No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReport 01I I I /__ 1 · : . I I < > r--, --= z ~--'/ - 7 I.· I I / Cz ....: rr: ~~ ~; ' l ' CD l I "' .. L TRACTC I I L L "' .. T I , ! I I _J I ~ L_ TRACT B I I I en -, Co) -J i I " > 7 ' ' ' e (~; ?.~ §,~ t~ §~ ~ ~~ ~~~ G '~ ~~ii~ --; zz z z ":\,: ,, :'l§ :~ i -' - I ~ I I .•• -· Cc - co ---; 0 :::_: C -, 7. r" ~w .---: :z ~~ ;t>-:::-, :::: r-: ~~ ;::)-~ 0 '? z,.. ;1~ ':'i'"' -Gn } '-2:"' ~~" ;,;, . ., "'""'R "'::,: ~i! i ... /1 / 11 I 'I I I II I I I . I I ,1 , I ~ :c::- JI I ~;ti _:_ I I ! ~~!~ / r-·, I _J / '--c-,-- I I I I N01'4~,'40"E ,w 't I I 11 ,' 1 j ,11 I !I I I i fO I I d I ~ "i I ~ o. 100.03' I ~ l r N0019'57"E I -'-' ~l+------,;.oo,·· __ ·~ -~~~~ < I - ;::- ' 7;-:;:-~-::-::2 ~ 7. \ \ - -, . ________ / I,,, ' '-' '" 2 tJ I - r I I --- I I f- l ! I I r-- ' I I ! r ! I I /- I / / / --" \ l \. i ( I I l.lhl I------- _I ,,- ~ I " I , J I ·~~ ----'--I . t: 100' N01'52'0 100.04' ·- Cl "'! i . cc ' .;' -"'-u - -~r1 - :;_, f, I :S < > 2 > II ''' . •.-,' .. r rn G -m z 0 ,:,r,<;.,sr,~,Plac• ~eic,cc ,",\%000 a;:,c,<r,t")C'l ------ CIT' C,f RfNTON COVER SHEET PRELIMINARY PLAT RAD HOLDINGS, LLC VALLEY VUE :mJ6/.11;2 TALBOT ROADS -·-·- l I ,+---. ~, i :t I _ j, -~~,~ ~::_::::__4!:_! :i~~nL~" ,- : I ·1' I• . ! 1! i ' . : ,; I RS• R<~;<;O• '.'.'ASH•NGTON "' =i m • J J w m 0 )> N ~ 0 0, 0 I DA I I . ' .-.-' -..,_._ _ GRADING AND DRAIN PRELIMINARY AGE PLAN PLAT RAD HOLDINGS. LLC VALLEY VUE (.'IIY·:)' HLN'()N J!061Jl1?TAln0TROA0S ~--'°:.-r, ·f v I 11~,,~· ! ' . C I ·.. 1' -~-. I ·I ·1 L__ : •....... --~ f ~ I . ~ ::0-,, )> 0 w >< 61 0 '' J ) ) _....,._ I D A '"'"'' ''"''"''' '"'" "'"''"'" a,O ~c,oopr1,,Tl<J,sc·, LLC "2il65Sc47·h 'lace ~elle,ue Wft9'1f>rW, 42,;.,,,,;5;0, SANITARY SEWER AND WATER PLAN PRELIMINARY PLAT RAD HOLDINGS, LLC VALLEY VUE 31%:'3; 12 TALBOT ROA!J S CITY ~Jt RFNT0rJ i,".SHI\GT:J"J " m r. ~- ,t )> 0 .. ':' 0 '" s --.,.,---,/ ,, I i/ ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ii " // I 11 / /1 ) -:'._---=ft1 ._ // ( // / 11 I // I i'/ / /1 I ,, I ,, I // J il i ,, I II I // I 1/ /~- // / --r, " ' ,, I II I // I II I /i I ,/ // I // / // I :'i~~ , ·JLI[ / I ; -~-7/ -i /, ;/ ;; ;; 'I I ~;f.1-C/L __ - ELEVATION ,,nsa SF -frh ''"'-" Be 1,•wc· CW• ~OG', <JS.,,,,"'-. tllYD' llfNT,-,N 1 PROFILES PRELIMINARY PLAT RAD HOLDINGS. LLC VALLEY VUE ?iOti/3172 TALBOT ROADS 'JOllli/,313 ELE.Vfa!IOr-. ELEV/,TION W/;S'-11NGTOt4 m m 0 ,i :,, . 0 01 ~ . 0 0 ~ ~ --.-.- TREE CUTTING/LAND CLEARING PLAN PRELIIM/NARY Pl.AT RAD HOLDINGS. LLC VALLEY VUE JH!6i3112 TALBOT ROADS C 'lY CF RENTO', W,'SHl~'GTCN os,,._.,,. K)\''1, ''/"'" PF - 4 N) Alfi~ ----- _EG,_ O[SCR,?TIOH .OAr 0'!/8AsaS C1' BEAAINGS " "~' ~ '.J -t- TOPOGRAPHIC I BOUNDARY SURVEY j_ ., ··1:1 TPN=3o,!30! ,· :-~, ~. c~~ ·••·· ·, UJ i <:,·, ~1- ...•• · C, i;U:C I ' '''"' ~ ·;,-1, 'l" ~--c-'r .- ,_._J__ __ ., ~: \ ~· 't; \ ,r, 1i, ·-[· ' ,, .. -_ -- ~ I c=i !RU U:OCs~ ~ \ \ SURVEY FOR L_ i _J TPN 3023059028 :\· l{()I{\ Ill!~ KAl)IUIIDIN(;S.lU I "I· I · 4. \f I , 4. 'It <O, I \I I' ~.IJ\ .. 11(,L. "iL .. \\ .~'. (']I\ <Jl l(l~l(i\ ld.\t,\()11\1\,\',·\\llf'\{,[,,\ '"'" . {X~111.\ Ax Is f/;fZ:,.7 s. .... ,, ........ .. .,,..,...., w 0 N w 0 Ul ~ 0 N 00 ' ,-:-- ' ·;;:'. I ITIIISIIS l'<llllll\l\ '' 0 ,.; : i ' g 2, '" ·!f.•csc, '""'~· "''"""'''''·' ,, ,• ,• • _.___ PRELIMINARY PLAT RAD HOLDINGS, LLC VALLEY VUE JWl>.•~1 ;,,: )AL8UT ROA;J SOUTH ------- i I I, L~~ I-,,, I: s h ,I ,-I 1, I I ' ' 'NASI I N(;T:)N ~" a m 0 -:--..- 0 12065 Sl '"' f'lace ~·Iese, •.':~o.,,w, 425-460-02:3 TREE CUTTING/LAND CLEARING PLAN Dss~·-~s~, · so c,,, '''''" PRELIIMINARY Pl.AT '"'"w ,·siso~ Pc __ ___:_:==.:..:::.:. __ _ RAD HOLDINGS, LLC VALLEY VUE 31G6i3112 TALBOT ROADS WASH NSTON --, JJ m m JJ m --, m z --, 0 z JJ m " r )> I hi s: m .z 1; ')> 1Z I~ <I al 1=i j .1 :) r ...... 0 Iii -1 I j l i I s: )> --, 0 I r z m () "J\._, /,f-. ' j I , I f 1 I I ' i i I i i I I ["I lo [ t ,t •' -, '' i ! goi ee, i . ~ ~- N0/'52'0fi"E 10004 -,, ~,fl ,, ·' ' !~ ! ,I ' i VALLEY VUE PLAT -RAD HOLDINGS, LLC I TREE RETENTION.REPLACEMENT PLAN 3106:3112 TALBOT RD RENTON WA D I ' 1 1 I '-. - I® !I ; j j- I ! I l 100.:!.i' § () I en m 0 "' c;, --, :a' " "' "' z JJ Gl ---rn "' m :a§: s: 11 I :..., lfli m " r ,. 'Z ..., z Gl I~ 'r r ..... ..... I r----= i )----+'-ii_ ~ ~::: i~ ~ I -I I' I, I .;<=.- 1~ 0 m I~ :~ r ,-- •I_ ,, 1- I~.-----_ VALLEY VUE PLAT -RAD HOLDINGS, LLC i TREE RPLANTING NOTES AND DETAILS. ANO FENCE DETAIL I 3106/3112 TALBOT RD RENTOI\I, WA C-11 ---·- ' I I (f) m 0 u) 0 ~ -u "' u) z JJ G) m 0, m :,: s:: r ...... 0 0 z 0 m u --, C )> r r 0 ; --, I~ 1g 0 )> u m u i;;: z ~) l I _J_ ----==;.--=-= ~-~ I I -+- : \\ /111_ /; II~ > •'> . ' +*' ·-• )> I ~./,C_ ~c ·/ \;y_ r/~ I I, ,; ---f-' i i :~ I: 11 I : ! LI VALLEY VUE PLAT -RAD HOLDINGS, LLC CONCEPTUAL LOT PLANTING PLAN 3106'3112 TALBOT RD RENTON, WA en rn 0 C, 0 --, :;; u Ll z :n Gl m -._. __ ,:e,;;scac·• "'"~ ije,lle,,e 'NAC,C ~, >:S-'SS-S2''.• ;,, l } ' 0 PRELIMINARY PLAT RAO HOLDINGS. LLC VALLEY VUE J106/J112 TAlBOT ROAD SOUTH cm· 0" RENTO'J WASrl~GTON ' ' a rn n ---s JJ m m JJ m ---s m z ---s 0 z JJ m -u i;;: 0 ,m s: m z ---s -u i;;: z m X -I ~ OJ ~ =i r ...... 0 I i X a 2 0 ~ < ' r- tl l•i ' .:.'',''-:::. 0th 'I!\ ,, s: 0--~ )> -/~~,; ,,,, ---s 0 . - I ~,, "' C z m " /:;.". '" ••• -. '" "" ... -"'~ ~ ,•• > ·-. "'", ;; J,. :/'."' == ... I ~+ -76' t-·----+---I, -, i --,'i • !;:,11, i.:6> ,Ii; "" "' ,, "°' °' '"' ., ~ I # •• I I I -I .... , . •• i ... 2 ,, *! ; ~ ----1 ,. > ~ z = (:"' = f#, I ' s: ~ 0 I C z m ! VALLEY VUE PLAT -RAD HOLDINGS. LLC COLOR LANDSCAPE PLAN 3106/3112 TALBOT RD RENTON. WA i ,1 ' j ,, NQ\"4C/40"E • "' 100 03' --"·'• ,~, c-c-=·t""''-=9~-' • "' rm • \: ,' -, (/) m 0 "' ? ---s :a, -u "' "' z JJ Gl m "' m ::, s: ~ ' 7f )> 0 ~ :x 0 0 ----~- .-., 128"5 SC""" 01,,,~ b,olic·,o•: w~ '1~Vllo <l(;<6'J520', -:--.- "' m m "' ,: m m ~ ~ ~ 0 ;u ~ ;u 0 ~ r m "' GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN PRELIMINARY PLAT RAD HOLDINGS. LLC VALLEY VUE 3106/3112 TALBOT ROADS ~ITY CF ~ENT,JN 'l/t,SHltSGT81\1 , DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT --------Renton 0 ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS-M) -MITIGATED Pursuant to WAC 197-11-600(4)(c) and WAC 197-11-625 Addendum to the Valley Vue Preliminary Plat (LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD) as Addended by the City of Renton (LUA16-000272, SHPL-A, MOD) Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M) Date of Addendum: Date of Original Issuance of SEPA Threshold Determination: May 16, 2016 May 18, 2015 Proponent: Project Numbers: Project Name: Location: Lead Agency: Review Process: Rory Dees, Rad Holdings, LLC LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD and LUAlG-000272, SHPL-A, MOD Formerly Valley Vue Preliminary Plat now Valley Vue Short Plat 3106 and 3112 Talbot Road S, Renton, WA 98055 (APN 302305-9028) City of Renton, Department of Community & Economic Development Addendum to previously issued Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M) Proposal/ Purpose of Addendum: The original SEPA threshold determination for the Valley Vue Preliminary Plat was issued on May 18, 2015. The original application included a proposal for a 9-lot subdivision over a 2.3-acre site 1. The project site is located within the Residential Medium Density (RMD} land use designation and the Residential-8 zoning district. The original proposal included retaining the existing single family house located at 3106 and incorporating it into the subdivision. The existing home at 3112 was formerly proposed to be demolished, but it is proposed to be retained. As part of the original 9-lot subdivision, the applicant was proposing access the eight (8) new residential lots from Winsper Division No. 1 Subdivision via two (2) dedicated ingress and egress tracts (Tract G and Tract H) located north of 5 32nd Pl. 1 The project site is also referenced as Tax Lot No. 28 of the Winsper Division I Plat and two separate tracts (Tract G and Tract H) were recorded specifically for the future ingress, egress and utilities to Tax Lot No. 28. The tracts are owned and maintained by Winsper Community Organization until deeded to Tax Lot No. 28 at no cost when development approvals are granted by the authorized jurisdiction (Recording Number 198903141032). ' ' Addendum to Environmental (SEPA) Review Page 2 of 5 May 16, 2016 The original SEPA determination included four (4) mitigation measures requiring compliance with the recommendations found in the Geotechnical Engineering Study, all planting within the critical area buffer to be by hand, access to the stormwater tract for maintenance and operation of the utility via a utility access easement, and access to the lots be constructed using the up-and-coming (at the time) shared driveway standards that were adopted after the application was determined complete. The City of Renton's Hearing Examiner issued a Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law & Final Decision on July 28, 2015 to deny the Valley Vue Preliminary Plat. A 14-day appeal period commenced from the date ofthe hearing examiner's decision and ended on August 11, 2015. No appeals or requests for reconsideration were filed. The current proposal, for the same 2.3-acre parcel, is a 2-lot short plat and a street modification. The proposed short plat would subdivide the parcel into two (2) residential lots, retaining both existing single family homes, and one (1) Native Growth Protection Tract (Tract A). The applicant is no longer proposing a storm water tract so Mitigation Measure #3 would no longer be applicable to the project. The two proposed residential lots are 41,970 SF (Lot 1) and 40,200 SF (Lot 2) with an average lot size of 41,085 SF. The residential density is 0.96 dwelling units per net acre. Access to the two (2) new residential lots is proposed via a 24-foot wide dedicated ingress/egress and utility easement tract (Tract H) from S 32nd Pl through Winsper Division No. 1 subdivision. The applicant is proposing to comply with the current shared private driveway standards of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC 4-6-060J), which was passed by the Renton City Council on October 20, 2014 (Ord. No. 5727, effective October 29, 2014). Proposed roadway improvements to the site include a paved 16-foot wide shared driveway through Tract H and a driveway apron with driveway wings meeting City of Renton Standards Driveway Detail (COR Std Plan 104.1) would be required within the within the public right-of-way along S 32nd Pl. The previous preliminary plat proposal was subject to private street standards which contributed to developments that was not in keeping with the vision of the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, vehicular and pedestrian access would no longer be required to the eastern part of the lot, so the shared driveway through the existing Winsper Division No. 1 Tracts G would no longer be applicable to the project. There are 142 significant trees on the site and the applicant is proposing to retain all of the original trees. No new trees are proposed to be planted so this would make Mitigation Measure #2 no longer applicable to the project. The eastern portion of the site is comprised of an established forest that extends off-site to the east and south with a Category Ill wetland with moderate habitat scores (5 to 7 points). No impacts to critical areas onsite are proposed. The application is also requesting a street modification from the required half-street frontage improvements along S 32nd Pl, along access Tract H, in order to maintain the existing improvement condition of the neighborhood. Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21C, 1971 as amended) on May 18, 2015 the City's Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M) for the Valley Vue Preliminary Plat. The DNS-M included four (4) mitigation measures. A 14-day appeal period commenced on May 22, 2015 and ended on June 5, 2015. No appeals of the threshold determination were filed. Addendum to Environmental (SEPA) Review Page 3 of 5 May 16, 2016 Original Mitigation Measures: 1. Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations found in the Geotechnica/ Engineering Study prepared by Geotech Consultants, Inc. dated May 27, 2014 or an updated report submitted at a later date. 2. The applicant shall plant all trees that are within the 50-foot standard wetland buffer by hand and without heavy machinery. To the greatest extent feasible, these trees should be planted in areas where invasive species are present. A tree planting plan shall be provided to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval prior ta construction permit issuance. 3. The applicant shall provide a minimum 12-to 15-foot wide utility access easement to the stormwater tract (Tract D) for maintenance and operation of the utility. The easement shall be recorded and documentation provided to the City prior ta approval the issuance of the construction permit application. 4. The applicant shall provide a shared driveway through the existing Winsper Division No. 1 Subdivision tracts (Tracts G and H} that are consistent with the shared private driveway stand[ards] of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC 4-6-060K}. The private access roads shall meet the minimum necessary to provide for safe and effective access for the existing residents, proposed residents, and fire and emergency vehicles. Analysis: It has been determined that the environmental impacts of the proposal were adequately addressed under the analysis of significant impacts contained within the previously adopted DNS-M. Based on WAC 197-11-600(4)(c), the addendum process may be used if analysis or information is added that does not substantially change the analysis of significant impacts and alternatives in the existing environmental document. The City of Renton is hereby issuing a SEPA Addendum pursuant to WAC 197-11-600. This Addendum is appropriate because it contains only minor information not included in the original Determination and there are no additional environmental impacts related to inclusion of the new information. The proposal will not change the analysis or impacts in the original SEPA Review. However, the proposed revision and resubmittal of the plat has also increased the standard buffer from the delineated wetland edge from 50 feet to 100 feet as a result of the adoption of new Critical Areas Regulations (Ordinance No. 5757, effective date July 5, 2015). Therefore, the applicable mitigation measure to be retained includesMitigation Measure #1 and the modified Mitigation Measure #4. They are as follows: Proposed Mitigation Measures: 1. Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations found in the Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Geotech Consultants, Inc. dated May 27, 2014 or an updated report submitted at a later date. Addendum to Environmental {SEPA) Review Page 4 of 5 May 16, 2016 4. The applicant shall provide a paved 16-foot wide shared driveway through the existing Winsper Division No. 1 Tracts H that is consistent with the shared private driveway standards of the Renton Municipal Cade (RMC 4-6-0601). The private access roads shall meet the minimum necessary to provide for safe and effective access for the existing residents, proposed residents, and fire and emergency vehicles. DECISION: The City of Renton is hereby issuing a SEPA Addendum pursuant to WAC 197-11- 600 to retain mitigation #1, remove mitigation measures #2 and #3 and modify mitigation measure #4 as proposed. Additional Information: If you would like additional information, please contact Clark Close, Senior Planner, City of Renton Planning Division, Department of Community & Economic Development at (425) 430-7289. There is no comment period for this Addendum, dated May 16, 2016 issued by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee. Addendum to Environmental (SEPA) Review Page S of 5 May 16, 2016 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE SIGNATURES: Gregg Zimmer a , Ad nistrator Public Works Dep rt -" ent Community Services Department M2,/k{, Fire & Emergency Services Department C.E. "Chip" Vin~ent, Administrator Department of Community & Economic Development Date Date Date Denis Law Mayor July 30, 2015 Jon Nelson Land Development Advisors, LLC 12865 SE 47'h Place Bellevue, WA 98006 City Clerk -Jason A. Seth, CMC Subject: Hearing Examiner's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law & Final Decision RE: Valley Vue, LUA-14-001040 Dear Mr. Nelson: The City of Renton's Hearing Examiner has issued a Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law & Final Decision dated July 28, 2015. These documents are immediately available: • Electronically on line at the City of Renton website (www.rentonwa.gov); • To be viewed at the City Clerk's office on the ?'h floor or Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, between 8 am and 4 pm. Ask for the project file by the above project number; and • For purchase at a copying charge of $0.15 per page. The estimated cost for the Hearing Examiner Documents is $1.50, plus a handling and postage cost (this cost is subject to change if documents are added). APPEAL DEADLINE: RMC 4-8-080 provides that the final decision of the Hearing Examiner is subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(14) requires appeals of the Hearing Examiner's decision to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner's decision. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee to the City Council, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall -7th Floor, (425) 430-6510. RECONSIDERATION: A request for reconsideration to the Hearing Examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(13) and RMC 4-8- 100(G)(9}. Reconsiderations must be filed in writing to the Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way• Renton, Washington 98057 • (425) 430-6510 I Fax (425) 430-6516 • rentonwa.gov , 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Additional information regarding the reconsideration process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall -7th Floor, (425) 430-6510. A new fourteen (14) day appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of a reconsideration decision. I can be reached at (425) 430-6510 or jseth@rentonwa.gov. Thank you. Sincerely, :/;I J on A. Seth cc: Hearing Examiner Clark Close, Senior Planner Jennifer Henning, Planning Director Vanessa D0lbee 1 Current Planning Manager Vicki Grover, Civil Engineer II -Plan Review Engineer Craig Burnell, Building Official Sabrina Mirante, Secretary, Planning Division Ed Prince, City Council President Julia Medzegian, City Council Liaison Rory Dees, RAD Holdings, LLC., Owner Parties of Record (43) • ._. __ _ __ D.:e~;s,::.~raw _______ ... 1 {£:i'r Qt t 0 r l July 30, 2015 STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING City Clerk -Jason A. Seth, CMC CERTIFICATE OF MAILING ) ) § ) JASON A. SETH, City Clerk for the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 21 and not a party to nor interested in this matter. That on the 30th day of July, 2015, at the hour of 4:30 p.m. your affiant duly mailed and placed in the United States Post Office at Renton, King County, Washington, by first class mail the Hearing Examiner's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Final Decision RE: Valley Vue Preliminary Plat (LUA-14-001040) to the attached parties of record. Jason SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 301h day of July, 2015. 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • (425) 430-6510 / Fax (425) 430-6516 • rentonwa.gov Victoria Park Homeowners Association PO Box 1104 Renton. WA 98055 Andrea Smith 3111 Smithers Ave S Renton. WA 98055 BRUCE AND SHARON WICKS 3121 Smithers Ave S Renton, WA 98055-5301 ~~~~-fl:~{J\~Sfi}:~:_·;~~~fftit:~))j CAROL & JESS TOMAS JC ENTERPRISES 739 S 32nd Pl Renton, WA 98055-5095 ~.~MBWi.-~{~~~&~¥;~{f~~@1~1 Dylan Moline 715 S 32nd Pl Renton, WA 98055 Jake Hertz 721 S 31st St Renton, WA 98055 ~,tt~i~~J,~ Jon Nelson Land Development Advisors, LLC 12865 SE 47th Pl Bellevue, WA 98006 Winsper Community HOA 3125 Wells Ave S Renton, WA 98055 Barbara Webb 10319 SE 30th St Bellevue, WA 98004 Bruce Truong 3101 Smithers Ave S Renton, WA 98055 i J;{!\~~j~:~ij::'.tJ1ifUJ1fllti'.~i) DEBORAH POOLE 625 5 32nd Pl Renton, WA 98055-5086 ft:f-'.~:::'J~~iB.~~~~·r~;!attI)"Jf:~~'of.~;1_= i ,-i:: ~ft':r~:il\iBflml!:!t'M)Pc:~Y.3. ,, , . ., __ ,,, !:i'. ,,,,.r,:.,. .. ,d'-::'f_,,,,{·.t, Hisami Hoglund 727 5 32nd Pl Renton, WA 98055 ~j.,}r~~~~lWl.:!~I':fff,:$}~~0 Jerome Jaeb 7015 32nd Pl Renton, WA 98055 iiffl~lll~.B~~~ Kathy Rickard J and M Management 17404 Meridian E, Suite F -PMB 171 Puyalluo, WA 98375 Alfonso Pelayo 711 S 32nd Pl Renton, WA 98055 BRIAN G+CHERIE D YORITA 607 S 32ND PL Renton, WA 98055 Carl Kiminki 703 S 32nd St Renton, WA 98055 itJ!~~~~~~g~~It: Doug Dalen 721 S 31st St Renton, WA 98055 th~~~1~J~~~£4t4?Jfff J&M Management 17404 Meridian E Puyalluo. WA 98375 ktff~,~~'lfB~"@ Jesse Olsen PO Box 823 Renton, WA 98057 il,,~~,~~i,t, Ken Conley 2020 Shattuck Ave 5 Renton. WA 98055 -.&-lt:!il:\,~rt~~~~ Larrv Hall ;,-~ ~~-!I~:,' 623 S 31st St Renton, WA 98055 Lisa & David Murohv 729 5 25th St Renton, WA 98055 RBl/ffr~~ fflMLtt?lli!lll!'M:~m-~ M/M Bailev M/M Tu kola 637 S 32nd Pl 601 S 32nd Pl Renton. WA 98055 Marv Klaas Schultz 678 S 32nd Pl Renton, WA 98055 Renton. WA 98055 Marv Klaas Schultz 618 S 32nd Pl Renton, WA 98055 Luz Chan 632 5 32nd Pl Renton. WA 98055 •cr·snm~~, Margaret Smith Charity 523 S 31st St Renton. WA 98055-5058 Nona Braun 606 S 32nd Pl Renton. WA 98055-5094 Patrick Gastineau 17611 Eason Ave Bothell, WA 98011 Rory Dees RAD HOLDINGS LLC 1040 W Lake Sammamish Pkwy SE Bellevue, WA 98008 Stanely Mitchell 3107 Smithers Ave S Renton, WA 98055 Si~1~t~~~~·~=:~J~;%1~$Y~ TRUDY WARM 635 S 32nd St Renton, WA 98055 -~2J'ffl>~~~\~ Virginia Klaas. MD 618 S 32nd Pl Renton. WA 980SS r."· ,. Rich Perteet 734 S 32nd St Renton, WA 98055 San Lal Hming Thang 648 S 32nd Pl Renton. WA 98055 r.;:;i:·t:fftrttitt~it~~i:;:·}t:e:i;;G4>~iJ;:V~tr ,; Steven Nguyen 619 S 32nd Pl Renton. WA 98055 ~~W:tll'.-~~~~:~1\/i, Tu Kolb 601 S 32nd Pl Renton. WA 98055 Wayne Dong 636 S 32nd Pl Renton, WA 98055 Rory Dees 1040 W Lake Sammamish Pkwy SE Bellevue, WA 98008 Sharon Gangwish 700 S 32nd Pl Renton. WA 98055 .! . t,'t'~i--~,:,,~~JJ;j11i~.ti'i'i';;l!';;,,K~1, ' STEVEN THOMPSON INSIGNIA SIGN INC 706 S 32nd Pl Renton, WA 98055-SOOO Ulf Gunderson PO Box 1104 Renton. WA 98055 William Smith 3111 Smithers Ave S Renton, WA 98055 Hearing Examiner's Decision l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 C\T'-1 OF RENTON JUL :10 2015 '<ECEIVE:J CITY CLERK'S OFF!CE BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: Valley Vue Preliminary Plat FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) I. SUMMARY The applicant has applied for approval of a nine lot preliminary plat and a modification to street width standards. The preliminary plat application and modification request are denied. The basis of the denial is due to private access roads proposed by the applicant that fail to meet city code or qualify for code modifications. Eight of the nine lots arc bundled into two sets of four lots. Each set of four lots is accessed by a separate private access tract from S. 32"d Place in the Winsper Division No. I Subdivision. The two access tracts are 24 feet in width. RMC 4-6-060(J)(2), as vested to the proposed subdivision, requires the tracts to be 26 feet in width. The applicant has requested a modification to this required width in order to use the 24 foot wide tracts. The modification is denied because it would create unsafe driving conditions. Adjoining homes are located only five feet from the property lines of the access tracts and there is no room within the access tract for any shoulder or other space to accommodate any needed vehicular course corrections. Further, public works staff gave uncontested testimony that in their professional opinion the construction of retaining walls needed for the access tracts would jeopardize the PRELIMINARY PLAT -Preliminary Plat -l 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 foundations and fences of adjoining property owners. Adjoining property owners also testified that they would not grant any temporary construction easements for development of the access tracts and it does not appear possible to construct needed improvements without these easements. Since the private access tracts proposed by the applicant do not meet city code and the noncompliance does not qualify for a modification, the subdivision must be denied. The applicant has requested a remand instead of denial. That request cannot be granted. The Renton Municipal Code gives no express authority to the examiner to remand an application for further modification. Even if that authority were granted or could be implied, the remand would have to be limited to matters that could be delegated for fmal staff approval, since the City's code review process must be interpreted in light of the Regulatory Reform Act mandate that land use permit review be limited to one public hearing. As noted in the staff report, the revisions necessary to bring this proposal into conformance with applicable development standards could be substantial and may involve a significant amount of discretionary as opposed to ministerial decision making. These types of decisions and project modifications cannot be delegated to final staff decision making. Any such decisions and modifications must be approved by the hearing examiner after an opportunity for public review and comment. Denial is the only appropriate resolution to this application. One important point that the parties should keep in mind is that if the applicant reapplies there will be a completely new set of access standards that apply to the two 24 foot access tracts. The pertinent standards that apply to the access tracts were amended by Renton Ordinance 5727 after the vesting date for the application subject to this decision. Any re-application will have to comply with the new access standards adopted in Renton Ordinance No. 5727. RMC 4-6-060(])(2) was amended by Ordinance No 5727 such that the minimum 26 foot easement width no longer applies. Further, RMC 4-6-060(K), the access alternative advocated by staff for the application subject to this decision, was repealed by Ordinance No. 572?1. II. TESTIMONY Clark Close, Renton planner, summarized the proposal. Staffis requesting denial as opposed to the remand requested by the applicant. Winsper, the subdivision creating the parcel proposed for subdivision, was approved in 1991 by King County. Adequate access could be accomplished by converting the two access tracts into driveways that serve fewer lots. 1 The conclusion regarding re-application standards in this decision are advisory only, provided in order to prevent any public confusion over the consequences of this decision. The parties to a reapplication will be free to argue any alternative vesting argument they believe applies to the proposal and this decision should not be considered as binding on the vesting issue. PRELIMINARY PLAT -Preliminary Plat -2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Rory Dees, applicant, requested that the project be remanded to address the access issues raised by staff. He noted that the City had initially not had any problems with the proposed access. Mr. Dees did not wish to withdraw his application. Vanessa Dolbee, planning manager, requested denial as opposed to remand because the applicant had declined to revise their proposal prior to the hearing. A denial would provide an opportunity for public comment on a new proposal through a reapplication process. Carl Kiminki, neighbor, noted that traffic has increased by 75% over the years. Talbot and Grady suffer from congestion. Currently the open drainage on the property often gets clogged. Nona Braun, neighbor, had concern over the use of the cul-de-sac and increased traffic in the cul- 8 de-sac. 9 Ulf Goranson vice president of HOA, had concern over the use of the access tracts for so many lots. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Mary K.laasSchultz, noted that the side yards of the proposed lots would abut the rear yards of adjoining homes, creating privacy issues. She noted that the proposal will create flag lots that are not part of the existing subdivision. Her house would be just a few feet from the proposed access street. The access tracts only provide for half the width required by city code. Because of the 50 foot change in grade, drainage is a serious concern. The proposed six inch gutters aren't sufficient for drainage control and are far less than adjoining curb/gutter requirements. There are discrepancies in the tree retention documents. Ms. Schultz isn't opposed to development but believes that street standards should be followed. Safety walls should be included as well as a fire access tum around. Doug Dalen, neighbor, noted that one of the big selling points for his lot was the tree sanctuary of the subject parcel. Animals such as deer will be forced into his property because of the development. Property values will go down. 18 Jake Hertz, neighbor, has a backyard that adjoins the development. Houses will look directly into 19 his backyard. When trees are removed, his backyard will look directly into the second floor of the new homes. His yard slopes into the subject property, which will cause flooding of the proposed lots. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Byron Gangwish, neighbor, noted that once the homes are built it will be too late to address drainage. The private access tract will be close to his house and he is uncomfortable sleeping five feet from the road. Sharon Gangwish, neighbor, noted the easement slope is over 15% grade. The retaining wall will be five feet from her home. A pond is also on her property next to the proposed road with Koi and associated improvements. The road and needed temporary construction easement will result in the destruction of her fence and pond. PRELIMINARY PLAT-Preliminary Plat -3 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Luz Chan, neighbor, abuts one of the access easement. She doesn't feel safe with the road just five feet from her home. She also has a concern over the lighting of the access tracts and light trespass onto her property. She is also concerned about drainage. She has had to hire contractors to address drainage onto her property. Development of the access tracts will prevent her from accessing her rear yard from the exterior. Dylan Moline, neighbor, noted that one of the reasons he moved to his new home was to get away from the noise in Kirkland and he doesn't want to have to live with a year of construction noise for the proposed development. Bruce Wicks, neighbor, wanted to be on record as opposing the development. Virginia Klaas, neighbor, abuts one of the access tracts. She argued that the tracts were intended to serve a single home. She noted that one tract has a curb cut and the other does not and that the curb cut is narrower than her and other driveways in the vicinity. She noted that the access tract without a curb cut may have been intended for emergency access or a bike tract. She further noted that the width of the tracts didn't comply with the applicable King County road standards when the tract was created. She noted that the side yard requirements for the homes along the access tracts is 15 feet and that the access tracts don't comply with minimum width requirements. The proposed roads also don't comply with fire access tum-around requirements. Bruce Troung, neighbor, objected to the proposal because it would necessitate the removal of lights necessary for road safety. The proposal would cause a lot of overflow parking. He said the road system in the area has blind spots that will affect emergency response. Development of the property would also displace wildlife such as snakes into the adjoining neighborhood. Jerome Jaeb, neighbor, stated that the project does not meet numerous city development standards, including road width and side yards. He believes a detailed survey is necessary to find encroachments in the area. The steep slopes of the access easements necessitate retaining walls and there isn't sufficient space for the walls. There are no street lights proposed and inadequate access for pedestrians. Rich Perteet, neighbor, is a civil engineer. He had always assumed that the 24 foot easements were for driveways, otherwise wider side yard setbacks would have been imposed of the adjoining homes. He was also concerned about lack of pedestrian access. Bill Smith, neighbor, past president of Winsper HOA, opposes the project because of increased traffic and the watershed behind the project will attract trash and pedestrians. Andrea Smith, neighbor, strongly opposes the proposal for safety and aesthetic reasons. She noted the project will diminish the livability of the Winsper community. Sheryl Perteet, neighbor, stated she opposed the project. PRELIMINARY PLAT -Preliminary Plat -4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Vicki Grover, Renton Public Works civil engineer, testified that the access tracts could not be constructed without putting the foundations and fences of adjoining homes at risk. Rory Dees, applicant, testified that prior planners had told him his proposal was acceptable. He was shocked to see the planning staff now recommend denial of the proposal. He stated he purchased his property based upon comments from the city that he could divide his property as proposed. He inquired why the property was zoned to allow the density he proposed if that wouldn't be allowed. Mr. Dees also noted that RMC 4-6-060(K) allows three lots to be served if one of the lots doesn't have public frontage. III. EXIDBITS The 43 exhibits identified in the staff report and environmental review report were admitted. In addition, the following were admitted during the hearing: Exhibit 44: Exhibit 45: Exhibit 46: Exhibit 47: Exhibit 48: Exhibit 49: Exhibit 50: Staff power point. Email from applicant requesting continuance and email order denying request. City of Renton core maps located at City's website Google maps of subject property. Schultz power point presentation. Gangwish powerpoint. Klaas powerpoint. 14 Exhibit 51: 15 Jerome Jaeb powerpoint. IV. FINDINGS OF FACT 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Procedural: 1. Applicant. Rad Holdings, LLC. 2. Hearing. A consolidated hearing on the preliminary plat application and modification request was held on July 14, 2015. Substantive: 3. Project Description. The applicant has applied for approval of a nine lot preliminary plat and a modification to private street width standards. There are two single family residences (3106 and 3112 Talbot Road South) located on the subject parcel that gain access to the site from Talbot Road South. The single family house located at 3106 would remain and be incorporated into the subdivision as Lot 9, while the house located at 3112 is on a septic system and would be demolished. Together the nine (9) residential lots (8 new+ the remaining single family house) would result in a density of 4.23 du/ac. Residential lot sizes range from 4,502 sf to 18,169 sf with an average lot size of 7,954 sf. In addition to the 9 residential lots, four (4) tracts are proposed for access roads, sensitive areas, and stormwater detention. The eight (8) new residential lots would be served from PRELIMINARY PLAT -Preliminary Plat -5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Winsper Division No. 1 Subdivision (Tract G and Tract H) via two dedicated ingress/egress easement areas of 24 feet in width through the development on S 32nd Place. There are 142 significant trees on the site and the applicant is proposing to retain 27 original trees. A detention vault in the westerly portion of the site is proposed within Tract D which would discharge into the existing conveyance system on the east side of Talbot Road. RMC 4-6-060(1)(2) requires private access road easements to be a minimum of 26 feet in width. Tracts G and H, which are proposed to serve as private access roads, are only 24 feet in width. Consequently, the applicant has requested a street modification pursuant to RMC 4-9-250(0)(2). The applicant filed the subject preliminary plat application on August 1, 2014 and it was found complete by the City on August 14, 2014. 4. Surrounding Area. The subject site is surrounding on all sides by single family residential development zoned R-8. 5. Adverse Impacts of Proposed Street Modification. The proposed modification to the 26 foot width requirement for the access tracts imposed by RMC 4-6-060(1)(2) would exacerbate a safety hazard and jeopardize adjoining property improvements. The road improvements identified within the preliminary plat plan sheets show two (2) 10-foot wide paved lanes with vertical curb and gutter through each tract. City of Renton staff have concern regarding the constructability of these accesses due to the slope of the site. Both accesses would be required to construct retaining walls along the eastern sides of both access roads. The eastern most access has a slope in excess of 15% and requires a minimum of 1.5 feet of clear zone between the back of the curb and the face of the retaining wall. The construction of the retaining walls proposed for both accesses would require temporary construction easements to be obtained from the adjoining property owners. At the July 14 hearing the property owners testified they would not grant the needed easements. The temporary construction easements may not be feasible due to the close proximity of other private existing structures located in the area where the retaining walls would need to be constructed. Due to the lack of sufficient width within the existing tracts and the proximity of the existing homes to the proposed new roadway a safety hazard would be created as a result of the construction of a substandard private street, as the access roads would have virtually no shoulder (Exhibits 18-23). Due to the proposed future cross section, public works staff have concluded that any vehicular incident along these narrow access tracts could result in injury and/or property damage to the adjacent home owners or the driver of the vehicle. Specifically, this is due to the lack of space to "correct" and/or adjust a vehicular movement and at the same time avoiding the existing residences. Vicki Grover, a civil engineer from the City's Public Works Department, testified in her professional opinion that construction of the access roads on the two access tracts (G and H) would jeopardize adjoining fences and home foundations. For these reasons, staff have concluded that the construction of a private street through a substandard access easement would result in a detriment to public safety and general welfare as it pertains to the existing constructed homes at 618,624, 652, and 700 S 32nd Pl and any future vehicles that may utilize the proposed private street. PRELIMINARY PLAT-Preliminary Plat -6 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Another uncontested safety hazard attributable to the Tract G and H is dangerous walking conditions for school children. Due to the narrow width and installation of retaining walls, the proposed access tracts would not have sidewalks or a usable road shoulder upon which children could walk to gain access to school bus stops. Given the plausibility of the staffs analysis and the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it is determined that staff's conclusions on the safety and property hazards of the proposed access are correct. Although the requested reduction in width by two feet from required access standards is not solely responsible for the safety and property hazards created by the proposed access, it is clear that the reduction will materially exacerbate those hazards given the small amount of room in which vehicles have to maneuver within the access tracts. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I. Authority. RMC 4-7-020(C) and 4-7-050(0)(5) provide that the Hearing Examiner shall 1 O hold a hearing and issue a final decision on preliminary plat applications. RMC 4-9-250(0)(2) grants the Community and Economic Development Administrator or his/her designee the authority to approve modifications to development standards. The waiver is classified as a Type I permit by RMC 4-8-080(G). However, RMC 4-8-080(C)(2) requires consolidated permits to each be processed under "the highest-number procedure". The modification request has been consolidated with the preliminary plat application, which is classified as a Type III application by RMC 4-8- 080(G). Consequently, the modification request is also classified as a Type III application, which is subject to hearing examiner approval pursuant to RMC 4-8-080(G). 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2. Proposal Must Comply With RMC 4-6-060 for Approval. All applicable street standards set by RMC 4-6-060 must be met in order to acquire preliminary plat approval. Chapter 4-7 RMC governs the criteria for preliminary plat review. RMC 4-7-150(B) expressly provides that street access by private roads is acceptable "per the requirements of the street standards [RMC 4-6-060]". RMC 4-7-080(B)(4) requires that a subdivision must make adequate provision for streets. This is consistent with RCW 58.17.110, which also requires a finding that a preliminary plat makes appropriate provision for streets and also that appropriate provision is made for public safety. The street standards of RMC 4-6-060 are Renton' s legislative standard for street adequacy/appropriateness as required by RMC 4-7-080(B)(4) and RCW 58.17.110. Further, as demonstrated by the City staff for the substandard access proposed by the applicant, the failure to comply with street standards can create public safety problems. 3. Access Tracts G and H Fail to Comply with RMC 4-6-060 Because of Insufficient Width. Access Tracts G and H fail to comply with RMC 4-6-060 because they arc only 24 feet in width. PRELIMINARY PLAT -Preliminary Plat -7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 RMC 4-6-060(])(2), as vested for this application, required a minimum width of 26 feet for the access tracts. The tracts are at least2 two feet short of the required 26 feet. RMC 4-6-060(1)(1) also requires that at least of the lots served by each access tract must abut public right of way. The preliminary plat drawings do not show any of the eight lots accessed by Tracts G and H as abutting public right of way. Unless Tracts G and H were lawfully integrated into four of the lots as the "handle" of panhandle lots, it is unclear from the record how the proposal was made to comply with the requirement to abut public right of way. Since the applicant and staff were not given an opportunity to address this issue during the hearing and the plat already cannot be approved due to the width issue, the public abutment issue will not be resolved in this decision. However, should the applicant reapply, the applicant will still have to comply with RMC 4-6-060(J)(l)(a) as amended by Renton Ordinance No. 5727. As amended, RMC 4-6-060(J)(l)(a) now requires that at least one of the lots served by the access tract must abut a public right of way with at least 50 linear feet of property. 4. Insufficient Width of Access Tracts G and H Fails to Qualify for Modification. The applicant's request for modification of the 26 foot width requirement of RMC 4-6-060(])(2) to 24 feet cannot be approved because the insufficient width exacerbates safety and property hazards created by the narrow width of Access Tracts G and H. The pertinent criteria for modification requests, governed by RMC 4-9-250(D)(2), are as follows: a. Substantially implements the policy direction of the policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and the Community Design Element and the proposed modification is the minimum adjustment necessary to implement these policies and objectives; b. Will meet the objectives and safety, fitnction, appearance, environmental protection and maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon sound engineering judgment; c. Will not be injurious to other property(ies) in the vicinity; d. Conforms to the intent and purpose of the Code; e. Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposed access tract width modification exacerbates significant safety and property hazards created by the proposed development of Access Tracts G and H for private roads. For this reason, none of the modification criteria above are met. RMC 4-6- 060(A) provides that the purpose of the street standards of RMC 4-6-060 is to "ensure reasonable and safe public access to public and private properties". Since the proposed width reduction would exacerbate unsafe access conditions, the purpose of RMC 4-6-060 would not be met. As further 2 Some of the public comment letters asserted that the actual width of the tracts was even less than 24 feet, according to the measurements of some of the neighbors. As noted in the written staff response to these comments, a professional survey depicting the narrower widths would be necessary to sufficiently counter the 24 foot widths depicted in the approved !Gng County plat documents that created the tracts. PRELIMINARY PLAT - Preliminary Plat -8 1 2 3 determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposal jeopardizes the foundation and fences of adjoining homes, such that it cannot be concluded that the proposal would not be injurious to other properties in the vicinity as required by the criteria quoted above. For these reasons alone the requested modification clearly cannot be granted. There was also compelling evidence presented by Mr. Perteet and Mr. Schultz to suggest that the requested modification is not justified since the 4 access tracts do not appear to have been intended to serve more than one or two residential lots at 5 6 7 8 9 the time they were approved by King County. 5. Proposed Preliminary Plat Cannot be Approved. As previously concluded, the proposal must comply with RMC 4-6-060 in order to be approved. As further previously concluded, the proposal fails to comply with RMC 4-6-060(1)(2). Consequently, the proposal cannot be approved. 6. Remand Not An Option. The applicant has requested a remand instead of denial. That request cannot be granted. The Renton Municipal Code gives no express authority to the examiner to remand a subdivision application for further modification. RMC 4-8-1 OO(G)( 4), "Conditions and Decision Options and Criteria", provides that the examiner "may approve or deny or provide a IO recommendation to the City Councif' regarding permit applications. No part of the RMC grants the examiner any express authority to remand subdivision applications. Even if that authority could be implied or there was some express authority for remand, the remand would have to be limited to one public hearing. See RCW 36.70B.050(2). As noted in the staff report, the revisions necessary to bring the proposal into conformance with applicable development standards could be substantial and involve a significant amount of discretionary as opposed to ministerial decision making. These types of decisions and project modifications cannot be delegated to final staff decision making. Any such decisions and modifications must be approved by the hearing examiner after an opportunity for public review and comment. Denial is the only appropriate resolution to this application. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 DECISION The proposed preliminary plat is denied because access Tracts G and H do not comply with Renton' s street standards due to insufficient width. The requested modification to the width requirement is denied because the reduced width would exacerbate safety and property hazards associated with development of Tracts G and H as a private road. DATED this 28 1h day of July, 2015. PRELIMINARY PLAT-Preliminary Plat -9 1 2 3 4 5 City of Renton Hearing Examiner APPEAL RIGHTS AND VALUATION NOTICES 6 RMC 4-8-080 provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is subject to appeal to the 7 Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(l4) requires appeals of the hearing examiner's decision to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner's 8 decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(l3) and RMC 4-8-100(G)(9). A new 9 fourteen (14) day appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the 10 reconsideration. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall-7'h floor, (425) 430-6510. 11 Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes 12 notwithstanding any program of revaluation. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT -Preliminary Plat -10 Cynthia Moya From: Sent: To: Subject: FYI Jason Seth, CMC City Clerk is.<e_l_b~ rentonwa .gov 425-430-6502 Jason Seth Monday, July 13, 2015 10:46 AM Cynthia Moya FW: Valley Vue Preliminary Plat, LUA 14-001040 From: Phil Olbrechts [mailto:olbrechtslaw@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 10:19 AM To: Duana Kolouskova Cc: Clark Close; Jason Seth; Vanessa Dolbee; rorydees@hotmail.com; Jon W Nelson (landdevadvisors@comcast.net); Evanna Charlot Subject: Re: Valley Vue Preliminary Plat, LUA 14-001040 Excuse me, the continued hearing date would be 7/21/15. Hearing to start tomorrow, 7/14/15 as scheduled and to be continued to 7/21/15 as outlined below. On Jul 13, 2015, at 9:55 AM, Phil Olbrechts <olhrecht,l,I\, C{/g1n,1il.cum> wrote: The report was timely filed and mailed. RMC 4-8-100(E)(2) requires the staff report to be filed with the examiner and mailed to the applicant at least 7 days prior to the hearing date. The report and attachments were emailed to the examiner on 7 /7 /15 and, as established by post marks, mailed that date as well. Exhibits 11 and 12, prepared by the applicant, was mailed to the examiner on 7/9/15. Since members of the public will be appearing at tomorrow's hearing, we' 11 start with the hearing as scheduled, but then continue it to the following week for additional applicant comment. Tomorrow we'll start with the staff presentation and any comments the applicants would like to make. Members of the public will then each be given the option of testifying tomorrow or the following week. Once public comment is completed the hearing will be continued to 7/11/15 at 10:00 am. At that time the applicant will be given the opportunity to complete their opening presentation. Public comment will then follow and then staff and applicant rebuttal. A land use hearing is scheduled for 12:30 pm on 7/11/15 and a drug forfeiture hearing at 1:30. The applicant is encouraged to make as much of their presentation as they can tomorrow so we can finish the hearing by 12:30 pm on 7/11/15 On Jul 13, 2015, at 9:26 AM, Duana Kolouskova <Kolou,kC>vaca·11rnnla".cum> wrote: Good morning - 1 . ' As the statf report was received late (less than seven days before the hearing), and raises new considerations not previously addrcsscu with the applicant, the applicant does require a continuance. As this is the applicant's project, it ultimately is the applicant's right to request a continuance if the applicant feels it requires additional time to prepare for the hearing in light of the staff report. To the extent there is public cornrnent, we are prepared to account for that at the continued hearing date. I have added the property owner and his consultant to this email string as well. Please include them as well on all correspondence. Duana Kolouskova Johns Monroe Mitsunaga Kolouskova, PLLC Bellefield Office Park 11201 S.E. s" Street, Suite 120 Bellevue, WA 98004 (425) 467-9966 (direct) (425) 451-2818 (fax) www.jmrnklanduselaw.corn THIS MESSAGE AND/OR THE DOCUMENT(S) ACCOMPANYING THIS ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTllY NAMED ABOVE. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, BE AWARE THAT ANY DISCLOSURE, COPYING, DISTRIBUTION OR USE OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS TRANSMISSION IS PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE, MAIL OR ELECTRONIC MAIL, AND DESTROY THIS COMMUNICATION From: ClarkClose[mailto:C(:lose@Rentonwa,gov] Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 9:00 AM To: 'Phil Olbrechts'; Evanna Charlot Cc: Jason Seth; Duana Kolouskova; Vanessa Dolbee Subject: RE: Valley Vue Preliminary Plat, LUA 14-001040 Hearing Examiner Olbrechts, Staff has noticed and provided the staff report in accordance with RMC 4-8-100. Staff is ready to take this application to a public hearing. I am also anticipating a strong public turnout Thanks, Ciark H. Close Ass:Jciate Planner Ctv of Renon 42S-430-7289 From: Phil Olbrechts [mailto:olbrechtslql'!@g_mail.com] Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2015 12:35 PM To: Evanna Charlot Cc: Jason Seth; Clark Close; Duana Kolouskova Subject: Re: Valley Vue Preliminary Plat, LUA 14-001040 Does staff have any position on the continuance request? Are we expecting any public to attend? Sent from my iPhone On Jul 10, 2015, at 3:10 PM, Evanna Charlot <Charlot57TB@jrnrnlaw,com> wrote: Ile.tr Hcmne; Lxa1ni:1cr lllhrcchts. 2 \ t-r. t,, :.\ i · .... ( ~Li r :·,::... 1 ui. . .--.r I 1 1 :· J '-.\ 1;11. 111 t.::lih·, .. · ,_ .. { r:h.· h(: .n-i ::~. -..1_ ll,.._·., I u L· i 11 r h ... 11un~·1·_ ,._. t 1: :\. .. ' 11L h ...:,.·h,.._·,Juk .. :...I l(_)r i t.k'...;,J,t\·. ]uh· I-;' i11 ,'1·(k1· t,,1 j''l:·,.1\·ic\: li:-.l:\1ri·r~1·i tt~· ri11h: t1:1.t...\h .. :"" j ... -..,Lk . .., r .. ti~1..·L: 111 t"'hl' ~r..t!i R1..·1a1irt. I .cgal \:-;:,;i:,;tant for Duana T. Kolou;ko,·,1 JOHNS MONROE MITSl''\/AGA KOUJ\SKOVA PLLC 1120 I S.F. 8' Street, Suite 120, Bellevue, WA 98004-6969 Tel: 42S-451-2812 / charlotS7tb@jmmlaw.com '>Vww.jmmklandusclaw.com <Ltr to Renton Hearing Examiner 07-10-15.pdf> 3 July 9, 2015 Clark Close City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Subject: Valley Vue LUA14-001040 Dear Mr. Clark, ~ ~ \4,-00[040 I object to the Valley Vue plan (LUA14-001040) as proposed as it does not meet several Renton Municipal Codes: • Private street width should be 26 feet, not 24. • There is no turn around for emergency vehicles for streets longer than 150 feet. • Street side yard setback should be 15 feet from each house. In addition, I am extremely concerned with the known water and drainage issues on this parcel. My property is adjacent to the property and currently experience flooding in the backyard. The proposed density calls for the removal of 115+ trees which can only add to the current drainage issues. To allow the parcel to be developed as proposed clearly violates current standards to protect public safety and destroys confidence in the integrity of the planning process. I am unable to attend the public hearing currently scheduled for July 14, 2015 but would like to be kept informed of any further developments. Thank you, Larry Hall 623 S 31" St. Renton, WA 98055 CITY OF RENTO DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM Date: July 10, 2015 To: City Clerk's Office From: Sabrina Mirante Subject: Land Use File Closeout Please complete the following information to facilitate project closeout and indexing by the City Clerk's Office Project Name: Valley Vue Preliminary Plat LUA (file) Number: LUA-14-001040, ECF, PP Cross-References: AKA's: Dees Short Plat, Valley Vue, Valley Vue Preliminary Plat Project Manager: Clark H. Close Acceptance Date: August 7, 2014 I Applicant: Rory Dees Owner: Rory Dees Contact: Jon Nelson, Land Development Advisors PID Number: 3023059028 . ERC Determination: DNS-M Date: May 18, 2015 A eal Period Ends: June 5 2015 i ' _A_d_m_i_n_is_t_r_at_i_v_e_D_e_c_i_s_io_n_= __________ =::.c.:=-=-.!"-""""--"D""a"'t"'eC!.: ________ _,;I ,,_ A eal Period Ends: ! j Public Hearing Date: July 14, 2015 I I Date Appealed to HEX: By Whom: · HEX Decision: Date: Anneal Period Ends: Date Appealed to Council: By Whom: Council Decision: Date: . Mylar Recording Number: Project Description: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review and Preliminary Plat approval for a 9-lot subdivision. The 2.3-acre site is located within the Residential-8 dwelling units per net acre (du/ac) zoning classification. There are two single family residences (3106 and 3112 I Talbot Road South) located on this parcel that gain access to the site from Talbot Road South and are part of the Black River Basin. The single family house located at 3106 is connected to city water and sewer and would remain and be incorporated into the subdivision as Lot 9, while the house located at 3112 is on a septic system and would be demolished. Together the nine (9) residential lots (8 new + the remaining i single family house) would result in a density of 4.23 du/ac. Residential lot sizes range from 4,502 I sf to 18,169 sf with an average lot size of 7,954 sf. In addition to the 9 residential lots, four (4) tracts are proposed for access roads, sensitive areas, and stormwater detention. The eight (8) new residential lots would be served from Winsper Division No. 1 Subdivision (Tract G and Tract H) via m two dedicated ingress/egress easement areas of 24 feet in width through the development on S I 32nd Place. There are 142 siqnificant trees on the site and the annlicant is orooosina to retain 27 original trees. A detenti ault in the westerly portion of the is proposed within Tract D which would discharge into the isting conveyance system on the eas. side of Talbot Road. The applicant has submitted a Critical Areas Report, Preliminary Technical Information Report, and a Geotechnical Engineering Report with the application. The site contains a Category 2 wetland in the far eastern portion of the site. No impacts to critical areas onsite are proposed and existing slopes on the site average roughly 6%. October 1, 2014 -Project placed on hold. ADril 27. 2015 -Proiect taken off hold. Location: 3106 & 3112 Talbot Rd S Comments: ERC Determination Types: DNS -Determination of Non-Significance; DNS-M -Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated; OS -Determination of Significance. ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT LUA14-001040 Application Date: August 01, 2014 Name: Valley Vue Preliminary Plat Site Address: 3112 Talbot Rd S Renton, WA 98055-5023 Plan -Planning Review Version 1 I Erigi.ne.etirig8evie»1.Commt1~ts .. , ...... · .,, ifc.,.·., ,,•.;..,. 'llil!i''' • i,; ,i;ii~<>!1I!!c;tt¥'Jckl'Gl-ove~il'42~3(Ft291[fvgrover@rent9i!:,va{19)(i; Recommendations: I have reviewed the application for Valley Vue Preliminary Plat and have the following comments: EXISTING CONDITIONS WATER The site is located in the Talbot Hill 350 hydraulic water pressure zone. There is an existing 8 inch water main in S. 32nd Place and there are 2 existing :Y. inch domestic water meters serving the existing homes. SEWER There is an 8 inch sewer main in S. 32 Place (Windspear) and an 8 inch sewer main located near the northwest of the site. STORM There are drainage improvements in S. 32nd Place. CODE REQUIREMENTS Water 1. Need to show the existing water service for 3106 Talbot Road South. 2. System development fee for water is based on the size of the new domestic water meter(s) that will serve each new lot. Fee for a 1 inch water meter install is $2,809.00. Credit will be giving to the existing home. 3. Fee for a 1 inch water meter installed by the City is $3,770.00. 4. New hydrants shall be installed per Renton's fire department standards to provide the required coverage of all lots. 5. A separate domestic water service meter will be required for each lot with a minimum size of 1 inch along with required backflow prevention assembly. 6. This project is subject to water special assessment district no. 8406 depending on fire flow demand. For a fire flow demand of 1,500 gpm or less, the special assessment is $0.034/sq ft of property, plus $16.00/front foot along the property frontage on Talbot Rd S. Sewer 1. Need to show the existing side sewer connection for 3106 Talbot Road South. 2. System development fee for sewer is based on the size of the new domestic water(s) that will serve each new lot. Sewer fee for a ¥. inch water or 1 inch meter install is $1,812.00. 3. Existing septic system(s) will be required to be abandoned in accordance with King County Department of Health. SURFACE WATER 1. A drainage plan and drainage report dated, December, 2013 was submitted by LOA (Land Development Advisors). The report complies with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and the City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. All core requirements and special requirements are included in the report. This site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard, Forested Conditions. The Basin Map Figure 3.1 -Please revise the areas to match the Preliminary Plat Map areas. Account for both drainage basins in the tables and on the figure. Please discuss the existing house to the west that will remain as part of the development. Will the existing culverts be maintained through construction? Where does the runoff currently go? Where does the roof drainage go? Etc ..... Show on drawing. The westerly portion of the access road that comes off of Talbot Road South by passes the proposed treatment facility (wet pond) near the existing house needs to be addressed. Please review Page 1 66 1.2.8.2.D in the City of Renton's Amendments to the King County Surface Water Design Manual. Please summarize the dimensions and volume for each of the detention and the water quality components of the vault. Include backwater analysis for the conveyance system in your final TIR submittal. A declaration of covenant will be required for the storm water facilities. Pave roadway off of Talbot Road South at 12 ft. in width for access to the storm water tract. 2. A geotechnical report for the site dated May 27, 2014 was submitted by Geotech Consultants Inc. Information on the water table and soil permeability, with recommendations regarding foundation footing drains and waterproofing, retaining walls, slabs on grade, excavations and slopes and pavement areas. Infiltration of storm runoff is not recommended. Please update the report to address the proposed storm water vault not a storm water detention pond. 3. Surface Water System Development fee is $1,120 per new lot. This is payable prior to issuance of the construction permit. Credit will be given for one existing home. Ran: July 10, 2015 Page 1 of 3 ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT LUA14-001040 Cityof . Plan -Planning Review Version 1 I : : , ' ,, ,, Engineering Revie~i¢i>rnrneritl;; EROSION CONTROL 1. An Erosion Control Plan is to be submitted with the civil plans. Erosion Control shall be installed and monitored in accordance with Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and the KCSWM. 2. A Construction Stormwater General Permit from Department of Ecology will be required if grading and clearing of the site exceeds one acre. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required for this site. TRANSPORTATION /STREET 1. The current transportation impact fee rate is $1430.72 per single family house. The transportation impact fee is levied at the time of building permit application and payment of the transportation impact fee is due at the time of issuance of the building permit. Credit will be given to the existing home. 2. LED street lighting meeting City of Renton Standards is required. 3. Paving and trench restoration will comply with the City's Trench Restoration and Overlay Requirements. GENERAL COMMENTS 1. This project will comply with all undergrounding requirements. 2. All construction utility permits for drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals. All utility plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. A licensed Civil Engineer shall prepare the civil plans. 3. Separate permit and fees will be required for the water meter installation, side sewer connection, and storm water connection. 4. Water service, sewer stub, and a drainaoe fiow control BMP is reouired to be orovided to each new lot orior to recordina of the olat. Recommendations: Preliminary Plat: Bob Mac Onie 09/18/2014 Note the City of Renton land use action number and land record number, LUA 14 001040 and LND 10 0515, respectively, on the final plat submittal. The type size used for the land record number should be smaller than that used for the land use action number. Please note that the land use action number provided will change when this subdivision changes from preliminary to final plat status. Show two ties to the City of Renton Survey Control Network. The geometry will be checked by the city when the ties have been provided. Ties can be made but explicit reference to another survey with such ties and two monuments common to the subject subdivision, Provide sufficient information to determine how the plat boundary was established. Indicate what has been, or is to be, set at the corners of the proposed lots. Note discrepancies between bearings and distances of record and those measured or calculated, if any. The lot addresses will be provided by the city at final plat submittal. Note said addresses and the street name on the plat drawing. Do note encroachments. Do not include a utility provider's block, an owner's block, an engineer/surveyor block and an architect block. Do not include any references to use, density or zoning on the final submittal. Please note the Site Data on sheet 1 of 3 block is not necessary and conflicts with the Easement Notes block immediately below. If the abutting properties are platted, note the lot numbers and plat name on the drawing otherwise note them as 'Unplatted'. Do not show the TPNs. Remove the building setback lines from the proposed lots. Setbacks will be determined at the time that building permits are issued. Note the research resources on the plat submittal. Ran: July 10, 2015 Page 2 of3 ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT LUA14-001040 Plan -Planning Review Version 1 I Note all easements, covenants and agreements of record on the plat drawing. The City of Renton "APPROVALS" blocks for the City of Renton Administrator, Public Works Department, the Mayor, City Clerk and the Finance Director. A pertinent approval block is also needed for the King County Assessor's Office. Provide signature lines as required. If there is a Restrictive Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions document for this plat, then reference the same on the plat drawing and provide a space for the recording number thereof. Note that if there are restrictive covenants, agreements or easements to others (neighboring property owners, etc.) as part of this subdivision, they can be recorded concurrently with the plat. The plat drawings and the associated document(s) are to be given to the Project Manager as a package. The plat document will be recorded first (with King County). The recording number(s) for the associated document(s) (said documents recorded concurrently with, but following the plat) need to be referenced on the plat drawings. There needs to be a Purpose Statement for each of the tracts created, including ownership and maintenance responsibilities. Please discuss with the Stormwater Utility any other language and/or instrument requirements regarding surface water BMPs and other rights and responsibilities. Include a Dedication block. All vested owner(s) of the subject plat, at the time of recording, need to sign the final plat. For the street dedication process, include a current title reoort notino the vested nronertv owner. E'i~~l'~~~,1~wl"aailai~~t~AAiiii11~111111111111111'I,1,1111111111r111111111111111111~w111111111111111111~~/lt~ai"c·i~~vr~ci~~11,114~~~ilif02~11,1~1~cilrl'~tttm~~/lwa~cici/ Recommendations: Environmental Impact Comments: 1. The fire impact fees are applicable at the rate of $4 79.28 per single family unit. This fee is paid prior to recording the plat. Credit will be granted for existing home that is to be removed. Code Related Comments: 1. The fire flow requirement for a single family home is 1,000 gpm minimum for dwellings up to 3,600 square feet (including garage and basements). If the dwelling exceeds 3,600 square feet, a minimum of 1,500 gpm fire flow would be required. A minimum of one fire hydrant is required within 300 feet of the proposed buildings and two hydrants if the fire flow goes up to 1,500 gpm. Existing fire hydrants can be counted toward the requirements as long as they meet current code including 5 inch storz fittings. 2. Fire department apparatus access roadways are required to be a minimum of 20 feet wide fully paved, with 25 feet inside and 45 feet outside turning radius. Fire access roadways shall be constructed to support a 30 ton vehicle with 322 psi point loading. Approved apparatus turnarounds are required for dead end roads exceeding 150 feet. Dead end streets exceeding 500 feet require all homes to be provided with an approved fire sprinkler system. Dead end streets exceeding 700 feet are not allowed without approved secondary access roadways being provided. Condition of approval of this proposed plat due to existing steep grades on existing access roadways and proposed dead end streets is to have all proposed homes be equipped with approved residential fire sprinkler systems. 3. Access roadways shall not exceed 15 percent maximum grade. Angles of approach and departure shall meet fire department requirements. Ran: July 10, 2015 Page 3 of3 ------,,,,,,,,,.,,,,.RentOil OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner on July 14, 2015 at 12:30 PM, in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington, to consider the following petitions: VALLEY VUE PRELIMINARY PLAT FILE NO. LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD Location: 3106 and 3112 Talbot Road S Description: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review, Preliminary Plat approval, and Street Modification for a 9-lot subdivision. The 2.3-acre site is located within the Residential-8 dwelling units per net acre (du/ac} zoning classification. There are two single family residences (3106 and 3112 Talbot Road South) located on this parcel that gain access to the site from Talbot Road South. The single family house located at 3106 would remain and be incorporated into the subdivision as Lot 9, while the house located at 3112 is on a septic system and would be demolished. Together the nine (9) residential lots {8 new+ the remaining single family house) would result in a density of 4.23 du/ac. Residential lot sizes range from 4,502 sf to 18,169 sf with an average lot size of 7,954 sf. In addition to the 9 residential lots, four (4) tracts are proposed for access roads, sensitive areas, and stormwater detention. The eight {8) new residential lots would be served from Winsper Division No. 1 Subdivision (Tract G and Tract H) via two dedicated ingress/egress easement areas of 24 feet in width through the development on S 32nd Place. For a copy of the Preliminary Staff Report to the Hearing Examiner go to www.rentonwa.gov/business/default.aspx?id=5458 and locate the project by the above referenced LUA Number; a link will be available to download the report. If you have any questions, please call 425-430-6578. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ON THE SCHEDULED HEARING, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER'S OFFICE AT 425-430-6510 -::-:-' . ' :-: .= ,' ·:".,-,.·· ., ,:,:o,: . ' ' :· . -_-,",, ' ' :-:::_"<<-'' '·· .. Please include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file identifica. tion. . ' '·. ",' . ·.: DEPARTMENT OF cor _____ UNITY ,/h. ~ ot : ;: ~) AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT , \ = CONCURRENCE 9 . 'i C ' ~ J I._, REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER NAME INITIAU_!;>~17 _ .,... ,· ;~. ... ~, · 15 A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST f r ... ~··· ~ .. ~ / ? /,_ 1,c: HEARING DA TE: Project Name: Owner/Applicant: Contact: File Number: Project Manager: Project Summary: Project Location: Site Area: July 14, 2015 1.1 "I, I 1-.e,:, 1;,;, '/ ~7 / Valley Vue Preliminary Plat Rory Dees, Rad Holdings, LLC, 1040 W. Lake Sammamish PKWY SE, Bellevue, WA 98008 Jon Nelson, Land Development Advisors, LLC, 12865 SE 47th PL, Bellevue, WA 98006 LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD Clark H. Close, Associate Planner The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review, Preliminary Plat approval, and Street Modification for a 9-lot subdivision. The 2.3-acre site is located within the Residential-8 dwelling units per net acre (du/ac) zoning classification. There are two single family residences (3106 and 3112 Talbot Road South) located on this parcel that gain access to the site from Talbot Road South. The single family house located at 3106 would remain and be incorporated into the subdivision as Lot 9, while the house located at 3112 is on a septic system and would be demolished. Together the nine (9) residential lots (8 new + the remaining single family house) would result in a density of 4.23 du/ac. Residential lot sizes range from 4,502 sf to 18,169 sf with an average lot size of 7,954 sf. In addition to the 9 residential lots, four (4) tracts are proposed for access roads, sensitive areas, and stormwater detention. The eight (8) new residential lots would be served from Winsper Division No. 1 Subdivision (Tract G and Tract H) via two dedicated ingress/egress easement areas of 24 feet in width through the development on S 32nd Place. There are 142 significant trees on the site and the applicant is proposing to retain 27 original trees. A detention vault in the westerly portion of the site is proposed within Tract D which would discharge into the existing conveyance system on the east side of Talbot Road. No impacts to critical areas onsite are proposed. 3106 and 3112 Talbot Road S, Renton, WA 98055 (APN 302305-9028) 99,994 SF (2.3 acres) Project Location Map HEX Report 14-001040 -Droft1040 DEPARTMENT OF CO ~UNITY enton.0 AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST HEARING DA TE: Project Nome: Owner/Applicant: Contact: File Number: Project Manager: Project Summary: Project Location: Site Area: July 14, 2015 Valley Vue Preliminary Plat Rory Dees, Rad Holdings, LLC, 1040 W. Lake Sammamish PKWY SE, Bellevue, WA 98008 Jon Nelson, Land Development Advisors, LLC, 12865 SE 47th PL, Bellevue, WA 98006 LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD Clark H. Close, Associate Planner The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review, Preliminary Plat approval, and Street Modification for a 9-lot subdivision. The 2.3-acre site is located within the Residential-8 dwelling units per net acre (du/ac) zoning classification. There are two single family residences (3106 and 3112 Talbot Road South) located on this parcel that gain access to the site from Talbot Road South. The single family house located at 3106 would remain and be incorporated into the subdivision as Lot 9, while the house located at 3112 is on a septic system and would be demolished. Together the nine (9) residential lots (8 new+ the remaining single family house) would result in a density of 4.23 du/ac. Residential lot sizes range from 4,502 sf to 18,169 sf with an average lot size of 7,954 sf. In addition to the 9 residential lots, four (4) tracts are proposed for access roads, sensitive areas, and stormwater detention. The eight (8) new residential lots would be served from Winsper Division No. 1 Subdivision (Tract G and Tract H) via two dedicated ingress/egress easement areas of 24 feet in width through the development on 5 32nd Place. There are 142 significant trees on the site and the applicant is proposing to retain 27 original trees. A detention vault in the westerly portion of the site is proposed within Tract D which would discharge into the existing conveyance system on the east side of Talbot Road. No impacts to critical areas onsite are proposed. 3106 and 3112 Talbot Road 5, Renton, WA 98055 (APN 302305-9028) 99,994 SF (2.3 acres) Project Location Map HEX Report 14-001040 City of Renton Deportment of C., .munity & Economic Development VALLEY VUE PRELIMINARY PLAT Preliminary Plat Report & Decision LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD Hearing Date: July 14, 2015 Page 2 of 20 I B. EXHIBITS: Exhibit 26: Exhibit 27: Exhibit 28: Exhibit 29: Exhibit 30: Exhibit 31: Exhibit 32: Exhibit 33: Exhibit 34: Exhibit 35: Exhibit 36: Exhibit 37: Exhibit 38: Exhibit 39: Exhibit 40: Exhibit 41: Exhibit 42: Exhibit 43: Report to the Hearing Examiner Notice of Complete Application Renton School District's Capacity Response Letter Environmental Review Committee (ERC) Staff Report (dated June 18, 2015) Environmental "SEPA" Determination. ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes "On Hold" Notice Letter (dated October 1, 2014) Applicant's Letter for a Request for Continuation (dated April 15, 2015) "Off Hold" Notice Letter (dated April 27, 2015) Street Modification Request Street Modification Request Response Public Comment Letter from Winsper Community HOA (20 signatures) Staff Response to Wins per Community HOA Public Comment Letters: Klaas Schultz Staff Response to Public Comment Letters: Klaas Schultz Public Comment Letter: Gangwish Staff Response to Public Comment Letter: Gangwish Public Comment Letter: Klaas Staff Response to Public Comment Letter: Klaas I C. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Owner(s) of Record: 2. Zoning Designation: Rory Dees, Rad Holdings, LLC, 1040 W. Lake Sammamish PKWY SE, Bellevue, WA 98008 Residential -8 du/ac (R-8) 3. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: Residential Single Family (RS) 4. Existing Site Use: Two single family residences and a detached garage 5. Neighborhood Characteristics: a. North: b. East: c. South: d. West: 6. Access: 7. Site Area: HEX Report 14-001040 R-8 -Residential-8 Dwelling Units Per Net Acre R-8 -Residential-8 Dwelling Units Per Net Acre R-8 -Residential-8 Dwelling Units Per Net Acre R-8 -Residential-8 Dwelling Units Per Net Acre Access to the site is currently gained from Talbot Road South. Access to the eight (8) new residential lots would be served from Winsper Division No. 1 Subdivision (Tract G and Tract H) via two dedicated ingress/egress easement areas of 24 feet in width through the development on S 32nd Place (Exhibits 3 -5). 99,994 SF (2.3 acres) City of Renton Department of Co,.,munity & Economic Development VALLEY VUE PRELIMINARY PLAT Preliminary Plat Report & Decision LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD Hearing Date: July 14, 2015 ~ D. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND: Action Comprehensive Plan Zoning Winsper Annexation I E. PUBLIC SERVICES: 1. Utilities Land Use File No. N/A N/A A-93-002 Ordinance No. 5228 5100 4476 Page 3 of 20 Approved Date 11/27/2006 11/01/2004 10/26/1994 a. Water: The site is located in the Talbot Hill 350 hydraulic water pressure zone. There is an existing 8 inch water main in S 32nd Pl and there are 2 existing% inch domestic water meters serving the existing homes. b. Sewer: There is an 8 inch sewer main in S 32nd Pl (Winsper) and an 8 inch sewer main located near the northwest of the site. c. Surface/Storm Water: There are drainage improvements in S 32nd Place. 2. Streets: Talbot Road South is a Collector Arterial; S 32nd Pl is a residential access street. 3. Fire Protection: City of Renton Fire Department. F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE (RMC), VESTED UP TO ORD. 5719: 1. Chapter 2 Zoning Districts -Land Use Districts a. Section 4-2-020: Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts b. Section 4-2-060: Zoning Use Table -Uses Allowed in Zoning Designations c. Section 4-2-110: Residential Development Standards d. Section 4-2-115: Residential Design and Open Space Standards 2. Chapter 4 City-Wide Property Development Standards a. Section 4-4-030: Development Guidelines and Regulations -General b. Section 4-4-130: Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Regulations 3. Chapter 6 Street and Utility Standards a. Section 4-6-060: Street Standards 4. Chapter 7 Subdivision Regulations a. Section 4-7-080: Detailed Procedures for Subdivisions b. Section 4-7-120: Compatibility with Existing Land Use and Plan -General Requirements and Minimum Standards c. Section 4-7-150: Streets-General Requirements and Minimum Standards d. Section 4-7-160: Residential Blocks -General Requirements and Minimum Standards e. Section 4-7-170: Residential Lots-General Requirements and Minimum Standards 5. Chapter 9 Permits -Specific 6. Chapter 11 Definitions HEX Report 14-001040 City of Renton Department of Cv .. ,munity & Economic Development VALLEY VUE PRELIMINARY PLAT Hearing Date: July 14, 2015 G, APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: l. Land Use Element 2. Community Design Element ! H. FINDINGS OF FACT {FOF): Preliminary Plat Report & Decision LUA14-001040, £CF, PP, MOD Page 4 of 20 l. The applicant requested SEPA Environmental Review and Preliminary Plat approval for a 9-lot subdivision. Preliminary Plat approval is being requested in order to subdivide a 2.3-acre site into 9 single family lots (8 new + the remaining single family house) and four (4) tracts for access roads, sensitive areas, and stormwater detention. The lots range in size from 4,502 square feet to 18,169 square feet with an average lot size of 7,954 square feet. The proposal results in a net density of 4.23 dwelling units per acre. 2. The Planning Division of the City of Renton accepted the SEPA Environmental Review and Preliminary Plat application for review on August 1, 2014 and determined it complete on August 25, 2014 (Exhibit 27). The project complied with the 120-day review period. The project was placed on "hold" on October 1, 2014, due to request for a modification from the private street standard width requirements (Exhibit 31). The hold was removed (Exhibit 33), upon the applicant's letter for a request for continuation (dated April 15, 2015; Exhibit 32). 3. The City ordinances governing the development of land up to and including adopted Ordinance No. 5719, 4. The proposed plat would be located at the SE X, Section 30, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., east of Talbot Road South and north of S 32nd Pl (Exhibit 2). 5. The property is in the Residential Single Family (RS) Comprehensive Plan land use designation and the Residential 8 (R-8) zoning classification. 6. The site currently contains two single family residences (3106 and 3112 Talbot Rd S) and a detached garage. Only the one single family residence (3112 Talbot Rd S) will be demolished as part of the platting process. 7. The project site is comprised of one (1) parcel: Parcel No. 302305-9028 (Exhibit 2). 8. The following table includes proposed approximate dimensions for Lots 1-9 and Tracts A-D (Exhibit 4): As Proeg_sed Lot Size Width .· Depth Lot 1 7,356 SF 50 FEET 147 FEET Lotz 7,654 SF 50FEET 159 FEET Lot 3 7,422 SF 50FEET 155 FEET Lot4 7,127 SF 50FEET 143 FEET Lot 5 7,133 SF 50 FEET 143 FEET Lot6 7,430SF 50FEET 155 FEET Lot 7 4,796SF 50FEET 102 FEET Lots 4,502 SF 50FEET 90 FEET Lot 9 18,169 SF lOOFEET 180 FEET All Lots Avg: 7,954.3 SF Avg: 55.6 FEET Avg: 141.6 FEET Tract A 12,818 SF lOOFEET 128 FEET Tract B 1,809SF 24 FEET 76 FEET TractC 1,808 SF 24 FEET 76 FEET Storm Drainage -Tract D 11,965 SF lOOFEET 121 FEET HEX Report 14-001040 City of Renton Department of Cv, .. munity & Economic Development VALLEY VUE PRELIMINARY PLAT Hearing Date: July 14, 2015 Preliminary Plat Report & Decision LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD Page 5 of 20 9. Access to the existing single family residence located at 3106 Talbot Road South (Lot 9) and the proposed stormwater detention tract (Tract D) would remain or come from Talbot Road South. The proposed access road terminates in a hammerhead turnaround above the concrete vault. 10. Access to the eight (8) new residential lots would be served from Winsper Division No. 1 Subdivision (Tract G and Tract H) via two existing 24-foot-wide dedicated ingress/egress easement tracts through the development on S 32nd Pl, followed by two (2) additional 24-foot by 76-foot wide tracts (Tract B and Tract C) onsite. The proposed 20-foot-wide paved access roads terminate roughly 176 feet north of S 32nd Pl. No turnarounds have been proposed at the end of the road. 11. Topographically, the overall site generally slopes from east to west with elevation change from 208 feet to 130 feet across the entire project site (Exhibit 6). The west portion of the site, west of the existing daylight basement at 3106 Talbot Rd S maintains the steepest slopes. The portion of the site identified to have the greatest slopes would not be impacted by development, with the exception of road improvements to the existing gravel driveway and proposed stormwater conveyance system out to Talbot Road S. A Geotechnical Engineering Study was prepared by Geotech Consultants, Inc. (dated May 27, 2014; Exhibit 11); the report states that the proposed development activity or structures can be supported on conventional continuous and spread footings bearing on undisturbed, medium-dense, native soil, or on structural fill placed above this competent native soil. The onsite and groundwater conditions are not suitable for infiltration of runoff from impervious surfaces. 12. There are approximately 142 significant trees on the site and the applicant is proposing to retain 27 original trees (Exhibits 9 & 10). 13. The applicant submitted a conceptual landscape plan which includes the installation of a variety of trees throughout the site, including the following: 2-Renaissance reflection birch (6"), 15-Shore pine (30"), 28-Douglas fir (84"), and 13-Excelsa western red cedar (13") (Exhibit 10). 14. The applicant submitted a Critical Areas Study prepared by Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC (dated September 4, 2013; Exhibit 13). According to the report, there is one wetland located in the eastern portion of the subject site and extends off-site to the east and south. This wetland exhibits a minimum of human related physical alteration, and therefore, meets the criteria for a Category 2 wetland. A Category 2 wetland receives a SO-foot standard buffer from their delineated edge (RMC 4-3- 0SOM.6.c). 15. The applicant submitted a Preliminary Technical Information Report ("TIR") prepared by Land Development Advisors, LLC (dated December, 2013; Exhibit 12). According to the TIR, a stormwater detention vault would be located in the westerly portion of the site and would discharge to the existing conveyance system on the east side of Talbot Road S. Basic water quality treatment would be provided by "dead" storage within the vault. 16. On May 18, 2015, the Environmental Review Committee, pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21C, 1971 as amended), issued a Determination of Non- Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M) for Valley Vue Preliminary Plat (Exhibit 30). The DNS-M included four (4) mitigation measures. A 14-day appeal period commenced on May 22, 2015 and ended on June 5, 2015. No appeals of the threshold determination have been filed. 17. 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: 1. Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations found in the Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Geotech Consultants, Inc. dated May 27, 2014 or an updated report submitted at a later date. HEX Report 14-001040 City of Renton Department of L_ ... munity & Economic Development VALLEY VUE PRELIMINARY PLAT Preliminary Plat Report & Decision LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD Hearing Date: July 14, 2015 Page 6 of 20 2. The applicant shall plant all trees that are within the SO-foot standard wetland buffer by hand and without heavy machinery. To the greatest extent feasible, these trees should be planted in areas where invasive species are present. A tree planting plan shall be provided to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval prior to construction permit issuance. 3. The applicant shall provide a minimum 12 to 15-foot wide utility access easement to the stormwater tract (Tract D) for maintenance and operation of the utility. The easement shall be recorded and documentation provided to the City prior to approval the issuance of the construction permit application. 4. The applicant shall provide a shared driveway through the existing Winsper Division No. 1 Subdivision tracts (Tracts G and H) that are consistent with the shared private driveway stand of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC 4-6-060K). The private access roads shall meet the minimum necessary to provide for safe and effective access for the existing residents, proposed residents, and fire and emergency vehicles. 18. Staff received a host of public comments with concerns about zoning codes, density, development standards, street access, pedestrian access, public safety, noise, topographical issues, mining hazards, drainage, recreational opportunities, tree retention, protection of environment, construction impacts, property values of affected home owners, and adherence to City ordinances and state laws. On September 2, 2014 staff began responding to the comments (Exhibit 19). No Agency comments were received. 19. Representatives from various city departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and address issues raised by the proposed development (Exhibit 25). These comments are contained in the official file, and the essence of the comments have been incorporated into the appropriate sections of this report. 20. Whenever there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of this Title IV, the applicant may request a modification of the standards provided the Criteria for modification identified in RMC 4-9-250D.2 is satisfied. 21. The proposal requires Preliminary Plat Review. The following table (Section H. FOF, Preliminary Plat Review Criteria) contains project elements intended to comply with Subdivision Regulations, as outlined in Chapter 4-7 RMC. PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The site is designated Residential Single Family (RSF) on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The proposal is consistent (or not consistent) with the following Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Community Design Element policies: "' Policy LU-158. Net development densities should fall within a range of 4.0 ta 8.0 dwelling units per net acre in Residential Single Family neighborhoods. Policy EN-6. When development may impact wetlands, the fol/awing hierarchy should be fa/lawed in deciding the appropriate course of action: a. avoid impacts to the wetland, "' b. minimize impacts ta the wetland, C. restore the wetland when impacted, d. recreate the wetland at a ratio which will provide far its assured viability & success, e. enhance the functional values of an existing degraded wetland. Policy EN-7. Protect buffers along wetlands to facilitate infiltration and maintain stable "' water temperatures, provide far biological diversity, reduce amount and velocity of run-off, and provide far wildlife habitat. HEX Report 14-001040 City of Renton Department of Co ... munity & Economic Development VALLEY VUE PRELIMINARY PLAT Preliminary Plat Report & Decision WA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD Hearing Date: July 14, 2015 Page 7 of 20 Objective CD-A. The City's unique natural features, including land form, vegetation, ,/ lakeshore, river, creeks and streams, and wetlands should be protected and enhanced as opportunities arise. Objective CD-C. Promote reinvestment in and upgrade of existing residential neighborhoods ,/ through redevelopment of small, underutilized parcels with infill development, modification and alteration of older housing stock, and improvements to streets and sidewalks to increase property values. Policy CD-15. Infill development should be reflective of the existing character of established neighborhoods even when designed using different architectural styles, and /or responding ,/ to more urban setbacks, height or lot requirements. Infill development should draw on elements of existing development such as placement of structures, vegetation, and location of entries and walkways, to reflect the site planning and scale of existing areas. Policy CD-16. Project design, including location of access and dimensions of yards and Not Met as setbacks, should address privacy and quality of life on existing improved portions of sites. Proposed Rear and side yard setbacks should be maintained and not reduced to facilitate increased density. Not Met as Policy CD-17. Setbacks and other development standards should not be reduced on newly Proposed platted lots through modification or variance to facilitate increased density. Not Met as Policy CD-45. Interpret development standards to support new plats and infill project designs Proposed that address privacy and quality of life for existing residents. 2. COMPLIANCE WITH THE UNDERLYING ZONING DESIGNATION: The site is classified Residential-8 {R-8) on the City of Renton Zoning Map. RMC 4-2-llOA provides development standards for development within the R-8 zoning classification. The proposal is consistent with the following development standards if all conditions of approval are complied with: Density: The allowed density range in the R-8 zone is a maximum of 8.0 dwelling units per net acre. There is also a minimum density of 4 dwelling units per net acre. Staff Comment: After factoring in all density deductions (public streets, private access easements and critical areas) the site has a net square footage of 92,699 square feet or 1.99 ,/ net acres. Specifically, the applicant is proposing O square feet of road far public right-of-way dedications and 690 square feet for private access easements, and 6,605 square feet for critical areas, totaling 7,295 square feet {99,994 sf-7,295 sf= 92,699 sf). The 9 lot proposal would arrive at a net density of 4.52 dwelling units per acre {9 lots I 1.99 acres= 4.52 du/oc), which falls within the permitted density range for the R-8 zone. Lot Dimensions: The minimum lot size permitted in the R-8 zoning designation is 4,500 square feet. A minimum lot width of 50 feet is required for interior lots and 60 feet for corner lots. Lot depth is required to be a minimum of 65 feet. In order to meet the variation ,/ requirements of RMC 4-2-115, lot dimensions and setbacks are allowed to be decreased and/or increased, provided that, when averaged, the applicable lot standards of the zone are met per RMC 4-2-110D(31). Staff Comment: As demonstrated in the table above under finding of fact 7, all lots meet the requirements for minimum lot size, width and depth. Setbacks: The required setbacks in the R-8 zone are as follows: front yard is 15 feet for the primary structure and 20 feet for garages; interior side yard is 5 feet; side yard along a street ,/ is 15 feet for the primary structure; and the rear yard is 20 feet. Detached accessory buildings in the R-8 zone are as follows: 3 feet for rear and side yards, unless located between the rear of the house and the rear property line, then O feet rear HEX Report 14-001040 City of Renton Department of Co .. ,munity & Economic Development VALLEY VUE PRELIMINARY PLAT Preliminary Plat Report & Decision LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD Hearing Date: July 14, 2015 Page 8 of 20 Compliant if Conditions of Approval Met and side yard is allowed. Staff Comment: The setback requirements for the proposed lots would be verified at the time of building permit review. The proposed lots appear to contain adequate area to provide all the required setback areas. Staff recommends, as a condition of approval, that a demolition permit be obtained and all required inspections be completed for the removal of the existing single family residence at 3112 Talbot Rd S prior to Final Plat recording, as this structure would not comply with setbacks if permitted to remain on the site. The existing structures on Lot 9 would remain. The primary single family would have the following setbacks: front yard -100 feet; side yards -22 feet and 35.5 feet; and rear yard 42 feet. The detached accessory building would remain between the rear of house and rear property line and have a side yard setback of O feet and a rear yard setback of 10 feet. These remaining structures would comply with the setbacks of the zone. Building Standards: Building height is restricted to 30 feet. Detached accessory structures must remain below a height of 15 feet and one-story. The allowed building lot coverage for lots over 5,000 SF in size in the R-8 zone is 35 percent (35%) or 2,500 SF, whichever is greater. The allowed impervious surface coverage is 75 percent (75%). Staff Comment: The existing single family home built in 1963 is a one story home with a daylight basement. The first floor area is 1,520 square feet. The 220 square foot detached garage is a one-story structure that was built in 1940. The two structures are proposed to be retained on Lot 9 and comply with the building standards of the R-8 zone. The building standards for the proposed lots (1-8) would be verified at the time of building permit review. Landscaping: Ten (10) feet of onsite landscaping is required along all public street frontages, with the exception of areas for required walkways and driveways per RMC 4-4- 070. Such landscaping shall include a mixture of trees, shrubs, and groundcover as approved by the Department of Community and Economic Development. Minimum planting strip widths between the curb and sidewalk are established according to the street development standards of RMC 4-6-060. Street trees and, at a minimum, groundcover are to be located in this area when present. Where there is insufficient right-of-way space or no public frontage, street trees are required in the front yard. A minimum of two (2) trees are to be located in the front yard prior to final inspection. Staff Comment: The applicant has submitted a preliminary landscape plan /Exhibit 10}. The proposed landscape plan includes a tree planting schedule for the entire site. The project does not front a public street. Where there is no public frontage, a minimum of two /2) trees are required to be located in the front yard of each new lot. The tree retention plan proposes to retain nine /9} significant trees within Lot 9 /Exhibits 9 & 10). The landscaping plan proposes 133 replacement caliper inches, including the following: 2-Renaissance reflection birch /6"}, 15-Shore pine /30"}, 28-Douglas fir /84"}, and 13-Excelsa western red cedar /13") (Exhibit 10/. lnfact, twelve of the thirteen red cedars are proposed ta be planted within the wetland buffer. Na shrubs or ground cover is proposed within the residential lots. Other than the identified front yard trees within lots 2, 3 & 7 no other front yard trees are proposed os part of the required onsite landscaping. In order to account for these 14 to 15 required trees within the 10-faot onsite landscaping strip, staff is recommending that the applicant provide a minimum of 16 trees within the front yards of Lots 1-9. A final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit issuance. Parking: Pursuant to RMC 4-4-080 each unit is required to accommodate off-street parking HEX Report 14-001040 City of Renton Department of Cv.,,munity & Economic Development VALLEY VUE PRELIMINARY PLAT Preliminary Plat Report & Decision LUAl4-001040, ECF, PP, MOD Hearing Date: July 14, 2015 Page 9 of 20 for a minimum of two vehicles. Staff Comment: Sufficient area exist on each Jot, to accommodate off-street parking for a minimum of two (2) vehicles. Compliance with individual driveway requirements would be reviewed at the time of building permit review. 3. CRITICAL AREAS: The proposal is consistent with critical area regulations as stated in RMC 4-3-050. Compliant if Conditions of SEPA Approval are Met Critical Areas: Manage development activities to protect wetlands, aquifer protection areas, fish and wildlife habitat, frequently flooded and geologically hazardous areas as defined by the Growth Management Act and RMC 4-3-050, Critical Area Regulations. Staff Comment: The applicant submitted a Critical Areas Study prepared by Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC (dated September 4, 2013; Exhibit 13). According to the report, there is one wetland located in the eastern portion of the subject site and extends off- site to the east and south. This wetland exhibits a minimum of human related physical alteration, and therefore, meets the criteria for a Category 2 wetland. A Category 2 wetland receives a SO-foot standard buffer /ram their delineated edge (RMC 4-3-0SOM.6.c}. Due to its vegetative structure, the subject wetland provides habitat for use by terrestrial wildlife species including birds and mammals. Animals identified or observed included an American Craw, a song sparrow, a black-capped chickadee, squirrels, and evidence af a common raccoon. The established vegetation within the wetland and associated buffer on this site serves ta intercept rain fall before it strikes the soil, thereby reducing erosion and improving water quality. The dense vegetation serves to trap sediment and pollutants and provide increased water quality functions that aid in a reduction of sediment which results in cleaner water leaving the site. The applicant is proposing to establish a Native Growth Protection Easement for the Category 2 wetland and its associated SO-foot buffer area within Tract A. The applicant is also proposing to increase the disturbance limit at least another 17 feet beyond the SO-foot wetland buffer. However, fencing and signage along the outer buffer edge are requirements of Renton Municipal Code. Staff is recommending as a condition of approval the installation of a wood, split-rail fence with wetland signage along the west boundary of Category 2 wetland buffer. Such a fence (with signage) shall be constructed prior to recording of the final plat. Staff recommends, as a condition of approval, requiring the Homeowners' Association to ensure maintenance of the split-rail fence. As part of the proposed tree replacement or replanting plan, the applicant is proposing to plant 12 red cedar trees within the Category 2 wetland buffer. Staff recommended as a SEPA mitigation measure, that all trees planted within the SO-foot standard wetland buffer be planted by hand and without heavy machinery. To the greatest extent feasible, these 12 trees should be planted in areas where invasive species are present. 4. COMMUNITY ASSETS: The proposal is consistent with the following community asset requirements. ,/ Tree Retention: RMC 4-4-130 states thirty percent (30%) of the trees shall be retained in a residential development. Staff Comment: Vegetation in the western portion of the property is comprised of maintained lawn represented by tall fescue, blue wildrye, hairy Cat's-ear, velvetgrass, colonial bentgrass, creeping buttercup, and white clover. The lawn is interspersed with patches of Himalayan blackberry and scattered trees, including big leaf maple and Oregon ash. Vegetation in the eastern part of the site is forested, represented by a canopy of big leaf maple, Oregon ash, and western red cedar, with snowberry, osoberry, Himalayan blackberry, hazelnut, Oceanspray, thimbleberry, dewberry, and sword fern, in the understory. There are HEX Report 14-001040 City of Renton Deportment of Cv,,,munity & Economic Development VALLEY VUE PRELIMINARY PLAT Preliminary Plat Report & Decision LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD Hearing Date: July 14, 2015 Page 10 of 20 142 trees over 6 inches in diameter throughout the project site. After certain trees are excluded from the retention calculations (trees that are dead, diseased or dangerous, public streets, private access easements, critical area deductions), 126 become subject to the minimum requirement to retain thirty percent (30%} of the significant trees. The applicant is proposing to retain 2 7 of the required 38 trees, several of which are located along the north property boundary. Therefore, 11 trees would need to be replaced onsite. The required replacement is equivalent ta 132 caliper inches {11 trees x 12 inches = 132 caliper inches). The tree plant schedule includes 133 replacement inches, including the following: 2- Renaissance reflection birch {6"}, 15-Shore pine (30"), 28-Douglas fir (84"/, and 13-Excelsa western red cedar (13"} (Exhibit 10/. In fact, twelve of the thirteen red cedars are proposed to be planted within the wetland buffer. Therefore, the proposed replacement trees exceed the minimum required replacement inches of 12" for every tree that was unable to be retained. All trees that are proposed to be retained, including nine (9) in the critical areas and buffers, would be fenced and signed during the construction process for preservation (Exhibits 9 & 10/. A final detailed landscape plan must be submitted and approved prior to construction permit approval. 5. COMPLIANCE WITH SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS: RMC 4-7 Provides review criteria for the subdivisions. The proposal is consistent with the following subdivision regulations if all conditions of approval are complied with: Compliant if Conditions of SEPA Approval are Met or a Street Modification is granted Access: Each lot must have access to a public street or road. Access may be by private access easement street per the requirements of the street standards. The maximum width of single loaded garage driveways shall not exceed nine feet (9') and double loaded garage driveways shall not exceed sixteen feet (16'). Staff Comment: Access to the eight (8) new residential lots is proposed to be served from Winsper Division No. 1 Subdivision (Tract G and Tract HJ via two existing 24-foot wide dedicated ingress/egress easement areas through the development on S 32nd Place. The proposed 20-foot-wide paved access roads terminate roughly 176 feet north of S 32nd Pl. No turnarounds have been proposed at the end of the Tract B and C. The applicant is proposing to retain the existing single family home at 3106 and improve the existing access easement by completing a 20-faot wide access road ta the hammerhead turnaround, at the site of the future starmwater tract (Tract DJ, located roughly 400 feet from Talbot Rd S. The two access roads proposed through Tract G and H are designed ta include 0.6" curbs, a 20-faat travel lane, retaining walls (Concrete and/or Keystone), and a 6- foat fence an top of the retaining wall (east access only) (Exhibit 7/. The overall lengths of the access road sections are roughly 176 feet long from S 32nd Pl to the termination point onsite. The applicant has submitted a request to modify street width requirements in order to access 8 new lots via the 24-foot wide access easements {Tract G and HJ to serve four (4) residential lots from Tract G and another four (4) lats from Tract H. This would be a reduction of two feet (2') from the private street width standard specified in Renton Municipal Code {RMC 4-6- 0601.2). Private streets are of/owed for access to six (6) or fewer lots, provided at least two (2) of the six (6) lots abut a public right-of-way. Private streets are only permitted if a public street is not anticipated to be necessary for existing or future traffic and/or pedestrian circulation through the subdivision or to serve adjacent property. No sidewalks are required for private streets; however drainage improvements are required, as well as an approved pavement thickness (minimum of four inches (4"} asphalt over six inches {6"} crushed rock). The maximum grade for the private street shall not exceed fifteen percent (15%} at maximum grade, and angles of approach and departure shall meet fire department HEX Report 14-001040 City of Renton Deportment of C ... munity & Economic Development VALLEY VUE PRELIMINARY PLAT Preliminary Plat Report & Decision LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD Hearing Date: July 14, 2015 Page 11 of 20 N/A N/A Not Met as Proposed requirements. The proposed hauling and tronsportation routes would be on the west end of the property (To/bot Rd S to Benson Dr S) when accessible. Otherwise, out the access tracts located along S 32"d Pl to Smithers Ave S to S 32"" St to Talbot Rd S ta Benson Dr S /Exhibit 14). It is anticipated that large trucks would pass within a few feet of the existing homes on either side of the access tracts. It is unclear how the applicant would provide for sufficient safety for the existing residents on either side of the 24-foot wide access tracts (Tracts G & H}. The submitted preliminary plat provides no alternatives to meeting the street standards af the Renton Municipal Code if the request to modify street width requirements were to be denied. With no alternative proposal, staff finds that there are na appropriate provisions made far public health and safety and sufficient access (WAC 58-17-110}. Based on this finding the Environmental Review Committee issues a SEPA mitigation measure that required the applicant to provide a shared driveway through the existing Winsper Division Na. 1 Subdivision tracts (Tracts G and H} that are consistent with the shared private driveway stand of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC 4-6-060K}. The private access road shall meet the minimum necessary to provide for safe and effective access for the existing residents, proposed residents, and fire and emergency vehicles as required by RCW 58-17-110. Blocks: Blocks shall be deep enough to allow two tiers of lots. Lots: Width between side lot lines at their foremost points (i.e., the points where the side lot lines intersect with the street right-of-way line) shall not be less than eighty percent (80%) of the required lot width except in the cases of lots on a street curve or the turning circle of cul-de-sac (radial lots), which shall be a minimum of thirty five feet (35'). Streets: The proposed street system shall extend and create connections between existing streets per the Street Standards outlined in RMC 4-6-060 Street Standards. Staff Comment: Talbot Road South is a Collector Arterial and S 32nd Pl is a residential access street. The existing right-of-way width is approximately 60 feet for Talbot Rd S and approximately 44 feet on S 32nd Place. Per RMC 4-6-060) Shared Driveways -When Permitted, a shared private driveway may be permitted far access up to a maximum of four {4} lots. At least one of the four lots must have physical frontage along a street for primary and emergency access and shall be only be allowed vehicular access from the shared private driveway. The private access easement must be a minimum of sixteen feet (16'} in width, with a maximum of twelve feet (12') paved driveway. The proposed development does not meet all of the code requirements for a shared driveway type of access. Primary access to the landlocked parcel and two existing residences is from either Talbot Rd S or through the existing two (2) access tracts located within the Winsper Division No. 1 Subdivision {Tract G and Tract H). These 2 existing tracts from Winsper Div. 1 connect S 32nd Pl to the subject parcel. These tracts were intended to serve as future ingress, egress, and utilities tracts to serve Tax Lot 28 (project site), and are currently owned and maintained by Winsper Community Organization until deeded to Tax Lot No. 28 ot no cost when development approvals are granted by the authorized jurisdiction. The existing driveway out to Talbot Rd S slopes steeply from east to west, and could not be used for fire emergency access under its current constructed status, in order to access the number of lots proposed /Exhibit 15). Prior to the Mutual Releases of Easement, under Recording Nos. 20140627001668, 20140627001669, and 20140627001670 (Exhibit 17), access to the site was gronted via an access easement recorded in 1964 (Recording No. 5705702; Exhibit 16}. As part of the street improvements, the applicant is seeking a modification from City of HEX Report 14-001040 City of Renton Department of C ... munity & Economic Development VALLEY VUE PRELIMINARY PLAT Hearing Date: July 14, 2015 Preliminary Plat Report & Decision LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD Page 12 of 20 Renton street stondards in order to utilize Tract G and Tract H for access to the proposed subdivision. The decision criteria for a modification of standards are identified in RMC 4-9- 250D. The request for modification seeks to continue the existing 24-foot wide platted tracts, onto the site (roughly an additional 76 feet) as established as part of King County's 1989 Winsper Div. No. 1, a 54-lot Plat, in order to serve eight (8) new Jots under the private street road standard. The road improvements identified within the preliminary plat plan sheets show two (2) 10- foot wide paved lanes with vertical curb and gutter through each tract. City of Renton has concern regarding the constructability of these accesses due to the slope of the site. Both accesses would be required to construct retaining walls along the eastern sides of both access roads. The eastern most access has a slope in excess of 15% and requires a minimum of 1.5 feet of clear zone between the back of the curb and the face of the retaining wall. The construction of the retaining walls proposed for both accesses would require temporary construction easements to be obtained from the adjoining property owners. Nevertheless, the temporary construction easements may not be feasible due to the close proximity of other private existing structures located in the area where the retaining walls would need to be constructed. Due to the lack of sufficient width within the existing tracts and the proximity of the existing homes to the proposed new roadway a safety hazard would be created as a result of the construction of a substandard private street, as the access roads would have virtually no shoulder (Exhibits 18-23). Due to the proposed future cross section, any vehicular incident along these narrow access tracts could result in injury ond/or property damage to the adjacent home owners or the driver of the vehicle. Specifically, this is due to the lack of space to "correct" and/or adjust a vehicular movement and at the same time ovoiding the existing residences. There is a direct correlation between the number of homes and the number of trips anticipated to utilize the proposed occess easement. Staff feels that the construction af a private street through a substandard access easement wauld result in a detriment to public safety and general welfare as it pertains to the existing constructed homes at 618, 624, 652, and 700 S 32nd Pl and any future vehicles that may utilize the proposed private street. As per RMC 4-6-060, the minimum right-of-way required on a residential street is 53 feet, with a minimum paved width of 26 feet, a 0.5-foot wide curb, an 8-foot wide landscaped planter, a 5-foot wide sidewalk, and street lighting. The right-of-way for the half street improvement must be a minimum af thirty five feet {35') with twenty feet (20') paved (RMC 4-6-060Q). A curb, planting strip area, and sidewalk would be installed on the development side of the street, according to the minimum design standards for public streets. If the street was permitted from Talbot Rd 5, a cul-de-sac turnaround wauld be required. In order to meet the minimum right-of-way dedication requirements, additional right-of-way access from Talbot Rd S would need to be acquired from the three (3) parcels that front Talbot Rd S (Exhibit 15). The absolute minimum right-of-way width that would be required for a public road is 45 feet and the minimum pavement within the right-of-way, for two-way travel, is 20 feet. A modification request would need to be granted for any deviations from the street code requirements. Paving and trench restoration must comply with the City's Trench Restoration ond Overlay Requirements. Additionally, the current layout does not include access to the storm water facilities. Access to the storm water tract is necessary in order to maintain the vault. The City's trip threshold is 20 peak hour trips; therefore, no traffic impact analysis was required as part of the nine (9) Jot preliminary plat. It is anticipated that the proposed project HEX Report 14-001040 City of Renton Deportment of C .... ,unity & Economic Development VALLEY VUE PRELIMINARY PLAT Hearing Date: July 14, 2015 Preliminary Plat Report & Decision LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD Page 13 of 20 would result in impacts to the City's street system. In order to mitigate transportation impacts, the applicant would be required to meet code-required frontage improvements, City of Renton's transportation concurrency requirements based upon a test of the citywide Transportation Plan ond pay appropriate Transportation Impact Fees. Currently, this fee is assessed at $2,214.44 per L!f!:!! single family home (7 x $2,214.44 = $15,501.08}. This fee is payable to the City at the time of building permit issuance. Credit will be given to the existing home ta be demolished. LED street lighting meeting City of Renton Standards is required. A lighting plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager and the Plan Reviewer prior to construction permit approval. Relationship to Existing Uses: The proposed project is compatible with existing surrounding uses. Staff Comment: The subject site is landlocked and is bordered an all four sides by existing single-family residential homes; Winsper Division No. 1 to the east and south; Victoria Park #4 to the north; and a single family hame immediately to the west. The properties surrounding the subject site have a similar land use of residential single family and zoning of R-8 under on the City's zoning and land use maps. The proposal is similar to existing development patterns in the area and is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code, which encourage residential infill development. 6. AVAILABILITY AND IMPACT ON PUBLIC SERVICES: Police and Fire: Police and Fire Prevention staff indicates that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development, subject to the condition that the applicant provides Code required improvements and fees. An approved apparatus turnarounds are required for dead end roads exceeding 150 feet and all homes beyond 500 feet on dead end streets are required to install an approved fire sprinkler system (RMC 4-6-060H.2}. Dead end streets exceeding 700 feet ore not allowed without approved secondary access roadways being provided. Condition of approval of this proposed plat, due to existing steep grades on existing access roadways and proposed dead end streets, is to have all proposed homes be equipped with approved residential fire sprinkler systems. Access roadways shall not exceed 15 percent maximum grade. Angles of approach and departure shall meet fire department requirements. Fire impact fees are applicable at the rate of $495.10 per single family unit. This fee is paid at time of building permit issuance. Parks: City codes currently do not require open space to be set aside in subdivisions of the R- B zone. The proposed stormwater detention system within Tract D is a stormwater detention/water quality vault. Landscaping (hydroseed and trees) are proposed aver the top of the vault which would provide an amenity to the neighborhood os well as providing an attractive buffer between the existing single family and the proposed new single family homes within the site. It is still anticipated that the proposed development would generate future demand on existing City parks and recreational facilities and programs. A Parks Impact Fee, based on new single family lots, will be required in order to mitigate the proposal's potential impacts to City parks and recreational facilities and programs, thereby complying with RMC 4-7-140 Parks and Open Space. The fee is payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code. Currently the fee is assessed at $1,441.29 per new single family residence and will increase to $1,887.94 on January 1, 2016. Credit will be given to the existing home to be demolished. HEX Report 14-001040 City of Renton Department of C ... munity & Economic Development VALLEY VUE PRELIMINARY PLAT Preliminary Plat Report & Decision LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD Hearing Date: July 14, 2015 Page 14 of 20 Schools: The project site is located within the Renton School District (RSD}, which encompasses approximately 35 square miles. It is anticipated that the RSD can accommodate any additional students generated by this proposal at the following schools: Talbot Hill Elementary (2300 Talbot Rd South, Renton), Dimmitt Middle School /12320 80th Avenue South, Seattle}, and Renton High School /400 S 2nd St, Renton), RCW 58.17.110/2} provides that no subdivision be approved without making a written finding of adequate provision made for safe walking conditions for students who walk to and from school /Exhibit 28}. Future students are designated to be transported to school via bus to and from Talbot Rd S & S 32'd St. As part of the proposed project, sidewalks would not be constructed along shared driveways which connect to S 32"d Pl where there is an existing sidewalk system along the south half of Not Met as the street, along Smithers Ave S and S 32"d St to the bus stop, Lot 9 would utilize the shared Proposed driveway out to Talbot Rd S and the shoulder and sidewalk on the east part of the street to reach the bus stop, The number of trips anticipated to use the private street may impact the safe walking conditions for students. The substandard width within the access tracts (Tracts G & H) not only lack required width to function as a private street, but will also require retaining walls due to the slopes within the tracts. Under normal conditions there is an additional 6 feet of shoulder for school age children to walk. Therefore, the modified road section does not provide adequate provisions for safe walking conditions for students who walk to and from school and/or bus stops. Compliant if Conditions of Approval Met A School Impact Fee, based on new single family lots, will also be required in order to mitigate the proposal's potential impacts to the Renton School District. The fee is payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of building permit application. Currently, the 2015 fee is assessed at $5,541.00 per new single family residence. Storm Water: An adequate drainage system shall be provided for the proper drainage of all surface water. Staff Comment: The site is located in port of the Black River Basin. Runoff from the site is split with approximately the easterly 150' draining overland towards the wetland along the east boundary. The remainder of the site sheet flows in a westerly direction ultimately entering the swale along the east side of Talbot Road. Based on the City's flow control map, this site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard, Forested Condition and requires a flow control facility sized to match the flow duration of forested conditions. The standard requires the site to match the durations from 50% of the two-year peak flow up to the full 50-yeor peak flow, and also match developed peak discharge rotes to pre-developed peak discharge rates for the 2-yeor, 10-yeor and 100-year return periods. The output models place the required detention volume as 24,300 cubic feet of storage /10' by 40' vault with on active storage depth of 12 feet/: The applicant's engineer hos designed a detention vault to be located in a tract in the westerly portion of the site and would discharge to the existing conveyance system on the east side of Talbot Road S. Flows continue southerly in the roadside drainage system, approximately 250 feet, where they turn and flow west through a 21" culvert to the volley floor and Springbrook Creek. The westerly portion of the access rood from Talbot Rd S bypasses the proposed treatment facility near the existing house. This would need to be addressed at final engineering review. Basic water quality treatment would be provided by "dead" storage within the vault The applicant submitted a Preliminary Technical Information Report (TIR}, prepared by Land Development Advisors, LLC (dated December 2013; Exhibit 12). According to the TIR, the project is required to provide Level 2 Flow Control and Basic Water Quality treatment in accardance with the 2009 City of Renton Amendments to the King County Surface Water HEX Report 14-001040 City of Renton Deportment of Co, .. ,,,unity & Economic Development VALLEY VUE PRELIMINARY PLAT Preliminary Plat Report & Decision LUA14-00l040, ECF, PP, MOD Hearing Date: July 14, 2015 Page 15 of 20 Manual, Chapter 1 and 2. This standard is typically adopted to mitigate stream erosion and is warranted so that downstream erosion is not exacerbated. The goal of the Basic Water Quality Treatment is 80% removal of total suspended solids (TSS} for a typical rainfall year, assuming typical pollutant concentrations in urban runoff Appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) from the Washington State Department of Ecology Manual for individual lot flow control will be required to help mitigate the new runoff created by this development. Additional project BMPs are identified in the construction mitigation description and appropriate individual lot flow control BMPs will be required to help mitigate the new runoff created by this development (Exhibit 14/. A geotechnical report, dated May 27, 2014, was submitted by Geotech Consultants, Inc. /Exhibit 11/. A SEPA mitigation measure /Exhibits 30 & 31} was imposed by the City's Environmental Review Committee /ERC), requiring that the project construction comply with the recommendations outlined in the submitted geotechnical report {or an updated report submitted at o later date). The geotechnical report indicates that approximately 2,060 cubic yards {2,370 TONS) of cut and 630 cubic yards af fill (725 TONS) would be required for the construction af required plat improvements and new single family residences. A Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control plan would be prepared with the final construction plans in order to prevent, to the maximum extent possible, the transport of sediment to downstream drainage systems, water resources and adjacent properties. Best Management Practices {BMPs) anticipated include clearing limit delineation, cover measures {straw, plastic, etc.), traffic area stabilization {rock construction entrance) and perimeter protection /silt fencing) in accordance with City of Renton requirements. The Natural Resources Conservation Service {NRCS) mapped the subject property as being underlain by Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes. The NRCS describes Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes as rolling with irregularly shaped areas. The proposed structures can be supported on conventional continuous and spread footings bearing on undisturbed, medium-dense, native soil, or on structural fill placed above this competent native soil. The onsite and groundwater conditions are not suitable for infiltration of runoff from impervious surfaces. A Construction Stormwoter General Permit from Department of Ecology will be required if grading and clearing of the site exceeds one acre. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan {SWPPP) is also required for this site. Finally, the maintenance and operation of the proposed storm drainage facilities will be the responsibility of the City upon recording of the plat. Prior to approval and issuance of the construction permit application, the vault would be required to record a 12 to 15-foot wide utility access easement to the proposed stormwater tract {Tract D) for maintenance and operation of the utility. Maintenance of the vegetation proposed in the wetland tract {Tract A) would remain the responsibility of the home owners within the subdivision, therefore staff recommends as a condition of approval that the applicant create a Home Owners Association ("HOA") that maintains all landscaping improvements in Tract A, and any other common amenities. A draft of the HOA shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Renton Project Manager and the City Attorney prior to final Plat recording. Such document shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. Water and Sanitary Sewer: The site is located in the Talbot Hill 350 hydraulic water pressure ,/ zone. There is an existing 8 inch water main in S 32nd Pl and there are 2 existing % inch domestic water meters serving the existing homes. There is an 8 inch sewer main in S 32nd Pl HEX Report 14-001040 City of Renton Department of Co ... munity & Economic Development VALLEY VUE PREUMINARY PLAT Hearing Date: July 14, 2015 Preliminary Plat Report & Decision WA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD Page 16 of 20 (Winsper) and an 8 inch sewer main located near the northwest of the site. Development fees would apply to new homes and credit would be given to the existing home. New hydrants shall be installed per Renton's fire department standards to pravide the required coverage of all lots. All plats shall provide separate water service stubs and separate side sewer stubs to each building lot prior to recording of the plat. System development charges (SDC} for sewer are payable at the time the utility construction permit is issued. 22. Whenever there is practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of this Title IV, the applicant may request a modification of the standards provided the Criteria for modification identified in RMC 4-9-250D.2 is satisfied: Modification Criteria: .. a. Substantially implements the policy direction of the policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and the Community Design Element and the proposed modification is the minimum adjustment necessary to implement these policies and objectives. The applicant has requested to modify private street width requirements, as described in RMC 4-6-060J, for the proposed 9-lot subdivision on a 2.3-acre property addressed as 3106 and 3112 Talbot Road South also known as Tax Lot 28 of Winsper Division No. 1 Subdivision (Exhibit 34). The property is presently accessed from Talbot Road South, via a shared driveway. This driveway slopes steeply from east to west, and could not be used to access the number of lots proposed without major engineering revisions to the slope and road. There are two existing 24-foot wide tracts (Tract G and H) in the abutting residential plat to the south, Winsper Division No. 1. These tracts are indicated on the recorded plat as being for future ingress, egress, and utilities only to Tax Lot 28, owned and maintained by Winsper Community Organization until deeded to Tax Lot No. 28 at no cost when development of Tax Lot 28 is approved, which requires the use of Tract G and H. The applicant is requesting a modification from the City of Renton standards in order to utilize Tract G and Tract H as a private street access to the proposed subdivision of Tax Lot 28. The proposal would be to utilize the existing 24-wide access easements (Tract G and H) to serve up to four (4) residential lots from Tract G and another four (4) lots from Tract H. This would be a reduction of two (2) feet from the private street width standard specified in Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-6-060J. The applicant contends that the existing 12 feet of access off of Talbot Rd and the steeper grades along the current driveway are not feasible within the constraints of Renton's code. The existing tracts were created under King County and subsequently annexed into the City of Renton, irrespective of how the two codes would correlate. Given the proximity to the adjacent houses and their side yard setback limits, there is no additional area for adding or acquiring the additional width that could be used to meet the minimum twenty six foot (26') easement width required by RMC 4-6-060J.2. Prior to the benefit of a public process, it was indicted to the applicant that a request to reduce the private street standard to allow for a width of 24 feet could be supported by staff (Exhibit 35). As part of the public notification process, the City of Renton received an abundance of public feedback from property owners within the Winsper Division I Plat and the surrounding neighborhood(s) (Exhibits 18, 20-22, 36, 38, 40, and 42; Staff's response includes Exhibits 19, 37, 39, 41, and 43). The primary concern identified through letters and emails has consistently been vehicle access through the two 24-foot wide access tracts (Tract G and Tract H) and the associated safety concerns from new vehicle traffic generated as a result of the proposed land development. See attached letter for additional concerns and comments. During the preliminary plat review process, the City of Renton identified and explored alternative plat options for access to the plat, whether from Talbot Rd Sor through Tracts G and H, communication was HEX Report 14-001040 City of Renton Department of w, .. munity & Economic Development VALLEY VUE PRELIMINARY PLAT Hearing Date: July 14, 2015 Preliminary Plat Report & Decision LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD Page 17 of 20 provided via an on hold notice letter from the City of Renton Planning Department (Exhibit 31). As part of the City's preliminary review, staff found that the submitted preliminary plat provides no alternatives to meeting the street standards of the Renton Municipal Code if the request to modify street width requirements were to be denied. The applicant, RAD Holdings LLC (maintains the right to develop property based on the ordinances existing at the time of the application), has respectfully requested that the preliminary plat application be brought forward to a public hearing as originally submitted and accepted on August 25, 2014 (Exhibit 32). Staff has reviewed the applicant's proposal and finds the proposed modification does not substantially implement the policy direction of the policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and the Community Design Element as identified in the Conclusions-Preliminary Plat Review Criteria J.1 below. Staff is not supportive of the reduced private street standard requested as part of the proposed preliminary plat application. b. Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upan sound engineering judgment. The applicant is proposing a modification from the minimum twenty six foot (26') wide easement required by RMC 4-6-060).2 in order to construct two 20-foot wide paved private streets that would serve four lots from each of the existing 24-foot wide tracts (Tract G and H) within Winsper Division No. 1 subdivision. Road improvements that would include two 10-foot wide paved lanes with vertical curb and gutter through each tract with retaining walls along the eastern sides of both access roads. The eastern most access has a slope in excess of fifteen percent (15%) and requires a minimum of 1.5 feet of clear zone between the back of the curb and the face of the retaining wall. The construction of the retaining walls proposed for both accesses would require temporary construction easements to be obtained from the adjoining property owners. Nevertheless, the temporary construction easements may not be feasible due to the close proximity of other private existing structures located in areas where the retaining walls would need to be constructed. As part of the City's preliminary review, staff has found that the submitted preliminary plat provides no alternatives to meeting the street standards of the Renton Municipal Code if the request to modify street width requirements were to be denied. With no alternative proposal, staff finds that there are not appropriate provisions made for public health and safety and sufficient access (WAC 58-17-110), due to the lack of sufficient width within the tracts, the proximity of the existing homes to the proposed new roadway and the lack a sufficient setback distance from the private street, and the direct correlation between the number of homes and the number of trips anticipated to utilize the proposed access tracts. Based on this finding the Environmental Review Committee issued a SEPA mitigation measure that required the applicant to provide a shared driveway through the existing Winsper Division No. 1 Subdivision tracts (Tracts G and H) that are consistent with the shared private driveway stand of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC 4-6-060K). The private access road would meet the minimum necessary width to provide for safe and effective access for the existing residents, proposed residents, and fire and emergency vehicles, as required by RCW 58-17-110. The applicant has not provided sufficient justification to show that the reduction to the minimum street standards of the code would provide reasonable safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and maintainability intended by the Code requirements. At this time, staff has determined that the construction of a private street through a substandard access easement would result in a detriment to public safety as it pertains to the existing constructed homes at 618, 624, 652, and 700 S 32nd Pl and any future vehicles that may utilize the proposed private street. c. Will not be injurious to other property(ies) in the vicinity See Modification Request -Modification Criteria b. HEX Report 14-001040 City of Renton Department of Co,.,munity & Economic Development VALLEY VUE PRELIMINARY PLAT Hearing Date: July 14, 2015 d. Conforms to the intent and purpose of the Cade Preliminary Plat Report & Decision LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD Page 18 of 20 Despite the functional classification of the road, it is the purpose of the street standard section of code to establish design standards and development requirements for street improvements to ensure reasonable and safe access to public and private properties. These improvements include, but are not limited to, appropriately scaled sidewalks related to the urban context, a range of landscape buffers, curbs, gutters, street paving, monumentation, signage, and lighting, to be developed with complete streets principles. Complete streets principles are to plan, design, and operate streets to enable safe and convenient access and travel for all users including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and people of all ages and abilities, as well as freight and motor vehicle drivers, and to foster a sense of place in the public realm with attractive design amenities (RMC 4-6-060A). Staff has reviewed the applicant's proposal and finds the proposed modification does not meet the intent and purpose of the code. The Winsper Division No. 1 Subdivision tracts (Tract G and Tract H) have sufficient width to be developed as a shared driveway. A shared private driveway is used for access up to a maximum of four (4) lots. Of those 4 lots, up to three (3) of the lots may use the driveway as primary access for emergencies. The remainder of the lots must have physical frontage along a street for primary and emergency access and shall only be allowed vehicular access from the shared private driveway. The private access easement would be a minimum of sixteen feet (16') in width, with a maximum of twelve feet (12') paved driveway (the Fire Department may require the tract and paved surface to be up to twenty feet (20') wide). The project lacks sufficient public street access that would provide for primary access for emergencies; therefore, staff recommends that the applicant follow the shared driveway street standard and limit the number of lots served to no more than two (2) lots per Tract G and Tract H . e. Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended; and Given that the Tax Lot 28 has two existing 24-foot wide dedicated ingress/egress easement tracts through the Wins per Division I Plat, staff finds that with ample mitigation there is sufficient width within the tracts to provide a shared driveway to access a reduced number of lots from S 32nd Place. Within the existing tracts (Tract G and H), staff recommends two 6-foot wide paved lanes with vertical curb and gutter through each tract with fencing for screening, mature landscaping, and retaining walls along the eastern sides of both access roads. Once onsite (within Tracts B & C) the fire department apparatus access roadways would be required to be widened to a minimum of 20-feet wide fully paved, with 25-feet inside and 45-feet outside turning radius. Fire access roadways shall be constructed to support a 30-ton vehicle with 75-psi point loading. Access is required within 150-feet of all points on the buildings and a dedicated hammerhead turnaround or cul-de-sac would be required if the road has a length from 150 feet to 300 feet. f. Will not create adverse impacts to other property(ies) in the vicinity. See Modification Request -Modification Criteria b. i /, CONCLUSIONS: 1. The proposal is not compliant with all Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Community Design Element policies, as the project design does not meet basic development standards for privacy and quality of life for existing residents. 2. The proposal is not compliant will all Preliminary Plat Review Criteria. The proposed street system would need to comply with RMC 4-6-060K and comply with the safe walking conditions for students who walk to and from school. HEX Report 14-001040 City of Renton Department of Cv,,,munity & Economic Development VALLEY VUE PRELIMINARY PLAT Hearing Date: July 14, 2015 Preliminary Plat Report & Decision LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD Page 19 of 20 3. The proposal is not compliant or consistent with City of Renton plans, policies, regulations and approvals and would result in a substantial or undue adverse effect on adjacent properties due to lack of efficient access and circulation for all users. 4. The submitted preliminary plat provides no alternatives to meeting the street standards of the Renton Municipal Code if the request to modify street width requirements were to be denied. With no alternative proposal, staff finds that there are not appropriate provisions made for public health and safety and sufficient access (RCW 58-17-110). 5. The proposed development would generate long term harmful or unhealthy conditions without complying with shared driveway standards (RMC 4-6-060K). 6. The proposed location is suited for the residential use. 7. Adequate parking for the proposed can be provided. 8. The proposal does not satisfy 6 of the 6 criteria listed in RMC 4-9-250D.2 for approval of modifications. I K, RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends denial of the Valley Vue Preliminary Plat, LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD (as depicted in Exhibit 4), and that the related request to modify the private street standards also be denied. In the event the Hearing Examiner elects to approve the Valley Vue Preliminary Plat and the street modification request, staff recommends the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measure issued as part of the Determination of Nonsignificance-Mitigated, review by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on May 18, 2015 (Exhibits 30 & 31). a. Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations found in the Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Geotech Consultants, Inc. dated May 27, 2014 or an updated report submitted at a later date. b. The applicant shall plant all trees that are within the SO-foot standard wetland buffer by hand and without heavy machinery. To the greatest extent feasible, these trees should be planted in areas where invasive species are present. A tree planting plan shall be provided to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval prior to construction permit issuance. c. The applicant shall provide a minimum 12 to 15-foot wide utility access easement to the storm water tract (Tract D) for maintenance and operation of the utility. The easement shall be recorded and documentation provided to the City prior to approval the issuance of the construction permit application. d. The applicant shall provide a shared driveway through the existing Winsper Division No. 1 Subdivision tracts (Tracts G and H) that are consistent with the shared private driveway stand of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC 4-6-060K). The private access roads shall meet the minimum necessary to provide for safe and effective access for the existing residents, proposed residents, and fire and emergency vehicles. 2. The applicant shall obtain a demolition permit and complete all required inspections for the removal of the existing single family residence at 3112 Talbot Road South prior to Final Plat recording. 3. The applicant shall be limited to a maximum of two (2) lots to be served from each ingress/egress tract from Winsper Division No. 1 Subdivision (Tract G and Tract H). HEX Report 14-001040 City of Renton Deportment of Co ..... wnity & Economic Development VALLEY VUE PRELIMINARY PLAT Hearing Date: July 14, 2015 Preliminary Plat Report & Decision LUA14-00l040, ECF, PP, MOD Page 20 of 20 4. The applicant shall provide a minimum of 16 trees within the front yards of all approved lots. A final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit issuance. 5. In addition to any retaining walls required within Tract G and Tract H, the applicant shall provide a privacy fence and mature landscaping between the paved roadway (and vertical curb) and the property line(s). A final access road cross section and landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit issuance. 6. The applicant shall provide a dedicated hammerhead turnaround or cul-de-sac at the terminus (Tract B and Tract C) of the ingress/egress road from S 32 Place. The hammerhead turnaround shall have a design approved by the Current Planning Project Manager and Fire and Emergency Services. 7. The applicant shall submit a street lighting plan at the time of construction permit review for review and approval by the City's Plan Reviewer. 8. The applicant shall create a Home Owners Association ("HOA") that maintains all landscaping improvements in Tract "A", all maintenance and repairs of the shared driveway access roads and tracts (Tracts B, C, G and H) and any and all other common improvements. A draft of the HOA documents shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Renton Project Manager and the City Attorney prior to Final Plat recording. Such document shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. 9. The applicant shall install a wood, split-rail fence with wetland signage along the west boundary of Category 2 wetland buffer. The fence (with signage) shall be constructed prior to recording the final plat. A requirement to maintain the fence by a Homeowners' Association shall be placed on the face of the plat. 10. The applicant shall be required to obtain a temporary construction easement for all work conducted outside of the applicant's property. The temporary construction easement shall be submitted to the City prior to any permits being issued. HEX Report 14-001040 €) . EXHIBITS Project Name: Project Number: Valley Vue Preliminary Plat LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD Date of Hearing Staff Contact Project Contact Project Location 7/14/15 Clark H. Close Jon Nelson 3106 and 3112 Talbot Road S Land Development Advisors, LLC Renton, WA 98055 12865 SE 47th PL Bellevue, WA 98006 The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit 1 ERC Report Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4 Exhibit 5 Exhibit 6 Exhibit 7 Exhibit 8 Exhibit 9 Exhibit 10 Exhibit 11 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 13 Exhibit 14 Exhibit 15 Exhibit 16 Exhibit 17 Exhibit 18 Exhibit 19 Exhibit 20 Exhibit 21 Exhibit 22 Exhibit 23 Exhibit 24 Exhibit 25 Exhibit 26: Exhibit 27: Exhibit 28: Exhibit 29: Exhibit 30: Neighborhood Map Winsper Division 1 Final Plat (Sheets 1 through 4) Valley Vue Overall Preliminary Plat Plan (Sheets 1 through 3) Valley Vue Preliminary Plat Plan Topographic/ Boundary Survey Map (Sheets 1 and 2) Grading and Drainage Plan Sanitary Sewer and Water Plan Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan Tree Retention-Replacement Plan (Ll.O, Ll.1, and Ll.2) Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Geotech Consultants, Inc. (dated May 27, 2014) Preliminary Technical Information Report ("TIR") prepared by Land Development Advisors, LLC (dated December, 2013) Critical Areas Study prepared by Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC (dated September 4, 2013) Construction Mitigation Description Fire Truck Access Exhibit -Figure 1 Roadway Easement (Recording No. 5705702) Mutual Releases of Easement (Recording Nos. 20140627001668, 20140627001669, and 20140627001670) Public Comment Letters: Dalen; Klaas; Klaas Schultz; Perteet; Smith Staff Response to Public Comment Letter: Dalen; Klaas; Klaas Schultz; Perteet; Smith Public Comment Email to Chief Peterson (received by CED on August 19, 2014): Klass Letter to Mr. Bob Ferguson, Attorney General (received August 25, 2014): Klass Letter to Dennis Law, City of Renton Mayor (received August 28, 2014): Klaas Letter to Dennis Law, City of Renton Mayor (received September 9, 2014) -includes signatures, a letter to Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer of Renton Mayor and a letter to Chip Vincent, CED Administrator Institute ofTransportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition (Land Use 210, pages 295-321) Advisory Notes to Applicant Report to the Hearing Examiner Notice of Complete Application Renton School District's Capacity Response Letter Environmental Review Committee (ERC) Staff Report (dated June 18, 2015) Environmental "SEPA" Determination, ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Exhibit Cover Page-Valley Vue .. eliminary Plat Page2of3 July 14, 2015 Exhibit 31: "On Hold" Notice Letter (dated October 1, 2014) Exhibit 32: Applicant's Letter for a Request for Continuation (dated April 15, 2015) Exhibit 33: "Off Hold" Notice Letter (dated April 27, 2015) Exhibit 34: Street Modification Request Exhibit 35: Street Modification Request Response Exhibit 36: Public Comment Letter from Winsper Community HOA (20 signatures) Exhibit 37: Staff Response to Winsper Community HOA Exhibit 38: Public Comment Letters: Klaas Schultz Exhibit 39: Staff Response to Public Comment Letters: Klaas Schultz Exhibit 40: Public Comment Letter: Gangwish Exhibit 41: Staff Response to Public Comment Letter: Gangwish Exhibit 42: Public Comment Letter: Klaas Exhibit 43: Staff Response to Public Comment Letter: Klaas ______ ,,,,.,,,,,.,.,.Rent O Il DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT City of ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT Entire Document Available Upon Request £RC MEETING DA TE: Project Name: Project Number: Project Manager: Owners/ Applicant: Contact: May 18, 2015 Valley Vue Preliminary Plat LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD Clark H. Close, Associate Planner Rory Dees, Rad Holdings, LLC, 1040 W. Lake Sammamish PKWY SE, Bellevue, WA 98008 Jon Nelson, Land Development Advisors, LLC, 12865 SE 47'h PL, Bellevue, WA 98006 Project Location: 3106 and 3112 Talbot Road S, Renton, WA 98055 --------------------------------- Project Summary: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review and Preliminary Plat Site Area: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: --------------------·"- ERC Report 14-001040 approval for a 9-lot subdivision. The 2.3-acre site is located within the Residential-8 dwelling units per net acre (du/ac) zoning classification. There are two single family residences (3106 and 3112 Talbot Road South) located on this parcel that gain access to the site from Talbot Road South and are part of the Black River Basin. The single family house located at 3106 is connected to city water and sewer and would remain and be incorporated into the subdivision as Lot 9, while the house located at 3112 is on a septic system and would be demolished. Together the nine (9) residential lots (8 new + the remaining single family house) would result in a density of 4.23 du/ac. Residential lot sizes range from 4,502 sf to 18,169 sf with an average lot size of 7,954 sf. In addition to the 9 residential lots, four (4) tracts are proposed for access roads, sensitive areas, and stormwater detention. The eight (8) new residential lots would be served from Winsper Division No. 1 Subdivision (Tract G and Tract H) via two dedicated ingress/egress easement areas of 24 feet in width through the development on 5 32nd Place. There are 142 significant trees on the site and the applicant is proposing to retain 27 original trees. A detention vault in the westerly portion of the site is proposed within Tract D which would discharge into the existing conveyance system on the east side of Talbot Road. The applicant has submitted a Critical Areas Report, Preliminary Technical Information Report, and a Geotechnical Engineering Report with the application. The site contains a Category 2 wetland in the far eastern portion of the site. No impacts to critical areas onsite are proposed and existing slopes on the site average roughly 6%. 99,994 SF (2.3 acres) Staff Recommends that the EnvironmPnbl Review Committee issue a Determina 1NS-M). EXHIBIT 1 ------- :;;,;;; --""";;"!l ,,-_,,,,,_,.,,.. """~"""'"' 1 1 I I 5 avn .. !08WL z; lCWi •• 3nA ,(311\fA :JTJ 'S9N1Q10H U'f~ c;VW 1!"1130 000H~08HOJ3N ,:;.;;-w·,w• •,fS'ilij¥" ,,_ •• '" ···"'""'-' "''"'"' EXHIBIT 2 WINSPER DIVISION A ;'..ZQR CF Tt"'E SW 1/4 CF SEC 29 ANG THE SE 1/4 CF SEC 30. i 23 N, R SE, 'N.1;,i. DEDICA7ION f,CKNOWL.EJGEMENTS "~~~!;~;''.'.;.;~·:,,:; ''., ~"" c,,o o• ,,,,·, c:s~_;;,., ,,~-:,,,,,_ '"' ,,, ·;., -. ,~.,. :•,•:·~"~"~' . KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON 1_F$AL DESCRIPTION -~.~~, ,, ,,,,,. . =~· --~ ,-~~' SURVE~DR'S CERTIFICATE -~~ co r .,._.,-' '·~ ·~ .,,., ,.,,~,,,~,tr u.~~ ""'' o~ ,.,.. "(. ""£" •fi.. ·~e '" '" ,~, ,,.,,,u.Il ~,.,,,,~;, ~0;~·:~; .. ~:~:~; ~;~::;~'ia:ir ,·:-~ .. "~~~~"';, "''::~~ ~-~,, ~ ~::;" ~ ... ,,,1,1 H-C',,>'.'SJ>" ,,., "'~'"''~f.~ .~, s--~~~ ·~-~.:-.·-· T~acntc~. ·~-~ >CL · .,.:.,,:,~r~T~ -~~ ~~,-~,.,,,: ,s ~,.~~" '"l'E~s:c, ,,,, '" ,,., c~~~•c-_. ~" -,., r,cc·,·~ L '"~"~' ntck :•, ,COM;>\·-~,: .,,., '_, :>"-H-~ ···- c';,;cs·;~;w,~.t-·,~. ~,•·11,,\\·r.~~c,t.\'.lC~s .. .. ... -,,, " EXHIBIT 3 WINSPER DIVISION A FOR OF TYE Sl'i :1/4 OF SEC 29 AND THE KING COUN1'Y, SE 1/ 4 OF SEC 31J, WASHINGTON ' 23 N, R SE< APPROVALS FI"JANCE DIRECTOR'S CERTIF!Cl•.TE ·:-"·' ,, ·~·•·Y. r:es '· '.';"<;s~GC •.>',i,-,·W'l ~-•·;.or.'<·~~•~/>,,~ >nCL~-l> "'' <:ASc :,~,o, >l<l>+n ,,,;,~~ _.,..~, vninsH •-••nc»·· ;). "'~'''0 ~~.,"" ~""•t:.-.. "r "" ~.:·.;1t,, "~ c.-c ~c,,.o~,r,.· NATIVE .·GROWTH PROTE:'CTION"-EASEMENT RECORDING CERTIFICATE b9t1-Uft1JJ2., RESTRIC7IONS ~: ~~:,,~~ .. ~:,.:_',~:,,t '' ';,•; .. ;;;,;/' 0 ~:s "C-' s~<,. ~L Cl~'<,· r• ~-r:~, cr;,,e~ · i . .( !----·;- I !il41 PO'!'l'flL *YENUf S.W. SUIT{ 100 11£Nl'OW. W~5ttff'l(,TOfol tto~5 PHONL [U)fi! Hl·Slill ' 0 WINSPER DIVISION A POR. OF THE S'~ :1/4 SEC 29 ANO THE SE 1/4 OF SEC 30, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON ,C•'"C •c ~ ·------ "·_," u G :\ ·., ,, ---1\ .. L_ --.- ' J "I 1 ti -~._ ~ o•; u• "'····-' "·-'" ~-c·HI~\ -1, BA.-...D fiLE·1JO 109'1"-Z:! 23 N,, 4 n h. 5E, J BASi.$ ,Of !EA~iNGS ,t~,,;U'>!fD U:GEND ' ... ,.. ,.. -"' .. ~ ;.,':""..;:."'~~:::.~=•M ~ '"''"'"'l"UN -"'""'hfc/i0.0,.,~~-~etf-"·"· "'"''., .,. '"' ,...;-, '~ . WINSPER DIVISION A POR. CF THE SW 1/4 SEC 29 ANO THE SE 1/4 OF SEC 30, KING COUNTY. WASHINGTON CURVE TABLE - - --- ., i'fll. LC. fl;_ f ~Q. :C~7 • 2::! LEGEND -' ---- .. -., PAlYATELY OWNED OPEN SPACE TR~crs tJ,:;s;s Of' BfARllsGS ~S3~MEC: T_ 23 N., I·-=! . 5E, W ,'M, t ~ C • 50 SCALE -----r-·----_-_-_ --,::,;:, I:",(:' I" •50' - ·.. : : : -,, '' ~ .. -.. "' ~---- 1 I < z - ' i 1 ' ' I ,----- i [_ I, I' 1: ,.0 " 11 -J_ _j --r; .. ;;; .. -i ~-,----- ~ r ~ , ( "' _J EXHIBIT 4 = - < > / ' 8 ~ } i I -- • " ~ ! • "' ,!II: ,Jlli s ~ a ~ ' :,, . l JL ·-,~ ~: •. ,_f ~II i .. ~I~ •1 I, I I I l -..... __ --'----- ~9!-~11~ I -[\ __ / /' If / / i ,-.;-~ ..:::. .l:'. :.:.;.,.; ·""' ....... "~ '--"• < > i /~. . ffl". ~-,. [' a ~-<'f_ .. -~·t . .. •: ·r· ., ,001 , ·"' "', -~ .... , -~ (~ .. ......... ~ ... ;> •---1 /} ' :ii .. ,• ;;,,: ?'. -': _;; /::; >: 0 ::2 ::7 7;' ..,.·2 -z. 'j 2 '/8 'I : i I f.-J.-~---· L ~ ~:: ~ > ::5~ a:-> --~ >--. •--'-' -'~ - :i --~- 'j • .. EXHIBIT 5 ,I I i I i.· l ,2, '··' ' , ·. ,. ,. 1 I I I' ii ii ii Ii Ii ~ 11 01 c; 11 ~··11 (:,: s:.:! ,! ._,., !: M I I r I ,. EXHIBIT 6 .l ;_; ' _·:-~b I ·, ; 1; '-:., re:~. :<:1- ·• C "-Hd.)' r: ·--·· . ii ·'· --l: ·: ,:; '{ 1---. I j ,~ • J r-.· i I I I Ct.) N 0 O'l If') 0 m f: N 0 M : I I . I . (".':]1f_;,;;,:,<f, ;;;,, 1n11 i1n~;, :;--:; 'SSN;(I '()f! (,ii>:! i '' ( ~ ) ~ \: ,-.'. ... ,,•\ 'I! : j;; i EXHIBIT 7 I I I I I ! I I I I D A·~·---""'"'""'"'""•'~' .....,; D»ob:=1 "'1,WO'f, .• u: !/J~',fF ,,m,..,,,.,. """''"""~ ,i .... fr,.,l~ ll l ! SANITARY SEWER AND WA 1'ER Pr.Ar. ?RELJMINARYFU\T RAD /iOLD/NGS, LLC VALLEY VUE i ' I ,.__ • I '1 ! ~' 1 ,, . ! f I EXHIBIT 8 r-·r '.i'o ti <~!? -Cd ld },.2, rts!rY:! "!::Jcid N'l"'fd C)'Y/(ilt":l/J (!?fc!D,\•1.Li.rl:) ]'J?,.J. I?;!-· .. v a I 0 .. .., •. ,-.. f .I,, ---r. (~ '' 01 \:..,J ---~ EXHIBIT 9 ci "' cj w (J) l',i l ' l m i a J,:; l' !; -t,, ;''1 ' j .. ' 1 ~-'·-·-----· - !'"• 1-" ; // ,, • --i~ :.\"" ,b. ~~.,, 1{} l:~-1' .. ~ 1 ~' • > C, .. ~ ·• • ~--· . l ' l 'Jll UJ z :::; :c 0 ~ :a t 'NOlN3H Ub J.08 Iv l CL ~i::9m£ NV1d lN3~38Y1d3H·NOllN~l3H 331H 'SclNIUlOH OVd -l 'fld JG/\ .,.Jll'A I. .. ~-----~-~ -~·8,0.?,l;,p]N 'iii I • , • • ! 3 I ~ ~~"- --Ir .;-',,,, . , }"',_ {"'~ () 1,12 lf\6 • ii! • ';; 'S ," ~\, ·""'-r"' u j ' l ' l (~ r I 1' T I f- i;g I X LU z :3 a. f-z lJJ 2 ~! <t: __J Q. LU er z 0 ;:: z w f- t,;! EXHIBIT 10 ,·,J.lcel" ·J·'-"i'' ' :! ',';! H . .g, ill I H1 I: .'-1 :I ,. '\l (0 'N01N3~ Otl 10 .... ,~1 n~C,90~£ NV1d 8NllNVld 10l 1Vnld30NOO '.) n 'S,JNIU"iOH OY>:J -l Vld Jn,\ .\JllY.~ ' ·--_i_ ' I _ J. I ~I UJ a. < 0 (/) 0 z <• ..JI j-: o: _J' ..J < ::, ti: w (,) z 0 (,) C\J ,.... ....J GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. RAD Holdings, LLC 1040 West Lake Sammamish Parkway Southeast Bellevue, Washington 98008 132:6 \"0rL1'::'JSt 2.0rll Street, Suite 16 Dch."1l:e, \Vashington !JS00.5 (,'115) 7,;7 5618 'FAX ('t'.5) 7...:7"8561 May 27, 2014 JN 14177 Attention: Rory Dees via email: rorydees@hotmail.com Subject: Transmittal Letter -Geotechnical Engineering Study Proposed Residential Development 3112 Talbot Road South Renton, Washington Dear Mr. Dees: We are pleased to present this geotechnical engineering report for the residential development to be constructed in Renton. The scope of our services consisted of exploring site surface and subsurface conditions, and then developing this reoort to provide recommendations for general earthwork and design criteria for foundations, reta:ning walls. and pavements. This work was authorized by your acceptance of our proposal, P-8823, dated September 6, 20·13. The attached report contains a discussion of the study and our recommendations. Please contact us if there are any questions regarding this report. or for further assistance during the design and construction phases of this project. TRC/MRM: at Respectfully submitted. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. ~C~n,PE. Senior Engineer G'.:::OIECH CONSUL T,'\NTS, iNC, Entire Document Available Upon Request EXHIBIT 11 PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT ("TIR") Valley Vue 3106 Talbot Road South Renton, WA Parcel No. 3023059028 Prepared for: RAD Holdings, LLC 6252 167th Ave SE Bellevue, WA 98006 Prepared by: ,/·/~-~/ // Land Development Advisors, LLC •12865 SE 47th Place .Sellevue, WA 98006 { 425) 466-5203 December, 2013 Entire Document RADX-001 _ Available Upon Request 1 _______ _ EXHIBIT 12 CRITICAL AREAS STUDY FOR RAD Holdings, LLC -3112 Talbot Road Tax Parcel No. 302305-9028 Acre Project #13039 Prepared By: Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC. 17715 28'h Ave. NE Lake Forest Park, WA 98155 (206) 450-7746 For: RAD Holdings, LLC Attn. Rory Dees 6252 167'h Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98006 September 4, 2013 Entire Document Available Upon Request EXHIBIT 13 V:tlky Vue Proposed plat: ,\pplicant: Rory Dees. 1040 W, Lake Sammc,mish Pkwy SE. Bellevue. W.\ QB008 206 715-4559 102J059028 Requesting: Submiltal for Subdivision Construction \litigation Ocscription: Pmpascd co11srmctw1u/yres: June I, 2015 io September JO, 2015 Hours n/ ope11111on: 'vl-F 7 AM to 6 PM, Saturday 9 AM to 5 f'il,L Sunday no work [)rnpnscd hau!ing;transportation routes: On the west end of the propctty: \vh1;n accessihle Ltlbot Rocu.i South to B~nson Drive S. Othcrwi::;t:;. out the access cascmt:nts kH.:akd along S. 32 Place to Smithers Ave S lo S .32 Street to Talbot Road S to Benson Drive S. :\ 1fe,1sures to ctmtrol dust: Creating a section of quany spall rock path for trucks to "·l~ar ~in::s. tire brnshing. and ,vatcr washing. Spi.:::cial hours of operation: Not anticipated to be needed Pn:liminarr Trcrl(ic Control Plaw waived EXHIBIT 14 ' i ~ :I: 1-1 c,:, !:l """' u, ' \ ' 0• \ C, "t", / ' ' / / --1 / ' ' ' ' ' SEC. 3(). TWP. DN., HG£. SE. WM. 1 \ // .. ··,,\ /, ' ' \ e,, '"' ·\ ' I ~( / " \ \ \ \ \ ' I i \ \ \ \ ' \ \ \ ! I 1\ \ \ 1 , \\J ! \\ \ l ! ;L f.AS1M!lv.' ' ; !,) A(lJ \ 8 a a ~ UJ a :,, ' l{) 'I ~ i a I < .1 t·1\.-·' l \\ \ I \ / / I (/:J OC,p:'.) ,l'A ( -, '. [r,\ \ <})~ ,.,.,0(::, I \ / / T, 1 \ 1 'v_ ' \ \ . ' > \ ,._--\ \ 1 I 01 TL-fr s 7rJ,' \ ... ),·\ -\:cs\ 1 \ / / 0 \ ---/1\ ~.} '""\ \/\ I / \ 1,,'·'I\ , . -,-~ / \ I I .. ---...... -~-.:~--~~ ·-\ / / 7 --;,-, :: .::-+ -r';_b~f-;1..:: -;-· =:.r~·r-'.;r ~00 =,,-/ -··1 ~'9~1~·10::;1--~,. ,· ..... , • f/J ~ ' 7 ~ I -' -•• · °' ~~-"-/ / . _, /.;,>-C / I .. r,1j2:;·=:J.::::=;:::: .,,i:,1\--_ ><·, \.:!.t" _ 52.43_' _ I ____ __ £ i __ ) /'.. / ---····" \, . ' \ ...,( _,_ .\\ V \· --..... \ \ ' ' '. _,. ...... \ ' I, C, \ . 0"1 \ \ ' ' I "OGE OF Pf\VE\iENT I \ \ ·HH.E l R.UC!'\ l JRNl~~G f{AlJ1: I \ / / ',~ \ ,,../ I ' ' -z---\' / ,/ ' \ ~-~\c ___ jGAS_.-----.. -CAS-·--GAS----\ .... ·., .!:''\···----~')----·-· vi;;;~// " ~ ~\"---~ --\~ \ \ \ " V' 1b(j) \ .------ /:-; J l' '" 0 ' ----. ______ ' \',a;IQ i ' ' S<F:(;,1,;x1,; ' i 11 ! ;~ ' i a~:~ :~ ·.; ,, ~ 'it '{I!- ~: ,, Ci 'i' /;j ~ ~ '" " " "' " C) " i'c ;;j is ~ .... C .... " :;: ; ,,; .... :, {~ '' 8 I,..~ 0 C) j " ... ,_ _, '°"Ill!* {'. ...J :.; ~ f1··· ~ '.; j ~i 1 ~ r 1n <11 ci \ ~ RADXOC'1 HG. 1 ,• 11':S vil .~11 ~ £', ~r h~r in~~r·~~s ,lczt-tH.d"ibttd I dot:1 ,rrdt. ~n *':i•tJ:n•rt' (<$1: t'cut 0orti1.).~ ot ;th1i rt\'.>rt\, 100 toet r,f· th, n-a.rtht•ei.:d, -"':1 ·tcJr ,:i.f th."~ :,(;itH!1,1u1t"'i,Uar.tnr in. -;~ct.inr1 ;JUt rn .. ,ahlYJ 2,1 ;I.)rth, 1-:til.}ig•~·:>0~.1.1.ld:1 in King Ccnmtyj l.1.»J.Jdn~to1q 1y1.ng uu'\ l'.lf ,~h• f\'tl.l,;,llfL',qf dooc:rHie-d. !in~; tugirrning 11t a po~nt bl1 Mu, north l in?o tt' ·tl __ aid 1ub_dJvi dMA. •hteh ii ~orth B9 3''3~1 r,•\_,000 fett fro~ thd nnrth~~~t cJJ:n,-r thH"it>of: thctu?\l ;ou.U1 l :S2 1 l'2"' ¥tft'!t to the :touth ; inro or l1J1;1•J 100 ,teJ-i. EXHIBIT 16 _;. ' • Return Address: Roben D. Johns 11 ,1 11 i\li~11\1\iu1:l••j1 1u \\lml111\1ll1·itl!\ll:\'ill1 ti i \t11111\ii :m1li\ i\ 1 :11 hmt 1ii ::11,11 20140627001668 JOHNS MONROE EAS 74.00 PAGE-001 OF 003 06/27/2014 14,5g KING COUNTY, UA Johns Monroe Milsunaga Kolou,kova PLLC 1601 I 14~ Avenue SE, Suite 110 Bellevue, WA 98004 EXCISE TAX NOT REQUIRED Klng Co. Rooordll Olvlslon AUDITOR/RECORDER'S INDEXING FORM OR I GI NAL By puty I MUTUAL RELEASE OF EASEMENT ---·---.. --···-----· Document Title<,): .. ·- Granrors: RAD tlOLDfNGS, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; and MYLES G. GILBERT ·---···---·· .. Grantees: RAD HOLDINGS, LLC. a Washington limited liability company; and MYLES G. GILBERT ' ---··---.. Documents l referenced: I 5705702 Lego! Portion of North 100 feet of the NE quaner of the SE quancr of Section )0, Township 23 Description: Nonh, Range S East, W.M., records of King County, Washington (abbreviated) [ r X Additional legal 2 i-::-:---- is on j of document. pages : r i j Assessor's Property Tu Parcel/Account Numbers: 1302305-9028, 302305-901 I -- - MUTUAL RELEASE OF EASEMENT RAD HOLDINGS, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; and MYLES G. GILBERT enter into the following Mutual Release of Easement: Recitals A. On February 26, 1964, Ella P. Baumgardner executed a Grant of Road Easement over and across property she owned which granted a roadway easement over the south 20 feet from west to east over the following described property: That portion of North I 00 feet of the NE quarter of the SE quarter of Section 30, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., records of King County, Washington, lying easterly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the north line of said subdivision, at a point on the north line of said subdivision which is north MUTUAL RELEASE OF EASEMENT -l EXHIBIT 17 Return Address: Robert D. Johns Johns Monroe Mitsunaga Kolouskova PLLC 1601 l 14~ Avenue SE, Suite 110 !Jellcvue, WA 98004 AUDITOR/RECORDER'S INDEXING FORM ORIGINAL Document Title(s): MUTUAL RELEASE OF EASEMENT ____ ... I Granton: RAD HOLDINGS, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; TERRANCE W. I MACLEOD and KATHRYN J. MACLEOD, a marital community __j,· Grantees: RAD HOLDrNGS, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; TERRANCE W. / MACLEOD and KATHRYN J, MACLEOD, a marital community llocuments 5705702 referenced: i ""···-·"--·-· ' Legal Ponion of North 100 feet of the NE quaner of the SE quarter of Section 30, Township 23 Description: Nonh, Range 5 East, W.M., records of King County, Washington (abbreviated) .. .. _ I XI Additional legal is on 2 of document. pages .. Assessor's Property Tu Pareel/Account Numbers: / 302305-9028; 302305-9029 MUTUAL RELEASE OF EASEMENT RAD HOLl)INGS, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; and TERRANCE W. MACLEOD and KATHRYN .J. MACLEOD, a marital community enter into the following Mutual Release of Easement: Recitals A. On February 26, 1964, Ella P. Baumgardner executed a Grant of Road Easement over and across property she owned which granted a roadway easement over the south 20 feet from west to east over the following described property: That portion of North 100 feet of the NE quarter of the SE quarter of Section 30, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., records of King County, Washington, MUTUAL RELEASE OF EASEMENT -1 Rtturn Addr~s! Robert D. Johns '.·. ·1,·,1····1··· 11··t· '·.···~t·l'' tl·'·l\'·.··1··:·· 111 1111 ·1···· tt·· .. 11···!\\ 1·· 1 · 1 I 1 ·· \l 1 · 1 :··It' ' I ,I .,,, 'I ' 1· ,, ' ' "' ' I' ' ' I ': I \ji : '. 1.: I!' 1 1 ' :< : i .·, ii ( 1 1Hi 1;1,, I I ld,1:111111~ ii1I :~ I :Ii 20140627001670 JOHNS MONROE E~S 1,.00 PAGE-001 OF 004 06/2717014 !4159 KING COUNTY, UA Johns Monroe Mitsunaga Kolouskova PLLC 1601 I 14~ Avenue SE, Suite 110 !lellevue, WA 98004 AUDITOR/RECORDER'S INDEXING FOR~ 81.G I NAL --------·--- I MUTUAL RELEASE OF EASEMENT Document Title(<): Grantors: RAD HOLDINGS, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; SKINNERONE, LLC, a Washington limited liability company. Cnrntecs: RAD HOLD!~~S, L~~.-~ Washington limited liability company; SKl~~~O~~. ;-,~-~ Washington limited liability company. , Documents 5705702 referented: .. I legal I Description: Portion of North IOO feet of the NE quarter of the SE quarter of Section JO, Township 23 I I (abbreviated) North, Range 5 Eas~ W.M., records of King County, Washington I -_j I I I I I X ! Additional legal is on i2 ' I of document. ! I ! pages ! I ' ' -I ! I Assessor's Property Tu ParceVAcc~untNumbers: [ 302305-9028; 302305-9033 MUTUAL RELEASE 0~' EASEMENT RAD HOLDINGS, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; and SKINNERONE, LLC, a Washington limited liability company enter into the following Mutual Release of Easement: Recitals A. On February 26, 1964, Ella P. Baumgardner executed a Grant of Road Easement over and across property she owned which granted a roadway easement over the south 20 feet from west to east over the following described property: That portion of North I 00 feet of the NE quarter of the SE quarter of Section 30, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., records of King County, Washington, MUTUAL RELEASE OF EASEMENT -l Clark Close from: Sent: To: Subject: Good morning Clark, Dalen, Doug J <doug.j.dalen2@boeing.com> Friday, September 05, 2014 9:46 AM Clark Close Valley Vue Preliminary Plat/ LUA14-001040, ECF, PP I just wanted to get my written comments in prior to 9/8/14 to meet the deadline. I just purchased a house at 721 5 31" St, Renton WA and found out that the property adjacent to my new home is likely to be wiped out and replaced with a bunch of new houses. My concern is that when I bought the property, one of the big selling points to me was the beautiful treeline and the privacy it created in my backyard, which according to this land Development proposal could be severely compromised- or even wiped out entirely. It states that the developer intends to retain 27 original trees. Is there a way to find out which ones as some of them are very big, and likely very old. I am concerned about the destruction of all this landscaping, the shade the trees provide as well as the animals which live back there will be displaced causing them to invade surrounding areas and create potential traffic hazards. Also, I worry about what impact this will have on the property values surrounding the site. I would like to be made a party of record on this matter and kept informed on any further developments and/or decisions made regarding this matter. Thank you, Doug Dalen 721 S 31" St, Renton, WA 98055 1 EXHIBIT 18 Clark Close From: Sent: To: Subject: Ginny <vklaas4@comcast.net> Tuesday, August 26, 2014 7:52 PM Jennifer T. Henning; Clark Close; Steve Lee; Vanessa Dolbee Valley Vue LUA14-001040 Recently the Winsper neighbors gathered to review the Valley Vue plan (LUA 14-001040). As discussed during my meeting with Clark on 8/8/2014, the neighbors feel the proposed plan falls short on a number of significant issues involving safety, access and drainage. The neighbors discussed the following five items that do not meet City Codes; 1) The two access "private streets" coming off the Winsper Development. These proposed roads would be solely for the purpose of serving the four houses in Valley Vue behind the existing homes in Winsper. City Code (4-6-060 J) states: Private streets are allowed for access to six (6) or fewer lots, provided at least two (2) of the six (6) lots abut a public right-of-way. None of the new lots will abut a public right of way. These new roads provide no service to the pre-existing homes in Winsper. 2) City Code 4-6-060 J.2. states: Minimum Standards: Such private streets shall consist of a minimum of a twenty six foot (26') easement with a twenty foot (20') pavement width. The two easements indicated on the platt map are 24 feet wide and do not meet the minimum City Code standard. 3) Both proposed private roads are longer than 150 feet, and neither appears to have the required turn around for Fire and Emergency vehicles. Ordinance 5517 states that streets 150-300ft in length must have a dedicated hammerhead turnaround or cul-de-sac. I spoke to Fire Chief, Corey Thomas, last year and he indicated that this is an issue. 4) The front eastern edge of my driveway a long S 32nd Place is just over one foot from the access easement property line. This does not allow for the five foot required setback. I am terrified that a driver may mistake my driveway for the access road and run right into my house. There are no provisions for a safety/privacy barrier, planting strip, sidewalk or other buffer zone on my side of the easement. 5) The City of Renton memorandum date January 3, 2013, and substantiated in the City Codes "General Ordinances of the City of Renton (4-1-110A, and Ordinance 5676), as well as the King County Urban and Residential Zoning Document, requires a minimum sideyard-street setback of 15 feet. I wrote to Gerry Wasser about this in 2013 and he stated: "The required setbacks for Zone-8 are: Sideyards-5 feet, except 15 feet for sideyards along a street or access easement." Several of the neighbors have noted that neither of the easements are wide enough to accommodate a 15 foot sideyard-street setback from the existing houses, and still have the space needed for a 20 foot road. Variances to accommodate a road for vehicle traffic would be dangerous to the residents of the abutting houses given the current five foot (or less) sideyard setback. Ordinance 5517 and 4-6-060 specifically state that the codes are intended to establish design standards and development requirements for street improvements to insure reasonable and safe access to public and private properties. Allowing variances of these standards, compromises the integrity and value of the City Codes, and exposes the community to reckless hazards. Not having a basic safety element in street standards to protect pedestrians and homeowners sets a poor precedence and puts the public at risk. This places an unfair burden on the residents of Winsper. The original Dees plan called for access off of Talbot Road, not off the Winsper easements. Frankly, given the numerous variances that would be required to gain access from the Winsper easements, and the multiple safety concerns, retaining the access to the property where it has always been off Talbot Road, seems the prudent choice and would require the least amount of variances. I know that Clark had indicated that the Talbot access was a problem because a "Private Road" can serve as access for a maximum of six lots, and that since the Valley Vue lot is 2.3 acre, six houses would not meet the minimum requirement to mitigate against "urban sprawl". Surely, City Code does not place a higher value on urban sprawl prevention, than it does on public safety. I understand that at the 7/16/2014 Renton Planning Commission meeting a proposal was made to change the code for Private street standards because they are generally undesirable and do not provide elements such as sidewalks, landscaping, and create dead-end streets, which reduces connectivity in residential neighborhoods, and are maintenance issues. The proposal was to only allow private driveways and completely delete private roads from the City Code. The access easements off Winsper do appear to meet the current Code for a "shared driveway" which requires a minimum 16 foot easement and maximum 12 foot paved driveway, each of which could serve as primary emergency access for 3 homes. In addition to the access issues, there are numerous drainage issues that the neighbors are concerned about. l wasn't surprised to see that the geotechnical report indicated that the drainage issues on the property were significant enough to require mitigation and disclosure to anyone purchasing one of the new lots. They also recommended that; ""Geotech Consultants. Inc. should be allowed to review the final development plans to verify that the recommendations presented in this report are adequately addressed in design .... We recommend including this report, in its entirety, in the project contract documents. This report should also be provided to any future property owners so they will be aware of our findings and recommendations." The owners of Winsper already know that there is a problem with drainage from this property, in fact, there is over a 32 foot drop from the rear of tract B (wetlands) to the rear of Tract C (storm drain). Due to the issues on the property, two houses in Winsper that abut the southern property line have already experienced flooding in yards and under the 2 homes due to excessive n, .. off from that property. Many o, us installed french drains and sump pumps at our own cost to mitigate the issue. My drainage system lies along the boundary between the east side of my property and the easement, and will likely be destroyed during development. With the increase of impervious surface, storm water runoff will no doubt increase is well. Please request that the new drainage system be installed along the property line to protect the Winsper homes from this increased flooding risk. The project calls for a six inch curb-gutter for drainage along the access easements. Since the access will intersect an existing street, we would like the curb-gutter design to match the standards of the Winsper development (18 inch curb-gutter). This will also aid in drainage of excessive runoff in times of heavy rain, and aesthetically would be much more attractive. This is consistent with the Renton Community Design Element Goals purpose to improve the aesthetics and functionality of existing neighborhoods. The Valley Vue Project Narrative states "current zoning is R8, 5445 square feet minimum per lot", yet two of the lots don't meet this minimum. (Lot 7-4,796ft, and Lot 8-4,502 ft.); these therefore do not meet the aforementioned standard. Once the required hammerhead turn around is incorporated into the plan, Lot 7 likely will not meet code. I propose that these two lots be combined into one lot so that they are similar to in character to all the other lots on the project (all other lots are 7, 127-7,654 square feet). The neighbors also discussed the disruption and general loss of peace and enjoyment during the peak summer months that construction would cause as heavy equipment, trucks, and building materials traveled through the neighborhood bringing noise and dust. The plan calls for working M-F plus Saturday. We request that the development NOT occur on the weekends. We would like to preserve our weekends for family and a sense of well-being. Virginia Klaas, M.D. Place ( 425) 271-6760 618 S 32nd Renton Wa 98055 3 Clark Close From: Sent: To: Subject: Mary Klaas-Schultz <mklaasschultz@gmail.com> Wednesday, September 03, 2014 9:36 AM Clark Close Valley Vue Proposal Concerns I object to plan (LUA 14-001040) as proposed because it does not meet the Standard Codes adopted by the City of Renton. I understand that sometimes the Codes con offer a little variance to get a project developed, but think that this proposal is asking for to many adjustments at the expense of the surrounding community. Each time a waiver is granted it minimizes the value of Standard Codes and Regulations and sends the message that the rules can be negotiated. Frankly, I'm shocked to learn that the City helped coordinate this proposal with the developer. It is the people of Renton that pay the expense in sub-standard developments. As proposed, it seems that the Volley Vue project would require the following adjustments to use the access routes proposed; • Private Streets: o Width should be 26 feet, not 24 o Street-Side yard Setback should be 15 feet from each house, clearly not enough room as the access easements are only 24 feet. o Fire Turn around for streets longer than 150 feet, Turnarounds ore at the end of a street, not the top. This is a basic safety element; I think the King County Fire Marshall would agree. o Required houses to abut a public right-of-way, none of the new proposed house abut a public street. In addition, I'm concerned with the proposed density with the known water and drainage issues on this parcel. Just because the parcel allows for RS, doesn't mean that it should be built out ta the highest infill allowed, especially if you have to bend all the Codes to make it happen! I do not object to the parcel being developed, but would like it to be developed with a plan that makes sense given the constraints of the parcel. It should also be developed within the boundaries of the standard codes that are in place to ensure the integrity of developments and the safety of the community. Mary Klaas Schultz 618 S 32nd Place Renton, WA., 98055 1 Clark Close From: Richard Perteet <cougar_rich@hotmail.com> Monday, September 08, 2014 11:26 AM Clark Close Sent: To: Subject: RE: Valley Vue Preliminary Plat -LUA14-001040 Clark, thanks for the rapid response to my request for more information. [ don't really have time to respond in depth but a few comments: • The survey information is not stamped/signed by a registered land surveyor. An ALTA survey would be appropriate to identify any encroachments. • There does not appear to be any pedestrian access (sidewalks). This is an undesirable design that appears to be dictated by the narrow access reserve from Winsper. I believe that pedestrian access should be part of every development. • There are topographical features that will make the construction of the two access roads virtually impossible without encroaching onto the existing developed properties, especially the proposed easterly access. How high will walls be and how will they be constrncted? What safety features will be included to protect vehicles, pedestrians, and adjacent housing. This should be addressed in the environmental documentation. • The project narrative states that "Existing fire hydrants in Winspur are within the acceptable distances to serve the subdivision." The existing hydrants are not show on the plan, nor is there any justification for the statement. • R.c\1C states "Private streets are allowed for access to six (6) or fewer lots, provided at least two (2) of the six (6) lots abut a public right-of-way." None of these lots abut a public right-ot:way. • The project narrative states that no HOA will be required. 'There should be an HOA to provide for maintenance of the private roads and drainage systems, and possible participation in the existing Winsper HOA to offset impacts by new residents on the park-like setting maintained by Winsper residents. • Applicant has prepared a soils report but relies on generalizations about the site's soils. Include the soils report for the site in the environmental documentation • Street lighting should be required. • It is pretty widely acknowledged that extensive underground mining took place in this area. The environmental documentation should include a discussion of this as it may impact the future homeowners. • The discussion in the environmental checklist of "designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity" does not include the large areas in the adjacent Winsper subdivision. Those areas arc maintained by the Winspcr HOA, There needs to be a discussion of this resource and the potential for the proposed subdivision to contribute to its maintenance since their residents will obvious! y use these area. Thanks Clark. As you can tell I put this together pretty quickly to meet this afternoon's deadline but I think I hit the high points. I will be unable to attend the scheduled public hearing. (BTW, it would be nice if all of the information in your attachments was available on-line). l Rich Perteet From: CC!ose/£i;Rentonwa.gov To: cougar rich(i;)hotmail.com Subject: RE: Valley Vue Preliminary Plat -LUAI4-001040 Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2014 15:22:59 +0000 iv1r. Perteet, Thank you for your r~quest regarding Valley Vue Preliminary Plat. Attached is some additional information about Valley Vue. The City of P.enton Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has not made a determination on the submitted application. Once the staff report is complete and a determination has been made the document will be posted to our website at http://www.rentonwa.gov/business/ def a ult.aspx >id=5458 Please iet me know if you need any additional information at this time. Comments based on the Notice of Application must be submitted in writing by 5:00 PM today. http://www.rentonwa.gov/uploadedFiles/Business/CED/PLANNING FORMS/Valley%20Vue%20PP NOA 14-001040.pdf Thanks again, Clark H. Close City of Renton ·· Current Planning Associate Planner From: Richard Perteet [mailto:couqar rich@hoqn_s,il.com] Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2014 3:32 PM To: Clark Close Subject: Valley Vue Preliminary Plat -LUAl 4-001040 Are there any more specific documents about the proposal other that what is shown on the map link from your web page? There does not seem to be any details of the development, the MDNS, etc. I would like to review the documentation (on line if possible). 2 Thanks, Rich Perteet 734 S 32nd St Renton 98055 Sent from Windows Mail 3 Clark Close From: Sent: To: Andrea <6gkmimi@comcast.net> Monday, September 01, 2014 10:03 AM Clark Close Subject: FW: Concerning Valley Vue Preliminary Plat ( LUA14-001040) From: Andrea [mailto:6qkmimi@comcast.net1 Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2014 2:42 PM To: 'cclose@rentonwqa.gov' Cc: 'Cvincent@Rentonwa.gov'; 'mpalmer@rentonwa.gov' Subject: Concerning Valley Vue Preliminary Plat ( LUA14-001040 ) To Whom it May Concern: As residents of 3111 Smithers Ave. S. in the Winsper Development, we are very concerned about the proposal the Valley Vue Development. It appears that a number of city codes that are currently in place would be waived so that the Valley Vue homes can be built. These include side yard setbacks, minimum easement width, emergency access and the requirement for two of the homes to abut a Public Right of Way. The codes were established for solid reasons and variances should not be easily granted. Safety is a paramount concern. Not only would the current properties in Winsper, be dangerously close to the proposed road which would be required for Valley Vue, but would also be difficult for emergency vehicles to access without an appropriate turnaround. r believe that the city needs to adhere to the current standards to protect public safety and to ensure confidence in the integrity of the planning process. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Andrea and William Smith 425-254-1706 1 ---D~e,~1:1~:0:L,aw _______ ......... r J~itr?' h . ' .. . J.~ r 11~.,LlllJ September 8, 2014 Doug Dalen 721 S 31'1 St Renton, WA 9805$ Community &Economic Development Department C.E. ''Chip"Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: VALLEY VUE PRELIMINARY PLAT COMMENT RESPONSE LETTER LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MO,D Dear Mr. Dalen: ... / ·/1' -"I__.· ,&l Thank you for your comments related to the Valley Vue Preliminary Plat; dated September 5, 2014 wherein you raised concerns regarding the proposed project. Your letter/email will be added to the public record for conside.ration by the reviewing offidal and you have been added as a party of record. As a point of clarification, the City has yet to make a decision on the proposal. The applicant, RAD Holdings LLC, has only made application for Preliminary .Plat and Environmental Review for the subject development and a decision has yet to be made. You received a notice soliciting public comment and these comments are used to help City staff complete a comprehensive review which wHI continue over the cor11ing. month(s): There are a variety of tree species on the Valley Vue site, including deciduous and evergreen trees. There are approximately 142 trees over 6 inches in diameter on the proposed land to be developed. After dead, diseased or dangerous trees, private access for street improvements, critical area deductions, and the minimum requirement to retain 30%, the applicant is proposing to maintain 27 trees of the original trees over 6 inches in diameter. The applicant is also proposing to plant 66 new trees (minimum required replacement trees) at 2" DBH. The proposed tree retention plan identifies nine· (9) trees to be retained in the critical areas and buffers, four (4) within the Native Growth Protection Easement and 23 along or near the northern property line with the Victoria Park #4 Plat. See attached Tree Retention Worksheet and Proposed Tree Cutting/Land Clearing Plan for more information. This matter was originally scheduled for a public hearing on October 7, 2014 at 12:00 p.m., Council Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. As a party of record, you will be notified when a new public hearing date is set. Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 980' EXHIBIT 19 r- Thank you for interest in this project and if you have any further questions please feel free to contact me at 425-430-7289 or cclose@rentonwa.gov. Thank you. Sincerely,. Clark H. Close Associate Planner City of Renton Tree Retention Worksheet · Proposed Tree Cutting/Land Clearing Plan, Valley Vue Preliminary Plat LUA14-001040 cc: File LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD ~) {~_ icL,(/ ~1_·_ Denis Lciw -'1111111111111,l!"~t....-~·,t~------:._: liayoc :. r } ~ ~;rry ()l( le/ o· ' r l (~?.( --~:. .... 1111111111 ___ ... i: "'\ ~· · I .· · · ,J,=·. r September 2, 2014 Virginia Klaas 618 S 32"d Pl Renton, WA 98055 . fc \ , · ·L; .. · : ! J. ·.· . .J r,>,-,:,, c.,...,,..._;. ...__.,........,,,,,,. ..._~ ...,, "..__t--"*' ~ '. s Community & Economic Development Department C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: VALLEY VUE PRELIMINARY PLAT COMMENT RESPONSE LETTER LUA14-001040, ECF, PP Dear Mrs. Klaas: Thank you for your comments related to the Valley Vue Preliminary Plat; dated August 25, 2014 wherein you raised concerns regarding the proposed project. Your letter/email will be added to the public record for consideration by the reviewing official and you have.been added as a party of record. As a point of clarification, the City has yet to make a decision on the proposal. The applicant, RAD Holdings LLC, has only made application for Preliminary Plat and Environmental Review for the subject development and a decision has yet to be made. You received a notice soliciting public comment and these comments are used to help City staff complete a comprehensive review which will continue over the coming month(s). The applicant is requesting a street modification, from the private street requirements found in Renton Municipal Code (RMC 4-6-050J.2) in order to allow access and utilization of the existing 24-foot private access tracts (Tract G and Tract H; APN 948575- 0570) that were recorded in March 1989 under Winsper Division I Subdivision for future ingress, egress and utilities to Tax Lot No. 28 (the "Valley Vue" parcel). The modification from the twenty six foot (26') easement for private streets is being requested as a result of the two foot (2') deficit, from current Renton Municipal Code, found within Tracts G and H. The modification request for the private streets will included the minimum twenty foot (20') pavement width. Additionally, no sidewalks are required for private streets; however, drainage improvements pursuant to City Code are required. The City has the ability to approve the modification, approve with conditions, or deny the request. Additional items identified in your email/letter include: fire emergency turnarounds; side yard setbacks along a street or access easement; street standards; public safety Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov concerns; drainage issues; curb-gutter design; zoning, density and minimum lot sizes; and project construction hours. This matter is tentatively scheduled for a Public Hearing on October 7, 2014 at 12:00 p.m., Council Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. Please feel free to attend. Thank you for interest in this project and if you have any further questions please feel free to contact me at 425-430-7289 or cclose@rentonwa.gov. Thank you. Sincerely, Clark H. Close Associate Planner cc: File LUA14-001040, PP, ECF Denis Law C · t o __ •:Jayo:.., ____ ,.,,,,,-,! [: µ). ~1-rr ... rg·(. .·.:. r.:l September 3, 2014 Mary Klaas Schultz 618 S 32nd Pl Renton, WA 98055 . t '•, A' t: , ;, .. · ·· ,___. ---.,..;,..___,_ --'- Community & Economic Development Department C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: VALLEY VUE PRELIMINARY PLAT COMMENT RESPONSE LEITER LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD Dear Ms. Klaas Schultz: Thank you for your comments related to the Valley Vue Preliminary Plat; dated September 3, 2014 wherein you raised concerns regarding the proposed project. Your letter/email will be added to the public record for consideration by the reviewing official and you have been added as a party of record. As a point of clarification, the City has yet to make a decision on the proposal. The applicant, RAD Holdings LLC, has only made application for Preliminary Plat and Environmental Review for the subject development and a decision has yet to be made. You received a notice soliciting public comment and these comments are used to help City staff complete a comprehensive review which will continue over the coming month(s). The applicant is requesting a street modification, from the private street requirements found in Renton Municipal Code (RMC 4-6-060J.2) in order to allow access and utilization of the existing 24-foot private access tracts (Tract G and Tract H; APN 948575- 0570) that were recorded in March 1989 under Winsper Division I Subdivision for future ingress, egress and utilities to Tax Lot No. 28 (the "Valley Vue" parcel). The modification from the twenty six foot (26') easement for private streets is being requested as a result of the two foot (2') deficit, from current Renton Municipal Code, found within Tracts G and H. The modification request for the private streets will included the minimum twenty foot (20') pavement width. Additionally, no sidewalks are required for private streets; however, drainage improvements pursuant to City Code are required. The City has the ability to approve the modification, approve with conditions, or deny the request. Additional items identified in your email/letter include: fire emergency turnarounds; side yard setbacks along a street or access easement; private street standards; and density. Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 , rentonwa.gov This matter is tentatively scheduled for a Public Hearing on October 7, 2014 at 12:00 p.m., Council Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. Please feel free to attend. Thank you for interest in this project and if you have any further questions please feel free to contact me at 425-430-7289 or cclose@rentonwa.gov. Thank you. Sincerely, Clark H. Close Associate Planner cc: File LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD Ortobec 1, 2()14 f'fr:hard P2rteet /34S3z'1dSt Renton. WA 98055 Community & Economic Deve;opff1ent Depart:-r1ent C .C, ''Chi;::" Vi ncei1 t, Adm i ni s tra:or SUBJECT: VALLEY VUE PRELIMirJil.RY PU\ T COMMENT nEsPONSE lETIER LiJAl4-001040, ECF, ??, MOO Dear Mr. Perteet: ·r11ank you for your comments related to the Valley Vue Preliminary Plat; dated September 8, 2014 wherein you raised several concerns regarding the proposed project. Your letter/email will be added to the public record for ccnsideraton by ,he reviewing official and you have been added as a oarty of record. The applicant. RAD Holdings LLC, '1as ony made application for Preliminary Plat and Environmental Review for tile subject development and a decision has yet to be made by the City of ~enton. You received a notice scliding public comment and these comments are used to ht:!µ City staff cvmµletf:! a t'Omprehen~ivt> review which will :ontinue over the coming month{sj. 1-he fo!!owing commerts are in response to an email sent to the City. , The survey information is not stamped/signed by a registered land surveyor. An ALTA survey would be appropriate to identify any encroachments. 1\ topographic boundary survey was completed by Mitch T.S. E•1ans, professional Land Surveyor of Axis Survey & Mapping of Kirkland, WA on August 28, 2013. Please see attached. , There does not appear to be ,my pedestrian access (sidewalks). This is an undesirable design that appears to be dictated by the narrow access reserve from Winsper. I believe that pedestrian access should be part of every development. City street standards nre rnbject to Renton IV11nicipal Code (RIVIC) 4-6-060. The City of ,ienton will olanjor, design, and construct transportation projects to appropriately provide Gccommcdat:i·Jns for pedestrians, bicycli:its, and tronsit riaers of all ages and obilities~ and fn?iqhr arid motor venic!es, jncfudmg the incorporation of such facilitie,; into transportation plans ana programs. HVIC ,!-6-060F.2 Minimum Design Standards for Public Streets or,d AJ!Pys r2quires sidewalks fer the following functional cfass!ficaticns: Principal /\r!eria( i'v!inor ,t\rterfm, Conimerciai-{vlixed I.he~ tndustriai, & f\!eighborhond Coi!ecror ;;tteriaJ, Commerciai~ 'Aixed Use & lndustrTaf Access~ Hesi<Jential Access, and Limited Hesidentia! Access. A/1.::ys rurrently do not require sidewa.1ks nccording to RMC. Side1-vafks mcy be con-Jitioned '.)y tr'e Near:ng Exc:mfnr':r os p 1:;r~ cf tt;e pre!jmir:ory plat hearing precess. There are topogrziphicai -features tt"lat 1Niil make the co11s.trnttion of th,e two access roads virtually impossible without encroaching onto the euisting developed properties, especially the proposed easterly access. How high will w;ills be and how will they be constructed? What safety features will be included to protect vehicles, pedestrians, and sdjacent housing. Tliis should be addressed In the environmental documentation. In crder for improvements to be constructed within the rwo access roc;1,)s or potentially rronto the existing developed properties" the Oty of lienlon Hearing fxarr-iner l_:VOiJd have to :][unt the applicant ,J modification from the private str1'?et standard requirements :der~~if;'ed in ii MC 4·,6-0601 and the p1oper!y owners wo1.,fd havr: ro urrJnt c1ccr1s,; rights w :fie oeve1oper, CfU StGff w:11 likely not be supportive of the modification isased on publ,c cammenrs received and due to the proximity of the proposed roads to existing residential development. Based on tlie Graaing and Drainage Plan, the keystone retoi111rg wall nos a proposed maximum height of two jeet (2') and the concrete retaining wall /Jes a maximum he1)ht of four feet {41). The apµlicont is proposing cement concrete vertical curb and gull.er wnf u six foot /6'! high fence, above rhe concrete retaining wall. on the east access oniy. These items are being addressed as part of the review process. Steff hos 0 equested the appiicant submit a revised street profile or "Access Hoad Section" to reflect a reduction in the road pavement that i.'i campiinnt with Renton ;'\!Tunicipcl Code (r/MC) >1-G·060!<. Prooosed so/utio~s that address public safety and screening are encouraged as port of tile design and resubmi,tal process. Please noter/Jar staff will oddress public commentr during the course of the riview, fr1 order to rniti-;;ate the associated impacts between a netv shared driveway end he existing homes within the VVin5per Olvisfon 1 Subdivision. The project narrative states that "Existing fire hydrants in Winsper are within the acceptable distancas to serve the subdivision." The e•isting hydrants are not shown on the plan, nor is there any justlflcat:on for the statement. ll/ew hydrants shall be fn5talicd per .Rentor/s fire departmenr standards to provide tt.e required coverage ofa/1 lots. A minimum of cne j,re hydrant is reqi;ired within 300-jeet o! the proposi?d builrlings a:1d two hvd:-ant~ if the fir'! flow goes up to 1,500 gpm. Existing fi."e hydrants con be countedtcward the req'Jfrements as fonq as they meet current code in duding 5-inch storz fittings. A cond1tio'I of approval of the proposed plot, due to existing steep grades on existing access roadwc,y.s nnd proposed dead end streets, will be to ha',!e at/ proposed homes be equipped with approved res1dentwi fffe sprinkler systems. , KMC states "Private streets are ai!owed for '3cccss to six {-6) or f!::!'Wtff tots, provtded at least t,·,m (21 of the six (6) lo!s abut a public right·of-way.' None of these lots abut a public r!ght of-.w~y. ~-r,t: copli.:or:t hos ret;up_,;red a modif.ic1tion fro:n Re11ton lV1unjcfpn! CotiP (RlviC) _i,-o a!faw occess ~hrou;,;11 the existir-1g tracts and /5 proposing t"O serv? four {4 1 lots off of each nccess :cod. !/~a:f ;1as mtet v1ith the ap;.iicont to fet them !mow thct the 9xistinq access ea:;ements do not .?1eet t0e required 26 foot ;v,~fth ond would therefore not be <cmp;'i(Jf"!t: \Mth 1-?fdC v1iti?our a modification .~ra;f hes pfuced t:.he project on hold and requ2sted the applkcnt resubmit o plat plan that is compt:ant with rl:e sh::irec1 i.1nv2wa/s st:1ndard o/ the Renton A·1unicipu! Code (Rt'v1C) 4~6~060K,. as this wnulrf fit w;thin the ex.i.stinq arcAs., ;,a,;empr,t v1idth of 24 feet and would not require the apµrovof of a rnodlfic;:;tion. , The project narrativa states that no HOA will be required. There shou.d be an HOA to µrovide for maintenance of the private roads and drainage systems, aod possible pa,ticipation in the .~xi sting \,\/ins.per HOA to offs.et impacts hy new r-P,;lde,ts. on the park~ like setting maintalr:ed by Wins per residents. Home Owners As~oc'otions ore t;1p1co1ty a cunditian of prefiroinliry plat approval, 0 Applicant has prepared a soiis report but relies on generalizations about the site's soils. include the soils report for the site in the enviro11mentai documentation. ·ihe oppiicant submfrted u Geotec:hr,ical Engineering Study by Gectecl1 Cons:1/tants, frJc as p.u I' of the rnumitteJ ,nutt"riuis. irie scope of work co,:1sisted of exr;ioring site surface and subsurface conditions, and then developing a report to provide recommendatiors for general earthwork and design criteria for foundations, tewining walis, and paveff!ents. !his informatwn will be cor;5Jflered by The Env1ronrr;entat Review Committee before making a SFPA determination. • Street light:ng should be required. lCD street /;g/itmg meeting C,ty oj Renton Staniorcs 1s reowred. • it is pre Uy widely acknowledged that extensive underground mining ;ool< place in this area. The environmental documentation should include a discussion of this as it may imo.:,ct the future homeowners. r:ity of Henton COR Maps ident,fie.< high coo/mine hazards rougiliy 2,250 feet north cf the property and an unc!assified coalmi;ie hazard roughly 750 south of the subject property. The subsurface conditions were explored by Geotech Consu/,ants, inc. on May 21,. 2014 with a smai! excavator. The four test pits found topsoil that had a thickness of abour one foot iJe!ow 1/?e t,:;psoil, Test PJt 2 encormrered loose to medium~dense silt with sand. Belo'/•1 this .silt in rest Pit:!~ and beneath the topsoil in thp other Pxplorntfons, iooc;p to medium-dense siity sand viith gravel wa5 encountered. This material included pieces oj dense s1Jt in Test Pits 1 end 2. The s-ilty sanrJ with gruve! becar:1e 1N:cfium~dense at o depth of about 2 to 3 feet, and dense nt a depth of abnut 4 to 7 jeet The de(Jse silty sand with gravel extended to the muxiHurn i!epth of llir: test pits, 6 lo 8,3 /t:e! ln;;fuw the :,urfuce, The Geotechnical Enciineering 5tu,Jy would be made avoilnb1e to twy future oroperty owners so they wifl be aware r;f Geotcch Consudonts, Inc. findings and recommendations, A request for public records ma, he suiim,rted to rlie City Clerks, Ci,y of Renton, 1055 5 Grody Woy, Renton, WL\ 980S7 , Tha discussion in ,he e1wironmental checklist of "d2signated Jnd inform~! recreational opportunities are 1n the immedlJte vicinity" doe.s net irldudc the large areas in the :;djacent Win,per subdivision. fhose areas ate maintained by the Winsper HOA. There needs to be a discussion of this resource and the potential for the proposed subdivision to contribute to its maintenance since their residents will obvio·osly use :hcse area, ~tojf will incorporate this comment into the overall re;iew oj the project. Thank you for interest in this µreject and if you have any fucther Questions please feel free to contact me at 41.S 430-7229 or cdosc@rcntonwa.ga'J. Sincerely, Clark H. Clase ,\ssociate Planner lopogr;;iph:c Boundafy Survey Gr.;ding a11d Drainage P!an ~c: rre LUA14-001040, [CF, PP, MOC September 2, 2014 Andrea and William Smith 3111 Smithers Ave S Renton, WA 98055 Community & Economic Development Department CE. "Chip"Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: VALLEY VUE PRELIMINARY PLAT COMMENT RESPONSE LETTER LUA14-001040, ECF, PP Dear Mr. and Mrs. Smith: Thank you for your comments related to the Valley Vue Preliminary Plat; dated September 1, 2014 wherein you raised concerns regarding the proposed project. Your letter/email will be added to the public record for consideration by the reviewing official and you have been added as a party of record. As a point of clarification, the City has yet to make a decision on the proposal. The applicant, RAD Holdings LLC, has only made application for Preliminary Plat and Environmental Review for the subject development and a decision has yet to be made. You received a notice soliciting public comment and these comments are used to help City staff complete a comprehensive review which will continue over the coming month(s). The applicant is requesting a street modification, from the private street requirements found in Renton Municipal Code (RMC 4-6-0601.2) in order to allow access and utilization of the existing 24-foot private access tracts (Tract G and Tract H; APN 948575- 0570) that were recorded in March 1989 under Winsper Division I Subdivision for future ingress, egress and utilities to Tax Lot No. 28 (the "Valley Vue" parcel). The modification from the twenty six foot (26') easement for private streets is being requested as a result of the two foot (2') deficit, from current Renton Municipal Code, found within Tracts G and H. The modification request for the private streets will included the minimum twenty foot (20') pavement width. Additionally, no sidewalks are required for private streets; however, drainage improvements pursuant to City Code are required. The City has the ability to approve the modification, approve with conditions, or deny the request. This matter is tentatively scheduled for a Public Hearing on October 7, 2014 at 12:00 p.m., Council Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. Please feel free to attend. Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way , Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Thank you for interest in this project and if you have any further questions please feel free to contact me at 425-430-7289 or cclose@rentonwa.gov. Thank you. Sincerely, Clark H. Close Associate Planner cc: File LUA14-001040, ECF, PP Clark Close From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: FYI. From: Mark Peterson Chip Vincent Tuesday, August 19, 2014 11:27 AM Clark Close Vanessa Dolbee FW: Valley Vue Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 10:55 AM To: Chip Vincent Subject: FW: Valley Vue I received this over the weekend. Mark Peterson Fire Chief/Emergency Services Administrator City of Renton Fire & Emergency Services Dept. 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7083 [napeterson@rentonwa.gov From: 'virginia klaas' [mailto:vklaas4@comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2014 10:11 To: Mark Petersen Cc: yklaas4@comcast.net Subject: Valley Vue Fire Chief Peterson, EXHIBIT 20 I am writing to you regarding an infill project being proposed behind my house in the Winsper development (Valley Vue project LUA14-001040 ). I previously had correspondence with Fire Chief Corey Thomas a year ago, however at that time the foll project proposal had not yet been submitted and a project number had not been assigned. On August I, 2014 a new application/ proposal was filed. The new plan has a higher density development and I am very concerned about the safety clements. I understand that this project is now being reviewed for emergency access and would ask that you consider some of my concerns when you review this project. The proposal calls for eight new houses to be accessed from two -24 foot easements and developed into a private street/driveway from the Winsper development, both longer than 150 feet . The easement to Tract C 1 (west) borders my property line anu parallels my driveway on the west side. I mu concerned because the proposal docs not meet the minimum private road casement of 26 feet, or the minimum side yard-street set back of l 5fcet which is the requirement in R8 zoning. This access is to have a 20 foot paved surface flanked with six inch gutters because the property has a drainage issue. The access abuts my entire eastern property line for I 00 feet. As proposed, it would be within seven foet of my living room bay window, and two feet from the side of my backyard fence, before arriving at the new houses. The access than continues for an additional 76 feet, to solely serve the four house that are being proposed in Tract C. You may notice that the plans for this 176ft access street/driveway does not have the required turn around for emergency vehicles. I am very concerned with the lack of setback from the paved vehicle path and my house. The angle of my driveway could easily be mistaken for this access by a vehicle. I am terrified that a car will nm off the road right into my house! There is no planned planter strip, sidewalk, lighting or retaining wall on my side of the proposed "private street"! My understanding from reviewing the Planning Code is that the Winsper easements can not meet code requirements for either a private street or a private driveway. I am adamantly opposed to granting a variance on required setbacks, easements and fire access. Doing so degrades the integrity of the Codes and puts that public at risk. Public safoty should not be sacrificed to prevent urban sprawl and support dense infill projects. This parcel has been accessed off Talbot Road for over 40 years with an existing 20 foot access road. The developer suggested that the topography was to steep for fire access. However, the garbage truck has no problem making the hill, and the GeoTech report states that the lot has an average of six percent grade. In addition, it's the smne grade/hill the Winsper development is on. I would like to propose that from a safety stand point, it seems prudent to have the Talbot access serve as secondary fire access, and to develop the casements in Winsper as private drives, with 16 foot paved flanked by the style of gutters in the Winsper development, with keystone walls on each side to define the access and offer protection to the abutting homes. Thank you for your consideration, please call me if you would like a yard tour, or have ideas that may address some of my concerns. I'm seriously wondering ifI should sell my home of 20 years. Thank you for your time and consideration, Virginia Klaas MD 618 S 32nd Place Renton, V(a. 98055 vklaa.s4@comca~~.net This email request originated from the following link: http://rcntonwa.gov/lire/ 2 Mr. Bob Ferguson, Attorney General PO Box 40100 Olympia, \VA 98504-0100 August 21, 2014 Dear Mr. Ferguson: RECE\VED AUG 2 5 2014 CITY OF RENTON Pl.ANNING D!VOON I am writing to ask for your support of the Renton Winsper Community request that no variances to access be allowed bv the Renton Planning Department on the proposed Valley Vue project (LUA 14-00 l 040). I understand that local planning decisions are not something usually reviewed by the Attorney General, however, a process that routinely allows variances of adopted municipal codes and development standards does not meet the public expectation that codes and regulations to protect them are in place, and are enforced. Briefly, the parcel, zoned RS, is a 1.99 net acres (100 by 1,000 feet) lot with an approximately 76 foot drop in topography from the eastern wetland to Talbot Road on the west. This parcel is currently improved with two houses that have been accessed off Talbot Road with a private easement on the southern property line for over 50 years. The plan is to leave the existing western house on a .55 acre parcel, and develop eight new homes, behind the Winsper Development on the remaining 1.44 acres. These new homes will be accessed by two 24 foot casements which run between existing homes in the Winsper Community. The proposed plan falls short on a number of significant issues involving safety, access and drainage and puts an inequitable burden on the Winsper Community. As presented, the project simply does not meet a number of City codes, including side yard setbacks, minimum easement width, emergency access and the requirement for two of the homes to abut a Public Right of Way. At only 24 feet wide, neither of the easements from Winsper meets the minimum 26 foot easement required to accommodate the planned "private street". However, it does appear tl1e easements could meet the 16 foot easement requirement for a 12 foot paved "shared driveway", each of which could serve 3 houses. I went to City Hall to discuss these problems with the City Planner and was told that the developer would simply need to submit for a variance. I am dismayed that this is the proposal that was coordinated with the City planner and developer and I am appalled at the disregard for City Code. The previous proposal had the development accessed off Talbot, but was changed to accommodate the density infill requirement. [ t' s interesting to note that the City density calculation includes the entire l.99 net acres, instead of the 1.44 acre which is really being developed. I have been told that the developer abandoned the existing southern access easement on 6/27/2014, just before submitting this latest proposal. I would hate to think this was an act of strategy collusion to get the project through, but really what other compelling reason could there be to abandon an easement that has served for over 50 years, before the other property is developed? EXHIBIT 21 The front eastern edge of my driveway a long S 32nd Place is just over one foot from the access casement property line (see picture). The plan is to pave a 20 foot street with an additional 6 inch gutter on each side. A keystone wall is proposed for the ea,t side, leaving about one foot on each side. This plan results in considerably less than the 15 foot street-side yard setback required in R8 zone. My living room bay window is about 7 feet from the proposed street. I am terrified that a driver may mistake my driveway for the access road and hit my house! There are no provisions for a safety/privacy ,_ _____ .... __ , --~--'-~"-"'""' _ .. __ . ___ ..... _ ' ' '['l ---.. ___ ... , ..... -., ... -·-·-.. --~-' ~ ' -'·-···--·-,.....· :, UF:.,< T:<;•J t ~E<';' (ft',' •~IS \J.AH'l!IO:, / ---- barrier, planting strip, sidewalk or other buffer zone on my side. How can this possibly he considered good planning? In closing, I would like to stress that I am not opposed to this property being developed or accessed off the Winsper Community. What I object to is the apparent indifference to the standards that are in place to protect public safety and development integrity. I have looked at the decision criteria used in granting discretionary variances and think that this proposal fails to meet criteria. Granted variances are to be minimal. Surely, the City of Renton does not place a higher value on urban sprawl prevention, than it does on public safety. Private street standards were reviewed at the July 16, 2014 Renton Planning Commission meeting and a proposal to change the Code is in process. The staff report suggested that private streets arc generally undesirable and do not provide elements such as sidewalks, landscaping, and create dead-end streets, which reduces connectivity in residential neighborhoods. They also noted that maintenance is an issue and often repairs are neglected. This could potentially be detrimental to the Winsper Community and our HOA dues would not cover repairs of a private street. I appeal to the State for support to ensure that the codes and regulations adopted to protect public safety are adhered to. Sincerely, ti~ £/~AO. Virginia Klaas, M.D. 618 S 32nd Place Renton, WA 98055 (425) 272-6760 cc: Denis Law, Renton Mayor, Charles Vincent, Director, Department of Community and Economic Development (CED) Jennifer Henning, Director, CED, Plam1ing Division Vanessa Dolbee, M,mager, CED, Planning Division \Jarcie Palmer, Council Member, Planning and Development Committee Don Persson, President, Renton City Planning Council ~---- ,,. ...... Renton Community Design Goals Amended (09/19/11/partial list) Purpose Statement: The purpose of the Community Design Element is to establish policies that set standards for high quality development, improve the aesthetics and functionality of existing neighborhoods and commercial areas, and guide the development of new neighborhoods that are part of a better community. Recognizing that the exceptional quality of life in Renton is dependent upon a strong local economy, these policies are intended to further that economic health. They are based on the belief that a positive image and high quality development attracts more of the same. Goals: 1. To raise the aesthetic quality of the City, 2. To strengthen the economy through high quality development, and 3. To ensure that a high quality of life is maintained as Renton evolves. Goals that Conflict with proposed Valley Vue Development proposal: Policy CD-16. Project design, including location of access and dimensions of yards and setbacks, should address privacy and quality of life on existing improved portions x of sites. Rear and side yard setbacks should be maintained and not reduced to facilitate increased density. Policy CD-17. Setbacks and other development standards should not be reduced on newly platted lots through modification or variance to facilitate increased density. Policy CD-44. Development should be designed (e.g. site layout, building orientation, setbacks, landscape areas and open space, parking, and outdoor activity areas) to result in a high quality development as a primary goal, rather than to maximize density as a first consideration. Policy CD-45. Interpret development standards to support new plats and infill project designs that address privacy and quality of life for existing residents IV-9Amended 09/19/11 Policy CD-46. Variances to development standards should not be granted to facilitate additional density on an infill site. Policy CD-47. New plats proposed at higher densities than adjacent neighborhood developments may be modified within the allowed density range to reduce conflicts between old and new development patterns. However, strict adherence to older standards is not required. Policy CD-56. Office sites and structures should be designed (e.g. signage; building height, bulk and setback; landscaping; parking) to mitigate adverse impacts on adjacent land uses. Mayor Denis Law Renton City Hall 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 August 26, 2014 Dear Mayor Law, • RECEIVED AUG 2 8 2014 MAYOR'S OFFICE I have been a happy resident of the Winsper development in Renton for over 20 years and have contributed too many community events and causes. I have worked al Valley Medical Center for 19 years and have been a good citizen and neighbor. I have had little opportunily or need lo work with City government until recently. Unfortunately, my first exposure has not been good, and I am left to believe that we have system of non-transparency, slandard codes that aren1 worth the paper !hey are written on, and maybe even inappropriate use of power/collusion. I know !his sounds a bit over the top, but honestly, the more I learn, the more concerned I become, so I am appealing to you as the leader of Renton. I first went lo City Hall and the Planning Department to get more information regarding a proposed infill projecl abuWng my properly in early 2013. Gerry Wasser, the Senior Planner, was vary helpful explaining the application process and assuring me that I would be notified in mail if the proposal went forward and would have an opportunity lo comment I asked lo be kept in the information loop because I had a vested interest. The original proposal never moved forward, and I never heard from the Planning Department In July, I contacted the Planning Department because !here was new activity on the abultlng parcel, and I suspected that the proposal was moving forward. Indeed, a new proposal with denser infill had been submitted (Valley Vue Preliminary Plat (LUA14-001040). Gerry Wasser had retired, and Clark Close, Associate Planner, would be the project contact. After reviewing the development proposal, I had numerous concerns regarding access, setbacks, road developmen~ and emergency access. The nine house development would be served by two 24 foot access roads between existing houses in the Winsper developmenl The proposal is to pave 20 feet of the 24 fool easement on a 176 foot long road, and waive or allow variances on slreet-side yard setback, street width, and even fire access codes. I asked the Mr. Close how this proposal could meet the standard codes and was shocked to find that very liberal Interpretation of codes, and variances to allow an infiM project that meets density requirements were standard procedures, not just an occasional exception to the rules. I live In one of the Winsper houses that abut an access easement. Here's a picture of my house and the proposed access into 'Tract c· of the Valley Vue development I am very concerned if variances are allowed on the street standards requ~ed in Code 4-6-060, a car will dlive light into my house. Please note the yellow lot lines, slreel curve, and the impact to my yard, front, side yard and back. The lot line crosses into my driveway, and is less than a fool away from my walkway, and roof line. My living room bay window Is wiillin a couple of feel of this proposed new street as well, yet lhere seems to be a willingness to waive codes and not require elements lo protect safely and development integrily. This seems to contradict the reason for having codes and !he Renlon Community Design Elements Goals, and does not meet the public expeclation that codes and regulations to protect them are in place, and are enforced. I asked Mr. Close about the folloV/ing specific standards found in Ordinance NO 5517, referencing minimum slreet standards, that you signed into law to ensure good development and safety standards in 2009; • 4-6-0GOJ-Private street 26 foot easement , 15 foot streel-sideyard setback, serve six or fewer houses, provided at least 2 of the six abut publlc right of way and there Is a fire tum around for slreels longer than 150 feel. (The proposal doesn't meet any of these standards.) EXHIBIT 22 • 4-6-060-H-Dead end streets: Limited Appllcalion: Cul-de-sac and dead end slreets are limited in application and may only be permitted by the Reviewing Official where, due to demonstrable physical constraints, no future connection to a larger street pattern is physically possible. (Connection to a larger street (Talbol) is possible, and is how the property was accessed for 50 years.) • 4-6-0SOK: Shared driveways: 16 foot easement minimum. 12 foot paved maximum, can serve up to four lots, up to 3 lots as emergency access additional lots must front a street, minimum turnaround requirements for length more than 150 feet. (These easemenls could meet these standards by reducing the number of houses served from 4, to 3 which would leave room for the required turnaround as well. If the developer still wanted 9 lots, a third access off ofT al bot could accomplish this, as well as provide a secondary fire access.) This alternative would be a much safer option for the public and Winsper Community. I was told that an amendment to 4-6-060 standards was currently being reviewed, because Private Streets have become a maintenance issue and undesirable access, so the code is now up for interpretation. The standard codes that I thought were in place lo regulate and o~er safety, are in fact negotiable! Frustrated with the Planning Department, I decided to appeal to the Fire Chief, Mark Peterson, who would review the project to ensure that the proposal meets fire code. Clearly, it does not. I sent a letter detailing my concerns about road width and length, abutting houses, and required tum around. Chief Peterson indicated that as the City has interpreted it, the project meets code berause the paved road is 20 feel, and the fire turnaround Is being proposed as the Winsper cul-de-sac on 3200 Place_ Street setback requirements and abutting houses are beyond the fine code review. I asked If having a turnabout at the beginning of the road instead of the end was standard fire code. He indicated that they don't like the situation, but ii meets the leclmical aspects of the Fine Code. The idea !hat ii is OK to have fire personal run 176 feel down a road for emergency access is ridiculous, and accepting it as 'meets coda' is a mockery of the standand codes put in place to protect the people. I decided to contact the King County Fire Marshan to see if this really did meet Fire Code. Klng Counly apparently Is not as liberal with code interpretation as Renton. However, Renton is not part of unincorporated King Counly and does not report to the County Fire Marshall, rather to the City Mayor along with other local government entities. I am appealing to you with frustrated concern regarding the liberal Interpretation of basic standard codes, which puts the public at risk for a dangerous accident and can lead to the public perception of misuse of government authority and power. I don't jump to this conclusion easily, but have seen numerous instances within this one proposal that points me in that direction including; • The original project proposal was accessed off Talbot, but was changed by the City to accommodate the density infill requirement (As per my conversation with Mr. Close 8/8/2014). It's Interesting to note that the City density calculaHon Includes the entire 1.99 net acres, instead or the 1.44 acre which is really being developed. The developer had mentioned that access from Talbot would nol meet fire codes because of a steep grade, but in fact Iha average grade is 6%. The garbage truck has used the Talbot access for years to deliver service to rear house about 400 feel east of Talbot. . • I have been !old that the developer abandoned the existing southern access easement on 6/27/2014, just before submitting this latest proposal. It is easy lo perceive this as an act of strategy collusion to get the project through. I can't think of any other reason reason to abandon an easement that has served for over 50 years, before the other property is developed. • The Fire Chief should have authority lo interpret the fire codes and best emergency access to ensure public safety. The City suggesting that a turnaround at the top of the exisang street is adequate is inappropriate and could be construed as tainting the review. The fact, that the Fire Chief acknowledges it's an ongoing problem they don't like, but feel powerless to stop; compounded with not meeting the standard in lhe rest on Klng County, indicates there Is an Issue. Mayor Law, please continue to support the standards !hat you signed into law, and review how the standard codes are being applied and enforced by addressing this Issue and clariffng the decision criterta for granting Coda variances (Ord. 4835) so that variances are only granted as an exception to the rule and minimal, not as tool to make a project fit where it shouldn'L Virginia Klaas, MD 618 S 3200 Place Renton, WA 98055 (425) 271-6760 Project No. LUI\ 14 -00104u, ECF, PP Project Name: Valley Vue Preliminary Plat '·1 i::cc I\'"'') :i .\.-,, t--: &_,,,- To: Dennis Law, City of Renton Mayor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 \Ve the residents ofWinspcr agree with the attached concerns regarding the Valley Vue(Lual4- 001040) project. There are several Codes which are not being met in this project which puts unfair burden on the Winsper Community. We also note that the City has not even followed their own stated Development design policies. l) We all agree, we want NO V ARJANCES to the Code on this project, this puts us at risk for a dangerous event. 2) We want no project development/building on Saturdays. This project will bring much noise, large trucks and lots of dust and dirt into our living space during prime summe1iime. We wish to preserve the weekends for our families and quality life/peace of mind. 3) We request that the developer provide appropriate barriers between the development and the existing lots. This should inciude a planting strip, keystone barrier or other fence between each of the houses along the easement and the access. 4) More traffic on these streets will put our children at risk for a dangerous accident. 5) Parked trucks during the development will reduce parking of residents' cars and reduce space for passing 6. The speed of emergency vehicles will put our children at risk and cause accidents. 7. The noise caused by !lucks and working personnel will affect our children 8) The dust and moisture caused by this work will affect our health; family membei'"with severe asthma 9) Five (5) city codes are being violated, See attachment A. l 0) Our new pavement wi 11 be damaged, such as pot holes, which will cause damage to our vehicles. 11) Prope1ty values of affected home owners. 12) Drainage issue with removal of trees ,md shrubs, See attachment C 13) Street lighting if existing light pole was removed, See attachment C A list of Wiosper residents supporting our concerns are contained in Attachment B. ' ( . /1 ft j,,. 1 '/ n I I) /) ''' ,'' EXHIBIT 23 Attachment A - City codes not met: • 1) A private street requires a 26ft easement, both of these are only 24ft. Decreasing the easement means there is not enough room for proper safety buffers like a planting strip or fence 2) Code requires that 2 of the houses are on a "public right of way' ... all of the houses are behind Winsper .. not a single on is on the "public right of way" 3) A street over 150 ft requires a tum around for emergency access .... a( hammerhead or cul de sac)The City is saying the pre-existing cul-de-sac on 32ru1 is the turn around ... ;that works for the truck BEFORE they enter the 176ft long "private street'' ... but what about AFTER they drive down the road ... how does the truck turn around? Are they saying it needs to back-up? Or are theysaying they need to park on the 32"" Cul-de-sac and run 176ft down the road to the emergency? This is ridiculous I 4) This is ZONE R8 ... it means max 8 houses per acre: anyway zone 8 requires a 15ft sideyard to street set back. None of the Winsper homes along these easements will have that..Jn fact if you were to give 15ft from the house .. the upper easement would only have 2ft left to build a road I This is a matter of safety and privacy I If we are in our sideyard .. we are at risk to get run over! This plan does not give us an appropriarte buffer from the street. 5) Codes says no street should be closer than 5 ft from a driveway. At 32"" Place the easement is less than 1 ft away ... a car could easily mistake the driveway for the street and run into the house. The property appears to meet code for a "shared driveway", which requires a 16 foot easement, a maximum 12 foot wide driveway, and can serve as emergency access to ~ homes. If the City wants more houses on the property, the property could also be accessed off Talbot with either a private street or shared driveway. This is the way this property has been accessed for about 50 years and this is the access initially proposed by the developer. It was the City who pushed the developer to access through Winsper. Project No. LUA 14-001040, ECF, PP Project Name: Valley Vue Preliminary Plat Attachment B Names Address: Phone Number R\.l:oD1)e.A-DA1lA-N4 3/o I 2 .tt.tIP:11:atS Ali-GS !fir. ~ O'J-.1. ~ ::r-Ae:e 1 <n s .. s:2. rv-o 'J::)t • 5 ha con C951..f>sh .zoo > ."32nJ fl .£.. HUOJh,-Nf;;;.UYf N C l.{Q 5 3 -i. .. .,,{ Fl- P1::u)DN&: CHt iNC'7 N ~ N k i?JRJ\-Q tJ JZo(:, ZSJ 116)'" 4,2S' .. 4-3a-S3s 2. L./2. [ ~ 'U./ ~ .s y~ '12.~ -11<1:::_212. 1i25"-SJC?J-Z)t 1 a,;--a 7 7-0'-l o t-/-:25-;;i. 7 7 --{) t./Jl . z<::-z_<;.5,-2-&0L <)26-7 i3 ~r;t 2- 4;is--~~~ __L..,!~~-=-=:.--XJl-!~ll..f-fl,)-L 7 7 -C. 0 6 ~ -Tii111r>f ~l!-M t?JS: _ q 32t1b (r 1~r-r;;-72-1:,11:, 3 (A. ...-1 · kn: r>'I K 4J..5_ -Ji, 7--s 7 r>1 7o3 S,L J.2 ...id s: r..-- ~'.kh b~dc. 7075.!iJ~J.P~ d6'7 l&>lt)-~lf'Qf 0 ~/L-. IL ?Jiop,A.~ 1P 4 ·;,· ? -i.,..J ~ il f i 'i ?1 t ,o ~.., U '(A l ~ "-7 Z'J ~ f Z JJP ~ 4t:., wJ1-9/d.rr L1Llj LUU 1~ >, :3~ 5f (_Q,rv1trn WA-'kfo~ . CneOoll. ~A·~ ;lo! ,ai;the.cs h;v~S,. 1-(20 2..sq gq 0S Bce.o:ao. J;uonei 3)0) &nrih~~ 20b -259-9'Jb5 --:::J-1 o S. 5"lt.-J ,Pl. 6 ~.> ul.., Ui·.Jtt'l 2-.. -z;rz:;/1 . ~2... s=· ;rA · . /..--?, :<r2.1r. ~sz. s 32-tlld Pf, 712E~st6 44 1-i . 1/q • 1. Surface drain issue, if trees were removed --------... Street lighting, if existing light pole was removed Winsper Development Attachment C Smithers Ave South ,+-.J C: <1) E Q. 0 (1) > <1) 0 \... <1) Q. V) C ·-3 u ,+.-I C: <1) E ..c u ro ~ From: Ginny [mailto:vklaas4@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 8:00 PM To: Jay B Covington Subject: Disregard of City Codes by tllose entrusted to administer the Code Dear Mr. Covington, My understanding is that the City Chief Administrative Officer is the provider of leadership and ensuring that city departments carry out the city's mission, business plan, policies and guidelines as adopted by the Renton City Council, and ensuring consistency between Renton and regional decisions. I would think that part of this responsibility would apply to ensuring local government procedure for administrating the Standard Codes, approved by City Council, and signed into law by the Mayor, were followed. If this is not the case, please let me know whom I can address my concerns to. After 20 years of living in Renton, I have recently had my first experience with local planning, and am alarmed to find a process that routinely and liberally allows variances of adopted municipal codes and development standards. This does not meet the public expectation that codes and regulations to protect them are in place, and will be enforced. I am appealing to you as the Chief Administrative Officer to review this process and asking that when variances are allowed that they be minimal, adhere to the decision criteria, and that multiple variances are not allowed on a single project. I am also concerned that non-biased and independent review be allowed by the Fire Chief, which ls consistent with the Fire Code application in the rest of King County. My concerns are based on my dealing with the Planning Department regarding Valley Vue Preliminary Plat (LUA 14-001040.) As presented, the project does not meet a number of City Codes, including side yard setbacks, minimum easement width, emergency access, and the requirement for two of the homes to abut a Public Right of Way. I went to City Hall to discuss these problems and was told that the developer would simply need to submit for a variance. I am dismayed that this is the proposal that was coordinated with the City planner and developer and I am appalled at the disregard for City Code and that variances are allowed so liberally, not as an exception to the rule. I counted al least five variances that would be allowed for the plan to go through as proposed, and many of them compromise public safety. I am very concerned with this proposal and the notion that these five variances may be allowed. Here's a picture of my house and the proposed access to the Valley Vue development. This 24 foot easement is to have 20 feet paved to serve 4 houses. Please note the yellow lot lines, street curve, and the impact to my yard, front, side yard and back. The lot line crosses into my driveway, and is less than a foot away from my walkway, and roof line. My living room bay window is within a couple of feet of this proposed new street as well, yet there seems to be a willingness to waive width and setback codes and not require elements to protect safety (barrier walls). This type of allowance is setting me up to have a car join my living room furniture! Why would this even be considered? It's not a good plan. I talked to Fire Chief, Mark Peterson, about my concerns of access width and length, abutting houses, and required turn around. Chief Peterson indicated that as the City has interpreted it, the project meets code because the paved road is 20 feet wide, and the fire turnaround is being proposed as an existing cul-de-sac on 32°d Place. None of the new houses are on this cul-de-sac; in fact it is more than 120 feet from the closest proposed new home! To be clear, the proposed turn around is NOT at the end of the proposed new dead end road. I asked if having a turnabout at the beginning of the road instead of the end was standard fire code. He indicated that they don't like the situation, but it meets the technical aspects of the Fire Code. The idea that it is OK to have fire personal run 176 feet down a road for emergency access is ridiculous, and accepting it as "meets code" is a mockery of the standard codes put in place to protect the people. I note that access to this property appears to meet code for a shared driveway, which requires a 16 foot easement, a maximum 12 foot wide driveway, and can serve as emergency access to 3 homes. If the City wants more houses on the property, the property could also be accessed off Talbot with either a private street or shared driveway. This is the way this property has been accessed for about 50 years. In closing, I would like to state that I am not opposed to this property being developed or accessed off an access by my house. What I object to is the seemingly flagrant disregard to the standards that are in place to protect public safety and development integrity. liberal application of variances and code interpretation undermines the regulations put in place to protect the integrity of our beautiful City. Surely, the City of Renton does not place a higher value on urban sprawl prevention, than it does on public safety. Sin9~rely, /~ {/~ Virginia Klaas MD (425)271-6760 Mr. Vincent, Recently the Winsper neighbors gathered to review the Valley Vue plan (LUA 14-001040). As discussed during my meeting with Clark on 8/8/2014, the neighbors feel the proposed plan falls short on a number of significant issues involving safety, access and drainage. The neighbors discussed the following five items that do not meet City Codes; 1) The two access "private streets" coming off the Winsper Development. These proposed roads would be solely for the purpose of serving the four houses in Valley Vue behind the existing homes in Winsper. City Code (4·6- 060 Jl states: Private streets are allowed for access to six (6) or fewer lots, provided at least two (2) of the six (6) lots abut a public right-of-way. None of the new lots will abut a public right of way. These new roads provide no service to the pre·existing homes in Winsper. 2) City Code 4-6-060 J.2. states: Minimum Standards: Such private streets shall consist of a minimum of a twenty six foot (26') easement with a twenty foot (20') pavement width. The two easements indicated on the plat! map are 24 feet wide and do not meet the minimum City Code standard. 3) Both proposed private roads are longer than 150 feet, and neither appears to have the required turn around for Fire and Emergency vehicles. Ordinance 5517 states that streets 150-300ft in length must have a dedicated hammerhead turnaround or cul-de-sac. I spoke to Fire Chief, Corey Thomas, last year and he indicated that this is an issue. 4) The front eastern edge of my driveway a long S 32nd Place is just over one foot from the access easement property line. This does not allow for the fwe foot required setback. I am terrified that a driver may mistake my driveway for the access road and run right into my house. There are no provisions for a safety/privacy barrier, planting strip, sidewalk or other buffer zone on my side of the easement. 5) The City of Renton memorandum date January 3, 2013, and substantiated in the City Codes "General Ordinances of the City of Renton (4-1-110A, and Ordinance 5676), as well as the King County Urban and Residential Zoning Document, requires a minimum sideyard-street setback of 15 feet. I wrote to Geny Wasser about this in 2013 and he stated: "The required setbacks for Zone-8 are: Sideyards-5 feel, except 15 feet for sideyards along a street or access easement." Several of the neighbors have noted that neither of the easements are wide enough to accommodate a 15 foot sideyard-street setback from the existing houses, and still have the space needed for a 20 foot road. Variances to accommodate a road for vehicle traffic would be dangerous to the residents of the abutting houses given the current five foot (or less) sideyard setback. Ordinance 5517 and 4-6-060 specifically state that the codes are intended to establish design standards and development requirements for street improvements to insure reasonable and safe access to public and private properties. Allowing variances of these standards, compromises the integrity and value of the City Codes, and exposes the community to reckless hazards. Not having a basic safety element in street standards to protect pedestrians and homeowners sets a poor precedence and puts lhe public at risk. This places an unfair burden on the residents of Winsper. The original Dees plan called for access off of Talbot Road, not off the Winsper easements. Frankly, given the numerous variances that would be required to gain access from the Winsper easements, and the multiple safety concerns, retaining the access to the property where it has always been off Talbot Road, seems the prudent choice and would require the least amount of variances. I know that Clark had indicated that the Talbot access was a problem because a "Private Road" can serve as access for a maximum of six lots, and that since the Valley Vue lot is 2.3 acre, six houses would not meet the minimum requirement ta mitigate against "urban sprawl". Surely, City Code does not place a higher value on urban sprawl prevention, than it does on public safety. I understand that at the 7/16/2014 Renton Planning Commission meeting a proposal was made to change the code for Private street standards because they are generally undesirable and do not provide elements such as sidewalks, landscaping, and create dead-end streets, which reduces connectivity in residential neighborhoods, and are maintenance issues. The proposal was to only allow private driveways and completely delete private roads from the City Code. The access easements off Winsper do appear to meet the current Code for a "shared driveway" which requires a minimum 16 foot easement and maximum 12 foot paved driveway, each of which could serve as primary emergency access for 3 homes. In addition to the access issues, there are numerous drainage issues that the neighbors are concerned about. wasn't surprised to see that the geotechnical report indicated that the drainage issues on the property were significant enough to require mitigation and disclosure to anyone purchasing one of the new lots. They also recommended that; ""Geotech Consultants. Inc. should be allowed to review the final development plans to verify that the recommendations presented in this report are adequately addressed in design .... We recommend Including this report • in its entirety, in the proiect contract documents. This report should also be provided to any future property owners so they will be aware of our findings and recommendations." The owners of Winsper already know that there is a problem with drainage from this property, in fact, there is over a 32 foot drop from the rear of tract B (wetlands) to the rear of Tract C (stonn drain). Due to the issues on the property, two houses in Winsper fllat abut the southern property line have already experienced flooding in yards and under the homes due to excessive run off from that property. Many of us installed french drains and sump pumps at our own cost to mitigate flle issue. My drainage system lies along the boundary between the east side of my property and the easement, and will likely be destroyed during development. With the increase of impervious surface, storm water runoff will no doubt Increase is well. Please request that the new drainage system be installed along the property line to protect the Winsper homes from this increased flooding risk. The project calls for a six inch curb-gutter for drainage along the access easements. Since the access will intersect an existing street, we would like the curb-gutter design to match the standards of the Winsper development (18 inch curb-gutter). This will also aid in drainage of excessive runoff in times of heavy rain, and aesthetically would be much more attractive. This is consistent with the Renton Community Design Element Goals purpose to improve the aesthetics and functionality of existing neighborhoods. The Valley Vue Project Narrative states "current zoning is RS, 5445 square feet minimum per lot'', yet two of the lots don't meet this minimum. (Loi 7-4, 796ft, and Lot 8-4,502 ft.); these therefore do not meet the aforementioned standard. Once the required hammerhead turn around is incorporated into the plan, lot 7 likely will not meet code. I propose that these two lots be combined into one lot so that they are similar to in character to all the other lots on the project (all other lots are 7, 127-7,654 square feet). The neighbors also discussed the disruption and general loss of peace and enjoyment during the peak summer months that construction would cause as heavy equipment, trucks. and building materials traveled through the neighborhood bringing noise and dust. The plan calls for working M-F plus Saturday. We request that the development NOT occur on the weekends. We would like lo preserve our weekends for family and a sense of well-being. Virginia Klaas, M.D. 618 S 32"' Place Renton, WA 98055 (425) 272-6760 cc: Jennifer Henning, Director, CED, Planning Division Vanessa Dolbee, Manager, CED, Planning Division Clark Close, Associate Planner, CED. Planning Division Steve Lee, CED, Development Engineering Plan Review Land Use: 210 Single-family Detached Housing Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Vehicles On a: Weekday \l;::i'.Jt~r ct SLdies-i 20 Avemge N1.w1ber :Jf V.zh1c:es.: :~57 Dir\)l:t:Dik\i t:,s;:d::u:!rn1: '50% :?ntcr!ng, so~!c, exiting Trip GeneraU_onper Vehicle :\v1;;mq:o ha!e Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Vehicles On a: Saturday 'Jumber ui Stu.ties.: 2:J .;\vera.qe Numb,::-r \)f Vcn1cle5; .;. 18 Dlrnc\ionr.l Distr 0but1on: jrJ•;r,) ~m:enr,,~ :-:/)0 ·'., ~,. 1:r<J Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Vel1icles On a: Sunday ~Li·:'.:::: c::t 3:Ls.:!:e,~ '. J ,;r ·,qi,; NuT!'er ·Jf \"el'"'ic\~'s ,:r~;? \;-., ... ~~·~al D'stnbution: 30"'.1 ,:;11'\::''·11g. :JO~-:, ex,t1ng frip Generation per Vehicle .,\vmttqe fl,:;;te ; )3 ,\,;1 ., ,' ! EXHIBIT 24 ADVISORY NOTES TO J 1LICANT LUA14-001040 .. City of . ;· ~ Application Date: August 1, 2014 Name: Valley Vue Plan -Planning Review Site Address: 3106 & 3112 Talbot Rd S, Renton, WA 98055-5023 Engineerine: Review Comments Vicki Grover I 425-430-7291 lvgrover@rentonwa.gov Recommendations: I have reviewed the application for Valley Vue Preliminary Plat and have the following comments: EXISTING CONDITIONS WATER The site is located in the Talbot Hill 350 hydrauEc water pressure zone. There is an existing 8 inch water main in S. 32nd Place and there are 2 existing V. inch domestic water.meters serving the existing homes. SEWER There is an 8 inch sewer main in S. 32 Place (Winsper) and an 8 inch sewer main located near the northwest of the site. STORM There are drainage improvements in S. 32nd Place. CODE REQUIREMENTS Water 1. Need to show the existing water service for 3106 Talbot Road South. 2. System development fee for water is based on the size of the new domestic water meter(s) that will serve each new lot. Fee for a 1 inch water meter install is $2,809.00. Credit will be giving to the existing home. 3. Fee for a 1 inch water meter installed by the City is $3,770.00. 4. New hydrants shall be installed per Renton's fire department standards to provide the required coverage of all lots. 5. A separate domestic water service meter will be required for each lot with a minimum size of 1 inch along with required backflow prevention assembly. 6. This project is subject to water special assessment district no. 8406 depending on fire flow demand. For a fire flow demand of 1,500 gpm or less, the special assessment is $0.034/sq ft of property, plus $16.00/front foot along the property frontage on Talbot Rd S. Sewer 1. Need to show the existing side sewer connection for 3106 Talbot Road South. 2. System development fee for sewer is based on the size of the new domestic water(s) that will serve each new lot. Sewer fee for a V. inch water or 1 inch meter install is $1,812.00. 3. Existing septic system(s) will be required to be abandoned in accordance with King County Department of Health. SURFACE WATER 1. A drainage plan and drainage report dated, December, 2013 was submitted by LOA (Land Development Advisors). The report complies with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and the City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. All core requirements and special requirements are included in the report. This site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard, Forested Conditions. • The Basin Map Figure 3.1-Please revise the areas to match the Preliminary Plat Map areas. Account for both drainage basins in the tables and on the figure. • Please discuss the existing house to the west that will remain as part of the development. Will the existing culverts be maintained through construction 7 Where does the runoff currently go? Where does the roof drainage go? Etc .... .Show on drawing. • The westerly portion of the access road that comes .off of Talbot Road South by passes the proposed treatment facility (wet pond) near the existing house needs to be addressed. Pleilse review Page 1 661.2.8.2.D in the City of I .~!on's Amendments to the King County Surfa~~~'::_a~e.r[Jesign M,mucJL _________________ _J Ran: May 11, 2015 EXHIBIT 25 Page 1 of 5 ADVISORY NOTES TO AF. __ CANT LUA14-0D1C"10 Engineering Review Comments Vicki Grover I 425-430-7291 I vgrover@rentonwa.gov • Please summarize the dimensions and volume for each of the detention and the water quality components of the vault. • Include backwater analysis for the conveyance system in your final TIR submittal. • A declaration of covenant will be required for the storm water focilities. • Pave roadway off of Talbot Road South at 12 ft. in width for Jcccss to the storm water tract. 2. Ageotechnical report for the site dated May 27, 2014 was suhmittcd by Geotech Consultants Inc. Information on the water table and soil permeability, with recommendations regarding foundation footing drains and waterproofing, retaining walls, slabs on grade, excavations and slopes and pavement areas. Infiltration of storm runoff is not recommended. Please update the report to address the proposed storm water vault not a storm water detention pond. 3. Surface Water System Development fee is $1,120 per new lot. This is payable prior to issuance of the construction permit. Credit will be given for one existing home. EROSION CONTROL 1. An Erosion Control Plan is to be submitted with the civil p!ans. [rosion Control shall be installed and monitored in accordance with Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and the KCSWM. 2. A Construction Stormwater General Permit from Dr,partrnent of Ecology will be required if grading and clearing of the site exceeds one acre. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plccn (SWPPP) is required for this site. TRANSPORTATION/STREET 1. The current transportation impact fee rate is $1,430.72 per sinele family house. The transportation impact fee is levied at the time of building permit application and payment of the transportation impact fee is due at the time of issuance of the building permit. Credit will be given to the existing home. 2. LED street lighting meeting City of Renton Standards is reouired. 3. Paving and trench restoration will comply with the City's Trench Restoration and Overlay Requirements. 4. Road Classifications-Talbot Road South is a Collector /1:ter,al; S 32·" Pl is a residential access street. • Existing right-of-way width is approxim;itc,y 60 feel for Ta,IJot Rd Sand approx. 44 feet on S 32"' Pl. • Per RMC 4-6-060J for 'Shared Driveways' at least one of the lour lots being accessed must front public right-of- way; the proposed development does not meet all of the coue requirements for a shared driveway type of access. 5. Access to the proposed development from Talbot Road South (2 -1,,nc Collector Arterial) along the existing driveway lies within regulated slope areas (>15% and> 25%) per the Citv of ~cnton's Sensitive Areas map. Slopes in excess of 15% are typically not accessible by the City Renton's fire Dcp,ir'inei:t Vehicles. 6. The preliminary plat plan sheets show access to the propcsed development to be off of S 32"' Pl (Winsper Development) via Tracts G and H. These tracts are apwoxin,atelv 2-i feet in width and are to have two (2) 10-foot wide paved lanes with vertical curb and gutter. C:ty cf Rc11tor· Ins" comrrient :ilso concerning the constructability of these accesses. Due to the slope of the site, both accesses '!!ill require retaining walls to be constructed along their eastern sides. The eastern most access has a siope ice cxces,, of l'i% and requires a minimum of 1.5 ft. of clear zone between the back of the curb and the face of the retaining wali. The construction of the retaining walls proposed for both accesses will require temporary construction easements to he o(,tained from the adjoining property owners. However, the temporary construction easements rray w,t hr fc21.i1Jle due to the close proximity of other private existing structures to the area needed for construction :Jf t!,r ·,•Jail,;. 7. The current layout does not include access to the sto,111 w,1tcr '1clitiPs . .t,ccess to the storm water tract is necessary in order to maintain the vault. Ran: May 11, 2015 Page 2 of 5 ADVISORY NOTES TO PUCANT LUA14-0'J10t.O of , r Engineering Review Comments r GENERAL COMMENTS Vicki Grover 425-430-7291 Iv rover@rentonwa.gov 1. This project will comply with all undergrounding requirements, 2, All construction utility permits for drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals, All utility j plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards, A licer•sed Civil Engineer shall prepare the civil plans. , 3, Separate permit and fees will be required for the water rneter installation, side sewer connection, and storm water connection. Water service, sewer stub, and a drainage flow control BMP is required to be provided to each new lot prior to recording of the plat '--'----'--"-"'-"-------------,--'"" --- Fire Review -Building Comments --------------,·------------------~ Corey Thomas J 425-430-7024 I cthomas@rentonwa.gov Recommendations: Environmental Impact Comments: 1. The fire impact fees are applicable at the rate of $4i9.28 per sing!e 'amily 11nit. This fee is paid prior to recording the plat. Credit will be granted for existing home that is to be removed, Code Related Comments: 1. The fire flow requirement for a single family home is 1,000 gpm minimum for dwellings up to 3,600 square feet (including garage and basements). If the dwelling exceeds 3,600 square feet, a minimum of 1,500 gpm fire flow would be required. A minimum of one fire hydrant is required within 300 feet of the proposed buildings and two hydrants if the fire flow goes up to 1,500 gpm. Existing fire hydronts can he counted toward the requirements as long as they meet current code including 5 inch storz fitting',, 2. Fire department apparatus access roadways Me rcc;uired to be a minimwn of 20 feet wide fully paved, with 25 feet inside and 45 feet outside turning radius. Fire access roadways shail be constructed to support a 30 ton vehicle with 322 psi point loading. Approved apparatus turnarounds are required for dead end roads exceeding 150 feet. Dead end streets exceeding 500 feet require all homes to be provided with an approved fire sprinkler system. Dead end streets exceeding 700 feet are not allowed without ;1pprovcd ',ccorcdary ,cress roadways being provided. Condition of approval of this proposed plat due to existin,; steep grades on, «stin;, ,1ccess roadways and proposed dead end streets is to have all proposed homes be equipped with approved 'rside:1ti.1I fire sprinkler systems. 3. Access roadways shall not exceed 15 percent maximum p,radc. ,1,,c:es of dpproach and departure shall meet fire department requirements. Planning Review Comments '"---~-----------"""""--..... Recommendations: • 1.1rk C!:1~e_J_425-430-7289 1 cclose@rentonwa.gov j l. RMC section 4 4 030,C.2 limits haul hours betwec:1 cisht thirty (:?::;n1 il,rn. and three thirty (3:30) p,m,, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved in advance IJv the, Dcve!o1:,rn,e1t ', ,,,;ices Division. 2. New single family construction activities shail Ile restricted to u,,, I· curs '"''1s,een seven o'clock (7:00) a,m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work o:·, Saturdays is hy ,,cm,ic;,;,,:,n only. No work is permitted on Sundays. 3. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the i!pplicc1nt sha:l l·vdroseed or plants appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or c1eim•cl of v,'gct.1t'cn anu where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as n'ulch, sc<.kling, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manu:rl 2s .r:k:,tecl cl,e City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 3l_st of ec1ch ye:1r The Dcvei,_,r;rn_e_r}t Services Division's approval of this Ran: May 11, 2015 Page 3 of 5 ADVISORY NOTES TO ... PLICANT LUA14-001040 of ---------------------------------------------~ , work is required prior to final inspection and approv2I of the permit. '~--=-===-.."C.:.=..:..::.==='--'-'---'------'--'"-'----------'-"--------- ------··------------------------- Technical Services Comments ...... ___ Bob Mac Oni<= I 425-430-7369 I bmaconie@rentonwa.gov Recommendations: Preliminary Plat: Bob Mac Orne 09/18/2014 Note the City of Renton land use action number and :and record number, LUM1 001040 and LND 10 0515, respectively, on the final plat submittal. The type size used for the lard record nun°bcr should be smaller than that used for the land use action number. Please note that the land use action number provided will change when this subdivision changes from preliminary to final plat status. Show two ties to the City of Renton Survey Control ~ietwork. The Eeometry wil! be checked by the city when the ties have been provided. Ties can be made but explicit reference to another survey with such ties and two monuments common to the subject subdivision. Provide sufficient information to determine how the plat boundary was established. Indicate what has been, or is to be, set at the corners of the rcupcsrd lots. Note discrepancies between bearings and distances of record and those measured or calculated, if any. The lot addresses will be provided by the city at final plat submittal. Note sa'rJ aciuresses and the street name on the plat drawing. Do note encroachments. Do not include a utility provider's block, an owner's block, an engineer/surveyor block and an architect block. Do not include any references to use, density or zoning on the final s11bmittal. !'le,,se note the Site Data on sheet 1 of 3 block is not necessary and conflicts with the Easement Notes block imrnc·dia'.c'·, hr>iow. If the abutting properties are platted, note the lot numbers and plat narre on the' drawing otherwise note them as 'Un platted'. Do not show the TPNs. Remove the building setback lines from the proposed lots. Setbcicks w• ,,, · ·rrnined at the time that building permits are issued. Note the research resources on the plat submittal. Note all easements, covenants and agreements of record on the plat drawing. The City of Renton "APPROVALS" blocks for the City of Renton i\drninistrator, Puhlic Works Department, the Mayor, City Clerk and the Finance Director. A pertinent approval block is also needed for the King County Assessor's Of'ic:e. Provide signature lines as required. If there is a Restrictive Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions document i,n ti •: ,,r1t. then reference the same on the plat drawing and provide a space for the recording numbrr thereof. I I Note that if there are restrictive covenants, agreements or e,,scrn,·nts 'c oth·rs (neighboring property owners, etc.) as part of this subdivision, they can be recorded concurrently with the p!a t. I ic r 1,:, t drawings and the associated , document(s) are to be given to the Project Manager as a package. The plat document will he recorded first (with King County). The recording number(s) for the associated document(s) (said documents recorded conn,rrcn!v ':1,t 1, IJ11t wing the plat) need to be referenced on the plat drawings. There needs to be a Purpose Statement for each of the t'acts created, inciuc'i-'P ownership and maintenance responsibilities. Please discuss with the Stormwater Utility any othc,· 'ancuafe and/or i:1',t"""ent requirements regarding surface water BMPs and other rights and responsibilities. Include a Dedication block. All vested owner(s) of the suti;cct ,at t'1e t'n·e nf recording, need to sign the final plat For the str~et dedication process, include acurrent title report no!i11g the ~est ad p_ro.cp_e_r_ty,__o_w_n_e_r. ________ ~ Ran: May 11, 2015 Page 4 of s ADVISORY NOTES TO ... 'LICANT LUA14-001040 of Community Services Comments ____ Leslie Re!J_'!_(h I 425-430-6619 lbetlach@rentonwa. ov Valley Vue Preliminary Plat Comments: 08/25/2014 Parks impact fee per Ordinance 5670 applies. Bicycle lanes per adorted Trails and Ricycle Master Plan "Talbot Road l. South Bicycle Lanes." Sheet 148 shall be incorporated_as part of pro;e'.t. ________________ ..., Ran: May 11, 2015 Page 5 of 5 Denis Law MJyor August 25, 2014 Rory Dees · RAD Holdings, LLC r.. . Cityof, · "· ····. ". }' > r·1·.···· . r.······SJ·· ... ·· ... • ·r>. ·. 1 t . r ... · .. ····I ~~~·····.····~·· .. ··wJ,i . . . -- Department of Community and Economic Development CE."Chip"Vi ncent, Administrator 1040 W. Lake Sammamish Pkwy SE Bellevue, WA 98008 Subject: Notice of Complete Application Valley Vue l'reliminary Plat, LUA14-001040, ECF, PP DearMr. Dees: The Planning Division of the City of Renton. has determined that the subject application · is complete according to submittal 'requirements and, therefore, is accepted for review. It is tentatively scheduled for consideration by the Environmental Review Committee on September 15, 2014. Prior to that review, you will be· notified if any additional . information is required to continue processing your application. In aadition, this matter is tentatively ;cheduled for a Public Hearing on October 7, 2014 . at 12:00 pm, Council Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant are required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you prior to the schedul_ed. hearing, Please contact me at (425.) 430-7289 ifyciu have any questions. Sincerely, . Clark H. Close Associate Planner cc: RAD Holdings/ Own_er{s) Jon Nelson, L:and Development Advisors/ Conta~t Renton City H EXHIBIT 27 805 7 ·.• rentonwa.gov ~(--De~~:::t,aw-' --------·: ~. (~i~~iro1 Cl :r · --~~~-_.QJ-.. _X .. -~A--.3 ; · August ,25, 2014 Dep~rtment of Communify and Economic DeveJopm~nt .·. · · · C.E."Chip''Vincent,Administrator 'f Nancy Ra~ls' ' ' ' ' ·.'., .·. ' ' ' J · Department ofTransportation , ' Renton School District · · 420 Park Avenue N Renton, WA 98055 • Subject: Valley Vue Preliminary Plat· LUA14-001040; ECF; PP . The,City ofRenton's D~partrnent ofCommunity and Economic Development'(CED) tias rec~ived ·· an.application for a Preliminary Plat located at 3106 Talbot Rd. S. Please see the enclosed Notice of Application for further details. In order to process this application, CED .needs to know which Renton. schoo.ls. woukl be, attended by children Hving in residences at the location indicated above. Plea.se fill in the appropriate schools on the list below and return thisJetterto ,r;y·attention, City pf Renton; CED, . Planning Division; 105~ South Grady Way, Re.nton, Washington 98057 or fax to (425) 430,7300, by September 8, 2014. . · · ' ' . Elementary School: . ·. talbot hill elementary Middle School: Dimmitt Middle School High Schoof:· Henton High School ·. . .. ; _-_. . .. . . ,• --. ·.· . : Will the schools you have indicated.be able.to handle the impact of th~ additional students estimated to come from .the proposed development? Yes X . No,_~~ Thank you for ~roviding this lmportarit information. If you have any.questions regarding this.·. · project, pleas~ contact me at (425} 430-7289. Sincerely, {_jj,,,4 /1. ca~- Clark H. Close Associate Planner Enclosure Renton Oty Hall ·• 105 EXHIBIT 28 re.ntonwa.gov DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT City n{ ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT ERC MEETING DATE: Project Name: May 18, 2015 Valley Vue Preliminary Plat Entire Document Available Upon Request ---------·"·----~·---·---···-·----.. ------------ Project Number: LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD -------------------------------------------- Project Manager: Clark H. Close, Associate Planner ------------ Owners/Applicant: Contact: Project Location: Project Summary: Site Area: Rory Dees, Rad Holdings, LLC, 1040 W. Lake Sammamish PKWY SE, Bellevue, WA 98008 Jon Nelson, Land Development Advisors, LLC, 12865 SE 47th Pl, Bellevue, WA 98006 3106 and 3112 Talbot Road S, Renton, WA 98055 ------~------------- The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review and Preliminary Plat approval for a 9-lot subdivision. The 2.3-acre site is located within the Residential-8 dwelling units per net acre (du/ac) zoning classification. There are two single family residences (3106 and 3112 Talbot Road South) located on this parcel that gain access to the site from Talbot Road South and are part of the Black River Basin. The single family house located at 3106 is connected to city water and sewer and would remain and be incorporated into the subdivision as Lot 9, while the house located at 3112 is on a septic system and would be demolished. Together the nine (9) residential lots (8 new+ the remaining single family house) would result in a density of 4.23 du/ac. Residential lot sizes range from 4,502 sf to 18,169 sf with an average lot size of 7,954 sf. In addition to the 9 residential lots, four (4) tracts are proposed for access roads, sensitive areas, and stormwater detention. The eight (8) new residential lots would be served from Winsper Division No. 1 Subdivision (Tract G and Tract H) via two dedicated ingress/egress easement areas of 24 feet in width through the development on S 32nd Place. There are 142 significant trees on the site and the applicant is proposing to retain 27 original trees. A detention vault in the westerly portion of the site is proposed within Tract D which would discharge into the existing conveyance system on the east side of Talbot Road. The applicant has submitted a Critical Areas Report, Preliminary Technical Information Report, and a Geotechnical Engineering Report with the application. The site contains a Category 2 wetland in the far eastern portion of the site. No impacts to critical areas onsite are proposed and existing slopes on the site average roughly 6%. ------------------~----------------- 99,994 SF (2.3 acres) STAFF Staff Recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a RECOMMENDATION: Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M). £RC Report 14-001040 EXHIBIT 29 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE PROJECT NUMBER: APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: -MITIGATED (DNS-M) LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD Rory Dees, Rad Holdings, LLC, 1040 W. lake Sammamish PKWY SE, Bellevue, WA 98008 Valley Vue Preliminary Plat The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review and Preliminary Plat approval for a 9-lot subdivision. The 2.3-acre site is located within the Residential-8 dwelling units per net acre (du/ac) zoning classification. There are two single family residences (3106 and 3112 Talbot Road South) located on this parcel that gain access to the site from Talbot Road South and are part of the Black River Basin. The single family house located at 3106 is connected to city water and sewer and would remain and be incorporated into the subdivision as Lot 9, while the house located at 3112 is on a septic system and would be demolished. Together the nine (9) residential lots (8 new+ the remaining single family house) would result in a density of 4.23 du/ac. Residential lot sizes range from 4,502 sf to 18,169 sf with an average lot size of 7,954 sf. In addition to the 9 residential lots, four (4) tracts are proposed for access roads, sensitive areas, and stormwater detention. The eight (8) new residential lots would be served from Winsper Division No. 1 Subdivision (Tract G and Tract H) via two dedicated ingress/egress easement areas of 24 feet in width through the development on S 32nd Place. There are 142 significant trees on the site and the applicant is proposing to retain 27 original trees. A detention vault in the westerly portion of the site is proposed within Tract D which would discharge into the existing conveyance system on the east side a/Talbot Road. The applicant has submitted a Critical Areas Report, Preliminary Technical Information Report, and a Geotechnical Engineering Report with the application. The site contains a Category 2 wetland in the far eastern portion of the site. No impacts to critical areas onsite are proposed and existing slopes on the site average roughly 6%. PROJECT LOCATION: LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Environmental Review Committee Department of Community & Economic Development The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-9-070D Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Because other agencies of jurisdiction may be involved, the lead agency will not act on this proposal for fourteen (14) days. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on June 5, 2015. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and more information may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: DATE OF DECISION: MAY 22, 2015 MAY 18. 2015 EXHIBIT 30 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SIGNATURES: .c,,:!Y/1,.l/'J:,,;'/J}:J#/l__ Gregg Zimn\ornian, Administrator I i ,, .. Public Walks Department Terry Higashiyama, Administrator Community Services Department Mark Peterson( Administrator Date Fire & Emergency Services Date Date ,0[.J~,;'d. ~='""d-~/, ( Department of Community & Date Economic Development DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED {DNSM) MITIGATION MEASURES AND ADVISORY NOTES PROJECT NUMBER: APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD Rory Dees, Rad Holdings, LLC, 1040 W. Lake Sammamish PKWY SE, Bellevue, WA 98008 Valley Vue Preliminary Plat PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review and Preliminary Plat approval for a 9-lot subdivision. The 2.3-acre site is located within the Residential-8 dwelling units per net acre (du/ac) zoning classification. There are two single family residences (3106 and 3112 Talbot Road South) located on this parcel that gain access to the site from Talbot Road South and are part of the Black River Basin. The single family house located at 3106 is connected to city water and sewer and would remain and be incorporated into the subdivision as Lot 9, while the house located at 3112 is on a septic system and would be demolished. Together the nine (9) residential lots (8 new+ the remaining single family house) would result in a density of 4.23 du/ac. Residential lot sizes range from 4,502 sf to 18,169 sf with an average lot size of 7,954 sf. In addition to the 9 residential lots, four (4) tracts are proposed for access roads, sensitive areas, and stormwater detention. The eight (8) new residential lots would be served from Winsper Division No. 1 Subdivision (Tract G and Tract H) via two dedicated ingress/egress easement areas of 24 feet in width through the development on S 32nd Place. There are 142 significant trees on the site and the applicant is proposing to retain 27 original trees. A detention vault in the westerly portion of the site is proposed within Tract D which would discharge into the existing conveyance system on the east side of Talbot Road. The applicant has submitted a Critical Areas Report, Preliminary Technical Information Report, and a Geotechnical Engineering Report with the application. The site contains a Category 2 wetland in the far eastern portion of the site. No impacts to critical areas onsite are proposed and existing slopes on the site average roughly 6%. PROJECT LOCATION: LEAD AGENCY: 3106 and 3112 Talbot Road 5, Renton, WA 98055 The City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations found in the Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Geotech Consultants, Inc. dated May 27, 2014 or an updated report submitted at a later date. 2. The applicant shall plant all trees that are within the SO-foot standard wetland buffer by hand and without heavy machinery. To the greatest extent feasible, these trees should be planted in areas where invasive species are present. A tree planting plan shall be provided to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval prior to construction permit issuance. 3. The applicant shall provide a minimum 12-to 15-foot wide utility access easement to the stormwater tract (Tract D) for maintenance and operation of the utility. The easement shall be recorded and documentation provided to the City prior to approval the issuance of the construction permit application. 4. The applicant shall provide a shared driveway through the existing Winsper Division No. 1 Subdivision tracts (Tracts G and H) that are consistent with the shared private driveway stand of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC 4-6-0GOK). The private access roads shall meet the minimum necessary to provide for safe and effective access for the existing residents, proposed residents, and fire and emergency vehicles. ADVISORY NOTES: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for the land use actions. En ineerin Review Comments Vicki Grover 425-430-7291 v rover@rentonwa. o,r Recommendations: I have reviewed the application for Valley Vue Preliminary Plat and have the following comments: EXISTING CONDITIONS WATER The site is located in the Talbot Hill 3SO hydraulic water pressure zone. There is an existing 8 inch water main in S. 32nd Place and there are 2 existing,,. inch domestic water meters serving the existing homes. SEWER There is an 8 inch sewer main in S. 32 Place (Winsper) and an 8 inch sewer main located near the northwest of the site. STORM There are drainage improvements in S. 32nd Place. CODE REQUIREMENTS Water 1. Need to show the existing water service for 3106 Talbot Road South. 2. System development fee for water Is based on the size of the new domestic water meter(s) that will serve each new lot. Fee for a l inch water meter install is $2,809.00. Credit will be giving to the existing home. 3. Fee for a 1 inch water meter installed by the City is $3,770.00. 4. New hydrants shall be installed per Renton's fire department standards to provide the required coverage of all lots. 5. A separate domestic water service meter will be required for each lot with a minimum size of 1 inch along with required back/low prevention assembly. 6. This project is subject to water special assessment district no. 8406 depending on fire flow demand. For a fire ~~:p~:;:;:f~;;;~~ ~~~a~:~;s:d t:.e special ~s:essmen~is $0~34/:: of prop::v: plus $16.00/front foot alon~ ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page 2 of 6 1-"En=i:::n::e::•r:.:i..,n._:;R::e:..vi:.:ec.:w:..C::o::m=mc::e:::n:::t:.:s __________ .cV:.:ic:::k.:..i G=ro::.v,er I ~25-4~0-7291 v rover@rentonwa.gov Sewer l. Need to show the existing side sewer connection for 3106 Talbot Road South. 2. System development fee for sewer is based on the size of the new domestic water(s) that will serve each new lot. Sewer fee for a ~ inch water or 1 inch meter install is $1,812.00. 3. Existing septic system(s) will be required to be abandoned in accordance with King County Department of Health. SURFACE WATER 1. A drainage plan and drainage report dated, December, 2013 was submitted by LDA (Land Development Advisors). The report complies with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and the City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. All core requirements and special requirements are included in the report. This site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard, Forested Conditions. • The Basin Map Figure 3.1-Please revise the areas to match the Preliminary Plat Map areas. Account for both drainage basins in the tables and on the figure. Please discuss the existing house to the west that will remain as part of the development. Will the existing culverts be maintained through construction? Where does the runoff currently go? Where does the roof drainage go? Etc ..... Show on drawing. The westerly portion of the access road that comes off of Talbot Road South by passes the proposed treatment facility (wet pond) near the existing house needs to be addressed. Please review Page 166 1.2.8.2.D in the City of Renton's Amendments to the King County Surface Water Design Manual. • Please summarize the dimensions and volume for each of the detention and the water quality components of the vault. • Include backwater analysis for the conveyance system in your final TIR submittal. A declaration of covenant will be required for the storm water facilities. • Pave roadway off of Talbot Road South at 12 ft. in width for access to the storm water tract. 2. A geotechnical report for the site dated May 27, 2014 was submitted by Geotech Consultants Inc. Information on the water table and soil permeability, with recommendations regarding foundation footing drains and I waterproofing, retaining wans, slabs on grade, excavations and slopes and pavement areas. Infiltration of storm l runoff is not recommended. Please update the report to address the proposed storm water vault not a storm I water detention pond . . 3. Surface Water System Development fee is $1,120 per new lot. This is payable prior to issuance of the construction permit. Credit will be given for one existing home. EROSION CONTROL 1. An Erosion Control Plan is to be submitted with the civil plans. Erosion Control shall be installed and monitored in accordance with Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and the KCSWM. 2. A Construction Stormwater General Permit from Department of Ecology will be required if grading and clearing of the site exceeds one acre. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required for this site. TRANSPORTATION/STREET L The current transportation impact fee rate is $1,430.72 per single family house. The transportation impact fee is levied at the time of building permit application and payment of the transportation impact fee is due at the time of issuance of the building permit. Credit will be given to the existing home. 2. LED street lighting meeting City of Renton Standards is required. 3. Paving and trench restoration will comply with the City's Trench Restoration and Overlay Requirements. 4. Road Classifications -Talbot Road South is a Collector Arterial; S 32"' Pl is a residential access street. • Existing right-of-way width is approximately 60 feet for Talbot Rd Sand approx. 44 feet on S 32"' Pl. Per RMC 4-6·060J for 'Shared Driveways' at least one of the four lots being accessed must front public right-of-way; the proposed development does not meet all of the code requirements for a shared driveway type of access. ==-=-=="'-----------------·-·---·-·-····--·····-------------·----· .. ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page 3 of 6 i-Engineering-Review Comments Vicki Grover I 425-430-7291 I vgrover@rentonwa.gov ' 5. Access to the proposed development from Talbot Road South (2-lane Collector Arterial) along the existing driveway !ies within regulated slope areas (>15% and> 25%} per the City of Renton's Sensitive Areas map. Slopes in excess of 15% are typically not accessible by the City Ren ton's Fire Department Vehicles. 6. The preliminary plat plan sheets show access to the proposed development to be off of S 32'' Pl (Winsper Development) via Tracts G and H_ These tracts are approximately 24 feet in width and are to have two (2) 10-foot wide p,;1ved lanes with vertical curb and gutter. City of Renton has a comment also concerning the constructabllity of these accesses. Due to the s.!ope of the site, both accesses will require retaining walls to be constructed along their eastern sides. The eastern most access has a slope in excess of 15% and requires a minimum of 1.5 ft. of clear zone between the back of the curb and the face of the retaining wait. The construction of the retaining walls proposed for both accesses will require temporary construction easements to be obtained from the adjoining property owners. However, the temporary construction easements may not be feasible due ta the close proximity of other private existing structures to the area needed for construction of the walls. 7. The current layout does not include access to the storm water facilities. Access to the storm water tract is necessary ln order to maintain the vault. GENERAL COMMENTS 1. This project will comply with all undergrounding requirements. 2. All construction utllity permits for drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals. All utility plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. A licensed Civil Engineer shall prepare the civil plans. 3. Separate permit and fees will be required for the water meter installation, side sewer connection, and storm water connection. 4. Water service, sewer stub, and a drainage flow control BMP is required to be provided to each new lot prior to record in of the plat. Fire Review· Building Comments Corey Thomas I 425-430~7024 I cthomas@,entonwa.gov Recommendations: Environmental Impact Comments: 1. The fire impact fees are applicable at the rate of $479.28 per single family unit. This fee is paid prior to recording the plat. Credit will be granted for existing home that is to be removed. Code Related Comments: 1. The fire flow requirement for a single family home is 1,000 gpm minimum for dwellings up to 3,600 square feet (including garage and basements). If the dwelling exceeds 3,600 square feet, a minimum of 1,500 gpm fire flow would be required. A minimum of one fire hydrant is required within 300 feet of the proposed buildings and two hydrants if the fire flow goes up to 1,500 gpm. Existing fire hydrants can be counted toward the requirements as long as they meet current code including 5 inch storz fittings_ 2. Fire department apparatus access roadways are required to be a minimum of 20 feet wide fully paved, with 25 feet inside and 45 feet outside turning radius. Fire access roadways shall be constructed to support a 30 ton vehicle with 322 psi point loading. Approved apparatus turnarounds are required for dead end roads exceeding 150 feet. Dead end streets exceeding 500 feet require all homes to be provided with an approved fire sprinkler system. Dead end streets exceeding 700 feet are not allowed without approved secondary access roadways being provided. Condition of approval of this proposed plat due to existing steep grades on existing access roadways and proposed dead end streets is to have all proposed homes be equipped with approved residential fire sprinkler systems. 3. Access roadways shall not exceed 15 percent maximum grade. Angles of approach and departure shall meet fire department requirements. ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page 4 of 6 Planning Review Comments f-'-~~~~~~~~~~~--~·---~----~ ____ Clark Close 1_425-430-7289 I cclose@rentonwa.2ov Recommendations: 1. RMC section 4 4 030-C.2 limits haul hours between eight thirty (8:30) a.m. and three thirty (3:30) p.m .• Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved in advance by the Development Services Division. 2. New single famdy construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock {7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m .• Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays is by permission only. No work is permitted on Sundays. I 3. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plants appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year. The Development Services Division's annroval of this work is reauired orior to final insoection and anr"lroval of the oermit Technical Services Comments Bob Mac Onie 425-430-7369 I bmaconie@rentonwa._gov Recommendations: Preliminary Plat: Bob Mac Onie 09/18/2014 Note the City of Renton land use action number and land record number, LUA14 001040 and LND 10 0515, respectively, on the final plat submittal. The type size used for the land record number should be smaller than that used for the land use action number. Please note that the land use action number provided will change when this subdivision changes from preliminary to final plat status. Show two ties to the City of Renton Survey Control Network. The geometry will be checked by the city when the ties have been provided. Ties can be made but explicit reference to another survey with such ties and two monuments common to the subject subdivision. Provide sufficient Jnformation to determine how the plat boundary was established. Indicate what has been, or is to be, set at the corners of the proposed lots. Note discrepancies between bearings and distances of record and those measured or calculated, if any. The lot addresses will be provided by the city at final plat submittal. Note said addresses and the street name on the plat drawing. Do note encroachments. Do not include a utility provider's block, an owner1s b!ock1 an engineer/surveyor block and an architect block. Do not include any references to use. density or zoning on the final submittal. Please note the Site Data on sheet 1 of 3 block is not necessary and conflicts with the Easement Notes block immediately below. If the abutting properties are platted, note the lot numbers and plat name on the drawing otherwise note them as 'Unplatted'. Do not show the TPNs. Remove the building setback lines from the proposed lots. Setbacks will be determined at the time that building permits are issued. Note the research resources on the plat submittal. Note all easements, covenants and agreements of record on the plat drawing. The City of Renton "APPROVALS" blocks for the City of Renton Administrator. Public Works Department. the Mayor, City Clerk and the Finance Director. A pertinent approval block is also needed for the King County Assessor's Office. Provide signature lines as required. If there is a Restrictive Covenants. Conditions & Restrictions document for this plat, then reference the same on the plat drawing and provide a space far the recording number thereof. Note that if there are restrictive covenants, agreemeOts or easements to others {neighboring property owners, etc.) as part of this subdivision, they can be recorded concurrently with the plat. The plat drawings and the associated document(s) are to be given to the Project Manager as a package. The plat document will be recorded first (with King County). The recording 1 number(s) for the associated document(s) (said documents recorded concurrently with, but following the plat) [ need to be referenced on the plat drawings. ·------··· ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page 5 of6 ! Technical services Comments Bob Mac Onie I 425-430-7369 bmaconie@rentonwa. ov There needs to be a Purpose Statement for each of the tracts created, including ownership and maintenJnce responsibilities. Please discuss with the Stormwater Utility any other language and/or instrument requirements regarding surface water BMPs and other rights and responsibilities. I Include a Dedication block. All vested owner(s) of the subJ···e .. c .. t. plat, at the time of recording ..•. need to sign t·h···e· final I plat. For the street de~ication process, __ include a current,ti_tl_e report noting the vested property owner. ---~-_J lCommunit Services Comments Leslie Betlach I 425-430·6619 lbetlach@rentonwa. ov I Valley Vue Preliminary Plat Comments: 08/25/2014 / Parks impact fee per Ordinance 5670 applies. Bicycle lanes per adopted Trails and Bicycle Master Plan "Talbot Road South Bicycle Lanes." Sheet 148 shall be incorporated as part of roject. ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page 6 of 6 •',,l',/f,I ty of October 1, 2014 Community & Economic Development Department CE. ~ch ip"Vincent, Administrator Rory Dees RAD Holdings, LLC 1040 W. Lake Sammamish Pkwy SE Bellevue, WA 98008 SUBJECT: "On Hold" Notice Valley Vue Preliminary Plat, LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD Dear Mr. Dees: rhe Planning Division of the City of Renton accepted the above master application for review on /\ugust 25, 2014. During our review, staff has determined that additional information is necessary in order to proceed furtheL The request for a modification from the private street standard requirements, identified in RMC 4-6 060J, will likely not be supported by the City of Renton based on the public comments received and the proximity of the roads to existing residential development. The existing access easements do not meet the required 26 foot width, and therefore would not be compliant with Renton Municipal Code without an approved modification. Please note thot all finol decisions on the preliminary plat are made by the City's Hearing Examiner with a recommendation from Staff. Based on the above statement, the following information will need to be submitted so that we may continue the review of the above subject application: • A plat plan that is compliant with the shared driveways standard of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-6-060K, as this would fit within the existing access easement width of 24 feet and would not require the approval of a modification. RMC 4-6-060K. Shared Driveways -When Permitted: A shared private driveway may be permitted for access up to a maximum of four /4) lots. Up to three (3) of the iots may use the driveway as primary access for emergencies. The remainder of the iots must hove physical frontage along a street for primary and emergency access and shall only be allowed vehicular access from the shared private driveway. The private access easement shall be a minimum of sixteen feet {16') in width, with a maximum of twelve feet /12') paved drivewuy. Minimum turnaround requirements for emergency access to lots can he found in .rnbsertion Hof this Section (Ord. 5517, 12-14-.7009} Henton City H EXHIBIT 31 8057 ~ r,rntonwa.gov • A revised street profile or "Access Road Section" to reflect a reduction in the road pavement that is compliant with Renton Municipal Code {RM() 4-6-0GOK. Proposed solutions that address public safety, welfare, aesthetics, and screening are encouraged as part of the street profile design and resubmittal process. Please note that staff will continue to address public comment during the course of the review, in order to mitigate the associated impacts between a new shared driveway and the existing homes. • Alternatively, you may submit a plat plan that is compliant with the City of Renton's complete street standard limited residential access road from Talbot Road South. The City's complete street st,mdard for a limited residential access road is 18 feet of pavement, with an 8-foot planting strip, 5-foot sidewalk and LED street lighting along both sides of the road inside the plat. The street section will be a 45-foot right-of-way. (See RMC 4-6-060 for more information.) If you choose to develop the site with a public road, please work with City staff to identify all required submittal items. At this time, your project has been placed "on hold" pending receipt of the requested information. Please contact me at (425) 430-7289 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Clark H. Close Associate Planner cc: K/\D Holdings/ Ownerls.) Jon Nelson, Land Deve opme11tAdvisors / Contact Dalen; Gastineau; Jaeb; K1rn!nki; Klaas; Klaas Schuitz; Murphy; Perteet; Smith Charity; Smith; Webb; J&M Management; Victoria Park HOA / Party(ies) of Record File LUA14--001040, ECF, PP, MOD Rory Dees 1040 W. Lake Sammamish Pkwy SE Bellevue, WA 98008 206 715-4559 April 15, 2015 Clark H. Close Associate Planner 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION RE: Continuation with the Plat submittal for 3112 Talbot Road S. or Valley Vue Plat LUA14-001040 Dear Clark, Currently, a proposed nine lot subdivision for the property addressed at 3112 Talbot Road S., Renton--APN 12-000280 has been placed on an "on-hold" status. Respectfully, I wish to continue with the submitted master preliminary plat application as presented on August 25, 2014. Thank you for your assistant and continued cooperation with this project. Yours, Rory Dees EXHIBIT 32 -·'"' ii"'-~, Citv of April 27, 2015 Community & Economic Development Department C.E. "Chip"Vincent, Administrator Rory Dees RAD Holdings, LLC 1040 W. Lake Sammamish Pkwy SE Bellevue, WA 98008 SUBJECT: "Off Hold" Notice Valley Vue Preliminary Plat, LUA14·D01040, ECF, PP, MOD Dear Mr. Dees: Thank you for submitting a request for continuation letter for the Valley Vue Preliminary Plat at 3112 Talbot Road S, Renton, Washington. Your project has been taken off hold and the City will continue our review of the Valley Vue Preliminary Plat as originally submitted and accepted for review on August 25, 2014 (NOA attached). It is tentatively scheduled for consideration by the Environmental Review Committee on May 18, 2015. Prior to that review, you will be notified if any additional information is required to continue processing your application. In addition, this matter is tentatively scheduled for a Public Hearing on June 23, 2015 at 11:00 am, Council Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant are required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you prior to the scheduled hearing. Please contact me at (425) 430-7289 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Clark H. Close Associate Planner Original Notice of Application {NOA) -Dated August 25, 2014 cc: RAD Holdings/ Owner(s) Jon Nelson, Land Development Advisors/ Contact Party(ies) of Record Renton City Hal EXHIBIT 33 J57 • rentonwa.gov Rory Dees 6252 167 Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98006 206 715-4559 January 23, 2013 Chip Vincent CED Administrator 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 RE: Modification request for 3112 Talbot Road S. or Dees Plat Dear Mr. Vincent, Currently a proposed nine lot subdivision, ( eleven if the wetland and storm tracts are counted) for the property addressed at 3112 Talbot Road S., Renton APN 12-000280. The proposed preliminary Dees plat has two recorded easements on the adjacent subdivision that is controlled by Winspur HOA. The easements state their purposes clearly as to provide access, egress, and utility easement for the parcel no. 28, which is cited by number. These easements will allow access to eight lots along two private roads. Discussions with the Renton Development Services Staff occurred over two in-office meetings regarding the proposed layout and acceptability of the lot density given the annexed conditions of the parcel from King County. Moreover, the steeper grade and 12 feet of currently provided access off of Talbot Road is not even remotely feasible within the constraints of Renton' codes. These easements are 24 feet wide and were created in King County, and annexed into Renton irrespective of the Renton codes. Renton's code cites 26 feet for private road widths, allowing 20 feet paved surface for fire department access and 6 feet for utilities. Given the proximity to the adjacent houses and their side-yard setbacks limits, there is no additional area for adding space. lam requesting modification to allow access, egress, and utility easement with the provided 24 feet wide easements to create the private roads into this subdivision. Additionally, street lights were suggested for the two private access roads that enter off of S. 32nd Place. The inclusion of these lights will be invasive and annoying to the existing houses as they will introduce light into the rear of the houses' backyards. This would expose the homeowner to street lighting sources at the front and rear of their homes. The distance through the easements to the end of the private roads will be 175 feet, and adequate lighting exists from the present two street lights located on the near corners of S. 32nd Place and the created private roads. Currently, there is one street light incorrectly placed in the easement area! I would like a determination that street light additions will not be required for this plat. As a point of information, the attached site map/lot configuration is approximate and will require some lot line adjustments for sensitive area buffer determinations and storm detention pond requirements on the west end of the parcel near the westerly retained house. The house on the easterly side of the property will be removed. Thank you for your considerations of these modifications. I will also be forwarding this to you as an email. Yours, Rory Dees EXHIBIT 34 ,Jetds La\v ,",'-),;()( March 1, 2013 Rory Dees 6252 167 Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98006 s City of Department of Community and Economic Development C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator Subject: Street Modification Request -3106 & 3112 Talbot Road South Dees Pre-Application File, Pre-12-000280 Dear Mr. Dees, Background. We have reviewed your request to modify street width requirements for a proposed plat that you are contemplating on a 2.3-acre property addressed as 3106 and 3112 Talbot Road South (APN3023059028) also known as Tax Lot 28 of Winsper. The property is presently accessed from Talbot Road South, via an existing driveway easement. This driveway slopes steeply from east to west, and could not be used to access the number of lots you are contemplating. There are, however, two existing 24-foot wide tracts (Tract G and H) in the abutting residential plat to the south, Winsper Division 1. These tracts are indicated on the recorded plat as being for future ingress, egress, and utilities only to Tax Lot 28, owned and maintained by Winsper Community Organization until deeded to Tax Lot No. 28 at no cost when King County approves development of Tax Lot 28, which requires the use of Tract G or H. You have requested a modification from City of Renton standards in order to utilize Tract G and Tract H for access to the parcel of land that you are considering subdividing. Your proposal as we understand it would be to utilize the 24-foot wide access easements (Tract G and H) to serve up to 4 residential lots from Tract G and another four lots from Tract H. This would be a reduction of 2 feet from the private street width standard specified in Renton Municipal Code. Process. Because the overall proposal requires a public process, in this case a plat (10 or more lots, tracts or parcels) the Hearing Examiner is the final decision maker, and therefore the modification request cannot be processed at this time. We can only give an indication of the recommendation staff wou1d provide to the Hearing Examiner as part ot the public nearing. lhis recommendation 1s preliminary, because a formal application has not yet been submitted, nor have staff conducted a thorough analysis or received comments from interested parties, or the Winsper Horne Owners Association. Our recommendation is subject to change as there has not been a public comment period. If the proposal is revised to be a short plat 19 or fewer lots, tracts or parcels). then a final recommendation regarding the modification will be provided to the Community and Economic Development Administrator for a final decision. Regarding street lights, this is an item that would need to be granted via a waiver or deferral, and that process cannot commence until a p!at application is filed with the City. The decision criteria for a modification of standards to be applied at the time of subdivision review follows: Renton City EXHIBIT 35 Jn 9805 7 • rentonwa.gov ?ory De-es a. Substantially implements the policy direction of the policies and objectrves of the Comprehensive Pian land Use Eiement and the Community Design Element and the proposed modification is the minimum adjustment necessary to implement these policies and objectives; b. Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon sound engineering judgment; c. Will not be injurious to other property(ies) in the vicinity; d. Conforms to the intent and purpose of the Code; e. Con be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended; and f. Will not create adverse impacts to other property(ies) in the vicinity. The criteria for a waiver of street improvements follows: _qeosonab!e justification shall include but not be limited to the following: a. Required street improvements will alter an existing wetlands or stream, or have a negative impact on a shoreline's area. b. Existing steep topography would make required street improvements infeasible. c. Required street improvements would hove a negative impact on other properties, such as restricting available access. d. There are no similar improvements in the vicinity and there is little likelihood that the improvements will be needed or required in the next ten {10) years. e. In no case shall a waiver be granted unless it is shown that there will be no detrimental effect on the public health, safety or welfare if the improvements are not installed, and that the improvements are not needed for current or future development. Recommendation. Based on the materials provided, at this time, and without the benefit of a public process, it appears that the request to reduce the private street standard to allow for a width of 24 feet could be supported by staff. However, this recommendation is subject to change based on the results of analysis, and comments received during the land use application process. The fee which accompanied your request for modification is not required at this time and it will be refunded. Please contact Gerald Wasser, Associate Planner at 425-430-7382 if you have any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, il,._,_ ·.,.i -~ Jennifer Henning, AICP Current Planning Manager cc: C:Sip Vincent, CED Administrator Neil Warts, Development Services Directot Kayren Kittrick, Plari Review Supervisor ~an Illian, P\an Reviewer Gerald Wasser, Associate P!anner Brian Hughes, Coldwell Banker Bain Department of Community& Economic Development 1055 South Grady Way Renton Wa 98057-3232 Dear Clark, May 8, 2015 Entire Document Available Upon Request Thank you for informing the Winsper Community about the continuance on the Valley Vue Project. It is distressing that the developer wants to proceed even though the project is not compliant with a number of the current Renton Municipal Codes. Such disregard is without consideration to \r.e people residing in the Winsper Community, does not promote the ideology of a "good neighbor" nor adheres to the City of Renton Design Goals The City Goals (Amended 9/19/11) were set in attempt to "raise the aesthetic quality of the City and ensure that a high quality life 1s maintained as Renton evolves·". These goals specifically state: Policy CD-16: Project design, including location of access and dimensions of yards and setbacks, should address privacy and quality of life on existing improved portions of sites. Rear and side yard setbacks should be maintained and not reduced to facilitate increased density. Policy CD-17. Setbacks and other development standards should not be reduced on newly platted lots through modification or variance to facilitate increased density. Policy CD-45: Interpret development standards to support new plats and infill project designs that address privacy and quality of life for existing residents. Furthermore, there are some significant concerns with the parcel that have not been adequately addressed ,n the proposal process or in previous correspondence with the city including: • The survey submitted 1s not signed by a registered land surveyor An ALTA survey should be done to identify any encroachments. There are many topographical features that will make the construction of the two access roads very tight, if not impossible without encroaching onto the existing developed properties. especially the proposed easterly access. • The plan does not include any lights. An existing streetlight on the easterty access road will be removed. There is not a plan to replace this safety light or add additional street lighting, a needed element of safety. • The environmental documentation does not include the height of the buffer walls and how will they be constructed. Safety features to protect vehicles, pedestrians, and adjacent housing is also not addressed. • The parcel is in an area where extensive underground mining took place. Yet the submitted environmental documentation did not inch.1do:::: a discussion of this. Past mir.ing activity may impact the future homeowners with related hazards of the primary coal mining (the presence of improperly sealed openings, ventrng gasses, ground collapse, regional subsidence of the ground). • There is no mention of this project establishing a HOA to provide for maintenance of the private roads and drainage systems. If there is not an HOA, the Winsper Community has no assurance that this development will not become a blighted code enforcement issue. • Construction would cause heavy equipment, trucks, and building materials to be moved through the Winsper neighborhood bringing noise and dust. The plan cails for working M-F plus Saturday. We request that the development NOT occur on the weekends. We would like to preserve our weekends for family and a sense of well-being, The Project plan is riddled with short comings, and inconsiderate of existing residents. The proposed roads are as close as five feet of the foundation along at least two of the homes adjacent to the access easements, with no room for setbacks. sidewalks or lighting. This is a bad idea. Please reJect any variances to1hi:;.pan;ialaHJ enforce t~7:;;;ode st~dardi)ankr~u 0.--, . ·.. . ~ CY '--:t. t EXHIBIT 36 10 5S May 21, 2015 Winsper Community HOA 3125 Wells Ave S Renton, WA 98055 ,.~-cSty (;· .· jl A_;# ;f'.'1-' r/1< 14. -Community & Economic Development Department CE."Chip"Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: VALLEY VUE PRELIMINARY PLAT COMMENT RESPONSE LETTER LUA14-001040, ECF, PP Dear Winsper Community HOA: Thank you for your comments received May 13, 2015 related to the Valley Vue Preliminary Plat wherein you raised concerns regarding the proposed project. Your letter will be added to the public record for consideration by the reviewing official and you have been added as a party of record. The City of Renton has received an abundance of public feedback from property owners within the Winsper Division I Plat. The primary concern identified through letters and emails have been vehicle access through the two 24-foot wide access tracts (Tract G and Tract H) and the associated safety concerns from new vehicle traffic generated as a result of the proposed land development. To date, the public comments have been directed to the Attorney General, Mayor, Chief Administrative Officer, Fire Chief, CED Director, Planners, and Plan Review, all of which have been included in the official land use file for review and consideration by the decision maker (Hearing Examiner). As a point of clarification, the City of Renton follows the subdivision process that is governed in Washington State by chapter 58.17 RCW and regulated by Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-7-080 RMC. Under the RMC 4-9-250, the applicant has the right to request a modification from the Code and the applicant has the right to request the City process a subdivision application subject to RCW 58.17. The applicant, RAD Holdings LLC, maintains the right to develop property based on the ordinances existing at the time of the application. It is the charge of the City to balance the public comments with the applicant's rights by making consistent and rational land use recommendations and decisions. As part of the preliminary plat application, the applicant has made application for Preliminary Plat, Environmental Review, and a request to modify street width requirements in order to access eight (8) proposed lots via the 24-foot wide access easements through Winsper Division No. 1 Subdivision (Tract G and H) in order to serve four (4) new residential lots from each tract. This would be a reduction of two feet (2') Renton City He: EXHIBIT 37 8057 • rentonwa.gov from the private street width standard specified in Renton Municipal Code (RMC 4-6- 0601.2). As part of the City's preliminary review, it has been determined that the submitted preliminary plat provides no alternatives to meeting the street standards of the Renton Municipal Code if the request to modify street width requirements were to be denied. Based on the lack of sufficient width within the tracts, the proximity of the existin1; homes to the proposed new roadway, the direct correlation between the number of homes and the number of trips anticipated to utilize the proposed access easement, and the impact on existing homes that would lack a sufficient setback distance from the private street. At this time, staff has determined that the construction of a private street through a substandard access easement would result in a detriment to public safety as it pertains to the existing constructed homes at 618,624, 652, and 700 S 32nd Pl and any future vehicles that may utilize the proposed private street. City staff will make a recommendation on part of the staff report to the Hearing Examiner (the decision maker) that fully evaluates the public safety issues at the public hearing on July 14, 2015. However, the Hearing Examiner will make the final decision on this project. A Public hearing has been scheduled for July 14, 2015 before the Renton Hearing Examiner in Renton Council Chambers at 12:30 pm on the 7th floor of Renton City Hall located at 1055 South Grady Way. The Hearing Examiner will hold the public hearing on the preliminary plat and either approve, approve with conditions or deny the preliminary plat. It is the duty of the Hearing Examiner to assure conformance with the general purposes of the Comprehensive Plan, adopted standards, and to consider the public comments via written and oral testimony. City staff encourages you to attend the public hearing as this is your only opportunity to speak directly with the proJect decision maker. Thank you for interest in this pro1ect and if you have any further questions please contact Clark Close at 425-430-7289 or cclose@rentonwa.gov. Thank you. Sincerely, '- C.E. "Chip" Vincent CED Administrator C'.:: i de LUAl4·COlC,rn, rr, [CF D!~'1!S I ;,w, fi-:.y of \lcnto:i a\/layor Jer'n:fer Henr.ing, Pl,rnri1ne; D:ce:::rnr Steve :.t:'0 1 Ueveloprnint E:1g1'.lPPring Man,1ger 'ia,1essa Dolbee, CurrePt P!an:w1g Managf.r (\iri.; Omf', /\,;,soriate Plarincr Clark Close From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Mary Klaas-Schultz <mklaasschultz@gmail.com> Tuesday, May 12, 2015 7:41 AM Clark Close Jennifer T. Henning Valley Vue Concerns I object to the Volley Vue plan (LUA 14-001040) as proposed because it does not meet the Standard Codes adapted by the City af Renton. It appears as though nothing has changed since the proposal was put on hold and the developer was asked to revise it. I understand that sometimes the Codes can offer a little variance to get a project developed, but think that this proposal is asking for to many adjustments at the expense of the surrounding community. Each time a waiver is granted it minimizes the value of having Standard Codes and Regulations and sends the message that the rules can be negotiated. As proposed, it seems that the Valley Vue project would require the following adjustments to use the access routes proposed; Private Streets: o Width should be 26 feet, not 24 (please note that we have had the distance between survey stakes measured and Tract Bis 21'11", and Tract C is 19'3" o Street-Side yard setback should be 15 feet from each house, clearly not enough room. o Fire Turn around for streets longer than 150 feet, turnarounds are at the end of a street, not the top. This is a basic safety element. o Requirement of new houses to abut a public right-of-way, none of the new proposed houses abut a public street. In addition, I'm concerned with the proposed density with the known water and drainage issues on this parcel. This parcel has a significant slope, and drops close to 50 feet from the wetlands towards Ta/bat. Increased impervious surfaces will increase the water runoff issue and flooding potential. I do not object to the parcel being developed, but would like it to be developed with a plan that makes sense given the constraints of the parcel. It should also be developed within the boundaries of the standard codes that are in place to ensure the integrity of developments and the safety of the community. Mary Klaas Schultz 618 S 32"' Place Renton, WA., 98055 EXHIBIT 38 May 17, 2015 Clark H. Close (Associate Planner) CED Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA. 98057 Clark, I object to the Valley Vue plan /LUA 14-001040) as proposed because it does not meet the Standard Codes adopted by the City of Renton. It appears as though nothing hos changed since the proposal was put on hold and the developer was asked to revise it. I understand that sometimes the Codes can offer a little variance ta get a project developed, but think that this proposal is asking for to many adjustments at the expense of the surrounding community. Each time a waiver is granted it minimizes the value of having Standard Codes and Regulations and sends the message that the rules can be negotiated. As proposed, it seems that the Valley Vue project would require the following adjustments to use the access routes proposed; Private Streets: , , Width should be 26 feet, not 24 (please note that we have had the distance between survey stakes measured and Tract Bis 21'11", and Tract C is 19'3" Street-Side yard setback should be 15 feet from each house, clearly not enough room. Fire Turn around far streets longer than 150 feet, turnarounds are at the end of a street, not the top. This is a basic safety element. o Requirement of new houses to abut a public right-of-way, none of the new proposed houses abut a public street. In addition, I'm concerned with the proposed density with the known water and dram age issues on this parcel. This parcel has a significant slope, and drops close to 50 feet from the wetlands towards Talbot. Increased impervious surfaces will increase the water runoff issue and flooding potential. I do not object to the parcel being developed, but would like it to be developed with a plan that makes sense given the constraints of the parcel. It should also be developed within the boundaries of the standard codes that are in place to ensure the integrity of developments and the safety of the community. I I ii i i ; i(j V C Mary Klaas Schul(z 618 S 32'd Place ( Renton, WA. 9805,5 June 8, 2015 Mary Klaas Schultz 618 S 32nd Pl Renton, WA 98055 .,..- fl"'-• Ci Ly uf I ""' ' J -~' dF Community & Economic Development Department C.E. "Ch ip"'Vi nee n t, Administrator SUBJECT: VALLEY VUE PRELIMINARY PLAT COMMENT RESPONSE LETTER LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD Dear Mary: Thank you for your comments related to the Valley Vue Preliminary Plat; dated May 17, 2015 wherein you raised concerns regarding the proposed project. Your letter will be added to the public record for consideration by the reviewing official. A Public hearing has been scheduled for July 14, 2015 before the Renton Hearing Examiner in Renton Council Chambers at 12:30 pm on the 7th floor of Renton City Hall located at 1055 South Grady Way. The Hearing Examiner will hold the public hearing on the preliminary plat and either approve, approve with conditions or deny the preliminary plat. It is the duty of the Hearing Examiner to assure conformance with the general purposes of the Comprehensive Plan, adopted standards, and to consider the public comments via written and oral testimony. City staff encourages you to attend the public hearing as this is your only opportunity to speak directly with the project decision maker. Thank you for interest in this project and if you have any further questions please contact Clark Close at 425-430-7289 or cclose@rentonwa.gov. Thank you. Sincerely, {JZ.,,.t, .I/. {£,~~-- c1ark H. Close Associate Planner cc: File lUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD Renton City i la!l EXHIBIT 39 )7 • rentonwa.gov Sharon Gangwish 700 S. 32"' Pl Renton, WA 98055 May 12, 2015 Clark Close Department of Community and Economic Development 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Dear Mr. Close This letter concerns the proposed Valley Vue (Lua 14-001040) project. My house is directly east of a proposed access road for this development. I want to be sure that the City of Renton is aware of the actual measurements concerning the easement as they vary from the distances listed (or missing) on the maps sent to me by the developer. • The map shows the easement as 24 feet wide (east/ west). When measured from the property line nails placed in the curbs 25 years ago, this distance is 19' 2 Yz'' wide. The proposed road is 20' without any retaining walls, landscaping, etc .. • The measurement from the side of my house, across the easement to the side of my neighbor's house, is 32' 2" between the houses at the narrowest. If the developer of Valley Vue utilizes 24' for his road, it would be as close as 4' from our houses and on our property. • The cross slope of this easement drops 4' 8" in under 20' from east to west. This would require an extensive retaining wall closer than 4' from my home's foundation. There would also need to be a plan for drainage as there have been issues in the past concerning rain runoff from the hill above my house. A 20' road, retaining wall and landscaping cannot fit on an easement that measures 19' 2 Y,". My fear is that a road will be constructed based on the map and not on the actual measurements. If this occurs there is no apology that would repair the damage done to my home and property. I appreciate your consideration of these concerns and urge that this access road be denied. Thank you, EXHIB1T40 May 27, 2015 Sharon Gangwish 700 S. 32"' Pl Renton, WA 98055 .~~~----- Citv of Community & Economic Development Department CE.""Chip"Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: VALLEY VUE PRELIMINARY PLAT COMMENT RESPONSE LETTER LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD Dear Sharon Gangwish: Thank you for your comments related to the Valley Vue Preliminary Plat; dated May 12, 2015 wherein you raised concerns regarding the width of the access tracts (Tract G & H) proposed to be used by the project Your letter/email will be added to the public record for consideration by the reviewing official and you have been added as a party of record. As a point of clarification, the City has yet to make a decision on the proposal. The applicant, RAD Holdings LLC, has only made application for Preliminary Plat and Environmental Review for the subject development and a decision has yet to be made. You received a notice soliciting public comment and these comments are used to help City staff complete a comprehensive review which will continue over the coming month(s). The applicant is requesting a street modification, from the private street requirements found in Renton Municipal Code (RMC 4-6-060J.2) in order to allow access and utilization of the existing 24-foot private access tracts (Tract G and Tract H; APN 948575-0570) that were recorded in March 1989 under Winsper Division I Subdivision for future ingress, egress and utilities to Tax Lot No. 28 (the "Valley Vue" parcel). The modification from the twenty six foot (26') easement for private streets is being requested as a result of the two foot (2') deficit, from current Renton Municipal Code, found within Tracts G and H. The modification request for the private streets included a minimum pavement width of twenty feet (20'). Please note that the City does not have a professional surveyor on staff, nor is City in the business of conducting professional land surveys on private property. It is the City's position that the recorded Winsper Division 1 Final Plat, as certified by Mr. Scott Macintosh, is correct. The City will consider any additional survey information that is stamped or signed by a registered land surveyor. The vehicular traffic generated as a result of the proposed land development exceeds the number of lots able to be served given the lack of a 26-foot wide easement, lack of at least two (2) lots abutting a public right-of-way, and insufficient side yard setbacks along a private street as it pertains to the existing structures. Therefore, staff has determined that the construction of a private street through a substandard access easement would result in a detriment to public safety as it pertains to the existing constructed homes at 618, 624, 652, and 700 S 32nd Pl and any future vehicles that may utilize the proposed private street. City staff will make a recommendation on part of the staff report to the Hearing Examiner (the decision maker) that r;enton City Hall • EXHIBIT41 7 • rentonwa.gov fully evaluates the public safety issues at the public hearing on July 14, 2015. However, the Hearing Examiner will make the final decision on this project. A Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated (DNS-M) was issued by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on May 18, 2015 with four (4) mitigation measures: 1. Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations found in the Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Geotech Consultants, Inc. dated May 27, 2014 or an updated report submitted at a later date. 2. The applicant shall plant all trees that are within the SO-foot standard wetland buffer by hand and without heavy machinery. To the greatest extent feasible, these trees should be planted in areas where invasive species are present. A tree planting plan shall be provided to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval prior to construction permit issuance. 3. The applicant shall provide a minimum 12 to 15-foot wide utility access easement to the stormwater tract (Tract D) for maintenance and operation of the utility. The easement shall be recorded and documentation provided to the City prior to approval the issuance of the construction permit application. 4. The applicant shall provide a shared driveway through the existing Winsper Division No. 1 Subdivision tracts (Tracts G and H) that are consistent with the shared private driveway stand of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC 4-6-060K). The private access roads shall meet the minimum necessary to provide for safe and effective access for the existing residents, proposed residents, and fire and emergency vehicles. A Public hearing has been scheduled for July 14, 2015 before the Renton Hearing Examiner in Renton Council Chambers at 12:30 pm on the 7th floor of Renton City Hall located at 1055 South Grady Way. The Hearing Examiner will hold the public hearing on the preliminary plat and either approve, approve with conditions or deny the preliminary plat. It is the duty of the Hearing Examiner to assure conformance with the general purroses of the Comprehensive Plan, adopted standards, and to consider the public comments via written and oral testimony. City staff encourages you to attend the public hearinG as this is your only opportunity to speak directly with the project decision maker. Thank you for interest in this project and if you have a,,y further questions please contact Clark Close at 425-430-7289 or cclose@rentonwa.gov. Tl,acok you. Sincerely, Clark H. Close Associate Planner Topographic Boundary Survey <e: File LUA14-001040, ECF, PP Department of Community & Economic Development 1055 South Grady Way Renton Wa 98057-3232 Dear Mr. Close, RECEIVED MAY 1 4 7-0\S CHY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION Thank you for notifying the Winsper Community of the recent status change of the Valley Vue (LUA 14- 001040) project. I have reviewed the "ON HOLD" notice sent to the developer, by the City of Renton, on January 3, 2015 and I am distressed that NONE of the requirements put forth by the City have been met. In fact the project plan has not been modified at all and still does not meet multiple Renton Municipal Codes. These include: 1) Required width of easement: 26 ft. (City Code 4-6-060 J.2) 2) Street-Side yard Setback: 15 ft. from each house to a new street 3) Fire Turn around ( at the end of a new road) for streets longer than 150 ft. ( a basic safety element) 4) Requirement for houses to abut a public right-of-way, none of the new proposed house abuts a public street. 5) Required buffer zone for a Category 2 Wetland: 100ft. City codes are in place to protect the public, and have been properly vetted before becoming law. Why would the city even consider a project that doesn't follow the law? Any variance to these Codes compromises safety and sends a message to the public that the Codes can be broken when convenient. This is not what Renton is all about! Furthermore, our engineers have located the survey nails in the concrete curb at each of the two easements and have measured the actual distance between them. We note that the distance between the survey nails at the proposed eastern easement is only 19ft.-2 inches, and the western easement is 2 lft.- 11 inches. This detail is missing in the topographic-boundary survey submitted by the developer. Why would we even consider putting in a 20ft wide road requiring a retainer wall (at least 18 additional inches) in this space? It is a waste of valuable staff resources. The law also states that there needs to be 15 ft. between an existing home and a new street along the side yard. However, please take note, that this proposed plan puts the road as close as 4 ft. from an existing home! Compounding this safety issue, there are no sidewalks, essentially no barrier between the proposed roads and two of the existing homes, no lighting. and no plans for drainage along the access roads. Additionally, we noticed that the survey information is not stamped/signed by a registered land surveyor. Perhaps that is why key elements are missing from the report. An ALTA survey would be appropriate to identify any encroachments. Upon further research, we also discovered that the buffer zone depicted on the project narrative (and on the public notice board), for the Category 2 wetland is only 50ft. However, Ordinance 5633 indicates the required buffer is 100ft. I emphatically object to this plan, and hope the City rejects this project until a plan is developed that makes sense given the constraints of the parcel. A new plan would need to be within the boundaries of the standard codes that are in place to ensure the integrity of developments and the safety of the community. EXHIBIT42 Den'.:, La\:v \',,1/\r May 27, 2015 Virginia Klaas 618 S 32nd Pl Renton, WA 98055 City of Community & Economic Development Department C.E./JChip"Vincent, Administrator Entire Document Available Upon Request SUBJECT: VALLEY VUE PRELIMINARY PlAT COMMENT RESPONSE LETTER LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD Dear Virginia Klaas: Thank you for your comments received May 14, 2015 related to the Valley Vue Preliminary Plat wherein you raised some additional concerns regarding the proposed project. Your letter will be added to the public record for consideration by the reviewing official and you have been added as a party of record. Your concerns were as follows: 1. Required width of easement: 26 ft. (City Code 4-6-0601.2) Staff Comment: As part of the preliminary plat application, the applicant has made application for Preliminary Plat, Environmental Review, and a request to modify street width requirements in order to access eight (8) proposed lots via the 24-foot wide access easements through Winsper Division No. 1 Subdivision (Tract G and H) in order to serve four (4) new residential lots from each tract. This would be a reduction of two feet (2') from the private street width standard specified in Renton Municipal Code (RMC 4- 6-060].2). Private streets are allowed for access to six (6) or fewer lots, provided at least two (2) of the six (6) lots abut a public right-of-way. Private streets are only permitted if a public street is not anticipated to be necessary for existing or future traffic and/or pedestrian circulation through the subdivision or to serve adjacent property. No sidewalks are required for private streets; however drainage improvements are required, as well as an approved pavement thickness (minimum of four inches (4") asphalt over six inches (6") crushed rock). The maximum grade for the private street shall not exceed fifteen percent (15%) at maximum grade, and angles of approach and departure shall meet fire department requirements. The land area, included in private street easements, shall not be included in the required minimum lot area for purposes of subdivision. The submitted preliminary plat provides no alternatives to meeting the street standards of the Renton Municipal Code if the request to modify street width requirements were to be denied. The applicant would be required to account for construction transportation impacts that would result as part of the plat construction process and any measures that would be implemented to minimize traffic impacts. The lack of sufficient width within the tracts and the proximity of the existing homes to the proposed new roadway create a safety hazard, as the access roads would have no Renton City Hal EXHIBIT 43 057 . rentonwa.gov • ·~crvV Denis Law ---. $ City of. _ _:May:..or -------[)t_) ~;• fJ, /r--,., ~r, \l ~-· 1 ~\~\J. _i . (~~ IJ ' June 17, 2015 Rory Dees RAD Holdings, LLC 1040 W. Lake Sammamish Pkwy SE Bellevue, WA 98008 Community & Economic Development Department C.E. "Chip"Vincent, Administrator Subject: Response to Re-notice SEPA Appeal Period Valley Vue Preliminary Plat, LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD Dear Mr. Dees: On June 12, 2015, you made a request that the City of Renton "City" should re-notice the SEPA Determination due to a post office mailing problem. Your email states that your contact party of record, Jon Nelson, Land Development Advisors, was not provided timely receipt of the documents. After a review of the Master Land Use Application Form (enclosed) submitted to the City on August 1, 2014, and upon confirming that the returned mailing label (enclosed) sent to notify Mr. Nelson was an exact match to the address provided, the City has met its requirements under the law. On May 20, 2015, the City mailed the notice to you (property owner) and to the proper contact person (Mr. Nelson), at the address provided on the Master Application, used proper postage, and completed the mailing within the required time period. In addition, an advertisement was placed in the Renton Reporter (legal notices); and as a courtesy, the notice appeared on the City's website. That the mail was not delivered is unfortunate, however, the notice satisfies the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). A Public Hearing has been scheduled for July 14, 2015 before the Renton Hearing Examiner in Renton Council Chambers at 12:30 pm on the 7th floor of Renton City Hall located at 1055 South Grady Way. A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you prior to the scheduled hearing. Please let me know if there has been a change to Mr. Nelson's mailing address. Please contact me at (425) 430-7289 if you have any questions. Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Sincerely, Clark H. Close Associate Planner Enclosure cc: RAD Holdings/ Owner(s) Jon Nelson 1 Land Development Advisors/ Contact file LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD __ -, , .,~ ... , ,c, ,, v, "--'-'11i1 ra,r,itJ 6. c,, ur 11..i1 rnc De~·cloµ1rr,mt 1005 South Gi'u..:; ~V"'y Rentun, \NA 9d0S 7 ------ NIXIE \tf.l ,'Vic#) \!Ir I\ l Jon Ne on Land evelopment Advisors, LLC 12 5SE47thPI B levue. WA 98006 v $18006307l•lN li<lilTUll.N T:> SENDi:'lt 06/0ti/lS UNULE T:, i'ORWAt!D UNULE T:> FORWARD RlllT'CraN T :l SENDER 111,, 11, I, I, I, 11,U, I, ,II It, I, 1,111,": fl" 111,, 111,, 111, 1,11,t.(ll,I, II )rVAtuvf2J . L _/ ~~r1 · rVYJ /iii /J 1111, ii/Ji/lJIII,, i,1, I· 111, 1:J./111}/// //1 id, I 1 /, • • i: NAME: City of Renton LAND USE PERMIT MASTER APPLICATION ,· ,. : PROPERTY OWNER($) PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: V~'f \/UIS PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE: jl I)(; °11qLijo"( RoA i) S ZIP: °/Ooo6 l<wTol'J 1 WA 9',loss· 11 TELEPHONE NUMBER: 1-,o (p 1-\ ) _ 4 {"")~ KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): APPLICANT (if other than owner) EXISTING LAND USE(S): 1<SF COMPANY(ifapplicable): f<~H) HDLD!Nb,S U ( PROPOSED LAND USE(S): Rsi:: EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: ADDRESS: lot.to 11\). L-l1~)t.. ~rnl'l'\A-«115-<1 P •t.Mf l-'c.-.:"'""--....:.R_s..:.cF'------------------1 1 fl.. 1_ , ,. PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION I CITY: vn-Ll....li..VIA1t.--ZIP: 1 \3vvf) \ (if applicable) (<Sf I i--------------------------1 I 1 TELEPHONE NUMBER, -zo& 'l-\ r ~ 4 s-s-'f CONTACT PERSON I I ~jA_D_DR_E_ss_,____:1_2_S_~~):_::S~lt'..-:;:__Y~1Lt_~~-f'-'----"'L'----~-~ tTY: B\1..1.L.Wl;I ii..--ZIP ll"oDO(., ! TELEPHONE NUMBER AND EMAIL ADDRESS: I EXISTING ZONING: ~~ PROPOSED zo~i (if applicable): I SITE AREA (in square feet): I ll)0, l\3fdll ' SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED: NI A- I SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS: Lf 8vo PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL. DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET I ACRE (if applicable) j I -.,,'jl.- [ NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable) I 9 e!M 2 ;rs / NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): ' 1' http://rentonwagov/uploadedFiles/Business/PHPW/DEVSERV/PORMS_PLANNlNO/masterapp,doe ' Jon Nelson Land Development Advisors, LLC 12865 SE 47th Pl Bellevue, WA 98006 Rorv Dees 1040 W Lake Sammamish Pkwy SE Bellevue. WA 98008 Rory Dees RAD HOLDINGS LLC 1040 W Lake Sammamish Pkwy SE Bellevue, WA 98008 STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING } AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC NOTICE Linda M Mills, being first duly sworn on oath that she is the Legal Advertising Representative of the Renton Reporter a weekly newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of general circulation and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continuously as a weekly newspaper in King County, Washington. The Renton Reporter has been approved as a Legal Newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County. The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues of the Renton Reporter (and not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a: Public Notice was published on May 22, 2015. The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of$105.00. 94 j:::1-·::, '~ a Mills Legal Advertising Representative, Renton Reporter Subscribed and sworn to me this 22nd day of May, 2015. i:J2&u2~ K.C. Sherman, Notary Public for the State of Washington, Residing in Buckley, Washington -,_->'\';~~~\:"t;:,,,, ,,, ... _.::.:-,"--1' ,·,\\\\'. -~<·,,,! ( . ~,, "ff _/f:'o\<'.~I i},~;::~~<J{,, :=0.::-"'""f»(i·-::::-q,:.;:: (!,I'::};: ~;1'n ''1:i,H\n·.\,., "IOTICEOF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAi. REVIEW COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC HEARl'iG RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee has issued a Detenni- nation of Non-Significance Miti- gated (DNS-M) for the following project under the authonty of the Renton municipal code. Valley Vue Preliminary Plat LU I\ 14-00 I 040 Location: 3106 Talbot Rd S The applicant is requesting Pre- liminary Plat approval. Envi- ronmental (SEPA) Review, a private Street Modification for the subdivision of an existing 2.3-acre parcel located withm the R-8 zone into 9 residential lot<; and 4 tract~ at 3106 Talbot Rd S. The site contains a Cate- gory 2 wetland Appeals of the DNS-M must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on June 05, 2015. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner c/o City Clerk, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Hearing Examiner arc governed by RMC 4-8-110 and more infonnation may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk"s Office. 425,430,6510 A Public Hearing will be held by the Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers, City HalL on July 14, 2015 at 12:30 pm to consider the submitted applica- tion. lf the DNS-M is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing Interested parties are invited to attend the public hearing. Published in the Renton Report- er on May 22, 2015. #1326238. li--- Denis Law c· f __ M:ayo:..r -------_-R{(~i1 tC 0 l1_b_rc: )1 t l .. June 8, 2015 Mary Klaas Schultz 618 S 32"d Pl Renton, WA 98055 .__. -,.,...,;·~J. ,~--"'"-11,r·,,~ --'-~ Community & Economic Development Department C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: VALLEY VUE PRELIMINARY PLAT COMMENT RESPONSE LETTER LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD Dear Mary: Thank you for your comments related to the Valley Vue Preliminary Plat; dated May 17, 2015 wherein you raised concerns regarding the proposed project. Your letter will be added to the public record for consideration by the reviewing official. A Public hearing has been scheduled for July 14, 2015 before the Renton Hearing Examiner in Renton Council Chambers at 12:30 pm on the 7th floor of Renton City Hall located at 1055 South Grady Way. The Hearing Examiner will hold the public hearing on the preliminary plat and either approve, approve with conditions or deny the preliminary plat. It is the duty ofthe Hearing Examiner to assure conformance with the general purposes of the Comprehensive Plan, adopted standards, and to consider the public comments via written and oral testimony. City staff encourages you to attend the public hearing as this is your only opportunity to speak directly with the project decision maker. Thank you for interest in this project and if you have any further questions please contact Clark Close at 425-430-7289 or cclose@rentonwa.gov. Thank you. Sincerely, Clark H. Close Associate Planner cc: File LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 , rentonwa.gov , _ :;;:--::;:" ·,y, __ ::::>:'::> "':_ -:L,., _ .. ,cc, ->:)iii-"· -<>·<<'-'"" :::> :o:". "_., ECONOMICDEVEt.:Of'.MEN1·PLANNING DIV.ISi.ON 1':r9~i~~~~l£E ixJ111lii.1N<i . . Agencies See Attached Rory Dees Owner Jon Nelson Contact Parties of Record See Attached (Signature of Sender): STATE OF WASHINGTON ss COUNTY OF KING ,,,,,\\\\\\1,,1 .;o.~' ~\-Y PQ~7 -2 ')..o ..,.,.:,\\\\\'1111 v$:: :::: "<. • -~~\~$10~ )h, A., . ' ~ ... :,I" ~+1,·,;0 --~~~ OT"' ""'1 ', 'IJ' . ::/{ + +-J.. '.0/~ .::.... ~~ ~ ... -'°;: I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Sabrina Mirante t ~ \, "'c,8 .,c. j < signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for th'~ ~!!,,f.rts#!JIIJrJ}.GS~ .- mentioned in the instrument. 1 \,_ 1 o,/w"\n,w,~~C),.,_ ..... ~::-" r 11 AS ... ~ ....... . ' ". ·!\,_,\\,\\'\\.'. N~;;~bl:fi~,;~~ 'io/~he State of Washington Dated: __.j-'-'Y/_,_1 """, fe--2"-'~.,_· ~Jc.c:.C,:.ci .,_5 Notary (Print): ______ .,_~/-", . ..,! '...,.__~.,_F-'-'-', =· "'-"+------------ My appointment expires: 1 \ / /ClC:<{', { ·, ,?C( JC/ t I 1 Valley Vue Preliminary Plat 14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD template -affidavit of service by mailing Dept. of Ecology** Environmental Review Section PO Box47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 WSDOT Northwest Region * Attn: Ramin Pazooki King Area Dev. Serv.1 MS-240 PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers * Seattle District Office Attn: SEPA Reviewer PO Box C-3755 Seattle, WA 98124 Boyd Powers*"'* Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Serv. Attn: SEPA Section 35030 SE Douglas St. #210 Snoqualmie, WA 98065 Metro Transit Senior Environmental Planner Gary Kriedt 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Seattle Public Utilities Timothy C. Croll, Attn: SEPA Responsible Official 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 AGENCY (DOE) LEITER MAILING (ERC DETERMINATIONS) Dept. of Ecology ** Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept.** Attn: Misty Blair Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer PO Box47703 39015-172"d Avenue SE Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Auburn, WA 98092 Duwamish Tribal Office* Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program*"' 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Laura Murphy Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015172'' Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092-9763 KC Wastewater Treatment Division * Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program** Environmental Planning Supervisor Attn: Erin Slaten Ms. Shirley Marroquin 39015 172"d Avenue SE 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 Auburn, WA 98092-9763 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 WDFW -Larry Fisher* Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation"' 1775 12th Ave. NW Suite 201 Attn: Gretchen Kaehler Issaquah, WA 98027 PO Box 48343 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: Tim McHarg Attn: Acting Community Dev. Director Director of Community Development 220 Fourth Avenue South 12835 Newcastle Way, Ste 200 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Newcastle, WA 98056 Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Wendy Weiker, Community Svcs. Mgr. Jack Pace, Responsible Official 355 110'" Ave NE 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Mai/stop EST 11 W Tukwila, WA 98188 Bellevue, WA 98004 Puget Sound Energy Doug Corbin, Municipal Liaison Mgr. 6905 South 228'" St Kent, WA 98032 "'Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, and the Notice of Application. **Department of Ecology is emailed a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, & Notice to the following email address: sepaunit@ecy.wa.gov ** Karen Walter, Laura Murphy and Erin Slaten with the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. are emailed a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, & Notice to the following email addresses: KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us / Laura.murphy@muckleshoot.nsn.us L e ri n. slaten@ m uckles hoot. nsn . us ***Department of Natural Resources is emailed a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, & Notice the following email address: sepacenter@dnr.wa.gov template· affidavit of service by mailing Victoria Park Homeowners Association PO Box 1104 Renton, WA 98055 Barbara Webb 10319 SE 30th St Bellevue, WA 98004 Bruce Truong 3101 Smithers Ave S Renton, WA 98055 DEBORAH POOLE 625 S 32nd Pl Renton, WA 98055-5086 J&M Management 17404 Meridian E Puyallup, WA 98375 Kathv Rickard J and M Management 17404 Meridian E, Suite F -PMB 171 Puyallup, WA 98375 Margaret Smith Charity 523 S 31st St Renton, WA 98055-5058 Patrick Gastineau 17611 Eason Ave Bothell, WA 98011 Rorv Dees RAD HOLDINGS LLC 1040 W Lake Sammamish Pkwy SE Bellevue, WA 98008 Steven Nguyen 619 S 32nd Pl Renton, WA 98055 Alfonso Pelavo 711 S 32nd Pl Renton. WA 98055 BRIAN G+CHERIE D YORITA 607 S 32ND PL Renton, WA 98055 Carl Kiminki 703 S 32nd St Renton, WA 98055 Doug Dalen 721 S 31st St Renton, WA 98055 Jerome Jaeb 701 S 32nd Pl Renton, WA 98055 Lisa & David Murphy 729 S 25th St Renton, WA 98055 Marv Klaas Schultz 618 S 32nd Pl Renton, WA 98055 Rich Perteet 734 S 32nd St Renton, WA 98055 Sharon Gangwish 700 S 32nd Pl Renton, WA 98055 STEVEN THOMPSON INSIGNIA SIGN INC 706 S 32nd Pl Renton, WA 98055-5000 Andrea Smith 3111 Smithers Ave S Renton, WA 98055 BRUCE AND SHARON WICKS 3121 Smithers Ave S Renton, WA 98055-5301 CAROL & JESS TOMAS J C ENTERPRISES 739 S 32nd Pl Renton. WA 98055-5095 Hisami Hoglund 727 S 32nd Pl Renton, WA 98055 Jon Nelson Land Development Advisors, LLC 12865 SE 47th Pl Bellevue. WA 98006 Luz Chan 632 S 32nd Pl Renton, WA 98055 Nona Braun 606 S 32nd Pl Renton, WA 98055-5094 Rorv Dees 1040 W Lake Sammamish Pkwy SE Bellevue, WA 98008 Stanely Mitchell 3107 Smithers Ave S Renton, WA 98055 TRUDY WARM 635 S 32nd St Renton. WA 98055 Tu Kolb 601 S 32nd Pl Renton, WA 98055 William Smith 3111 Smithers Ave S Renton, WA 98055 Virginia Klaas. MD 618 S 32nd Pl Renton, WA 98055 Wavne Dong 636 S 32nd Pl Renton. WA 98055 () --c;Ly;~-------~. ---~----,-; · 11 I I I I('>:) ~--·) -~'/ NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUANCE OF A DffiRMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED !DNS•M) Pm TED TD NDTIF'I' INTIRE.5TED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: PROJECTNl/MBU.: LOCATION: Valloy Vu. Prollmia•'l' Plat WA14-0Q1040, !CF, PP llllfiond31U Tall><l\Rd ~ Do«n~_on: Th, app1Jtan1 ;, "'~ue,;tln(I SEPA Envimnmental Re•iew and Proliminary Plat appr<:wal lora 9---lot ,sbd,m,on. Th• 2.3-acre site Is local!ld within th• Resld<!nt;al-8 dwell,ns un,ts per nM acre lduh<I ,onln11 ,1..,,rt,r:at10n. There are two s,n1I• t.m,lv "'"den,es (3106 and Juz Talbot Road South) located on th" para,I that 111n ac,es, to the ,rl!I fmm Talbot Road Sooth and •r• p•rt ol th• Bla.:k River aa,in. The 11n1le lam,ly house located at 3106 i, ,onnec,e<I 10 my wator and '""'"' and wo~ld remain •nd be 1ncorporate<l ln10 the subdlvi11on"' Lot 9, ~hlle the hou,e loc,l!ld ,t 3112 ls on a rept1C sy,tem and would be d•moushed. fogethertha nln• 19) resldent,al lots {8 new +tho remaining single family hou>el would ,e,ult In, denSJty 014.23 du/oc. Re•ld•ntlal lot ,1,.,s ,an~• Imm 4,~0l st to 18,169 sl w,Ch on """'"8" lot <i1e ot7.954 ,t In addition tc th 9 re,ldentlal lots, four (41 tracts are propos•d for ,cc•" mad,, ,on,1,1.,., areas, and sto,mwat.,. dotent101'. The eight (81 n•w re,idontlal lats would b.11 served from Wlnsper Di,i,ion No 1 Subdi,,s,on {Tract G and Tract HI,,, twc dedicated lngre,,/egru, ~a..,ment area, of 24 feel m width th,.,.;gh the d"elopm.en! on S 32nd Pl•<~. There are 14l >ign,fi<1nt trees on the s,te and th• appHea!lt 1, proposing to rocam 27 ans,n•I tree,. It detenbon vault In th• 1110,terfy ponkm ofth• ,ct,," proposed within Trac, D which .. ould d1,charge ,nto th• e,lmng conveyance sistem on the e .. t ,id• of Talbot Road The appH_cant has ,ubm,ttod a Crltlcal Areas Roport, Prellm1nary Technical Information R•porl, and a Ge<>te,M1cal En111n°""r1n11 Repon: with the application. The ,ita contain, a Cal•B<l'i' 2 wetland ;~ the far ea.,t,,m portion ol !ho mo. No lmpoct• to cntlcal areas on,lte are pr<>?l)Sed and e~isting ,lopes on th• ,ile average rou11hly 6%. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTl'E IERC) HA.S DITTRMINED THAT THE PROPOSl'D ACTION HAS PROBABLE SIGNIFICANT 1MPACT5 TI1AT CAN BE MITIGATED TKROUG~ MITIGATION MEA.SURES. App.al, of the envl,onmtntal dehlrmin•l;ton musi be fil1d In wrlt1 1111 on or befort 5:00 p.m. on Jun• 5, 2D15, lcpther With tht r1quln1d f"" wltll.: Helril'\I E.um!n•r, City-of R1nton, 10SS South Grady Woy, Renton, WA 98057. App.al, to tho E>tamlner an, 10 .. rn11d by City Df ltMC 4-11-110 and lnkirmltlon rogardlng the app,oal pro,.,, may be obtained from 1h1 Rant<in CltyCi.tfl!'sOfflat, {41!51 Ull-6510. FOR ~URTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AT (425) 430-7200 DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORliATION PLEASE lNnUDE TllE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CA LUNG FOR PROPER FILE !DENTIACATION. CERTIFICATION NUMBERWHEN~LUNG p RAUTI-IORfiATION FOIi PROPER flt£ IDENTIFICATION, I, {,:1.J'fX-/L t-1-{),d',e , hereby certify that s copies of the above document were posted in_.:;.__ conspicuous places or nearby the described property on Date· .. _ ---=5'-.J.}_2_1..:../ l_s_-____ _ Signed::__1.a~4'.,4~:.J:.f/~·f..a~:=::==:::::--- STATE OF WASHINGTON 55 COUNTY OF KING I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that C l"-r IL \.\. (_ \c >i' signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. D~~~9.lt.~~J,i ...: V ... ~'."';,.M E~ 1, .I _;: o'::,../ ~~~ '1, := ff# :'\1'Ry ~\ ~ J:3. S ~ z .,.. ..... .. , :::: ; ~o • ~ o / "*'"' ~ : ,_ ,;. ~ Pu&"" '\.I\._§ (j :: /I "'t, 2n... --2 ~ .: 11 d\._ ljf a .. ':;I._,,..;:, ~ '" 111 ~ 11111Y!m,...,,,.., C:,~ .:::- 1' • ?-f: 0 F "" f>: ,.:: 11 1. -.....,,, , I\\\\\\\''' J t. is ) and for the State of Washington Notary (Print): __ _i;H..,.c..,.\'."'~J..,__-..oP.icc.:.i'.l"-O'-'Y='' c.'Sl-------- My appointment expires: ___ ...,..A_,_~~Y""Jf-''-"'' 5....,.1:_-,J:a.' .. ~-"'"J.....;Ga:;.· ._/.._t ___ _ 98057-3232 If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on · · · proposed project, complete this form and return to: City o· ton, CED-Planning Division, 1055 So. Grady Way, 1, WA 98057. Name/File No.: Pointe Ht! ____ Filling, Excavation and Grading Project/ LUA15~000039, ECF, SP, MOD NAME: 4gv,~ QJL,E.t-J MAILINGADDRESS: po enx g'~°?, TELEPHONE NO,; ,3'70 '6 j_ ,t(>S° :l,- CITY/STATE/ZIP; Rf;.NTON W!r C,'10/;7 :.J:il. M,11:\'f 2015: FM. 8 T RECE\VEO \/1/','i ? Ii ? 1!\S Of REN10N C~~1u11NG o\\J\S\ON ',111111111 ,11 lj h, 1111,,1, 11111, I, I', ll II 11111 lj, 11' 11111, I 11•1• May 17, 2015 Clark H. Close /Associate Planner) CED Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA. 98057 Clark, I object to the Valley Vue plan (LUA 14-001040} as proposed because it does not meet the Standard Codes adopted by the City of Renton. It appears as though nothing has changed since the proposal was put on hold and the developer was asked to revise it. I understand that sometimes the Codes can offer a little variance to get a project developed, but think that this proposal is asking for to many adjustments at the expense of the surrounding community. Each time a waiver is granted it minimizes the value of having Standard Codes and Regulations and sends the message that the rules can be negotiated. As proposed, it seems that the Valley Vue project would require the following adjustments to use the access routes proposed; Private Streets: o Width should be 26 feet, not 24 (please note that we have had the distance between survey stakes measured and Tract Bis 21'11", and Tract C is 19'3" o Street-Side yard setback should be 15 feet from each house, clearly not enough room. o Fire Turn around for streets longer than 150 feet, turnarounds are at the end of a street, not the top. This is a basic safety element. o Requirement of new houses to abut a public right-of-way, none of the new proposed houses abut a public street. In addition, I'm concerned with the proposed density with the known water and drainage issues on this parcel. This parcel has a significant slope, and drops close to 50 feet from the wetlands towards Talbot. Increased impervious surfaces will increase the water runoff issue and flooding potential. I do not object to the parcel being developed, but would like it ta be developed with a plan that makes sense given the constraints of the parcel. It should also be developed within the boundaries of the standard codes ,that are in place to en;ure the integrity of developments and the safety of the community. Cl( . / i (~/-.) / L ltf /-,( ·~,,--1.;l/. / ( di/ / Mary Klaas Schu(fz · / 618 S 32"d Place ( Renton, WA. 9805,,5 . ,, __ / ,J Department of Community& Economic Development 1055 South Grady Way Renton Wa 98057-3232 Dear Clark, May 8, 2015 Thank you for informing the Winsper Community about the continuance on the Valley Vue Project. It is distressing that the developer wants to proceed even though the project is not compliant with a number of the current Renton Municipal Codes. Such disregard is without consideration to the people residing in the Winsper Community, does not promote the ideology of a "good neighbo~' nor adheres to the City of Renton Design Goals. The City Goals (Amended 9/19/11) were set in attempt to "raise the aesthetic quality of the City and ensure that a high quality life is maintained as Renton evolves". These goals specifically state: Policy CD-16: Project design, including location of access and dimensions of yards and setbacks, should address privacy and quality of life on existing improved portions of sites. Rear and side yard setbacks should be maintained and not reduced to facilitate increased density. Policy CD-17: Setbacks and other development standards should not be reduced on newly platted lots through modification or variance to facilitate increased density. Policy CD-45: Interpret development standards to support new plats and infill project designs that address privacy and quality of life for existing residents. Furthermore, there are some significant concerns with the parcel that have not been adequately addressed in the proposal process or in previous correspondence with the city including: • The survey submitted is not signed by a registered land surveyor. An ALTA survey should be done to identify any encroachments. There are many topographical features that will make the construction of the two access roads very tight, if not impossible without encroaching onto the existing developed properties, especially the proposed easterly access. • The plan does not include any lights. An existing streetlight on the easterly access road will be removed. There is not a plan to replace this safety light or add additional street lighting, a needed element of safety. • The environmental documentation does not include the height of the buffer walls and how will they be constructed. Safety features to protect vehicles, pedestrians, and adjacent housing is also not addressed. • The parcel is in an area where extensive underground mining took place. Yet, the submitted environmental documentation did not include a discussion of this. Past mining activity may impact the future homeowners with related hazards of the primary coal mining (the presence of improperly sealed openings, venting gasses, ground collapse, regional subsidence of the ground). • There is no mention of this project establishing a HOA to provide for maintenance of the private roads and drainage systems. If there is not an HOA, the Winsper Community has no assurance that this development will not become a blighted code enforcement issue. • Construction would cause heavy equipment, trucks, and building materials to be moved through the Winsper neighborhood bringing noise and dust. The plan calls for working M-F plus Saturday. We request that the development NOT occur on the weekends. We would like to preserve our weekends for family and a sense of well-being. The Project plan is riddled with short comings, and inconsiderate of existing residents. The proposed roads are as close as five feet of the foundation along at least two of the homes adjacent to the access easements, with no room for setbacks, sidewalks or lighting. This is a bad idea. Please reject any variances to this parcel and enforce the development code standardnank OU. ' ~ rl Cl"" I ~lls 1~JJP 'K e,n,,TevJ · UJ'o.S Department of Community& Economic Development 1055 South Grady Way Renton Wa 98057-3232 Dear Clark, May 8, 2015 Thank you for informing the Winsper Community about the continuance on the Valley Vue Project. It is distressing that the developer wants to proceed even though the project is not compliant with a number of the current Renton Municipal Codes. Such disregard is without consideration to the people residing in the Winsper Community, does not promote the ideology of a "good neighbor" nor adheres to the City of Renton Design Goals. The City Goals (Amended 9/19/11) were set in attempt to "raise the aesthetic quality of the City and ensure that a high quality life is maintained as Renton evolves". These goals specifically state: Policy CD-16: Project design, including location of access and dimensions of yards and setbacks, should address privacy and quality of life on existing improved portions of sites. Rear and side yard setbacks should be maintained and not reduced to facilitate increased density. Policy CD-17: Setbacks and other development standards should not be reduced on newly platted lots through modification or variance to facilitate increased density. Policy CD-45: Interpret development standards to support new plats and infill project designs that address privacy and quality of life for existing residents. Furthermore, there are some significant concerns with the parcel that have not been adequately addressed in the proposal process or in previous correspondence with the city including: • The survey submitted is not signed by a registered land surveyor. An ALTA survey should be done to identify any encroachments. There are many topographical features that will make the construction of the two access roads very tight, if not impossible without encroaching onto the existing developed properties, especially the proposed easterly access. • The plan does not include any lights. An existing streetlight on the easterly access road will be removed. There is not a plan to replace this safety light or add additional street lighting, a needed element of safety. • The environmental documentation does not include the height of the buffer walls and how will they be constructed. Safety features to protect vehicles, pedestrians, and adjacent housing is also not addressed. • The parcel is in an area where extensive underground mining took place. Yet, the submitted environmental documentation did not include a discussion of this. Past mining activity may impact the future homeowners with re!ated hazards of the primary coal mining (the presence of improperly sealed openings, venting gasses, ground collapse, regional subsidence of the ground). • There is no mention of this project establishing a HOA to provide for maintenance of the private roads and drainage systems. If there is not an HOA, the Winsper Community has no assurance that this development will not become a blighted code enforcement issue. • Construction would cause heavy equipment, trucks, and building materials to be moved through the Winsper neighborhood bringing noise and dust. The plan calls for working M-F plus Saturday. We request that the development NOT occur on the weekends. We would like to preserve our weekends for family and a sense of well-being. The Project plan is riddled with short comings, and inconsiderate of existing residents. The proposed roads are as close as five feet of the foundation along at least two of the homes adjacent to the access easements, with no room for setbacks, sidewalks or lighting. This is a bad idea. Please reject any variances to this parcel and enforce the development code standards. Tt,ank you. · · · ,. · --"' r ... :j ·~ '.~.\) f"'I ! '\ 1 ·~ .._,: Department of Community& Economic Development 1055 South Grady Way Renton Wa 98057-3232 Dear Clark, May 8, 2015 Thank you for informing the Winsper Community about the continuance on the Valley Vue Project. It is distressing that the developer wants to proceed even though the project is not compliant with a number of the current Renton Municipal Codes. Such disregard is without consideration to the people residing in the Winsper Community, does not promote the ideology of a "good neighbor" nor adheres to the City of Renton Design Goals. The City Goals (Amended 9119111) were set in attempt to "raise the aesthetic quality of the City and ensure that a high quality life is maintained as Renton evolves". These goals specifically state: Policy CD-16: Project design, including location of access and dimensions of yards and setbacks, should address privacy and quality of life on existing improved portions of sites. Rear and side yard setbacks should be maintained and not reduced to facilitate increased density. Policy CD-17: Setbacks and other development standards should not be reduced on newly platted lots through modification or variance to facilitate increased density. Policy CD-45: Interpret development standards to support new plats and infill project designs that address privacy and quality of life for existing residents. Furthermore, there are some significant concerns with the parcel that have not been adequately addressed in the proposal process or in previous correspondence with the city including: • The survey submitted is not signed by a registered land surveyor. An AL TA survey should be done to identify any encroachments. There are many topographical features that will make the construction of the two access roads very tight. if not impossible without encroaching onto the existing developed properties, especially the proposed easterly access. • The plan does not include any lights. An existing streetlight on the easterly access road will be removed. There is not a plan to replace this safety light or add additional street lighting, a needed element of safety. • The environmental documentation does not include the height of the buffer walls and how will they be constructed. Safety features to protect vehicles, pedestrians, and adjacent housing is also not addressed. • The parcel is in an area where extensive underground mining took place. Yet, the submitted environmental documentation did not include a discussion of this. Past mining activity may impact the future homeowner,a with related hazard:c of the primary coal mining (the presence of improperly sealed openings, venting gasses, ground collapse, regional subsidence of the ground). • There is no mention of this project establishing a HOA to provide for maintenance of the private roads and drainage systems. If there is not an HOA, the Winsper Community has no assurance that this development will not become a blighted code enforcement issue. • Construction would cause heavy equipment, trucks, and building materials to be moved through the Winsper neighborhood bringing noise and dust. The plan calls for working M-F plus Saturday. We request that the development NOT occur on the weekends. We would like to preserve our weekends for family and a sense of well-being. The Project plan is riddled with short comings, and inconsiderate of existing residents. The proposed roads are as close as five feet of the foundation along at least two of the homes adjacent to the access easements, with no room for setbacks, sidewalks or lighting. This is a bad idea. Please reject any variance~_,t9_/~i.~p~rcel and ,._.,-en~evelopment code standards Thank you r I • ' ~ r) ~;~s\,.i~; PL ( ·wi'~!.f<0 . , " :, . ~1 ~ 1,foJ) i' Department of Community& Economic Development 1055 South Grady Way Renton Wa 98057-3232 Dear Clark, May 8, 2015 Thank you for informing the Winsper Community about the continuance on the Valley Vue Project. It is distressing that the developer wants to proceed even though the project is not compliant with a number of the current Renton Municipal Codes. Such disregard is without consideration to the people residing in the Winsper Community, does not promote the ideology of a "good neighbor' nor adheres to the City of Renton Design Goals. The City Goals (Amended 9/19/11) were set in attempt to "raise the aesthetic quality of the City and ensure that a high quality life is maintained as Renton evolves". These goals specifically state: Policy CD-16: Project design, including location of access and dimensions of yards and setbacks, should address privacy and quality of life on existing improved portions of sites. Rear and side yard setbacks should be maintained and not reduced to facilitate increased density. Policy CD-17: Setbacks and other development standards should not be reduced on newly platted lots through modification or variance to facilitate increased density. Policy CD-45: Interpret development standards to support new plats and infill project designs that address privacy and quality of life for existing residents. Furthermore, there are some significant concerns with the parcel that have not been adequately addressed in the proposal process or in previous correspondence with the city including: • The survey submitted is not signed by a registered land surveyor. An AL TA survey should be done to identify any encroachments. There are many topographical features that will make the construction of the two access roads very tight, if not impossible without encroaching onto the existing developed properties, especially the proposed easterly access. • The plan does not include any lights. An existing streetlight on the easterly access road will be removed. There is not a plan to replace this safety light or add additional street lighting, a needed element of safety. • The environmental documentation does not include the height of the buffer walls and how will they be constructed. Safety features to protect vehicles, pedestrians, and adjacent housing is also not addressed. • The parcel is in an area where extensive underground mining took place. Yet, the submitted environmental documentation did not include a discussion of this. Past mining activity may impact the future homeowners with related hazards of t~e prima::ry ccal min;ng (the presence of improperly sealed openings, venting gasses, ground collapse, regional subsidence of the ground). • There is no mention of this project establishing a HOA to provide for maintenance of the private roads and drainage systems. If there is not an HOA, the Winsper Community has no assurance that this development will not become a blighted code enforcement issue. • Construction would cause heavy equipment, trucks, and building materials to be moved through the Winsper neighborhood bringing noise and dust. The plan calls for working M-F plus Saturday. We request that the development NOT occur on the weekends. We would like to preserve our weekends for family and a sense of well-being. The Project plan is riddled with short comings, and inconsiderate of existing residents. The proposed roads are as close as five feet of the foundation along at least two of the homes adjacent to the access easements, with n'·;-'"il?·~~r setbacks, sidewalks or lighting. This is a bad idea. Please reject any variances to this parcel and : ; ,_ '•~·enl'6fce ftlie development cod standards. Thank you. Department of Community& Economic Development 1055 South Grady Way Renton Wa 98057-3232 Dear Clark, May 8, 2015 Thank you for informing the Winsper Community about the continuance on the Valley Vue Project. It is distressing that the developer wants to proceed even though the project is not compliant with a number of the current Renton Municipal Codes. Such disregard is without consideration to the people residing in the Winsper Community, does not promote the ideology of a "good neighbor" nor adheres to the City of Renton Design Goals. The City Goals (Amended 9/19/11) were set in attempt to "raise the aesthetic quality of the City and ensure that a high quality life is maintained as Renton evolves". These goals specifically state: Policy CD-16: Project design, including location of access and dimensions of yards and setbacks, should address privacy and quality of life on existing improved portions of sites. Rear and side yard setbacks should be maintained and not reduced to facilitate increased density. Policy CD-17: Setbacks and other development standards should not be reduced on newly platted lots through modification or variance to facilitate increased density. Policy CD-45: Interpret development standards to support new plats and infill project designs that address privacy and quality of life for existing residents. Furthermore, there are some significant concerns with the parcel that have not been adequately addressed in the proposal process or in previous correspondence with the city including: • The survey submitted is not signed by a registered land surveyor. An Al TA survey should be done to identify any encroachments. There are many topographical features that will make the construction of the two access roads very tight, if not impossible without encroaching onto the existing developed properties, especially the proposed easterly access. • The plan does not include any lights. An existing streetlight on the easterly access road will be removed. There is not a plan to replace this safety light or add additional street lighting, a needed element of safety. • The environmental documentation does not include the height of the buffer walls and how will they be constructed. Safety features to protect vehicles, pedestrians, and adjacent housing is also not addressed. • The parcel is in an area where extensive underground mining took place. Yet, the submitted environmental documentation did not include a discussion of this. Past mining activity may impact the future homeowners with related hazards of the primary coal mining (the presence of improperly sealed openings, venting gasses, ground collapse, regional subsidence of the ground). • There is no mention of this project establishing a HOA to provide for maintenance of the private roads and drainage systems. If there is not an HOA, the Winsper Community has no assurance that this development will not become a blighted code enforcement issue. • Construction would cause heavy equipment, trucks, and building materials to be moved through the Winsper neighborhood bringing noise and dust. The plan calls for working M-F plus Saturday. We request that the development NOT occur on the weekends. We would like to preserve our weekends for family and a sense of well-being. The Project plan is riddled with short comings, and inconsiderate of existing residents. The proposed roads are as close as five feet of the foundation along at least two of the homes adjacent to the access easements, with no room for setbacks, sidewalks or lighting. This is a bad idea. Please reject any vari nces to this parcel and e(nfoJev:r~e~=_:;::you. RECE!\/.i ~, .. ,-.-::: ,s · · L c) ~ 1.J L J )._ wcf MAY I :J z, JJ , . LJ o...,_ CITY C' ,. - /~ 'tf'a5.J PL•~?' Clark H.Close Department of Community& Economic Development 1055 South Grady Way Renton Wa 98057-3232 Dear Clark, May 8, 2015 Thank you for notifying the Winsper Community of the recent status change of the Valley Vue project. We were all a bit surprised that the project would be allowed to proceed to the hearing stage without any of the changes that were required in the January 3, 2015 letter that placed the project on hold. That said, please note that I object to plan (LUA 14-001040) as proposed because it still does not meet the Standard Codes adopted by the City of Renton. While codes can offer a little variance to get a project developed at times, this proposal would require too many adjustments at the expense of the surrounding community. Each time a waiver is granted it minimizes the value of Standard Codes and Regulations and sends the message that the rules can be negotiated. It is the people of Renton, and the surrounding neighbors that pay the expense in sub-standard developments. It is an unfair burden. My understanding is that the Valley Vue project is asking for two access points through the Winsper neighborhood to develop 9-homes. A couple of the engineers in our neighborhood have gone out and located the survey nails in the concrete curb at these easements and have measured the actual distance between them. At the eastem easement, this distance is only 19ft, 2inches, and at the more westem easement the measurement is 21ft, 11 inches. The proposed plan does not meet development standards for private streets on several points. To utilize these easements as access for this new development would require numerous variances, all at the expense of the Winsper Community. The following variances would be needed to use the access routes proposed: o Required width: 26 feet easement (City Code 4-6-060 J.2) o Street-Side yard Setback: 15 feet from each house from street o Fire Tum around for streets longer than 150 feet ( a basic safety element) o Requirement for houses to abut a public right-of-way, none of the new proposed house abut a public street. I am also concemed with increased hardscape and impervious surfaces the proposed density would bring to the neighborhood. This parcel has a large wetland area, and known water and drainage issues. The removal 115 trees will increase the water and drainage problems. Infill density requirements should not be a priority on such a parcel, safety and protecting surrounding community and habitat should be. I object to the parcel being developed until a plan is developed that makes sense given the constraints of the parcel. It should also be developed within the boundaries of the standard codes that are in place to ensure the integrity of developments and the safety of t?~\f,P'ft7l~?frc, Thank you for your consideration, please keep me informed of project status. fl .. fv1-73°1 o. 3JNO PL . t/f"Y" ReV1tOY1, VvA · ·· , 01ioss \!'JI V1 .rpsr .~, ·; (' '. [._- ·· / : ' J Clark H.Close May 8, 2015 Department of Community& Economic Development 1055 South Grady Way Renton Wa 98057-3232 Dear Clark, Thank you for notifying the Winsper Community of the recent status change of the Valley Vue project. We were all a bit surprised that the project would be allowed to proceed to the hearing stage without any of the changes that were required in the January 3, 2015 letter that placed the project on hold. That said, please note that I object to plan (LUA 14-001040) as proposed because it still does not meet the Standard Codes adopted by the City of Renton. While codes can offer a little variance to get a project developed at times, this proposal would require too many adjustments at the expense of the surrounding community. Each time a waiver is granted it minimizes the value of Standard Codes and Regulations and sends the message that the rules can be negotiated. It is the people of Renton, and the surrounding neighbors that pay the expense in sub-standard developments. II is an unfair burden. My understanding is that the Valley Vue project is asking for two access points through the Winsper neighborhood to develop 9-homes. A couple of the engineers in our neighborhood have gone out and located the survey nails in the concrete curb at these easements and have measured the actual distance between them. At the eastern easement, this distance is only 19ft, 2inches, and at the more western easement the measurement is 21 ft, 11 inches. Based on the actual measurements, it is not feasible and not possible to accommodate the proposed plan without compromising safety and environmental impact to adjacent homes. The proposed plan does not meet development standards for private streets on several points. To utilize these easements as access for this new development would require numerous variances, all at the expense of the Winsper Community. The following variances would be needed to use the access routes proposed: o Required width: 26 feet easement (City Code 4-6-060 J.2) o Street-Side yard Setback: 15 feet from each house from street o Fire Turn around for streets longer than 150 feet ( a basic safety element) o Requirement for houses to abut a public right-of-way, none of the new proposed house abut a public street. I am also concerned with increased hardscape and impervious surfaces the proposed density would bring to the neighborhood. This parcel has a large wetland area, and known water and drainage issues. The removal 115 trees will increase the water and drainage problems. Infill density requirements should not be a priority on such a parcel, safety and protecting surrounding community and habitat should be. I object to the parcel being developed until a plan is developed that makes sense given the constraints of the parcel. It should also be developed within the boundaries of the standard codes that are in place to ensure the integrity of developments and the safety of the community. Thank you for your consideration, please keep me informed of project status. Clark H.Close May 8, 2015 Department of Community& Economic Development 1055 South Grady Way Renton Wa 98057-3232 Dear Clark, Thank you for notifying the Winsper Community of the recent status change of the Valley Vue project. We were all a bit surprised that the project would be allowed to proceed to the hearing stage without any of the changes that were required in the January 3, 2015 letter that placed the project on hold. That said, please note that I object to plan (LUA 14-001040) as proposed because it still does not meet the Standard Codes adopted by the City of Renton. While codes can offer a little variance to get a project developed at times, this proposal would require too many adjustments at the expense of the surrounding community. Each time a waiver is granted it minimizes the value of Standard Codes and Regulations and sends the message that the rules can be negotiated. It is the people of Renton, and the surrounding neighbors that pay the expense in sub-standard developments. It is an unfair burden. My understanding is that the Valley Vue project is asking for two access points through the Winsper neighborhood to develop 9-homes. A couple of the engineers in our neighborhood have gone out and located the survey nails in the concrete curb at these easements and have measured the actual distance between them. At the eastern easement, this distance is only 19ft, 2inches, and at the more western easement the measurement is 21ft, 11 inches. The proposed plan does not meet development standards for private streets on several points. To utilize these easements as access for this new development would require numerous variances, all at the expense of the Winsper Community. The following variances would be needed to use the access routes proposed: o Required width: 26 feet easement (City Code 4-6-060 J.2) o Street-Side yard Setback: 15 feet from each house from street o Fire Tum around for streets longer than 150 feet ( a basic safety element) o Requirement for houses to abut a public right-of-way, none of the new proposed house abut a public street. I am also concerned with increased hardscape and impervious surfaces the proposed density would bring to the neighborhood. This parcel has a large wetland area, and known water and drainage issues. The removal 115 trees will increase the water and drainage problems. Infill density requirements should not be a priority on such a parcel, safety and protecting surrounding community and habitat should be. I object to the parcel being developed until a plan is developed that makes sense given the constraints of the parcel. It should also be developed within the boundaries of the standard codes that are in place to ensure the integrity of developments and the safety of th~~i~{ft. D Thank you for your consideration, please keep me informed of project status. . , . ·.; -; ,, .• c,,, ~Roc6 TR.uo~<i ~~. -.· .. ~·)1 '' "7fof .51>1..;z:Tl-1€12-S A\/€>• {>----•-i;' ·' -·-'1 iz&1bf', w A 'Ti 0~ Clark H.Close Department of Community& Economic Development 1055 South Grady Way Renton Wa 98057-3232 Dear Clark, May 8, 2015 Thank you for notifying the Winsper Community of the recent status change of the Valley Vue project. We were all a bit surprised that the project would be allowed to proceed to the hearing stage without any of the changes that were required in the January 3, 2015 letter that placed the project on hold. Thal said, please note that I object to plan (LUA 14-001040) as proposed because ii still does not meet the Standard Codes adopted by the City of Renton. While codes can offer a little variance to get a project developed at times, this proposal would require too many adjustments at the expense of the surrounding community. Each time a waiver is granted it minimizes the value of Standard Codes and Regulations and sends the message that the rules can be negotiated. It is the people of Renton, and the surrounding neighbors that pay the expense in sub-standard developments. II is an unfair burden. My understanding is that the Valley Vue project is asking for two access points through the Winsper neighborhood to develop 9-homes. A couple of the engineers in our neighborhood have gone out and located the survey nails in the concrete curb at these easements and have measured the actual distance between them. At the eastern easement, this distance is only 19ft, 2inches, and at the more western easement the measurement is 21ft, 11 inches. Based on the actual measurements, it is not feasible and not possible to accommodate the proposed plan without compromising safety and environmental impact to adjacent homes. The proposed plan does not meet development standards for private streets on several points. To utilize these easements as access for this new development would require numerous variances, all at the expense of the Winsper Community. The following variances would be needed to use the access routes proposed: o Required width: 26 feet easement (City Code 4-6-060 J.2) o Street-Side yard Setback: 15 feet from each house from street o Fire Turn around for streets longer than 150 feet ( a basic safety element) o Requirement for houses to abut a public right-of-way, none of the new proposed house abut a public street. 1 am al.so concerned with increased hardscape and impervious surfaces the proposed density would bring to the neighborhood. This parcel has a large wetland area, and known water and drainage issues. The removal o~ 115 trees will increase the water and drainage problems. Infill density requirements should not be a priority on such a parcel, safety and protecting surrounding community and habitat should be. I object to the parcel being developed until a plan is developed that makes sense given the constraints of the parcel. It should also be developed within the boundaries of the standard codes that are in place to ensure the integrity of developments and the safety of the community. Thank you for your consideration, please keep me info,med of project status. ~a~ "10\ '). )'L~\l 'f>J.. ~'i...,.'r'Ot,, \Al A-SW ~~a~~ Clark H.Close May 8, 2015 Department of Community& Economic Development 1055 South Grady Way Renton Wa 98057-3232 Dear Clark, Thank you for notifying the Winsper Community of the recent status change of the Valley Vue project. We were all a bit surprised that the project would be allowed to proceed to the hearing stage without any of the changes that were required in the January 3, 2015 letter that placed the project on hold. That said, please note that I object to plan (LUA 14-001040) as proposed because it still does not meet the Standard Codes adopted by the City of Renton. While codes can offer a little variance to get a project developed at times, this proposal would require too many adjustments at the expense of the surrounding community. Each time a waiver is granted it minimizes the value of Standard Codes and Regulations and sends the message that the rules can be negotiated. It is the people of Renton, and the surrounding neighbors that pay the expense in sub-standard developments. It is an unfair burden. My understanding is that the Valley Vue project is asking for two access points through the Winsper neighborhood to develop 9-homes. A couple of the engineers in our neighborhood have gone out and located the survey nails in the concrete curb at these easements and have measured the actual distance between them. At the eastern easement, this distance is only 19ft, 2inches, and at the more western easement the measurement is 21ft, 11 inches. The proposed plan does not meet development standards for private streets on several points. To utilize these easements as access for this new development would require numerous variances, all at the expense of the Winsper Community. The following variances would be needed to use the access routes proposed: o Required width: 26 feet easement (City Code 4-6-060 J.2) o Street-Side yard Setback: 15 feet from each house from street o Fire Turn around for streets longer than 150 feet ( a basic safety element) o Requirement for houses to abut a public right-of-way, none of the new proposed house abut a public street. I am also concerned with increased hardscape and impervious surfaces the proposed density would bring to the neighborhood. This parcel has a large wetland area, and known water and drainage issues. The removal 115 trees will increase the water and drainage problems. Infill density requirements should not be a pri rity on such a parcel, safety and protecting surrounding community and habitat sho Id be. I object to the parcel being developed u ti/ a plan is developed that makes sense given the constraints of the parcel. It should also e developed within the boundaries of the standard codes that are in place to ensure the in grity of developments and the safety of the community. Clark H.Close Department of Community& Economic Development 1055 South Grady Way Renton Wa 98057-3232 Dear Clark, May 8, 2015 Thank you for notifying the Winsper Community of the recent status change of the Valley Vue project. We were all a bit surprised that the project would be allowed to proceed to the hearing stage without any of the changes that were required in the January 3, 2015 letter that placed the project on hold. That said, please note that I object to plan (LUA 14-001040) as proposed because it still does not meet the Standard Codes adopted by the City of Renton. While codes can offer a little variance to get a project developed at times, this proposal would require too many adjustments at the expense of the surrounding community. Each time a waiver is granted it minimizes the value of Standard Codes and Regulations and sends the message that the rules can be negotiated. It is the people of Renton, and the surrounding neighbors that pay the expense in sub-standard developments. It is an unfair burden. My understanding is that the Valley Vue project is asking for two access points through the Winsper neighborhood to develop 9--homes. However, these 24 foot easements are flanked by existing Winsper homes, and do not meet development standards for private streets on several points. To utilize these easements as access for this new development would require numerous variances, all at the expense of the Winsper Community. The following variances would be needed to use the access routes proposed: o Required width: 26 feet (City Code 4-6-060 J.2) o Street-Side yard Setback: 15 feet from each house from street o Fire Tum around for streets longer than 150 feet( a basic safety element) o Requirement for houses to abut a public right-of-way, none of the new proposed house abut a public street. I am also concerned with increased hardscape and impervious surfaces the proposed density would bring to the neighborhood. This parcel has a large wetland area, and known water and drainage issues. Infill density requirements should not be a priority on such a parcel, safety and protecting surrounding community and habitat should be. I do not object to the parcel being developed, but would like it to be developed with a plan that makes sense given the constraints of the parcel. It should also be developed within the boundaries of the standard codes that are in place to ensure the integrity of developments and the safety of the community. ~;;~=W=OO~-&me, 7L) ~ s. -yz,µt) I 1.. 'K£?v7lJN r LJ/t" 1 $e; ~s Clark H .Close May 8, 2015 Department of Community& Economic Development 1055 South Grady Way Renton Wa 98057-3232 Dear Clark, Thank you for notifying the Winsper Community of the recent status change of the Valley Vue project. We were all a bit surprised that the project would be allowed to proceed to the hearing stage without any of the changes that were required in the January 3, 2015 letter that placed the project on hold. That said, please note that I object to plan (LUA 14-001040) as proposed because it still does not meet the Standard Codes adopted by the City of Renton. While codes can offer a little variance to get a project developed at times, this proposal would require too many adjustments at the expense of the surrounding community. Each time a waiver is granted it minimizes the value of Standard Codes and Regulations and sends the message that the rules can be negotiated. It is the people of Renton, and the surrounding neighbors that pay the expense in sub-standard developments. It is an unfair burden. My understanding is that the Valley Vue project is asking for two access points through the Winsper neighborhood to develop 9-homes. A couple of the engineers in our neighborhood have gone out and located the survey nails in the concrete curb at these easements and have measured the actual distance between them. At the eastern easement, this distance is only 19ft, 2inches, and at the more western easement the measurement is 21ft, 11 inches. Based on the actual measurements, it is not feasible and not possible to accommodate the proposed plan without compromising safety and environmental impact to adjacent homes. The proposed plan does not meet development standards for private streets on several points. To utilize these easements as access for this new development would require numerous variances, all at the expense of the Winsper Community. The following variances would be needed to use the access routes proposed: o Required width. 26 feet easement (City Code 4-6-060 J.2) o Street-Side yard Setback: 15 feet from each house from street o Fire Tum around for streets longer than 150 feet ( a basic safety element) o Requirement for houses to abut a public right-of-way, none of the new proposed house abut a public street. I am also concerned with increased hardscape and impervious surfaces the proposed density would bring to the neighborhood. This parcel has a large wetland area, and known water and drainage issues. The removal 115 trees will increase the water and drainage problems. Infill density requirements should not be a priority on such a parcel, safety and protecting surrounding community and habitat should be. I object to the parcel being developed until a plan is developed that makes sense given the constraints of the parcel. It should also be developed within the boundaries of the standard codes that are in place to ensure the integrity of developments and the safety of the community. Clark H.Close May 8, 2015 Department of Community& Economic Development 1055 South Grady Way Renton Wa 98057-3232 Dear Clark, Thank you for notifying the Winsper Community of the recent status change of the Valley Vue project. We were all a bit surprised that the project would be allowed to proceed to the hearing stage without any of the changes that were required in the January 3, 2015 letter that placed the project on hold. That said, please note that I object to plan (LUA 14-001040) as proposed because it still does not meet the Standard Codes adopted by the City of Renton. While codes can offer a little variance to get a project developed at times, this proposal would require too many adjustments at the expense of the surrounding community. Each time a waiver is granted it minimizes the value of Standard Codes and Regulations and sends the message that the rules can be negotiated. It is the people of Renton, and the surrounding neighbors that pay the expense in sub-standard developments. It is an unfair burden. My understanding is that the Valley Vue project is asking for two access points through the Winsper neighborhood to develop 9-homes. A couple of the engineers in our neighborhood have gone out and located the survey nails in the concrete curb at these easements and have measured the actual distance between them. At the eastern easement, this distance is only 19ft, 2inches, and at the more western easement the measurement is 21ft, 11 inches. The proposed plan does not meet development standards for private streets on several points. To utilize these easements as access for this new development would require numerous variances, all at the expense of the Winsper Community. The following variances would be needed to use the access routes proposed: o Required width: 26 feet easement (City Code 4-6-060 J.2) o Street-Side yard Setback: 15 feet from each house from street o Fire Tum around for streets longer than 150 feet ( a basic safety element) o Requirement for houses to abut a public right-of-way, none of the new proposed house abut a public street. I am also concerned with increased hardscape and impervious surfaces the proposed density would bring to the neighborhood. This parcel has a large wetland area, and known water and drainage issues. The removal 115 trees will increase the water and drainage problems. Infill density requirements should not be a priority on such a parcel, safety and protecting surrounding community and habitat should be. I object to the parcel being developed until a plan is developed that makes sense given the constraints of the parcel. It should also be developed within the boundaries of the standard codes that are in place to ensure the integrity of developments and the safety of the community. Thank you for your consideration, please keep me informed of project status. ~~,()~ b 7i b , 7 .7 -v LJL f d2-ow f ,v\-' v-J~ 18-o :r ~ V i r, ,.,.~,r· ~ V .'. l, .J ', .. . , j Clark H.Close May 8, 2015 Department of Community& Economic Development 1055 South Grady Way Renton Wa 98057-3232 Dear Clark, Thank you for notifying the Winsper Community of the recent status change of the Valley Vue project. We were all a bit surprised that the project would be allowed to proceed to the hearing stage without any of the changes that were required in the January 3, 2015 letter that placed the project on hold. That said, please note that I object to plan (LUA 14-001040) as proposed because it still does not meet the Standard Codes adopted by the City of Renton. While codes can offer a little variance to get a project developed at times, this proposal would require too many adjustments at the expense of the surrounding community. Each time a waiver is granted it minimizes the value of Standard Codes and Regulations and sends the message that the rules can be negotiated. It is the people of Renton, and the surrounding neighbors that pay the expense in sub-standard developments. It is an unfair burden. My understanding is that the Valley Vue project is asking for two access points through the Winsper neighborhood to develop 9-homes. A couple of the engineers in our neighborhood have gone out and located the survey nails in the concrete curb at these easements and have measured the actual distance between them. At the eastern easement, this distance is only 19ft, 2inches, and at the more western easement the measurement is 21ft, 11 inches. Based on the actual measurements, it is not feasible and not possible to accommodate the proposed plan without compromising safety and environmental impact to adjacent homes. The proposed plan does not meet development standards for private streets on several points. To utilize these easements as access for this new development would require numerous variances, all at the expense of the Winsper Community. The following variances would be needed to use the access routes proposed: o Required width: 26 feet easement (City Code 4-6-060 J.2) o Street-Side yard Setback: 15 feet from each house from street o Fire Turn around for streets longer than 150 feet ( a basic safety elemenl) o Requirement for houses to abut a public right-of-way, none of the new proposed house abut a public street. I am also concerned with increased hardscape and impervious surfaces the proposed density would bring to the neighborhood. This parcel has a large wetland area, and known water and drainage issues. The removal 115 trees will increase the water and drainage problems. Infill density requirements should not be a priority on such a parcel, safety and protecting surrounding community and habitat should be. I object to the parcel being developed until a plan is developed that makes sense given the constraints of the parcel. It should also be developed within the boundaries of the standard codes that are in place to ensure the integrity of developments and the safety of the community. Thank you for your consideration, please keep me informed of project status. ~i!>~ lsi o 0 5 . ~ dJ\.cl P I. ~) uJf\ qeos-s- Clark H.Close May 8, 2015 Department of Community& Economic Development 1055 South Grady Way Renton Wa 98057-3232 Dear Clark, Thank you for notifying the Winsper Community of the recent status change of the Valley Vue project. We were all a bit surprised that the project would be allowed to proceed to the hearing stage without any of the changes that were required in the January 3, 2015 letter that placed the project on hold. That said, please note that I object to plan (LUA 14-001040) as proposed because it still does not meet the Standard Codes adopted by the City of Renton. While codes can offer a little variance to get a project developed at times, this proposal would require too many adjustments at the expense of the surrounding community. Each time a waiver is granted it minimizes the value of Standard Codes and Regulations and sends the message that the rules can be negotiated. It is the people of Renton, and the surrounding neighbors that pay the expense in sub-standard developments. It is an unfair burden. My understanding is that the Valley Vue project is asking for two access points through the Winsper neighborhood to develop 9-homes. A couple of the engineers in our neighborhood have gone out and located the survey nails in the concrete curb at these easements and have measured the actual distance between them. At the eastern easement, this distance is only 19ft, 2inches, and at the more western easement the measurement is 21ft, 11 inches. The proposed plan does not meet development standards for private streets on several points. To utilize these easements as access for this new development would require numerous variances, all at the expense of the Winsper Community. The following variances would be needed to use the access routes proposed: o Required width: 26 feet easement (City Code 4-6-060 J.2) o Street-Side yard Setback: 15 feet from each house from street o Fire Tum around for streets longer than 150 feet ( a basic safety element) o Requirement for houses to abut a public right-of-way, none of the new proposed house abut a public street. I am also concerned with increased hardscape and impervious surfaces the proposed density would bring to the neighborhood. This parcel has a large wetland area, and known water and drainage issues. The removal 115 trees will increase the water and drainage problems. Infill density requirements should not be a priority on such a parcel, safety and protecting surrounding community and habitat should be. I object to the parcel being developed until a plan is developed that makes sense given the constraints of the parcel. It should also be developed within the boundaries of the standard codes that are in place to ensure the integrity of developments and the safety of the community. Thank you for your consideration, please keep me informed of project status. ~t.(e.£ ~ :::::;4/l,&J,v C-J ,'e../;:r J / d. ! ..S-m, ~ ,;:£.J 4 ~ ~ /v-ftu-..J / '-<..,) 4 .,./'t9-S--S- 1 .q. '' .. '.·,,,:J Clark H.Close May 8, 2015 Department of Community& Economic Development 1055 South Grady Way Renton Wa 98057-3232 Dear Clark, Thank you for notifying the Winsper Community of the recent status change of the Valley Vue project. We were all a bit surprised that the project would be allowed to proceed to the hearing stage without any of the changes that were required in the January 3, 2015 letter that placed the project on hold. That said, please note that I object to plan (LUA 14-001040) as proposed because it still does not meet the Standard Codes adopted by the City of Renton. While codes can offer a little variance to get a project developed at times, this proposal would require too many adjustments at the expense of the surrounding community. Each time a waiver is granted it minimizes the value of Standard Codes and Regulations and sends the message that the rules can be negotiated, It is the people of Renton, and the surrounding neighbors that pay the expense in sub-standard developments. It is an unfair burden. My understanding is that the Valley Vue project is asking for two access points through the Winsper neighborhood to develop 9-homes. However, these 24 foot easements are flanked by existing Winsper homes, and do not meet development standards for private streets on several points. To utilize these easements as access for this new development would require numerous variances, all at the expense of the Winsper Community. The following variances would be needed to use the access routes proposed: o Required width: 26 feet (City Code 4-6-060 J.2) o Street-Side yard Setback: 15 feet from each house from street o Fire Tum around for streets longer than 150 feet( a basic safety element) o Requirement for houses to abut a public right-of-way, none of the new proposed house abut a public street. I am also concerned with increased hardscape and impe1vious surfaces the proposed density would bring to the neighborhood. This parcel has a large wetland area, and known water and drainage issues. Infill density requirements should not be a priority on such a parcel, safety and protecting surrounding community and habitat should be. I do not object to the parcel being developed, but would like it to be developed with a plan that makes sense given the constraints of the parcel. It should also be developed within the boundaries of the standard codes that are in place to ensure the integrity of developments and the safety of the community. Thank you for your consideration, please keep me informed of project status. • .. ( ... Y ''' -':· ',, 1 ! !-,, ·,. . .• f j -~-.. ·j Clark H.Close Department of Community& Economic Development 1055 South Grady Way Renton Wa 98057-3232 Dear Clark, May 8, 2015 Thanks for keeping us informed regarding progress of the Valley Vue Project. Many of us are confused by the whole process and what will be allowed in this project that does not meet current codes and standards. It would seem that the codes are in place to protect the public, and have been properly vetted before becoming law. Why would the city even consider a project that doesn't follow the law? It seems unreasonable and a waste of City staff resources. We are troubled by many things proposed in the Valley Vue Development, and they all seem to result in a compromise to safety. This is not what Renton is all about, and we hope the City rejects the proposal on these grounds! Why would access streets be considered that don't meet width, setback, fire turn- around, sidewalk, or lighting standards? It increases risk for everybody that lives nearby. The children in the area play at the Winsper Community park playground and in the neighborhood streets. Winsper was developed as a family oriented community and we value the standards that were used to protect us, with neighbors that look out for each other. We ask that any adjoining development adhere to the same standards to maintain consistency and safety. Additional concern is for the residents of the homes that abut the proposed access easements. These homes will be subjected to a disproportionate risk burden if setbacks are not met. Can you just imagine the uproar the first time a car misses the turn and ends up in someone's living room? Environmental safety concerns include residual mining toxins, ground collapse, flooding and wetlands. The parcel contains a Category 2 wetland. Ordinance 5633 states that the required buffer zone is 100ft, while the project narrative, critical areas report and and the geotech report all show a 50 ft buffer zone. When the City looks at all the safety concerns, we hope that the picture is clear: There are just too many safety issues in this current plan. These safety issues will need to be addressed. (The project as put forth is reckless.) We urge the city of Renton to address all the concerns before allowing this project to proceed! ~-Wr 7~ 7 .s_ ?o?,;d. p/. f<._er,"fofl/ Wfr 1??oC-6 ;!'"'·. ',.·. '. Clark H.Close Department of Community& Economic Development 1055 South Grady Way Renton Wa 98057-3232 Dear Clark, May 8, 2015 Thanks for keeping us informed regarding progress of the Valley Vue Project. Many of us are confused by the whole process and what will be allowed in this project that does not meet current codes and standards. It would seem that the codes are in place to protect the public, and have been properly vetted before becoming law. Why would the city even consider a project that doesn't follow the law? It seems unreasonable and a waste of City staff resources. We are troubled by many things proposed in the Valley Vue Development, and they all seem to result in a compromise to safety. This is not what Renton is all about, and we hope the City rejects the proposal on these grounds! Why would access streets be considered that don't meet width, setback, fire turn- around, sidewalk, or lighting standards? It increases risk for everybody that lives nearby. The children in the area play at the Winsper Community park playground and in the neighborhood streets. Winsper was developed as a family oriented community and we value the standards that were used to protect us, with neighbors that look out for each other. We ask that any adjoining development adhere to the same standards to maintain consistency and safety. Additional concern is for the residents of the homes that abut the proposed access easements. These homes will be subjected to a disproportionate risk burden if setbacks are not met. Can you just imagine the uproar the first time a car misses the turn and ends up in someone's living room? Environmental safety concerns include residual mining toxins, ground collapse, flooding and wetlands. The parcel contains a Category 2 wetland. Ordinance 5633 states that the required buffer zone is 100ft, while the project narrative, critical areas report and and the geotech report all show a 50 ft buffer zone. When the City looks at all the safety concerns, we hope that the picture is clear: There are just too many safety issues in this current plan. These safety issues will need to be addressed. (The project as put forth is reckless.) We urge the city of Renton to address all the concerns before allowing this project to proceed! . . . ' .;: ( Clark H.Close Department of Community& Economic Development 1055 South Grady Way Renton Wa 98057-3232 Dear Clark, May 8, 2015 Thanks for keeping us informed regarding progress of the Valley Vue Project. Many of us are confused by the whole process and what will be allowed in this project that does not meet current codes and standards. It would seem that the codes are in place to protect the public, and have been properly vetted before becoming law. Why would the city even consider a project that doesn't follow the law? It seems unreasonable and a waste of City staff resources. We are troubled by many things proposed in the Valley Vue Development, and they all seem to result in a compromise to safety. This is not what Renton is all about, and we hope the City rejects the proposal on these grounds! Why would access streets be considered that don't meet width, setback, fire turn- around, sidewalk, or lighting standards? It increases risk for everybody that lives nearby. The children in the area play at the Winsper Community park playground and in the neighborhood streets. Winsper was developed as a family oriented community and we value the standards that were used to protect us, with neighbors that look out for each other. We ask that any adjoining development adhere to the same standards to maintain consistency and safety. Additional concern is for the residents of the homes that abut the proposed access easements. These homes will be subjected to a disproportionate risk burden if setbacks are not met. Can you just imagine the uproar the first time a car misses the turn and ends up in someone's living room? Environmental safety concerns include residual mining toxins, ground collapse, flooding and wetlands. The parcel contains a Category 2 wetland. Ordinance 5633 states that the required buffer zone is 100ft, while the project narrative, critical areas report and and the geotech report all show a 50 ft buffer zone. When the City looks at all the safety concerns, we hope that the picture is clear: There are just too many safety issues in this current plan. These safety issues will need to be addressed. (The project as put forth is reckless.) We urge the city of Renton to address all the concerns before allowing this project to proceed! ~f~ 'b J b 7 S ">'li11iwJ ~ _:? ¥>,.J~ ( w>~ 110° ~ ) ! . .'. ''/ 1,:,-.1 ., :'\ ··; (' .. ; -~ .':l -·" Clark H.Close Department of Community& Economic Development 1055 South Grady Way Renton Wa 98057-3232 Dear Clark, May 8, 2015 Thanks for keeping us informed regarding progress of the Valley Vue Project. Many of us are confused by the whole process and what will be allowed in this project that does not meet current codes and standards. It would seem that the codes are in place to protect the public, and have been properly vetted before becoming law. Why would the city even consider a project that doesn't follow the law? It seems unreasonable and a waste of City staff resources. We are troubled by many things proposed in the Valley Vue Development, and they all seem to result in a compromise to safety. This is not what Renton is all about, and we hope the City rejects the proposal on these grounds! Why would access streets be considered that don't meet width, setback, fire turn- around, sidewalk, or lighting standards? It increases risk for everybody that lives nearby. The children in the area play at the Winsper Community park playground and in the neighborhood streets. Winsper was developed as a family oriented community and we value the standards that were used to protect us, with neighbors that look out for each other. We ask that any adjoining development adhere to the same standards to maintain consistency and safety. Additional concern is for the residents of the homes that abut the proposed access easements. These homes will be subjected to a disproportionate risk burden if setbacks are not met. Can you just imagine the uproar the first time a car misses the turn and ends up in someone's living room? Environmental safety concerns include residual mining toxins, ground collapse, flooding and wetlands. The parcel contains a Category 2 wetland. Ordinance 5633 states that the required buffer zone is 100ft, while the project narrative, critical areas report and and the geotech report all show a 50 ft buffer zone. When the City looks at all the safety concerns, we hope that the picture is clear: There are just too many safety issues in this current plan. These safety issues will need to be addressed. (The project as put forth is reckless.) We urge the city of Renton to address all the concerns before allowing this project to proceed! Denis Law Mayor May 27, 2015 Virginia Klaas 618 S 32nd Pl Renton, WA 98055 .... ___ _ r)a Cityof ._ '.\, ~1 r·, r r r \1 r·· ·1 _! . -:....J) .. I \.:.,A~-' .• Community & Economic Development Department C.E. "Chi p"Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: VALLEY VUE PRELIMINARY PLAT COMMENT RESPONSE LETTER LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD Dear Virginia Klaas: Thank you far your comments received May 14, 2015 related to the Valley Vue Preliminary Plat wherein you raised same additional concerns regarding the proposed project. Your letter will be added ta the public record far consideration by the reviewing official and you have been added as a party of record. Your concerns were as fallows: 1. Required width of easement: 26 ft. {City Code 4-6-0601.2) Staff Comment: As part of the preliminary plat application, the applicant has made application far Preliminary Plat, Environmental Review, and a request ta modify street width requirements in order ta access eight (8) proposed lots via the 24-faot wide access easements through Wins per Division No. 1 Subdivision (Tract G and H) in order to serve four (4) new residential lots from each tract. This would be a reduction of two feet (2') from the private street width standard specified in Renton Municipal Code (RMC 4- 6-060J.2). Private streets are allowed far access to six {6) or fewer lots, provided at least two (2) of the six (6) lots abut a public right-of-way. Private streets are only permitted if a public street is not anticipated to be necessary far existing or future traffic and/or pedestrian circulation through the subdivision or to serve adjacent property. No sidewalks are required for private streets; however drainage improvements are required, as well as an approved pavement thickness (minimum of four inches (4") asphalt over six inches (6") crushed rock). The maximum grade for the private street shall not exceed fifteen percent (15%) at maximum grade, and angles of approach and departure shall meet fire department requirements. The land area, included in private street easements, shall not be included in the required minimum lot area for purposes of subdivision. The submitted preliminary plat provides no alternatives to meeting the street standards of the Renton Municipal Code if the request to modify street width requirements were to be denied. The applicant would be required to account for construction transportation impacts that would result as part of the plat construction process and any measures that would be implemented to minimize traffic impacts. The lack of sufficient width within the tracts and the proximity of the existing homes to the proposed new roadway create a safety hazard, as the access roads would have no Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov shoulder. Due to the proposed future cross section, any vehicular incident along these narrow access tracts could result in injury and/or property damage to the adjacent home owners or the driver of the vehicle. Specifically, this is due to the lack of space to "correct" and/or adjust a vehicular movement and at the same time avoiding the existing residences. There is a direct correlation between the number of homes and the number of trips anticipated to utilize the proposed access easement. Typically a Single Family Residence is anticipated to result in 6.1 average daily vehicle trips ends. The proposal to have four (4) lots accessed off of each of the proposed roadways would result in 24.4 vehicular trips ends per day that could be anticipated to utilize the substandard access roads. This many number of trips generated, as a result of the plat, would impact the general welfare and safety of not only the current residents but also any guests or future residents of the proposed Valley Vue subdivision. Additionally, on the east and west sides of the access tract, there are four (4) existing homes that generally maintain a side yard setback of roughly five feet (5') from the existing ingress/egress tracts. With the construction of the road through the tracts, the existing homes would lack a sufficient setback distance from the private street of fifteen feet (15'), as would be required by Renton Municipal Code. When both the setback and the roadway reduction request are totaled, the access would have substandard spacing of approximately 22 feet. The vehicular traffic generated as a result of the proposed land development exceeds the number of lots able to be served given the lack of a 26-foot wide easement, lack of at least two (2) lots abutting a public right-of-way, and insufficient side yard setbacks along a private street, as it pertains to the existing structures. At this time, staff has determined that the construction of a private street through a substandard access easement would result in a detriment to public safety as it pertains to the existing constructed homes at 618, 624, 652, and 700 5 32nd Pl and any future vehicles that may utilize the proposed private street. City staff will make a recommendation on part of the staff report to the Hearing Examiner (the decision maker) that fully evaluates the public safety issues at the public hearing on July 14, 2015. However, the Hearing Examiner will make the final decision on this project. A Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated (DNS-M) was issued by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on May 18, 2015 with four (4) mitigation measures: a. Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations found in the Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Geotech Consultants, Inc. dated May 27, 2014 or an updated report submitted at a later date. b. The applicant shall plant all trees that are within the SO-foot standard wetland buffer by hand and without heavy machinery. To the greatest extent feasible, these trees should be planted in areas where invasive species are present. A tree planting plan shall be provided to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval prior to construction permit issuance. c. The applicant shall provide a minimum 12 to 15-foot wide utility access easement to the stormwater tract (Tract D) for maintenance and operation of the utility. The easement shall be recorded and documentation provided to the City prior to approval and issuance of the construction permit application. d. The applicant shall provide a shared driveway through the existing Winsper Division No. 1 Subdivision tracts (Tracts G and HJ that are consistent with the shared private driveway stand of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC 4-6-060K). The private access roads shall meet the minimum necessary to provide for safe and effective access for the existing residents, proposed residents, and fire and emergency vehicles. 2. Street-side yard setback: 15 ft; from each house to a new street Staff Comment: See staff comment to concern #1. 3. Fire turn around (at the end of a new road) for streets longer than 150 ft (a basic safety element) Staff Comment: See SEPA mitigation measured, found in staff comment to concern #1. 4. Requirement for houses to abut a public right-of-way, note of the new proposed house abuts a public street. Staff Comment: See staff comment to concern #1. Private streets are allowed for access to six (6) or fewer lots, provided at least two (2) of the six (6) lots abut a public right-of- way. Future ingress, egress and utilities were granted to Tax Lot No. 28 upon the recording of Winsper Division No. 1 Subdivision through Tract G and Tract H. 5. Required buffer zone for a Category 2 wetland: 100 ft. Staff Comment: The Planning Division of the City of Renton determined that the subject application was complete according to submittal requirements and, therefore, the preliminary plat was accepted for review on August 25, 2014. At the time of complete application, a Category 2 wetland carried a minimum buffer requirement of 50 feet (RMC 4-3-0SOM.6.c). Please note that vesting occurs with the filing of a complete application and permit approvals required by the City of Renton pursuant to Title IV, including but not limited to, preliminary plats. Vesting of applications is governed by the rules of RCW 19.27.095 (Building permit application -Consideration -Requirements) and RCW 58.17.033 (Proposed division of land -Consideration of application for preliminary plat or short plat approval -Requirements defined by local ordinance) as they exist or may be amended. The Planning Division of the City of Renton determined that the subject application was complete according to submittal requirements. Additionally, new Critical Areas Regulations are being considered by Renton City Council. 6. Why would the City consider a project that doesn't fallow law? Staff Comment: The City of Renton follows the subdivision process that is governed in Washington State by chapter 58.17 RCW and regulated by Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-7-080 RMC. Under the RMC 4-9-250, the applicant has the right to request a modification from the Code and the applicant has the right to request the City process a subdivision application subject to RCW 58.17. The applicant, RAD Holdings LLC, maintains the right to develop property based on the ordinances existing at the time of the application. It is the charge of the City to balance the public comments with the applicant's rights by making consistent and rational land use recommendations and decisions. 7. The width of the easements, as measured between the located survey nails is only 19'-2" wide at Tract G and 21'-11" wide at Tract H. Staff Comment: The City does not have a professional surveyor on staff, nor is the City in the business of conducting professional land surveys on private property. It is the City's position that the recorded Winsper Division 1 Final Plat, as certified by Mr. Scott Macintosh, is correct. The City will consider any additional survey information that is stamped or signed by a registered land surveyor. 8. Survey information is not stamped/signed by a registered land surveyor. Staff Comment: A topographic boundary survey was completed by Mitch T.S. Evans, professional Land Surveyor of Axis Survey & Mapping of Kirkland, WA on August 28, 2013. Please see attached. A Public hearing has been scheduled for July 14, 2015 before the Renton Hearing Examiner in Renton Council Chambers at 12:30 pm on the 7th floor of Renton City Hall located at 1055 South Grady Way. The Hearing Examiner will hold the public hearing on the preliminary plat and either approve, approve with conditions or deny the preliminary plat. It is the duty of the Hearing Examiner to assure conformance with the general purposes of the Comprehensive Plan, adopted standards, and to consider the public comments via written and oral testimony. City staff encourages you to attend the public hearing as this is your only opportunity to speak directly with the project decision maker. Thank you for interest in this project and if you have any further questions please contact Clark Close at 425-430-7289 or cclose@rentonwa.gov. Thank you. Sincerely, Clark H. Close Associate Planner Topographic Boundary Survey cc: File LUA14-001040, PP, ECF, MOD •• • 8 . ' z ' ~ lNru-lJ!'flll I r';-;ic';"''"·~.-~....,,~,.··J....: _;\JJJl·:f·"·- r-----' --·· / -;i / ! ~ ,; 00 N 0 O'l l/'l ;,. ~ 0 "' M 0 N ~ 0 "' M S:; f-< Ii ' ! ·, I ' I• '< I TOPOGRAPHIC / BOUNDARY SURVEY \~::~~:::~~-------\&°'!~'~';' _______ S.31STST. --r-- ·,;•r,::~-..... ,~..:... .. ,-.. ~--~, ...... ,~ -,O·N;.,,.,,;,,,,;;t..:.;:.., ·~';;;~·;.:::;.;.; n~.;.;1.;;i111 ,l'.'i:..;~ .... ,;;;;.;. .. .-;~ ,~ "g~.·~[~:._: ~-~ ~t: 0,.o'" OICM_! '-' ,.-""-' . .,,,,.: ·t ,.~:::;,.,"'::.:(:~ f1~;~~~fa~o. I~'~ ,~j~"';l~"">c, ~-·-~-~ ·=.:.u ... ,,.,,_ ........ , .• , .. , . ,;,,~ ,r·;:-,•--.. , cir' ,,o"' . '~ ----'" .. , •. · ___ ... ·: ' -. ·-B -· --,,.; .. ·,,.;:,·, ' .. -, 'f'·" \ · 11".'1~1,--.>J ... J..;.,/i ( --- 'i'.-r,:-1"""" -~..:-.1.t"' "''i-L-,...,., ~"'' "\ \' ,·°"'.i"~:... _l.. I \"'·:r:·· ''>\. -_,.,,. .. · .__,...~ j· (~-- .,·~"·~ [__,-.,.-;-,,:;,,., l.f'l~.~1..- l".f/1 ~i~~' . ., ~ r _ ' ~~"" ~--.-c, -,--;-\0 .~ , · · .• 1'PH·)o2~s9021;1 ---"'"' -(' _,, " J"'" 0" ' . . • • "' "" ,> '-•'\ •,~ .i QI. -...._ ·~ I ... I /,:\,r. TPN,,.,,..,, .. ,. ,., ,. " t--·. ' .. .,__-,:.... ' ---·~ '\Dll .'.o,~,, I ~ . ., ---• .,---· , ··. ,-9;-.·•_, '"'--••---'&\;!'-0 r.-.:r~-;-: :::C,"'c-,A;oT ---,,_._" --1-,, ----.-• .,."'·"'-·.:: ... i::.,,, '~x.-.-."'--@tT·-····1 ··""-~ .,. --~ . , • ' , • ,-,.-•,:,,\Q'1,""-t·"' I I·---'"-·\ _·.· . .;:_·.;;.,;.::;:!-'~ T~" ,....';c:~r.:.,,, -._/~ .:.:::.. ;1J ~""';~,1ii·~ uu1'1-"h ',K ,,.... .... ,i,-..-f_.,1 .,.,,.,I 1 F l1 ,_ -1 -~ .. '°'\.:. 'I. .... ·•>-- ' -.· ........ -... ,•_;:::. .. ~.-."""a 0.,.L W•>, :,,· , ..... _,,-;:~t • 1 '\_. ,•-.,.-:,.~~11' II · . ..._ ___ ",. I I ., I I I " 1 I --, -..,,._ -.. ,,, )\ ....... """t· ,,,. __ """" ._,~ '""'.,. (al'~ ,:.. ··-:..... "\.. l~!l:'/'"'".,, .. ' ·-;.., .-, .. '\, -~.-----. '..,_ - ''\, '" Jv, .,. '-'Iii 1 k Co ., -, ··-V--.- !-._ "''-'' ·J:'.,~ ""'-- '"°"' ,,r ..... • ~ ... ';~~"I;\.;_;·, ',t I -~ "''\_"I.• ' ·-·, ' ---"-.."-.....'· --J "0..",.%;.;,.,iii::,,-e'~;;.- 1 =,;;;_.;;32;;;N~D;;;P;;;L;;;· =-;:;;;;=:;;_~--~,.,:;;;c~~¥~5Y ,-. --- ~·•·•"""'llL 0 l --------:..=:;::;::._, ___ ~,.. .. · . " -------$31NDPL f ;l°;)", -c-' '"'")Ji ()"§: __ ~~~:,,.~-------,-,-,_-__ ~~ ) /1, I :ii/ , ' ~ ---i, Jt .. ~ g;~ / ' ; ! ' & '·"'""" ,.-,,J~ l"u"t !"•JO 1i•I t~: t.~ 1,-t. 5E l.~. SEC.JU, Tl'..l'.23N .. RGt.5~., \U! CID' OF Rf:NTON, KING COUNn·. WASHlNGTUi'< I I I --~ I I If-._-'r._ : . ::_:_ '. :: . . --.. ' I .... --,,., ,--• ,--r-\ ;s;zr I CT" . ---·· j I i ", -------T •·.;. --. - SURVEY RORY Dill ~ 1,-uo ,.0,-1, JLW HWDJNGS, UC --'""--~~" FOR .. ~,o,rr,-,L ~ -r.rse ........ , .... u_ .~ ............. -.. -a,ITT TPN : ~023059028 !tL~0?o;•-~ "'-' Denis Law Mayor May 27, 2015 Sharon Gangwish 700 S. 32"' Pl Renton, WA 98055 ·----~ ·r· . 6 Cityof . ,) ~1 r l; 'rr(··· , I ·r·· l , t\ \• .. · ... , L.i l. :. r : 11 : ._._ '-"~~_.J..:._,,;,'--,,,."··U:.....:__. Community & Economic Development Department C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: VALLEY VUE PRELIMINARY PLAT COMMENT RESPONSE LETTER LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD Dear Sharon Gangwish: Thank you for your comments related to the Valley Vue Preliminary Plat; dated May 12, 2015 wherein you raised concerns regarding the width of the access tracts (Tract G & H) proposed to be used by the project. Your letter/email will be added to the public record for consideration by the reviewing official and you have been added as a party of record. As a point of clarification, the City has yet to make a decision on the proposal. The applicant, RAD Holdings LLC, has only made application for Preliminary Plat and Environmental Review for the subject development and a decision has yet to be made. You received a notice soliciting · public comment and these comments are used to help City staff complete a comprehensive review which will continue over the coming month(s). The applicant is requesting a street modification, from the private street requirements found in Renton Municipal Code (RMC 4-6-060).2) in order to allow access and utilization of the existing 24-foot private access tracts (Tract G and Tract H; APN 948S75-0570) that were recorded in March 1989 under Winsper Division I Subdivision for future ingress, egress and utilities to Tax Lot No. 28 (the "Valley Vue" parcel). The modification from the twenty six foot (26') easement for private streets is being requested as a result of the two foot (2') deficit, from current Renton Municipal Code, found within Tracts G and H. The modification request for the private streets included a minimum pavement width of twenty feet (20'). Please note that the City does not have a professional surveyor on staff, nor is City in the business of conducting professional land surveys on private property. It is the City's position that the recorded Winsper Division 1 Final Plat, as certified by Mr. Scott Macintosh, is correct. The City will consider any additional survey information that is stamped or signed by a registered land surveyor. The vehicular traffic generated as a result of the proposed land development exceeds the number of lots able to be served given the lack of a 26-foot wide easement, lack of at least two (2) lots abutting a public right-of-way, and insufficient side yard setbacks along a private street as it pertains to the existing structures. Therefore, staff has determined that the construction of a private street through a substandard access easement would result in a detriment to public safety as it pertains to the existing constructed homes at 618, 624, 652, and 700 S 32nd Pl and any future vehicles that may utilize the proposed private street. City staff will make a recommendation on part of the staff report to the Hearing Examiner (the decision maker) that Renton City Hall , 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov fully evaluates the public safety issues at the public hearing on July 14, 2015. However, the Hearing Examiner will make the final decision on this project. A Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated (DNS-M) was issued by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on May 18, 2015 with four (4) mitigation measures: 1. Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations found in the Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Geotech Consultants, Inc. dated May 27, 2014 or an updated report submitted at a later date. 2. The applicant shall plant all trees that are within the SO-foot standard wetland buffer by hand and without heavy machinery. To the greatest extent feasible, these trees should be planted in areas where invasive species are present. A tree planting plan shall be provided to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval prior to construction permit issuance. 3. The applicant shall provide a minimum 12 to 15-foot wide utility access easement to the stormwater tract (Tract D) for maintenance and operation of the utility. The easement shall be recorded and documentation provided to the City prior to approval the issuance of the construction permit application. 4. The applicant shall provide a shared driveway through the existing Winsper Division No. 1 Subdivision tracts (Tracts G and H) that are consistent with the shared private driveway stand of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC 4-6-0GOK). The private access roads shall meet the minimum necessary to provide for safe and effective access for the existing residents, proposed residents, and fire and emergency vehicles. A Public hearing has been scheduled for July 14, 2015 before the Renton Hearing Examiner in Renton Council Chambers at 12:30 pm on the 7th floor of Renton City Hall located at 1055 South Grady Way. The Hearing Examiner will hold the public hearing on the preliminary plat and either approve, approve with conditions or deny the preliminary plat. It is the duty ofthe Hearing Examinerto assure conformance with the general purposes of the Comprehensive Plan, adopted standards, and to consider the public comments via written and oral testimony. City staff encourages you to attend the public hearing as this is your only opportunity to speak directly with the project decision maker. Thank you for interest in this project and if you have any further questions please contact Clark Close at 425-430-7289 or cclose@rentonwa.gov. Thank you. Sincerely, Clark H. Close Associate Planner Topographic Boundary Survey cc: File LUA14-001040, ECF, PP ' , ~ ] \i j l ., s • I I I:]' sdi~'i-lt' \ (~. ~ ' - L r~-- I I I 00 N 0 O"l l/'l ~ 0 " M 0 N ~ ~ 0 M :z i:i.. ~ 11 ,,. ,_j ·:·:i ' i I, I , ,., I ; ; I; I I ! I : it I i !~\ICHUNE IUIHUl I 00 g O') "' 0 M ~ N 0 M May 21, 2015 Winsper Community HOA 3125 Wells Ave S Renton, WA 98055 • Community & Economic Development Department C.E. "Chip"Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: VALLEY VUE PRELIMINARY PLAT COMMENT RESPONSE LETTER LUA14-001040, ECF, PP Dear Winsper Community HOA: Thank you for your comments received May 13, 2015 related to the Valley Vue Preliminary Plat wherein you raised concerns regarding the proposed project. Your letter will be added to the public record for consideration by the reviewing official and you have been added as a party of record. The City of Renton has received an abundance of public feedback from property owners within the Winsper Division I Plat. The primary concern identified through letters and emails have been vehicle access through the two 24-foot wide access tracts (Tract G and Tract H) and the associated safety concerns from new vehicle traffic generated as a result of the proposed land development. To date, the public comments have been directed to the Attorney General, Mayor, Chief Administrative Officer, Fire Chief, CED Director, Planners, and Plan Review, all of which have been included in the official land use file for review and consideration by the decision maker (Hearing Examiner). As a point of clarification, the City of Renton follows the subdivision process that is governed in Washington State by chapter 58.17 RCW and regulated by Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-7-080 RMC. Under the RMC 4-9-250, the applicant has the right to request a modification from the Code and the applicant has the right to request the City process a subdivision application subject to RCW 58.17. The applicant, RAD Holdings LLC, maintains the right to develop property based on the ordinances existing at the time of the application. It is the charge of the City to balance the public comments with the applicant's rights by making consistent and rational land use recommendations and decisions. As part of the preliminary plat application, the applicant has made application for Preliminary Plat, Environmental Review, and a request to modify street width requirements in order to access eight (8) proposed lots via the 24-foot wide access easements through Winsper Division No. 1 Subdivision (Tract G and H) in order to serve four (4) new residential lots from each tract. This would be a reduction of two feet (2') Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov from the private street width standard specified in Renton Municipal Code (RMC 4-6- 060J.2). As part of the City's preliminary review, it has been determined that the submitted preliminary plat provides no alternatives to meeting the street standards of the Renton Municipal Code if the request to modify street width requirements were to be denied. Based on the lack of sufficient width within the tracts, the proximity of the existing homes to the proposed new roadway, the direct correlation between the number of homes and the number of trips anticipated to utilize the proposed access easement, and the impact on existing homes that would lack a sufficient setback distance from the private street. At this time, staff has determined that the construction of a private street through a substandard access easement would result in a detriment to public safety as it pertains to the existing constructed homes at 618, 624, 652, and 700 S 32nd Pl and any future vehicles that may utilize the proposed private street. City staff will make a recommendation on part of the staff report to the Hearing Examiner (the decision maker) that fully evaluates the public safety issues at the public hearing on July 14, 2015. However, the Hearing Examiner will make the final decision on this project. A Public hearing has been scheduled for July 14, 2015 before the Renton Hearing Examiner in Renton Council Chambers at 12:30 pm on the 7th floor of Renton City Hall located at 1055 South Grady Way. The Hearing Examiner will hold the public hearing on the preliminary plat and either approve, approve with conditions or deny the preliminary plat. It is the duty of the Hearing Examiner to assure conformance with the general purposes of the Comprehensive Plan, adopted standards, and to consider the public comments via written and oral testimony. City staff encourages you to attend the public hearing as this is your only opportunity to speak directly with the project decision maker. Thank you for interest in this project and if you have any further questions please contact Clark Close at 425-430-7289 or cclose@rentonwa.gov. Thank you. Sincerely, C.<Z.U-~' -~- C.E. "Chip" Vincent CED Administrator cc: File LUA14-001040, PP, ECF Denis Law, City of Renton Mayor Jennifer Henning, Planning Director Steve Lee, Development Engineering Manager Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager Clark Close, Associate Planner Department of Communrcy and Economic Development NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC HEARING RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee has issued a Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated (DNS-M) for the following project under the authority of the Renton municipal code. Valley Vue Preliminary Plat LUA14-001040 Location: 3106 Talbot Rd S. The applicant is requesting Preliminary Plat approval, Environmental (SEPA) Review, a private Street Modification for the subdivision of an existing 2.3-acre parcel located within the R-8 zone into 9 residential lots and 4 tracts at 3106 Talbot Rd S. The site contains a Category 2 wetland. Appeals of the DNS-M must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on June OS, 2015. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner c/o City Clerk, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Hearing Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and more information may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, 425-430-6510. A Public Hearing will be held by the Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers, City Hall, on July 14, 2015 at 12:30 pm to consider the submitted application. If the DNS-M is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. Interested parties are invited to attend the public hearing. Publication Date: May 22, 2015 May 20, 2015 Rory Dees RAD Holdings, LLC 1040 W. Lake Sammamish PKWY SE Bellevue, WA 98008 Community & Economic Development Department C.E."Chip"Vincent, Ad mi nistrato r SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPAi THRESHOLD DETERMINATION Valley Vue Preliminary Plat, LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD Dear Mr. Dees: This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) to advise you that they have completed their review of the subject project and have issued a threshold Determination of Nonsignificance-Mitigated with Mitigation Measures. A copy of the ERC Report, listing the Mitigation Measures is immediately available: • Electronically on line at the City of Renton website (www.rentonwa.gov/business), under Current Land Use Applications; or • Can be viewed at the Planning Department on the 6th floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, between 8:30 am and 4:00 pm. Ask for the project file by the project number LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD; or • Can be purchased at a copying charge of $0.15 per page. The estimated cost for the Environmental Threshold Determination is $12.00, plus a handling and postage cost of $2.00 (this cost is subject to change if documents are added). Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on June S, 2015, together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, {425) 430-6510. Also, a public hearing has been scheduled by the Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of City Hall on July 14, 2015 at 12:30 pm to consider the preliminary plat. If you are interested in attending the hearing, please contact the CED- Planning Division at (425) 430-6578, to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled. Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Rory Dees, RAD Holdings. Page 2 of 2 May 20, 2015 The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant is required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff recommendation will be made available to you prior to the hearing. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. If you have any further questions, please call me at (425) 430-7289. For the Environmental Review Committee, Clark H. Close Associate Planner Enclosure cc: Jon Nelson, land Development Advisors, LLC / Contact Party(ies) of Record ERC Detennination Ur.NV. ValleyVue_14-001040 Denis Law c· f _ _:Mayo~r -----1 {~"f°1tu1J • May 20, 2015 Community & Economic Development Department C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Subject: ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPAi THRESHOLD DETERMINATION Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on May 18, 2015: SEPA DETERMINATION: Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated (DNSM) PROJECT NAME: Valley Vue Preliminary Plat PROJECT NUMBER: 14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on June 5, 2015, together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. Please refer to the enclosed Notice of Environmental Determination for complete details. If you have questions, please call me at (425) 430-7289. For the Environmental Review Committee, Clark H. Close Associate Planner Enclosure cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division Boyd Powers, Department of Natural Resources Karen Walter, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Melissa Calvert, Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program Gretchen Kaehler, Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation Ramin Pazooki, WSDOT, NW Region Larry Fisher, WOFW Ouwamish Tribal Office us Army Corp. of Engineers Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov -~ ..... ,..-..-r ~ ··''-city of . ' ) OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS-M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: LOCATION: Valley Vue Preliminary Plat LUA14-001040, ECF, PP 3106 and 3112 Talbot Rd s Description: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review and Preliminary Plat approval for a 9-lot subdivision. The 2.3-acre site is located within the Residential-8 dwelling units per net acre (du/ac) zoning classification. There are two single family residences (3106 and 3112 Talbot Road South) located on this parcel that gain access to the site from Talbot Road South and are part of the Black River Basin. The single family house located at 3106 is connected to city water and sewer and would remain and be incorporated into the subdivision as Lot 91 while the house located at 3112 is on a septic system and would be demolished. Together the nine {9) residential lots (8 new+ the remaining single family house) would result in a density of 4.23 du/ac. Residential lot sizes range from 4,502 sf to 18,169 sf with an average lot size of 7,954 sf. In addition to the 9 residential lots, four (4) tracts are proposed for access roads, sensitive areas, and stormwater detention. The eight (8) new residential lots would be served from Winsper Division No. 1 Subdivision (Tract G and Tract H) via two dedicated ingress/egress easement areas of 24 feet in width through the development on S 32nd Place. There are 142 significant trees on the site and the applicant is proposing to retain 27 original trees. A detention vault in the westerly portion of the site is Proposed within Tract D which would discharge into the existing conveyance system on the east side of Talbot Road. The applicant has submitted a Critical Areas Report, Preliminary Technical Information Report, and a Geotechnical Engineering Report with the application. The site contains a Category 2 wetland in the far eastern portion of the site. No impacts to critical areas onsite are proposed and existing slopes on the site average roughly 6%. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITIEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION HAS PROBABLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT CAN BE MITIGATED THROUGH MITIGATION MEASURES. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on June 5, 2015, together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of RMC 4-8-110 and information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AT (425) 430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION. ____ ...,,_~··· ; r·:· ·'·ciryof --···--------~,,_.,;...~-'·'"~,,·.,, .. ,,•· r • f r . i I ' '~ V ,<> -.. -~ .-;._, \ -/---- A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE 7TH FLOOR OF CITY HALL, 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON JULY 14, 2015 AT 12:30 PM TO CONSIDER THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AT (425) 430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE PROJECT NUMBER: APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: -MITIGATED (DNS-M) LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD Rory Dees, Rad Holdings, LLC, 1040 W. Lake Sammamish PKWY SE, Bellevue, WA 98008 Valley Vue Preliminary Plat The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review and Preliminary Plat approval for a 9-lot subdivision. The 2.3-acre site is located within the Residential-8 dwelling units per net acre (du/ac) zoning classification. There are two single family residences (3106 and 3112 Talbot Road South) located on this parcel that gain access to the site from Talbot Road South and are part of the Black River Basin. The single family house located at 3106 is connected to city water and sewer and would remain and be incorporated into the subdivision as Lot 9, while the house located at 3112 is on a septic system and would be demolished. Together the nine (9) residential lots (8 new+ the remaining single family house) would result in a density of 4.23 du/ac. Residential lot sizes range from 4,502 sf to 18,169 sf with an average lot size of 7,954 sf. In addition to the 9 residential lots, four (4) tracts are proposed for access roads, sensitive areas, and stormwater detention. The eight (8) new residential lots would be served from Winsper Division No. 1 Subdivision (Tract G and Tract H) via two dedicated ingress/egress easement areas of 24 feet in width through the development on S 32nd Place. There are 142 significant trees on the site and the applicant is proposing to retain 27 original trees. A detention vault in the westerly portion of the site is proposed within Tract D which would discharge into the existing conveyance system on the east side ofTalbot Road. The applicant has submitted a Critical Areas Report, Preliminary Technical Information Report, and a Geotechnical Engineering Report with the application. The site contains a Category 2 wetland in the far eastern portion of the site. No impacts to critical areas onsite are proposed and existing slopes on the site average roughly 6%. PROJECT LOCATION: LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Environmental Review Committee Department of Community & Economic Development The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030{2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-9-070D Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Because other agencies of jurisdiction may be involved, the lead agency will not act on this proposal for fourteen {14) days. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on June 5, 2015. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and more information may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: DATE OF DECISION: MAY22, 2015 MAY 18, 2015 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SIGNATURES: Gregg Zi Public Wo ks Department Terry Higashiyama, Administrator Community Services Department s/1~13 Date Date Mark Peterso , Admi istrator Fire & Emergency Services C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator Department of Community & Economic Development "-),, /r I I Date Date DEPARTMENT OF COl'vm/lUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNSM) MITIGATION MEASURES AND ADVISORY NOTES PROJECT NUMBER: APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD Rory Dees, Rad Holdings, LLC, 1040 W. Lake Sammamish PKWY SE, Bellevue, WA 98008 Valley Vue Preliminary Plat PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review and Preliminary Plat approval for a 9-lot subdivision. The 2.3-acre site is located within the Residential-8 dwelling units per net acre (du/ac} zoning classification. There are two single family residences (3106 and 3112 Talbot Road South} located on this parcel that gain access to the site from Talbot Road South and are part of the Black River Basin. The single family house located at 3106 is connected to city water and sewer and would remain and be incorporated into the subdivision as Lot 9, while the house located at 3112 is on a septic system and would be demolished. Together the nine (9) residential lots (8 new+ the remaining single family house) would result in a density of 4.23 du/ac. Residential lot sizes range from 4,502 sf to 18,169 sf with an average lot size of 7,954 sf. In addition to the 9 residential lots, four (4) tracts are proposed for access roads, sensitive areas, and stormwater detention. The eight (8) new residential lots would be served from Winsper Division No. 1 Subdivision (Tract G and Tract H} via two dedicated ingress/egress easement areas of 24 feet in width through the development on S 32nd Place. There are 142 significant trees on the site and the applicant is proposing to retain 27 original trees. A detention vault in the westerly portion of the site is proposed within Tract D which would discharge into the existing conveyance system on the east side of Talbot Road. The applicant has submitted a Critical Areas Report, Preliminary Technical Information Report, and a Geotechnical Engineering Report with the application. The site contains a Category 2 wetland in the far eastern portion of the site. No impacts to critical areas onsite are proposed and existing slopes on the site average roughly 6%. PROJECT LOCATION: LEAD AGENCY: 3106 and 3112 Talbot Road S, Renton, WA 98055 The City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations found in the Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Geotech Consultants, Inc. dated May 27, 2014 or an updated report submitted at a later date. 2. The applicant shall plant all trees that are within the SO-foot standard wetland buffer by hand and without heavy machinery. To the greatest extent feasible, these trees should be planted in areas where invasive species are present. A tree planting plan shall be provided to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval prior to construction permit issuance. 3. The applicant shall provide a minimum 12-to 15-foot wide utility access easement to the stormwater tract (Tract D) for maintenance and operation of the utility. The easement shall be recorded and documentation provided to the City prior to approval the issuance of the construction permit application. 4. The applicant shall provide a shared driveway through the existing Winsper Division No. 1 Subdivision tracts (Tracts G and H) that are consistent with the shared private driveway stand of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC 4-6-0GOK). The private access roads shall meet the minimum necessary to provide for safe and effective access for the existing residents, proposed residents, and fire and emergency vehicles. ADVISORY NOTES: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are nat subject to the appeal process for the land use actions. ftng1n,:eEfflrjfRey1ew,;:co'm'.lll~tl~Sll!1il\;ij!l:!1!lilk1lmmlllih1'.¥ru!Mw~HlilUjjjjjlim1i1VItl<f;;Gto11eF~:;,~~~a'~7~%9l];l:;~i:t®t!t@'fi10ti>'riW~QiHH Recommendations: I have reviewed the application for Valley Vue Preliminary Plat and have the following comments: EXISTING CONDITIONS WATER The site is located in the Talbot Hill 350 hydraulic water pressure zone. There is an existing 8 inch water main in S. 32nd Place and there are 2 existing% inch domestic water meters serving the existing homes. SEWER There is an 8 inch sewer main in S. 32 Place (Winsper) and an 8 inch sewer main located near the northwest of the site. STORM There are drainage improvements in S. 32nd Place. CODE REQUIREMENTS Water 1. Need to show the existing water service for 3106 Talbot Road South. 2. System development fee for water is based on the size of the new domestic water meter(s) that will serve each new lot. Fee for a 1 inch water meter install is $2,809.00. Credit will be giving to the existing home. 3. Fee for a 1 inch water meter installed by the City is $3,770.00. 4. New hydrants shall be installed per Renton's fire department standards to provide the required coverage of all lots. S. A separate domestic water service meter will be required for each lot with a minimum size of 1 inch along with required backflow prevention assembly. 6. This project is subject to water special assessment district no. 8406 depending on fire flow demand. For a fire flow demand of 1,500 gpm or less, the special assessment is $0.034/sq ft of property, plus $16.00/front foot along the property frontage on Talbot Rd S. ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page 2 of 6 -e112lneeri112 ijevlewicommeol:~G'iitll'"i!i!iii:,iii'i'iiHl!'Hi~'!i'!;ITI?il!'v'l~~lqri;>\lli~!lf2S'4:I0,7291IINgrover@rentonw~:go\, Sewer 1. Need to show the existing side sewer connection for 3106 Talbot Road South. 2. System development fee for sewer is based on the size of the new domestic water(s) that will serve each new lot. Sewer fee for a% inch water or 1 inch meter install is $1,812.00. 3. Existing septic system(s) will be required to be abandoned in accordance with King County Department of Health. SURFACE WATER 1. A drainage plan and drainage report dated, December, 2013 was submitted by LDA (Land Development Advisors). The report complies with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and the City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. All core requirements and special requirements are included in the report. This site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard, Forested Conditions. • The Basin Map Figure 3.1-Please revise the areas to match the Preliminary Plat Map areas. Account for both drainage basins in the tables and on the figure. • Please discuss the existing house to the west that will remain as part of the development. Will the existing culverts be maintained through construction? Where does the runoff currently go? Where does the roof drainage go? Etc ..... Show on drawing. • The westerly portion of the access road that comes off of Talbot Road South by passes the proposed treatment facility (wet pond) near the existing house needs to be addressed. Please review Page 166 1.2.8.2.D in the City of Renton's Amendments to the King County Surface Water Design Manual. • Please summarize the dimensions and volume for each of the detention and the water quality components of the vault. • Include backwater analysis for the conveyance system in your final TIR submittal. • A declaration of covenant will be required for the storm water facilities. • Pave roadway off ofTalbot Road South at 12 ft. in width for access to the storm water tract. 2. A geotechnical report for the site dated May 27, 2014 was submitted by Geotech Consultants Inc. Information on the water table and soil permeability, with recommendations regarding foundation footing drains and waterproofing, retaining walls, slabs on grade, excavations and slopes and pavement areas. Infiltration of storm runoff is not recommended. Please update the report to address the proposed storm water vault not a storm water detention pond. 3. Surface Water System Development fee is $1,120 per new lot. This is payable prior to issuance of the construction permit. Credit will be given for one existing home. EROSION CONTROL 1. An Erosion Control Plan is to be submitted with the civil plans. Erosion Control shall be installed and monitored in accordance with Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and the KCSWM. 2. A Construction Stormwater General Permit from Department of Ecology will be required if grading and clearing of the site exceeds one acre. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required for this site. TRANSPORTATION/STREET 1. The current transportation impact fee rate is $1,430.72 per single family house. The transportation impact fee is levied at the time of building permit application and payment of the transportation impact fee is due at the time of issuance of the building permit. Credit will be given to the existing home. 2. LED street lighting meeting City of Renton Standards is required. 3. Paving and trench restoration will comply with the City's Trench Restoration and Overlay Requirements. 4. Road Classifications -Talbot Road South is a Collector Arterial; S 32'' Pl is a residential access street. • Existing right-of-way width is approximately 60 feet for Talbot Rd Sand approx. 44 feet on S 32'' Pl. • Per RMC 4-6-060J for 'Shared Driveways' at least one of the four Jots being accessed must front public right-of-way; the proposed development does not meet all of the code requirements for a shared driveway type of access. ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page 3 of 6 Engineering Review Comments ..•.. ;:<iJ ,t,uuL,i! '<HYl~l!i Grriver01'42SJilijij.729f I 11grqver:@i'ei:iicii:lw~;gqv 5. Access to the proposed development from Talbot Road South (2-lane Collector Arterial) along the existing driveway lies within regulated slope areas (>15% and> 25%) per the City of Renton's Sensitive Areas map. Slopes in excess of 15% are typically not accessible by the City Renton's Fire Department Vehicles. 6. The preliminary plat plan sheets show access to the proposed development to be off of S 32'' Pl (Winsper Development) via Tracts G and H. These tracts are approximately 24 feet in width and are to have two (2) 10-foot wide paved lanes with vertical curb and gutter. City of Renton has a comment also concerning the constructability of these accesses. Due to the slope of the site, both accesses will require retaining walls to be constructed along their eastern sides. The eastern most access has a slope in excess of 15% and requires a minimum of 1.5 ft. of clear zone between the back of the curb and the face of the retaining wall. The construction of the retaining walls proposed for both accesses will require temporary construction easements to be obtained from the adjoining property owners. However, the temporary construction easements may not be feasible due to the close proximity of other private existing structures to the area needed for construction of the walls. 7. The current layout does not include access to the storm water facilities. Access to the storm water tract is necessary in order to maintain the vault. GENERAL COMMENTS 1. This project will comply with all undergrounding requirements. 2. All construction utility permits for drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals. All utility plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. A licensed Civil Engineer shall prepare the civil plans. 3. Separate permit and fees will be required for the water meter installation, side sewer connection, and storm water connection. 4. Water service, sewer stub, and a drainage flow control BMP is required to be provided to each new lot prior to recording of the plat. illfJr'~R.~vi~w1r,i',£@1cllng'Ci>riiri;,eii~i!ffl';!,i11Jl/,_c,"" •:c!!Al?iI:•ifi:,j;i;,i;i,yl!ffi'i:>m Recommendations: Environmental Impact Comments: 1. The fire impact fees are applicable at the rate of $479.28 per single family unit. This fee is paid prior to recording the plat. Credit will be granted for existing home that is to be removed. Code Related Comments: 1. The fire flow requirement for a single family home is 1,000 gpm minimum for dwellings up to 3,600 square feet (including garage and basements). If the dwelling exceeds 3,600 square feet, a minimum of 1,500 gpm fire flow would be required. A minimum of one fire hydrant is required within 300 feet of the proposed buildings and two hydrants if the fire flow goes up to 1,500 gpm. Existing fire hydrants can be counted toward the requirements as long as they meet current code including 5 inch storz fittings. 2. Fire department apparatus access roadways are required to be a minimum of 20 feet wide fully paved, with 25 feet inside and 45 feet outside turning radius. Fire access roadways shall be constructed to support a 30 ton vehicle with 322 psi point loading. Approved apparatus turnarounds are required for dead end roads exceeding 150 feet. Dead end streets exceeding 500 feet require all homes to be provided with an approved fire sprinkler system. Dead end streets exceeding 700 feet are not allowed without approved secondary access roadways being provided. Condition of approval of this proposed plat due to existing steep grades on existing access roadways and proposed dead end streets is to have all proposed homes be equipped with approved residential fire sprinkler systems. 3. Access roadways shall not exceed 15 percent maximum grade. Angles of approach and departure shall meet fire department requirements. ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page 4 of 6 Pl~'iininRileview.tomrnent~•:i.iiti•• . . iii;liii!l 1iiii::11t~'*~':iir~mmirtPmci~rk'C:f!iseifi4Z~-43fi'. 1289 .ll[cclii'se@renfonW:a\go\1:·i Recommendations: 1. RMC section 4 4 030.C.2 limits haul hours between eight thirty (8:30) a.m. and three thirty (3130) p.m., Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved in advance by the Development Services Division. 2. New single family construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays is by permission only. No work is permitted on Sundays. 3. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plants appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. Recommendations: Preliminary Plat: Bob Mac Onie 09/18/2014 Note the City of Renton land use action number and land record number, LUA14 001040 and LND 10 0515, respectively, on the final plat submittal. The type size used for the land record number should be smaller than that used for the land use action number. Please note that the land use action number provided will change when this subdivision changes from preliminary to final plat status. Show two ties to the City of Renton Survey Control Network. The geometry will be checked by the city when the ties have been provided. Ties can be made but explicit reference to another survey with such ties and two monuments common to the subject subdivision. Provide sufficient information to determine how the plat boundary was established. Indicate what has been, or is to be, set at the corners of the proposed lots. Note discrepancies between bearings and distances of record and those measured or calculated, if any. The lot addresses will be provided by the city at final plat submittal. Note said addresses and the street name on the plat drawing. Do note encroachments. Do not include a utility provider's block, an owner's block, an engineer/surveyor block and an architect block. Do not include any references to use, density or zoning on the final submittal. Please note the Site Data on sheet 1 of 3 block is not necessary and conflicts with the Easement Notes block immediately below. If the abutting properties are platted, note the lot numbers and plat name on the drawing otherwise note them as 'Un platted'. Do not show the TPNs. Remove the building setback lines from the proposed lots. Setbacks will be determined at the time that building permits are issued. Note the research resources on the plat submittal. Note all easements, covenants and agreements of record on the plat drawing. The City of Renton "APPROVALS" blocks for the City of Renton Administrator, Public Works Department, the Mayor, City Clerk and the Finance Director. A pertinent approval block is also needed for the King County Assessor's Office. Provide signature lines as required. If there is a Restrictive Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions document for this plat, then reference the same on the plat drawing and provide a space for the recordin.g number thereof. Note that if there are restrictive covenants, agreements or easements to others (neighboring property owners, etc.) as part of this subdivision, they can be recorded concurrently with the plat. The plat drawings and the associated document(s) are to be given to the Project Manager as a package. The plat document will be recorded first (with King County). The recording number(s) for the associated document(s) (said documents recorded concurrently with, but following the plat) need to be referenced on the plat drawings. ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page 5 o/6 Technical Services Comments There needs to be a Purpose Statement for each of the tracts created, including ownership and maintenance responsibilities. Please discuss with the Stormwater Utility any other language and/or instrument requirements regarding surface water BMPs and other rights and responsibilities. Include a Dedication block. All vested owner(s) of the subject plat, at the time of recording, need to sign the final plat. For the street dedication process, include a current title report noting the vested property owner . .. ·c11mmunltv'Services'commerii:s ·· ..... ··:,~Yc:ii,:i ;::::f: '':I1.es111!!!:seiial:H!H1!:,i~~i'!3o'.i;i;1il'l lbetlach@tentonw;;,l!9i/ · Valley Vue Preliminary Plat Comments: 08/25/2014 Parks impact fee per Ordinance 5670 applies. Bicycle lanes per adopted Trails and Bicycle Master Plan "Talbot Road South Bicycle Lanes." Sheet 148 shall be incorporated as part of project. ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page 6 of6 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT of ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT ERC MEETING DATE: Project Name: Project Number: Project Manager: Owners/ Applicant: Contact: Project Location: Project Summary: Site Area: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: ERC Report 14-001040 May 18, 2015 Valley Vue Preliminary Plat LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD Clark H. Close, Associate Planner Rory Dees, Rad Holdings, LLC, 1040 W. Lake Sammamish PKWY SE, Bellevue, WA 98008 Jon Nelson, Land Development Advisors, LLC, 12865 SE 47'h PL, Bellevue, WA 98006 3106 and 3112 Talbot Road S, Renton, WA 98055 The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review and Preliminary Plat approval for a 9-lot subdivision. The 2.3-acre site is located within the Residential-8 dwelling units per net acre (du/ac) zoning classification. There are two single family residences (3106 and 3112 Talbot Road South) located on this parcel that gain access to the site from Talbot Road South and are part of the Black River Basin. The single family house located at 3106 is connected to city water and sewer and would remain and be incorporated into the subdivision as Lot 9, while the house located at 3112 is on a septic system and would be demolished. Together the nine (9) residential lots (8 new+ the remaining single family house) would result in a density of 4.23 du/ac. Residential lot sizes range from 4,502 sf to 18,169 sf with an average lot size of 7,954 sf. In addition to the 9 residential lots, four (4) tracts are proposed for access roads, sensitive areas, and stormwater detention. The eight (8) new residential lots would be served from Winsper Division No. 1 Subdivision (Tract G and Tract H) via two dedicated ingress/egress easement areas of 24 feet in width through the development on S 32nd Place. There are 142 significant trees on the site and the applicant is proposing to retain 27 original trees. A detention vault in the westerly portion of the site is proposed within Tract D which would discharge into the existing conveyance system on the east side of Talbot Road. The applicant has submitted a Critical Areas Report, Preliminary Technical Information Report, and a Geotechnical Engineering Report with the application. The site contains a Category 2 wetland in the far eastern portion of the site. No impacts to critical areas onsite are proposed and existing slopes on the site average roughly 6%. 99,994 SF (2.3 acres) Staff Recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M}. City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development VALLEY VUE PRELIMINARY PIA T Report of May 18, 2014 Project Location Map: PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ BACKGROUND c:.nvironmentaf Review Committee Report LUA14-00l040, ECF, PP, MOD Page 2 of 11 The applicant is requesting Preliminary Plat approval and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the subdivision of one (1) lot into: four (4) tracts (roads, stormwater, and critical areas) and 9 residential lots for the future construction of single family residences (Exhibits 4 & 5). The site is located in the SEY., Section 30, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., east of Talbot Road South and north of S 32nd Pl (Exhibit 2). Specific addresses include 3106 and 3112 Talbot Road South (APN 302305-9028) also known as Tax Lot 28 of Winsper Division No. 1 (Exhibit 3). The subject site is rectangular in shape (100' x 1000') and the surrounding land use is comprised of single family residences. Specifically the site is bordered by Victoria Park No. 4 single family subdivision to the north and Winsper Div. No. 1 subdivision to the south and east, while a large single family lot and Talbot Road Sare located down the steeply sloped driveway to the west and southwest. Table 1. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning Location Land Use Zoning Site Residential Single Family Residential-8 North Residential Single Family Residential-8 South Residential Single Family Residential-8 East Residential Single Family Residential-8 West Residential Single Family Residential-8 The 2.3-acre project site has a west aspect slope with the western portion occupied by two single-family residences and maintained lawn. The eastern portion of the site is comprised of established forest with a Category 2 wetland that extends off-site to the east and south. The parcel is located within the Residential -8 (R-8) dwelling units per net acre zoning classification. The net density of the project is 4.23 dwelling units per acre and the 9 lots would range in size from 4,502 square feet to 18,169 square feet with an average lot size of 7,954 square feet (Exhibit 4). ERC Report 14-001040 City of Renton Department of Community & VALLEY VUE PRELIMINARY PLAT Report of May 18, 2014 )mic Developmf!nt 'vironmental Review Committee Report LUA14-00l040, ECF, PP, MOD Page 3 of 11 The property currently has two existing single family homes onsite. The existing home, at 3112 is located near the center of the lot, and would be removed as part of the proposal. The existing home at 3106 would be retained and incorporated into the plat as Lot 9. Proposed access to the site would be from three separate ingress/egress locations. Access to the existing home at 3106 (Lot 9) and the stormwater tract (Tract D) would remain from Talbot Road S. The eight new residential lots are proposed to be accessed from the south via two 24-foot private streets (Winsper Div. No. 1 Tracts G & H) from S 32nd Pl. These tracts are indicated on the recorded plat as being future ingress, egress, and utilities only to Tax Lot 28, owned and maintained by Winsper Community Organization until deeded to Tax Lot No. 28 at no cost when King County approves development of Tax Lot 28, which requires the use of Tract G or H. Stormwater would be collected and conveyed to a storm detention vault, just east of the existing single family house to remain, where it would be treated for water quality (Exhibit 8). As part of the street improvements, the applicant is seeking a modification from City of Renton street standards in order to utilize Tract G and Tract H for access to the proposed subdivision. The decision criteria for a modification of standards are identified in RMC 4-9-250D. The request for modification seeks to continue the existing 24- foot wide platted tracts, as established as part of King County's 1989 Winsper Div. No. 1, a 54-lot Plat, in order to serve eight {8) new lots. Due to the unique configuration of the site and a net density under six {6) dwelling units per net acre, alleys are not incorporated into the design. The applicant is proposing two separate private street easements, from two existing tracts, that would serve lots 1-8 of the subdivision. Lots 1-5 would be served through Tract G, and Lots 6-8 would be served through Tract H. Retaining walls up to 4 feet high would be constructed on the eastern side of the two proposed private street accesses from S 32nd Pl. Grading for the proposed lots would include cuts and fills of up to 4 feet (4'). The eastern 300 feet of the site is thickly vegetated with young to mature evergreen and deciduous trees and brush. Most of the remainder of the site is covered with grass lawn, with scattered mature trees and landscaping bushes (Exhibit 9). Blackberry vines grow in the western portion of the planned development area. The overall ground surface within the site slopes gently to moderately down towards the west, with a change in elevation of about 78 feet across a distance of 1,000 feet (Exhibit 6). Existing slopes on the site range from 0%-15%, averaging approximately 6%. Soil types include Alderwood (Age) series. Subsurface conditions at the site were explored in May 2014 to a maximum depth of 8.8 feet below the existing grades; the native soils observed at the test pit locations were medium-dense silty sand with gravel that would provide adequate support to the proposed residences and pavements. The test pits found suitable bearing soils at a depth of 2 to 3 feet. Perched groundwater seepage was observed at a depth of 3 feet in Test Pit 4; shallow perched groundwater may result in seepage entering crawl spaces and/or basements under the planned houses. A geotechnical engineering study found that the site soils are not susceptible to seismic liquefaction because oftheir dense nature (Exhibit 11). I PART TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In compliance with RCW 43.21C.240, the following environmental (SEPA) review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. ERC Report 14-001040 City of Renton Department of Community & VALLEY VUE PRELIMINARY PLAT 1mic Development vironmental Review Committee Report WA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD Report of May 18, 2014 Page 4 of 11 A. Environmental Threshold Recommendation Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials: Issue a DNS-M with a 14-day Appeal Period. B. Mitigation Measures c. 1. Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations found in the Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Geotech Consultants, Inc. dated May 27, 2014 or an updated report submitted at a later date. 2. The applicant shall plant all trees that are within the SO-foot standard wetland buffer by hand and without heavy machinery. To the greatest extent feasible, these trees should be planted in areas where invasive species are present. A tree planting plan shall be provided to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval prior to construction permit issuance. 3. The applicant shall provide a minimum 12-to 15-foot wide utility access easement to the stormwater tract (Tract D) for maintenance and operation of the utility. The easement shall be recorded and documentation provided to the City prior to approval the issuance of the construction permit application. 4. The applicant shall provide a shared driveway through the existing Winsper Division No. 1 Subdivision tracts (Tracts G and H) that are consistent with the shared private driveway stand of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC 4-6-060K). The private access roads shall meet the minimum necessary to provide for safe and effective access for the existing residents, proposed residents, and fire and emergency vehicles. Exhibits Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4 Exhibit 5 Exhibit 6 Exhibit 7 Exhibit 8 Exhibit 9 Exhibit 10 Exhibit 11 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 13 Exhibit 14 Exhibit 15 Exhibit 16 Exhibit 17 ERC Report Neighborhood Map Winsper Division 1 Final Plat (Sheets 1 through 4) Valley Vue Overall Preliminary Plat Plan (Sheets 1 through 3) Valley Vue Preliminary Plat Plan Topographic/ Boundary Survey Map (Sheets 1 and 2) Grading and Drainage Plan Sanitary Sewer and Water Plan Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan Tree Retention-Replacement Plan (Ll.O, Ll.1, and Ll.2) Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Geotech Consultants, Inc. (dated May 27, 2014) Preliminary Technical Information Report ("TIR") prepared by Land Development Advisors, LLC (dated December, 2013) Critical Areas Study prepared by Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC (dated September 4, 2013) Construction Mitigation Description Fire Truck Access Exhibit -Figure 1 Roadway Easement (Recording No. 5705702) Mutual Releases of Easement (Recording Nos. 20140627001668, 20140627001669, and 20140627001670) ERC Report 14-001040 City of Renton Department of Community & VALLEY VUE PRELIMINARY PLAT imic Development vironmental Review Committee Report LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD Report of May 18, 2014 Page 5 of 11 Exhibit 18 Public Comment Letters: Dalen; Klaas; Klaas Schultz; Perteet; Smith Exhibit 19 Staff Response to Public Comment Letter: Dalen; Klaas; Klaas Schultz; Perteet; Smith Exhibit 20 Public Comment Email to Chief Peterson (received by CED on August 19, 2014): Klass Exhibit 21 Letter to Mr. Bob Ferguson, Attorney General (received August 25, 2014): Klass Exhibit 22 Letter to Dennis Law, City of Renton Mayor (received August 28, 2014): Klaas Exhibit 23 Letter to Dennis Law, City of Renton Mayor (received September 9, 2014) -includes signatures, a letter to Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer of Renton Mayor and a letter to Chip Vincent, CED Administrator Exhibit 24 Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition (Land Use 210, pages 295-321) Exhibit 25 Advisory Notes to Applicant D. Environmental Impacts The Proposal was circulated and reviewed by various City Departments and Divisions to determine whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development. Staff reviewers have identified thot the proposal is likely to have the following probable impacts: 1. Earth Impacts: A Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Geotech Consultants, Inc. (Exhibit 11) was submitted with the project application. According to the submitted study, the existing site topography generally slopes from east to west with elevation change from 208 feet to 130 feet across the entire project site. The west portion of the site, west of the existing daylight basement, maintains the steepest slopes. The portion of the site identified to have the greatest slopes would not be impacted by development, with the exception of road improvements to the existing gravel driveway and proposed stormwater conveyance system to Talbot Road S. The applicant indicates that approximately 2,060 cubic yards (2,370 TONS) of cut and 630 cubic yards of fill (725 TONS) would be required for the construction of required plat improvements and new single family residences. A Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control plan would be prepared with the final construction plans in order to prevent, to the maximum extent possible, the transport of sediment to downstream drainage systems, water resources and adjacent properties. Best Management Practices (BMPs) anticipated include clearing limit delineation, cover measures (straw, plastic, etc.), traffic area stabilization (rock construction entrance) and perimeter protection (silt fencing) in accordance with City of Renton requirements. Vegetation consists primarily of young to mature evergreen and deciduous trees, landscaping bushes, grass lawn, brush, and blackberries. Vegetation in the wetland is represented by a canopy of Oregon ash and black cottonwood, with an understory comprised of red osier dogwood, hardhack, Himalayan blackberry, reed canarygrass, creeping buttercup, and sword fern on hummocks. Soils in this wetland have a Munsell color of very dark greyish brown (lOYR 3/2) with redoximorphic features of brown (lOYR 4/3), and a texture of silt loam from Oto 18 inches below the surface. Soils in this wetland were saturated at 12 inches below the surface. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) mapped the subject property as being underlain by Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes. The NRCS describes Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes as rolling with irregularly shaped areas. A total of 4 test pits (TP-1 through TP-4) were excavated across the project site. The first 6 to 12 inches below grade was identified as topsoil. Below the topsoil, Test Pit 2 encountered loose to ERC Report 14-001040 City of Renton Department of Community & r mic Development VALLEY VUE PRELIMINARY PLAT Report of May 18, 2014 vironmental Review Committee Report LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD Page 6 of 11 medium-dense silt with sand. Below the silt, and beneath the topsoil, loose to medium-dense silty sand with gravel was observed. The silty sand with gravel became medium-dense at a depth of 2 to 3 feet, and dense at a depth of about 4 to 7 feet. Perched groundwater seepage was observed at a depth of 3 feet in Test Pit 4. Groundwater levels vary seasonally with rainfall and other factors. The test pits found suitable bearing soils at a depth of 2 to 3 feet. The proposed excavations for the east sides of the two access driveways would be within 5 to 10 feet of the adjacent residences. Based on the provided Geotechnical Report, avoiding impacting the existing homes requires no excavation extending below a 1.5:1 (H:V) inclination extending outward from the base ofthe homes' foundations. The proposed structures can be supported on conventional continuous and spread footings bearing on undisturbed, medium-dense, native soil, or on structural fill placed above this competent native soil. The on site and groundwater conditions are not suitable for infiltration of runoff from impervious surfaces. The submitted geotechnical report provides recommendations for site preparation and earthwork, foundations, retaining walls, seismic considerations, slab-on-grade floors, excavations and slopes, drainage, and pavement areas. Staff recommends as a SEPA mitigation measure that the project construction be required to comply with the recommendations found in the Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Geotech Consultants, Inc. (dated May 27, 2014). Mitigation Measures: Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations found in the Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Geotech Consultants, Inc. (dated May 27, 2014; Exhibit 11) or an updated report submitted at a later date. Nexus: State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Environmental Review and RMC 4-3-050 Critical Areas Regulations. 2. Water a, Wetlands, Streams, Lakes Impacts: A Critical Areas Study prepared by Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC (dated September 4, 2013; Exhibit 13) was submitted with the application materials. According to the report, there is one wetland located in the eastern portion of the subject site and extends off-site to the east and south. This wetland exhibits a minimum of human related physical alteration, and therefore, meets the criteria for a Category 2 wetland. A Category 2 wetland receives a SO-foot standard buffer from their delineated edge (RMC 4-3-0SOM.6.c). Due to its vegetative structure, the subject wetland provides habitat for use by terrestrial wildlife species including birds and mammals. Animals identified or observed included an American Crow, a song sparrow, a black-capped chickadee, squirrels, and evidence of a common raccoon. The established vegetation within the wetland and associated buffer on this site serves to intercept rain fall before it strikes the soil, thereby reducing erosion and improving water quality. The dense vegetation serves to trap sediment and pollutants and provide increased water quality functions that aid in a reduction of sediment which results in cleaner water leaving the site. The applicant is proposing to establish a Native Growth Protection Easement for the Category 2 wetland and its associated SO-foot buffer area within Tract A. The applicant is also proposing to increase the disturbance limit at least another 17 feet beyond the SO-foot wetland buffer. However, fencing and signage along the outer buffer edge are requirements of Renton Municipal Code. ERC Report 14-001040 City of Renton Department of Community & VALLEY VUE PRELIMINARY PLAT Report of May 18, 2014 1mic Development vironmental Review Committee Report LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD Page 7 of 11 As part of the proposed tree replacement or replanting plan, the applicant is proposing to plant 12 red cedar trees within the Category 2 wetland buffer. Staff recommends, as a SEPA mitigation measure, that all trees planted within the SO-foot standard wetland buffer be planted by hand and without heavy machinery. To the greatest extent feasible, these 12 trees should be planted in areas where invasive species are present. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall plant all trees that are within the SO-foot standard wetland buffer by hand and without heavy machinery. To the greatest extent feasible, these trees should be planted in areas where invasive species are present. A tree planting plan shall be provided to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval prior to construction permit issuance. Nexus: State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Environmental Review and RMC 4-3-050 Critical Areas Regulations. b, Storm Water Impacts: The applicant submitted a Preliminary Technical Information Report (TIR), prepared by Land Development Advisors, LLC (dated December 2013; Exhibit 12). According to the TIR, a stormwater detention vault would be located in the westerly portion of the site and would discharge to the existing conveyance system on the east side of Talbot Road 5. Basic water quality treatment would be provided by "dead" storage within the vault. The proposed 9-lot subdivision is subject to full drainage review in accordance with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. All core and six special requirements have been discussed in the report. The site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard, Forested Conditions. The standard requires the site to match the durations from 50% of the 2-year to the SO-year peak. The output models place the required detention volume as 24,300 cubic feet of storage (10' by 40' vault with an active storage depth of 12 feet). Appropriate BMPs from the Washington State Department of Ecology Manual, for individual lot flow control, would be required to help mitigate the new runoff created by this development. Additional project BMPs are identified in the construction mitigation description (Exhibit 14). The 2.3-acre site has split runoff with approximately the easterly 150 feet draining overland towards the wetland along the east boundary. The remainder of the site sheet flows in a westerly direction ultimately entering the swale along the east side of Talbot Road 5. Flows continue southerly in the roadside drainage system, approximately 250 feet, where they turn and flow west through a 21" culvert to the valley floor and Springbrook Creek. The westerly portion of the access road from Talbot Rd 5 bypasses the proposed treatment facility near the existing house. This would need to be addressed at final engineering review. Onsite detention would be provided to a Level 2 flow control standard. This standard is typically adopted to mitigate stream erosion and is warranted so that downstream erosion is not exacerbated. Access to the site can be made from Talbot Rd 5 via a 12-foot wide access road. Prior to a signed Mutual Releases of Easement in 2014 (Recording Nos. 20140627001668, 20140627001669, and 20140627001670; Exhibit 17), the site held an access easement that was established in 1964 under Recording No. 5705702 (Exhibit 16). The easement was released in 2014 stating that "the continuing existence of the Easement provides no benefit to any of the properties allegedly benefitted by the Easement, but the Easement does create an unnecessary burden on each. The £RC Report 14-001040 City of Renton Department of Community & f mic Development VALLEY VUE PRELIMINARY PIA T Report of May 18, 2014 vironmental Review Committee Report LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD Page 8 of 11 Easement no longer serves any purposes and the parties wish to terminate it." Due to the relinquishment of the existing 12-foot wide access easement from Talbot Rd 5, it is unclear how the applicant will provide sufficient access rights for general maintenance of the proposed stormwater tract (Tract D). Therefore, staff is recommending a mitigation measure that the applicant shall provide a minimum 12-to 15-foot wide (depending on the construction design of the paved road) access easement from a public street to the stormwater tract (Tract D) for maintenance and operation of the utility. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall provide a minimum 12-to 15-foot wide utility access easement to the stormwater tract (Tract D) for maintenance and operation of the utility. The easement shall be recorded and documentation provided to the City prior to approval the issuance of the construction permit application. Nexus: State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Environmental Review, RMC 4-6-030 Drainage (Surface Water) Standards, RMC 4-7-190 Public Use and Service Area -General Requirements and Minimum Standards, and RMC 4-2-llOA Development Standards. 3. Trees and Vegetation Impacts: Vegetation in the western portion of the property is comprised of maintained lawn represented by tall fescue, blue wildrye, hairy Cat's-ear, velvetgrass, colonial bentgrass, creeping buttercup, and white clover. The lawn is interspersed with patches of Himalayan blackberry and scattered trees, including big leaf maple and Oregon ash. Vegetation in the eastern part of the site is forested, represented by a canopy of big leaf maple, Oregon ash, and western red cedar, with snowberry, osoberry, Himalayan blackberry, hazelnut, Oceanspray, thimbleberry, dewberry, and sword fern, in the understory. There are 142 trees over 6 inches in diameter throughout the project site. After certain trees are excluded from the retention calculations (trees that are dead, diseased or dangerous, public streets, private access easements, critical area deductions), 126 become subject to the minimum requirement to retain 30% of the significant trees. The applicant is proposing to retain 27 of the required 38 trees. Therefore, 11 trees would need to be replaced onsite. The required replacement is equivalent to 132 inches (11 trees x 12 inches= 132 inches). The tree plant schedule includes 133 replacement inches, including the following: 2-Renaissance reflection birch (6"), 15-Shore pine (30"), 28-Douglas fir (84"), and 13-Excelsa western red cedar (13") (Exhibit 10). In fact, twelve of the thirteen red cedars are proposed to be planted within the wetland buffer. Therefore, the proposed replacement trees exceed the minimum required replacement inches of 12" for every tree that was unable to be retained. All trees that are proposed to be retained, including nine (9) in the critical areas and buffers, would be fenced and signed during the construction process for preservation (Exhibits 9 & 10). A final detailed landscape plan must be submitted and approved prior to construction permit approval. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required. Nexus: N/A 4. Transportation Impacts: Presently, access to the landlocked parcel and the two existing residences can be made from Talbot Rd 5 via a 12-foot wide access road. This driveway slopes steeply from east to west, and could not be used to access the number of lots proposed (Exhibit 15). Prior to the Mutual Releases of Easement, under Recording Nos. 20140627001668, 20140627001669, and 20140627001670 (Exhibit 17), access to the lot was granted via an access easement recorded in 1964 (Recording No. 5705702; Exhibit 16). Future access to this tax parcel was established with the ERC Report 14-001040 City of Renton Department of Community & VALLEY VUE PRELIMINARY PLAT Report of May 18, 2014 :>mic Development 1vironmental Review Committee Report LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD Page 9 of 11 recording of the Winsper Div. 1 plat, the abutting residential plat to the south, via two existing 24- foot wide future ingress and egress tracts (Tract G and H). The two (2) existing tracts from Winsper Div. 1 connect S 32nd Pl to the subject parcel. The applicant is proposing to retain the existing single family home at 3106 and improve the existing access easement by completing a 20-foot wide access road to the hammerhead turnaround, at the site of the future stormwater tract (Tract D), located roughly 400 feet from Talbot Rd 5. The two access roads proposed through Tract G and H are designed to include 0.6" curbs, a 20-foot travel lane, retaining walls (Concrete and/or Keystone), and a 6-foot fence on top of the retaining wall (east access only) (Exhibit 7). The overall lengths of the access road sections are roughly 170 feet long from 5 32nd Pl to the termination point onsite. The applicant has submitted a request to modify street width requirements in order to access 8 new lots via the 24-foot wide access easements (Tract G and H) to serve four (4) residential lots from Tract G and another four (4) lots from Tract H. This would be a reduction of two feet (2') from the private street width standard specified in Renton Municipal Code (RMC 4-6-060J.2). Private streets are allowed for access to six (6) or fewer lots, provided at least two (2) of the six (6) lots abut a public right-of-way. Private streets are only permitted if a public street is not anticipated to be necessary for existing or future traffic and/or pedestrian circulation through the subdivision or to serve adjacent property. No sidewalks are required for private streets; however drainage improvements are required, as well as an approved pavement thickness (minimum of four inches (4") asphalt over six inches (6") crushed rock). The maximum grade for the private street shall not exceed fifteen percent (15%) at maximum grade, and angles of approach and departure shall meet fire department requirements. The land area included in private street easements shall not be included in the required minimum lot area for purposes of subdivision. As per RMC 4-6-060, the minimum right-of-way required on a residential street is 53 feet, with a minimum paved width of 26 feet, a 0.5-foot wide curb, an 8-foot wide landscaped planter, a 5-foot wide sidewalk, and street lighting. The right-of-way for the half street improvement must be a minimum of thirty five feet (35') with twenty feet (20') paved (RMC 4-6-060Q). A curb, planting strip area, and sidewalk would be installed on the development side of the street, according to the minimum design standards for public streets. If the street was permitted from Talbot Rd 5, a cul-de- sac turnaround would be required. In order to meet the minimum right-of-way dedication requirements, additional right-of-way access from Talbot Rd 5 would need to be acquired from the three (3) parcels that front Talbot Rd 5 (Exhibit 15). The absolute minimum right-of-way width that would be required for a public road is 45 feet and the minimum pavement within the right-of-way, for two-way travel, is 20 feet. A modification request would need to be granted for any deviations from the street code requirements. The City's trip threshold is 20 peak hour trips; therefore, no traffic impact analysis was required as part of the nine (9) lot preliminary plat. It is not anticipated that the proposed project would adversely impact the City of Renton's public street system subject to the payment of code-required impact fees and the construction of code-required frontage improvements. The submitted preliminary plat provides no alternatives to meeting the street standards of the Renton Municipal Code if the request to modify street width requirements were to be denied. The applicant would be required to account for construction transportation impacts that would result as part of the plat construction process and any measures that would be implemented to minimize traffic impacts. The lack of sufficient width within the tracts and the proximity of the existing homes to the proposed new roadway create a safety hazard, as the access roads would have no shoulder (Exhibits 18-23). Due to the proposed future cross section, any vehicular incident along me Report 14-001040 City of Renton Department of Community & E mic Development VALLEY VUE PRELIMINARY PLAT Report of May 18, 2014 vironmental Review Committee Report LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD Page 10 of 11 these narrow access tracts could result in injury and/or property damage to the adjacent home owners or the driver of the vehicle. Specifically, this is due to the lack of space to "correct" and/or adjust a vehicular movement and at the same time avoiding the existing residences. There is a direct correlation between the number of homes and the number of trips anticipated to utilize the proposed access easement. Typically a Single Family Residence is anticipated to result in 6.1 daily vehicle trips (Exhibit 24). The proposal to have four lots accessed off of each of the proposed roadways would result in 24.4 vehicular trips per day that could be anticipated to utilize the substandard access roads. This many number of trips generated, as a result of the plat, would impact the general welfare and safety of not only the current residents but also any guests or future residents of the proposed Valley Vue subdivision. Additionally, on the east and west sides of the access tract, there are four existing homes that generally maintain a side yard setback of roughly five feet (5') from the existing ingress/egress tracts. With the construction of the road through the tracts, the existing homes would lack a sufficient setback distance from the private street of fifteen feet, as would be required by Renton Municipal Code. When both the setback and the roadway reduction request are totaled, the access would have substandard spacing of approximately 22 feet. The vehicular traffic generated as a result of the proposed land development exceeds the number of lots able to be served given the lack of a 26-foot wide easement, lack of at least two (2) lots abutting a public right-of-way, and insufficient side yard setbacks along a private street as it pertains to the existing structures. Therefore, staff has determined that the construction of a private street through a substandard access easement would result in a detriment to public safety as it pertains to the existing constructed homes at 618, 624, 652, and 700 S 32nd Pl and any future vehicles that may utilize the proposed private street. Staff is recommending a mitigation measure that would require the applicant to provide a shared driveway through the existing Winsper Division No. 1 Subdivision tracts (Tracts G and H) that are consistent with the shared private driveway stand of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC 4-6-060K). The private access road shall meet the minimum necessary to provide for safe and effective access for the existing residents, proposed residents, and fire and emergency vehicles. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall provide a shared driveway through the existing Winsper Division No. 1 Subdivision tracts (Tracts G and H) that are consistent with the shared private driveway stand of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC 4-6-060K). The private access road shall meet the minimum necessary to provide for safe and effective access for the existing residents, proposed residents, and fire and emergency vehicles. Nexus: State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Environmental Review, RMC 4-6-060 Street Standards and RMC 4-2-llOA Development Standards. 5. Fire & Police Impacts: Police and Fire Prevention staff indicated that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development subject to the construction of code-required improvements and the payment of code-required impact fees. Due to the existing steep grades and the proposed dead end streets, all proposed homes must be equipped with approved residential fire sprinkler systems. This would be a recommended condition of approval of the preliminary plat. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required. Nexus: N/A ERC Report 14-001040 City of Renton Department of Community & VALLEY VUE PRELIMINARY PLAT Report of May 18, 2014 omic Development E. Comments of Reviewing Departments wironmental Review Committee Report LUA14·001040, ECF, PP, MOD Page 11 of 11 The proposal has been circulated to City Department and Division Reviewers. Where applicable, their comments have been incorporated into the text of this report and/or listed under Exhibit 25 "Advisory Notes to Applicant." ./ Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File and may be attached to this report. The Environmental Determination decision will become final if the decision is not appealed within the 14-day appeal period (RCW 43.21.C.075(3); WAC 197-11-680). Environmental Determination Appeal Process: Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing together with the required fee to: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, on or before 5:00 p.m. on June 5, 2015. RMC 4-8-110 governs appeals to the Hearing Examiner and additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall-7'h Floor, (425) 430-6510. ERC Report 14-001040 ,<,,\~--/, '\ r·~ • : ... , t EXHIBITS ,.,,,-, __ <( __ \ :{.~ Project Name: Project Number: Valley Vue Preliminary Plat LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD Date of ERC Decision Staff Contact Project Contact/Applicant Project Location 5/18/2015 Clark H. Close Rory Dees, Rad Holdings, LLC, 3106 and 3112 Talbot Rd 5, Associate Planner 1040 W. Lake Sammamish PKWY SE, Bellevue, WA 98008 The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit 1 ERC Report Exhibit 2 Neighborhood Map Exhibit 3 Winsper Division 1 Final Plat (Sheets 1 through 4) Exhibit 4 Valley Vue Overall Preliminary Plat Plan (Sheets 1 through 3) Exhibit 5 Valley Vue Preliminary Plat Plan Exhibit 6 Topographic/ Boundary Survey Map (Sheets 1 and 2) Exhibit 7 Grading and Drainage Plan Exhibit 8 Sanitary Sewer and Water Plan Exhibit 9 Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan Exhibit 10 Tree Retention-Replacement Plan (Ll.O and Ll.2) Exhibit 11 Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Geotech Consultants, Inc. (dated May 27, 2014) Renton, WA 98055 Exhibit 12 Preliminary Technical Information Report ("TIR") prepared by Land Development Advisors, LLC (dated December, 2013) Exhibit 13 Critical Areas Study prepared by Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC (dated Sept. 4, 2013) Exhibit 14 Construction Mitigation Description Exhibit 15 Fire Truck Access Exhibit -Figure 1 Exhibit 16 Roadway Easement (Recording No. 5705702) Exhibit 17 Mutual Releases of Easement (Recording Nos. 20140627001668, -1669, and -1670) Exhibit 18 Public Comment Letters: Dalen; Klaas; Klaas Schultz; Perteet; Smith Exhibit 19 Staff Response to Public Comment Letter: Dalen; Klaas; Klaas Schultz; Perteet; Smith Exhibit 20 Public Comment Email to Chief Peterson (received by CED on August 19, 2014): Klass Exhibit 21 Letter to Mr. Bob Ferguson, Attorney General (received August 25, 2014): Klass Exhibit 22 Letter to Dennis Law, City of Renton Mayor (received August 28, 2014): Klaas Exhibit 23 Letter to Dennis Law, City of Renton Mayor (received September 9, 2014)-includes signatures, a letter to Jay Covington (Chief Administrative Officer), Mayor Denis Law, and Chip Vincent (CED Administrator) Exhibit 24 Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition (Land Use 210, pages 295-321) Exhibit 25 Advisory Notes to Applicant City of 'Z .LISIHX3 { -- I i--~-, I I /, I 1 I I .,1 I / I I ·<t ' ~ !--j : I / i ~ :--I " / >. I I I / I I "-,,, , l /1 '/ / -----I 1 ,-', :-----J··--. I I :· l I --~I I __ L I ,_ '>-_ ,. I I ---, -, T T . L--'-- 1---{ I I ]'---;, '·---1 ------,~ -1 ,, I L----------··- I I I ' ' '' I _L-----I I I 1--0 --'--r --I I 1 1 , , _l--..L---------/I , ) L I I ----'--.-I I / --/ , I I I 1 1 I ' 1 · ~ ..J< ~--,-----. _,__J___ !-- 1 ' I I --)------,,. I --i ~ A_ . --'--,.,,._< '~-+ j, I I I·----, I i-/_......-_.,.,;s_;;,;..---1 / ii < ----\ I / \ ;'.... //'-----., r--r \~\ -,1 I ---1 / , / , . 1 r ' , 1 1 _/---( , r-, °' / Y \_ ------\ _,., I ; ,1 I .L..; .Ll-----"---. I • I -~~--, ( '>/.,/ • .. ' 1· 'i '--\-'.L...L__--~=-----,r-I -) I '·/ ,.-\ ·, / ', ' /r" Y--c--; -1---1-1-,-T-1 I ]TT I I f ---1-.. I --/; y-,__.. \01 /-1-J... .. •---'r\ _I i I 1 1 11 1 I / , _,,, rr -I 1 1-, \ , AY:.;. ~v: _ n , ), ;- ---~ I J I I I --; 0. ' I ' / ' \ ) •. -I I,, I I I -":-i----'....(/ ' )_, , /,; I -/' .J _ _j_.J_J_ I I I ~-_J•r' (--; 't --.,_\ \__~,.-\ '>. / '-,-A·~), ' •-/ --I I -L ----/ V >/ ,,.,-..... I --,----\ ; I J ---7 ---~ \ \ '• / ." )-/ 111-r-11 I I / I -..."/-l _ _/ /'._ \ \ _\ v/ >::<A ---'i, < ::,_.,,. /\ ,J_J r-lJ Jj 1L_J 1-"7 ,r I Ti',~ I/ ',__l-~-,.,-0v,.:.,. <)( '\.->--/<, ! / I I 7 \<.._LJ_ I l • j f--/ A ,? '"\ >-/---\ \ y ,) I -,1~-_1 ,.J.-/-If-<.\! /\,V/'\ '( ? // I I I _, I ---;--' '---------~' / ,, ,./ \ A y j\,,.,.:\ \._ __ I : lL---\\;.--/•1 ):~/11--_ ~ ---1 _'~,_, :/ '-/ ,r;1y/\\ _\~,.,.~ <, /<-, I I 1----::._j r--'i , __ ) f-.t-1-< ; ,, <,1,A \ /(\ \ "-I -\,.-, /~c ~ J:, 1 -~'' >, \ \ I r ---\ \ 1-~ ) .,.--I ··-1 , ---\ \ -,.-IA, -:;---a--f---1t_y-1r:=n ~rj\_-_1,")-,: ..., V /j,,\, --. \, .,, (". \ \ '. ____),._ ~ \ V _J ,...____....---,----{' A-\ > /\ ).. \--',--\ 1_~\- " I I (I I -~ I ( \ V / ' \ \ ' \-1--v i , i i --, l -, ' r-~' >,,,./ \ __ \ A ~ -\---" J ./ ' -~-' 1 ' j Cj ~ • I \ ' " ' I ' / l I (,,;-rl I _ _J----C T/;:'-+---\ "-~I __ ).v /l/\ r, -r-_\ 1 ---, 1 ,.~0 1 }-::L l--\~~, :~l-1 F l~ =--=-c~ [=l / 1 -,·,, r(-C 0 '1 t.. , }-!--~ }._..--0 1-- 1~1~[~ r ~{ ~ iL _J cJ t~J u ~.:: r== t ~ :-t 1 s, ~ < J..\j ,~c-~' -, -~ ___-,; ' ·:( "r :J tjj r i -\-,,"J' ~, -,,-fu,T 'I r ' , J' : ';-·\. : , ,_ '--" --------1--jl I l~LI I ..LJ_j__LJI_Li_____'.J,LL -)T ..-----_..._-- .-J-'1 ---i \ , In-,--I ' I 'I ' -, \.--__ _....---~-, --\ ---L-i. \___J I, \.l....l_LLJ --......L_I I I 1 --1 ,_./ ....__.,.... -- -'\_,.,' i ,, .t-rt .--.--->/ ..--, 1 \ -f 'I\ I -,-1---n---r' -I , ""::::" Tl T -i /-,,,.<-- 1 \ _J.--~-.. --s 1 _- 1 r -Li -1 1-~ J I-VLi r I i" \"..L...L-'------/---,/ ,, _v _ ..... -'(' \--- \ [~-I I I ~ .J 1,-,.. .J.......i.. ""f",11---i-:~ --<\. ___-,-\ ' ,,,.>,,,. -----\ - 1 +-...L... ,.JJ= \ '.-...L. L_ J, 11 L .... .-, \ ' , f,_.---' ___ ,r-;-~ 1 __ r 1 /, , '1-~--1 r ~ / "' _____ / -T ~ - 1 \ 1, , ...L.J I c, ~ I_)' _.C \} ---__ ,-II I" ~-...L. -1"tn --\\-v ---c k, Y~-~ /\ , L1 _ __, _ ___1...;.--__ -~ ·R .... ' ' I L ... ' j -I ---------.----'. I I, I .. ' / / ' / \, _;-." ----. ,--,-,-' I I -. -,·-n, lJ) _..J _/·" h-r--,_ C -, /-Ti---, • )>--. -,-,. ·. , , \_ / ---J _J~ . -I . . l L _J__j ' y ( ' ' ' ' ' ' ___\ , ,;Y / ----~---_j__ ~ l_J__j __'~ . ' ---' -' I ' ', 1 \ 1 0 1 ---~--,-, .......1 .... ---i.___ ,-~ -le; -T -"-r -~ I I IJ / ----~,-i~J-n-T----i--1----,------.-~1 ' I 1 1 1 / /; .. /(/'T 1 1 , 1 : i 1 11 i r 1 1 1 ; l __ ..J t-1 ':>'. \ 1 _,,/·~_ I lj/ 1//'-+-t-·f--+.1....L . ..L_l-.1..Lf-1-,-+-'-,L, f-,J. I / •'.Yy I ///-1 I, I I lllllil I l'f--.· ,'--._Y/f-- 1 . L_J_ ____J__J_ --1.___...L_____J ___J _L_1__J__1----1_ __ .L____J.........l._.[_ 1 ··--.. ,' I 1· -,,._ / . r-1 { 1~11--r-1--·---~----r-r --r:TrT" -,--~] •, '· ,' ;__,. /' ---/ ! . I ' I I I I I i I I I' I I I f--'·'"ii I I ' f--7;. i..,..L..Lf--+-+-+ +-+.1..+-t--fl..LJ-I+-+-, ~---/_ 'l_l I f / 'L· I 1 , I f Ill 1"-l[///1 I~ / /1 I _J_ ---~--.1--1 __L _ __J___ __ ...l___l.._J_1 __ 1 __J__ __ _1__1 --.L -~1 I , --- ___ / // I I -------,-----,---,-,-------1·1----, -,----,--~-~~ /{ IL.__1- / / 1 ·1 , r I · , i , 1 r 1 1 . 1 I / / 1 1 // / I -.......1 .J , I I i._ _ 1 I I I I I , r 1 , , , • : ,I / ____ __J ' ' • !Ji'~''• e~ _,, _.,.,. "' I I! N,·.·'_} " !' .-,\1"' ,, ... ~ ~~ \,X:{-.._ ~o~~-~. s: I D A~,,,., _____ , '-'""~-.LLC 12865S£~7trPI&"' -..,.,WA8Rl)[)6 .~, -.... _,_.. ir1tM"'t'"'OO< NEIGHBORHOOD DETAIL MAP ~~=·" :i, RAD HOLDINGS, LLC ; I~ ! VALLEY VUE :;;,;..,, ' ' jJO!ir.3112 TALBOT ROADS ~-. CITY OF RENTON ~ INGTON :::'.::-'' IL, ~ ~I! " j ~ Iii " ~ IT I! I! I ' I WINSPER DIVISION J44,~~ A POR OF THE SW 1/ 4 OF SEC 29 AND THE SE 1/ 4 OF SEC 30, T 23 N, R 5E, W .·~. KING COUNTY, DEDICATION <sOW •LL PECPLE BY T"aS!a >RESE'T~ TH'1 •E. rnE UNOC~51GN1,_U UHN£J>< (\;-. ,~rEM.'1 !N THC. ~•NLl HfAEBY 5U9Dhl0ED. -<E"EB• OEC-ARE rns PLAT TC . ..:, THO. GRAP,u;, REFRESENTA1J0S 0' 'HE S~00JV1$IO~ ~•DE HEREB• "~ oo.,HEAEBY OCOICATE TO THE USE o~ THE cu~~IC FOAEVES •LL SlRE'-15 .Nl' •vE,·ues N°dT ""~"' AS PRHATE HEREC~ AN~ orn:crE THC USE T-<EAEO' SOR ALL PIJBLIC ~ufl?osES NCT INCO~Sl$T(ST Hl'H THl USE T~EREOF FOR "UilLIC HSH•u PUlaPOSES, >Mb' •LSO THE AIGHT n ~·~E •LL NfCtss•n· SLOPE~ FOR CJTS •No >:LLS LJf'ON Hf. .. LOlo s~, .• , THE~rn, IN THE c\AIG!,AL RCASos,DU: GRA:l!NG OS s,10 srAEECS •~c AVEM.JES. •Ive. FUR-PER DED!C~H ro THC us, OF HE PUBLIC ACL mt HSEHENTS"AND TR,C.TS'. ~o., o, TH$ PL>T """ >LL PUBLIC PURPCl>l>~ •s lNU)C>lrn .... ~.ON lhCLu<l.),r, BJ1 MOT LlHTEC TC P•RKS. OOEN SPOCE. UTJUTIES •NO OR•IN•GE'.U~LESS ~Lew E&SE•ENTS OR T~.CTS OSE SFECIFICALLY luEST!Flt~ ON TeIS PL,'-'' AS ll(lMG OEDICHEO OR CONOHED ·o O PER5C>N OR E,N" J !Y U"MEH TMAN THS PLIBL'f • FUA1"HEO. 1ME LNDEASISNEa OWNERS o• THE LAMC HLACDY SUBJ!VJOE{I •HVE FOOi!. TH~MSEl.VES. THE]R M~IRS ONO ,ss,eHS ONU AhY P'ASICM OA ENTITY OEOt,yIMG T!TLt· no~ "HE ~MDERSIGNEO. ONY •t.O •L·. CL•JHS SOR o, .. ,c,,:s •GUNST <!f<~ COUM"'. llS SUCCE55QAS , .. o AssrnNS HHlCM ... , at OCCASIONED BY THE ESHBL"l~HM~NT. CONSTAUCllUN, CO< H•JNTFNANc:E OF ~CADS •ND/OA DAAIHAGC SYSH~.S M!T~U., T,1!$ S\Jl!O:VISlON OT~~R THON CUIHS AESUc TWa FAOM m,eE~UAH H•INT.CNONCE £~-P~G COUNTY • •. • • , • . ·.· •",,, .. FUA'HER. THE L·NDEASI&Nrn O~N<H~ u, THE LAMO HOA<G\\UB;J!VDEO AGio"-t. Fe~· .. T~EM;.EL,ES THEIR ,<E;Fs AND •ss:GNS TO !NDENS:tn •'!ll HCL~ K!HG COU'<TY .. rs SUCCESSQAS AND ASS:GNO. HAA~LES; FAO• •NY CAt<AGE ::INCLUDING •NV COSTS"C> DEFENSC CLA!H<O 8\' ~AsQ,i.s .n .... , Ql'I MITHOUT TH!S".5UOD!V!SI1l1;_·.ro ~•vE eE~N CAUSED B" •LTER•T:ONS OF THE GROUNC SUAf"•CE. VtO<TATJ!IN Oll~!M•GE, DR, su~r.cE OA SL·9SURFA~E ~n~A "LOO ~llH:N T~IS SUil:Dl>lS/"l\~ OH ~y·, FSHR\ 1SH><EN' CON!a~Auc·:~~ CF MA:N'EN•~ce: 0~ T~E RqAOS kITHl.N THIS' SUBOIV1510N PAOO:OD HUS ~HVEF' >NO lSDEMN~flCATlOJ' SHALc "MOT BE COSS"RL'ED ., ~ELE•E;NG KING :ou~Tv 1,~ suree~SQfiS OR",ASS)GNS." FAOM L!AOlUn roe OAMA~ES. INC!.UOING THE COST or OEn~st, RESULT/"!, IN HM~LE OH IN P>~T ~ROK ,->IE NEGL:GENCE a~ K!SG CO\J>IT< ITS S~CCE9/,0F>S. CR iSlli6~~; lN •llNESS W>IEF\£0~. "la .. .,, f1ER£UNTO SEC ou,q-i.;.;,s. C<>t<r<ER DE'lrLOl''4ENT CO•~•NY .• W•S~IN~-o~ .!.<JRP:i~•c;c,, e•f~-.:· ~·i:}~~- SOT,u ''F!Sl ••TIONAL """"· A NATIO..,., ..... \ .. usoc>,!TION :: -41~"" {r,,;.})11~.,. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .. " lk •n!l,~"3·,,o;EREDF" I ~\'E ,<El'E\.INlO SE' Ill fl.I.Kl OCI v•JXEC "V o••JCUL SHL T~E AKl ,YR f!/i$T /.tJOVt ""ff.TES ·-tA.LD. FILE°"· D. 1087 • ~~ WASHINGTON LEGAL DESCRIPTION ™~' PQRl[ON '" 1HF sou· .. wFST ~u•oTER ar S[C-TION ~·s .•. ,c T,·.:'SouT·I:'.•~~-. ~U~~HH ;F SECTION SO, TU,INSS)µ ~~ NUW ... ~•-~£ S EM,T • M ! ... K!~G CDUM-Y. WA5HI"~To,. MCAE ~A~TJCJL•RL· :lESC~!BED •s SOL.LOWS"" 8EOl~ViNG 11 -~, N~ATO-. .. EST CORNSM "' THL s•I" S"LTHHf3T <.U•,.-;.Eil.CF SCHG 0 N " Tk~T<CE •LCT<G TMS ~OFTM Ll'e CJ-SAJU SOLrH~E~i ,,{,-;,_~ FCC'; THENCE ~·.,:,·00·11-E 117 e~ n,--, lH£HCF s a:·,;~,:.~•· w. 32.6; rccr, ··i~EM:f S i2"2~::3~· £. 31.9'9 FEET TM~~:t $ ;r~·~,· ~. 2~ 211 FffT .. .. . .. ~HtN:c S ,~io.;·2~-,. ,,.e, SEEl 1HENCE S J"•0'21" ~ rn> "c, SFF1 THENCt .ii"aa•o••o"w 00 0~ FEC' ·•. ···, :. Yl•FNCF CQT<T!MUIMG SOUTH,.CSTCRLY." ,1.0, rEET •·tQsC .N •nc "F • CJOVE 1" T~- LEFl. H4VJN8 • HAUlJS UF' aa. 00 FEET"" .. TeROUOH A ',U:N<r,c •NaLt o• 01<0" ;~ 1;: A ~O!NT " . ·· ·,· · · lHENCE S .. 0 ,,·or E. '8 00 F~T TD a pc·,·~,;-.ON; ~o .. ~.~~~~~~~··~URVE TtiCNCE ~OUTH«ESTE~.v ,. ~o Fe:e/:.c'!~~ sorn ~~-~~.T.~lci~: CUAVE ·o l!-~ L>., r HAV!T<S A A•OIL5 or 3•6 oc •EE·. Ttt~·-~•o:us ~o,~1·0, Ok!,C.~ BE•Rs ,, • ..,·,,·, THROW8H A CE~TR•~ •NGLE OF o,•i, ., ··1c A PDfST OF MON·l'oNGf'IGV Tl-ENCE S 1·~3·2c· ~ ... o·."·cl<:l fEEl TC THE\su,.HEF,' '.!-E c./~lNG CDUN"Y S>,CR- Pl.." NUMBER ,noea .. , FL[<> UN01'a,.rce>FO'NO •u~e,1t·.,:,.:,,o•m'6 .. TCE.~CE ~LONG S•lD so,;·~E"'-' L;~~-:~ BB 04C"••·::~ 44,1t >tE1°"r.; rnE UH L"E OF' 1HE SO'JTHEOST QL,.;,Jl;A OF SECT!Orlf 30: '.·. THE,-CE ~l.O>.LG •~JD HSl ·:·, ... '' Ll>Jt S }ii~· .. ot',>i!,. ··;·;,..,_~·3··.-1".n, TO \Ht S~UT~ ~~~; .. ,~~-T~,;",,.";;1~,.'.,°.~/!f,"\";J',!'.,Z~E sou,a·,..,, o•:.'.~' """-f""' cu~~''" o, '"' .. ,_. ,,., ... . ..... ~;~~~~'~'1"/ ,";.~ Jfi.:[~~LM~,!;;':;;,""-~,r's" r 5 ;,;:,'J~~;_.~.~(:,j,._!~,~~'. S~',,'.~~, oNn '"" "' ""'" 11>,0,nrn -"l"'" "'caou,,&_.,.u .. or• r,,.o,ca~ "oEtaCE •cotao s-,,6' ... , •• -,." ac·;~·o,;~,. , ,..,~· ... ~-IC,:'" ,;i\ TO""' SOllfK UNS o, '"' '''"" "'" o, '"' ·;,,,we.s, DU""'l'' or ,;~ S-OUl"'"'" OVAOfS:j c, • .,~ :l!:C1•0N ~:. .. .. . THENCE •LONG SJ.IO i:;·Q~:r~ ~·j-;,~, ~-.-!,tJ:,i';;\3•• ~.:.,. 44 "Etl 10 T~E USTEALV H•AGIN OF' 9STH.HENLE scuf11. ,~:so s,t0w, •s.:~:Nc CCUNH •CAO ,o ~o •r;o •,50 ~"''"!!'AS T•tom R°o&O ,oulM) • ..r:.~ PO,NT.P,. A MO'<·TUaENT CJRVC, -.. ENCE •Li•~~-s•rn' ~·.-~;.·t .... \' .. ·;i,·G:N. NORT;.ESTE~·~·:/ .. ,p,I· "~ H~T >l0"G HE •RC OF • NO~-aMaFNT CUAVf 1'D -.. ~ ~vr ,.;.,1..,,;a,.-RACrtU; 0' ,., co •EET. THC. SAOlU~;°''C!NT "' •l"JCH "''"'' '.,.·,;;··-~" ~·:. ·.s..~CUGH A CESTAAL ONilLE or ,e·53·~" 10 • ~P.!'IT OS HNGEl"C". •'. "HENci CDNr:t.JJ1~G, ~-.:~u s•10 ~•SH"l. Y .... ~,.,., N _;,"~" <O ·,3" "· 170 5; FEE' ·o ;~· ,:r~~u;;~1r o~:~:.;,u;~ ;:,~i., i;CTTtOEN >.L3o:.~«/W Of 'ME NCA"MEOS" QU•AlCfi "Hl'.NCl'.:_A~ON~.~·10 NOWH ~lNE. s'.es"31 50· E ,s~ c~ ,EE-TO THE HES"! Ll~E QF THE "-"ST .:150 fEET OF ~·10 NORT"J-JE•s~ OJlRTOR OF , .. ,. scu· .. ~·~· ou•R'f.R ·~CE •L·~-~-s•l~ HEs;,··{~""-N ;::,5·,,· E. 23:.,s FEET la TI-E SOUTH .JNE OF l,M!'' NOOT.-, ,oo SEE" Of." s•ro N<:]aT.'-"'&ST ou~~nfi CF '"' SULJCHEA£T o~,A-EP ·.. •' •. -:-iHENCE #r.q,G SOJO iouTI-,rn,,"· S 89"36"C9" [ ?50.<? FEET TO TH£ E•ST LJNE . o~ s,1, NOIICrlEOST 131;A.RTSR o.~ .THE SC,UlHSAST OU>RTEF; ";'-~f_NCE .,.o .. ~···-~_.,o E·.~-~·~-l~E. N ,·55·~--L 100.0• ~HT "C T~E POINT o, 6E6t~;N~ . ·· :.·s_uRVEYoR · s· ..... ·~RTIFICATE ! ~i._~ay CER:··n:.,. '.H•~ rf1s A•l OF WIN!~E~ oms,o• I ~ e•SEO UPOH Ji, 9uR",E" of"'~e~·J;llt. ~ lOWNSn!P ~ NO<lTH. A•l'<GE -~· EAST. w.~. THH ,,_,_ cou~ •Nr1 O!\f.[~M"tS >Rf s~o•N CORAECLY TkEAEON. Tt<>T •LL •• · • .MOT<J~EITTS IJ\O COA"EAS'; •S. ~HOWS tt,E~rn, •ILL e~ SET CO~RECTL V ON THE SRO UNO l~ c::,$TRUC,li,ON IS COM!>l..ETEO •"H , .. .-: t-•V~ F~LL" co~>~a~ """ l,;E ~o,·is~GN~;.'i'>-~-~" ~,~nrN~:;i.1;uu~.A-10Nr. .,6W"....#~ <I'. sc~n MiC:Nrn>I< ~orEss:o,.,,~ ~•~o ;J~ve:von CERTC~!C•H NO <~b> . ( ~' .l -~~ ,,~· ..... - OFIAWN ~ WAIIO SHEET I OS 4 .. .. ... -"' ... EXHIBIT 3 WINSPER DIVISION 111,11,,113 A POR OF THE SW 1/4 OF SEC 29 AND THE SE 1/4 OF SEC 30, T 23 N, R 5E. W.~. KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON APPROVALS j I~-, Pt, OE"IE~ltEEa ./ifll"SAGEH. ~UILO!'IG '"° LANO OEVELCPMENT O!'JJSIO~ . ' KI'S ""'"'TY n,e,fil'4l~T OF ASSESS,,ENTS O•Ml~EO ANJ APPSO,SC THIS ..J.3. 00, OS __d_~I/ ,ccO\J~T hLO!BC~ ------- "''" cou,n COLNCIL ex,HINrn AND APPAOVC~ mis 1.: F,< OH o• ~'lc•c<,C~dc' - NOTES >.O---. , . SET ,12· AEB•A •NO c,P 1es .. INC, !CS fl5'5.'5.ii ·:;;-,•,ALL A~•A".COANEAS SET ;~;~qi:eE c:~~L L;:E cuAa ., THE S!DC cc_; LINES.:.'OROOU 0 ~~0. TC AN !..~TERSECC ION , " E•SE~E"T JS HEAE~Y RESEA•EJ -~/:,.Ne ~R~~TEO TO p~·~ET Po•Etla us W~Sl ~~~~::~~~' c~u·cc~;~,~~s~~oT:s~N,oG:s~~ u:'t;"rn:Jo0Nu;;: ;;;~ .:~;E~~;j, ·~~ :;~~A P•R>LLEt RITH •NO •DJ01Nl% HS STREET ~.".Qi<HGE o• .:..~i· ~ors ti,, RHICS ro ]NS">LL. L•'. CONSTPUCT. RENE•. OPER<TE >M~ ~•l"T>;N.".1J~Oi:RllA0'J>J.b CON0l.'IT$. ••!~S. CASLCS ASO ,!RE~ ,tTH NE.C<'S~·~y •Ac:L!"!CS A~" OTcr:1 E~L!P"c:,1• COA lHf PUHSllSF "' SEHO!NG tHlS suaui,ri:~,., >N~ O"HES .Pk,PEA'Y ..Jt• EUCTAIC ~;~;·~~N:LL" ;; ,/;0 ,c~:\.~~p:~•i:OS;O~~;~~:·. ~~:~f;-~;:;.r.T, (;T>°s-:~;;;; u;~~,E~~~ UPC!~ f"Ofi THES£ ~USPCSES S>-ULL BE RESTCFE~··•S NH~·-.,; PbS!BLE TO WEIR CR!G!NAl CONa:r,o" NO L!NtS CR WISES Foq ,.~~. ,~•~SMlH:ON o• EL '""R)C cu~r.ENT. TELE~HONE en ::•ec! ; ., S-<•LL ee ~-~C'E.O OR ae nRM1l"SO TO eE ~;;;ii,/"-~N.•;.:,cc,,o,:,uNdS; 'HE S• .. o:c:~.'•L-oc usbe.~~Rou,c OR), CO~OUIT 3. SJ6JECT TO , JC •oo.~ w,b·:. .. i.~""' ;·ci'-P<.JGET 50~~0 Pow,a •ND Ll6Hl CO•P•NY roo CLE:::TRlC lAAN$MlSS:ON°'AS~/O~ OJ$fir.~.J'!0~'.'S¥STEM LTING ~ HET ON EAC~ srne OF HE f~CILltJES '·•:S: CONSTRUCTEb p~p RECORo:so N~~OCR ,so1no•~~ · ··· · •. SUB~ECT TO ;ITT CF aENTON.,OSC!NA~CE "'"· 37ilC AEo•RD!N~ oSSESSMENT "CR MAISR SER•TCE PEA AEC:l!aOING NU~BI';~ B<OJ26050 •. ~ •cc ll!S lO "E"c.i·~· S 0 ~6~"·" ...,:···m .. THE >ADO.~~i-_1.1''E .. .. .. 6 U0A!N00E E0SEMsi<'1s '1 '" OP1::'~ '<lr,HNELS ·s,.,,.L SE HofNlO!NEO ,s oPeN. """SS LlNEr. SWOLES lN ND c,s,· "Sl\!-LL P:PING. ''i~~IMG OR 'obl;,H•OJdiHO o• TME s•ALE BE PEFtH;TTEC UNLESS WRITTEN •PPPOVOL··JS •A•NHOP aY,•TNE <lHO ~tlNT"r 01"1SJO,S OF SURfOC( WAT(S !Wv.-.Nl Otcl BUILD!~[; ANIJ", !..•.ND DES~LOP"'Effi OlVIS!Q.' NATIVE ilRmirl-! PRD;icTION EASEMENT S"AUCTUAES ·~lL~ ANO QBS·~~cic,,0Ns,\1McL·~·~n1.~ BUT N~T LIMITED TQ OEC<S. PATlDS. Oc1S"lLOl•6S, oil"·?~H•••-~& ·•·.-..n·.·,. i,,;~_ESI ••E PAOH/B/lrn B(!OHO THE actLOING SE:"!OCK Lll.c. ,r,c, WlTH!S 25 V1aOA fLOOO PI.All<;S [ff /.PPLlCABLE;, OHO "lT"lN THE HA"lVE llA:wTs PAO;ECHON E•S£~1 ts• OS s+<O•• .. ·. .. .· OCD!C£TJ 0 ~, ·,a,· ... ~ HOllVE oi.Oi.JH PACHCTJH EASEMEHl (HOPE] CONYE'i TO THE PUBL!r; o B£HEFIC1AL !NTEl!i:S1 IH 1HE '.~ND WJCH!N ='HE EOSEMEn THIS IHTE~EST ;"(:LUDES THE µRESER ... H!ON 0, Nlfl{~f VESP•~JOI< ~,.~:.-,'( PUfiaOS(S T~H 88<ES!T THE PUBLIC Hlc.J.LTH !~~~~r/:,.~~::~\ ,i,~~:~\~:~1~;,o:~~s:i .. ~ •c;,.~';!6r:~ I :o~~o~, ,":,1~;i•:~~H~ . li>BIUT. THE 0·'/Gf'E I~PDst:5 iJ;;~" .. LL ~~ES!MT .. NC fU1'-"E OWME•5 OMO OCC\iPIE~S OF LONI;):.'. SU~JtCT TO "HE 'EASE"£"I l><E OBUGOTJol<. e.soarEA9U J, OE>W..' OF THE PU.de ., Kl~O CO.••H, ', 70 ~VE i.uJ!SH.''IBE:O •LL TaEE5 AND onv, VEGC"OTlON WllHl' WE E"SEMENT, l/'lt v"""1:.,10, 0W"J't><J~ TiiP .. H.SFHE,T ....... ~OT OE Clll, PRIJHEC r;ove~£0 BV Fill. OEHo,rn 0,, .!'i~f!fo W!~l ~~~~;!r:i!r.:.~·~~:~ ~ ~U:;,o~C,<]~~~H~O~~;',· .:OH;~:E:~::i:,51n°;, !~~~ : · .... ;.• JT5 5UCCES50Fl MENt:Y " 0c,o.;:·--~-,~~·tL/fl:Hs , .. :·\,.pussc er ANV Ga•DlNO, BUlLClNG :ONSTRU:TlON o.~ .. ·~-~~-~·· ... ~;;!~t::~~1~/.~T,'""c:'" ',~i\Ji:;~; :~" '~£ "~;~~· o~"~~,.~:o~~tg,n:;/:~:"'~; ';~ ,,,r,.o_-.na O_feO'R>r.S., H,R,rn :T' THf SO"ISf.Cll(JN o• KI~• COUN1' :~ALO. FILE•·Ji/0 1067-~ FINANCE DIRECTOR'S CERTIFICATE'"· ! ,,mm, caHHF· Tli/,T ALL PAOPEOH ·•,EZ AnE r~lO; T><r -~€~. ~nE ·~~ "" lNGUCNl ~,rci.~ A8SESSM£HT0 CEATIFID rn 1 .. 1s offic.E FDA CCLca'.JaN •NJ ,~., ~-L SPECJAL ASSESS~ENTS c;.,a,:s:o r,: fHJ~ DFF!CE rn"' .. ':o,,ee1rn,1·0, .N, o• THE POOPERH SEFlEIN CONH:~ao. orn,c,·rn OS STREeTS •L·.<"cYS ,~ FOR C1'1ES p...,_!c USE ,Ar ~AlQ l~ F\,LL . . 15 -:<#'I• : {].ck-··£;_,_ .. ,,/,. ;, ;~ ~-or•)'<>~CS>l.,-'.,..,,::i,'L . ..·:···""···.· ..... ··.... ··-.' . ·.·,· ·,,·,·,· ,.;CDRO~NG CERTIF ICAT{ .!9,,;f,-h · ... ···. ···.~···· ·.· .· . FI.E·O· •m RSCDAO Al ,1;_;;;UOST O• tHE .KI~G CC0NTY r;c~fic;.;'.L TH!S ·t_4-DH 0" A,: /{. 10 .0 .. AT J.4; •INU~!:; p,;1 :........2...._ ~ .N ... NO SFCDA~•D IN \"OL,l~f C·~ PL~AGES ~' .. ,A£COAD~ CF KINS ··:.·.t:lio,c,. ~•S><IHGT(lt. . ··. . ,:~:.°~,=,l,y,v A4,i.E.N.47'1 . :5UP~~1NTE,~N'r. ·--~·. 'fl'l,CoAo~ RESTRICTIONS NO LCT 0~ ~cnno, or• LOT'" THI~ P'L, .... , s~•~L ee'c'1.iciE~· . ..,ND SDLO OR "HOLC 0~ OWNEASHlF :HA,GW "" TA,-..~EAAEJ wHE~~ev !'Ht OWNEASHJe'.oF -~y PQ~Tl-ON or :::~ .. ·Lc,~:,:~·LL BS LESS.· .. lHAS )HI ........ Pl)c."'-\Hrn •cfi l'f USE G!SlH!Cl ,~ ..... ·........ ····.·... ··: .. ,.,. ·.. •' ', ;·aucn ... ca. 'IC~ OR oMT.aucnONs··,.rnclUJING B\>i NOT ''"ITEO T0°·,0ECK5, P .. TJCS OUCB<JI.UJNGS. oa O<EAH•P'I\J.SI SH•LL NOT 'Bf; ~r...:nE~--~YOHO .·:i':'E SUILO!l<:S S.ETS•CK l,JNO 0A .1,e:• ORAJNAGE USE""""'· •oDITlON.ILn.-~P•oVl!a o\N!l.·,i:ot>(!;fll!;lc"JQN c, fENCJH(; SH~L' • .a· "' ,cco0co •ITMI~ , .. , "~·~·llE E&S£Ml:NTS',:S~•.,···-'l" l'lb;; PL.~T ••P ~~LESS QTI<E,q•JS: •e•aovc0 ~· KISS COL"'" e·.:LOl~S.·}~ _.'4) OeV~'(JPl,IEHT·,ll_l_VJS!O!;; .'. "' eu:ca!NG OOljNSPa~S·,·.r:,011,s ~'nl, '"° aa.r,s FAQ{<LL l~~b.,,1,:r~s SURFACES sues >5 P'1 !OS '"" OAl'EWHs !iieOlL BE ""'""P•C TO T~ .. ~R(;•Eo e,RH·..,.c,, 5TCf!M """" 0 .. lLEl ,5 SHOHN 0, THC APP~(t'<tll CDNSTRUi:l:ON DPA.ING;°',f P l2l~ ON rlC[ •JT·, <lHO CJ,N1Y 8UILOING •11e L•No ""ELil!'HENl CJVI,S\"" IH>La: IH'!s PLO" SHJ.LL BE SUBl<!lTEO •• -H lHC •PP.JCATI!li.'.OA ··" BUlL~~s PE.tf!n ALC COONECT:~NS a• THE DM!MS M'JST o, CO-STSUCHO •NO •PF>AO,nu PR[oa·.u, ,..,,,,.,_]H .. , .... ~.,llUJN0·, !NSPECTro, ASSA(JVA 1,01v1ou,L LO" Jm"ILTRAT!.(IN SYS>EMS.·'11;1<:AE"~~~JT't.D. S"'4-BE c~srnVCTED u THC 1JMt "' THE DJILDISG PEFtHlr ANC SH•LL''C~MPLY"·1':TH;s,rn P~ANO o~ ,r.E "JOH BALO ~~~~~ "'HEAWl;K,~AOVEO S¥"t11J;JHEE!l1Nl lirlv;Ew. <l"!P t:OU<"\B•Lo. or ll"S wc:Essoa SECTION SUBDIVISION DR.<,WH fj W~f!D S~(ET 2 OF 4 WINSPER DIVISION A POR. OF THE SW 1/4 SEC 29 AND THE SE 1/4 OF SEC 30, T. KING COUNTY, ~ASHINGTON ·. ·.· 8.-,A-L.o. ;;~~:~o. 1os/2? 23 N .. N~'3~~4·,E 32.6~-: -,,·•s.a, R. 5E, fi FA 50 >JOO SCAl .. E: 1 "-so: ···liAS1$ .Of" BEARINGS· . . . AssUMEO SE NCTES SHEET 2 C' ' CURVE TABLE ,c,· ' ... ,,. ;:~·o: , ....... , . ., "' . ..... ---1¥.-: ---+:: ,o .. .. 0 MIPOWEUAVBIUES.W:,t.Ll'TE1DII ~.......«TON-6 l"NON!: (2NI 221-SHI WINSPER DIVISION A POR. OF THE SW 1/4 SEC 29 AND THE SE 1/4 OF SEC 30. T. 23 N., R. 5E. W.'·M. CURVE TABLE ... •o" .. .. " "~ ~-'. " "" • ,,. .... ""< ... .,.,,. ""'''"' , ..... , H ,O'<Z .,,-,-,.,,, -:+:r-:f LEGEND ... . 1•000, -10•;.;: ----*f- -~ KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON 0AS1S OF BEA~INGS· ASSUMED 50 !QP SCAL·o: 1 '•50' 1~· .. .,,.. -:J~ --.~H~ I 1noo HOO >-.-. o 'o""1~i:~;:·~~·-·.··cc:c::CF'--'--"~;;,c'--'---::J <,v ,. __ ----,sa~::::ci~~ ~ ---, 1 - '· SEE NOTES SHEETZ Or 4' · PRIVATELY owNEO OPEN SPACE TRAC.ts C",s-)'-'LINE or RI.RCE~ ~c~•EYrn-/ · :··::Efli·'R3XIROI~(; NO 72120'~0126 'A•CTS ,.c J.E '· PEA•Al£NT O~FN AAC• ,s. AEc.U!AEIIEtH fo·,.,ePRO;Al 'tfif;;E -RACTS ARC .IE:T ,,;me :~~u::s(o~,;r~• ~~l~t:::::":",;~l~~"~s s:;~r~rnR;~R;~~ii,":~c ~~E· ·:i~s;:' 8.'t~{~~ T~~; ~'t",~~~~.:~o THE UN0EA51o~rn O""ERS OF l~TERE>' W L•No HEREBY S,BDl''1DEO oC·.i;~•NT ••O C¢1<vev • PERPElc)L E•SE•El<T I/. rnoc-s •. C :•. £, l CQR use AN{] 8!'NH 11 OF '"L PRES ONT •NO ··~'1URE a•l<ERS :F Tef_ LOTS or IHJS SUODlY:SION 4UTN:R!Zrn BY o~o;N,NCE NO, B>-;ge EXCEPT ,s SHawir".J;l• 1H0.PL>1. •O "U!LO'"" ;~~;:.;c::, ·;.·,~ED ON ra,c-s A C D. E, I ANO "''"" rn,o, S>&LL ""' "" F'-'RTHE~'-9.,~~l'IOE.C OR u:.Eo FOR // ,/ 431.6~ "'~-u . ...,.,~ ---~ flOtJ m-MZI ..-En•'-"'• -• <ft 17 !I8IHX3 1'1'1'1"1'1'1£1 1 II ,1~--1 .-, cl ::j ;::::i -:: Cl ro ~~ z OJ >~ X 'Z >-"".' ,_..:; ci < J> r---, L""' M ~ ~z _.. r=: " <--..i )--. ,.-, .....,~ ~ J., M tt G' ;i.,. ~u ':: r;:1.:...,.. ;§~ ~o :,c :c :::::: -"'> 0 ~ l,'i !r, ;:: {!; r- 5, l"'l L" n ~~~~ r l> eo < f,!i; >< :~;if-· o8f~ ] u, :;; I 12 :;? I z: ~ c:; ' ' ! :!I~ 3 I Oz :::! :: o-~f'- ~~ z-ct~ z~ . "' 1S " z~ " 0 (") '"-: O:::f ~G -~ ~ ::E ";;o p. ::;-:. V: r--: :r: '-11 z tr. --:.; $ O:_,,. z- / I i I I I I .. I I I I I LI _J s 1; • -, ,--1 I, I ., 1 .. I L_j[~I TIUICT C i I T __./1 ! I ., I 111 .. I I I I I L _J L _I ,--1 11 .. 11 "' I 11 I L _J L\I TRACTS 1 -11__/1 I ! I -11 .. I I 11 I LJL ... g .... I .. ' g g ~ " o_ ~ ~ 0 < r )-- u :c, -3 CJ ' )> 7. si~i~~~ ~"2':J~;::i Q~~~O,~r "£1 i.f.~e ;igao~~=' ~a;g 8~l ~~~.~!~! :,c!f;,e;l,: ,-=>i!i:;i\-':r ~§,,:;:~~ ::,~~~".:2 !f"':;-.! ... -o;\i =<n"' !£i;~i' 1ch~:i2~ ~;.;a;c.,. ;i~~~~ Fo,s![ ~t§~~R ill_..,~E=-- ~~~o:;:~ 8 2;~RQ 1"'"" ~::, 'I: 8 5l"' ~~!1!:~~q ~t §1 ~if, "'" -< ~():i' 11 I! I IE• · Pa j~ E ':'.: ~ ~ ~ ~ )!i1 ii *~ ~~ o"' :... "' ~il; :;';5'. !£" ~~ ::~ f) ·• '-, ~ t;l,, ;§ z .. "'~ ,p ~~ ;:;~ §!itS;i ii: P-c,"' 1' ~ ~ u ~i ; ~ '"8 8 6 i ~ ' ' a ~ i ~ ~ j ; "' n t ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ I i ~ ' ' i ! i HS'~ ,. '1, ~~ g 7 ~~ ~ p~' t~ f ,, ... "· .,il; " 'T~ ~ ~8 ~ I ~ '"' ij @ ' . " ' i ~ i a "'"' £.,, :;I; J', ~} ~~ :~ z ~ "~ !"1 n" ~o ~~ ~:· j~ !;c :d !l t~ ;e :i'[ ~~ -~ !~ ~; ~ ~~ ~j ~ ~2 ~'i' ~-i§ ~~ "'i;\,_ ,::: ~ i~ ; i • s ' ~~ ! ~~~ ~~ ~ !!.~ ~~ ~ ~g'sl ~~ " :'i,a ;s ~ ;;,;; :i'., if, ,;:0£ z:, "; J:r :i'~ .., j'118 "',; £ ~t ,, " '"' 09 :,. C .., ~.~ ! u~ i ~ ;;~ 0 :;J ;;;~! ~ ~ :if ~ ~ F~ ' ' ! ' ' I ' • ' ' ! ' '<OFF<' I' i'i~ifl,l'g~i.:.::; §~~§2~ ~ ~ :,'~~ail'!~§ ~ [ e li~i 0 e e El !Ei !Ji ii~i l~i ~~~ ~1~ ~~g; ~~~ a !!I'" ' ; '1· I 2.· ;j ~ "'---<z:,:i'"E ,:i ~~~~~~Q ai!l~o~.," !;;,a~~;:;~i i.'l,;558~;;.: i,:.:~ ... .., ... ;<: -Mfl'ti@-,,O "'"'>-"'"~,. -<,;..,~i'iiaiij 5,;~§:J~ ~i~~ii: .'.~-f~M" ?;!~i;! g"'S~li.']-6';,i~,,,,.-" i:; ~"::~~§ ~t;!;; "'" ;l\f" ~~l~g; ~ s~g ~ ~ g I i ' I ' ! ' ' ! ' _,,,~., s~-; =1H; !@~~ "'~'' :~~gl ~;~~ .Si'i1-,,!;: <Fo ~~~ "'o ;!i1~ ~~~ ~~~ ~i~ g,;§ "o" ~~o s"' o~i;! ''§ 1~5 f I G-, ~0-, s~n-, ~C,·• ~~,; ,;,,i;; £~~!. ~Ile -.,,o 5"'o ~"'>o ~"'o ~§I~"',' x~~I ~§'i' ~~; 3~; ~~~; ~~; i~~ ;? !§!~ !;~ -,v,c; -<o ~<:o !i:"'o ~Ii ii ~is 69° ti 8~ ~~~ ~lo:~ C::9 "9 ~!;19 ~f'g o"' l;j.,, "';;"' 0 ov, ~I ~I ;.,,.,I ~ll.':' ~M ~~ ~6~ i~~ ~',;: ~I, r,;:~ ~ ~-~~ ~il ~-., O il s ,--.., ~!;: il\5l ~~ !;: "'1§5] ~8 ~~ ~i;~ ~~~ ;o !I U! ~ii ~i,:.: :r~1.; ~~ :nt H ,, ~~ ' "!i1 Cl,?... ':il~ ~i Igi :2 ~i ~ i 8~ ':; " --< ~~ i~~ t:; ~§ ~~t; ~ ~: ~i~ 1 ;, j;, ' f:1-, ,-.,[:o t.'l;;: ~~n :;J; ~b ...... 0.-1 2; f§ !l:~ /lli; ,.;.: "r §~ :~ b; ~f F i~ ''! l "~ ,,i i ;~ s~; 0 .~ ,., !···· 1 ' •as,-, · °' 0 ,-~""'lll :g :g r:i ~i ~t ~ 2 ,..,,,,,.. "''"' 'iif: "'~ ,,_14 ~ ::: ,...,.., ~"" o-tl 1~ u !:8 [:- ~~ cc ~2 ~~ ,. ·" g~ ~~ ~ l I " " ~ ;: ' a §ii~; ~;{\i;~ ""-;;:!":c :ct;:,,...,~ 2;:~i~ ""~~;Jlc< i~:,1 ~ ·"'8., ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l; ~ "'lo, §~*t i~ g l:)~;<; :g~ ::: :::r:::::: ' §~!i !!~~! ~&~t~ ~~1::.i;;; ~H;:.~ ~bij~~ pi ' ~ '" .i s ~~~~~ § 1')0000 -r- :tzz± z :z ;g~~~i ~ ~;:c:1t;; 'i ~M~n= .._ ~ij8!l i :'i:t::~:~ ,'5 ~><>M',; i,:; :;!~~~ ~ pr § ' ~ ~o ~~ ;::: . " IU • It q,} ! ~ iijff;~ -<_,'£~" ffll!i~ ~~~ I'-' " , ,a I" ~ i: : q~ :;. ;~ :;; ~:g ·;;:~ ~ f 6 ~ < > r-r- M ~ < C: M '"u ::D M r- e-, ~ f-, z :J;> ::D ~ 't: r- :J;> ..- VALLEY VUE PRELIJ\i1IN A RY PLAT =i \ \ ni~:00£i\lil~"]1.Q,1;1e!I / I ww,esoo~w~,,-1 \ ~ } Yt>U&s·~:10,'111 I Ns9·35·3s,"w (F<l) P~TCH or cu,cc I •S9·<Q'o,"w (e<cc) ,m ,o· \ • e<~cc•s me , ,., ,,, _ 1555.30' )-._ __ -{)-------------DI' l,Nt ()f:JN~N/. L I\ I ----_...._ --1/--l--'.'>-_J/ \ 'U"l"11t-~:©.:S~:1!1~~!;@ \ \ "f:-\J'.c,~;;,;;;:,.;:i'i y~':7(( \rsc. ? -n ·,C.,-"'~' TIF'lr!:~;;B;;~ti'~~ £1;):1.!t N89"<1-0'pJ"W ?~OPOSW ; e "· 1~ 1/~z I I OW<C, e,sc, • H/r ~ ,,,, ~ BRA$~ UCSG I~ CONC 00\IN ~ ' I ,--_ -1.llL_ "" "'"~{,;,>) ~ I I t r:···· ~J tll VAU / LS ORYCO" (7/13) -9 I , ~ ' ·~ C' [~SC~(NT ~ 18,11511 Sllf'T. ~ FOO ROA(lWAY. ~ L ' iii• 11 ·-·.cy D JI -~ ,1115 SQ.FT. ~ _ _J/ • •.. • 1 1 t· ~ I ;c ,w,, ,, , ••• .,~," 8 I ~ -I j -OF THE S. 106' i ~ -------___l -~------{ ~" ,.,l , \ ----y---• r -----+------P~QPOSDW' G)I _J -----~ --~J----==--==-~=-4':--:-:'·5'1•1'::,~ "01° --~ = = = ;;;: ~ _=._..., ~;,;--y,:: ~:,;{L';;: ~ = \ \ N8Q'40'0J"W FOUND REB.'Jl & CAP ~'8FNs --~ c:._I on1. & o.1·w e 3 \ \ \ -, ---\ I I \ \ \ )\ Y\ FhC. 0.2'N (/I) FOONO l/2" REBAR 1Jt. CAf' _ <hY \ \ ~ '"' \'~'= "'' • ,.,,. w,,, II 1\ ,,_,~ , -r ,-: · ,7; I \ \ ¥Nt,,.,:;,·,"'•>· -_,_,,~·_,,: , ~.!fl'ft1JJ:!!l<!J@"'·"""-"'\1,~,,1,·.,,, o.,Oo,'Oc,'"'~"-·JJ 1:z ·-.. : "'' '"'""""''"'" 0·11rNr -' \ !~ . , 1 In I ,, l"'f. I \ I ,ill <Sl ' o, ;,, I \ Y1~~:~751W.iJ·iu ! I,, I \ \ II 0 \ \ _ _L_-L \ t\ if,\ \_~~ \ \ rns[~·t~ .. \-:~{~/R:~ \ ~-OOy' 1N CASE. (7/IJ) -~~ GRAPHIC SCALE ~ I // 'r , ' e:=s·=1 ~ \ \ l" ~ 30' '" ,s· '"' \ so '--"-''' ~,;T~~ LINE L£_GEJ,1D rR~ccr 3 ANO C AC-.-.,::,:, T~Ac'I~ "'1LL >ERVE r~, PUSPO'.s> m· ' ~-c-~M C,(wtl< ~r<D JTILIHC~ C~St.~l~I WC)Q() fCIKE LNE VALLEY VlJE CITY OF REKTON. WA PRELIMINARY PLAT RAD HOLVJ~(.,-::;, LLC t,2:'>2 !iFTi--! AVf SE fl:CLLL:\"!Jt.. WA 98006 NE l /4, SE 1/4, SEC.30, TVVP.23N., RGE.SE., \V.M. CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, \VASHINGTON Axis Sun,cy & M.ipp,ny 13005 NE 126th PL KIRKLAN!l, WA "8034 TEL. 4:s5.623-5700 rAX 425.823 8700 www.o,-5mop.carr IOH N(l i, .. ·, n· 1;1 -!38 L:r' . .l.\lN t1·, Cl1L':1 '1-.l·.;, Lf{.\l i,l'i .:,J< :C:CAL:C :CH;.U .::u· l uF PRELIMINARY PLAT • Alfi• VALLEY VUE GRAPHIC SCALE ~r,_f. S===J )O" 15 l '~C. 0 5N Uf LJNL ;o 1" ~ 30' Y~ll,J:Ji;',;,~~-1 ,Y.i:'i:ii:W rOUNO 1/i" R(:BAR & UP (SMASHED) O.l'N. thC C.~·N & o,·,,. (8/'J) ~ UNt 00' "IT'Pr-~il:~~~.12:11 1.l'.Z:'~: n:·1rt :!.§l@8·d;J:~ @3h!~ JL"JL'!J:MZl~)ij!,1!~ ii)J;;, "ii,):;, l YIP~1:S"1ll'8(il!1 !!)6i. :@ BFNC. O.J'N ~ oa ut..E & 2srs OF L.mE O POINT Y ¥lf.:!J ;l,iJ11#~)::Z.~ 'D{18~!1, 8f"HC C ,·s <)'" ",NE ,1 'i?' .,~ ;,-i>;i;<fi<>·:d ,~1;j,<}.lj; st:cn~ CORNER NOT ,0 I --"''--~·-----'~ £!:!f. n:Jt~i:R08~1££_1;,0~ --S.. 1,J, ACA:'(~128". µ:I I I I ( "" I \ • .,,. I ' ~ I 3 2 ~1. 7,422 SQ.fl. -1,IIM SQ.FT. I - __J lQ -----~o oo· L S<Af AfAC li 1n ~ § ,,.. --~ , --............ -----WETLAND ' • 111!;: ~ awrrrn =---·s~ ,------__,.,. -----, ' ~ ~ I I r• I ii ~~ I 1 I }1 NllrWw." =--' TRACi:T A N.G.l'."'- l2,ll18 SQ.FT. . ~ rYPE r W(flAN(l ,,o I 5 4 ~ .. lit '·"' '"" ~lh 1-=;;-__.=-__;::;;-G ~;:;?·1 ~ --:,.~.::--b----~sin.---; t-+--1--e~o~ --2brn~a1-;-/ =i l \ ~-or ,,,.E. :'"' ----me. o. N ~iG srra•1fi ----1----L=---OF LINE 0~ ui.~ -~ -- -,,a----a, uN _y j BFNc I 1t.T _ 2 1 .. -----;t-14T / © 10 ,- fF1<c· n,i .R P(l5TS 6 ~·ect1c ~ jl ~ ' /' FOIJND 6>M: All · iNc. o.rdll 9911.131' !:Tc!!6~.; ./i rN~ c. ,·~ or LIN[ & 0.l'W. (H/13) 0, uNc l• ",. ~>!<ft ·-~ II n1,r.l1,~:- " 1:E I 't M ~ ~~~ ~"~;)~2:,.. (6/1~) );%. "\;, ~}. "'1;b ) o>},, "i'Jt -~q.~> ·'{;off., v(j) ·c: Jt1€" FOIJNO 1/2" REBA.A & o.,·s. !ii: o.2"E. (~/13); OF\Nr \ -AC~1 ~ ............. ,. j~ l_ _ _l_ _ __!_ _ ___J-----:==:::--::::-----1~-~---L______~ ~OUNO 1-5j8·· ~+(A~~ lJ,~~ IN 4•,4• CONC l,ION DO\\lol ___ Q..45' IN CASE: (7/1J)_t- S. 32ND PL. ~-~ ~ // ~ I,_/ \\ i:,: ' -------------~.~ cs, ',.,n., l :@/~ T'RACT 8 .<ND ~ ACr.:E$$ Tl<ACTS VIILL ff) j S[R\IE ll<f "VR"OS[ ~ & STORM. SEWEA ANO \JTIUTIES E~SEMENI VALT.F:Y VUE CJTY OF RENT01'. WA. l'RHL\l!NARY PLAT ( ----- S. 32ND PL. ----FOOND 1-5/H" BRASS ;;;SC~-- -----IN 4"::~~-C;!'~,,~ON!~J~ ------~ / I /, NE 1/4, SE 1/4, SEC.30, TI\IP.23N., RGE.:'iL, W . .\.'I. CITY OF R.J::NH)N, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON R!,D HOLDJNC:S Ll..C iC?:,2 1/,71'11 Al'!:: C-1:: BELLE, VUJ::. \\' A ·.,1:lllllb GAxis Sun•t>y & Mappmn "' lMOS ~E !26th PL KJHK~ll. WA 98U~4 TEL 425.823-5700 fl,)( 425 623 6700 www c,.,smu~.ccm JUD N() I [:.\)"t. l 0-1·-;1:1 -:::.: 1-; Dr/_;\I'/\ L'I I CHU lv ... l> [n f:f.~: \! r :.I c;r ,\~,\-! :-'l'~:l~"f '.; -,-- I I J ~'~ NDl~~IHSVM """"-"°"' ,:c. -~ ::; -;,J_M..,... ..,..,.:,_..,,,; -- I ! ·No1N3~ ao A.11::> /·!lrJOSO'O'Ol:llOIJTr'l l:JJLJOOlr 3nll A37lVJI .'.)11 'S8NI010H 0~ 1 V"ld J.~VN/~113~d // ----'\ ' ' I ___ J 1-.. J' L__j·() I : ' I ---, ,):..,~ I -' ' I I I} / (1------------i :;( I ' I L __ ' ' ! ' "'i ' ' " I 'I I I I ' ., I I. -~ I . !,, I .. -· -----• •--____ , . ' w t_=~- I I 1'1 ;. ... / / / ' / I L --~-· ,.__L___ l 0 'i' (G!l~t'r l' X -S>OO!!eYM""'"'911 :I o -d'IIJ.>".lSlfli!:I ,,, • .,_,uewooio,.oape11 !Loi ·~~~3'll«l"'"'ld V al i q ' ! I EXHIBIT 5 ll.BflS JJS l.\llllJl.V~ -1 00 N 0 O'l "' ! 0 ~ m 2 N :, 0 "' m z i:i... f-, EXHIBIT 6 I ~I ~I ~, MATCHUNE SEE~LH I \ ( J ~, Q, Hi \ :i I ------j I I I I I I --------, I I I I \ ! ' pihH 1 :Un: QO N 0 O'l l/'l ,... 0 "" ~ M ~ 2 N 0 :, M "' z ~ E - ' -----""';.,: i= NM/' I;-·-: ... I ;;1;:;i -:;;;;1;:-;;11 ~"":=.a/1\..:,r N0.1N3!:!~0AJ.IO 3M A31'111'A ~Tl 'Sf:)N/QlOH <J'tftJ llf1d AWNIW113~d NV1d 3DI/NJ!flla ON'ff SNICJln:I~ /// I ' _ ___,!_ ___ ____L__ !, " i~ -~ £0Zl-99t'-!1ZI !IOOQl,\IM'aM01IO!I .,,..,..,,;,;is-, ~Tl~-"""GP""l , .... .:.x:::111'11,,'""'d ·-,.,..,3 eCWld "ti a EXHIBIT 7 j I I I !, . t 11 0 ! w >< ~i , b I u, :l I DA==-~-,--, und~.........,...llC 12U5SS471hPIICI Elol~.WA99006 4~~3 I I I L_ ' ' ' ' ~---- 1, SANfTARY SEWER AND WATER PLAf, PRELJMINARY PLAT RAD HOLDINGS, LLC VALLEY VUE 310&'3112 TALBOT ROADS CITY OF RENTON ,/: EXHIBIT 8 .---- ;~: ' ! • 6 J.I9IHX3 - © ,, --~ --...._fP. " ~ z m C ~ 111 I ~ . I'. 1, '· •' ' I N01'4S'40'"E I • 1- ~I ' "'",' I ts,(• ·1 "11 ! fr: , I ~t I: · "\lc!l ~. ' -~--:-~;, . . -~: '"' n',<o .,-. {\<, -"' " i tri r· f:~ >'c·--.. _,;. -_-_ ----_-. '.. ·~ • • ' 1·· ' / "' ·, . . -: / : .- ~ ,' ·:~-;b--4 ) : )'.~l --· ---~_::_;.,_ -I -. -- ·1 -~· ~ l /,./!" / r ~! . ,,:·_u-----_-11_ I ,._-'·-~r Ir ' 0 i, _' : 11 -· ·:~ ,111 ® I I --~' 1 ;: '' . -·1 ' ' ~fi!ll-. ' , ----_ _; , 1 'a ~::=::c-==--~JJ I . ·~~-l / ·-;::=·lr=w·;-n_ I - I / II , . 1i ! ' :-1· ' , I I -' ,- 't -')· '< --"> ,t ----j' .. J ~~t ;-~===-----:4 - ·-·~_•-· . U < ~' \.,U/ ,_. ,. ·----"5-----J; '4~ ---11. ~~ J ~ ~ ' . i ' --:-----i "' -' r• ' ~;. cl ' "'":' ~ -~ • (1' _!$'" ! ~, .. 't \' -~' ·Hf!• ·-1 \ .. . ;t . ; . ~j···-··-' -"" ! ~ I -~ _:: -·---~---'1-__ ~~;fj __ l • T--.• --~lH-/ / --_ 1 I I -~-~·. /i ·_1 · .-,~i--{ ' ' /~ --· .. ( :-1 ~· _./ [ ; / ~(;\ m c~'--..· ~?i{ -([)_' cc),_n _ l~:1' o -~ , . ~' !u' cii~~i f--' r~r.Z f ~ ~ ;;.:-;_' -i);-!:,.V " .J-f (' ..,.;,: • , , • ,c.·-,.. , ') ~uu(l 1 I'~ c:!i V ' -. ,. - ~ --or' "· d>'· ,.,. -.. -- ~--' ·J tL---: ,,...,,.. 3 ( ) . -1 -_ ,--. ' .. '· ,.:,,•'._ <~-;: ~ (').-----"l"'--~~~·t -l. ~de; ~ .---.1~~:/"(:i.·: ';·/;~, ;! ;,, ·<:,',./:-"· t6( .....J--c, / 1-N ii'~{--.;1-.· ~ij" I I ~ !l_.) ,7::.j~~ ~ .. "' I Gl ..{:.""--ii961·!_~ij' ;;::,, ..... y ... : !11 / ~ ----,,'\--'--;~-·"~· :=.:'6.//d ~ :,/. ----{;;t.·~:-~/ . ~ . r/ _-WlZ . toz .,-;..r.;t--/~ s::: (, ~i'"<" --1-·-· ..... /' ' I ,iJ;• . J . I b " , , i()-R ,-,-0;~ I ;i II~~. -tJi; ~~ I I ~:t··---+--90Z" j . C::" ~\'· <";' I lf;\d I ~ aj I ';::'J ! 1 .,,------: ~ ''-? ·-...;:--.. 1 0-), .'r:: ~. ~,. . ..._. -;: i "'k °'· --I ;-i··i;:, ,-. 't:f I --1 ~ o,· , '"1,,_. ~:' .~~', ''1 C) Ii: ~. ". :.I ,:;_' -t fr .. ; ;; , -i ,.,-z_ o· I --t' . .r, tJ,· ,',, ' ,;/<--'.":·~,,;. t ~ ..:~;i -{------t • ''. 'n, .,-' : . ··---- i:; c--- l!l!lli 1ll ll!~H1~1!r!_ 11;· ·I '!I O 9i; u 111 l·i I tit 11: 111 ,11 ,1t! --, • . fJ' 1\-'I -j ''--fr --t-E_.'" ' 'i "'' i~a·~ ~~~ l ' 1 #' ~ 'I ... , , -. -. . . t -. .,_. , ::::::::::1:::':::: r . . . . . . . . I , _ _ .,,:,:.·' ·>:·" . . ,,,;.,,;,., ' ' ' ' ' -: ~ ,!1,11 11, illll ii! I I •• UI ; --I -' I DA. ....-.<t>\I.~~ . ..._ ..... _ L•,.,~·MviooN;,UC 128&SE411t,""""' BoloY110.WP.\lll0IJ0j j:>!;."6f,.r.70J TREE cumNG/LAND CLEARING PLAN PRELI/M/NARY PLAT RAD HOLDINGS, LLC VAi.LEY VUE 310U1112 TALBOT ROADS CITY OF RENTON NGTON 100.(14" ':;i --- ·-·-1·1--=· =..'!.:.P.E 7'. ~---L! " ~- JIJY,,O•< I•' ,,:,,:---- ::::.....__., l"'I"' I I I, 'I ' T --- u.i-- C!l re :;i "' N a.: ~ ci "' ti w "' l\1 i·' ,I .. +.~- :. ,,ie/ -'-;...~' ~I.,. ...... -):; 0. Q' _Jj', i I ' 1 , .woo~ l "'I _g, !'• hij I·• ' "' "' ' ' a I ' Jll w z ::::; I ~ 01N3l::I 11,m1 J1i ! ! : 0 01::i 10811/12a LE:/90~£ NVld lN3~3::lVld31:J·N011N3131:i 331::il ..- -lVld JnA A311VA I~ ,11111 i _J 'S9N10l0H av~ O 0 I . I-; 1 ·11 -·r·' : rd I~ 'ii ! 'i ' I ! I I, i' 1: 'I ,, ' i~ ,; h I ' ., h ' I! ' 'I j I 11 w I' '• i . 11, I iii I • I i11 I! I rL 51i if I j, ! I I ,I i ' i. I ' • I , ,1 ; i ii : 0 ' " ' ' w 11 !1 I 1 1 _, I 0 11 w ! ~. ~ ~ I • ~ll 'i i ! !11 i I ~ I :1 I ' <. i '! l 'i I I ' "' • ~ I I'. II I I I .,,, <le~ .:-<''::: ;~\ I ; / (!)""' ",, ,,' ,, ,, "' I " "' "' I I I w z ::::; I ~ <( :a ~ ~ e ~ § I ! ' I I I ! I j I i (~ • _, i i ' I ! ! ! ! l c: I i I ! I ~- * * !:::!~ 0 0 alic;f :c1:... ~1 21 ~I H ZI w, ~I ~I CL: ~! -· Z' ol -I ~I f-' ~! EXHIBIT 10 ' .. ~ l,i! !ii rla u, ';l I' (l! ,I ' ~ a I @ ! a " I ! • ' g I • I ::;; 0 ~ G w "' u.i (!J cc z ('J C\I a: I= 0 ('J () w en VM 13S GH 1081Vl Z •• ,,/90!C Nlf1d !::>NLLN\f"ld 1011Vn!d3:JNO:J Jll 'ScJNIOlOH 0\/~ -1 \/ld 3ni\ A3ll\/i\ ! y +++++++>+++++++>4:-H i ~ a. w a. <( 0 en Cl z :5 § ...J <( ~ w 0 z 0 0 ' ll,1111~ i N ! ' T""" jl d ...J ' ' GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. RAD Holdings, LLC 1040 West Lake Sammamish Parkway Southeast Bellevue, Washington 98008 13256 Northeast 20th Street. Suite 16 Bellevue, Washing:1011 98005 (425) 147-5618 FAX (42.\) 747-8561 May 27, 2014 JN 14177 Attention: Rory Dees via email: rorydees@hotmail.com Subject: Transmittal Letter -Geotechnical Engineering Study Proposed Residential Development 3112 Talbot Road South Renton, Washington Dear Mr. Dees: We are pleased to present this geotechnical engineering report for the residential development to be constructed in Renton. The scope of our services consisted of exploring site surface and subsurface conditions, and then developing this report to provide recommendations for general earthwork and design criteria for foundations, retaining walls, and pavements. This work was authorized by your acceptance of our proposal, P-8823, dated September 6, 2013. The attached report contains a discussion of the study and our recommendations. Please contact us if there are any questions regarding this report, or for further assistance during the design and construction phases of this project. TRC/MRM: at Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. trc~n,PE. Senior Engineer GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Entire Document Available Upon Request EXHIBIT 11 PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT ("TIR") Valley Vue 3106 Talbot Road South Renton, WA Parcel No. 3023059028 Prepared for: RAD Holdings, LLC 6252 167th Ave SE Bellevue, WA 98006 Prepared by: lo A Land Development Advisors, LLC •12865 SE 47th Place -Bellevue, WA 98006 (425) 466-5203 December, 2013 Entire Document Available Upon Request RADX-001 EXHIBIT 12 CRITICAL AREAS STUDY FOR RAD Holdings, LLC -3112 Talbot Road Tax Parcel No. 302305-9028 Acre Project #13039 Prepared By: Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC. 17715 28th Ave. NE Lake Forest Park, WA 98155 (206) 450-7746 For: RAD Holdings, LLC Attn. Rory Dees 6252 167th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98006 September 4, 2013 Entire Document Available Upon Request EXHIBIT 13 Valley Vue Proposed plat: ,\.pplicant: Rory Dees. I 040 W. Lake Sammamish Pkwy SE. Bellevue. WA 98008 206 715-4559 3023059028 Requesting: Submittal for Subdivision Construction Mitigation Description: Proposed co11stractio11 dates: June I, 2015 to September 30, 2015 Hours o(opcration: \'1-F 7 AM to 6 PM, Saturday 9 AM to 5 PM, Sunday no work Proposed hauling/transportation routes: On the west end of the propctty: when accessible Talbot Road South to Benson Drive S. Otherwise. out the access casements lrn;atcd along S. 32 Place to Smithers Ave S to S 32 Street to Talbot Road S to Benson Drive S. Measures to control dust: Creating a section of quarry spall rock path for trucks to ckar tires. tire brnshing. and water washing. Special hours of operation: Not anticipated to be needed Preliminarr Traljlt' Comro/ Plan: waiv("d EXHIBIT 14 ! 2:1 m >< :::c 1-1 m ~ ... U1 \ V> \ \ ~ \ ------- ------------ SEC. 30, rnf'. 23N., RGE. 5£. W.M. I ---1' -------' -' / ' / ' / \ ----\\ '' \ ' \ \ \ \ I I I )>,;,, // /:-!)[ii;; I; i.!;' "':"f,.., ''1ir/ J).,-J),, .• •,Y,-,. •V -·, •)')(~!)(()!1<:t--~ "(.\_))((),,.,)," . ~·"1'1_(\);~~5} I I I 72' EASEMENT I I FOR ROADWAY. I I I I I THE N. LINE I I I OF TH[ 5. 706' I I I (3 I c<s ·~f'· '.) ·'--G~S -~-::::-,._,,AS.--·------·· GAS · ~-00 12· 8r c:;1 ;:! I I I I I I I I I I I I fl I I ;.. I I I IQ I' I _,_ 1-+.~ 52.43' ] --J __J --r-· -··7 --_/ _ ,,-_ ,. ·_ __.-\ \ ', \ ' \ EDGE OF PAVEMENT \ \ I \ I /1,\~~ \ I / \ ·_./\\ ~FIRE TRUCK TURNING RADII ~ \'-_·-~ ; \ I I ., .X/ I I G> ( . ·\ ' .l. , I •./ V>\, . 't--\,~ / ~~~!~ --~S--1A~/~~AS--GAS-GAS---G c;, __ g.,,._ __ ' \ \ V' 7'I \ \ '~ol \ \ \ . \ -\ i I " w 1"•20' : ~<l<J<l<l<l<J<l<J<l i ,1 ~ J e Ill ,' 'j a!, ,11111:lli t; ~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ ... 0 ... :::l :;: uj ~ ... ~ -... " 0 C) Q ~ rQ ~ ~ ... ~ ~' i.; !Ii! ~ I ~ ~ ~ " ~ fj ] 1uU I {1~ ' i ~ i ~If ' ,mm; RADXOO/ FIG. 1 1 ~~~~~~~~~NN~~OOlD .-.-.-.-.-..... .-.--,---,....,....,---,-,-,---m ~ ! I, I ~ f-+F.'-1.---l ,-'--1 +++.1H-1++ !+H-f~ I l, I I I \ I ! II I I; I • I I I I i l I I 1 1 I 1\ ! 0 H-+-+l--ll+it-1 +-+-,!-+-t-1 +-++-t-+-+~ I, 1 11\ 11 I j i 11 I 1i I ' ! I' I i ' -I I I I I I I I I ol- I 11 I I 1 Ii ! oo ;!;m _J <l'. I- 0 I- oS: ";'o -I- v) X w i Ii fl\ 0 I I I O r+-+--+---,------+-+--+1-+-+-,1 1-: i +-+--++ I . I 11 I I~ I I \( 5l 1s >-I I I I 1 ,; ;±; al I 1· I I ui I I != § I I i I I I 111 11,V ' I ! I I I I I OlDOL{)QL{)OIJJOl.()01.D II) LO r---i:o<.DLOu)-:::j-"""l"Jr'lNN.-.-ij::/ 01 ,-,-,-,-,-.-,-.-.-.-.-,-,-,-,- - that rortioli ot. 1t. h•··lio .. r .. t.11, 100. het ot ,th .. ' nor. th'eut 'ou •tor <>f'th'8::'si~uthu•t','Qd'artwr in Section 'ijU; To,nohlr, '2G !ldrth, "iar•\·6nK,W,II: ·.in King County,·· . luhln~ton1 ,lyillg u~t:,ot th•.hlln~nr deooribed .. linei uginning d a po,nt·otl tho north lift@ nr oaid •ubdl .. ialon. win Ch l • north 89 3;)\ :l~S' 't'', 1000 het fro• the n'o rtheut corn.r thereof; thc~ct •.ou h 1 52'12". u,,t, h the 1outh 1,n,or111a,,1u.u,terl. , ' ' . . 1·:, . ' . Wuhiogton STATE OF-,.--------' 1 •· Count)' of King On ,hi. 26th, __ ___.,., of rabru.ary A O 19 64 ' ,;:,,;=.:.::::..!..------I , -before me, lh~ undcnlaned, a No111- Publlc in e,nd for tho State of lfHhi~t011 '" Illa P. J.a.umaardncr --~-----duly C?~miHioned and nrorn peno~all, ~ppeared ta me knc:,wn·to be the lndl•ldua. 1_:_ dfterib..d In and who earcuted 1he forepl~i ln•t d L I • . . .... . , ~ment, •n ac,mo.., edred to me that ~'\'f-'~~ed and 1e11led the Hid ln•trument a,-1M!.._ __ free arJd vorunt8-act d d , f h h ~' Y,'\J 1.!11. · • ·~ an ff~ or t e u,n and purpoKt . ',i ·:-··.,'l;ft;7'~... ' ,· tl, , ••41 f ~rN&:SS~~d and officlal ,o~l herein affiud 1he dtiy and yl'lar In th11 certlficale abov -~11 . l, '.'111 !{,/,... ~· • wn en. ; ,\~,.,,,,:·· 'fi!i;;;, , . ' .,, - 1, ','(,(, i-9£/N~•.ff'•'",· ~ t' < .-· ..::::.., c. ~ ::e ...; ''.·,:.~:.f~~~~'.,; N.,..,. p..,..,'l',t;,' •·~ ,h, "'" ., wao,hinston ... ~\11~:\'.. . , Hfldln1~•i--:-,--,-.--'R:.:•:.:n:.:t..:o.:nc.... ______ _ ., \ 1 (Acll:nowl!d1m,~I b1111dlwld11•I, W_a,hUirton Tltl• ln1vrsnu Con,pu,. Fotm L JI) l ' • ,;,, ,, ,;I ,11,d to, RfWta't9'A.,. .• fJ 151...i/ /,J.-,/ 1a '"?,,.,I or J ,{/, 't.:J,,_,. .• ..,1...,a.-rt .,,4,..._ ..... IOIERT A. MOUfS.'Co.y~ I 'I > EXHIBIT 16 • 1ll 11: \\Iii tl!l!ll Ii l ~ ll~~~i~ll~l(1il 111111 20140627001668 JOHNS MN!lOE EAS 74.00 PRGE-081 OF 003 06/27/2014 14:59 KING COUNTY, UR Rtturn Addrtss: Robert D. Johns Johns Monroe Mi!Sunaga Kolouskova PLLC 1601 I 14~ Avenue SE, Suile 110 Bellevue, WA 98004 EXCISE TAX NOT REQUIRED Klng Co. Records Division AUDITOR/RECORDER'S INDEXING FORM ORIGIN~~uty ----·-- Document Title{s): I MUTUAL RELEASE OF EASEMENT Granlors: RAD HOLDINGS, LLC, a Washingion limited liabilily company; and MYLES G. GILBERT Grantees: RAD HOLDINGS, LLC, a WashinglOn limited liability company; and MYLES G. GILBERT Documents 5705702 referenced: Legal Portion of North JOO feet of the NE quaner of the SE quaner ofSec1ion 30, Township 23 Description: (abbreviated) North, Range 5 East, W .M., records of King Counly, Washington X Additional legal is on 2 J of document. pages ' • Assessor's Property Tu Parcel/Account Numbers: J 302305-9028, 302305-901 J MUTUAL RELEASE OF EASEMENT RAD HOLDINGS, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; and MYLES G. GILBERT enter into the following Mutual Release of Easement: Recitals A. On February 26, 1964, Ella P. Baumgardner executed a Grant of Road Easement over and across property she owned which granted a roadway easement over the south 20 feet from west to east over the following described property: That portion of North 100 feet of the NE quarter of the SE quarter of Section 30, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., records of King County, Washington, lying easterly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the north line of said subdivision, at a point on the north line of said subdivision which is north MUTUAL RELEASE OF EASEMENT -l EXHIBIT 17 Return Address: I II f I ti 111 1 ~, I l~l 11 ;; ;;:;; l 1 1~ '11 1 I ~ill\ Ill 20140627001669 JOHNS "ONROE EAS 75.00 PAGE-001 OF 004 116/27/2014 14:59 KING COUNTY, UA Robert D. Johns Johns Monroe Mitsunaga Kolouskova PLLC 1601 114" Avenue SE, Suite 110 Bellevue, WA 98004 EXCISE TAX NOT REQUIRED King ~llMsic!y AUDITOR/RECORDER'S INDEXING FORM ORIGINAL By ueputy / I MUTUAL RELEASE OF EASEMENT ' ~ument Title(s): Granton: RAD HOLDINGS, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; TERRANCE W. MACLEOD and KATHRYN J. MACLEOD, a mariial community Grantees: RAD HOLDINGS, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; TERRANCE W. MACLEOD and KATHRYN J. MACLEOD, a mariial community ~uments 5705702 referenced: Legal Portion of North 100 feel of the NE quarter of the SE quarter of Section 30, Township 23 Description: North, Range 5 East, W.M., records of King County, Washington (abbreviated) X Additional legal is on 2 of document. pages Assessor's Property Tax Parcel/Account Numbers: 1302305-9028; 302305-9029 MUTUAL RELEASE OF EASEMENT RAD HOLDINGS, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; and TERRANCE W. MACLEOD and KATHRYN ,J. MACLEOD, a marital community enter into the following Mutual Release of Easement: Recitals A. On February 26, I 964, Ella P. Baumgardner executed a Grant of Road Easement over and across property she owned which granted a roadway easement over the south 20 feel from west to east over the following described property: That portion of North 100 feet of the NE quarterofthe SE quarter of Section 30, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., records of King County, Washington, MUTUAL RELEASE OF EASEMENT -I Return Address: , ~III ~ 111l I l~ 11111~1 1111 If i II ill 111 ·11 20140627001670 JO!iNS nONROE EAS 1,.00 PAGE-HI OF 004 06/2712014 14:59 KING COUNTY, UA Robert D. Johns Johns Monroe Mitsunaga Kolouskova PLLC 160 I 114" A venue SE, Suite I I 0 Bellevue, WA 98004 AUDITOR/RECORDER'S INDEXING FOR~ 8.lG I ~AL -. --.. - I MUTUAL RELEASE OF EASEMENT Document Tille(s): Grantors: RAD HOLDINGS, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; SKINNERONE, LLC, a Washington limited liability company. -~~-~~-- Crantf!es: RAD HOLDINGS, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; SKINNERONE, I.LC, a Washington limited liability company. Do<uments 5705702 ref ere need: Legal Portion of North JOO feet of the NE quarter of the SE quarter of Section 30, Township 23 Description: North, Range 5 Eas~ W.M., records of King County, Washington (abbreviated) I 12 X I Additional legal is on I of document. pages I ' ' . ~ -- I Assessor's Property Tax ParceVAccount Numbers: j 302305-9028; 302305-9033 MUTUAL RELEASE OF EASEMENT RAD HOLDINGS, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; and SKINNERONE, LLC, a Washington limited liability company enter into the following Mutual Release of Easement: Recitals A. On February 26, 1964, Ella P. Baumgardner executed a Grant of Road Easement over and across property she owned which granted a roadway easement over the south 20 feet from west to east over the following described property: That portion of North JOO feet of the NE quarter of the SE quarter of Section 30, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., records of King County, Washington, MUTUAL RELEASE OF EASEMENT -I Clark Close From: Sent: To: Subject Good morning Clark, Dalen, Doug J <doug.j.dalen2@boeing.com > Friday, September 05, 2014 9:46 AM Clark Close Valley Vue Prelimina,y Plat/ LUA14~001040, ECF, PP I just wanted to get my written comments in prior to 9/8/14 to meet the deadline. I just purchased a house at 721 5 31" St, Renton WA and found out that the property adjacent to my new home is likely to be wiped out and replaced with a bunch of new houses. My concern is that when I bought the property, one of the big selling points to me was the beautiful treeline and the privacy it created in my backyard, which according to this Land Development proposal could be severely compromised- or even wiped out entirely. It states that the developer intends to retain 27 original trees. Is there a way to find out which ones as some of them are very big, and likely very old. I am concerned about the destruction of all this landscaping, the shade the trees provide as well as the animals which live back there will be displaced causing them to invade surrounding areas and create potential traffic hazards. Also, I worry about what impact this will have on the property values surrounding the site. I would like to be made a party of record on this matter and kept informed on any further developments and/or decisions made regarding this matter. Thank you, Doug Dalen 721 S 31" St, Renton, WA 98055 1 EXHIBIT 18 Clark Close From: Sent: To: Subject: Ginny <vk1aas4@comcast.net> Tuesday, August 26, 2014 7:52 PM Jennifer T. Henning; Clark Close; Steve Lee; Vanessa Dolbee Valley Vue LUA14-001040 Recently the Winsper neighbors gathered to review the Valley Vue plan (LUA 14-001040). As discussed during my meeting with Clark on 8/8/2014, the neighbors feel the proposed plan falls short on a number of significant issues involving safety, access and drainage. The neighbors discussed the following five items that do not meet City Codes; 1) The two access "private streets" coming off the Winsper Development. These proposed roads would be solely for the purpose of serving the four houses in Valley Vue behind the existing homes in Winsper. City Code (4-6-060 J) states: Private streets are allowed for access to six (6) or fewer lots, provided at least two (2) of the six (6) lots abut a public right-of-way. None of the new lots will abut a public right of way. These new roads provide no service to the pre-existing homes in Winsper. 2) City Code 4-6-060 J.2. states: Minimum Standards: Such private streets shall consist of a minimum of a twenty six foot (26') easement with a twenty foot (20') pavement width. The two easements indicated on the platt map are 24 feet wide and do not meet the minimum City Code standard. 3) Both proposed private roads are longer than 150 feet, and neither appears to have the required turn around for Fire and Emergency vehicles. Ordinance 5517 states that streets· 150-300ft in length must have a dedicated hammerhead turnaround or cul-de-sac. I spoke to Fire Chief, Corey Thomas, last year and he indicated that this is an issue. 4) The front eastern edge of my driveway a long S 32nd Place is just over one foot from the access easement property line. This does not allow for the five foot required setback. I am terrified that a driver may mistake my driveway for the access road and run right into my house. There are no provisions for a safety/privacy barrier, planting strip, sidewalk or other buffer zone on my side of the easement. 5) The City of Renton memorandum date January 3, 2013, and substantiated in the City Codes "General Ordinances of the City of Renton (4-1-11 OA, and Ordinance 5676), as well as the King County Urban and Residential Zoning Document, requires a minimum sideyard-street setback of 15 feet. I wrote to Gerry Wasser about this in 2013 and he stated: "The required setbacks for Zone-8 are: Sideyards-5 feet, except 15 feet for sideyards along a street or access easement." Several of the neighbors have noted that neither of the easements are wide enough to accommodate a 15 foot sideyard-street setback from the existing houses, and still have 1 the space needed for a 20 fvvt road. Variances to accommodate a road for vehicle traffic would be dangerous to the residents of the abutting houses given the current five foot (or less) sideyard setback. Ordinance 5517 and 4-6-060 specifically state that the codes are intended to establish design standards and development requirements for street improvements to insure reasonable and safe access to public and private properties. Allowing variances of these standards, compromises the integrity and value of the City Codes, and exposes the community to reckless hazards. Not having a basic safety element in street standards to protect pedestrians and homeowners sets a poor precedence and puts the public at risk. This places an unfair burden on the residents of Winsper. The original Dees plan called for access off of Talbot Road, not off the Winsper easements. Frankly, given the numerous variances that would be required to gain access from the Winsper easements, and the multiple safety concerns, retaining the access to the property where it has always been off Talbot Road, seems the prudent choice and would require the least amount of variances. I know that Clark had indicated that the Talbot access was a problem because a "Private Road" can serve as access for a maximum of six lots, and that since the Valley Vue lot is 2.3 acre, six houses would not meet the minimum requirement to mitigate against "urban sprawl". Surely, City Code does not place a higher value on urban sprawl prevention, than it does on public safety. I understand that at the 7/16/2014 Renton Planning Commission meeting a proposal was made to change the code for Private street standards because they are generally undesirable and do not provide elements such as sidewalks, landscaping, and create dead-end streets, which reduces connectivity in residential neighborhoods, and are maintenance issues. The proposal was to only allow private driveways and completely delete private roads from the City Code. The access easements off Winsper do appear to meet the current Code for a "shared driveway" which requires a minimum 16 foot easement and maximum 12 foot paved driveway, each of which could serve as primary emergency access for 3 homes. In addition to the access issues, there are numerous drainage issues that the neighbors are concerned about. I wasn't surprised to see that the geotechnical report indicated that the drainage issues on the property were significant enough to require mitigation and disclosure to anyone purchasing one of the new lots. They also recommended that; ""Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be allowed to review the final development plans to verify that the recommendations presented in this report are adequately addressed in design .... We recommend including this report , in its entirety, in the project contract documents. This report should also be provided to any future property owners so they will be aware of our findings and recommendations." The owners of Winsper already know that there is a problem with drainage from this property, in fact, there is over a 32 foot drop from the rear of tract B (wetlands) to the rear of Tract C (storm drain). Due to the issues on the property, two houses in Winsper that abut the southern property line have already experienced flooding in yards and under the 2 homes due to excessive ru .. _ff from that property. Many of us installed french drains and sump pumps at our own cost to mitigate the issue. My drainage system lies along the boundary between the east side of my property and the easement, and will likely be destroyed during development. With the increase of impervious surface, storm water runoff will no doubt increase is well. Please request that the new drainage system be installed along the property line to protect the Winsper homes from this increased flooding risk. The project calls for a six inch curb-gutter for drainage along the access easements. Since the access will intersect an existing street, we would like the curb-gutter design to match the standards of the Winsper development (18 inch curb-gutter). This will also aid in drainage of excessive runoff in times of heavy rain, and aesthetically would be much more attractive. This is consistent with the Renton Community Design Element Goals purpose to improve the aesthetics and functionality of existing neighborhoods. The Valley Vue Project Narrative states "current zoning is R8, 5445 square feet minimum per lot", yet two of the lots don't meet this minimum. (Lot 7-4,796ft, and Lot 8-4,502 ft.); these therefore do not meet the aforementioned standard. Once the required hammerhead turn around is incorporated into the plan, Lot 7 likely will not meet code. I propose that these two lots be combined into one lot so that they are similar to in character to all the other lots on the project (all other lots are 7, 127-7,654 square feet). The neighbors also discussed the disruption and general loss of peace and enjoyment during the peak summer months that construction would cause as heavy equipment, trucks, and building materials traveled through the neighborhood bringing noise and dust. The plan calls for working M-F plus Saturday. We request that the development NOT occur on the weekends. We would like to preserve our weekends for family and a sense of well-being. Virginia Klaas, M.D. Place (425) 271-6760 618 S 32nd Renton Wa 98055 3 Clark Close From: Sent: To: Subject: Mary Klaas-Schultz <mklaasschultz@gmail.com> Wednesday, September 03, 2014 9:36 AM Clark Close Valley Vue Proposal Concerns I object to pion (LUA 14-001040) as proposed because it does not meet the Standard Codes adopted by the City of Renton. I understand that sometimes the Codes can offer a little variance ta get a project developed, but think that this proposal is asking far ta many adjustments at the expense of the surrounding community. Each time a waiver is granted it minimizes the value of Standard Codes and Regulations and sends the message that the rules can be negotiated. Frankly, I'm shocked to learn that the City helped coordinate this proposal with the developer. It is the people of Renton that poy the expense in sub-standard developments. As proposed, it seems that the Valley Vue project would require the following adjustments ta use the access routes proposed; • Private Streets: o Width should be 26 feet, not 24 o Street-Side yard Setback should be 15 feet from eoch house, clearly not enough room as the access easements are only 24 feet. o Fire Turn around for streets longer than 150 feet, Turnarounds are ot the end of a street, not the top. This is a basic safety element; I think the King County Fire Marshall would agree. o Required houses to abut a public right-of-way, none of the new proposed house abut a public street. In addition, I'm concerned with the proposed density with the known water and drainage issues on this parcel. Just because the parcel allows for RB, doesn't mean that it should be built out to the highest infill allowed, especially if you have to bend all the Codes to make it happen! I do not object to the parcel being developed, but would like it to be developed with a plan that makes sense given the constraints of the parcel. It should also be developed within the boundaries of the standard codes that are in place to ensure the integrity of developments and the safety of the community. Mary Klaas Schultz 618 S 32nd Place Renton, WA., 98055 1 Clark Close From: Richard Perteet <cougar_rich@hotmail.com> Monday, September 08, 2014 11:26 AM Clark Close Sent: To: Subject: RE: Valley Vue Preliminary Plat -LUA14-001040 Clark, thanks for the rapid response to my request for more information. I don't really have time to respond in depth but a few comments: • The survey information is not stamped/signed by a registered land surveyor. An ALTA survey would be appropriate to identify any encroachments. • There does not appear to be any pedestrian access (sidewalks). This is an undesirable design that appears to be dictated by the narrow access reserve from Winsper. I believe that pedestrian access should be part of every development. • There are topographical features that will make the construction of the two access roads virtually impossible without encroaching onto the existing developed properties, especially the proposed easterly access. How high will walls be and how will they be constructed? What safety features will be included to protect vehicles, pedestrians, and adjacent housing. This should be addressed in the environmental documentation. • The project narrative states that "Existing fire hydrants in Winspur are within the acceptable distances to serve the subdivision." The existing hydrants are not show on the plan, nor is there any justification for the statement. • RMC states "Private streets are allowed for access to six (6) or fewer lots, provided at least two (2) of the six (6) lots abut a public right-of-way." None of these lots abut a public right-of-way. • The project narrative states that no HOA will be required. There should be an HOA to provide for maintenance of the private roads and drainage systems, and possible participation in the existing Winsper HOA to offset impacts by new residents on the park-like setting maintained by Winsper residents. • Applicant has prepared a soils report but relies on generalizations about the site's soils. Include the soils report for the site in the environmental documentation • Street lighting should be required. • It is pretty widely acknowledged that extensive underground mining took place in this area. The environmental documentation should include a discussion of this as it may impact the future homeowners. • The discussion in the environmental checklist of"designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity" does not include the large areas in the adjacent Winsper subdivision. Those areas are maintained by the Winsper HOA, There needs to be a discussion of this resource and the potential for the proposed subdivision to contribute to its maintenance since their residents will obviously use these area. Thanks Clark. As you can tell I put this together pretty quickly to meet this afternoon's deadline but I think I hit the high points. I will be unable to attend the scheduled public hearing. (BTW, it would be nice if all of the information in your attachments was available on-line). Rich Perteet From: CClose@Rentonwa.gov To: cougar rich@hotmail.com Subject: RE: Valley Vue Preliminary Plat -LUA14-001040 Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2014 15:22:59 +0000 Mr. Perteet, Thank you for your request regarding Valley Vue Preliminary Plat. Attached is some additional information about Valley Vue. The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has not made a determination on the submitted application. Once the staff report is complete and a determination has been made the document will be posted to our website at http://www.rentonwa.gov/business/defau1t.aspx?id=5458 Please let me know if you need any additional information at this time. Comments based on the Notice of Application must be submitted in writing by 5:00 PM today. http://www.rentonwa.gov/uploadedFiles/Business/CED/PLANNING FORMS/Vallev%20Vue%20PP NOA 14-001040.pdf Thanks again, Clark H. Close City of Renton -Current Planning Associate Planner From: Richard Perteet [mailto:cougar rich@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2014 3:32 PM To: Clark Close Subject: Valley Vue Preliminary Plat -LUA14-001040 Are there any more specific documents about the proposal other that what is shown on the map link from your web page? There does not seem to be any details of the development, the MDNS, etc. I would like to review the documentation (on line if possible). 2 Thanks, Rich Perteet 734 S 32nd St Renton 98055 Sent from Windows Mail 3 Clark Close From: Sent: To: Andrea <6gkmimi@comcast.net> Monday, September 01, 2014 10:03 AM Clark Close Subject: FW: Concerning Valley Vue Preliminary Plat ( LUA14-001040 ) From: Andrea [mailto:6gkmimi@comcast.net1 Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2014 2:42 PM To: 'cclose@rentonwqa.gov' Cc: 'Cvincent@Rentonwa.gov'; 'mpalmer@rentonwa.gov' Subject: Concerning Valley Vue Preliminary Plat ( LUA14-001040 ) To Whom it May Concern: As residents of 3111 Smithers Ave. S. in the Winsper Development, we are very concerned about the proposal the Valley Vue Development. It appears that a number of city codes that are currently in place would be waived so that the Valley Vue homes can be built. These include side yard setbacks, minimum easement width, emergency access and the requirement for two of the homes to abut a Public Right of Way. The codes were established for solid reasons and variances should not be easily granted. Safety is a paramount concern. Not only would the current properties in Winsper, be dangerously close to the proposed road which would be required for Valley Vue, but would also be difficult for emergency vehicles to access without an appropriate turnaround. I believe that the city needs to adhere to the current standards to protect public safety and to ensure confidence in the integrity of the planning process. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Andrea and William Smith 425-254-1706 1 .. --.~~7 -------=jc. CL v ~--- Deni,Law --C' f - Mayor c r< -1ty Q / ( . . ---=-----~-i --(~Yr-~l, 'tD··r-, -r,r· ---,t __ - September 8, 2014 Doug Dalen -721 S 31" St Renton,wA 980S5 _- -t --c -(1L ... ·~ ,~·--G' ,_,t\ . ...,.,,,iJ' -. C -'r_ Community &Economic Development Department C.E."Chip"Vincent,Adniinistrator - SUBJECT: -VALLEY VUE PRELIMINARY PLAT COMMENT RESPONSE LETTER LUA14-00104Q, ECF, PP, MOD DearMr. Dalen: Thank you for your comments related to the Valley Vue Preliininary'Plat;dated -September 5, 2014wherein you raised; concerns re-garding the proposed project. Your _letter/email will be added to the pubiic record for-consideration by the reviewing offidal - -and you have been added as a party of record. As ap~int ofdariffcation; the City has yeno make a decisi~n on the proposal. The - -applicant, RAD Holdings LLC, has oniy made application forPreliminaryPlat and- Eniiironmental Review for the subject development and a decision has yet to be made. - You received a notice soliciting public comment and these co_mmerits are used to h~lp - --City staff ccimplete a comprehensive review\>{hich will continue civerthe corrJing month(s): --· - -_ There are_ a variety of tree species o~ the.Valley Vue site, including deeiduous and evergreen trees. There are approximately 142 trees over 6 inches in diameter on the proposed la'r1d to be developed. After dead, diseased or dangerous trees, private access -for st;reet improvements, critical area deductions, and the·mini[Tlum requirementfo - retain 30%, .the applicantis proposing to maintain 27 trees ofthe original trees over 6 inches in diameter. The applicant is also proposing to plant 66 new trees (minimum · •-required replacement trees) at 2" DBH. The proposed tree retention plao identifies nine- (9) trees to. be retained in the critical areas.and buffers, four (4) within the Native -Growth Protection Easement and 23 along or near the northern property line with the -Victoria Park #4 Plat. See attached Tree Retention Work;heet and Proposed Tree Cutting/Land Clearing Plan for more information. - This matter was originally scheduled fo·r a public hearing on October 7, 2014 at 12:00 p.m., Council Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, - Renton. As a party of record, you will be notified whe_n a new public hearing date is set. _Renton Oty Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 980'. EXHIBIT 19 _-Thank you for interest in this project and if you have any further questions please feel · free to contact me at 425-430-7289 or cclose@rentonwa.gov. Thank you. ' . . . . Sincerely, . . ··-a--·· __ · ·11.. . . . . Clark H. Close · Associate Planner ' ·city of RentOn Tree Retention Worksheet Proposed Tree Cutting/La~d Clearing Plan, ·valley Vue Preliminary _Plat LU~14-001040· cc: · File LUA14-001040, ECF, P( MOD - ,1'1.,,;,_·_ -----..:::.''..::_',cc:'../'(Lv 1 Denis Law $ C1"ty of. ---=Mayor _______ ii r J, ff "r,.· :l~.: ~/m·ci ; ~r·· ... l September 2, 2014 Virginia Klaas 618 S 32"d Pl Renton, WA 98055 · .. • r \, ',i,C, ti \ l'\ · C . .,..,.. -· + ' .-,, ' .. Community & Economic Development Department C.E."Chip"'Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: VALLEY VUE PRELIMINARY PLAT COMMENT RESPONSE LETTER LUA14-001040, ECF, PP Dear Mrs. Klaas: Thank you for your comments related to the Valley Vue Preliminary Plat; dated August 26, 2014 wherein you raised concerns regarding the proposed project. Your letter/email will be added to the public record for consideration by the reviewing official ani:I you have been added as a party of record. As a point of clarification, the City has yet to make a decision on the proposal. The applicant, RAD Holdings LLC, has only made application for Preliminary Plat and Environmental Review for the subject development and a decision has yet to be made . . You received a notice soliciting public comment and these comments are used to help City staff complete a comprehensive review which will continue over the coming month(s). The applicant is requesting a street modification, from the private street requirements found in Renton Municipal Code {RMC 4-6-060J.2) in order to allow access and. utilization of the existing 24-foot private access tracts {Tratt G and Tract H; APN 948575- 0570) that were recorded in March 1989 under Winsper D1vision I Subdivision for future ingress, egress and utilities to Tax Lot No. 28 (the "Valley Vue" parcel). The modification from the twenty six foot {26') easement for private streets is being requested as a result ofthe two foot (2') deficit, from current Renton Municipal Code, found within Tracts G and H. The modification request for the private streets will included the minimum twenty foot {20') pavement width. Additionally, no sidewalks are required for private streets; however, drainage improvements pursuant to City Code are required. The City has the ability to approve the modification, approve with conditions, or deny the request. Additional items identified in your email/letter include: fire emergency turnarounds; side yard setbacks along a street or access easement; street standards; public safety Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton. Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov concerns; drainage issues; curb-gutter design; zoning, density and minimum lot sizes; and project construction hours. This matter is tentatively scheduled for a Public Hearing on October 7, 2014 at 12:00 p.m., Council Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. Please feel free to attend. Thank you for interest in this project and if you have any further questions please feel free to contact me at 425-430-7289 or cclose@rentonwa.gov. Thank you. Sincerely, Clark H. Close Associate Planner cc: File LUA14-001040, PP, ECF Denis Law -City of,' -~M:.ayor------~1~~·01Jt.u1·t.1 September 3, 2014 Mary Klaas Schultz 618 S 32nd Pl Renton, WA 98055 Community & Economic Development Department C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: VALLEY VUE PRELIMINARY PLAT COMMENT RESPONSE LETTER LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD Dear Ms. Klaas Schultz: Thank you for your comments related to the Valley Vue Preliminary Plat; dated September 3, 2014 wherein· you raised concerns regarding the proposed project. Your letter/email will be added to the public record for consideration by the reviewing official and you have been added as a party of record. As a point of clarification, the City has yet to make a decision on the proposal. The applicant, RAD Holdings LLC, has only made application for Preliminary Plat and Environmental Review for the subject development and a decision has yet to be made._ You received a notice soliciting public comment and these comments are used to help City staff complete a comprehensive review which will continue over the coming mcinth(s). The applicant is requesting a street modification,from the private street requirements found in Renton Municipal Code (RMC 4-6-060J.2) in order to allow access and utilization of the existing 24-foot private access tracts (Tract G and Tract H; APN 948575- 0570) that were recorded in March 1989 under Winsper Division I Subdivision for future ingress, egress and utilities.to Tax Lot No. 28 (the "Valley Vue" parcel). The modification from the twenty six foot (26') easement for private streets is being requested as a result of the two foot (2') deficit, from current Renton Municipal Code, found within Tracts G and H. The modification request for the private streets will included the minimum twenty foot (20') pavement width. Additionally, no sidewalks are required for private streets; however, drainage improvements pursuant to City Code are required. The City has the ability to approve the modification, approve with conditions, or deny the request. Additional items identified in your email/letter include: fire emergency turnarounds; side yard setbacks along a street or access easement; private street standards; and density. Renton City Hall , 1055 South Grady Way , Renton, Washington 98057 , rentonwa.gov This matter is tentatively scheduled for a Public Hearing on October 7, 2014 at 12:00 p.m., Council Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. Please feel free to attend. Thank you for interest in this project and if you have any further questions please feel · free to contact me at 425-430-7289 or cclose@rentonwa.gov. Thank you. Sincerely, Clark H. Close Associate Planner cc: File LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD October 1, 2014 Richard Perteet 734 S 32"' St Renton, WA 98055 tv Community & Economic Development Department C .E. '·Chi p"V i ncent, Administrator SUBJECT: VALLEY VUE PRELIMINARY PLAT COMMENT RESPONSE LETTER LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD Dear Mr. Perteet: Thank you for your comments related to the Valley Vue Preliminary Plat; dated September 8, 2014 wherein you raised several concerns regarding the proposed project. Your letter/email will be added to the public record for ccnsiderat!on by the reviewing official and you have been added as a party of record. The applicant, RAD Holdings LLC, has on,y made application for Preliminary Plat and Environmental Review for the subJect development and a decision has yet to be made by the City of ~enton. You received a notice soliciting public comment and these comments are used to help City staff complete a comprehensive review which will continue over the coming rnonth(sJ. The following comments are in response to an email sent to the City. • The survey information is not stamped/signed by a registered land surveyor. An ALTA survey would be appropriate to identify any encroachments. A topographic boundary survey was completed by Mitch TS. Evans, professional Land Surveyor of Axis Survey & Mapping of Kirkland, WA on August 28, 2013. Please see attached. • There does not appear to be any pedestrian access (sidewalks). This is an undesirable design that appears to be dictated by the narrow access reserve from Wins per. I believe that pedestrian access should be part of every development. City street standards are subject to Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-6-060. The City of Renton will plan for, design, and construct transportation projects to appropriately provide accommcdotions for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riaers of all ages and abilities, and freight and motor vehicles, including the incorporation of such facilities into transportation plans and programs. RMC 4-6-060F.2 Minimum Design Standards for Public Streets and Alleys requires sidewalks for the following functional classifications: Principal Arterial, Minor Arterial, Commercial-Mixed Use, Industrial, & Neighborhood Collector Arterial, Commercial- Mixed Use & Industrial Access, Residential Access, and Limited Residential Access. Al!eys currently do not require sidewalks according to RMC. Sidewalk< may be conditioned by the Hearing Examiner as part of the preliminary plat hearing process. Renton City Hall 4 l 055 South Cirady Way ~ Renton. Washington 98057 • rentorwa.gov • There are topographical features that will make the construction of the two access roads virtually impossible without encroaching onto the existing developed properties, especially the proposed easterly access. How high will walls be and how will they be constructed? What safety features will be included to protect vehicles, pedestrians, and adjacent housing. This should be addressed in the environmental documentation. In order for improvements to be constructed within the two access roads or potentiaily "onto the existing developed properties" the City of Renton Hearing Examiner would have to grant the applicant a modification from the pnvate street standard requirements identified in RMC 4-6-0601 und lhe property owners would have to grant access rights to the developer. City Staff will likely not be supportive of the modification bosed on public commems received and due to rhe proximity of the proposed roods to existing residential development. Based on the Grading and Drainage Plan, the keystone retaining wall has a proposed maximum height of two feet (2') end the concrete retaining wall has a maximum height of jol.ir feet /4'}. The applicant is proposing cement concrete vertical curb and gutler und a six foot /6') high fence, above the concrete retaining wall, on the east access only. These items are being addressed as part of the review process. Stoff has requested the applicant submit a revised street profile or "Access Road Section" to reflect a reduction in the road pavement that is compliant with Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-6-060K. Proposed solutions that address public sofety and screening are encouraged as part of the design and resubmittal process. Please note that staff wil! address public comment, during the course of the review, in order to mitigate the associated impacts berween a new shared driveway and the existing homes within the Winsper Division 1 Subdivision. • The project narrative states that "EKisting fire hydrants in Winsper are within the acceptable distances to serve the subdivision." The existing hydrants are not shown on the plan, nor is there any justification for the statement. New hydrants sha!I be installed per Ren ton's fire deportment standards to provide the reqwred coverage of all Jots. A minimum of one fire hydrant is required within 300-feet of the proposed buildings and two hydrants if the fire flow goes up to 1,5GO gpm Existing fire hydrants can be counted toward the req~irements as long as they meel current code including 5-inch storz fittings. A condition of approval of the proposed plat, due to existing steep grades on existing access roadways and proposed dead end streets, will be to hove all proposed homes be equipped with approved residential fire sprinkler systems. • RMC states "Private streets are all<>wed for access to six (6) or fewer lots, provided at least two (2) of the six (6] lots abut a public right-of-way." None of these lots abut a public right-of-way. The applicant has requested a modification from Renton Municipal Code /RMC) to al/ow access through the existing tracts and is proposing to serve four (4 1 Jots off of each access road. Staff has meet with the applicant to let them know that the existing access easements do not meet the required 26 foot width and would therefore not be compliant with RMC without a modification. Staff has placed the project on hoid and requested the applicant resubmit a plot plan that is compliant with the shared driveways standard of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-6-060K, as this would fit within the existing access n1semenr width of 24 feet and would not require the approval of a modification. • The project narrative states that no HOA will be required. There should be an HOA to provide for maintenance of the private roads and drainage systems, and possible participation in the existing Winsper HOA to offset impacts by new residents on the park- like setting maintained by Winsper residents. Home Owners Associations are typically a condition of preliminary plat approval. • Applicant has prepared a soils report but relies on generalizations :.bout the site's soils. Include the soils report for the site in the environmental documentation. The applicant submitted a Geotechnical Engineering Study by Geotech Consultants, Inc. as parl of ttre submitterl muleriuls. T/Je scope of work consisted of exploring site surface and subsurface conditions, ond then developing a report to provide recommendations for general earthwork and design criteria for foundations, retaining walls, and pavements. This information will be considered by The Environmental Review Committee before making a SFPA determination. • Street lighting should be required. LED street lighting meeting City of Renton Standards is required. • It is pretty widely acknowledged that extensive underground mining took place in this are:.. The environmental documentation should include a discussion of this as it may impact the future homeowners. City of Renton COR Maps identifies high coo/mine hazards roughly 2,250 feet north of the property and on unclassified coo/mine hazard roughly 750 south of the subject property. The subsurface conditions were explored by Geatech Consultants, Inc. on May 21, 2014 with a small excavator. The four test pits found topsoil that had a thickness of about one foot. Below the topsoil, Test Pit 2 encountered loose to medium-dense silt with sand. Below this silt in Test Pit 2, and beneath the topsoil in the other explorations, loose to medium-dense silty sand with gravel was encountered. This material included pieces of dense sJ/t in Test Pits 1 and 2. The silty sand with grave! became medium-dense at a depth of about 2 to 3 feet, and dense at a depth of about 4 to 7 feet. The dense silty sand with gravel extended ta the maximum depth of the test pits, 6 lo 8.8 feet below the mrface. The Geotechnirnl Engineering Study would be made available to any future property owners so they will be aware of Geotech Consultants, Inc. findings and recommendations. A request for public records may be submitted to the City Clerks, City of Renton, 1055 5. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 • The discussion in the environmental checklist of "designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity" does not include the large areas in the adja,ent Winsper subdivision. Those areas are maintained by the Winsper HOA. There needs to be a discussion of this resource and the potential for the proposed subdivision to contribute to its maintenance since their residents will obviously use these area. Staff will incorporate this comment into the overall re,iew of the project. Thank you for interest in this project and if you have any further questions please feel free to contact me at 425-430-7289 or cclose@rcntonwa.gov. Sincerely. I ,,1-, Clark H. Close Associate Planner Topographic Boundary SJrvey Grading and Drainage Plan cc: rile LUA14-001040, CC', PP. MOD __ D.:e~~::~raw ______ ... ! r j/,,-~ity olf,/,~(' ; . : \ c1J·\9, 0 .l~_filJ u I September 2, 2014 Andrea and Will.iamSmith 3111 Smithers Ave S Renton, WA 98055 · Community & Economic Development Department C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: VALLEY VUE PRELIMINARY PLAT COMMENT RESPONSE LETTER LUA14-001040, ECF, PP Dear Mr. and Mrs. Smith: Thank you for your comments related to the Valley Vue Preliminary Plat; dated September 1, 2014 wherein you raised_ concerns regarding the proposed project. Your letter/email will be added to the public record for consideration by the reviewing official and you have been added as a party of record. As a point of clarification, the City has yet to make a decision ori the proposal. The applicant, RAD Holdings LLC, has only made application for Preliminary Plat and Environmental Review for the subject development and a decision has yet to be made. You received a notice soliciting public comment and these comments are used to help· City staff complete a comprehensive review which will continue over the coming month(s). The applicant is requesting a street modification, from the private street requirements found in Renton Municipal Code {RMC 4-6-06012) in order to allow access and utilization of the existing 24-foot private access tracts (Tract G and Tract H; APN 948575- 0570) that were recorded in March 1989 under Winsper Division I Subdivision for future ingress, egress and utilities to Tax Lot No. 28 (the "Valley Vue" parcel). The modification from the twenty six foot (26') easement for private streets is being requested as a result of the two foot {2') deficit, from current Renton Municipal Code, found within Tracts G and H. The modification request for the private streets will included the minimum twenty foot (20') pavement width. Additionally, no sidewalks are required for private streets; however, drainage improvements pursuant to City Code are required. The City has the ability to approve the modification, approve with conditions, or deny the request. This matter is tentatively scheduled for a Public Hearing on October 7, 2014 at 12:00 p.m., Council Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. Please feel free to attend. Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 , rentonwa.gov Thank you for interest in this prnject .and if you have any further questions please feel free to contact me at 425-430-7289 or cclose@rentonwa.gov. Thank you. Sincerely, .Clark H. Close · Associate Planner cc: · File LUA14-001040, ECF, PP Clark Close From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: FYI. From: Mark Peterson Chip Vincent Tuesday, August 19, 2014 11:27 AM Clark Close Vanessa Dolbee FW: Valley Vue Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 10:55 AM To: Chip Vincent Subject: FW: Valley Vue I received this over the weekend. Mark Peterson Fire Chief/Emergency Services Administrator City of Renton Fire & Emergency Services Dept. 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430. 7083 mapeterson@rentonwa.gov From: 'virginia klaas' [mailto:vklaas4@comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2014 10:11 To: Mark Peterson Cc: vklaas4@comcast.net Subject: Valley Vue Fire Chief Peterson, EXHIBIT 20 I am writing to you regarding an infill project being proposed behind my house in the Winsper development (Valley Vue project LUA14-001040 ). I previously had correspondence with Fire Chief Corey Thomas a year ago, however at that time the full project proposal had not yet been submitted and a project number had not been assigned. On August 1, 2014 a new application/ proposal was filed. The new plan has a higher density development, and I am very concerned about the safety elements. I understand that this project is now being reviewed for emergency access and would ask that you consider some of my concerns when you review this project. The proposal calls for eight new houses to be accessed from two -24 foot easements and developed into a private street/driveway from the Winsper development, both longer than 150 feet . The easement to Tract C 1 (west) borders my property line anu parallels my driveway on the west side. , am concerned hecause the proposal does not meet the minimum private road easement of 26 feet, or the minimum side yard-street set back of l 5feet, which is the requirement in R8 zoning. This access is to have a 20 foot paved surface flanked with six inch gutters because the property has a drainage issue. The access abuts my entire eastern property line for I 00 feet. As proposed, it would be within seven feet of my living room bay window, and two feet from the side of my backyard fence, before arriving at the new houses. The access than continues for an additional 76 feet, to solely serve the four house that are being proposed in Tract C. You may notice that the plans for this 176ft access street/driveway does not have the required tum around for emergency vehicles. I am very concerned with the lack of setback from the paved vehicle path and my house. The angle of my driveway could easily be mistaken for this access by a vehicle. I am terrified that a car will run off the road right into my house! There is no planned planter strip, sidewalk, lighting or retaining wall on my side of the proposed "private street"! My understanding from reviewing the Planning Code is that the Winsper easements can not meet code requirements for either a private street, or a private driveway. I am adamantly opposed to granting a variance on required setbacks, easements and fire access. Doing so degrades the integrity of the Codes and puts that public at risk. Public safety should not be sacrificed to prevent urban sprawl and support dense infill projects. This parcel has been accessed off Talbot Road for over 40 years with an existing 20 foot access road. The developer suggested that the topography was to steep for fire access. However, the garbage truck has no problem making the hill, and the Geo Tech report states that the lot has an average of six percent grade. In addition, it's the same grade/hill the Winsper development is on. I would like to propose that from a safety stand point, it seems prudent to have the Talbot access serve as secondary fire access, and to develop the easements in Winsper as private drives, with 16 foot paved flanked by the style of gutters in the Winsper development, with keystone walls on each side to define the access and offer protection to the abutting homes. Thank you for your consideration, please call me if you would like a yard tour, or have ideas that may address some of my concerns. I'm seriously wondering if I should sell my home of 20 years. Thank you for your time and consideration, Virginia Klaas MD 618 S 32nd Place Renton, Wa. 98055 vklaas4@comcast.net This email request originated from the following link: http://rentonwa.gov/fire/ 2 Mr. Bob Ferguson, Attorney General PO Box40100 Olympia, WA 98504-0100 August 21, 2014 Dear Mr. Ferguson: RECEIVED AUG 2 5 2014 CITY Of RENTON PLANNING O!ViSION I am writing to ask for your support of the Renton Winsper Community request that no variances to access be allowed by the Renton Planning Department on the proposed Valley Vue project (LUA 14-001040). I understand that local planning decisions are not something usually reviewed by the Attorney General, however, a process that routinely allows variances of adopted municipal codes and development standards does not meet the public expectation that codes and regulations to protect them are in place, and are enforced. Briefly, the parcel, zoned R8, is a 1.99 net acres (100 by 1,000 feet) lot with an approximately 76 foot drop in topography from the eastern wetland to Talbot Road on the west. This parcel is currently improved with two houses that have been accessed off Talbot Road with a private easement on the southern property line for over 50 years. The plan is to leave the existing western house on a .55 acre parcel, and develop eight new homes, behind the Winsper Development on the remaining 1.44 acres. These new homes will be accessed by two 24 foot easements which run between existing homes in the Winsper Community. The proposed plan falls short on a number of significant issues involving safety, access and drainage and puts an inequitable burden on the Winsper Community. As presented, the project simply does not meet a number of City codes, including side yard setbacks, minimum easement width, emergency access and the requirement for two of the homes to abut a Public Right of Way. At only 24 feet wide, neither of the easements from Winsper meets the minimum 26 foot easement required to accommodate the planned "private street". However, it does appear the easements could meet the 16 foot easement requirement for a 12 foot paved "shared driveway", each of which could serve 3 houses. I went to City Hall to discuss these problems with the City Planner and was told that the developer would simply need to submit for a variance. I am dismayed that this is the proposal that was coordinated with the City planner and developer and I am appalled at the disregard for City Code. The previous proposal had the development accessed off Talbot, but was changed to accommodate the density infill requirement. It's interesting to note that the City density calculation includes the entire 1.99 net acres, instead of the 1.44 acre which is really being developed. I have been told that the developer abandoned the existing southern access easement on 6/27/2014, just before submitting this latest proposal. I would hate to think this was an act of strategy collusion to get the project through, but really what other compelling reason could there be to abandon an easement that has served for over 50 years, before the other property is developed? EXHIBIT 21 The front eastern edge of my driveway a long S 32nd Place is just over one foot from the access easement property line (see picture). The plan is to pave a 20 foot street with an additional 6 inch gutter on each side. A keystone wall is proposed for the east side, leaving about one foot on each side. This plan results in considerably less than the 15 foot street-side yard setback required in R8 zone. My living room bay window is about 7 feet from the proposed street. I am terrified that a driver may mistake my driveway for the access road and hit my house! There are no provisions for a safety/privacy ,_,_ •• _., ... _,__c ___ J_ ........ ~-·----·---..... -__ .. ___ ..,...__,.., 1 ( £1 _.,_,_,,,, __ _ ·--~·------· ~----.----,-· ·-u""-·-.--•• _,.__,... ____ _, ~' 1,.,:,,:.,,,r1,_,i1 ! ~ER err,· (dS W.APPlt./(, / barrier, planting strip, sidewalk or other buffer zone on my side. How can this possibly be considered good planning? In closing, I would like to stress that I am not opposed to this property being developed or accessed off the Winsper Community. What I object to is the apparent indifference to the standards that are in place to protect public safety and development integrity. I have looked at the decision criteria used in granting discretionary variances and think that this proposal fails to meet criteria. Granted variances are to be minimal. Surely, the City of Renton does not place a higher value on urban sprawl prevention, than it does on public safety. Private street standards were reviewed at the July 16, 2014 Renton Planning Commission meeting and a proposal to change the Code is in process. The staff report suggested that private streets are generally undesirable and do not provide elements such as sidewalks, landscaping, and create dead-end streets, which reduces connectivity in residential neighborhoods. They also noted that maintenance is an issue and often repairs are neglected. This could potentially be detrimental to the Winsper Community and our HOA dues would not cover repairs of a private street. I appeal to the State for support to ensure that the codes and regulations adopted to protect public safety are adhered to. Sincerely, J~[/~AO. Virginia Klaas, M.D. 618 S 32"d Place Renton, WA 98055 ( 425) 272-6760 cc: Denis Law, Renton Mayor, Charles Vincent, Director, Department of Community and Economic Development (CED) Jennifer Henning, Director, CED, Planning Division Vanessa Dolbee, Manager, CED, Planning Division Marcie Pahner, Council Member, Planning and Development Committee Don Persson, President, Renton City Planning Council ··- Renton Community Design Goals Amended (09/19/11/partial list) Purpose Statement: The purpose of the Community Design Element is to establish policies that set standards for high quality development, improve the aesthetics and functionality of existing neighborhoods and commercial areas, and guide the development of new neighborhoods that are part of a better community. Recognizing that the exceptional quality of life in Renton is dependent upon a strong local economy, these policies are intended to further that economic health. They are based on the belief that a positive image and high quality development attracts more of the same. Goals: 1. To raise the aesthetic quality of the City, 2. To strengthen the economy through high quality development, and 3. To ensure that a high quality of life is maintained as Renton evolves. Goals that Conflict with proposed Valley Vue Development proposal: Policy CD-16. Project design, including location of access and dimensions of yards and setbacks, should address privacy and quality of life on existing improved portions x-of sites. Rear and side yard setbacks should be maintained and not reduced to facilitate increased density. Policy CD-17. Setbacks and other development standards should not be reduced on newly platted lots through modification or variance to facilitate increased density. Policy CD-44. Development should be designed (e.g. site layout, building orientation, setbacks, landscape areas and open space, parking, and outdoor activity areas) to result in a high quality development as a primary goal, rather than to maximize density as a first consideration. Policy CD-45. Interpret development standards to support new plats and infill project designs that address privacy and quality of life for existing residents IV-9Amended 09/19/11 Policy CD-46. Variances to development standards should not be granted to facilitate additional density on an infill site. Policy CD-47. New plats proposed at higher densities than adjacent neighborhood developments may be modified within the allowed density range to reduce conflicts between old and new development patterns. However, strict adherence to older standards is not required. Policy CD-56. Office sites and structures should be designed (e.g. signage; building height, bulk and setback; landscaping; parking) to mitigate adverse impacts on adjacent land uses. Mayor Denis Law Renton City Hall 1055 s. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 August 26, 2014 Dear Mayor Law, RECENED AUG 2 8 2014 MAYOR'S OFFICE I have been a happy resident of the Winsper development in Renton for over 20 years and have contribuled too many community events and causes. I have worked al Valley Medical Center for 19 years and have been a good citizen and neighbor. I have had liWe opportunity or need to work with City government until recenUy. ' Unfortunately, my first exposure has not been good, and I am left to believe that we have system of non-transparency, standard codes that aren't worth the paper they are written on, and maybe even inappropriate use of power/colluslon. I know this sounds a bit over !he top, but honesfly, Iha more I learn, !he more concerned I become, so I am appealing to you as !he leader of Renton. I first went lo City Hall and !he Planning Department lo get more information regarding a proposed Infill project abutting my property in early 2013. Gerry Wasser, !he Senior Planner, was very helpful explaining !he application process and assuring me !hall would be notified in mail if !he proposal went foiward and would have an opportunity to comment I asked to be kept in the informaflon loop because I had a vested interest. The original proposal never moved forward, and I never heard from !he Planning Department In July, I contacted the Planning Department because there was new aclMty on the abutting parcel, and I suspected that the proposal was moving forward. Indeed, a new proposal with denser infill had been submitted (Valley Vue Preliminary Plat (LUA14-001040). Gerry Wasser had retired, and Clark Close, Associate Planner, would be !he project contact. After reviewing the development proposal, I had numerous concerns regarding access, selbacks, road development and emergency access. The nine house development would be served by two 24 foot access roads between existing houses in the Winsper development. The proposal is to pave 20 feet of the 24 foot easement on a 176 foot long road, and waive or allow variances on street-side yard setback, street width, and even lire acoess codes. I asked the Mr. Close how this proposal could meet the standard codes and was shocked to find that very liberal interpretation of codes, and variances to allow an infill project that meets density requirements were standard procedures, not just an occasional exception to the rules. I live in one of lhe Winsper houses that abut an access easement. Here's a picture of my house and !he proposed acoess Into "Tract c· of Iha Valley Vue development I am very concerned if variances are allowed on the street slandards required in Code 4-6-060, a car will drive rtght into my house. Please note the yellow lot Jines, slreel curve, and !he impact to my yard, front, side yard and back. The Joi line crosses into my driveway, and is less than a foot away from my walkway, and roof line. My living room bay window is wilhln a couple of feet of !his proposed new street as well, yet there seems to be a willingness to waive codes and not require elements lo protect safety and development integrity. This seems to contradict the reason for having codes and !he Renton Community Design Elements Goals, and does not meet the public expectation that codes and regulations lo protect them are in place, and are enforced. I asked Mr. Close about the following specific standards found in Ordinance NO 5517, referencing minimum street standards, thal you signed into law lo ensure good development and safety standards in 2009; • 4-6-060J-Private street 26 foot easement, 15 fool slreet-sideyard setback, serve six or fewer houses, provided al least 2 of the six abut public rtghl of way and !here Is a fire tum around for streels longer than 150 feel. (The proposal doesn't meet any of these standards.) EXHIBIT 22 • 4-6-060.H-Dead end streets: Limited Application: Cul-de-sac and dead end streets are limited in application and may only be permitted by the Reviewing Official where, due to demonstrable physical constraints, no future connection to a larger street pattern is physically possible. (Conneclion to a larger street (Talbot) is possible, and is how the property was accessed for 50 years.) • 4-6-060K: Shared driveways: 16 foot easement minimum, 12 foot paved maximum, can serve up to four lots, up to 3 Jots as emergency access additional lots must front a street, minimum turnaround requirements for lenglh more than 150 feet. (These easements could meet these standards by reducing lhe number of houses served from 4, to 3 which would leave room for the required turnaround as well. If the developer still wanted 9 lots, a third access off ofTalbot could accomplish this, as well as provide a secondary fire access.) This alternative would be a much safer option for the public and Winsper Community. I was told that an amendment to 4-6-060 standards was currently being reviewed, because Private Streets have become a mainlenance issue and undesirable access, so the code is now up for interpretation. The standard codes that I thought were in place to regulate and offer safety, are in fact negotiablel Frustrated wilh the Planning Department, I decided to appeal to the Fire Chief, Mark Peterson, who would review the project to ensure that the proposal meets fire code. Clearly, It does not. I sent a letter detailing my concerns about road width and length, abutting houses, and required tum around. Chief Peterson indicated that as the City has interpreted il lhe project meets code because the paved road Is 20 feet, and the fire turnaround Is being proposed as the Winsper cul-de-sac on 32"<' Place. Street setback requirements and abutting houses are beyond the fire oode review. I asked If having a turnabout at lhe beginning of the road instead of the end was standard fire code. He indicated that they don't like the situation, but it meets the technical aspects of the Fire Code. The ide.a that it is OK to have fire persona! run 176 feet down a road for emergency access Is tidlculous, and accepting it as 'meets code' is a mockery of the standard codes put in place to protect the people. I decided to contact lhe King County Fire Marshall to see If this really did meet Fire Code. King County apparenHy Is not as liberal with code interpretation as Renton. However, Renton is not part of unincorporated King County and does not repori to the County Fire Marshall, rather to the City Mayor along with other local government entities. I am appealing to you wilh frustrated concern regarding the liberal interpretation of basic standard codes, which puts the public at risk for a dangerous accident and can lead to the public perception of misuse of government authotity and power. I don'I jump to this conclusion easily, but have seen numerous instances wilhin this one proposal that points me in that direction including; • The otiginal project proposal was accessed off Talbol but was changed by the City to aocommodale the density Infill requirement (As per my conversation with Mr. Close 8/8/2014). Ifs Interesting to nole that the City density calculation includes the entire 1.99 net acres, instead of the 1.44 acre which is really being developed. The developer had mentioned lhat access from Talbot would nol meet fire codes because of a sleep grade, but In fact the average grade Is 6%. The garbage truck has used lhe Talbot access for years to deliver service to rear house about 400 feet east ofTalbol. . • I have been lold that the developer abandoned the existing southern access easement on 6/2712014, just before submitting this latest proposal. It is easy to perceive this as an act of strategy collusion to get the project through. I can't lhink of any other reason reason to abandon an easement that has served for over 50 years, before the other property is developed. • The Fire Chief should have authortty to interpret the fire codes and besl emergency access to ensure public safety. The City suggesting that a turnaround at the top of lhe exisHng street Is adequate is inappropriate and could be construed as tainting the review. The fact, that the Fire Chief acknowiedges it's an ongoing problem lhey don't like, but feel powertess to stop; compounded wllh not meeting the standard in the rest on King County, indicates there is an issue. Mayor Law, please continue to support the standards that you signed into law, and review how the standard codes are being applied and enforced by addressing this issue and ctariflng the decision criteria for granting Code variances (Ord. 4835) so that variances are only granted as an exception lo the rule and minimal, not as tool to make a project fit where it shouldn'l Virginia Klaas, MD 618 s 32•d Place Renton, WA 98055 (425) 271-6760 Project No. LUA 14-0010 --, ECF, PP Project Name: Valley Vue Prelim1 .. ury Plat RECEIVED To: Dennis Law, City of Renton Mayor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 SEP O 9 2014 MAYOR'S OFFICE We the residents ofWinsper agree with the attached concerns regarding the Valley Vue.(Lual4- 001040) project. There are several Codes which are not being met in this project which puts unfair burden on the Winsper Community. We also note that the City has not even followed their own stated Development design policies. 1) We all agree, we want NOV ARIANCES to the Code on this project, this puts us at risk for a dangerous event. 2) We want no project developmen1/building on Saturdays. This project will bring much noise, large trucks and lots of dust and dirt into our living space during prime summertime. We wish to preserve the weekends for our families and quality life/peace of mind. 3) We request that the developer provide appropriate barriers between the development and the existing lots. This should include a planting strip, keystone barrier or other fence between each of the houses along the easement and the access. 4) More traffic on these streets will put our children at risk for a dangerous accident. 5) Parked trucks during the development will reduce parking of residents' cars and reduce space for passing 6. The speed of emergency vehicles will put our children at risk and cause accidents. 7. The noise caused by trucks and working personnel will affect our children 8) The dust and moisture caused by this work will affect our health; family membefwith severe asthma 9) Five (5) city codes are being violated, See attachment A. 10) Our new pavement will be damaged, such as pot holes, which will cause damage to our vehicles. 11) Property values of affected home owners. 12) Drainage issue with removal of trees and sluubs, See attachment C 13) Street lighting if existing light pole was removed, See attachment C A list of Winsper residents supporting our concerns are contained in Attachment B. _ \ p Ir ~YVI p '/.nl {' ,., ) n oo / I l /l.' 1" ,, EXHIBIT 23 Attachment A - City codes not met: • 1) A private street requires a 26ft easement, both of these are only 24ft. Decreasing the easement means there is not enough room for proper safety buffers like a planting strip or fence 2) Code requires that 2 of the houses are on a "public right ofway'' ... all of the houses are behind Winsper •• not a single on Is on the "public right of way" 3) A street over 150 ft requires a turn around for emergency access .... a( hammerhead or cul de sac)The City Is saying the pre-existing cul-de-sac on 32"" Is the turn around ..• :that works for the truck BEFORE they enter the 176ft Jong "private street" ... but what about AFTER they drive down the road ... how does the truck turn around? Are they saying it needs to back-up? Or are theysaying they need to park on the 32"" Cul-de-sac and run 176ft down the road to the emergency? This Is ridiculous! 4) This is ZONE R8 ... it means max 8 houses per acre: anyway zone 8 requires a 15ft sldeyard to street set back. None of the Winsper homes along these easements will have that ... in fact if you were to give 15ft from the house .. the upper easement would only have 2ft left to build a road I This is a matter of safety and privacy! lfwe are in our sideyard .. we are at risk to get run over! This plan does not give us an appropriarte buffer from the street. SJ Codes says no street should be closer than 5 ft from a driveway. At 32"" Place the easement is less than 1 ft away ... a car could easily mistake the driveway for the street and run into the house. The property appears to.meet code for a "shared driveway", which requires a 16 foot easement, a maximum 12 foot wide driveway, and can seNe as emergency access to :} homes. If the City wants more houses on the property, the property could also be accessed off Talbot with either a private street or shared driveway. This is the way this property has been accessed for about 50 years and this is the access initially proposed by the developer. It was the City who pushed the developer to access through Winsper. ------~--·-· -- ·.' Project No. LUA 14 -001040, ECF, PP Project Name: Valley Vue Preliminary Plat Attachment B Names Address: S(UC€JRvo/JCr--5101 :::,A,q:.-.,µegs Auz;: 5 ~Pt>f.A-l>A12A-N4: 7(0 I S.MrR-/taeS NE"S. ~ ~ crM £ ;J'A,G,'g 1 (r\ S.. 52.tv"f> ~1.. 5 ha con ~5w>s~ .200 > ."32nd fl .f. HOOAJ. .. -Nf;.;.UY{:-N G '(Q 5 3 2. ... ..( Pl: PKUDN& CHI JK\I f'.r NONA' SRl\{J,k) l<a:2.u l<o tow l.ieL 6Lj 2 .S ,?2 ND Pl lteJc'..e s. ?7?+'.vl fl &Ow C;;, 3 ?..i,,.J p ( Pl __L~~~:..:::...-,:'J.f....!.l~il../ 3 J-o 7 S h1 ?he,, J Jr-.. S Phone Number ?-o 6 r..s 'I "'9 6 s- JZoto 2-SJ 'z?6) 'l-2!""-4 so~s3s 2. L./25'-U/-sr~ tf2.~ -°111-ZI 2. l.f?S-£;10 Z)t 1~.;--a77-0'-£0 t-/-:zs-;;;. 7 7 --o4 a -:,.1 q 32tb (r z.r-~2-ti'b 3 .--l'lK J.. _-J/)7-s7,t1 763-SJL J;...,.:1 ~ r---- (;..lkh b~~dc. 7075-~~AP&u:.e .;;}6(,., 1&,l~-W~ o~r--!L luo~/#p,...-1p·1., ~-·1-2.""'~ n. f i, t:t11,ot'~ UY.4. l~ "-7Z'J ~ ?z)JP St (A,t:, wA-~tc1..cr- J_..,1Ll( Lt/U 1'-6 c;, :32Mf sr ~ ~ ~oss- Cn.eOatl. l\J,,, •cr1£1 :;iol :?m;fne.es h:11-e.., S.. 1..,(20 lbq gq e:,S, Breo..ro J;.uane, :3\0} 5mriheGb. 6, 20b -259-9CJb5 ' • 1 . Surface drain issue, if trees were removed Street lighting, if existing light pole was removed Winsper Development Attachment C Smithers Ave South ~ C (]) E c.. 0 (]) > (]) Q ~ Q) c.. (/) C 3 u +-' C Q) E ..c: u ro ~ '.I: <lJ ""C ·-3 t From: Ginny [mailto:vklaas4@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 8:00 PM To: Jay B Covington Subject: Disregard of City Codes by those entrusted to administer the Code Dear Mr. Covington, My understanding is that the City Chief Administrative Officer is the provider of leadership and ensuring that city departments carry out the city's mission, business plan, policies and guidelines as adopted by the Renton City Council, and ensuring consistency between Renton and regional decisions. I would think that part of this responsibility would apply to ensuring local government procedure for administrating the Standard Codes, approved by City Council, and signed into law by the Mayor, were followed. If this is not the case, please let me know whom I can address my concerns to. After 20 years of living in Renton, I have recently had my first experience with local planning, and am alarmed to find a process that routinely and liberally allows variances of adopted municipal codes and development standards. This does not meet the public expectation that codes and regulations to protect them are in place, and will be enforced. I am appealing to you as the Chief Administrative Officer to review this process and asking that when variances are allowed that they be minimal, adhere to the decision criteria, and that multiple variances are not allowed on a single project. I am also concerned that non-biased and independent review be allowed by the Fire Chief, which ls consistent with the Fire Code application in the rest of King County. My concerns are based on my dealing with the Planning Department regarding Valley Vue Preliminary Plat (LUA 14-001040.) As presented, the project does not meet a number of City Codes, including side yard setbacks, minimum easement width, emergency access, and the requirement for two of the homes to abut a Public Right of Way. I went to City Hall to discuss these problems and was told that the developer would simply need to submit for a variance. I am dismayed that this is the proposal that was coordinated with the City planner and developer and I am appalled at the disregard for City Code and that variances are allowed so liberally, not as an exception to the rule. I counted at least five variances that would be allowed for the plan to go through as proposed, and many of them compromise public safety. I am very concerned with this proposal and the notion that these five variances may be allowed. Here's a picture of my house and the proposed access to the Valley Vue development. This 24 foot easement is to have 20 feet paved to serve 4 houses. Please note the yellow lot lines, street curve, and the impact to my yard, front, side yard and back. The lot line crosses into my driveway, and is less than a foot away from my walkway, and roof line. My living room bay window is within a couple of feet of this proposed new street as well, yet there seems to be a willingness to waive width and setback codes and not require elements to protect safety (barrier walls). This type of allowance is setting me up to have a car join my living room furniture! Why would this even be considered? It's not a good plan. I talked to Fire Chief, Mark Peterson, about my concerns of access width and length, abutting houses, and required turn around. Chief Peterson indicated that as the City has interpreted it, the project meets code because the paved road is 20 feet wide, and the fire turnaround is being proposed as an existing cul-de-sac on 32"d Place. None of the new houses are on this cul-de-sac; in fact it is more than 120 feet from the closest proposed new home! To be clear, the proposed turn around is NOT at the end of the proposed new dead end road. l asked if having a turnabout at the beginning of the road instead of the end was standard fire code. He indicated that they don't like the situation, but it meets the technical aspects of the Fire Code. The idea that it is OK to have fire personal run 176 feet down a road for emergency access is ridiculous, and accepting it as "meets code" is a mockery of the standard codes put in place to protect the people. I note that access to this property appears to meet code for a shared driveway, which requires a 16 foot easement, a maximum 12 foot wide driveway, and can serve as emergency access to 3 homes. If the City wants more houses on the property, the property could also be accessed off Talbot with either a private street or shared driveway. This is the way this property has been accessed for about 50 years. In closing, I would like to state that I am not opposed to this property being developed or accessed off an access by my house. What I object to is the seemingly flagrant disregard to the standards that are in place to protect public safety and development integrity. Liberal application of variances and code interpretation undermines the regulations put in place to protect the integrity of our beautiful City. Surely, the City of Renton does not place a higher value on urban sprawl prevention, than it does on public safety. Sin9irely, /~· {/~ Virginia Klaas MD ( 425)271-6760 Mr. Vincent, Recently the Wlnsper neighbors gathered to review the Valley Vue plan (LUA 14-001040). As discussed during my meeting with Clark on 8/8/2014, the neighbors feel the proposed plan falls short on a number of significant issues involving safety, access and drainage. The neighbors discussed the following five items that do not meet City Codes; 1) The two access "private streets" coming off the Winsper Development. These proposed roads would be solely for the purpose of serving the four houses in Valley Vue behind the existing homes in Winsper. City Code {4-6- 060 Jl states: Private streets are allowed for access lo six (6) or fewer lots, provided at least two (2) of the six (61 lots abut a public right-of-way. None of the new lots will abut a public right of way. These new roads provide no service to the pre-existing homes in Winsper. 2) City Code 4-6-060 J.2. states: Minimum Standards: Such private streets shall consist of a minimum of a twenty six foot (26') easement with a twenty foot {20') pavement width. The two easements indicated on the plat! map are 24 feet wide and do not meet the minimum City Code standard. 3) Both proposed private roads are longer than 150 feet, and neither appears to have the required turn around for Fire and Emergency vehicles. Ordinance 5517 states that streets 150-300ft in length must have a dedicated hammerhead turnaround or cul-de-sac. I spoke to Fire Chief, Corey Thomas, last year and he indicated that this is an issue. 4) The front eastern edge of my driveway a long S 32nd Place is just over one foot from the access easement property line. This does not allow for the five foot required setback. I am terrified that a driver may mistake my driveway for the access road and run right into my house. There are no provisions for a safety/privacy barrier, planting strip, sidewalk or other buffer zone on my side of the easement. 5) The City of Renton memorandum date January 3, 2013, and substantiated in the City Codes "General Ordinances of the City of Renton (4--1-110A, and Ordinance 5676), as well as the King County Urban and Residential Zoning Document, requires a minimum sideyard-street setback of 15 feet. I wrote to Gerry Wasser about this in 2013 and he stated: "The required setbacks for Zone-8 are: Sideyards--5 feet, except 15 feet for sideyards along a street or access easement." Several of the neighbors have noted that neither of the easements are wide enough to accommodate a 15 foot sideyard-street setback from the existing houses, and sUII have the space needed for a 20 foot road. Variances to accommodate a road for vehicle traffic would be dangerous to the residents of the abutting houses given the current five foot (or less) sideyard setback. Ordinance 5517 and 4-6-060 specifically state that the codes are intended to establish design standards and development requirements for street improvements to insure reasonable and safe access to public and private properties. Allowing variances of these standards, compromises the integrity and value of the City Codes, and exposes the community to reckless hazards. Not having a basic safety element in street standards to protect pedestrians and homeowners sets a poor precedence and puts the public at risk. This places an unfair burden on the residents of Winsper. The original Dees plan called for access off of Talbot Road, not off the Winsper easements. Frankly, given the numerous variances that would be required to gain access from the Winsper easements, and the multiple safety concems, retaining the access to the property where it has always been off Talbot Road, seems the prudent choice and would require the least amount of variances. I know that Clark had indicated that the Talbot access was a problem because a "Private Road" can serve as access for a maximum of six lots, and that since the Valley Vue lot is 2.3 acre, six houses would not meet the minimum requirement to mitigate against "urban sprawl". Surely, City Code does not place a higher value on urban sprawl prevention, than it does on public safety. I understand that at the 7/16/2014 Renton Planning Commission meeting a proposal was made to change the code for Private street standards because they are generally undesirable and do not provide elements such as sidewalks, landscaping, and create dead-end streets, which reduces connectivity in residential neighborhoods, and are maintenance issues. The proposal was to only allow private driveways and completely delete private roads from the City Code. The access easements off Winsper do appear to meet the current Code for a "shared driveway" which requires a minimum 16 foot easement and maximum 12 foot paved driveway, each of which could serve as primary emergency access for 3 homes. In addition to the access issues, there are numerous drainage issues that the neighbors are concerned about. wasn't surprised to see that the geotechnical report indicated that the drainage issues on the property were significant enough to require mitigation and disclosure to anyone purchasing one of the new lots. They also recommended that; ""Geotech Consultants. Inc. should be allowed to review the final development plans to verify that the recommendations presented in this report are adequately addressed in design .... We recommend including this report • in its entirety. in the prolect contract documents. This report should also be provided to any future property owners so they will be aware of our findings and recommendations." The owners ofWinsper already know that there is a problem with drainage from this property, in fact. there is over a 32 foot drop from the rear of tract B (wetlands) to the rear of Tract C (storm drain). Due to the issues on the property. two houses in Winsper that abut the southern property line have already experienced flooding in yards and under the homes due to excessive run off from that property. Many of us installed french drains and sump pumps at our own cost to mitigate the issue. My drainage system lies along the boundary between the east side of my property and the easement, and will likely be destroyed during development. With the increase of impervious surface. storm water runoff will no doubt Increase is well. Please request that the new drainage system be installed along the property line to protect the Winsper homes from this increased flooding risk. The project calls for a six inch curb-gutter for drainage along the access easements. Since the access will intersect an existing street. we would like the curb-gutter design to match the standards of the Winsper development (18 inch curb-gutter). This will also aid in drainage of excessive runoff in times of heavy rain, and aesthetically would be much more attractive. This is consistent with the Renton Community Design Element Goals purpose to improve the aesthetics and functionality of existing neighborhoods. The Valley Vue Project Narrative states "current zoning is RS. 5445 square feet minimum per lot'', yet two of the lots don't meet this minimum. (Lot 7-4, 796ft, and Lot 8-4,502 ft.); these therefore do not meet the aforementioned standard. Once the required hammerhead turn around is incorporated into the plan. Lot 7 likely will not meet code. I propose that these two lots be combined into one lot so that they are similar to in character to all the other lots on the project (aff other lots are 7.127-7.654 square feet). The neighbors also discussed the disruption and general loss of peace and enjoyment during the peak summer months that construction would cause as heavy equipment, trucks. and building materials traveled through the neighborhood bringing noise and dust. The plan calls for working M-F plus Saturday. We request that the development NOT occur on the weekends. We would like to preserve our weekends for family and a sense of weff-being. Virginia Klaas, M.D. 618 S 32"" Place Renton, WA 98055 (425) 272-6760 cc: Jennifer Henning, Director, CED, Planning Division Vanessa Dolbee. Manager, CED. Planning Division Clark Close, Associate Planner, CED. Planning Division Steve Lee. CED. Development Engineering Plan Review Land Use: 210 Single-Family Detached Housing Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Vehicles On a: Weekday Number of Studies: 120 Average Number ot Vehicles: 257 Directional Distribution: 50°/:) entering, 50% exiting Trip Generation per Vehicle -----··--··· -----····--·-·---Range of Ra!es Standard Deviation Average Aate .. ----_602 -· Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Vehicles On a: Saturday Number of Studies: 23 Average Number of Venicles: 418 Directional Distribution: 50':l/o entering, 50%, exiting Trip Generation per Vehicle --'--------'------------------------------- ~ver~~-e Rate Range_()( Rates __ _ 6,55 .. _ _:J_.?Q __ :_ 11.60. Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Vehicles On a: Sunday NJmber of S'udies: 19 . .\verage Number of Vehic!es: 462 Standard Deviation 3.40 Directional Distribution: 50~1o entering, 50'K, exiting Trip Generation Vehicle j -·---· · Average Raia Range of Rales Standard Oavia!ion ___ 5.93 ___ _ EXHIBIT 24 ADVISORY NOTES TO AP CANT LUA14-001040 Application Date: August 1, 2014 Name: Valley Vue Site Address: 3106 & 3112 Talbot Rd S, Renton, WA 98055-5023 Plan -Planning Review ii:Engit\eerinfReviewC:ori\mi!n~'l::!11!: mi!C:;lil, mm!!!HH+uuu+ ··r::H· Vicki Grovi!fl24:t~"4~Ph1~~XilllilllgWqllijW@re~J'efqffgql/ Recommendations: I have reviewed the application for Valley Vue Preliminary Plat and have the following comments: EXISTING CONDITIONS WATER The site is located in the Talbot Hill 350 hydraulic water pressure zone. There is an existing 8 inch water main in S. 32nd Place and there are 2 existing% inch domestic water meters serving the existing homes. SEWER There is an 8 inch sewer main in S. 32 Place (Winsper) and an 8 inch sewer main located near the northwest of the site. STORM There are drainage improvements in S. 32nd Place. CODE REQUIREMENTS Water 1. Need to show the existing water service for 3106 Talbot Road South. 2. System development fee for water is based on the size of the new domestic water meter(s) that will serve each new lot. Fee for a 1 inch water meter install is $2,809.00. Credit will be giving to the existing home. 3. Fee for a 1 inch water meter installed by the City is $3,770.00. 4. New hydrants shall be installed per Renton's fire department standards to provide the required coverage of all lots. 5. A separate domestic water service meter will be required for each lot with a minimum size of 1 inch along with required backflow prevention assembly. 6. This project is subject to water special assessment district no. 8406 depending on fire flow demand. For a fire flow demand of 1,500 gpm or less, the special assessment is $0.034/sq ft of property, plus $16.00/front foot along the property frontage on Talbot Rd S. Sewer 1. Need to show the existing side sewer connection for 3106 Talbot Road South. 2. System development fee for sewer is based on the size of the new domestic water(s) that will serve each new lot. Sewer fee for a% inch water or 1 inch meter install is $1,812.00. 3. Existing septic system(s) will be required to be abandoned in accordance with King County Department of Health. SURFACE WATER 1. A drainage plan and drainage report dated, December, 2013 was submitted by LDA (Land Development Advisors). The report complies with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and the City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. All core requirements and special requirements are included in the report. This site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard, Forested Conditions. • The Basin Map Figure 3.1-Please revise the areas to match the Preliminary Plat Map areas. Account for both drainage basins in the tables and on the figure. • Please discuss the existing house to the west that will remain as part of the development. Will the existing culverts be maintained through construction? Where does the runoff currently go? Where does the roof drainage go? Etc ..... Show on drawing. • The westerly portion of the access road that comes .Jff of Talbot Road South by passes the proposed treatment facility (wet pond) near the existing house needs to be addressed. Please review Page 1661.2.8.2.D in the City of Renton's Amendments to the King County Surface Water Design Manual. Ran: May 11, 2015 EXHIBIT 25 Page 1 of 5 ADVISORY NOTES TO AP CANT LUA14-001040 Engineering ReviewC011JmeQts ' .. · / Vicki Grover I 42S:ll30~7l9~j.i1,1gtqve'(@r~oto~wa,gov • Please summarize the dimensions and volume for each of the detention and the water quality components of the vault. • Include backwater analysis for the conveyance system in your final TIR submittal. • A declaration of covenant will be required for the storm water facilities. • Pave roadway off ofTalbot Road South at 12 ft. in width for access to the storm water tract. 2. A geotechnical report for the site dated May 27, 2014 was submitted by Geo tech Consultants Inc. Information on the water table and soil permeability, with recommendations regarding foundation footing drains and waterproofing, retaining walls, slabs on grade, excavations and slopes and pavement areas. Infiltration of storm runoff is not recommended. Please update the report to address the proposed storm water vault not a storm water detention pond. 3. Surface Water System Development fee is $1,120 per new lot. This is payable prior to issuance of the construction permit. Credit will be given for one existing home. EROSION CONTROL 1. An Erosion Control Plan is to be submitted with the civil plans. Erosion Control shall be installed and monitored in accordance with Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and the KCS\\':.1. 2. A Construction Stormwater General Permit from Department of Ecology will be required if grading and clearing of the site exceeds one acre. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plcn (S\NPPP) is required for this site. TRANSPORTATION/STREET 1. The current transportation impact fee rate is $1.430.72 per single family house. The transportation impact fee is levied at the time of building permit application and payment of the transportation impact fee is due at the time of issuance of the building permit. Credit will be given to the existing home. 2. LED street lighting meeting City of Renton Standards is required. 3. Paving and trench restoration will comply with the City's Trench Pestoration and Overlay Requirements. 4. Road Classifications-Talbot Road South is a Collector Arterial; S 32 ,J Pl is a residential access street. • Existing right-of-way width is approximc1tely 60 feet for Tc1lbot Rd Sand approx. 44 feet on S 32"' Pl. • Per RMC 4-6-060J for 'Shared Driveways' at least one of the four lots being accessed must front public right-of- way; the proposed development does not meet all of the code requirements for a shared driveway type of access. 5. Access to the proposed development from Talbot Road South (2-hne Collector Arterial) along the existing driveway lies within regulated slope areas (>15% and > 25%) per the City of ~enton's Sensitive Areas map. Slopes in excess of 15% are typically not accessible by the City Renton's Fire Department Vehicles. 6. The preliminary plat plan sheets show access to the proposed development to be off of S 32"' Pl (Winsper Development) via Tracts G and H. These tracts ore approxim 0 tely 2•1 feet in width and are to have two (2) 10-foot wide paved Janes with vertical curb and gutter. City of Re:1ton has a comment also concerning the constructability of these accesses. Due to the slope of the site, both accesses will ree1uirc retaining walls to be constructed along their eastern sides. The eastern most access has a slope in excess of 15% and requires a minimum of 1.5 ft. of clear zone between the back of the curb and the face of the retaining wall. The construction of the retaining walls proposed for both accesses will require temporary construction easements to be 0 1,tained from the adjoining property owners. However, the temporary construction easements may not be fe1ei'Jle due to the close proximity of other private existing structures to the area needed for construction of the v.,alls. 7. The current layout does not include access to the sto,111 water faci'it'Ps. Access to the storm water tract is necessary in order to maintain the vault. Ran: May 11, 2015 Page 2 of 5 ADVISORY NOTES TO A.CANT LUA14-001040 GENERAL COMMENTS 1. This project will comply with all undergrounding requirements. 2. All construction utility permits for drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals. All utility plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. A licensed Civil Engineer shall prepare the civil plans. 3. Separate permit and fees will be required for the water meter installation, side sewer connection, and storm water connection. Water service, sewer stub, and a drainage flow control BMP is required to be provided to each new lot prior to recording of the plat. Recommendations: Environmental Impact Comments: 1. The fire impact fees are applicable at the rate of $479.28 per sinp,lc fomily unit. This fee is paid prior to recording the plat. Credit will be granted for existing home that is to be removed. Code Related Comments: 1. The fire flow requirement for a single family home is 1,000 gpm minimum for dwellings up to 3,600 square feet (including garage and basements). If the dwelling exceeds 3,600 square f ,•ct, a minimum of 1,SOO gpm fire flow would be required. A minimum of one fire hydrant is required within 300 feet of the proposed buildings and two hydrants if the fire flow goes up to 1,500 gpm. Existing fire hydncts can he counted toward the requirements as long as they meet current code including 5 inch storz fittings. 2. Fire department apparatus access roadways are rer:uired to be a minim11m of 20 feet wide fully paved, with 25 feet inside and 45 feet outside turning radius. Fire access roac!ways sha:: be constructed to support a 30 ton vehicle with 322 psi point loading. Approved apparatus turnarounds are required for dead end roads exceeding 150 feet. Dead end streets exceeding 500 feet require all homes to be provided with an approved fire sprinkler system. Dead end streets exceeding 700 feet are not allowed without approved sernr'dary access roadways being provided. Condition of approval of this proposed plat due to existing steep grades on '"'stinP ,,rcess roadways and proposed dead end streets is to have all proposed homes be equipped with approver! residc,".'JI fire sprinkler systems. 3. Access roadways shall not exceed 15 percent maximum grade. r"','"s o: <'"proach and departure shall meet fire department requirements. ·t,Pliinningij~v1eW~1:;&,f1rnell~l!Wil!.,,.,.:m)1~• .,cg~11@r~ntgnw.a:f"o:~,· Recommendations: 1. RMC section 4 4 030.C.2 limits haul hours between Cif,ht thirty (0.:0 0) a.m. and three thirty (3:30) p.m., Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved in advance by the Develo:"·:"ot c ,n.:ices Division. 2. New single family construction activities shall be restricted to ti"' lnurs !., tween seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdavs is by r·'rmi",i·n only. No work is permitted on Sundays. 3. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant sha II hydroseed or plants appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, soc' '!'ng, or nlastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design ManuJI cs ar!cpted IJ1• the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year. The Dcve'c;rment Services Division's approval of this Ran: May 11, 2015 Page 3 of 5 ADVISORY NOTES TO AF CANT LUA14-001040 I work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. ifec'finlc,if~~rvjc'l1{C:otl;lqiei\i:~J1:rjif,'.~Jl.1 Bob Mac Onie I 425-430,73Ei9!!11llil'l~g:jjjjg'@r~rlf$llx.vafggy: Recommendations: Preliminary Plat: Bob Mac Onie 09/18/2014 Note the City of Renton land use action number and land record number, LUAH 001040 and LND 10 0515, respectively, on the final plat submittal. The type size used for the land record number should be smaller than that used for the land use action number. Please note that the land use action number provided will change when this subdivision changes from preliminary to final plat status. Show two ties to the City of Renton Survey Control Network. The geometry will be checked by the city when the ties have been provided. Ties can be made but explicit reference to another survey with such ties and two monuments common to the subject subdivision. Provide sufficient information to determine how the plat boundary was established. Indicate what has been, or is to be, set at the corners of the prorosrd l0ts. Note discrepancies between bearings and distances of record and thocr measured or calculated, if any. The lot addresses will be provided by the city at final plat submittal. Note saiJ Jc dresses and the street name on the plat drawing. Do note encroachments. Do not include a utility provider's block, an owner's block, an engineer/surveyor block and an architect block. Do not include any references to use, density or zoning on the final suhcnittal. "lease note the Site Data on sheet 1 of 3 block is not necessary and conflicts with the Easement Notes block immedia',·'·1 below. If the abutting properties are platted, note the lot numbers anrl plat n.1me on: '1e drawing otherwise note them as 'Unplatted'. Do not show the TPNs. Remove the building setback lines from the proposed lots. Setbacks ,,.,1 11 1,e r 0 '"rmined at the time that building permits are issued. Note the research resources on the plat submittal. Note all easements, covenants and agreements of record on the plat drawing. The City of Renton "APPROVALS" blocks for the City of Renton Adminictrator, Public Works Department, the Mayor, City Clerk and the Finance Director. A pertinent approval block is also needed for the King County Assessor's Office. Provide signature lines as required. If there is a Restrictive Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions document hr ti s rlat, then reference the same on the plat drawing and provide a space for the recording number thereof. Note that if there are restrictive covenants, agreements or easements 'n otr 0 rs (neighboring property owners, etc.) as part of this subdivision, they can be recorded concurrently with the pL•l. Ti,~;": t drawings and the associated document(s) are to be given to the Project Manager as a package. The plat document will be recorded first (with King County). The recording number(s) for the associated document(s) (said documents recorded concurrently wi'\ bu'' ·",iwing the plat) need to be referenced on the plat drawings. There needs to be a Purpose Statement for each of the tracts createrl, inclur"·0 0 ownership and maintenance responsibilities. Please discuss with the Stormwater Utility any other !an;uage and/or instnw·rnt requirements regarding surface water BMPs and other rights and responsibilities. Include a Dedication block. All vested owner(s) of the subject p!at, at t'ie time of recording, need to sign the final plat. For the street dedication process, include a current title report noting the vested property owner. Ran: May 11, 2015 Page 4 of 5 ADVISORY NOTES TO AF CANT LUA14-001040 C:oll'lmunity ~~rvfi:efComm~nts'o'e;L •·.··· . Les I ie Get I a ch I 4 25-430-66fQ,~Jb~}latff@i:efifqrj\,\i;;l';gol Valley Vue Preliminary Plat Comments: 08/25/2014 Parks impact fee per Ordinance 5670 applies. Bicycle lanes per adopted Trails and Bicycle Master Plan "Talbot Road South Bicycle Lanes." Sheet 148 shall be incorporated as part of project. Ran: May 11, 2015 Page 5 of 5 Department of Community & Economic Development 1055 South Grady Way Renton Wa 98057-3232 Dear Mr. Close, RECEIVED MAY 1 4 Z0\5 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION Thank you for notifying the Winsper Community of the recent status change of the Valley Vue (LUA 14- 001040) project. I have reviewed the "ON HOLD" notice sent to the developer, by the City of Renton, on January 3, 2015 and I am distressed that NONE of the requirements put forth by the City have been met. In fact the project plan has not been modified at all and still does not meet multiple Renton Municipal Codes. These include: 1) Required width of easement: 26 ft. (City Code 4-6-060 J.2) 2) Street-Side yard Setback: 15 ft. from each house to a new street 3) Fire Turn around (at the end ofa new road) for streets longer than 150 ft. (a basic safety element) 4) Requirement for houses to abut a public right-of-way, none of the new proposed house abuts a public street. 5) Required buffer zone for a Category 2 Wetland: 100ft. City codes are in place to protect the public, and have been properly vetted before becoming law. Why would the city even consider a project that doesn't follow the law? Any variance to these Codes compromises safety and sends a message to the public that the Codes can be broken when convenient. This is not what Renton is all about! Furthermore, our engineers have located the survey nails in the concrete curb at each of the two easements and have measured the actual distance between them. We note that the distance between the survey nails at the proposed eastern easement is only 19ft.-2 inches, and the western easement is 21ft.- 11 inches. This detail is missing in the topographic-boundary survey submitted by the developer. Why would we even consider putting in a 20ft wide road requiring a retainer wall (at least 18 additional inches) in this space? It is a waste of valuable staff resources. The law also states that there needs to be 15 ft. between an existing home and a new street along the side yard. However, please take note, that this proposed plan puts the road as close as 4 ft. from an existing home! Compounding this safety issue, there are no sidewalks, essentially no barrier between the proposed roads and two of the existing homes, no lighting, and no plans for drainage along the access roads. Additionally, we noticed that the survey information is not stamped/signed by a registered land surveyor. Perhaps that is why key elements are missing from the report. An ALTA survey would be appropriate to identify any encroachments. Upon further research, we also discovered that the buffer zone depicted on the project narrative (and on the public notice board), for the Category 2 wetland is only 50ft. However, Ordinance 5633 indicates the required buffer is 100ft. 1 emphatically object to this plan, and hope the City rejects this project until a plan is developed that makes sense given the constraints of the parcel. A new plan would need to be within the boundaries of the standard codes that are in place to ensure the integrity of developments and the safety of the community. Vi1nia Klaas ~~ jl;~z~ / Denis Law Mayor April 27, 2015 Rory Dees RAD Holdings, LLC 1040 W. Lake Sammamish Pkwy SE Bellevue, WA 98008 SUBJECT: "Off Hold" Notice '"'"' ___ _ ,·c lr ~ ~f tryol4 'ryw· : "ir'l : "\ \\ ~: . : -i \ I J , ....!. ·~~) ·" \.:.,) ) ,. J Community & Economic Development Department C.E."Ch i p"Vi ncent, Administrator Valley Vue Preliminary Plat, LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD Dear Mr. Dees: Thank you for submitting a request for continuation letter for the Valley Vue Preliminary Plat at 3112 Talbot Road S, Renton, Washington. Your project has been taken off hold and the City will continue our review of the Valley Vue Preliminary Plat as originally submitted and accepted for review on August 25, 2014 (NOA attached). It is tentatively scheduled for consideration by the Environmental Review Committee on May 18, 2015. Prior to that review, you will be notified if any additional information is required to continue processing your application. In addition, this matter is tentatively scheduled for a Public Hearing on June 23, 2015 at 11:00 am, Council Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant are required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you prior to the scheduled hearing. Please contact me at (425) 430·7289 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Clark H. Close Associate Planner Original Notice of Application (NOA)-Dated August 25, 2014 cc: RAD Holdings/ Owner(s) Jon Nelson, Lai1d Development Advisors/ Contact Party(ies) of Record Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov • 3 WI >mffl'.f~ ; ,rt ... f'l ' NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS-M) A Master Application has been filed and accepted with the Department of Community & Economic Development (CED} -Planning Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: LAND USE NUMBER: PROJECT NAME: August 25, 2014 LUA14-001040, ECF, PP Valley Vue Preliminary Plat PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review and Preliminary Plat approval for a 9-lot subdivision. The 2.3-acre site is located within the Residential-8 dwelling units per net acre (du/ac) zoning classification. There are two single family residences (3106 and 3112 Talbot Road South) located on this parcel that gain access to the site from Talbot Road South and are part of the Black River Basin. The single family house located at 3106 is connected to city water and sewer and will remain and be incorporated into the subdivision as Lot no. 9, while the house located at 3112 is on a septic system and will be demolished. Together the nine (9} residential lots would result in a density of 4.23 du/ac. Residential lot sizes range from 4,502 sfto 18,169 sf with an average lot size of 7,954 sf. ln addition to the 9 residential lots, four (4) tracts are proposed for access roads, sensitive areas, and stormwater detention. The eight (8) new residential lots will be served from Winsper Division No. 1 Subdivision (Tract G and Tract H) via two dedicated ingress/egress easement areas of 24 feet in width through the development onto South 32nd Place. There are 142 significant trees on the site and the applicant is proposing to retain 27 original trees. A detention vault in the westerly portion of the site is proposed within Tract D which would discharge into the existing conveyance system on the east side of Talbot Road. The applicant has submitted a Critical Areas Report, Preliminary Technical Information Report, and a Geotechnical Engineering Report with the application. The site contains a Category 2 wetland in the far eastern portion of the site. No impacts to critical areas onsite are proposed and existing slopes on the site average roughly 6%. PROJECT LOCATION: 3106 and 3112 Talbot Road S OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED (DNS-M): As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110, the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS-M process to give notice that a DNS- M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Nonsignificance- Mitigated (DNS-M). This may be the only opportunity to comment on the environmental impacts of the proposal. A 14- day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: PROJECT APPLICANT: PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Permits/Review Requested: Other Permits which may be required: Requested Studies: August 1, 2014 August 25, 2014 Rory Dees, RAD Holdings LLC Jon W. Nelson, Land Development Advisors, LLC Environmental (SEPA) Review and Preliminary Plat Stormwater Discharge from DOE, Building, Construction, and Fire Geotechnical Engineering Study, Technical Information Report (TIR), and Critical Areas Study If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City of Renton, CED -Planning Division, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Name/File No.: Valley Vue Preliminary Plat /LUA14-001040, ECF, PP NAME:--------------------------------- MAILING ADDRESS: _________________ City/State/Zip: __________ _ TELEPHONE NO.: -------------- ' Location where application may be reviewed: PUBLIC HEARING: CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Zoning/Land Use: Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: Proposed Mitigation Measures: Department of Community & Economic Development (CED) -Planning Division, Sixth Floor Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 Public hearing is tentatively scheduled for Hearing Examiner in Renton Council Chambers Renton City Hall located at 1055 South Grady Way. before the Renton on the 7th floor of The subject site is designated Residential Single Family (RS) on the City of Renton Comprehensive Land Use Map and Residential-8 dwelling units per net acre (R-8) on the City's Zoning Map. Environmental (SEPA) Checklist The project will be subject to the City's SEPA ordinance, RMC 4-2, 4·3, 4·4, 4-6, 4-7, 4-9, and 4-11 and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate. The following Mitigation Measure will likely be imposed on the proposed project. This recommended Mitigation Measure addresses project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above. The applicant shaJJ comply with the recommendations induded In the Geotechnical Engineering Study, prepared by Geotech Consultants, Inc., dated May 27, 2014. Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Clark H. Close, Associate Planner, CED -Planning Division, 10SS South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, by 5:00 PM on This matter is also tentatively scheduled for a public hearing on , Council Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. If you are interested in attending the hearing, please contact the Planning Division to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled at (425) 430-6578. Following the issuance of the SEPA Determination, you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments regarding the proposal before the Hearing Examiner. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional information by mail, please contact the project manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: Clark H. Close, Associate Planner; Tel: {425) 430-7289; Email: cclose@rentonwa.gov PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION February 13, 2015 Rory Dees RAD Holdings, LLC 1040 W. Lake Sammamish Pkwy SE Bellevue,WA 98008 Subject: "Final" Notice Community & Economic Development Department C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator Valley Vue Preliminary Plat, LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD Dear Mr. Dees: The Planning Division of the City of Renton has determined that the above subject application is expired. According to RMC 4-8-lOOC.4 -Expiration of Complete Land Use Applications, the application submitted on August 1, 2014 has been inactive for ninety (90) days or more and has not been reviewed by the Hearing Examiner in a public hearing. According to our records, a continued "On-Hold" notification (enclosed) was mailed on January 2, 2015, stating additional information was necessary in order to continue processing the submitted application. As of the date of this letter, the requested information has not been received. Therefore, this is your final notice, if the City of Renton Planning Division does not receive a written request to continue processing the application and the requested information within six (6) months of the date of this letter the application shall be null and void. If you have any questions, please contact me at (425) 430-7289. Sincerely, Clark H. Close Associate Planner Enclosed: "On-Hold" Notice, Continued Letter-dated January 2, 2015 cc: Party(ies) of Record Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov :Jenis Law City of • January 2, 2015 Community & Economic Development Department C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator Rory Dees RAD Holdings, LLC 1040 W. Lake Sammamish Pkwy SE Bellevue, WA 98008 SUBJECT: "On Hold" Notice, Continued Valley Vue Preliminary Plat, LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD Dear Mr. Dees: The Planning Division of the City of Renton accepted the above master application for review on August 25, 2014. During our review, staff has determined that additional information is necessary in order to proceed further. The request for a modification from the private street standard requirements, identified in RMC 4-6-0GOJ, will not be supported by the City of Renton staff based on the public comments received and the proximity of the roads to existing residential development. The existing access easements do not meet the twenty-six foot (26') width requirement, and therefore would not be compliant with Renton Municipal Code without an approved modification. Please note that all final decisions on the preliminary plat are made by the City's Hearing Examiner with a recommendation from Staff. Based on the above statement, the following information will need to be submitted so that we may continue the review of the above subject application: • A plat plan that is compliant with the shared driveways standard of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-6-0GOK, as this would fit within the existing access easement width of 24 feet and would not require the approval of a modification. RMC 4-6-060K. Shared Driveways -When Permitted: A shared private driveway may be permitted for access up to a maximum of four (4} lots. Up to three (3} of the lots may use the driveway as primary access for emergencies. The remainder of the lots must have physical frontage along a street for primary and emergency access and shall only be allowed vehicular access from the shared private driveway. The private access easement shall be a minimum of sixteen feet {16'} in width, with a maximum of twelve feet {12') paved driveway. Minimum turnaround requirements for emergency access to lots can be found in subsection Hof this Section. (Ord. 5517, 12-14-2009} Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov • A revised street profile or "Access Road Section" to reflect a reduction in the road pavement that is compliant with Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-6-060K. Proposed solutions that address public safety, welfare, aesthetics, and screening are encouraged as part of the street profile design and resubmittal process. Please note that staff will continue to address public comment during the course of the review, in order to mitigate the associated impacts between a new shared driveway and the existing homes. • Alternatively, you may submit a plat plan that is compliant with the City of Renton's complete street standard limited residential access road from Talbot Road South. The City's complete street standard for a limited residential access road is 18 feet of pavement, with an 8-foot planting strip, S-foot sidewalk and LED street lighting along both sides of the road inside the plat. The street section will be a 45-foot right-of-way. (See RMC 4-6-060 for more information.) If you elect to develop the site with a public road, please work with City staff to identify all required submittal items. The identified information will need to be submitted within thirty-one (31) days of written notice or by February 2, 2015 so that we may continue the review of the above subject application and proceed with the Environmental (SEPA) Review of the project: • A revised Short Plat application, including but not limited three new plan sets for any changed plans, reduced 8.5 x 11 sheets of any new large sheets, and a digital copy of all revised application materials. At this time, your project will continue to be placed "on hold" pending receipt of the requested information. Please contact me at (425) 430-7289 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Clark H. Close Associate Planner cc: RAD Holdings/ Owner{s} Jon Ne!son 1 Land Development Advisors/ Contact Dalen; Gastineau; Jaeb; Kimlnki; Klaas; Klaas Schultz; Murphy; Perteet; Smith Charity; Smith; Webb; J&M Management; Victoria Park HOA / Party{ies) of Record File LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOO •~--Denis Law C' t f _ _:Mayo~r -----~J:t8' Frtn C\ January 2, 2015 Rory Dees RAD Holdings, LLC 1040 W. Lake Sammamish Pkwy SE Bellevue, WA 98008 Community & Economic Development Department C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: "On Hold" Notice, Continued Valley Vue Preliminary Plat, LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD Dear Mr. Dees: The Planning Division of the City of Renton accepted the above master application for review on August 25, 2014. During our review, staff has determined that additional information is necessary in order to proceed further. The request for a modification from the private street standard requirements, identified in RMC 4-6-060J, will not be supported by the City of Renton staff based on the public comments received and the proximity of the roads to existing residential development. The existing access easements do not meet the twenty-six foot (26') width requirement, and therefore would not be compliant with Renton Municipal Code without an approved modification. Please note that all final decisions on the preliminary plat are made by the City's Hearing Examiner with a recommendation from Staff. Based on the above statement, the following information will need to be submitted so that we may continue the review ofthe above subject application: • A plat plan that is compliant with the shared driveways standard of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-6-060K, as this would fit within the existing access easement width of 24 feet and would not require the approval of a modification. RMC 4-6-060K. Shared Driveways -When Permitted: A shared private driveway may be permitted for access up to a maximum of four (4) lots. Up to three (3) of the lots may use the driveway as primary access for emergencies. The remainder of the lots must have physical frontage along a street for primary and emergency access and shall only be allowed vehicular access from the shared private driveway. The private access easement shall be a minimum of sixteen feet {16') in width, with a maximum of twelve feet {12') paved driveway. Minimum turnaround requirements for emergency access to lots con be found in subsection Hof this Section. (Ord. 5517, 12-14-2009) Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov • A revised street profile or "Access Road Section" to reflect a reduction in the road pavement that is compliant with Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-6-060K. Proposed solutions that address public safety, welfare, aesthetics, and screening are encouraged as part of the street profile design and resubmittal process. Please note that staff will continue to address public comment during the course of the review, in order to mitigate the associated impacts between a new shared driveway and the existing homes. • Alternatively, you may submit a plat plan that is compliant with the City of Renton's complete street standard limited residential access road from Talbot Road South. The City's complete street standard for a limited residential access road is 18 feet of pavement, with an 8-foot planting strip, 5-foot sidewalk and LED street lighting along both sides of the road inside the plat. The street section will be a 45-foot right-of-way. (See RMC 4-6-060 for more information.) If you elect to develop the site with a public road, please work with City staff to identify all required submittal items. The identified information will need to be submitted within thirty-one (31) days of written notice or by February 2, 2015 so that we may continue the review of the above subject application and proceed with the Environmental (SEPA) Review ofthe project: • A revised Short Plat application, including but not limited three new plan sets for any changed plans, reduced 8.5 x 11 sheets of any new large sheets, and a digital copy of all revised application materials. At this time, your project will continue to be placed "on hold" pending receipt of the requested information. Please contact me at (425) 430-7289 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Clark H. Close Associate Planner cc: RAD Holdings/ Owner(s) Jon Nelson, Land Development Advisors/ Contact Dalen; Gastineau; Jaeb; Kiminki; Klaas; Klaas Schultz; Murphy; Perteet; Smith Charity; Smith; Webb; J&M Management; Victoria Park HOA / Party(ies) of Record File LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD Sabrina Mirante From: Sent: To: Subject: Sabrina, Clark Close Wednesday, October 01, 2014 9:02 AM Sabrina Mirante Valley Vue POR Can you add this contact to VV POR? He was listed as the one who sent the Winsper Community Letter to Mayor Law. Jerome Jaeb 701 S 32"' Pl Renton, WA 98055 Thanks, Clark H. Close City of Renton -Current Planning Associate Planner 1 October 1, 2014 Rory Dees RAD Holdings, LLC 1040 W. Lake Sammamish Pkwy SE Bellevue,WA 98008 SUBJECT: "On Hold" Notice I Community & Economic Development Department C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator Valley Vue Preliminary Plat, LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD Dear Mr. Dees: The Planning Division of the City of Renton accepted the above master application for review on August 25, 2014. During our review, staff has determined that additional information is necessary in order to proceed further. The request for a modification from the p_rivate street standard requirements, identified in RMC 4-6-0GOJ, will likely not be supported by the City of Renton based on the public comments received and the proximity of the roads to existing residential development. The existing access easements do not meet the required 26 foot width, and therefore would not be compliant with Renton Municipal Code without an approved modification. Please note that all final decisions on the preliminary plat are made by the City's Hearing Examiner with a recommendation from Staff. Based on the above statement, the following information will need to be submitted so that we may continue the review ofthe above subject application: • A plat plan that is compliant with the shared driveways standard of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-6-0GOK, as this would fit within the existing access easement width of 24 feet and would not require the approval of a modification. RMC 4-6-060K. Shared Driveways -When Permitted: A shared private driveway may be permitted for access up to a maximum of four (4) lots. Up to three (3) of the lots may use the driveway as primary access for emergencies. The remainder of the lots must have physical frontage along a street for primary and emergency access and shall only be allowed vehicular access from the shared private driveway. The private access easement shall be a minimum of sixteen feet {16') in width, with a maximum of twelve feet (12') paved driveway. Minimum turnaround requirements for emergency access to lots can be found in subsection Hof this Section. (Ord. 5517, 12-14-2009) Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way , Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov • • A revised street profile or "Access Road Section" to reflect a reduction in the road pavement that is compliant with Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-6-060K. Proposed solutions that address public safety, welfare, aesthetics, and screening are encouraged as part of the street profile design and resubmittal process. Please note that staff will continue to address public comment during the course of the review, in order to mitigate the associated impacts between a new shared driveway and the existing homes. • Alternatively, you may submit a plat plan that is compliant with the City of Renton's complete street standard limited residential access road from Talbot Road South. Th.e City's complete street standard for a limited residential access road is 18 feet of pavement, with an 8-foot planting strip, 5-foot sidewalk and LED street lighting along both sides of the road inside the plat. The street section will be a 45-foot right-of-way. (See RMC 4-6-060 for more information.) If you choose to develop the site with a public road, please work with City staff to identify all required submittal items. At this time, your project has been placed "on hold" pending receipt of the requested information. Please contact me at (425) 430-7289 if you have any questions . . Sincerely, Clark H. Close Associate Planner cc: RAD Holdings/ Owner(s) Jon Nelsoh, Land Development.Advisors/ Contact Dalen; Gastineau; Jaeb; Kiminki; Klaas; Klaas Schultz; Murphy; Perteet; Smith Charity; Smith; Webb; J&M Management; Victoria Par'k HOA / Party(ies) of Record File LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD Denis Law Mayor October 1, 2014 Richard Perteet 734 S 32"' St Renton, WA 98055 • r { ~i'F{ r r. 1 .· r 1 __. _..._,; J-~ Community & Economic Development Department CE."Chip"Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: VALLEY VUE PRELIMINARY PLAT COMMENT RESPONSE LETIER LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD Dear Mr. Perteet: Thank you for your comments related to the Valley Vue Preliminary Plat; dated September 8, 2014 wherein you raised several concerns regarding the proposed project. Your letter/email will be added to the public record for consideration by the reviewing official and you have been added as a party of record. The applicant, RAD Holdings LLC, has only made application for Preliminary Plat and Environmental Review for the subject development and a decision has yet to be made by the City of Renton. You received a notice soliciting public comment and these cciminents are used to help City staff complete a comprehensive reviewwhich will continue over the coming month(s). The following comments are in response to an email sent to the City. • The survey information is not stamped/signed by a registered land surveyor. An Al TA survey would be appropriate to identify any encroachments. A topographic boundary survey was completed by Mitch T.S. Evans, professional Land Surveyor of Axis Survey & Mapping of Kirkland, WA on August 28, 2013. Please see attached. • There does not appear to be any pedestrian access (sidewalks). This is an undesirable design that appears to be dictated by the narrow access reserve from Winsper. I believe that pedestrian access should be part of every development. City street standards are subject to Renton Municipal Code (RMC/ 4-6-060. The City of Renton will plan for, design, and construct transportation projects to appropriately provide accommodations far pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders of all ages and abilities, and freight and motor vehicles, including the incorporation of such facilities into transportation plans and programs. RMC 4-6-060F.2 Minimum Design Standards for Public Streets and Alleys requires sidewalks for the following functional classifications: Principal Arterial, Minor Arterial, Commercial-Mixed Use, Industrial, & Neighborhood Collector Arterial, Commercial- Mixed Use & Industrial Access, Residential Access, and Limited Residential Access. Alleys currently do not require sidewalks according to RMC. Sidewalks may be conditioned by the Hearing Examiner as part of the preliminary plat hearing process. Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton,Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov • There are topographical features that will make the construction of the two access roads virtually impossible without encroaching onto the existing developed properties, especially the proposed easterly access. How high will walls be and how will they be constructed? What safety features will be included to protect vehicles, pedestrians, and adjacent housing. This should be addressed in the environmental documentation. In order for improvements to be constructed within the two access roads or potentially "onto the existing developed properties" the City of Renton Hearing Examiner wauld have to gront the applicant a modification from the private street standard requirements identified in RMC 4-6-0601 and the property owners would have to grant access rights to the developer. City Staff will likely not be supportive of the modification based on public comments received and due to the proximity of the proposed roads to existing residential development. Based on the Grading and Drainage Plan, the keystone retaining wall has a proposed maximum height of two feet {2') and the concrete retaining wall has a maximum height of four feet {4'). The applicont is proposing cement concrete vertical curb ond gutter and a six foot {6'} high fence, above the concrete retaining wall, on the east access only. These items are being addressed as part of the review process. Staff has requested the applicant submit a revised street profile or "Access Road Section" to reflect a reduction in the road pavement that is compliant with Renton Municipal Code {RMC) 4-6-060K. Proposed solutions that address public safety and screening are encouraged as part of the design and resubmittal process. Please note that staff will address public comment, during the course of the review, in order to mitigate the associated impacts between a new shared driveway and the existing homes within the Winsper Division 1 Subdivision. • The project narrative states that "Existing fire hydrants in Winsper are within the acceptable distances to serve the subdivision." The existing hydrants are not shown on the plan, nor is there any justification for the statement. New hydrants shall be installed per Renton's fire department standards to provide the required coverage af all lots. A minimum of one fire hydrant is.required within 300-feet of the proposed buildings and two hydrants if the fire flow goes up to 1,500 gpm. Existing fire hydrants can be counted toward the requirements as long as they meet current code including 5-inch storz fittings. A condition of approval of the proposed plat, due to existing steep grades on existing access roadways and proposed dead end streets, will be to have all proposed homes be equipped with approved residential fire sprinkler systems. • RMC states "Private streets are allowed for access to six (6) or fewer lots, provided at least two (2) of the six (6) lots abut a public right-of-way." None of these lots abut a public right-of-way. The applicant has requested a modification from Renton Municipal Code {RMC} to allow access through the existing tracts and is proposing to serve four (4) lots off of each access road. Staff has meet with the applicant to let them know that the existing access easements do not meet the required 26 foot width and would therefore not be compliant with RMC without a modification. Staff has placed the project on hold and requested the applicant resubmit a plat plan that is compliant with the shared driveways standard of the Rentan Municipal Code (RMC) 4-6-060K, as this wauld fit within the existing access easement width of 24 feet and would not require the approval of a modification. • The project narrative states that no HOA will be required. There should be an HOA to provide for maintenance of the private roads and drainage systems, and possible participation in the existing Winsper HOA to offset impacts by new residents on the park- like setting maintained by Winsper residents. Home Owners Associations are typically a condition of preliminary plat approval. • Applicant has prepared a soils report but relies on generalizations about the site's soils. Include the soils report for the site in the environmental documentation. The applicant submitted a Geotechnical Engineering Study by Geotech Consultants, Inc. as part af the submitted materials. The scope of work consisted of exploring site surface and subsurface conditions, and then developing a report to provide recommendations for general earthwork and design criteria for foundations, retaining walls, and pavements. This information will be considered by The Environmental Review Committee before making a SEPA determination. • Street lighting should be required. LED street lighting meeting City of Renton Standards is required. • It is pretty widely acknowledged that extensive underground mining took place in this area. The environmental documentation should include a discussion of this as it may impact the future homeowners. City of Renton COR Maps identifies high coalmine hazards roughly 2,250 feet north of the property and an unclassified coalmine hazard roughly 750 south of the subject property. The subsurface conditions were explored by Geotech Consultants, Inc. on May 21, 2014 with a small excavator. The four test pits found topsoil that had a thickness of about ane foot. Be/aw the topsoil, Test Pit 2 encountered loase to medium-dense silt with sand. Below this silt in Test Pit 2, and beneath the topsoil in the other explorations, loose to medium-dense silty sand with gravel was encountered. This material included pieces of dense silt in Test Pits 1 and 2. The silty sand with gravel become medium-dense at a depth of about 2 to 3 feet, and dense at a depth of about 4 to 7 feet. The dense silty sand with gravel extended to the maximum depth of the test pits, 6 ta 8.8 feet below the surface. The Geotechnical Engineering Study would be made available to any future property owners so they will be aware of Geotech Consultants, Inc. findings and recommendations. A request for public records may be submitted to the City Clerks, City a/Renton, 1055 5. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. • The discussion in the environmental checklist of "designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity" does not include the large areas. in the adjacent Winsper subdivision. Those areas are maintained by the Winsper HOA. There needs to be a discussion of this resource and the potential for the proposed subdivision to contribute to its maintenance since their residen.ts will obviously use these area. Staff will incorporate this comment into the overall review of the project. Thank you for interest in this project and if you have any further questions please feel free to contact me at 425-430-7289 or cclose@rentonwa.gov. Sincerely, Clark H. Close Associate Planner Topographic Boundary Survey Grading·and Drainage Plan cc: File LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD ~ s ~ J • i g i ~ I ; : ~ ~ ~ " ' ~ ~ii·~-~~~~~ I I I _L . p • ' ! ~ TOPOGRAPHIC / BOUNDARY SURVEY S.3lSTST. ~ S.:i!STST ~£!·:~~:~' ',___::,~:~~;,:,·,,: .... --~------------ u .,, ... "'' ., ..... ~ .. ""'-:·.•• -~ --------------I \ I I \ rP!ilS!BEl971 D1"1l 71'~.t;JMMI 0:000 n>™:~uim~a \ T"i"~:·:ii~W:tiaDD \ 11e1~l::!!B~m 1JP.l!J;ll!llln:J10~ori j TP'N:aa,w,zuoooo _ 111PN:aen~ia~10 'r[P{~:lli!lll~~11l~~ r~11.:M1&11:tt03llll ~ ',' ?"'.J~,1.";. "--"' '" ~ '""'" ~-'"~ "' / "~ ... ,;; .. ~''.":~::-.. -: ;;;f;:,::}:;;~;: "~.~:: ~~,-~'..:~ :~~;-' ·:. ) . J!~.:·;~.~i%-"'.'i':''~l,Ji~·. 'a' _"-:." -::'i. :·· · ... :::;rf ~-: . '(:w· ~"""~ ,/ ,'" ,, , ' , "i fi , "'"• "'f.1:J~~:• , ~ '"'-,.-1 Nb"'"'-,.,, _ _,, •;, ! { ~"' l.,. . ;l; .,,.. :t,i (<'} ~ JY ~.:a!: '/; \ .,rt;::E8 -rl ,, (':)_,, (_-.. -n,N .. \ 1;.0}-::1 \r.·~ t;l/, • '-") ,,~ } , /.oo, ;, .. • • -S _ --·-... '"" "\"° -/ {:)~,? : 1 o/."[;J' • ./ :::; ;.:t: -"-.·,:.:11t -··~ ' '\ ,!' ) '-,.. <> ·-~;,.,,/· • • • • • ~-Q..... ,~ 5'',.:( '\e1>•0 ~ ;;J"J I I • • • • . ' . T,.,,.,30;z~:i~oie ~ ~ _,, ( __J-~J,·" • ""',, <\ .. , f:D"'\~-·'0ij ..._ TPNq11:ila.?5__!D21 \ , .,-:t ) ""·\·... • • • • __ 8 _ . r·"' , '>,. I ., , , ·'"""" co , " ,,., -~ • , ... , \ fi~· I • ''" t ~-· ' ... .,.. -~·= "" -·<!" , .... ,~ (• 1· • • ~ ,•,,,. • •• .._ .... ·,, ~-.-\ / /-;"~~-~~.:s ,. ,"· J.,,,.;o:;"'~12··,_:___,,~~\.:.~...i~u _ _i:;-Olq_":_ ___ ;_{_..::::,<A,--=-·=J~:......6 ~.::. .. ...cn--.~--:,:....1-J.-,-------. ..,"--=--r------.-i---;--;:-~ :,,,, • ,,.A ""'~'' ~~,,I , ,,_ • .::_,.., 1 , '-;, • ·1:c -)ttC ,,,........,.-,---,,....-.... :;.-':j':~··--~""7','~,·,..,,...,..-...™'"~'.,;,·=r:; J_!:...::......:_ '.'._ + __.1~_._j~g,.~.)'.~-""",.-~ " ', _<f ___ :t(.,'l,~""}.:T....::._'L __ ~: ;--,,~ ---~~·.: :__._ ·--:-_:::--· .• -.;:-: •• " ·/:·,_;;:., ~ C _~;.'.. -·~·-_., •• .,_~._.'i..E'-"_ .. ~";-;:,•,: .. ,,,:~;-~;. 1··· . ·" .. :: .. _;;, ... ~.,:.~·;,, ... ~ t~·,;~·i ;,,.[':.• -~· ""-.~ ·1:-i;i ;') '\us·,.·:,.• -!)P. """'j .;::.•••"-''" "'\'"' ~.. "' ""'"i (~ ' " ' ' •,v;--;,\~~·= ;~~:~:,'."r,;;~-'c,!t ,·'' '.-<-" ' '· ~-..... .,. > ~ \ ''"'""'""' ( \~ \' \, \111J.1:~Si!ill~~ , ____, ., \ \._ '\,, '"'"""""" ._ ·~· I ··.. \ --,,,,~ ' \-"'-:r .;;~'"·''°'~. ~ F,;, ~ ~ ' 9 ~, _ ...... _1 ,, ...... ""' " ,... I ·-.,..._ ',·I~·,, ----... -. .._ ' SHIY-1ij --....,_ ·-._ ' ,, / --------------'/ -' ---; l<J!lSJW,1.n , ~~ \ "'-'co'm,;dJ "'lj, ' . ·, ·~ ~ \I . ,~~~~~~r~~~-~o,; ;1';ji,V' :: . /i!,' --: .,,: . :,:~\,,. I "' I I g,,, ·-, a • " . ,. "" I I 'I ' ' ,,: \ .. ,., I ~ / ""~ ' ' / ,../ / • G!\.'.f.1~~"'--" . J"-;o' I •+• 11 J ::i :'.£ 11./1, SE l 14, SE::.n Th'?.23N.,RG:C.SE. W.r.t COY Cf REI\TOJ\'' };;;1<G com.·rr, i\"AS;-m.;GT'.)}( '"'' "'-'"''"if'"""' ,m;, i• .nn,, '°'°' , "'~'"' "' "'""""': .. me!'<;,· SURVEY ---------- fOR TPN 3023059028 " RORY DUS IIJID F.Ot.Ol/fGS, UC e~~~r--·-·-~·- .!·]~! "·"""' lUi • --~,1 B;?!,\l ITT. 20:; \ \ \ \ \ \ / ' / , _ __, ___ ' ' " m m " "' m m --, ~ ~ 0 " ,, " 0 :, r m " ) I -/ ---\ GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN PRELIMINARY Pf.P.T RAD HOLDINGS, LLC VALLEY VUE 3106/3112 Tl>l.BOT ROADS. CITY OF RENTON WASHINGTON ----· '.?;.~~-~ " " " " " a:c~---ll'> ~=-~--~·---1); '"'""=--, i; " m " w ? --, ~ ,, t:l _z ~ " m ~ m ~ s: Clark Close From: Sent: To: Subject: Good morning Clark, Dalen, Doug J <doug.j.dalen2@boeing.com > Friday, September OS, 2014 9:46 AM Clark Close Valley Vue Preliminary Plat/ LUA14-001040, ECF, PP I just wanted to get my written comments in prior to 9/8/14 to meet the deadline. I just purchased a house at 721 S 31" St, Renton WA and found out that the property adjacent to my new home is likely to be wiped out and replaced with a bunch of new houses. My concern is that when I bought the property, one of the big selling points to me was the beautiful treeline and the privacy it created in my backyard, which according to this Land Development proposal could be severely compromised- or even wiped out entirely. It states that the developer intends to retain 27 original trees. Is there a way to find out which ones as some of them are very big, and likely very old. I am concerned about the destruction of all this landscaping, the shade the trees provide as well as the animals which live back there will be displaced causing them to invade surrounding areas and create potential traffic hazards. Also, I worry about what impact this will have on the property values surrounding the site. I would like to be made a party of record on this matter and kept informed on any further developments and/or decisions made regarding this matter. Thank you, Doug Dalen 721 S 31" St, Renton, WA 98055 1 Clark Close From: Sent: To: Subject: Ginny <vklaas4@comcast.net> Tuesday, August 26, 2014 7:52 PM Jennifer T. Henning; Clark Close; Steve Lee; Vanessa Dolbee Valley Vue LUA14-001040 Recently the Winsper neighbors gathered to review the Valley Vue plan (LUA 14-001040). As discussed during my meeting with Clark on 8/8/2014, the neighbors feel the proposed plan falls short on a number of significant issues involving safety, access and drainage. The neighbors discussed the following five items that do not meet City Codes; 1) The two access "private streets" coming off the Winsper Development. These proposed roads would be solely for the purpose of serving the four houses in Valley Vue behind the existing homes in Winsper. City Code (4-6-060 J) states: Private streets are allowed for access to six (6) or fewer lots. provided at least two (2) of the six (6) lots abut a public right-of-way. None of the new lots will abut a public right of way. These new roads provide no service to the pre-existing homes in Winsper. 2) City Code 4-6-060 J.2. states: Minimum Standards: Such private streets shall consist of a minimum of a twenty six foot (26') easement with a twenty foot (20") pavement width. The two easements indicated on the platt map are 24 feet wide and do not meet the minimum City Code standard. 3) Both proposed private roads are longer than 150 feet, and neither appears to have the required turn around for Fire and Emergency vehicles. Ordinance 5517 states that streets 150-300ft in length must have a dedicated hammerhead turnaround or cul-de-sac. I spoke to Fire Chief, Corey Thomas, last year and he indicated that this is an issue. 4) The front eastern edge of my driveway a long S 32nd Place is just over one foot from the access easement property line. This does not allow for the five foot required setback. I am terrified that a driver may mistake my driveway for the access road and run right into my house. There are no provisions for a safety/privacy barrier, planting strip, sidewalk or other buffer zone on my side of the easement. 5) The City of Renton memorandum date January 3, 2013, and substantiated in the City Codes "General Ordinances of the City of Renton (4-1-110A, and Ordinance 5676), as well as the King County Urban and Residential Zoning Document, requires a minimum sideyard-street setback of 15 feet. I wrote to Gerry Wasser about this in 2013 and he stated: "The required setbacks for Zone-8 are: Sideyards-5 feet. except 15 feet for sideyards along a street or access easement." Several of the neighbors have noted that neither of the easements are wide enough to accommodate a 15 foot sideyard-street setback from the existing houses, and still have 1 the space needed for a 20 root road. Variances to accommouate a road for vehicle traffic would be dangerous to the residents of the abutting houses given the current five foot (or less) sideyard setback. Ordinance 5517 and 4-6-060 specifically state that the codes are intended to establish design standards and development requirements for street improvements to insure reasonable and safe access to public and private properties. Allowing variances of these standards, compromises the integrity and value of the City Codes, and exposes the community to reckless hazards. Not having a basic safety element in street standards to protect pedestrians and homeowners sets a poor precedence and puts the public at risk. This places an unfair burden on the residents of Winsper. The original Dees plan called for access off of Talbot Road, not off the Winsper easements. Frankly, given the numerous variances that would be required to gain access from the Winsper easements, and the multiple safety concerns, retaining the access to the property where it has always been off Talbot Road, seems the prudent choice and would require the least amount of variances. I know that Clark had indicated that the Talbot access was a problem because a "Private Road" can serve as access for a maximum of six Jots, and that since the Valley Vue lot is 2.3 acre, six houses would not meet the minimum requirement to mitigate against "urban sprawl". Surely, City Code does not place a higher value on urban sprawl prevention, than it does on public safety. I understand that at the 7/16/2014 Renton Planning Commission meeting a proposal was made to change the code for Private street standards because they are generally undesirable and do not provide elements such as sidewalks, landscaping, and create dead-end streets, which reduces connectivity in residential neighborhoods, and are maintenance issues. The proposal was to only allow private driveways and completely delete private roads from the City Code. The access easements off Winsper do appear to meet the current Code for a "shared driveway" which requires a minimum 16 foot easement and maximum 12 foot paved driveway, each of which could serve as primary emergency access for 3 homes. In addition to the access issues, there are numerous drainage issues that the neighbors are concerned about. I wasn't surprised to see that the geotechnical report indicated that the drainage issues on the property were significant enough to require mitigation and disclosure to anyone purchasing one of the new Jots. They also recommended that; ""Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be allowed to review the final development plans to verify that the recommendations presented in this report are adequately addressed in design .... We recommend including this report, in its entirety, in the project contract documents. This report should also be provided to any future property owners so they will be aware of our findings and recommendations." The owners of Winsper already know that there is a problem with drainage from this property, in fact, there is over a 32 foot drop from the rear of tract B (wetlands) to the rear of Tract C (storm drain). Due to the issues on the property, two houses in Winsper that abut the southern property line have already experienced flooding in yards and under the 2 homes due to excessive run uff from that property. Many of us installed french drains and sump pumps at our own cost to mitigate the issue. My drainage system lies along the boundary between the east side of my property and the easement, and will likely be destroyed during development. With the increase of impervious surface, storm water runoff will no doubt increase is well. Please request that the new drainage system be installed along the property line to protect the Winsper homes from this increased flooding risk. The project calls for a six inch curb-gutter for drainage along the access easements. Since the access will intersect an existing street, we would like the curb-gutter design to match the standards of the Winsper development (18 inch curb-gutter). This will also aid in drainage of excessive runoff in times of heavy rain, and aesthetically would be much more attractive. This is consistent with the Renton Community Design Element Goals purpose to improve the aesthetics and functionality of existing neighborhoods. The Valley Vue Project Narrative states "current zoning is R8, 5445 square feet minimum per lot", yet two of the lots don't meet this minimum. (Lot 7-4,796ft, and Lot 8-4,502 fl.); these therefore do not meet the aforementioned standard. Once the required hammerhead turn around is incorporated into the plan, Lot 7 likely will not meet code. I propose that these two lots be combined into one lot so that they are similar to in character to all the other lots on the project (all other lots are 7, 127-7,654 square feet). The neighbors also discussed the disruption and general loss of peace and enjoyment during the peak summer months that construction would cause as heavy equipment, trucks, and building materials traveled through the neighborhood bringing noise and dust. The plan calls for working M-F plus Saturday. We request that the development NOT occur on the weekends. We would like to preserve our weekends for family and a sense of well-being. Virginia Klaas, M.D. Place (425) 271-6760 618S32nd Renton Wa 98055 3 Clark Close From: Sent: To: Subject: Mary Klaas-Schultz <mklaasschultz@gmail.com> Wednesday, September 03, 2014 9:36 AM Clark Close Valley Vue Proposal Concerns I object to plan {LUA 14-001040} as proposed because it does not meet the Standard Codes adopted by the City of Renton. I understand that sometimes the Codes can offer a little variance to get a project developed, but think that this proposal is asking for to many adjustments at the expense of the surrounding community. Each time a waiver is granted it minimizes the value of Standard Codes and Regulations and sends the message that the rules can be negotiated. Frankly, I'm shocked to learn that the City helped coordinate this proposal with the developer. It is the people of Renton that pay the expense in sub-standard developments. As proposed, it seems that the Valley Vue project would require the following adjustments to use the access routes proposed; • Private Streets: o Width should be 26 feet, not 24 o Street-Side yard Setback should be 15 feet from each house, clearly not enough room as the access easements are only 24 feet. o Fire Turn around for streets longer than 150 feet, Turnarounds are at the end of a street, not the top. This is a basic safety element; I think the King County Fire Marshall would agree. o Required houses to abut a public right-of-way, none of the new proposed house abut a public street. In addition, I'm concerned with the proposed density with the known water and drainage issues on this parcel. Just because the parcel allows for RB, doesn't mean that it should be built out to the highest infill allowed, especially if you have to bend all the Codes to make it happen! I do not object to the parcel being developed, but would like it to be developed with a plan that makes sense given the constraints of the parcel. It should also be developed within the boundaries of the standard codes that are in place to ensure the integrity of developments and the safety of the community. Mary Klaas Schultz 618 S 32nd Place Renton, WA., 98055 1 Clark Close From: Richard Perteet <cougar_rich@hotmail.com> Monday, September 08, 2014 11:26 AM Clark Close Sent: To: Subject: RE: Valley Vue Preliminary Plat -LUA14-001040 Clark, thanks for the rapid response to my request for more information. I don't really have time to respond in depth but a few comments: • The survey information is not stamped/signed by a registered land surveyor. An ALT A survey would be appropriate to identify any encroachments. • There does not appear to be any pedestrian access (sidewalks). This is an undesirable design that appears to be dictated by the narrow access reserve from Winsper. I believe that pedestrian access should be part of every development. • There are topographical features that will make the construction of the two access roads virtually impossible without encroaching onto the existing developed properties, especially the proposed easterly access. How high will walls be and how will they be constructed? What safety features will be included to protect vehicles, pedestrians, and adjacent housing. This should be addressed in the environmental documentation. • The project narrative states that "Existing fire hydrants in Winspur are within the acceptable distances to serve the subdivision." The existing hydrants are not show on the plan, nor is there any justification for the statement. • RMC states "Private streets are allowed for access to six (6) or fewer lots, provided at least two (2) of the six (6) lots abut a public right-of-way." None of these lots abut a public right-of-way. • The project narrative states that no HOA will be required. There should be an HOA to provide for maintenance of the private roads and drainage systems, and possible participation in the existing Winsper HOA to offset impacts by new residents on the park-like setting maintained by Winsper residents. • Applicant has prepared a soils report but relies on generalizations about the site's soils. Include the soils report for the site in the environmental documentation • Street lighting should be required. • It is pretty widely acknowledged that extensive underground mining took place in this area. The environmental documentation should include a discussion of this as it may impact the future homeowners. • The discussion in the environmental checklist of "designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity" does not include the large areas in the adjacent Winsper subdivision. Those areas are maintained by the Winsper HOA, There needs to be a discussion of this resource and the potential for the proposed subdivision to contribute to its maintenance since their residents will obviously use these area. Thanks Clark. As you can tell I put this together pretty quickly to meet this afternoon's deadline but I think I hit the high points. I will be unable to attend the scheduled public hearing. (BTW, it would be nice if all of the information in your attachments was available on-line). 1 Rich Perteet 2 Clark Close From: Sent: To: Andrea <6gkmimi@comcast.net> Monday, September 01, 2014 10:03 AM Clark Close Subject: FW: Concerning Valley Vue Preliminary Plat ( LUA14-001040) From: Andrea [mailto:6qkmimi@comcast.netl Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2014 2:42 PM To: 'cclose@rentonwqa.gov' Cc: 'Cvincent@Rentonwa.gov'; 'mpalmer@rentonwa.gov' Subject: Concerning Valley Vue Preliminary Plat ( LUA14-001040) To Whom it May Concern: As residents of 3111 Smithers Ave. S. in the Winsper Development, we are very concerned about the proposal the Valley Vue Development. It appears that a number of city codes that are currently in place would be waived so that the Valley Vue homes can be built. These include side yard setbacks, minimum easement width, emergency access and the requirement for two of the homes to abut a Public Right of Way. The codes were established for solid reasons and variances should not be easily granted. Safety is a paramount concern. Not only would the current properties in Winsper, be dangerously close to the proposed road which would be required for Valley Vue, but would also be difficult for emergency vehicles to access without an appropriate turnaround. I believe that the city needs to adhere to the current standards to protect public safety and to ensure confidence in the integrity of the planning process. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Andrea and William Smith 425-254-1706 1 ,, - ____ D_e:~:;::;,~aw _____ ......... r . City of I . .. ~ g· r.rr.011 September 8, 2014 Doug Dalen 721s31'1 st Renton, WA 98055 Community & Economic Development Department C.E."Chip 11 Vincent1 Administrator SUBJECT: VALLEY VUE PRELIMINARY PLAT COMMENT RESPONSE LETTER LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD Dear Mr. Dalen: Thank you for your comments related to the Valley Vue Preliminary Plat; dated September 5, 2014 wherein you raised concerns regarding the proposed project. Your letter/email will be added to the public record for consideration by the reviewing official and you have been added as a party of record. As a point of clarification, the City has yet to make a decision on the proposal. The applicant, RAD Holdings LLC, has only made application for Preliminary Plat and Environmental Review for the subject development and a decision has yet to be made. You received a notice soliciting public comment and these comments are used to help City staff complete a comprehensive review which will continue over the coming month(s). There are a variety of tree species on the Valley Vue site, including deciduous and evergreen trees. There are approximately 142 trees over 6 inches in diameter on the proposed land to be developed. After dead, diseased or dangerous trees, private access for street improvements, critical area deductions, and the minimum requirement to retain 30%, the applicant is proposing to maintain 27 trees of the original trees over 6 inches in diameter. The applicant is also proposing to plant 66 new trees (minimum required replacement trees) at 2" DBH. The proposed tree retention plan identifies nine (9) trees to be retained in the critical areas and buffers, four (4) within the Native Growth Protection Easement and 23 along or near the northern property line with the Victoria Park #4 Plat. See attached Tree Retention Worksheet and Proposed Tree Cutting/Land Clearing Plan for more information. This matter was originally scheduled for a public hearing on October 7, 2014 at 12:00 p.m., Council Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. As a party of record, you will be notified when a new public hearing date is set. Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov ' Thank you for interest in this project and if you have any further questions please feel free to contact me at 425-430-7289 or cclose@rentonwa.gov. Thank you. Sincerely, Clark H. Close Associate Planner City of Renton Tree R·etention Worksheet Proposed Tree Cutting/Land Clearing Plan, Valley Vue Preliminary Plat LUA14-001040 cc: File LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD City of Renton TREE RETENTION WORKSHEET 1. Total number of trees over 6" in diameter1 on project site: 1. 142 trees 2. Deductions: Certain trees are excluded from the retention calculation: Trees that are dead, diseased or dangerous2 1 trees Trees in proposed public streets O trees Trees in proposed private access easements/tracts 6 trees Trees in critical areas 3 and buffers 9 trees Total number of excluded trees: 3. Subtract line 2 from line 1: 2. 16 trees 3. 126 trees 4. Next, to determine the number of trees that must be retained 4 , multiply line 3 by: 0.3 in zones RC, R-1, R-4. or R-8 0.1 in all other residential zones 0.05 in all commercial and industrial zones 4. 38 trees 5. List the number of 6" or larger trees that you are proposing 5 to retain 4: 5. 27 trees 6. Subtract line 5 from line 4 for trees to be replaced: (If line 6 is less than zero, stop here. No replacement trees are required). 6. 11 trees 7. Multiply line 6 by 12" for number of required replacement inches: 7. 132 inches 8. Proposed size of trees to meet additional planting requirement: (Minimum 2" caliper trees required) 8. 2" per tree 9. Divide line 7 by line 8 for number of replacement trees6 : (if remainder is .5 or greater, round up to the next whole number) 1-Measured at chest height. 9. 66 trees 2 Dead, diseased or dangerous trees must be certified as such by a forester, registered landscape architect, or certified arborist, and approved by the City. 3 · Critical Areas, such as wetlands, streams, floodplains and protected slopes, are defined in Section 4-3-050 of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC). 4 · Count only those trees to be retained outside of critical areas and buffers. 5 · The City may require modification of the tree retention plan to ensure retention of the maximum number of trees per RMC 4-4-130H7a 6 · Inches of street trees, inches of trees added to critical areas/buffers, and inches of trees retained on site that are less than 6" but are greater than 2" can be used to meet the tree replacement requirement. C:\Users\Admin\Documents\Land Development Advisors\Dees\Completed TreeRetentionWorksheet.doc 12/08 l I i I I I' I I • ' -... ' • I -~cffo" .. ' ... ,. ; . . -~,, :mo"r», ~r; o ··.1201 "o"19 nro... 1 \ \ \ p I . ~ '·. I • • fll!:1 ., V8"0A ~4 \ • ..: .. r,,----n-~ \ _. ,,, .. ;. 11 >2s·.i4!,; . ?······· ~,,,,.,,., --·-· ; :: : .. ; •••. ,'y"--..._ ~,,., -....... ,,, .. ,,. '·"''"' l~™ -,,,_,, ' -.. ····· I' .. i -,\'. J \ : ";fy_/ ji~diS!ittJ~jR- / )J --·-;"· • I \ ; I l i_._".JT,i_ '.l ,. . ?'°Mr, I , -, • I g: ~Me/ ',\\\ "'"!;; I 'I' )) l i ! ) : ', : : I " : ) : : I ::: /1MfV ,';1 ;!, t : : : i: \ : : ~,,I I I: I I I'' '~ n··· ) ,1)i1 I ,\ :I , : 2f ·i· .\, \1 • -' ., 1 ,' L ~\ ', ···1 ;~ ·.' , .... >,· ~ ->-l f .. I j I I, ~:~:10.s:f~~~;~~j15~~i~~ ~· CONC. CUI..VCRr IE£. [Nl) .. rSr. II ' / CU/\:{RT' If /'IW. GIO~r5J.51i" / RETAINED TREE ~ W/m ... -~;; R:,.-;/" ---i JO" p f11 4·" 6TNC. '""'·-~ . ·:"1 I . ·-. . ... ·· 1 \ / I : ~ -• ..•. : / 12·.i,211 ,1 132 / ACAS "' © ,.,~ Q 'X..• . A { 0 ·. I • ~ NGPE TY•<2WE"TLMO . Tf!AC,T A ~LI · ..• " ! i ·---"-\~ •ACAi ,?\,.. \ ·s ~06"0A ,a·o,1,;, ·,oo-'1~ /,QrbA 12·o.,,,i9 :u·,o:o~ ~ ... --...1,:2-, 28l'rOA J:12 0A \ ~-r··'-\ ,.1 ~ . ~ ) •. ~-'I -' "'-)_ °"'4i"'Jrf"OA41 ~ I r~t™·1~· ~--+--~ ' .. :: L-·'.:~~-=:.· ! ' .CHICXE ---,"L --· · ..... "··,./ ''::-~1lv'N~ llf 1 , 4"Hl\f'NCON'•· NS~'rn-W'" ·\ ; I<-r-6~R Posrs ' ' ' _/,. / ,,,:A~01~~ i ~ .- l @"A+! Ii ~ ~ j' 1"w:ZO' ![!........,....===============-==' -'-~- i • ' 'i<l < <l <J<l<l <J<.<1<1---::J I I i . ' I i I • 111 i ~!. i ~! !·1 ,hi, n '"' !I, ~ ~ ~h ~~ d, ~i ~! ~ a: il i D "-I <ri :j ::, 1l g :::.. ~ ?; )... ~ 9 I.LI ~ ~ :I :? i ~ i l I r ~ ~ > '! l l, I j t, i l ""'""""'"'"'"' ~ I i " 0 § i'°"~WMOESRADX ...001 ' IVMl!e• h """"' 0' 5 Valley Vue (LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD) Parties of Record: Carl Kiminki 703 S 32nd St \ // Renton, WA 98055 V Andrea Smith / 3111 Smithers Ave S. Renton, WA 98055 (425) 254-1706 Virginia Klaas, MD / 618 S 32nd Pl V Renton, WA 98055 (425) 272-6760 Mary Klaas Schultzv 618 S 32nd Place Renton, WA, 9805 J and M Management~ 17404 Meridian E, Suite F-P 171 Puyallup, WA 98375 (253) 848-1947 Margaret Smit:Y·Charity 523 S 31st St Renton, WA 9 Doug Dalen ~·· 721S31stSt, . Renton, WA 98 Rich Perteet / 734S32ndsv Renton 98055 Patrick Gastineau 17611 Eason A e Bothell, WA 98 425-488-1111 Barbara J. WebbJ 10319 SE 30th St Bellevue, WA 98 4 425-453-1859 ;, -~De~:::sy~:w ........ --~ •.. r{ ~·t Ort f) r l .__. ~._.;..__, -·U __,.....:, September 3, 2014 Mary Klaas Schultz 618 S 32"d Pl Renton, WA 98055 Community & Economic Development Department C.E. "Chip"Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: VALLEY VUE PRELIMINARY PLAT COMMENT RESPONSE LETTER LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOO Dear Ms. Klaas Schultz: Thank you for your comments related to the Valley Vue Preliminary Plat; dated September 3, 2014 wherein you raised concerns regarding the proposed project. Your letter/email will be added to the public record for consideration by the reviewing official and you have been added as a party of record. As a point of clarification, the City has yet to make a decision on the proposal. The applicant, RAD Holdings LLC, has only made application for Preliminary Plat and Environmental Review for the subject development and a decision has yet to be made. You received a notice soliciting public comment and these comments are used to help City staff complete a comprehensive review which will continue over the coming m6nth(s). The applicant is requesting a street modification, from the private street requirements found in Renton Municipal Code (RMC 4-6-060J.2) in order to allow access and utilization of the existing 24-foot private access tracts (Tract G and Tract H; APN 948575- 0570) that were recorded in March 1989 under Winsper Division I Subdivision for future ingress, egress and utilities.to Tax Lot No. 28 (the "Valley Vue" parcel). The modification from the twenty six foot (26') easement for private streets is being requested as a result of the two foot {2') deficit, from current Renton Municipal Code, found within Tracts G and H. The modification request for the private streets will included the minimum twenty foot (20') pavement width. Additionally, no sidewalks are required for private streets; however, drainage improvements pursuant to City Code are required. The City has the ability to approve the modification, approve with conditions, or deny the request. Additional items identified in your email/letter include: fire emergency turnarounds; side yard setbacks along a street or access easement; private street standards; and density. Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov This matter is tentatively scheduled for a Public Hearing on October 7, 2014 at 12:00 p.m., Council Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. Please feel free to attend. Thank you for interest in this project and if you have any further questions please feel free to contact me at 425-430-7289 or cclose@rentonwa.gov. Thank you. Sincerely, Clark H. Close Associate Planner cc: File LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD ' Denis Law r <. City of .l -----~M:a:yo:r ___ ............... ... .. t . 2· r r r. ·.· c ) r l ---~· ..,-~ ............ September 2, 2014 Virginia Klaas 618 S 32nd Pl Renton, WA 98055 Community & Economic Development Department C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: VALLEY VUE PRELIMINARY PLAT COMMENT RESPONSE LETTER LUA14~001040, ECF, PP Dear Mrs. Klaas: Thank you for your comments related to the Valley Vue Preliminary Plat; dated August 26, 2014 wherein you raised concerns regarding the proposed project. Your letter/email will be added to the public record for consideration by the reviewing official and you have been added as a party of record. As a point of clarification, the City has yet to make a decision on the proposal. The applicant, RAD Holdings LLC, has only made application for Preliminary Plat and Environmental Review for the subject development and a decision has yet to be made. You received a notice soliciting public comment and these comments are used to help City staff complete a comprehensive review which will continue over the coming month(s}. The applicant is requesting a street modification, from the private street requirements found in Renton Municipal Code (RMC 4-6-060J.2} in order to allow access and. utilization of the existing 24-foot private access tracts (Tract G and Tract H; APN 948575- 0570} that were recorded in March 1989 under Winsper Division I Subdivision for future ingress, egress and utilities to Tax Lot No. 28 (the "Valley Vue" parcel). The modification from the twenty six foot {26'} easement for private streets is being requested as a result of the two foot (2'} deficit, from current Renton Municipal Code, found within Tracts G and H. The modification request for the private streets will included the minimum twenty foot (20') pavement width. Additionally, no sidewalks are required for private streets; however, drainage improvements pursuant to City Code are required. The City has the ability to approve the modification, approve wi.th conditions, or deny the request. Additional items identified in your email/letter include: fire emergency turnarounds; side yard setbacks along a street or access easement; street standards; public safety Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov ' concerns; drainage issues; curb-gutter design; zoning, density and minimum lot sizes; and project construction hours. This matter is tentatively scheduled for a Public Hearing on October 7, 2014 at 12:00 p.m., Council Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. Please feel free to attend. Thank you for interest in this project and if you have any further questions please feel free to contact me at 425-430-7289 or cclose@rentonwa.gov. Thank you. Sincerely, Clark H. Close Associate Planner cc: File LUA14-001040, PP, ECF I Denis Law c· f -~M=ayoc -------. r . 2·lt Qr r ( y r l September 2, 2014 Andrea and William Smith 3111 Smithers Ave S Renton, WA 98055 ·-._ . ...:;,; ..., y __.__. Community & Economic Development Department CE."Chip"Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: VALLEY VUE PRELIMINARY PLAT COMMENT RESPONSE LETTER LUA14-001040, ECF, PP Dear Mr. and Mrs. Smith: Thank you for your comments related to the Valley Vue Preliminary Plat; dated September 1, 2014 wherein you raised. concerns regarding the proposed project. Your letter/email will be added to the public record for consideration by the reviewing official and you have been added as a party of record. As a point of clarification, the City has yet to make a decision on the proposal. The applicant, RAD Holdings LLC, has only made application for Preliminary Plat and Environmental Review for the subject development and a decision has yet to be made. You received a notice soliciting public comment and these comments are used to help City staff complete a comprehensive review which will continue over the coming month(s). The applicant is requesting a street modification, from the private street requirements found .in Renton Municipal Code (RMC 4-6-060J.2) in order to allow access and utilization of the existing 24-foot private access tracts (Tract G and Tract H; APN 948575- 0570) that were recorded in March 1989 under Winsper Division I Subdivision for future ingress, egress and utilities to Tax Lot No. 28 (the "Valley Vue" parcel). The modification from the twenty six foot (26') easement for private streets is being requested as a result ofthe two foot (2') deficit, from current Renton Municipal Code, found within Tracts G and H. The modification request for the private streets will included the minimum twenty foot (20') pavement width. Additionally, no sidewalks are required for private streets; however, drainage improvements pursuant to City Code are required. The City has the ability to approve the modification, approve with conditions, or deny the request. This matter is tentatively scheduled for a Public Hearing on October 7, 2014 at 12:00 p.m., Council Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. Please feel free to attend. Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 , rentonwa.gov Thank you for interest in this project and if you have any further questions please feel free to contact me at 425-430-7289 or cclose@rentonwa.gov. Thank you. Sincerely, Clark H. Close Associate Planner cc: File LUA14-001040, ECF, PP ... ·.· .·. ·· ... ·· .• r Denis Law ¢Ft ¢ ' City oL· . .. . ·2-._'· _:,Mayo,___.___.~ .. ;jji,~LfJID~.C.1 .· Augtlst 25, 2014 Dep~rtment ofC:ommunify.antj Economic DeveJopm~nt . · · · · · CE.'Chip'.Vincent,Administrator I Nancy Rawls . . .· .·.. . . . . , Department of Transportation · · Re~ton School District · 420 Park Avemie N · .· · Renton, WA98055 . . Subject: . Valley Vue ;reliiT)inaryPlat' LUA14CQQ1040, ECFi pp· The Ci; ofRenton'sDepartrnent ofc~minunity and Ewriomic Develop~ent(CED) ))as rec~ived an.application for aPreliniinary Plat located at 3106. Talbot Rd. s .. Please see the enclosed Notice · o.f Application for ftirthet detajls. · · · ·· · · · · In order ·to process. thisapplitation; CED needs to know. which Renton schools. would be· attended by children .living in resid,ences'at the location indiqted above. Please fill in the·.· appropriate scho.ols on the list below and .return thisJetter to iny'attention; City pf Rento~;.CED, . Planning Divisi.on; 1055 South G~ady Wa'y, Renwri, Washington 98057 or fax to(425) 430-7300, by September 8,2014 .. · . . . . . . Elemi;,nta'ry School: . · ·• talbot hill elementary MiddleSchool: · Dimmitt Middle School High School':· Henton High School · will the schools you have indicatedhe able to hand le the impact of the additional students ·estimated.t~ wmefrom the proposed development? Yes . X .. No . . . . .. ' -. ' ·,, ' . . .. . Thank you for J)rnviding this importarit information. If you have ahy quesU6nuegarding this . . ·. project, pleas~ contact me at{425) 430,7289 .. · . . . . Sincerely,. {fa'"4li ·@~. ~ Clark H. Close .. Associate Planner ErlClosure Re~ton City HaU ·; 1055 South Grady Way • Renion,Washingto~ 98057 • re,ntonwa.gov · Mr. Bob Ferguson, Attorney General PO Box 40100 Olympia, WA 98504-0100 August 21, 2014 Dear Mr. Ferguson: I am writing to ask for your support of the Renton Winsper Community request that no variances to access be allowed by the Renton Planning Department on the proposed Valley Vue project (LUA 14-00 I 040). I understand that local planning decisions are not something usually reviewed by the Attorney General, however, a process that routinely allows variances of adopted municipal codes and development standards does not meet the public expectation that codes and regulations to protect them are in place, and are enforced. Briefly, the parcel, zoned R8, is a 1.99 net acres (100 by 1,000 feet) lot with an approximately 76 foot drop in topography from the eastern wetland to Talbot Road on the west. This parcel is currently improved with two houses that have been accessed off Talbot Road with a private easement on the southern property line for over 50 years. The plan is to leave the existing western house on a .55 acre parcel, and develop eight new homes, behind the Winsper Development on the remaining 1.44 acres. These new homes will be accessed by two 24 foot easements which run between existing homes in the Winsper Community. The proposed plan falls short on a number of significant issues involving safety, access and drainage and puts an inequitable burden on the Winsper Community. As presented, the project simply does not meet a number of City codes, including side yard setbacks, minimum easement width, emergency access and the requirement for two of the homes to abut a Public Right of Way. At only 24 feet wide, neither of the easements from Winsper meets the minimum 26 foot easement required to accommodate the planned "private street". However, it does appear the easements could meet the 16 foot easement requirement for a 12 foot paved "shared driveway", each of which could serve 3 houses. I went to City Hall to discuss these problems with the City Planner and was told that the developer would simply need to submit for a variance. I am dismayed that this is the proposal that was coordinated with the City planner and developer and I am appalled at the disregard for City Code. The previous proposal had the development accessed off Talbot, but was changed to accommodate the density infill requirement. It's interesting to note that the City density calculation includes the entire 1.99 net acres, instead of the 1.44 acre which is really being developed. I have been told that the developer abandoned the existing southern access easement on 6/27/2014, just before submitting this latest proposal. I would hate to think this was an act of strategy collusion to get the project through, but really what other compelling reason could there be to abandon an easement that has served for over 50 years, before the other property is developed? The front eastern edge of my driveway a long S 32nd Place is just over one foot from the access easement property line ( see picture). The plan is to pave a 20 foot street with an additional 6 inch gutter on each side. A keystone wall is proposed for the east side, leaving about one foot on each side. This plan results in considerably less than the 15 foot street-side yard setback required in RS zone. My living room bay window is about 7 feet from the proposed street. I am terrified that a driver may mistake my driveway for the access road and hit my house! There are no provisions for a safety/privacy r.·~ -v.', I> ·_r ~ EP '· ~,-,:,1·: IH,PP:tJ,:, "· ;.-. " '" ,. ,. barrier, planting strip, sidewalk or other buffer zone on my side. How can this possibly be considered good planning? __ .,_,..,.._,._,_ ·----·---..... -·-·-..,_~_._. ......... ,.., .. ·-····-· .... -~~-,~--, .. -_, ...... ..., .. ,_. e-,=----.. S·--·-MO -~~--·-.. --~·· '-'"""' .. °">r-··---., In closing, I would like to stress that I am not opposed to this property being developed or accessed off the Winsper Community. What I object to is the apparent indifference to the standards that are in place to protect public safety and development integrity. I have looked at the decision criteria used in granting discretionary variances and think that this proposal fails to meet criteria. Granted variances are to be minimal. Surely, the City of Renton does not place a higher value on urban sprawl prevention, than it does on public safety. Private street standards were reviewed at the July 16, 2014 Renton Planning Commission meeting and a proposal to change the Code is in process. The staff report suggested that private streets are generally undesirable and do not provide elements such as sidewalks, landscaping, and create dead-end streets, which reduces connectivity in residential neighborhoods. They also noted that maintenance is an issue and often repairs are neglected. This could potentially be detrimental to the Winsper Community and our HOA dues would not cover repairs of a private street. I appeal to the State for support to ensure that the codes and regulations adopted to protect public safety are adhered to. Sincerely, ! ~ r,,//4-/'n!J Virginia Klaas, M.D. 618 S 32"d Place Renton, WA 98055 ( 425) 272-6760 cc: Denis Law, Renton Mayor, Charles Vincent, Director, Department of Community and Economic Development (CED) Jennifer Henning, Director, CED, Planning Division Vanessa Dolbee, Manager, CED, Planning Division Marcie Palmer, Council Member, Planning and Development Committee Don Persson, President, Renton City Planning Council Renton Community Design Goals Amended (09/19/11/partial list) Purpose Statement: The purpose of the Community Design Element is to establish policies that set standards for high quality development, improve the aesthetics and functionality of existing neighborhoods and commercial areas, and guide the development of new neighborhoods that are part of a better community. Recognizing that the exceptional quality of life in Renton is dependent upon a strong local economy, these policies are intended to further that economic health. They are based on the belief that a positive image and high quality development attracts more of the same. Goals: 1. To raise the aesthetic quality of the City, 2. To strengthen the economy through high quality development, and 3. To ensure that a high quality of life is maintained as Renton evolves. Goals that Conflict with proposed Valley Vue Development proposal: Policy CD-16. Project design, including location of access and dimensions of yards and setbacks, should address privacy and quality of life on existing improved portions of sites. Rear and side yard setbacks should be maintained and not reduced to facilitate increased density. Policy CD-17. Setbacks and other development standards should not be reduced on newly platted lots through modification or variance to facilitate increased density. Policy CD-44. Development should be designed (e.g. site layout, building orientation, setbacks, landscape areas and open space, parking, and outdoor activity areas) to result in a high quality development as a primary goal, rather than to maximize density as a first consideration. Policy CD-45. Interpret development standards to support new plats and infill project designs that address privacy and quality of life for existing residents IV-9Amended 09/19/11 Policy CD-46. Variances to development standards should not be granted to facilitate additional density on an infill site. Policy CD-47. New plats proposed at higher densities than adjacent neighborhood developments may be modified within the allowed density range to reduce conflicts between old and new development patterns. However, strict adherence to older standards is not required. Policy CD-56. Office sites and structures should be designed (e.g. signage; building height, bulk and setback; landscaping; parking) to mitigate adverse impacts on adjacent land uses. City of I n Department of Community & Economic D . ,pment ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: \_ , .. '1 1 0 1 I :. I ~·l 1 COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 25, 2014 I APPLICATION NO: LUA14-001040, ECF, PP DATE CIRCULATED: AUGUST 11, 2014 APPLICANT: Rory Dees, RAD Holdings PROJECT MANAGER: Clark H. Close PROJECT TITLE: Valley Vue Preliminary Plat PROJECT REVIEWER: SITE AREA: 100,188 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): LOCATION: 3106 Talbot Road S PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review and Preliminary Plat approval for a 9-lot subdivision. The 2.29-acre site is located within the Residential-8 dwelling units per net acre {du/ac) zoning classification. There are two single family residences (3106 and 3112 Talbot Road South) located on this parcel that gain access to the site from Talbot Road South and are part of the Black River Basin. The single family house located at 3106 is connected to city water and sewer and will remain and be incorporated into the subdivision as Lot no. 9, while the house located at 3112 is on a septic system and will be demolished. Together the nine (9) residential lots would result in a density of 4.52 du/ac. Residential lot sizes range from 4,502 sf to 18,169 sf with an average lot size of 7,954 sf. In addition to the 9 residential lots, four (4) tracts are proposed for sensitive areas, stormwater, and two (2) road tracts. The eight (8) new lots will be served via two dedicated easement areas of 24 feet in width through the Winspur Division No 1 subdivision located to the south along S 32 Place. There are 142 significant trees on the site and the applicant is proposing to retain 27 original trees. A detention vault in the westerly portion of the site is proposed within Tract D which would discharge into the existing conveyance system on the east side of Talbot Road. The applicant has submitted a Critical Areas Report, Drainage Report, Preliminary Technical Information Report, and a Geotechnical Engineering Report with the application. The site contains a Category 2 wetland in the far eastern portion of the site. No impacts to critical areas on site are proposed. Existing lopes on the site average approximately 6%. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth HousinQ Air Aesthetics Water Liaht/Glore Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals TransDortation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cu/rural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000Feet 14,000Feet / /n / ~YlCf--~'---ph ') C t--z::tt } k ~I 1..-IC"-...___ '5l{) -7 C, 'j)lC-ll(LLLC:cvLt<J ~1,./ (cC(t10f-<-c{ rt"31/-~ci/~;cl ~ic,rc~e t-'i'lsY_---..,k,---- ·piO-,'\... "Tu/t!C t' 1Z.cc"1--l --:,i;.c+!.1~ic, (l\. / -S/v-t 4--l4E·; si1c~l-l · i1C. C ;', /,..-· B. We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas whe e additional informa · is needed to properly assess this proposal. ,/{. It; Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date Mr. Bob Ferguson, Attorney General PO Box 40100 Olympia, WA 98504-0 I 00 August 21, 2014 Dear Mr. Ferguson: ., :· I(\'--~n-w RECEIVED~~ll t ,, \Jl ( AUG 2 5 2014 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION I am writing to ask for your support of the Renton Winsper Community request that no variances to access be allowed by the Renton Planning Department on the proposed Valley Vue project (LUA 14-001040). I understand that local planning decisions are not something usually reviewed by the Attorney General, however, a process that routinely allows variances of adopted municipal codes and development standards does not meet the public expectation that codes and regulations to protect them are in place, and are enforced. Briefly, the parcel, zoned R8, is a 1.99 net acres (I 00 by 1,000 feet) lot with an approximately 76 foot drop in topography from the eastern wetland to Talbot Road on the west. This parcel is currently improved with two houses that have been accessed off Talbot Road with a private easement on the southern property line for over 50 years. The plan is to leave the existing western house on a .55 acre parcel, and develop eight new homes, behind the Winsper Development on the remaining 1.44 acres. These new homes will be accessed by two 24 foot easements which run between existing homes in the Winsper Community. The proposed plan falls short on a number of significant issues involving safety, access and drainage and puts an inequitable burden on the Winsper Community. As presented, the project simply does not meet a number of City codes, including side yard setbacks, minimum easement width, emergency access and the requirement for two of the homes to abut a Public Right of Way. At only 24 feet wide, neither of the easements from Winsper meets the minimum 26 foot easement required to accommodate the planned "private street". However, it does appear the easements could meet the 16 foot easement requirement for a 12 foot paved "shared driveway", each of which could serve 3 houses. I went to City Hall to discuss these problems with the City Planner and was told that the developer would simply need to submit for a variance. I am dismayed that this is the proposal that was coordinated with the City planner and developer and I am appalled at the disregard for City Code. The previous proposal had the development accessed off Talbot, but was changed to accommodate the density infill requirement. It's interesting to note that the City density calculation includes the entire 1.99 net acres, instead of the 1.44 acre which is really being developed. I have been told that the developer abandoned the existing southern access easement on 6/27/2014,just before submitting this latest proposal. I would hate to think this was an act of strategy collusion to get the project through, but really what other compelling reason could there be to abandon an easement that has served for over 50 years, before the other property is developed? The front eastern edge of my driveway a long S 32nd Place is just over one foot from the access easement property line (see picture). The plan is to pave a 20 foot street with an additional 6 inch gutter on each side. A keystone wall is proposed for the --.. -~, ....... .._,_ ,_.., ___ , __ ., .... _ ............ _N_'w••o ....... ,..., .. 2 ... .-.., .. -~ .. ---.......... ...,._.,.-.. _,~~- ,._,-........... ~ ........ _,_., __ .. ,. __ , ___ ... , ___ ,.,.,._, ____ , east side, leaving about one foot on each side. This plan results in considerably less than the 15 foot street-side yard setback required in R8 zone. My living room bay window is about 7 feet from the proposed street. I am terrified that a driver may mistake my driveway for the access road and hit my house! There are no provisions for a safety/privacy ,,·. , ... :,i,,. barrier, planting strip, sidewalk or other buffer zone on my side. How can this possibly be considered good planning? In closing, I would like to stress that I am not opposed to this property being developed or accessed off the Winsper Community. What I object to is the apparent indifference to the standards that are in place to protect public safety and development integrity. I have looked at the decision criteria used in granting discretionary variances and think that this proposal fails to meet criteria. Granted variances are to be minimal. Surely, the City of Renton does not place a higher value on urban sprawl prevention, than it does on public safety. Private street standards were reviewed at the July 16, 2014 Renton Planning Commission meeting and a proposal to change the Code is in process. The staff report suggested that private streets are generally undesirable and do not provide elements such as sidewalks, landscaping, and create dead-end streets, which reduces connectivity in residential neighborhoods. They also noted that maintenance is an issue and often repairs are neglected. This could potentially be detrimental to the Winsper Community and our HOA dues would not cover repairs of a private street. I appeal to the State for support to ensure that the codes and regulations adopted to protect public safety are adhered to. Sincerely, 0~[/~/hO. Virginia Klaas, M.D. 618 S 32nd Place Renton, WA 98055 ( 425) 272-6760 cc: Denis Law, Renton Mayor, Charles Vincent, Director, Department of Community and Economic Development (CED) Jennifer Henning, Director, CED, Planning Division Vanessa Dolbee, Manager, CED, Planning Division Marcie Palmer, Council Member, Planning and Development Committee Don Persson, President, Renton City Planning Council ··~ Renton Community Design Goals Amended {09/19/11/partial list) Purpose Statement: The purpose of the Community Design Element is to establish policies that set standards for high quality development, improve the aesthetics and functionality of existing neighborhoods and commercial areas, and guide the development of new neighborhoods that are part of a better community. Recognizing that the exceptional quality of life in Renton is dependent upon a strong local economy, these policies are intended to further that economic health. They are based on the belief that a positive image and high quality development attracts more of the same. Goals: 1. To raise the aesthetic quality of the City, 2. To strengthen the economy through high quality development, and 3. To ensure that a high quality of life is maintained as Renton evolves. Goals that Conflict with proposed Valley Vue Development proposal: Policy CD-16. Project design, including location of access and dimensions of yards and setbacks, should address privacy and quality of life on existing improved portions X of sites. Rear and side yard setbacks should be maintained and not reduced to facilitate increased density. Policy CD-17. Setbacks and other development standards should not be reduced on newly platted lots through modification or variance to facilitate increased density. Policy CD-44. Development should be designed (e.g. site layout, building orientation, setbacks, landscape areas and open space, parking, and outdoor activity areas) to result in a high quality development as a primary goal, rather than to maximize density as a first consideration. Policy CD-45. Interpret development standards to support new plats and infill project designs that address privacy and quality of life for existing residents IV-9Amended 09/19/11 Policy CD-46. Variances to development standards should not be granted to facilitate additional density on an infill site. Policy CD-47. New plats proposed at higher densities than adjacent neighborhood developments may be modified within the allowed density range to reduce conflicts between old and new development patterns. However, strict adherence to older standards is not required. Policy CD-56. Office sites and structures should be designed (e.g. signage; building height, bulk and setback; landscaping; parking) to mitigate adverse impacts on adjacent land uses. Fi.ryinia Jl../.f.w..::, M.D. 618 S. S2 rid I'l1u:e Rentar, WA 98U.5o-509.I ·"" .,.•,-o.'.s:c,-.,~~ .·· •· .. · -~ ·~~::·';.'!~~r?.-r('.":·~~~~1111 ' "-~~,' ,i ·'._" :i.0:k~·'..-~·j,.J~~B::z: 111 111trH 7014 0510 0002 2120 3277 Ea I.IN!TED5T/lTl'5 POST/It SERVICE IDDO 98057 :. ;-;:A H.L.L E-2 V Ii'-~C ::·.-r DeJar·t~ent o~ Co;rrr;1nit~1 ~-'.Er.ton C.~ t,.r }{cell Qfl·~ u' ...,_ ,_.cone--· (1 l C ~, _ I \"{[Cf\'-J(L)e_,_oDrreont i 1 ~ 5 5 '.:. C1·--a;J :-.' ·,.·:c1 ,. '.e:i:~_vor:, !."'c:i. 98257 c\~ Of RtN-10~ 1 ,,LPJ~NING \, '1\\I\S\ON )) ! d I l] I ! ! t i Hi! ! l ji j I ! i H l I !j Ii t I l j! I; I Ji I I j J Ji J \ 1 ii J1 I I II i JJ l ! U.S. POSTAGE PAID RENTON.WA 98058 AUG 22 •• H AMOUNT $6.49 00064412-0'1 DEPAR.TMENTOF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC C>EVEl.OPI\IIENT:PI.ANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVIC:E!II'( I\IIAILING On the 25th day of August, 2014, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Notice of Application and Acceptance documents. This information was sent to: Agencies Rory Dees, RAD Holdings 300' Surrounding Property Owners Jon Nelson {{i(t (Signature of Sender): STATE OF WASHINGTON ) .'-- ) ss COUNTY OF KING ) See Attached Owner/Applicant See Attached Contact Notary (Print): ____ ~_,-""-''-'-'-1-:X-'· ,-,.o-w"--"'~· e .. i,~,;:~---------- My appointment expires: ~\. ~ I ·o-e~ 1- Valley Vue Preliminary Plat LUA14-001040, ECF, PP template -affidavit of service by mailing Dept. of Ecology** Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 WSDOT Northwest Region * Attn: Ramin Pazooki King Area Dev. Serv.1 MS-240 PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers * Seattle District Office Attn: SEPA Reviewer PO Box C-375S Seattle, WA 98124 Boyd Powers*** Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box 4701S Olympia, WA 98504-701S KC Dev. & Environmental Serv. Attn: SEPA Section 3S030 SE Douglas St. #210 Snoqualmie, WA 98065 Metro Transit Senior Environmental Planner Gary Kriedt 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Seattle Public Utilities Jailaine Madura Attn: SEPA Coordinator 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING {ERC DETERMINATIONS} WDFW -Larry Fisher* 1775 12th Ave. NW Suite 201 Issaquah, WA 98027 Duwamish Tribal Office* 4717 W Marginal Way SW Seattle, WA 98106-1514 KC Wastewater Treatment Division * Environmental Planning Supervisor Ms. Shirley Marroquin 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 City of Newcastle Attn: Tim McHarg Director of Community Development 12835 Newcastle Way, Ste 200 Newcastle, WA 98056 Puget Sound Energy Kathy Johnson, 355 110th Ave NE Mailstop EST 11 W Bellevue, WA 98004 Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept.* Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer 39015 -172'' Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program* Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert 39015 172'' Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092-9763 Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation* Attn: Gretchen Kaehler PO Box 48343 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 City of Kent Attn: Jack Pace Acting Community Dev. Director 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, WA 98032-5895 City of Tukwila Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 *Note: Jf the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, and the Notice of Application. **Department of Ecology is emailed a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, & Notice to the following email address: sepaunit@ecy.wa.gov ***Department of Natural Resources is emailed a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, & Notice the following email address: sepacenter@dnr.wa.gov template • affidavit of service by mailing Easy Peel® Labels ' ' ' Use Avery® Template 5160® J 3023059115 BERRY PAUL 3129 Talbot Rd S Renton, WA 98055 9485750220 BREZONICK CARRI L 707 S 32nd Pl Renton, WA 98055 8899210490 CHAU NG CHI-JAN+MEEI-FOO 3012 Whitworth Ave S Renton, WA 98055 9485750530 CHU LAURA H WU 3117 Smithers Ave S Renton, WA 98055 9485750330 Current Resident 652 S 32nd Pl Renton, WA 98055 8899210260 Current Resident 619 S 31st St Renton, WA 98055 8899210460 DANNEMAN ADELINA V 3007 Smithers Ct S Renton, WA 98055 8899200130 DUNCAN RUSSELL DEBRA L 829 S 31st St Renton, WA 9805S 9485750290 ENG WILLIAM+ROSEMARIE 716 S 32nd Pl Renton, WA 98055 9485750270 GARVIDA MELCHOR R+JESUSA 733 S 32nd Pl Renton, WA 9805S Etiquettes faciles ii peler ' ' Utilisez le gabarit AVERY® 5160® ' } • -' Bend along line to ' Feed Paper -expose Pop-up Edge™ ' J 8899210430 BLIER STEPHEN M 3008 Smithers Ct S Renton, WA 98055 9485750400 CAMPBELL JOHNNY+ANNMARIE 612 S 32nd Pl Renton, WA 98055 9485750380 CHEN ANDY MING 624 S 32nd Pl Renton, WA 98055 3023059030 Current Resident 3130 Talbot Rd S Renton, WA 98055 9485750340 Current Resident 648 S32nd Pl Renton, WA 98055 8899210290 Current Resident 705 S 31st St Renton, WA 98055 9485750360 DONG WAYNE VINH LIEN 636 S 32nd Pl Renton, WA 98055 8899210380 ECCHER RICHARD D 820 S 31st St Renton, WA 98055 3023059116 FULLER NATHAN 3113 Talbot Rd S Renton, WA 98055 3023059011 GILBERT MYLES G 3120 Talbot Rd S Renton, WA 98055 ... Replieza la hachure afin de I Sens de reveler le rebord Pop-upMC ; chargement @ AVERY® 5160® l 9485750410 BRAUN NONAJ 606 S 32nd Pl Renton, WA 9485750480 98055 CHANG JEANNIE+PERVAN TODD 631 S 32nd Pl Renton, WA 98055 8899210280 CHEN KUNNAN 701 S 31st St Renton, WA 98055 3023059075 Current Resident 3107 Talbot Rd S Renton, WA 98055 8899210140 Current Resident 612 S 31st St Renton, WA 98055 8899210420 Current Resident 3014 Smithers Ct S Renton, WA 98055 8899210300 DUNCAN DONALD D & ALLISON M 709 S 31st St Renton, WA 98055 9485750450 EKINS DONALD E 613 S 32nd Pl Renton, WA 98055 9485750320 GANGWISH JAMES+ SHARON 700S 32nd Pl Renton, WA 98055 8899210210 HERLEY PETER E+CYNTHIA M 517 S 31st St Renton, WA 98055 www.ave,y.com 1-800-GO-AVERY I ' ... Easy Peel® Labels Use Avery® Template 5160® 9485750260 HOGLUND WILLIAM E+HISAMI S 727 S 32nd Pl Renton, WA 98055 8899210470 ISDELL WILLIAM 3013 Smithers Ct 5 Renton, WA 98055 9485750570 J & M MANAGEMENT 17404 MERIDIAN E SUITE F PMB 171 PUYALLUP, WA 98375 9485750390 KLAAS VIRGINIA E 618 S 32nd Pl Renton, WA 98055 8899210390 LEPPA RODNEY A 808 S 31st St Renton, WA 98055 9485750420 LOUIE KRISTENA A+PHAM THO 600 S 32nd Pl Renton, WA 98055 8899210270 MASUNAGA JILL A 623 S 31st St Renton, WA 98055 9485760280 MUELLNER CHARLES D+MARGUERI 903 S 32nd Pl Renton, WA 98055 3023059121 NGUYEN THU HA THI 3011 Talbot Rd s Renton, WA 98055 8899210240 PARK JOON H & JAE EUN 607 S 31st St Renton, WA 98055 ~tiquettes faciles a peler Utilisez le gabarit AVERY® 5160® I I I } ... -Feed Paper - Bend along line to expose Pop~up Edge™ 8899210480 HUMPHREY JANICE H 700 S 31st St Renton, WA 98055 9485750560 J & M MANAGEMENT 17404 MERIDIAN E SUITE F PMB 171 PUYALLUP, WA 98375 9485750210 JAEB JEROME R 701 S 32nd Pl Renton, WA 98055 8899210230 LANGLOIS KARL A 601 S 31st St Renton, VvA 98055 8899210320 LODERMEIER TIMOTHY+BARBARA 721 S 31st St Renton, V.A 98055 3023059029 MACLEOD TERRANCE & KATHRYN 3124 Talbot Rd S Renton, V.A 98055 9485750370 MATSUMURA MARC K+DELGADO LI 630 S 32nd Pl Renton, V.A 98055 9485760260 NGUYEN MAIT 908 S32nd Pl Renton, VvA 8899210410 98055 NILES PAUL Vv+NILES CARYN M 802 S 31st St Renton, V.A 98055 8899210800 PARK VICTORIA HOMEOV.ERS PO BOX 1104 RENTON, V.A ... Sens de chargement 98055 Repllez a la hachure afin de I reveler le rebord Pop-up"' } ® AVERY® 5160® l 8899200120 HUNT KOR BEY G 3007 Morris Ave 5 Renton, VvA 98055 9485750570 J & M MANAGEMENT 17404 MERIDIAN E SUITE F PMB 171 PUYALLUP, V.A 98375 9485750250 KING ALBERT STEPHEN 721 S 32nd Pl Renton, WA 98055 9485760270 LEE RICHARD F+N LYNN 902 S 32nd Pl Renton, V.A 98055 9485750240 LORENCE ROBERT 715 S 32nd Pl Renton, WA 98055 9485750300 MANULAT PAUL V+RALNA L 710 S 32nd Pl Renton, V.A 98055 9485750510 MITCHELL STANLEY E 3107 Smithers Ave 5 Renton, V.A 98055 9485750350 NGUYEN PHUONG D+PHUONG THI 642 S 32nd Pl Renton, VvA 98055 9485750310 OLELS DEBORAH+ THOMPSON STEV 706 5 32nd Pl Renton, V.A 98055 8899210810 PARK VICTORIA HOMEOV.NERS PO BOX 1104 RENTON, V.A 98055 www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY I I I ! Easy Peel® Labels Use Avery® Template 5160® 9485750230 PELA YO ALFONSO G 711 S 32nd Pl Renton, WA 98055 8899210400 POQUIZ ALEXANDER F+AMIHAN 0 814 S 31st St Renton, WA 98055 8899210350 SHARPE BRUCE H+TERESA A 815 S 31st St Renton, WA 98055 3023059114 SMITH ARTHUR L & MARIE W PO BOX 59512 RENTON, WA 98058 8899210340 SPOSARI JAMES R 809 S 31st St Renton, WA 98055 3023059019 TATRO DON L 3211 Talbot Rd 5 Renton, WA 98055 9485750280 TOMAS CAROL P+JESS L 739 S 32nd Pl Renton, WA 98055 8899210160 TURNER DYLAN S+JENNIFER A 518 S 31st St Renton, WA 98055 9485750430 VUONGTHAOT 6015 32nd Pl Renton, WA 98055 3023059123 WOO PETERC 3031 Talbot Rd S Renton, WA 98055 Etiquettes faciles a peler Utilisez le gabarit AVERY® 5160® I I I ) ... -Feed Paper - 3023059122 Bend along line to expose Pop-up Edge™ PENA ELMER C+EVELYN D 3021 Talbot Rd S Renton, WA 98055 8899210150 SAUCEDA RAY 606 S 31st St Renton,WA 98055 8899210130 SILVERBLATT MARK+GINA 3007 Whitworth Ave S Renton, WA 98055 9485750520 SMITH WILLIAM E+ANDREA L 3111 Smithers Ave S Renton, WA 98055 8899210360 STEFFAN DIANE L 821 S 31st St Renton, WA 98055 8899210170 THORESON MATTHEW D 512 S 31st St Renton,WA 98055 8899210370 TRAN MYDUNG N 826 S 31st St Renton, WA 980S5 8899210250 VENISHNICK JAMES+REBECCA H 613 S 31st St Renton,WA 98055 9485750460 VUONG THAO THANH 619 S 32nd Pl Renton, WA 98055 9485750440 YORITA BRIAN G+CHERIE D 607 S 32nd Pl Renton, WA 980S5 J,,. Sens de chargement Repliez a la hachure afin de I reveler le rebord Pop-upMC ; @ AVERY® 5160® l 9485750470 POOLE DEBORAH J 625 S 32nd Pl Renton, WA 98055 3023059081 SCHNEIDER KATHLEEN E 3037 Talbot Rd S Renton, WA 98055 3023059033 SKINNERONE LLC 3100 Talbot Rd S Renton, WA 98055 8899210220 SMITH-CHARITY MARGARET 523 S 31st St Renton, WA 98055 9485750490 TANG YU TAK DAVID+ELSA S 637 S 32nd Pl Renton, WA 98055 8899210330 TITIALII PAUL+ROMINA B 803 S 31st St Renton, WA 98055 9485750500 TRUONG BRUCE G+DARANG RHODO 3101 Smithers Ave S Renton, WA 98055 8899200730 VICTORIA PARK PO BOX 1104 RENTON, WA 98055 3023059093 WEBB B DOUGLAS & BARBARA J 10319 SE 30TH ST BELLEVUE, WA 8899210310 ZIELIE FREDERICK R 715 S 31st St 98004 Renton, WA 98055 www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY I I .l Rory Dees RAD HtlLDINGS LLC 6252 167th Ave SE Bellevue. WA 980065645 Virginia Klaas. MD 618 S 32nd Pl Renton. WA 98055 Rory Dees 6252 167 Ave SE Bellevue Bellevue. WA 98006 Jon Nelson Land Development Advisors, LLC 12865 SE 47th Pl Bellevue, WA 98006 -r ~ , -~itr o(-, -----ii.r "'sJJ1IG7J {) NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON51GNIFICANCE. MITIGATED (DNS-M) ~~~~;:/::.~-:, .... o.pa=-o1c..,,...,..,._--...,._._...,"' ""'II<~ -l><Mitf-u.eapp1-•nd1ho.,._ D1,.n,<)FN0l1CEOF-UCAT1= .-....,,.,_,,lOl~ ~IY-IU.D ........... u.c _.,,,W,Nffon,u..a-.........-._U.C -(SlPI,}-.... ~ .... --.. ...... DOE,.-..,.°"""11alo<i, ..... "'" ==~51ud'/,T-,1.-1ooo,1rn~~ CERTIFICATION i»<>donwhero,pPlkaiSoomoy t.ormewod, o...-o1r..n..u...,.&f«>_....., • ...,.,..1w,1-l'b•'"•• °"""""""""--otvlwll,IO!l,-D,...,w.,,,o..,,.._w,. •= NIUC IVAING: r, 7'!5 ,,.,rm, tu,cmt,tr1::btil tt11o/Orml?!r7 W• ""'"" 1"<"<'11llll ~"": ,, .. Mr-lf?nv:,IR'lm!>Ml'Ji:W.,..""""'""11oo<<>1 ... , •• OtyH>ll lo<>tod ",oss So""' ij""' w.,, WHSISTDOCI' OYfllVI.W, Z.,Oin&/Lt,od ''''" Tho 5Vbjea W 1> Dft>llamd ~OSIOOrrtitU si,.... Foml'l' ["51 on lh<Gty of lllnio,<:om..,,ho....,.. ~ U,0M1p •od lie-hi ..,e<,,ns ,nru P""- ,.,... (,.aJ onU.. Dly',z.,...,. M,o ,_'"""'"*""'"'"' ·-"""~-EltM>m>Ontll(ffi'AlCllod:flll ------Pro/KIMttlptlon, Tho pm)Ktw,100 <ubjoa.m OM Oo(ISEPA orO!n.ona,, RMCW.4-3,,j-4, 4-.!, ,._7,4-l,on114-U•od-•pplio:>l>loct>O.,UIGr>gulado<lo.,1pp,roorint. ~Mlliclt""'-.S. Th, r,,,-""'"'•l>onM,a,-wlll 1~•'1"00 """""""" ih< ~ p«>r«'-Thi,'."°"""'"'*< Md'[l>tion Meo,ur. ,dd,..,.. o,ojo<t ""-" - -O'f"""'"'fl<D<lo,a,-.j"'"'""'"' .. """"'- • TIH!appto,ol--"'11111N_nd_MIIM-,~f151Ud)< ~.,-~lne."9t"'1""'Yl1,lGJ.I. c..m...nt,.,,,..., ...... ,r,p1a11oo1_ .................. _,.,0.rt<H.°""·-"""""',Clll-.... _ -.J05.'55oudl&,oliyWwy,-Wl,."°51,,,,5""1,...,.. ___ l,ZOU.lhb-lo,bo_.....,. ..t.od.Jlodl1'r1publ<-""""-7,at~,m,,Co,n,;110..mbon,....,...,_, .. """"Dr,H>1~1o,;~ So<JthG,w,JyW"'I,""""'"· ~you ... inn,_.lo """ndj"''""MOnna, piu,ocont><:ttho Pllnnlnfl DMsionlO '"""' !hit""' ........ """"',,...-..," 1425J "3f>.6571. Follawlols llHI m .. nai ar 11H1 SEPA !lmm!lr110on, l'O'J ~,,,.,..,.,.,,ocmoooarll\c,nd ...... m ..... """"" ... ._""""""'""'""'"lb</t>n,llle_,.,. __ .nyo, i-.o..-"'•"""'INlp,ropom,,,,,mhtol>t.....:l••~rtvor-,nd-oddltlo...,.lnfonn,tiOoto,.m,~ plo,..contaatllo P'*<I m, ... .,_..,,.,......t.o>ubn,11>...-ttt.n-.-..,n.,,.,11,.oom,tl<>F~ -·...,., of'='"' 1odlmi ... _<11',ny-·•·""'- CONTACTPERSON: Clark H. Oose, Associate Planner, Tel: {42SJ 430-7289; Email: cdose@rentonwa.gov I, CL~L"-H: Clo7 t , hereby certify that 3 copies of the above document were posted in _2._ conspicuous places or nearby the described property on Date: ___ q--'-+-/ ,_.,_·-,_/ l_,__'f ___ _ Signed: _ _Lc4~·w4,~/J,~a--.d:'.:~::::::::==---- STATE OF WASHINGTON 55 COUNTY OF KING Notary {Print): r Denis Law Mayor August 25, 2014 Nancy Rawls Department of Transportation Renton School District 420 Park Avenue N Renton, WA 98055 r City of a -1 __g, r rru r 1 Department of Community and Economic Development C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator Subject: Valley Vue Preliminary Plat LUA14-001040, ECF, PP The City of Renton's Department of Community and Economic Development (CED) has received an application for a Preliminary Plat located at 3106 Talbot Rd. S. Please see the enclosed Notice of Application for further details. In order to process this application, CED needs to know which Renton schools would be attended by children living in residences at the location indicated above. Please fill in the appropriate schools on the list below and return this 1.etter to my attention, City of Renton, CED, Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98057 or fax to (425) 430-7300, by September 8, 2014. Elementary School: ___________________________ _ Middle School: ---------------------------- High School: ----------------------------- Will the schools you have indicated be able to handle the impact of the additional students estimated to come from the proposed development? Yes No __ _ Any Comments:. ____________________________ _ Thank you for providing this important information. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact me at (425) 430-7289. Sincerely, Clark H. Close Associate Planner Enclosure Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Denis Law C"t -~M=ayor---~Jg'f rtor l August 25, 2014 Rory Dees RAD Holdings, LLC Department of Community and Economic Development C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator 1040 W. Lake Sammamish Pkwy SE Bellevue, WA 98008 Subject: Notice of Complete Application Valley Vue Preliminary Plat, LUA14-001040, ECF, PP Dear ML Dees: The Planning Division of the City of Renton. has determined that the subject application is complete according to submittal requirements and, therefore, is accepted for review. It is tentatively scheduled for consideration by the Environmental Review Committee on September 15, 2014. Prior to that review, you will be notified if any additional information is required to continue processing your application. In addition; this matter is tentatively scheduled for a Public Hearing on October 7, 2014 at 12:00 pm, Council Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant are required to be present at . the p'ublic hearing. A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you prior to the scheduled hearing. Please contact me at (425) 430-7289 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Clark H. Close Associate Planner cc: RAD Holdings/ Owner(s) Jon Nelson, Land Development Advisors/ Contact Rent6rl City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS-M) A Master Application has been filed and accepted with the Department of Community & Economic Development (CED}-Planning Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: LAND USE NUMBER: PROJECT NAME: August 25, 2014 LUA14-001040, ECF, PP Valley Vue Preliminary Plat PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review and Preliminary Plat approval for a 9-lot subdivision. The 2.3-acre site is located within the Residential-8 dwelling units per net acre (du/ac) zoning classification. There are two single family residences (3106 and 3112 Talbot Road South) located on this parcel that gain access to the site from Talbot Road South and are part of the Black River Basin. The single family house located at 3106 is connected to city water and sewer and will remain and be incorporated into the subdivision as lot no. 9, while the house located at 3112 is on a septic system and will be demolished. Together the nine (9) residential lots would result in a density of 4.23 du/ac. Residential Jot sizes range from 4,502 sf to 18,169 sf with an average lot size of 7,954 sf. In addition to the 9 residential lots, four (4) tracts are proposed for access roads, sensitive areas, and stormwater detention. The eight (8) new residential lots will be served from Winsper Division No. 1 Subdivision (Tract G and Tract H} via two dedicated ingress/egress easement areas of 24 feet in width through the development onto South 32nd Place. There are 142 significant trees on the site and the applicant is proposing to retain 27 original trees. A detention vault in the westerly portion of the site is proposed within Tract D which would discharge into the existing conveyance system on the east side of Talbot Road. The applicant has submitted a Critical Areas Report, Preliminary Technical Information Report, and a Geotechnical Engineering Report with the application. The site contains a Category 2 wetland in the far eastern portion of the site. No impacts to critical areas onsite are proposed and existing slopes on the site average roughly 6%. PROJECT LOCATION: 3106 and 3112 Talbot Road 5 OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED (DNS-M): As the lead Agency, the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110, the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS-M process to give notice that a DNS- M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Nonsignificance- Mitigated (DNS-M). This may be the only opportunity to comment on the environmental impacts of the proposal. A 14- day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: PROJECT APPLICANT: PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Permits/Review Requested: Other Permits which may be required: Requested Studies: August 1, 2014 August 25, 2014 Rory Dees, RAD Holdings LLC Jon W. Nelson, Land Development Advisors, LLC Environmental (SEPA) Review and Prellmlnary Plat Stormwater Discharge from DOE, Building, Construction, and Fire Geotechnical Engineering Study, Technical Information Report {TIR), and Critical Areas Study If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City of Renton, CED-Planning Division, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Name/File No.: Valley Vue Preliminary Plat/LUA14-001040, ECF, PP NAME:------------------------------------ MAILING ADDRESS:------------------City/State/Zip: ___________ _ TELEPHONE NO.: ---------------- Location where application may be reviewed: PUBLIC HEARING: CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Zoning/land Use: Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: Proposed Mitigation Measures: i ¢ City of r 1 "s I l t CJ I l Department of Community & Economic Development (CED) -Planning Division, Sixth Floor Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 Public hearing is tentatively scheduled for October 7 1 2014 before the Renton Hearing Examiner in Renton Council Chambers at 12:00 pm on the 7th floor of Renton City Hall located at 1055 South Grady Way. The subject site is designated Residential Single Family {RS) on the City of Renton Comprehensive land Use Map and Residential-8 dwelling units per net acre (R-8) on the City's Zoning Map. Environmental (SEPA) Checklist The project will be subject to the City's SEPA ordinance, RMC 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, 4-6, 4-7, 4-9, and 4-11 and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate. The following Mitigation Measure will likely be imposed on the proposed project. This recommended Mitigation Measure addresses project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included in the Geotechnlco/ Engineering Study, prepared by Geotech Consultants, Inc., dated Moy 27, 2014. Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Clark H. Close, Associate Planner, CED-Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, by 5:00 PM on September 8, 2014. This matter is also tentatively scheduled for a public hearing on October 7, at 12:00 pm, Council Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. If you are interested in attending the hearing, please contact the Planning Division to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled at {425) 430-6578. Following the issuance of the SEPA Determination, you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments regarding the proposal before the Hearing Examiner. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional information by mail, please contact the project manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: Clark H. Close, Associate Planner; Tel: (425) 430-7289; Email: cclose@rentonwa.gov PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION City of Renton LAND USE PERMIT MASTER APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNER(S) PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: NAME: K 110 H 01.-V)"' In u . .c .. V,11.UY Vu E, ADDRESS '\tHO w. ~ ~fY\J'\-iY\ 1S1-f ~ PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE: jlt;<., ~LS-01 RoA\'.) S CITY: \3,'u.Uz:..v' ~ (t... ZIP: '-lBroS ~W\01\1 1 WA 'H}OS-S- TELEPHONE NUMBER: 1,o {p 1-1) _ 4 ))q APPLICANT (if other than owner) KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): '302:1os-902--B NAME: go,iy ~_5> EXISTING LAND USE(S): RSF COMPANY (if applicable): f?iq i) HDl.D1Nb-S LI< PROPOSED LAND USE(S): Rsi:: EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: ADDREss loYo w l-A)Ci' ~ P • it., mm A-in , )'<I •' ~ R<.ir CITY: 0 !i.UJW iA It.--ZIP: '10vDB' PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable) \'<Sf EXISTING ZONING: TELEPHONE NUMBER: ·w{; f\ )~4 ))4' fZ'B CONTACT PERSON PROPOSED zo~i (if applicable): NAME: 3 ol\J N 1i.L'5rorJ f~. SITE AREA (in square feet): too, 1 \31".> ib COMPANY (if applicable): L..J'mtt) [){'t..-\lr'tLCttrJli,....;f Pr{)l/1 <',,-m'2 5 1 Lr SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED: NIA- I SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS: ADDRESS: 12 s"' s-s i. t-r,-t..~ ft, t.t 6vb r1l CITY: '6"1.u-W IA Ii.--ZIP Cj'"z,Ol)(.. PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET ACRE (if applicable) Lj .~1... TELEPHONE NUMBER AND EMAIL ADDRESS: NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable) yi.,~ Lt l,l,-51,03 9 ftlA, (., 2 i)u/',;f s NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): -=r http:JJrentonwa.gov/uploadedFiles/Business/PBPW /DEV SER V /fORMS _PLANNTNO/mastcrapp,dcc . P. __ JECT INFORMATION (cont1...1ed) --~-----~----------- NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): 2 PROJECT VALUE: I--------------·------------, SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): f---------$' J"' I ","::} t,DJ) IS THE SITE LO(l-TED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable) I Ol)t> SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): D AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA ONE D AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA TWO SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): (/ NET FLOOR AREA ON NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMP OYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable): D FLOOD HAZARD AREA D GEOLOGIC HAZARD D HABITAT CONSERVATION D SHORELINE STREAMS & LAKES D WETLANDS LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY ___ sq.fl. ___ sq.ft. ___ sq.ft. ___ sq.ft. ___ sq.ft. (Attach legal description on separate sheet with the following information included) SITUATE IN THE ':. '-. QUARTER OF SECTION ,0 , TOWNSHIP 2,tl , RANGE~, IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP =-~·els) RO (2. l-{ -~ 5, , declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of shington at I am (please check one) V the current owner of the property involved in this application or __ the authorized o<e,!!!!llltlllw-e to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein the information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. ~ Date Signature of Owner/Representative STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that --~R~o_r'l~'.:l~Uf_--_,t:,-_~ ~S,__ __ signed this instrument and acknowledge it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purpose mentioned in the instrument. Dated . JON W. NELSON STATE OF WASHINGTON NOTARY PUBLIC Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Notary (Print) -._l) ~ LJ\\ f\j G-~ Date MY COMMISSION EXPIRES Ll --,5 \ 09-2 5-IS My ppointment expires: __ /,__-_,:..... __ -~':::>~----------- http://rentonwagov/uploadedFiles/Business/PBPW /DEVSERV /FORMS _PLANNlNG/ma,llorapp.doc ,, PLANNING DIVISION WAIVE.. OF SUBMITTAL REQUIL-1il'IENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS •tANi:iJ/$E:Pl:'iW!it.l:lQ~J'\'IlttAW• < HU . ~qµit{i;;MJ::i'ft~FH > · Calculations 1 Habitat Data Report 4 ~rnPn~1~mi\ Piff#rrt~i:~·•:• Landscape Plan, Conceptual, m~n~i~~rJr~~it:i~i~,lf~#•••••••·••••• Legal Description, mi~~ if §N!~1 1n~ ~·t~ q~n~ifi()m1:~ : ·:. Master Application Form 4 ftWiHm~@P~nif,; :(9ffi~p~f::l)Y8Th~IB~~~1·1• Neighborhood Detail Map 4 .This requirement may be waived by: 1. Property Services PROJECT NAME= ft'0:, . ,;11 '--t'VG Pl ,Gr 2. Public Works Plan Review 3. Building 4. Planning A-t.y l '7--; I ] '/) DATE: H :\CE0\02 la\Forrns-T empl ates\:3 elf~Hel p Hundouts\f..'la1 m i1 1g\w3!vcrofsubmittalre ::is.xis 06/09 PLANNING DIVISION WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS .A.ppficant Agreement Statement 2 ANo 3 Inventory of Existing Sites, AND 3 I.case.Agreement, Draft 2 AND 3 -~------ Map of Existing Site Conditions 2 AND 3 Map of View Afea ZAN::i 3 f--- Photoslmulations .:AND 3 This rcqlJirement may be waived by: , . Property Services 2. Public Works Plan Review 3. Building 4. Planning PROJECT NAME J)b:f-~ "?p f!xt:L/'" I 2 I 1 ·2 DATE: , o --~ -~----~~-'--""'-~-- H:\C:~D\Ja1a\Forms-Templates\Self-Help Handouts\Planning\waiverofsubrr.::talreqs.xls 05/09 PRLMPPLICATION MEETIN~ FOR Dees Short Plat Talbot Road South PRE 13-001084 CITY OF RENTON Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division September 5, 2013 Contact Information: Planner: Elizabeth Higgins, 425.430.6581 Public Works Plan Reviewer: Jan Illian, 425.430.7216 Fire Prevention Reviewer: Corey Thomas, 425.430.7024 Building Department Reviewer: Craig Burnell, 425.430.7290 Please retain this packet throughout the course of your project as a reference. Consider giving copies of it to any engineers, architects, and contractors who work on the project. You will need to submit a copy of this packet when you apply for land use and/or environmental permits. Pre-screening: When you have the project application ready for submittal, call and schedule an appointment with the project manager to have it pre-screened before making all of the required copies. The pre-application meeting is informal and non-binding. The comments provided on the proposal are based on the codes and policies in effect at the time of review. The applicant is cautioned that the development regulations are regularly amended and the proposal will be formally reviewed under the regulations in effect at the time of project submittal. The information contained in this summary is subject to modification and/or concurrence by official decision-makers (e.g., Hearing Examiner, Planning Director, Development Services Director, Department of Community & Economic Development Administrator, Public Works Administrator and City Council). Fire & Emergency Services Department DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM 8/21/2013 12:00:00AM Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner Corey Thomas, Plan Review/Inspector (Dees Short Plat) PREB-001084 .~ -- . --::;:;----~· -· ... ,..-;;. .. ..--· CitY of . \ ) ,' i· ~ r .-, l -·-----~ r . r I .• - . j ...' -'i.e.:/ 1. The fire flow requirement for a single family home is 1,000 gpm minimum for dwellings up to 3,500 square feet (including garage and basements). If the dwelling exceeds 3,500 square feet, a minimum of 1,500 gpm fire flow would be required. A minimum of one fire hydrant is required within 300-feet ofthe proposed buildings and two hydrants if the fire flow goes up to 1,500 gpm. Existing fire hydrants can be counted toward the requirements as long as they meet current code including 5-inch storz fittings. 2. The fire impact fees are applicable at the rate of $479.28 per single family unit. This fee is paid prior to recording the plat. Credit will be granted for existing homes that are to be removed. 3. Fire department apparatus access roadways are required to be a minimum of 20-feet wide fully paved, with 25-feet inside and 45-feet outside turning radius. Fire access roadways shall be constructed to support a 30 --ton vehicle with 322-psi point loading. Approved apparatus turnarounds are required for dead en_dr.'.:_ads exceeding 150-feet. Cul-de-sac turnarounds of 90-foot diameter are required for dead end streets over 500 -feet long. Dead end streets exceeding 500-feet require all homes to be provided with an approved fire sprinkler system. Dead end streets exceeding 700-feet are not allowed without approved secondary access roadways being provided. 4. Access roadways shall not exceed 15 percent maximum grade. Angles of approach and departure shall meet fire department requirements. Page 1 of 1 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY .AND ECONOMIC DEVI )PM ENT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM 9/4/2013 12:00:00AM Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner Jan Illian, Plan Reviewer (Dees Short Plat) PRE13-001084 NOTE: The applicant is cautioned that information contained in this summary is preliminary and non -binding and may not subject to modification and/or concurrence by official city decision-makers. Review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes required by City staff or made by the applicant. I have completed a preliminary review for the above-referenced proposal. The following comments are based on the pre-application submittal made to the City of Renton by the applicant. Water 1. Water service is provided by the City of Renton. There is an existing 8-inch water main in S. 32nd Place. Available fire flow is 2,350 gpm east of Smithers and 1,250 gpm west of Smithers. Reference City water __ project plan no. W-1892. This site is located in the Talbot Hill 3SO-hydraulic water pressure zone. There are 2 2xisting 3/4-inch meters serving the two existing residences on the subject property. 2. System development fee for water is based on the size of the new domestic water meter (s) that will serve each new lot. Fee for %-inch or 1-inch water meter install is $2,523.00. Credit will be giving to the existing homes. 3.Fee for a %-inch or 1-inch water meter installed by the City is $2,870.00. 4. Extension of one 4-inch water main within each access road will be required. 5. New hydrants shall be installed per Renton 's fire department standards to provide the required coverage of all lots. 6. A separate domestic water service meter will be required for each lot with a minimum size of 1-inch along with required backflow prevention assembly. 7. This project is subject to water special assessment district no. 8406 depending on fire flow demand. For a fire flow demand of $1,500 gpm or less, the special assessment is $0.034/sq-ft of property plus $16.00 /front-foot along the property frontage on Talbot Rd S ). Sanitary Sewer 1. Sewer service is provided by the City of Renton. There is an 8-inch sewer main in S. 32 Place (Windspur) and an 8-inch sewer main located near the northwest of the site. The existing home is connected to sewer. Extension of sewer main will be required onsite. 2.System development fee for sewer is based on the size of the new domestic water (s) that will serve each new lot. Sewer fee for a %-inch water or 1-inch meter install is $1,812.00. 3. Existing septic system (s) will be required to be abandoned in accordance with King County Department of -Health. Storm Drainage Page 1 of 2 -1.. 1 r1er e dre urdrndge 1rnprovemem:s 1n:) .. :L~na t--'lace. :'. A drainage plan and drainage report will be required with the site plan application. The report shall comply with the 2009 King County Surfc Nater Manual and the 2009 City of ton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapter 1 and 2. All core and any special requirements shall be contained in the report. Based on the City's flow control mop, this site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard, Forested Conditions. The drJinage report will need to follow the area specific flow control requirements under Core Requirement# 3. 3. A geotechnical report for the site is required. Information on the water table and soil permeability with recommendations of appropriate flow control BMP options with typical designs for the site from the geotechnical engineer shall be submitted with the application. 4. Surface Water System Development fee is$ 1,120 per new lot. This is payable prior to issuance of the construction permit. Credit will be given for one existing home. 5. A Construction Stormwater Permit from Department of Ecology is required if clearing and grading of the site exceeds one acre. Transportation /Street 1.The current transportation impact fee rate is$ 717.75 per single family house. The impact fee for this type of land use will increase on January 1, 2014, to $1,430.72 per single family house. The transportation impact fee that is current at the time of building permit application will be levied. Payment of the transportation impact fee is due at the time of issuance of the building permit. Credit will be given to the existing homes. General Comments 1. All construction utility permits for drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals . All utility plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. Plans shall be prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer. 2. Separate permit and fees will be required for the water meter installation, side sewer connection and storm water connection. 3. Water service, sewer stub and a drainage flow control bmp is required to be provided to each new lot prior -- to recording of the plat. Page 2 of 2 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY • AND ECONOMIC DEVL )PMENT • --·..c.. ----~-------. ~ --..:·-:· ~-=~:,\· (-,·r· -_: -:->,.,. j ) r . .... - I ----- ( r-, -._ / I MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: 9/5/2013 12:00:00AM Pre-Application File No. PREB-001084 Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner (Dees Short Plat) PREB-001084 General: We have completed a preliminary review of the pre-application for the above-referenced development proposal. The following comments on development and permitting issues are based on the pre-application submittals made to the City of Renton by the applicant and the codes in effect on the date of review on September 05, 2013. The applicant is cautioned that information contained in this summary may be subject to modification and/or concurrence by official decision-makers (e.ge, Hearing Examiner, Community & Economic Development Administrator, Public Works Administrator, Planning Director, Development Services Director, and City Council). Review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes required by City staff or made by the applicant. the applicant is encouraged to review all applicable sections of the Renton Municipal Code. The development Regulations are available for purchase for $100.00 plus tax, from the Finance Division on the first floor of City Hall or on line at www .rentonwa.gov. -Project Proposal: The proposed project site is located east of Talbot Road 5, between S 27th Place and S 32nd Street. The site abuts the south boundary of Victoria Park and the north boundary ofthe Winsper residential development. The site area is approximately 100,188 sf (2.3 acres). The project proposal is to subdivide the property into 9 lots suitable for single-family residential development and 2 tracts. One tract would be dedicated for stormwater control and the second would be a Native Growth Protection Area . Current Use: The land, consisting of 1 tax parcel (3023059028), has two existing single-family residences constructed in 1932 (3106 Talbot Road S) and 1963 (3112 Talbot Road S ). The latter would be removed. Zoning: The area, including this property, has a Comprehensive Plan land use designation of Residential Single Family (RSF) and is zoned Residential 8 (R-8). Access: Access to the lots is proposed from two north-south 24-foot wide access easements, Tracts G and H, located on S 32nd Place in the Winsper development. A modification request has been submitted by the project proponent that would allow a 24-foot private access road, rather than the 26 feet required by the Renton Municipal Code (RMC 4-6-060F). Development Standards: The project is subject to RMC 4-2-llOa, "Development Standards for Residential Zoning Designations" as follows: Density-The minimum density required is 4 dwelling units per net acre (du/a). The maximum density allowed _ is 8 du/a. The subdivided lots may be developed with 1 dwelling unit each. In order to calculate the proposed :lensity of the project, the area of roads and easements or tracts must be known. Insufficient information was provided by the project proponent to calculate the proposed project density. Page 1 of 3 J_ot SiLe -The minimum lot size is 4,500 sf because the overall property is more than an acre before subdivision. The lots, as propos vould meet this requirement. Lot Width Jnd Depth -The minimum lot width is 50 feet and minimum depth is 65 feet. Although not dimensioned, the plan indicates that all lots could meet the minimum width and depth requirements. Verification of average lot width and depth must be demonstrated at time of application for pipestem and irregularly shaped lots. Setbacks -Setbacks are the distance between the building and the property line or any private access easement. Setback requirements in the R-8 zone are as follows: minimum front yard, 15 feet; minimum side yard, 5 feet;; minimum rear yard, 20 feet. Clear Vision Area -No structure (including fences) within the Clear Vision Area shall exceed 42 inches in height. Building Height -The maximum building height allowed is 30 feet. Building Coverage -The maximum coverage of a lot by primary and accessory buildings is 35 percent or 2,500 sf, whichever is greater, when the lot is larger than 5,000 sf. When lots are 5,000 sf or smaller, the maximum coverage by primary and accessory buildings is 50 percent. Impervious Surface Area -The maximum amount of impervious surface allowed in the R8 zone is 75 percent. Design Standards -Residential Design and Open Space Standards (RMC 4-2-115) are applicable in the R8 zone (attached, and see below). Landscaping -The development standards require that all pervious areas within the property boundaries be landscaped. Therefore, all areas of the site not covered by structures; required parking, access, and circulation; and/or patios, must be landscaped with native, drought-resistant vegetative cover. Refer to landscape regulations (RMC 4-4-070, attached) for additional general and specific landscape requirements If 30 percent of existing trees cannot be retained, they may be replaced with minimum 2 inch caliper trees at a rate of six to one. Parking-Regulations pertaining to parking can be found at RMC 4-4-080. The minimum requirement for off-street parking is 2 spaces per lot. Building Design Standards -Compliance with the Residential Design and Open Space Standards is required. See the attached checklist and Renton Municipal Code 4-2-115, attached. Residential Design Review occurs as part of the Building Permit Review and the Design Checklist shall be submitted as part of the building permit application. Critical Areas: Based on City of Renton Critical Area maps, there may be regulated slopes in excess of 15 percent on the site. These potential geologic hazard areas will require submittal of a geotechnical report with the land use master application. Regulations pertaining to these special areas are included in RMC 4-3-050J "Geologic Hazards." A wetland may be located on the east end of the property. This wetland, a jurisdictional critical area, appears to be contiguous with Tract T of Winsper, a Native Growth Protection Easement. A wetland report will be Page 2 of 3 requ1rea at nme or 1ana use app11canon suomma1 tor land subd1v1s1on. Environmental Review: The proj will be subject to environmental re, , due to the number of lots and tracts (11) and the before-mentioned potential critical areas on site. Permit Requirements: As a subdivision with more than 9 lots, the proposed project would require Preliminary Plat approval, which is a Hearing Examiner review process. The time from receipt of a complete application to the close of the Hearing Examiner decision appeal period is approximately 12 weeks. Construction of residential structures would follow installation of infrastructure and recording of the Final Plat_ Fees: The Environmental Checklist Review fee is $1,000 and the Preliminary Plat application fee is $4,000. There is an additional 3% technology fee at the time of land use application. Detailed information regarding the land use application submittal is provided in the attached handouts. Impact Fees: Impact fees for new residential units include fees for transportation, fire, parks, and schools, as follows: Transportation Impact Fee $717.75 (scheduled to increase 1/1/14) Fire $479.28 Parks 520.76 Renton Schools $6,395.00 Impact fees are due at issuance of building permits. Impact fee credit would be given for the 2 existing structures. In addition to the required land use permits, separate construction and building permits would be required. expiration: Upon preliminary plat approval, the project proponent has seven years to comply with all conditions of approval and to submit the plat for recording before the approval becomes null and void. The approval body that approved the original application may grant a single one -year extension. The approval body may require a public hearing for such extension. Attachments: Dees Subdivision -Regulated Slopes Zoning Map Environmental Review Submittal Requirements Preliminary Plat Submittal Requirements RMC 4-2-llOA Development Standards for Residential Zoning RMC 4-2-115 Residential Design and Open Space Standards RMC 4-4-070 Landscaping Page 3 of 3 " , Proposed plat: Applicant: APN: Requesting: Proposal: PROJECT NARRATIVE Valley Vue Rory Dees, 1040 W. Lake Sammamish Pkwy SE, Bellevue, WA 98008 206 715-4559 3023059028 Submittal for Subdivision Our hope is to develop the site into 9 residential lots, leaving one of the houses to the west undisturbed. The parcel is approximately 2.3 acres in size and has dimensions of 100 by I 000. The current zoning is RS, 5445 square feet minimum per lot. The lots would be made available for a builder to construct detached SFR improvements. The topography is primarily level and is our goal to minimize soil disturbance in the creation of these lots. The proposed lots will be consistent with the surrounding subdivisions in improvement square footage, and building quality. Current use: Currently located on this parcel are two single family residences (3112 and 3106 Talbot Road South, Renton 98055). Both are on city water, one (3106) is also on sewer, which is stubbed to the comer of the NWC of the parcel. The other house which is further into the parcel on the NEC is on a septic system. Both properties are serviced by natural gas as per the owner. Location: This parcel is located at 3106 Talbot Road South, Renton between two completed larger subdivisions and has three potential accesses to its interior. Presently, access to the two residences is made along Talbot Road South. Additionally, two recorded, dedicated easement areas of24 feet in width are accessed through Winspur Subdivision to the south along S. 32"J Place. These two easements would be improved to access eight parcels, four per easement. The existing house the west would continue to access Talbot Road S. Improvements: The site would be accessed by private roads through the casements already described. On-site improvements would include a buffer area in the identified wet area to the east in a separate tract, a storm detention vault to the west, and privacy trellis/fencing separating the neighbors to the north and south. Existing fire hydrants in Winspur are within the acceptable distances to serve the subdivision. Total projected construction cost anticipated is $575,000 and an estimated fair market value of $1,137,000. Soil excavation quantities and type: Site soils are mapped as the Alderwood (Ag() series gravelly sandy loam by the City and the NRCS Web Soil Service. Preliminary indications are approximately 2060 cubic yards of excavation and 630 cubic yards of embankment will be necessary to install the infrastructure. Onsite materials will be used for fill. Approximately, 54 trees will be removed with a designed plan to mitigate their removal with the addition of 75 trees. The wetland area to the east will be placed in a tract for inclusion with the adjacent protect area tract located in Winspur. There are no shorelines or significant creeks nearby. A construction trailer will be maintained on-site during the construction period. The height of the proposed buildings are not projected to exceed 35 feet above average grade. Construction Mitigation Description: Proposed construction dates: June 1, 2015 to September 30, 2015 Hours of operation: M-F 7 AM to 6 PM, Saturday 9 AM to 5 PM, Sunday no work Proposed hauling/transportation routes: On the west end of the property: when accessible Talbot Road South to Benson Drive S. Otherwise, out the access easements located along S. 32 Place to Smithers Ave S to S 32 Street to Talbot Road S to Benson Drive S. Measures to control dust: Creating a section of quarry spall rock path for trucks to clear tires, tire brushing, and water washing. Special hours of operation: Not anticipated to be needed Preliminarv Traffic Control Plan: waived Draft Legal Documents: No HOA, street dedications, restrictive covenants, or other legal documents pertaining to the development or land use. -2-PDXDOCS:1710395.1 City of Renton TREE RETENTION WORKSHEET 1. Total number of trees over 6" in diameter 1 on project site: 1. 142 trees 2. Deductions: Certain trees are excluded from the retention calculation: Trees that are dead, diseased or dangerous2 1 trees Trees in proposed public streets O trees Trees in proposed private access easements/tracts 6 trees Trees in critical areas 3 and buffers 9 trees Total number of excluded trees: 3. Subtract line 2 from line 1: 2. 16 trees 3. 126 trees 4. Next, to determine the number of trees that must be retained 4 , multiply line 3 by: 0.3 in zones RC, R-1, R-4, or R-8 0.1 in all other residential zones 0.05 in all commercial and industrial zones 4. 38 trees 5. List the number of 6" or larger trees that you are proposing 5 to retain 4 : 5. 27 trees 6. Subtract line 5 from line 4 for trees to be replaced: 6. 11 trees (If line 6 is less than zero, stop here. No replacement trees are required). 7. Multiply line 6 by 12" for number of required replacement inches: 7. 132 inches 8. Proposed size of trees to meet additional planting requirement: (Minimum 2"' caliper trees required) 8. 2" per tree 9. Divide line 7 by line 8 for number of replacement trees 6 : (if remainder is .5 or greater, round up to the next whole number) 9. 66 trees 1 Measured at chest height 2 · Dead, diseased or dangerous trees must be certified as such by a forester, regislered landscape architect, or certified arborist, and approved by the City. 3 Critical Areas, such as wetlands, streams, floodplains and protected slopes, are defined in Section 4-3-050 of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC). 4 -Count only those trees to be retained outside of critical areas and buffers. 5 -The City may require modification of the tree retention plan to ensure retention of the maximum number of trees per RMC 4-4-130H7a 6 Inches of street trees, inches of trees added to critical areas/buffers, and inches of trees retained on site that are less than 6" but are greater than 2" can be used to meet the tree replacement requirement. C :\Users\Ai.lmin\Documents\I ,and Development Advisors\Dccsl( ompleted T reeRetention Worksheet.Uuc 12/08 DENSITY WORKSHEET City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 1. Gross area of property: 1. 99 994 square feet 2. Deductions: Certain areas are excluded from density calculations. These include: Public streets** Private access easements** Critical Areas* Total excluded area: 3. Subtract line 2 from line 1 for net area: 4. Divide line 3 by 43,560 for net acreage: 5. Number of dwelling units or lots planned: 0 square feet 690 square feet 6,605 square feet 2. 7 295 square feet 3. 92 699 square feet 4. -~1~.9~9~--acres 5. ---=9 ___ units/lots 6. Divide line 5 by line 4 for net density: 6. __ 4..c.=.5c:2'----= dwelling units/acre *Critical Areas are defined as "Areas determined by the City to be not suitable for development and which are subject to the City's Critical Areas Regulations including very high landslide areas, protected slopes, wetlands or floodways_" Critical areas buffers are not deducted/excluded. ** Alleys (public or private) do not have to be excluded. C:\Users\Admin\Documents\Land Development Advisors\l)ccs\COMPLETED density worksheet.doc -l -03/08 DEPARTMENT OF COMr . _ "JITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ,I· .. "'·, .. ....... : --., Lity or / PLANNING DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 Governmental agencies use this checklist to help determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant. This information is also helpful to determine if available avoidance, minimization or compensatory mitigation measures will address the probable significant impacts or if an environmental impact statement will be prepared to further analyze the proposal. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Please answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. You may need to consult with an agency specialist or private consultant for some questions. You may use "not applicable" or "does not apply" only when you can explain why it does not apply and not when the answer is unknown. You may also attach or incorporate by reference additional studies reports. Complete and accurate answers to these questions often avoid delays with the SEPA process as well as later in the decision-making process. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. INSTRUCTIONS FOR LEAD AGENCIES: Additional information may be necessary to evaluate the existing environment, all interrelated aspects of the proposal and an analysis of adverse impacts. The checklist is considered the first but not necessarily the only source of information needed to make an adequate threshold determination. Once a threshold determination is made, the lead agency is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of the checklist and other supporting documents. USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NONPROJECT PROPOSALS: C.\Users\Admin\Documents\Land Development Advisors\Dees\Completed SEPA checklist.doc 05/14 For non project proposals (such as ordinances, regulations, plans and programs), complete the applicable parts of sections A and B even though questions may be answered "does not apply". In addition the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON PROJECT ACTIONS (part D). Please completely answer all questions that apply and note that the words "project", "applicant", and "property or site" should be read as "proposal", "proponent", and "affected geographic area" respectively. The lead agency may exclude (for non-projects) questions in Part B -Environmental Elements -that do not contribute meaningfully to the analysis of the proposal. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Valley Vue 2. Name of applicant: RAD Holdings, LLC 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 1040 West Lake Sammamish Pkwy SE, Bellevue, WA 98008 (205) 715-4559 4. Date checklist prepared: July 15, 2014 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton 5. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Construction of the infrastructure is dependent on favorable market conditions and may occur as soon as Summer 2015 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Homes will be constructed after the infrastructure. 2 C.\Users\Admin\Documents\Land Development Advisors\Dees\Completed SEPA checkl1st.doc 05114 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Critical Areas Study prepared by Acre Environmental dated September 4, 2013. Geotechnical report prepared by Geotech Consultants, Inc. dated May 27, 2014 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. No 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. In addition to City of Renton approvals, the project will require a stormwater discharge permit from the State Department of Ecology. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) This project will construct roads, utilities and other infrastructure for a 9 lot residential subdivision. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The site is located at 3112 Talbot Road South. 8. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat,~illy, steep slopes, mountainous, other _____ _ 3 C:\Users\Admin\Documents\Land Development Advisors\Dees\Completed SEPA checklist doc 05/14 b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Existing slopes on the site range from 0%-15%, averaging approximately 6%. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any agricultural land of long-term commercial significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils. Site soils are mapped as the Alderwood (Age) series gravelly sandy loam by the City and the NRCS Web Soil Service No. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. e. Describe the purpose, type, total area, and approximate quantities and total affected area of any filling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Preliminary indications are approximately 2060 cubic yards of excavation and 630 cubic yards of embankment will be necessary to install the infrastructure. Onsite materials will be used for fill. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Erosion could occur; however, appropriate BMP's will be utilized during construction to manage erosion g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Approximately 52% h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: A construction stormwater pollution prevention plan will be prepared together with an erosion control plan that will be reviewed and approved by the City. 2. AIR 4 C :\Users\Admin\Documents\Land Development Advisors\Oees\Completed SEPA checklist.doc 05/14 a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal during construction, operation, and maintenance when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Dust and construction equipment exhaust will be emitted during construction. Automobile smoke and dust typical of a residential subdivision will occur after the homes are occupied. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. None known. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Dust control will be provided during construction and vehicles will be fitted with required emission controls. Gas fire places will likely be used throughout the project. 3. WATER a. Surface Water: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. A type 2 wetland occupies the easterly portion of the site. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Yes; however, all work will be outside the wetland buffer. None None 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. 5 C:\Users\Adm1n\D0cuments\Land Development Advisors\Dees\Completed SEPA checklist.doc 05/14 No No No. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. b. Ground Water: 1) Will groundwater be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If so, give a general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn from the well. Will water be discharged to groundwater? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals.; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. None c. Water runoff (including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Runoff from impervious and pervious surfaces will be collected in a series of catch basins and routed to a detention facility in the westerly portion of the site. Water will flow westerly to the Panther Creek Wetlands and Springbrook Creek No 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. 6 C:\Users'Adm1n\D0cuments\Land Development Advisors\Dees\Completed SEPA checklist.doc 05/14 3) Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so, describe. See 1 above d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water, and drainage pattern impacts, if any: Detention and water quality enhancement will be provided pursuant to City requirements. 4. PLANTS a. Check the types of vegetation found on the site: _X_deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other _X_evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other _X_shrubs _X_grass __ pasture __ crop or grain __ orchards, vineyards or other permanent crops. _X_wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bull rush, skunk cabbage, other __ water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other __ other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? All vegetation within the housing areas will be removed with minor exceptions for retained trees. c. List threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: The wetland and buffer will remain in a Native Growth Protection Easement. In addition, approximately 78 2" replacement trees will be planted on the site together with ornamental landscaping typical of a residential lot. e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site. 7 C:\Users\Admin\Documents\Land Development Adv1sors\Dees\Completed SEPA checklist.doc 05/14 None known. 5. ANIMALS a. List any birds and other animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site. Examples include: Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, ~ther: _____ _ Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: squirrels Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other ___ _ b. List any threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. No d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: The wetland and buffer will remain in a Native Growth Protection Easement. IN addition, approximately 78 2" replacement trees will be planted on the site together with ornamental landscaping typical of a residential lot. e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. None 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Natural gas and/or electricity will be used for heating and cooking. No b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. 8 C·\Users\Adrnin\Documents\Land Development Advisors\Dees\Completed SEPA checklist.doc 05114 c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: The homes will meet Washington State Energy Code requirements. 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH No a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. 1) Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses. None known. None None. 2) Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity. 3) Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced during the project's development or construction, or at any time during the operating life of the project. 4) Describe special emergency services that might be required. No specialized services will be required. 5) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? 9 C:\Users\Admin\Documents\Land Development Advisors\Oees\Completed SEPA checklist.doc 05/14 Traffic noise from Talbot Road 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Noise typical of construction equipment during site and home construction will be temporary. Long term noise will be typical for any residential subdivision. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: None 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will the proposal affect current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe. The site is currently used as 2 single family residences. Adjacent properties are similar residential homes b. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so, describe. How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to other uses as a result of the proposal, if any? If resource lands have not been designated, how many acres in farmland or forest land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or non-forest use? Not known No 1) Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? If so, how: c. Describe any structures on the site. There are 2 single family residences and associated out-buildings on the site. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? The easterly home will be demolished. 10 C·\Users\Adm1nlD0cuments\Land Development Advisors\Dees\Completed SEPA checklist doc 05/14 e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? R8 f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Residential Single Family g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? N/A No h. Has any part of the site been classified as a critical area by the city or county? If so, specify. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Assuming 2.3 people per home, there would be approximately 21 people. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? 2 k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: NONE I. L. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Proposed homes will be contemporary northwest style and will comply with City zoning requirements such as setbacks, size and height. m. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with nearby agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial significance, if any: None. 11 C. \Users\Admin\Documents\Land Development Advisors\Dees\Completed SEPA checklist.doc 05/14 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Eight middle income houses would be constructed b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. One middle income unit will be demolished c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None 10. AESTHETICS a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? 30' is allowed by code. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: None 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Light from homes and vehicles will occur during night-time hours. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No 12 C:\Users\Adm1n\D0cuments\Land Development Advisors\Dees\Completed SEPA checklist.doc 05/14 c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Light from adjacent homes and vehicles d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: None 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? The wetland along the easterly portion of the site provides an informal opportunity. Thomas Teasdale Park is approximately Y, mile from the site. No b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: The project will pay a parks impact fee of $520.76 per new residence. 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION No No a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are over 45 years old listed in or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers located on or near the site? If so, specifically describe. b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Is there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources. c. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the 13 C.\Users~dm1n\D0cuments\Land Development Advisors\Dees\Completed SEPA checklist.doc 05/14 department of archeology and historic preservation, archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS data, etc. Visual site reconnaissance d. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be required. None 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Talbot Road is the main collector serving the site. Immediate access will be provided by S. 32nd Place. b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, generally describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? No, the nearest stop is at S. 33'd Street and Talbot Road South. c. How many additional parking spaces would the completed project or non-project proposal have? How many would the project or proposal eliminate? A total of 18 spaces would be provided in garages with an additional 18 spaces on driveway aprons. d. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle or state transportation facilities, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). New external access driveways will be constructed from the site to S. 32nd Place. Internal roads will also be necessary. No e. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. 14 C·\Users\Adm1n\D0cuments\Land Development Advisors\Dees\Completed SEPA checklist doc 05/14 f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project or proposal? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would be trucks (such as commercial and non-passenger vehicles). What data or transportation models were used to make these estimates? The project would generate approximately 90 trips per day. Peak volumes would likely occur during morning and evening rush hours. ADTwas estimated by assuming 10 trips per home per day. No g. Will the proposal interfere with, affect or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally describe. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: The project proponent will pay a transportation impact fee of $717.75 per new residence. 15. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. Existing public services should be adequate to serve this project. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. The applicant will pay $6,395 per lot school impact fees and $479.28 per lot for fire impact fees. 16. UTILITIES a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: ....___,ec!le~c:,:tc'_ri~c'..':it!:y,c.:n_::a"._'t:'.'.u.'..:ra".'.l_:g'.'.'.a'.::s,'._w::_:at:::e'..'..r'._, :_:re'..'..f_'.'.u_:se:____:se:_:r:_v_:_::i c:."e:, :::te'..'..l'.'..e':'.p h~o~n~e::_,,_:'s'.'.'.a'.-'n'..':it~a'--'ry1_:s:.::e~w!.'eai-.-= ptic system, other~~~~~ b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. 15 C:\Users\Admin\Documents\Land Development Advisors\Dees\Completed SEPA checklist.doc 05114 New storm drainage, sanitary sewer and water lines will be constructed to receive services provided by the City of Renton. Dry utilities including power, gas, cable TV and telephone will be installed and serviced by current franchise providers in the city C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. ,l \ ,b Proponent Signature: A [ ,\ 1 ~\\Q_ (\_ Name of Signee (printed): Jon W. Nelson Position and Agency/Organization: Principal. Land Development Advisors. LLC Date Submitted: 1 ~ ~ l -14 16 C:\Users\Admin\Documents\Land Development Advisors\Oees\Completed SEPA checklist.doc 05/14 D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (These sheets should only be used for actions involving decisions on policies, plans and ro rams. You do not need to fill out these sheets for ro·ect actions.) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent of the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? 17 C:\Users\Adm1n\D0cuments\Land Development Advisors\Dees\Completed SEPA checklist.doc 05/14 Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. 18 C:\Users1Adm1n\D0cuments\Land Development Advisors\Dees\Completed SEPA checklist.doc 05/14 "'' " 0 ':' 0 0 laod D·o,clop-r,cr,t~dv1So" .. : 12!Sc Of 47thrac,' Fl<ll•'l,e'M,SS"- 4104•,o 520J en --i m - , I I I ---~------ I NE!GHBORHOOD DETAIL MAP RAD HOLDINGS. LlC VALLEY VUE .'11ilfi/J11? IAlBOI f/CAl!S 1: IY C:I Ill'• 11:N ·N~ci,IJNr_;;()N ffi ' n w 0 :i ' ' w z a 0 m ffi m ~ C GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. RAD Holdings, LLC 1040 West Lake Sammamish Parkway Southeast Bellevue, Washington 98008 13250 :--.:onheJst 20th S1n:ct, Suite 16 lkllcvue, Was;hinglon 98005 1425) 747-51,18 FAX (425) 747-8561 May 27, 2014 JN 14177 Attention: Rory Dees via email: rorydees@hotmail.com Subject: Transmittal Letter-Geotechnical Engineering Study Proposed Residential Development 3112 Talbot Road South Renton, Washington Dear Mr. Dees: We are pleased to present this geotechnical engineering report for the residential development to be constructed in Renton. The scope of our services consisted of exploring site surface and subsurface conditions, and then developing this report to provide recommendations for general earthwork and design criteria for foundations, retaining walls, and pavements. This work was authorized by your acceptance of our proposal, P-8823, dated September 6, 2013. The attached report contains a discussion of the study and our recommendations. Please contact us if there are any questions regarding this report, or for further assistance during the design and construction phases of this project. TRC/MRM: at Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. ~C~n.P.E. Senior Engineer GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Proposed Residential Development 3112 Talbot Road South Renton, Washington This report presents the findings and recommendations of our geotechnical engineering study for the site of the proposed residential development to be located in Renton. We were provided with a topographic survey of the site prepared by Axis Survey & Mapping dated August 28, 2013. We have also been provided with project plans by Land Development Advisors dated May 7, 2014. Based on these plans, we understand that the eastern of the two site residences will be removed and the western residence will remain. The development will consist of 8 residential lots and a stormwater detention pond. The lots will be accessed from the south with two driveways from South 32"d Place. Retaining walls up to 4 feet high will be constructed on the eastern side of the two proposed access driveways. Grading for the proposed lots will include cuts and fills of up to 4 feet. A stormwater detention pond will be located at the west side of the development, and a cut of up to 10 feet will be made for the pond. The pond slopes will have an inclination of 2:1 (H:V). If the scope of the project changes from what we have described above, we should be provided with revised plans in order to determine if modifications to the recommendations and conclusions of this report are warranted. SITE CONDITIONS SURFACE The Vicinity Map, Plate 1, illustrates the general location of the rectangular-shaped parcel. The site is surrounded by residences and is accessed from the west by a driveway from Talbot Road South. The site has dimensions of 100 feet in the north-south direction and 1,000 feet in the east-west direction. The property is developed with two residences; both of which are accessed from Talbot Road South by a driveway along the south edge of the site. The western residence has two stories and a basement, and the eastern residence has one story and a basement that daylights toward the west. The ground surface within the site slopes gently to moderately down toward the west, with a change in elevation of about 70 feet across a distance of 1,000 feet. There are no steep slopes on, or near, the site. Approximately the eastern 300 feet of the site is thickly vegetated with young to mature evergreen and deciduous trees and brush. Most of the remainder of the site is covered with grass lawn, with scattered mature trees and landscaping bushes. Blackberry vines grow in the western portion of the planned development area. SUBSURFACE The subsurface conditions were explored by excavating four test pits at the approximate locations shown 011 the Site Exploration Plan, Plate 2. Our exploration program was based on the proposed GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. RAD Holdings, LLC May 27, 2014 JN '14177 Page 2 construction, anticipated subsurface conditions and those encountered during exploration, and the scope of work outlined in our proposal. The test pits were excavated on May 21, 2014 with a small excavator. A geotechnical engineer from our staff observed the excavation process, logged the test pits, and obtained representative samples of the soil encountered. "Grab" samples of selected subsurface soil were collected from the backhoe bucket. The Test Pit Logs are attached to this report as Plates 3 and 4. Soil Conditions The test pits found topsoil that had a thickness of about one foot. Below the topsoil, Test Pit 2 encountered loose to medium-dense silt with sand. Below this silt in Test Pit 2, and beneath the topsoil in the other explorations, we encountered loose to medium-dense silty sand with gravel. This material included pieces of dense silt in Test Pits 1 and 2. The silty sand with gravel became medium-dense at a depth of about 2 to 3 feet. and dense at a depth of about 4 to 7 feet. The dense silty sand with gravel extended to the maximum depth of the test pits, 6 to 8.8 feet below the surface. No obstructions were revealed by our explorations. However, debris. buried utilities, and old foundation and slab elements are commonly encountered on sites that have had previous development. Groundwater Conditions Perched groundwater seepage was observed at a depth of 3 feet in Test Pit 4. The test pits were left open for only a short time period, but were conducted following a very wet fall and winter. The seepage levels on the logs represent the location of transient water seepage and may not Indicate the static groundwater level. It should be noted that groundwater levels vary seasonally with rainfall and other factors. We anticipate that groundwater could be found in more permeable soil layers and between the near-surface weathered soil and the underlying denser soil. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types at the exploration locations. The actual transition between soil types may be gradual, and subsurface conditions can vary between exploration locations. The logs provide specific subsurface information only at the locations tested. The relative densities and moisture descriptions indicated on the test pit logs are interpretive descriptions based on the conditions observed during excavation. The compaction of test pit backfill was not in the scope of our services. Loose soil will therefore be found in the area of the test pits. If this presents a problem, the backfill will need to be removed and replaced with structural fill during construction. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL THIS SECTION CONTAINS A SUMMARY OF OUR STUDY AND FINDINGS FOR THE PURPOSES OF A GENERAL OVERVIEW ONLY. MORE SPECIFIC RECOMMENOA T!ONS ANO CONCLUSIONS ARE GcOTECH CON$'_1LTANTS, INC. RAD Holdings, LLC May 27, 20, 4 JN 14177 Pago 3 CONTAINED IN THE REMAINDER OF THIS REPORT ANY PARTY REL YING ON Tl-1/S REPORT SHOULD READ THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT The test pits conducted for this study encountered medium-dense silty sand with gravel that will provide adequate support to the proposed residences and pavements. The test pits found suitable bearing soils at a depth of 2 to 3 feet The silty soils will be susceptible to disturbance and softening in wet conditions. As a result, it would be prudent to protect footing subgrades with a thin layer of crushed rock. If foundations are constructed within the footprint of the existing basements, it will be important to verify that suitable native bearing soils are first exposed. This usually requires removal of the foundations and slabs. We anticipate that perched water may be encountered in the sidewalls of the proposed stormwater detention pond excavation. This could cause erosion and instability near the seepage zone. We recommend that the portion of the pond more than 3 feet below the existing surface be armored with a one-foot-thickness of 2-to 4-inch rock spalls to reduce the potential for erosion of the pond sides. The proposed excavations for the east sides of the two access driveways will be within 10 feet of adjacent residences. To avoid impacting those residences, no excavation should extend below a 1.5:1 (H:V) inclination extending outward from the base of the residence foundations. Shallow perched groundwater may result in seepage entering crawl spaces and/or basements under the planned houses. In addition to footing drains and free-draining wall backfill, drainage should be provided beneath the houses. This typically consists of a 6-to 9-inch layer of free- draining gravel below the vapor retarder, with perforated pipes buried in the gravel on 15-to 20-foot spacing. This underdrainage can be connected to the same outlet as the footing drains. The erosion control measures needed during the site development will depend heavily on the weather conditions that are encountered. We anticipate that a silt fence will be needed around the downslope sides of any cleared areas. Existing pavements, ground cover, and landscaping should be left in place wherever possible to minimize the amount of exposed soil. Rocked staging areas and construction access roads should be provided to reduce the amount of soil or mud carried off the property by trucks and equipment. Wherever possible, the access roads should follow the alignment of planned pavements. Trucks should not be allowed to drive off of the rock-covered areas. Cut slopes and soil stockpiles should be covered with plastic during wet weather. Following clearing or rough grading, it may be necessary to mulch or hydroseed bare areas that will not be immediately covered with landscaping or an impervious surface. On most construction projects, it is necessary to periodically maintain or modify temporary erosion control measures to address specific site and weather conditions. The on-site soil and groundwater conditions are not suitable for infiltration of runoff from impervious surfaces. This includes avoiding using drywells for downspout runoff. The drainage and/or waterproofing recommendations presented in this report are intended only to prevent active seepage from flowing through concrete walls or slabs. Even in the absence of active seepage into and beneath structures, water vapor can migrate through walls, slabs, and floors from the surrounding soil, and can even be transmitted from slabs and foundation walls due to the concrete curing process. Water vapor also results from occupant uses, such as cooking and bathing. Excessive water vapor trapped within structures can result in a variety of undesirable GEo·•ccH CONSULTANTS, INC. RAD Holdings, LL C IVlay 27, 2014 JN 14177 Page 4 conditions, including, but not limited to, moisture problems with flooring systems, excessively moist air within occupied areas, and the growth of molds, fungi, and other biological organisms that may be harmful to the health of the occupants. The designer or architect must consider the potential vapor sources and likely occupant uses, and provide sufficient ventilation, either passive or mechanical, to prevent a build up of excessive water vapor within the planned structure. Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be allowed to review the final development plans to verify that the recommendations presented in this report are adequately addressed in the design. Such a plan review would be additional work beyond the current scope of work for this study, and it may include revisions to our recommendations to accommodate site, development, and geotechnical constraints that become more evident during the review process. We recommend including this report, in its entirety, in the project contract documents. This report should also be provided to any future property owners so they will be aware of our findings and recommendations. SEISMIC CONS/DE RATIONS In accordance with the International Building Code (IBC), the site class within 100 feet of the ground surface is best represented by Site Class Type C (Very Dense Soil and Soft Rock). The site soils are not susceptible to seismic liquefaction because of their dense nature. CONVENTIONAL FOUNDA T/ONS The proposed structure can be supported on conventional continuous and spread footings bearing on undisturbed, medium-dense, native soil, or on structural fill placed above this competent native soil. See the section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill for recommendations regarding the placement and compaction of structural nil beneath structures. Adequate compaction of structural fill should be verified with frequent density testing during fill placement. Prior to placing structural fill beneath foundations, the excavation should be observed by the geotechnical engineer to document that adequate bearing soils have been exposed. We recommend that continuous and individual spread footings have minimum widths of 12 and 16 inches, respectively. Exterior footings should also be bottomed at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent finish ground surface for protection against frost and erosion. The local building codes should be reviewed to determine if different footing widths or embedment depths are required. Footing subgrades must be cleaned of loose or disturbed soil prior to pouring concrete. Depending upon site and equipment constraints, this may require removing the disturbed soil by hand. An allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf) is appropriate for footings supported on competent native soil. A one-third increase in this design bearing pressure may be used when considering short-term wind or seismic loads. For the above design criteria, it is anticipated that the total post-construction settlement of footings founded on competent native soil, or on structural fill up to 5 feet in thickness, will be about one-inch, with differential settlements on the order of one-half-inch i,1 a distance of 30 feet along a continuous footing with a uniform load. Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between the foundation and the bearing soil, or by passive earth pressure acting on the vertical, embedded portions of the foundation. For the latter condition, the foundation must be either poured directly against relatively GEO~ECH CONSULTANTS, INC. RAD Holdings, LLC May 27, 2014 JN 14177 Page 5 level, undisturbed soil or be surrounded by level, well-compacted fill, We recommend using the following ultimate values for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading: Passive Earth Pressure 350 pcf Where; (i) pcf is pounds per cubic foot, and (ii} passive earth pressure is computed using the equivalent fluid density. If the ground in front of a foundation is loose or sloping, the passive earth pressure given above will not be appropriate. We recommend maintaining a safety factor of at least 1.5 for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading, when using the above ultimate values. FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS Retaining walls backfilled on only one side should be designed to resist the lateral earth pressures imposed by the soil they retain. The following recommended parameters are for walls that restrain level backfill: Passive Earth Pressure 350 pcf Coefficient of Friction 0.45 Soil Unit Weight 130 pcf Where: (i) pcf is pounds per cubic foot, and (ii) active and passive earth pressures are computed using the equivalent fluid pressures. * For a restrained wall that cannot deflect at least 0.002 times its height, a uniform lateral pressure equal to 10 psf times the height of the wall should be added to the above active equivalent fluid pressure. The design values given above do not include the effects of any hydrostatic pressures behind the walls and assume that no surcharges, such as those caused by slopes, vehicles, or adjacent foundations will be exerted on the walls. If these conditions exist, those pressures should be added to the above lateral soil pressures. Where sloping backfill is desired behind the walls, we will need to be given the wall dimensions and the slope of the backfill in order to provide the appropriate design earth pressures. The surcharge due to traffic loads behind a wall can typically be accounted for by adding a uniform pressure equal to 2 feet multiplied by the above active fluid density. Heavy construction equipment should not be operated behind retaining and foundation walls within a distance equal to the height of a wall, unless the walls are designed for the additional lateral pressures resulting from the equipment. The values given above are to be used to design only permanent foundation and retaining walls that are to be backfilled, such as conventional walls constructed of reinforced concrete or masonry. It is not appropriate to use the above earth pressures and soil 1Jnit weight to back-calculate soil strength parameters for design of other types of retaining walls, such as soldier pile, reinforced GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. RAD Holdings, LLC May 27, 2014 JN 14177 Page 6 earth, modular or soil nail walls. We can assist with design of these types of walls, if desired. The passive pressure given is appropriate only for a shear key poured directly against undisturbed native soil, or for the depth of level, well-compacted fill placed in front of a retaining or foundation wall. The values for friction and passive resistance are ultimate values and do not include a safety factor. We recommend a safety factor of at least 1.5 for overturning and sliding, when using the above values to design the walls. Restrained wall soil parameters should be utilized for a distance of 1.5 times the wall height from corners or bends in the walls. This is intended to reduce the amount of cracking that can occur where a wall is restrained by a corner. Wall Pressures Due to Seismic Forces The surcharge wall loads that could be imposed by the design earthquake can be modeled by adding a uniform lateral pressure to the above-recommended active pressure. The recommended surcharge pressure is 7H pounds per square foot (psf), where H is the design retention height of the wall. Using this increased pressure, the safety factor against sliding and overturning can be reduced to 1.2 for the seismic analysis. Retaining Wall Backfill and Waterproofing Backfill placed behind retaining or foundation walls should be coarse, free-draining structural fill containing no organics. This backfill should contain no more than 5 percent silt or clay particles and have no gravel greater than 4 inches in diameter. The percentage of particles passing the No. 4 sieve should be between 25 and 70 percent. The native soils are not free-draining. If they are used as compacted wall backfill, a minimum 12-inch thickness of free-draining gravel should be placed against the wall. The later section entitled Drainage Considerations should also be reviewed for recommendations related to subsurface drainage behind foundation and retaining walls. The purpose of these backfill requirements is to ensure that the design criteria for a retaining wall are not exceeded because of a build-up of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall. Also, subsurface drainage systems are not intended to handle large volumes of water from surface runoff. The top 12 to 18 inches of the backfill should consist of a compacted, relatively impermeable soil or topsoil, or the surface should be paved. The ground surface must also slope away from backfilled walls to reduce the potential for surface water to percolate into the backfill. Water percolating through pervious surfaces (pavers, gravel, permeable pavement, ect.) must also be prevented from flowing toward walls or into the backfill zone. The compacted subgrade below pervious surfaces and any associated drainage layer should therefore be sloped away. Alternatively, a membrane and subsurface collection system could be prov',ded below a pervious surface. It is critical that the wall backfill be placed in lifts and be properly compacted, in order for the above-.recommended design earth pressures to be appropriate. The wall design criteria assume that the backfill will be well-compacted in lifts no thicker than 12 inches. The compaction of backfill near the walls should be accomplished with hand-operated equipment to prevent the walls from being overloaded by the higher soil forces that occur during compaction. The section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill contains additional recommendations regarding the placement and compaction of structural fill behind retaining and foundation walls. The above recommendations are not intended to waterproof below-grade walls, or to prevent the formation of mold, mildew or fungi in interior spaces. Over time, the Gco~ECH CONSULTANTS, INC, RAD Holdings, LLC May 27, 2014 JN14177 Page 7 performance of subsurface drainage systems can degrade, subsurface groundwater flow patterns can change, and utilities can break or develop leaks. Therefore, waterproofing should be provided where future seepage through the walls is not acceptable. This typically includes limiting cold-joints and wall penetrations, and using bentonite panels or membranes on the outside of the walls. There are a variety of different waterproofing materials and systems, which should be installed by an experienced contractor familiar with the anticipated construction and subsurface conditions. Applying a thin coat of asphalt emulsion to the outside face of a wall is not considered waterproofing, and will only help to reduce moisture generated from water vapor or capillary action from seeping through the concrete. As with any project, adequate ventilation of basement and crawl space areas is important to prevent a build up of water vapor that is commonly transmitted through concrete walls from the surrounding soil, even when seepage is not present. This is appropriate even when waterproofing is applied to the outside of foundation and retaining walls. We recommend that you contact an experienced envelope consultant if detailed recommendations or specifications related to waterproofing design, or minimizing the potential for infestations of mold and mildew are desired. SLABS-ON-GRADE The building floors can be constructed as slabs-on-grade atop competent native soil or on structural fill. The subgrade soil must be in a firm, non-yielding condition at the time of slab construction or underslab fill placement. Any soft areas encountered should be excavated and replaced with select, imported structural fill. The General section should be reviewed for underdrainage recommendations. Even where the exposed soils appear dry, water vapor will tend to naturally migrate upward through the soil to the new constructed space above it. This can affect moisture-sensitive flooring, cause imperfections or damage to the slab, or simply allow excessive water vapor into the space above the slab. All interior slabs-on-grade should be underlain by a capillary break drainage layer consisting of a minimum 4-inch thickness of clean gravel or crushed rock that has a fines content (percent passing the No. 200 sieve) of less than 3 percent and a sand content (percent passing the No. 4 sieve) of no more than 1 O percent. Pea gravel or crushed rock are typically used for this layer. As noted by the American Concrete Institute (ACI) in the Guides for Concrete Floor and Slab Structures, proper moisture protection is desirable immediately below any on-grade slab that will be covered by tile, wood, carpet, impermeable floor coverings, or any moisture-sensitive equipment or products. ACI also notes that vapor retarders such as 6-mil plastic sheeting have been used in the past, but are now recommending a minimum 10-mil thickness for better durability and long term performance. A vapor retarder is defined as a material with a permeance of less than 0.3 perms, as determined by ASTM E 96. It is possible that concrete admixtures may meet this specification, although the manufacturers of the admixtures should be consulted. Where vapor retarders are used under slabs, their edges should overlap by at least 6 inches and be sealed with adhesive tape. The sheeting should extend to the foundation walls for maximum vapor protection. If no potential for vapor passage through the slab is desired, a vapor barrier should be used. A vapor barrier, as defined by ACI, is a product with a water transmission rate of 0.01 perms when tested in accordance with ASTM E 96. Reinforced membranes having sealed overlaps can meet this requirement. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. RAD Holdings, LLC May 27, 2014 EXCAVATIONS AND SLOPES JN ,4177 Page 8 Excavation slopes should not exceed the limits specified in local, state, and national government safety regulations. Temporary cuts to a depth of about 4 feet may be attempted vertically in unsaturated soil, if there are no indications of slope instability. However, vertical cuts should not be made near property boundaries, or existing utilities and structures. Based upon Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 296, Part N, the soil at the subject site would generally be classified as Type B. Therefore, temporary cut slopes greater than 4 feet in height should not be excavated at an inclination steeper than 1 :1 (Horizontal:Vertical), extending continuously between the top and the bottom of a cut. The above-recommended temporary slope inclination is based on the conditions exposed in our explorations, and on what has been successful at other sites with similar soil conditions. It is possible that variations in soil and groundwater conditions will require modifications to the inclination at which temporary slopes can stand. Temporary cuts are those that will remain unsupported for a relatively short duration to allow for the construction of foundations, retaining walls, or utilities. Temporary cut slopes should be protected with plastic sheeting during wet weather. It is also important that surface runoff be directed away from the top of temporary slope cuts. Cut slopes should also be backfilled or retained as soon as possible to reduce the potential for instability. Please note that sand or loose soil can cave suddenly and without warning. Excavation, foundation, and utility contractors should be made especially aware of this potential danger. These recommendations may need to be modified if the area near the potential cuts has been disturbed in the past by utility installation, or if settlement-sensitive utilities are located nearby. All permanent cuts into native soil should be inclined no steeper than 2:1 (H:V). Permanent cut slopes encountering groundwater may require gravel armoring. Compacted fill slopes should not be constructed with an inclination greater than 2: 1 (H:V). To reduce the potential for shallow sloughing, fill must be compacted to the face of these slopes. This can be accomplished by overbuilding the compacted fill and then trimming it back to its final inclination. Adequate compaction of the slope face is important for long-term stability and is necessary to prevent excessive settlement of patios, slabs, foundations, or other improvements that may be placed near the edge of the slope. Water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any temporary or permanent slope. All permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve the stability of the surficial layer of soil. DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS Footing drains should be used where (1) crawl spaces or basements will be below a structure, (2) a slab is below the outside grade, or (3) the outside grade does not slope downward from a building. Drains should also be placed at the base of all earth-retaining walls. These drains should be surrounded by at least 6 inches of 1-inch-minus, washed rock that is encircled with non-woven, geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or similar material). At its highest point, a perforated pipe invert should be at least 6 inches below the bottom of a slab floor or the level of a crawl space. The discharge pipe for subsurface drains should be sloped for flow to the outlet point. Roof and surface water drains must not discharge into the foundation drain system. A typical drain detail is attached to this report as Plate 5. For the best long-term performance, perforated PVC pipe is recommended for all subsurface drains. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. RAD Holdings, LLC May 27. 2014 JN14177 Page 9 As a minimum, a vapor retarder, as defined in the Slabs-On-Grade section, should be provided in any crawl space area to limit the transmission of water vapor from the underlying soils. Crawl space grades are sometimes left near the elevation of the bottom of the footings. As a result, an outlet drain is recommended for all crawl spaces to prevent an accumulation of any water that may bypass the footing drains. Providing even a few inches of free draining gravel underneath the vapor retarder limits the potential for seepage to build up on top of the vapor retarder. Groundwater was observed during our field work. If seepage is encountered in an excavation, it should be drained from the site by directing it through drainage ditches, perforated pipe, or French drains, or by pumping it from sumps interconnected by shallow connector trenches at the bottom of the excavation. Final site grading in areas adjacent to buildings should slope away at least 2 percent, except where the area is paved. Surface drains should be provided where necessary to prevent ponding of water behind foundation or retaining walls. Drainage measures on multi-lot developments sometimes have to be modified or upgraded to address post-grading conditions. A discussion of grading and drainage related to pervious surfaces near walls and structures is contained in the Foundation and Retaining Walls section. PAVEMENT AREAS The pavement section may be supported on competent, native soil or on structural fill compacted to a 95 percent density. The pavement subgrade must be in a stable, non-yielding condition at the time of paving. Granular structural fill or geotextile fabric may be needed to stabilize soft, wet, or unstable areas. To evaluate pavement subgrade strength, we recommend that a proof roll be completed with a loaded dump truck immediately before paving. In most instances where unstable subgrade conditions are encountered, an additional 12 inches of granular structural fill will stabilize the subgrade, except for very soft areas where additional fill could be required. The subgrade should be evaluated by Geotech Consultants, Inc., after the site is stripped and cut to grade. Recommendations for the compaction of structural fill beneath pavements are given in the section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill. The performance of site pavements is directly related to the strength and stability of the underlying subgrade. The pavement for lightly loaded traffic and parking areas should consist of 2 inches of asphalt concrete (AC) over 4 inches of crushed rock base (CRB) or 3 inches of asphalt-treated base (ATB). We recommend providing heavily loaded areas with 3 inches of AC over 6 inches of CRB or 4 inches of ATB. Heavily loaded areas are typically main driveways, dumpster sites, or areas with trL1ck traffic. Increased maintenance and more frequent repairs should be expected if thinner pavement sections are used. The pavement section recommendations and guidelines presented in this report are based on our experience in the area and on what has been successful in similar situations. As with any pavements, some maintenance and repair of limited areas can be expected as the pavement ages. Cracks in the pavement should be sealed as soon as possible after they become evident, in order to reduce the potential for degradation of the subgrade from infiltration of surface water. For the same reason, it is also prudent to seal the surface of the pavement after it has been in use for several years. To provide for a design without the need for any maintenance or repair would be uneconomical. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS. INC. RAD Holdings, LLC May 27, 2014 GENERAL EARTHWORK AND STRUCTURAL FILL JN 14177 Page 10 All building and pavement areas should be stripped of surface vegetation, topsoil, organic soil, and other deleterious material. It is important that existing foundations be removed before site development. The stripped or removed materials should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural fill, but they could be used in non-structural areas, such as landscape beds. Structural fill is defined as any fill, including utility backfill, placed under, or close to, a building, behind permanent retaining or foundation walls, or in other areas where the underlying soil needs to support loads. All structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts with a moisture content at, or near, the optimum moisture content. The optimum moisture content is that moisture content that results in the greatest compacted dry density. The moisture content of fill is very important and must be closely controlled during the filling and compaction process. The allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type selected, the compaction equipment used, and the number of passes made to compact the lift. The loose lift thickness should not exceed 12 inches. We recommend testing the fill as it is placed. If the fill is not sufficiently compacted, it can be recompacted before another lift is placed. This eliminates the need to remo.ve the fill to achieve the required compaction. The following table presents recommended relative compactions for structural fill: Use of On-Site Soil LOCATION 0~' l'ILL PLACEMENT Beneath footings, slabs or walkwa, s MINIMUM RELATIVE COMPACTION Filled slopes and behind 90% retainin walls 95% for upper 12 inches of Beneath pavements subgrade; 90% below that level Where: Minimum Relative Compaction is the ratio, expressed in percentages 1 of the compacted dry density to the maximum dry density, as determined in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D 1557-91 (Modified Proctor). If grading activities take place during wet weather, or when the silty, on-site soil is wet, site preparation costs may be higher because of delays due to rain and the potential need to import granular fill. The on-site soil is generally silty and therefore moisture sensitive. Grading operations will be difficult during wet weather, or when the moisture content of this soil exceeds the optimum moisture content. IVloisture-sensitive soil may also be susceptible to excessive softening and "pumping" from construction equipment, or even foot traffic, when the moisture content is greater than the optimum moisture content. It may be beneficial to protect subgrades with a layer of imported sand or crushed rock to limit disturbance from traffic. GEOTECY CONSULTANTS. INC. RAD Holdings. LLC lvlay 27, 2014 JN 14177 Page 11 Structural fill that will be placed in wet weather should consist of a coarse, granular soil with a silt or clay content of no more than 5 percent. The percentage of particles passing the No. 200 sieve should be measured from that portion of soil passing the three-quarter-inch sieve. LIMITATIONS The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on site conditions as they existed at the time of our exploration and assume that the soil and groundwater conditions encountered in the test pits are representative of subsurface conditions on the site. If the subsurface conditions encountered during construction are significantly different from those observed in our explorations, we should be advised at once so that we can review these conditions and reconsider our recommendations where necessary. Unanticipated conditions are commonly encountered on construction sites and cannot be fully anticipated by merely taking samples in test pits. Subsurface conditions can also vary between exploration locations. Such unexpected conditions frequently require making additional expenditures to attain a properly constructed project. It is recommended that the owner consider providing a contingency fund to accommodate such potential extra costs and risks. This is a standard recommendation for all projects. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of RAD Holdings, LLC and its representatives for specific application to this project and site. Our conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in accordance with our understanding of current local standards of practice, and within the scope of our services. No warranty is expressed or implied. The scope of our services does not include services related to construction safety precautions, and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. Our services also do not include assessing or minimizing the potential for biological hazards, such as mold, bacteria, mildew and fungi in either the existing or proposed site development. ADDITIONAL SERVICES Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be retained to provide geotechnical consultation, testing, and observation services during construction. This is to confirm that subsurface conditions are consistent with those indicated by our exploration, to evaluate whether earthwork and foundation construction activities comply with the general intent of the recommendations presented in this report, and to provide suggestions for design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. However, our work would not include the supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor and its employees or agents. Also, job and site safety, and dimensional measurements, will be the responsibility of the contractor. During the construction phase, we will provide geotechnical observation and testing services when requested by you or your representatives. Please be aware that we can only document site work we actually observe. It is still the responsibility of your contractor or on-site construction team to verify that our recommendations are being followed, whether we are present at the site or not. The following plates are attached to complete this report: Plate 1 Vicinity Map GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. RAD Holdings, LL C May 27, 2014 Plate 2 Plates 3 -4 Plate 5 Site Exploration Plan Test Pit Logs Typical Footing Drain Detail JN14177 Page 12 We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. Please contact us if you have any questions, or if we can be of further assistance. TRC/MRM: at Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. GEOTECH CO~SULTANTS, INC. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, I:S.C. I Job No: 14177 NORTH r' ,I ,' • 11 \, ' (Sourco: Microsoft Streets anc1 Trips, 2004) VICINITY .NIAP 3112 Talbot Road South Renton, Washington I Date: I May 2014 IP/ate: Legend: [.;jj Test pit location ~ ;~ . ..!~'"7---~~/~. I GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. .I ( SITE EXPLORATION PLAN 3112 Talbot Road South Renton, Washington Job No: Date· Plate: 14177 Ma 2014 No Scale 2 5 10 ... - -- 5 --... ... 10- TEST PIT 1 Description TOPSOIL -- Dark-brown silty SAND with occasional gravel, roots, and organics, fine to coarse-grained, moist, loose to medium-dense -becomes brown and medium-dense, with pieces of dense silt -decreased gravel content -becomes dense * Test Pit terminated at 8.8 feet on May 21, 2014. * No groundwater seepage was observed during excavation. * No caving observed during excavation. TEST PIT 2 Descnption TOPSOIL Rust:brown mottled gray SILT with sand,line to medium-grained, non-plastic, moist, loose to medium-dense Brown silty SAND with gravel and pieces of dense silt, fine to coarse-grained, moist, medium-dense -becomes dense * Test Pit terminated at 6.0 feet on May 21, 2014. * No groundwater seepage was observed during excavation. * No caving observed during excavation . GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. TEST PIT LOG 3112 Talbot Road South Renton, Washington ~t, ~ -~---~-~--------------------/ Job Date: Logged by: Plate: 14177 May 2014 TRC 3 5 10 5 10 .... I- .... L- ....... .... .... '- .... '-- TEST PIT 3 Description TOPSOIL Rust-brown :nottled gray silty SAl~D with gravel, fine to coarse-grained, moist, loose * Test Pit terminated at 6.0 feet on May 21, 2014. * Slight groundwater seepage was observed at 3.0 feet during excavation. * No caving observed during excavation. TEST PIT 4 Description TOPSOIL -- !: II Rust-brown mottled gray silty SAND with gravel, fine to coarse-grained, moist, I loose -becomes brown and medium-dense SMI .II -becomes dense • ••• * Test Pit terminated at 6.0 feet on May 21, 2014 . * No groundwater seepage was observed during excavation. * No caving observed during excavation. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. -it 14=c~-- TEST PIT LOG 3112 Talbot Road South Renton, Washington Job Date: Logged by: Plate: 14177 May 2014 TRC 4 Slope backfill away from foundation. Provide surface drains where necessary. Backfill (See text for ·r · requirements) 1 11 1 i~ Tightline Roof Drain (Do not connect to footing drain) Washed Rock (7/8" min. size) Nonwoven Geotextile Filter Fabric NOTES: ~-4" Perforated Hard PVC Pipe {Invert at least 6 inches below slab or crawl space. Slope to drain to appropriate outfall. Place holes downward.) Vapor Retarder/Barrier and Caprllary Break/Drainage Layer (Refer to Report text) (1) In crawl spaces, provide an outlet drain to prevent buildup of water that bypasses the perimeter footing drains. (2) Refer to report text for additional drainage, waterproofing, and slab considerations. GEOTECH CONSUI:l'ANTS, lNC. FOOTING DRAIN DETAIL 3112 Talbot Road South Renton, Washington I Job No: 14177 I Dale. I May2014 I Plate: CRITICAL AREAS STUDY FOR RAD Holdings, LLC -3112 Talbot Road Tax Parcel No. 302305-9028 Acre Project #13039 Prepared By: Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC. 17715 28 1h Ave. NE Lake Forest Park, WA 98155 (206) 450-7746 For: RAD Holdings, LLC Attn. Rory Dees 6252 167'h Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98006 September 4, 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF SITE DESCRIPTION METHODOLOGIES OF CRITICAL AREAS EVALUATION BOUNDARY DETERMINATION FINDINGS ExlSTING FUNCTIONS AND VALUES ANALYSIS USE OF THIS REPORT REFERENCES ATTACHMENTS: 1. WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORMS (6 DATA POINTS ON-SITE) 2. CRITICAL AREAS MAP SHEET CAl.00 Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC Critical Areas Study for-RAD Holdings, LLC -Talbot Rd. Renton, WA 2 2 3 s 6 7 September 4, 2013 Page 1 INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF SITE DESCRIPTION On July 25, 2013 Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC visited the subject property located at 3112 Talbot Road in the City of Renton, Washington. The purpose of this site visit was to assess and locate regulated critical areas on and adjacent to the subject site. The site is further located as a portion of Section 30, Township 23N, Range OSE, W.M. The tax parcel number for this property is 302305-9028. Per the King County Assessor's office, the site encompasses approximately 2.3-acres. Surrounding land use is comprised of single family residences. Access to this site is from the west via a gravel driveway that leads from Talbot Road. The subject property has a west aspect slope with the western portion occupied by two single-family residences and maintained lawn. The eastern portion of the site is comprised of established forest with a Category 2 wetland that extends off-site to the east and south. In the City of Renton, Category 2 wetlands receive a SO-foot standard buffer measured from the delineated wetland edge. METHODOLOGIES OF CRITICAL AREAS EVALUATION In July of 2013, Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC conducted a site visit to locate and verify wetlands and streams occurring on and adjacent to the subject site. The methods used for delineating, classifying, and rating the wetlands and streams in the project area are consistent with current Federal, State, and City of Renton requirements. At the time of our July 25, 2013 site investigation, the weather was sunny with a temperature of 68 degrees Fahrenheit. Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC used the routine methodologies described in the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #96-94, March 1997) to make a determination regarding regulated wetlands. In addition, Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC evaluated the site using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual produced in 1987 and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region produced in May 2010 (hereinafter referred to as "the Corps Regional Supplement"). The Corps Regional Supplement is designed for concurrent use with the 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual and all subsequent versions. The 2010 Regional Supplement provides technical guidance and procedures for identifying and delineating wetlands that may be subject to regulatory jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Where differences in the two documents occur, the Corps Regional Supplement takes precedence over the Corps Manual for applications in the Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region. According to the federal and state methodologies described above, identification of wetlands is based on a three-factor approach involving indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC Critical Areas Study for-RAD Holdings, LLC-Talbot Rd. Renton, WA September 4, 2013 Page 2 and the presence or evidence of persistent hydrology. Except where noted in the manuals, the three-factor approach discussed above requires positive indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology, to make a determination that an area is a regulated wetland. Using the aforementioned manuals, the procedure for making a wetland determination is as follows: 1.) Examination of the site for hydrophytic vegetation (species present/percent cover); 2.) Examination for the presence of hydric soils in areas where hydrophytic vegetation is present; and 3.) The final step is determining if wetland hydrology exists in the area examined under the first two steps. Per industry standards, Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC examined the entire project site. Per current City of Renton requirements, Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC also assessed adjacent properties within 300 feet of the proposed project limits, to the maximum extent possible without entering adjacent properties. While a detailed assessment of Critical Areas on adjacent properties was not possible due to the lack of legal access, Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC conducted a review of all available information to assess the presence of off-site Critical Areas within 300 feet of the subject site. This review is necessary to determine if any regulated Critical Areas exist off-site which would cause associated protective buffers to extend onto the property and affect the development proposal. In addition to on-site field reviews, Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC examined aerial photographs and topographical data (elevation contours) on King County's interactive mapping system (iMAP). Soil survey maps produced by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), SalmonScape fish distribution maps produced by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), and StreamNet fish distribution maps produced by Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission were also evaluated by Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC as part of this project consultation. BOUNDARY DETERMINATION FINDINGS Wetlands were classified according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Cowardin system Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al., 1979) and rated, by categories, according to the City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-3-050 (Critical Areas Regulations). Buffers are also determined by this chapter. Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC Critical Areas Study for-RAD Holdings, LLC -Talbot Rd. Renton, WA September 4, 2013 Page 3 Wetland A Cowardin: Palustrine, Forested wetland, Broad-leaved Deciduous, Seasonally Flooded/Saturated (PFOlE) City of Renton Rating: Category 2, 50' Buffer This wetland is located in the eastern portion of the subject site and extends off-site to the east and south. This wetland does not meet the criteria for a Category 1 wetland in that it does not contain threatened or endangered species or provide habitat for these species, is less than ten acres in size with one class of vegetation (forested), does not contain permanent open water, and does not contain plant associations of infrequent occurrence. This wetland does not meet the criteria for a Category 3 wetland because it is not severely disturbed. This wetland exhibits a minimum of human related physical alteration, and therefore, meets the criteria for a Category 2 wetland. In the City of Renton, Category 2 wetlands receive SO-foot standard buffers from their delineated edge. Vegetation in this wetland is represented by a canopy of Oregon ash (Fraxinus /atifo/ia, FacW) and black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera, Fae), with and understory comprised of red osier dogwood {Camus sericea, FacW), hardhack (Spiraea douglosii, FacW), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus, FacU), reed canarygrass {Phalaris arundinacea, FacW), creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens, FacW), and sword fern (Polystichum munitum, FacU) on hummocks. Soils in this wetland have a Munsell color of very dark greyish brown (lOYR 3/2) with redoximorphic features of brown {lOYR 4/3), and a texture of silt loam from Oto 18 inches below the surface. Soils in this wetland were saturated at 12 inches below the surface during our July 2013 site visit. Non -Wetland Vegetation in the western portion of the property is comprised of maintained lawn represented by tall fescue (Schedonorus arundinaceu, Fae), blue wildrye (Elymus glaucus, FacU), hairy Cat's- ear (Hypochaeris radicata, FacU), velvetgrass (Holcus /anatus, Fae), colonial bentgrass (Agrastis tenuis, Fae), creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens, Fae), and white clover (Trifolium repens, Fae). The lawn is interspersed with patches of Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus, FacU) and scattered trees, including big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum, FacU) and Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia, FacW). Vegetation in the eastern part of the site is forested, represented by a canopy of big leaf maple (Acer macrophyl/um, FacU), Oregon ash {Fraxinus latifolia, FacW), and western red cedar (Thuja p/icata, Fae), with snowberry (Symphoricarpos a/bus, FacU), osoberry (Oemleria cerasiformis, FacU), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniocus, FacU), hazelnut (Cory/us cornuta, FacU), Oceanspray (Holodiscus discolor, FacU), thimbelberry (Rubus parviflorus, FacU), dewberry (Rubus ursinus, FacU), and sword fern (Polystichum munitum, FacU), in the understory. Typical soils in the non-wetland portions of the site have a Munsell Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC Critical Areas Study for-RAD Holdings, LLC-Talbot Rd. Renton, WA September 4, 2013 Page 4 color of very dark greyish brown (lOYR 3/2), with redoximorphic features of brown (lOYR 4/3), and a texture of silt loam from O to 18 inches below the surface. Soils in the non-wetland portions of this property were dry during our July 2013 site visit. NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION SERVICE SOILS DESCRIPTION: The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) mapped the subject property as being underlain by Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes. The NRCS describes Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes as rolling with irregularly shaped areas ranging from 10 to about 600 acres in size. The A horizon ranges from very dark brown to dark brown. The B horizon is dark brown, grayish brown, and dark yellowish brown. Permeability is moderately rapid in the surface layer and subsoil and very slow in the substratum. Available water capacity is described as low. Included within this soil unit are the poorly drained Norma, Bellingham, Seattle, Tukwila, Shalcar soils, and Alderwood soils that have slopes more gentle or steeper than 6 to 15 percent. Included soil units make up no more than 30 percent of the total acreage. EXISTING FUNCTIONS AND VALUES ANALYSIS The methodologies for this functions and values analysis are based on professional opinion developed through past field analyses and interpretations. This assessment pertains specifically to the subject wetland, but is typical for assessments of similar systems throughout western Washington. The three main functions provided by wetlands include water quality, stormwater / hydrologic control, and wildlife habitat. The wetland and buffer on the subject site are forested, dominated by native trees and shrubs. Wetlands in western Washington often contain necessary wildlife habitat resources such as food, water, thermal cover, and hiding cover in close proximity. The subject wetland and buffer likely provide a moderate level of habitat for a variety of wildlife species. During our site visit, Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC observed an American Crow (Corvus brochyrhynchos), a song sparrow (Melospizo melodia), a black-capped chickadee (Poecile atricapillus), and evidence of a common raccoon (Procyon lotor), using the subject site. Due to its vegetative structure, the subject wetland provides habitat for use by terrestrial wildlife species including birds and mammals. The wetland and associated buffer provide protected habitat, which becomes increasingly important as areas become further populated with humans and habitat areas become fragmented. Habitat fragmentation and isolation from other resources resulting from the surrounding development serves to limit the habitat values that the subject wetland and buffer provide for wildlife. The established vegetation within the wetland and associated buffer on this site serves to Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC Critical Areas Study for -RAD Holdings, LLC -Talbot Rd. Renton, WA September 4, 2013 Page 5 intercept rain fall before it strikes the soil, thereby reducing erosion and improving water quality. Furthermore, the dense vegetation and adsorbent soils serve to trap sediment and pollutants and provide increased water quality functions that aid in a reduction of sediment which results in cleaner water leaving the site. USE OF THIS REPORT This Critical Areas Study is supplied to Rad Holdings, LLC as a means of determining whether any wetlands, streams, and/or fish and wildlife habitats regulated by the City of Renton Critical Areas Regulations exist on, or within 300 feet of the site. This report is intended to provide information deemed relevant in the applicant's attempt to comply with the regulations currently in effect. The work for this report has conformed to the standard of care employed by professional ecologists in the Pacific Northwest. No other representation or warranty is made concerning the work or this report. This report is based largely on readily observable conditions and, to a lesser extent, on readily ascertainable conditions. No attempt has been made to determine hidden or concealed conditions. If such conditions arise, the information contained in this report may change based upon those conditions. Please note that Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC did not provide detailed analysis of other permitting requirements not discussed in this report (i.e. structural, drainage, geotechnical, or engineering requirements). The laws applicable to Critical Areas are subject to varying interpretations. While Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC upheld professional industry standards when completing this review, the information included in this report does not guarantee approval by any federal, state, and/or local permitting agencies. Therefore, all work on this property shall not commence until permits have been obtained from all applicable agencies. If there are any questions regarding this report, please contact me at 206.450.7746. Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC. Louis Emenhiser Owner/ Principal Wetland Ecologist Professional Wetland Scientist #1680 Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC Critical Areas Study for-RAD Holdings, LLC -Talbot Rd. Renton, WA September 4, 2013 Page 6 REFERENCES Cowardin, et al, 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-79/31. December 1979. Environmental Laboratory. (1987). "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss. Hruby, T. 2004. Washington State wetland rating system for western Washington -Revised. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication# 04-06-025. King County iMAP: Interactive Mapping Tool. Administered by the City of Kirkland GIS Center. http://www.kingcounty.gov/operations/gis/Maps/iMAP.aspx. Website last visited August 16, 2013. Lichv ar, R.W. 2013. The National Wetland Plant List: 2013 wetland ratings. Phy toneuron 2013- 49: 1-241. Renton Municipal Code. Section 4-3-050 (Critical Areas Regulations). Renton, Washington. SalmonScape. Interactive Mapping website administered by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/salmonscape/index.html. Website last visited on August 16, 2013. StreamNet. Fish Data for the Northwest. Administered by the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. http://www.streamnet.org/. Website last visited on August 16, 2013. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2010). "Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0)," ERDC/EL TR- 10-3, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory Wetlands http://107.20.228.18/Wetlands/WetlandsMapper.html#. Last updated July 8, 2013. last visited on August 16, 2013. Mapper. Website Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication #96-94. March 1997. Web Soil Survey. United States Department of Agriculture. Natural Resources Conservation Service. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm. Website last visited on August 16, 2013. Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC Critical Areas Study for-RAD Holdings, LLC -Talbot Rd. Renton, WA September 4, 2013 Page 7 i WETLAND DETERMI ION DATA FORM -Western Mountai, alleys, and Coast Region ProjecVSite RAD Holdings, LLC City/County: King County I Renton Sampling Date 07.25.13 Appl1canVOwner-_RAD Ho_ld_in~g~s_. _L_LC ______________________ State _W_A ___ Sampling Point. _D_P_1 ____ _ lnvestigator(s): Louis Emenhiser Section. Township. Range _S_3_0_. _T_23_N_. R_5E_._w_.M_. __________ _ Landform (hillslope, terrace. etc.): _T_e_rr_a_ce __________ Local relief (concave, convex. none): Concave Slope(%)· _2_%_, __ Subregion (LRR): _L_R_R_-_A _____________ Lat 47.4520 Long _-_12_2_._20_7_6 _______ Datum ____ _ Soil Map Unit Name: Alder.vood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes Are climatic/ hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes __ ,/ _ No NWI classification: £_F_0_1_E __ --------· _ (If no. explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation _ Soil _, or Hydrology_ _ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances·' present? Yes_ ./ _ No (If needed. explain any answers in Remarks.) Are Vegetation __ Soil _, or Hydrology ___ naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Remarks· Wetland A Yes ./ Yes ./ Yes ./ No No No VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Tree Stratum (Plot size· 30 meters ) % Cover 1. Fraxinus latifolia 60 2 Populus balsamifera 30 3. 4 90 Sagling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 10 meters ) 1. Cornus alba 20 2. Spiraea douglasii 20 3. Rubus armeniacus 10 4. 5. 50 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1 meter ) 1 Phalaris arundinacea 60 2 Ranunculus repens 30 3 Polystichum munitum 5 4 5 6 7 8. 9 10. 11 95 Woody_ Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1 2 % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 5 Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes ./ No Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Sgecies? Status y FacW Number of Dominant Species 6 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAG: (A) y Fae Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata" 7 (B) = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAG 86 (A/B) y FacW Prevalence Index worksheet: y FacW Total % Cover or MultiQl:t: b:f y FacU OBL species 0 X 1 = 0 FACW species 160 x2= 320 FAC species 60 X 3 = 180 = Total Cover FACU species 15 x4= 60 UPL species 0 X 5 = 0 y FacW Column Totals 235 (A) 560 (B) y Fae N FacU Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.38 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: ./ Dominance Test is >50% - ./ Prevalence Index is !=3.0 1 Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1 - Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain) 1lndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation ,/ Present? Yes No ------= Total Cover Western Mountains, Valleys. and Coast-Version 2 0 I SOIL Sampling Point: _D_P_1 __ _ Profile Description: {Describe to the depth needeCi to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist} ~ Color (moist) _:&_~ Loe' Texture Remarks 0-18 10YR 3/2 95 10YR 4/3 5 C M silt loam ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ! ------------ ------------ 1Tvne: C-Concentration, O-Decletron, RM-Reduced Matrix, CS-Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL -Pore Linina, M-Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 : -Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) -2 cm Muck (A10) -Hist1c Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) --Red Parent Material (TF2) --Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Other (Explain in Remarks) -Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surtace (A 12) ./ Redox Dark Surtace (F6) ~Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (FS) unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches) Hydric Soil Present? Yes ,/ No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Prima[Y Indicators (minimum of one reguired· check all that ai;:112IJ'l Secondar:y Indicators (2 or more reguired) -Surface Water (A 1) _ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA -Water-Stained Leaves (89) (MLRA 1, 2, -High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 46) ./ Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) -Drainage Patterns (B10) -Water Marks (B 1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) -Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C 1) -Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ./ Geomorphic Position (02) - Algal Mat or Crust (84) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) -Shallow Aquitard (03) Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ./ FAG-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) -Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes --No -./ -Depth (inches)· Water Table Present? Yes ,/ No Depth (inches) 15 ---- Saturation Present? Yes ,/ No Depth (inches) 12 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ./ No ---------- (includes caoillarv frinae) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge. monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections). if available: Remarks. i US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0 ' WETLAND DETERMI ION DATA FORM -Western Mountair alleys, and Coast Region PraJect1Site RAD Holdings, LLC Applicant/Owner: RAD Holdings, LLC lnvestigator(s): Louis Emenhiser Landfarm (hillslope, terrace, etc.)· _H_i_lls_lo~p_e _________ _ City/County King County I Renton Sampling Date: 07.25 13 _______ State: _W_A ___ Sampling Pornt _D_P_2 ____ _ Section, Township, Range: _s_3_0_. _T_23_N_._R_5_E_,_w_.M_. __________ _ Local relief (concave, convex, none): _c_o_n_v_e_, _____ Slope(%) _7_'_Y, __ Subregion (LRR): _L_R_R_-_A _____________ Lat 47.4520 Long: -122.2079 Datum: ____ _ Soil Map Unit Name: A!derwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes NWI classification: _________ _ Are climatic/ hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes_./ __ No (lfno. explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation _ Soil _, or Hydrology_ _ significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation __ , Soil~ _. or Hydrology ___ naturally problematic? Are '·Normal Circumstances'· present? Yes_ ./ _ No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc_ Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes --No -.( -Is the Sampled Area Hydnc Soil Present? Yes -.( -No --.( within a Wetland? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No .( --------- Remarks: Non-wetland west of Wetland A. VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size 30 meters I % Cover Sgecies? Status Acer macrophyllum 70 y FacU Number of Dominant Species 1 1. That Are OBL. FACW, or FAC: (A) 2 Thuja plicata 20 y Fae Total Number of Dominant 3 Species Across All Strata: 5 (Bl 4 90 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species 20 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (AIB) Sagl1ng/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 10 meters ) 1 Corylus cornuta 30 y FacU Prevalence Index worksheet: 2 Oemleria cerasiformis 30 y FacU Total% Cover of: Multigly by 3 Rubus armeniacus 5 N FacU OBL species 0 X 1 = 0 4 FACW species 0 x2= 0 5. FAC species 20 x3= 60 65 = Total Cover FACU species 205 x4= 820 Herb Stratum (Plot size. 1 meter I UPL species 0 x5= 0 1. Polystichum munitum 60 y FacU 225 880 (B) Column Totals: (A) 2. Rubus ursinus 10 N FacU 3 Prevalence Index =BIA= 3 91 4 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. -Dominance Test is :>SO% 6. Prevalence Index is :s;3.0 7. Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting 8 data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants -9. 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 11 1 lndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present. unless disturbed or problematic. 70 = Total Cover Woody_ Vine Stratum (Plot size I 1. Hydrophytic 2. Vegetation ./ Present? Yes No ------= Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 10 Remarks US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast-Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point DP2 I Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth ----Matrix ,--· -------Redox Features (inches) Color (mrnst) _Tu__ Color (moist) ______%__ ~ Loc2 Texture Remarks --··· 0-18 10YR 3/2 95 10YR 3/3 5 C M silt loam ----------- ------------ -----------~-----·-- ------------ ------------- ----------- ------------ ----------- 1T"~e: C Concentration, D Denletion, RM-Reduced Matrix, CS-Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL -Pore Linina, M-Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 : Histosol (A 1) Sandy Redox (S5) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) -H1stic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) -Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Other (Explain in Remarks) -Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A 12) ,( Redox Dark Surface (F6) ·'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ./ No Remarks ' HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Prima[t Indicators (minimum of one reguired· check all that aggl~l Secondaty Indicators (2 or more reguired) Surface Water (A 1) _ Water-Stained Leaves (89) (except MLRA _ Water-Stained Leaves (89) (MLRA 1, 2, _ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 48) 4A, and 48) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) -Drainage Patterns (810) _ Water Marks (B 1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B 13) -Dry-Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (82) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C 1) -Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) -Geomorphic Position (02) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) -Shallow Aquitard (03) Iron Deposits (BS) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAG-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (86) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) -Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) -Other {Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) -Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No ,( Depth (inches) ---- Water Table Present? Yes No ,( Depth (inches)· -------- Saturation Present? Yes No ,( Depth (inches) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ,( ----------l1ncludes canillan1 frinne\ Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well. aerial photos. previous inspections) if available I Remarks US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast-Version 2.0 ! WETLAND DETERMI ION DATA FORM -Western Mountair alleys, and Coast Region Project/Site RAD Holdings, LLC Applicant/Owner: RAD Holdings. LLC lnvestigator(s). Louis Emenhiser City/County King County/ Renton Sampling Date 07.25. 13 --------------------State WA ___ Sampling Point D_P_3 ___ _ Section. Township, Range _S_3_o_,_T_2_3N_, R_SE_, w_.M ___________ _ Landform (hillslope. terrace, etc.) _H_i_lls_lo~p_e __________ Local relief (concave, convex none): _C_o_n_v_e_x _____ Slope(%): _8_'_Y, __ Subregion {LRR) _L_R_R_-A ____________ _ Lal 47.4519 Long -122.2085 Datum ____ _ Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes NWI classification _________ _ Are climatic/ hydro logic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes_ ./ _ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ___ , Soil __ Are Vegetation __ , Soil_ or Hydrology_ _ significantly disturbed? or Hydrology ___ naturally problematic? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes_ ./ _ No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes --No -I -Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No I I ----within a Wetland? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No I ----------- Remarks: Non-wetland on the forested slope. VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size 30 meters ) % Cover Sgecies? Status Acer macrophyllum 60 y FacU Number of Dominant Species 1 1 That Are OBL. FACW, or FAC: (A) 2. Fraxinus latifolia 30 y FacW Total Number of Dominant 3 Species Across All Strata: 6 (B) 4. 90 Percent of Dominant Species 16 = Total Cover That Are OBL FACW, or FAC· (A/8) Sagllng/Shrub Stratum (Plot size 10 meters ) 1 Symphoricarpos albus 30 y FacU Prevalence Index worksheet: 2 Oemleria cerasiformis 20 y FacU Total% Cover of: Multigly by· 3 Rubus armeniacus 20 y FacU OBL species 0 X 1 = 0 4 Holodiscus discolor 10 N FacU FACW species 30 x2= 60 5 Rubus parviflorus 10 N FacU FAC species 0 X 3 = 0 90 = Total Cover FACU species 160 x4= 640 Herb Stratum (Plot size 1 meter I UPL species 0 x5= 0 1. Polystichum munitum 10 y FacU 190 700 Column Totals (A) (B) 2. 3. Prevalence Index =BIA= 3.68 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. -Dominance Test is >50% 6. Prevalence Index is $3.01 7 Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting 8. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1 -9. 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain) 11. 1 lndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present. unless disturbed or problematic. 10 = Total Cover Wood'i. Vine Stratum (Plot size: I 1 Hydrophytic 2 Vegetation I Present? Yes No ------= Total Cover %, Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 5 Remarks· US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains. Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0 I SOIL Sampling Point _D_P_3 __ _ Profile Description: (DesCribe to ·the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inche§l_ 0-18 Matrix -~C~o~lo~r~l~m~o~is~tl~ ____jL_ 10YR 3/2 100 Redox Features Color(moist) __ %_ ~ _____LQ_c;{__ Texture Remarks silt loam --------. -- ----------- ------------- ---------------- -------------- ---------------- 1 r,,.·,e-c-concentration, O-Deoletion, RM-Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL -Pore Linina, M-Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Histosol (At) Sandy Redox (S5) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Restrictive Layer (if present): Tyw ____________ _ Depth (inches): Remarks· HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix {F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) Primary Indicators (minimum of one required· check all that apply} I I Surface Water (A1) _ Water-Stained Leaves (89) (except MLRA _ High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B 1) Sediment Deposits (82) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (813) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C 1) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 : 2 cm Muck (A10) Red Parent Material (TF2) Other (Explain in Remarks) ]Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ,/ Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) _ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Drainage Patterns (810) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) -Drift Deposits (83) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) -· Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (85) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAG-Neutral Test (DS) Surface Soil Cracks (86) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (06) (LRR A) -Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) -Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (07) -Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes --No -I -Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No I Depth (inches): ---- Saturation Present? Yes No I Depth (inches)· Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No I ----------(includes canillarv frinoel Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys. and Coast -Version 2.0 I WETLAND DETERMI Project/Site· RAD Holdings, LLC Applicant/Owner. RAD Holdings, LLC lnvestigator(s)· Louis Emenhiser ION DATA FORM-Western Mountair alleys, and Coast Region City/County: King County/ Renton Sampling Date 07.25.13 State !!._~-Sampling Point" _D_P_4 ____ _ Section. Township. Range: _S_3_o_:_,_T_2_3_N._, _R_5_E._, W_M_. ----------- Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): _H_i_lls_lo_,p_e __________ Local relief (concave. convex, none). _C_o_n_v_ex ______ Slope('%) _4_'"-'-- Subregion (LRR): LRR-A Lat: 47.4520 Long -122.2094 Datum ____ _ Soil Map Unit Name Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent s_lo._p_e_s __________ NWI classification _________ _ Are climatic/ hydro logic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ____ ./ _ No ___ (If no. explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation-----, Soil ···-· or Hydrology_ _ significantly disturbed? Are ·'Normal Circumstances" present? Yes_ I _ No (If needed. explain any answers in Remarks.) Are Vegetation __ , Soil_ _, or Hydrology ___ naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Remarks I Non-wetland in maintained lawn. Yes No ,/ Yes ,/ No Yes No ,/ VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 meters ) % Cover 1 Fraxinus latifolia 20 2. 3 4 20 Sagling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 10 meters ) 1 2 3 4 5. Herb Stratum (Plot size 1 meter I 1 Schedonorus arundinaceus 20 2. Elymus glaucus 20 3. Hypochaeris radicata 20 4. Agrostis tenuis 10 5. Holcus lanatus 10 6 Ranunculus repens 10 7 Trlfolium pratense 10 8 9. 10 11 100 Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: I 1 2 % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 5 Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes __ _ No~,/- Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Species? Status Number of Dominant Species y FacW That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW. or FAC 50 (A/BJ Prevalence Index worksheet: Total% Cover of: Multii:;:ily by· OBL species 0 X 1 = 0 FACW species 20 x2= 40 FAC species 50 x3= 150 -Total Cover FACU species 50 x4= 200 UPL species 0 x5= 0 y Fae 120 390 (8) Column Totals (A) y FacU y FacU Prevalence Index =BIA= 3.25 N Fae Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: N Fae Dominance Test is >50% - N Fae Prevalence Index is :53.0 1 N FacU Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1 - Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present. unless disturbed or problematic -Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation ,/ Present? Yes No -------Total Cover Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0 I I SOIL Sampling Point _D_P_4 __ _ Pf-ofile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redq~_ f:_eatures (inches) Color (moist) __ji_ Color (moist) ~ ___ly_illL__ k._q_c{_ Texture Remarks 0-18 10YR 3/2 95 10YR 4/3 5 C M silt loam -----------------·-- ------------- ------------····- ----------- ----------- ------------ ------------· --------j 1T•me: c-cancentration, D-Denlet1on, RM-Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Location: PL -Pore llninn. M-Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric SoilsJ: --Histosol (A 1) Sandy Redox (S5) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) -Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6} __ Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) -Depleted Below Dark Surface {A 11) Depleted Matrix {F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) I Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present); Type Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ./ No Remarks· HYDROLOGY I Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primarv Indicators (minimum of one reauired check all that aoolv) Secondarv Indicators (2 or more reauired) Surface Water (A1) -Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA _ Water-Stained Leaves (89) (MLRA 1, 2, -High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 48) 4A, and 48) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (811) _ Drainage Patterns (B10) -Water Marks (B 1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) -Sediment Deposits (82) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (83) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots {C3) _ Geomorphic Position {02) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ····-·-Shallow Aquitard (03) !ran Deposits (85) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAG-Neutral Test (05) Surface Soil Cracks (86) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A} Raised Ant Mounds (06} (LRR A) -Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7} _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (07) -Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No I Depth (inches): ---- Water Table Present? Yes No I Depth (inches): ---- Saturation Present? Yes No I Depth (inches) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No I ----------(includes canillarv frinnel Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available -Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMI ION DATA FORM -Western Mountair alleys, and Coast Region City/County King County/ Renton Sampling Date· 07.25.13 ProJecUSite· RAD Holdings. LLC ApplicanUOwner: RAD Holdings, LLC lnvestigator(s): Louis Emenhiser State· WA Sampling Point _D_P_5 ____ _ ·-----------Section. Township, Range: _s_3_0_. _T_23_N_._R_5_E...c'_:_W_.M ___________ _ Landform (h1llslope, terrace, etc.)· _H_i_lls_lo---'p_e _________ _ local relief (concave, convex, none): _C_o_n_v_e_x _____ Slope(%) ~ Subregion (LRR): _c:L::_R_:_R_:_-_:_A_:_ ____________ Lat. 47.4519 Long: -122.2097 Datum: ____ _ Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam. 6 to 15 perc_e_n_t_sl_o._pe_s ___________ NWI classification: _________ _ Are climatic/ hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ____ {_ __ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation_ ~·Soil _____ . or Hydrology_ _ significantly disturbed? Are '·Normal Circumstances" present? Yes_ ./ _ No (!f needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) Are Vegetation __ , Soil~ _, or Hydrology ___ naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Remarks Yes Yes I Yes No I No No I i Non-wetland in maintained lawn / blackberry patch. VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 meters Absolute ) % Cover 1 Fraxinus latifolia 10 2 3. 4 10 SaRling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 10 meters I 1 Rubus armeniacus 50 2 3. 4 5. 50 Herb Stratum (Plot size 1 meter I 1. Holcus lanatus 20 2. Elymus glaucus 10 3 Hypochaeris radicata 10 4 Dactylis glomerata 10 5. Schedonorus arundinaceus 10 6 Ranunculus repens 10 7 Agrostis tenuis 10 8 Conium maculatum 5 9 Cirsium vulgare 5 10. 11 90 Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size ) 1 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 Remarks· US Army Corps of Engineers Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No I Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Species? Status Number of Dominant Species y FacW That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC 2 (Al Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata 6 (B) Percent of Dominant Species 33 = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (AIB) y FacU Prevalence Index worksheet: i Total(% Cover of: MultiQIY by OBL species 0 X 1 = 0 FACW species 10 x2= 20 FAC species 60 x3= 180 -Total Cover FACU species 85 x4= 340 UPL species 0 x5= 0 y Fae 155 540 Column Totals (A) (Bl y FacU y FacU Prevalence Index = BIA -3.48 y FacU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: N Fae Dominance Test is >50% - N Fae Prevalence Index is s3.01 N Fae Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting N Fae data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) N FacU -Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. -Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation I Present? Yes No -------Total Cover Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0 I SOIL Sampling Point: _D_P_5 __ _ Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth _____ l®.tor ------Redox Features (inches) Color (moist} _______%__ ~-(m.21.ill__ ~ ~ -----'=-K_ Texture Remarks 0-18 10YR 312 95 10YR 413 5 C M silt loam --------------------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --.. --------- ------------ ------------ I ----------- ' ·r,, .... e. c-concentration, D-Denletion, RM-Reduced Matrix, 2Location: PL=Pore Linina, M-Matrix. CS-Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 : Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) -2 cm Muck (A10) -Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) -Red Parent Material (TF2) -Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Other (Explain in Remarks) -Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) -Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) ./ Redox Dark Surface (F6) Jlndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F?) wetland hydrology must be present. Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type· Depth (inches) Hydric Soil Present? Yes ./ No Remarks I I HYDROLOGY I Wetland Hydrology Indicators: , Primary Indicators (minimum of one required check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A 1) _ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA _ Water-Stained Leaves {89) (MLRA 1, 2, __ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) _ Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) -Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C 1) -~ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rh1zospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Geomorphic Position (02) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) -Shallow Aquitard (03) Iron Deposits (BS) Recent Iron Reduction 1n Tilled Soils (C6) FAG-Neutral Test (OS) Surface Soil Cracks (86) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) -Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) -Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (07) -Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No -./ -Depth (inches) -- Water Table Present? Yes No ./ Depth (inches): ---- Saturation Present? Yes No ./ Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ./ ----------I includes can1llarv fnnnel Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well. aerial photos. previous inspections), if available: ' Remarks· US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mounta1ns Valleys. and Coast -Version 2.0 I ! WETLAND DETERMI ION DATA FORM-Western Mountair alleys, and Coast Region Project/Site RAD Holdings, LLC Applicant/Owner· RAD Holdings, LLC lnvest1gator(s): Louis Emenhiser City/County: King County/ Renton Sampling Date 07.25.13 State WA Sampling Point: _D_P_6 ____ _ Section, Township. Range: _S_3_0_,_T_2_3_N_, _R_5_E_, W_.M ___________ _ Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): .::H.::i:::lls:.:.1°::.,P:.:ec_ _________ Local relief (concave, convex, none). _C_o_n_v_ex ______ Slope(%) 16 % Subregion (LRR)· LRR-A lat 47 4519 ---·----·---Long -12_2_.2_1_0_0 _______ Datum ----- Soil Map Unit Name. Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes NWI class1ficat1on _________ _ Are climatic/ hydrologic conditions on the site typical far this time of year? Yes_ ./ _ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation~-_, Soil_ _, or Hydrology_ _ significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation __ , Soil_ ~· or Hydrology ___ naturally problematic? Are ·'Normal Circumstances" present? Yes_ ./ _ No (If needed. explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric So ii Pres en!? Wetland Hydrology Present? Remarks: Non-wetland in blackberry patch. Yes Yes Yes No No No ,/ ,/ ,/ VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Tree Stratum (Plot size· 30 meters ) % Cover 1. Acre macrophyllum 30 2 3 4 30 Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 10 meters ) 1 Rubus armeniacus 70 2 Symphoricarpos albus 10 3. 4 5. 80 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1 meter I 1 Elymus glaucus 20 2. Ranunculus repens 20 3. 4 5. 6 7 8 9 10 11 40 Woody_ Vine Stratum (Plot size: I 1 2 % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 Remarks US Army Corps of Engineers Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes __ _ No ,/ Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Species? Status Number of Dominant Species y FacU That Are OBL. FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata 4 (8) ! Percent of Dominant Species 25 -Total Cover That Are OBL FACW, or FAC: (A/8) y FacU Prevalence Index worksheet: N FacU Total % Cover of: Multiply by OBL species 0 X 1 = 0 FACW species 0 x2= 0 FAG species 20 x3= 60 -Total Cover FACU species 130 x4= 520 UPL species 0 X 5 = 0 y FacU Column Totals 150 580 (Bl (A) y Fae Prevalence Index =BIA= 386 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test 1s >50% - Prevalence Index is 53.0 1 Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation·· (Explain) Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present. unless disturbed or problematic = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation ,/ Present? Yes No -------Total Cover Western Mountains, Valleys. and Coast -Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point DPB Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features {inches) Color (moist) ~ Color (moist) ~ ____Iy_Q!L_ Loc2 Texture Remarks I 0-18 10YR 3/2 100 silt loam -.--~--·---··-----'---------------- ------------ --------------··------------·-·· ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 1Tvne: C=Concentration, O=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Location: PL=Pore Lininq_ M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric SoilsJ: Histosol (A 1) Sandy Redox (S5) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) -Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) -Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Other (Explain in Remarks) -Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) -Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A 12) Redox Dark Surface (FB) 31ndicators of hydraphyt1c vegetation and I Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F?) wetland hydrology must be present I Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ./ No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Prima[Y Indicators (minimum of one reguired check all that a1212ly} Secondary Indicators (2 or more reguired) Surface Water (A 1) -Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA _ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 46) 4A, and 46) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) _ Drainage Patterns (81 0) _ Water Marks (B 1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B 13) _ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (83) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Geomorphic Position (02) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aquitard {03) Iron Deposits (85) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (CB) FAC-Neutral Test {05) Surface Soil Cracks (86) Stunted or Stressed Plants (01) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (06) (LRR A) -Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) -Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (07) -Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BB) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes --No - ,/ -Depth (inches): ' Water Table Present? Yes No ,/ Depth (inches): ---- Saturation Present? Yes No ,/ Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ,/ ---------- (includes capillary frinqe) I Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well. aerial photos, previous inspections), 1f available· Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains. Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0 X "" ""Tl " m :z w 0 {!; m "O -~ -< !;? :E " 0 a. ~ CY ~. " -;u Q " 0 :, --:,-0 <D :, ~ 0 ~ ' II 0 0 ~ 0 q N 0 0 Acre Job: 13039 Drawn By: L. Emenhiser Date 09 04.2013 Revision #: NIA • • ; 'c u '1r z 0 OJ ~ G) )> C m cl -I ""Tl -I )> )> ""Tl r (/) cl m )> 0 ;o z G) z 0 z -I 0) -I 0 -I )> r ~ -z PREPARED FOR: RAD HOLDINGS, LLC ATTN. RORY DEES 6252167TH AVE, SE BELLEVUE, WA 98006 m G) >< 0 ;o (/) ;o )> -I -<z < mG) mr ) \___ .. -'-____ ,,,1. o£f\'<d 1 'S O'l:I r··-- /~"~ ,,, j C' ,,, ,, < 0 0 0 ' • 0 0 0 0 I CRITICAL AREAS MAP RAD HOLDINGS, LLC -3112 TALBOT ROAD RENTON, WA TAX PARCEL NO. 302305-9028 m >< (/) (/) -I ""Tl z ;o G) J PREPARED BY: Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC 17715 28th Avenue NE Lake Forest Park, WA 98155 Phone: (206) 450-7746 Email: louis@acreenvironmental.com MAP SHEET: CA1.00 PLAT NAME RESERVATION CERTIFICATE TO: RORY DEES 1040 W. LAKE SAMMAMISH PKWY SE BELLEEVUE, WA98008 PLAT RESERVATION EFFECTIVE DATE: July 23, 2014 The plat name, VALLEY VUE has been reserved for future use by RAD HOLDINGS LLC. I certify that I have checked the records of previously issued and reserved plat names. The requested name has not been previously used in King County nor is it currently reserved by any party. This reservation will expire July 23, 2015, one year from today. It may be renewed one year at a time. If the plat has not been recorded or the reservation renewed by the above date it will be deleted. ~~ Leroy Chadwick Deputy Auditor PROJECT 13-138 Parcel name: 1 North: 167824.33 East: 1300332.98 Line Course: N 89-40-03 W Length: 147.13 North: 167825.18 East: 1300185.85 Line Course: N O I -53-16 E Length: 50.02 North: 167875.18 East: 1300187.50 Line Course: S 89-40-02 E Length: 147.11 North: 167874.32 East : 1300334.60 Line Course: S O 1-52-08 W Length: 50.02 North: 167824.33 East: 1300332.97 Perimeter: 394.28 Area: 7,356 sq. ft. 0.17 acres Mapcheck Closure -(Uses listed courses, radii, and deltas) Error Closure: 0.00 Course: S 72-06-04 W Error North: -0.001 East: -0.004 Precision I: 394,280,000.00 05/05/14 PROJECT 13-138 2 Parcel name: 2 North: 167874.32 East : 1300334.61 Line Course: N 89-40-02 W Length: 147.11 North: 167875.18 East: 1300187.50 Line Course: N 01-53-16 E Length: 25.00 North: 167900.16 East: 1300188.32 Line Course: N 88-08-17 W Length: 12.0 I North: 167900.55 East : 1300176.32 Line Course: N 01-51-20 E Length: 24.70 North: 167925.24 East: 1300177.12 Line Course: S 89-40-03 E Length: 159.12 North: 167924.32 East: 1300336.24 Line Course: S 01-52-08 W Length: 50.02 North: 167874.32 East: 1300334.61 Perimeter: 417.96 Area: 7,654 sq. ft. 0.18 acres Mapcheck Closure -(Uses listed courses, radii, and deltas) Error Closure: 0.00 Course: N 53-39-18 W Error North: 0.001 East: -0.002 Precision I: 417,960,000.00 05/05/14 3 PROJECT 13-138 Parcel name: 3 No1ih: 167875.32 East: 1300163.48 Line Course: N 89-40-02 W Length: 142.54 North: 167876.15 East : 1300020.95 Line Course: N 01-51-43 E Length: 50.02 North: 167926.14 East: 1300022.57 Line Course: S 89-40-03 E Length: 154.56 North: 167925 .24 East : 1300177 .13 Line Course: S O 1-51-20 W Length: 24. 70 North: 167900.55 East: 1300176.33 Line Course: N 88-08-17 W Length: 12.01 North: 167900.95 East : 1300164.32 Line Course: S 01-51-43 W Length: 25.64 North: 167875.32 East: 1300163.49 Perimeter: 409.47 Area: 7,422 sq. ft. 0.17 acres Mapcheck Closure -(Uses listed courses, radii, and deltas) Enor Closure: 0.01 Course: N 81-42-57 E Error North: 0.001 East: 0.008 Precision 1: 40,947.00 05/05/14 PROJECT 13-138 Parcel name: 4 North: 167825.32 East: 1300161.86 Line Course: N 89-40-03 W Length: 142.54 North: 167826.15 East: 1300019.32 Line Course: N 01-51-43 E Length: 50.02 North: 167876.14 East: 1300020.95 Line Course: S 89-40-02 E Length: I 42.54 North: 167875.32 East: 1300163.48 Line Course: S 01-51-43 W Length: 50.02 North: 167825.32 East: 1300161.86 Perimeter: 385.13 Area: 7,128 sq. ft. 0.16 acres Mapcheck Closure -(Uses listed courses, radii, and deltas) Error Closure: 0.00 Course: S 00-19-57 W Error North: -0.001 East: -0.000 Precision 1: 385,120,000.00 4 05/05/14 PROJECT 13-138 Parcel name: 5 North: 167826.98 East: 1299876.67 Line Course: S 89-40-03 E Length: 142.65 North: 167826.15 East: 1300019.32 Line Course: N 01-51-43 E Length: 50.02 North: 167876.14 East: 1300020.94 Line Course: N 89-40-02 W Length: 142.65 North: 167876.97 East: 1299878.30 Line Course: S 01-51-43 W Length: 50.02 North: 167826.98 East : 1299876.67 Perimeter: 385.34 Area: 7,133 sq. fl. 0.16 acres Mapcheck Closure -(Uses listed courses, radii, and deltas) Error Closure: 0.00 Course: N 00-19-58 E Error North: 0.001 East: 0.000 Precision I: 385,340,000.00 5 05/05/14 PROJECT 13-138 6 Parcel name: 6 North: 167876.15 East: 1300020.94 Line Course: N 89-40-02 W Length: 142.65 North: 167876.97 East: 1299878.29 Line Course: N O 1-51-43 E Length: 25.00 North: 167901.96 East: 1299879.11 Line Course: N 88-08-17 W Length: 12.00 North: 167902.35 East: 1299867.11 Line Course: N 01-51-43 E Length: 24.70 North: 167927.04 East: 1299867.91 Line Course: S 89-40-03 E Length: 154.65 North: 167926.14 East: 1300022.56 Line Course: S 01-51-43 W Length: 50.02 North: 167876.15 East : 1300020.94 Perimeter: 409.01 Area: 7,430 sq. ft. 0.17 acres Mapcheck Closure -(Uses listed courses, radii, and deltas) Error Closure: 0.00 Course: N 75-17-18 W E!Tor North: 0.00 I East : -0.004 Precision I: 409,020,000.00 05/05/14 PROJECT 13-138 7 Parcel name: 7 North: 167877.64 East : 1299764.26 Line Course: N 01-51-43 E Length: 50.02 North: 167927.63 East: 1299765.88 Line Course: S 89-40-03 E Length: I 02.04 North: 167927.04 East: 1299867.92 Line Course: S O 1-51-43 W Length: 24. 70 North: 167902.35 East : 1299867 .12 Line Course: N 88-08-17 W Length: 12.00 North: 167902.74 East: 1299855.13 Line Course: S 01-51-43 W Length: 25.64 North: 167877.11 East: 1299854.29 Line Course: N 89-40-02 W Length: 90.03 North: 167877.64 East: 1299764.26 Perimeter: 304.42 Area: 4,796 sq. ft. 0.11 acres Mapcheck Closure -(Uses listed courses, radii, and deltas) Error Closure: 0.01 Course: N 82-00-46 E Error North: 0.00 I East : 0.006 Precision 1: 30,443.00 05/05/14 PROJECT 13-138 8 Parcel name: 8 North: 167827.12 East : 1299852.66 Line Course: N 89-40-03 W Length: 90.03 North: 167827.64 East: 1299762.64 Line Course: N 01-51-43 E Length: 50.02 North: 167877.63 East: 1299764.26 Linc Course: S 89-40-02 E Length: 90.03 North: 167877 .11 East : 1299854.29 Line Course: S 01-51-43 W Length: 50.02 North: 167827.12 East: 1299852.66 Perimeter: 280.11 Area: 4,502 sq. ft. 0.10 acres Mapcheck Closure -(Uses listed courses, radii, and deltas) Error Closure: 0.00 Course: S 00-19-57 W Error North: -0.000 East : -0.000 Precision 1: 280,100,000.00 05/05114 PROJECT 13-138 Parcel name: 9 North: 167829.39 East: 1299461.39 Line Course: S 89-40-03 E Length: 182.93 North: 167828.33 East: 1299644.32 Line Course: N 00-19-57 E Length: 100.00 North: 167928.32 East: 1299644.90 Line Course: N 89-40-03 W Length: 180.44 North: 167929.37 East: 1299464.46 Line Course: S 01-45-40 W Length: 100.03 North: 167829.39 East: 1299461.39 Perimeter: 563.41 Area: 18,169 sq. ft. 0.42 acres Mapcheck Closure -(Uses listed courses, radii, and deltas) Error Closure: 0.00 Course: N 73-57-41 W Error North: 0.001 East: -0.004 Precision 1: 563,400,000.00 9 05/05/14 PROJECT 13-138 10 Parcel name: BOUNDARY North: 167923.57 East : 1300464.45 Line Course: N 89-40-03 W Length: 1000.00 North: 167929.38 East : 1299464.47 Line Course: S 01-45-40 W Length: 100.03 North: 167829.39 East : 1299461.39 Line Course: S 89-40-03 E Length: 999.81 North: 167823.59 East : 1300461.19 Line Course: N 01-52-08 E Length: 100.04 North: 167923.58 East: 1300464.45 Perimeter: 2199.89 Area: 99,994 sq. ft. 2.30 acres Mapcheck Closure -(Uses listed courses, radii, and deltas) Error Closure: 0.01 Course: N 17-18-28 W Error North: 0.005 East : -0.002 Precision 1: 219,988.00 05/05/14 PROJECT 13-138 Parcel name: TRACT A North: 167823.59 East: 1300461.19 Line Course: N 89-40-03 W Length: 128.21 North: 167824.33 East: 1300332.98 Line Course: N 01-52-08 E Length: 100.04 North: 167924.32 East : 1300336.24 Line Course: S 89-40-03 E Length: 128.21 North: 167923.57 East: 1300464.45 Line Course: S 01-52-08 W Length: 100.04 North: 167823.59 East: 1300461.19 Perimeter: 456.51 Area: 12,822 sq. ft. 0.29 acres Mapcheck Closure -(Uses listed courses, radii, and deltas) Error Closure: 0.00 Course: S 90-00-00 E Error North: 0.000 East : 0.000 Precision 1: 456,500,000.00 l l 05/05/14 PROJECT 13-138 12 Parcel name: TRACT B North: 167825.18 East: 1300185.85 Line Course: N 89-40-03 W Length: 24.00 North: 167825.32 East: 1300161.85 Line Course: N 01-51-43 E Length: 75.66 Norih: 167900.94 East: 1300164.31 Line Course: S 88-08-17 E Length: 24.02 North: 167900.16 East: 1300188.32 Line Course: S 01-53-16 W Length: 75.02 North: 167825.18 East: 1300185.85 Perimeter: 198.70 Area: 1,809 sq. ft. 0.04 acres Mapcheck Closure -(Uses listed courses, radii, and deltas) Error Closure: 0.01 Course: S 85-42-38 W Error North: -0.000 East : -0.005 Precision 1: 19,870.00 05/05/14 PROJECT 13-138 13 Parcel name: TRACT C North: 167826.98 East: 1299876.67 Line Course: N 89-40-03 W Length: 24.01 North: 167827.12 East: 1299852.66 Line Course: N 01-51-43 E Length: 75.66 North: !67902.74 East: 1299855.12 Line Course: S 88-08-17 E Length: 24.00 North: 167901.96 East : 1299879.11 Line Course: S 01-51-43 W Length: 75.02 North: 167826.98 East: 1299876.67 Perimeter: 198.69 Area: 1,808 sq. ft. 0.04 acres Mapcheck Closure -(Uses listed courses, radii, and deltas) Error Closure: 0.00 Course: S 61-37-24 W Error North: -0.001 East: -0.001 Precision 1: 198,690,000.00 05/05/14 PROJECT 13-138 14 Parcel name: TRACT D North: 167828.33 East: 1299644.32 Linc Course: S 89-40-03 E Length: 118.31 North: 167827.64 East: 1299762.63 Line Course: N 01-51-43 E Length: I 00.04 North: 167927.63 East: 1299765.88 Line Course: N 89-40-03 W Length: 120.98 North: 167928.33 East: 1299644.90 Line Course: S 00-19-57 W Length: 100.00 North: 167828.33 East: 1299644.32 Perimeter: 439.34 Area: 11,965 sq. ft. 0.27 acres Mapcheck Closure -(Uses listed courses, radii, and deltas) Error Closure: 0.00 Course: N 02-06-10 E Error North: 0.004 East : 0.000 Precision I: 439,330,000.00 05/05/14 SUBDIVISION Issued By: CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY I I Guarantee/Certificate Number: 0019652-06 CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY a corporation, herein called the Company GUARANTEES RAD Holdings, LLC, and Axis Survey and Mapping herein called the Assured, against actual loss not exceeding the liability amount stated in Schedule A which the Assured shall sustain by reason of any incorrectness in the assurances set forth in Schedule A. LIABILITY EXCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS 1. No guarantee is given nor liability assumed with respect to the identity of any party named or referred to in Schedule A or with respect to the validity, legal effect or priority of any matter shown therein. 2. The Company's liability hereunder shall be limited to the amount of actual loss sustained by the Assured because of reliance upon the assurance herein set forth, but in no event shall the Company's liability exceed the liability amount set forth in Schedule A. Please note carefully the liability exclusions and limitations and the specific assurances afforded by this guarantee. If you wish additional liability, or assurances other than as contained herein, please contact the Company for further information as to the availability and cost. Chicago Title Company of Washington 701 5th Avenue, Suite 2300 Seattle, WA 98104 Countersigned By: Authorized Officer or Agent Subd1v1sion Guarantee/Certificate Page 1 Chicago Title Insurance Company By: Attest: President Secretary Printed: 07.15.14@ 10:23AM W A-CT-FNSE-02150. 6224 76-S P S-1-14-0019652-06 CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE MPANY GUARA Liability $1,000.00 Effective Date: July 9, 2014 at 08 OOAM ISSUING OFFICE: Title Officer: Commercial / Unit 6 Chicago Title Company of Washington 701 5th Avenue, Suite 2300 Seattle, WA 98104 Main Phone: (206)628-561 O Email: CTISeaTitleUnit6@ctt.com SCHEDULE A Premium $350.00 The assurances referred to on the face page are: :E/CERTIFICATE NO. 0019652-06 Tax $33.25 That, according to those public records which, under the recording laws, impart constructive notice of matter relative to the following described property: SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF Title to said real property is vested in: RAD Holdings, LLC, a Washington limited liability company subject to the matters shown below under Exceptions, which Exceptions are not necessarily shown in the order of their priority. END OF SCHEDULE A Subdiv1s1on Guarantee/Certificate Page2 Printed: 07.15.14@ 10:23AM WA-CT-FNSE-02150.6224 76-SPS-1-14-0019652-06 EXHIBIT "A" Legal Description That portion of the north 100 feet of the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter in Section 30, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington, lying east of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the north line of said subdivision which is north 89°33'31" west 1,000 feet from the northeast corner thereof; thence south 1 '52'12" west to the south line of said north 100 feet, and the terminus of said line; Together with an easement for roadway over the south 12 feet of the north 106 feet of the west 275 feet of that portion of said subdivision lying east of the Kent-Renton Road, County Road No. 80; Except portion lying within the above described main tract. Subdivision Guarantee/Certificate Page 3 Printed· 07.15.14@ 10:23AM WA-CT -FNSE-02150.6224 76-SPS-1-14-0019652-06 CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE MPANY GUARA :E/CERTIFICATE NO. 0019652-06 SCHEDULE B GENERAL EXCEPTIONS A. Rights or claims of parties in possession, or claiming possession, not shown by the Public Records. B. Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land. C. Easements, prescriptive rights, rights-of-way, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records. D. Any lien, or right to a lien, for contributions to employee benefit funds, or for state workers' compensation, or for services, labor, or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, all as imposed by law, and not shown by the Public Records. E. Taxes or special assessments which are not yet payable or which are not shown as existing liens by the Public Records. F. Any lien for service, installation, connection, maintenance, tap, capacity, or construction or similar charges for sewer, water, electricity, natural gas or other utilities, or for garbage collection and disposal not shown by the Public Records. G. Unpatented mining claims, and all rights relating thereto. H. Reservations and exceptions in United States Patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof. I. Indian tribal codes or regulations, Indian treaty or aboriginal rights, including easements or equitable servitudes. J. Water rights, claims or title to water. K. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the Public Records, or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed Insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. Subd1vis1on Guarantee/Certificate Page 4 Printed: 0715.14@ 10 23AM WA"CT-FNSE-02150 622476-SPS-1-14-0019652-06 CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE MPANY GUARA :E/CERTIFICATE NO. 0019652-06 ---------------------------------- SCHEDULE B (continued) SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS 1. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto, as granted in a document: Purpose: Recording Date: Recording No.: Affects: Roadway March 22, 1947 3669076 A westerly portion of the southerly 6 feet of said premises and other property 2. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto, as granted in a document: Granted to: Purpose: Recording Date: Recording No.: Affects: Puget Sound Power & Light Company Electric transmission and/or distribution system July 11, 1952 4244147 As constructed 3. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto, as granted in a document: Purpose: Recording Date: Recording No.: Affects: Roadway March 3, 1964 5705702 The south 20 feet of said premises We find Mutual Releases of Easement recorded under Recording Nos. 20140627001668, 20140627001669 and 20140627001670 which purport to vacate and terminate said Easement. 4. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto, as granted in a document: Granted to: Purpose: Recording Date: Recording No.: Affects: Puget Sound Power & Light Company An electric line and all necessary appurtenances November 27, 1963 5669641 Portion of said premises, as staked or as may be relocated by mutual consent 5. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto, as granted in a document: Granted to: Purpose: Recording Date: Recording No.: Affects: Subdivision Guarantee/Certificate Washington Natural Gas Gas pipelines January 4, 1991 9101040242 South 1 0 feet Page 5 Printed: 07.1514@ 10:23AM WA-CT-FNSE-02150.6224 76-SPS-1-14-0019652-06 -=C..:..:Hc..:IC::..:.A..:..:G::cOc__:_T::..:.IT-=L=E..:..:IN..:..:S::cU::..:.R-"A-"N..:..:C::..:.E=---------"~"---P'-'A"--'N--'--Y-------G'----U::..:.A-"R.:cA--'-----='E"--'/C::..:.E=R..:..:T"'IF'---'-ICATE NO. 0019652-06 SCHEDULE B (continued) 6. General and special taxes and charges, payable February 15, delinquent if first half unpaid on May 1, second half delinquent if unpaid on November 1 of the tax year (amounts do not include interest and penalties): Year: 2014 Tax Account No.: 302305-9028-01 Levy Code: 2104 Assessed Value-Land: Assessed Value-Improvements: General and Special Taxes: $245,000.00 $122,000.00 Billed: Paid: Unpaid: $5,237.52 $2,618.76 $2,618.76 7. Please be advised that our search did not disclose any open mortgages of record. If you should have knowledge of any outstanding obligation, please contact the Title Department immediately for further review prior to closing. 8. Terms and conditions of the Limited Liability Company Agreement for RAD Holdings, LLC, a Washington limited liability company. 9. Your application for title insurance was placed by reference to only a street address or tax identification number. Based on our records, we believe that the legal description in this report covers the parcel(s) of Land that you requested. If the legal description is incorrect, the seller/borrower must notify the Company and/or the settlement company in order to prevent errors and to be certain that the correct parcel(s) of Land will appear on any documents to be recorded in connection with this transaction and on the policy of title insurance. END OF EXCEPTIONS NOTES The following matters will not be listed as Special Exceptions in Schedule B of the policy. There will be no coverage for loss arising by reason of the matters listed below because these matters are either excepted or excluded from coverage or are not matters covered under the insuring provisions of the policy. Note A: Note B: Note: FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY: The following may be used as an abbreviated legal description on the documents to be recorded, per Amended RCW 65.04.045. Said abbreviated legal description is not a substitute for a complete legal description within the body of the document: Ptn. NE 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 30 Twp 23 N Rge 5 E, W.M. Tax Account No.: 302305-9028-01 Note: Any map furnished with this Guarantee is for convenience in locating the land indicated herein with reference to streets and other land. No liability is assumed by reason of reliance thereon. END OF NOTES END OF SCHEDULE B Subdivision Guarantee/Certificate Printed: 07.15.14@ 10"23AM WA-CT-FNSE-02150.6224 76-SPS-1-14-0019652-06 Page 6 • u~· lll!,l'"'" '" i»'-i uoL <10.1. ---111 a.11 .il~::,olll', ···--l!Hl -·-1-~ru1es~1on ~e,kon Mar· 20-47· --o,ail i1.'J.·a;rlor ·1.L. u11 1tioo&1 Etht1l l!. 'ls;•lor cc"' LSe.r ;10-i.7 'b7 o ..... .l ll.'l.'aylor a.M ~t.11.ul Jt.Ta,r.i.or; 1wr lran:itisa .J11via np rcr lJ'I ,:i,a at an a ;run )~A.9 (1::l. Centl'fll ll.<J111.ty, ;L(l) 4th li, U•t;ilt,J.e tlll by i'13'l'I0o) 11 Mar 24•·47 •'«.r 21-47' --- ll,'l/,Holl11an end M1ldl'!lll ~.HoJ.lman, l:\w to Metropolitan J'e4ural Snv1.ng.a and Lte,a 11p llltg to, 151 t.hG 1'<1:re in ttllv. A11a a ot 313a t t l,s .,,--. I .... ~..i I l.ot 4 exaept t.he N l:Z!i ft Bll: 5 J'iaol'illr' 111 1ilg)l11,1 Ge.r<len Tt,4; Ne 2 ue per pll~ t rec 1n v~l. 27 ~ plat.a pg J7 :reo ot ko sitt L~ klli'II .ult.h all rxt.r• aAd •quivaent. \load ill 000,11 w!tb 1d prom, 11..l.l 4eu,o4 J>ert ot tbe realt71 li11p or t150, with .ti1~ E1,~o t.o .tia4 1:n 011 tel Pl'CJ'f&a tr,r a,oat or 11ohg reo 1111,1 at.t,11: am H.YI .. Holl•sn ltildred B.,Holllt8.ll ~:011 Mar 2.L ... J.7 by B. W,Jlollaian nD4 Mildred ll.Holl~en, h11 b,.,f i:rna Beni5,aUJ1d np tor 1,w r111 et a M .Tan 2··48 (Ml s)l l.J2~ 4tll .A,s flt l'STIOo) --- i a,110.t. Oon ~ e: D 8ar 24··47 J6-!i917:1 .-~¥x:'. · t'a:r 20•47 ~o 1 raod ., ·;.,. 1 ~ onald 0 0 0etr1.,_1d and. hcoart.a T ,Ot1tt!0Jd, b.111 1 .:.' b..-'. t. t c !lllat1taxxli'ualxam.xku111l!ta.11·u1.1um ., ' ... l:, Fro.Ille Prl'lntioe and lilan1ta .ll Praut.1 u1, h11 ~-// Jp hb7 a ti and 110 t.o up tht oortfll.n eont. o,ntd into on 11~1· i.-,~6 . l,•~" Cibeat;•r ~oren el:ld Geno,e Nora!\, h11 u 1.1elle:rs ond Vil 1111111 Sn.1$111 and W:11lla Lf)ll Snoay, hto a11 pur tor t.ue 11alo ana pu1· ot tho tdre in lu111 Lot.11 ll4 ,,nd 115 Blk: "·"" ot Hcmw <.:iert11111, 111 per platrc10 in~·ol 2 9 or .Plft t,a PB 2;, r,o :;,t ¥d o o .SubJ to rt, or the pub 11nd rstnt-ot :reo en•! rp II a, and 01 ad PN& to •P 11ho nbr ,llll:Uls en4 ae:rs111 to tultill. tl:rn oondi or ad oozis JJonald O,iOa!'.!'isl.lt Ro,,l'ta T.Git1'1'1o14 r.011 Mar 2t-47 117 D~•llftl,4 O.Got:ri,.ld eri:I R11>!rnrbe 'l'.Ge.i.')'i<1ld I bert Faul. v. L1nd.'qu1at np tor 111 r11a nt a r.a Oot 18-;iO ( 111. .Irenic Prontioo, l51S.?7 141,h A,e NE :t'l,·l h.Y PsTi:.oo) --- ( 8) 0 ... ,,; ",,j .~, ltl ~.!J I rl C1 ,·~·t <) • ;~4 r·; l.i} ' ;'1 n.J .---I ·'.:., f" ..t ·;-4 =u ~·r '-~'' . ·fJJ ~I ·j ·.+.) ..,,,. t1 ~~f ;.-11 "'t'1° () 1 ~ l ~·15 ......,·,.,.~·,._;-:'; n GJ ~-.~ :~ .. ;J : f~ ~ ,, CJ ....... iJ ,,... ~:~ '•:; () {) (.' ,gi •:) lj L... '...~ ,w-~ ";7:r · t~ ~1 F{ i..,°) 0 . ,J . .J' _rp ~a.:!' ~,._} .Lr~ . '."---~ fU ~.-! r,'J ~+:j .t:'. j3 f"'· f ,4.p • "' :; ~i~ .~ Q) ~--·. ~ ;~ .• r .... Q} ~ ... 4 ~::-:, .;~'> n c\;!' f" n,· ('"'.,¥ 0 t., ,.:~:. ,.i.. .. t t> ,j,,-,1 ... ,.,, ,,~") P-1 .... , (~~ ((; .,,, ... "LJ •i t'.:: ,-r _,-) .. ' . / •• ' .,.:.·.·, . ..'. .. · .. ·.r,. ···,, ,)!\:/~ .. /·;-.·:·'.·::'.\:·1··. _1 ff:E. ClRAflTOR·1 lilt.,; .Q&11e11ardner; ,to :t.ht 'ed.ant , of her int~t-~h' ~d ~l11~ifi~ and t1 ;tn;iit,11~,:!~oi-e11fo'J.10 .. ' · I •. : · ·' ' ' · ' .. · · · · · · · ··." r ' .. : .. · . ' duuribod don ho.~eb:, .11rait an ,u,i;i,11t1 to!:': ro~d~a:,•purpau, oY~r th• •outh 20 tu°' tro11 'thw w~i\,'h di~ ,itot oYtr .tho tollo~ink d .. crib~d, prop,ri,11 1 ' ' fhtt rortioli ot·11,. h'•·nortli, 100 ·toot ot th, north,,o,t ··011 ·ter of'th'"::1,ijilStluaiit 'atlar.t.r in :'iectio'n au; To•n•hli, ·23 North, .)iilAg•,·&cll,W,11:, in King County, •~•hin~ton1 lying ,a,t,ot th• follcwing doocribod line, beginning at a poAnt on the north.line or aaid 1ubdlwi1iou win eh l • itorth 8!1 3.11'. 31~' nit. ~000 tut rro'iil tho tiorthout cornor thereot, tho~ce 1outh 1 G2'12" wt,t.to tho south I in• or uid iOU te ·L · , ' · , . . • ... ' . ) ' . ' 0:::: j I /·) (./ · ~' 1/.1,. :J 'f.': ·'.V, }".• '.f;(' ,/., i°lla P. ba~rdner Wuhia.gton ::~n: o:~~------} "· I , . On tht. 26th __ day 0 / .~'-•c..bru.t_c:.,e'1,_ _____ I 64 , · -Al D. 19 __ before me, tht! unr:IC!nl11:ned, a Notary Public in and for tht!!I State of W••hi~ton BllA p • k\ld.gardncr -duly Co~mluioned and .-worn peuon&Jly ~ppoared lo me kn<;-wn ·lo be the lndlvldual_:_ dncribed in and who c:1:ccuted 1he rorqolni lnltrum I d L I d , h • t. . J . en , an ac&now e a:e-o to mt!!I t at~~e:.~.::,;~~· ped ana teftled the .aid ln•trument .. _M!.._ __ free and voluntary act and d .1 f t' d h , ( , \\ y_;t CH!ii;; or ne UIC'I an purp.,u. t ,.'1,, ,' ,' ,'1! ,, •• ti'.. lj ·e;;: ,. . t-\ . ! • /~'ff'N65! f!l!·~d and official 111tftl hert!lta affixed the dt'I.)' and ;Yl'IU In thi, certUii':Ale aho\l' _itt •, •:w 1 11,/,.. ;f• · t!!I Wn en, I; L. ,) I:•,. ".>(pJ;;;; • ~ -· · . .-.;""/j'OL/~frl•."~·,i t ,· .. · .. _,, c. ~-ee..._-'".·,:· ,~1·~· .f~\f; ,·· No1uy p..,;,., r~2d ro,. 1h, S1at• r..l 'Wa•.bington .'•,,,:, .... ··~.-\ .' --:o., r11\'.. . r.tl~lni_~ ~----'R:.:.•:..n:.:.t_o_n.:_ _______ _ ','\ ·' (Acknowl!d11rn•~I by lni:UvlJ1.1•I, W_ .. hih,ton Title lntur•nc• Con;iJl•nF, Form L 29) I . ' ,; ) ... • Return Address: 1111 ill 111 11!11~ l~I 11 1 ~rn~ m ~I 1~111 Ii II 20140!27001668 JOHNS MONROE EAS 74. 00 PAGE-001 OF 003 06/27/2014 14:59 KING COUNTY, UA Robert D. Johns Johns Monroe Mitsunaga Kolouskova PLLC 1601 l 14~ Avenue SE, Suile 110 Bellevue, WA 98004 EXCISE TAX NOT REQUIRED King Co. Records Division AUDITOR/RECORDER'S INDEXING FORM ORIGIN~~puty Document Tille(s): I MUTUAL RELEASE OF EASEMENT Granton: RAD HOLDINGS, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; and MYLES G. GILBERT Grantees: RAD HOLDINGS, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; and MYLES G. GILBERT Documents 5705702 referenced: Legal Po11ion ofNollh 100 feet of the NE quarter of the SE quaner of Section 30, Township 23 Description: Nollh, Range 5 East, W .M., records of King County, Washington ( abbreviated) Jx Additional legal is on 2 J of document. l pages i Assessor's Property Tax Parcel/Account Numbers: 1302305-9028, 302305-90 l l MUTUAL RELEASE OF l!:ASEMENT RAD HOLDINGS, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; and MYLES G. GILBERT enter into Jhe following Mutual Release of Easement Recitals A. On February 26, 1964, Ella P. Baumgardner executed a Grant of Road Easement over and across property she owned which granted a roadway easement over the south 20 feet from west to east over the following described property: That portion of North 100 feet of the NE quarter of the SE quarter of Section 30, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., records of King County, Washington, lying easterly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the north line of said subdivision, at a point on the north line of said subdivision which is north MUTUAL RELEASE OF EASEMENT -I 89°33' 31" west 1000 feet from the northeast comer thereof; thence south IO 52' 12" west to the south line of said 100 feet, W.M., records of King County, Washington B. RAD HOLDINGS, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; and MYLES G. GILBERT are collectively the owners of both the dominant and servient interests in the Easement described above. C. Each of the parties has access by road to their property without use of the Easement. As a result, the continuing existence of the Easement provides no benefit to any of the properties allegedly benefitted by the Easement, but the Easement does create an unnecessary burden on each. The Easement no longer serves any purposes and the parties wish to terminate it. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual release of obligations created by the Easement, the sufficiency of which is confirmed by the parties to be adequate consideration, the parties agree that the Easement recorded under King County Recording No. 5705702 is hereby vacated and terminated immediately and shall have no further effect. Each party releases the other parties from any rights or obligations created under or in connection with the Easement. Its authorized agent MUTUAL RELEASE OF EASEMENT -2 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss COUNTY OF KING ) I hereby certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Rory P. Dees is the authorized agent of RAD HOLDINGS, LLC, a Washington limited liability company, is the person who appeared before me, and acknowledged that he signed this instrument, on oath stated that he is authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the volwitary act of RAD HOLDINGS, LLC, to be the free and volW1tary act of such limited liability company for the uses and pWJ)OseS mentioned in this instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and year first above written. STA TE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING ) ) ss ) (Print or stamp name of Notary) NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at S~ , ~ My Appointment Expires: 1)l~,.b I hereby certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that M, ~ l £5 Cf G-( \.bff?J: is the authorized agent of MYLES G. GILBERT, is the person who appeared before me, and acknowledged that he signed this instrument, on oath stated that he is authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as his voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and year first above written. """"'"" _ ... ~~';I .. ~~ u~, ,: ":••",i.\l. E,t_.• •• v.;,\ / .l.. • "" . • -,, 1:t.: .,.0 1AR1-\ 1 . . "" . • . • -. I : . -= •z \ . .... ~\4 Pua1fi $/ EJ ~ .. -1.1\··!.0seR t'o;.· ~0 1 '#'\ ~ •, • • H • "s~'_# .._,oFwP.. ,,., '1t"•11nn••'' MUTUAL RELEASE OF EASEMENT -3 (Print or stamp name o Notary) NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of ~ Washington, residing at SG~ My Appointment Expires:~ G I . '. Return Address: I~~ I il!lli~ll~li11111111 \l~llli 1~1~11 ~ 20140627001669 JOHNS ~O!IROE EAS 75 . 00 PAGE-001 OF 004 06/27/2014 14:59 KING COUNTY, UA Robert D. Johns Johns Monroe Mitsunaga Kolouskova PLLC 1601 114"' Avenue SE, Suite 110 Bellevue, WA 98004 EXCISE TAX NOT REQUIRED AUDITOR/RECORDER'S INDEXING FORM ORIGINAL King~ By eputy I- Document Tille(s): I MUTUAL RELEASE OF EASEMENT Grantors: RAD HOLDINGS, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; TERRANCE W. MACLEOD and KATHRYN J. MACLEOD, a marital community Grantees: RAD HOLDINGS, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; TERRANCE W. MACLEOD and KATHRYN J. MACLEOD, a marital community Documents 5705702 referenced: Legal Portion of North 100 feet of the NE quarter of the SE quarter of Section 30, Township 23 Description: North, Range 5 East, W.M., records of King County, Washington (abbreviated) X Additional legal is on 2 of document. pages Assessor's Property Tax Parcel/Account Numbers: 1302305-9028; 30;305-9029 MUTUAL RELEASE OF EASEMENT RAD HOLDINGS, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; and TERRANCE W. MACLEOD and KATHRYN J. MACLEOD, a marital community enter into the following Mutual Release of Easement: Recitals A. On February 26, 1964, Ella P. Baumgardner executed a Grant of Road Easement over and across property she owned which granted a roadway easement over the south 20 feet from west to east over the following described property: That portion of North 100 feet of the NE quarter of the SE quarter of Section 30, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., records of King County, Washington, MUTUAL RELEASE OF EASEMENT -I lying easterly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the north line of said subdivision, at a point on the north line of said subdivision which is north 89°33'3 I" west 1000 feet from the northeast comer thereof; thence south I 0 52' 12" west to the south line of said 100 feet, W.M., records of King County, Washington B. RAD HOLDINGS, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; and TERRANCE W. MACLEOD and KATHRYN J. MACLEOD, a marital community, are collectively the owners of both the dominant and servient interests in the Easement described above. C. Each of the parties has access by road to their property without use of the Easement. As a result, the continuing existence of the Easement provides no benefit to any of the properties allegedly benefitted by the Easement, but the Easement does create an unnecessary burden on each. The Easement no longer serves any purposes and the parties wish to tenninate it. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual release of obligations created by the Easement, the sufficiency of which is confinned by the parties to be adequate consideration, the parties agree that the Easement recorded under King County Recording No. 5705 702 is hereby vacated and tenninated immediately and shall have no further effect. Each party releases the other parties from any rights or obligations created under or in connection with the Easement. DATED this ll._ of NW£..mru~Ol3 , LLC, a Washington limited liability company Its authorized agent MUTUAL RELEASE OF EASEMENT -2 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss COUNTY OF KING ) I hereby certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Rory P. Dees is the authorized agent of RAD HOLDINGS, LLC, a Washington limited liability company, is the person who appeared before me, and acknowledged that he signed this instrument, on oath stated that he is authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the voluntary act of RAD HOLDINGS, LLC, to be the free and voluntary act of such limited liability company for the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereu:tiy hand and official seal the day and year first above written. · 1 w ~ (Signature ofNotary) JON W. NELSON STATE OF WASHINGTON NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 09-25-15 MUTUAL RELEASE OF EASEMENT -3 (Print or stamp name of Notary) NOTARY PUBLIC in ancJ,fo~theState of Washington, residing at -~'---"~s=~~-- My Appointment Expires: -!:I -z.,s-1,5 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss COUNTY OF KING ) I hereby certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that -is Ill@ a11t110Fi<1@~ eigeHt eftERRANCE W. MACLEOD, is the person who appeared before me, and acknowledged that he signed this instrument, on oath stated that he is authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as his voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunt\ set my hand and official seal the day and year first above written. ~ W hlvk JON W. NELSON STATE OF WASHINGTON NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 09-2S.15 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss COUNTY OF KING ) (Signature of Notary) (Print or stamp name of Notary) NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at j:)1;2l,)..e.N..E My Appointment Expires: j-Z..s~ IS I hereby certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that is tire ---------au t b m;i ;,is ti agcut of KATHRYN J. MACLEOD, is the person who appeared before me, and acknowledged that she signed this instrument, on oath stated that she is authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as her voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereu:r:y hand and official seal the day and year first above written. ..J:iA ' \ AJ N\~~ JON W. NELSON (Signature of Notary) STATE OF WASHINGTON NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 09-25-15 MUTUAL RELEASE OF EASEMENT -4 (Print or stamp name of Notary) NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at ~(Ac My Appointment Expires: 9 ~u;-i '5 Return Address: ~1111111~ 1111~1 Iii Ill~ I I Iii Iii II 20140627,01670 JOHNS noNROE EAS 75 -00 PAG£-001 OF 004 06/27/2014 14:59 KING COUNTY,~ Robert D. Johns Johns Monroe Mitsunaga Kolouskova PLLC 1601 l 14~ Avenue SE, Suite I IO Bellevue, WA 98004 AUDITOR/RECORDER'S INDEXING FOR~ 8-l-GI NAL -. - I MUTUAL RELEASE OF EASEMENT Document Title(s): Grantors: RAD HOLDINGS, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; SKINNERONE, LLC, a Washington limited liability company. Grantees: RAD HOLDINGS, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; SKINNERONE, LLC, a Washington limited liability company. Documents 5705702 referenced: Legal Portion of North 100 feet of the NE quarter of the SE quarter of Section 30, Township 23 Description: North, Range 5 East, W.M., records of King County, Washington (abbreviated) X Additional legal is on 2 of document. pages Assessor's Property Tax Parcel/Account Numbers: 1302305-9028; 302305-9033 MUTUAL RELEASE OF EASEMENT RAD HOLDINGS, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; and SKINNERONE, LLC, a Washington limited liability company enter into the following Mutual Release of Easement: Recitals A. On February 26, 1964, Ella P. Baumgardner executed a Grant of Road Easement over and across property she owned which granted a roadway easement over the south 20 feet from west to easl over the following described property: That portion ofNorth 100 feet of the NE quarter of the SE quarter of Section 30, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., records of King County, Washington, MUTUAL RELEASE OF EASEMENT -1 lying easterly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the north line of said subdivision, at a point on the north line of said subdivision which is north 89°33 'JI" west l 000 feet from the northeast comer thereof; thence south I 0 52' 12" west to the south line of said I 00 feet, \V.M .. records of King County, Washington B. RAD HOLDINGS, LLC. a Washington limited liability company; SKINNERONE, LLC, a Washington limited liability company are collectively the owners of both the dominant and servient interests in the Easement desaibed above. C. Each of the parties has access by road to their property without use of the Easement. As a result, the continuing existence of the Easement provides no benefit to any of the properties allegedly benefiued by the Easement, but the Easement does create an unnecessary burden on each. The Easement no longer serves any purposes and the parties wish to terminate it. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual release of obligations created by the Easement, the sufficiency of which is confirmed by the panies to be adequate consideration, the parties agree that the Easement recorded under King County Recording No. 5705702 is hereby vacated and tem1inated immediately and shall have no funher effect. Each party releases the other parties from any rights or obligations created under or in connection with the Easement. DATED this JL ofd-i,',1'111¢-, 2013 S, LLC, a Washington limited liability company Its authorized agent SKINNER NE, LLC, a Washington limited liability company MUTUAL RELEASE OF EASEMENT -2 ST ATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss COUNTY OF KING I hereby certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence thaJ1,tA,t~L. J;;.,,-)J.;,J is the authorized agent ofSKINNERONE, LLC, a Washington limited liability company, is the person who appeared before me, and acknowledged that he signed !his instrument, on oath stated that he is authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the voluntary act ofSKINNERONE, LLC, to be the free and voluntary act of such limited liability company for the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and year first above written. l~ A 1 ~ MUTUAL RELEASE OF EASEMENT -4 (Signature of Notary) (Print or stamp name of Notary) NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the Stat~ of Washington, residing at y.lcod..i f\\J i \le.. ,WA My Appointment Expires: ol -~ g -j 16 ST A TE OF WASHINGTON ) ss COUNTY OF KING ) I hereby certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Rory P. Dees is the authorized agent of RAD HOLDINGS, LLC, a Washington limited liability company, is the person who appeared before me, and acknowledged that he signed this instrument, on oath stated that he is authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the voluntary act of RAD HOLDINGS, LLC, lo be the free and voluntary act of such limited liability company for the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto (et my hand and official seal the day and year first above written. -4(\.., w ~ JON W. NELSON STATE OF WASHINGTON NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 09-25-15 MUTUAL RELEASE OF EASEMENT -3 (Signature of Notary) (Print or stamp name of Notary) NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the Stale of Washington, residing at e>Eu.E:V\l.E Yly Appointment Expire~::Z:5-@ I . \ i l -------~~~ /} .[72,S 2 I\' , •I( Dote --~"--"'---''°=--------i9Ll ~ The oode.sig,ed, lJL?,..,, £ /3 uM,= J"""l.,nk,J, {_,:e_~_,~·~c&~~~~-)_~---- ~ ~ -~ _, -. •• ... _, (,C u'; grr:ints tv PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, the rigtlt to inst::11, mo into in, replace, remove and use, on electric line, i'lcfuding all necessary poles, anchors, wires and fixtures, and lo keep this lin,:, free of interferenc.e from tre-es ot other growth on the following property situated in the County of Kin..R.__.____ ______ , State of Washington· Thr;d. portion of the \:orth 100 feet nf the r-:ortlieast r11artpr of thP South-- e-1.st f"tui.r_t,er in St'\cti.on 30, To·,mshj~J 23 :·orth, ttan~e 5 E. ·,L~!., in Kini? County, 1iashinfJ'ton; lyinJ· i,-ggt of thf' fo1lowinf! clescril,ed line: Bt'!""ginning at B point or the ?\orth linp of said subriivisior which is N11rth 89 33' 31 11 11est 1000 ff'et from th~ Xorthe.:st corner thert;>of· tbmcP South 1°52'12 11 'fest to the South 1:inf' of s-sid _'-·ortli ]00 fef't; t 'l'DC'El'HE!l ,!l'J'!l and ciL1)JEC'J' TO an C·"sement for roadway purpnses over the South_l2 feet of_th~ \nrth 106 feet of the West 275 fpet of that portion of ~:nd subd1v1sli1ll lyi.nr.' E<1.st of Kent-Henton road, County aoad i\'o. 80 The center line-of soid electric line to be locared as now stoked across said property or -~•~•~ma=y'-'b~ee....~r~e~\~o~c~a~t~e~d._ by ~utual consent. The Company shall hove access for tha purpo:se1 stotl!ld and sholl be re;ponsibll!I for d~mage caus.d by negflgence of the Company. Thou terms 1holl be binding upon tha successor, c1nd assigns of~~. rupecti..-e parties, STATE OF WAsHINGTON \ . ,.../ " COUNTY OF~/#~ STATE OF WASHINGTON I .. COUNTY OF On this __ day of--------------- ington, 19 --, before ;ne 1 the undersigned, per:sonolly appeared --------------·---------and------------------------- tc me known to be the _____ President and ________ Secretory, rl!lspectively, of ----------- the corporotion tl,,at e>cecuted the foregoing instrumont, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the n'ee and voluntary act ond dHd vf said corporation, for +he us1u and purpcHs lhenin mentioned, and on oath !ltated that OtJthoriz:ed to execute the said instrument and that tha, seal affixed is the ecrporate seal ot said corporation. Witness my hand .:1nd officio! seal her~ta affi1ted the day and year first above Wr ;tton. Nc;itary Publle in.and for the Stau of Washington, re1ldlng at-------------.••. \ ~,~;,~~,·~!,;PERMIT .•. ··~ ______ V _2 -:i._ •. 1 ........ 96 ...... 3 !----'· __ :...,;;__..__;c_-----~----'--'~ ' I i I J,'ll-t/n;t,·l,.,,;,::t<>1.~, l'LEASE RETURN TO: ",~HINGTON NATURAL G.\S CO, .rlJH:ON: LEGALDm. 0. BOX 1869 3UTILE, WA 98111 I ht: (irantor, __ _EU.AP._ T_IIAYF.R __ ~ EASEMENT r JI' \l-\1' \i > 11)1! '\() !HZ-118 l(J(.\ll(I\ JUE3C1~l.."?-~- tu\11'·\'1" \(1 in co11,lc..kr.itio11 of U\f l)(}l.l .1\ R !Sl.fJO). m hand pait.l, and mhcr i;uot.l and 1·alu;1hkcoth11krat111n. n:1:t·ip1 11 hereof i., herch~· :u:knuwlct.lge<l. Urn::\ hmby curncy an<l warrant to W :\SI I ],\"(;·1 ()\ '\ATI I Ri\ 1. (!,.\S COMP,\\iY. a \\'a~hin!!tnn Corporati(m. ii\ wcce~\Of~ and as~iirn~. herein referred 10 ,1., ··(irantcc", a 11011-~·.o,;c lu~i\'c ca~cm~nl for ;1 g.:L'> pipdim: 1)r pi pcllnc~ 11;:Ji:f, m·cr. tlm111gh ;1ml acro,~ tlu:: tullu11 ing dcso.:rihcd pn1perty of the (iranlor lm:atcd in th~ County of ___ lq~g-·-----~-----·---------- Stalt' nl Wa~hingtoff The North 100 rect of lbc North half of Un: Norlh hair or Ilic Northeast quarlcr or lhe Southeast qunrler ofSrction JO, Township B Norlh, Runge 5 Ewa lyi11J1 Ensl ol Kenl-Rcnton Counl.t" Roar.l No. 80 (now known a-. 961h Menuc South). EX<.:EPT that porlio11 tJ(lhe abD,·c described parcel or land l.t"ing Wesl or the following described line: Beginning, al the East quarter corner of said Se{'lion JO; thence North 89°JJ'Jl" West alo11g lhe Enst We.st centerlint or . ...a.id Sce-tirm JO 1,000 feet to lhe POINT CW BEGINNJN(; or~id line; !hence Snulh 01°52'1:Z" Wc.,;I 100.0 fed lo the tcrmlnu.~ uf s.iid line. .Sit11ate in l\ill;? Coun1y, \\';1,hin~ton. 1-::.:.1.,;cmcnt loe:11ion: :'i:· Said ca.'ierncnt i.s; Joeutcd on t11c South 10 fett or the abm·c d~cribcd p:1rccl of fund. -- 7--ti. 't-ct L(.,.:I Yi 1:1,. I~•""'-' .... ' .::;,:c ISE TAX NOT REQUIRED •• King Co. Records Division . Ov:·'(.:. .( l(<,j_/:cC, Deputy '-,. o:· gi\'ing anJ grantin~ to Grnnl~t' 1hc righ! 10 conslruct, it1.\(;dl, operate, main1ain. pro1ect, impro\·t', rt'pair. rcpl.ice ;1ml ;1band11n in placc~aid g.t.> pipeline or pipelines, toge I her wi1h the non-c:,;clusi\·c righ, uf acce~'i to and from ~aid property. i\s used herein. the term "pipeline" sh;ill include g;L\ lines and .'lcrvicc ... together with suc.11 surf.Jee or .'!Ub-surfa~c pipeline appurtcn,mccs a11d facilities a:; arc necessary, in 1hc judgement of Grantee, for the nperntion ;md nrnin1cnancc of ..,aid pipeline or pipeline .... By lhc acr.:cp1,mce ol tlli.~ casement Gr;1111cc agrees to hold lhe Granwr harmb.., f nml any Joss, cmt or d;un.igc resulting from the opl'ration or m:tintcnartcc of such pipclinc or pipeline-~ cxccpl as rnay he anrihutahlt' to the sole negligence of Gr,mtm. (iranlor agree ... not to cret:t ,my structurcs 1in ~.iid cascmcnl. DATED chis _I Z._day of [) J. ~, .......... -1 l1..,_,_ ______ . 192.Q. , .. C ,,. ,. C· 9 UO 1..-04 lt(,:'4? J Fl ST,\ILOFW,\SH\NG'\O!' ) C01 INTY OF J< V;tc}---) SS . -----RF.Crr-.---scocr- RECFEE 2.00 CASHSL ,....,,... ... 7. 00 S5 . ,.1 0'1,. c,., On !Im _L . ___ day nf __)J~_'._ ___ , 19.1 .v.. before me, the 011Jer.'lig11cd. ;1 '.\ot:1r~· Puh!ic. duly cuntmi ... si,mct.l and ... worn. personally appc.irctl bcfon.: me /i.2f!£__g__zj,J.7"-~--------- F. I h.nc hcn:unln ~ct nn h,md ,md ,L!fo;ed m1 not.ma! ~cal tl1c Jay ant.I) c.ir m tlm ttcn \I:,,(, ~ ;,, I 1111 "I AFFIDAVIT OF INSTALLATION OF PUBLIC INFORMATION SIGN City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) COUNTY OF KING ) duly sworn on oath, deposes and says: being first 1. On the -· ;21.j day of Jk k L:{ , 2oi_li_, I installed __ I_ public information sign(s) and plastic flyer box on the property located at '3112\o ·:rnL@t>f i?on:u S. for the following project: ~n"" 1 Wf\-9 '*'0'~ Vau...r,,1-1 Vll\i.-- Project name l?i\fY HvWNbS' uc... Owner Name 2. I have attached a copy of the neighborhood detail map marked with an "X" to indicate the location of the installed sign. 3. This/these public information locations in conformance with the require Code and the City's "Public Information Sig SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this "71) _ day of ,_l \t\V'I ,2oa JON W. NELSON STATE OF WASHINGTON NOTARY P\..l,BLlk in and for the State of Washington, residing at \':'.)Q..\\Q_\)U I / . NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 09-25-15 My commission expires on 9-2 S -l '==> H :\CED\Data \F om1s-Temp I ates\S el f-Hel p Handouts\Pl ann ing\pubsi gn. doc -3-12113 i 4" !------------E6" ... ·~~ . o f * \ PROPOSED LAND USE ACTION 0 "' ~ ,;I! --~-----------------I Type cf Action_: (Provioea ~y Applicant) I SITE MAP ' I Proje<I Name; (Provided by Applicant) I Laminati:!G 0 Site Address: {Provideri by Applicant} I N ' I lnslalled by Applicant I ' TO SUBMIT COMMENTS OR OBTAIN l--------~---------J ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PLEASE ., a CONTACT CllY OF RENTON STAFF AT: 0 "' ! Space I i tlevelop1ner1t Se.-vlces Division i I I PLASTIC 1055 somh Grady Way reserved for : j City provided ! CASE 0 Renton. Wasl1lngton 98055 ' PUBLIC ! [nsta11_ed by "' (425) 430-7200 NOTICE 1 applicant _J Please refere,1ce the pmjed number. If no [ 8.5" .x 14·· 0 L---··--·-··· a number is /bted refertmce U1e ;rn~eci name. ;, lns"'.:illll'.'r· instruct~ors; Please ensut·e tlie bottc-m r.f· th-e s:·gn does not TITLE 3" ALL C/1.PS OTHfR I 112" CAPS snd 1" LOWER GASE H: \CED\Data \Forms-Temp lates\Se 1 f-Help Han douts\PI ann i ng\pu bs ign. doc • 4 · 12/13 PROJECT 13-138 14 Parcel name: TRACT D North: 167828.33 East : 1299644.32 Line Course: S 89-40-03 E Length: 118.31 North: 167827.64 East: 1299762.63 Line Course: N 01-51-43 E Length: 100.04 North: 167927.63 East: 1299765.88 Line Course: N 89-40-03 W Length: I 20.98 North: 167928.33 East: 1299644.90 Line Course: S 00-19-57 W Length: 100.00 North: 167828.33 East: 1299644.32 Perimeter: 439.34 Area: I 1,965 sq. ft. 0.27 acres Mapcheck Closure -(Uses listed courses, radii, and deltas) Error Closure: 0.00 Course: N 02-06-10 E Error North: 0.004 East : 0.000 Precision I: 439,330,000.00 05105/14 RECEIPT EG00027010 BILLING CONT ACT Rory Dees RAD HOLDINGS LLC 6252 167TH AVE SE BELLEVUE, WA 980065645 REFERENCE NUMBER FEE NAME LUA14-001040 PLAN -Environmental Review PLAN -Preliminary Plat Fee Technology Fee Printed On: 8/1/2014 Prepared By: Clark Close 4 -r·. "f.· ''. City of , ---------" , r· · .. r r . ! . ..,,,,,,..,,... -...,.. Transaction Date: August 01, 2014 LUA 14-001040 TRANSACTION TYPE Fee Payment Fee Payment Fee Payment PAYMENT METHOD Check #1025 Check #1025 Check #1025 SUB TOTAL TOTAL AMOUNT PAID $1,000.00 $4,000.00 $150.00 $5,150.00 $5,150.00 Page 1 of 1