No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA78-223 .)\- V ��, � �3 12 /V fr\ OF R A iv klIa 4i®= ° PU UC WORKS DEPART y%E T ;,, ,, °is ic,. WARREN C. GONNASON, P.E. t DIRECTOR 5:. z g? MUNICIPAL MUELOING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 �9,3 co' 206 235-2569 co- 0 SEPI"0,03 CHARLES J. DELAURENTI5 G 7 89 MAY0R ,�rIr ,O/Z p -r- <!' S% err . September 12, 1979 o�2-, -' �' i0 -- c� 'wpm /C�:J� s7 �t4,,\ Mr. Bill Arthur eC1��L Puget Western, Inc. Puget Power Building . Bellevue, Washington 98009 Dear Mr. Arthur: • This letter is written in response to my conversation with you and Dave Millard regarding the city' s acceptance of deeded ri,ght- of-way for access to plat to be known as Renton Hills. Please be advised that the city will accept the deeds for the access roadway to the proposed plat of Renton Hills. This ac- ceptance, however, does not carry with it any responsibility on the part of the city for the construction of this access roadway as this is and will be a requirement of the developers of the ' plat. It is hoped that this letter is sufficient for your purposes, of recording the necessary documents. r Sincerely, , Warren C. Gonnason, P. E. Public Works :Director WCG :bh cc: City Clerk D. Houghton I ti l t'��A- p 7 .//s y OF RA,A •► I=::.4 0 THE CITY OF RENTON � , - mm , Z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON.WASH.98055 o R L ;.0 CZ CHARLES J. DELAURENTI y MAYOR c PLANNING DEPARTMENT -s) co- _ _ - 235- 2550 O,g�� D4 SEPS����P _ September 11, 1979 David R. Millard, President Land Planning & Management 1 22627 - 152nd S.E. Kent , Washington 98031 RE : RENTON HILLS PRELIMINARY PLAT 1 Dear Mr. Millard: 1 I have reviewed your sketch plans for the Renton Hills pre- liminary plat and note that there were only minimal dimen- sions noted on the plan. Although your letter indicates the criteria upon which we could approve the proposed lots, these dimensions are not delineated on the plan. Assuming that the drawing meets the standards specified in your letter , it would appear that the plan as submitted would be acceptable. 1 1 Upon submission of a complete plan, including necessary dimensions, a final approval can be granted. Should you have any questions, please feel free to call. Very truly yours, Goryr Y. Ericksen Pl nn ng Dir r / kill i ii ro vid R. Clemens Senior Planner DRC:wr 2-" OF R� • 4o THE CITY OF RENTON %0Q z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 0 CHARLES J. DELAURENTI ,MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 9,0 co- • FRED J. KAUFMAN, 235-2593 0,9•4 T 0 SEPi°4' May 25, 1979 Mr. Wm. K. Arthur Puget Western, Inc. Puget Power Building • Bellevue, WA 98009 RE: Request for Extension of Preliminary Plat, File No. PP-223-78. Dear Mr. Arthur: After reviewing the,applicant's letter, dated May 24, 1979; the Examiner finds that proper application for an extension of one year was made. The extension 'is therefore granted.' The preliminary plat approval shall expire on June 4, 1980. • The applicant is reminded that under the present provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance only one one-year extension may be granted. Sincerely, Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner • • cc: Planning Department Belterra Development Corp. , 1900 S. Puget Drive, Suite 210,, Renton, WA 98055 C r PUGET WE. TERN, INC. • Puget Power Building; Bellevue,WA 98009 (206)454-6363 • • •• May 24, 1979 Mr. Fred Kaufman • • Hearing. Examiner City_ of Renton 200 Mill Avenue, South . • Renton, Washington 98055 • Dear Mr. Kaufman: • • In reviewing. our projects we. have become aware that our p're- • liminary plat expires June '4 , 1979 . -Due to., other internal comnti.tments .we are requesting a one-year extension on our project #PP-223-78. Your consideration on this request would be most appreciative. Very truly yours, • Wm. K: Arthur • • CRC:WKA:mm • • • RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON • HEARING EXAMINER • .1,Vi 2 5 1979 . AM. i. . : PM t4r9r1Q,11t12t112t:3r4r5,€ A.• • /2R-Ra?3- OF Ft 4 v THE. CITY OF RENTON, c3 4. co 7. o MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON.WASH. 98055 r o) 0 ememo CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER • (ce • 0 L. RICK BEELER 235-2593 SEP1t• - December 8, 1978 , •• • • •, • Mr. Tom Nishimura Jones & Associates 2700 Northup Way Bellevue, WA 98004 RE: File No. PP-223-78; Puget Western, Inc. Preliminary Plat. Dear Mr. Nishimura: • This is to notify you that the above referenced request was approved by the Renton City Council at their meeting of December 4, 1978.• • Sincerely, . • L. Rick Beeler Hearing Examiner • cc: jtity Clerk Planning Department • • • e i S Renton City Council 12/4/78 Page 3 Ordinances and Resolutions - Continued Resolution #2234 Ways and Means Committee report recommended reading of a resolution LID 312 declaring intent to construct and install curbs, gutters, and Public Hearing sidewalks storm drains, catch basins, together with a' left turn lane Jan. 22, 1979 and all necessary appurtenances thereto in the vicinity of West Valley Highway from SW 43rd St. to the City limits and; to create a local improvement district (LID #312) setting Public Hearing for January 22, 1979. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND SHINPOCH TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. 1979 Budget Councilman Stredicke requested the Administration to furnish a list of those things that were affected by Ordinance with the adoption of the budget so that they be referred to Ways and Means Committee for Ordinance revisions. CONSENT AGENDA The following items are distributed to all Council members and adopted by. one motion without ,separate discussion. (Adopting motion to follow agenda items. ) Intent to Letter from Deputy City Clerk Maxine Motor noted receipt of 10% Annex - Letter of Intent to Annex Property to Renton which was certified Renton Ave. ' by the Planning Dept. that signatures represent 24.2% of the assessed Public Meeting value which is in excess of the minimum required by state law. The Dec. 18, 1978 letter recommended date of December 18, 1978 for public meeting with the initiating property owners when the Council will determine whether to accept the letter of intent, require adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, zoning ordinance and pre-existing bonded indebtedness and i circulation of 75% petition. Council Concur. Preliminary Plat Hearing Examiner' s report and recommendation of Preliminary Plat Renton Hills located near Royal Hills Dr. and Lake Youngs Way SE requested by —)Renton Puget Western, Inc.. for approval with conditions. Council concur. Appointment Letter from Mayor Delaurenti appointed Steve Wayne Haworth as a firefighter in the Renton Fire Dept. effective December 1, 1978 and subject to the customary six-month probationary period. Council concur. Adoption of MOVED BY CLYMER, SECOND PERRY TO ADOPT THE CONSENT AGENDA. CARRIED. Consent Agenda CORRESPONDENCE AND CURRENT BUSINESS Increase in Letter from Airport Director, Louie Gebenini , was read recommending Rental Rates increase in rental rates for municipal hangars on the Municipal for Hangars Airport from $70 to $85 per month plus 12% leasehold tax. MOVED EY SHINPOCH, SECOND TRIMM TO CONCUR IN AIRPORT DIRECTOR RECOMMENDATION. CARRIED. ' United Way Letter from Flo D'Ambrosio, United Way/Sea-ist 'Loaned Executive, Contributions was read thanking the City for its contributions, which totaled a 12% increase over 1977' and appreciation to Gretal Sloan, Personnel , for her, help. Washington Letter from William Hutsinpiller, President Washington Recreation and Recreation and Park Association, was read regarding its annual State Conference Park Assoc. and thanks to Mr. John Web.ley, Parks and Recreation Director, as 1978 Conference Chariman. Letter of Letter was read from Robert Kunde expressing appreciation and Appreciation praise for the high level of emergency service provided in the city, and especially for incident at Honeydew Apts. • Renton City Council 12/4/78 Page 4 New Business NEW-:BUSINESS Resignations by Councilmen Shane and Perry inquired if a council person accepts Council another government position do they need to resign from the council . MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECOND THORPE THAT MATTER OF PROCEDURE OF RESIGNATIONS FROM COUNCIL BE REFERRED TO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. Requesting member of legal staff be present. CARRIED. ADAP Project/ Councilman Stredicke inquired about proposed ADAP project at Street Signs the airport. Also asking administration to correct street signs in the city that are not visible. City Attorney Councilman Shane noted possible need for full time city attorney. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY PERRY, SECOND CLYMER MEETING ADJOURN. CARRIED. 10:30 P.M. Maxine E. Motor, Deputy City Clerk 613 F v �� . o THE CITY OF RENTON 7 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 o CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR ® LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 43- O 4tt' L. RICK BEELER . 235-2593 ��TED SEP1t" November 22, 1978 Members, Renton City Council Renton, Washington RE: File No. PP-223-78; Puget Western, Inc. Preliminary Plat. Dear Council Members: Attached is the Examiner's Report and Recommendation on the referenced preliminary plat request, dated November 15, 1978. The appeal period for the application expires on November 29, 1978, and the report is being forwarded to you for review by the Planning and Development Committee following the seven-day period from the date of publication. The complete file will be transmitted to the City Clerk on November 30, 1978, and will be placed on the Council agenda on December 4, 1978. If you require additional assistance or information regarding this matter, please contact the undersigned. Sincerely, //771,611.:-._mos L. Rick Beeler Hearing Examiner cc: Planning Department City Clerk • . 1 Of Ft o f THE CITY OF RENTON ®0' 2 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON. WASH. 98055 CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 041 �Q' L. RICK BEELER . 235-2593 41Eo SEPI � November 30, 1978 Mr. Tom Nishimura Jones & Associates ' 2700 Northup Way Bellevue, WA 98004 RE: File No. PP-223-78; Puget Western, Inc. Preliminary Plat . Dear Mr. Nishimura: • This is to notify you that the above referenced request, which was approved subject to conditions as noted on the Examiner's report of November 15, 1978, has not been appealed within the time period established by ordinance. Therefore, this application is being submitted to the City Clerk for transmittal to the City Council for review. Adoption of a resolution will occur upon final approval of the subsequent final plat application. Sincerer, L. Rick Beeler Hearing Examiner • cc: Planning Department City Clerk y THE CITY OF RENTON V ®0 ' ` Z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON. WASH. 98055 o CHARLES J. DELAURENTI • MAYOR ® LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER p 0�42- L. RICK REELER . 235-2593 41-6-0 SEP1�� November 22, 1978 Members, Renton City Council Renton, Washington. RE: File No. PP-223-78; Puget Western, Inc. Preliminary Plat. Dear Council Members: Attached is the Examiner's Report and Recommendation on the referenced preliminary plat request, dated November 15, 1978. The appeal period for the application expires on November 29, 1978, and the report is being forwarded to you for review by the Planning and Development Committee following the seven-day period from the date of publication. The complete file will be transmitted to the City Clerk on November 30, 1978, and will be placed on the Council agenda on December 4, 1978. If you require additional assistance or information regarding this matter, please contact the undersigned. Sincerely, i - L. Rick Beeler Hearing Examiner . cc: Planning Department City Clerk • AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING 1 • State of Washington) • County of King • being • first dulysworn, upon a '140, • Marilyn J. Petersen ,. p oath disposes and states : That on the 15th day of .November , 19 78 , ; affiant . deposited in the mails of the United States a sealed envelope containing a decision or recommendation with post.age . prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below-entitled application or petition. Subscribed and sworn this day of . • 19 `(Q, • • • Notary Public in and for ' the State of Washington, residing ar. Kenton Application, Petition or Case : Puget Western, Inc. ; PP-223-78 (The mcnuteb c.ontai.n a £Lst 06 .the pantie.5 o6 neeond) • November 15, 1978 • OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER • CITY 'OF RENTON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL. • APPLICANT: Puget Western, Inc. FILE NO. PP-223-78 LOCATION: On. the east side of the Seattle-Cedar River Pipeline, • • adjacent to Phillip Arnold Park, and 2000 feet north of Royal Hills-Drive. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Applicant requests preliminary plat approval pursuant to the city's subdivision regulations which would allow . construction of streets 'and utilities in accordance .with • . an approved single family 'residential subdivision layout,. . • SUMMARY OF Planning Department: Approval with conditions. • RECOMMENDATION: Hearing Examiner: Approval with conditions. • PLANNING DEPARTMENT The Planning Department •staff report was received by the REPORT: Examiner on October 12, 1978. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Planning Department report, examining available information on file with the application, and field checking the property and surrounding area, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: • The hearing was opened on October 17, 1978 at 9:30 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. The Examiner. referenced Section P. of the Planning Department report which recommends continuance of the hearing to allow further consideration of the environmental and design solutions to problems raised during review of the preliminary plat, and inquired if the continuance remained necessary. Mr. David Clemens, Associate Planner, responded that a continuance of either one or two weeks was appropriate to allow sufficient review of revised plans and publish an addendum to the Planning Department report. The Examiner requested the applicant's comments regarding continuance of the hearing. Responding was: Tom Nishimura 2700 Northup Way Bellevue, WA 98004 Mr. Nishimura indicated his preference for a one-week continuance, but expressed no objection to a two-week period if required by the Examiner. The Examiner indicated his concern that members of the public as well as other departmental staff members have ample opportunity for thorough review of the revised Planning Department analysis and recommendation. The hearing was subsequently continued for two weeks to 9:00 a.m. on October 31, 1978. The Examiner requested further comments. Since there were none, the hearing on File No. PP-223-78 was closed at 9:32 a.m. and continued to October 31, 1978. CONTINUANCE: • • The hearing was opened on October 31, 1978 at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. It was reported that the Hearing Examiner and the applicant had received and reviewed the Planning Department report and the subsequent addendum, dated October 31, 1978, which were labeled Exhibit #1 and Exhibit #2, respectively, by the Examiner. David Clemens, Associate Planner, reviewed Exhibits #1 and 2, and entered the following additional exhibits into the record: Exhibit #3: Declaration of Non-Significance (Inadvertently deleted from Exhibit #2) • • Exhibit #4: Preliminary Plat Map with Corrected • . Street Names PP-223-78 Page Two Exhibit #5: Preliminary Plat Map with Staff Revisions Denoted in Exhibit #2 Mr. Clemens also indicated that the Planning Department recommendation should include staff comments attached to Exhibit #1. The Examiner requested clarification of the proposed southerly access to the plat. Mr. Clemens advised that access would be provided through a four-way intersection connecting Lake Youngs Way and Royal Hills' Drive. The Examiner asked the applicant if he concurred in Exhibits #1 and 2. Responding was: Tom Nishimura Jones Associates 2700 Northup Way Bellevue, WA 98004 Mr. Nishimura indicated that although he concurred in most of the Planning Department recommendations, he wished to comment regarding Recommendations No. 2 and 5 which pertain to rearrangement of cul-de-sac lots to maintain the required lot width; and redesign of the plat to provide recreational open space or dedication of a portion of Tax Lot 72 for the purpose of future expansion of Phillip Arnold Park. Regarding recommendations contained in Item No. 2 pertaining to rearrangement of cul-de-sac lots, Mr. Nishimura advised that the lots in question were larger than the standard minimum lot size of the development and contain an average of 11,500 square feet. He also reported that average width of the lots is 60 feet at the setback line and 120 feet at mid-lot. He emphasized that arbitrary application of setback dimensions restricts establishment of lot configurations in cul-de-sacs and advised that existing architectural innovations provide compensation for lots which contain less than minimum' lot width.. Regarding Item No. 5, which recommends redesign of the plat to provide for recreational open space or dedication of the western portion of Tax Lot 72, Mr. Nishimura reported 1 that since Puget Western, Inc. does not own Tax Lot 72, dedication would be precluded. He noted that provision of an additional recreational facility would be superfluous duel to the proximity of the plat to existing Phillip Arnold Park, but indicated that access' into the park would be provided in the proposed emergency access. If provision of an additional park is required, Mr. Nishimura stated that development of the facility would be accomplished within the existing right-of-way. The Examiner requested testimony in support or opposition to the request. There was no response. He then advised receipt of a letter in opposition to the request which was read and entered into the record as follows: Exhibit #6: Letter to Hearing Examiner from Kathy Keolker, President, Renton Hill Community Association, dated October 30, 1978 The letter expressed concern regarding potential access to the plat via the Seattle- Cedar River Pipeline Road through the existing Renton Hill neighborhood; requested revision of the proposed name of the subdivision from Renton Hills to Puget Cove, Puget Park or Puget Hills due to proximity to existing Renton Hill community; and requested further study and consideration of environmental impact to the hillside slope on the north side of the area as well as provision of an additional recreational facility within the plat. Mr. Clemens advised that research of the records indicate that Tax Lot 72 encompasses both sides of the Cedar River Pipeline right-of-way although the applicant had reported that the area to the west of the pipeline is no longer owned by Puget Western, Inc. He stated that as a result of receipt of the information, a short plat request, may be necessary or the subject area should be included in the original plat. The Examiner requested clarification from the applicant regarding status of the portion of Tax Lot 72. Responding was: Dick Causey Puget Sound Power & Light Company 19765 N.E. 156th Place Woodinville, WA 98009 Mr. Causey was affirmed by the Examiner. He reported that he had been instructed by the Vice President of Puget Western, Inc. to report that the company does not own the western portion of Tax Lot 72. . The Examiner inquired if the tax lot had been recently purchased or sold. Mr. Causey indicated that he did not have the information. The Examiner advised that research of ownership of Tax Lot 72 would be accomplished following closure PP-223-78 Page Three of the public hearing and he requested submittal of information from the applicant and • the Planning Department within fourteen days. The Examiner referenced Analysis No.' 3, Exhibit #2, which pertains to nonconformity of various lots to the zoning lot criteria, and noted that two additional lots, No. 17 and No. 29, should also be included for revision. Mr. Clemens indicated his concurrence in the Examiner's suggestion. . The Examiner referred to earlier testimony by Mr. Nishimura regarding the minimum lot width requirements of .the Subdivision Ordinance and requested. clarification of the requirements from Mr. Clemens. Mr. Clemens advised that the Planning Department staff interpretation of the ordinance recommends that a 60-foot lot width be required at the . front building setback line and a 75-foot width be required at mid-point of the lot in the SR-1 zoning district which requires larger lot size. He noted staff's opinion • that the' interpretation. is consistent with the intent of the city's ordinances taking into. consideration all single family residential zoning designations and the concept of • graduated lot requirement's. ' Mr. Clemens indicated that memorandum providing interpretation of minimum lot widths would be transmitted to the Examiner following ' closure of the hearing. The Examiner advised that the memorandum of interpretation' • would be forwarded to the City Attorney for review and issuance of a legalLopinion. The Examiner referenced the applicant's previous comments relative to utilization of the emergency right-of-way for recreational purposes. Mr. Clemens indicated concern that the right-of-way provides a minimum area for the purpose and felt that the applicant may intend to develop a recreational or open space area on the transmission line right- of-way south of the subject site. Mr. Nishimura confirmed Mr. Clemens' statement regarding development of the right-of-way to the south. The Examiner noted that approval • by owners of the transmission line easement would be required prior to development. The Examiner advised that the public hearing would be closed subject to submittal by ,the applicant and' Planning Department of, ownership information regarding Tax Lot 72, and submittal by the Planning Department of a memorandum of interpretation of required lot widths which would be subsequently reviewed by the City Attorney. He indicated that all correspondence would be included with the Examiner's published recommendation regarding the application. There was no opposition expressed to the Examiner's procedure. The Examiner requested further comments. Since there were none, the hearing on File No. ' PP-223-78 was closed by the Examiner at 9:45 a.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: • FINDINGS: ' 1. The request is for approval of the preliminary plat of Renton Hills, a single family subdivision consisting of 100 lots. . • 2. The Planning Department report accurately sets forth the issues, applicable policies and provisions, findings of fact, and departmental recommendations in. this matter, and is hereby attached as Exhbiit #1 and incorporated in this report by reference as set forth in full therein. ' 3. Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and the' State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, as amended by R.C.W. 43.21.C., a Declaration of Non-Significance has been issued for the subject proposal by Gordon Y. Ericksen, responsible official, (Exhibit #3) subject to provision of recreational open space. 4. Plans for the proposal have been reviewed by all city departments affected by the impact of this development. ' . 5. All existing utilities are available and in close proximity. 6. ' The proposal is compatible with the lot area requirements of Section 4-704 (SR-1) of Title IV, Ordinance No. 1628, Code of General Ordinances. Several of the lots appear to not meet the minimum lot width requirements of Section '4-704 and Section • 9-1108.23.F. (3) . (c) , Title IX, Ordinance No. 1628, Code of. General Ordinances. 7. According to testimony of the applicant, the portion of Tax Lot No. 72, westerly of ' ' the City of Seattle Cedar River Pipeline right-of-way, is not owned by the applicant. The attached memorandum of November 1, 1978, from the Planning Department stated . that existing records show Tax, Lot No. 72 as undivided.. Contrary .evidence has not been submitted by the applicant. PP-223-78 Page Four 8. Emergency-only access is proposed to the City of Seattle Cedar River Pipeline right-of-way (Exhibit #4) . In Exhibit #2, staff stated that this emergency access will consist of 20 feet of pavement and two 10-foot landscape strips. A chain Or fence will prohibit all but fire or police access. 9. The steeply sloped northeasterly corner (Tract A - approximately 4 acres) is excluded from development and set aside for open space (Exhibit #4) . . In addition, the applicant testified that recreational space could be developed within the adjacent , . and southeasterly transmission line easements. • 10. Street.names within the plat, as proposed, do not conform to the city's grid system. However, the applicant agreed to changing the street names per staff recommendation -on Exhibit #4. 11. Access via an extension of Lake Youngs Way to Royal Hills Drive was acceptable to staff in terms of meeting city requirements. • ' 'CONCLUSIONS: • 1. The proposal conforms to the goals. and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Open I space is being dedicated (page 17, Objective No. 2, Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Report, July, 1965) . The subdivision is compatible with existing adjacent development (Ibid, Objective No. 1) . , Appropriate land use control is being exercised (Ibid, Objective No. 4) while promoting the best interests of the community (Ibid, page 18, Objective No. 6) .. • 2, The Comprehensive Plan, zoning regulations and Subdivision Ordinance do not specifically require dedication of recration space within a single family subdivision. Therefore, in the absence of such a 'requirement the Examiner is prevented from requiring specific recreation space in this preliminary plat. Out of a total of 26 acres approximately 4 acres is being dedicated for open space. ! This dedication appears to satisfy the Comprehensive Plan, zoning regulations and Subdivision Ordinance. In addition to the 4 acres, the applicant agreed to providing recreation space within the adjacent, southeastern transmission line easements. While this seems to be an appropriate use of the transmission line easement property, it does not. appear that the applicant can be required to provide such a use. If this recreation space is provided, maintenance shall be included in restrictive covenants. The close proximity of Phillip Arnold Park must be considered. -It appears reasonable to conclude that this park may provide some of the recreation needs of the proposal. Testimony was not provided to substantiate the adequacy or inadequacy of the park for this purpose. • However, the park does apparently provide at least a portion of the general recreational needs. It should be mentioned that recreational needs have not been defined in the Comprehensive Plan, zoning regulations or Subdivision Ordinance. (The Community Facilities element of the Comprehensive Plan, July, 1965, contains only objectives for public parks. ) 3. The proposal appears to serve the public interest, health, safety and welfare (Section 9-1106.2.E. (2) ) ., 4. Adjustments are required in the width of several of the lots to meet requirements of Section 4-704 and Section 9-1108.23.F. (3) . (c) . Per the attached legal opinion of November 14, 1978 from the City Attorney the method of Section 9-1102.8 for determining lot width and length should be,utilized. The suggested methodology of the Planning Department does not enjoy the ordinance status (which prevails) of Section 9-1102.8, Therefore, the appropriate revisions in lot width should be made in the preliminary plat, which can be accomplished 'under the review and • approval of the Planning Department. 5, Tax Lot No. 72 is `undivided and has apparently been subdivided without benefit of 1 the short plat process of the city. Under the circumstances it appears appropriate 1 • and reasonable that the status of this lot be cleared up prior to or within the final plat application. Should subdivision of Tax Lot No. 72 require subdivision, this could be accomplished in the final plat via inclusion of the property in the application., . 6. Vehicular and emergency vehicle access appears satisfactory. The emergency access will also be used by pedestrians to reach the City of Seattle Cedar River Pipeline right-Of-way and Phillip Arnold Park. .The somewhat unusual extension of Lake Youngs Way from Royal Hills Drive is precipitated by the transmission: line easement and • • PP-223-78 Page Five the existing Bonneville Power Administration facility. Without the emergency access this street would in essence constitute a very long cul-de-sac. It has been recommended by staff that the Fire and Police Departments determine the design of the "gate" to prevent access by the general public across the emergency road. In their consideration the possibility of a natural disaster or other calamity which precludes use of the emergency access should be reviewed. 7. The Subdivision Ordinance does not contain criteria for or restrictions on the selection of names for subdivisions. This has been left to the applicant's prerogative. Obviously the adjacent community of Renton Hill would be ,concerned with the proposed name of Renton Hills. However, the Examiner lacks jurisdiction over this issue. At best it can only be suggested that the community discuss this concern with the applicant. The name of the plat does not become firmly established until the final plat is recorded. • RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the record, testimony, findings and conclusions, it is the recommendation of the Examiner that the City Council approve the preliminary plat (Exhibit #4) subject to: 1. Revision in lot width of nonconforming lots per review and approval of the Planning Department. 2. Submittal of restrictive covenants with the final plat application to address maintenance of open space in Tract A and any recreation space provided. 3. Revision of street names per Exhibit #4. 4. Police and Fire Department review and approval of the gate or similar provision on the emergency access road. 5. Approval by the Public Works Department of the storm drainage plans contained in Exhibit #4. 6. Resolution of the status of Tax Lot No. 72 for incorporation in the final plat per review and approval of the Planning Department. ORDERED THIS 15th day of November, 1978. ) R'c Be er Land Use Hearing Examiner TRANSMITTED THIS 15th day of November, 1978 by Affidavit of Mailing to the parties of record: Tom Nishimura, Jones Associates, 2700 Northup Way, Bellevue, WA 98004 Dick Causey, Puget Sound Power & Light Co. , 19765 N.E. 156th P1. , Woodinville, WA 98009 TRANSMITTED THIS 15th day of November, 1978 to the following: Mayor Charles J. Delaurenti Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Councilwoman Patricia Seymour-Thorpe Warren C. Gonnason, Public Works Director Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director Ron Nelson, Building Division Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney -Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before November 29, 1978. Any aggrieved person 'feeling that the decision of the Examiner is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific errors relied upon by such appellent, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. , • OF RR 0 ro THE CITY, OF RENTON u `$ ® z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON. WASH. 98055 0mom, CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT 4 co. 2 35—2 5 50 0 ' SEPT��OP 160 MEMORANDUM November 1 , 1978 TO : Rick Beeler , Hearing Examiner FROM: Gordon Y . Ericksen , Planning Director By : David R. Clemens , Associate Planner RE : PUGET WESTERN/RENTON HILLS At the public hearing on the above referenced item, you requested from our office a research of Tax Lot 72 . Reviewing the ass'essor ' s maps and legal descriptions , it appears that T'ax Lot 72 extends on both side's 'of the . Cedar River Pipeline . Attached is the legal description for the subject tax lot. You also requested our memorandum for interpretation of the SR- 1 lot width requirement . Copy of subject memoran- dum is attached for your consideration . If you have any questions , please feel free to contact me at your convenience . DRC : wr Attachments •1 , I ( RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER rNC;'.' 11978 AM PM 71819II011111211 ,2,3,4,5,t; • 20-23-05 TL 72 PUGET WESTERN , INC . - OWNER, 1/ 1/78 POR NW 1/4 OF NE 1/4 NLY OF PSP & L • TRANS .LN' R/W SLY . ' • OF ARNOLD PARK & WSLY OF C OF S PL ESMT & POR SD SUBD NELY OF SD ESMT & NLY OF PSP & L TRANS LN LESS N 250' FT OF E 400 FT LESS POR NWLY OF LN BEG ON N LN. OF SUBD 929. 67 FT E OF NW COR THOF TH S 01-43-38 W 818 . 33 FT TH S 71-05-12W 109. 48 FT & TERMINUS SD LN & POR UAC MCALLISTER RD. • A. IV �► -�.. 0 THE CITY OF RENTON 4SY .- MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 ch o 71 CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER 1,0 co' • • O• � . L. RICK BEELER , 235-2593 �414'0 SEP1 - ' • November 2, 1978 . . MEMORANDUM • • TO: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney • • FROM: L. Rick Beeler, Hearing Examiner .SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat No. PP-223-78; Puget Western, Inc. . ' • During the public hearing regarding this application the .issue arose of the correct interpretation of minimum lot width requirements of Section 4-704. (1) • (SR-1) . This section'prescribes a 75-foot lot width at the building line, . which' exceeds the 60-foot lot width requirement of Section 9-1108.23.F. (3) . (c) • (Subdivision Ordinance) . With respect to cUl-de-sac lots the question' is where on the lots is the lot width requirement measured. r In the attached memorandum of October 30, 1978, the Planning Department states the opinion that the lot width for cul-de-sac lots should be measured ;in the SR-1 zone in the following manner: . 1. 60 feet at building setback line; . 2. 75 feet at building construction area; and 3. . 40 feet at the cul-de-sac property line. The zoning regulations do not provide guidance in this matter. However; Section 9-1102.8 (Definition of Lot) includes a graphic method of measuring lot depth . • and width for cul-de-sac lots. This method differs greatly from the Planning Department's interpretation, but appears to prevail due to its ordinance status. While such method may present design. limitations to this application, 'this method should he applied until the ordinance is changed. Do you agree? 1 Since my report is due November 14, 1978,, please respond by November 7, 1978 in view of the coming holiday. l/12 .._..) . V ' . . ' .1 , s',"- ) c�er' Attachment OF R4s, 1P ,0 THE CITY OF RENTON ®0 ® MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 ml MIMI CHARLES J. DELAURENTI, MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT •P.o co. 235-2550 o9�TED SEPI "O�P October 30, 1978 . • • MEMORANDUM RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON • NEARING EXAMINER TO: Planning Staff NOV1 19 8 FROM: Gordon Y. . Ericksen, Planning Director AM PM By: David R. Clemens, Associate Planner 7,8i9,10,11111?)L2,: ,4;5,6 RE: INTERPRETATION OF SR-1 LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENT ' A BACKGROUND: ' • Due to considerable confusion both amoung the staff and developers, regarding the lot width, the Planning Department staff thoroughly analyzed past practice and reasonable interpretations. There appears to be little question that the requirement of "75 feet in width at the building line " in practice and interpretation has meant 75 feet in width .it the bui. Zding setback (i . e . , 20 feet from the street , property line) where he .street is straight or containing a substantial arc, radius. The problem relates to maintaining this strict interpretation on cul- de-sac lots . . A strict interpretation requires radial property lines from the cul-de-sac bulb with approximately fifty feet at street front- age. Under most circumstances this involves lots of 10, 000712 , 000 square feet whereas the minimum for the district is 7, 500 square feet. Secondly, cul-de-sac lots tend to retain a large amount of flexibility in• building si.ting, on, individual lots, thus the line at which the structure is built may exceed the 20 foot minimum setback. ; Measuring lot width at that point (actual, building "construction" line) often will meet the 75 foot lot width. Thirdly, strictly .interpreting the width requirement at the front build- ing setback is inconsistent with all other residential zoning classifi- cations which require compliance with the subdivision requirement which measures lot width at the median (for all practical purposes at the midpoint between the front and rear lot lines) . , • ANALYSIS : Varying requirements among zoning classifications does insure variety. However, strict interpretation of this criteria will reduce the number of developers willing to accept the SR-1 catagory due to : r • • MEMO: PLANNING STAFF RE : INTERPRETATION OF SR-1 LOT WIDTH REQUIREP1ENT OCTOBER 30, 1978 PAGE TWO (a) Reduction in lot yield by requiring oversized lots on cul-de-sacs. • • (b) Necessity to design pipestem lots to overcome the above. • The combination of these items will tend to encourage the elimination of cul-de-sac arrangements, and encourage linear block arrangements. , Both of these aspects of residential design are contrary to good planning practice as they reduce the residential amenities, encourage awkward traffic patterns, and generally defeat the purpose of the SR-1 district. RECOMMENDED INTERPRETATION: . A. On non-cul-de-sac lots, 75 foot width at the building line shall mean 75 foot width at the' front setback (20 feet from the front property line) . B. For radial cul-de-sac lots a minimum of 60 foot lot width (conforming to the subdivision ordinance) shall be provided at the front building setback (20 feet from the street property line). Sufficient additional lot' area shall be provided to insure an adequate building site. The minimum 75 foot width requirement • should apply' to the building construction area of the lot, with a 40 foot minimum width at cul-de-sac bulb! C. All other cul-de-sac lots shall conform to Section A above or be designed as pipestem lots. • GYE:DRC:ms • i OF 1 ry U �� OZ OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY• RENTON,WASHINGTON POST OFFICE SOX 626 100 2nd AVENUE BUILDING • RENTON. WASHINGTON 913055 2554678 0 LAWRENCE J.WARREN, CITY ATTORNEY DANIEL KELLOGG, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY 1047-z.0 sePjsoe'" November 14 , 1978 MEMORANDUM • TO: Rick Beeler, Hearing Examiner • FROM: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney . Re: Measurements of lot widths for lots on cul-de-sac This. Memo: is in response to your Memo of November 2 , 1978 , • • and confirms •my telephone call to you on November 13 , 108 . Through that call I indicated to you that the lot widths: to meet the subdivision ordinance should be measured as detailed in Code Section 9-1102 8E. I have tried to review that section and find the diagram . somewhat ambiguous . However, the Planning Department's Memo may be of assistance to you in determining how the diagram has been utilitized in the past. It would appear to me that a mean horizontal distance as detailed in Section 9-1102; 8 D may fit the Planning Department' s Memo . • I hope this adequately answers ,.your question. L' Lawrence J. Warren LJW:nd • cc : Mayor Council President • • • RECEIVED' • CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINEH . NOV 15197a AM - PM 7,8t9i14,11,12i1 i2i31,4,5,6 OF R.4,4, U t$ OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY. RENTON;WASHINGTON POST OFFICE BOX 626 100 2nd AVENUE BUILDING • RENTON,WASHINGTON 98055 255-8678 2milL 0 MEM fl' LAWRENCE I.WARREN, CITY ATTORNEY DANIEL KELLOGG,, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY 16 09gT�D SEPr°4' November 14, 1978 MEMORANDUM TO : Rick Beeler, Hearing Examiner FROM: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Re: Measurements of lot widths for lots on cul-de-sac; This Memo: is in response to your Memo of November 2 , 1978 , and confirms my telephone call to you on November 13 , 1978 . Through that call I indicated to you that the lot widths to meet the subdivision ordinance should be measured as detailed in Code Section 9-1102 8E . I have tried to review that section and find the diagram. somewhat ambiguous . However, the Planning Department ' s Memo may be of assistance to you in determining how the diagram has been utilitized in the past. It would appear to me that a mean horizontal distance as detailed in Section 9-1102 8 D may fit the Planning Department' s Memo . I hope this adequately answers//,your ques zo\n. Cl_; L g �_. Lawrence J. Warren LJW:nd cc : Mayor Council President RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER NOV 151978 AM PM '7,8 9 l01110211 a21,3e41516 0 R 'V `ti THE CITY OF RENTON C.) of 4- I. 8MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 0 CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR 6 LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER O Z- L. RICK BEELER ', 235 -2593 • 4.41F0 SEPt��O November 2, 1978 MEMORANDUM TO: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney FROM: L. Rick Beeler, Hearing Examiner SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat No. PP-223-78; Puget Western, Inc. ' During the public hearing regarding this application the issue arose of the correct interpretation of minimum lot width requirements of Section 47704. (1) (SR-1) . This section prescribes a 75-foot lot width at the building line, which exceeds the 60-foot lot width requirement of Section 9-1108.23.F. (3) . (c) (Subdivision Ordinance) . With respect to cul-de-sac lots the question is where on the lots is the lot width requirement measured. In the attached memorandum of October 30, 1978, the Planning Department states the opinion that the lot width for cul-de-sac lots should be measured, in the SR-1 zone in the following manner: 1. 60 feet at building setback line; 2. 75 feet at building construction area; and 3. 40 feet at the cul-de-sac property line. The zoning regulation's do not provide guidance in this matter. However, Section 9-1102.8 (Definition of Lot) includes a graphic method of measuring lot depth and width for cul-de-sac lots. This method differs greatly from the Iplanning Department's interpretation, but appears to prevail due to its ordinance status. While such method may present design limitations to this application, this method • should be applied until the ordinance is changed. Do you agree? Since my report is due November 14, 1978, please respond by November '7, 1978 in view of the coming holiday. ter' Attachment OF R4, If o THE CITY OF RENTON - 40 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH.98055 =OM CHARLES J. DELAURENTI, MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT 235-2550 cis oAiTEo SEP1E�' October 30, 1978 • MEMORANDUM RECEIVED CITY RENOR t4 M OF IPIG EXAMINETR TO: Planning Staff IU01/ 78 FROM: Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director iM PM By: David R. Clemens, Associate Planner ` n819I')h11a m1 2A4:5r6 RE: INTERPRETATION OF SR-1 LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENT BACKGROUND: Due to considerable confusion both amoung the staff and developers, regarding the lot width, the Planning Department staff thoroughly analyzed past practice and reasonable interpretations. There appears to be little question that the requirement of "75 feet in width at the building line " in practice and interpretation has meant 75 feet in width at the building setback (i. e. , 20 feet from the street property line) where the street is straight or containing a substantial arc radius. The problem relates to maintaining this strict interpretation on cul- de-sac lots. A strict interpretation requires radial property lines from the cul-de-sac bulb with approximately fifty feet at street front- age. Under most circumstances this involves lots of 10, 000;12, 000 square feet whereas the minimum for the district is 7,500 sliquare feet. Secondly, cul-de-sac lots tend to retain a large amount of flexibility in building siting on individual lots, thus the line at which the structure is built may exceed the 20 foot minimum setback. Measuring lot width at that point (actual building "construction" line) often will meet the 75 foot lot width. Thirdly, strictly interpreting the width requirement at the front build- ing setback is inconsistent with all other residential zoning classifi- cations which require compliance with the subdivision requirement which measures lot width at the median (for all practical purposes at the midpoint between the front and rear lot lines) . ANALYSIS: Varying requirements among zoning classifications does insure variety. However, strict interpretation of this criteria will reduce the number of developers willing to accept the SR-1 catagory due to: � r MEMO: PLANNING STAFF RE: INTERPRETATION OF SR-1 LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENT OCTOBER 30, 1978 PAGE TWO (a) Reduction in lot yield by requiring oversized lots on cul-de-sacs. (b) Necessity to design pipestem lots to overcome the above. The combination of these items will tend to encourage the elimination of cul-de-sac arrangements, and encourage linear block arrangements. Both of these aspects of residential design are contrary to good planning practice as they reduce the residential amenities, encourage awkward traffic patterns, and generally defeat the purposejof the SR-i district. RECOMMENDED INTERPRETATION: A. On non-cul-de-sac lots, 75 foot width at the building line shall mean 75 foot width at the' front setback , (20 feet from the front property Zine) . B. For radial cul-de-sac lots a minimum of 60 foot lotl width (conforming to the subdivision ordinance) shall be provided at the front building setback (20 feed from the street property line) . Sufficient additional lot area shall be provided to insure an adequate building site. The minimum 75 foot width requirement should apply to the building construction area of the lot, with a 40 foot minimum width at cul-de-sac bulb. C. All other cul-de-sac lots shall conform to Section A above or be designed as pipestem lots. GYE:DRC:ms OF RkA A 0 THE CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 CHARLES J. DELAURENTI , MAYOR • PLANNING(DEPARTMENT 0 co' 235—2550 O �P 9�TFD SEP���� MEMORANDUM November 1 , 1978 TO : Rick Beeler, Hearing Examiner FROM: Gordon Y. Ericksen , Planning Director By : David R. Clemens , Associate Planner RE : PUGET WESTERN/RENTON HILLS At the public, hearing on the above referenced item, you requested from our office a research of Tax Lot 72 . Reviewing the assessor ' s maps and legal descriptions , , it appears that Tax Lot 72 extends on both sides of the ' Cedar River Pipeline . Attached is the legal description for the subject tax lot. You also requested our memorandum for interpretation of the SR-1 lot width requirement. Copy of subject memoran- dum is attached for your consideration . If you have any questions , please feel free to contact me at your convenience . DRC :wr n i Attachments /I 1 RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER NOV , 11978 AM PM 718r9il0illrl25112t314 5i6 20-23-05 TL 72 PUGET WESTERN , INC . - OWNER, 1/1/78 POR NW 1/4 OF NE 1/4 NLY OF PSP & L TRANS LN R/W SLY OF ARNOLD PARK & WSLY OF C OF S PL ESMT & POR SD SUED NELY OF SD ESMT & NLY OF PSP & L TRANS LN LESS. N 250 FT OF E 400 FT LESS POR NWLY OF LN BEG ON N LN OF SUBD 929. 67 FT E O.F NW COR THOF TH S 01-43-38 W 818 . 33 FT TH S 71-05-12W 109. 48 FT & TERMINUS SD LN & POR UAC MCALLISTER RD. . i r RECEIVED • CITY OF RENTON • HEARING EXAMINER 0CT311978 PLANNING DEPARTMENT AM P� PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER 718,911011111211121314151( OCTOBER 17 , 1978 EXHIBIT NO. APPLICANT: PUGET WESTERN, INC. ITEM NO (1'- .1 z 3- FILE NO : PP-223-78; PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR RENTON HILLS A. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Applicant requests preliminary plat approval pursuant to the City ' s subdivision regulations which would allow construction of streets and utilities in accordance with an approved single family residential subdivision layout. B. GENERAL INFORMATION : 1 1 . Owner of Record : PUGET WESTERN , INC . 2 . Applicant: PUGET WESTERN , INC. 3. Location: On the east sidelof the Seattle- Cedar River Pipeline, adjacent to Phillip Arnold Park, and 2000 feet north of Royal Hills Drive. 4. Legal Description : A detailed legal description is available on file in the Renton Planning Department. 5 . Size of Property: Approximately 26 acres . 6. Access : Via an extension of Lake Youngs Way S . E. from Royal Hills Drive. 7 . Existing Zoning : SR-1 , Single Family Residence District. 8. Existing Zoning in the Area : G and GS-1 Single1Family Residence District and H-1 Heavy Industrial . 9. Comprehensive Land Use Plan : Single Family 10. Notification : The applicant was notified in writing of the hearing date. Notice was properly published in the Record Chronicle and posted in three places on or near the site as required by City ordinance C. PURPOSE OF REQUEST: To approve plat layout for construction of streets and' utilities related to a proposed 101 -lot single family residence development. D. HISTORY/BACKGROUND : The subject site was annexed by Ordinance No . 1871 of March 8 , 1961 . The current SR-1 zoning was adopted by Ordinance No. 2059 of October 21 , 11963 . E. PHYSICAL BACKGROUND : 1 . Topography: The site is situated at the north edge, of the plateau above the Cedar River Valley. Excessively ''steep slopes border the site on the north and east. The site slopes from southwest to northeast at about 6%. The easterly one-third of the site has slopes ranging from 20% to 50%.. PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING : PUGET WESTERN , INC . , FILE NO : PP-223-78 OCTOBER 17 , 1978 PAGE TWO 2. Soils : AgC - Alderwood gravelly sandy loam which are moderately well drained , undelating to hilly soils that are dense, very slowly permeable glacial till . The soil is suited to soils and pasture , with little limitation to urban uses . 3. Vegetation: The site is wooded with maple, fir , cedar and alder, together with related typical woodland brush and scrub grass . 4. Wildlife: The existing vegetation on the site provides suitable habitat for birds and small animals . 5. Water : The site is generally well drained. There may be certain areas that may experience intermittent wetness or accumulations of surface water. 6. Land Use: The site and the majority of its surroundings are currently undeveloped. Qhillip Arnold Park lies to the west, the Renton School District owns a vacant site to the northwest, and the undeveloped Cedar River Valley lies to the north and east. Numerous power line rights-of-way extend east-west south of the site . No residential uses currently are in the immediate vicinity of the site . F. NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTERISTICS: With the exception of the Renton Hill neighborhood to the west, no neighborhood character exists currently. G. PUBLIC SERVICES : 1 . Water and Sewer: A 12 inch water line exists in Royal Hills Drive S . E . and will be required to be extended to the site. An 8 inch sanitary sewer is also located in Royal Hills Drive with connection to the subject site required . 2. Fire Protection: Provided by the Renton Fire Department per ordinance requirements . 3 . Transit: No transit routes are in the vicinity of the site. Metro Route 145 is available one mile to the south . 4. Schools : Tiffany Park Elementary School is located about one mile to the southeast. Nelson Junior High is located about 1 1 /4 miles to the southwest of the site . Lindbergh Senior High is about 1 1/2 miles to the southeast. i 5 . Parks : Phillip Arnold Park adjoins the site on the west, separated by the Cedar River Pipeline . H. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE : 1 . Section 4-704, SR-1 ., Suburban Residence District . I . APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR OTHER OFFICIAL CITY DOCUMENT: 1 . Subdivision Regulations , Section 9-1106, 2, Preliminary Plat Requirements . 2, Land Use Report, 1965 , Page 11 , Residential . J . IMPACT ON THE NATURAL SYSTEMS : Development of the subject site will disturb soil and vegetation , increase noise and storm water runoff, and have an effect on PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING : PUGET WESTERN , INC . , FILE NO : PP-223-78 OCTOBER 17 , 1978 PAGE THREE traffic levels in the area . However, through proper design and provision of suitable storm water retention facilities , these impacts can be minimized . K. SOCIAL IMPACTS : The subject request will have minimal impacts except for those caused by minor increases and new relationships that will • result from such increases . L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/THRESHOLD DETERMINATION : A number of , factors are still under review (see Planning Department Analysis below) . Due to the magnitude of several of these issues , no threshold determination has been made at the time of this report. M. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION : A vicinity map and a site map are attached . N. AGENCIES/DEPARTMENTS CONTACTED : 1 . City of Renton Building Division . 2 . City of Renton Engineering Division . 3 . City of Renton Traffic Engineering Division . 4 : City of Renton Utilities Division . 5 . City of Renton Fire Department. 0. PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS : The following issues have not been adequately addressed in the submitted plat: 1 . Provision of adequate access at two (2) points . 2. Insufficient lot width on approximately 15 lots (of 101 lots ) . 3. Provision of access to other properties in this plateau area and the potential for street stubs by this plat . 4. Lack of open space within the development for recreational purposes . 5 . Steep configuration of about 10% of the lots adjacent to the Cedar River Valley slope . P . PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION : Continuance of this matter to further consider the environmental and design solutions to problems raised by or as a part of this preliminary plat. Staff is attempting to meet with the applicant and his engineers on this matter . • • ROUTING SCHEDULE FOR APPLICATION TO : O Finance Department IAA Fire Department 4111 Library Department OPark Department (Ti Police Department I$ Pub115 Works Department Building Div. • 0 Engineering Div . (Please verify legal description ) e Traffic Engineering Div. jTO Utilities Engineering Div. • FROM: Planning Department , (signed by responsible official or his designee)VAvIt r etdaiiii14.4 DATE : 7 n tl 2 J PLEASE REVIEW THIS APPLICATION FOR: REZONE X• MAJOR PLAT SITE APPROVAL SHORT PLAT SPECIAL PERMIT • ; WAIVER SHORELINE MANAGEMENT . )0( ',,R.0 III/444KM Pirail. AND • ETURN TO THE PLANNING DEPART EN �- WITH ANY COMMENTS YOU MIGHT HAVE , BEFORE C'2 Villrj REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : LD 6 Approved U Not Approved Comments or conditions : I r /P J67 L l l ( ,-,..."-, el:- ‘,/, ',‘4.,_ _ ...-..-e e .1: 7-2/ —2!}' Signature of Directo r�Authorized Representative Dat 4 REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : • Department : /A7et-7 [M Approved [1 Not Approved Comments or conditions : /-)43 0/ 7i/L)/ 6 . CCC SS �Gc'G(7' 7 T/J ice/%� /`'7/�/A)S /%c-/ II�l/3//ci'/L7S �4 %�G r��i,�c'� t � � '� Cc/e/,tC iJ %�c- ��� r 3 „�cis ,/ vY =- ` 49/7/ Signature of Director or Author 'zed Representative Date II • REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : it p Approved Ci] Not Appr ved Comments or conditions : 4, G' 1. 7/k f„ o -i/ b. /.-n/;ra e& ( • ;`/ cJ<< ! �jr.) l47, a ye / GJi; 2, Pi a i/ s�«��,_ 4-:)� /«., 7� d r 'et.:: %�. �.a: . . •(,4 ¢. ge,,c./,z. S-//YG/ S .717,,,A 4, ` ) ,? •J 6/13 1 , —3 — 7 Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : Traffic _Engineering Q Approved Not Approved Comments or conditions : 1. Exception to Ordinance 2667 required for,.one access only. Reason is under Section 9-1108, Item 7, Sub-item 0, entitled "Two Places of Access: Each subdivision shall have at least two (2) places of access, except for those subdivision in which the. only dedicated street is cul-de-sac." 2. Proof required that the proposed access to Royal ill Drive may be dedicated public right-of-way. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative ✓ Date 10/10/78 REVIEW BY OTHER CITY ' DEPARTMENTS : Department : I= Approved t1 Not Approved Comments or conditions : Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : C Approved Q Not Approved Comments or conditions : Signature of ..Director or Authorized Representative Date r ROUTING FOR REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORMS TO: O Finance Department Fire Department Library Department Park Department Police Department qi Public Works Department 0 Building Div. ' 0 Engineering Div. ® Traffic Engineering Div. CO Utilities Engineering Div. FROM: Planning Department, (signed by responsible official or his designee) Nli2 V AgAsfa4 iiZ7i6 • SUBJECT: Review of ECF- , -76 ; Application No . : yr**-76 Action Name: , ari9X1 4XGi 964 ,4,4 GP i27 Please review the attached. Review requested by (date): (,eI bI1�/e5 Note : Responses to be written in ink. REVIEW' BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : J) L_J • �( Approved 11Not Approved Comments : /' , e7) ..„-i-C7_-%��7.f,"c-Cc--x.4/J_.. /r-iylf7Ca-e- /Z"4-•';:,-.?-r_.3.c,----. 9S- C, Signature of ' ector or Authorized Representative Date 4 REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : Commen Approved U Not Approved ' n‘C"'°/ 7i1'IU/9 t ccSS / .!P4-e7''G /q,v,J //y,0.72/9 ' /?S 4,i-c,i/ 47 : y r.V7 ` ? e Clf L--C .-----. k., _,--e_./7-r--7 or-6--N, 9/09/71 Signature of Director or Authorized 6Wesentative . Date • REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : G,4 . ,fcz,,.tt ❑j Approved in Not Ap roved Comments : / /fit? 5/,Y1,#1 1/I kill c. p r"el 1 J d et // d, ,LA. C ref tf/✓[�r�?eIt-! J 42e_ h �) T / • -3 -7P • Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : • • Department: • VT'L/ Tj� c Approved f I. Not Approved Comments : SAfri ! A,E. T l /vATI ./ F? pl-.4..T C_.°J ctr.it M/f; r cv-4ifi� fiiI ,'/ 41,4•ir! foc'a Signature of. Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : Traffic Engineering (i Approved Not Approved Comments : 1. Exception to Ordinance 2667 required for one access only. Reason is under Section 9-1108, Item 7, Sub-item 0, entitled•: • "Two Places of Access: Each subdivision shall have at least two (2) places of access, except for those subdivisions in which the only dedicated street is a cul-de-sac." 2. Proof required that the proposed access to Royal Hill Drive may be dedicated public right-of-way. /,? `` c .} Signature of Director or Authorized Re Y 9 presentative Date 10/10/7R REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : Approved clNot Approved Comme,n,ts : • Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date i ' • • • iT7JJ • -C w. , , .: , ,...-- fiAr . , , . . • i• ,, . - • , . 1 . . . .. ; -; -• . • Ir ...-:. . 6_ . L. i•M g 1 I ♦ r I • a 1 1 I!,o l 4 I 1. . `, I -: ---" .. • l , se. 1Y It ? • 1.1.4:1::::::::::.7:41.4::.":"................:"...:::::::::11"ti :...."..":::::::....:1.:::::...:........::::::::::.::::::::::::::;:::::::::....It':.11:.: ,,,......."...r. .... , , 1 •[ ..:i. .,:.:,,...,..:.::ill 1:.t,::.\.,:_‘.r 4 f: ... • a e .) \♦i}; LO A��\SEAS• R 4 - • ♦ y'' ram? 0v,-. ` M `. n 1 '\ ( . ♦ •`y1.ti• 7 ' ' --NFt-4 , • . 1 Io.�Yfa•ly,.e r❑ii9lxazdn•p �\ ♦)," • ' )\ R • \S ter` •►c save `�♦ ,; 4. ie t'ice,\ ♦. • 1 . '`,\\ : ' - ---f—o— '''t, :. -.411:1t3 eV, ti, 44140 4:11 _23_ • • 4 • ,...)1, S.\ ,.N:........, : -'7, .t•tii. -F1. 2-- ---r , :-.L--, 0 Air 4t 4.t-Feft -44:4040 - 71.,.7.,A,-.1' . '' ;.!...; . • , ', • a .G MgaiivioCtrA,14, QQ [[ .u..;..,a.a• a � \ �'V' -`• ~'LL IS OW. L©�tO V ��` �'l,iM Y.: t+„ �Jt•— I..lit E'•+• A I�`w •,. k �� ` • J O:0 S� �i la, '0©OfJ 0 �. L 4 aC4t� '> . • a ♦ WIC 7 PP-223-78 PUGET WESTERN , INC . : Application for preliminary plat approval of 101 -lot subdivision ; property located near Royal Hills Drive S . E . and Lake Youngs Way S . E . • • APPLICANT PUGET WESTERN , INC . TOTAL AREA Approx . 26 acres PRINCIPAL ACCESS Northerly extension of• Lake Youngs Way S . E . from Royal Kills Drive S . E . EXISTING ZONING SR-1 Suburban Residence District EXISTING USE Vacant ' PROPOSED USE 101 -lot single family residential tyact COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Single Family COMMENTS • NONE / ec' - 60' a'_ �.:4 � "i► a/ is 12 • • 5 \ \ S 30 i 29 hl h , c +� \'\ \ �/ • �1' ` /3 \.�.igoaa�ry /000al'�.e8�� BB00� •I yB % ^ O 414‘ ' ''/ T id a-. • —'' \\ TRACT A• �s • ,...... .,,%, : . N\ /ooao0 e1. • loo_ , i 0 fi 89 6 ' ¢i0. 3o�a4 '• , ' ' eooa --_ice.; J' �� 2� la°' z rro'- .2- iI -90 79' 5 �\ :yr 5' so' �. B25o4 � ,,,1r'� " \ h j / /a.�/CI ; - ` '.' •� / \\. - _:? _ ,, 11 --43 ,//J�1r \` 5/ '`_/ t �, • 9A %O\' /�..,to ry/ 0 7900 / ' 1 �' / /�O + O� 6• 8 �� \o, o ��rI y! -3,5 /3500W 0e» ' '•74;:,rr .'/ ' 3s r1' 7 / /2 ,_. `$. �` V. °- 4o a+5 / '- .13S �, /ifI yi �� : /! \ �6r5 i90 a�S o_ •�•,,.ti' /2000gl �35' (' _. TEMP. L/FTSTAT/ON 1 • a 17 ��� -R` ' 2O zo. •• '(`o;. '„ 135 c 0 /, t1 \ o''. \, (eyt,,,, B3 °0�. ' \--,_ `850o• , ' .n'b/ / /2• ti\ �' 3 N> \ 190000 �� •�. 9..gp0p� bb r /B9 • off, ,,• 9000'1�/, s_� -, •\,� • ' �, .'9DOp�V V2'•.� ('f ow'( Sq8 • I �a l `.. /a°�' a 67 $ 1 so �. Oyu %o//soo`a�/ /6 '•.ea -,BQ, - - -- - 365 's, I-�-hz5- ��. :0000{ri I /, J� : _ o/ooao�/\ kp r�`�\ �`p75oof�oo ,o .n d�oo� /7 �'d/ioa�fd „/ / /p - -� 36 \ •- oo" `` " 35' .. off / •/ / r- /woo • 64 _ pig-- xo. . 8/ \�-`- ' 5 co - .p0' .,� - - 5 1 • 5 \`` `h I `• NOD �' -- \ •3 ao' .� �aoo 1 �+i o \ _ /. \ // al 1-1,937sd i '„' 47 ��S" , t$ /'' r'. , `\€,,Nc+oo� //o_ vo • a oo'� 65 ;; //Oao f'" 3j0 --- ~.�_/`3a N .•B. • T` ! y,/0`' .gs \ ,°• '����`�°0 3S t` /����1 85 \>• 5 8� <' a �r•� rM e° \\� 37 Iti bl• .\`.�• I\I s• %500 fir- �� ,\. , - - 5' •`v_ ;\ 65' �. - 65 _ ••�\-.:-. I/.'%�i� S/'. 4Jq- mu, n . k,. ��� h`; lf'' • 130� 4 • /f �� - 90' \ 9 �� ti I 95oo "-rs J `1 \ \r 9/ `��1' / --75 A -. ° O i SZO -w_- -/�_ 0 • 3; ;q 0y J ,p ` /25oa 3 �- 1V B r �+ 1°' / 35 • a -- 65000• % / i �°. 92 �}� 1 ,gt5o° :OS... ° -/ ;r0,4 i Bo. us_ 7 d h,, /l25000,)\ - ' 7 ' • I - 5 th ,o °° t, �'- 6'u, • 55, 1 Zn. 4\ - - . , L• y _1 'PO 1 b \g75ao 75� a _ 1l�sp0.1, ooQ •I - �so, 41 I` . 9375Q .t. •. *2,I780a ,Q{ •• ^ 1 / .. . 15' ' b T 00�\, - Y 0 N- •i ate-- --i - 8,. 39 h • • t L• 25 '- , L �(J�f�`075 , •q5// �� �' • �.-w __ 60. • dl� ---, u I r---7 � 1$ .,90,'• a + 15' �1q, 6,,q, , \ �� s' is:_- `` 4� Z°, 3• a 1 56 1 A•-. -.,•,. _ _ -�� , 15'! \,o15p0 '�15' (' 1.8 U°/� -5 • ` 73 1.,\ is . e \r". L ss7sA� y 0 L9ooa Ri�40 �I \ 8 72 '\\gtsp00. t5• ! ` ! y g lip,low0C ,95 o//a - B ra \ I \,$75p0,\. -- , ,r5 i;i- '.,: .sooQ is• 17p5. �. \ - - „ 8- --_-i q �0 - \ 50 8`�°°4 \ t5' • ' t8 60 \0 85�4 57 1; • 143 ; — 7s' _ �'oo"w (1." 14 ,p, ',95009 a BSoo1. \ 85'' � [ „., !� 10 0 g3 1,�5'IZiN �qSdl xt ,` 4/ -v 15;.1,r ,\ /3008 S ,5 T 05', V ,1� //DOO f�. 1 69�' \ 4"SEGYER FORCE MA/N1 �r �////�//� �o \•.- 10 .- / 42 , 75 J; �500 _ 9B \ . 7t7 MANHOLE NEAR/NTERSECT/ON ) ,1 r_ 58 8000t� 110' ! y" 75' _ t ' \ �0� _, \l OF LAKE YOUN65WAYS..E. 1 I i 6. I/7500® \, _ _ 1 A.�50 75 \ \ ROYAL HILL OR/✓E to�j i 430 s'-----ago __ 50' /q°'�/8 .- 15' t' \14 6°°Q - - \ /� 6 .7_, ... \ . -/S r /. 5, \\ _ ...0, \15 95' yoS \ �� gyp.�Q �O / ' ��(/� ��/� • �.f 3�o%:\IOSO°°0,0 f~�-II�.c-�,.. 55' 1�r 65- ,\� 6q' \ •op., /5/ \\\ \\'XiVa/ 7 C/TYOFRENTLLY • gyp\ t i 1; 6304\ `� 75 Yip �IW ��\N� / 11TER SUl�2Y �x , t 1 1 62 4\t 10� i \�� ��, N�j t!t 1 - ' �\ /� �! �i,:.F CC"t�l• 9cLE55 ,j 5�q! _ 9p40101 05 B°' I • j ��pC\�jM\hb\Q� ,\ s Qom o . Y- • PI\°- \�i w �\\\ \ iz.,..i ..- _*' , , --, ,12!\', /\ •. /..,\C\ -�'n"\ ; ..-c .�rFa/9:0 a_ . .!. -""siri) r7"`.� .w- ' =;;_ ..• RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER u u.F 311978 PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUPPLEMENT - OCTOBER 31 , 1978 AM PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER 718p9i10i11012,1t2e384a DATED OCTOBER 17 , 1978 ! FILE NUMBER : PP-223-78; PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR RENTON HILLS (PUGET WESTERN , INC. ) EXHIBIT NO. ANALYSIS : ITEM NO. P/ 2 3- 7S' 1 . The proposed plat consists of property zoned SR-1 Suburban Residence District , (7500 square feet minimum lots . ) All lots exceed this minimum area . 2. The subject plat generally conforms to the zoning lot criteria with the following exceptions : a. Lot 69 does not provide a minimum 85 ' lot width for a corner lot. b. Lot 34 fairs to maintain the required 75 ' lot width which can be obtained by shifting lot lines toward lot 40. c . Lots 6 and 57 fail to maintain a minimum 75 ' lot width which can be achieved by rotating the lot line separating lots 57 and 58. Similarly, lot 6 can be corrected by rotating lot lines on lots 5 and 7. 3. The applicant has designed cul -de-sac lots into the project at several locations . Many of these lots fail to provide a minimum lot width . The following groups of lots will require redesign and potential reduction in their total number: a . Lots 13 and 14. b : Lots 30 and 31 . c . Lots 47 through 51 . d . Lots 83 through 87. e. Lots 88 through 91 . 4 . • Lots 19-24 have rear yard slopes which range from 25-40 percent. Usable rear yard area would be minimal under these conditions , ,however, the applicant proposes these lots for a " view orientation" (to the northeast) . The applicant proposes to mitigate the loss of rear yard area through the use of decks , patios and the like which do not require more level property. 5. The subject plat will have normal public access from Royal Hills Drive by a northerly extension of Lake Youngs Way S . E . The subject plat also provides for a future extension of a public street east from the subject development which may at some future time provide access to the south or east. 6. Following discussion and recommendation by the Fire Department , Traffic Engineering, and Planning Department, the applicant has proposed an emergency access to the Seattle-Cedar River Pipeline right-of-way. The proposed right-of-way will be 40 ' with a 20 foot paved section flanked by 10 foot landscaped strips . This emergency accesswill be gated or chained in such a manner to provide access only to Fire or Police vehicles . No normal , public traffic access will be allowed at this location. Due to the location of this emergency access , it will serve the secondary purpose of a pedestrian walkway to Phillip Arnold Park and the adjoining school district property should it develop into a school site . 7. The subject plat consists of 26+ acres . The applicant proposes to retain approximately 4 acres in the northeast corner of the site . This area designated Tract A consists entirely of land with slopes exceeding 50 percent. The remaining 22 acres contains 100 lots PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUPPLEMENT - OCTOBER 31 , 1978 PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER, FILE NO : PP-223-78 DATED OCTOBER 17 , 1978 PAGE TWO (less adjustments per items 2 and 3 above) . No usable recreation open space is proposed as a part of this development. To mitigate any adverse environmental impacts due to the isolated nature of this development , consideration should be given to provision of adequate open space for recreational purposes . The plat should be redesigned to accommodate open space for recreational purposes or consideration could be given to dedication of a significant portion of the 3+ acres owned by the applicant adjacent Phillip Arnold Park to expand the park. 8. Pursuant to the City of Renton ' s Environmental Ordinance and the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 , as amended , RCW 43-21C , a declaration of non-significance has been issued for the proposal subject to provision of additional open space for recreation purposes being provided. 9. The proposed street names require revision to conform to the City ' s standard grid. 10. Final design of utilities and storm drainage is required by the Public Works Department. RECOMMENDATION : 1 . Lot line adjustments are required on the following lots : a . Lot 69 - minimum 85 ' width for corner lot. b . Lot 34 - minimum 75 ' width (shift toward lot 40) . c. Lots 6 and 57 - minimum 75 ' width (rotate adjoining lot lines ) . 2. Re-arrangement of the following cul -de-sac lot areas is required to maintain the required lot width: a . Lots 13 and 14. b . Lots 30 and 31 . c. Lots 47 through 51 . d . Lots 83 through 87. e. Lots 88 through 91 . 3. The rear lot line of lots 19 through 25 be moved northeasterly 20 ' to improve the lot area on the steep slopes and to improve the rear yard of lot 18. 4. The emergency access/walkway shall be improved with 20 ' of paving with 10 ' landscaped areas on both sides . Detailed landscaping plans shall be approved by the Planning Department and installation shall occur concurrently with the public streets . The roadway shall be gated and secured as required by the Police and Fire Departments . 5. The applicant shall redesign the plat to provide for recreation open space or, dedicate to the City that portion of Tax Lot 72 lying west of the Cedar River Pipeline (adjacent to Phillip Arnold Park) for future expansion of the park area . If open space is provided within the plat convenants will be required for future maintenance i of these areas by the homeowners association. 6. Street names to be revised as follows : a . Ferncliff Avenue to S. E. 9th Street . b. Ferncliff Court to S. E. 9th Place. c. Maplewood Court to Monterey Court S. E. d. Cedar Hill Avenue to Blaine Avenue S. E . • e. Arnold Court to S. E. 9th Court. f. Fairwood Court to S . E. 8th Court. g. Cedar Hill Avenue to Dayton Avenue S. E. n8'°5e3eW 330. ,' .35..s. ►� • rye' \\ - 1 -- - Si --1 I �`\ ► ;� 0 o I hr ,r 1 27 � o o \' L. / 00.0\ oo i II, _9000PjIAapIIIB ''e, . eo / T tI� 10' 5- - ��< e' f .• . h v�y f� lik TRACT A 1. 9i • J t n I 32 \% % r - 1 r- -,�� ` •\s�\t`°% 2 \� : n89° •6 L h I &wool, !\ _ // \o:.0 11 99 / �� .• �• • ' `'..• //o' /50' �� . 7p b ��o,r q < eoo-• ---X -I°� ; �, �-'/ \lo ,trit_� rs /2.ppQ \P. /p.:. ,:% /Ja o I�° \� �'. y �% .95 / % \�' ,\*.: � ���4� •� `' ���/ 2� h /o �s �j, I 34 ./ bs \ \ :2:7. v /ODO �.• < °���✓60.�1! Ssooid /, \ 0/ '5 a' `) s --rZy� o / 500si3o': L_/2o J.°,'.� o / n \o' /1° , 62 / � . \�• `� /mood \ •5..4,0, so'A. r-- , r \N\ •�•. BoaoP / /a000 t 1 , g\som/ ��\s. �\g .." �`'� -'`¢o i ` - sJ /20- �� '� /0000aI 0 1 35 \�' -�°O- c 86 t \ sc �� /4000° / _ / /� f=--1 i h �, . ` I /0000 ' / p�\ oo, o/ooao>,' /= iSooP '//� �� 11 3�'� 1 /5 �o i � � r i"\n i 5- I��i „ �, \\a )o =i q \ \= /is. -� - \ 0 ~�. �°°/ �� L- h / \o /00001,i� ' �'°° °c 9375' i 46 �G \ 9/; \ p;; e. iiivih•��� • % ��� \Q uo�0<' \ 2J `� , _iler ■ Z �' • e/ ��\ //OOp h /• / rood,,r Y /aoan' `,�9 5' 7 (� .' (Z �,��hl i J b . \ a . a ,� \�- • q/ 9375d ' I $ /n00 / ) / .. / l�/ ,\ mJ- \ \� / i�^\ �:�S , �►/�ir) {N • 8°'i't \ \� _i I 9500'. 5' 8 ' _920 /25_J II 37 / /4- / �\ 90 NS.\ / !'�' ^ \ ■" _� \t I ��\\V - I 1--/6s' J n� h .`■' \\ /25o00 ��'7' �N_�� s' „< < .4 . e�-, 9 \B I�•'.Q�- C I I , 1 I`-���'l (j / 1.7:.p0 s A •'' ��--- t �n(� 41 \''- i;�jt/ p ;�� J� 1\�° 0I � y5 54 1 h I 44 Atli/ /25✓0!0 \ 6 \`. °� roc: ,o °$ -% / a5 'Cr_ n 1 9375P I�. n I i iao. �v t \- ? \° ��� i lI �i' . ��• •� �L_/2s_J I Bzsoal o I 1 ., /���-/ ►� �-\� 15 \\ot5°O _>\= t5' `J,g11 \.o �.�� � a!o y I11• L_/.cam 38 I . l i5' ( \o �. ..i p /!/ 6 q \'!' \ AZ -=--1 �1 _ 1 o 320001 • 92 .. :- - ; \` 7a0 5 � y - 0h 1 5 I N _.• 1I \�o .•'q ' � .'n ^ • -- i� \op0 \1- ', i t--- \C' 'toe � °' 82sodl I 1 •L 12 , 7s t5. \\g Oo I ,t �`/2s_-! L_No_! 39 �* '35' \- 71 \0150°4 j\� •f �• ` �t� ov �u°may �s \ I g .01 l \ 1 �- '�' i i •��1 0 p0/ to zn 0 5 �, \ �� 56 l;, �� i--=-� w • L -,20= 50, 9®q ;otsi�s\r�5• \\$ 5 p0p,t'.1 � 70500' $ ' 1 9000d I• j I 1 ,� I -1 t 850° ,\- t5 �% t8' 0' \ l�q, \ t 5 �� °05,1 "Yv � � ate, °BSOoS ;_— \m\ 85' �' • t5'��\��. t 6 \° 85 1 ,00„ 571 l `� . /�40 1 1 � � � \ � p W I°94 50 ,/ 57 _, b \�/ 4/ \h soad,� / ��• t�'� (B \Do7j S 10 1 g2i ea 6p"�� /0000� \ •'�' t5 Ito 84 c7- \ 4"SELYERFORCEM.2/N ! o\/ 8� / 75' 1 0 ° 9 t l 7U MANHOLE NEAR/NTERSECTC?i1/ ® I 4� ` ���/ 40_— g'M/ 0%�� i�\ \to 75° t500' \ �\\ OF L4AS-MC4COS/WYSE. 1 \ �� 58 'I _. • 7 < \'• 5p0q \ to�\ ROYgG.�//GL OR/✓E 0 I 1�w / , //, ��� �- /2oaodl,� ° '$ tg 1t 65 \ .� �9 NO. g t \ �\\ w�\ o. ,.So- 75� 75�^(' 3 �` ��A'y5 7 ' \�s \\\� (LQ `D 777C/TYOF/4ENTCW\ r.s / I 7� �l \ _ /J� WATER SORY ��` /1° S9 \.� /l o°°�'0 6ro0;°o.lT� \II 000 kg g 1;5 t5' R'D� �I� \\\ f� �./ 40' EMEK4EMCT ALLE55 ao \d j05'� a� ,�AhM\hS� �� ` S j> 147‘., WO Or \s\ 40' \ t/ \ , !i/ 1rJ_ ROUTING SCHEDULE FOR APPLICATION TO : W1'Ual ® Finance Department �) Fire Department atuvit J( IV Library Department , I Park Department ® Police Department QPublic Works Department O Building Div. 0 Engineering Div. (Please verify legal description) 40 Traffic Engineering Div. 0 Utilities Engineering Div. —Z ,g FROM: Planning Department , (signed by responsible official or his designee ) e � DATE : /07/6 PLEASE REVIEW THIS APPLICA REZONE -� �� �� � FtiTt_T-_!:2) MAJOR PLAT SITE APPROVALSHORT PLAT SPECIAL PERMIT WAIVER SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PERMIT OR EXEMPTION AND RETURN TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT /0 WITH ANY COMMENTS YOU MIGHT HAVE , BEFORE REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : l)rlLi i t(s Approved Not ;Approved Comments or conditions : Fl NA 1_ A 1,2IJ%ZU.r A, Sv13j 7-a Df?SiG/.r off- " TRt-t (=i ST/\TiwY Aim0 CO/ '. y To C err w ('i't. 7` �kT z ie/L- ". / •- 2_4-7a • ignature of Director or Authorized Representative Date I ROUTING SCHEDULE FOR APPLICATION Wt3/4X WIlial TO : O Finance Department nn�� ���rr Fire Department (.UN�'`tidV�� Library Department f2/, fJft[)1tJ Park Department ® 0 Police Department OPublic. Works Department Building Div . 8( Engineering Div . (Please verify legal description) Traffic Engineering Div. Utilities Engineering Div. FROM: Planning Department , ( signed by responsible official or his designee) pwo e 0),Kor&r:_,L_______18:1_iE : offielib PLEASE REVIEW THISAPP�LLICA F0 . I'M REZONE era �/ (3 Wit/ MAJOR PLAT SITE APPROVAL SHORT PLAT SPECIAL PERMIT WAIVER SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PERMIT OR EXEMPTION AND RETURN TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT jj,� WITH ANY COMMENTS YOU MIGHT HAVE , BEFORE /ll REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPART TS :: Department : q5 Z:�� (1:, Approved LJ Not Approved Comments or conditions : ,d .:1-- /a17-e- 0/(--ei W 672 , ,, Ji „2---_--- ---- /'41//4—?i / , 4,„„, c Signature of Dir ctor or Authori ed Representative Dat ROUTING SCHEDULE FOR APPLICATION ftioex pgrual • TO : Finance Departmentt y�' Fire Department (.VI141(4 j" Library Department OPark Department ® Police Department ' ® Public Works Department O Building Div. ' QEngineering Div. (Please verify legal description) op Traffic Engineering Div. Utilities Engineering Div. FROM: Planning Department , (signed by responsible official or his designee) •, wiroU�rf� � DATE : Ofr6 PLEASE REVIEW THIS APPLICATI _ REZONED+ ��U �;� MAJOR PLAT SITE APPROVAL SHORT PLAT SPECIAL PERMIT WAIVER SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PERMIT OR EXEMPTION AND RETURN TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT /U WITH ANY COMMENTS YOU MIGHT HAVE , BEFORE U • REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : / -,/ L- /4 q,/-7 C1 Approved CM Not Approved Comments or conditions : /7)// �r ? /1/17/ te<ip c /:71 C bee-4 s • ` `/c , Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date ROUTING SCHEDULE FOR APPLICATION TO : Finance � Q Department �-J) Fire Department dokibtair4 Iv Library Department WAri, r 1 Park Department 1 Police Department OPublic Works Department O Building Div. JEngineering Div. (Please verify legal description) 1 O Traffic Engineering Div. Utilities Engineering Div. FROM: Planning Department , (signed by responsible official or his designee) 77LJ(j7 0) ,A44f DATE : • PLEASE REVIEW THIS APPLICAT REZONE 0° 003. - MAJOR PLAT SITE APPROVAL SHORT PLAT SPECIAL PERMIT WAIVER SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PERMIT OR EXEMPTION AND RETURN TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT . /m WITH ANY COMMENTS YOU MIGHT HAVE , BEFORE /U • .:VIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Depaa tment : La Approved [I] Not Approved Comments or conditions : • • ECG G S S f , /-//t 2/(25t-.i S /(lVe{// 2 //✓S%/YGE..L72 /°/ego/C l� AA,;() /citiG Chi"` • i I I + /� ' " nature of Director or Authorize epresentative Date PROPOSED/FINAL DEL ;RATION OF SIGNIFICANCE/NU..- SIGNIFICANCE Application No. PP-223-78 0 PROPOSED Declaration Environmental Checklist No . ECF-344-78 ] FINAL Declaration Description o.f proposal Application for preliminary plat approval of 101-lot single family residential subdivision . Proponent PUGET WESTERN , INC . On Location of Proposal Phillipeast Arnoldde Parrk f andttle-Cedar 2000' north�ofrRoyyalline Hillsdjrive a s Dve.t to . Lead Agency RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT This proposal has been determined to ❑ have © not have a significant adverse impact upon the environment. An EIS ❑ is is not required under RCW 43 . 21C . 030(2 ) (c ) . This decision was ma a after review by the lead agency of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. --- Reasons for declaration of environmental significance : This declaration is based upon provision of recreational open space as a part of or adjacent to the subject development . Measures , if any, that could be taken to prevent or mitigate the environmental impacts to such an extent that the lead agency would withdraw its declaration of significance and issue a (proposed/final ) declaration of non-significance : i*tCEIVIEU - --"- HEARING EXAMINER AM PM o _ - 7NatainIlc12,11,13.4151G Responsible Official Gordon Y . Ericksen Title Pl . ng1rec • Date October 24 , 1978 Signature City of Renton P 1 anni n n. n c n a r+m n,,+ RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER October 30, 1978 OCT 3 01978 AM FPS 718r9110,1111211121;?1 ;6 4 Mr. L. Rick Beeler, Land Use Hearing Examiner City of Renton Renton, Washington 98055 Re : PP-223-78 Dear Mr. Beeler: The Renton Hill Community Association has three basic concerns about the proposed development by Puget Western. 1 . The Planning Department has recommended access via Lake Youngs Way and we concur with that recommendation. It complies with prior reports from the Planning Commission concerning Renton Hill that additional access through the Hill is not appropriate. We request assurance that the Seattle-Cedar River Pipeline Road will not be opened now or at the future request of the new residents of this development. In our many hearings before you, the Planning Commission, and the City Council, we have expressed concern about the traffic impact of development on the Hill. The impact of an additional access road to this area via Renton Hill would make the Hill a thorofare for residents of Royal Hills, Tiffany Park and Cascade Vista. We have shown previously that our streets cannot handle any large increase in traffic volume and that when the pipeline road was open several years ago, we had problems with crime, burglary, vandalism, child molesting, as well as dangerous traffic petterns. We want to be assured that there is NO potential for this kind of situation to recur - that there should be no additional access to Renton Hill from the south, east, northeast or via the pipeline road. 2. We feel that the proposed name for the development "Renton Hills" is totally inappropriate. We are sure that Puget Western can find another name for this development without taking the name of the oldest,:residential neighborhood in the city and changing it by the addition of an "s" . We have noted that the Planning Department has changed the names of the streets in the development and we concur with these changes. Perhaps a more appropriate name for the subdivision would reflect the name of the developer such as : Puget Cove, Puget Park, Puget Hills, etc. EXHIBIT NO. 6 ITEM NO. ���- L.3 - 7f Page 2 PP-223-78 3. We are also concerned with the environmental impact of a development of this size. We request further study and consideration to ascertain the impact to the hillside slope on the north side of the area. We also request that a provision be made for recreational use (especially for children under twelve) within the confines of the development. While in- creasing the size of Philip Arnold Park, as recommended by the Planning Department, is an excellent idea that would benefit the entire community, it is important to provide recreation space for the children as well as a gathering place for the other members of the community. This approach has been used in many developments in the area and has been shown to enhance the quality of life and the character of the development. We have no further objections to this development beyond the three concerns stated in this letter. Sincerely, tr 'j Kathy Keolker, President Renton Hill Community Association 532 Cedar Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 255-0936 PROPOSED/FINAL 'liL LARATION OF SIGNIFICANCE,"IUN—SIGNIFICANCE Application No. PP-223-78 ® PROPOSED Declaration Environmental Checklist No. ECF-344-78 Q FINAL Declaration Description of proposal Application for preliminary plat approval of 101-lot single family residential subdivision . Proponent PUGET WESTERN , INC . On the east side of Seattle-Cedar River Pipeline adjacent to Location of Proposal Phillip Arnold Park and 2000' north of Royal Hills Drive. Lead Agency RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT This proposal has been determined to ❑ have © not have a significant adverse impact upon the environment . An EIS ❑ is is not required under RCW 43 . 21C . 030(2 ) (c) . This decision was ma a after review by the lead agency of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. Reasons for declaration of environmental significance : This declaration is based upon provision of recreational open space as a part of or adjacent to the subject development . Measures , if any, that could be taken to prevent or mitigate the environmental impacts to such an extent that the lead agency would withdraw its declaration of significance and issue a (proposed/final) declaration of non-significance : Responsible Official Gordon Y . Ericksen Title P1 . , ,, ng , re c• � Date October 24 , 1978 Signature /jl1iA_ f City of Renton Plannino_ npna.rtm.ant CITY OF RENTON {i SHORT PLAT PLAN R. CATION FILE NO. -TP/ -��`j 7O MAJOR PLAT �'"�// O/�, DATE REC' D. 9 " - �� 42,44°- �/ TENTATIVE / 0(������D •l� APPLICATION FEE $ /D�t �� ^ PRELIMINARY �. � . Z' NVIRONMENTAL 0O If FINAL (� NY WM " PREVIEW FEE $ / 6u 6sie ��Q 4/ RECEIPT NO. i .06z,, 1N� .,4/ SM NO. PUD NO . APPLICANT TO COMPLETE ITEMS 1 THROUGH 7 : 1. Plat Name & Location �� �,4104v 1J ; 0,4afi041--- '/ Cam, SP(14- 20 1z3N ice- -)� i ae 1,0,94 df'ct (6,,d(3 1,..\-Ca- �Pi.�S �� � _ mac- or1)r � Zti2 . No. Lots /O1j of 1 Acreage �n t S� Zoning s� , 3 . Owner I41 L ) /2 4 C- Le _. Phone ,r"11-636,; Address /0 2 �f'//- SST > 4 -aat-ie, W4- 9CWO, 5 . Underground Utilities : Yes No Not Installed Telephone ( >c ) ( ) ( ) Electric ( C ) ( ) ( ) - Street Lights ( v ) ( ) ( ) Natural Gas ( - ) ( ) ( ) TV Cable ( / ) ( ) ( ) 6 . Sanitation & Water: ( •/ ) City Water ( X) Sanitary Sewers ( ) Water District No . ( ) Dry Sewers ( ) Septic Tanks 7 . Vicinity and plat maps as required by Subdivision Ordinance. 8 . DATE REFERRED TO: ENGINEERING PARKS BUILDING HEALTH TRAFFIC ENG. STATE HIGHWAY FIRE COUNTY PLANNING BD, PUBLIC WORKS OTHER 9 . STAFF ACTION: TENTATIVE PLAT APPROVED DENIED - APPEALED EXPIRED 10 . LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER'S ACTION: SHORT PLAT APPROVED DENIED PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVED DENIED FINAL PLAT APPEALED EXPIRED 11 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVED DENIED FINAL PLAT APPEALED EXPIRED 12. DEFERRED IMPROVEMENTS : DATE DATE BOND NO. AND TYPE GRANTED EXPIRES AMOUNT • Planning Dept . Rev. 1/77 • AFFIDAVIT • • • I , ' Regnar R. B. Kearton being duly sworn, declare that I am the Zafa�,,EL property involved in this application and that the foregoing statemnn'ts and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are 'in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Subscribed and sworn before me this 19th day of September 19 78 Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at cejilehoi.e.6/ . • Name of Nota Publ c) S gn t re o wrier ut orize Agen1 /e d'���� 2700 Northup Way Address (Address) • • Bellevue Washington 980C • (City) . (State) 827-9555 (Telephone) • • (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) • • • CERTIFICATION • This is to certi ( a g g the .f oin a pplication has been inspected by me and has been be or.o h and complete in everyparticular ,,,,�� and t o conform .to ther`f ules a_r \' egu ions of the Renton Planning Department governing the i lir o s f lication . / Date Received '� Q , 19 By: N1NG Renton Planning Dept . • • CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON 17"?.— ' ' 'ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM ® glkmh • :�® . ' ' • l'API t-u ç i 5 1918 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY p +-- � Application No. TP"' J7 -/d ,� As NjveNG.DEQP Environmental Checklist No. J CP— �4 7 — PROPOSED, date:. FINAL , date : _ I, ElDeclaration of Significance '.•" Q Declaration of Significance ® Declaration of Non-Significance „ E1 Declaration of Non-Significance COMMENTS: :' Introduction The State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 , Chapter 43.21C, RCW, requires all state and local governmental agencies to consider environmental values both for their own actions and when licensing private proposals . The Act also requires that' an EIS be prepared for all major.actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to help the agencies involved determine whether or not a proposal is such a major action. Please answer the following questions as completely as you can with the information presently available to you. Where explanations of your answers are required, or where you believe an explanation would be helpful to government decision makers , include your explanation in the space provided, or use additional pages if necessary. 1 You should include references to any reports or studies of which you are aware and which are rele- vant to the answers you provide: Complete answers to these questions now will help all agencies involved 'with your proposal to undertake the required environmental review with- out unnecessary delay. The following questions apply to your total proposal , not just to the license for which you are currently applying or the proposal for which approval is sought. Your answers should include the impacts which will be caused by your proposal when it is completed, even though completion may not occur until sometime in the future. This will allow all of the agencies which will be involved to complete their environmental review now, with- out duplicating paperwork in the future. NOTE: This is a standard form being used by all state and local agencies in the State. of Washington for various types, of proposals . Many of the questions may not apply to your proposal . If .a question does not apply, just answer it "no" and continue on to the next question. • I . ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM I . BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent Pu get Western, Inc. 2. Address and phone number of Proponent: 10608 N.E. 4th Bellevue WA 98009 454-6363 3. Date Checklist submitted . May 3 , 1978 4. Agency requiring Checklist City of Renton 5. Name of proposal , if applicable: Renton Hills 6. Nature and brief description of the proposal (including but not limited to its size, general design elements, and other factors that will give an accurate understanding of its scope and nature) : A single-family residential subdivision of 93 homes on 24.35 acres (SR-1 zoning) is proposed. Minimum lot area is 7,500 square feet. • 7..iLocation of proposal (describe`the physical_ .setting of the! proposal , as well as"the extent! the land area affected by any environmental !impacts , including' any other information needed to give in accurate understanding of the environ- mental setting' of :the proposal ) Portion of.N.E: quarter of section 20, ,Township 23 Northc''Range 5 E. , W.M. , King County, Washington, City of Renton, east of Phillip Arnold Park: The land%.in the surrounding area is devoted, generally to residential, and power line uses: 8. Estimated date for completion of the proposal : Fall , 1978 9. List of 'all permits , licenses or government approvals 'required for' the proposal ' : (federal , state and local --including rezones) : , . Tentative plat approval , usual Planning Commission, Public Works, Fire Dept. and City Council approvals are required; hydraulics permit, sewer permit, water permit, storm drainage permit, building permit, street permit, possible access permit from Seattle City Light. !. _-'—^- 10. Do you have any plans for' future additions , expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this' proposal?. If yes , explain: No 11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by , your proposal ?' If yes , explain: No • 12. . Attach any other application form that has been completed regarding the 'pro- posal ; if none has been completed, but is expected to be filed at some future date; describe the nature' of such application form: ' N/A • II . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required) . (1) Earth. Will the proposal !result in: , i' , (a) Unstable 'earth conditions or in changes in geologic , substructures? X YES ' MAYBE NO— ' (b) Disruptions , displacements , compaction or over- ' covering of the soil? X . YES MAYBE NO (c) Change in topography or ground surface relief features? X Tel-- MAYBE - (d) The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? X ; - YES : M YBE NO (e) Any increase in wind 'or water erosion of soils , ' either on or off the site? X YES MAYBE NO (f)• Changes in 'deposition or erosion of 'beach sands , or ' changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which ' may modify the channel of a river or stream or the X bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? YES— MAYBE NO, Explanation:' I See attachment'. • • • ,U -3- (2) Air. Will the proposal result in: . ; ..-; I • (a) Air emissions..or deterioration of ambient air. ' • •quality? ..- . . • • • X - YET- MAYBE NO . . (b) The creation of objectionable odors? X • • ' OF E- ,MAYBE (c) , Alteration.-o•f ai.r..movement, moisture or temperature, ' II • ' or any change in climate, either locally'or . • I regionally? 1. . X ,:YES MAY,BE NO Explanation: Some temporary increases in dust, or smoke from burning . • debris '(if a permit for burning is obtained), may occur during construction . - activities. '• Exhaust .emissions gill bo�produoedcbgovehi.cl:es aused';::ddri:'ng-icon- . • struction.,and by,.vehicles in the completed residential area. (3) Water. Will the proposal result in: j • (a) Changes in currents, or the course of direction of ' water movements , in either marine or fresh waters? X , . YES MAYBE NO • (b) Changes in absorption rates , drainage patterns , 'or' ' the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ,X YES MAYBE NO • (c) Alterations to the• course or flow of flood waters? X • YES MAYBE NO (d) Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? . . X YES MAYBE NO (e) Discharge into surface waters , or in any alteration ' • . surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X YES MATTE NtO (f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? X YES MAYBE NO . (g) Change in the quantity of ground waters , either • through direct additions or withdrawals, or through . interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? . X YES MAYBE NO . ' . (h) Deterioration in ground water quality, either through direct injection , or. through the seepage of leachate, ' phosphates , detergents , waterborne virus or bacteria, . or other substances into the ground waters? 'X YES MM BE' NO (i ) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? ' X - . . Yrs.— MAYBE . N- Explanation: The increased impervious surface due to subsequent development• • of the site will result in a change of the surface runoff characteristics of the property, and a decrease in the amount of water currently absorbed. The rate of surface water runoff will be controlled acco d iing to storm drainage requirements (4) Flora. Will the proposal result in: modeled after King Co. ordinances and A.P.W.A. (a) Change in the diversity of species, or numbers .of any specifications. species of flora (including trees, shrubs , grass , crops , microflora and aquatic plants)? X • YES Wirfr NO (b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of flora? X YES MAYBE -NO • (c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing • species? . X YES MAYBE Wr . (d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? X I V!T MAYBE WO-- Explanation: Removal of existing vegetative cover will reduce the actual ',. . ,:. , ':. • amounts but not variety of species of flora. However, landscaping of the site will introduce new decorative species of flora in designated areas. • i. . Ii v.; (5) Fauna. ' Will ' the'proposal-result in,: '. ' • -- (a) Changes An the• diversity of. species,• or numbers of i ,• any species' of fauna (birds,' land animals including reptiles , fish and shellfish, benthic organisms ,. X . . •insects or microfauna)? . • � •• • , , - iYES. MAYBE .` NO (b) Reduction of. the nunibersi of any unique, rare 'or . ' ' . • endangered • species::of. fauna?: .• ' '` ' ` X • YES MAYBE NO . • '(c.) Introduction of new' species ,of. ,fauna into an area, "' • ; ' ` ' or result in a barrier .to the migration or movement �, ' . • of fauna? : ,•• , [X MAYBE NO • ' (d) Deterioration. to existing fish or wildlife''habita't? ', iX ' • .' ,YES MAYBE NO Explanation: (c) 'It'is possible that .the future residents of the subdivision will have' different species of domestic animals as pets.; (d) The property is now a habitat for small wildlife forms; however, since this property is most likely . only a partial habitat for these animals, development of, the proposal will not result in the loss of these-Me-furms. - (6) Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? 'X YES MAYBE NO • Explanation:' On-site construction will cause a short-term increase in • noise levels. The subsequent residential 'development will result in increased noise levels by virtue of new noise sources (30-40 dBA) that accompany such • .development- =- -- —__-- -=- - (7) Light and Glare. 'Will the proposal produce new light or X • glare? . . j'YES MAYBE ND Explanation: Development of_the site for residential 'use will result in . the production of additional light from residential units and the necessary . • . • safety lighting on the site. (8) Land Use. Will the proposal result in the alteration of the present or planned land use of .an area? . • , X . • YES MAYBE NO Explanation: _At p resent, the site is undeveloped and :the proposal will , • • with the activity related to it, alter its use. 'The proposal , _however,_is con- sistent with existing zoningand the. City's -Comprehensive Plan. ^ — (9) Natural Resources.' Will •the proposal result iii : (a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural . resources? X YES MAYBE NO (b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? X • YES MAYBE NO Explanation: (a) Construction of the proposed project will result in • • consumption of 'thenormal amounts of energy and construction materials, and it will result in the commitment of the land itself for residential purposes. (10) Risk of Upset. Does 'the proposal involve a risk of-an . explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including; but' not limited to, oil , pesticides , chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? _ X ES MAYBE • N-o— . Explanation: • _ (11) Population., Will the proposal alter the location, distri • - bution, density, or growth rate of the human population •X • of an area? • TaS MAYBE NS Explanation: ' By adding residential units, the proposal will alter the location, distribution and density of population in the Renton area. Further, • this proposal will.. help to accommodate population growth in this general area: . s5_ • . ( 12) Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or ' create a demand for additional housing? X , YES MAYBE NO ' Explanation: The proposal will affect 'existing housing availability by ' 'providing additional dwelling units and thereby helping ;to meet present or future demand for housing. • (13) Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: (a) Generation of additional vehicular movement? • ! X , (b) Effects on existin YES , MAYBE NO g parking facilities, or demand for. new parking? . . •. . . YES MAYBE 'No' ' (c) Impact upon existing transportation systems? .. . • - MAEIBE NN (d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation Or ' ' I' ' • . movement of people and/or goods? X • VET TRY—Br NU— (e) Alterations. to waterborne, rail or air traffic? • I X YES • MA B NO (f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles , . bicyclists or pedestrians? • X TES— M NO . Explanation: . See attachment. . • . (14) Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas : . • (a) Fire protection?' . X , YES MAYBE. NO (b) Police protection?. X YES MAYBE NO (c) Schools? X YES MAYBE NO (d) Parks or other recreational facilities? . X , YES MAYBE NO (e) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X ' . YES MAYBE NO (f) Other governmental services? • . X YES MMAY,bE NO Explanation: See attachment. (15) Energy. Will the proposal result in: . (a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X • YES MATEY N5— (b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? X • YET- MAYBE N- ' Explanation: The future development of this area will result in an in— • creased demand upon existing and future. sources of energy, but this proposal , • by itself, will not require the development of new energy sources. (16) Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities: .(a) Power or natural gas? X i • YES VOTE NO • (b) Communications systems? X . • YES MAYBE NO (c) Water? X • YES MAYBE NO 1 , 4�: • _ 1 r I v (d) 2 Sewer or septic tanks? ' ' I X ,YES MAYBE.,- NO ; (e) Storm .water.•drainage? ;'X.•',:'. 1:. . YES MAYBE . (f) Solid waste and disposal? X YES MAYBE NO Explanation:' ' All services except storm water drainage are currently available in the area and the only alterations required would be those necessary to extend services to the proposed site. The developer must con- struct storm water drainage. facilities for the proposed site, in accordance with City of Renton requirements. . ' . 1 . 1. . (17) , Human Health. Will the proposal result in the creation of IL, I any health hazard.,or potential health hazard (excluding ; ,•. .;:• , mental health).? .' ' ' u ' ' • ' ' j Y7`s-- MAYBE NO Explanation: • • (18) Aesthetics.' Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the , proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive ' 'I site open' totpublic view?. X YES MAYBE NO • Explanation: . ' - (19) Recreation., Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities?: X YES MAYBE ' 0— Explanation: . ' , (20) Archeological/Historical'. Will the proposal result in an I. alteration of a sign-ificant archeological or historical • , site, structure, objector building? . ' X . I,Y-€S MAYBE 0— • • ; Explanation: • III. SIGNATURE , I , the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is 'understood that the lead agency may withdraw any decla- ration of non-significance that ,it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lac of fu l disclosure on my part. Proponent: I-__t-, /lyt`-`-, ' I. ( Lar Pearson JOr S ASSOCIATES, INC. (name printed) I • - ' City of Renton Planning .De partment j 5-76 � ' , , _ ADDITIONAL EXPLANATIONS (SEE CHECKLIST) 1. Earth (b) During site preparation, soils will be displaced and overcovered. • However, excavation and fill will be balanced on-site to avoid the use of borrow or disposal sites. (c) Minor changes in existing topography will occur during site development, but no recontouring is anticipated. (e) Some minor erosion and siltation of runoff during site preparation is inevitable; however, this will be controlled by normal engineer- ing and construction practices. 13. Transportation/Circulation (a) Short-term increases in automobile and truck movement will be apparent during the construction phase. In the long term, the increased population will result in the generation of additional vehicular movement. 1 (b) Demand for additional parking space needed to accommodate the increased number of vehicles will be satisfied by providing on- site parking to serve the residential units. (c) A paved roadway must be developed along former County Road No. 63. With a maximum of 93 homes being built in the proposed development, the average number of times per day a car would enter or leave this access route would be 930 (based on an average weekday vehicle trip end. of .10 per._uni.t) -(Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1976, Trip Generation). Other traffic routes experiencing increased vehicular movement as a result of the proposed development would be Royal : Hills Drive. and Puget Drive. ! _ (f) Traffic accidents are generally random .events and are therefore • non-predictable. Appropriate traffic control strategies would help reduce hazards. - 14. Public Services (a) Personal communication with Chief Geissler of the Renton ;Fire Department indicates that two fire fighters are required !per 1 ,000 population. With all 93 proposed units occupied, the Renton popu- lation will be increased by about 233 (based on PSCOG 1976 projected population estimates for Census Tract 257); this number combined with development elsewhere in the area and resulting population increase might warrant the addition of one full-time fire fighter. 1 Additional Explanations, continued (b) Personal communication with the Renton Police Department indicates that police services are adequate to meet current population needs, and most likely would meet the demand created by the proposed subdivision. As Renton's population density increases with con- tinued development activities of this type, new personnel may be required. (e) Permission must be granted to develop and maintain a paved roadway section to the site on the county right-of-way access. • .. i I ' I . A4pF R 'V a ,} z THE CITY OF RENTON ,., MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 0 • Op CHARLES J. DELAURENTI, MAYOR • PLANNING DEPARTMENT O 235-2550 4).'tO SE PI ." September 28, 1978 Puget Western , Inc . 10608 N . E . 4th Bellevue , Washington 98009 RE : NOTICE OF APPLICATION ACCEPTANCE AND PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OF 101 -LOT SUBDIVISION: File No . PP-223-78 ; property located near Royal 1 Hills Drive S . E . and Lake Youngs Way S . E . ( Dear Sirs : The Renton Planning Department formally accepted the above mentioned application on September 19 , 1978 A public hearing before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner has been set for October 17 , 1978 at 9 : 00 a .m. Representatives of the applicant are asked to be present . All interested persons are invited to attend the hearing . If you have any further questions , please call the RentIon Planning Department , 235-2550 . Very truly yours , Gordon Y . Ericksen Plannin Director BY : 67f 0144' ' /( "49'aiW,0 - David R. Clemens Associate Planner cc : Regnar R . B . Kearton 2700 Northrup Way Bellevue , WA 98004 Jones Associates , Inc . 2750 Northrup Way Bellevue , WA 98004 NO I I CL UI PUBLIC I ILU I NU RENTON LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER RENTON, WASHINGTON A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY TILL RENTON l AND USE HEARING EXAMINER Al HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS , CITY HALL ; RENTON , WASHINGTON , ON OCTOBER 17 , 19 78 , AT 9 : 00 A. M. TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS : 1 . VIRGIL GOODEN , APPLICATION FOR SITE APPROVAL IN AN R-2 ZONE ; File No . SA-222-78 ; property located in the vicinity of 1550 Union Avenue N . E . 2 . PUGET WESTERN , INC . , APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OF 101 -LOT SUBDIVISION ; File No . PP-223-78 , property located near Royal Hills Drive S . E . and Lake Youngs Way S . E . 3 . DEVELOPMENT COORDINATORS , INC . , TIFFANY PARK DIVISION NO . 3 ; FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR '34 LOT SINGLE FAMILY • RESIDENCE SUBDIVISION ; File No . FP-233-78 ; property located 1 /2 mile east of east end of Puget Drive S . E . , just north of Seattle ' s Cedar River Pipeline Right-of-Way , directly east of park (Tiffany Park ) . • • ALL INTERESTED PERSONS TO SAID PETITIONS ARE INVITED TO BE PRESENT AT IIIC PUBLIC HEARING ON OCTOBER 17 , 1978 AT 9 : 00 A . M. TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS . GORDON Y . ERICKSEN PUBLISHED October 6 , 1978 RENTON PLANNING DIRECTOR CERTIFICATION I , STEVE MUNSON , HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THREE COPIES OF THE ABOVE DOCUMENT WERE POSTED BY ME IN THREE CONSPICUOUS PLACES ON THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED ABOVE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW. ATTEST : Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public, on the '-V - day of ()c.-\-p_ l 19 -lb, SIGNED PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER OCTOBER 17 , 1978 APPLICANT: PUGET WESTERN, INC . FILE NO :. PP-223-78; PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR RENTON HILLS A. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Applicant requests preliminary plat approval pursuant to the City ' s subdivision regulations which would allow construction of streets and utilities in accordance with an approved single family residential subdivision layout. B. GENERAL INFORMATION : 1 . Owner of Record : PUGET WESTERN , INC . 2 . Applicant: PUGET WESTERN , INC. 3. Location : > On the east side of the Seattle- Cedar River Pipeline, adjacent to Phillip Arnold ' Park, and 2000 feet north . of Royal Hills Drive. 4. Legal Description : A detailed legal description is available on file in the Renton Planning Department. 5 . Size of Property: Approximately 26 acres . 6 . Access : Via an extension of Lake Youngs Way S . E. from Royal Hills Drive. 7 . Existing Zoning : SR-1 , Single Family Residence District. 8. Existing Zoning in the Area : G and GS-1 SinglelFamily Residence District and H-1 Heavy Industrial . 9 . Comprehensive Land Use Plan : Single Family 10. Notification : The applicant was notified in writing of the hearing date. Notice was properly published in the Record Chronicle and posted in three places on or near the site as required by City ordinance. C. PURPOSE OF REQUEST: To approve plat layout for construction of streets and utilities related to a proposed 101 -lot single family residence development. D. HISTORY/BACKGROUND: The subject site was annexed by Ordinance No. 1871 of , March 8 , 1961 . The current SR-1 zoning was adopted by Ordinance No. 2059 of October 21 , 1963 . E. PHYSICAL BACKGROUND : 1 . Topography: The site is situated at the north edge of the plateau above the Cedar River Valley. Excessively steep slopes border the site on the north and east. The site slopes from southwest to northeast at about 6%. The easterly one-third of the site has slopes ranging from 20% to 50%. 1 PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING : PUGET WESTERN , INC . , FILE NO : PP-223-78 OCTOBER 17 , 1978 PAGE TWO 2. Soils : AgC - Alderwood gravelly sandy loam which are moderately well drained , undelating to hilly soils that are dense, very slowly permeable glacial till . The soil is suited to soils and pasture, with little limitation to urban uses . 3. Vegetation : The site is wooded with maple, fir, cedar and alder, together with related typical woodland brush and scrub grass . 4 . Wildlife: The existing vegetation on the site provides suitable habitat for birds and small animals . 5. Water : The site is generally well drained. There may be certain areas that may experience intermittent wetness or accumulations of surface water. 6 . Land Use: The site and the majority of its surroundings are currently. undeveloped. Phillip Arnold Park lies to the west, the Renton School District owns a vacant site to the northwest, and the undeveloped Cedar River Valley lies to the north and east. Numerous power line rights-of-way extend east-west south of the site . No residential uses currently are in the immediate vicinity of the site . F. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS : With the exception of the Renton Hill neighborhood to the west , no neighborhood character exists currently. G. PUBLIC SERVICES : 1 . Water and Sewer: A 12 inch water line exists in Royal Hills Drive S . E . and will be required to be extended to the site. An 8 inch sanitary sewer is also located in Royal -lilts Drive with connection to the subject site required . 2. Fire Protection: Provided by the Renton Fire Department per ordinance requirements . 3 . Transit: No transit routes are in the vicinity of the site. Metro Route 145 is available one mile to the south . 4. Schools : Tiffany Park Elementary School is located about one mile to the southeast. Nelson Junior High is located about 1 1 /4 miles to the southwest of the site . Lindbergh Senior High is about 1 1/2 miles to the southeast. 5 . Parks : Phillip Arnold Park adjoins the site on the west, separated by the Cedar River Pipeline. H. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE : 1 . Section 4-704, SR-1 , Suburban Residence District. I . APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR OTHER OFFICIAL CITY DOCUMENT: 1 . Subdivision Regulations , Section 9-1106 , 2, Preliminary Plat Requirements . 2. Land Use Report, 1965 , Page 11 , Residential . J . IMPACT ON THE NATURAL SYSTEMS : Development of the subject site will disturb soil and vegetation , increase noise and storm water runoff, and have an effect on ♦i PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING : PUGET WESTERN , INC . , FILE NO : PP-223-78 OCTOBER 17 , 1978 PAGE THREE traffic levels in the area . However, through proper design and provision of suitable storm water retention facilities , these impacts can be minimized. K. SOCIAL IMPACTS : The subject request will have minimal impacts except for those caused by minor increases and new relationships that w ' 11 result from such increases . L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/THRESHOLD DETERMINATION: A number of factors are still under review (see Planni g Department Analysis below) . Due to the magnitude of several of these issues , no threshold determination has been made at the time of this report. M. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION : A vicinity map and a site map are attached . N . AGENCIES/DEPARTMENTS CONTACTED : 1 . City of Renton Building Division. 2 . City of Renton Engineering Division. 3. City of Renton Traffic Engineering Division . 4 . City of Renton Utilities Division . 5 . City of Renton Fire Department. 0. PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS : The following issues have not been adequately addressed in the submitted plat : 1 . Provision of adequate access at two (2) points . 2. Insufficient lot width on approximately 15 lots (of 101 lots ) . 3. Provision of access to other properties in this plateau area and the potential for street stubs by this plat. 4 . Lack of open space within the development for recre tional purposes . 5 . Steep configuration of about 10% of the lots adjacent to the Cedar River Valley slope. P . PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION : Continuance of this matter to further consider the environmental and design solutions to problems raised by or as a part of this preliminary plat. Staff is attempting to meet with the applicant and his engineers on this matter . r 1 I I ROUTING SCHEDULE FOR APPLICATION II TO : O Finance Department Fire Department Library Department OPark Department OPolice Department I 'Ti PubUB Works Department ' Building Div. 10. Engineering Div. (Please verify legal description) 0 Traffic Engineering Div . 41 Utilities Engineering Div. 1 • FROM: Planning Department , (signed by responsible official or his designee) r eik-44,4 DATE : 7 ,0 PLEASE REVIEW THIS APPLICATION FOR: REZONE • MAJOR PLAT SITE APPROVAL SHORT PLAT SPECIAL PERMIT • WAIVER SHORELINE MANAGEMENT —7-5---- AND ' ETURN TO THE PLANNING DEPART EN WITH ANY COMMENTS YOU MIGHT HAVE , BEFORE REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : LD . Approved LJ Not Approved Comments or conditions : 0 )---e)r a.._7- . au� ' �1s �'cc rt- C `1) . �l 0 /✓ � a2 (6--z L e) 7' , 2 iliCts e-77-'s-J-c Cry I ,7 / el-: /44,___ 9-2,1-11 Signature of Directo r Authorized Representative Dat REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : .� e [m Approved �(= Not Approved - Comments or conditions : /-)00 I is 2 6 /2 •c SS -cam '/'e ' c,/J /`/`l 3/ r/ 7' /9� / 6- - ri.�c r I 3 , am/''C/C /��it�6---- C' tic./J /'/cc_ C?/� C'/� Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date • REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : r;rt.i (p Approved r Oa Not Apprd�ved Comments or conditions : I r, Z 1J L ) r I/ "J 1, / ' e✓ a ll J�Z621vtr lit�e4 / o d rep,14'2EC. ' .-4.)t/' . . 3, 1s � � ,A eA.A-kis 9« =%,. ¢ ,,yy Rct c/s.e, 54/* e/ Sc�c7i«-w 7& 6O %c/AJ / is - )(\A \ Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department: Traffic ngineering Q Approved DETN_Eot Approved Comments or conditions : 1. Exception to Ordinance 2667 required for>one access only. Reason is under Section 9-1108, Item 7, Sub-item 0, entitled "Two Places of Access: Each subdivision shall have at least two (2) places of access, except for those subdivision in which the. only dedicated street is cul-de-sac." 2. Proof required that the proposed. access to Royal ill Drive may be dedicated public right-of-way. • ', 7£,' Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date l 10/10/78 REVIEW BY OTHER CITY ' DEPARTMENTS : Department : c=3 Approved 1=I Not Approved Comments or conditions : Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date • REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : C Approved Q Not Approved Comments or conditions : Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date • ii c. ROUTING FOR REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORMS TO: O Finance Department il. Fire Department Library Department Park Department Police Department ;Ai Public Works Department 40. Building Div. 0 Engineering Div. • Traffic Engineering Div. 1i� Utilities Engineering Div. FROM: Planning Department, (signed by responsible official or his designee) V f r i •' . - ` Z 'f� SUBJECT: Review of ECF- f7� ; Application No . : !I 2el'125 Action Name: I I(l /&!ti q ; g,v%Gf /L Please review the attached. Review requested by (date) : Oir 6iii9/6 Note : Responses to be written in Ink. • REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : De arttment : �) L_� Approved C-1 Not Approved Comments : ,�� �i C.J ✓K2.-/�-7 7 i b ' C'c-a-s L.�i /r:I��at e— / //L.,,__-.79d7le"?.-v• C /le.'. ,•e,-0 c,----.._. C:-/- i2-7,1 Signature of Qctor or Authorized Representative Diate REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : C Department : CEl Approved LI Not Approved n°‘°/ %4'/t.)M , ctSS /2 �4 '//CC— G�/9 r2 f7ft7LS , '/3 /%, /7L 4S &emu/ c ,c2 : yv,(7.7z .e s...x. fii.) .2„,z7,cy„_ A,A_,/.7 f? 6..._ ,.,. ._ , 7 , ___t_,r- 9 49 7, Signature of Director or Authorized sentative . Date REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : f I Department : Cyt .►, r�w..�st.� / Approved ! Not Apjroved Comments : , gv ,,7 n,Y"; G ray. /vyt,07 et.[.../' pr'a..1 id ed/ ca // 01 ra re�/ tq l "C rl4 44 11 - vr a _ 1-64 1 • ' /0-3 -7P . Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date . REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS: Department: ' L' TIL/ TIR S ,-T Approved I I Not Approved Comments : At-1 /-; iN S T /,4AT1 ' a. p1._.4-r • tzttlhk () A"/1/- I 'L2 ( i ,.i,•.J 13..r c.chi e'r. . L-- /o-v 73 Signature of. Director or Authorized Representative Date • REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : li Department : Traffic Engineering 1-1 Approved ( EjNot Approved Comments : 1. Exception to Ordinance 2667 required for one access only. Reason is under Section 9-1108, Item 7, Sub-item 0, entitled: "Two Places of Access: Each subdivision shall have at least two (2) places of access, except for those subdivisions in which the only dedicated street is a cul-de-sac." 2. Proof required that the proposed access to Royal Hill Drive may be 'dedicated public right-of-way. •:// 5/2(.:1= n c Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Datel 10/10/78 REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS : Department : �] Approved ( Not Approved Comments : • Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date ' • --'4:7"V.--''.---------' — i-, • ems.- `\ L./' ; - w \ . S 30 ry 29 � 26 `�I. 27 � o j25 '`f.. �3/�'\\./qo°o/f r0000l .•BBpOp BBOa/ 1[ 98po®�% o , �. _K Io ./32 0 �1•- - _ -e�W `� TRACT A S .�/ 0 WO '.� •• i� - /20• •;IIIh _coo 0 \ - -- -- --- - - -� -i h --- - moo.-\� N89. 6.. \' �i0.//' '°n 3 • •/ ,� 9e '. edoo{k1 9ooa��O �+ �zji, :�COOYr 65c I �, -} -- :•. '1 2� !Z�' A`� —y--- 81000. /• • jB250ot.' \ i - �`Irfir_ . // \ o __• , / _0r 9' % ' \� \� / / �G ��� 7\ \ — 2• -- `"--"s-- ,,,, / /2 � �_ 6'3. - BBoofa, \` T • ,/ y 500 /! •\ I` .��$ /0 �C'' 6.� �r mo_ ,�'� _ _ate'- _ \g" �J� $ I. .1���!! -355 p I. .'p 32 1ijr) 10,51. 11 35.90oOtd t,°4iik oj0' / } o�''• .5. - /Q 83 / -\\� � Ali ,' - ice, - i I, (/2,•.0 ((if !: -• ( 48 I rP i /00^ C B7 4 So' 1 30 •/ 0 '%d to/i oo�' 'y �y • s 1 us- /0000ie rl /oaoor�° . 82 `' g eP/ /6 - - T1\.. _.-- 1 In I =-- r\ Vg5�7. . ��' $_ k6 r��\ �.��soofeep ,o u ii�ooO ` /7 1'd/i00o� h / �`ue/ ^aQ' Jb5 (^ . 5 I, •�.AA- .5' `° D°l' • kcs •0- -- 9y/� ,, 40' ' B/ ` 1F.,• 5 31- , /ioo0� a. ,' \ /_._ 9 \9375 ' „.�' ¢' �``s.. • \ 7.. r '-� •__. \ \ o ' 'b- BOO p, \ ,�. / . y° o - *;` /. ,�`. // • -F3a - h 7 �, a n o)a B Ar; f3 \ < - 'JR( \ 370 B. a / �3/0 .95 .' . `..� 7° u , //oosal�l� ;/0 0' \ 9y• 5' D /.•,: *_1 - o o �t. �.��-'.I �-- •Q ��.�,`/^// b ` :500 �1ir�- s. �\ , �'S% 4 p85� ,\U �1 / 6 — `� �i+N' 801 ' /�i�\ 375 9/5---- -�_�9175� A 1 •'° `l i r�� /`' 1''' 9/ • ' 130.- • • c�� • /r • - _4°_ go' 65 •_ 9 `•.�F, , . ®�, Zi 9500 r----f \ _ 910 �f��/�a 1_ �_/ssL 0 3: • o i' /h, A 9 t 2sooP - ? -- ._ 8�.t''.8'' I 5 eo. , 3 g,$0 % 35' ,,...ff 'r— -B lCS_5000 0, 7 ' AOI��`/2500�'� 1 ,''�75p0 ,o0w, ', , •, .; - .r.�•O 8 Q 1 __ t7 • .S i h i OOp 5 f` . 9355 •w ,_ '�:t7Bo 21. i� L, / iFN I44VI.' ,,1 /6 g75p0 -% * �.� -err �,r' 4g o!p 90'--its'-1 I ---:�o 1 39 • 1~ _ - 75' 15 \\a15°°� �5� `'° • N5 40 „ ' 56 1 Z)' ••h --l l', ___ _ ) 75'_ '0 50V- \ --r5' c-- 'g 000., slap`. r. • sa'so i soon 4' I . 1. 'ti�3/ \ _ 75 e� • -. ,r /� \ s ..--:6 ...-- �/ J :� L-,/o �I N 40 55` \ L 12 Og7so .�`' • 15' i • :--k. r 15000 j00� N 1, \ - - --_- „°D 8' 0 _ 50 ' '(I ®;\\`$15O0_ i5�y/ .'3 —;: �$ 5o°Q %5 �' r oso° ? s ' j S7 I�• w \ hypo , \i1 ' • "I: 60 \0 85pOQ 7 Noerli `Pf ••yVe 9sooA a °i9 OOF.� 8g' 75�-, w '�� 1/y \ 5 11 4p` _ - '-' `. V. '\\� uoo0f ) 7S_�'1, , •9 \t ls/ao' 8 ,•r S \ 109.p''' + o/ 42 t / .15 _-t \ {\t 600_ \ 4"SEGYERFORCEMA/N 1 Doom . °/ • B00001 !0 ! �"-.75 t-. \t 6000# 1 1° v\\`\ OF L A-EY70 ZE N AYSEAR TER CT/ON I ,� r,/'�/ U/� 50 \'. 9 �s`_ - aso=—_ ( 50' \ 40' 44 �`67$' 1 7y, \ \ ROYAL fl/LL ORNE 'j i $ e Cn\ to ?--- wt.�\. - : 15' 66 \\ \1500 15' \\ He .,\ s9 . �.S ;;-\;l65 ram°° �` 9Os \�, ;Cc _`° / Ler-fa-161 el, 1 ...4 \\,,,,,,, 3�`r_ 700, � �•fr c" �` 55' \` 64 1j. 15/ • �•� �/ � � � TO C/TY OF RENTON gyp\ I I\I, 6300\ 1 15' w WATER sa Y �" ,600 i f 6�pp® 60 �P' eo' �5 I O� ..L\N� '`�� •:`•\ j, ••••••,-- � • '�G `. S 2C �;.;�Ky"1LY C.ESS��= 7\i ' j05/ h/ T 1°') \h�\ / \� /�l . o °r0 \62 \\ �yL,illi o • { 1 I., it -1C1. ' * \ -ci °1.3 09- --Z/ .- ---------/6:41- -‘- o�� �M'� \ \" r � � �`c� CO! _ Fl ao. .. . e- .. ^t _ 1i ,. � , i 1:11 - ,,, 1 .i'l, .1.'2-: 1,i-_,.... - \ `. I I a J R •e_ ,, 1^ ••.1 •\ !I At I Li_ d .._ . I %, % it 1 �'. . ` _.V 1•7 ' __ ,.I 1 I 1 iP ,... i --+, T� -11, II .R-2 ' orb 1 •ikt :,,,..1 .- fai,,imit4Ag4 . or . , . 1 I • • • . . _ . . I ....1 ..... ' . lr ''', . , 4 ` •'IF \ • a • {al I r i 5 e I ,,--'1' . Gs, 1 ::::::::::;.:1111....::::::,... : ... .,: ::::.:.::::::.:.:.::.......:............• L. F 1 l • C��P'v� 1 1 . a\•♦ 0pputi'' - - - 4 ; . ��. r• • �' ra0 4 av ,, n 3_I R..4 • • ;;• . \. e .x • fo r + + 10.012 IS.4 D M I�°iM2g21:l/ac, s� '1;u `.��r' \D Il ♦ r .. .. n _ 1 a 0 ` ; . \IO.!' "fit • 'i •c' '.ba ' 2 2] I' 0 2. '‘i\J-A,••-• ':it ••• 'N, / ',\\OZiiw..* ,,.. .\‘..\\., ® �" tie 1 /c,\f \ , •.♦' 1 ‘,,,', . _ , ____f ' F o�® -. �I♦ ,' -R- 2-- a :1� Qr to- 4e 4 �_ '. ,�°y.\ e � . ,,t1 i • • ` , 11Lq �tt4sRia y 40 .1f� PP-223-78 PUGET WESTERN , INC . : Application for preliminary plat approval of 101 -lot subdivision ; property located ' near Royal Hills Drive S . E . and Lake Youngs Way S . E . 1 APPLICANT PUGET WESTERN , INC . TOTAL AREA ' Approx . 26 acres , Northerly extension of Lake Youngs Way S . E . PRINCIPAL ACCESS from Ra•p-al Hills Drive S . E . ExISIING ZONING SR-1 Suburban Residence District EXISTING USE Vacant PROPOSED USE . ' . 101 -lot single family residential tract COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Single Family COMMENTS. NONE •► THE CITY OF RENTON `$ MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 r, MIL 5? O� CHARLES J. DELAURENTI • MAYOR • PLANNING D;EPARTMENT 0 6(� 2 35-2550 91- F0 SE P1- . June 6, 1978 i 1 Mr. Larry Pearson Jones Associates, Inc. 2750 Northrup Way Bellevue, Washington 98004 REGARDING: Tentative Plat: Renton Hills, File Number TP-173-78 Dear Mr. Pearson: The various municipal departments have reviewed the proposed tentative pleat and have the following comments: 1 . A number of lots within the plat are either- exactly at'minimum or below the minimum lot size requirement of the SR-1 zone (minimum 7,500 square feet). These lots must be revised. 2. Lots 80 and 31 , although having sufficient size, are odd shaped and should be revised. 3. An emergency vehicle only access road (minimum 20 feet in width) should be provided between lots 82 and 83. Special restrictions for emergency ;access only should be written on the face of the plat. 4. It is not clear as to the need for the stub road to the property west; of the subject site. This should be explained in more detail . • 5. Useable open space area possible for a small tot-lot should be provided within the plat in a fairly centralized location. 6. Storm water retention and oil/water separation facilities will be required. Calculations, plans., and design should be reviewed with the Public Works Department. 7. Utilities plans and required water and sewer main extensions 'should be reviewed with the Utilities Division which has indicated that connection to the Seattle/ Mercer Island pipeline is not permitted. This division has also stated concern with regard to the temporary lift station. 1¢ per square foot for water and 1¢ per square foot for sewer charges are required.: Mr. Larry Pearson June 6, 1978 A Page Two 8. Fire Department has indicated that hydrants are to be 500 feet apart with a minimum 1 ,000 gallons per minute in a looped main. 9. The proposed access road to Royal Hills Drive and the interior streets within the plat require curb, gutter, sidewalk on both sides with 36 feet of paving width per ordinance and Engineering Division requirements. 10. More detailed information regarding ownership and preservation of buffer areas • are needed. No vehicular access or tree cutting should be permitted in these areas. 11 . A large portion of the site is covered with significant evergreen and deciduous trees. These must be preserved as much as possible and incorporated into plat design and development. No trees shall be cut or removed until after preliminary plat approval . Only those trees within right-of-way areas shall be removed in- itially. No tree shall be cut or removed unless approved by the Renton Planning Department. We hope that this information will be helpful to you in preparing a preliminary plat based on the above comments and ordinance requirements. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact this department. Very truly yours, Gordon Y. Ericksen, - Planning Director e. Michel L. Smith, Associate Planner MLS:ml k cc :Puget Western Public Works Department Fire Department .• I