HomeMy WebLinkAboutC_Response_Letter_CORE_2003120_v1.pdf
March 3, 2020
Matt Herrera
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
Re: “On Hold” Notice – Canopy PUD Preliminary Plat
CORE Project No. 18054
Dear Matt Herrera:
We have received the City’s review comments dated January 28, 2020 for the Canopy PUD Preliminary
Platt project and have updated our plans accordingly. Below are our written responses to the City’s
review comments.
Development Review Comments
Reviewer:
Site Plan Comments:
1. Home variations - Additional varieties of exterior elevations, roof forms, and cladding will be
needed for the 55-lot subdivision. A minimum of eight (8) differing varieties for the entire plat
with the following variations per row of lots:
a. Lots 1-6 minimum of three (3) different exterior elevations;
b. Lots 7-16 minimum of four (4) different exterior elevations;
c. Lots 17-29 minimum of four (4) different exterior elevations;
d. Lots 30-40 minimum of four (4) different exterior elevations;
e. Lots 41-47 minimum of two (2) different exterior elevations; and
f. Lots 48-55 minimum of three (3) different exterior elevations.
Response: See response from Milbrandt Architects, C_Response_Letter_Milbrandt
Architects_2003120_v1
2. Residential Design Standards – The applicant is encouraged to review the residential design
standards. Special attention should be paid to the following:
a. Lot configuration – Variations to the lot widths would help break up the repetitive layout
of the future homes.
b. Front entries – Several of the floor plans do not indicate a porch to provide a focal point
or space for social interaction. Porches are intended to have a minimum depth of five (5)
feet and can extend into the front yard setback.
3/13/20 Matt Herrera Page 2
J:\2018\18054\Submittals\2020-03-12 PPlat and PPUD Resubmittal\PPUD\C_Response_Letter_CORE_2003120_v1.docx
c. Windows and Doors – Several of the elevations do not appear to contain adequate
window and door coverage along the street. The minimum coverage is 25-percent for
those facades facing street frontage.
Response: See response from Milbrandt Architects, C_Response_Letter_Milbrandt
Architects_2003120_v1
3. Setbacks – Reevaluate the front yard setbacks along Road A for all alley loaded homes. There
appears to be opportunity for meeting the 15-foot setback by adjusting the setbacks along the
alleys. Additionally, Alley 3 is shown at 20-feet and does not appear to be an emergency vehicle
access. The street standards only require a 16-foot width with 12-feet paved for residential
alleys.
Response: Alley 3 has been reduced to 16 feet as suggested. This additional 4 feet was added
to the previously shown 10 foot front setback giving these lots a 14 foot setback. All other lots
were evaluated but the homes are already pushed as close to the alleys as possible. It should be
noted that alley setbacks are 5 feet and the units have upper floors that protrude further out
than the garage doors. So while it may appear the unit could be shifted forward it cannot.
4. Sideyards for Lots 30-39 – Reevaluate side yard setbacks along these lots where the shared
driveway is located. By reducing the setback to three (3) feet on the shared driveway side, the
flare of the driveways can be reduced. This reduction would on the shared driveway side would
result in a greater setback on the opposite side yard that could be designed with a “zipper” type
setback and create usable space for the homeowners.
Response: This has been evaluated but is problematic due to the excessive loss of light into
each unit when the buildings are shifted closer together. Fire safety is also a concern. While it
may reduce the driveway widths it’s not the best outcome for the future homeowners of these
lots.
5. Lot 40 – Staff was amenable to modifying the alley load requirements for lots 30-40 if the lots
contained R-6 lot widths of 60-feet or utilized shared driveways. Due to the location of the
retaining wall along the north side of the lot it is effectively a 35-foot wide lot similar to Lots 30-
39. Relocate the wall and building footprint to meet the intent of staff’s front load limitation.
Response: The wall along lot 40 has been shifted such that the lot meets staff’s intention.
6. Lots 15 and 16 – These lots should be rear loaded. There appears to be width to extend a
driveway from Alley 1 to Lots 15 and 16 for rear load.
Response: A shared driveway has been added for access to lots 15 and 16, allowing these two
lots to be alley loaded, per the city’s request.
3/13/20 Matt Herrera Page 3
J:\2018\18054\Submittals\2020-03-12 PPlat and PPUD Resubmittal\PPUD\C_Response_Letter_CORE_2003120_v1.docx
7. Lots 1-6 – These homes should be oriented to Lincoln Ave NE with front doors and primary entry
features on the west façade.
Response: See response from Milbrandt Architects, C_Response_Letter_Milbrandt
Architects_2003120_v1
8. Retaining wall setback – The retaining walls along the northern portion of Road A need to be
setback a minimum of three (3) feet from the ROW.
Response: Retaining walls have been adjusted to be 3 feet from the ROW as requested. In the
area of station 13+00 to station 14+20 the wall cannot be setback due to the adjacent critical
area setback. To remedy this, the planter strip and ROW have been reduced by 3 feet in this
area only. In addition, a second row of street trees was added along from roughly station
12+20 to 13+00 in exchange for the reduction noted above. This was discussed and agreed
upon with the city planner Matt Herrera.
9. Critical Area Tract Boundaries – Critical Areas along with their buffers and setbacks must be
wholly within a tract. It appears that portions of Lots 6, 42, and 43 are within reduced buffer
setbacks. Resubmitted plans will need to address this issue.
Response: Lots 42 and 43 have been adjusted as suggested to maintain the critical area
setback completely inside the tract. Lot 6 is now the only exception: we have adjusted it so that
the critical area setback is entirely within the tract on the south side of the lot, except for one
12’ stretch (that lot’s south-west corner) where the critical area setback lines up precisely with
the lot’s own building setback line. We feel this addresses the concern that this setback would
be ignored, because it is a very limited area that is itself already entirely encumbered by a
building setback.
10. Stream Buffer Averaging – It does not appear the proposal is eligible for stream buffer averaging
as indicated on page 9 of the Critical Area Study and Conceptual Mitigation Plan prepared by
Wetland Resources. RMC 4-3-050I.2.b.i clearly states that buffer width averaging may be
allowed only where, in part, there are existing physical improvements in or near the water body
and associated riparian area. The Critical Areas Study does not provide an applicable response to
this criterion. Reevaluation of this method will be necessary.
Response: Please see response letter provided by Scott Brainard with Wetland Resources,
Dated February 25th, 2020, included in the resubmittal package. C_Response_Letter_Wetland
Resources_2003120_v1
3/13/20 Matt Herrera Page 4
J:\2018\18054\Submittals\2020-03-12 PPlat and PPUD Resubmittal\PPUD\C_Response_Letter_CORE_2003120_v1.docx
11. Wetland Buffer Averaging – Similar to the above reference stream buffer averaging eligibility,
wetland buffer averaging requires an existing physical improvement in or near the wetland
pursuant to RMC 4-3-050I.3.b.i. Page 11 of the Critical Areas Study does not provide an
applicable response to this criterion. Reevaluation of this method will be necessary.
Response: Please see response letter provided by Scott Brainard with Wetland Resources,
Dated February 25th, 2020, included in the resubmittal package. C_Response_Letter_Wetland
Resources_2003120_v1
12. Wetland B Buffer Impacts – Page 14 of the Critical Areas Study asserts the proposed 240 square
foot wetland buffer impacts are exempt for frontage improvements. The identified exemption in
the report is intended for utilities, traffic control, walkways, bikeways within existing improved
right-of-way or easements. Please provide clarification that the area of proposed impacts is within
existing improved right-of-way.
Response: Please see response letter provided by Scott Brainard with Wetland Resources,
Dated February 25th, 2020, included in the resubmittal package. C_Response_Letter_Wetland
Resources_2003120_v1
13. Common Open Space – Tracts D and E do not appear to meet the common open space standard
of “concentrated in large usable areas.” These tracts appear to be remnants and in the case of
Tract E significantly encumbered by a retaining wall. Remove these tracts from the common open
space total and reconfigure to comply with the 10-percent minimum. Additionally, these remnants
can be integrated into abutting lots to assist in lot width variation.
Response: Tracts D and E have been removed and these area added to the adjacent lots,
further enhancing the lot width variation. To comply with the 10% minimum open space, open
space has been added within Tract C in the area of the turnaround adjacent to Alley 2. With
this addition we exceed the required open space.
14. Private Open Space – Compliance with the PUD private open space standards (RMC 4-9-150E.2)
could not be confirmed. Please provide sheets that confirm dimensional and minimum space
standards are met for each lot.
Response: Private open space enlargements have been included within sheets L1.03 to L1.05
of the landscape plan set. It should be noted that while we do not meet the dimensional
standards we are exceeding the required area by more the twice on most lots.
3/13/20 Matt Herrera Page 5
J:\2018\18054\Submittals\2020-03-12 PPlat and PPUD Resubmittal\PPUD\C_Response_Letter_CORE_2003120_v1.docx
15. Survey - the topographic map does not appear to match City aerials. The neighboring home is
represented to be over the property line and in the aerials there is a deck that is not shown on
the map. There is also a shed shown straddling the two property lines, but it is unclear to whom
the shed belongs. These encroachments should be addressed with the neighboring property
owner. If there are easements of record that will no longer be needed, provide proof of
extinguishing the private easements such as ingress, egress and utilities easements listed in title
report. Title reports are dated 2017 and 2018. Be advised that an updated title report for final
platting process to confirm ownership and encumbrances will be required.
Response: Understood.
16. Fire Comments – The Renton Regional Fire Authority has indicated the proposed water
improvements will not be sufficient as applicant is showing dwellings exceeding 3,600 square
feet. Applicant can redesign proposed water systems for higher flow rates or propose to lower
fire flows through use of approved fire sprinkler systems.
Response: Fire Sprinklers will be used if homes exceed 3,600 SF and cannot meet the flow
requirements. Flow requirements should be reanalyzed with the upsize in pipes required per
the next comment.
17. Water Main Improvements – The following items related to the new water mains need to be
addressed:
a. The water main extension within Lincoln Avenue shall be 12-inch diameter connecting
to the existing City’s 12-inch water line near the south property line of parcel
3345700015 to the north property line of Parcel #3345700015.
Response: Lincoln Ave water has been revised to 12-inch as required.
b. The internal water main shall be increased from an 8-inch diameter main to a 10-inch
water main in order to provide a minimum fire flow of 1,500 gpm.
Response: Internal main along Road A and Alley 3 has been increased to 10-inch.
c. The dead-end water main within Alley 1 shall have a fire hydrant located at the end of
the main.
Response: Fire Hydrant added
d. The City of Renton Water System and Coal Creek Utility District Water System shall not
be connected.
Response: The two water systems are not, and were not, connected.
3/13/20 Matt Herrera Page 6
J:\2018\18054\Submittals\2020-03-12 PPlat and PPUD Resubmittal\PPUD\C_Response_Letter_CORE_2003120_v1.docx
18. Secondary Geotechnical Comments – Please find the enclosed comments prepared by
GeoEngineers and prepare responses and if needed corrections to reports/plans based on those
comments. Specifically, written responses to items 1 through 12 and a response to the MSE
vegetated wall system are needed with the resubmittal package.
Response: Please see response letter provided by Carolyn Decker with Terra Associates, Dated
February 24, 2020, included in the resubmittal package.
C_Response_Letter_TERRA_2003120_v1
19. Muckleshoot Tribe Comments – Please find the enclosed comments prepared by the
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division. Reevaluation of the stream typing based on the
Tribe’s comments will be necessary. Please provide responses and clarifications regarding the
stream and stormwater treatment methods indicated in the comment letter.
Response: See the following comments
Muckleshoot Tribe Comments
Reviewer:
Stream Typing for on and offsite streams:
1. According to the Preliminary Technical Information Report (TIR), there is a stream onsite and a
stream offsite. Both streams are shown as Type F (fishbearing) waters based on Renton’s stream
classification map (see the Downstream Exhibit in TIR). We agree. Also, based on WDFW’s
fish passage barrier map, they have identified fish passage barriers on these streams which means
that the stream sections above these barriers meets the physical criteria for presumed fish habitat
or Type F waters under WAC 222-16-031. See
https://geodataservices.wdfw.wa.gov/hp/fishpassage/index.html and the attached map
(Attachment 4).
Response: Please see response letter provided by Scott Brainard with Wetland Resources,
Dated February 25th, 2020, included in the resubmittal package. C_Response_Letter_Wetland
Resources_2003120_v1
2. The Wetland and Stream report for this project is incorrect as it describes the onsite stream
(“Stream S”) as a Type N, non-fishbearing stream. The project needs to be reevaluated for
potential impacts to a larger stream buffer based on the Type F classification. Any native tree
that is greater than 4 inches in diameter and within 200 feet of Stream S needs to be placed into
the stream (at/below OHWM) as partial mitigation for the permanent and temporal impacts to
future wood recruitment functions that occur from the tree removal.
Response: Please see response letter provided by Scott Brainard with Wetland Resources,
Dated February 25th, 2020, included in the resubmittal package. C_Response_Letter_Wetland
Resources_2003120_v1
3/13/20 Matt Herrera Page 7
J:\2018\18054\Submittals\2020-03-12 PPlat and PPUD Resubmittal\PPUD\C_Response_Letter_CORE_2003120_v1.docx
Stormwater treatment:
1. The project also needs to treat its stormwater using enhanced treatment methods to minimize
impacts to salmon (i.e. coho) from exposure to pollutants in the stormwater that will be
discharged to the on and offsite streams. The TIR notes that only “basic” treatment will be used.
Response: The requirements set forth in the King County Surface Water Design Manual and
associated documents and map from the city of Renton state that this area is in a basic
treatment area. We are meeting the requirements set forth by the county and city.
If you have any questions regarding our responses or our resubmitted documents please feel free to reach
out to me directly at 425-885-7877 or at hhh@coredesigninc.com. We look forward to continuing our
work with the City of Renton.
Sincerely,
CORE DESIGN, INC.
Holli H. Heavrin, P.E.
Associate Partner
Project Manager