The URL can be used to link to this page

07-106874CITY OFF Federal Way COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT TO THE FEDERAL WAY HEARING EXAMINER MIRROR LAKE HIGHLAND COTTAGES PRELIMINARY PLAT Federal Way File No. 07-106874-00-SU PUBLIC HEARING September 26, 2008 Federal Way City Hall City Council Chambers 33325 8'' Avenue South _ l Table of Contents I. Project Information............................................................................................................................ I II. Consulted Departments and Agencies...............................................................................................4 III. State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA).........................................................................................4 IV. Natural Environment..........................................................................................................................5 V. Neighborhood Characteristics............................................................................................................7 VI. Preliminary Design for Cottage Housing Development....................................................................7 VII. Transportation..................................................................................................................................II VIII. Public Services.................................................................................................................................13 IX. Utilities.............................................................................................................................................14 X. Analysis of Preliminary Plat Decisional Criteria.............................................................................15 XI. Findings of Fact...............................................................................................................................16 XII. Recommendations.............................................................................................................................18 XIII. List of Exhibits.................................................................................................................................19 Report Prepared by: Deb Barker, Senior Planner September 19, 2008 �, r�ssncx oicr_ �vicrcor. O IME RATE 01=2007 MIRROR LAKE HIGiHLAND a" SW 812th ST FEDERALWAY, WA CnS Wa7IN SSLlDID' OOTTA13E HOME $SJBMrrr L a.��. i c............. STAFF REPORT FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING OF SEPTEMBER 26, 2008 } PRELIMINARY PLAT OF MIRROR LAKE HIGHLAND (COTTAGES) File No: 07-106874-00-SU Surveyor: Paul Mabry Informed Land Survey 1106 South Yakima Avenue Tacoma, WA 98405 253-627-2070 Engineer: Todd Sawin, Lisa Klein AHBL, Inc. 2215 North 301h Street, Suite 300 Tacoma, WA 98403 253-383-2422 Owner: Bill McCaffrey The WJM Studios 1911 SW Campus Drive, Ste 116 Federal Way, WA 98023 425-231-7125 Action Requested: The applicant is seeking preliminary plat approval pursuant to Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Chapter 20, "Subdivisions" (FWCC Section 20-110, Division 6, "Preliminary Plat") of a 16-lot cottage housing proposal as provided in FWCC Article XII "Cottage Housing." Relevant Dates: Preliminary Plat Application Filed: December 21, 2007 Application Determined Complete: January 15, 2008 Notice of Application Published: January 26, 2008 SEPA Issued: April 16, 2008 Staff Representative: Deb Barker, Senior Planner, 253-835-2642 Staff Recommendation: Preliminary Plat Approval with Conditions I. PROJECT INFORMATION A. Decision Requested Preliminary Plat Approval — The cottage housing preliminary plat application is subject to a public hearing by the Hearing Examiner, recommendation to the City Council, and decision by the City Council. An analysis of the applicable preliminary plat decisional criteria, findings, and recommendations is provided under Sections X, XI, and XII of this report. Staff Evaluation File 07-106874-00-SU/noa Ln. 46545 Mirror Lake Highland (Cottages) Preliminary Plat Page 1 B. Description of the Project, the Property, and Cottage Housing Development Description of the Proposed Subdivision — The applicant proposes to subdivide'an approximate 1.85- acre parcel of land into 16-lots for establishment of single-family cottage housing units. The preliminary plat is described in the Conceptual Site Plan prepared by Informed Land Survey dated June 20, 2008 (ExhibitA-2), and the Overall Site plan (Exhibit A-3) and Cottage Housing Requirements, (A-4) both prepared by The WJM Studio, dated June 20, 2008. Supporting documents are Cottage Housing plan sheets prepared by The WJM Studio, all dated June 20, 2008 (A2: Proforma site plan; A3: Unit plans, elevations and sections; A4: Unit B plans, elevations and sections; A5: Units AFF plans, elevations and sections; A6: Unit A-CSF and Unit B-CSF Compact Single -Family unit plans; A7: Commons Building plan, sections and foundation plan; A8: Garage #1 plans, elevations, sections and foundation plan; A9: Garage #2 plans, elevations, sections and foundation plan; A10: Garage #3 plans, elevations, sections and foundation plan; and All: Garages #4 & #5 plans, elevations, sections and foundation plan) (see Exhibit B); Civil plans prepared by AHBL dated December 21, 2007 (Exhibits CI through C-5); and Conceptual Landscape Plans prepared by AHBL, dated February 4, 2008 (Exhibit D-1 through D-4), and are enclosed. 2. Property Description — The subject site, which consists of five parcels for a total of 1.85- acres, is a long and narrow parcel, 100 feet wide by 716 feet deep, with frontage onto SW 312th Street and 6"' Place SW. A small house on the southernmost portion will be removed with plat development; the balance of the site is vacant. A 7-foot-wide portion of the property extends northward approximately 140 feet. The site is located its the central portion of the City, north of SW 3121h Street and east of 6"' Place SW (Exhibit E). The site is accessed from 6 h Place SW off of SW 31fh Street. The subject site has a land area of 80,598 square feet (1.85 acres). Cottage Housing— In 2006, the Federal Way City Council adopted a Cottage Housing ordinance, which authorized cottage housing on a demonstration project basis (ExhibitX— Bulletin #0611). The FWCC defined cottage housing development (CHD) as a residential lot development consisting of clusters of between 4 and 16 detached dwelling units that include cottage and compact single-family (CSF) units and which meets specific criteria that limit.the size of the building, and contain requirements for common open space and specific architectural design standards. Cottage homes are restricted in square footage, but are allowed at roughly twice the density permitted by the underlying zone, are single- family ownership homes, and are characterized by home orientation to a shared central open space. As noted in the ordinance, after approved cottage housing projects have been constructed and evaluated, additional cottage housing developments may be permitted or the City Council may chose to amend or repeal the cottage housing code provisions. The Mirror Lake Highland Cottage project was submitted as a potential cottage housing project for fourteen units on January 1, 2007. As required under the Cottage Housing Ordinance, the applicant presented the proposed development to interested neighbors in a meeting on January 23, 2007. Neighborhood concerns included traffic, trees, and lake protection. The applicant submitted a pro -forma analysis that demonstrated that the property could be developed into seven traditional single-family housing parcels.2 The proposed CHD was analyzed for conformance with adopted selection criteria and was 1 Bulletin #063 lists the requirements for CHD submittals z Upon purchase of additional land, the revised proforma demonstrated that eight traditional housing lots could be developed. Staff Evaluation File 07-106874-00-SU/m. cn. 46545 Mirror Lake Highland (Cottages) Preliminary Plat Page 2 found to be generally consistent with the purposes of the cottage housing article, was �l designed with sensitivity to neighboring single-family residential uses, and was an excellent example of Craftsman inspired cottage housing with appropriate design features. Following analysis and review, on April 17, 2007, the Cottage Housing Selection Committee recommended that the proposed development be selected to advance to the formal submittal phase for development of a Cottage Housing demonstration project (Exhibit F-1); subject to the following conditions: IJ 1. Rain gardens shall be considered as usable open space only if containing formal landscaping and seating. 2. The formal application shall provide verification of open space quantity and configuration. 3. Any changes to City road standards may require the proposal to be changed. 4. The project shall meet all requirements of the 1998 KCSWDMfor Level 3 Flow Control and Resource Stream Protection Menu Water Quality. If approved by the Public Works Director, the applicant may design the project using methods outlined in the 2005 KCSWDM standards for Low Impact Development (LID), but must show that Level 3 flow control and Resource Stream Protection Menu Water Quality standards will be met. The applicant may be required to provide additional bonding or maintenance provisions for methods not currently approved by the 1998 KCSWDM. In addition, site and development constraints may impact the proposed lot layout. The applicant purchased additional land and requested that a larger project be considered. On October 10, 2007, the City approved a modification to the site plan that expanded the cottage housing proposal from fourteen units to sixteen units subject to the following conditions (Exhibit F-2): 1. Lot 1 contains a garage that fronts onto 6`h Avenue SW, which does not meet FWCC Section 22-923(9) (e). The location of the garage door must be modified or a formal modification submitted. 2. Open space layout should be modified to switch unit 15 with the adjacent open space block and move the open space area bounded by parking stalls to the south to combine and increase an existing open space area. Refer to the red -lined plan. 3. All units must be sprinklered per the Fire Department, including those on SW 3121h Street. 4. The affordable units require porches per FWCC. 5. Conditions from the original conditions of approval from the April 17, 2007, approval remain in effect. These conditions have guided the application through the preapplication and SEPA processes and are addressed in section VI below. 4. Lot Sizes, Density — The underlying zoning is RS 7.2, which in a traditional plat would require a minimum of 7,200 square feet. Lot sizes in cottage housing plats are not subject to minimum lot size, but are permitted twice the number of lots allowed in a typical plat based on a pro -forma analysis. Cottage housing developments must meet certain dimensional requirements such as maximum size of the unit, minimum and maximum setbacks, etc. Refer to Section 4 below for a thorough discussion of Cottage Housing. As 3 The committee consisted of city staff and members of the public. Staff Evaluation Mirror Lake Highland (Cottages) Preliminary Plat File 07-106874-00-SU/Doc ID 46545 Page 3 shown on the preliminary plat map, Sheet 113, by Informed Land Survey (Exhibit A), lot sizes for the cottage housing plat range in size from 1,839 square feet to 2,674 square feet, with an average lot size of 2,253.5 square feet. The lot square footage excludes land set aside as garages, open space, and recreation areas. 5. Land Use, Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Designation Direction Zonin Comprehensive Plan Existing Land Use Site RS 7.2 SF - High Density One SF house North RS 7.2 SF - High Density Vacant South RS 7.2 SF - High Density SW 3121'' St. & SF' East RS 7.2 SF - High Density Church West RS 7.2 SF - High Density 6`h Place & SFR II. CONSULTED DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES The following departments, agencies, and individuals were advised of this application. A. Community Development Review Committee (CDRC), consisting of the Federal Way Community Development Services Planning and Building Divisions; Public Works Engineering and Traffic Divisions; Parks Recreation and Cultural Resources Department; Federal Way Department of Public Safety (Police); South King Fire and Rescue; Lakehaven Utility District; and Federal Way Public Schools. CDRC comments have been incorporated into this report where applicable. B. All property owners within 300 feet of the site were mailed notices of the application as required by the Subdivision code, as well as the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and FWCC Chapter 18, "Environmental Protection." The site was also posted and notice published in the newspaper and on the City's official notice boards. Four comment letters were submitted in response to the January 26, 2008, notice of application (Exhibit G-1 through G-4). Following revisions to the preliminary plat application, the City responded to the parties that provided comments on the notice of application on March 28, 2008 (Exhibit H-1 through H-4). III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) A. The City of Federal Way issued an Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) for the proposed action on April 16, 2008 (Exhibit 1). This determination was based on review of information in the project file, including the environmental checklist and staff evaluation of the environmental checklist for Mirror Lake Highlands Cottages Preliminary Plat (Exhibit.]), resulting in the conclusion that the proposal would not result in probable significant adverse impacts on the environment. B. The comment period for the DNS concluded on April 30, 2008. Three comment letters were received in response to the environmental determination (Exhibit K-1 through K-3). The City replied to these comment letters dated May 9, 2008, and the applicant provided a response as well (Exhibit L). The appeal period ended on May 14, 2008, with no appeals to the City's environmental decision. The environmental decision is incorporated as though set forth in full. 4RS-7.2 = single-family residential, 7,200 SF minimum lot size 'SFR = single-family residential Staff Evaluation File 07-106874-00-SU/Due ID 46545 Mirror Lake Highland (Cottages) Preliminary Plat Page 4 IV. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT A. Soils, Topography, Slopes — The 1973 King County soils survey map lists the soils type as Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam (AgB), 0-6 percent slopes. Alderwood soils are characterized as moderately well drained soils that have a weakly consolidated to strongly consolidated substratum at a depth of 24 to 40 inches. AgB soils are described as capable for urban development, runoff is slow, and erosion hazard is slight. The Geotechnical Engineering Study for Mirror Lake Highlands Development, prepared by Pacific Geo Engineering, LLC, dated December 20, 2007 (Exhibit 4, notes that the site is underlain by five feet of sandy loam suitable for infiltration. Below that down to nine feet is dense to very dense glacial till. With this opportunity, the applicant has proposed to utilize `Low Impact Development' (LID) standards and fully infiltrate the stormwater runoff into the ground. Installation of the infiltration trenches and pervious pavement would require soils excavation beyond those areas typically cleared for streets, storm drainage facilities, and utility installation. Submitted documents depict grades that slope 5 feet to 15 feet, north to south. The high point is in the NW center of the property, and the site drains to a catch basin in SW 3121h Street. The preliminary plat site does not have any steep slopes or any other geologically hazardous areas, as depicted on the Map of Topographic Survey, prepared by Paul Hill Mabry, December 21, 2007 (Exhibit N-1), and the Unrecorded Record of Survey, by Informed Land Survey, December 18, 2007 (Exhibit N-2). B. Vegetation — Preliminary plat applications are subject to submittal and approval of a tree clearing plan and landscape plan pursuant to FWCC Section 20-158. City policy and FWCC Section 20-179 state that existing mature vegetation shall be retained to the maximum extent possible. Retained significant trees located outside of plat infrastructure areas would be regulated under FWCC Section 22-1568, "Significant Trees," at the time of individual home construction. According to the Tree Evaluation and Protection Plan prepared by Washington Forestry Consultants, dated December 18, 2007 (Exhibit O), the site contains two forest cover types. Type I is a fully stocked stand of second growth timber in the northern portion of the site, with conditions that range from very poor to good. The understory is made of shrubs and ground cover, including invasive blackberries. The Type II area is around the existing house and consists of scattered individual or clusters of evergreen trees, and the understory is grass and weeds. Conditions range from very poor to very good. Based on information from the report, there are 63 significant trees located on the subject site.6 In order to install the private roadway and the underlying LID -based infiltration system for the cottage housing lots, the applicant proposes the removal of most of the vegetation on the subject site. Pursuant to the provisions of FWCC Section 22-1568, removal of more than 75 percent of the significant trees requires replacement in the amount of 25 percent of the existing significant trees. The applicant proposes to retain four significant trees and provide significant tree replacement through installation of 28 evergreen trees ten feet in height at the time of planting, and further proposes extensive vegetation within the common areas of the preliminary plat site. 6 A significant tree is defined in the FWCC as a tree that is in good health, not detrimental to the community, and at least 12 inches in diameter 4.5 feet above the ground, not including red alder, cottonwood, poplar, or big -leaf maple. Staff Evaluation File 07-106874-00-SU/Doc I D 46545 Mirror Lake Highland (Cottages) Preliminary Plat Page 5 } As discussed in section VI.E, Grading, below, City staff recommends conceptual approval of the proposed clearing and grading of the site, and will continue analysis during engineering review in accordance with FWCC standards. C. Stormwater Runoff and Low Impact Development (LID) — Development of the site will create additional runoff from new impervious surfaces such as streets, driveways, and rooftops. As the soils on the site are conducive to infiltration, which is a component of Low Impact Design (LID), infiltration will be used to dispose of the stormwater. The storm drainage facilities are being designed in accordance with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM), which provides opportunities for low impact development (LID) not available under the 1998 KCSWDM, which is currently adopted by the City. The subject site is required to meet Level 3 Flow Control and Resource Stream water quality standards as described in the 1998 KCSWDM. The Preliminary Technical Information Report (TIR) prepared by AHBL, dated December 2007 (Exhibit P-1) and the Level I Drainage Analysis, AHBL, December 2007 (Exhibit P-2) proposes LID techniques that are to be implemented on the site plan to include: • Reduced impervious surface through reduction of road length by providing community parking areas and pedestrian access to the unit; ■ Pervious pavement systems for portions of the private road; • Infiltrating stormwater runoff to the maximum extent feasible through the use of shallow infiltration basins and trenches; • Amending the soils within shallow infiltration facilities to provide a good growth medium and enhance treatment of stormwater to be infiltrated; and • Infiltrate stormwater runoff from roof area through the use of individual infiltration trenches for each structure. The January 2, 2008 Preliminary TIR Addendum Appendix B prepared by AHBL (Exhibit P-3) provided preliminary sizing calculations to illustrate the functionality of LID Best Management Practices (BMP) proposed with the proposed development. The basin map B-1 included with this addendum depicts four separate infiltration areas, Eervious paving, roof area infiltration through trench systems, the 6 Place SW and SW 312 right-of-way infiltrated using trenches, and remaining landscaped areas collected and infiltrated on site in order to meet the Level 3 flow control requirements. Rain gardens are proposed in conjunction with other LID practices (Exhibit P-4). Refer to section IX.0 below for additional information. D. Wildlife and Habitat — The applicant noted in the SEPA checklist (Exhibit J) that deer and songbirds exist on the subject property, that the planting of native vegetation on the site will enhance wildlife habitat opportunities, and that no threatened or endangered species are known to be on or near the subject site. The northern portion of the subject property is wooded and a neighbor registered concern about development impacts to wildlife species, such as skunks, raccoons, feral cats, and rodents. These species are typically considered as nuisance species and not regulated nor protected by Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). Various measures to control or remove nuisance wildlife species are available. Staff Evaluation File 07-106874-00-SU/Doa I.D. 46545 Mirror Lake Highland (Cottages) Preliminary Plat Page 6 ) V. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS A. Vicinity — The property is situated in the central portion of the City in an already developed single-family residential area. The site contains one small house that will be removed during site construction. The site is generally surrounded by residential properties developed with single-family residences on lots ranging from 6,969 square feet to 20,150 square feet in size. The 18-acre church property to the east contains a sanctuary with daycare facility, a community building, a school building, and several small rental cottages throughout the large site. Lots south of the subject site front onto Mirror Lake, and lots west of the site front onto 6`h Place SW, which is a private easement roadway. B. IFirror Lake — Mirror Lake, a regulated lake as defined under Federal Way City Code Section 22-1, Definitions, is located approximately 160 feet south of the subject site. SW 312'h Street and a row of developed residential lots separates the propose cottage development from the lake. In the SEPA checklist, the applicant noted that one of the underlying lots is the beneficiary of a ten -foot -wide easement to Mirror Lake, and stated that "at this time there are no plans for improvements to the Mirror Lake access easement for the five benefited homes." The easement to the lake is a private matter. Further, the applicant has not included Mirror Lake or the easement when demonstrating how the common open space requirements are met for cottage housing development. VI. PRELIMINARY PLAT DESIGN/COTTAGE AND COMPACT SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT A. Cottage Housing Development Standards — As noted above, cottage housing development (CHD) is intended to provide small lot residential development characterized by home orientation to a shared central open space. Demonstration projects are required to comply with development standards of FWCC Section 22-923. Under FWCC Section 22-923(15)(f), for those CHD's that are processed as formal subdivisions, all development standards of this article shall be reviewed as a component of the preliminary plat review process. The proposed development is designed to comply with cottage housing development standards as discussed below: (1) Development size — The cottage housing is proposed on a parcel that totals 1.85 acres, which is in excess of the .75-acre minimum. The development is arranged to feature three clusters of four or more units to address code standards. Two affordable housing units are to be established with the proposed development, allowing it to include up to 16 dwelling units. (2) Locational criteria — CHD units must be separated from existing CHD units by 660 feet. Currently, there are no CHD housing units in Federal Way. The City has received two formal applications for CHD projects; both are located east of Pacific Highway South. However, the location of these units is almost two miles from the subject property and the location requirements for the Mirror Lake cottage housing project are considered to be met. (3) Calculation of units — The applicant submitted a pro -forma analysis that demonstrated that the land assembled for this proposal could be developed into eight traditional single-family housing units with minimum lot sizes of 7,200 square feet. The cottage development can include up to double the amount of housing units permitted under traditional development scenarios, but no more than 16 units. There are only five of the Compact Single -Family (CSF) Staff Evaluation Mirror Lake Highland (Cottages) Preliminary Plat File 07-106874-00-SU/nay Ln. 46s45 Page 7 units proposed, which does not exceed the 35 percent maximum of the total dwelling unit count, as allowed by code. (4) Units size — Floor area for the Cottage Housing Development (CHD) units is proposed between 1,090 square feet and 1,096 square feet, meeting the 800 to 1,100 square feet size regulations for CHD. The Compact Single -Family (CSF) units are proposed between 1,289 square feet and 1,292 square feet, meeting the 1,100 square feet to 1,300 square feet regulations for CSF. The applicable floor area for all units is within surrounding exterior walls and does not include porches or those areas that are less than six feet in height. (5) Common open space — The proposed Cottage and Compact Single -Family Housing Development requires 8,000 square feet of open space for the 16 units based on a 500 square feet per unit standard. Drawing sheet A -lb (ExhibitA-4) notes that provided open space is 10,431 square feet and rain garden open space is 4,087 square feet for a total open space amount of 14,518 square feet. The common open space includes established garden areas, a pea patch, and a 560 square -foot community building, landscaped pedestrian corridors, and includes rain gardens that incorporate pedestrian trails, seating and landscaping. Of this, 22% is in common sidewalks. The applicant notes that the required minimum amount of required open space is provided without incorporating areas established as rain gardens. The three open space "clusters" will be established in tracts to be owned in common by the owners of the CHD. (6) Private open space — Sheet A -lb (ExhibitA4) depicts front yard open space areas that are a minimum of nine feet deep, located between a porch and the property line ranging in size from 403 square feet (unit 13) to 832 square feet (unit 2). These private yards will be separated from common areas with low fencing and will be planted and maintained by individual home owners. (7) Site design — As required under FWCC, at least 12 of the units abut landscaped and common open spaces including rain garden areas, and common open space areas include dwelling units on at least two sides. Submitted surveys demonstrate that there are no slopes that exceed 15 percent. Clearing and grading is proposed within the majority of the subject site in order to install the internal driveway, utilities and storm drainage improvements, which consist of a series of infiltration trenches and rain gardens located outside of the small lot areas. Retaining walls are shown on the Civil plan between the CHD residential lots. In a June 20, 2008, letter from the applicant (Exhibit R), the applicant noted that fill and re -grading is used to fit flat first floors into sloping hillsides, and retaining walls are incorporated to establish "usable" side yards as encouraged by focus groups employed by the applicant. However, as noted in the letter, the applicant has continued to work with his engineer to reduce or eliminate the need for retaining walls. To this end, it is recommended that the project be conditioned so that the engineering plans depict a reduction in retaining walls throughout the site within reason, and that rockeries or retaining walls reflect CHD scale and residential themes including use of texture, vegetation and/or terracing. (8) Design standards — As depicted on architectural sheets, each dwelling unit has a roof pitch of 10:12, which exceeds the minimum 6:12 roof pitch called out under FWCC. Dormer windows which account for less than 3 5 % of the roof area are at a 4:12 roof pitch. Units 1 and 2, which abut the SW 3121h right-of-way, each have a primary entry and porch over 100 square feet in area oriented to the street per FWCC. All units have a primary or secondary covered entry to common open space areas, including a vegetated pedestrian corridor or a vegetated rain garden. The pedestrian corridor to lot 13 consists of only the paved portion, with little or no Staff Evaluation File 07-106874-00-SU/Doc. LD. 46545 Mirror Lake Highland (Cottages) Preliminary Plat Page 8 abutting vegetation. This can be adjusted by reorienting the lot 14 porch access and reshaping these lots 13 and 14. Staff recommends that prior to final plat approval, common open space around lot 13 shall be increased by reorienting unit 14 porch access to the south open space area, and reallocating the common area lot area along lot 13. All porches are a minimum 6 feet deep per FWCC. Building elevations depict residential units that are well proportioned and which do not look like "tall skinny houses," and which include ridge height -to -width ratios that do not exceed 1:1. Attached garages are proposed on lot 1 and lot 16. The garage on lot 16 abuts the internal driveway. In a May 12, 2008 letter, the Director of Community Development Services approved a requested modification to the lot #1 garage, approving the garage location abutting 6`h Place SW, a private street (Exhibit Q). (9) Parking — The five CSF units require ten parking stalls or two per unit, and the 11 Cottage units require 20 parking stalls or 1.8 per unit, for a total of 30 parking stalls. The applicant proposes 30 parking stalls to be provided with two attached garages, five free-standing garages for four cars each, and eight at -grade parking stalls. No on -street parking is permitted on 61h Place SW or along SW 312th Street, and there are no carports proposed with this application. As required under code, the free-standing garages have a minimum 6:12 roof pitch, and garage doors face internal driveways except as modified. Free-standing garages separate the common areas and dwelling units from the internal driveway, and at -grade parking stalls are separated by landscape areas or buildings. Parking areas do not occupy street frontage except for the lot 1 garage, which fronts a private roadway. Surface parking is set back more than ten feet from side and rear property lines, and is screened from adjacent roadways and residential uses by common area landscaping and fencing. (10) Height — The applicant has submitted plan sheets that depict cottage units that meet the maximum 18-foot height as defined under FWCC Section 22-1 Height of structure; in no case does the ridge of any roof exceed 24 feet average building elevation (ABE) (Exhibit B). This is due in part to the broad gable roof and the inclusion of bedrooms on the ground floor. As previously noted, the applicant proposes to utilize infiltrative soils conditions and install LID - based infiltration systems throughout the common areas of the site. Those areas for future building location are also proposed to be graded in conjunction with infrastructure installation. Due to the small size of each building lot and the proposed LID -based grading concept, the city has determined that the lowest elevation used in determining ABE height measurement will be established after final grading following installation of the infiltration system. (11) Setbacks and building separation — Setbacks shown on Sheet A -lb (ExhibitA-4) depict required front, side, and rear yard setbacks. The front yards for lots 3 through 16 are oriented to one or more common open space areas. Decks less than 18 inches in height are proposed to intrude into the side yards of most lots no more than five feet, as permitted under FWCC Section 22-1133(3). (12) Lot coverage — Sheet A -lb (ExhibitA-4) demonstrates that the total site coverage of the 80,598 square -foot lot is 46.2 percent, or 37,267 square feet, well under the 60 percent maximum. (13) Affordable housing bonus for developments that exceed 12 units — Two affordable housing units are proposed with this development to increase unit count. As stated in FWCC, one half of all dwelling units over 12 shall be affordable and the cottage housing units shall be sold at a price that is affordable for a two -person household with an annual income equal to or less than 80% of the County median income level (Exhibit A). Units 7 and 13 are proposed to be established as affordable units of cottage housing, with the same materials and exterior Staff Evaluation File 07-106874-00-SU/Doc t.n. 46545 Mirror Lake Highland (Cottages) Preliminary Plat Page 9 appearance as market rate units. In order to address affordable housing requirements, it is recommended that prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall provide a covenant to be reviewed and approved by the City that establishes a minimum of two affordable cottage housing units as affordable housing based on adopted cottage housing standards; and include a condition that prior to building permit issuance, staff shall confirm that the affordable cottage units have the same materials and exterior appearance as the market rate units. (14) Common area maintenance — There are extensive common areas involved with this proposal, including several rain garden areas that function in concert with infiltration systems. It is recommended that prior to final plat approval, covenants and controls that demonstrate continued care and maintenance of all CHD common areas with authority and funding for on- going maintenance shall be in place. This shall include provisions for long-term maintenance of the common building and free-standing garages. (15) General provisions —As permitted under FWCC, a 560 square -foot centrally located common building that reflects residential building components is proposed for this CHD project. The single -story gabled building would contain a restroom and small kitchen. Also, as provided under FWCC Section 22-924, Modifications, the City has granted modifications to the attached garage and driveway location (Exhibit Q). Further, the City has determined that the initial conditions applied to the Cottage Housing demonstration project (ExhibitF-1) and subsequent modification to the Cottage Housing demonstration project (ExhibitF-2) have been addressed as follows: April 17 2007 conditions of approval: The proposed rain gardens contain formal landscaping and seating and therefore can be considered as usable open space; the formal application provided the open space quantity and configuration on sheet A -lb; changes to the City road standards have been incorporated into the project design; and to date, documents prepared by AHBL support the project ability to infiltrate and meet Level 3 flow control and Resource stream protection menu water quality standards. As noted in the original condition, additional bonding or maintenance provisions for methods not currently approved under the adopted 1998 KCSWDM may be required. October 10 2007 conditions of approval: The applicant applied for and received a modification for the location of the Lot 1 garage; lot 15 and the open space layout has been modified based on comments thereby increasing the existing open space area; the final plat conditions of approval reflect the requirement that all units must be sprinklered per the Fire Department, including those on SW 312'h Street and including the garages and community building; the affordable units contain porches per FWCC; and those conditions from the original conditions of approval from the April 17, 2007 approval, still remain in effect. B. Vehicular Access and Circulation — Primary vehicular access to the site will be provided via 6`' Place SW off of SW 312rh Street. The applicant will dedicate land to the 6th Place SW frontage, will construct the half street to meet city standards, and will establish a Tract X for future dedication. 6`' Place SW will remain private until it is required by the City. No direct vehicular access will be allowed to SW 312`h Street. No dedication is required along SW 312`h Street as that portion of street contains a section of unopened right-of-way. The internal driveway shall be improved to a private roadway standard. Pursuant to FWCC street improvement standards, applicable SW 312`h Street improvements must be dedicated to the City of Federal Way for right-of-way and the public and private streets must be improved to applicable City standards. Staff Evaluation File 07-106874-00-SU/noc I.D. 46545 Mirror Lake Highland (Cottages) Preliminary Plat Page 10 ,J See Section VII of this report for a detailed description of the proposed roadway system and improvements. C. Pedestrian System — As proposed and required, the plat complies with the FWCC cottage housing requirements for on- and off -site pedestrian circulation; providing pedestrian pathways the length and width of the project as well as along SW 312"' Street and 6'h Place SW street frontage. The new sidewalks will connect to existing paved roadway shoulders on 6'h Place SW and SW 312'' Street. D. Clearing, Grading— Pursuant to FWCC Section 22-179, the preliminary plat is subject to approved preliminary clearing and grading plans, and all natural vegetation shall be retained on the site to be subdivided, except that which will be removed for infrastructure improvements or grading as shown on approved engineering plans. The applicant has proposed to clear and grade approximately 96 percent of the site during infrastructure construction in order to install infiltration systems, internal roads, and install utilities. With the proposed clearing and grading activities, the applicant would be removing 93 percent of the significant trees located on the site. The City recommends conceptual approval of the proposed grading and clearing request due to special circumstances of the grading required for the proposed LID infiltration systems in conjunction with the small size of the cottage housing lots. A TESC plan must be submitted with construction plans and approved by the City prior to issuance of engineering approval. E. Landscaping — The applicant's preliminary landscape plan (Exhibit D) provides landscaping as required by FWCC Chapter 20, "Subdivisions," and FWCC Section 22-923 "Cottage Housing", including street trees along public roads and internal landscaped open space and common areas. As a recommended condition of preliminary plat approval, the applicant's final landscape plan shall be prepared in accordance with the preliminary plat conditions of approval and shall be submitted for the City's review and approval prior to issuance of engineering approval for plat improvements. FWCC Chapter 20 requires perimeter landscape buffers only when the plat abuts an incompatible zoning district. The proposed plat is bordered on all sides by single-family residential zoning; therefore, no perimeter buffers apply. Street trees, when mature, and open space vegetation will contribute to visual buffering. The applicant's Tree Evaluation and Protection Plan prepared by Washington Forestry Consultants, dated December 18, 2007, (Exhibit O) indicates that 4 of the total 63 significant trees within the proposed grading limits will be retained including those potentially located in future infrastructure areas. The applicant's preliminary landscape plan proposes to replace the significant trees in common open space areas and street trees along all external and internal roadways. VII. TRANSPORTATION A. Street Improvements —As proposed and as required by the FWCC, any required right-of-way dedication must be established through Statutory Warranty Deed to the City of Federal Way and all internal and external streets must be improved to meet all applicable FWCC street standards. As shown on the plat cross section on sheet 113, streets are designed in accordance Staff Evaluation Mirror Lake Highland (Cottages) Preliminary Plat File 07-106874-00-SU/Doo I,D 46545 Page 11 .i with the City's February 9, 2007, right-of-way modification granted by the Public Works Department (Exhibit S). The section for 61h Place SW is a section `W' and includes 20-foot pavement width, vertical curb and gutter, four -foot planter strips, five -foot -wide sidewalks, three-foot utility strip, streetlights, and street trees. This property will remain private but will be set aside in a "Tract V for possible future dedication to the public, and parking will not be allowed in the tract. The section for SW 312th Street is a section `K' and includes a 78-foot- wide right-of-way, 44-foot pavement width, vertical curb and gutter, six-foot planter strips, eight -foot -wide sidewalks, five-foot bike lanes, streetlights, and street trees. Submitted plans demonstrate how the full street section can be constructed within the right-of-way. A sight distance analysis was provided and reviewed by the City. The approved internal roadway cross section follows those of private road serving 13 or more lots and consists of 24 feet of pavement, 5-foot sidewalk on both sides, and a minimum easement width of 34 feet. The City granted a modification to eliminate sidewalks on one side of the private roadway. The City's Traffic Engineer and South King Fire and Rescue reviewed the submitted plans and concluded that the proposed street layout of the Mirror Lake Highland Cottage subdivision is consistent with the adopted codes and comprehensive plan. B. Off -Site Traffic Mitigation — This proposal has been reviewed under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) as discussed in section III of this report. King County METRO Transit Division noted that there is a bus stop on westbound SW 312th Street, east of 61h Place SW (Exhibit K-1). If any street improvements are made to this area, the applicant will be required to incorporate a landing at this bus stop. Specifically, the applicant will be required to install a 10' x 10' landing pad that meets Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. This will be required as a condition of approval and reviewed during engineering approval. C. Concurrency — Per FWCC Chapter 19, Article IV, a concurrency permit is required for the development. At the applicant's request, a concurrency analysis was performed by the City to determine whether there is adequate roadway capacity to accommodate the development and identifies traffic mitigation consistent with RCW 82.02. The staff report of the Concurrency analysis identified sixteen (16) Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) projects impacted by one or more PM peak hour trips resulting in $64,458.00 in pro-rata mitigation necessary to address any failures of the City's Level of Service (LOS) standard. The final staff evaluation for the Concurrency application, Federal Way File #08-106876-00-CN, is hereby incorporated by reference as though set forth in full. The table below lists current TIP projects impacted by the proposed development and the appropriate pro-rata contribution. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall pay the project pro-rata share contribution in the amount of $64,458.00 to the City. Project ID Map ID Location Description Total Pro - Rata ($) 150 la City Center Access Phase 2 Design Study, Environmental analysis to $ 1,147.00 improve access to City Center 150 lb City Center Access Phase 3 Add 2nd SB left -turn lane, 3rd SB right -turn $ 999.00 lane 150 lc City Center Access Phase 4 Widen S 320th St bridge over I-5, realign loop $ 6,760.00 ramp and NB off -ramp Staff Evaluation File 07-106874-00-SU/nog. Ln, 46545 Mirror Lake Highland (Cottages) Preliminary Plat Page 12 Project Map Location Description Total Pro - ID ID Rata ($) SR 99 HOV Lanes Phase 3: Add HOV lanes, 2nd SB left -turn lane @ 288th, 141 2 install raised median, signal @ SR 509 @ $ 3,367.00 S 284th St - SR 509 Redondo Way S with interconnect to 1 lth PI S 131 4 S 320th St @ 1st Ave S Add 2nd NB, WB left -turn lanes, WB right -turn $ 19,029.00 lanes, widen 1 st Ave S to 5 lanes to S 316th St. 5 SR 99 @ S 356th St Add WB thru lane, EB, NB left -turn lanes $ 1,775.00 143 6 S 320th St: 8th Ave S - SR Add HOV lanes install raised median $ 4,345.00 99 underground utilities illumination 135 7 S 348th St @ 1st Ave S Add WB, SB right -turn lanes, 2nd EB, WB left- $ 1,246.00 turn lanes 148 9 1st Ave S @ S 328th St Install raised median, improve access at 328th $ 2,166.00 139 10 S 320th St @ 20th Ave S Add 2nd left -turn lanes EB, WB $ 1,500.00 170 11 21st Ave SW @ SW 336th Add 2nd left -turn lanes all approaches, WB $ 2,485.00 St right -turn lane 159 12 SR 99 HOV Lanes Phase 4: Add HOV lanes, install raised median $ 5,529.00 SR 509 - S 312th St 171 13 SR 99 @ S 312th St Add 2nd NB left -turn lane $ 6,124.00 142 14 SW 312th St @ SR 509 Add EB, WB left -turn lanes $ 1,773.00 152 18 SW 320th St @ 21st Ave Interconnect to 26th Ave SW with the addition $ 2,068.00 SW of a 2nd WB left -turn lane 131 19 S 320th St: 1st Ave S - 8th Add HOV lanes, install raised median $ 4,158.00 Ave S Total $s64;458.00,:. V111. PUBLIC SERVICES A. Schools — As part of the City's review of the proposal, the preliminary plat application was referred to the Federal Way School District for review. A March 31, 2008, School Access Analysis prepared by the applicant (Exhihit 7) noted that the site is located in the service areas for Lake Grove Elementary, Lakota Middle School, and Federal Way High School. Middle and elementary school students will walk to school as these schools are within one mile of the subject site, while high school students will be bused to school. Lakota Middle School students will walk west along SW 312`h Street to the middle school, crossing SW 312`h at 81, Avenue SW in a marked crosswalk. Lake Grove Elementary and Federal Way High School students will walk north along 6th Place SW to SW 308'h Street. The Lake Grove students will continue east to the school grounds within a path separated from the vehicular travel lane by a curb. High school students will catch the school bus at SW 308th and 8th Avenue SW. Bus stops are subject to change as student needs increase and roads are developed. School service areas are reviewed annually and may be adjusted to accommodate enrollment growth and new development. School impact fees, as authorized by City ordinance and collected at the time of building permit issuance, are currently $3,883.00 (plus a $194.00 City administrative fee) per single-family housing unit. School impact fees are determined on the basis of the District's Capital Facilities Plan and are subject to annual adjustment and update. Staff Evaluation Mirror Lake Highland (Cottages) Preliminary Plat File 07-106874-00-SU/Doc LD. 46545 Page 13 B. Parks & Open Space — The subject site is located in Park Planning Area A of the Federal Way (� PARCS Comprehensive Plan, and is approximately''/z mile from the Lakota Park, '/4 mile from French Lake Park, '/4 mile from Lake Grove Park, and '/2 mile from Fishers Bog. Under the FWCC, applications for subdivision shall provide fifteen percent of the gross land area in open space, or make a fee -in -lieu -of payment for the open space, except however, cottage housing developments are required to provide open space on site so the fee is not an option. As more fully described in section VI, the applicant is providing on -site open space to meet the cottage housing requirements for open space (See Exhibit A-4, Exhibit D and Exhibit P-4). C. Fire Protection — South King Fire and Rescue requires that a fire hydrant be located within 350 feet of each lot. If this condition cannot be met, the houses require sprinklers. In the case of the long narrow lot, hydrant access is limited, so all of the houses, garages and other buildings will be required to contain sprinkler systems prior to final inspection. The Certificate of Water Availability from Lakehaven Utility District indicates that water will be available to the site in sufficient quantity to satisfy fire flow standards for the proposed development. The exact number and location of fire hydrants will be reviewed and approved by South King Fire and Rescue. IX. UTILITIES A. Sewage Disposal — The applicant proposes to serve the proposed plat by a public sewer system managed by Lakehaven Utility District. A December 7, 2007, Certificate of Sewer Availability (Exhibit 0 indicates the district's capacity to serve the proposed development through a Developer Extension Agreement (DEA) between the applicant and the district. The applicant will be extending the sewer to the far edge of the subject site, and may provide opportunities for other properties to hook up to the sewer on a latecomer basis. B. Water Supply — The applicant proposes to serve the subdivision with a public water supply and distribution system managed by the Lakehaven Utility District. The December 7, 2007, Certificate of Water Availability (Exhibit l) indicates Lakehaven's capacity to serve the proposed development through a Developer Extension Agreement (DEA). C. Drainage Facilities — Development of the site will create additional runoff from new impervious surfaces such as streets, driveways, and rooftops. Storm drainage facilities are being designed in accordance with Low Impact Development (LID) options from the 2005 KCSWDM, and as modified by the City. The applicant's storm drainage Preliminary Technical Information Report (TIR), December 2007 (Exhibit P-1) and Level I Drainage Analysis, December 2007 (Exhibit P-2), was reviewed by the City's Public Works Department. According to the TIR, and the August 30, 2006, amendment (Exhibit P-3), runoff from the site currently goes into a ditch along SW 312'h Street, and crosses under SW 312'h Street to discharge into Mirror Lake. This system drains into Fishers Bog to the south, and ultimately to Lakota Creek and Puget Sound. Proposed LID techniques depicted on submitted plans are reduced impervious surfaces; pervious pavement for sections of the private road; stormwater infiltration to the maximum extent feasible through the use of shallow infiltration basins and trenches; soil amendment to provide a good growth medium and enhance treatment of stormwater to be infiltrated (Exhibit P-4); and infiltrate stormwater runoff from roof area through the use of individual infiltration trenches. 1 Staff Evaluation File 07-106874-00-SU/m�. i n 46545 Mirror Lake Highland (Cottages) Preliminary Plat Page 14 Stormwater design and plat drainage elements must conform to the standards, policies, and ~� practices of the City of Federal Way's Surface Water Management Division as outlined in the 1998 and the 2005 KCSWDM, the Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan, and the Stormwater System Operation and Maintenance Manual. The approved storm drainage facilities must be constructed per City code requirements, prior to final plat approval and recording of the subdivision. X. ANALYSIS OF PRELIMINARY PLAT DECISIONAL CRITERIA The FWCC establishes review procedures and decisional criteria for deciding upon various types of land use applications. Pursuant to FWCC Chapter 22, "Cottage and Compact Single -Family Housing," Section 22-923(15)(a), CHD's in RS zones are permitted as subdivisions. Pursuant to FWCC Chapter 20, "Subdivisions," Section 20-110, preliminary plat applications are submitted to the Hearing Examiner for public hearing. The preliminary plat application and the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner are submitted to the City Council for approval or disapproval. Hearing Examiner Preliminary Plat Decisional Criteria — Pursuant to FWCC Section 20-126(c), the Hearing Examiner may recommend approval of the proposed preliminary plat only if the following decisional criteria are met. Decisional criteria and staff responses are provided below. The project is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Staff Comment: The application is subject to the adopted Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP), which designates the property as Single -Family — High -Density. The proposed land use of a Cottage and Compact Single -Family housing development is permitted within RS 7.2 Single -Family Residential zones and is consistent with density allowances and policies applicable to this land use as established in the FWCP. 2. The.project is consistent with all applicable provisions of the chapter, including those adopted by reference from the comprehensive plan. Staff Comment: The preliminary plat application is required to comply with the provisions of the FWCC Chapter 18, "Environmental Policy"; Chapter 20, "Subdivisions"; Chapter 22, "Zoning" including Article XII "Cottage and Compact Single -Family Housing;" and all other applicable codes and regulations. Future development of the residential subdivision will be required to comply with all applicable development codes and regulations. As proposed, and with conditions as recommended by staff, the preliminary plat will comply with all provisions of the chapter. 3. The project is consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare. Staff Comment: The proposed Cottage housing preliminary plat would permit development of the site consistent with the current Single -Family High -Density land use classification of the FWCP and map. Proposed access and fire hydrant locations must meet all requirements of South King Fire and Rescue, and all future structures are required to be sprinklered (Exhibit W). Future development of the plat in accordance with applicable codes and regulations will ensure protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. 4. It is consistent with the design criteria listed in FWCC Section 20-2. Staff Evaluation File 07-106874-00-SU/Doc ID 46545 Mirror Lake Highland (Cottages) Preliminary Plat Page 15 Staff Comment: The proposed preliminary plat would promote the purposes identified in FWCC Section 20-2 and the standards and regulations therein, as identified in the staff report, including effective use of land, promotion of safe and convenient travel on streets, provision for the housing needs of the community, protection of environmentally sensitive areas, and preservation of approximately 18 percent of the site as common open space. As proposed, and with conditions as recommended by City staff, the preliminary plat application complies with all provisions of the chapter. 5. It is consistent with the development standards listed in FWCC Sections 20-151 through 157, and 20-158 through 187. Staff Comment: Development of this site is required to comply with the provisions of FWCC Chapter 20, "Subdivisions"; Chapter 18, "Environmental Protection"; Chapter 22, "Zoning"; and all other applicable local and state development codes and regulations. As proposed, and as recommended by City staff, the preliminary plat application complies with all applicable statutes, codes, and regulations. XI. FINDINGS OF FACT Based on an analysis of the preliminary plat application, environmental record, and related decisional criteria, the Department of Community Development Services finds that: The proposal is to subdivide a 1.85-acre parcel into a 16-lot single-family cottage housing demonstration project as provided in FWCC. 2. The proposed single-family cottage housing residential subdivision is consistent with existing Federal Way zoning and comprehensive plan designations, including cottage and compact single-family housing standards for the RS-7.2/Single Family -High Density zoning district. City staff received and responded to written comments received from neighbors regarding potential impacts on traffic, trees, and Mirror Lake. The comments were considered in the environmental determination on the project. 4. An Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) was issued for this proposed action on April 16, 2008, based on the Staff Evaluation of Environmental Checklist. Three written comments were received regarding the proposed development. No appeals of the environmental determination were filed with the City. 5. The preliminary plat was reviewed and determined to be consistent with all cottage and compact single-family housing decisional criteria set forth in FWCC Section 22-923 as well as applicable standards of preliminary plat decisional criteria including 20-126(1) through (5), including consistency with the comprehensive plan; consistency with all applicable provisions of the chapter, including those adopted by reference from the comprehensive plan; consistency with the public health, safety, and welfare; consistency with the design criteria listed in FWCC Section 20-2; and consistency with the development standards in FWCC Sections 20-151 through 20-157, and 20-178 through 20-187. 6. Lot sizes for the 16 cottage housing parcels range from 1,839 square feet to 2,674 square feet, with an average lot size of 2,235 square feet. This does not include areas set aside as garages, open space, and recreation areas. Floor area for those Cottage Housing Development (CHD) �J Staff Evaluation File 07-106874-00-SU/Doc I.D. 46545 Mirror Lake Highland (Cottages) Preliminary Plat Page 16 units is proposed between 1,090 square feet and 1,096 square feet. The Compact Single -Family (CSF) units are proposed between 1,289 square feet and 1,292 square feet. 7. The applicant's proposed grading plan clears the majority of the site, including 93 percent of existing significant trees, in conjunction with installation of LID -based infiltration systems and roadway and utility construction. City staff conceptually supports the proposed clearing due to the proposed LID related grading for infiltration systems and the small size of the individual cottage lots, subject to review of a final grading plan and subject to all conditions of preliminary plat approval. A TESC will be required to eliminate erosion and aesthetic issues. 8. The applicant's significant tree inventory indicates that 4 of the 63 significant trees will be retained within the proposed grading limits. The 28 evergreen replacement trees are proposed to be installed in common open space areas featured in the development, and extensive landscaping will be provided in conjunction with development of common open space areas. 9. The development proposes to install more than 14, 518 square feet of common open space in conjunction with cottage housing development, which exceeds the required 500 square feet per cottage or compact single-family housing unit, or 8,000 square feet for the 16 units. The privately maintained open space includes established gardens, a pea patch, and a 560 square - foot community building, landscaped pedestrian corridors, and rain gardens that incorporate pedestrian trails, seating, and landscaping. The proposed cottage housing development is subject to review of final landscape plans as a condition of preliminary plat approval. 10. The applicant submitted a concurrency application that was processed by the City's Traffic Engineer. The report found that the proposed development will impact 16 of the City's Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) projects with one or more PM peak hour trips, and as a result, $64,458.00 in pro-rata mitigation must be paid to address any failures of the City's Level of Service (LOS) standard prior to final plat approval. City staff concurs with this mitigation as a recommended condition of preliminary plat approval. 11. Vehicular access into the cottage housing development will be available off of 6'h Place SW north of SW 312th Street, both of which will be widened to City standards. No direct vehicular access will be allowed directly to SW 312th Street. Plat layout provides for good vehicle and pedestrian circulation in accordance with all applicable right-of-way improvement requirements. In accordance with the FWCC, all street improvements along SW 312th Street must be dedicated and improved to current street standards, while improvements along 6th Place SW will be maintained as private in a "Tract X." The internal driveway width of 24 feet and internal hammerhead turnaround are satisfactory for the cottage housing development. The City's Traffic Engineer has reviewed the project and concluded that the proposed street layout is consistent with the adopted codes and comprehensive plan in place at the time of the complete application. 12. The applicant provided a school access analysis which indicates that the site will be served by Lake Grove Elementary School, Lakota Middle School, and Federal Way High School. High school students from the plat will be bused from existing nearby stops, or new and additional stops as the district may determine appropriate for the conditions. Elementary and middle school students will walk to school via existing sidewalk and roadway corridors. The applicant will be required to provide shoulder separation between the roadway and the paved shoulder along the north side of SW 312`' Street between 6"' Place SW and 81h Avenue SW for student passage. Staff Evaluation File 07-106874-00-SU/nog. In 46545 Mirror Lake Highland (Cottages) Preliminary Plat Page 17 13. Design and construction of low impact development (LID) surface drainage facilities in accordance with the 2005 KCSWDM and recommended conditions of preliminary plat approval, will ensure that all potential erosion, surface water runoff, water quality, and infiltration/storage-related impacts are addressed. The applicant's TIR was reviewed and accepted by the City's Public Works Department subject to final engineering review. Storm drainage facilities generally consist of infiltration trenches, pervious pavement, and rain gardens. 14. The preliminary plat application was reviewed for consistency with all applicable state and local codes, policies and regulations, including the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP); Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Chapters 18, "Environmental Policy"; 19, "Planning and Development"; 20, "Subdivisions"; 21, "Surface and Stormwater Management"; Chapter 22, Article XII, "Cottage and Compact Single -Family Housing;" Articles XIV, and XVI, "Improvements", Article XVII "Landscaping,"; the 1998 and 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual; and Federal Way Development Standards. As proposed and recommended by staff, the preliminary plat is consistent with the FWCP and all other applicable codes and regulations. 15. Water and sewer facilities are available from the Lakehaven Utility District and are adequate to serve the proposed development. It is the applicant's responsibility to secure all necessary water and sewer services from the utility provider. 16. As proposed and recommended by staff, approval and development of the proposed preliminary plat will ensure consistency and compatibility with existing surrounding single-family zoning, uses, and densities. 17. Pursuant to the FWCC, prior to final plat approval and recording, all required and approved improvements will be constructed, or the improvements appropriately bonded, per City code requirements. XII. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on review of the applications, environmental record, and pertinent decisional criteria, the Department of Community Development Services recommends that the Hearing Examiner recommend approval of the preliminary plat subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to the City's approval of engineering plans, the applicant shall confirm that submitted plans meet applicable provisions of Low Impact Development (LID) as detailed in the 2005 KCSWDM. The applicant may be required to provide additional bonding or maintenance provisions for methods not currently approved by the 1998 KCSWDM. 2. Prior to the City's approval of engineering plans, the applicant shall submit a final landscape plan, prepared by a licensed landscape architect, addressing common open space and right-of- way landscaping within plat boundaries for review and approval by the Directors of Community Development and Public Works. Prior to the City's approval of engineering plans, the applicant shall strive to reduce the quantity and overall height of any proposed retaining walls or rockeries. Approved retaining walls or rockeries associated with plat construction shall reflect cottage housing residential Staff Evaluation File 07-106874-00-SU/Doc I D 46545 Mirror Lake Highland (Cottages) Preliminary Plat Page 18 scale, design, and sensitivity of materials or treatment, including use of texture, vegetation, and terracing. 4. Prior to the City's approval of engineering plans, should the City determine that the proposed development impacts the location of the existing west -bound bus stop on SW 3121h Street, the approved plans shall depict a 10' x 10' concrete landing pad that meets Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and King County Metro standards. Prior to final plat approval, the access and configuration of lot 14 shall be revised so that lot 13 receives greater access to the common open space as discussed in the findings. 6. Prior to final plat approval, the final plat drawing shall dedicate all common open space in an open space tract(s) to be owned in common and maintained by property owners of the proposed subdivision, and shall prohibit removal or disturbance of vegetation and landscaping within the tract, except as necessary for maintenance or replacement of existing plantings and as approved by the City. A note shall be included on the final plat map that the open space tract shall not be further subdivided, may not be developed with any buildings or other structures except as may be approved by the City for recreational purposes only for the benefit of the homeowners, and may not be used for financial gain. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall provide to the City a covenant against the property that establishes a minimum of two of the housing units as affordable housing as provided in FWCC Section 22-923(13)(a), for a period of not less than fifteen years, for City review and approval. Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy for these units, the approved covenant shall be recorded at King County at the expense of the applicant. 8. Prior to final plat approval, traffic mitigation in the amount of $64,458.00 shall be paid to the City. 9. Prior to issuance of any building permit for the subject site, submitted plans shall depict all buildings to contain approved sprinkler systems. 10. Prior to building permit issuance, the city shall confirm that affordable housing cottage units have the materials and appearance consistent with the market rate cottage and compact single- family housing units. XIII. LIST OF EXHIBITS A. Preliminary Plat A-1 — Topographic Survey sheet IA, prepared by Informed Land Survey, June 20, 2008 A-2 — Conceptual Site Plan sheet 1B prepared by Informed Land Survey, June 20, 2008 A-3 — Overall Site Plan and Housing Size data, sheet A-1A, The WJM Studio, June 20, 2008 A4 — Cottage Housing Required Areas/Site Coverage Data, sht. A-1B, The WJM Studio, June 20, 2008 B. Cottage Housing plan sheets prepared by The WJM Studio, December 21, 2007, unless noted Overall site plan and cottage housing requirements -A1 Pro -forma site plan - A2 Unit A plans, elevations and sections - A3 Unit B plans, elevations and sections - A4, January 22, 2008 7 Exhibit A-D: Full size plan set to the Federal Way Hearing Examiner Staff Evaluation File 07-106874-00-SU/noG i n 46545 Mirror Lake Highland (Cottages) Preliminary Plat Page 19 Units AFF plans, elevations and sections -A5 Unit A-CSF and Unit B-CSF Compact Single Family unit plans -A6 Commons Building plan, sections and foundation plan - A7 Garage #1 plans, elevations, sections and foundation plan - A8 Garage #2 plans, elevations, sections and foundation plan -A9 Garage #3 plans, elevations, sections and foundation plan - A10 Garages #4 & #5 plans, elevations, sections and foundation plan all - AI I C. Civil Plans prepared by AHBL, December 21, 2007 C-1 - Conceptual site plan C-2 - Conceptual grading and drainage plan, C-3 — Conceptual utility plan, C-4 - Notes and details C-5 - 312'' Street ROW improvement plans D. Landscape Plans prepared by AHBL, February 4, 2008 D-1 - Conceptual Landscape Plan - L1.1 D-2 — Conceptual Planting Plan — L1.2 D-3 - Conceptual Planting Plan — L1.3 D-4 —Conceptual Landscape notes and details — L I A E. Vicinity Map F. Cottage Housing Demonstration project approval F-1 - April 17, 2007 F-2 - October 10, 2007, Modification G. NOA Comment Letters Received Following Notice of Application G-1 - Marie Trotignon G-2 - Dana and Joe Belke G-3 - Bob Roper and Marla Ledin G-4 - Richard Scott ' H. City Responses to G1 through G4, March 28, 2008 I. DNS Issued April 14, 2008 J. Staff Evaluation with SEPA Checklist K. SEPA Comment Letters K-1 - Metro Lori Kittridge K-2 - Bob Roper and Marla Ledin K-3 - Richard Scott L. Responses to SEPA comments, K-2 and K-3 M. Geotechnical Engineering Study, Pacific Geo Engineering, LLC, December 20, 2007 N. Surveys N-1 —Map of Topographic Survey, Paul Mabry, December 12, 2007 N-2 — Unrecorded Record of Survey, Informed Land Survey, December 18, 2007 O. Tree Evaluation and Protection Plan, by Washington Forestry Consultants, December 18, 2007 P. Civil Reports by AHBL, Inc. P-1 - Preliminary Technical Information Report (TIR), December 2007 P-2 - Level I Drainage Analysis, December 2007 P-3 -Preliminary TIR Addendum, June 24, 2008 P-4 - Rain Garden response, February 2, 2008 Q. Garage Modification, May 12, 2008 R. Letter from The WJM Studio, June 20, 2008 S. Right-of-way Modification, February 9, 2007 T. School Access Analysis, March 31, 2008 U Certificate of Sewer Availability V. Certificate of Water Availability W. Letter from South King Fire and Rescue, February 27, 2008 X. Bulletin #061 — Cottage Housing Development & #062 — Cottage Housing - Affordable Unit Bonus Staff Evaluation File 07-106874-00-SU/m., i D. 46545 Mirror Lake Highland (Cottages) Preliminary Plat Page 20 TRANSMITTED TO THE PARTIES LISTED HEREAFTER: Federal Way Hearing Examiner Applicant — The WJM Studios Project Engineer — Todd Sawin, AHBL, 2215 North 30`h Street, Suite 300, Tacoma, WA 98403 Federal Way Staff— Deb Barker, Ann Dower, Sanjeev Tandle, William Appleton Staff Evaluation File 07-106874-00-SU/mc. LD. 46545 Mirror Lake Highland (Cottages) Preliminary Plat Page 21 MIRROR LAKE HIGHLAND PRELIMINARY PLAT A PORTION OF THE S.W. 1 /4 OF THE N.E. 1 /4 OF SEC. 7, TWN. 21 N., RG. 4 E. W.M. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON I� o I"- � al ..G c€lza 04 zp o W rn I N ¢ I o ! 13 °d I za W brc I I ��rr w�a I LEGAL DESCRIP77ON THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN IS AE&WASEO AS FOLLOW THAT PORTION OF THE EAST HALF OF THE WEST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. IN KING COUNTY. DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS, AVG AT A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF A PRIVATE ROAD, SAID POINT BEING 198 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION AND 100 FEET WEST OF THE EAST LINE OF SAID SUBDIM570h; 7NE14CE SOUTH ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID PRIVATE ROAD, A DISTANCE OF 712 FEET THENCE EAST 100 FEET TO INTERSECT THE EAST LINE OF SAID SUBDIWSION AT A POINT 910 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER R#1T£C f'' THENCE SOUTH ALONG THE E AST UNE OF SAID SUBDIW51ON TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE cowry ROAOL' TWICE WEST Too FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF A PRIVATE ROAD; De= SOUTH AtMW INIF E45T LINE OF SAID PRIVATE ROAD TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SUBOWMI INENCE ROOT 10 FEET TD RE EAST LLME OF THE WEST 220 FF$r!Y Aif EAST HALF OR INE W,. F NALF OF TIE SWPRIE".T WEARIER OF Rff N077NEAV OUARTER OF SAO SE'CTIM T• WIVff NORTH ALONG SAID EAST iW 70 A PLM,7 r98 A'E£r SOUiN OF me NLtl9RF Hd4+E or THE SOU7H4155T OWRTER OF SAID MMWEASF DVAPIVI, PRATE EAST 10 FEET TC TILE' P00Vr Flr 811 Exapt' !ME NORTH e2 ATE: TIfR£OF; - AM7 EX[R+r COLWFY ROAD {SOU1HIkSr J12RH S1REE7J,• AND ExCE•PT INA11 PORTION RfE 11 C01'"21n TO S0PN.1E A- MCNEIL BY IXNr CLAIM DEEP DAM0 „WEE /Q 2001, RECORDED ,NNE M 2001, UNDER RECORoW HUWVER 2001OSIOOD 798� SOVAIE RI THE G"TY OF IOVG STATE OF WASHINGTON. RJ'4 M- ER WITH A PE72FElUAL EASE1fENr FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS OVER THE FOLLOWNG DESI?Wm LAM A STRIP Ar LAND 20 IN K107H LYING 10 FEET ALONG ETHER SIDE OF THE FOLLOWING 0Z$CR65O CEFIE URIF-L BEQPN79HO AT A Pawr OH i7# NOR IH LyC QF DHE SBUGHNDYr DIANTIER OF nC MonTNEASY RIARTER OF SE 11W 7, WMSW 21 IMPIR. RANGE 4 EAS■, WJA AY'KK CMWff,, WA AIA77GTt7VI AT1WH WHICH PANT ON ME N0140R1ESr CMWP THEREOF SEARS HA41H B.y,11•r9' WEST DISTANCE Lv 436l51 FE£P, TENCE SOU)" 1.0 sB' 1&Si 9Ar.31 FEET THENCE.S O7H 63.5S5O2' EAST !l0-J4 FEEf,• OFENCE SOUTH 1.04M MLST 145. 16 FEET FO THE NORTH MARGIN OF THE COUNTY ROAD KNOW 49 SOVRH 312TR S'T IEEE TOGeTHfR MW AN ACCESS EA.SrMEFTT A5 SET FARDI IN INSTRUMENT REG&?OED JUNE 19, 2001 UNDER REOORDNM. SWITER 2QO1019000739 REFERENCE SURVEYS 1. MIRROR LAKE LANE BY CHARIES RIGGS, AFN 195908125067340 2. SHARON LANE BY EUGENE AAROE AF74 196207J15459656 2. NOS BY AA47ECH LAND SERWCE, AFN BW5056005 4 RO$ 8Y SEA AFN 7912M9008 4. KING COUNTY R.O.W. SURVEY MAP NO. 7-21-4-1 U77L(T-Y NOTE. THE LOCATIONS OF LIrW.1MM000 UTILITIES AS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON ABOVE QWUNLX. An U D rOLOCATING I MARMED FERROUS OWAI UWAESTk'S W,Ci1TE: L VSVS p'WpE GRtUNUND GIrLFTRSfsmuclurEs MAY VARY FRQM LOCATIONS SIIOTIIN hVIEZIM AI)WRONAL BUFED U78-/CE$JSLRNC1Wq£S MAY 8E 0ACM&TVI5F* NO EXC4YAM06 WRE MORE oi. lTw RjE PROGRESS CF 7MS SURVEY W LOCATE BURIED UTILITIES/STRUCTURES EASEMENTS i f 1 0 I N ��a 1 1 r oyo % EEi �__---T---- - RECQROED: NOWJWBER JO, 1959 I Q• JUNE /A 197E R£CI AUC NO.: 5107371 REOOR&M9 NO.: 7806140899 PUGET SOUND POWER AND LIGHT CO. LAKENAVEN SEWR DISTRICT, A MUNICIPAL CORP. FOR: ELECTRIC LINE FOR., SEWER MAINS WTH NECESSARY IN A NORTHERLY AND SOUTHERLY APPURTENANCES DIRECTION THEREON ALONG EASTERN EDGE A PERMANENT EASEMENT 10 FEET IN WIDTH OF ROADWAY EASEUBVT LUNG 5 FEET ON ETIHER SIDE OF THE FOLLOWING RESCROED LINE' RECORDED JUNE 20 J952 REG( OM0 NO.: 4247312 BEC�WAIG AT A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF FOR PRIVATE ROAD SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST WESTERLY 10 FEET QUARTER OF SECTION 7, BEARING SOUTH 8837'46' EAST 524 FEET FROM THE SOUTHWEST RE-CORDO JANUARY 25, 1962 CORNER THEREOF,• ✓-ICORDPIG NO.: 5J79WO THENCE NORTH 6J26'06' EAST 50 FEET TO THE FOR: INGRESS AND EGRESS 7ERMINUS. SOUTHERLY PORTION OF SAID PREMISES &£CARDED: SEPTEMBER 1, 1955 Ra:O14LWA• APRIL 29, 1964 RECORUMC. NA: 4612087 FACORAWV N0.: 5729603 FOR: GRADING OF S7REET SLOPE; AS FOR DETACHED GARAGE NECESSARY, OVER PORTION OF SAID PREMISES ADJOINING STREET OR ALLEY AS GRANTED IN NSTRUMENT LINETYPES - OVERHEAD POWER - - CABLE FENCE LINE -�-- STORM DRAIN BURIED POWER --r--� SANITARY SEWER -o- - GAS LINE --t-- WATER LINE --r--- TELEPHONE LINE -.-�- CHAIN LINK FENCE LINE --r--- TELEVISION LINE - -BARBED HIRE FENCE LINE -�_-- IRRIGA RON LINE -+•-� WOOD FENCE LINE —..._ DITCH CENTER LINE -x—x- METAL BARRICADE FORCED MAIN SURVEYORS N07ES FIELD MAPPING COMPLETED MAY, 2007 INSTRUMENT USED, LECA 120J ROBOTIC TOTAL SFA77014 & GPS THIS SURVEY MEET' OR EXCEEDS THE REOLVIEWM75 OF WAG 332-IJO-MO TRAVERSE CLOSURE EQUALS 1. 19,000; RELATIVE PRECISION IS ESTIMATED AT 30.15' PROPERTY CORNERS WERE SET FOR THIS SURVEY. NO WETLANDS APPEAR TO EXIST ON THE PROPERTY. TIME SYMBOLS ARE LABELED NTH CODE DENOTING THE TYPE AND SIZE IN INCHES OF THE NOMINAL DIAMETER AT BREAST HECHI.. LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS SHOWN PER TITLE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY TICOR TITLE COMPANY AND WAS THE SOURCE FOR ANY EASEMENTS OR EXCEPTIONS THAT MAY ENCUMBER THE PROPERTY. HORIZONTAL DATUM WASHINGTON STATE PLANE, SOUTH ZONE, NAD 831W BASED ON MONUMENTS FOUND ON SW 312TH ST AT INTERSECTIONS OF BTH AVE & IST AVE BEARING N 89D8'02' W. VERTICAL DATUM NGW'29 BASED ON CITY OF FED WAY B.M. NO. 2200-01 E.=357.20' LEGEND O BRASS CAP ® MONUMENT IN CASE o HUB AND TACK A PK NAIL O SET REBAR AND CAP, LSR 41036 POWER POLE ,c4,'' POWER POLE MTH [FAIT A POWER POLE WITH TRANSFORMER x STORM DRAIN CATCH BASIN MAIL BOX - STREET SIGN 0, SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE 5� TELEPHONE MANHOLE T TELEPHONE MARKER POST Vt TELEPHONE RISER/PEDISTAL AX- CONIFER TREE DECIDUOUS TREE FIRE HYDRANT ® WATER METER IN WATER VALVE TREE LEGEND { ALDER CEDAR i DOUGLAS FIR OR HEMLOCK MAORONA MAPLE OAK = PINE POPLAR I ` I \ � 1 _J_y_ 1 �0 -09 0 N 1 ARCH77ECT/DEVELOPER THE WJM STUDIO WLUAM MCCAFFREY 1911 SW CAMPUS DR. SIZE 116 FETLRLAL WAY, WA 96023 PM (4;W 231-7125 S17F ADDRESS 604 SW J127M ST FEDERAL WAY, WA 9802J PARCEL NUMBERS 0721049024 072100111 0221weIto 072240109 072104014 EARTHWORK QUAN7777ES CUT = 194 CY FILL - 5,562 CY NET = 5,368 CY FILL NOEL'• THE ABDL£ OIAANRTlS ARE ESiWMFLS OHLY 917F3'AJ£0 , M THE PE1p1017RIG PgQC¢S 00 HOT USG' Aw BID PWIRPOS6S. T1:E OVANRTTES W HOT HAxe 5'RPnePaVQ GDEtl+AC1r0FL w CUT N? r1LL A0.R7"i 11T FACFA45 APPTIED 10 TFIBWy, NOR Do ThEY AQCOUNT FOR ROAAIKKY SECRPN. SHEET INDEX SHEET NO- I SHEET TITLE 1A TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY 1B CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN 2 CONCEPTUAL GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN 3 CONCEPTUAL UTILITY PUN 4 NOTES AND DETAILS 5 312TH ROW IMPROVEMENTS 6RAPIAC SCALE 0 20 40 BO 1' a 40 FEET I le OWNER 1 CITY FILE N0. 07-106874-00-50 Informed land survey frarsoraM vAlAO„T,. rwTM1 f4H 5171A5 -,Gcc.1,,-a Plrorle;2�rg77D Fac 2ma,-9175 LAND SURVEYING, MAPPING, 6 GIB 2igl suns• MIRROR LAKE HIGHLAND PRELIMINARY PLAT Ghent: - THE WJM STUDIO . 1911 SW CAMPUS DR. STE 116 FEDERAL WAY, WA 98023 WILLIAM MCCAFFREY Job No 20755510 PRELIMINARY SUBMITTAL JUNE 20. 200B THE XW STUDIO WUAW MCVFF$EY 1911 $W CAIAWIS OIL STE. 116 gp, AL WAY, W A 96O2J P1C(40) z!l;-7125 CIVIL ENGINEER AANIXE. ENC YORS $� 17A1£ 30V 1Alxl4d WA 96403 FAx 25.i) ,78,E-2572 GOV TT R10D SAWN SURVEYOR RAi NEST LIRE Awwr T1C6 5Tk7TH rA1fiMA AVr YACW,L W01 87dOtS AVk (,[7Y551)J 627-�70 CLWrA-1 PAOG YA&9Y STAnSWAL BREAKDOWN SI$ AREA: 801598 SF (1,1T5 ACj r. NIAWAkR pr L4IIACE'S`` 15 NUMB OF STALLS: JD ` - SE!7BjB SIDE4T YARD St78AOIf: RITE SEIBAGM 15' & 0' 5' lEEAR SE>BACX' 5' �$v` RS7.2 PAG N0. REl9S/ON DATE R.2 ADD7RMS MWFMR SVPARCEL 09.18.07 A.3 ADO WHLAIIW700'8UPFERL0CA7101V 12.12.07 R.8 AD0DRIDEWAM$ii77NBY150' 12.12.07 . PA4 ChEEM, AM JO NU- • MT 070403 Rao GREW.73K Sr LAILL My_ Cy COPP Lwm 19 -1 ric Gn4pad 6v Drawn bv. Chackad 6v TS SK PM RA"bftTED ^ JUN 2 6 2000 -- l n of 5 Sheets ui I FILL INU. U/-IUUO/'t-UU-JU M RROR LAKE HIGHLAND PREEMINAHY A PORTION OF THE S.W. 1 4 OF THE N.E. 1 /4 OF SEC. 7, TWN. C TY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON 6o'AI°IrprwAY / Am 6TP PLACE SW 6m r N 01'O5'25 E 880.64' S 01.05.25" W 133.2W S 01'95 W W 742.03' TRACT X o 38.62s 01'05'25' W 196.80' �1 N 01'05'25" E 86.73' L3,341 S.F. i' j fNGRESSIEGRESS EASEMENT ro � PRIVATE ROAD 104.17' 14,412 S.F. N O1'p52 73.78' 13.75' q +.,� - `- - ,- 4L 0 N 01.05.25" E 190.68, s \ Id 31r ;`v 1 LOT #1 ga 1 Z674 S.F. I TRACT A 36,779 S.F. S 01,05,25" W 65.26' I I 0j w m 's (PRIVATE INGRESS/EGRESS AND UTIUTIES) c 01,0 i"W 501'OS'25'W 31.73' 4 S 01'05'25" W 64.19' TRACT +ryO• H ��'¢+ T---7 ST �k-T-�� ' a rGIMTssW 342.00' F 336ST J '^ /N - 14p I P' m V L7 N 01'OS'25' E 54.34' �n / !� 13 N 01'05'25' E 52.14' !r N 01'05 E 40.73' r----_-__`--.2"1�Im I r-I------ �$yT4 I LOT#2 qJ O LOT 113 I ; Y J 2,313 S.F. I n J LOT #4 I 2.173 S.F. I v• I LOT 5 I # .J yam lot I Z376 S.F. W I Q W I I I I m I w 2,284 S.F. TRACT C `' N I n 1,273 S.F. is-- I `• I� �jl o q 1 1 q I� � I S 01'06'0B' W 59,44' 13,75' N 01'O6'OBa E 44.00' N 01'O6'OB' E 41.00' S Qi�Od'Or W 67.00' S 01'06100' W 31.00, S 01'O6'OB' W 71fi.e4' PEAT 21 N., R0. 4 E. W.M. A ee.2s' 8 d2_BB; �ffl 84.11 � �C9 O1'W'25' E A 99.97' 8 106-66 CH 48-35' �1'QS•25� E S 01'05'25' W 64.39' N 011"29 E i 30.66 �3'N a to H OS'eZV E ,0 33.72' o !r I !^ I In N Ot'W25' E 49.13' r-----�� o lc; ] I Is 3 ~ oLOT #6 W iLOT #7 M I LOT #8 'n I 2,164 S.F. I { 1,932 S.F. I i 2,191 S.F. o L - - - - - -fJ" mot_---LJ" l ---L-� m 41 z S 01'06'08" W 54.00' S O1'06'08' W 36.00' S 01.06'OB' W 41.00' Z JJ ULij co �W GRAFNr' sca1E 0 f0 20 40 7' 20 FEET LINE TABLE TRACT TABLE 77L4Ci DESC1i[PTIOH SQUARE FELT B C0MNi0N "GARDEN T 145 C COhAMDN RAu�GAR ! 273 G COMMONRAIHGARDEl7 606 E COMMON RAIHGARpEH 1,003 F COMMON OPEN SPACE 338 1t PUBLIC FRONT--OF-WAY 3 347 A PFNATE WCRESS/EGR1E55, PARKING. COMIAON ARFA9, llTB]TIES 3G.779 NET PLAT AREA 1605E GROSS PLAT AR 80 553 CURVE TABLE CURVE RADIUS ARC LEHC°IH CHORD GT}i CHORD HEARiHG C1 316-00' 7.10' 7.70- 7 B'09- W C2 S1S.D0' 7. 7" 7;7.68' S 71'07.19~ W C3 30., 4.70 5 0335' 9" E C4 14.00 i } ' 1285 5 650'S1 W CS i8-t10' r 16.41- 15.41' N 01.05'25' E 880.64' q < 0 0 N 01'05�25' E 140.00' I S 91'08'25" W 742.03' J N 0}'OS'2j' E 41.00' N 01 OS'25' E 54.00' m N O1'O5'25' E 3150' N;01'0615" E 44.97' $ S 01'05'25' W 154.96' r- - - - - - c INGRESS/EGRESS EASEMENT LOT 15 la I NI I N olos'zs^ E 14a.ao' a PRIVATE ROAD Q�0`� q ` $ LOT 1 6 1 # I a I LOT #14 { H 14, 412 S.F. !v I I # I?I ^ I 2,172 S.F. I < I -0 Tr N 01.05'25' E z3.So' 3 I 2,387 S.F. I m J I 2,431 S.F. i m 01-C 2e W s5.1a�� rV I N I m s I,J�JgI m ri / a� \�¢ '1 -''.I o 1 LL----�/ Ip TRACT A a s+a. $3, 4�� y3 E m t"I s 01'05'25' w 3ea79 sr o 1 cl (PRIVATE IgGRESS/fp5 AHO U1kI1lE5) y L - - / a 4 ° Sol'Oq'2y' W 71.26' - 4 S 01'05'25' W $„ p 5 41'p5'25' W 32.98' S 01'05'25' W SJ.53' S Ol-OS'25' W 37.73' ( 35.06' S R 4 7 r� b S 01.05.25 W �. m S 01'OS'25" W 73-17' _ ; - o S 01'OS'25' W 81.50' y v / - - - 1 ' I - - - p35•BG 21.41• T N OIM5w E E1.76' u N 01'05.23' E 5176 C 29.74- 1 e a 1 b I FIT _-- _ g i LOT 9 I - IF F s l 1 W W I LOT # 1 1 3 3 LOT 1112 1 3� 1 LOT # 131 w V I # I a I LOT # 1 o I � y " F 1 2,283 S.F. 2,265 S.F. te39 S.F. 2,285 S.F. I I w o o'E 2,287 S.F. V o I �+ I I n • w, Via° � I I� o e ��i o oi��i i�ffiI I� S 01.06'08' W 57.00' N 01•W 57.00. 24.50' u, N 042.00' S O11OB'0B' W 35.76' q x Q S 01'06'08" W 716.fi4' JV07E$ LEGEND A" hWSWC UNITS MUST BE;z-:' oR'WKuxw PROPERLY SETBRCR LNE - EASEMENT UNE `~ informed land serve) 1106SN101 YaV=Are Teaom6, WA 9&W 'f+q: °- Phone;23s6i?'i8n0 VWD SURVe WG YAPPIN0,44 WS Project Title: MIRROR LAKE HIGHLAND PRELIMINARY PLAT Client: THE WJM STUDIO 1911 SW CAMPUS DR. STE 119 FEDERAL WAY, WA 9BO23 WILLIAM MCCAFFREY Job No. 207555.10 lswn. Set & Date: PRELIMINARY SUBMITTAL JUNE 20. 200B ti K%LL ye'� a WAJ a� 1dff�p N 4Ly, S W pgtjM1 CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN IS SK PM Sheet No. 1B of 5 Sheete B C0MNi0N "GARDEN T 145 C COhAMDN RAu�GAR ! 273 G COMMONRAIHGARDEl7 606 E COMMON RAIHGARpEH 1,003 F COMMON OPEN SPACE 338 1t PUBLIC FRONT--OF-WAY 3 347 A PFNATE WCRESS/EGR1E55, PARKING. COMIAON ARFA9, llTB]TIES 3G.779 NET PLAT AREA 1605E GROSS PLAT AR 80 553 CURVE TABLE CURVE RADIUS ARC LEHC°IH CHORD GT}i CHORD HEARiHG C1 316-00' 7.10' 7.70- 7 B'09- W C2 S1S.D0' 7. 7" 7;7.68' S 71'07.19~ W C3 30., 4.70 5 0335' 9" E C4 14.00 i } ' 1285 5 650'S1 W CS i8-t10' r 16.41- 15.41' N 01.05'25' E 880.64' q < 0 0 N 01'05�25' E 140.00' I S 91'08'25" W 742.03' J N 0}'OS'2j' E 41.00' N 01 OS'25' E 54.00' m N O1'O5'25' E 3150' N;01'0615" E 44.97' $ S 01'05'25' W 154.96' r- - - - - - c INGRESS/EGRESS EASEMENT LOT 15 la I NI I N olos'zs^ E 14a.ao' a PRIVATE ROAD Q�0`� q ` $ LOT 1 6 1 # I a I LOT #14 { H 14, 412 S.F. !v I I # I?I ^ I 2,172 S.F. I < I -0 Tr N 01.05'25' E z3.So' 3 I 2,387 S.F. I m J I 2,431 S.F. i m 01-C 2e W s5.1a�� rV I N I m s I,J�JgI m ri / a� \�¢ '1 -''.I o 1 LL----�/ Ip TRACT A a s+a. $3, 4�� y3 E m t"I s 01'05'25' w 3ea79 sr o 1 cl (PRIVATE IgGRESS/fp5 AHO U1kI1lE5) y L - - / a 4 ° Sol'Oq'2y' W 71.26' - 4 S 01'05'25' W $„ p 5 41'p5'25' W 32.98' S 01'05'25' W SJ.53' S Ol-OS'25' W 37.73' ( 35.06' S R 4 7 r� b S 01.05.25 W �. m S 01'OS'25" W 73-17' _ ; - o S 01'OS'25' W 81.50' y v / - - - 1 ' I - - - p35•BG 21.41• T N OIM5w E E1.76' u N 01'05.23' E 5176 C 29.74- 1 e a 1 b I FIT _-- _ g i LOT 9 I - IF F s l 1 W W I LOT # 1 1 3 3 LOT 1112 1 3� 1 LOT # 131 w V I # I a I LOT # 1 o I � y " F 1 2,283 S.F. 2,265 S.F. te39 S.F. 2,285 S.F. I I w o o'E 2,287 S.F. V o I �+ I I n • w, Via° � I I� o e ��i o oi��i i�ffiI I� S 01.06'08' W 57.00' N 01•W 57.00. 24.50' u, N 042.00' S O11OB'0B' W 35.76' q x Q S 01'06'08" W 716.fi4' JV07E$ LEGEND A" hWSWC UNITS MUST BE;z-:' oR'WKuxw PROPERLY SETBRCR LNE - EASEMENT UNE `~ informed land serve) 1106SN101 YaV=Are Teaom6, WA 9&W 'f+q: °- Phone;23s6i?'i8n0 VWD SURVe WG YAPPIN0,44 WS Project Title: MIRROR LAKE HIGHLAND PRELIMINARY PLAT Client: THE WJM STUDIO 1911 SW CAMPUS DR. STE 119 FEDERAL WAY, WA 9BO23 WILLIAM MCCAFFREY Job No. 207555.10 lswn. Set & Date: PRELIMINARY SUBMITTAL JUNE 20. 200B ti K%LL ye'� a WAJ a� 1dff�p N 4Ly, S W pgtjM1 CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN IS SK PM Sheet No. 1B of 5 Sheete N 01.05'25' E 880.64' q < 0 0 N 01'05�25' E 140.00' I S 91'08'25" W 742.03' J N 0}'OS'2j' E 41.00' N 01 OS'25' E 54.00' m N O1'O5'25' E 3150' N;01'0615" E 44.97' $ S 01'05'25' W 154.96' r- - - - - - c INGRESS/EGRESS EASEMENT LOT 15 la I NI I N olos'zs^ E 14a.ao' a PRIVATE ROAD Q�0`� q ` $ LOT 1 6 1 # I a I LOT #14 { H 14, 412 S.F. !v I I # I?I ^ I 2,172 S.F. I < I -0 Tr N 01.05'25' E z3.So' 3 I 2,387 S.F. I m J I 2,431 S.F. i m 01-C 2e W s5.1a�� rV I N I m s I,J�JgI m ri / a� \�¢ '1 -''.I o 1 LL----�/ Ip TRACT A a s+a. $3, 4�� y3 E m t"I s 01'05'25' w 3ea79 sr o 1 cl (PRIVATE IgGRESS/fp5 AHO U1kI1lE5) y L - - / a 4 ° Sol'Oq'2y' W 71.26' - 4 S 01'05'25' W $„ p 5 41'p5'25' W 32.98' S 01'05'25' W SJ.53' S Ol-OS'25' W 37.73' ( 35.06' S R 4 7 r� b S 01.05.25 W �. m S 01'OS'25" W 73-17' _ ; - o S 01'OS'25' W 81.50' y v / - - - 1 ' I - - - p35•BG 21.41• T N OIM5w E E1.76' u N 01'05.23' E 5176 C 29.74- 1 e a 1 b I FIT _-- _ g i LOT 9 I - IF F s l 1 W W I LOT # 1 1 3 3 LOT 1112 1 3� 1 LOT # 131 w V I # I a I LOT # 1 o I � y " F 1 2,283 S.F. 2,265 S.F. te39 S.F. 2,285 S.F. I I w o o'E 2,287 S.F. V o I �+ I I n • w, Via° � I I� o e ��i o oi��i i�ffiI I� S 01.06'08' W 57.00' N 01•W 57.00. 24.50' u, N 042.00' S O11OB'0B' W 35.76' q x Q S 01'06'08" W 716.fi4' JV07E$ LEGEND A" hWSWC UNITS MUST BE;z-:' oR'WKuxw PROPERLY SETBRCR LNE - EASEMENT UNE `~ informed land serve) 1106SN101 YaV=Are Teaom6, WA 9&W 'f+q: °- Phone;23s6i?'i8n0 VWD SURVe WG YAPPIN0,44 WS Project Title: MIRROR LAKE HIGHLAND PRELIMINARY PLAT Client: THE WJM STUDIO 1911 SW CAMPUS DR. STE 119 FEDERAL WAY, WA 9BO23 WILLIAM MCCAFFREY Job No. 207555.10 lswn. Set & Date: PRELIMINARY SUBMITTAL JUNE 20. 200B ti K%LL ye'� a WAJ a� 1dff�p N 4Ly, S W pgtjM1 CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN IS SK PM Sheet No. 1B of 5 Sheete VICINITY MAP nw ,• A>v�'Yo�nm'�0'� I'Ia«�BSTw�7 y�7� Rii� •I •`" ear • n x�N i! aMr).v ...r v rN+' j H.r aw'r r I FIS7.2-, RS7.2 a ne�na"r ._.j— ITE RS7.2 RS7, ;. " • Iry Orror Lake i )eland n Vnits S P Unit# Main 2nd Total ;AGowed (see Unit Floor Floor Unit ling plan) Type Area Area Area Area 1) AG-R 741 357 , 1098 (s1100) 2) B-L 741 357 1098 .['l100) 3) BCSF-R 855 441 1296 (-�13eo) 4) A-R 741 357 _1998 •(41100) _ 5) ACSF-L 841 441 1262 '(s13oo) 6) B-L 741 357 10% 1(e1100) 7) AAF-L 654 303 957 8) A_R 741 357 1o9B (r1100y 9) ACSF-R 841 441 I= (e1300) 10) ACSF-L 041 441 120 .(<1300) 11) BCSF-R 655 441 1296 .(�1300) 12) A-L- 701 357 109E (<1100) 13) AFF-L 654 303 957 (S1f00) _ rd) BCSF-L 855 441 I'M . (s I=) 15) B-L 741 357 1098 [e1100) re) AG-L 741 357 1098 Commons BIdO_ 560 _ SB0 ! (s ZQ04] Gaeage ll3 Upper 326 396 (In errawl Totals 12904 6434 ISW15 (<0800) Gamon #1 02 $03 #4 #5 580 600 Boo 667 667 NOTES 1] "G" phi • pnt Tyj &up+,M1W 0 eltechad garage 24 "CSF' -ft" o Unit rgq Ia_Kaan Conpacl single Family plan, 13) "AFF' indc vm ho 2'�vr�+d AA-Mbl- Flwaiq uih Site Notes: i) Please Sec Landscape Plans fnr mare dernll on Iho ralregardon Iaynul and the Improva rnents 1=sWdl botow- m 2) Tho ratngarden viowing dock_ b w I a co pos?a dock material wilh 30'-36- height cambined rablWguardra➢ detailing to allow either sitting or eating activities at the locations shown on site plan. m 3) The uili-p0rWr. park benches Indicated on plans will either be pre-febr[caled units of wood, metal, or concrete with a back, or, a base built up of concrata of masonary pavers with plank seats and no back. Benches not adjacent to paved walkways will have a pad underneath of patterened concrete or decorative pavers as Indicated. 4) Plcnlc lables Endlcated on plans will alther be pro - fabricated unKs of woad• metal, or concrete, or, a base built up of concrete or masonary pavers with plank seats and table taps. 5) The B' high wood decorative trains screens will provide scroon(ng from the vehicular activities as well as provide a wall of all season foliage to enhance the Internal pedstdan "street". 6) Hatched areas of pedestrian street will be pattemed concrete or decorative pavers as Incilrated. RRafhQanr Wdliam Mccattrey Dawn Mccerey MAI- the WJM studio 1911 Campus Drive Ste. 116 Federal Way, WA 98023 Phm]e- 425-231-7125 -Email evolowJMstwdlio_com O J m W Cn Z J U Commons Area #1 South •(south of matchline) Contains: (1) 560sf Commons Building (3) Enhanced pavement areas (3) Park Bench areas (75') Decorative Trellis Screening (RG-1) Raingarden#1 contains: (1) Large view decklbddge (1) Park Bench area - (1) Stopping stone path to bench (RG-2) Raingarden 42 contains: (1) Picnic Tabla ---r (1) Large Eco Lawned area for more aclws recreation. Commons Area #1 North (btr4n malchllne&ga a s) Contains: (1) 326sf Commons Room aver Garage 43 (1) Enhanced pavement area M o (1) Park Bench Area (67") Decorative Trellis Screening (RG#3) Reingarden #3 contains: r (1) Park Bench Area _ (1) Stepping stone path to bench Commons Area #2 (north of garages) g Contains: (1) Enhanced pavement areal - o (2) Park Bench areas (59') Dacora4va Trellis SCraontng (1) Large Eco-Lawned area for more save rocreation. o (RG#4) Raingarden #4 contains: l (1) Wow dock (1) Picnlc Table 1 (1) Gravol path to view deck i I I ING 312TH 60' EASEMENT I CENTIRLINE SW 312TH S E �:7gdge of SW 312th concrete' I EDGE OF I MIRROR LAKE l 6fPers utllernly sl of lake m many use 1 D � 12TH 78' EASEMENT LINE ti RENO LAKE RD, EASEMENT LINE i e Sit So View fro ho r ---- �` r' : 1 1 r 1 r• 31 I 1 11 I I 1 r 1 1 1 1 1 I t 1 1� 1 R (l��.11111111111 �fI I _�� .1111111 �1�1. I.; - ��jll {III s -�'• - — Ask Ili F [I, .:.:,lf';1111111111 Nowa7r —i- Cl In � p17 P16 P15 N _ p� I ae �1 P28 P26 P19 P18 r P -- 44'- 2 '-0" G R r{U) Fire S'-0� +- 8' Oe L ^`nglhs and ~� f � >r � -.:. — 36'-0" `v 5'-0" - - 5'-0 1 /8" 9'-0„ �� 4 -0" 72'-0„ a a 20'-0" p EASEMENT LINE 6'Wooden Fence a 5'-0' 5''0" , t5'4' '�0" 10'-� around East, North 10'-0" 8'-0° 8'-0' 10'-0" 10'-D" 2'-1 7/8"— andWestPedmeter 9'-0° 10'-0" 1d-0" 1'-0" 1'_p" PROPERTY LINE 140'-0 1/4n— --+---44'-11 1/2" 31'-6" 54'-0" 41'-0" 245'-2 1/8" 416'-7 5/8" MIRROR LAKE HIGHLAND SITE PLAN n A RESUBMITTED NORTHJUN 2 5 2lia ,nr ci 81°iioirr°aE PAY C3 unrr E fl a„ IO z a I N co Vr W ol o 3 2 �V1Ww 0mW� LLU H © C0��2007 A-1A Mirror Lake Flf hland Site Data Total LIN Aida 110,591 ,d ms.iSacfaf TaW LIvIng Lads '!6 Tm of Udlta d Cal" mown 2 A9pd+Ah tctbpr HviWmp 6 {aiepael aHplef+my' _ SIM Cowmps: _.. fuusargFoofpdal 1fi,l5! sq.R 28.014 Cw Mp %awl6aa 580 rq.fi; 4.7% Crgafaalpdnt 3,514sq. R' 4.41% parking Leta Ebel 17,022 sq. fl 21.1% ToW 37267 eq-d. 462% Cmcfnon Span 10;431 aq. rL Car�mtvn xudQeram 4.flai'sq, R Total Common Span 14,51111 sq. ft: JMD a riquire(l) ipadni+lan Corridal] 629 sq.fl. 5% Comm it SidlrrA6a 3223 .1. ft M Tout tire+ PariAq space 30 IN faqufrad) Tole Wass LMnp Spies 'Win Level 12,9tN sq. fL Upper Level 6,434 sq. ft: Total %$3a rq. W(MIM6 allowad) R17rrorl•.akc Filahland aulldina. Cavnsage In Snuare Feel "CO , Unit # Unit FafMdlion . (-a plan) Type Foalprim 1) AG-R 1199 P) B-L 989 3) BCSF-R 1076 i) A-R 939 57 ACSF-L 1026 S).. B-L 989 7) AAF-L 86d 8) A-R 939 9) ACSF-R 1026 10) ACSF-L 1026 11) BCSF-R 1076 12) A-L 939 13) AFF-L 864 1d) SC5F-L 1076 15) a-L 989 16) AC-L 1134 Colts.. 3ldg. 580 Tabs' 16731 Garage #1 Garage 02 _580 Son Garage 93 a0a GiiMe 04 667 enrage iia 667 7otafa 3514 ' T4tat StWat v0 Courage I 20245 'Total foundation foolpr'ml includes ell mein 4-0 Meae Aet de nm q." n hash. ewhle square foolege. (Covered Porches. eeeched gereg-. etc. ) Commons Area #1 (South) Raingarden Space #1-1145 sq ft- - ---- Raingarden Space #2-1273 sq ft `1 Commons Space - 4070 sq ft Total Space #1 South 6488 sq ftt Common Sidewalks 1446 sq ft R-MI 608 W Ri ##6 "� 40 #5 #3 #2 (B-L) 1 (ACSF-L) #11 (BCSF-R) (B-L) W Cgvesrdgs ' a 1026 s ft 939 -R)R 1076 Tvera�je '989ft' IM rovere�a coverage it Parch i• o l W 140sT W ff: -_ Porch - - r - - " t -i: I 444ag1t B26sgR; r Commons LLI Gar. #2 suildIn Gar. #1 - - #1 Z 800 sq ft cov. sq R 580 sq ft cov. (AC-R) ..I ru 'A Rear 1199 R _ of •T covere U — --6(" Internal Sidewalk- - — QDRIVEWAY, PARKING, and NEW R.O.W. (South) COVERAGE - 7961 ft N �_TH scale 1" = 20' Plan Notes: 1) This plan is to outline the specific area requirements required by the City of Federal Way Cottage Housing Ordinance. 2) Please see Site Plan, Sht. A-1 for the specific Improvements contained in each Commons Area and Raingarden. 3) FWCC 22-923(12)- Lot Coverage- of the CHD Development Standards, exempts paved components of Common Space areas and walkways from coverage calculations. At your request we have broken walkway areas out by designated Commons Area on the plans. Req'd Porch Sq Footage (Typ) Req'd Private Front Yards (Typ) (min 9' and min 400 sq ft) # 3) #A 2 (F 864 sq R 939 sq ft coverage coverage Parch 144sr t �fi_t: �; #14 (BCSF-L) 1076 sq ft coverage #11 (BCSF-R) 1076 sq ft eovera e PO1Ch I 138 st 524 sq�r . -i •'.' 6M F1 So W. r Commons Area #2 Raingarden Space #4- 1003 sq ft Commons Space - 3923 sq ft Total Space #2 4926 sq ft Common Sidewalks 926 sq ft #B15 gas sq R j coverage -• I aq,t � .S. 15'-0 3/�11ti i' }} I l{ l 1 C 1 �I l Commons Area #1 (North) Raingarden Space #3- 666 sq ft Commons Space - 2438 sq ft--, Total Space #1 North 3104 sq ft 'Common Sidewalks 841 sq ft — :'i Porch (ACSF-L) Gar #5 Gar. (A # F- R) (#8) 1026 sq ft 66 sq ft 86T sq 1026 ft ' & s _ coverage rage coverag coverage dL R " _ 939 sq R M coverage ••-•y~r.-- - F. _ Pdxch Fan Ok140 sf 4198q Sect - Gar. T(NorthOVERAGE 140 son sq ftInteriorParlging(AG-t) LandscapeG� e DRIVEWAY & PARKING - 9,061 Is ft -60" Internal Sidewalk ■ CV LU W LU W 00 J F J C .0 = N co Mr W ox V1WW 0mW< LL UIi a16i IV" COTTAGE HOUSING REQ'D AREAS PLAN and SITE COVERAGE DATA copyRicprr 2007 140'-2 3/8" I I I I I r7 4 = 6' Wooden Fence around East, North I+ and West Perimeter Req'd Porch Sq Footage (ryp)_ Req'd Prtvate Front Yards (Typ) (min 9' and min 400 so 7'40 4 H— 7'-0" c - _ EIS • i�i ,.R.-: �"7 I� 137�?7,':i1P..y'�j,s 2-: �y�::' �+ fvii, I Ild "I . err,", 11111111 , ��I■��Il ��1�111 +--44'-11 I/2" 31'-6 S►'-9' 41'-0"— �ass'-3 MIRROR LAKE LAKE HIGHLAND SITE PLAN Raingarden #4-1227 sq ft Commons Area #2 - 3,699 sq ft Rsingarden #3- 780 sq ft � aqR � 534 eqR , �--1018 R r. I rt f016pl1 G7 wR %aEl . .i028 a�R. -, 747'-2 7/8" rC-2" 41' a" 3G' fl" Se-0" i 8'40' 0 Pa 010'-a� 1jr_V-V 0" 0" 10'-0. r'-a" 438'-8 1/8" Raingarden #2-1523 sq 93m'3+es� ll � I I , low - CENTERLINE SW 312TH STREET- 0'-7 7 8 '-9 71C 123'-3 7/8" -0" EXISTING 312TH 60' EASEMENT U REQUESTED 312TH 78' EASEMENT NORTH scale 1" = 30' Commons Area #1 - 5,750 sq ft 1 Y ,a2a w rt E i • �/�\� r•e•��v A � � s ,.. ! O �"w a w;A;4 �, $.pv I �'3 � v-� r � r�+r'0�'0'�'4'V 4'Cl o I I.`ar�� •• _ .a-.i,: m �I r14A�4 t4040�O�A@< i 4 * • r�A 1 c ' - A� • .. ��Ag4e��y404��a� 449�404. %��/►' a M D�4b469aO0A�,F — ��Ir r ds , sry�.�of t,'y.:cv lA6d.4 abn'co? • Hsu �`�:�- � ..Q_.. •1 xnil.>,?x .f iay '�' I' �"tr�xr7 � t .I ,M,�-- rte."•'•`'- iiee`I--'a"' `x!r! .!s,•I... I•. xnr - - A^.r�r:a to an7 g"g.i.... +r' •L•i IY�I�v r�.l Anfi�-'�•u - DIY l,enr R �� SrAr]0•J - JL FIS7.2 C Xtli ayr - S W&pqMp•,p, • 4' 7�7iliT..# .f �- ayJ ..yy ! 7 f4' Itlq %.•� f, 1 •�j R57.2 .1-9iro IA Swim Feet +Idl a Nal" 71+d TWO #11mm r.w e" i VZ Floor LWI Vat ,="nftoop ._Pry V2 AU Al AM &W F-IDLU 3 _ aI .c.•c =: 7¢a ax, ioo: r.,,¢e, sar• .ry. *sv-pu 456 M2 �iitr irx2--.rq?o.k 7.0 . A. . :,Ca :. *I 1�1,0¢1, ll2v — y _ 716 287 .101 -a7III -;. jeu v ►3e ; 7sa +++�J 9a ¢1 'AI;jf q #a iF2 12¢¢ ' t=j Im . .1Pj, ALIV t., W AV[ _.S," {[, yp�1j. 'I,2, 1]] : Dcs3 ft ua au 5292 c lef ]n% 1424 #1-1144 I CENTERLINE �SW 312TH STREET i t 0 EXISTING 312TH 60' EASEMENT LIKE�1ji l REQUESTED 312TH 78' EASEMENT LINES ll 11 i T 111 ' l 11} "A:4' 7#7 2F7 I09v ! 1�1r loci 17i A//� Hl 71¢ IOP7 •IHuu§: + �+' NJ g<r5py 150 M3 1i4Z IH ]¢¢}: T6!_.-'mr. 7gy�1 Inionl. 6x. i¢74 •GM �' f;;., cM� a�� f`.--'� rs] C 'i?4•' 767 si ;,�,-(�ILGO,, ;,7,�a iv..oe i,�„fEr�1� 13 : 1W ,>�. �ro�� y,ds s��1"1,,,. .�, ,�. EXHIBIT 61e. .. n0 - C 6eT 4EF Y1'ecrf H,x i•��'-',1 P�{ „ �A�et■�Ii�' E O¢ ry __ .-1019s - hou�c ■i►{i•(LQ - -. rnrE�;G .-q]u!iw.:Inri}-dm><:rnswriior.sr :7 .. i. orc� e -DEC 2 .1 2007' .ai.T.Ss'r>,.um �, ux�c vavilr t.wwrlvaot!a,�i�.w � �' � Pir. .. AEHIIL �rxwr VIp� �3pEP7: a =W��I IN3N r W M � 3 ° �W01� � 000aIMujr � �OL01W CY w t= Z N O 2 Q V o ri Q 1I a. r p g m w U in tH O 0 © COPYFUGHT 2007 r Vdu_a. Al p �H 140'-2 I/B 140'-V MIRROR LADE HIGHLAND 16 UNIT SUBMITTAL 12/21/2007 PROFORMA SITE PLAN (INDICATES 8 LOTS UNDERLYING DENSITY) PLAN NOTES for 8 LOT SUBMITTAL• 1) Overall p W" stw Ie MW Sq. FL (1.89 Ades) 2) Bob Lot Coveraps Is 81G23 Sq. FL 3) R.O.W. and essernerd dedke8ons ere 20.912 Sq. FL 4) F wAn on all Lola will be Fire Spdnlded. 5) Open space will be addressed via a fee4n4leu of payment as provided in the FWCC. I Fire Radius t_ °W 1 E,a srtrr EXHI !TT PAGE ifj PMtNIAo [UEC 2 1 20071 1 F J �a< X.C3m _NAM, =M Ito w w 3 .2 mg_ 00QQ Q LLU I w t CO) �y F O II Q a 0 s Sg r _ I I N *- = w LV 0 Z 0 Q Q W �l ©COPPYRlc�2oo7 IF- &]I r► ■ -B scale: 1/4"=V-0" SECTION A -A scale: 1/4"=V-0" MAIN FLOOR P ■]wlmlw»WATMlm-Mw DE ELEVATION scale: 1/4"=1'-O" REAR ELEVATIQ III ■ • �Nu m IL u imp, nN A -A -----• -• -- -• --• CI,�� A -..k-U Shingle SIDE ELEVATION scale: FRONT ELEVATION scale: 1/4°=V-0" SIDE ELEVATION scale: 1/4"=V-0" REAR ELEVATION scale: 1/4"=1,-0" SECTION B-B -scale: 1/4"=V-0° SECTION A -A scale: 1/4"=1'-0° B-CSF UPPER FLOOR scale:3/16"=1'-O" IIEE �. Qt A � III � '■ .�- "= ai lllllllll� ! 11 ■ �� i_I L:� 1 1 ._ � X la'III^1� i i t Fr. FT. FT. A-CSF UPPER FLOOR scale:3/16"=1'-0" m K=HEN a�■ All 10 IpI II �■r :» II �l WHO I KKW� NOTE THE TWO COMPACTSINGLE UPPER 467 SQ. FT. FAMILY VERSIONS OF ARE 3 FTSTRETCHED MAIN 823 SQ. FT. F UNIT PLANS. FORE ELEVATION AND TOTAL 9 Z90 SQ: FT. MATERIAL INTENT SEE THE ATTACHED A 9 S UNIT DRAWINGS. THIS SHEET IS FOR CSF SO. FOOTAGE CALCS. ONLY EXHIBIT A-C'SF MAIN FLOOR scale:3/16"=1'-0° PQGE--U---OF- E E= o a� =N�� gm> m awn r W M � O wl Oow� ��LL�I N C - a LL n. 0 O U. � m C o f f s 3 r Ill Q � Cd U. to O 2007 C C212.%? Ctry •FeoennL4�v r-.--__-_---- Lam-.._--"---^-.1 Asphalt L-------- ---------- ------- ........ ---., %1nDTW M C\/ATIr1A1 Shingles IAir-c+T r-I r.IATl. L----------------------- SOUTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION L----------------- --------------- -- ------------------' COMMONS BUILDING PLAN FOUNDATION PLAN (FUTURE) IS IT 0 f Q =�3� m co *N" ?4 r W 3 0 �00((91a OmLLa o � U c O' 0 O N 0 W a n o� ova C CC .3 � - � m N zm� Q W C O E �aclu N V 27 © com RRirU2007 SECTION (FUTURE) SECTION (FUTURE) FRAMIN[-, PI AN M IT1 1=1 DEC 2 A" WEST ELEVATION -_- ---- --- As Shingles cni iTN �i M/ATIMI r------------ r `-------------------- -J NORTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION N-2 3/4' S N co w P5 P4 �a 6ARAGE # 1 PLAN FOUNDATION PLAN (FUTURE) OF: 0 a m = co co Co 2 cMeo 0 a U c v c 13 c 3 v; 0 0 o> ll W N a. Q W � i o u N 0 ©CMRIGK zao7 r---- ----- ----------------------- .----------------------- SECTION (FUTURE) SECTION (FUTURE) FRAMING PLAN (FUTURE) z a zaarAS Asphalt Shingle SOUTH ELEVATION ___�___-___-.. ---------- ---_-------------------------------- NORTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION i r-----------------------y ri------------------------------------------------ - - - - - -----"'------- L------ ------------------------------------------ SECTION (FUTURE) j r---- -----__--`i L`------------------------- r_________________ __ i SECTION (FUTURE) so P 1 O P9 P8 �a r-� yr• ram' r-c,n• r-r r-+ yr r-r ra i�' s a .iJ .! ,•.r GARAGE # 2 PLAN FOUNDATION PLAN (FUTURE) iri_i rrcw�Mll EXHIBIT, RUA_ FRAMING PLAN (FUTURE) OF. a X M *Ncc "3W f(a If = �0aa 0 U. � U I,- 0 0 r N r © C�rNG� 2007 DEC 2 I - AS �a��n�wu wAV WEST � mmi i i i_- '--------� r'--"------ -------- L---------------`--------4 r------------ L_____________ Asphalt Shingles EVATION �i----=_======------= -----�w-====__� ________________________ 1 SOUTH ELEVA' S ling Mwom a 11�if■11 I 4 Y Shingle Siding P16 P15 1.-6•'-e•-- s' ]'•-0'— I.., I C.$ I 11-0. SECOND LEVEL PLAN GARAGE # 3 PLAN TI a �❑ $ lYJ ui C a o 7 N (� IY RM 2007 tic 2 1 2007 011� FRONT ELEVATION Asphalt Shingles m mu mo C) SIDE ELEVATION GARAGE # 4 PLAN REAR ELEVATION SIDE ELEVATION SECTION (FUTURE) FRAMING PLAN (FUTURE) 1 11-V 1— �1 r-n'-3'-B -tab'-r i s'-r i Ir-W i i V-' mu GARAGE # 5 PLAN EXHIBI PACE II FOUNDATION PLAN (FUTURE) �!-4' O J c�3m = NON W r ?� W �f3A�2 Lu 0W< o U �2 COPMGHT zoo? DEC IF ,_.... II MIRROR LAKE HIGHLAND PRELIMINARY PLAT A PORTION OF THE S.W. 1/4 OF THE N.E. 1/4 OF SEC. 7, TWN, 21 N., RG. 4 E. W.M. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON GRAPHIC SCALE L L ,ate _ ao n PARCEL 90D3 BETHEL CHRISTIAN1571AN CENTER INFILTRATION AREA#4 COMMONS AREA #2 INFIL N AREA #3 if0F1 rTf4ATI 92 NF TION AREA 0011 1 - �- -I- 12 I 11 10 9 r $ ' T TF, PARCEL 0721049189 MC PHERSON NORMA >. } ROBERTA Y --�-- ( -- GAR.3 1 2 GAR.1 1 1 14 I 1 I DRIVEWAY, PARKING, AND NEVTI _ - - -- 1 ' 7COMNTONS AREA #1 I i 1 PARCEL 7116200080JI/ PARCEL 7716200070 r PARCEL 0721049163 I PARCEL 0121049151 j PARCEL 0721049149 PAM 0721 144 / PARCEL 072104M I PARtEI. 07210191 C 1 'v DAILLY ROBERT D SHEMERIXO VASIUY & ANNA DI PIE1R0 DARIN VINCENT I CONDIE ROBERT BRYANT & 5L�SCHY THEODOAE I 204n JOSPEH & DANA / 7 / Y�BRIAEEP`AY9Md>t`�P1 19D4•AV9lWk 1 1 JEANNE TOWARD & AN I / // I THAO T --yam- 1`qO 1 nlll 1 STATISTICAL BREAKDOWN Sam 49,223 3F (1.13 AL� NLWER OF MOTS 1 NUMBER OF GARAGES 5 NUMBER OF MIXING STALLS 25 FRONT YARD SETBACK: 15' SOE SEFEACIG• 5' REAR SETBACK'. 5 ZONING RS7.2 VERTICAL DATUM CITY OF FED WAY B.M. NO. 2200-01 EL=357.20 BASIS OF BEARING WASHINGTON STATE PLANE, SOUTH ZONE, NAD 03/91 BASED ON MONUMENTS FOUND ON SW 31ZIH ST AT INTERSECDONS OF M AVE & 1ST AVE BEARING N 89'OVOr W. LEGAL DESCRIPTION' THE LAND REFMMED TO HERON IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOW. THAT PORTION OF THE EAST HALF OF THE WEST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY. DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF A PRIVATE ROAD, SAID POINT BEING 198 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION AND 100 FEET WEST OF THE EAST LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE SOUTH ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID PRIVATE ROAD, A DISTANCE OF 712 FEET, THENCE EAST 100 FEET TO INTERSECT THE EAST LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION AT A POINT 910 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE SOUTH ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE COUNTY ROAD; THENCE WEST 100 FEET TO THE EAST UNE OF A PRIVATE ROAD; THENCE SOUTH ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID PRIVATE ROAD TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE WEST 10 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST 220 FEET OF THE EAST HALF OF THE WEST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 7; THENCE NORTH ALONG SAID EAST LINE TO A POINT 198 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE EAST 10 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, MPT THE NORTH 82 FEET TM CZ, AND F)WT MIY ROAD {9GIITFTAEST 31ZTI SIRD:ETi: AND E1WT THAT PORTION THEREOF CONWYED 143 SOPHIE A MCNEIL BY QUIT CLAIM DEED DATED JUNE 16, 2001, RECORDED JUNE 19, 2001, UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 2OD10619000738; SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF WHO, STATE OF WASHINGTON. TOGETHER WITH A PERPETUAL EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS OVER THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LAND. A STRIP OF LAND 20 IN WIDTH LYING 10 FEET ALONG EITHER SIDE OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED CENTERLINE BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 21 NDRTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. W K14O COUNTY, WATLMOTON. FROM WHI47I PUNT ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER THEREOF REARS NORTH 83.11'W WEST DISTANCE OF 439.51 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 1.056' WM 997-31 FEET,, THENCE SOUTH 61 M' EAST 110.34 FEET, THENCE SOLTH 1058' WEST E45.16 FEET TO THE NORTH MARGIN OF THE COUNTY ROAD KNOWN AS SOUTH 312TH STREET. TOGETHER WITH AN ACCESS EASEMENT AS SET FORTH IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED JUNE 19, 2D01 UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 20010619000739. OWNER WJM STUDIOS WL JAM MCCAFFERY 30929 TM PL SW FEDER" '7.Y. WA 98023 PH: ( :3) 231-7125 CIVIL ENGINEER AHBL ENGNEERrh PLANNERS, & SURVEYORS 2215 NORTH 30TH STREET, SUITE 3DO TACMA, WA 98403 PH. 253) M3-2422 FAX 253) 383-i-572 CONTACT: TODD SAWN SURVEYOR INFORMED LAND SURVEY 1106 SOUTH YAKIMA AVE TACONA, WA 98405 PH: C53) 627-2070 FAX: 1253) 627-9175 CONTACT: PAUL MABRY ARCHITECT/DEVELOPER WJM STUDIOS WIWA'1 MCCAFFERY 30929 37TH PL SW FEDERLL WAY, WA 96023 PH:(45) 231-7125 SITE ADDRESS 604 IN 312TH ST FEVDLL WAY, WA 98023 PA['!ICEL NUMBERS 0721019024 0721019111 0721E49110 0721019109 0721!719114 EMITHWORK ouANTITIES CUT r 194 CY TILL- 5,%2 CY NET ' `+.36W Cy FAL N07E: THE OM QUARTO AM FSWTES MY INTENDED FOR THE OW91ING Pam. DO NOT USE fOR TNO PTAWPOSES. 711E FJNTTIFS DO NOT HAVE SFR iPPWf MAOM WL CUT SR FILL AQLNFSNfiiT FACTORS APPLIED TO THEM, MR DO 1 5Y ACDOM FOR ROADWAY SOIL APA'j T6T SOUND na VICINITY MAP NOT TO MALE LEGEND p LIGHT x .o- POWEk/IFTE. POLE + E— GUY WIRE F I TELEPHONE MR o TELEPHONE RISER ■ e CATCH BASIN 0 STORM DRAIN MH ® SANITARY SEWER MH MGM i t7 HYDRANT Jlk FAZE DEPT CONNECIION Y M WATER VALVE N ® WATER METER ■ _..-._,..._. PARE FENCE CHAIN LINK FENCE WOOD FENCE —�e- -aEY- '~NTOURS —E3EV— ON-SHE CLEARING LIMITS IL ■ 1 WA ■ i SILT FENCE -i4—- ---D--- SMRM DRAIN LINE D� ---w--- WATER LINE —W- --F--- FIRE SERVICE —F- --s--- SANITARY SEWER LINE —3- - - Im --- ROOF BRAIN LINE — RD — ROOM RFINFORI D FILL BLOCK CaGt RETAIMNC WALL STANDARD DUTY P010 PERWOLIS PARING o R G 0 p SPOT ELEVATION Cf-OL1RB FACE FG Fe0ND GRADE TW-TOP OF WALL HP-HKA1 PONT LP -LOW PO97T C6-10RADE BMW WATER SERVICE SANITARY SIDE SEWER SHEET INDEX v,w HE I SHEET -flu E 1 1x7 XU'WAL SITE PLAN Mr 2 1 MCWM& CRADWG AND DRAINAGE PLAN CQM VRIAL U11UTY PLAN 4 11016 Alat 1DE7ATS 5 312TH ROPE D,IPROVEMEN. 7 I � TACOMA SEATTLE 2215 North 301h SOeet, Sulle 300, Teccnm, WA 98403 253.3832422 11L 1200 SUAh Avenue, Sulle 1620, Seatle, WA98101 20BM2425 Tn Prelenl TMIRROR LAKE HIGHLAND PRELIMINARY PLAT Client, W JM STUDIOS 30929 37TH PL SW FEDERAL WAY, WA 98023 WILLIAM MCCAFFERY Job No. 20T556.10 a,., _n-Sn1,A..ruin PRELIMINARY SUBMITTAL DEC 21, 2007 .. rS. COUpp Non [1Ftl1E5 T I6 / IlUI OF DDCIgdENIS at R9Ylllee3, awl TIII.: CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN Coa wo. ny D,cwnCIL0029 ew TS HC/TS MW M-�ftEIVED T1T;C � � ZO07♦ CRY 11F FEDERAF. W 1M 1 BUIL9O 1 sr 6 'Sheets a La Q� GRAPHIC SCALE :o n 1 Inch 20 m N Gl•05'Cd' E 1400, S O1I75:25' W 140.00, MIRROR LAKE HIGHLAND PRELIMINARY PLAT A PORTION OF THE S.W. 1/4 OF THE N.E. 1/4 OF SEC. 7, TWN. 21 N., RG. 4 E. WX CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON t t LIEV uD i 1 - 81 - ems° ' _ I FF-V440 14"— ----13 I ♦ �\I ■ \ T t ` ■ \ 1 �3$94314 1 \ I■ �tpkY RA • ■ '� \ i -+1SiO,W f + Y l FF� � 1 ♦ t■ �a�7D,E0 ♦ ♦ ■\3 \ ■ V 1 1 \71 ON 4waw `■ a♦ t \' ' -� �--- 1- I N 7i7G' E 747.25' ■ ��uC�a� > } 1 \i8 , i S➢i swt t♦ti E�. �, �°>`A.an�a &� 4 ♦ a 5 �C ♦� 9E'/ 1 $ 1 ♦ F�y3.51eo 1 F n n �.o v ■ 1�, q 39Fe0 „�-�f! `�� K + r s ¢NoON I 1 i �_ 1 ■ � � \ I I 1 \ 1 1 Al STORM KEY NOTES V E$�I IYPE1 W 13rAlE 0CB i7 TYPE i w/s1I0 'L' em ��j!i TWE , 11�5&YE C , 19 CB-,p9 T1PE 1 w L.OgONG uD IIIEiNL FE IIE� p�p�$'1YJ 3 31000(B"W) 3 m(rN.E? aL8 TYPE f ®W j6TYPE { @wfB p4,YPELOt7pIPG , ®CS TIDE I w� L000NG uo lDIL 367.39 uo 3304.65 R01 3 Rfl 371.44 £ 384,J9[8 S] Rltl 3um IE 32M00 IE 39I,E(!>'FS) (P) TYPE I IE SS9.8/(6'N,SW) QC8 p TYPE t 4 I 1 I8 pp 1YPlE 1 W15p1D L0C m LID RUM 36i02 N L0tlA10 LID =4 IE 35544[rkq 15 CS p6 TYPE 1 H/SW0 LOCIDRG LID RN 34U2 RBI 326.DD E 324.00(6'SO E } a e 361Ap[SU E 337.62(6'E$S) © C8 122 TYPE 1 a ! % y I I ) , f I 1 i ; { I OG9 H TrPE 1 w/sam LOL10H6 Lm IO (8 p0 TIYE 1 Tpil 317.53 aE 33f 13[6"Sj ®48 pB,YPE 1 HI it CRATE RN319.16 E 31&00 } 1 s �r Z798 RIM 32&W ©cNaT TD E1lt4OtIG a I ` j t i IE IE Z0.06(YN,�SYtl) 11 R% ING IE 32500(6-N,SE) WERT.NFDMIA1M� I (5 C9 �5 T1'FE 1 LID RN 351-6 1©Cilpp77 TYPE 1 Lm ON TO BE OBTABED PROR TO RM ENGINEERINO. ! ■ I \ { CRATE E 348.38(6'NR,SO fWAE79YE IE 351A0(9 YP} 12 CS pZ TYPE 1 IEI IE324.50(8'Nw,S) ■ } " QD 1$ A TYPE, Wj9Dlm 18CE@IO UD w/ tonic Lm E t3 CB p6 TYPE t IN 34&46 :. IWA IE 345.46(BiI,S) [E ) i��' �- f'!L�♦��E.,�-2v:-.T. y: :'.i �►~�,.lf� `•:. •=r� na �Rti7iti�i9da�illllll' � .- • '♦C.i:7.": ic... ia5�"h..�.�'1id��"rj�Ci�. :�.'+ n �IYe4.LLf�. ^`J,'{L�1T1 .Ti�s��i=:+�.iaJ�—=��4L �r � a - II I a v U) yi i 1l 44 rl. 11 1\ I i I l i r 1 + L ERST. SW TOP ET21 SEVO n= VALVE Row"_ . NOSE OIB.3MT I 1 I BOTTOM OF SIRIICufft 3035 ` Al 1 Y 5\ I J 1 l aw tre sv,.— Qw a a TACOMA • SEATTLE 2215 Nmb 3DI1 Sa rt, &Me 300, TwM WA 9M 25L3612422 7B 12DO MdhAYUM SIAe 1020. Smft WA SIDI 2mm2425 7a Prclact TMIRROR LAKE HIGHLAND PRELIMINARY PLAT Cllenl: WJM STUDIOS 30929 37TH PL SW FEDERAL WAY. WA U023 W1111AM MCCAFPERY Jab 207568.10 luaus Set a Date: PRELIMWARY SUBMITTAL DED 2% 2007 IONA »vm xp.� s aonamin EX WOOD PAS WILTRAIIN TRD46H Sheet Till.: CONCEPTUAL GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN Dulmad by, Drawn bvi Checked bv: TS 140/TS MW DEC 2 12007 ////'��'�y 4:4TYOF FELEAAL WRYJ 81Y9AW . OE, GRAPHIC SCALE ( IN PELF ) 1 1pah = 20 1L S Of V515' }V [40.00' z -r I [ � • 6 N. MIRROR LADE HIGHLAND PRELIMINARY PLAT A PORTION OF THE S.W. 114 OF THE N.E. 1/4 OF SEC. 75 TWN. 21 N,, RG. 4 l E. W.M. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON tt tt ♦ l~t� -\ ~,1 1� 1 �- 1� �n+' I NI fy75'LW%C 1 747.25' 1 ^ - "£- - L -` ~ 366 \ ❑ ❑ ❑ \jam } }N. t ` ` - - - 1 370 370 ---.---- ' - 368 �I �I , f,� 1 ♦ t D ❑ ��p • -} 1 }\ l ♦ 1 �, 6AR.5 D ❑p❑p C'_4'j` ♦ t� I� ♦, 1 D`p�.n ❑ t 1} 1 1 ry-� 1 I\ 8 1� f -� ♦ �y� 3 � I 1 \ FF=367.6D \ ♦ D p i I FF=381�0 \ 1 D D D ❑ °�9 ❑ \t �• 1 1 Mommou I 1 , ff-353.60 ♦ - - - • - - •FTR37230- 9FJ - FF=371.60 fFr37Q.60- - - � _ \ � IL �LAI).3♦� \ �t' e `---�.] - � 6 �\� ;�:: i.��+�• L� .t-._1,„`f,` p❑❑DpD_ ,� ��p DpD-.1 ?•'.�j f4� �r: \` ` '.!,J �� 41 t-_ � ❑ ♦ ❑D f11 a l _- _ - _ - �� - 7.,•;: -,,,7. F � •❑ g ❑ p'P D D I+"r{. .,ti ,1' � D .� E L!_ ... rl L:'• �• x_:: � � D D •-D� ❑ �, �R ♦ ��---- � 1` v ---_£LC-� � _ � � , ,�1 1 �. :i :1+ D ❑ D 1.. ❑ ❑ 1 \-.%: a��;,C; ':� D ••r'_, ❑ ❑ � D ❑ I D L >a�T• ,_D „-❑ D �- 111 1 .L ` � II - ------ 1 C� �1 ` r �� ' .-M• ��5 v,l f "•' '�� d.'r P P D ��• .(.. � "fro.,.+ ❑ W. p1'pp �1 U�'� ;�I� '. 4�., v D flpa pppDD RD rr° ❑ P P� �9_. ! PD ❑ ' _ �� ff=373.60 fF=37240 � .• ,,r.:':., �±• � ,e r6� ❑ ❑ '' f dyy I sr, y �, q�.: S, ,,.� }• I P ''i`.� •-S. } r p n ) FF=374.60 -{.�� I ---� + � �°4'1 I � a, r 'r-S ;L, 11•. 1!1 ❑ ❑�• ❑ l p V 7 .'i '.1> .T�f•�i:•,_, :; 5.°,:.. � .; \ - ♦. _ _ _ � � - �S � � ' `£<F - ♦ '� � � F t I ._I-.n �`� �y-,y S 0 '25 W .23^-�f^� SEWER KEY ROTES �{ 317.0 3n72.fi2 iE[OUI} 317.2Q GRIM SSMHrj 333.72 IE�OU» ".20 OS SSMHf3 IEIN) 33220 {8 RIM 33&43 IEE((OUT) MLIQ {S SS I { 1 f ®SSMH{4 EIN) 3" / !l RIM 350.I 07 E�OUT) 5 SSMH� 36240 R1HE} GRIM 369.67 = ♦ �. ♦♦ }\ } }} \ ` }\ 1 yl 1 1 I [ I 1 I t Ila ©SSMH16 : IE(IN) 363.90�B1(J ♦ \ \ \ 1 } \ \ ,� r�'� 1 r 1 j \ 'ul RIM 370.34 IE(OU» 363.110ssm \t \ \1 `I M\ 1 } �\ �� ,�• i' 1 S ,� I i I \\ I ORIM 371.75 IE{Ou)t] 365.4074 } 336 9@5600�2 IE=356.00 -344 334 t t T•: j T44 I gip~ 1 t 1 } 361 \ �\ , \�� '1♦ �� I l I i0 WDW IE=355,40 _ [ 11 ssro►4 IE=345.00 ♦ ` �� l `� \ t }y } 3J57:60 \ t iF .6flt - t t \\'� a• f" I "e v i -'�'�� r 3=16 IE=YA.60 \ \ _ ' ♦ } 16.' \I I A 13 ssrAp6 IE=326.00 044 - -- } }} , } \ , -- - 1 y c {i {i �] }} 1 � ! 1 (3)sscw IE=327.00 N\ �, J EXSL SSMH \ ♦ \ \ d I I 1` TOp END rEIS[R HUSH VALVE `�..♦ � \tQldt-\t ! � 0 \ p l• t t `. t \ t t 1 1 I \ F1;�31,601 -�.- C 7 fTAlr1. - j n 1 HOSE M. N6 Q• P 'P D. •Yr� y� ^..-�� r 'iA .• Pv+.�❑ p t%" Ir D 23 p: �G ° ,.�;1?, l•0�,�•. Pi" :I l P P D :;F.4. iil ')c5 u '+ "'' .g ;s j'i. t = t l \ 1 t t� ° D - - L�',,.;;.I'i q-i�'F•�11Y,: :�:f+:.�' 'i`A4 ..,•r. �.1:' J - r - rck . ,:�a . - --=� `� � t - r l ` l ay �,^q �,vP.ti ir'"� �x--,-' �s • �.; _ :. i ��;.- • � 1. 2� Y� - ,..�. �. - - _. ,,,a `^r, II-_ ttt`� - � �� ~-' i_ I 1 l� 1 1 y y .. _�:-�. � •� --' I 1 I I •Ir � �-•�,t I�'' a` \ \ � 1•1 z i Ijtl 1, { a L 1 1 \\ � �- • 1 a• I `a 1 I \ I 1 1 raa enanr.A L srxamd[r.�: Ed;, s TACOMA • SEATTLE 22f 5 Nadh YAll56o0l. StlEo k0, TxfHM, WA 98W] 257.38 N22 in 1200"Aw "' Suhe 1620, Seehle, WA 99101 145161s:s la �Oe{ 7MIRROR LAKE HIGHLAND PRELIMINARY PLAT c ICll-" WJM STUDIOS 30929 37TH PL SW FEDERAL WAY, WA 99023 WILLIAM MCCAFFERY - Jab No. 207655.10 PRELIMINARY SUBMITTAL DEC 21, 2007 lom ovwcs T 16 / r e1 Ti11CONCEPTUAL UTILITY PLAN uyymgc lx D23alm Ceeckod tw TS yyyy,� HC/TS MW �IVED f1 DFC 2 1 2007 3 4;ITY0F FFDeRAL WAV BUILDING UPToi 5 Sheele ' MIRROR LAKE HIGHLAND PRELIMINARY PLAT A PORTION OF THE S.W. 1/4 OF THE N.E. 1/4 OF SEC. 7, TWN. 21 N., RG. 4 E. W.M. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON JCT EMENTS 3' 8'1 le8' 4 3' JTIL'i-j PARKING PARKING LrnL 5R6 LOCAL .25' CLASS B .17' CSTC .42' CSBC 1 LANE tNOTE + PARKING PAUCT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT SECTION W HALF STIW FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS PtR GETAL PROVIDED. 2 LOCAL ACCESS ROAD SECTION NOT TO SCALE EXH PAGE, innEfapeA� Cm.mo'+O`I��nf TACOMA - SEATTLE 2216 North 30Ih Slreel, S fto S00, Tacoma, WA 99403 25S3532422 7a 1200 Sb1h Avarua, Sulle 1620, SeaWe, WA 96101 2062r2425 m Prolog TlrN, MIRROR LAKE HIGHLAND PRELIMINARY PLAT 011-1, WJM STUDIOS 30929 37TH Pl. SW FEDERAL WAY, WA 98023 WILLIAM MCCAFFERY Job No. 207565.10 Iseue Ss{ Di1o: PRELIMINARY SUBMITTAL DEC 21, 200T Shnor 7111u. NOTES AND DETAILS ooclonod by Drawn bv: Chan4otl kw TS HC/TS MW Sho5ot M RVED �.fFYOFFeDERAL wnr !A 9LrLAW6pEPT, 4 0l 5 Sheets TA 1 Ai1LH I LI)CA710N 1D' t YO PROPOSED LINE OF SITE VE2 LANE IN 1 TER OF LANEPOINT a ,pyg TRAM~� I 1 CENTER OF TRAVEIFD WAY MIRROR LAKE HIGHLAND PRELIMINARY PLAT A PORTION OF THE S.W. 114 OF THE N.E. 114 OF SEC. 7, TWN. 21 N,, RG. 4 E W.M. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON n GRAPHIC SCALE CENTER OF WAY Ifff+I 1RAVFIID WAY LINE OF SITE GRAPHIC SCALE INTa I NOTE SITE DISTANCE OBSERVATIONS WERE PERFORMED BY THE PROJECT %RVEm OIFoom LAND sow. FOR THE YEIER.SI:C]10N OF 57H PLACE SW AND SW 312TH STREET. THE OBSERVATION CONCLUDED THAT ONLY MINOR SITE �1$TANI�E DETAII, ONS UST SARE PROJECCTT PROPOSESRRENTLY RESENT DUE TO TO REMOVE THE THEE LIMBS CAUSING THE OBSTRUCTIONS AND THEREFORE WALL PROVIDE ADEQUATE SITE DISTANCE ( IN FEET ) 1 I-h a 20 IL ELI � A / N 3� r.� —335- ",325— EDGE DF LL iIj; 2 / rr � /�� ••\ J'rT�?31,.r/r- 1 ram` 1 •Ir � ♦r ,, !!!'�,Sry"r��l\ �i r• gZ,y � �! � _ / �rr r r'!/!�. 1 I PROPcIt�Y.Ljp1E R A �� L WM OF EXST. PAVEMENT E .. ;ram' �• .,... �.. � _ t , �l2TH-LST' �y.�r=--1^^ 31 R=143.6 29' (�iSO.W a �� ~ �c,4_� A=23'15'43" 51W 312TH sT — — — 17" i { _ _ _ + _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ EDGE OF EXST. �� — —PAVEMENT a:vaxa'F.p-xv.-1�,1 W1rar Arosfwv� p O,5 h: TACOMA SEATTLE 2215 NaR.301h Street, StAre 300, Tacoma, WA 93403 251333.742Y ig 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1320, See01e, WA SS101 2062PI425 m P-Lt,t1 Tltln: MIRROR LAKE HIGHLAND PRELIMINARY PLAT WJM STUDIOS 30929 37TH PL SW FEDERAL WAY, WA 95023 WILLIAM MCCAFFERY Job No. 207555.10 faa�2LA3914: PRELIMINARY SUBMITTAL DEC 21, 2007 A. C oaf or AAA JaAar Z�J7 oreos 2/6/Q Acusr: ar om mrfa .Harms ��. i Rvrrsr... ! Shnot. T1Hm 312TH ROW IMPROVEMENTS OoaE➢�-d- b, 12ro.Qi by, C116041w bw TS HC/TS MW SWR ENM DEC R X 2OD7� notalA E o1 C. Shosiv 6' FENCE 24" F�lZ•!CE EKISTING VEGETATIma ON -`-L 1 11 .L I..0001 af•i� •1t{ MIRROR LAKE HIGHLAND PRELIMINARY PLAT A PORTION OF THE S.W. 114 OF THE N.E. 114 OF SEC. 7, TWN. 21 N., RG. 4 'E. W.M. ; IW CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON ' RAISED BEDS t i LEGEND PEA PATCH ! ! 24• FENCE _ _ - EIg571hYr, ■ TTu�rl yu�s�[u4Hwaron+rtAN �`._ .. ..- V€GL'TATi(V 91•�__:• .«.!_^ - 36•FENCE J'"7 L7''3 E"J .. - ,S •. - - r �. 6' FENCE __ _ NNNNNNNNNN SCREEN/TRELLIS AND NNE (SEE PLANT SCHEDULE) y�, ■� - �'a c �� > D : •s_[ 'j 3Sg 35D •� B BENCH �"P 354 350 .::.(; -M2 !` - PICNIC TABLE T7 ' Rkt51• - �Ip 1-tIj C, I> ` �. },q� ., 8•� } SIDEWALK LIGHTING n •'•C'.••-'• n-PAFKIti4 �'C. t:.. +1R1C1k6._ .. S p ,1 is 4 �/� kJ G L., a pi'� ❑ � �i ._ _ .e abbe a�a� ' O.• OUTCROP ROCKS n I° 6 � 1 °: d• � � -e+ � u. .+ • .a EXISTING TREE TO RE RETNNED n ... • --� e � EGO LAWN_ eu y[rn^us �1 � `' '` b >• F C• ' ❑ _ GO'IEItfA -�• �• 7 ORNAMENTAL PLANTINGS p PARKl7iG P ;r .} ° _ - - ea t 1 ;, Ia_ e• [, •� �. I RAINGARDEN PLANINGS S[.y n 1>7 p f, ,.] I an D nT, I., • 1\ •,. _� - - I l \. " r. ° ❑�. )_+ ^'+f y `1 r' -" o- iP+ ° r u I> "[..°.. rt GENERAL NOTESi "^`` _ •�; .t+ � rs P c. a a1;. A2+, . ''= !] L ;+ T' : y.L- I.. •� x: -. `t:i, iS: __ Z ` _ + c' �� [. �•{+ • SEE SHEET L1.2 FOR TYPICAL PLANTING PLANS AND PLANT SCHEDULES. -_-� - -,..: _ --�- __'� __ + - - - -- - II VEGETATION t �• SIGNIFICANT TREE NOESI VEGETATION k _ NUNBER DE HEASIT AE MED (2 % F TREES) ON SIZE - 51 ■ '•, LIRIWN DENSITY REOLtREE1 (258 OF TREES) - 13 PATTERN CONCRETE ■ PLANNED TREE RETENTION - 4 OR DECO PAVERS (TYP) VEGETATED BERM ■ SHORTFALL OF RETENTION - 9 pf+-I 6' FENCE B' WOOD DECO SEE 'SITE PLAN PLANT SCHEDULE' BELOW FOR ARBOR 6' PERIMETER FENCE TRELLIS SCREEN PATTERN CONCRETE ! PROPOSED REPLACEMENT TREES WITH CLIMBING VINE OR DECO PAVERS (TYP) ■ DECK AND BENCH PICNIC TABLE (TYP) ■ WALL 6' PEREMITER FENCE (d) EXISTING EVEIiGREFJd VIEWING DECK WITH TREES TO REMAIN SO* FENCE ■ SFAT1NGlTABLES _- SITE PLAN PLANT SCHEDULE ■ j .�.•L.,,�..Y l `in �: ' j \ BYIBOL aTY 07T BOTAWCAL KM GOINWN KM 9M RHIU RNB tainm Tun ■-• �•.. w��>>�` 1 N in ' �, Vl 'PATIO!{^• - `I O i - A It ACIX I",pWGL141Y MBE NAflE-3-S OANES NTH. I: 8&B + r ! 1L L Ik _ }� H 10 I71PC1PAP15 ti11A7!0. HMV itl B k 9 iaA sW'lE r• 3� • % n t • 1 titi '-G' l�• 1 C %ATyJ9A IIff.E !.5' CAL B k a ` ;■ I 342 - - • , l''t o� ' ':i 'l1 I B II LER17DMIIN dJd'dRrJ.NI a. ', I. I • Il �.I E a A > IAEUS YAWOIIA x6' CAL B a e ..J 344 ` Y 33B ''� ij I dhPA1 3if0■EIL 13' G4L 8 a B 'r .! ',RAW � ' 1 yy,� r � 1 11 • �- ', '' I { 1 p ll [ � G 6 awxu5 x'ED�s raatE wondER nopCs Dx9aao 1.e• rx a d $ IJ, E ri3R•"91.. �' 7• . '\ ,, ; •' •t 1+, .1 1 - { H 17 TAWS BACCATA GOial[9 1471 S' B h S is E ` i` IBEOIIA.dACalkll[Nn'C1fIN# �� TREES W GL a& B • 9 y a aa, .A[s •a, 1 .o ti _ '- -,1' I 'ate d 2 TRUJA UCATNY 1�'< b 1 I-- p`q • � % S THUJA pI1G1TA I [ WRIW [H❑ CEDAR 1❑' B a $ n 't 4 - _ 1 I •t �..4 • L S FmS ammmsiA5iyV0E' CA:CAOE PEIR 1RFE 1,5` CAL B3 H ❑ o . e a'. 9' •. a. +Y + L j�5 Y f '�• I a . Y 16 Imm"mYPNAS mu" X it o" LSE EL0IU,1D to ILMANO CYP1EE55 I7 B a B ler ` \ 1 [ - .� 0''- •, L 1' ( - I N 12 MAMpMA 9F.PEAIS 4 +F�_ • 1 ,'� O 1 , r ❑ 40 ![AItBA LAT=LUA MWUN TAN LAUREL IF DONE. 4' aG I ym ■ l c I n C la r \ • ,p 'i p i (" I�1 6 BIIOIIIIIBIHIM P 9❑ x X T 'MAnAUE WIEN' xvBwD TRUMPET aiElpQt 1 cAt cONI; S aC. D. �\■ r3. pi}I"b ,f P.�!='ap•+n 0`., ' Se ,� _ _'j�� L l.o Ni ��--t L !•'` ENTRANCE SIGN VEGETATED BERM J * V WOOD DECO DR7 CREEK BED TRELLIS SCREEN WITH CLIMBING VINE OUTCROP ROCKS GRAPHIC SCALE a >A ( IN FEET' ) 1 inch = 20 fL CNa En9lneers SINGprs, Engineers Lend:cape NchiW. corsrsumry wen.ers `I �� - Lepdspneyprs _ Npryhbprs I I - 47�t=-D T A C O M A S E A T T L E 2215 NOM 301h Slleel, S,91.300, Tacoma, WA 98403 253363.2422 mL 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suile 1620, Seattle, WA 96101 206 267 2425 m Prolw Tiler. MIRROR LAKE HIGHLAND PRELIMINARY PLAT CYeN WJM STUDIOS 30929 37TH PL SW FEDERAL WAY, WA 98023 WILLIAM MCCAFFERY Jo- b N% 207555.10 lu-,e Set 6 P&LL PRELIMINARY SUBMITTAL JUNE 25, 2000 WAW41IM7011 R£WR uxascAAE AIlC mrecr L&0MAR0 CERIIFlCATE MO. %7 r,Km III`,(ii� 0erle;en-_ CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN Re� kmn 4Y: h °Sk'7-51" LZ/HW HW LZ Sh.al NSL BMrrTED L 1.1 2 5 2008 FDERALWA4• of 4 Sheets MIRROR LAKE HIGHLAND PRELIMINARY PLAT A PORTION OF THE S.W. 1/4 OF THE N.E. 1/4 OF SEC. 7, TWN. 21 N., RG. 4 E W.M. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON TYPICAL RAINGARDEN PLANT SCHEDULE SYMBOL SYY OTY BOTANICAL NAYS COMMON NAME SIZE REMARKS • TREN A ACER CIRCINATUM VINE MAPLE - 3-5 CANES MIN. 5 B & B B CORNUS SERICEA RED OUR DOGWOOD 1.5" CALI B & B C SALIX PURPUREA 'NAHA' DWARF ARCTIC HALLOW 18-24" COAT., 4' O.C. D SPIREA DOUGLASTI DOUGLAS SPIREA STEEPLEBUSH 18-24' ML 4' O.C. E ROSA PISOCARPA CLUSTERED WILD ROSE 16-24' CONT., X O.C, F CAREX OBNUTA SL3101 SEDGE 18-24' CONT., 3' O.C. G LAVANOULA ANGUSTIFOIJA LAVENDER 2 GAL CONT. H ® ECHINACEA PURPUREA PURPLE CONEFLOWER 1 GAL CONT. I Q LILIUM COLUMBIANUM CdUMBIA IDLY 1 GAL CONT. ILOENSIS STRAWBERRY 1 GAL CONT., 1' O.C. D o 0 0 o p o 0 0 0 0 o o K ACORUS GRAMINEUS SWEET FLAG 1 GAL CONT., 1' O.C. TYPICAL ORNAMENTAL PLANTINGS PLANT SCHEDULE SYMBOL SYY OTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE RWANKS f TREES A CUPRESSOCYPARIS LEWANDII X 'EMERALD ILSV EMERALD ISLE LEYLAND CYPRESS SO" B & B B PYRUS COMMUNIS 'CASCADE' CASCADE PEAR TREE 1.5" CAL B & B C APPLE 'SPARTAN' SPARTAN APPLE TREE 1.V CA. 8 & B B CORNUS SERICEA 'FLAVIRAMEA' YELLOW DOGWOOD 18-24' CONT. C I CISIUS X PURPHREUS PURPLE ROCKROSE 18-24' I CONT., Y O.C. D m REDBECKIA FULGIDA BLACK EYE SUSANS _ 16-24' CONT., 1' O.C. E ® ALLIUM 'GLOBEMASTER' ORNAMENTAL ONION 18-24' COAT., 1' O.C. F ECO GRASS ECO GRASS ECO LAWN FENCE TYPICAL ORNAMENTAL PLANTING PLAN 61 FENCE — 36" FENCE— ALO" WALL uEjo 0 U, I 0 IM L.� L r� Ej El NOTES EGO LAWN MIX: SHE7PS FESCUE DAWSON SLENDER RED FESCUE SR5210 CREEPING RED FESCUE SR 51GO CHEWINGS FESCUE JASPER CREEPING RED FESCUE SCALDIS HARD FESCUE SR 3150 HARD FESCUE COMPANY AND MIX INFO: htip://www.wldflowerfarm.com 0 Ll U El Ij E-i ij IMPERVIOUS PATH PICNIC TABLE ECO LAWN EXH I PAGE - GRAPHIC SCALE CMI Engineem I�•— ` Shuctm) Engineers l�tlscape Alrhilecls -+I111 Cammunlry Planners Lend S—y— l•I ' Neighban l^,I� I 1 .� INS ... T A C O M A S E A T T L E 2215 North301h Simel, Suite 300, Tacoma, WA 98403 253.3832422 nL 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1620, Seatlle, WA 98101 2062672425 TEL Project Tlll,. MIRROR LAKE HIGHLAND PRELIMINARY PLAT WJM STUDIOS 30929 37TH PL SW FEDERAL WAY, WA 98023 WILLIAM MCCAFFERY Job No 207566.10 Legye SeL..LPm,. PRELIMINARY SUBMITTAL JUNE 25, 2008 v�1�nr� C� STATE OF WASHINGTON REGISTERED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT LEONAR CERTIFICATE NO. 367 RASE of copIlown so LETTER 02/04/08 Sboel TH19, CONCEPTUAL PLANTING PLAN Oeatnnee br• Drawn or: Cnecwea by LZ/HW HW LZ Sboel No. `IN" It. L1.2 1 lnah - 6 2 01 4 Sheets - -- MIRROR LAKE HIGHLAND PRELIMINARY PLAT PIZ N p 6ttae A PORTION OF THE S.W. 1/4 OF THE N.E. 1/4 OF SEC. 7, TWN. 21 N., RIRIGS 4 E. W.M. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON magh TACOMA - SEATTLE 2215 North 30th Street, Sulle 300, Tetnme, WA 98403 2533B32422 Ta 1200 SbM Avenue, Sulle 1520, Seattle, WA 98101 2DB2672425 Ta TREES RAINGARDEN / NATIVE / DROUGHT TOLERANT PLANTS BORDER PLANTS Ptoleol ime JAPANESE SNOWBELL STrRAX JAPONICUS d MIRROR LAKE CREEPING MAHONIA HIGHLAND y MAHONIA REPENS PRELIMINARY PLAT I, ti ORIENTAL POPPY Ckr^t, PAPAVER ORIENTALE JAPANESE HOLLY WJM STUDIOS �� --•-- ILEX CRENATA 30929 3TTH PL SW FEDERAL WAY, WA 98023 FRENCH LAVENDER WILLIAM MCCAFFERY LAVEND'ULA DENTATA CANDICAN5" Job No :BLACK EYE SUSANS REDBECKIA FULGIDA _. 207555.10 gip' ��,��• - • :� la soE Sel 8 Oillq .ti• PACIFIC COAST IRIS PRELIMINARY SUBMITTAL JUNE 25, 2008 KATSURA TREE CERCIDIPHYLLUM JAPONICUM -- _ _ - •--- YARROW .' ACHILLEA MILLEFOLIUM k SARCOCOCCA ,rY SARCOCOCCA HOOKERIANA VAR. HUMILIS PURPLE CONEFLOWER ROSE GLOW BARBERRY ECHINACEA PURPUREA BERBERIS THUNBERGII 'ROSE GLOW' STATE OF WASHINGTON 8ECIR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT CMV4 O `F L£R13pCATE H4L i.7 VINE MAPLE or wormNs ACER CIRCINATUM V .p`. COLUMBIA LILY LILIUM COLUMBIANUM MOUNTIAN LAUREL RED TWIG DOGWOOD KALMIA LATIFOLIA ORNAMENTAL ONION CSTER' ORNUS SERICEA SWEET FLAG ' ACORUS GRAMINEUS k.! ALLIUM TER' CLEMATIS SP SAN OTTO LUKEN LAUREL EXH PRUNUS LAUROCERASUS 'OTTO' LUKEN' & REM P COMME LETTER 02/04/08 PAGE ". -- WESTERN AZALEA Shael Tille: RHODODENDRON OCCIDENTALS ,• CONCEPTUAL PLANTING PLAN `rl prt�lnnnll ev. p,eeA 2ti C"eckea cv LZ/HW HW LZ YELLOW TWIG DOGWOOD WHITE RCCLRrS` CORNUS SERICEA HELIANTHEMUM APEN IIL,U` " ' NO L1.3 al 4 smals 1.1 GENERAL LANDSCAPE NOTES MIRROR LADE HIGHLAND- PRELIMINARY PORTION OF THE S.W. 114 OF THE N.E. 1/4 OF SEC. 7, TWN. 21 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON PLANT MBATERIAL PROVDE THE QUANTITY, LCCATION,PHONE NUMBER ANDONE MONTH PRIOR To STRUCION, CONFIRMED ADDRESS OF THE PROCUREMENT ORDERS FOR ALL E GROWER. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING QUANTITY OF PLANTS THAT ARE REPRESENTED BY SYMBOLS ON THE DRAVANGS. IF A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE PLAN ANC PLANT SCHEDULE IS ENCOUNTERED, NOTIFY THE L.A. FOR CLARIFICATION IMMEDIATELY. 3. ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL CNFORPLAT M 10 ,AAA STSHAANDARDS FOR NUSERY STOCK, LATEST EDIIIN. PROVIDE HEALTHY WELL-BALANCED PLANT MATE&fAL.S AS SPECIFTEO. CONTACT L.A. IN HRITING 3 W>rEKS IN ADVANCE PLANT MATERIAL DEIIVERY TO NMO El o. MA1Tl7ALSHALLIDEIPLACET}NONE VSOLATFA�OCATINLON THE£PROJEGT SDETcNAHDIPROVIDE UNRESTRICTED AC SS FOR Yk5UA77 QVERALL GROWTH FiAR TAL TTiEfS SHALL BE LIHTIED AND BRANCGIH£SISEPARATED. UNCACCF3TRBLE PLJWT MATERIAL SHALL BRA REMOVED FROM THE JOB SITE. 4. SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR GRADING AND UTILITY LOCATIONS. 5. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE EXCAVATION 800,;24.5555). RESPONSIBLE CONSULT WITH GENERAL C04TRACATION OF ALL MR PRIOR TO EXCAVATION. CALL FOR UTILITY LOCATE PRIOR TO AVATION 6. IF UTILITIES ARE ENCOUNTERED, CONTRACTOR SHALL PROMPTLY INFORM GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND REPAIR ANY DAMAGES. 7. OBTAIN WRITTEN APPROVAL OF FINISHED GRADES FROM LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO PLANTING OR SEEDING. 8. CONTRACTOR GENERALSHALL IMPORT MINIMUM 6 INCH DEPTH OF TOR TO DETERMINE OUAS NEEDED.SANDTOPSOIL FOR ALL PLANTING BED AREAS. COOR 75 9. CONTRACTOR SHALL IMPORT A MINIMUM 2 INCH DEPTH OF SANDY LOAM TOPSOIL FOR ALL SEEDED AREAS. 10. CONTRACTOR SHALL CLEAN UP ALL DEBRIS AND LEAVE SITE IN A NEAT CONDITION. 11. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN H ESITE FOR 60 DAYS AS DESCRIBED IN SPECIFICATIONS AFTER FINAL ACCEPTANCE IS RECEIVED IN WRITING FROM l 12. CONTRACTOR SHALL WARRANTEE THE PLANT MATERIAL FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF ACCEPTANCE. SPADNG X R.FOR TPA INIG X PATTERN SPAONG AS MN QCACId f�dH 3' OF MULCH NOTE: 1. REFER TO SPECS FOR ADD'L INFORMATION. GRONNOCOVFR FINISHED CRA 2' OF MIACH FINISHED LITtADE ADD 10-10-10 SLOW — y r$ ED RECOMFERTILIMENDED PER MFR RECOMMENDED PER MFR RATE FOR SIZE IF LIWLTLY CWAACTED M- &ACWiLL WITH SOIL MIX WATERED THOROUGHLY MIX WATER DR LILTNRY CtlMPAC1EQ SOA. bigmL 1 REFER TO SPECS FOR AWARTS ifR8R1UKY OF Ath. ADD'L INFORMATION. FOR WRAB0E6ZED GRO[WDmo GROIiHDCdYER PLANTING DETAIL NOT TO SCALE 1Lm 1. ADD 10-10-10 SLOW RELEASE FERTILIZER AT MFR RECOMMENDED RATE FOR SIZE OF ' 2. DRIVE STAKES OUTSIDE STAKE ROOT BALL - SINGLE TREES LESS THAN 6'. 3. RUM TO SPECS FOR ADYL INFORMATION. EVERGREEN OR DECIDUOUS SHRUB ti FORM CONTINUOUS 2' HIGH WATERING BASIN BERM 1' RUBBER-- '6 TREE AM 1G-1G-10 SLOW CHAIN RELEASE FEI00UZER AS PER MFR RECOMLU. w RATE FOR SIZE gE GRADE •BACM WITH SOL SOOT WATER IN BACKFILL WITH SOIL MIX AS SPECIFIED - WATER IN 6' LAYERS DO NOT TAMP PLAT N., R G. TREE STAKES - (2) PER TREE 3' OF MULCH F FDRM CONTINUOUS 4' HIGH WATERING BASIN BERM •RBIM WIRE BASKET r BURLAP •LIGHTLY COMPACTED SOIL MIX - WATER THOROUGHLY SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL 3 DEOR ITS T EE LAHTING DETAIL 2 NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE 4 .E. W.M. NQTE5, 1, ADD 10-10-10 SLOW RBFASE!FERTILIZER AT MFR RECOMMENDED RATE FOR 512E 2. REFER TO SPECS FOR ADD'L INFORMATION. 1' Rom - TREE CHAR! FY8SEE0 — GRME 10' SM 3' OF MULCH THEE STAKES PLACED 2' BELOW SURFACE f, REMOVE WIRE BASKET & BURLAP BACKFILL WITH SOIL MIX - WATER IN 6' LAYERS DO NOT TAMP LK,N'RY CWAG1ED SOIL SIX OF WX - WATER THOROUGHLY CQWER3 TREE~ PL NTIN(# BETA L ' NOT TO SALE EsceG¢ArGi ac Cammunity Planners '+ z�-� Lena Servelmrs Neighbors .� I i D©.' n T A C O M A S E A T T L E 2215 NoM 301h Sheet, Su6e 300, Tacoma, WA 98403 2533832422 TEL I=Sho Ammo, 5.dv t62o, 5eottle. WA 94101 2062672418 TEL Bini I Tj]Ig_ MIRROR LAKE HIGHLAND PRELIMINARY PLAT WJM STUDIOS 30929 37TH PL SW FEDERAL WAY, WA 98023 WILLIAM MCCAFFERY Job No M7663.10 GIs PRELIMINARY SUBMITTAL JUNE 26. 2008 STATE OF WASHINGTON REGISTERED LANDSCAPE ,ARCHITECT LiORIARg' L CERTIFICATE NO. 367 ma 7 I>om"s HE 1/, RE%nWNS PER COMMENT LETTER 02/04/08 AeYloes' Shae1 7me CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE NOTES AND DETAILS Doaloned bx: 0m.e ey. Dina.-9 0•- LZ/HW HW LZ SNooL dQ L1.4 4 01 4 Sheets U I w (�, C Q O T N LL GOCc rL N 3 f0 c O O y "Q m N o a� 1 ca r.+ Y cm 'O N C 0) -+ CO N U E _1 a a J O v 0 O LL u .E z Z 0 0 `° N 4-1 O U L L r rrr� `S ` a^d I5OD d.. { Q CITY OF CITY HALL FILE 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way Mailing Address: PO Box 9718 98 N .. Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www. cityoffederalway. com April 17, 2007 Mr. William McCaffery 30929 37`' Place SW Federal Way, WA 98023 RE: File #07-100022-00-AD; MIRROR LAKE HIGHLAND COTTAGES 604 SW 3121h Street, Federal Way, WA Dear Mr. McCaffrey: Congratulations! The Cottage Housing Selection Committee has conditionally recommended that your proposed project on SW 312"' Street be selected to advance to the formal submittal phase for development of a Cottage Housing demonstration project. The proposed Mirror Lake Highland Cottages has been found to be generally consistent with the purposes } of the cottage housing article; is designed with sensitivity to neighboring single-family residential uses, and creates an excellent example of Craftsman inspired cottage housing with appropriate design features. It will be a welcome addition to the City's housing stock. The Mirror Lake Highland Cottages housing proposal is hereby approved as a Cottage Housing Demonstration Project, subject to the following conditions: 1) Rain gardens shall be considered as usable open space only if containing formal landscaping and seating. 2) The formal application shall provide verification of open space quantity and configuration. 3) Any changes to City road standards may require the proposal to be changed. 4) The project shall meet all requirements of the 1998 KCSWDM for Level 3 Flow Control and Resource Stream Protection Menu Water Quality. If approved by the Public Works Director, the applicant may design the project using methods outlined in the 2005 KCSWDM standards for Low Impact Development (LID), but must show that Level 3 flow control and Resource Stream Protection Menu Water Quality standards will be met. The applicant may be required to provide additional bonding or maintenance provisions for methods not currently approved by the 1998 KCSWDM. In addition, site and development constraints may impact the proposed lot layout. With this approval, you may submit formal applications for land use and environmental review. Please contact Senior Planner Deb Barker at 253-835-2642 to discuss submittal requirements. EXHIBIT_E�L PAGE_!_aF 2 McCal'fity April 17, 2007 Page 2 Thank you for your interest in cottage housing. We look forward to working with you. Sincerely, e;tvdo, ►"4` Kathy McClung, Director Community Development Services c: Cary Roe, Public Works Director/Assistant City Manager Ken Miller, Deputy Public Work Director Greg Fewins, Deputy Director of Community Development Services Deb Barker, Senior Planner Isaac Conlen, Senior Planner Janet Shull, Contract Planner Ann Dower, Public Works Engineer Maryanne Zukowski, Senior Traffic Engineer Chris Ingham, South King Fire and Rescue Brian Asbury, Lakehaven Utility District EXHIBIT El- I PAGE7- DF- 07_100022 Doe. 1.D.40503 'k CITY OF Federal October 10, 2007 Mr. William McCaffery 30929 37`h Place SW Federal Way, WA 98023 CITY HALL Way 33325 8th Avenue South Mailing Address: PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway com RE: File #07-100022-00-AD; MIRROR LAKE HIGHLAND COTTAGES/MODIFICATION REQUEST 604 SW 3121' Street, Federal Way, WA Dear Mr. McCaffery: City staff have had the opportunity to review the revised lot layout for the above -referenced cottage housing project_ The 14-lot configuration of this project was selected by the City to advance to the formal submittal phase for development of a Cottage Housing Demonstration project based on an April 17, 2007 letter. On September 21, 2007, you submitted a 16-unit preliminary submittal study dated September 19, 2007, accompanied by an 8-lot proforma to demonstrate that the cottage housing density could be achieved. Your September 5, 2007 letter, identified ongoing changes to the conceptual layout. )Based on my review, the 16-tot configuration is found to be generally consistent with the purposes of the cottage housing article based on the following comments: The following items must be addressed with the formal application: 1. Lot 1 contains a garage that fronts onto 61" Avenue SW, which does not meet FWCC Section 22- 923(9)(e). The location of the garage door must be modified or a formal modification submitted- 2 Open space layout should be modified to switch unit 15 with the adjacent open space block and move the open space area bounded by parking stalls to the south to combine and increase an existing open space area. Refer to the red -lined plan. 3. All units must be sprinklered per the Tire Department, including those on SW 312`h Street. 4. The affordable units require porches per FWCC. 5. Conditions from the original conditions of approval from the April 17, 2007 approval, remain in effect. With this modification determination, you may submit formal applications for land use and environmental review. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 253-835-2642 if you have any questions about this letter. Sincerely, kz, 60,4- `a-1--- Deb Barker Senior Planner Jne: Red -lined Drawing c: Ann Dower, Engineering Plans Reviewer Chris ingharrSouth King Fire EXHIBIT 'F---a PAGE I F_L` Doc 1 D 42619 RECEIVED, I FEB 11 2008 CITY Of: FEDERAL WA,,February 11, 2008 City of Federal Way CDS Community Development Re: Highland Scottish Homes Development/SW 312th and 6th Ave SW As a forty-seven year resident/property owner on Mirror Lake, I have some real concerns regarding the proposed development of Cottage Homes on SW 312th, across from Mirror Lake. It is my understanding the developer proposes to provide lake access for those homes. Mirror Lake, a small, fragile lake, has always been privately owned. As owner of my lot plus 1151St interest in the whole of Mirror Lake, I share responsibility for expense of maintaining its purity and beauty. Aside from lake frontage taxes, I contribute to the cost of controlling lily pad growth, invasion of noxious plants and control of lake level. Along with other property owners, I contribute to the expense of stocking the lake with trout, on a catch -and -release basis. In my first years of residence, we physically cleared out any debris obstructing the outlet, the testing for water purity was performed by Dr. Bruell, a courtesy now assumed by Robert Roper. With the growth of the area, it has become an increasingly urgent responsibility to keep the lake from becoming polluted and a community cesspool. The Bethel Chapel, lessee of the beach abutting 312th, has responded to our request to erect a gated fence to the property for privacy and to also provide a life guard when their young people use the lake. In my opinion, accessing the lake to sixteen non -lakefront homes is a violation of the property rights of those residents on Mirror Lake r 1 S Marie Trotignon 426 S.W. 316' Street Federal Way, WA 253-927-7404 EXHIBIT 60'1 PAGE_j_pp RECEIVED BY r.OMMUNITY DEVFLoPM ENT DEPARTMENT FEB 0 4 2008 1/30/08 Deb Barker, Sr Planner City of Federal Way P.O. Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 RE: Mirror Lake Highland Cottage Preliminary Plat Notice Of Land Use Application Dear Deb, My husband and I have a question/concern to raise with regard to displacement of raccoons, skunks, ferrell cats, rats, and mice that currently live in the wooded area to become developed. We just wonder if there is anything that can be done with these animals before they move out of the woods when the heavy equipment comes in to start work. We think the cats are doing their best to survive on the mice/rat/bird population & we would put food out for them if we didn't think it would encourage the rats to come over. We wouldn't have our feelings hurt if the skunks went bye bye ... we just are hoping the entire animal population doesn't move in with us (especially the skunks & rats). We would like to know what typically happens to the small animal population when wooded land is developed in neighborhoods, and hope to attend the Public Hearing for information. Thanks very much. Dana & Joe Behlke 616 S.W. 312' St. Federal Way, WA 98023 ocHiBrr (5'2 PAGE_LOF RECEIVED BY COMMUNETYDEV,ELOPME TTpEPARTMENT FEB 2 0 2008 19 February 2008 401 SW 312" St Federal Way WA 98023 City of Federal Way Community Development Services Department Attn: Deb Barker, Senior Planner 33325 8`h Avenue South Federal Way WA 989003 Subject: Proposed Mirror Lake Highland Cottage Home Development Dear Ms Barker, Thank you for notification and the opportunity to comment on the Mirror Lake Highlands cottage preliminary plat package. We have tried to incorporate in our comments many of the concerns of Mirror Lake residents, although you will be receiving comments from individuals as well. In our letter submitted 27 June 2007, we emphasized a couple of points: • The design describes raingardens as common open space. Raingardens, therefore, can not be also credited as surface water management facilities. -The design does not address the control of phosphorous. These are still concerns, but our comments now concentrate on the documents in the preliminary plat package. We feel that handling and treatment of surface water is one of the most important elements of this project from the perspective of Mirror Lake Residents. The newspapers regularly run stories on distressed lakes in the area; often that distress is a consequence of increases in nutrients reaching the lake. Attached are examples of three reports just since our first comments on this project. There is good reason for caution regarding runoff effects. Area lakes have been caught in the spiral of environmental damage; experimental and/or expensive treatment; unintended consequences; lawsuits; loss of esthetic and recreational value. '03 EXHIBIT. PAGE._. L_OF ! Steilacoom Lake is a good example. We do not want this for Mirror Lake and we look to the city to provide the appropriate regulatory protection. The following comments are organized according to the corresponding element of the data package. If you have any questions, please call either Bob Roper or Marla Ledin at the numbers listed below. Yours truly, Robert S. Roper Land Use Committee Mirror Lake Residents' Association 253-941-6954 E X 1411 a� 17 PAGE 2 G•3 Y S a W F 3 Of W F+ 0 C) a _. "C 3 �U.i D o w O m SIC 41 ova a 0--3 n mc ry1 " O r'7 QS i V if 0 1 �4 a 1 Z10 If � 10 a a v low 1� y C W N ✓z Q�1 ^_ W _� r� es �dH0 V fd � aC7 `" � A .� • J O .� � e 0r o u C Aa Q .a v owa { .o a K J z w. � �A C x c nr D D Rai CL {07 -_� Fs v 3 3 v Jq Q � � O any uepll 4 •S ,. -Es' r 4 mmca'm �y o � W Z ; K N N i o 4 C 0 v as U �5�a. o o -co '13� t� C) E z FA z n cd o c Cd Cd U N � F ch w U 0 a 3 cd W b O Cd N 0 A a ? IT PAGE--3-OF IL N He said he-s also a consultant for allocated the Lake Steilacoom Improve - the lake as ment Club. it with the. Dorling proposed treating ON B t The club Waughop Lace last year, but he fj N •f thatmun- and city officials decided to delay treatmeni until next spring. Sto keep wa- Howard and county Health a ' ....•in officials DeparttnentspakeswomanToby but a com- Winans said Wednesday that aid -it did until the while the treatment is experi- Mtned off for a mental, it,,iustifiable because of the algae's danger to the public. 3 D6parurtenf s Greg'lrtgoren, city surface waIWO - h-cAae VPear ter division manager, said lake ! u te'citutoffv r- Steilacoom was added to the �impetwaste.fail• spring treahment schedule after T--, anfi-orn lain the city received the 1)0F grant. Mkz= "We want to work collabora- 7-t tit boti; lakes tively to try to improve the health i "qg pellet; of cal- of the lake," he said. "It's experi- 113kes e carom a barge n mental, it may not work but we t ;ate a Nutrient and think it's worth the effort to help vhirh should mien the in' pmvernent club" tom I Rob Tucker.253-597-8374 tor. Doug Dorling Ito aid W*esdayhe )oth lakes in aril. get a b ath Lakewood aims to curb algae State grants •milt help pay for chemical treatments in two lakes as Lakewood tries to solve an algae problem thaVs been deemed a public health risk._ BY ROB TUCKER rob.tucker@thenewstribunexom Lake Steilacoom, one of fakewood's IWSM takes. Wilt get an experirnen tal treatment next Spring inan attempt to reduce blooms of toxic blue=green al- gae, officials said. TYeating the lake will cost about $169,600, About $-o,oQQ will come from a state Department of Ecology grant to the city. Homeowners in the t Lake Steilacoom improvement Club # will Pay the remainder. Officials said. I The POP ular320-acre lake is the sec- ond in the city scheduled for treatment with calcium hydroxide. Government Officials and interested property own- ers hope it will cut down blooms that Can make humans, pets and livestock sick. "It's an effort to get a handle on toxic algae," Sandy Howard, state Ecol- ogy spokeswoman, said this week.' At a couple of lakes in Pierce Co",dogs have died a, - -- - - � +� r r � � -- The second lakeschedWed fortreat - L —'s C C I L ment is Waughop, a 33-itcre center- piece of Fort Steilacoo111 park. People fish there, and a the lake is used by man t pep and I y people, in- cluding dog walkers, $10,00 -S20.000 COST EXPECTED ake Bonnqu 1'�light dosed Bonney Lake applies for a state permit to treat Lake Bonney for noxious weeds. Residents approve. BY MIKE ARCHBOLD mike.archbold@thenewstribune.com As lakes go, Lake Bonney is in mid- life. And though no crisis looms, residents --°orry about the noxious and invasive :eds that thrive on nutrients carried into the lake by storm water runoff. Residents of the 17-acre urban lake want the City of Bonney Lake to pay to chemically treat the weeds before they reach a point of no return. "I'll bet we've lost 40 percent of the Please see LAKE, page B2 - sT . -,..- •l Taa�� DETAJio y7nna , 1 AKE: r TAPS . Simmons Park -1 Y Lilke Blvd. E' �' Boat launch ,r 50NP4 ,Y 'LAKE §&LJRCE:.£SRI. GDT FREE MATAMOROS/The News Tabime j I3t,LINGS COULD BRING -MATS PENAiY.'>1'. s .............. B3 A prosecutor might file death -penalty charges today againss B4 the man arrested in the 2007 slaying of two Tacoma men. B stands the lake folks' frustrations. Rackley said installing a catch basin system to divertstorm water from the lake would help. So would installing mechan- ical filters on the outlets. Both are expensive, perhaps costing as much as $200,000, he said. These options are being studied, but paying is another matter. The city hasn't looked into it yet. Eutrophication, or aging of a lake, is a natural process. Lakes born in glacial times want to fill themselves in with plant life, though the process can take centu- ries. As development increases around them, the aging process speeds up. Slowing it down is the goal at Lake Bonney. SharUyn Anderson, who's lived on the lake for 18 years and is president of the conservation association, said the good news is that residents feel the city is listen- ing. But there are many voices to hear along the lakefront. Spreading out a Wrap, Anderson showed where some residents want chemicals used in front of their homes while others don't, Anderson counts her- self among the latter group. "I tend to be more conservative," she said, "I don't want to fight nature." Mike Archbold: 253-597-8692 V4a.1181T &`3 PAGE�0____ Preliminary Technical Information Report Section 2.1—Core Requirement #1 Discharge at Natural Location The TIR states that the project will provide overflow facilities to convey stormwater runoff to the existing city system in the event of system failure or an event greater than the design requirements. No details of the proposed facility could be found and no room appears to have been left in the design for such a facility. In fact, the porch of Unit #1 is less that 34 feet from the 312`h St proposed easement Iine.The downstream drainage analysis states that "the existing drainage system 312th Street is considered a suitable conveyance system to serve as an overflow from the proposed system..." If a new overflow facility is proposed, it should be described, at least conceptually and its size and location provided. Otherwise, the TIR is interpreted as providing no provision for overflow. Section 2.3—Core Requirement #3 Flow Control The TIR describes infiltration trenches with as little as one foot depth between the bottom of the trench and impermeable glacial till. Appendix B to the TIR describes infiltration trenches that are 2 feet wide by 1.5 feet deep and filled with gravel having 30% voids. This arrangement is expected to provide inadequate storage capacity (considering that 46% of the site is impermeable surface) compared to the typical wetpond or wetvault. Based on the drawing description of the proposed raingardens, little if any additional storage capacity can be expected from this source. Section 2.8—Core Requirement #8 Water Quality The TIR claims that the project is located within a Basic Water Quality Area. This is incorrect. It is located in a Resource Stream Water Quality Area as shown on the attached Water Quality Applications Map. Resource Stream requirements call for 50% removal of zinc as an indicator for a wider range of pollutants. The Resource Stream menu specifies options for the use of a large sand filter or a combination of two facilities in series, one of which is either a sand filter or a leaf compost filter. There is no indication in the TIR of proposed facilities to meet the Resource Stream requirements. PE OF N m Q � m m m O e O m m m ca w e •v C Q C am _ O a >, =• m Q>% @ 0 o C /L/� V ` m GrJ.�_ � i O (n I67( i ( `•' > v � of m Y cc m a� E N N C �_ m m >. oo v o 9 LL CY cc W O U N � N J >. CDm a 9 6 Q o m O v W m a 4� L _� uY •� 2' CL W m o 'O C IL i cn 0 Q' m V Cc J C.) Q oCL ana.Lr� mmmmLSS�n« C3 � "' o cc CL COQD O m N m V3 ai L7 WtA�pm min 333 So s.c U Q J ' L..� � Cq Co LL MS 3W 1$ + � .�-- KWC 41 il a 7'n d N ..AMAS' _._3AVisiZ CL � � a i IT Uk . Preliminary TIR Addendum —Appendix B This document was used to the extent possible in trying to understand the design. However, it consists of a collection of engineering calculations without the benefit of narrative. As such, it is hard to understand and the terminology does not play well with other documents in the package. For example, consistent terms should be used and definitions provided for such terms as infiltration area, raingarden, infiltration trench, test pit and shallow infiltration facilities. ExIMPT C�-3 PAGE OF L Level 1 Downstream Drainage Analysis In section 3.0, the analysis concludes that "no downstream problems are anticipated". To support that conclusion, it claims that there were no flooding complaints registered during storm events of 1996, 1999 and 2006. The analysis fails to recognize that both 1996 and 1999 were flood years on Mirror Lake. It is unknown where the consultant obtained their data on complaints but 1996 was a year of extensive flooding on Mirror Lake with negotiations and neighborhood meetings involving lake residents and city officials. The effort resulted in the city installing a pump at Fisher's Bog in order to save lake residents from further flooding. Once again, in 1999, the city had to resort to pumping in order to protect the lake. The attached table provides a record of pumping dates and interaction between lake residents and the city during that time. Also attached are copies of written complaints presented to city officials during a January 1997 meeting. The city has since taken measures aimed at preventing flooding from getting any worse. It is important to understand one of the contributing factors to lake flooding. 1996- 1997 and 1998-1999 were both years of sustained rains that saturated the soil, as shown in the attached charts of rainfall and lake level for those years. Peak lake levels in both years exceeded 301 feet after a period of rains that were unrelenting until the soil was saturated. Photos taken on December 28 1998 show the extent of problems experienced on the lake. There is concern among lake residents that the infiltration approach proposed for the cottage homes will not work under such saturation conditions. The 9 inches per hour infiltration rate quoted by the consultant appears to represent a snapshot that does not account for saturated conditions which occur often. With only 1 to 5 feet of pervious soil above the impervious layer, there is concern that saturated conditions could quickly be reached and further rainfall will flow straight to the lake unimpeded, without detention or slowing. In Section 6.0, the analysis proposes using the existing conveyance system to serve as overflow from the proposed infiltration system. Per section 1.3, this consists of a ditch on the north side of 312" St which feeds into a catch basin to the east, then through a pipe under 312t" St to another non -maintained catch basin, then directly to Mirror Lake. In other words, no additional facilities appear to be proposed to handle overflow. Since an overflow is a condition exceeding the capacity of the proposed infiltration system, it is difficult to understand how the Level 3 requirement of `maintaining the duration of high flows at predevelopment levels' for specified flows can be met. There is also concern for the quality of runoff water since pollutants and nutrients —most importantly phosphorous from fertilizers, pet waste, etc. —will be directed toward the lake during overflow without the opportunity for treatment, settling or filtration. ;. ti OKm_ City Contact Pumping during the 1995-1996 rain year began on December 18 and ended on March 4. Operation of the pump was intermittent during that time. Pumping during the 1996-1997 rain year began on January 1 and ended on March 12. Operation of the pump was intermittent during that time. DATE ACTION COMMENT 95-96 Rain Year Pumping 12-18-95 to 3-4-96, intermittent 96-97 Rain Year Pumping 1-1-97 to 3-12-97, intermittent 12-14-98 Phone Contact To Jeff Pratt to tell him we have backflow. Said he'd have them get started on installing the pump 12-28-98 Phone Contact To Jeff Pratt to tell him the lake is up 6 inches in a day, to 300.64. Said pump was there and ready to go. Jeff wanted pictures. 12-28-98 Extend Gage Placed additional level gage —original about to go under. 95cm on old gage = 135mm on new. 12-30-98 thru Pumping For 8 hours only on the 6t" and 7"`. 1-7-99 1-21-99 thru 3-5- Missed a couple of days in Feb. 99 EX3 PAGE_P_�& 4 Mirror Lake Flooding Problem Report Name �j (! F �rJ Address Phone Date Problem was first noticed � _. 3 5;7 7 Problem Description f._ `J Ile PAGE-ILOF S / ! Name ' .dress- - Phone W-�Ilf Date oblem first noticed rf ` Problem Description 1 r Xy�� EXHMFJIT-A�103 PRII�_OF� Name ,Address 66,3 S 12, Phone �. 7 2- l Date Problem was first noticed I -A X4e LCUf4 WAS 3 i*cyfS A/ 4/ /1 2r1� sj-o �z Roo A a D,,Ve- A,!:7,CXMOVN,- WOS'e- tet�wtav� 1-3 2- -5 Z,L4d- Ave, S�Lzl-,- r:mISIr fil: 3 PAGE l?�OF2� "l �o m rn wul 'llelul" p G o 0 o O o ci oo ti umtea Mi-jaAai ayeZ 0 U o /6-da5 9Z G6-dn5 OZ /_6-d75-41 L6 daS 8 L6•d.,S-Z G6-6nV /Z Z6-?!nV-IZ a-tinV-Sl /.6-6nV-6 GG-onV-£ - /,G-Inf-8Z t6-Inf-ZZ Z6-Inf 9l C6•inf-Ol L61nf Y ZG-ijnr-8Z l_6-unf-ZZ /..G-unf•9l Z 6-un1`U l /6-unr 4 /6- t'.I 6Z Z6 KrK-/I 16-xnW I l L6-feW-5 /_G-jdv-GZ /6-jdV-£Z L6-jdV-1l 16-�dV-ll o LG•idV-c G6-m14-0£ /6-'elV-4Z LG•�nW-81 0 Z6 Xl•I-ZI 46 •I'Il-9 Z6-q.d-SZ L6-qa.i-ZZ G6-gN-9l Z6 gni Ol 1.6-gni r Z6 �-I. 6Z /6 WT £Z LG-tPf•/_I 66 w'f- it 96-NU-0£ 96-?'0 rZ 96-wll-8 t 96.3kq -Z l 96-170 9 96-°nN-OE 96•AON-6Z 96,wN-8l 96-^ONIZ I 96-WN 9 96-»0 IE 96-»0-SZ 9G-110.61 96 �0-El 96 lo0-C 96-1-0 1 0 N ow PAGE()- 13 Maui `Ilejuiea 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lrn 0 Lrn o �n o N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (Yi cV O CT; 0 0 0 o rn M M m M N wmeQ Md-lanai ales 36/0£/6 36/L L/6 :6/b/6 56/ZZ/8 36/6/8 66/L.Z/L 66/t7 L /L 66/L/L 66/9 L/9 66/S/9 66/£Z/S 66/0 L/S 66/LZ/-V 66/-� L/tV 66/ L/iV 66/6 L/£ 66/9/£ 66/LZ/Z 66/8/Z 66/9Z/L 66/£ L/ L 86/ L £/Z L 86/8 L/Z L 86/S/Z L 86/ZZ/LL 86/6/LL 86/LZ/0 L 86/1V L/0 L 86/ L/0 L 0 0 0 a) 4-J c� c 0 .P Z 0 O c 0 m rn m N N N EXHUNT- Aw�� PAGEj5_OF A jam_ � �._ ti- •� •. � q *4 '.-.: __ '. �+ �;,� -^-ter:.. :'c;�r,ii ;.• � ! i � F a.. � - Y°EF �`' i�'I,F�, :'� r .r,,•_ i6 '•':.:� .. _ r- ` 1�h,: �i I � , �c. r +rx��- -- cl Aio Jr 1�.: .'• ..:0 Ro .. - !i' _.; �. P If t,,. • -' - ' �'- .-fir T 17 q Jim N 4x grill.. i NR lli4. Am kit row It -tam, V. jr Tea _•.. `: ,��. oy 'F.*- La e I ,ram : - i -i• 4' 1311��` �� •rx *•i'�` s i ice?/; i1' .�' V;� •fir . '. r1�;.: ��f .., �'��_. .. ; Site Plans Common open space areas for the most part do not appear to be "improved for passive or active recreational use" as required by the draft code. Rather than including "such amenities as seating. landscaping trails, gazebos, barbecue facilities, covered shelters or water features", the areas identified on the drawings are unimproved (except for a picnic table) and of such a shape that recreational use would be precluded. r EXH;7TIT PAGE-M-OF ?f' 13 Environmental Checklist Section B.1.e describes the quantity of fill material to be used as approximately 5562 cubic yards. The purpose and location of this large quantity of fill is not described. Please require the applicant to describe in greater detail how fill will be distributed and how sediment will be prevented from entering Mirror Lake during construction. The environmental checklist is silent on the future residents' use of Mirror Lake. However, the Record of Survey and property description for Parcel A show an easement, the purpose of which is specifically LAKE ACCESS. Such use would have profound environmental effects on the lake and some of its residents. At the neighborhood meeting, the applicant said that he did not intend to extend lake access currently held by the single occupant of the site to the approximately 40 people who will occupy the site post -development. The applicant should be required to do one of two things: If not intending to extend lake access, the applicant should relinquish such rights formally by giving the easement back to adjacent property owner(s). This could be done at the same time the boundary line adjustment is made. -or- If attempting to extend lake access to cottage home residents, address environmental impacts in the Water Quality and Noise sections of the environmental checklist. The Agency (City of Federal Way) has the right to ask for such additional information per the Environmental Checklist instructions. Details should include lake pollution resulting from the lack of toilet facilities; assuring the safety of persons using the easement, both while accessing the lake across 3121h and while using the lake; and gating or otherwise securing the access point to prevent use by unauthorized persons. It must also be assured that liability for property losses or personal injury resulting from such unauthorized use will fall on the prospective residents of Mirror Lake Highlands. rHISIT -3 PAGE-20-OF....�. kk T10N 7, f LINE OF SAID IORTHEAST OUTH1WST ER SAID ;ORDED s: TOWNSHIP DF BEARS EASEtaENTS AND EXCEPTIONS 1. EASEMENT- AND THE TERMS AND CONDI (IONS THEREOF: GRANTEE: LAKEHAVEN SEWER DISTRICT, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION PURPOSE: SENIER MAINS AFFECTED• A PORTION OF PARCEL A OF A POR11ON OF SAID PREMISES AREA -�. RECORDED: DUNE 1��61h,. 978 RECORDING NO.: 0899 ' ' ' _ ' (NOT SHOWN ON SURVEY. ADJACENT TO LAKE) . 2. CASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: PURPOSE: LAKE ACCESS R A OF A PORTION QF SA10 Do AREA AFFECTED: A PORTION OF PA CEL MI DES RECORDING NO. 20010619000739 (SEE SOUTH PORTION OF SHEET 2) 3, SELLER'S NOTICE OF ON -SITE SEWAGE SYSTEM OPERATION AND MAINTENAN( RECORDED, UNDER RECORDING NO. 20050211001839. (COVERS: PARCEL. A) (NOT SHOWN ON SURVEY, AFFECTS PARCEL A) d, MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF. RECORDED; APRIL 12, 2007 = � RECORDING NO.: 20070412000601 REGARDING: BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENTS (I407 SHOWN ON SURVEY, AFFECTS PARCELS A,B,C, AND D) 5. OU17CLAIM DEEDS CLEARING TITLE RE ACCESS RIGHTS AND THE TERMS ANI3 COH0 S THEREOF: RECORDED: APRIL 12, 2007 RECORDING NO.: 20070412000602, 20D70412000603 AND STATED 2H 0R 604 REGARDING: DENIES RIGHTS OF ACCESS AND EASE (NOT SHOWN ON SURVEY, AFFECTS PARCEL A) G + R0' '?E. L -; � I Atli/ AC A nrr f%mArA tC illC nc. tkirar.CC . AND. I rausi_T.R � f�081-I ROAD !- Ekrllo�1313T C1.0:5 PAGE .0 RECEIVED BY UNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MAR 0 4 2008 4 March 2008 Deb, caught up with Marla Ledin, president of the MLRA and, as promised, got her signature for our comment letter. Here is a copy for your file. I would also like to submit a reference to a Tacoma News Tribune article from September 1998 as further support of our claim of past flooding problems on Mirror Lake. Regards, Bob Roper T o-3 PAGE 0E- Steilacoom Lake is a good example. We do not want this for Mirror Lake and we look to the city to provide the appropriate regulatory protection. The following comments are organized according to the corresponding element of the data package. If you have any questions, please call either Bob Roper or Marla Ledin at the numbers listed below. Yours truly, Robert S. Roper Marla Ledin Land Use Committee President Mirror Lake Residents' Association Mirror Lake Residents' Association 253-941-6954 253-839-9090 EXHITIAT PAGE... CREEPING MIRROR LAKE DEFEATING RESIDENTS / HO''-OWNERS WATCH WATER MOVE FARTHER AND FARTHER "'TO THE YARDS EACH WINTER 2/21/08 7:37 PM Some decisions i should be made be ore w *Ceinet_ ou need to make them.eries � E=utleral Home Y the nQlIS l trib une Customer toolbox > SulasCribe Advertisin4 0 About us PROW us HaME: � ° ,_.�Y Sri'. g�l�I`%i= .. ��r'ii`di�;i� •' PiiiTiO u'�I- ' i)'�a!ii_I t ., r�?j�=;'•,I'•I =(- ' ,.�'itiV I Tacoma, WA • About us • Contact us • The Web site of the South Sound ADVERTI51NG Winter Fashion Bionics How to lose Stomach Fat? What's hot this winter? Find about Find Bionics Online. I Found the 10 Rules to Lose Belly Interactive what's trendy and fashionable! Shop & Save at Target.com Today. Fat, and I Lost 9 Ibs every 11 Days HomeSear& Sofeminine.co.uk/Winter-Fashion www.Target com www.FatLoss4ldiots.com SEARCH °`F` verett Tacoma, WA - February 21, 2008 Yr�nv'ood Basic Search I A-dvai^.ced Scar ch I Saved Search I About the Archive I Search Tips I Pricing I FAQ 5harelineclt Boihelt�uti My Account Help I Terms of Service I Login I r iom-,is tr=dge Klr!Janc� Redmon Document Se�_rah I Previoi_is Results El Buy Complete Document: FREE Abstract u$ Full Text 9$ Page Print CREEPING MIRROR LAKE DEFEATING RESIDENTS / HOMEOWNERS WATCH WATER MOVE FARTHER AND FARTHER INTO THE YARDS EACH WINTER [South King County Edition] The News Tribune -Tacoma, Wash. Author: Barbara Clements; The News Tribune Date: Sep 30, 1998 Start Page: BA Section: Local/State Text Word Count: 690 Abstract (Document Summary) That seems to be the choice facing Federal Way's engineering staff - and lake residents - as both parties ponder what to do about the ever growing Mirror Lake. "Either you translocate the water or you translocate the houses," said Jeff Pratt, manager of the city's surface water division. Pratt said it would cost between $2 million to $3 million to move the water in the 16-acre lake west through Lakota wetlands and Lakota park into Lakota Creek and finally into Dumas Bay. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission. Buv Complete Document: �_ Abstract M$ Full Text El$ Page Print Most Viewed Articles (Updated Daily) http://pgasb.pgarchiver.com/TRIBnet/access/34697287.htmI?did...CH+WATER+MOVE+FARTH F)�R +f C' + Seattle;M,3*1��' n Me ce ° } "1 S/ea aco as - eral Way place_ I Y d gyallbp y�Search b CT7 Area Max Price ❑ Min. Price ❑ BedraaMS ❑ Baths ❑ 4 BAIN, i m t� Al .. ;rcH+WINTER Page 1 of 2 . RECEIVED BY ('C)tAMl1NITYDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT February 16, 2008 Deb Barker, Federal Way Senior Planner Director of Community Development Services P.O. Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063 FEB 2 0 20108 Re: The Mirror Lake Highland Cottage Preliminary Plat - 604 SW 312" Street, Federal Way, WA Dear Ms. Barker, Thank you for the opportunity to provide written comments on the Notice of Land Use Application as a follow-up to my previous March 23, 2007 letter. I will try to limit the detail in my response here leaving that to the Mirror Lake Residents Association (MLRA), but I still want to again strongly express my concerns with the proposed project. As a result of reading through the extensive documentation that you graciously provided as part of the file, I am even more apprehensive now about doubling the density (as allowed under current zoning) in such an environmentally sensitive area. Apparently, the proposed project has also grown now from 12 units to 16 units. At the same time, the amount of land which the church is selling to the developer has also increased leading to an even greater impact on the surrounding community. My concern is not just with the number of units proposed on the property, but also with the overall size of the development footprint in such close proximity to a lake with known flooding problems. In addition, here is a brief list of other specific concerns: 1) On the site plan, the retaining wall near 312th Street to be constructed directly east of unit 2 appears to be where 3 or 4 significant trees where to remain, according to an environmental report. Can the trees and the retaining wall co -exist? 2) Significant Infill: What will be the impact on the lake and surrounding area? 3) About 50 significant tall trees in all are proposed to be cut down (leaving only 3 or 4 of the original grove) in a setting which forms a backdrop to the lake. This will have a decidedly negative impact visually for those of us that love the lake, since Mirror Lake uniquely reflects the trees and sky and mirrors them back on the water. Even if some of the trees are replaced, it will certainly leave a scar. 4) Fire/LifeSafety: The site plan shows five units in the back of the property that appear not to have access to fire/emergency vehicles. I understand that the fire department would require that all of the units have sprinklers inside, but if the exteriors ignite and cannot be extinguished right away ---would that not pose a serious risk to other structures nearby? 5) Lake Access: The property has an easement to the lake. Unfortunately, 312'' Street is a busy thoroughfare. Regular pedestrian crossing of this street to access the lake is a serious risk to life and limb. There are also no restroom facilities on the lakeside. 6) Retention: I'm no expert, but how can the measures proposed possibly address runoff? Thank you again for your time/consideration. Please call (253) 946-9363, if you have questions. Since y, Richard Scott a - -q EXHIBI r & o PAiaE—J—OF L CITY OF ti. Federal Way March 28, 2008 Ms. Marie Trotignon 426 SW 3160' Street Federal Way, WA 98023 CITY HALL FILE 33325 8th Avenue South Mailing Address: PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www. ciiyoffederalway. com RE: File #07-106874-00-SU; Response to Comments, Mirror Lake Highland Cottage Preliminary Plat Dear Ms. Trotignon: Thank you for your February 11, 2008, comment letter regarding the City's notice of application for the Mirror Lake Highland Cottage Housing preliminary plat. Your letter was forwarded to City staff and the applicant for review and response. The following information is provided in response to the comments and concerns about impacts to Mirror Lake. 1_ Drainage —Please refer to the enclosed Public Works memorandum from Ann Dower dated March 5, 2008. 2. Mirror Lake Access — Concerns about use of the access easement to Mirror Lake are of a civil nature, and not under City purview. The applicant does state in section B.12.c of the revised environmental checklist "there are no plans for improvements to the Mirror Lake access easement for benefited homes." A copy of the revised checklist is enclosed. In addition to this early notice and request for public comments, there will be two additional opportunities to submit comments on this application. Notice and opportunity for public comments will also occur following the City's issuance of an environmental decision and two weeks prior to conducting a public hearing on this proposal. The City's Hearing Examiner, who forwards a recommendation to the City Council for final consideration, will conduct a public hearing. You will receive mailed notification of the environmental decision and public hearing. If you would like to discuss this proposal or review the preliminary plans, we would be glad to meet with you. If you have any further comments, please contact me at deb.barker@cityoffederalway.com or 253-835-2642. Sincerely, Deb Barker Senior Planner � Enclosures as noted EXHIBI_A_/ T c: Bill McCaffrey, 1911 SW Campus Drive, Suite 116, Federal Way, WA 98023 ®QGC L OF ' Ann Dower, Public Works Engineering Plans Review Doc LD 44836 `CITY OF Federal Way March 28, 2008 Dana and Joe Belke 616 SW 312' Street Federal Way, WA 98023 CITY HALL FILE 33325 8th Avenue South Mailing Address: PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com RE: File #07-106874-00-SU; Response to Comments, Mirror Lake Highland Cottage Preliminary Plat Dear Mr. and Mrs. Belke: Thank you for your January 30, 2008, comment letter regarding the City's notice of application for the Mirror Lake Highland Cottage Housing preliminary plat. Your letter was forwarded to City staff and the applicant for review and response. The following information is provided in response to the comments and concerns about the wildlife population during construction. The March 6, 2008, environmental checklist provided by the applicant states that there are songbirds and deer on or near the subject site; that no threatened or endangered species are known to be on or near the site; that the site is located within the pacific flyway for migratory birds; and the proposed landscape plan includes the use of native plant species to enhance the wildlife habitat. Small animal populations displaced with development may migrate to other undeveloped property in the area. Unless there are known threatened or endangered species that are impacted by a development proposal, specific protection and/or mitigation measures are not required with the development proposal. In addition to this early notice and request for public comments, there will be two additional opportunities to submit comments on this application. Notice and opportunity for public comments will also occur following the City's issuance of an environmental decision and two weeks prior to conducting a public hearing on this proposal. The City's Hearing Examiner, who forwards a recommendation to the City Council for final consideration, will conduct a public hearing. You will receive mailed notification of the environmental decision and public hearing. If you would like to discuss this proposal or review the preliminary plans we would be glad to meet with you_ If you have any further comments, please contact me at deb.barker@cityoffederalway.com or 253-835-2642. Sincerely, Deb Barker Senior Planner Enclosures as noted EXHIBIT ' c: Bill McCaffrey, 1911 SW Campus Drive, Suite 116, Federal Way, WA 98023 PAGE-A-OF.� Doc I.U. 44837 A�kCITY OF Federal Way March 28, 2008 Mr. Bob Roper 525 SW 312a' Street Federal Way, WA 98023 RE: FILE #07-106874-00-SU; RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Mirror Lake Highland Cottage Preliminary Plat Dear Mr. Roper: CITY HALLFILE 33325 8th Avenue South Mailing Address: PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway. com Thank you for your February 19, 2008, comment letter regarding the City's notice of application for the Mirror Lake Highland Cottage Housing preliminary plat. The following information is provided in response to the comments and concerns expressed in your letter. I have asked City Public Works Department staff to review your comments and provide a written response to address your concerns. A copy of the response memorandum from Ann Dower, dated March 5, 2008, is enclosed. Your letter also contained comments on responses in the environmental checklist. Please note that your comment letter was forwarded to the applicant on February 21, 2008. A revised environmental checklist was submitted on March 7, 2008, in response to City comments; a copy of that document is enclosed. In addition to this early notice and request for public comments, there will be two additional opportunities to submit comments on this application. Notice and opportunity for public comments will also occur following the City's issuance of an environmental decision and two weeks prior to conducting a public hearing on this proposal. The City's Hearing Examiner, who forwards a recommendation to the City Council for final consideration, will conduct a public hearing. You will receive mailed notification of the environmental decision and public hearing. If you would like to discuss this proposal or review the preliminary plans we would be glad to meet with you. If you have any further comments, please contact me at deb.barker@cityoffederalway.com or 253- 835-2642. Sincerely, Deb Barker Senior Planner. Enclosures as noted EXHIBIT c: Marla Ledin, 401 SW 312`h Street, Federal Way, WA 98023 PAGE o" y Bill McCaffrey, 1911 SW Campus Drive, Suite 116, Federal Way, WA 98023 Ann Dower, Public Works Engineering Plans Reviewer Doc. LD 44833 CITY OF Federal Way DATE: 03/05/08 MEMORANDUM Public Works Department TO: Deb Barker FROM: Ann Dower SUB3ECT: MIRROR LAKE HIGHLAND COTTAGE PRELIMINARY PLAT - (07-106874-00-SU) 604 SW 312TH ST; Response to citizen comments In response to Bob Roper's letter dated 2/19/08, Public Works Dept. has the following comments. Mr. Roper's comments are italicized. The design describes raingardens as common open space. Raingardens, therefore, can not be also credited as surface water management facilities, Response: The Public Works Department places no such restriction on raingardens. Raingardens must meet all design criteria pertaining to size, plant materials, soils, etc. If common open space elements can be incorporated into raingardens without compromising functionality, Public Works will allow the combined uses. The design does not address the control of phosphorous. Response: Stormwater infiltration addresses phosphorous loading, therefore no additional treatment is necessary. Wapato Lake, Lake Bonney, and Steilacoom Lake reports Response: City staff is familiar with each of these unique lake situations. Water quality reports for Mirror Lake provided by Mr. Roper indicate that this lake has reached equilibrium and is not in decline. Staff have also reviewed King County data from 2004 (attached), which clearly indicates that the lake has "good water quality" and "generally poor conditions for nuisance bluegreen growth". There are no indications at this time that Mirror Lake has, or will have, any of the issues faced by the water bodies referenced in Mr. Roper's comments. The Low -Impact Development techniques proposed for the Mirror Lake Cottage Housing project are the best option for maintaining the current equilibrium of the lake. The TIR is interpreted as providing no overflow facility for the storm water system. Response: Every surface water control system must provide an overflow that directs storm water to the public storm system. This is required so that if the capacity of the system is exceeded, surface water will leave the site in a controlled manner and not cause damage to adjacent property. Mirror Lake Cottage Housing will be required to meet Level 3 Flow Control criteria, which is intended to prevent significant increases in existing water surface levels for 2-year through 100-year storm events. The proposed system is designed to infiltration up to the 100-year storm event. This is the maximum amount of flow co iny project within the City of Federal Way or within King County. In the rare case that a (00ds the capacity of this system, the excess will be bypassed into the public system vi discharges to an existing ditch. A redundant system is not required. Increased runoff i F is not anticipated from any storm smaller than the 100-year event. There is no indication in L„e TIR of proposed facilities to meet thy. ,iesource Stream requirements Response: The TIR does incorrectly state that this is a Basic Water Quality Area. However, the requirements of the Resource Stream Water Quality Area are met through the design of the infiltration trenches and the pervious pavement. It is generally accepted that pervious pavement contains sufficient biota within its voids to treat the runoff that filters through it. As the water percolates through the gravel layer and the top six inches of soil, it receives additional treatment. Tests have shown that pollutants generally do not travel much below the top six inches of soil. Roof runoff, which will be sent to raingardens for detention, is not required to be treated. Level 1 Downstream Drainaae Anal►rsis The TIR does not include flooding events on Mirror Lake and concludes that "no downstream problems are anticipated," Response: The TIR does state on page 2 that downstream drainage complaints have been noted, and the downstream analysis includes a table of complaints. It does not provide a discussion of the complaints. However, a developer -initiated project in 2006'which lowered the outlet to Fishers Pond has since improved the flooding situation to the extent that additional flow control measures, in excess of Level 3 flow control, are no longer required in this area. There is concern.;: that the infiltration approach,,. will not work under such saturation conditions. ,Response: The project is required to use King County Runoff -Time Series, a computer model that includes historical rainfall data, to design the system. -This model does take into account saturated !soil conditions. The design will further be required to meet the design criteria outlined in the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual for infiltration trenches, which stipulates a minimum depth of Y of permeable soils ,below the bottom-ofthe trench. Runoff will be directed toward the lake during overflow without the opportunity for treatment, settling, or filtration, Response: In an overflow condition, treatment is not necessary. Treatment is only required for the 6- month storm event for the developed site, because. most of the pollutants are washed into the storm system during this early period of the storm. As a storm event continues and becomes larger, the concentration of pollutants is greatly diminished. Runoff from most storm events, whether small or large, will be minimal from this site. If a very large storm event forces this system into an overflow condition, the pollutant loading is expected to be very low. In response to Richard Scott's letter, item #6, Public Works Dept. has the following comments: Retention: I'm no expert, but how can the measures proposed possibly address runoff? The storm water facilities, consisting of pervious pavement, infiltration trenches, and raingardens, is required to meet current standards as outlined in the King County Surface Water Design Manual. The proposed system is designed to infiltration up to the 100-year storm event. This is the maximum amount of flow control required of any project within the City of Federal Way or within King County. EXHIBIT A(-3 PAGE_'5_pF_!__ Mirror Mirror Overview Volunteer monitoring began at Mirror Lake in 1997 and continued through 2004. The data indicate this city lake (Federal Way) is moderate in primary productivity (mesotrophic) with good water quality_ Mirror Lake has no public access boat launch, but residents should watch the nearshore environment for Eurasian milfoil, Brazilian elodea, and other noxious weeds_ Physical Parameters Secchi transparency ranged from 2.4 to 7.5 m through the year The summer average of 3.6 m placed it in the upper mid range of the monitored small lakes in 2004. Annual water temperatures ranged from 6.5 to 27.0 degrees Celsius, among the warmest of the group for maximum temperature recorded Excellent records were kept for precipitation and water levels_ The lake level followed the winter high - summer low pattern, consistent with other small lakes in the region. Some sensitivity to large rainfall events was evident, particularly a couple of storms in the fall of 2003. Nutrient Analysis and TSI Ratings Total phosphorus and total nitrogen remained in relatively constant proportion to each other through much of the sampling period, rising gently though the sampling season. The N_P ratio ranged from 26 to 71, averaging 44 which suggested generally poor conditions for nuisance bluegreen growth. Profile data indicate thermal stratification was not strongly maintained, although a small 30 25 U 20 15 110 10 5 0 0 E 2 t 4 U U 6 a� Cn V �200 E 150 a a 100 Cis Q 50 a� L a. 0 100 80 a 60 40 20 0 Lake Temperature • Level 1 ❑ Level II O O O O ] O v `m a - a m aD O va Secchi Depth • Level I ❑ Level 11 Ka ° . a��[elmKIR Moo m v v v v v O O O O O O CJ C CU d O 2 In Lake Level and Precipitation O Sum of precip Avg of Lake level 75 E 50 > d J 25 Y �a J 0 •C N U O a)N N lO 7 7 7 N cn O z 0 i, Q c Q Q cn N N N N N N Nutrient Analysis ___0_ Tote — + — TotN }. T C C = 5 O) m Q, Q 0l U U d M 0 � � � 7 7 7 7 U! U) 0 0 a Q Q Q N O � 11 N N N C] N 1 I SECTION THREE I Mirror I King County Lake Monitoring Report, Water Year 2004 1000 800 z 600 }- 400 200 0 ExHi� T y'3 PAGEOF �' amount of phosphorus built up in the deep water through the summer. Chlorophyll data indicated that algae were more abundant in the deeper water on both profile dates. In 2004 the average TS indicators were spread between oligotrophic and mesotrophic conditions. TSI- chlorophyll has been consistently higher than the other two indicators over the past seven years, while TSI-Secchi and TSI-TP have been generally close together Chlorophyll Concentrations and Algae Chlorophyll concentrations were at low levels through most of the sampling period, but rose in the fall to a large peak on the last sample date. Spring and fall phytaplankton were dominated by several species of the chrysophyte Oinobryon. Summer communities were characterized by the colonial bluegreen Anacystis_ The fall peak included the diatom Aulacoseira islandica 70 y 60 50 > 40 H 30 20 Mirror E a chi r U `p °L U a tot o z Date 0) a a� U H l'- 5/24104 42 1 20.0 1.40 <detect 356 5 160 15.20 7.7 381 8130/04 3.1 1 23.0 3.20 10.0 389 6 20.0 30.40 21-1 635 TSI Ratings 0 Secchi-------Chlor —STOW rn rn rn a rn rn o 0 0 0 0 m o C) o 0 N N N cV N Chlorophyll a Concentrations (ug/L) —0 Chlor-A - - - • - - - Pheo 50 - - - 40 -t 30 20 10 0 m Q U_ U U 2 N [O 7 7 � u) rn O N cm r N N b C� r N N Common Algae Groun Dinobryon spp Chrysophyta Anacystis sp Cyanobacteria unidentified single cells Chrysophyta ExHIE� N-3 PAGE OF SECTION THREE I Mirror I King County Lake Monitoring Report, Water Year 2004 12 Mirror 2004 Level I Data Daily Data Summary j lWeekly Data Summary Week of 28-Sep-03 5-Oct-03 12-Oct-03 19-0d-03 26-Oct-03 2-Nov-03 9-Nov-03 16-Nov-03 23-Nov-03 30-Nov-03 7-Dec-03 14-Dec-03 21-Dec-03 28-Dec-03 4-Jan-04 11-Jan-04 1 B-Jan-04 25-Jan-04 1-Feb-04 8-Feb-04 15-Feb-04 22-Feb-04 29-Feb-04 7-Mar-04 14-Mar-04 21-Mar-04 28-Mar-04 4-Apr-04 11-Apr-04 18-Apr-04 25-Apr-04 2-May-04 9-May-04 16-May-04 23-May-04 30-May-04 6-Jun-04 13-Jun-04 20-Jun-04 27-Jun-04 4-Jul-04 11-Jul-04 18-Jul-04 25-Jul-04 1-Aug-04 8-Aug-04 15-Aug-04 22-Aug-04 29-Aug-04 5-Sep-04 12-Sep-04 19-Sep-04 26-Sep-04 Min Max Total :pfegl. Ik:OF •" Avg of lake 11 of Sample SeCCN Temp Algae' - Alga-W, _ Goose - level (cm) Bays Sample date tune Count' Y 49 7 6-Oct-03 1100 3.0 190 ;NA - .• y•-P3 0 B0 7 12-0ct03 '3,0 31 6 7 20-0cl-03 1030 4.3 -- 165 .NA .Pf _ 0 �� •7 386 7 27.Oct-03 1030 4,1.". _. .>:� 155 120 NA - Pf ----Y-F2 a :•-, - 14 10 386 7 3-Nov-03 1040 4.� :' ! 379 7 10-Nov-03 11:30 4.0"' 100 NA -_P2.J�- �• • 8 47 t .T 17-Nov-03 15 00 r3.7 •4.0 95 PtF.:• � •P2� . B 57 7 1 24-Nov-03 1230 90 NA G2 0 r. 649 7 1-Dec-03 1300 43 80 Fi71 .P2 26 679 7 9-Dec-03 13:30 4 0' " 80 ':Ak' `-•P2 14 rc' 703 7 15-Dec-03 1130 39 80 W. •,P2 = 9 694 7 20-Dec-03 11 30 4.9 TO NA P3 - 16 j a _• r 689 7 29-Dec-03 11 15 .4,3 65 NA P22" 704 1 5-Jan-04- • 741 7 12-Jan-04 - -- .-"-• --" v - •"` 11 734 7 19-Jan-04 1030 4.5 70 NA P3,C.1 "- 0 .1. 7.56 7 26-Jan-04 15:30 4. t 70 NA P2 13 e - . 7 - 77 3 7 3-Feb-04 11 00 4,9 - 75 NA - P2C2 .' B -412 - 7 736 7 9-Feb-04 11 15 5.3 75 P1 • 8 11 M4 7 73 7 16-Fab-04 11 00 6.0 7 5 _NA NA Pf 1B 3. 7 72 0 7 23-Feb-04 1230 59 90 14-1. P1 9 12.4 7 710 7 1-Mar-04 1530 50 110 NA P2 7 7.6" • _:7 -•. -; 704 7 8-Mar-04 12.15 81 105 NA, P7 - � • B .. d:5 `••' "` 7' -= : 684 7 15-Mar-04 1430 _ 6.8 " " 120 NA P'2' 29S 7:.. _: �.; 68.1 1 22-Mar-04 1130 .' .0 135 NA P2 - 4 • 3.0 7 686 7 29-Mar-04 1100 -7.5 140 NA Cl - 5 4.3. 7 66 3 5-Apr-04 14 45 ,4t9-. 15 0 NA V3.• 2 • -3&6 7 - 646 11-Apr-04 1030 =5.0 t70 NA P} 5 7 637 19-Apr-04 1130 . 4-8 170 NA P2 2 r0 .7 619 7 26-Apt-04 1100 3.2 100 NA 01 2 7�2 _ -.7. _ 590 7 34May-04 3.9 19.0 NA P2 . 2 586 7 10-May-04 12:00 i-5`,r': 190 o f' 6 ' 48 •7 563 7 17-May-04 1045 3_6 195 NA P3. 2 43:7 _ 7 563 I 24-May-04 11 30 "3A 195 NA NA P2_ P2 5:8 7: 581 7 31-May-04 1100 =4:9•r 190 2 1V �"-7• 566 7 7-Jun-04 1530 .43 205 NA 112'. 0 SA 7 550 7 14-Jun-04 1130 4.6 21 D NA P1 - 0 0.0. 7 - 513 7 21-Jun-04 1030 *9 25.0 NA P1 0 RO 7 47 7 28-Jun-04 1130 __-5< 250 MR P2 1 1:3 7 437 7 6-Jul-04 1130 3.9 240 I'7A Y P" . V 0 ¢.3 7 404 7 12-Jul-04 1630 Az, 250 NA P2 _- 0 Q.{) 7 37 1 7 19-Jul-04 14:45 S,6i 26 5 NA P2 • 0 _¢.0 7 - 333 7 26-Jul-04 10.00 4.7 260 NA P2 0 300 7 2-Au -04 1700 3.0 260 - 1 -'Pi x ~7... 28.3 7 9-Aug-04 73 30R.B' 250 14A�,.2: = 0 0..0 .' :i . -Y 25,0 7 16-Aug-04 14 15 4:4" 270 NA C.. 5��"?P2;. 0 57"7 7 27.6 7 23-Aug-04 1100 4.7 24.5 NA P2 0 280 7 30-Aug-04 1130 .3. s 230 NA - v2. 0 7 '� f 26,1 7-Sep-04 1130 3.8 - 22.0 f•L1 P3 0 5 _26.4 _ 43.7-"--1 291 7 14-Sep-04 a00 ':3,2 �• 205 NA- ---�"• PZ.._ �6,1 1 31 1 7 20-Sep-04 1100 24 10 NA P3 _ 0 5 29 6 5 27-Sep-04 10.30 I -2.5 18 0 -NA P3 2 0;0 ' 4.8 Min -735N 77.3 Max 7,5 27 0 ' See introduction for discussion of algae assessment and goose count methods" EXHI IT # '_3 3 1 SECTION THREE I Mirror I King County Lake Monitoring Report, Water Year 2004 RAGE I OF r Mirror 2004 Level II Data Secchi Chi -a Algae Calculated TSI Date (2004) Temp ('C) (m) (I.rgll) TP 4Lglq TN 4i411) Obsv. N:P Secc chl-a TP 26-Apr 18-.0 ''-1 3.2 :E;89 5-3 -366 1 fi9 43-2 49-5. - 28.2 10-May 19.0 3.5 ;. 10.30 11.1 354.y� , 3 32. 41-9 53-4 :38.9 24-May 20-0=::. 4.2 1.40 <detect 35 1 =s.:;`:71 39.3 33..9 27.4 7-Jun 20.5,: ;;' 4.5 a-249 .= 8.4 331, 2 ;,-39::;:: 38.3 :'39.5 . 34.8 Sir 21-Jun 25.0 4.9 3-68 5.8 378 1 e;65.. 37.1 < 4.3.4 - 29.5 6-Jul 24-0 _ 3.9 5:93 8-5 38)5 . 2 -' 45- 40.4 . 48.0 35.0 19-Jul 26.5 3.5 3-52 119 390 2 33 41.9 42.9 39.9 2-Aug 26.0 3.0 .2.24 12.3 421 1 34 . 44.1 38.5 404 16-Aug 27-0 4.0 3,36 9-6 383 2 •4() 40.0 42-5 36.8 30-Aug 23.0 3.1 3.20 100 389 :` 2 39 43.7 42.0 37.4 14-Sep 20:5 •. - 3.2 . •5.93 10.7 z 2 44 =. 43.2 48.0 38.3 27-Sep 18-0 2.5 14,70 14 8 480 3 32 46-8 56.9 43.0 11-Oct 17.0 2.9 14-70 12.1 465 3 38 44.6 56.9 40.1 25-Oct 4-5 - 2.0 4Q.50 - 19.5 516 ` 3 26 - 50.0 - 66.9 - 47.0 I Calculated TSI Secchi Ghl-a.• Temp (°C) (in ) u I TP (all) TN_ttTlI Algae N:P :' Secc •chi -a' TP 21.4 3.5 8-5 10.8 405=91 2.0 43 - - 42.5 •47,3 36.9 Mean Median 20.5. '. 3-4 .4-8 10.7 387`.0 . 2` .39 42 6 : 45.7 37.9 Min 14.5 2.0 1.4 5.3 331;0 . 1 ' 26 37.1 33-9 27.4 Max 2-10 4.9 40.5 19-5 -516.0 3 71 %0 •66.9 47.0 Count 14 14 14 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 # TSI Average = EXHIBIT PAGE V' GF-?�_ SECTION THREE I Mirror King County Lake Monitoring Report, Water Year 2dG4 'r4`-" FIB CITY OF �. Federal Way March 28, 2008 Mr. Richard Scott 545 SW 312'h Street Federal Way, WA 98023 RE: File #07-106874-00-SU; RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Mirror Lake Highland Cottage Preliminary Plat Dear Mr. Scott: CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South Mailing Address: PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com Thank you for your February 16, 2008, comment letter regarding the City's notice of application for the Mirror Lake Highland Cottage Housing preliminary plat. Your letter was forwarded to City staff and the applicant for review and response. The following information is provided in response to the comments and concerns expressed in your letter, which include trees, drainage and Mirror Lake, fire/life safety and access to Mirror Lake. 1. Significant Trees — Significant trees are defined and regulated under Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Section 22-1568(b). The applicant is permitted to remove vegetation on the subject property to the extent allowed by code. The trees on the project site are not under obligation to "form a backdrop to Mirror Lake." Pursuant to FWCC Section 20-179(b), significant tree replacement is not required for those trees removed for plat infrastructure such as roads and utilities; however, tree replacement is required for individual residential lots pursuant to FWCC Section 22-1568(c). The applicant has proposed to clear the majority of the site in conjunction with this plat application, with tree replacement occurring throughout the subject site. The City has requested additional information to review this request, and to date, this information has not been submitted. Conflicts between proposed infrastructure and retained trees would be reviewed in conjunction with engineering plans following preliminary plat review; and impacts to trees proposed for retention must be resolved prior to engineering approval. 2. Drainage — Please refer to the enclosed Public Works memorandum from Ann Dower dated March 5, 2008. 3. Fire/Life Safety — Please refer to the enclosed South King Fire and Rescue letter from Chris Ingham dated February 27, 2008. 4. Mirror Lake Access — Concerns about use of the access easement to Mirror Lake are of a civil nature, and not under City purview. The applicant does state in section B.12.c of the revised environmental checklist "there are no plans for improvements to the Mirror Lake access easement for benefited homes." A copy of the revised checklist is enclosed. In addition to this early notice and request for public comments, there will be two additional opportunities to submit comments on this application. Notice and opportunity for public comments will also occur following the City's issuance of an environmental decision and two weeks prior to conducting a public hearing on this proposal. The City's Hearing Examiner, who forwards a recommendation to the City Council for final consideration, will conduct a public hearing. You will receive mailed notification of the environmental decision and public hearing. EXHIS WA —1 PAGE -i`pF� Mr. Scott March 28, 2008 Page 2 If you would like to discuss this proposal or review the preliminary plans we would be glad to meet with you. If you have any further comments, please contact me at deb.barker@cityoffederalway.com or 253- 835-2642. Sincerely, pt Deb Barker Senior Planner Enclosures as noted c- Bill McCaffrey, 1911 SW Campus Drive, Suite 116, Federal Way, WA 98023 Ann Dower, Public Works Engineering Plans Review Chris Ingham, South King Fire and Rescue EXHIBIT- It A PAGE Z OF 2 07-106874 Doc 1 D 44834 CITY OF Federal Way DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS) MIRROR LAKE HIGHLAND COTTAGE HOUSING PRELIMINARY PLAT File No. 07-106875-00-SE Proposed Action: Subdivision of five lots, 1.85 acres in size, into a sixteen -lot single-family cottage housing demonstration project. The project includes public and private street improvements, construction of drainage features using Low Impact Design (LID) concepts, utility improvements, a 580 square -foot community building, and parking for thirty vehicles in at -grade parking stalls, attached garages and detached garages. Approximately seventeen percent of the site will be retained in open space tracts in compliance with cottage housing design requirements. Project Name: Mirror Lake Highland Cottage Housing Preliminary Plat Location: SW 312'h Street at 6`h Place SW in the SW %4 of Section 07, Township 21 North, Range 04 East, W.M., in King County, Washington (Vicinity Map), and encompasses King County parcel numbers #072104-9024, 9110, 9111, 9109, and 9114. Applicant: William McCaffrey The WJM Studio 1911 SW Campus Drive, Suite 116 Federal Way, WA 98023 Agent: Lisa Klein AHBL 2215 North 30`h Street, Suite 300 Tacoma, WA 98403 Lead Agency: City of Federal Way Department of Community Development Services City Staff Contact: Deb Barker, Senior Planner, 253-835-2642 The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist, Federal Way Comprehensive Plan, final staff evaluation for this action, and other municipal policies, plans, rules, and regulations designated as a basis for exercise of substantive authority under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act Rules pursuant to RCW 43.31C.110. This information is available to the public on request. This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2). The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on April 30, 2008. Unless modified by the City, this determination will become final following the comment deadline. Any person aggrieved by the. City's determination may file an appeal with the City within 14 days of the above comment deadline. } You may appeal this determination to Greg Fewins, Director of Community Development Services, at the EXHIE1IT 'P PAGE- I OF Zo City of Federal Way (address below), no later than 5:00 p.m. on May 14, 2008, by a written letter stating the reason for the appeal of the determination. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Responsible Official: Greg Fewins Title: Director, Department of Community Development Services Address: 33325 8 h Avenue South, PO Box 9718, Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 Date Issued: April 16, 2008 Signature: 07-106875 E XH1131T PACE �, OF 7 :V CITY OF ` ' m Federal Way Department of Community Development Services FINAL STAFF EVALUATION FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Mirror Lake Highland Cottage Housing Preliminary Plat Federal Way File No: 07-106875-00-SE (Related Files: 07-106874-00-SU and 07-106876-00-CN) NOTE: The purpose of this staff evaluation is to provide technical staff evaluation of the proposed action; supplement information contained in the environmental checklist and expanded studies; provide technical information unavailable to the applicant; correct inaccurate information; and recommend measures to the responsible official to mitigate identified impacts. Technical reports and attachments referenced herein may not be attached to all copies of this evaluation. Copies of reports, attachments, or other documents may be reviewed, and/or obtained by contacting Deb Barker, Senior Planner, Department of Community Development Services, PO Box 9718, Federal Way, WA 98063-9718. Phone: 253-835-2642. I. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION Subdivision of five lots, 1.85 acres in size, into a sixteen -lot single-family cottage housing demonstration project. The project includes public and private street improvements, construction of drainage features using Low Impact Design (LID) concepts, utility improvements, a 580 square -foot community building, and parking for thirty vehicles in at -grade parking stalls, attached garages and detached garages. Approximately seventeen percent of the site will be retained in open space tracts in compliance with cottage housing design requirements. (Exhibit A, Reduced Scale Site Plan). U. GENERAL INFORMATION Project Name: Mirror Lake Highland Cottage Housing Preliminary Plat Applicant: William McCaffrey The WJM Studio 1911 SW Campus Drive, Suite 116 Federal Way, WA 98023 Location: SW 312`h Street at 60' Place SW in the SW 174 of Section 07, Township 21 North, Range 04 East, W.M., in King County, Washington (Vicinity Map), and encompasses King County parcel numbers #072104-9024, 9110, 9111, 9109, and 9114. Parcel Size: 1.85 acres (80,586 square feet) Zoning: Residential Single -Family (RS 7.2) Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single -Family High -Density EXHIBIT PAGE-4-0F Z The following technical information was submitted as part of the application for the proposed development. • Project memo on site statistical information for sheet 1 of AHBL civil plans from AHBL dated December 26, 2007 • Tree evaluation and protection plan prepared by Washington Forestry Consultants, dated December 18, 2007 (Originals re -submitted on December 26, 2007) • Preliminary Technical Information report prepared by AHBL dated December 2007 • Level 1 Drainage analysis prepared by AHBL dated December 2007 • Conceptual site plan, conceptual grading and drainage plan, utility plan, notes, details and SW 312t' Street ROW improvement plans prepared by AHBL dated December 21, 2007 • Record of survey prepared by Informed Land Survey, dated December 16, 2007, recording date unknown • Topographic survey prepared by Paul Hill Mabry dated December 21, 2007 • Cottage Housing plan sheets Al: Overall site plan and cottage housing requirements; A2: Proforma site plan; A3: Unit A plans, elevations and sections; A4: Unit B plans, elevations and sections; A5: Units AFF plans, elevations and sections; A6: Unit A-CSF and Unit B-CSF Compact Single Family unit plans; A7: Commons Building plan, sections and foundation plan; A8: Garage #1 plans, elevations, sections and foundation plan; A9: Garage #2 plans, elevations, sections and foundation plan; A10: Garage #3 plans, elevations, sections and foundation plan; and Al 1: Garages #4 & #5 plans, elevations, sections and foundation plan all prepared by The WJM Studio dated December 21, 2007 • Conceptual Landscape Plan prepared by Artistic Garden Concepts, dated January 2, 2007 III. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Analysis of Environmental Checklist Following are staff responses to the elements of the environmental checklist (Exhibit C) indicating whether or not City staff concurs with the applicant's response to the checklist item, or staff clarification or amendment of the response. A. BACKGROUND 1-5. Concur with the checklist. 6. A two -week comment period commences following issuance of an environmental determination, followed by a two -week appeal period. At the conclusion of the environmental review process, the City forwards the preliminary plat application to the Federal Way Hearing Examiner for review. Following a public hearing, the Examiner issues a recommendation on the preliminary plat application. The preliminary plat recommendation is forwarded to the Federal Way City Council for review. Following preliminary plat approval, civil engineering plans are reviewed by the City before construction commences. The .City Council must approve the constructed final plat before recording. 7-9. Concur with the checklist. Mirror Lake Highland Cottage Housing Preliminary Plat Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist Q T___�ql_ PAGE 2 OF Z� 07-106875/Doc. I.D. 44M4 Page 2 10. Concur with the checklist. In addition, the applicant is responsible to identify and obtain all applicable outside agency permits as may be required for the project. 11-12. Concur with the checklist. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. Concur with the checklist. b. Concur with the checklist. The site measures 100 feet wide by 756 feet long. The site generally slopes from the northwest to the southeast with an elevation change of approximately 55 feet over the length of the site. Concur with the checklist. According to the 1971 King County Soils Survey Map, soil classification for the subject site is AgB - Alderwood Series Gravelly Sandy Loam, 0-6 percent slope. These soils are characterized as somewhat excessively drained, with slow to medium runoff rates. d. Concur with the checklist. The site is outside of identified landslide, seismic, or erosion hazard areas, as shown on the City's Critical Areas Map. e. Concur with the checklist. Preliminary grading plans depict clearing of the entire site for installation of infiltration systems, rain gardens, access driveways, and utilities. The source of the fill is not known at this time. Depicted grading exceeds the parameters of FWCC Section 20-179 Retention of Vegetation, which requires that all clearing not related to infrastructure development is to be conducted only after final plat approval and building permit issuance. Historically, the Federal Way City Council has granted mass clearing approval to subdivision proposals on a limited basis based on extenuating or unusual circumstances. f. Concur with the checklist. The applicant must submit a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control (TESC) Plan consistent with provisions of the FWCC to prevent and/or minimize erosion impacts during the construction phase of the project. Post construction erosion potential will be minimized by applicant's proposed stormwater drainage plan contained within the submitted Storm Drainage Calculations. Compliance with code provisions will prevent and/or minimize erosion impacts; thus, no additional mitigation measures are necessary. g. Concur with the checklist. Under FWCC Section 22-923(12), the maximum lot coverage in cottage housing developments is 60 percent of the gross site area. Paved components of common open spaces areas and walkways shall not be counted in calculation of lot coverage. h. Concur with the checklist. A TESC Plan must be approved and implemented in accordance with the City's engineering standards, in conjunction with filling and grading activities. Land surface modifications are regulated by FWCC Chapter 21 and the King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM), and the applicant has proposed to install replacement trees in conformance with FWCC. Staff has requested Mirror Lake Highland Cottage Housing Preliminary Plat Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist 07-106875/00c. w. aasaa EX H q 17-1 1T Page 3 PAGE-1-OF additional information in order to adequately review the grading request and provide a recommendation to the City Council regarding the proposed regrading actions in conjunction with preliminary plat review. 2. Air a. Short-term effects to air quality will occur during construction and paving operations. Construction activity contributes to carbon monoxide levels through the operation of construction machinery, delivery equipment and materials, and worker access to the site by automobile. These activities also include the emissions of hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen, potentially elevating the level of photochemical oxidants (such as ozone) in the ambient air. Long-term impacts, due to vehicle and maintenance equipment (such as lawn mowers and emissions from employees' and guests' vehicles) will vary in level according to the amount of traffic generated in the future by the proposal. b. Offsite sources of emissions will include local automobile traffic and wood smoke from neighboring homes. C. Compliance with local (FWCC Section 22-947), state, and federal air quality standards will provide sufficient mitigation of potential on -site construction activities and long-term site usage. The implementation of an approved TESC plan that incorporates watering of the site, wheel washing, and approved construction entrances, should adequately mitigate potential adverse construction impacts. 3. Water a. Surface 1) Concur with the checklist. The site is within a drainage basin that discharges into systems that discharge into Mirror Lake, Fishers Bog, and through local wetlands into Lakota Creek and into Puget Sound. 2-6) Concur with the checklist. b. Ground 1-2) The project site is located within the five-year Wellhead Protection Zone of the Redondo Milton Channel Aquifer for Lakehaven Utility District for well 23A, and the site is classified as a "Low Risk Parcel" for the District's Wellhead Protection Program. The applicant completed a Hazardous Material Inventory Statement for the Critical Aquifer Recharge and Wellhead Protection Area'and noted that the proposed development will not store, handle, treat, use, produce, recycle, or dispose of any of the types and quantities of hazardous materials not common to a residential subdivision. This will be reviewed in conjunction with construction permits. C. Water Runoff 1) Concur with the checklist. The level I downstream analysis prepared by AHBL, Inc. dated December 2007 states that the site is within a Level 3 Flow Control area and a Resource Stream Treatment area, and is therefore subject to flow control and water quality requirements of the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) as adopted and amended by the City. The applicant has proposed low impact development or LID -based drainage features to be designed according to the 2005 KCSWDM. During engineering approval, Mirror Lake Highland Cottage Housing -Preliminary Plat Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist 07-106875/Da. I.D. W44 Page 4 BIT_ 17 PAE_t�_OF z the City will review the proposed subdivision development for conformance with either 2005 KCSWDM or the 1998 KCSWDM. No adverse stormwater impacts are anticipated with either scenario based on the required compliance with code requirements for the treatment and discharge of stormwater. 2) Concur with the checklist. d. Concur with the checklist. Prior to construction of any improvements and/or buildings on the site, those portions of the drainage facilities necessary to accommodate the control of surface and stormwater runoff discharging from the site must be constructed and in operation in accordance with all City requirements. Compliance with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations will ensure that surface water impacts are appropriately mitigated. The final TIR submitted with engineering permits shall demonstrate that there are no impacts to Mirror Lake. No further mitigation is required. 4. Plants a. Concur with the checklist. b. Concur with the checklist. The applicant has proposed clearing and grading of the subject site in conjunction with installation of trenches and rain gardens associated with the LID drainage features. The Tree Evaluation and Protection Plan prepared by Washington Forestry Consultants dated December 26, 2007, was submitted to document the number of trees that meet FWCC based definition of significant tree. C. Concur with the checklist. d. The subject site contains sixty-one trees which meet the definition of significant tree pursuant to FWCC Section 22-1568; fifty-seven of the trees (93%) are proposed to be removed during plat development with four significant trees retained at the southern end of the site. The applicant proposes replacement trees located on the commonly owned areas of the cottage housing development. The scope of clearing exceeds that permitted under the City's subdivision code, which limits site clearing to plat infrastructure and which requires tree replacement in conjunction with individual building permits. An approved landscape plan is required for this project. The landscape plan, prepared by AHBL, shows four significant trees proposed to be retained at the south end of the site, as well as tree replacement, vegetative buffering and common open space landscaping proposed for this subdivision. Street trees will be installed in the right-of-way behind the curbs on SW 312'h Street and 6"' Place SW. The proposed mass grading shall be reviewed as part of preliminary plat and engineering review, and replacement of significant trees consistent with FWCC Section 22-1568 is required. 5. Animals a. Concur with the checklist. A neighbor reports observing skunks, raccoons, feral cats, rats, and mice at or near the subject site. These animals may be considered nuisances and are not protected under state or local laws. Minor Lake Highland Cottage Housing Preliminary Plat Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist ExQ �`�'r � 07-106875/n«. m_ 448" IS !; 11 Page 5 b. Concur with the checklist. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 1 (WDFW) priority habitat report and species map has no record of threatened, endangered, or sensitive species of wildlife within a mile of the subject site. c-d. Concur with the checklist. 6. Energy and Natural Resources a-c. Concur with the checklist. 7. Environmental Health a. 1-2) Concur with the checklist; normal emergency services are anticipated. The proposed plat will be served by an internal access road suitable for emergency vehicle access and each structure will be fully sprinklered as required by South King Fire and Rescue. Fire and police department personnel have reviewed this plat for adequacy of emergency access and layout, and found no significant environmental health hazards. In addition, the project site is located within the five-year Wellhead Protection Zone of the Redondo Milton Channel Aquifer for Lakehaven Utility District Well 23A, and the site is classified as a "Low Risk Parcel" for the District's Wellhead Protection Program. This will be reviewed in preliminary plat review. No further mitigation measures are necessary. b. Noise 1-3) Noise levels will increase on a long-term basis, due to the creation of sixteen dwelling units on the largely undeveloped site. Control measures include required conformance with local noise ordinances regulating hours of construction. An increase in noise levels due to traffic generated by the new residences is expected on a long-term basis. The majority of noise will be generated by vehicle traffic and will occur during the major commuter times during the week consistent with surrounding developed residential areas. Compliance with the code and implementation of the measures outlined in the checklist will sufficiently mitigate noise levels. Additionally, proposed landscaping along storm facilities, internal landscaping, and the open space will help buffer noise levels. No further mitigation measures are necessary. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a-c. Concur with the checklist. Housing is also contained in conjunction with the church site east of the subject site. d. Concur with the checklist. The shed shall be removed prior to final plat approval. e-g. Concur with the checklist. The subject site is located within a 10-year wellhead protection area (WHPA). In addition, the project site is located within the five-year Wellhead Protection Zone of the Redondo Milton Channel Aquifer for Lakehaven Utility District Well 23A, and the site is classified as a "Low Risk Parcel" for the District's Wellhead Protection Program. The applicant completed a Hazardous Material Inventory Statement for the Critical Aquifer Recharge and Wellhead Protection Area and noted that the proposed development will not store, handle, treat, use, produce, recycle, or dispose of any of the types and quantities of hazardous materials not common to a residential plat. This Mirror Lake Highland Cottage Housing Preliminary Plat 07-106875/oa. in. 44W Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist EXHIBIT XHIB&T Page 6 PAGE-JO—OF.. d3 will be reviewed in conjunction with construction permits. Mirror Lake is located approximately 170 feet south of the subject site, and is separated from the site by SW 312`h Street and a developed single-family lot. i-k. Concur with the checklist. Concur with the checklist. In addition to the subdivision code, the development must comply with cottage housing code provisions under FWCC Section 22-923 et al. 9. Housing a-c. Concur with the checklist. Under FWCC, the Cottage Housing project can include compact single-family units as well as cottage housing units. The maximum size of a compact single-family unit is 1,300 square feet, while the maximum size of a cottage unit is 1,100 square feet. Affordable housing provisions are a key element of cottage housing projects. Affordable housing shall have the same appearance, utilize the same materials as the market rate units, and be dispersed throughout the cottage housing development. 10. Aesthetics a-c. Concur with the checklist. Views onto the site will change from a forested site to that of a cottage housing based residential development. The proposal calls for 9,449 square feet of common open space and 4,674 square feet of rain garden area for a total of 12,123 square feet of open space, which will add to the character and attractiveness of the proposed development. 11. Light and Glare a-c. Concur with the checklist. The applicant will install one low light pole on the south side of the parking entry at 6`h Place SW to illuminate the entry. The existing SW 312t' poles will be re -camped to achieve brighter lighting. No lighting will be included in the Ob Place SW right-of-way. All other lighting will be building or ground mounted. d. The project must comply with FWCC Sections 22-950 and 22-954, which regulate off -site lighting and glare. Compliance with applicable lighting regulations in FWCC should sufficiently mitigate project impacts. 12. Recreation a Concur with the checklist. According to the 2006 City's Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Comprehensive Plan, neighborhood parks serve residents within a mile radius. The site is located in Park Planning Area A. Under the FWCC, applications for subdivision shall provide fifteen percent of the gross land area in open space, or make a fee -in -lieu -of payment for the open space, except however, cottage housing developments are required to provide open space on site so the fee is not an option. b. Concur with the checklist. C. Cottage housing developments are required to provide common open space based on 500 square feet per dwelling unit, with a minimum of 3,000 improved for active and passive recreation use. The sixteen units requires 8,000 square feet of open space, and the applicant proposes to provide 14,123 square feet open space to include Mirror Lake Highland Cottage Housing Preliminary Plat Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist 07-1068751D« ID. 44944 my.age 7 EXMI�1T PMGE_3L__OF seating, trails, pea patches, community building, gazebo with lawn and picnic tables. - The checklist notes that there are currently no plans for improvements to an easement to Mirror Lake, which is a private lake. The Mirror Lake Highland Cottage Housing proposal received conceptual approval on April 17, 2007, subject to several conditions, including a provision that rain gardens that be counted as open space only if they contain open space features such as trails, seating and landscaping. The proposed rain garden areas include these features. The minimum amount of required common open space is provided without calculating the rain garden areas. No further mitigation is necessary. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a-c. Concur with the checklist. 14. Transportation a-e. Concur with the checklist. Pursuant to the FWCC, the applicant will be responsible for the design and construction of half street improvements plus tapers along the east side of 6t" Place SW. That existing private street section does not meet city code standards. The Public Works Director, in a February 9, 2007, modification response, upheld the required Type "W" cross section for 6"' Place SW. The required improvements shall include 20 feet of pavement, 4-foot planter strip, 5-foot sidewalk and 3-foot utility strip. This property will remain private but must be set -aside in a Tract X for possible future dedication to the City. Half street improvements along the north side of SW 3121' Street fronting the subject site shall comply with Type "K" standards, with 44 feet of paving, 8-foot sidewalk, 6- foot planter strip and 5-foot bike lane, 11-foot-wide driving lane and 12-foot center lame within a 78-foot right-of-way. Currently, the SW 312`h Street right-of-way is wider than the required cross section; area not required by the City for future right-of-way may be vacated by the City Council following a formal street vacation process. The internal driveway was approved to a 24-foot-wide minimum with a five-foot sidewalk on one site. The right-of-way modification letter dated February 9, 2007, erroneously states that sidewalks 'are required on both sides of the internal roadway. Traffic generated from the proposed development will also impact other roadways and intersections near the site scheduled for improvements. See item g below for specific impacts. f. Concur with the checklist. The City's Traffic engineers determined that trip generation results in 19 new PM peak hour trips. These trips generated by the project contribute new trips onto the existing transportation network. g. Concur with the checklist. The applicant submitted a Concurrency application which has been reviewed by Public Works Traffic staff. The Concurrency analysis will provide mitigation measures to be incorporated into conditions of Process III Project Approval, will address any failures of the City's Level of Service (LOS) standard, and will provide for the collection of pro-rata share mitigation towards the City's Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) projects impacted by the proposed y development. Mirror Lake Highland Cottage Housing Preliminary Plat 7-1d687 t.a Page 8 Page 8 Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist PAOE..-OF 3 The following are components of the City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan supporting the Process III conditions for the development. TG2 Provide a safe, efficient, convenient, and financially sustainable transportation system with sufficient capacity to move people, goods, and services at an acceptable level of service. The City shall develop and adopt policies for the construction, reconstruction, maintenance, and preservation of new and existing facilities. TP6 Give priority to transportation alternatives that improve mobility in term of people and goods moved for the least cost. TP16 The City's LOS standard shall be E. This is defined herein as a volume/capacity ratio less than 1.00 in accordance with Highway Capacity Manual (1994) operational analysis procedures. At signalized intersections, the analysis shall be conducted using a 120-second cycle length and level of service E is defined as less than 60 seconds of stopped delay per vehicle. Where transit or HOV facilities are provided, the LOS shall be measured by average delay and volume/capacity ratio per person rather than per vehicle. This standard shall be used to identify concurrency needs and mitigation of development impacts. For long- range transportation planning and concurrency analysis, a volume/ capacity ratio of 0.90 or greater will be used to identify locations for the more detailed operational analysis. TP 17 Expand arterial capacity by constructing channelization improvements at intersections when they are an alternative to creating new lanes along a roadway corridor. TP24 Consider safety first in the design of intersection improvements. TP43 Minor capacity projects, placing spot (localized) traffic improvements, will be carried out to extend the capacity of system components. 15. Public Services a-b. Concur with the checklist. The applicant prepared a school access narrative as directed by the Federal Way School District. The site is located in the service areas for Lake Grove Elementary, Lakota Middle School, and Federal Way High School. Middle and elementary school students will walk to school as these schools are within one mile of the subject site, while high school students will be bused to school. Lakota Middle School students will walk west along SW 312`h Street to the middle school, crossing SW 312'h at 86 Avenue SW in a marked crosswalk. Lake Grove Elementary and Federal Way High School students will walk north along 6 h Place SW to SW 308ffi Street. The Lake Grove students will continue east to the school grounds within a path separated from the vehicular travel lane by a curb. High school students will catch the school bus at SW 308'h and 8ffi Avenue SW. Bus stops are subject to change as student needs increase and roads are developed. Mirror Lake Highland Cottage Housing Preliminary Plat Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist �0 A,; SAGE °�vF 07-106875/no.. i.0 44844 Page 9 ?Z3 The collection of school impact fees will mitigate impacts to school service delivery. The current school mitigation fee is $3,883.00 (plus a $194.00 City administrative fee) for a single-family residence and is collected at building permit issuance for a residence. Note that the Federal Way City Council adjusts the impact fee annually and the applicable fee would be determined at the time a complete individual single- family building permit is submitted to the City. 16. Utilities a-b. Concur with the checklist. As of the date of environmental determination, the applicant had not yet made application to Lakehaven Utility District for a predevelopment, Pre -Design, or Developer Extension Agreement. Pipes ranging from eight inches to twelve inches in diameter will be installed during site development. IV. CONCLUSION The lead agency for this proposal has determined that the proposed action does not have probable significant adverse impact on the environment, and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 'is not required under RCW 43.2 1 C.032(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. The information is available to the public upon request. The City reserves the right to review any future revisions or alterations to the site or the proposal in order to determine the environmental significance or nonsignificance of the project at that point in time. V. EXHIBITS Exhibit A — Reduced Scale Site Plan Exhibit B — Vicinity Map Exhibit C — Environmental Checklist, signed March 6, 2008 Prepared by: Deb Barker, Senior Planner, 253-835-2642 Mirror Lake Highland Cottage Housing Preliminary Plat Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist Date: April 10, 2008 EXHISIT -T- PAGE1Q-OF 07-106875/oa. t o- 44844 Page 10 S1NsNami lo3w EJNisnOH 301, ONV NVId MAS llVd3A0 wi-miens 3W0H 3E)V1100 LoonyaL 31V0 3(1551 I VM 'AYM Tdli3a3d w M n-s �i a is Loa m Ms IF09 - _ ,, �v ONV lHo€H 3NV-€ Hoaa€w �� ! m �a L VJ W6 O u L 0 W co C13 4-1 n 0 C i W �m co 0 L N ti W N) U) LL C Q LO CQ 00 O O m � o �- N U i o E U CL N C LL U N C y C U C Q C 0 CO oO O E t— co a O� 0 C io 0 c c — 0 �, a m 0 = C `0. �,C� ova � m v U) N N O N � O O U m N O) W c v N O U N a � I DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENr SERVICES 33530 First Way South PO Box 9718 CITY OF RESUBMITTED Federal Way WA 98 253�i6113000; 66Fax 2�3�61�1�14129 9 FederalWay MAR o 7 2008 ,1�111_C1I�'Ot�EdCC21�NaYC0111 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY BUILDING DEPT. ENVVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), RCW Chapter 43.21 C, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts Rom your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental \ agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, J requiring preparation of an EIS_ Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NON -PROJECT PROPOSALS Complete this checklist for non -project proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." In addition, complete the Supplemental Sheet for Non -Project Actions (part D). For non -project actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site' should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. J EXHIBIT EXHI ES PAGE_1—OF T rol C11—A-1;o* A. BACKGROUND Name of proposed project, if applicable: Mirror Lake Highland 2. Name of applicant: William McCaffrey 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: William McCaffrey The WJM Studio 1911 SW Campus Drive, Suite 116 Federal Way, WA 98023 (253) 231-7125 4. Date checklist prepared: December 21, 2007 Amended March 3, 2008 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Federal Way 6_ proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): No phasing is proposed. The project proposes to be under construction beginning in the late Spring 2008. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No. 8_ List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal_ Tree Evaluation and Protection Plan prepared by Washington Forestry Consultants, dated December 18, 2007; Sight Distance Analysis verified by Paul Mabry, PLS, of Informed Land Survey, dated December 20, 2007; Geotechnical Engineering Study, prepared by Pacific Geo Engineering, dated December 20, 2007; Preliminary Technical Information Report, prepared by AHBL, Inc., dated December 20, 2007. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? ff yes, explain. No. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. City of Federal Way: Preliminary Plat approval, SEPA Determination, site development permits, building permits, Right -of -Way Use Permit. ,--L. J WA Dept. of Ecology: Construction Stormwater General Permit (NPDES) cover�y Dept of Natural Resources: Forest Practices Permits y PAGE L" V F� EXHIBIT T 11. Give a brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. The project is a cottage housing demonstration project consisting of 14 single family dwelling units and 2 affordable dwelling units on a 1.85-acre site. The project was selected through a City selection process which included a neighborhood meeting. The project will incorporate Low Impact Development (LID) strategies including rain gardens and several common open space areas. The project will construct an onsite private road for access to the project from 6th Place SW. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address if any, and section, township, and range if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The project site is located at 604 SW 312th Street. The site is identified as King County Tax Parcel No. 072104-9024, and is located in the NE Y of Section 7, Township 21 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian. A legal description is provided with the Title Report and Land Survey. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, ling, hil , steep slopes, mountainous, other. The northern portion of the site slopes from west o east, and the central and southern portion of the site slopes from north to south down towards SW 312th Street. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? The site has an overall gradient of approximately 7%, with the steepest slope approximately 10%. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, mulch)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. The Soil Survey of King County identifies soils as the site as Alderwood gravelly sandy loam. Please see the Geotechnical Engineering Report for more details. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe_ No. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. At the time of preliminary plat application, the cut and fill quantities are estimated to be 194 CY of cut and 5,562 CY of fill. These quantities will be refined and potentially reduced through the project design phase. The fill quantities are required for stormwater runoff to be conveyed to the infiltration areas and provide Y-5' sub -base of soil for the infiltration of stormwater. Infiltration of stormwater is the preferred method of now control as defined by the King County Surface Water Design Manual, as adopted by the City of Federal Way EXH IEIIT EXIM, ISIT PAGE OF I I uncn W.r....-ti IQ lnnz frAO t AO F Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Erosion could potentially occur during clearing and grading. Potential erosion impacts would be controlled as noted in B.Lh below. After construction, erosion would not occur as the site will be stabilized with vegetation and developed with a storm drainage system. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Approximately 47%. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any. During construction a temporary erosion control plan conforming to the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual will be designed and implemented to reduce and control erosion. After the project is complete, landscaping and a stormwater system consisting of catchbasins, conveyance, and infiltration facilities will control erosion. 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Construction activities at the site will stir up dust particles, and construction vehicles and equipment will also be a potential source of exhaust emissions. After project completion, the primary sources of emissions will be automobile exhaust. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any. Conform to vehicle emissions standards and practice dust abatement measures during clearing, grading and construction. 3. WATER a. Surface 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site ('including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, and wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Mirror Lake, an approximately 1-7-acre lake, is located approximately 150 feet to the south of the site. The area drains into Lakota Creek, which ultimately discharges into Dumas Bay (part of Puget Sound). 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Frontage improvements and site development work will occur within 200 feet of Mirror Lake. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. EXHIBIT G No fill will be added to or material dredged from Mirror Lake. :� PAGE_ OF_ u..uA.:.. anon sores. u n, ,o PAGE-IkOF . 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No. b. Ground 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to groundwater? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. No waste material will be discharged into the ground. C. Water Runoff (including stormwater) 1) Describe the source of runoff (including stormwater) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe_ The source of runoff will be stormwater. Temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC) measures will be implemented in accordance with the standards of the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin, the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual and the City of Federal Way requirements to control stormwater runoff during clearing, grading, and construction activities. After construction, stormwater collected via catchbasins and will be conveyed via pipes and will be infiltrated through the use of shallow infiltration facilities and trenches. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. The water quality facility and Low Impact Development features will ensure that no waste materials could enter ground or surface waters. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any. Temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC) measures to reduce and control impacts to water during construction will be implemented. The stormwater system described above in B3.c(1) and in the Preliminary Technical Information Report will control impacts after the project is complete. EXHIBIT- C-1 EXHISHTi PAGE--�LQF�.L_ PAGET._GF-& n_n-t .. sm m %4-1, 14 )MZ 0— 4 ..F 14 L-1[7.,.,.i—,. Do..:-11C,...:—...A..r.,I !`i.o...47:�.t 4. PLANTS a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site. X deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other X evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other X shrubs X grass _ pasture crop or grain _ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other _ water plant: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other _other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Most vegetation will be removed to construct the project. The northern portion of the site currently includes second growth timber, mainly Douglas -fir. The understory is predominantly Indian plum, bracken fern, Himalayan blackberry and holly. No trees of any particular significance were noted in this area. The southern end of the property is scattered with individual or small clusters of trees. The conditions range from very poor to very good. The understory is predominantly grasses and weeds. A 100% inventory of trees defined as significant per FWCC was completed by Washington Forestry Consultants. A total of 61 significant trees were found. Fifty-one of these trees were healthy and ten were deemed hazardous and recommended for removal. There are four significant trees located near the project entrance that are planned to be retained. See the Tree Evaluation and Protection Plan prepared by Washington Forestry Consultants for more information. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any. Landscaping will include street trees along the property frontage on SW 312`h Street, landscaping in the common open space areas, and vegetated rain gardens planted with native and other appropriate plantings for a stormwater infiltration feature. See the Landscape Plan for more information. EX,11"1151T s. ANUVfALS L' AG E -A-0 F _ a. Circle any birds and animals that have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site. birds: haw n, eagle, s Q��>ther: mainimals deer, elk, beaver, other: fish: bass, s an, trout, herring, shellfish, other: EXHIBIT 0--' PAGE. � CIF_- L Do 7 ,.F 14 6-Au.....+....ro rt..,. W;1 t b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known- C . Is the site part of a migration route? if so, explain. The site is located within the Pacific Flyway for migratory birds. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if ally. The proposed landscape plan includes the use of native plant species to enhance wildlife habitat. 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electricity and natural gas will be used for lighting, heating, and cooking. b_ Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any. The project will conform to the State Energy Code. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. No. I) Describe special emergency services that might be required. No special emergency services would be required. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any. None. b_ Noise I) What types of noise exist in the area that may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment operation, other)? The only noise would be generated from the traffic on SW 312" Street. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Construction traffic noise and construction noise will be generated during construction. Noise would occur during permitted construction hours. After construction, noise would primarily be generated by traffic entering and leaving the site. This noise would occur during peak commute times. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any. Comply with vehicle noise standards and noise abatement practices during construction. Landscaping will minimize off -site noise impacts after project completion. —no EXHIBIT E U. ��` R.Jtl '.. llnin A.fo. h IQ Innl D.,j7��Q` -- -- oc,%1-! De..:�e.71F..a.:........ontnl! 1,_W;c 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The site is presently used as a single-family residence. Surrounding properties are single-family residences to the west and south, vacant land to the north, and a church to the east. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe_ No. c. Describe any structures on the site. There is an existing single-family residence and two associated accessory structures on the site- d. Will, any structures be demolished? If so, what? All structures presently existing will be demolished. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The zoning classification of the site is RS 7.2. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? The comprehensive plan designation of the site is Single Family -High Density. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Not applicable: h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify_ No. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Approximately 40 people would live in the completed project. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? The project would displace two people. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any. The project would construct new single-family residences which would offset any displacement impacts. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any. Conformance to applicable provisions of the FWCC and the City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan. 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. The completed project would provide 14 middle -income and two affordable income homes. The affordable income homes will have Deed restrictions for 15 years ensuring they remain affordable to future owners. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated'? Indicate whether lul C, -7 u..n�., un:n st,"h iQ �nnz Do ra "�! !S,, rt `- -- ir?AGE OFF income housing. One existing middle -income home would be eliminated. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any. None. 10. AESTHETICS a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? The tallest structure will be 18 feet tall (roofs no higher than 24 feet) in accordance with the City of Federal Way zoning standards. The exterior materials will be primarily wood with some brick or stone accents. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any. This cottage housing project proposed extensive on -site landscaping that will result in a superior aesthetic. 11. UGRT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Glare from streetlights and exterior house lights would be present. b. . Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any. None. 12. RECREATION a. b. Would the proposed displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Lake Grove Park is approximately a'/ mile walk to the west. Lake Grove Elementary School is approximately a % mile walk to the east. Lakota Park is located approximately'/ miles to the west. French Lake Park is located approximately one mile to the southeast. One of the subject parcels (includes 5 of the new homes) is the beneficiary of a 10-foot access easement to Mirror Lake. EXHIBIT SsL NDIAGE-!ILOFM� c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any. The project will provide approximately 14,000 SF of pocket park -like amenities, including paths, benches, rain gardens and viewing decks. At this time there are no plans for improvements t the Mirror Lake access easement for the 5 benefited homes. EXH I B F�L R..IIvA., 44Arn KR--;. IQ 7nn1 V.— ln..f 14 6-0uoo.i....ro De..7oo.11Ro.,:�n...nn..r a�r`1..,�L•i:.-i 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, nation, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None known. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any. None. 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and hl'ohways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system Show on site plans, if any. The site will be accessed from 6th Place SW, which connects to SW 312th Street- b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Yes. There is a transit stop at the intersection of 6th Place SW and SW 312th Street. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? Three current parking spaces would be eliminated. The project will have 16 enclosed garage spaces and 14 surface parking spaces for a total of 30., d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). Yes. Half -street frontage improvements to SW 312'h Street will be provided consisting of curb, gutter, sidewalk, landscape planter strip and dedication of Right of Way in conformance with the City of Federal Way's Type K Street Section. 6m Ave SW has been approved to comply with the Type "W" road section. See the plan sheets provided with the application for more detail. e. Will the project use (or occur in the Inuncxdiate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be gtc nerited by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. The completed project would generate approximately 160 trips per day, assuming a typical trip standard of 10 trips per day per single family unit, which is the standard used in the ITE Manual. Peak volumes would occur during the morning and evening commute hours. 1. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any. The City has a Concurrency Permit process to determine if any traffic analysis and/or traffic mitigation fees will apply to the project. The applicant would be expected to contribute pro-rata shares toward TIP projects impacted by one or more trips. OrDICHIBIT TJO _ R..IIet:.. snI'n 114-4, IQ 15. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. The project would result in a slight increased need for public services similar to any new housing development. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None. 16. UTILITIES a. Cir available at the site lectricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewe eptic system, other. --� The project will connect to the following utilities: 12" Water line in SW 312th Street 6" Water line in 6th Place SW 8" Sewer line south of SW 312th Street 12" Storm sewer line in SW 312th Street b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity that might be needed. Electricity: Puget Sound Energy Natural Gas: Puget Sound Energy Water: Lakehaven Utility District Sanitary Sewer: Lakehaven Utility District Solid Waste: Waste Management, Inc. Telephone: Qwest Cable: Comeast C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. SIGNATURE: f ep DATE SUBMITTED:�� OF r=xHIBiTc PAGE -IL -OF LL_ Bulletin #050 — March 18, 2003 Page I I of 16 k iandouts — Revised\Environmental Checklist (4/21 /2008) Deb Barker -Mirror Lake Highland Cottage Housing- file No. 07-106875-00-SE Page 1 From: "Kittredge, Lori" <Lori.Kittredge@kingcounty.gov> To:<deb.barker@cityoffederalway.com> Date: 4/21 /2008 9:20 AM Subject: Mirror Lake Highland Cottage Housing- file No. 07-106875-00-SE Hi Deb, King County Metro has a bus stop westbound on SW 312 St east of 6 PI SW. If improvements are made to the sidewalk on the north side of SW 312 St, an ADA landing pad should included in the project. The concrete landing pad (10'x10' from the curb to the back of the pad) should begin at the bus stop flag post and extend eastward. Lori Kittredge Transit Route Facilities Planner SW District and Vashon Island 201 S. Jackson St. Seattle, WA 98104-3856 KS.C-TR-0413 Phone 206-263-3751 Fax 206-684-1860 e-mail: lori.kittredge@kingcounty.gov Please note: King County is changing email addresses. My new email address is lori.kittredge@kingcounty.gov. EXHIBIT-1 PAGE_J_OF_1-. 30 April 2008 525 SW 312'h St Federal Way WA 98023 City of Federal Way Community Development Services Department Attn: Deb Barker, Senior Planner 33325 8t' Avenue South Federal Way WA 98003 Subject: Proposed Mirror Lake Highland Cottage Home Development Dear Ms Barker, I have read the April 16, 2008 Determination of Nonsignificance regarding proposed Mirror Lake Highlands cottage housing development and I offer the following comments. Also included is a compilation of concerns expressed by lakeside residents at a recent meeting. I am uncertain whether these comments —particularly those having to do with stormwaterre best addressed during the SEPA process or during preliminary plat review, but we believe the infiltration scheme proposed and the use of fill material deserve scrutiny and validation because of potential effects on nearby Mirror Lake. Infiltration The checklist states (B.1.e) that 5562 yards of fill will be brought in. The purpose of the fill is described as follows: "The fill quantities are required for stormwater runoff to be conveyed to the infiltration areas and provide 3'-5' sub -base of soil for the infiltration of stormwater- Infiltration of stormwater is the preferred method of flow control as defined by the " county Surface Water Design Manual, as adopted by the City of Federal Way.' The KCSWDM (5.1.1) does state, in the section on Low Impact Design(UD) that Uon some sites... it is possible to infiltrate all storm water, which eliminates impacts from surface wafter leoWng the site. On these sites, f n#w mitigation of stormwater impacts is usually not required." This sounds Dice a good solution to potential pollution problems, including phosphorous, one of our primary concerns. ,..?- RECEIVED EXHIBIT PAGE APR 3-D 2008 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY eDS But Section 5.1.1 goes on to state "While use of LID is strongly encouraged, there is a lads of experience with designing and constructing projects that rely extensively on LID techniques. This edition [2005] of the SWDM along with the clearing and grading code requires limited use of these techniques in urban - zoned area and more extensive use in the rural area where they are more easily applied." This raises some important questions. Fkst, Do infiltration analyses address the use of fill to create an infiltration area? Second, are there standards for design and Construction of rain gardens as infiltration areas or should rain gardens be treated as Mfiftration ponds per KCSWDM? The TIR Appendix cites soil permeabiltiy tests in the natural, predevelopment state to establish infiltration rates for analysis. However, grading wall create some disturbance of the natural state and will add a layer, compacted to some degree, of new sod (Environmental cheddist B.1.e.) KCSWDM Section 5.4 INFILTRATION FACILITIES contains several cautions and requ4ements that seem to apply to the Mirror Lake Highlands use of infiltration. DESIGN INFILTRATION RATE (Caution) - "Monitoring of actual facility performance has shown that the fuR-scale infirm rate is far lower than the rate determined by small-scale testing. Actual measured facility rates of 10% of the sm scale test rates have been seen. It is clear that great conservatism in the selection of design rates is needed..." The Simplified Method of determining infiltration rates includes factors, such as for testing and plugging that attempt to correct for some sources of error_ These factors were employed in the TIR Appendix B analysis. However, the KCSWDM states that the Simplified method must be used along with full-scale testing of the completed facility. Comment The requirement for full scale testing kripliies, remaining uncertainties. Due to the padxxl w configuration of the proposed system, a 'pure at this point would be very costly, but would stil need to be corrected. PRESETTLING (Requirement) • "Presettling must be provided before storuwrarter enters the infiltration facility - This requirement may be met by either of the following: - A water quality fac i14 from the Basin V11Q menu... - A presettling pond or vault... 2 PAGE-1-OF 91 If water in the WQ facility or presettling facility will be in direct contact with the soil, the facility must be lined..." Comment: The proposed design does not appear to incorporate the required presettling facility. There is concern about long4erm performance of a system that is lacking this protection. PROTECTION FROM UPSTREAM EROSION (Requirement) • "Erosion must be controlled during construction of areas upstream of the infiltration facilities since sediment laden runoff can permanently impair the functioning of the system." Comment: The source of sediment (grading and filling) and the infiltration medium itself appear to be one and the same. INFILTRATION TRENCHES -DESIGN CRITERIA (Requirement) • 5.4.5.1.c "The infiltration surface elevation (bottom of the trench) must be in native soil (excavated at least one foot in depth)' Comment The design of the roof infiltration trenches as described in the TIR Appendix B identifies finished grade in the sketch, but not native soil. The infiltration trench sketch shows the optional use of bacldill or native soil below the infiltration surface. Rain garden infiltration areas appear to be at or somewhat above existing grade. The designs should be examined carefully for compliance with this requirement. Trees The Tree Evahralion and Protecban Plan says, in the section on Potential Tree Retention, that only four trees are outside the `buildable area' and are therefore recommended for retention- The stated purpose of the tree ordinance is 'to preserve, protect and enhance a valuable natural resource", In a March 28 2008 letter to RWmrd Scott, a lake resident living in sight of the project, the city states that the applicant has proposed clearing a majority of the site in conjunction with the preliminary plat application --contrary to city requiremerrts--and that the cry has requested additional information from the applicant on the subject Since that additional infomtation has not been received by the city, it appears that the environmental review process is getting ahead of itself. EXHIBIT K-_4 PAGE 3 OF�_ 3 �l On Sunday, April 27, 2008, a meeting of interested lake residents included a discussion of Mirror Lake Highlands. Paraphrasing some of the comments from that meeting: There was considerable concern that the infiltration approach will not work. • Impervious surfaces are a large percentage of the project. Density is higher than anything experienced to date for single-family dwellings in Federal Way. • Even with considerable capacity, Lakota Crest detention facility has come very close to overflowing during a heavy storm in November 2005. How can this site not use detention? Trees were also the source of several comments. • Nearly complete loss of trees in that portion of the landscape view enjoyed by some lake residents was felt to be an esthetic environmental impact. -Trees are beneficial -soil stabilization -0O2 absorption jLake Access by MLH residents was a major concern. • People crossing a busy road to get to the lake are in danger, particularly young children. • There are no toilet facilities. • Access by MLH residents will encourage trespassing by others. -The Bethel church lot has fencing and good signage and even so, trespassing occurs • Access must be gated and locked when not in use. If the city should decide these questions do not rise to the level of SEPA, please include a copy of these comments in the project file. Yours trul Robert S. Roper MLRA Land Use Marla Ledin MLRA President 4 EXHIBIT Ke-Ze PAGE- &I pF-V __ �41� 30120081 Deh Barker _Re: Attached comments by 4/30/48 �a9� From: Deb Barker To: rick.scott@gsa.gov Date: 4/30/2008 2:55 PM Subject: Re: Attached comments by 4/30/08 Rick - With this e-mail, I will confirm receipt of your SEPA comment letter for the Mirror Lake Highland Cottage Housing Preliminary Plat application. Regards Deb Barker, Senior Planner City of Federal Way PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 253-835-2642 >>> <rick.scott sa. o> 4/30/2008 2:43 PM >>> Deb, Here are my comments. Thanks, Rick (See attached file: mirrorlake3.doc) EXHIBIT K"03 PAGE-J_OF� April 30, 2008 Deb Barker, Federal Way Senior Planner Director of Community Development Services P.O. Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063 Re: The Mirror Lake Highland Cottage Preliminary Plat - 604 SW 312th Street, Federal Way, WA Dear Ms. Barker, Thank you again for the opportunity to provide a brief written comment on the Determination of Non -significance (DNS) as a follow-up to my previous letters. 1) All lake residents share a joint ownership of the lake (which is about 150 feet from the site), however it has come to my attention that only a handful of residents were notified of the proposed project. I understand that it was the applicant's responsibility to identify all affected property owners (in fact a good portion have been excluded from the process). As a result, the public comment has been severely limited. I propose that all affected property owners be contacted, before the process continues any fiuther. The applicant checked that no views would be affected, however the immediate view from the lake for all residents would be compromised. 2) I understand from our conversation yesterday, that you have not received the information requested from the applicant in regard to tree replacement. So, why then is there such haste in continuing the process? 3) Of utmost concern is the LID fill being proposed used to meet the drainage problems inherent at this site in such an environmentally -sensitive lakeside area. I understand that the use of this LID fill is "groundbreaking" for the City, since it has never been done here before. Although, I understand that it has likely been done elsewhere in the County. But has it ever been attempted with structures built on top of it??? I can't help recalling Marina District in San Francisco after the Loma Prieta earthquake. Would potential buyers have to be notified of such "experimental" soil conditions before purchase? What liability does the City of Federal Way have? What happens if there is an earthquake and the retaining wall is breached, the homes are severely damaged/collapse, and the soil cannot continue to retain all the water? 4) Also, how tall is the retaining wall proposed? What are the dimensions? What is it to be made out of ---aesthetics? How could the remaining few trees co -exist with the retaining wall? 5) Lastly, I understand that the applicant proposes no improvements to the lake easement. But, doesn't the City require fencing/gate if it were a condo/apartment complex and had a pool or a lake ------- to protect children? This is besides the safety aspects of crossing the busy street. Thank you again for your time/consideration. Please call (253) 946-9363, if you have questions. Sincerely, Richard Scott (kftV3_ EXHIB I� PAGE-2e-OF 90 FILE' CITY OF Federal May 9, 2008 Mr. Robert Roper Ms. Marla Ledin 525 SW 312'h Street Federal Way, WA 98023 CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South y Mailing Address: PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com RE: File #07-106875-00-SE; RESPONSE TO SEPA COMMENTS Mirror Lake Highland Cottage Preliminary Plat Dear Mr. Roper and Ms. Ledin: Thank you for your comments on the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) decision for the above - referenced subdivision proposal. Several comment letters were provided to the City in response to the Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) issued on April 30, 2008. Your comments related to infiltration and drainage, trees, and lake access. This letter briefly responds to your comments, including comments from the Public Works Development Services Division and also forwards comments from the applicant. IN FILTRATION/STORM WATER Your letter states that you are uncertain whether the comments - particularly those having to do with stormwater— are best addressed during the SEPA process or during preliminary plat review, but you do believe that the infiltration scheme, proposed and the use of fill materials deserves scrutiny and validation because of potential effects on nearby Mirror Lake. Your correspondence contains a number of very technical queries which are valid questions. However, it is important to note that at this time, the desi�p is only required to be of a preliminary nature. The final design would be reviewed for compliance wiih mandated standards of the King County Surface Design Manual, and City amendments to the manual. Please see also comments from the Public Works Development Services Division below. TREES Your letter notes concerns that the environmental review process is getting ahead of the city's review of tree removal. Also, neighbors have expressed concerns that removal of the trees would alter their landscape view enjoyed by lake residents with an aesthetic environmental impact. The land identified for the Mirror Lake Highland Cottage Housing preliminary plat project is privately owned and no part of it has been established for the use or benefit of Mirror Lake residents. Tree removal and retention issues are reviewed under the preliminary plat process and during engineering review. The Hearing Examiner and the City Council would evaluate any grading requests, and FWCC Section 22- 1568 permits removal of significant trees with corresponding tree replacement. The Federal Way City Council can approve the subdivision if the applicant demonstrates that all City development standards are met. In that the tree replacement issue is addressed under the FWCC, the City does not require the final decision to be made at the time of environmental determination. LAKE ACCESS Your letter notes that Mirror Lake residents are concerned about lake access provided to this subdivision, J with concerns of crossing SW 3124' Street, the lack of toilet facilities, potential for trespassing, and gated access. As noted in a previous letter from Deb Barker, concerns about use of the access easement to EXHIBIT PAGE, 1 -OF...�__ s May 9, 2008 Page 2 1 Mirror Lake are of a civil nature, and not under City purview. The applicant has informed the city "there are no plans for improvements to the Mirror Lake access easement for benefited homes." The City will not require any improvements associated with use of this lake. Cross walks across SW 312'' Street are available east and west of the subject site. PUBLIC WORKS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION The following comments have been prepared by Public Work Development Services Division in response to the letters dated April 30, 2008, from Robert Roper and Marla Ledin, in addition to a letter from Richard Scott: Infiltration and Design Infiltration Rate: The design details that are discussed in this letter are more appropriately and thoroughly addressed during engineering review. This level of detail is not required for SEPA and preliminary plat review. As a result, the applicant's proposal to grade or fill is not finally approved simply because it is stated as part of the SEPA checklist or appears conceptually on a preliminary plat drawing. The design will be reviewed against the requirements of the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual, and Department of Ecology requirements as appropriate. Both of these agencies provide standards for design, construction, and maintenance of rain gardens, pervious pavement, infiltration trenches, and other Low Impact Development methods. Soils on this site have been tested, and have been shown to provide good infiltration rates. Additional amended soils (fill) will be brought in to meet design requirements for the rain gardens. These amended soils are specifically designed to provide maximum infiltration in addition to the infiltration provided by the native soil, and will not inhibit the infiltrative qualities of the native soil. There are no drainage requirements that prohibit fill beneath structures or lawn areas. However, fill material will have to meet building code requirements beneath structures, and must provide optimum growing conditions beneath vegetated areas to increase plant uptake of storm water runoff. Following the experience of other jurisdictions and the requirements and procedures provided by King County and DOE, soils will be required to meet stringent design standards and will be carefully monitored during construction to assure that the infiltrative capacity of the native soils is retained. The concern about design infiltration rate will be addressed during engineering review. Presettling: The only pre -settling required prior to a rain garden is a grass filter strip. Three rain gardens on this site are designed to accept sheet flow from the surrounding lawn areas and roofs. These are considered "non - pollution generating" surfaces, therefore there is no need for pre -settling. However, the lawn area would provide the same function as a grass filter strip. The fourth rain garden will need to include a grass filter strip if it is designed to accept runoff from the adjacent paved surface. Protection from Upstream Erosion: Erosion control measures will be required and monitored during construction. Erosion control technology has been in place for many years and has been designed to deal with grading and filling situations. State and local requirements will be enforced. Infiltration Trenches: The design of the infiltration trenches is conceptual at this point. The designer is aware that there are outstanding issues with the trenches. The KCSWDM includes design requirements for infiltration trenches, and this project will be required to meet them. _ 1 07-IW75 Doc LD. 45357 EXHIBIT L `1 PAGE0? Roper/Ledin May 9, 2008 Page 3 Lake Residents' Comments: Impervious surfaces are proposed to make up 45.6 percent of the site. This is actually a somewhat smaller amount of impervious area than an average subdivision. Since the time of Lakota Crest's design, LID technology has become more prevalent as a means to meet both flow control and water requirements in the Pacific Northwest and is now not only accepted, but strongly encouraged by the Washington State Department of Ecology. Rain gardens have been in use in the Midwest for many years. European countries have employed pervious pavement for many years as well. Several successful LID projects have been installed in neighboring communities over the last few years. City staff would be happy to provide a list and locations of these projects if the neighborhood is interested in seeing them firsthand. RESPONSE FROM APPLICANT A copy -of your letter was forwarded to the applicant. He has elected to provide a written response to your comments; a copy of his May 8, 2008, letter is enclosed. CONCLUSION The City appreciates the comments provided. After careful consideration of the comments, however, the City is retaining the DNS as issued and will not be modifying the DNS. Any appeal of the DNS must be received by May 14, 2008, and include a $114.50 filing fee. In regards to the next steps, the City's Hearing Examiner will be holding a public hearing on the proposed subdivision and will forward a recommendation to the City Council for final consideration. Notification of the upcoming public hearing will be provided through mailing to all parties of record and to each property owner within 300 feet of the site, posting of the site and public places, and publication of a legal notice in the newspaper. A date for the public hearing has not been set. If you have any further questions or would like to review the project files, please contact Deb Barker, Senior Planner, at 253-835-2642. Sincerely ' Cam• G� Greg Fewins Director of Community Development Services Responsible Environmental Official enc_ Letter dated May 8, 2008 from William McCaffrey c! Deb. Barker, Senior Planner Soma Chattopadhyay, Traffic Analyst Ann Dower, Public Works Engineering Plans Review Paul Bucich, Surface Water Manager Monica Buck, City Staff Attorney Bill McCaffrey, 1911 SW Campus Drive, Suite 116, Federal Way, WA 98023 EXHIBIT- PAGE-3-OF 3 07-106675 Doa I D. 45357 FILE crry OF A. Federal May 9, 2008 CITY HALL �� 33325 8th Avenue South Mailing Address: PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com Mr. Richard Scott PO Box 4536 Federal Way, WA 98063-4536 RE: File #07-106874-00-SU; RESPONSE TO SEPA COMMENTS MIRROR LAKE HIGHLAND COTTAGE PRELIMINARY PLAT Dear Mr. Scott: Thank you for your comments on the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) decision for the above - referenced subdivision proposal. Several comment letters were provided to the City in response to the Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) issued on April 30, 2008. Your comments related to (1) public notice; (2) tree replacement; (3) LID; (4) retaining wall height; and (5) lake access. This letter briefly responds to your comments, including comments from the Public Works Development Services Division and also forwards comments from the applicant. (1) You noted that not all of the residents around the lake were notified. You believe that the applicant has a responsibility to notify all affected property owners which includes all lake residents who share a joint ownership around the lake. As provided in Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Section 18-49, when the responsible official issues a determination of nonsignificance, the city shall give public notice for project related actions, which includes mailing to all owners of real property as shown in the records of the County assessor located within 300 feet of the site and any interested party or agency who has filed its name directly with the responsible official. Real property does not mean areas of easement, only ownership. It is the applicant's responsibility to accurately represent the subject site and to provide stamped addressed envelopes for property owners within 300 feet of their property. In the case of this project, the applicant elected to contract with the City's Graphic Information System (GIS) department who prepared the mailing labels based on the applicant's direction. It is the City's position that the notification procedures of FWCC Section 18-49(a)(1) were accurately followed and notification requirements met. (2) You question why the environmental process is continuing when tree replacement information has not yet been submitted. Tree removal and retention issues are reviewed under the preliminary plat process and during engineering review. The Hearing Examiner and the City Council would evaluate any grading requests, and FWCC Section 22-1568 permits removal of significant trees with corresponding tree replacement. In that the tree replacement issue is addressed under the FWCC, the City does not require the final decision to be made at the time of environmental determination. (3) You have expressed concerns regarding fill and the use of low impact development "in such an environmentally sensitive lakeside area" and questioned requirements surrounding residential - development. Low impact development is generally considered to be more `sensititve' when used EXHIBIT L'2 PAGE I OF_� I v. May 9, 2008 Page 2 adjacent to critical areas. Naturally, structural standards have evolved since the initial fill created San Francisco's Marina District. Fill and grading actions proposed in conjunction with residential structures requires review under the International Building Code (IBC) adopters by the City. Specifically, under IBC J104.3, a soils report prepared by registered design professionals' must be submitted and reviewed in conjunction with residential development. Compaction reports that meet section J107.5 2 must be submitted to the Building Official during residential construction activity. These reports remain on file with the City, and potential purchasers can review these records. Building permits are required for structures, including rockeries and retaining walls in excess of four feet in height and decks over thirty inches in height including rails. The City can approve professionally engineered design that meet adopted standards, and the design professional maintains the liability for their product. In addition, as noted in the staff evaluation for environmental determination, the subject site is located within the five-year Wellhead Protection Zone of the Redondo Milton Channel Aquifer for Lakehaven Utility District Well 23A, and the site is classified as a "Low Risk Parcel" for the District's Wellhead Protection Program. However, Mirror Lake is located approximately 170 feet south of the subject site, and is separated from the site by SW 312"' Street and a developed single-family lot. Such separation does not establish a lot as an environmentally sensitive lakeside area. In response to your question regarding the City's liability, the issue of liability is generally so fact specific that it is virtually impossible to predict. (4) You have inquired about dimensions and materials of a retaining wall, and its relation to retained trees. This is a question that the City has posed to the applicant, but does not yet have a response to. However, it is not an issue that must be resolved within the environmental process. The city will require resolution of the matter before the public hearing can be conducted. (5) You asked if there are fencing requirements associated with the lake easement, and noted safety aspects of crossing the busy street. The applicant has informed the city "there are no plans for improvements to the Mirror Lake access easement for benefited homes." Public swimming pool barriers are regulated by WAC 246-26-031(4). This regulation does not extend to areas defined as shorelands, which would include lakes as well as Puget Sound. As noted in a previous letter from Deb Barker, concerns about use of the access easement to Mirror Lake are of a civil nature, and not under City purview. The City will not require any improvements associated with use of this lake. There are cross walks on SW 312th Street located east and west of the subject site. PUBLIC WORKS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION The following comments have been prepared by Public Work Development Services Division in response to the letters dated April 30, 2008, from Robert Roper and Marla Ledin, in addition to Richard Scott: Infiltration and Design Infiltration Rate: The design details that are discussed in this letter are more appropriately and thoroughly addressed during engineering review. This level of detail is not required for SEPA and preliminary plat review. As a result, the applicant's proposal to grade or fill is not finally approved simply because it is stated as,part of the 'The soils report shall identify the nature and distribution of existing soils; conclusions and recommendations for grading procedures; soil design criteria for any structures or embankments required to accomplish the proposed grading; and, where necessary, slope stability studies, and recommendations and conclusions regarding site geology. z All fill material shall be compacted to 90 percent of maximum density as determined by ASTM D 1557 Modified Proctor, `ir► lifts not exceeding 12 inches in depth. 07-I06875 Dar- [.D. 4535S EXHIBIT �- PACE UF..t_ Mr. Scott May 9, 2008 Page 3 SEPA checklist or appears conceptually on a preliminary plat drawing. The design will be reviewed against the requirements of the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual, and Department of Ecology requirements as appropriate. Both of these agencies provide standards for design, construction, and maintenance of rain gardens, pervious pavement, infiltration trenches, and other Low Impact Development methods. Soils on this site have been tested, and have been shown to provide good infiltration rates. Additional amended soils (fill) will be brought in to meet design requirements for the rain gardens. These amended soils are specifically designed to provide maximum infiltration in addition to the infiltration provided by the native soil, and will not inhibit the infiltrative qualities of the native soil. There are no drainage requirements that prohibit fill beneath structures or lawn areas. However, fill material will have to meet building code requirements beneath structures, and must provide optimum growing conditions beneath vegetated areas to increase plant uptake of storm water runoff. Following the experience of other jurisdictions and the requirements and procedures provided by King County and DOE, soils will be required to meet stringent design standards and will be carefully monitored during construction to assure that the infiltrative capacity of the native soils is retained. The concern about design infiltration rate will be addressed during engineering review. Presettling: The only pre -settling required prior to a rain garden is a grass filter strip. Three rain gardens on this site are designed to accept sheet flow from the surrounding lawn areas and roofs. These are considered "non - pollution generating" surfaces, therefore there is no need for pre -settling. However, the lawn area would provide the same function as a grass filter strip. The fourth rain garden will need to include a grass filter strip if it is designed to accept runoff from the adjacent paved surface. Protection from Upstream Erosion: Erosion control measures will be required and monitored during construction. Erosion control technology has been in place for many years and has been designed to deal with grading and filling situations. State and local requirements will be enforced. Infiltration Trenches: The design of the infiltration trenches is conceptual at this point. The designer is aware that there are outstanding issues with the trenches. The KCSWDM includes design requirements for infiltration trenches, and this project will be required to meet them. Lake Residents Comments: Impervious surfaces are proposed to make up 45.6 percent of the site. This is actually a somewhat smaller amount of impervious area than an average subdivision. Since the time of Lakota Crest's design, LID technology has become more prevalent as a means to meet both flow control and water requirements in the Pacific Northwest and is now not only accepted, but strongly encouraged by the Washington State Department of Ecology. Rain gardens have been in use in the Midwest for many years. European countries have employed pervious pavement for many years as well. Several successful LID projects have been installed in neighboring communities over the last -few years. City staff would be happy to provide a list and locations of these projects if the neighborhood is interested in seeing them firsthand. 07-106875 LD. 4535 �41v`*Jo PAGE 2OF ' Mr. Scott May 9, 2008 Page 4 RESPONSE FROM APPLICANT A copy of your letter was forward to the applicant. He has elected to provide a written response to your comments; a copy of his May 8, 2008, letter is enclosed. CONCLUSION The City appreciates the comments provided. After careful consideration of the comments, however, the City is retaining the DNS as issued and will not be modifying the DNS. Any appeal of the DNS must be received by May 14, 2008, and include a $114.50 filing fee. In regards to the next steps, the City's Hearing Examiner will be holding a public hearing on the proposed subdivision and will forward a recommendation to the City Council for final consideration. Notification of the upcoming public hearing will be provided through mailing to all parties of record and to each property owner within 300 feet of the site, posting of the site and public places, and publication of a legal notice in the newspaper. A date for the public hearing has not been set. If you have any further questions or would like to review the project files, please contact Deb Barker, Senior Planner, at 253-835-2642. Sincerely, Greg Fewins Director of Community Development Services Responsible Environmental Official enc: Letter dated May 8, 2008 from William McCaffrey c: Deb Barker, Senior Planner Soma Chattopadhyay, Traffic Analyst Ann Dower, Public Works Engineering Plans Review Paul Bucich, Surface Water Manager Monica Buck, City Staff Attorney Bill McCaffrey, 1911 SW Campus Drive, Suite 116, Federal Way, WA 98023 07_106875 EXHIBIT U `58.Z PAGE OFF P r--tneUJUM scunio jn I Construction Management I Development May 8, 2008 Deb Barker Senior Planner City of Federal Way RE: MLRA (Roper/Ledin), Kittredge, and Scott SEPA Comments Dear Deb: fV N Per the Mirror Lake Residents Association's (MLRA) 4/30/08 letter (signed by President Marla Ledin and Land Use Chair Robert Roper) please note the following: to ut .4 General — LL n I am pleased that the MLRA acknowledges that we have addressed their neighborhoods i, primary concern by designing a drainage/grading solution that addresses potential pollution problems, including phosphorous. We are also pleased that the neighborhood Ln representatives had the chance to meet and discuss our development on April 27", 2008. We will attempt to answer the neighbor's specific questions, many of which appear to be well researched and professional. Infiltration questions- 1) We are not using fill to create infiltrative soils. The grading/drainage plan, and the anticipated fill, is designed to utilize the existing natural 5 feet of infiltrative soil (indicated by the site's geotechnical report) to provide the infiltration performance required. There may end up being small areas of the rain gardens that will contain controlled fill to level them out. There will also be some component of amended soil/fill used in and around the rain garden areas to augment the performance of the native soil and provide a better growth medium for plants. All of these issues are the subject of final engineering review and are not required at the SEPA stage. 2) Design approaches for construction of rain gardens as infiltration areas are provided for in sections of the 1998 and the 2005 KCSWDM (as well as the Department of Ecology standards). q • EXtsimHI 3) As stated above, keeping the bottom of the rain gardens within OF predevelopment infiltrative soils is the basis for the grading plan MAY 0 9 2008 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY WWUi 1t1N 3 LUOiO.CQm Design Infiltration Rate questions- 1) The MLRS's analysis of alternative calculation methods is in the manual. Our current approach is one of the allowed methods and includes significant safety factors to insure final performance. The final engineering phase is the required time for detailed analysis of these calculations and they will all be reviewed by the City at that time. Presettling questions- 1) Final engineering will satisfy all presettling requirement and space is allowed for them in this preliminary design. Protection from Upstream Erosion questions- 1) An erosion control plan will be included with final engineering per requirements. As stated above, the source of sediment and the infiltration medium are not one and the same. Infiltration Trenches -Design Criteria questions- 1) MLRA's analysis of our current drawings is incorrect. Both the preliminary and the final engineering solution will comply with this requirement. Tree questions- 1) Any issues raised by the City concerning clearing and grading are being addressed, as is the common process, in our response to their initial technical comments. As soon as we receive answers from the City on the few outstanding questions we submitted, we will turn in our final Preliminary Plat submittal per City requirements. Per the Lori Kittredge with King County Metro e-mail dated 4/21 /2008, please note the following: 1) We will address the ADA landing request. EXHIBIT 1`3 PAGE-L-OF_ Per the Richard Scott letter dated 4/30/2008, please note the following: l) So far we have made 3 mailings to the neighbors per City of Federal Way requirements. The required address list for these mailings was supplied by the City (for a fee). The City further requested that we notify the President of the Mirror Lake Residents Association and Mirror Lake resident Robert Roper who has exhibited a keen interest in development activity concerning the Lake over the years (if they were not within the 300' zone). We did that. As a result of our last notification, Mirror Lake residents met and discussed our development on Sunday 4/27/2008 providing us with comments included in one of the above letters. Given the above, we feel we met all notification requirements outlined by the City and that the expected results occurred. Monica Buck, from the City Attorney's office, phoned me concerning this question and after hearing what we had done was in agreement that we had met the notification requirements. 2) As stated above under "Tree's", we believe we are proceeding according to City timing and preliminary plat submittal requirements. 3) As stated above in response to the MLRA letter, the vast majority of the required site fill does not contribute to the infiltrative performance of the LID design approach. Its function is to level the yards and building pads due to the natural fall of the site along its eastern property line as well as provide the elevation change required to utilize the natural infiltrative characteristics of the existing soil for the rain gardens and underground infiltration trenches. It is required to allow the infiltration design to perform optimally, but is not used as the infiltrative material. There is nothing "ground breaking" or "experimental" about the fill. 4) As to any "breached" retaining walls. Only a few of the landscape walls shown on the site plan retain enough earth to even require engineering and none of them hold back infiltrated water to any significant degree. The ones used near the rain gardens are up -grade from the direction of the water flow! The walls were originally included to create more level grade around and between units, rain gardens, and property lines. We may reconsider even keeping a lot of them during final design as the individual lots are analyzed in more detail and the need for fill is expected to decline due to more precise fill calculations. Final engineering will determine the height and influence the material of the walls. They could end up stone, decorative concrete block, poured concrete with a finish or pattern, or treated wood. In any case it will be in the developer's best interest to insure they are aesthetically pleasing due to their integral location near the open space features of the site. We do not anticipate final design resulting in any walls interfering with the retained trees. •z d is u :; �:� AGE -it-0 _q___ 5) As stated, the developer does not intend to improve the lake access easement. The location of the easement across a busy arterial, in the usable side yard of a MLRA members unfenced lot, with unimproved shoreline access does not seem to make it very desirable for the five MLH units that have access rights. Any improvement on the part of our development would undoubtedly invite use which is not our intent. The easement agreement allows the homeowner to fence the easement as long as the neighbors with rights are still guaranteed access. If the MLRA homeowner is afraid of their liability we would not object to a fence, but there is another home with access rights that is not a part of our development and they would have to agree to any action concerning the access easement. I hope this letter answers the neighbor's concerns. It is our intent to be good neighbors and to increase the property value of the entire neighborhood by completing an ecologically responsible development. Best Regards, William McCaffrey the WJM studio EXHIBIT f PAGE oF.-T— GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY For MIRROR LAKE HIGHLANDS DEVELOPMENT FEDERAL WAY, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON Prepared For WJM STUDIO 1911; SW CAMPUS DRIVE; SUITE #116 FEDRAL WAY, WA 98023 Prepared By Pacific Gev Engineering, iLC P.O. BOX 1419 ISSAQUAH, WASHINGTON 98027 EXHIBIT- M PAGE t u PGE PROJECT NUMBER 0708182 December 20, 2007 0 7 + 1RR0��rr■6`` 8 7 4 ti_ RSUBMiTTEVnn JAN' 4 9 2008 CITY BUILFEDERAL DING WAY E.DING DEPT PGE December 20, 2007 Pacific Geo Engineering LLC Geotechnical Engineering, Consulting & Inspection WJM STUDIO 1911, SW Campus Drive; Suite # 116 Federal Way, WA 98023 Attn.: Mr. Bill McCaffrey, AIA Re: Geotechnical Engineering Study Mirror Lake Highlands 604, SW 312th Street Federal Way, King County, Washington Parcel No. 072104-9024, -9109, -9110, -9111 PGE Project No. 0708182 Dear Mr. McCaffrey: Pacific Geo Engineering, LLC (PGE) has completed a Geotechnical Engineering study for the referenced project. This report includes the results of our subsurface exploration and engineering evaluation, and provides recommendations for the geotechnical aspects of the design and development of the project. We trust the information presented in this report is sufficient for your current needs. We appreciate the opportunity to provide the geotechnical services at this phase of the project and look forward to continued participation during the design and construction phase of this project. Should you have any questions or concerns, which have not been addressed, or if we may be of additional assistance, please do not hesitate to call us at 425-643-2616 or 425-218-9316. Respectfully submitted, Pacific Geo Engineering, LLC S Mp-Wa'L- Santanu Mowar, MSCE, P.E. D:\Geotechnical\2007-proj\0708182rpt HISIT FA _iI00391 P.O . Box 1419. Issaquah. WA. 98027. (Tel) 425-643-2616 . (Fax) 425-643-0436 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No 1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... ................................... ........ . ......... 1 2.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT...................................................................................................................... 1 3.0 SCOPE OF GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES.................................................................................................. 1 3.1 Field Investigation............................................................................................................................... 2 3.2 Laboratory Testing.............. ............................. :.:4 .......... w .......... "m—j ................................................... - 2 33 Engineering Evaluation....................................................................................................................... 3 4.0 SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS.......................................................................................... 3 4.1 Site Location......................................................................................................................................... 3 4.2 Site Descriptions................................................................................................................................... 3 4.3 Regional Geology................................................................................................................................ 4 4.4 Soil Conservation Survey Soil Descriptions........................................................................................ 4 4.5 Visual Soil Descriptions........................................................................................................................ 4 4.6 Groundwater Conditions....................................................................................................................... 5 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................................... 5 5.1 General................................................................................................................................................ 5 5.2 Site Preparation.................................................................................................................................. 6 5.2.1 Clearing and Grubbing........................................................................................................ 6 5.2.2 Subgrade Preparation.......................................................................................................... 6 5.2.3 Reuse of On -Site Soils......................................................................................................... 7 5.2.4 Dry Weather Construction.....................................................................................:............. 7 5.2.5 Wet Weather Construction.................................................................................................. 8 5.2.6 Structural Fill....................................................................................................................... 9 5.2.7 Fill Placement & Compaction Requirements...................................................................... 9 5.2.8 Temporary Excavations...................................................................................................... 10 5.2.9 Permanent Cut & Fill Slopes.............................................................................................. 12 5.2.10 Construction Dewatering.........................................................................................:........... 12 5.2.11 Construction Monitoring..................................................................................................... 12 5.3 Foundation Recommendations............................................................................................................ 13 5.4 Floor Slabs........................................................................................................................................... 14 5.5 Site Drainage......................................................................:................................................................ 14 5.6 Utility Support and Backfill................ .....--- ...................................... ,...... ............. :..:.................. v4..... 15 5.7 Pavement Thickness............................................................................................................................ 16 5.8 Geologic Hazards............................................................................:...................................................17 5.8.1 Erosion Hazard.................................................................................................................... 17 5.8.2 Seismic Hazard..................................:................................................................................. 18 5.8.3 Landslide Hazard................................................................................................................. 18 5.9 Infiltration Potential Evaluation......................................................................................................... 19 6.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS................................................................................................................................ 21 7.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES...........................................................................................................................I.... 22 E X-FLI IT PAGE_-*b-OF_-3-01_ I LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Vicinity Map Figure 2 Site & Exploration Plan Figure 3 Soil Conservation Map LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Soil Test Pit Logs Appendix B Laboratory Test Results EXHIMIT 1A- PAGE.�_aF '�_ Pacific Geo Engineering, LLC GeotechnFraf En in rrn Cwrsvl atr n & !ns rtron Geotechnical Engineering Study Mirror Lake Highlands Development _ Project No. 0708182 `} December 20, 2007 Page 1 of 22 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our subsurface exploration and geotechnical evaluation for the proposed Mirror Lake Highlands Development, to be located at 604 SW 312th Street, in Federal Way, King County, Washington. This study was accomplished in general accordance with our proposal No. 708228, dated August 10, 2007, and was granted to proceed by written authorization of Mr. Bill McCaffrey, on August 13, 2007. 2.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The development plan calls for constructing single-family residences and associated driveways. According to the project information available from WJM Studio, we understand that the rooftop and stormwater runoff management system would be consisted of shallow underground infiltration trenches. According to the current grading plan we understand that only minor cuts and fills will be required in this site to achieve the final grades for the proposed development. Based on our experience with similar projects, we anticipate that the houses will be one and half story wood -framed structures with loading carried primarily by a system of bearing walls. We expect bearing wall loads will be in the range of 2 to 3 kips per lineal foot, isolated column loads in the range of 30 to 40 kips, and slab -on -grade floor loads of 150 pounds per square foot (psf). We further expect that the first floor levels of the buildings will be constructed at grades or framed over a crawl space area. The proposed development will include asphalt -paved driveways. We anticipate vehicle traffic will primarily consist of passenger cars and occasional waste management trucks. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based upon our understanding of the above assumed design features of the development. If actual features vary or changes are made, PGE should be allowed to review the actual features so that the conclusions and recommendations contained herein may be re-evaluated and modified accordingly to reflect those changes. 3.0 SCOPE OF GEOTECB ICAL SERVICES The purpose of this geotechnical study is to provide a report evaluating the geotechnical feasibility of the proposed development. This study identifies and addresses the geotechnical issues and aspects that may impact the proposed site development. The scope of this study included field explorations, laboratory testing, geologic literature review, and engineering evaluation of the field and laboratory data. This study also included interpretation of this information to generate pertinent geotechnical recommendations and conclusions that may be used for the design and construction of the development. Ex MH NISI #A Pacific Geo Engineerinffi LLC GeQ[echnica! �n ineerin Cnnsult tinn & !n rctiaR Geotechnical Engineering Study Mirror Lake Highlands Development Project No. 0708182 December 20, 2007 Page 2 of 22 The scope of our work did not include any wetland study, or any environmental analyses or evaluation to find the presence of any hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, surface water, groundwater, or air in or around this site. 3.1 Field Investigation We explored surface and subsurface conditions at the project site on August 15, 2007. Four (4) test pits were excavated to depths of about 9 to 10 feet below the existing grades, and were backfilled with loosely compacted excavated soils. The test pits were completed using a trackhoe provided by PGE's subcontractor. The test pits were excavated in the proposed infiltration trench areas. The specific numbers and the locations of the test pits at the proposed trench areas were selected by WJM Studio and were located on -site by PGE personnel. The test pit locations were estimated in relation to the existing and proposed site features, and not using any surveying instruments or methods. Therefore, the locations of the test pits in the field should be considered approximate only, and accurate to the degree implied by the measuring methods. The approximate test pit locations are shown on the Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2. A professional geotechnical engineer from our firm observed the excavations, continually logged the subsurface conditions in each test pit, collected representative bulk samples from different soil layers, and observed pertinent site features. Samples were designated according to the test pit number and depth, stored in watertight plastic containers, and later transported to our laboratory for further visual examination and testing. The samples that were not used for laboratory testing will be retained for 30 days from the date of submission of this report. Further storage or transfer of samples can be made at the client's expense upon written request. Results of the field investigation are presented on the test pit logs, which are presented on Pages A-1 through A-4 of Appendix A. The final logs are modified based on the interpretation of our field logs, laboratory test results, and visual examination of the samples in the laboratory. 3.2 Laboratory Testing Laboratory tests were conducted on several selected representative soil samples to evaluate the general physical properties and engineering characteristics of the soils encountered. The samples were visually classified in the field and laboratory, and later on supplemented by grain size analyses performed in accordance with ASTM procedures. Sieve analyses were performed on two (2) selected samples in accordance with ASTM D-422 and D-2487 procedures. The results of the sieve analyses are presented on the grain -size distribution graphs B-1 and B-2 enclosed in Appendix B. PAG` L^!r__OF�_ Pacific Gea En ineerrn tLC GSotschnica! £n ineerrn Cansultatiun & !n edia77 Geotechnical Engineering Study Mirror Lake Highlands Development Project No. 0708182 December 20, 2007 Page 3 of 22 3.3 Engineering Evaluation The results from the field and laboratory tests were evaluated and engineering analyses were performed to provide pertinent information and recommendations on the following geotechnical aspects of the proposed site development: • Soil and groundwater conditions of the site. • Foundation types and allowable bearing capacity for supporting the proposed residences. • Settlement due to the recommended bearing capacity value and the observed soil conditions. • Frictional and passive values for the resistance of lateral forces. • Subgrade preparation for slab -on -grade. • Earthwork, including site preparation, excavation, and placement of compacted fill. • Use of the on -site soils as structural fill. • Wet weather construction. • Seismic design considerations, including the site coefficient per Table 16-J of the UBC. • Site drainage including permanent subsurface drainage systems and temporary groundwater control measures, if necessary. • Erosion control. • Asphalt pavement sections. • Geologic hazards as per the City of Federal Way Critical Area Ordinances: landslide, erosion, and seismic. • Infiltration potential of the native soils. 4.0 SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 4.1 Site Location The proposed development is to be located at 604 SW 312th Street, in Federal Way, King County, Washington. The north, east, and west of the site are bounded by residences, and the south by 312th Street. 'Be general location of the site is shown on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. 4.2 Site Descriptions The project site is located within a region dominated by residences. The majority of the site is covered with small to large trees, bushes, and shrubs. A single-family residence and associated garage and shack are located in the southern portion of the site. The site has an access from the 312th Street via a paved private road. EX149BT hA PAGE -a -OF OF Pacific Geo Engineering. Ctc Geateehnkal Engineering Consultation & Inspection Geotechnical Engineering Study Mirror Lake Highlands Development Project No. 0708182 `.+ December 20, 2007 Page 4 of 22 In general, the site grades are consisted of almost level ground with minor downward slopes from its northern to southern boundary. Based on the current topography plan, the site has an overall gradient of approximately 7 percent. During our field study, we attempted to notice the firmness and stability of the slopes as well as the evidences of geologic phenomena like previous landslides, erosion, and presence of any groundwater seepage or streams across the slopes. No such geologic phenomena were visible on the slopes at the time of our observations of the slopes. Based on our visual observations of the soils in the test pits the slopes are appeared to be stable and firm at their present conditions. 4.3 Regional Geology The site is in the Puget Sound Lowland, a north -south trending structural and topographic depression lying between Olympic Mountains on the west and Cascade Mountains on the east. The lowland depression experienced successive glaciation and nonglaciation activities over the time of Pleistocene period. During the most recent Fraser glaciation, which advanced from and retreated to British Columbia between 13,000 and 20,000 years ago, the lowland depression was buried under about 3,000 feet of continental glacial ice. During the successive glacial and nonglacial intervals, the lowland } depression, which is underlain by Tertiary volcanic and sedimentary bedrock, was filled up above the bedrocks to the present-day land surface with Quaternary sediments, which consisted of Pleistocene glacial and nonglacial sediments. The glacial deposits include concrete -like lodgement till, lacustrine silt, fine sand and clay, advance and recessional outwash composed of sand or sand and gravel, and some glaciomarine materials. The nonglacial deposits include largely fluvial sand and gravel, overback silt and clay deposits, and peat attesting to the sluggish stream environments that were apparently widespread during nonglacial times. 4.4 Soil Conservation Survey Soil Descriptions According to the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Survey for King County, Washington, the subject site of its upper 60 inches consist of soil unit `Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam (AgB)'. The approximate site location with respect to the horizontal boundaries of this soil unit is shown on the Soil Conservation Map, Fig. 3. 4.5 Visual Soil Descriptions The average thickness of the topsoils was found to be about 6 inches, which was composed of dark gray silty sand with small size gravels, roots, and organic materials. The topsoils were underlain by light brown silty sandy gravelly soils (Sandy loams; USCS: SM), which were extended upto approximately 5 feet below the current grades. This deposit was almost dry EX 511 � S IT Pacific Geo Engineering, [.ZC Geotechnical Engineering, Con ultation & Ins edioa Geotechnical Engineering Study Mirror Lake Highlands Development Project No. 0708182 December 20, 2007 Page 5 of 22 and loose at shallow depths, and medium dense at greater depths. This deposit was then underlain by very dense silty sandy gravels, locally known as till or hardpan, which extended upto the bottom of the test pits. The till was almost dry and very dense. Difficulties were encountered during the digging through the till due to its hardness. Till was partly cemented. The preceding discussion on the subsurface conditions of the site is intended as a general review to highlight the major subsurface stratification features and material characteristics. For more complete and specific information at individual test pit locations, please review the Test Pit Logs (Pages A-1 through.A-4) included in Appendix A. These logs include soil descriptions, stratification, and location of the samples and laboratory test data. It should be noted that the stratification lines shown on the individual logs, represent the approximate boundaries between various soil strata; actual transitions may be more gradual or more severe. 4.6 Groundwater Conditions Neither groundwater nor any perched water seepage or signs of mottling indicating evidence of high perched water table were noticed within the exploratory depths of the test pits. It is to be noted that groundwater elevations are not static; seasonal fluctuations in the groundwater elevations and the presence of perched water in the permeable sandy loams may be expected in the amount of rainfall, surface runoff, and other factors not apparent at the time of our exploration. The possibility of groundwater level fluctuations and the presence of perched water should be considered when designing and developing the proposed development at this site, particularly while determining the bottom elevations of the stromwater management facilities, and for the utility trench excavations. 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 General Based on this study, there are no geotechnical considerations that would preclude development as proposed, therefore, the site appears to be suitable for the proposed development. According to our field investigation, the site is underlain by loose to medium dense _sandy loams followed by till. The sandy loams would be considered suitable for installing shallow infiltration system due to their good permeability characteristics. However; the very dense till would not be considered suitable for installing infiltration system due to their low permeability characteristics. The slopes within the site are gentle therefore not considered potential for landslide hazard. The native soils are considered suitable for building houses and roads. The houses in this site may be supported on conventional shallow footing 7�n1T [)[ CAE—k-0'F�_ Pacific Geo EnclLneering, LLc GentecAnical En ineerin Consultation &Ins ection Geotechnical Engineering Study Mirror Lake Highlands Development Project No_ 0708182 '}. December 20, 2007 Page 6 of 22 foundations, constructed on the firm and stable native soils or newly placed structural fills placed over the above native soils. With the existing conditions in this site, floor slabs can bear on grades after the topsoils and any loose deleterious material have been stripped. The remainder of this section (5.0) presents specific engineering recommendations on the pertinent geotechnical issues that are anticipated for the design and construction of the proposed development. 5.2 Site Preparation 5.2.1 Clearing and Grubbing Initial site preparation for construction of new buildings and paved areas should include demolition of the existing structures, removal of fences, stripping of vegetation and topsoil, and paved driveways from the site. Based on the topsoil thickness encountered at our test pit locations, we anticipate topsoil stripping depths of about 6 inches, however, thicker layers of topsoil may be present in unexplored portions of the site. Stripped vegetation debris should be removed from the site. Stripped organic topsoils will not be suitable for use as structural fill but may be used for future landscaping purposes. The stripped gravels from the existing driveway may be stockpiled on site for later use as road construction materials. 5.2.2 Subgrade Preparation After the site stripping, cut and fill operations can be initiated to establish desired pavement and building grades. Any exposed subgrades that are intended to provide direct support for new construction and/or require new fills should be adequately proofrolled and/or must be probed with a T-probe by the PGE's geotechnical engineer to identify the presence of any isolated soft and yielding areas, and to verify that stable subgrades are achieved to support the buildings and the pavements, and the new fills. Proofrolling should be done with a loaded dump truck or a front-end loader or a steel drum vibratory roller under the supervision of a geotechnical engineer of PGE. If any subgrade area ruts and pumps excessively and cannot be stabilized in place by compaction, the affected soils should be over -excavated completely to firm and unyielding, and suitable bearing materials, and replaced with new structural fills to desired final subgrade levels. If the depth of overexcavation to remove unstable soils becomes excessive, a geotextile fabric, such as Mirafi 50OX or equivalent in conjunction with structural fills may be considered. Such decision should be made on -site by a geotechnical engineer of PGE during the actual construction of the project. Existing fills may be expected in the vicinity of the existing residence. If any existing fills are encountered then such fills from these areas and the loosely backfilled soils in the areas of exploratory -� test pits should be overexcavated completely to the firm native soils and backfilled with adequately [��.1� ®F Pacific Gea En_gineeri -g, «.c Geatrchnkal En ineerin Cansu![a�een & 1n ecNvn Geotechnical Engineering Study Mirror Lake Highlands Development Project No. 0708182 --� December 20, 2007 Page 7 of 22 compacted new structural fills to the final grades. If any existing underground utilities are encountered or are to be abandoned those lines should be plugged or removed so that they do not provide a conduit for water and cause soil saturation, and erosion and stability problems. Tree stumps and root balls should be removed completely and backfilled with new structural fills to the desired subgrade level. 5.2.3 Reuse of On -Site Soils The ability to use on -site soils obtained from the site excavations as structural fills depends on the gradation, moisture content of the soils, and the prevailing weather conditions exist during the grading activities. As the fines content (that portion passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve) of a soil increases, it becomes increasingly sensitive to small changes in moisture content, and adequate compaction becomes more difficult or impossible to achieve. Soils containing more than about 5 percent fines by weight cannot be consistently compacted to the recommend degree when the moisture content is more than about 2 percent above or below the optimum. The near surface sandy loams within the upper 5 feet depth contain a significant percentage of fines, and are therefore considered severely moisture sensitive soils. These soils may be used as structural fill only during the dry season and if the optimum moisture content of these soils can be maintained during the compaction. Because of the higher fines content, these soils will pose problems during their compaction if they are used as structural fill during the wet season. During wet weather periods, typical],,, between October and May, increases in the moisture content of these soils can cause significant reduction in the soils strength and support capabilities. In addition, when these soils become wet they may be slow to dry and thus significantly retard the progress of grading and compaction activities. It will, therefore, be advantageous to perform the earthwork construction activities, during the dry season, typically from July through September, so that earthwork costs can be significantly reduced over wet weather construction. In the event that whether the fill materials are to be imported to the site, or if on -site soils are to be reused as a fill, we recommend that the potential fill materials be verified and approved by the project geotechnica3l engineer prior to their use. 5.2.4 Dry Weather Construction Combinations of factors like sloped surfaces and the presence of high fines content in the near surface sandy loams may contribute erosion related problems in this site. This may particularly happen, when uncontrolled surface runoff is allowed to flow over unprotected excavation areas and over the slope areas of the site during the wet winter months. We therefore recommend that the proposed construction be completed during the dry season of the year. This will help eliminating erosion related problems, and any slope stability problems triggered by erosion. . l "�� UIT Pacific Geo EngineerinCY, LL enteChnlCal En ineerin Cansuftatipn &Ins edivn Geotechnical Engineering Study Mirror Lake Highlands Development Project No. 0708182 December 20, 2007 Page 8 of 22 5.2.5 Wet Weather Construction If the construction takes place during the wet weather, the near surface sandy loams will be found very wet and disturbed, and these soils could not be adequately compacted. Therefore, it may be necessary to adopt some remedial measures to enhance the subgrade conditions in this site if the construction takes place in the winter. The contractor should include a contingency in the earthwork budget for this possibility. The appropriate remedial measure be best determined by the geotechnical engineer during the actual construction of the project. The following remedial measures may be considered in this regard: (i) the earth contractor must use reasonable care during site preparation and excavation so that the subgrade soils are remain firm, unyielding, and stable (ii) removal of the affected soil to expose suitable bearing subgrades and replacement with imported free -draining materials as structural fills that can be compacted. (Ili) aeration of the surficial materials during favorable dry weather by methods such as scarifying or windrowing repeatedly and expose to sunlight to dry near optimum moisture content prior to placement and compaction (iv) chemical modification of the subgrades with admixtures like hydrated lime or Portland = cement, depending on the soil type. (v) mechanical stabilization with a coarse crushed aggregate (such as sand and gravel, crushed rock, or quarry spalls) compacted into the subgrade, possibly in conjunction with a geotextile fabric, such as Mirafi 500X. In the event earthwork takes place during the wet season, we recommend that special precautionary measurements should be adopted to minimize the impact of water and construction activities on the moisture sensitive soils. It is recommended that earthwork be progressed part by part in small sections to minimize the soil's exposure to wet weather. Traversing of construction equipment can cause considerable disturbance to the exposed subgrades, therefore, should be restricted within the specific drive areas. This will also prevent excessive widespread disturbance of the subgrades. Construction of a new working surface from an advancing working surface could be used to avoid trafficking the exposed subgrade soils. Any excavations or removal of unsuitable soils should be immediately followed by the placement of backfill or concrete in footings. At the end of each day, no loose on -site soils and exposed subgrades be left uncompacted or properly tamped, which will help seal the subgrade and thereby to minimize the potential for moisture infiltration into the underlying layers of i fills or subgrades. }��?'� oR P7'�- i.�iA.t� ;! � =�xS J Pacific Geo Err irreerin tLC G [crhni[al �n 7naerin Cunsulfatlon & !ns cUon- Geotechnical Engineering Study Mirror Lake Highlands Development Project No. 0708182 �l December 20, 2007 1 Page 9 of 22 5.2.6 Structural Fill Structural fill is defined as non -organic soil, free of deleterious materials, and well -graded and free -draining granular material, with a maximum of 5 percent passing the No. 200 sieve by weight, and not exceeding 6 inches for any individual particle. A typical gradation for structural fill is presented in the following table. Table 1: Structural Fill 7 — U.S. Standard Sieve Size Percent Passing by Dry Weight 3 inch 100 '/4 inch 50 —100 No. 4 25 — 65 No. 10 10 — 50 No. 40 0 — 20 No. 200 5 Maximum* * Based on the inch traction. Other materials may be suitable for use as structural fill provided they are approved by the project geotechnical engineer. Such materials typically used include clean, well -graded sand and gravel (pit -run); clean sand; various mixtures of gravel; crushed rock; controlled -density -fill (CDF); and lean -mix concrete. Recycled concrete derived from crushed parent material is also useful for structural fill provided this material is thoroughly crushed to a size deemed appropriate by the geotechnical engineer (usually less than 2 inches). The top 12 inches of compacted structural fills should have a maximum 3-inch particle diameter and all underlying fills a maximum 4 to 6 inch diameter unless specifically approved by the geotechnical engineer. 5.2.7 Fill Placement and Compaction Requirements Structural fills under structural elements should be placed in uniform loose lifts not exceeding 12 inches in thickness for heavy compactors and 4 inches for hand held compaction equipment. Each lift should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the soil's laboratory maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Test Designation D-1557 (Modified Proctor) method, or to the applicable minimum City or County standard, whichever is more conservative. The fills should be moisture conditioned such that its final moisture content at the time of compaction should be at or near (typically within about 2 percent) of its optimum moisture content, as determined by the ASTM method. If the fill PEXH�� r M Pacific Geo En ineerin LLC r."technr a! En ineer+n r"'C"MaCinr &Ins ectinn Geotechnical Engineering Study Mirror Lake Highlands Development Project No. 0708182 December 20, 2007 Page 10 of 22 materials are on the wet side of optimum, they can be dried by periodic windrowing and aeration or by intermixing lime or cement powder to absorb excess moisture. If field density tests indicate that the last lift of compacted fills has not been achieved the required percent of compaction or the surface is pumping and weaving under loading, then the fills should be scarified, moisture -conditioned to near optimum moisture content, re -compacted, and re -tested prior to placing additional lifts. The footing subgrade densification should be achieved using back -hoe mounted hydraulic compaction equipment (e.g., Hoepac) or hand operated/walk-behind compaction equipment. We do not recommend jumping jack or vibratory plate equipment due to insufficient energy. 5.2.8 Temporary Excavations The owner and the contractor should be aware that in no case should the excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified in local, state, and federal safety regulations, particularly, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations in the "Construction Standards for Excavations, 29 CFR, part 1926, Subpart P, dated October 31, 1989" of the Federal Register, Volume 54, the United States Department of Labor. As mentioned above, we also recommend that the owner and the contractor should follow the local and state regulations such as WSDOT section 2-09.3(3) B, Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act (WISHA), Chapter 49.17RCW, and Washington Administrative Code (WAC) Chapter 296-115, Part N. These documents are to better insure the safety of construction worker entering trenches or excavation. It is mandated by these regulations that excavations, whether they are for utility trenches or footings, be constructed in accordance with the guidelines provided in the above documents. We understand that these regulations are being strictly enforced and, if they are not closely followed, both the owner and the contractor could be liable for substantial penalties. Stability of temporary excavations is a function of many factors including the presence of groundwater and seepage, the type and density of the various soil strata, the depth of excavation, surcharge loadings adjacent to the excavation, and the length of time and weather conditions while the excavation remains open. It is exceedingly difficult under these unknown and variable circumstances to pre -establish a safe and maintenance -free temporary excavation slope angle at this time of the study. We therefore, strongly recommend that all temporary, as well as permanent, cuts and excavations in excess of 4 feet be examined by a geotechnical engineer of PGE during the actual construction to verify that the recommended slope inclinations are appropriate for the actual soil and groundwater seepage conditions exposed in the cuts. If the conditions observed during the actual construction are different than anticipated during this study then, the proper inclination of the excavation and cut slopes or requirements of temporary shoring should be determined depending on the condition of the excavations and the slopes. PAGEA�F_W_ Pacific Geo Enaineerh7a, U G otechnica! En ineerin Canv ffAt! A & Ins ection Geotechnical Engineering Study Mirror Lake Highlands Development Project No. 0708182 Fes] December 20, 2007 Page l 1 of 22 As a general rule, all temporary soil cuts greater than 4 feet in height associated with site regarding or excavations should be adequately sloped back or properly shored to prevent sloughing and collapse. As for the estimation purposes, in our opinion, the upper sandy loams above the till would be classified as 'Group B' soils as per the current OSHA regulations. Accordingly, for temporary excavations within this deposit, the side slopes of excavation should be laid back at a minimum slope inclination of 1:1 (Horizontal: Vertical) for dry conditions and 2:1 (Horizontal:Vertical) for moist conditions. The till encountered within the exploration depths would be classified as 'Group A' soils as per the current OSHA regulations. Accordingly, for temporary excavations more than 4 feet and less or equal to the maximum exploration depths (10 feet), the side slopes of excavation should be laid back at a minimum slope inclination of 3/4:1 (Horizontal: Vertical) for dry conditions and 1:1 (Horizontal: Vertical) for moist conditions. The above recommended inclination assumes that the ground surface behind the excavation slopes is level, that surface loads from equipment and materials are kept at sufficient distance away from the top of the slope, and that only minor seepage exist within the excavation depths. If these assumptions are not valid, we should be contacted to provide revised slope inclinations. If the excavation cannot stand by itself, or the excavation slope cannot be flattened because of the space limitations between the excavation line and the boundary of the property, or caving or moderate to heavy seepage encountered } within the excavation depths then temporary shoring may be considered. The shoring will assist in preventing slopes from failure and provide protection to field personnel during excavation. Because of the diversity available of shoring systems and construction techniques, the design of temporary shoring is most appropriately left up to the contractor engaged to complete the installation. We can assist in designing the shoring system by providing with detailed shoring design parameters including earth - retaining parameters, if required. Where sloped embankments are used, the top of the slopes should be barricaded to prevent vehicles and storage loads within 10 feet of the top of the slopes. Greater setbacks may be necessary when considering heavy vehicles, such as concrete trucks and cranes. Temporary covering, such as heavy plastic sheeting, should be used to protect slopes during periods of rainfall. Surface water runoff from above cut slopes should be prevented from flowing over the slope faces by using curbs, berms, drainage ditches, swales, or other appropriate methods. The above information is provided solely for the benefit of the owner and other design consultants, and under no circumstances should not be construed to imply that PGE assumes responsibility for construction site safety or the contractor's activities; such responsibility is not being implied and should not be inferred. Therefore, the contractor is solely responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations, and should shore, slope, or bench the sides of the excavations as required to maintain stability of both the excavation sides and bottom. The contractor's "responsible person", as defined in 29 CFR Part 1926, should evaluate the soil exposed in the excavations as part of the contractor's safety procedures. EX11. PACE 0 F Pacific Geo Engineering, LLC GetllethrniCal ER9lnaerin Cnnsultdtiarr & InSpeCtiQn Geotechnicai Engineering Study Mirror Lake Highlands Development Project No. 0708182 December 20, 2007 Page 12 of 22 We expect that the excavation can be completed using conventional equipment such as bulldozers or backhoes. 5.2.9 Permanent Cut and Fill Slopes For permanent cut slopes the side slopes should be laid back at a minimum slope inclination of 2:1 for tills and 3:1 for sandy loams. Where the above slope inclinations are not feasible, protective facings and/or retaining structures should be considered. Temporary erosion protection described later on in section 5.8.1 of this report should be used until permanent protection is established. Cut slopes should be re -vegetated as soon as practical to reduce the surface erosion and sloughing. We recommend that any permanent fill slope be constructed no steeper than 2H:IV. To achieve uniform compaction, we recommend that fill slopes be overbuilt slightly and subsequently cut back to expose well compacted fill. 5.2.10 Construction Dewatering The contractor should be prepared to dewater the excavation if it takes place during the wet winter months in this site. If minor seepage occurs at the bottom of the excavations, a system of collection ditches directing water inflow to sumps and then removal of water by conventional filtered sump pumps will be adequate to maintain a relatively dry working area for construction purposes. The dewatering must remain in operation to maintain a dry working condition throughout the construction period in the excavation areas. 5.2.11 Construction Monitoring Problems associated with earthwork and construction can be avoided or corrected during the progress of the construction if proper inspection and testing services are provided. It is recommended that site preparation activities including but not limited to stripping, cut and filling, final subgrade preparation for foundation, floor slab, pavement, retaining walls, and infiltration systems be monitored by a geotechnical engineer from PGE. -In-place density tests should be performed to verify compaction and moisture content of the fill and base material. Each lift of fill or base material should be tested and approved by the soils engineer prior to placement of subsequent lifts. As a guideline, it is recommended that field density tests be performed at a frequency of not less than 1 test per 2,000 square feet of surface area per lift in the building and pavement areas. 7--m- PUARGEA�_OF Pacific Geo Engineering. LLC Geotedinical Engine rin ConsuRatlon & !ns cVon Geotechnical Engineering Study Mirror Lake Highlands Development Project No. 0708182 -� December 20, 2007 Page 13 of 22 5.3 Foundations Recommendations Spread Foo#in Based on the subsurface conditions encountered in this site, it is our opinion that the proposed residences can be supported on conventional shallow strip and spread footings. The footings should be supported on the native soils or on new structural fills placed above the properly proofrolled native subgrades. For the design of shallow footing foundation supported on the above described native soils or properly compacted structural fills we recommend using a maximum net allowable bearing capacity of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf). For short-term loads, such as wind and seismic, a 1/3 increase in this allowable capacity can be used. We recommend that continuous footings have a minimum width of 12, 15, and 18 inches for 1-, 2-, and 3-strory residential structures as presented in the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC). We recommend a minimum width of 24 inches for the individual column footings. All exterior footings should be embedded a minimum of 18 inches below the lowest final adjacent external grade to provide adequate confinement of the bearing materials and frost protection. Interior foundations can be constructed at any convenient depth below the floor slab. Based on our settlement potential evaluation in this site, we anticipate that properly designed and constructed foundations supported on the recommended materials should experience total and differential settlements of less than 1 inch and 1/2 inch, respectively. Most of these settlements are expected to occur immediately following the building loads are applied. The predicted settlement values may be expected larger if soft, loose, organic soil is encountered, or if the foundation subgrade is disturbed and becomes soft during construction. The settlement evaluation was done without the aid of any laboratory consolidation test data, and on the basis of our experience with similar types of structures and subsoil conditions. Lateral foundation loads can be resisted by friction between the foundation base and the supporting soil, and by passive earth pressure acting on the face of the embedded portion of the foundation. We recommend using a coefficient of friction of 0.4 to calculate friction between the concrete and native soils or structural fills. For passive earth pressure, the available resistance may be determined using an equivalent fluid pressure of 300 pcf, which includes a factor of safety of 1.5. This value assumes the foundations are cast "neat" against the undisturbed native soils or structural fills placed and compacted as recommend in section 5.2 of this report. We recommend to disregard the upper 12 inches of soil while computing the passive resistance value because this depth can be affected by weather or disturbed by future grading activity. To achieve the adequate passive resistance from the embedded soils we recommend that the perimeter footings must be embedded at least 2 feet below the final adjacent grades consisted of either the undisturbed native soils or structural fills placed and compacted as recommend in section 5.2 of this report. Variations in the quality and strength of the potential bearing soils can occur with depth and distance between the test pits. Therefore, careful evaluation of the bearing materials is recommended at PAGE �� OF Pacific Geo Engineering, LLc Genterhniral En Ineetrn Cansvttation Sr fns ecti n Geotechnical Engineering Study Mirror Lake Highlands Development Project No. 0708182 December 20, 2007 Page 14 of 22 the time of construction to verify their suitability to support the above recommended bearing pressure. We recommend that a geotechnical engineer from PGE must be retained on -site to examine the bearing materials prior to placing forms or rebar. 5.4 Floor Slabs Soil supported slab -on -grade floors can be used for the proposed residences if the subgrades are prepared as discussed in section 5.2 of this report. All soil -supported slab -on -grade floors should bear on firm, unyielding native soils or on suitable properly compacted structural fills. After subgrade preparation is completed, the slab should be provided with a capillary break to retard the upward wicking of ground moisture beneath the floor slab. The capillary break would consist of a minimum of 6-inch thick clean, free -draining sand or pea gravel. The structural fill requirements specified in Table 1 could be used as capillary break materials except that there should be no more than 2 percent of fines passing the no. 200 sieve. Where moisture by vapor transmission is undesirable, we recommend the use of a vapor barrier such as a layer of durable plastic sheeting (such as Crossstuff, Moistop, or Visqueen) between the capillary break and the floor slab to prevent the upward migration of ground moisture vapors through the slab. During the casting of the slab, care should be taken to avoid puncturing the vapor barrier. At owner's or architecture's discretion, the membrane may be covered with 2 inches of clean, moist sand to guard against damage during construction and aid in curing of the concrete. The addition of 2 inches of sand over the vapor barrier is a non-structural recommendation. Based on the subgrade preparation as described in section 5.2 of this report, a modulus of subgrade reaction value of about 150 pounds per cubic inch (pci) can be used to estimate slab deflections. 5.5 Site Drainage Surface Drainage The final site grades must be such that surface runoff will flow by gravity away from the structures, and should be directed to suitable collection points. We recommend providing a minimum drainage gradient of about 3% for a minimum distance of about 10 feet from the building perimeter. A combination of using positive site surface drainage and capping of the building surroundings by concrete, asphalt, or low permeability soils will help minimize or preclude surface water infiltration around the perimeter of the buildings and beneath the floor slabs. Paved areas should be graded to direct runoff to catch basins and or other collection facilities. Collected water should be directed to the on -site drainage facilities by means of properly sized smooth walled PVC pipe. Interceptor ditches or trenches or low earthen berms should be installed along the upgrade perimeters of the site to prevent surface water runoff from precipitation or other sources entering the site. Surface water collection facilities should be designed by a professional civil engineer. J Exw'1�l- PAGEOF °� Pacific Geo En ineerin Uf f7 oM hnr 1 Fn ineerin orrsultarian &Ins ection Geotechnical Engineering Study Mirror Lake Highlands Development Project No. 0708182 December 20, 2007 1 Page 15 of 22 Footing Excavation Drain Water must not be allowed to pond in the foundation excavations or on prepared subgrades either during or after construction. If due to the seasonal fluctuations, groundwater seepage is encountered within footing depths, we recommend that the bottom of excavation should be sloped toward one corner to facilitate removal of any collected rainwater, groundwater, or surface runoff, and then direct the water to ditches, and to collect it in prepared sump pits from which the water can be pumped and discharged into an approved storm drainage system. Footing Drain Footing drains should be used where (1) crawl spaces or basements will be below a structure, (2) stem wall footings will be at greater depths, (3) a slab will be below the outside grade, and (4) the outside grade will not slope downward from a building. For buildings to be built on slopes, the footing drain should be installed at the inner base of the footings located toward the downhill side of the building, and at the outer base of the wall footings located toward the uphill side of the building. The drains must be laid with a gradient sufficient to promote positive flow to a controlled point of approved discharge. The foundation drains should be tightlined separately from the roof drains to this discharge point. Footing drains should consist of 4-inch diameter perforated PVC pipe with perforations at the bottom portion of the pipe. The pipe should be placed in a free -draining sand and gravel backfill. Either the pipe or the pipe and the free -draining backfill should be wrapped in a non -woven geotextile filter fabric to limit the ingress of fines. Cleanouts should be provided. Downspout or Roof Drain These should be installed once the building roof in place. They should discharge in tightlines to a positive, permanent drain system. Under no circumstances connect these tightlines to the perimeter footing drains. 5.6 Utility Support and Backfill Based on the soils encountered within the area where our explorations were performed, the majority of the soils appear to be adequate for supporting utility lines; however, softer soils may be encountered at isolated locations, where, it should be removed to a depth that will provide adequate support for the utility. In our experience, utility trench backfilling has been found a major source of the majority of post -construction fill settlement problems along utility alignments and pavements. Therefore, it is important that each section of utility line be adequately supported on proper bedding material and properly backfilled. PAGE Pacific Gen_Engineering, LLc Geateehnl[aJ �n ineerin Can ulfa Jon � rns ection Geotechnical Engineering Study Mirror Lake Highlands Development Project No. 0708182 December 20, 2007 Page 16 of 22 It is recommend that utility trenching, installation, and backfilling conform to all applicable Federal, State, and local regulations such as WISHA and OSHA for open excavations. Utility bedding should be placed in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations and local ordinances. Bedding material for rigid and flexible pipe should conform to Sections 9-03.15 and 9-03.16, respectively, of the 1994 WSDOT/APWA (American Public Works Association) Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction. For site utilities located within the City of Federal Way right-of-ways, bedding and backfill should be completed in accordance with the City of Federal Way specifications. As a minimum, 5/8 inch pea gravel or clean sand may be used for bedding and backfill materials. On -site soils are considered suitable for these purposes. The bedding material should be hand tamped to ensure support is provided beneath and around the pipe haunches to help prevent pipe distortion under load. The fill cover within 12 inches above the crown should be carefully placed and hand tamped or compacted with any hand operated compaction equipment before any heavy compaction equipment is brought into use for compacting fills above 12 inches. The remainder of the trench backfill should be placed in lifts having a loose thickness of less than 12 inches and compacted to 90 percent of the maximum dry density per ASTM Test Designation D-1557 (Modified Proctor) except for the uppermost foot of backfill which should be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density per ASTM Test Designation D-1557 (Modified Proctor). The utility trenches should not be left open for extended periods to prevent water entry and softening of the subgrade. Should soft soils be encountered at the bottom of the trench, it should be overexcavated and replaced with select fills. As an alternative to undercutting, a Geotextile fabric or crushed rock may be used to stabilize the trench subgrade. Where water is encountered in the trench excavations, it should be removed prior to fill placement as mentioned earlier in section 5.2 of this report. Alternatively, quarry spalls or pea gravel could be used below the water level if allowed in the project specifications. 5.7 Pavement Thickness A properly prepared subgrade is very important for the life and performance of the driveway pavements. Therefore, we recommend that all driveway areas be prepared as described in section 5.2 of this report. Subgrades should either be comprised of adequately proofrolled competent undisturbed native soils, or be comprised of a minimum of one foot of granular structural fill that is compacted adequately. The structural fill should be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by Modified Proctor (ASTM Test Designation D-1557). It is possible that some localized areas of yielding and weak subgrade may still exist after this process. If such conditions occur, crushed rock or other qualified materials as addressed in section 5.2 may be used to stabilize these localized areas. EXHIBIj� PAGE «OF Pacific Geo En ineerin LLC eotechnical Enaineerinq, Consultation & Inspection Geotechnical Engineering Study Mirror Lake Highlands Development Project No. 0708182 December 20, 2007 �} Page 17 of 22 We assumed that the traffic will mostly consist of passenger cars and occasional waste management trucks, which is typical for a residential community. Two types of pavement sections may be considered for such traffic, the minimum thicknesses of which are as follows: • 2 inches of Asphalt Concrete (AC) over 2 inches of Crushed Surface Top Course (CSTC) over a 6 inches of Granular Subbase, or s 2 inches of Asphalt Concrete (AC) over 3 inches of Asphalt Treated Base (ATB) material. The 1998 Standard Specifications for Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and American Public Works Association (APWA) should be applicable to our recommendations that aggregate for AC should meet the Class-B grading requirements as specified in 9-03.8(6). For the Crushed Surfacing Top Course (CSTC), we recommend using imported, clean, crushed rock per WSDOT Standard Specifications 9-03.9(3). For the sub base course, we recommend using imported, clean, well - graded sand and gravel, such as Ballast or Gravel Borrow per WSDOT Standard Specifications 9-03.9(1) and 9-03.14, respectively. For the asphalt treated base course (ATB) the aggregate should be consistent with WSDOT Standard Specifications 9-03.6 (2). Long-term performance of the pavement will depend on its surface drainage. A poorly -drained pavement section will deteriorate faster due to the infiltration of surface water into the subgrade soils, thereby reducing their supporting capability. Therefore, we recommend using a minimum surfacing drainage gradient of about 1% to minimize this problem and to enhance the pavement performance. Also, regular maintenance of the pavement must be considered. 5.8 Geologic Hazards 5.8.1 Erosion Hazard Uncontrolled surface water with runoff over unprotected site surfaces during construction activities is considered the single most important factor that impacts the erosion potential of a site. The erosion process may be accelerated for soils with high fines, especially when construction activities take place in the wet winter months and/or along the slope areas. Taking into consideration of the fines content (27 to 28%) in the near surface sandy loams, the project site will have severe impact due to erosion. Based on the King County SCS map, the soil has `moderate erosion hazard'. The hazard due to the erosion can be mitigated if the mass grading activities and the earthwork can be completed within the dry summer period. Also, measurements such as the control of surface water must be maintained during construction, and a temporary erosion and sedimentary control (TESC) plan, as a part of the Best Management Practices (BMP) must be developed and implemented as well. The TESC plan should include the use of geotextile PAGE 2� OFF_ Pacific Gea Engineering, LLc Geotechnical En ine 'n ConsulG3Gon & In ection Geotechnical Engineering Study Mirror Lake Highlands Development Project No. 0708182 1 December 20, 2007 Page 18 of 22 barriers (silt fences) along the down -slope, straw bales to de -energize downward flow, controlled surface grading, limited work areas, equipment washing, storm drain inlet protection, and sediment traps. A permanent erosion control plan is to be implemented following the completion of the construction. We recommend that any increase of ground or surface water flow due to the proposed development along the slopes be prohibited. The increased flow may trigger erosion initiating local surficial slope failures. Therefore, surface water runoff should be routed away from the slope faces including routing stormwater drainage from rooftops and away from the proposed building setback areas. Catch basins and storm drainage system should be used where necessary to direct storm or other surface water across slope areas. The water collected in the rooftops and set back areas must be discharged in approved locations, which is critical for reducing the erosion hazard to minimum and for maintaining the stability of the slopes. Roof downspouts should be tightlined to stormwater disposal systems. 5.8.2 Seismic Hazard The Puget Lowland is classified as a Seismic Zone 3 by the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC). Based on our evaluations of the subsurface conditions and review of Table 16-J of UBC, we interpret the underlying bearing soils to correspond to Sc, which refers to very dense soils. Structural design of the buildings should follow UBC standards for Seismic zone 3, a site co -efficient Sz = 1.2, and taking into consideration of the stress caused by seismically induced earth shaking due to a 0.3g horizontal acceleration. As part of the seismic evaluation of the site, the liquefaction potential of the site was also evaluated. Liquefaction is a phenomenon, which takes place due to the reduction or complete loss of soil strength due to increased pore water pressure during a major earthquake event. Liquefaction primarily affects geologically recent deposits of fine-grained sands that are below the groundwater table. Based on the soil and groundwater conditions, it is our opinion that the on -site soils are not prone to liquefaction, therefore, potential for widespread liquefaction and its associated hazards over the site during a seismic event is none. Therefore, subsurface conditions do not warrant additional mitigation techniques relating to seismic hazards. 5.8.3 Landslide Hazard As mentioned earlier, in general, the site is relatively level ground with gentle slopes (7 percent gradients) running form the southern to northern boundary of the site. Based on our visual observations of the soils in the test pits the slopes appeared to be stable and firm at their present conditions therefore not considered critical for landslide hazard. The presence of dense and stable, and non -liquefiable native soils are positive qualities for considering the slopes within the site feasible for constructing houses. EX1gr;a-"1T _M_ PAGE a of Pacific Geo EngineerinU. LLG eotechnical EnQneerin Consultation & InspEction Geotechnical Engineering Study Mirror Lake Highlands Development Project No. 0708182 December 20, 2007 Page 19 of 22 5.9 Infiltration Potential Evaluation The infiltration potentials of the native soils in the proposed infiltration trench locations were evaluated by following the procedure that includes excavation of the test pits in the proposed trench areas, direct measurement of the infiltration rate by performing field percolation tests in the native soils, and verification of at least 12 inches of separation between the trench bottom and the seasonal high water table. Field percolation tests were performed at approximately 2 feet (24 inches) depths below the existing grades in the test pits to determine the infiltration rates of the sandy loams above the till. The falling head permeability tests were performed following the guidelines outlined in 1998 King County MMM approved `EPA failing head percolation test procedure'. After excavation to the proposed test depths, a 6-inch diameter plastic pipe was pushed through the soil to about 6 inches below the bottom of the test depth. Voids around the pipe were sealed using bentonite to prevent the upward flow of the water along the sides of the pipe. The bottom of the hole was backfilled with 2 inches of %a to'/4 -inch washed crushed rock. Several falling head percolation tests were performed. The tests were consisted of filling up the pipe with 6 inches of water column above the crushed rock and measuring the time lapsed between the drop of the initial water level (6 inches) to zero. After each test, the water level was readjusted to the 6-inch level. The last water level drop during the last test was used to calculate the percolation rate of the native soils. Infiltration rate was calculated by measuring the total drop of water and dividing that by the time lapse between the initial and final drop of water. Infiltration rates were calculated by measuring the total drop of water and dividing that by the time lapse between the initial and final drop of water. Based on the results of the last tests the infiltration rates for the tested soils were determined. To determine the soil types as per the USCS classification, one representative grab sample was colleted below the test depths in Test Pit 1 and 3. These samples were then tested in the laboratory for performing the sieve analyses, and to determine the USCS soil classes. The USCS classes for these soils were found as `SM'. The grain size distribution graphs for the tested soils are shown on Figure B-1 and B-2. The test pit numbers, infiltration test depths, sample depths, USCS soil classes, and the actual percolation rates of the tested soils are given in the following table. PAGE_�OF 3°I Pacific Geo En ineerin LLC GCotethnrtdf En lneerin Cnr+ ultab'un & rns ettipn Geotechnical Engineering Study Mirror Lake Highlands Development Project No. 0708182 -� December 20, 2007 Page 20 of 22 Table 2: Infiltration Rate per Field Percolation Tests Test Pit Infiltration Visual Soil Descriptions USCS Soil Type Infiltration Test Results* Nos. Test depth (ft.) (in/hour) TP-1 2.0 Light Brown Silty Sand w/ Gravel SM 9 TP-2 2.0 Light Brown Silty Sand w/ Gravel SM 6 TP-3 2.0 Light Brown Silty Sand w/ Gravel SM 8 TP-4 2.0 Light Brown Silty Sand w/ Gravel SM 8 * These infiltration rates should be used for designing the infiltration trenches using an appropriate factor of safety in accordance with the King County SWDM. Conclusions Based on the geological factors such as the type of native soils (USCS: SM), the grain -size distribution pattern of the native soils determined from the sieve analyses tests, the permeability values obtained from the field percolation tests, absence of water table or mottling signs within the sandy loam deposit, and the presence of till at 5 feet depth below the current grades, in our engineering opinion, the sandy loams encountered within the upper 5 feet of the exploratory test pits could be considered suitable for installing the proposed infiltration trenches. Given the relatively small and narrow size of the site and the consistent nature of the native soils encountered in the exploratory test pits, it is likely that the native soils in the remaining areas of the site away from the exploratory test pits may be consisted of similar type of native soils having similar type of percolation rates found in the exploratory test pits. However, such possibilities are not guranteed, therefore must be verified during the actual construction of the infiltration trenches away from the exploratory test pit locations by monitoring the subsurface conditions and by performing some random verification percolation tests at such trench locations. It may be necessary to modify the design of the trenches if soil conditions differ from those encountered in the exploratory test pits. A geotechnical engineer from PGE must be retained by the owner or the contractor during the construction of the proposed trenches in this site to verify that the soil conditions and the percolation rates are as anticipated. EXHUIE-31T M PAGE_3:$F.5 Pacific Gec En ineerin U-c Geotechnicaf En ineerin ConsuitaGon Ins [#nn Geotechnical Engineering Study Mirror Lake Highlands Development Project No. 0708182 December 20, 2007 Page 21 of 22 The proposed infiltration trenches should be designed based on the actual infiltration rates determined from the field percolation tests. These rates are provided in the Table 3. If these infiltration rates are to be used for designing the infiltration trenches then we recommend that the trench bottoms should be well within the above soil deposits. An appropriate factor of safety is to be applied on the above recommended percolation values in accordance with the King County SWDM to determine the design infiltration rates of such native soils. The presence of impermeable layer (till) must be considered during the design of the bottom elevation of the proposed infiltration trenches in this site. As with any storm system depending on subsurface infiltration, the system's performance will degrade over time due to clogging of pore spaces. The native soils can become easily clogged if suspended soils are deposited in the bottom of the system over the time. The suspended soils are primarily carried into the system from surface runoff. The longevity of the infiltration system can be increased by frequent cleaning of the pavement surfaces, roofs, and catch basins, and periodic cleaning of the suspended soils from the system. To help reduce clogging of the infiltration system during the construction, we recommend that the system should be protected with siltation control facilities such as temporary settling basins, silt fences, and hay bales. Also, infiltration system should not be connected to the development until after 1 construction is complete and the site is paved and landscaped. We recommend that no equipment be permitted in the infiltration system after they are excavated to grade to prevent compaction and a decrease in the infiltration rate of the native soils. 6.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS The analyses, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the information available from our subsurface explorations, the project details and the topographical information available from WJM Studio. If there are any revisions to the plans for this project or if variations in the subsurface conditions noted during this study are encountered later on during construction, PGE should be notified immediately of these revisions and variations so that necessary amendment of our geotechnical recommendations can be made. If such changes or variations are not notified to PGE, no responsibility should be implied on PGE for the impact of those changes or variations on the project. PGE warrants that this report including its findings, recommendations, specifications, or professional advice has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted professional geotechnical engineer practices in the local area. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. I� i EXHIS PAGE '� F Pacific Geo EngLneerifIC, LLC Geotechnical Engineerina, CQP54dtdtion & rLE2LCti0n Geotechnical Engineering Study Mirror Lake Highlands Development Project No. 0708182 December 20, 2007 ] Page 22 of 22 This report is the property of Pacific Geo Engineering, and has been prepared for the exclusive use of WJM Studio and their authorized representatives for the specific application to the proposed development at the subject site in Federal Way, King County, Washington. 7.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES As the geotechnical engineer of record for the proposed development, PGE should be retained to perform a review of the project plans and specifications to verify that the geotechnical recommendations of this report have been properly interpreted and incorporated into the project design and specifications. PGE should also be retained to provide geotechnical consultation, material testing, and construction monitoring services during the construction of the project. These services are important for the project to confirm that the earthwork and the general site development are in compliance with the general intent of design concepts, specifications, and the geotechnical recommendations presented in this report. Also, participation of PGE during the construction will help PGE engineers to make on -site engineering decisions in the event that any variations in subsurface conditions are encountered or any revisions in design and plan are made. PGE will be able to perform the above services under a separate contract and cost. E�� R�� _0F. s► EXFIPI PAGE OF�e 0 n M 372-5 ." 368 x r Ti ! 37y 366 n0 j 364 { TP4 ' �0 f 3G9 s o s • 3F. il r 4 3s9- ��- 350 i TP-3 ' # I rw � {F fIj 3 4.7 rr� I r- !- - - Y{392 0 350 I I�• �;• „o,r 393 336 - 331 EXI - - PAGE-TUF TP $sw sl2TH sT Q� PLO w O O N N O p 0 a 3 z a a A A U Appyi i IY A Soil Tc,51 i'it,I gs I� EXHIS-10T M PAGE�OFA0-- PGEPacific Gea E'ngineeringLLC Geatechnical Engineering, Consulting & Inspection KEY TO EXPLORATION LOGS Sample Descrl lions: Classification of soils in this report is based on visual field and laboratory observations, which include density/consistency, moisture condition, grain size, and plasticity estimates, and should not be construed to imply field or laboratory testing unless presented herein. Visual -manual classification methods in accordance with ASTM D-2488 were used as an identification guide. Where laboratory data available, soil classifications are in general accordance with ASTM D2487. Soil density/consistency in borings is related primarily to the Standard Penetration Resistance values. Soil density/consistency in test pits is estimated based on visual observations of excavations. Undrained shear strength unconfined compression strength. RELATIVE DENSITY OR CONSITENCY VS. SPT N-VALUE COARSE GRAINED SOILS: SAND OR GRAVEL FINE GRAINED SOILS: SILT OR CLAY Density N (Blows/ft-) Approx. Relative Density (%) Consistency N (Blows/` ) Approx. Undrained Shear Strength sf Very Loose 0-4 0- 15 Very Soft 0-2 <250 Loose 4-10 15 - 35 Soft 2-4 250 -500 Medium Dense 10 - 30 35 - 65 Medium Stiff 4-8 500 - 1000 Dense 30 - 50 65 - 85 Stiff 8 - 15 1000 - 2000 Very Dense >50 85 - 100 Very Stiff Hard 15 - 30 > 50 2000 - 4000 > 4000 MOISTURE CONTENT DEFINITIONS Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch Damp but no visible water Wet I Visible free water, from below water table DESCRIPTIONS FOR SOIL STRATA AND STRUCTURE General Thickness or Spacing Structure General Attitude Near Horizontal 0 - 10 deg Parting < 1/16, in Pocket Erratic, discontinuous deposit of limited extent Seam 1/16 - 1/2 in Lens Lenticular deposit Low Angle 10 - 45 deg Layer % - 12 in Varved Alternating seams of silt and clay High Angle 45 - 80 deg Stratum > 12 In Laminated Alternating seams Near Vertical 80 - 90 deg Scattered < 1 per ft Interbedded Altemating Layers Numerous > 1 per ft Fractured Breaks easily along definite fractured planes Slickensided Polished, glossy, fractured planes Blocky, Diced Breaks easily into small angular lumps Sheared Disturbed texture, mix of strengths Homogeneous Same color and appearance throughout Aj rjr.A&bP_!E - Pacific Geo En irieerin LL Geotechnlcal En ineeren Consultation & Ins ecLlan Mirror Lake Highlands Development Federal Way, King County, Washington Project No. 0708182 December 20, 2007 Page A -I SOIL TEST PIT LOGS TEST PIT -1 Date of Excavation: 08/15/07 1 Depth, Ft. USCS Soil Description Sample NoJ Moisture - #200 % Depth, Ft. Content % 0 — 0.5 Topsoil: 6" thick Drk. Gray Silty Sand w/ small size Gravels w/ Roots & Organics 0.5 — 2.0 SM Lt. Brn. Silty Sandy Gravel S1/2 5.2 28.2 Dry, Loose (Graph B-1) 2.0 — 5.0 Med. Dense 5.0 — 10.0 SM Lt. Gray Silty Sandy Gravel S2/6 3.0 (Partly Cemented) Dry, V. Dense (V. Hard Digging) Note: Test pit was terminated at approximately 10 feet below the existing ground surfaces. No groundwater or seepage was encountered within the exploration depth. No signs of mottling were noticed within the exploration depth. No caving was encountered within the exploration depth. Field percolation tests were performed @ 2 feet depth below the existing grades; Percolation Rate — 9 inches/hour. EXHlBlT PAGE?i0F Pacific Geo Engineering,LLC GentechrriCa7 En ineerin Consu7[al+on & �rr5 e[tlan Mirror Lake Highlands Development Federal Way, King County, Washington Project No. 0708182 December 20, 2007 Page A-2 TEST PIT - 2 Depth, Ft. USCS Soil Description 0 — 0.5 Topsoil: 6" thick Drk. Gray Silty Sand w/ small size Gravels w/ Roots & Organics Date of Excavation: 08/15/07 Sample No./ Moisture - #200 % Depth, Ft. Content 0.5 — 2.0 1 SM { Lt. Bm. Silty Sandy Gravel S1/2 I 4.4 Dry, Loose 2.0 — 5.0 1 1 Med. Dense 5.0 — 9.0 SM Lt. Gray Silty Sandy Gravel S2/8 2.5 (Partly Cemented) Dry, V. Dense (V. Hard Digging) Note: Test pit was terminated at approximately 9 feet below the existing ground surfaces. No groundwater or seepage was encountered within the exploration depth. No mottling was noticed within the exploration depth. No caving was encountered within the exploration depth. Field percolation tests were performed @ 2 feet depth below the existing grades; Percolation Rate — 6 inches/hour. IJCFl8�4 PAGEOF Pacific Geo En ineerirr LLC Gevrechnl[ai E ineerin Consultation & rns ection Mirror Lake Highlands Development Federal Way, King County, Washington Project No. 0708182 December 20, 2007 1 Page A-3 TEST PIT - 3 Date of Excavation: 08/15/07 Depth, Ft. USCS Soil Description Sample No./ Moisture - #200 % Depth, Ft. Content % 0 — 0.5 Topsoil: 6" thick Drk. Gray Silty Sand w/ small size Gravels w/ Roots & Organics 0.5 — 2.0 SM Lt. Bm. Silty Sandy Gravel S 1/2 5.9 27.5 Dry, Loose (Graph B-2) 2.0 — 5.0 Med. Dense 5.0 — 9.0 SM Lt. Gray Silty Sandy Gravel S2/6 3.2 (Partly Cemented) Dry, V. Dense (V. Hard Digging) Note: Test pit was terminated at approximately 10 feet below the existing ground surfaces. No groundwater or seepage was encountered within the exploration depth. No mottling was noticed within the exploration depth. No caving was encountered within the exploration depth. Field percolation tests were performed @ 2 feet depth below the existing grades; Percolation Rate --- 8 inches/hour. PAGE-M-OF Pacific Gea En ineerinq LLC Geotechnrcal Frr +r+c•�•r+r C3rs5ulration & !rs ect�on Mirror Lake Highlands Development Federal Way, King County, Washington Project No. 0708182 December 20, 2007 Page A-4 TEST PIT - 4 Date of Excavation: 08/15/07 Depth, Ft. USCS Soil Description Sample No./ Moisture - #200 % Depth, Ft. Content % 0 — 0.5 Topsoil: 6" thick Drk. Gray Silty Sand w/ small size Gravels w/ Roots & Organics 0.5 — 2.0 SM Lt. Brn. Silty Sandy Gravel S1/2 3.4 Dry, Loose 2.0 — 5.0 Med. Dense 5.0 — 9.0 SM Lt. Gray Silty Sandy Gravel S2/7 2.1 (Partly Cemented) Dry, V. Dense (V. Hard Digging) Note: Test pit was terminated at approximately 9 feet below the existing ground surfaces. No groundwater or seepage was encountered within the exploration depth. No mottling was noticed within the exploration depth. No caving was encountered within the exploration depth. Field percolation tests were performed @ 2 feet depth below the existing grades; Percolation Rate -- 8 inches/hour. EXHIBIT -' PAGE -166--OF-STL Appendix R Lab',6ra t(j],V r1leSt 1:te5111tS EXI-11,17" M PAGE -WOF PGEPacific Geo FngineeringLLC Geotechnical Engineering, Consulting & Inspection UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory TestsA Coarse -Grained Soils Gravels More than 50% retained on More than 50% of coarse No. 200'sleve fraction retained on No. 4 sieve Sands 50% or more of coarse fraction passes No. 4 sieve Fine -Grained Soils Sills and Clays 501/6 or more passes the Liquid limit less than 50 No. 200 sieve Highly organic soils Clean Gravels^- Cu z 4 andv1 s Cc 5 3E Less than 5% fines° Gravels with Fines Cu < 4 and/or 1 > Cc > 3E Fines classify as ML or MH Soil Classification Group Symbol Group NameB GW Well -graded gravelF GP Poorly graded gravelF GM Silly gravelF, G, H More than 12% finesc Floes classify as CL or CH GC Clean Sends Cu a 6 and 1 s Cc s 3E SW Less than 5% flnesE Cu < 6 and/or 1 > Cc > 3E SP Sands with Fines Fines classify as ML or MH SM More than 12% flneso Fines classify as CL or CH SC Inorganic PI > 7 and plots on or above "A" Ilnej CL organic Silts and Clays Inorganic Liquid limit 50 or more "Based on the material passing the 3-In. (75-mm) sieve. BII lield sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add "with cobbles or boulders, or both" to group name. °Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW-GM well -graded gravel with sill GW-GC well -graded gravel with clay GP -GM poorly graded gravel with slit GP -GC poorly graded gravel with clay °Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: SW-SM well -graded sand with sill SW -SC well -graded sand with clay SP-SM poorly graded sand with sill SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay organic PI < 4 or plots below "A" Ilnei ML Liquid limit —_oven dried _- a 0-75 OL Clayey gravelF, G. H Well -graded sand' Poorly graded sand' Silty sand°• H•I Clayey sandy- "• 1 Lean clayK L M silty L M Organic clayK, L M. N Organic SlI1K L M. o CH Fat clayK. L M MH < 0-75 OH Liquid limit — not dried Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor Liquid limit — not dried PI plots on or above "A" line PI plots below "A" line Liquid limit — oven dried^ (D d' ECU a D rp10 CO a _ J e0 DIB x D., Fif soil contains a 15% sand, add "with sand" to group name. III fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC - GM, or SC-SM. Hit fines are organic, add "with organic fines" to group name. tlf soil contains a 15% gravel, add "with gravel" to group name. J1f Allerberg limits plot In shaded area, soil Is a CL- ML, silty clay. xa W Z U a 60 For cl alflcallcn of Knoyralnod loll• and nr -gmlr�d trmllon of co. *. 50 pr h d wH■ Equ.tlon of 'A- - Ilne Horltonld at PI - 4 to LL - 255. Then PI - 0.73 ILL - 20) Ect-11" of 'L- - Iln• verllcol at LL - 16 to PI - 7, Ih.n PI - 09(LL - 6) JO ._. /1 PrT Elastic sillk L. M Organic clayK L. M, P Organic silty L M. o Peat KII soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200, add "with sand" or "with gravel, whichever is predominant. Llf soil contains z 301/6 plus. No. 200 predominantly sand, add "sandy" to group name. "'If soil contains a 30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add "gravelly" to group name. HPI a 4 and plots on or above "A" tine. oPl < 4 or plots below "A" Ilna PPI plots on or above "A" line. oPl plots below "A" line. t — r `�� r I •- � - `r J 0� 20 ,r Goo i 10 7 � MLOR OL f 0 ' 1 ' MRon OHI I I 0 to to 20 J0 40 � r0 lao + Lt ;LL Siie of Opening In Inches of Mesh per InM (LIS Standards Grain Size in Millimetres N Y�V ` p p o 8�p tom! Npo S p NN p ra a N l�' I t�mM v N o t0 o N O O O O O O� O O O 8 O O m 8 + 511 N O a0 10 a /7 N C2 N $ O O S q O O O O g Grain Size in Millimetres Cobble Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Gravel Sand Silt and/or Clay GRAIN SIZE - mm GRAVEL % SAND % FINES COBBLES CRS. FINE CRS. MEDIUM FINE SILT CLAY 0.0 8.4 1 14.6 9.0 13.2 26.6 28-2 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC.' PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) 1.5 in. 100.0 0.75 in. 91.6 0.5 in. 85.9 0.375 in. 83.7 #4 77.0 #10 68.0 #20 59.7 #40 54.8 #60 48.7 #100 40.6 #200 28.2 Soil Descri2tion Silty Sand with Gravel Atterberg Limits PL= LL= P1= Coefficients D85= 11.5 Dga= 0.884 D50= 0.275 D30= 0.0828 D15= D10= CU= Cc= Classification USCS= SM AASHTO= Remarks L %ff U1 (no specification provided) Sample No.: S1 Source of Sample: Native SoiiPAGE -BS---O Location: Test Pit I Client: WJM Studio Pacific Geo Ell gingering, LLC Project: Mirror Lake Highlands �I Gratechnlc,f EnyinerrfrlQ, Ca++spitatiulk a rnspecUon Protect No: 0708182 Date: 08/16/2007 PM. 2 feet Particle Size Distribution Report �o 9( 8( 7( CIE W 6( z LL ~ z 5( LLI U LLJ 41 a_ 31 21 , COBBLES milli I 1111 IN 11 oil 1 0 GRAIN SIZE - mm GRAVEL % SAND CRS. FINE CRS. MEDIUM FINE 10.3 9.9 8.6 14.5 29.2 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC.` PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) 1.5 in. 100.0 0.75 in. 89.7 0.5 in. 87.0 0.375 in. 85.4 #4 79.8 410 71.2 #20 67.9 #40 56.7 #60 50.6 #100 41.0 #200 27.5 % FINES SILT CLAY Soil Descry r Silty Sand with Gravel Atterhera Limits PL= LL= P1= Coefficients D85= 8.93 D60= 0.522 D50= 0.240 D30= 0.0856 D15= D10= Cu= Cc= Classification USCS= SM AASHTG= (no specification provided) "40 Sample No.: SI Source of Sample: Native SoiPAGE ' Location: Test Pit 3 Client: WJM Studio Pacific Gea En ineering, LLC Project: Mirror Lake Highlands Geatechrikei Engineering, ccnsultatlan & Inspettfnn Proiect No: 0708182 Remarks Date: 08/16/2007 h: 2 feet Plate B-2 n 1 9 C � � m� m m m m A o g O a 2 a �n x o"a• i g a\ i2 ao o I �, m g m o gar gtS31� m z m m 0 N W N N -- =__ --- -- .�- - -- L -- J--------------------------.__-_ -r----------- o i s o n a o mj4 M 6 m a a a c o A DC kA n 2 a gim Comm J�mmm �pg-mm bo a j� �pa ogi zm� 0"79� m��moo p?pNm gtn�mv y� �'oi�..o ��nizmr�. o�mn n10# �m o5� NN y�N OVo O" m a0y1 cc� m z o H �za�m �~i'��cp� o�vvax2n US 208 c,M%g,mURd ma maS4o ��Tl1lin a�A, RR,MRi2 3 y$�$-ORRR y4a�gai7:d�"g cg m " 4 E. 0 2� m Qcti1131T N_[ PAGEA_OF EASEMENTS AND EXCEPTIONS LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL A: (9024) THAT PORTION OF THE EAST HALF OF THE WEST HALF OF THE SOUTHIEST QU1d 0 OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, DESCAtBED AS rOLLM BEGINU FG AT A PANT ON THE EAST U+E OF A PRIVATE ROAD, SAID POINT BEING 198 FEET SOUTH OF iHc" NORTH LINE OF SAID SUB01H51DN AND Too FEET WEST OF THE EAST LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THEHoE SOUTH ALM THE EAST LK OF SAO FWATE ROAD, A DISTANCE OF 712 W. THENCE EAST 100 FEET TO INTERSECT THE EAST TINE OF SAID S1pBpIVGCH AT A PM1 910 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THD4CE SOUTH ALONG THE EAST LRTE OF SW SU11DMS10H TO NE SWIM LINE OF 0EE CO'JANY ROAD; THENCE AST 10D FEET TO THE EASY WE OF A PRNATQ ROAD; THEHC£.SOUTH AEONC TIE EAST LINE OF SW PRIVATE ROAD. TO THE SOUTH UNE OF SA10 SSlMSION; TREHCE TEST so FEET To THE EAST UBE OF ME KV 220 FEET OF THE EAST HAT: OF THE NEST HALF OF THE SQUITHWEST CWTER OF THE ADRTHWT DUARTER CY-.SAM SECII'M 7; TTT90 sIORIN A00 SND EAST UYE To A PMT t98 FM SOUTH OF THE NORTH 1111E OF THE SOUTHWEST OOARTER Or SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE EAST 10 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT THE NORTH 82 FEET THEREOF; AND EXCEPT COUNTY ROAD (SOUTHWEST 312TH STREET); AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION W-REGF CONVEYED TO SOPHIE A MCNEIL BY QUIT CLAIM DEED DATED JUNE 16, 2001, RECORDED JUNE 19. 2001. UNDER RECORDING NO. 20010619000731% TOGETHER WITH A PERPETUAL EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS OVER THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LAND: A STRIP OF LAND 20 FEET IN WIDTH LUNG 10 FEET ALONG EITHER SIDE OF THE FOLLOWNG DESCRIBED CENTERUNE: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTFWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST OWNR OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.N., IN KING COUNTY, WASICNCTON, FROM WHICH POINT W NE NORIWAI ST CORNER THEREOF BEARS NORTH 8911'19" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 439.51 FEET; THENCE SOUTH OVO4'5V WEST, 987.31 FEET; THENCE SOUTH M502- EAST, 11024 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 01 OeW WEST, 145,16 FEET TO THE NORTH MARGIN OF THE COUNTY ROAD KNOWN AS SOUTH 312TH STREET; TOGETHER WITH AN ACCESS EASEMENT AS SET FORTH IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED JUNE 19. 2001 UNDER RECORDING NO. 20010519000739; SITUATE IN THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON PARCEL B: (9109) THAT PORTION OF THE EAST HALF OF THE WEST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHE 21 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION AT A POINT 525.00 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE SOUTH ALONG SAID EAST UNE 175.00 FEET; THENCE WEST 100 FEET TO THE EAST UNE OF A PRIVATE ROAD; THENCE NORTH ALONG SAID EAST LINE 175 FEET TO A POINT WEST OF THE POINT OF BEGINNING: THENCE EAST 100 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; SITUATE IN THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, COUNTY OF KING. STATE OF WASHINGTON. PARCEL C. (9110) THAT PORTION OF THE EAST HALF OF THE WEST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST` QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHIAGION, DE5Ck16EO AS f'OLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT 700 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE SOUTH 70 FEET; THENCE WEST 100 FEET; THENCE NORTH 70 FEET; THENCE EAST 100 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; SITUATE IN THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON PARCEL 0:(9111) THAT PORTION OF THE EAST HALF OF THE WEST HALF OF THE 5CUTHNEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M, IN KING COUNTY, Wk"iOICN. DESCRIBED AS FOLLD1r& BEGINNING AT A POINT 770 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE SOUTH 140 FEET; THENCE WEST IOD FEET; THENCE NORTH 140 FEET; THENCE EAST 100 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; 51TUATE IN THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, COUNTY OF KING PARCEL E: (9114) THAT PORTION OF THE EAST HALF OF THE WEST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF TIE IMNEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W. M., IN KING COUNTY, NA9*IGTON, DESCMED AS rIX1DW¢ BEGINNING AT A POINT 420 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SUDIVISION; THENCE SOUTH 105 FEET; THENCE WEST 100 FEET; THENCE NORTH 105 FEET; THENCE EAST 100 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING SITUATE IN THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON informed land I106SmO YaUmAye ra&kifa, WA 98" PfvW253-627--20M Feat 2M-627-9175 IR9X:A,d4DdSNl Corm D SURVEYING, MAPPING, 8 GIS 1. EASEMET4T RO IRE TERMS AND CONDITIONS :13,11 OF: GRANTEE LAKEHAVEN.SEWER DISTRICT, A 41U{4IOIPAL CORPORATION PURPOSE: SEWER MAINS AREA ARECTEO; A PORTION OF PARCEL A OF A PORTION OF SAID PREMISES RECORDED: JUNE 14, 197B RECORDING NQ: 7806140899 (NOT SHOWN ON SURVEY, ADJACENT TO LAKE) 2. EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: PURPOSE: LAKE ACCESS _ AREA AFFEC]$. A PORTON OF PARCEL A OF A PORTION OF SAID PREMISES RECORDING NO. 20010619000739 (SEE SOUTH PORTION OF SHEET 2) _ 3. SELLERS NOTICE OF ON -SITE SEWAGE SYSTEM OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED BY INSTRUMENT RECORDED, UNDER RECORDING NO. 20050211001839. (COVERS: PARCEL A) (NOT SHOWN ON SURVEY, AFFECTS PARCEL A) 4. MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: RECORDED: APRIL 12. 2007 RECORDING NO.: 2007041200060E REGARDING BOUNDARY UNE ADJUSTMENTS (NOT SHOWN ON SURVEY, AFFECTS PARCELS A,B,C, AND D) 5. QUITCLAIM DEEDS CLEARING TITLE RE ACCESS RIGHTS AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: RECORDED: APRIL 12. 2007 RECORDING NO.: 20D7O4120000200704120=3 AND 20070412ON04, . REGARDING DENIES RN'1,RIS OF ACCESS AND EASWkTS AS STATED iWN (NOT SHOWN ON SURVEY. AFFECTS PARCEL A) 6. LACK OF A RECORDED MEANS OF INGRESS AND EGRESS TO A PUBLIC ROAD FROM THE LAND. (COVERS: FA.RCETS B, C, D A14D E) (CANT BE S7101W CN SURVEY) 7. EASEMENT AGREEMENTS AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: RECORDED: NOVEMBER 9, 2007 RECORDING NOS: MON138001180, 20071108001181, 20071108001182, 20071108001183, 20071108001184, 20071108001185, AND 20071108001186 REGARDING USE OF THE WESTERLY PORTION OF PARCEL A (SHOWN ON SURVEY, AFFECTS PARCELS A,B,C,D, AND E. SURVEYOR'S NOTES ALL MONUTAENTS WERE VISITED 04/17/2007. INSTRUMENT USED, LEICA 1203 3° ROBOTIC TOTAL STATION AND LEICA 1200 RTK CPS. A COMBINATION OF HELD TRAVERSE, REMOTE LASER AND CPS OBSERVATIONS WERE USED TO COMPLETE 'HIS SURVEY. THIS SURVEY MEETS OR EXCEEDS THE REQUIREMENTS OF 'WAC 332�130-090. LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND EXCEPTIONS PROVIDED BY: COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE COMPANY ORDER NO. RM - 40003349 UTILITIES MAY NOT BE SHOWN ON THESE PLANS, BUT DO EXIST,ONSITE. WELL AND 100' BUFFER ON ADJACENT CHURCH PROPERTY DO N11T APPEAR TO EFFECT THIS SITE. RIGHTS OF: TOY$, EASEMENTS AND STREET VACATIONS ARE SHOTAI PER TITLE INFORMATION. PRESCRIPTIVL NON -WRITTEN OR OTHER ISSO THAT COULD EFFECT THE PROPERTY BOLWOARY MAY EXIST. THE TITLE REPORT 'WAS USED AS THE SOLE SOURCE FOR THIS PROPERTY DESCRIPTION. THE RIGHT OF WAY FOR SW 312TH STFUT IS SHOWN ON THE SJRVEY MAP AND WAS CACULATED PER RECORD PLANS. SEE SHEET 2 FOR ADDITIONAL DETAILS. HORIZONTAL DATUM WAYWGTON STATE PLAAC NORTH ZONE, NAD alfll BASED ON M0N(jjHBMTS FOUND ON SW J127M ST AT 1NM7S£CAONS OF 8TH AVE & 15T AYE BEARING N 8917802" W VERTICAL DATUM NGVD-29, CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 6.,V1. NO. 2200-01 EL=357.20' REFERENCE SURVEYS 1) ROS BY AHR, AFN 9406270305 2) PLAT OF HOWELL ADDITION, AFN 252236 3) ROS BY STEPAN & ASSC., INC., AFN 8504230132 4) ROS BY ASSOCIATES LAND SURVEYING, AFN 200012145005 RECORDING CERTIFICATE FILED FOR RECORD AT THE REQUEST OF BILL MCCAFFREY THIS___-- DAY OF____2007 AT ___ PAST __----- O'CLOCK IN VOLUME OF SURVEYS, PAGES _-- TO ___, UNDER RECORDING NO. RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AUDITOR Data Ow 18. 200E 4:29:58 PM () Draivrq L-FFOTTACE PARK SURVEY 070403CDWGUCOTTAGE ROS 121107.03 Yre1s (t0 a 'fY TEkN.ATEfD'Ai,IK1i[L SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE This map a Iiy tWvwIs a n"q made by me or under my direction in conformance ,nth the "irr�mLs of Th1: y Recording Act at the request of BILL MCCAFREY on this 2010 day of �. 2D PAIL HILL MABRY, LS#41 fi RECORD Of SURVEY DRAMT SK I CHECT(ED:PM DATE 1211MV7 1 JOB NO:COTr-0704D3 94M 1°=40' fIEW CREW. TR SB VICINITY MAP MASSE IN CONG 0 SW M47FI ST AND 8711 A6E SW N O E N ary " W 1317.93— ~ $ PROPERTY 1y. x LOC MON SW 3127N S7RTT N 89V8'a2' W 263.T 63" BRASSE CAP 9 SW 3121H ST AND 87H A6E SW 0RAS9E 0 SW 3047H ST AND TST AT£ SW BRASS IN CONC s' 0 SW J12TH ST a AND 13T AVE SW z � SCAL "=60 1 GE INDIXDATA: SW 1/4OF7HE NE 1/4OFSECTION 07, T21 N, R4E, W.M. TONG COUNTY, WA SHT R111 WCAFREY 1 604 312TH ST SW DEC 2 1 20O? REDERAL WAY KING CO. WA'i�'�' °` PE0s=aat wav ' PORTION OF SECTION 7 2 IT N'0% (1F'L mo= zm o=^� mrn mm z Z Zm� mzA A� y OZFf N90 ;u-0 «]rrl m o 0 �m O � ? r 0 zm� z{ " �z ow o de a cz �v�i zc m 2 �0 Zm vz �m = m D 2(n M Z y to J fA =m = -n Z D C O m Z � m= i�nm m m DM r— xmC VI z-m o n0 so OZ 0z x m p 'az Z r m O Z C ; m m D mn y m D y M m n IDA Im D3 1 I Z - I � I1 I y , o I I I j / PAVEDI ---�-------- } N OID52r E 7aAi - DRiVEWAY �r N% r� i3� v 4{gam a ew g moo" Nm{tea a I N �! 1 Ia p o i I �I `-l�rmed land 1106,Sout Yakire)l a ra=,uk WAN405 R w Z53.621.2 070 Far 253-627.9175 D SURVEYING, MAPPING, & GIS ------------------ L-------------- ' sorns'2s'w rear• ---- --- ---------- ------- N -------- ------------------------- �Qto �S r ' o I IL rn j w s 0105W7 w 756-9•nil o s mII5W w 1AROO a - - - - - - - - - - - - - - T - - - - - 7- N 01WO ' E 14a(V FA sn w 2 n q�1 rq rq y m r � � I N 0/TA4W E 747T5'. %Ej k\,=- 3 1® 11 ® v Qz 0 g RECORD OF SURVEY °XDAA1/40FTHE NE 1140FSE0110N 07, T21 N, R4E, WM.jNN,:,W PAGE BILL MCCAFREY-��CFlilia FOR. 604 312TH ST SW FEDERAL WAY ICING CO.WA u�c 2 t ?aoi RPM earl-0PORTION OF SECTION 7 ` t -' '4G ar-PT SHT. 2 Of 2 -OF a WASHINGTON FORESTRY CONSULTANTS, INC. _)RESTRY AND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT SPECIALISTS W F C I 360/943-1723 1919 Yelm Hwy SE, Suite C FAX 360/943-4128 Olympia, WA 98501 -Tree Evaluation and Protection Plan - MIRROR LAKE HIGHLAND 604 SW 312th Street Federal Way, WA Prepared for: William McCaffrey, Owner Prepared by: Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. Date: December 18, 2007 Introduction I have evaluated all trees on the proposed residential development located at 604 SW 312`h Street in Federal Way, WA. The purpose of the evaluation was to determine the condition of the trees and make recommendations for retention, protection, replacement, and/or cultural care as required by Section 22-1568 of the Federal Way municipal code. J Methodology WFCI has evaluated all trees 6 inches diameter (DBH measured 4.5 ft. above the ground Jlevel) and larger in the proposed project, and assessed their potential to be incorporated into the new project. All trees were numbered at the base with painted numbers. l The tree evaluation phase used methodology developed by Matheny and Clark in their text A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas (2nd J edition), International Society of Arboriculture, Champaign, lZ (1994), and their text Trees and Development — A Technical Guide to Preservation of Trees during Land Development, International Society of Arboriculture, Champaign, IL (1998). A description of the tree evaluation methodology is provided in Appendix H. EXHIBIT � - ' PAGE 1 OFN_ URBAN/RURAL FORESTRY * TREE APPRAISAL + HAZARD TREE ANALYSIS RIGHT-OF-WAYS * VEGETATION MANAGEMENT • ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES a CONTRACT FORESTERS Member of International Society of Arboriculture and Society of American Foresters Mirror Lake Highland — Tree Evaluation and Protection Plan Observations Site Description The site includes two parcels that entspo ghe Lly with a east and westt SW 312th Street t property the south, bordered by residential developm a o to and an undeveloped parcel to the north. The site had been cleared many years g construct the house. The northern portion of the parcels have naturally returned to a fully stocked forest. There are three buildings that currently occupy the site. Soils -- According to the King County Soil Survey, the soil type includes variants of the Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, a moderately deep, moderately well drained soil found on glacial till plains. It is formed in ablation till overlying basal till. A weakly cemented hardpan is at a depth of 20 to 40 inchesv� ableeability is moderately water cap city for plantsls lawVabove The the hardpan and very slow in the pan. The a effective rooting depth for trees is 20-40 inches. A perched seasonal high water table is at a depth of 18-36 inches from November to March. The potential for windthrow of trees is moderate under normal conditions. New trees require irrigation for establishment. Existing Tree Conditions The forest covers were stratified into 2 forest cover types based upon the species, stocking, and size of trees. Trees were also classified by their condition class, which is a good indicator of the longevity of the tree (Appendix IV). A 100% inventory and assessment of the trees identified the species, stocking, condition, and size of trees. Type I This type occurs in the northern portion of the site. It is a fully stocked stand of second growth timber. The main species is Douglas -fir (Pseudatsuga menziesii)• Minor species include Pacific madrone (Arbutus menziesii), western red cedar (Thuja plicata), red alder (Alnus rubra) and bigleaf maple (Ater macrophyllum). The diameter range is 6 to 4V' diameter at breast height (DBH). Stand Condition. -- The stocking level is fairly unifo Oeacr�ossgtthee site a Treesinllt stand moue trees. The conditions of the trees range from ry p densely stocked stands have smaller crowns due to shading and competition. A live crown ratio (LCR) of 30% is considered the minimum for a tree to be considered a long- term tree. There are 86 trees in the type, with 55 trees per acre classified as sound, healthy, long- term trees in the dominant and co -dominant crown class. The remainder of the trees are intermediate or suppressed, and are not long-term trees due to the slender nature of the stems and poor live -crown ratios. No significant insect or disease problems were noted in this stand. EXHIBIT-2 1y Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. Mirror Lake Highland — Tree Evaluation and Protection Plan UnderstDr Ve etatian. -- The understory is predominantly made up of Indian plum (Qemleria cerasiformis), bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), and holly (Ilex spp.). Si nificant S ecimen or Historical Trees. -- No trees occurred that would be considered significant, specimen, or historical trees. No trees of any other particular significance were noted. Type H This type occurs around the existing house in the southern end of the parcel. The trees on the site occur as scattered individuals or small clusters of trees. The main species is Douglas -fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii). Minor species include Pacific madrone (Arbutus menziesii), western red cedar (Thuja plicata), western hemlock (Tsuga helerophylla), Scotch pine (Pinus sylvestris) and Leyland cypress (Cupressocyparis leylandii). The diameter range is 8 to 38" DBH. Stand Condition. -- The stocking level is uneven across the site. Some of the larger trees along SW 312`i' Street have been previously topped and have poor weakly attached stems. The conditions of trees in the type range from very poor to very good. There are 21 trees in the type, with 16 trees per acre classified as sound, healthy, long- term trees in the dominant and co -dominant crown class. The remainder of the trees are intermediate or suppressed, and are not long-term trees due to the slender nature of the stems and poor live -crown ratios. No significant insect or disease problems were noted in this stand. Understo Ve station. --- The understory is predominantly grasses and weeds. Siggificant Specimen or Historical Trees. -- No trees occurred that would be considered significant, specimen, or historical trees. No trees of any other particular significance were noted. Discussion Significant Trees A 100% inventory of the significant trees was completed. A significant tree is described as trees over 12 inches diameter a breast height (DBH). The red alder and bigleaf maple on the site are not counted as significant tree. A total of 61 significant trees were found. Fifty-one of these trees were healthy sare hazardous and potential and should be removed from the based on their health. Ten of the tree site. Their locations are shown on Figure 2. EXHIBIT Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. Mirror Lake Highland — Tree Evaluation and Protection Plan Off -Site Impacts Tree removal on this parcel will not impact trees on any surrounding parcels. Potential for Tree Retention There are 4 trees that fall outside the buildable area of the site that have the potential to be retained. The trees recommended for retention are one Douglas -fir and 3 western red cedars ranging in diameter from 10 to 28" DBH. Three of the 4 trees are considered significant. The other 1 tree is smaller than 12" and not considered significant. Minimum Density Calculations The city of Federal Way's Tree Protection Ordinance requires that 25 percent of healthy significant trees be retained on the site. The following is a summary of the estimated tree density planned for retention: Number of Healthy Significant Trees on Site: 51 Trees Minimum Density Required: (25%n of trees) 13 Trees Planned Significant Tree Retention: 3 Trees 10 Trees Shortfall of Retention: The planned tree retention falls short of the required retention by 10 trees. This means that 10 trees will have to be replanted to meet the minimum requirement. Tree Replacement Plan It is recommended that the replacement trees be native Douglas -fir or western red cedar. These 10 trees should be 10 ft. tall balled anburlap�si�f on en planted no �lvse than aps in the landscape area, They should be planted no closer 15 feet to established save trees. All trees should Theicost ot the ANSI Z60.1 � e required d tree ard for nursery stock and be planted to industry standar projected replacement plus 3 years of maintenance is $2,650. Tree Protection Measures Trees to be saved should be protected during site grading and construction with chain link fencing (Appendix IV) located at the edge of the critical root zone (see Figure 2). This zone is described as a distance of 5 feet outside of the dripline of the save tree unless otherwise specified by WFCI . The fences should be installed after logging, clearing, and pruning, but prior to the start of grading. This will allow removal of hazardous or poor quality trees from the perimeter landscape area. 0 rUMBIT L1 PAGE__!L0F_J 4 Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. Mirror Lake Highland — Tree Evaluation and Protection Plan There should be no root disturbing activity within the critical root zone of save trees. This includes irrigation line installation, rototilling, equipment operation, trenching, cuts or fills. If roots are encountered outside of the established root protection zone, they should be cut cleanly with a saw and covered immediately with moist soil. If grading or fill soils must impact tree, then the tree should be re-evaluated by WFCI to determine if the tree can be saved. Mitigation to save the tree can then be prescribed, or tree removal may be necessary. Pruning Tree pruning may be required where trails, sidewalks, access roads, or other improvements pass near trees. Crown raising should be done to a height of 8' over trails and sidewalks, and 15' over driveways or streets to allow vehicles to pass without damaging branches. All new buildings should have at least 10 feet of clearance to tree branches. Pruning should be completed prior to construction to avoid tree damage by construction contractors cutting or breaking branches for clearance. All pruning on save trees should be completed according to the ANSI A300 (2001) standards for proper pruning, and be completed by, or supervised by an International Society of Arboriculture Certified Arborist®. Recommendations Timeline for Activity 1. Retain 3 healthy significant trees on the site. Retain 1 other smaller non significant tree. Remove all other trees on the site. All removals should be individually marked after staking of the clearing limits. These trees are noted in Appendix I. 2. The approved tree protection plan map should be included in the construction drawings for bid and construction of the project. 3. Contact WFCI to attend pre job conference and discuss tree protection issues with logging and clearing contractors. WFCI can verify all trees to be saved and/or removed are adequately marked for retention. 4. Complete logging and clearing. Complete necessary removals from the tree protection areas. No equipment should enter the tree protection areas during logging and clearing. 5. Do not excavate stumps within 10' of trees to be saved. These should be individually evaluated by WFCI to determine the method of removal. 6. Complete all necessary pruning to provide at least 8' of ground clearance near sidewalks and trails, and 15' above all driveways or access roads. 7. Install tree protection fences along the perimeter landscape and around all interior trees to be saved. The fences should be located 5 feet outside of the dripline of the save tree. Maintain fences throughout construction. 8. Complete grading and construction of the project. 0 PAGE --OF IL Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. 5 Mirror Lake Highland — Tree Evaluation and Protection Plan 9. Plant replacement trees between October 1 and April I. Provide irrigation to the trees for 3 growing seasons to insure establishment. Summary Four healthy trees are proposed to be saved on the site. Three of these trees are considered significant. The city of Federal Way requires the retention of 25% of the significant trees on the site. This would require the retention of 13 of the 51 trees on the site. The planned retention falls short of the requirement by 10 trees. This will require replanting of 10 replacement trees for the shortfall under the 25% trees required to be saved. The projected cost to replant the 10 trees is $2,650. If you have any questions please feel free to give me a call. Respectfully submitted, Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. ;Joshua Sharper Certified Arborist No. PN-5939A attachment: figures 1 & 2 and appendices Note: Even healthy trees can fail under normal or storm conditions. The only way to eliminate all risk is to remove all trees within reach of all targets. Annual monitoring by an ISA Certified Arborist or Certified Forester will reduce the potential of tree failures. It is impossible to predict with certainty that a tree will stand or fail, or the timing of the failure. It is considered an `Act of God' when a tree fails, unless it is directly felled or pushed over by man's actions. EXHIBIT-D-- PAGE--4-OF--N- Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. 6 Mirror Lake Highland — Tree Evaluation and Protection Plan Figure 1 Aerial Photo of 'Mirror Lake Highland' Site (King County Geodata) Site Boundary .......... Type Boundary Type I- Douglas-fir,pm,rc,ra,bm; 6-40" DBH; 86 trees Type II- Douglas-fir,pm,rc,wh,sp,lc; 8-38" DBH; 21 trees Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. NORTH No Scale I EXHISIT PAGE �OF 7 Mirror Lake Highland — Tree Evaluation and Protection Plan 1 I j Figure 2 Mirror Lake Highland Tree Protection Plan NORTH NO SCALE I Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. Tree to be Saved t Tree to be Removed EXHI13 'i � PAGE OF_�' _ 8 Mirror Lake Highland — Tree Evaluation and Protection Plan APPENDIX I Mirror Lake Highland Existing Tree List and Potential for Retention (Based on Tree Condition Only) Project DBH Save/ Save/ Tree {in.} Condition Remove* Notes Remove # S ecies Remove 1 Bi leaf Ma le 18 Poor Remove Remove 2 Dou las-fir 26 Fair Save Remove 3 B i leaf Ma le 18 Poor Remove Remove 4 Bi leaf Ma le 19 Fair Save Remove 5 Dou las-fir 20 Fair Save Remove 6 Dou ias-fir 22 Good Save to o ut Remove 7 Dou [as -fir 21 Fair Save Remove g Dou ]as -fir 23 Fair Save Remove 9 Dou las-fir 19 Fair Save Remove 10 Pacific Madrone 22 Fair Save Remove 11 Pacific Madrone 23 Fair Save Remove 12 Dou las-fir 24 Fair Ver Poor Save Remove 3 stems Remove 13 Bi leaf Ma le 6-10 Remove 14 B i leaf Ma le 26 Poor Remove Remove 15 Dou ias-fir 36 Good Save Remove 16 Dou las-fir 30 Good Save to out Remove 17 Dou las-fir 32 Fair Save Remove 18 Red Alder 12 Fair Save Remove 19 Red Alder 15,16 Fair Save Remove 20 Red Alder 11 Fair Save Remove double stem Remove 21 Dou [as -fir 40 Poor Poor Remove double stem Remove 22 Dou ias-fir 30 Remove 23 Dou las-fir 28 Good Save Remove 24 Dou las-fir 26 Good Save Remove 25 Dou las-fir 28 Good Save Remove 26 Dou las-fir 32 Fair Save Save tree house Remove 27 Dou las-fir 30 Fair Fair Save tree house Remove 28 Dou ias-fir 32 Save Remove 29 Doualas-fir 30 Fair Remove 30 Douglas -fir 31 Fair Save Remove 31 Pacific Madrone 18 Poor Remove Remove 32 Pacific Madrone 22 Ver Poor a Remove Remove 33 - Dou la FIT 22 Good 3 stems Remove 34 Bi leaf le 16-18 Ver Poor Remove Remove 35 Bi leaf Ma le 17 Ve Poor Remove Remove 36 Bi leaf Ma le 25 Ve Poor Remove Remove 37 Bi leaf Ma [e 24 Ver Poor Remove Remove 3g I Bi leaf Ma Ie 18 Ver Poor Remove Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. z Mirror Lake Highland — Tree Evaluation and Protection Plan Tree # Species DBH (in.) Condition Save/ Remove* Notes Project Save/ Remove 39 Bi leaf Maple 26 Poor Remove Remove 40 Bi leaf Maple 25,26 Fair Save Remove 41 Bi leaf Maple 28 Fair Save Remove 42 Douglas -fir 22 Fair Save some root dama a Remove 43 Pacific Madrone 12 Fair Save Remove 44 Red Alder 12 Fair Save Remove 45 Douglas -fir 21 Poor Remove annosus root rot Remove 46 Red Alder 15,16 Very Poor Remove Remove 47 Pacific Madrone 26 Poor Remove in decline Remove 48 Red Alder 19 Poor Remove top dead Remove 49 Bi leaf Maple 15 Good Save Remove 50 Douglas -fir 13 Poor Remove Remove 51 Red Alder 22 Poor Remove top dead Remove 52 Douglas -fir 11 Fair Save Remove 53 Red Alder 14 Poor Remove top dead Remove 54 Red Alder 16 Poor Remove top dead Remove 55 Western Red Cedar 12 Good Save Remove 56 Dou las-fir 15 Good Save Remove 57 Red Alder 15 Very Poor Remove Remove 58 Douglas -fir 11 Fair Save Remove 59 Bi leaf Maple 11 Fair Save Remove 60 Douglas -fir 17 Good Save Remove 61 Douglas -fir 22 Good Save Remove 62 Douglas -fir 30 Good Save Remove 63 Bi leaf Maple 20 Fair Save Remove 64 Douglas -fir 21 Good Save Remove 65 Bi leaf Maple 16 Fair Save Remove 66 Pacific Madrone 10 Very Poor Remove Remove 67 Red Alder 13 Poor Remove top out Remove 68 Douglas -fir 18 Poor Remove root damage Remove 69 Douglas -fir 26 Good Save Remove 70 Bi leaf Maple 19,20 Fair Save Remove 71 Western Red Cedar 11 Good Save Remove 72 Douglas -fir 13 Poor Remove top out, root damage Remove 73 Douglas -fir 10 Fair Save Remove 74 Douglas -fir 18 Good Save Remove 75 Douglas -fir 16 Fair Save Remove 76 Red Alder 16 Fair Save Remove 77 Red Alder 22 Fair Save Remove 78 Red Alder 18 Poor Remove Remove 79 Red Alder 19,20 Poor Remove Remove 80 Douglas -fir 13 Poor Remove Remove 81 Douglas -fir 34 Good Save Remove 82 Douglas -fir 10 Fair Save Remove EXHIBIT 0 Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. PAGE ()F !-q--_,,_ Mirror Lake Highland — Tree Evaluation and Protection Plan Tree # S ecies DBH (in.) Condition Save/ Remove* Notes Project Save/ Remove 83 Douglas -fir 24 Good Save Remove 84 Western Red Cedar 11 Good Save Remove 85 Douglas -fir 28 Good Save Remove 86 Red Alder 14 Poor Remove Remove 87 Scotch Pine 17 Poor Remove Remove 88 1 Douglas -fir 34 Very Good Save I Remove 89 Douglas -fir 38 Very Good Save too close to building to save Remove 90 Douglas -fir 28 Good Save Remove 91 Western Hemlock 30 Fair Save Remove 92 Douglas -fir 34 Good Save Remove 93 Douglas -fir 19 Fair Save Remove 94 Douglas -fir 36 Good Save Remove 95 Douglas -fir 24 Good Save Remove 96 Douglas -fir 13 Fair Save top out Remove 97 Pacific Madrone 10 Poor Remove Remove 98 Pacific Madrone 10 Very Poor Remove Remove 99 Pacific Madrone 16 Fair Save Remove 100 Douglas -fir 30 Fair Save bad top Remove 101 Douglas -fir 28 Fair Save bad top Save 102 Western Red Cedar 18 Fair Save Save 103 Western Red Cedar 15 Fair Save Save 104 Western Red Cedar 10 Fair Save Save 105 Douglas -fir 32 Fair Save bad top Remove 06 Dog las-fir 30 Fair Save bad to Remove LL07 Leyland Cypress 8,10 1 Fair Save Remove *Potential for Retention — based on tree condition only. exHiBrr PAGE-OFJfL Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. 11 Mirror Lake Highland — Tree Evaluation and Protection Plan APPENDIX II Description of Tree Evaluation Methodology The evaluation of the tree condition on this site included the assessment of: 1. Live -crown ratio, 2. Lateral and terminal branch growth rates, 3. Presence of dieback in minor and major scaffold branches and twigs, 4. Foliage color, 5. Stem soundness and other structural defects, 6. Visual root collar examination, 7. Presence of insect or disease problems. 8. Windfirmness if tree removal will expose this tree to failure. e was taken In cases where signs of internal defect or rates. ase e Also, root collars a core were exposed to to look for stain, decay, and diameter growth look for the presence of root disease. In all cases, the overall appearance of the tree was considered relative to its ability to add value to either an individual lot or the entire subdivision. Also, the scale of the tree and its proximity to both proposed and existing houses was considered. Lastly, the potential for incorporation into the project design is evaluated, as well as potential site plan modifications that may allow otherwise removed tree(s) to be both saved and protected in the development. Trees that are preserved in a development must be carefully selected to make sure that they can survive construction impacts, adapt ebetter able to tolerate, and perform impacts such as t in the landscape. Healthy, vigorous tree injury, changes in soils moisture regimes, and soil compaction than are low vigor trees. Structural characteristics are also important in assessing suitability. Trees with significant decay and other structural defects that cannot be treated are likely to fail. Such trees should not be preserved in areas where damage to people or property could occur. Trees that have developed in a forest stand are adapted to the close, dense conditions found in such stands. When surrounding trees are removed during clearing and grading, the remaining trees are exposed to extremes in wind, temperature, solar radiation, which causes sunscald, and other influences. Young, vigorous trees with well -developed crowns are best able to adapt to these changing site conditions. EXHIBIT 0 PAGE nn 0- 12 Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. Mirror Lake Highland — Tree Evaluation and Protection Plan APPENDIX III Glossary of Forestry and Arboricultural Terminology DBH: Diameter at Breast Height (measured 4.5 ft. above the ground line on the high side of the tree). Live Crown Ratio: Ratio of live foliage on the stem of the tree. Example: A 100' tall tree with 40 feet of live crown would have a 40% live crown ratio. Conifers with less than 30% live crown ratio are generally not considered to be long-term trees in forestry. Crown: Portion of a trees stem covered by live foliage. Crown Position: Position of the crown with respect to other trees in the stand. Dominant Crown Position: Receives light from above and from the sides. Codominant Crown Position: Receives light from above and some from the sides. Intermediate Crown Position: Receives little light from above and none from the sides. Trees tend to be slender with poor live crown ratios. Suppressed Crown Position: Receives no light from above and none from the sides. Trees tend to be slender with poor live crown ratios. EXHIBIT 0 PAGE �...0�--- Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. 13 Mirror Lake Highland — Tree Evaluation and Protection Plan APPENDIX IV Tree Protection Fence Detail ANCHOR PO5T5 SHOULD BE MINIMUM 6' TALL T—BAR' FENCE POSTS 8 FT. MAX. e i 'I USE 6"WIRE z Z ECU U' TO SECURE r FENCE BOTTOM r ANCHOR POSTS MUST BE INSTALLED DEPTHTO A OF THETI/3 TOTAL HEIGHT OF POST. El�ll �I Chain Link Fence THE TREE PROTECTION FENCE SHOULD BE MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT THE CONSTRUCTION AND GRADING. AND NOT TO BE REMOVED UNTIL FINAL LANDSCAPING IS IN PROGRESS. AT NO TIME SHALL EQUIPMENT ENTER INTO THE ROOT PROTECTION ZONE (RPZ). ALL BRUSH CLEANUP WITHIN THE RPZ SHOULD BE COMPLETED BY HAND TO PREVENT DISTURBANCE OF NATTVE GROUND COVERS NO CUTS OR FILLS. UTILITY TRENCHING, MODIFICATIONS TO DRAINAGE. OR CONCRETE RISE WATER SHOULD IMPACT THE RPZ NO WIRES, CABLES, OR OTHER DEVICES SHOULD BE ATTACHED TO PROTECTED TREES DURING CONSTRUCTION. IF IMPACTS MUST OCCUR WITHIN THE RPZ CONTACT WFCI PRIOR TO THE OPERATIONS TO DETERMINE THE PROPER PROCEDURE TO PROTECT THE TREE'S HEALTH. EXHIBIT 0 PAGE-B-OF�_ Washington Forestry Consultants, Inc. 14 _A•�'� 'T�Li �lf•_ G�i. .�;�i�•�'F- TACOMA SEATTLE Preliminary Technical Informa tion Report PREPARED FOR., Mr. William McCaffrey, AIA The WJM Studio 1911 SW Campus Drive Suite 116 Federal Way, WA 98023-6473 PROJECT' Mirror Lake Highlands Federal Way, Washington 207555.10 PREPARED BY.• Todd C. Sawin, E.I.T. Project Engineer EXHIBIT REVIEWED BY.- pAG J'OF J. Matthew Weber, P.E. Principal DIVED DEC 2 1 Z007 December 2 , OFF -FORA, AV Civil Engineers • Structural Engineers • Landscape Architects • Community Planners • Land Surveyors Neighbors V _ E�(�ii{ _ I hereby state that this Preliminary Technical Information Report for the Mirror Lake Highlands Project has been prepared by me or under my supervision and meets the standard of care and expertise that is usual and customary in this community for professional engineers. I understand that the City of Federal Way does not and will not assume liability for the sufficiency, suitability, or performance of drainage facilities prepared by me. Preliminary Technical Information Report PREPARED FOR: Mr. William McCaffrey, AIA The WJM Studio 1911 SW Campus Drive Suite 116 Federal Way, WA 98023-6473 PROJECT.' Mirror Lake Highlands Federal Way, Washington 207555.10 PREPARED BY.' Todd C. Sawin, E.I.T. Project Engineer P.EVIE KIED BY.' J. Matthew Weber, P.E. Principal DecemberEXHIBIT �AGE� F- �- TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 Project Overview............................................................................................. 1 1.1 Pre -Development Conditions.................................................................... 1 1.2 Post -Development Conditions.................................................................. 2 2.0 Core and Special Requirements Narrative............................................................ 2 2.1 C.R. #1 — Discharge at the Natural Location .............................................. 2 2.2 C.R. #2 — Off -Site Analysis...................................................................... 3 2.3 C.R. #3 — Flow Control........................................................................... 3 2.4 C.R. #4 — Conveyance System................................................................. 3 2.5 C.R. #5 — Erosion and Sediment Control ................................................... 3 2.6 C.R. #6 — Maintenance and Operations..................................................... 3 2.7 C.R. #7 — Financial Guarantees and Liability .............................................. 4 2.8 C.R. #8 — Water Quality......................................................................... 4 2.9 S.R. #1 — Other Adopted Area -Specific Requirements ................................. 4 2.10 S.R. #2 — Flood plain/ Floodway Delineation ............................................... 4 2.11 S.R. #3 — Flood Protection Facilities......................................................... 4 2.12 S.R. #4 — Source Controls....................................................................... 4 2.13 S.R. #5 — Oil Control.............................................................................. 4 3.0 Conclusion...................................................................................................... 4 ExHiEIsT '?- l PAGE 3 p APPENDICES Appendix Figures A-1 ......... Site Vicinity Map A-2 ......... Pre -Developed Map A-3 ......... Developed WQ Basin Map A-4......... Federal Way Drainage Basins Map A-5 ......... Flow Control Applications Map A-6 ......... Water Quality Applications Map A-7 ......... Critical Areas Map EXHIBIT t"I PAGEOF 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW This Preliminary Technical Information Report accompanies the Grading, Drainage and Utility Concept Plan and Level One Downstream Analysis for preliminary plat of the Mirror Lake Highlands project, located on parcel number 0721049024 in Federal Way, Washington. This report addresses the eight core requirements and five special requirements outlined in the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manua/ (KCSWOM), as amended by the City of Federal Way. The Mirror Lake Highlands project proposes to implement Low Impact Development (LID) techniques into the project as described in Section 1.2 of this report. The parcel to be developed is approximately 1.88 acres in size. The parcel is a portion of the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 7, Township 21 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian. The site is located north of SW 312tn Street at 604 SW 312tn Street. See Figure A-1 for a map of the vicinity. The project is a cottage housing demonstration project consisting of 16 single- family dwelling units. The site is served by 6tn Place SW, a private drive connecting to SW 312tn Street. The Mirror Lake project proposes to provide half - street frontage improvements to 6th Place SW and SW 312th Street, including the dedication of additional right-of-way to contain these improvements. An on -site private road is proposed to provide access to the development. This road will connect to 6tn Place SW and extend to the north. Additionally as part of the development, other infrastructure will be extended to serve the site. Sewer, water, power, telephone, and other typical infrastructure will be extended as necessary to provide services to the development. The site is located within Lakehaven's Water and Sewer Districts. 1.1 Pre -Development Conditions The site is currently occupied by a single-family residence, with the majority of the site being forested. City of Federal Way mapping indicates no sensitive areas including steep slopes or wetlands within the site, but does map areas in the surrounding downstream. The topography of the site is characterized by grades ranging from 5 to 15 percent sloping from north to south. The high point on the site is the northwest corner of the property at an elevation of approximately 375 feet. The property lies within the Dumas Bay Sub -Basin within the Lower Puget Sound Drainage Basin. The site currently drains to the south to catch basins within the SW 312cn Street right-of-way. The site is surrounded by existing single-family residences. The site's frontage consists of SW 312tn Street along the southern boundary and 6tn Place SW along a portion of the western boundary. Currently SW 312tn Street right-of-way is developed with a 24-foot paved travel way. 6tn Place SW is an existing private road with a 20-foot paved travel way. The project site and surrounding area is zoned "RS7.2" or Single Family Residential with a density of 7200 square feet per unit. See Figure A-2 for a map of the pre-developed;P �� conditions and A-4 for a map of Federal Way drainage basins. E„,�II'�" PA & -- According to a site soils investigation undertaken by Pacific Geo Engineering, LLC (PGE) in December of 2007, the site is underlain by 5 feet of sandy loam suitable for infiltration. Under this stratum and down to the 9-foot termination of the exploration is dense to very dense glacial till. See the Geotechnical Engineering report generated by PGE submitted separately for preliminary plat review. 1.2 Post -Development Conditions The project proposes to construct a private access road and pedestrian access facilities to serve 16 single-family dwelling units. The Mirror Lake Highlands project is proposing to include several Low Impact Development (LID) techniques into the plat layout and stormwater design. The following list is a summary of a few of the LID techniques implemented on the current site plan: • Reduced impervious surface through the reduction of road length by providing community parking areas and pedestrian access to the units. • Pervious pavement systems for select portions of the private road. Infiltrating stormwater runoff to the maximum extent feasible through the use of shallow infiltration basins and trenches. Amending the soils within the shallow infiltration facilities to provide a good growth medium and enhance treatment of stormwater to be infiltrated. Infiltrate stormwater runoff from roof area through the use of individual infiltration trenches for each structure. The project also proposes to extend -existing sanitary sewer, water, gas, and power to serve the proposed development. See Figure A-3 for a visual depiction of the developed conditions. 2.0 CORE AND SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS NARRATIVE 2.1 C.R. #1 — Discharge at the Natural Location Stormwater runoff from the site currently discharges to a ditch within the SW 312th Street ROW. This project proposes to infiltrate stormwater on -site through the use of shallow infiltration facilities and trenches. The project will provide overflow facilities to convey stormwater runoff to the existing city system in the event of system failure or an event greater than the design requirements set forth by the 1998 KCSYi DM and the City of Federal Way. T here are no known environmentally sensitive areas on -site, although critical areas and drainage complaints are noted within 1/4 mile downstream of the site. See the full off -site discussion, including a discussion of the drainage complaints and critical areas, included in the Level One Downstream Analysis submitted se"E"IT �:Pr PAGEI OF lb — 2.2 C.R. #2 — Off -Site Analysis An off -site analysis is included in the Level One Downstream Analysis submitted under separate cover. This report identifies and evaluates the off -site drainage system and assesses potential off -site drainage impacts associated with the development of the project. 2.3 C.R. #3 — Flow Control The project site is within a Level Three Flow Control area as shown on the Flow Control Applications Map, Figure A-5. Runoff from the site will be collected in catch basins and directed to on -site infiltration trenches and shallow infiltration facilities. The geotechnical report, submitted separately, discusses an impermeable soil approximately five feet deep. The infiltration trenches serving individual homes will provide a minimum of one foot of separation between the bottom of the trench and the impermeable layer as specified by the 1998 KCSWDMfor single-family dwelling units. The infiltration facilities for the access road will provide a minimum of three feet of separation as specified by the 1998 KCSWDM. Final design will include detailed sizing of the infiltration facilities using KCSWDM hydrologic analysis standards and the KCRTS modeling routine. It is our understanding that stormwater quantity and quality control will not be required for the SW 312th Street improvements. 2.4 C.R. #4 — Conveyance System At this conceptual stage, it is expected that all proposed systems will be located below ground and consist of closed pipes and catch basins to on -site infiltration facilities. The system downstream of the discharge point is expected to have adequate capacity to provide an overflow route from the developed site. 2.5 C.R. #5 — Erosion and Sediment Control A temporary erosion and sediment control plan addressing prevention of erosion and transport of sediment to downstream systems will be provided at the time of final engineering review. it is expected that the proposed facilities and site plan will provide a permanent measure of erosion and sedimentation control upon full development of the project. 2.6 C.R. #6 — Maintenance and Operations At this time, maintenance and operation of the proposed stormwater facilities is to be the responsibility of the property owner. The facilities proposed to be located within public right-of-way are expected to be publically maintained. EXH I BIT P 001 PAGEA OFF_. 1310193 2.7 C.R. #7 — Financial Guarantees and Liability All constructed drainage facilities and all work within public right-of-way or public easements shall comply with the financial guarantees of Federal Way City Code, Chapter 22. 2.8 C.R. #8 — Water Quality The project is located within a Basic Water Quality Area (see Water Quality Applications Map, Figure A-6) and is subject to the applicable water quality standards for such areas as outlined in the KCSWDM and as amended by the City of Federal Way. The project proposes to infiltrate stormwater at a rate less than 9 inches per hour and therefore meets the standard infiltration exemption for water quality as outlined in the 1998 KCSWDM in section 1.2.8 exemption part 4 (page 1-51). 2.9 S.R. #1 — Other Adopted Area -Specific Requirements The site lies within the Lower Puget Sound Basin and has no adopted Area - Specific Requirements for stormwater. 2.10 S.R. #2 — Floodplain/Floodway Delineation Per mapping available from King County and the City of Federal Way, the project site is not located within a designated floodplain or floodway, and historically, has not been the subject of any drainage complaints or problems. 2.11 S.R. #3 — Flood Protection Facilities The site is not protected by, nor does the development propose construction of, a flood protection facility. 2.12 S.R. #4 — Source Controls The proposed water quality facilities will prevent pollutants from entering public waterways and will be designed with adherence to all applicable water quality standards as specified in the KCSWDM, as amended by the City of Federal Way. 2.13 S.R. #5 — Oil Control This project is not classified as a high -use site as defined by the 1998 KCSWDM and is therefore not required to provide oil control. 3.0 CONCLUSION The on -site stormwater facilities for the Mirror Lake Highlands development in Federal Way, Washington, will be designed to meet 1998 KCSWDM guidelines for stormwater management as amended by the City. Final flow calculations ag� modeling will be performed utilizing KCSWDM hydrologic a " w d s d00 PAGE. -.OP- - - 4 131013 Q the KCRTS modeling routine for sizing stormwater conveyance networks and treatment facilities. This analysis is based on data and records either supplied to, or obtained by, AHBL. These documents are referenced within the text of the analysis. The analysis has been prepared utilizing procedures and practices within the standard accepted practices of the industry. We conclude that this project, as schematically represented will not create any new problems within the downstream drainage system. This project will not noticeably aggravate any existing downstream problems due to either water quality or quantity. AHBL, Inc. Todd C. Sawin, E.I.T. Project Engineer TCS/lah December 2007 Q:\2007\207555\WORDPROC\REPORTS\20071221_Rpt_PreTIR_207555.doc EXHIBIT ?-0/ PAGE--oF-&- 01800 APPENDIX A Figures A-1........... Site Vicinity Map A-2.......... Pre -Developed Map A-3 ........... Developed WQ Basin Map A-4........... Federal Way Drainage Basins Map A-5 ........... Flow Control Applications Map A-6 ........... Water Quality Applications Map A-7 .......... Critical Areas Map Extimm ��/ PAGE-LO-OFL_ PUGET SOUND ,� QO oe as SITE a W 312TH ST S 312TH ST N ro �. MIRROR� >� LAKE Q SW 320TH ST S 320TH ST Q N 3 m c 3 E c rn c_ m m EXHIBIT PAGE -A OF MIRROR LAKE TACO MA SEATTLE A-1 2215►oM"SftKsuftw,T.W,wawW M=2w la a�cW.M VICINITY MAP a+eoc �w�ea a��e,s..m. wene+a LU W� F;3 N� 1 ON U <m F ps EXHIBIT PAGEI?e-OF-1 drain Image Map Page Page 1 of 1 City Of Federal WaCity y Federal Way, 333 33325 8M Ave S, Federal Way, WA 98UD3 Federal Way Drainage Basins � .��,�way.wa.us Lo pnO: Scale: Iiyap6apCrARr� A11nrAes< 0 112 1 Mile -, I�pvgr Pxeen glyer - Wh+Oe RiayT 0 112 1 Kilomater Lorcer Puget SourvJ Now Saainaln taen:e Gounty are notahaxn i rtis Ir%', nnnno�aro■uea y" vIYcai rn{�rpward . OtiLY. rhatuy to fDi7nl Wry M.*ML nomrwr4 a I rU a:c-rar 4 I'ciieral way PAGE�O A wo, 41 http://www.cityoffederalway. comlfolderslhome/businesseconomicdevelopmenticitymaps/... 11 /27/2007 0 O rCo 3 E E O �aaa O �+ L�♦♦ V 3 e e e t i c c c m $ o p m i i% £a O <ci se m mrnRa�u In EIP 70 O J J J J❑ m me }/ /�\ �N Q C U fy/7 j m�o6m THE U—UL j� � !Rf �. Z N 2UNna y IE l ti � tt Joe w J C7 iY OLI �� ^alltL4i8�' c r � " V 419e- L At n k S AV 41. 4 ' g R�eH aUlaed .. Eye �r s�by6 _� € rq 15; �SnlI 1S{, U Cp NnC.gg4 -•� - °`vsPQ M 3H RMilll rn � N S AV 4364 L _ )` O 15 Y o` a tit('" o` r 0 z EXHIB . M'i"4 PAGE_.. f� OF.J A-f fD d N N d o� Q � m C O N N N m.2 off _ m m cow iV c ` o ¢ p a m CC L nt `3 cu L N ^ N C G (U C f0 7 g N C% f0 +r >- N +0 m O O N (p C ,+�_� E m c 8 rn C p E f o m U LL •V E fc6 7 'a N (0 C O U d J co M o 3 tV h Q o m ao�� m c m �r Q� /� CL /� M Q C fn ❑ Ix m U J U Qi "i Co 6 m .H m N � ?i u� p m>LL xm—M= C C OmN m^ a •a o mL E V l ai I i �tALOMm\ mt9Ua93.Tm, hL �r jcj t; + ,` �- ..��` -T C ] �-. C S 3AtlisL - W + N TsL r•. - r a a a e ti� �.f --- �..► a� OR s IB E F J h 1 ` sens Image Map Page Page 1 of 1 City of Federal WayCity = ❑1 Federal Way, 333P5 8th Ave S, Federal Way Critical Areas (253) a83Way, 7000 A 9SOs73 www.d.kiiderai-way.wa.us . 6X IVER •I S d?U#Ia I TW O= 'i L lit RIVER a!7 _ GREE'R gar ijE"] f r ;sa6i11f� I �g, `J T! i• 1214— g2206 sr I .'-1 W r l [ .o i WHILE E RIVES' _ I AI tan Edgew_gW-_ ThiF Map is €itPa ndidfar U4 a a Lopnd: prryeiQI ropr"wUdan ONLY. QSCaI® 112 1 Mlle IttbM CrO* Basin WWw Raw Bosun aCliy al FaCinf w1 rMy nn wa rrarlY�� a c m sli xmsry- �1 Lar,+erGivermlvar Own IN L9ndIYkle Hazard Areas N LDww Pupt Smr4 Sasn @racoon Hazard Arm 0 112 1 Kilon*er MLIICreek l"n wellande Ferf�rrlYlray AM n DAAI rM.11 A MI S MZY. 0110!-1h*M ISUD61491ft10a101ILY-_ f1.i13fA['ir+'ilkla4rRfmVelfEin6arrl EXHIBIT 1>14 PAGE:N-OF http://www. cityoffederalway. com/folders/home/businesseconomicdevelopment/citymaps/... 11 /27/2007 ,1 1 LOAF � 10 : TACO M A SEATTLE Level One Downstream Drainage Analysis PREPARED FOR; Mr. William McCaffrey, AIA The WJM Studio 1911 SW Campus Drive Suite 116 Federal Way, WA 98023-6473 PROJECT.' Mirror Lake Highlands Federal Way, Washington 207555.10 PREPARED BY: Todd C. Sawin, E.I.T. Project Engineer REVIEWED BY. EXHIBIT PAb4--OF]. Matthew, Principal ECEIVE , DEC 2 1 Z007 December 2007 ,,yO`F+��fc;CKRCCAL, WAY �, �Y�i�LOIN© DFF f Civil Engineers • Structural Engineers • Landscape Architects • Community Planners • Land Surveyors • Neighbors Level Z Downstream Drainage Analysis PREPARED FOR; Mr. William McCaffrey, AIA The WIM Studio 1911 SW Campus Drive �- Suite 116 Federal Way, WA 98023-6473 .- aw PXP1RES: 11171 I hereby state that this Level Downstream Drainage Analysis Report for the Mirror Lake Highlands in Federal Way, WA has been prepared by me or under my supervision and meets the standard of care and expertise that is usual and customary in this community for professional engineers. I understand that the City of Federal Way does not and will not assume liability for the sufficiency, suitability, or performance of drainage facilities prepared by me. PROJECT' Mirror Lake Highlands Federal Way, Washington 207555.10 PREPARED BY.' Todd C. Sawin, E.I.T. Project Engineer REVZEVVED BY: 1. Matthew Weber, P.E. Principal ��Z EXHIBIT Dece OA;J�-OF41�- TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE SECTION 1.0 Project Overview.....................................................................................................1 1.1 Pre -Development Conditions..........................................................................1 1.2 Post -Development Conditions.........................................................................2 1.3 Drainage Basins............................................................................................ 2 2.0 Task 1, Study Area Definition and Maps.....................................................................3 3.0 Task 2, Resource Review..........................................................................................3 3.1 Upstream Analysis.........................................................................................4 4.0 Task 3, Field Inspection............................................................................................4 4.1 Existing Site Hydrology..................................................................................4 5.0 Task 4, Drainage System Description and Problem Description ....................................4 6.0 Task 5, Mitigation of Existing or Potential Problems....................................................4 7.0 Conclusion .................................................................................. • ........."""""""'"5 EXHIBIT �'Zo PAGE 3 OF3�_ APPENDICES Appendix Exhibits A-1.......... Off -Site Analysis Drainage System Map & Table A-2.......... KC GIS, Area Study Map A-3 .......... COFW, Zoning Map A-4.......... COFW, Flow Control Applications Map A-5 .......... COFW, Water Quality Applications Map A-6 .......... COFW, Surface Water Trunk Systems Map A-7.......... COFW, Drainage Basins Map A-8.......... COFW, Critical Areas Map A-9.......... COFW, Surface Water Management Projects Map A-10 ........ KC GIS, Aerial & Vicinity Map A-11........ KC GIS, Drainage Complaint Map A-12 ........ Drainage Complaint Table EXHISIT Pa0z PAGE--q_0F_ t'� 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW This Level 1 Downstream Analysis accompanies the Grading, Drainage and Utility Concept Plan and Level One Downstream Analysis for preliminary plat of the Mirror Lake project, located on parcel number 0721049024 in Federal Way, Washington. The parcel proposed to be developed is approximately 1.88 acres in size. The parcel is a portion of the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 7, Township 21 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian. The site is located north of SW 312th Street at 604 SW 312th Street. See Exhibit A-10 for a map of the vicinity. The project is a cottage housing demonstration project consisting of 16 single-family dwelling units. The site is served by 6th Place SW, a private drive connecting to SW 312th Street. The Mirror Lake project proposes to provide half -street frontage improvements to the existing road and dedication of additional land for these improvements. An on -site private road is proposed to provide access to the development. This road will connect to 6th Place SW and extend to the north. Additionally as part of the development, other infrastructure will be extended to serve the site. Sewer, water, power, telephone, and other typical infrastructure will be extended as necessary to provide services to the development. The site is located within Lakehaven Water and Sewer Districts. 1.1 Pre -Development Conditions The site is currently occupied by a single-family residence with the majority of the site being forested. City of Federal Way mapping indicates no sensitive areas including steep slopes or wetlands within the site, but does map areas in the surrounding downstream. The topography of the site is characterized by grades ranging from 5 to 15 percent sloping from north to south. The high point on the site is the northwest corner of the property at an elevation of approximately 375 feet. The property lies within the Dumas Bay Sub -Basin within the Lower Puget Sound Drainage Basin. The site currently drains to the south to catch basins within the SW 312th Street right-of-way. The site is surrounded by existing single-family residences. The site's frontage consists of SW 312th Street along the southern boundary and 6th Place SW along a portion of the western boundary. Currently SW 312th Street right-of-way is developed with a 24-foot paved travel way. 6th Place SW is an existing private road with a 20-foot paved travel way. The project site and surrounding area is zoned "RS7.2" or Single Family Residential with a density of 7,200 square feet per unit. EXHIBIT T' z PAGE_5_0F_?5�_ 1.2 1.3 According to a site soils investigation undertaken by Pacific Geo Engineering, LLC (PGE) in December of 2007, the site is underlain by 5 feet of sandy loam suitable for infiltration. Under this stratum and down to the 9-foot termination of the exploration is dense to very dense glacial till. See the Geotechnical Engineering report generated by PGE submitted under separate cover for site plan review. Post -Development Conditions The project proposes to construct a private access road and pedestrian access facilities to serve 16 single-family dwelling units. The Mirror Lake Highlands project is proposing to include several Low Impact Development (LID) techniques into the plat layout and stormwater design. The following list is a summary of a few of the LID techniques implemented on the current site plan: Reduced impervious surface through the reduction of road length by providing community parking areas and pedestrian access to the units. Pervious pavement systems for select portions of the private road. Infiltrating stormwater runoff to the maximum extent feasible through the use of shallow infiltration basins and trenches. Amending the soils within the shallow infiltration facilities to provide a good growth medium and enhance treatment of stormwater to be infiltrated. Infiltrate stormwater runoff from roof area through the use of individual infiltration trenches for each structure. Additionally as part of the development, other infrastructure will be extended to serve the site. Sewer, water, power, telephone, and other typical infrastructure will be extended as necessary to provide services to the development. The site is located within Lakehaven Water and Sewer Districts. Drainage Basins The site is located north of SW 312th Street and lies within the Dumas Bay Sub -Basin within the Lower Puget Sound Drainage basin. Runoff from the existing site discharges to a ditch on the north side of SW 312th Street. This ditch routes stormwater to the east to an existing culvert located approximately 100 feet east of the site. The culvert connects to a catch basin approximately 40 feet to the east. A storm sewer main continues to the south, crossing under SW 312th Street, and discharging to Mirror Lake. Mirror Lake is approximately a auarter mile across and discharges to an ExHi IT 1�'OPZ PAGE 0F 24- unnamed stream at the southeastern corner. This stream continues to the south for the remaining 'A mile downstream analysis. Per Federal Way mapping, see Appendix A, the site is within a Level Three Flow Control and Basic Water Quality area. The project proposes to infiltrate stormwater on -site and avoid discharging stormwater downstream. Infiltration of stormwater on -site will meet the stormwater level three flow control requirements set forth by the 1998 KC5WDM. The infiltration of stormwater will be at a rate of less than 9 inches per hour as recommended by the geotechnical engineer (see report submitted separately). The site is therefore exempt from basic water quality requirements per Section 1.2.8 of the 1998 KC5WDM. See the Core and Special Requirements Narrative, submitted separately, for further discussion and description of the water quality control concept. 2.0 TASK 1, STUDY AREA DEFINITION AND MAPS For the purpose of Task 2 below, the study area extends downstream over 1/4mile; the upstream area extends north to the limits of the Dumas Bay Sub -Basin just north of SW 308th Street. For the purposes of Tasks 3, 4, and 5, the study area extends downstream '/a mile from the discharge location of the site. The study area is defined and mapped as required by the KC5WDM and as amended by the City of Federal Way (see Appendix for various area -specific mapping). As mentioned above, existing site drainage is proposed to be infiltrated on -site. Connection to the downstream project site is intended to be provided for the purpose of an overflow only. 3.0 TASK 2, RESOURCE REVIEW Aerial and topographic maps of the surrounding area are provided from the King County GIS mapping system (see Appendix, Exhibits A-1 and A-10). According to the topographic information and after review of other King County map layers and City of Federal Way, Critical Area maps available, there do not appear to be any flooding concerns on -site or within the downstream system. There do appear to be sensitive areas surrounding Mirror Lake within the projects downstream. By infiltrating stormwater on - site, the project should have no impact on these sensitive areas. Review of the drainage complaints for neighboring properties showed a number of closed complaints within the project vicinity (See Appendix, Exhibit A-11). Review of these complaints showed the most recent to be from November 1990. Based on the storm events encountered in the winters of 1996, 1999, and 2006 and noting that no complaints were filed during these events and the fact that no open drainage complaintg exist, it should be noted that no downstream problems are anticipated. EXHIBIT Poox PAGE_ -?-'OF_ l _ 3.1 Upstream Analysis Upstream drainage is collected and conveyed around the project site via underground conveyance systems extending from the SW 3121h Street system. Some drainage from- adjacent properties sheet flows onto the project site from the west. This area is currently landscaped and is less than a quarter of an acre. This area currently infiltrates on -site but during the extreme event could discharge to the project site. This project proposes to infiltrate on -site or bypass these areas to the downstream conveyance system. 4.0 TASK 3, FIELD INSPECTION 4.1 Existing Site Hydrology A field inspection and a downstream analysis were performed on December 18, 2007, by AHBL staff. Assumptions made from the topographic map, as well as city -owned facility mapping, regarding the drainage patterns on -site and downstream were confirmed during the site visit. Conditions at the time of the investigation were rainy. 5.0 TASK 41, DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND PROBLEM DESCRIPTION No drainage problems, including overtopping of structures pertaining to the downstream system, were detected during this investigation. Some ponding was observed in the ditch to the west of the site and within the catch basin at the intersection of SW 312th Street and 6th Place SW; however, this catch basin was not overtopping and was still accepting water from the ditch and road. Drainage capacity was probably diminished due to debris clogging the catch basin itself, although with the standing water, the problem could not be observed. No other areas of ponding or flooding were observed in the conveyance system, Mirror Lake, or the unnamed stream at the Mirror Lake discharge. See downstream drainage table and maps of Exhibit A-1 for a tabulated analysis of the downstream corridor. 6.0 TASK 5, MITIGATION OF EXISTING OR POTENTIAL PROBLEMS The project is expected to create no additional drainage problems downstream. The existing drainage system SW 312th Street is considered suitable conveyance system to serve as an overflow from the proposed system With adequate capacity and will meet the objectives of safety, function, appearance, environmental protection, and maintainability based on sound engineering judgment. PAGE�OF� 7.0 CONCLUSION The on -site water quality and infiltration facilities for the Mirror Lake Highlands Project will be designed to meet 1998 KCSWDM guidelines for stormwater management. Water quantity control (level three flow control) is provided by on -site infiltration facilities. Due to low on -site infiltration rates, observed by the geotechnical engineer, the project is exempt from water quality requirements. No downstream problems were observed or are anticipated. This analysis is based on data and records either supplied to, or obtained by, AHBL. These documents are referenced within the text of the analysis. The analysis has been prepared utilizing procedures and practices within the standard accepted practices of the industry. We conclude that this project, as schematically represented will not create any new problems within the downstream drainage system. This project will not noticeably aggravate any existing downstream problems due to either water quality or quantity. AHBL, Inc. � Todd C. Sawin, E.I.T. Project Engineer TCS/lah December 2007 Q:\2007\207555\W ORDPROC\REPORTS\20071221_Rpt_LevelOneDSA_207555.doc EXHIRlT� PAGE-1-OF APPENDIX A Exhibits A-1 Off -Site Analysis Drainage System Map & Table A-2 KC GIS, Area Study Map A-3 COFW, Zoning Map A-4 COFW, Flow Control Applications Map A-5 COFW, Water Quality Applications Map A-6 COFW, Surface Water Trunk Systems Map A-7 COFW, Drainage Basins Map A-8 COFW, Critical Areas Map A-9 COFW, Surface Water Management Projects Map A-10 KC GIS, Aerial & Vicinity Map A-11 KC GIS, Drainage Complaint Map A-12 Drainage Complaint Table EXHlSlT PAGE 10 -On IF: a MIRROR LAKE St1 r' S �KD ST � N SW YARD ST S1V 31:T14 ST n' S 303TH ST S1V 3{15fFi ST �r S 304TU-PL^ sTSi saasTt{ sr R� 141 - sw awpl ST M l � ., .� �� ► — u ¢ ems} 4 Sr4 NMI ST S7=3.TITi! ST a SW 30t1Tr+ ST { S 309TH ST r� y�C r SO) 310Tp I ST S 309TFf ST SW 311TH ST, 0/10 SW 3t2f f1 Sr � _ r-IfJ ` a . s s:zrH Sr .. n MIf3'3Tffcr Federal Way Stiv3f3Tr+sr 3 r� w sw 314TH PL S 3147H K l � } S�4 31"1 Pd T y S31STH1h / x S319TFi# S1V 317TiFf Sf �c� � � aV � rn fi � $ �� 2 f S 317Tr1 PL S 317TH Sf o 3ifl7 y"?L _swH vI ,j 3t� SNV 319Tfl LN . r {r A & S 31641 P'L o a. lit rs f 2+iI} W StV i x 1 Si4 32fFTFf l7l � - } 51V 3�{'j'}{ PL I ' . tit P � i SW321STST � Fi s,V 2?-TH ST EXHIU31T 7 � EJUF t't The infomiagon Included on ttils map has Even oomplled by Klrtrtgg County etafT from a varlattyy of souses and is subject to change wltheul notice, King Courtly ma s no n9pro""' Bons or waRantiea, a xprass or Impl�ad, as to aocunscy, Cen1r11B{erfe46, f1mBllnaa4, al �jghta Io the use of such infonrnallon- 7311a document is not intanOd for use as a survay produd. Vtln Coun shall np! he Ilable for any general, 8pll t fndlrecl, inddanlal, or consequentialdamages LQ shis map or in[dorrr efloen this map fs pmhl lhl ed exceept by is sal iron nu n �lnusa of the nfarmallon eonls[ ea an thls rrep. Rny ea19 ui King County Poo V d � irrM pA OA S's Q C z N H z W W �a zi O L1Q �U v� � �J w z x Q � �1 W ta Q. _2. E +� % co V 0 2 .E_ a o__� w N ° ❑ p pry � 47 e m p o C- r 6. ° ° L m to ❑ Lv G cc 0 0' �-�E C 0 .. p RO E E g' c G - -n G � m ro � °' doom y1 DoNt a a Y� •��p Z 7 C CAI O O 1 a oa ra ' �p 6.�d g 2 E a go-0� 2 0 °me E � 1 Q C K 0 O H Y � C mo 'm is E �'a � �+ ru L fit. O m -(D W t� o IA b T p Ia m 13? p�` ent i•nm rE 1O +• -6 D Q 2 T y u dcL FGGEI!N �y y O ALL Pate UP Z A-� MIRROR LAKE 1 �j Sslj 'WtR a, n Sw MAD ST N •..T,�+Q'' F- a 4 u1 SW 3UTr I ST �' F V S%v 3UT1I sT is Z3 SAP 33CTH ST N7 S.is n r -%V XUR ST sal acts, H sr 'y SrV 39M" ST 3Y4 :53iTH ST CG �r SiV 3 fjSr S 31lTi! ST SN 3tpTrl 57 "- � ¢' Sw a10TH sf 5 SAY 211TH 9T, ter] skrv3'.•rrHSl ::ZCH �•f zj Mirror Uti,,e :aw 313TH CT t Federal Way n �' Sw 31—T,1 a 4 rn y 3147F1 FL j SrV 31fiTH ac. I —r' q�� I rn S 316T1 t F 51v a1�Ti, ST�t r5\ 4 4 5317T►t � Svi 3fa'Cli $T ti SN 31yTH PL l 6� yW P1 13 `4 � SaV 3r3itl = ij211E?LHSw .mzi r H s r a S{V 3MH PL. j• } Sw limni PL T- a. V L 7 r S5VVIST5T w "� 3zm 57 n r ,` S1Y3�Tfl15T EXHIBI� x r R PA �Ej flF9. c: axe<�>a�,• ��y �'37 � ��srt The information Included on thle map has been oompllod by K!n� County Staff horn a vanety of sourras and Is subjeCt So change wllnplrl notice. ISMg Cotmly makes no rapresentationa w warranhea, alrp oaa of Imptlad, as to aowracy, camp e[onoss, timeliness. or rights to the uoa of such information. This dowment is no iS nlBnded for um as a survey product Xing County shall not be 4ab!e for any panotal, sped al, !nd!tacl, Inddental, or consequentin! k � County damagas indud!ng, but no Ilmhe'd Or loft' ra+eemuoa or fast prof [s rasul log from the use or rn15V5e or the InfammUon conlalnud on this map. Any aaie o1 King this reap a information an thl$ map Is prohibited except by wntlen psrmt�lon of King County r7twt I O� Z f� MIRROR LADE Legend *-f County Boundary 111y'nasp Contours 15ft light) Pafcefs Drainage Studies Lakesand Lange Rivers ® Neighborhood Drainage Projac•ls S'trearrr<. Regional Stonmaier Facilities i `_ Drainage Complaints � A Residential Stormwater Facililias Landsiide Hazards A Commercial Stormwater Facilities �.wO ide lamwd Rig hways L'd0lIde .i la.ard O, .crw:p Incorporated Area Via tor CAuafity Streets Ba—,aW ,.a-Tree-rwrt (co ni) " (Cant) S!,-mt,.y_, -R-L Treafttsrt rj E,63g 0 4 wge i+rrm Flow Go n [To ■ �,rac rlcrx ��afiu exHiBrr TP'2 PAGE -&-OF Z The lnfomiatlon Included un this map has Kenn compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and Is sub}ecl to diarip without notioa. King Ceunllyy makes no re ntations or warranties, express or impl led. as to accuracy, comptetanoss, ilmatinew. or rights 10 the use of such infomtatibn. Ttus docurrk nt is no t intended for use as a survey product. King County strsll not be liable for any general, =al. indirect, mddental, ar conaaquerift W adamages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profile resulting from the use or misuse of Iho mfpr nation contained on Ihis map. Any Sale of King County this map or information on Qde map Is prohibited except by written permisslon of King County. Dale: 12/14/2007 Source: rung County IMAP - Slonnwater fhiip:1rvrww.maudkc.gdv1GISAMAP) Map 33 V 0 N LIL M M iu $eg;sI $q I @E a rXH u� �� 4PgL'rd5e o�•e;a3 vy�i m a ' 8 d ci � t ^ rR f{a�1 r9i 'x 1 ;psi ••• 3g qa n� {a ay' �yy saTam _� ¢zn[y��gi+> �.�B�S. A° . N 8 ° E$ "i 1 �y 1 E1g$€o,➢r�B p1p■1 E: ,T a°9 Z. a 9 a Sy L.i T�i - `@ �s E rn$ x ¢ �6 8 8 3��u�mac�''u�8000ae- �af_ee=o c43 @<sz� €R �, ra 5§g m�oIusaoaeeea�s 2a �e e. xCi. :,.._�... 11 s € #€ As WHIR � g �I EF nF :EI s BI x E r �1 �! iF RF e" nr If nA IF 66F qi A AI aA �A aAA1 nV ISR Tom_ s nY iSl s naisi JT ji e. E[ n i, g 1 1 - �• A A 1 R ! S �' �R ! R I A I, '" �F yi iF AI AF /I IF IF AA AA if �e I hN ONE' MSM1l o.z " R �+ �YL`AVSVI 1 �i NA 9F �"If 11 [jj M +Ay .l¢aK: �IT if if it �F 1 Ai m M fop Av sv, Jns nr aec 1 1 F f" m �■"" 111 @" y�R AA AI R1 3 1= wi 8A a1 A�11 @ YA EI if @F ¢�i �A J1 I � .xsern:o S�J' ksn:the i1 jA yA ki lv a " r- " i a if 11 !A j Ir @I " H if 1 t, IA 11 `I i A r1 @ !I 11 1 i EF StN µ'M1n I ot;[av s'H 9 S aA A i i1 ! MY•Il ur °; r` B1Y [ Ai 1i rl I!N IA 11 [ f 1 If N H . it 5 r- [ A is 1 SAV1SI $ �fl if !_ 9 3 a / II cn T, it AA it IA 1 # !" 3 1 it ' BF IF ii IF F SA [ ;A iA 1 'ol @ hS.t:•N4 9" MS hC H1 J ^ 4 ' i1}NIA �I k II y j1/ + j ' EI zl @! el e `F 3 Ni� !F F iF" kA ; eA iFI i fF + �A 1"1 I g FF (A PA; it 1 -1 i1 FI ..- .'...[ FIB AV 111A �t MS Ad Hltl M_ nr Ism �e .� 3m a 3$@ gLnan� Smm3�n r_ 2 yy 1! 31.� 6 1 A-3 0 Q w •V O 3aQa .>� O CL M U LL u. Q c >4 N N � � Q � Q � i m •L U � m m U U U m� dcyRrpH 2a 22 10 U fn J J J J C]r� 8S W O mCm J I Za m foaLL �a� , �me t �r ey 1 S ^V LaaLj, y � arR I �un�d adoy 1_� ,.�� .rc•G! gar.-•� m �T�a{� - - ._ _- �_ •7 rf IN f. r OAS AN XAA; i F H S ey s /J r r. � fr' • h i S•i�t �r A-y A -� N ; 0 C a. m U N U ^ g coCDm N 5 d N M 0- d „ C T E 10 SCo W CD � 10 T 4 N m A t R •fA }� w+ w T U N cu m N N a) V! � W cow X O 00 cc � N U a) p) °' m aa)i wLL e ' T C M L N o �� x W � A� ^ LL a)W V i c0 Q 'a� R O E m a if) o L .- N 0 m ° m a) m T39 c 75n o i ii a C9�r-(D C.) LL E� Q ZEov c/)o N`o U U Cl) U J ` E .�e \ZI zFE A —6 -� drain Image Map Page Page 1 of 1 City' of Federal �Illay Federal Way gym° of Federal Ave Way, 5 8I�,p,VS, Federal Way, WA 98OD3 Drainage Basins { www.a; � °°w 9wo'us Des Kent Moiny ; f• LOWER sai n i -i ' GREEN •' ► � RIVER Faderal wayrx c a LOWER ' PUGEr 11 SOUND HAEBOS CREEK Tom= _�aegv, f;L t3►HIM AIVER \ �..-• 1 0 - 'f II v y e i�sam�n Milton Edgewopd^ ih6 m* is hounded for uw as a Lopno +pNtal rq�rzrnkdoei ONLY, i Sole: 5 0 112 1 Mile Q }iy�ta9 Crpgk � MiY �roYfs ThsCI Y a! Fe3erd MY moat nuvr+mudYacforha�a�_ n Q E3 :�hlm Fuvsr Fedora I way 0 112 1 KilonwAer _. f i0nhr i'V95t5G1JF1 Nab: Basins in*" FCour4y arenatsham :t.fucnr: rekrairrnrneYdrur.nm EXHIBIT P`a- PAGE�OF Z �-7 http://www.cityoffederalway.com/folders/home/businesseconomicdevelopment/citymaps/... 12/ 14/2007 sens Image Map Page Page 1 of 1 Federal WayCoy of 3=581h Aveeral Way, City of 3332581h Ave s, Federal Way Critical Areas Federal3Way, 0 A aea� www.d. €edera€-way-wa.us Kent n Page! E LOWER Sat�Rf1 � J GREEN - RIVER a +� MILL K � 2SKM er i S� DDS�Of l..'inu • � FliGh]r $iv:., l,eha • l:nkd i . � r -r �\ LOWERPUGET to 1"Lmh $OUA1U _ aw ,_,rf � IV r ` t tl�rkk f HYLEBOS CREEK Tacoma 3, WHITE RIVER l�. f i»dgew ��^d: �trhis maP ire�Imondalirx UN ac a scale, Tha ysdFerchMWaymudan mans Q 112 1 Mile i•tjnvksCrook Basin Whim Riker Basin aavnrr�scsa,ux�ro� Wow Crean River Bw Land0de Hazard Arew N WAw Pw9vtSwrd Bauer Erppon Hazard Arnim Fsdml Way D 112 1 K 0MIer VAN Creek Basin VIowma AG:krn ii GC u:xi AT= MFY mr.- [hu mx n n5 m:urrin[ cr x 1: �_::*v:11,1uwr�lntikra+gr[mnn[r6md u.f PAGE 20 O 44 http://www.cityoffederalway. com/foldersihome/businesseconomicdevelopment/citymaps/... 12/ 14/2007 Page 1 of 1 r] City of Surface Water Federal Way Management Projects Project Key: Past Construction Project Present Construction Project Future Construction Project U Past Study Project LOWER PUGET SOl1NOSA5lk Present Study Project Map. 7aaa .Irma =L, Caj nl Farwal'Mr 55525 &h Ave S. Facpal Way, WA9W..C's k253} eCIS-'000 w,w hlytlradtlitlhrtrf Garrr 'ST7�nlISbS•. r _ � GREEN IIIVER 2 .,.. J� SA51N 41. [ f i MULL ppsil,Q � "h 'eh 11 l' 1CRftix 2 lr . 5W Ca 14 1-cV( r ., �- Leowd H-lebos Greek Drainage Basin—Slreems Lower Green River DrainacRa Basin sulrlar* vgaier 0 0.25 {1.5 3 N Lower Puget Ord Drainage Bast' Wetlands- PAII Greek Drainage Basin pl+l�es Plrte Onry clralnapd hdalns in I Aclaral Wag ar9 sl-mi 7tu.a map is aocornpanied by BO,,%wmnues. 1► Federal Way FXHlBtT� PAGE L( ��_ L _ A -q http: //www. cityoffederalway. com/folders/home/yourcityservi ces/surfacewaterwaterqual it... 12/ 14/2007 ! -' o MIRROR LAKE #r�NPINk t' 'l"~rz vR rABGE Sw3)�Tyt s ;I I 4Y r'i' SrU 3?W44 ST C �1 7 . • S14 W7rif &T SW 3�irrl ST u1 w S � A die n SYV 10"if ST S 333TI1 ST La t ry S%v UT i I I sr SW 311TWCT Si4311T51Si ,I SW 3'.z[H-Sr F v _ —I I S1Y.31CMST ' &V 313re4oT 1411rr:3r Lake 1 �� i 1 .,• y . G 0574 maTH PL N } . Federal Way r�1 . . Shv 31&TIi ST S1v 31 _ PL - 5315ris 5T 51V 316irl Sri S 318i-ti PL S1V 317TH ST t� p c 4 ~ SL'fap®Tr{3T V sy 5,35'j(11p1. tj Nr Ssy .s 3zxHsr 2 Siv VOT14 PL X �� y T - SW 321ST SF x �r vj,?o gr 5w 32wo S, my amf sr PAGE 5fy .,Nvan ► PL 53�m1 w D rfy ;C; 2}75rG r Curr.{ 4 TFrY fnfgrmallon fnduded qn SNs mep has treen oompEEed by fiEn� CounSy eteR from a rdriaty of saurcea and is su17J0C! Id Chango """'Ut noEEte. King CamSy makoc nv re n1aElgns d wamant}es, axprgsa or implied, 8S W alkilrpy, tprirpfpl�np5y, tirrlelines$, of dAj]iS ip llrq USe of StiCt1 IniprmsllOR. This document I9 n Inlendad !or use as a survey product Kin Cqunty dlall not be Gagle [qr arry general, special, IndErect, InGdgnWi, 4r Cans9quentlal gny King County LQ Uase: 12f7df2o07 5dufea: King County 1E1d14P • 5tarmNrBtgr(hlfpJlwwrineftoke.Su�'rGlSfrhiApy F4` roF z A _ 11 Selected Features 4 County Boundary ;P 1 Contours (sit light) l it4r3;`�i;1U30 Drainage Studies ■ Neighborhood Drainage Projecls Regional 5tarmrvater Facilities A Residential St>,mmater Facilities Commercial Starmevater Facilities Highways Incorporated area Streets n' (c�nt1 MIRROR LADE Legend Pa rce is ❑ Lakesand Large Riv)ors } Streams t;�: ��i j Drainage Complaints Landslide Hazards Water auably•' 3=a :: %Va .- Oxti ty Trcft-ii ✓t Flout Controrl (cant) © L3- MG Flcrx C6-IYd EXHIBIT 4�2 PAGEZY OF ZS The Infomtallan indaded on this map has been compiled by tang County otall from a Variety of edurCeS and is subject to change w!thout n01E . King County makes no ropresontaGons or warranties, express or implied, an to accuracy, campinfeness, Umollnara, or gghls to tha use of such infdmwlion. This document is not intended for use as a survey product Kingg County shell not be liable for any general, special. Wiled, inckknWl, or consequential L 'damages Including, but not limped lo, lost revenues or lost pr ) tW rosultlng from the usa or misuse of the Wou ratan contained on Shia map. Any mete or King County this map or jomtaUort on Iht5 map Ls prohiblWd except by written parml Won of King County. Date:1211412007 Source: long County WAP - Stomnvater (htip./Mrww.mouvkc.gavlDISnMAP) PA6F- ZoF Z - if Drainage Complaints Co Rec npllaint Problem Type Recd Date Close Date Address PIN Comments 1 1981-0153 FLDG C 10/5/1981 10/5/1981 539 SW 317T HPL 7450800140 F/W AREA O 2 1985-0224 FLDG E 2/15/1985 10/15/1985 SW 1010 316 TH PI 5557300260 3 3 1985-0317 FLDG I.0 3/13/1985 4/22/1985 SW 843 317T 555731038C 4 1986-0630 FILL C 6/18/1986 11/4/1986 SW 1007 317 5557300090 IN EASEME 5 1987-0883 DRNG C 8/13/1987 8/28/1987 418 SW 316T 5559200220 S END OF M © H ST URRAY LK 8 6 1987-0931 1 FILL C 9/8/1987 9/1911 887 31808 10TH 5557300040 IN SWAMP/S PL SW TOP WORK 7 1987-0932 DRNG C 9/8/1987 9/19/1987 31809 10TH 5557300440 EASEMENT PL SW FILL 87- $ 1987-0964 DRNG C 9/18/1987 10/8/1987 SW 1002 314 5560500140 HOLDING P TH PL OND FLOOD S/CONSTUC 9 1988-0162 FLDG C 3/15/1988 3118/198E 31731 10TH 5557300420 SEE 87- /� PL SW 0179 HOUSE v N/SNIVLEY/F 10 1988-0452 DRNG C 6/21/1988 6/1/1988 31418 7TH P 5559200135 SEE 87- /�1 L SW 0861/SW 316 TH ST/MIRR 11 1989-0222 FILL C 4/4/198 5/5/1989 SW 105 312T 5557800160 WANTS TO �I H PL FILL DEPRE 12 1990-0690 FALLTREE CL 2/27/1991 5/1711991 SW 1115 311 5259800450 CL#12914 F TH CT ALLING THE E DAMAGED 13 1990-0761 DRNG C 3/16/1990 5/14/199C 31432 8TH P 5560500390 FILLING OF 33 LACE SW DEPRESSIO 14 1990-1468 DRNG C 11/15/1990 12/8/1990 31832 10TH 5557300015 ROAD SINKI 6? PL SW NG/WET BA EXP16-1ifBIT PAGE 2S OF January 2, 2008 Mr. William McCaffrey, AIA The WJM Studio 1911 SW Camus Drive, Suite 116 Federal Way, WA 98023-6473 Project: Mirror Lake Highlands, Our File No. 207555.10 Subject: Preliminary TIR Addendum — Appendix B Dear Mr. McCaffrey: In order to clarify the stormwater facilities shown on the Mirror Lake Highlands Preliminary Plat, we are providing preliminary sizing calculations as an addendum to the Preliminary Technical Information Report (TIR). Although preliminary calculations are not required as part of the preliminary plat submittal for Federal Way, these calculations illustrate the functionality of the Low Impact Development (LID) Best Management Practices (BMP) proposed for the project site. The BMPs utilized as part of the preliminary plat submittal will be evaluated during final design; the location and use of each LID BMP may be altered in order to provide a better functioning system. Detailed calculations of each facility will be included with the final design. These calculations also include assumptions made for the sizing of LID BMPs because the City's current manual, the 1998 King County Surface Water Manual, does not discuss the sizing or use of LID techniques. As previously discussed with the City, the sizing of LID features will be in accordance with the 2005 King County Surface Water Manual, the ZOOS Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, and the L I act Develo ment• Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound. ow mp p The materials to be added to the Preliminary TIR as Appendix B are encloiQ& If you have any questions, please call me at (253) 383-2422. O 1 Sincerely, Todd C. Sawin, EIT Project Engineer TCS%Isk Enclosures c: Matt Weber, AHBL Q:\2007\207555\W ORDPROC\LETTERS\20080102_Ltr_(PreTIRAdden)_207555.10.doc NAL 1�r J I Z-1VV EXPIRES; 111-71 d9 VF"X;1 !lTTE J A N 0 9 2008 Civil Engineers Structural Engineer Landscape Archiiec Community Plannei Land Surveyors Neighbors TACOMA 2215 North 30th Street Suite 300 Tacoma, WA 98403-3350 253 383 2422 TEL 253.383.2572 rax 0 7 ®1®6 8 7 4 01-rY OF FEDERAL WAY www.ahbl.com BUILDING ❑EPT. ENO", ► 1110 B-1................... Drainage Basin Map B-2.................. Infiltration Rate Calculation B-3 — B-9......... KCRTS Roof Infiltration Printout B-10................ Roof Infiltration Trench Detail B-11................ Pervious Pavement Detail B-12................ Infiltration Facilities Summary B-13................ Tract 'X' Infiltration Trench Detail B-14 — B-28..... KCRTS Infiltration Facilities Printout B-29 — B-34..... KCRTS Site Flow Control Printout J EXHIBIT P-03 PAGE L 0F 37 tl'111x Id»BPj'CdUVC099V91H901'U—Sl'wd9CIf E LooZ/9ZIZ1•dew w,se9'BMP.._.nBy al11s1191x310V 1�o11S59loilGooilO Project 14,Reop- LAbG Project No. Zo7sSS fD Subject 1AF&7'AA71WJ Phone W ithf7o Fax # Address Date. Z z6 cJ # Faxed Pages By ❑ Page of Calculations ❑ Fax ❑ Memorandum ❑ Meeting Minutes ❑ Telephone Memo • I N F XT2 TIoN T ST /N6 P QE FbRMF_D BY Q40</C. GEo BWANEERIN b PePoAT PATbD DEz-EHr3EQ Zo, W02 • FP14 F,4[c.lN6 HOAP PER X g4 R/G/rY TEs r PF0 FOAANC-D �1ON M MAF TEST ICI T' DEPT+i I I NI=/l-1 eADloN -/,r:ST j2Esr l-r j DE5161V 1 NF11-T Civil Engineers Structural Engineers Landscape Architects Community Planners 1�/NQ I' ga INj ��/ ,,)and Surveyors Z.CFr 1 VVeighbors f-/p -Z 0,0 r=l 6 /NANIe MIN�NJ 2.O Fi 1.69 "Arne �Dl:Sl�hi r INE,stRAC—D X rlreSVA/b X �Fw+EAy X Fpu�6G11�� CS-qr lygg,�Gs�D1K) Lofic-2E FTB- 1, (- = ©•-?o F i?- 1'HE JFPA TFsT o %o Fog 6aw4 ' af..7 toFJ5' = Y [3] 3 -l-o.o� �j 1.0 Cox) Fbgo►t�r�Y - D = DOPFN Te� CCO QP_ 11uPFe)APAW c,9 s W)p; N of FA4LLTY r 3� THrASILC-P - TFsr'RP !NA/LTJ4ATro1`1 RATE t DFS/6N PE5161V /1VF1z-7"REi l iot4 AATF ❑ TACOMA 2215 N. 30th St. Suite 300 Tacoma, WA 98403-3305 EXI B IT ; 253.383.2422 PAGE��GF-�3832572 FAX ❑ SEATTLE 120.0 6th Avenue Suite 1620 Seattle, WA -� 98101.3123 206.267.2425 If this does not meet with your understanding, please contact us in writing within seven days. THANK YOU. 206.267.2429 FAX MIRROR LAKE 207555.10 ROOF INFILTRATION TRENCH 1000 SF ROOF AREA MODELED Are a ------ TiII.Forest 0-00 acres Till Pasture 0.00 acres' Till Grassi 0.00 acres= Outwash Forest! i 0.00 acres; 0utwash Pasture 0.00 acres° Outwash Grassi Wetland( Impervious 0.00 acres`. k 0.00 acres: 0.02 acres Total --- 0.02 acres Scale Factor: 1.01 Hourly Reduced TCS 11/28/07 Time Series: I1000SF ROOF AREA I>>I Compute Time Series Modify User Input -- - File for computed Time Series [.TSF[ -^ ExHjEOF-10- P 3 J PAGE MIRROR LAKE TCS 207555.10 11/28/07 TEST PIT 1 AREA INFILTERATION RATE 1.89 IN/HR = 31.7 MIN/IN INFILTRATION TRENCH 2' WIDE AND 30% VOIDS IN GRAVEL Saving Retention/Detention Facility File:AREA l.rdf Starting Documentation Filt:Q:\2007\207555\10_CIV\NON-CAD\CALCSStor3n\Roof area Time Series Found in Memory:1000sf roof area.tsf Edit Complete Retention/Detention Facility Design Route Time Series through Facility Time Series Found in Memory:1000sf roof area.tsf Reservoir Routing [R/D Facility] Years Complete: 8 Inflow/Outflow Analysis Peak Inflow Discharge: 0.011 CFS at 6 00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Peak Outflow Discharge: 0.000 CFS at 9 00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Peak Reservoir Stage: 1.60 Ft Peak Reservoir Elev: 1.50 Ft Peak Reservoir Storage: 60. Cu-Ft 0.001 Ac-Ft Storing Time Series File:rdout.tsf 8 Frequencies & Peaks saved to File:rdout pks DownStream Analysis Complete Retention/Detention Facility Design v { r ? _- Retention Facility Type of Facility: Gravel Infiltration Trench Facility Length: 66.72 ft Facility Width: 2.00 ft Facility Area: 133. sq. ft Effective Storage Depth: 1.50 ft Stage 0 Elevation: 0.00 ft Storage Volume: 60. cu. ft Vertical Permeability: 31.70 min/in Permeable Surfaces: Bottom Riser Head: 1.50 ft Riser Diameter: 12.00 inches Top Notch Weir: None Outflow Rating Curve: None Stage Elevation Storage Discharge Percolation (ft) (ft) (cu. ft) (ac-ft) (cfs) (cfs) 0.00 0.00 0. 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.06 0.06 2. 0.000 0.000 0.01 0.14 0.14 6. 0.000 0.000 0.01 0.21 0.21 8. 0.000 0.000 9XHISIT ��0.29 0.29 12. 0.000 0.000 -- trJ 0.36 0.36 14. 0.000 0.000 PARE 0.44 0.44 18. 0.000 0.000 -le-OF-33� MIRROR LAKE 207555.10 y 0.51 0.51 20. 0.000 0.000 0.01 0.59 0.59 24. 0.001 0.000 0.01 0.66 0.66 26. 0.001 0.000 0.01 0.74 0.74 30. 0.001 0.000 0.01 0.81 0.81 32. 0.001 0.000 0.01 0.89 0.89 36. 0.001 0.000 0.01 0.96 0.96 38. 0.001 0.000 0.01 1.04 1.04 42. 0.001 0.000 0.01 1.11 1.11 44. 0.001 0.000 0.01 1.19 1.19 48. 0.001 0.000 0.01 1.26 1.26 50. 0.001 0.000 0.01 1.34 1.34 54. 0.001 0.000 0.01 1.41 1.41 56. 0.001 0.000 0.01 1.49 1.49 60. 0.001 0.000 0.01 1.50 1.50 60. 0.001 0.000 0.01 Hyd Inflow Outflow Peak Storage Target Calc Stage Elev (Cu-Ft) (Ac-Ft) 1 0.01 0.00 0.00 1.50 1.50 60. 0.001 2 0.01 ******* 0.00 0.27 0.27 11. 0.000 3 0,01 ******* 0.00 0.16 0.16 7. 0.000 4 0.01 ******* 0.00 0.14 0.14 5. 0.000 5 0.01 ******* 0.00 0.06 0.06 2. 0.000 6 0.01 ******* 0.00 0.05 0.05 2. 0.000 7 0.01 ******* 0.00 0.05 0.05 2. 0.000 8 0.01 ******* 0.00 0.04 0.04 2. 0.000 ---------------------------------- Route Time Series through Facility Inflow Time Series File:1000sf roof area.tsf Outflow Time Series File:rdout.tsf Inflow/Outflow Analysis Peak Inflow Discharge: 0.011 CFS at Peak Outflow Discharge: 0.000 CFS at Peak Reservoir Stage: 1.50 Ft Peak Reservoir Elev: 1.50 Ft Peak Reservoir Storage: 60. Cu-Ft 0.001 Ac-Ft Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:rdout.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates --- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 0.000 6 2/09/01 3:00 0.000 8 1/05/02 16:00 0.000 4 12/08/02 19:00 0.000 7 8/26/04 2:00 0.000 3 10/28/04 18:00 0.000 5 1/18/06 13:00 0.000 2 10/26/06 1:00 0.000 1 1/09/08 9:00 Computed Peaks TCS 11/28/07 6:00 on Jan 9 in Year.8 9:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) (ft) Period 0.000 1.50 1 100.00 0.990 0.000 0.26 2 25.00 0.960 0.000 0.16 3 10.00 0.900 0.000 0.14 4 5.00 0.800 0.000 0.06 5 3.00 0.667 0.000 0.05 6 2.00 0.500 0.000 0.05 7 1.30 0.231 0.000 0.04 8 1.10 0.091 0.000 1.09 50.00 0.980 EXH1B1T •3 PAGE_-'OL-OF..�.. MIRROR LAKE 207555.10 TEST PIT 2 AREA INFILTERATION RATE 1.26 IN/HR = 47.6 MIN/IN INFILTRATION TRENCH 2' WIDE AND 30% VOIDS IN GRAVEL Saving Retention/Detention Facility File:AREA 2.rdf Starting Documentation File: Q:,2007\207555\10 CIB\HON CAD\CAICS\Storm\Roof area Time Series Found in Hemory:1000sf roof area tsf Edit Complete Retention/Detention Facility Design ------------------------------------- Retention/Detention Facility Design Route Time Series through Facility TCS 11/28/07 Time Series Found in Hemory:1000sf roof area.tsf Reservoir Routing [R/D Facility] Years Complete: 8 Inflow/Outflow Analysis Peak Inflow Discharge: 0.011 CFS at 6:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Peak Outflow Discharge: 0.000 CFS at 10:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Peak Reservoir Stage: 1.50 Ft Peak Reservoir Elev: 1.50 Ft j Peak Reservoir Storage: 82. Cu-Ft j 0.002 Ac-Ft i Storing Time Series File:rdout.tsf 8 Frequencies & Peaks saved to File:rdout.pks DownStream Analysis Complete +i t > Retention/Detention Facility Type of Facility: Gravel Infiltration Trench Facility Length: 90.61 ft Facility Width: 2.00 ft Facility Area: 181. sq. ft Effective Storage Depth: 1.50 ft Stage 0 Elevation: 0.00 ft Storage volume: 82. cu. ft Vertical Permeability: 47.60 min/in Permeable Surfaces: Bottom Riser Head: 1.50 ft Riser Diameter: 12.00 inches Top Notch Weir: None Outflow Rating Curve: None Stage Elevation Storage Discharge (ft) (ft) (cu. ft) (ac-ft) (cfs) 0.00 0.00 0. 0.000 0.000 0.06 0.06 3. 0.000 0.000 0.14 0.14 8. 0.000 0.000 0.21 0.21 11. 0.000 0.000 0.29 0.29 16. 0.000 0.000 Percolation (cfs) 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 EXHIBIT_ R * 3-- PAGE__6,0,-OF-3-'L y �3 MIRROR LAKE TCS 207555.10 11/28/07 0.36 0.36 20. 0.000 0.000 0.01 0.44 0.44 24. 0.001 0.000 0.01 0.51 0.51 28. 0.001 0.000 0.01 0.59 0.59 32. 0.001 0.000 0.01 0.66 0.66 36. 0.001 0.000 0.01 0.74 0.74 40. 0.001 0.000 0.01 0.81 0.81 44. 0.001 0.000 0.01 0.89 0.89 .48. 0.001 0.000 0.01 0.96 0.96 52. 0.001 0.000 0.01 1.04 1.04 57. 0.001 0.000 0.01 1.11 1.11 60. 0.001 0.000 0.01 1.19 1.19 65. 0.001 0.000 0.01 1.26 1.26 69. 0.002 0.000 0.01 1.34 1.34 73. 0.002 0.000 0.01 1.41 1.41 77. 0.002 0.000 0.01 1.49 1.49 81. 0.002 0.000 0.01 1.50 1.50 82. 0.002 0.000 0.01 Hyd Inflow Outflow Peak Storage Target Calc Stage Elev (Cu-Ft) (Ac-Ft) 1 0.01 0.00 0.00 1.50 1.50 82. 0.002 2 0.01 ******* 0.00 0.32 0.32 17. 0.000 3 0.01 ******* 0.00 0.21 0.21 11. 0.000 4 0.01 ******* 0.00 0.17 0.17 9. 0.000 5 0.01 ******* 0.00 0.09 0.09 5. 0.000 6 0.01 ******* 0.00 0.07 0.07 4. 0.000 7 0.01 ******* 0.00 0.06 0.06 3. 0.000 8 0.01 ******* 0.00 0.05 0.05 2. 0.000 ---------------------------------- Route Time Series through Facility Inflow Time Series File:1000sf roof area.tsf Outflow Time Series File:rdout.tsf Inflow/Outflow Analysis Peak Inflow Discharge: 0.011 CFS at 6:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Peak Outflow Discharge: 0.000 CFS at 10:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Peak Reservoir Stage: 1.50 Ft Peak Reservoir Elev: 1.50 Ft - Peak Reservoir Storage: 82. Cu-Ft 0.002 Ac-Ft Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:rdout.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- FlowRate Rank Time of Peak - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) (ft) Period 0.000 6 2/09/01 3:00 0.000 1.50 1 100.00 0.990 0.000 8 1/05/02 16:00 0.000 0.32 2 25.00 0.960 0.000 4 2/27/03 9:00 0.000 0.21 3 10.00 0.900 0.000 7 8/26/04 3:00 0.000 0.17 4 5.00 0.800 0.000 3 10/28/04 18:00 0.000 0.09 5 3.00 0.667 0.000 5 1/18/06 14:00 0.000 0.07 6 2.00 0.500 0.000 2 10/26/06 3:00 0.000 0.06 7 1.30 0.231 0.000 1 1/09/08 10:00 0.000 0.05 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks P 0.000 l.11 0.980 r EXHIMT-9:50.00 PAGE.° ., OF. - P . -,-Y f_ MIRROR LAKE TCS 207555.10 11/28/07 �1 TEST PIT 3 & 4 AREA j INFILTERATION RATE 1.68 IN/HR = 35.7 MIN/IN TNFTT.TRATTON TRENCH 2' WIDE AND 30% VOIDS IN GRAVEL Saving Retention/Detention Facility File:AREA 3.rdf arting Documentation File:Q:\2007\207555\10_CI9\NON-CAD\CALCSUtorm\Roof area Time Series Found in Memory:1000sf roof area.tsf Edit Complete ----- T ----Retention/Detention Facility Design Route Time Series through Facility Time Series Found in Memory:1000sf roof area tsf Reservoir Routing [R/D Facility] Years Complete: 8 Inflow/Outflow Analysis Peak Inflow Discharge: 0.011 CFS at 6:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Peak Outflow Discharge: 0.000 CFS at 9:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Peak Reservoir Stage' 1.50 Ft Peak Reservoir Elev: 1.50 Ft Peak Reservoir Storage: 69. Cu-Ft 0.001 Ac-Ft Storing Time Series File:rdout-tsf 8 Frequencies & Peaks saved to File:rdout.pks DownStream Analysis Complete Retention/Detention Facility Type of Facility: Gravel Infiltration Trench Facility Length: 71.83 ft Facility Width: 2.00 ft Facility Area: 144. sq. ft Effective Storage Depth: 1.50 ft Stage 0 Elevation: 0.00 ft Storage Volume: 65. cu. ft Vertical Permeability: 35.70 min/in Permeable Surfaces: Bottom Riser Head: 1.50 ft Riser Diameter: 12.00 inches Top Notch Weir: None Outflow Rating Curve: None Stage Elevation Storage Discharge (ft) (ft) (cu. ft) (ac-ft) (cfs) 0.00 0.00 0. 0.000 0.000 0.06 0.06 3. 0.000 0.000 0.14 0.14 6. 0.000 0.000 0.21 0.21 9. 0.000 0.000 0.29 0.29 13. 0.000 0.000 Percolation (cfs) 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 EXHI T PAGE ..-�F-�-- W MIRROR LAKE TCS 207555.10 11 /28/07 0.36 0.36 16. 0.000 0.000 0.01 0.44 0.44 19. 0.000 0.000 0.01 0.51 0.51 22. 0.001 0.000 0.01 0.59 0.59 25. 0.001 0.000 0.01 0.66 0.66 28. 0.001 0.000 0.01 0.74 0.74 32. 0.001 0.000 0.01 0.81 0.81 35. 0.001 0.000 0.01 0.89 0.89 38. 0.001 0.000 0.01 0.96 0.96 41. 0.001 0.000 0.01 1.04 1.04 45. 0.001 0.000 0.01 1.11 1.11 48. 0.001 0.000 0.01 1.19 1.19 51. 0.001 0.000 0.01 1.26 1.26 54. 0.001 0.000 0.01 1.34 1.34 58_ 0.001 0.000 0.01 1.41 1.41 61. 0.001 0.000 0.01 1.49 1.49 64. 0.001 0.000 0.01 1.50 1.50 65. 0.001 0.000 0.01 Hyd Inflow Outflow Peak Storage Target Calc Stage E1ev (Cu-Ft) (Ac-Ft) 1 0.01 0.00 0.00 1.50 1.50 65. 0.001 2 0.01 ******* 0.00 0.31 0.31 13. 0.000 3 0.01 ******* 0.00 0.20 0.20 9. 0.000 4 0.01 ******* 0.00 0.15 0.15 7. 0.000 5 0.01 ******* 0.00 0.07 0.07 3. 0.000 6 0.01 ******* 0.00 0.06 0.06 2. 0.000 7 0.01 ******* 0.00 0.05 0.05 2. 0.000 8 0.01 ******* 0.00 0.04 0.04 2_ 0.000 ---------------------------------- Route Time Series through Facility Inflow Time Series File:1000sf roof area.tsf Outflow Time Series File:rdout.tsf Inflow/Outflow Analysis Peak Inflow Discharge: 0.011 CFS at Peak Outflow Discharge: 0.000 CFS at Peak Reservoir Stage: 1.50 Ft Peak Reservoir Elev: 1.50 Ft Peak Reservoir Storage: 65. Cu-Ft 0.001 Ac-Ft Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:rdout.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates --- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 0.000 6 2/09/01 3:00 0.000 8 1/05/02 16:00 0.000 4 12/08/02 19:00 0.000 7 8/26/04 3:00 0.000 3 10/28/04 18:00 0.000 5 1/18/06 14:00 0.000 2 10/26/06 3:00 0.000 1 1/09/08 9:00 Computed Peaks 6:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 9:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) (ft) Period 0.000 1.50 1 100.00 0.990 0.000 0.31 2 25.00 0.960 0.000 0.20 3 10.00 0.900 0.000 0.15 4 5.00 0.800 0.000 0.07 5 3.00 0.667 0.000 0.06 6 2.00 0.500 0.000 0.05 7 1.30 0.231 0.000 0.04 8 1.10 0.091 0.000 1.10 50.00 EXA16� -e PAGE _J-J-O F �~ 1� Project M i RROk- LALE SubjectRpoF JAj L1MnON WiihlTo Address Date 1?-6 ,41 _ Project No. ZD Phone Fax # # Faxed Pages By ❑ Page of ,Calculations ❑ Fax ❑ Memorandum ❑ Meeting Minutes ❑ Telephone Memo mom WA Olft D= Civil Engineers Structural Engineers -`T'RFNGN LP146TN PER k(US Landscape Architects FNISHED cA[-cv"not4. sFF TABLE 6 2AaE gEGb[�_ Community Planners Land Surveyors �1PE LO -4 D pOLNeighbors >so% IS" ►GN $ a I/n+ps >xoT7►�M �4 Q Q J !►�PERMkA$l.E l.0 /N,Nrr4�M fog cAYM PRE 20o F 1(4Ft-nzATvDt4 G�otE ]rl F I LT2 � jo k E-t G N PeT,a I L. • 9011arr- fRoM tMP5GA*J) M tN►µuM AR -Ms 644 - P4 /s) LOI LJ— 17�sT PtT TAQJ (,H C-g k4 B� 1NFiLlu'l-e-) 1H 'ema - `rP- 1 i 67 c.F r2Erl6t�. 1 st=PAA,%f1ON TP- 7- 71 t-F Ole- ]RgmaL✓AtFR IS TIC - 3 7z L-l✓ +C-LgArI 0A4b omy smpu- Tr'~q 72 LP AM14067t4TS Lolu- RE 05ED, 'IE LCNGTtI ARE- PER Ion 5i- ot= 1 M PER v►oOS 2Qo F A I±C-A ❑ TACOMA 2215 N. 30th St. Suite 300 Tacoma, WA 98403-3305 253.383.2422 r 253.383.2572 FAX XH IT PAGE�� 314"EATTLE #��1�200 6th Avenue Suite 1620 J Seattle, WA 98101-3123 206.267.2425 If this does not meet with your understanding, please contact us in writing within seven days. THANK YOU. 206.267.2429 FAX Project M k2a2 4K& Y161i4W S Project No. Subject )?ERIuEA&-F- PAtIAC Phone, With/To Address Date l��Z(,/o 7 J MPOkMEARLE-- LA4YE 2 ?F2 GEoT&cH Fax # # Faxed Pages By t —S Z-07SS'5'• l U PE2v/ot95 PA Va t4ew- Pa, AIL ❑ Page of _ Calculations ❑ Fax ❑ Memorandum ❑ Meeting Minutes ❑ Telephone Memo M00 R, 7 O � TN►ckNF�c PFR.6FoTK#i IZE[G!4`� FNDA T IbTd �6° r9'Ipr PEP lcLS�vOta� AA PEeviovs 3\ 1''tINtM t,a� Nor To PEP- N To 8E vakLFtEp &V DEW46D APELIN6 I)oglag F►r4A(- DEsiQv. Assort PTio LL- 1) STRVC.rvRAL PE}VEMENT SFCTI®J-f 6ADW14144L I✓N6iNEER z�D,,�sl6N lorEt4Ds Tb 5r612M►0AT9,e FW41N6 Oh/ PER vlous Sv/aFAe c. wI.L-L- Mopr-LEj7 IS 6Ri{S5 o PER�Yp./L O�t'�A.S tl So►r,, INopELING C-0 / ifNI c)ITfl Zoos DOE SioRMWATE.a MANt16EAEJl' MAQVA(- r R t0ESieet-1 W4sH1,V6ToM49D GoMMod t! ID PPAc7/cEs, Civil Engineers Structural Engineers Landscape Architects Community Planners Land Surveyors Neighbors ❑ TACOMA 2215 N. 30th St. Suite 300 Tacoma, WA 98403-3305 253.383.2422 25 3.2572 FAX `' EXHI� PAGE F 5 TTLE � fith Avenue Suite 1620 Seattle, WA 98101-3123 If this does not meet with your understanding, please contact us in writing within seven days. THANK YOU 206.267.2425 206.267.2429 FAX Project P'tg&g. (-AkE' Hie-diANDS Subject 1r4PWTRAiioN S1ZIN& Withrro Address Date 17126 /'07 _ Project No. Z07655S • 10 Phone Fax # # Faxed Pages By_ %CGS ❑ Page of _ tz Calculations ❑ Fax ❑ Memorandum ❑ Meeting Minutes ❑ Telephone Memo Fm,iorY TOR AP94 Csl=) TYPE QcrrwA AP-0. (sr-) X 33 YO SF IM I?Ep U qlmdwsw 3 7 7o sr Irt PER% Z16 3 I `i s1 sF t rAPER 6. s61 H 10, 3 72 plray. qcq T RA'cr'k' 3,710 5F IMpav 2ENcN - ' *WiM 6UPPEOf 6?ADIN6 �I A 13 Civil Engineers Structural Engineers Landscape Architects Community Planners Land Surveyors Neighbors INFuzP-A Tlol4 AR&A Gl-_jr£*W a /1? X PONDIN6 F)FPTd I.S IZ " • I NFiq'AArwN MappeP IX Rorroml o w P S�o�A�� vot,l�rt,< Fo.2 siDF St,�Es N�G—EoTEP 6 FRKE RDAAD PEQL;21Z-T) DoaA-F-L r sT20elz*-E AT W' MovF- gf}SE NjN1MvM 3' Fkcv6c RASE mF /1wF1L'MATi6n1 Fh<rLtTY To Impat4EA84E I-AYR • Fw RE(S�LiOD ro 6,cvcc- INFrlT&ATew4 AaaA WIU- 1?65PEcfFiED DVAIN6 rome. !7O_e./6Y 114 AccoeDA14Gc LOITH THE 20n)` k4SwDf"t-. • 1'molw6s1,com*.s wlrINA %Nis AkgA enzz- /JvrlmAWR Mex-�AN:�K*ArjcN 0iS DAAVATGR ❑ TACOMA 2215 N. 30th St. Suite 300 Tacoma, WA 98403-3305 253.383.2422 EXHIBIT POS 83.2572 FAX PArW J4,pF ffi-�t.E 1200 6th Avenue Suite 1620 Seattle, WA m 98101-3123 If this does not meet with your understanding, please contact us in writing within seven days. THANK YOU. 206.267.2425 206.267.2429 FAX Project Mt-RJM Gfkt= _Li1�1E1bNL Subject (NFgMATlbt4 Tp-r4e d ILL►FARTAI 7 Address Project No. 2-070: lQ Phone Fax # # Faxed Pages Date VZ 7 _ 07 By jP ❑ Page of Calculations ❑ Fax ❑ Memorandum ❑ Meeting Minutes ❑ Telephone Memo 216 t-F or- IIEW H REQvlea A, 'ASHED Ck ATI vc- ObTiTA)A L o R r'6a-r .gq c k-Fi w PER =s LobM 6;PEe'1=0 At,QI146 NAL- Dr--si6h/) TRALT 'X� INFIcTMATION SysTEM DOTA/1- NbT To Ste} L-41 :1A Civil Engineers Structural Engineers Landscape Architects Community Planners Land Surveyors Neighbors ❑ TACOMA 2215 N. 30th St. Suite 300 Tacoma, WA 98403-3305 253.383.2422 17 253.383.2572 FAX PAGE _OF_ " 'EATTLE 6ili Avenue Suite 1620 Seattle, WA 98101-3123 If this does not meet with your understanding, please contact us in writing within seven days. THANK YOU. 206.267,2425 206.267.2429 FAX INFILTRATION AREA #1 Area - ? Till Forest 0:00 acres, Till Pasture 0.00 acres Till Grass 0.00 acres I Outwash Forest: 0.00 acres Outwash Pasture; 0.00 acres Outwash Grass 0.00 acres Wetland 0.00 acres Impervious 0.08 acres -Total - --- � 00$; acres Scale Factor: 1.01 Hourly Reduced Time Series: [Inf-11 >>j Compute Time Series Modify User Input File for computed Time Series [.TSF] DownStream Analysis Complete ---------------------- Retention/Detention Facility Design Route Time Series through Facility Time Series Found in Memory:in€-1 tsf Reservoir Routing [R/D Facility] Years Complete: 8 Inflow/Outflow Analysis Peak Inflow Discharge: 0.037 CFS at 6:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Peak Outflow Discharge- 0,000 CFS at 10:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Peak Reservoir Stage: 0.71 Ft Peak Reservoir Elev 0.71 Ft Peak Reservoir Storage 350. Cu-Ft 0.000 Ac-Ft Storing Time Series File:rdout.tsf 8 Frequencies & Peaks saved to File:rdout.pks i DownStream Analysis Complete > EXHIBIT ' PAGE.1(a_0 �1- Retention/Detention Facility Type of Facility.: Infiltration Pond Side Slope: 0.00 H:1V Pond Bottom Length: 31.53 ft Pond Bottom Width: 15.76 ft Pond Bottom Area: 497. sq. ft Top Area_at 1 ft. FB: 497. sq. ft 0.011 acres Effective Storage Depth: 1.00 ft Stage 0 Elevation: 0.00 ft Storage Volume: 497. cu. ft 0.011 ac-ft Vertical Permeability: 47.60 min/in Permeable Surfaces: Bottom Riser Head: 1.00 ft Riser Diameter: 12.00 inches Top Notch Weir: None Outflow Rating Curve: None Stage Elevation Storage Discharge Percolation Surf Area (ft) (ft) (cu. ft) (ac-ft) (cfs) (cfs) (sq. ft) 0.00 0.00 0. 0.000 0.000 0.00 497. 0.05 0.05 25. 0.001 0.000 0.01 497. 0.10 0.10 50. 0.001 0.000 0.01 497. 0.15 0.15 75. 0.002 0.000 0.01 497. 0.20 0.20 99. 0.002 0.000 0.01 497. 0.25 0.25 124. 0.003 0.000 0.01. 497. 0.30 0.30 149. 0.003 0.000 0.01 497. 0.35 0.35 174. 0.004 0.000 0.01 497. 0.40 0.40 199. 0.005 0.000 0.01 497. 0.45 0.45 224. 0.005 0.000 0.01 497. 0.50 0.50 249. 0.006 0.000 0.01 497. 0.55 0.55 273. 0.006 0.000 0.01 497. 0.60 0.60 298_ 0.007 0.000 0.01 497. 0.65 0.65 323. 0.007 0.000 0.01 497. 0.70 0.70 346. 0.008 0.000 0.01 497. 0.75 0.75 373. 0.009 0.000 0.01 497. 0.80 0.80 398. 0.009 0.000 0.01 497. 0.85 0.85 423. 0.010 0.000 0.01 497. 0.90 0.90 447. 0.010 0.000 0.01 497. 0.95 0.95 472. 0.011 0.000 0.01 497. 1.00 1.00 497. 0.011 0.000 0.01 Hyd Inflow Outflow Peak Storage Target Calc Stage Elev (Cu-Ft) (Ac-Ft) 1 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.71 0.71 350. 0.008 2 0.03 ******* 0.00 0.19 0.19 96. 0.002 3 0.02 ******* 0.00 0.11 0.11 54. 0.001 4 0.02 ******* 0.00 0.15 0.15 75. 0.002 5 0.02 ******* 0.00 0.18 0.18 90. 0.002 6 0.02 ******* 0.00 0.07 0.07 34. 0.001 7 0.02 ******* 0.00 0.10 0.10 51. 0.001 8 0.02 ******* 0.00 0.05 0.05 25. 0.001 4 --------------------------------- Route Time Series through Facility EM�M � PAGE1.7_OF31 - Inflow Time Series File:inf=i.tsf Outflow Time Series File:rdout.tsf Inflow/Outflow Analysis Peak Inflow Discharge: 0.037 CFS at Peak Outflow Discharge: 0.000 CFS at Peak Reservoir Stage: 0.71 Ft Peak Reservoir Elev: 0.71 Ft Peak Reservoir Storage: 350. Cu-Ft 0.008 Ac-Ft Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:rdout.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates --- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 0.000 6 2/09/01 5:00 0.000 8 1/05/02 17:00 0.000 5 2/27/03 9:00 0.000 7 8/26/04 3:00 0.000 4 10/28/04 19:00 0.000 3 1/18/06 17:00 0.000 2 10/26/06 3:00 0.000 1 1/09/08 10:00 Computed Peaks ---------------------------------- Route Time Series through Facility Inflow Time Series File:inf-l.tsf Outflow Time Series File:rdout 6:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 10:00 on Jan 9'in Year 8 Flow Frequency Analysis--- - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) (ft) Period 0.000 0.71 1 100.00 0.990 0.000 0.19 2 25.00 0.960 0.000 0.18 3 10.00 0.900 0.000 0.15 4 5.00 0.800 0.000 0.13 5 3.00 0.667 0.000 0.10 6 2.00 0.500 0.000 0.07 7 1.30 0.231 0.000 0.05 8 1.10 0.091 0.000 0.53 50.00 0.980 Inflow/Outflow Analysis Peak Inflow Discharge: 0.037 CFS at Peak Outflow Discharge: 0.000 CFS at Peak Reservoir Stage: 0.71 Ft Peak Reservoir Elev: 0.71 Ft Peak Reservoir Storage: 350. Cu-Ft 0.008 Ac-Ft Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:rdout.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates --- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 0.000 6 2/09/01 5:00 0.000 8 1/05/02 17:00 0.000 5 2/27/03 9:00 0.000 7 8/26/04 3:00 0.000 4 10/28/04 19:00 0.000 3 1/18/06 17:00 0.000 2 10/26/06 3:00 0.000 1 1/09/08 10:00 Computed Peaks 6:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 10:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Flow Frequency Analysis------- - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) (ft) Period 0.000 0.71 1 100.00 0.990 0.000 0.19 2 25.00 0.960 0.000 0.18 3 10.00 0.900 0.000 0.15 4 5.00 0.800 0.000 0.13 5 3.00 0.667 0.000 0.10 6 2.00 0.500 0.000 0.07 7 1.30 0.231 0.000 0.05 8 1.10 0.091 EXH E HT- 3 PAGE.-GF T---- INFILTRATION AREA #2 ! Area 7 Till Forest! 0.00 acresi Till Pasture. 0.00 acresi 0.00 acres i Till Grass; ,� 9 Outwash Forest; 0.00 acres! i I Outwash Pasture? 0.00 acres ! Outwash Grass' 0.00 acresi Wetland; 0.00 acres � f Impervious 0.09 acres; Total-- - - 0_ .09- a.cres� Scale Factor: 1.01 Hourly Reduced Time Series: inf-21 j>>j p Compute .Time Series -- Modify User Input - — - - -! 7 File for computed Time Series I.TSFI Edit Complete Retention/Detention Facility Design Route Time Series through Facility ------ —------------- __ Time Series Found in Memory:inf-2.tsf Reservoir Routing [R/D Facility] Years Complete: 8 Inflow/Outflow Analysis Peak Inflow Discharge: ^--0.041 CFS at 6:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Peak Outflow Discharge: 0.029 CFS at 8:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Peak_ Reservoir Stage: 1.01 Ft Peak Reservoir Elev: 1.01 Ft Peak Reservoir Storage: 218. Cu-Ft 0.005 Ac-Ft Storing Time Series File:rdout.tsf 8 Frequencies & Peaks saved to File:rdout.pks DownStream Analysis Complete EXHIBI 1 ' PAGE OF -. Retention/Detention Facility Type of Facility: Infiltration Pond Side Slope: 0.00 H:lV Pond Bottom Length: 20.78 ft Pond Bottom Width: 10.39 ft Pond Bottom Area: 216. sq. ft Top Area at 1 ft. FB: 216. sq. ft 0.005 acres Effective Storage Depth: 1.00 ft Stage 0 Elevation: 0.00 ft Storage Volume: 216. cu. ft 0.005 ac-ft Vertical Permeability: 47.60 min/in Permeable Surfaces: Bottom Riser Head: 1.00 ft Riser Diameter: 12.00 inches Top Notch Weir: None Outflow Rating Curve: None Stage Elevation Storage Discharge Percolation Surf Area (ft) (ft) (cu. ft) (ac-ft) (cfs) (cfs) (sq. ft) 0-00 0.00 0_ 0.000 0.000 0.00 216_ 0.05 0.05 11. 0.000 0.000 0.01 216. 0.10 0.10 22. 0.000 0.000 0.01 216. 0.15 0.15 32. 0.001 0.000 0.01 216. 0.20 0.20 43. 0.001 0.000 0.01 216. 0.25 0.25 54. 0.001 0.000 0.01 216. 0.30 0.30 65. 0.001 0.000 0.01 216. 0.35 0.35 76. 0.002 0.000 0.01 216. 0.40 0.40 86. 0.002 0.000 0.01 216. 0.45 0.45 97. 0.002 0.000 0.01 216. 0.50 0.50 108. 0.002 0.000 0.01 216. 0.55 0.55 119. 0.003 0.000 0.01 216. 0.60 0.60 130_ 0.003 0.000 0.01 216. 0.65 0.65 140. 0.003 0.000 0.01 216. 0.70 0.70 151. 0.003 0.000 0.01 216. 0.75 0.75 162. 0.004 0.000 0.01 216. 0.80 0.80 173. 0.004 0.000 0.01 216. 0.85 0.85 184. 0.004 0.000 0.01 216. 0.90 0.90 194. 0.004 0.000 0.01 216. 0.95 0.95 205. 0.005 0.000 0.01 216. 1.00 1.00 216. 0.005 0.000 0.01 216. Hyd Inflow Outflow Peak Storage Target Calc Stage Elev (Cu-Ft) (Ac-Ft) 1 0.04 0.00 0.03 1.01 1.01 218. 0.005 2 0.03 ******* 0.01 1.00 1.00 216. 0.005 3 0.03 ******* 0.00 0.99 0.99 214. 0.005 4 0.03 ******* 0.00 1.00 1.00 216. 0.005 5 0.02 ******* 0.01 1.00 1.00 217. 0.005 6 0.02 ******* 0.00 0.63 0.63 136. 0.003 7 0.02 ******* 0.01 1.00 1.00 217. 0.005 8 0.02 ******* 0.00 0.53 0.53 115. 0.003 --------------------------------- Route Time Series through Facility exHISeT-P-3 PAGE-jA-0E-31_ Inflow Time Series File:inf-2.tsf Outflow Time Series File:rdout.tsf Inflow/Outflow Analysis Peak Inflow Discharge: 0.041 CFS at Peak Outflow Discharge: 0.029 CFS at Peak Reservoir Stage: 1.01 Ft Peak Reservoir Elev: 1.01 Ft Peak Reservoir Storage: 218. Cu-Ft 0.005 Ac-Ft Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:rdout.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates --- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 0.009 5 2/09/01 15:00 0.000 8 1/05/02 18:00 0.022 2 2/27/03 8:00 0.000 7 8/23/04 23:00 0.004 6 10/28/04 19:00 0.014 4 1118106 16:00 0.015 3 11/24/06 3:00 0.029 1 1/09/08 8:00 Computed Peaks 6:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 8:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) (ft) Period 0.029 1.01 1 100.00 0.990 0.022 1.01 2 25.00 0.960 0.015 1.00 3 10.00 0.900 0.014 1.00 4 5.00 0.800 0.009 1.00 5 3.00 0.667 0.004 1.00 6 2.00 0.500 0.000 0.63 7 1.30 0.231 0.000 0.53 8 1.10 0.091 0.027 1.01 50.00 0.980 ExHIaITR3 PAGE-2-4 OF INFILTRATION AREA #3 � � Area - r -• Tall Forest 0:00 acres Till Pasture, 0.00 acres Till Grass' 0.00 acres Outwash Forest` 0.00 acres Outwash Pasture 0.00 acres Outwash Grass! 0.00 acres Wetlandi 0.00 acres Impervious; 0.03 acres Total G.03 acres, Scale Factor: 1.01 Hourly Reduced Time Series: I0-31 >> Compute Time Series Modify User Input File for computed Time Series (.TSF] 1% Edit Complete Retention/Detention Facility Design Route Time Series through Facility Time Series Found in Memory:inf-3.tsf Reservoir Routing [R/D Facility] Years Complete: 8• Inflow/Outflow Analysis ------------- Peak Inflow Discharge: 0.016 CFS at 6:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Peak Outflow Discharge: 0.000 CFS at 7:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Peak Reservoir Stage: 0.03 Ft Peak Reservoir Elev: 0.03 Ft Peak Reservoir Storage: 20. Cu-Ft 0.000 Ac-Ft Storing Time Series File:rdout.tsf 8 Frequencies & Peaks saved to File:rdout.pks DownStream Analysis Complete t PAGE T; aF-37- ^� Retention/Detention Facility Type of Facility: Infiltration Pond Side Slope: 0.00 H:1V Pond Bottom Length: 33.50 ft Pond Bottom Width: 16.75 ft Pond Bottom Area: 561. sq. ft Top Area at 1 ft. FB: 561. sq. ft 0.013 acres Effective Storage Depth: 1.00 ft Stage 0 Elevation: 0.00 ft Storage Volume: 561. cu. ft 0.013 ac-ft Vertical Permeability: 35.70 min/in Permeable Surfaces: Bottom Riser Head: 1.00 ft Riser Diameter: 12.00 inches Top Notch Weir: None Outflow Rating Curve: None Stage Elevation Storage Discharge Percolation Surf Area (ft) (ft) (cu. ft) (ac-ft) (cfs) (cfs) (sq. ft) 0.00 0.00, 0. 0.000 0.000 0.00 561. 0.05 0.05 28. 0.001 0.000 0.02 561. 0.10 0.10 56. 0.001 0.000 0.02 561. l 0.15 0.15 J1 0.20 0.20 84. 0.002 0.000 112. 0.003 0.000 0.02 0.02 561. 561. 0.25 0.25 140. 0.003 0.000 0.02 561. 0.30 0.30 168. 0.004 0.000 0.02 561. 0.35 0.35 196. 0.005 0.000 0.02 561. 0.40 0.40 224. 0.005 0.000 0.02 561. 0.45 0.45 253. 0.006 0.000 0.02 561. 0.50 0.50 281. 0.006 0.000 0.02 561. 0.55 0.55 309. 0.007 0.000 0.02 561. 0.60 0.60 337. 0.008 0.000 0.02 561. 0.65 0.65 365. 0.008 0.000 0.02 561. 0.70 0.70 393. 0.009 0.000 0.02 561. 0.75 0.75 421. 0.010 0.000 0.02 561. 0.80 0.80 449_ 0.010 0.000 0.02 561. 0.85 0.85 477. 0.011 0.000 0.02 561. 0.90 0.90 505. 0.012 0.000 0.02 561. 0.95 0.95 533. 0.012 0.000 0.02 561. 1.00 1.00 561. 0.013 0.000 0.02 561. Hyd Inflow Outflow Peak Storage Target Calc Stage Elev (Cu-Ft) (Ac-Ft) 1 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 20. 0.000 2 0.01 ******* 0.00 0.02 0.02 14. 0.000 3 0.01 ******* 0.00 0.02 0.02 11. 0.000 4 0.01 ******* 0.00 0.02 0.02 12. 0.000 5 V.U1 """"""" 0.00 0.02 ' 0.02 ii. 0.000 6 0.01 ******* 0.00 0.02 0.02 9. 0.000 7 0.01 ******* 0.00 0.02 0.02 9. 0.000 8 0.01 ******* 0.00 0.01 0.01 8. 0.000 ---------------------------------- Route Time Series through Facility exH��R P-3 PAGE�OFV7 Inflow Time Series File:inf-3.tsf Outflow Time Series File:rdout.tsf Inflow/Outflow Analysis Peak Inflow Discharge: 0.016 CFS at Peak Outflow Discharge: 0.000 CFS at Peak Reservoir Stage: 0.03 Ft Peak Reservoir Elev: 0.03 Ft Peak Reservoir Storage: 20. Cu-Ft 0.000 Ac-Ft Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:rdout.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates --- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 0.000 6 2/09/01 3:00 0.000 8 1/05/02 17:00 0.000 4 2/27/03 8:00 0.000 7 8/26/04 3:00 0.000 3 10/28/04 17:00 0.000 5 1/18/06 14:00 0.000 2 10/26/06 1:00 0.000 1 1/09/08 7:00 Computed Peaks 6:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 7:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Flow Frequency Analysis------- - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) (ft) Period 0.000 0.03 1 100.00 0.990 0.000 0.02 2 25.00 0.960 0.000 0.02 3 10.00 0.900 0.000 0.02 4 5.00 0.800 0.000 0.02 5 3.00 0.667 0.000 0.02 6 2.00 0.500 0.000 0.02 7 1.30 0.231 0.000 0.01 8 1.10 0.091 0.000 0.03 50.00 0.980 BIT 90�5 - PAGE E14tO INFILTRATION AREA #4 Area Till Forest 0.00 acres! Till Pasture] 0.00 acres Till Grassi 0.00 acres! Outwash Forest. 0.00 acres; Outwash Pasture 0.00 a Outwash Grass 0.24 acres Wetlarrd 0.00 acres Impervious 0.00 acres Total -- I 0:24 acre. Scale Factor: 1.01 Hourly Reduced E Time Series: Inf-41 »E Compute Time Series Modify User Input File for computed Time Series [.TSF] Edit Complete Retention/Detention Facility Design Route Time Series through Facility Time Series Found in Memory:inf-4.tsf Reservoir Routing [R/D Facility] Years Complete: 8 Inflow/Outflow Analysis Peak Inflow Discharge Peak Outflow Discharge Peak. Reservoir St age Peak Reservoir Elev Peak Reservoir Storage t 8 0.018 CFS at 7:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 0-000 CFS at 9:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 0.10 Ft 0.10 Ft 38- Cu-Ft 0.001 Ac-Ft Storing Time Series File:rdout.tsf Frequencies & Peaks saved to File:rdout.pks Downstream Analysis Complete ;$-- Retention/Detention Facility 1 Type of Facility: Infiltration Pond Side Slope: 0.00 H:lV Pond Bottom Length: 28.43 ft Pond Bottom Width: 14.21 ft Pond Bottom Area: 404. sq. ft Top Area at 1 ft. FB: 404. sq. ft 0.009 acres Effective Storage Depth: 1.00 ft Stage 0 Elevation: 0.00 ft Storage Volume: 404. cu. ft 0.009 ac-ft Vertical Permeability: 35.70 min/in Permeable Surfaces: Bottom Riser Head: 1.00 ft Riser Diameter: 12.00 inches Top Notch Weir: None Outflow Rating Curve: None Stage Elevation Storage Discharge Percolation Surf Area (ft) (ft) (cu. ft) (ac-ft) (cfs) (cfs) (sq. ft) 0.00 0.00 0. 0.000 0.000 0.00 404. 0.05 0.05 20. 0.000 0.000 0.02 404. 0.10 0.10 40. 0.001 0.000 0.02 404. 0.15 0.15 61. 0.001 0.000 0.02 404. 0.20 0.20 81. 0.002 0.000 0.02 404. 0.25 0.25 101_ 0.002 0.000 0.02 404. } 0.30 0.30 121. 0.003 0.000 0.02 404. 0.35 0.35 141. 0.003 0.000 0.02 404. 0.40 0.40 162. 0.004 0.000 0.02 404. 0.45 0.45 182_ 0.004 0.000 0.02 404. 0.50 0.50 202. 0.005 0.000 0.02 404. 0.55 0.55 222. 0.005 0.000 0.02 404. 0.60 0.60 242. 0.006 0.000 0.02 404. 0.65 0.65 263. 0.006 0.000 0.02 404. 0.70 0.70 283. 0.006 0.000 0.02 404. 0.75 0.75 303_ 0.007 0.000 0.02 404. 0.80 0.80 323. 0.007 0.000 0.02 404. 0.85 0.85 343. 0.008 0.000 0.02 404. 0.90 0.90 364_ 0.008 0.000 0.02 404. 0.95 0.95 384. 0.009 0.000 0.02 404. 1.00 1.00 404. 0.009 0.000 0.02 404. Hyd Inflow Outflow Peak Storage Target Calc Stage Elev (Cu-Ft) (Ac-Ft) 1 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 38. 0.001 2 0.01 ******* 0.00 0.03 0.03 13. 0.000 3 0.01 ******* 0.00 0.02 0.02 9. 0.000 4 0.00 ******* 0.00 0.01 0.01 2. 0.000 5 0.00 ******* 0.00 0.00 0.00 1. 0.000 6 0.00 ******* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0. 0.000 7 0.00 xr "* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0. 0.000 8 0.00 ******* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0. 0.000 ----------------------------------- Route Time Series through Facility J Inflow Time Series File:inf-4.tsf Outflow Time Series File:rdout.tsf E HISIT -W 3 PAGE 11 QF3A__ IN) c p Inflow/Outflow Analysis Peak Inflow Discharge: Peak Outflow Discharge: Peak Reservoir Stage: Peak Reservoir Elev: Peak Reservoir Storage: 0.018 CFS at 7:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 0.000 CFS at 9:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 0.10 Ft 0.10 Ft 38. Cu-Ft 0.001 Ac-Ft Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:rdout.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates --- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 0.000 3 2/09/01 3:00 0.000 6 10/05/01 21:00 0.000 2 2/27/03 8:00 0.000 7 10/31/03 8:00 0.000 5 1/27/05 10:00 0.000 8 10/24/05 9:00 0.000 4 2/01/07 0:00 0.000 1 1/09/08 9:00 Computed Peaks -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) (ft) Period 0.000 0.10 1 100.00 0.990 0.000 0.03 2 25.00 0.960 0.000 0.02 3 10.00 0.900 0.000 0.01 4 5.00 0.800 0.000 0.00 5 3.00 0.667 0.000 0.00 6 2.00 0.500 0.000 0.00 7 1.30 0.231 0.000 0.00 8 1.10 0.091 0.000 0.07 50.00 0.980 EXHIBITP-3 PAGE--2&OF�_ ' ) TRACT `X' INFILTRATION TRENCH --Are ? Till Forest- 0.00 acres. 0.00 acres] Till Pasture I Till Grass 0.00 acres] Outwash Forest 0.00 acresl Outwash Pasture 0.00 acres! Outwash Grass 0.00 acres Wetland 0.00 acres Impervious 0.09 acres Total =- o.a9 1 - Scale Factor: 1.00 Hourly Reduced Time Series: Tract xf >>I Compute Time Series Modify User Input �— J File for computed Time Series [.TSF] Edit Complete Retention/Detention Facility Design Route Time Series through Facility T Time Series Found in Memory:tract-x.tsf Reservoir Routing [9/D Facility] Years Complete: 8 Inflow/Outflow Analysis Peak Inflow Discharge: 0.040 CFS at 6:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Peak Outflow Discharge: 0.000 CFS at 9:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Peak Reservoir Stage: 2.00 Ft Peak Reservoir Elev- 2.00 Ft Peak Reservoir Storage: 260_ Cu=Ft 0.006 Ac-Ft Storing Time Series File:rdout.tsf 0 Frequencies & Peaks saved to File:rdout.pks DownStream Analysis Complete v EXHISIT-2--3- tP#'%tGE_V1AF_1rU Retention/Detention Facility Type of Facility: Gravel Infiltration Trench Facility Length: 216.81 ft Facility Width: 2.00 ft Facility Area: 434. sq. ft Effective Storage Depth: 2.00 ft Stage 0 Elevation: 0.00 ft Storage Volume: 260_ cu. ft Vertical Permeability: 31.70 min/in Permeable Surfaces: Bottom Riser Head: 2.00 ft Riser Diameter: 12.00 inches Top Notch Weir: None Outflow Rating Curve: None Stage Elevation Storage Discharge Percolation (ft) (ft) (cu. ft) (ac-ft) (cfs) (cfs) 0.00 0.00 0. 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.06 0.06 8. 0.000 0.000 0.02 0.16 0.16 21. 0.000 0.000 0.02 0.26 0.26 34. 0.001 0.000 0.02 0.36 0.36 47. 0.001 0.000 0.02 0.46 0.46 60. 0.001 0.000 0.02 0.56 0.56 73. 0.002 0.000 0.02 0.66 0.66 86. 0.002 0.000 0.02 0.76 0.76 99. 0.002 0.000 0.02 1 0.86 0.86 112. 0.003 0.000 0.02 0.96 0.96 125. 0.003 0.000 0.02 1.06 1.06 138. 0.003 0.000 0.02 -1.16 1.16 151. 0.003 0.000 0.02 1.26 1.26 164. 0.004 0.000 0.02 1.36 1.36 177. 0.004 0.000 0.02 1.46 1.46 190. 0.004 0.000 0.02 1.56 1.56 203. 0.005 0.000 0.02 1.66 1.66 216. 0.005 0.000 0.02 1.76 1.76 229. 0.005 0.000 0.02 1.86 1.86 242. 0.006 0.000 0.02 1.96 1.96 255. 0.006 0.000 0.02 2.00 2.00 260. 0.006 0.000 0.02 Hyd Inflow Outflow Peak Storage Target Calc Stage Elev (Cu-Ft) (Ac-Ft) 1 0.04 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 260. 0.006 2 0.03 ******* 0.00 0.47 0.47 60. 0.001 3 0.03 ******* 0.00 0.31 0.31 41. 0.001 4 0.02 ******* 0.00 0.24 0.24 31. 0.001 5 0.02 ******* 0.00 0.17 0.17 22. 0.001 6 0.02 ******* 0.00 0.09 0.09 12. 0.000 7 0.02 ******* 0.00 0.08 0.08 11. 0.000 8 0.02 ******* 0.00 0.05 0.05 6. 0.000 Route Time Series through Facility Inflow Time Series File:tract-x.tsf Outflow Time Series File:rdout.tsf Ex9��aeT p� PRGE Inflow/Outflow Analysis Peak Inflow Discharge: 0.040 CFS at 6:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Peak Outflow Discharge: 0.000 CFS at 9:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Peak Reservoir Stage: 2.00 Ft Peak Reservoir Elev: 2.00 Ft Peak Reservoir Storage: 260. Cu-Ft 0.006 Ac-Ft Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:rdout.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- FlowRate Rank Time of Peak - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) (ft) Period 0.000 6 2/09/01 3:00 0.000 2.00 1 100.00 0.990 0.000 8 1/05/02 16:00 0.000 0.46 2 25.00 0.960 0.000 4 2/27/03 9:00 0.000 0.31 3 10.00 0.900 0.000 7 8/26/04 3:00 0.000 0.24 4 5.00 0.800 0.000 3 10/28/04 18:00 0.000 0.17 5 3.00 0.667 0.000 5 1/18/06 17:00 0.000 0.09 6 2.00 0.500 0.000 2 10/26/06 3:00 0.000 0.09 7 1.30 0.231 0.000 1 1/09/08 9:00 0.000 0.05 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 0.000 1.49 50.00 0.980 EXHIBIT ?n3 PAGE-&L.OF�1 SITE FLOW CONTROL Ct,FvE(- 3) -Area - Till Forest; 0.00 acres Till Pasture 0.00 acres Till Grass - 0.00 acres. Outwash Forests 1.79 acres. Outwash Pasture; 0.00 acres' Outwash Grass 0.07 acres! Wetland; 0.00 acres] Impervious; 0.02 acres Total --- 1.88 acres; Scale Factor: 1.01 Hourly Reduced Time Series: 1Exjst-Site >> Compute Time Series Modify User lupus File for computed Time Series [.TSF] . Areh — ? Till Forest 0.00 acres; Till Pasture 0.00 acres. Till Grass 0.00 acres Outwash Forest! 0.00 acres Outwash Pasture 0.00 acres ! Outwash Crass 1.02 acres t Welland- 0.00 acres I Impervious: 0.00 acres j FTotal i ---- 1.02 acres Scalefactor: 1.01 Hourly Reduced Time Series: IDev-Site >J Compute Time Series J Modify .User Input _ - - File for computed Time Series [.TSFI-._._...._. EXHMIT�?vtl�- PAGE 3 R_74( Time Series File:dev-site.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates --- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 0.033 3 2/09/01 2:00 0.001 7 3/06/02 16:00 0.049 2 2/27/03 7:00 0.000 8 10/28/03 7:00 0.002 6 1/27/05 9:00 0.002 5 1/18/06 16700 0.007 4 1/31/07 23 00 0.078 1 1/09/08 7 00 ❑mputed Peaks Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:exist-site.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac -Annual Peak Flow Rates -- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 0.008 4 2/09/01 2:00 0.005 8 1/05/02 16:00 0.010 2 2/27/03 7:00 0.006 7 8/26/04 2:00 0.007 5 10/28/04 16:00 0.006 6 1/18/06 16:00 0.009 3 10/26/06 0:00 0.017 1 1/09/08 6:00 :omputed Peaks ----Flow Frequency Analysis------- - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period 0.078 1 100.00 0.990 0.049 2 25.00 0.960 0.033 3 10.00 0.900 0.007 4 6.00 0.800 0.002 5 3.00 0.667 0.002 6 2.00 0.500 0.001 7 1.30 0.231 0.000 8 1.10 0.091 0.068 50.00 0.980 --Flow Frequency Analysis---- - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period 0.017 1 100.00 0.990 0.010 2 25.00 0.960 0.009 3 10.00 0.900 0.008 4 5.00 0.800 0.007 5 3.00 0.667 0.006 6 2.00 0.500 0.006 7 1.30 0.231 0.005 8 1.10 0.091 0.015 50.00 0.980 Edit Complete Retention/Detention Facility Design Route Time Series through Facility Time Series Found in Memory:dev-site.tsf Reservoir Routing [R/D Facility] Years Complete: 8 Inflow/Outflow Analysis Peak Inflow Discharge: 0.078 CFS at 7:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Peak Outflow Discharge: 0.017 CFS at 9:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Peak Reservoir Stage: 2.00 Ft Peak Reservoir Elev: 2.00 Ft Peak Reservoir Storage: 417. Cu-Ft 0.010 Ac-Ft Storing Time Series File:rdout.tsf 8 Frequencies & Peaks saved to File:rdout.pks DownStream Analysis Complete EXHEBlT� PAGE�t_OF�- PEAic ViscNA(Z�, �% AaA(4615 O O O O O 10-4 10- 10 ` 10 100 Probability Exceedence PAGE9 F-5 { uuration comparison anayisis i. Base File: exist-site.tsf __ �- New File: rdout.tsf (Cutoff Units: Discharge in CFS -----Fraction of Time ----- ---------Check of Tolerance------- CutoffBase New %Change Probability Base New %Change 0 000 j 0.13E+00 0.14E+00******* 0.13E+00 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.32E-01 0.11E-03 -99.6 0.32E-01 0.001 0,000 -98.7 0 002 j 0.15E-01 0.98E-04 -99.4 I 0.15E-01 0.002 0,000 -99.3 0,002 } 0.59E-02 0.82E-04 -98.6 I 0.59E-02 0.002 0,000 -99.5 0.003 ) 0.33E-02 0.49E-04 -98.5 I 0.33E-02 0.003 0.000 -99.3 0 004 0.15E-02 0.33E-04 -97.8 0.15E-02 0.004 0.000 -98.6 0.005 1 0.80E-03 0.33E-04 -95.9 0.80E-03 0.005 0.000 -96.5 p 0.006 j 0.44E-03 0.33E-04 -92 6 I 0.44E-03 0.006 0.000 -94.2 0.006 0.26E-03 0.16E-04 -93.8 I 0.26E-03 0.006 0.000 -93.4 0 007 0.11E-03 0.00E+00 -100.0 I 0.11E-03 0.007 0,001 -81.9 0.008 I 0.65E-04 0.00E+00 -100.0 0.65E-04 0.008 0.003 -63.7 0 009 0.16E-04 0.00E+00 -100.0 j 0.16E-04 0.009 0,006 -27.0 0 009 I 0.16E-04 0.00E+00 -100.0 I 0.16E-04 0.009 0.006 -33.1 0.010 I 0.16E-04 0.00E+00 -100,0 I 0.16E-04 0.010 0,006 -38.2 `There is no positive excursion Maximum negative excursion = 0.000 cfs (-99.6%) occurring at 0.000 cfs on the Base Data:exist-site.tsf and at 0.000 cfs on the New Data:rdout..tsf v { 2 10(.ov-,e,5�- 0 EXHIBIT PAGE 36�- 12, s ; Retention/Detention Facility Type of Facility: Gravel Infiltration Trench Facility Length: 347.39 ft - 3y8' �/2EAIC14 Facility Width: 2.00 ft Facility Area: 695. sq. ft Effective Storage Depth: 2.00 ft Stage 0 Elevation: 0.00 ft Storage Volume: 417. cu. ft Vertical Permeability: 35.70 min/in Permeable Surfaces: Bottom Riser Head: 2.00 ft Riser Diameter: 12.00 inches Number of orifices: 1 Full Head Pipe Orifice # Height Diameter Discharge Diameter (ft) (in) (CFS) (in) 1 0.00 0.67 0.017 Top Notch Weir: None Outflow Rating Curve: None Stage Elevation Storage Discharge Percolation (ft) (ft) (cu. ft) (ac-ft) (cfs) (cfs) 0.00 0.00 0. 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.01 0.01 2. 0.000 0.001 0.03 0.02 0.02 4. 0.000 0.002 0.03 0.03 0.03 6. 0.000 0.002 0.03 l 0.04 0.04 8. 0.000 0.002 0.03 0.05 0.05 10. 0.000 0.003 0.03 0.06 0.06 13. 0.000 0.003 0.03 0.16 0.16 33. 0.001 0.005 0.03 0.26 0.26 54. 0.001 0.006 0.03 0.36 0.36 75. 0.002 0.007 0.03 0.46 0.46 96. 0.002 0.008 0.03 0.56 0.56 117. 0.003 0.009 0.03 0.66 0.66 138. 0.003 0.010 0.03 0.76 0.76 158. 0.004 0.011 0.03 0.86 0.86 179. 0.004 0.011 0.03 0.96 0.96 200. 0.005 0.012 0.03 1.06 1.06 221. 0.005 0.012 0.03 1.16 1.16 242. 0.006 0.013 0.03 1.26 1.26 263. 0.006 0.014 0.03 1.36 1.36 284. 0.007 0.014 0.03 1.46 1.46 304. 0.007 0.015 0.03 1.56 1.56 325. 0.007 0.015 0.03 1.66 1.66 346. 0.008 0.016 0.03 1.76 1.76 367. 0.008 0.016 0.03 1.86 1.86 388. 0.009 0.016 0.03 1.96 1.96 409. 0.009 0.017 0.03 2.00 2.00 417. 0.010 0.017 0.03 Hyd Inflow Outflow Peak Storage Target Calc Stage Elev (Cu-Ft) (Ac-Ft) 1 0.08 0.02 0.02 2.00 2.00 417. 0.010 2 0.05 ******* 0.01 0.29 0.29 61. 0.001 3 0.03 ******* 0.00 0.05 0.05 10. 0.000 4 0.01 ******* 0.00 0.00 0.00 1. 0�� ^� 5 0.00 ******* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0. 0.000 6 0.00 ******* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0. 0.000 7 0.00 ******* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0. 0.000 8 0.00 ******* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0. 0.000 ---------------------------------- Route Time Series through Facility Inflow Time Series File:dev-site.tsf Outflow Time Series File:rdout Inflow/Outflow Analysis Peak Inflow Discharge: 0.078 CFS at Peak Outflow Discharge: 0.017 CFS at Peak Reservoir Stage: 2.00 Ft Peak Reservoir Elev: 2.00 Ft Peak Reservoir Storage: 417. Cu-Ft 0.010 Ac-Ft Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:rdout.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates --- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 0.003 3 2/09/01 3:00 0.000 7 3/06/02 16:00 0.006 2 2/27/03 8:00 0.000 8 10/28/03 8:00 0.000 6 1/27/05 9:00 0.000 5 1/18/06 16:00 0.000 4 1/31/07 23:00 0.017 1 1/09/08 9:00 Computed Peaks 7:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 9:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Flow Frequency Analysis------- - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) (ft) Period 0.017 2.00 1 100.00 0.99.0 0.006 0.29 2 25.00 0.960 0.003 0.05 3 10.00 0.900 0.000 0.00 4 5.00 0.800 0.000 0.00 5 3.00 0.667 0.000 0.00 6 2.00 0.500 0.000 0.00 7 1.30 0.231 0.000 0.00 8 1.10 0.091 0.013 1.20 50.00 0.980 EXH137 3 cnrr Project Memo TO: Ann Dower / Deb Barker FROM: Holly Williams / Len Zickler DATE: June 24, 2008 PROJECT: Mirror Lake Highland Cottage Preliminary Plat OUR FILE NO.: 207555.30 SUBJECT: February 4, 2008 Comment Memo In response to Comment No. 18 on the memo dated February 4, 2008, written by Ann Dower regarding the Mirror Lake Highland Cottage Preliminary Plat Landscape Plans, I would like to respond to the five plants in question in the Typical Raingarden Plant Schedule on Sheet L1.2. The first plant in question is the Rosa pisocarpa, common names Swamp Rose or Clustered Wild Rose. This plant is shown on the Typical Raingarden Plan to be planted in planting Zones 1 or 2 (see attached exhibit). According to the Low Impact Development Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound (LID Technical Guidance Manual), compiled by the Puget Sound Action Team and Washington State University Pierce County Extension, Rosa pisocarpa is best planted in Zones 1 or 2, as it can tolerate moist soils and seasonal flooding, but is also tolerant of dry conditions. The next plant in question is the Lavandula angustifolia, common name Lavender. This plant is also listed in the LID Technical Guidance Manual as an appropriate plant for Zone 3 planting areas in a raingarden. The Typical Raingarden Plan on Sheet L1.2 shows Lavandula angustifolia to be planted only in Zone 3, the high sides of the proposed raingarden. The Lavender is adaptable to various soils and sun and/or partial shade. We are not proposing that the Lavender be planted in the lower more saturated Zones 1 or 2. Echinacea purpurea, common name Purple Coneflower, is also listed in the LID Technical Guidance Manual as an appropriate plant within Zone 3. We are proposing that the Echinacea purpurea be planted on the high side of the raingarden slopes. Lilium columbianum, common name Columbian Lilly, is also an appropriattELUMBI ' 1 be planted within Zone 3 of the proposed raingardens. It is a native lily t!! ryry adaptable to wet soils, as well as summer drought. We would also suggePAOE -OF Hemerocallis fulva, common name is Daylily, which is listed in the LID Technical TACOMA Guidance Manual as an appropriate plant for Zone 3. It is also tp� ant ,k Av.�ri�ty of soil types and is a hardy plant. �-S JUtiM i tU sic 3002215 h 30th Street JUN Z 5 Z008 253.383.24 2Tacoma, WA 98403 335 TEL 253.383.2572 FAX CITY OF FEDERAL WAY BUILDING DEPT. www.ahbl.com Page 2 The last plant listed in the comment letter is Fragaria chiloensis, common name Coastal Strawberry. This plant is being proposed as a groundcover at the top of the raingarden area, so it will not need to tolerate any extra amount of water. It is a hardy groundcover that will not require long term irrigation or a lot of maintenance. A similar plant, Fragaria vesca, common name Wood Strawberry, is recommended in the LID Bioretention Plant List. The plants listed above are being proposed in the appropriate planting zones based on how wet they will be for varying time periods. I have attached an image, which graphically shows the three zones that I am referring to, that is used in the Bioretention Plant List of the LID Technical Guidance Manual. I agree that not all of the plants listed in the Raingarden Plant Schedule on Sheet L1.2 would be appropriate in Zone 1 where they would need to tolerate frequent standing or flowing water. In addition, not all of those plants would be appropriate in Zone 3 where they would need to tolerate dry soils, as well as some wet periods. We feel that the plants being proposed are appropriate plants for the raingardens if planted in the appropriate zones, as shown on the Typical Raingarden Plan. Please feel free to call Len Zickler or me at (253) 383-2422 if you have any questions. Holly Williams Landscape Designer HW/lsk Q:\2007\207555\WORDPROC\MEMOS\20080624_Memo_(CommResp)_207555.30.doa i11: EXHISIt � PAGE Z OF_.5--- O©13® Page 3 Bioretention Planting Zones = Section View • PACIFIC _ •• .. BLEEDING TH°aBLEBERRY srEARI SUNROSE OGTKA ROSE Note: Verucals ie is exaggerated to sh—tunes Rain Garden SNOWBERRY PACFIC CRABAPPLE WILD COASTAL STRAllI'BERQY CLUSTEfDI BLACK WILD F TWINBERRY & Zone 3 I zone 2 zon¢ 1 n.r�rnn Mfg" Bioretention Planting Zones — Plan View said. Rain Garden SNOWBERRY WILD COSTAL ° ► NOOTKA ROSE STRAWBERRY °�i BLACK i � °,s ° ` .ti'-'. TWINBERRY SUVSE zone 3 � � � f • s �'l Zane t •� /t� i i SHRUBBY S TRIJB 1IMBLE- ; " - PACIFIC _ S PENSTEMO a`CN`..1 LM NINE$AR Q{ } 8�RRY ° ~� rnrue e:ec 40 SLOUGH SEDGE ' 1 f , sx ► � • WILD PACIFIC CRaBAPPLE , • i COASTAL 0�'° i� STRAWBERRY r ? y oSNOWBERRY CLUSTERED WILD ROSE % t - � "'OAGGERLEAF SMALL -FRUITED RUSH FOUNTAIN GRASS BULRUSH EXHIBIT ;>..t PAGE_15-OF � 0©=0 CITY OF �. Federal May 12, 2008 Mr. William McCaffrey 30929 37h Place SW Federal Way, WA 98023 CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South Way Mailing Address: PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com Re: File #07-106874-00-SU; MODIFICATION TO GARAGE LOCATION FOR UNIT 1 Mirror Lake Highland Cottage Preliminary Plat; 604 SW 312th Street, Federal Way Dear Mr. McCaffrey: This letter approves the proposed location of the garage on unit #1 of the Cottage Housing Development as provided in the Federal Way City Code (FWCC). In a March 27, 2008 letter, the City received a formal modification written request to allow the garage attached to cottage unit # I to face the 6`h Place SW roadway. Additional information about the request was received on May 6, 2008. The location of attached garages and the right-of-way is discussed in several areas in the cottage housing code sections, including FWCC Sections 22-923(8)(fl' and 22-923(9)(e) 2 Under FWCC Section 22-924, "Modifications," the applicant may request modifications to the site design provisions of this article if all criteria of FWCC Section 22-924(1) through (3) are met as discussed below. Decisional Criteria (1) The site is constrained due to unusual shape, topography, easements, or critical areas. (2) The modification is consistent with the purposes of the article as stated in FWCC Section 22-921. (3) The modification will not result in a project that is less compatible with neighboring land uses. FINDINGS Site Constraints —The subject site is approximately 100 feet by 748 feet, bordered by SW 312'h Street at the south end of the property and 6'h Place SW along the southwest portion of the property. SW 312� Street is a public right-of-way, while 6'h Place SW is a private street subject to vehicular easements. The applicant is required to improve their half of the first 120 feet of 6'h Place SW to an adopted street standard. This property will remain private but must be set -aside in a Tract X for possible future dedication to the City.' 1 FWCC Section 22-923(8)(f) — Dwelling units shall not include attached garages unless the garage abuts an alley or shared parking lot. ' FWCC Section 22-923(9)(e) — Garage doors shall not be oriented toward a public right-of-way with the exception of an alley. 3 Public Works staff has stated that it is doubtful that 6'h Place SW will be made public as it does not connect to another street other than SW 312'h Street. EXH 1 B E a File#07-10661400-SU PAGC >) .1D. 40C 2 Mr. William McCaffrey Page 2 May 12, 2008 Vehicular access into the cottage housing development will be from the 6`h Place SW. Due to the narrowness of the cottage housing parcel and required structural setbacks, only two units are able to front onto SW 312'h Street, with the other 14 units located along the balance of the property. Unit #1 is proposed at the corner of SW 312`h Street and 6`' Place SW. It is also adjacent to an open space area to the north. The primary entry and covered porch of unit # 1 fronts onto the SW 312'h Street right-of-way in conformance with cottage code requirements, and a one -car garage is proposed at the rear of the unit # 1. So as to not interrupt the required open space area with vehicular traffic, access to this garage is proposed from 6t' Place SW, which results in the garage door visible from the private road. The overall cottage housing parcel is considered to be constrained because of the shape of the lot; the existing location of public and private roadways; the limited vehicular access point locations into the site; and the corner lot configuration of proposed unit #1. As a result, there are limited configurations for the attached garage to unit # 1 and the proposed garage door is oriented to an area that functions as a right-of-way.a Purpose of Article — The modification to locate the garage facing the 6'h Place SW roadway is consistent with the purposes of the cottage and compact single-family housing article. To that end, cottage housing prototypes are maintained and there are no impacts to the affordability of the housing units. The location of the vehicular access to the garage attached to unit #1 will not interrupt the functional open space of the cottage project. As conditioned to eliminate vehicle parking in the driveway, neighborhood interaction and safety through design is maintained. The location of the unit #1 garage maintains compatibility with neighboring uses and maintains the infill opportunities associated with the cottage housing project. Compatibility — The modification will result in a project that is compatible with neighboring land uses. The proposed location of the unit # 1 driveway is in the same location as the driveway for the existing house and the proposed driveway would be more than 25 feet from the driveway into the cottage housing development. In order to serve the single car garage, the driveway would be less than 20 feet wide, consistent with existing driveways for nearby residential development. Based on these findings, the proposed location of the driveway to the garage attached to the unit #1 is approved. Please contact Senior Planner Deb Barker at 253-835-2642, or deb.barker@cityoffederalway.com, if you have any questions about this modification or the cottage housing preliminary plat application. Sincerely, Greg Fewins, Director Community Development Services c: Deb Barker, Senior Planner Ann Dower, Engineering Plans Reviewer Sanjeev Tandle, Traffic Analyst 4 It should be noted that carports can be located adjacent to the right-of-way without conflict. G-_ :Ill L �1 riT.��,. G 0r` File N07-1068744)0-SU Doc. I D. 45321 r Ili 0 w U- is V Cale W 3M scuaia,- Agn I Construction Management I Development 6/20/08 Deb Barker Senior Planner City of Federal way Subject: 2/21/08 Technical Comments Response Dear Deb, I have responded below in order of your 2/21/08 comments, you will need your original comments letter to correlate my responses: SEPA Checklist: All comments were addressed and revised Checklist resubmitted on 3/14/2008. The SEPA report has now received a DNS, been publically posted, citizen comments responded to, and no appeals received. Public Works Development Services: To date we have had several phone calls and two meetings with Ann Dower and other City Public Works personnel concerning their Preliminary Submittal comments. Per those communications and the Preliminary Plat comments from Deb Barker it was agreed that items 1-8 of her 2/4/08 letter would be addressed on the new preliminary plat drawing 1-A that we are adding to the preliminary engineering drawings. The balance of her comments were issues we needed to address at the time of final engineering submittal. Traffic Division San'eev Tandle: We have received no written response from Traffic. I called Sanjeev and he told me he had no comments. We assume this means that all parking lot access arrangements, setbacks, garage locations, curb cuts, etc. meet the City's requirements because the site plan depends heavily on this design. If this is not the case, please respond iminediatel T EXHIIYI Sanjeev forwarded the completed Concurrency Report to us on 4/8/08. pA GE -L-OF--I-- RESUBMITTED JUN 2 5 2008 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY BUILDING D ppT www.Gl7eLl amsl€6diu_c®m Lakehaven Utffill District: All preliminary submittals have been made and we have signed a Developer Extension Agreement with Lakehaven. Planning Department: Several statements in Deb Barkers response were the result of misunderstanding the previous drawings as well as this submittal. Two meetings and several phone calls have cleared up this misunderstanding. I will however provide written response to all of the issues raised in the Deb's Technical Comments. General Preamble Section - First and foremost, the notion that this preliminary plat submittal results in "a project that is in sharp contrast to the visual renderings submitted with the demonstration project application" is simply not correct. The slope and the housings relationship to the slope, indicated in both submittals are nearly identical. The extent of the labeled "existing native vegetation and trees", the extent of existing vegetation removal, and the amount of new landscaping required in both submittals is nearly identical. The "extensive trenching" noted in the comments referred to the completely underground infiltration trenches for each housing unit (a Low Impact Development feature) that were misunderstood as open surface trenches. Any changes in site landscaping/open space is the direct result of the City requiring additional pavement width and garage setbacks (an emphasis on the automobile over the pedestrian), as well as the developer granting 6 neighbors easements for all of their encroachments along the western property line. The result of all of this was a reduction in the width of open space down the middle of the entire project by 14'. To mitigate this loss we acquired additional property on our north border. The result is a nearly identical amount of open space which still exceeds the CHD Ordinance requirement by over 80% (14,518sf vs. 8000si). The design decision to utilize low landscape walls between many of the houses to enhance the use of the small side yards was clearly depicted on the site section submitted to the City for review on 9/21/07 and was not noted as an issue in the City's 10/10/07 response letter that gave us direction for our preliminary submittal. These landscape walls are definitely not required in order to "get all of the homes onto the subject property" and will be addressed below under- Clearing, Grading, & Retaining Walls. The comments concerning the amount of fill required on the site are correct. The preliminary engineering solution, which utilizes extensive Low Impact Development (LID) approaches, will require more fill than originally expected to fully utilize the natural infiltration capacity of the site in order to meet the stringent requirements for E?CHlBlT-?= PAGE-Ir-OF Level 3 Flow Control. This will be addressed below under- Clearing, Grading, Retaining Walls. In regards the reiteration of the 4 conditions outlined in our CHD approval/selection letter, we believe our preliminary plat submittal meets or exceeds all of these conditions. If these conditions are included here to indicate we have failed any of these requirements, please elaborate on the specific issues. • Planning Section 1— Preliminary Plat A Final Plat drawing is primarily uniform due to County filing requirements. Preliminary Plat drawings are not really a filed document and thus vary greatly between jurisdictions. The confusion on our part as tg what The City of Federal Way wanted on its Preliminary Plat was cleared up in a meeting between the project surveyor, me, and Deb Barker. The 13 bullet point's outlines by Deb Barker to be on the Preliminary Plat are being addressed per our meeting. Our intent is to answer all of Deb's requests on our re -submittal. Planning Section 2 — Clearing, grading, retaining walls Clearing- As stated above, we take issue with the statement that "The proposed clearing action significantly departs from the originally approved conceptual plan". Our original landscape plan indicated all but maybe three or four perimeter trees as being removed. The "existing vegetation" note was clearly pointed at trees around the perimeter that were beyond our actual property line and will in fact be kept. The issue of trees was raised at the neighborhood meeting. My response was a desire to keep as many trees as possible, but the possibility of removing all the tress was raised as a possibility. Upon final tree survey and site plan layout about 5 significant trees (in addition to the 4 currently indicated as retained) were not eliminated by buildings or pavement improvements. Unfortunately, due to the narrowness of the site (please see our lost 14' discussion above), utility requirements dictate significant trenching right through the root structure of these remaining trees. The tree consultant ultimately decided that those trees would not survive construction and should be removed also. Approval for mass grading will not affect the number trees saved. Even if our LID engineering approach has to be abandoned and we build at grade, all trees would still be recommended for removal. a) Mass Grading Request- (If this Mass Grading Request needs to be submitted under separate cover please let me know) V- PAGE-3-POF We are requesting permission to mass grade our 1.88 acre site at 604 SW 312th Street, submitted as Mirror Lake Highland Preliminary Plat, for the following extenuating and unusual circumstances. The site is developing as a demonstration project for the new Federal Way Cottage Housing Development Ordinance (CHD Ordinance). Cottage housing is characterized by higher density small lots not required to have public ROW frontage, arranged around commonly owned open areas, and designed in a manner that promotes neighborhood interaction and security. Due to the projects location in a sensitive Level 3 Flow Control area and a strong neighborhood and developer concern over water quality issues as related to Mirror Lake, the developer is committed to utilizing as many Low Impact Development (LID) approaches as feasible. This use of environmentally preferred and neighborhood friendly LID approaches places a unique layer of constraints on how the site can develop. The combination of CHD requirements/goals, LID engineering design, and a long narrow development site result in this request for mass grading. Typical subdivisions have all lots accessing a public ROW that typically contains the infrastructure serving the lots. In a CHD, most of the lots are separated from the access ROW by common open space. This results in the common space becoming a main conduit of the sites infrastructure. This means the whole common space (which intertwines the lots) is developed up front along with vehicular and fire access as well as utility extensions. This would leave the building lots separated from heavy equipment access by already developed open space with infrastructure in place. This would make completion of the lot clearing and grading nearly impossible without severe negative impact on the already completed open areas. With a mass grading approach, we plan on excavating the housing unit crawl spaces along with final common space work so no heavy "tracked" equipment will be needed to complete the foundations. One advantage of the narrow site is that concrete for foundations can be delivered by pump trucks from the access ROW without having to pass the heavy equipment over the open space. Another issue concerning clearing is that lots in a Cottage Housing development occupy a significant less percentage of the entire subdivision. In this case our lots average 2250 sq. ft. and account for less that half of the total project area. Clearing trees one lot at a time on 2250 sq. ft. lots (average width about 41') without negatively affecting the surrounding lots and open space, as stated above, is highly improbable. The trees themselves are longer than the lots they occupy. Per our soils report, this site is favored with over twice the depth of water retaining, infiltrative soil than most land in south King County. This infiltrative soil provides the very best water quality solution as well as flow control solution for a sensitive area like Mirror Lake. We are proposing the use of LID techniques including buried infiltration trenches for most roof run off and public ROW for 6`' EXHIBIT P"- PAGL�' _OF ST SW, pervious concrete for major portions of the paved surfaces, and rain gardens for remaining paved surfaces, some roofs, and general sheet flow. The essence of LID rain garden design is to locate the flow control element as close to the source of run-off as possible. The site has over 50'of fall (about 81/o) from north to south and as much as 10' (about 10%) of fall on its narrow axis from west to east. This calls for the rain gardens to be located down -gradient along the east property line of the project between the cottage housing units. This leaves the roof run-off infiltration trenches running along the contours in an east/west direction across the site (see drainage plan C-3), primarily on the west third. In order to take advantage of this infiltrative soil, and implement the neighborhood favorable LID infiltration/rain garden approach, we need to raise the grade level along the eastern side of the property between rain gardens. The design calls for nothing more than "leveling out" the western half of the site and uniformly raising the eastern half from north to south, except for the rain garden areas. This allows us to place the bottom of the 18" deep rain gardens slightly below grade along the eastern third of the site as well as allowing the proper elevation change and clearances for the roof infiltration trenches to work properly on the western third of the site. The east side would uniformly be raised a yet to be finalized amount. The 5000 CU YD fill dirt estimate, and our preliminary grading plan, was arrived at as a worst case scenario so we would not have to modify the SEPA Report if indeed that amount of dirt were ultimately required once final engineering was completed. We need to progress to final engineering of the rain gardens in order to finalize the earthwork number. At least a 50% reduction in dirt is our current goal. The natural 3'-5' drop between houses (North to South) indicated on our original CHD Submittal drawings, and our Preliminary Plat submittal, would remain relatively the same. Mass grading is required to accomplish all of these desirable outcomes. The last issue affecting our clearing and grading approach is the narrow character of our site and our commitment to LID products like pervious concrete. The long range benefits of pervious concrete are obvious but use of it causes some impacts on initial construction. All of our street infrastructure will be required to be in place prior to building permits being issued. It is not desirable to direct inherently heavy and dirty construction vehicles like those required for tree clearing and earthwork over pervious concrete. Our narrow site cuts off all access to the north end of the site after the first models are built on the south end except over the newly placed pervious concrete. While protecting the pervious is not an impossible task (we hope to only have to accommodate rubber tired cement pump trucks), it is very desirable to avoid this degree of exposure if possible. EXHIBIT R PAGES OF- b) Retaining Walls This site has no 15% slopes and does not require "extensive use of retaining walls to create building pads or open space areas". The predominant north to south slope never exceeds about 8%. A small portion of the north end of the site reaches about 10% in a west to east slope. Per our existing design which includes mass grading (please see above), the west to east area slope will be reduced some and the north to south slope will remain predominantly the same. Our request for mass grading has nothing to do with creating retaining walls to make areas suitable for housing pads. It has to do with optimizing the desirable, community friendly LID engineering concepts as shown on our engineering drawings. From our earliest submittal the natural 8% grade created a 3' to 5' floor to floor difference in elevation between housing units. Early on a different texture was used on the site section drawings to indicate a certain amount of fill or re -grading around the houses in order to fit flat first floors into the sloping hillside. As the design advanced and input from our informal focus group unfolded, a desire to make the narrow side yards more user friendly for dog runs, walkways, etc., resulted in the possible addition of low garden walls to create a more level area. These walls are not required to make any yard habitable or legal. They are simply an aesthetic landscaping element being considered by the architect and landscape designer. We indicated this direction on our 9/5/08 submittal which included a site section showing various height walls. These walls were drawn with no drop in elevation away from any of the foundations so they were a worse case scenario. Only a couple were high enough to require engineering. You responded to this submittal favorable on 10/10-08 with no mention of an objection to us utilizing the garden walls. That drawing was just the beginning of us looking at low walls. The truth is I decided that the walls were higher than I would like them and I started working with the engineers to see what we could do to lower them in many cases and eliminate them in others. That is basically where we stand right now. Based on the clarifications we received from the City of Federal Way Public Works Department to our proposed rain garden design, final engineering should let us take a lot of height out of the walls and require much less fill. Because there are no slopes over 15% and because these walls do not affect the amount of lots or density that the site will hold, I don't know exactly what I need to support here. If the City dictated no walls for some reason, we could make that happen. However, I think it is unusual territory for the City to dictate this kind of aesthetic decision. c) Cottage Housing Yards - A general site section was provided with our 9/8/07 submittal that shows the worst possible wall height. In addition we have submitted detailed lot PAGE_.SP-OF drawings for your review as per Cottage Design Section 5(f) of this response. I have submitted no additional drawings at this time because I think all of the above information has covered the original concern. d) Apparent Tree/Trench Conflict -this will be resolved on the final engineered submittal. • Planning Section 3 - Common Open Space The City gave us permission to supply the overall site plan and CHD Areas verification drawing at a scale of 1:30 in order to keep from having to break the site in two parts. It was agreed that it would be easier to review that way. All of the required information is shown on this 1:30 drawing. Since the City has apparently changed their mind, we redrew these drawings at the larger scale and broke them into two separate drawings, Sht. A-1 and Sht. A-1.1. Hopefully you will find this more convenient, it cost many hours of drawing time. a) Please see Sht. A-1 and A-1.1 for this information. b) Please see Sht. A-1.1 for this information. c) Please note that the original submittal and this re -submittal call the rain gardens out as common open space in accordance with the CHD approval letter dated 4/17/07. d) The 400 Sq Ft minimum private front yard areas are shown on Sht. A-1.1. Just as it is labeled, this space is private property and will be landscaped by, and at the expense of, the eventual homeowner under the requirements and the time frame outlined in the Home Owners Association C,C,&R's. e Planning Section 4 — Landscaping a) Significant Trees — The submitted trees study (dated 12/18/07) studied all 107 trees on the site. Federal Way standards only consider 63 of these trees to be significant. 12 of these significant trees were declared unhealthy or dead and were recommended to be removed by the arborist. This left 51 significant trees. This is all clearly delineated on page 4 of the report. b) Replacement Trees — Consider this a formal request to relocate replacement trees from the building lot associated with the removed significant trees. If this request needs to be submitted under separate cover, please let me know asap. EXHIBlT � PAGE-?-'OF�_ The existence of common open space throughout a CHD and the very small size (avg. 2250 sf) of the lots, makes locating the replacement significant trees in the open space areas the logical approach. The open space has more area for significant trees and will fall under the common maintenance of the home owners association (HOA). Location in the open space also insures that enjoyment of the trees is available to all resident/owners in the development. The HOA is expected to limit the size of trees allowed in the private yards to smaller varieties in order to keep a uniform scale to the overall planting scheme. This further points to the open areas as the best place for the prescribed number of significant replacement trees. c) Plant Selection — The resubmitted, revised Landscape Plan addresses all of these concerns. d) Rain Garden Seating — The current design intentions for the decks and seating in the rain gardens and common spaces are listed in the notes on Sht. A-1. A low seating/eating 30"-36" rail design is included at the rain garden viewing decks which will be built of pressure treated wood and composite decking material. Final detailing will be included with our final submittal. 6 Planning Section 5 — Cottage Design a) Front Entry - Please note that the original submittal and this re -submittal call the rain gardens out as common open space in accordance with the CHD approval letter dated 4/17/07. b) Attached garage locations/design — We submitted the requested drawings on 3/21/2008 and received City approval for the garage on Unit #1- 5/12/2008. c) Parking — Please see Sht. A-1 for guest and compact stall locations. d) Height — All height issues are addressed on the submitted unit drawings. e) Pedestrian Path — This approach is reflected on the resubmitted site drawings. f) Required Yards — Your requested drawings were submitted on 3/27/08 and your review letter was returned on 5/8.08. We are proceeding under the findings of your letter. Per your request for a written response, please note the following: All of the units and lots are designed to meet the requirements for the required yards of 5' minimum. All projecting bays are less than 25% of the length of the facade that they are placed on. This means they can project up to 18" into any required yards. Decks less than 18" in height from the ground EXHIB PAGE OF are allowed to project 18" into required yards. All projecting decks will meet this requirement. Retaining walls are allowed in required yards if they do not provided direct structural support. None of our proposed retaining wall provide structural support and many will probably be eliminated per final design. The building set back line for each lot is shown on Sht. A-1.1. In most cases it allows about a foot of play in width to place the housing unit. This allows all units to meet the above requirements. A careful study of sheet A-1 shows the actual proposed location of each unit on each lot with dimensions. ■ Planning Section 6 — Other a) The well is located on the Bethel Christian Church property to the east of our site. It is well outside the 100 ft required buffer and was checked by the surveyor. b) The additional Title information has been submitted. c) The School Access Analysis has been submitted and was approved by the Federal Way School District. Best Regards Bill McCaffrey ALI vu the WJM studio PAGE-q-OF_ -'I-- CITY OF �. Federal February 9, 2007 Mr. William McCaffrey 30929 37th Place SW Federal Way, WA 98023 CITY HALL �� 33325 8th Avenue South Mailing Address: PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www. cityoffederalwa y com RE. Permit No, 07-100208-00-SM; MIRROR LAKE HIGHLAND COTTAGES 604 SW 312th St Dear Mr. McCaffrey: This letter responds to your request dated January 11, 2007 to waive and/or modify the required street improvements for Mirror Lake Highland Cottages. Request to modifv the Tme "W" section required for 6"' Place SW. After evaluating the existing conditions along the roadway, review of Federal Way City Code (FWCC) provisions (Sections 22-1477, 22-1496), and direction provided by the City Council, the Public Works Department has determined that the Type "W" section will be applied to this roadway due to the number of lots accessing the road. If the applicant can show legal access to the existing easement on the adjacent property, the project will only be responsible for half -street improvements consisting of 14-feet of pavement, 4-foot planter strip, 5-foot sidewalk, and 3-foot utility strip. If the applicant does not have legal access to the adjacent easement, improvements will consist of 20-feet of pavement, 4-foot planter strip, 5-foot sidewalk, and 3-foot utility strip. This property will remain private but must be set aside in a "Tract X" for possible future dedication to the public. Parking will not be allowed within the tract. 2. Frontage improvements along SW 312`h Street abutting the prODerty. SW 312t' Street is planned as a Type "K" street, consisting of a 44-foot street with two 8-foot sidewalks, two 6-foot planter strips, two 5-foot bike lanes, two 11-foot lanes, and one 12-foot center lane in a 78-foot right-of-way. Assuming a symmetrical cross section, a 9-foot right-of-way dedication would be required. As was stated in your letter, full frontage improvements will be required along SW 312'' Street. Due to the existing alignment of the road and right-of-way, it is unclear how much of the current right-of-way and/or right-of-way dedication may be necessary to complete improvements to the road. Your letter asserts that the existing right-of- way is larger than necessary, and requests that the "extra" portion be vacated. Right-of-way vacation is possible, but requires a process which is outlined in the L:\CSDC\DOCS\SAVE\5997877054. DOC EXMBITS PAGE-L-OF Z Mr. William McCaffrey RE: Permit No. 07-100208-00-SM February 9, 2007 Page Two enclosed handout. In order for the City to determine whether there is actually any right-of-way that can be vacated, the applicant will have to provide a survey, stamped by a surveyor licensed in the State of Washington, that shows existing improvements, topography, and property lines on both sides of the right-of-way. In addition, civil engineering plans must be provided that show how the full street section can be constructed within the right-of-way. A sight distance analysis must also be provided, and any additional turn pocket or other roadway modification necessary to obtain required sight distance on SW 312th Street must be included in this design. 3. Internal roadways within the development. Currently, internal roadway access to more than four lots is required to be a Type "W" section, consisting of 28-feet of pavement with 5-foot sidewalks, 4-foot planter strips, and 3-foot utility strips on both sides, all within a 52-foot right-of-way. The City is in the process of adopting future standards for internal roadways for Cottage Housing Development. It is anticipated that once adopted, the roadway cross section for a private road serving thirteen or more units will consist of 24-feet of pavement, 5-foot sidewalk on both sides, and a minimum easement width of 34- feet. Until these, or other, standards are adopted by City Council, staff is unable to complete a modification. Staff will inform you when the new road standards are adopted by City Council, and will provide a final answer at that time. If you have any questions, please contact Ann Dower, Engineering Plans Reviewer, at (253) 835-2732 or via email at ann.dower@cityofFederalwa-y.com. Sincerely, Ken Miller, P.E. Deputy Public Works Director KM\AD:cb Enclosure: Street/Alley Vacation Checklist cc: Will Appleton, P.E., Development Services Manager Deb Barker, Senior Planner Ann Dower, Engineering Plans Reviewer Maryanne Zukowski, Traffic Engineer Project File (AD) Day File PAGE--ArJ--.W Z L\CSDC\DOCS\SAVE\5997877054. DOC 3/28/2008 Deb Barker Senior Planner City of Federal Way RE: File #07-106874-00-SU; School Access Analysis School Access Analsis Lor Mirror Lake Hr hland CHD The following school attendance and bus stop information was supplied by Geri Walker of the Federal Way School District. Lake Grove Elementary__- Walking Distance To get to Lake Grove Elementary students must walk approx 1076 ft North on 61" PL SW from the entry of Mirror Lake Highland (MLH) to 5W 308`h St. From there they would proceed East along the south shoulder of 308`h for approx. 942' to the school. They cross no streets. 6`h PL SW is a lightly used local street with no sidewalks and about 300' of the approx 1076' is a gravel surface. 6th PL SW is not a through street. It dead ends at a guardrail barrier coming south from SW 308`h ST and going north from SW 312`h ST. (see photo 461 for view Northwest from MLH entry, photo 462 for North view to barrier, photo 471 for South view to barrier, and photo 465 for South view from SW 308`h St. intersection) SW 308`h St. is a minor collector with no sidewalks. It is equipped with "C" curbs along the south shoulder from the 6`h PL intersection to the school. It has two 15mph speed bumps within the 942' and it terminates at a 20mph school zone at the school. (see photo 464 for East view from 6`h Pl intersection and photo 466 for end of South shoulder at school) Lakota Middle School- Walking Distance To get to Lakota Middle School students would walk approx I 00' south on the new 6'h PL SW sidewalk to SW 312`h St. Then approx 600' west along the north shoulder of 312`h or to the school crosswalk at 8`h Ave SW. After crossing 312`h at the crosswalk I13 continue West approx. 1945' along 312th to 14`h Ave SW, turn south, and cco ft OF approx 600' to the school. RESUBMITTED MAR 3 -:1 Z008 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY BUILDING DEPT. IL 6'h PL SW is a lightly used local street, which when developed, will have a sidewalk on the east side connecting to a new sidewalk going east on the north side of 312'h. (see photo 460 for view north from 312'h) 312'4 is a minor arterial with a pedestrian shoulder on the north side between 6'h Ave and 8'h Ave. (see photo 447 & 450 for westerly view along this section) 8'h Ave. SW is a minor collector with no sidewalks and a school crosswalk at 312'h. (see photo 456 for crosswalk and photo 451 for view of South side of intersection) The south shoulder of 312'h from 8'h Ave all the way west to Lakota is already equipped with "C" curbs for school pedestrian traffic. The end of 312'h at 14'h Ave SW terminates in a 20mph school zone and a lighted crosswalk. (see photo 473 for West view of South shoulder from crosswalk) Federal Way High School - Bus transportation provided Mirror Lake Highlands has a public bus stop immediately in front of it on SW 312'h St. this extended shoulder could easily be utilized for a new High School bus stop. To get to the closest existing High School bus pick-up students would have to walk approx 100' south on the new 6'h PL SW sidewalk to SW 312'h St. Then approx 600' west along the north shoulder of 312'h to the school crosswalk at 81h Ave SW. After crossing 312'h at the crosswalk they would proceed approx 600' south on 8'h Ave SW to the corner of it and SW 313'h Ct. where the bus currently stops. 6'h PL SW is a lightly used local street, which when developed, will have a sidewalk on the east side connecting to a new sidewalk going east on the north side of 312'h. (see photo 460 for view north from 312'h) 312'h is a minor arterial with a pedestrian shoulder on the north side between 6'h Ave and 8'h Ave. (see photo 447 & 450 for westerly view along this section) 8'h Ave. SW is a minor collector with no sidewalks and a school crosswalk at 312'h. (see photo 456 for crosswalk and photo 451 for view of South side of intersection) SW 313'h Ct. is a local street with sidewalks. (see photo 455 for South view of 313 Ct. intersection and sidewalks) RESLIBMITTED MAR 3,1 2oo8 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY BUILDING DEPT. 6`t' PL SW is a lightly used local street, which when developed, will have a sidewalk on the east side connecting to a new sidewalkPing east on the north side of 312th. (see photo 460 for view north from 312th) 312th is a minor arterial with a pedestrian shoulder on the north side between 6th Ave and 8th Ave. (see photo 447 & 450 for westerly view along this section) 8th Ave. SW is a minor collector with no sidewalks and a school crosswalk at 312th. (see photo 456 for crosswalk and photo 451 for view of South side of intersection) The south shoulder of 312th from 8'h Ave all the way west to Lakota is already equipped with "C" curbs for school pedestrian traffic. The end.of 312th at 14'h Ave SW terminates in a 20mph school zone and a lighted crosswalk. (see photo 473 for West view of South shoulder from crosswalk) Federal Way High School - Bus transportation provided Mirror Lake Highlands has a public bus stop immediately in front of it on SW 31211, St. this extended shoulder could easily be utilized for a new High School bus stop. To get to the closest existing High School bus pick-up students would have to walk approx 100' south on the new 6th PL SW sidewalk to SW 312th St. Then approx 600' crest along the north shoulder of 312'h to the school crosswalk at 8th Ave SW. After crossing 312th at the crosswalk they would proceed approx 600' south on 8th Ave SW to the corner of it and SW 313th Ct. where the bus currently stops. 6th PL SW is a lightly used local street, which when developed, will have a sidewalk on the east side connecting to a new sidewalk going east on the north side of 312th. (see photo 460 for view north from 312th) 312th is a minor arterial with a pedestrian shoulder on the north side between 6th Ave and 8th Ave. (see photo 447 & 450 for westerly view along this section) 8th Ave. SW is a minor collector with no sidewalks and a school crosswalk at 312th. (see photo 456 for crosswalk and photo 451 for view of South side of intersection) SW 313th Ct. is a local street with sidewalks. (see photo 455 for South view of 313 Ct. intersection and sidewalks) EXHIBIT Ir PAGE-&.OF�� RES'JEWITTED MAR 3 ,x 20o8 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY BUILDING DEPT. r w •Y• i� 11 .��,� •i + + 01. • v 14 - �• _� ��'_ ��yli,•f.� .- . � .�. fir' .�'.•�r:-- Al •r_��; x mow_ ,' Ut ;�{'. .fit•` .��..�r;�•y�• +�' .._ ' • : �'�"-'"ice — '`+!{. *�„".[ � .. t. ='ti �_:� �r ,yam• . ':+/.�=. • �� ,��.'jpj a �: � ..�F .' r ram' �� 2" -Ail p a ti 's -• � � f �} S r� RESUBMITTED MAR 3,1 2008 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY BUILDING DEPT. EXHIBIT- "r PAGE tL OFF_ 4 tl� 1p I, it ba� VA _.._ems , `; � =: •. ��f �:: 1, flu - I%- . , -t ?R11 W�l f Fi, r Irt' }rF yr . i% Y 4 6� IRS$ 47 .7% Pt A N Irk M br I -4t M-4 �Tl -Ta "L .4 -k Im pul kk 64) Y"& Sju w wo toar * Olk Ave S L46) sp 6+ fw BQS44*qe sw ply Sewov h U+ wak w.s+ mb WO0440 044d. fe • SUgMITTED NEAR 3..I 2008 �1B OF F UILD EDERAL WAY B INS DEPT. evu1e19r T PAGE IZ OF 13 0 3j7 m u 4i F. I.,.EXIHIIBI Of AG 9 kim 5 , uuIS T PAGE 1' i ! +Y r! r•-. ry e y j�, 4 • � S�,'Ily awl ��^``�1y S Iti ti�- � . '.� N .� RY Y! Jh LQ King Cot�trty Department of Development and Environmental Services ' - lding Services Division iakesdale Avenue Southwest Renton, Washington 98057-5212 206-296-6600 TTY 206-296-7217 Web date: 04/26/2007 ,SEWER, A,#---- LAr-"U i Y- KING CO.. I (SATE Q� >. SEWER AVAILABILITY f ERU� For alternate formats, call 206-296-6600. This certificate provides the Public Health - Seattle & King County Department and the Department of Development and Environmental Services with information necessary to evaluate development proposals. r77 this box L Number 2. 3. 4. ❑ Building Permit Preliminary Plat or PUD ❑ Short Subdivision ❑ Rezone or other: Applicant's name: A c Proposed use: L — I( - Location (attach map and legal description if necessary): bq ✓ ✓ w", Name CITY QF PEDERAI to AV IR s-�� E>a60-&- w Vol Seweragency information- 1. ❑ a. Sewer servicecan be provided by side sewer connection onl to an existin y g _ size sewer feet from the site and the sewer system has the capacity to serve the proposed use. OR Xb. Sewer service will require an improvement to the sewer system of: (feet of sewer trunk or lateral to reach the site,- ands X(2) The construction of a cola cation system on the site; ands X (3) Other (describe): Ex ( CND Tp 74\2 ET)GiF Pe6Z t-PKetF Xa. The sewer system improvement is in conformance with a County approved sewer comprehensive plan OR ❑ b. The sewer system improvement will require a sewer comprehensive plan amendment. a. The proposed project is within the corporate limits of the district or has been granted Boundary Review Board OR approval for extension of service outside the district or city. ❑ b. Annexation or Boundary Review Board (BRB) approval will be necessary to provide service. Service is subject to the following: a. Connection ch b. Easement(s): G. Other. V% The District, at its sole discretion, reserves the right to delay or deny sewer service based upon capacity limitations in District and Other Purveyor facilities. * I I certify that the above sewer agency information is true. This certification shall be valid for one year signature- -4k- LAKEHAVEN UTILITY DISTRICT � ,AJ N�s-;i�(34AGE--L—OF ! Agency name ^J e at v/ sewer availability form.doc b-cert-sewer.pdf 02-07-2002 Page 1 of 1 Web date: 04/26/2007 King county Department of Development and Environmental Services Building Services Division 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest )ton, Washington 98057-5212 -296-6600 TTY 206-296-7217 KING C oUNTY CERTIFICATE OF � VVATER-AVAILABILITY 6L ti For alternate formats, call 206-296-6600. This certificate provides the Public Health - Seattle & King County Department and the Department of Development and Environmental Services with information necessary to evaluate development proposals. Do not write in this box RECEIVED,' ' `--- Number Name ❑ Building Permit .Preliminary Plat or PUD ❑ Short Subdivision ❑ Rezone or other: F-Rf�-DER-RfVAY Applicant's name: C BUILDING•, DEPT, Proposed use: jam, Location (attach map and legal des lion if necessary): C.-�sLo a. Watei can be provided by service connection only to an existing (size) water main that is feet from the site. INS OR b. Water service will require an improvement to the water system of., (1) ! feet of water main to reach the site; andtAF j�(2) The construction of is ra ution system on the site; and/or (3) Other(describe); E N -ro t�C, F CjP4,37-�€?',)2. Xa. OR The water system is in conformance with a County approved water comprehensive plan. l l b The water system improvement is not in conformance with a County approved water comprehensive plan and will require a water comprehensive plan amendment. (This may cause a delay in issuance of a permit or approval.) 3. a. The proposed project is within the corporate limits of the district, or has been granted Boundary Review Board approval for extension of service outside the district or city, or is within the County approved service area of a private water purveyor. OR ❑ b. Annexation or Boundary Review Board (BRB) approval will be necessary to provide service. 4. X a. Water is or will be available at the rate of ow and duration indicated below at no less than 20 psi measured at the nearest fire hydrant A . E7. L"2 feet from the building/property (or as marked on the attached map): Rate of flow at Peak Demand: ❑ less than 500 gpm (approx. gpm) ❑ 500 to 999 gpm >< 1000 gpm or more ✓ ❑ flow test of gpm ❑ calculation of gpm Duration: ❑ less than 1 hour ❑ 1 hour to 2 hours 02 hours or more / Other: OR (Note: Commercial building permits which include multifamily structures require flow test or calculalion.) ❑ b. Water system is not capable of providing fire flow. 5. a. OR Water system has certificates of water rights or water right claims sufficient to provide service. ❑ b. Water system does not currently have necessary water rights or water right claims.. Comments/conditions: 9EVE{,tJ?;EFZ qq (O 0 I certify that the above water purveyor information is true. This certification shall be valid fgrone year LAKEHAVEN UTILITY DISTRICT � k`j GE �F _ Agency name ignatory me J - YA �a 2 o 2 Title Signature Date ( 007 in k Pressure ZoneTHighes# Elevation of Property 3 i � 1� ; Est. M Pressure Est !I Lowest .- - - - - - - - ---- - -Max ! . The District, at its sole discretion, reserves the right to delay or deny water service based upon capacity limitations in District and Other Purvevor facilities Nater availability form Rev. 05-19-2003 Page 1 of 1 �013TH KI n M LOW. A D.0 i If k iA#JIAY. DAY February 27, 2008 Deb Barker, Senior Planner City of Federal Way PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063 Re: Mirror Lake Highland Cottage/07-106874-SU/comment letters Dear Deb, This letter is in response to the Fire/Life Safety concerns in the comment letters received for this project. During the development review process we have had the opportunity to evaluate the project and make code based conditions prior to final approval of the project. There are no new requirements that have not been previously considered. The current requirements are: • The installation of one new hydrant prior to construction of the buildings so that all structures are within 300' of a hydrant. • All structures are required to have an approved automatic fire sprinkler system Although there is no code based requirement for exterior fire resistive materials, the owner is using materials on the exterior that have been proven to be fire resistive. Typically fires do not originate on the exterior of a structure and the concern for fire spread between structures is under wildland fire situations which we do not experience in Federal Way. Sincerely, Chris Ingham Deputy Fire Marsha/ EXHier.)&L. PAGE-1_OF-1�. Carol McNeill From: Marla.G.Ledin@gsk.com Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 9:58. AM To: Carol McNeilly Cc: bob.roper@comcast.net Subject: Mirror Lake Highlands Comments for 9-26 hearing Attachments: Marla Ledin, Hearing comments 9-24-08.doc Hi Carol, I am on crutches. currently so am submitting my comments via email per Deb's advice below. Thank you for any help in getting this. to. the. right people. Marla Ledin office phone 253.839.0626 marla xi.led inOwsk.com "Deb Barker" <Deb.BarkerncitvofFederalway.com> 25-Sep-2008 11:44 To "'Marla.G.Ledin@gsk.com' <Marla_.G.LedinCdigsk.com> cc 'Carol McNeilly" <Carol.McNelilyCg7cityofiederalway.comp Subject RE: Mirror Lake Highlands Comments Hi Marla -Thank you for your message and I understand about the crutches and work obligation. Please e-mail your. comments to. City Clerk Carol McNeilly and she will get your comments distributed to the Hearing Examiner tomorrow. Carol's e-mail is attached to this reply and her phone number. is 253-835-2540 if. needed. You can copy me on your comments or not- your choice. Let me know if you have any questions. Also, I hope that the healing is going well. Regards Deb Barker, Senior Planner City of Federal Way 33325 8th Avenue South, PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 253-835-2642 (p) 253-835-2609 (f) deb.barker a)ci offederalwa .cone From: Marla.G.Ledin -sk.com [mailto:Marla.G.Ledin gsk.com1 Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 7:56 AM To: Deb Barker Subject: Mirror Lake Highlands Comments Hi Deb, I am on crutches and in a cast. Is. it possible to email my comments to. you today for the hearing tomorrow on the Mirror. Lake Highlands project? It looks like we need them in prior to the, hearing and I cannot make the hearing due to. work. Marla Ledin office phone. 253.839.0626 marls. .ledin sk.com Marla Ledin 401 SW 312th Street Federal Way, Washington 98023 September 24, 2008 City of Federal Way Hearing Examiner 33325 8th Avenue South PO Box 9718 Federal Way, Washington 98063-9718 Dear Hearing Examiner: I am currently the President of the Mirror Lake Residents Association. We are a volunteer group which was organized among other things to maintain and defend the quality and health of our lake. Currently, we represent and get contributions from 40 lots around Mirror Lake. Due to the non-existence of public lake use we cannot access public funding like Steel Lake. Any major lake quality problem would overwhelm our system entirely. I wanted to take this opportunity to offer a vantage point from someone who has had one of Federal Ways natural resources in her backyard. I moved onto Mirror Lake in 1993 assuming I was about to enter into a life of leisurely lakeside living. Little did I know I had just signed up for a part- time job in becoming a surface water expert. My particular lot was the most overgrown with lilies and iris causing stagnation during the summer months, preventing circulation and encouraging more. rapid plant growth. I therefore was very motivated to organize the other lakefront owners and begin a plan to clean up the vegetation and determine next steps for continued lake health. Since 1993, and again without access to any public funding, we have educated our community in the options available for lake treatments. We have contracted with biologists. Working through time-consuming permit processes we have now had several successful lake treatments working towards our goal of weed management and a cleaner lake and secondarily maintaining our depth. We have had several compliments in recent months of the positive restoration that has resulted and you can see people enjoying swimming and other lake activities now that the lake has become more inviting. Several mailings and meetings have been sent and held to maintain our association and update the lake community on our progress. We have also held fundraisers to advance our cause since our funding is so limited. The lake has been monitored to keep a permanent record of the depth and clarity readings. This information will help us determine any impact to our lake water via outside influences. After tackling our challenges we have also been fielding nearby development projects through the years which threaten our lakes delicate balance via our Land Use Committee headed by Bob Roper. I am assuming there are various agendas at play here 1) the City of Federal Way wanting to enhance its tax base, 2) the developer wanting to put as many selling lots as possible in their plan and 3) the Mirror Lake residents monitoring these outside influences and hoping to prevent adverse impacts. These have not always been aligned. We rely heavily on the City to protect the interests of the tax base already living on Mirror Lake and to keep us whole. Federal Way is known for its trees and lakes, attractive qualities that set us apart from other communities. Recent reports of Pierce County lakes being impacted and damaged have come to our attention and we know that this is a very real possibility for us if we aren't diligent. While we welcome good neighbors and understand expansion is natural in a developing community such as ours we will continue to keep abreast of development in our area, to monitor promises made and to hold those accountable for any shortcomings. 'We are asking that the City of Federal Way be a good partner in our efforts so that we can leave this resource in better shape than we found it. Thank you in advance for any consideration. Sincerely, (Electronic Signature) Marla Ledin, President Mirror Lake Residents Association E. Toner City of Federal Way ("City") File 407-106874-00-SU Comments for Hearing Friday, September 26, 2008 My name is Eden Toner. My street address is 306 S W 313 `h St., Federal Way, WA 98023. As residents of Mirror Lake Estates, my husband, David Toner, and I own a fractional interest in a waterfront lot through which we enjoy lake access. This interest was granted in the original plat of the subdivision in the 1960's. We are gravely concerned about the lack of notice and the process that has been employed by this developer to suit his ends. Our neighborhood and the residents around the lake have worked diligently over the last couple of years to restore water quality and prevent unauthorized access to the lake. We do not want these efforts undermined for the benefit of a single developer. sa&r We speak for many of our neighbors who cannot make it to this hearing. Insufficient Notice We never received notice of this project from the developer, despite the fact that we own an interest on the lake, and the lake is within the required area for notice to have been sent. Whatever impacts the lake impacts us. We and all of our neighbors were effectively excluded from the process that is supposed to allow us to participate to protect our interests. The only reason we indeed know about it now is through one neighbors on the lake. The City cannot overlook this flagrant neglect of process, which was brought to the City's attention many months ago (4/30/08 letter from Richard Scott to Deb Barker). Had we been properly notified, we could have provided comments long before this. Further, we would have taken all steps necessary to ensure that a proper environmental impact assessment was done. The developer should be required to go back to the beginning, properly notify the affected parties, and proceed from there. Anything short of that is a dereliction of the city's duty to the rest of its residents. Scope of Proiect/Water Ouality/Tree Removal After reviewing documents obtained from the City, it is apparent that this proposal has changed dramatically from its initial inception. The number of proposed units has grown, from 12 to 16, the number of trees to be preserved has been reduced to ZERO, and the initial plan for phased grading has evolved into a contention that phased grading will cost more, though it is possible to do it. If it is possible, it should be done. The codes do not exist for convenience; they exist to protect a vital public interest. With mass grading, the removal of all vegetation from the site will present an immediate threat of erosion downhill into the lake. And, if all vegetation is removed and the project stalls, the impact on the water quality and wildlife will be disastrous. Further, our location in a "wellhead protection district" (per Lakehaven Utility District) makes environmental protection of critical importance. E. Toner 2 The developer has, without hesitation, chipped away at the tree preservation requirements until there is nothing left. The recommendations of his own "Tree Evaluation and Protection Plan" dated December 10, 2007, provide for retaining 3 significant and 1 additional tree, and replacing removed trees with Douglas firs and Western red cedars. That plan goes on to describe how construction should proceed around the trees. Until his letter of June 20, 2008 to Deb Barker, the developer in all of his correspondence acknowledged the retained tree requirement. Then, in his June 20 letter, he claims he can't retain any trees. He completely disregarded the Evaluation as well as city codes in concluding that he needs to remove all trees and replace them with "smaller varieties in order to keep a uniform scale to the overall planting scheme" (letter to Deb Barker dated 6/20/08). It appears that the developer never had any intention of actually following the recommendations of the Evaluation —he just went through the required motions —and he lulled staff and neighboring residents into a false sense of confidence that he would act in compliance. To allow him to, at this late date, go forward with his plan makes a mockery of our city ordinances and sets a dangerous trend that others will undoubtedly try to follow. It is unconscionable for the City to condone this. The residents of Federal Way supported saving trees, and this is what the City should be doing. This project, regardless of size or timing, should be required to keep —and safely protect —the significant trees, and the mass grading proposal should be rejected. If this proposed project is accepted to any degree, it should be significantly scaled back in order to protect the trees and ensure water quality. By reducing the number of units, phased grading can be done, retention ponds can be installed and construction can proceed around significant trees. Further, larger trees can be replanted, since the homes will not be so tightly spaced. If it is not cost effective for the developer to proceed while still conforming to our codes and regulations, then this is not an appropriate location for his project. The lake is a sensitive environmental area, and the only development that should take place is development that can ensure its protection. Plat Reference to Mirror Lake Mirror Lake is a privately maintained lake, with each ownership interest reflected on its respective deed. The proposed project would not have an ownership interest, but a portion of the land in the proposal had been granted an easement for lake access in 2001. It was granted by a single homeowner on the lake to another single homeowner across the street, though it contained language providing that it "may be shared by all future owners of the properties, including new lots by short subdivision." While the parties may have contemplated short subdivision, high density cottage housing was not even authorized at that time. The staff report indicates that 5 new homes would be benefited —far more than a simple short subdivision would provide, and at least half of the lots encompassed by the proposed project were not original holders of the easement Therefore, it is critical that E. Toner 3 the plat for this project limit the number of lots that have the benefit of this easement to the number of short subdivision lots that could have been made from the original lot under the regulations in place at the time the easement was created. . Summary of Requests • Require notice to all lake interest holders, retroactive ■ Require an Environmental Impact Statement If the project proceeds: ► return it to maximum 12 unit scale • require phased grading • require retained trees and adequate protections for them ■ require replanted trees to conform to the December 10, 2007 Tree Evaluation and Protection Plan ■ require retention ponds and provide for maintenance • require bond • require that the plat reflect lake access to only the lot corresponding to the original easement as it could have been subdivided at the time. Respectfully submitted, Eden R. Toner Notes for Mirror Lake Cottage Development Hearing Examiner Ref Deb Barker Itr to William McCaffery dtd 12-20-06 and FW ORD #06-533 dtd 9-19-06 Article �ffl of the FWCC (rev 12-06) My name is David J. Toner and I live at 305 SW 3131, Street in Federal Way. I have an ownership interest in Tract A, a parcel on Mirror Lake. I was not notified of this project and therefore, had no opportunity to submit comments or attend hearings. My property interests will be affected by this project. I believe the City Code requires notification of all owners within 300 feet of the project. The lake is within 300 feet and it is privately owned. Persons with an ownership interest in the lake should have been provided notice since any degradation of the lake condition will affect all lake owners in exactly the same manner. I believe there are close to 75 owners who should have been notified, were not, and were excluded from presenting their views. This likely had a controlling influence on the City's Determination of Non -Significance, which may have been in error, and dangerously resulted in no Environmental Impact Statement. My purpose today is to impart a degree of doubt in your mind as to the suitability of this site for a Cottage Housing Development, to question the margin for error in the site proposal itself, and to consider the risk to the City of Federal Way if it proceeds with this plan. I submit that SUITABILITY is a key decisional criteria given inadequate attention in this process to date. Mirror Lake is a "regulated lake" and the surrounding wetlands are Category I "regulated wetlands". The proposed project property in located within 200 feet of these regulated wetlands and therefor comes under the jurisdiction of City Code Article 22 (22-1223 (6). The purpose of this article is to protect the environment, human life and property from harm and degradation. This property is within the Critical Aquifer Recharge Area and Wellhead Protection Area, yet the City is proposing to proceed without an Environmental Impact Statement. You should be asking yourself, "How could a Critical Area site be chosen for an experiment, a "demonstration project" using a Code and planning never before attempted in Federal Way? Without an Environmental Impact Statement, why should the City risk authorizing invasive site preparation techniques such as mass grading and clear-cut and removal of all trees and vegetation? The City has alternate proposals before it that do not present such irreversible risks. The City recggnizes that risk exists with projects in the Critical Areas , by incorporating a provision within Article 22 of the Code wherein the City may require a release and indemnity from damage or liability FROM ANY DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY relative to the condition of the regulated lake or regulated wetlands. The City would be accepting unreasonable risk by proceeding without an Environmental Impact assessment when alternative sites were also being proposed which met the cty's need for infill action without comparable risks. The project proposal also represents significant economic risks which the City need not accept. The developer has asked for numerous variances to planning safeguards, has disregarded advise of professional consultants on tree retention, phased grading, setbacks, and many other attempts to save money. He has utilized every inch of land to meet minimum Code requirements. He has left no margin for error or the unexpected. The probability of further declines in real estate values and the availability of credit is threatening to a project with no: margin for error. The risk to the City is that early site preparation, mass grading and tree removal could leave 1.85 acres unprotected in this Critical Area, with subsequent irreversible degradation to the regulated lake and regulated wetlands. I request that the Examiner reconsider the suitability of this site for this project, reconsider the risks to the City of Federal Way for proceeding without an Environmental Impact Statement and finally decide to adjudicate this proposal as NOT RECOMMENDED. If this is not acceptable, then I most strongly argue for requiring an Environmental Impact Statement or reinstituting the SEPA notice procedures. I also strongly argue for the City to impose prohibitions on the developer for tree removal and grading until such time as construction is ready to begin. Davidy. and Eden x Tuner 305SH131MSt. F&4wafWay, WA 96023 Cuo Hearing Examiner Testimony Mirror Lake Highland Cottage Homes 26 September 2008 My name is Bob Roper. I live on Mirror Lake and chair the Land Use Committee of the Mirror Lake Residents' Association. I have been a long-term lake monitor, taking daily rainfall and lake level measurements and weekly water quality measurements of Mirror Lake for over 12 years, from 1993 through 2005. 1 served on the Board of Directors for the Washington State Lake Protection Association (WALPA) during 2005-2006. 1 am a Chemical Engineer. My years of lake monitoring have given me unique insight into the characteristics of the lake and its behavior during storm events and throughout the seasons. As part of the lake level studies, I enlisted the help of a lake resident living near the outlet in order to correlate the first seasonal flow out of the lake (toward Fisher's Bog) with the reading on my lake level gauge. With that correlation, I am able to determine from lake level measurements how many days per year there is outflow, hence flushing of the lake. The average number of days of outflow was 85 per year, but some years showed extremely low flushing, only 3 days during the entire 1993-94 rain year. Fortunately, at this time, the water quality in Mirror Lake is good, due in part to lake residents' programs to protect water quality. In order to preserve this condition, considering the limited flushing of pollutants and the costs and risks of remedial action,I believe extraordinary caution is called for in evaluating potential impacts from development. C 2 Phosphorus Wapato Lake is a good illustration of what can happen when a lake first gets caught in the phosphorus trap. Lake residents are forced into a series of expensive and risky corrective measures in order to protect the recreational value of the lake. A standard algae treatment that badly backfired at Wapato Lake, causing a fish kill, cost $08,000 and that lake is less than twice the size of Mirror Lake. Another example is Steilacoom Lake where they have spent a small fortune on treatments and a likely bigger fortune on litigation. hear repeatedly from the experts that the time to control phosphorus is before it enters the lake. Even Sweetwater Technology Corp., which is in the alum - treatment business acknowledges this. To quote from their web page: "A sediment alum treatment can last up to ten years, depending on how much alum is applied and lake conditions such as 'sedimentation rate and external phosphorus loading. Best results are obtained when steps are first taken to control the external sources of phosphorus. Some of these steps are simple, like encouraging the use of phosphorus free fertilizers and detergents or discouraging large flocks of waterfowl. More costly measures may be necessary..." The Mirror Lake Highlands Cottage Home development (CHID) proposes rain gardens rather than detention/filtration for stormwater quality control. There will be increased phosphorus in runoff from fertilizers, pet waste, etc. from the development vs. the natural condition. A rain garden would be expected to impede phosphorus load to the lake by filtering insoluble compounds and by biological take-up of soluble compounds. However, trapped phosphorus does not go away, and over a long period of time, might be expected to accumulate to the point where some sort of removal will be necessary. Regular maintenance will E be required in'order to assure that sediments have not clogged the soil. The Rain Garden Handbook for Western Washington Homeowners, published by WSU Extension states that rain gardens need maintenance and provides a list of actions recommended to keep a rain garden functioning as intended. Similarly, the porous driveways proposed will require regular maintenance or inspection to identify clogging and to assure it has not been overcoated. We are concerned about who takes responsibility for this required maintenance. The city should assume ownership of the rain gardens as it would for a detentiontfiltration facility. KCSWDM requires a covenant of the homeowners to assure that routine maintenance/inspections are conducted. However, the wording of the covenant is non -compulsory and/or lacking in detail for mandatory inspections and correction of deficiencies*. Until such time as maintenance of such facilities is well understood, sensitive downstream resources such as Mirror Lake are at risk. * Section 2.5.3 Maintenance Instructions for a Rain Garden states that "these instructions are intended to be a minimum; DDES may require additional instructions based on site —specific conditions. Also, as the county gains more experience with the maintenance and operation of these BMPs, future updates to the instructions will be posted on King County's Surface Water Design Manual website. Runoff Quantity_ There is concern that the proposed rain gardens will not provide the storage capacity required to preclude flooding around Mirror Lake during periods of sustained or heavy rains. 3 For comparison, the Lakota Crest development, about 200 yards to the east and presumably with the same soil structure, employs two flow control -and water quality facilities. The total volume of the wetponds is 31,634 cu ft to accommodate 5.395 acres of impermeable surfaces. During a heavy rainstorm in November 2006, the west pond was very near topping the overflow structure. This was my personal observation on the night of the storm. At the CHD, the proposed rain gardens, along with the trench system and pervious concrete, will need to accommodate 0.856 acres of impermeable surfaces. Without the contribution of the trenches and pervious concrete, this would require 5019 cu ft of storage capacity for equivalence. According to the applicant's letter of 6-20-08, The rain gardens will be required to handle runoff from "remaining paved surfaces, some roofs and general sheet flow". This imprecise description makes it difficult to estimate the area actually required to be accommodated by the rain gardens. However, with some assumptions ( 1 /2 of the roofs and 1 /2 of the paving), we can estimate that 0.727 acres will be feeding the rain gardens. By similarity to Lakota Crest, this would require 4263 cu ft of capacity. Calculated using KDSWDM requirement of 3 inches of runoff depth from the impervious surface served and similar assumptions, about 5000 cu ft would be required, more than would appear to be available in the rain gardens. Please note that I am not a civil engineer and these calculations were done only to provide a rough approximation for the purpose of assessing the rain garden design. Inconsistent Soil Representations The applicant claims 5 feet of infiltrative soil before reaching an impermeable layer (actually, the Geotechnical report states that silty sandy gravelly soils... extended up to approximately 5 feet...). In its Conclusions, the report says the sandy loams in the upper five feet of the test,pits could be considered 4 suitable for installing the proposed infiltration trenches. It does not talk about shallow infiltration facilities. However, the CHD Tree Evaluation and Protection Plan states that "A weakly cemented hardpan is at a depth of 20-40 inches. A perched seasonal high water table is at a depth of 18-36 inches from November to March." This seems inconsistent with the 5 foot claim. Similarly, the TIR for Lakota Crest, very close to the CHD stated that: "These soils are made up of moderately well drained soils that have a weakly consolidated to strongly consolidated substratum at a depth of 24 to 40 inches. These soils are on uplands." Open Space Many Mirror Lake residents feel that adequate common open space on -site to be important for several reasons. First, it provides CHD residents that have minimum private open space (only 400 sq ft) with opportunities for relaxation, privacy and recreation in their everyday environment. Second, it upgrades the look and feel of the neighborhood. Finally, without adequate common open space, residents will look elsewhere for escape from their compact environment, in this case, likely to Mirror Lake. Since Mirror Lake is private, an increased burden of enforcement of trespassing laws might be expected for lake residents and law enforcement. The director approved, by letter 4/17/07, inclusion of rain gardens as open space, overriding the draft ordinance at the time contained a prohibition on dual status. The draft ordinance has since been codified with that prohibition intact. We believe the director's decision was in error. Also, it appears that relief from the 5- foot setback rule for rain gardens was granted by a member of staff (Letter, Ann Dower to Bill McCaffrey dtd March 27, 2008 re: Public Works Dept Response to Rain Garden Setback Request.) without the approval of the. director as required 5 by FWCC 21-19. Since this correspondence was not included in the staff report, a copy is attached to these comments. Without the contribution of the rain gardens, what's left hardly qualifies as common open space, which by ordinance is required to be "improved for passive or active recreational use". While the rain gardens are not required in order to fulfill the area requirement (other open space is 10,431 sq ft vs 8,000 required), it does appear to be necessary in order to fulfill the recreation requirement. Without the rain gardens, what is left is a system of narrow pathways that are interrupted by sidewalks and which appear to be of no value for recreation. It seems that rain gardens are needed in the equation solely in order to fulfill the recreation requirement. This is a poor reason for overriding the ordinance. Another question is: are the rain gardens, even with seating, quality open space? As stated in written comments submitted earlier, we believe they are not. Using a surface water facility for this purpose is expressly prohibited per code (/FWCC Article XII, Section 22-923(5f). Modifying, that requirement can only be done if the modification will not result in a project that is less compatible with neighboring land uses. We believe that prohibition should be maintained. Rain Gardens as Experimental Water Quality/Flow Control Facilities We believe that by any reasonable definition, the proposed rain gardens in this context are experimental. Consider the following layers of uncertainty: -This is the first use of rain gardens on this scale in Federal Way -The underlying zoning, which doubles the densest single family density, is a first in Federal Way •KCSWDM 5.1.1 states that "There is a lack of experience with designing and constructing projects that rely extensively on LID techniques." The manual "requires limited use of these techniques in urban zoned area..." -KCSWDM 5.4 cautions "Monitoring of actual facility performance has shown that the full-scale infiltration rate is far lower than the rate determined by small scale testing". •KCSWDM C.2.5.3 states that maintenance requirements are subject to change "as the county gains more experience with the maintenance and operation of these BMPs..." The FWCC 21-21 section seems to have been written exactly for this sort of situation. It allows the use of experimental facilities, but also allows requiring the posting of a bond sufficient to construct a conventional facility on land set aside for that purpose should the experimental facility not meet expectations. Action Requested There There are so many uncertainties associated trying to make cottage housing fit in this location, we feel it would be best if the Examiner recommended against proceeding further. If this is not the case, the following conditions should be imposed: -Revert to the original 12 unit design, preserving space at the south end of the property for a detention facility per FWCC 21-21, and enhanced open space -Provide for city maintenance of ponds -Require a bond to cover the cost of remediation should the rain gardens fail to provide the required flow and water quality control. This remediation shall consist of permanent on -site modifications, not solely treatment of Mirror Lake waters. 7 March 27, 2008 Mr. William McCaffrey 30929 37" Place SW Federal Way, WA 98023 RE. Permit No. 07-106874-00-SU Mirror Lake Highland Cottage Preliminary Plat,- 604 SW 312a Street Public Works Dept. Response to Rain Garden Setback Request Dear Mr. McCaffrey: The Public Works Department has reviewed your request to reduce the required 5'. setback between rain gardens and property lines. The City hereby grants your request, based on the following: 1. The rain gardens will meet the setback requirements from exterior lot lines, thus protecting neighboring property and existing structures from any encroachment. 2. The rain gardens will be set back 5' from any proposed building, as required by the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual. 3. The rain gardens will be privately owned and maintained through a Homeowners Association. The developer shall make provisions for access and maintenance on the face of the plat and/or in the protective covenants. Homeowners will be jointly responsible for maintenance. 4. The rain gardens are modest in size and provide a redundant system that will minimize impacts to any single adjacent property should an overflow situation arise. 5. The rain gardens will be clearly shown on the plat so that future lot owners will be aware of their locations as they relate to property lines. Therefore, the rain gardens may be placed against interior property lines as shown in the preliminary plat drawings. If you have any questions, please contact me at (253) 835-2732 or via email at ann.dower(4 ityoff_ederalway.com. Sincerely, Ann Dower Engineering Plan Reviewer AD:cc cc: William Appleton, P.E., Development Services Manager Paul Bucick P.E., Surface Water Manager Deb Barker, Senior Planner Project File / AD Day File ' W14EN RECORDED, RETURN TO: City of Federal Way Comtnur ityPeMopment Services 333i5 -8`' Avenue Sauth P6 Box 9718 Way, W- A 98Q63 0110204000275 PAGE-K7F%O.DDE094COY 65.00 07Y0412F�1 t . 0q :59 KING Co. Niel WR COVENANTbF PAYI MNT OBLIGATION JFORbPEN SPACE FEE -IN -LIEU AND/OR TRANSPORTA'ITON1MPACT FEE Payment Obligation for the Benefit cif Grantee: CAy:of Federal Way, a-inunicipal corporation Persons Indebted to Grantee ("Grantnr"}:: �! c� Y-. ► .may: .+ a ��n� Reference NuMber(s) of Related Document(s): Legal Description (Abbreviated); 1-0 1/ Ci- n - har- k a LL'3- Do�l-GSL] Full descriptionas sot forth on attached Exhibit "A." 2 ,t 1 Assessor's Tax Parcel rD NU-m" ber: 05 2 0 T r 903q _ Plat or~Building Permit Application Number: 1nOS34 - pp . Notice is herby given4hat,:pursuant to Federal Way Revised Code ("FWRC") I9.100.070(I)(b) and FWRC 19.100.070(3), the City -'of Federal Way -{.the "City") and the Grantor voluntarily agree to a deferred payment obligation for..0pen Space Fee -.in -Lieu -and/or Transportation Impact Fees ("Covenant") against the above-descri •real property. By entering :into this agreement, Grantor waives on behalf of itself, its heirs, successors and assigns; its:right to: a refund: -or to contest how the fee(s) are used by the City to address the impacts for which the fee(s) were paid., The amount of the Open Space Fee -in -Lieu is:. C 75 0 The initial amount of the Transporta ian.Itnpact:.Fe is: _3 The initial amount of the administrative fee is: $ .. 4owever; Transporta€ on lmpact..Fees and their associated administrative fees do not vest and a amount owed is based oii the-Trarisportation.Impact Fee schedule in effect at the time of payment. To check the current impact fee ardount,:glease-call the City of Federal Way Permit Center at 253-835-2607. The Transportation Impact Fee is due and owing to the City no later,- than tine closing of sale. on the house. The Open Space Fee -in -Lieu is due and owing to the City no later than the closing of sale on the house or five years following the recording date of this instrument, whichever is earlier. For each: day ' 4 •+ ii following the date on which payment its due for which Grantor has failed to pay the Open Space Fee-in- I.,ieu, Grantor shall pay an additional one percent (I %) of the fee as liquidated damages. Gran#orrs' obligation to pay the fee(s) as described in this instrument shall be a covenant running with the land and shall binding upon the Grantor, its heirs, successors and assigns. Any costs (including awi not limited= to tb cost of litigation and attorney fees) incurred by the City in the enforcement of this Covenant shall be paid by Grantor. Venue,shalI be King County. All:gaymerits shall be mr dq payable to the City and shall be directed to the City of Federal Way Perrnii Center, 33325 8's Avenue $auth, Fedarat W- 4, WA 98063. Upon the recefpt of notification that a saleis'pending and fee(s) are to be paid, the City agrees to deposit into escrow a fully -exeeuted, Aekme of Cayenanii substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit B. The escrow' officer shall record the;'helease of Covenant when funds are disbursed from escrow to pay the outstanding fee(s). The City may provide separate escrow instructions consistent with this Covenant. Otherwise, tfie..City will ref'ease� this Cr, V6e t -upon Grenior's payment of the above identified fee(s). City of Federal ay , By: Its: Date: Grantor By: STATE OF WASWNGTON ) COUNTY OF KING I I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidenee that L V4161Mr lG is the person who appeared before me, and said person: acknowledged that (he/she) signed this instrument, on oath acknowledged it as the G:rr I.flc: to be (his/her) free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in'the instrument. Date Notary Public State o! Washington Name: /!1 - KENNEDY THAN (Print Name) MY OOM/MiB M EXPIRES November 18, 2b14 NOTARY PUBLIC, in aA-MZ. r State`gi. —' Washington, residing ate.' My Commission Expires; 'A % J ATTACHMENT A (LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY) lmf 4- Beginnirig.-'at Ahe Southeastcornerdf the West half of the Nopth 165 feet of the SoutO 825 feet of the West haIf of the Southwest quarter of the'Northwest quarter of 5. TownshlU 21 N�th. Aange,'A East of the winamette meridian. th6nee outh - 89'51'.390 .Kest. along t, - he South line of said S su6civision. a.,distanc 'of 145,35 feet to the East line of the West 176.49 fe6t; thence Nopth'004OB'21" test, alan said East linei. a distance22j5O feet to the North; :'lirye of tie South 22.5D feet of said subdivision: thence North 89'5I'39';-:'Ea$t, along said North. line. a distance 12j04 feet: thence North 36"59'42' East;: a,- distant 6e of 70..87 feet 'to tine N line of the South 79.01 feet Of sai'd subdiy1sion., I thence North E9*51'39" East, .:along said North. lijne. a distance 91'165 feet to the East lutee-bf sum iv isiow thence Sduth 00'38'44* West. along 'said Fast 1140.. a dlqtance' 79!01 feet to the Point of Beginn rig. Situate in the City of Federal Way., Courity,"of'King: Stat;a- of.. Washington. ......... . ATTACHMENT B (ULt ASS OF COVENANT FOR OPEN SPACE FEE -IN -LIEU AND/OR TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE) RELEASE OF COVVEXAN:T OF PAYMENT OBLIGATION FOR OPEN SPACE FEE -IN -LIEU AND/OR TRAN�PORTATION IMPACT FEE Payment -Obligation -for the Benefit of "tee: City of -Federal Way, a municipal corporation Persons Indebted to Grantee ("Grantor")-, Reference Number(s) of Related Document(s) ' Legal Description (Abbreviated). Full description as set forth on attached Ekhibit "A" Assessor's Tax.Parcel ID Number: Plat or Building Permit Application Number: Amount Released: $ THIS: RELI ASE.OF COVENANT of OPEN SPACE FEE-IN-LIEU..and/or: (the "Release") is made as of this day of , 20 by t1te.�iEy of Federal Way {the "City") The City entered into a Covenant of Payment Obligation for Open Space Fee -in -lieu and/or aced and recorded under King County Recording No. (tlie "Covenant") ►yith Grantor to provide for deferred payment of the referenced fee(s).:- - Pursuant to the terms of the covenant, up ar-Oratrtor'S payment of the fees in the amount of: Open Space Fee -in -lieu $ ; and/o $ and associated administrative fee $ ; the pity ► 11 release the Covenant. Accordingly, conditioned upon the Esciow Agefnt's or Grantor's disbursement of the Fee(s) to the City, the City hereby releases and discharges Grantpr-from-the_abligatioris described' in the Covenant. Upon recording of this Release, all of the Grantor's o6ligatioM under the Cavegant shall he deemed fully and completely satisfied, and the Covenant shall have n& furt:her b' rce or effect.,- ' MIRROR LAKE HIGHLAND LOT # ADDRESS RANGES 1 31116 - 6t1i Lane Southwest 1 No Ranges 2 — 31114 - 6t" Lane Southwest No Ranges 3 31110 - 6t11 Lane Southwest No Ranges 4 31106 - 6th Lane Southwest No Ranges 5 31100 - 6th Lane Southwest 31024 - 6th Lane Southwest No Ranges 6 No Ranges 7 31018 - 6th Lane Southwest No Ranges 8 31014 - 6th Lane Southwest 31008 - 6th Lane Southwest No Ranges No Ranges 9 10 30926 - 6th Lane Southwest No Ranges 11 30922 - 6th Lane Southwest No Ranges 12 30914 - 6th Lane Southwest No Ranges 13 30910 - 6"' Lane Southwest No Ranges 14 30913 - 6th Lane Southwest No Ranges 15 30921 - 6th Lane Southwest No Ranges 16 30925 - 6th Lane Southwest No Ranges C:\UsersVimh\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.IE5\VZOQHV85\3418871073.DOC S-T-R NE 07-21-04, K713/G33 Final 01 /08/09 14450 N.E. 29" PI., #200 C O I l l 11"1 O 11 �� gT:. _. Bellevue, WA 98007 Phone: 425-646-8591 LAND TITLE COMPANY OF PUGET SOUND, LLC 888-267-2303 Fax: 425-646-8593 November 20, 2007 William J. McCaffrey 30929 37th Place SW Federal Way, WA 98023 Attn.: William J. McCaffrey Reference No.(s): Order No.: RM - 40003349-T35 Property Address: , Federal Way, Washington Buyer/Borrowers: William J McCaffrey and Dawn L. McCaffrey In connection with the above referenced Order, we are enclosing documentation as requested. If we may be of further assistance, please feel free to contact any member of the team listed below Title Team Randy McCrory, Senior Title Officer, (425) 646-8591 rmccrory@landam.com Chris Scurti, Title Officer (425) 688-9374 chrisscurti@landam.com Bryan Dow, Title Assistant (425) 646-8589 bdow@landam.com Brad Hallstrom, Title Assistant (425) 646-8590 bhhallstrom@landam.com 1-888-267-2303 Fax: (425) 646-8593 We thank you for this opportunity to serve you. Randy McCrory Title Officer Enclosure(s) Cc: William J. McCaffrey Attn: William J. McCaffrey RECEIVED DEC 2 1 2007 PITY OF F t2OEHAL WAY OUILDING DEPT. (LO-8 paslnad) VM - Janos 4uaw4lWWO:) wo•p71 ' ^/- anq>7e sa7nJ uoi;ea;igae eq; jo ,fdoo a me.iAea.few noA -sgiped aq; jo ApawaJ anisn;oxe ay; se paansul aq; .io AuedLuoo aq; aaylia jo uoi;do aq;;e palpilyae aq peys ssa7 ao 000'000`Z$ sy aoueinsu; jo ;unouiV aq; uogm spa;;ew a14ealigie 77y •asnelo uoi;ejygae ue suie;uoo ponss1 aq o; Aggod ayl •S •luawllwwo3 slyl;o suolSIAad ay} of ;oa[gns aJe pue uo paseq aq lsnw luawllwwo� sly; Aq paJano� U09Ja44 abe6lJow ay; ;o snlels aq; Jo lsaJalul Jo alelsa• ay} of app ayl;o snlels ayl;o lno 6ulslJe Auedwo:) ayl lsule6e 6ulJq Aew Jo aney Aew paJnsul pasodoJd ayl leyl uoipe;o s4y6lJ Jo suolloe Jo uol;oe Auy •y •ulaJay pal;lpow AlssaJdxa se;daoxa }uaw;lwwol sly} ;o lied a apew aJe pue aouaJa;aJ Aq paleJodJooul AgaJay aJe q:)!qm paJnsul pasodad ay} ;o Jone; ul Jo; palllwwoo salollod Jo Aollod ;o wJo; ayl;o a6eJano� woJ; suolsnlox3 ayl pue suollelndlls pue suoi;lpuo� pue suolslnoJd 6uunsul ayl of l�algns sl Allllgell yons pue Jo; palllwwoo sapilod Jo Aollod ay} Jo; y alnpay:)S ul palels lunowe ay} paaoxa Allllgell yons Ileys Juana ou uI •luawllwwoo slyl Aq paJanoo UORJayl a6e6lJow Jo lsaJalul Jo alelsa ayl aleaJo Jo aJlnboe of (o) Jo 'g alnpayoS ul umoys suopdaoxa aleulwlla of (q) Jo ';oaJay sluawaJmbaJ ay; yl!m Aldwoo of (e) ylle; pooh ul 6uplelJapun ul uoaJay a�uellaJ ul paJJnoul ssol lenhe Jo; Aluo pue Jo; palllwwoo salollod Jo Aollod ;o wJoj ay; ul paJnsul ;o uolllul;ap ay} Japun papnloui sallied yons pue paJnsul pasodoJd paweu ay} of Aluo aq lleys luawllwwo:) sly; Japun AuedwoD ayl;o Allllge!l E •suollelndlls pue suolllpuoo asayl;o £ ydeJ6eJed of luensJnd paJJnoul AlsnolnaJd Allllgell woJ; Auedwo� ayl anallaJ lou lleys luawpuawe yons lnq 'Al6ulpJo�oe luawllwwo� slyl;o g alnpayoS puawe Aew uopdo sll le AuedwoD ayl 'Jallew Jaylo Jo wlep asJanpe 'a�ueJgwnoua 'uall 'loa;ap yons Aue ;o abpalmou�l Ienloe saJlnboe asimiaylo Auedwo� ayl 3l Jo 'Auedwo:) ayl of 96palmou)l yons asoloslp lleys paansul pasodoJd ayl ;I •96palmoul yons asoloslp os of aJnllel Aq pa:)lpn[aJd sl Auedwo:) ayl lualxa ayl of uoaJay aouellaJ;o Joe Aue woJ; 6ulllnsaJ a6ewep Jo ssol Aue Jo; Allllgell w6J; pampa, aq lleys Auedwo:) aq '6ullIJM ul Auedwo' ayl of abpalmou)I yons asoloslp of Ilea lleys pue ';oaJay g alnpayoS ul umoys asoyl ueyl Jaylo luawllwwo� slyl Aq paJanoo uoaJayl a6e64Jow Jo lsaJalul Jo alelsa ayl bulloal}e Jallew Jaylo Jo wlep asJanpe 'aoueJgwnoua 'uall 'loa;ap Aue jo 96palmou)I lenloe saJlnboe Jo sey paJnsul pasodoJd ayl;I 'Z luawnJlsul AllJn:)as Jaylo Jo 'peep lsnJl'lsnJl;o peep apnloul lleys 'ulaJay pasn ua4m 'a6e6lJow wJal ayl 'I SNouvindI1S GNH SNOIlIaNO:) 1N3W-UWWOO luaplsaJd �w �.: Aje,aaoas .AS AuedwoD a:)ueansul aj;il pue g1jeamuommo:) •1s3na3a NOdn A11dW021d a3HSIN21nd 38 IIIM 1N3W1IWWOa SIHl NI Ol a32R13d321 (SWaOd HO) W2J0=l AaIlOd 3H1 d0 Ad00 N3WIa3dS H aNV '1N3W1IWWOa 3H1 a3nSSI HDIHM 30Idd0 3H1 lV A2JInbw A8 a3NIWVX3 38 AVW 210d a3.UIWWOD AaI10d 3H1 :310N •Auedwo:) ayl;o llne; ayl lou sl salollod Jo Aollod yons anssl of aJnI!q ayl leyl papinoJd 'sJn»o lsig Janaq:)!gm 'anssl lleys Joj palllwwoo salollod Jo Aollod aq uagm Jo;oaJay alep anlloa}}a ayl Jake sAep 09T aleulwJal pue aseao lleys JapunaJay suolle6llgo pue Allllgell Ile pue aoueJnsul allll;o salollod Jo A:)llod yons;o aouenssl ayl of AJemwllaJd sl luawliwwo:) slgl •suollelndlls pue suolllpuo:) ayl of loa[gns sl pue luawasJopua luanbesgns Aq Jo luawllwwo:) slyl;o aouenssl ayl;o awll ayl le Jaylla 'Auedwo:) ayl Aq 4oaJay y elnpay:)s ul palJasul uaaq aney Jo; palllwwoo sapllod Jo A:)llod ayl;o lunowe ayl pue paansul pasodoJd ayl;o Allluapl ayl uagm Aluo anllZ)a}}a aq lleys luawllwwo:) slyl (•swJoj A:)llod snoueA ul pauleluoo suolldaoxa E alnpayoS pue a6eJanoD woJ; suolsnlox3 palwJd Jo; sa6ed 6uimollo; ayl aaS) •palsanbaJ salollod Jo Aollod ayl;o suollelndlls pue suolllpuoo ayl pue 'suolldeoxa g alnpay:)S agl'a6eJanoD woJl suolsnlox3 ayl 'ulaJay umoys suollelndlls pue suolllpuoo pue suolldaoxa ayl of loafgns Ile 'Jo;aJayl sa6Jeyo pue swnlwaJd ayl;o luawAed uodn 'y alnpay:)S ul of paJJa;aJ Jo paglJosap puel ayl ul AgaJay paJanoo lsaJalul Jo alelsa ayl;o aa6e6lJow Jo Jaumo se 'y alnpayoS ul pauJeu paJnsul pasodoJd ayl Jo Jone; w 'd alnpayoS ul pal guapl se 'aoueJnsul allll;o saollod Jo ADllod sll anssl of sllwwoo AgaJay 'uolleJaplsuoo algenlen a Jo; 'Auedwo:) ayl palleo ulaJay 'uolleJodJoo elseJgaN a 'Auedwoa aoueansul a1111 puel y4leannuowwo0 9DNVHf-lSNI 3'111 j, HOJ ,INEINI.I,ININiOD AuodmoD aausmsul apz1, pur-I rpj1uaenuowmoD le, I�ia�ut,�ka Aq panssj '_)EDULE OF EXCLUSIONS FROM COVE' SE AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION LOAN POLICY (06-17-06) EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy, and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees, or expenses that arise by reason of: 1. (a) Any law, ordinance, permit, or governmental regulation (including those relating to building and zoning) restricting, regulating, prohibiting, or relating to (i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the Land; (ii) the character, dimensions, or location of any improvement erected on the Land; (iii) the subdivision of land; or (iv) environmental protection; or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances, or governmental regulations. This Exclusion 1(a) does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 5. (b) Any governmental police power. This Exclusion 1(b) does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 6. 2. Rights of eminent domain. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 7 or 8. 3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, or other matters (a) created, suffered, assumed, or agreed to by the Insured Claimant; (b) not Known to the Company, not recorded in the Public Records at Date of Policy, but Known to the Insured Claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the Insured Claimant prior to the date the Insured Claimant became an Insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the Insured Claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy (however, this does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 11, 13, or 14); or (e) resulting in loss or damage that would not have been sustained if the Insured Claimant had paid value for the Insured Mortgage. 4. Unenforceability of the lien of the Insured Mortgage because of the inability or failure of an Insured to comply with applicable doing -business laws of the state where the Land is situated. 5. Invalidity or unenforceability in whole or in part of the lien of the Insured Mortgage that arises out of the transaction evidenced by the Insured Mortgage and is based upon usury or any consumer credit protection or truth -in -lending law. 6. Any claim, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors' rights laws, that the transaction creating the lien of the Insured Mortgage, is (a) a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer, or (b) a preferential transfer for any reason not stated in Covered Risk 13(b) of this policy. 7. Any lien on the Title for real estate taxes or assessments imposed by governmental authority and created or attaching between Date of Policy and the date of recording of the Insured Mortgage in the Public Records. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 11(b). Commitment Cover - WA (Revised 8-07) SCHE:'-'LE OF EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAG:�bntinued) AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION OWNER'S POLICY (06-17-06) EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy, and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees, or expenses that arise by reason of: 1. (a) Any law, ordinance, permit, or governmental regulation (including those relating to building and zoning) restricting, regulating, prohibiting, or relating to (i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the Land; (ii) the character, dimensions, or location of any improvement erected on the Land; (iii) the subdivision of land; or (iv) environmental protection; or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances, or governmental regulations. This Exclusion 1(a) does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 5. (b) Any governmental police power. This Exclusion 1(b) does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 6. 2. Rights of eminent domain. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 7 or 8. 3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, or other matters (a) created, suffered, assumed, or agreed to by the Insured Claimant; (b) not Known to the Company, not recorded in the Public Records at Date of Policy, but Known to the Insured Claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the Insured Claimant prior to the date the Insured Claimant became an Insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the Insured Claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy (however, this does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 9 and 10); or (e) resulting in loss or damage that would not have been sustained if the Insured Claimant had paid value for the Title. 4. Any claim, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors' rights laws, that the transaction vesting the Title as shown in Schedule A, is (a) a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer; or (b) a preferential transfer for any reason not stated in Covered Risk 9 of this policy. 5. Any lien on the Title for real estate taxes or assessments imposed by governmental authority and created or attaching between Date of Policy and the date of recording of the deed or other instrument of transfer in the Public Records that vests Title as shown in Schedule A. Commitment Cover - WA (Revised 8-07) SCIIEi'-'�E OF EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGI ^%ntinued) AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION HOMEOWNER'S POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE FOR A ONE -TO -FOUR FAMILY RESIDENCE (10-22-03) In addition to the Exceptions in Schedule B, You are not insured against loss, costs, attorneys' fees, and expenses resulting from: 1. Governmental police power, and the existence or violation of any law or government regulation. This includes ordinances, laws and regulations concerning: (a) building (b) zoning (c) Land use (d) improvements on the Land (e) Land division (f) environmental protection This Exclusion does not apply to violations or the enforcement of these matters if notice of the violation or enforcement appears in the Public Records.at the Policy Date. This Exclusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 14, 15 16, 17 or 24. 2. The failure of Your existing structures, or any part of them, to be constructed in accordance with applicable building codes. This Exclusion does not apply to violations of building codes if notice of the violation appears in the Public Records at the Policy Date. 3. The right to take the Land by condemning it, unless: (a) a notice of exercising the right appears in the Public Records at the Policy Date; or (b) the taking happened before the Policy Date and is binding on You if You bought the Land without Knowing of the taking. 4. Risks: (a) that are created, allowed, or agreed to by You, whether or not they appear in the Public records; (b) that are Known to You at the Policy Date, but not to Us, unless they appeared in the Public Records at the Policy Date; (c) that result in no loss to You; or (d) that first occur after the Policy Date — this does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 7, 8.d, 22, 23, 24 or 25. 5. Failure to pay value for Your Title. 6. Lack of a right: (a) to any Land outside the area specifically described and referred to in paragraph 3 of Schedule A; and (b) in streets, alleys, or waterways that touch the Land. This Exclusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 11 or 18. Commitment Cover - WA (Revised 8-07) F� The matters listed below each policy form are expressly excepted from the coverage of that policy and that policy does not insure against loss or damage (and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys' fees or expenses) which arise by reason thereof. SCHEDULE B EXCEPTIONS APPEARING IN ALTA OWNER'S POLICY — STANDARD COVERAGE AND STANDARD COVERAGE LOAN POLICY 1. Taxes or assessments which are not now payable or which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records; proceedings by a public agency which may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the public records. 2. Any facts, rights, interests or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of the land or which may be asserted by persons in possession, or claiming to be in possession, thereof. 3. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, which are not shown by the public records. 4. Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land, and that is not shown by the Public Records. 5. Any lien, or right to a lien, for labor, material, services or equipment, or for contributions to employee benefit plans, or liens under Workmans' Compensation Acts, not disclosed by the public records. 6. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) Indian treaty or aboriginal rights, including, but not limited to, easements or equitable servitudes; or, (d) water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b), (c) or (d) are shown by the public records. 7. Right of use, control or regulation by the United States of America in the exercise of powers over navigation; any prohibition or limitation on the use, occupancy or improvement of the land resulting from the rights of the public or riparian owners to use any waters which may cover the land or to use any portion of the land which is now or may formerly have been covered by water. 8. Any service, installation, connection, maintenance or construction charges for sewer, water, electricity, or garbage collection or disposal, or other utilities unless disclosed as an existing lien by the public records. SCHEDULE B EXCEPTIONS APPEARING IN ALTA OWNER'S POLICY — EXTENDED COVERAGE 1. Taxes or assessments which are not now payable or which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records; proceedings by a public agency which may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the public records. 2. Underground easements, servitudes or installations which are not disclosed by the public records. 3. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) Indian treaty or aboriginal rights, including, but not limited to, easements or equitable servitudes; or, (d) water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b), (c) or (d) are shown by the public records. 4. Right of use, control or regulation by the United States of America in the exercise of powers over navigation; any prohibition or limitation on the use, occupancy or improvement of the land resulting from the rights of the public or riparian owners to use any waters which may cover the land or to use any portion of the land which is now or may formerly have been covered by water. S. Any service, installation, connection, maintenance or construction charges for sewer, water, electricity, or garbage collection or disposal, or other utilities unless disclosed as an existing lien by the public records. SCHEDULE B EXCEPTIONS APPEARING IN EXTENDED COVERAGE ALTA LOAN POLICY (06-17-06) and ALTA HOMEOWNER'S POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE (10-22-03) No general exceptions appear in these policy forms. Commitment Cover - WA (Revised 8-07) '))rder No.: RM - 40003349 14450 N.E. 29" PI., #200 � common -:� �� . ��. Bellevue, WA 98007 Phone: 425-646-8591 LAND TITLE COMPANY OF PUGET SOUND, LLC 888-267-2303 Fax: 425-646-8593 1. 2. 3 4. REVISED COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE A Effective Date: November 14, 2007 at 8:00 a.m. Commitment No.: RM - 40003349 Policy or Policies to be issued: ALTA 2006 Loan Policy Construction Loan Proposed Insured: Amount: Premium: Tax: Total: to be determined TO COME $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Title to the fee simple estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment is at the effective date hereof vested in: William J. McCaffrey and Dawn L. McCaffrey, husband and wife The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: See Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company By Z57�owwL- . 3�2� Authorized SI ri ture Preliminary Commitment Page 1 EXHIBIT "A" EXHIBIT "A" PARCEL A: (9024) Order No. RM - 40003349 THAT PORTION OF THE EAST HALF OF THE WEST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF A PRIVATE ROAD, SAID POINT BEING 198 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION AND 100 FEET WEST OF THE EAST LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE SOUTH ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID PRIVATE ROAD, A DISTANCE OF 712 FEET; THENCE EAST 100 FEET TO INTERSECT THE EAST LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION AT A POINT 910 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE SOUTH ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE COUNTY ROAD; THENCE WEST 100 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF A PRIVATE ROAD; THENCE SOUTH ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID PRIVATE ROAD TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE WEST 10 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST 220 FEET OF THE EAST HALF OF THE WEST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 7; THENCE NORTH ALONG SAID EAST LINE TO A POINT 198 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE EAST 10 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT THE NORTH 82 FEET THEREOF; AND EXCEPT COUNTY ROAD (SOUTHWEST 312TH STREET); AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF CONVEYED TO SOPHIE A. MCNEIL BY QUIT CLAIM DEED DATED JUNE 16, 2001, RECORDED JUNE 19, 2001, UNDER RECORDING NO. 20010619000738; TOGETHER WITH A PERPETUAL EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS OVER THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LAND: A STRIP OF LAND 20 FEET IN WIDTH LYING 10 FEET ALONG EITHER SIDE OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED CENTERLINE: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, FROM WHICH POINT ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER THEREOF BEARS NORTH 89011'19" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 439.51 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 01°04'58" WEST, 987.31 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 63°55102" EAST, 110.34 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 01°04'58" WEST, 145.16 FEET TO THE NORTH MARGIN OF THE COUNTY ROAD KNOWN AS SOUTH 312TH STREET; TOGETHER WITH AN ACCESS EASEMENT AS SET FORTH IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED JUNE 19, 2001 UNDER RECORDING NO. 20010619000739; SITUATE IN THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. Order No. RM - 40003349 EXHIBIT "A" - Continued PARCEL B: (9109) THAT PORTION OF THE EAST HALF OF THE WEST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION AT A POINT 525.00 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE SOUTH ALONG SAID EAST LINE 175.00 FEET; THENCE WEST 100 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF A PRIVATE ROAD; THENCE NORTH ALONG SAID EAST LINE 175 FEET TO A POINT WEST OF THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE EAST 100 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; SITUATE IN THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. PARCEL C: (9110) THAT PORTION OF THE EAST HALF OF THE WEST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT 700 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE SOUTH 70 FEET; THENCE WEST 100 FEET; THENCE NORTH 70 FEET; THENCE EAST 100 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; SITUATE IN THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON, PARCEL D: (9111) THAT PORTION OF THE EAST HALF OF THE WEST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT 770 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE SOUTH 140 FEET; THENCE WEST 100 FEET; THENCE NORTH 140 FEET; THENCE EAST 100 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; SITUATE IN THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, COUNTY OF KING EXHIBIT "A" - Continued PARCEL E: (9114) Order No. RM - 40003349 THAT PORTION OF THE EAST HALF OF THE WEST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W. M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT 420 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SUDIVISION; THENCE SOUTH 105 FEET; THENCE WEST 100 FEET; THENCE NORTH 105 FEET; THENCE EAST 100 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. SITUATE IN THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON Order No. RM - 40003349 SCHEDULE B REQUIREMENTS: Instruments necessary to create the estate or interest to be properly executed, delivered and duly filed for record. EXCEPTIONS: Schedule B of the Policy or Policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following matters unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company. A. Standard exceptions set forth on the Commitment Cover. B. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed Insured acquires for value of record the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES AND SERVICE CHARGES, AS FOLLOWS, TOGETHER WITH INTEREST, PENALTY AND STATUTORY FORECLOSURE COSTS, IF ANY, AFTER DELINQUENCY: (1ST HALF DELINQUENT ON MAY 1; 2ND HALF DELINQUENT ON NOVEMBER 1) TAX ACCOUNT NO.: 0721049024 YEAR BILLED PAID BALANCE 2007 $2,932.01 $2,932.01 $0.00 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE, NOT INCLUDING INTEREST AND PENALTY: $0.00. LEVY CODE: 1205 ASSESSED VALUE LAND: $84,000 ASSESSED VALUE IMPROVEMENTS: $166,000 (COVERS: PARCEL A) GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES AND SERVICE CHARGES, AS FOLLOWS, TOGETHER WITH INTEREST, PENALTY AND STATUTORY FORECLOSURE COSTS, IF ANY, AFTER DELINQUENCY: (1ST HALF DELINQUENT ON MAY 1; 2ND HALF DELINQUENT ON NOVEMBER 1) TAX ACCOUNT NO.: 0721049109 YEAR BILLED PAID BALANCE 2007 $ 183.60 $91.80 $91.80 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE, NOT INCLUDING INTEREST AND PENALTY: $91.80. LEVY CODE: 1205 ASSESSED VALUE LAND: $16,000 ASSESSED VALUE IMPROVEMENTS: $0.00 (COVERS: PARCEL B) Page 5 �)'rder No. RM - 40003349 SCHEDULE B — continued 3. GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES AND SERVICE CHARGES, AS FOLLOWS, TOGETHER WITH INTEREST, PENALTY AND STATUTORY FORECLOSURE COSTS, IF ANY, AFTER DELINQUENCY: (1ST HALF DELINQUENT ON MAY 1; 2ND HALF DELINQUENT ON NOVEMBER 1) TAX ACCOUNT NO.: 0721049110 YEAR BILLED PAID BALANCE 2007 $ 77.58 $77.58 $0.00 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE, NOT INCLUDING INTEREST AND PENALTY: $0.00. LEVY CODE: 1205 ASSESSED VALUE LAND: $10,000 ASSESSED VALUE IMPROVEMENTS: $0.00 (COVERS: PARCEL C) 4, GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES AND SERVICE CHARGES, AS FOLLOWS, TOGETHER WITH INTEREST, PENALTY AND STATUTORY FORECLOSURE COSTS, IF ANY, AFTER DELINQUENCY: (1ST HALF DELINQUENT ON MAY 1; 2ND HALF DELINQUENT ON NOVEMBER 1) TAX ACCOUNT NO.: 0721049111 YEAR BILLED PAID BALANCE 2007 $ 123.23 $123.23 $0.00 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE, NOT INCLUDING INTEREST AND PENALTY: $0.00. LEVY CODE: 1205 ASSESSED VALUE LAND: $16,000 ASSESSED VALUE IMPROVEMENTS: $0.00 (COVERS: PARCEL D) 5, GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES AND SERVICE CHARGES, AS FOLLOWS, TOGETHER WITH INTEREST, PENALTY AND STATUTORY FORECLOSURE COSTS, IF ANY, AFTER DELINQUENCY: (1ST HALF DELINQUENT ON MAY 1; 2ND HALF DELINQUENT ON NOVEMBER 1) TAX ACCOUNT NO.: 0721049114 YEAR BILLED PAID BALANCE 2007 $ 1.50 $1.50 $0.00 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE, NOT INCLUDING INTEREST AND PENALTY: $0.00. LEVY CODE: 1205 ASSESSED VALUE LAND: $0.00 ASSESSED VALUE IMPROVEMENTS: $0.00 (COVERS: PARCEL E) 6, THE LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED IS CARRIED ON THE TAX ROLLS AS EXEMPT, HOWEVER, IT WILL BECOME TAXABLE FROM THE DATE OF EXECUTION OF A CONVEYANCE TO A TAXABLE ENTITY AND SUBJECTTO THE LIEN OF REAL PROPERTYTAXES FORTHE BALANCE OF THE YEAR. TAX ACCOUNT NO. 072104-9114. 7, POTENTIAL SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR GENERAL TAXES IN THE CURRENT YEAR AND PRIOR YEARS ON OMITTED IMPROVEMENTS. THE SUBJECT PREMISES APPEAR ON THE YEAR 2007 TAX ROLLS ASSESSED ONLY ON THE VALUE OF THE LAND. TAX ACCOUNT NO.: 0721049109 0721049110 0721049111 0721049114 Page 6 �rder No. RM - 40003349 SCHEDULE B — continued S. NOTICE OF TAP OR CONNECTION CHARGES WHICH HAVE BEEN OR WILL BE DUE IN CONNECTION WITH DEVELOPMENT OR RE -DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAND AS DISCLOSED BY RECORDED INSTRUMENT. INQUIRIES REGARDING THE SPECIFIC AMOUNT OF THE CHARGES SHOULD BE MADE TO THE CITY/COUNTY/AGENCY. CITY/COUNTY/AGENCY: WATER DISTRICT NO. 124 RECORDED: JUNE 1, 1981 RECORDING NO.: 8106010916 9. EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTEE: LAKEHAVEN SEWER DISTRICT, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION PURPOSE: SEWER MAINS AREA AFFECTED: A PORTION OF PARCEL A OF A PORTION OF SAID PREMISES RECORDED: JUNE 14, 1978 RECORDING NO.: 7806140899 10. EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: PURPOSE: LAKE ACCESS AREA AFFECTED: A PORTION OF PARCEL A OF A PORTION OF SAID PREMISES RECORDING NO. 20010619000739 11. SELLER'S NOTICE OF ON -SITE SEWAGE SYSTEM OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED BY INSTRUMENT RECORDED, UNDER RECORDING NO. 20050211001839. (COVERS: PARCEL A) 12. MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF; RECORDED: APRIL 12, 2007 RECORDING NO_ 20070412000601 REGARDING: BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENTS 13. QUITCLAIM DEEDS CLEARING TITLE RE ACCESS RIGHTS AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: RECORDED: APRIL 12, 2007 RECORDING NO.: 20070412000602, 20070412000603 AND 20070412000604, REGARDING: DENIES RIGHTS OF ACCESS AND EASEMENTS AS STATED HEREIN 14. LACK OF A RECORDED MEANS OF INGRESS AND EGRESS TO A PUBLIC ROAD FROM THE LAND. (COVERS: PARCELS B, C, D AND E) 15. EASEMENT AGREEMENTS AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: RECORDED: NOVEMBER 8, 2007 RECORDING NOS.: 20071108001180, 20071108001181, 20071108001182, 20071108001183, 20071108001184, 20071108001185, AND 20071108001186 REGARDING: USE OF THE WESTERLY PORTION OF PARCEL A Page 7 __)rder No. RM - 40003349 SCHEDULE B - continued 16. DEED OF TRUST AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTOR: WILLIAM J. MCCAFFREY AND DAWN L. MCCAFFREY, HUSBAND AND WIFE TRUSTEE: TALON GROUP BENEFICIARY: WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK ORIGINAL AMOUNT: $262,500.00 DATED: SEPTEMBER 7, 2007 RECORDED: SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 RECORDING NO.: 20070913002632 (COVERS: PARCEL A) 17. MATTERS RELATING TO THE QUESTIONS OF SURVEY, RIGHTS OF PARTIES IN POSSESSION, AND UNRECORDED LIEN RIGHTS FOR LABOR AND MATERIAL, IF ANY, THE DISPOSITION OF WHICH WILL BE FURNISHED BY SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT. NOTE 1: THIS IS A LOAN -ONLY TRANSACTION. THE SPECIFIC DISCOUNTED RATE CLASSIFICATIONS APPLIED TO THE OWNER'S POLICY, AND ANY LENDER'S POLICY ALSO REQUESTED FOR THIS TRANSACTION, ARE DISCLOSED IN SCHEDULE A OF THE PRELIMINARY COMMITMENT. OTHER DISCOUNTED RATE CLASSIFICATIONS MAY APPLY, INCLUDING THE: REFINANCE RATE PRIOR TITLE EVIDENCE RATE SHORT TERM RATE BUILDER'S AND SUBDIVIDER'S RATE JUNIOR MORTGAGE RATE LENDER'S STANDARD COVERAGE RATE ATTACHED IS A BRIEF DESCRIPTION FOR THESE RATES. PLEASE INFORM YOUR TITLE OFFICER IF YOU THINK YOUR TRANSACTION QUALIFIES FOR ONE OF THE LISTED DISCOUNT PREMIUM RATES. YOU MAY REACH YOUR TITLE OFFICER, RANDY MCCRORY, AT (425) 646-8591 OR RMCCRORY@LANDAM.COM. NOTE 2� IF YOU WOULD LIKE THE COMPANY TO ACT AS TRUSTEE IN THE PROPOSED DEED OF TRUST, PLEASE NOTE THAT -COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE OF PUGET SOUND" MAY ACT AS TRUSTEE OF A DEED OF TRUST UNDER RCW 61.24.010(1). NOTE 3: THE COMPANY REQUIRES THE PROPOSED INSURED TO VERIFY THAT THE LAND COVERED BY THIS COMMITMENT IS THE LAND INTENDED TO BE CONVEYED IN THIS TRANSACTION. THE DESCRIPTION OF THE LAND MAY BE INCORRECT, IF THE APPLICATION FOR TITLE INSURANCE CONTAINED INCOMPLETE OR INACCURATE INFORMATION. NOTIFYTHE COMPANY WELL BEFORE CLOSING IF CHANGES ARE NECESSARY. CLOSING INSTRUCTIONS MUST INDICATE THAT THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY ALL PARTIES. NOTE 4: THE FOLLOWING MAY BE USED AS AN ABBREVIATED LEGAL DESCRIPTION ON THE DOCUMENTS TO BE RECORDED, PER AMENDED RCW 65.04. SAID ABBREVIATED LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR A COMPLETE LEGAL DESCRIPTION WITHIN THE BODY OF THE DOCUMENT. PTN NE STR 07 21N 04E Page 8 Jrder No. RM - 40003349 SCHEDULE B - continued NOTE 5: WHEN SENDING DOCUMENTS FOR RECORDING, VIA U.S. MAIL OR SPECIAL COURIER SERVICE, PLEASE SEND TO THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS, UNLESS SPECIFIC ARRANGEMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE WITH YOUR TITLE UNIT: COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE COMPANY OF PUGET SOUND 1501 - 4TH AVENUE, SUITE 308 SEATTLE, WA 98101 ATTN: RECORDING DEPT. COMMONWEALTH PRE -ADDRESSED ENVELOPES MAY STILL BE USED WHEN SENDING DOCUMENTS VIA TDS (TITLE DELIVERY SERVICE) TO THE ADDRESS ON THE FACE OF THE COMMITMENT COVER PAGE OR TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. NOTE 6: IN THE EVENT THAT THE COMMITMENT JACKET IS NOT ATTACHED HERETO, ALL OF THE TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SAID JACKET ARE INCORPORATED HEREIN. THE COMMITMENT JACKET IS AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT ANY COMPANY OFFICE. NOTE 7: THE POLICY(S) OF INSURANCE MAY CONTAIN A CLAUSE PERMITTING ARBITRATION OF CLAIMS AT THE REQUEST OF EITHER THE INSURED OR THE COMPANY. UPON REQUEST, THE COMPANY WILL PROVIDE A COPY OF THIS CLAUSE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ARBITRATION RULES PRIOR TO THE CLOSING OF THE TRANSACTION. (END OF EXCEPTIONS) Investigation should be made to determine if there are any sewer treatment capacity charges or if there are any service, installation, maintenance, or construction charges for sewer, water or electricity. In the event this transaction fails to close, a cancellation fee will be charged for services rendered in accordance with our rate schedule. Unless otherwise requested or specified herein, the forms of policy to be issued in connection with this Commitment will be the ALTA 2003 Homeowner's Policy, the ALTA 2006 Loan Policy, or, in the case of standard lender's coverage, the ALTA 2006 Standard Loan Policy. The Policy committed for or requested may be examined by inquiry at the office that issued the Commitment. A specimen copy of the Policy form(s) referred to in this Commitment will be furnished promptly upon request. JES1 Enclosures: Sketch Vesting Deed Paragraphs all recorded documents Page 9 der No.: RM - 40003349 common -WY LAND TITLE COMPANY OF PUGET SOUND, LLC 14450 N.E. 291h PI., #200 Bellevue, WA 98007 Phone: 425-646-8591 888-267-2303 Fax: 425-646-8593 Discounted Rate Disclosure Addendum - Refinance -Only This is a refinance -only transaction. The specific discounted rate classifications applied to this transaction are disclosed in Schedule A of the preliminary commitment. Other discounted rate classifications may apply, including the: Refinance rate - For first priority mortgages that refinance prior indebtedness incurred by the present borrower. Prior title evidence rate - If a copy of a prior title policy or commitment issued by any title company is submitted with an order for a new lender's policy upon land without a 1-to-4 family residential structure. Short term rate - If a title policy has been issued within the last five (5) years. Builder's and subdivider's rate - For a lender's policy insuring a development loan on land which has been or is to be divided and for a lender's policy insuring a construction loan. Junior mortgage rate - When a mortgage policy insuring the lien of a mortgage has previously been issued at the general schedule rate. Lender's standard covers a rate - When a commercial lender requests a standard coverage lender's policy with broad exceptions instead of specific descriptive exceptions. PLEASE INFORM YOUR TITLE OFFICER IF YOU THINK YOUR TRANSACTION QUALIFIES FOR ONE OF THE LISTED DISCOUNT PREMIUM RATES. You may reach your title officer, Randy McCrory, at (425) 646-8591 or RMccrory@Landam.com.. Please acknowledge your receipt of this rate disclosure by signing below. Name: Date: Please return to company at: 14450 N.E. 29th Place Suite 200 Bellevue, WA 98007 Attn: Randy McCrory Discounted Rate Disclosure Addendum Name: Date: THIS SKETCH IS PROVIDED, WITHOUT CHARGE, FOR YOUR INFORMATION. IT IS NOT INTENDED TO SHOW ALL MATTERS RELATED TO THE PROPERTY INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, AREA, DIMENSIONS, EASEMENTS, ENCROACHMENTS OR LOCATIONS OF BOUNDARIES, IT IS NOT APART OF, NOR DOES IT MODIFY, THE COMMITMENT OR POLICY TO WHICH IT IS ATTACHED. THE COMPANY ASSUMES NO LIABILITY FOR ANY MATTER RELATED TO THIS SKETCH,UNLESS SUCH COVERAGE IS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED BY THE COVERED RISKS OF THE POLICY. REFERENCE SHOULD BE MADE TO AN ACCURATE SURVEY FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. SECTION: 07 TOWNSHIP: 21N RANGE: 04E Al 0110 axn I ooeo F •1- ;z - _ 555770 VOt_ Q n MitRO E I aaeo ,;;� 7I=! I SAC ono 020o amo �• 1 W 1_ , '•, a leo oe o00 ooeo ST. 34% Its eir-w•{r � 1 000D 177 At m Ae At �1 ow f I 15 024 At • ,'� 061 a +� Q� � = 11-II-11 C I I omwlie LOT •• 7rf J! -{ - k3r y 1 • + % 4 15 l( RY 4 yy1 0= 0.27 AC ; o11i it At ON w I 940 7 10 POO 0@0 z` 0240 L4��° 4� Ac ' 14 ram% 1 { W4 s am 01140 tot ow y l At ICCSP 577041 0= 949210082 :016 AW LOT 3 =51so sr �,• am '—�----- - 7t ti 9024 H 1 trot st LOT 4 1r` am sr ; 1.34 At --1, - a ANH71 aetn! Wjq fe SSit - {1171r ' w ^ I " - w st ST t>aso ti.c vat• ^ :4 , E51 e4.1+ -3sr 7e =5•N 4� R78k51 •r-y CHI{I _ S� 17 7� �_�• �ST `. 17 rr'' - � LflT 2 - v ti y�eC tip• 71 AC y1109t 97Z FCR YA 'S- ••etA• r`` ►�y► fez — 3t �-'-- — .Y -• L s 11Ir � /Iu VAC. 112716 n�4 10 1351t sr