Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
GRD2007-00013 Retaining Wall, Storm Drainage - GRD Engineering / Geo-Tech Reports - 3/14/2008
ADD 7 —Oo D 13 Michael F. Wnek, P.E., PS Consulting Civil Engineer 3388 NW Byron St, Suite 200, Silverdale, WA 98383, 360-692-3802 Segmental Block / Geogrid Retaining Wall Calculations ALLYN VIEW SQUARE located in: Mason COUNTY prepared for: Marty Reynolds PO Box 34 Allyn,WA98524 (360)340-6029 March 14, 2008 Project Number: 391 �C,�P°LR�kf��'�F o By the seal and signature here affixed, ssrs ��,ti�" 1 certify that the enclosed report was °NAL accomplished by myself, and that I am currently a registered engineer of good NOTE o XPIRE�Y IS SOSCReEfl DIGITIZED standing in the State of Washington. SIGNATURE k DATE. ORIGINAL SIGNED DRANING IS ARCHIVED IN T}'E SIGNATURE ENGINEER'S OFFICE. DETAIL BASIS: HANDRAIL OR FENCING I or 9 Block Vendor: Keystone Retaining SEE NOTE 5 Wall Systems Block Type: Standard Geogrid Vendor: Mirafi Geogrid Geogrid Type: Miragrid 7XT 1�_ 8.00 t 8.00"I 4LCayer 4 Layer 3 I 10.00' BACKFILL WITH SUITABLE MATERIAL, COMPACTED TO 95%% OFFSET = 1/2" PER 24" Layer 2 or 1:16 i 2.00' TYP. Lover 1 4" dia. PERF. PIPE & WASHED GRAVEL FOOTING DRAIN TO DAYLIGHT 0.50' 3.00" 8.50' FOR 9—ft & 10—ft WALL HTS. 24.00 (FOR OTHER WALL HTS., SEE NOTES) NOTES: 1. OTHER SEGMENTAL BLOCKS STYLES MAY BE USED, HOWEVER DESIGNATED BATTER & GEOGRID PLACEMENT MUST BE MAINTAINED. 2. GEOGRID SHALL HAVE A LONG TERM DESIGN STRENGTH (LTDS) OF 3,084. 3. "LAYER 1" OF THE GEOGRID MUST BE PLACED WITHIN 2 VERTICAL FEET OF THE BOTTOM OF THE BASE BLOCK. 4. FOR OTHER WALL HEIGHTS, THE GEOGRID DEPTH (MEASURED FROM THE FRONT FACE OF WALL) IS: 3' to 4' WALL 4.5—foot DEPTH +4' to 6' WALL 6.0'—foot DEPTH +6' to 8' WALL 7.0'—foot DEPTH +8' to 10' WALL 8.5'—foot DEPTH 5. PROVIDE PROTECTIVE HANDRAIL OR FENCING AT TOP OF WALL, OFFSET 1—FT MINIMUM BEHIND BLOCKS OR PROVIDE DETAIL FROM BLOCK MANUFACTURER. DETAIL SEGMENTAL BLOCK. RETAINING WALL_ 2of9 Michael F.Wnek,P.E.,PS Title 04-foot Page:-_-_ Consulting Civil Engineer Job# 391-Allyn: Dsgnr: mfw Date: MAR 14,2008 3388 NW Byron St.,Suite 200 Description.... Silverdale,WA 98383 4-foot wall,first geogrid @ 2-feet (360)692-3802 This Wall in File:G:\CivilEng\391\RetainingWallslwall-1.rp5 Retain Pro 2007,5-Dec-2007,(c)1989-2007 www.retainpro.coWsupport for latest release Segmental Retaining Wall Design with Geogrids Code: 1997 UBC Registration#:RP-1166915 2007010 LCriteria Loading Wall height(retained height),ft 4.00 Dead load,psf 0 Backfill slope Level Live load,psf 250 Backfill angle 0.0 Seismic Design Kh 0.15 Embedment 1.0 Segmental block data Soil data Vendor selection Keystone Retaining Wall Systems External Soil,Phi_e 34 Vendor web address www.keystonewalls com External soil density(In situ),pcf 120 Block selection type Standard Internal Soil,Phi_i 34 Block height,in 8.00 Internal soil density,pcf 120 Block depth,in 18.00 WaII Soil FrictionAngle 23 Offset per block,in 0.50 K_a(Horiz) 0.22 Batter angle 3.58 K_AE(Horiz) 0.36 Wall weight,psf 180.00 Stability Hinge height,ft 24.00 Overturning ratio 5.92 Sliding ratio 2.89 Geogrid material Overturning moment,ft-Ibs 1,248 Vendor Selection Mirafi Geogrid Resisting moment,ft-Ibs 7,387 Vendor web address www.mirafi.com Total lateral/sliding force,Ibs 679 Geogrid type Miragrid 7XT Sliding Resistance,ft 1,962.82 LTDS 3084.00 Total vertical force,Ibs 2,910 Factor of safety 1.50 Base length,ft 4.50 LTADS 2056.00 Eccentricity on base,ft 0.14 Peak connection equation 1137+0.36N Effective base length,ft 4.22 Peak connection maximum 2284 Soil bearing pressure,psf 689.69 Serviceability connection equation 781 +0.27N Allowable soil bearing,psf 13,932.75 Serviceability connection maximum 1720 Soil Bearing Ratio 20.20 Wall Analysis Table: Block Layer Height above base Tension Connection Embed Vert S.F. Ft In I Dec Static Seismic Peak Sery Le N 6 4' 0" 4.00 3 1 2 0" 2.00 213 124 844.4 878.2 1.57 360 2.50 Base 0' 0., 0.00 720 3of9 Michael F.Wnek,P.E.,PS Title 04-foot Page: _ Consulting Civil Engineer Job# 391-Allyn: Dsgnr: mfvv Date: MAR 14,2008 3388 NW Byron St.,Suite 200 Description.... Silverdale,WA 98383 4-foot wall,first geogrid @ 2-feet (360)692-3802 This Wall in File:G:1CivilEng\391\RetainingWalls\wall-1.rp5 Retain Pro 2007,5-Dec-2007,(c)1989-2007 www.retainpro.com/supportforlatestrelease Segmental Retaining Wall Design with Geogrids Code: 1997 UBC Registration#:RP-1166915 2007010 Summary:Resisting/Overturning Resisting Moments Item Force,Ibs Distance,ft Moment,ft-Ibs Wall 720 0.87 630 Reinf.earth 1,440 3.00 4,320 Sloped 0 3.76 0 Dead load 0 3.25 0 Live load 750 3.25 2,437 Total 2,910 7,387 Overturning Moments Item Force,Ibs Distance,ft Moment,ft-Ibs Earth----_- -- --- _ -- — 206 -——�—---1.33 -- 274 Surcharge,DL 0 2.00 0 Surcharge,LL 259 2.00 517 Seismic,Wall 108 2.00 216 Seismic,Reinf. 36 2.00 72 Seismic,Sloped soil 0 4.00 0 Seismic,Exterior 70 2.40 169 Total 679 1,248 Overturning Ratio 2.89 ASSUMPTIONS AND CRITERIA USED 1. References used include Design Manual for Segmental Retaining Walls,2nd Edition,and Segmental Retaining Walls—Seismic Design Manual, 1�1 Edition,both by NCMA. 2. Blocks are all same size and uniform offsets(batter)for full wall height. 3. Coulomb earth pressure theory used for earth pressures and failure plane angle. 4. Refer to geotechnical report for backfill material,compaction,and other design data and recommendations. 5. Cap blocks if used are above the retained height and are neglected in this design. 6. Geogrid LTDS and connection values for block vendors obtained from ICC Evaluation Service(ES Legacy Reports)or as provided by vendors.Since these may change or be updated,verification of values is recommended. 7. Block sizes obtained from vendors'literature and may vary with locality. 8. Geogrid layers are equally spaced vertically,all same length,and laid horizontally. 9. Average weight of block and cell infill assumed to be 120 pcf. 10. See vendor web sites(on input screen)for more information and specifications. 11. Design height is limited to 16 feet or 24 blocks,whichever is less. Contact vendor for higher designs or special conditions. 12. Seismic design is per Seismic Design Manual cited above. Also see Methodology/Seismic Design in User's Manual. 13. Vendor specifications or project specifications,whichever is most restrictive,to be followed for construction procedures. 14. Add notes and details for proper drainage. 15. See Users Manual Design Example#10 for methodology and sample verification calculations. 16. Final design responsibility is with the project Engineer-of-Record. 4of9 Michael F.Wnek,P.E.,PS Title : 06-foot Page: Consulting Civil Engineer Job# : 391-Allyn 7 Dsgnr mfw Date: MAR 14,2008 3388 NW Byron St.,Suite 200 Description.... Silverdale,WA 98383 6-foot height,first geogrid @ 2-feet (360)692-3802 This Wall in File:G:\CivilEng\391\RetainingWalls\wall-1.rp5 Retain Pro 2007,5-Dec-2007,(c)1989-2007 www.retainpro.com/support for latest release Segmental Retaining Wall Design with Geogrids Code: IBC 03&06 Re istration#:RP-1166915 2007010 Criteria [Loading Wall height(retained height),ft 6.00 Dead load,psf 0 Backfill slope Level Live load,psf 250 Backfill angle 0.0 Seismic Design Kh 0.15 Embedment 1.0 Segmental block data data Soil Vendor selection Keystone Retaining Wall Systems External Soil,Phi-e 34 Vendor web address www.keystonewalls.com External soil density(In situ),pcf 120 Block selection type Standard Internal Soil,Phi_i 34 Block height,in 8.00 Internal soil density,pcf 120 Block depth,in 18.00 WallSoilFrictionAngle 23 Offset per block,in 0.50 K-a(Horiz) 0.22 Batter angle 3.58 K_AE(Horiz) 0.36 Wall weight,psf 180.00 Staty Hinge height,ft 24.00 bili Overturning ratio 4.90 Sliding ratio 2.75 Geogrid material ` Overturning moment,ft-Ibs 3,632 Vendor Selection Mirafi Geogrid Resisting moment,ft-Ibs 17,803 Vendor web address www.mirafi.com Total lateral/sliding force,Ibs 1,333 Geogrid type Miragrid 7XT Sliding Resistance,ft 3,672.70 LTDS 3084.00 Total vertical force,Ibs 5,445 Factor of safety 1.50 Base length,ft 6.00 LTADS 2056.00 Eccentricity on base,ft 0.40 Peak connection equation 1137+0.36N Effective base length,ft 5.21 Peak connection maximum 2284 Soil bearing pressure,psf 1,046.06 Serviceability connection equation 781 +0.27N Allowable soil bearing,psf 16,364.12 Serviceability connection maximum 1720 Soil Bearing Ratio 15.64 Wall Analysis Table: Block Layer Height above base Tension Connection Embed Vert Ft In Dec Static Seismic Peak Sery Le N 9T 6' 0" 6.00 6 2 4' 0" 4.00 213 181 844.4 878.21 1.661 360 2.14 3 1 2' 0" 2.00 317 139 930.8 975.41 1.511 720 2.04 Base 0' 0" 0.00 1,080 5 of 9 Michael F.Wnek,P.E.,PS Title 06-foot Page: _ Consulting Civil Engineer Job# 391-Allyn 7 Dsgnr: mfw Date: MAR 14,2008 3388 NW Byron St.,Suite 200 Description.... Silverdale,WA 98383 6-foot height,first geogrid @ 2-feet (360)692-3802 This Wall in File:G:1CivilEng\391\RetainingWalls\wall-1.rp5 Retain Pro 2007,5-Dec-2007,(c)1989-2007 www.retainpro.com/support for latest release Segmental Retaining Wall Design with Geogrids Code: IBC 03&06 Registration#:RP-1166915 2007010 [Summary:Resisting/Overturning Resisting Moments Item Force,Ibs Distance,ft Moment,ft-Ibs Wall 1,080 0.94 1,012 Reinf.earth 3,240 3.75 12,150 Sloped 0 4.89 0 Dead load 0 4.12 0 Live load 1,125 4.12 4,641 Total 5,445 17,803 Overturning Moments Item Force,Ibs Distance,ft Moment,ft-Ibs Earth 463 2.00 926 Surcharge,DL 0 3.00 0 Surcharge,LL 388 3.00 1,163 Seismic,Wall 162 3.00 486 Seismic,Reinf. 162 3.00 486 Seismic,Sloped soil 0 6.00 0 Seismic,Exterior 159 3.60 571 Total 1,333 3,632 Overturning Ratio 2.75 ASSUMPTIONS AND CRITERIA USED 1. References used include Design Manual for Segmental Retaining Walls,2-'Edition,and Segmental Retaining Walls—Seismic Design Manual, 1-1 Edition,both by NCMA. 2. Blocks are all same size and uniform offsets(batter)for full wall height. 3. Coulomb earth pressure theory used for earth pressures and failure plane angle. 4. Refer to geotechnical report for backfill material,compaction,and other design data and recommendations. 5. Cap blocks if used are above the retained height and are neglected in this design. 6. Geogrid LTDS and connection values for block vendors obtained from ICC Evaluation Service(ES Legacy Reports)or as provided by vendors.Since these may change or be updated,verification of values is recommended. 7. Block sizes obtained from vendors'literature and may vary with locality. 8. Geogrid layers are equally spaced vertically,all same length,and laid horizontally. 9. Average weight of block and cell infill assumed to be 120 pcf. 10. See vendor web sites(on input screen)for more information and specifications. 11 Design height is limited to 16 feet or 24 blocks,whichever is less. Contact vendor for higher designs or special conditions. 12. Seismic design is per Seismic Design Manual cited above. Also see Methodology/Seismic Design in User's Manual. 13. Vendor specifications or project specifications,whichever is most restrictive,to be followed for construction procedures. 14. Add notes and details for proper drainage. 15. See User's Manual Design Example#10 for methodology and sample verification calculations. 16. Final design responsibility is with the project Engineer-of-Record. 6of9 Michael F.Wnek,P.E.,PS Title : 08-foot Page:. Consulting Civil Engineer Job# : 391-Allyn I Dsgnr: mfw Date: MAR 14,2008 3388 NW Byron St.,Suite 200 Description.... Silverdale,WA 98383 8-foot height,first geogrid @ 2-feet (360)692-3802 This Wall in File:G:\CivilEng\391\RetainingWalls\wall-1.rp5 Retain Pro 2007,5-Dec-2007,(c)1989-2007 www.retainpro.com/support for latest release Segmental Retaining Wall Design with Geogrids Code: IBC 03&06 Registration#:RP-1166915 2007010 [Criteria Loading Wall height(retained height),ft 8.00 Dead load,psf 0 Backfill slope Level Live load,psf 250 Backfill angle 0.0 Seismic Design Kh 0.15 Embedment 1.0 Soil data Segmental block data Vendor selection Keystone Retaining Wall Systems External Soil, Phi_e 34 Vendor web address www.keystonewalls.com External soil density(In situ),pcf 120 Block selection type Standard Internal Soil,Phi_i 34 Block height,in 8.00 Internal soil density,pcf 120 Block depth,in 18.00 WallSoilFrictionAngle 23 Offset per block,in 0.50 K_a(Horiz) 0.22 Batter angle 3.58 K_AE(Horiz) 0.36 Wall weight,psf 180.00 Stability Hinge height,ft 24.00 Overturning ratio 3.84 Sliding ratio 2.48 Geogrid material Overturning moment,ft-Ibs 7,919 Vendor Selection Mirafi Geogrid Resisting moment,ft-Ibs 30,411 Vendor web address www.mirafi.com Total lateral/sliding force,Ibs 2,198 Geogrid type Miragrid 7XT Sliding Resistance,ft 5,460.15 LTDS 3084.00 Total vertical force,Ibs 8,095 Factor of safety 1.50 Base length,ft 7.00 LTADS 2056.00 Eccentricity on base,ft 0.72 Peak connection equation 1137+0.36N Effective base length,ft 5.56 Peak connection maximum 2284 Soil bearing pressure,psf 1,456.73 Serviceability connection equation 781 +0.27N Allowable soil bearing,psf 17,231.44 Serviceability connection maximum 1720 Soil Bearing Ratio 11.83 Wall Analysis Table: Block Layer Height above base Tension Connection Embed, Vert S.F. Ft In Dec Static Seismic Peak I Sery Le N 12 8'-0 -8.00 9 3 6' 0" 6.00 213 237 844.4 878.2 1.76 360 1.88 6 2 4' 0" 4.00 317 195 930.8 975.4 1.58 720 1.82 3 1 2' 0" 2.00 421 153 1017.2 1072.6 1.49 1,080 1.77 Base 0' 0" 0.00 1,440 7of9 Michael F.Wnek,P.E.,PS Title 08-foot Page: Consulting Civil Engineer Job# 391-Allyn: Dsgnr: mfw Date: MAR 14,2008 3388 NW Byron St.,Suite 200 Description.... Silverdale,WA 98383 8-foot height,first geogrid @ 2-feet (360)692-3802 This Wall in File:G:1CivilEng13911RetainingWalls\wall-1.rp5 Retain Pro 2007,5-Dec-2007,(c)1989-2007 www.retainpro.com/support for latest release Segmental Retaining Wall Design with Geogrids Code: IBC 03&06 Registration#:RP-1166915 2007010 Summary:Resisting/Overturning Resisting Moments Item Force,Ibs Distance,ft Moment,ft-Ibs Wall 1,440 1.00 1,440 Reinf.earth 5,280 4.25 22,440 Sloped 0 5.68 0 Dead load 0 4.75 0 Live load 1,375 4.75 6,531 Total 8,095 30,411 Overturning Moments Item Force,Ibs Distance,It Moment,ft-Ibs Earth - — - -- - --- - - - 823 2.67 2,195 Surcharge,DL 0 4.00 0 Surcharge,LL 517 4.00 2,068 Seismic,Wall 216 4.00 864 Seismic,Reinf. 360 4.00 1,440 Seismic,Sloped soil 0 8.00 0 Seismic,Exterior 282 4.80 1,353 Total 2,198 7,919 Overturning Ratio 2.48 ASSUMPTIONS AND CRITERIA USED 1. References used include Design Manual for Segmental Retaining Walls,2111 Edition,and Segmental Retaining Walls-Seismic Design Manual, 's'Edition,both by NCMA. 2. Blocks are all same size and uniform offsets(batter)for full wall height. 3. Coulomb earth pressure theory used for earth pressures and failure plane angle. 4. Refer to geotechnical report for backfill material,compaction,and other design data and recommendations. 5. Cap blocks if used are above the retained height and are neglected in this design. 6. Geogrid LTDS and connection values for block vendors obtained from ICC Evaluation Service(ES Legacy Reports)or as provided by vendors.Since these may change or be updated,verification of values is recommended. 7. Block sizes obtained from vendors'literature and may vary with locality. 8. Geogrid layers are equally spaced vertically,all same length,and laid horizontally. 9. Average weight of block and cell infill assumed to be 120 pcf. 10. See vendor web sites(on input screen)for more information and specifications. 11. Design height is limited to 16 feet or 24 blocks,whichever is less. Contact vendor for higher designs or special conditions. 12. Seismic design is per Seismic Design Manual cited above. Also see Methodology/Seismic Design in User's Manual. 13. Vendor specifications or project specifications,whichever is most restrictive,to be followed for construction procedures. 14. Add notes and details for proper drainage. 15. See User's Manual Design Example#10 for methodology and sample verification calculations. 16. Final design responsibility is with the project Engineer-of-Record. 8of9 Michael F.Wnek,P.E.,PS Title 10-foot Page:__ Consulting Civil Engineer Job# 391-Allyn I Dsgnr: mfw Date: MAR 14,2008 3388 NW Byron St.,Suite 200 Description.... Silverdale,WA 98383 10-foot wall,first geogrid @ 2-feet (360)692-3802 This Wall in File:G:\CivilEng1391\RetainingWalls\wall-1.rp5 Retain Pro 2007,5-Dec-2007,(c)1989-2007 www.retainpro.com/support for latest release Segmental Retaining Wall Design with Geogrids Code: IBC 03&06 Registration#:RP-1166915 2007010 Criteria Loading Wall height(retained height),ft 10.00 Dead load,psf 0 Backfill slope Level Live load,psf 100 Backfill angle 0.0 Seismic Design Kh 0.15 Embedment 1.0 Segmental block data [Soil data Vendor selection Keystone Retaining Wall Systems External Soil,Phi_e 34 Vendor web address www.keystonewalls.com External soil density(In situ),pcf 120 Block selection type Standard Internal Soil,Phi_i 34 Block height,in 8.00 Internal soil density,pcf 120 Block depth,in 18.00 WallSoilFrictionAngle 23 Offset per block,in 0.50 K_a(Horiz) 0.22 Batter angle 3.58 K_AE(Horiz) 0.36 Wall weight,psf 180.00 Stability I Hinge height,ft 24.00 Overturning ratio 3.76 Sliding ratio 2.55 Geogrid material - -` Overturning moment,ft-Ibs 12,721 Vendor Selection Mirafi Geogrid Resisting moment,ft-Ibs 47,850 Vendor web address www.mirafi.com Total lateral/sliding force,Ibs 2,885 Geogrid type Miragrid 7XT Sliding Resistance,ft 7,352.14 LTDS 3084.00 Total vertical force,Ibs 10,900 Factor of safety 1.50 Base length,ft 8.50 LTADS 2056.00 Eccentricity on base,ft 1.03 Peak connection equation 1137+0.36N Effective base length,ft 6.45 Peak connection maximum 2284 Soil bearing pressure,psf 1,691.06 Serviceability connection equation 781 +0.27N Allowable soil bearing,psf 19,423.00 Serviceability connection maximum 1720 Soil Bearing Ratio 11.49 Wall Analysis Table: Block Layer Hei ht above base Tension I Connection Embed! Vert S.F. Ft In Dec Static I Seismicl Peak Sery Le N -15-- 10, 0" - 12 4 8' 0" 8.00 148 294 844.41 878.2 2.07 360 1.91 9 3 6' 0" 6.00 252 251 930.8 975.4 1.71 720 1.85 6 2 4' 0" 4.00 356 209 1017.2 1072.6 1.57 1,080 1.80 3 1 2' 0" 2.00 460 167 1103.6 1169.8 1.49 1,440 1.76 Base 0' 0" 0.00 1,800 9of9 Michael F.Wnek,P.E.,PS Title 10-foot Page. Consulting Civil Engineer Job# 391-Allyn 7 Dsgnr: mfw Date: MAR 14,2008 3388 NW Byron St.,Suite 200 Description.... Silverdale,WA 98383 10-foot wall,first geogrid @ 2-feet (360)692-3802 This Wall in File:G:\CivilEng\391\RetainingWalls\wall-1.rp5 Retain Pro 2007,5-Dec-2007,(c)1989-2007 www.retainpro.com/support for latest release Segmental Retaining Wall Design with Geogrids Code: IBC 03&06 Registration#:RP-1166915 2007010 Summary:Resisting/Overturning Resisting Moments Item Force,Ibs Distance,ft Moment,ft-Ibs Wall 1,800 1.06 1,912 Reinf.earth 8,400 5.00 42,000 Sloped 0 6.81 0 Dead load 0 5.62 0 Live load 700 5.62 3,937 Total 10,900 47,850 Overturning Moments Item Force,Ibs Distance,ft Moment,ft-Ibs Earth - -- -- 1,286 — ---- 3.33 4,286 Surcharge,DL 0 5.00 0 Surcharge,LL 259 5.00 1,293 Seismic,Wall 270 5.00 1,350 Seismic,Reinf. 630 5.00 3,150 Seismic,Sloped soil 0 10.00 0 Seismic,Exterior 440 6.00 2,642 Total 2,885 12,721 Overturning Ratio 2.55 [ASSUMPTIONS AND CRITERIA USED 1. References used include Design Manual for Segmental Retaining Walls,2nd Edition,and Segmental Retaining Walls—Seismic Design Manual, 1�1 Edition,both by NCMA. 2. Blocks are all same size and uniform offsets(batter)for full wall height. 3. Coulomb earth pressure theory used for earth pressures and failure plane angle. 4. Refer to geotechnical report for backfill material,compaction,and other design data and recommendations. 5. Cap blocks if used are above the retained height and are neglected in this design. 6. Geogrid LTDS and connection values for block vendors obtained from ICC Evaluation Service(ES Legacy Reports)or as provided by vendors.Since these may change or be updated,verification of values is recommended. 7. Block sizes obtained from vendors'literature and may vary with locality. 8. Geogrid layers are equally spaced vertically,all same length,and laid horizontally. 9. Average weight of block and cell infill assumed to be 120 pcf. 10. See vendor web sites(on input screen)for more information and specifications. 11. Design height is limited to 16 feet or 24 blocks,whichever is less. Contact vendor for higher designs or special conditions. 12. Seismic design is per Seismic Design Manual cited above. Also see Methodology/Seismic Design in User's Manual. 13. Vendor specifications or project specifications,whichever is most restrictive,to be followed for construction procedures. 14. Add notes and details for proper drainage. 15. See User's Manual Design Example#10 for methodology and sample verification calculations. 16. Final design responsibility is with the project Engineer-of-Record. r Michael F. Wriek, P.E., PS Consulting Civil Engineer 3388 NW Byron St, Suite 200, Silverdale, WA 98383, 360-692-3802 Segmental Block / Geogrid Retaining Wall Calculations ALLYN VIEW SQUARE located in: Mason COUNTY prepared for: Marty Reynolds PO Box 34 Allyn,WA98524 (360)340-6029 March 14, 2008 t_ F Project Number: 391 C-� �o �0 023 0 sy� By the seal and signature here affixed, ` skis ° I certify that the enclosed report was SIGNAL E� accomplished by myself, and that I am EXPIRES 07 13 09 currently a registered engineer of good NOTE: DRAWING COPY IS INSCRI8ED WITH DIGITIZED standing in the State of Washington. SIGNATURE h DATE. ORIGINAL SIGNED DRAWING IS ARCHIVED IN THE SIGNATURE ENGINEER'S OFFICE. DETAIL BASIS: HANDRAIL OR FENCING 1 of 9 Block Vendor: Keystone Retaining SEE NOTE 5 Wall Systems Block Type: Standard Geogrid Vendor: Miralfi Geogrid Geogrid Type: Miragrid 7XT 18.00-f 8.00"1 II II La er 4 Layer 3 10.00' BACKFILL WITH SUITABLE MATERIAL, COMPACTED TO 95% OFFSET = 1/2" PER 24" Laver 2 or 1:16 i i 2.00' Layer 1 4" dia. PERF. PIPE & WASHED GRAVEL �- FOOLING DRAIN TO DAYLIGHT 0.50' AN 3.00"h _ __ 8.50' FOR 9-ft & 10-ft WALL HTS. 24.00" (FOR OTHER WALL HTS., SEE NOTES) NOTES: 1. OTHER SEGMENTAL BLOCKS STYLES MAY BE USED, HOWEVER DESIGNATED BATTER & GEOGRID PLACEMENT MUST BE MAINTAINED. 2. GEOGRID SHALL HAVE A LONG TERM DESIGN STRENGTH (LTDS) OF 3,084, 3. "LAYER 1" OF THE GEOGRID MUST BE PLACED WITHIN 2 VERTICAL FEET OF THE BOTTOM OF THE BASE BLOCK. 4. FOR OTHER WALL HEIGHTS, THE GEOGRID DEPTH (MEASURED FROM THE FRONT FACE OF WALL) IS: 3' to 4' WALL 4.5-foot DEPTH +4' to 6' WALL 6.0'-foot DEPTH +6' to 8' WALL 7.0'-foot DEPTH +8' to 10' WALL 8.5'-foot DEPTH 5. PROVIDE PROTECTIVE HANDRAIL OR FENCING AT TOP OF WALL, OFFSET 1-FT MINIMUM BEHIND BLOCKS OR PROVIDE DETAIL FROM BLOCK MANUFACTURER. DETAIL SEGMENTAL BLOCK RETAINING WALL 2of9 Michael F.Wnek,P.E.,PS Title : 04-foot Page: Consulting Civil Engineer Job# : 391-Allyn 1 Dsgnr: mfw Date: MAR 14,2008 3388 NW Byron St.,Suite 200 Description.... Silverdale,WA 98383 4-foot wall,first geogrid @ 2-feet (360)692-3802 This Wall in File:G:1CivilEng\3911RetainingWalls\wall-1.rp5 Retain Pro 2007,5-Dec-2007,(c)1989-2007 www.retainpro.com/support for latest release Segmental Retaining Wall Design with Geogrids Code: 1997 UBC Registration#:RP-1166915 2007010 Criteria Loading Wall height(retained height),ft 4.00 Dead load,psf 0 Backfill slope Level Live load,psf 250 Backfill angle 0.0 Seismic Design Kh 0.15 Embedment 1.0 rSegmental block data Soil data Vendor selection Keystone Retaining Wall Systems External Soil,Phi_e 34 Vendor web address www.keystonewalls.com External soil density(In situ),pcf 120 Block selection type Standard Internal Soil,Phi_i 34 Block height,in 8.00 Internal soil density,pcf 120 Block depth,in 18.00 WallSoilFrictionAngle 23 Offset per block,in 0.50 K_a(Horiz) 0.22 Batter angle 3.58 K_AE(Horiz) 0.36 Wall weight,psf 180.00 Stability I Hinge height,ft 24.00 Overturning ratio 5.92 Sliding ratio 2.89 �Geogrid material Overturning moment,ft-Ibs 1,248 Vendor Selection Mirafi Geogrid Resisting moment,ft-Ibs 7,387 Vendor web address www.mirafi.com Total lateral/sliding force,Ibs 679 Geogrid type Miragrid 7XT Sliding Resistance,ft 1,962.82 LTDS 3084.00 Total vertical force,Ibs 2,910 Factor of safety 1.50 Base length,ft 4.50 LTADS 2056.00 Eccentricity on base,ft 0.14 Peak connection equation 1137+0.36N Effective base length,ft 4.22 Peak connection maximum 2284 Soil bearing pressure,psf 689.69 Serviceability connection equation 781 +0.27N Allowable soil bearing,psf 13,932.75 Serviceability connection maximum 1720 Soil Bearing Ratio 20.20 Wall Analysis Table: Block Layer Height above base Tension Connection Embedl Vert S; F -�Ft In Dec Static Seismicl Peak I Sery Le N 6 4 0" 4.00 J _ 3 1 2' 0" 2.00 4.4 213 124 84 878.2 1.57 360 2.50 Base U 0" 0.00 720 3of9 Michael F.Wnek,P.E.,PS Title 04-foot Page: Consulting Civil Engineer Job# 391-Allyn 7 Dsgnr: mfw Date: MAR 14,2008 3388 NW Byron St.,Suite 200 Description.... Silverdale,WA 98383 4-foot wall,first geogrid @ 2-feet (360)692-3802 This Wall in File:G:\CivilEng\391\RetainingWalls1wa11-1.rp5 Retain Pro 2007,5-Dec-2007,(c)1989-2007 www.retainpro.com/support for latest release Segmental Retaining Wall Design with Geogrids Code: 1997 UBC Registration#:RP-1166915 2007010 Summary:-Resisting/Overturning Resisting Moments Item Force,Ibs Distance,ft Moment,ft-Ibs Wall -- - 720 -- ---__--- -- 0.87 - — ---- — —630 Reinf.earth 1,440 3.00 4,320 Sloped 0 3.76 0 Dead load 0 3.25 0 Live load 750 3.25 2,437 Total 2,910 7,387 Overturning Moments Item Force,Ibs Distance,It Moment,ft-Ibs Earth 206 1.33 274 Surcharge,DL 0 2.00 0 Surcharge,LL 259 2.00 517 Seismic,Wall 108 2.00 216 Seismic,Reinf. 36 2.00 72 Seismic,Sloped soil 0 4.00 0 Seismic,Exterior 70 2.40 169 Total 679 1,248 Overturning Ratio 2.89 ASSUMPTIONS AND CRITERIA USED 1 References used include Design Manual for Segmental Retaining Walls,2nd Edition,and Segmental Retaining Walls-Seismic Design Manual, 111 Edition,both by NCMA. 2. Blocks are all same size and uniform offsets(batter)for full wall height. 3. Coulomb earth pressure theory used for earth pressures and failure plane angle. 4. Refer to geotechnical report for backfill material,compaction,and other design data and recommendations. 5 Cap blocks if used are above the retained height and are neglected in this design. 6. Geogrid LTDS and connection values for block vendors obtained from ICC Evaluation Service(ES Legacy Reports)or as provided by vendors.Since these may change or be updated,verification of values is recommended. 7. Block sizes obtained from vendors'literature and may vary with locality. 8. Geogrid layers are equally spaced vertically,all same length,and laid horizontally. 9. Average weight of block and cell infill assumed to be 120 pcf. 10. See vendor web sites(on input screen)for more information and specifications. 11. Design height is limited to 16 feet or 24 blocks,whichever is less. Contact vendor for higher designs or special conditions. 12. Seismic design is per Seismic Design Manual cited above. Also see Methodology/Seismic Design in User's Manual. 13. Vendor specifications or project specifications,whichever is most restrictive,to be followed for construction procedures. 14. Add notes and details for proper drainage. 15. See User's Manual Design Example#10 for methodology and sample verification calculations. 16. Final design responsibility is with the project Engineer-of-Record. 4of9 Michael F.Wnek,P.E.,PS Title : 06-foot Page: Consulting Civil Engineer Job# : 391-Allyn t Dsgnr: mfw Date: MAR 14,2008 3388 NW Byron St.,Suite 200 Description.... Silverdale,WA 98383 6-foot height,first geogrid @ 2-feet (360)692-3802 This Wall in File:G:1CivilEng13911RetainingWalls\wall-1.rp5 Retain Pro 2007,5-Dec-2007,(c)1989-2007 www.retainpro.com/support for latest release Segmental Retaining Wall Design with Geogrids Code:IBC 03&06 Registration#:RP-1166915 2007010 Criteria ` Loading Wall height(retained height),ft 6.00 Dead load,psf 0 Backfill slope Level Live load,psf 250 Backfill angle 0.0 Seismic Design Kh 0.15 Embedment 1.0 Segmental block data --- -- - _- - --- --- - ----- --- - Soil data Vendor selection Keystone Retaining Wall Systems External Soil,Phi_e 34 Vendor web address www.keystonewalls.com External soil density(In situ),pcf 120 Block selection type Standard Internal Soil,Phi_i 34 Block height,in 8.00 Internal soil density,pcf 120 Block depth,in 18.00 WallSoilFrictionAngle 23 Offset per block,in 0.50 K_a(Horiz) 0.22 Batter angle 3.58 K_AE(Horiz) 0.36 Wall weight,psf 180.00 Stability Hinge height,ft 24.00 Overturning ratio 4.90 Sliding ratio 2.75 Geogrid material Overturning moment,ft-Ibs 3,632 Vendor Selection Mirafi Geogrid Resisting moment,ft-Ibs 17,803 Vendor web address www.mirafi.com Total lateral/sliding force,Ibs 1,333 Geogrid type Miragrid 7XT Sliding Resistance,ft 3,672.70 LTDS 3084.00 Total vertical force,Ibs 5,445 Factor of safety 1.50 Base length,ft 6.00 LTADS 2056.00 Eccentricity on base,ft 0.40 Peak connection equation 1137+0.36N Effective base length,ft 5.21 Peak connection maximum 2284 Soil bearing pressure,psf 1,046.06 Serviceability connection equation 781 +0.27N Allowable soil bearing,psf 16,364.12 Serviceability connection maximum 1720 Soil Bearing Ratio 15.64 Wall Analysis Table: 131eckFlLay�-Height above base Tension Connection Embed\ Vert S.F. Ft In Dec Static Seismic Peak I Sery Le N 9 6' 0" 6.001 1 6 2 4' 0" 4.00 213 1811 844-41 878.21 1.66 360 2.14 3 1 2' 0- 2.00 3171 1391 930.81 975.41 1.51 720 2.04 Base 0' 0., 0.00 1,080 5of9 Michael F.Wnek,P.E.,PS Title : 06-foot Page:_ Consulting Civil Engineer Job# : 391-Allyn I Dsgnr: mfw Date: MAR 14,2008 3388 NW Byron St.,Suite 200 Description.... Silverdale,WA 98383 6-foot height,first geogrid @ 2-feet (360)692-3802 This Wall in File:G:\CivilEng\391\RetainingWalls\wall-1.rp5 Retain Pro 2007,5-Dec-2007,(c)1989-2007 www.retainpro.com/support for latest release Segmental Retaining Wall Design with Geogrids Code: IBC 03&06 Registration#:RP-1166915 2007010 Summary:Resisting/Overturning Resisting Moments Item Force,Ibs Distance,ft Moment,ft-Ibs Wall 1,080 0.94 1,012 Reinf.earth 3,240 3.75 12,150 Sloped 0 4.89 0 Dead load 0 4.12 0 Live load 1,125 4.12 4,641 Total 5,445 17,803 Overturning Moments Item Force,Ibs Distance,ft Moment,ft-Ibs Earth—-------------- ---- ------ 463 2.00 -----—-- 926 Surcharge,DL 0 3.00 0 Surcharge,LL 388 3.00 1,163 Seismic,Wall 162 3.00 486 Seismic,Reinf. 162 3.00 486 Seismic,Sloped soil 0 6.00 0 Seismic,Exterior 159 3.60 571 Total 1,333 3,632 Overturning Ratio 2.75 rASSUMPTIONSAND CRITERIA USED - - - 1. References used include Design Manual for Segmental Retaining Walls,2nd Edition,and Segmental Retaining Walls—Seismic Design Manual, I,'Edition,both by NCMA. 2. Blocks are all same size and uniform offsets(batter)for full wall height. 3. Coulomb earth pressure theory used for earth pressures and failure plane angle. 4. Refer to geotechnical report for backfill material,compaction,and other design data and recommendations. 5. Cap blocks if used are above the retained height and are neglected in this design. 6. Geogrid LTDS and connection values for block vendors obtained from ICC Evaluation Service(ES Legacy Reports)or as provided by vendors.Since these may change or be updated,verification of values is recommended. 7. Block sizes obtained from vendors'literature and may vary with locality. 8. Geogrid layers are equally spaced vertically,all same length,and laid horizontally. 9. Average weight of block and cell infill assumed to be 120 pcf. 10. See vendor web sites(on input screen)for more information and specifications. 11. Design height is limited to 16 feet or 24 blocks,whichever is less. Contact vendor for higher designs or special conditions. 12. Seismic design is per Seismic Design Manual cited above. Also see Methodology/Seismic Design in User's Manual. 13. Vendor specifications or project specifications,whichever is most restrictive,to be followed for construction procedures. 14. Add notes and details for proper drainage. 15. See User's Manual Design Example#10 for methodology and sample verification calculations. 16. Final design responsibility is with the project Engineer-of-Record. 6of9 Michael F.Wnek,P.E.,PS Title : 08-foot Page: Consulting Civil Engineer Job# : 391-Allyn 1 Dsgnr: mfw Date: MAR 14,2008 3388 NW Byron St.,Suite 200 Description.... Silverdale,WA 98383 8-foot height,first geogrid @ 2-feet (360)692-3802 This Wall in File:G:\CivilEng\391\RetainingWalls\wall-1.rp5 Retain Pro 2007,5-Dec-2007,(c)1989-2007 www.retainpro.com/support for latest release Segmental Retaining Wall Design with Geogrids Code: IBC 03$06 Registration#:RP-1 166915 2007010 Criteria [Loading Wall height(retained height),ft 8.00 Dead load, psf 0 Backfill slope Level Live load,psf 250 Backfill angle 0.0 Seismic Design Kh 0.15 Embedment 1.0 Soil data Segmental block data Vendor selection Keystone Retaining Wall Systems External Soil,Phi_e 34 Vendor web address www.keystonewalls.com External soil density(In situ),pcf 120 Block selection type Standard Internal Soil,Phi_i 34 Block height,in 8.00 Internal soil density,pcf 120 Block depth,in 18.00 WallSoilFrictionAngle 23 Offset per block,in 0.50 K_a(Horiz) 0.22 Batter angle 3.58 K_AE(Horiz) 0.36 Wall weight,psf 180.00 Stability Hinge height,ft 24.00 Overturning ratio 3.84 _ Sliding ratio 2.48 Geogrid material Overturning moment,ft-Ibs 7,919 Vendor Selection Mirafi Geogrid Resisting moment,ft-Ibs 30,411 Vendor web address www.mirafi.com Total lateral/sliding force,Ibs 2,198 Geogrid type Miragrid 7XT Sliding Resistance,ft 5,460.15 LTDS 3084.00 Total vertical force,Ibs 8,095 Factor of safety 1.50 Base length,ft 7.00 LTADS 2056.00 Eccentricity on base,ft 0.72 Peak connection equation 1137+0.36N Effective base length,ft 5.56 Peak connection maximum 2284 Soil bearing pressure,psf 1,456.73 Serviceability connection equation 781 +0.27N Allowable soil bearing,psf 17,231.44 Serviceability connection maximum 1720 Soil Bearing Ratio 11.83 Wall Analysis Table: B ocl k Layer Height above baser Tension r Connection Embed Vert Ft In Dec Static i Seismic Peak I Sery Le N 12 8' 0" 8.00 9 3 6' 0" 6.00 213 237 844.4 878.2 1.76 360 1.88 6 2 4' 0" 4.00 317 195 930.8 975.4 1.58 720 1.82 3 1 2' 0" 2.00 421 153 1017.2 1072.6 1.49 1,080 1.77 Base 0' 0" 0.00 1,440 7of9 Michael F.Wnek,P.E.,PS Title 08-foot Page: _ Consulting Civil Engineer Job# 391-Allyn 7 Dsgnr: mfw Date: MAR 14,2008 3388 NW Byron St.,Suite 200 Description.... Silverdale,WA 98383 8-foot height,first geogrid @ 2-feet (360)692-3802 This Wall in File:G:1CivilEng13911RetainingWalls\wall-1.rp5 Retain Pro 2007,5-Dec-2007,(c)1989-2007 www.retainpro.com/support for latest release Segmental Retaining Wall Design with Geogrids Code: IBC 03$06 Registration#:RP-1166915 2007010 [Summary:Resisting/Overturning Resisting Moments Item Force,Ibs Distance,ft Moment,ft-Ibs Wall 1.440 1.00 1,440 Reinf.earth 5,280 4.25 22,440 Sloped 0 5.68 0 Dead load 0 4.75 0 Live load 1,375 4.75 6,531 Total 8,095 30,411 Overturning Moments Item Force,Ibs Distance,ft Moment,ft-Ibs Earth 823 2.67 2,195 Surcharge,DL 0 4.00 0 Surcharge,LL 517 4.00 2,068 Seismic,Wall 216 4.00 864 Seismic,Reinf. 360 4.00 1,440 Seismic,Sloped soil 0 8.00 0 Seismic,Exterior 282 4.80 1,353 Total 2,198 7,919 Overturning Ratio 2.48 ASSUMPTIONS AND CRITERIA USED J 1. References used include Design Manual for Segmental Retaining Walls,2nd Edition,and Segmental Retaining Walls—Seismic Design Manual 1 3t Edition,both by NCMA. 2. Blocks are all same size and uniform offsets(batter)for full wall height. 3. Coulomb earth pressure theory used for earth pressures and failure plane angle. 4. Refer to geotechnical report for backfill material,compaction,and other design data and recommendations. 5. Cap blocks if used are above the retained height and are neglected in this design. 6. Geogrid LTDS and connection values for block vendors obtained from ICC Evaluation Service(ES Legacy Reports)or as provided by vendors.Since these may change or be updated,verification of values is recommended. 7. Block sizes obtained from vendors'literature and may vary with locality. 8. Geogrid layers are equally spaced vertically,all same length,and laid horizontally. 9. Average weight of block and cell infill assumed to be 120 pcf. 10. See vendor web sites(on input screen)for more information and specifications. 11. Design height is limited to 16 feet or 24 blocks,whichever is less. Contact vendor for higher designs or special conditions. 12. Seismic design is per Seismic Design Manual cited above. Also see Methodology/Seismic Design in User's Manual. 13. Vendor specifications or project specifications,whichever is most restrictive,to be followed for construction procedures. 14. Add notes and details for proper drainage. 15. See User's Manual Design Example#10 for methodology and sample verification calculations. 16. Final design responsibility is with the project Engineer-of-Record. 8 of 9 Michael F.Wnek,P.E.,PS Title : 10-foot Page: Consulting Civil Engineer Job# : 391-Allyn; Dsgnr: mfw Date: MAR 14,2008 3388 NW Byron St.,Suite 200 Description.... Silverdale,WA 98383 10-foot wall,first geogrid @ 2-feet (360)692-3802 This Wall in File:G:\CivilEng1391\RetainingWallslwall-1.rp5 Retain Pro 2007,5-Dec-2007,(c)1989-2007 www.retainpro.com/supportforlatestrelease Segmental Retaining Wall Design with Geogrids Code: IBC 03&06 Re istration#:RP-1166915 2007010 Criteria ILoading Wall height(retained height),ft 10.00 Dead load,psf 0 Backfill slope Level Live load,psf 100 Backfill angle 0.0 Seismic Design Kh 0.15 Embedment 1.0 Segmental block data Soil data Vendor selection Keystone Retaining Wall Systems External Soil,Phi_e 34 Vendor web address www.keystonewalls.com External soil density(In situ),pcf 120 Block selection type Standard Internal Soil,Phi_i 34 Block height,in 8.00 Internal soil density,pcf 120 Block depth,in 18.00 WallSoilFrictionAngle 23 Offset per block,in 0.50 K_a(Horiz) 022 Batter angle 3.58 K_AE(Horiz) 0.36 Wall weight,psf 180.00 Stability Hinge height,ft 24.00 Overturning ratio 3.76 Sliding ratio 2.55 Geogrid material Overturning moment,ft-Ibs 12,721 Vendor Selection Mirafi Geogrid Resisting moment,ft-Ibs 47,850 Vendor web address www.mirafi.com Total lateral/sliding force,Ibs 2,885 Geogrid type Miragrid 7XT Sliding Resistance,ft 7,352.14 LTDS 3084.00 Total vertical force,Ibs 10,900 Factor of safety 1.50 Base length,ft 8.50 LTADS 2056.00 Eccentricity on base,ft 1.03 Peak connection equation 1137+0.36N Effective base length,ft 6.45 Peak connection maximum 2284 Soil bearing pressure,psf 1,691.06 Serviceability connection equation 781 +0.27N Allowable soil bearing,psf 19,423.00 Serviceability connection maximum 1720 Soil Bearing Ratio 11.49 Wall Analysis Table: Block Layer Height above base Tension Connection Embed Vert S.F. Ft In Dec Static i Seismic Peak Sery Le N --- --- - 10.00 - - 15- 1-90" 0.00 � T 12 4 8' 0" 8.00 148 294 844.4 878.2 2.07 360 1.91 9 3 6' 0" 6.00 252 251 930.8 975.4 1.71 720 1.85 6 2 4' 0" 4.00 356 209 1017.2 1072.6 1.57 1,080 1.80 3 1 2' 0" 2.00 460 167 1103.6 1169.8 1.49 1,440 1.76 Base _0. 0" 0.00 _ _L 1.800 9of9 Michael F.Wnek,P.E.,PS Title 10-foot Page: Consulting Civil Engineer Job# 391-Allyn; Dsgnr: mfw Date: MAR 14,2008 3388 NW Byron St.,Suite 200 Description.... Silverdale,WA 98383 10-foot wall,first geogrid @ 2-feet (360)692-3802 This Wall in File:G:1CivilEng13911RetainingWalls\wall-1.rp5 Retain Pro 2007,5-Dec-2007,(c)1989-2007 www.retainpro.com/support for latest release Segmental Retaining Wall Design with Geogrids Code: IBC 03&06 Registration#:RP-1166915 2007010 Summary:Resisting/Overturning ---------------------- Resisting Moments Item Force,Ibs Distance,ft Moment,ft-Ibs Wall 1,800 1.06 1,912 Reinf.earth 8,400 5.00 42,000 Sloped 0 6.81 0 Dead load 0 5.62 0 Live load 700 5.62 3,937 Total 10,900 47,850 Overturning Moments Item Force,Ibs Distance,ft Moment,ft-Ibs Earth 1,286 - 3.33 - - - ------ --4,286 Surcharge,DL 0 5.00 0 Surcharge,LL 259 5.00 1,293 Seismic,Wall 270 5.00 1,350 Seismic,Reinf. 630 5.00 3,150 Seismic,Sloped soil 0 10.00 0 Seismic,Exterior 440 6.00 2,642 Total 2,885 12,721 Overturning Ratio 2.55 ASSUMPTIONS AND CRITERIA USED 1. References used include Design Manual for Segmental Retaining Walls,2nd Edition,and Segmental Retaining Walls-Seismic Design Manual, 151 Edition,both by NCMA. 2. Blocks are all same size and uniform offsets(batter)for full wall height. 3. Coulomb earth pressure theory used for earth pressures and failure plane angle. 4. Refer to geotechnical report for backfill material,compaction,and other design data and recommendations. 5. Cap blocks if used are above the retained height and are neglected in this design. 6. Geogrid LTDS and connection values for block vendors obtained from ICC Evaluation Service(ES Legacy Reports)or as provided by vendors Since these may change or be updated,verification of values is recommended. 7. Block sizes obtained from vendors'literature and may vary with locality. 8. Geogrid layers are equally spaced vertically,all same length,and laid horizontally. 9. Average weight of block and cell infill assumed to be 120 pcf. 10. See vendor web sites(on input screen)for more information and specifications. 11. Design height is limited to 16 feet or 24 blocks,whichever is less. Contact vendor for higher designs or special conditions. 12, Seismic design is per Seismic Design Manual cited above. Also see Methodology/Seismic Design in User's Manual. 13. Vendor specifications or project specifications,whichever is most restrictive,to be followed for construction procedures. 14. Add notes and details for proper drainage. 15. See User's Manual Design Example#10 for methodology and sample verification calculations. 16. Final design responsibility is with the project Engineer-of-Record. O,ct 08 2007 2: 24PM MICHAEL F WNEK, P. E. , PS 3606921051 p. 2 5>�Q Zoo-7- Oo o-7Z EVALUATION FOR TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT AGENCY USE ONLY ALLYN VIEWS DARE WAC 197-11-960 Environmental checldisL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ,Purpose of checklist: overnrnental agencies to consider the The State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA),chapter 43.21C RCW,requires all g prepared for all environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impacVstatement(EIS)must be owls with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the=vn'onmenL The purpose of this checklist is to provide prop acts frorri your proposal(and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal,if information to help you and the agency identify imp aired. it can be done)and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is req Instructions for applicants: proposal. Governmental agencies This environmental checklist asps You m describe some basic information about Yo�ficant, requiring prePazatiOn of an ro oral ar significant, the most precise information known,or give the best description you�' you should be use this checklist to determine hetha the environmental impacts of your p P 4 with EIS. Answer the questions briefly, edge. In most You must answer each question accuratelY and carefully,to the bwithoutothe needlto hire experts.cases, you really do not questions from your own observations or project plans 1 " Cornplete answers to able to answer the qu oral,write"do not know"4r"does not apply." know the answer,or if a question does not apply to your prop the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. ations. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark design saver ssist you. these questions if you can. If you have problems,the governmental agencies can u plan to do them over a period of tirne or on q 1 to all parts of your proposal, even if you p The checklist questions apply or its environmental effects. different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will oulrp describe or Provide additional information reasonably The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain y related to determining if there may significant adverse impact. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: o uestions may be answered "does not apply." IN Complete this checklist f°r nonproject proposals, even though q or site" should ADD1T10N,cornplete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPRO]ECT ACTIONS(part D). ,applicant," and"property For nonproject actions,the references in the checklist to the words"project," "app be read as"prOPosaL",Proposer;'and ,affected geographic area,"respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. Larne of proposed project,if applicable: AI.LYN VIEW SQUARE 2. Name of applicant: Marty Reynolds 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: PO Box 34 All3m,WA98524 (360)340-6029 4. Date checklist prepared:May 21,2007 5. Agency requesting c`-lccklist: MASON COUNTY 6. Proposed timing or schedule(inch.ding phasing,if applicable): 2007-2008 or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, 7. Do you have any Pius for future additions, expansion, explain. No 1I 1 Oct 08 2007 2: 24PM MICHAEL F WNEK, P. E. , PS 3606921051 p. 3 EVALUATION FOR TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT AGENCY USE ONLY about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this 8. List any environmental information you know proposal. None ' 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for govemm, 0ntal approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal'? Ifyes,explain- No approvals or is that will be needed for your proposal,if known- 10. List any government pew' MASON COUNTY Land Modification Permit MASON COUNTY Building Permit(s) 1. Give brief,complete description of your proposal,including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site_ There are 1 certain aspects o several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe f your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on s page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) this This project is approximately 3 acres located in Allyn,Mason County Washington,.on Wheelwright Drive. The proposed use for this site is�mixed proposed. The project consists commercial.existing tax lots,of al units l 38,850 sf of commercial spat p p mdcarrt. ]2. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your propos ed if any,and section,township, and range,if known. If a proposal would occur over a rangy of project,including a street address, al description,site plan, vicinity map,and topographic map, if Pro-vide a leg area,provide the ran or boundaries of the site(s). land required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or range reasonably available. While you should submit any p detailed plans submitted with any Perpnit applications related to this checklist. Intersection of Lakeland Dr&Wheelwright Rd,Allyn; 1 block west of State Hwy.3 Parcel#'s - 122205068001, 22205068002, 122205069001, 122205069002 Section 22,Township 25 north,Range 1 east. 122205068001 ALLYN BLK: 68 LOT: 1 &VAC WHEELWRIGHT 122205068002 Ai i.YN BLK: 68 LOT:2-10&VAC iJHLMAN�WHEELWRIGHT 122205069001 ALLYN BLK: 69 LOT: 1 &VAC SULLIVAN A.DJ 122205069002 ALLYN BLK: 69 LOTS: 2-10&.VAC SULLIVAN/UHLMAN B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1_ Earth site icucle one). Flat,rolling,hilly,steep slopes, mountainous, a.General description of the other b_What is the steepest slope on the site(approximate percent slope)? 5% Oct. 08 2007 2: 24PM MICHAEL F WNEK, P. E. , PS 3606921051 p. 4 EVALUAT10N FOF TO BE COV►PLETED BY APPI.UCANT AGENCY USE ONLY c.What general typ es of soils are found on the site(for example,clay,sand,gravel,peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural sails,specify them and note anyprirne farmland. Sinclair:very gravelly sandy loam 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. ed residential and The purpose of grading is to control storm water runoff&Prepare x mately 5 17 site for8 cy of cut Viand approximately commercial construction. Preliminary gr-admg shows aPp 6.296 cy of fill. The net fill will be 1,118 cy to be brought from off-site. f.Could erosion occur as a result ofclearing,construction,or use? If so,generally describe. yes,erosion could occur during the grading and construction pie if there were a substantial storm event. g.About what percent of the site will be covered with impervnou aces s surf after project construction(for example,asphalt or buildings)? Approximately 75%.impervious li.proposed measures to reduce or control erosion,or other impacts to the earth,if any: Engineered erosion control plans based on standard BMT S. 2. Air a.What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal(i.e.,dust,autotxrobile, odors,industrial wood smoke)during construction and when the project is completed? If any,generally describe and give approximate quantities ifknown Emissions will be generated by construction equipment as well as some dust Quantities are unlmown. Once project is completed emissions will be limited to passenger vehicles. b.Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. None c.Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air,if any: Contractor will use water to control dust during the summer- Oct 08 2007 2: 24PM MICHAEL F WNEK, P. E. , PS 3606921051 P• 5 EVALUATION FOR TO BE ComPLETED BY APP1JCANr AGENCY USE ONLY 3. Water a.Surface_ in the im vicinity of the site ding 1) Is there any surface water body on or pond se etlands)? If yes,dc$crube type year-round and seasonal streams,sa.twater,lakes, and provide names. If appropriate,state what stream or river it flows into. Case Inlet 2)Will the project require any work over,in,or adjacent to(within 200 feet)the described way,? If yes,please describe and attach available plans. No 3)Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected- Indicate the source of fill material' None4)Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description,purpose,and approximate quantities if known. There will be no surface water withdrawals. S)Does the proposal he within a 100-year floodQlain? if so,note location on the site plan. No 6)Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface warms? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No. Storm water discharges will be treated for water quality according to local regulations- b.Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn,or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description,purpose,and approximate quantities if known. No that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or 2)Describe waste material Domestic sewage;industrial,containing the other sources,if anY(for example: 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. There are no septic tanks.Site drainage will be discharged to an existing ditch then directly into Case Inlet, via an existing storm sewer system. c. Water runoff(including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff(including storm wi and lrl16thisod of water flcollection and disposal,if any (include quantities,if known). Will this water flow into other waters? If so,describe. O.ct 08 2007 2: 25PM MICHAEL F UNEK, P. E. , PS 3606921051 P. 6 EVALUATION FOR TO BE COMPLETM BY APPLICANT AGENCY USE ONLY The runoff will be from impervious areas(roofs, drives,sidewalks)&pervious(lawn,landscaping).The water will flow via pipes to an existing ditch on Lakeland Dr. The ditch leads to existing pipes and catch basins along Lakeland Drive and E State Route Hwy to discharge directly into Case Inlet. 2)Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so,generally describe. Yes,surface waters,from project runoff Stormwater from impervious areas will receive water quality enhancement before discharging. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface,ground,and runoff water impacts,if any: A proprietary water quality vault will be constructed to provide water quality of discharged storm runoff. A temporary sedhTlent trap and other erosion control facilities will be constructed to filter sediments from runoff during construction 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder,maple,aspen,other evergreen tree: fir,cedar,pine,other shrubs x grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail,buttercup,bullrush,skunk ca'ibage,other water plants: water lily,eelgiass,rnilfoil,other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Most of the site will be cleared and grubbed,in preparation for site grading.Approximately 2.74 acres. c, List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None d. Proposed landscaping,use of native plants,or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site,if any: A Landscaping plan will be submitted for the project. Landscaping will be in accordance with local ordinances. The significant trees on the site will be retained whenever possible. 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds: h2wk,heron,eagle,songbirds,other. mamrnals: deer,bear,elk,beaver,othen fish: bass, salmon,trout,herring,shellfish,other: b List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None G. Is the site part of a migration route? If so,explain. Gct 08 2007 2: 25PM MICHAEL F WNEK, P. E. , PS 3606921051 p. 7 EVALUATION FOR TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT AGENCY USE ONLY Not known -= d. Proposed measures to presei+e or enhance wildlife,if any: None warranted. 6. Energy and natural resources a. Vv' at 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. Electric for heating&power. Natural gas(if available)for heating. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties., if so,generally describe. No rvation features are included the plans ang `? l energy P f this proposal c. What Lands of energy conse List other proposed measures to reduce or contro All structures will meet or exceed energy code. 7. Environmental health a. Are there any environmental health hazards,including exposure to toxic chemicals,risk of fire and explosion,spill,or hazardous waste,that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so,describe. N0 might be required. 1)Describe special emergency services that None. 2)Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards,if any: None warranted b. Noise 1)What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project(for example: traffic,equipment,operation,other)? Traffic 2)What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with tother t ina short-term or a long-team basis(for example: traffic,construction,operation, Idi- cate what hours noise would come from the site. generated by Equipment noise during co nstruction,then some traffic noise from the trips o the project. 3)Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts,if any: None warranted g. Land and shoreline use a What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Oct 08 2007 2: 25PM MICHAEL F WNEK, P. E. , PS 3606921051 p. 8 EVALUATION FOR TO BE COMPLETED BY APPUCANT AGENCY USE ONLY The current site is vacant. Adjacent properties are vacant. Properties across Wheelwright Road are occupied residential lots. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? 1f so,describe. No c_ Describe any structures on the site. There are no current structures on the site. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so,what? No e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Commercial f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Village Commercial g. If applicable,what is the current sboreline master program designation of the site'? Does not apply 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? Condo Units: 13 each @ 1.5/unit=19.5 people Comrneroial- 38.850 sf @ 2/1,000 sf=77.7 people Net people: 97.2 j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None k Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts,if any: None 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans,if any: Preliminary Plat land-use procedures and ordinances of Mason County Dept.of Conununity Development 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided,if any? Indicate whether high,mid - a. or low-income housing. 13 muddle housing units would be provided. This will be second story condo units about first story conunercial space, b. Approximately how many units;if any,would be eliminated?Indicate whether high, middle,or low-income housing. None Oct 08 2007 2: 26PM MICHAEL F WNEK, P. E. , PS 3606921051 P. 9 EVALUATION FOR TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT AGENCY USE ONLY C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts,if any. None,the project creates additional housing. 10. Aesthetics lest height of any proposed stnrcture(s),not including antennas;what is a What is the tal the principal exterior building material(s)proposed? The maximum average building height is 30'per the Allyn sub-area zoning code. b What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Case Inlet C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts,if any: Building design within applicable codes and regulations L1_ Light and glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it maitily occur? Light from residential and commercial units. Street lights. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No c. yvl�at 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: Standard engineering design criteria for street and area lighting. 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportrrnrties are in the immediate vicinity? Fishing,boating,gol5ng&Lake Lunen ck Country Club. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? if so,describe. No C. proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation,including recreation op- portunities to be prorided by the proi ect or applicants if any: None 13. Historic and cultural preservation a. Arm there any places or objects listed on,or proposed for,national,state,or local preser- vation registers known to be en or-text to the site? If so,generally describe. No Oct 08 2007 2: 26PM MICHAEL F WNEK, P. E. , PS 3606921051 P. 10 gVALUAMN FOR TO BE COMPlF1 E1)BY�OPUCANT AGENCY USE ONLY b. Generally desc ebe any �Q be o o°next to the sites�ric,archaeological,scientific,or cultural important None known c. proposed measures to reduce or control impacts,if any None 14, Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways servmg the site,and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Sbow on site plans,if any. The site is served by E State Routs Hwy 3,Lakeland Dr and Wheelwright Rd. b. Is site currently served by public transit`? If not,what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? No. The nearest transit stop is approximately 500 east of the site along E Stage Route Hwy . c_ How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? would be created,of those 8 are accessible. 122 parking spaces No parking spaces would be eliminated. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets,or improvements to existing roads or - streets,not including driveways? If so,generally desenbe(indicate whether public or private) ro riate No new streets required. Adjacent local street frontage will be widened or relocated as app P e. Will the project use(or occur in the immediate vicinity 00 water,rail,or air transporta- tion? if so, generally describe. No f. How many vehicular traps per day would be generated by the completed project?Iflmown,indicate when peak volumes would occur. Approximate Average Vehicle Trip Ends per Weekday(vpd)' 13 apartments=87 vpd 38.85 msf shopping center=1,667 vpd Net Traffic Increase= 1,754 vpd Peak volumes would occur within the standard a.m.&P.M.peak hours g. proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts,if any. Lrnprovements to the adjacent street frontage- 15. Public services a. Would the pro ect result in an increased need for public services(for example:fre pro- health cage,schools,other)? If so,generally describe. tection,police protection, Oct 08 2007 2: 26PM MICHAEL F WNEK, P. E. , PS 3606921051 p. 11 EVALiJATION FOR TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT AGENCY USE ONLY The project will increase the population by up to 20 people. This population increase will create an increased need for the standard public services. b, proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services,if any. Development impact fees. Design of streets&water systems to standard fire code criteria. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electric natural gas,water refus_ e.� ems' ice,tellhone,sanita_r sewer septic system,Other. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the Project,the utility Providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which night be needed. Electricity: Puget sound Energy Water: Port of Allyn Sanitary Sewer: port of Allyn Refuse Service: Port of Allyn Telephone: USWES`f C. SIGNATURE I understand that the lead The above answers are true and complete to the best of my Irnowledge. agency is relying on them to make i cision. ` Signature: ............. ................................ Date Submitted: ................ Attachments: ESA Listed Salmomds Checklist Vicinity MaP site Plan Assessors Map Aerial Photo Oct 08 2007 2: 26PM MICHAEL F WNEK, P. E. , PS 3606921051 p. 12 ESA LISTED SALMONIDS CHECKLIST Project Information Applicant Information Name: ALLYN VIEW SQUARE Name: Marty Reynolds Location:Intersection of Lakeland Dr&Wheelwright Rd,Allyn; Phone: (360)340-6029 block west of State Hwy 3 Description:4 empty tax lots needs rther anabsis beet was designed to help project proponents,and governmconid Salmon ds are salmon, trout nt agencies.identify when a tar d cha rs,se.g.bull trout. This w°i�cs Species Act)listed salm regarding adverse effects on ESA(Endangered Far our purposes,"ESA Listed Saimonids"is defined as fish species listed as endangered,threatened or being O0nsidered your project has the, If ESA listed species are present or ever were present i water with ESA.The questions in his section will help�det rmine if the ESA potential for affecting them, and You need mP Y listings will impact your project. re onal office can provide information for the The Fish Program Manager at the appropriate Department of Fish and Wildlife(DF W) gi following two questions. 1.Are ESA listed salmonids currently present in the watershed in which your project will be located? YES NO_,x—Please describe. 2.Has there ever been an ESA listed salmonid stock present in this watershed? YES NO,x—Uncertain Please describe. ou answered"yes"to either of the above questions,you should complete the remainder of this checklist. If y ............. 1 1 0 0 ti s %Ir O m 46 AD m mATAT R6U YYY✓'-""� ; .`_. ,"^, ,. .-"._O'er i 0 � � 7 J `1 to m ._,...»...._,..,�....,.....�...........�.�,._....,�a� �.,.,.�.,_._�v�maaa�. �..�.,....,w... ..._._.__�. `�'�� can Ul Oct 08 2007 2: 29PM MICHFlEL F WNEK, P. E . , PS 36OG921051 P. 16 ,.^t ...? . 'Q .. Fra, �.e Iy✓ lsg _.- T`. 3i yM .r. ' ..�. H:'E: ' r --t i� - u � _,� ,r,aI4.•` SITE PLAN SCALE: =60' ' VACATED Uh1LWAN AVE 4 CONDOS - ! Zi00 SF C M. n' " r= ! 5 CONDOS ! C 5,50 SF OMM aa- 13 ty- �: ,._ 7 18,850 SF ,- F COMMERCIAL ! 2 FLOORS - [� 02 4 CONDO 1,65 SF III � �• � �4 4tiap4 .i � ?—� i ! i'� (y4�1yy y 4 SF ' 3.90�0��p��•' '- I yy�nN{Lf�v�N- � > ' , z ^� t f � a � � tr: ,r a mx �'�@�t �' � ��.a '�' �� ��.�"` y!� ��i 'S,�i• O.ct 08 2007 2: 31PM MICHAEL F WNEK, P. E. , PS 360GS21051 p. 17 ,�✓�-,, .t��5?t•" .F- � A�{i, �S- rv��s ..l 4NY�,��,�s.. '.��i�. _._�r.� .. :r. '�.-. t ASSESORS MAP .132245 .1222! if '122 61084 is 1222ON" 12�e a JECT SITE q' 12220 121 �227'8�506MI �' r - - P ; Yitsi, t 1 z, 1220" 123205059"4 !@U20 c o y i a 1p7pg49 . . low, .... Y 122219 8 1222OWT1008. 122205WM #1222MM700"-t 'f887 :. = � t # 1 % Is .,..... f[�r� �r W&lizOM76M J.- In f Z22 171001i s .,. '.�"! ��' .11 22 20 5 0 7SO" 122aQ547.000f2009 w +..CiMEN 12Z20.5@758U1,22451 l7 i i i A-5 i i i Oct 08 2007 2: 32P MICHAEL F WNEK, P. E. , PS 3606921051 P. 18 �lcha��ek,Ali n View�Repqor—t are Draina a AERlALPHOTO PROJECT SITE : 16% K s s R ms • y r � '1',._,.-� � • �' 47 +j i 1 if i �w �II A-4 I oN-STATE MASON COUNTY o Py A o °N DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT >. S N Planning Division °Y 0 P O Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584 (360)427-9670 1864 SEP2007-00077 MODIFIED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (WAC 197-11-340) Description of Proposal: GRD2007-00013 SEPA for entire project: Develop 3 acres into mixed-use residential and commercial. Total of 13 condo units with covered parking and 38,850 square feet of commercial space. Proponent: MARTY REYNOLDS Location of Proposal: Parcel Number: 122205068001 Legal Description: ALLYN BLK: 68 LOT: 1 &VAC WHEELWRIGHT Directions to Site: On the corner of Lakeland Drive and Wheelwright in Allyn. Lead Agency: Mason County The Lead Agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverser impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed Environmental Checklist and other information on file with the Lead Agency. This information is available to the public upon request. Please contact Rebecca Hersha at ext. 593 with any questions. 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 shown below,when the determination is final. Comments must be submitted to Dept. of Community Development, P.O. Box 279, Shelton WA 98584 by�2&" Appeal of this determination must be filed within a 14-day period following this final determination date, per Mason County Code Chapter 15.11 Appeals. Moditication(s): y� l/itl`tk//4°:�'-) 11V Page 1 of 2 MODIFIED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (WAC 197-11-340) Erosion control measures (as outlined in Temporary Sediment and Erosion Control Plan, dated 1-28-08, authored by Mr. Michael Wnek)must be in place prior to any clearing, grading, or construction. Removal of vegetation should be minimized and any areas disturbed should be restored to prevent erosion and other environmental impacts. Soil may not be allowed to become airborne and impact neighboring properties. Spraying with water is required during dry weather to prevent visible wind erosion. Provisions shall be made to minimize the tracking of sediment by construction vehicles onto paved, public roads. Water quality is not to be degraded to the detriment of the aquatic environment as a result of this project. To prevent noise impacts, the operation of heavy equipment shall be limited to the hours of 8 AM to 7 PM. X Development is subject to the details found in the Storm and Grade plan, dated 1-28-08, prepared by Mr. Michael Wnek. X Signature of Responsible Official Date Bob Fink, Director of Community Development Page 2 of 2 oN STATE MASON COUNTY �Py A0� �� DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT O N S N Planning Division °Y P O Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584 (360)427-9670 1864 SEP2007-00077 MODIFIED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (WAC 197-11-340) Description of Proposal: GRD2007-00013 SEPA for entire project: Develop 3 acres into mixed-use residential and commercial. Total of 13 condo units with covered parking and 38,850 square feet of commercial space. Proponent: MARTY REYNOLDS Location of Proposal: Parcel Number: 122205068001 Legal Description: ALLYN BLK: 68 LOT: 1 & VAC WHEELWRIGHT Directions to Site: On the corner of Lakeland Drive and Wheelwright in Allyn. Lead Agency: Mason County The Lead Agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverser impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed Environmental Checklist and other information on file with the Lead Agency. This information is available to the public upon request. Please contact Rebecca Hersha at ext. 593 with any questions. 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 shown below, when the determination is final. Comments must be submitted to Dept. of Community Development, P.O. Box 279, Shelton WA 98584 by 10/25/07. Appeal of this determination must be filed within a 14-day period following this final determination date, per Mason County Code Chapter 15.11 Appeals. Modification(s): 11 II L 1,;jj��� 111t-oflka 110 TovideJ h � l Page 1 of 2 ' MODIFIED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (WAC 197-11-340) Erosion control measures (as outlined in Temporary Sediment and Erosion Control Plan, dated 9-14-07, authored by Mr. Michael Wnek)must be in place prior to any clearing, grading, or construction. Removal of vegetation should be minimized and any areas disturbed should be restored to prevent erosion and other environmental impacts. Soil may not be allowed to become airborne and impact neighboring properties. Spraying with water is required during dry weather to prevent visible wind erosion. Provisions shall be made to minimize the tracking of sediment by construction vehicles onto paved, public roads. Water quality is not to be degraded to the detriment of the aquatic environment as a result of this project. To prevent noise impacts, the operation of heavy equipment shall be limited to the hours of 8 AM to 7 PM. X Development is subject to the details found in the Storm and Grade plan, dated 9-14-07, prepared by Mr. Michael Wnek. X Signature of Responsible Official Date Bob Fink, Director of Community Development Page 2 of 2 Michael F. Wnek, P.E., PS Consulting Civil Engineer 1665 NW Sherwood Drive, Bremerton, WA 98311, 360-692-3802 Drainage Report ALLYN VIEW SQUARE located in: Mason COUNTY prepared for: Marty Reynolds PO Box 34 Allyn,WA98524 (360)340-6029 May 21 , 2007 Project Number: 391 W By the seal and signature here affixed, I certify that the enclosed report was c, accomplished by myself, and that 1 am currently a registered engineer of good standing in the State of Washington. x�E� s °7�'s1°T ALLYN VIEW SQUARE MICHAEL F. WNEK, P.E., PS Drainage Report May 21, 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. VICINITY MAP.....................................................................................................................................................3 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION..................................................................................................................................3 a. Type of Permits................................................................................................................................................3 b. Size and Location of Project Site......................................................................................................................3 c. Legal Description .............................................................................................................................................3 d. Proposed Land Use.........................................................................................................................................3 e. Proposed Site Improvements ..........................................................................................................................3 f. Proposed Impervious Surfaces........................................................................................................................3 g. Proposed Landscaping....................................................................................................................................3 3. EXISTING CONDITIONS....................................................................................................................................3 a. Topography......................................................................................................................................................3 b. Land Cover ......................................................................................................................................................4 c. Land Cover/ Land Use....................................................................................................................................4 d. Offsite Drainage Onto Property........................................................................................................................4 e. Environmentally Sensitive Areas......................................................................................................................4 f. Wells................................................................................................................................................................4 g. Septic Systems................................................................................................................................................4 h. Fuel Tanks.......................................................................................................................................................4 i. Soils.................................................................................................................................................................4 j. Groundwater....................................................................................................................................................4 k. Adjacent Drainage Facilities ............................................................................................................................4 I. Drainage Discharge Points..............................................................................................................................4 M. Relevant Reports..........................................................................................................................................4 4. DEVELOPED SITE DRAINAGE CONDITIONS..................................................................................................5 a. Proposed Land Cover......................................................................................................................................5 b. Potential Storm Runoff Quantity& Quality Impacts.........................................................................................5 c. Proposed Storm Collection &Conveyance......................................................................................................5 d. Proposed Runoff Quantity Control...................................................................................................................5 e. Proposed Runoff Quality Control .....................................................................................................................5 f. Discharge Point................................................................................................................................................5 5. WATERSHED DESCRIPTION............................................................................................................................5 a. Contributing Basin............................................................................................................................................5 b. Receiving Waters.............................................................................................................................................5 c. Project Basins..................................................................................................................................................5 6. DESCRIPTION OF UPSTREAM BASINS...........................................................................................................6 a. Sources of Runoff onto Project Site.................................................................................................................6 b. Existing Drainage& Erosion Problems............................................................................................................6 7. DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS (Level 1) ................................................................................................................6 a. Study Area .......................................................................................................................................................6 b. Resource Information ......................................................................................................................................6 c. Field Inspection................................................................................................................................................6 d. USGS Map.......................................................................................................................................................6 e. Downstream Narrative.....................................................................................................................................6 f. Structures & Channel.......................................................................................................................................6 g. Problem Areas.................................................................................................................................................6 8. SOILS REPORT..................................................................................................................................................7 9. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT................................................................................................................................7 10. HYDROLOGICAL ANALYSIS..........................................................................................................................7 a. Methodology.....................................................................................................................................................7 b. Curve Numbers (CN).......................................................................................................................................7 c. Time of Concentration .....................................................................................................................................7 d. Runoff Volumes & Peak Discharges................................................................................................................7 e. Bypass .............................................................................................................................................................7 1 ALLYN VIEW SQUARE MICHAEL F. WNEK, P.E., PS Drainage Report May 21, 2007 11. BASIN MAPS...................................................................................................................................................7 12. HYDRAULIC DESIGN COMPUTATIONS.......................................................................................................7 a. Water Quality Vault..........................................................................................................................................7 b. Piping...............................................................................................................................................................7 13. EROSION &SEDIMENTATION CONTROL DESIGN.....................................................................................8 a. Erosion Control Objectives ..............................................................................................................................8 b. Erosion Control/Temporary Water Quality Facilities......................................................................................8 c. Re-vegetation Plan...........................................................................................................................................8 d. Soil Stability......................................................................................................................................................8 e. Computations for Conveyance.........................................................................................................................8 f. Computations for Sediment Containment........................................................................................................8 14. MAINTENANCE &OPERATION MANUAL.....................................................................................................8 APPENDIXES VICINITY MAP A-1 PROPERTY REPORTS/TAX DESCRIPTIONS 2 pages) A-2 AERIAL PHOTO A-4 ASSESSORS MAP A-5 USGS CONTOUR&WATERSHED MAP A-6 SOILS MAP A-7 DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS EXHIBIT A-8 ISOPLUVIAL MAPS 3 pages) B-1 Table III— 1.3 SCS Western Washington Runoff Curve Numbers B4 Table III—1.6 Hydrologic Soil Groups for Soils in the Puget Sound Basin 2 pages) B-5 PROJECT BASIN PLAN C-1 Sediment Trap Calculations 3 pages) C-2 PIPE HYDRAULICS C-5 WATER QUALITY VAULT CALCULATIONS 6 pages) C-6 2 ALLYN VIEW SQUARE MICHAEL F. WNEK, P.E. PS Drainage Report May 21, 2007 1. VICINITY MAP See attached vicinity map, Appendix page A-1. 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION a. Type of Permits PRELIMINARY PLAT MASON COUNTY SITE DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY PERMIT MASON COUNTY b. Size and Location of Project Site Parcel Size: 2.74 Acres Project Size: 2.74Acres Clearing Area: 2.74 Acres New Impervious: 2.06 Acres Location: E Wheelwright St N & E. Lakeland Dr. (Mason County, Allyn) c. Legal Description Site Address: None Assessor's Parcel Number: 122205068001, 22205068002, 122205069001, 122205069002 Zoning: Village Commercial d. Proposed Land Use 13 condo units and 38,850 sf commercial space e. Proposed Site Improvements New buildings, road, sanitary sewer, water, and storm quality control. f. Proposed Impervious Surfaces Road / Roof/ SW / Driveway: 2.06 acres g. Proposed Landscaping Lawn & landscaping, typical for zone. 0.69 acres 3. EXISTING CONDITIONS a. Topography The site slopes east. Maximum slopes are 4%. The site is part of a larger watershed that drains directly into Case Inlet via existing ditches, catch basins and pipes. See Appendix A-6, USGS CONTOUR MAP. 3 ALLYN VIEW SQUARE MICHAEL F. WNEK, P.E., PS Drainage Report May 21, 2007 b. Land Cover The property is approximately 75% grass covered; the remaining is bare ground/ dirt. See Appendix A-4, AERIAL PHOTO. c. Land Cover / Land Use Project property — Village Commercial General area - Suburban Residential/ Commercial (Allyn Subarea Zoning Code) d. Offsite Drainage Onto Property Creeks, Lakes, Ponds, Wetlands — None Ravines, Gulleys, Steep Slopes - None Springs, Env. Sensitive Areas - None e. Environmentally Sensitive Areas No environmentally sensitive areas were found in the field review. f. Wells There are no wells located on the site. g. Septic Systems There are no septic systems located on the site. h. Fuel Tanks None known i. Soils Soil Conservation Service maps for the area show the soil is typically found to be Sinclair, belonging to the Hydrologic Group "C" j. Groundwater The soils information lists that there is a seasonal water table 3-feet below the surface during the rainy season. k. Adjacent Drainage Facilities There are no known storm detention facilities within the project's upstream basin. Downstream facilities area discussed in paragraph 7. I. Drainage Discharge Points Storm drainage from the area basin flows east along Lakeland Drive to existing ditches, pipes and catch basins to discharge directly into Case Inlet. The project site discharges to an existing culvert a the southeast corner of the site. m. Relevant Reports None 4 ALLYN VIEW SQUARE MICHAEL F. WNEK, P.E., PS Drainage Report May 21, 2007 4. DEVELOPED SITE DRAINAGE CONDITIONS a. Proposed Land Cover See 2.f. and 2.g. b. Potential Storm Runoff Quantity & Quality Impacts Quantity: Since the project will create greater than 5,000 square feet of impervious area, runoff quantity controls must be considered. Quality: Siltation of the storm runoff is possible during construction. Oil & sediment contamination from vehicle drippings on the access and parking areas is possible after the project is completed. c. Proposed Storm Collection & Conveyance Stormwater runoff from the development will be collected and routed to the storm control facilities. Conveyance will be via pipe. d. Proposed Runoff Quantity Control There is no runoff quantity control proposed. All discharge will be directed to Case Inlet, an adequate receiving body. e. Proposed Runoff Quality Control Water quality for the project will be accomplished by a proprietary water quality vault. During construction, a temporary sediment trap will be used to catch sediment that travels with the runoff. f. Discharge Point The developmentdischarge point will be to the existing location, see paragraph 3.1. 5. WATERSHED DESCRIPTION a. Contributing Basin The site contributes to a larger watershed. See paragraph 3.a & Appendix A-6. b. Receiving Waters All runoff flows to Case Inlet. c. Project Basins The developed parcel is used as the limits of the project basin. Upstream flows will be deflected around the site. Upstream flows are not included in the hydrology calculations. 5 ALLYN VIEW SQUARE MICHAEL F. WNEK, P.E., PS Drainage Report May 21, 2007 6. DESCRIPTION OF UPSTREAM BASINS a. Sources of Runoff onto Project Site Existing roadside ditches in Wheelwright Rd and Lakeland Dr capture upstream runoff and route it around the project. b. Existing Drainage & Erosion Problems There are no obvious drainage or erosion problems within the project parcel or the upstream basin. 7. DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS (Level 1) a. Study Area All storm runoff for the vicinity eventually flows to Case Inlet. The limits of the watershed are shown on Exhibit A-6. The watershed is mostly urbanized; watershed runoff is not collected into a stream but transported in roadside ditches and storm sewers. b. Resource Information Unknown c. Field Inspection A general inspection of the area was performed to delineate flow patterns in the area surrounding the site and the contributing watershed. The downstream route is shown on Exhibit A-8. The downstream route was inspected during a rain event on 05-20-07. Total rainfall for the day was reported as 1 .48 inches. No inadequacies in the downstream storm sewer were witnessed during this rain event. d. USGS Map See Attachment A-6. e. Downstream Narrative Runoff from the site flows via ditches and culverts to an 18" culvert that runs across E State Route Hwy 3 to an existing catch basin. From there, runoff collects in another catch basin via an existing 18" culvert, to be released through an 18" CMP into Case Inlet. f. Structures & Channel See paragraph 7.e. g. Problem Areas There are no obvious drainage problems along the downstream route. 6 ALLYN VIEW SQUARE MICHAEL F. WNEK, P.E., PS Drainage Report May 21, 2007 8. SOILS REPORT None warranted. 9. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT None warranted. 10. HYDROLOGICAL ANALYSIS a. Methodology The hydrological analysis is based on Santa Barbara Urban Hydrogragh methodology. The storm type is "1A". b. Curve Numbers (CN) Sinclair: Group C. c. Time of Concentration Existing: Not applicable Developed: No calculations, apply minimums d. Runoff Volumes & Peak Discharges See Appendix C e. Bypass All project storm runoff can be captured and routed through the treatment system. There will be no untreated runoff from the project. 11. BASIN MAPS The project Basin Map is attached in the appendix, Exhibit C-1 12. HYDRAULIC DESIGN COMPUTATIONS a. Water Quality Vault Documentation for the water quality vault are attached in Appendix C b. Piping 12-inch piping (n=0.012 & s=1 .5%) is adequate to handle the entire developed condition flow, See Appendix C. 7 ALLYN VIEW SQUARE MICHAEL F. WNEK, P.E., PS Drainage Report May 21, 2007 13. EROSION & SEDIMENTATION CONTROL DESIGN a. Erosion Control Objectives To prevent sediments from leaving the project site to adjacent properties or downstream channels. b. Erosion Control / Temporary Water Quality Facilities The following temporary erosion control facilities will be used for construction: Construction Entrance Interceptor Ditch & Berm Check Dams Filter Fabric Fence or Compost Berms Sediment Trap c. Re-vegetation Plan The pervious areas will be re-vegetated with erosion control seed mix after grading and utility construction. Final protection will be lawn & landscaping after building construction. d. Soil Stability In general, no slopes steeper than 2:1 will be required for the project. Gravitiy retaining walls will be required at some locations; walls over 4' in vertical height will require separate engineering design and building permit. e. Computations for Conveyance The types of erosion control facilities proposed for this project do not require any engineering calculations for conveyance. f. Computations for Sediment Containment The sediment trap is sized to meet the 2-year/ 24-hour peak storm event. The hydrological analysis is based on Santa Barbara Urban Hydrograph methodology. The storm type is "1A". The proposed sediment trap is sized per the 2005 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington: Volume 11 — Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention manual, provided be the Department of Ecology. Calculations for the sediment trap can be found in Appendix C. 14, MAINTENANCE & OPERATION MANUAL All temporary erosion control facilities will be removed from the site at the completion of construction. The storm water features on the site will require periodic inspection and annual maintenance. An Operations & Maintenance Manual will be issued after completion of construction. 8 Allyn View Square Michael F. Wnek, P.E., PS Drainage Report May 21, 2007 VICINITY MAP f f E LUCAS CREEK RU CEDAR St (il p E SKYLARK CT a c� +vim +0 PROJECT SITE n ' r cAli j CoaA Lake w ti E CORBM Ut t E CREST OR: � � E htiD CR W ►► � /4/ t /F�A�fiPo»aF f i L I . 50»ft A-1 All n View Square Michael F. Wnek, P.E., P� Drainage Report May 21, 2007 Parcel number: I I 6: I I View Map Owner Information ISLEY,WILLIAM A& MELODY J 417 MADRONA WAY NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98 1 1 0-1 823 Taxpayer Information ISLEY, WILLIAM A& MELODY J 417 MADRONA WAY NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110-1823 Legal Description ALLYN BLK: 68 LOT: I &VAC WHEELWRIGHT Site Address Reval Area ` 2 Field Sheet IFS 03267:68- Land Size* 0.00 Land Use (COMMERCIAL Tax Code 215 Tax Code Description 1 403 A P3 FS L H Census Tract Click here * if the value is .00(zero) then the property is most likely in a plat and acreage is not usually carried on platted lots ' View Map Owner Information ISLEY, WILLIAM A & MELODY J 417 MADRONA WAY NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98 1 1 0-1 823 Taxpayer Information ISLEY, WILLIAM A& MELODY J 417 MADRONA WAY NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110-1823 Legal Description ALLYN BLK: 69 LOT: 1 & VAC SULLIVAN ADJ Site Address Reval Area 12 Field Sheet ' FS 03267:69- Land Size*,0.00 Land Use a' COMMERCIAL Tax Code 5 Tax Code Description ' 1 403 A P3 F5 L H Census Tract (' iL'k 1 IL! A-2 All n View Square Michael F. Wnek, P.E., PS Drainage Report May 21, 2007 Parcel number: 122205069002 View Map Owner Information ISLEY, WILLIAM A & MELODY J 417 MADRONA WAY NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110-1823 Taxpayer Information ISLEY, WILLIAM A & MELODY J 417 MADRONA WAY NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110-1823 Legal Description ALLYN BLK: 69 LOTS: 2-10 &VAC SULLIVAN/UHLMAN Site Address Reval Area - 12 Field Sheet IFS 03267:69- Land Size*10.00 Land Use COMMERCIALS Tax Code '. 215 Tax Code Description . 1 403 A P3 F5 L H I Census Tract Click Here Parcel number: 122205068002 View Map Owner Information WILLIAM A & MELODY J ISLEY, 417 MADRONA WAY NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110-1823 Taxpayer Information ISLEY, WILLIAM A&MELODY J 417 MADRONA WAY NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110-1823 Legal Description ALLYN BLK:68 LOT:2-10 & VAC UHLMAN/WHEELWRIGHT Site Address 6032 Reval Area 2 Field Sheet FS Land Size*10.00 Land Use - COMMERCIAL Tax Code -`1215 Tax Code Description 11403 A P3 F5 L H Census Tract Click Here A-3 Allyn View Square Michael F. Wnek, P.E., PS Drainage Report May 21, 2007 AERIALPHOTO v + PROJECT SITEe +s •�.�� �v C °3Mx%a% k . A ,may m • • • ' W w,€ • i A-4 Allyn View Square Michael F. Wnek, P.E.; PS Drainage Report May 21, 2007 ASSESORS MAP -___ _ _- ---•,--122205063003 122205061006 122205060008 12221 122205064001 ham. 121 122205063001 8' 1222fl5061004 122205062002 12220505901 PROJECT SITE 12220 122205060001 0 t2'105062001 /122205161001122205051 122205066005 OeY � 122205059004 122205067005 1222050590 10020 ' r4 .' 122205059001 122205070009 i ar: i 'gin 122205068002 122209999999 i 122205069002 - 122205067002 ., 122205071008 ♦ 7 4 i 1 122205070004 122205067001 : l2220507lfl07 0 Y 6�fl01 122205071005 tttottt ` �Y )00 122205076000 51iB9Dit1 : 122205071004 122205070001 44 q A ttttri �� 122 Q , 122205071001 .,f 122205075008 - <t,r 05010201 ,.4 122205074001 �122205075005 122205073006 40 122205072009 &R A-5 • Allyn View Square Michael F. Wnek, P.E., PS Drainage Report May 21. 2007 USGS CONTOUR & WATERSHED MAP 1 4 IJ 1A, a , AT l r3 j 1 PROJECT W E SRS ED / Jj s ( 4 W 1, W r 3,J w / J r01, .41t f LU' / .°/y �• �� PROJECT LOCATION •••so s , ) 21, A-6 All n View Square Michael F. Wnek, P.E., PS Drainage Report May 21, 2007 SOILS MAP ' <` as washing--n 1 r ti I PROJECT SITE Ab = Alderwood So = Sinclair A-7 ALLYN VIEW SQUARE MICHAEL F. WNEK, P.E., PS Drainage Report May 21, 2007 DOWNSTREAM EXHIBIT (1/2) id � 1 IL • 't4z - � yr • ,-• C�Ge ♦ ,/ i . 9 1�I 2 ji 00, Lu , ►; O , s ` t �. � � � � oaf, �►,� /� LEGEND ❑ CATCHBASIN 12" _> PIPE& DIAMETER 12" CULVERT& DIAMETER .t DITCH FLOW A-8 ALLYN VIEW SQUARE MICHAEL F. WNEK, P.E., PS Drainage Report May 21, 2007 DOWNSTREAM EXHIBIT (2/2) :t � 01 A A,- 4, +� a � 1 � f ✓ .� T= f A , If Ilk LgIyCOR 18'L J 13 so a i • �� J i r• CASE INLET �,...: .� _ . �� �.� ,� � ; �, +� •sue t if w� • e/l/ Is "Vow, - � - . , -0 LEGEND ❑ CATCHBASIN 18" _ > PIPE& DIAMETER 18" F--� CULVERT& DIAMETER DITCH FLOW A-9 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MANUAL FOR THE PUGET SOUND BASIN 124 123 122 121 44 25 25 s 64 w w ww 0 14111111131 z H 20 20 EL s >+ 26 C `Q OLGA is•�`• .� t` r• F >`v 4 i + fR10AY HARBOR I f I� 30 n i I! PORT STA LEY b' t (� MT V RC NE�40 \ / 2 25 r -` _ �- T 40 302520 1 [ 1 T9\' ` !� 3 f w ss 48 i s R \u 4�\�� a MK'0 a o .i ERETT 2• 2� 1 15 25 C 4� i�ss 16 c c �1 5 5 3Q u S AT i s0' 35: 45I ,k ` _ 1 3 l ss r 40� 20 ; 3 5 3 45 40 35 r COMA \ " i', 47 - 1 3 1-5 i AB DE N 5 d M 30 35 -- 25 25 s s 40 • CENT 4� 20 2s 10 YAKt 3 20 b r 45 s 4D 2 t 35 :ADA 46 2s 55 ' 45 5An — — WASNlNGTQN 25 B K PPL EN E 10 0 10 20 30 40 " 15 2 t—= r---� MILES 20� c t• .f'"'tn t .�` —�1- Figure 25 NOAA ATLAS 2, Volume IX Prepared by U.S.Department of c merce ISOPLUVIALS F 2-YR 24-HR PRECIPITATI N IN National Oceanic and Atmospheric ministration TENTHS OF A INCH National Weather Service,Office of Hydrology Prepared for U.S.Department of riculture, Soll Conservation Service,Engineer ng Division 124 123 122 121 III-1-44 FEBRUARY, 1992 B-1 r r ,I � 1 • STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MANUAL FOR THE PUGET SOUND BASIN 124 123 122 121 49r- i s El � a I .46 1a-- ds )4Ac I r A • { 55 44� 1 . .. c 7\ FFiIG4Y HAR Q n f �wpRT 5 gp 3 65 30 \ 1D �075 _�- T 4 t 25 48 _ •Lr 75 l 60 � 45 is s5. e p sr 901 1 c m 7 100, . su s s .s La s K 100 <y LAOU }` AT 1 TC I 2 so;, 00 5 f f _ •'' 55 35 4i i 71L :� � 1 cs 3 \ 1 n 5 • ABE E �a 65 + so 2 2 � ] t Q� 70 E T R 3OSC� i zy 70 ( 2 60 22 • YAK 1A0 55 2 U 15 ! is I sD s s ao I 55 65 ? "T I 65 62 0 W 1 `I AD M �\ 25. WASHINGTON a 4D ` "K`I Q EN E 10 0 10 20 30 40 t MILES 40 • > 15s0035---� CIAO'' i Figure 30 I I NOAA ATLAS 2, Volume IX I 45 50 55 60 65 !Prepared by U.S.Department of C coerce ISOPLUVIALS OF 100-YR 24•HR PRECIPITATION ;NallonalOceanicandAtmoepheric ministration IN TENTHS OF N INCH National weather Service,Office of Hydrology Prepared for U.S.Department of Iture, Soil Conservation Service,Engineering Division 124 123 122 121 III-1-46 FEBRUARY, 1992 B-3 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MANUAL FOR THE PUGET SOUND BASIN Table III-1.3 SCS Western Washington Runoff Curve Numbers (Published by SCS in 1982) Runoff curve numbers for selected agricultural, suburban and urban land use for Type lA rainfall distribution, 24-hour storm duration. LAND USE DESCRIPTION CURVE NUMBERS BY HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP A B C D Cultivated land(1) : winter condition 86 91 94 95 Mountain open areas: low growing brush & grasslands 74 82 89 92 Meadow or pasture: 65 78 85 89 Wood or forest land: undisturbed 42 64 76 81 Wood or forest land: young second growth or brush 55 - 72 81 86 Orchard: with cover crop 81 88 92 94 Open spaces, lawns, parks, golf courses, cemeteries, landscaping. Good condition: grass cover on ?:75% of the 68 80 86 90 area Fair condition: grass cover on 50-75% of 77 85 90 92 the area Gravel roads & parking lots: 76 85 89 91 Dirt roads & parking lots: 72 82 87 89 Impervious surfaces, pavement, roofs etc. 98 98 98 98 Open water bodies: lakes, wetlands, ponds etc. 100 100 100 100 Single family residential(2) : Dwelling Unit/Gross Acre %Impervious(3) Separate curve number 1.0 DU/GA 15 shall be selected for 1.5 DU/GA 20 pervious & impervious 2.0 DU/GA 25 portions of the site 2.5 DU/GA 30 or basin 3.0 DU/GA 34 3.5 DU/GA 38 4.0 DU/GA 42 4.5 DU/GA 46 5.0 DU/GA 48 5.5 DU/GA 50 6.0 DU/GA 52 6.5 DU/GA 54 7.0 DU/GA 56 PUD'e, condos, apartments, %impervious commercial businesses & must be industrial areas computed (1) For a more detailed description of agricultural land use curve numbers refer to National Engineering Handbook, Sec. 4, Hydrology, Chapter 9, August 1972. (2) Assumes roof and driveway runoff is directed into street/storm system. (3) The remaining pervious areas (lawn) are considered to be in good - condition for these curve numbers. III-1-12 FEBRUARY, 1992 B-4 5TORMWATER MANAGEMENT MANUAL FOR THE PUGET SOUND BASIN 'Fable III-1.6 Hydrologic Soil Groups foe Soils in the Puget Sound Basin Hydrologic Soil Hydrologic Soil Soil Type Group Soil Type Group Agnew C Colter C Ahl B Custer ND Aits C Daboh ND Alderwood C Delphi D Arena,Alderwood B Dick ND Arena, Everett B Dimal D Ashoe B Dupont D Baldhill B Firiutostt C Barnestoa C Edgewick C Bsumgard B Eld B Beausite B Elwell B Belfast C Esquatzel B Bellingham D Everett A Bellingham variant C Everson D Boistfort B Galvin D Bow D Getchell A Briacot D Giles B Buckley C Godfrey D Bunker B Greenwater A Cagey C Grove C Cade" ND Hemline C Casey ND Harmit ND Cassolary C Hoh ND Cathcart B Hoko ND Centralia B Hoodsport ND Chehalis B Hoogdal C Chcaaw A Hoy-pus ND Cinebar B Huel ND Clallam C Indianola ND Clayton B Jonas B Coastal teaches variable Jumpe ND Kapowain CID Kalaloch C Katuts C Rentou D Kilchis C Republic B Kitsap C Riverwash variable Klaus ND Rober C Klone ND Salal C Latcs C Salkum B Lebam B Ssnirnamish D Lummi ND San Juan ND Lynnwood ND Scamman D Lystair ND Schneider B Mal C Seattle D Manley B Sekiu ND Mashel B Scmiahmoo D Maytawn C Shalcar D McKenna D Shano B McMurray ND Shelton C Melbourne B Si C Menzel ND Stnclat: ........................ ...... C Mixed Alluvial variable Skipops •�D Molson B Skykomish B Mukiltco CID Snohopsh ND Naff B Snohomish D Nargar A Solduc B National ND Solleks ND Neilton A Spans D III-1-9 FEBRUARY, 1992 B-5 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MANUAL FOR THE PUGET SOUND BASIN Hydrologic Soil Hydrologic Soil Soil Type Group Soil Type Group Newberg B Spanaway AIB NiNuaily B Springdale B Nookaack C Sulaavar B Norma CID Sultan C Ogarty C Sultan variant B Olete ND Sumas C 010aux rrt C Swantown ND Olympic B Tacorna D Orcaa D Tanwax ND Oridis D Tealwhit ND Orting ND Tenino C Oso C Tisch D Ovall C Tokul ND pastik C Towruend C Pheeney C Triton ND Phclan ND Tukwila D Piichuck C Tukey ND Potchub C Urban variable POulabo C Vailton B Prather C Verlol C Puget D Wapato ND Puyallup B Warden B Queets ND Whidbey ND Quilcene ND Wilkeson B Ragnar B Winston A Rainier C Woodinville B Raught B Yelm C Reed ND Zynber B Hydrologic Soil Group Classifications A. (Low runoff potential) . Soils having high infiltration rates, even when thoroughly wetted, and consisting chiefly of deep, well-to-excessively drained sands or gravels. These soils have a high rate of water transmission. B. (moderately low runoff potential) . Soils having moderate infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted, and consisting chiefly of moderately fine to moderately coarse textures. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. C. (Moderately high runoff potential) . Soils having slow infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted, and consisting chiefly of soils with a layer that impedes downward movement of water, or soils with moderately fine to fine textures. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. D. (High runoff potential) . Soils having very slow infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted and consisting chiefly of clay soils with a high swelling potential, soils with a permanent high water table, soils with a hardpan or clay layer at or near the surface, and shallow soils over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. ND Data not currently available for this soil type. *From SCS, TR-55, Second Edition, June 1966, Exhibit A-1. Revisions made from SCS, Soil Interpretation Record, Form 15, September 1988 and various county soi surveys. III-1-10 FEBRUARY, 1992 B-6 ALLYN VIEW SQUARE Michael F. Wnek, P.E., PS Drainage Report May 21, 2007 PROJECT BASIN PLAN D PROJEC B SIN A= 2. 4 P a r E C - 1 ALLYN VIEW SQUARE Michael F. Wnek, P.E., PS Drainage Report May 21. 2007 SEDIMENT TRAP PRECIPITATION Event Precip (in) 6 month 2.2400 2 year 3.5000 �10-year '5.0000 1000 year=7.0000 LPOOL SUMMARY using Puls Start of live storage: 101.5000 ft 'Event Match Q (cfs) Pea�FPeak Stg(ft) Vol(cf) [Vol(acft)ITime to Empty [2 y rearea , 1.1509 7 1.9491 F163.8441 F2726-48F 0.0626 F 25.17 BASIN SUMMARY Peak Q --, -- r � BasinID Event Peak T(hrs) Peak Vol(ac-cf) Area(ac) Method/Loss`Ramtype (cfs) ;EX 1 2 year 1. 5509 8.00 0.4887 �3 72 4 SBUH/SCS TYPEIA TDEV j 2 year 1.9545 8.00 0.6791 72 4 SBUH/SCST E A �-K 100 year F 3.1 448 F 8.00 1.2381 F 2. 44 SBUH/SCS TYPE Al j DEV F100year j 4.1836 r8.00 F 1.4641 72 4 SBUH/SCS 1,TYPEIA I HYDROGRAPH SUMMARY HydID Peak Q (cfs)",Peak T(hrs) jPeak Vol (ac-ft)=Copt Area(ac) 2 year out£ 1.9491 � 0.6294 2.7400 Record Id: EX ;Design Method s SBUH lRainfall type TYPEIA� !Hyd Intv 1 10.00 min 1Peaking Factor F 484.00 lAbstraction Coeff20 Pervious Area(AMC 2) _ 1 2.74 ac yDCIA 0.00 ac 'Pervious CN 86.50 'DC CN j 0.00 Pervious TC 17.31 min fDC TC 0.00 min g Description Pervious CN Calc � SubArea Stub cn � Dirt roads&Parking Lots 1.37 ac 87.00 Open spaces, lawns,parks (<50% grass) 1.37 ac 86.00 Pervious Composited CN(AMC 2) 86.50 Pervious TC Calc Type Description Length Slope Coeff Misc I 11 Sheet IShort prairie grass and lawns.:0.15 300.00 ft �4.0// ,0.1 0 3.550 in 17.10 min �_ C-2 ALLYN VIEW SQUARE Michael F. Wnek, P.E., PS Drainage Report May 21. 2007 Shallow INearly bare ground(n=0.025) 32.00 ft i4.0o/o 0.0250 0.21 min j Pervious TC 17.31 min Record Id: DEV Design Method SBUH 'Rainfall type TWEIA FH dydIInty 10.00 min Peaking Factor F 484.00 F- ?Abstraction Coeff 0.20 Pervious Area(AMC 2) 0.69 ac DCIA _ �2.06 ac FPervious CN 86.00 1DC CN 98.00 Pervious TC 10.00 min ADC TC 6.00 min n Pervious CN Calc Description SubArea Sub cn Open spaces,lawns,parks(>75%grass) 0.69 ac 86.00 Pervious Composited CN(AMC 2) 86.00 Pervious TC Calc � � Type Description Length Slope Co; Misc ; TT ;Fixed ( 10.00 min Pervious TC 10.00 min Directly Connected CN Calc Description SubArea Sub cn Impervious surfaces (pavements, roofs, etc) 2.06 ac 98.00 DC Composited CN(AMC 2) 9 9 0 _ Directly Connected TC Calc M FType Description Length Slope Coeff M TT "Fixed 6.00 min - Directly Connected TC If _ 6.00min Record Id: LPOOL Descrip: Prototype Record!Increment 0.10 jStart El. 101.5000 ft IMax El. 104.5000 ft j IStorage Node€POND ;Discharge NodeRIS�I C-3 ALLYN VIEW SQUARE Michael F. Wnek, P.E., PS Drainage Report May 21. 2007 Record Id: POND ;Descrip: Prototype Record Increment 0.10 ft Start El. 101.5000 ft Max El. T04.5000 ft IL ne h 45.0000 ft ,,Wider- th-v-115.0000 ft ILength ss1 3.00h:Iv 'Length ss213.0000h:Iv Width ssl 3.00h:1v Width ss2 }3.00000h:Iv Stage Storage Rating Curve 101.5000 ft 0.0000 cf 103.1000 ft;1589.9520 cf 101.6000 ft 69.3120 cf 103.2000 ft 1726.6560 cf 101.7000 ft, 42.2960c f 103.3000 ft 11868.1840 cf 101.8000 ft 21 0 f .103.4000 ft 12014.6080 cf 101.9000 ft:299.5680 cf 103.5000 ft 2166.0000 cf 102.0000 ft F 384.0000 cf 103.6000 ft 2322.4320 cf 1102.1000 ft 472.3920 cf 103 7000 ft 12483.9760 cf Fi 02.2000 ft 1564. 618 0 cf 103.8000 ft 2650.7040 cf E 102.3000 ft 661.3440 cf 103.9000 ft 2822.6880 cf i102.4000 ft 762.0480 cf 104.0000 ft 3000.0000 cf 102.5000 ft; 867.0000 cf 104.1000 ft 3182.7120 cf E 102.6000 ft!, 976.2720 cf 104.2000 ft 3370.8960 cf 102.7000 ft 11089.9360 cf 104.3000 ft`3564.6240 cf 102.8000 ft j1208.0640 cf 104.4000 ft 3763.9680 cf 102.9000 ft 1330.7280 cf 104.5000 ft 3969.0000 cf 103.0000 ft 14 0000 cf 104.6000 ft 4179.7920 cf Record Id: RISER Descrip:�iPrototype Structure Inncrement 10.10 ft Sta El =103.5000 ft ;Max El 104.5000 ft RiserDiam j12.00 in ;Weir r Coeff 19.7390 1Ori�if Coeff 3.7820 Stage Discharge Rating Curve 103.5000 ft 10.0000 cfs 104.1000 ft F2.92x 95 cfs 103.6000 ft 0.3080 c sfc sf 1104.2000 ft 13.1642 cfs ,103.7000 ft 0.8711 cfs 1104.3000 ft 15.3827 cfs 103.8000 ft 1.6003 cfs F 104.4000 ft F3.587cfs 103.9000 ft i2.3919 cfs 104.5000 ft 3.7820 cfs 104.0000 ft 2.6743 cfs 1104.6000 ft 13.9666 cfs C-4 ALLYN VIEW SQUARE Michael F. Wnek, P.E., PS Drainage Report May 21. 2007 PIPE HYDRAULICS 100-year event CIRCULAR CHANNEL ANALYSIS RATING CURVE COMPUTATION May 23, 2007 PROGRAM INPUT DATA DESCRIPTION VALUE -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Channel Bottom Slope (ft/ft) . .... . . ... ... ................... 0.015 Manning's Roughness Coefficient (n-value) ................ ... 0.012 Channel Diameter (ft) . ..... .. .... . .... . ........... ..... .. ... 1.0 Minimum Flow Depth (ft) .... .. ............ ....... ..... .. .. . .. 0.1 Maximum Flow Depth (ft) .... .. ......... ......... . .. ........ .. 1.0 Incremental Head (ft) ........ ......... ........ . .. . . .. . . . .... 0.1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPUTATION RESULTS Flow Flow Flow Froude Velocity Energy Flow Top Depth Rate Velocity Number Head Head Area Width (ft) (cfs) (fps) (ft) (ft) (sq ft) (ft) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.1 0.099 2.414 1.6307 0.0906 0.1906 0.041 0.6 0.2 0.414 3.702 1.7455 0.2129 0.4129 0.112 0.8 0.3 0.926 4.671 1.771 0.3391 0.6391 0.198 0.917 0.4 1.593 5.43 1.7493 0.4581 0.8581 0.293 0.98 0.5 2.363 6.018 1.6932 0.5629 1.0629 0.393 1.0 0.6 3.176 6.454 1.6057 0.6474 1.2474 0.492 0.98 0.7 3.958 6.739 1.4843 0.7058 1.4058 0.587 0.917 --> 0.8 4.62 6.859 1.3179 0.7312 1.5312 0.674 0.8 0.9 5.038 6.767 1.0709 0.7115 1.6115 0.745 0.6 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ----------------------------------------------=--------------------------------- COMPUTATION NOTES *** Rating Curve terminated at flow depth = 1.000 Flow depth equals or exceeds channel diameter (1.000) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HYDROCALC Hydraulics for Windows, Version 1.2a Copyright (c) 1996 Dodson & Associates, Inc., 5629 FM 1960 West, Suite 314, Houston, TX 77069 Phone: (281)440-3787, Fax: (281)440-4742, Email:software@dodson-hydro.com All Rights Reserved. Qioo-year 4.19 cfs C-5 ALLYN VIEW SQUARE Michael F. Wnek, P.E., PS Drainage Report May 21. 2007 Water Quality Vault Stormceptor CD Sizing Program United States Version 4.0.0 Project Details Project ALLYN VIEW SQUARE Project# 391 Location ALLYN, WA Company Date 5/17/2007 Contact Selected Rainfall Staion Particle Size Distribution State Washington Diam. (um) Percent (%) Spec. Gravity Name SEATLE PORTAGE BAY 20 20 1.3 ID# 7458 60 20 1.8 Elev. (ft) 19 150 20 2.2 Latitude N 47 deg 39 min 400 20 2.65 ,Longitude W 122 deg 18 min 2000 20 2.65 Site Parameters Total Area (ac) 2.75 Imperviousness (%) 75 Impervious Area ac 2.06 Stormceptor Sizing Table Stormceptor Model % Runoff Treated %TSS Removal STC 450 71 74 STC 900 89 83 STC 1200 89 83 STC 1800 89 83 SCT 2400 96 86 STC 3600 96 87 STC 4800 99 90 STC 6000 99 90 STC 7200 100 92 STC 11000 100 94 STC 13000 100 94 STC 16000 100 95 C-6 ALLYN VIEW SQUARE Michael F. Wnek, P.E., PS Drainage Report May 21. 2007 Stormceptor CD Sizing Program Versioun 4.0.0 Country United States Date Project Number Project Name Project Location Company Designer Notes Rainfall Station SEATTLE PORTAGE BAY Rainfall File WA7458.NDC Latitude = N 47 deg 39 min Longitude = W 122 deg 18 min Elevation = 19.ft Rainfall Period of Record 1973 to 1998 Site Parameters Total Drainage Area 2.75 ac Total Imperviousness (%) 75.00 Overland Flow Width 692. ft Overland Slope (%) 2.0 Impervious Depression Storage 0.020 in Pervious Depression Storage 0.200 in Impervious Manings n 0.015 Pervious Manings n 0.250 Infiltration Parameters Horton Infiltration Used Initial (Max) Infiltration Rate 2.44 in/h Final (Min) Infiltration Rate 0.40 in/h Infiltration Decay Rate (1/sec) 0.00055 Infiltration Regeneration Rate(1/secC 0.010 Daily evaporation 0.100 in/day Sediment build-up reduces the storage volume for settling calculations A maintenance cycle of 12 months was chose (The Stormceptor will be cleaned out very 12 months) C-7 ALLYN VIEW SQUARE Michael F. Wnek, P.E., PS Drainage Report May 21. 2007 TSS Loading Calculations Buildup/Washoff Loading Chosen Buildup Washoff allocates more washoff in the rising limb of the hydrograph Target Even Mean Concentration (mg/1) 125 Buildup Exponent 0.400 Washoff Exponent 0.200 Availability Factors for Particles >= 400. um Availability=A+ Bi^C A= 0.057 B = 0.040 i = iinfall intensity C = 1.100 Stormwater Particle Size Distribution Table Diameter Percent Specific Gravity Settling Velocity (um) (%) ft/s 20.0 20.0 1.30 0.0013 60.0 20.0 1.80 0.0051 150.0 20.0 2.20 0.0354 400.0 20.0 2.65 0.2123 2000.0 20.0 2.65 0.9417 Flocculated settling assumed for particles <=20 um Rainfall Records 1973 to 1998 Total rainfall period 26 years Total rainfall = 936.9 in Average annual rainfall = 36.0 in C-8 z iv v D c 0 V N 0 0 v v v -4 O O O O Cn Cn Ut U1 ? -r- A A W W W W N N N N O O O n r N O -I Ul N O V Ul N O -I U1 N O -I U1 N O -I Ul N O 4 Uw N O -1 U7 N O v Ut N O pw CD W N U7 O cn CD Cn O cnO cn O cn O � O Ul O Ul 0 cn O cn O Ui O cn CD cn CD Ui O Ut O cn 7 Ut (D < tDCD < ;7 tTI CD W fD (D A m < � -a CD< o00000000000000 0000 M W cn W wU, N c-n0000 N 7 O Cn � cfl � � .� cn fJ � N' C C D c m m c0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 — ? — OD CL c � 0000000000000000000C)C)C) � � �,.w n00m .4, ErN OD _ (D CL 0o 7 CD CD 3 D. (D 00 0 0 0 0 00 0 00 0 0 0 0 cn O O O O W W V 0o N -4 0 W O N � 0 �. O CD CD 7 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO — O — 00 N41, U1Oo " N W O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W M M W v M O M W 0o v j S 5� N N O 4 y < ' 0 0 0 CCDDCD X N O r N N N W M -J �J V -4 M M M O Cn Cn Cn Cn - A W W W W N N N N -+ -� - - O O O _� pl � 01 r N Co N O v Cn N O �J Cn N O -I Cn N O -J Cn N O -,J Cn N O v 6 N O -,J Cn N O --J Cn N 7 (fl N CD <Cli N m Cn n O O C Cn o cn o Cn o cn o cn o Cn o al o Cn o ul o ul O Cn O CA o Cn o CA o cn CD C N = 7 < N O �_ CD CD CU O 0) II N O C 7 II CN vWCC 000000000000000000 � OOOO � W CflCn O UOD j Nw n e �� nc w CD rn `< C O Fn' D m 0, N , (D , � rn cn WOW ooC) CDoO0000000000000000000000000wW00 o -P, UiM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - w 0 W 0 0 o wo o i� o O Cn O O O O O O O O O O O O CD O CD CD o o 0 0 0 0 N A N Cn �A N S W n � O O O Cl O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ul N CNO O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 N Cn N Cn -J -4 Cn 3 O _ S c� C N N �1 � ALLYN VIEW SQUARE Michael F. Wnek, P.E., PS Drainage Report May 21. 2007 TSS Removal Simulation Results Table Stormceptor Treated Q % Runoff Tank TSS Overall TSS Model cfs Treated Removal (%) Removal (%) STC 450 0.283 71 80 74 STC 900 0.636 89 85 83 STC 1200 0.636 89 85 83 STC 1800 0.636 89 85 83 STC 2400 1.059 96 87 86 STC 3600 1.059 96 88 87 STC 4800 1.766 99 90 90 STC 6000 1.766 99 90 90 STC 7200 2.472 100 92 92 STC 11000 3.531 100 94 94 STC 13000 3.531 100 94 94 STC 16000 4.944 100 95 95 Hydrology Table-Volume of Runoff Trated vs By-Pass Flow Rate Treated Q Treated Vol Overall Vol Tot Vol % Treated cfs ft3 ft3 ft3 0.035 1535464 4577190 6111240 25.1 0.141 3277930 2834486 6111240 53.6 0.318 4532630 1580083 6111240 74.2 0.565 5305380 806315 6111240 86.8 0.883 5740382 371242 6111240 93.9 1.271 5947022 164309 6111240 97.3 1.730 6036987 74321 6111240 98.8 2.260 6075492 35770 6111240 99.4 2.860 6091616 19645 6111240 99.7 3.531 6100578 10673 6111240 99.8 4.273 6105754 5490 6111240 99.9 5.085 6107554 3686 6111240 99.9 5.968 6108728 2509 6111240 100.0 6.922 6109613 1626 6111240 100.0 7.946 6110339 901 6111240 100.0 9.041 6110996 244 6111240 100.0 10.206 6111240 0 6111240 100.0 11.442 6111240 0 6111240 100.0 12.749 6111240 0 6111240 100.0 14.156 6111240 0 6111240 100.0 15.574 6111240 0 6111240 100.0 17.092 6111240 0 6111240 100.0 18.681 6111240 0 6111240 100.0 20.341 6111240 0 6111240 100.0 22.072 6111240 0 6111240 100.0 23.873 6111240 0 6111240 100.0 25.744 6111240 0 6111240 100.0 27.687 6111240 0 6111240 100.0 29.700 6111240 0 6111240 100.0 37.783 6111240 0 6111240 100.0 End of Simulation C-11 04/17/2007 09:28 FAX 360 427 7798 MASON CO PERMIT CTR 10001 TX REPORT *ss TRANSMISSION OK TX/RX NO 3083 CONNECTION TEL 360 830 4466 CONNECTION ID ST. TIME 04/17 09:27 USAGE T 00'55 PGS. SENT 2 RESULT OK MASON COUNTY PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST DORM 426 W Cedar St, PO BOX 186,Shelton WA 98584 PHONE(360)427-9670 FAX(360)427-7798 tease allow 5 bus!7086 days for us to respond to your reauaSt* "M kerns are bebop mailed Please allow an adalonat 3 KY-8 unto You romw Ale paperwork i would like to information: Requestor's Name s s1 Mailed ❑ Faxed Picked Up Address Date of RequestaA City3ILM—A& St Zip 9M Time of Request 00�/ Phone 3 �� S3D``PO Fax 3 PLEASE PROVIDE RECORDS FOR THE FOLLOWING: Septic Records [] As-Built Only ❑ 12 Digit Tax Parcel No. Other(See Below) Present Owner Legal Description Previous Owner Site Address Please specifical describe what records or kinds of records, you are requesting: � 1 {� . '{�C�. Off' G � �L!s�1_ • RCW 42.17.0201 certify that the information obtained through this request will not be used for commercial purposes. Signature _ Date 3 Lar O . q sts ma charged a rovided by RCW 42.17. 10. D Ing file review, any pages y wi to have copied (excluding ndn-public record documents) must be tagged and charges it assessed at .15 per page. Copies can be mailed or you may pick them up when ready. • pies of blue prints or other large format items, when available, may be charged a higher rate er a e Official Use Onl Request Routed To: PAC File Clerk ❑ Count Admin. Other Y . ❑ Clerk of the Comm. ❑ Public Works Building ❑ Planning ❑ Environmental Health ❑ Assessor ❑ Auditor El Treasurer Completed by: '!' Al\, Ex# Sa f Records were Completed date: 67 Faxed ❑ ' Notes: � � �r Mailed ❑ z To be picked up ❑ ojvt 1 d�rec�-f' Theme The proposal involves constructing 5 buildings in the Allyn UGA Village Commercial District with commercial space on the first floor and condos on the second floor. At this time, the total commercial square footage is proposed to be just under 39,000 square feet, and the total number of condos is to be 13. All of the potential commercial uses will likely be allowed uses, not needing Special Use Permits. I handed a copy of the Village Commercial District, the Parking Standards, and the Sign Standards sections of the Allyn Code to the applicants. Please read the code sections thoroughly. Below are some details that I think you should especially consider. The maximum average building height in the Village Commercial District is 30 feet (17.12.140). Each building shall have at least one primary entry on any street frontage (17.12.150.A.7). Ground floor frontages shall be provided with large framed display windows between a height of 3 feet and 8 feet so that at least 50% of the frontage wall is transparent (17.12.150.B.5). PARKING: One 10' by 20' space is needed for each residential unit. Since the exact commercial uses are not yet known, we can just use the parking requirement for "shopping centers," which is one 9' by 19' space per 400 square feet and divide that number by 2. Since many commercial uses require more parking than this, it would be wise to provide more parking spaces than what is required. And I am sure you are aware of the 1 handicap space (16' by 19') per 50 requirement. Furthermore, one 10' by 30' loading space is required for each building. Up to 20% of the number of required spaces may be compact (9' by 15). A bicycle rack with a capacity for at least 4 bicycles shall be provided. Please make sure you meet the parking lot construction and design criteria in section 17.15.090. An exterior lighting site plan shall be submitted with all building and parking lot construction plans. SETBACKS: There are no building setbacks in the Village Commercial District, except what's required for driver line of site clearance for public safety. TRASH: Exterior trash containers shall be located within enclosures matching design criteria on file with the Building and Public Works Departments. SLOPES: The site is on mild slopes, and significant slopes (greater than 40%) are more than 300 feet away. Planning will not be requiring a geotechnical assessment unless we come across unstable characteristics such as springs or evidence of past landslides. GRADING/FILL: You will need to submit a grading permit application. SEPA: You will need to submit a SEPA checklist for the proposed development. Fire Protection District 5 Emergency Services for Central Mason Countu Janis 12 2006 To BE KEPT IN THE PARCEL FILE Mission Statement. Charell Holcomb -rhe"eclim d i� heats, Mason County Community Development pmp" amram'ert." P.O.Box 186 - - -- Shelton, WA 98584 Conwrirsioners Del G.Griffey Tomuy O.Taylor Chuck Huff Re: Comment on the William Isley project proposal 2005-00063 CW Rr]iad A Knit RwbwdXXKnoft on5.org District 5 has no objection to this plan as sketched, however, we believe the status chief@masof Wheelwright Street must be addressed prior to further building approvals which ,tsss,a Chkft rely on Wheelwright Street for access. 'rim McKan ac-506_,mason5.org Richard A. Knight, Chief Eremdvesecrdwy Dame M.Clark Post Office Box 127 Allyn,Washington 98524 Business: (360)426-5533 or (360)275-2889 Fax: (360)426-8959 or (360)275-2880 email:mason5 @mason5.org visit us at: mason5.org y EMERGENCY SERVICES PEOPLE SERVING PEOPLE SINCE 1953 Fire and Life Safety Fire protection FIRECOM Dispatch and Communications FIRE MEDIC Paramedic Advanced Life Support and Ambulance Service can � 1 �o pGt�Cc� SR 3 Allyn Projects Lakeland Village FEB 2 2 2,n,,811 26 single family MCCD - PLANNING SR 3 & Homestead Existing LOS Eastbound C Existing LOS Northbound A With Project 2010 Eastbound C With Project 2010 Northbound A 249 ADT(ITE LUC 210—26 x 9.57) 27 PM peak No mitigation recommended Sundance Plat 42 single family Lakeland &Wheelwright SR 3 & Lakeland 42 x 9.57 = 402 ADT estimated 37 PM peak estimated Trip distribution not available Allyn View Square Mixed use 13 condos, 34950 sq ft medical-dental & 3,900 sq ft general office Lakeland &Wheelright 1,333 AW DT(Decrease of 2,453 from original TIA—Current analysis is the Td done) 168 PM peak(Decrease of 178 from original TIA—Current analysis is the 3`d done) SR 3 & Lakeland Existing LOS Westbound C Existing LOS Eastbound D Existing LOS Northbound A Existing LOS South bound A With Project 2009 Westbound C With Project 2009 Eastbound F With Project 2009 Northbound A With Project 2009 Southbound A No mitigation recommend (except sight distance at County Road access) Allyn View & Sundance totals: 1,735 new AWDT 205 new PM peak 103 +- new PM peak to SR 3& Lakeland with assumed 50-50 split HISR 3 Project Summary 800Z/I I/Z dsu'gota2IS/I ZQa)a2IS/no8•tnn•IopstA*Imoinis//A4 � 0 z.. 800Z/1 t/Z ds� gam2�S/iZga�2iS/no8•�nn•�opsnn innarnxs//:d S, - 7 r . L i • fY • dot.wa.gov/SR Lttp:Hsrviewi.wsweb21/SRweb.asp 11: a 04/25/06 SR# 3-INC RMP 20.92 DIR = NE /J O�1,� ttp://srviewi.wsdot.wa.gov/SRweb21/SRweb.asp 2/11/2008 +� HEATH &ASSOCIATES,INC. Transportation and Civil Engineering ALLYN VIEW SQUARE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS MASON COUNTY, WA w syl �Y ' o S 20720 Sy SFONAL 2 liJ'� Prepared for: Marty Reynolds &Loren Olsen PO Box 792 Port Orchard, Wa 98366 Revised JANUARY 200/B Riga e 2214 Tacoma Road•Puyallup,WA 98371 •(253)770-1401 •Fax(253)770-1473 ALLYN VIEW SQUARE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction ...........................................................................................3 11. Project Description.......................................................................................................3 111. Existing Conditions......................................................................................................3 IV. Forecasted Traffic Demand..........................................................................................9 V. Summary&Mitigation...............................................................................................14 Appendix LIST OF TABLES 1. Existing Level of Service .............................................................................................8 2. Trip Generation Volumes...........................................................................................10 3. Future LOS With and Without Project Traffic...........................................................14 LIST OF FIGURES 1. Vicinity Map& Roadway System................................................................................4 2. Site Plan........................................................................................................................5 3. Existing PM Peak Hour Volumes ................................................................................7 4. Trip Distribution & Assignment.................................................................................11 5. 2009 Peak Hour Volumes Without Project................................................................12 6. 2009 Peak Hour Volumes With Project.....................................................................13 2 i ALLYN VIEW SQUARE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS I. INTRODUCTION This study serves to examine traffic impacts related to the Allyn View Square project. The main goals of this study concentrate on assessing existing roadway conditions and intersection congestion, forecasting newly generated project traffic, and estimating future delays. The first task includes the collection of roadway information, road improvement information,and peak hour traffic counts. Next, a detailed level of service analysis of the existing volumes is made to determine the present degree of congestion on the network. Based on this analysis, forecasts of fixture traffic levels on the surrounding street system are determined. Following this forecast,the future service levels for the key intersections are investigated. As a final step,applicable conclusions and possible on-site/off-site mitigation measures are defined and addressed. 11. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed Allyn View Square project is a mixed-use site consisting of 13 condominium units, 34,950 square feet of medical-dental office space, and 3,900 square feet of general office space. This office usage was generally determined based on market conditions for the area. The site is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Lakeland Drive and Wheelwright Street in the Allyn area of Mason County. Access to the site will be via one entrance on Lakeland Drive and one entrance on Wheelwright Street. Land uses surrounding the site are retail, commercial, residential, or undeveloped land. Development forecasts estimate a project completion date of 2009. Figure 1 on the following page shows the site location and roadway system. The proposed site plan is given in Figure 2. Ili. EXISTING CONDITIONS A. Surrounding Street Network The street network serving the proposed project consists of a variety of roadways. Streets near the site mainly consist of two-lane arterials and highways. Defining characteristics for these roadways vary with respect to lane widths, grades, speeds, and function. Differences are based on specific roadway designations and proximity to major employment areas. The primary roadways are described on page 6. 3 s� .1`t 51TE r 3 AUSrIN R 1 ALLYN VIEW SQUARE HEATH & ASSOCIATES, INC VICINITY MAPt ROADWAY 5Y5TEM Transportation and Civil Engineering FIGURE I "6 l I I p. J IN oY , e'YyY a f� k� Y'd=*1 .Fs I i y r� E 1 �• 4, f )! I (/ l °/e r l ' JJJ 4 ~r 7 9 A All j S 8 j.� ..\ I cam, 7 y - was_ j5��• �Y --r' i a 4 ALLYN VIEW 5QUARE ®®® DEATH & ASSOCIATES, INC 517E PLAN Transportation and Civil Engineering FIGUPE 2 SR-3 is a north-south, two-lane roadway that lies to the east of the site. The speed limit along this road is 35 mph in in the site vicinity. The travel lanes are roughly 12 feet wide with paved shoulders transitioning to gravel. E Lakeland Drive is an east-west two lane arterial that borders the south side of the project. The posted speed limit is 25 mph. Pavement surfacing is composed of conventional asphalt concrete. Lanes are 11 feet wide with paved shoulders. E Wheelwright Street is a north-south local road which borders the west side of the project. Total roadway width is roughly 20 feet,with a posted speed limit of 20 mph. B. Roadway Improvements A review of the WSDOT Capital Projects indicates no improvements in the project vicinity. No Mason County projects were identified either. C. Peak Hour Volumes Field data for this study was collected in August of 2007. Traffic counts were taken during the evening peak period between the hours of 4 PM and 6 PM. This specific peak period was targeted for analysis purposes since it generally represents a worst case scenario for commercial sites with respect to traffic conditions. This is primarily due to the common 8 AM to 5 PM work schedule and the greater number of recreation/shopping trips associated with the early evening period. Commuters generally travel from home to work(or vice versa) in the morning and evening which translates to a natural peak in intersection traffic loads when combined with the relatively large number of evening personal and retail trips. Figure 3 on the following page shows the weekday PM peak hour volumes for the key intersections of SR-3/Lakeland Dr and Lakeland Dr/Wheelwright St. ADT volumes for the pertinent roadways may be obtained from Mason County and WSDOT. D. Existing Level of Service Existing peak hour delays were determined through the use of the Highway Capacity Manual 2000. Capacity analysis is used to determine level of service(LOS)which is an established measure of congestion for transportation facilities. LOS is defined for a variety of facilities including intersections, freeways, arterials, etc. A complete definition of level of service and related criteria can be found in the HCM. The methodology for determining the LOS at signalized intersections strives to determine the volume to capacity(v/c)ratios for the various intersection movements as well as the average control delay for those movements. Delay is generally used to measure the degree of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and lost time. Control delay, in particular, 6 y �d 96 497 5 1 52 " Lo�-8 �y SITE 3--► sr*°P 4-4 OOR 13� I �5 16 340 6 0 7 63---01 STOP ♦--1 14 O� � �5 I O D I s 3 `wsr7N RD ALLYN VIEW SQUARE J& HEATH & ASSOCIATES, INC EX15TING PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES ® Transportation and Civii Engineering FIGURE 3 includes movements at slower speeds and stops on intersection approaches as vehicles move up in queue position or slow down upstream of an intersection. Aside from the overall quantity of traffic,three specific factors influence signalized intersection LOS. These include the type of signal operation provided, the signal phasing pattern,and the specific allocation of green time. The methodology for determining the LOS at unsignalized intersections strives to determine the potential capacities for the various vehicle movements and ultimately determines the average total delay for each movement. Potential Capacity represents the number of additional vehicles that could effectively utilize a particular movement,which is essentially the equivalent of the difference between the movement capacity and the existing movement volume. Total delay is described as the elapsed time from when a vehicle stops at the end of a queue until the vehicle departs from the stop line. Average total delay is simply the mean total delay over the entire stream. A number of factors influence potential capacity and total delay including the availability/usefulness of gaps. The range for intersection level of service is LOS A to LOS F with the former indicating the best operating conditions with low control delays and the latter indicating the worst conditions with heavy control delays. Detailed descriptions of intersection LOS are given in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. LOS results for the key intersections can be found in Table 1. Level of service calculations were made through the use of the automated intersection analysis program known as HCS-2000. This program follows Chapter 17 procedures of the HCM for unsignalized intersection analysis. TABLE 1 Existing Level of Service Delays Given In Seconds Per Vehicle Intersection Control Geometry LOS Delay SR-3/Lakeland Dr Stop Westbound C 18.1 Eastbound D 32.1 Northbound A 9.0 Southbound A 8.1 Lakeland/Wheelwright Stop Northbound A 8.7 Southbound B 10.1 Eastbound A 7.5 Westbound A 7.4 As shown in the table, delays are generally mild to moderate for the existing conditions, with delays in the LOS A to LOS D range. 8 E. Non-Motorist Traffic Field observations during the PM peak hour indicate a fair amount of pedestrian activity at Wheelwright and Lakeland. Based on the location and nature of the proposed development, minor pedestrian and bicycle traffic may be expected along the site frontages. No significant conflicts between motorist and non-motorist traffic (i.e. vehicle/pedestrian and vehicle/bicycle) are anticipated near the site or at the outlying intersections. Off-site mitigation for non-motorized trips would not likely be required for this project. F. Transit Service A review of the Mason County Transportation Authority regional bus schedule indicates that the nearest transit service line is provided along SR-3. According to published bus schedules, MTA Route 1 runs from Shelton to Belfair via SR-3 with service in Allyn roughly between 7:00 AM and 7:30 PM. Despite the transit availability, no reductions to trip generation from transit service were made for the sake of conservatism. G. Sight Distance at Access Driveways Examinations of the site access were made to determine whether adequate entering and stopping sight distance is provided for inbound and outbound project traffic. According to the AASHTO "Green Book",a minimum entering sight distance for a 25 mph design speed would be 280 feet,and for a 30 mph design speed would be 335 feet. Based on a field review,this minimum is met for the Lakeland Drive access. Available sight distance for the access on Wheelwright Street depends on the exact location of the project entrance and the relocation of Wheelwright. There is a horizontal curve to the north as the road transitions to Sellegren Road. The placement of the project access on Wheelwright in concert with the Wheelwright relocation must be such that adequate sight distance minimums are met. IV. FORECASTED TRAFFIC DEMAND A. Trip Generation Trip generation is used to determine the magnitude of project impacts on the surrounding street system. The building users are assumed based on expected end users and therefore is somewhat speculative. The trip generation data for the project was taken from the Institute of Transportation Engineer's publication Trip Generation, Seventh Edition. The land uses chosen for this project are Residential Condominium/Townhouse(LUC 230), Medical-Dental Office Building(LUC 720), and General Office Building(LUC 710). A summary of this data is given in Table 2 on the following page. Included are average daily traffic and AM/PM peak hour volumes. 9 TABLE 2 Trip Generation Volumes 13 Units 34,950 ft 3,900 ft2 Condos Med-Dent Off Gen Qffice Total AWDT 76 1214 43 1333 AM Peak Enter 1 69 5 75 AM Peak Exit 5 18 1 24 AM Total 6 87 6 99 PM Peak Enter 5 62 1 68 PM Peak Exit 2 93 5 100 PM Total 7 155 6 168 For the Medical-Dental Office the PM peak hour volumes are taken from the PM peak hour generator. B. Trip Assignment and Distribution The destination and origination of future project traffic determines how vehicles at the site driveways and nearby major intersections will distribute to and from outlying areas. The trip assignment and distribution scheme developed for this project was used to determine the specific paths of travel for traffic into and out of the site via Wheelwright Street and Lakeland Drive. Primary trips generated by the project are expected to follow the general trip pattern as shown in Figure 4 on the following page. Distribution percentages were based on estimated market conditions for the proposed land usage serving Allyn View Square. C. Future Traffic Volumes With and Without the Project The owners of the project anticipate a completion date for the build out of this project by 2009. Future 2009 traffic volumes without the project were derived by applying a 2.5 percent annual growth rate to the volumes of Figure 3. This rate was calculated from the 2006 WSDOT Annual Traffic Report, showing 2.5 percent on SR-3 near the North Bay Wye connection. Figure 5 represents 2009 traffic without the project while Figure 6 represents 2009 traffic with the project built. D. Future LOS With and Without the Project A level of service analysis was next made of the peak hour volumes with project generated trips applied. This analysis again used the HCS-2000 intersection analysis program. Level of service results and accompanying approach delays are shown in Table 3. These results reflect 2009 future traffic conditions with and without project trips added to the street system. I i 3 10 l' I i sR o 7 Z 10 �O t �17 1 O�O O 12 120% 40% a v 0 20 `0 �y 51TE 0--10. stop E-0 30— * O I 20 0 0 17 0 I0 1 2—�� L�0 N 15—► stop -4_.--23 0--, 0 0 0 0 23 50 15J 41-34 0—► STOP ♦—O 3 \ 30% pus r�nr PQ PM PEAK HOUR TRIP5 INBOUND: G8 VPH OUTBOUND: 100 VPH ALLYN VIEW 5QUARE HEATH & ASSOCIATES, INC TRIP D15TRIBUTION€A551GNMENT Transportation and Civil Engineering FIGURE 4 i i Fc I i I I. t � 101 522 5 19 55--0 //'".� �e Cy0 rJ'1TE 3—► ISTOPI 4-4 17 357 6 2--' 6 Q) ti 66—♦ STOP t—1 20 5 i 1 3 AuSTIN RD i t ALLYN VIEW SQUARE HEATI & ASSOCIATES, INC 2009 PM PEAR HOUR V0LUME5 WTriOUT PROJECT 'Transportation and Civil Engineering FIGURE 5 s� 8 7 1 ti ,o 117 8 12 15 5222 5 i 75� LB 4'ya 51TE 3-10- 4-4 44 5 1 I*f 37 357 6 18 0 7 81 (TOP -143 °�\\f Fp'* s 0 0 1 23 50 15j 10+-34 74-► 21 3 AUSnN RD ii I I ALLYN VIEW 5QUARE _----- — --__ HEATH & ASSOCIATES, INC 2009 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUME5 WITH PROJECT Transportation and Civil Engineering FIGURE 6 TABLE 3 Future LOS With and Without Project Traffic Delays given in seconds per vehicle Without Project With Proiect Intersection Control Geometry LOS Delay LOS Delay SR-3/Lakeland Stop Westbound C 19.2 C 21.8 Eastbound E 37.0 F 60.7 Northbound A 9.1 A 9.3 Southbound A 8.1 A 8.1 Lakeland/Wheelwright Stop Northbound A 8.7 A 8.8 Southbound B 10.1 B 10.0 Eastbound A 7.5 A 7.6 Westbound A 7.4 A 7.4 Lakeland/Entrance Stop Southbound - - B 10.2 Eastbound - - A 7.5 Wheelwright/Entrance Stop Westbound - - A 8.7 Southbound - - A 7.2 As shown in the table, the intersection of SR-3/Lakeland Drive may have LOS F eastbound delays with project traffic included. Delays at other intersections should be low in the LOS A to LOS B range. E. Left Turn Lane Warrants Left turn lanes are a means of providing necessary storage space for left turning vehicles at intersections. For this impact study, procedures described by WSDOT Design Manual (Figure 910-8a) were used to ascertain storage requirements on Lakeland Drive and on Wheelwright Street at the project entrances. By inspection a left turn lane would not be warranted at either location due to very low left turn movements from the major streets as well as generally low volumes on Lakeland Drive and Wheelwright Street. Refer to the appendix for a copy of the WSDOT warrant figure. I V. SUMMARY&MITIGATION The Allyn View Square project consists of 13 condominium units, 34,950 square feet of medical-dental office space, and 3,900 square feet of general office space in the Allyn area of Mason County. The project is located on the northeast corner of Lakeland Drive and Wheelwright Street. During the PM peak hour, the project may be expected to 1 generate 168 trips. Current delays for the key intersection are generally moderate. No Mason County or f WSDOT improvement projects were noted in the immediate vicinity. Transit service is provided along the SR-3 corridor. The project access on Lakeland Road has adequate i i 14 4 i sight distance, and the Wheelwright entrance will depend on the exact location along with the Wheelwright Street relocation. Future delays are shown in Table 3. With added project trips, some LOS F delays may be expected for the SR-3/Lakeland Drive intersection. Left turn lane warrants are not met for the project accesses. Based on the above, potential mitigations are as follows: Ensure adequate sight distance is provided for the Wheelwright Street project access. 15 ALLYN VIEW SQUARE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS APPENDIX 16 LEVEL OF SERVICE The following are excerpts from the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual- Transportation Research Board.Special Report 209. Quality of service requires quantitative measures to characterize operational conditions within a traffic stream. Level of service(LOS) is a quality measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream, generally in terms of such service measures as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions,and comfort and convenience. Six LOS are defined for each type of facility that has analysis procedures available. Letters designate each level, from A to F,with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F the worst. Each level of service represents a range of operating conditions and the driver's perception of those conditions. Level-of-Service definitions The following definitions generally define the various levels of service for arterials. Level of service A represents primarily free-flow operations at average travel speeds, usually about 90 percent of the free-flow speed for the arterial classification. Vehicles are seldom impeded in their ability to maneuver in the traffic stream. Delay at signalized intersections is minimal. Level of service B represents reasonably unimpeded operations at average travel speeds, usually about 70 percent of the free-flow speed for the arterial classification. The ability to maneuver in the traffic stream is only slightly restricted and delays are not bothersome. Level ofservice C represents stable operations;however, ability to maneuver and change lanes in midblock locations may be more restricted than in LOS B, and longer queues, adverse signal coordination, or both may contribute to lower average travel speeds of about 50 percent of the average free-flow speed for the arterial classification. Level of service D borders on a range in which small increases in flow may cause substantial increases in approach delay and hence decreases in arterial speed. LOS D may be due to adverse signal progression, inappropriate signal timing, high volumes, or some combination of these. Average travel speeds are about 40 percent of free-flow speed. Level of service E is characterized by significant delays and average travel speeds of one- third the free-flow speed or less. Such operations are caused by some combination of adverse progression,high signal density,high volumes, extensive delays at critical intersections, and inappropriate signal timing. 17 Level of service F characterizes arterial flow at extremely low speeds, from less than one- third to one-quarter of the free-flow speed. Intersection congestion is likely at critical signalized locations, with long delays and extensive queuing. These definitions are general and conceptual in nature, and they apply primarily to uninterrupted flow. Levels of service for interrupted flow facilities vary widely in terms of both the user's perception of service quality and the operational variables used to describe them. For each type of facility, levels of service are defined based on one or more operational parameters that best describe operating quality for the subject facility type. While the concept of level of service attempts to address a wide range of operating conditions, limitations on data collection and availability make it impractical to treat the full range of operational parameters for every type of facility. The parameters selected to define levels of service for each facility type are called "measures of effectiveness" or "MOE's",and represent available measures that best describe the quality of operation on the subject facility type. Each level of service represents a range of conditions, as defined by a range in the parameters given. Thus, a level of service is not a discrete condition, but rather a range of conditions for which boundaries are established. The following tables describe levels of service for signalized and unsignalized intersections. Level of service for signalized intersections is defined in terms of average control delay. Delay is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption and lost travel time, as well as time from movements at slower speeds and stops on intersection approaches as vehicles move up in queue position or slow down upstream of an intersection. Level of service for unsignalized intersections is determined by the computed or measured control delay and is determined for each minor movement. Signalized Intersections-Level of Service Control Delay per Level of Service Vehicle(sec) A <_10 B > 10 and <_20 C >20 and <_3 5 D >35 and s55 E >55 and :580 F >80 18 Unsignalized Intersections-Level of Service Average Total Delay Level of Service per Vehicle (sec) A <_10 B > 10 and <_15 C > 15 and <_25 D >25 and 535 E >35 and _<50 F >50 As described in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, level of service breakpoints for all- way stop controlled (AWSC) intersections are somewhat different than the criteria used for signalized intersections. The primary reason for this difference is that drivers expect different levels of performance from distinct kinds of transportation facilities. The expectation is that a signalized intersection is designed to carry higher traffic volumes than an AWSC intersection. Thus a higher level of control delay is acceptable at a signalized intersection for the same level of service. AWSC Intersections-Level of Service Average Total Delay Level of Service per Vehicle (sec) A <_10 B > 10 and <_15 C > 15 and 1525 D >25 and <_35 E >35 and 1550 F >50 19 Summary of Trip Generation Calculation For 13 Dwelling Units of Residential Condominium / Townhouse November 28, 2007 Average Standard Adjustment Driveway Rate Deviation Factor Volume Avg. Weekday 2-Way Volume 5.86 3.09 1.00 76 7-9 AM Peak Hour Enter 0.07 0.00 1.00 .1 7-9 AM Peak Hour Exit 0.37 0.00 1.00 5 7-9 AM Peak Hour Total 0.44 0.69 1.00 6 4-6 PM Peak Hour Enter 0.35 0.00 1.00 5 4-6 PM Peak Hour Exit_ 0.17 0.00 1.00 2 4-6 PM Peak Hour Total 0.52 0.75 1.00 7 AM Pk Hr, Generator, Enter 0.08 0.00 1.00 1 AM Pk Hr, Generator, Exit- 0.36 0.00 1.00 5 AM Pk Hr, Generator, Total 0.44 0.68 1.00 6 PM Pk Hr, Generator, Enter 0.33 0.00 1.00 4 PM Pk Hr, Generator, Exit 0.19 0.00 1.00 2 PM Pk Hr, Generator, Total 0.52 0.75 1.00 .7 Saturday 2-hay Volume 5.67 3. 10 1.00 74 Saturday Peak Hour Enter 0.25 0.00 1.00 3 Saturday Peak Hour Exit 0.22 0.00 1.00 3 Saturday Peak Hour Total 0.47 0.71 1.00 6 Sunday 2-Way Volume 4.84 2.71 1.00 63 Sunday Peak Hour Enter 0.22 0.00 1.00 3 Sunday Peak Hour Exit 0.23 0.00 1.00 3 Sunday Peak Hour Total 0.45 0.70 1.00 6 Note: A zero indicates no data available. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 7th Edition, 2003. TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS Summary of Trip Generation Calculation For 34.95 Th.Gr.Sq.Ft. of Medical-Dental Office Building November 28, 2007 Average Standard Adjustment Driveway Rate Deviation Factor Volume Avg. Weekday 2-Way Volume 34.74 0.00 1.00 1214 7-9 AM Peak Hour Enter 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 69 7-9 AM Peak Hour Exit 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 18 7-9 AM Peak Hour Total 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 27 4-6 PM Peak Hour Enter 0.92 0.00 1.00 32 4-6 PM Peak Hour Exit 2.48 0.00 1.00 87 4-6 PM Peak Hour Total 3.39 0.00 1.00 119 AM Pk Hr, Generator, Enter 2.40 0.00 1.00 84 AM Pk Hr, Generator, Exit 1.24 0.00 1.00 43 AM Pk Hr, Generator, Total 3.64 0.00 1.00 127 PM Pk Hr, Generator, Enter 1.78 0.00 1.00 62 PM Pk Hr, Generator, Exit 2.67 0.00 1.00 93 PM Pk Hr, Generator, Total 4.44 0.00 1.00 155 Saturday 2-Way Volume 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 Saturday Peak Hour Enter 0.00 0.00 .1.00 0 Saturday Peak Hour Exit 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 Saturday Peak Hour Total 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 Sunday 2-Way Volume 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 Sunday Peak Hour Enter 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 Sunday Peak Hour Exit 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 Sunday Peak Hour Total 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 Note: A zero indicates no data available. The above rates were calculated from these equations: 24-Hr. 2-Way Volume: T = 40.89(X) + -214.97, R^2 = 0.9 7-9 AM Peak Hr. Total: 0 R^2 = 0 , 0 Enter, 0 Exit 4-6 PM Peak Hr. Total: LN(T) _ .93LN(X) + 1.47 R^2 = 0.77 , 0.27 Enter, 0.73 Exit AM Gen Pk Hr. Total: T = 3.49(X) + 5.25 R^2 = 0.85 , 0.66 Enter, 0.34 Exit PM Gen Pk Hr. Total: T = 4.43(X) + .48 R^2 = 0.92 , 0.4 Enter, 0. 6 Exit Sat. 2-Way Volume: 0, R^2 = 0 Sat. Pk Hr. Total: 0 R^2 = 0 , 0 Enter, 0 Exit Sun. 2-Way Volume: 0, R^2 = 0 Sun. Pk Hr. Total: 0 R^2 = 0 , 0 Enter, 0 Exit Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 7th Edition, 2003. TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS Summary of Trip Generation Calculation For 3.9 Th.Gr.Sq.Ft. of General Office Building November 28, 2007 Average Standard Adjustment Driveway Rate Deviation Factor Volume Avg. Weekday 2-Way Volume 11.01 6.13 .1.00 43 7-9 AM Peak Hour Enter 1.36 0.00 1.00 5 7-9 AM Peak Hour Exit 0.19 0.00 1.00 1 7-9 AM Peak Hour Total 1.55 1.39 1.00 6 4-6 PM Peak Hour Enter 0.25 0.00 1.00 1 4-6 PM Peak Hour Exit 1.24 0.00 1.00 5 4-6 PM Peak Hour Total 1.49 1.37 1.00 6 AM Pk Hr, Generator, Enter 1.36 0.00 1.00 5 AM Pk Hr, Generator, Exit 0.19 0.00 1.00 1 AM Pk Hr, Generator, Total 1.55 1.39 1.00 6 PM Pk Hr, Generator, Enter 0.25 0.00 1.00 1 PM Pk Hr, Generator, Exit 1.24 0.00 1.00 5 PM Pk Hr, Generator, Total 1.49 1.37 1.00 6 Saturday 2-Way Volume 2.37 2.08 1.00 9 Saturday Peak Hour Enter 0.22 0.00 1.00 1 Saturday Peak Hour Exit 0. 19 0.00 1.00 1 Saturday Peak Hour Total 0.41 0.68 1.00 2 Sunday 2-Way Volume 0. 98 1.29 1.00 4 Sunday Peak Hour Enter 0.08 0.00 1.00 0 Sunday Peak Hour Exit 0.06 0.00 1.00 0 Sunday Peak Hour Total. 0. 14 0.38 1.00 1 Note: A zero indicates no data available. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 7th Edition, 2003. TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS STATE OF WASHINGTON - DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION T R I P S S Y S T E M ANNUAL TRAFFIC REPORT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME STATE ---------------------------------- ROUTE FUNCT TRUCK PERCENTAGES 2003 2004 2005 2006 STATE ROUTE MILEPOST LOCATION COUPLET CLASS SNGL DBL TRIPLE TOTAL UNITS UNITS UNITS UNITS 003 008.99 AFTER JCT AGATE RD 1 8400 8800* 8700 8800 003 010.76 AFTER JCT TICKERING RD 1 6400 6800* 6800 6800 003 020.32 BEFORE JCT GRAPEVIEW LOOP RD 1 5900* 6000 6000 6700* 003 020.32 AFTER JCT GRAPEVIEW LOOP RD 1 7800* 7900 7900 8600* 003 021.24 BEFORE JCT E NORTH BAY RD WYE CONN 1 9100 9600* 9500 4800* 2.5� PU YEA$ 003 023.26 BEFORE JCT SR 302-VICTOR CUTOFF RD 1 8100* 8300 8500 9000* 003 023.26 AFTER JCT SR 302-VICTOR CUTOFF RD 1 9800* 10000 10000 10000* 003 024.91 BEFORE JCT SR 106 1 11000 12000* 12000 13000 003 024.95 AFTER JCT SR 106 WYE CONN 1 15000 16000* 17000 17000 003 026.34 BEFORE JCT BELFAIR ST 1 19000* 19000* 19000 19000 003 026.38 AFTER JCT SR 300 1 13000* 14000* 14000 14000* 003 027.08 SGN ENT BELFAIR 1 17000* 003 027.96 BEFORE JCT BELFAIR YARD RD 1 16000* 16000 17000 17000 003 028.68 AT ADC LOCATION R089 1 06 01 08 16000* 17000* 17000* 17000+ 003 030.51 BEFORE JCT IMPERIAL WAY 1 14000* 15000 15000 15000 003 030.51 AFTER JCT IMPERIAL WAY 1 15000* 15000 16000 16000 003 032.60 AFTER JCT SUNNYSLOPE RD 1 18000* 18000 19000 19000 003 036.07 BEFORE RAMP SR 304 1 73000* 73000 73000 003 036.59 AT SR 304 WB 1 47000* 47000 47000 003 036.68 AFTER RAMP SR 304 1 49000* 48000 49000 003 037.31 AT W WERNER RD 1 38000* 38000 38000 003 037.86 BEFORE RAMP AUTO CENTER WAY 1 42000* 44000* 44000 44000 003 038.29 AT SR 310-KITSAP WY BRIDGE 1 39000* 38000 39000 003 038.75 AFTER RAMP SR 310 1 55000* 56000* 56000 56000 003 042.93 BEFORE RAMP NEWBERRY HILL RD 1 51000 54000* 54000 54000 003 043.48 AT NEWBERRY HILL RD BRIDGE 1 39000* 40000 003 044.33 AT ADC LOCATION R050 1 05 02 08 42000* 43000* 43000* 43000+ 003 045.99 AFTER RAMP CLEAR CREEK RD 1 38000* 39000 39000 39000 * BASED ON ACTUAL COUNT + SOURCE OF TRUCK PERCENTAGES 65 'O j GOJI COJ1 CQn COn AAAA ly p0 a Aw�O (A 0 0 -4 CT C)Cn C, O O T O ,nt ( out K R in Total 10 135 345 coWN JO OA tn(D46 w � � � o c 281 W 101 A00O -{,,T7 Right Thru Left i O W O-�cD N J A N-+CO-' o w I! co Cn 00 U1 AN V N W--wwoc -► i i Q do �r A vOo ANO AO W 00 4 O ..�.�.....�.�.._�.�.�._....� l��__.._._ .��...�. G)CD 01 O N N O W W O O O.Si 7C mm NCD dNi -=lo O Z C N v ; `G A i , H = �" F. wv0 sddd AdW�do2 - vb �_ 41 IWI N 90 00 w v ' ' OFJO Al �, W OO ANO� 6. 0 rIj � U�o � Y H9 _ s OD .tl CD mwi od cdii:po JdN A wd- -ao ! o V (A 0 Q W w , Wppm � 0) w w Oo CDOON- WOO CO CD CO CO O� �W � n C f n i I A W w A� � I.-`NI J V NJA w A— (DA co A1Oil I I bI N Zli L T iS LL A V N W Js W A N w A W A A O�� f 7 N mr D• (D I L4 �EZ t Z i i _-{0 D i WWI ul In0 i wprn Cn0N-�N -*�->d0002 Zp Z Q � W aX J (D M' 00— a)C"Qn(p� (.n-v CD C)=1 00 O C: C) :3 C37 COj co N N N N 81 ) ro N L Qo DCA �00 U1 CJ1 N m -+V ODCD V J+-+0)-+CD W 4 Cfl Heath &Associates, Inc. 2214 Tacoma Road Puyallup, WA 98371 File Name : untitled3 Site Code : 00002879 Start Date : 8/15/2007 Page No : 2 i SR-3 LAKELAND DR - SR-3 LAKELAND DR Southbound Westbound Northbound EastboundApp _ Start Time Right Thru Left oral Right Thn, Left o al Right Thru Left[ Apal Right Thru Left p. gyp• Ina. Total Total Total _ Total Totall Peak Hour From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM-Peak 1 of 1 Intersection 04:15 PM Volume 96 497 5 598 8 4 5 17 6 340 16 362 13 3 52 68 1045 Percent 16.1 83.1 0.8 47.1 23.5 29.4 1.7 93.9 4.4 19.1 4.4 76.5 04:45 29 141 0 170 3 0 2 5 0 86 4 90 4 1 11 16 281 .Volume Peak Factor 0.930 High Int. 04:45 PM 04:30 PM 04:15 PM 05:00 PM Volume 29 141 0 170 3 3 2 8 1 100 3 104 2 2 17 21 Peak Factor 0.879 0.531 0.870 0.810 ! out In Total 400 598 I 99B 96 497 5 Right Thru Left t I r0 N �O North � '0 o Z c ID 2 rT c—/ 115/2007 4:15:00 PM 4— 51 Y ~ 15/2007 5:00:00 g g(r UnsNfted L �m T r' Left Thru Right L_Tj6L34kL_ fiJ 4+ f 515 362 r-a-7-7] Out In Total Mol Ul )no l oZ a ZL ` 14 !a N41 Wo-I 4J 1 �' n a n n PVd 00:S4:S LOOZ/4L Hd 00:0017 LOOZIG WO ~C�1 NI -Z a ° 4uwv �� I 1 xN w- ...........-----._....-----— :-- ..... ._....._..._...._ 1 1 ! ! 1 1 I UaZ ti41 Wr!8 i IIII s 10 lz i EZZ :] Lt L� R1o1 ul inO I i 9'0 L'b£ £-0 L'L 0.0 L'L 0'£ 8-£9 9•Z S Z 0'0 9'0 %lelol 99£ II9'L L•L6 9*0 0'09 0'0 0'09 L'9 9'06 Vt? 8'L8 0'0 Z'9L %Lpjddy Z LZ L L b 0 4 L L L6 L 6 6 0 Z 18101 pueJE) L9 L___ 0 b9 _L__ V 0 £ 9 In Z 0 L lelol 8£ 0 K L Z 0 0 0 OZ L 0 0 �- 0 Wd 94:90 99 0 17Z 0 Z 0 L £ 62 L L 0 0 VJd 0£�90 Z£ 0 ZL 0 0 0 L L LL L 0 0 0 Wd 9V90 Lb 0 K 0 0 0 L Z ZZ 0 L 0 L Wd 00:90 66 L Z £9 0 0 0 L 9 ti i.L 9 L 0 L lelol £9 L 6L 0 0 0 0 Z LZ £ 0 0 L Wd 917:170 69 0 LL 0 0 0 0 L 8£ L Z 0 0 Wd 0£:40 Zb 0 LL 0 0 0 0 L 9L Z b 0 0 Wd 9V170 9V L of 0 0 0 l L L£ 0 L 0 0 Wd 00170 o L o'L o L u o L o-i_. o-L o•L d� o'L 0'L o•L o'L soloed lelol 7ul llel - ►UUl- 14 !i1 1ja1 nju 14 'ai 13e1 ��41 l4- !a l)al _ n�yl lush auall llelg -pun0q;se3 — punogyPJON puno4p9M punog4lnoS - 1S(]Nwl3\llfl ali 1HVi JM133HM _ 1S OMdl3>fVl .,_ _-Ml 1HJRIAMA pal;iysun-peluud s noi� __ b : ON abed LOOZ/5 t/e ale0 lialS 6L8Z0000 : 9pOO 91!S Epall!lun : aweN alit t/-C96 dM `dnlleAnd peOd eWOOel KZZ •Oul `SGIeIOOSSV 12 gle9H Heath & Associates, Inc. 2214 Tacoma Road Puyallup, WA 98371 File Name : untitled3 Site Cade : 00002879 Start Date : 8/15/2007 Page No : 2 WHEELWRIGHT RD LAKELAND ST WHEELWRIGHT RD LAKELAND ST Southbound Westbound Northbound _ Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left App- Right Thru Left App' Right Thru Left App' Right Thru Left App Int. Total Total Total _ T_otal Total Peak Hour From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM-Peak 1 of 1 Intersection 04:00 PM Volume 1 0 7 8 6 114 5 125 1 0 0 1 0 63 2 65 199 Percent 12.5 0.0 87.5 4.8 91.2 4.0 100. 0.0 0.0 0.0 96.9 3.1 04:30 0 0 2 2 1 38 1 40 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 17 59 Volume Peak Factor 0.843 High Int. 04:15 PM 04:30 PM 04:00 PM 04:45 PM Volume 0 0 4 4 1 38 1 40 1 0 0 1 0 19 1 20 Peak Factor 0.500 0.781 0.250 0.813 WHEELWRIGHT RU I Out in Total + © t1 16 II 11 01 7 [ Ri ht Thru Left I I ...._......... _____.___._.-----_-. I�I T - .-C7_.� 4�— North �— � r g c 2-4 15/20074:00:00 PM ~ 1612007 4:45:00 PM 2 a v �Unshifted 1 N l f1 T F' Left Thru Right 0 0 1 t Out In Total l TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst Intersection SR-3&Lakeland Dr Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed Analysis Year na! sis Time Period Project Description EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES East/West Street: Lakeland Drive North/South Street: SR-3 Intersection Orientation: North-South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Souhbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 16 340 6 5 497 96 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly Flow Rate,HFR 18 390 6 5 564 109 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 i I Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 5 4 8 52 3 13 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.81 0.81 0.81 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 9 7 15 64 3 16 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade{%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 0 Configuration LT R LTR Delay,Queue Len th and Level of Service Approach NB SIB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LT R LTR i (vph) 18 5 16 15 83 C(m)(vph) 927 1174 195 660 214 vlc 0.02 0.00 0.08 0.02 0.39 95%queue length 0.06 0.01 0.27 0.07 1.72 Control Delay 9.0 8.1 25.1 10.6 32.1 LOS A A D B D Approach Delay -- -- 18.1 32.1 pproach LOS -- -- C D Rights Reserved NC'SUI00rM Copyright V 2003 University or Florida.All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 f Vcmion 4.1 f TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst Intersection SR-3&Lakeland Dr Agency/Co, Jurisdiction Date Performed Analysis Year Analysis Time Period Project Description 2009 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITHOUT PROJECT East/West Street: Lakeland Drive North/South Street: SR-3 Intersection Orientation: North-South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume 17 357 6 5 522 101 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 19 410 6 5 593 114 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - -- 0 — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 1 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 5 4 8 55 3 14 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.81 0.81 0.81 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 9 7 15 67 3 17 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade(%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 0 Configuration LT R LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LT R LTR (vph) 19 5 16 15 87 C(m) (vph) 901 1154 179 643 197 /c 0.02 0.00 0.09 0.02 0.44 95%queue length 0.06 0.01 0.29 0,07 2.06 Control Delay 9.1 8.4 27.1 10.7 37.0 LOS A A D B E Approach Delay 192 37.0 Approach LOS C E Rights Reserved HCS2000TM Copyright 4D 2003 University of Florida,AIt Rights Reserved Version 4.1 f Version 4.1 f TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General information Site Information Analyst Intersection SR-3 8 Lakeland Dr Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed Analysis Year Analysis Time Period Project Description 2009 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITH PROJECT East/West Street: Lakeland Drive lNorthlSouth Street: SR-3 Intersection Orientation: North-South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Ad'ustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 37 357 6 5 522 115 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 42 410 6 1 5 593 130 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- 1 0 - - Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 5 4 8 75 3 44 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.53 0.53 0,53 0.81 0.81 0.81 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 9 7 15 92 3 54 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade(%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 0 Configuration LT R LTR Delay,Queue Length,and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LT R LTR (vph) 42 5 16 15 149 C(m)(vph) 889 1154 148 643 202 v/c 0.05 0.00 0.11 0.02 0.74 95%queue length 0.15 0.01 0.36 0.07 4.86 Control Delay 9.3 8.1 32.3 10.7 60.7 LOS A A D Q F Approach Delay 21.6 60.7 Approach LOS C F Rights Reserved FfC:S2000T^t Copyright sC 2003 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Verson 4.1 d version 4.1 d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site information Wheelwright Analyst Intersection Lakeland St&St n Agency/Co. diction Date Performed Analysis Analysis Time Period al Year Project Description EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES East/West Street: Lakeland Drive North/South Street: Wheelwright Street Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 2 63 0 5 114 6 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.78 0.78 0.76 Hourly Flow Rate(veh/h) 2 77 0 6 146 7 Proportion of heavy 0 __ 0 -- vehicles,PHV Median type Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR U stream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 0 0 1 7 0 1 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.50 0.50 0.50 Hourly Flow Rate(veh/h) 0 0 4 14 0 2 Proportion of heavy 0 0 0 0 0 0 vehicles,PHv Percent grade(%) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Control Delay,Queue Len th, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume, v(vph) 2 6 4 16 Capacity,c,,,(vph) 1440 1535 990 727 /c ratio 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.02 Queue length(95%) 0.00 0.01 0.01 0,07 Control Delay(s/veh) 7.5 7.4 8.7 10.1 LOS A A A B Approach delay(s/veh) - - 8.7 10.1 Approach LOS - - A B I[C S2000T" Copyright?"2003 University of Florida.All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 f TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst Intersection Lakeland St& Wheelwright St Agency/Co. on Date Performed Analysis Year nal sis Time Period Project Description 2009 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITHOUT PROJECT EastlWest Street: Lakeland Drive North/South Street: Wheelwn ht Street Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 2 66 0 5 120 6 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.78 0.78 0.78 Hourly Flow Rate(veh/h) 2 81 0 6 153 7 Proportion of heavy 0 -- 0 - vehicles,PHV Median type Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR U stream Si nal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 0 0 1 7 0 1 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.50 0.50 0.50 Hourly Flow Rate(veh/h) 0 0 4 14 0 2 Proportion of heavy 0 0 0 0 0 0 ehicles, PHV Percent grade(%) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Control Delay, Queue Len th, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume,v(vph) 2 6 4 16 Capacity,cm(vph) 1432 1529 985 716 v/c ratio 0.00 0.00 0,00 a02 Queue length(95%) 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.07 Control Delay(s/veh) 7.5 7.4 8.7 10.1 LOS A A A B Approach delay(s/veh) - -- 8.7 10.1 Approach LOS — A B !lC;S?IX1oT� Copyti_ht"2003 University of Florida.All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 f TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information nal st Intersection Lakeland St& Wheelwright Agency/Co. Jurisdiction St Date Performed Analysis Year nal sis Time Periad Project Description 2009 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITH PROJECT EastNVest Street: Lakeland Drive North/South Street: Wheelwright Street Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period hrs : 0,25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 14 81 0 5 143 6 Peak-hour factor,PHF 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.78 0.78 0.78 Hourly Flow Rate(veh/h) 17 99 0 6 183 7 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 0 - - 0 Median type Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 0 0 1 7 0 18 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.50 0.50 0.50 Hourly Flow Rate(veh/h) 0 0 4 14 0 36 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent grade(%) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Control Delay, Queue Len th, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR olume,v(vph) 17 6 4 50 Capacity, cR,(vph) 1396 1507 962 773 /c ratio 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.06 Queue length(95%) 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.21 Control Delay(s/veh) 7.6 7.4 8.8 10.0 LOS A A A A pproach delay(s/veh) - - 8.8 10.0 pproach LOS - A A NCS200011+ Copyrigltl k9 2003 Univcisity of Florida,All Rights Rescrved Vsrnon I I cl TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst Intersection Lakeland Dr& S Entrance Agency/Go. Jurisdiction Date Performed 111712008 Analysis Year Analysis Time Period Project Description 2009 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WfTH PROJECT East/West Street: Lakeland Drive North/South Street: South Entrance Intersection Orientation: East-West Stud Period hrs : 0.25 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume veh/h 15 74 0 0 121 34 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate(veh/h) 16 1 82 0 0 1 134 37 Proportion of heavy 0 __ _ 0 -- vehicles, PHv Median type Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 0 0 0 50 0 23 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0,90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate(veh/h) 0 0 0 55 0 25 Proportion of heavy 0 0 0 0 0 0 vehicles, PHv Percent grade(%) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Control Delay,Queue Len th, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR Volume,v(vph) 16 80 Capacity, cR,(vph) 1418 767 /c ratio 0.01 0.10 Queue length (95%) 0.03 0.35 Control Delay(s/veh) 7,6 10.2 LO S A B Approach delay(s/veh) - 10.2 Approach LOS - B yCS206()T*' Copyright 0 2003 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved vcrsion 4,1 d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst Intersection Wheelwright& W Ent Agency/Co, Jurisdiction Date Performed 111712008 Analysis Year Analysis Time Period Project Description 2009 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITH PROJECT East/West Street: West Entrance North/South Street: Wheelwright Street Intersection Orientation: North-South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 8 12 7 8 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 8 13 7 8 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- 0 — - Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 1 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 17 0 10 0 0 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0,90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 18 0 11 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade(%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay,Queue Length,and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 7 29 C(m) (vph) 1608 1012 Ic 0.00 0.03 95%queue length 0.01 0.09 Control Delay 7.2 8.7 LOS A A Approach Delay - 8.7 Approach LOS - - A Rights Reserved 11CS2000TM Copyright©2003 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved version.1 1" Version 4,1d 1200 v%E U ��/ Below curve, storage not 1100 needsdfor Capeft Above curve, further ens"Is 1000 recommended. OW 800 .^- v 700 6W �MPt'►�� 500 µpH t21 400 80 MPH t21 . 300 25 20 1s 10 s 0 %Total DWTurning Left(eftle turning movement) (1) DHV is total volume from both directions. (2) Speeds are posted speeds. Left-Turn Storage Guidelines (Two-Lane, Unsignalized) Figure 910-$a Design Manual M 22-01 Intersections At Grade January 2006 Page 910-19 MASON COUNTY PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST FORM 426 W. Cedar Street, PO Box 186, Shelton WA 98584 PHONE (360) 427-9670 FAX (360) 427-7798 Requestors name:t� � Date: , i 0c? Company Representing: Mail Fax 1 Pickup View Address: l t M Phone: , �, � `71 5 City, State, Zip: g 1 t o Fax: g--' Parcel 9: _ Parcel Address: -a ao 50 �S cz� Owner/s, ervious owner: i Please provide records for the Following: Environmental Health Planning Dept. > _ Building Dept. Please specifically describe what records you are requesting. VA� oZDO5 - Q00LP3 5t amp- voo "7 - ***Please allow 5 business days for a response to your request. RCW 42.56.520 *** I agree to pay all copy charges pursuant to Mason County's fee schedule. RCW 42.56-120 certify the information obtained through this request will not be used for commercial purposes. RCW 42.56-070(9) Requestors Signature: Date: Official Use Only Five-day notice sent Date: Completion date / 0 f ! DG Completed by ��� Ext.:,oT � 'ee's due $ Z. �a Records were Mailed nFaxed Viewed Picked up Notes1f �J-� MASON COUNTY PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST FORM 426 W. Cedar Street, PO Box 186, Shelton WA 98584 PHONE (360) 427-9670 FAX (360) 427-7798 Requestors name: Date: S� Company Representing: Mail Fax Pickup View Address: OVA-P PW I�JA OA14-f Phone: City, State, Zip; �, Fax: Parcel #: IParcel Address: I'aaao - r2v - Owner: Pervious owner: Please provide records for the Following: Environmental Health Planning Dept. ?<11, Building Dept. Please specifically describe what records you are requesting. ***Please allow 5 business days for a response to your request. RCW 42.56.520 *** I agree to pay all copy charges pursuant to Mason County's fee schedule. RCW 42.56-120 certify the information obtained through this request will not be used for commercial purposes. RCW 42.56-070(9) Requestors Signature: LU44WDate: Official Use Only Five-day notice sent Date: Completion date /�/ 0 Completed by d Ext..FJ� ee's due $ -- ecords were aile Faxed Viewed Picked up Notes / J' MASON COUNTY PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST FORM 426 W. Cedar Street, PO Box 186, Shelton WA 98584 PHONE (360) 427-9670 FAX (360) 427-7798 Requestors name , Date: Company Representing: Mail Fax Pickup View Address: -qn t/I A In WA w-A,* Phone / 2- 5( City, State, Zip: /0 Fax: Parcel #: I�a aO ��� ��� I Parcel Address: Owner: ©�� Perv'ous owner Please provide records for the Following: Environmental Health Planning Dept. > Building Dept. Please specifically describe what records you are requesting. Af— 001 - 000 L1 2- ***Please allow 5 business days for a response to your request. RCW 42.56.520 *** I agree to pay all copy charges pursuant to Mason County's fee schedule. RCW 42.56-120 I certify the information obtained through this request will not be used for commercial purposes. RCW 42.56-070(9) F Requestors Signature: Date: Official Use Only Five-day notice sent Date: Completion date /L)q Completed by f Cz Ext.: / ee's due $ f--5) Records were ailed Faxed Viewed Picked up Notes includes movements at slower speeds and stops on intersection approaches as vehicles move up in queue position or slow down upstream of an intersection. Aside from the overall quantity of traffic,three specific factors influence signalized intersection LOS. These include the type of signal operation provided,the signal phasing pattern, and the specific allocation of green time. The methodology for determining the LOS at unsignalized intersections strives to determine the potential capacities for the various vehicle movements and ultimately determines the average total delay for each movement. Potential Capacity represents the number of additional vehicles that could effectively utilize a particular movement, which is essentially the equivalent of the difference between the movement capacity and the existing movement volume. Total delay is described as the elapsed time from when a vehicle stops at the end of a queue until the vehicle departs from the stop line. Average total delay is simply the mean total delay over the entire stream. A number of factors influence potentiar capacity and total delay including the availability/usefulness of gaps. The range for intersection level of service is LOS A to LOS F with the former indicating the best operating conditions with low control delays and the latter indicating the worst conditions with heavy control delays. Detailed descriptions of intersection LOS are given in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. LOS results for the key intersections can be found in Table 1. Level of service calculations were made through the use of the automated intersection analysis program known as HCS-2000. This program follows Chapter 17 procedures of the HCM for unsignalized inter-section analysis. TABLE 1 Existing Level of Service Delays Given In Seconds Per Vehicle Intersection Control Geometry LOS Delay SR-3/Lakeland Dr Stop Westbound C 18.1 Eastbound D 32.1 Northbound A 9.0 Southbound A 8.1 Lakeland/Wheelwright Stop Northbound A 8.7 Southbound B 10.1 Eastbound A 7.5 Westbound A 7.4 As shown in the table, delays are generally mild to moderate for the existing conditions, with delays in the LOS A to LOS D range. 8 E. Non-Motorist Traffic Field observations during the PM peak hour indicate a fair amount of pedestrian activity at Wheelwright and Lakeland. Based on the location and nature of the proposed development, minor pedestrian and bicycle traffic may be expected along the site frontages. No significant conflicts between motorist and non-motorist traffic(i.e. vehicle/pedestrian and vehicle/bicycle) are anticipated near the site or at the outlying intersections. Off-site mitigation for non-motorized trips would not likely be required for this project. F. Transit Service A review of the Mason County Transportation Authority regional bus schedule indicates that the nearest transit service line is provided along SR-3. According to published bus schedules, MTA Route 1 runs from Shelton to Belfair via SR-3 with service in Allyn roughly between 7:00 AM and 7:30 PM. Despite the transit availability,no reductions to trip generation from transit service were made for the sake of conservatism. G. Sight Distance at Access Driveways Examinations of the site access were made to determine whether adequate entering and stopping sight distance is provided for inbound and outbound project traffic. According to the AASHTO "Green Book", a minimum entering sight distance for a 25 mph design speed would be 280 feet, and for a 30 mph design speed would be 335 feet. Based on a field review,this minimum is met for the Lakeland Drive access. Available sight distance for the access on Wheelwright Street depends on the exact location of the project entrance and the relocation of Wheelwright. There is a horizontal curve to the north as the road transitions to Sellegren Road. The placement of the project access on Wheelwright in concert with the Wheelwright relocation must be such that adequate sight distance minimums are met. IV FORECASTED TRAFFIC DEMAND A. Trip Generation Trip generation is used to determine the magnitude of project impacts on the surrounding street system. The building users are assumed based on expected end users and therefore is somewhat speculative. The trip generation data for the project was taken from the Institute of Transportation Engineer's publication Trip Generation, Seventh Edition. The land uses chosen for this project are Residential Condominium/Townhouse(LUC 230), Medical-Dental Office Building(LUC 720), and General Office Building (LUC 710). A summary of this data is given in Table 2 on the following page. Included are average daily traffic and AM/PM peak hour volumes. 9 TABLE 2 Trip Generation Volumes 13 Units 34,950 ft 3,900 ft Condos Med-Dent Off Gen Office Total AWDT 76 1214 43 1333 AM Peak Enter 1 69 5 75 AM Peak Exit 5 18 1 24 AM Total 6 87 6 99 PM Peak Enter 5 32 1 38 PM Peak Exit 2 87 5 94 PM Total 7 119 6 132 B. Trip Assignment and Distribution The destination and origination of future project traffic determines how vehicles at the site driveways and nearby major intersections will distribute to and from outlying areas. The trip assignment and distribution scheme developed for this project was used to determine the specific paths of travel for traffic into and out of the site via Wheelwright Street and Lakeland Drive. Primary trips generated by the project are expected to follow the general trip pattern as shown in Figure 4 on the following page. Distribution percentages were based on estimated market conditions for the proposed land usage serving Allyn. C. Future Traffic Volumes With and Without the Project The owners of the project anticipate a completion date for the build out of this project by 2009. Future 2009 traffic volumes without the project were derived by applying a 2.5 percent annual growth rate to the volumes of Figure 3. This rate was calculated from the 2006 WSDOT Annual Traffic Report, showing 2.5 percent on SR-3 near the North Bay Wye connection. Figure 5 represents 2009 traffic without the project while Figure 6 represents 2009 traffic with the project built. D. Future LOS With and Without the Project A level of service analysis was next made of the peak hour volumes with project generated trips applied. This analysis again used the HCS-2000 intersection analysis program. Level of service results and accompanying approach delays are shown in Table 3. These results reflect 2009 future traffic conditions with and without project trips added to the street system. 10 s� �y 1 �19 N STOP t Fof 24 20% O 10 10% GO% 4 O 0 7 9j Lo+--O �y SITE 0—► sTOP *--o '"ttro-° off, 4 O 0 24 O O loj 10+-0 13-10- STOP -32 ' S t ro*. —0 � 0 0 0 � 332 19 13- "I Ll#—b 0--* STOP -4-0 3 10% AUSTIN RD PM PEAK HOUR TRIP5 INBOUND: 38 VPH OUTBOUND: 94 VPH ALLYN VIEW SQUARE HEATH & ASSOCIATES, INC TRIP DISTRIBUTION t ASSIGNMENT Transportation and Civil Engineering FIGURE 4 s� N 101 522 5 55j L*4-8 �y SITE 3--* STOP ♦-a � 14--* t -5 17 357 G 1 0 7 2J G. GG--► STOP -4--120 '� t r�5 � O 0 1 3 ALJSrIN RD ALLYN VIEW SQUARE HEATH & ASSOCIATES, INC 2009 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITHOUT PROJECT Transportation and Civil Engineering FIGURE 5 TABLE 3 Future 2009 Level of Service Delays given in seconds per vehicle Without Project With Protect Intersection Control Geometry LOS Delay LOS Delay SR-3/Lakeland Stop Westbound C 19.2 C 19.8 Eastbound E 37.0 E 43.0 Northbound A 9.1 A 9.1 Southbound A 8.1 A 8.1 Lakeland/Wheelwright Stop Northbound A 8.7 A 8.7 Southbound B 10.1 B 10.0 Eastbound A 7.5 A 7.6 Westbound A 7.4 A 7.4 Lakeland/Entrance Stop Southbound - - A 9.6 Eastbound - - A 7.5 Wheelwright/Entrance Stop Westbound - - A 8.7 Southbound - - A 7.2 As shown in the table, the intersection of SR-3/Lakeland Drive may have LOS E eastbound delays without or with project traffic included. Delays at other intersections should be low in the LOS A to LOS B range. E. Left Turn Lane Warrants Left turn lanes are a means of providing necessary storage space for left turning vehicles at intersections. For this impact study, procedures described by WSDOT Design Manual (Figure 910-8a) were used to ascertain storage requirements on Lakeland Drive and on Wheelwright Street at the project entrances. By inspection a left turn lane would not be warranted at either location due to very low left turn movements from the major streets as well as generally low volumes on Lakeland Drive and Wheelwright Street. Refer to the appendix for a copy of the WSDOT warrant figure. V. SUMMARY&MITIGATION The Allyn View Square project consists of 13 condominium units, 34,950 square feet of medical-dental office space, and 3,900 square feet of general office space in the Allyn area of Mason County. The project is located on the northeast corner of Lakeland Drive and Wheelwright Street. During the PM peak hour, the project may be expected to generate 132 trips. Current delays for the key intersection are generally moderate. No Mason County or WSDOT improvement projects were noted in the immediate vicinity. Transit service is provided along the SR-3 corridor. The project access on Lakeland Road has adequate 14 sight distance, and the Wheelwright entrance will depend on the exact location along with the Wheelwright Street relocation. Future delays are shown in Table 3. With added project trips, some LOS E delays may be expected for the SR-3/Lakeland Drive intersection. Left turn lane warrants are not met for the project accesses. Based on the above, potential mitigations are as follows: • Ensure adequate sight distance is provided for the Wheelwright Street project access. 15 ALLYN VIEW SQUARE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS APPENDIX 16 LEVEL OF SERVICE The following are excerpts from the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual- Transportation Research Board Special Report 209. Quality of service requires quantitative measures to characterize operational conditions within a traffic stream. Level of service (LOS) is a quality measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream, generally in terms of such service measures as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, and comfort and convenience. Six LOS are defined for each type of facility that has analysis procedures available. Letters designate each level, from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F the worst. Each level of service represents a range of operating conditions and the driver's perception of those conditions. Level-of-Service definitions The following definitions generally define the various levels of service for arterials. Level of service A represents primarily free-flow operations at average travel speeds, usually about 90 percent of the free-flow speed for the arterial classification. Vehicles are seldom impeded in their ability to maneuver in the traffic stream. Delay at signalized intersections is minimal. Level of service B represents reasonably unimpeded operations at average travel speeds, usually about 70 percent of the free-flow speed for the arterial classification. The ability to maneuver in the traffic stream is only slightly restricted and delays are not bothersome. Level of service C represents stable operations; however, ability to maneuver and change lanes in midblock locations may be more restricted than in LOS B, and longer queues, adverse signal coordination, or both may contribute to lower average travel speeds of about 50 percent of the average free-flow speed for the arterial classification. Level of service D borders on a range in which small increases in flow may cause substantial increases in approach delay and hence decreases in arterial speed. LOS D may be due to adverse signal progression, inappropriate signal timing, high volumes, or some combination of these. Average travel speeds are about 40 percent of free-flow speed. Level of service E is characterized by significant delays and average travel speeds of one- third the free-flow speed or less. Such operations are caused by some combination of adverse progression, high signal density, high volumes, extensive delays at critical intersections, and inappropriate signal timing. 17 Level of service F characterizes arterial flow at extremely low speeds, from less than one- third to one-quarter of the free-flow speed. Intersection congestion is likely at critical signalized locations, with long delays and extensive queuing. These definitions are general and conceptual in nature, and they apply primarily to uninterrupted flow. Levels of service for interrupted flow facilities vary widely in terms of both the user's perception of service quality and the operational variables used to describe them. For each type of facility, levels of service are defined based on one or more operational parameters that best describe operating quality for the subject facility type. While the concept of level of service attempts to address a wide range of operating conditions, limitations on data collection and availability make it impractical to treat the full range of operational parameters for every type of facility. The parameters selected to define levels of service for each facility type are called "measures of effectiveness" or "MOE's", and represent available measures that best describe the quality of operation on the subject facility type. Each level of service represents a range of conditions, as defined by a range in the parameters given. Thus, a level of service is not a discrete condition, but rather a range of conditions for which boundaries are established. The following tables describe levels of service for signalized and unsignalized intersections. Level of service for signalized intersections is defined in terms of average control delay. Delay is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption and lost travel time, as well as time from movements at slower speeds and stops on intersection approaches as vehicles move up in queue position or slow down upstream of an intersection. Level of service for unsignalized intersections is determined by the computed or measured control delay and is determined for each minor movement. Signalized Intersections -Level of Service Control Delay per Level of Service Vehicle (sec) A <_10 B > 10 and <_20 C >20and :535 D >35 and :555 E >55 and <_80 F >80 18 Unsignalized Intersections -Level of Service Average Total Delay Level of Service per Vehicle (sec) A <_10 B > 10 and <_15 C > 15 and <_25 D >25 and <_35 E >35 and 550 F >50 As described in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, level of service breakpoints for all- way stop controlled (AWSC) intersections are somewhat different than the criteria used for signalized intersections. The primary reason for this difference is that drivers expect different levels of performance from distinct kinds of transportation facilities. The expectation is that a signalized intersection is designed to carry higher traffic volumes than an AWSC intersection. Thus a higher level of control delay is acceptable at a signalized intersection for the same level of service. A WSC Intersections -Level of Service Average Total Delay Level of Service per Vehicle (sec) A <_10 B > 10 and <_15 C > 15 and <_25 D >25 and <_35 E >35 and :550 F >50 19 Summary of Trip Generation Calculation For 13 Dwelling Units of Residential Condominium / Townhouse November 28, 2007 Average Standard Adjustment Driveway Rate Deviation Factor Volume Avg. Weekday 2-Way Volume 5.86 3.09 1.00 76 7-9 AM Peak Hour Enter 0.07 0.00 1.00 1 7-9 AM Peak Hour Exit 0.37 0.00 1.00 5 7-9 AM Peak Hour Total 0.44 0. 69 1. 00 6 4-6 PM Peak Hour Enter 0.35 0.00 1.00 5 4-6 PM Peak Hour Exit 0.17 0.00 1.00 2 4-6 PM Peak Hour Total 0.52 0.75 1.00 7 AM Pk Hr, Generator, Enter 0.08 0.00 1. 00 1 AM Pk Hr, Generator, Exit 0.36 0.00 1. 00 5 AM Pk Hr, Generator, Total 0.44 0. 68 1.00 6 PM Pk Hr, Generator, Enter 0.33 0.00 1.00 4 PM Pk Hr, Generator, Exit 0.19 0.00 1.00 2 PM Pk Hr, Generator, Total 0.52 0.75 1. 00 7 Saturday 2-Way Volume 5.67 3. 10 1.00 74 Saturday Peak Hour Enter 0.25 0.00 1.00 3 Saturday Peak Hour Exit 0.22 0.00 1. 00 3 Saturday Peak Hour Total 0.47 0.71 1.00 6 Sunday 2-Way Volume 4 .84 2.71 1.00 63 Sunday Peak Hour Enter 0.22 0.00 1.00 3 Sunday Peak Hour Exit 0.23 0.0.0 1. 00 3 Sunday Peak Hour Total 0.45 0.70 1. 00 6 Note: A zero indicates no data available. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 7th Edition, 2003. TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS Summary of Trip Generation Calculation For 34 .95 Th.Gr.Sq.Ft. of Medical-Dental Office Building November 28, 2007 Average Standard Adjustment Driveway Rate Deviation Factor Volume Avg. Weekday 2-Way Volume 34 .74 0.00 1.00 1214 7-9 AM Peak Hour Enter 0. 00 0.00 1.00 0 69 7-9 AM Peak Hour Exit 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 18 7-9 AM Peak Hour Total 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 87 4-6 PM Peak Hour Enter 0. 92 0.00 1.00 32 4-6 PM Peak Hour Exit 2. 48 0.00 1.00 87 4-6 PM Peak Hour Total 3. 39 0.00 1.00 119 AM Pk Hr, Generator, Enter 2. 40 0.00 1.00 84 AM Pk Hr, Generator, Exit 1 .24 0.00 1.00 43 AM Pk Hr, Generator, Total 3. 64 0.00 1.00 127 PM Pk Hr, Generator, Enter 1. 78 0.00 1.00 62 PM Pk Hr, Generator, Exit 2. 67 0.00 1.00 93 PM Pk Hr, Generator, Total 4 . 44 0.00 1.00 155 Saturday 2-Way Volume 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 Saturday Peak Hour Enter 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 Saturday Peak Hour Exit 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 Saturday Peak Hour Total 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 Sunday 2-Way Volume 0. 00 0.00 1.00 0 Sunday Peak Hour Enter 0. 00 0.00 1.00 0 Sunday Peak Hour Exit 0. 00 0.00 1.00 0 Sunday Peak Hour Total 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 Note: A zero indicates no data available. The above rates were calculated from these equations: 24-Hr. 2-Way Volume: T = 40. 89 (X) + -214 . 97, R^2 = 0. 9 7-9 AM Peak Hr. Total: 0 R^2 = 0 0 Enter, 0 Exit 4-6 PM Peak Hr. Total: LN(T) _ . 93LN(X) + 1. 47 R^2 = 0.77 , 0.27 Enter, 0.73 Exit AM Gen Pk Hr. Total: T = 3. 49 (X) + 5.25 R^2 = 0.85 , 0.66 Enter, 0.34 Exit PM Gen Pk Hr. Total: T = 4. 43 (X) + . 48 R^2 = 0. 92 , 0.4 Enter, 0.6 Exit Sat. 2-Way Volume: 0, R^2 = 0 Sat. Pk Hr. Total: 0 R^2 = 0 , 0 Enter, 0 Exit Sun. 2-Way Volume: 0, R^2 = 0 Sun. Pk Hr. Total: 0 R^2 = 0 , 0 Enter, 0 Exit Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 7th Edition, 2003. TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS Summary of Trip Generation Calculation For 3.9 Th.Gr.Sq.Ft. of General Office Building November 28, 2007 Average Standard Adjustment Driveway Rate Deviation Factor Volume Avg. Weekday 2-Way Volume 11.01 6.13 1.00 43 7-9 AM Peak Hour Enter 1.36 0.00 1.00 5 7-9 AM Peak Hour Exit 0.19 0.00 1.00 1 7-9 AM Peak Hour Total 1.55 1.39 1.00 6 4-6 PM Peak Hour Enter 0.25 0.00 1.00 1 4-6 PM Peak Hour Exit 1.24 0.00 1.00 5 4-6 PM Peak Hour Total 1.49 1.37 1.00 6 AM Pk Hr, Generator, Enter 1.36 0.00 1.00 5 AM Pk Hr, Generator, Exit 0.19 0.00 1.00 1 AM Pk Hr, Generator, Total 1.55 1.39 1.00 6 PM Pk Hr, Generator, Enter 0.25 0.00 1.00 1 PM Pk Hr, Generator, Exit 1.24 0.00 1.00 5 PM Pk Hr, Generator, Total 1.49 1.37 1.00 6 Saturday 2-Way Volume 2.37 2.08 1.00 9 Saturday Peak Hour Enter 0.22 0.00 1.00 1 Saturday Peak Hour Exit 0.19 0.00 1.00 1 Saturday Peak Hour Total 0.41 0. 68 1.00 2 Sunday 2-Way Volume 0.98 1.29 1.00 4 Sunday Peak Hour Enter 0.08 0.00 1.00 0 Sunday Peak Hour Exit 0.06 0.00 1.00 0 Sunday Peak Hour Total 0.14 0.38 1.00 1 Note: A zero indicates no data available. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 7th Edition, 2003. TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS STATE OF WASHINGTON - DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION T R I P S S Y S T E M ANNUAL TRAFFIC REPORT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME STATE ---------------------------------- ROUTE FUNCT TRUCK PERCENTAGES 2003 2004 2005 2006 STATE ROUTE MILEPOST LOCATION COUPLET CLASS SNGL DEL TRIPLE TOTAL UNITS UNITS UNITS UNITS 003 008.99 AFTER JCT AGATE RD 1 8400 8800* 8700 8800 003 010.76 AFTER JCT PICKERING RD 1 6400 6800* 6800 6800 003 020.32 BEFORE JCT GRAPEVIEW LOOP RD 1 5900* 6000 6000 6700* 003 020.32 AFTER JCT GRAPEVIEW LOOP RD 1 7800* 7900 7900 8600* 003 021.24 BEFORE JCT E NORTH BAY RD WYE CONN 1 9100 9600* 9500 9800* YEAR 003 023.26 BEFORE JCT SR 302-VICTOR CUTOFF RD 1 8100* 8300 8500 9000* 003 023.26 AFTER JCT SR 302-VICTOR CUTOFF RD 1 9800* 10000 10000 10000* 003 024.91 BEFORE JCT SR 106 1 11000 12000* 12000 13000 003 024.95 AFTER JCT SR 106 WYE CONN 1 15000 16000* 17000 17000 003 026.34 BEFORE JCT BELFAIR ST 1 19000* 19000* 19000 19000 003 026.38 AFTER JCT SR 300 1 13000* 14000* 14000 14000* 003 027.08 SGN ENT BELFAIR 1 17000* 003 027.96 BEFORE JCT BELFAIR YARD RD 1 16000* 16000 17000 17000 003 028.68 AT ADC LOCATION R089 1 06 01 08 16000* 17000* 17000* 17000+ 003 030.51 BEFORE JCT IMPERIAL WAY 1 14000* 15000 15000 15000 003 030.51 AFTER JCT IMPERIAL WAY 1 15000* 15000 16000 16000 003 032.60 AFTER JCT SUNNYSLOPE RD 1 18000* 18000 19000 19000 003 036.07 BEFORE RAMP SR 304 1 73000* 73000 73000 003 036.59 AT SR 304 WE 1 47000* 47000 47000 003 036.68 AFTER RAMP SR 304 1 49000* 48000 49000 003 037.31 AT W WERNER RD 1 38000* 38000 38000 003 037.86 BEFORE RAMP AUTO CENTER WAY 1 42000* 44000* 44000 44000 003 038.29 AT SR 310-KITSAP WY BRIDGE 1 39000* 38000 39000 003 038.75 AFTER RAMP SR 310 1 55000* 56000* 56000 56000 003 042.93 BEFORE RAMP NEWBERRY HILL RD 1 51000 54000* 54000 54000 003 043.48 AT NEWBERRY HILL RD BRIDGE 1 39000* 40000 003 044.33 AT ADC LOCATION R050 1 05 02 08 42000* 43000* 43000* 43000+ 003 045.99 AFTER RAMP CLEAR CREEK RD 1 38000* 39000 39000 39000 * BASED ON ACTUAL COUNT + SOURCE OF TRUCK PERCENTAGES 65 '0O�� pppp pp alCCilC.i n pAAA SO p �- ?W O AW O- 0(� C)T O CT O �Cfl O Cfl O y c o O 0 m m m m ammmmag LAKELAND DR Out In Total ��V J -+N— N CONN�N-' 210 135L 3451 OD OD N J 0) CAA C1i CO A Co co 0 0 2. 281 61 101 rnwco a � �Q� Right Thru Left o w o j w N J A to 0 w '-► OC"00 CAA N V N W—"woobc j 1 a 0 0 -•� ? V 00 4Ila0 AO W A � O V QQ CA CO Cr—ON N O W W 000Z (Dm � NfD 9 � r� N N v+ N o �0 Zo V CT — +000 AO6 2O W� W OO n `< go 3 E DG 4 V M _ � A Z 1 _ W r O N 7 nci m2—► c —► -2 aoo � 00 N N A A V W O O N A N N 0 0 0 a Oo it 3 ��a �st '-� to o OdCD S t o C fl A O V 0 .9A w 0� - 6 Zr a � 0 N O Q =� n wwcn �rnrnmoo �'oo.iotp�- 0 C,) 00(DCD �comN� aornWocooc S a �r V V W 4044 0A,w W b.0-T 11 j� .Z1 VQl N41 V44 o N L S ll A Vc0 co AwAN 04W446�1: NA EF CQ 0 (D (D oA -��o CD Is1o1 ul 3�O CWACA CTON-+N -�-0000C j o Z Q O a O cD CD CD V.a N COS CA Cn cn COV C" cnw0000� O O C D C O N_N N N O N N N N O CD c) co Q- co V ONO CNO V V���tNO 0) t] J W Heath & Associates, Inc. 2214 Tacoma Road Puyallup, WA 98371 File Name : untitled3 Site Code : 00002879 Start Date : 8/15/2007 Page No : 2 SR-3 LAKELAND DR SR-3 LAKELAND DR Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left I App' Right Thru Left App' Right Thru Left App' Right Thru Left App. Int. Total Total Total Total Total Peak Hour From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM-Peak 1 of 1 Intersection 04:15 PM Volume 96 497 5 598 8 4 5 17 6 340 16 362 13 3 52 68 1045 Percent 16.1 83.1 0.8 47.1 23.5 29.4 1.7 93.9 4.4 19.1 4.4 76.5 04:45 29 141 0 170 3 0 2 5 0 86 4 90 4 1 11 16 281 Volume Peak Factor 0.930 High Int. 04:45 PM 04:30 PM 04:15 PM 05:00 PM Volume 29 141 0 170 3 3 2 8 1 100 3 104 2 2 17 21 Peak Factor 0.879 0.531 0.870 , 0.810 Out In Total 400 598 F 998 96 497 5 Right Thru Left A. NorthA c r—� 15/20074:15:00 PM —= ~ 15/2007 5:00:00 PM 2 A w L O tO ' °� Unahfted N W 4, T F+ Left Thru R' It 16 340 6 515 362 877 Out In Total Heath & Associates, Inc. 2214 Tacoma Road Puyallup, WA 98371 File Name : untitled3 Site Code : 00002879 Start Date : 8/15/2007 Page No : 1 Groups Printed-Unshifted WHEELWRIGHT RD LAKELAND ST WHEELWRIGHT RD LAKELAND ST Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Start Time Right I Thru Left Ri ht Thru Left Ri ht Thru I Left Right I Thru i Left Int.Total Factor 1.01 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.01 1.0 1.01 1.01 1.0 1.0 1.0 1 1.0 04:00 PM 0 0 1 0 31 1 1 0 0 0 10 1 45 04:15 PM 0 0 4 2 18 1 0 0 0 0 17 0 42 04:30 PM 0 0 2 1 38 1 0 0 0 0 17 0 59 04:45 PM 1 0 01 3 27 21 0 0 01 0 19 1 1 53 Total 1 0 71 6 114 51 1 0 0 1 0 63 21 199 05:00 PM 1 0 1 0 22 2 1 0 0 0 14 0 41 05:15 PM 0 0 0 1 17 1 1 0 0 0 12 0 32 05:30 PM 0 0 1 1 24 3 1 0 2 0 24 0 56 05:45 PM 0 0 0 1 20 0 0 0 2 1 14 0 38 Total 1 0 2 3 83 6 3 0 4 1 64 0 167 Grand Total 2 0 9 9 197 11 4 0 4 1 127 2 366 Apprch% 18.2 0.0 81.8 4.1 90.8 5.1 50.0 0.0 50.0 0.8 97.7 1.5 Total% 0.5 0.0 2.5 2.5 53.8 3.0 1.1 0.0 1.1 0.3 34.7 0.5 WHEELWRIGHT RD Out In Total 1t 11 22 2 0 9 Right Thru Left �' 1 �► i '� O F' N worth E PCII r-► /15/2007 4:00:00 PM 4 ~ /15/2007 5:45:00 PM 4 v N i Unshifted rr- o j W o V- Left Thru Right 40 1 4 12 S 20 Out In Total Heath & Associates, Inc. 2214 Tacoma Road Puyallup, WA 98371 File Name : untitled3 Site Code : 00002879 Start Date : 8/15/2007 Page No : 2 WHEELWRIGHT RD LAKELAND ST WHEELWRIGHT RD LAKELAND ST Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left App. Right Thru Left App' Right Thru Left App' Right Thru Left App. Int. Total Total Total Total Total Peak Hour From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM-Peak 1 of 1 Intersection 04:00 PM Volume 1 0 7 8 6 114 5 125 1 0 0 1 0 63 2 65 199 Percent 12.5 0.0 87.5 4.8 91.2 4.0 100. 0.0 0.0 0.0 96.9 3.1 04:30 0 0 2 2 1 38 1 40 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 17 59 Volume Peak Factor 0.843 High Int. 04:15 PM 04:30 PM 04:00 PM 04:45 PM Volume 0 0 4 4 1 38 1 40 1 0 0 1 0 19 1 20 Peak Factor 0.500 0.781 0.250 0.813 WHEELWRIGHT RD Out In Total ® 6 16 1 0 7 Right Thru Left �m 16 N T o0 North —? --m c `O t /15/2007 4:00:00 PM 1— S ~ 15/2007 4:45:00 PM a N n 107; Unshifted -q O N w T r Left Thru Ri ht 0 0 1 1 Out In Total TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst Intersection SR-3&Lakeland Dr Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed Analysis Year Analysis Time Period Project Description EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES East/West Street: Lakeland Drive North/South Street: SR-3 Intersection Orientation: North-South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 16 340 6 5 497 96 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 18 390 6 5 564 109 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR U stream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 5 4 8 52 3 13 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.53 a53 0.53 0.81 0.81 0.81 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 9 7 15 64 3 16 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade(%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 0 Configuration LT R LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LT R LTR (vph) 18 5 16 15 83 C(m)(vph) 927 1174 195 660 214 lc 0.02 0.00 0.08 0.02 0.39 5%queue length 0.06 0.01 0.27 0.07 1.72 Control Delay 9.0 8.1 25.1 10.6 32.1 LOS A A D B D Approach Delay - -- 18.1 32.1 pproach LOS - - C D Rights Reserved HCS200OTM Copyright's^2003 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.If Version 4.1 f TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst Intersection SR-3&Lakeland Dr Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed Analysis Year Analysis Time Period Project Description 2009 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITHOUT PROJECT East/West Street: Lakeland Drive North/South Street. SR-3 Intersection Orientation: North-South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 17 357 6 5 522 101 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 19 410 6 5 593 114 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 5 4 8 55 3 14 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.81 0.81 0.81 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 9 7 15 67 3 17 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade(%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 0 Configuration LT R LTR Delay,Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LT R LTR (vph) 19 5 16 15 87 C (m) (vph) 901 1154 179 643 197 lc 0.02 0.00 0.09 0.02 0.44 95%queue length 0.06 0.01 0.29 0.07 2.06 Control Delay 9.1 8.1 27.1 10.7 37.0 LOS A A D 8 E Approach Delay - - 19.2 37.0 pproach LOS - C E Rights Reserved HC S2000TM Copyright C 2003 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.If Version 4.If TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst Intersection SR-3& Lakeland Dr Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed Analysis Year Analysis Time Period Project Description 2009 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITH PROJECT East/West Street: Lakeland Drive North/South Street: SR-3 Intersection Orientation: North-South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 21 357 6 5 522 105 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.88 0.88 0.88 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 24 410 6 5 593 119 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 L -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 5 4 8 64 3 24 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.81 0.81 0.81 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 9 7 15 79 3 29 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade(%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 0 Configuration LT R LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LT R LTR (vph) 24 5 16 15 111 C (m) (vph) 897 1154 171 643 201 /c 0.03 0.00 0.09 0.02 0.55 95%queue length 0.08 0.01 0.30 0.07 2.93 Control Delay 9.1 8.1 28.2 10.7 43.0 LOS A A D 8 E Approach Delay 19.8 43.0 pproach LOS C E Rights Reserved HCS2000TM Copyright©2003 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4 If Version 4.1f TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst Intersection Lakeland St& Wheelwright St Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed Analysis Year Analysis Time Period Project Description EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES East/West Street: Lakeland Drive North/South Street: Wheelwright Street Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 2 63 0 5 114 6 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.78 0.78 0.78 Hourly Flow Rate(veh/h) 2 77 0 6 146 7 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 0 -' 0 "- - Median type Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 0 0 1 7 0 1 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.50 0.50 0.50 Hourly Flow Rate(veh/h) 0 0 4 14 0 2 Proportion of heavy 0 0 0 0 0 0 vehicles, PHv Percent grade(%) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Configuration I I LTR LTR Control Delay, Queue Len th, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume,v(vph) 2 6 4 16 Capacity, cm(vph) 1440 1535 990 727 /c ratio 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 Queue length (95%) 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.07 Control Delay(s/veh) 7.5 7.4 8.7 10.1 LOS A A A B ,Approach delay(s/veh) — — 8.7 10.1 pproach LOS — — A g HCS1000TM Copyright«"2003 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 f TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst Intersection Lakeland St& Wheelwright Agency/Co. St Date Performed Jurisdiction Analysis Year Analysis Time Period Project Description 2009 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITHOUT PROJECT East/West Street: Lakeland Drive North/South Street: Wheelwright Street Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 2 66 0 5 120 6 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.78 0.78 0.78 Hourly Flow Rate(veh/h) 2 81 0 6 153 7 Proportion of heavy 0 -- __ 0 vehicles, PHv -' - Median type Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 IU anes 0 1 0 0 1 0 onfiguration LTR LTR stream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 0 0 1 7 0 1 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.50 0.50 0.50 Hourly Flow Rate(veh/h) 0 0 4 14 1 0 1 2 Proportion of heavy 771 0 0 0 0 0 vehicles, PHv Percent grade(%) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Control Delay, Queue Len th, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume,v(vph) 2 6 4 16 Capacity, cm(vph) 1432 1529 985 716 /c ratio 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 Queue length(95%) 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.07 Control Delay(s/veh) 7.5 7.4 8.7 10.1 LOS A A A g pproach delay(s/veh) — — 8.7 10.1 pproach LOS — -- A g HCS20/IOTM Copyright ccl 2003 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 f TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst Intersection Lakeland St& Wheelwright Agency/Co. St diction n Date Performed Analysis Analysis Time Period al Year Project Description 2009 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITH PROJECT East/West Street: Lakeland Drive North/South Street: Wheelwright Street Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 12 79 0 5 152 6 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.78 0.78 0.78 Hourly Flow Rate(veh/h) 14 97 0 6 194 7 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 0 — — 0 — — Median type Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 0 0 1 7 0 25 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.50 0.50 0.50 Hourly Flow Rate(veh/h) 0 0 4 14 0 50 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent grade(%) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Control Delay, Queue Len th, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume,v(vph) 14 6 4 64 Capacity, cm(vph) 1383 1509 965 782 /c ratio 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.08 Queue length (95%) 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.27 Control Delay(s/veh) 7.6 7.4 8.7 10.0 LOS A A A 8 Approach delay (s/veh) -- -- 8.7 10.0 Approach LOS -- -- A 8 HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2003 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 f TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst Intersection Lakeland Dr& S Entrance Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed Analysis Year Analysis Time Period Project Description 2009 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITH PROJECT East/West Street: Lakeland Drive North/South Street: South Entrance Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 13 74 0 0 122 8 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 14 82 0 0 135 8 Proportion of heavy 0 -- - 0 vehicles, PHv Median type Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR U stream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 0 0 0 19 0 32 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 0 0 21 0 35 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent grade(%) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 FT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration I I I I LR Control Delay, Queue Len th, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR Volume,v (vph) 14 56 Capacity, cm(vph) 1452 839 /c ratio 0.01 0.07 Queue length (95%) 0.03 0.21 Control Delay(s/veh) 7.5 9.6 LOS A A Approach delay (s/veh) -- 9.6 Approach LOS A HCS2000TM Copyright©2003 University of Florida,A11 Rights Reserved Version 4.1 f TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst Intersection Wheelwright St& INEntrance Agency/Go. Jurisdiction Date Performed Analysis Year Analysis Time Period Project Description 2009 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITH PROJECT East/West Street: West Entrance North/South Street: Wheelwright Street Intersection Orientation: North-South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 8 10 7 8 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 8 11 7 8 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- — 0 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT U stream Si nal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 24 0 19 0 0 . 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 26 0 21 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade(%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay,Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 7 47 C (m) (vph) 1611 1018 lc 0.00 0.05 95%queue length 0.01 0.15 Control Delay 7.2 8.7 LOS A A Approach Delay - -- 8.7 Approach LOS -- -- A Rights Reserved HC S2000TMM Copyright C 2003 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 f Version 4.1 f 1200 KEY: Below curverag , stoe not 1100 needed for COPOW Above curve, low recommended. 900 am 700 600 �N►PN�� 500 5A MpN Ct1 400 60 MPH Ct� _ 300 25 20 15 10 5 0 %Total DHV Turnhg Left(single tuming movement) (1) DHV is total volume from both directions. (2) Speeds are posted speeds. Left-Turn Storage Guidelines (Two-Lane, Unsignalized) Figure 910-$a Design Manual M 22-01 Intersections At Grade January 2005 Page 910-19 MASON COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/COUNTY ROAD ENGINEER 40 Shelton,Washington 98584 DATE: May 28, 2008 INTER-DEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS TO: Rebecca Hersha, DCD-Planner PARCEL# 12220-50-68002 Al Christensen Building Dept. FROM: John Sliva, Programs Engineer-PW T #: GRD2007-00013 SUBJECT: Grading Permit Review NAME: Reynolds Marty Allynview Square Rebecca and Al: On March 3, 2008 a meeting was held with Mike Wnek, Loren Olsen,John Sliva,Bill Tabor,Bob Thuring, Rebecca Hersha,Bob Fink,Rich Brush,and Allan Eaton to try to move ahead on this project. Results of the meeting were: The Wheelwright Road improvements were dropped. No access would be provided to Wheelwright due to the porch encroachment that could not be resolved from the Ross property. A road built to County requirements could not be built within the R/W that would be acquired due to the porches. Bob Fink of DCD cited that if no access were provided to Wheelwright,no improvements had to be made to Wheelwright. • Rails or a fence were recommended on the retaining walls. • No changes would be made to the West side of Wheelwright • 35 foot radius at the NE corner of Lakeland Dr. and Wheelwright would be required • All new culverts would be 18"culverts • Deceleration Lane in front of property on Lakeland would stay • Wall would be taken out of grass swale along Lakeland Dr. • 30 foot Right-of—Way agreement would be legally set up for the 30 foot section of vacated property fronting the west side of the property along Wheelwright. The property would be turned over to the County at some time in the future at no cost to Mason County. The applicant will draft the legal papers. • Retaining walls over 4 foot shall be approved by the Building Department Public Works requested a 4-foot walking area be shown on the east side of E. Wheelwright St. N. from the end of the sidewalk on Lakeland Dr. To accomplish this the applicant elected to remove the block retaining wall in this area in the first 100 feet+/-. Now the proposed west wall of the structure will be a retaining wall for the cut to be made along Wheelwright Rd. Drawings C-1,C-2,C-3,C-4,C-5,and C-6 were resubmitted addressing this. I have reviewed the revised May 7, 2008 drawings for this project. A TESC (Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control)plan has been submitted as part of the grading plan. The TESC is acceptable. No sediment will be allowed to enter county ditches. The drawings and drainage plan for the proposed grading permit are acceptable if the applicant accepts the following conditions: • Property Lines will be established before grading commences. • An Operation and Maintenance Stormwater Covenant will be executed and recorded with Mason County • Integrity of Wheelwright and its Utilities will be maintained through the construction process. Discussions with Marty Reynolds indicate he will gradually slope the ground away from Wheelwright in areas where the building structural retaining wall is not initially installed. • Minimum four-foot walking surface be provided on the east side of Wheelwright Rd. • Retaining walls over 4 feet shall be approved by building department • 30 foot Right-of—Way agreement would be legally set up for the 30 foot section of vacated property fronting the west side of the property along Wheelwright. The property would be turned over to the County at some time in the future at no cost to Mason County. The applicant will draft the legal papers. • Compaction tests will be provided to building department. Comments and recommendations contained in the drainage report and drawings should be incorporated into the site development plans and made conditions for permit issuance. Adequate erosion and sediment control features need to be implemented during land disturbing activities to protect neighboring properties, County ditchlines, and State waters from adverse stormwater runoff impacts. The migration or release of silty water or mud from the applicant's property will be considered a violation of County and State water quality protection regulations. Please feel free to contact me at 724 if you have any questions regarding these comments. Sincerely, John Sliva Programs Engineer Inspection Line(360)427-7262 MASON COUNTY DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Phone: (360)427-9670,ext.352 Mason County Bldg. 3 426 W. Cedar P.O. Box 186 Shelton, WA 98584 P10 LAND MODIFICATION BUILDING PERMIT GRD2007-00013 OWNER: WILLIAM A ISLEY RECEIVED: 5/25/2007 CONTRACTOR: MARTIN REYNOLDS LLC 360-277-9095 LICENSE: MARTIRL936C3 EXP: 2/23/2011 ISSUED: 6/3/2009 1 ENGINEER: LICENSE: EXP: EXPIRES: SITE ADDRESS: PARCEL NUMBER: 122205068001 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ALLYN BILK: 68 LOT: 1 &VAC WHEELWRIGHT PROJECT DESCRIPTION: DIRECTIONS TO SITE: 2.74 acres. 5,178 cy of cut and 6,296 cy of fill. 1,118 cy of fill will need to corner of Wheelright and Lakeland in Allyn come from off site. Inspection Area: Fill?: Yes Comp. Plan Desig.: Urban Growth Grading?: Yes IRO Desig.: Cutting?: Yes Shoreline Desig.: Not Applicable Area Graded: 3.00 Acres SEPA?: Yes Cubic Yards: 6,296.00 FEES Type By Date Amount Receipt Planning Review Fee KKK 5/25/2007 $170.00 S22007000 Public Works Review JES 1/10/2008 $292.40 S22009000 Public Works Review JES 5/1/2008 $73.10 S22009000 Public Works Review JES 5/7/2008 $36.55 S22009000 Public Works Review JES 5/28/2008 $109.65 S22009000 Grading Permit Fee ARC 6/2/2008 $281.50 S22009000 Grading Plan Check Fee ARC 6/2/2008 $49.25 S22009000 Total $1,012.45 GRD2007-00013 Please refer to the following page(s)for conditions of this permit. 1 of 5 CONDITIONS FOR GRD2007-00013 1) The following transportation improvements to the State Route 3/1-akeland Drive intersection shall be completed before constructing buildings on the site: (1) On Lakeland Drive: A right turn lane and through movement pocket and a dedicated northbound left turn lane. X 2) Development is subject to the conditions and recommendations found in the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Heath &Associates, dated August 2007. However, WA DDT's conditions (SR3 Lakeland Intersection) prevail. X 3) Development is subject to the details found in the Storm and Grade plan, dated 3-14-08, prepared by Mr. Michael Wnek. X 4) As discussed, the site plan does not show the required 5 foot(minimum) landscaped buffers between parking areas and sidewalks and buildings (Allyn Zoning Code 17.14.140.c). Development must include these landscaped buffers. It must be shown on the site plan submitted for a building permit. X 5) Erosion control measures must be in place prior to (and during) any clearing, grading, or construction. Removal of vegetation should be minimized and any areas disturbed should be restored to prevent erosion and other environmental impacts. Soil in stockpiles shall be stabilized or protected with sediment trapping measures to prevent soil loss. All exposed areas of final grade or areas that are not scheduled for work shall not remain exposed for more than two days between October and May and more than 7 days between May and October. Soil may not be allowed to become airborne and impact neighboring properties. Spraying with water is required during dry weather to prevent visible wind erosion. Cut and fill slopes shall be designed to minimize erosion. Methods include slope roughening, terraces, and pipe slope drains. All temporary erosion control systems shall be designed to contain the runoff from the developed two year, 24 hour design storm without eroding. Provisions shall be made to minimize the tracking of sediment by construction vehicles onto paved, public roads. Water quality is not to be degraded to the detriment of the aquatic environment as a result of this project. To prevent noise impacts, the operation of heavy equipment shall be limited to the hours of 8 AM to 6 PM. X ✓`—l' 6) Temporary Erosion control measures must be implemented to prevent water quality degradation of adjacent waters or wetlands. 7) er site pl d topogra io y�- C7f- ,v GRD2007-00013 Please refer to the following page(s)for conditions of this permit. 2 Of 5 7) Approved per site plan and topographic cross-section. X 8) All fills shall be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum density.X 9) ALL CLEARING,CUTTING, GRADING, EXCAVATING, TERRACING, FILLING AND SIMILIAR WORK WILL BE REGULATED BY THE REQUIREMENTS PURSUANT TO THE MASON COUNTY GRADING PERMIT STANDARDS ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION 141-96 and MASON COUNTY CODE, TITLE 14, CHAPTER 14.44. X 10) ALL SURFACE WATER AND POTENTIAL RUNOFF WILL BE CONTROLLED ON SITE AND SHALL NOT ADVERSLY AFFECT ANY ADJACENT PROPERTIES NOR INCREASE THE VELOCITY FLOW ENTERING OR ABUTTING TO ANY STATE OR COUNTY CULVERTING/DITCHING SYSTEM OR ROAD WAYx 11) The owner/ applicant shall provide to Mason County inspection reports prepared by the engineer record, complying with the requirements as noted in Chapter 14.44, section 14.44.220 through 14.44.230. X 12) Cut and fill slopes shall be setback from site boundaries in accordance with Section 14.44.190. X 13) Owner/Agent is responsible to post the assigned address and/or purchase and post private road signs in accordance with Mason County Title 14.28. X 14) Retaining walls needed to support a surcharge such as structures, roads, or to support slopes, shall require a separate building permit and approval prior to construction of the retaining wall. X ; 15) Operation and maintenance stormwater covenant must be recoeded with mason county. X (r 16) Integrity of wheelwright and its utilities will be maintained through the contruction process. X i" _ 17) Minumum four-foot walking surface be provided on the east side of wheelwright rd. X Ll� 18) 30 foot right-of-way agreement would be legally set up for the 30 foot section of vacated property fronting the west side of the property along wheelwright. The property would be turned over to the county in the future with no cost to Mason County. The applicant will draft the legal papers record them with the County prior to the clsoing/final of the grading permit . Roads need to be constructed to meet the standards of the Allyn UGA and the LAG Manual X �— GRD2007-00013 Please referto the following page(s)for conditions of this permit. 3 of 5 19) This permit is approved for grading only, all buildings and retaining walls are required to be permitted. X �e 20) Property Lines will be established before grading commences. An Operation and Maintenance Stormwater Covenant will be executed and recorded with Mason County Integrity of Wheelwright and its Utilities will be maintained through the construction process. Discussions with Marty Reynolds indicate he will gradually slope the ground away from Wheelwright in areas where the building structural retaining wall is not initially installed. Minimum four-foot walking surface be provided on the east side of Wheelwright Rd. Retaining walls over 4 feet shall be approved by building department 30 foot Right-of-Way agreement would be legally set up for the 30 foot section of vacated property fronting the west side of the property along Wheelwright. The property would be turned over to the County at some time in the future at no cost to Mason County. The applicant will draft the legal papers. Compaction tests will be provided to building department. X This permit becomes null and void if work or construction authorized is not commenced within 180 days,or if construction or work is suspended fora period of 180 days at any time after work is commenced. Evidence of continuation of work is a progress inspection within the 180 day period. Final inspection must be approved before building can be occupied. OWNER OR AGENT: `-�— DATE: c6 y 9 GRD2007-00013 Please refer to the following page(s)for conditions of this permit. 4 of 5 Look Up a Contractor, Electrician or Plumber License Detail Page 1 of 3 Topic Index Contact Info ., .....' Search >.. Home Safety Claims ft insurance Workplace Rights itada Lip r sir; Find a Law or Rule Get a Form or Publication Look Up a Contractor, Electrician or Plumber Printer Friendly Version General/Specialty Contractor A business registered as a construction contractor with L&I to perform construction work within the scope of its specialty. A General or Specialty construction Contractor must maintain a surety bond or assignment ::of account and carry general liability insurance. _ .......... . License Information License MDEVEMD967CQ Licensee Name A fr M DEVELOPMENT LLC Licensee Type CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR UBI 602306429 Verify Workers Comp Premium Status Ind. Ins. Account Id Business Type LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY Address 1 PO BOX 34 Address 2 City ALLYN County MASON State WA Zip 98524 Phone 3603406029 Status ACTIVE Specialty 1 GENERAL Specialty 2 UNUSED Effective Date 2/18/2004 Expiration Date 2/18/2010 Suspend Date Separation Date Parent Company Previous License AM"'986139 Next License COUNTLM932JE Associated License ........................................................................................................................................................ https://fortress.wa.gov/lni/bbip/detail.aspx?License=MDEVEMD967CQ 6/20/2008 6/3/2009 Conditions Associated With 3:33:52PM 11 Case#: SEP2007-00077 014 Permit Condition Status p to item# Code Title Status Changed By Tag Date By 1) 1 STORMWATER SITE PLAN NOT MET 4/16/2008 RDH Development is subject to the details found in the Storm and Grade plan, dated 3-14-08, prepared by Mr. Michael Wnek. X �\ 2) 1 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS NOT MET 4/16/2008 RDH Erosion control measures(as outlined in Temporary Sediment and Erosion Control Plan,dated 3-14-08, authored by Mr. Michael Wnek)must be in place prior to any clearing,grading, or construction. Removal of vegetation should be minimized and any areas disturbed should be restored to prevent erosion and other environmental impacts. Soil may not be allowed to become airborne and impact neighboring properties. Spraying with water is required during dry weather to prevent visible wind erosion. Provisions shall be made to minimize the tracking of sediment by construction vehicles onto paved,public roads. Water quality is not to be degraded to the detriment of the aquatic environment as a result of this project. To prevent noise impacts,the operation of heavy equipment shall be limited to the hours of 8 AM to 7 PM. X 3) 1 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS NOT MET 5/1/2008 RDH Development is subject to the conditions and recommendations found in the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Heath&Associates,dated August 2007. However, WA DOT's conditions(SR3 Lakeland Intersection) prevail. X 4) 1 SR3/LAKELAND INTERSECTION NOT MET 6/3/2009 DLC The following transportation improvements to the State Route 3/Lakeland Drive intersection shall be completed before constructing buildings on the site: (1)On Lakeland Drive: A right turn lane and through movement pocket and a dedicated northbound left turn lane. X 5) 1 LANDSCAPING NOT MET 5/1/2008 RDH As discussed,the site plan does not show the required 5 foot(minimum) landscaped buffers between parking areas and sidewalks and buildings(Allyn Zoning Code 17.14.140.c). Development must include these landscaped buffers. It must be shown on the site plan submitted for a building permit. X Page 1 of 1 CaseConditions..rpt Look Up a Contractor, Electrician, Plumber or Elevator Professional License Detail Pagel of 2 Information in Spanish I Topic Index I Contact Info I I Home Safety Claims ft Insurance Workplace Rights Trades Et Licensing Find a Law (RCW)or Rule (WAC) Get a form or publication Return to List > Start a New Search > 1 Printer friendly General/Specialty Contractor A business registered as a construction contractor with LI_tl to perform construction work within the scope of its specialty. A General or Specialty construction Contractor must maintain a surety bond or assignment of account and carry general liability insurance. Business and Licensing Information Verify Workers' Comp Premium Status Check for Dept. of Revenue Account Name MARTIN REYNOLDS LLC UBI No. 1) 602696795 Phone No. (360) 340-6029 Status ACTIVE Address PO BOX 34 License No. MARTIRL936C3 Suite/Apt. License Type CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR City ALLYN Effective Date 2/23/2007 State WA Expiration 2/23/2011 Date Zip 98524 Suspend Date County MASON Specialty 1 GENERAL Business Type Limited Liability Specialty 2 1) UNUSED Company Parent Company - Other Associated Licenses License Name Type Specialty Specialty Effective Expiration $1 1 2 Date Date COUNTRYSIDE CONSTRUCTION COUNTLM932JE LANDSCAPE Et CONTRACTOR GENERAL UNUSED 4/5/2007 4/5/2011 ACT MAINT AM*****986B9 A Et M CONSTRUCTION GENERAL UNUSED 1/29/20021/29/2004 EXPI CONTRACTOR A Et M CONSTRUCTION https://fortress.wa.gov/lni/bbio/Detaii.aspx 6/3/2009 Look Up a Contractor, Electrician, Plumber or Elevator Professional License Detail Page 2 of 2 MDEVEMD967C DLC ELOPMENT CONTRACTOR GENERAL UNUSED 2/18/2004 2/18/2010 SUSI � Business Owner Information E, Hide All Name Role Effective Date Expiration Date MARTIN, REYNOLDS AGENT 02/23/2007 4 Bond Information Bond Bond Effective Expiration Cancel Impaired Bond Received Bond Company Account Date Date Date Date Amount Date Name Number AMERICAN Until 1 STATES INS 6476269 02/21/2007 Cancelled $12,000.00 02/23/2007 CO Insurance Information Company Policy Effective Expiration Cancel Impaired Amount Rec( Insurance Name Number Date Date Date Date Di OREGON 1 MUTUAL SX0908690 02/21/2007 02/21/2010 $1,000,000.00 02/17 INS CO c t'Ss About L@I I Find a job at L£tl I Site Feedback I Toll-free Numbers AAA W-rsfi t noon" ©Washington State Dept.of Labor and Industries.Use of this site is subject to the laws of the state of Washington. Access Agreement I Privacy_a.nd security statement I Intended use/external content policy 1 Staff only link r t httns://fortress.wa.v-ov/lni/bbio/Detail.aspx 6/3/2009 MAPTIN°1°9240630ot°MASON CO 1�l�flr�l�llll�I�(11l�l�ll��1�!!I!(NOLDS 9273 ROC Fee. $42 00 till a os t �� Jill 11l1I(!l!l111!((l111!1!I I(Jll 11!llllll11�111l11 Return to: ow t f�.II C" e- 12. BeIr, _9tlsze NOTICE OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF ON-SITE SEWAGE SYSTEM I(We)the undersigned,hereby place this notice on record that the following described real estate situated in Mason County,State of Washington;to wit:(Division and Lot Number or Range/Township/Section Number. Note:Range,township,section numbers are the 1"S digits of the parcel number) _ LK 2.Lo 8 OR I �_ L `� Subdivision Division Lot Range Township Section and having the Tax Parcel Number of:L Z� ( 5--5 L--Z-(.,OU U 8 is served by an on-site sewage system that was approved and permitted on the condition that it would receive on- going operation and maintenance to assure it would continue to function in a manner that provides adequate treatment and disposal of sewage. Operation and maintenance of the on-site sewage treatment and disposal system must be done in accordance with the Mason County Department of Health Services Operation and Maintenance Program.A copy of the program is available from the Office of Environmental Health of the Mason County Department of Health Services. Failure to participate in the operation and maintenance program identified above would be a violation of the conditions under which the on-site sewage permit was issued and could result in the system being classified as a "failure," These covenants shall run with the land and shall be binding to all parties having or acquiaMyrjwht,title,or interest in the land described herein or any part thereof,and shall inure to the benefi%O* " IKAwp of. J`� 0 1WITNESS /»O handthisdayof 209 p� xgb0M � F �4 le 0TARr Signature Signature Z d41 y PuBt�� o State of Washington ) % !�'` 1 0 % N County of Mason ) p�iF ONE+ N WAS I,thyendersigned,a Notary Public in and for the above name County and State,do here���81"J�that on this �r day of L7u/a- ,20 Dj personally appeared before me, who is known to be signer of the above instrument,and acknowl dged that he(she)(they)signed it. GIVEN under my hand and official seal the day and year last abov written. Notdry Public in and for the tate of Washington, residing at Q 547'7 My commission expires: / / 02 i0 6/20/2008 11:25AM Fees Associated With IP14 Case#: GRD2007-00013 ........ ................................................................... .................................. . ....... ......... ....................I..,.,..".",...,...................�.............................................................................................................................................. .. . ......... .. ......................................: ............................... ...............................................%.................. ....... .............................. ................................. ........... ......................................... ........................................................................ ...... ................................... ........................ .................................................................. . ........ .....................I.......... ................................ . ....................................................... .................................................. ...... ................................ ............................................................................ . ............................................... .................................................................... .............................. ................................. . ...................... ........ .... ....... .............. ....... ........ ................................................................. ......... ............ ...................... ........................... ............. ............................... ....................... ..... .......................................... ............................. ...... .................................................. .................. .......... .. .. ..................................................... .0............................... ............ ............... ..................... .................................................................................................... ........................................................................................... ................................................................................................................... ....... .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... .. .............. .................... .... ................................... ..................... .............. ............................. .........................................I.......... 0.6.0"0000 :::::*:: ::::::. ..*'-.""- . ...........I.A601MAC hk:.. .....................I........ . .. ...................... ............ ..................... .......................................................................................I.........................-.......................I............................................................... ........... ..... ... ................................................... ............ ...... ..........11.............................................................................11....... .1.1.....................................-.................................................................... ...... ............................................................... ................................. . ......... ..... .................... ................ ..................-.1...... .......................... ..... ....... ........ ........... ............................. ..... . PLRV Planning Review Fee 001.125.145.345.83.03.0000 5/25/2007 KKK 170.00 170.00 0.00 Planning Review Fee 001.125.145.345.83.03.0000 5/25/2007 KKK 0.00 0.00 PWD Public Works Review 105.000.000.343.20.00.0000 1/10/2008 JES 292.40 0.00 292.40 PWD Public Works Review 105.000.000.343.20.00.0000 5/1/2008 JES 73.10 0.00 73.10 PWD Public Works Review 105.000.000.343.20.00.0000 5n12008 JES 36.55 0.00 36.55 PWD Public Works Review 105.000.000.343.20.00.0000 5/28/2008 JES 109.65 0.00 109.65 PRMT Grading Permit Fee 001.125.140.322.10.00.0000 6/2/2008 ARC 281.50 0.00 281.50 PLCK Grading Plan Check Fee 001.125.140.345.83.00.0000 6/2/2008 ARC 49.25 0.00 49.25 Total Fees: $1,012.45 Paid:$170.00 TOTAL REMAINING DUE: $842.45 Page 1 of 1 CascFees.rpt