Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutReport 1Marshall Brenden Wayne Potter 18225 SE 128th Street Barghausen Consulting Engineer Renton, WA 98059 18215 - 72nd Avenue S Kent, WA 98032 Hans Korve DMP Eng., Inc. 726 Auburn Way N Auburn, WA 98002 Don & Andrea Gragg 16046 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 Jennifer McCall Lozier Homes, Corp 1203 - 114th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98004 Curtis Schuster KBS III, LLC 12320 NE 8th Street ste: #100 Bellevue, WA 98005 Claudia Donnelly 10415 147th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 Norm Mohr 16224 SE 144th Street Renton, WA 98059 Marshall M Sender 18225 SE 128th Street Renton, WA 98059 John & Nenita Ching 16038 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 Debbie Eberle 18225 SE 147th Street Renton, WA 98059 Gwendolyn High C.A.R.E PO Box 2936 Renton, WA 98059 David Petrie 811 S 273rd Court Des Moines, WA 98198 Seattle KC Health Department East District Environ. Health 14350 SE Eastgate Way Bellevue, WA 98007 Karen Walter Muckleshoot Indian Tribe fisheries Division 39015 172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 Peter C. Hayes Coldweli Banker Bain 150 Bellevue Way SE Bellevue, WA 98004 Daniel Balmelli, PE Barghausen Consulting Engineer 18215 - 72nd Avenue S Kent, WA 98032 Linda Corgiat 16039 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 Norm & Patricia Grammell 16043 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 Richard & Teri Langdon 14201 - 164th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 Michael Ritchey 14225 - 164th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 Kohn Taylor 12320 NE 8th Street ste: #100 Bellevue, WA 98005 Gerald Smith 8524 S 125th Street Renton, WA 98057 �'APCES label size 1" x 2 51'8' kt ette be fj)rmat 25 Mm x P,� ,: aver Avery �'5160160 PARTIES OF RECORD LIBERTY GARDENS PREL PLAT LUA08-093, PP, ECF, AAD, MOD, ECF2 , Steve BOO�M,upervisor Kim Claussen PPMIIT Steve Tc 'send, Supervisor ! CPLN USD CPLN LUSD ' . LU15�- SD MS CAK DE 0100 MS OAK DE 0100 f (party of record) (pXcD (party of record KDOT Nick Gillen" Env. Scientist Shirley i, AS11 RCAS LUSD CPL SD MAK DE 0100 M OAK DE 0100 (party of re rd) (party of re7rd) (party of record) 11 Kris La ey, t, Env. Scientist Lisa Dins re CPLN STraffic Engineer Larry -s D C US❑ DDE SD MS AK DE 0100 SOAK DE 0100 M AK DE 0100 (party of r 'ord) (party of recprd) (party of record) l' iC) Trisha . Bull Alex P Oman Bruce W er DDIYLUSD D DD LUSD DD SD Mz5'OAK DE 0100 M OAK DE 0100 OAK DE 0100 (party of ecord) ►`� (Party of record) (party of record) Chad T bits ..... . .._... Wayne Patter Daniel Baimelli, PE DDE LUSD ` Barghausen Consulting Engineer Barghausen Consulting Engineer MS AK DE 0100 18215 - 72nd Avenue S 18215 - 72nd Avenue S Kent, WA 98032 Kent, WA 98032 t (applicant / contact) (party of record) (party of record) John & Nenita Ching Linda Corgiat Hans Korve 16038 SE 142nd Place 16039 SE 142nd Place DMP Eng., Inc. Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98059 726 Auburn Way N (party of record) (party of record) Auburn, WA 98002 (contact) Debbie Eberle Norm & Patricia Gammell Gwendolyn High 18225 SE 147th Street 16043 SE 142nd Place C.A.R.E Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98059 PO Box 2936 (party of record) (party of record) Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Updated_ 04/27/11 (Page 1 of 2) PARTIES OF RECORD LIBERTY GARDENS PREL PLAT LUA08-093, PP, ECF, AAD, MOD, ECF2 Richard & Teri Langdon 14201 - 164th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Michael Ritchey 14225 - 164th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Kolin Taylor 12320 NE 8th Street ste: #100 Bellevue, WA 98005 (party of record) Donald & Andrea Gragg 16046 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 tel: (425) 793-7370 (party of record) Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division 39015 172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 (party of record) Jennifer McCall Lozier Homes, Corp 1203 - 114th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98004 (party of record) Curtis Schuster KBS III, LLC 12320 NE 8th Street ste; #100 Bellevue, WA 98005 (party of record) Claudia Donnelly 10415 147th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Gerald Smith 8524 S 125th Street Renton, WA 98057 tel; (206) 772-5418 (party of record) Peter C. Hayes Coldwell Banker Bain 150 Bellevue Way SE Bellevue, WA 98004 tel: (425) 454-0470 eml: petehayes@cbbain.com (party of record) David Petrie 811 S 273rd Court Des Moines, WA 98198 (owner) Seattle KC Health Department East District Environ. Health 14350 SE Eastgate Way Bellevue, WA 98007 (party of record) Norm Mohr 16224 SE 144th Street Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Marshall M Bender 18225 SE 128th Street Renton, WA 98059 tel: (425) 255-6210 (party of record) Updated: 04/27/11 (Page 2 of 2) ruLNr DAM M. PM E 811 SOUTH 273rd COURT, DES MOINES, WASHINGTON 98198 PHONE No. (253)946-6619 FAX No. (253)529-2110 r�RO1ECF LIBERTY GARDENS EXISTING TREES IN AREA TO REMAIN UNDEVELOPED Dh:AWN !3Y I � I SCALE 1 �� 50' 17RALYJNt; CONCEPMALMTNCAVA LA � LIVi L1 sr�Lfr __ ___— _- ARPROW_D LM CA AUG. 11, 2 110 ✓ORS 01540 OF ___ _.____ 47 FAI KR 35 0 32 31 TRACT F 29 28 18" CE 30" MAPLE 8" MAP CEO TRACT D 27 4 OPEN SPACE i zo„ ALDER/ RECREATION (TRACTS 'B' AND 'E'): F f ER 71,218 S.F. / 1.63 AC. on CEDAR" 14" A CEDAR 18" ALDER ' 8" CEDAR TA P 4'" CEDAf 14" CEDAR" TRACT E =- 2",24" CEDAR L4'' G.:DA'/ 0 CEDAR .�' 36" MAPLE Q" COTTON WOO _ 24",S6- MAPLE 14" ALDER y s . . . . . . . . . . . NSy: 2" ALDER , rf " 2�4 CEDAR � 24 MAPLE \ C . AR 201 8"l ALDER WFJrA -zr if►laloll,:NO �1�� : 1 �t + ■ rCEDAR pity of Renton pbnninq NOV �� i' -v _ Denis Law Mayor City Of kr i: r �� u Community & Economic Development Department C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator April 2, 2015 DR Horton 12910 Totem Lake Blvd. NE, Suite 220 Kirkland, WA 98034 SUBJECT: Receipt of As-Built/Installation Letter, Surety, and Start of Monitoring Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat City of Renton File LUA08-093 To Whom It May Concern: We reviewed and approved the final wetland mitigation plan/monitoring proposal for Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat dated April 29, 2014 and received by the City on May 6, 2014. Monitoring and Maintenance Period Start Date: On February 25, 2015 the Certificate of Installation, for the Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat mitigation project, from Sewall Wetland Consulting was received. Therefore, the date of this letter marks the beginning of your minimum 5-year maintenance and monitoring period. As a reminder, reports are due quarterly for the first year and annually thereafter. Your first quarterly monitoring report is due to the City on June 20, 2015. Please send three copies of the report to my attention. Additionally, we will initiate the paperwork to release the surety device for the installation of the mitigation in the amount of is for $13,453,45. The release applies to the wetland mitigation installation. This letter is also confirming the City has received a surety device (check) in the amount of $16,390.00 to cover the cost of a minimum five years successful maintenance and monitoring. In order to assure the quickest possible release of your surety device, please ensure prompt monitoring and maintenance are performed for the duration of your monitoring period. If at any time during your minimum five-year monitoring period the mitigation project falls below performance standards, the monitoring period will be placed on hold. Once the mitigation project regains compliance with approved performance standards, Renton City Hall . 1055 South Grady Way . Renton, Washington 98057 . rentonwa.gov 11 April 2, 2015 Page 2 the maintenance and monitoring timeframe will restart for a period necessary to establish that performance standards have been met. I look forward to receiving your first quarterly maintenance and monitoring report, which is due on June 20, 2015. Sincerely, .,Gt�L� Ro ale Timmons, Planner Current Planning Division CC' Stacy Tucker, Planning Technician Wetland Resources Yellow File DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M a R A N D U M DATE: March 20, 2015 TO: Stacy Tucker FROM: Rocale Timmons SUBJECT: Release of Assignment of Funds Liberty Gardens Mitigation Installation City of Renton LUA08-093 Stacy, Please initiate the paperwork to release, the assignment of funds for the installation of the mitigation project for the Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat. The amount is for $13,453.45. The release applies to the wetland mitigation installation. A copy of the paperwork should also go in the yellow file and to the City Clerk's office. Thank you! h:\ced\planning\current planning\wetlands\hberty gardens install assignment of funds - release.doc RECEIPT EGO0036092 BILLING CONTACT SSHI, LLC, DBA DR HORTON 12910 Totem Lake Blvd NE , #220 Kirkland, WA 98034 REFERENCE NUMBER FEE NAME City of Transaction Date: April 02, 2015 TRANSACTION PAYMENT AMOUNT PAID TYPE METHOD 40156 Plan LUA08.093 Wetland Maintenance & Monitoring - Cash Bond Payment Check #40156 $16,390.00 3964 (650.000000.000.237.00.00.000) $ 10,3901.0 SUB TOTAL S16,390.00 TOTAL $16,390.00 Printed On: April 02, 2015 Prepared BV: Stacy Tucker Page 1 of 1 0505 1 9th Avenue S.E. Suite 106 Everett, Washington 08208 (425) 337-3174 Fax (425) 337-3045 February 24, 2015 DR Horton Attn: Kyle Lublin 12910 Totem Lake Blvd NE #220 Kirkland, WA 98034 RE: Liberty Gardens — Initial Compliance Report (As -built) On February 24, 2015, Wetland Resources, Inc. (WRI) conducted a site visit at the Liberty Gardens project located south of 162nd rife Street SE and SE 137th Place in Renton, WA. The purpose of this site visit was to assess compliance with the approved Addendum to the Liberty Gardens Critical Areas Analysis Report and Conceptual Mitigation Plan prepared by Wetland Resources, Inc., revision dated April 29, 2014. The approved mitigation measures called for: a total of 5,860 square feet of wetland enhancement (Wetland A/B and Wetland C) and a total of 4,230 square feet of buffer enhancement/restoration in two locations. The approved mitigation plant lists are listed below. Wetland Enhancement Planting — Wetland C (960 square feet Common Name Latin Name Size Spacing uanti Red osier dogwood Cornus sericea 1 gal 57 5 Black twinberry Lonicera involucrata 1 gal 5' 5 Pacific willow Salix lucida whip 3' 20 Sitka willow Salix sitchensis whip 3' 20 Slough sedge Carex obnupta sprig 18" 100 Wetland Enhancement Planting — Wetland AIR (4,900 square feet Common Name Latin Name Size Spacing - Quantity Western red cedar Thuja ptic ata 2 gallon 205 13 Lady fern Athyrium felix femina 1 gal Y 25 Buffer Enhancement Plantings Adjacent to Wetland C (2,545 square feet Common Name_ Latin Name Size Spacing_ Quantity Douglas fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 5 gallon 10, 12 Western Red Cedar Thuja plicata 2 gallon 103 6 Big leaf maple Acer macroplgllum 1 gallon 103 5 Salmonberry Rubus spectabilis 1 gallon W 6 Osobeny Oemleria cerasifonnis 1 gallon 8' 5 Snowberry Symphoricarpos albus 1 gallon 83 5 Baldhip rose Rosa gymnocarpa 1 gallon 8' 5 Buffer Restoration Plantings for Temporary Impact (1, 685 square feet) Common Name Latin Name Size Spacing. Quantity Sitka willow Salix sitcherfsis whip 3 20 Red osier dogwood (.'ornus serirea whip 3' 20 Salrnonberry Rubusspecleabrlrs 1 gallon 5' 1() ()soberry Oenderia cerasilbnri s l gallon 5' 10 Snowberrw Sv)nPlu,rzra?Pos calbus 1 gallon 5' 10 The installcd mitigation includes a few variations front tic approved plan. The installed fence is a dircc-rail fence. whereas the approved plan specifics a two -rail knee. ']'he installed three -.rail fence niatches the style of a fence previously installed as part of the Cavalla development. The lath fern specified ire Wetland A/13 cnliancenient were suhstittrted for sword fern, which were planted along the edges of the waland. The approved numbers of willow and dogwood plants/stakes were irr,stalled, but then were distributed across all three planting areas. These nr.inor variations der not detract frorn the goals of the approved plan. Based on the Februar\, 24, 2015 observations, it appears that the intcrit of the approved mitigation plan has been met. All plantings are flagged with colored surveyors ribbon, woodchip mulch has been applied around the base of each plant, and invasive species have been controlled per the approved general planting notes. Critical Area signs leave been installed oil the fencing along the perimeter of the wetland a.nd stream buffers. It .is nay understanding that the abandoned truck v�ithin the' Wetland C/I31ifler planting will be rernoved. This should he clone as soon as possible to avoid damaging platits �cfter they are. established. Year I inatritoring for the mitigation areas should begirt in the fall of 20.16. ;Liter the Year I site inspection, a detailed monitoring report will be submitted to the City of Renton. r1�Iaintcnance of the mitigation planting areas should be conducted a miturnurn of two times per growing season. Maintenance should include controlling blackberry, reed canarti-grass, and other invasive or noxious species within the planting areas to prevent establishincnt in tlic mitigation areas. Irrigation should be provided during the first two growing seasons to ensure the project meets the 100 percent survival standard required for Year 1. Sinc:e. Liberty Gardens is still actively under canstruetiotr, the silt fences along the wetland and bulki— Edges are. still in place. The trecessity of these fences should be reevaluated during the Year I monitoring visit. Should von have any questions or concerns, please feral tier, to call us at 4251 :331-31 1 lt'alartd Resources, Inc. a Meryl KLrrnowski .I N.)OCiale Ecokrgisl Enclosures: As -built photos, sheets 1.-2 PHOTO POINT THREE: BUFFER ENHANCEMENT SOUTH OF WETLAND C. PHOTOS 1-4 LIBERTY GARDENS_-AS-BUJL-T (FEBRUARY 2015) >; pp a as aalam a a y P s ' u a gee f 3 ffit� r T t^, PHOTO POINT TWO: LOOKING WEST INTO C.FNTER ARFA OF WETLAND C E`,HANCE+MENT'. #� t i" rF' F'z zi: 3 4 . i.. � 5 I r i s e i W PHOTO POINT FOUR: UNDERSTORY CEDAR PLANTING IN WETLAND A18. PHOTOS 5-8 LIBERTY' GARDEN_ S--!AS_BUIL_T (FEBRUARY 2015) PHOTO POINT FIVE: LOOKING SOUTHWEST THROUGH OUTFALL BUFFER RESTORATION_ PHOTO POINT SEVEN: WILLOW AND DOGWOOD ALONG OUTFALL PAD. PHOTO POINT SIX: LOOKING NORTHEAST THROUGH STORM OUTFALL BUFFER RESTORATION. PHOTO POINT EIGHT: FENCING WITH CRITICAL AREA SIGN A'-ONG BUF=ER EDGE. UA O C] 'C)q3 Denis Law City of x Mayor , l _ S. 0 April 2, 2015 Community & Economic Development Department C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator D.R. Horton 12910 Totem Lake Blvd NE, Suite 220 Kirkland, WA 98034 SUBJECT: RELEASE OF WETLAND INSTALLATION IRREVOCALBE LETTER OF CREDIT #LCA2998NY LIBERTY GARDENS PLAT; SE 14CP STREET, RENTON Dear Sir/Madam: This letter will serve as the authority to release the Irrevocable Letter of Credit #LCA2998NY issued on May 29, 2014 to D.R. Horton, Inc., in the amount of $13,453.45, posted to the City of Renton on behalf of the Liberty Gardens Plat wetland mitigation improvements. Enclosed is the original documentation for your reference. If you have any questions, please contact the project manager, Rocale Timmons at (425) 430-7219. Sincerely, Jennifer Henning Planning Director Enclosure: Original Irrevocable Letter of Credit 4LCA2998NY cc: D.R. Horton 301 Commerce Street, Suite 500 Fort Worth, TX 76102 The Royal Bank of Scotland plc Connecticut Branch 600 Washington Boulevard Stamford, CT 06901 Renton City Hall . 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 . rentonwa.gov E IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT NO.: LCA2998NY ADDRESSEE/ BENEFICIARY: CITY OF RENTON 1055 S. GRADY WAY RENTON, WA 98057 DATE OF ISSUANCE: MAY 29, 2014 APPLICANT: D.R. HORTON, INC. 301 COMMERCE STREET SUITE 500 FORT WORTH, TX76102 �0gC RBS International Banking The Royal Bank of Scotland plc Connecticut Branch 600 Washington Boulevard Stamford, Connecticut 06901 Telephone: + 1 203 897 7619 RE: LIBERTY GARDENS EXPIRY DATE: MAY 28, 2015 Facsimile: + 1203 873 3569 www.rbs.com/mib AMOUNT: $ 13,453.45 (THIRTEEN THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY THREE AND 45/100 UNITED STATES DOLLARS) WE HEREBY ESTABLISH OUR STANDBY IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT ("LOC") IN FAVOR OF THE CITY OF RENTON FOR THE ACCOUNT OF D.R. HORTON, INC. WE ARE INFORMED THAT THE PURPOSE OF THIS LETTER OF CREDIT IS FOR THE SECURING OF A PERFORMANCE BOND FOR WETLAND MITIGATION INSTALLATION SUBMITTED BY D.R. HORTON, INC. AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY OF RENTON, THIS LOC SHALL BE VALID UP TO THE AMOUNT ABOVE STATED. IT SHALL BE AVAILABLE BY A SIGHT DRAFT BY THE CITY OF MADISON DRAWN ON THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC ON OR BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE, IF ACCOMPANIED BY THE FOLOWING STATEMENT PURPORTEDLY SIGNED BY AN AUTHORIZED OFFICIAL OF THE CITY OF RENTON REFERENCING LOC NUMBER LCA2998NY AND DATE: "THIS DRAFT IS MADE AGAINST THE ATTACHED LOC SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF RENTON BY D.R. HORTON, INC. AS SECURITY FOR A PERFORMANCE BOND POSTED AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY. WE HEREBY CERTIFY THAT D.R. HORTON, INC. HAS FAILED TO SATISFACTORILY AND COMPLETELY INSTALL THE WETLAND MITIGTION IMPROVEMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE SUBDIVISION. FUNDS DRAWN UNDER THE ATTACHED LOC AND RECEIVED FROM THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC WILL BE USED TO COMPLETE THE IMPROVEMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS." WE HEREBY ENGAGE WITH BONA FIDE HOLDERS THAT DRAFTS DRAWN STRICTLY IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THE LOC AND ANY AMENDMENTS THERETO ON OR BEFORE THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON THE EXPIRY DATE SHALL MEET WITH DUE HONOR UPON PRESENTATION TO THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC AT OUR OFFICE LOCATED AT 600 WASHINGTON BOULEVARD, STAMFORD,CT,06901, ATTN: LETTER OF CREDIT DEPARTMENT. THIS LETTER OF CREDIT IS SUBJECT TO THE UNIFORM CUSTOMS AND PRACTICE FOR DOCUMENTARY CREDITS (2007 REVISION), INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE PUBLICATION NO. 600 ("UCP 600") AND SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT. IN THE EVENT OF CONFLICT BETWEEN UCP 600 AND A NON -MANDATORY (VARIABLE) PROVISION OF SUCH LAW, UCP 600 SHALL GOVERN. VERY TRULY YOURS, THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC lRichaTid EmmicIll Authorized Signatory � hr[�Rr'��w RBS conducts its U.S. securities business Through RBS Securities Inc., a U.S. regis-ere., : rinra.org) and SIPC (i I/www.sipc.org), and an indirect wholly -awned subsidiary of The Royal bank of Scouland plc. RBS Is the marketing name for the securities business of RBS Securities Inc. 0 Hearing Examiner's Decision r 0 From: Jennifer T. Henning Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 12:52 PM To: Rocale Timmons; Bonnie Walton Cc: Chip Vincent Subject: FW: Liberty Gardens: Request for Additional Information on Reconsideration - Submitted Materials Attachments: CavallaPP HE 20091103 pdf; CavallaPP2_HET20100301.pdf, PetrieCavailaAppeaiCorn ments. pdf Here are the comments for the Liberty Gardens Appeal. From. Phil Olbrechts [mailto:ofbrechtslaw0Qmail.com1 Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 12:5U PM To: Jennifer T. Henning Subject., FW: Liberty Gardens: Request for Additional Information on Reconsideration - Submitted Materials Here are her comments. l hadn't noticed that these were sent to me directly and not cc'd to staff, since t hadn't given my email address to her. From: Highlands Neighbors [mailto.hirahlands neghbors@hotmaii.coml Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 1:10 PM To: olbrechtslaw&mail,corn Subject: Liberty Gardens: Request for Additional Information on Reconsideration - Submitted Materials Dear Mr. Hearing Examiner, In response to your Request for Additionai Information on Reconsideration, and since I believe I meet the definition of party in this instance, I have attached copies of the two Hearing Examiner Reports from the Cavalla project and a copy of the comments I submitted on its Appeal for your consideration, We believed in the case of Cavalla, as in Liberty Gardens, that the use of TDRs was not vested because the application submitted to King County did not request the use of TORS. Neither did the applicant subsequently submit any indication to King County that TDRs would be used. Request to use TDRs at Cavalla was only submitted to King County. However, we are an all volunteer organization, and as I said in the Liberty Gardens hearing, neither I nor any of our members is an attorney. At the time, we were unaware of the cases you have cited on vesting case law, and thus did not bring them up. The attached Hearing Examiner reports record very little reasoning to support the decision that the TOR use was vested. As I and my neighbors who attended the Cavalla hearings recall, there seemed to be such certainty that TDR use was vested that there was very little discussion at all. It was merely taken as a given by applicant, staff and the examiner. We did raise the very issue that extreme care was required in the Cavalla decision because of the possibility that approval would set a precarious precedent. We dearly hope we were wrong. Respectfully submitted, Gwendolyn High C.A.R.E. - Community Alliance to Reach Out & Engage ...doing what we can, with our neighbors, for our community.., 206.888.7152 4 CfiY OF RENTON AUG 18 2011 1 RECEIVED 2 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 3 4 5 6 7 8 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON 9 ) 10 RE: Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat } DECISION ON RECONSIDERATION 11 Major Amendment; SEPA Appeal ) 12 LUA08-093, ECF, MOD ) 13 ) 14 The request for reconsideration is denied. The decision denying the application for the above- 15 captioned matter is sustained. 16 Background 17 The Examiner denied the application for the above -captioned matter by decision dated June 27 h, 18 2011. The Applicant submitted a timely request for reconsideration on July 11, 2011. The Examiner issued an order dated July 18, 2011 requesting additional information and providing an opportunity 19 for all participants in the hearing to brief the issues raised in the reconsideration request. Hearing participants were given until July 29, 2011 to file their briefs and all parties were allowed to file 20 response briefs by August 5, 2011. The Applicant, the Renton City Attorney and Gwendolyn High 21 all submitted written argument by the July 29, 2011 deadline. No reply briefs were submitted. 22 Ruling 23 In his July 18, 2011 order, the Examiner requested briefing on three legal issues, which are quoted in italics and analyzed below. The City Attorney's Office and Ms. High largely agreed with the 24 Examiner's resolution of these issues in his June 27, 2011 decision, so only the Applicant's 25 arguments will be addressed below. 26 Whether a revision to a preliminary plat alteration proposing a significant increase in the Reconsideration - 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 number of lots is vested to the development regulations applicable to the original preliminary plat application under Noble Manor Co. v. Pierce County, 133 Wn.2d 269 (1997). As discussed in the Examiner's July 18, 2011 decision, Noble Manor stands for the principle that a subdivision applicant vests to the uses identified in a complete subdivision application. The Applicant argues that it has vested to King County's transfer of development rights ("TDR") program because an increase in density does not change its proposed use, i.e. it was proposing residential use when it vested to a 36 lot subdivision and it continued to propose residential use when it increased the number of lots to 46. The Examiner acknowledged in his July 18, 2011 decision that it is unclear from the Noble Manor court whether differences in density would constitute different uses for purposes of vesting. In its reconsideration brief, the Applicant made a somewhat compelling argument that under both Renton and King County regulations residential "uses" are categorized as "single detached", "townhouse", "apartment" and so forth. However, it doesn't necessarily follow that King County's definition of "use" is what the Noble Manor court had in mind when it used the term "use", especially since King County regulations weren't even under consideration under Noble Manor. It is also noteworthy that King County itself presumably considers differences in residential density to serve as different uses under the Noble Manor decision. As discussed below, KCC 19A.12.030(A) provides that an increase in density divests a plat application of vested rights. Noble Manor's interpretation of subdivision vesting is based upon state subdivision statutes, which apply to King County. Since King County is presumed to have adopted its regulations in conformance with state law, it is presumed to have interpreted Noble Manor vesting as not including increases in density. For the reasons stated in the Examiner's July 18, 2011 decision, it doesn't appear that the Noble Manor court had any intention to allow a Trojan horse form of vesting where developers could vest a low density subdivision and then switch it for significantly more density years later when circumstances no longer made such conversions compatible with neighboring uses. Whether a revision to a preliminary plat alteration proposing a significant increase in the number of lots is allowed to vest to the development regulations applicable to the original preliminary plat application under KCC 19A.12.030(A). The Applicant did not contest the issue quoted above directly, instead arguing below that KCC 19A.12.030(A) does not apply in the City of Renton. Whether the Hearing Examiner is bound by KCC 19A. 12,030(A) in the review of the subject application. Although there is some room for credible disagreement on the applicability of Noble Manor, the Applicant's position on the applicability of KCC 19A.12.030(A) is not very compelling. The Applicant takes the position that KCC 19A.12.030(A) is a procedural requirement and is not subject to vesting. There are several problems with this position. Reconsideration - 2 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 First, the Applicant submits no case law or other legal authority for the proposition that vesting doesn't apply to procedural requirements. That's because there is none. In point of fact, the courts in two separate cases assumed that vesting does apply to procedural rules without expressly addressing the issue. See, Roger Wynne, Washington 's Vested Rights Doctrine: How We have Muddled a Simple concept and How We Can Reclaim It, Seattle University Law Review, v. 24, p. 851, 879-882. In the case of annexations the County loses jurisdiction over permit review so there is no choice but to substitute City decision makers for those of the County. Beyond this there is no legal authority for the proposition that all other procedural rules do not vest. Second, it is unlikely that KCC 19A.12.030(A) would be characterized as a procedural rule. KCC 19A.12.030(A) dictates what permit criteria apply to a subdivision application, which is a substantive requirement. i Third, the Applicant should not be in a position to selectively vest in permitting requirements that serve to put itself in a better position in the City of Renton than in King County. Under King County's regulatory program, if King County chooses to eliminate its TDR program it can do so without any plats vested to that entitlement. Should the TRD program prove to create unanticipated problems, King County can completely remove the program. Under the Applicant's interpretation, the City of Renton won't have that option.for vested plats. In this sense Renton, which doesn't want a TDR program in the first place, has a more engrained TDR program than King County. The courts have made it clear that permit applicants cannot selectively vest to development regulations by waiving vesting to some regulations in order to subject themselves to more flexible, subsequently adopted regulations. East County Reclamation Co. v. Bjornsen, 125 Wn. App. 432, 435 (2005) review denied, 155 Wn.2d 1005 (2005). In Bjornsen, one of the pitfalls the court saw to selective vesting was it enabled the developer to "cherry pick" the regulatory program it wished by waiving vesting to regulations it found unfavorable. Subdivision owners have more limited flexibility to selective vesting than the Bjornsen applicant, but those who have the option of annexing into the City can "cherry pick" its regulations by annexing into the City and thereby permanently vesting its TDR j rights. As a substantive regulation. Renton could not deprive the subdivision of this vesting by the subsequent adoption of a provision like KCC 19A.12.030(A), since the applicant would have vested against it. The Applicant has also made the point that the Examiner should follow the precedent set in the Cavalla Preliminary Plat decision, Renton File No. LUA 08-097, PP, ECF. Consistency with prior decision making is certainly very important. However, the Examiner's decision in that case provides no analysis of vesting and doesn't make any reference to the Noble Manor decision or KCC 19A.12.030(A). Given that staff in this case argued against vesting on the basis of KCC 19A.12.030(A), it doesn't appear that the Examiner in Cavalla was confronted with the applicability of that code provision. Due to these considerations, and the fact that the precedent to the contrary is not legally supportable, the Cavalla decision is overruled to the extent that it finds plats annexed into the City of Renton vested to King County's TDR program. Reconsideration - 3 C 1 DECISION 2 The Applicant's July 11, 2011 request for reconsideration is denied. The Examiner's June 27th, 2011 3 final decision on the above -captioned matter is sustained. 4 DATED this 17th day of August, 2011. 5- i ., _ _.. C...__.._:. _ Phil A. Olbrechts 7 City of Renton Hearing Examiner 8 9 10 Appeal Right and Valuation Notices 11 RMC 4-8-110(E)(9) and/or RMC 4-8-1 10(F)(1) provides that the Major Amendment decision of the hearing examiner is final subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(9) 12 requires appeals of the hearing examiner's decision to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days 13 from the date of the hearing examiner's decision. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall - 71' floor, (425) 430- 14 6510. 15 Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes 16 notwithstanding any program of revaluation. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Reconsideration - 4 Denis Law city Of Mayor -! City Clerk - Bonnie I. Walton August 17, 2011 Hans A. Korve, Planning Manager .DMP, Inc. 726 Auburn Way N. Auburn, WA 98002 Re: Hearing Examiner Decision on Reconsideration Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat — LUA-08-093, ECF, MOD Dear Mr. Korve: Enclosed is the Hearing Examiner's Decision on Reconsideration dated August 17, 2011, as referenced. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or the Development Services Division staff. Sincerely, Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk Enclosure cc: Parties of Record (10) Jennifer Henning, Planning Manager Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner Garmon Newson, Assistant City Attorney Fine No. LUA-08-093 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • (425) 430-6510 / Fax (425) 430-6516 • rentonwa-gov August 17, 2011 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON j COUNTY OF KING ) BONNIE I. WALTON, City Clerk for the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that she 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 17th day of August„ 2011, 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 to all parties of record the Hearing Examiner's Decision on Reconsideration for the Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat — Major Amendment; SEPA Appeal (LUA-08-093, ECF, MOD) Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 17th day of August, 2011. N Cynthil R. Maya ` . F'UB1-� Ilk Notary Public in and for the State of ; Wy ,; ; 27- �'4--' ti Washington, residing in Renton or W k��rf+ My Commission expires: 8/27/2014 Hans Korve -)avid Petrie Debbie Eberle DMP Eng., Inc. 8115 273rd Court 18225 SE 147th Street 726 Auburn Way N Des Moines, WA 98198 Renton, WA 98059 Auburn, WA 98002 Gwendolyn High Jay Mezistrano C.A.R.E Rahal Petrie 1512 So. 5th Place PO Box 2936 6042 Blue Heroin Place Renton, WA 98058 Renton, WA 98059 Bremerton, WA 98312 Gerald Smith Marshall M. Bender Kristy Hill 8524 S 125th Street Renton, WA 98057 1822 SE 128t'' Street 13527 156th Au SE Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98059 Robert Johns Johns Monroe Mitsunaga & Kolouskova 1601 1141h Av SE, Suite 110 Bellevue, WA 98004 Garmon Newson, City Atty office Rocaie Timmons, Dev Sery Jennifer Henning, CED f r � . r � ♦ L H L` � . IY 3 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 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON } RE: Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat DECISION ON RECONSIDERATION Major Amendment; SEPA Appeal LUA08-093, ECF, MOD ) The request for reconsideration is denied. The decision denying the application for the above - captioned matter is sustained. Background The Examiner denied the application for the above -captioned matter by decision dated ,tune 27"', 2011. The Applicant submitted a timely request for reconsideration on July 11, 2011. The Examiner issued an order dated July 18, 2011 requesting additional information and providing an opportunity for all participants in the hearing to brief the issues raised in the reconsideration request. Hearing participants were given until July 29. 2011 to file their briefs and all parties were allowed to file response briefs by August 5, 2011, The Applicant, the Renton City Attorney and Gwendolyn High all submitted written argument by the July 29, 2011 deadline. No reply briefs were submitted. Ruling In his July 18, 2011 order, the Examiner requested briefing on three legal issues, which are quoted in italics and analyzed below. The City Attorney's Office and Ms. High largely agreed with the Examiner's resolution of these issues in his June 27, 2011 decision, so only the Applicant's arguments will be addressed belmv. Whether a revision to a preliminary plat alteration proposing a significant increase in the Reconsideration - 1 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 number of lots is vested to the development regulations applicable to the original preliminary plat application under Noble Manor Co. v. Pierce County, 133 Wn.2d 269 (19.97), As discussed in the Examiner's July 18, 2011 decision, Noble Manor stands for the principle that a subdivision applicant vests to the uses identified in a complete subdivision application. The Applicant argues that it has vested to King County's transfer of development rights ("TDR") program because an increase in density does not change its proposed use, i.e. it was proposing residential use when it vested to a 36 lot subdivision and it continued to propose residential use when it increased the number of lots to 46. The Examiner acknowledged in his July 18, 2011 decision that it is unclear from the Noble Manor court whether differences in density would constitute different uses for purposes of vesting. In its reconsideration brief, the Applicant made a somewhat compelling argument that under both Renton and King County regulations residential "uses" are categorized as "single detached", "townhouse", "apartment" and so forth. However, it doesn't necessarily follow that King County's definition of "use" is what the Noble Manor court had in mind when it used the term "use", especially since King County regulations weren't even under consideration under Noble Manor. It is also noteworthy that King County itself presumably considers differences in residential density to serve as different uses under the Noble Manor decision. As discussed below, KCC 19A.12.030(A) provides that an increase in density divests a plat application of vested rights. Noble Manor's interpretation of subdivision vesting is based upon state subdivision statutes, which apply to King County. Since King County is presumed to have adopted its regulations in conformance with state law, it is presumed to have interpreted Noble Manor vesting as not including increases in density. For the reasons stated in the Examiner's July 18, 2011 decision, it doesn't appear that the Noble Manor court had any intention to allow a Trojan horse form of vesting where developers could vest a low density subdivision and then switch it for significantly more density years later when circumstances no longer made such conversions compatible with neighboring uses. Whether a revision to a preliminary plat alteration proposing a significant increase in the number of lots is allowed to vest to the development regulations applicable to the original preliminary plat application under KCC 19A.12.030(A). The Applicant did not contest the issue quoted above directly, instead arguing below that KCC 19A.12.030(A) does not apply in the City of Renton. Whether the Hearing Examiner is bound by KCC 19A.12.030(A) in the review of the subject application. Although there is some room for credible disagreement on the applicability of Noble Manor, the Applicant's position on the applicability of KCC 19A.12.030(A) is not very compelling. The Applicant takes the position that KCC 19A.12.030(A) is a procedural requirement and is not subject to vesting. There are several problems with this position. Reconsideration - 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 lb 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 First, the Applicant submits no case lair- or other legal authority for the proposition that vesting doesn't apply to procedural requirements. 'That's because there is none. In point of fact, the courts in two separate cases assumed that vesting does apply to procedural rules without expressly addressing the issue. See, Roger Wynne, Wash innton '.s bested Rights Doctrine: How We have Muddled a .Simple concept and How We Can Reclaim It, Seattle University Law Review, v. 24, p. 851, 879-882. In the case of annexations the County loses jurisdiction over permit review so there is no choice but to substitute City decision makers for those of the County. Beyond this there is no legal authority for the proposition that all other procedural rules do not vest. Second, it is unlikely that KCC 19A_12.030(A) would be characterized as a procedural rule. KCC 19A.12.030(A) dictates what permit criteria apply to a subdivision application, which is a substantive requirement. Third, the Applicant should not be in a position to selectively vest in permitting requirements that serve to put itself in a better position in the City of Renton than in King County. Under King County's regulatory program, if King County chooses to eliminate its TDR program it can do so without any plats vested to that entitlement. Should the TRD program prove to create unanticipated problems, King County can completely remove the program. Under the Applicant's interpretation, the City of Renton won't have that option for vested plats. In this sense Renton, which doesn't want a TDR program in the first place, has a more engrained TDR program than King County. The courts have made it clear that permit applicants cannot selectively vest to development regulations by waiving vesting to some regulations in order to subject themselves to more flexible, subsequently adopted regulations. East County Reclamation Co_ v_ Bjornsen, 125 Wn. App. 432, 435 (2005) review denied, 155 Wn.2d 1005 (2005). In Igornsen, one of the pitfalls the court saw to selective vesting was it enabled the developer to -`cherry pick" the regulatory program it wished by waiving vesting to regulations it found unfavorable. Subdivision owners have more limited flexibility to selective vesting than the 13jornsen applicant, but those who have the option of annexing into the City can "cherry pick" its regulations by annexing. into the City and thereby permanently vesting its TDR rights. As a substantive regulation, Renton could not deprive the subdivision of this vesting by the subsequent adoption of a provision like KCC 19A.12.030(A), since the applicant would have vested against it. The Applicant has also made the point that the Examiner should follow the precedent set in the Cavalla Preliminary Plat decision, Renton File No. LUA 08-097, PP, ECF. Consistency with prior decision making is certainly very important. However, the Examiner's decision in that ease provides no analysis of vesting and doesn't make any reference to the Noble Manor decision or KCC 19A.12.030(A). Given that staff in this case argued against vesting on the basis of KCC 19A.12.030(A), it doesn't appear that the Examiner in Cavalla was confronted with the applicability of that code provision. Due to these considerations, and the fact that the precedent to the contrary is not legally supportable, the Cavalla decision is overruled to the extent that it finds plats annexed into the City of Renton vested to King County 7s 'TDR program. Reconsideration - 3 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 1)ECISIDN The Applicant's July 11, 2011 request for reconsideration is denied. The Examiner's June 27th, 2011 final decision on the above -captioned matter is sustained. DATED this 17th day of August. 2011. I6 Phil Olbrechts (Signed original in official file) Phil A. Olbrechts City of Renton Hearing Examiner Appeal Right and Valuation Notices RMC 4-8-110(E)(9) and/or RMC 4-8-110(F)(1) provides that the Major Amendment decision of the hearing examiner is final subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(9) 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. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall -- 7th floor, (425) 430- 6510. Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. Reconsideration - 4 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 CHY OF RENT jUL 2 9 2011 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON Re: LIBERTY GARDENS PRELIMINARY PLAT NO. LUA08-093, ECF, MOD SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF RE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION The Applicant, David Petrie, through its legal counsel, Robert D. Johns of Johns Monroe Mitsunaga Kolouskova_ PLLC submits the following supplemental briefing pursuant to the Request for Additional Information on Reconsideration issued by the Hearing Examiner on July 18, 2011. The Examiner has indicated lie will accept additional legal briefing on three issues: a. Whether a revision to a preliminary plat alteration proposing a significant increase in the number of lots is vested to the development regulations applicable to the original preliminary plat application under Noble Manor v. Pierce County, 133 Wn.2d 269 (1997). b. Whether a revision to a preliminary plat alteration proposing a significant increase in the number of lots is allowed to vest to the development regulations applicable to the original preliminary plat application under KCC 19.A.12.030(A). c. Whether the Hearing Examiner is bound by KCC 19A.12.030(A) in the review of the subject application_ Because the answer to issues (b) and (c) is dependent on the applicability of KCC 19A.12.030(A), those two issues are addressed together. Supplemental Brief re Motion for Reconsideration Page 1 of 6 ORIGINAL JOHNS VIONRot; MITSUNAGA KOLol1SKOVA PLLC ATTORNEYS AT L A W 1601 114" Ave. SE, Suite l 10 Bellevue, WA 98004 Tel: (425) 451 2812 1 Fax; (425) 451 2818 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 1. Noble Manor v. Pierce County is inapplicable to the present case. The Applicant in this case has requested a Major Amendment of the preliminary plat approval of Liberty Gardens to allow the use of TDR's to increase the number of lots in the plat from 36 to 46. in his original decision, the Examiner correctly pointed out that the Applicant originally applied for a 36 lot plat while the subject property was in King County and that the original application did not include the use of TDR to set the number of permitted lots. After the subject property was annexed to Renton, the Applicant learned that a neighboring property known as the Cavalla plat, which was annexed to the City at the same time as the subject property, had been allowed to add lots through the King County TDR process. Assuming his application would receive the same treatment and in reliance on statements by City staff that he could also use the TDR process, the Applicant submitted an application for a Major Amendment to the City pursuant to RMC 4-7-080. In the Examiner's Final Decision, he concluded that the Noble Manor decision precluded the Applicant in this case from using TDR's because that "use" had not been disclosed at the time of the original plat application. It is the Applicant's position that this conclusion misreads the Noble ,Vlonor decision. As the Examiner's decision explains, Noble Manor addressed the issue of xvhcthcr a plat application vested the applicant's right to subdivide but did not vest the right to develop the property. In that case, the applicant had applied for a short plat to create three lots to be developed with three duplexes. After the application was submitted but before building permits were issued, Pierce County changed the zoning so that duplexes were no longer allowed, and took the position that the only use Supplemental Brief re Motion for Reconsideration Page 2 of 6 JOHNS MONROE MITSUNA(JA KQLOU�KOVA PLLC ATTORN l:YS AT 1.AW 1601 1 14`h Ave. SE. Suite 110 Bellevue, WA 98004 Tel: (425) 451 2812 !Fax (425) 451 2818 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 permitted on the three lots were sinvglc; family homes. The Supreme Court disagreed and held that the applicant was vested to the use — i.e., duplexes — that was disclosed in the short plat application. The situation in this case is different than in Noble Manor. In Noble Manor, the Court held that as long as the disclosed use did not change, the applicant did not lose its vested rights. Since the developer in that case had disclosed duplexes as the planned use, it retained a vested right to develop duplexes despite the zoning change. In this case, the use proposed by the applicant — single fancily housing — has not changed. What has changed is the proposed density of housing. But most critically, a change in density is not a change in use. The permitted use of the subject property, under both the King County Code and the City of Renton Municipal Code is detached single fancily housing. KCC 21A.08.010 provides: "The use of a property is defined by the activity for which the building or lot is intended, designed, arranged, occupied, or maintained." KCC 21A.08.030 lists the "uses" permitted in each zone. The residential uses in that list include "single detached," "townhouse." "apartment" and so forth. Neither KCC 21A.08.010 or 21A.08.030 contains any reference to the size of a lot or the number of lots in a subdivision as a factor to be determined in deciding the "use" of a property. Under the County Code, the proposed "use" of the subject property is "single family detached." Since that has not changed, the Noble Manor case 1s not implicated. The provisions of RMC 4-2-060 are comparable to the description of "uses" in the King County Code. RMC 4-2-060 describes residential "uses" as "detached dwellings," Supplemental Brief re Motion for Reconsideration Page 3 of 6 JOHNS MONROE MITSUNAGA KOLOU�KOVA PLLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1641 114`h Ave. Sh, Suite I IC Bellevue, WA 98004 Tel: (425) 451 2812 / Fax: (425) 4512818 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 ``attached dwellings." and so forth. Again. there is no reference to the size of a lot or the number of lots as a factor to be used when determining the "use" of a piece of property. Since the "use" of the property in this case for single family detached homes is unchanged and Noble Manor only indicates that an applicant is not vested to an undisclosed "use" of a property, that case is inapplicable to the analysis of the issue of whether Mr. Petrie is vested in a manner that allows him to use TDR for the Liberty Gardens plat. 2. A Revision to the Plat which Increases the Number of Lots is allowed despite KCC 19A.12.030(A). The Examiner's Final Decision cites KCC 19A.12.030(A) as a basis on which approval of the applicant's request to use TDR's should be denied. The Applicant acknowledges that KCC 19A.12.030(A) says that, under King County procedures for a plat amendment, "revisions that result in any substantial changes shall be treated as a new application for purposes of vesting" and that an increase in the number of lots is a "substantial change." However, this provision does not apply to the pending application. It has been a fundamental cornerstone of the law related to annexations and vested rights that when property which is the subject of a pending permit application is annexed to a city, the application remains vested to the substantive provisions of the county codes that applied to the application but is not vested to the procedural provisions. This has been the practice in Renton and elsewhere for many years. In fact, this distinction is the reason this Supplemental Brief re Motion for Reconsideration Page 4 of 6 JOHNS MONROF. MITSUNAUA KOI.OU�KOVA PLLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1601 1 14`" Ave. SE, Suite 110 Bellevue, WA 98004 Tel: (425) 451 28i2 / Fax: (425) 451 2818 2 3 4 5 6 7 8' 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 case is being processed by City of Renton staff and the City of Renton Hearing Examiner using Renton procedures. The applicable procedural requirements for Plat Amendments in Renton are set forth in RMC 4-7-808 (M), which provides. in relevant part: At any time after preliminary plat approval and before final plat approval, the applicant may submit all application to the Administrator that proposes an amendment to the approved or conditionally approved preliminary plat. 2. Major Amendments: A major amendment shall include, but is not limited to, the following: b. Any amendment that would result in increasing the number of lots in the subdivision beyond the number previously approved; 3. Process for Major Amendments: If the Administrator determines that the proposed amendment is major, the Hearing Examiner shall hold a public hearing on major proposed ajor amendment in accordance with the requirements for preliminary plat approval found in subsection I of this Section; provided, however, that any public hearing on a proposed major amendment shall be limited to whether the proposed major amendment should or should not be approved. Following the public hearing, the Hearing Examiner shall approve or disapprove any proposed major amendment and may make any modifications in the terms and conditions of the preliminary plat approval to the extent that they are reasonably related to the proposed amendment. If the applicant is unwilling to accept the proposed major amendment under the terms and conditions specified by the Hearing Examiner, the applicant may withdraw the proposed major amendment and develop the subdivision in accordance with the original preliminary plat approval (as it may have previously been amended). The critical fact is that RMC 4-7-08(M) does not include the provision contained in the KCC 19.A.12.030(A) which provides that an applicant loses its vested rights if it applies for a major amendment that increases the number of lots. KCC 19A.12.030(A) does not apply in this case. Instead, as Mr. Petrie was advised when he first approached the City Supplemental Brief re Motion for Reconsideration Page 5 of 6 JOHNS MONPOE MITSUNAGA KOLOUJ KOVA PLLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1601 1 14" Ave. SF,, suite 110 Bellevue, WA 98004 Tel: (425) 451 2812 ? Fax: (425) 451 2818 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 191 20 21 22 23 24 25 about using TDR's, the applicable process was contained in RMC 4-7-08(M), which allows a plat amendment increasing the nun}bcr oC lots. Since KCC 19A.12.030(A) does not apply, the Applicant does not lose vesting" under that provision and the Examiner is not bound by it. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing analysis. the Applicant requests the Examiner grant the motion for reconsideration, allow the requested major plat amendment allowing the use of TDR and address the remaining issues that were raised at the public hearing. Respectfully submitted thi _ day of July, 2011. JOHNS MONROE MITSUNAGA& KOLOt14 OVA PILC By Robert D. Jo , WSBA #7086 Attorneys f etitioners 1650-1 supplemental briej'(m vesling 7-27-2011 Supplemental Brief re Motion for Reconsideration Page 6 of 6 JOHNS MONROE MITSUNAGA KOLO(AKOVA PLLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1601 1140 Ave. SC, Suite I IC Bellevue, WA 98004 Tel: (425) 451 2812 / Fax: (425) 451 2818 r Hearing Examiner Pbil A. Albreehts Reconsideration Date: July 28, 2011 BEFORE THE R.ENTON HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON RE_ Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat, Major Amendment, SPTA Appeal LUA 08-093, ECF, MOD RENTON'S REPLY TO THE HEARING EXAMINER'S REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION I. INTRODUCTION The City of Renton (hereinafter "Rentod') opposes Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration of the Hearing Lxarniner's decision to deny Petitioner's request for a major amendment. The hearing Examiner has asked for the parties to answer three questions related to Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. Renton offers this brief in response to the Hearing Examiner's request_ l IT. S FATEMENT OF FACTS On or about June 13, 2011 _ the Hearing Examiner held an administrative hearing to consider Petitioner's request fi)r a major amendment under RMC: 4-7-080(M)(2) and (3). The Hearing Examiner found that Petitioner's "proposed Major Amendment is not vested to the King County TDR program or any other regulations in effect upon the vesting of the 2004 King County Liberty Gardens application (KC DDES File No_ L04P0034)." (Final Decision, p. 4 1. 2), The Hearing Examiner relied on the decision in Noble Manor Co. r� Pierce County, 133 Wn2d 269 (1997), as well as RCW 58.17 to conclude that the "Major AmenchT)e1)t is for a separate application, subject to its own individual vesting. The application of RCW 58.17.170 to the original subdivision application would not result in the vesting of any King County TDR regulations applicable to the modification application." III. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES 1. Whether a preliminary plat revision proposing a significant increase in the number of lots is vested to the development regulations applicable to the original preliminary plat application under Noble Manor Co. v. Pierce County,133 Wn.2d 269 (1997)? 2. Whether a major or significant revision of a preliminary plat is allowed to vest to the development regulations applicable to the original plat application under KCC 19A.12.030 (A)? 3. Whether the Bearing Examiner is bound by KCC 19A.12.030 (A) in review of the subject application? 2 IV. ALiTHORITY AND ARGUMENTS A. A PRELIMINARY PLAT REVISION PROPOSING A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF LOTS IS NOT VESTED TO TILE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE ORIGINAL PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION IJNDER NOBLE MANOR CO V .PIERCE COUNTY, 133 WN_21) 269,943 P.20 11378 (1997� The Washington State Supreme Court in Noble Manor, relying on its decision in State ex rel. Ogden v. Bellevue, 45 Wn_2d 492; 275 P.2d 899 (1954), stated that the vested rights doctrine "provides that a party filing a timely and sufficiently complete building permit application obtains a vested right to have that application processed according to zoning, land use and building ordinances in effect at the time of the application." (Emphasis added)_ Noble Manor, 133 Wn.2d at 277. In Noble Manor, the Court also discussed RCW 58.17.033, and noted that the "vesting of rights doctrine has not been applied to applications for preliminary or short plat approvals." (Italics removed)_ Noble Manor, 133 Wn.2d at 277. The Court then observed that in RCW 58.17.033, [t]he vesting of rights doctrine is extended to applications for preliminary or short plat approval. The requirements for a fully completed building permit application or preliminary or short plat application shall be defined by local ordinance_" (Italics removed). Noble Manor, 133 Wn.2d. at 278_ Applying the. Court's reasoning in Odgen v. Bellevue, and the Court's Noble Manor interpretation of IZCW 58.17.033, which expanded the vested rights doctrine to preliminary plats, the zoning, land use and building ordinances in effect in 2004 was vested to Petitioner's original application, not subsequent significant or major modifications. The decisions in Ogden and Noble Manor do not state that the vested rights doctrine applies to any and every revision that an applicant makes after the initial 3 approval_ The language in Ogden is clear that the vested right applied to "that application processed" according to the ordinances in effect at that time_ The zoning, land use or building code in effect at the time of the original application was KKC 19A.12.030_ B. A MAJOR OR SJGNIFICANT REVISION OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT IS NOT ALLOWED TO VEST TO THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS APPLLAI3LE TO THE ORIGINAL PLAT APPLICATION UNDER KCC 19A.12.030(A). K- C 19.12.030(A) was adopted in 1999 and was in effect when Petitioner's preliminary plat was approved. It states that "[a]pplications to revise subdivisions that have received preliminary plat approval _. _ that result in any substantial change as determined by the department, shall be treated as a new application for purposes of vesting." It also states that "substantial change includes the creation of additional lots, the elimination of open space or changes to conditions of approval on an approved preliminary subdivision." (Emphasis added). RMC 4-8-080(M)(2)(b) provides that major amendments include "[al ay unendment that would result in increasing the numher of lots in the subdivision beyond the number previously approved". (Emphasis added)_ R-MC 4-8-080(M)(2)(a) states that major amendments include any amendment that decreases "the aggregate area of open space in the subdivision by tern percent (10%) or more_ In the instant matter.. Petitioner seeks to add ten (10) additional residential lots to his previously vested preliminary plat application from 2004. Under KKC 19A_12.030, (A) that would be a substantial change sinoe it involves the "creation of additional lots_" Under RMC 4-8-080(1_Vi)(2)(lF) and possibly subsection (a) as well, it would be a major amendment because it "increases the number of lots in the subdivision beyond the 4 number previously approved, and because it has the effect of decreasing the aggregate area of open space in the subdivision by ten percent (10%) or more. The City found and the Hearing Examiner agreed that under RMC 4-8-080(M)(3), it was a substantial change (therefore a major amendment) and denied Petitioner's request- C. THE HEARING EXAMINER IS BOUND BY KCC I9A.12.034 (A) IN REVIEW OF THE SUBJECT APPLICATION. As a result of Petitioner's insistence that his project be vested to the IBC Code in place when he originally filed his preliminary plat, the Hearing Examiner and Petitioner are bound to KKC 19A.12.030. To do otherwise would afford Petitioner the benefit of picking and choosing the codes or versions of the codes that he wants based on the circumstances and his desires_ That is not the intent of the Supreme Court in Ogden, Nobel Manor or the Legislature in RCW 58.17.033. They each wanted to provide developer/applicants with a shield from potentially unfair or unreasonable applications of code, as well as predictability in their application. If Petitioner was not vested to KKC 19A.12.030 he would fall under RMC 4-8- 060(b), entitled Vesting of Application. In RMC 4-8-060(b), [rlevisions requested by an applicant to a vested, but not yet approved, application shall be deemed a new application when such revisions would result in substantial change in the basic site design plan, intensity, density, and the Iike, involving a change of ten percent (10%) or more in area or scale. (Emphasis added)_ As noted above, ten (10) new residential units raising the subdivision from a 36 lot subdivision to a 46 lot subdivision would be substantial. As a result, under Renton's code, like the KC code, Petitioner would no longer be vested to the old version of the KC code or the KC code at all. 5 D. PETTPIONER'S APPEAL FAILED TO SHOW THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE TEARING EXAl1+UNER WF" IMPROPER.. 1. Burden of Proof. Petitioner has failed to meet his burden of proof and has failed to prove that the City's decision was clearly erroneous under RMC 4-8-110(E)(7)(bXv) as a matter of law. Ibe fact that the Hearing Examiner has questions about what the applicable ordinance is, and u6ether the ordinance's requirements have been met, illustrate that Petitioner has failed to meet his burden of proof or burden of persimsion. In addition, XCW 43.21 C.090, and RMC 4-9-110(EX7)(a) (which both require that "the decision of the governmental agency be accorded substantial weight"), show that Petitioner has failed to meet his burden of persuasion and his motion should be denied. V.I. CON47LUSIO I be City of Renton mg)ectfully requests that the Hearing Examtner deny Petitioner's motion for reeonsideration- DATED TfIIS 27 July 2011, at Renton, Washington. LAWRE.,NCE J. WARREN, RENTON CITY ATTORNEY By Gannon Newsom II, WSBA No. 377� 1418 Respoatle�, City of Renton 31 4 Denis Mayor aw City of t .� City Clerk - Bonnie I. Walton July 19, 2011 Re: Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat Reconsideration Order— LUA-08-093, ECF, MOD Dear Hearing Participant: Enclosed is a Request far Additional Information on Reconsideration, issued by the Hearing Examiner, dated July 18, 2011, as referenced. The Hearing Examiner is requesting additional timely information. See page 2 for submittal requirements and deadlines. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner in the Development Services Division at 425-430-7219, Sincerely, Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk Enclosure cc: Parties of Record (9) Jennifer Henning, Planning Manager Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner File No. LUA-08-093 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • (425) 430-6510 / Fax (425) 430-6516 • rentonwa.gov Hans Korve David Petrie Debbie Eberle DMP Eng., Inc. 811 S 273rd Court 18225 SE 147th Street 726 Auburn Way N Des Moines, WA 98198 Renton, WA 98059 Auburn, WA 98002 Rahai Petrie 6042 Blue Heroin Place Bremerton, WA 99312 Gerald Smith 8524 S 125th Street Renton, WA 98057 Gwendolyn High C.A.R.E PO Box 2936 Renton, WA 98059 Marshall M. Bender 1822 SE 128th Street Renton, WA 98059 Jay Mezistrano 1512 So. 5th Place Renton, WA 98058 Kristy Hill 13527 156" Av SE Renton, WA 98059 Garmon Newson Rocale Timmons City Attorney's Office Development Services Jennifer Henning, CED 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 i5 16 17 18 19 20 21. 22 23 24 25 26 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat ) REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL Major Amendment; SEPA Appeal } INFORMATION ON RECONSIDERATION } LUA08-093, ECF, MOD } Additional information specifically identified in the last paragraph of this Order is requested by the Examiner in order to evaluate a request for reconsideration filed by the Applicant of the above - captioned matter_ The appeal period for the final decision: on the above -captioned matter is tolled pending resolution of the reconsideration request as specified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(8)(a). As background, the Examiner denied the application for the above -captioned matter by decision dated June 27t', 2011_ The Applicant submitted a timely request for reconsideration on July 11, 2011. Denial was based upon a determination that the proposed increase in density utilizing King County transfer of development rights ("TDR") was not authorized because the Major Amendment was not vested under Ding County TDR standards. In its reconsideration request, the Applicant asserts that the Renton Hearing Examiner and the Renton City Council determined that vesting did apply under similar circumstances to the Cavalla Plat (LUA-08-097, PP, ECF). The Applicant further asserts that 'the Cavalla plat was filed and vested under King County jurisdiction and that `following annexation [into Renton], the applicant submitted an amended application to the City to increase the number of lots using the King County transfer of development program_" In making his decision, the current Examiner relied upon the prior Examiner's written recommendation to the City Council on the Cavalla application, dated. March 1, 2010. The recommendation noted that the Cavalla application had been submitted and vested while the subject property was in unincorporated King County, but none of the findings or conclusions of that recommendation noted that the TDRs were requested after annexation in the City of Renton. The Reconsideration - I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 243 25 26 minutes to the City Council Planning and Development Committee for the meeting of April 26, 2010 appear to confirm that the Cavalla applicant revised its application subsequent to annexation into Renton to increase density under King County's TDR program. Consistency with the City Council's decision on the Cavalla application is certainly a significant consideration for this application. However, it is not clear whether the City Council was aware of the ramifications of the Noble Manor case discussed at length on the decision of the subject application. Also, it is not clear whether the Council was aware that King County regulations, specifically KCC 19A.12.030(A), expressly provide that vesting does not apply to plat revisions that include an increase in the number of proposed lots. There might be some room for debate on the applicability of Noble Manor, but it is difficult to see how an applicant can still vest to TDRs under the fairly clear language of KCC 19A.12.030(A). More information is necessary to address the reconsideration request submitted by the Applicant. If possible, the timing of the Cavalla TDR revision in relation to its annexation needs to be clarified as well as the City Couneil's reasoning in finding vesting applicable to the TDR revision. The parties should also be given an opportunity to brief the issues raised by the reconsideration. request- Specifically. - The City is requested to provide documentation: on the Council approval of the Cavalla application. The record is .closed but the Examiner will take judicial notice of any documents approved by the City Council as well as any legislative history (limited to written Council reports and written staff/hearing examiner recommendations) that helps interpret any actions taken by the Council and/or clarifies the timing of the Cavalla TDR revision. 2. If any party so chooses, the Examiner will accept legal briefing on the following issues: a. Whether a revision to a preliminary plat alteration proposing a significant increase in the number of lots is vested to the development regulations applicable to the original preliminary plat application under Noble Manor Co. v. Pierce County, 133 Wn.2d 269 (1997). b. Whether a revision to a preliminary plat alteration proposing a significant increase in the number of lots is allowed to vest to the development regulations applicable to the original preliminary plat application under KCC 19A_ 12.030(A). c. Whether the. Hearing Examiner is bound by KCC 19A.12.030(A) in the review of the subject application. The information requested above shall be received by 5:00 pm, July 29, 2011 _ Replies to any information requested may be made by any party and must be received by 5:00 pm, August 5, 2011. The information and replies may be emailed to the Examiner at olbrechtslaw a, mail.com or mailed or delivered to Rocale Timmons, City of Renton Associate Planner, at 1055 South Grady Way, Reconsideration - 2 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 Renton, WA 98057. A "party" for purposes of this order is anyone who submitted written or verbal testimony at the hearing on the above -captioned matter (the Liberty Gardens application). Any information provided is limited to evidence already submitted into the record, legal argument and the documents identified in Paragraph l above_ No copies of any information requested by this Order will be forwarded to any other party unIess the other party requests that information by 5:00 pm, July 28, 2011 to the Examiner by email or to Ms_ Timmons in writing. DATED this 18th day of July, 2011. Reconsideration - 3 MICA. Olbrechts City of Renton Hearing Examiner CITY OF RENTON JUL x 1 2a11 ',�` b �� RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE DALEY-MORROW-POBLETE, INC. ENGINEERING -SURVEYING -LAND PLANNING 726 Auburn Way North Auburn, WA 98002 (253)333-2200 FAX (253)333-2206 July 11, 2011 Renton Hearing Examiner c/o City Clerk City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 RE: LUA08-093, ECF, MOD - Liberty Gardens — Plat Amendment — Motion for Reconsideration Dear Mr. Examiner: The Applicant, David Petrie, moves for reconsideration pursuant to RMC 4-8-110(E)(8) and 4-8-100(G)(3). The Final Decision of the Hearing Examiner denied approval of a Major Amendment requesting an increase in the number of lots in the plat via the use of transferable development rights pursuant to the King County Zoning Code requirements to which the plat is vested. The Examiners decision concludes that the vested rights of the applicant applied only to the number of lots in the Applicant's original plat application to King County and that the applicant is not allowed, after the property was annexed, to request application of the King County TDR program. The Examiner's Decision is erroneous as a matter of law and is inconsistent with prior interpretations of the law by the City of Renton. Specifically, the Renton City Council, in its decision on the Cavalla Plat (LUA-08-097, PP, ECF), reached the exact opposite conclusion. The Cavalla Plat, which is immediately, north of the Liberty Gardens site, involved virtually identical circumstances: The applicant filed and vested a preliminary plat application in King County. The property was then annexed to Renton. Following annexation, the applicant submitted an amended application to the City to increase the number of lots using the King County transfer of development program. The Hearing Examiner and the Renton City Council both approved the plat with the additional lots created by use of the County's transfer of development rights process. The Hearing Examiner cites the Noble Manor decision as a basis for his decision. However, the Noble Manor decision does not support a denial of the Major Amendment in this case. The decision in Noble Manor is that "the party filing the application [has] a vested right to have the application processed under the land use laws in effect at the time of the 01-540 Liberty Gardens application." In this case, the King County TDR program was in effect and part of King County`s subdivision standards at the time the Liberty Gardens application was submitted. The same TDR program was in effect when the Cavalla Plat application was submitted and the applicant in that case was allowed to revise its application using the TDR program after annexation to the City. The decision in this case denying the applicant the right to do the exact same thing is erroneous as a matter of law. The City must apply its interpretations of land use codes and requirements in a consistent and uniform manner. Any other outcome will produce the result that now faces the Applicant in this case: After more than a year of time, effort and money spent working with the City staff in reliance on the City Council's decision in the Cavalla plat case that it was permissible to use the TDR process, the City has now inexplicably reversed its interpretation and denied use of the TDR process_ The applicant requests that the Hearing Examiner reconsider his decision and approve the Major Amendment to the Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat. Sincerely, Hans A- Korve Planning Manager DMP Inc. 01-540 liberty Gardens 2 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 RECEWED C17Y CLERIC'S oFFlC BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON } RE: Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat Major Amendment; SEPA Appeal ) } LUA08-093, ECF, MOD ) REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON RECONSIDERATION Additional information specifically identified in the last paragraph of this Order is requested by the Examiner in order to evaluate a request for reconsideration filed by the Applicant of the above - captioned matter. The appeal period for the final decision on the above -captioned matter is tolled pending resolution of the reconsideration request as specified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(8)(a). As background, the Examiner denied the application for the above -captioned matter by decision dated June 27t`, 2011. The Applicant submitted a timely request for reconsideration on July 11, 2011. Denial was based upon a determination that the proposed increase in density utilizing King County transfer of development rights ("TDR") was not authorized because the Major Amendment was not vested under King County TDR standards. In its reconsideration request, the Applicant asserts that the Renton Hearing Examiner and the Renton City Council determined that vesting did apply under similar circumstances to the Cavalla Plat (LUA-08-097, PP, ECF). The Applicant further asserts that the Cavalla plat was filed and vested under King County jurisdiction and that `following annexation [into Renton], the applicant submitted an amended application to the City to increase the number of lots using the Xing County transfer of development program." In making his decision, the current Examiner relied upon the prior Examiner's written recommendation to the City Council on the Cavalla application, dated March 1, 2010. The recommendation noted that the Cavalla application had been submitted and vested while the subject property was in unincorporated King County, but none of the findings or conclusions of that recommendation noted that the TDRs were requested after annexation in the City of Renton. The Reconsideration - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 243. 25 26 minutes to the City Council Planning and Development Committee for the meeting of April 26, 2010 appear to confirm that the Cavalla applicant revised its application subsequent to annexation into Renton to increase density under Kiang County's TDR program. Consistency with the City Council's decision on the Cavalla application is certainly a significant consideration for this application. however, it is not clear whether the City Council was aware of the ramifications of the Noble Manor case discussed at length on the decision of the subject application. Also, it is not clear whether the Council was aware that King County regulations, specifically KCC 19A.12.030(A), expressly provide that vesting does not apply to plat revisions that include an increase in the number of proposed lots. There might be some room for debate on the applicability of Noble Manor, but it is difficult to see how an applicant can still vest to TDRs under the fairly clear language of KCC 19A.12.030(A). More information is necessary to address the reconsideration request submitted by the Applicant. If possible, the timing of the Cavalla TDR revision in relation to its annexation needs to be clarified as well as the City Council's reasoning in finding vesting applicable to the TDR revision. The parties should also be given an opportunity to brief the issues raised by the reconsideration request. Specifically: 1. The City is requested to provide documentation on the Council approval of the Cavalla application. The record is closed but the Examiner will take judicial notice of any documents approved by the City Council as well as any legislative history (limited to written Council reports and written staff/hearing examiner recommendations) that helps interpret any actions taken by the Council and/or clarifies the timing of the Cavalla TDR revision. 2. If any party so chooses, the Examiner will accept legal briefing on the following issues: a. Whether a revision to a preliminary plat alteration proposing a significant increase in the number of lots is vested to the development regulations applicable to the original preliminary plat application under Noble Manor Co. v. Pierce County, 133 Wn.2d 269 (1997). b. Whether a revision to a preliminary plat alteration proposing a significant increase in the number of lots is allowed to vest to the development regulations applicable to the original preliminary plat application under KCC 19A.12.030(A). c. Whether the Hearing Examiner is bound by KCC 19A.12.030(A) in the review of the subject application. The information requested above shall be received by 5:00 pm, July 29, 2011. Replies to any information requested may be made by any party and must be received by 5:00 pm, August 5, 2011. The information and replies may be emailed to the Examiner at olbrechtslaw u�gmail.com or mailed or delivered to Rocale Timmons, City of Renton Associate Planner, at 1055 South Grady Way, Reconsideration - 2 L1 I Renton, WA 98057. A "party" for purposes of this order is anyone who submitted written or verbal testimony at the hearing on the above -captioned matter (the Liberty Gardens application). Any 2 information provided is limited to evidence already submitted into the record, legal argument and the 3 documents identified in Paragraph 1 above. No copies of any information requested by this Order will be forwarded to any other party unless the other party requests that information by 5:00 pm, July 4 28, 2011 to the Examiner by email or to Ms. Timmons in writing. 5 DATED this 18th day of July, 2011. 6 8 hil A. Olbrechts City of Renton Hearing Examiner 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Reconsideration - 3 July 19, 2011 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON j COUNTY OF KING BONNIE I. WALTON, City Clerk for the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that she 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 19th day of July, 2011, 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 to all parties attached, the Hearing Examiner's Reconsideration Order for the Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeal (LUA-08-093, ECF, MOD) Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 19th day of July, 2011. rr�r/rrr.., {, I lied R ° k1OT,q,gyp Cynthi R. Maya y a,,..,� LIC r. X Notary Public in and for the State of '_` ''t,-1�:''•�+++� Washington, residing in Renton yQR WAsHwN)) fly !•.,rrrr� My Commission expires: 8/27/2014 From: Rocale Timmons Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 1:04 PM To, 'Phil Olbrechts' Cc: kolbrechtslaw@gmail corn, Bonnie Walton Subject: RE: Order on Reconsideration The sign in sheet is with the formal file in the City Cleric's office_ Roca le T. . . . .................. . From: Phil Olbrechts jmailto:olbrechtslayy@gmaii.com Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 9:47 AM To: Rocale Timmons Cc: kolbrechtslawCagmail.com Subject: Order on Reconsideration Hi Rocale, My first reconsideration order on liberty Gardens is attached. It will need to be sent to everyone who participated in the hearing. Do you recall if you have the sign in sheet, or did I take it? I 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 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE. Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat } } REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL Major Amendment; SEPA Appeal } INFORMATION ON RECONSIDERATION LUA08-093, ECF, MOD ) } Additional information specifically identified in the last paragraph of this Order is requested by the Examiner in order to evaluate a request for reconsideration filed by the Applicant of the above - captioned matter. The appeal period for the final decision on the above -captioned matter is tolled pending resolution of the reconsideration request as specified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(8)(a). As background, the Examiner denied the application for the above -captioned matter by decision dated June 27th, 2011. The Applicant Submitted a timely request for reconsideration on July U., 2011. Denial was based upon a determination that the proposed increase in density utilizing King County transfer of development rights ("TDR") was not authorized because the Major Amendment was not vested under King County TDR standards_ In its reconsideration request, the Applicant asserts that the Renton Hearing Examiner and the Renton City Council determined that vesting did apply under similar circumstances to the Cavalla Plat (I.UA-08-097, PP, ECF). The Applicant further asserts that the Cavalla plat was filed and vested under King County jurisdiction and that `following annexation [into Renton], the applicant submitted an amended application to the City to increase the number of lots using the King County transfer of development program." In making his decision, the current Examiner relied upon the prior Examiner's written recommendation to the City Council on the Cavalla application, dated March 1, 2010. The recommendation noted that the Cavalla application had been submitted and vested while the subject property was in unincorporated King County, but none of the findings or conclusions of that recommendation noted that the TDRs were requested after annexation in the City of Renton. The Reconsideration - I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 243 25 26 minutes to the City Council Planning and Development Committee for the meeting of April 26, 2010 appear to confirm that the Cavalla applicant revised its application subsequent to annexation into Renton to increase density under King County's TDR program. Consistency with the City Council's decision on the Cavalla application is certainly a significant consideration for this application. However, it is not clear whether the City Council was aware of the ramifications of the Noble Manor case discussed at length on the decision of the subject application. Also, it is not clear whether the Council was aware that King County regulations, specifically KCC . 19A.12.030(A), expressly provide that vesting does not apply to plat revisions that include an increase in the number of proposed lots. There might be some room for debate on the applicability of Noble Manor, but it is difficult to see how an applicant can still vest to TDRs under the fairly clear language of KCC 19A.12.030(A). More information is necessary to address the reconsideration request submitted by the Applicant, If possible, the timing of the Cavalla TDR revision in relation to its annexation needs to be clarified as well as the City Council's reasoning in finding vesting applicable to the TDR revision_ The parties should also be given an opportunity to brief the issues raised by the reconsideration request. Specifically: The City is requested to provide documentation on the Council approval of the Cavalla application. The record is closed but the Examiner will take judicial notice of any documents approved by the City Council as well as any legislative history (limited to written Council reports and written staff/hearing examiner recommendations) that helps interpret any actions taken by the Council and/or clari ties the timing of the Cavalla TDR revision. 2_ If any party so chooses, the Examiner will accept legal briefing on the following issues: a. Whether a revision to a preliminary plat alteration proposing a significant increase in the number of lots is vested to the development regulations applicable to the original preliminary plat application under Noble Manor Co. v. Pierce County, 133 Wn.2d 269 (1997). b. Whether a revision to a preliminary plat alteration proposing a significant increase in the number of lots is allowed to vest to the development regulations applicable to the original preliminary plat application under KCC 19A.12.030(A)_ c. Whether the Hearing Examiner is bound by KCC 19A.12.030(A) in the review of the subject application. The information requested above shall be received by 5:00 pm, July 29, 2011. Replies to any information requested may be made by any party and must be received by 5:00 pm, August 5, 2011. The information and replies may be emailed to the Examiner at olbrechtslaw gmail.com or mailed or delivered to Rocale Timmons, City of Renton Associate Planner, at 1055 South Grady Way, Reconsideration - 2 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9I 10 11 12 1.3 14 15 16 17 j i 1$ 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 i 26 Renton, WA 98057. A "party"' for purposes of this order is anyone who submitted written or verbal testimony at the -hearing on the above -captioned matter (the Liberty Gardens application). Any information provided is limited to evidence already submitted into the record, legal argument and the documents identified in Paragraph l above. No copies of any information requested by this Order will be forwarded to any other party unless the other party requests that information by 5.00 pm, July 28, 2011 to the Examiner by ernail or to Ms. Timmons in writing. DATED this 18th day of July; 2011 _ Reconsideration - 3 hi. Olbrechts l A City of Renton Hearing Examiner CRY OF AENTON JUL 1 1 2011 a RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE DALEY-MORROW-POBLETE, INC. ENGINEERING -SURVEYING -LAND PLANNING 726 Auburn Way North Auburn, WA 98002 (253)333-2200 FAX (253)333-2206 July 11, 2011 Renton Hearing Examiner c/o City Clerk City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 RE: LUA08-093, ECF, MOD - Liberty Gardens — Plat Amendment — Motion for Reconsideration Dear Mr. Examiner: The Applicant, David Petrie, moves for reconsideration pursuant to RMC 4-8-110(E)(8) and 4-8-100(G)(3). The Final Decision of the Hearing Examiner denied approval of a Major Amendment requesting an increase in the number of lots in the plat via the use of transferable development rights pursuant to the King County Zoning Code requirements to which the plat is vested. The Examiner's decision concludes that the vested rights of the applicant applied only to the number of lots in the Applicant's original plat application to King County and that the applicant is not allowed, after the property was annexed, to request application of the King County TDR program. The Examiner's Decision is erroneous as a matter of law and is inconsistent with prior interpretations of the law by the City of Renton. Specifically, the Renton City Council, in its decision on the Cavalla Plat (LUA-08-097, PP, ECF), reached the exact opposite conclusion. The Cavalla Plat, which is immediately, north of the Liberty Gardens site, involved virtually identical circumstances: The applicant filed and vested a preliminary plat application in King County. The property was then annexed to Renton. Following annexation, the applicant submitted an amended application to the City to increase the number of lots using the King County transfer of development program. The Hearing Examiner and the Renton City Council both approved the plat with the additional lots created by use of the County's transfer of development rights process. The Hearing Examiner cites the Noble Manor decision as a basis for his decision. However, the Noble Manor decision does not support a denial of the Major Amendment in this case. The decision in Noble Manor is that "the party filing the application [has] a vested right to have the application processed under the land use laws in effect at the time of the 01-540 Liberty Gardens application." In this case, the King County TDR program was in effect and part of King County's subdivision standards at the time the Liberty Gardens application was submitted. The same TDR program was in effect when the Cavalla Plat application was submitted and the applicant in that case was allowed to revise its application using the TDR program after annexation to the City. The decision in this case denying the applicant the right to do the exact same thing is erroneous as a matter of law. The City must apply its interpretations of land use codes and requirements in a consistent and uniform manner. Any other outcome will produce the result that now faces the Applicant in this case: After more than a year of time, effort and money spent working with the City staff in reliance on the City Council's decision in the Cavalla plat case that it was permissible to use the TDR process, the City has now inexplicably reversed its interpretation and denied use of the TDR process. The applicant requests that the Hearing Examiner reconsider his decision and approve the Major Amendment to the Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat. Since Hans A. Korve Planning Manager DMP Inc. 01-540 Liberty Gardens 2 LAND USE HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET (Liberty Gardens LUA08-093) June 13, 2011- PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY NAME ADDRESS (including City & Zip) Phone p with area code (optional) Email (optional) �aDe�-v�_ 12 ;'�;k 'co -!5 E� I q-7 (Ft� 60Z ) viz G�7212 SMC 77-4��e LAND USE HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET (Liberty Gardens LUA08-093) June 13, 2011- PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY LAND USE HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET (Liberty Gardens LUA08-093) June 13, 2011- PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY From: Bonnie Walton Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 3:01 PM To: 'Phil Olbrechts' Cc: Rocale Timmons; Chip Vincent, Garman Newsom; Jennifer T. Henning; Larry Warren Subject: Liberty Gardens - Request for Reconsideration Attachments: Liberty Garden Req Recon 7-11-11.pdf This is to notify you that a Request for Reconsideration of the Hearing Examiners decision dated 6/27/11 regarding the Liberty Gardens plat amendment was filed in the City Clerk's office today by Hans A. Korve, Planning Manager, DMP Inc. on behalf of applicant David Petrie. Copy of the filing is attached. Bonnie Walton City Clerk City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425-430-6502 1 orrY OF RENTON RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE DALEY-MORROW-POBLETE, INC. ENGINEERING -SURVEYING -LAND PLANNING 726 Auburn Way North Auburn, WA 98002 (253)333-2200 FAX (253)333-2206 July 11, 2011 Renton Hearing Examiner c/o City Clerk City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 RE: LUA08-093, ECF, MOD - Liberty Gardens — Plat Amendment — Motion for Reconsideration Dear Mr. Examiner: The Applicant, David Petrie, moves for reconsideration pursuant to RMC 4-8-110(E)(8) and 4-8-100(G)(3). The Final Decision of the Hearing Examiner denied approval of a Major Amendment requesting an increase in the number of lots in the plat via the use of transferable development rights pursuant to the King County Zoning Code requirements to which the plat is vested. The Examiner's decision concludes that the vested rights of the applicant applied only to the number of lots in the Applicant's original plat application to King County and that the applicant is not allowed, after the property was annexed, to request application of the King County TDR program. The Examiner's Decision is erroneous as a matter of law and is inconsistent with prior interpretations of the law by the City of Renton. Specifically, the Renton City Council, in its decision on the Cavalla Plat (LUA-08-097, PP, ECF), reached the exact opposite conclusion. The Cavalla Plat, which is immediately, north of the Liberty Gardens site, involved virtually identical circumstances: The applicant filed and vested a preliminary plat application in King County. The property was then annexed to Renton. Following annexation, the applicant submitted an amended application to the City to increase the number of lots using the King County transfer of development program. The Hearing Examiner and the Renton City Council both approved the plat with the additional lots created by use of the County's transfer of development rights process. The Hearing Examiner cites the Noble Manor decision as a basis for his decision. However, the Noble Manor decision does not support a denial of the Major Amendment in this case. The decision in Noble Manor is that "the party filing the application [has] a vested right to have the application processed under the land use laws in effect at the time of the 01-540 Lfberty Gardens application." In this case, the King County TDR program was in effect and part of King County's subdivision standards at the time the Liberty Gardens application was submitted_ The same TDR program was in effect when the Cavalla Plat application was submitted and the applicant in that case was allowed to revise its application using the TDR program after annexation to the City. The decision in this case denying the applicant the right to do the exact same thing is erroneous as a matter of law. The City must apply its interpretations of land use codes and requirements in a consistent and uniform manner. Any other outcome will produce the result that now faces the Applicant in this case: After more than a year of time, effort and money spent working with the City staff in reliance on the City Council's decision in the Cavalla plat case that it was permissible to use the TDR process, the City has now inexplicably reversed its interpretation and denied use of the TDR process. The applicant requests that the Hearing Examiner reconsider his decision and approve the Major Amendment to the Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat. Since Hans A. Korve Planning Manager DMP Inc. 01-540 Liberty Gardens 2 Section 4-8-110 Page 1 of 1 8. Optional Request for Reconsideration: a. When a reconsideration request has been submitted, the matter shall be held in abeyance pending the outcome of the reconsideration. A new fourteen (14) day appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration, b. In order to request reconsideration, the person or entity must have been made a party of record prior to the close of the hearing, participated in the hearing or have submitted written comments to the Hearing Examiner prior to the close of the hearing. http://www.codepubli shing.corn/walrentonlhtrnl/Renton04lRenton0408lRcnton0408 l l O.html 7I7I2011 Denis Law City Of Mayor City Clerk. - Bonnie I. Walton June 28, 2011 Hans A. Korve, Planning Manager DNIP, Inc. 726 Auburn Way N. Auburn, WA 98002 Re: Hearing Examiner Decision on Major Amendment and SEPA Appeal; Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat — LUA-08-093, ECF, MOD Dear Mr. Korve: Enclosed is the Hearing Examiner's Decision dated June 27, 2011, as referenced. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or the Development Services Division staff. Sincerely, Bonnie 1, Walton City Clerk Enclosure cc: Parties of Record (24) Jennifer Henning, Planning Manager Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner File No. LUA-08-093 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • (425) 430-6510 / Fax (425) 430-6516 • rentonwa.gov t sy Peel& Labels + A I Bend along line to Feed Paper - expose Pop -Up Edge" Avery© Template 51GQ� � Wayne Potter Daniel Balnlelh, PE Barghausen Consulting Engineer Barghausen Consulting Engineer 18215 - 72nd Avenue S 18215 - 72nd Avenue S Kent, WA 98032 Kent, WA 98032 Hans Korve Linda Corgiat 16039 SE 142nd Place DMP Eng., Inc. 726 Auburn Way N Renton, WA 98059 Auburn, WA 98002 Norm & Patricia Gammell Gwendolyn High 16043 SE 142nd Place C.A.R.E PC} Box 2936 Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98059 Jennifer McCall David Petrie Lazier Homes, Corp 811 S 273rd Court 1203 - 114th Avenue SE Des Moines, WA 98198 Bellevue, WA 98004 Curtis Schuster Seattle KC Health Department KBS III, LLC East District Environ. Health 12320 NE 8th Street ste: #100 14350 SE Eastgate Way Bellevue, WA 98005 Bellevue, WA 98007 Claudia Donnelly Norm Mohr 10415 147th Avenue SE 16224 SE 144th Street Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98059 Gerald Smith Marshall M, Bender 8524 S 125th Street Renton, WA 9$057 1822 SE 1Z8tn Street Renton, WA 98059 Peter C. Hayes Rahal Petrie Caldwell Banker Bain 150 Bellevue Way SE 6042 Blue Heroin Place BBremerton WA 98312 Bellevue, WA 98004 Jay Mezistrano 1512 So. 5th Place Renton, WA 98058 I tiquettes #aciles A peter ; A Repliez a la hachure afln de ; Utilisez le abarit AVERYe 51600 Sens de reveler le rebord Po -lJ rre 9 A chargement p p 9 $- i I AWRY@ 516a) 'I 1 John & Nenita Ching 16038 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 Debbie Eberle 18225 SE 147th Street Renton, WA 98059 Richard & Teri Langdon 14201- 164th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 Michael Ritchey 14225 - 164th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 Kolin Taylor 12320 NE 8th Street ste: #100 Bellevue, WA 98005 Donald & Andrea Gragg 16046 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 Karen Walter, Team Leader Watersheds & Land Use Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries 39015 172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 Kristy Hill 13527 156th Av SE Renton, WA 98059 www.avery.com ; 1-800-GO-AVERY L r. June 28, 2011 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON ) COUNTY OF KING ) BONNIE I. WALTON, City Clerk for the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that she 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 28th day of June, 2011, at the hour of 5:00 p.m. your affiant duly mailed and placed in the United States Post Office at Renton, King County, Washington, by first class mail to all parties of record the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision for the Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeal (LUA-08-093, ECF, MOD) Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 28th day of June, 2011. ,T HI�q 0C; Cynt' is R. Moya 0 ,2 �4 ,,,. •. ``� Notary Public in and for the State of ~'�A3FEtN��O► +yi Washington, residing in Renton 'r��iirr�r/1f� My Commission expires: 8/27/2014 • Hearing Examiner's Decision :1 0 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 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat Major Amendment; SEPA Appeal ) LUA08-093, ECF, MOD ) Summary FINAL DECISION The Applicant has applied for a Major Amendment to increase the number of lots in a subdivision from 36 to 46 lots. The application is denied and an associated appeal under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") is dismissed as moot. The Major Amendment is denied because it proposes a density that exceeds that allowed by City of Renton zoning standards. The Applicant proposes to exceed Renton standards through the use of King County transfer of development rights ("TDR"). The Applicant apparently believes that it has vested to the TDR regulations because it filed its 36 lot subdivision application in 2004 prior to the annexation of the subdivision property into the City of Renton from unincorporated King County. The TDRs do not apply to the proposed 10 additional lots because those lots were not identified in the 2004 application to King County. For subdivisions, the vested rights doctrine only applies to uses identified in the application. Put differently, the Applicant vested to an application for a 36 lot subdivision, not a 46 lot subdivision. Testimony 26 N The hearing encompassed almost five hours of testimony, mostly from the Applicant. Since the MAJOR AMENDMENT - 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 application is denied on the narrow grounds of vesting, and the testimony had little to do with this issue, no summary of testimony is provided. Exhibits Exhibits 1-8 identified in the June 13, 2011 staff report, in addition to the staff report itself, were all admitted into the record during the June 13, 2011 hearing. In addition, the following documents were also admitted into the record during the hearing: 9. Letter from Daley-Morrow-Poblete to Rocale Timmons, dated 1/11/2011. 10. Letter from Daley-Morrow-Pobfete to Rocale Timmons, dated 2/10/2011. 11. King County MDNS; Liberty Grove Plat dated 12/16/2003 12. Renton MDNS: Liberty Gardens. 13. KC Comprehensive Plan Policy U-124. 14. Density and Dimension Calculations for Liberty Grove (EXAMPLE). 15. Letter from Daley-Morrow-Poblete (DMP) to Rocale Timmons, dated 10/18/2011. 16. Side by Side Comparison of Liberty Gardens and Cavalla Plat, dated 9/23/2010. 17. Side by Side Comparison of Liberty Gardens and Cavalla Plat, dated 6/9/2010. 18. Liberty Gardens trail network site plan. 19. King County Assessor Map SE 14-23-05, dated 8/17/2010. 20. Letter (10-page) from Daley-Marrow-Poblete to Office of the Hearing Examiner, dated 6/13/2011. 21. Letter (11-page) from Daley-Morrow-Poblete to Office of the Hearing Examiner, dated 6/13/2011. 22A. Report of Proposed Preliminary Plat of Liberty Grove Contiguous Rezone hearing, dated 2/10/2004. 22B. Report of Proposed Preliminary Plat of Liberty Grove Rezone hearing, dated 2/10/2004. 23. Report and Decision for Proposed Preliminary Plat for Liberty Grove Contiguous, dated 2/27/2004. 24, 3 King County Ordinances dated 5/6/2004. 25. Plats and legal descriptions of Liberty Grove, Liberty Grove Contiguous, Liberty Lane, and Nichol's Place. 26. Letter to City of Renton Hearing Examiner from CARE, dated 6/13/2011. 27. Letter to Hearing Examiner from Michael Rae Cooke, dated 6/8/2011, Procedural: i . Owner. David Petrie. MAJOR AMENDMENT - 2 Findings of Fact 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 2. Hearing. The Examiner held a hearing on the application at 9:00 am on June 13, 2011, in the City of Renton City Council Chambers. Substantive: 3. Description of Proposal.. The Applicant is requesting a Major Amendment to the approved Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat. The Amendment includes the utilization of TDRs for ten additional lots, resulting in a 46 lot single family subdivision. The Amendment includes a revised lot layout, landscaping and utility plan. The original application, for 36 lots, was filed with the King County Department of Development and Environmental Services (KC DDES) for Environmental (SEPA) Review and preliminary Plat approval on December 29, 2004 under KC DDES File No. L04P0034. Prior to King County making any final decision on the application, the City of Renton annexed the property of the subdivision on August 11, 2008. Applying vested King County regulations, the City approved the preliminary plat application on April 28, 2009. The Applicant filed an application for the subject Major Amendment at a date that is not readily evident from the record. An appeal of the associated SEPA mitigated determination of nonsignificance was filed by the Applicant by letter dated January 11, 2011. See Ex. 9. The proposed subdivision is for a parcel of property 8.95 acres in size. The proposed density would be approximately 5.3 dwelling units per acre utilizing King County TDRs. The subdivision is currently located within the R-4 zoning district of the City of Renton. 4. Disclosure of Uses Within King County Application. The application for the 2004 King County 36 lot subdivision application is not in the record and there was no testimony provided on what uses were proposed in that application. Given that if the Applicant had planned on using TDRs at the time of the 2004 applicant it would have simply applied it at that time, more likely than not TDRs were not proposed or identified in the 2004 application. Conclusions of Law Procedural: Authority of Hearing Examiner. RMC 4-7-080(M) provides that any changes to an approved preliminary plat shall be processed as a Major Amendment if the amendment includes any increase in the number of lots. The subject proposal qualifies as a Major Amendment because it includes an increase of ten lots. RCW 4-7-080(M)(3) provides that the Examiner shall hold a hearing and issue a final decision on requests for Major Amendments. RMC 4-8-11 O(E) provides that the Examiner shall hold a hearing and issue a final decision on SEPA threshold determinations. MAJOR AMENDMENT - 3 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 Substantive: 2. Vesting of TDR's. The proposed Major Amendment is not vested to the King County TDR program or any other regulations in effect upon the vesting of the 2004 King County Liberty Gardens application (KC DDES File No. L04P0034). The seminal case on the application of the vested rights doctrine to subdivisions is Noble Manor Co. v. Pierce County, 133 Wn.2d 269 (1997). In Noble Manor, Pierce County approved a short subdivision to divide property into three lots. The applicant clearly disclosed in its application that the lots were to be used for duplexes. At the time the applicant filed its short subdivision application, Pierce County regulations required a minimum of 13,000 square feet for duplex lots. The three lots proposed by the applicant all exceeded 13,000 square feet. Subsequent to the filing of the application, but prior to its approval, Pierce County adopted an interim ordinance that mandated a minimum of 20,000 square feet for duplex lots. All three lots proposed by the applicant were smaller than 20,000 square feet. Pierce County subsequently approved the short plat and then issued building permits for construction of the duplexes. After the applicant had undergone substantial construction of the duplexes, Pierce County issued stop work orders on grounds that the interim ordinance prohibited duplexes on lots less than 20,000 square feet. The applicant appealed the stop work orders, in part upon the grounds that it had vested to the 13,000 square foot duplex requirements and was not subject to the 20,000 square foot minimum lot size imposed by the interim ordinance. The Court of Appeals concluded that for subdivisions, an applicant vests to the uses disclosed in the subdivision application. The Court's analysis focused upon an interpretation of RCW 58.17.033(1), which provides as follows: A proposed division of land, as defined in RCW 58.17.020, shall be considered under the subdivision or short subdivision ordinance, and zoning or other land use control ordinances, in effect on the land at the time a fully completed application for preliminary plat approval of' the subdivision, or short plat approval of the short subdivision, has been submitted to the appropriate county, city or town official. Pierce County argued that the only right that vests under RCW 58.17.033 was the right to subdivide the property into smaller lots and that there was no vesting to any use rights. The applicant argued that the language in RCW 58.17.033, that the proposed division be considered under the "zoning or other land use control ordinances in effect on the land," has no meaning under the County's interpretation. The Court agreed with the applicant's position. It cited a legislative bill report for RCW 58.17.033, which noted that the statute extended the vested rights doctrine to subdivision applications, not just divisions. The Court noted that the purpose of the vested rights doctrine is to provide a measure of certainty to developers and to protect their expectations against fluctuating land use policy. The Court concluded as follows: MAJOR AMENDMENT - 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 We conclude that when the Legislature extended the vested rights doctrine to plat applications, it intended to give the party filing an application a vested right to have that application processed under the land use laws in effect at the time of the application. Therefore, if the County requires an applicant to apply for a use for the property in the subdivision application, and the applicant discloses the requested use, then the applicant has the right to have the application considered for that use under the laws existing on the date of the application. If all that the Legislature was vesting under the statute was the right to divide land into smaller parcels with no assurance that the land could be developed, no protection would be afforded to the landowner. The Court also more specifically assessed what uses vest in a subdivision application: Two alternatives are possible. Either (1) all uses allowed by the zoning and land use laws on the date of the application for the short plat should be vested at the time of application, irrespective of the uses sought in an application; or (2) an applicant should have the right to have the uses disclosed in their application considered by the county or local government under the laws in existence at the time of the application. We conclude the second alternative comports with prior vesting law. In West Main, this Court stated that under the vested rights doctrine, `developers who file a timely and complete building permit application obtain a vested right to have their application processed according to the zoning and building ordinances in effect at the time of the application.' West Main Assocs., Inc. v. City of Bellevue, 106 Wash.2d 47, 50-51, 720 P.2d 782 (1986) (emphasis added), see also Vashon Island, 127 Wash.2d at 767-68, 903 P.2d 953 (citing Friends, 123 Wash.2d at 522, 869 P.2d 1056 (a land use application will be considered under the laws in effect at the time of the application's submission)). Additionally, the purpose of the vesting doctrine is to protect the expectations of the developer against fluctuating land use laws. E.g., Friends, 123 Wash.2d at 522, 869 P.2d 1056; West Main, 106 Wash.2d at 51, 720 P.2d 782. The statute provides that the proposed division of land shall be considered under the zoning or other land use control ordinances in effect at the time of the application. RCW 58.17.033(1). Our construction of the statute makes `permit speculation' less probable. Short plats could not simply be frozen under existing zoning for any possible use without an application for a particular use. Since the applicant in Noble Manor had disclosed in its application that the short subdivision was proposed for duplexes, the Court held that it had vested to the minimum lot size applicable to duplexes and that it could proceed with construction. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. the Applicant of this case submitted an application for a 36 lot subdivision to King County in 2004. This application did not identify the densities proposed in the modification. Even if the 2004 application did reserve the right to modify the proposed densities by the County's MAJOR AMENDMENT - 5 0a 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 TDR program, it is unlikely this reference would vest the right to such a modification. The Court's references to "the application" in legislative history and prior case law establish that RCW 58.17.033(1) only applies to the application under review and not future applications that would encompass an increase in density or any other modification. The judicial (and now legislative) requirement for a "complete application" is a vesting point designed to prevent permit speculation that demonstrates a substantial commitment by the developer, such that good faith of the applicant is generally assured. Graham Neighborhood Assn v. F.G. Associates, P.3d (2011). To allow a developer to lock in vested rights for future modifications by simply providing lists of every conceivable modification would invite the very permit speculation that the requirements for a complete application are intended to prevent. It is slightly unclear from the Noble Manor case as to what level of detail is locked into a use description, i.e. since the Applicant likely disclosed in its King County subdivision application that it intended to develop its subdivision for residential purposes, would this disclosure encompass any density of residential use? The answer is most likely that the disclosure only vests to the proposed densities and not broadly to every conceivable type of density. Going back to the judicial policy forbidding permit speculation, there is a vast difference between investing the time and money in proposing a specific subdivision design based upon a specific density to broadly proclaiming that the subdivision will accommodate residential use. Minor changes in density consistent with overall project design may be acceptable as an inevitable result of the iterative process of subdivision review, but major increases in density that were clearly beyond the contemplated design and that could only be accomplished by the implementation of TDRs are not. One distinguishing feature of the Noble Manor case is that it concerned a short subdivision. As discussed above, the Noble Manor ruling rests upon an interpretation of RCW 58.17.033, which expressly applies to short and long subdivisions. However, long subdivisions are also subject to RCW 58.17.170, which provides in relevant part as follows: ... A subdivision shall be governed by the terms of approval of the final plat, and the statutes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of approval under RCW 58.17.150(1) and (3) for a period of five years after final plat approval unless the legislative body finds that a change in conditions creates a serious threat to the public health or safety in the subdivision. In construing the statute above, the Court noted it gave rights to a developer to use a subdivision in accord with "the laws in effect on the date offinal plat approval (not the date of application) for a period of five years from the date of approval." In this case the property subject to the application was annexed into the City prior to approval of the preliminary plat by the City. It does not appear that final plat approval was ever granted. Even if it were, the application subject to vesting was the original application submitted to King County. For the same policy reasons governing RCW 1 The dividing line may well be what separates a minor from a Major Amendment, but that is an issue that can be further investigated when and if the issue arises in another application. MAJOR AMENDMENT - 6 1 58.17.033, the present Major Amendment is for a separate application, subject to its own individual vesting. The application of RCW 58.17.170 to the original subdivision application would not result 2 in the vesting of any King County 'l-DR regulations applicable to this modification application. 3 King County vesting regulations are consistent with the interpretation of state law above. KCC 4 19A.12.030(A) provides that revisions that result in any substantial changes shall be treated as new applications for purposes of vesting. KCC 19A.12.030(A) further provides that the creation of 5 additional lots constitutes a substantial change. Consequently, King County regulations themselves 6 prohibit the vesting of the King County TDR regulations in this case. KCC 19A.12.030(A) was adopted by King County in 1999, well before the Applicant vested its subdivision application. 7 Arguably, the Examiner would be bound by KCC 19A.12.030(A), even if it conflicted with state law, since the Examiner has no authority to invalidate local ordinances. See, e.g., LeJeune v. 8 Clallam County, 64 Wn. App. 257 (1992)(authority of administrative body such as examiner must 9 be either expressly granted by ordinance or statute or implied and is not inherent); Exendine a City of Sammamish, 127 Wn. App. 574 (2005)(hearing examiners do not have the authority to enforce, 10 interpret or rule on constitutional challenges). 11 4. Proposed Modification Inconsistent with Renton Subdivision Criteria. RMC 4-7-170(C) 12 requires a subdivision to conform to applicable density requirements. RMC 4-2-110A provides that the maximum density for property zoned R-4 is four dwelling units per acre. The proposed density 13 is 5.3 dwelling units per acre, which violates RMC 4-2-110A. 14 5. SEPA Appeal Moot. A case is moot if a court cannot provide effective relief. Davidson Series and Associates v. Kirkland, 159 Wn. App. 616 (2011). In this case the proposal is 15 subdivision modification is denied because it fails to comply with RMC 4-2-110A. Given this 16 factor, a ruling on the SEPA appeal would not provide any relief to the parties and is moot. 17 DECISION 18 Application for the proposed Major Amendment is denied. The associated SEPA appeal is 19 dismissed. 20 DATED this 27th day of June, 2011. 21 22 23 Phil A. Olbrechts City of Renton Hearing Examiner 24 25 26 MAJOR AMENDMENT - 7 ll 21 3 41 i 5 I 6 i 7 g 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 i 23 24 25 26 Appeal Right and Valuation Notices RMC 4-8-110(E)(9) and/or RMC 4-8-1 10(F)(1) provides that the Major Amendment decision of the hearing examiner is final subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(9) 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. A request for reconsideration to the hearing e examiner may also be filed within this 14 clay appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(8) and RMC 4-8-100(G)(4). A new fourteen (14) day appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Pursuant to WAC 197-11-680(3)(a)(iv) there is no further administrative appeal available for the SEPA threshold determination. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall — 7 h floor, (425) 430-6510. Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. I&M01MS UIWWSTLaM V., 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON 9 ) 10 RE: Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat FINAL DECISION 11 Major Amendment; SEPA Appeal 12 LUA08-093, ECF, MOD ) 13 ) 14 Summary 15 16 The Applicant has applied for a Major Amendment to increase the number of lots in a subdivision from 36 to 46 lots. The application is denied and an associated appeal under the Washington State 17 Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") is dismissed as moot. 18 The Major Amendment is denied because it proposes a density that exceeds that allowed by City of 19 Renton zoning standards. The Applicant proposes to exceed Renton standards through the use of King County transfer of development rights ("TDR"). The Applicant apparently believes that it has 20 vested to the TDR regulations because it filed its 36 lot subdivision application in 2004 prior to the annexation of the subdivision property into the City of Renton from unincorporated King County. 21 The TDRs do not apply to the proposed 10 additional lots because those lots were not identified in the 22 2004 application to King County. For subdivisions, the vested rights doctrine only applies to uses identified in the application. Put differently, the Applicant vested to an application for a 36 lot 23 subdivision, not a 46 lot subdivision. 24 Testimony 25 26 The hearing encompassed almost five hours of testimony, mostly from the Applicant. Since the MAJOR AMENDMENT - 1 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 application is denied on the narrow grounds of vesting, and the testimony had little to do with this issue, no summary of testimony is provided. Exhibits Exhibits 1-8 identified in the ,Tune 13. 2011 staff report, in addition to the staff report itself, were all admitted into the record during the June 13, 2011 hearing. In addition, the following documents were also admitted into the record during the hearing: 9. Letter from Dal ey- Morrow- Poblete to Rocale Timmons, dated 1/11/2011. 10. Letter from Daley-Morrow-Poblete to Rocale Timmons, dated 2/10/2011. 11. King County MDNS; Liberty Grove Plat dated 12/16/2003 12. Renton MDNS: Liberty Gardens. 13. KC Comprehensive Plan Policy U-124. 14. Density and Dimension Calculations for Liberty Grove (EXAMPLE). 15. Letter from Daley-Morrow-Poblete (DMP) to Rocale Timmons, dated 10/18/201 l . 16. Side by Side Comparison of Liberty Gardens and Cavalla Plat, dated 9/23/2010, 17. Side by Side Comparison of Liberty Gardens and Cavalla Plat, dated 6/9/2010. 18. Highlighted King County Assessor Map SE 14-23-05, dated 8/17/2010. 19. King County Assessor Map SF 14-23-05, dated 8/17/2010. 20. Letter (10-page) from Daley-Morrow-Poblete to Office of the Hearing Examiner, dated 6/13/2011. 21. Letter (I I -page) from Da.ley-Morrow-Poblete to Office of the Hearing Examiner, dated 6/13/2011. 22A. Report of Proposed Preliminary Plat of Liberty Grove Contiguous Rezone hearing, dated 2/10/2004. 22B. Report of Proposed Preliminary Plat of Liberty Grove Rezone hearing, dated 2/ 10/2004. 23. Report and Decision for Proposed Preliminary Plat for Liberty Grove Contiguous, dated 2/27/2004. 24. 3 King County Ordinances dated 5/6/2004. 25. Plats and legal descriptions of Liberty Grove, Liberty Grove Contiguous, Liberty Lane, and Nichol's Place. 26. Letter to City of Renton Hearing Examiner from CARE, dated 6/13/2011. 27. Letter to Hearing Examiner from Michael Rae Cooke, dated 6/8/2011. Procedural: Owner. David Petrie. MAJOR AMENDMENT - 2 Findings of Fact 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 2. Hearing. The Examiner held a hearing on the application at 9.00 am on June 13, 2011, in the City of Renton City Council Chambers. Substantive: 3. Description of Proposal. The Applicant is requesting a Major Amendment to the approved Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat. The Amendment includes the utilization of TDRs for ten additional lots, resulting in a 46 lot single family subdivision. The Amendment includes a revised lot layout, landscaping and utility plan. The original application, for 36 lots, was filed with the King County Department of Development and Environmental Services (KC DDES) for Environmental (SEPA) Review and Preliminary Plat approval on December 29, 2004 under KC DDES File No. L04P0034. Prior to King County making any final decision on the application, the City of Renton annexed the property of the subdivision on August 11, 2008. Applying vested King County regulations, the City approved the preliminary plat application on April 28, 2009, The Applicant filed an application for the subject Major Amendment at a date that is not readily evident from the record. An appeal of the associated SEPA mitigated determination of nonsignificance was fled by the Applicant by letter dated January 11, 2011. See Ex. 9. The proposed subdivision is for a parcel of property 8.95 acres in size. The proposed density would be approximately 5.3 dwelling units per acre utilizing King County TDRs. The subdivision is currently located within the R-4 zoning district of the City of Renton. 4. Disclosure of Uses Within King. County_Application. The application for the 2004 King County 36 lot subdivision application is not in the record and there was no testimony provided on what uses were proposed in that application. Given that if the Applicant had planned on using TDRs at the time of the 2004 applicant it would have simply applied it at that time, more likely than not TDRs were not proposed or identified in the 2004 application. Conclusions of Law Procedural: 1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. RMC 4-7-080(M) provides that any changes to an approved preliminary plat shall be processed as a Major Amendment if the amendment includes any increase in the number of lots_ The subject proposal qualifies as a Major Amendment because it includes an increase of ten lots. RCW 4-7-080(M)(3) provides that the Examiner shall hold a hearing and issue a final decision on requests for Major Amendments. RMC 4-8-11 O(E) provides that the Examiner shall hold a hearing and issue a final decision on SEPA threshold determinations. MAJOR AMENDMENT - 3 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 I6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Substantive: 2. Vesting of TDR's. The proposed Major Amendment is not vested to the King County TDR program or any other regulations in effect upon the vesting of the 2004 King County Liberty Gardens application (KC DDES File No. L04P0034). The seminal case on the application of the vested rights doctrine to subdivisions is Noble Manor Co. v. Pierce County, 133 Wn.2d 269 (1997). In Noble Manor, Pierce County approved a short subdivision to divide property into three lots_ The applicant clearly disclosed in its application that the lots were to be used for duplexes_ At the time the applicant filed its short subdivision application, Pierce County regulations required a minimum of 13,000 square feet for duplex lots. The three lots proposed by the applicant all exceeded 13,000 square feet. Subsequent to the filing of the application, but prior to its approval, Pierce County adopted an interim ordinance that mandated a minimum of 20,000 square feet for duplex lots. All three lots proposed by the applicant were smaller than 20,000 square feet. Pierce County subsequently approved the short plat and then issued building permits for construction of the duplexes. After the applicant had undergone substantial construction of the duplexes, Pierce County issued stop work orders on grounds that the interim ordinance prohibited duplexes on lots less than 20,000 square feet. The applicant appealed the stop work orders. in part upon the grounds that it had vested to the 13,000 square foot duplex requirements and was not subject to the 20,000 square foot minimum lot size imposed by the interim ordinance. The Court of Appeals concluded that for subdivisions, an applicant vests to the uses disclosed in the subdivision application. The Court's analysis focused upon an interpretation of RCW 58.17.033(1), which provides as follows: A proposed division of land, as defined in RCW 58.17.020, shall be considered under the subdivision or short subdivision ordinance, and zoning or other land use control ordinances, in effect on the land at the time a fully completed application for preliminary plat approval of the subdivision, or short plat approval of the short subdivision, has been submitted to the appropriate county, city or town official_ Pierce County argued that the only right that vests under RCW 58.17.033 was the right to subdivide the property into smaller lots and that there was no vesting to any use rights. The applicant argued that the language in RCW 58.17.033, that the proposed division be considered under the "zoning or other land use control ordinances in effect on the land," has no meaning under the County's interpretation. The Court agreed with the applicant's position. It cited a legislative bill report for RCW 58.17.033, which noted that the statute extended the vested rights doctrine to subdivision applications, not just divisions. The Court noted that the purpose of the vested rights doctrine is to provide a measure of certainty to developers and to protect their expectations against fluctuating land use policy. The Court concluded as follows: MAJOR AMENDMENT - 4 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 We conclude that when the Legislature extended the vested rights doctrine to plat applications, it intended to give the party filing an application a vested right to have that application processed under the land use laws in effect at the time of the application. Therefore, if the County requires an applicant to apply far a use for the property in the subdivision application, and the applicant discloses the requested use, then the applicant has the right to have the application considered for that use under the laws existing on the date of the application. If all that the Legislature was vesting under the statute was the right to divide land into smaller parcels with no assurance that the land could be developerd, no protection would be afforded to the landowner. The Court also more specifically assessed what uses vest in a subdivision application: Two alternatives are possible_ Either (1) all uses allowed by the zoning and land use laws on the date of the application frrr the short plat should be vested at the time of application, irrespective of the uses .sought in an application; or (2) an applicant should have the right to have the uses disclosed in their application considered by the county or local government under the laws in existence at the time of the application. We conclude the second alternative comports with prior vesting law. In West Main, this Court stated that under the vested rights doctrine, `developers who file a timely and complete building permit application obtain a vested right to have their application processed according to the zoning and building ordinances in effect at the time of the application. ' West Main Assocs., Inc. v. City of Bellevue, 106 Wash.2d 47, 50-51, 720 P. 2d 782 (1986) (emphasis added); see also Vashon Island, 127 Wash. 2d at 767-68, 903 P.2d 953 (citing Friends, 123 Wash.2d at 522, 869 P.2d 1056 (a land use application will be considered under the laws in effect at the time of the application's submission)). Additionally, the purpose ref the vesting doctrine is to protect the expectations of the developer against fluctuating land use laws. E.g., Friends, 123 Wash.2d at 522. 869 P.2d 1056; West Main, 106 Wash.2d at 51, 720 P.2d 782. The statute provides that the proposed division of land shall be considered under the zoning or other land use control ordinances in effect at the time of the application_ RCW 58.17.033(l). Our construction of the statute makes permit speculation' less probable. Short plats could not simply be frozen under existing zoning for any possible use without an application for a particular use. Since the applicant in Noble Manor had disclosed in its application that the short subdivision was proposed for duplexes, the Court held that it had vested to the minimum lot size applicable to duplexes and that it could proceed with construction. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the Applicant of this case submitted an application for a 36 lot subdivision to King County in 2004. This application did not identify the densities proposed in the modification. Even if the 2004 application did reserve the right to modify the proposed densities by the County's MAJOR AMENDMENT - 5 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 TDR program, it is unlikely this reference would vest the right to such a modification. The Court's references to "the application" in legislative history and prior case law establish that RCW 58.17.033(1) only applies to the application under review and not future applications that would encompass an increase in density or any other modification. The judicial (and now legislative) requirement for a "complete application" is a vesting point designed to prevent permit speculation that demonstrates a substantial commitment by the developer, such that good faith of the applicant is generally assured. Graham Neighborhood Assn v. F. G. Associates, P.3d (2011). To allow a developer to lock in vested rights for future modifications by simply providing lists of every conceivable modification would invite the very permit speculation that the requirements for a complete application are intended to prevent. It is slightly unclear from the Noble Manor case as to what level of detail is locked into a use description, i.e. since the Applicant likely disclosed in its King County subdivision application that it intended to develop its subdivision for residential purposes, would this disclosure encompass any density of residential use? The answer is most likely that the disclosure only vests to the proposed densities and not broadly to every conceivable type of density. Going back to the Judicial policy forbidding permit speculation, there is a vast difference between investing the time and money in proposing a specific subdivision design based upon a specific density to broadly proclaiming that the subdivision will accommodate residential use. Minor changes in density consistent with overall project design may be acceptable as an inevitable result of the iterative process of subdivision review', but major increases in density that were clearly beyond the contemplated design and that could only be accomplished by the implementation of TDRs are not. One distinguishing feature of the Noble Manor case is that it concerned a short subdivision. As discussed above, the Noble Manor ruling rests upon an interpretation of RCW 58.17.033, which expressly applies to short and long subdivisions. However, long subdivisions are also subject to RCW 58.17.170, which provides in relevant part as follows: ...A subdivision shall be governed by the terms of approval of the final plat, and the statutes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of approval under RCW 58.17.150(1) and (3) for a period of'. five years after final plat approval unless the legislative body finds that a change in conditions creates a serious threat to the public health or safety in the subdivision. In construing the statute above, the Court noted it gave rights to a developer to use a subdivision in accord with "the laws in effect on the date of final plat approval (not the date of application) for a period of five years from the date of approval." In this case the property subject to the application was annexed into the City prior to approval of the preliminary plat by the City. It does not appear that final plat approval was ever granted. Even if it were, the application subject to vesting was the original application submitted to King County. For the same policy reasons governing RCW 1 The dividing line may well be what separates a minor from a Major Amendment, but that is an issue that can be further investigated when and if the issue arises in another application. MAJOR AMENDMENT - 6 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 58.17.033, the present Major Amendment is for a separate application, subject to its own individual vesting. The application of RCW 58,17.170 to the original subdivision application would not result in the vesting of any King County TDR regulations applicable to this modification application. King County vesting regulations are consistent with the interpretation of state law above. KCC 19A.12.030(A) provides that revisions that result in any substantial changes shall be treated as new applications for purposes of vesting. KCC 19A.12.030(A) further provides that the creation of additional lots constitutes a substantial change. Consequently, King County regulations themselves prohibit the vesting of the King County TDR regulations in this case. KCC 19A.12.030(A) was adopted by King County in 1999, well before the Applicant vested its subdivision. application. Arguably, the Examiner would be bound by KCC 19A.12.030(A), even if it conflicted with state law, since the Examiner has no authority to invalidate local ordinances. See, e_g., LeJeune v. Clallam County, 64 Wn. App. 257 (1992)(authority of administrative body such as examiner must be either expressly granted by ordinance or statute or implied and is not inherent); Exendine v. City of Sammamish, 127 Wn. App. 574 (2005)(hearing examiners do not have the authority to enforce, interpret or rule on constitutional challenges). 4. Proposed Modification lnconsistent with Renton Subdivision Criteria. RMC 4-7-170(C) requires a subdivision to conform to applicable density requirements. RMC 4-2-110A provides that the maximum density for property zoned RA is four dwelling units per acre. The proposed density is 5.3 dwelling units per acre, which violates RMC 4-2-110A. 5. SEPA Appeal Moot. A case is moot if a court cannot provide effective relief. Davidson Series and Associates v. Kirkland, 159 Wn. App. 616 (2011). In this case the proposal is subdivision modification is denied because it fails to comply with RMC 4-2-110A. Given this factor, a ruling on the SEPA appeal would not provide any relief to the parties and is moot. DECISION Application for the proposed Major Amendment is denied. The associated SEPA appeal is dismissed. DATED this 27th day of June. 2011. MAJOR AMENDMENT - 7 lsl Phil A. Olbrechts (Signed original in official file) Phil A. Olbrechts City of Renton Hearing Examiner 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 Appeal Right and Valuation Notices RMC 4-8-110(E)(9) and/or RMC 4-5-110(1~)(1) provides that the Major Amendment decision of the hearing examiner is final subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(9) 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. A request for reconsideration to the hearing e examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(8) and RMC 4-8-100(G)(4). A new fourteen (14) day appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Pursuant to WAC 197-11-680(3)(a)(iv) there is no further administrative appeal available for the SEPA threshold determination. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall — 7t' floor, (425) 430-6510. Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. MAJOR AMENDMENT - 8 Ea-gy PeefO Labels I A Bendalang line to It Usc AveryO Template 51600 i Feed Paper . expose Pop -Up EdgeTM i Wayne Potter Daniel Balmelli, PE Barghausen Consulting Engineer Barghausen Consulting Engineer 18215 - 72nd Avenue S 18215 - 72nd Avenue S Kent, WA 98032 Kent, WA 98032 Linda Corgiat 16039 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 Norm & Patricia Gammell 16043 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 Jennifer McCall Lozier Homes, Corp 1203 - 114th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98004 Curtis Schuster KBS III, LLC 12320 NE 8th Street ste: #100 Bellevue, WA 98005 Claudia Donnelly 10415 147th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 Gerald Smith 8524 5 125th Street Renton, WA 98057 Peter C. Hayes Coldwell Banker Bain 150 Bellevue Way SE Bellevue, WA 98004 Jay Mezistrano 1512 So. 5th Place Renton, WA 98058 Hans Korve DMP Eng., Inc. 726 Auburn Way N Auburn, WA 98002 Gwendolyn High C.A.R.E PO Box 2936 Renton, WA 98059 David Petrie 811 S 273rd Court Des Moines, WA 98198 Seattle KC Health Department East District Environ. Health 14350 SE Eastgate Way Bellevue, WA 98007 Norm Mohr 16224 SE 144th Street Renton, WA 98059 Marshall M. Bender 1822 SE 128t1 Street Renton, WA 98059 Rahal Petrie 6042 Blue Heroin Place Bremerton, WA 98312 Etiquettes facfles a peter ; A Repliez a is hachure afro deSens de I Utilisez le gabarit AVERY@ 51600 chargement rev6ler le rebord Pop-UpTM AVERY® 51600 1 John & Nenita Ching 16038 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 Debbie Eberle 18225 SE 147th Street Renton, WA 98059 Richard & Teri Langdon 14201- 164th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 Michael Ritchey 14225 - 164th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 Kohn Taylor 12320 NE 8th Street ste: #100 Bellevue, WA 98005 Donald & Andrea Gragg 16046 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 Karen Walter, Team Leader Watersheds & Land Use Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries 39015 172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 Kristy Hill 13527 156th Av SE Renton, WA 98059 www.avery.com 1-800-G Q-AVE RY CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 6th day of June, 2011, 1 deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Recommendation to the Hearing Examiner documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Wayne Potter Applicant/Contact David Petrie Owner Parties of Record See Attached (Signature of Sender): STATE OF WASHINGTON ) " ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy M. Tucker signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Notary (Print): TO n'4 / G 'fly appointment expires: �2 _ y_ a O Iq Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat Project Number;� LUA08-093, MOD template - affidavit of service by mailing A. . r Marshall Brenden 18225 SE 128th Street Renton, WA 98059 Hans Korve DMP Eng., Inc. 726 Auburn Way N Auburn, WA 98002 Don & Andrea Gragg 16046 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 Jennifer McCall Lozier Homes, Corp 1203 - 114th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98004 Curtis Schuster KBS III, LLC 12320 NE 8th Street ste: #100 Bellevue, WA 98005 Claudia Donnelly 10415 147th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 Norm Mohr 16224 SE 144th Street Renton, WA 98059 Marshall M Bender 18225 SE 128th Street Renton, WA 98059 Wayne Potter Barghausen Consulting Engineer 18215 - 72nd Avenue S Kent, WA 98032 John & Nenita Ching 16038 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 Debbie Eberle 18225 SE 147th Street Renton, WA 98059 Gwendolyn High C.A.R.E PO Box 2936 Renton, WA 98059 David Petrie 811 S 273rd Court Des Moines, WA 98198 Seattle KC Health Department East District Environ. Health 14350 SE Eastgate Way Bellevue, WA 98007 Karen Walter Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division 39015 172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 Peter C. Hayes Coldwell Banker Bain 150 Bellevue Way SE Bellevue, WA 98004 Daniel Balmelli, PE Barghausen Consulting Engineer 18215 - 72nd Avenue S Kent, WA 98032 Linda Corglat 16039 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 Norm & Patricia Grammell 16043 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 Richard & Teri Langdon 14201 - 164th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 Michael Ritchey 14225 - 164th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 Kolin Taylor 12320 NE 8th Street ste: #100 Bellevue, WA 98005 Gerald Smith 8524 S 125th Street Renton, WA 98057 .A� DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY c�ryof AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (e HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING JUNE 13, 2011 AGENDA COMMENCING AT 9:00 AM, COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7TH FLOOR, RENTON CITY HALL The application(s) listed are in order of application number only and not necessarily the order in which they will be heard. items will be called for hearing at the discretion of the Hearing Examiner. PROJECT NAME: Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat PROJECT NUMBER: LUA08-093, ECF, MOD PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting a Major Modification to the approved Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat. The modification includes the utilization of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR's) for 10 additional lots; resulting in a 46 lot single family subdivision. The modification includes a revised lot layout, landscaping and utility plan. The original application, for 36 lots, was filed with the King County Department of Development and Enviromental Services (KC DDES) for Environmental (SEPA) Review and Preliminary Plat approval (KC DDES File No. L04P0034) and was approved by the City on April 28, 2009. The 8.95 acre parcel is located within the City's Residential - 4 (R-4) dwelling units per acre zoning designation; however, the project is vested to King County's R-4 zoning development regulations. HEX Agenda 6-13-11.doc DEPARTMENT OF COMP. IITY _Ciryof. AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT -f��` RECOMMENDATION REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST REPORT DATE. June 13, 2011 Project Name: Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat Owner: David Petrie; 811 S 273 d Ct; Des Moines, WA; 98198 Applicant/Contact: DMP, Inc.; Hans Korve; 726 Auburn Way N; Auburn, WA; 98002 File Number: LUA08-093, ECF, MOD Project Manager, Rocale Timmons; Associate Planner Project Summary: The applicant is requesting a Major Modification to the approved Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat. The modification includes the utilization of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR's) for 10 additional lots; resulting in a 46 lot single family subdivision. The modification includes a revised lot layout, landscaping and utility plan. The original application, for 36 lots, was filed with the King County Department of Development and Enviromental Services (KC DDES) for Environmental (SEPA) Review and Preliminary Plat approval (KC DDES File No. L04P0034) and was approved by the City on April 28, 2009. The 8.95 acre parcel is located within the City's Residential - 4 (R-4) dwelling units per acre zoning designation; however, the project is vested to King County's R-4 zoning development regulations. The proposed density would be approximately 5.3 dwelling units per acre with the use of TDR's. The proposed lots would range in size from approximately 4,400 square feet in area to 6,800 square feet. Access to the lots would be provided via two new internal dead end streets extended from 162nd Ave SE and one connecting street to 164th Ave SE. A Class II wetland and Class III stream is located in the southeast corner of the property. Additionally a Category II wetland and buffer is located on northwest portion of the site witin the unimproved right of way 162"d Ave SE. The subject property was annexed to the City of Renton on August 11, 2008. Project Location: Site Area: Southeast of 162"d Avenue SE and SE 140`h Street 8.95 acres Project Location Mop Modification Report. doc 0 City of Renton Department of Corr ity & Econon;ic Development Ad trative Short Plat Report & Decision LIBERTY GARDENS PRELIMINARr PLAT LUA08-093, ECF, Report of June 13, 2011 Page 2 of 12 B. EXHIBITS: Exhibit 1: Neighborhood Detail Map Exhibit 2: Proposed Preliminary Plat Plan (dated 3/16/09) Exhibit 3: Approved Preliminary Plat Plan (dated 11/4/10) Exhibit 4: Environmental Review Committee Report (dated 1/24/2011) Exhibit 5: Hearing Examiner Preliminary Plat Decision (dated 4/28/09) Exhibit 6: Conceptual Preliminary Plat Plan — Created by City Staff Exhibit 7: Aerial Photograph Exhibit 8: Approved Cavalla Preliminary Plat Plan C. GENERAL INFORMATION: David Petrie 1. Owner(s) of Record: 811 S 273rd Ct Des Moines, WA; 98198 2. Zoning designation: Residential -- 4 du/ac (R-4); (King County - R-4) 3. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: Residential Low Density (RLD) (King County — Urban) 4. Existing Site Use: Vacant 5. Neighborhood Characteristics: a. North: Vacant -Approved Single -Family Preliminary Plat — Cavalla (LUA08-097) (R-4 zone) b. East: Liberty High School (King County R-4 zone) c. South: Single Family Residential (R-4 zone) d. West: Single Family Residential (R-4 zone) 6. Access: Access is proposed via 16.2"d and 164th Ave SE. Internal access is proposed via two new public dead end streets (163rd Ct SE and SE 141" Place), a street connecting 162Rd to 164th Ave SE, and an alley for a tier of lots on the interior of the site. 7. Site Area: 8.95 acres (389,862 gross square feet) D. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND: Action Land Use File No. Ordinance No. Date Comprehensive Plan N/A 5099 11/01/04 Zoning N/A 5100 11/01/04 Annexation N/A 5398 8/11/08 Modification Report.doc City of Renton Department of Cam ity & Economic Development Adr, trative Short Plat Report & Decision LIBERTY GARDENS PRELIMINARY PLAT L UADS-D93, ECF, Report of June 13, 2011 E. PUBLIC SERVICES: 1. Utilities Page 3 of 12 a. Water: The property is currently not served by a public water system. There is an existing water main in 160th Avenue SE, pa rt of the Water District #90 system. b. Sewer: The property is currently not served by a public sewer line. There is a City of Renton 15-inch sanitary sewer line at the intersection of 160th Avenue SE and SE 144th Street. A 12-inch sewer line is also in 160th Avenue SE. c. Surface/Storm Water: Surface water conveyance facilities currently are available to serve this site in SE 144th Street. 2. Streets: The site is fronted on the east and west by unimproved rights -of -way; 162"d Ave SE and 164th Ave SE. 3. Fire Protection: City of Renton Fire Department F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE KING COUNTY AND RENTON MUNICIPAL CODES: 1. KCC Title 19A Land Segregation (Dec 2004) 2. KCC Title 20 Planning (Dec 2004) with exception to procedures for subdivisions 3. Title 21A Zoning (Dec 2004) 4. RMC Title 4 Chapter 7 Subdivision Regulations a. Section 4-7-080: Detailed Procedures for Subdivisions S. RMC Title 4 Chapter 9 Procedures and Review Criteria 6. RMC Title 4 Chapter 11 Definitions G. DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS: 1. Project Description/Background The applicant, DMP engineering on behalf of Mr. David Petrie, received approval with conditions for the subject 36-lot Preliminary Plat on April 29, 2009. Following the approval of the preliminary plat and participation in, and appealing of, the neighboring Cavalla Plat the applicant submitted the request to incorporate additional lots through the use of TDR's. While the addition of lots, in King County Code (KCC 19A.12.030, Revisions to Preliminary Subdivisions), following Preliminary Plat approval would result in a substantial change and be treated as a new application for purposes of vesting; provisions within the City code (RMC 4-7- 080M, Process for Major Amendments) allow for modifications to approved preliminary plats and are silent as to the modification's effects on vesting. It has been a challenge for staff to determine how TDR's are applied in the City as we do not have such allowances in the City Code. And more specifically, in this case, how TDR's are utilized as part of major amendment process in which the major amendment provisions were never intended to allow for increases in density, following Preliminary Plat approval; especially density allowances in King County Modification Report_doc City of Renton Department of Cam 'ty & Economic Development Ad trative Short Plat Report & Decision LIBERTY GARDENS PRELIMINARY PLAT LUA08-093, ECF, Report of June 13, 2011 Page 4 of 12 which far exceed the density permissible in the City. As a solution, staff offers a recommendation which heavily relies upon policy should the Hearing Examiner determine the major amendment has vested rights to utilize TDR's. The application for Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat was originally submitted to KC DDES for review on December 29, 2004 (King County DDES File No. 1-04130034). On June 20, 2008 a SEPA threshold determination, Determination of Non -Significance (DNS), was issued by the County. An appeal of the SEPA determination was filed. Before this matter could be heard by the King County Hearing Examiner, the subject property was annexed to the City of Renton as part of the Liberty Annexation (Ordinance #5398) on August 11, 2008. Based on this annexation; both the SEPA appeal and the application for the Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat came under the jurisdiction of the City of Renton. On October 6, 2008, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) issued a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) for the Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat. This Determination was an adoption of the threshold determination issued by KC DDES on June 20, 2008. An appeal of the City's SEPA determination was filed. On November 10, 2008 a decision was made by the ERC to rescind the threshold determination pending further analysis of potential environmental impacts to the site. The rescission of the ERC's DNS resulted in the negation of the two existing appeals that were filed. On December 15, 2008 the City issued a new threshold Determination of Nan -Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M) which contained six mitigation measures for which an appeal was filed by the applicant. The appeal/preliminary plat hearing was held before the City's Hearing Examiner on March 17, 2009. On April 28, 2009, the City's Hearing Examiner issued a decision on the preliminary plat which contained 9 conditions of approval and affirmed the ERC determination in part and reversed in part. Mitigation measures 1-3, and 5 were affirmed (see Exhibit 5, Hearing Examiner Preliminary Plat/Appeal Decision, dated April 28, 2009) and mitigation measure 4 was reversed and removed from the determination. The project site is located within the City's Residential - 4 (R-4) dwelling units per acre zoning designation; however, the project is vested to King County's R-4 zoning development regulations_ The applicant is now requesting Environmental Review and a Major Amendment to the approved Preliminary Plat in order to utilize TDR's, as outlined in KCC 21A.37. TDR's allow the applicant to use the development regulations of the next higher zoning classification including a density in this case of up to 6 units per acre. The applicant is requesting 10 additional lots, beyond the 36 lots currently approved, resulting in a total of 46 single family lots and a density of 5.3 units per acre. Pursuant to RMC 4-7-080M.2 a major amendment shall include any amendment that would result in increasing the number of lots in the subdivision beyond the number previously approved. The amendment includes a revised lot layout, landscaping and utility plan. The project site is located between 162" d Ave SE on the west and 164t" Ave SE on the east; and SE 140th St on the north and SE 142nd St on the south. Access is proposed via 162"d and 164tn Ave SE which is proposed to be improved as part of the plat improvements. Internal access is proposed via two new public dead end streets, a street connecting 162"d to 164th Ave SE and an alley for a tier of lots on the interior of the site. Modification Report.doc City of Renton Deportment of Com ity & Lcenornie Development Ad trative Short Plat Report & Decision LIBERTY GARDENS PRELIMINARY PLAT LUA08-093, ECF, Report of June 13, 2011 �__-- - - -- -- _ - Page 5 of 12 Proposed lot sizes range from 4,465 to 6,845 square feet with an average lot size of 5,021 square feet. The site is vegetated primarily with trees and shrubs. A tree inventory indicates approximately 266 significant trees are on the site. The proposed project site has an average slope of 15 percent; with an elevation change of 46 feet from the northeast quarter to the southwest quarter of the site. A Class II wetland is located in the southwest corner of the property and is associated with a small Class III intermittent stream. In addition there is another isolated Class II wetland located offsite to the west of the northwest corner of the site. 2. Environmental Review Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21C, 1971 as amended), on January 24, 2011, the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M) for the Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat Modification. The DNS-M included 5 mitigation measures. A 14-day appeal period commenced an January 28, 2011 and ended on February 17, 2011. One appeal of the threshold determination has been filed by the applicant. 3. Compliance with ERC Conditions Based on an analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) issued the following mitigation measures with the Determination of Non - Significance — Mitigated: I. The applicant will be required to submit a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the State Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual. The plan must be submitted to and approved by the Development Services Division Plan Review staff prior to issuance of the utility construction permit and during utility and road construction. 2. A covenant shall be recorded on the Sensitive Areas Tract, restricting its separate sale, prior to or in conjunction with the final plat recording. Each abutting lot owner or the homeowners' association shall have an undivided interest in the tract. A draft version of this document shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to plat recording. 3. The applicant shall submit a maintenance andmonitoring plan, for a period no less than five years, for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to plat recording. 4. The detention system for this project shall be required to comply with the requirements found in the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual to meet both detention (Conservation Flow control — a.k.a. Level 3) and water quality improvements. 5. The applicant shall provide secondary access to the plat suitable for domestic, emergency and pedestrian safety; to the satisfaction of the City of Renton Development Services Division subject to the King County Road Standards (1993). Modification Report.doc City of Renton Department of Cor, ity & Economic Development Ad ;trotive Short Plat Report & Decision LIBERTY GARDENS PRELIMINARY PLAT CHA08-093, ECF, Report of June 13, 2011 - — - � --_ Page 6 of 12 4. Staff Review Comments Pursuant to RMC 4-7-080M, Amendments, any time after preliminary plat approval and before final plat approval, the applicant may submit an application to the Administrator that proposes an amendment to the approved or conditionally approved preliminary plat. The request to increase the number of lots in the subdivision beyond the number previously approved would require a major amendment according to provisions stated above. The following is an analysis of the proposed major amendment's compliance with the requirements for preliminary plat approval found in subsection RMC4-7-080 limited to the major amendment alone. The recommendation assumes the Hearing Examiner would allow the applicant to retain the vesting of development standards according to the original Preliminary Plat application date, of December 29, 2004. Representatives from various city departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and address issues raised by the proposed modification. These comments are contained in the official file, and the essence of the comments has been incorporated into the appropriate sections of this report and the Departmental Recommendation at the end of this report. Analysis of Preliminary Plat Modification The site is designated Urban Residential -Medium on the King County Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The Urban Residential -Medium land use designation is implemented by the following King County zones: R-4; R-6; R-8; and R-12. The proposal is inconsistent with two of the four following King County Comprehensive Plan Land Use policies, therefore staff is recommending denial of the major modification: Policy U-133. Urban residential neighborhood design should preserve historic and natural characteristics and neighborhood identity, while providing privacy, community space, and safety and mobility for pedestrians and bicyclists. Policy Objective Met ® Not Met The neighboring approved plat, Cavalla (LUA08-097) (Exhibit 8), to the north can be used to best illustrate compliance with the above stated policy and achieving a balance between the existing and planned identity of the area. Due to this area's recent annexation there are: developed plats which used TDR's reviewed and implemented solely by the KCDDES; preliminary plats to be reviewed by the City vested to King County development standards allowing the use of TDR's; and large vacant parcels that could potentially come in for platting using City development standards which do not allow the use TDR's. The resolution, to the complex land use pattern of the area, Cavalla provided was an enhanced design which included a highly connective road design, lot size/width variation, enhanced landscaping, increased front yard setbacks and the incorporation of recreation areas as a central feature to the development. These enhanced elements were used to mitigate the potential impacts of increased density and serves as a precedent for the use of TDR's within the City and demonstration of compliance with the above mentioned policy. Modification Report.doc City of Renton Department of Com ity & Economic Deveiopment Ad trative Short Plat Report & decision LIBERTY GARDENS PRELIMINARY PLAT LUA08-093, ECF, Report of June 13, 2011 Page 7 of 12 While the applicant has included some enhancements to the revised plat design; as proposed, the plat modification does not comply with the above stated policy (see analysis below). Therefore staff recommends denial of the proposed modification. Should the modification be approved, conditions of approval related to internal street design, the number of lots, landscaping, setbacks, and recreation space should be applied to the project. Policy U-140. Residential Developments within the Urban Growth Area, including mobile home parks, shall provide the fallowing types of improvements: a) Paved Streets (and alleys if appropriate), curbs and sidewalks, and internal walkways when appropriate; b) Adequate parking and consideration of access to bus service and passenger facilities; c) Street lighting and street trees; d) Stormwater control; e) Public water supply; f) Public sewers; and g) Landscaping around the perimeter and parking areas of multifamily development. ® Policy Objective Met ❑ Not Met Policy U-142. Recreation space based on the size of the developments shall be provided on - site except that in limited cases, fee payments for local level park and outdoor recreation needs may be accepted. ® Policy Objective Met ❑ Not Met Objective T-307. King County (City of Renton) should encourage the development of highly connective, grid based arterial and non arterial road networks in developments and areas of in fill development. To this end, the County (City) should: a) Make specific determinative findings to establish non -arterial grid system routes needed for public and emergency access in in fill developments at the time of land use permit review. b) Encourage new commercial, multifamily, and single-family residential developments to develop highly connective street networks to promote better accessibility by all modes. The use of cul-de-sacs should be discouraged, but where they are used, they should include pedestrian pathways to connect with nearby streets. ❑ Policy Objective Met ® Not Met As proposed 163d Ct SE and SE 141" Place would dead-end with cul-de-sacs and would prevent potential for street connectivity. Staff considered the potential connection of the proposed streets to 162-"d and 164th Ave SE, abutting the property to the east and west, in order to allow for street connectivity and reduce the use of cul-de-sacs_ Staff has determined that connectivity could be achieved and better accessibility could be provided for both Modification Report.doc City of Renton Department of Com ity & Economic Ueveiopment Ad trotive Short Plot Report & Decision LIBERTY GARDENS PRELIMINARY PLAT LUA08-093, ECF, Report of June 13, 2011 Page 8 of 12 pedestrian and vehicular access. In addition, there are no environmental or topographical constraints that would preclude the applicant from providing such connections. As mentioned above staff is recommending denial of the plat modification, however, should the modification be approved staff recommends as a condition of approval, the applicant eliminate the two cul- de-sacs which are used to terminate 16.3 d Ct SE and SE 141St PI in order to create a highly connective internal road network, with landscaping between the curb and sidewalk (where applicable) and alley access be provided for all tiered lots on the interior of the subject site. The revised plat plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Development Services and the Current Planning Project Manager; prior to engineering plan approval. Staff was able to create a conceptual design which depicts a desirable grid -system for the proposed plat and should be adhered to as closely as possible, see Exhibit 6. Density: The subject site is designated R-4 on the City of Renton Zoning Map however the project is vested to King County (KC) R-4 standards. The base density of the R-4 zone classification is 4 dwelling units per acre, and the maximum density is 6 dwelling units per acre. Density in excess of the base density, up to the maximum density, is permitted utilizing the Transfer of Development Rights (TOR) program pursuant to Chapter 21A.37 of the Icing County Code. With the use of TDR's the density allowed for the subject site would be 6.0 dwelling units per gross acre. The applicant is proposing the utilization of the King County Transfer of Development Rights (TDR's) for 10 additional lots beyond the 36 single family lots which are approved. A total of 46 lots are being proposed, resulting in a density of 5.14 du/ac. While the resulting density of 5.14 dwelling units is within the maximum density permitted by the KC R-4 zoning designation, there is large area which would be dedicated to the preservation of the critical areas (Tract E) on site. Therefore the effective net density is much higher. If the modification is approved, staff recommends as a condition of approval, the applicant eliminate two of the 10 additional proposed lots in order to take into consideration the portion of the site which is unable to be developed as it is dedicated to critical areas. A revised plat plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering permit approval. Additionally, should the modification be approved, staff recommends prior to engineering plan approval, the applicant provide a valid Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Certificate approved by the King County Department of Natural Resources in order to accommodate the any additional lots over the base density within the proposed development. The certificate or other valid legal document(s) must show the applicant or successor as the lawful owner of the development rights. Lot Dimensions Lot Layout There are no minimum lot size or depth requirements in the KC R-4 zone. A minimum lot width of 30 feet is required. As proposed and demonstrated in the table below, all lots meet the requirements for minimum width. Modification Report.doc City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development LIBERTY GARDENS PRELIMINA LAT Report of June 13, 2011 - -- - Lot Area (sq. ft. Width 1 5,534 58 2 5,156 53 3 5,156 53 4 5,156 53 5 5,156 53 6 5,156 53 7 5,156 53 8 5,156 53 9 5,156 53 10 5,156 53 11 5,521 64 12 51520 54 13 5,023 54 14 5,023 54 15 5,023 54 16 5,023 54 Adm-Nstrative Short Plat Report & Decision LUA08-093, ECF, Page 9 of 12 Area Lot (sq. ft.) Width Lot Net Area (sq. ft. Width 17 5,023 54 32 5,145 37 18 4,803 54 33 4,705 48 19 5,023 54 34 4,705 18 20 6,194 55 35 4,705 48 21 41842 50 36 4,705 48 22 4,807 71 37 5,207 55 23 4,942 57 38 4,928 51 24 4,958 57 39 4,465 46 25 4,511 71 40 4,465 46 26 3,949 44 41 4,935 51 27 4,653 51 42 4,465 51 28 6,845 53 43 4,465 56 29 6,146 54 44 4,465 56 30 5,484 48 45 4,465 56 31 , 5,197 48 46 4,813 51 The neighboring plat to the north provided a variation in lot width in order to provide a diverse streetscape and a variety of floor plans, home size, and character. The proposed lots were arranged so that smaller lots were located in the interior of the site, and the larger lots located along the perimeter of the site. The location of the larger lots on the perimeter of the site provide a transition to the surrounding R-4 development by creating a buffer for the denser lots in the interior of the site. in order to comply with Policy U-133 should the proposed modfication be approved, staff recommends as a condition of approval that the applicant revise the plat plan to depict a variation in lot width and arrange the lots so that larger lots are used to buffer smaller lots from surrounding R-4 development. The revised plat plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering permit approval. Setbacks: The required setbacks in the KC R-4 zone are as follows: street setback is 10 feet for the primary structure and 20 feet for any attached garage, carport, or other fenced parking area; and interior setbacks are 5 feet (including the rear yard). Due to the increase of density proposed through the use of TDR's, the neighboring Cavalla plat to the north increased front yard setbacks to an average of 23 feet, from the back of the curb, in order to reduce the impacts of the future homes' scale and bulk along the streetscape. Due to the proposed increase in density, the resulting aesthetic impact along the streetscape and the need to comply with Policy U-133, staff is recommending, as a condition of approval should the Modification Report.doc City of Renton Departmentof Community & Economic Development Administrotive Short Plat Report & Decision LIBERTY GARDENS PRELlMINAI AT LUA08-093, ECF, Report of June 13, 2D1i Page 10 of 12 modification be approved, the applicant submit supplemental materials including: a letter outlining recommended setbacks or another approved setback plan that averages front yard setbacks at 23 feet from the back of the curb; a revised plat plan depicting all setbacks; and a draft of the Codes Covenants and Restrictions (CC & R's) for the Homeowner's Association, with an inclusion of the setback requirements of the plat. The supplemental materials shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to the recording of the plat. Landscaping: Per KCC 21A.16.050, street trees, for single-family subdivisions, shall be planted at a rate of one tree for every 40 feet of street frontage along all public streets. A revised conceptual landscape plan was submitted with the application that includes the installation of street trees spaced at least 40 feet on center. Visual barriers by way of a 10-foot landscape easement parallel to 162°d and 164th Ave SE with significant landscaping and a good neighbor fence, modulated along 164th Ave SE, is also being proposed. In effect there is at least a 20- foot landscape strip, along 162nd and 164th Ave SE, from the back of the curb to face of the fence. The applicant is also proposing a 5-foot landscape strip in between the curb and some of the sidewalks within the plat. It does not appear trees are proposed within the lots. With the recommendation for increased front yard setbacks there is an opportunity to provide significant trees within the front yards of all of the lots and due to the number of trees currently on site and the community's concern with regard to the reduction in canopy staff is recommending, as a condition of approval should the modification be approved, the applicant submit a revised landscape plan depicting at least two street trees within the front yard of each lot not bordered by a planter in between the curb and the sidewalk. The revised landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering permit approval. Recreation: Per KCC 21A.14 residential subdivisions, more than four units, developed at a density of eight units or less per acre, are required to provide 390 square feet, per lot, of recreation space on -site. A 46-lot proposal would require 17,940 square feet (46 lots x 390 square feet = 17,940 square feet) of recreation space. The applicant is proposing active recreation space within Tract B, in the amount of 23,866 square feet; which meets the recreation space requirement. For 26-50 lot developments the applicant is also required to provide two or more of the facilities listed in KCC 21A.14.190 in addition to a tot lot or children' s play area. The proposed recreation area includes a tot lot, sports field and sports court; complying with the recreation facilities requirement in the County Code. However, the proposed location for the recreation/drainage tract is isolated within the plat and serves as a backyard to Lots 21, 22, 25, and 26. In order for the recreation area to function as a true amenity and be used by the community it should function as a central feature of the plat with enhanced pedestrian access. Should the modification be approved, staff recommends the applicant revise the plat plan in order to incorporate Tract B as a central feature for the community with enhanced pedestrian access. The revised plat plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering permit approval. Staff was able to create a conceptual design which depicts a desirable plat plan using a highly connective grid system to assimilate the recreation area into the community as a central feature (See Exhibit 6). Roads/Access: The site is fronted on the west by an unimproved right-of-way of 16.2"dAve SE and on the east, unimproved right-of-way, 164th Ave SE. No current improved access exists Modification Report.doc City of Renton Deportment of Comm,,nity & Fcnnomic Development Admi-istrative Short Plot Report & Decision LIBERTY GARDENS PRELIMINA, AT LUA08-093, ECF, Report of June 13, 2011 Page 11 of 12 except nominally from 164th Ave SE. The applicant is proposing half -street improvements for both 162r'd and 1641h Ave SE. While the applicant is vested to the King County Road Standards they have elected to improve the road sections with conformance to some of the City of Renton standards. Street improvements that exceed King County Road Standards include: vertical curbs; landscape planters between the back of the curb and some of the sidewalks within the plat; and on -street parallel parking. The applicant is also proposing an alley for the rear loading of the some of the tiered interior lots (Lots 32-43). With the condition of approval noted above, for a highly connective grid system and the conceptual design provided by staff, additional landscaping and alley loaded lots would be realized demonstrating consistency with the design of the plat to the north and full compliance with Policy U-133. Staff recommends, as a condition of approval, that all lots which abut an alley be limited to access from the alley only. Schools: The project site is served by schools in the Issaquah School District. It is anticipated that the Issaquah School District can accommodate any additional students generated by this proposal at the following schools: Briarwood Elementary, Maywood Middle School, and Liberty High School. KCC 21A.43.050 requires that an impact fee be assessed for each new lot in order to fund school system improvements to serve the new development within the proposed plat. In order to mitigate school impacts staff recommends, the applicant will be required to pay school impact fees per RMC 4-1-160.D, to the City of Renton, on behalf of the Issaquah School District. The fee for the proposed plat is estimated at $175,168.00 ($3,808.00 x 46 lots = $175,168.00) and is payable at the time of building permit approval. H. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends denial of the Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat Modification as proposed. Should a major modification be approved the following conditions of approval are recommended as a supplement to the original decision and conditions of approval issued on April 28, 2009 (Exhibit 5): 1. The applicant shall eliminate the two cul-de-sacs which are used to terminate 163rd Ct SE and SE 1415t PI, in order to create a highly connective internal road network, with landscaping between where the curb and sidewalk exist and alley access for those lots on the interior of the subject site. The revised plat plan shall adhere to, as much as possible, a conceptual design created by staff (Exhibit 6). The revised plat plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Development Services and the Current Planning Project Manager; prior to engineering plan approval. 2. The applicant shall remove two of the proposed lots in order to take into consideration the portion of the site dedicated to critical areas which is not able to be used as developable land. A revised plat plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering permit approval. 3. Prior to engineering plan approval, the applicant shall provide a valid Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Certificate approved by the King County Department of Natural Resources in order to accommodate the any additional lots over the base density within the proposed development. The certificate or other valid legal document(s) must show the applicant or successor as the lawful owner of the development rights. Modification Report.doc City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Administrative Short Plat Report & Decision LIBERTY GARDENS PRELIMINA LA LUA08-093, ECF, Report of June 13, 2011 -- Page 12 of 12 4. The applicant shall revise the plat plan to depict a variation in lot width and arrange the lots so that larger lots are used to buffer smaller lots from surrounding R-4 development. The revised plat plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering permit approval. 5. The applicant shall submit supplemental materials including: a letter outlining recommended setbacks or another approved setback plan that averages front yard setbacks at 23 feet, for all lots, from the back of the curb; a revised plat plan depicting all setbacks; and draft CC & R's for the Homeowner's Association, with an inclusion of the setback requirements of the plat_ The supplemental materials shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to the recording of the plat. 6. The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan depicting at least two street trees within the front yard of each lot not bordered by a planter in between the curb and the sidewalk. The revised landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering permit approval. 7. The applicant shall revise the plat plan in order to incorporate the drainage tract (Tract B) as a central feature for the community. The revised plat plan shall adhere to, as much as possible, a conceptual design created by staff (Exhibit 6). The revised plat plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering permit approval. S. All lots which abut an alley shall be limited to vehicular access from the alley only Modification Report. doc E7 - 11 T23N R5E E 1/2 F a r , E] - sE t�:w : R 4 .... h ..... € ..i R-4 R-4 ; 40 ..6E 13M 61 Imp,•• N i R-4 a SE tSE z N ,R79 _... .... R-4 a s 7773 SE t3ft R..,._.. R 4 _. BE tank P! N R-4 & i T'E F7 14 T23N R5E E 1/2 5314 m � D T 1 l 1 1 yy d� �¢ �o +• �Ij� .mob StFal t 1 .a oc<� ` • " L7 q ' 1 Y h � I � }6 .514 f N'a/� f•8 \ �.\p' 1 I1 Jam` rr 19cz J E � 1 F- -.C6 1� rk ±.p�;oc .011 ry$ -� nj-; I— •` me,µ . aP\,. '^,� 1, r,,,` - _ -F T-1 I fI- .I ssr ssL I - rwi �. 'I m o I m��ie..l I .tqi si m :� CL Z4 ! I� 1µ� -L--�'4 t--r �-I- Q .1 L- _� J J 7.5IL F— LL ^� `�—'A i z .svz ' ;i i �''I�I/ i Z { �o f i m a: I m� e � f �1 �: 11T k i i g d. �• "1 d ,2C ,CS, 5 - iL5C F� Z { - Est C S� J _LL) LJ� �I "'I I r X 1 I I �1 I I It G77 I I�Y� i,R�l N� I_?•/ I 11�,.-: - CL 7 ! \ } I J CL 0 Hat o . [ui Ll1 ILd Ll I1 cp E�T V - MV w uj LL 0 0 �_ a # } a:Z ui W �NP4P p!p PRELIMKARY ROAD OF LIBERTY GARDENS A PORTION OF THE BE 114 OF BECTION 8 TOWNSHP 22 N, RANGE 5 E. WJA KIND COUNTY, WASHINGTON pPR T " 4 ST,FFµ�a�. •a.� e4O Li� Y�i7�W bA� i>IIL�IFE@L@F�rid s ' '-� . W 18.1II n�ie c,�r1 v IG111ox wrcr uoxrno, rnm - a„xa ott �M� � _ ' 'I _ __— t r.xno wl'E rw Iwa, ,oi i R Mtlli¢no" I�ai +W�L31 ' ^ 1'`' • � • � ,pN ..f / 1,a1o,.i Q � � '/� ! 'ref V Iru ISM �-xe� ��-'_ _ -__�Y ---------- r— �' ff ...,�Y 4 j,p• s 1 1ivpu`1��.�OIOLW,Y,N.kT �wpilhYFIQ. �.I� A l Wneitmaie "W k / ` �,ar / f hlAla �.S/a Y14 R,9£ v..GOww n�.fRACTr9o,'a I�E$S451ii CI OF 5 FT3F3_AflkPRY PLAT IJAA 20 V ,} -�� 02 OF 5 MELL*iPRY FKJAQ AND OR4MCC= PLAN _ c3 OF 5 PMIFANANY noAD PRORM3 esrxw, scxeec ns,. r,,, f J \.. r M,kR uuF ,eG /IEi �7 24 /� CA' of 5 PFYETMNARY HOAO L"P DVEMUfT PLM A PriXFLE � ) � J CS OF S ADJACENTPROPF m OWN19W YAP M-1 OF 2 Pf ELMARY PAW AND UJDSCAM ILAN PL2 OF A BnNFrMTTFEE FETE3fIi W PL.W G1NAL .APPROVED SITE PLAT EXHIBIT 3 NOTE@ ,. ,,ar.�ne wu,m I..aw ,u,eawla, oleo _ — x o,na w,r +nr -as .raw Iw�re r} ®rre ur, urnx, y, a rnaPom ,� oo.ar ouc n,w. wcoc 11 ,a a �aw�n �e run o�mWwval �, � 16 wwrwm ,w..a, wr .one « IF11 n. �'Onnlr r Innu,ms �w.,w°aa�n ` i � �r aaeia mr �x nnrc. n nnrowr uc Iowcewm BUFFER MAKE—Lr TABLE wmo, uxa�..ra Ixow u. — IQ TRACT TABLE wn usr rnu o � ,oxl use mn,n, , on r uu a ui ma wl fp4 Att NFa _ - _ wwa ml oax a. u. S I DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY t AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTy��=.''}' AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT ERC MEETING DATE, January 24, 2011 Project Name: Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat Owner/Appircont: David Petrie; 911 S 273'd Ct; Des Moines, WA; 98198 Contact: DMP, inc.; Hans Korve; 726 Auburn Way N; Auburn, WA; 98002 File Number: LUA08-093, ECF, MOD Project Manager: Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner Project Summary: The applicant is requesting Environmental Review in order to modify the approved Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat. The modification includes the utilization of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR's) for 10 additional lots for a total of 46 single family lots - The modification includes a revised lot layout, landscaping and utility plan. The original application, for 36 lots, was filed with the King County Department of Development and Enviromental Services for Environmental (SERA) Review and Preliminary Plat approval (King County DDES File No. L04P0034) and was approved by the City on April 28, 2009- The 8.95 acre parcel is located within the City's Residential - 4 (R-4) dwelling units per acre zoning designation; however, the project is vested to King County's R-4 zoning designation's development regulations. The proposed density would be approximately 5.3 dwelling units per acre after the use of TDR's. The proposed lots would range in size from approximately 5,900 square feet in area to 9,350 square feet. Access to the lots would be provided via three new internal streets extended from 162nd Ave SE connecting to 164th Ave SE. A Category II wetland and a Class III stream is located in the southeast corner of the property. The subject property was annexed to the City of Renton on August 11, 2008. Project Location: Southeast of 162nd Avenue SE and SE 14e Street _ Site Area: 8.95 acres STAFF Staff Recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination RECOMMENDATION: of Non -Significance - Mitigated (INNS-M). Project Location Map FRC Reportlfl.doc EXHIBIT 4 FN ['„t=w i nf= 14 April 28, 2009 OFFICE OF TIIE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON Minutes APPLICANT: Wayne Potter Barghausen Consulting Engineer 18215 72°d Avenue S Kent, WA 98032 OWNER David Petrie 811 S 273`d Court Des Moines, WA 98198 Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat/Appeal File No.: LUA 08-093, PP, ECF LOCATION: Southeast of 162' d Avenue SE and SE 14 5 Street SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Requesting Preliminary Plat approval for the subdivision of an 8.95-acre parcel into 36 lots for the eventual development of single-family residences, with tracts for recreation, stormwater, joint use driveways and sensitive areas. Environmental Appeal of Mitigation Measures SUMMARY OF ACTION: Development Services Recommendation: Approve subject to conditions. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on March 10, 2009, PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining available information on file with the application, field checking the property and surrounding area; the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the March 17, 2009 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, March 17, 2009, at 9:02 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: Project file (Yellow file) containing Exhibit No. 2: Vicinity Map the original application, proof of posting, proof of publication and other documentation pertinent to the review of the project. EXHIBIT 5 Pb."c..t i v 3C.; WIN 'r-2 1 1 LW lift ° �► ar.«-.� 1 .11 « i 7C 4 hFJi v uL 4,g I If J T-� 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 NOTICE OF APPEAL HEARING RENTON Renton Re orter 17 HEARING EXAMINER RENTQN, WASHiNGTON An appeal Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner a weekly newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of Renton City Hall, general circulation and is now and has been for more than six months 1055 South Grady way, Renton, prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in Washington, on May 3, 2011 at 10:00 a in to consider the follow - the English language continuously as a weekly newspaper in King ing petitions: County, Washington. The Renton Reporter has been approved as Liberty Gardens at Modified Preliminary Plat Appeal a Legal Newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of LUA#08-093 Washington for King County. Location SF or 162nd St SE and The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues 5E laeth 5t. Appeal of Environ- mental RevieNv threshold I)N5 — of the Renton Reporter (and not in supplement form) which was Mitigated. Proposal is to subdivide regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. an8.45acre site into a6single fam- ily Intl. The annexed notice, a: The public hearing for the mod- Public Notice ification to the Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat will be heard im- mcdiatcly following the appeal hearing.Legal descriptions of the files noted above are on file in the was published on April 22, 2011. City Clerk's Office, seventh Floor, City Hall, Renton. All in-terested persons are invited to be present at the Public Hearing to express their The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is opinions. Questions should be di- rected to the Hearing Examiner at 425-430-6515- ,P^shed in the Renton Reporter i' or April 22, 2011 _ #482616. Linda M. Mills Legal Advertising Representative, Renton Reporter Subscri ed and swM to me this 22nd day April, 2011. Kathy Dag; Notary Puc for the State of Washington, Residing in Covin on, Washingtoll Ad Numbers: 481395/481399/481507 OF - May 11, 2011 ERTIFICATE OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON ) COUNTY OF KING ) BONNIE I. WALTON, City Clerk for the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that she 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 11th day of May, 2011, at the hour of 5:00 p.m. your affiant duly mailed and placed in the United States Post Office at Renton, King County, Washington, by first class mail to all parties of record a notification of Hearing Examiner's Hearing for the Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeal (LUA-08-093, ECF, MOD) Bonnie 1_ Walton, City Clerk SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 11th day of May, 2011. {ll� `4I ' o .o q Cynthij R. Moya Notary Public in and for the State of sT..,,g;,Zp►�� Washington, residing in Renton '�� a►'� My Commission expires: 8/27/2014 Wayne Potter Barghausen Consulting Engineer 18215 - 72nd Avenue S Kent, WA 98032 Linda Corgiat 16039 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 Norm & Patricia Gammell 16043 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 Jennifer McCall Lozier Homes, Corp 1203 - 114th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98004 Curtis Schuster KBS III, LLC 12320 NE 8th Street ste: #100 Bellevue, WA 98005 Claudia Donnelly 10415 147th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 Gerald Smith 8524 S 125th Street Renton, WA 98057 Peter C. Hayes Coldwell Banker Bain 150 Bellevue Way SE Bellevue, WA 98004 Daniel Balmelli, PE Barghausen Consulting Engineer 18215 - 72nd Avenue S Kent, WA 98032 Hans Korve DMP Eng., Inc. 726 Auburn Way N Auburn, WA 98002 Gwendolyn High C.A.R.E PO Box 2936 Renton, WA 98059 David Petrie 811 S 273rd Court Des Moines, WA 98198 Seattle KC Health Department East District Environ. Health 14350 SE Eastgate Way Bellevue, WA 98007 Norm Mohr 16224 SE 144th Street Renton, WA 98059 Marshall M. Bender 1822 SE 128th Street Renton, WA 98059 John & Nenita Ching 16038 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 Debbie Eberle 18225 SE 147th Street Renton, WA 98059 Richard & Teri Langdon 14201- 164th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 Michael Ritchey 14225 - 164th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 Kolin Taylor 12320 NE 8th Street ste: #100 Bellevue, WA 98005 Donald & Andrea Gragg 16046 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 Karen Walter, Team Leader Watersheds & Land Use Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries 39015 172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 Denis Law Mayor May 11, 2011 Hans A. Korve, Planning Manager DMP, Inc. . 726 Auburn Way N. Auburn, WA 98002 iiy of 1y City Clerk -Bonnie I_Walton Re: Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeal — LUA-08-093, ECF, MOD Dear Mr. Korve and Parties of Record. - You are hereby notified that a hearing before the blearing Examiner has been scheduled for Monday, June 13, 2011, at 9:00 a.m. to consider the Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat and SEPA appeal as referenced. The hearing will be held in the City Council Chambers, 7th floor of Renton City Hall, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton, 98057. If this office can provide further information or assistance, please email me at bwalton@rentonwa.gov. Sincerely, -j- (jatz�� Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk cc: Larry Warren, City Attorney Jennifer Henning, Development Services Roca le Timmons, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services David Petrie, Property Owner Parties of Record (22) 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 (425) 430-6510 / Fax (425) 430-6516 • rentonwa.gov DenisLawcity O� Mayor r City Clerk - Bonnie I_ Walton May 11, 2011 Hans A. Korve, Planning Manager DMP, Inc. 726 Auburn Way N. Auburn, WA 98002 Re: Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeal — LUA-08-093, ECF, MOD Dear Mr. Korve and Parties of Record: You are hereby notified that a hearing before the Hearing Examiner has been scheduled for Monday, June 13, 2011, at 9:00 a.m. to consider the Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat and SEPA appeal as referenced. The hearing will be held in the City Council Chambers, 7th floor of Renton City Hall, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton, 98057. If this office can provide further information or assistance, please entail me at bwalton@rentonwa.gov. Sincerely, Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk CC" Larry Warren, City Attorney Jennifer Henning, Development Services Rocale Timmons, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services David Petrie, Property Owner Parties of Record (22) 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • (425) 430-6510 / Fax (425) 430-6516 + rentonwa.gov Denis Law Mayor City a CityClerk - Bonnie I. Walton February 16, 2011 Hans A. Korve, Planning Manager DMP, Inc. 726 Auburn Way N_ Auburn, WA 98002 Re: Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeal — LUA-08-093, ECF, MOD Dear Mr. Korve (and Parties of Record): On January 26, 2011, you were notified in a letter from Associate Planner Rocale Timmons of the date and time set for a Public Hearing to be held regarding the. Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat. On February 11, 2011, Mr. Korve, you filed an appeal of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) Determination; therefore, the preliminary plat hearing and the appeal hearing will be heard together. You are hereby notified that the hearing originally scheduled to take place February 22, 2011, has been cancelled due to the appeal filing and due to the unavailability of a Hearing Examiner on that date. A revised gearing date has not yet been determined. As soon as rescheduled, you acid all parties of record will receive prior written notice of the date and time that the hearing will be held to address bath the preliminary plat and the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review appeal filing. Until then, if I can provide further information or assistance, pleasefeel free to contact me, or Associate Planner Rocale Timmons at 425-430-7219. - Sincerely, Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk cc: Larry Warren, City Attorney Jennifer Henning, Development Services Rocale Timmons, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services David Petrie, Property Owner Parties of Record (21) 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • (425) 430-6510 / Fax (425) 430-6516 • rentonwa.gov • .r is is Huns Korve DMP Inc. 726 Auburn Way N Auburn, WA 98002 John & Nenita Ching 16038 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 Debbie Eberle 18225 SE 147th Street Renton, WA 98059 Gwendolyn High C.A.R. E PO Box 2936 Renton, WA 98059 David Petrie 811 S 273rd Court Des Moines, WA 98198 Seattle KC Health Department East District Environ. Health 14350 SE Eastgate Way Bellevue, WA 98007 Norm Mohr 16224 SE 144th Street Renton, WA 98059 Karen Walter, Team Leader Watersheds & Land Use Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries 39015 172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 Wayne Potter Barghausen Consulting Engineer 18215 -- 72nd Avenue S Kent, WA 93032 Linda Corgiat 16039 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 Norm & Patricia Gammell 16043 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 Richard & Teri Langdon 14201- 164th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 Michael Ritchey 14225 - 164th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 Kolin Taylor 12320 NE 8th Street ste: #100 Bellevue, WA 98005 Donald & Andrea Gragg 16046 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 d--.22 —11 Daniel Balmelli, PE Barghausen Consulting Engineer 18215 - 72nd Avenue S Kent, WA 98032 Hans Korve DMP Eng., Inc. 726 Auburn Way N Auburn, WA 98002 Don & Andrea Gragg 16046 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 Jennifer McCall Lazier Homes, Corp 1203 - 114th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98004 Curtis Schuster KBS III, LLC 12320 NE 8th Street ste: #100 Bellevue, WA 98005 Claudia Donnelly 10415 147th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 Gerald Smith 8524 5 125th Street Renton, WA 98057 I- LIBERTY GARDENS PLAT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LUA 08-093 Project Condition Sourec of W11ctt Compliance Part= Compliance Notes � Condition is Required Responsible Signature/Date Provide an eastlwest road connection from 162i' Ave SE to 164" HEX Prior to engineering Applicant' Ave SE in order to create a highly connective road network. All plan approval builder construction and upgrading of public and private roads shall be done in accordance with the King County Road Standards established and adopted by Ordinance No. I I I S7 as amended (1993 KCRS). Required to submit a revised plat plan, depicting an east/west HEX Prior to engineering 'Applicant' road connection from 162"d Ave SE to 164"' Ave SE, which is plan approval Builder - also consistent kvltli all preliinitnary plat revicni criteriti. 13ot4t frontages, 162°d Ave SE and l64"' Ave SL, for the :itll I Il.l f?urin, n in eriri_ l�,t,lirui t - length of the property shall be improved to the stois#acti()tt tart the con:rruction and 13u11der City of Renton Development Services Division subject to the i prior to the recor�Gn King County Road Standards or -a, modified by variance. 162 `1 ter the plat Avenue SE shall be designed and constructed to meet the urban neighborhood collector standard and no lot shall have a driveway entering off 162"d Ave SE or 164"' Ave SE Create pedestrian paths and links as determined by Staff IBEX Durinv en-ineerint, Applicant/construction and Builder prior to the recording of theplat Required to provide a detailed tree retention plan. The tree HFX Prior to engineering Applicanu retention plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current plan approval Builder � Platuiin ro'ect manager. Pay a Transportation Mitigation Fee based on S75.00 per net new HhN Prior to the recording Applicant average daily trip attributed to the project. The fee for the of the Flat Builder proposed plat is estimated at $25,839.00 ($75.00 x 9.57 trips x 36 lots = S25,839.00) Establish a homeowners' association for the development, which HLX Prior to the recording Applicant would be responsible for any coinnion improvements and/or of the plat Builder tracts within the plat. Liberty Gardens Plat. Conditions of Approval Page 2 of 3 Pay school impact fees per RMC 4-1-160.D, to the City of HEX Prior to the recording Applicant' Renton, on behalf of the Issaquah School District. The fee for of the plat Builder the proposed plat is estimated at $216,756.00 ($6,021.00 x 36 lots = $216,756.00). Required to submit a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation ERC Prior to and during Applicant' Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the State Department utility/road Builder of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements. construction outlined in Volume It of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual. The plan must be submitted to and approved by the Development Services Division Plan Review staff. A covenant shall be recorded on the Sensitive Areas Tract, ERC Prior to utility Applicant.) restricting its separate sale. Each abutting lot owner or the construction Builder homeowners' association shall have an undivided interest in the tract. A draft version of this document shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager. Submit a maintenance and monitoring plan. for a period no less ERC Prior to the recording Applicant' than five years, for review and approval by the Current Planning of the plat Builder Project Manager. Builder The detention system for this project shall be required to ERC During unlit. Applicant" comply with the requirements found in the 2005 King construction Builder County Surface Water Design Manual to meet both detention (Conservation Flow control — a.k.a. Level 3) and water quality improvements. Provide secondary access to the plat suitable for domestic. ERC During kititity Applicant- emergency and pedestrian safety; to the satisfaction of the City construction Builder of Renton Development Services Division subject to the King County Road Standards (1993). Protection measures, per RMC 4-4-130.H.8 shall apply for all Code During Project Applicant/ trees that are to be retained in areas subject to construction. Construction Builder A maintenance surety device as required by the City of Code Prior to the recording Applicant, Renton code is required to guarantee satisfactory of the plat Builder performance of the mitigation plan for a minimum of five years YL' Liberty Gardens Plat Conditions of Approval Page 3 of 3 Haul hours are limited from 8:30 am to 3:30 pm Monday through Fridav Code During Project COn7truetlon Builder Within 30 days of completion of grading work the applicant shall Code During Project Con.tracton' hydroseed or pjant appropriate vegetation. Construction Builder Construction hours are from 7:00 am to 8:00 pm Monday through (Joffe Durina Project Contractor: Friday and 9:00 am to 9:00 pm on Saturday and no work is allowed on Construction Builder Sundays. Vested R-4 King County Development Standards include, but not limited to. the following: Lot Width Lot Dcptli Street sethnck WY or SYA1 ' 1 Attached Garage Setback Detached Stnictures Interior Setbacks (SY or Rl') Building Height Lot Co eras e Recreation cc: City of Renton File LI_:A OX-09 Chip Vincent, Planning Director Jennifer Ilenning Current I'lanningManaer Kayren KittricL Plan Reviewer Requirement None lane r prinun\ sEruL:ture {se< 2121'i ?0 feet for entrance City of Renton Code b k ku 3 feet S feet �� percent j Per apprn� ed Platt 11cr approved plan AWA A Denis aw City O Mayor City Clerk -Bonnie I. Walton February 16, 2011 Flans A. Korve, Planning Manager DMP, Inc. 726 Auburn Way N. Auburn, WA 98002 Re: Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeal — LUA-08-093, ECF, MOD Dear Mr. Korve (and Parties of Record): On January 26, 2011, you were notified in a letter from Associate Planner Rocale Timmons of the date and time set for a Public Hearing to be held regarding the Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat. On February 11, 2011, Mr. Korve, you filed an appeal of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) Determination; therefore, the preliminary plat hearing and the appeal hearing will be heard together. You are hereby notified that the hearing originally scheduled to take place February 22, 2011, has been cancelled due to the appeal filing and due to the unavailability of a Hearing Examiner on that date. A revised hearing date has not yet been determined. As soon as rescheduled, you and all parties of record will receive prior written notice of the date and time that the hearing will be held to address both the preliminary plat and the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review appeal filing. Until then, if I can provide further information or assistance, please feel free to contact me, or Associate Planner Rocale Timmons at 425-430-7219. Sincerely, Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk cc: Larry Warren, City Attorney Jennifer Henning, Development Services Rocale Timmons, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services David Petrie, Property Owner Parties of Record (21) 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • (425) 430-6510 / Fax (425} 430-6516 • rentonwa.gov Hans Korve DMP Inc. 726 Auburn Way N Auburn, WA 98002 John & Nenita Ching 16038 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 Debbie Eberle 18225 SE 147th Street Renton, WA 98059 Gwendolyn High C.A.R.E PO Box 2936 Renton, WA 98059 David Petrie 811 S 273rd Court Des Moines, WA 98198 Seattle KC Health Department East District Environ. Health 14350 SE Eastgate Way Bellevue, WA 98007 Norm Mohr 16224 SE 144th Street Renton, WA 98059 Karen Walter, Team Leader Watersheds & Land Use Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries 39015 172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 Wayne Potter Barghausen Consulting Engineer 18215 - 72nd Avenue S Kent, WA 98032 Linda Corgiat 16039 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 Norm & Patricia Gammell 16043 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 Richard & Teri Langdon 14201- 164th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 Michael Ritchey 14225 - 164th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 Kolin Taylor 12320 N E 8th Street ste: #100 Bellevue, WA 98005 Donald & Andrea Gragg 16046 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 Daniel Balmelli, PE Barghausen Consulting Engineer 18215 - 72nd Avenue S Kent, WA 98032 Hans Korve DMP Eng., Inc. 726 Auburn Way N Auburn, WA 98002 Don & Andrea Gragg 16046 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 Jennifer McCall Lazier Homes, Corp 1203 - 114th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98004 Curtis Schuster KBS III, LLC 12320 NE 8th Street ste: #100 Bellevue, WA 98005 Claudia Donnelly 10415 147th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 Gerald Smith 8524 5 125th Street Renton, WA 98057 February 16, 2011 Hans A. Korve, Planning Manager DMP, Inc. 726 Auburn Way N. Auburn, WA 98002 Re: Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeal — LUA-08-093, ECF, MOD Dear Mr. Korve (and Parties of Record): On January 26, 2011, you were notified in a letter from Associate Planner Rocale Timmons of the date and time set for a Public Hearing to be held regarding the Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat. On February 11, 2011, Mr. Korve, you filed an appeal of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) Determination; therefore, the preliminary plat hearing and the appeal hearing will be heard together. You are hereby notified that the hearing originally scheduled to take place February 22, 2011, has been cancelled due to the appeal filing and due to the unavailability of a Hearing Examiner on that date. A revised hearing date has not yet been determined. As soon as rescheduled, you and all parties of record will receive prior written notice of the date and time that the hearing will be held to address both the preliminary plat and the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review appeal filing. Until then, if I can provide further information or assistance, please feel free to contact me, or Associate Planner Rocale Timmons at 425-430-7219. Sincerely, Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk cc: Larry Warren, City Attorney Jennifer Henning, Development Services Rocale Timmons, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services David Petrie, Property Owner Parties of Record (21) crrY OF ,1EN'o,14 I �v FEB I I DO RECEIVED Cn'Y CLERICS OFFICE DAL EY-MORROW-POBLETE, INC. ENGINEERING -SURVEYING -LAND PLANNING 726 Auburn Way North Auburn, WA 98002 (253)333-2200 FAX (253)333-2206 February 11, 2011 Renton Hearing Examiner c/o City Clerk City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 RE: LUA08-093, ECF, MOD - Liberty Gardens — Plat Amendment — SEPA Appeal Dear Mr. Examiner: Please find the attached documentation which explains the nature of my clients SEPA appeal. In summary, we are appealing the Environmental Review Committees report and determination for the above noted project. Our issues are discussed in the attached letters. We seek remedy for the Staff violations of: Sin • WAC 197-11-0 58 • WAC 197-11-060 • WAG 197-11-350 • WAC 197-11-660 • RMC 4-7-080(M) rld—&M Heins A. Korve Planning Manager DMP Inc. frael -an 40 J ldW if 01-540 Liberty Gardens SEPA Appeal . V DALEY-MORROW-POBLETE, INC. ENGINEERING -SURVEYING -LAND PLANNING 726 Auburn Way North Auburn, WA 96002 (253)333-2200 FAX (253)333-2206 February 10, 2011 Rocale Timmons City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 RE: LUA08-093, ECF, MOD - Liberty Gardens — Plat Amendment — SEPA Appeal Dear Ms. Timmons: have received a copy of the Environmental Threshold (SEPA) Determination, dated January 24, 2011, for the Liberty Gardens Plat. On behalf of our Client, and in accordance with RMC 4-8-110.B, we officially appeal the determination issued by the Environmental Review Committee for the above noted project. As discussed in the attached comment letter, we specifically object to the addition of proposed Mitigation Measure #5. Mitigation Measure #5 violates multiple aspects of the WAC;s as well as Renton Municipal code. While it can be argued that most, if not all, of the other proposed mitigation measures would be disqualified under WAC 197-11-158, it is particularly true in the case of condition #5. Aside from the fact that the secondary access element of the condition is included as part of the applicant's proposal, the Applicants January 11, 2011 SEPA comment letter clearly references the applicable portions of the King County Road Standards which would render condition #5 unnecessary. In addition, under section 3 of the Environmental Review Committees own report, Staff stipulates that the Applicant proposal provides secondary access and described the road geometry that makes such secondary access a requirement of the road standards. This alone makes the Applicant argument for him. Under WAC 197-11-060 (SEPA), Staff must explain why an identified impact is likely to occur. The only discussion of an identified "Impact" in the Staffs environmental review is the "likelihood of revisions or utilization of one of the formerly aDDroved designs". Aside from the use of the term "likelihood", this explanation in no way addresses the review criteria described in WAC 197-11-060. Staff s comment that the Applicant may some day revise his proposal is purely "speculative". There is no evidence that the Applicant will revise his proposal in the future; there is no 01-540 Liberty Gardens SEPA Appeal r discussion as to how this possible future revision would adversely and significantly impact the environment or how such a speculative impact would be unregulated by existing code. (WAC 197-11-158) Furthermore, Staff fails to point out that any possible future alteration of the site plan, which would include the elimination or alteration of secondary access, would fall under the "Major Revision" provisions of RMC 4-7-080(M)(2)(d).which states: d. Any amendment that would result in the relocation of any roadway access point to an exterior street from the plat Under this section of the code, the Hearing Examiner shall hold a Public Hearing on the proposed Major Amendment and the Examiner may make any modifications in the terms and conditions of the preliminary plat approval, to the extent that they are reasonably related to the proposed amendment. This is the exact process that the Applicant is currently engaged in. As such, Staffs claim that a SEPA condition is required to provide "clarity and surety" is incorrect and irrelevant to the SEPA process. RMC 4-7-080(M) provides "surety„ that any future plat alteration will be reviewed by the City of Renton, and the applicable road standards provide the required °cl_ arity". It should be emphasized that nowhere in the WAC's does it state that the purpose of SEPA is to provide "clarity or surety". It should also be noted, that under the provisions of RMC 4-7-080(M) (3) as quoted above, new conditions must be related to the proposed amendment. As such, the proposed addition of 10 residential lots has no impact on the point of access to 162"d or 164th Ave SE. That portion of the site plan is unaffected from the original approval. Therefore the Staff proposal not only violates three provisions for the WAC, but also the approval procedures of RMC 4-7-080(M)(3). Sincerely, Hans A. Korve Planning Manager DMP Inc. Attached - Jan. 11, 2011 comment letter 01-540 Liberty Gardens - 2011 SEPA Appeal Letter 2 DALEY-MORROW-POBLETE, INC. ENGINEERING -SURVEYING -LAND PLANNING 726 Auburn Way North Auburn, WA 98002 (253)333-2200 FAX (253)333-2206 January 11, 2011 Rocale Timmons City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 RE: LUA08-093, ECF, MOD - Liberty Gardens — Plat Amendment Dear Ms. Timmons: I have received a copy of the Determination of Non -Significance —Mitigated (DNS-M), dated January 4, 2011, for the Liberty Gardens Plat. In reviewing the proposed mitigation with my Client, and against the applicable code provisions, a number of concerns were raised. In an attempt to articulate our concerns, I have provided excerpts of the applicable Washington Administrative Code (WAC) sections as reference, and then provided a brief explanation below. The referenced WAC sections have been abridged to reference the applicable aspects of the code. Underlines have been added for emphasis. It is our hope that after reviewing these code sections, that Staff will issue a revised DNS and eliminate the proposed mitigation. If Staff is not inclined to make the requested correction based on the information provided, then please consider this to be our official Appeal of the proposed SEPA Mitigation. The applicable WAC provisions are as follows: WAC 197-11-060 Content of environmental review. (4) Impacts. (a) SEPA's procedural provisions require the consideration of "environmental" impacts, with attention to impacts that are likely, not merely speculative. The issue raised b), Staff in the 1):V, '-14 is v Access " A rei ieii� of the proposal indicates that the Applicani has provided secondar}, pedestrian as rrell as vehicular access to the projecl as part ol'lhe initial design. As Such, Staffrevieiv ol'the proposal tine.% nol identifj, a "likel " in7paet. To be clear', the proposed initigation inakc,s iin r (,terence to an, idemified in7paci. 01-540 Liberty Gardens Narrative WAC 197-11-158 GMA project review -- Reliance on existing plans, laws, and regulations. (5) If a GMA county/city's development regulations adequately address some or all of a project's probable specific adverse impacts, the GMA county/city shall not require additional mitigation under this chapter for those impacts. Section 2.08 (B) of the vested kh' , C 'ounty Road Standards sets the maiximum length of 'a cul-de-sac at 600.1e' ei. Bcised on specific, site restrictions, that length may be extended to 1. 000 fc et if the road is serving less than 50 units. (,nder the Applicant's propersv/. both of'the proposed cul-de-sacs care less than 600' long. Hoirever, if the ,Applicarn had not already proposed a road connection to I64`'' Ave SE, the car/-cl€r-sacs lvould have been approximately 1,300 and 1,500 linier.feei respeciivcly. The vested road slandare,15 would clearly' not have allenved this des,,m. and then .Applicant would have been required to provide an additionul coiinection. In summary, the Applicant' pr•po.kcrl is in compliance iviih the adopted read standards anti no likely envh,Wt33aellhrl impact has been identified Had an impact been identified, then under the provisions of ffAC19'-11-158 (5), the, Cil-v of Reniun could not iFnpo.sc� an additional mitigation measure over the issue. WAC 197-11-350 Mitigated DNS. The purpose of this section is to allow clarifications or changes to a proposal prior to making the threshold determination. (2) .. If the lead agency indicates a DS is likely, the applicant may clarify or change features of the proposal to mitigate the impacts which led the agency to consider a DS likely. The applicant shall revise the environmental checklist as may be necessary to describe the clarifications or changes. The Applicam '•s proposal point as a matter nfthe original December . 2010 xvhtnittul. As such, there is no identifiable impact. 14 th no ideniifiable impact no talterution of the SEPA checklist or the site plan has been requested or is reguilvd. Therefore, no SEPA condition is Avarrantecl WAC 197-11-660 Substantive authority and mitigation. (b) Mitigation measures shall be related to s ep cific, adverse environmental impacts clearly identified in an environmental document on the proposal and shall be stated in writing by the decision maker. The decision maker shall cite the agency SEPA policy that is the basis of any condition. (d) Responsibility for implementing mitigation measures may be imposed upon an applicant only to the extent attributable to the identified adverse impacts of its proposal. Voluntary additional mitigation may occur. 01-540 Liberty Gardens - 2011 SEPA Response Letter 2 (e) Before requiring mitigation measures, agencies shall consider whether local, state, or federal requirements and enforcement would mitigate an identified significant impact. Is 1n eviously, indicated, St(rffhets noi, identified rtny environniental impacts in its DNS -Al document dalecf.lctrmur.: 4. 2011. Staf 'only identifies u proposed rnitiguiion nreusure. In aceordonc-e with T AC 19?-11-660 (d), cis listed above. mitigation may only he impr, ed to the extent attributable to the identified impact. 3,71h no impact identified, the proposed mitigation is not in compliance with the WAC. rurthermore, as indicated in sub-seclion (e), before requiring mitigation, an must consider applicable code requirements. ffe have that section 2.08 (B) ofthe vested Road .Standards would hove addre,�sed This issue if it had not already been so. In closing, we would like to remind Staff that the Applicant is proposing to maintain the overall site layout that was originally approved by the Hearing Examiner. The Applicant is not requesting a major modification of the approved site plan. With the exception of modifications required to convert several of the lots to alley -loaded, the overall road network remains unchanged. We would also like it noted that the revised Liberty Garden design provides improved pedestrian walking facilities to almost every home in the project. Sidewalks have been separated from the travel lanes along the primary and half of the secondary internal roads. These improvements far exceed what is required under the vested codes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Hans A. Korve Planning Manager DMP Inc. 01-540 Liberty Gardens - 2011 SEPA Response Letter 3 C�N t*y CITY OF RENTON yqe�)"' City Clerk Division + 1055 South Grady Way "R Renton, WA 98057 a 425-430-6510 0 Cash F-1 Copy Fee [X Check No. XAppeal Fee Description: Funds Received From: Name Address r�"' C T' City/Zip -LL Receipt — r' 1724 Date 2— h- —1j, D Notary Service El Amount City Staff Signature USA FIRl CLASS T. All ILL. eefi j Lam, ri sy Q) MANS IL KONVE PLANNING MANAGER O LLEY-MONNOW-POILETE, INC. 726 AUBURN WAY N. AUBURN, WA S5002 (253) 333-2200JFAXj(253)333.2206 Hana@dmp4nc.ua CELL (426)444-9240 Ed 1 lw OF _„4S ar P.O. Box 970M Y V. rdp V t, 0 6;i&,WA 90124-9M Ad Mawreaar3Xrare • zas aas7oa 1: 3 2 50a I ItO ig ISV7281q.983',O2'a.?4 Hans Korve From: Dave Petrie [DavePetrie@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 4:23 PM To: Bonnie Walton Cc: Rocale Timmons; Hans Korve ofc Subject: Re: Your check An initial version was submitted in a le-Ler to Rocale Timmons by DMP INC (Hans Korve) on January 11, logged into Planning Di73-.sicn Jan 13. ----- original Message ----- From: "Bonnie Walton" <Bwalton@Renton wa.gov> To: <'davepetrie@comcast.net'> Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 1:43 PTA Subject: Your check Mr. Petrie: In today's postal mail, a check from: yoi_ in the amount of $250 was received, however, no paperwork was attached or included and no phone number is given. You have written on the check itself Lhat this is for a Land Use SEPA appeal, however, you have provided no aopeal letter or documentation to support an appeal, and no note to indicate such letter or documentation is being submitted separately. Please know that I cannot accept th_s check as an appeal unless it is accompanied by written documentation stat__ng what it is you are appealing and why. The fee and the appeal letter are to be filed in this office simultaneously. If I do not hear from you regarding this matter, I will be returning your check by postal mail. Sincerely, Bonnie Walton City Clerk City of Renton 425-430-6502 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 27-.1.1/3432 - Release Date: 02/08/11 23:34:00 1 K� DALEY-MORROW-POBLETE, INC. ENGINEERING -SURVEYING -LAND PLANNING 726 Auburn Way North Auburn, WA 98002 (263)333-2200 FAX (253)333-2206 February 11, 2011 Renton Hearing Examiner c/o City Clerk City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 RE: LUA08-093, ECF, MOD - Liberty Gardens — Plat Amendment — SEPA Appeal Dear Mr. Examiner: Please find the attached documentation which explains the nature of my clients SEPA appeal. In summary, we are appealing the Environmental Review Committees report and determination for the above noted project. Our issues are discussed in the attached letters_ We seek remedy for the Staff violations of: • WAC 197-11-058 WAC 197-11-060 WAC 197-11-350 • WAC 197-11-660 RMC 4-7--080(M) Planning Manager aMP Inc. 03-540 Liberty Gardens SEPA Appeal DALEY-MORROW-POBLETE, INC. ENGINEERING -SURVEYING -LAND PLANNING 726 Auburn Way North Auburn, WA 98002 (253)333-2200 FAX (253)333-2206 February 10, 2011 Rocale Timmons City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 RE: LUA08-093, ECF, MOD - Liberty Gardens -- Plat Amendment — SEPA Appeal Dear Ms. Timmons: I have received a copy of the Environmental Threshold (SEPA) Determination, dated January 24, 2011, for the Liberty Gardens Plat. On behalf of our Client, and in accordance with RMC 4-8-110.13, we officially appeal the determination issued by the Environmental Review Committee for the above noted project. As discussed in the attached comment letter, we specifically object to the addition of proposed Mitigation Measure #5. Mitigation Measure #5 violates multiple aspects of the WAC;s as well as Renton Municipal code- While it can be argued that most, if not all, of the other proposed mitigation measures would be disqualified under WAC 197-11--1 58, it is particularly true in the case of condition #5. Aside from the fact that the secondary access element of the condition is included as part of the applicant's proposal, the Applicants January 11, 2011 SEPA comment letter clearly references the applicable portions of the King County Road Standards which would render condition #5 unnecessary_ In addition, under section 3 of the Environmental Review Committees own report, Staff stipulates that the Applicant proposal provides secondary access and described the road geometry that makes such secondary access a requirement of the road standards. This alone makes the Applicant argument for him. Under WAC 197-11-060 (SEPA), Staff must explain why an identified impact is likely to occur. The only discussion of an identified Impact" in the Staffs environmental review is the "likelihood of revisions or utilization of one of the formerly aporoved designs". Aside from the use of the term "likelihood", this explanation in no way addresses the review criteria described in WAC 197-11-060. Staffs comment that the Applicant may some day revise his proposal is purely "speculative. There is no evidence that the Applicant will revise his proposal in the future; there is no 01-540 Liberty Gardens SEPA Appeal discussion as to how this possible future revision would adversely and significantly impact the environment or how such a speculative impact would be unregulated by existing code. (WAC 197-11-158) Furthermore, Staff fails to point out that any possible future alteration of the site plan, which would include the elimination or alteration of secondary access, would fall under the Major Revision" provisions of RMC 4-7-080(M)(2)(d).which states: d. Any amendment that would result in the relocation of anj� roadway access point to an exterior street from the plat; - Under this section of the code, the Hearing Examiner shall hold a Public Hearing on the proposed Major Amendment and the Examiner may make any modifications in the terms and conditions of the preliminary plat approval, to the extent that they are reasonably related to the proposed amendment. This is the exact process that the Applicant is currently engaged in. As such, Staffs claim that a SEPA condition is required to provide clarity and surety" is incorrect and irrelevant to the SEPA process. RMC 4-7-080(M) provides "surety" that any future plat alteration will be reviewed by the City of Renton, and the applicable road standards provide the required "cla ` . It should be emphasized that nowhere in the WAC's does it state that the purpose of SEPA is to provide "clarity or surety". it should also be noted, that under the provisions of RMC 4-7-080(M) (3) as quoted above, new conditions must be related to the proposed amendment. As such, the proposed addition of 10 residential lots has no impact on the point of access to 162nd or 164th Ave SE_ That portion of the site plan is unaffected from the original approval. Therefore the Staff proposal not only violates three provisions for the WAC, but also the approval procedures of RMC 4-7-080(M)(3). Sincerely, Hans A. Korve Planning Manager DMP Inc. Attached - Jan, 11, 2011 comment letter 01-540 liberty Gardens - 2011 SEPA Appeal Letter 2 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 forin 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 January 28, 2011. The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of $115.50, y^ t I 'nda M. Mills Legal Advertising Representative, Renton Reporter Subscripd and swo to me this 28th day January, 2011. Kathy Dalse N tary Public r the State of Washington, Residing in Covington, Washington R O. Number: NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC HEARING RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee has issued a Deter- mination of Non -Significance for the Following project under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat LUA08-093, ECF, MOD Location: SE of 162nd Ave SE and SE 140th St. Subdivision of an 9.95 ac site into 46 lots using TDR's to achieve a density of 5.3 du/ac. Located in the City's R4 zone however vested to King County R-4 zoning. Access provided via 162nd and 164th Ave Sh- Site contains a Class III stream and Class 11 wetland - Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5 00 p.m on February II, 2011 Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with. Ilearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Rcnton, WA 98057, Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers, City Hal[, on February 22, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. to consider the major modification to the approved Preliminary Plat. If the Envi- ronmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. interested parties are invited to attend the public hearing. Published in Renton Reporter on January 28, 201 f. #455891 City of U I NOT[ -!, I OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION AND PU&UC HEARING ISSUANCE OF A DFTERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE- MITIGATED (DNS-M) POSTED TO NOTiFf NTERE57LE PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROIECT NAM E, uberty Gardens Preliminary Plat PR DIECT NU Me ER: LVROE-09i, EU, MOD LOCATION: Southeart a t 1fi2' Avenue SE and SE 140' Street LIESCRIPTION: The applicant Is repuesdria Frnironmgrdal Reelavr In order to modify the approved Uberty Gardens Yrellminary Plat, The mvdlllptlpn lnclud., the utilisarIon of Tramfer of Development RIEht, (TDH'a) for x0 addltianal lots Ivr a rota) of aE AMI family lots. The modFflG[iun Indudas a revised lot layout, IandsrapinE and ut1lty pl-. The o.lglnal applkael n, for 16 lets, was tiled NRh the Ming County Department 0 0mropment and Enrlromental 5ervket for E-1—Inentai ISEPA) Review and Prenminary Plat appmyal (KIM pavnly DDE5 Flle Na. LDTP0034l and was apprwld by the City on Aprg21, 2009. THE CITY OF REPI ENVIRUN Merl -AL RLVI EW COMMITTEE (E RCI HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGN IpICA.NT ADVERSE IMP<T UN THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the enylmnml determinat'ron must be filed In writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on February 11, 1R11. Appeals mug be flied In writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Evaminer, City of Renton, 1055 South Gredy Way, Renton, WA 99057. Appeals to the Eganil are governed by City of Renton Munidpal Code 5edion 4-8-110-8. Addltional Tnfarmatlon regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton Cloy clerk's OFhcn, (425i 430,6510, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL RE HEED By THE RENIDN NEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING iN THE COUNVL CHAMBERS ON THE 71' FLORA OF CITY HAL'-, 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY, RENTON, WA5HINGTON, ON FEBRUARY 22, 2011 AT 9�G'0 AM 'fD CONSIDER THE PRELIMINARY FLAT, IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, THE APPEAI. W U BE FL ARID AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING FORFURTHER INFORMATION, FLEASE CON TACT THE CTTY OF RENTON, DEPARTMENT OF COMM UNITY& LCONOMIC DEVELOPM ENT AT 425 430-72CO. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Please Include the project NUMBER when calling for proper flle identlflcatfon. CERTIFICATION i, , hereby certify that —�? copies of the above document were posted in conspicuous places or nearby the scribed property on Date:__, - Signed. STATE OF WASHINGTON ) SS COUNTY OF KING I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that. h f , Y- f peA L' :1 z,_) signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the use.,,and,,M"(poses mentioned in the instrument. Notary Public iA and for the State of Washington Notary (Print): My appointment expires:,r- CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 26th day of January, 2011, 1 deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing ERC Determination documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Agencies See Attached Hans Korve Contact David Petrie Owner Parties of Record See attached (Signature of Sender): ��%� �•( c �� i .40 STATE OF WASHINGTON Sk { } -wl, s } SS � �s 0' COUNTY OF KING I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy M. Tucker signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for tP60%�e p�i ses mentioned in the instrument. .�11yi51111�rrr"� Dated: -:kt • i- `1 Notary Public in and for the State of Washington N ota ry (P ri nt): G C &-.b _ My appointment expires: 1 ,'� a U Project .Name:`.'':° Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat Project Number:' LUA08-093, ECF, MOD template - affidavit of service by mailing AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERC DETERMINATIONS) Dept. of Ecology * WDFW - Larry Fisher* Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. Environmental Review Section 1775 12th Ave. NW Suite 201 Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer PO Box 47703 Issaquah, WA 98027 39015 — 172nd Avenue SE Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Auburn, WA 98092 WSDOT Northwest Region * Duwamish Tribal Office * Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program Attn: Ramin Paaooki 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240 Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015 172"d Avenue SE PO Box 330310 Auburn, WA 98092-9763 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers * KC Wastewater Treatment Division * office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation* Seattle District Office Environmental Planning Supervisor Attn: Gretchen Kaehler Attn: SEPA Reviewer Ms. Shirley Marroquin PO Box 48343 PO Box C-3755 201 S. Jackson 5T, MS KSC-NR-050 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Seattle, WA 98124 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Boyd Powers * Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Serv. City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: SEPA Section Attn: Steve Roberge Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP 900 Oakesdale Ave_ SW Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director Renton, WA 98055-1219 13020 Newcastle Way 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Metro Transit Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Senior Environmental Planner Municipal Liaison Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Gary Kriedt Joe Jainga 6200 Southcenter Blvd. 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 PO Box 90868, M5: XRD-01W Tukwila, WA 98188 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 Seattle Public Utilities Real Estate Services Attn: SEPA Coordinator 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 *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 checklist, Site Plan PMT, and the notice of application. template - affidavit of service by mailing City of OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION AND PUBLIC HEARING ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED (DNS-M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat PROJECT NUMBER: LUA08-093, ECF, MOD LOCATION: Southeast of 162"' Avenue SE and SE 1401h Street DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Environmental Review in order to modify the approved Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat. The modification includes the utilization of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR's) for 10 additional lots for a total of 46 single family lots. The modification includes a revised lot layout, landscaping and utility plan. The original application, for 35 lots, was filed with the King County Department of Development and Enviromental Services for Environmental (SEPA) Review and Preliminary Plat approval (King County DOES File No. L04P0034) and was approved by the City on April 28, 2009, THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed In writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on February 12, 2011. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 2055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. 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 FEBRUARY 22, 2011 AT 9:00 AM TO CONSIDER THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION lS APPEALED, THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACTTHE CITY OF RENTON, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTAT (425) 430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Please include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file identification. 4 Denis Law CityO - Mayor - 1�- r� /_ \! was ;- - �,.. Department of Community and Economic Development January 26, 2011 Alex Pietsch, Administrator Hans Korve DMP Inc. 726Auburn Way N Auburn, WA 98002 SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL THRESHOLD (SEPA) DETERMINATION Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat, LUA08-093, ECF, MOD Dear Mr. Korve: 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 Nan -Significance -Mitigated with Mitigation Measures. Please refer to the enclosed ERC Report and Decision, Part 2, Section B for a list of the Mitigation Measures. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5,00 p.m. on February 11, 2011. 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 City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8- 110.13. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. Also, a Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington, on February 22, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. to consider the Preliminary rPlat. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant is required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you prior to the hearing. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. The preceding information will assist you in planning for implementation of your project and enable you to exercise your appeal rights more fully, if you choose to do so. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at (425) 430-7219. Renton City Hall 9 1055 South Grady way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Hans KDrve Page 2 of 2 January 26, 2011 For the Environmental Review Committee, Roc e Timmons Ass ciate Planner Enclosure cc: David Petrie / Owner(s) See attached / Party(ies) of Record ERC Determination Ltr 1-24-11 08-093.doc 0 Steve Botheim, upervisor CPLN LUSD MS OAK 100 Vly of record) Kelly Whiti/100 Road Svc D MS OAK {e yof record) Kris Langley, T CPLN LUSD MS OAK 0100 (tv of record) Trisha Bu DDES L MS 0 E 0100 farty /- DDES } Chad MS 00 frty of record) PARTIES OF RECORD LIBERTY GARDENS PREL PLAT LUA08-093, PP, ECF, AAD, MOD, ECF2 Kim Claussen PP III Steve Townse upervisor CPLN LUSD LUIS LUSD MS OAK D.E,0100 y of record) (At, of record) ?OT Nick Gillen, Enveentist Shirley Goll, Aco CAS LUSD- `'.`: CPLN LUS MS OA14,''�'E 0100 /OAof0100 /artyof record) cord) 00 c Engineer Larry West, Env:�cientist Lisa Dinsmore CAS LUSD ., � '` DDES LUS 00 MS OAK DE 0100 MS OA 0100 John & Nenita Ching 16038 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Debbie Eberle 18225 SE 147th Street Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Updated: 01/26/11 G of record) Alex Perlman,:; DDES LUSD " MS OAKDE 0100 (PA of record) Wayne Potter Barghausen Consulting Engineer 18215 - 72nd Avenue S Kent, WA 98032 (applicant / contact) Linda Corgiat 16039 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Norm & Patricia Gammell 16043 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) rty of record) Bruce Whitt DDES LU MS O E 0100 Arty of record) Daniel Balmelli, PE Barghausen Consulting Engineer 18215 - 72nd Avenue S Kent, WA 98032 (party of record) Hans Korve DMP Eng., Inc. 726 Auburn Way N Auburn, WA 98002 (party of record) Don & Andrea Gragg 16046 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) (Page 1 of 2) t I PARTIES OF RECORD LIBERTY GARDENS PREL PLAT LUA08-093, PP, ECF, AAD, MOD, ECF2 Gwendolyn High C.A.R.E PO Box 2936 Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) David Petrie 811 S 273rd Court Des Moines, WA 98198 (owner) Seattle KC Health Department East District Environ. Health 14350 SE Eastgate Way Bellevue, WA 98007 (party of record) Norm Mohr 16224 SE 144th Street Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Marshal M Brenden 18225 SE 128th Street Renton, WA 98059 tel: (425) 255-6210 (party of record) Updated; 01/26/11 Richard & Teri Langdon 14201 - 164th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Michael Ritchey 14225 - 164th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Kolin Taylor 12320 NE 8th Street Bellevue, WA 98005 (party of record) Jennifer McCall Lozier Homes, Corp 1203 - 114th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98004 (party of record) Curtis Schuster KBS III, LLC 12320 NE 8th Street Ste: #100 Bellevue, WA 98005 (party of record) Claudia Donnelly Ste: #100 10415 147th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Donald & Andrea Gragg 16046 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 tel: (425) 793-7370 (party of record) Gerald Smith 8524 S 125th Street Renton, WA 98057 tel: (206) 772-5418 (party of record) (Page 2 of 2) DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY D City of AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA08-093, ECF, MOD APPLICANT: David Petrie PROJECT NAME: Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental Review in order to modify the approved Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat. The modification includes the utilization of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR's) for 10 additional lots for a total of 46 single family lots. The modification includes a revised lot layout, landscaping and utility plan. The original application, for 36 lots, was filed with the King County Department of Development and Enviromental Services for Environmental (SEPA) Review and Preliminary Plat approval (King County DDES File No. L04P0034) and was approved by the City on April 28, 2009. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Southeast of 162" d Avenue SE and SE 1401" Street LEAD AGENCY: The City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division Advisory Notes to Applicant. The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. Planning: 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8.30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. 2. The applicant will be required to establish a Native Growth Protection Tract over that part of the site encompassing the stream/wetland and buffer area. 3. Sensitive area tract boundaries must be clearly marked with bright orange construction and silt fencing prior to construction or site clearing activities. The boundaries shall remain marked until construction is complete. 4. Building and other structures shall be setback a distance of 15 feet from the edges of all sensitive area buffers. 5. A detailed final plan to mitigate for impacts from any alterations to critical areas will be required to be reviewed and approved, in accordance with KCC 21A.24 (2004), prior to the approval of the plat engineering plans. Water: ERC Advisory Notes Page 1 of 2 1. All fire hydrants installed or s_. _ ing this subdivision are required to b_ —ted with a quick disconnect Storz fitting. 2. Extension of a water main of sufficient size to serve domestic service and fire standards is required. Plans designed and approved by Water District #90 with appropriate separate permit and fees is required with the construction plans for review. San ita ry Sewer: 1. The site is also subject to the Central Plateau Interceptor Phase II SAD unit charge of $344.71 per lot. 2. Extension of a minimum 8-inch diameter sanitary sewer meeting City of Renton standards is required to serve this plat. Surface Water: 1. This project is required to comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual. 2. The Surface Water System Development Charge (SDC) per lot is required for this site. Transportation: 1. Half street improvements including, but not limited to paving, sidewalks, curb and gutter, storm drain, landscape, streetlights, and street signs will be required along the frontage of the parcel (162"d Ave SE and 1641h Ave SE) and on the interior streets to the satisfaction of the City of RenOton Development Services Division subject to the King County Road Standards (1993). 2. Two points of access are required for this development due to the one-way distance from the nearest point of public access. 3. A Traffic Mitigation fee shall be assessed as appropriate and payable with the final plat. Miscellaneous: 1. Construction plan indicating haul route and hours, construction hours and a traffic control plan shall be submitted for approval prior to any permit being issued. 2. Separate permits and fees for side sewer, domestic water meter, landscape irrigation meter, and any backflow devices will be required. ERC Advisory Notes Page 2 of 2 C DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY City of AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT rF�`' ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED (DNS-M) APPLICATION NO(S): LUA08-093, ECF, MOD APPLICANT: David Petrie PROJECT NAME: Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental Review in order to modify the approved Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat. The modification includes the utilization of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR's) for 10 additional lots for a total of 46 single family lots. The modification includes a revised lot layout, landscaping and utility plan. The original application, for 36 lots, was filed with the King County Department of Development and Enviromental Services for Environmental (SEPA) Review and Preliminary Plat approval (King County DDES File No. L04P0034) and was approved by the City on April 28, 2009. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Southeast of 162nd Avenue SE and SE 140th Street 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 4-6-6 Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on February 11, 2011. 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 City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8- 110.6. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: January 28, 2011 DATE OF DECISION: January 24, 2011 SIGNATURES: Gr gg i rm ,Administrator Public Wo s Department Date --/) cry _ --- - - l�-�-`T Terry Higashiyama, Administrator Community Services Department Date Fire & Emergency Services INV 4e_,!77y ex etsch, Admi trator Department of Community & Economic Development DEPARTMENT OF CO ..... ILINITY p City of AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT QQ ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA TO: Gregg Zimmerman, Public Works Administrator Terry Higashiyama, Community Services Administrator Mark Peterson, Fire & Emergency Services Administrator Alex Pietsch, CED Administrator FROM: Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager MEETING DATE: Monday, January 24, 2011 TIME: 3:00 p.m. LOCATION: Sixth Floor Conference Room #620 Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat (Timmons) LUA08-093, ECF, MOD Location: Southeast of 162"d Avenue SE and SE 1401h Street, Description: The applicant is requesting Environmental Review in order to modify the approved Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat. The modification includes the utilization of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR's) for 10 additional lots for a total of 46 single family lots. The modification includes a revised lot layout, landscaping and utility plan. The original application, for 36 lots, was filed with the King County Department of Development and Enviromental Services for Environmental (SEPA) Review and Preliminary Plat approval (King County DDES File No. L04P0034) and was approved by the City on April 28, 2009. The 8.95 acre parcel is located within the City's Residential - 4 (R-4) dwelling units per acre zoning designation; however, the project is vested to King County's R-4 zoning designation's development regulations. The proposed density would be approximately 5.3 dwelling units per acre after the use of TDR's. Consent Item: Citywide Drainage Maintenance Program (Dolbee) LUA10-089, ECF, SME, CAR Location: Various. Description: The applicant has requested SEPA Environmental Review for continued maintenance of the Citywide stormwater infrastructure, including channels, ditches, catch basins, manholes, outfalls, pipes and culverts. These facilities are located in critical areas: including, the Cedar River, May Creek, Springbrook Creek, Thunder Hills Creek, Panther Creek, Ginger Creek, Maplewood Creek, Honey Creek, Greens Creek, Kennydale Creek, Gypsy Creek, Johns Creek and Lake Washington. cc: D. Law, Mayor J. Covington, Chief Administrative Officer S. Dale Estey, CED Director W. Flora, Deputy Chief/Fire Marshal Richard Perteet, Deputy PW Administrator - Transportation C. Vincent, CED Planning Director 11 N. Watts, Development Services Director L. Warren, City Attorney I F. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner D. Pargas, Assistant Fire Marshal J. Medzegian, Council DEPARTMENT OF COMMU Y r Citynf , AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT;,' ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT ERC MEETING DATE: January 24, 2011 Project Name: Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat Owner/Applicant: David Petrie; 811 S 273`d Ct; Des Moines, WA; 98198 Contact: DMP, Inc.; Flans Korve; 726 Auburn Way N; Auburn, WA; 98002 File Number: LUA08-093, ECF, MOD Project Manager. Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner Project Summary: The applicant is requesting Environmental Review in order to modify the approved Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat. The modification includes the utilization of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR's) for 10 additional lots for a total of 46 single family lots. The modification includes a revised lot layout, landscaping and utility plan. The original application, for 36 lots, was filed with the King County Department of Development and Enviromental Services for Environmental (SEPA) Review and Preliminary Plat approval (King County DDES File No. 1-04130034) and was approved by the City on April 28, 2009. The 8.95 acre parcel is located within the City's Residential - 4 (R-4) dwelling units per acre zoning designation; however, the project is vested to King County's R-4 zoning designation's development regulations. The proposed density would be approximately 5.3 dwelling units per acre after the use of TDR's. The proposed lots would range in size from approximately 5,900 square feet in area to 9,350 square feet. Access to the lots would be provided via three new internal streets extended from 162nd Ave SE connecting to 164th Ave SE. A Category II wetland and a Class III stream is located in the southeast corner of the property. The subject property was annexed to the City of Renton on August 11, 2008. Project Location: Southeast of 162no Avenue SE and SE 140th Street Site Area: 8.95 acres STAFF Staff Recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination RECOMMENDATION: of Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M). Project Location Map ERC Report Ul.doc City of Renton Department of Common Economic Development onmental Review Committee Report L18ERTY GARDENS PRELIMINARY PLA T LUA08-093, ECF, MOD Report of January 24, 2011 Page 2 of 7 PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION / BACKGROUND The application for Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat was submitted to King County Department of Development and Environmental Services (KC DDES) for review on December 29, 2004 (Icing County DDES File No. L04P0034)_ On June 20, 2008 a SEPA threshold determination, Determination of Non -Significance (DNS), was issued. An appeal of the SEPA determination was filed. Before this matter could be heard by the King County Hearing Examiner, the subject property was annexed to the City of Renton as part of the Liberty Annexation (Ordinance #5398) on August 11, 2008. Based on this annexation; both the SEPA appeal and the application for the Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat came under the jurisdiction of the City of Renton. On October 6, 2008, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) issued a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) for the Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat. This Determination was an adoption of the threshold determination issued by KC DDES on June 20, 2008. An appeal of the City's SEPA determination was filed. On November 10, 2008 a decision was made by the ERC to rescind the threshold determination of the project pending further analysis of potential environmental impacts to the site. The rescission of the ERC's DNS resulted in the negation of the two existing appeals that were filed. On December 15, 2008 the city issued a new threshold determination (DNS-M) which contained six mitigation measures for which an appeal was filed by the applicant. The appeal/preliminary plat hearing was held before the City's Hearing Examiner on March 17, 2009. On April 28, 2D09, the Hearing Examiner issued a decision on the preliminary plat which contained 9 conditions of approval and affirmed the ERC determination in part and reversed in part. Mitigation measures 1-3, and 5 were affirmed (see Exhibit 1, Hearing Examiner Preliminary Plat/Appeal Decision, dated April 28, 2009) and mitigation measure 4 was reversed and removed from the determination. The project site is located within the City's Residential - 4 (R-4) dwelling units per acre zoning designation; however, the project is vested to King County's R-4 zoning designation's development regulations. The applicant is now requesting Environmental Review and a Major Amendment to the Preliminary Plat in order to utilize TDR's, as outlined in KCC 21A.37. TDR's allow the applicant to use the development regulations of the next higher zoning classification including a density in this case of up to 6 units per acre. The applicant is requesting 10 additional lots, beyond the 36 lots currently approved, resulting in a total of 46 single family lots and a density of 5.3 units per acre. Pursuant to RMC 4-7-080M.2 a major amendment shall include any amendment that would result in increasing the number of lots in the subdivision beyond the number previously approved. The amendment includes a revised lot layout, landscaping and utility plan. The project site is located between 162"d Ave SE on the west and 1641h Ave SE on the east; and SE 140th St on the north and SE 142"d St on the south. Access is proposed via 162"d and 164th Ave SE which is proposed to be improved as part of the plat improvements. Internal access is proposed via three new public streets. Staff received a comment letter, on the optional DNS-M, from the applicant (Exhibit 6). The letter includes a request to revise the optional determination to a DNS due to the proposals inclusion of secondary access. The applicant contends that the mitigation measure for secondary access is unnecessary. 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. 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. ERC Report Ill. doc City of Renton Department of Communi- & Economic Development En lironmental Review Committee Report LIBERTY GARDENS PRELIMINARY PLA; LUA08-093, ECF, MOD Report of January 24, 2011 Page 3 of 7 B. Mitigation Measures 1. The applicant will be required to submit a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the State Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume ll of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual. The plan must be submitted to and approved by the Development Services Division Plan Review staff prior to issuance of the utility construction permit and during utility and road construction. 2. A covenant shall be recorded on the Sensitive Areas Tract, restricting its separate sale, prior to or in conjunction with the final plat recording. Each abutting lot owner or the homeowners' association shall have an undivided interest in the tract. A draft version of this document shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to plat recording. 3. The applicant shall submit a maintenance and monitoring plan, for a period no less than five years, for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to plat recording. 4. The detention system for this project shall be required to comply with the requirements found in the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual to meet both detention (Conservation Flow control — a.k.a. Level 3) and water quality improvements_ 5. The applicant shall provide secondary access to the plat suitable for domestic, emergency and pedestrian safety; to the satisfaction of the City of Renton Development Services Division subject to the King County Road Standards (1993). C. Exhibits Exhibit 1 Yellow File (containing the application, reports, staff comments, prior staff/county decision and other material pertinent to the review of the project) Exhibit 2 Zoning Map Exhibit 3 Revised Preliminary Plat Amendment Map (dated November 5, 2010) Exhibit 4 Approved Preliminary Plat Map (dated March 16, 2009) Exhibit 5 Aerial Photo Exhibit 6 DMP Comment Letter (dated January 13, 2011) 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 hove identified that the proposal is likely to have the following probable impacts: 1. Earth Impacts: The proposed project site has an average slope of 15 percent; with an elevation change of 46 feet from the southwest quarter to the northeast quarter of the site. The soils on the site are classified as Alderwood series. The applicant is not aware of the amount of grading that would happen as a result of the proposal. The majority of the grading required for the project would be for the construction of the proposed roads, building pads, utilities, and Stormwater detention facilities and will be balanced on -site. The applicant is proposing to clear a majority of the site with the exception of the critical areas and their buffers. The removal of the heavy vegetation cover that exists on site is expected to increase erosional impacts. As part of the approved preliminary plat a mitigation measure was imposed and upheld by the ERC Report Ill.doc City of Renton Department of Communi-w & Economic Development E- iron mento] Review Committee Report LIBERTY GARDENS PRELIMINARY PLA LUA08-093, ECF, MOD Report of January 24, 2011 Page 4 of 7 Hearing Examiner requiring the submittal of a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to State Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume 11 of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual (see Exhibit 1, Hearing Examiner Preliminary Plat/Appeal Decision, dated April 28, 2009). The Environmental (SEPA) Review appeal decision, issued by the Hearing Examiner on April 28, 2009, states: "The newer standards are designed to protect stream and wetland area from sediment. Unlike certain bulk standards that are mainly directed as aesthetic qualities where vesting does not generally invite additional harm, stormwater and by extension erosion standards address harmful conditions that more current knowledge was intended to address. This office believes that the ERC properly applied the newer 2001 DOE Manual's standards to address real problems with erosion." The aforementioned conclusions are appropriate in their application to the modified proposal in that there will continue to be erosional impacts associated with the proposal if not an increase due to the additional 10 lots proposed. Therefore, staff recommends the applicant continue to be required to submit a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the newer State Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume 11 of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual. Mitigation Measures: The applicant will be required to submit a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the State Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual. The plan must be submitted to and approved by the Development Services Division Plan Review staff prior to issuance of the utility construction permits and during utility and road construction. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations, DOE Stormwater Manual 2. Water a. Wetland, Streams, Lakes Impacts: A wetland is located in the southwest corner of the property and is associated with a small intermittent stream. There is another isolated wetland located offsite to the west of the northwest corner of the site. The applicant submitted a Wetland/Stream Evaluation and Mitigation Plan, by B-12 Wetland Consulting, Inc. (dated November 19, 2004), delineating the wetlands and stream on site as well as classifying the wetlands as Category II and the stream as Class II1 according to the County's critical area rating system (KCC 21A.24). A secondary study/revised mitigation plan was submitted by the applicant, conducted by Chad Armour, LLC (dated May 16, 2007), in which the classification and delineation by B-12 were affirmed. A confirmation letter was submitted by the applicant, conducted by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. (dated June 22, 2010), in which the classification and delineation by B-12 and Chad Armour, LLC were determined to still be valid. The larger Category II wetland and Class III stream extend off -site into the unimproved right-of-way, 162"d Ave SE, at the southwest and northwest corner of the site. The wetland associated with the stream is a small forested wetland characterized by an overstory of red alder and cottonwood with salmonberry, lady fern, and manna grass in the understory. The stream channel is a narrow 12-inch gravel/soil bottom channel which appears to be intermittent with no fish use. The off -site wetland, located at the northwest corner, is a young forested wetland dominated by immature alder, salmonberry, and lady fern. Per the 2004 County regulations a Class III stream is a non-salmonid bearing intermittent stream and requires a minimum 25-foot buffer. The standard 50-foot buffer for the Category II wetland is the encumbering buffer, rendering the stream buffer immaterial to the development of the site. As part of the approved preliminary plat a mitigation measure was imposed and upheld by the Hearing Examiner requiring the applicant to establish a Sensitive Area Tract for the critical areas on site. The ERC Report Ill. doc City of Renton Department of Communi— & Economic Development r ironmental Review Committee Report LIBERTY GARDENS PRELIMINARY PLA _ LUA08-093, ECF, MOD_ Report of January 24, 2011 Page 5 of 7 modified proposal would also require the preservation and protection of the wetland and its buffer. Therefore, staff recommends a mitigation measure requiring the applicant to establish a Sensitive Areas Tract over that part of the site encompassing the stream/wetland and buffer area. Additionally, a covenant shall be placed on the tract restricting its separate sale. Each abutting lot owner or the homeowners' association shall have an undivided interest in the tract. A draft version of this document shall be submitted to the Planning Project Manager prior to final plat recording. The applicant proposes to improve the northern portion of 162d Ave SE with half street improvements, in order to enter the project site, causing impacts to the buffer of the smaller off -site wetland. The applicant indicates that approximately 6,217 square feet of buffer, would be affected as a result of the proposed improvement to 162"d Ave SE. The applicant is proposing an approximate area of 10,280 square feet for buffer enhancement/buffer averaging as mitigation. As part of the approved preliminary plat a mitigation measure was imposed and upheld by the Hearing Examiner requiring the submittal of a final mitigation plan. A final mitigation plan will continue to be needed for the altered impacts to the wetland at the northwestern portion of the site. Therefore, staff recommends a mitigation measure requiring a detailed final mitigation plan. The final mitigation plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager, in accordance with KCC 21A.24 (2004), prior to the approval of the preliminary plat engineering plans. A performance bond, in accordance with KCC 27A, or other financial guarantee will be required at the time of plan approval to guarantee that the mitigation plan is installed according to the approved final plan. The installation of the approved final mitigation plan must be completed prior to the final plat recording. In order to ensure the success of the mitigation plan staff recommends as a mitigation measure that the applicant submit a maintenance and monitoring plan, for a period no less than five years, for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final plat recording. Mitigation Measures: 1. A covenant shall be recorded on the Sensitive Areas Tract, restricting its separate sale, prior to or in conjunction with the final plat recording. Each abutting lot owner or the homeowners' association shall have an undivided interest in the tract. A draft version of this document shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to plat recording. 2. The applicant shall submit a maintenance and monitoring plan, for a period of no less than five years, for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to plat recording. Nexus: KCC 21A.24; SETA Environmental Regulations b. Storm Water Impacts: The site lies within the Lower Cedar sub -basin of the Cedar River/Lake Washington watershed. Currently runoff discharges into the Class III stream located at the southwest corner of the site from the northeast. Water then flows southwesterly to eastern side of 162"d Ave SE and disperses into a sheet flow south, within the unimproved 162"d Ave SE right-of-way. Further south, water passes through a rockery dam located approximately 150 feet from the 162"1 Ave SE and SE 144" Ave intersection. Water then enters a small detention pond also located within the unimproved 162"d Ave SE right-of-way. From the detention pond, water is conveyed across SE 1441h Street via an 18-inch culvert. Water then travels west within an 18-inch conveyance facility along the southern side of SE 1441h St. The enclosed pipe system continues west, past 156th Ave SE, continuing west eventually outfalling to Tributary 0307. Tributary 0307 then turns south and outlets to the Cedar River. The applicant proposes to collect storm water runoff from the proposed streets, sidewalks, homes, and lawns and covey into a proposed storm water vault located in Tract B along the southern border of the site. The outfall of the proposed vault would be conveyed back into the stream channel before leaving the property along its natural drainage course. ERC Report III. doc City of Renton Department of Communi`v & Economic Development Er- ronmental Review Committee Report LIBERTY GARDENS PRELIMINARY PLA' LUA08-093, ECF, MOD Report of January 24, 2011 Page 6 of 7 As part of the preliminary plat application the applicant submitted a Level III Downstream Drainage Analysis prepared by Ed McCarthy P.E., dated July 2, 2008. The report identifies several downstream problems and includes recommendations to mitigate for the proposed development's impacts to downstream flooding. A letter with additional recommended storm water mitigation was received March 11, 2008, from Ed McCarthy P.E. As part of the preliminary plat modification, the applicant submitted a revised Level I Downstream Analysis, prepared by Daley-Morrow-Poblete, Inc., dated June 3, 2010. The applicant is proposing detention and water quality treatment in accordance with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual. While the applicant is now proposing compliance with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual, it was not a requirement of the King County Code and without a mitigation measure nothing would prohibit the applicant from revising the proposal accordingly. Given the likelihood of revisions or the utilization of one of the formerly approved designs staff is recommending the following as a mitigation measure in order to provide clarity and surety that there is mitigation for identified downstream drainage problems: The detention system for this project shall be required to comply with the requirements found in the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual to meet both detention (Conservation Flow control — a.k.a. Level 3) and water quality improvements. Mitigation Measures: The detention system for this project shall be required to comply with the requirements found in the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual to meet both detention (Conservation Flow control--a.k.a. Level 3) and water quality improvements. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations, 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual 3. Transportation Impacts: The site is fronted on the east and west by unimproved rights -of -way of 162"d and 164th Ave SE. The property is located approximately 1,300 linear feet from the intersection of 162"d Ave SE and SE 1361h Place; 400 feet from the intersections of SE 144th Street and 162"d Ave SE as well as the intersection of SE 144th Street and 164th Ave SE. No current improved access exists except nominally from 1641h Avenue SE. As discussed earlier in the report; 162"d Ave SE is encumbered by two separate Category II wetlands and a Class ill stream. The preliminary plat modification includes the abandoning of the 162"d Ave SE extension to SE 1441h St. The applicant is proposing to terminate improvements at the northern portion of 162"d Ave SE in order to avoid impacts to the critical areas located in the southern portion of the unimproved right of way. Improvements to 164th Ave SE, adjacent to the site, are proposed in order to provide Secondary access to the site. The proposed extension along with the proposed internal road system connecting 162"d Ave SE to 164th Ave SE would meet the requirement for secondary access. Given the likelihood of revisions or the utilization of one of the formerly approved designs staff is recommending the following mitigation measure in order to provide clarity and surety that there is mitigation for identified impacts associated with the one-way distances from the nearby intersections: The applicant shall provide secondary access to the plat suitable for domestic, emergency and pedestrian safety; to the satisfaction of the City of Renton Development Services Division subject to the King County Road Standards (1993). A Traffic Mitigation fee shall be assessed as appropriate and payable with the final plat. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall provide secondary access to the plat suitable for domestic, emergency and pedestrian safety; to the satisfaction of the City of Renton Development Services Division subject to the King County Road Standards (1993). Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations, King County Road Standards - 1993 ERC Report M. doc City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report LIBERTY GARDENS PRELIMINARY PLA _ LUA08-093, ECF, MOD Report of January 24, 2011 T T Page 7 of 7 E. Comments of Reviewing Departments 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 "Advisory Notes to Applicant." ✓ Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File and may be attached to this report. Environmental Determination Appeal Process: Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, February 11, 2011. Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.8 governs appeals to the Hearing Examiner. Appeals must be filed in writing at the City Clerk's office along with the required fee. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City hall - 7th Floor, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton WA 98057. ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action and are not all inclusive; for more code requirements please refer to the King County Code. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for the land use actions. Planning: I. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. 2. The applicant will be required to establish a Native Growth Protection Tract over that part of the site encompassing the stream/wetland and buffer area. 3. Sensitive area tract boundaries must be clearly marked with bright orange construction and silt fencing prior to construction or site clearing activities. The boundaries shall remain marked until construction is complete. 4. Building and other structures shall be setback a distance of 15 feet from the edges of all sensitive area buffers. 5. A detailed final plan to mitigate for impacts from any alterations to critical areas will be required to be reviewed and approved, in accordance with KCC 21A.24 (2004), prior to the approval of the plat engineering plans. Water: 1. All fire hydrants installed or serving this subdivision are required to be fitted with a quick disconnect Storz fitting. 2. Extension of a water main of sufficient size to serve domestic service and fire standards is required. Plans designed and approved by Water District #90 with appropriate separate permit and fees is required with the construction plans for review. Sanitary Sewer: 1. The site is also subject to the Central Plateau Interceptor Phase II SAD unit charge of $344.71 per lot_ 2_ Extension of a minimum 8-inch diameter sanitary sewer meeting City of Renton standards is required to serve this plat. Surface Water: I. This project is required to comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual. 2. The Surface Water System Development Charge (SDC) per lot is required for this site. Transportation: 1. Half street improvements including, but not limited to paving, sidewalks, curb and gutter, storm drain, landscape, streetlights, and street signs will be required along the frontage of the parcel (162°d Ave SE and 164th Ave SE) and on the interior streets to the satisfaction of the City of RenOton Development Services Division subject to the King County Road Standards (1993). 2. Two points of access are required for this development due to the one-way distance from the nearest point of public access. 3. A Traffic Mitigation fee shall be assessed as appropriate and payable with the final plat. Miscellaneous: 1. Construction plan indicating haul route and hours, construction hours and a traffic control plan shall be submitted for approval prior to any permit being issued. 1. Separate permits and fees for side sewer, domestic water meter, landscape irrigation meter, and any backflow devices will be required. ERC Report M.doc ZONING MAP BOOK 741 . 92 93 F;5;,,Ir 456 459 1 461 B 1 B2 B3 B5.-Ij B6 'B7__ 26 T24N R4E 25 T24N H4E 30 T24N R5E now 29 T24N 195 28 T24N F15E 27 T24N R5E — 26 T24N R5E 8.1 I 94W 455W '457, 458 460 464 J ''C C 1 C3, 4- _ C 2 -C 35 T24N R4E 36 T24N R4E 31 T24N R5E 32 T244N'R5E _ 2 �5F_-�' 66__ 35 _&N R5E 366- f i\ 307 —1. 68 309 _ - - 8 0 $01 --D 2.T237 R4E 6 D7 D3 ' '1 2§NR4E 6 T23N R5E T23N F15E - - 4 T23N R5E 3T3N R5E 2 T23N R5E 319` _ 369 1 8Q5 80fi >='i J - 1,,7� - 3 E-41-`�1E5 E -7 - -_ i 1. 1 T NA4E t2 T23N:R4E �� T23N R5E T23N R5E ,. 9 T23N R5E I T 10 T23N RSA — _ a.1 T2 N R5E t 326 , 327 = 32$ 370 _ 81:1 �r 8 TT23_F4 -F 18 T23N R5E R4E ` 3_T23N'R4E 17 T23 'R5E 16 T23NRSE 1 T23N R5E 14 T.23N . 1 _ \ `z y r-.; 336.. 33 ., 371 $15 816 3 �35 - 1- 240ONG4 ,7-. 3 3 T23N-R4E-- 22 T2319 T23N RR5E 23 T23N 24 44 34 60D 601 602 820 821 a H5�,,H6= H T23N R4E 25 T2A R4E 30 T23N R5E 29 T23N R5E 28 T23N R5E T23N R5E 26 T23N R -' 51' -- 603 � 604 I 60 �v 825 826 1�� 14,- 16'171' 6 3 E - T23N R4E " T23 R5E 32 T23N R5E - 33 T23N R 34 T23N R5E 35 T23N R5E 36 �_-`632 833 +607 -_ 078 609 - ,r ' 6.10 �: , —. 02Z -3fSra—-2:5 6 J 7-; 22N R4E 1 ';N R5E 5 T22N R5E 4 T22N.fl5E 3 T22N R5E 2 T22N R5E 1 T2 RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE CENTERS INDUSTRIAL n (RC) Resource Conservation (CV) Center Village N (IL) Industrial - Light (R-1) Residential 1 du/ac (UC-N1) Urban Center - North 1 FFH I (IM) Industrial - Medium IRA) Residential 4 du/ac (UC-N2) Urban Center - North 2 (IH) Industrial -Heavy v _e'i (R-8) Residential 8 du/ac (CD) Center Downtown nr (RMH) Residential Manufactured Homes F r (R-10) Residential 10 du/ac COMMERCIAL (R-14) Residential 14 du/ac ----- R—L. � City Limits rw (RM-F) Residential Multi -Family {GOR] Commercial/Office/Residential Adjacent. City Lirtits M- (RM-T) Residential Multi-FamilyTraditiona€ _ (CA) Commercial Arterial ev-u KftOLL PAGE (itM-U) Residential Multi -Family Urban Center _ (CO) Commercial Office (CN) Commercial Neighborhood PAS E# INDEX rn , dt 5 o e io�u: -� oses iy e bs ,o: in `vice:i`r,rormauo� �,:.a�.nie .-._ • one n.,ie n,.� ih.s Mor .fnr cezni,:v rro�sP, a SfC'r7rOwN1WWGE E7 - 11 T23N R5E E 1/2 I 142H p EXHIBIT 2 ZONING MAP BOOK G7 - 23 T23N R5E E 1/2 PW TECHNICAL SERVICES PRINTED ON ll/13/09 she lk�� mbrr�non aiailahk aso}ihe dale �mwn nn mac n.a�a�a ncnr v'�d,r wwnR,ar D 200 400 Cfty t Feet f r" 1:4,800 &I r� F7 14 T23N R5E E 1/2 5314 cl MAJOR AMENDMENT TO PRELIMINARY PLAT OF LIBERTY GARDENS A PORTION OF SE 1/4, SE 1/4, SEC. 14—T23N—R5E, W.M.pA,24ry2' KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON er ��6 sR r . I fie" TOP ,1 Um IX -- p- u.Hz .r-SEO J IE.311 .[7{Is- c. e.P- p3 �p�P Aif1.c12 p7 lE 39A3(36" Gmr. s p9 U e:.4pB.E{I3' GP,EP.a) 'o rr+o z" egAn aslr wlruxnr -+ij6 y�l gti_ ,.e .� .�" J° .ys — s ` �,2a Y g t . �\ , •7 IN 4• 9 4.y8- y� SEC. 13. T-23N, R-5EW.M , . , / / _ / ,l / - A� / \\� ♦ "LB 9F, SEC. 14, T-23N, R-5E, W.M. 164th Ave. S.E. f r a flr Raga Fyn R s CAP + R IJNIIIPROwW / _ 54_ 54 75 / 54 . 55 " �4•.. ---. r 7T ,o. I1� `S4p 1' F� / I ,� fIr f ! I Y I I I ARo oRAIN ; DOo.� ffl cona 23 ' ( 25. ,,lgr/ L—_TzJ� I e, T30 3. r.fl +5.v2a xtt II la, �i.x i �s.oza ..Lt" 15.013 I.I.1 I I xa nrt°' I.,ey. .-r.fr� I s.oz3 ..cr °' 20r, Exst. el.oc. f I I F I I f I ! I I I_ / L�--� L�--�I L-I=--S f---1� L-� L-_ -- L---J L I",rt '6� ,J L_I_.�J L_.__�� L_ --I I-/-._-� L__ L-�._� I q 11 aK ti 4 54' S4'4 6' is, 54, - I` ghOp1 -+emso z�- T- , c4'--,-: `ti �P �I t2YtBo LIAr R A-. i21 �_ T4 1T? 3 .HINT use owy Yal �'s,e4z x.575 ,. S.#` ILI-- ----J Ill I ?r---_98' r �' /l } 4/ I CT m /El r-fj�R'�'.f J % �•wr !!-�- za'�oo �I _1J + 3!I�I 1 os.t:� I� ICN $ 0-37' r z I tttlll . ;n j 20 l 7FiACT 8 - I -� sYMu 6+cM+ACE/r+Epr£Anh+ Lk � -f I ---- -JJ ` �I 4.4ee :e.t I `I i I f I I li vee ..r.�� I I ;v RFcaRolNa N. 9309759001 f._ (-� -9g'-- - L --- -A _IL_ _ �% 4.zle s.I,# !� � b� _ ?' f �6 , ` T 1��-- ¢ / 5736 xf.t Y L -y ,_L—Ja 1 11I 47, T A 8.1x I5 I . d� ro4' � k •2' L 51. +�'fi*�� A9- I �.' f T' I F_� T- r 2p s 8 �L:t, T ! / I----'L,I. ` I 2q CL- l - / q � I %Tyrf I I$ �� __ - +�e4s..r.l�A `�. f27 -s�pue,• /a_ ,� 44 f 7 I.-- c'�- 98'---j 4Ps3 xl,�, ,/ � �Wi 0. I I� rfiC� ate._ --I ��` ]i2� 1 I ¢ / ( j o /'~o— LI __ JJ I •r ia+ tVsl...* F itJ�h -11'W f7 ! Z1� -1� iL�1-'l I �a �1'?9 _W� I-----'—J f I I I A-6; -V-9 10 J �."°;%.157 IC - I 4.4e5J.t! T1 LL1�___ r-2�ti-7- l72 . 1�.?a I14 7.�{9p.uC.0.l''.,F�/ A; !-'5�9�/ :G"��,=A._--_`e'- r!4, •' B_ Son --_I I 1^ I ito '0 . ! ^i, 3,aft.ae9 . 21,,/ L- �- -181' L/�. 24 T I 1 I ! II IV r -SB-__ EXHIBIT 3 I561:.r.t 4 IIM r1 n. .�I-! i 7r ,l 10 167�d�' ft v SE. L ` /? �� r ti wEluxrrBurr" wna�nal\-3 Nv-ld OVOU ALN"nMud -mu 8 261I26 vm,S:3"CW4 Spa to GWIZ s us rl cmvc A-Ir. P4 i I 14 rl, 1, NX LUa08-093 Liberty Gardens 1,014.3 0 507.15 EXHIBIT 5 atic output from an Internet mapping site and that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. City of Renton, Washington P IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION Legend Lakes and Rivers 0 Parcels Street Names Rights of Way Streets Roads Jurisdiclions Bellevue Des Moines Issaquah Kent King County Mercer Island Newcastle RENTON SeaTac Seattle Tukw1a Aerial (March 2010) ■ Red'. Band-1 L7 Green. Band 2 ■ Blue: Band 3 1: 6,086 1@ 6.5" x 11" Notes Enter Map Description • , • ' 4 City of Renton Piarirling Division IAN 13 1Ut1 4oc DALEY-MORROW-POBLETE, INC. ENGINEERING -SURVEYING -LAND PLANNING 726 Auburn Way North Auburn, WA 98002 (253)333-2200 FAX (253)333-2206 January 11, 2011 Rocale Timmons City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 RE: LUA08-093, ECF, MOD - Liberty Gardens — Plat Amendment Dear Ms. Timmons: I have received a copy of the Determination of Non -Significance —Mitigated (DNS-M), dated January 4, 2011, for the Liberty Gardens Plat. In reviewing the proposed mitigation with my Client, and against the applicable code provisions, a number of concerns were raised. In an attempt to articulate our concerns, I have provided excerpts of the applicable Washington Administrative Code (WAC) sections as reference, and then provided a brief explanation below. The referenced WAC sections have been abridged to reference the applicable aspects of the code. Underlines have been added for emphasis. It is our hope that after reviewing these code sections, that Staff will issue a revised DNS and eliminate the proposed mitigation. If Staff is not inclined to make the requested correction based on the information provided, then please consider this to be our official Appeal of the proposed SEPA Mitigation. The applicable WAC provisions are as follows: WAC 197-11-060 Content of environmental review. (4) Impacts. (a) SEPA's procedural provisions require the consideration of "environmental" impacts, with attention to impacts that are likely. not merely speculative. The issue raised by Stqf ff in 1he DNS-,V is "Secondary Access" A review of the proposal indicates that the Applicant has provided secondary pedestrian as ),yell as vehicular access to the project as part of the initial design_ As such, Staff review of the proposal does not identify a "likely" impact. To be clear, the proposed 772itigatio77 makes no refs rence to any identified inwaet 01-540 Liberty Gardens Narrative EXHIBIT 6 WAC 197-11-158 GMA project review -- Reliance on existing plans, laws, and regulations. (5) If a GMA countylaity's development regulations adequately address some or all of a project's probable specific adverse impacts, the GMA countyicity shall not require additional mitigation under this chapter for those impacts. Section 2,08 (B) of the vested King County Road Standards sets the maximum length of a cul-de-sac at 600 feet. Based on .specific° site restrictions. that length may be extended to 1, 000 feet if the road is serving less than 50 units. Under the Applicant's proposral, both of the proposed cul-de-sacs are less than 600' long. Hoivever, if the ApplicanI had not already proposed a road connection to 164 h Ave SE, the cul-de-sacs would have been approximately 1,300 and 1,500 linier feet respecti3 ely. The vested road standards would clearly not have allowed this design, and the Applicant i ould have been required to provide an additional connection. In summary, the Applicant's proposal is in compliance with the adopted road standards and no likely envil-Onmentad impact has been identified Had an impact been identified, then under the provisions of WAC 197-11-158 (5), the City of Renton could not impose an additional mitigation measure over the issue. WAC 197-11-350 Mitigated DNS. The purpose of this section is to allow clarifications or changes to a proposal prior to making the threshold determination. (2) .. If the lead agency indicates a DS is likely, the applicant may clarify or change features of the proposal to mitigate the impacts which led the agency to consider a DS likely. The applicant shall revise the environmental checklist as may be necessary to describe the clarifications or changes. The Applicant's proposal included a .secondary access point as a matter of the original December 7, 2010 .sOmittal. As such, there is no identifiable impact. With no identifiable impact, no aitcration of the SEPA checklist or, the site plan has been requested or is required Therefore, no SEPA condition is ivarranted. WAC 197-11-660 Substantive authority and mitigation. (b) Mitigation measures shall be related to specific, adverse environmental impacts clearly identified in an environmental document on the proposal and shall be stated in writing by the decision maker. The decision maker shall cite the agency SEPA policy that is the basis of any condition. (d) Responsibility for implementing mitigation measures may be imposed upon an applicant only to the extent attributable to the identified adverse impact of its proposal. Voluntary additional mitigation may occur. 01-540 Liberty Gardens - 2011 SEPA Response Letter 2 (e) Before requiring mitigation measures, agencies shall consider whether local, state, or federal requirements and enforcement would mitigate an identified significant impact. As previously indicated, Stu�fhas not identified any environmental impacts in its DAIS -Al document dated Jana tor_ -4. 2011. Staff only identifies a proposed mitigation measure. In accordance itith WAC 197-11-660 (d), as listed above, iitigation may only be imposed to the extent attributable to the identified impact. with no impact identified. the proposed mitigation is not in compliance ii-ith the WA F2tr therinore, as indicated in sub -section (e), before requiring mitigation, on agency must consider applicable code requirements. We have already shown that section 2.08 (B) gfthe rested Road Standards would have addressed this issue if it had not already been so. In closing, we would like to remind Staff that the Applicant is proposing to maintain the overall site layout that was originally approved by the Hearing Examiner. The Applicant is not requesting a major modification of the approved site plan. With the exception of modifications required to convert several of the lots to alley -loaded, the overall road network remains unchanged. We would also like it noted that the revised Liberty Garden design provides improved pedestrian walking facilities to almost every home in the project. Sidewalks have been separated from the travel lanes along the primary and half of the secondary intemal roads. These improvements far exceed what is required under the vested codes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Planning Manager DMP Inc. 01-540 Liberty Gardens - 2011 SEPA Response Letter 3 City o ton Department of Community & Economic . elopment ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT; f-' 1� — t_ L_ COMMENTS DUE: JANUARY ZRr 2011 APPLICATION NO: LUA08-093, ECF, MOD DATE CIRCULATED: JANUARY4, 2011 APPLICANT: Hans Korve PROJECT MANAGER: Rocale Timmons PROJECT TITLE: Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat - Modification PROJECT REVIEWER: Kayren Kittrick .- SITE AREA: 8.95 acres EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: Southeast of 162no Avenue SE and SE 1401h Street PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross): N/A SUMMARY of PROPOSAL: The applicant submitted an application for a modification to the approved Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat_ The modification includes the utilization of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR's) for 10 additional lots for a total of 46 single-family lots. The modification includes a revised lot layout, landscaping and utility plan. The application, for 36 lots was originally filed with the King County Department of Development and Environmental Services for Environmental (SEPA) Review and Preliminary Plat approval and was approved by the City on April 28, 2009. The 8.95 acre parcel is located within the City's Residential - 4 (R-4) dwelling units per acre zoning designation; however, the project is vested to King County's R-4 zoning designation's development regulations. The proposed density would be approximately 5.1 dwelling units per acre after the use of TDR's. The proposed lots would range in size from approximately 5,900 square feet in area to 9,350 square feet. Access to the lots would be provided via three new internal streets extended from 162nd Ave SE connecting to 164th Ave SE. A Category 11 wetland and a Class III stream are located in the southeast corner of the property. The subject property was annexed to the City of Renton on August 11, 2008. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts More Information Necessary Eorth Air Water Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animais Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources 0. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts More Information Necessary Housing Aesthetics Li ht Glore Recreation Utilities Transportation Public services Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet 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 City o, ton Deportment of Community & Economic elopment ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: r �—�j COMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 18, 2011 APPLICATION NO: LUA08-093, ECF, MOD DATE CIRCULATED: JANUARY 4, 2011 APPLICANT: Hans Korve PROJECT MANAGER: Rocale Timmons PROJECT TITLE: Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat - Modification PROJECT REVIEWER: Kayren Kittrick SITE AREA: 8.95 acres EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: Southeast of 162"d Avenue SE and SE 140`h Street PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant submitted an application for a modification to the approved Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat. The modification includes the utilization of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR's) for 10 additional lots for a total of 46 single-family lots. The modification includes a revised lot layout, landscaping and utility plan. The application, for 36 lots was originally filed with the King County Department of Development and Environmental Services for Environmental (SEPA) Review and Preliminary Plat approval and was approved by the City on April 28, 2009. The 8.95 acre parcel is located within the City's Residential - 4 (R-4) dwelling units per acre zoning designation; however, the project is vested to King County's R-4 zoning designation's development regulations. The proposed density would be approximately 5.1 dwelling units per acre after the use of TDR's. The proposed lots would range in size from approximately 5,900 square feet in area to 9,350 square feet. Access to the lots would be provided via three new internal streets extended from 162nd Ave SE connecting to 164th Ave SE. A Category 11 wetland and a Class III stream are located in the southeast corner of the property. The subject property was annexed to the City of Renton on August 11, 2008, A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts More Information Necessary Earth Air Water Pionts Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources S. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts More information Necessary Housing Aesthetics Li ht Glore Recreation Utilities Transportation Public Services Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS i We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and hove identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional informa6Q is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date �Y CITY OF RENTON FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU MEMORANDUM DATE: January 7, 2011 TO: Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner FROM: Corey Thomas, Plans Review Inspector SUBJECT: Comments for Liberty Garden's Preliminary Plat Environmental Impact Comments: Fire mitigation fees are applicable at the rate of $488.00 per single family unit. This fee is paid prior to recording the plat. Code Related Comments: 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. A water availability certificate is required from King County Water District 90. 2. Fire department apparatus access roadways are required to be minimum 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. Access is required within 150-feet of all points on the buildings. Access roadways shall not exceed 15 percent maximum grade. Current City of Renton ordinances do not allow dead-end streets in excess of 500- feet without secondary emergency access roadways. All future homes beyond 500- feet are required to be equipped with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. This will apply to lots numbered 26, 29, 30 and 31 on Landscape Concept plan dated November 2, 2010. Dead end streets that exceed 150-feet in length require an approved turnaround. Streets exceeding 300-feet dead end require a minimum of a 90-foot diameter cul-de-sac. Proposed fire apparatus turn arounds do not meet this requirement. CT:ct liberty J City o1 . ton Department of Community & Economic ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLiCA elopment TiON REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Irc_ COMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 18, 2011 APPLICATION NO: LUA08-093, ECF, MOD DATE CIRCULATED: JANUARY4, 2011 APPLICANT: Hans Korve PROJECT MANAGER: Rocale Timmons PROJECT TITLE: Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat - Modification PROJECT REVIEWER: Kayren Kittrick SITE AREA: 8.95 acres EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: Southeast of 162"d Avenue SE and SE 140`h Street PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant submitted an application for a modification to the approved Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat. The modification includes the utilization of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR's) for 10 additional lots for a total of 46 single-family lots. The modification includes a revised lot layout, landscaping and utility plan. The application, for 36 lots was originally filed with the King County Department of Development and Environmental Services for Environmental (SEPA) Review and Preliminary Plat approval and was approved by the City on April 28, 2009. The 8.95 acre parcel is located within the City's Residential - 4 (R-4) dwelling units per acre zoning designation; however, the project is vested to King County's R-4 zoning designation's development regulations. The proposed density would be approximately 5.1 dwelling units per acre after the use of TDR's. The proposed lots would range in size from approximately 5,900 square feet in area to 9,350 square feet. Access to the lots would be provided via three new internal streets extended from 162nd Ave SE connecting to 164th Ave SE. A Category II wetland and a Class III stream are located in the southeast corner of the property. The subject property was annexed to the City of Renton on August 11, 2008. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts More information Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources 8. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C CODE -RELATED COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts More information Necessary Housing Aesthetics Li ht/Giore Recreation Utilities Transportation Public Services Hlstofir,lCultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet 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 Rep tive pate 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 4th day of January, 2011, 1 deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Acceptance Letter, NOA, Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Agencies See Attached Hans Korve Contact David Petrie Owner Parties of Record See Attached 500' Surrounding Property Owners See Attached (Signature of Sender): STATE OF WASH INGTON ) SS COUNTY OF KING } I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy M. Tucker ra►•``��` signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: Notary Pubic in and for the State of Washington Notary (Print): 4� _ a G s C--t re y My appointment expires: �� D ct D c, k-3 Project Name:` ? Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat (Modification) Project' Number:,;'. LUA08-093, ECF, PP, MOD template - affidavit of service by mailing SO City Of NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS-M) DATE: January 4, 2011 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA08-093, ECF, MOD PROJECT NAME: Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant submitted an application for a modification to the approved Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat. The modification inciudes the utilization of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR's) for 10 additional iots for a total of 46 single-family lots. The modification includes a revised lot layout, landscaping and utility plan. The application, for 36 lots was originally filed with the King County Department of Development and Environmental Services for Environmental (SEPA) Review and Preliminary Plat approval and was approved by the City on April 28, 2009. The 8.95 acre parcel is located within the City's Residential - 4 (R-4) dwelling units per acre zoning designation; however, the project is vested to King County's R-4 zoning designation's development regulations. The proposed density would be approximately 5.1 dwelling units per acre after the use of TDR's. The proposed lots would range in size from approximately 5,900 square feet in area to 9,350 square feet. Access to the lots would be provided via three new internal streets extended from 162nd Ave SE connecting to 164th Ave SE, A Category II wetland and a Class III stream are located in the southeast corner of the property. The subject property was annexed to the City of Renton on August 11, 2008, PROJECT LOCATION: Southeast of 1624 Avenue SE and SE 140`h Street OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE, 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 Non - Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M), A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M, PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: December7, 2010 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: January 4, 2011 APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Hans Korve; DMP Inc.; 726 Auburn Way N; Auburn, WA 98002 Permits/Review Requested: Environmental (SEPA) Review and Modification approval Other Permits which may be required: Construction and Building Permits Requested Studies: Wetland, Traffic, and Drainage Studies Location where application may be reviewed: Department of Community & Economic Development (CED) — Planning Division, Sixth Floor Renton City Hail, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 PUBLIC HEARING. Public hearing is tentatively scheduted for February 22, 2011 before the Renton Hearing Examiner in Renton Council Chambers. Hearings begin at 9:00 a.m. on the 7th floor of the new Renton City Hall located at 1055 South Grady Way. 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 5o. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Name/File No.: Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat/LUA08-093, ECF, MOD NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NO.: CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Zoning/Land Use' The subject site is designated Residential -4 (R-4) on the King County Comprehensive Land Use Map and Urban Residential - Medium on the County's Zoning Map. Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Environmental (SEPA) Checklist Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: The project will be subject to the City of Renton's and King County's SEPA ordinance, King County's KCC16, 194, 20, 21A and other appiicable codes and regulations as appropriate. Proposed Mitigation Measures: The following Mitigation Measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project. These recommended Mitigation Measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above. ■ The applicant will be required to provide secondary access to the plat suitable for domestic, emergency and pedestrian safety; to the satisfaction of the City of Renton Development Services Division subject to the King County Road Standards. Comments an the above application must be submitted in writing to Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner, CED — Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, by 5.00 PM on January 18, 2011. This matter is also tentatively scheduled for a public hearing on February 22, 2011, at 9:00 a.m., Council Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. If you are interested in attending the hearing, please contact the Development Services Division to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled at (425) 430-7282. If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above, you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments on 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: Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner; Tel: 425-430-7219; Eml: rtimmons@rentonwa.gov AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERC DETERMINATIONS) Dept. of Ecology * WDFW - Larry Fisher* Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. Environmental Review Section 1775 12th Ave, NW Suite 201 Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer PO Box 47703 Issaquah, WA 98027 39015 — 172°d Avenue SE Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Auburn, WA 98092 WSDOT Northwest Region * Duwamish Tribal Office * Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program Attn: Ramin Pazooki 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert King Area Dev, Serv,, MS-240 Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015 172" d Avenue SE PO Box 330310 Auburn, WA 98092-9763 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers * KC Wastewater Treatment Division * Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation* Seattle District Office Environmental Planning Supervisor Attn: Gretchen Kaehler Attn: SEPA Reviewer Ms. Shirley Marroquin PO Box 48343 PO Box C-3755 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Seattle, WA 98124 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Boyd Powers * Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Serv. City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: SEPA Section Attn: Steve Roberge Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP 900 OakesdaIe Ave. SW Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director Renton, WA 98055-1219 13020 Newcastle Way 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Metro Transit Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Senior Environmental Planner Municipal Liaison Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Gary Kriedt Joe Jainga 6200 Southcenter Blvd. 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-01W Tukwila, WA 98188 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 Seattle Public Utilities Real Estate Services Attn: SEPA Coordinator 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 *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 checklist, Site Plan PMT, and the notice of application. template - affidavit of service by mailing f Steve BotMim, Supervisor CPLN LUSD MS OAK DE 0100 (party of record) Kelly Whiti , KC DOT Road Sye iv MS OAK DE 0100 (party of record) Kris Langle , raffic Engineer CPLN L MS OAK DE 0100 (party of re d) Trisha ull DD LUSD OAK DE 0100 (party of rec d) Chad T' its DD LUSD M OAK DE 0100 , (party of record) Marshall Brenden 18225 SE 128th Street Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Hans Korve DMP Eng., Inc. 726 Auburn Way N Auburn, WA 98002 (party of record) PARTIES OF RECORD LIBERTY GARDENS PREL PLAT LUA08-093, PP, ECF,.,AD, MOD, ECF2 Kim Claussen PPMIII CPLN LUSD MS OAK DE 0100 l , (party of record) /r Nick Gillen, Env. Scientist CAS LUSD /SO K DE 0100 (party of record) f Larry West,. -Env. Scientist CAS LU,-,O MS K DE 0100 (party of record) Alex Perlman DDES LUSD MS�K DE 0100 , (party of record) Wayne Potter Barghausen Consulting Engineer 18215 - 72nd Avenue S Kent, WA 98032 (applicant / contact) John & Nenita Ching 16038 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Debbie Eberle 18225 SE 147th Street Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Steve Townsend, Supervisor LUIS LUSD t, (party of record) ;Shirley I, ASII L USD OAK DE 0100 (party of Lisa Di more DDX LUSD OAK DE 0100 , (party of recor Bruce ittaker DD LUSD OAK DE 0100 (party of record) Daniel Balmelli, PE Barghausen Consulting Engineer 18215 - 72nd Avenue S Kent, WA 98032 (party of record) Linda Corgiat 16039 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Norm & Patricia Gammell 16043 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Updated: 01/04/11 (Page 1 of 2) PARTIES OF RECORD LIBERTY GARDENS PREL PLAT LUA08-093, PP, ECF, AAD, MOD, ECF2 Don & Andrea Gragg 16046 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Jennifer McCall Lozier Homes, Corp 1203 - 114th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98004 (party of record) Curtis Schuster KBS III, LLC 12320 NE 8th Street ste: #100 Bellevue, WA 98005 (party of record) Claudia Donnelly 10415 147th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Gwendolyn High C.A.R.E PO Box 2936 Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) David Petrie 811 S 273rd Court Des Moines, WA 98198 (owner) Seattle KC Health Department East District Environ. Health 14350 SE Eastgate Way Bellevue, WA 98007 (party of record) Norm Mohr 16224 5E 144th Street Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Richard & Teri Langdon 14201 - 164th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Michael Ritchey 14225 - 164th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Kolin Taylor 12320 NE 8th Street ste: #100 Bellevue, WA 98005 (party of record) Updated: 01/04/11 (Page 2 of 2) 7695500330 1457500106GEROS VIRGINIA M 7253700130 BOLANOS ROBERT + DEBRA BRENDO I MILTON M CHING JOHN KW+NENITA L 14220 164TH AVE SE 18225 O MI TH 16038 SE 142ND PL RENTON WA 98059 18225 S W2 98055 HRENTON WA 98059 RENT 7253700100 7253700140 7253700110 GAMMELL NORMAN D+PAYNE-GAMM GIBBONS ALLISTER M+MANDY J GRAGG DONALD B PATRICIA A 16032 SE 142ND PL 16046 SE 142ND PL 16043 SE 142ND PL RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98059 1323059038 1457500135 1323059095G COUNTY ISSAQUAH SCHOOL DIST #411 KBS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION KING KC COUNTY DMIN BLDG 16655 SE 136TH ST 13804 162ND AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98059 500 4TH AVE SEATTLE WA 98104 7695500350 1457500160 7253700150 LAMB MAVIS J LANGDON RICHARD &TERI LATIMER LANCE+STEPHANIE 14212 164TH AVE SE 14201 164TH AVE SE 16024 SE 142ND PL RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98056 1457500095 1457500154 1457500100 LEE STEVEN P MAY ALVIN MCNAIR DANNY M 13802 160TH AVE SE 16238 SE 144TH 13928 160TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98059 1457500156 7695500360 1457500150 MOHR NORBERT W NEAR FRANK J PETRIE RAHUL B 16224 SE 144TH ST 14206 164TH AVE SE PETRIE DAVID RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98059 811 S 273RD CT DES MOINES WA 98198 1457500159 1457500110 1457500097 RITCHEY MICHAEL A+CHRISTINE SMITH GERALD C THATCHER JESSE T+ERIN N 14225 164TH AVE SE 8524 S 125TH 13817 162ND AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98059 1457500101 WILMOT ROBERT C+CAROL LYNN 13900 160TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 Denis Law City of , Mayor ; N�r� 0. f. ' January 4, 2011 Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Netsch, Administrator Hans Korve DMP Inc. 726 Auburn Way N Auburn, WA 98002 SUBJECT: Notice of Complete Application Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat, LUA08-093, MOD, ECF (KC File #L04P0034) Dear Mr. Korve: An application has been made to modify the approved Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat in order to utilize King County Transfer of Development Rights. The proposed modification would include 10 additional lots, beyond the 36 lots that were approved, for a total of 46 single-family residential lots. 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. The major modification is tentatively scheduled for consideration by the Environmental Review Committee on January 24, 2011, In addition, this matter is tentatively scheduled for a Public Hearing on February 22, 2011 at 9:00 a.m., 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. If you have any further questions, please contact meat (425) 430-7219. Sincerely, Roc le Timmo s As ociate Planner cc: C.E. Vincent, Planning Director Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager David. Petrie / Owner Community Alliance to Reach Out & Engage ("CARE") / Appellant Parties of Record Renton City Hall 0 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 9 rentonwa.gov Printed: 12-07-2010 Payment Made: CITY OF RENTON 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Land Use Actions RECEIPT Permit#: LUA08-093 12/07/2010 10'.49 AM Total Payment: 1,000.00 Current Payment Made to the Following Items: Receipt Number: Payee: DAVID PETRIE Trans Account Code Description Amount 5010 000.000000.007.345 Environmental Feview 1,000.00 Payments made for this receipt Trans Method Description Amount Payment Check 2171 1,000.00 Account Balances Trans Account Code Description 3021 303.000000.020.345 Park Mitigation ree 5006 000.000000.007-345 Annexation FeES 5007 000.000000.011.345 Appeals/Waivers 5008 000.000000.007.345 Binding Site/Si_crt Pia-_ 5009 000.000000.007.345 Conditional Use Fees 5010 000.000000.007.345 Environmental Review 5011 000.000000-007.345 Prelim/Tentative Flat 5012 000.000000.007.345 Final Plat 5013 000.000000.007.345 PUD 5014 000.000000.007.345 Grading & Filling Fees 5015 OOO.Q00000.007.345 Lot Line Adjus--ner:t 5016 000.000000.00'7.345 Mobile Home Parks 5017 000.000000.007.345 Rezone 5018 000.000000.007.345 Routine Vegetation P7c;;fi 5019 000.000000.007.345 Shoreline Subst. Dcv 5020 000.000000.007.345 Site Plan Approval 5021 000.000Q00.007.345 Temp Use, Hobbyk, Ferice 5022 000.000000.007.345 Variance Fees 5024 000.000000.007.345 Conditional Apprcva Fee 5036 000.000000.007.345 Comprehensive Plan Iuriend 5909 000.000000,002.341 Booklets/EIS/C(;:)les 5941 000.000000.007.341 Maps (Taxable) 5954 650.237.00.00.0000 DO NOT USE -- JSE 3954 5955 000.05.519.90.42.1 Postage 5998 000.000000.000.231 Tax Balance Due .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 _00 .00 .00 .00 _00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 R1005342 Remaining Balance Due: $0.00 dmp, inc. October 18, 2010 Rocale Timmons City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 DALEY-MORROW-POBLETE, INC. 726 AUBURN WAY N. AUBURN, WASHINGTON 98002 TELEPHONE: (253) 333-2200 FAX. (253) 333-2206 City of Penton r-r�e f1i 71t�(_; �:: iVi,�ltjll RE: LUA08-093 Liberty Gardens — Plat Amendment NOV - r, MOO Dear Ms. Timmons: .� 1E C 11-L PJ C , ID Thank you for taking the time last month to meet with me, and for encouraging me to attend the recent Council Committee meeting, to discuss how TDR policy might impact the proposed Liberty Garden Major Amendment. I found our conversation and discussion with the Council members to be highly instructive. We made modifications to the site plan to bring it more into conformance with the issues you identified in our meeting. I also contacted Gwen High, and scheduled a series of community meeting to discuss the project. We have made further modifications based on the comments we received from the community. The majority of the modification requests were reasonable and only resulted in the loss of 2-lots. With that said, I offer the following summary and comparison of our proposal: • Site Design — The Applicant is proposing to maintain the overall site layout that was approved by the King County Hearing Examiner. The Applicant is not requesting a major modification of the approved site plan. With the exception of modifications required to convert several of the lots to alley -loaded, the overall road network remains unchanged. The resulting lots have been reduces in width to accommodate the use of 10 TDR credits. • Lot Density - The Applicant proposes to make use of the vested TDR provisions of the King County Code by altering the project to support 46 residential lots. This is an increase of 10-lots from the approved design. Similar revisions to the adjacent Cavalla Plat resulted in an 11-lot increase and an overall project density to approximately 5.4 du/ac. The proposed density of the revised Liberty Garden project will be 5.1 du/ac. In both cases, this increase is less than the 6 du/ac allowed outright by the King County Code. 01-540 Liberty Gardens Narrative Perceived Impacts - Density along the north and south property line of Liberty Gardens is similar to that found in the original project. Smaller, alley loaded lots have been located towards the center of the project. This design feature is similar to the one used in Cavalla to increase overall project density while limiting the impact to the surrounding community. The size, shape and density of the perimeter lots, which are adjacent to any existing resident, are almost identical to the original project. There is no discernable difference between the original design and the current proposal. Almost 72% of the south boundary of the plat is recreation or open space, and has no perceivable negative impact on the adjacent residents. Both the east and west boundary of the plat are bordered by public street or open space. When considered in total, the proposed plat amendment will have no discernable negative impact on the adjacent community, and will be indistinguishable from the original project. • Meaningful Street Trees — As a voluntary effort to address community concerns, the revised project will have a significant increase in landscaping over a standard King County Plat. The Applicant will provide landscape strips and street trees along the majority of the project's roadways. 10' landscape buffers have been added along the developed portions of both 162nd and 164th Ave SE. This new landscape buffer provides a better transition between the existing neighborhood and the proposed development. It also provides for continuous landscaping which is consistent with the landscaping proposed by the Cavalla Plat to the north. As noted in the comparison exhibit, the total area of perimeter buffer is almost identical in both projects. • Pedestrian Safety - While the Cavalla Plat provides limited pedestrian improvements, consistent with a more traditional King County Development, the revised Liberty Garden design provides safe pedestrian walking facilities to almost every home in the project. Sidewalks have been separated from the travel lanes along the primary and half of the secondary internal roads. Both projects propose to create approximately the same amount of nature trails for public enjoyment. The Applicant feels that improved pedestrian amenities and safety will encourage greater pedestrian activity in the neighborhood. Natural Amenities —As discussed above, the revised landscape plan now includes an extension of the 162nd Ave SE sidewalk as it transitions into a nature path. The new path connects 162nd to SE 141st Place, then continues to the eastern edge of the recreational facility. The path extends along almost the entire length of the creek frontage in the southeast corner of the project. The majority of the vegetation in this area will remain undisturbed, and will provide an excellent backdrop to several homes as well as the community park. The area contains approximately 52 mature maple and cedar trees as well as extensive undergrowth. Overall, the open space and recreation area provided by the revised Liberty Garden proposal will be 33% larger than that of the neighboring Cavalla Plat. 01-540 Liberty Gardens Narrative 2 • Neighborhood Variety - Similar to the Cavalla Plat, the revised Liberty Garden project provides for a mixture of lot sizes and access opportunities. 13 of the lots now access from the proposed alley. Lots located near the recreation and open space features have more irregular shapes and sizes that conform more to the natural features and amenities. These features reduce the number of driveway cuts in the project, improve pedestrian safety and increase the diversity of the housing stock. In summary, the voluntary project revisions have resulted in an increase of pedestrian facilities, street trees, creation of external landscape buffers and a more integrated recreation and open space system. The amount of area dedicated to landscape and pedestrian improvements is equal to or exceeds that of the Cavalla Plat to the north, while maintaining an overall project density less than its neighbor. The Liberty Garden project achieved all these community improvements while making the minor increase in total lots imperceptible to the surrounding community. We are pleased to present you with the revised Liberty Garden Plat for your consideration, and look forward to presenting the project to the Hearing Examiner and City Council as soon as possible. You may refer to the attached Community Comments and comparison exhibit for a more detailed breakdown of the improvements by category. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Hans A. Korve Planning Manager DMP Inc. 01-540 Liberty Gardens Narrative LIBERTY GARDENS Written Comments Submitted by CARE (Comments are based on CARE internal email discussions and not the Public Meeting) Meeting Date — August 23, 2010 Meeting Date — September 27, 2010 The Renton City Council asked the owner of Liberty Gardens to reach out to the surrounding community and listen to their concerns, regarding the proposed use of TDR credits, to expand the previously approved project. Although not a code requirement, the Applicant's representative met with the community on two occasions and had numerous email, phone and personal meetings with a community spokesperson to review the issues. Using the Cavalla project as a template, the Applicant voluntarily modified the project to address many of the Community concerns. The following is a summary of the comments received by email, as well as those gathered from the community meetings. Perimeter landscaping should be equivalent to Cavalla's. Liberty Gardens has provided perimeter landscaping equivalent to Cavalla. In order to prevent the straight -through raceway that the current proposed street from 162nd Ave SE to 164th Ave SE presents, the connection to 164th Ave SE should be offset to the south, but not so far south as to present a burden (noise or intersection spacing) on the homes already existing on 164th Ave SE During the community meeting, the "bulb -out" traffic calming proposal was described to the attendees. The proposed 140'h Street connection will be designed and built as a residential street, with 11-residential driveway connections and two landscape bulbs. As an internal road, we respectfully remind the Community that the road design will not impact the existing residents and is not impacted by the proposed TDR use. The road will remain in its current configuration. While not 100%, there is a strong recommendation that the loop road should run along the wetland/open-space/Cedar Grove in order for this space to provide an obvious public space or "everybody's front yard" feel instead of the backyard of a few folks. This comment is not representative of Community concerns expressed at the August 23,d meeting. This comment was later attributed to the community spokes person as a summary of several email comments made by members of the community who were not present at the meeting. Redesigning the project to add additional impervious surface and a substandard road network is not an option. This suggested alteration would also result in the extension of 162nd Ave SE 100' to 180' into the tree preservation area, which was set aside in the Applicant's proposal. In private conversations with residents, the briefly discussed Staff Liberty Gardens Community Outreach DMP 01-540 idea was resoundingly rejected. As an internal road, we respectfully remind the Community that the projects final internal design will not impact the existing residents, and its design is not impacted by the proposed 'I'DR use. The proposed road alignment is almost identical to the one that was approved originally. The road will remain in its current configuration. 41 8 foot planting strips along all interior streets. The Applicant's proposal provides for 5' planting strips on both sides of SE 140`h and 163rd, and on one side of SE 141" Ct. Five foot (5') planters are standard in almost every municipality in the Seattle Metro area. Providing planter strips on both sides of the street improves pedestrian safety and provides for consistent tree canopy coverage. We would also like to point out that providing 10' of overall street landscaping is superior to providing 8' of landscaping. As an internal road, we respectfully remind the Community that it will not impact the existing residents and its alignment was not altered by the proposed TDR use. The road will remain in its current configuration. • Front setback variation equivalent to Cavalla Front yard setbacks are related to the plat interior. They have no impact on the surrounding community. A future builder can be encouraged to modulate his building frontages, but such modulation would be strongly dependant on the style and size of the future units. There is no code requirement for such a condition and the proposed use of TDR credits has no impact on the neighborhood that would relate to this request. • The public/nature trail/sidewalk system should be more straightforward and better connected from 162nd Ave SE to 164th Ave SE. The current proposal seems to basically dead-end at the vaults instead of providing clear pedestrian connections The Applicant's proposal has two 5' sidewalks running east/west between 162"d and 164c'. With the exception of three proposed homes on SE 141" Ct, every home in the community has direct access to a public sidewalk. The proposed Nature Trail is a voluntary extension of the 162"d Ave sidewalk, which will run among the mature Cedar and Maple trees in the unopened right-of-way, and along the creek buffer in Tract E. The trail provides direct connection to S E 141" Ct, and then connects to the park facilities in Tract B. The west edge of the park facility is connected to the sidewalks on 163rd . The nature trail connects all three of the public sidewalks and creates a total pedestrian loop. The pedestrian facilities for this project have been specifically modified to avoid dead - ends. • There should be similar provisions as recorded in the Hearing Examiner's recommendations for Cavalla - specifically numbers 3, 4, 5, 6, 12 & 13 (partial report copy attached) 3) Setbacks — The Applicant will not utilize alternative front yard setbacks. They are internal to the plat and have no impact on the existing community. Liberty Gardens Community outreach DMP 01-540 4) Tree Size - The applicant will plant the exterior buffers with a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs in accord Nvith King County standards. The condition is too general to have any specific impact on the proposal. 5) Tree Retention Plan King County Code requires a tree retention plan. No additional conditions are required. 6) Public Access — The Cavalla condition specified a desire for public access between 162n and 164`h Ave. The public sidewalks proposed for this project will provide pedestrian access throughout the neighborhood. The nature trail will be constructed within both an existing public right-of-way as well as within Tract E. The trail is open to public use. The recreational facilities within the project will be maintained by the neighborhood HOA, and are not intended for use by the general public. Maplewood Heights Park is adjacent to Liberty Gardens and open to the general public- 12) Fence Construction — This condition is specific to Cavalla. Only proposed lot 20 is located near an existing home. Traditionally, wood fences are constructed with the new homes. Fence construction is not required by King County Code. 13) Conifer Trees — As indicated above, this condition is specific to Cavalla. Lots along the northern boundary of Liberty Gardens will be adjacent to other new lots. The southern boundary of Liberty Gardens is dominated by the Native Growth Area and the Park. DMP Notes from August 23, 2010 Meeting (Notes based on actual public comment) • 164th Ave buffer planting is important to the community, even though there are no existing homes fronting the road. The applicant agreed to provide buffer planting, similar to Cavalla, and add an additional planning strip to provide separation for the proposed pedestrian facilities. The proposed planting is consistent with the proposed Cavalla improvements. Community members expressed a concern about the use of weed killers and other herbicides around the stream buffer. It was explained that restrictions could be added to the CC&R's. Community members expressed concerns about SE 140"' St. acting as a "short cut" for area drivers. It was pointed out that the Applicant's proposal includes standard traffic calming techniques, such as reducer road width and landscape bulb -outs. a Community members described the "Shared Experience" as being the . Community's interaction with the new neighborhood from the outside. One Liberty Gardens Community Outreach 8 DMP 01-540 Community member correctly pointed out that the internal workings of the plat were outside CARE's area of responsibility. Only one existing residence is located adjacent to the proposed Liberty Gardens plat. • The Community was concerned about the preservation of existing trees. Liberty Gardens will preserve almost two acres of open space and unimproved right -of way with mature second growth trees. By comparison, Cavalla is preserving no existing trees and will be replanting all proposed trees in its storm water tract. DMP Notes from September 27, 2010 Meeting (Notes based on actual public comment) • DMP began the presentation with a brief history of the project and the approved site plan.. DMP also listed the issues of concern to the community and how the Applicant's revised site plan addressed each one. Most importantly, it was made clear to the Community that this is a voluntary process of outreach, and that the vested King County Code allows for the use of almost twice as many TDR credits as are being proposed under the current design. At the same time, the Applicant reaffirmed his willingness to work with the community to improve the neighborhood through future partnerships with the City of Renton and the Kin County Parks Department. The Applicant fully supports the expansion of 164` along the park frontage, and the construction of parking facilities on the County park Iand for use by visitors as well as patrons to the adjacent school ball fields. • The Community was concerned about the impact of the project on schools and utilities. Other issues included traffic and wetland impacts. DMP tried to explain that the issue at hand was the 10 additional residential lots, and that each new home was required to pay impact and utility service fees. Some residents felt that impact fees did not cover the full cost of service impacts. The issue was left at that point. • DMP tried to address the incremental issues of traffic and the imperceptible nature of 10 additional trips. Residents have concerns about the larger traffic issues facing the area and the perceived `dumping' of new housing on the neighborhood. One resident, unfamiliar with the original project, expressed concerns with wetland buffer impacts within the 162" d St. ROW. DMP explained that the issue was resolved in the original approval, and that the proposed modifications had no impact on the approved access point for the project. Liberty Gardens Community Outreach 4 Maplewood Heights Park OpLLARpS brRT ROPO Y DIRT R p n Trcc I.E. 11 16 v 2Q :�% ExS7. 8LDr. 18 12 13 14 19 `T r. — PROPOS TRACT21 zo 38 37 j 23 :# B ! '� TRACT C a :' 22 39 in 40 35 r a �I o W 4 Uj Uc3 - - 8 41 a s I _ trTj r tr 5 26 ' f ` 33 OPEN SPACE �' 4' 4,, 28 RECREATION 27 (TRACTS '6' AND 4 I 32 Y =!r 71,2'!8 S.F. / 1.63 AC. 43 i I+I • rr�rfr •' rtr 3 34 ir i,rr� typ. �3� CT E 1 2 � CT F i�rlr 45 3a rr t to it +r 1 46 29 '• / r r` I SIDE BY SIDE COMPARISON OF LIBERTY GARDENS AND CAVALLA PLAT A PORTION OF SE 1/4, SE 1/4, SEC.14-T23N-R5E, W.M. KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON CAVALLA PLAT LEERTY GAMENS ARMA PMM / MXWATM C& 4L2W S.F. / 1.11TArl-711A" S.F. / JA33 AG SLOW FRONTAGE 811FfM 14m SF_ / GM AG 106000 SF. / ¢23 Am PLMM SIRM IX= S.F. / Mn AC. 1Z30 SF. / Mn At NLVABM OF LOM Ia 40 SrTE AREA: 30e AC. LOG AC. DENSITY: &47 DU/AC &13 W/AO GWfUC SCALE Sp 0 '1S 36 fm no mmommool { or eat J 1 me4- M R .-,AVID M. PETRIE 811 SOUTH 273rd COURT, DES MOINES, WASHINGTON 98198 PHONE No. (253)946-6619 FAX No. (253)529-2110 rro,rr-c r LIBERTY GARDENS STREET CROSS -SECTIONS GR.SPfN F,r EM scncF 1 " 50, CQNCIPTUALYTNCAVAH-A 1 a �Rovco t M �n�r SEP- 23, 2010 oe 01540 nr ---1-- WDW FENCE (TYP-) WTH AVENUE SE. N.T.S. 162ND AVENUE SE. N.T.S. SE 140TH STREET N. T.S. PRELIMINARY ROAD PLAN _..... OF LIBERTY GARDENS A PORTION OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION B TOWNSHIP 22 N, RANGE 5 E, INM KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON 1' 50' jn 0 25 50 ,00 P AR T12 LL YICINiCY MAP ^TS F4 `"1 y LEGAL DESCRIPTION TRAM. A=URUING -- - A-(-r4:-U 1 P —� ¢ • FX+STVNG DIRT �` /// ' 'f �3 TWT5 5 AM 6. BLOCK 4 CEW PMN FNE ACRE m THE PAT rEREDF RECORDED N vaLwe 15 of P A s, PACE 91, ROAD/PATH TO ' BE RE!NO�t1 �- 1 W XiNG COUMY, V03HIIGTON. .o .A O .-ri �� a / , R' 3, Y-23Al, R SE, W.AI. - �- — -- �re7'iA6o a -d ..- /a6, .a56 i i �f, i - -J/ _%I. ✓ VERTICAL DATUM• UiIL.ITIE$/SERVICE$ a. T-23N, R-5E w.IA. 1B4��AcAve. S.E. [r F � r � -•�� - � NAYD 19aa PER CITY OF RENTON SURVEY CONTROL NETWORK OEYYER: (RQAD VACATED) , .. • ' y `• 'I r . - r n ' - � ' 1 '. 164p OCIR.rHMMSS CITY OF RENTON 1055 S GRADY WAY \ _ _ 7 ' r / i g,• 7 , 70 % / - - 10• 70 TT i F ._ _ T. DISK IN CAtICRRETE iA11NlINFM IN -ME M[TEFSECTION OF S.E. 142NO PLACE AND 15" AYE SE. RENTON, wn 90055 (25) 430-6852 -,1 T � : / i / �' _- r �+` E ELx40a.6F f� WATER: WATER [MST. J90 8070 s � f- `r♦�N, J Hr, % '� _ _ / / �fs� / ,� r c i.-. _____-__,1 MEnQtANT FPC4I 9i 81 KING COUNTY 15006 SE 129TH ST. RENTON. WA 98065 100" I + f 9,82s Fs} /' + GV- / r 5 a.I.E g r GV $� f y PER gN�COUNTY SURVEY CONIROE (425) 255-R600 105 ;i -�- I' ' 7,002 f. i 5,602 eT,* 1 ' •B7 f k ________• BASIS OF BEARING& powER: ` ,450` ' -' p r I /' ! ' �'- _/" I t. - S i �pS 3 THE S W. OF SE 1/4. SEG la-t23N-RSE. W.N. BEARING N0837 PUGEET SOUND ENERGY IM I55TH AVENUE NE 6.009Va.f.t /41 ! 4 ` 6,3CO s.l.* �� 'Ra ^. l 41 32 - 65 _ - - - o• - I } I' 1..� t ___ ,� OQ o `' ENGINEER/PLANNER I I MlF WA 8Q0 321-4321 ( ) �9• `) G 7I' 'iic s, !. i G Sp j BaRC+iNISEN CONSL4nNG ENGINEERS, INC. NATURAL GAS: P11GET a ETIERGY ; k It)9' _ _ 22' .' ` "Zo p OU 2AV2E2 KEM, WA 9802 1�4Aa272c51)5 227532 105 156Ti AVENUE NO 8ELLEVUEf WA7 (800) 32-4321 B4O0a' 15' 1 _22 i 6.715 )1M-6 4251-57112 CONTACTALI SAOR/ WAYNE POTTER TELEPHONE'6 pA.t, a ¢-t � jW1OWN�/DEVELOpER 50,011 AENUE NFt00 105' • YU `/I RkiUL PfIME/ WD N. PETRIE OILE41E, WA 9R3fl - i• f . - - 811 8. 273RD CT DES MONES, WA 08198 CABLE', f 14 Yj1. 27 2S � / O 6.977 : f. x jj I � _,I `_ •�- (253) 946-G619 CABL<20 LURK 4C20 AUUJHN WAY N AUBURN. WA 95a02 s.f.Y. I- 6.129 x.f v r`q, r - / 70' 1 OT B y0• STORM a E/RECRFATICi'a le,(425) p� Q INDEX TO SHEETS- -IRE, HNG COUNTY RRE 0I5fRICf H0. 25 1 923 156iH /fiFNLE SE REN19N wA 96as9 ?55-5151 - z1 10 a,r,s ` Cl OF 5 PRELMIMARY PEAT MAP Ok n m ,� e,5"6 s,I. �f r .__ __ es C2 OF 5 MaAMdMY ROAD AND DRAEMAOE PLAN SCHSCHOOL65 +41, 70• l45' i1 2a i_ __--____ - -- -- Nw HOLLYSTREET MAQUAH. WA 9BD27 '` (4s5) aT7-7nDD lea ve C3 OF 5 PREUMINARY ROAD PROFILES ov J 4 ''•DOD s.f t 33 i 3 �. �- - ;; . } f�AR NIN2 C4 of 5 PFELmAHY ROAD FiI�ROVF malt PLAN Q /i , * 6,669 s 4.009 aii `�.6B6B f,2�. I EKE- ! AND PROFLE �� ;`i 1P i♦`,. --_ - !' f ± . `'• \ I ; i / i � 05 OF 5 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS MAP PL1 OF 2 PRELL64ARY FIARK AND LANDSCAPE PLAN z O �LL O Q z J h4a � s U. 9 10 c.l.t � °'a 6.801le i l ` -/ !/ -_ '- o B.a y / - I 1 :i i0° PL2 OF 2 SKWFoCANT TREE FETENTiON PLAN y .SURVEVE4-wLT AM R ! / 7.ogafs f.x L 29 �RACT A• 4°25 a.T_- low 36 14�='♦�_ I ? jl/ —. _ _ BUFFER NbW TIP AREA I. ASSESSOR'B PARCEL NJMBE7L 145750-0115, 0150 �%�� 2. SITE ADORES& 162ND AVENUE SE & SE 141YM PL ,`� /�;� - R 3. GR= SrTE AREA e.95 ACES (368,996 SIT) 162nd AVENUE S.E. 4. E7tlSTIHO USE'VACANT I I (UNKIPr MM POW) 5- PROPOSED LSE; SB-LOT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE f D f15TY1C ZOWNO: R-4 -'Yza ROAD yxF' ' . ) *I - �j �� G� �J �A7, PROPa6E'0 ZOvNC: R-4 I AREAlm DtMuRBED YARY07CE TO ELWINATE HIAi44ENEN15. I / /r I' �4-4 ,' P 7 44 4 I L E1.i5 0 COMPRERF715NE PLAN OESIGNAnOfL- plpp AREA: 961 v.1.3 \ I I ry, a`6'' �� .6 ,Z+ 013/-7 i 1 ip URBAN RESIOERCE 4-12 DU/AC I PROPOSEDTB � !f II M j A�\ 9. REQUIRED AWIW9 LOT WIDTH: 30 FEET I+ 8.374 J.t p106 �j�� ] 5•�O 1�4 ` II IT, f1 � 10. PROPOSED MMMW LDT WDTIE 65 FEET 11 BEI LOM SE{TBAfxB//�FiHTTgPG: 10 FEET UIIN REW YARD$: S FEET BIAL.ON40 FIEICHT WXBILMk 35 FEET 12. AVERAGE LOT AREA: 8.990 50. R. 13. SOURCE OF 9017�9RY AND TOPOCRWW. ORIGINAL APPROVED SITE PLAN 13 � -PD3LLTL JNQ' DECEMBER 2OD4 o e u a a BUFFER MAKE-UP TABLE r =s �w �s BUFFER WPACT AREA {162110 AVE S.E} lC5a5 sr. z 4 ! r AREA fi� 15,004 S.F. y rc AMAKE-UF NET BUFFER INCREASE +415 SF N .. r U LFz TRACT TABLE TRACT USE AREA (�Lf.) A SENSITIVE AREA 52,483 B i SDFUA DRAW,GE/RFCRFA➢ON 2D,T1O C JOINT USE ORNEWAY 2,613 D JONR USE DRWMY l.07Z E TRACT E 1.076 F TRACT F I'm ROW 59,138 TOTAL TRACT ARZ4/ROW 137.434 SF, 3.15 AC. TOTAL LOT AREA 252,559 S.F. 560 AC. TOTAL SITE AREA_--- 389,990 S,F, B95 AO. WEHAGE LOl AREA- 6,990 S.F, -_--