t.Q3J0.QKQA..Ql2lY ...............
Notes (inlet/outlet, etc.):
Depth to free water/water table opme ............ oQne,.,Qbs.(xy.Pd .......... ....... .... . .. .......
Inundation depth r).QnP .............................................. ........... ... --'t ..... .....
Other indicators: - ............ ............ ...... ...... ...... . ....... - ...... .....
Wetland Hydrology? Z. Yes --1 No
Rationale: ......... -- . ...... -
............ ....... ...... . .... ...... ....... . .................
CLASSIFICATION
Wetland Criteria Met? X Yes 17 No
Classification
npmna nLd.Q ar-e'-d ...............
. . .....
Field Date 11/14/00 Observers: DG,RL Project Number: 99046-001
Table 15 Property North of Western Pacific, Plot J
Wetland, located in topographic low
VEGETATION Cover over 7-13 Product of
Index Class Index Midpoint and
Scientific Name Value Midpoint Value WIS Value
Trees + 3-0
Alnus rubra
Shrubs
Herbs
SUMS 2.5 7.5
Weighted Mean Index:
% of dominant species with a WI S Hydrophytic vegetation
Index of 3.0 or less: -N.9-OMillant .... (1987 methodology): No
species found
Veg Notes
Pill JR ATFRSARA. CAREX-AND. EQUJ.S.E.T.U.M,5,PP.,,........ -. ....... --.- ..... ......
Habitat Features ..... .... ......... ...... .
.zield Date: 11/14100 Observers: DG, RL Project Number: 99046-001
3O�
R S
�m
u
.10
IsM
ail
} a
N 3 o
86 defy
file. r record and return to:
FOSTERfEPPER PLLC
III I'Third Avenue, Suite 3400
x:
Battle A 981,01
�ittentioil:: dill Kuntz
p b
anoTAYN Iru. n
Amber Lee
'' AGCE,138 AND U- TM-`TEFS EASEMYNT
Grantor: Clerget',tvOireat'irnited P ° , ersl i
Grantee: rotCoiru,�umty Ceiitei'"`
Legal l escii The wrest 0 ee , t ' th 1 0 feet`kifthe o l erl 1 , eet o
the !/ e 1/4 c tiori` 9 o ship 1 l lr rtl ''; e
East '. . ;King Go' a a"t'silegal Ascription on
Exhibit A.
e ss ssor' "P c i ID : 9 10 -91 '
.t
R `eren e ,(ff ap i dale):'.. /,
This n .... I's mWby ,s. , between Clerget' Evergreen Limited l� ersbip a
Washington limit l er (' : of and.Proo la e Community Center C'Gr tee").
RAC
l
A. Grantor is the",
a e ,a eel o red pr p "i located in ` Federal a
Washington, d legally described o,n t'W' — del '(the �4Grantor Propert)e).,
t is the o r o arce¢ta laext.loaed in Peddal a, Washington,
d legally described on Exhibit -� Parcel l ( gt . Pro' a e 9raqtee Property is
situated' west d d adjacent to tor Property..., ^
C. Grantor d Grantee wish to create a feint ace d" uutility.,out°r vet
portions o their respective properties For the benefit f both ro rues,, as d °*nbed = l s o "-'^
on Exhibits "A" d B" attached hereto (,Access ent).
Easement CELP-Brooklake properties
aj
THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing background, and other good and
tluabk considctatiot4 the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Grantor
Miteth��reby declare and state as follows:
G�ant and Location of Easement. Grantor hereby grants and conveys to Grantee,
sUc9eSS&s and awgpi a non-exclusive easement over, under and across the portion of
tdi'ls 1�ind,dekribed "in fbr,ther"oses set forth herein.
X
11MIUMMI I MU F11 RM
3. Constt*ltfio` 0antoi s?
of the roadwai, ani r anitufilities smm
of The City of Federal Way and �tbd
the work. Any work by either party hi
due course, so as to minimize disr*
successors oi assigns.
h A M6
aiptoace gfibLe-
equally.the rcso*b4i�( for maintaining and repainng
in the A cccso�E*m* area
--fintenti
5 hiterf6rende onally left blank))
6. Ra Easement am Surrom
0 M-.
"I L INk ---
f
■ f
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8. AftqMa�:__Fges. If any suit or other procee"', g
t'll AW 60'1�106M' 1 19 . . - t 1.
I 1) 11119 1#[1 M1 11 loll I I M 1, 1 1 1
M
Easement CELP-Brooklake properties
M
iitled'to recover its reasonable attorneys' fees and all costs and expenses from the substantially
�n-pjeyafling party, in addition to such other available relief.
'g. —C-punte-marts. This document may be executed in counterparts, and each
unf.bere6f shall be deemed to be an original instrument, but such counterparts together
A'q•
.E
DATED this day of
T Clerget Evergreen Limited Partnership,
By::
M
acknowledged that gaid person signed, this irr§tnjinent.
authorized to execute the instrument and Ticknbwiedged-
of CLERGET EVERGREEN LMT9'D P"ART"NhRSf'0fl'P';
the free and voluntary act of such limited,.�tObility compai
in the instrument -
'Dated this
. . . . . . ............
2013.
ri
Noury Pubik
Slitto of (3111114W
SA= IV
My Appointment Expires Ott *1011
Easement CELP-Brooklake properties
X-�
Y
residiN
My'apT
-5-
satisfactory evidence that
d bef6re me, and said person
tad that said person was
MMI
It "10, %'T] �-§ M
ofNolary)
nd for the state of Washington,
SS.
1
Ulf [on WIN .
satisfactory, evader :°bat i _, $ , d
hefore me d said persons acknowledged that
i" ireeiry' d'volun act for the uses
day of =,
.t"
EXHIBIT "A"
ACCESS CASEMENT
Tilt WEST 26 FEET OF THE SOUT114,50,1FEET OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY:
i
• , � � 1M r i' 1 1
is i:- i' � i ! - • •'.
�e •' r i i
i � °' i'II i � � r i t •'; • i
• C � 1
*i • i � II r 1F i
i i 11 � i � •
i
• i
i'
,� • i 11 i
'E IN THE I F FEDERAL WAY, COUNTY
PAGE IOF
M-
.1 1 11 1 1 1 11
w
EXHIBIT
i
EASEMENTACCESS
R CORNER.
TOWNSHIP 21
4 EAST. W.M.
FA
&1"E
nt* Inm, P.S.
206 Railroad Avenue North — Kent, WA 98032
253-613-1901 main 253--613--1908 fax
File f6r record and return to:
"FOS TER 'F PUPER PLLC
I V e I 1,,,,TbirdAvihu Suite 3400
Grantor:
Grantee:
Legal D(
c The East 20 feet
P. p
Way Boundary LiN
legal description on
s T�x Parcel:ID#: 292104-9010
(If-donli6ablel: N/A
Clerget Evergreej
A. Grantor is the
Wasbington, and legally described on
B. Grantee is the pwner o,
4
Brooklake Community Center, (Grantor) and
,ton limited partnership C'Grantee").
ovr ptlocated in Federal Way,
.,Parcel R, (.t�ie "GKW, pT Property").
C- Otantor and -Ghmfte tO ttt�4tO a jo
Easement Brooklake - CELP properties
THEREFOM in consideration of the foregoing background, and other good and
�d6ration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Grantor
�rc• declare and state as follows:
2.
I i•or to Ljr. FA [o
Grantor hereby grants and conveys to Grantee,
T easement over, under and across the portion of
*sessd forth hereiT.
.4 - 4 -
[Old") IMT-3 it 1"Mralliq 0 K- 11 L-
3. Construction. Cr e
of the roadway, and for any utili .s
in a careful and workmanlike manner
of The City offederal Way and othe
course, so -:as t
0
MMEE•��
MWIN" =-IMMMMOM
11M
itentionally left b")
x1t; Puulx"4�v �K U;S•t�l bil
KINIM 0 1
L'PU1j Ult;
S. Attorn 74�.. eg. lfo*suj�ordo- •I]a�gisinsi;fi
1N§qftqfBrbdkJ6kt-CELP OtOpOlics
the initial im rovernents
lit
eir
M
e
collate6d actions relative to such suit or proceeding, the substantially prevailing party shall be
entitl `' t . recover its reasonable attorneys' fees and all costs and expenses from the substantially
n+�n preralag party, in addition to such other available relief.
9 C6unteWarts. This document may be executed in counterparts, and each
„, I 6terji rt hereof sball-he deemed to be an original instrurnent, but such counterparts together
��OF
�
ED this 'day of L'ng -AIFFF.
Brooklake Community Center
or
r M MI MMQ 1 -
I Ms.
11111'al"Hwo. ONION wit
MMI[t)
in the instrurftnt.
My Appolntmnt Expirts Ott 18.
Easement Brooklake - CELP properties
have satisfactory evidence that
Pened b*re me, and said person
on oatlf stated that said person was
it "as t
limited partnership, to be
I certify tfthhtf I'. w
1 ► are AWN
2013.
Easement Brooklaake - CELP properties
ideoce, at AjJ 9-IL.,v-ri Land
rid sick persons acknowledged that
ftec,gWevojuntary act for the uses
of
NamcorNowy)
ilic in and for the c of Washington,
EXHIBIT "A"
ACCESS EASEMENT
; 6 P R0Et A .
TIDE WESTo FEETOF"1 d3 „i SOUTF• 5I1% I"I OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY:
'flE QUTFI RLY 15,I1I1 F E"1" CAE TI E NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER
'OF, CT,&429, O` ..SHIP I NOR.T",H, R fiGE",BAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY,
WASHING TO
N,
EXCEPT THEWORTH 6FE-ETT; -RE F AS CONTMNED IN FULFILLMENT DEEDS UNDER
RECORDING Ntl 4i3'flkS 89bS18,1-69 AND 8„90fl 1 2'
d
AND EXCEPT THEREFRQ ?I' I' IAT Ri' ON Y INS S l,J'T1b1 REY AND,�I�THE STERLY OF
THE NORTHERLY LINE OI tE0UTI 356I H 'RE ' AND AS"CERI.Y THE WEST LINE OF
PACIFIC HIGHWAY SOUTH R1G l»O Wf A 'D SCRI D 114.DEF.6 : CORDED UNDER
RECORDING NUMBERS 6G924$ "'778, RE.ETiLY C !JEYED 70 KING
COUNTY UNDER RECORDING NO.31iI53 1 ND.; + 11f3EMNEO'IN KJN. COUNTY SUPERIOR
COURT CAUSE NO.81-2-05952-0.
AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION T14CREOF AS co4rAINED t l DEEDS TO I 'INO"O UN7rY FOR
WIDENING OF SOUTH 356TH STREET UNDER C RD4, NIIM Ei I.1`69, '1 111'6
9104 51;111, 9110405 Fj,,, 12 AND 9104051113
AN1 EXCO: T THAT PORTION THEREOF LYING SO HERS RLYaGr t lc. *OLL WIN
DekRIB 13 L NE:
C64M NCIN ATTI-IE°NQRTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 29,
THENCE ALONG THE NokT H LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION, NORTH :89°38`1 '".WEST;
1580.87 FEET.TO 3'eE' ION'bMENTED CENTERLINE OF PACIFIC HIGHWAYS' "* TH(SR99)_
E =AL6NG,8AIQ°CENTE ,ESOUTH 2!"42°27" WEST, 963.47 FEET TO A
MO MET" 1N � S`�EEL x�S1 1G, B, ING NAIL SET IN CONCRETE AT THE CENTERLINE
OF SAID PA 1FlCa0161-1WX, ' SOUTH.
THENCE CO'NTINUING LON&SAf CENTERLINF, SOUTH 21043'15" WEST,217.53 FEET.,
THENCE TORT 68 ,14'45 WEST, 56; °EffT TO THE WESTERLY MARGIN OF SAID
PACIFIC I.1IGHWAYSOU li AND THE TRUE- P INTj F BEGINNING;
T114ENCE SOUTH 40004Ok' W9ST, 7,06 FEE"F ,
THENCE SOUTH 24`25' 3",.WEST, I i74 FEE- '
TFIENCE SOU 21-42'35" �VE$T, ' a13`'I'IEE 'I0A POINT„OF 1 R ? TI RE
THENCE SOUT14ERLY 2.30 FEET ALONG Tf.1 SRC d F TAI '6ENTQURVE -1-0 THE RIGHT,
HAVING A RADIUS OF 38.00 FEET, THROUGH rA CEN AL �#F1C;LE 11�`W;'�8°3 I" TO A 1
POINT ON SAID WESTERLY MARGIN'
THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY MA G1N..,SO,UTFI„32-3*&I9"' WE,S"I' J3.I8 FEET; 1
THENCE + CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY MARGIN, UTI-1 71$�,234 WES'i"'3°3.99
FEET;".,
THENCE NORTH 89*38"05" WEST, 32.16 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 021'55" WEST, 8.00 FEET TO THE, NORTI4.ERLY RIG F-W,AY.MAR-J0!'N
OF SOUTH 356TH STREET AND T14E TERMINUS OF THIS LINE DBC IPTION#,, m
SITUATE IN THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, COUNTY OF KING, STATE O1 WA.SHII4QTGN.
PACE 1 1F 2
f
R
OF
"AND
PAGE 2 OF �
EXHIBIT to B2'
ACCESS EASEMENT
?ION OF THE N 1/2 SEC.29, T.21 N., R-4
, �20
NORTH QUARTER CORNER.
SECTION 2% TOWNSHIP 21
-MORTH. RANGE 4 EAST, W.N.
CITY OF
F6&ral V%oy
DATE: 2/6/2015
TO: Steve Ikerd, Parks
FROM: Leila Willoughby -Oakes, Associate Planner'
SUBJECT: ARCO Highway Facility (15-100167-00-PC)
PROJEC7'ADDRESS., 35505 PACIFIC HWY S
ZONING DISTRICT' CE
PROJECTDESCRIPTION: Proposal to develop approximately 5 acre site in phases: 3,180 square
foot gas station and mini -mart, a 3,620 square foot fast food restaurant
and a 5,816 truck stop with fuel and associated truck parking.
Please find a pre -consultation site plan and narrative attached.
Any comments must be submitted by February 13, 2015 at 4:30 pm. Please submit your comments to
the file in Amanda or send them to me by email.
Many thanks.
-Leila 1r
Leila Willoughby -Oakes
From: Becky Chapin
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 12:45 PM
To: 'Nick Wecker'
Cc: Leila Willoughby -Oakes
Subject: RE: Arco Pacific Hwy Project - Previous Wetalnd Reports
Attachments: 20150211122502.pdf
Hi Nick,
The City has a Revised Wetland Addendum, prepared by Raedeke Associates, Inc., dated January 23, 2001, attached. I cannot verify
if this is the most recent report we have. However, per the 2009, findings for Process III approval for construction of the self -storage
proposal, it mentions:
"A Hydrologic Impact Assessment was prepared by Raedeke Associates, Inc., for the review of the previous land use
approval. That assessment analyzed potential impacts to wetlands and wetland buffers. Sheldon & Associates, Inc.,
the city's wetland consultant at that time, reviewed the hydrologic impact analysis and recommended some
mitigation measure to deal with potential erosion on site. The findings in that memorandum are incorporated
herein as part of the conditions of the Use Process III approval."
The findings and memorandum mentioned above have been archived. If you would like to view the report/documents you
will have to fill out a records request through the City Clerk's Office so files can be retrieve from archive. Please let me know
if I can assist you further, otherwise you can contact Leila, the key contact for the Arco Pacific project if you have more
specific questions regarding requirements for that project.
Thanks,
Becky Chapin
Associate Planner
City of Federal Way
33325 8th Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
Phone:253-835-2641
aecky hapin cityoffed ral ay: om
From: Nick Wecker frnailto NWe ker@b rghau en.con ]
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 2:11 PM
To: Becky Chapin
Subject: Arco Pacific Hwy Project - Previous Wetalnd Reports
Hi Becky,
Our client Balbir Birk spoke with you a few weeks ago about the wetland determination for the public storage property
at 3540 Pacific Hwy South. The property was developed in 2005-2006 and we assume a wetland report was completed
to determine required critical area buffers. A TIR we received for this 2005 project referenced the Wetland Assessment
of the Western Pacific Property by Raedeke Associates, Inc. in 1993. Could you please help us determine whether the
project completed an updated wetland delineation report to verify the wetland locations depicted in the 1993 report?
Thank you,
Nick Wecker
Assistant Planner
Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.
18215 72"d Ave 5
Kent, WA 98032
Phone: (425) 251-6222
www.barehausen.com
LAKEHAVEN UTILITY DISTRICT
www.lakehaven.org
December 29, 2014
Property Manager
6220 - 29th Avenue Northeast
Tacoma, Washington 98422-3322
To Whom This Concerns:
r
It has come to my attention that on Friday 12/12/14 Lakehaven's field staff discovered a
person (Balbir Birk, apparently under employ of the property owner) pumping ponded surface
water on the referenced property to the Lakehaven sanitary sewer manhole located at/near
the SE corner of the referenced property (see attached photos). The pumping/discharge was
ceased immediately on the aforementioned date, upon in -person notification from Lakehaven.
Lakehaven would like to remind you that, in accordance with Section 5 of Lakehaven
resolution 1969-242, "It shall be unlawful for any person to ... uncover the public
sewer... without... having a permit to do so from the District," the primary purpose of this
section of Lakehaven's rules being public safety. Also, stormwater discharge to Lakehaven's
sanitary sewer system is prohibited by Lakehaven's "Sewer Use Rules" (June 2006, Section
2.01.B(12), as Lakehaven's sewer system is a closed/sanitary-only sewer system. This letter
is just a 'warning notice; future violations of Lakehaven's Sewer Use Rules could cause
monetary penalties to be assessed to the property.
If you have any questions or need additional information regarding this matter you may
contact me at BAsbury@Lakehaven.org.
Sincerely,
� �/4L /Z""
Brian Asbury
Development Engineering Supervisor;
Ec: FieldOps
Una uthDischarge-33505 Pac Hwy S-Dec2014.docx (Form Rev. 2/17/11)
Leonard D. Englund Charles I. Gibson Timothy A. McClain Donald L.P. Miller Ronald E. Nowicld
Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner
• ; • •-Oakes
From:
John Hutton
Sent:
Tuesday, February 17, 2015 5:02 PM
To:
Leila Willoughby -Oakes
Cc:
Steve Ikerd
Subject:
RE: Arco Highway Facility
Leila,
The Parks department does have concerns about the truck stop being so close to Brook lake Community Center.
This does not feel like a compatible use with the lake and the pristine wetland and all of the environmental aspects of
the watershed and historic value of the Brook Lake Community Center in relation to very beginnings of Federal Way.
Thank You,
John
y
Director- Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services
City of Federal Way (253) 835-6910
From: Leila Willoughby -Oakes
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 10:21 AM
To: Steve Ikerd
Cc: John Hutton; Jason Gerwen; Rob Ettinger
Subject: RE: Arco Highway Facility
Greetings Steve,
Apologies about the very late routing to you. After speaking with other staff after the meeting (Ann), she made
planning aware the Brooklake Community Center was under the City's ownership. I do apologize that we did not catch
this sooner.
I will be working on the ARCO pre -application letter today, however if the Parks Department does have comments I can
wait to send the letter out until the end of the week.
We have advised a truck stop use is not permitted on the subject property, per our code, as it adjoins a medium -low
density residential zone (Brooklake). However, there is potential that the site would be reconfigured to accommodate
the truck stop (i.e. if the truck stop use is not continuous, the land was subdivided, and a separate use is proposed
adjacent to the Center). They had asked about a hotel or multi -family. A full wetland delineation report will be required
also due to proximity near the Hylebos as Category I wetland and observed site conditions. The applicant has been
informed of this moving forward.
I presume they are proposing a common driveway for large semi -trucks as there is a shared access easement between
the Brooklake property and the subject property.
If you have any questions at all do not hesitate to call me directly.
Cheers,
Leila
Leila Willoughby -Oakes I Associate Planner
2gq@ftMgfl12LoMrnunitv Develoorne t
33325 81h Ave. S.
Federal Way, WA 98003
253-835-2644
Please consider the environment before printing this email A
From: Steve Ikerd
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 9:57 AM
To: Leila Willoughby -Oakes
Cc: John Hutton; Jason Gerwen; Rob Ettinger
Subject: Arco Highway Facility
I have been swamped and just opened the proposed development request and noticed a Feb 13
deadline for comments. Suggestion: Something like this needs red -flagged so we know it could be of
significant importance to a City related operation. Is the comment period ended? A week is not much
driie?
This development in the proposed configuration could impact future operations at our Brooklake
Community Center. Are they proposing a common driveway for large semi -trucks? or would it be
separate? Our staff needs more time to understand and weigh in on this development of a truck stop
next to the Cities Brooklake Community Center..
VIV Of
Federal Way
Steyhen _Tkerd
Parks Deputy Director
Certified Arborist PN-1 942A
33325 8" Ave S. FW, WA 98003
253 835-6911
Leila Willoughoy-Oakes
Fromm:
Erik Preston
Sent:
Thursday, January 29' 2015 11:11 AM
To:
Leila Willoughby -Oakes
Cc:
Ann Dower
Subject:
ARCO Truck Stop Access
Hi Team,
Just a clarification on the SR 99 driveway. The City does approve such driveways as long as they meet WSDOT
requirements. In this case the driveway meets the WSDOT spacing requirements to the S 356 St intersection and
driveways tothe north, but itwould belimited toR|ROaccess.
Erik
x.2744
FIGURE 1
Qx Q
Fld Xfi�ow Ct'�ttirltJ , ` .-\,q... , , :;" -� . ti` `, PACIFIC T DEVELOPMENT
No an mistia}wMildidit r maa it w& pvxa +' xsAi �''-zR m.
.. v; •• Fx� dz �m ,x
# a
s Rf GpI g +� �r
[ -WESTERN PACIFIC
DELIN TIONxaS "I amp i
ez«+ s „ *< r
.
a
119910
i
,xPR
AS
Palustnne ^ KING COUNTY, wASHINGTON
�✓ r
' Forested l s t WETLAIV 12J00 :" x _
F'PR(" � LOCATION 0 i %1 ASSESSMENT "
T
URVEYED O E `° .`° TEQ
`AREA
� ` Y
r r€ -$IZE
.am _ bTLAND
Sttate D INED)Park
i
�.%
SP-1 Q SFt
ra
2 2 At. pit
37Ede
P
O " r
O oR
`
1 '
X a CQA R WAN iFx
— a and AaQR xua s +R,
QAP
&fT z✓ w+• ¢ c ad "'." § } F v ]3ae ,� ip r PARCEL -A
d - G
M
Q,;zipia`sse > \
n
2.TR
A d � PAR
� •, . ', � _iAz � r. eiA wnR
tip } *Y �^ BRS'KA�
° }. `f� .a, r. "*.. aT;z 8sam,�R via!
Od
,5 t y a drab MIXED^ Ct1' y xss
Forest
is
¢~i �� `" "' •. �,.� :" ( a � i� � ^,yam .
C ._ a E
dt _ U.
>
2I u, 29
fa OF 5EC140
QiN . Y 0
AJ a 8 Y.f P C -1 � } � �"'��, l {" P M>s. M .dN4 CatkYYT. MASN*/K0.frQN, LT.kQ sESTERLT Q6 BOSFIC H6XndPx7. 5,..
V7 f x 1��,T THE,i F�. gxE*RF,
c1 ', p a is ;r
o EXTENDED, MODIFIED a i. M p y�ef
(j d,i n..... •* t 4' Q8P-21 \ :, 4ii.= 4 {:. y. tq 'i.: �`"°"'y r kJ:.. i���Q$'EC4AQ*an.�S RiTK SOUTH sdY:£NExw6 GQ'UNd`Y;:.iWASXdWQTikkt
ND 12100 d ""
X . (Approx. . tocation
_
d
• X t v R fi}MXi xs AT a.
C *»"' ,rYz P >:ar6RTrau 6c�Nw VIJa as Ua of SEeitc. as. T 2a N. N < E, Yx
�X,X p�y� p p a
N XS,7�,/`td�.d'Pf' `YiJi""Iif# TY'� B C 7 s... d ., 1 +� 8
s " :: '
41 i six � •"- � `�-.
n r
/ ' r .'�~.., . r. xw;, mva RaE aY ai+a zsRA,aera d ro a,k'LEGT" E7mT'xi0 Tr�,vc.m.v4 iQ43§PVQ�d3'aaa SarE XrET'4YtdQ0 Ma Fenaa
��-Qa � P-1 a dy--...— �.. .-'". ~ > ��`"w l � � RT as€ai�E x RuncrriGs nRrRuatrmY oc iERTEsrOEY�: rys9 awQ EdaarvQ d�Y �RM1.QOia'TN d asaQcfrnzzm
a 8809Q- j • z S'. I ,.. g: [ t ^ • \ a i#fQFFf�19Aq, *E?4RAQ F4,A8a�TR'*mS: E.STAQE45s�G.d $QqQ *Y OdEO�*E 4 QC&RTES AU@.sEnUENTL#
[� ,ssN a " ```"^< !: i ' �" f`' ' ° ,. ''" .:°:. ) ra aEc. $RbQ aY rt.ASLC*�MdSw x assQctda�Cs, EQQ tT. did � E* rs "�HaM4C+��EQVR 9dsEO
p '. :. .`,. t Y e atxNEF R,viE'x r�tieuanx:
a , a : f Odd ALR AECEY�iC :cAm�d *AEDEXE Q C1:'Y Qs ,BaiEA.R. MVOY ii� aA id�di',O'd'
/ UO2,+� , x ygWd L>�l !8N ANQ SURYEYYA6 ON SITE OF MNiGN THIS SOAYEYnR
�M g� „� f n � � $.- TA9EREI #S $£FMA ilYi{E,4'Y!.'fO.+M GE T
® FRO ices GQ : -..... �,: ...e,.X-. .., ®.. �'b^7iP 4mN" i H. ! k 'pa ? #�&' NO:NNiILERt,E
F�
• �� -__ '°'— ......i — '1® >1 X T8SS0" mom.. d 't a$¢g"A�X+,¢mtgRAE WOK".i IF GiSE in GENTEALaiE GF V.,,F,C H,;—Ay $COIN IlST NORTH
GEXTERU� OF PACIFIC NIC9iMlY iRUTN PER aECCA9 BF 5U#vEY ialR
*To
`vua ct� a cu ' r ` a°\ aa, 'aai.*. �aYa4�r�n {a x�:� PER Ec.[c#*ore s,e.Es aAe„mrsn a*' x $�x`"Rwe mricAaeECTa. we
Q� { a d M { x°`r f y ®1.3 r: ! �.. "v •,,„_ Oil Y" ° O T'�%.FR.Ci +WbgCa:C."YWdX TSnE TQAQa*A,TA# AR pASEQ QN'TQAQi$mi%*C QA# *NOAd SXTE #aaO£AAAYk%C SURVEY
ASP12 a �r - � ddR�m�aA�mRrxTr€a.aaex:
-
I g�Q :t 1 ,•` � -11 sQL. tEid YST; LnQdTE9 au;RQLQsr+X#N 0 ,Qcra#cs a.m.:
PARCEL- "r f` ~� i';: f. o-Y :g, 4x-SXTE iNE* nT BrTL"o N11Eao5 N8 EQUALS L27 aCAES.
CL jigsX "
9
�. f r.— ra �` , ` north
r
V -
r
zzaQ* 6 °�VV For 4 } � "� � � � a' / � too
FWD
to maw
5EE *Ra
fSP-10 SP-9
3 Pill
'
p
• 4 0 .'�
i` d et �' ' !X KE ASSOCIATES,
r
P
1
``- '
�. 5711 NORTHEAST 63RD ST, EATT E, WA 9619
Si' L
c ' " Fs t , `' (206) sas—si as 5 FAX; (206) 526-2680 5
I {
E Light 4:0 a SP-6
Commercial
,
a =
o Use
® RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES PROJECT: #99046-001
, r
—19-01
DATE: 01
�,,• , r r a "� .° r d
i . •
ePSP AWN BY: CJM
z ti m�nQA
r r` .u.z n®ie.tn Base inforena`;an per Hugh Goldsmith & Assoc.
LAIR L91. 9 1 ® -
aa.aa°. Inc. electron,c file dated 01—
® % .
°IX.TE4fixO '
iz R,$=hQi `��� Undeve SP®1 � r DITCH
g!
F1 M 01 ff 9 MIT= 1 M-
1821572 d Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032
Ile Community Development Department is in receipt of your preapplication conference request. The
mmittee and the meeting has been
scheduled as follows:
9:00 a.m. — Thursday, February 5,2015
Hylebos Cotvfi�e Room
M
33325 8th Avenue South
ri
Federal Way, WA 98003
We look forward to meeting with you. Pleaft coordinate direcifly wilh anyone else� y2xt wq!LI&Ajktb
atitntithenteetin as this will be the only notice sent by the department. If you have any questions
regarding the meeting, please contact me at JbilaMillotafliby-o 'keQcitvo'ffbderaJ\ Win or253-835-
a 7
2644.
Sincerely,
Leila Willoughby -Oakes
Associate Planner
Doc I D.: 67746
40k MASTER LAND USE APPLICATION
DEPARTMENT OF CommuNiTy DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
33325 8b Avenue South
CITY OF Federal Way, WA 98003-6325
JAN 14 2015 253-835-2607; Fax 253-835-2609
Federal Way CrTY OF FETE WAY
CDS
APPLICATION NO(S)Date 15—
Project Name ARCO Pacific Hwy Development
Property Address/Location 35505 Pacific H
Parcel Number(s) 292104-9127
Project Description
5,816 SF Truck Stop with Gas.
PLEASE PRINT
Type of Permit Required
Annexation
Binding Site Plan
Boundary Line Adjustment
Comp Plan/Rezone
Land Surface Modification
Lot Line Elimination
X Preapplication Conference
Process I (Director's Approval)
Process II (Site Plan Review)
Process III (Project Approval)
Process IV (Hearing Examiner's Decision)
Process V (Quasi -Judicial Rezone)
Process VI
SEPA w/Proiect
SEPA Only
Shoreline: Variance/Conditional Use
Short Subdivision
Subdivision
Variance: Commercial/Residential
Required Information
CE _----Zoning Designation
CE Comprehensive Plan Designation
Value of Existing Improvements
Value of Proposed Improvements
International Building Code (IBC):
M Occupancy Type
V-N, II-B Construction Type
Applicant
LL C
Name: Balbir Birk ... c/o Birk Enferprlses�Anc.
Address: 11220 S. E. 265th Place
City/State: Kent WA
Zip: 98030
Phone: 206-455-4776
Fax:
Email: birkenterprisesinc@yahoo.com
Signature:
Agent (if different than Applicant)
Name: Nick Wecker, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.
Address: 18215 72nd Avenue South
City/State: Kent, WA
Zip: 98032
Phone: (425) 656-7469
Fax:
Email: nwecker@barghausen.com
Signature:
Name: Clerget Evergreen LP
Address: 35505 Pacific Hwy South
City/State: Federal Way, WA
Zip: 98003
Phone:
Fax:
Email:
Signature:
Bulletin #003 — January 1, 2011 Page 1 of 1 k:\Handouts\Master Land Use Application
CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING
January 14, 2014 OCEVED
HAND DELIVERY
(253) 835-2607 M5
CITY OF VEDEPAL WAY
CDs
City of Federal Way
Department of Community Development Services
33325 8th Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003
RE: Pre -Application Conference
ARCO Facility
35505 Pacific Highway South
Federal Way, Washington 98003
Our Job No. 16777
On behalf of Birk Enterprises, Inc., Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. is submitting a request for a
Pre -Application Conference to discuss the proposed construction of a new ARCO Facility at the address
referenced above. The following materials are enclosed for your review:
1. Seven (7) copies of the full-size Preliminary Site Plan (SP-1)
2. One (1) copy of the project narrative with questions
3. One (1) completed and signed City of Federal Way Master Land Use Application form
4. One (1) check made payable to the City of Federal Way, in the amount of $478.00, to cover
the Pre -Application Conference fee
Thank you for your prompt attention to this request, and we look forward to your confirmation of the Pre -
Application Conference meeting date. Should you have any questions or needadditional information,
please contact me directly at (425) 656-7469 or via email at nwecker@brghauen.com.
Sincerely,
Nick A. Wecker
Assistant Planner
NAW/ kb
16777c.001.doc
enc: As Noted
cc: Jay S. Grubb, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.
Daniel B. Goalwin, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.
Jeff Weddle, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.
18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251-6222 (425) 251-8782 FAX
BRANCH OFFICES • TUMWATER, WA • LONG BEACH, CA • ROSEVILLE, CA • SAN DIEGO, CA
www.barghausen.com
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
II OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
A31_401F1 1 1 111 1 � � 1111 11113111 , 1, 111 1 1!' ''
DATE: Frid�-1
TO: Ann Dower, Development Services
Rick Perez, Traffic
Scott Sproul, Assistant Building Official
Brian Asbury, Lakehaven Utility District
Chris Ingham, South King Fire & Rescue
FROM- Leila Willoughby -Oakes, Associate Planner
FOR DRC MTG. ON. 1-29-6-Internal
2-5-*at 9:00 am- with applicant
M-117017YR—ir. FJTJT'11 `KKWN of
PROJECT DESCRIPTION. Proposal to develop approximately 5 acre site in phases: 3,180 square foot gas
station and mini -mart, a 3,620 square foot fast food restaurant and a 5,816 track
stop with fuel and associated truck parking.
LAND USE ITS: Environmental Review (SEPA)
ProcessllI
Process H (Binding Site Plan) -Possibly
PROJECT CONTACT: Balbir Birk- birkentgn2ds jesincOvyahoocom
Birk Environmental LLC
11220 S.E. 265"' Pl.
Kent WA 98030
B arghausen
18215 72nd Ave. S.
MATERMLS SUBMITTED: Master Land Use Application
Project Narrative
Draft Site Plan — (please note site address is incorrect)
Proposed ARCO Facility I CM OF FEDERAL WAY
ConvenienceStore, isFuel Station
fPacificHighway
Federal C. 98003
Prepared By
January 13, Nick Wecker, Assistant Planner
The project calls for the construction of an ARCO convenience store (3,180 square feet), along with a
separate 38- by 116-foot fuel canopy'(4,408 square feet) with eight (8) multi -product dispensers (MPDs),
creating sixteen (16) vehicle fueling positions (VFPs). A separate structure would house a 24- by 48-foot
car wash ;(1,152 square feet). The fuel station will require the installation of two (2) underground storage
tanks (USTs); one 25,000-gallon UST for the storage of regular unleaded fuel, and a second 12,000- `
gallon UST split betweenregular unleaded (6,000-gallons) and premium unleaded (6,000-gallons).
The convenience ±store would replicate typical elements and fixtures associated with convenience retail
(ARCO AM/PM); items being sold would include pre -packaged convenience grocery items, sundries, hot
and cold drinks, tobacco products, beer and wine, and automobile -related convenience items. Cold
storage facilities and limited on -site dry storage would be provided to support both retail sales and food
service. Food preparation is limited to warming' (re -heating) and packaging for re -sale.
Phasing: The site plan also calls for additional commercial retail developments located immediately
adjacent to the proposed ARCO convenience store that will be done in one or possibly two additional
phases. A short subdivision parcel map is ultimately needed but the timing may be based on the interest
in developing the property by this developer or other interested parties. That said, they may choose to
access extensions along the frontage. However, it is desired to have the current project' approved for all
phases as shown. The future developments are described as follows:
• A fast food restaurant with double order drive-thru (3,620 square feet) is proposed to the
north of the ARCO facility.
• A truck stop' with restaurant and retail (5,816 square feet) is proposed to the west of the
ARCO facility and will include a 32- by 119-foot canopy for high speed truck refueling and
parking on site. Overnight parking will not be permitted.
Each phase of the project will provide other associated infrastructure and site improvements to the extent
required by State and Federal Way code, including but not limited to, utilities, parking, asphalt paving, lot
lighting, perimeter and onsite landscaping, trash enclosures, freestanding signage, canopy/wall signage,
and an air/water/vacuum station. Cross access between parcels will also be scheduled.
As we are in the feasibility stage of the project, we respectfully request answers to the following
questions:
- 1 .-, 16777.002.doc
IMMIZZOMM6
1. Please describe the land use approval process for entitlements including submittal
requirements, fees, any relevant appeal processes, public meetings and/or hearings, as well
as the projected timeframe for plan review including subdivision.
2. What options are available for concurrent processing and expediting?
3. Should your preliminary review indicate the need for any variances or administrative
exceptions, please provide details on the process itself including applicable criteria.
4. Please provide and/or confirm all development standards applicable to this project, including
but not limited to setbacks and height limits, parking and circulation requirements, sign.,
regulations, special architectural requirements, and landscaping standards.
5. Please identify any approvals required by this project which are sourced from other agencies
with jurisdictionover this project such as stag or regional authorities and any special districts..
6. Please identify staff from each department who will be available to answer questions
regarding process and approvals on this project, and contact information.
7. Please quantify any applicable impact and/or mitigation fees.
_Environmental Review
1. State requirements appear to dictate a SEPA review process will be required; please identify
any specific requirements related to environmental review including applications, checklists,
approval process, and review periods.
2. Please identify any critical areas and any regulatory or mitigation factors anticipated as a
result of this project.
Traffic and Circulation:
1. Please identify any circulation and LOS issues; define their relevance to the facility design
and any proposed mitigations.
2. Please identify any right-of-way dedications, access easements, and/or permits associated
with site design and civil improvements.
3. Please quantify any applicable traffic impact and/or mitigation fees.
Fire Marshal:
1. Please discuss the adequacy of current hydrants and the need/location for additional
hydrants.
2. Please confirm the adequacy of fire flow and/or water supplies for fire -fighting needs.
3. Please identify any requirements for special alarm systems and/or sprinklers, as well as any
permitting requirements for the USTs.
MOAN
16777.002.doc
1. Please provide or confirm the applicable codes enforced by the City and any specific design
elements such aaseismic zones, wind load, and snow load standards.
2. Please identify all � �horUhio project, describe the submittal process and review
Wnefrane. Are concurrent building permit applications permitted along with land use
applications?
3. Discuss accessibility nequirenmonbs, relevant tothe site plan.
1. Identify any special nsquirement for access, grading, erosion control and otormwxatersystem
design, and water quality controls.
2. Describe any special requirements for vvater, power, and/or telephone service such as
easements orpermits.
3. Identify if civil engineering review is requiredior to or concurrent with the
building
permit process; describe submittal requirements and review dmafname.
4. Will the under -canopy fuel area stormwater runoff be allowed to be discharged to the City's
sanitary sewer system or storm system?
5. Identify and quantify, if possible,all utility impact and/or mitigation fees.
— 3 - 16777002duo
CITY OF
Fbdemt
Project Name
ARCO Truck Skip
File Number
0p=C
Street Address
35505 Pacific Hn S
City, State Zip
Federal Way, WA
Parcel Number (s)
i 4 :.
Traffic Impact Fee Estimated By
EMP
1) 18. Service Station with Minimart Sf/GFA L 5816 1 $ 43.59i $ 253,45
2) Automatic Car Wash**77-1 sf/GFA 1152 $ 21.25 $ 24,4E
3) 3. Fast Food Restaurant sf/GFA 3620 $ 29.79 $ 107,84
4) 7. Service Station VFP 16 $ 8,302.85s $ 13,84
$ 518,6E
Project Name ARCO Truck 10
File Number
01 0'..
Street Address
35505 Pacific
City, State Zip
Federal Way,
Parcel Number (s)
'lid-
Traffic Impact Fee Estimated By
EMP
the Project
Unit of
Number of
Impact Fee Rate per -
Preliminary Impact
Proposed Land Use Type (s)
Measure
Unit(s)
Unit of Measure
fee Amount
1) 8. Service Station with Minimart
sf/GFA
2916
$
43.59
$
127,095.25
1) 2. High Turnover Restaurant
Sf/GFA
2900
$
13.55
$
39,282.02
2) Automatic Car Wash—
sf/GFA
1152
$
21.25
$
24,481.14
3) 3. Fast Food Restaurant
sf/GFA
3620
$
29.79
$
107,840.22
4) 7. Service Station
VFP `
16
$
8,302.85
$
132,845.61
$
431,544.23
IMPACT FEE AMOUNT PAID FOR
PRIOR USE
platrecoraing ror-resiaenuai Idl,U UIVINUIlb d11U P11U1 sLU uuuuuiy wciiinL 10OUCH1%.c IWI Gl—lzj., 1".1illy
residential Jots. The fee shall be calculated based on the impact fee schedule in effect on the date of payment of
the impact fee.
19.135 280 Separation of intersections and driveways rya i
(1) Access to arterials and collectors may be permitted consistent with the following table. On state highways that are not
designated as limited access, the miniirlur s acir is 250 feet,, or as shown in the following table, whichever is greater. Left -turn
and crossing movements through standing queues of traffic may be prohibited, as determined by the public works director.
City of Federal Way Access Management Standards
Minimum spacing (feet)**
Minimum
Through
Left-
Right-
Right-
signal
Access
traffic
Crossing
Left -turn
turn
turn
turn
progression
classification
Median
lanes
movements
out
in
out
in
efficiency'
Only at
Only at
signalized
signalized
1
Raised
6
intersections intersections
330
150
150
40%
2
Raised
4
330
330
330
150
15
30°/®
Two-way left-
3
turn lane
4
150
150*
150*
150*
150*
20%
Two-way left-
4
turn lane
2
150*
150*
150*
150*
150*
10%
* Does not apply to single-family residential uses.
** Greater spacing may be required in order to minimize conflicts with queued traffic.
*** If the existing efficiency is less than the standard, new traffic signals may not reduce the existing efficiency;
(a) Raised medians will be required if any of the following conditions are met:
(i) There are more than two through traffic lanes in each direction on the street being accessed.
(ii) The street being accessed has a crash rate over 10 crashes per million vehicle miles, and currently has
a two-way left -turn lane.
(b) Two-way left -turn lanes will be required if the street being accessed has a crash rate over 10 crashes per
million vehicle miles, and currently does not have a left -turn lane.
(2) Driveways that serve any use other than detached dwelling units may not be located closer than 150 feet to any street
intersection or to any other driveway, whether on or off the subject property. Driveways that serve only residential use may not
be located closer than 25 feet to any street intersection.
,1111I I ��� I � I! �� I � I I g I I I gl� lillip
: , i• I I gI
2 IMMINVITIr MI. F11111:1111 Ilipi!iIiiiii I
TlII I ill IM•IIKZO�Z1
•I III . lill
(Ord. No. 07-554, § 5(Exh. A(l 2)), 5-15-07; Ord. No. 98-330, § 3, 12-15-98; Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(110.50(2)), 2-27-90. Code 2001 § 22-
1543.)
o M co^o
o m n
T
a
0
0 0-
77
P.
w
w
U)
C
O
O
co
an
m
cn co
a e, C
O j
U
N
7 .5 6Uca
0 d 9
® sf3 `D CD
QmfA Z
N
m
O .D
d Q F- C
m
�o-
West -Facing
JUUIII-r C7ldlI kVVV .J.Jv %Ju co.I
CITY r FEDERAL WAY
CDS
West -Facing (SW 356'h Street)
Intersection corner of Pacific Hwy South and SW 356'h Street
��� Q
'®
Erik Preston
Jill
From: Nick Wecker < NWecker@barghausen.com >
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 12:23 PM
To: Erik Preston
Cc: Ann Dower; Stacey Welsh; Steve Ikerd
Subject: RE: Arco Pacific Highway - New Driveway Location on SW 356th - File #16-100208-0Q-
UP
Hi Erik,
Here is the visual for the described scope of work in my below email. Thanks for your feedback
20' JOINT ACCESS & UTILIXY�
EASEMENT REC#20131224000787
Area of new paving
within bounds of
easement
l
New
f
sidewalk (length1 t
of 10) and curb rampswithin ROW
14
pc
From: Nick Wecker
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 11:54 AM
To: 'Erik Preston'
Cc: Ann Dower; Stacey Welsh; Steve Ikerd
Subject: RE: Arco Pacific Highway - New Driveway Location on SW 356th - File #16-100208-00-UP
Erik,
The issue we are having is that the existing gravel driveway is 30 feet in width which exceeds the bounds of the recorded
easement on the adjacent property (20'). The adjacent driveway needs to be realigned in order to conform to the
easement which would require work outside the easement. Should we show new paving and curbing for the area of 20
1
feet wide by 52 feet in length on the adjacent property and then abandon the remaining 10 feet of gravel? And then
add curb ramps and extend public sidewalk for the 10 feet along the adjacent property? Thank you
Nick Wecker
Project Planner
BarghausenConsulting Engineers, Inc.
1821572'd Axe.8. Kent WA 98032
(425)251-6222
From: Erik Preston rmailto. Erik. Prestonacityoffederalwaycom]
Sent: Monday, June 2U,2O1611:28AM
To: NickVVecher ' .
Cc: Ann Dower; Stacey Welsh; StevmIkenj
Subject: RE: ArcoPadficHighvvav- New Driveway Location onSVV3SGth -R|e #16-100208-00-UP
Nick,
You are talking to the right group of people who can help you with the details of the shared access. The City -owned
parcel is managed by the Parks department, so I have cc'd Steve Ikerd who can coordinate for Parks; however there is no
"point" person that I am aware of for this type of situation. I would encourage a close reading of the Joint Access
Easements noted on the concept plan sheet. My initial reading a month or two ago led me to believe that if the subject
property owner wished to use the joint access, they would be responsible for improving (and possibly maintaining) that
portion ofthe easement. |nthis case "irnpnove"m/ou|dnmeanpaxin0.Thennaxinnunna||om/ab|edrivevxayxvidthis4Dfeet
^ ^
unless you can demonstrate the need for it to be wider. I believe your client should start with Stacy Welsh as the point
of contact since she is the assigned Planner for this project and she can directenofrom there.
Sincerely,
Erik Preston, PE
Senior Traffic Engineer
Cif* Of Federal VYQy— Public VyOrk3 � >
&253835�2/44
CcFrom: Nick Wecker [mailLo:NW_egkerll,,,Mbarghausencom,],
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 10:07 AM
To: Erik Preston
: Ann Aon Dower; Stacey Welsh; Saradv Long; Rick Perez
Subject: RE: Arco PacificHighway-New Driveway Location onSW 3E6th'File #16-100208-00-UP
Thanks, Eric. The future restrictions to access is certainly something to consider. The adjacent property is owned by the
City. Who would our client contact to discuss shared access improvements?
Nick Wecker
Project Planner
Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.
1821572 nd Ave. S. Kent WA 98032
From: Erik Preston
Sent: Friday, June 17,20165:O4PM '
To: NickVVeckar
Cc: Ann Dower; Stacey Welsh; Saradv Long; Rick Perez
Subject: RE: Arco Pacific Highway- New Driveway Location on SW 3E6th - File #16-100208-00-UP
Z
W Z
2 w
F
ay p
w W
W Z a
W
0
P 0 0 -j
IP
1 Q W -
U W q
W N W N
0 J Z q/y m 4
uj
Z I-¢ WU Jam« I-
_ g U° Q 1 M S N y O
I- ZW=gj U° N® I-
SJ W _�JN'S w-
Z ppW« I
O N�3Q W
W
F p ®!= Z
F 5 J 03
W U d I- IL Q LL
J W > W¢ p l®il q0 Z_ 0
W ® Q ,t O j
p =®®
)m -,WpU5 O Q
Q
j U !~!B F N P/! J q g}L-g gW- Z N
_ 0 D. m W Rl F-. ND W W 0. d
} Z Z WZZ Ir of X 4`
N ,,WZ Cq7,.. N UZZ W w<
cw Q
q®� OZ.Z. N 00 F-
E5 OQU W
Q N W W ® ~U°
O W¢O)< W W W W
U®NUW N 0U W J
N
W
O N P'P d' B19
Z
W
Pn
J
U
W U° ® w
W0.
I = IL
IL Uti �� 0
Ld
�E �o
� ® o
LJ
a
0
/ U
NQ W
s4 W
y. U O U Qn
a 3
N
Q
U
En
k w N 0
¢
M®
O U m O O
N
U) a
a
w m'
W
W
PRELIMINARY SITE AND ROW IMPROVEMENT PLAN
FOR
ARCO AM/PM-FEDERAL WAY
SECi" O' 21 .,
D 15, CITY OF FEDERAL WAY KINGI T
DEVET..OP E ° NOTE: �h l � . "." _ ,- - - _ - - - - - -
9': PROPOSED ARCO—AM/PM 3,180 SF WJ1,152 SF CARWASH J*,:., _"'" s" W. _—"""
6 �_��r�r���ff fl, �i�
PROPOSED TRASH ENCLOSURE. , ,_.. �.—.....::-�..,".„.,,_..:. ,n. _...-,.,..—_..—„-M' ,., - ) ARCO
�(
3 PROPOSED ADA PARKING STALL ,q .. "� acwesr consr axooucrs
-
PROPOSED ON —SITE CONCRETE SIDEWALK (TYP.) a ,." ",:.`Y r • ,�.;," I `+" ""i+' "4" •" „r "� .ngf Po f t
BOUNDARY AND ASSOCIATED
N—SITE BARRIER CURB. TYP,. , r -»':x' r`• ,;'1 , ;.: , SETBACK AS DETERMINED ITV .:ECi �a `.}°_ g,`• "".>, `„._r r'�'" ,^�`.""v ,...:_`"^�,;.'"•�,. T r, .," f� ..,
PROPOSED 0 (TYP,) to ^?'.: . m I
sEWELI IN A REP DATED 1UNE`.
5 PROPOSED ASPHALT PAVEMENT. m
y`4'y ^�'.. {jt 'r' 25. 20ff S. 0 RY, THE
' i r. 4`xr "'' `' i ;,f x`-`+ >a.':'r.=•»—-.:.T", 1'F ) CORPOF ENGINEERS T'd.R ARMY `
PROPOSED ON —SITE DIRECTIONAL ARROWS AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS,. (TYP.} a r' .� ".xa „,• ." t 'k" "a•e_
8`. PROPOSED WHEEL STOP. (TYP.) 3 ' § ,- "
"`,�, '"r:'�,.n;••^x 'a.n - I '+�'... �$✓ "g p1
f"60
FER
L E
PROPOSED 4" WIDE PAINTED STRIPES FOR PARKING STALLS. " ""`"aL"` t"A "' " ✓` '--"''"' "wqn'... ...W''..� ;"`^ '* " M"` °' 'dx -
osE t 3 I y-
_r
10 PROPOSED LOT LIGHT, (TYP.) ; vt` _ fr"E`FF
A"d91 PROPOSED DRIVEWAY PER CITY OF FEDERAL WAY STANDARDS. .. p$ v, TOTAL WETi.AND & BUFFER AREA "
1Y
_ ,- ,.,.:�,� ^,.,,;... C _ , x.,.,� s , r; a� r , : 18215 72ND AVENUE
92 PROPOSED CURB AND GUTTER PER CITY OF FEDERAL WAY STANDARDS.{'1 " ., „�',A „ `.. ,.�.'+� S=F.� °M• +^„�+"'n * :k"x r" 'F: "" i. x",y KENT, WA 98032
.'t; 425 251-6222
13 PROPOSED R/W SIDEWALK PER CITY OF FEDERAL WAY STANDARDS. " a r '`._. `."' ""� ;+^ fix` „: `�, '.»"t, '" 1`'M' r. (425}257-8782 FAX
'I- APN�Ikg2TQ4-947-07
14 PROPOSED LANDSCAPE, SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS. T,,�-.i _,,," ,.,, '"'x,;,.*." .+"� "-CML ENGINEERING, NANO R
�. f �� d(. " ,. I : SURVEYING. ENNRONMENT/�L
15 PROPOSED FUELING ISLAND:,.. I" ''+� +"` L`-
L k , / ' S / 1 >T d Na Dire RE—M E
I6 1167 ".
!' 1
fP a j38Cs CITY COMMPROPOSED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AREA. t
PROPOSED STAMPED CONCRETE ADA PEDESTRIAN PATH �6n 'PROPOSED PROPANE TANK LOCATION,
99 PROPOSED BENCH. �Ifi " .•* ,,_ t. rA 4 '` / „ L„' r=..:"• r� .I `T
&
., t v a ! t J x.. *`"+,.` ^";` „..:" (• 'h 2 i'}x •r~":' TT r+, D
2D PROPOSED TRASH RECEPTACLE. , 'w'.. '✓' ,r :'�.;...,, '._ <'3.::„�"®.:" t ..'. s'', '�"
�+ pw' �°` I , `, 0.���^, . x,
21 PROPOSED BIKE RACK. • -
zo JO�nT .u:.+ , a 9..a =.~ran .. ' " ,.�. ..,,,,. �.,*:: �.� +` �. :s "t �±°
W.
1L
"
Ai
En- 1Ece1.�" � J'. �•�,p� ,, ,✓ ^ .0 �'w , ,t "'�' ' ��r�..
- a
u +
E S ACIT R l,p UI 3' t�•
a i ,1
i
e ,".` � d''' „ •". € r "' ,x "".. .'� ✓,� 'T f � „r' �: *�� .l t � c � 7 4`s, �� P d �.'M,:
� 1 "" x"i i� ,^"i ,.�': � ,21 x:ti w� D,• ,MTJ„D" ,�4,{ ° x {: •.'' "`�rrxt' dx .7ksy�'C x �•
'dam`
/ n. ,x "'" , .. " „L. e `:•r '" ,r"5 j ' M ' + :;x, ` � " f'f t 5 V v"
5 x
V`FF-205.45 1r�:L495.7F
hpp
I {
"#:f
v
4 12
1 as Tn "5i. t VlF "
I � 2LL
A t 1 17
m
DF74YdiY 7
, ten.
T
= NTI
t 3000 amlpF
kd
_".. ,t FUELCANOPYw(E
t i -- ' -- T Lt
:: i > y} �...,. �.`zw.—... •.".av ." , ,,, ....,... ,<�."--(r ( T.b T ' a 24X4ECAR WA
.."...EXISTING� t
r. t'
DRIVEWAY 4 B: I I ,.. ^... —:: ,",,,_ 6i8,7F # `s —- �{'�•—,..,,�,�::.,�._.. ,r'.: +a
EET&TERF.dNE,m r ,, ;".....�..�, ,.m..�.uw:: "...i !� _t�.. -. ", t 3 ;;. �-F. .�.� ``ss — -- ....
EX. STACFT 8.1
�+" aT T
G
c ,
t 150° �" � _{ 355�5 PACIFIC HY
_ � ""-.,;,,. �,: ",k, C8 CURB INLET T ,@sW 2ssTH 91AEE
384 59 ^ .+, I RIM 24L 11' SITE AREA FEDERAL WAY, WI
:12" D,I. 1.E. NE-1q .6° 181,705t SF (4.17 AC)
-- -- — it2" Di LE W 1 o9W FACILITY #I
--.- �_
—mm ^®----•�.„,,, n 18 CONC t,E 6=1" NET SITE AREA (MINUS -
' - { WETLAND AND BUFFER):
� / ) � ^A 117,572t SF (2.70 AC)
® DEVELOPED AREA:
63.000t SF (1.45 AC) 'I
O
as/ ton g 1A�
PRELIMINARY
AND R01
PFRMIT NCt XX—XXXXXX-YY—XX IMPROVEMENI
PRELIMINARY SITE AND ROW IMPROVEMENT PLAN
FOR
®®ARCO AM/PM-FEDERALY
T, , SEC. 29, TWP. 21 N., FIGE 4 EAST, W. M.
1530 Ito CITY OF FEDERAL WAY KING COUNTY STATE OF WASHINGTON
t"
S _DEVELOPMENT NOTES _ _. _ ... _ _ v
f
—
1 PROPOSED ARCO-AM/PM 3,180 SF W/1,152 SF CARWASH
`PROPOSED TRASH ENCLOSURE- ARCO
i.. a
�I,
3.. PROPOSED ADA PARKING STALL.
^
4 PROPOSED ON -SITE CONCRETE SIDEWALK (TYP.) ^ E *`,„, @ x""" '� + +dr 5,,. - -
r
I m:
°�` :, ?`'(-.„ ,t < _ •' ,' t WE'T"LAND BOUNDARY AND ASSOCIATED
,..; r'v,
y; : PROPOSED ON -SITE BARRIER CURB- (TYP.}
SET AS DETERMINED BY Eb 9a •"�- '`::^' .,,.�
13
+. SE'WEtL Bra A REPORT DATED JOKE s�`^ ,':?.; ' � 3 w :s Y` a®,�.q0 � ��.
6.. PROPOSED ASPHALT PAVEMENT.': "" '+ ,: �.. "'.�. '. I''BY THE... f ,',, r'^'x ,..v '' ; , ..-
....,. 25,AY 15,. OF ERJfiaIER VIEW tAFer'�m^�t �f
i.: PROPOSED ON -SITE DIRECTIONAL ARROWS AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS- (TYP.} _*•~ (, "„,-:. ,.. + '*,,,, , . "`�: I° I:.1D#kF@.hAA.'PGO+t, +
a PROPOSED WHEEL STOP. (TYP.) w v,
.,, ( .� ,.. .'•k.^m :.w J� aC.. �..,^,. ^ � .ire €@ �.. � t x� ��� � w a"
PROPOSED 4" WIDE PAINTED STRIPES FOR PARKING STALLS. r
^
10 PROPOSED LOT LIGHT. (TYP.)140,
41
11 PROPOSED DRIVEWAY PER CITY OF FEDERAL WAY STANDARDS. +y ;. i:,;r..,.... ,.*. " ^, ., "'� ^" I "..?""�,.m ,K,
.� " ° ✓ TOTAL WETLAND tc RLpfFER AREA , '
1 PROPOSED CURB AND GUTTER PER CITY OF FEDERAL WAY STANDARDS.. a';,- ,, -'`" +x+x: m"w=`-"'°" :,$°;. " (Ta A`}. "^=+"x P' 18215 72N0 AVENUE
O °.. .. :.. v� z4 ^tom. r "� t>J,". , 1 Jt x. +` ^ : KENT. WA 98032
,. p d
,,.r ss'"'"^"'^..-,,.,a. l ,•` am r ;vy (425}251-6222
13 PROPOSED RfW SIDEWALK PER CITY OF FEDERAL WAY STANDARDS. (425}251 -8782 FAX
w. r
14 PROPOSED LANDSCAPE, SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS. +' �' "'"" ' °' N 2'PO4-^S 1'':'7 ••07 y k ENGINEERING,
+. '",.x "^a r 1"`. ✓ 4. CML EN UN[i Pi
a `,,,m. _'„," g l' 17 F :� 1 ^ SURMEYING, ENNfl4NMEPfTFL
15 PROPOSED FUELING ISLAND" "" x r ?`'"; ./ 'vir. q/ `+ `: �6✓ ,^".� ,", _ 10
.1. _
"x j ^+ s( wo. oASE N�wsa c
16 PROPOSED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AREA: y=i par"` : " ° n `/.",,.'�'"" .''",". '"'r'x* + y ,r.'_ of 'm r,r� j� 3/24/16 Cttt COuu
17 PROPOSED STAMPED CONCRETE ADA PEDESTRIAN PATH .
ua ; $ �. „ L.. s
a
_ems
.A
a
18 PROPOSEp PROPANE TANK LOCATION "Q ; '' r' ``,:_.' 1'`. y,. `'` `"I'" ""� `-- t
r •� � a
19 PROPOSED BENCH,., 18
�, a r 7 f `„`,✓ ;_ ," x- •a "_. 1 , m+. ", R, ., '° t P- @t1 r L: J : m'
20 PROPOSED TRASH RECEPTACLE. .a '�.^----r -.• 'x r'` �w " '
s w
rfia� � f
21 PROPOSED BIKE RACK. wP.S, r^= .x w: ''�' FAA.
` t•'i r
k
q
n
z .
,
r.^
. ,
I
i1Y
¢ r'" ' ,� . tz` d "� ` .ad � ✓a* " 1 Y i � ' +� Y d11
i
r
o- * f A
r
1\ N cm)
m
i t ,r.A.,.;.._.,_ x•�w ''t _loc
!f
"'`; •``' w .^ k." ""*v. Yf a /: a .rt ,.i asp 485 $C�
5= w r a n neWv ' r
✓"� 92° ., ``.w.,.� r fx, �a xh t7' ape;':, P#, .., ,a s''; r+ ,.` k- °`�,: ,✓
.., ..�a , ,.., , � m. uT � � A.�.**. L � ." �:a , (. �^• I ? � xr,+`^��„ r
o �1TLLM
4
1 _
_ -
�
a "
y £
r�
7 : _ ,:::w-•. '+`*^ A ARCO NTI
_ w P Tx
, _ ^�', nw. far'" m/pn
FUEL CANOPY wl 8
I
m,
3 q+ 4x48 CAR Wl
x
r
v°
EXISTING
w
DRIVEWAY . �..:,. v'^d°- t ._ „�,�.8--,�..�.w.::
art ssaYsesnio'
CENTkRi.aNE:—
EX STREET LIGH7SEE
GTI STREET
35505 PACIFIC HN
I 1S0*.: 7
CD
..W-. ,,.-...__ _ ", RIM CURB T SITE AREA
SW 256TH
12" DI. I.E.. NE GS 96 18 .705t SF (4.17 AC) FEDERAL WAY,WA
12" D I. Ea W-1 .9° FACILITY # T
,d NET SITE AREA MINUS
.* _.. •", *. 18" CONC LE. S 6.51 ` ( CRJ
WECLAND AND BUFFER): �"' Tow
117,572t SF (2.70 AC) exec CRJI
DEVELOPED AREA: crate Xr Ct5 s
63,000t SF (1.45 AC) _"Alm :a
PRELIMINARY
AND R®V
PFRMIT NC) YY—XXXXXX—XX—XX , IMPROVEMENT
20' JOINT ACCESS & UTILITY
EASEMENT REC#201312240000787
Area Of new paving
within bounds of
easement
f
New sidewalk (length
Of 10') and curb ramps
within ROW