The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLUA-08-097_MISCCAVALLA PLAT APPEAL LUA 08-083, PP, ECF ..y (f1~l i ~') ._____-> "-... -~---~--- /" ./ Planning & Development Committee April 22, 2010 Attachment -- 1 , I 2 3 4 5 6 7 , 8 9 10 11 12 13 Timeline CAVALLA PLAT APPEAL LUA 08-083, PP, ECF Planning & Development Committee April 22, 2010 Document Applicant Cavalla/KBS's Revised Proposal reflecting use of Transfer of Development Rights Staff's Recommendation to Hearing Examiner regarding Preliminary Plat Hearing Examiner's Recommendation dated November 3, 2009 2 Requests for Reconsideration (City Staff and Appellant Petrie) Appeal to City Council by Appeilant Petrie Letter from Hearing Examiner regarding Improper Notice of Public Hearing 5 Requests for Reconsideration (Petrie, Oliphant, Goodman, Coilier, Parhaniemi) Hearing Examiner's Recommendation dated March 1,2010 Petrie's Motion to Conduct an Adjunctive 30-day Feasibility Study (Hearing Brief) Cavalla's Dispositive Motion (Filed by D. Halinen, attorney for Cavaila/KBS) 3 Comments by Parties of Record (CARE, Oliphant, Halinen per 4-8-110F.3) Letter to Renton City Council from Halinen for Cavaila/KBS Preliminary Plat Applicant KBS Development Corp.'s (1) Memorandum in Opposition to Petrie's Motion for an "Adjunctive 30-Day Feasibility Study" and (2) Motion to Strike the Attachments to Petrie's Motion as Inadmissible New Evidence (Filed by D. Halinen, attorney for Cavaila/KBS) Cavalla Timeline File No. LUA-Proposal: LUA08-097, PP, ECF (KC DOES File No. L06POOOl) Location: Southeast of 162"· Ave SE and SE 140'h St Applicant/Contact: Kolin Taylor of KBS Development / Wayne Potter of Barghausen Appellant: Dave Petrie Proposal: Single Family 49 lot plat vested to King County R-4 development regulations which allows the use of TOR's; used in this case to increase the lot count by 11 lots. Timeline January 12, 2006 Application submitted to King County for Preliminary Plat and Environmental Review; 38 lot plat August 11, 2008 Property annexed into the City of Renton; Liberty Annexation (Ordinance #5398) June 22, 2009 Meeting held with neighborhood organization, CARE, in order to receive feedback that would be incorporated into the design of the project. July 30, 2009 Applicant submits revised proposal reflect desire to use Transfer of Development Rights; 49 lot plat September 14, 2009 City's Environmental Review Committee (ERC) issues threshold Determination of Non-Significance mitigated with 2 mitigation measures related to drainage and erosion control; no appeal filed. October 13, 2009 Preliminary Plat hearing before the Hearing Examiner to consider the proposal. Staffs recommendation of approval with 10 conditions presented. November 3,2009 Hearing Examiner issues recommendation of approval with 11 conditions November 17,2009 Appeal period of the Hearing Examiner's determination ends; two request for reconsiderations filed (Staff & Petrie) and one appeal (Petrie) is filed. November 19,2009 Hearing Examiner sends request to all property owners within 300 feet for additional written comments; due to improper notice of public hearing December 4,2009 Hearing Examiner's comment period ends; five requests for reconsideration received (Petrie, Goodman, Collier, Oliphant & Parhaniemi) February 9, 2010 Second Preliminary Plat hearing before the Hearing Examiner. March 1,2010 Hearing Examiner issues recommendation with 13 conditions March 15,2010 Appeal Period ofthe HEX recommendation ends; no additional appeals/reconsiderations filed. The appeal filed by Petrie on November 16, 2010 retained Cavalla Timeline File No. LUA-Proposal: LUA08-097, PP, ECF (KC DDES File No. L06P0001) ocation: Southeast of 162"d Ave SE and SE 140'h St A licant/Contact: Kolin Taylor of KBS Development / Wayne Potter of Barghausen App lant: Dave Petrie Propo I: Single Family 49 lot plat vested to King County R-4 development regulations which allow the se ofTDR's; used in this case to increase the lot count by 11 lots. Timeline January 12, 2006 Application submitted to King County for Preliminary Plat and Environmental Review for a 3810t plat August 11, 2008 Property annexed into the City of Renton; Liberty Annexation rdinance #5398) June 22, 2009 Me ing held with neighborhood organization, CARE, in order to receive feedb k that would be incorporated into the design of the project. July 30, 2009 Applicant ubmits revised proposal reflect desire to use Transfer of Developme Rights; 49 lot plat (Attachment 1) September 14, 2009 City's Environ ntal Review Committee (ERe) issues threshold determination 0 on-significance mitigated with 2 mitigation measures related to drainage nd erosion control; no appeal filed. October 13, 2009 Preliminary Plat heari before the Hearing Examiner to consider the Preliminary Plat. Staffs ecommendation of approval with 10 conditions presented Att hment 2 November 3, 2009 Hearing Examiner issues reco mendation of approval with 11 conditions (Attachment 3) November 17, 2009 Appeal period of the Hearing Exa iner's determination ends; two request for reconsiderations filed (/\ tachment 4a) and one appeal is filed (Attachment 4b). One of the req ests for reconsiderations is made by City staff due to improper notice of blic hearing November 19, 2009 Hearing Examiner sends request to all pro erty owners within 300 feet for additional written comments; due to im oper notice of public hearing (Attachment 5) December 4,2009 Hearing Examiner's comment period ends; five r quests for reconsideration received (Attachment 6). February 9,2010 Second Preliminary Plat hearing before the Hearing E miner. March 1, 2010 Hearing Examiner issues recommendation with 13 condl 'ons (Attachment 7) March 15, 2010 April 6, 2010 Appeal Period of the HEX recommendation ends; no addition I appealsireconsiderations filed. The appeal filed by Petrie on N vember 16, 2010 retained (Attachment 4b) Motion filed by appellant (Attachment 8). 1 I 1 .\ s , .\ ; --I'~- i ' ,_ ._0.-. -. :1: •. C., l,... ..... fJl?-':) " ....... ill! ~c ... "" .. ,..-r r'1,.. ..... 1..I C.~......JA.LLA ,.--.0 ....... _- I .I ' 1------··-"1 I ! .\ . s • • DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING October 13, 2009 AGENDA COMMENCING AT 9:00 AM, COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7TH FLOOR, RENTON CITY HALL The application(s} listed are in order of application number only and not necessarily the order in which they will be heard. Items will be called for hearing at the discretion of the Hearing Examiner. PROJECT NAME: Cavalla Preliminary Plat PROJECT NUMBER: LUA08-097, ECF, PP (KING CO. FILE #L06P0001) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant has submitted an amended Cavalla Preliminary Plat application originally filed with the King County Department of Development and Environmental Services (KC DOES) for Environmental (SEPA) Review and Preliminary Plat approval. The subdivision of the 9.40 acre site would result in 49 -lots used for the eventual development of single-family residences; with tracts for stormwater and joint use driveways. The project site is located within the City's Residential - 4 (R-4) dwelling units per acre zoning designation; however, the project is vested to King County's R-4 zoning designation's development regulations. Access is proposed via 162nd and 164th Ave SE which are proposed to be improved as part of the plat improvements. Internal access is proposed via two new public streets connecting 162nd Ave SE to 164th Ave SE in addition to an alley for the tiered interior lots to gain access. The subject property was annexed to the City of Renton on August 11, 2008. HEX Agenda lO-13-09.doc DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST HEARING DATE: Project Name: Owner: Applicant/Contact: File Number: Project Manager: Project Summary: Project Location: Site Area: October 13,2009 Cavalla Preliminary Plat Kolin B. Taylor; KBS III LLC; 12320 NE 8th Street ste: #100; Bellevue, WA 98005 Wayne Potter, Barghausen Consulting Engineer, 18215 72nd Avenue S, Kent, WA 98032 LUA08-097, ECF, PP (King County DDES File No. L06P0001) Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner The applicant has submitted an amended Cavalla Preliminary Plat application originally filed with the King County Department of Development and Environmental Services (KC DDES) for Environmental (SEPA) Review and Preliminary Plat approval. The subdivision of the 9.40 acre site would result in 49· lots used for the eventual development of single-family residences; with tracts for stormwater and joint use driveways. The project site is located within the City's Residential· 4 (RA) dwelling units per acre (dulac) zoning designation; however, the project is vested to King County's R-4 zoning designation's development regulations. Density would be 5.21 dulac (gross). Access is proposed via 162"d and 164'h Ave SE which are proposed to be improved as part of the plat improvements. Internal access is proposed via two new public streets connecting 162"' Ave SE to 164'h Ave SE in addition to an alley for the tiered interior lots to gain access. The subject property was annexed to the City of Renton on August 11,2008. Southeast of 162"d Ave SE and SE 137'h PI 9.40 acres Project Location Map Cavallo HEX Report.doc City of Renton Deportment of Com 'ity & Economic Development Ad ·strotive Short Plot Report & Decision CAVALLA PRELIMINARY PLAT LUA08-097 PP, ECF Report of October 13, 2009 Page 2 of 12 I B. EXHIBITS: Exhibit 1: Project File ("yellow file") containing the application, reports, staff comments, and other material pertinent to the review of the project Exhibit 2: Vicinity Map Exhibit 3: Preliminary Plat Plan (July 30, 2009) Exhibit 4: Landscape Plan (July 30, 2009) Exhibit 5: Road Plan (July 30, 2009) Exhibit 6: Aerial Photograph [c.. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Owner(s) of Record: 2. Zoning Designation: 3. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: 4. Existing Site Use: 5. Neighborhood Characteristics: Kolin B. Taylor KBS III LLC 12320 NE 8th Street Ste: #100 Bellevue, WA 98005 Residentia 1-4 d u/ac (R-4); (King County -R-4) Residential Low Density (RLD); (King County -Urban Residential-Medium) Single Family Residence to be removed prior to the recording of the plat. a. North: Single-Family Residential (R-4 zone) b. East: Liberty High School (King County R-4 zone) c. South: Vacant-Pending Single-Family Preliminary Plat (R-4 zone) d. West: Single-Family Residential (R-4 zone) 6. Access: 7. Site Area: I D. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND: Action Comprehensive Plan Zoning Annexation II E. PUBLIC SERVICES: 1. Utilities Land Use File No. N/A N/A N/A Access is proposed via 162 0d Ave SE and a dedicated extension of 1641h Ave SE. Primary internal access is proposed via two new public streets (Road A and B) and an 18-foot wide alley for the rear loading of the smaller tiered interior lots (Lots 31-49). 9.40 acres Ordinance No. 5099 5100 5398 Date 11/01/04 11/01/04 08/11/08 a. Water: The project site 'IS located in the Water District 90 water service area. b. Sewer: There is an existing 8" sanitary sewer main in 162 0d Ave SE to the north of the site. Cavalla Report to HEX City of Renton Deportment of Com CAVALLA PRELIMINARY PiA T ity & Economic Development Adr 'strative Short Plot Report & Decision WA08-097 PP, ECF Report of October 13, 2009 Page 3 of 12 c. Surface/Storm Water: There are no City of Renton storm drainage facilities in this area. Z. Streets: The site is fronted on the west by unimproved right-of-way; 162 0 ' Ave SE. 3. Fire Protection: City of Renton Fire Department F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE KING COUNTY CODE: 1. Title 16 Grading Section 16.82.156 Significant Tree Retention Z. Title 19A Land Segregation 3. Title 20 Planning 4. Title 21A Zoning G. DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS: 1. Project Description/Background The application for the Cavalla Preliminary Plat was submitted to King County Department of Development and Environmental Services (KC DOES) for review on January 12, 2006. The proposal was revised on several occasions due to concerns raised by KC DOES. Before this matter could be heard by the County's Hearing Examiner, the subject property was annexed to the City of Renton as part of the Liberty Annexation (Ordinance #5398) on August 11, 2008. Based on this annexation; the application for the Cavalla Preliminary Plat came under the jurisdiction of the City of Renton. Comments from the City's Planning and Development Services Divisions, related to access, were relayed to the applicant in light of conditions of approval for neighboring proposals. As a result the applicant has submitted revisions resulting in the subdivision of the 9.40 acre site into 49 lots used for the eventual development of single -amily residences; with tracts for stormwater and joint use driveways. The project site is located within the City's Residential - 4 (R-4) dwelling units per acre zoning designation; however, the project is vested to King County's R-4 zoning designation's development regulations. The applicant is proposing the utilization of King County Transfer of Development Rights (TOR's), KCC 21A.37, which allows the applicant to use the development regulations of the next higher zoning classification; R-6. The proposed density of the project is 5.21 dwelling units per gross acre; an 11-lot increase by utilizing this provIsion. In order to accommodate the additional density the applicant is proposing to exceed the development standards they are vested to with respect to landscaping, passive recreation, lot design and streets. The proposed lot sizes range from 4,040 square feet to 7,803 square feet. The smaller lots are located in the interior of the site, 19 lots in total, and have an average lot size of 4,300 square feet. The larger lots are located along the perimeter of the site, 30 lots in total, and have an average lot size of 6,000 square feet. A single-family residence is currently located on the northwest corner of the site and is proposed for removal. The project site is located between 162 0d Ave SE on the west and 164'h Ave SE on the east; and south of SE 137'h Pion the north and SE 140th St on the south. Access is proposed via 162 0 ' Ave SE and a dedicated extension of 164'h Ave SE which is proposed to be improved as part of the plat improvements. Primary internal access is proposed via two new public streets; Road A and B. The applicant is also proposing an 18- foot wide alley for the rear 10ad'lng of the smaller tiered interior lots (Lots 31-49). There are a total of 429 significant trees on the site of which none are proposed to remain. The applicant is proposing a total of 193 replacement trees in order to meet the replacement tree requirements outlined in King County Code. Cavalla Report to HEX City of Renton Deportment of Coml CAVALLA PRELIMINARY PLAT Report of October 13, 2009 2. Environmental Review ity & Economic Development Adr Itrative Short Plot Report & Decision LUA08-097 PP, ECF Page 4 of 12 Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21C, 1971 as amended), on September 14, 2009, the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non- Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M) for the Cavalla Preliminary Plat. The DNS-M included two mitigation measures. A 14-day appeal period commenced on September 18, 2009 and ended on October 2, 2009. No appeals of the threshold determination have been filed. 3. Compliance with ERC Conditions Based on an analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) issued the following mitigation measure with the Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated: a. The applicant will be required to submit a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the State Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual. The plan must be submitted to and approved by the Development Services Division Plan Review staff prior to issuance of the utility construction permits and during utility and road construction. b. The detention system for this project shall be required to comply with the requirements found in the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual to meet both detention (Conservation Flow control-a.k.a. Level 3) and water quality improvements. 4. Staff Review Comments Representatives from various city departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and address issues raised by the proposed development. These comments are contained in the official file, and the essence of the comments has been incorporated into the appropriate sections of this report and the Departmental Recommendation at the end of this report. 5. Consistency with Short Plat Criteria Approval of a plat is based upon several factors. The following short plat criteria have been established to assist decision-makers in the review of the plat: a) Compliance with the Comprehensive Designation The site is designated Urban Residential-Medium on the King County Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The Urban Residential-Medium land use designation is implemented by the following King County zones: R-4; R-6; R-8; and R·12. The proposal is consistent with all of the following Comprehensive Plan Land Use policies: Policy U-133. Urban residential neighborhood design should preserve historic and natural characteristics and neighborhood identity, while providing privacy, community space, and safety and mobility for pedestrians and bicyclists. Policy Objective Met D Not Met Policy U-140. Residential Developments within the Urban Growth Area, inciuding mobile home parks, shall provide the following types of improvements. a. Paved Streets (and alleys if appropriate), curbs and sidewalks, and internal walkways when appropriate; b. Adequate parking and considerotion of access to bus service and passenger facilities; c. Street lighting and street trees; d. Storm water control; Cavallo Report to HEX City of Renton Deportment of Comr ;ty & Economic Development CAVALLA PRELIMINARY PLAT Report af October 13, 2009 e. Public water supply; f Public sewers; and Adr ;trative Shart Plot Report & Decision WA08-097 PP, ECF Page 5 of 12 g. Landscaping around the perimeter and parking areas of multifamily development. Policy Objective Met D Not Met Policy U-142. Recreation space based on the size of the developments shall be provided on-site except that in limited cases, fee payments for local level park and outdoor recreation needs may be accepted. Policy Objective Met D Not Met Policy T-307. King County (City of Renton) should encourage the development of highly connective, grid based arterial and non arterial raad networks in developments and areas of in-fill development. To this end, the County (City) should: a. Make specific determinative findings to establish non-arterial grid system routes needed for public and emergency access in in-fill developments at the time of land use permit review. b. Encourage new commercial, multifamily, and single-family residential developments to develop highly connective street networks to promote better accessibility by all modes. The use of cul- de-sacs should be discouraged, but where they are used, they should include pedestrian pathways to connect with nearby streets. Policy Objective Met D Not Met b) Compliance with the Underlying Zoning Designation The subject site is designated R-4 on the City of Renton Zoning Map however the project is vested to the King County (KC) R-4 standards. The proposed development would allow for the future construction of 49 new single-family dwelling units. Density: The base density of the R-4 zone classification is 4 dwelling units per acre, and the maximum density is 6 dwelling units per acre. Density in excess of the base denSity, up to the maximum density, is permitted utilizing the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program pursuant to Chapter 21A.37 of the King County Code. With the use ofTDR's the density allowed for the subject site would be 6.0 dwelling units per gross acre. The allowed number of lots is computed by multiplying the site area by the base density; therefore the applicant would be allowed a maximum of 56 lots (9.40 ac x 6.0 dulac ~ 56.4 lots). The applicant is proposing the utilization of the King County Transfer of Development Rights (TDR's) for 11 additional lots. A total of 49 lots are being proposed, resulting in a density of 5.21 dulac. There are no qualitative criteria for use of the TDR program. However, due to sensitivities of the surrounding community and input from City staff the applicant has elected to exceed King County standards to which they are vested to with respect to landscaping, passive recreation, lot design and streets in order to accommodate the additional density. The resulting total density of 5.21 dwelling units is within the maximum density permitted by the R-4 zone classification. This proposal meets the requirements for the transfer of development rights, resulting in the authorization of 11 dwelling units on the subject property in addition to the base density permitted by the R-4 zone classification. Staff recommends, prior to engineering plan approval, the applicant shall provide a valid Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Certificate approved by the King County Department of Natural Resources in order to accommodate the 11 additional lots over the base density within the proposed development. The certificate or other valid legal document(s) must show the applicant or successor as the lawful owner of the development rights. Alternatively, the plat design shall be reconfigured to reflect the density allowable under the R-4 zone without the TDR bonus. Cavolla Report to HEX City of Renton Department of Com lity & Economic Development Ad' istrative Short Plat Report & Decision CAVALLA PRELIMINARY PLAT WA08-097 PP, ECF Report of October 13, 2009 Page 6 of 12 Lot Dimensions: There are no minimum lot size or depth requirements in the KC R-4 zone. A minimum lot width of 30 feet is required. As proposed and demonstrated in the table below, all lots meet the requirements for minimum width. The applicant has elected to provide a variation in lot width in order to provide a diverse streetscape and a variety of floor plans, home size, and character. The proposed lot sizes range from 4,040 square feet to 7,803 square feet. The smaller lots are located in the interior of the site, 19 lots in total, have an average lot size of 4,300 square feet The larger lots are located along the perimeter of the site, 30 lots in total, have an average lot size of 6,000 square feet The location of the larger lots on the perimeter of the site provide a transition to the surrounding R-4 development by creating a buffer for the denser lots in the interior of the site. Net Area Area Area Lot (sg. ft.) Width Lot (sg. ft.) Width Lot (sg. ft.) Width ,-_. - 1 6,000 63 18 7,030 65 34 4,040 40 .. - 2 5,000 50 19 5,588 50 35 4,040 40 3 5,000 50 20 6,521 50 36 4,444 44 .. 4 6,000 60 21 6,420 50 37 4,040 40 5 , 5,000 50 22 6,424 50 38 4,444 44 6 5,000 50 23 6,029 45 39 4,040 40 - 7 5,000 50 24 5,000 50 40 5,046 50 .. 8 5,013 50 25 5,000 50 41 4,967 53 9 5,548 60 26 5,000 50 42 4,444 44 10 6,373 60 27 6,000 60 43 4,040 40 11 6,578 60 28 5,000 50 44 4,444 44 i 12 7,009 60 29 5,000 50 45 4,040 40 .. 13 6,687 60 ! 30 5,985 60 46 4,040 40 14 6,687 60 31 5,253 54 47 5,002 50 ! 15 6,687 60 32 4,040 40 48 5,002 50 16 7,803 70 33 4,040 40 49 6,237 50 , 17i 7,441 45 Setbacks: The required setbacks in the KC R-4 zone are as follows: street setback is 10 feet for the primary structure and 20 feet for any attached garage, carport, or other fenced parking area; and interior setbacks are 5 feet (including the rear yard). Due to the proposed increase in density the applicant is proposing to exceed the required setbacks as prescribed in King County Code in order to reduce the scale and bulk of the homes along the streetscape. The applicant is proposing a 20- foot front yard setback for the primary structure and a 25-foot setback for the garage for the lots located on the exterior of the subject site (Lots 1-30). For those lots located on the interior of the site (Lots 31-49) the applicant is proposing an increased front yard setback to 15 feet for the primary structure; the residences on these lots would be rear loaded from the alley. The increased Cavallo Report to HEX City of Renton Department of Comi 'ity & Economic Development Ad' 'strative Short Plat Report & Decision CAVALLA PRELIMINARY PLAT WA08-097 PP, ECF Report of October 13, 2009 Page 7 of 12 setback, for the interior lots, would be in addition to the increased landscape width of 8-feet and the 5-foot sidewalk, along the street frontage, technically causing the homes to set back approximately 28 feet from the curb. Due to the increase of density proposed through the use of TOR's, staff concurs that increased front yard setbacks are not only appropriate but necessary along the frontage of the lots in order to reduce the impacts of the lot's presence along the streetscape. However, the setbacks along the frontage of the exterior and interior lots differ. In order to provide a more cohesive and consistent streetscape staff recommends, as a condition of approval, that the plat plan be revised to depict the following: one-half of the interior lots (Lots 31-49) provide a 10-foot front yard setback in addition to the sidewalk and landscaping provided in the right-of way and the other one-half of the interior lots provide a IS-foot front yard setback. Additionally, one-half of the exterior lots (Lots 1-30) provide a 20-foot front yard setback for the primary structure and the other one-half of the exterior lots provide a 25-foot front yard setback for the primary structure. Garages are to be setback an additional 5 feet for all front/street loaded lots. By varying the setbacks, on average all lots would have a front yard setback of approximately 23 feet. The applicant is proposing a 5-foot rear yard setback on all exterior lots (Lots 1-30) and IS-foot rear yard setback on all interior lots (Lots 31-49). Due to the increase in the front yard setbacks for the interior lots, staff offers that a IS-foot rear yard setback is unnecessary. The applicant may opt to reduce the rear yard setbacks to no less the 8-feet to allow for adequate back-out room into the alley. All lots would have 5-foot side yard setbacks. Supplemental materials including: a revised plat plan; a letter outlining all recommended setbacks or another approved setback plan that averages front yard setbacks at 23 feet for the exterior lots; and a draft of the CC & R's for the Homeowner's Association, with an inclusion of the setback requirements of the plat; shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to the recording of the plat. The existing residence located on the northwest corner of the site would not comply with the proposed lot layout and required setbacks therefore the applicant proposes to remove the structure. Staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant obtain a demolition permit and all required inspections be completed for the removal of the existing residence prior to the recording of the plat. Compliance with building setback requirements would be reviewed at the time of building permit review for all new residences. Building Standards: The KC R-4 zone permits one residential structure per lot. Each of the proposed lots would support the construction of one detached unit. Building height in the KC R-4 zone is limited to 35 feet. The maximum impervious lot coverage in the KC R-4 zone is 55 percent. The building standards for proposed lots would be verified at the time of building permit review. Internal Circulation: Exterior access is proposed via 1620d Ave SE and a dedicated extension of 164th Ave SE which is proposed to be improved as part of the plat improvements. Primary internal access is proposed via two new public streets; Road A and B. The internal streets create connectivity from 162 0d to 164'h Ave SE. The applicant is also proposing an 18-foot wide alley for the rear loading of the smaller tiered interior lots (Lots 31-49). Parking: KC 21A.18.030 requires that single detached dwellings provide a minimum of two off- street parking spaces. As proposed, each lot would have adequate area to provide two off-street parking spaces. Compliance with the parking requirements will be verified at the time of building permit review. c) Natural Environment Topography: The topography of the project site ranges from 2 Y, to 12 percent with an average slope of 10 percent. There is an elevation change of 50 feet from the northeast quarter to the Cavallo Report to HEX City of Renton Department of Comr ty & Economic Development Adrr ·trative Short Plot Report & Decision CAVALLA PRELIMINARY PLAT LUA08-097 PP, ECF Report of October 13, 2009 Page 8 of 12 southwest quarter of the site. The majority of the grading required for the project would be for the construction of the proposed roads, building pads, utilities, and stormwater detention facilities and will be balanced on-site. The estimated earth work quantities for the plat would be no more than 29,000 cubic yards of fill and 23,000 cubic yards of cut. Due to potential of erosion on site, the Environmental Review Committee imposed a mitigation measure requiring the applicant submit a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the State Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual. The plan must be submitted to and approved by the Development Services Division Plan Review staff prior to issuance of the utility construction permits and during utility and road construction. Soils: The soils on the site are classified as Alderwood series. Vegetation: The project site is heavily wooded with 429 significant trees; a mixture of coniferous and broad-leafed trees native to the Pacific Northwest. Groundcover consists of Northwest native species including salal, sword fern and grasses. Wildlife: Small birds and mammals inhabit the site. Larger species may visit the site on occasion. No threatened or endangered species are known to exist on or near the property. d) Community Assets Landscaping: Per KCC 21A.16.050, street trees, for single-family subdivisions, shall be planted at a rate of one tree for every 40 feet of street frontage along all public streets. A conceptual landscape plan was submitted with the application that includes the installation of street trees spaced at least 40 feet on center. Visual barriers by way of a 10-foot landscape easement parallel to 162"d and 164" Ave SE with significant landscaping and a good neighbor fence, modulated along 164'h Ave 5E, is also being proposed. In effect there is at least a 20-foot landscape strip, along 162"d and 164'h Ave 5E, from the back of the curb to face of the fence. The applicant is also proposing an 8-foot landscape strip along the perimeter of the tiered lots in the middle of the site. Within that landscape strip the applicant is proposing approximately two smaller variety street trees spaced 40 feet on center. Staff is recommending, due to the enhanced width of the proposed landscape strip, the applicant replace the small street trees along the perimeter of the interior lots with a larger variety of street tree. As a suggestion, staff offers the applicant use the smaller street trees, in addition to the lager variety of tree, along the perimeter of the exterior lots as there is ample room for several different sizes of vegetation. The applicant is proposing to plant a total of 193 trees on site. Landscaping will consist mainly of: Douglas fir, Western red cedar, Katsura, White pine, Aspen, and Dogwood trees; White rockrose, Japanese holly, and Oregon grape shrubs; and several different groundcovers. The proposal exceeds landscaping requirements of the King County Code. A detailed landscape plan, depicting changes to the size of vegetation in the interior of the site, will be required to be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering plan approval. The applicant is proposing both passive recreation and concentration of landscaping within the proposed storm pond tract. The applicant is proposing a walking path, picnic tables, and interactive play toys for children (play binoculars and non-amplified megaphones). The applicant submitted a Tree Inventory plan as part of the Preliminary Plat application. There are approximately 429 trees on the site. The site consists of mostly deciduous upland forest that includes big leaf maple and red alder. Understory vegetation consists of Salmonberry, Indian Plum, Hazelnut, Sword Fern, 5alal, and Bracken Fern. The applicant proposes to clear a majority of the site's existing trees and vegetation due to topography and has elected to provide tree replacement. KCC 16.82.156 requires that the greater of: 10 trees per acre or 5 percent of the trees on site be retained. Of the 429 trees that are on site, 94 trees are required to be retained at the 10 trees per Cavalla Report to HEX City of Renton Department of Coml ity & Economic Development CAVALLA PRELIMINARY PLAT Report of October 13, 2009 Adr ',trative Short Plat Report & Decision WA08-097 PP, ECF Page 9 of 12 acre retention rate. A tree inventory submitted by the applicant indicates no significant trees would be retained. However the applicant is proposing to relocate several large rhododendrons and an existing mature maple that surround the existing residence which is not required by the King County Code. These existing shrubs and trees will be utilized for the passive recreation areas within the storm pond (Tract A). The applicant is proposing to plant a total of 193, three-inch caliper, replacement trees; which would meet the County tree retention requirements. Staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant be required to provide a detailed tree retention plan with the engineering review application. The tree retention plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering permit approval. Recreation: Per KCC 21A.14 residential subdivisions, more than four units, developed at a density of eight units or less per acre, are required to provide 390 square feet of recreation space on-site. The 49 lot proposal would require 19,110 square feet (49 lots x 390 square feet ~ 19,110 square feet) of recreation space. The applicant is proposing passive recreation space within Tract A, in the amount of 38,400 square feet; which meets the recreation space requirement. The proposed walking path, picnic tables, and interactive play toys for children (play binoculars and non-amplified megaphones) are intended for the use of residents. As previously stated, the applicant has exceeded King County standards with respect to passive recreation in order to accommodate the additional 11 lots achieved via the use of King County's Transfer of Development Rights. Staff recommends as a condition of approval, that the walking path and other recreation features within the storm pond (Tract A) be available for use by the public. This is recommended in order to provide additional public benefit, including a pedestrian connection from 1620d Ave SE and 164" Ave SE (with access to Liberty High School). Public use of the trail shall be provided for via language placed on the face of the plat, and also within the plat Codes, Covenants, & Restrictions (CC & R's). e) Adequacy af Public Facilities and Services Roads/Access: The site is fronted on the west by an unimproved right-of-way of 1620d Ave SE. The applicant is also proposing the dedication of a 35 Y, foot wide area for right-of-way along the eastern property line for the future road extension of 164'h Ave SE. The property is located approximately 600 linear feet from the intersection of 162 0d Ave SE and SE 136'h Place; 1,100 feet from the intersections of SE 144'h Street and 162 0d Ave SE as well as the intersection of SE 144'h Street and 164'h Ave SE. No current improved access exists except nominally from 162 0d Ave SE. The applicant is proposing half-street improvements for both 162 0d and 164'h Ave SE with the use of meandering sidewalks. There is an emergency turnaround proposed at the north terminus of 164'h Ave SE as required by code. The proposed turnaround is located on the Issaquah School District (Liberty High School) property. The applicant has met with Issaquah School District and it appears the District has agreed to the design. The 164'h Ave SE extension will provide much needed access to the high school ball fields as well as providing utilities to the area. An addendum to the 2006 traffic analYSiS, conducted by ON Traffic Consultants, was submitted (dated June 9, 2009) reflecting the additional trips generated as part of the 49-lot proposal. Also included in the analysis is a note regarding traffic volumes in the vicinity of the project which are showing a decrease of 10-14 percent from those volumes in 2006. With the decreased volumes, the levels of service at the 5 intersections in the vicinity have improved and the number of accidents has also decreased. However, due to the one-way distance from the nearest intersection, staff is reqUiring the applicant to provide secondary access suitable for domestic, emergency, and pedestrian safety. The applicant has entered into a three-party contract with other pending development proposals in the area (Liberty Gardens, LUA08-093/KC DOES L04P0034, and Threadgill LUA08-125/KC DOES L05P0026) in order to jointly improve the extension of 162 0d Ave SE to SE 144'h St for secondary Cavallo Report to HEX City of Renton Deportment of Comi ity & Economic Development Adl ·,trative Short Plot Report & Decision CAVALLA PRELIMINARY PLAT LUA08-097 PP, ECF Report of October 13, 2009 Page 10 of 12 access. However, at this time it appears the applicant intends on abandoning this proposal to extend 162'd Ave SE to SE 144th SI. The applicant is now proposing the improvement of the right- of-way dedication, extending 164'h Ave SE to the north which would terminate in a temporary cul- de-sac at the northern property line, in order to provide secondary access to the site. The proposed extension along with the proposed internal road system connecting 162 0d Ave SE to 164'h Ave SE would meet the requirement for secondary access. Additionally, while the applicant is vested to the King County Road Standards they have elected to improve the road sections proposed in conformance with the City of Renton standards. Street improvements that exceed King County Road Standards include: vertical curbs; an 8-foot planter strip between the back of the curb to the face of the sidewalk; and on-street parallel parking on proposed Road A and B with bulb-outs. The applicant is also proposing an 18-foot wide alley for the rear loading of the smaller tiered interior lots (Lots 31-49). Staff recommends, as a condition of approval, that access for Lots 31-49 are limited to the proposed alley only. The alley tract would also be landscaped with smaller variety street trees. Per KCC 14.75 an appropriate Traffic Impact Fee shall be assessed and paid prior to plat recording. The proposed preliminary plat is anticipated to generate additional traffic on the City's street system. In order to mitigate transportation impacts, staff recommends the applicant pay a Transportation Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per net new average daily trip attributed to the project. 49 lots are expected to generate approximately 9.57 new average weekday trips per each lot. The fee for the proposed plat is estimated at $35,169.75 ($75.00 x 9.57 trips x 49 lots ~ $35,169.75) and is payable to the City prior to the recording of the final plat. Surface Water: The site lies within the Lower Cedar sub-basin of the Cedar River/Lake Washington watershed. Currently runoff discharges into at the southwest corner of the site from the northeast. Water then flows southwesterly to eastern side of 162 0d Ave SE and disperses into a sheet flow south, within the unimproved 162 0d Ave SE right-of-way. Further south, water passes through a rockery dam located approximately 150 feet from the 162,d Ave SE and SE 144'h St intersection. Water then enters a small detention pond also located within the unimproved 162 0d Ave SE right- of-way. From the detention pond, water is conveyed across SE 144'h St via an 18-inch culvert. Water then travels west within an 18-inch conveyance facility along the southern side of SE 144'h St. The enclosed pipe system continues west, past 156th Ave SE, continuing west eventually outfalling to Tributary 0307. Tributary 0307 then turns south and outlets to the Cedar River. The applicant proposes to collect storm water runoff from the proposed streets, sidewalks, homes, and lawns and convey into a proposed storm water vault located in Tract A in the southwestern portion ofthe site. The applicant submitted a Level III Downstream Drainage Analysis prepared by Ed McCarthy P.E., dated July 2, 2008. The report identifies several downstream problems and includes recommendations to mitigate for the proposed development's impacts of downstream flooding. A letter with additional recommended storm water mitigation was received March 11, 2008, from Ed McCarthy P.E. Due to potential downstream drainage problems, the Environmental Review Committee imposed a mitigation measure requiring the project to comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual for both detention (Conservation Flow control -a.k.a. Level 3) and water quality improvements. In addition, staff recommends a condition of approval requiring the applicant establish a homeowners' association for the development, which would be responsible for any common improvements and/or tracts within the plat prior to final plat approval. The applicant will also be required to comply with the 2005 SWDM guidelines for landscaping in Section 5.3.1 of the manual. Per the manual, landscaping must adhere to the criteria listed so as to not hinder maintenance operation. Staff recommends, as a condition of approval, a note be placed Cavallo Report to HEX City of Renton Department of Com lity & Economic Development Ad istrotive Short Plot Report & Decision CAVALLA PRELIMINARY PLAT WA08-097 PP, ECF Report of October 13, 2009 Page 11 of 12 on the face of the plat stating that the homeowners' association maintain all landscaping and amenities from the fence outwards and the City maintain from the fence inward into the drainage pond. A Surface Water System Development charge is required for each new single-family lot. Payment of this fee will be required prior to issuance of utility construction permit. Police and Fire: Police and Fire Prevention staff indicated that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development. Schools: The project site is served by schools in the Issaquah School District. It is anticipated that the Issaquah School District can accommodate any additional students generated by this proposal at the following schools: Briarwood Elementary, Maywood Middle School, and Liberty High School. KCC 21A.43.050 requires that an impact fee be assessed for each new lot in order to fund school system improvements to serve the new development within the proposed plat. In order to mitigate school impacts staff recommends, the applicant will be required to pay school impact fees per RMC 4-1-160.D, to the City of Renton, on behalf of the Issaquah School District. The fee for the proposed plat is estimated at $295,029.00 ($6,021.00 x 49 lots = $295,029.00) and is payable at the time of building permit approval. Water: The site is served by the Water District #90. There is an existing water main in 160,h Ave SE, part of the Water District #90 system. Extension of a water main of sufficient size to serve domestic service and fire standards is required. Plans designed and approved by Water District #90 with appropriate separate permit and fees is required with the construction plans for review. The applicant will show, during engineering review, the location and distance of all existing fire hydrants within 300 feet of the site. Existing and new hydrants will be required to be retrofitted with Storz "quick disconnect" fittings, if not already in place. Sewer: There is an existing 8-inch sanitary sewer main in 162 0d Ave SE to the north of the site. Extension of a minimum 8-inch diameter sanitary sewer meeting City of Renton standards is required to serve this plat. A System Development Charge (SDC) per lot is required for any new development and will be charged with the construction permit. The site is also subject to the Central Plateau Interceptor phase II SAD unit charge of $351.95 per lot. H. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Cavalla Preliminary Plat, Project File No. LUA08-097, PP, ECF (King County DDES File No. L06P0001) subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to engineering permit approval the applicant shall provide a valid Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Certificate approved by the King County Department of Natural Resources in order to accommodate the 11 additional lots over the base density within the proposed development. The certificate or other valid legal document(s) must show the applicant or successor as the lawful owner of the development rights. Alternatively, the plat design shall be reconfigured to reflect the density allowable under the R-4 zone without the TDR bonus. 2. The applicant shall obtain a demolition permit and all required inspections be completed for the removal of the existing residence prior to the recording of the plat. 3. Supplemental materials including a revised plat plan, a letter outlining all recommended setbacks and a draft ofthe CC & R's for the Homeowners' Association, with an inclusion of the setback requirements of the plat; shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to the recording of the plat. Cavallo Report to HEX City of Renton Department of Corr: lity & Economic Development Ad istrative Short Plot Report & Decision CAVALLA PRELIMINARY PLAT LUAOB-097 PP, ECF Report of October 13, 2009 Page 12 of 12 4. The applicant shall replace the small street trees along the perimeter of the interior lots with a larger variety of street tree. As a suggestion, staff offers the applicant use the smaller street trees, in addition to the lager single tree, along the perimeter of the exterior lots as there is ample room for several different sizes of vegetation. 5. The applicant shall be required to provide a detailed tree retention plan with the engineering review application. The tree retention plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering permit approval. 6. The applicant and HomeOwners Association shall allow for public use of the walking path (providing a pedestrian connection from 162" Ave SE and 164'h Ave SE) and other recreation features within the storm pond (Tract A). Language to this effect shall be placed on the face of the plat and included in the Codes, Covenants & Restrictions (CC&R's). 7. Access for Lots 31-49 shall be limited to the proposed alley only. 8. The applicant shall pay a Transportation Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per net new average daily trip attributed to the project. 49 lots are expected to generate approximately 9.57 new average weekday trips per each lot. The fee for the proposed plat is estimated at $35,169.75 ($75.00 x 9.57 trips x 49 lots ~ $35,169.75) and is payable to the City prior to the recording of the final plat. 9. The applicant shall establish a homeowners' association for the development, which would be responsible for a ny common improvements and/or tracts within the plat prior to final plat approva I. 10. A note shall be placed on the face of the plat stating that the Homeowners' Association will maintain all landscaping and amenities within the proposed storm pond from the fence outwards and the City will maintain the storm pond from the fence inward. The Preliminary Plat approval will expire sixty (60) months from the date of approval. An extension may be requested pursuant to RMC section 4-7-080.M. [avalla Report to HEX I &:; E7 -11 T23N RSE E 112 • I "I ! --:=-~-~I;I.~=-~'!!i£iC ---~~.§.L_ . , . -,-.--_. -.. --' --- ... ~--~-___ ... _J ---•.. "- -"' ___ OM_ •••••• , __ -----.,-,------- ---._-, , : _.,-._-------'-" r--; ---' --==-~~-=..~",-":::~ ! : ~-."---F; -... _--+._-._----' !. -~, ,----.. -j , I --,-, '---.-.----.~ i __ L_J -J-=,~-___ ' 'w' . '---""~---,-. ;r---"--"-, " ~--'-~I-.... -:~-----'-"""'-"'--'--_. I'::!'" '"_: , __ -----' 1--,----,-'_: ___ .. _,_:_, _- --------" Sf 132nd PI (--.. _-,-. ---.'"--'--. " :..... j-:---'1 =~-----. --;-_---:-,._, _, l..,_: __ ----_.,--_._-. i l-·---··------_!_~-LSE...\42lld,~-- ------------ ----sEi43rtl~ ......---'.--. --- -._-------._------ -----7 EXHIBIT 2 i7 -23 T23N RSE E 112 ZONING PW TECHNICAL SERVICES (17/15108 o 200 400 I!oH!!;W~~1 Feet 1:4,800 Ii Ii ;---- -,.-.. r------· , '--------S!:135lhSI '-. >" ---, -----. ---,,--i . .1, ;'E'" I'($ C.,A12-DEr-4S. bI ~ f.' • m. .-~--~:,:~~~;=,--T _.--' ----) F7 14 T23N R5E E 112 5314 l' N 'f:'i' l:'ltH~{~p) Uri-l~t(>!~) t'ro8li """ 'OOH KlOOS ]f]~'i <»IU ~\?lI1 " ., ~ ll"'~</""':""',/ :::;. f"1T-1~ .J,.....,i"",<?NO'''7 ifJ..,....,.4Clri ...... -.~ I '\ ------.~.------------, --------._- '------------- " -, , -, <it , ~ :t. l _r~ • ! i; II :i -'I :! ~) ....;.~ -- · ..... -_"'~.,.I j~ , , I if • l ~ , , '" '1 .----':1 i l :i 1 ' , ~ w i ,[ ~ II • Ii ~§ w 0 ~ ~ ~ • -"'" , il , ··"1 . i , SOO96 'ifill '3'VaT'EII en "3J.S 'H:IllS H18' "3"N CZI2L ''*10:) lN3NdO""BII3J ~ ";.1:;$ !>Q2 ~"'r !lICi-l S'"'= • ! ./ ! n'J ~'Oi-\~t(~.) nl'l-Io;t(,n) ~cr~& YII. 'I/U)I IW'U :rl.,y.' OM<!I ~'nl i Renton City Limits Parcels ~ Renton Aerial ~ 5 00 0 SCALE 1 : 5 ,674 500 FEET Ittp:llrentonnet.org l MapGuidel mapsl ParceLmwf Renton N A I 1 ,000 1,500 EXHIBIT 6 .. Wednesday, September 09 , 2009 1: 18 PM , Minutes O\VNER: APPLICANT/CONTACT: LOCATION: SUMMARY OF REQUEST: SUMMARY OF ACTION: OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON Kolin B. Taylor KBS III, LLC 12320 NE 8th Street, Ste. 100 Bellevue, W A 98005 Wayne Potter Barghausen Consulting Engineer 18215 72 nd Avenue S Kent, W A 98032 Cavalla Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA 09-097, PP, ECF November 3, 2009 Southeast of 162 nd Avenue SE and SE 137 th Place Requesting an amended Preliminary Plat and SEPA review approval of a 9.40 acre site to be subdivided into 49 lots for single-family residential with Tracts for stormwater and joint use driveways. Development Services Recommendation: Approve subject to conditions. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on October 6, 2009. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining available information on file with the application, field checking the property and surrounding area; the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The/ollowing minutes are a summary o/the October 13,2009 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, October 13,2009, at 9:02 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Cavalla Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-09-097, PP, ECF November 3,2009 Page 2 Exhibit No.1: Yellow file containing the original application, proof of posting, proof of publication and other documentatiolll'ertinent to this request. Exhibit No.3: Preliminary Plat Plan Exhibit No.5: Road Plan Exhibit No.7: Tree Inventory Exhibit No.9: Access Agreement between Threadgill, Liberty Gardens and Cavalla. Exhibit No. 11: Two Density Credit Transfer agreements between KBS and Respective Owners , Exhibit No. 13: Prior Preliminary Plat with 38 Lots Exhibit No.2: Vicinity Map Exhibit No.4: Landscape Plan Exhibit No.6: Aerial Photograph Exhibit No.8: Picture of Proposed Trees for storm pond area (7 sheets) Exhibit No. 10: Copy of King County Codes regarding Transfer of Development Rights Exhibit No. 12: Gwendolyn High Testimony Exhibit No. 14: New Condition #J Rocale Timmons stated that this application was submitted to King County DDES in early 2006, since that time the property was annexed into the City of Renton. It is vested to King County's R-4 Development Standards. This plat will also be subject to the City of Renton's procedures. The applicant proposed 49 single family lots on 9.40 acres. There are two existing parcels and one existing single family residence that would be removed. The gross density would be approximately 5.21 dwelling units per acre. The interior lots would average 4300 square feet and the exterior lots would average 6000 square feet. Proposed access to the site would be via 162 0d Avenue SE, which abuts the site to the west and then 164!h Avenue SE located on the eastern ,portion of the site. This would be a proposed dedication provided by the applicant, which is an extension of 164 Avenue SE. The Environmental Review Committee issues a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated with two mitigation measures. No appeals were filed. This project does comply with King County's Comprehensive Plan designation. In King County's R-4 zone, the density allowed is 4 dwelling units per gross acre, this allows a maximum density of up to 6 dwelling units pcr acre. This excess of the base density is allowed for the use of Transfer of Development Rights, which the applicant is pursuing per Chapter 21a37 of the King County Code. The applicant has proposed 5.21 dwelling units per gross acre, which is an 1 J lot increase from the base density that would have been allowed in the zone. A Transfer of Development Rights allows for the transfer of development rights from another area outside of the urban gro"th boundary. It is basically the development rights that a potential property could have had to lise to develop. Eleven lots that could have been developed somewhere else could be transferred to this development. The applicant has provided a Purchase and Sell Agreement which is the first step. At Preliminary Plat approval, the applicant would be required to provide a Purchase and Sell Agreement. Staff has requested that the first • I Cavalla Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-09-097, PP, ECF November 3, 2009 Page 3 condition be revised, rather than just requesting a Purchase and Sell or the actual Transfer of Development Rights documentation, they would be asking that the applicant perform all steps and complete all documentation necessary as required by King County and the City of Renton in order to process the transfer of Development Rights properly for this subject plat only. Development standards of King County requires a minimum of a 30-foot lot width, no depth or size are required. The applicant has proposed different lot variations within the site. All lots exceed the 30-foot requirement. King County Code further requires a 10-foot front yard setback for the primary structurc and a 20- foot setback for the garage. All side and rear yards require only a 5-foot setback. The applicant, however, has proposed a 15-foot setback for the primary structure on the interior lots. In the right-of-way the applicant has also provided an 8-foot landscape strip in addition to a 5-foot public sidewalk. The lots along the exterior would have a 20-foot setback for the primary structure and 25-foot setback for the garage. The bnilding standards for the site were stated incorrectly in the Staff Report. It is noted that 55% is the impervious surface coverage in the report, however for the use ofTDR, the applicant is able to utilize the R-6 development standards which allows 70% impervious surface coverage for each lot. The building height would be 35-feet for each single family residence. The proposed landscape plan includes a 10-foot landscape easement parallel to 162 nd Avenue SE and 164!h Avenue that would be easements on private property with significant landscaping and a good neighbor fence which would be modulated along 1 64 th Avenue SE. There is at least 20-feet of landscaping along 162 nd and 164" from the back of the curb to the face of the fence, in addition to that the applicant is proposing an 8-foot landscape strip along the perimeter of the interior lots. Within that landscape strip the applicant proposes to use two smaller variety street trees, staff would like to see tlle applicant replace the variety of smaller street tree with a larger variety of street tree along the interior lots and possibly the smaller street trees could be used on the exterior lots behind the larger variety of tree that has already been proposed. There are 429 trees located on the site, all are proposed to be removed due to the topography of the site. The applicant has indicated that it would be very challenging to retain any of the trees on site. King County code does allow the removal of all trees as long as they are replaced. The applicant would be required to retain 94 trees, if they are not able to do so. The applicant has proposed to replace 193 trees total, which does meet the requirement for King County tree replacement. King County code requires that the applicant provide recreation on site. On this site, the applicant is required to provide 390 square feet of recreation space per lot, approximately 38,000 square feet of recreation area has been provided within the proposed detention pond tract. There is a walking trail that surrounds the pond, which will include benches, tables and umbrellas as well as passive recreation for small children. The applicant should also provide a public benefit on the pathway due to the needs ofthe school children in the area. The pathway should be dedicated as a public easement. There would also be a fence on the interior of the trail that surrounds the pond for safety. Half street improvements have been proposed along 162 nd Ave SE as well as dedicatiGn ofa 35.5 foot right-of- way width along the eastern portion of the site for the extension of 164"' Ave SE. In the northeast portion of the site a tum around has been provided, a portion of which is located on the Issaquah School District property. An agreement is in place until such time as the road would be extended to the north. The internal road system Cavalla Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-09-097, PP, ECF November 3, 2009 Page 4 connects 162 0d Ave SE to I 64th Ave SE which satisfied the secondary access requirements. Further there is an alley that has been proposed for the interior Lots 31-49. A Transportation Mitigation Fee would be imposed on this project and a School Mitigation Fee payable to the Issaquah School District would be imposed as well. The ERC issued a mitigation measure requiring the applicant to comply with the 2005 Surface Water Design Manual, which will accommodate some of the concerns in this area. A Homeowner's Association should be created to maintain all common improvements on site. The applicant further should maintain all landscaping and all amenities provided within Tract A from the fence outward and the City of Renton would be responsible for the stann pond located from the fence inward. Water service to the site is being provided by Water District 90, the applicant would be required to provide approved plans from Water District 90 prior to engineering penn it approval. The applicant has received a Certificate of Water Availability. The applicant would further be required to provide an 8" line for sewer within 162 0d Ave SE and extend to all lots as required. Wayne Potter, Barghausen Consultants, 18215 72 0d Ave S, Kent 98032 stated the project team was with him that included the landscape architect and engineers who were at the hearing to answer any questions. This project has a long history through King County, pre-application meetings, site visits and working with various members of King County and the City of Renton. This project was started in 2005 and they are excited about the project being presented today. The developer has thoughtfully gone through every detail to come up with a project that would lessen impacts with respect to the additional 11 lots of the TORs. In general they are satisfied with the conditions placed on this project by Staff; however, there are a few things that he wanted to bring to the attention ofthe Examiner and possibly give some clarifications. Regarding the setbacks, it appears that the City is considering in the future allowing flexibility with respect to front yard porches that would potentially encroach typical front yard setbacks. This is what they have tried to do with this project, varying elevations, modulations with buildings making sure there is not just a row of houses with the exact same setbacks. It appears that the City is considering allowing decks/porches to encroach the setbacks to provide another esthetic element to the streetscape. If this project is approved today and if this ordinance should be approved that it would become applicable to this project. The Examiner stated that he could not guarantee that, they are present today under existing code and existing code has certain provisions. Whether you can modiry the plat after the fact that would have to be explored with Staff. The main question or problem would be the precedence it creates. Everyone could come in and say they wanted their plat to abide by these standards, but if the standards are relaxed in the future then they want those standards to apply. The standards could vary from week to week or month to month. That flexibility could cause many problems. This plat has the advantage of the King County Code and now you are looking to take advantage of the current plus potential changes in the Renton code. Cavalla Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-09-097, PP, ECF November 3,2009 Page 5 The lots could achieve a variety of looks with the use of landscaping, mixing larger and smaller trees and creating a designer look. Mr. Potter continued with a minor correction on page 10 of the Staff Report, under Surface Water, second paragraph it indicates that there is a proposed storm water vault located in Tract A. It is a pond and not a vault. Also with respect to the revisions to Condition I, with regards to TDR's, Mr. Halinen would address that matter later. There would be no problem in adding the language to the condition that they would meet the King County requirements for TDR's outlined in their code. The Examiner also noted a correction to the Staff Report on page 4 of 12, the consistency with Short Plat criteria is mentioned twice and it is obviously Preliminary Plat and not Short Plat. Mr. Potter continued regarding some items that were discussed and provided some clarification. They have met with CARE and gone through this project, made revisions based on comments received from them that appeared to be applicable. They also met with adjacent property owners to the south, they met with the developer of Liberty Gardens to discuss projects and try to work together for a good product in this area. Many of the improvements made in the project not only meet but exceed King County requirements as well as requirement of the City of Renton. They have varied the lot widths with good depths and variations in setbacks. There are also additional landscaping opportunities, there would be a separation from the back ofthe curb to the sidewalk for safety reasons as well as additional landscaping. With regards to providing more landscaping for the alley load lots, on the front of these lots (31-40) because ofthe grade separation, they have put a wall back from the sidewalk and added additional landscaping so the wall is not right up to the back of the sidewalk. They have exceeded the requirements for King County for open space and recreation. The storm pond design includes passive recreation and active recreation and put them together to create a space where the open pond would be a feature to be enjoyed by not only the people within the plat but also the community. With that, they have increased the landscaping, have proposed to move trees and create meandering sidewalks along 162"d and 164 t " trying to take advantage of the 20' landscaping on both of those main streets and providing fencing with trellis design. The landscaping plan is very detailed and construction ready. They have worked diligently with Liberty High school to make the best use of the turnaround. There would be a modulated fence along 164'" that will break up the look of a long straight fence that is seen in most developments. Every other lot will have the fence modulated and enhanced with landscaping and the other lot with a trellis to try to lessen the impact of a straight wall. Regarding the trees, they have looked at the landscape to see iftbere were pockets of trees that they could try to save to incorporate in this plat. There is a challenge when it comes to design, the size of these lots and 30' of elevation drop from the northeast corner to the southwest corner. In doing so, they have elected to increase the landscape on the project to exceed the replacement tree requirements of King County to try to lessen that impact. They are working with native trees and they feel confident that they have accomplished that goal. There has been some discussion about an agreement with three developers, at the very beginning of this project when the plan was submitted to King County, a letter was sent to all three projects, Threadgill, Liberty Gardens and Cavalla. Threadgill received preliminary plat approval through King County prior to annexation. Liberty Gardens had received SEPA determination and was within weeks of having a hearing before the King County Cavalla Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-09-097, PP, ECF November 3,2009 Page 6 Hearing Examiner prior to the annexation. King County met with alI three developers to come up with a solution to secondary access. There concern was in and out of this area. The three developers agreed as a whole they needed to come up with a solution. In the end, prior to annexation, 162 0d was the preferred access going directly south in front of Cavalla and Liberty Gardens. Through meetings with the City and going through designs and because of the impacts to several sensitive areas, it was determined that the less impact and the preferred alternative for extension and secondary access would be 164 th and that is why revisions were made. The agreement leaves room for an alternative access, 167"' Ave SE, and if that were determined to be better, all three parties have agreed to follow that recommendation. David Halinen, Attorney for applicant provided a copy of a portion of the King County code that deals with Transfer of Development Rights, Chapter 2Ia.37. He further provided copies of two Density Credit Transfer Agreements; one involving the purchase of nine such credits and the other the purchase of two credits for the total of eleven that are being contemplated in this plat. Gwendolyn High, 155 Yakima Avenue, Renton 98059 appeared on behalf of CARE stated that they were her neither in support or opposition of this project. This will happen and they would like to present some clarifications for review. They are pleased with the current project proposal. They presented a list of conditions that have been offered by the applicant they are requesting that they be specific conditions of approval including lot variation, setbacks, landscaping, street plan and access to the pond. The main matter is the TOR, this community is sensitized against TORs due to the poor implementation to date and the negative impacts that the residents have suffered as a result. With this project the community will have absorbed about 20% of all TORs transferred in King County since the first TOR was sold in 1999. Until now there has been no provision of infrastructure or amenity improvements to appropriately accommodate and mitigate the increased negative impacts. Many discussions have taken place and many neighbors still believe that TORs must be opposed as a matter or principal regardless of the specific proposal. The community has more to gain from Cavalla being built as currently proposed than would be lost if the project were to be built to the lower King County density standards. The community would not challenge the use of TORs at this time due to the amenities that the development proposes. They would like to request the following conditions; signs to be placed at the access points of the walk around the storm pond so that the public knows they are welcome, opening hours and rules of behavior should be included in that signage. It appears that half street improvements for 162,d and 164'h are inadequate, half streets are only adequate for service of 3 5 dwellings or fewer, this plat is proposed at 39 and Liberty Gardens has been approved at 36 for a total of 85 units. It appears that full street improvements for l620d and 164'h would be required. There appears to be no conceptual drainage plan for this development, King County requires a curb on one side for drainage and therefore, the City's stormwater and traffic division review the proposed plat and make sure the alley design meets the intent and purpose of both road standards and drainage standards. CARE hopes that the implementation of this project will be a powerful and effective example of the proper use of TORs. The transfer process must be complete and correct. It was requested that Staff Condition 1 in the written report to the Hearing Examiner be modified to require conformance with all necessary applicable portions of King County Code, specificalIy 21a.37.080, 2Ia.37.130 and 2Ia.37.140. It is importanttbat what is offered actually happens. Cavalla Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-09-097, PP, ECF November 3, 2009 Page 7 Dave Petrie, 811 S 73'd Court, Des Moines 98198 requested that the Hearing Examiner recommend to the Renton City Council that the Cavalla plat be revised and returned to the 38 lot configuration that was submitted under King County in January 2006. It would then be fully compliant with the R-4 Renton Comprehensive Plan. The increase in density would damage his property because of the lower cost and smaller lots, the greater reason was the effect on the neighborhood. Mr. Petrie read a statement regarding his involvement with the TDR matter. He is a developer and was invited to a meeting with the planning commission regarding the use of TDRs, he was the only developer that showed up for the meeting. He further related events that took place with the Evendale development. It appeared that the planning commission was against TDRs and he fully supported them. The Examiner asked for an explanation ofthe impacts and why he believed this project was inappropriate. Mr. Petrie continued stating that he liked the landscaping however, the density is an issue, he wanted to see the development go back to the original 38 lots and still have all the amenities. Originally Renton wanted 164,h as the major arterial, 1 62 nd is the better route, but that had impacts on the environment. He proposed an underground vault and was criticized for that suggestion. Debi Eberle, 18225 SE 14th Street, Renton 98059 stated that she is the vice president of CARE and a Watershed Steward. She reported that the yellow flag iris is on the noxious weed list and should not be used in the landscape in this development. Native plants should be used whenever possible. The system needs trees that feed bugs and keep fish alive. The open space, wetland area and detention pond are good for the environment and they need to be kept open to the public. TDRs require a delicate balance and there needs to be a balance and it needs to work correctly. Doris Yepez, 16444 SE 135'h Street, Renton 98059 stated that she lives near the development and she was concerned about the tree retention. There are two cedars that are 34" in diameter, they are older forest trees. There are also some Hemlocks that are very large as well located in the northwest corner. She does not want to see clear cutting it causes erosion when land is cleared this way. This would have the potential to polute tl,e Cedar River. She was not in favor ofTDRs and would like to see the plat go back to the original 38 lots. In the planting area that also is some bamboo and holly, she is not sure of the type of bamboo intended to be planted, the non-invasive type would be alright, but the invasive type spreads and is more difficult to get out than blackberries. They need to keep native plants in the pond area. Gal)' Norris, Transportation Engineer, PO Box 547, Preston stated that at the time previous traffic counts were conducted there was a lot of construction activity in the area and the construction activity was generating a lot more traffic that was anticipated from the single family developments. As the construction has calmed down, the traffic volumes have receded and the economic impact has had an impact on traffic as well. The intersections in the area can handle the additional lots of this particular project. Kavren Kittrick, Community and Economic Development stated that the sewer on 162 nd is open to be on either 164 th or 162 0d it is gravity and engineering will determine which way it will go. The temporary turnaround is needed because of the distance, it mayor may not go away the Issaquah School District has the available frontage that they could develop the whole road, they could do their half. They have been exploring the Cavalla Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-09-097, PP, ECF November 3, 2009 Page 8 possibility of extra parking for the ball field. The easement should not be finalized until just before the final plat because it needs to match what is actually built The Examiner stated that a condition was needed to state that the temporary turnaround is being constructed with this project. Kayren Kittrick continued stating that the ERC stated the use of the 2005 Manual for the drainage issues. They cannot divert any water, all water coming onto the site must be accommodated, the 2005 Manual will go a long way in resolving some of the issues or at least will not make them worse. Most of the drainage issues are all the southerly side of the property because there is a stream in that vicinity, there is some flooding on 160'" as well some backing across property lines in the vicinity. It is well documented where the problems are and that will be watched very closely. To the east and south is a Park's Department property, King County Parks will be handing that property over to the City of Renton. The City Park's Department will be going through its usual outreach process to develop the area. To clarify, both I 64th and 162 nd are not designated as arterials, at most they are residential collectors by their character, there is no direct access off of them very often, they are access through the residential propelties. As such a half street improvement is allowed, this is actually more than a half street, it is 22 feet of pavement ill their frontages and all points of connection must be a minimum of 20 feet. A 10 minute recess was taken ... returned to the record at 10:53 am Wayne Potter stated that he was going to try to bring some clarity to some of the outstanding issues. With respect to the e-mail provided by Gwendolyn with recommendations he stated they have no problems if Staff wants to include the improvements that are part of the TORs as conditions with the caveat that if the TORs are not approved, those partiCUlar improvements would not be applicable. The Examiner questioned if the TORs were discretionary at this time or if the agreement is executed is it a fait accompli. Mr. Halinen stated that it is a fait accompli. Mr. Potter continued that they agreed that there would be public access to the path amenities. The half street issues were addressed by Ms. Kittrick, however, on Sheet 5 there is a cross section of 162,d Ave, King County requested that 30-feet of asphalt be provided from face of curb to the asphalt. There are many ways to design the alley, they are open to the standard King County requirement. The onsite and off-site drainage issues have been analyzed extensively. A Level I drainage analysis that was prepared and submitted was reviewed by King County at the time, they requested a Level 3 analysis. Ed McCarthy was hired to prepare that analysis, in the end they agreed to provide Level 3 drainage control and sized the pond accordingly. The temporary turnaround, the intent is to provide a temporary easement that would stay on the adjacent property, or the option of splitting the easement on both sides of the right-of-way or providing the easement on the entire project of Cavalla. There are options, Issaquah School District has many design options and they Cavalla Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-09-097, PP, ECF November 3, 2009 Page 9 would be willing to work with Staff to ultimately come up with the best solution. The preference would be to flip the temporary turnaround onto the School property, in initial conversations with them, they were okay with that. They would be willing to work with CARE to provide native plants in the landscaping. They would also look at the large cedars and Hemlocks, they will look at options again. Cedar trees are very sensitive and when removing other trees around them it could be problematic. Ms. Timmons read her new Condition 1 to the Staff Report: "The applicant shall perform all steps and complete all documentation necessary as required by King County Code Section 21A.37 and the City of Renton in order to process the transfer of development rights properly for this subject plat only the certificate or other valid legal document(s) must show the applicant or successor as the lawful owner of the development rights. Alternatively, the plat design shall be reconfigured to reflect the density allowable under the R-4 Zone without the TDR bonus." The Examiner stated that there is no plat without the TDRs. Reverting back to a 38-10t plat leaves some concerns and questions. David Halinen stated that he had reviewed the new Condition I with his client and it is acceptable as drafted. Regarding the point that without the TDRs there is no plat and this would revert back to a 38-10t plat, the last sentence could be slightly modified to provide SOme sort of remand for further processing if in fact, the TDR approach is not ultimately utilized. Gwendolyn High mentioned three subsections ofKC 21A.37 the last two were .130 and .140 which deal with TDRs are acquired from the County's bank. These TDRs are being acquired from specific property owners not from the Bank. Mr. Halinen read from subsection b ofKC 21 regarding TDR development rights. Ms. Timmons stated that the front yard porches that were proposed by the applicant to encroach into the front yard setback would be approved by Staff as long as it does not encroach into the required setback of 10 reet for the front yards and then because ofthe front yards that front on the street, they are asking that the front porches do not exceed more than a IS foot front yard setback. A detailed landscape plan has not been approved and that a final landscape plan will have to be approved prior to the recording of the plat. They will look specifically at noxious plants as well as the overall landscape plan. It is obvious that the City has not implemented a TDR program and that it is a very controversial topic. The project is vested to King County R-4 standards, it does have a base density of 4 dulac and does allow the density to go up to 6 dulac. The applicant is only proposing 5.2 1 dulac. It is understood that there are several concerns, they are allowed to exceed the base density ofthe zone. Doris Yepez stated that Mr. Potter said that leaving some single Cedars would make them susceptible to the wind, but she would like them to look at the cluster of Cedars on the southeast corner, if those could be retained it would be good. Cavalla Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-09-097, PP, ECF November 3, 2009 Page 10 The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 11: 16 a.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: I. The applicant, Kolin B. Taylor, filed a request for a Preliminary Plat. 2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit # 1. 3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official issued a Determination of Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M). 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject site is located south of SE 137th Place and east of 162nd Avenue SE and west of I 64th Avenue SE. 6. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of lower density detached single family uses, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. 7. The subject site is currently zoned R-4 (Single Family -4 dwelling units/acre). The subject site is vested under King County's zoning which is generally equivalent to Renton's designation but the standards for lot area, yard setbacks or dimensions and development standards would be judged against King County standards in effect when the application was suhmitted. As discussed below, the density may be altered by the Transfer of Development Rights. 8. The suhject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 5398 enacted on August II, 2008. 9. The subject site is approximately 9.4 acres. The site consists of two adjacent lots that abut in a north- south direction. The subject site is approximately 596 feet wide (east to west) by 656 feet deep. 10. The subject site slopes downward toward the southwest. The slopes range from approximately 2.5 percent to 12 percent and average about 10 percent. The northeast corner of the site is approximately 50 feet higher than the southwest COrner. Grade and fill will be used to create level building pads and roadways. 11. The site contains 429 significant trees. The applicant proposes removing most, if not all ofthe trees to accommodate the grading that will occur. (see below for proposed new landscaping.) CavaJla Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-09-097, PP, ECF November 3, 2009 Page 11 12. In developing the subject site the applicant proposes using King County provisions that allow the Transfer ofOevelopment Rights. Those provisions allow trading or purchasing development rights attached to certain rural land and use of them in less rural or suburban or urban settings. Those rights, once transferred, reduce the potential density of the rural parcels and boost the permitted density of the receiving property. The R-4 Zone has a base density of 4 dwelling units per acre and the maximum is 6. Transfer ofOevelopment Rights (TOR) permits the maximum density of 6 units per acre. The number oflots permitted is attained by multiplying the acres, 9.4, by base density of 4, yielding a total of37.6, or 38 lots. The applicant has proposed a TDR of 11 lots for a total of 49 lots. This creates a density of 5.21 which is less than the maximum density of6 units per acre. 13. Staff noted that there are no qualitative criteria to allow TOR operation. If the transfer contract is finalized appropriately, then the transfer may take effect. Staff reports that the community around the project expressed opposition to increasing the density on this parcel and the applicant agreed to mitigate some of the potential impacts of increased density by exceeding the minimum standards ofthe King County Code. The applicant proposed increasing landscaping, passive recreational opportunities, lot design and street design. The proposal will include an enhanced detention pond area with pathways open to the general public. 14. As noted, the applicant proposes creating a 49-lot plat with one large detention tract, Tract A. Proposed Lots I to 10 will run along the north boundary of the subject site. Proposed Lots 11 to 17 will run along the eastern boundary of the subject site. Proposed Lots 18 to 22 and Tract A would lie along the southern boundary of the site. There would be three tiers of lots in the center of the site aligned east to west. Two tiers, Lots 31 to 40 as the southern tier and 41 to 49 as the northern tier, forming a block in north central portion of the subject site. The third tier generally located north of the detention Tract A would contain Lots 23 to 30. IS. King County Code has no minimum lot size or depth requirements but does require a minimum 30 foot lot width. The code requires a 10 foot setback for the primary structure and 20 feet for attached garages or parking areas. Other than the front yard setback, all other yards, including rear yards are required to be a minimum of5 feet. The lots would range in size from approximately 4,040 square feet to 7,803 square feet. The plat has been designed with larger lots along the perimeter of the site to more or less mirror the larger lots normally found in the R-4 Zone. Smaller lots would be located on the interior of the plat in the new block created by the two tiers of lots with alley. The applicant proposes enlarging yards to 20 feet for the home and 25 feet for the garage for the perimeter lots and 15 feet for the interior alley-loaded lots as an offset to the greater density. The applicant also proposed larger rear yards for the interior parcels. Building height is limited to 35 feel. 16. Staff made the following recommendations to provide a more consistent streetscape: "that the plat plan be revised to depict the following: one-half of the interior lots (Lots 31-49) provide a 10-foot front yard setback in addition to the sidewalk and landscaping provided in the right-of way and the other one-half of the interior lots provide a IS-foot front yard setback. Additionally, one-half of the exterior lots (Lots 1-30) provide a 20- foot front yard setback for the primary structure and the other one-half of the exterior lots provide a 25-foot front yard setback for the primary structure. Garages are to be setback an additional 5 feet for all front/street loaded lots. " Cavalla Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-09-097, PP, ECF November 3, 2009 Page 12 Staff suggested that the applicant provide at least 8 foot rear yards to accommodate backout room but that the larger rear yards proposed by the applicant were unnecessary. There are no code limitations on larger yards. 17. Access to the subject site would be via 162nd Avenue along the west and I 64th Avenue along the east. Both of those streets will be improved with half-street improvements and conveyed to the public with dedications. Both streets are considered residential collectors and are not subject to arterial street standards. Two west to east roads would enter the plat from I 62nd Avenue and intersect with a new north to south road that swings east to I 64th. An alley would run west to east in the middle of the new block to the rear of Proposed Lots 31 to 49. I 64th Avenue would end in a turnaround at its northern terminus. The proposed turnaround would be located on 3rd party property owned by Liberty High School -Issaquah School District. A tentative agreement has been negotiated since the improved street and turnaround would accommodate traffic at the school. If the agreement were not executed, the turnaround would have to be accommodated On the subject site. Staff recommended that no access be allowed directly to 162nd or I 64th. An agreement between property owners was intended to improve circulation along 162nd and I 64'h but the agreement has been abandoned. It appears that the applicant proposes upgrading I 64th to the turnaround and providing through access acroSS its plat with its new east-west streets. 18. The applicant will be using Renton standards for street improvements including vertical curbs, an 8-foot planter strip and on-street parking. Staff has recommended that the applicant pay a Traffic Impact Fee (King County) or Mitigation Fee (Renton) of$75.00 per net new trip which equates to $35,169.75 (9.57 trips/home x 49 homes). 19. King County Code (as noted above, the applicant is vested to and bound by King County Code) requires one tree for every 40 feet of street frontage along all public streets. The applicant proposes complying with those requirements as well as providing visual barriers using 10-foot landscape easements parallel to I 62 0d and I 64 th Ave SE. The applicant proposes planting 193 replacement trees along the roads and yards. This barrier would also contain a "good neighbor fence" that is modulated along 164'h Ave SE. The applicant also proposed an 8-foot landscape strip along the perimeter of the tiered lots in the middle of the site. The applicant proposes a meandering sidewalk along both boundary streets. Staff suggested smaller street trees be blended with the larger trees. Staff noted that the applicant's landscaping proposal exceeds the standards required by King County. The applicant proposes relocating some of the larger ornamentals and may be able to protect other large trees where possible. 20. Code requires 390 square feet of recreation space for each home in this plat or J 9, II 0 square feet for the entire plat. The detention tract will contain approximately 38,400 square feet or double the required amount. As noted this area will be open to the general public. 21. The subject site is located within the Issaquah School District. Developments within that school district are required to pay an impact fee on a per lot basis. The fee is assessable at the time of building permit approval and is $6,021.00 per lot. 22. The development will increase traffic approximately 10 trips per unit or approximately 490 trips for the 49 single family homes. Approximately ten percent of the trips, or approximately 49 additional peak Cavalla Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-09-097, PP, ECF November 3, 2009 Page 13 hour trips will be generated in the morning and evening. The TDR will enable eleven (II) additional dwellings. The II homes would generate approximately 105 additional trips per day or approximately 10 additional trips during the rush or peak hours. A recent traffic analysis shows traffic in the area has decreased and that the Levels of Service (LOS) for five critical intersections have improved and accidents numbers decreased. Some of the decrease might be due to the current economy but some may be a general reduction. 23. Stormwater will be channeled to the natural low spot, the southwest comer of the site where it will be retained in an enhanced detention pond and open space tract, Tract A. An analysis shows that there are downstream problems and the City imposed restrictions and containment based on the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual for flow and quality. The applicant will be required to comply witb that manual's landscaping requirements. 24. Sewer service will be provided in 162nd Avenue andlor I 64th whichever is more appropriate. 25. Water District #90 provides water service to this area. The water service will have to meet City of Renton standards for flow and fire protection. Appropriate permits from both agencies will be required. 26. There are some neighbors who are opposed to increasing the density of the subject site. The reasons expressed where that the smaller lots proposed are not compatible with tbe community, the increased housing generates a larger population and additional vehicle trips and the increased density makes it less likely to preserve natural features andlor trees. There was also concern about some of the selected landscaping materials. CONCLUSIONS: I. The proposed plat with its increased density possible with an appropriately executed TDR appears to serve the public use and interest. This is not to say tbat any increase in density in an area slated for lower density single family uses is appropriate even when the result is protected farm land or critical areas. While this office is not entirely convinced it is appropriate to shift density to an area zoned for lower density detached single family housing, the result in this case does not cause an egregious density increase and has been well-integrated into the lower density community by embedding the smaller lots in a surrounding envelope of larger conforming lots. In addition to the layout and alignment of the proposed lots, the applicant has increased tbe perimeter landscaping thereby buffering tbe surrounding uses from the increased density. The applicant will also be providing open space in its enhanced treatment of it storrnwater detention system and this public space will be available to the general public as well as residents of the plat. 2. The development of the plat witb or without the increased density will obviously change the complexion of the area. There will be more comings and goings and more people. Wooded open space will be converted to housing and manicured landscaping. These changes were anticipated by both the Comprehensive Plans and the Zoning both under King County and the City. Adjoining or nearby property has already been approved for increased development. While the density increase of the proposal will generate additional traffic, the II new homes will only nominally increase traffic during peak hours, the most pressing time for traffic. The 11 homes will add approximately 10 additional trips to area roads and those trips will spread out in various directions from the project. In addition, the Cavalla Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-09-097, PP, ECF November 3,2009 Page 14 applicant will be improving areas roads and connecting roads that were substandard. The applicant will be improving access to Liberty High School's facilities. 3. Clearly, the increased density may only be permitted if the appropriate agreements or contracts are executed and the preservation tradeoff comes to fruition. Staff recommended that the plat be subject to such final execution. Clearly, the proposed plat can only go forward as proposed. Ifthe TOR is not finalized, this plat would have to fail since no one has had an opportunity to review a layout with eleven fewer lots. The entire plat would have to be redesigned. 4. The development of the proposed plat will increase the tax base of the City. Tbe applicant will be paying some mitigation or impact fees but the increased taxes will also offset the impacts of this development on the City and its services. 5. The enhanced design of this plat is creative. It envelops smaller lots inside a wrapper of larger lots that appear to be compatible with the larger lots in surrounding plats. The applicant has increased the perimeter landscaping and enhanced landscaping and proposed larger yards to provide a more spacious presentation. The detention tract will serve a dual purpose by providing for storm water control while also providing open space for both residents and the community. Clearly, there is no way that introduced landscaping supplemented as it is, will replace the natural environment now found on the subject site. One aspect of developing property that cannot be avoided is that homes and driveways and access roads require the removal of existing vegetation and in some cases the natural contours of property. Again, such consequences were indirectly forecasted by the goals and objectives found in Comprehensive Pians and Zoning Code that allow housing and encourage housing and density in growing urban and suburban areas. This plat appears to provide a reasonable compromise. 6. Staff had suggested changes to some of the proposed yards. Since there is no limitation on larger yards, the applicant is free to work within building envelopes that meet the minimum standards and may provide larger yards. The applicant may not provide smaller setbacks than code permits and any porches, overhangs, bays or eaves must meet code provisions. 7. Statf suggested smaller street trees be blended with the larger trees along the streets. This would provide more visual depth and variety to the wider parking strips and should be accomplished. 8. The applicant should attempt to preserve some of the larger specimen trees where possible. All introduced landscaping should comply with standards for noxious weeds. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should approve the 49-lot plat subject to the following conditions: I. The applicant shall perform all steps and complete all documentation necessary, as required by King County Code section 21A.3 7, and the City of Renton, in order to process the Transfer of Development Right's properly for this subject plat only. The certificate or other valid legal document(s) must show the applicant or successor as the lawful owner of the development rights. If the agreement is not appropriately executed and finalized the plat shall be null and void and a new application meeting code and density requirement would be necessary. Cavalla Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-09-097, PP, ECF November 3, 2009 Page 15 2. The applicant shall obtain a demolition permit and all required inspections be completed for tbe removal oftbe existing residence prior to the recording of the plat. 3. Supplemental materials including a revised plat plan, a letter outlining all recommended setbacks and a draft ofthe CC & R's for the Homeowners' Association, with an inclusion oftbc setback requirements of the plat; shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to the recording of the plat. 4. The applicant shall replace the small street trees along the perimeter of the interior lots with a larger variety of street tree. The applicant shall use smaller street trees, in addition to the larger single tree, along the perimeter of the exterior lots. 5. The applicant shall be required to provide a detailed tree retention plan with the engineering review application. The tree retention plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering permit approval. The applicant shall attempt to preserve some of the larger specimen trees where possible. All introduced landscaping shall comply with standards for noxious weeds. 6. The applicant and Homeowners Association shall allow for public use of the walking path (providing a pedestrian connection from l62,d Ave SE and I 64th Ave SE) and other recreation features within the storm pond (Tract A). Language to this effect shall be placed on the face of the plat and included in the Codes, Covenants & Restrictions (CC&R's). 7. Access for Lots 31-49 shall be limited to the proposed alley only. There shall be no direct access to either 162nd Avenue or 164th Avenue from any lot in the plat. 8. The applicant shall pay a Transportation Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per net new average daily trip attributed to the project. 49 lots are expected to generate approximately 9.57 new average weekday trips per each lot. The fee for the proposed plat is estimated at $35,169.75 ($75.00 x 9.57 trips x 49 lots = $35,169.75) and is payable to the City prior to the recording of the final plat. 9. The applicant shall establish a homeowners' association for the development, which would be responsible for any common improvements and/or tracts within the plat prior to final plat approval. 10. A note shall be placed on the face of the plat stating that the Homeowners' Association will Cavalla Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-09-097, PP, ECF November 3, 2009 Page 16 maintain all landscaping and amenities within the proposed storm pond from the fence outwards and the City will maintain the storm pond from the fence inward. 11. The applicant shall create a turnaround at the north terminus of 164th Avenue, The terminus may be located on the adjacent school district property or be located on Proposed Lots 10 and lIar portions thereof and those two lots may be combined if necessary to create an appropriate turnaround and setbacks for a home on the lot or lots. ORDERED TillS 3d day of November 2009. w-.~.~ FRED J. KAUF~N P HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 3'd day of November 2009 to the parties of record: Rocale Timmons Kayren Kittrick Wayne Potter Development Services Development Services Barghausen Consulting Engineer Renton, W A 98057 Renton, WA 98057 18215-72"d Avenue S Kent, W A 98032 Kolin B.Taylor Gwendolyn High KBS IIILLC 155 Yakima Avenue Dave Petrie 12320 NE 8th Street, Ste. 100 Renton, W A 98059 811 S 73'd Court Bellevue, W A 98005 Des Moines, WA 98189 Gary Norris Doris Yepez Transportation Engineer Debbie Eberle 16444 SE 135 th Street PO Box 547 18225 SE 147th Street Renton, W A 98059 Preston, WA Renton, WA 98059 David Halinen Hans Korve Keith & Ann Miya 1019 Regents Blvd, Ste. 202 DMP Eng., Inc. 5515 N E I" Circle Fircrest, W A 98466 726 Auburn Way N Renton, W A 98059 Auburn, W A 98002 Coldwell Banker Bain Steve Crawford Claudia Donnelly 150 Bellevue Way SE Issaquah School District 10415 147th Ave SE Bellevue, W A 98004 565 NW Holly Street Bellevue, W A 98005 Issaquah, W A 98027 Helen Grover 16203 SE 137 th Place Steve Bottheim, Supervisor Seattle KC Health Department Renton, W A 98059 CPLN LUSD MS OAK DE 0100 East District Environ. Health Cavalla Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-09-097, PP, ECF November 3, 2009 Page 17 Kim Claussen, PPMIII Lisa Dinsmore, PPM IV 14350 SE Eastgate Way Bellevue, W A 98007 Kris Langley, Sr. Engr CPLN LUSD MS OAK DE 0100 CPLN LUSD MS OAK DE 0 J 00 CPLN LUSE TRAFFIC REV MS OAK DE 0100 Kelly Whiting, KC DOT Bruce Wbittaker, Sf. Engr. RD SERV DIV MS KSCTR 0231 ERS LUSD MS OAK DE 0100 Steve Townsend, Supervisor LUIS CPLN MS OAK DE 0 I 00 TRANSMITTED THIS 3'd day of November 2009 to the following: Mayor Denis Law Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Gregg Zimmennan, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services Marty Wine, Assistant CAO Dave Pargas, Fire Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transportation Division Utilities Division Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services Renton Reporter Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section IOOGofthe City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., November 17,2009. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or 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 a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $250.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., November 17,2009. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains tbe requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the executed Covenants wiII be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. Cavalla Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-09-097, PP, ECF November 3, 2009 Page 18 All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. Project Locotion: Southeast of 162"' Ave SE and SE 137'h PI --~-----~----------- Site Area: 9.40 acres Project Location Mop Cavallo HEX Report.doc ~E 132nd 51 SE~~9t11~ __ EXHIBIT 2 ZONING PV+" TECHNICAL SER\lCES 07/15108 E7 -11 T23N RSE E 1/2 SE 123l., SI Sl"1301I1 s: S~i3,.tS' . SE 132nd PI . SE l~L',S)"_- SE 1410tPI j III JI III SE t3<nd Sl _ SE n5L'l SI SE !37lh Pi ::>. . ·{r-----J -11 ---....",.cr • w. T~. • ~r-~1'fE I L .. _ . .J L ; 17","''''( ~ L,AIZ-PEN s. !aI ~ f' -:t L: /S.£'"R-T Y t-fl.~·'H ~HCoL.. ~ SE_142rKtSt .\jj , <. 5 i' w w • ; S5:14<!U1St ---$:~;I~-e'-~1; J: ;7 -23 T23N RSE E 1/2 F7 o 200 400 I-W IF,,! 14 T23N RSE E 112 1:4.800 5314 N t UU>..J"TlI'aDoOIio"""" .. "'_ ...... " ..... -"'"---.,...,."'" -- ~ ~ WO€I5 '(No :rvaT'B3 oct "3J.S 'l.33:ils Hl.i 3N ~ 0cl:l(X) .uendO""EA3J SW • , I ! 1"" \il! his ' j. L'i 'I ' 1-' t~J~ II" l:j. ;-~ .. "I" §i~i ~~~I r' !i~ lai ~ -: i I , , , i , I " -'I !~i~ I'll !I" ~~I~ ifo"- 11:1 ~~h 1:li ! '~!\\!. " ~ -~i ~ 3 ! §:i :i .ip t;' IIi! • g );.1; : • f----I i····, Ii " 1 ! :i:l;:i !II iii , I ' III M ..... I-t to I-t J: >< w V II·~./"--.."' .. -/ J --T1"'~" _ ...... "7<'"'10_7 .. dy-?C •. -:::..'f' ..... - ! • I " t '. ~ ~ , fi . ~ ,~ ~ \ i" f / . ~ ; ~i , J;. ! .r· , I . r,. 1 i~.-., . , ~ , ! ~, t' ! ,-£ 1 , [ , , , , l -. i Renton City Limits Parcels C8il Renton Aerial 500 a -, ---... - -...... --, ., -, - SCALE 1 : 5,674 500 FEET Renton N .J 1,000 1 ,soC) EXHIBIT 6 --..,...---------- Denis Law ---. r· _________ ~M:a:Yo:r ..................... ' '. t. ~ Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator. November 17,2009 Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner City of Rentpn 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98Q57 SUBJECT: . REQUESTFOR RECONSIDERATION CAVALLA PRELIMINARY PLAT (FILENO. LUA08-097, PP, ECF) Dear Mr. Kaufman, CITY OF RENTON NOV 17 2009 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE We respectfully request reconsideration for the Cavalla Preliminary Plat. Decision, dated November 3, 2009, due to improper notice. RMC 4-7-0801.2.c states that notice shall be mailed to all property owners within il radius of 300 feet of the property which is the subject of the application. Such. nptice shall be sent at least 14 days prior to the public hearing. It has come to staff's attention that notice of the public heilring, held on October 13, 2009, lllias not provided to ililproperty owners within 300 feet of the subject property. Due to the f~ct the project was ilvested King County application and City of Renton procedures were not performed in the creation of. the file; an . administrative error was .made when sending out notice. RMC 4-7-0801.2.d states tha.t· failure to receive notice will be grounds for a request for reconsideration by the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner shall reconsider when it is demonstrated that there is additional material testimony to provide that was not provided by others before the original decision. While staff has yet to receive comments that would' be material to the Examiner's decision there may be property owners, within 300 feet of the subject property, who may not be aware of the decision. Therefore, staff requests that the Hearing Examiner reopen the record by resending a request for additional testimoriy to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. If it is found that material testimonyis received the Examiner may opt to alterhis decision or choose to reopen the public.- hearing. Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Was.hington 98057 • rentonwa_gov Please. contact Rocale Tinimons, Associate Planner, at (425) 430-7219 should you have any questions regarding this letter. . Sincere: Vi . ~ .. -..-L. C·C---~- 0.E. "Chip" Vincent, Planning Director cc: Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner Yellow File • 16 November 2009 ~earing Examiner Fred Kaufman City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA, 98057 RE: Reconsideration, Cavalla Plat Hearing, File LUA 09-097, PP, ECF Errors and Omissions Notification CIW OF REflTON NOV 1 7 2009 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE The Law requires that everyone within 300' of a plat be notified of plat hearings. No one in that range; that is, Appellant Petrie, Owner/Developer of the Liberty Gardens plat adjacent South, or any of the 12 residents adjacent North in the Liberty Lane complex, received notice of the Plat Hearing. Petrie learned about the Hearing at 2:00 PM the day before the Hearing, when Kolin Taylor (Cavalla Developer) handed Petrie a copy of the Staff Report just before he gave Petrie a tour of developments that illustrated such design features, As a result, Petrie was up until 12:30 AM the day of the Hearing, preparing a 21-page document. Minutes before the formal hearing commenced, Petrie handed the document to Examiner Kaufman's secretary, expecting it to be listed as an Exhibit in the Examiners Report. This document was not included in the Exhibits Listing (page 2 of the Examiners Report). But the Examiner acknowledges existence of this Exhibit at 10: 17:35 AM on the recording. Appellant Petrie complained about this breach of procedure (10:17:43 AM). In a conversation between Timmons (Plat Staff), Examiner Kaufman, and Petrie, Timmons was then directed by Examiner Kaufman to add Petrie to the List of Interested Parties, Petrie had no time to contact a Land Use attorney; and the many local residents who have a long-standing disapproval of the densification/crowding enabled by Transfer of Development Rights (TOR's), had no time to marshal their forces in opposition. (See Exhibit 1-Letter to Newspapers regarding TOR Credits). This complete shut-out of anyone that might oppose Cavalla's use of TDR's-including failing to follow law requiring notice to anyone within 300-feet of the site-is egregious, sufficient from a legal aspect to declare the Hearing invalid. Density Issue The basis for Cavalla asking for increased density via TOR's was that they were vested under King County Codes during the 2 Y, years that their plat was being worked by King Counties' DOES, Cavalla was vested in February 2006. Relevant to the fairness issue on use of TOR's, Liberty Gardens was vested 29 December 2004. The Renton Comprehensive plan-designating R-4 as the maximum density for SFD's-was prepared in 2004. Currently, Renton has no Code provision compatible with Transfer of Development Rights. It is interesting that KC 21A.37, 14 requires an Inter-local Agreement between an incorporated area and King County to be valid when King Counties Land Bank is used. No such agreement exists between Renton and King County. 1 Since Renton wanted larger lots than obtained under R-6 (via use of TOR's), Renton was able to restrain use of the TOR by Sewer Availability Letters, restricting the number of lots as follows: Liberty Gardens-38 lots Cavalia-36 lots Threadgill-15 lots During the 31-months that Cavalla was being reviewed by King County's DOES, Cavalla was held to R-4 by the aforementioned Sewer Availability Letters, at a lot count of 38. Approval of any plat under Renton's Comprehensive Plan, at a density higher than R-4, is not supported by that Plan. Upon annexation (August 11, 2008) to Renton, Renton's Planning Staff took over the review process, Liberty Gardens at 36-lots, Cavalla at 38. When Renton Staff indicated preference for 164'h Ave SE, as the preferred Secondary Access over the submitted 162 0d Ave (fraught with environmental concerns), Cavalla decided to press Renton Staff for introduction of TDR's, based on their being "grandfathered" by date of vesting under ODES. Renton went along with this breach of Code, increasing the lot count 49. To say another way by surmise: The Cavalla developers-not satisfied with the cost savings of not having to extend 162"d Ave to 144th Street through two Sensitive Areas-wanted to exact more by offering cosmetics: "If we add more trees and plants, how about some compensatory help, like TDR's?" (Providing an extra -$1.5M profit, at a cost of $50K worth of landscaping). The likely response from Timmons, Watts and Kyttrick: "We'll give it a try." Cavalla did not include Petrie in this negotiation, knowing that he was adamant in adhering to the R-4 zoning of Renton's Comprehensive Plan. In contrast, Petrie acceded to Renton's wishes to use 164'h Avenue as the Secondary Access, primarily because Renton Staff agreed to Petrie's offer to extend SE 140'h Place 100-feet directly East to provide the desired connection between 162 0d Avenue and 164'" Avenue, replacing the original plan by Renton to slash an arterial from NW to SE across the Liberty Gardens plat, this effecting significant damage to the layout. At 10:03:48 AM, Gwen High-claiming to represent the community at a following of -15-testified quite differently from the past seven-years, now accepting TOR's. Gwen is so enthused about the landscape amenities; she asks that the Cavalla developers be required to erect permanent signs welcoming neighbors throughout the area to use the walking trail with two benches and a picnic table around the unsightly wild grass/weed field. (See Exhibit 2-Typical Retention Pond). Gwen is apparently oblivious to the 20-acre Maplewood Heights Park-a 3D-second walk southeastward-soon to be transferred to Renton. Gwen recommends that Renton go to the County pushing to amend the King County TOR Code to require beautification of ponds and similar amenities to plats using TOR's, including the remainder of Renton's East Plateau, essentially advocating that Renton now accept TDR's within their Codes! At 11 :09:43 AM on the recording of the Cavalla Hearing, Appellant Petrie testified as follows: "During the break, my wife said that I didn't answer your question very well about how does this impact you? She thought I should mention something that we talked about earlier-and with others-if this plat gets approved here, and then gets by the City Council, I should come back in with a revised proposal-and I am going to bare my soul here-that if the higher-ups in City Hall care no more than that about the quality of the Renton Plateau Comprehensive Plan, and-as Gwen High pointed out earlier-this is going to be an island: it isn't going to happen again. And if they care no more than that, we will come back with a similar proposal. People are going to say "Vilhy did you leave a million dollars on the table?" This is about money. That is why they are so motivated. There is nothing wrong with that; but that is what this is all about". 2 • At 11: 1 0:41, Examiner Kaufman responds: "It's not only about money. I have to pass judgment on whether this plat is appropriate or not. And if you are talking about redesigning Liberly Gardens, I assume you are free to do that, but you would not probably be coming in under King County regulations anymore: You would be coming in solely under Renton regulations, and I don't think there are any Transfer of Development Rights. But I will let you deal with your plat outside of this process". Examiner Kaufman, implying that Liberty Gardens was not eligible for use of TOR's, is in error: The only explanation for this paradox is that the Examiner was unaware that Liberty Gardens was vested under King County from December 2004 through the Annexation (August 11, 2008), having the same rights as Cavalla on this issue. The Cavalla Hearing Report (11-3-2009) recommends approval at the higher density, but adds New Condition #1, containing the words "for this subject plat only". These exclusionary words have no legal basis, intended to send a message to the local citizens that: "We Will Break the Law (Renton's Density Code on the Plateau) just this once, but never again". Action Required by the City Council An emergency meeting of the Council is needed to affirm/change their policy regarding density on the ~enton Plateau, particularly regarding TOR's: Option 1-Approve the Cavalla plat at 49-lots. But square this up with the Renton Code by amending the Code to allow any plats that had been vested under King County Codes prior to Annexation (11 August 2008) to use TOR's, on the basis that such plats had been "grandfathered" with that right, availed under King County Codes. This would apply to only three unbuilt plats, vested in King County before the Annexation at R-4 density, as requested by Renton via King Counties DOES: Threadgill (15-lots), Liberty Gardens (36-lots), and Cavalla (38-lots). (Obviously, New Condition #1-containing the words "for this plat only" would be struck, enabling Liberty Gardens and Threadgill to resubmit layouts using TDR's, same as Cavalla). Option 2-Require Cavalla to rework the plat to confonm to Renton's R-4 Code at 38-lots, sans TOR's. In my opinion, the Examiner needs clearer direction-freeing him from Hand Wringing, as evidenced in the recording of the Hearing-on a maiden voyage, so to speak, of Renton adopting TOR's: This should be done via a Task Force Study sponsored by the CounCil, prior to the Examiner responding to the Request for Reconsideration, providing direction on the Council's views on where Renton plans to go on this important policy issue. It is this larger issue that Petrie tried to address during his brief testimony, that the Examiner rejected treating in this Hearing. At 11 :04:30 AM, Planner Timmons says: 'Alternatively, the plat design shall be reconfigured to reflect the density allowable under R-4 zoning without TOR's". At 11 :05:13 Examiner Kaufmann responds: "I have a feeling we will be back here". 3 Inexplicably inconsistent with Examiner Kaufman's approval of Cavalla using TOR's, he wrote (page 2, Liberty Gardens Plat Approval Report, 28 April 2009): "The site is zoned R-4 and the Comprehensive Plan designation is Residential-Low Density. However, the project is vested in the 2004 R-4 development standards and the Urban Residential Comprehensive Plan Designation of King County. It is the City's position that the annexed properties are not vested to rules and procedures of the King County Code and that the project, once annexed, would follow the rules and procedures outlined by the City of Renton Code." At 10:19:20 AM on the recording, the Examiner evidences bias against Petrie's position on TOR's, throttling his testimony when he tries to explain the failure of densification measures to reduce congestion by making traffic congestion worse, thereby Forcing People Out of Their Cars Onto Transit. See OP-ED to the Seattle Times contained in Exhibit 3-Heading the Wrong Direction for Congestion Relief, noting the paragraph on Land Use Legislation. In short, Petrie predicts eventual repeal of densification legislation because Quality of Life is degraded by crowding, not improved, as alleged by New Urbanists, who are behind such as the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and TOR's. The Examiner further suppresses Petrie's testimony by failing to enter into the record the 11-pqge brief Testimony of Dave Petrie at Cavalla Plat Hearing-October 13, 2009 (Exhibit 3) handed to Secretary Nancy Thompson minutes before the Hearing commenced. But the Examiner does acknowledge the existence of that brief at 10: 17:35 AM on the recording. Exhibit 1-Anita Oliphant Letter against TOR's to Newspapers, February 12, 2004 Exhibit 2-Typical Retention Pond in Summer Months Exhibit 3-OP-ED Heading the Wrong Direction for Congestion Relief Exhibit 4-Plat by Petrie Development at R-4 density in Auburn, with 70-foot frontages, 1987 Exhibit 5-Frontages of half of the homes in Evendell 2002. The rest accessed via alleys Exhibit 6-Frontages of homes on Hamilton Place, Renton Plateau, 52-foot frontages 2005 Exhibit 7-Alleys in Evendell Plat by US Land at R-6 density on Renton Plateau, 43-foot frontages, 2002 Exhibit 8-Evendell Density Exhibit 9-Alley Loading from the 1920's Addendum Comparison of Plat Designs-Cavalla versus Libertv Gardens Retention Facility-Cavalla favors storm retention ponds, for cost reasons. Liberty Gardens favors retention vaults, because the space taken for retention is recovered for other use, such as tennis courts or a small park. The extra cost (-$7Kllot) of the vault is recovered via added value to the home buyer: more privacy, and larger lots, with room for on-site landscaping. (Note: Renton Planning has voiced favoring vaults). (Observation: Gwen High, and Renton Staff, were taken in on the portrayal of the Cavalla Pond as like a mountain lake. Instead, such ponds are dried up for seven-months out of the year, appearing as a dry pit of wild grass). 4 The size of the Cavalla pond is 48,276 sq.ft.(1.1 acre). The Liberty Gardens vault will occupy 21,038 sq. ft. '0.48 acre). Furthermore, recreation facilities will be placed atop the vault roof. Lot frontage-In Option 1, Liberty Gardens will resubmit via TDR's to increase lot count from 36 to 47. The average lot frontage will be reduced from its current 70' to 55', None of the lots will be the 40' width, as are the 19 interior lots of Cavalla. Alley loading-Cavalla's use of alley loading is a throw-back to housing developments of the 1920's, where one-car families were the norm. Petrie lived in a home (the lot size being the same 40' x 1 OO'dimensions of the Cavalla interior lots) in Seattlle's Wallingford District, while attending the UW, By the time his parents sold that home 40-years later, 3-4 car families of today had become common, with cars ending up parked along the fronting street, no space available outside of work hours, (See Exhibit 4) The use of the conventional driveway apron for the more narrow lots of Liberty Gardens at 47 -lots (Option 1), still provides space for parking without encroaching on the frontage roadway, Green Space-A Sensitive Area stream-ankle-deep in winter, dry 6-months a year-crosses the southwest corner of Liberty Gilrdens, Eight cedar trees 24-36" in diameter reside in the swale, If Renton allows me to remove the wild bl<:lckberries and useless undergrowth, I plan to utilize the 47,000 sq. ft, for an arboretum, including trails and unique plants, improving on Nature, Cavalla has no such area available, all spaces consumed by the crowding of homes (Option 1) and the enormous retention pond. In either Option 1 or 2, Liberty Gardens can do this, Cavalla has no similar stand of retainable cedar trees, But Cavalla could avail more area for a park and have bigger lots in either Option 1 or 2, if they convert to a vault for retention, The tennis courts, playground, park and arboretum are all contiguous, yielding a total 1,6 acres, half of it occupied by 150-yo cedar trees, 5 February 12, 2004 LE'ITER TO NEWSPAPERS REGARDING TDR CREDITS Something needs to be done about the use and miss use of high density credits. J am referring to the unincorpomted area of King County known as the East Renton Plateau. In regards to the Evendell development, we as a community, won the appeal to the County Council. The developer appealed to the Superior Court and again we won. No rezoning to increase density. Then the developer resubmits his plans using density credits. This time the Hearing Examiner rules in their favor stating they can increase density tbru the TOR program. This makes no sense. High density is high density no matter whether you come in the front door or the back door. The community (and we are an organized group) hasjumped tbru all the hoops of King Counties rules and laws. We have won, only to be told "so what, we're going to do what we want to do anyway, we don't care about you people". Where is the protection for us as citizens in this area? Our rights are being stripped from us. We are strongly opposed to high density in our area Under DOES's own Comprehensive Plan under Urban Land Use, U-I22, it states "King County supports increases in urban residential density tbru rezone or a proposal to increase density through the density transfer or density incentive progmm when the proposal will help resolve traffic, sewer, water, parks and etc. TIlls Evendell development and other developers who are wanting to build high density in our area are not helping to resolve any of these problems. In fact they will be adding to our traffic problems. Our area is already absorbing the overflow of traffic from Issaquah, the Sammamish Plateau, North Bend and everything east of us, along with all the traffic from the south using Maple Valley Hwy coming up15~ SE using the Elliot Bridge. They are not resolving any sewer problems as the sewers are only going to serve the new developments. They are not benefitting any already existing residences on the Plateau. As far as the water goes, with the high density areas are turning the ground into an impervious swface with roofs, wallcways, patios, driveways, cuI de sacs and roads. They are adding to the problem. DOES is not even following their own guidelines or none of this would be going on. Problems that are suppose to be resolved, "in their own words", are working just the opposite. All thru out Chapter Two of the Comprehensive Plan, rezone and high density are used jointly in each sentence. Both meaning to take a piece of land and chop it into smaller lots to accommodate more houses. If you have the Council and a Superior Court Judge both say on appeals, "this land should not be chopped up into smaller pieces", then how can the TOR program even begin to apply. Every reason that applied to the denial of a rezone still exists and should be applied to the TOR program, hence forth, no rezone, no TDR credits. It only makes sense. The high density program is maybe needed in areas such as Seattle, but it is unwarranted in our area. The City of Renton has already issued their Comprebensive Plan for the East Renton Plateau as we are part of the P AA. They have zoned this whole area at an R-4 net. With King County wanting this area to be annexed into the city, I should think the county would be working with the city to make it a more desirable area for them to accept us. We don't want high density here Exhibit 1 on the East Renton Plateau and neither does the City of Renton. We have fought long and hard against the developer of Evendell development and will continue to fight him and every other developer who wants to put high density in our area until someone finally listens. The County needs put a stop to all of this nonsense and start listening to the will of the people. DOES needs to review and change their locations of where these TOR credits are applicable. Sincerely Anita and Richard Oliphant 16519 SE 145" Street Renton, Wa 98059 425-271-9825 e-mail: mommy039@msn.com {'i~: ~~.y·f-;7"!~~~':7~:~·~~;>::t'(:·;'U;, :~-":~ s<';_Jt,;;;r,,~~ .. ;(~;;tr~~:.¢~J,l'~;"-';?i..r;r,"v: .. f~,:._~ \";-~1T9:," '. ':":':;~:~::;~~~Jf'~Jh--r,,·Wj~r;;-!~;' ",~,<" " ' '" , n(,d'f~))(;>';1£~~~~~~f,'l\rr~\i"t."'f~~;'j;~·::iP;:l'i;~;:;; ',:":"'c'>-"\iilo;;',f ,.t" ':;:t;<~;:O; : . '.~ .. ,'" .. ... . ... ~;.o.:,"".,·!tt""'7: .... ,A · .J,,',' :," ~ ~ .,~:\..~,i(~&'.,-" ~ "", ,·t ~1;,,~ ..... ~ .. , lit. /'''--.~ .- Typical Retention Pond Dry Spring to Fall. The pond required for Cavalla is 1.8 times as large due to impervious surfaces at R-5 to R-7 density, if allowed by TDR's. ';if,_'''ll'flNi:~''''''''''''"''<', '",';" " "·"'W-' ,\." -< ~, .. ~."i-.tI"F~~~::J,,"'~'-1~f~~);' .~ ,f' , "..-~.~.~_ ... .;:"".~ ... , t" ".-',; , .. ,,,r~ r- Heading in the wrong direction for congestion relief raffic congestion is one of the nation's most serious societal problems. Fortunately, transportation . esearch engineers conceived an innovative cure for freeway congestion nearly 40 years ago. The down-side is there is no evidence today that our transportation agencies and legislators know anything about this panacea. However, a National Transportation Policy (NTP) project has been established that shows promise of turning around our broken transportation policy. In 1968, visionary legislators in the US Congress, aware of the growing congestion on our roadways, passed the New Transportation Systems Research Act. In 1972, think tank studies at the Volpe Institute came up with Dual Mode, so-named because the car could be driven in the conventional manner for short commutes and local travel; then transported during longer segments of the commute--a sort of car ferry. House Representative Henry Reuss (Wisconsin) wanted a Dual Mode demonstrator built in Milwaukee. But the auto and oil lobbies blocked further action. The situation today has markedly worsened: Traffic congestion has reached crisis levels, ending dependence on foreign oil has become a national objective, and global warming is increasing at an alarming rate. A 21st Century Transit System To maximize cost-effectiveness of Dual Mode, it is obvious that the optimum car should be small, Ireferably electric, so as to reduce air pollution and end dependence on foreign oil. Although the electric drive system is not required for the Dual Mode car, such is obviously desired at the same time a major improvement in urban transportation has become a national objective. Furthermore, the success of the electric car has now been assured, due to battery developments and the Better Place battery swap project, approved by Deputy Prime Minister Shiron Perez for demonstration in southern Israel. Cross-country trips with 1-minute stops every 1 OO-miles for automatic exchange of a leased battery will be commonplace. Due to the simplicity of the pure- electric drive, EV enthusiasts predict a declining demand for Hybrids. At the 13th annual Symposium on Electric Vehicles (Osaka, 1996) I presented a paper, Role of the Small Electric Vehicle in Mass Transit, in which I predicted that the most popular car worldwide in the 21st Century would be a pure-electric microcar. I specified the length to be no longer than 8- feet, so that such a car could be laterally-loaded quickly, the reason being that was the maximum width allowed on US highways. Prototypes of the Daimler Smart and Nissan Hypermini -both 8- feet long-appeared two-years later at the 1 oath Annual Paris Auto Show. A typical transporter for Dual Mode is a double-decker, 16 microcars per deck. Conventional rubber-tired trucks will suffice for early versions; the ultimate transporter employing smooth, silent 125-mph maglev. The guide-way is the former HOV lane, dedicated to Car Bus. Stations are located above the freeway, spaced every 5-miles. Access is by ramps from the freeway, the loading-zone delay to dutomatically match cars onto transporters with specific destinations never exceeding two-minutes. Exhibit 3 1 The capacity of such a system, when fully automated with a Fail-Safe control system, can make a 1 O-Iane freeway provide the throughput of up to 40 lanes. A user-fee of $2 for loading plus ten- cents per mile would be profitable enough to justify privatization of a leased system. The Dual Mode experience will be quality time, the commuter able to eat a packaged breakfast, do work on the laptop or cell-phone, or take a short nap. Urban mobility will be so improved that it will be acceptable to commute the 75-miles from Lynnwood to Olympia, for example. High-performance trucks, equipped with automatic control kits, can be interwoven with Car Bus, a technique known as "zipping". Car Bus Land Use Legislation In the 1980's, transportation planners, pursuing the trite Get People Out of Their Cars theme, realized that fixed guide-way rail transit would not be effective at the low housing density of the typical American city, developed around the car/highway system. Consequently, urban planning curricula in colleges came up with the idea that densification of suburbia was needed. They called it New Urbanism. Following this credo, legislation has been instituted in most metropolises over the past 20-years, resulting in crowding with associated reduction in quality of life. The futility of this concept is that densities must be greater than 50,000 people per sq. mile before walking distances to a transit line are acceptable. Greater Seattle, representative of a typical metropolis, has been settled at 4,500 people per sq. mile. 2 In 2006, Wendell Cox, a well known demographer and transportation consultant, published a book War on the Dream-How Anti-Sprawl Policy Threatens the Quality of Life, pointing out the fallacy of Vew Urbanism: That is, we will never achieve such ten-fold increases in density of suburbia in the rpical American city, necessary to make rail transit an acceptable alternate to transportation that provides door-to-door service. Supporting this stance against rail transit, Mayor Richard Riordan of Los Angeles said on the radio talk show Which Way LA (June 1996): "We wish we had never started the whole thing. Fixed-rail is not the answer to the transportation needs of our city. We are all going in 40 different directions at once. We should stop this insanity that has gone on these past years". A very real example of the ineffectiveness of rail transit can be seen in Atlanta, where a mature 51- mile system provides no discernible congestion relief. Many may recall the Forward Thrust program in 1969, where Seattle voters rejected an offer by the feds to fund a starter line, Atlanta getting the funds instead. New Urbanism in suburbia has been proven to be an enormous mistake. For example, the damage incurred in Quality of Life since Greater Seattle's Urban Growth Boundary (UGB, 1993) is irreversible. Much of today's congestion is due to the UGB. The UGB and other densification measures should be repealed, replaced by truly smart growth where 15% of growth areas are set aside for parks, playgrounds, small farms and arboretums. Anyone flying into a metropolis can see an abundance of adjacent land available for development at four dwellings per acre, the residential density favored by most Americans. ro explain by simple analogy, would you put your 7 year old into size 5 shoes from then on, telling them to tough it out as they grew? National Transportation Policy A $500B six-year federal transportation bill is now being formulated. Recognizing the failure of past funding distributions to mitigate congestion, end dependence on foreign oil, and reduce global warming, a National Transportation Policy Project (NTP) has been formed (February 2008) by four former congressmen and senators, one being our own Senator Slade Gorton, now serving as Co-Chair. The principle thrust of the NTP is to develop metrics that quantify the effectiveness of funds to result in genuine improvements to our surface transportation system. On August 27,2009, the first of several forums by the NTP across the country was held in Seattle. At that meeting, the NTP Director of Transportation Research pointed out that polls show that 98% of those who have voted for mass transit did so because they wanted others to take the train. Psychologists who study group behavior understand this seeming paradox. This explains the surprising 57% who voted (2008) for the $17.9B Sound Transit Proposition 1, indicating that less than two per cent plan to actually use Sound Transit. When adding the more lexible bus to the transit mix, this generally corroborates the 3% national average that use transit regularly as their means of moving within the metropolis. 3 The challenges faced by the I'ITP are obvious: Ongoing projects consuming federal funds for conventional transit will eventually be measured against such "new approaches and fresh thinking" as the aforementioned Dual Mode, the latter expected to capture 40-70% of metropolitan travel while ending freeway congestion as we know it. But the Executive Summary for the NTP report "-- recommends bold and comprehensive reform" and "--revitalizing America's surface transportation system." Urban Mobility Initiative A major portion of the $500B Transportation Bill will be used for repairing existing infrastructure: bridges and road surfaces. But assigning just 5% of the total transportation bill for proof-of-concept demonstrations of new technology would suffice to give state-level transportation agencies and legislators confidence. 214 MILE REGIONAL ALIGNMENT-Car Bus WHITE! LINE ® 1 MOLLE"'" ~~" GREEN LINE @ PUROY" GIG HARBOR 11 MILE· POST MARVSVIlJ.E HKI EVERETT ,~ NDR'THGA'fE ~ It 1'13 48 KIRKLAND MONTLAKE S20 BEllEVUE REDMOND UNIVERSITY ~ 170 :tIHIER MeRcm 4 \ 4 1-00 ISSAQUAH H1.B ~ , ~172S31 SPOKANE '" 8OE'NG '59 37 4 It RENTON RED LINE ... ~ 21 •• KENT <§ .... TAC '" DIOS MOIt4ES '" FEOERItl WAY '" 10 It PU¥AU.UP FIFE 13.8 J """iCCHORO~,,-_--/ TACOIrAA _ ~ 133 127 !BLUE LINE ~ \!!:!!!/ FORTt.EWJ5 • ' 2U lACEYt 108 otYMPlA" 1~ 3 The website http://facultv.washington.edufjbsfitransf describes several innovative designs that show promise to mitigate congestion and dependence on foreign oil. The most promising employ Dual Mode, retaining the door-to-door convenience and privacy of the personal car. The Car Bus 4 does not require condemnation of private property because the right-of-way for the guide-way already exists; that is, the underused HOV lane. ,t the 15 th Annual Symposium for Electric Vehicles (Brussels, 1998), I presented a paper titled Urban Mobility in the 21st Century. A family of Dual Mode systems, the transporters employing suspensions ranging from aD-mph rubber to smooth-silent 125-mph maglev, would be first developed at test sites up to 500-acres in size. Once the hardware and software for automatic operation were proven, the more promising of the competitive ideas would be installed at selected cities. If our Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) were to step forward (even though innovation is really a federal-level responsibility, not state) with a well thought-out plan for Greater Seattle, the feds would provide 100% of development costs; 50% of capital costs to install a 214-mile regional network from Marysville to Olympia, from North Bend to Port Orchard. If propelled by visionary local leadership, Seattle could thus become a national showcase on how to make a profound improvement in urban mobility. If this Initiative were pursued with the vigor and boldness recommended by the NTP, every major metropolis in America would have installed a Dual Mode system by the end of the next decade, ending congestion and dependence on foreign oil, while halving green-house gases due to surface transportation in the USA, at once. Dave Petrie is a transportation research engineer and consultant who has spent the past 18-years perfecting methods to mitigate congestion. 5 ~ ~ "i:;;--I Bristol Heights Plat, Auburn ~~by·';R'e:t~l~~:e'«~lij~~!iRent. R-4 density, proyidingaverage frontag 'e~O':,:~sim'ilar 'to ' Lib.erty Gardens Plat-approved ,Marc. h,:2009 under , . • Renton Annexation Augus,t .2008 .. "'.' , '. , . . . , ~ --, i'"":. :~: :~:,,'~ ~!;~:. <, .:" .. ~... : -r;"~ .' : ;:"~":2~ ;\:'J}i:lc~tlll _._.~~r ull .7.~' .;-::"~ ............ .;t.. ,-:...~~'b.tt~;-'~~II-,.i,;""'t:i6 .~~~",,,.~::,( ............ 1.,,;-~l.i~.~~""·_~ .--',' ~¥ :'.-, .~ t' r,. " .. . i .. ,~. .' '.' ~', ,,' " '. ';-',\:.;'11~'( ,,'r-.-· ,,,;.: .. \ .... : .... -:. \,-:., 1 :'& .~"'''''''r'' .""fitIt,,J,,~~~!'F.p;~,I~~~:'~'lf:;; m".",.~~ ~ --, .. ... ''t ,....;"..;~'".,.,..'' .• ~ I '~~ .. r . t ~ ,.... • .t~~ -..,.,.. -." .. J~lI . -,. -':,12 , . . "':$:-'~"'<.'7:':~:,~::,,: .. _. .' . Evendell Plat. Densifed from R-4 to R-6 ..<, ~" ••• .,..~-". ' ... ,;..... \_... _., ,~ . .t. ,.,., ... .,.~ .... , ...;;.~~ •• ,.., via Urban Growth Boundary (1993) and TOR's Frontages at 43-feet. Lot Size -4000 sq.ft. Exhibit 5 ~.~--~------~--~----- r -•. . :"{ ~.\-. , ' '; .! -"i ~;t , G") J!i ~ 0 Q) • ~ N C)t9 r--. CO 10:: ... .E ..... .£ .--.c O~ "'C 1..' Q) .-'1-0:: .- c. oJ:: Q) c. >< ~ ra « c: W Q) -co - ~ l .. 16 November 2009 City Council (7+3 copies to City Clerk) City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA, 98057 RE: Appeal, Cavalla Plat Hearing, File LUA 09-097, PP, ECF Errors and Omissions Notification The Law requires that everyone within 300' of a plat be notified of plat hearings. No one in that range; that is, Appellant Petrie, Owner/Developer of the Liberty Gardens plat adjacent South, or any of the 12 residents adjacent North in the Liberty Lane complex, received notice of the Plat Hearing. Petrie learned about the Hearing at 2:00 PM the day before the Hearing, when Kolin Taylor (Cavalla Developer) handed Petrie a copy of the Staff Report just before he gave Petrie a tour of developments that illustrated such design features. As a result, Petrie was up until 12:30 AM the day of the Hearing, preparing a 21-page document. Minutes before the formal hearing commenced, Petrie handed the document to Examiner Kaufman's secretary, expecting it to be listed as an Exhibit in the Examiners Report. This document was not included in the Exhibits Listing (page 2 of the Examiners Report). But the Examiner acknowledges existence of this Exhibit at 10:17:35 AM on the recording. Appellant Petrie complained about this breach of procedure (10:17:43 AM). In a conversation between Timmons (Plat Staff), Examiner Kaufman, and Petrie, Timmons was then directed by Examiner Kaufman to add Petrie to the List of Interested Parties. Petrie had no time to contact a Land Use attorney; and the many local residents who have a long-standing disapproval of the densification/crowding enabled by Transfer of Development Rights (TOR's), had no time to marshal their forces in opposition. (See Exhibit 1-Letter to Newspapers regarding TOR Credits). This complete shut-out of anyone that might oppose Cavalla's use of TDR's-including failing to follow law requiring notice to anyone within JOO-feet of the site-is egregious, sufficient from a legal aspect to declare the Hearing invalid, Density Issue The basis for Cavalla asking for increased density via TOR's was that they were vested under King County Codes during the 2 y" years that their plat was being worked by King Counties' DOES. Cavalla was vested in February 2006. Relevant to the fairness issue on use of TOR's, Liberty Gardens was vested 29 December 2004. The Renton Comprehensive plan-designating R-4 as the maximum density for SFD's-was prepared in 2004. Currently, Renton has no Code provision compatible with Transfer of Development Rights. It is interesting that KC 21A.37.14 requires an Inter-local Agreement between an incorporated area and King County to be valid when King Counties Land Bank is used. No such agreement exists between Renton and King County. Since Renton wanted larger lots than obtained under R-6 (via use of TOR's), Renton was able to restrain use of the TOR by Sewer Availability Letters, restricting the number of lots as follows: Liberty Gardens-38 lots Cavalla-36 lots Threadgill-15 lots During the 31-months that Cavalla was being reviewed by King County's DOES, Cavalla was held to R-4 by the aforementioned Sewer Availability Letters, at a lot count of 38, Approval of any plat under Renton's Comprehensive Plan, at a density higher than R-4, is not supported by that Plan, Upon annexation (August 11, 2008) to Renton, Renton's Planning Staff took over the review process, Liberty Gardens at 36-lots, Cavalla at 38, When Renton Staff indicated preference for 164th Ave SE, as the preferred Secondary Access over the submitted 162nd Ave (fraught with environmental concerns), Cavalla decided to press Renton Staff for introduction of TOR's, based on their being "grandfathered" by date of vesting under DOES, Renton went along with this breach of Code, increasing the lot count 49, To say another way by surmise: The Cavalla developers-not satisfied with the cost savings of not having to extend 162nd .Ave to 144th Street through two Sensitive Areas-wanted to exact more by offering cosmetics: "If we add more trees and plants, how about some compensatory help, like TOR's?" (Providing an extra -$1 ,5M profit, at a cost of $50K worth of landscaping), The likely response from Timmons, Watts and Kyttrick: "We'll give it a try." Cavalla did not include Petrie in this negotiation, knowing that he was adamant in adhering to the R-4 zoning of Renton's Comprehensive Plan. In contrast, Petrie acceded to Renton's wishes to use 164th Avenue as the Secondary Access, primarily because Renton Staff agreed to Petrie's offer to extend SE 140th Place 100-feet directly East to provide the desired connection between 162nd Avenue and 164th Avenue, replacing the original plan by Renton to slash an arterial from NW to SE across the Liberty Gardens plat, this effecting significant damage to the layout. At 10:03:48 AM, Gwen High-claiming to represent the community at a following of -15-testified quite differently from the past seven-years, now accepting TOR's. Gwen is so enthused about the landscape amenities; she asks that the Cavalla developers be required to erect permanent signs welcoming neighbors throughout the area to use the walking trail with two benches and a picnic table around the unsightly wild grass/weed field, (See Exhibit 2-Typical Retention Pond), Gwen is apparently oblivious to the 20-acre Maplewood Heights Park-a 30-second walk southeastward-soon to be transferred to Renton, Gwen recommends that Renton go to the County pushing to amend the King County TOR Code to require beautification of ponds and similar amenities to plats using TOR's, including the remainder of Renton's East Plateau, essentially advocating that Renton now accept TOR's within their Codes! At 11 :09:43 AM on the recording of the Cavalla Hearing, Appellant Petrie testified as follows: "During the break, my wife said that I didn't answer your question very well about how does this impact you? She thought I should mention something that we talked about earlier-and with others-if this plat gets approved here, and then gets by the City Council, I should come back in with a revised proposal-and I am going to bare my soul here-that if the higher-ups in City Hall care no more than that about the quality of the Renton Plateau Comprehensive Plan, and-as Gwen High pointed out earlier-this is going to be an island: it isn't going to happen again. And if they care no more than that, we will come back with a similar proposal, People are going to say "Why did you leave a million dollars on the table?" This is about money That is why they are so motivated. There is nothing wrong with that; but that is what this is all about", 2 f'v , . ') , At 11: 1 0:41, Examiner Kaufman responds: "It's not only about money. I have to pass judgment on whether this plat is appropriate or not. And if you are talking about redesigning Liberty Gardens, I assume you are free to do that, but you would not probably be coming in under King County regulations anymore: You would be coming in solely under Renton regulations, and I don't think there are any Transfer of Development Rights. But I will let you deal with your plat outside of this process". Examiner Kaufman, implying that Liberty Gardens was not eligible for use of TOR's, is in error: The only explanation for this paradox is that the Examiner was unaware that Liberty Gardens was vested under King County from December 2004 through the Annexation (August 11,2008), having the same rights as Cavalla on this issue. The Cavalla Hearing Report (11-3-2009) recommends approval at the higher density, but adds New Condition #1, containing the words "for this subject plat only". These exclusionary words have no legal basis, intended to send a message to the local citizens that: "We Will Break the Law (Renton's Density Code on the Plateau) just this once, but never again". Action Required by the City Council An emergency meeting of the Council is needed to affirmlchange their policy regarding density on the Renton Plateau, particularly regarding TOR's: Option 1-Approve the Cavalla plat at 49-lots. But square this up with the Renton Code by amending the Code to allow any plats that had been vested under King County Codes prior to Annexation (11 August 2008) to use TOR's, on the basis that such plats had been "grandfathered" with that right, availed under King County Codes. This would apply to only three unbuilt plats, vested in King County before the Annexation at R-4 density, as requested by Renton via King Counties DOES: Threadgill (15-lots), Liberty Gardens (36-lots), and Cavalla (38-lots). (Obviously, New Condition #1-containing the words "for this plat only" would be struck, enabling Liberty Gardens and Threadgill to resubmit layouts using TOR's, same as Cavalla). Option 2-Require Cavalla to rework the plat to conform to Renton's R-4 Code at 38-lots, sans TOR's. In my opinion, the Examiner needs clearer direction-freeing him from Hand Wringing, as evidenced in the recording of the Hearing-on a maiden voyage, so to speak, of Renton adopting TOR's: This should be done via a Task Force Study sponsored by the Council, prior to the Examiner responding to the Request for Reconsideration, providing direction on the Council's views on where Renton plans to go on this important policy issue. It is this larger issue that Petrie tried to address during his brief testimony, that the Examiner rejected treating in this Hearing. At 11 :04:30 AM, Planner Timmons says: "Alternatively, the plat design shall be reconfigured to reflect the density allowable under R-4 zoning without TOR's". At 11 :05: 13 Examiner Kaufmann responds: "I have a feeling we will be back here". 3 Inexplicably inconsistent with Examiner Kaufman's approval of Cavalla using TDR's, he wrote (page 2, Liberty Gardens Plat Approval Report, 28 April 2009): "The site is zoned R-4 and the Comprehensive Plan designation is Residential-Low Density. However, the project is vested in the 2004 R-4 development standards and the Urban Residential Comprehensive Plan DeSignation of King County. It is the City's position that the annexed properties are not vested to rules and procedures of the King County Code and that the project, once annexed, would follow the rules and procedures outlined by the City of Renton Code." At 1 0: 19:20 AM on the recording, the Examiner evidences bias against Petrie's position on TDR's, throttling his testimony when he tries to explain the failure of densification measures to reduce congestion by making traffic congestion worse, thereby Forcing People Out of Their Cars Onto Transit. See OP-ED to the Seattle Times contained in Exhibit 3-Heading the Wrong Direction for Congestion Relief, noting the paragraph on Land Use Legislation. In short, Petrie predicts eventual repeal of densification legislation because Quality of Life is degraded by crowding, not improved, as alleged by New Urbanists, who are behind such as the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and TDR's. The Examiner further suppresses Petrie's testimony by failing to enter into the record the 11-pqge brief Testimony of Dave Petrie at Cavalla Plat Hearing-October 13, 2009 (Exhibit 3) handed to Secretary Nancy Thompson minutes before the Hearing commenced. But the Examiner does acknowledge the existence of that brief at 10:17:35 AM on the recording. Exhibit 1-Anita Oliphant Letter against TDR's to Newspapers, February 12, 2004 Exhibit 2-Typical Retention Pond in Summer Months Exhibit 3-OP-ED Heading the Wrong Direction for Congestion Relief Exhibit 4-Plat by Petrie Development at R-4 density in Auburn, with 70-foot frontages, 1987 Exhibit 5-Frontages of half of the homes in Evendell 2002. The rest accessed via alleys Exhibit 6-Frontages of homes on Hamilton Place, Renton Plateau, 52-foot frontages 2005 Exhibit 7-Alleys in Evendell Plat by US Land at R-6 density on Renton Plateau, 43-foot frontages, 2002 Exhibit 8-Evendell Density Exhibit 9-Alley Loading from the 1920's Addendum Comparison of Plat Designs-Cavalla versus Libertv Gardens Retention Facility-Cavalla favors storm retention ponds, for cost reasons. Liberty Gardens favors retention vaults, because the space taken for retention is recovered for other use, such as tennis courts or a small park. The extra cost (-$7K1lot) of the vault is recovered via added value to the home buyer: more privacy, and larger lots, with room for on-site landscaping. (Note: Renton Planning has voiced favoring vaUlts). (Observation: Gwen High, and Renton Staff, were taken in on the portrayal of the Cavalla Pond as like a mountain lake. Instead, such ponds are dried up for seven-months out of the year, appearing as a dry pit of wild grass). 4 ( The size of the Cavalla pond is 48,276 sq.ft.(1.1 acre). The Liberty Gardens vault will occupy 21,038 sq. ft. (0.48 acre). Furthermore, recreation facilities will be placed atop the vault roof. Lot frontage-In Option 1, Liberty Gardens will resubmit via TOR's to increase lot count from 36 to 47. The average lot frontage will be reduced from its current 70' to 55'. None of the lots will be the 40' width, as are the 19 interior lots of Cavalla. Alley loading-Cavalla's use of alley loading is a throw-back to housing developments of the 1920's, where one-car families were the norm. Petrie lived in a home (the lot size being the same 40' x 1 OO'dimensions of the Cavalla interior lots) in Seattlle's Wallingford District, while attending the UW. By the time his parents sold that home 40-years later, 3-4 car families of today had become common, with cars ending up parked along the fronting street, no space available outside of work hours. (See Exhibit 4) The use of the conventional driveway apron for the more narrow lots of Liberty Gardens at 47-lots (Option 1), still provides space for parking without encroaching on the frontage roadway. Green Space-A St;!nsitive Area stream-ankle-deep in winter, dry 6-months a year-crosses the southwest corner of Liberty Gardens. Eight cedar trees 24-36" in diameter reside in the swale. If Renton allows me to remove the wild blackberries and useless undergrowth, I plan to utilize the 47,000 sq. ft. for an arboretum, including trails and unique plants, improving on Nature. Cavalla has no such area available, all spaces consumed by the crowding of homes (Option 1) and the enormous retention pond. In either Option 1 or 2, Liberty Gardens can do this. Cavalla has no similar stand of retainable cedar trees. But Cavalla could avail more area for a park and have bigger lots in either Option 1 or 2, if they convert to a vault for retention. The tennis courts, playground, park and arboretum are all contiguous, yielding a total 1.6 acres, half of it occupied by 150-yo cedar trees. 5 '. February 12, 2004 LETTER TO NEWSPAPERS REGARDING TDR CREDITS Something needs to be done about the use and miss use of high density credits. I am referring to the unincorporated area of King County Irnown as the East Renton Plateau. In regards to the Evendell development, we as a community, won the appeal to the County Council. The developer appealed to the Superior Court and again we won. No rezoning to increase density. TheIl the developer resubmits his plans using density credits. This time the Hearing Examiner rules in their favor stating they can increase density thru the TOR program. This makes no sense. High density is high density no matter whether you come in the front door or the back door. The community (and we are an organizerl group) has jumped thru all the hoops of King Counties rules and laws. We have won, only to be told "so what, we're going to do what we want to do anyway, we don't care about you people". Where is the protection fOT us as citizens in this area? Our rights are being stripped from us. We are strongly opposed to high density in our area. Under DDES's own Comprehensive Plan under Urban Land Use, U-I22, it states "King County supports increases in urban residential density thru rezone or a proposal to increase density through the density transfer or density incentive program when the proposal will help resolve traffic, sewer, water, parks and etc. This Evendell development and other developers who are wanting to build high density in our area are not helping to resolve any of these problems. In fact they will be adding to our traffic problems. Our area is already absorbing the overflow of traffic from Issaquah, the Sammamish Plateau, North Bend and everything east of us, along with all the traffic from the south using Maple Valley Hwy coming up 15()'i' SE using the Elliot Bridge. They are not resolving any sewer problems as the sewers are only going to serve the new developments. They are not benefitting any already existing residences on the Plateau. As far as the water goes, with the high density areas are turning the ground into an impervious surface with roofs, walkways, patios, driveways, cuI de sacs and roads. They are adding to the problem. DDES is not even following their own guidelines or none of this would be going on. Problems that are suppose to be resolved, "in their own words", are working just the opposite. All thru out Chapter Two of the Comprehensive Plan, rezone and high density are used jointly in each sentence. Both meaning to take a piece ofland and chop it into smaller lots to accommodate more houses. If you have the Council and Ii Superior Court Judge both say on appeals, "this land should not be chopped up into smaller pieces", then how can the lDR program even begin to apply. Every reason that applied to the denial of Ii rezone still exists and should be applied to the TOR program, hence forth, no rezone, no TOR credits. It only makes sense. The high density program is maybe needed in areas such as Seattle, but it is unwarranted in our area. The City of Renton has already issued their Comprehensive Plan for the East Renton Plateau as we are part of the PAA. They have zoned this whole area at an R-4 net. With King County wanting this area to be annexed into the city, I should think the county would be working with the city to make it a more desirable area for them to accept us. We don't want high density here Exhibit 1 on the East Renton Plateau and neither does the City of Renton. We have fought long and hard against the developer of Evendcll development and will continue to fight him and every other developer who wants to put high density in our area until someone finally listens. The County needs put a stop to all of this nonsense and start listening to the will of the people. DOES needs to review and change their locations of where these TDR credits are applicable. Sincerely Anita and Richard Oliphant 16519 SE 145'" Street Renton, Wa 98059 425-271-9825 e-mail: mommy039@msn.com ," Heading in the wrong direction for congestion relief Traffic congestion is one of the nation's most serious societal problems. Fortunately , transportation research engineers conceived an innovative cure for freeway congestion nearly 40 years ago. The down-side is there is no evidence today that our transportation agencies and legislators know anything about this panacea. However, a National Transportation Policy (NTP) project has been established that shows promise of turning around our broken transportation policy. In 1968, visionary legislators in the US Congress , aware of the growing congestion on our roadways , passed the New Transportation Systems Research Act. In 1972 , think tank studies at the Volpe Institute came up with Dual Mode, so-named because the car could be driven in the conventional manner for short commutes and local travel; then transported during longer segments of the commute--a sort of car ferry. House Representative Henry Reuss (Wisconsin) wanted a Dual Mode demonstrator built in Milwaukee. But the auto and oil lobbies blocked further action. The situation today has markedly worsened: Traffic congestion has reached crisis levels, ending dependence on foreign oil has become a national objective , and global warming is increasing at an alarming rate. A 21st Century Transit System To maximize cost-effectiveness of Dual Mode , it is obvious that the optimum car should be small , preferably electric, so as to reduce air pollution and end dependence on foreign oil. Although the electric drive system is not required for the Dual Mode car , such is obviously desired at the same time a major improvement in urban transportation has become a national objective. Furthermore, the success of the electric car has now been assured , due to battery developments and the Better Place battery swap project, approved by Deputy Prime Minister Shiron Perez for demonstration in southern Israel. Cross-country trips with 1-minute stops every 1 ~O-miles for automatic exchange of a leased battery will be commonplace. Due to the simplicity of the pure- electric drive, EV enthusiasts predict a declining demand for Hybrids. At the 13th annual Symposium on Electric Vehicles (Osaka, 1996) I presented a paper , Role ofthe Small Electric Vehicle in Mass Transit , in which I predicted that the most popular car worldwide in the 21 st Century would be a pure-electric microcar. I specified the length to be no longer than 8- feet, so that such a car could be laterally-loaded quickly , the reason being that was the maximum width allowed on US highways. Prototypes of the Daimler Smart and Nissan Hypermini -both 8- feet long-appeared two-years later at the 1 ~Oth Annual Paris Auto Show. A typical transporter for Dual Mode is a double-decker, 16 microcars per deck. Conventional rubber-tired trucks will suffice for early versions; the ultimate transporter employing smooth , silent 125-mph maglev. The guide-way is the former HOV lane, dedicated to Car Bus. Stations are located above the freeway , spaced every 5-miles. Access is by ramps from the freeway, the loading-zone delay to automatically match cars onto transporters with specific destinations never exceeding two-minutes. Exhibit 3 The capacity of such a system , when fully automated with a Fail-Safe control system , can make a 1 O-Iane freeway provide the throughput of up to 40 lanes. A user-fee of $2 for loading plus ten- cents per mile would be profitable enough to justify privatization of a leased system. The Dual Mode experience will be quality time , the commuter able to eat a packaged breakfast, do work on the laptop or cell-phone , or take a short nap. Urban mobility will be so improved that it will be acceptable to commute the 75-miles from Lynnwood to Olympia , for example. High-performance trucks , equipped with automatic control kits , can be interwoven with Car Bus , a technique known as "zipping ". ID 5l I ~ Car Bus Land Use Legislation In the 1980 's, transportation planners, pursuing the trite Get People Out of Their Cars theme, realized that fixed guide-way rail transit would not be effective at the low housing density of the typical American city , developed around the car/highway system. Consequently , urban planning curricula in colleges came up with the idea that densification of suburbia was needed. They called it New Urbanism. Following this credo , legislation has been instituted in most metropolises over the past 20-years, resulting in crowding with associated reduction in quality of life . The futility of this concept is that densities must be greater than 50 ,000 people per sq. mile before walking distances to a transit line are acceptable. Greater Seattle , representative of a typical metropolis , has been settled at 4,500 people per sq. mile. 2 In 2006, Wendell Cox , a well known demographer and transportation consultant , published a book War on the Dream-How Anti-Sprawl Policy Threatens the Quality of Life , pointing out the fallacy of New Urbanism : That is , we will never achieve such ten-fold increases in density of suburbia in the typical American city , necessary to make rail transit an acceptable alternate to transportation that provides door-to-door service . Supporting this stance against rail transit , Mayor Richard Riordan of Los Angeles said on the radio talk show Whi c h Way LA (June 1996): "We wish we had never started the whole thing . Fixed-rail is not the answer to the transportation needs of our city . We are all going in 40 different directions at once. We should stop this insanity that has gone on these past years". A very real example of the ineffectiveness of rail transit can be seen in Atlanta, where a mature 51- mile system provides no discernible congestion relief . Many may recall the Forward Thrust program in 1969 , where Seattle voters rejected an offer by the feds to fund a starter line, Atlanta getting the funds instead . New Urbanism in suburbia has been proven to be an enormous mistake For example , the damage incurred in Quality of Life since Greater Seattle's Urb an Growth Boundary (UG8 , 1993) is irreversible . Much of today 's congestion is due to the UGB. The UGB and other densification measures should be repealed, replaced by truly smart growth where 15 % of growth areas are set aside for parks, playgrounds , small farms and arboretums . Anyone flying into a metropolis can see an abundance of adjacent land available for development at four dwellings per acre, the residential density favored by most Americans . To explain by simple analogy , would you put your 7 year old into size 5 shoes from then on , telling them to tough it out as they grew? National Transportation Policy A $500B six-year federal transportation bill is now being formulated . Recognizing the failure of past funding distributions to mitigate congestion , end dependence on foreign oil , and reduce global warming , a Nation a l Transportation Policy Project (NTP) has been formed (February 2008) by four former congressmen and senators , one being our own Senator Slade Gorton , now serving as Co -Chair. The principle thrust of the NTP is to develop metrics that quantify the effectiveness of funds to result in genuine improvements to our surface transportation system. On August 27 , 2009, the first of several forums by the NTP across the country was held in Seattle . At that meeting , the NTP Director of Transportation Research pointed out that polls show that 98 % of those who have voted for mass transit did so because they wanted others to take the train. Psychologists who study group behavior understand this seeming paradox . This explains the surprising 57 % who voted (2008) for the $17 .98 Sound Tra nsit Proposition 1, indicating that less than two per cent plan to actually use Sound Transit. When adding the more fle x ible bus to the transit mix , this generally corroborates the 3% national average that use transit regularly as their means of moving within the metropolis. 3 The challenges faced by the NTP are obvious : Ongoing projects consuming federal funds for conventional transit will eventually be measured against such "new approaches and fresh thinking " as the aforementioned Dual Mode , the latter expected to capture 40-70% of metropolitan travel while ending freeway congestion as we know it. But the Executive Summary for the NTP report "-- recommends bold and comprehensive reform" and "--revitalizing America 's surface transportation system." Urban Mobility Initiative A major portion of the $500B Transportation Bill will be used for repairing existing infrastructure: bridges and road surfaces . But assigning just 5% of the total transportation bill for proof-of-concept demonstrations of new technology would suffice to give state-level transportation agencies and legislators confidence. 214 MILE REGIONAL ALIGNMENT-Car Bus WHITE "'1 LINE ® PORT """"""" 4 ~ " GR EE N! MU LlE N ~ 4~" LINE ~ PURDY 16 GIG H AR BOR 11 MIlE- POST MARYS"'U E . 199 PAIHE !t ,n '''' E DUOHOS 177 NOA"n-IGATE 4 ,n MONTLAKE 520 UNIVE RS rrd 17 D '\ 53 4. BOTHELL BEllEVUE REDMOND I !lA1t'Ii ER MEACER 41 1-90 l SSAQUAH H I 8 NORtH 1'.-~_~-""~-l ... -=c:e-"4l~,e E N D 1 1-405 17 2S J\ SI"OKANE 182 " REN10N RED LI NE ... E) .. " KENT BOEING 156 "4 It AlJSU AN stA-TAC '" DES ItAOINES ,., ,,4 It P UYALlUP LI NE @) ./ ,~ FEOERAl WAY ,., FI" ". Me"",,",, TACOMA '-------="'4tT "" '" 1 "~ FORTLE WIS 4 120 LACEY •• 108 Ol YMPlA • 103 3 The website http ://f aculty .w ashington .edu/jbs /itrans / describes several innovative designs that show promise to mitigate congestion and dependence on foreign oil. The most promising employ Dual Mode , retaining the door-to-door convenience and privacy of the personal car. The Car Bus 4 ! does not require condemnation of private property because the right-of-way for the guide-way already exists ; that is , the underused HOV lane . At the 15th Annual Symposium for Electric Vehicles (Brussels , 1998), I presented a paper titled Urban Mobility in the 21st Century. A family of Dual Mode systems , the transporters employing suspensions ranging from 80-mph rubber to smooth-silent 125-mph maglev , would be first developed at test sites up to 500-acres in size . Once the hardware and software for automatic operation were proven , the more promising of the competitive ideas would be installed at selected cities. If our Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) were to step forward (even though innovation is really a federal-level responsibility , not state) with a well thought-out plan for Greater Seattle , the feds would provide 100 % of development costs; 50 % of capital costs to install a 214-mile regional network from Marysville to Olympia , from North Bend to Port Orchard. If propelled by visionary local leadership, Seattle could thus become a national showcase on how to make a profound improvement in urban mobility . If this Initiative were pursued with the vigor and boldness recommended by the NTP, every major metropolis in America would have installed a Dual Mode system by the end of the next decade , ending congestion and dependence on foreign oil , while halving green-house gases due to surface transportation in the USA , at once. ,\, , _ .. j. '\ '~:". ri 't~ Dave Petrie is a transportation research engineer and co nsultant who has spent the past 18-years perfecting methods to mitigate congestion. 5 ......... -~ Evendell Plat. Densifed from R-4 to R-6 via Urban Growth Boundary (1993) and TDR's Frontages at 43-feet. Lot Size -4000 sq.ft. ,.. '\ ': " .• ' .-.:;-, ""'4' ~. ..' '-~ ~~_ 'l,~·""-,, .......... t .. ~«Nt """~ Exhibit 5 '. \-- ~ ,"'.' -...Qi,., Hamilton Place "by· KBS Development J'-a ~ .II " Renton Plateau ~ R-4 ... denS i ~{:O h ierted ,to R:S via TOR. AV'erag , f-:o.,.g'8 48' Evendel/ Plat by US Land. Renton Plateau. Ave frontage 43'. (Note: The developer initially-applied for shift of density from R-4 to R-6; denied by Examiner O'Connor, but approved at 46 lots. After passage of TOR Code in Sept 2001, developer then applied for 72 lots. Exhibit 8 fe il"Grd-u -r CITY DF RENTOl'-~ Hearing Examiner Denis Law, Mayor Fred J. Kaufman November 19, 2009 C. E. "Chip" Vincent Planning Director City of Renton Dave Petrie 811 S 273rs Court Des Moines, WA98198 Re: Cavalla Preliminary Plat (LUA-08-097, PP, ECF) Dear Mr. Vincent, Mr. Petrie, Mr. & Mrs. Oliphant and Parties: Anita & Richard Oliphant l6519SE 146'h Renton, W A 98059 It has come to the City's attention that the notice of the Public Hearing on the above matter may not have reached all of the appropriate property owners. This letter is intended to rectify the potential failure to notify the appropriate property owners by providing them with new notice and of their ability to Request Reconsideration for a report that was issued by the Renton Hearing Examiner's Office (Renton Municipal Code 4-1-080(I)2.d). The report was issued on November 3,2009. Please find enclosed a copy of Minutes and a . Recommendation on the proposed Cavalla Preliminary Plat. The Recommendation is to the Renton City Council. If the Recommendation to the Renton City Council were approved 'by the Council the proposed plat would contain 49 detached, single-family lots. A reconsideration of this matter will only consider new information that is not addressed in the original minutes or recommendation. That is, if another neighbor, nearby propelty owner or otber person has already addressed an issue in the minutes or the recommendation already considered an issue repeating it again will not create any grounds for changing the recommendation. Ifthere is new infonnation that was missed in the original minutes or recommendation, please feel free to address those comments in writing to the Hearing Examiner. The community organization, C.A.R.E (Community Alliance to Reach Out and Engage) did attend the hearing and did submit written and oral testimony. Other neighbors also testified. Testimony addressed "Transfer of Development Rights" (known as TDR), density, roads and traffic, open space, vegetation, grading and other issues. Quoting from the recommendation: Finding 22: "The TDR will enable eleven (11) additional dwellings. The II homes would generate approximately 105 additional trips per day or approximately 10 additional trips during the rush or peak hours. A recent traffic analysis shows traffic in the area has decreased and that the Levels of Service (LOS) for five critical intersections have improved and accidents numbers decreased." Conclusion I: "The proposed plat with its increased densitY possible with an appropriately executed TDR appears to serve the public use and interest. This is not to say that any increase in density in an area slated for lower density single family uses is appropriate even when the result is protected farm land or critical areas. While this office is not entirely convinced it is appropriate to shift density to an area zoned for lower ----lO-S-S-S-ou-th-G-rad-y-W-a-y---R-e-nt-:-on-,-w-as-hln-·-gt-o-n-9-s-0S-7---(4-2-S)-4-3-0--6S-j-S----~ '*' T"",,_, .. ,_, density detached single family housing, the result in this case does not cause an egregious density increase and has been well-integrated into the lower density community by embedding the smaller lots in a surrounding envelope of larger conforming lots. In addition to the layout and alignment of the proposed lots, the applicant has increased the perimeter landscaping thereby buffering the surrounding uses from the increased density. The applicant will also be providing open spacein its enhanced treatment of it stormwater detention system and this public space will be available to the general public as well as residents of the plat." Depending on the nature of the comments, letters or documents received, the recommendation to the Renton City Council might be changed, modifled or reaffmned or the Public Hearing could be reopened for additional testimony. Please submit your written comments or documents no later than 5:00 pm, Friday December 4, 2009 at the City Clerk's Office, at the following address: City Clerk's Office Renton City Hall 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 This office would like to apologize for any inconvenience this oversight might have caused. If there are other issues, please feel free to write. Sincerely, ; ~~___ /: ; j, l , (';, Y r ... ' \ \'",,-vL ,"'-,"--~'-~11...L..-.."' r' , , , J' \j , Fred J. Kaufman Hearing 'Examiner City of Renton cc: Property owners within 300 feet Denis Law, Mayor Jay Covington, CAO Larry Warren, City Attorney Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager Rocale Timmons, Planner, Development Services Kayren Kittrick, Community and Economic Development Bonnie Walton, City Clerk FJKlnt Encl. • Dec. 3, 2009 Re:Cavall Preliminary Plat File: No: LUA-09-097, PP,ECF To Mayor Dennis Law and All Members of the Renton City Council ,~,TY OF RENTON hO;YS DEC {! 4 2009 trW RECEIVED c:',',' CL~RK'S OFFICE GC '. ;rta1t'~ w.d t.lfy Cov tfw ( My husband and I have lived on the East Renton Plateau since March of 1989. Prior to that I had been a resident of Lake McDonald for 25 years with my first husband. My family moved to Renton in 1940. I attended grade school in the Highlands (3 years). Kennydale (3 years) and Renton Ir/Sr High School, graduating in 1957. Over the decades, I have seen many changes. The death of downtown Renton, as I knew it growing up, to the attempted resurrection of the downtown area still going on. As the years have passed many changes have taken place. Nothing will ever stay the same and changes are expected .. None ofus is exempt from what each new generation declares as progress. In the middle 1990's to the early 2000's we saw what was heading our way along SE 128 th (Cemetery Road) now NE 4th inside the Renton City Limits. This clear cutting of all the trees and high density housing was not what we wanted for our area That's when many of the horne owners of the Plateau got together and formed the original CARE. With several years working with the then, members of the Renton City Council and the previous Mayor, along with City Planners, Rebecca Lind, Don Erickson and Dave Christenson (sewer), it was finally settled in 2004 that Renton would ADOPT the new Compressive Land Use Plan. This being an R-4 zoning with no recognition ofTDR Credits!!! The only exceptions were to be -Evendall, Liberty 1 and 2, and Nichols Place, as sewer permits had already been issued (under King County Standards) and therefore had to be recognized. These developments are all along 160" SE., no other developments were outstanding at this time. With the cooperation of many employees for the City of Renton, we were assured that Renton had already met -in fact had exceeded -the Compressive Land Use Plan, for it's area. mandated by the State and to erect anything more than an R-4 zoning was not necessary. We could preserve our area for more larger and estate type homes -which would also blend in with the existing community and would be beneficial to all. To preserve our area in the long run - meaning the coming future -would mean more money for Renton and also recognize that there were no other communities such as ours in the surrounding area of Renton., thus making it more attractive for more money to be brought into the area. I do realize that since this has all happened, there is now the Landing that is being pushed and also the Sea Hawks have moved in along with their high priced housing that only the rich can afford, which leaves us now still fighting for what was previously promised to us. Leaving us sitting out here and wanting to walk '; ... ) •• ~ __ G-........ all over us again is not setting very well with the citizens of this area We know we will eventually be annexed into Renton. Do you want to annex more crap or would a nicer planned community that you alse had a hand in be more desirable. Yes, we all know there is change, but, the .flrst thing you must ask yourselfs is this a change for the better. As far as the Cavalla development goes, the smaller lots in the center of there development (using TDR credits) will devalue the surrounding properties, especially those already living up here. Putting a walkway around a sewer pond along with a planted area along side is asking for trouble, such as rape and worse. We know first hand as our daughter was murdered, along such a walk in a well traveled area such as this, next to Bellevue Community College in 2005. To think that the outside residences would use this area -or that this private area behind their 6 foot fence would want any of those out side their immediate area, using any facilities they have is ridiculous. The closeness of these homes is also opposed by the Fire Department, you would be adding an unnecessary danger to our community. Realizing that Mayor Law or any Council Members does not live in our community, let alone in a high density housing projects, and the King County Council, along with the NEW King County Executive don't live in our area, is very hard for some of us to understand why you are implementing these laws on us when it is not necessary. TDR credits were implemented for the use in Metropolitan areas such as downtown Seattle for high-rise apartments and such. It doesn't take much research. To go back and see what the previous administration implemented is probably more reading and research than any of you care to do. I don't blame you, but that's why people like myself are out here. When going thru our neighborhood getting signatures to get our entire Plateau on the ballot for annexation into Renton about 5 or so years ago, I ran into more people who said "you can't trust Renton, they never keep their word". I sure hope you don't prove me wrong or I am going to have to apologize to so many for being right. Especially, after sticking up for Renton all that time. I do not know why the NEW CARE is even considering the use of TDR credits. They are NOT representing the majority of citizens already living here. We want it held to R-4 zoning with no use ofTDR credits. We want the City of Renton to keep their word to the Adoption of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan adopted in 2004. The word adopt is a vote to accept. We on the Plateau also adopted the word of the City of Renton. Please see the attached article from the Seattle Times dated Wednesday Dec. 2, 2009. With Respect, Anita and Richard Oliphant 16519 SE 145 th Street Renton, Wa. 98059 Ph: 425-271-9825 ~ \, • • , WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 20 rA ~ltltItWmtS I .. _~. _. _ _, . _______ _ " Ruralland~usediscontentis;aqtmowledged Most of the nine. coulitil;.4:s live' . in cities but ena!'! l'ly;$ that gove,f!l.;1ife in BY ICEITH ERVIN . Seattl~ rima-sttJ/freporter. .Resldenrsof ruraIareas "areno! fairly rep~nted"becaui¥tiley:mustComply withland~use reguiations,adopted by . Metropolitan King'CountyCOancil mem-. ~theYdon'teIect;the~unicipal.· .. ' "'. LtKueof King County Stild in a repents-. . ruraJ and tUban unincotporated~as, the MwilLel!&U¢'~4jn 1;he, tel"1i#litled "Rights, Wrongs and Refotn:iS. ",' . That means "urban perspe~@(Iin teres!s nearly always prevall7in set1ftig . Itlwlland·use policieS;'the report ~¥.cL .. . READ n!E'~UNIC[PAL LXAGUE'R£:lSOll-T, ~Right$, 'Wrori~s and Reforms: Select- . ed Ilj.sul~i-on Und-Use"Regil.la- orin-, wiilii~_ ~Dg' ~un~~ . ," www.ntitnileague:.'Drg. " wed'I'iiesday after two yeats ofstudy. . . '. '. see > RV"'~, BU -";'," '('-lII'!ai. '.. . use pennitting agency, the . tion would be to create state" mendation: ~~bt'the FilUM' ,1 Department of Development authorized ''townships" in agency's ",opcbj,fundeii arid Environmental Services rural areas to providelocaI throughgenerar·flmd taxeS DISCONTENT' OVER (DDES) , conStantine has . services, including land-use rather thanpertllitfees, ... "',,.,"''' ..... lta·ES··· created a directbr ofci\i:-. . reView. . DDES is nowslIVP!>ited aI- •. LKI1I~_I'"U, ·tolllet::service po<itiori Iri'ltis . It also suggested the Legis-most exclusiYelythroUgh . .. .' '. ' .. ' office,buthasn'tlaid out de· larure conveneaLocaI Gov-fees... '.' . . New exeC to 'reform' tails of changes he plails to' emanee Stu!ly Commission' "A decision waS made counfy goVernment . make at DOES. . to make recommendations about 1 Oyej>iugo to wean Longtime Muni League volunteel'SPutnam Barber and WcySteers ciKhaired the ttine-mem!J;:,r conuiiitteii that wrote the report. It saId, many ruraJ proPertY oW!)efl; are unhappy about restric-. tions on what ther can do' with their land WhiIemany . city-dwellim; don't like~ gionaI groJ,Vth-management policies thl!tencourage dense red~lopmentwhere they live; Thp. oonlmpntwR" TP~ DDES sentlayoff notices to . on hQWto fund services in the pennimng 1\Wayfromthe 40 e,nP16yeaafter the linlneorporated areas; general fund wifhthetheory· COUnty GouncilJastmonth '. Some griev:aJlces have . that growth pays for growth rejectedtheP':1lxecutive Kurt been resolved bytheruraI· . and 1;hat it be a 'l5er fee.ljust Triplett's proPosal torai.e . ombudsman, a POSition ere; -don't see thecotinty going in petnJiHeview fees from. *dby the County Council the opposite direction, "War- .a\>6u($14o an hour 10$190.. in 2005, the report sald. Arid den said. . -Fifti!$\ of th<>i'e workers .. , . fordlsputesthatareap-.·· . Kdlhlin>""!i~'105 ... could keepthelrjpbsif the. . " pealed to coun,it suggested _@....t"""-.c<>m council were to'.agree tQa ':theybe handled by anew .'Siriallerfee iricre!iSe.earIY .. ·land·use, c()un withiri Supe- m'Xtyear, DDESDirectot . rior Court" StephallieWilrden said. . . DDES director Warden . The.Muni League report said she hadn't yet read the . said a possible solution to in-Municipal LeJigue reportbut. adequateruraji'epreS,ent'1--. took issue~With one recom- -:...~ . tH:CEri:::~. Dear Mr. Kaufman, December 2, 2009 ;';iT" ;~~';~ ~::;'"' )!f I live at 16227 SE l3ih PI (Liberty Lane) which directly boarders the proposed Cavalla sub-division. Thank you for your time. I have listed three areas of concern that I did not see directly addressed in the minutes from the October 13 th meeting. 1. All of the homes on 13 7th PL which directly boarder the new development are rambler style. The new homes will be two level homes built very close to the property line. The new homes will look down onto these properties greatly affecting privacy and security. There are many trees close to the property line along this stretch of homes. It looks like the builder has the ok to take every single tree dovm with out even trying to keep any? If they are all removed--.why aren't any of the required replacements being placed in this area? This would provide a more positive trarlsition between the drastically different home styles. Why isn't the builder required to make an effort to save even a few of the trees? It would benefit both the new and existing properties. 2. Liberty Baseball and Softball field parking? I do not see where there is a plan to implement the proposed "parking lot" by the Issaquah School District along with the construction of this sub-division? Since walking access was opened at the end of our cuI de sac several years ago we have experienced increased traffic and parking on 13 i h PL. This has impacted our street in the spring more and more. Each year & more students and spectators figure out how much closer it is to get to the field. Our street becomes the parking lot for the fields? When cars are parked on both sides of the street there is not enough room for emergency vehicles to get through. We have also had mail service issues. Has this traffic impact been considered for the new suh-division with even more narrow streets than ours? Why isn't the district constructing the parking lot? 3. Will a privacy/security fence he constructed between the Liberty Lane Homes that directly boarder the new development? Will it be constructed before the construction process begins, to ensure our security? I await your reply to these concerns. sincereIY,/~ ~ Wendy Goodman 16227 SE [37th PL Renton Wa 98059 November 29, 2009 Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98057 RE: Cavalla Preliminary Plat (No. LUA-08-097, PP, ECF) Request for Reconsideration of November 3, 2009 Hearing Examiner Report Dear Mr. Kaufman: I am a newly-annexed City of Renton citizen and a Liberty Lane property owner whose property abuts the north east section of the proposed Cavalla subdivision. I write this letter because I did not receive notice of the public hearing which resulted in the report issued by the Renton Hearing Examiner's office on November 3, 2009. I have also been asked to represent the Liberty Lane residents regarding the first two issues below. r speak for the residents on the south side of Liberty Lane regarding the third issue below. First Issue: The TDR Let me take you back to 2008 -the year of the Liberty Annexation. During that year, homeowners in the proposed annexation area received a variety of information about the benefits of annexation to the City of Renton. Among the benefits was a point about residential development density. The written leaflets pointed out that our unincorporated area would benefit from becoming part of the City because the City's zoning requirements for our area are R-4, not R-6 under King County regulations. This point was a major reason that Liberty Lane homeowners were in favor of the annexation to Renton. As I read the minutes of the October 13,2009 hearing regarding the revised CavaIIa preliminary plat, I am struck with the feeling that the City basically lied to us about one major benefit -the R-4 zoning. As residents, we did not know that any undeveloped R-4 wned property can become R-6 wned with properly executed TDR paperwork. Under the original plat, for example, my property would have one home behind it. Now, it looks like my property will have two homes behind it. Based on the findings of the October 13 th meeting, it sounds like we are left with no recourse other than to deal with it. This is a fine way to be welcomed to the City. Second Issue: Half Street Improvements along 162 nd Avenue SE Eric Knudsen, a Liberty Lane property owner, spoke with a representative for this project regarding the issue of the half-street improvement. The response he received was basically this: The developer has no legal duty make full street improvements to 162nd Avenue SE. I am left to feel as though the citizens of Liberty Lane are being completely ignored. We have been dealing with dips and ruts on 162nd Avenue SE for years, despite asking the County to fix the indentations in the street. To make a half-street improvement for the benefit of the Cavalla subdivision homes while ignoring the impact it will have on the rest of 1 62 nd is perceived as a strong negative message to the Liberty Lane residents that the deVelopment cares nothing about its newly annexed Liberty Lane neighbors. I ask that full-street improvements be made to 162nd Avenue SE. In the alternative, if the developer is not required to make such improvements, I request the City of Renton do so. Third Issue: Concrete Fence and Privacy Shrubs Along North Edge of Cavalla Subdivision In the November 19, 2009 letter to Vincent, et al. from Hearing Examiner Kaufina!lo a quote from the recommendation states, "In addition to the layout and alignment of the proposed lots, the applicant has increased the perimeter landscaping thereby buffering the surrounding uses from the increased density." Turning to Exhibit 3, back page, I see a sketched layout of the proposed landsc<;lping. However, on the property line oflots 1-10, which abut the south edge of the Liberty Lane division, I see no notation for landscaping. I submit that the residents abutting the Cavalla subdivision are "surrounding uses" that should be buffered from the increased density. Hence, the following proposal: Proposal: I request the following improvements: (1) Construct a six-foot concrete fence or barrier to separate lots 1-10 from the south six properties of Liberty Lane. In addition, I request that a row of Leland Cypresses be planted in the back part oflots 1·10, on 4-foot centers. As a King County Master Gardener, I can tell you this type of plant is an effective, low maintenance inexpensive privacy screen. This proposal is inexpensive and will serve two purposes: (1) It will increase the property values of Cavalla lots 1-10, as potential homeowners will appreciate the additional privacy and landscaping. As we know from our neighbors in the subdivision to the west of 160th Avenue SE and SE 136th Street, the homes purchased first were the ones that backed up to either a small greenbelt or an open space. (2) The residents on the south side of Liberty Lane will be afforded a degree of security and privacy. Bear in mind that these residents have enjoyed approximately 15 acres of woodlands in their b<;lck yardS for 20+ years. A simple row of privacy trees and fence is very little to ask in return for a measure of good will that will serve the developer well when development begins. I ask that the City Council pay close attention to the citizen comments presented at the recent meeting (which I would have attended had I gotten notice) as well as the information contained in this letter. As a spokesperson for this area I am also reguesting written notification regarding the date of the next City council meeting that will have this topic on the agenda. I will await notification of the upcoming council meeting that will address this issue. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Michele R Collier Attorney at Law 16235 SE 137'h Place Renton, W A 98059 425-306-0441 Cc: Wayne Potter, Barghausen Consulting Engineer Denis Law, Mayor Jay Covington, CAO Larry Warren, City Attorney C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Planning Director Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager Rocale Timmons, Planner, Development Services Kayren Kittrick, Community and Economic Development Bonnie Walton, City Clerk .1ECEIVED " DEC 32009 To ffZCD 1-<' f}uJ' frlflN CIT",' ,~"c,<! J U EAJz I rv t' ~Xa rn / tv £~."-nC "I2'~I'(~:C;ct I 12-£0 E uED 'CA i'vo+ 1-12/(,.,+-+ I 6r0 Q r"d ; P lc-Ngr:;S t='Rom PE-+r l IE. DEUel optf\bj\.JT .. , 5 W()~i I'v4+l\.E2. .. ch.C~:elt ~ce... I \u D?'\Js'\{'1 ~{(Grn 12.-q -k. 8--&-" r Lluc C'-T \1oL(oc"1 <;E i4'1/?(\ P( V~I~{"iufv, T~Q. ~~-LI OE-I'J~({1~":ds LU~K, 0->\fu J.\\ ~L-0I .. G'\.. (\ ...... J'.,-i-h f:...' . t:. ..... A 1St .. i (\.ot.;l" I\.! .• f.lbi{&i. -12i1-(.,,~, PU:~+f'lE. Owe\cpmf~\ LuA('u-t.c-h, (J~ekp .. O±«-L!S+Af0 D/U1D SLyI, icht'L+.c: --{-/"~ , (V'~\(.,lr+[3cRU0~,(\,LP i-f.-~ C-'i'-/k,'L Oc I v'€.10pPJL lS i+LbLuf,O r,4t> 00 4-ollL ,-0'1 I PI EA-41IE __ . , Dc? \..jQ1D~)v1\f:-'''\ S.A 10 . hlEsJ)~) c\.td ,. (2E St.-1B n\ltt- 17-t '> n.~l.l~&-T: iu ql) +0 .... f2--G ('¥lx) i A~,A [(" Jl, R.~fJ\.y S"e I + L), i\(\{.:\'\C (,-:, to llL--f·J"3;iZ -t-b::\(\ -r;L-(( ,?e f\,) 'S.lh'~ L + S Ln k. Lew w\\ ~t-e. E K is + 11"7 . -~i1\U"---.-- . '&l~~;{:1..~ YC1Jih.1').(P'YI< .J)() ~Ov1~/1£J-L\ t November 24, 2009 Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner rt~C~i'vt::U c:n CLER.K'S OF:'!CiO Re: Cavalla Preliminary Plat (LUA-OB-097, PP, ECF) Second Request for Reconsideration Dear Mr Kaufman: Your letter (November 19, 2009) to Vincent, Petrie, Oliphant, and Parties, attempts to dissuade those- who were not informed, as required by RMC 4-7-0801.2.c about the Cavalla Plat processing-from requesting Reconsideration; the basis being that only new information would be considered. This assumes that you flawlessly processed such information. I draw your attention to my testimony (11 :09:43 AM on recording) where I testify that if the 49-lot configuration via TOR's is approved by the Council, I would resubmit a similar proposal for Liberty Gardens. Your response (11:10:41 AM) was ambiguous: "I assume you are free to do that, but you would not probably be coming in under King County regulations anymore". This is an error, as explained more fully on page 3 of my formal Request for Reconsideration, dated November 16. Yesterday, I called Rocale Timmons, Staff Planner, asking for her interpretation of your comment above, adding that my primary concern about Cavalla's 49-lot plat was admission of New Condition #1, containing the words "for this plat only", which Timmons read into the Record near the end of the Hearing. She said that you may have assumed that I didn't understand that a new Environmental Review Committee (ERC) Report would be required; and that the TOR process would have to be undertaken. I assured Timmons that I understood these requirements, and that the process would follow that taken by Cavalla, to use TOR's to increase lot count from the 38-lots-that existed at the Liberty Annexation (August 11, 2008) to 49 lots-, Liberty Gardens applying for 47 -lots to replace their 36-lot layout. I further informed Timmons that Kolin Taylor (KBS Development) and I had two conversions about how to get Liberty Gardens to also increase lot count: Cell phone records will report that on November 10, a 44-minute conversation, on November 12, a 52-minute conversation. Taylor was very congenial on this matter, offering to call Vincent to arrange a meeting on a how to bring Liberty Gardens into a homogenous configuration (more lots) relative to Cavalla. On November 6, I met with Pietsch and Vincent regarding the Failure to Notify issue and Liberty Gardens getting the same consideration regarding use of TOR's. In accord with Taylor's position, Vincent generously offered to meet with me to achieve resolution of these matters. This has become a complex matter, involving the Quality of Life of future residents of the East Renton Plateau. It should not be flushed through to the Council in hopes of a routine Rubber Stamp approval. Instead, I capsulated the two options that I think should be presented to the Council (see page 3 of my formal Request for Reconsideration, attached). Sincerely, ~~ Dave Petrie, Owner/Developer, Liberty Gardens Plat 811 So. 273,d Ct. Des Moines, WA 98198 253-946-6619 Cc: Denis Law, Mayor Jay Covington, CAO Larry Warren, City Attorney Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager JRocale Timmons, Planner, Development Services Kayren Kittrick, Community and Economic Development Bonnie Walton, City Clerk Walter Minty, 16226 SE 13ih PI. Renton WA 98059 Kieth Schild, 16240 SE 137th PI. Renton WA 98059 Bradley Herrin, 16202 SE 13ih PI. Renton WA 98059 Wendy Goodman, 16227 SE 13ih PI Renton WA 98059 Collier-Kerstezler, 16214 SE 13ih PI. Renton WA 98059 Richard Thomas, 16211 SE 137'h PI. Renton WA 98059 William Reynolds, 16241 SE 13ih PI. Renton, WA 98059 Richard Langdon, 14201 164th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 Frank Near, 14206 164'h Ave SE Renton WA 98059 Don Gragg, 16046 SE 142 nd PI. Renton WA 9805 Doris Yepez, 164444 SE 135th Street, Renton, WA 98059 Randy Goodwin, 11290 SE 294th St, Auburn WA 98092 Garry Threadgill, 13502 162nd Ave SE, Renton, WA 98059 16 November 2009 Hearing Examiner, Fred Kaufman City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA, 98057 RE: Reconsideration, Cavalla Plat Hearing, File LUA 09-097, PP, ECF Errors and Omissions Notification The Law requires that everyone within 300' of a plat be notified of plat hearings. No one in that range; that is, Appellant Petrie, OwnerlDeveloper of the Liberty Gardens plat adjacent South, or any of the 12 residents adjacent North in the Liberty Lane complex, received notice of the Plat Hearing. Petrie learned about the Hearing at 2:00 PM the day before the Hearing, when Kolin Taylor (Cavalla Developer) handed Petrie a copy of the Staff Report just before he gave Petrie a tour of developments that illustrated such deSign features. As a result, Petrie was up until 12:30 AM the day of the Hearing, preparing a 21-page document. Minutes before the formal hearing commenced, Petrie handed the document to Examiner Kaufman's secretary, expecting it to be listed as an Exhibit in the Examiners Report. This document was not included in the Exhibits Listing (page 2 of the Examiners Report). But the Examiner acknowledges existence of this Exhibit at 10:17:35 AM on the recording. Appellant Petrie complained about this breach of procedure (10:17:43 AM). In a conversation between Timmons (Plat Staff), Examiner Kaufman, and Petrie, Timmons was then directed by Examiner Kaufman to add Petrie to the List of Interested Parties. Petrie had no time to contact a Land Use attorney; and the many local residents who have a long-standing disapproval of the densification/crowding enabled by Transfer of Development Rights (TOR's), had no time to marshal their forces in opposition. (See Exhibit 1-Letter to Newspapers regarding TOR Credits). This complete shut-out of anyone that might oppose Cavalla's use of TDR's-including failing to follow law requiring notice to anyone within 300-feet of the site-is egregious, sufficient from a legal aspect to declare the Hearing invalid. Density Issue The basis for Cavalla asking for increased density via TOR's was that they were vested under King County Codes during the 2 Y, years that their plat was being worked by King Counties' DOES. Cavalla was vested in February 2006. Relevant to the fairness issue on use of TOR's, Liberty Gardens was vested 29 December 2004. The Renton Comprehensive plan-designating R-4 as the maximum density for SFD's-was prepared in 2004. Currently, Renton has no Code provision compatible with Transfer of Development Rights. It is interesting that KC 21A.37.14 requires an Inter-local Agreement between an incorporated area and King County to be valid when King Counties Land Bank is used. No such agreement exists between Renton and King County. 1 Since Renton wanted larger lots than obtained under R-6 (via use of TOR's), Renton was able to restrain use of the TOR by Sewer Availability Letters, restricting the number of loIs as follows: Liberty Gardens-38 lots Cavalla-36 lots Threadgill-15 loIs During the 31-monlhs that Cavalla was being reviewed by King County's DOES, Cavalla was held to R-4 by the aforementioned Sewer Availability Letters, at a lot count of 38. Approval of any plat under Renton's Comprehensive Plan, at a density higher than R-4, is not supported by that Plan. Upon annexation (August 11, 2008) to Renton, Renton's Planning Staff took over the review process, Liberty Gardens at 36-lots, Cavalla at 38. When Renton Staff indicated preference for 164'h Ave SE, as the preferred Secondary Access over the submitted 162nd Ave (fraught with environmental concerns), Cavalla decided to press Renton Staff for introduction of TOR's, based on their being "grandfathered" by date of vesting under ODES. Renton went along with this breach of Code, increasing the lot count 49. To say another way by surmise: The Cavalla developers-not satisfied with the cost savings of not having to extend 162nd Ave to 1441h Street through two Sensitive Areas-wanted to exact more by offering cosmetics: "If we add more trees and plants, how about some compensatory help, like TOR's?" (Providing an extra -$1.5M profit, at a cost of $50K worth of landscaping). The likely response from Timmons, Watts and Kittrick: "We'll give it a try." Cavalla did not include Petrie in this negotiation, knowing that he was adamant in adhering to the R-4 zoning of Renton's Comprehensive Plan. In contrast, Petrie acceded to Renton's wishes to use 164th Avenue as the Secondary Access, primarily because Renton Staff agreed to Petrie's offer to extend SE 140'h Place 100-feet directly East to provide the desired connection between 162nd Avenue and 164'h Avenue, replacing the original plan by Renton to slash an arterial from NW to SE across the Liberty Gardens plat, this effecting significant damage to the layout. At 10:03:48 AM, Gwen High-claiming to represent the community at a following of -15-testified quite differently from the past seven-years, now accepting TOR's. Gwen is so enthused about the landscape amenities; she asks that the Cavalla developers be required to erect permanent signs welcoming neighbors throughout the area to use the walking trail with two benches and a picnic table around the unsightly wild grass/weed field. (See Exhibit 2-Typical Retention Pond). Gwen is apparently oblivious to the 20-acre Maplewood Heights Park-a 30-second walk southeastward-soon to be transferred to Renton. Gwen recommends that Renton go to the County pushing to amend the King County TOR Code to require beautification of ponds and similar amenities to plats using TOR's, including the remainder of Renton's East Plateau, essentially advocating that Renton now accept TOR's within their Codes! At 11 :09:43 AM on the recording of the Cavalla Hearing, Appellant Petrie testified as follows: "During the break, my wife said that I didn't answer your question vel}' well about how does this impact you? She thought I should mention something that we talked about earlier-and with others-if this plat gets approved here, and then gets by the City Council, I should come back in with a revised proposal-and I am going to bare my soul here-that if the higher-ups in City Hall care no more than that about the quality of the Renton Plateau Comprehensive Plan, and-as Gwen High pointed out earlier-this is going to be an island: it isn't going to happen again. And if they care no more than that, we will come back with a similar proposal. People are going to say "Why did you leave a million dollars on the table?" This is about money. That is why they are so motivated. There is nothing wrong with that; but that is what this is all about". 2 At 11:10:41, Examiner Kaufman responds: "It's not only about money. / have to pass judgment on whether this plat is appropriate or not. And if you are talking about redesigning Liberty Gardens, I assume you are free to do that, but you would not probably be coming in under King County regulations anymore: You would be coming in solely under Renton regulations, and I don't think there are any Transfer of Development Rights. But I will let you deal with your plat outside of this process". Examiner Kaufman, implying that Liberty Gardens was not eligible for use of TOR's, is in error: The only explanation for this paradox is that the Examiner was unaware that Liberty Gardens was vested under King County from December 2004 through the Annexation (August 11, 2008), having the same rights as Cavalla on this issue. The Cavalla Hearing Report (11-3-2009) recommends approval at the higher density, but adds New Condition #1, containing the words "for this subject plat only". These exclusionary words have no legal basis, intended to send a message to the local citizens that: "We Will Break the Law (Renton's Density Code on the Plateau) just this once, but never again". Action Required by the City Council An emergency meeting of the Council is needed to affirm/change their policy regarding density on the Renton Plateau, particularly regarding TOR's: Option 1-Approve the Cavalla plat at 49-lots. But square this up with the Renton Code by amending the Code to allow any plats that had been vested under King County Codes prior to Annexation (11 August 2008) to use TOR's, on the basis that such plats had been "grandfathered" with that right, availed under King County Codes. This would apply to only three unbuilt plats, vested in King County before the Annexation at R-4 density, as requested by Renton via King Counties OOES: Threadgill (15-lots), Liberty Gardens (36-lots), and Cavalla (38-lots). (Obviously, New Condition #1-containing the words "for this plat only" would be struck, enabling Liberty Gardens and Threadgill to resubmit layouts using TOR's. same as Cavalla). Option 2-Require Cavalla to rework the plat to conform to Renton's R-4 Code at 38-lots, sans TOR's. In my opinion, the Examiner needs clearer direction-freeing him from Hand Wringing, as evidenced in the recording of the Hearing-on a maiden voyage, so to speak, of Renton adopting TOR's: This should be done via a Task Force Study sponsored by the Council, prior to the Examiner responding to the Request for Reconsideration, providing direction on the Council's views on where Renton plans to go on this important policy issue. It is this larger issue that Petrie tried to address during his brief testimony, that the Examiner rejected treating in this Hearing. At 11 :04:30 AM, Planner Timmons says: "Alternatively, the plat design shall be reconfigured to reflect the density allowable under R-4 zoning without TOR's". At 11 :05: 13 Examiner Kaufmann responds: "I have a feeling we will be back here". 3 Inexplicably inconsistent with Examiner Kaufman's approval of Cavalla using TOR's, he wrote (page 2, Liberty Gardens Plat Approval Report, 28 April 2009): "The site is zoned R-4 and the Comprehensive Plan designation is Residential-Low Density. However, the project is vested in the 2004 R-4 development standards and the Urban Residential Comprehensive Plan Designation of King County. It is the City's position that the annexed properties are not vested to rules and procedures of the King County Code and that the project, once annexed, would follow the rules and procedures outlined by the City of Renton Code." At 10:19:20 AM on the recording, the Examiner evidences bias against Petrie's position on TOR's, throttling his testimony when he tries to explain the failure of densification measures to reduce congestion by making traffic congestion worse, thereby Forcing People Out of Their Cars Onto Transit. See OP-ED to the Seattle Times contained in Exhibit 3-Heading the Wrong Direction for Congestion Relief, noting the paragraph on Land Use Legislation. In short, Petrie predicts eventual repeal of densification legislation because Quality of Life is degraded by crowding, not improved, as alleged by New Urbanists, who are behind such as the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and TOR's. The Examiner further suppresses Petrie's testimony by failing to enter into the record the 11-pqge brief Testimony of Dave Petrie at Cavafla Plat Hearing-October 13, 2009 (Exhibit 3) handed to Secretary Nancy Thompson minutes before the Hearing commenced. But the Examiner does acknowledge the existence of that brief at 10: 17:35 AM on the recording. Dave Petrie, Owner/Developer Liberty Gardens Plat, adjacent South of Cavalla 811 So. 273 cd Ct. Des Moines, WA 98198 Exhibit 1-Anita Oliphant Letter against TOR's to Newspapers, February 12, 2004 Exhibit 2-Typical Retention Pond in Summer Months Exhibit 3-OP-ED Heading the Wrong Direction for Congestion Relief Exhibit 4-Plat by Petrie Development at R-4 density in Auburn, with 70-foot frontages, 1987 Exhibit 5-Frontages of half of the homes in Evendell 2002. The rest accessed via alleys Exhibit 6-Frontages of homes on Hamilton Place, Renton Plateau, 52-foot frontages 2005 Exhibit 7-Alleys in Evendell Plat by US Land at R-6 density on Renton Plateau, 43-foot frontages, 2002 Exhibit 8-Evendell Density Exhibit 9-Alley Loading from the 1920's Addendum Comparison of Plat Designs-Cavalla versus Libertv Gardens Retention Facility-Cavalla favors storm retention ponds, for cost reasons. Liberty Gardens favors retention vaults, because the space taken for retention is recovered for other use, such as tennis courts or a small park. The extra cost (-$7K1lot) of the vault is recovered via added value to the home buyer: more privacy, and larger lots, with room for on-site landscaping. (Note: Renton Planning has voiced favoring vaults). (Observation: Gwen High, and Renton Staff, were taken in on the portrayal of the Cavalla Pond as like a mountain lake. Instead, such ponds are dried up for seven-months out of the year, appearing as a dry pit of wild grass). 4 The size of the Cavalla pond is 48,276 sq.ft.(1.1 acre). The Liberty Gardens vault will occupy 21,038 sq. ft. (0.48 acre). Furthermore, recreation facilities will be placed atop the vault roof. Lot frontage-In Option 1, Liberty Gardens will resubmit via TOR's to increase lot count from 36 to 47. The average lot frontage will be reduced from its current 70' to 55'. None of the lots will be the 40' width, as are the 19 interior lots of Cavalla. Alley loading-Cavalla's use of alley loading is a throw-back to housing developments of the 1920's, where one-car families were the norm. Petrie lived in a home (the lot size being the same 40' x 100'dimensions of the Cavalla interior lots) in Seattlle's Wallingford District, while attending the UW. By the time his parents sold that home 40-years later, 3-4 car families of today had become common, with cars ending up parked along the fronting street, no space available outside of work hours. (See Exhibit 4) The use of the conventional driveway apron for the more narrow lots of Liberty Gardens at 47-lots (Option 1), still provides space for parking without encroaching on the frontage roadway. Green Space-A Sensitive Area stream-ankle-deep in winter, dry 6-months a year-crosses the southwest corner of Liberty Gardens. Eight cedar trees 24-36" in diameter reside in the swale. If Renton allows me to remove the wild blackberries and useless undergrowth, I plan to utilize the 47,000 sq. ft. for an arboretum, including trails and unique plants, improving on Nature. Cavalla has no such area available, all spaces consumed by the crowding of homes (Option 1) and the enormous retention pond. In either Option 1 or 2, Liberty Gardens can do this. Cavalla has no similar stand of retainable cedar trees. But Cavalla could avail more area for a park and have bigger lots in either Option 1 or 2, if they convert to a vault for retention. The tennis courts, playground, park and arboretum are all contiguous, yielding a total 1.6 acres, half of it occupied by 150-yo cedar trees. 5 CD G J .. ----~ ........ :J2J(lS 90J.S UBERrY HIGH SCHOOL -" ." .- ..... -q:~~' .i\7}~'~ /4"~ /. t}.l~. _.---_ . ~~ ,-- .' / .J.' o -, , ~ ,!2, ... \.-G) "E "'C --'.' s:::::::::' '" , '. r' J' )' ...... :.! I: ~- .. ~t·" ..... A ••. _' ' Evendell Plat. Oensifed from R-4 to R-6 _·.S,,' .••....... , .. ~"' ..... ,~ . via Urban Growth Boundary (1993) and TOR's 'Frontages at 43-feet. Lot Size -4000 sq.ft. Exhibit 5 .-.~ -7T"-' ,---... d Evenpel/ Plat -by U~ ;;.~(~~Jti 1i!e deyel.oper ~1A\Z;l "~(t ~~Yhi E:;~am Ine .... ; ~~\Jj?f ~itis'age ofTDR ' u. Ave fronlAoOge 43':' f:I'~ihdrnrn R-4 to R-S· , n applied for 72 lots. Exhibit 8 """* ~ff ·~l ·;~j$"·~~·t~r;.:: ....... ~.-.,'.~ ... J'-;'. , ..;~~\t"~ ~ ... ·,~~t ~.W .. -:~ .... !...tIoI. \,0 .·:t!tWNL~'\" .. , ,1 __ , ,1jJ, , Typical Retention Pond Ory Spring to Fall. The pond required for Cavalla is 1.8 times as large due to impervious surfaces at R-5 to R-7 density, if allowed by TOR's_ .... -..:f, .... '- ~<l.i\·" .. ~~~~ Minntes OWNER: APPLICANT/CONTACT: LOCATION: SUMMARY OF REQUEST: SUMMARY OF ACTION: OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON Kolin B. Taylor KBSm,LLC 12320 NE 8th Street, Ste. 100 Bellevue, W A 98005 Wayne Potter Barghausen Consulting Engineer 18215 nnd Avenue S Kent, W A 98032 Cavalla Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA 08-097, PP, ECF March 1,2010 City of Renton Planning Division MAR -1 ZOW Southeast of 162 nd Avenue SE and SE 137th Place Requesting an amended Preliminary Plat and SEP A review approval of a 9.40 acre site to be subdivided into 49 lots for single-family residential with Tracts for stormwater and joint use driveways. Hearing was reopened due to insufficient notice of hearing to all interested parties. Development Services Recommendation: Approve subject to conditions. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: No new Report was issued by Staff PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining available information on file with the application, field checking the property and surrounding area; the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the October 13, 2009 and February 9, 2010 hearings. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing was opened on Tuesday, October 13, 2009, at 9:02 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits remained from the origjnal hearing date and Exhibit 15, 16 and 17 were added: Cavalla Preliminary Plat (Re-Opened) File No.: LUA-08-097, PP, ECF March 1,2010 Page 2 Exhibit No.1: Yellow file containing the original application, proof of posting, proof of publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit No.3: Preliminary Plat Plan Exhibit No.5: Road Plan Exhibit No.7: Tree Inventory Exhibit No.9: Access Agreement between Threadgill, Liberty Gardens and Cavalla. Exhibit No. 11: Two Density Credit Transfer agreements between KBS and Respective Owners Exhibit No. 13: Prior Preliminary Plat with 38 Lots Exhibit No. 15: Letter with new Conditions presented by Rocale Timmons Exhibit No. 17: Printed copy of Oliphant testimony Exhibit No.2: Vicinity Map Exhibit No.4: Landscape Plan Exhibit No.6: Aerial Photograph Exhibit No.8: Picture of Proposed Trees for storm pond area (7 sheets) Exhibit No. 10: Copy of King County Codes regarding Transfer of Development Rights Exhibit No. 12: Gwendolyn High Testimony Exhibit No. 14: New Condition # I Exhibit No. 16: Memorandum presented by David Halinen Rocale Timmons stated that this application was submitted to King County DDES in early 2006, since that time the property was annexed into the City of Renton. It is vested to King County's R-4 Development Standards. This plat will also be subject to the City of Renton's procedures. The applicant proposed 49 single family lots on 9040 acres. There are two existing parcels and one existing single family residence that would be removed. The gross density would be approximately 5.21 dwelling units per acre. The interior lots would average 4300 square feet and the exterior lots would average 6000 square feet. Proposed access to the site would be via I 62 nd Avenue SE, which abuts the site to the west and then I 64 th Avenue SE located on the eastern portion of the site. This would be a proposed dedication provided by the applicant, which is an extension of 164th Avenue SE. The Environmental Review Committee issues a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated with two mitigation measures. No appeals were filed. This project does comply with King County's Comprehensive Plan designation. In King County's R-4 zone, the density allowed is 4 dwelling units per gross acre, this allows a maximum density of up to 6 dwelling units per acre. This excess of the base density is allowed for the use of Transfer of Development Rights, which the applicant is pursuing per Chapter 21a37 of the King County Code. The applicant has proposed 5.21 dwelling units per gross acre, which is an II lot increase from the base density that would have been allowed in the zone. Cavalla Preliminary Plat (Re-Opened) File No.: LUA-08-097, PP, ECF March 1,2010 Page 3 A Transfer of Development Rights allows for the transfer of development rights from another area outside of the urban growth boundary. It is basically the development rights that a potential property could have had to use to develop. Eleven lats that could have been developed somewhere else could be transferred to this development. The applicant has provided a Purchase and Sen Agreement which is the first step. At Preliminary Plat approval, the applicant would be required to provide a Purchase and Sen Agreement. Staff has requested that the first condition be revised, rather than just requesting a Purchase and Sen or the actual Transfer of Development Rights documentation, they would be asking that the applicant perform an steps and complete all documentation necessary as required by King County and the City of Renton in order to process the transfer of Development Rights properly for this subject plat only. DeVelopment standards of King County requires a minimum of a 30-foot lot width, no depth or size are required. The applicant has proposed different lot variations within the site. All lots exceed the 30-foot requirement. King County Code further requires a IO-foot front yard setback for the primary structure and a 20- foot setback for the garage. All side and rear yards require only a 5-foot setback. The applicant, however, has proposed a 15-foot setback for the primary structure on the interior lots. In the right-of-way the applicant has also provided an 8-foot landscape strip in addition to a 5-foot public sidewalk. The lots along the exterior would have a 20-foot setback for the primary structure and 25-foot setback for the garage. The building standards for the site were stated incorrectly in the Staff Report. It is noted that 55% is the impervious surface coverage in the report, however for the use ofTDR, the applicant is able to utilize the R-6 development standards which allows 70% impervious surface coverage for each lot. The building height would be 35-feet for each single family residence. The proposed landscape plan includes a 10-foot landscape easement parallel to I 62,d Avenue SE and 164th Avenue that would be easements on private property with significant landscaping and a good neighbor fence which would be modulated along I 64th Avenue SE. There are at least 20-feet oflandscaping along 1620d and 164 th from the back of the curb to the face of the fence, in addition to that the applicant is proposing an 8-foot landscape strip along the perimeter of the interior lots. Within that landscape strip the applicant proposes to use two smaller variety street trees, staff would like to see the applicant replace the variety of smaller street tree with a larger variety of street tree along the interior lots and possibly the smaller street trees could be used on the exterior lots behind the larger variety of tree that has already been proposed. There are 429 trees located on the site, all are proposed to be removed due to the topography of the site. The applicant has indicated that it would be very challenging to retain any of the trees on site. King County code does allow the removal of all trees as long as they are replaced. The applicant would be required to retain 94 trees, if they are not able to do so. The applicant has proposed to replace 193 trees total, which does meet the requirement for King County tree replacement. King County code requires that the applicant provide recreation on site. On this site, the applicant is required to provide 390 square feet of recreation space per lot, approximately 38,000 square feet of recreation area has been provided within the proposed detention pond tract. There is a walking trail that surrounds the pond, which will include benches, tables and umbrellas as well as passive recreation for small children. The applicant should also provide a public benefit on the pathway due to the needs of the school children in the area. The pathway should be dedicated as a public easement. There would also be a fence on the interior of the trail that surrounds the pond for safety. Cavalla Preliminary Plat (Re-Opened) File No.: LUA-08-097, PP, ECF March 1,2010 Page 4 Half street improvements have been proposed along 162 nd Ave SE as well as dedication of a 35.5 foot right-of- way width along the eastern portion of the site for the extension of 164 th Ave SE. In the northeast portion of the site a turnaround has been provided, a portion of which is located on the Issaquah School District property. An agreement is in place until such time as the road would be extended to the north. The internal road system connects 162nd Ave SE to I 64th Ave SE which satisfied the secondary access requirements. Further there is an alley that has been proposed for the interior Lots 31-49. A Transportation Mitigation Fee would be imposed on this project and a School Mitigation Fee payable to the Issaquah School District would be imposed as well. The ERC issued a mitigation measure requiring the applicant to comply with the 2005 Surface Water Design Manual, which will accommodate some of the concerns in this area. A Homeowner's Association should be created to maintain all common improvements on site. The applicant further should maintain all landscaping and all amenities provided within Tract A from the fence outward and the City of Renton would be responsible for the storm pond located from the fence inward. Water service to the site is being provided by Water District 90, the applicant would be required to provide approved plans from Water District 90 prior to engineering permit approval. The applicant has received a Certificate of Water Availability. The applicant would further be required to provide an 8" line for sewer within 162nd Ave SE and extend to all 10ts as required. Wayne Potter, Barghausen Consultants, 18215 nnd Ave S, Kent 98032 stated the project team was with him that included the landscape architect and engineers who were at the hearing to answer any questions. This project has a long history through King County, pre-application meetings, site visits and working with various members of King County and the City of Renton. This project was started in 2005 and they are excited about the project being presented today. The developer has thoughtfully gone through every detail to corne up with a project that would lessen impacts with respect to the additional 11 lots of the TDRs. In general they are satisfied with the conditions placed on this project by Staff; however, there are a few things that he wanted to bring to the attention of the Examiner and possibly give some clarifications. Regarding the setbacks, it appears that the City is considering in the future allowing flexibility with respect to front yard porches that would potentially encroach on typical front yard setbacks. This is what they have tried to do with this project, varying elevations, modulations with buildings making sure there is not just a row of houses with the exact same setbacks. It appears that the City is considering allowing decks/porches to encroach the setbacks to provide another esthetic element to the streetscape. If this project is approved today and if this ordinance should be approved that it would become applicable to this project. The Examiner.stated that he could not guarantee that, they are present today under existing code and existing code has certain provisions. Whether you can modifY the plat after the fact would have to be explored with Staff. The main question or problem would be the precedence it creates. Everyone could come in and say they wanted their plat to abide by these standards, but if the standards are relaxed in the future then they want those standards to apply. The standards could vary from week to week or month to month. That flexibility could cause many problems. Cavalla Preliminary Plat (Re-Opened) File No.: LUA-08-097, PP, ECF March 1,2010 Page 5 This plat has the advantage of the King County Code and now you are 100kIDg to take advantage of the current plus potential changes in the Renton code. The lots could achieve a variety of looks with the use of landscaping, mixing larger and smaller trees and creating a designer look. Mr. Potter continued with a minor correction on page 10 of the Staff Report, under Surface Water, second paragraph it indicates that there is a proposed storm water vault located in Tract A. It is a pond and not a vault. Also with respect to the revisions to Condition I, with regards to TDR's, Mr. Halinen would address that matter later. There would be no problem in adding the language to the condition that they would meet the King County requirements for TDR's outlined in their code. The Examiner also noted a correction to the Staff Report on page 4 of 12, the consistency with Short Plat criteria is mentioned twice and it is obviously Preliminary Plat and not Short Plat. Mr. Potter continued regarding some items that were discussed and provided some clarification. They have met with CARE and gone through this project, made revisions based on comments received from them that appeared to be applicable. They also met with adjacent property owners to the south, they met with the developer of Liberty Gardens to discuss projects and try to work together for a good product in this area. Many of the improvements made in the project not only meet but exceed King County requirements as well as requirement of the City of Renton. They have varied the lot widths with good depths and variations in setbacks. There are also additional landscaping opportunities, there would be a separation from the back of the curb to the sidewalk for safety reasons as well as additional landscaping. With regards to providing more landscaping for the alley load lots, on the front of these lots (31-40) because of the grade separation, they have put a wall back from the sidewalk and added additional landscaping so the wall is not right up to the back of the sidewalk. They have exceeded the requirements for King County for open space and recreation. The storm pond design includes passive recreation and active recreation and put them together to create a space where the open pond would be a feature to be enjoyed by not only the people within the plat but also the community. With that, they have increased the landscaping, have proposed to move trees and create meandering sidewalks along 162 nd and 164 th trying to take advantage of the 20' landscaping on both of those main streets and providing fencing with trellis design. The landscaping plan is very detailed and construction ready. They have worked diligently with Liberty High school to make the best use of the turnaround. There would be a modulated fence along 164th that will break up the look of a long straight fence that is seen in most developments. Every other lot will have the fence modulated and enhanced with landscaping and the other lot with a trellis to try to lessen the impact of a straight wall. Regarding the trees, they have looked at the landscape to see if there were pockets of trees that they could try to save to incorporate in this plat. There is a challenge when it comes to design, the size of these lots and 30' of elevation drop from the northeast corner to the southwest comer. In doing so, they have elected to increase the landscape on the project to exceed the replacement tree requirements of King County to try to lessen that impact. They are workIDg with native trees and they feel confident that they have accomplished that goal. Cavalla Preliminary Plat (Re-Opened) File No.: LUA-08-097, PP, ECF March 1,2010 Page 6 There has been some discussion about an agreement with three developers, at the very beginning of this project when the plan was submitted to King County, a letter was sent to all three projects, Threadgill, Liberty Gardens and Cavalla. Threadgill received preliminary plat approval through King County prior to annexation. Liberty Gardens had received SEPA determination and was within weeks of having a hearing before the King County Hearing Examiner prior to the annexation. King County met with all three developers to COrne up with a solution to secondary access. There concern was in and out of this area. The three developers agreed as a whole they needed to come up with a solution. In the end, prior to annexation, 162"d was the preferred access going directly south in front of Cavalla and Liberty Gardens. Through meetings with the City and going through designs and because of the impacts to several sensitive areas, it was determined that the less impact and the preferred alternative for extension and secondary access wonld be 164th and that is why revisions were made. The agreement leaves room for an alternative access, 167'b Ave SE, and if that were determined to be better, all three parties have agreed to follow that recommendation. David Halinen, Attorney for applicant provided a copy of a portion of the King County code that deals with Transfer of Development Rights, Chapter 2Ia.37. He further provided copies of two Density Credit Transfer Agreements; one involving the purchase of nine such credits and the other the purchase of two credits for the total of eleven that are being contemplated in this plat. Gwendolvn High, 155 Yakima Avenue, Renton 98059 appeared on behalf of CARE stated that they were her neither in support or opposition ofthis project. This will happen and they would like to present some clarifications for review. They are pleased with the current project proposal. They presented a list of conditions that have been offered by the applicant they are requesting that they be specific conditions of approval including lot variation, setbacks, landscaping, street plan and access to the pond. The main matter is the TDR, this cormnunity is sensitized against TORs due to the poor implementation to date and the negative impacts that the residents have suffered as a result. With this project the community will have absorbed about 20% of all TDRs transferred in King County since the first TDR was sold in 1999. Until now there has been no provision of infrastructure or amenity improvements to appropriately accommodate and mitigate the increased negative impacts. Many discussions have taken place and many neighbors still believe that TDRs must be opposed as a matter or principal regardless of the specific proposal. The community has more to gain from Cavalla being built as currently proposed than would be lost if the project were to be built to the lower King County density standards. The cormnunity would not challenge the use of TDRs at this time due to the amenities that the development proposes. They would like to request the following conditions; signs to be placed at the access points of the walk around the storm pond so that the public knows they are welcome, opening hours and rules of behavior should be included in that signage. It appears that half street improvements for 162nd and 164th are inadequate, half streets are only adequate for service of 35 dwellings or fewer, this plat is proposed at 39 and Liberty Gardens has been approved at 36 for a total of 85 units. It appears that full street improvements for 162,d and I 64th would be required. There appears to be no conceptual drainage plan for this development, King County requires a curb on one side for drainage and therefore, the City's stormwater and traffic division review the proposed plat and make sure the alley design meets the intent and purpose of both road standards and drainage standards. CARE hopes that the implementation of this project will be a powerful and effective example of the proper use of TDRs. The transfer process must be complete and correct. It was requested that Staff Condition I in the written Cavalla Preliminary Plat (Re-Opened) File No.: LUA-08-097, PP, ECF March 1,2010 Page 7 report to the Hearing Examiner be modified to require conformance with all necessary applicable portions of King County Code, specifically 2Ia.37.080, 2Ia.37.l30 and 21a.37.140. It is important that what is offered actually happens. Dave Petrie, 811 S 13 nl Court, Des Moines 98198 requested that the Hearing Examiner recommend to the Renton City Council that the Cavalla plat be revised and returned to the 38 lot configuration that was submitted under King County in January 2006. It would then be fully compliant with the R-4 Renton Comprehensive Plan. The increase in density would damage his property because of the lower cost and smaller lots, the greater reason was the effect on the neighborhood. Mr. Petrie read a statement regarding his involvement with the mR matter. He is a developer and was invited to a meeting with the planning commission regarding the use of mRs, he was the only developer that showed up for the meeting. He further related events that took place with the Evendale development. It appeared that the planning commission was against mRs and he fully supported them. The Examiner asked for an explanation of the impacts and why he believed this project was inappropriate. Mr. Petrie continued stating that he liked the landscaping however, the density is an issue, he wanted to see the development go back to the original 38 lots and stilI have all the amenities. Originally Renton wanted 1 64th as the major arterial, 162,d is the better route, but that had impacts on the environment. He proposed an underground vault and was criticized for that suggestion. Debi Eberle, 18225 SE 147th Street, Renton 98059 stated that she is the vice president of CARE and a Watershed Steward. She reported that the yellow flag iris is on the noxious weed list and should not be used in the landscape in this development. Native plants should be used whenever possible. The system needs trees that feed bugs and keep fish alive. The open space, wetland area and detention pond are good for the environment and they need to be kept open to the public. mRs require a delicate balance and there needs to be a balance and it needs to work correctly. Doris Yepez, 16444 SE 135 th Street, Renton 98059 stated that she lives near the development and she was concerned about the tree retention. There are two cedars that are 34" in diameter, they are older forest trees. There are also some Hemlocks that are very large as well located in the northwest comer. She does not want to see clear cutting it causes erosion when land is cleared this way. This would have the potential to pollute the Cedar River. She was not in favor of mRs and would like to see the plat go back to the original 38 lots. In the planting area that also is some bamboo and holly, she is not sure of the type of bamboo intended to be planted, the non-invasive type would be alright, but the invasive type spreads and is more difficult to get out than blackberries. They need to keep native plants in the pond area. Garv Norris, Transportation Engineer, PO Box 547, Preston stated that at the time previous traffic counts were conducted there was a lot of construction activity in the area and the construction activity was generating a lot more traffic that was anticipated from the single family developments. As the construction has calmed down, the traffic volumes have receded and the economic impact has had an impact on traffic as well. The intersections in the area can handle the additional lots of this particular project. Cavalla Preliminary Plat (Re-Opened) File No.: LUA-08-097, PP, ECF March 1,2010 Page 8 Kayren Kittrick, Community and Economic Development stated that the sewer On I 62 nd is open to be on either I 64th or 162nd it is gravity and engineering will determine which way it will go. The temporary turnaround is needed because of the distance, it mayor may. not go away the Issaquah School District has the available frontage that they could develop the whole road, they could do their half. They have been exploring the possibility of extra parking for the ball field. The easement should not be fmalized until just before the final plat because it needs to match what is actually built. The Examiner stated that a condition was needed to state that the temporary turnaround is being constructed with this project. Kayren Kittrick continued stating that the ERC stated the use of the 2005 Manual for the drainage issues. They cannot divert any water, all water coming onto the site must be accommodated, the 2005 Manual will go a long way in resolving some of the issues or at least will not make them worse. Most of the drainage issues are on the southerly side of the property because there is a stream in that vicinity, there is some flooding on 160 th as well some backing across property lines in the vicinity. It is well documented where the problems are and that will be watched very closely. To the east and south is a Park's Department property, King County Parks will be handing that property over to the City of Renton. The City Park's Department will be going through its usual outreach process to develop the area. To clarifY, both I 64th and I 62nd are not designated as arterials, at most they are residential collectors by their character, there is no direct access off of them very often, they are access through the residential properties. As such a half street improvement is allowed, this is actually more than a half street, it is 22 feet of pavement in their frontages and all points of connection must be a minimum of 20 feet. A 10 minute recess was taken ... returned to the record at 10:53 am Wayne Potter stated that he was going to try to bring some clarity to some of the outstanding issues. With respect to the e-mail provided by Gwendolyn with recommendations he stated they have no problems if Staff wants to include the improvements that are part of the TDRs as conditions with the caveat that ifthe TDRs are not approved, those particular improvements would not be applicable. The Examiner questioned if the TDRs were discretionary at this time or if the agreement is executed is it a fait accompli. Mr. Halinen stated that it is a fait accompli. Mr. Potter continued that they agreed that there would be public access to the path amenities. The half street issues Were addressed by Ms. Kittrick, however, On Sheet 5 there is a cross section of 162"d Ave, King County requested that 30-feet of asphalt be provided from face of curb to the asphalt. There are many ways to design the alley, they are open to the standard King County requirement. The onsite and off-site drainage issues have been analyzed extensively. A Level I drainage analysis that was prepared and submitted was reviewed by King County at the time, they requested a Level 3 analysis. Ed McCarthy was hired to prepare that analysis, in the end they agreed to provide Level 3 drainage control and sized the pond accordingly. Cavalla Preliminary Plat (Re-Opened) File No.: LUA-08-097, PP, ECF March 1, 2010 Page 9 The temporary turnaround, the intent is to provide a temporary easement that would stay on the adjacent property, or the option of splitting the easement on both sides of the right-of-way or providing the easement on the entire project of Cavalla. There are options, Issaquah School District has many design options and they would be willing to work with Staff to ultimately come up with the best solution. The preference would be to flip the temporary turnaround onto the School property, in initial conversations with them, they were okay with that. They would be willing to work with CARE to provide native plants in the landscaping. They would also look at the large cedars and Hemlocks, they will look at options again. Cedar trees are very sensitive and when removing other trees around them it could be problematic. Ms. Timmons read her new Condition I to the Staff Report: "The applicant shall perform all steps and complete all documentation necessary as required by King County Code Section 21A.37 and the City of Renton in order to process the transfer of development rights properly for this subject plat only the certificate or other valid legal document(s) must show the applicant or successor as the lawful owner of the development rights. Alternatively, the plat design shall be reconfigured to reflect the density allowable under the R-4 Zone without the TOR bonus." The Examiner stated that there is no plat without the TORs. Reverting back to a 38-10t plat leaves some concerns and questions. David Halinen stated that he had reviewed the new Condition I with his client and it is acceptable as drafted. Regarding the point that without the TORs there is no plat and this would revert back to a 38-10t plat, the last sentence could be slightly modified to provide some sort of remand for further processing if in fact, the TOR approach is not ultimately utilized. Gwendolyn High mentioned three subsections ofKC 21A.37 the last two were .130 and .140 which deal with TORs are acquired from the County's bank. These TORs are being acqUired from specific property owners not from the Bank. Mr. Halinen read from subsection b of KC 21 regarding TOR development rights. Ms. Timmons stated that the front yard porches that were proposed by the applicant to encroach into the front yard setback would be approved by Staff as long as it does not encroach into the required setback of 10 feet for the front yards and then because of the front yards that front on the street, they are asking that the front porches do not exceed more than a 15 foot front yard setback. A detailed landscape plan has not been approved and that a final landscape plan will have to be approved prior to the recording of the plat. They will look specifically at noxious plants as well as the overall landscape plan. It is obvious that the City has not implemented a TOR program and that it is a very controversial topic. The project is vested to King County R-4 standards, it does have a base density of 4 dulac and does allow the density to go up to 6 dulac. The applicant is only proposing 5.2ldulac. It is understood that there are several concerns, they are allowed to exceed the base density of the zone. Cavalla Preliminary Plat (Re-Opened) File No.: LUA-08-097, PP, ECF March 1,2010 Page 10 Doris Yepez stated that Mr. Potter said that leaving some single Cedars would make them susceptible to the wind, but she would like them to look at the cluster of Cedars on the southeast corner, if those could be retained it would be good. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 11: 16 a.m. The/ollowing minutes are a summary a/the February 9,2010 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing was re-opened on Tuesday, February 9, 2010, at 9:01 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. Rocale Timmons stated that the site is located in northeast Renton, just north of SE 144"' Street between unimproved 162nd Avenue SE and 164"' Avenue SE. The site is 9.4 acres and includes an existing single-family residence that would be removed. The proposal is for 49 single family lots with a density of 5.21 dwelling units per acre. Lot sizes range from 4,300 square feet to 6,000 square feet and access to the site would be via 162,d Avenue SE and 164"' Avenue SE with an internal road system that connects those two external streets. There would also be an alleyway that separates the interior tier oflots (Lots 31-49). There are 429 trees on the lot, all of which have been marked to be removed. By way of Transfer of Development Rights through the use of vesting to King County Code, the applicant is proposing an additional 11 lots. An explanation of how Transfer of Development Rights may be used. The Staff did recommend the approval of the proposed plat with 11 conditions; however, since that time Staff did learn of improper notice and additional comments were requested by all property owners within 300 feet of the proposed project. Staff has met with several of the interested parties. Concerns raised by property owners to the north were not addressed at the original hearing. Therefore, Staff has submitted a letter with an additional finding and two additional conditions related to buffering of the site to the north as well as findings related to the TDR. Currently there is a single family development to the north, with the removal of the trees on site there could be impacts to the residents to the north, therefore Staff is recommending additional fencing and vegetation along the northern property line. The increase in lots and density was also of concern to the existing residents. Staff does recognize this concern, however, the use of Transfer of Development Rights can only be accomplished as a result of the project being vested in King County and if the preliminary plat approval had not been completed. The use of TDR' s cannot be used by other projects that are not in a comparable situation in order to justify the increase in density. The Examiner asked to have an explanation as to how the project was designed, the lots around the perimeter were designed as larger lots to be more similar to the existing developments and the interior parcels that are buffered by the perimeter lots, and they would be smaller lots with an alley access. Cavalla Preliminary Plat (Re-Opened) File No.: LUA-08-097, PP, ECF March 1, 2010 Page 11 Ms. Timmons stated that the proposal had exceeded several development standards required by King County Code, specifically all of the larger lots are located on the exterior of the site in order to provide a better transition to the surrounding neighborhood. The interior lots are smaller in size, with an average lot size of 4,300 square feet. In addition the ajplicant has proposed an enhanced layout and circulation system which includes a connection from 162 n Avenue SE to 164 th Avenue SE as well as an alleyway for the interior lots. This helps the pedestrian circulation. In addition, the applicant has proposed enhanced landscaping along 162nd and 164th in an approximate 20' width. The applicant has proposed a very interesting detention area which includes several elements, landscaping, pedestrian amenities, soft gravel pedestrian pathway and all existing vegetation would be relocated to the pond area or to the I 64 th entrance as a decorative feature. The Examiner stated that under King County Standards, the applicant is entitled to use the TDR. There is no judgment of whether it is a good idea or not, whether the parcels that are transferring the development rights, which are probably more rural to protect farm land or other critical features, it is just that the applicant is entitled to do it as long as they appropriately purchase the rights or negotiate for those rights with another property owner. That other property would then be protected from increased density and this project would take additional density. Ms. Timmons clarified that the applicant did apply in 2006 prior to annexation which happened in 2008, that is why the applicant is vested to King County Code, which does allow the use of Transfer of Development Rights. David Halinen, 1019 Regents Blvd, Ste. 202, Fircrest, WA 98466 stated that he and the applicant have had a chance to review the various letters submitted as part of the Reconsideration including letters from Mr. Petrie and the Oliphants. Where the arguments in those letters go wrong is presuming a state of affairs contrary to Washington's vested rights doctrine. The Examiner has ruled that the project is vested. A three-page memorandum was submitted as Exhibit 16. It appears that the concerns of the neighbors would include having the site's zoning considerations reopened by the Examiner or the City Council and have the City of Renton's zoning apply. That is not the way Washington law works. The County rules apply and the TDR program applies and so the arguments of the neighbors cannot be considered by the Examiner or the City Council. The applicant does accept the new conditions noted today. The Examiner expJained the concept of vesting. In this instance, there are two jurisdictions involved, the City of Renton and King County. This property was located in King County before annexation. The applicant came in under King County rules and applied for the project in 2006. They started the process while under King County rules, during that course, this property was annexed into the City of Renton. Under State law which the Courts of Washington have defined, the property is vested under King County Rules. They are entitled to develop under King County rules. As long as the plat appears to serve the public use and interest, it provides roads, sidewalks, stormwater detention and it looks like an appropriate project for the area. This project is entitled to the Transfer Development Rights and that cannot be changed. Cavalla Preliminary Plat (Re-Opened) File No.: LUA-08-097, PP, ECF March 1,2010 Page 12 Wavne Potter, Barghausen Consulting Engineer, 17525 120 tb Ave SE, Kent, WA 98032 stated that at the last hearing the project was discussed in great detail. Staff did indicate that they have increased the design standards and the creativity of this project in an effort to help soften the fact that the project is being increased by 1 I lots due to the TDR The applicant wants to make sure that they try to meet, where they can, the City of Renton requirements like rolled curb versus vertical curb and other things like that. They have agreed to the planting of more trees along the northern property line. King County does allow the removal of trees through their grading and clearing permit. There is a replacement ratio that is required. The landscape plan shows those ratios and how they have met and exceeded those requirements. Wendy Goodman, 16227 SE 137tb Place, Renton 98059 stated that she appreciated the additional buffering along the northern boundary and the fact that the fence would be erected prior to construction. She was concerned about the Liberty High School ball field and access to that. There seems to be a huge impact with parking especially during the baseball season. She believed that a new parking lot for the high school ball fields was somewhere in the plans. Ms. Tinunons stated that this issue was discussed in the original hearing, the applicant has proposed both pedestrian and vehicular access to the ball fields. On the eastern portion of the site there is a roadway, SE 164tb Street with a cul-de-sac at the northeast comer that would provide vehicular access to the ball field as well as parking. There is also pedestrian access that is provided from I 62nd over to 164 tb as well as all the way up the eastern property line. Anita Oliphant, 16519 SE 14S tb Street, Renton 98059 stated that she was disappointed with the City of Renton's Planning and Development Department. It appears that someone is trying to pull a fast one on those who live on the east plateau. It is disappointing learning that they only have to notifY people within 300 feet of a development of any changes, especially when there are plans to change the R-4 zoning to a higher density using TDR credits. She further felt that this area did not need to be using TDR credits. Renton City Council adopted an R-4 zoning for the entire plateau. Changing that zoning should require applying to City Council in order to make a change and every resident in the P AA must be notified. Cavalla knew three years ago when they applied for this development that this was an R-4 zone, now they come back with a revised plat using TDR credit. Their first design was unacceptable. This needs to be presented to the City Council of Renton before any considered usage ofTDR's is acknowledged and every resident on the plateau must be notified of any City Council meeting, including to change the R-4 zone. The entire statement read by Mrs. Oliphant was submitted and entered as Exhibit 16. David Petrie, 811 S 273'" Court, Des Moines, WA 98198 thanked the Examiner for stating why it is very hard to make a decision and much research goes into the process. The Examiner stated that there is a code that allows certain things, people do not always like what it allows. Opinions may be expressed, but within parameters of what is compatible and appropriate within the zone. The City is bound by the applicants submission of this application prior to annexation. They applied for a plat and certain rights under King County law in 2006 and they are entitled to use those rules at this public hearing and before the City Council. Cavalla Preliminary Plat (Re-Opened) File No.: LUA-08-097, PP, ECF March 1,2010 Page 13 The Examiner asked that Mr. Petrie address the impact of the 11 additional lots, the impact of additional traffic on the neighborhood, and the impact of more people in the neighborhood. Mr. Petrie continued stating that he has been working on Liberty Gardens for 10 years and he has had three engineers and two wetlands people. There are some things that have happened that this group does not know about and they relate to this issue. There is a common problem in that 162nd versus 164 tb , much money was spent working on this problem. Because of one resident on 162nd did not want to see the road come through, she was able to turn the whole thing around. No one would be here today if that had not have happened. The Examiner asked for an explanation as to how this would impact the Cavalla plat, there is a detention pond that meets code, they have appropriate access. Please explain what the problem is with the Cavalla plat. Does it increase stormwater on adjacent property? Are there not adequate roads east and west or north and south providing access to this property? Are the sidewalks complying with the code? Is the density with the permitted TDR under the vested rules allow this plat? Mr. Petrie stated that he had evidence that a court would certainly want to hear. He does not have the same rights because he has already been heard in Renton. He has talked to the land use people and he has the same rights, both of these plats came in under R-4 because Renton wanted it that way. It was a bartering for the trees and a huge increase in profits. He has a right to have that benefit as well. The Examiner stated that Mr. Petrie may exercise his rights in his own forum, but right now he would like Mr. Petrie to state what is right or what needs to be changed with this plat. The Liberty Gardens plat is not up for reconsideration at this hearing. If Mr. Petrie would like to resubmit the Liberty Gardens plat, he may do so. Mr. Petrie stated that they came in on the same basis that he did, he was vested 14 months prior to Cavalla. He should have the same rights to TDR's as they do. The Examiner stated that Mr. Petrie had every right to do whatever he wants to do. He can make an appointment with Staff, they will consider his application. The Examiner further stated that he had no authority to look at Mr. Petrie's plat. The Council approved his plat. Liberty Gardens is not the subject of this hearing today. Mr. Petrie recommended a sweeping review of both plats. Mrs. Oliphant stated that under the King County Comprehensive Use Plan from 2004, King County stated that any P AA areas inside Renton City limits or going to be, were to be developed under that City's standards and laws. Wayne Potter stated that this project is designed at 5.21 dwelling units per acre, the actual TDR would allow this to go up to the R-6 zone, but they have not. That would allow a total density of approximately 56 lots. They have elected to increase by only 11 lots. Regarding the testimony by Mrs. Oliphant regarding an unsightly development, there has been a lot of hard work and effort put into designing a first storm pond that is interactive from the standpoint of providing Cavalla Preliminary Plat (Re-Opened) File No.: LUA-OB-097, PP, ECF March 1,2010 Page 14 storrnwater quality treatment, detention along with passive and active recreation, access through the pond. This was to try to help offset some of the impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods. Chip Vincent. Planning Director, Community and Economic Development Department stated they were trying to create a higher quality development for the community, looking at what has been presented today versus what the project was vested for with fewer units in King County, this is a far superior design. There is both automobile as well as pedestrian connectivity between 162nd and 164"'. The project provides for trees and a canopy cover for the residential community. The stonnwater facility is not like any others seen in the neighborhood or the community. This will be an asset for the community. What guided the Department was the increase in quality and the character of the communities that are being created for the City of Renton. Rocale Timmons stated that if all the conditions that have been recommended by the Hearing Examiner and the additional conditions entered today are complied with Staff moves that the applicant has proposed a project that not only complies with the existing King County Development Standards but exceeds those and should therefore be approved. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 10:05 am. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION FOR RE-OPENED HEARING Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant, Kolin B. Taylor, filed a request for a Preliminary Plat. The plat utilizing Transfer of Development Rights (see below) would contain 49 single family detached lots. 2. After issuing a Recommendation to the City Council to approve the proposed plat subject to a series of conditions, it was discovered that nearby property owners entitled to notice of the public hearing on the project were not properly notified. At first, these persons were given an opportunity to request reconsideration but it became clear that this would result in a complicated or incomplete set of reconsideration requests and responses. Therefore, to address any submissions in unified manner the public hearing was reopened for public testimony. This would allow all parties to hear the testimony regarding the project and any responses to that testimony in an open forum. 3. At the re-opened hearing, staff reviewed the proposal. They suggested some changes to their original recommendations and those recommended by the Hearing Examiner to the City Council. These changes were based on conversations staff had with neighbors as well as the written submissions of concerned parties. The changes suggested were to create additional buffering along the north edge of the proposed plat with additional landscaping and fencing. The applicant agreed to those changes. 4. It is obvious that the City has not implemented a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program and that its use in this area is very controversial. The application for this plat was submitted while the property was still under the land use jurisdiction of King County that is prior to annexation to the City of Renton. Under development rules required by the Washington Court system the applicant is entitled Cavalla Preliminary Plat (Re-Opened) File No.: LUA-08-097, PP, ECF March 1,2010 Page 15 to develop the property under the rules and regulations in effect when the application was submitted - namely, under the rules of King County. Those rules pennit the use ofTDR's. TDR's permit a rural landowner to sell the rights to develop land in rural areas at an increased density to more urban areas. The transfer in effect allows the rural area to retain its rural character with less dense development while increasing the density in a more urban area where roads or sewer systems or other infrastructure are available to support the greater density. 5. ill this case the transferred development rights being used would allow eleven (11) additional single family homes to be developed on the subject site. 6. Staffs analysis of the additional submissions suggested that the following two conditions be added to the original conditions: The applicant shall be required to erect a 6-foot high wood-fence along the northern property line for the length of the property. The fence shall be constructed prior to the Final Plat recording. The applicant shall be required to plant conifer trees along the northern property line at appropriate spacing based on the vegetation proposed. All trees shall have a minimum height of 8-1 0 feet The trees shall be depicted on the detailed landscape plan required to be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to Final Plan approval. 7. Staffs analysis further found that the additional submissions or conversations on the TDR were not substantially different than the original issues and suggested no additional changes to its recommendations. Staff emphasized that it believed that the plat as proposed with the additional lots was a superior design when compared to the plat that would not have allowed the increased density. There is additional open space open to residents of the plat and the general public, additional perimeter landscaping, new access routes for traffic and a design that melds the exterior lot sizes to surrounding uses while enveloping the additional density manifested in smaller lots in the interior of the plat 8. The following findings generally are the same or similar to those found in the original report. 9. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit # 1. 10. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official issued a Detennination of Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M). 11. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 12. The subject site is located south ofSE 137th Place and east of 162nd Avenue SE and west of 164th Avenue SE. 13. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of lower density detached single family uses, but does not mandate such Cavalla Preliminary Plat (Re-Opened) File No.: LUA-08-097, PP, ECF March 1, 2010 Page 16 development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. 14. The subject site is currently zoned R-4 (Single Family - 4 dwelling units/acre). The subject site is vested under King County's zoning which is generally equivalent to Renton's designation but the staudards for lot area, yard setbacks or dimensions and development standards would be judged against King County standards in effect when the application was submitted. As discussed below, the density may be altered by the Transfer of Development Rights. 15. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 5398 enacted on August 11, 2008. 16. The subject site is approximately 9.4 acres. The site consists of two adjacent lots that abut in a north- south direction. The subject site is approximately 596 feet wide (east to west) by 656 feet deep. 17. The subject site slopes downward toward the southwest. The slopes range from approximately 2.5 percent to 12 percent and average about 10 percent. The northeast comer of the site is approximately 50 feet higher than tbe southwest comer. Grade and fill will be used to create level building pads and roadways. 18. The site contains 429 significant trees. The applicant proposes removing most, if not all of the trees to accommodate the grading that will occur. (see below for proposed new landscaping.) 19. In developing the subject site the applicant proposes using King County provisions that allow the Transfer of Development Rights. Those provisions allow trading or purchasing development rights attached to certain rural land and use of them in less rural or suburban or urban settings. Those rights, once transferred, reduce the potential density of the rural parcels and boost the permitted density of the receiving property. The R-4 Zone has a base density of 4 dwelling units per acre and the maximum is 6. Transfer of Development Rights (TOR) permits the maximum density of 6 units per acre. The number of lots permitted is attained by multiplying the acres, 9.4, by base density of 4, yielding a total of37.6, or 38 lots. The applicant has proposed a TOR of II lots for a total of 49 lots. This creates a deusity of 5.21 which is less than the maximum density of 6 units per acre. 20. Staff noted that there are no qualitative criteria to allow TOR operation. If the transfer contract is fmalized appropriately, then the transfer may take effect. Staff reports that the community around the project expressed opposition to increasing the density on this parcel and the applicant agreed to mitigate some of the potential impacts of increased density by exceeding the minimum standards of the King County Code. The applicant proposed increasing landscaping and passive recreational opportunities, and enhanced plat design and street design. The proposal will include an enhanced detention pond area with pathways open to the general public. 21. As noted, the applicant proposes creating a 49-lot plat with one large detention tract, Tract A. Proposed Lots 1 to 10 will run along the north boundary of the subject site. Proposed Lots II to 17 will run along the eastern boundary of the subject site. Proposed Lots 18 to 22 and Tract A would lie along the southern boundary of the site. There would be three tiers of lots in the center of the site aligned east to west. Two tiers, Lots 31 to 40 as the southern tier and 41 to 49 as the northern tier, forming a block in north central portion of the subject site. The third tier generally located north of the detention Tract A Cavalla Preliminary Plat (Re-Opened) File No.: LUA-08-097, PP, ECF March 1,2010 Page 17 would contain Lots 23 to 30. 22. King County Code has no minimum lot size or depth requirements but does require a minimum 30 foot lot width. The code requires a 10 foot setback for the primary structure and 20 feet for attached garages or parking areas. Other than the front yard setback, all other yards, including rear yards are required to be a minimum of 5 feet. The lots would range in size from approximately 4,040 square feet to 7,803 square feet. The plat has been designed with larger lots along the perimeter of the site to more or less mirror the larger lots normally found in the R-4 Zone. Smaller lots would be located on the interior of the plat in the new block created by the two tiers of lots with alley. The applicant proposes enlarging yards to 20 feet for the homes and 25 feet for the garages for the perimeter lots and 15 feet for the interior alley-loaded lots as an offset to the greater density. The applicant also proposed larger rear yards for the interior parcels. Building height is limited to 35 feet. 23. Staff made the following recommendations to provide a more consistent streetscape: "that the plat plan be revised to depict the following: one-half of the interior lots (Lots 31-49) provide a I O-foot front yard setback in addition to the sidewalk and landscaping provided in the right-of way and the other one-half of the interior lots provide a 15-foot front yard setback. Additionally, one-half of the exterior lots (Lots 1-30) provide a 20- foot front yard setback for the primary structure and the other one-half of the exterior lots provide a 25-foot front yard setback for the primary structure. Garages are to be setback an additional 5 feet for all front/street loaded lots. " Staff suggested that the applicant provide at least 8 foot rear yards to accommodate backout room but that the larger rear yards proposed by the applicant were unnecessary. There are no code limitations on larger yards. 24. Access to the subject site would be via 162nd Avenue along the west and I 64th Avenue along the east. Both of those streets will be improved with half-street improvements and conveyed to the public with dedications. Both streets are considered residential collectors and are not subject to arterial street standards. Two west to east roads would enter the plat from 162nd Avenue and intersect with a new north to south road that swings east to 164th. An alley would run west to east in the middle of the new block to the rear of Proposed Lots 31 to 49. 164th Avenue would end in a turnaround at its northern terminus. The proposed turnaround would be located on 3rd party property owned by Liberty High School -Issaquah School District. A tentative agreement has been negotiated since the improved street and turnaround would accommodate traffic at the school. If the agreement were not executed, the turnaround would have to be accommodated on the subject site. Staff recommended that no access be allowed directly to 162nd or 164th. An agreement between property owners was intended to improve circulation along 162nd and I 64th but the agreement has been abandoned. It appears that the applicant proposes upgrading 164th to the turnaround and providing through access across its plat with its new east-west streets. 25. The applicant will be using Renton standards for street improvements including vertical curbs, an 8-foot planter strip and on-street parking. Staff has recommended that the applicant pay a Traffic Impact Fee (King County) or Mitigation Fee (Renton) of$75.00 per net new trip which equates to $35,169.75 (9.57 trips/home x 49 homes). Cavalla Preliminary Plat (Re-Opened) File No.: LUA-08-097, PP, ECF March 1,2010 Page 18 26. King County Code (as noted above, the applicant is vested to and bound by King County Code) requires one tree for every 40 feet of street frontage along all public streets. The applicant proposes complying with those requirements as well as providing visual barriers using IO-foot landscape easements parallel to 1 62nd and I 64th Ave SE. The applicant proposes planting 193 replacement trees along the roads and yards. This barrier would also contain a "good neighbor fence" that is modulated along 1 64th Ave SE. The applicant also proposed an 8-foot landscape strip along the perimeter of the tiered lots in the middle of the site. The applicant proposes a meandering sidewalk along both boundary streets. Staff suggested smaller street trees be blended with the larger trees. Staff noted that the applicant's landscaping proposal exceeds the standards required by King County. The applicant proposes relocating some of the larger ornamentals and may be able to protect other large trees where possible. As part of the Staff's recommendations a fence and additional landscaping would be installed along the north property line. 27. Code requires 390 square feet of recreation space for each home in this plat or 19, I 10 square feet for the entire plat. The detention tract will contain approximately 38,400 square feet or double the required amount. As noted this area will be open to the general public. 28. The subject site is located within the Issaquah School District. Developments within that school district are required to pay an impact fee on a per lot basis. The fee is assessable at the time of building permit approval and is $6,021.00 periot. 29. The development will increase traffic approximately 10 trips per unit or approximately 490 trips for the 49 single family homes. Approximately ten percent of the trips, or approximately 49 additional peak hour trips will be generated in the morning and evening. A recent traffic analysis shows traffic in the area has decreased and that the Levels of Service (LOS) for five critical intersections have improved and accidents numbers decreased. Some of the decrease might be due to the current economy but some may be a general reduction. 30. The TDR will enable eleven (11) additional dwellings. The 11 homes would generate approximately 105 additional trips per day or approximately 10 additional trips during the rush or peak hours. The additional trips generated by the TDR should not unduly affect the traffic in the area given the decrease in background traffic counts. 31. Stormwater will be channeled to the natural low spot, the southwest comer of the site where it will be retained in an enhanced detention pond and open space tract, Tract A. An analysis shows that there are downstream problems and the City imposed restrictions and containment based on the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual for flow and quality. The applicant will be required to comply with that manual's landscaping requirements. 32. Sewer service will be provided in 1 62nd Avenue and/or 1 64th whichever is more appropriate. 33. Water District #90 provides water service to this area. The water service will have to meet City of Renton standards for flow and rrre protection. Appropriate permits from both agencies will be required. 34. There are some neighbors who are opposed to increasing the density of the subject site. The reasons expressed where that the smaller lots proposed are not compatible with the community, the increased Cavalla Preliminary Plat (Re-Opened) File No.: LVA-08-097, PP, ECF March 1, 2010 Page 19 housing generates a larger population and additional vehicle trips and the increased density makes it less likely to preserve natural features and/or trees. There was also concern about some of the selected landscaping materials. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The proposed plat with its increased density possible with an appropriately executed TDR appears to serve the public use and interest This is not to say that any increase in density in an area slated for lower density single family uses is appropriate even when the result is protected farm land or critical areas. While this office is not entirely convinced it is appropriate to shift density to an area wned for lower density detached single family housing, the result in this case does not cause an egregious density increase and has been well-integrated into the lower density community hy embedding the smaller lots in a surrounding envelope of larger conforming lots. In addition to the layout and aligmnent of the proposed lots, the applicant has increased the perimeter landscaping thereby buffering the surrounding uses from the increased density. The applicant will now also be increasing the landscaping and buffering along the north edge of the proposed plat better screening the northerly neighbors. The applicant will also be providing open space in its enhanced treatment of the stormwater detention system and this public space will be available to the general puhlic as well as residents of the plat. 2. The development of the plat with or without the increased density will obviously change the complexion of the area. There will be more comings and goings and more people. Wooded open space will be converted to housing and manicured landscaping. These changes were anticipated by both the Comprehensive Plans and the Zoning both under King County and the City. Adjoining or nearby property has already been approved for increased development. While the density increase of the proposal will generate additional traffic, the 11 new homes will only nominally increase traffic during peak hours, the most pressing time for traffic. The 11 homes will add approximately 10 additional trips to area roads and those trips will spread out in various directions from the project. In addition, the applicant will be improving area roads and connecting roads that were substandard. The applicant will be improving access to Liberty High School's facilities and providing a second method of ingress and egress. 3. Clearly, the increased density may only be permitted if the appropriate agreements or contracts are executed and the preservation tradeoff comes to fruition. Staff recommended that the plat be subject to such fmal execution. Clearly, the proposed plat can only go forward as proposed. If the TDR is not finalized, this plat would have to fail since no one has had an opportunity to review a layout with eleven fewer lots. The entire plat would have to be redesigned. 4. The development of the proposed plat will increase the tax base of the City. The applicant will be paying some mitigation or impact fees but the increased taxes will also offset the impacts of this development on the City and its services. 5. The enhanced design of this plat is creative. It envelops smaller lots inside a wrapper of larger lots that appear to be compatible with the larger lots in surrounding plats. The applicant has increased the perimeter landscaping and enhanced landscaping and proposed larger yards to provide a more spacious presentation. The detention tract will serve a dual purpose by providing for stormwater control while also providing open space for both residents and the community. Clearly, there is no way that Cavalla Preliminary Plat (Re-Opened) File No.: LUA-OB-097, PP, ECF March 1,2010 Page 20 introduced landscaping supplemented as it is, will replace the natural environment now found on the subject site. One aspect of developing property that cannot be avoided is that homes and driveways and access roads require the removal of existing vegetation and in some cases the reconfiguring of the natural contours of property. Again, such consequences were indirectly forecasted by the goals and objectives found in Comprehensive Plans and Zoning Code that allow housing and encourage housing and density in growing urban and suburban areas. This plat appears to provide a reasonable compromIse. 6. Staff had suggested changes to some of the proposed yards. Since there is no limitation on larger yards, the applicant is free to work within building envelopes that meet the minimum standards and may provide larger yards. The applicant may not provide smaller setbacks than code permits and any porches, overhangs, bays or eaves must meet code provisions. 7. Staff suggested smaller street trees be blended with the larger trees along the streets. Tbis would provide more visual depth and variety to the wider parking strips and should be accomplisbed. 8. The applicant should attempt to preserve some of the larger specimen trees where possible. All introduced landscaping should comply with standards for noxious weeds. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should approve the 49-10t plat subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall perform all steps and complete all documentation necessary, as required by King County Code section 2IA.37, and the City of Renton, in order to process the Transfer of Development Right's properly for this subject plat only. The certificate or other valid legal document(s) must show the applicant or successor as the lawful owner of the development rights. If the agreement is not appropriately executed and finalized the plat shall be null and void and a new application meeting code and density requirement would be necessary. 2. The applicant shall obtain a demolition permit and all required inspections be completed for the removal of the existing residence prior to the recording of the plat. 3. Supplemental materials including a revised plat plan, a letter outlining all recommended setbacks and a draft of the CC & R's for the Homeowners' Association, with an inclusion of the setback requirements of the plat; shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to the recording of the plat. 4. The applicant shall replace the small street trees along the perimeter of the interior lots with a larger variety of street tree. The applicant shall use smaller street trees, in addition to the larger single tree, along the perimeter of the exterior lots. 5. The applicant shall be required to provide a detailed tree retention plan with the engineering review application. The tree retention plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Cavalla Preliminary Plat (Re-Opened) File No.: LUA-08-097, PP, ECF March 1,2010 Page 21 Planning Project Manager prior to engineering permit approval. The applicant shall attempt to preserve some of the larger specimen trees where possible. All introduced landscaping shall comply with standards for noxious weeds. 6. The applicant and Homeowners Association shall allow for public use of the walking path (providing a pedestrian connection from 162nd Ave SE and I 64th Ave SE) and other recreation features within the storm pond (Tract A). Language to this effect shall be placed on the face of the plat and included in the Codes, Covenants & Restrictions (CC&R's). 7. Access for Lots 31-49 shall be limited to the proposed alley only. There shall be no direct access to either I 62nd Avenue or 164th Avenue from any lot in the plat. 8. The applicant shall pay a Transportation Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per net new average daily trip attributed to the project. 49 lots are expected to generate approximately 9.57 new average weekday trips per each lot. The fee for the proposed plat is estimated at $35,169.75 ($75.00 x 9.57 trips x 49 lots = $35,169.75) and is payable to the City prior to the recording of the fmal plat. 9. The applicant shall establish a homeowners' association for the deVelopment, which would be responsible for any cornmon improvements and/or tracts within the plat prior to fmal plat approval. 10. A note shall be placed on the face of the plat stating that the Homeowners' Association will maintain all landscaping and amenities within the proposed storm pond from the fence outwards and the City will maintain the storm pond from the fence inward. II. The applicant shall create a turnaround at the north terminus of I 64th Avenue. The terminus may be located on the adjacent school district property or be located on Proposed Lots 10 and II or portions thereof and those two lots may be combined if necessary to create an appropriate turnaround and setbacks for a home on the lot or lots. 12. The applicant shall be required to erect a 6-foot high wood-fence along the northern property line for the length of the property. The fence shall be constructed prior to the Final Plat recording. 13. The applicant shall be required to plant conifer trees along the northern property line at appropriate spacing based on the vegetation proposed. All trees shall have a minimum height of 8-10 feet. The trees shall be depicted on the detailed landscape plan required to be submitted to and approved by the Current Plarming Project Cavalla Preliminary Plat (Re-Opened) File No.: LUA-08-097, PP, ECF March 1, 2010 Page 22 Manager prior to Final Plan approval. ORDERED TIllS I" day of March 2010. TRANSMITTED TillS 1" day of March 20 I 0 to the parties of record: Rocale Timmons Kayren Kittrick Development Services Development Services Renton, W A 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Kolin B.Taylor Gwendolyn High KBSmLLC 155 Yakima Avenue 12320 NE 8th Street, Ste. 100 Renton, WA 98059 Bellevue, W A 98005 Gary Norris Doris Yepez Transportation Engineer 16444 SE 135 th Street POBox 547 Renton, WA 98059 Preston, WA David Halinen Hans Korve 1019 Regents Blvd, Ste. 202 DMP Eng., Inc. Fircrest, W A 98466 726 Auburn WayN Auburn, WA 98002 Coldwell Banker Bain Steve Crawford 150 Bellevue Way SE Issaquah School District Bellevue, W A 98004 565 NW Holly Street Issaquah, WA 98027 Helen Grover 16203 SE 13 7th Place Shirley Day Renton, WA 98059 14412 167th Place SE Renton, W A 98059 Anita & Richard Oliphant 16591 SE 145 th Street Renton, W A 9859 TRANSMITTED TillS I" day of March 2010 to the following: Mayor Denis Law Dave Pargas, Fire Wayne Potter Barghausen Consulting Engineer 18215_72nd Avenue S Kent; WA 98032 Dave Petrie 811 S 73,d Court Des Moines, WA 98189 Debbie Eberle 18225 SE 147th Street Renton, WA 98059 Keith & Ann Miya 5515 N E 1" Circle Renton, WA 98059 Claudia Donnelly 10415 147 th Ave SE Bellevue, W A 98005 Richard Parhanierni 16409 SE 143'd P lace Renton, W A 98059 Wendy Goodman 16227 SE 13 7th Place Renton, W A 98059 Cavalla Preliminary Plat (Re-Opened) File No.: LUA-08-097, PP, ECF March 1, 2010 Page 23 Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services Marty Wine, Assistant CAO Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transportation Division Utilities Division Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services Renton Reporter Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section IOOGof the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., March 15,2010. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or 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 a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $250.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., Marcb 15,2010. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains tbe requirement for Restrictive Covenants, tbe executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing ofthe fIle. You may contact this office for information on formatting coveuants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. Project Location: Southeast of 162 0d Ave SE and SE 137th PI Site Area: 9.40 acres Project Location Map Cavallo HEX Repart.doc ,-, ~"-'. 'y ~-~ \ \/ E7 -11 T23N R5E E 112 i~_, I r ----r------1 I ' :--""'-------.--.:..--, _ -J __ :---- '·-·-----··--+---~-l . ;; : ;-"-----:-:-\-j'-~"'--'-" ---,--,-,-,._,,_, _, '-1-.'_/ ,:-,:':-F :,,! ' '--. : -" -, " !-_._-_------::_,---- , , i---' "---_____ .....l L. ___ ....! : ; ,---- l"-.~~ _____ --, ,.------. ----; -r'·,..---\ I , ! ',! --~-'--'---'----.. ~,-~:_~~~~f.-,-/'1 .-.--:: ,-~,~'--, ~~~,~~-,- _,_ ,,_' __ ' __ .1 SE 143rd st ------,- EXHIBIT 2 ZONING pWTECHNlCALSERVICES ;7 -23 T23N R5E E 112 a o 200 400 ~~""W~~I F,et '--'I ~~ --j '~-,~-' i r-. w ," 'l " i;---"-}~, - .-"-! ,-~ f--' / r··J·~'=~,'-' -, ---- ---i--r------ ,-----.....' __ -; ,--i : ~~r~~~m--j. -; \!===-_ }--,-_J- ~ ,", fHi<"""",ILL ; C._, ~~==-..:.--::-_ ,--=~ -:-' ~:. l __ f F7 14 T23N R5E E 112 N t --_ ........ -.. """ ....... aa--=> ................. ... _Go-..: __ ....... __ _ ~ ! SOCle6" VM :rvaT133 00-"3.lS '.LB:llS H.tI :rn ~ "dD:) l.l'BtUJ13A3:J SID( • ; I I,~ , ~ill p 11ft I ~~~?;1I!i1~;,~c'-t~'01;:i* 0:8;/ ~II l!, ill ./ M I- M to M ::J: >< w f . s: '! S ~~----, ,/ ' .. ~ \ \ v j j ~/"-'v"" -:::/ Ii"'''''; L.., .... -?Nr74 .. .J...,.""c;..c)N""~ "~-.~-.-.. --.-------------------- ~ l- I-ex I- ::I )I LL Renton City Limits Parcels l3;l Renton Aerial f"""3 , 500 0 SCALE 1 : 5,674 500 FEET Renton N A ! 1,000 1,500 EXHIBIT 6 April 6 , 2010 Anne Nielson, Assistant City Attorney (2) 1055 So . Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 RE: Cavalla Plat Appeal, LUA 08-097-PP, ECF -Motion Dear Ms , Nielson: CITY OF RENTON APR 0 6 20 10 RECE IVED CITY CLERK'S OF FI CE The subject Appeal deals with the TDR/Density issue as it affects both the Cavaffa and Uberty Gardens plats. By this letter, I am proffering a Motion to conduct an adjunctive 30-day feasibility study in which new information that affects both plats is processed . Any revisions of either plat, resulting from the Councils decision on the Appeal , would be subsequently made , A feature of this Motion is that both plats would be placed in a state of abeyance , pending results of the study: Each plat would benefit significantly by positive results; and the aforementioned density issue is an interrelated factor . Dave Petrie OwnerlDeveloper, Liberty Gardens plat , Appellant Attached : PROPOSAL TO END FLOODING IN THE 160 nd _16ih AVENUE CORRIDOR; AND JOINT-USE PARKING LOT-Affecting both Liberty Gardens and Cavalla Plats, enclosed in Letter to Mayor Law, March 24 , 2010 CC : Dave Halinen , Attorney for Applicant 1019 Regents Blvd , Suite 202 Fircrest, Washington 98466-6037 Hans Korve, DMP INC 726 Auburn Way North Aunburn, WA 98002 Bonnie Walton, Renton City Clerk / 1055 S . Grady Way Renton WA, 98057 PROPOSAL TO END FLOODING IN THE 160 th -162nd AVENUE CORRIDOR; AND JOINT-USE PARKING LOT Affecting Liberty Gardens and Cavalla Plats Prepared by David Petrie 23 March 2010 Denis Law, Mayor, City of Renton 1055 So. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 23 March 2010 RE : Proposal to End Flooding in the 162"d_164th Avenue Corridor; and Joint Use Parking Lot Dear Mr. Law : The subject plats -adjacent within the subject corridor-Liberty Garden s (LUA-08-093 , PP , ECF) and Cavalla (LUA-08-097 , PP , ECF) may soon be before the Council for approval/modification . Examiner Kaufman 's recommendation for approval of Liberty Gardens (11-months out-of-date , subject to major revision) was dated April 28 , 2009 ; Cavalla has been through Reconsideration (March 1). Recommendation for approval of Cavalla was dated November 3 , 2010. A Reconsideration Hearing for Cava lla was held February 9 , based on Failure to Notify neighbors , and use of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR's) to increase density , the latter non-compliant with the Renton R-4 Zoning Code . Both plats are seriously flawed for two interrelated reasons : 1) Changing the southerly Secondary Access from 162 "d Ave to 1641h Avenue , the former developed under KC DDES , w ithout addressing flooding ; and 2) Impractical accommodation of the parking lot needs of the adjacent Liberty HS sports fields . By this letter, I am recommending a 30-day study be conducted by the Public Works Department, in support of the Planning Group. Gregg Zimmerman is familiar with the severe flooding created by the illegal diversion (1975) by Naber, 100% of the storm-water from the 1601• Ave ROW now conveyed to the 162"0 Ave ROW, adding undue costs to perfect the ideal location (162"d Ave) of Southern access to the corridor. The funds would be better spent fi xi ng the problem at its source . Prior to the Liberty Anne xation (August 11 , 2008), which included the aforementioned plats , I have spent over $100K over ten years while under King County's DOES , employing three engineers , three wetlands consultants, and a hydraulic specialist to determine the drainage requ irements and best location of Secondary access to the two subject plats. Subsequent to the Liberty Annexa tion , Planning Services yielded to the wishes of Patti Gammell , who didn 't want the new road (162 "d Avenue) proposed by DOES , passing before her kitchen window. This is discussed in detail in Attachment A. . The needs of a parking lot for parents attending Libert y HS sporting events is a separate , but related , issue . This is d i scussed in detail in Attachment B. As a professional engineer formerly with Boeing , I have spent a great deal of time and effort to help solve the above-mentioned stand-alone problems , but related to the aforementioned plats. I have over 300- pictures and relevant data collected over this time to aid in achieving a solution to the drainage and parking lot issues . We came very close to a satisfactory solution to the Secondary Access problem under DOES , described in Attachment A . I hereby offer my services to aid in resolving these issues . Attachments A and B contain solutions to both problems , resulting in an end to the flood ing problem that has plagued residents along the current drainage flow path for 30 years , and answering the parking lot needs of Lib erty HS. The Good News is that Renton now has control of solutions to both problems . David Petrie-Owner/Developer of Liberty Gardens 811 So . 273"' Ct. Des Moines WA 98198 253-946-6619 Attachment A -162 "d Avenue Secondary Access CC : Terri Briere (City Council-4) Attachment B-Joint Use Parking Lot for Maplewood H e ight s Park and Liberty HS ATTACHMENT A 162"0 Avenue Secondary Access Summary -The flooding problems resulting from the illegal diversion (1975) of all storm water along 160" Avenue at 140111 Street, to the 162"0 Avenue ROW can be eliminated by completing a section of the culvert system along 160'h Avenue. (Exhibit 4) Since the Liberty Annexation (August 11,2008), Renton now has full authority to correct this problem. The preferred Secondary Access to the plats now proposed within the 162"0 to 164'" Ave corridor is simplified by utilizing the presently inert culvert system . During the preliminary plat studies under (DOES , 2000-2008) of the Liberty Gardens Plat , KC and Renton required ex1ension of 162"" Ave (recorded on plans dated 1908) as the secondary access. DOES (improperly) classified the storm-water-emanating from the ditches along 160th Ave within the ROW-as a Sensitive Area (SA) Stream. In 2004, a local neighbor (Gragg) told Petrie that the flooding they have experienced for over 20 years started shortly after the storm water from 160111 Ave was diverted by Leroy Neighbor (1975), as a means to end flooding his lawn during rainstorms . I visited Nabers widow (Henrietta): She remembered her husband digging a trench (Exhibit 1) across the street fronting their property , using a backhoe from his septic tank business . Henrietta had no idea of the damage wrought downstream by this diversion, and that it was illegal/unauthorized. In 1979, KC responded to a complaint by a homeowner, 3,200 feet to the southeast of the Naber diversion, that his swimming pool was flooded by muddy water. KC responded by digging a temporary pond (Exhibit 2) in the 162"" Ave ROW. KC Records (starting1984) show several complaints by Gragg and Chinn of flooding of septic tank fields , driveways , and garage. Upon hearing of the forthcoming Liberty Annexation, Gragg and Chinn pleaded to the Renton City Council (January 28 ,2008) to complete the culvert system along 160111 Ave , so that the diverted storm water would then be contained within the completed culvert system along 160'h Avenue . On March 4 , 2008, Gragg joyously informed Petrie that KC Drainage had plans In the Works to complete the culvert system , thus ending the flooding . The Liberty Annexation of all parts of the involved area was included , this transferring responsibility to Renton. During preliminary plat work with Bottheim (DOES), KC essentially retracted their earlier classification of the storm-water emanating from 160111 Ave as a Sensitive Area Stream, resulting in a tight-lining of the storm-water: But this would not cure the flooding problems . In Oct 2007 , Whittaker (DOES) asked for a study evaluating redirection of the storm-water back to 160111 Ave by completing the unfinished culvert system. Hydrologist McCarthy reported (Letter dated October 9, 2007, attached) generally favoring the idea, but expressed reservation about a culvert stub intended to drain a depressed area 180' North from where 160111 Ave meets 144111 Street. In November 2008, Petrie discovered that the reason for installing (1990) the 12" stub inlet to the catch basin had been subsequently eliminated by grading the backyard area of a nearby house, this eliminating the need for the inlet stub. By simply plugging the stub (Exhibit 6), full capacity of the culvert system would be sufficient to convey all the storm-water originating within the 160111 Ave corridor to stay there, on its way to the 144111 Street culverts , where it thence flows westward. 2 • • In several phone conversations 2007-8 with Brian Sleight (Water and Land Resources ), he supported the claim that the storm-water jumping out of the 160th Ave ditch should never have been labeled as a SA Stream ; in short , all the fuss about how to handle the storm water was for naught: It is not a bona-fide wetland ! Being an engineer , Sleight helped Petrie design a system that would complete the 160 th Ave culvert system (E x hibit 4) with sufficient capacity to end the flooding problem , including the overtopping of ditches and driveways between 162nd and 160 th Avenues along the north side of 144th Street. Conflicting reports from hydrologist McCarthy can be found in the files , now with Renton . The cost of completing the 160 th Ave culvert system will be -$40K. In 2005, Contractor Joe Breezee gave Petrie an estimate of $175K to construct the 162nd Ave Ex1ension , including costs to c ross the swale at the SW corner of Uberty Gardens. Considering the superiority of 1620d Avenue a s a collector arterial , this is well worth the increase in costs ; especially since the flooding problem is eliminated as a by-product. All of the above is relevant to proceeding with Renton Planning to achieve Plat Approvals for the Libertv Gardens and Cavalla Plats. In January 2008 , Renton suddenly ex pressed wishes to switch the Secondary Access to the corridor from 162nd Ave-developed under KC /DDES-to 164th Ave . Ca valla eng i neers (Barghausen) initially resisted the change ; eventually acceded . As a means to achieve Petrie 's cooperation , they threatened to Go It Alone, if Petrie resisted the change . Petrie assumed that the Cavalla Developer (KBS) agreed to the switch , based on lower costs to use 164111 Avenue over the 1620d Ex1ension . Petrie then agreed to do the same . Petrie didn 't know at the time (mid-January 2009) that Cavalla was accepting Renton 's plea-to change the Secondary Access to the corridor via 164th Avenue instead of 1620d Ave , based on a nod from Renton Planning that they would push for application of TDR 's, thus gaining -$1.3M profits from 11 more lots , in e xchange for -$50K worth of trees and amenities . 3 60th Ave, looking south at 140th Street KC Roads dug (1979) remporary retention pond in 162nd Ave ROW 10 respond to complaints of swimming pool flooding-resulting from Naber- illegal diversion (1975) along 160th Ave ROW· with mud during prolonged rains. During procssing of Liberty Gardens Plat (2003). DOES improperly tagged this a SA Stream. Since this area is enclosed by the Uberty Annexation (2008). Renton has authority to correct thi S, greatly simplifying 162nd Ave Extension planned under DOES. 4 5 Resident adjacent north of 160th Avenue and 144th street, pointing at catch basin of inert 12" culvert system; never obsering any flow. even during intense rainstorms. Legend D RID ~ Fl oo d Fl ow P ath 0 Ty pe 2 C B 0 Type 1 C B 12-1 8" Pipe/Culve rt 24" Pipe/Culvert I I ....,. new culvert -18 " i __ , .. ___ . ___ .L . .-,_._-- CB-1O 11.ECflAl' 0"00 • ~+60 Sta ti on , -...... -. ,- Downstream Map Uberty Gardens. Ca val la. and Threadgill Stormwater Mitigations \ \. -~---, , " , , . , .'-_':"',- , Drainage problems ---'I at Ching. Gragg, and ----. ~ Gam mel properbes -~ OJ :f ~ ~ , i I () <:> "G\~99 J .---i Gam • mej Chann~ to be 1-'--'j lig h tlined r-'-, w <fJ ,. / CB-18 6+60 8 +10 Ed "CC8I1hy F'E PS I Feet Figure 2 Completion of inert culvert system 6 -~ ~-....• --... -. <! •• Stub from CB 180' north of 144th Street along west side of 160th Ave Installed (1990) by KC Drainage, no longer necessary since grading for hr.."",.., elim inated rl!'!nn:!~ 7 --------~ --------CB on west side of 160th Ave ROW,-180' north of 144th Street bottom lip of this stub to the WSW is 4" ao()ve the lip of the main NS section . Because the so il gradients outside , water will never inward as intended ; only outward at fiow 6 " above the NS direction . 8 ATTACHMENT B Joint Use Parking Lot for Maplewood Heights Park and Liberty HS Summary -The 20-acre Maplewood Heights Park, presently undeveloped , can be annexed to Renton at any time. Renton's Community Services (Higashi yam a) does not want to annex until funds are available to develop. But KC is not spending anything to maintain this Park, and no taxes are levied . The needs of the adjacent Liberty HS to provide parking for student's parents and the future Park can best be met by a joint use lot at the northwest corner of Mytrlewood Heights Park . In 2007, Engineers DMP , INC recognized the validity of vacating 20' of 1641h Avenue half-street under RCW 36.87.040 , applied for same . The KC Hearing Examiner wanted Renton's concurrence before approving . But Renton refused, claiming possible use in the future. During preliminary plat studies of the Caval/a Plat (under DOES , 2006 -2008)-adjacent west of the Liberty HS sports fields-no plans were made to accommodate the parking needs of Liberty HS sports events . But during continuing studies under Renton Planning, following the Liberty Annexation (August 11), the aforementioned parking lot requirements were addressed by ex1ending 1641h Ave with a turn-around within Caval/a's northeast corner. The parking spaces were assumed to be curbside within the164 1h Ave ROW. Recognizing the common needs of the future MWH Park and parking for Liberty HS sports events, Petrie asked his engineer (Barghausen) to design a joint-use facility (Exhibit 9). The design contains parking capacity with 56-spaces, located 30 ' from the ball-field bleachers (Exhibit 10). The advantages of such a joint-use parking lot are obvious . And Caval/a regains the -1/2 acre otherwise lost to this inferior method of accommodating parking needs. The Issaquah School District should be glad to share costs-like paying for the required asphalt (-$40k). 9 -~- LIBERTY "GARDENS 164th A VE BE ROAD VACATION . ..,..,....""-.~~~ .... -....... u , , • • .j -~O ' .;t? ~ -. , • /' . , 10 ,pr' ~ -----, , , I .... ---........ p,..<;<,I"~I~ ~:> SE'J .. (. ... ;,... '2:: .. ;~C ,. Ji'- J._ 1- '. " " \ • ~\ ~,j ". .J ,ol'!o ' -sP " I ·:~~,,~,.e " I • . . ED MCCARTHY, P,E., PS Hydrology· Hydraulics' Engineering October 9, 2007 Mr. Bruce Whittaker King County DDES 900 Oakesdale Avenue SW Renton, W A 98055 9957 171 Av"nlle SE Renton, I;VA 98059 (425) 271-573·'\ FAX (425) 271-3432 Re: Addendum to SE 144th Street -Level 3 Downstream Drainage Analysis Drainage Improvements along 160th Avenue SE Dear Mr. Whittaker; This letter serves as an addendum to the hydraulic assessment I prepared for SE 144th Street (June IS, 2007). In that report I evaluated the basins tributary to the stormwater conveyance system along SE I 44th Street. During the course of that study I became familiar with some of the drainage problems upstream of SE 1441h Street. In particular, residents at the end ofSE 142M Place have experienced increased flooding problems over the past several years. Increases in flood flows have been caused by an unauthorized diversion of drainage that occurred several years ago, as well as by increased runoff from new residential developments in the basin. Property owners along SE 142wl Place currently experience flooding of their backyards, adversely affecting the use of their property and the operation of their on site sewage disposal systems. Mr. Gragg, owner of one of the properties at the end ofSE 142M Place, has had repeated flooding in his garage and shop. Proposed Solutions to Drainage Problems at SE 142M Place In my opinion, I believe that the following two drainage imJrovements should be implemented together with the intent of relieving existing flooding along SE 142 Place: • Extend the stormwater pipe system along 160" Avenue SE and direct flows from the drainage course along SE 142"d Place to the existing 12-inch diameter culvert system along 160" Avenue SE. • Tightline the runoff down that now traverses the north and east property boundaries of adversely affected lots along SE 142nd Place as part of the proposed extension of 162nd Avenue SE. Extend Culvert System along 160" Avenue SE Extending the culvert system along 160" Avenue SE from upgradient ofSE 142 00 Place to the bottom of 1601h Avenue SE could be effective in relieving some of the flows from the flooding problem at SE 142"" Place. The existing 12-inch diameter pipe system at the bottom of 1601h Avenue SE connects to the pipe system along SE 1441h Street. This is the ultimate route offor the drainage that causes the flooding along SE 142nd Place. Directing flows down the extended pipe system would bypass a portion of flood flows from the problem area yet would not constitute a diversion of drainage as defined in the King County Surface Water Design Manual. Based on conversations with neighbors, directing flows down the right-of- way along 1601h Avenue SE would actually be restoring the historical flow path as it existed prior to \ 1975, when an unauthorized diversion of drainage occurred. CITY OF RENTON MAR 2 3 2010 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE PROPOSAL TO END FLOODING IN THE ." 162nd • 164th AVENUE CORRIDOR; AND JOINT· USE PARKING LOT Affecting Liberty Gardens and Cavalla Plats Prepared by David Petrie 23 March 2010 ATTACHMENT A 1620d Avenue Secondary Access Summary -The flooding problems resulting from the illegal diversion (1975) of all storm water along 160th Avenue at 140'h Street, to the 1620d Avenue ROW can be eliminated by completing a section of the culvert system along 160th Avenue. (Exhibit 4) Since the Liberty Annexation (August 11, 2008), Renton now has full authority to correct this problem. The preferred Secondary Access to the plats now proposed within the 162nd to 164th Ave corridor is simplified by utilizing the presently inert culvert system. During the preliminary plat studies under (DOES, 2000-2008) of the Uberty Gardens Plat, KC and Renton required extension of 162no Ave (recorded on plans dated 1908) as the secondary access. DOES (improperly) classified the storm-water-emanating from the ditches along 160th Ave within the ROW-as a Sensitive Area (SA) Stream. In 2004, a local neighbor (Gragg) told Petrie that the flooding they have experienced for over 20 years started shortly after the storm water from 160th Ave was diverted by Leroy Neighbor (1975), as a means to end flooding his lawn during rainstorms. I visited Nabers widow (Henrietta): She remembered her husband digging a trench (Exhibit 1) across the street fronting their property, using a backhoe from his septic tank business. Henrietta had no idea of the damage wrought downstream by this diversion, and that it was illegallunauthorized. In 1979, KC responded to a complaint by a homeowner, 3,200 feet to the southeast of the Naber diversion, that his swimming pool was flooded by muddy water. KC responded by digging a temporary pond (Exhibit 2) in the 162nd Ave ROW. KC Records (starting1984) show several complaints by Gragg and Chinn of flooding of septic tank fields, driveways, and garage. Upon hearing of the forthcoming Liberty Annexation, Gragg and Chinn pleaded to the Renton City Council (January 28, 2008) to complete the culvert system along 160th Ave, so that the diverted storm water would then be contained within the completed culvert system along 160th Avenue. On March 4, 2008, Gragg joyously informed Petrie that KC Drainage had plans In the Works to complete the culvert system, thus ending the flooding. The Uberty Annexation of all parts of the involved area was included, this transferring responsibility to Renton. During preliminary plat work with Bottheim (DOES), KC essentially retracted their earlier classification of the storm-water emanating from 160th Ave as a Sensitive Area Stream, resulting in a tight-lining of the storm-water: But this would not cure the flooding problems. In Oct 2007, Whittaker (DOES) asked for a study evaluating redirection of the storm-water back to 160th Ave by completing the unfinished culvert system. Hydrologist McCarthy reported (Letter dated October 9, 2007, attached) generally favoring the idea, but expressed reservation about a culvert stub intended to drain a depressed area 180' North from where 160th Ave meets 144th Street. In November 2008, Petrie discovered that the reason for installing (1990) the 12" stub inlet to the catch basin had been subsequently eliminated by grading the backyard area of a nearby house, this eliminating the need for the inlet stub. By simply plugging the stub (Exhibit 6), full capacity of the culvert system would be sufficient to convey all the storm-water originating within the 160th Ave corridor to stay there, on its way to the 144th Street culverts, where it thence flows westward. 2 Ave, looking south at 140th Street ~---------~"~-~~-.~~------KC Roads dug (1979) remporaty retention pond in 162nd Ave ROW to respond to complaints of swimming pool flooding~sulting from Naber- illegal diver-sion (1975) along 160th Ave ROW-with mud during prolonged .-ains. During procssing of Liberty Ga.-dens Plat (2003), DOES improper-Iy tagged this a SA Stream. Since this area is enclosed by the Liberty Annexation (2008). Renton has authority to correct thi S, greatly simplifying 162nd Ave Extension planned under DOES. 4 Legend D RID [;:Z] 1m Flood Flow Path 0 Type 2 CB 0 Type 1 CB 12-18" Pipe/Culvert 24" Pipe/Culvert r .' , ~ new culvert-18" ;-- Dysfunctional inle{need~:~.~1f , plugged for 100%cai>aCitY,,~ .• :--, ' _'I / --"-1 ' j~ open ditch, overfldY{ . ' fr()m five plats .-' I "~"" " ' ".,' InS i 'NabbrDiversion/(1;~75)-24iP: r e:. \ \. \ \ \ O"<~ ."" I ~ "'"~''' \ I l, _~;;'~~:_' I, ,.:,a". Drainage problems r :!f at Ching, Gragg, and L::-=~~ :-., 1 . Gammel properties • 8i ," ,f! I I --'-~--.-~ 0· : i ,-''r.<,,'!'! I: • \,;;> .--i! ... Garn~ i Channef to be j . tightlined ,-::?' I ./ / C&'10 C 11 CB,12 CS,13 CS,14 CS,15 S,16 6+BO HECcRAS 0+00' 1>60 Station I Downstream Map Uberty Gardens, Cavalla, Slormwater and Threadgill Mitigations King County. Washington . , Bdo [Feet £dMcCart~y, PE,PS 9957171SlAot<nue se. ~~9S059 Phcme: 1'251271-57;W fu: I'2SJV'f.:Kl2 Exhibit. 4 Completion of inert culvert system '.-, - -.. , .. 6 Figure 2 CB on west side of 160th Ave ROW,-180' north of 144th Street bottom lip of this stub to the WSW is 4" above the lip of the main NS section. Because of the soil gradients outside, water will never inward as intended; only outward at flow 6" above the NS direction. 8 ~_~J:XHIIlII'" UBERTY~NS 164th A'FE BE ROAD VACATION ."""""'~_"'''~r:JI'..cn:>fI''''''''''''''''''_'''''''''' """''''''''''''''.~ Joint Parking lot for Liberty HS sporting events & Renton's Maplewood Heights Park ,(<:. ... ' ill17 Jl-'I"~~A- , ~'-"'C"'--Lf=--,-.:::c"-"-'=C=="t.;:;:_::::::=:":;:';=-ii, """_,,", ",_""_~_===~==~~----'<f;-1"~~,,,,~ , ';;~~~>~ ~~<f'~ " ~."'.c: I, 10-~.:.-A-" n 17. • I;xhibif9 10 r-~-- \ \ , I CITY OF RENTON MAR 2 3 2010 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE PROPOSAL TO END FLOODING IN THE 162 nd ·164th AVENUE CORRIDOR; AND JOINT· USE PARKING LOT Affecting Uberty Gardens and Cavalla Plats Prepared by David Petrie 23 March 2010 Denis Law, Mayor, City of Renton 1055 So. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 / 23 March 2010 RE: Proposal to End Flooding in the 162"d_164th Avenue Corridor; and Joint Use Parking Lot Dear Mr. Law: The subject plats-adjacent within the subject corridor-Liberty Gardens (LUA-08-093, PP, ECF) and Cavalla (LUA-08-097, PP, ECF) may soon be before the Council for approval/modification. Examiner Kaufman's recommendation for approval of Liberty Gardens (11-months out-of-date, subject to major revision) was dated April 28, 2009; Cavalla has been through Reconsideration (March 1). Recommendation for approval of Cavalla was dated November 3,2010. A Reconsideration Hearing for Cavalla was held February 9, based on Failure to Notify neighbors, and use of Transfer of Development Rights (TOR's) to increase density, the latter non-compliant with the Renton R-4 Zoning Code. Both plats are serious~ flawed for two interrelated reasons: 1) Changing the southerly Secondary Access from 162"d Ave to 164 Avenue, the former developed under KC DOES, without addressing flooding; and 2) Impractical accommodation of the parking lot needs of the adjacent Liberty HS sports fields. By this letter, I am recommending a 30-day study be conducted by the Public Works Department, in support of the Planning Group. Gregg Zimmerman is familiar with the severe flooding created by the illegal diversion (1975) by Naber. 100% of the storm-water from the 160'" Ave ROW now conveyed to the 162"0 Ave ROW, adding undue costs to perfect the ideal location (162"d Ave) of Southern access to the corridor. The funds would be better spent fixing the problem at its source. Prior to the Liberty Annexation (August 11, 2008), which included the aforementioned plats, I have spent over $1 OOK over ten years while under King County's DOES, employing three engineers, three wetlands consultants, and a hydraulic specialist to determine the drainage requirements and best location of Secondary access to the two subject plats. Subsequent to the Liberty Annexation, Planning Services yielded to the wishes of Patti Gammell, who didn't want the new road (162"d Avenue) proposed by DOES, passing before her kitchen window. This is discussed in detail in Attachment A. The needs of a parking lot for parents attending Liberty HS sporting events is a separate, but related, issue. This is discussed in detail in Attachment B. As a professional engineer formerly with Boeing, I have spent a great deal of time and effort to help solve the above-mentioned stand-alone problems, but related to the aforementioned plats. I have over 300- pictures and relevant data collected over this time to aid in achieving a solution to the drainage and parking lot issues. We came very close to a satisfactory solution to the Secondary Access problem under DOES, described in Attachment A. I hereby offer my services to aid in resolving these issues. Attachments A and B contain solutions to both problems, resulting in an end to the flooding problem that has plagued residents along the current drainage flow path for 30 years, and answering the parking lot needs of LibertY HS. The Good News is that Renton now has control of solutions to both problems. David Petrie-Owner/Developer of Liberty Gardens N//} 811 So. 273'" CI. ~r Des Moines WA 98198 253-946-6619 Attachment A-162nd Avenue Secondary Access CC: Terri Briere (City Council-4) Attachment B-Joint Use Parking Lot for Myrtlewood Heights Park and Liberty HS 1 , • , ATTACHMENT A 162"d Avenue Secondary Access Summary -The flooding problems resulting from the illegal diversion (1975) of all storm water along 160 th Avenue at 140th Street, to the 162"d Avenue ROW can be eliminated by completing a section of the culvert system along 160 th Avenue. (Exhibit 4) Since the Liberty Annexation (August 11, 2008), Renton now has full authority to correct this problem. The preferred Secondary Access to the plats now proposed within the 162"d to 164 th Ave corridor is simplified by utilizing the presently inert culvert system. During the preliminary plat studies under (DOES, 2000-2008) of the Liberty Gardens Plat, KC and Renton required extension of 162"d Ave (recorded on plans dated 1908) as the secondary access. DOES (improperly) classified the storm-water-emanating from the ditches along 160th Ave within the ROW-as a Sensitive Area (SA) Stream. In 2004, a local neighbor (Gragg) told Petrie that the flooding they have experienced for over 20 years started shortly after the storm water from 160 th Ave was diverted by Leroy Neighbor (1975), as a means to end flooding his lawn during rainstorms. I visited Nabers widow (Henrietta): She remembered her husband digging a trench (Exhibit 1) across the street fronting their property, using a backhoe from his septic tank business. Henrietta had no idea of the damage wrought downstream by this diversion, and that it was illegal/unauthorized. In 1979, KC responded to a complaint by a homeowner, 3,200 feet to the southeast of the Naber diversion, that his swimming pool was flooded by muddy water. KC responded by digging a temporary pond (Exhibit 2) in the 162"d Ave ROW. KC Records (starting1984) show several complaints by Gragg and Chinn of flooding of septic tank fields, driveways, and garage. Upon hearing of the forthcoming Liberty Annexation, Gragg and Chinn pleaded to the Renton City Council (January 28,2008) to complete the culvert system along 160th Ave, so that the diverted storm water would then be contained within the completed culvert system along 160'h Avenue. On March 4, 2008, Gragg joyously informed Petrie that KC Drainage had plans In the WOlks to complete the culvert system, thus ending the flooding. The Liberty Annexation of all parts of the involved area was included, this transferring responsibility to Renton. During preliminary plat work with Bottheim (DOES), KC essentially retracted their earlier classification of the storm-water emanating from 160 th Ave as a Sensitive Area Stream, resulting in a tight-lining of the storm-water: But this would not cure the flooding problems. In Oct 2007, Whittaker (DOES) asked for a study evaluating redirection of the storm-water back to 160 th Ave by completing the unfinished culvert system. Hydrologist McCarthy reported (Letter dated October 9, 2007, attached) generally favoring the idea, but expressed reservation about a culvert stub intended to drain a depressed area 180' North from where 160th Ave meets 144th Street. In November 2008, Petrie discovered that the reason for installing (1990) the 12" stub inlet to the catch basin had been subsequently eliminated by grading the backyard area of a nearby house, this eliminating the need for the inlet stub. By simply plugging the stub (Exhibit 6), full capacity of the culvert system would be sufficient to convey all the storm-water originating within the 160'h Ave corridor to stay there, on its way to the 144th Street culverts, where it thence flows westward. 2 In several phone conversations 2007-8 with Brian Sleight (Water and Land Resources), he supported the claim that the storm-water jumping out of the 160th Ave ditch should never have been labeled as a SA Stream; in short, all the fuss about how to handle the storm water was for naught: It is not a bona-fide wetland! Being an engineer, Sleight helped Petrie design a system that would complete the 160th Ave culvert system (Exhibit 4) with sufficient capacity to end the flooding problem, including the overtopping of ditches and driveways between 162nd and 160th Avenues along the north side of 144th Street. Conflicting reports from hydrologist McCarthy can be found in the files, now with Renton. The cost of completing the 160th Ave culvert system will be -$40K. In 2005, Contractor Joe Breezee gave Petrie an estimate of $175K to construct the 162nd Ave Extension. including costs to cross the swale at the SW corner of Liberty Gardens. Considering the superiority of 162nd Avenue as a collector arterial, this is well worth the increase in costs; especially since the flooding problem is corrected as a by-product. All of the above is relevant to proceeding with Renton Planning to achieve Plat Approvals for the Liberty Gardens and Cava/la Plats. In January 2008, Renton suddenly expressed wishes to switch the Secondary Access from 162nd Ave to 164th Ave. Cavalla engineers (Barghausen) initially resisted the change; eventually acceded to the change. As a means to achieve Petrie's cooperation, they threatened to Go It Alone, if Petrie resisted the change. Petrie assumed that they agreed to the switch, based on lower costs to use 164th Avenue over 162nd • Petrie then agreed to do the same. Petrie didn't know at the time (mid-January 2009) that he was being tricked: Cavalla switching-sometime during the Summer 2008-to 164th Avenue to achieve Secondary Access to the corridor, this being based on a nod from Planning that they would push for application of TDR's, gaining -$1.3M profits from 11 more lots, in exchange for -$50K worth of trees and amenities. 3 , Ave, looking sOl,lth at 1 KC Roads .dug (1979) temporary retention pond in 162nd Ave ROW to respond to complaints of swimming pool flooding-resulting from Naber illegal diversion (1975) along 160th Ave ROW-with mud during prolonged rains. Du~ng p "rocssing of Liberty Gardens PI~f(2003). DOES improperly tagged this a SA Stream. Since this area is enclosed by the Liberty Annexation (2008 Renton has authority to correct thi S, greatly simplifying 162nd AV~ . , ~o~ planned under DOES. 4 Dual 12" culvert system dry during rainstorms due to incompleted 900' section north 142nd PI. KC had plans to complete, but now within Renton nnexation (August 2008) 5 Resident adjacent north of 160th Avenue and 144th Street, pointing at catch basin of inert 12" culvert system; never obsering any flow I even during intense rainstorms. Legend D RID ~ Flood Flow Path o o Type 2 CB Type 1 C B 12-18" Pip e/Culve rt ---24" Pipe /Culvert _ new culvert-18 " open ditch, overflow from five plats Nabor Diversion (1975)-24" ••. l.-__ ,_. '. \ \ I I ~ I ra (J UJ c:: Q) "C , I ~ "" I CU '. , '11'\ ,-I. \wi , wi . <Jl I . ~'I «, ~ Dysfunctional inlet needs end plugged for 100% capacity CS-10 ~l <01 , -I Drainage problems-'lL •..• -. at Ching, Gragg, ~nd t --- Gam mel properties ____ ?-:-O) /'! ,g t ./ ,I (j q. . 1 . "'G<'~~ : . --I I I I I I I L ~ Q) .c .-..J / 'CB-13 CS-1 4 CS-1 S , S-16 CB-18 1<EC-RAS ' 0'-00 ' ",60 Sia tio n I Downstream Map Uberty Gardens, Caval1a, Stormwater and Threadg ill Mit ig ations King County , Washington 0 200 !Feel 10 + 10 Ed Md:arthy. PE, PS W171Sl~~I.I!SE llerw. WBShIrQIOO 98Q5g ~ f\25)nJ·5T)t fu fQ5) 7I'\.3U2 Exhibit 4 Completion of inert culvert system 6 Figure 2 Stub from CB 180' north of 144th Street along west side of 160th Ave Installed (1990) by KC Drainage, no longer necessary since grading for home eliminated depression Unnecessary culvert to drain former depression longer needed. Should be plugged so 100% """I""" capacity is restored from present 40%. 7 CB on west side of 160th Ave ROW,-180' north of 144th Street Th'e bottom lip of this stub to the WSW is 4"" above the lip of the main NS section. Because of the soil gradients outside , water will never flow inward as intended; only outward at flow levels 6" above the NS direction, 1320-foot section of DRY culvert system to 144th Street sta rts here 8 ATTACHMENT B Joint Use Parking Lot for Myrtlewood Heights Park and Liberty HS Summary -The 20-acre Maplewood Heights Park, presently undeveloped , can be annexed to Renton at any time . Renton 's Community Services (Higa shiyama) does not want to annex until funds are available to develop . But KC is not spending anything to maintain this Park , and no taxes are levied . The needs of the adjacent Liberty HS to provide parking for student's parents and the future Park can best be met by a joint use lot at the northwest corner of Mytr/ewood Heights Park . In 2007 , Engineers DMP, INC recogn ize d the validity of vacating 20' of 164'h Avenue half-street under RCW 36.87.040, applied for same. The KC Hearing Exami ner wanted Renton 's concurrence before approving. But Renton refused, claiming possible use in the future . During preliminary plat studies of the Caval/a Pla t (unde r DOES , 2006-2008)-adjacent wes t of the Liberty HS sports fields-no plans were made to accommodate the parking needs of Lib erty HS sports events. But during continuing studies under Renton Planning , following the Liberty Annexa tion (August 11), the aforementioned parking lot requirem e nts were addressed by ex1ending 164'" Ave with a turn -a round within Caval/a 's northeast corner. The parking spaces we re assumed to be curbside within the164'" Ave ROW. Recognizing the common needs of the future MWH Park and parking for Liberty HS sports events, Petrie asked his engineer (Barghausen) to design a joint-use facility (Exhibit 9). The design contains parking capacity with 56-spaces, located 30' from the ball-field bleachers (Exhibit 10). The advantages of such a joint-use parking lot are obvious. And Caval/a re ga ins the -1/2 acre otherwise lost to this inferior method of accommodating parking needs. The Issaquah School District should be glad to share costs -like paying f or the required asphalt (-$40k). 9 '_~voe'I ~ UJJERTY GARDENS 164 t hAVE SE ROAD VACATION ''''''''''''<in<'"'~~''':'':.~,=,n~......,. ... w .. Joint Parking lot for Liberty HS sporting events & Ren ton 's Maplewood Heights Park Exhibit 9 10 1[;il¥ fd YJP -~ --- , --, ~ ~ ~ .~~ g • , ~ ~ I : ! I i-! if 'f 'l l! ; I Iii , i i!' I ! .. ' ,IH !I : ~~U ~! ED MCCARTHY, P.E., PS ~;ydrc!ogy • Hydraulics· E nginee rin g October 9, 2007 Mr. Bruce Whittaker King County DOES 900 Oakesdale Avenue SW Renton, W A 98055 9957171 AVGnue SE Renton, VlA 98053 (425.) 2 7 1 ·5734 FAX (425) 271·343 2 Re: Addendum to SE 144'" Street -Level 3 Downstream Drainage Analysis Drainage Improvements along 160"' Avenue SE Dear Mr. Whittaker; This letter serves as an addendum to the hydraulic assessment I prepared for SE 144'h Street (June 15, 2007). In that report I evaluated the basins tributary to the storm water conveyance system along SE 144th Street. During the course of that study I became familiar with some of the drainage problems upstream of SE 144" Street. In particular, residents at the end ofSE 142"" Place have experienced increased flooding problems Over the past seve ral years. Increases in flood flows have been caused by an unauthorized diversion of drainage that occurred several years ago, as well as by increased runoff from new residential developments in the basin. Property owners along SE 142'd Place currently experience flooding of their backyards, adversely affecting the use of their property and the operation of their onsite sewage disposal systems. Mr. Gragg, owner of one of the properties at the end ofSE 142 ,d Place, has had repeated flooding in his garage and shop. Proposed So lutions to Drainage Problems at SE 142"" Place In my opinion, I believe that the following two drainage imJ'rovements should be implemented together with the intent of relieving existing flooding along SE 142 Place: • Extend the stormwater pipe system along 160" Avenue SE and direct flows from the drainage course along SE 142'd Place to the existing 12-inch diameter culvert system along 160"' Avenue SE. • Tightline the runoff down that now traverses the north and east property boundaries of adversely affected lots a long SE 142'd Place as part of the proposed extension of 162,d Avenue SE. Extend Culvert System along 160" Avenue SE Extending the culvert system along 160"' Avenue SE from upgradient ofSE 142,d Place to the bottom of 160"' Avenue SE could be effective in relieving some of the flows from the flooding problem at SE 142'" Place. The existing 12-inch diameter pipe system at the bottom of 160"' Avenue SE connects to the pipe system along SE 144th Street. This is the ultimate route of for the drainage that causes the flooding along SE 142,d Place. Directing flows down the extended pipe system would bypass a portion of flood flows from tbe problem area yet would not constitute a diversion of drainage as defined in the King County Surface Water Design Manual. Based on conversations with neighbors, directing flows down the right-of- way along I 60th Avenue SE would actually be restoring the historical flow path as it existed prior to , 1975, when an unauthorized diversion of drainage occurred. Notes ---------------------~ .... - ---------------------- -.. ~------ ._. __ ._-- ------------------- _ .. _------------------ --------_._._------- ----------------. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 BEFORE THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL In re: DAVE PETRIE'S NOVEMBER 17, 2009 PURPORTED APPEAL (PURPORTEDLY RELATING TO THE HEARING EXAMINER'S FIRST CAVALLA PREliMINARY PLAT APPROVAL RECOMMENDATION, A RECOMMENDATION THAT THE EXAMINER LATER DETERMINED TO BE VOID) City of Renton File No. LUAOS·097, ECF, PP (King County DDES File No. L06POOOI) PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICANT KBS DEVELOPMENT CORP.'S DISPOSITIVE MOTION I. INTRODUCTION This motion sets forth three independent reasons why this appeal must be dismissed: 1. Dave Petrie never invoked the Council's appellate jurisdiction in the first 16 place. He failed to appeal both the Hearing Examiner's November 3, 2009 Cavalla 17 preliminary plat approval recommendation (which the Examiner determined in January 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2009 to be void) and the Hearing Examiner's March 1, 2010 Cavalla preliminary plat approval recommendation. Instead, on November 17, 2009 Petrie submitted a completed City of Renton notice of appeal form that set forth (a) an application name as "Dave Petrie" (rather than "Cavalla Preliminary Plat"), (b) afile number of"LUA 09·097 I'P ECF" (rather than the Cavalla Preliminary Plat's "LUAOS·097, ECF, PP" file number), and (c) a decision or recommendation of the Land Use Hearing Examiner dated "October 13, 2009" (rather than the November 3, 2009 date of the Hearing Examiner's first Cavalla preliminary plat approval recommendation). KBS' DISPOSITIVE MOTION -Page 1 HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A ProfessionaL Service Corporation 1019 Regents B[ vd Ste 202 Fircrest, W A 98466-6037 (206) 4434684/(253) 627-{;680 (253) 272·9876 FAX 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 2. Even ifMr. Petrie's November 17, 2009 submittal of his completed notice of appeal form that does not reference Cavalla or the Examiner's November 3, 2009 approval recommendation to the Council is nevertheless deemed to be an appeal of the Hearing Examiner's November 3, 2009 recommendation, on January 7, 2010 the Examiner ruled that recommendation to be void, thereby mooting any appeal of Mr. Petrie that may have then been pending. 3. Mr. Petrie failed to invoke the appellate jurisdiction of the City Council by failing to file an appeal to the Council of the Hearing Examiner's March I, 2010 Cavalla preliminary plat approval recommendation, a recommendation made following a second hearing before the Examiner (a hearing requested by both Mr. Petrie and Mr. Vincent in their respective requests for reconsideration following the Examiner's November 3, 2009 recommendation to the Council). II. RELIEF REQUESTED Preliminary plat applicant KBS Development Corp. ("KBS") requests that the November 17, 2009 Petrie appeal be dismissed with prejudice. III. EVIDENCE RELIED UPON KBS relies upon the declaration of David L. Halinen that accompanies this Motion (and the attachments thereto), and upon the City's Cavalla preliminary plat files. IV. ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION 19 A. By Failing to Neither Identify (1) the Cavalla Preliminary Plat Application (By Name or By Correct File Number) Nor (2) the Hearing Examiner's November 3,2009 Recommendation to the City Council Upon the Notice of Appeal Form Furnished by the City Clerk, Petrie's November 17, 2009 Appeal Filing Was Inadequate to Meet the Procedural Requirement Under RMC 4-8-110F.l for Filing a Notice of Appeal Upon a Form Furnished by the City Clerk. 20 21 22 23 24 Procedures for appeals to the City Council are set forth in RMC 4-8-110F - APPEALS TO CITY COUNCIL -PROCEDURES. Subsections 1 and 2 thereof state: l. Time for Appeal: Unless a specific section of State law providing for review of a decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior KBS' DISPOSITIVE MOTION -Page 2 HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Pl'Ojessional Sen-'ice Corporation 1019 Regents Blvd Ste 202 Fircrest, W A 98466-6037 (206) 443-4684/(253) 627-6680 (253) 272-9876 FAX 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Court or any other body, any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner 's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice or appeal to the City Clerk upon a fOrm fUrnished by the City Clerk, within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. 2. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice or appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. (Italics and underlining added for emphasis.) The introductory paragraph of the form of notice of appeal provided by the City Clerk's office and completed and submitted by Mr. Petrie to the City Clerk's Office on November 17, 2009 has blanks calling for insertion of (a) both an application name and file number and (b) the date of the decision or recommendation of the Land Use Hearing 10 Examiner being appealed. That basic, critical information called for by the fonn's 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 introductory paragraph is jurisdictional because it is necessary in order to identify the development application and the decision or recommendation of the Examiner relating thereto that is being appealed. By failing to insert that critical information upon the form furnished by the City Clerk, a would-be appellant's submittal of a notice of appeal fonn to the City Clerk obviously does not commence an appeal under RMC 4-8-11 OF and provide a basis for the City Clerk to notify parties of record of the receipt of an appeal under above- quoted RMC 4-8-IIOF.2. Here, in completing the introductory paragraph of the notice of appeal form that Mr. Petrie submitted, he set forth neither (i) the Cavalla Preliminary Plat application's name or number, nor (ii) the November 3, 2009 date of the Hearing Examiner's first Cavalla preliminary plat approval recommendation. Further, nowhere else on the completed form did Mr. Petrie even mention the Cavalla preliminary plat by its name or application number and nowhere else on the completed form is the November 3, 2009 date of the Hearing Examiner's first Cavalla preliminary plat recommendation even mentioned. (Declaration of David L. Halinen, Paragraph 4 on page I, and the copy of the notice of appeal form that Mr. KBS' DISPOSITIVE MOTION -Page 3 IIALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Proftssional Service Corporation 1019 Regents Blvd Stc 202 Fircrest, WA 98466·6037 (206) 443-4684/(253) 627·6680 (253)272-9876 FAX 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Petrie completed and submitted to the City Clerk's Office on November 17,2009 is attached to that declaration as Attachment 1.) Having failed to do so, Mr. Petrie's November 17, 2009 submittal was not a bona fide appeal of the Hearing Examiner's first Cavalla preliminary plat approval recommendation. That being the case, Mr. Petrie failed to satisfy RMC 4-8-1IOF.l 's means of invoking the City Council's appellate jurisdiction in regard to the Examiner's November 3, 2009 Cavalla approval recommendation. B. The Hearing Examiner's January 7, 2010 Ruling that the Reopening of the Cavalla Hearing Made the Examiner's Original Approval Recommendation Void Rendered Any Then Pending Appeals Moot. Following requests for reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's November 3, 2009 Cavalla approval recommendation submitted by both Renton Planning Director Chip Vincent and Mr. Petrie arguing (among other things in Mr. Petrie's request) for a reopening of the hearing due to public notice inadequacies, the Examiner issued a January 7, 2010 letter to Mr. Vincent and Associate Planner Rocale Timmons ruling that: (i) (ii) The hearing would be reopened on February 9, 2010 at 9:00 a.m.; "The effect of this reopening of the public hearing at this point makes the decision [i.e., the November 3, 2009 approval recommendation] issued by this office void"; and 17 (iii) "A new decision based on the prior testimony and submissions as well 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 as any new information will be issued after the close of the hearing." (Declaration of David L. Halinen, Paragraph 6 on page 2, and the copy of the Hearing Examiner's January 7, 2010 letter that is attached to that declaration as Attachment 2.) Thus, even if Mr. Petrie's November 17, 2009 submittal of his completed notice of appeal form that does not reference Cavalla or the Examiner's November 3, 2009 approval recommendation to the Council is nevertheless deemed to be an appeal thereof, (1) Mr. Petrie's November 17, 2009 appeal was rendered moot by the Examiner's January 7, 2010 ruling and (2) under the subject circumstances where a further hearing was to be held and a KBS' DISPOSITIVE MOTION -Page 4 HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Service Corporatjon 1019 Regents Blvd Ste 202 Fircrest, W A 98466·6037 (206) 443-4684/(253) 627·6680 (253) 272-9876 FAX 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 new recommendation was to be rendered (which would carry with it an opportunity for appeal), that moot appeal must be dismissed. Because the City of Renton apparently does not have a specific rule of its own relating to dismissal of moot appeals, it should look to another nearby jurisdiction that does have such a rule. The City of Seattle's Office of Hearing Examincr has such a rule. In the context of appeals made to Seattle's Hearing Examiner, Section 3.02 of the City of Seattle Hearing Examiner Rules of Practice and Procedure (as amended through March 24, 2008) states: 3.02 DISMISSAL (a) An appeal may be dismissed without a hearing if the Hearing Examiner determines that it fails to state a claim for which the Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to grant relief or is without merit on its face, frivolous, or brought merely to secure delay. (b) Any party may request dismissal of all or part of an appeal by motion pursuant to HER 2.16. (c) When the decision or action being appealed is withdrawn by the issuing Department, the appeal becomes moot and shall he dismissed. (Emphasis added.) (Excerpted pages from the City of Seattle Hearing Examiner Rules of Practice and Procedure from which above-quoted Section 3.02 is drawn are attached to the Declaration of David Halinen as Attachment 3.) The Renton Hearing Examiner's January 7, 2010 ruling that the effect of the reopening of the Cavalla public hearing made the November 3, 2009 approval recommendation void would amount to a withdrawal under above-quoted Section 3.02(e) and result in a mandatory dismissal under that section. c. Because Mr. Petrie Did Not Timely File an Appeal Following the Issuance of the Hearing Examiner's March 1, 2010 Recommendation, the City Council's Appellate Jurisdiction Has Not Been Invoked. The third independent legal ground for this motion to dismiss is that Mr. Petrie never filed a notice of appeal of the Hearing Examiner's March 1,2010 approval recommendation to the City Council. Under RMC 4-8-110F.l, such an appeal would have had to have been KBS' DISPOSITIVE MOTION -Page 5 HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A ProfeSSional Service Corporation 1019 Regents Blvd Ste 202 Fircrest, WA 98466-6037 (206) 443-46841(253) 627-6680 (253) 272-9876 FAX 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 filed within fourteen days of the March I, 2010 approval recommendation in order to be timely. Because Mr. Petrie failed to do so, he did not timely appeal the Hearing Examiner's March I, 2010 approval recommendation. Thus, the City Council's appellate jurisdiction in regard to the Examiner's March I, 2010 Cavalla approval recommendation was not invoked and the City Council has no appellate jurisdiction in regard to that recommendation. V. CONCLUSION For all three reasons discussed in this motion, KBS respectfully asks that Mr. Petrie's November 17, 2009 appeal be dismissed with prejudice. DATED this 9th day of April, 20 I O. HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. BY~:~~ David L. a en WSBA #15923 Attorney for Cavalla preliminary plat applicant KBS Development Corp. 17 Y:'t:f\2426\o02\Appeal\Motions\Motion 10 Dismiss (DlH 4.9-1O).doc 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 KBS' DISPOSITIVE MOTION -Page 6 HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Service Corporation 1019 Regents Blvd Ste 202 fircrest, W A 98466·6()J7 (206) 443-4684/(253) 627·6680 (253) 272·9876fAX 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 I BEFORE THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL In re: DAVE PETRIE'S NOVEMBER 17, 2009 PURPORTED APPEAL (PURPORTEDLY RELATING TO THE HEARING EXAMINER'S FIRST CAVALLA PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL RECOMMENDATION, A RECOMMENDATION THAT THE EXAMINER LATER DETERMINED TO BE VOID) DECLARATION OF DAVID HALINEN SUPPORTING APPLICANT KBS DEVELOPMENT CORP.'S DISPOSITIVE MOTION City of Renton File No. LUA08-097, ECF, PP (King County DOES File No. L06POOOI) 12 DAVID HALINEN declares as follows: 13 I. 1 am an attorney for Cavalla preliminary plat applicant KBS Development 14 Corp. ("KBS") in regard to the subject proceedings. I have personal knowledge of the facts 15 stated in this declaration and I am competent to testify to those facts. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2. I have personally reviewed in the Renton City Clerk's Office the City's official files concerning the Cavalla preliminary plat (collectively, the "Official File"). 3. The Official File contains a copy of the Renton Hearing Examiner's November 3, 2009 approval recommendation to the City Council. 4. The Official File also contains a copy of a City of Renton notice of appeal form (a form provided by the City Clerk's Office) stamped-in "CITY OF RENTON NOV 17, 2009 1:53 PM RECIEDIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE" that was completed and signed by David M. Petrie. (A copy of that completed and signed form is attached to this Declaration as Attachment I.) The introductory paragraph of the form of notice of appeal provided has blanks calling for insertion of (a) both an application name and file number DECLARATION OF DAVID HALINEN -Page 1 HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Service Corporation 1019 Regents Blvd Ste 202 Fircrest, W A 98466-6037 (206) 4434684/(253) 627·6680 (253) 272·9876 FAX 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 and (b) the date of the decision or recommendation of the Land Use Hearing Examiner being appealed. However, in that introductory paragraph Mr. Petrie set forth (a) his own name as the application name (rather than "Cavalla Preliminary Plat"), (b) a file number of "LUA 09-097 PP ECF" (rather than the Cavalla Preliminary Plat's "LUA08-097, ECF, PP" file number), and (c) a decision or recommendation of the Land Usc Hearing Examiner dated "October 13, 2009" (rather than the November 3, 2009 date of the Hearing Examiner's first Cavalla preliminary plat approval recommendation). The Official File contains no completed notice of appeal form other than the David Petrie notice of appeal. 5. The Official File contains copies of written requests for reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's November 3, 2009 Cavalla approval recommendation submitted by both Renton Planning Director Chip Vincent (dated November 17, 2009) and Mr. Petrie (dated November 16, 2009) arguing (among other things in Mr. Petrie's request) for a reopening of the hearing due to public notice inadequacies. 6. The Official File contains a copy of a January 7,2010 letter addressed to Mr. Vincent and Associate Planner Rocale Timmons (of the Department of Community & Economic Development) ruling that: (i) (ii) The hearing would be reopened on February 9,2010 at 9:00 a.m.; "The effect of this reopening of the public hearing at this point makes the decision [i.e., the November 3, 2009 approval recommendation] issued by this office void"; and (iii) "A new decision based on the prior testimony and submissions as well as any new information will be issued after the close of the hearing." (A copy of that letter, which bears underlining that I have added, is attached to this Declaration as Attachment 2.) 7. In addition, the Official File contains a copy of the Renton Hearing Examiner's March I, 2010 approval recommendation to the City Council. DECLARATION OF DAVID HALINEN -Page 2 HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Service Corporation 1019 Regents Blvd Ste202 Fircrest, WA 98466·6037 (206) 443-4684/(253) 627-6680 (253) 272·9876 FAX 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 IS 19 20 21 22 23 24 8. Excerpted pages from the City of Seattle Hearing Examiner Rules of Practice and Procedure (as amended through March 24, 2008) are attached to this Declaration as Attachment 3.) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 9th day April, 2009 at Fircrest, Washington. C!Jn", ~~ , -\,. , ,~ r~ it:." "A/ DA VIDH TINE~ Jt-.4.+1 y,ICf\24261002\APPEALIMOTIONSIHALINEN DECLARATION DI {4.9·IDj.OOC DECLARATION OF DAVID HALINEN -Page 3 HALINEN LA W OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Ser.-ice Corpora/ion 1019 Regents Blvd Ste 202 Fircrest, WA 98466-6037 (206) 44346841(253) 627·6680 (253) 272·9876 fAX ATTACHMENT 1 APPEAL TO REr-<1'ON CITY COUNCIL CITY OF RENTON--"---. NOV 1 7 Z009 \ ',&311" RECEIVED y.J OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISIONJRECOMMENDATION CITY CLERK'S OFFICE APPLICATION NAME _=1)--=-«.."'---,----V c:=--------'--A_e=--t_'_r-_t e _____ FlLE NO, L u A o9·-Dcr7 Pp The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated 0(' +0 be r L'5 ,20 09. 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT: REPRESENTATIVE (IF ANY): Name: 'DAvE PET r<: \t: Name: ___________ _ Address: BI{ 3;::,,_ 2-'73 ~ d Address: __________ _ Phone Number: 2.53-?~~-6 b 19 PhoneNumber: _________ _ EmaiJ: c:La~pe--t-r; e@ CclMc c.$"'i; .\Ile-6 Email: ____________ _ 2, SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: Finding of Fact: (please designate number as denoted in the Examiner;s Report) £C-t=" No. 7 Error: The (CAST Se .. --r£P1c,~ 1.3 II1CoI-'l5IS-te"* I..-0I'tl ----.E'C(~'j rC{p"-. Db) pQ5e 2:. of LJ lzer"tj Gctyd<2YIS KC"'f<.J'rt \ Con-ection: E' )( j> I q ; h . <: £8 j::\ t>r\ \ ,<-0 u~ AI5D 1~U>MV<2tte Heo.V'f)9 d<-{e. to I/lofa.tlDI-1 o-f No ti\;,'cdiul Conclusions: ;> J r~4l;'''''-.... '<2L,'i~ . No_ 2 Error: J2 C-{ e tv lit Q/cct, 0 "'-Q -f No i/.f?·c-c.,-c, b '" Ce£yt',--eU-te .. tf /-to DI1c::~qIYl<"5--t tie use D~ ,. Correctio:: '\'D R:S L.Db..s p n2.. '5e" --t-, '" V' /,,, ",@'-'-' qb /) '-<..--t. the;; HE'c, >-1 '1, Dec:..-)Clf..~ t=he He::.r-II ..... y _ -r1A,\A!t.,l Other: No. Correction: E-" 1';",;... >&de""et,'k; 6) fc:4t, cfl1.<ah & -t--1/,' (0; "1:-1 AN.o} .cv--<dJo frE'ciJ \r-cl./ 07 . 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED The Clty CouncIl IS requested to grant the follOWIng rellef: (Attach explanation, if desired) Reverse the decision or reco=endation and grant the following relief: Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: V' Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: Other: ~(/J?!;z Appellant/Representative Signature Type/Printed Name NOTE: Please refer to Title N, Chapter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4-8-11 OF, for specific appeal procedures. ATTACHMENT 2 ~" . '.- .; ,-'" Heaiing'Exannner,: ' 'Fred J, Kltufmall' ;:., . ~ . . ,,", • January 7;.2010 . " .' -. . ~ ". -' ',' Chip '\Iill~~n;'. ", ': " Rocale timnions'c ' , " Comrillinit)r& E<,Oqo.;uc DeV~l()plI)ent , ' -." . " r.' .. - " " "fe:Ca~~l1{h~limiria;t ~1i.t(i;uA:08~097iPP; ECF) , ' ' '. " ", "\ _' ,-,', ,->,. ~ . _. .": i_:' -., .' -'. . . -. - -'-.. '.'I ',', . 1J,e,',aiS~ff: , , ,.,' ,,', '" ,,' '. ," -, I ' "i-·.~ ' • . -_.o.<_'"-: __ ';""::-"~-:_""",:C":",',,, ___ /-_,> .. __ .... ;;_'_.:_~.~:-_->", '--,--:., , "":,'_".:'-;: __ ._' ,.~',':: " : ASthe, PaIties ,are aware the legaLnotie,efor (he origrnal hearing wasin etro; an4 partieswho ' .•••• , ,,' ',., shOill~.haver';;'~iv¢d th;1tnotice'djdhotOpeflihg: th~,feeordto~kjw~dtt~~'Subm~slouS has'. "", raisedi'suestllat should. be pmyiQedin an open forumwh~ie'tJt~ applicani,and staffmay'respon~. , "Tliete~ore;ililsoff\ceh~ determineQthiitthe\,plic hea.in \,n thisw,i:i~i~hotildber~'d 'e~ed'in .••... order t() accommo at, Pl! Ie testrmony , om par\les w 0 were not ongmal, y pr~vl e proper· legal notice ' ' , ',." ,.',",. ,,': , "-:~-.':::" ".,' > _"':~<~':'-:;"'~""<:'~,' __ c_«~,~.:_:_:.:_./< ':":'".,._ >, .. ,<\;::-./_,:_-c:;~ . .':·-:··i .. ":-:-'>'-·i~.:).:·,.::~:~:·'\-:;~} _" ~.: . >;.~::,,:,_ ... -_ >:>:.:~',"" ',' . Th~hellfing.wiiI geiler~lIjr beli1nitedfb'newt~stim()iiy arid dop~m~nt~iy:s~bniissionswithan •. )oppottU)ljtY oy lhe parties to' respondt" those MWo!Jermgs. . ," ' . .. ~ ......... <~:tl?1'~1e!d;~~;t)1;.::i~:~~ ,,~",~, ......... . ' .•••. ,: '.' n6~k;'ofth¢reo~nihgofiliepublic irearin~:I1;i;)ett~;shouldqeiricluaed with the. noiice. (if· . '-'. ::,',:. ":,: ," .-. .; '" ,1, .• ,:.: ' reopenlIlgo{t#epublic h~iJig, '. '.····.:./r:.\ ' ....... ' ",>" ..' , '_-i" -',',.' -.", -" -.~: ." _ •• ,.__., " _.;';' -- : '.' . .~:.--:; .>: i~J~h7~.~C Fred], KaUfman c, '" , . . ' '-,' .' ~ -)-'. ~ :' '" . -.-Hearing Eiciilliner .. gity Of,Rentod ..•....... ",';;' ,-. ", .•. '''-', .. ,.-' . . '"',-' ',i. . ,.' . . -'.; ATTACHMENT 3 City of Seattle OFFICE OF HEARING EXAMINER HEARING EXAMINER RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE (Effective March 24, 2008) Office of Hearing Examiner 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4000 Mailing: PO Box 94729 Seattle, Washington 98124 (206) 684-0521 SECTION 3 APPEAL RULES In addition to the Rules of General Application in Section 2, the Rules in Section 3 apply to appeals. In case of a conflict, the Rules in Section :I control. 3.01 FILING (a) Compliance with Rules. All appeals must comply with these Rules and with the requirements established in the law under which the appeal is filed. (b) Timeliness. To be timely, an appeal must be received in the Office of Hearing Examiner no later than 5 p.m. on the last day of the appeal period. (See also HER 2.04.) (c) Fee. Any filing fee required by law (see SMC 3.02.125) must accompany an appeal, unless the Hearing Examiner waives part or all of the required fee due to financial hardship. A filing fee cannot be paid by credit or debit card, or by third-party check. A filing fee may be refunded if the Hearing Examiner determines that he or she lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal, or otherwise determines it appropriate, in fairness to the appellant, to refund the fee. Cd) Contents. An appeal must be in writing and contain the following: (1) Identification of the matter being appealed, including the number of the application or departmental action, and the applicant name and property address where applicable; (2) A brief statement as to how the appellant is significantly affected by or interested in the matter appealed; (3) A brief statement of the appellant's issues on appeal, noting appellant's specific objections to the decision or action being appealed; (4) The relief requested, such as reversal or modification; (5) Signature, address, telephone and facsimile numbers, and electronic mail address of the appellant and the appellant's designated representative, if any. (e) Multiple appeals. More than one appeal may be filed concerning the same appealable decision or other action. 3.02 DISMISSAL (a) An appeal may be dismissed without a hearing if the Hearing Examiner determines that it fails to state a claim for which the Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to grant relief or is without merit on its face, frivolous, or brought merely to secure delay. Page 14 (b) Any party may request dismissal of all or part of an appeal by motion pursuant to HER 2.16. (c) When the decision or action being appealed is withdrawn by the issuing Department, the appeal becomes moot and shall be dismissed. 3.03 AUTOMATIC APPEAL Where the underlying law provides that an appeal is automatic, (i.e., notice of the appeal hearing is sent with notice of the Department's action), an appeal statement is not required. 3.04 CLARIFICATION On the motion of a party, or at the Hearing Examiner's own initiative, the Hearing Examiner may require that the appellant provide clarification, additional infonnation, or other submittal that the Hearing Examiner deems necessary to demonstrate the basis for the Hearing Examiner's jurisdiction, or to make the appeal complete and understandable. A request for clarification must be made in a timely manner so that other parties have a reasonable opportunity to respond before hearing. 3.05 AMENDMENT For good cause shown, the Hearing Examiner may allow an appeal to be amended no later than 10 days after the date on which it was filed. In deciding whether to allow such an amendment, the Hearing Examiner shall consider whether the fair hearing opportunity of other parties would be prejudiced by the amendment. 3.06 WITHDRAWAL (a) An appeal may be withdrawn only by the appellant, in writing. (b) Where an appeal is filed by more than one person, or by an organization or other entity, the appeal may be withdrawn only by the person designated as the party representative. (See HER 3.07.) (c) An appellant's request to withdraw shall be granted as a matter of right and the appeal dismissed. 3.07 PARTY REPRESENTATIVE REQUIRED When a party consists of more than one person, or is an organization or other entity, the party shall designate an individual or finn to be its representative and provide written notification to the Hearing Examiner and the other parties of contact information for the representative. (See HER 3.01 (d)(5).) The rights of such a party shall be exercised by Page 15 April 12, 2010 NEW BUSINESS Three items of Cavalla Preliminary Plat Appeal Correspondence Received (LUA-08-097, PP, ECF) 1) Gwendolyn High, President, Community Alliance to Reach Out & Engage (CARE), PO Box 2936, Renton, WA 98056 2) Anita and Richard Olipant 16519 SE 145th St., Renton, WA 98059 3) David Halinen, Halinen Law Offices, representing KBS Development Corp., 1019 Regents Blvd., Suite 202, Fircrest, WA 98466 Refer to Planning & Development Committee (along with Agenda Item 6.c.) B4/B4/2010 02:03 205748058B JOANNA PAGE Bl CARE -Community Alliance to Reach Out & Engage P.O. Box 2936 Renton. WA ~805B hlghlands_neighbor5@hotm l!iI.com 206.ase,7152 April 12, 2010 City of Renton City Council 1055 s. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 RE: Appeal of Cavalla Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA 08-097, PP, ECF Dear City Council Members and Staff, CiTY OF RENTON APR 1 2 2010 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments regarding Mr. Petrie's appeal of the Hearing Examiner's Recommendation for the Cavalla Preliminary Plat application, CARE has participated with the Cavalla proposal (and Mr. Petrie's adjacent Liberty Gardens project) from their initiation while still in King County jurisdiction. Additionally, Gwendolyn High, our president, has led CARE's previous participation in these Land Use Actions in the East Plateau Communities since 2001: -Evendell Preliminary Plat and Rezone (Ke LOIP0016 and LOITY401) -Liberty Grove Preliminary Plat and Rezone (Ke L03POOO&'L03TY403) 'Liberty Grove Contiguous Preliminary Plat and Rezone (Ke L03POOO~L03TY401) 'Nichols Place Preliminary Plat (Ke L03P0015) Threadgill Preliminary Plat (Ke LOSP0026) Heritage Preliminary Plat (Ke L07POOD9) Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat (Ke L04P0034 and Renton LUA08-093) 'Cavalla Preliminary Plat (Ke DOES L06POOOl and Renton LUA08-097) Melki Rezone (Ke DOES L08TY403) Though she currently serves as a Renton Planning Commissioner and Administrative Director for the Washington Wildlife and Recreation Coalition, Ms. High's participation in these matters is entirely independent ofthose roles. We would like to record our particular support of the current Hearing Examiner's recommendations 1, 4,5,6,7, 11, 12 and 13, 1 04(04(2010 02:03 2057480580 JOANNA PAGE 02 We appreciate that the applicant and their whole team, as well as City planning staff Including the Planning Director, attended the June 22, 2009 CARE Monthly Meeting to hear from and speak directly with concerned community m@mbers. Th@ much Improved proposal that was ultimately considered by the Hearing Examiner is significantly different than what was originally proposed and we betleve did attempt to address our concerns. It Is Important for all to understand the Mr. Petrie's paraphrasing and reporting of CARE participants' words and action at the original Cavalla Public Hearing are wrong. He has grossly misrepresented our intent and our words. Our written submissions and the record ofthe Public Hearing stand for themselves. To be clear: The implementation ofthe King County Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs) Program Is an issue of intense and long standing concern to the community surrounding the proposed Cavalla project. By our calculation, with this project, our community will have absorbed about 20% of!!l TORs transferred In King County since the first TDR was sold in 1999. CARE and Its roughly 500 participant households in the East Plateau communities have consistently and vigorously opposed the unmitigated utilization of TDRs in our neighborhoods. Please note that all the projects marked· above have been TDR projects and in the first four, CARE opposed the increased density all the Way to Superior Court. The adopted King County TDR land use regulations require neither infrastructure nor aesthetiC mitigation of any kind for any of the Increased Impacts that result from the unanticipated increase density which in turn yield Increased negative Impacts to recreation, transportation, quality of life and character of our existing community. So far, the TDR projects here have resulted In increased traffic accidents, unsafe intersections, devastating flooding of neighboring properties ,md homes during construction and developments that are distinctly incompatible with the community character we cherish. Sadly for our community, as we understand and the Renton Hearing Examiner's two reports on the Cavalla project indicate, there is no legal mechanism to allow Renton to reject the use ofTDRs because the state vesting law that controls the situation where a project starts under the county, and then annexes into the city, requires the development regulations of the county to be implemented by the annexing city. The best CARE could do has been to encourage the aesthetic Improvements now proposed to minimize the negative impacts of this project. We have been vigilant and endeavored to secure every mitigation possible. Ev@n In the last moments oftheflrst hearing, the lead volunteers of our Stewardship of Wetland Areas by Neighbors (SWAN) program noticed that the landscaping plan proposed plants on the noxious weeds list In the pond and we thank the Hearing Examiner for correcting that issue. If some legal mechanism can be Identlfled through this appeal process by which the utilization ofTDRs might be forbidden In our community, w@ encourage the City to explore it most diligently. At the first Cavalla hearing we commented: 2 04/04/2010 02:03 2057480586 JOANNA PAGE 03 Additionally, the community has significant concerns that without strict compliance with the KCC mandated transfer process, the City sets a precedent which may open itself to quite detrimental unintended consequences. It is our understanding that this the first time that TORs have come before the Renton Hearing Examiner, and all due care must be exercised to review and condition this project correctly. Those fears have been made manifest. Mr. Petrie now desires TORs and to that end has threatened in his Cavalla appeal documents to pursue a major modification of his adjacent Liberty Gardens project which was approved by the Hearing Examiner in February 2009 -over a y".r agol The march of unplanned and inadequately mltlgat"d density continues to stride through our community. We try to be realistic. We understand that because of the legal loopholes existing in the King County code and the absence of a binding land use/planning interlocal agreement between King County and the City of Renton there is precious little the neighbors in the East Plateau can do today to protect the community we love. We implore the City Council Members to minimize the negative impacts of the Cavalla TDRs to the limits allowed under the law and to pursue a land use/planning interlocal agreement between King County and the City of Renton with all possible speed in order to stem the tide of ever more incompatible development in the East Renton Plateau Potential Annexation Arel3. Respectfully submitted, ~-:JjU;'l/p;/)z~r-;: !.I';~ ,,-'" v ." Gwendolyn High -president 3 , .. ~ \ • CITY OF RENTON April 2, 20 to APR 0 9 2010 To: Council's Planning and Development Committee RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE #adj)~ Re: KBS Developers -Cavalla Preliminary Plat (File No. LUA-08-083 PP, ECF) Attached, please see the promise to the citizens ofthe East Renton Plateau. These promises were adopted by the Renton City Council in December of2006 after 5 plus years and many community meetings involving the City and residences of the Plateau. This Cavalla Preliminary Plat now wanting to use TDR credits so they can profit an additional one point five million dollars in profit is a joke. #1. The original plat under K.C. proposed 38 dwellings -July 2006 #2. This area was annexed into the City of Renton -August 11, 2008 #3. The second formal set of plans was submitted -July 30, 2009 -(Using TDR credits after annexing.) KBS developers are saying -being the original plat was submitted under K.C. and should be grandfathered back to 2006 - I say that's fme -to grandfather something back means it maintains its original proposal -this being 38 dwellings. After annexation and no approved plat they resubmitted a plat using TDR credits. According to the laws there has to be a interlocal agreement (KC 21A 37.14) between an incorporated area and K. C, when the KC Land Use Bank is used. There is no such agreement between Renton and K.C. In fact Renton has never recognized the use ofTDR credits. Also, according to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, all developers building in a P AA shall be regulated by that annexing cities codes, KBS developers knew this or their very first proposal would not have been R-4. Anita and Richard Olipant 16519 SE 145 1h St. Renton, Wa. 98059 425-271-9825 Preliminary Recommendation of the East Renton Plateau Citizens Task Force November 2, 2006 City of Renton Department of: Economic Development, Neighborhoods, Strategic Planning Alex PiE:I$Ch,~strator www.rtID.tonwa.govlbusiness/defau lt.aspx?id=2778 , ~. I it t I I \ '. The East Renton Plateau Citizen Task Force was appointed by Mayor Kathy Kooiker on September 25, 2006 Task Force Members: Kerry Abercrombie Rbonda Bryant Tom Carpenter Bob Chamberlain Sheila Hurst Stephanie Lorenz Brian Thomas Michael Turner Kevin Wyman , I I. t. I f f , I i I The East Rento~ Plateau Citize~ Task Force is composed of a group of citizen volunteers, appointed by thC::Mayor, approved by the City Council, and established to review community pl8IllIing issues. The task force members were recruited through the Four Creeks UnincotpOrated Area Council, the Citizens Alliance for a Responsible Evendell, the Five Star Athlc::tic Club, and through advertisement in the Renton Reporter. Individuals ontflhask force represent themselves rather than any organizations. Purpose: The purpose of the Task Force is to make recommendations on area pre- zoning for the pOrtion of the East Renton Plateau that is within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). Another purpose of the Task Force is to make recommendations regarding comnitunty planning issues relevant to the East Renton Plateau, such as transportation, parks, community character, and the transition from urban to rural areas. Finally, the Task Force will also review the adopted City of Renton Comprehensive Plan vision for the East Renton Plateau. This report is an initial report identifying the proposed pre-zoning recommendations of the Task Force for the Plateau. These recommendations will be finalized after public input and then be presented to the Renton Planning Commission and Renton City Council as the Final Recommended Pre-Zoning Map and Report for the East Renton Plateau. The Task Force: The Task Force membership is comprised of nine volunteer members of the East Renton Plateau community who are business owners, employees, property owners, and! or residents who represent locations throughout the Potential Annexation Area (p AA). Task Force members were appointed by the Mayor and ratified by City Council. Mission/Goals: The primary goal for the Task Force, up to this point, has been to develop a Proposed Pre-Zoning Map for the East Renton Plateau within the UGB. The Task Force will continue to meet and after public input, the map recommendation will be finalized. Then members will begin working on the goal of making further recommendations regarding other issues they have identified as significant to the East Renton Plateau, such as transportation, parks, community character, and a possible new zoning designation. In order to formulate this pre-zoning recommendation there was a significant amount of information that members were required to develop a familiarity with. Some of that information included: • Pre-zoning proposals and processes • Planning, Growth Management, and Zoning • Existing City policies for the area and City responsibilities under Growth Management Proeess:The Task Force has met weekly with City staff. After initial briefug sessions, each irieIDber d~eloped his or her own recommendations for the pre-zoning map. These individual maps were. then grouped into three general overarching concepts: a significant am0\1Ilt0fR-llow density residential, a blend ofR-l with R-4, and somewhat more .J.t.,4 Page lof3 , residential. Members achieved consensus on the identification of critical areas, and on most of the areastQ be identified as R-4 and R·l. City staff then examined the three concept maps for consistency with City of Renton zoning code and mapping criteria. The Task Force consolidated the three maps with City code to establish a proposed map that meets Renton ZonlDg Code and mapping criteria. The Task Force looks forward to input from fellow Platc::au community members at the upcoming public meetings to help provide insight M they consider their final recommendation' for the proposed pre-zoning map. CODStraillU; The East Renton Plateau is an area with some significant environmental constraints. ABa plateau it has areas with steep slopes of greater than 40 percent grade, streams that flow off the Plateau into the Cedar River and May Creek, and wetlands. AB shown on Table·l these environmental constraints dictate a zoning designation of either Resource Conservation or R·l in the related areas. The area is designated for additional growth under the King County and Renton Comprehensive Plans. Becansethere is vacant land the area has capacity for future growth. While there is pressure for development at the present time, the lack of sewer is a constraint on development. Steep slopes, streams, and wetlands make sewer extension costly and unlikely until growth pressure elevates the value of those areas. Due to these significant environmental constraints, the area is likely to remain on septic systems for the foreseeable future. The City of Renton's Comprehensive Plan: All zoning is required by law to be consistent with the City of Renton's existing Comprehensive Plan and zoning policies. The current designation under the Comprehensive Plan is Residential Low Density (RLD), with a very small area designated Residential Single Family (RSF). The City's RLD Land Use designation allows for three possible classifications: I dwelling unit/I 0 acres (RC), 1 dwelling unit/acre (R'!), and a maximum of 4 dwelling units/acre (R-4). The RSF Land Use designation allows for densities from 4 dwelling units/acre to 8 dwelling units/acre. The Proposed Pre-Zoning Map of the area meets all requirements of consistency with the Renton Comprehensive Plan. The Map almost exclusively RLD Land Use with a 6.15 acre area designated RSF. The Comprehensive Plan outlines the mapping criteria for each zoning designation and has been applied to this map. Table 1 outlines the details of the mapping criteria for each designation. The Proposed Pre-Zoning Map; The attached map is the current Proposed Pre-Zoning Map for the East Renton Plateau. It reflects the areas of consensus identified by the Task Force. Members have proposed a map that is the best application of Renton's adopted policies and Comprehensive Plan. The Task Force will finalize the recommendation on the propQiied map so that it reflects the goals and objectives of the COmmunity, lIS well as, the environnleIltal constraints. Then the Final Recommended Pre·Zoning Map will be submitted to the Planning Commission. Page 2 of3 , f \ , The proposed map reflects the work of the Task Force up to this point in time and is intended to balanee the pressure of development inside the UGA while addressing environmental rollStraints and maintaining environmental quality. In general terms, the following pre-zorUng designations have been applied to the following areas: • ResoureeConservation -proposed for the southwest and westeriutlpst portion of the mapped area. • R-l -Proposed for the eastern and southeast portion of the mapped area . .A.l~(), for a portion of the northeastern area. • R-4 -pt()posed for essentially the remainder of the mapped area. • R-8 -ptqI>Osed for a small area (6.5 acres) on a western tip of the mapped area. Application of these zoning designations will be consistent with the Renton Zoning Code purpose statements. These Zoning Code statements are available in Table 1. Next Steps: The East Renton Plateau Task Force has identified many topics that they l()()k forward to working on in the future. Some of those issues are: traffic, parks, community character, function as a transition area, community vision, design guidelines, and a possible new zoning designation. After the Task Force has completed their work on these issues, they will have completed the scope of the pre-zoning work. The Task Force will not act in an advisory capacity on any actual development activity in the area. Page 3 gf3 I ' . . I· [, ! I ! r I j ,Rentol> You are here : Government: Annexatkms East Renton Plateau Potential Annexation Area The East Renton Plateau Is a 2,126 acre residential area that is home to approximately 8,000 people. OVer the past decade Relltoil.has annexed about 900 acres of property in this area. Click here to see the King County Growth Report for the East Renton Plateau. The area has been designated as Residential Low Density in Renton's adopted Comprehensive Plan. Old< hen! to vieW the Comprehensive Plan Land Use map. In December 2006, the Renton . City Council approved prezonina for the area consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The zoning would allow a maximum density of four dwelling units per net acre (4 dulac) in some portions of the area and a density of one dwelling unit per net acre (1 dulac) in other portions of the area. Old< here to view the adopted prezoning map. This 1!~Q!1Lng will only become effective when an area annexes to the City. In February 2007, residents of the East Renton Plateau PM In the proposed preserve Our Plateau Annexation area chose not to annex to Renton and defeated an annexation proposal for a 1,475- acre area at the polls. However, some property owners have petitioned the City to annex using the , direct petition method. The City expects to continue to receive annexation petitions from pie in the East Plateau area. The infonmatlon sheets below provide Infonmation and answer many questions about annexation in the East Rellton area. • Growth Managemellt OV~ [389 KB) • KiDg County Annexation In!t:faIlve [406 KB) • G<1Vemance ODtl!1ns [288 KB) • How to Annex to a Oty [535 KB) • Stay Unlncoroorat;ed [326 KB) • Renton PM: East Renton Plateau MM [1.76 MB) • East Renton f.evy Districts Mal! • Business Taxes and Fees [130 KB) • City Anances [25 KB] • Can Renton Afford to Annex? [241 KB] • local Servlce Providers [151 KB] • !'2!Jce...~ [45 KB] • Are and Emeraency Services [36 KB] • !Jbrary Service [26 KB] • Neiohbort!ood Parks and Recreation [26 KBJ • Sound Transit Taxes and Annexation [691 KB] .~[238KBl • Address Olange [23 KB] • Str!!et Malnte~ http://rentonwa.gov/ goverrunentldefault.aspx ?id=6222&printfriendly= 1 Helpful Links: And out If you !Jve in t!Je ~nnexatlon area. 4/1/2010 Renton • Drainage and SUrface Water Management [In KB] • Sewers and Septtc ~ [32.I<B] • Pevekloment Regulations [34 J<B] • ~ of Green 5oai:est~9 KB] For additional information, piea!*l9lIPI25.430.6575. http://rentonwagov/govemmentldefault.aspx?id=6222&printfriendly=1 --·0· 4/112010 , • . Table 1 : East Renton Plateau Pre-Zoning Designations .... ~'C lArea Oil , "Mappmg' Mappmg Criteria m the Rentoo Zolling Purpose Ratiooale for Pre-Zoning "P\JUeao ' '., Des'i2n.atioll COll1Dl'ehenslve Plall . ~mmendation Otnerauyon RC Policy LU·135 Section 4-2·020 B Renton City Code Presence of significant and the Southwest 1) Critical areas encumber a significant The Resource Conservatioo Zone (RC) is established to pervasive slopes of ~ , portionoftbe , portion of the gross area; provide a very low-density residentisl zooe that than 40 percenlgracle based Plateau and . 2) Developable areas are separated endeavon to provide some residential use of lands 00, .Iape dats inthj,Cfl,ji .of the from one another by pervasive characterized by extensive critical areas or lands with Renton database, Kl!!g ' .. Westernmost critics! areas or occur 00 isolated agricultural uses. This zone promotes uses that are County datsbase,.",cHJSGS ' tip. portions of the site and access compallble with the functions and values of designated topographical survey. limitations exist; critical. No minimum density is reqWred. 3) The location ofth. sensitive area The Resource Conservatioo Zone is also inteoded to results in a non-contiguous provide separation between areas of more intense uman development pattern; uses; reduce the intensity of uses in accordance with the 4) The area is a desiguated urban extent of environmentally sensitive areas such as separator; or floodplains, wetlands and streams, aquifers, wildlife . 5) Application of the Critical Areas habitat, steep slopes, and other geologically hazardous Ordinance sethackslbuffen and/or areas. net density definition would create a sitnation where the allowed density could not be accommodated on the , remaining net developable area without modifications or variances to other standards. The Eastetn R-I Policy LU-134 Sectioo 4-2-020 C Renton City Code Presence of streams or and I horne per acre on Residential Low The Residential-lDweUing Unit Per Net Acre Zone (R-creeks and wetlaods based South"""tetn . Density (RLD) <lesiguated land with I) allows residential development of lands where lirnited On City of Renton and King pjlrtion "fthe significant environmental residential development will not compromise critics! County databases. Also, PhitealL constraints, including but not limited areas. The zone provides for suburban estate single significant erosion hazard AlsO,'a to: steep slopes, erosion hazard, family and clustered single-family residential dwellings, along southern pjlrtion of . pjlrtiQllofthe floodplains, and wetlands or where at a maximmn density of one dwelling unit per net acre the Plateau. Extension of No~east the area is in a desiguated Urban and allows for small scale farming associated with . sewer lilies to this area on area. Separator. residential use. . the plateau is not anticipated It is further intended to protect critical areas, provide in the foreseeable future. The eastern pjlrtioo of the sepatation between neighboring jurisdictions through Plateau is bordered by the desiguation of uman separators as adopted by Urban Growth Boundary, Countywide Policies, and proInbit the development of thus the proposed R-I area incompatlble uses that may be detrimeotal to the residential or natural environment. No minimum density serves as a separator. .--. ~--- H:\EDNSPIP AA \AonexationslEast Renton Plateau P AA lEast Reoton Plateau Task ForeeIPlateau Matrix Page lof2 = &ii:Jj' xc UW;;::;;:Z::;;;;;;;':;;;;~"'.·"7~""',,,&:,,,-,,,,,;;,,,,,,,,,,,: .-------.-.. -...-.,-.~ ... _-'--:::-, '--7_~·.::-:·.y.~'·- is Essentially, R4 Policy LU-134 Section 4-2-020 D Renton City Code Parcel specific thereJ!18inder Density should be a maximum of 4-The Residenlial4 Dwelling Units Per Net Acre Zone environmental constraints of the Urban dulnet acre on portions of the (R4) is established to promote urban single-family can be addressed through portion of the Residential Low Density land where residential neighborhoods serviceable by wban applications of the Renton PIatesu.' these constraints are not extensive infrastructure, The R-4 designation serves as a transition Critical Areas Ordinance. and wban densities are appropriate. betw<:en rural designation zones and higher density residential zones. I Larger lot subdivisions are prefened; however, "small ,I'. lot clusters" are allowed on sites where open space amenities are created. Resulting development is intended to be superior in design and siting than that which would normally otherwise occur. Small lot clusters may also meet objectives such as the provision of efficient sewer services. Anarea,of R-E There is no po~cy regarding mapping Section 4-2-020 E Renton City Code Parcel specific 6. I 5-acres criteria for R-8 designation. Objective The Residential-8 Dwelling Units Per Net Acre Zone environmental constraints along the LU-FF states: Encourage re-(R-8) is established for single-family residential can be addresaed through Wes!ern investmeni and rehabilitation of dwelling allowing a tange of 4 to 8 dwelling units per applications of the Renton boundary, existing housing, and development of net acre. Development in the R-8 Zone is intended to Critical Areas Ordinance. adjaccntto new residential plats resulting in create opportunities for new single-family residential Renton City qnallty neighbothoods that: neighborhoods and to facilitate high-<J.118lity infill limits. 1) Are planned .t urban densities and development that promotes reinvestment in existing implement Growth Management single-family neighborhoods. It is intended to targets, accommodate uses that are compatible with and .apport 2) Promote expansion and use of a high qnallty residenlial environment and add to a sense public transportation, and of community. 3) MaIre more efficient use ofwban services and infrastro~ . H:\);DNSP\P AA\AnnexationslEast Renton Plateau P AA lEast Renton Plateau Task Force\Platcau Matrix Pag.Zof2 ,~ ....... .,."'...""... . ...• I ,_,.". ~------------.-,~ -"r.'T. . , , > • HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Service Corporation David L. Halinen, P.E. davidhalinen(a)halinenlaw.com 1019 Regents Blvd., Suite 202 Fircrest, Washington 98466-6037 Tacoma: (253) 627-6680 Seattle: (206) 443-4684 Fax: (253) 272-9876 HAND-DELIVERED AND VIA EMAIL (Bwalton@Rentonwa.gov) Renton City Council Attn: Planning and Development Committee clo Bonnie Walton, Renton City Clerk 1055 S. Grady Way. Seventh Floor Renton, Washington 98055 April 12,2010 RE: Cavalla Preliminary Plat (City of Renton File No. LUA-OB-097, PP, ECF) Plat Applicant: KBS Development Corp. ("KBS") Letter on Behalf of My Client KBS in Snpport of Its Position That, If Not Dismissed, Dave Petrie's Purported Novcmber 17,2009 Appeal Must Be Denied Dcar Council Members: I am writing to you on behalf of my client KBS Development Corp. ("KBS"), the Cavalla Preliminary Pial applicant. On Friday, April 9, 2010, I submitted to you KBS's Dispositive Motion, which set forth three independent reasons why Dave Petrie's purported November 17, 2009 appeal (the "Petrie Appeal") must be dismissed. If, however, that dispositive motion is denied and you consider the merits of the Petrie Appeal, for the reasons set forth in this letter the Pctrie Appeal must be denied. Issues that Mr. Pctrie Raised on the Notice of Appeal Form He Submitted to the City Clerk's Office on November 17, 2009 Under Section 2 (Specification of Errors) on the City's notice of appeal [onn that Mr. Petrie completed and, on November 17,2009, submitted to the City Clerk's Office, Mr. Petrie set forth (in the underlined, non-bolded text) the following purported specific errors of law or fact upon which his appeal was based: Finding of Fact: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's Report) No. ~ Error: The last sentence is inconsistent with paragraph on page 2 of Libertv Gardens Report (28 April, 2009) Correction: explain Also, reconvene Hearing due to violation ofNotilication requirements. Renton City Council April 12,2010 Page 2 Conclusions: No . ..l.. Error: Due to violation of Notification requirements, no one against the use of TOR's was present, or knew about this Hearing. Correction: Declare the Hearing Invalid Other: No. __ Error: Liberty Gardens has identical rights to use TOR's, as aJleged for Cavalla Correction: Explain statement by Kaufman at I I: I 0:41 AM of audio recording. Further, under Section 3 (Summary of Action Requested) on the City's notice of appeal form that Mr. Petrie completed and, on November 17, 2009, submitted to the City Clerk's Office, Mr. Petrie only checked the line item stating "Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows" but then inserted nothing in the space following that line item. Let me address each of those points in order. Mr. Petrie's Alleged Finding of Fact 7 Error The last sentence of Finding 7 of the Examiner's November 3, 2009 recommendation to the City Council stated: As discussed below, the density may be altered by the Transfer of Development Rights. (Emphasis added.) Bear in mind that, following requests for reconsideration of the Examiner's November 3, 2009 recommendation submitted by both Renton Planning Director Chip Vincent and Mr. Petrie arguing (among other things in Mr. Petrie's request) for a reopening of the hearing due to public notice inadequacies, the Examiner issued a January 7, 2010 letter to Mr. Vincent and Associate Planner RocaIe Timmons ruling that: (i) The hearing would be reopened on February 9,2010 at 9:00 a.m.; (ii) "The effect of this reopening of the public hearing at this point makes the decision [i.e., the November 3, 2009 approval recommendation) issued by this office void"; and (iii) "A new decision based on the prior testimony and submissions as well as any new information will be issued after the close of the hearing." The last sentence of Finding 7 of the Examiner's November 3,2009 recommendation to the City Council is the same as the last sentence of Finding 14 of the Examiner's March 1, 2010 recommendation to the City Council. However, Mr. Petrie never appealed Finding 14 of the J , • • Renton City Council April 12,2010 Page3 Examiner's March I, 2010 recommendation (or, for that matter, any other portion of that reccmmendation). Even ifMr. Petrie had appealed the last sentence of Finding 14 of the Examiner's March 1,2010 recommendation, the fact that "density may be altered by the Transfer of Development Rights" was in fact "discussed below" (in Findings 19 and 20, Conclusion I, and Recommended Condition I). Also, the Cavalla application's vested right under King County zoning regulations [a legal predicate to the use of Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs) in this casc] was set forth in the unappealed second sentence of Finding 14, a sentence that accurately states that "[t]he subject site is vested under King County's zoningL] which is generally equivalent to Renton's designation[,] but the standards for lot area, yard setbacks or dimensions and development standards would be judged against King County standards in effect when the application was submitted." This point is also accurately addressed in Finding 4 of the Examiner's March 1,2010 recommendation, which states: It is obvious that the City has not implemented a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program and that its use in this area is very controversial. The application for this plat was submitted while the property was still under the land use jurisdiction of King County that is prior to annexation to the City of Renton. Under development rules required by the Washington Court system the applicant is entitled to develop the property under the rules and regulations in effect when the application was submitted -namely, under the rules of King County. Those rules permit the use of TDR's [sic]. TDR's [sic] permit a rural landowner to sell the rights to develop land in rural areas at an increased density to more urban areas. The transfer in effect allows the rural area to retain its rural character with less dense development while increasing the density in a more urban area where roads or sewer systems or other infrastructure are available to support the greater density. (Emphasis added.) See the three-page Applicant's Memorandum in Support of the Cavalla Prelimiuary Plat's Vested Rights (Hearing Exhibit 16), a copy of which is attached to this letter, for briefing that further supports the Cavalla applicant's vested rights. In addition, Finding 14 is consistent with oral statements made by the Examiner during the February 9, 2010 reopened hearing-see the third and ninth paragraphs of the summary of the February 9, 2010 hearing set forth on page II of the Examiner's March I, 2010 recommendation. In sum, even ifMr. Petrie had appealed the last sentence of Finding 14 of the Examiner's March I, 2010 recommendation (which he did not), nothing about that last sentence was erroneous. In fact, Mr. Petrie only alleges an inconsistency between the last sentence of Finding 7 of the Examiner's November 3, 2009 recommendation with a paragraph on page 2 of the Liberty Gardens Report (28 April, 2009). Whether or not that sentence was "inconsistent with Renton City Council April 12, 2010 Page 4 paragraph on page 2 of Liberty Gardens Report (28 April, 2009),,2 is absolutely irrelevant to the Cavalla preliminary plat proposal, a proposal that must be judged on its own merits in accordance with the King County regulations that it is vested under. Further, note that the "correction" that Mr. Petrie sought to the error he alleged in Finding of Fact 7 ofthe Examiner's November 3, 2009 recommendation was merely an explanation. Mr. Petrie did not propose any revision to the last sentence of Finding of Fact 7 of the Examiner's November 3, 2009 recommendation. (He also proposed reconvening of the hearing, which, pursuant to the separately filed requests for reconsideration submitted by him and by Mr. Vincent, he go!.) A desire for an explanation of a purported inconsistency between two different preliminary plats is not a legitimate ground for appeal. For these reasons, Mr. Petrie's alleged Finding of Fact 7 error must be rejected. Mr. Petrie's Alleged Conclusion 3 Error Conclusion 3 of the Examiner's November 3,2009 recommendation stated: Clearly, the increased density may only be permitted if the appropriate agreements or contracts are executed and the preservation tradeoff comes to fruition. Staff recommended that the plat be subject to such final execution. Clearly, the proposed plat can only go forward as proposed. If the TOR is not finalized, this plat would have to fail since no one has had an opportunity to review a layout with eleven fewer lots. The entire plat would have to be redesigned. However, Mr. Petrie did not allege any inaccuracies in that conclusion. He merely alleged that "[d]ue to violation of Notification requirements, no one against the use of TOR's was present, or knew about this Hearing." He got his wish of an additional hearing so that others "against the use of TORs" could participate. Conclusion 3 of the Examiner's November 3, 2009 recommendation to the City Council is the same as Conclusion 3 of the Examiner's March 1, 2010 recommendation to the City Council. However, Mr. Petrie never appealed Conclusion 3 of the Examiner's March 1, 2010 recommendation. Further, had he done so with the same language as that set forth on the completed notice of appeal form he submitted on November 17,2009, there would have been no allegation of error as to the conclusion itself. For these reasons, Mr. Petrie's alleged Conclusion 3 error must be rejected. 2 Mr. Petrie did not even submit a copy of the Liberty Gardens Report (28 April, 2009) into the record of the Cavallo preliminary plat proceeding. • • Renton City Council April 12, 2010 Page 5 Mr. Petrie's Alleged "Other" Error The "Other" error that Petrie alleges on the notice of appeal fonn ("Liberty Gardens has identical rights to use TDR's, as alleged jor Cavaila") does not relate in any way to the Cavalla preliminary plat but, instead, only to Mr. Petrie's Liberty Garden plat. In fact, this allegation fails to assert any error in any of the Findings, Conclusions or Recommended Approval Conditions of the Examiner's November 3,2009 Cavalla recommendation, Further, the "correction" that Mr. Petrie stated that he was seeking in relation to that alleged "Other" error was merely an explanation of the "statement by Kaufman at 11:10:41 AM of audio recording," Regardless of what Examiner Kaufinan stated at 11:10:41 AM concerning Liberty Gardens at the first day of the Cavalla preliminary plat hearing, it would only have been dictum in regard to the Liberty Gardens plat because that hearing was about Cavalla, not about Liberty Gardens (and thus could not have any legal effect on the Liberty Gardens plat), Thus, this "Other" allegation of error by Mr. Petrie is really no allegation of error in regard to Cavalla at all and, accordingly, must be rejected, Mr. Petrie's Request for a Remand to the Examiner for Unspecified Purposes The only action that Mr. Petrie requested on the notice of appeal fonn was a remand to the Examiner for unspecified purposes, That request was consistent with his allegations of violation of notification requirements, allegations that he also made in his November J 7, 2009 request for reconsideration to the Examiner. Because the Examiner already provided a reopened hearing (the hearing on February 7, 2010, at which Mr. Petrie testified), Mr. Petrie has already obtained the only reJiefhe sought on the notice of appeal fonn and, because he did not appeal the Examiner's March 1,2010 Cavalla approval recommendation, he is entitled to no further relief. Response to the Points that Mr. Petrie Made in His November 16, 2009 Letter to the City Council That Accompanied tbe Notice of Appeal Form That He Submitted to the City Clerk's Office on November 17, 2009 Along with the notice of appeal fonn that Mr. Petrie submitted to the City Clerk's Office on November 17, 2009, Mr. Petrie submitted a letter to the City Council dated November 16, 2009 entitled "Errors and Omissions" with (a) text under the headings of "Notification" and "Density Issue" from pages 1 to 3 thereof, (2) a section on page 3 thereof entitled "Action Required by the City Council," (3) statements of opinion by Mr. Petrie at the bottom of page 3 and the first half of page 4 thereof, (4) a list of nine exhibits on page 4 thereof, and (5) an "Addendum" at the bottom of page 4 and the top of page 5 thereof concerning Mr. Petrie's "Comparison of Plat Designs -Cavalla versus Liberty Gardens." (The text and attachments to that letter are identical to Mr. Petrie's November 16,2009 Request for Reconsideration letter to the Hearing Examiner except that no mention of appeal to the City Council is made in the Request for Reconsideration letter.) Except for the paragraphs under the heading of Renton City Council April 12,2010 Page 6 "Notification" (because thc notification issue has been mooted by the Examiner's reopening of the preliminary plat hearing), each paragraph of that letter to the Council is addressed in the 11- inch by 17-inch-size table attached to this letter. KBS hereby moves to strike all of the Exhibits to the Petrie letter to the Council as new evidence and irrelevant. Likewise hereby moves to strike the "Comparison of Plat Designs - Cavalla versus Liberty Gardens" as new evidence and irrelevant. For all of the reasons set forth above and in the attached table, Mr. Petrie's purported appeal must be denied. Sincerely, HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. David L. Ha inen Enclosures (Copy of Hearing Exhibit 16; KBS Table) cc: KBS Development Corp. Attn: Kolin Taylor (via email, with copies of enclosures) Attn: Bob Ruddell (via email, with copies of enclosures) Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. Attn: Wayne Potter, Land Use Planner (via email, with copies of enclosures) C. E. "Chip" Vincent, Planning Director, City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development (via email, with copies of enclosures) Roca1e Timmons, Associate Planner, City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development (via email, with copies of enclosures Y:\cf\2426\002\A.ppeaJ\Responsc\Ciry Council LTI (4-12-10).doc • " ;'" KBS's 4-12-10 Comments Concerning the Paragraphs of David Petrie's November 16, 2009 Letter to the Renton City Council ----------.---.--------_. -~-- Paragraph Paragraph Text KBS's Comments Concerning Paragraph KBS's Corresponding Paragraph Asserts an Number Motion(s) Error in a Finding, Conclusion, or Recommended Condition of the Cavalla Preliminary Plat Approval (Yes or No?) "Density" Section of Petrie's Letter 1 The basis for Cavalla asking for increased density via TDR's l sic] The Cavalla preliminary plat was vested by virtue of the fact that the No. was that they were vested under King County Codes during the 2 application was submitted to King County prior to annexation of the y, years that their plat was being worked by King Counties' [sic 1 site into the City of Renton. DOES. 2 Cavalla was vested in February 2006. Relevant to the fairness There is no "fairness issue" in regard to the use of TORs. The No. issue on use of TOR's [sic], Liberty Gardens was vested 29 Cavalla preliminary plat is entitled to use TDRs because it was December 2004. vested under the King County Zoning regulations, which allow them to be used. Whether or not the Liberty Gardens preliminary plat could have used them ifMr. Petrie had sought to use them when the Liberty Gardens preliminary plat was processed is irrelevant to the Cavalla preliminary plat review and approval. 3 The Renton Comprehensive plan-designating R-4 as the The first sentence of this paragraph is true but is irrelevant because No. maximum density for SFD's-was prepared in 2004. Currently, Cavalla must be considered under King County's regulations, not Renton has no Code provision compatible with Transfer of Renton's regulations. Development Rights. It is interesting that KC [sic]21A.37.14 requires an Inter-local Agreement between an incorporated area Whether or not the paragraph's second sentence is true is irrelevant and King County to be valid when King Counties [sic] Land because Cavalla must be considered under King County's Bank is used. No such agreement exists between Renton and regulations, not Renton's regulations. King County. The third sentence cites a purported "KC 21A.37.14". No such King County Code section exists. Apparently, Mr. Petrie meant to refer to KCC 2IA.37.140 [Transfer of development rights (TOR) program -requirements for transfers by the TOR bank for use in incorporated receiving areas], which, in subsection A thereof, states as follows: A. For development rights sold by the TDR bank to be used in incorporated receiving site arcas, the county and the affected city or cities must first have executed an inter local agreement and the city or cities must have enacted appropriate legislation to implement the program for the rece1vmg area. Page I DLH4-12-10 I (Emphasis added.) However, as pointed out by attorney David Halinen during the Cavalla hearing, the TORs acquired by the Cavalla preliminary plat applicant for the Cavalla project were acquired from private parties rather than lrom the King County TOR bank. Copies of the two private party TOR transfer agreements were submitted into the hearing record on the October 13, 2009 (first day of the) Cavalla preliminary plat hearing record as Exhibit II. I 4 Since Renton wanted larger lots than obtained under R-6 (via use Mr. Petrie's statement is unsupported by the record (and, in any KBS moves to strike Mr. Petrie's No. ofTDR's [sic]), Renton was able to restrain use of the TDR by event, is totally irrelevant to the review of the Cavalla application). paragraph as new testimony. Sewer Availability Letters, restricting the number of lots as follows: I Liberty Gardens-38 lots Cavalla-36 lots Threadgill-15 lots 5 During the 3 I-months that Cavalla was being reviewed by King The Cavalla plat was not "held" to the City'S R-4 zoning regulations No. County's DOES, Cavalla was held to R-4 by the aforementioned because the Cavalla proposal was vested under the County's R-4 Sewer Availability Letters, at a lot count of 38. Approval of any zoning regulations. plat under Renton's Comprehensive Plan, at a density higher than R-4, is not supported by that Plan. Due to vesting, King County's regulations (along with the TDR provisions of those regulations) apply to the Cavalla application, not Renton's Comprehensive Plan and Development regulations. 6 Upon annexation (August 11,2008) to Renton, Renton's KBS admits that Renton Planning Staff took over the review of the No. Planning Staff took over the review process, Liberty Gardens at Cavalla preliminary plat application upon annexation of the Cavalla 36-10ts, Cavalla at 38. property into Renton. (KBS assumes that Renton Planning Staff took over the review of the Liberty Gardens preliminary plat application upon annexation ofthe Liberty Gardens property into Renton but, in any event, the City'S review of the Liberty Gardens preliminary plat has no bearing on the City's review of the Cavalla preliminary pIaL) 7 When Renton Staff indicated preference for 164'n Ave SE, as the Contrary to Mr. Petrie's contention, there was no "breach of Code" No. preferred Secondary Access over the submitted I 62 nd Ave because the Renton code provisions (the provisions he contended (fraught with environmental concerns), Cavalla decided to press were breached) do not apply due to the Cavalla application's vesting Renton Staff for introduction ofTDR's [sic], based on their being under County regulations. (Mr. Petrie's statement is an admission "grand fathered" by date of vesting under DOES. Renton went of Cavalla's vested rights.) along with this breach of Code, increasing the lot count 49. 1 8 To say another way by surmise: The Cavalla developers-not Mr. Petrie's statement of "surmise" should be disregarded for what KBS moves to strike Mr. Petrie's No. satisfied with the cost savings of not having to extend 162 nd it is: mere speculation, unsupported by the record. (In any event, paragraph as new testimony. Ave to 144'h Street through two Sensitive Areas-wanted to Mr. Petrie's statement is totally irrelevant to the review ofthe exact more by offering cosmetics: "If we add more trees and Cavalla application.) plants, how about some compensatory help, like TOR's Page 2 DLH 4-12-10 !. ,. ',* [sic j?" (Providing an extra -$1.5M profit, at a cost of $50K worth of landscaping). The likely response from Timmons, Watts and Kyttrick [sic]: "We'll give it a try." Cavalla did not include Petrie in this negotiation, knowing that he was adamant in , adhering to the R-4 zoning of Renton's Comprehensive Plan. 9 In contrast, Petrie acceded to Renton's wishes to use 164'" Mr. Petrie's paragraph should be disregarded because it does not KBS moves to strike Mr. Petrie's No. i A venue as the Secondary Access, primarily because Renton Staff concern the Cavalla application and is unsupported bv the record. paragraph as new testimony. , , agreed to Petrie's ofTer to extend SE 140,h Place 100-feet directly East to provide the desired connection between 162"d Avenue and I 64th A venue, replacing the original plan by Renton to slash an artcrial from NW to SE across the Liberty Gardens plat, this [sic] effecting significant damage to the layout. 10 At 10:03:48 AM, Gwen High-claiming to represent the Mr. Petrie's statement is largely speculation that is unsupported by KBS moves to strike as new No. community at a following of ~ 15-testified quite differently from the record, (In any event, Mr. Petrie's statement is totally irrelevant testimony and as hearsay the the past seven-years, now accepting TDR's [sic1. Gwen is so to the review of the Cavalla application.) following underlined portions of enthused about the landscape amenities; she asks that the Cavalla Mr. Petrie's paragraph: developers be required to erect permanent signs welcoming neighbors throughout the area to use the walking trail with two At 10:03:48 AM, Gwen High- benches and a picnic table around the unsightly wild grass/weed claiming to represent the field. (See Exhibit 2-Typical Retention Pond). Gwen is community at a following of apparently oblivious to the 20-aere Maplewood Heights Park-a -15-testified guite differently 30-second walk southeastward-soon to be transferred to Renton. from the gast seven-years, now accepting TOR's [sic]. Gwen is ~ enthused about the landscape amenities; she asks that the Cavalla developers be required to erect pennanent signs welcoming neighbors throughout the area to use the walking trail with two benches and a picnic table around the unsightly wild grass/weed field, (See Exhibit 2- Typical Retention Pond). Gwen is aggarently oblivious to the 20- acre Maglewood Heights Park-a 30-second walk southeastward- soon to be transferred to Renton, ---"--- II Gwen recommends that Renton go to the County pushing to KBS has no objection to this characterization by Mr. Petrie of No. amend the King County TOR Code to require beautification of Gwendolyn High's testimony but points out that it is irrelevant to ponds and similar amenities to plats using TOR's [sic], including the review ofthe Cavalla preliminary plat. the remainder of Renton's East Plateau, essentially advocating that Renton now accept TDR's [sic] within their Codes! 12 At 11 :09:43 AM on the recording of the CavaJla Hearing, KBS is unaware of whether or not Mr. Petrie'_SlT~nscrijJtion_ofthe No. Page 3 OLII 4-12-10 Appellant Petrie testified as follows: italicized statement is accurate. "During the break, my wife said that I didn't answer your Even if the transcription is accurate, the italicized statement has no question very well about how does this impact you? She bearing upon the City'S review of the Cavalla preliminary plat. thought I should mention something that we talked about earlier-and with others-if this plat gets approved here, and then gets by the City Counci/, I should come back in with a revised proposal-and I am going to bare my soul here-that if the higher-ups in City Hall care no more than that about the quality of the Renton Plateau Comprehensive Plan, and-as Gwen High pointed out earlier-this is going to be an island: it isn't going to happen again. And if they care no more than that, we will come back with a similar proposal. People are going to say "Why did you leave a million dollars on the table?" This is about money. lhat is why they are so motivated There is nothing wrong with that; but that is what this is all about ". 13 At 11:10:41, Examiner Kaufman responds: KBS is unaware of whether or not Mr. Petrie's transcription of the No. italicized statement is accurate. "It '.I' not on(v about money. I have to pass judgment on whether this plat is appropriate or not. And if you are Even if the transcription is accurate, the italicized statement has no talking about redesigning Liberty Gardens, I assume you bearing upon the City'S review of the Cavalla preliminary plat. are free to do that, but you would not probably be coming in under King County regulations anymore: You would be coming in solely under Renton regulations, and I don't think there are any Transfer of Development Righls. But I I will let you deal with your plat outside of this process ", 14 Examiner Kaufman, implying that Liberty Gardens was not The Examiner's statement in response to Mr. Petrie's statement has No. eligible for use ofTDR's [sic], is in error: The only explanation nothing to do with the City's review of the Cavalla preliminary plat for this paradox is that the Examiner was unaware that Liberty and is not a legitimate basis for appeal. Gardens was vested under King County from December 2004 through the Annexation (August 11,2008), having the same rights as Cavalla on this issue. 15 The Cavalla Hearing Report (11-3-2009) recommends approval at Condition 1 of the Examiner's November 3, 2009 Cavalla approval No. the higher density, but adds New Condition # I, containing the recommendation stated: words "for this subject plat only". These exclusionary words have no legal basis, intended to send a message to the local The applicant shall perform all steps and complete all citizens that: "We Will Break the Law (Renton's Density Code documentation necessary, as required by King County Code on the Plateau) just this once, but never again". section 2IA.37, and the City of Renton, in order to process the Transfer of Development Right's [sic] properly for this subject plat only. The certificate or other valid legal document(s) must show the ~plicant or Page 4 DLH4-l2-JO .... successor as the lawful owner of the development rights. If the agreement is not appropriately executed and fInalized the plat shall be null and void and a new application meeting code and density requirement would be necessary. (Emphasis added.) Me. Petrie's bad faith construction of the Examiner's statement at the end of Condition I 's fIrst sentence is totally unjustified by that sentence's text and the entire context of Condition 1, which merely directs the Cavalla applicant as to what needs to be done to process TORs for the Cavalla piaL Note that Me. Petrie's statement does not amount to an appeal of Condition I but merely an unjustified assertion of assumed wrong motives. Contrary to Mr. Petrie's assumption, no law is being broken by approval of the Cavalla preliminary plat premised upon TOR usage. To the contrary, the law is being upheld. The Section of Petrie's Letter Asserting "Action Reguired hy the City Council" 16 An emergency meeting of the Council is needed to affirm/change The outcome ofa meeting of the Council held to affirm/change the No. their policy regarding density on the Renton Plateau, particularly Council's policy regarding density on the Renton Plateau would regarding TOR's: have absolutely no legal effect on the Cavalla preliminary plat application because it is a plat application already in the review Option 1-Approve the Cavalla plat at 49-10ts. process, vested pursuant to RCW 58.17.033(1) under the King But square this up with the Renton Code by amending the Code County regulations that were in effect when the preliminary plat to allow any plats that have heen vested under King County application was originally submitted to King County OOES. Mr. Codes prior to Annexation (11 August 2008) to use TOR's, on Petrie's call for such a meeting amounts to a call for the City the basis that such plats had been "grand fathered" with that right, Council to consider violating the vested rights of the Cavalla availed under King County Codes. This would apply to only three applicant. unbuilt plats, vested in King County before the Annexation at R-4 density, as requested by Renton via King Counties OOES: KJ3S endorses Mr. Petrie's Option 1 suggestion that the 49-lot Threadgill (15-lots), Liberty Gardens (36-lots), and Cavalla (38-Cavalla plat be approved. Ilowever, no code change is legally lots). necessary for the Cavalla preliminary plat and, accordingly, the code changes that Mr. Petrie suggests under Option 1 cannot be made a (Obviously, New Condition # I-containing the words "fur rhis pial only" would condition ofCavalla approval. (Such a new condition of approval be struck, enabling Liberty Gardens and Threadgill to resubmit layouts using would violate Cavalla's vested rights.) TDR's, same as Cavalla}. Option 2-Require Cavalla to rework the plat to conform to Implementation ofMr. Petrie's Option 2 would directly violate the Renton's R-4 Code at 38-lots, sans TDR's. vested rights of the Cavalla applicant. 17 In my opinion, the Examiner needs clearer dircction-freeing him Mr. Petrie's statement of opinion is rude and totally uncalled for. No. from !land Wringing, as evidenced in the recording ofthe Hearing-on a maiden voyage, so to speak, of Renton adopting TOR's: Page 5 OLH 4-12-10 18 This should be done via a Task Force Study sponsored by the Mr. Petrie's suggestion is contrary to the project review process and No. Council, prior to the Examiner responding to the Request for would directly violate the vested rights of the Cavalla applicant. Reconsideration, providing direction on the Council's views on where Renton plans to go on this important policy issue. It is this larger issue that Petrie tried to address during his brief testimony, that the Examiner rejected treating in this Hearing. 19 At 11 :04:30 AM, Planner Timmons says: Planner Rocale Timmons' statement was made in the context of No. what would happen if, for some reason, the TOR transfer to the "Alternatively, the plat design shall be reconfigured to reflect the Cavalla applicant was not completed. (This is highly unlikely density allowable under R-4 zoning without TDR's [sic]". At because of the purchase contracts for those TORs-see Hearing 11:05: 13 Examiner Kaufmann responds: "I have a feeling we will Exhibit II.) be back here". 20 Inexplicably inconsistent with Examiner Kaufman's approval of The Liberty Gardens approval recommendation is not part of the KBS moves to strike Mr. Petrie's Cavalla using TOR's, he wrote (page 2, Liberty Gardens Plat record concerning the Cavalla preliminary plat review (and, even if paragraph as new testimony. Approval Report, 28 April 2009): it was part of the record, the purportedly quoted statement is irrelevant to the Cavalla preliminary plat review). "The site is zoned R-4 and the Comprehensive Plan designation is Residential-Low Density. However, the project is vested in the 2004 R-4 development standards and the Urban Residential Comprehensive Plan Designation of King County. It is the City's position that the annexed properties are not vested to rules and procedures of the King County Code and that the project. once annexed, would jiJl/ow the rules and procedures outlined by the City of Renton Code. " 21 At 10: 19:20 AM on the recording, the Examiner evidences bias The Examiner evidenced no bias against Mr. Petrie. The testimony No. against Petrie's position on TDR's [sic], throttling his testimony and materials that Mr. Petrie referred to were legally irrelevant to the when he tries to explain the failure of densification measures to issue at hand because Cavalla is vested under King County reduce congestion by making traffic congestion worse, thereby regulations that allow applicants to use TORs. Forcing People Out of Their Cars Onto Transit. See OP-EO to the Seattle Times contained in Exhibit 3-lfeading the Wrong Direction for Congestion Relief, noting the paragraph on Land Use Legislation. In short, Petrie predicts eventual repeal of densification legislation because Quality of Life is degraded by crowding, not improved, as alleged by New Urbanists, who are behind such as the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and TOR's [sic]. 22 The Examiner further suppresses Petrie's testimony by failing to KBS is currently unsure as to whether or not the brief was entered No. enter into the record the II-page brief Testimony o/Dave Petrie into the record (or even requested to be entered into the record). at Cavallo Plat Hearing-October 13, 2009 (Exhibit 31 handed to Page 6 OLH 4-12-10 Secretary Nancy Thompson minutes before the Hearing commenced. But the Examiner does acknowledge the existence of that brief at 10: 17:35 AM on the recording. Page 7 DLH 4-12-10 " 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ORIGINAL BEFORE THE CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER Regarding the CAVALLA PRELIMINARY PLAT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) APPLICANT'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THE CA VALLA PRELIMINARY PLAT'S VESTED City of Renton File No. LUA08-097, ECF, PP (King County DDES File No, L06POOOl) RIGHTS Subsection 1 (Project DescriptioniBackground) of Section G (Department Analysis) on page 3 of the City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development's Preliminary Report (of October 13, 2009) to the Hearing Examiner concerning the Cavalla Preliminary Plat (the "City Staff Report") correctly points out that "the application for the Cavalla Preliminary Plat was submitted to King County Department of Development and Environmental Services ("KC DDES") for review on January 12, 2006". Following the submittal of the application, the Cavalla site was annexed into the City of Renton (as part of the Liberty Annexation). Above-referenced Subsection I ccrrectly goes on to assert that "the project is vested to King County's R-4 zoning designation's development regulations," (Emphasis added.) Other portions of the City Staff Report also confmn the proposal's King County vesting l This memorandum is submitted in support of the Cavalla preliminary plat's vested rights, J See City Staff Report page 1 (the Project Summary), page 3 (third paragraph from the bottom), page 5 (both of the last two paragraphs). and page 10 (first full paragraph), APPLICANT'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THE CAVALLA PRELIMINARY PLAT'S VESTED RIGHTS-Page 1 HALJNEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Service Corporation 1019 Regents Blvd Ste 202 Fi=est, WA 98466·6037 (206) 4434684/(253) 627·6680 (253) 272·9876 FAX 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 APPLICATION OF VESTING LAW TO THE CA VALLA SUBDIVISION APPLICATION Washington's general rule regarding vesting of proposed subdivisions ofland by the filing of an application for a preliminary plat is set forth in RCW 58.17.033(1), which states: A proposed division of land, as defined in RCW 58.17.020, shall be considered under the subdivision or short subdivision ordinance, and zoning or other land use control ordinances, in effect on the land at the time a fully completed application for preliminary plat approval of the subdivision, or short plat approval of the short subdivision, has been submitted to the appropriate county, city, or town official. (Emphasis added.) Thus, when the fully completed Cavalla preliminary plat application was submitted to KC DOES on January 12, 2006, pursuant to RCW 58.17.033(1) the proposed subdivision of the Cavalla site was vested under the King County subdivision ordinance, zoning ordinance, and other land use control ordinances then in effect. Further, a vested right to develop a parcel of land under existing land use regulations survives a municipal corporation's subsequent annexation of the land. Schneider Homes v. City of Kent, 87 Wn. App. 774,942 P.2d 1096 (1997). Thus, the Cavalla preliminary plat's vested rights have survived the Cavalla site's post-application annexation into the City of Renton. Accordingly, the King County subdivision ordinance, zoning ordinance, and other land use control ordinances in effect on the January 12, 2006 application date apply to the Cavalla application, including the chapter of King County's Zoning Code dealing with transfer of development rights, Chapter 21A.37. City of Renton subdivision ordinance, zoning ordinance, and other land use control ordinances do not apply. CONCLUSIONS The City Staff Report's assertion that "the [CavaIla] project is vested to King County's R-4 zoning designation's development regulations" is correct. As a result, the APPLICANT'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THE CAVALLA PRELIMINARY PLAT'S VESTED RIGHTS-Page 2 HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Senice Corporation 1019 Regents Blvd Ste 202 Fircrest, WA 98466-6037 (206) 443-4684/(253) 627-6680 (253) 2n-9876 FAX , r City of Renton's zoning regulations do not apply to the Cavalla preliminary plat's review 2 and decision-making process. 3 Owners of some nearby properties have complained that the residential density of 5 6 4 the proposed Cavalla project is inconsistent with the density contemplated by the City's Comprehensive Plan or by the City's zoning regulations. However, in view of the Cavalla preliminary plat's vesting, (aJ the City's Comprehensive Plan provisions and the City's 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 zoning of the Cavalla site are legally irrelevant to the proposal and (b) they thus cannot be applied to the subject application in the review and decision-making process. DATED this 8th day of February, 2010. HALlNEN LAW OFFICES, P .S, By; L)2.&<--<-£.f..J,:~j.4~~tv~ David L. Hal' WSBA #15 23 Attorney for Owner-Applicant KBS Development Corp. Y:\cf\2426\OO2\Preliminary PJat\Memo Regarding Vested Rights DI (DLH 2-8-10).docx APPLICANT'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THE CA VALLA PRELIMINARY PLAT'S VESTED RIGHTS-Page 3 HALINEN LA W OFFICES, P.S. A professional Service Corporation 1019 Regents Blvd Ste 202 Fircrest, WA 98466-6037 (206) 443-4684/(253) 627·6680 (253) 272·9876 FAX HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Service Corporation David L. Halinen, P,E. davidhalinen@halinenlaw.com 1019 Regents Blvd., Suite 202 Fircrest, Washington 98466-6037 Tacoma: (253) 627-6680 Seattle: (206) 443-4684 Fax: (253) 272-9876 CITY OF RENTON APR 1 2 2010 April 12, 2010 RECEIVED CITY CLERI<:S OfFICE HAND-DELIVERED AND VIA EMAIL (Bwalton@Rentonwa.gov) Renton City Council Attn: Planning and Development Committee clo Bonnie Walton, Renton City Clerk 1055 S. Grady Way, Seventh Floor Renton, Washington 98055 RE: Cavalla Preliminary Plat (City of Renton File No. LUA-08-097, PP, ECF) Plat Applicant: KBS Development Corp. ("KBS") Letter on Behalf of My Client KBS in Support of Its Position That, If Not Dismissed, Dave Petrie's Purported November 17, 2009 Appeal Must Be Denied Dear Council Members: I am writing to you on behalf of my client KBS Development Corp. ('XBS"), the Cavalla Preliminary Plat applicant. On Friday, April 9, 2010, I submitted to you KBS's Dispositive Motion, which set forth three independent reasons why Dave Petrie's purported November 17, 2009 appeal (the "Petrie Appeal") must be dismissed. If, however, that dispositive motion is denied and you consider the merits of the Petrie Appeal, for the reasons set forth in this letter the Petrie Appeal must be denied. Issues tbat Mr. Petrie Raised on the Notice of Appeal Form He Submitted to tbe City Clerk's Office on November 17, 2009 Under Section 2 (Specification of Errors) on the City's notice of appeal form that Mr. Petrie completed and, on November 17,2009, submitted to the City Clerk's Office, Mr. Petrie set forth (in the underlined, non-bolded text) the following purported specific errors of law or fact upon which his appeal was based: Finding of Fact: (please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's Report) No. ~ Error: The last sentence is inconsistent with paragraph on page 2 of Libertv Gardens Report (28 April. 2009) Correction: explain Also. reconvene Hearing due to violation of Notification requirements. Renton City Council April 12,2010 Page 2 Conclusions: No . ..l Error: Due to violation of Notification requirements, no one against the use ofTDR's was present, or knew about this Hearing. Correction: Declare the Hearing Invalid Other: No. __ Error: Liberty Gardens has identical rights to use TDR's, as alleged for Cavalla Correction: Explain statement by Kaufman at 11: 1 0:41 AM of audio recording. Further, under Section 3 (Summary of Action Requested) on the City's notice of appeal form that Mr. Petrie completed and, on November 17,2009, submitted to the City Clerk's Office, Mr. Petrie only checked the line item stating "Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows" but then inserted nothing in the space following that line item. Let me address each of those points in order. Mr. Petrie's Alleged Finding of Fact 7 Error The last sentence of Finding 7 of the Examiner's November 3,2009 recommendation to the City Council stated: As discussed below, the density may be altered by the Transfer of Development Rights. (Emphasis added.) Bear in mind that, following requests for reconsideration of the Examiner's November 3, 2009 recommendation submitted by both Renton Planning Director Chip Vincent and Mr. Petrie arguing (among other things in Mr. Petrie's request) for a reopening of the hearing due to public notice inadequacies, the Examiner issued a January 7, 2010 letter to Mr. Vincent and Associate Planner Rocale Timmons ruling that: (i) The hearing would be reopened on February 9, 2010 at 9:00 a.m.; (ii) "The effect of this reopening of the public hearing at this point makes the decision [i.e., the November 3, 2009 approval recommendation] issued by this office void"; and (iii) "A new decision based on the prior testimony and submissions as well as any new information will be issued after the close of the hearing." The last sentence of Finding 7 of the Examiner's November 3,2009 recommendation to the City Council is the same as the last sentence of Finding 14 of the Examiner's March 1, 2010 recommendation to the City Council. However, Mr. Petrie never appealed Finding 14 of the Renton City Council April 12,2010 Page 3 Examiner's March 1, 2010 recommendation (or, for that matter, any other portion of that recommendation). Even ifMr. Petrie had appealed the last sentence of Finding 14 of the Examiner's March I, 2010 recommendation, the fact that "density may be altered by the Transfer of Development Rights" was in fact "discussed below" (in Findings 19 and 20, Conclusion I, and Recommended Condition 1). Also, the Cavalla application's vested right under King County zoning regulations [a legal predicate to the use of Transfer of Development Rights (TORs) in this case] was set forth in the unappealed second sentence of Finding 14, a sentence that accurately states that "[t]he subject site is vested under King County's zoning[,] which is generally equivalent to Renton's designation[,] but the standards for lot area, yard setbacks or dimensions and development standards would be judged against King County standards in effect when the application was submitted." This point is also accurately addressed in Finding 4 of the Examiner's March 1,2010 recommendation, which states: It is obvious that the City has not implemented a Transfer of Development Rights (TOR) program and that its use in this area is very controversial. The application for this plat was submitted while the property was still under the land use jurisdiction of King County that is prior to annexation to the City of Renton. Under development rules required by the Washington Court system the applicant is entitled to develop the property under the rules and regulations in effect when the application was submitted -namely, under the rules of King County. Those rules permit the use of TDR's [sic]. TOR's [sic] pennit a rural landowner to sell the rights to develop land in rural areas at an increased density to more urban areas. The transfer in etlect allows the rural area to retain its rural character with less dense development while increasing the density in a more urban area where roads or sewer systems or other infrastructure are available to support the greater density. (Emphasis added.) See the three-page Applicant's Memorandum in Support of the Cavalla Preliminary Plat's Vested Rights (Hearing Exhibit 16), a copy of which is attached to this letter, for briefing that further supports the Cavalla applicant's vested rights. In addition, Finding 14 is consistent with oral statements made by the Examiner during the February 9, 2010 reopened hearing-see the third and ninth paragraphs of the summary of the February 9, 2010 hearing set forth on page 11 of the Examiner's March I, 20 I 0 recommendation. In sum, even ifMr. Petrie had appealed the last sentence of Finding 14 of the Examiner's March 1, 2010 recommendation (which he did not), nothing about that last sentence was erroneous. In fact, Mr. Petrie only alleges an inconsistency between the last sentence of Finding 7 of the Examiner's November 3, 2009 recommendation with a paragraph on page 2 of the Liberty Gardens Report (28 April, 2009). Whether or not that sentence was "inconsistent with Renton City Council April 12,2010 Page 4 paragraph on page 2 of Liberty Gardens Report (28 April, 2009),,2 is absolutely irrelevant to the Cavalla preliminary plat proposal, a proposal that must be judged on its own merits in accordance with the King County regulations that it is vested under. Further, note that the "correction" that Mr. Petrie sought to the error he alleged in Finding of Fact 7 of the Examiner's November 3, 2009 recommendation was merely an explanation. Mr. Petrie did not propose any revision to the last sentence of Finding of Fact 7 of the Examiner's November 3, 2009 recommendation. (He also proposed reconvening of the hearing, which, pursuant to the separately filed requests for reconsideration submitted by him and by Mr. Vincent, he got.) A desire for an explanation of a purported inconsistency between two different preliminary plats is not a legitimate ground for appeal. For these reasons, Mr. Petrie's alleged Finding of Fact 7 error must be rejectcd. Mr. Petrie's Alleged Conclusion 3 Error Conclusion 3 of the Examiner's November 3,2009 recommendation stated: Clearly, the increased density may only be permitted if the appropriate agreements or contracts are executed and the preservation tradeoff comes to fruition. Staff recommended that the plat be subject to such final execution. Clearly, the proposed plat can only go forward as proposed. If the TOR is not finalized, this plat would have to fail since no one has had an opportunity to review a layout with eleven fewer lots. The entire plat would have to be redesigned. However, Mr. Petrie did not allege any inaccuracies in that conclusion. He merely alleged that "[d]ue to violation of Notification requirements, no one against the use of TOR's was present, or knew about this Hearing." He got his wish of an additional hearing so that others "against the use of TORs" could participate. Conclusion 3 of the Examiner's November 3, 2009 recommendation to the City Council is the same as Conclusion 3 of the Examiner's March 1,2010 recommendation to the City Council. However, Mr. Petrie never appealed Conclusion 3 of the Examiner's March 1,2010 recommendation. Further, had he done so with the same language as that set forth on the completed notice of appeal form he submitted on November 17, 2009, there would have been no allegation of error as to the conclusion itself For these reasons, Mr. Petrie's alleged Conclusion 3 error must be rejected. 2 Mr. Petrie did not even submit a copy of the Liberty Gardens Report (28 April, 2009) into the record of the Cavalla preliminary plat proceeding. Renton City Council April 12,2010 Page 5 Mr, Petrie's Alleged "Other" Error The "Other" error that Petrie alleges on the notice of appeal form ("Liberty Gardens has identical rights to use TDR's, as alleged for Caval/a") does not relate in any way to the Cavalla preliminary plat but, instead, only to Mr. Petrie's Liberty Garden plat. In fact, this allegation fails to assert any error in any of the Findings, Conclusions or Recommended Approval Conditions of the Examiner's November 3, 2009 Cavalla recommendation. Further, the "correction" that Mr. Petrie stated that he was seeking in relation to that alleged "Other" error was merely an explanation of the "statement by Kaufinan at II: I 0:41 AM of audio recording." Regardless of what Examiner Kaufinan stated at II: I 0:41 AM concerning Liberty Gardens at the first day of the Cavalla preliminary plat hearing, it would only have been dictum in regard to the Liberty Gardens plat because that hearing was about Cavalla, not about Liberty Gardens (and thus could not have any legal effect on the Liberty Gardens plat). Thus, this "Other" allegation of error by Mr. Petrie is really no allegation of error in regard to Cavalla at all and, accordingly, must be rejected. Mr. Petrie's Request for a Remand to the Examiner for Unspecified Purposes The only action that Mr. Petrie requested on the notice of appeal form was a remand to the Examiner for unspecified purposes. That request was consistent with his allegations of violation of notification requirements, allegations that he also made in his November 17, 2009 request for reconsideration to the Examiner. Because the Examiner already provided a reopened hearing (the hearing on February 7,2010, at which Mr. Petrie testified), Mr. Petrie has already obtained the only relief he sought on the notice of appeal form and, because he did not appeal the Examiner's March 1,2010 Cavalla approval recommendation, he is entitled to no further relief. Response to the Points that Mr. Petrie Made in His November 16,2009 Letter to the City Council That Accompanied the Notice of Appeal Form That He Submitted to the City Clerk's Office on November 17,2009 Along with the notice of appeal form that Mr. Petrie submitted to the City Clerk's Office on November 17, 2009, Mr. Petrie submitted a letter to the City Council dated November 16, 2009 entitled "Errors and Omissions" with (a) text under the headings of "Notification" and "Density Issue" from pages I to 3 thereof, (2) a section on page 3 thereof entitled "Action Required by the City Council," (3) statements of opinion by Mr. Petrie at the bottom of page 3 and the first half of page 4 thereof, (4) a list of nine exhibits on page 4 thereof, and (5) an "Addendum" at the bottom of page 4 and the top of page 5 thereof concerning Mr. Petrie's "Comparison of Plat Designs -Cavalla versus Liberty Gardens." (The text and attachments to that letter are identical to Mr. Petrie's November 16,2009 Request for Reconsideration letter to the Hearing Examiner except that no mention of appeal to the City Council is made in the Request for Reconsideration letter.) Except for the paragraphs under the heading of Renton City Council April 12,2010 Page 6 "Notification" (because the notification issuc has been mooted by the Examiner's reopening of the preliminary plat hearing), each paragraph of that letter to the Council is addressed in the 11- inch by 17 -inch-size table attached to this letter. KBS hereby moves to strike all of the Exhibits to the Petrie letter to the Council as new evidence and irrelevant. Likewise hereby moves to strike the "Comparison of Plat Designs - Cavalla versus Liberty Gardens" as new evidence and irrelevant. For all of the reasons set forth above and in the attached table, Mr. Petrie's purported appeal must be denied. Sincerely, David L. Halinen Enclosures (Copy of Hearing Exhibit 16; KBS Table) cc: KBS Development Corp. Attn: Kolin Taylor (via email, with copies of enclosures) Attn: Bob Ruddell (via email, with copies of enclosures) Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. Attn: Wayne Potter, Land Use Planner (via email, with copies of enclosures) C. E. "Chip" Vincent, Planning Director, City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development (via email, with copies of enclosures) Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner, City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development (via email, with copies of enclosures Y:\cf12426\002\Appeal\Response\City Council tTl (4-12-10).doc 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 \lJ; ORIGINAL BEFORE THE CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER Regarding the CA VALLA PRELIMINARY PLAT City of Renton File No. LUA08-097, ECF, PP (King County DDES File No. L06P0001) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) -------------------------) APPLICANT'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THE CAVALLA PRELIMINARY PLAT'S VESTED RIGHTS Subsection 1 (Project Description/Background) of Section G (Department Analysis) on page 3 of the City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development's Preliminary Report (of October 13, 2009) to the Hearing Examiner concerning the Cavalla Preliminary Plat (the "City Staff Report") correctly points out that "the application for the Cavalla Preliminary Plat was submitted to King County Department of Development and Environmental Services eKC DOES") for review on January 12, 2006". Following the submittal of the application, the Cavalla site was annexed into the City of Renton (as part of the Liberty Annexation). Above-referenced Subsection 1 correctly goes on to assert that "the project is vested to King County's R-4 zoning designation's development regulations." (Emphasis added.) Other portions of the City Staff Report also confirm the proposal's King County vesting.' This memorandum is submitted in support of the Cavalla preliminary plat's vested rights. , See City S taff Report page 1 (the Project Summary), page 3 (third paragraph from the bottom), page 5 (both of the last two paragraphs), and page 10 (first full paragraph). APPLICANT'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THE CAVALLA PRELIMINARY PLAT'S VESTED RIGHTS~Page 1 HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Service Corporation 1019 Regents Blvd Ste 202 Fircrest, WA 98466-6037 (206) 443-4684/(253) 627-6680 (253) 272-9876 FAX APPLICATION OF VESTING LAW TO THE CAVALLA SUBDIVISION APPLICATION 2 Washington's general rule regarding vesting of proposed subdivisions ofland by the 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 filing of an application for a preliminary plat is set forth in RCW 58.17.033(1), which states: A proposed division of land, as defined in RCW 58.17.020, shall be considered under the subdivision or short subdivision ordinance, and zoning or other land use control ordinances, in effect on the land at the time a fully completed application for preliminary plat approval of the subdivision, or short plat approval of the short subdivision, has been submitted to the appropriate county, city, or town official. (Emphasis added.) Thus, when the fully completed Cavalla preliminary plat application was submitted to KC DOES on January 12, 2006, pursuant to RCW 58.17.033(1) the proposed subdivision of the Cavalla site was vested under the King County subdivision ordinance, zoning ordinance, and other land use control ordinances then in effect. Further, a vested right to develop a parcel ofland under existing land use regulations survives a municipal corporation's subsequent annexation of the land. Schneider Hames v. City afKent, 87 Wn App. 774, 942 P.2d 1096 (1997). Thus, the Cavalla preliminary plat's vested rights have survived thc Cavalla site's post-application annexation into the City of Renton. Accordingly, thc King County subdivision ordinance, zoning ordinance, and other land use control ordinances in effect on the January 12,2006 application date apply to the Cavalla application, including the chapter of King County's Zoning Code dealing with transfer of development rights, Chapter 21A.37. City of Renton subdivision ordinance, zoning ordinance, and other land use control ordinances do not apply. CONCLUSIONS The City Staff Report's assertion that "the [Cavalla] project is vested to King County's R-4 zoning designation'S development regulations" is correct. As a result, the APPLICANT'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THE CA VALLA PRELIMINARY PLAT'S VESTED RIGHTS-Page 2 HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Service Corporation 1019 Regents Blvd Ste 202 Fircrest, WA 98466-6037 (206) 4434684/(253) 627-6680 (253) 272-9876 FAX City of Renton's zoning regulations do not apply to the Cavalla preliminary plat's review 2 and decision-making process. 3 Owners of some nearby properties have complained that the residential density of 4 the proposed Cavalla project is inconsistent with the density contemplated by the City's 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Comprehensive Plan or by the City's zoning regulations. However, in view of the Cavalla preliminary plat's vesting, (a) the City's Comprehensive Plan provisions and the City's zoning of the Cavalla site are legally irrelevant to the proposal and (b) they thus cannot be applied to the subject application in the review and decision-making process. DATED this 8th day of February, 2010. HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. David L. Hal" en WSBA #15 23 Attorney for Owner-Applicant KBS Development Corp. Y:\cf\2426\002I.Preliminary Plat\Memo Regarding Vested Rights Ol (DLH 2-8-tO).docx APPLICANT'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THE CAVALLA PRELIMINARY PLAT'S VESTED RIGHTS-Page 3 HALI!'IEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Service Corporation 1019 Regents Blvd Ste 202 Fircrest. WA 98466-6037 (206) 443-4684/(253) 627-6680 (253) 272-9876 FAX KBS's 4-12-10 Comments Concerning the Paragraphs of David Petrie's November 16, 2009 Letter to the Renton City Council Paragraph Number 2 3 DLH 4-12-10 Paragraph Text "Density" Section of Petrie's Letter The basis for Cavalla asking for increased density via TOR's [sic] was that they were vested under King County Codes during the 2 Y, years that their plat was being worked by King Counties' [sic] DOES. Cavalla was vested in February 2006. Relevant to the fairness issue on use of TOR's [sic], Liberty Gardens was vested 29 December 2004. The Renton Comprehensive plan-designating R-4 as the maximum density for SFD's-was prepared in 2004. Currently, Renton has no Code provision compatible with Transfer of Development Rights. It is interesting that KC [sic]2IA.37.14 requires an Inter-local Agreement between an incorporated area and King County to be valid when King Counties [sic] Land Bank is used. No such agreement exists between Renton and King County. KBS's Comments Concerning Paragraph The Cavalla preliminary plat was vested by virtue of the fact that the application was submitted to King County prior to annexation of the site into the City of Renton. There is no "fairness issue" in regard to the use of TORs. The Cavalla preliminary plat is entitled to use TORs because it was vested under the King County Zoning regulations, which allow them to be used. Whether or not the Liberty Gardens preliminary plat could have used them if Mr. Petrie had sought to usc them when the Liberty Gardens preliminary plat was processed is irrelevant to the Cavalla preliminary plat review and approval. The first sentence of this paragraph is true but is irrelevant because Cavalla must be considered under King County's regulations, not Renton's regulations. Whether or not the paragraph's second sentence is true is irrelevant because Cavalla must be considered under King County's regulations, not Renton's regulations. The third sentence cites a purported "KC 21 A.3 7 .14". No such King County Code section exists. Apparently, Mr. Petrie meant to refer to KCC 21A.37.140 [Transfer of development rights (TOR) program -requirements for transfers by the TOR bank for use in incorporated receiving areas], which, in subsection A thereof, states as follows: A. For development rights sold by the TDR bank to be used in incorporated receiving site areas, the county and the affected city or cities must first have executed an interlocal agreement and the city or cities must have enacted appropriate legislation to implement the program for the recelv111g area. Page I KBS's Corresponding Motion(s) Paragraph Asserts an Error in a Finding, Conclusion, or Recommended Condition of the Cavalla Preliminary Plat Approval (Yes or No?) No. No. No. (Emphasis added.) However, as pointed out by attorney David Halinen during the Cavalla hearing, the TORs acquired by the Cavalla preliminary plat applicant for the Cavalla project were acquired from private parties rather than from the King County TOR bank. Copies of the two private party TOR transfer agreements were submitted into the hearing record on the October 13,2009 (fIrst day of the) Cavalla preliminary plat hearing record as Exhibit II. 4 Since Renton wanted larger lots than obtained under R-6 (via use Mr. Petrie's statement is unsupported by the record (and, in any KBS moves to strike Mr. Petrie's No. of TOR's [sic]), Renton was able to restrain use of the TOR by event, is totally irrelevant to the review of the Cavalla application). paragraph as new testimony. Sewer Availability Letters, restricting the number oflots as follows: Liberty Gardens-38 lots Cavalla-36 lots Threadgill-IS lots 5 During the 3 I-months that Cavalla was being reviewed by King The Cavalla plat was not "held" to the City's R-4 zoning regulations No. County's DOES, Cavalla was held to R-4 by the aforementioned because the Cavalla proposal was vested under the County's R-4 Sewer Availability Letters, at a lot count of38. Approval of any zoning regulations. plat under Renton' s Comprehensive Plan, at a dcnsity higher than R-4, is not supported by that Plan. Due to vesting, King County's regulations (along with the TOR provisions of those regulations) apply to the Cavalla application, not Renton's Comprehensive Plan and Development regulations. 6 Upon annexation (August II, 2008) to Renton, Renton's KBS admits that Renton Planning Staff took over the review of the No. Planning Staff took over the review process, Libcrty Gardens at Cavalla preliminary plat application upon annexation of the Cavalla 36-10ts, Cavalla at 38. property into Renton. (KBS assumes that Renton Planning Staff took over the review of the Liberty Gardens preliminary plat application upon annexation of the Liberty Gardens property into Renton but, in any event, the City's review of the Liberty Gardens preliminary plat has no bearing on the City's review ofthe Cavalla preliminary plat.) 7 When Renton Staff indicated preference for 164'" Ave SE, as the Contrary to Mr. Petrie's contention, there was no "breach of Code" No. preferred Secondary Access over the submitted 162 nd Ave because the Renton code provisions (the provisions he contended (fraught with environmental concerns), Cavalla decided to press were breached) do not apply due to the Cavalla application's vesting Renton Stafffor introduction of TOR's [sic], based on their being under County regulations. (Mr. Petrie's statement is an admission "grand fathered" by date of vesting under DOES. Renton went of Cavalla's vested rights.) along with this breach of Code, increasing the lot count 49. 8 To say another way by surmise: The Cavalla developers-not Mr. Petrie's statement of "surmise" should be disregarded for what KBS moves to strike Mr. Petrie's No. satisfied with the cost savings of not having to extend 162 nd it is: mere speculation, unsupported by the record. (In any event, paragraph as new testimony. Ave to 144th Street through two Sensitive Areas-wanted to Mr. Petrie's statement is totally irrelevant to the review of the exact morc by offering cosmetics: "If we add more trees and Cavalla application.) plants, how about some compensatory help, like TDR's Page 2 DLH 4-12-10 ---- [sic]?" (Providing an extra -$I.5M profit, at a cost of$50K worth of landscaping). The likely response from Timmons, Watts and Kyttrick [sic]: "We'll give it a try." Cavalla did not include Petrie in this negotiation, knowing that he was adamant in adhering to the R-4 zoning of Renton's Comprehensive Plan. 9 In contrast, Petrie acceded to Renton's wishes to use 164 tll Mr. Petrie's paragraph should be disregarded because it does not KBS moves to strike Mr. Petrie's No. A venue as the Secondary Access, primarily because Renton Staff concern the Cavalla application and is unsupported by the record. paragraph as new testimony. agreed to Petrie's offer to extend SE 140th Place 100-feet directly East to provide the desired connection bctween 162nd Avenue and I 64th Avenue, replacing the original plan by Renton to slash an arterial from NW to SE across the Liberty Gardens plat, this [sic] effectin& significant damage to the layout. - 10 At 10:03:48 AM, Gwen High-claiming to represent the Mr. Petrie's statement is largely speculation that is unsupported by KBS moves to strike as new No. community at a following of -15-testified quite differently from the record. (In any event, Mr. Petrie's statement is totally irrelevant testimony and as hearsay the the past seven-years, now accepting TOR's [sic]. Gwen is so to the review of the Cavalla application.) following underlined portions of enthused about the landscapc amenitics; she asks that the Cavalla Mr. Petrie's paragraph: developers be required to erect pennanent signs welcoming neighbors throughout the area to use the walking trail with two At 10:03:48 AM, Gwen High- benches and a picnic table around the unsightly wild grass/weed claiming to represent the field. (See Exhibit 2-Typical Retention Pond). Gwen is community at a following of apparently oblivious to thc 20-acre Maplewood Heights Park-a -15-testitied guite differently 30-second walk southeastward-soon to be transferred to Renton. from the .,ast seven-years, now accepting TO R' s [sic]. Gwen is ~enthused about the landscape amcnities; she asks that the Cavalla developers be required to erect permanent signs welcoming neighbors throughout the area to use the walking trail with two benches and a picnic tablc around the unsightly wild grass/weed field. (See Exhibit 2- Typical Retention Pond). Gwen is apparently oblivious to the 20- acre Maplewood Heights Park-a 30-second walk southeastward- soon to be transferred to Renton. 11 Gwen recommends that Renton go to the County pushing to KBS has no objection to this characterization by Mr. Petrie of No. amend the King County TOR Code to require beautification of Gwendolyn High's testimony but points out that it is irrelevant to ponds and similar amenities to plats using TOR's [sic], including the review of the Cavalla preliminary plat. the remainder of Renton's East Plateau, essentially advocating that Renton now accept TOR's [sic] within their Codes! 12 At II :09:43 AM on the recording of the Cavalla Hearing, KBS is unaware of whether or not Mr. Petrie's transcription of the No. Page 3 OLH 4-12-10 Appellant Petrie testified as follows: italicized statement is accurate. "During the break, my wife said that I didn't answer your Even if the transcription is accurate, the italicized statement has no question very well about how does this impact you? She bearing upon the City's rcview of the Cavalla prcliminary plat. thought I should mention something that we talked about earlier-and with others-if this plat gets approved here, and then gets by the City Council, J should come back in with a revised proposal-and I am going to bare my soul here-that if the higher-ups in City Hall care no more than that about the quality of the Renton Plateau Comprehensive Plan, and-as Gwen High pointed out earlier-this is going to be an island: it isn 't going to happen again. And If they care no more than that, we will come back with a similar proposal. People are going to say "Why did you leave a million dollars on the table? " This is about money. That is why they are so motivated. There is nothing wrong with that: but that is what this is all about ". '- 13 At 11: I 0:41, Examiner Kaufinan responds: KBS is unaware of whether or not Mr. Petrie's transcription of the No. italicized statement is accurate. "It's not only about money. I have to passjudgment on whether this plat is appropriate or not. And if you are Even if the transcription is accurate, the italicized statement has no talking about redesigning Liberty Gardens. I assume you bearing upon the City's review of the Cavalla preliminary plat. are free to do that. but you would not probably be coming in under King County regulations anymore: You would be coming in solezv under Renton regulations, and 1 don't think there are any Transfer of Development Rights. But 1 will let you deal with your plat outside of this process ". 14 Examiner Kaufinan, implying that Liberty Gardens was not The Examiner's statement in response to Mr. Petrie's statement has No. eligible for use of TOR's [sic], is in error: The only explanation nothing to do with the City's review of the Cavalla preliminary plat for this paradox is that the Examiner was unaware that Liberty and is not a legitimate basis for appeal. Gardens was vested under King County from December 2004 through the Annexation (August 11, 2008), having the same rights as Cavalla on this issue. 15 The Cavalla Hearing Report (11-3-2009) recommends approval at Condition I of the Examiner's November 3, 2009 Cavalla approval No. the higher density, but adds New Condition #1, containing the recommendation stated: words "for this subject plat only". These exclusionary words have no legal basis, intended to send a message to the local The applicant shall perform all steps and complete all citizens that: "We Will Break the Law (Renton's Density Code documentation necessary, as required by King County Code on the Plateau) just this once, but never again". section 21A.37, and the City of Renton, in ordcr to process the Transfer of Development Right's [sic] properly for this subject plat only. The certificate or other valid legal document(s) must show the applicant or Page 4 OLH 4-12-\0 successor as the lawful owner of the development rights. If the agreement is not appropriately executed and finalized the plat shall be null and void and a new application meeting code and density requirement would be necessary. (Emphasis added.) Mr. Petrie's bad faith construction of the Examiner's statement at the end of Condition I 's first sentence is totally unjustified by that sentence's text and the entirc context of Condition I, which merely directs the Cavalla applicant as to what needs to be done to process TORs for the Cavalla plat. Note that Mr. Petrie's statement does not amount to an appeal of Condition I but merely an unjustified assertion of assumed wrong motives. Contrary to Mr. Petrie's assumption, no law is being broken by approval of thc Cavalla preliminary plat premised upon TOR usage. To the contrary, the law is being upheld. The Section of Petrie's Letter Asserting "Action Reguired b:£ the City Council" 16 An emergency meeting of the Council is needed to affinn/change The outcome of a meeting of the Council held to affirm/change the No. their policy regarding density on the Renton Plateau, particularly Council's policy regarding density on the Renton Plateau would regarding TOR's: have absolutely no \egal effect on the Cavalla preliminary plat application because it is a plat application already in the review Option 1-Approve the Cavalla plat at 49-lot5. process, vested pursuant to RCW 58.17.033(1) under the King But square this up with the Renton Code by amending the Code County regulations that were in effect when the preliminary plat to allow any plats that have been vested under King County application was originally submitted to King County DOES. Mr. Codes prior to Annexation (11 August 2008) to use TOR's, on Petrie's call for such a meeting amounts to a call for the City the basis that such plats had been "grandfathered" with that right, Council to consider violating the vested rights of the Cavalla availed under King County Codes. This would apply to only three applicant. unbuilt plats, vested in King County before the Annexation at R-4 density, as requested by Renton via King Counties DOES: KBS endorses Mr. Petrie's Opbon 1 suggestion that the 49-lot Threadgill (15-lots), Liberty Gardens (36-lots), and Cavalla (38-Cavalla plat be approved. However, no code change is legally lots). necessary for the Cavalla preliminary plat and, accordingly, the code changes that Mr. Petrie suggests under Option 1 cannot be made a (Obviously, New Condition #l-containing the words "for this plat only" would condition ofCavalla approval. (Such a new condition of approval be struck, enabling Liberty Gardens and Threadgill to resubmit layouts using would violate Cavalla's vested rights.) TDR's, same as Cavallal. Option 2-Require Cavalla to rework the plat to conform to Implementation of Mr. Petrie's Option 2 would directly violate the vested rights of thc Cavalla applicant. , Renton's R-4 Code at 38-lots, sans TDR's. I I 17 In my opinion, the Examiner needs clearer direction-freeing him Mr. Petrie's statement of opinion is rude and totally uncalled for. No. from Hand Wringing, as evidenced in the recording of the Hearing-on a maiden voyage, so to speak, of Renton adopting TOR's: Page 5 OLH 4-12-10 18 This should be done via a Task Force Study sponsorcd by the Mr. Petrie's suggestion is contrary to the project review process and No. Council, prior to the Examiner responding to the Request for would directly violate the vested rights of the Cavalla applicant. Reconsideration, providing direction on the Council's views on where Renton plans to go on this important policy issue. It is this larger issue that Petrie tried to address during his brief testimony, that the Examiner rejected treating in this Hearing. 19 At 11 :04:30 AM, Planner Timmons says: Planner Rocale Timmons' statement was made in the context of No. what would happen if, for some reason, the TOR transfer to the "Alternatively, the plat design shall be reconfigured to reflect the Cavalla applicant was not completcd. (This is highly unlikely density allowable under R-4 zoning without TOR's [sic]". At becausc of the purchase contracts for those TORs-see Hearing 11:05: 13 Examiner Kaufmann responds: "I have a fceling we will Exhibit II.) be back here". 20 Inexplicably inconsistent with Examiner Kaufman's approval of The Liberty Gardens approval recommendation is not part of the KBS movcs to strike Mr. Petrie's Cavalla using TOR's, he wrote (page 2, Liberty Gardens Plat record concerning the Cavalla preliminary plat review (and, even if paragraph as new testimony. Approval Report, 28 April 2009): it was part of the record, the purportedly quoted statement is irrelevant to the Cavalla preliminary plat review). "lhe site is zoned R-4 and the Comprehensive Plan designation is Residential-Low Density. However. the project is vested in the 2004 R-4 development standards and the Urban Residential Comprehensive Plan Designation of King County. It is the City's position that the annexed properties are not vested to rules and procedures of the King County Code and that the project. , once annexed. wouldfollow the rules and procedures I outlined by the City of Renton Code. " ---------------- 21 At 10:19:20 AM on the recording, the Examiner evidences bias The Examiner evidenced no bias against Mr. Petrie. The testimony No. against Petrie's position on TOR's [sic], throttling his testimony and materials that Mr. Petrie referred to were legally irrelevant to the when he tries to explain the failure of densitication measures to issue at hand because Cavalla is vested under King County reduce congestion by making traffic congestion worse, thereby regulations that allow applicants to use TORs. Forcing People Out of Their Cars Onto Transit. See OP-EO to the Seattle Times contained in Exhibit 3-Heading the Wrong Direction for Congestion Relief, noting the paragraph on Land Use Legislation. In short, Petrie predicts eventual repeal of densification legislation because Quality of Life is degraded by crowding, not improved, as alleged by New Urbanists, who are behind such as the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and TOR's [sic]. 22 The Examiner further suppresses Petrie's testimony by failing to KBS is currently unsure as to whether or not the brief was entered No. enter into the record the II-page brief Testimony of Dave Petrie into the record (or even requested to be entered into the record). at Cavalla Plat Hearing-October 13, 2009 (Exhibit 3) handed to Page 6 OLH 4-12-10 DLH 4-12-10 Secretary Nancy Thompson minutes before the Hearing commenced. But the Examiner does acknowledge the existence of that brief at 10: 17:35 AM on the recording. j Page 7 2 3 4 5 6 BEFORE THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL 7 In re: DAVE PETRIE'S NOVEMBER 17, 8 2009 PURPORTED APPEAL (PURPORTEDLY RELATING TO THE 9 HEARING EXAMINER'S FIRST CAV ALLA PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL 10 RECOMMENDATION, A RECOMMENDATION THAT THE II EXAMINER LATER DETERMINED TO BE VOID) 12 City of Renton File No. LUA-08-097, PP, ECF 13 (King County DDES File No. L06POOOl) PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICANT KES DEVELOPMENT CORP.'S (1) MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETRIE'S MOTION FOR AN "ADJUNCTIVE 30-DA Y FEASIBILITY STUDY" AND (2) MOTION TO STRIKE THE ATTACHMENTS TO PETRIE'S MOTION AS INADMISSIBLE NEW EVIDENCE 14 KBS'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETRIE'S MOTION 15 16 17 FOR AN "ADJUNCTIVE 30-DAY FEASIBILITY STUDY" Dave Petrie's motion (by letter addressed to Assistant City Attorney Anne [sic] Nielson [sic] dated April 6, 2010) to "conduct an adjunctive 30-day feasibility study in which new information that effects [ sic] both [the Cavalla and Liberty Gardens] plats is 18 processed" (the "Petrie Motion") must be denied for at least the following four reasons: 19 20 I. The City Council has no authority under the Renton Municipal Code to grant the type of motion that Mr. Petrie has filed; 21 2. The Petrie Motion is not supported by any facts or law justifying a 22 23 24 grant of it; KBS'S (I) MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETRIE'S MOTION AND (2) MOTION TO STRIKE THE ATTACHMENTS TO PETRIE'S MOTION--Page 1 HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Service Corporation 1019 Regents Blvd Ste202 Fircrest, WA 98466-6037 (206) 443-46841(253) 627·6680 (253)272-9876 FAX 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 3. 4. The Petrie Motion is outside of the scope of Mr. Petrie's purported November 17, 2009 appeal (the "Petrie Appeal");! and The Petrie Motion (like the Petrie Appeal) is really not about Cavalla at all but, rather, about Mr. Petrie's interest in obtaining an amendment to his already-approved Liberty Gardens preliminary plat. These reasons are elaborated below. 1. ARGUMENT The City Council Has No Authority Under the Renton Municipal Code to Grant the Type of Motion That Mr. Petrie Has Filed. The Petrie Motion letter reads as if Mr. Petrie ean simply make up special rules of procedure (in accordance with his own liking) by which the City should ccmplete its processing of the proposed Cavalla preliminary plat rather than the procedural rules set forth in the Renton Municipal Code.2 That simply is not the case. I On April 9, 2009, Cavalla applicant KBS Development Corp. filed a dispositive motion seeking dismissal of the Petrie Appeal. That motion is still pending before the City Council. In addition, on April 12,2010, the applicant's attorney, David Halinen, also submitted a letter to the City Council (with attachments) on the applicant's behalf in support of the applicant's position that, if not dismissed, the Petrie Appeal must be denied. 2 The second and third paragraphs of the Petrie Motion letter state: By this letter, I am proffering a motion to conduct an "adjunctive 30-day feasibility study in which new information that effects [sic] both [the Cavalla and Liberty Gardens] plats is processed. Any revisions of either plat, resulting from the Councils [sic] decision on the Appeal, would be subsequently made. A feature of this Motion is that both plats would be placed in a state of abepance, 22 pending results of the study: Each plat would benefit significantly by positive results; and the aforementioned density issue is an interrelated factor. 23 24 (Emphasis added.) KBS'S (1) MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETRIE'S MOTION AND (2) MOTION TO STRIKE THE ATTACHMENTS TO PETRIE'S MOTION--Page 2 HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A ProfeSSional Service Corporation 1019 Regents Blvd Ste 202 Fircrest, WA 98466-6037 (206) 4434684/(253) 627-6680 (253) 272-9876 FAX 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 The Renton Municipal Code has specific procedures that must be followed for the review and approval of preliminary plats and the processing of appeals of Hearing Examiner recommendations of approval to the City Council. In regard to the version of the Code provisions that apply to the Cavalla preliminary plat proceedings (i.e., the version prior to changes made pursuant to Ordinance 5519, an ordinance that became effective on December 23, 2009 for preliminary plats applied for on or subsequent to that date), the Land Use Permit Procedures table in RMC 4-8-080G lists preliminary plats of 10 lots or more as Type VII Land Use Permits and specifies that such preliminary plats shaH have an open record hearing before the City's Hearing Examiner with a recommendation to be made by the Examiner and the decision to be made by the City Council. Likewise, RMC 4-8-070H.3 states in relevant part: H. HEARING EXAMINER * * * 3. Recommendations: The Hearing Examiner shaH hold a hearing and make recommendations to the City Council on the following: * * * b. Preliminary plats, * * * (Emphasis added.) As part of RMC 4-7-080 (Detailed Procedures for Subdivision), subsection 1.1 (Public Hearing Required) makes clear that only a single public hearing is to be held. It states: KES'S (1) MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETRIE'S MOTION AND (2) MOTION TO STRIKE THE ATTACHMENTS TO PETRIE'S MOTION--Page 3 HALINEN LAW OFFICES, r.s. A Professional Service OJrporation 1019 Regents Blvd Ste 202 Fircrest, WA 98466-6037 (206) 4434684/(253) 627-6680 (253) 272-9876 FAX 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 4-7-080 DETAILED PROCEDURES FOR SUBDIVISION: * * * I. HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING: 1. Public Hearing Required: The Hearing Examiner shall hold !J. public hearing on any preliminary plat and forward hislher recommendation to the City Council. The Hearing Examiner shall review preliminary plats and make recommendations to the City Council to assure conformance with the general purposes of the Comprehensive Plan and adopted standards. The Hearing Examiner's recommendation shall include findings of fact and conclusions to support the recommendation. (Boldfacing in the original; italics and underlining added for emphasis.) As for the Council's role in the process, RMC 4-8-07OI states in relevant part: I. CITY COUNCIL: The City Council shall review and act on the following: * * • 8. Preliminary plats, * * * (Boldfacing in the original; italics and underlining added for emphasis.) In regard to appeals to the City Council, RMC 4-8-11 OF states in relevant part: 4-8-110 APPEALS • * 22 * 23 F. APPEALS TO CITY COUNCIL -PROCEDURES: 24 KBS'S (1) MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETRIE'S MOTION AND (2) MOTION TO STRIKE THE ATTACHMENTS TO PETRIE'S MOTION--Page 4 IIALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Service Corporatwll 10 19 Regents Blvd Ste 202 Fircrest, W A 98466-6037 (206) 443-4684/(253) 627-6680 (253) 272-9876FAX 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1. Time for Appeal: Unless a specific section of State law providing for review of a decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court or any other body, any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal 10 the City Clerk, upon a form fornished by the City Clerk, within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. * * * 5. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required, the Council shall remand the matter to the Examincr for reconsideration and receipt of additional cvidence. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the applicant. In the absence of an entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, and a remand to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record betore the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 4389, 1-25-1993) 6. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be bascd solely upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties. * * * 8_ Council Action: If, upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4- 8-070H2 and I, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in (act or law exists in the record, or that a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified, the City Council may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the application. 9. Decision Documentation: In any event, the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or KBS'S (1) MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETRIE'S MOTION AND (2) MOTION TO STRIKE THE ATTACHMENTS TO PETRIE'S MOTION--Page 5 HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Service Corporation 1019 Regents Blvd Ste 202 Fircrest, WA 98466-6037 (206) 443-4684/(253) 627-6680 (253) 272-9876 FAX 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-1982) (Boldfacing in the original; italics and underlining added for emphasis.) Absolutely nothing in these code provisions (or, for that matter, in any other portion of the Renton Municipal Code) provides the City Council with any authority to grant an appellant of a Hearing Examiner's preliminary plat approval recommendation a motion for an "adjunctive 30-day feasibility study" concerning the proposed preliminary plat (and, in the case of the Petrie Motion, also concerning a different preliminary plat, one that Mr. Petrie himself is involved with and that the Council has no jurisdiction over in relation to the Cavalla preliminary plat proceedings). Such a motion for a feasibility study amounts to a request that the appellant be allowed to not only supplement the Cavalla preliminary plat record with limitless new evidence that he could have submitted into the record during the Cavalla hearings (and, apparently, supplement the Liberty Gardens preliminary plat record as well) but also further delay the Cavalla preliminary plat's decision-making process. As such, the motion is outrageous. Bear in mind that Mr. Petrie has already had two opportunities to submit evidence into the record: first at the October 13, 2009 preliminary plat hearing and then again at the February 9, 2010 reopened preliminary plat hearing. He participated extensively at both of those hearings. At least by the second hearing (he claims he did not have notice of the first hearing), he could have proffered for the record a "feasibility study" if he chose to (although, to the extent that such a study was about his Liberty Gardens preliminary plat, the study would have been irrelevant to the Cavalla preliminary plat review and approval process and improper~see section 4 of this memorandum on pages ~ and~, below). Mr. Petrie has had more than ample opportunity to be heard and to assert facts for the record that KBS'S (I) MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETRIE'S MOTION AND (2) MOTION TO STRIKE THE ATTACHMENTS TO PETRIE'S MOTION--Page 6 HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Service Corporation 10 19 Regents Blvd Ste 202 Fircrest, W A 98466-6037 (206) 443-46841(253) 627-6680 (253) 272-9876 FAX he thinks are relevant to the Cavalla application. The further delay of the Cavalla 2 preliminary plat approval that would result from a grant of the Petrie Motion would violate 3 Renton's review procedures and unfairly and unlawfully burden the Cavalla applicant. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2. The Petrie Motion Asserts No Facts or Law That Would Justify It Being Granted. The Petrie Motion fails to state that it is based on any facts or law that could possibly justify the grant of it. It is a naked request and, for that reason alone, should be denied. Note that a copy of a March 23, 2010 letter from Mr. Petrie to Mayor Denis Law and two attachments thereto are attached to the Petrie Motion letter. The first of those two attachments, Attachment A, deals with purported flooding problems 3 and how a different 3 Note that nothing in the Petrie Motion or its attachments even alleges that the Cavalla proposal would create or exacerbate the purported flooding problem or that the City's review of storm drainage construction plans and the storm drainage analysis report required as part of the City's review process for the Cavalla proposal would be inadequate. In fact, the fifth paragraph of the March 23, 2009 letter from Mr. Petrie to Mayor Law makes clear that: [T]he severe flooding [was] created by the illegal diversion (975) by Naber. 100% of the storm-water from the 160.6 Ave ROW now conveyed to the 162" Ave ROW, adding undue costs to perfect the ideal location (162'" Avc) of Southern access to the corridor. The funds would be better spent fixing the problem at the source. (Emphasis in the original.) In a nutshell, Mr. Petrie is in essence (a) admitting that the flooding problem was caused by someone else on another street 35 years ago, (b) asserting that he in his wisdom has the most cost-effective idea to fix it and wants to see it fixed, (e) failing to assert that Cavalla will exacerbate the problem, and (d) saying that he wants to rope Cavalla into the solution of a problem that it is not responsible for. Nole that in order for a City condition of development approval concerning flooding (or any other identified public problem) to be lawful, there must be both (1) a nexus between the proposed development and the identified public problem and (2) a rough proportionality between the required dedication and the impact of the proposed development. Requirements failing to satisfy both nexus and rough proportionality violate RCW 82.02.020 and are thus unlawful and invalid. See Citizens' Alliance for Property Rights v. Sims, 145 Wn. App. 649, 187 P.3d 786 (2008). As Citizens' Alliance held, the plain language of RCW 82.02.020 does not pennit conditions to be imposed that are reasonably necessary for all development, or any potential development. Rather, RCW 82.02.020 specifically requires that a condition of development approval be reasonably necessary as a direct result of the KBS'S (1) MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETRIE'S MOTION AND (2) MOTION TO STRIKE TIIE ATTACHMENTS TO PETRIE'S MOTION--Page 7 HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Profo~sional Service Corporation 1019 Regents Blvd Ste 202 Fircrest, WA 98466·6037 (206) 44346841(253) 627·6680 (253) 272·9876 FAX 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 road alignment along with culverting therein purportedly may resolve the flooding problems. The other attachment, Attachment B, deals with Mr. Petrie's ideas for a joint use parking lot for Maplewood Heights Park and Liberty High Schoo1.4 Mr. Petrie's letter to the Mayor touches briefly on the topics of Attachments A and B. However, no explanation is set forth in the Petrie Motion letter as to why the copy of the March 23, 2010 letter to the Mayor (along with that letter's two attachments) was even attached to the Petrie Motion letter. Even if the Petrie Motion letter would hav!) asserted that Mr. Petrie's letter to the Mayor and its attachments were attached in support of the motion and/or defined the motion, the motion would nevertheless need to be denied for at least the following two independent reasons: (a) Mr. Petrie's letter to Mayor Law and Attachments A and B thereto assert information that, from the face of those documents, Mr. Petrie was obviously long aware of (certainly long before thc Cavalla preliminary plat hearings were held\ which means that Mr. Petrie proposed development. Also, Citizens' Alliance held that the burden of proof is on the government, not on the development applicant. Because (1) there is nothing in the record that the Petrie Motion cites to support making Cavalla part ofa "feasibility study" concerning the purported a flood problem and (2) the Petrie Appeal failed to make the purported flooding problem an appeal issue, the Petrie Motion in regard thereto must be denied. 4 Like the purported flooding problem that the attachments to the Petrie Motion raises, the Cavalla proposal has no responsibilities in relation to the "joint use parking lot for Maplewood Heights Park and Liberty High School"; therefore, the Cavalla proposal cannot be conditioned or denied (or delayed) in relation to Mr. Petrie's ideas concerning such a parking lot. 5 For example, in the first sentence of the sixth paragraph of Mr. Petrie's March 23, 2010 letter to the 23 Mayor, Mr. Petrie states that: 24 KBS'S (1) MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETRIE'S MOTION AND (2) MOTION TO STRIKE TIlE ATTACHMENTS TO PETRIE'S MOTION--Page 8 HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Service Corporation 1019 Regents Blvd Ste 202 Fircrest, W A 98466-6037 (206) 443-4684/(253) 627-6680 (253) 272-9876 FAX 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 (b) could have and should have asserted such information (and could have secured and submitted his proposed "feasibility study") at tbe Cavalla hearings if he thought such materials were important to the City's review of the Cavalla proposal6 ; and The subject matter of Mr. Petrie's March 23, 2010 letter to Mayor Denis Law (along with that letter's two attachments) has nothing to do with the subject of the Petrie Appeal (a subject that the Petrie Motion itself states is "the TOR/Density issue as it affects both the Cavalla and Liberty Gardens plats"-see section 3, below, of this memorandum). Mr. Petrie's dislike of the outcome of the Hearing Examiner's Cavalla preliminary plat recommendation does not afford him the right to be granted the subject motion, which would provide him thirty days to submit such materials and which would of necessity cause Prior to the Liberty Annexatioll (August 11. 20081, which included the aforementioned plats [i.e., Cavalla and Liberty Gardens], I have spent over $IOOK over ten vears while under King County's DDES, employing three engineers. three wetlands consultants, and a hydraulic specialist to detennine the drainage requirements and best location of the Secondary access to the two subject plats. (Emphasis added.) Attachments A and B to that letter to the Mayor further outline matters that Mr. Petrie was obviously long aware of and/or a part of. 6 RMC 4-8-11 OF.5 states in relevant part: 5. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showillg is made by the party o(kring the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time ofthe hearing befOre the Examiner 23 (Boldfacing in the original; italics and underlining added for emphasis.) 24 KBS'S (l) MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETRIE'S MaTTON AND (2) MOTTON TO STRIKE THE ATTACHMENTS TO PETRIE'S MOTTON--Page 9 HALINEN LAW OFFICES, p.s. A Professional Service Corporation 1019 Regents Blvd Ste 202 Fircrest, WA 98466-6037 (206) 443-46841(253) 627-6680 (253) 272-9876 FAX 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 even further delays because time would need to be provided for (a) the Cavalla applicant and the City staff to respond to the submittal, (b) yet further Hearing Examiner review, (e) a supplemental Examiner's report and recommendation to the Council, and (d) further proceedings before the Council. 3. The Petrie Motion Must Be Denied Because It Lies Outside of the Scope of the Petrie Appeal. In view of RMC 4-8-IIOC.3 (Required Form for and Content of Appeals)?, any "substantial errors in fact or law which exist in the record of the proceedings from which [Mr. Petrie sought] relief' (emphasis added) were required to be "fully, clearly and thoroughly specif[ied]" in Mr. Petrie's "written notice of appeal." In the Petrie Motion's first paragraph, Mr. Petrie asserts what he appealed_ That paragraph states: The subject Appeal deals with the TDRlDensity issue as it affects both the Cavalla and Liberty Gardens plats. (Italics in the original; bolding and underlining added for emphasis.) However, the subjects (if any) of the Petrie Motion are (a) purported flooding problems and how a different road alignment along with culverting therein purportedly may resolve the flooding problems and (b) Mr. Petrie's ideas for a joint use parking lot for Maplewood Heights Park and Liberty High School. Those subjects are totally different than the TDRIDensity issue. They were not part of the Petrie Appeal. Because a motion cannot 21 7 RMC 4-8-ll0C.3 states: 22 3. Required Form for and Content of Appeals: Aoy appeal shall be filed in writing. The written notice of appeal shall fully, clearly and thoroughly specify the 23 substantial error(s) in fact or law which exist in the record of the proceedings from which the appellant seeks relief. 24 KBS'S (I) MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETRIE'S MOTION AND (2) MOTION TO STRIKE THE ATTACHMENTS TO PETRIE'S MOTION--Page 10 HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Service Corporation 1019 Regents Blvd Ste202 Fircrest, WA 98466-6037 (206) 4434684/(253) 627-6680 (253) 272-9876 FAX be granted that seeks to have new evidence admitted concerning subjects not appealed,s the 2 Petrie Motion seeking to create new evidence on subjects not part of any errors alleged in 3 the Petrie Appeal certainly cannot be granted. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 4. The Petrie Motion Must Be Denied Because (Like the Petrie Appeal in General) the Petrie Motion Is ReaDy Not About Cavalla at All But, Rather, About Seeking an Amendment to Mr. Petrie's Already-Approved Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat. 8 RMC 4-8-110F.6 (Council Evaluation Criteria) states: 6. Council Evalnation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties. (Boldfacing in the original; italics and underlining added for emphasis.) The notice of appeal (which, according to RMC 4-8-110C.3, is to "folly, clearly and thoroughly specify the substantial error(s) infact or law which exist in the record of the proceedings porn which the appellant seeks relief') is the only document among those listed in RMC 4-8-11 OF.6 from which appeal issues can arise. That being the case, a motion (like the Petrie Motion) cannot be granted that would allow evidence on issues not set forth in the notice of appeal. Note that this is in accord with Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.II(a) of the Washington Court Rules (2010) which states: Rule 9.11. Additional evidence on review (aJ Remedy limited The appellate courl may direct that additional evidence on the merits of the case be taken before the decision of a case on review if: (1) additional proof of facts is needed to fairly resolve the issues on review, (2) the additional evidence would probably change the decision being reviewed, (3) it is equitable to excuse a party's failure to present the evidence to the trial court, (4) the remedy available to a party through post judgment motions in the trial court is inadequate or unnecessarily expensive, (5) the appellate court remedy of granting a new trial is inadequate or unnecessarily expensive, aud (6) it would be inequitable to decide the case solely on the evidence already taken in the trial court. (Italics in the original; boldfacing and underlining added for emphasis.) In State v. Ziegler, 114 Wn.2d 22 533, 789 P.2d 79, 1990 Wash. LEXIS 41 (1990), the Washington State Supreme Court held that an appellate court will accept additional evidence on appeal only if all six criteria established by RAP 23 9. l1(a) are satisfied. 24 KBS'S (1) MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETRIE'S MOTION AND (2) MOTION TO STRIKE THE ATTACHMENTS TO PETRIE'S MOTION--Page II HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Projessionai Service Corporation 1019 Regents Blvd Ste 202 Fircrest, WA 98466-6037 (206) 443-46841(253) 627-6680 (253) 272-9876 FAX 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 The Petrie Motion (as with the Petrie Appeal as a whole) amounts to yet another legally improper attempt to convert the Cavalla preliminary plat approval proceeding into a proceeding that would alter (or perhaps serve as some sort of predicate to alter) aspects of Mr. Petrie's already-approved Liberty Gardens preliminary plat, aspects that Mr. Petrie appears to have remorse over. The City Council has absolutely no jurisdiction over the already-approved Liberty Gardens preliminary plat as part of the Cavalla preliminary plat process. The Petrie Motion is an abuse of the Cavalla preliminary plat process, causing the Cavalla applicant substantial legal expense and delay; it must be denied. CONCLUSION As demonstrated above, the City Council has no authority under the Renton Municipal Code to grant the type of motion that Mr. Petrie has filed. Furthermore, the Petrie Motion is not supported by any asserted facts or law justifying a grant of the motion. In addition, the motion is improper because it only deals with subjects (if it actually deals with any particular subjects at all) that are outside of the only remaining subject of Mr. Petrie's purported November 17, 2009 appeal (i.e., the TOR/Density issue). Finally, the Petrie Motion abuses the Cavalla preliminary plat approval proceeding by improperly attempting to use it to somehow amend and benefit Mr. Petrie's already-approved Liberty Gardens preliminary plat. For all these reasons, Cavalla applicant KES Development Corp. respectfully asks that the Petrie Motion be denied. KBS'S MOTION TO STRIKE THE ATTACHMENTS TO PETRIE'S MOTION AS INADMISSIBLE NEW EVIDENCE All ofthe attachments to the Petrie Motion letter are new evidence. Petrie has made no showing that they should be admitted into the record. Accordingly, KES hereby moves that all of the attachments to the Petrie Motion letter be stricken. KBS'S (1) MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETRIE'S MOTION AND (2) MOTION TO STRIKE THE ATTACHMENTS TO PETRIE'S MOTION--Page 12 HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Profouional Service Corporation 1019 Regents Blvd Ste 202 Fircrest. WA 98466-6037 (206) 443-4684/(253) 627-6680 (253) 272·9876 FAX 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 DATED this 16th day of April, 2010. HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. ByfJdl!1fc- WSBA#15923 Attorney for Cavalla preliminary plat applicant KBS Development Corp. Y:\cf\2426\002\Appeal\Response 10 Petrie's 4-6-10 Motion\Memorandum in Oppostion to Petrie's Motion (DUI 4-16-IO).doc KBS'S (I) MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETRIE'S MOTION AND (2) MOTION TO STRIKE THE ATTACHMENTS TO PETRIE'S MOTlON--Page 13 HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Projes5iona{ Service Corporation 1019 Regents Blvd Ste 202 Fircrest, WA 98466·6037 (206) 443-4684/(253) 627-6680 (253) 272-9876 FAX 1 nct-\~II~\..J LAf""'\IVIII ~ '--' ~ CITY OF RENTON 1055 S GRADY WAY RENTON WA 98057-3232 FORWARDING SERVICE REQUESTED o Q'l))'l }1\L Y\~ fc) P.JO)(.. 1~(l[Y 5 (!tctt:U ' UA 9 ~ (I r; ~fD'l.EF7 NO ADDRESS _ ~. b FOI/WARDING DI/DEI/ EXPtI/£~ "'" 'Ql ATTEMPTED_NOT IWOIV/j ~ ..... '0-. OUNCl..4JMED ORfFUSED • 0 No SUCH STREET ONoSUCHNUM/lfR ~~ o INSUFFICIENT ADDRESS -.'4'~. £ Cl"}"V ()F RENT()N Hearing Examiner Fred J. Kaufman November 19,2009 C. E. "Chip" Vincent Planning Director City of Renton Dave Petrie 811 S 273rs Court Des Moines, W A 98198 Re: Cavalla Preliminary Plat (LUA-08-097, PP, ECF) Dear Mr. Vincent, Mr. Petrie, Mr. & Mrs. Oliphant and Parties: Anita & Richard Oliphant 16519 SE 146'" Renton, W /\ 98059 It has come to the City's attention that the notice ofthe Public Hearing on the above matter may not have reached all of the appropriate property owners. This letter is intended to rectify the potential failure to notify the appropriate property owners by providing them with new notice and of their ability to Request Reconsideration for a report that was issued by the Renton Hearing Examiner's Office (Renton Municipal Code 4-7-080(l)2.d). The report was issued on November 3,2009. Please find enclosed a copy of Minuks and a Recommendation On the proposed Cavalla Preliminary Plat. The Recommendation is to the Renton City Council. If the Recommendation to the Renton City Council were approved by the Council the proposed plat would contain 49 detached, single-family lots. A reconsideration of this matter will only consider new information that is not addressed in the original minutes or recommendation. That is, if another neighbor. nearby property owner or other person has already addressed an issue in the minutes or the recommendation already considered an issue repeating it again will not create any grounds for changing the recommendation. Iftherc is new information that was missed in the original minutes or recommendation, please feel free \0 address those comments in writing to the Hearing Examiner. The community organization, C.A.R.E (Community Alliance to Reach Out and Engage) did attend the hearing and did submit written and oral testimony. Other neighbors also testified. Testimony addressed "Transfer of Development Rights" (known as TOR), density, roads and traffic, open space, vegetation, grading and other issues. Quoting from the recommendation: Finding 22: "The TOR will enable eleven (11) additional dwellings. The 11 homes would generate approximately 105 additional trips per day Or approximately 10 additional trips during the rush or pcak hours. A recent traffic analysis shows traffic in the area has decreased and that the Levels of Service (LOS) for five critical intersections have improved and accidents numbers decreased." Conclusion 1: "The proposed plat with its increased density possible with an appropriately executed TOR appears to serve the public use and interest. This is not to say that any increase in density in an area slated for lower density single family uses is appropriate even when the result is protected farm land or critical areas. Whilc this office is not entirely convinced it is appropriate to shift density to an area zoned for lower ---"-'~-~-'~' '~~~"--....... 1055 South Grady Way -Renton, Washington 98057 -(425) 430-6515 . " c ........ , .. , , density detached single family housing, the result in this case does not cause an egregious density increase and has been well-integrated into the lower density community by embedding the smailer lots in a surrounding envelope of larger confonning lots. In addition to the layout and alignment of the proposed lots, the applicant has increased the perimeter landscaping thereby buffering the surrounding uses from the increased density. The applicant will also be providing open space in its enhanced treatment of it stormwater detention system and this public space will be available to the general public as well as residents ofthe plat." Depending on the nature of the comments, letters or documents received, the recommendation to the Renton City Couneilmight be changed, modified or reaffirmed or the Public Hearing could be reopened for additional testimony. Please submit your written comments or documents no later than 5:00 pm, Friday December 4, 2009 at the City Clerk's Office, at the following address: City Clerk's Office Renton City Hall 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98057 This office would like to apologize for any inconvenience this oversight might have caused. If there are other issues, please feel free to write. Sincerely, . , , . f"l..·:.... /\ Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton cc: Property owners within 300 feet Denis Law, Mayor Jay Covington, CAO Larry Warren, City Attorney Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager Rocale Timmons, Planner, Development Services Kayren Kittrick, Community and Economic Development Bonnie Walton, City Clerk FJKJnt End Minutes OWNER: APPLICANT/CONTACT: 1.0CATION: SUMMARY OF REQUEST: SUMMARY OF ACTION: OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON Kolin B. Taylor KBS III, LLC 12320 NE 8th Street, Ste. 100 Bellevue, W A 98005 Wayne Potter Barghausen Consulting Engineer 18215 nnd Avenue S Kent, W A 98032 Cavalla Preliminary Plat file No.: LUA 09-097, PP, ECF November 3, 2009 Southeast of 162,d Avenue SE and SE 137'h Place Requesting an amended Preliminary Plat and SEPA review approval of a 9.40 aCre site to be subdivided into 49 lots for single-family residential with Tracts for stonnwater and joint use driveways. Development Services Recommendation: Approve subject to conditions. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on October 6, 2009. PUBLIC HEARING: After rcvie\ving the Development Services RepOr1~ examining available information on file with the application, field checking the property and surrounding area; the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES Thejollowing minules are a summary ojlhe Oclober 13, 2009 hearillg. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, October 13,2009, at 9:02 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Cavalla Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-09-097, PP, ECF November 3, 2009 Page 2 Exhibit No.1: Yellow file containing the original application, proof of posting, proof of publication and other documentation pertinent to this request Exhibit No.3: Preliminary Plat Plan Exhibit No.5: Road Plan ._-----. Exhibit No.7: Tree Inventory Exhibit No.9: Access Agreement between Threadgill, Libertv Gardens and Cavalla. Exhibit No. 11: Two Density Credit Transfer a~reements between KBS and ResDective Owners Exhibit No.2: Vicinity Map i -- Exhibit No.4: Landscape Plan Exhibit No.6: Aerial Photograph -- Exhibit No.8: Picture of Proposed Trees for storm Dond area (7 sheets) Exhibit No. 10: Copy of King County Codes regarding Transfer of Development Rights Exhibit No. 12: Gwendolyn High Testimony Exhibit No. 13: Prior Preliminarv Plat with 38 Lots Exhibit No. 14: New Condition #1 .J Rocale Timmons stated that this application was submitted to King County DDES in early 2006, since that time the property was annexed into the City of Renton. It is vested to King County's R-4 Development Standards. This plat will also be subject to the City of Renton's procedures. The applicant proposed 49 single family lots on 9.40 acres. There are two existing parcels and one existing single family residence that would be removed. The gross density would be approximately 5.21 dwelling units per acre. The interior lots would average 4300 square feet and the exterior lots would average 6000 square feet Proposed access to the site would be via 1 62 0d Avenue SE, which abuts the site to the west and then 164'h Avenue SE located on the eastern portion of the site. This would be a proposed dedication provided by the applicant, which is an extension of 164' Avenue SE. The Environmental Review Committee issues a Determination of Non-Significance . Mitigated with two mitigation measures. No appeals were filed. This project does comply with King County's Comprehensive Plan designation. In King County's R-4 zone, the density allowed is 4 dwelling units per gross acre, this allows a maximum density of up to 6 dwelling units per acre. This excess of the base density is allowed for the use of Transfer of Development Rights, which the applicant is pursuing per Chapter 21a37 of the King County Code. The applicant has proposed 5.21 dwelling units per gross acre, which is an 11 lot increase from the base density that would have been allowed in the zone. A Transfer of Development Rights allows for the transfer of development rights from another area outside of the urban growth boundary. It is basically the development rights that a potential property could have had to usc to develop. Eleven lots that could have been developed somewhere else could be transferred to this development. The applicant has provided a Purchase and Sell Agreement which is the first step. At Preliminary Plat approval, the applicant would be required to provide a Purchase and Sell Agreement. Staff has requested that the first Cavalla Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-09-097, PP, ECF November 3, 2009 Page 3 condition be revised, rather than just requesting a Purchase and Sell Or the actual Transfer of Development Rights documentation, they would be asking that the applicant perform all steps and complete all documentation necessary as required by King County and the City of Renton in order to process the transfer of Dcvelopment Rights properly for this subject plat only. Development standards of King County requires a minimum of a 30-foot lot width, no depth or size are required. The applicant has proposed different lot variations within the sileo All lots exceed the 30-fool requirement. King County Code further requires a 10-foot front yard setback for the primary structure and a 20- foot setback for the garage. All side and rear yards require only a 5-foot setback. The applicant, however, has proposed a IS-foot setback for the primary structure on the interior lots. In the right-of-way the applicant has also provided an 8-foot landscape strip in addition to a 5-foot public sidewalk. The lots along the exterior would have a 20-foot setback for the primary structure and 25-foot setback for the garagc. The building standards for the site were stated incorrectly in the Staff Report. It is noted that 55% is the impervious surface coverage in the report, however for the use of TOR, the applicant is able to utilize the R-6 development standards which allows 70% impervious surface coverage for each lot. The building height would be 35-feet for each single family residence. The proposed landscape plan includes a 1O-foot landscape easement parallel to 162"d Avenue SE and 164'1. Avenue that would be easements on private property with significant landscaping and a good neighbor fence which would be modulated along I 641h Avenue SE. There is at least 20-feet of landscaping along 162"d and 164'1. from the back of the curb to the face of the fence, in addition to that the applicant is proposing an 8-foot landscape strip along the perimeter of the interior lots. Within that landscape strip the applicant proposes to usc two smaller variety strect trees, staft-would like to see the applicant replace the variety of smaller street trce with a larger variety of street tree along the interior lots and possibly the smaller street trees could be used on the exterior lots behind the larger variety of tree that has already been proposed. There are 429 trees located on the site, all are proposed to be removed due to the topography of the site. The applicant has indicated that it would be very challenging to retain any of the trees on site. King County code does allow the removal of all trees as long as they are replaced. The applicant would be required to retain 94 trees, if they are not able to do so. The applicant has proposed to replace 193 trees total, which does meet the requirement for King County tree replacement. King County code requires that the applicant provide recreation on site. On this site, the applicant is required to provide 390 square feet of recreation space per lot, approximately 38,000 square feet of recreation area has been provided within the proposed detention pond tract. There is a walking trail that surrounds the pond, which will include benches, tables and umbrellas as well as passive recreation for small children. The applicant should also provide a public benefit on the pathway due to the needs of the school children in the area. The pathway should be dedicated as a public easement. There would also be a fence on the interior of the trail that surrounds the pond for safety. Half street improvements have been proposed along 162"d Ave SE as well as dedicatign ofa 35.5 foot right-ot~ way width along the eastern portion of the site for the extension of 164th Ave SE. In the northeast portion of the site a turn around has been provided, a portion of which is located on the Issaquah School District property. An agreement is in place until such time as the road would be extended to the north. The internal road system Cavalla Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-09-097, PP, ECF November 3,2009 Page 4 connects 162 0 " Ave SE to 164,h Ave SE which satisfied the secondary access requirements. Further there is an alley that has been proposed for the interior Lots 31-49. A Transportation Mitigation Fee would be imposed on this project and a School Mitigation Fee payable to the Issaquah School District would be imposed as well. The ERC issued a mitigation measure requiring the applicant to comply with the 2005 Surface Water Design Manual, which will accommodate some of the concerns in this area. A Homeowner's Association should be created to maintain all common improvements on site. The applicant further should maintain all landscaping and all amenities provided within Tract A from the fence outward and the City of Renton would be responsible for the storm pond located from the fence inward. Water service to the site is being provided by Water District 90, the applicant would be requircd to provide approved plans from Water District 90 prior to engineering permit approval. The applicant has received a Certificate of Water Availability. The applicant would further be required to provide an 8" line for sewer within 162 0d Ave SE and extend to all lots as required. Wayne Potter, Barghausen Consultants, J 8215 72 0d Ave S, Kent 98032 stated the project team was with him that included the landscape architect and engineers who were at the hearing to answer any questions. This project has a long history through King County, pre-application meetings, site visits and working with various members of King County and the City of Renton. This project was started in 2005 and they are excited about the project being presented today. The developer has thoughtfully gone through every detail to come up with a project that would lessen impacts with respect to the additional J I lots of the TORs. In general they are satisfied with the conditions placed on this project by Staff; however, there are a few things that he wanted to bring to the attention of the Examiner and possibly give some clarifications. Regarding the setbacks, it appears that the City is considering in the future allowing flexibility with respect to front yard porches that would potentially encroach typical front yard setbacks. This is what they have tried to do with this project, varying elevations, modulations with buildings making sure there is not just a row of houses with the exact same setbacks. It appears that the City is considering allowing decks/porches to encroach the setbacks to provide another esthetic element to the streetscape. If this project is approved today and if this ordinance should be approved that it would become applicable to this project. The Examiner stated that he could not guarantee that, they are present today under existing code and existing code has certain provisions. Whether you can modifY the plat after the fact that would have to be explored with StafI The main question or problem would be the precedence it creates. Everyone could come in and say they wanted their plat to abide by these standards, but if the standards are relaxed in the future then they want those standards to apply. The standards could vary from week to week or month to month. That flexibility could cause many problems. This plat has the advantage of the King County Code and now you are looking to take advantage of the current plus potential changes in the Renton code. Cavalla Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-09-097, PP, ECF November 3, 2009 Page 5 The lots could achieve a variety of looks with the usc of landscaping, mixing larger and smaller trees and creating a designer look. Mr. Potter continued with a minor correction on page 10 of the StatTReport, under Surface Water, second paragraph it indicates that there is a proposed storm water vault located in Tract A. It is a pond and not a vault. Also with respect to the revisions to Condition I, with regards to TOR's, Mr. Halinen would address that matter later. There would be no problem in adding the language to the condition that they would meet the King County requirements for TOR's outlined in their code. The Examiner also noted a correction to the Staff Report on page 4 of 12, the consistency with Short Plat ct'iteria is mentioned twice and it is obviously Preliminary Plat and not Short Plat. Mr. Pottcr continued regarding some items that were discussed and provided some clarification. They have met with CARE and gone through this project, made revisions based on comments received from them that appeared to be applicable. They also met with adjacent property owners to the south, they met with the developer of Liberty Gardens to discuss projects and try to work together for a good product in this area. Many of the improvements made in the project not only meet but exceed King County requirements as well as requirement of the City of Renton. They have varied the lot widths with good depths and variations in setbacks. There are also additional landscaping opportunities, there would be a separation from the back of the curb to the sidewalk for safety reasons as well as additional landscaping. With regards to providing more landscaping for the alley load lots, on the front of these lots (31-40) because of the grade separation, they have put a wall back from the sidewalk and added additional landscaping so the wall is not right up to the back of the sidewalk. They have exceeded the requirements for King County for open space and recreation. The storm pond design includes passive recreation and active recreation and put them together to create a space where the open pond would be a feature to be enjoyed by not only the people within the plat but also the community. With that, they have increased the landscaping, have proposed to move trees and create meandering sidewalks along 162"J and 164'h trying to take advantage of the 20' landscaping on both of those main streets and providing fencing with trellis design. The landscaping plan is very detailed and construction ready. They have worked diligently with Liberty High school to make the best use of the turnaround. There would be a modulated fence along 164'" that will break up the look of a long straight fence that is seen in most developments. Every other lot will have the fence modulated and enhanced with landscaping and the other lot with a trellis to try to lessen the impact of a straight wall. Regarding the trees, they have looked at the landscape to see if there were pockets of trees that they could try to save to incorporate in this plat. There is a challenge when it comes to design, the size of these lots and 30' of elevation drop from the northeast corner to the southwest corner. In doing so, they have elected to increase the landscape on the project to exceed the replacement tree requirements of King County to try to lessen that impact. They are working with native trees and they feel confident that they have accomplished that goal. There has been some discussion about an agreement with three developers, at the very beginning of this project when the plan was submitted to King County, a letter was sent to all three projects, Threadgill, Liberty Gardens and Cavalla. Threadgill received preliminary plat approval through King County prior to annexation. Liberty Gardens had received SEPA determination and was within weeks of having a hearing before the King County Cavalla Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-09-097, PP, ECF November 3, 2009 Page 6 Hearing Examiner prior to the annexation. King County met with all three developers to come up with a solution to secondary access. There concern was in and out of this area. The three developers agreed as a whole they needed to come up with a solution. [n the end, prior to annexation, 162"d was the preferred access going directly south in front of Cavalla and Liberty Gardens. Through meetings with the City and going through designs and because of the impacts to several sensitive areas, it was determined that the less impact and the preferred alternative for extension and secondary access would be I 64'h and that is why revisions were made. The agreement leaves room for an alternative access, 167 th Ave SE, and if that were determined to be better, all three parties have agreed to follow that recommendation. David Halinen, Attorney for applicant provided a copy of a portion of the King County code that deals with Transfer of Development Rights, Chapter 2Ia.37. He further provided copies of two Density Credit Transfer Agreements; one involving the purchase of nine such credits and the other the purchase of two credits for the total of eleven that are being contemplated in this plat. Gwendolyn High, ISS Yakima Avenue, Renton 98059 appeared on behalf of CARE stated that they were her neither in support or opposition of this project. This will happen and they would like to present some clarifications for review. They are pleased with the current project proposal. They presented a list of conditions that have been offered by the applicant they are requesting that they be specific conditions of approval including lot variation, setbacks, landscaping, street plan and access to the pond. The main matter is the TOR, this community is sensitized against TORs due to the poor implementation to date and the negative impacts that the residents have suffered as a result. With this project the community will have absorbed about 20% of all TORs transferred in King County since the first TOR was sold in 1999. Until now there has been no provision of infrastructure or amenity improvements to appropriately accommodate and mitigate the increased negative impacts. Many discussions have taken place and many neighbors still believe that TORs must be opposed as a matter or principal regardless of the specific proposal. The community has more to gain from Cavalla being built as currently proposed than would be lost if the project were to be built to the lower King County density standards. The community would not challenge the use of TORs at this time due to the amenities that the development proposes. They would like to request the following conditions; signs to be placed at the access points of the walk around the storm pond so that the public knows they are welcome, opening hours and rules of behavior should be included in that signage. It appears that half street improvements for l62"d and I 64'h are inadequate, half streets are only adequate for service of35 dwellings or fewer, this plat is proposed at 39 and Liberty Gardens has been approved at 36 for a total of 85 units. It appears that full street improvements for 162"d and 164'h would be required. There appears to be no conceptual drainage plan for this development, King County requires a curb on one side for drainage and therefore, the City's stormwater and traffic division review the proposed plat and make sure the alley design meets the intent and purpose of both road standards and drainage standards. CARE hopes that the implementation of this project will be a powerful and effective example of the proper lise of TORs. The transfer process must be complete and correct. [t was requested that Statl Condition I in the written report to the Hearing Examiner be modified to require conformance with all necessary applicable portions of King County Code, specifically 21a.3 7.080, 21a.3 7 .130 and 2Ia.37.140. It is important that what is offered actually happens. Cavalla Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-09-097, PP, ECF November 3, 2009 Page 7 Dave Petrie, 811 S 73'd Court, Des Moines 98198 requested that the Hearing Examiner recommend to the Renton City Council that the Cavalla plat be revised and returned to the 38 lot configuration that was subm itted under King County in January 2006. It would then be fully compliant with the R-4 Renton Comprehensive Plan. The increase in density would damage his property because of the lower cost and smaller lots, the greater reason was the effect on the neighborhood. Mr. Petrie read a statement regarding his involvement with the TOR matter. He is a developer and was invited to a meeting with the planning commission regarding the usc of TORs, he was the only developer that showed up for the meeting. He further related events that took place with the Evendale development. It appeared that the planning commission was against TORs and he fully supported them. The Examiner asked for an explanation o[the impacts and why he believed this project was inappropriate. Mr. Petrie continued stating that he liked the landscaping however, the density is an issue, he wanted to see the development go back to the original 38 lots and still have all the amenities. Originally Renton wanted 164,1; as the major arterial, 162"d is the better route, but that had impacts on the environment. lie proposed an underground vault and was criticized for that suggestion. Debi Eberle, 18225 SE 147'h Street, Renton 98059 stated that she is the vice president of CARE and a Watershed Steward. She reported that the yellow flag iris is on the noxious weed list and should not be used in the landscape in this development. Native plants should be used whenever possible. The system needs trees that feed bugs and keep fish alive. The open space, wetland area and detention pond are good for the environment and they need to be kept open to the public. TORs require a delicate balance and there needs to be a balance and it needs to work correctly. Doris Yepez, 16444 SE 135'h Street, Renton 98059 stated that she lives near the development and she was concerned about the tree retention. There are two cedars that are 34" in diameter, they are older forest trees. There are also some Hemlocks that are very large as well located in the northwest corner. She does not want to see clear cutting it causes erosion when land is cleared this way. This would have the potential to po lute the Cedar River. She was not in favor of TORs and would like to see the plat go back to the original 38 lots. In the planting area that also is some bamboo and holly, she is not sure of the type of bamboo intended to be planted, the non-invasive type would be alright, but the invasive type spreads and is more difficult to get out than blackberries. They need to keep native plants in the pond area. Gary Norris, Transportation Engineer, PO Box 547, Preston stated that at the time previous traffic counts were conducted there was a lot of construction activity in the area and the construction activity was generating a lot more traffic that was anticipated from the single family developments. As the construction has calmed down, the traffic volumes have receded and the economic impact has had an impact on traffic as well. The intersections in the area can handle the additional lots of this particular project. Kayren Kittrick, Community and Economic Development stated that the sewer on 162"d is open to be on either 164'h or 162"d it is gravity and engineering will determine which way it will go. The temporary turnaround is needed because of the distance, it mayor may not go away the Issaquah School District has the available frontage that they could develop the whole road, they could do their half. They have been exploring the Cavalla Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-09-097, PP, ECF November 3, 2009 Page 8 possibility of extra parking for the ball field. The casement should not be finalized until just before the final plat because it needs to match what is actually built. The Examiner stated that a condition was needed to state that the temporary turnaround is being constructed with this project. Kayren Kittrick continued stating that the ERC stated the use ofthe 2005 Manual for the drainage isslles. They cannot divert any water, all water coming onto the site must be accommodated, the 2005 Manual will go a long way in resolving some of the issues or at least will not make them worse. Most of the drainage issues are on the southerly side of the property because there is a stream in that vicinity, there is some flooding on 160'h as well some backing across property lines in the vicinity. It is well documented where the problems are and that will be watched very closely. To the east and south is a Park's Department property, King County Parks will be handing that property over to the City of Renton. The City Park's Department will be going through its uSllal outreach process to develop the area. To clarify, both I 64'h and 162"d are not designated as arterials, at most they are residential collectors by their character, there is no direct access off of them very often, they are access through the residential properties. As such a half street improvement is allowed, this is actually more than a half street, it is 22 feet of pavement in their frontages and all points of connection must be a minimum of 20 feet. A 10 minute recess was taken ... returned to the record at \0:53 am Wayne Potter stated that he was going to try to bring some clarity to some of the outstanding issues. With respect to the e-mail provided by Gwendolyn with recommendations he stated they have no problems if Staff wants to include the improvements that are part of the TORs as conditions with the caveat that ifthe TORs are not approved, those particular improvements would not be applicable. The Examiner questioned if the TORs were discretionary at this time or ifthe agreement is executed is it a fait accompli. Mr. Halinen stated that it is a fait accompli. Mr. Potter continued that they agreed that there would be public access to the path amenities. The half street issues were addressed by Ms. Kittrick, however, on Sheet 5 there is a cross section of I 62"d Ave, King County requested that 30-feet of asphalt be provided from face of curb to the asphalt. There are many ways to design the alley, they are open to the standard King County requirement. The on site and off-site drainage issues have been analyzed extensively. A Level I drainage analysis that was prepared and submitted was reviewed by King County at the time, they requested a Level 3 analysis. Ed McCarthy was hired to prepare that analysis, in the end they agreed to provide Level 3 drainage control and sized the pond accordingly. The temporary turnaround, the intent is to provide a temporary easement that would stay on the adjacent property, or the option of splitting the easement on both sides of the right-of-way or providing the easement on the entire project of Cavalla. There are options, Issaquah School District has many design options and they Cavalla Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-09-097, PP, ECF November 3, 2009 Page 9 would be willing to work with Staffto ultimately come up with the best solution. The preference would be to flip the temporary turnaround onto the School property, in initial conversations with them, they were okay with that. They would be willing to work with CARE to provide native plants in the landscaping. They would also look at the large cedars and Hemlocks, they will look at options again. Cedar trees are very sensitive and when removing other trees around them it could be problematic. Ms. Timmons read her new Condition I to the Staff Report: 'The applicant shall perform all steps and complete all documentation necessary as required by King County Code Section 21A.3 7 and the City of Renton in order to process the transfer of development rights properly for this subject plat only the certificate or other valid legal document(s) must show the applicant or successor as the lawful owner of the development rights. Alternatively, the plat design shall be reconfigured to reflect the density allowable under the R-4 Zone without the TOR bonus." The Examiner stated that there is no plat without the TORs. Reverting back to a 38-lot plat leaves some concerns and questions. David Halinen stated that he had reviewed the new Condition I with his client and it is acceptable as drafted. Regarding the point that without the TORs there is no plat and this would rcvert back to a 3 8-lot plat, the last sentence could be slightly modified to provide some sort of remand [or further processing if in [act, tile TOR approach is not ultimately utilized. Gwendolyn High mentioned three subsections of KC 21 AJ 7 the last two were .130 and .140 which deal with TORs are acquired from the County's bank. These TORs are being acquired from specific property owners not from the Bank. Mr. Halinen read from subsection b ofKC 21 regarding TOR development rights. Ms. Timmons stated that the front yard porches that were proposed by the applicant to encroach into the front yard setback would be approved by Staff as long as it does not encroach into the required setback of 10 feet for the front yards and then because of the front yards that front on the street, they are asking that the front porches do not exceed more than a 15 foot front yard setback. A detailed landscape plan has not been approved and that a tina I landscape plan will have to be approved prior to the recording of the plat. They will look specifically at noxious plants as well as the overall landscape plan. It is obvious that the City has not implemented a TOR program and that it is a very controversial topic. The project is vested to King County R-4 standards, it does have a base density of 4 dulac and does allow the density to go up to 6 dulac. The applicant is only proposing 5.21 dulac. It is understood that there are several concerns, they are allowed to exceed the base density of the zone. Doris Yepez stated that Mr. Potter said that leaving some single Cedars would make them susceptible to the wind, but she would like them to look at the cluster of Cedars on the southeast corner, if those could be retained it would be good. Cavalla Preliminary Plat File No.; LUA-09-097, PP, ECF November 3, 2009 Page 10 The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at II: 16 a.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following; FINDINGS; I. The applicant, Kolin S. Taylor, filed a request for a Preliminary Plat. 2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit # 1. 3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official issued a Determination of Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M). 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject site is located south ofSE 137th Place and east of 162nd Avenue SE and west of I 64th Avenue SE. 6. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of lower density detached single family uses, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. 7. The subject site is currently zoned R-4 (Single Family - 4 dwelling units/acre). The subject site is vested under King County's zoning which is generally equivalent to Renton's designation but the standards for lot area, yard setbacks or dimensions and development standards would be judged against King County standards in effect when the application was submitted. As discussed below, the density may be altered by the Transfer of Development Rights. 8. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 5398 enacted on August II, 2008. 9. The subject site is approximately 9.4 acres. The site consists oft",[o adjacent lots that abut in a north- south direction. The subject site is approximately 596 feet wide (east to west) by 656 feet deep. 10. The subject site slopes downward toward the southwest. The slopes range from approximately 2.5 percent to 12 percent and average about 10 percent. The northeast corner of the site is approximately 50 feet higher than the southwest corner. Grade and fill will be used to create level building pads and roadways. II. The site contains 429 significant trees. The applicant proposes removing most, if not all of the trees to accommodate the grading that will occur. (see below for proposed new landscaping.) Cavalla Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-09-097, PP, ECF November 3, 2009 Page 11 12. In developing the subject site the applicant proposes using King County provisions that allow the Transfer of Development Rights. Those provisions allow trading or purchasing development rights attached to certain rural land and use of them in less rural or suburban or urban settings. Those rights, once transferred, reduce the potential density ofthe rural parcels and boost the permitted density of the receiving property. The R-4 Zone has a base density of 4 dwelling units per acre and the maximum is 6. Transfer of Development Rights (TOR) permits the maximum density of 6 units per acre. The number of lots permitted is attained by multiplying the acres, 9.4, by base density of 4, yielding a total of 37.6, or 38 lots. The applicant has proposed a TOR of II lots for a total of 49 lots. This creates a density of 5.21 which is less than the maximum density of6 units per acre. 13. Staff noted that there are no qualitative criteria to allow TOR operation. If the transfer contract is finalized appropriately, then the transfer may take effect. Staff reports that the community around the project expressed opposition to increasing the density on this parcel and the applicant agreed to mitigate some of the potential impacts of increased density by exceeding the minimum standards of the King County Code. The applicant proposed increasing landscaping, passive recreational opportunities, lot design and street design. The proposal will include an enhanced detention pond area with pathways open to the general public. 14. As noted, the applicant proposes creating a 49-lot plat with one large detention tract, Tract A. Proposed Lots I to 10 will run along the north boundary of the subject site. Proposed Lots 11 to 17 will run along the eastern boundary of the subject site. Proposed Lots 18 to 22 and Tract A would lie along the southern boundary of the site. There would be three tiers of lots in the center of the site aligned east to west. Two tiers, Lots 31 to 40 as the southern tier and 41 to 49 as the northern lier, forming a block in north central portion of the subject site. The third tier generally located north of the detention Tract A would contain Lots 23 to 30. 15. King County Code has no minimum lot size or depth requirements but does require a minimum 30 foot lot width. The code requires a \0 foot setback for the primary structure and 20 fcet for attached garages or parking areas. Other than the front yard setback, all other yards, including rear yards are required to be a minimum of 5 feet. The lots would range in size from approximately 4,040 square feet to 7,803 square feet. The plat has been designed with larger lots along the perimeter ofthe site to more or less mirror the larger lots normally found in the R-4 Zone. Smaller lots would be located on the interior of the plat in the new block created by the two tiers of lots with alley. The applicant proposes enlarging yards to 20 feet for the home and 25 feet for the garage for the perimeter lots and 15 feet for the interior alley-loaded lots as an offset to the greater density. The applicant also proposed larger rear yards for the interior parcels. Building height is limited to 35 feet. 16. Staff made the following recommendations to provide a more consistent streelscape: "that the plat plan be revised to depict the following: one-half of the interior lots (Lots 31-49) provide a 10-foot front yard setback in addition to the sidewalk and landscaping provided in the right-of way and the other one-half of the interior lots provide a 15-foot front yard setback. Additionally, one-half of the exterior lots (Lots 1-30) provide a 20- foot front yard setback for the primary structure and the other one-half of the exterior lots provide a 25-foot front yard setback for the primary structure. Garages are to be setback an additional 5 feet for all front/street loaded lots. " Cavalla Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-09-097, PP, ECF November 3, 2009 Page 12 Staff suggested that the applicant provide at least 8 foot rear yards to accommodate backout room bUl that the larger rear yards proposed by the applicant were unnecessary. There are no code limitations Oil larger yards. 17. Access to the subject site would be via 162nd Avenue along the west and I 64th Avenue along the east. Both of those streets will be improved with half-street improvements and conveyed to the public with dedications. Both streets are considered residential collectors and are not subject to arterial street standards. Two west to east roads would enter the plat from 162nd Avenue and intersect with a new north to south road that swings east to I 64th. An alley would run west to east in the middle of the new block to the rear of Proposed Lots 31 to 49. I 64th Avenue would end in a turnaround at its northern tenninus. The proposed tumaround would be located on 3rd party property owned by Liberty High School-Issaquah School District. A tentative agreement has been negotiated since the improved street and turnaround would accommodate traffic at the school. If the agreement were not execuled, the turnaround would have to be accommodated on the subject site. Staff recommended that no access bc allowed directly to 162nd or I 64th. An agreement between property owners was intended to improve circulation along 162nd and I 64'h but the agreement has been abandoned. It appears that the applicant proposes upgrading I 64th to the turnaround and providing through access across its plat with its new east-west streets. 18. The applicant will be using Renton standards for street improvements including vertical curbs, an 8-foot planter strip and on-street parking. Staff has recommended that the applicant pay a Traffic Impact Fee (King County) or Mitigation Fee (Renton) of $75.00 per net new trip which equates to $35,169.75 (9.57 trips/home x 49 homes). 19. King County Code (as noted above, the applicant is vested to and bound by King County Code) requires one tree for every 40 feet of street frontage along all public streets. The applicant proposes complying with those requirements as well as providing visual barriers using lO-foot landscape easements parallel to I 62 nd and I 64'h Ave SE. The applicant proposes planting 193 replacement trees along the roads and yards. This barrier would also contain a "good neighbor fence" that is modulated along 1641h Ave SE. The applicant also proposed an 8-foot landscape strip along the perimeter oftlle tiered lots in the middle of the site. The applicant proposes a meandering sidewalk along both boundary streets. Staff suggested smaller street trees be blended with the larger trees. Staff noted that the applicant's landscaping proposal exceeds the standards required by King County. The applicant proposes relocating some of the larger ornamentals and may be able to protect other large trees where possible. 20. Code requires 390 square feet of recreation space for each home in this plat or 19, II 0 square feet for the entire plat. The detention tract will contain approximately 38,400 square feet or double the required amount. As noted this area will be open to the general public. 21. The subject site is located within the Issaquah School District. Developments within that school district are required to pay an impact fee on a per lot basis. The fee is assessable at the time of building permit approval and is $6,021.00 per lot. 22. The development will increase traffic approximately 10 trips per unit or approximately 490 trips for the 49 single family homes. Approximately ten percent of the trips, or approximately 49 additional peak Cavalla Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-09-097, PP, ECF November 3, 2009 Page 13 hour trips will be generated in the morning and evening. The TDR will enable eleven (11) additional dwellings. The 11 homes would generate approximately 105 additional trips per day or approximately 10 additional trips during the rush or peak hours. A recent traffic analysis shows traffic in the area has decreased and that the Levels of Service (LOS) for five critical intersections have improved and accidents numbers decreased. Some of the decrease might be due to the current economy but some may be a general reduction. 23. Storm water will be channeled to the natural low spot, the southwest comer of the site where it will be retained in an enhanced detention pond and open space tract, Tract A. An analysis shows that there are downstream problems and the City imposed restrictions and containment based on the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual for flow and quality. The applicant will be required to comply with that manual's landscaping requirements. 24. Sewer service will be provided in I62nd Avenue and/or I 64th whichever is more appropriate. 25. Water District #90 provides water service to this area. The water service will have to meet City of Renton standards for flow and fire protection. Appropriate permits from both agencies will be required. 26. There are some neighbors who are opposed to increasing the density of the subject site. The reasons expressed where that the smaller lots proposed are not compatible with the community, the increased housing generates a larger population and additional vehicle trips and the increased density makes it less likely to preserve natural features and/or trees. There was also concern about some of the selected landscaping materials. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The proposed plat with its increased density possible with an appropriately executed TOR appears to serve the public use and interest. This is not to say that any increase in density in an area slated for lower density single family uses is appropriate even when the result is protected [ann land or critical areas. While this office is not entirely convinced it is appropriate to shift density to an area zoned for lower density detached single tamily housing, the result in this case does not cause an egregious density increase and has been well-integrated into the lower density community by embedding the smaller lots in a surrounding envelope of larger conforming lots. In addition to the layout and alignment of the proposed lots, the applicant has increased the perimeter landscaping thereby butfering the surrounding uses from the increased density. The applicant will also be providing open space in its enhanced treatment of it stormwater detention system and this public space will be available to the general public as well as residents of the plat. 2. The development of the plat with or without the increased density will obviously change the complexion of the area. There will be more comings and goings and more people. Wooded open space will be converted to housing and manicured landscaping. These changes were anticipated by both the Comprehensive Plans and the Zoning both under King County and the City. Adjoining or nearby property has already been approved for increased development. While the density increase of the proposal will generate additional traffic, the 11 new homes will only nominally increase traffic during peak hours, the most pressing time for traffic. The 11 homes will add approximately 10 additional trips to area roads and those trips will spread out in various directions from the project. In addition, the Cavalla Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-09-097, PP, ECf November 3, 2009 Page 14 applicant will be improving areas roads and connecting roads that were substandard. The applicant will be improving access to Liberty High School's facilities. 3. Clearly, the increased density may only be permitted ifthe appropriate agreements or contracts are executed and the preservation tradeoff comes to fruition. Staff recommended that the plat be subject to such final execution. Clearly, the proposed plat can only go forward as proposed. If the TOR is not finalized, this plat would have to fail since no one has had an opportunity to review a layout with eleven fewer lots. The entire plat would have to be redesigned. 4. The development ofthe proposed plat will increase the tax base of the City. The applicant will be paying some mitigation or impact fees but the increased taxes will also offset the impacts ofthis development on the City and its services. 5. The enhanced design of this plat is creative. It envelops smaller lots inside a wrapper oflarger lots that appear to be compatible with the larger lots in surrounding plats. The applicant has increascd the perimeter landscaping and enhanced landscaping and proposed larger yards to provide a more spacious presentation. The detention tract will serve a dual purpose by providing for stormwater control while also providing open space for both residents and the community. Clearly, there is no way that introduced landscaping supplemented as it is, will replace the natural environment now found on the subject site. One aspect of developing property that cannot be avoided is that homes and driveways and access roads require the removal of existing vegetation and in some cases the natural contours of property. Again, such consequences were indirectly forecasted by the goals and objectives found in Comprehensive Plans and Zoning Code that allow housing and encourage housing and density in growing urban and suburban areas. This plat appears to provide a reasonable compromise. 6. Staff had suggested changes to some of the proposed yards. Since there is no limitation on larger yards, the applicant is free to work within building envelopes that meet the minimum standards and may provide larger yards. The applicant may not provide smaller setbacks than code permits and any porches, overhangs, bays or eaves must meet code provisions. 7. Staff suggested smaller street trees be blended with the larger trees along the streets. This would provide more visual depth and variety to the wider parking strips and should be accomplished. 8. The applicant should attempt to preserve some of the larger specimen trees where possible. All introduced landscaping should comply with standards for noxious weeds. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should approve the 49-10t plat subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall perform all steps and complete all documentation necessary, as required by King County Code section 2IA.37, and the City of Renton, in order to process the Transfer of Development Right's properly for this subject plat only. The certificate or other valid legal document(s) must show the applicant or successor as the lawful owner of the development rights. If the agreement is not appropriately executed and finalized the plat shall be null and void and a new application meeting code and density requirement would be necessary. Cavalla Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-09-097, PP, ECF November 3, 2009 Page 15 2. The applicant shall obtain a demolition permit and all required inspections be completed for the removal of the existing residence prior to the recording of the plat. 3. Supplemental materials including a revised plat plan, a letter outlining all recommended setbacks and a draft of the CC & R's for the Homeowners' Association, with an inclusion of the setback requirements of the plat; shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to the recording of the plat. 4. The applicant shall replace the small street trees along (he perimeter of the interior lots with a larger variety of street tree. The applicant shall use smaller street trees, in addition to the larger single tree, along the perimeter of the exterior lots. 5. The applicant shall be required to provide a detailed tree retention plan with the engineering review application. The tree retention plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering penn it approval. The applicant shall attempt to preserve some of the larger specimen trees where possible. All introduced landscaping shall comply with standards for noxious weeds. 6. The applicant and Homeowners Association shall allow for public use of the walking path (providing a pedestrian connection from I 62 nd Ave SE and I 64th Ave SE) and other recreation features within the storm pond (Tract A). Language to this effect shall be placed on the face of the plat and included in the Codes, Covenants & Restrictions (CC&R's). 7. Access for Lots 31-49 shall be limited to the proposed alley only. There shall be no direct access to either 162nd Avenue or I 64th Avenue from any lot in the plat. 8. The applicant shall pay a Transportation Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per net new average daily trip attributed to the project. 49 lots are expected to generate approximately 9.57 new average weekday trips per each lot. The fee for the proposed plat is estimated at $35,169.75 ($75.00 x 9.57 trips x 49 lots = $35,169.75) and is payable to the City prior to the recording of the final plat. 9. The applicant shall establish a homeowners' association for the development, which would be responsible for any common improvements andlor tracts within the plat prior to tinal plat approval. 10. A note shall be placed on the face of the plat stating that the Homeowners' Association will Cavalla Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-09-097, PP, ECF November 3, 2009 Page 16 maintain all landscaping and amenities within the proposed stonn pond from the fence outwards and the City will maintain the storm pond from the fence inward. II. The applicant shall create a turnaround at the north tenninus of I 64th Avenue. The terminus may he located on the adjacent school district property or be located on Proposed Lots 10 and 11 or portions thereof and those two lots may be combined if necessary to create an appropriate turnaround and setbacks for a home on the lot or lots. ORDERED THIS 3'" day of November 2009. HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 3'd day of November 2009 to the parties of record: Rocale Timmons Kayren Kittrick Wayne Potter Development Services Development Services Barghausen Consulting Engineer Renton, W A 98057 Renton, W A 98057 18215-nnd A venue S Kent, W A 98032 Kolin B.Taylor Gwendolyn High KBS III LLC 155 Yakima Avenue Dave Petrie 12320 NE 8"' Street, Ste. 100 Renton, W A 98059 811 S 73'd Court Bellevue, W A 98005 Des Moines, W A 98189 Gary Norris Doris Yepez Transportation Engineer Debbie Eberle 16444 SE 135 th Street PO Box 547 18225 SE 147th Street Renton, W A 98059 Preston, WA Renton, W A 98059 David Halinen Hans Korve Keith & Ann Miya 1019 Regents Blvd, Ste. 202 DMP Eng., Inc. 5515 N E I" Circle Fircrest, W A 98466 726 Auburn Way N Renton, W A 98059 Auburn, W A 98002 Coldwell Banker Bain Steve Crawford Claudia Donnelly 150 Bellevue Way SE Issaquab School District 10415 I 47th Ave SE Bellevue, W A 98004 565 NW Holly Street Bellevue, W A 98005 Issaquah, W A 98027 Helen Grover 16203 SE 137'" Place Steve Bottheim, Supervisor Seattle KC Health Department Renton, W A 98059 CPLN LUSD MS OAK DE 0100 East District Environ. Health Cavalla Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-09-097, PP, ECF November 3, 2009 Page 17 Kim Claussen, PPMllI Lisa Dinsmore, PPM IV 14350 SE Eastgate Way Bellevue, W A 98007 Kris Langley, Sr. Engr CPLN LUSD MS OAK DE 0100 CPLN LUSD MS OAK DE 0100 CPLN LUSE TRAFFIC REV MS OAK DE 0100 Kelly Whiting, KC DOT RD SERV DIV MS KSCTR 0231 Bruce Wbittaker, Sr. Engr. ERS LUSD MS OAK DE 0100 Steve Townsend, Supervisor LUIS CPLN MS OAK DE 0100 TRANSMITTED THIS 3,d day of November 2009 to the following: Mayor Denis Law Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services Marty Wine, Assistant CAO Dave Pargas, Fire Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transportation Division Utilities Division Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services Renton Reporter Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100Gofthe City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., November 17, 2009. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery ornew evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fce of $250.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance arc available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., November 17,2009. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the tile. Y Oil may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-an-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. Cavalla Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-09-097, PP, ECF November 3,2009 Page 18 All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public, This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation ofthis doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. ~ -------------- Project Location: Southeast of 162 0d Ave 5E and SE 137'h PI Site Area: 9.40 acres Project Location Map Cavallo HEX Report. doc .. -,S!:: n3'~ 5i ~ ..... '"-===='.J I >r-i ,.... R-4 i ~ 1 ~t-------! -.. ------.. -.. -__ ._.,~J Z ! ...., M [,-< ..". ..... s: 13l1h PI 5E 14Jro &; EXHIBIT 2 l@-V (; 4i AR · ZONING ~ ~ < PW TECHNICAL SERHC[.S ~, l\r T 0 07115108 E7 -11 T23N R5E E 1/2 .s" 12Sth St ~£ lJOO1 s: . . Sf 1Jisl S1 S~ IJ;;1h;.o, SEH1.s1Pl SE 142ndSl_ SE 14-4tn 51 l 'BEe'" ,,( $ L,AI2-DEN S ~ ~ f' :t L.: lSE-R-T Y HU:.,H '::-:CHCOL.....- ~ 'SE 14200 51 ~~------~~--~~--~ ;7 -23 T23N R5E E 112 o 200 400 kJ IF", 14,800 F7 14 T23N RSE E 112 5314 N t '-----_ ..• .... ~ 'I'M '3'\'13TEJ3 00. "3l.S '1B:ilS HJ.j "3 N ~ '.MOO J)f3ndO'"EVa:] SID ~, , " ','-j. ~~~ , ,< • ! Ii!! I'!; . . ! M I- 1-1 ttl 1-1 J: >< w V -l -] "'v"/ ...... ,~ ~ -, rv,~ _r~"'.."r'O-7 Of.,j-y/;-,,-,,~:(·-y~ \ 1 , ' i " i I r ti n .~ r-pi I !I < ,\-/1' I ,f P " ., I ,. , , --~-, Renton City Limits Parcels , _~_Renton_A~~~ eD N 500 0 Renton SCALE 1 : 5,674 -Fl"-""-""-=---""---(j_ 500 FEET 1000 1.500 EXHIBIT 6 h ttD: Ilrenton net. oralMa oGu idelmaoslPa reel. mwf N Wednesdav Seotember 09.20091.18 P