HomeMy WebLinkAboutD_HEX_Decision_Emerald_Highlands_200603June 2, 2020
SENT BY EMAIL AND REGULAR MAIL TO ALL PARTIES OF RECORD
James W. Howton
4621 123rd Ave SE
Bellevue, WA 98006
Email: jimhjim1111@comcast.net
Subject: Hearing Examiner’s Final Decision
RE: Emerald Highlands - LUA-20-000077
Dear Mr. Howton:
Enclosed please find the Hearing Examiner’s Final Decision dated May 29, 2020. Also, this document is
immediately available on our website:
If you go to: Rentonwa.gov; “How do I”; Hearing Examiner (under Contact); “Decisions”; “Land
Use Decision”. The Decisions are filed by year and then alphabetical order by project name.
I can be reached at (425) 430-6510 or jseth@rentonwa.gov. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jason A. Seth, CMC
City Clerk
cc: Hearing Examiner
Clark Close Senior Planner
Jennifer Henning, Planning Director
Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager
Brianne Bannwarth, Development Engineering Manager
Craig Burnell, Building Official
Jennifer Cisneros, Planning Technician
Julia Medzegian, City Council Liaison
Parties of Record (1) - Genesis Homes, LLC, Owners
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
PP, ULS, CU, SM and BSP - 1
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
RE: Emerald Highlands Until Lot
Subdivision
Preliminary Plat, Unit Lot Subdivision,
administrative site plan, administrative
conditional use and street modification.
PR20-000100
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
FINAL DECISION
SUMMARY
The Applicant is requesting approvals of preliminary plat, unit lot subdivision, site plan, conditional
use, and street modification applications for 10 townhomes to be located at 1509/1507and 1503/1501
Kirkland Ave NE. The applications are approved subject to conditions, although the requested street
modification request has been revised as recommended by staff with the concurrence of the
Applicant.
TESTIMONY
Note: The following is a summary of testimony provided for the convenience of the reader only and
should not be construed as containing any findings of fact or conclusions of law. The focus upon or
exclusion of any particular testimony or hearing evidence in this summary is not reflective of the
priority or probative content of any particular hearing evidence and no assurance is made as to
accuracy.
Angela Weihs, associate City of Renton planner, summarized the staff report.
In response to examiner questions, Jonathon Chavez, Renton engineer, was not able to find an
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
PP, ULS, CU, SM and BSP - 2
approved copy of the Sunset Area Surface Water Master Plan to help explain its regulatory
significance. He noted that the north to south alleyway was subject to public dedication while the
east-west alley was not because the north-south alley will be extended both to the north and south as
part of the City’s road network. The east-west alley is only temporary and provides more localized
access. He noted that a turn-around at the end of the north-south alley was not necessary due to the
fire access available along Kirkland Ave. The project isn’t subject to any street plans or designated
tails in the area.
James Howton, Applicant, went over his efforts to comply with all staff recommended conditions of
approval as detailed in Ex. 25. He noted he didn’t agree with the requirement in staff recommended
condition No. 4, which requires the open space tract to be 30 feet wide. Mr. Howton asserted that the
30-foot requirement was not required by applicable open space standards, that the standard only
applied 20-foot width. Vanessa Dolbee, Renton planning manager, found that Mr. Howton’s
proposed open space complied with the currently applicable 30-foot open space requirement because
it was at least 30 feet long. Her interpretation of the currently applicable ordinance was that it
required a 30-foot dimension, but it didn’t have to be the width. Mr. Dolbee found compliance
because the proposed open space was more than 30 feet long. Mr. Howton stated that when the
project was first reviewed staff was asking for five fire hydrants and that was later reduced to three
fire hydrants. Mr. Howton asked the examiner to review the fire department comments to verify this
reduction. In response to examiner questions, Mr. Howton stated he had no objection to the staff
recommended revisions to the street modification so long as it matched the Jefferson Highlands street
section.
EXHIBITS
The 20 exhibits identified at Page 2 of the May 26, 2020 Staff report were admitted into the record at
the May 26, 2020 hearing. City of Renton COR maps were admitted as Exhibit 21. Google maps for
the project vicinity were admitted as Ex. 22. The staff power point presentation was admitted as Ex.
23. An email exchange between staff and the examiner dated May 21, 2020 clarifying the staff’s street
modification analysis was admitted as Ex 24. Applicant responses to conditions of approval, landscape
plan and arborist plan were collectively admitted as Ex. 25. Ordinance 5966 plus the affidavit of
publication was admitted as Ex. 271.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural:
1. Owner/Applicant. Genesis Homes, LLC, 16220 NE 3rd Place, Bellevue, WA 98008. Contact:
James W. Howton, 4621 123rd Ave SE, Bellevue, WA 98006.
1 No document was admitted as Ex. 26.
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
PP, ULS, CU, SM and BSP - 3
2. Hearing. A hearing on the application was held on May 26, 2020 at 11:00 am on-line via the
Zoom meeting application, Meeting ID 823 3977 2602.
Substantive:
3. Project Description. The Applicant is requesting approvals of preliminary plat, unit lot
subdivision, site plan, conditional use, and street modification applications for 10 townhomes located
at 1509/1507and 1503/1501 Kirkland Ave NE. The proposal involves demolishing two existing
duplexes to construct two (2) new townhome buildings, each with five (5) units. The project site is
24,360 square feet in area. The Applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to increase
maximum wall plat height up to 32 feet to allow for a third floor within the residences. The proposed
project would result in a net density of 17.8 du/ac. The Unit Lot Subdivision is proposed to be
subdivided into 10 lots and two (2) tracts. One of the 10 units would be affordable under density
bonus review. The proposed unit lots would range in size from 1,240 sf to 1,947 sf. Access to the
units is proposed via a new public alley behind the units and a 16-foot wide temporary private alley
along the north end of the site from Kirkland Ave NE (8 feet of the temporary access is located off -
site to the north). The topography of the site is relatively flat and the site is not mapped with any
critical areas. There are four (4) significant trees identified on-site, one of which the Applicant is
proposing to retain.
The street modification requested by the Applicant is to purportedly reduce the amount of street
improvements required for road frontage along Kirkland Avenue. However, the end result has been
staff using the modification process to increase the street frontage requirements for the project with
the Applicant’s concurrence. The Applicant’s request for the modification came about from staff
comments at a pre-application meeting that appeared to require frontage improvements that would
result in the need for 3.5 feet of right of way dedication. In order to avoid the need for this
dedication, the Applicant asked for a reduction in the travel lane and planter strip width requested by
staff. Staff subsequently clarified that the frontage improvements they requested would not
necessitate any additional right of way dedication, but that the planter strip they were requesting
exceeded minimum code standards and approval of the modification was necessary for the extra
planter strip width. The Applicant agreed to the modification revision as requested by staff, with the
understanding that there would be no need for additional dedication. The increase in planter
dedication was important to staff, since with the added width the planter strip could serve as a
bioretention strip, as required by the Sunset Area Surface Water Master Plan. The 11.5-foot planter
strip would also be the same width as the planter strip on the adjoining development to the north,
which is also used as a bioretention strip as required by the Sunset Area Surface Water Master Plan.
The details of the evolution of the street modification request are as follows:
• The pre-application report for the project stated the following frontage requirements were
required:
To meet the City's complete street standards and the Sunset Area Surface Water Master
Plan for Kirkland Ave NE, a residential access street, half street improvements shall
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
PP, ULS, CU, SM and BSP - 4
include a pavement width of 26 feet (13 feet from centerline), a 0.5-foot curb, a 12-foot
bioretention planter strip, a 8-foot sidewalk, street trees and storm drainage
improvements. No ROW dedication is required along Kirkland Ave NE.
• It is uncontested that there is only 30 feet of right of way width available for the half street
improvements. In its modification request, Ex. 18, the Applicant noted that the
improvements required by staff as quoted above added up to 33.5 feet. Consequently, the
Applicant proposed the following improvements as an alternative in its modification
request:
• 11’ travel lane measured from the center of the existing 60’ wide right of way. (30’
half right of way width)
• 0.5’ vertical curb, 10' bioretention planter strip, and 8’ sidewalk, with 0.5’ clear
width from back of sidewalk to edge of right of way.
• According to the staff report, Kirkland Ave NE qualifies as a Residential Access street
under RMC 4-6-060F2. For residential access streets, RMC 4-6-060F2 requires two 10-
foot-wide paved travel lanes, 8-foot planter strips, 5-foot sidewalks and 53 feet of right of
way.
• Page 30 of the staff report notes that Kirkland Ave. NE qualifies as a “Green Street” under
the Sunset Area Surface Water Master Plan and that to meet both the Green Street
standards and RMC 4-6-060F2, the frontage improvements would have to include “a
pavement width of 26 feet (13 feet from centerline), a 0.5-foot curb, a 12-foot bioretention
planter strip, a 8-foot sidewalk, street trees and storm drainage improvements.”
• Instead of accepting the Applicant’s request for modification, Page 30 of the staff report
recommends that the modification request be configured as 28 feet paved width, 0.5-foot
curb, 11.5-foot rain garden, 5-foot sidewalk, and 1-foot of clear space at back of walk,
street trees and storm drainage improvements.
• In pre-hearing email correspondence on the modification request, Ex. 24, staff clarified
that its recommendation would not result in the need for additional right of way
dedication, since the road is not centered in the right-of-way. Due to the current
alignment in the right-of-way, half street improvements from the right-of-way centerline
for this project would actually be: 12’ of pavement width, .5’ curb, 11.5’ bioretention, 5’
sidewalk, and 1’ clear space at back of walk, totaling 30 feet and not 33.5 feet as feared by
the Applicant. Staff further clarified that the modification alternative it is recommending
is a 3.5-foot increase to the planter strip to meet the bioretention requirements for the
Green Street standard. The staff recommendation would approximately conform to the
Green Street standard and would also be consistent with the half-street improvements to
the north. At hearing, the Applicant did not object to the staff recommendation.
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
PP, ULS, CU, SM and BSP - 5
4. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate and
appropriate infrastructure and public services as follows:
A. Water and Sewer Service. Water and sewer service are provided by the City of Renton.
There is an existing 10-inch City water main located in Kirkland Ave NE that can deliver
a maximum total flow capacity of 2,500 gpm. There is an existing 8-inch concrete gravity
wastewater main located in Kirkland Ave NE.
B. Police and Fire Protection. Fire protection would be provided by the Renton Regional Fire
Authority and police service by the Renton Police Department. Police and Fire Prevention
staff indicates that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed
development subject to the condition that the Applicant install required improvements and
fees. A Fire Impact Fee, currently assessed at $964.53 per dwelling unit, would be
applicable to the proposal. The fee in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance would
be assessed for this project.
C. Drainage. In conjunction with the City’s stormwater regulations, the proposal mitigates all
significant drainage impacts and provides for adequate and appropriate stormwater
facilities. Public works staff have reviewed the Applicant’s preliminary drainage design
and found it to conform to the City’s design standards. The drainage standards require off-
site stormwater flows to be at or less in volume and velocity than predevelopment
conditions. The Applicant is proposing a combination of full infiltration trenches and a
Biopod system to provide the required stormwater controls for water quality and flow
control. These would overflow into the existing storm system in Kirkland Ave NE.
D. Parks/Open Space. The project provides for adequate parks and open space. RMC 4-2-
115E.2 requires open space for residential development of four or more dwelling units in
the R-14 zone to consist of at least 350 square feet of open space per dwelling unit. Based
on the proposal for 10 townhome units, a total of 3,500 square feet of common open space
would be required. To provide this open space, the Applicant proposes Tract B, which
contains 4,305 square feet of open space, which meets this requirement. RMC 4-2-115E.2
further requires that all common open space areas shall be designed to accommodate both
active and passive recreational opportunities. The common open space, as proposed, is
broken up repeatedly by sidewalks connecting each unit to the public street, which
consequentially interrupts the common open space and prevents active recreational uses. In
addition, the code requires that open space shall include picnic areas, space for recreational
activities, and other activities as appropriate. The project proposal does not include picnic
areas or other recreational activities. Therefore, a condition of approval requires that the
Applicant revise the proposed pedestrian connections to limit the interruption within the
common open space tract. The revisions shall also include and show required picnic areas,
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
PP, ULS, CU, SM and BSP - 6
space for recreational activities, and other activities as appropriate within the common open
space for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager at the time of Civil
Construction Permit.
E. Pedestrian Circulation. The townhome units would provide pedestrian connections from
rights-of-ways to each unit through the common open space. The proposed concrete
sidewalks would provide a safe and efficient pedestrian circulation system, provided all
conditions of approval are met.
F. Transportation. The proposal is served by adequate and appropriate transportation
infrastructure.
The proposed project includes the following improvements: a shared temporary access
driveway along the north property line and a new north/south 16-foot wide alley along the
west property line, behind the units. Only the 16-foot wide alley behind the units would be
required to be dedicated as public right-of-way. The shared temporary driveway (also 16-
feet wide) would be permitted as an access easement. Eight feet of the temporary access
driveway would be located off-site to the north on parcel no. 7227801485. The shared
temporary access driveway (access easement) would connect the public alley to Kirkland
Ave NE at the northeast corner of the parcel. Together, the proposed shared temporary
access driveway and public alley would function as roadway access for all lots.
The project fronts Kirkland Avenue. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 3, the proposal will
comply with the design standards applicable to Kirkland Avenue and the required planter
strip will be increased by 3.5 feet to conform to the recommendations of the Sunset Area
Surface Water Plan to the frontage improvements on adjoining development to the north.
The proposed project passes the City of Renton Traffic Concurrency Test per RMC 4-6-
070.D (Exhibit 17).
Increased traffic created by the development would be mitigated by payment of
transportation impact fees. The current rate of transportation impact fee is assessed at
$7,820.42 per dwelling. Payment of the transportation impact fee is applicable on the
construction of the development at the time of application for the building permit. A credit
would be given for any existing homes.
Access to SR 900 (NE Sunset Blvd) is approximately a quarter of a mile to the south. An
active bus stop is located adjacent to the Greater Highlands Shopping Center located at
2806 NE Sunset Blvd. This stop is a very active bus stop and should the Greater Highlands
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
PP, ULS, CU, SM and BSP - 7
Shopping Center redevelop, King County Metro Transit could potentially convert this bus
stop into a major RapidRide station.
G. Schools. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate schools. Sierra Heights
Elementary, McKnight Middle School and Hazen High School serve the site. Any new
students from the proposed development would be bussed to their elementary and high
schools and would walk to the middle school. The stop for Sierra Heights Elementary
School is located at the corner of Kirkland Ave NE @ NE 15th St. Students attending
McKnight Middle School would walk to school, approximately 0.4 miles from the project
site. Students would walk north along the existing sidewalks on Kirkland Ave NE and west
along NE 16th St where they would reach the school at the southwest corner of NE 16th St
and Harrington Ave NE. The bus stop for students attending Hazen High School is located
at the corner of NE 16th St and Kirkland Ave NE. The proposed project includes the
installation of frontage improvements along Kirkland Ave NE frontage, including
sidewalks.
A school impact fee, based on new single-family lots, will be required in order to mitigate
the proposal’s potential impacts to the Renton School District. The fee is payable to the
City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code. Currently the fee is assessed at $3,582.00
per multi family dwelling unit.
H. Parking. Staff has determined that the proposal complies with applicable parking
regulations. The proposal is subject to two separate motor vehicle parking standards – one
applicable to townhomes specifically and the other to attached dwelling units. The more
restrictive of the two requires two parking spaces per townhome involving more than one
bedroom. See RMC 4-4-080(10)(d). The Applicant has proposed two (2) car garages
within each unit lot, which would meet the minimum parking requirements for each unit lot.
Bicycle parking regulations require that a minimum of one-half (0.5) bicycle parking space
be provided per one attached dwelling. For attached dwellings, spaces within the dwelling
units or on balconies do not count toward the bicycle parking requirement. However,
designated bicycle parking spaces within individual garages can count toward the minimum
requirement. Based on the proposal for 10 townhome units, a total of five (5) bicycle
parking spaces are required. No bicycle parking is referenced on the site plan, ar chitectural
elevations or the unit floor plan (Exhibits 2 and 7). Therefore, a condition of approval
requires that the Applicant submit revised plans with the building permit application
identifying the location of code compliant bicycle parking meeting the standards of RMC 4-
4-080.F.11, and identify a minimum of five (5) bicycle parking stalls.
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
PP, ULS, CU, SM and BSP - 8
5. Adverse Impacts. There are no significant adverse impacts associated with the proposal.
Pertinent impacts are addressed individually as follows:
A. Critical Areas. The Applicant’s geotechnical report and SEPA review finds no critical
areas on-site.
B. Tree Retention. The proposal provides for adequate preservation of trees because it is
consistent with the City’s tree retention standards.
The City’s tree retention standards (RMC 4-4-130) require the retention of 20 percent
(20%) of trees in a residential development. An arborist report, prepared by landscape
architect, Jeff Varley, was submitted with the land use application (Exhibit 6). The
arborist report identified four (4) on-site trees (greater than 6 caliper inches) on the subject
property and three (3) off-site trees. The trees located on and around the site were
inventoried as follows: Tree #1 cedar, Tree #2 cedar, Tree #3 Douglas fir, Tree #4
unknown (dead), Tree #5 cedar, Tree #6 elm, and Tree #7 spruce. Trees numbered 2, 3,
and 5 are located off-site to the west. Trees numbered 1, 4, 6, and 7 are located on-site.
Three (3) of the four (4) on-site significant trees were found to be healthy, and one (1) on-
site tree (tree number 4) was found to be non-viable. Certain trees are excluded from
retention calculations, including dangerous trees, trees in proposed public streets, trees in
proposed private access easements/tracts, and trees in critical areas and critical area
buffers. Following deductions, the Applicant would be required to retain one (1) tree on-
site. One (1) on-site tree was determined to be non-viable (dead). Two trees, including the
dead tree, are located in the proposed public street/alley. The Applicant is proposing to
retain one (1) on-site significant tree on the project site; however the proposed retained
tree is located within the required public alley ROW dedication, and therefore cannot
count towards tree retention requirements. Other on-site trees are located within the
proposed footprint of the new structures.
Per RMC 4-4-130H.1.e, when the required number of protected trees cannot be retained,
replacement trees, with at least a two-inch (2") caliper or an evergreen at least six feet (6')
tall, shall be planted at a rate of twelve (12) caliper inches of new trees to replace each
protected tree removed. Therefore, a condition of approval requires that the Applicant
submit a revised tree retention and replacement plan that demonstrates compliance with
minimum tree replacement planting requirements at the time of civil construction permit
application. A final detailed landscape plan would be required to be submitted and
approved prior to issuance of a civil construction permit.
It appears the alley construction may impact the root zone of offsite trees to the west. A
condition of approval requires that all off-site trees shall either be protected during
construction pursuant to the City tree protection standards, or an arborist shall provide a
report that construction impacts would not result in damage to the offsite trees creating an
unsafe situation, or the Applicant shall receive permission from the property owner to
remove the trees to complete the construction. Furthermore, if the tress are removed from
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
PP, ULS, CU, SM and BSP - 9
the neighboring properties the Applicant will be required to demonstrate compliance with
the 20% tree retention rate or re-planting requirements.
C. Compatibility. The proposal is compatible with surrounding uses. The proposed
townhomes along Kirkland Ave NE include increased front yard setbacks from the public
street, which tends to reduce the bulk and scale of buildings. In addition, RMF and CV
zoned properties are located across the street to the east of the project site. Adjoining the
property to the north is a 13-unit lot townhome development constructed by the Applicant.
A duplex adjoins the property to the south. The project site is located in an area that is
characterized by single-family and multi-family development and is evolving and
transitioning from less intense single-family and duplex uses to more intense commercial
and mixed-uses. The proposed townhomes are consistent with the anticipated transition.
The proposal also serves as a good transitional use to the R14 zones in the north, south and
west in terms of bulk and scaled due to its proximity to the more intense uses in the RMF
and CV zones to the east.
The City’s landscaping standards assure further aesthetic compatibility with surrounding
uses. The Applicant submitted a Conceptual Landscape and Tree Retention Plan, prepared
by Lane & Associates (Exhibit 5) with the project application materials that staff have
determined complies with the City’s landscaping standards. Landscaping and open space
is proposed throughout the site in areas not occupied by buildings or paving. As shown in
the Ex. 5 landscaping plan, landscaping is proposed around all of the proposed buildings,
obscuring or augmenting building views. An 11.5-foot-wide bioretention planter strip is
proposed between the curb and sidewalk along the Kirkland Ave NE frontage. All units are
proposed to face Kirkland Ave NE, with a proposed open space tract (Tract B) located
between the unit lots and the public street. Proposed landscape planters would include the
planting of six (6) street trees (Linden) and lawn areas. A 10-foot onsite landscape strip
along Kirkland Ave NE is proposed to be comprised largely dwarf periwinkle ground
cover, slender hinoki cypress trees, spiraea, sweetbox, nandina, and barberry shrubs. The
proposed landscaping and open space areas would provide adequate buffer between the
townhomes and surrounding uses.
It is anticipated that the requested 32-foot maximum wall plate height would also be
compatible with surrounding uses in the neighborhood, as conditioned. The project site is
located within the Residential-14 (R-14) zone and near the Residential Multi-Family (RMF)
and Center Village Zone (CV) zoned properties. The R-14 zone allows increases to the
maximum wall plate height from the maximum 24 feet up to 32 feet with an administrative
conditional use permit. The RMF zone allows maximum wall plate heights of 32 feet and
the CV zone permits a maximum height of 50 feet, except 70 feet for vertically mixed-use
buildings (commercial and residential). The project site is located at the edge of an R-14
zone, adjacent to RMF zoned parcels located on the east side of Kirkland Ave NE, placing
the project site in a transitional area with regards to the height of structures. In addition, the
proposed townhomes include increased setbacks from Kirkland Ave NE, which would
reduce the bulk and scale of the proposed structures. The proposed townhomes would
comply with the density bonus requirements of the R-14 zone as well as other development
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
PP, ULS, CU, SM and BSP - 10
standards. This transition area is well-suited to allow an increase in the maximum wall plate
height to facilitate the massing changes dictated by the development standards permitted by
the nearby zones, namely RMF and CV, and the added variety of housing type would not
serve as an overconcentration of a particular use.
D. Noise, Light and Glare. According to the staff report, the proposed 32-foot maximum wall
plate height is not anticipated to generate additional noise, light, or glare impacts over the
standard 24-foot height permitted in the R-14 zone.
As to light and glare impacts of th e project as a whole, the Applicant has not submitted a
lighting plan as required by City regulations; therefore, a condition of approval requires that
a lighting plan shall be provided at the time of building permit review for staff approval. As
conditioned, to ensure safety and avoid excessive brightness pedestrian scale lighting
should be provided on the primary entries of each unit as well as along the pedestrian
walkways as necessary to provide sufficient lighting for pedestrian safety but shall also be
designed to minimize light spill and glare onto adjoining properties.
E. Views. According to uncontested findings of the staff report, the proposal will not block
view corridors to shorelines or Mt. Rainier or any other attractive natural features.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Procedural:
1. Authority. RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies Hearing Examiner conditional use applications and
preliminary plat applications as Type III permits. In the absence of the conditional use and
preliminary plat applications, no Hearing Examiner review would be required for the site plan and it
would be classified as a Type II permit by RMC 4-8-080(G). The street modification request is
classified by RMC 4-8-080(G) as a Type I review. RMC 4-8-080(C)(2) requires consolidated
permits to each be processed under “the highest-number procedure”. The Type III reviews are the
“highest-number procedure” and therefore must be employed for all of the permit applications. As
outlined in RMC 4-8-080(G), the Hearing Examiner is authorized to hold hearings and issue final
decisions on Type III applications subject to closed record appeal to the Renton City Council.
Substantive:
2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The project site is zoned R-14 and has a
comprehensive plan land use designation of Residential High Density.
3. Review Criteria/Approval of Street Modification. Chapter 4-7 RMC governs the criteria for
subdivision review. RMC 4-9-200.E.3 governs the criteria for site plan review. RMC 4-9-030(C)
governs the criteria for conditional use permit review. Applicable standards are quoted below in
italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. All applicable criterion quoted below
are met for the reasons identified in the corresponding conclusions of law. Street modification
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
PP, ULS, CU, SM and BSP - 11
standards are governed by RMC 4-9-250.D. The findings and conclusions of Finding No. 22 of the
staff report, as well as Finding No. 3 of this decision, are adopted to determine that the proposal as
modified in the staff recommendation meets the criteria for street modification2.
Subdivision
RMC 4-7-080(B): A subdivision shall be consistent with the following principles of acceptability:
1. Legal Lots: Create legal building sites which comply with all provisions of the City Zoning Code.
2. Access: Establish access to a public road for each segregated parcel.
3. Physical Characteristics: Have suitable physical characteristics. A proposed plat may be denied
because of flood, inundation, or wetland conditions. Construction of protective improvements may
be required as a condition of approval, and such improvements shall be noted on the final plat.
4. Drainage: Make adequate provision for drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water
supplies and sanitary wastes.
4. The criterion is met. As to compliance with the Zoning Code (including design standards),
Findings 16 and 17 of the staff report are adopted by reference as if set forth in full. This includes
the staff findings and conclusions in Finding 16 that the proposal qualifies for the requested density
bonus due to the provision of an affordable housing unit. Each proposed lot will access a public
road -- specifically the internal alleys identified in Finding of Fact No. 4(F) connects the unit lots to
Kirkland Ave NE. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4 and 5, there are no critical areas at the
project site and the project will not cause flooding problems as it is not located in a floodplain
critical area and will be served by adequate and appropriate drainage facilities. As determined in
Finding of Fact No. 4, the proposal provides for adequate public facilities.
RMC 4-7-080(I)(1): …The Hearing Examiner shall assure conformance with the general purposes
of the Comprehensive Plan and adopted standards…
2 As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 24, as revised by staff the street modification request was narrowed down to
authorizing an increase in the planter strip width required by RMC 4-6-060F2. It is doubtful that a modification
request is necessary to increase the requirements of the City’s street design standards and this Decision should not
be taken as precedent that such approval is necessary. However, the increase in planter strip width is attributable to
a 12-foot rain garden (bioretention strip, in lieu of the planter strip) required by the Sunset Area Surface Water
Master Plan. Staff were unable to identify whether the Master Plan was ever adopted or how it would qualify as a
regulation that can be modified by a street modification request. Ultimately, the Applicant consented to the
modification and the reasons for the modification meet the modification criteria for the reasons iden tified in Finding
22 of the staff report. To the extent that the street modification process can be used and/or is necessary to waive
Master Plan requirements, the criteria have been met. If the Master Plan street standards are not enforceable
because they were never adopted, the increase in planter strip is justified for the reasons that such features were
found necessary in the Master Plan.
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
PP, ULS, CU, SM and BSP - 12
5. The criterion is met. The proposed preliminary play is consistent with the Renton
Comprehensive Plan as outlined in Finding 15 of the staff report, which is incorporated by this
reference as if set forth in full.
RMC 4-7-120(A): No plan for the replatting, subdivision, or dedication of any areas shall be
approved by the Hearing Examiner unless the streets shown therein are connected by surfaced road
or street (according to City specifications) to an existing street or highway.
6. The criterion is met. As previously noted, the two internal alleys connect each unit lot to
Kirkland Ave NE, an existing public street.
RMC 4-7-120(B): The location of all streets shall conform to any adopted plans for streets in the
City.
7. The criterion is met. The proposal is not subject to any adopted street plan.
RMC 4-7-120(C): If a subdivision is located in the area of an officially designed [sic] trail,
provisions shall be made for reservation of the right-of-way or for easements to the City for trail
purposes.
8. The criterion is met. The proposal does not touch upon any designated trail.
RMC 4-7-130(C): A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication shall be prepared in conformance
with the following provisions:
1. Land Unsuitable for Subdivision: Land which is found to be unsuitable for subdivision includes
land with features likely to be harmful to the safety and general health of the future residents (such
as lands adversely affected by flooding, steep slopes, or rock formations). Land which the
Department or the Hearing Examiner considers inappropriate for subdivision shall not be
subdivided unless adequate safeguards are provided against these adverse conditions.
a. Flooding/Inundation: If any portion of the land within the boundary of a preliminary plat is
subject to flooding or inundation, that portion of the subdivision must have the approval of the State
according to chapter 86.16 RCW before the Department and the Hearing Examiner shall consider
such subdivision.
b. Steep Slopes: A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication which would result in the creation of a
lot or lots that primarily have slopes forty percent (40%) or greater as measured per RMC 4-3-
050J1a, without adequate area at lesser slopes upon which development may occur, shall not be
approved.
…
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
PP, ULS, CU, SM and BSP - 13
3. Land Clearing and Tree Retention: Shall comply with RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land
Clearing Regulations.
4. Streams:
a. Preservation: Every reasonable effort shall be made to preserve existing streams, bodies of water,
and wetland areas.
b. Method: If a stream passes through any of the subject property, a plan shall be presented which
indicates how the stream will be preserved. The methodologies used should include an overflow
area, and an attempt to minimize the disturbance of the natural channel and stream bed.
c. Culverting: The piping or tunneling of water shall be discouraged and allowed only when going
under streets.
d. Clean Water: Every effort shall be made to keep all streams and bodies of water clear of debris
and pollutants.
9. The criterion is met. The land is suitable for a subdivision as the stormwater design assures
that it will not contribute to flooding and development will not encroach into critical areas. No
piping or tunneling of streams is proposed. Trees will be retained as required by RMC 4-4-130 as
determined in Finding of Fact No. 5. No steep slopes or streams are located on the property.
RMC 4-7-140: Approval of all subdivisions located in either single family residential or multi-
family residential zones as defined in the Zoning Code shall be contingent upon the subdivider’s
dedication of land or providing fees in lieu of dedication to the City, all as necessary to mitigate the
adverse effects of development upon the existing park and recreation service levels. The
requirements and procedures for this mitigation shall be per the City of Renton Parks Mitigation
Resolution.
10. The criterion is met. City ordinances require the payment of park impact fees prior to
building permit issuance. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 4D, the Applicant will also be
dedicating a landscaped open space tract (Tract B).
RMC 4-7-150(A): The proposed street system shall extend and create connections between existing
streets unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. Prior to approving a street
system that does not extend or connect, the Reviewing Official shall find that such exception shall
meet the requirements of subsection E3 of this Section. The roadway classifications shall be as
defined and designated by the Department.
11. The criterion is met. The proposed alley along the west side of the project can be configured
to provide the connectivity required by the criterion quoted above and is conditioned accordingly.
As proposed, the alley does not extend to the west or south property lines, but rather is separated by
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
PP, ULS, CU, SM and BSP - 14
landscaped space. It is anticipated that the public alley will be extended to the north and south of the
project site and will serve future developments along this block. Therefore, a condition of approval
requires that the Applicant dedicate eight (8) feet of public right-of-way (ROW) from the west
property line for the public alley and any additional dedication needed to ensure the transition of the
public alley to the north of the site re-aligns to the center of the properties sharing the western
property line. The public alley shall extend from the north property line and stub at the south
property line. The Applicant shall include a minimum of 10 feet of pavement width, starting from
the west property line, for the full length of the property from north to south. The additional two (2)
feet of paving beyond the edge of the alley ROW, shall be placed within a temporary public access
easement. In addition, the proposed Biopod system, which is located within the vicinity of the new
public alley, shall be flush to the finished alley grade.
RMC 4-7-150(B): All proposed street names shall be approved by the City.
12. The criterion is met. The proposal is conditioned upon City approval of alley names, if any.
RMC 4-7-150(C): Streets intersecting with existing or proposed public highways, major or
secondary arterials shall be held to a minimum.
13. The criterion is met. There is no street intersection with a public highway or major or
secondary arterial.
RMC 4-7-150(D): The alignment of all streets shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works
Department. The street standards set by RMC 4-6-060 shall apply unless otherwise approved. Street
alignment offsets of less than one hundred twenty-five feet (125') are not desirable, but may be
approved by the Department upon a showing of need but only after provision of all necessary safety
measures.
14. The criterion is met. The Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed alley
configuration and staff has recommended approval as proposed.
RMC 4-7-150(E):
1. Grid: A grid street pattern shall be used to connect existing and new development and shall be the
predominant street pattern in any subdivision permitted by this Section.
2. Linkages: Linkages, including streets, sidewalks, pedestrian or bike paths, shall be provided
within and between neighborhoods when they can create a continuous and interconnected network
of roads and pathways. Implementation of this requirement shall comply with Comprehensive Plan
Transportation Element Objective T-A and Policies T-9 through T-16 and Community Design
Element, Objective CD-M and Policies CD-50 and CD-60.
3. Exceptions:
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
PP, ULS, CU, SM and BSP - 15
a. The grid pattern may be adjusted to a “flexible grid” by reducing the number of linkages or the
alignment between roads, where the following factors are present on site:
i. Infeasible due to topographical/environmental constraints; and/or
ii. Substantial improvements are existing.
4. Connections: Prior to adoption of a complete grid street plan, reasonable connections that link
existing portions of the grid system shall be made. At a minimum, stub streets shall be required
within subdivisions to allow future connectivity.
5. Alley Access: Alley access is the preferred street pattern except for properties in the Residential
Low Density land use designation. The Residential Low Density land use designation includes the
RC, R-1, and R-4 zones. Prior to approval of a plat without alley access, the Reviewing Official shall
evaluate an alley layout and determine that the use of alley(s) is not feasible…
6. Alternative Configurations: Offset or loop roads are the preferred alternative configurations.
7. Cul-de-Sac Streets: Cul-de-sac streets may only be permitted by the Reviewing Official where due
to demonstrable physical constraints no future connection to a larger street pattern is physically
possible.
15. The criterion is met. The only proposed dedication for street purposes is the back alley, and
the alley is conditioned to connect to the alley adjoining to the north and to stub to the south for
future extension of the alley, which runs parallel to Kirkland Ave NE and thus contributes to a grid
pattern as well as alley access.
RMC 4-7-150(F): All adjacent rights-of-way and new rights-of-way dedicated as part of the plat,
including streets, roads, and alleys, shall be graded to their full width and the pavement and
sidewalks shall be constructed as specified in the street standards or deferred by the
Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee.
16. The criterion is met. As proposed except for the street modification approved by this
decision.
RMC 4-7-150(G): Streets that may be extended in the event of future adjacent platting shall be
required to be dedicated to the plat boundary line. Extensions of greater depth than an average lot
shall be improved with temporary turnarounds. Dedication of a full-width boundary street shall be
required in certain instances to facilitate future development.
17. The criterion is met. No additional street extensions are proposed, possible or necessary for
the proposal. The alley extends for more than an average lot length, but it does not qualify as a street
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
PP, ULS, CU, SM and BSP - 16
under the criterion. A turn-around is also not necessary since fire access is available to the project
along its frontage on Kirkland Avenue.
RMC 4-7-170(A): Insofar as practical, side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines or radial
to curved street lines.
18. The criterion is met. As depicted in Ex. 4, the side lines are in conformance with the
requirement quoted above.
RMC 4-7-170(B): Each lot must have access to a public street or road. Access may be by private
access easement street per the requirements of the street standards.
19. The criterion is met. As previously determined, each lot has access to a public street.
RMC 4-7-170(C): The size, shape, and orientation of lots shall meet the minimum area and width
requirements of the applicable zoning classification and shall be appropriate for the type of
development and use contemplated. Further subdivision of lots within a plat approved through the
provisions of this Chapter must be consistent with the then-current applicable maximum density
requirement as measured within the plat as a whole.
20. The criterion is met. As previously determined, the proposed lots comply with the zoning
standards of the R-14 zone. As authorized by RMC 4-7-090E1, individual lots in plats that qualify as
unit lot subdivisions are not required to comply with the minimum lot size, width, and depth
requirements of the underlying zoning designation. All unit lot subdivision requirements are met as
identified in several portions of Finding No. 16 of the staff report.
RMC 4-7-170(D): Width between side lot lines at their foremost points (i.e., the points where the
side lot lines intersect with the street right-of-way line) shall not be less than eighty percent (80%) of
the required lot width except in the cases of (1) pipestem lots, which shall have a minimum width of
twenty feet (20') and (2) lots on a street curve or the turning circle of cul-de-sac (radial lots), which
shall be a minimum of thirty five feet (35').
21. The criterion is met. As identified in COL No. 20, lots in unit lot subdivisions are not subject
to any minimum width standards.
RMC 4-7-170(E): All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys,
shall have minimum radius of fifteen feet (15').
22. The criterion is met. The only corner lots on the project site are situated along alleys.
RMC 4-7-190(A): Due regard shall be shown to all natural features such as large trees,
watercourses, and similar community assets. Such natural features should be preserved, thereby
adding attractiveness and value to the property.
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
PP, ULS, CU, SM and BSP - 17
23. The criterion is met. There are no significant on-site natural features.
RMC 4-7-200(A): Unless septic tanks are specifically approved by the Public Works Department
and the King County Health Department, sanitary sewers shall be provided by the developer at no
cost to the City and designed in accordance with City standards. Side sewer lines shall be installed
eight feet (8') into each lot if sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision
development.
24. The criterion is met as conditioned.
RMC 4-7-200(B): An adequate drainage system shall be provided for the proper drainage of all
surface water. Cross drains shall be provided to accommodate all natural water flow and shall be of
sufficient length to permit full-width roadway and required slopes. The drainage system shall be
designed per the requirements of RMC 4-6-030, Drainage (Surface Water) Standards. The drainage
system shall include detention capacity for the new street areas. Residential plats shall also include
detention capacity for future development of the lots. Water quality features shall also be designed to
provide capacity for the new street paving for the plat.
25. The criterion is met. The proposal provides for adequate drainage that is in conformance with
applicable City drainage standards as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. The City’s stormwater
standards, compliance of which is incorporated into the technical information report and will be
further implemented during civil plan review, ensure compliance with all of the standards in the
criterion quoted above.
RMC 4-7-200(C): The water distribution system including the locations of fire hydrants shall be
designed and installed in accordance with City standards as defined by the Department and Fire
Department requirements.
26. The criterion is met as proposed and as shall be regulated during civil plan review.
RMC 4-7-200(D): All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any
utilities installed in the parking strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the
planting of trees. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, including all
service connections, as approved by the Department. Such installation shall be completed and
approved prior to the application of any surface material. Easements may be required for the
maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department.
27. The criterion is met as conditioned.
RMC 4-7-200(E): Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic
utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line
by subdivider as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or alley
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
PP, ULS, CU, SM and BSP - 18
improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. The cost of
trenching, conduit, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore required to
bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or landowner. The subdivider
shall be responsible only for conduit to serve his development. Conduit ends shall be elbowed to
final ground elevation and capped. The cable TV company shall provide maps and specifications to
the subdivider and shall inspect the conduit and certify to the City that it is properly installed.
28. The criterion is met as conditioned.
RMC 4-7-210:
A. MONUMENTS:
Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at each and every controlling corner of
the subdivision. Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the Department. All surveys
shall be per the City of Renton surveying standards.
B. SURVEY:
All other lot corners shall be marked per the City surveying standards.
C. STREET SIGNS:
The subdivider shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision.
29. The criterion is met. Street name standard not applicable as the Applicant will not be
constructing any public streets. Surveying standards will be enforced by staff during final plat
review.
Site Plan
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3): Criteria: The Administrator or designee must find a proposed project to be in
compliance with the following:
a. Compliance and Consistency: Conformance with plans, policies, regulations and approvals,
including:
i. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan, its elements, goals, objectives, and
policies, especially those of the applicable land use designation; the Community Design
Element; and any applicable adopted Neighborhood Plan;
ii. Applicable land use regulations;
iii. Relevant Planned Action Ordinance and Development Agreements; and
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
PP, ULS, CU, SM and BSP - 19
iv. Design Regulations: Intent and guidelines of the design regulations located in RMC 4-3-
100.
30. The criterion is met. As discussed in Conclusions of Law Nos. 4 and 5, and as conditioned,
the proposal is consistent with the City’s development and design regulations. The proposal is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the reasons stated in Finding 15 of the staff report. The
proposal does not qualify as a planned action ordinance.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(b): Off-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and
uses, including:
i. Structures: Restricting overscale structures and overconcentration of development on a
particular portion of the site;
ii. Circulation: Providing desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets, walkways
and adjacent properties;
iii. Loading and Storage Areas: Locating, designing and screening storage areas, utilities,
rooftop equipment, loading areas, and refuse and recyclables to minimize views from
surrounding properties;
iv. Views: Recognizing the public benefit and desirability of maintaining visual accessibility
to attractive natural features;
v. Landscaping: Using landscaping to provide transitions between development and
surrounding properties to reduce noise and glare, maintain privacy, and generally enhance
the appearance of the project; and
vi. Lighting: Designing and/or placing exterior lighting and glazing in order to avoid
excessive brightness or glare to adjacent properties and streets.
31. The criterion is met. The segregation of the proposed townhome units into two separate
buildings, their separation from street frontage by extended setbacks and their proximity to more
intense uses prevents overscale structures and overconcentration of development on any one portion
of the lot as contemplated in RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(b)(i). As outlined in Finding of Fact 4D, the
townhome units provide direct pedestrian connections from the rights-of-way to each unit and to
common open spaces throughout the project site and a combination of a shared temporary access
driveway and the alleys would provide vehicular access through the project site. These vehicular
and pedestrian connections provide the linkages and transitions contemplated in RMC 4-9-
200(E)(3)(b)(ii). The Applicant proposes no loading or storage areas so RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(b)(iii) is
inapplicable. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5E, the proposal will not block any views to
attractive natural features as required by RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(b)(iv). As outlined in Finding of Fact
No. 5C, the perimeter of the project site and interior open space tracts is landscaped, providing the
amenities required by RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(b)(v). As identified in Finding of Fact No. 5D, as
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
PP, ULS, CU, SM and BSP - 20
conditioned, the Applicant is required to prepare a lighting plan that minimizes light impacts to
adjoining properties as contemplated by RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(b)(vi).
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(c): On-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to the site, including:
i. Structure Placement: Provisions for privacy and noise reduction by building placement,
spacing and orientation;
ii. Structure Scale: Consideration of the scale of proposed structures in relation to natural
characteristics, views and vistas, site amenities, sunlight, prevailing winds, and pedestrian
and vehicle needs;
iii. Natural Features: Protection of the natural landscape by retaining existing vegetation
and soils, using topography to reduce undue cutting and filling, and limiting impervious
surfaces; and
iv. Landscaping: Use of landscaping to soften the appearance of parking areas, to provide
shade and privacy where needed, to define and enhance open spaces, and generally to
enhance the appearance of the project. Landscaping also includes the design and protection
of planting areas so that they are less susceptible to damage from vehicles or pedestrian
movements.
32. The criterion is met. Open Space and landscaping has been sited throughout the development,
which would provide privacy and buffer some of the noise either entering or leaving the project site
as required by RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(c)(i). The scale of the project is appropriate for its location as
contemplated by RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(c)(ii) for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 5C.
There does not appear to be much on-site vegetation as the project site is already developed with two
duplexes and some outbuildings. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 5B, the project site only contains 4
significant trees, one of which is dead. As further outlined in Finding of Fact 5B, a condition of
approval requires the Applicant to provide for replacement trees as required by the City’s tree
retention standards since all existing trees have to be removed to accommodate the development. As
noted in the staff report, the project site is flat and minimal grading will be required. Due to the
topography and lack of vegetation, the proposal is found to comply with RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(c)(iii).
As identified in Finding of Fact No. 5C, the proposed and required landscaping will help define and
enhance open spaces and enhance privacy and aesthetics as contemplated by RMC 4-9-
200(E)(3)(c)(iv).
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(d): Access and Circulation: Safe and efficient access and circulation for all
users, including:
i. Location and Consolidation: Providing access points on side streets or frontage streets
rather than directly onto arterial streets and consolidation of ingress and egress points on the
site and, when feasible, with adjacent properties;
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
PP, ULS, CU, SM and BSP - 21
ii. Internal Circulation: Promoting safety and efficiency of the internal circulation system,
including the location, design and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian access points,
drives, parking, turnarounds, walkways, bikeways, and emergency access ways;
iii. Loading and Delivery: Separating loading and delivery areas from parking and
pedestrian areas;
iv. Transit and Bicycles: Providing transit, carpools and bicycle facilities and access; and
v. Pedestrians: Providing safe and attractive pedestrian connections between parking areas,
buildings, public sidewalks and adjacent properties.
33. The criterion is met. The proposal provides for safe and efficient access and circulation as
required by the criterion above for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 4E and 4F. No
loading or delivery spaces are proposed. The facility will be served by adequate transit and bicycle
facilities (most notably bicycle parking spaces) for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 4F and
4H. Safe and attractive pedestrian connections are provided as outlined Finding of Fact No. 4E.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(e): Open Space: Incorporating open spaces to serve as distinctive project
focal points and to provide adequate areas for passive and active recreation by the occupants/users
of the site.
34. The criterion is met. As detailed in Finding of Fact 4E, the proposal concentrates most of its
open space in front of the buildings, thereby creating a distinctive focal point that includes sufficient
space for passive and active recreation as required by RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(e).
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(f): Views and Public Access: When possible, providing view corridors to
shorelines and Mt. Rainier, and incorporating public access to shorelines.
35. The criterion is met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5E, there are no view corridors to
shorelines or Mt. Rainier affected by the proposal.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(g): Natural Systems: Arranging project elements to protect existing natural
systems where applicable.
36. The criterion is met. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 5A, there are no critical areas on the
site.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(h): Services and Infrastructure: Making available public services and
facilities to accommodate the proposed use.
37. The criterion is met. The project is served by adequate services and facilities as determined in
Finding of Fact No. 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
PP, ULS, CU, SM and BSP - 22
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(i): Phasing: Including a detailed sequencing plan with development phases
and estimated time frames, for phased projects.
38. No further phasing is proposed.
Conditional Use
The Administrator or designee or the Hearing Examiner shall consider, as applicable, the following
factors for all applications:
RMC 4-9-030(C)(1): Consistency with Plans and Regulations: The proposed use shall be
compatible with the general goals, objectives, policies and standards of the Comprehensive Plan, the
zoning regulations and any other plans, programs, maps or ordinances of the City of Renton.
39. The criterion is met. As conditioned, the proposal is consistent with all applicable
comprehensive plan policies and development standards as concluded in Conclusions of Law No. 4
and 5.
RMC 4-9-030(C)(2): Appropriate Location: The proposed location shall not result in the
detrimental overconcentration of a particular use within the City or within the immediate area of the
proposed use. The proposed location shall be suited for the proposed use.
40. The criterion is met. The proposed use involves townhomes in an area characterized by
single-family and multi-family development. The added variety of housing type and additional
building height will not serve as an overconcentration of a particular use. The proposed location is
suited for the proposed use for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 5C.
RMC 4-9-030(C)(3): Effect on Adjacent Properties: The proposed use at the proposed location
shall not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property.
41. The criterion is met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, as conditioned, there are no
significant adverse impacts associated with the proposal, so it will not result in substantial or undue
adverse effects on adjacent property.
RMC 4-9-030(C)(4): Compatibility: The proposed use shall be compatible with the scale and
character of the neighborhood.
42. The criterion is met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5C, the proposed use is
compatible with the scale and character of the neighborhood.
RMC 4-9-030(C)(5): Parking: Adequate parking is, or will be made, available.
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
PP, ULS, CU, SM and BSP - 23
43. The criterion is met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the proposal includes parking
that is consistent with applicable parking standards, which sets a legislative standard for adequate
parking.
RMC 4-9-030(C)(6): Traffic: The use shall ensure safe movement for vehicles and pedestrians and
shall mitigate potential effects on the surrounding area.
44. The criterion is met. As outlined in Findings of Fact No. 4E and 4F, the proposal provides
for safe circulation and adequate traffic mitigation and facilities.
RMC 4-9-030(C)(7): Noise, Light and Glare: Potential noise, light and glare impacts from the
proposed use shall be evaluated and mitigated.
45. The criterion is met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposed use will not result
in any adverse light, noise or glare impacts.
RMC 4-9-030(C)(8): Landscaping: Landscaping shall be provided in all areas not occupied by
buildings, paving, or critical areas. Additional landscaping may be required to buffer adjacent
properties from potentially adverse effects of the proposed use.
46. The criterion is met. As shown in the conceptual landscape plan for the proposal, Ex. 6, all
undeveloped portions of the site are landscaped.
DECISION
The proposed preliminary plat, unit lot subdivision, administrative site plan, administrative
conditional use and street modification comply with all applicable criteria for the reasons identified in
the conclusions of law of this decision and are all approved, subject to the street modification
revisions recommended by staff as identified in Finding of Fact No. 3 and subject to the following
conditions:
1. The Applicant shall submit a draft affordable housing covenant to the Current
Planning Project Manager for review and approval by the Planning Project
Manager and the City Attorney at the time of Building Permit review. Such
agreement shall be recorded prior to Temporary Certificate of Occupancy.
2. The Applicant shall create a Homeowners’ Association (“HOA”) that
maintains all improvements and landscaping in the common space tracts and
any and all other common improvements. A draft of the HOA documents
shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager
and the City Attorney prior to recording of the Unit Lot Subdivision. Such
documents shall be recorded concurrently with the Unit Lot Subdivision.
3. The Applicant shall submit revised plans with the Building Permit
application identifying the location of code compliant bicycle parking
meeting the standards of RMC 4-4-080.F.11. The revised plans shall be
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
PP, ULS, CU, SM and BSP - 24
reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to
Building Permit approval.
4. The Applicant shall revise the proposed pedestrian connections to limit the
interruption within the common open space tract. The Applicant shall include
and show required picnic areas, space for recreational activities, and other
activities as appropriate within the common open space for review and
approval by the Current Planning Project Manager at the time of Civil
Construction Permit.
5. The yard space and pedestrian connection between the two proposed
structures (between units 5 and 6) shall be placed in a common open space
tract.
6. The Applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan that demonstrates
compliance with the fence and retaining wall regulations and minimum tree
spacing standards for review and approval by the Current Planning Project
Manager at the time of Civil Construction Permit application.
7. The balcony railings for the proposed structures shall be mostly transparent
and two different color pallets shall be used for the two structures. A
materials board showing the two-color palettes, coded to the exterior building
elevations, shall be provided to the Current Planning Project Manager for
review and approval at the time of Building Permit review.
8. The Applicant shall submit revised elevations for the northern building on the
project site, utilizing a different dormer roof form, or other modified roof
form alternative for the proposed structure, for review and approval by the
Current Planning Project Manager, at the time of Building Permit application.
In addition, each building shall utilize a different roof color.
9. The Applicant shall submit revised elevations at the time of Building Permit
application providing the required three and one-half inches (3 1/2”)
minimum trim surrounding all windows and doors and one of the following
architectural details: shutters, knee braces, flower boxes, or columns.
Alternatively, the Applicant may submit a modification request to vary from
any of these standards for review and approval, prior to Building Permit
application.
10. The Applicant shall submit a revised tree retention and replacement plan that
demonstrates compliance with minimum tree replacement planting
requirements, at the time of Civil Construction permit application.
11. The Applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan with utility box
locations and any utility boxes that are visible to the public be screened with
berms and/or landscaping. The final detailed landscape plan shall be
reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to
Building Permit approval.
12. The Applicant shall submit revised plans with the Building Permit
application identifying the location of trash and recycling containers. The
revised plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project
Manager prior to Building Permit approval.
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
PP, ULS, CU, SM and BSP - 25
13. The Applicant shall submit a separate detailed plan set identifying the
location and screening provided for all surface and roof top
utility/mechanical equipment with the Building Permit application. The plan
set shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager
prior to Building Permit approval.
14. A lighting plan shall be provided at the time of Building Permit review for
review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager. To ensure
safety and avoid excessive brightness pedestrian scale lighting should be
provided on the primary entries of each unit as well as along the pedestrian
walkways as necessary to provide sufficient lighting for pedestrian safety but
shall also be designed to minimize light spill and glare onto adjoining
properties.
15. The proposed temporary access driveway shall be privately owned and
maintained by a Homeowners Association. The Applicant shall record a note
on the face of the plat that executes a shared maintenance agreement for
equal ownership and maintenance responsibilities for improvements in the
shared driveway easement. A draft version of a shared maintenance
agreement shall be submitted for review and approval by the current planning
project manager prior to plat recording.
16. The Applicant shall dedicate eight (8) feet of public right-of-way (ROW)
from the west property line for the public alley and any additional dedication
needed to ensure the transition of the public alley to the north of the site re-
aligns to the center of the properties sharing the western property line. The
public alley shall extend from the north property line and stub at the south
property line. The Applicant shall include a minimum of 10 feet of pavement
width, starting from the west property line, for the full length of the property
from north to south. The additional two (2) feet of paving, beyond the edge of
the alley ROW, shall be placed within a temporary public access easement. In
addition, the proposed Biopod system, which is located within the vicinity of
the new public alley, shall be flush the finished alley grade.
17. Alley names shall be approved by the City and alley name signs shall be
installed if required by City staff.
18. Sanitary sewers shall be provided by the developer at no cost to the City and
designed in accordance with City standards. Side sewer lines shall be
installed eight feet (8') into each lot if sanitary sewer mains are available.
19. All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground.
Any utilities installed in the parking strip shall be placed in such a manner
and depth to permit the planting of trees. Those utilities to be located beneath
paved surfaces shall be installed, including all service connections, as
approved by the Department. Such installation shall be completed and
approved prior to the application of any surface material. Easements may be
required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the
Department.
20. Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other
basic utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections
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
PP, ULS, CU, SM and BSP - 26
shall be laid to each lot line by subdivider as to obviate the necessity for
disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or alley improvements when
such service connections are extended to serve any building. The cost of
trenching, conduit, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements
therefore required to bring service to the development shall be borne by the
developer and/or landowner. The subdivider shall be responsible only for
conduit to serve his development. Conduit ends shall be elbowed to final
ground elevation and capped. The cable TV company shall provide maps and
specifications to the subdivider and shall inspect the conduit and certify to the
City that it is properly installed.
21. Lot corners shall be marked as required by RMC 4-7-210.
22. As required by RMC 4-7-090F8a, the title of the final plat shall include the
term “unit lot subdivision.”
23. For the root zones of neighboring trees potentially affected by alley
construction, such trees shall either be protected during construction pursuant
to the City tree protection standards, or an arborist shall provide a report that
construction impacts would not result in damage to the offsite trees creating
an unsafe situation, or the Applicant shall receive permission from the
property owner to remove the trees to complete the construction.
Furthermore, if the tress are removed from the neighboring properties the
Applicant will be required to demonstrate compliance with the 20% tree
retention rate or re-planting requirements.
DATED this 29th day of May, 2020.
City of Renton Hearing Examiner
Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies the consolidated application(s) subject to this decision as Type III
applications subject to closed record appeal to the City of Renton City Council. Appeals of the
hearing examiner’s decision must be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the
decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed within this 14-
day appeal period.
Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
CITY OF RENTON
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
EXHIBITS
Project Name:
Emerald Highlands Unit Lot Subdivision
Project Number:
LUA20-000077, PP, SA-A, CU-A, ECF, MOD
Date of Hearing
Error! Reference
source not found.
Staff Contact
Angelea Weihs
Associate Planner
Project Contact/Applicant
James W. Howton
4621 123rd Ave SE, Bellevue,
WA 98006
Project Location
1509/1507 Kirkland Ave NE
1503/1501 Kirkland Ave NE
The following exhibits are included with the Hearing Examiner Decision:
Exhibits 1-14: As shown in the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) Report
Exhibits 15-20: As shown in the Staff Report to the Hearing Examiner
Exhibit 21: COR Maps, http://rp.rentonwa.gov/Html5Public/Index.html?viewer=CORMaps
Exhibit 22: Google Earth, https://www.google.com/earth/
Exhibit 23: Staff PowerPoint
Exhibit 24: Hearing Examiner and City Staff Correspondence Regarding Street Modification
Exhibit 25: Applicant Response to Conditions of Approval, Landscape Plan and Arborist Plan
Exhibit 26: Not identified in Public Hearing. Number skipped in error.
Exhibit 27: Ordinance 5966 plus affidavit of publication
Emerald Highlands
LUA20-000077
HEX Public Hearing
May 26, 2020
Presented by: Angelea Weihs, Associate Planner
Presentation Outline
2
•Project Location
•Project Proposal
•Process to Date
•Renton Municipal Code
Analysis
•Availability of Public Services
•Staff Recommendation and
Conditions of Approval
3 Jefferson Ave NENE 15th St
Kirkland Ave NENE 16th St
Location
•10 three-story
townhomes on
individual unit
lots.
•Proposed lots
would range
from 1,240 SF to
1,947 SF with an
average lot size
of 1,445 SF.
•Access proposed via a public alley and shared
temporary access driveway.
4
Project Proposal
5
Project Proposal
6
•Existing duplexes and associated detached
accessory structures are proposed for
removal.
•Per the submitted tree retention plan,
there are 4 significant trees on-site. No
existing trees can be retained as part of the
proposal. Tree replacement planting is
required to comply with tree retention
regulations.
•Staff recommended approval of a modified
street section that is consistent with the
Green Street section identified in the
Sunset Area Surface Water Plan. No ROW
dedication would be required along
Kirkland Ave NE.
Project Proposal
Process to Date
Neighborhood
Meeting Acceptance
Environmental
‘SEPA’ Review Staff Analysis Public Hearing
7
•The proposal is consistent with relevant
Comprehensive Plan Land Use policies.
•The proposal is compliant with all relevant
zoning regulations if all conditions of approval are
complied with.
•There are safe walking routes to the school bus
stops for any students who may reside in the
future townhomes.
RMC Analysis
8
•Police and Renton Fire Authority staff indicate that
sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the
proposed development.
•It is anticipated that the Renton School District can
accommodate any additional students generated by this
proposal at the following schools: Sierra Heights
Elementary School, McKnight Middle School, and Hazen
High School.
•Water and sewer service is provided by the City of
Renton.
Availability of Public Services
9
•The applicant submitted a
Preliminary Technical
Information Report, prepared by
Encompass Engineering &
Surveying.
•The applicant is proposing a
combination of full infiltration
trenches and a Biopod system to
provide the required stormwater
controls for water quality and
flow control.
•Comply with the 2017 City of
Renton Surface Water Design
Manual.
10
Availability of Public Services
Staff recommends approval of the Emerald Highlands Unit
Lot Subdivision, File No. LUA20-000077, PP, SA-A, CU-A, ECF,
MOD, subject to 16 conditions of approval.
11
Recommendation
From: Phil Olbrechts <olbrechtslaw@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2020 10:00 PM
To: Angelea Weihs
Subject: Sunset Area Surface Water Master Plan
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hi Angelea,
Could you send me the sections of the Sunset Area Surface Water Master Plan that govern the
street design for Kirkland Avenue, or the link for those standards if that exists? Thank you!
From: Phil Olbrechts <olbrechtslaw@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 3:27 PM
To: Angelea Weihs
Subject: Re: Emerald Heights Street Modification Questions
Thanks. So does the staff recommendation require a modification, or does its compliance with
the green street specifications meet all City design standards?
On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 3:07 PM Angelea Weihs <AWeihs@rentonwa.gov> wrote:
Hello Phil,
Staff recommends approval of a street modification, not as requested by the applicant, but rather a
modified street that is consistent with the Sunset Area Surface Water Plan as a Green street, which
serves to meet the needs of the applicant (does not require ROW dedication) while also meeting the
SASWP. I have forwarded the questions below to engineering to formulate a more detailed response.
Thanks,
Angelea Weihs
Associate Planner, City of Renton
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
(425) 430-7312
From: Phil Olbrechts <olbrechtslaw@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 2:40 PM
To: Angelea Weihs <AWeihs@Rentonwa.gov>
Subject: Re: Emerald Heights Street Modification Questions
To clarify, my understanding from the staff report that the staff recommendation is consistent
with the dimensions required for green streets comes from the following sentence quoted from
page 30 of the staff report:
"However, this street is identified in the Sunset Area Surface Water Plan as a Green street, which
includes the following street section: 28 feet paved width, 0.5-foot curb, 11.5-foot rain garden, 5-foot
sidewalk, and 1-foot of clear space at back of walk, street trees and storm drainage improvements (See
Exhibit 14)."
On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 10:11 AM Phil Olbrechts <olbrechtslaw@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Angelia,
To facilitate the hearing next Tuesday, I thought it would be helpful to get my questions to you
on the street modification of Emerald Heights in advance. If you could place this email in the
on-line file accessible to the public we can then make it an exhibit at the hearing. You or
engineering can respond to these questions at the hearing or in writing in advance. If the
response is in writing we could also put the response in the on-line file.
1. The staff report doesn't identify exactly what's being modified. Is the modification limited
to a three foot reduction in sidewalk width and a half foot reduction in rain garden width?
2. Is the recommended modification limited to modifying the standards imposed by the Sunset
Area Surface Water Master Plan? The proposed modifications appear to be consistent with the
standards imposed by RMC 4-6-060.F.2 for Residential Access streets as posted on-line, i.e.
five foot sidewalks and 8 foot planter strips. Staff is recommending five foot sidewalks and a
11.5 foot rain garden.
3. Did staff combine the requirements of RMC 4-6-060.F.2 with the Sunset Area Surface Water
Master Plan? What is the code authority for applying the Master Plan? Is it adopted by reference in
the RMC, the City's public works standards or the City's comprehensive plan?
4. If the subject street qualifies as a "green street" under the Master Plan and complies with the
design standards of a green street, why is a modification to the Master Plan standards even
necessary?
5. Please show how the half street improvements add up to 30 feet. Adding up the 14 feet of paved
width to the 11.5 foot rain garden, half-foot curb, five foot sidewalk and one foot clear zone
recommended by staff results in 32 feet.
From: Phil Olbrechts <olbrechtslaw@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 2:40 PM
To: Angelea Weihs
Subject: Re: Emerald Heights Street Modification Questions
Thank you! One more question. Page 14 of the staff report has the following sentence: "The
proposed common open space tract is approximately 19.86 feet in depth, which does not comply with
the 30-foot minimum requirement." The recommended conditions of approval require the applicant to
revise project design to accommodate this 30 foot requirement. I've been unable to find such a 30 foot
requirement anywhere in the code, including RMC 4-2-115E2. Could you direct me as to where to find
it? Thanks!
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 1:33 PM Angelea Weihs <AWeihs@rentonwa.gov> wrote:
Mr. Examiner,
Thank you for your clarifying questions. Staff recommendation does require a modification. The
requested modification is intended to increase the landscape strip from 8’, as required by RMC 4-6-060,
to 11.5’ and use this increased width as bioretention. Staff is supportive of the modification to the
standards of 4-6-060 as it is consistent with the Council Adopted Sunset Area Surface Water Master
Plan and would be consistent with the modification approved for the development project located
directly north of this site (Jefferson Highlands; LUA19-000163). This increased landscape strip can fit
within the existing right-of-way and does not require any dedication from the applicant for this project,
as the road is not centered in the right-of-way. Due to the current alignment in the right-of-way half
street improvements from the right-of-way centerline, for this project, would actually be: 12’ of
pavement width, .5’ curb, 11.5’ bioretention, 5’ sidewalk, and 1’ clear space at back of walk (30’ total).
We will add this e-mail chain to the on-line file accessible to the public. If you have any remaining
questions please let us know.
Thank you,
Angelea Weihs
Associate Planner, City of Renton
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
(425) 430-7312
From: Phil Olbrechts <olbrechtslaw@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 3:27 PM
To: Angelea Weihs <AWeihs@Rentonwa.gov>
Subject: Re: Emerald Heights Street Modification Questions
Thanks. So does the staff recommendation require a modification, or does its compliance with
the green street specifications meet all City design standards?
On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 3:07 PM Angelea Weihs <AWeihs@rentonwa.gov> wrote:
Hello Phil,
Staff recommends approval of a street modification, not as requested by the applicant, but rather a
modified street that is consistent with the Sunset Area Surface Water Plan as a Green street, which
serves to meet the needs of the applicant (does not require ROW dedication) while also meeting the
SASWP. I have forwarded the questions below to engineering to formulate a more detailed response.
Thanks,
Angelea Weihs
Associate Planner, City of Renton
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
(425) 430-7312
From: Phil Olbrechts <olbrechtslaw@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 2:40 PM
To: Angelea Weihs <AWeihs@Rentonwa.gov>
Subject: Re: Emerald Heights Street Modification Questions
To clarify, my understanding from the staff report that the staff recommendation is consistent
with the dimensions required for green streets comes from the following sentence quoted from
page 30 of the staff report:
"However, this street is identified in the Sunset Area Surface Water Plan as a Green street, which
includes the following street section: 28 feet paved width, 0.5-foot curb, 11.5-foot rain garden, 5-foot
sidewalk, and 1-foot of clear space at back of walk, street trees and storm drainage improvements
(See Exhibit 14)."
On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 10:11 AM Phil Olbrechts <olbrechtslaw@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Angelia,
To facilitate the hearing next Tuesday, I thought it would be helpful to get my questions to
you on the street modification of Emerald Heights in advance. If you could place this email
in the on-line file accessible to the public we can then make it an exhibit at the hearing. You
or engineering can respond to these questions at the hearing or in writing in advance. If the
response is in writing we could also put the response in the on-line file.
1. The staff report doesn't identify exactly what's being modified. Is the modification limited
to a three foot reduction in sidewalk width and a half foot reduction in rain garden width?
2. Is the recommended modification limited to modifying the standards imposed by
the Sunset Area Surface Water Master Plan? The proposed modifications appear to be consistent
with the standards imposed by RMC 4-6-060.F.2 for Residential Access streets as posted on-
line, i.e. five foot sidewalks and 8 foot planter strips. Staff is recommending five foot
sidewalks and a 11.5 foot rain garden.
3. Did staff combine the requirements of RMC 4-6-060.F.2 with the Sunset Area Surface Water
Master Plan? What is the code authority for applying the Master Plan? Is it adopted by reference in
the RMC, the City's public works standards or the City's comprehensive plan?
4. If the subject street qualifies as a "green street" under the Master Plan and complies with the
design standards of a green street, why is a modification to the Master Plan standards even
necessary?
5. Please show how the half street improvements add up to 30 feet. Adding up the 14 feet of paved
width to the 11.5 foot rain garden, half-foot curb, five foot sidewalk and one foot clear zone
recommended by staff results in 32 feet.
J. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the Emerald Highlands Unit Lot Subdivision Preliminary Plat, Unit Lot
Subdivision, Administrative Site Plan, Administrative Conditional Use, and Street Modification, File No.
LUA20-000077, PP, SA-A, CU-A, ECF, MOD, as depicted in the Preliminary Plat Plan (Exhibit 2), subject to
the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall submit a draft affordable housing covenant to the Current Planning Project
Manager for review and approval by the Planning Project Manager and the City Attorney at the time of
Building Permit review. Such agreement shall be recorded prior to Temporary Certificate of Occupancy.
The Affordable Housing Covenant has already been prepared and will be submitted for approval.
2. The applicant shall create a Homeowners’ Association (“HOA”) that maintains all improvements and
landscaping in the common space tracts and any and all other common improvements. A draft of the
HOA documents shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager and the
City Attorney prior to recording of the Unit Lot Subdivision. Such documents shall be recorded
concurrently with the Unit Lot Subdivision.
The Homeowner’s Association documents including the Articles of incorporation and Bylaws and the
Declaration of Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs) have already been prepared and will
be submitted for approval.
3. The applicant shall submit revised plans with the Building Permit application identifying the location
of code compliant bicycle parking meeting the standards of RMC 4-4-080.F.11. The revised plans shall be
reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to Building Permit approval.
Bicycle Parking will be in each garage, as allowed by Renton City Code, and this will be shown on the
Building Permit Application Plans.
4. The applicant shall revise the proposed pedestrian connections to limit the interruption within the
common open space tract. The applicant shall include and show required picnic areas, space for
recreational activities, and other activities as appropriate within the common open space for review and
approval by the Current Planning Project Manager at the time of Civil Construction Permit. In addition,
the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with minimum common open space dimensional
requirement of 30 feet at the time of Civil Construction Permit application or apply for and receive
approval for a fee in-lieu pursuant to RMC 4-1-240.
A picnic area has been shown with a table and attached benches on a concrete pad in the area near
the 4 planting boxes. In addition, an additional bench with a back will be provided alongside the
sidewalk running between the two buildings. Colored pictures of the table and benches and the
additional bench, as well as their locations, are shown on the updated Landscape Plan. Four planting
boxes, as shown on the updated Landscape Plans (and as also shown on the submitted Site Plan), will
be provided for residents to plant gardens. Provisions are included in the CC&Rs for residents to
reserve and use the planting boxes. A water line and faucet will also be provided at the planting
box/picnic table location.
The sidewalks for access to the buildings and units from Kirkland Avenue NE will be located as follows:
One will be at the end of each Building and one will be located in the area between the 2 buildings. In
addition, a sidewalk will be provided along the east side of the buildings (running north and south).
This will create large areas for recreation between the sidewalk along Kirkland Avenue NE and the
sidewalk along the front of the buildings. Also, see the attached document prepared by the Project
Architect.
We stridently object to the part of this Condition #4 regarding a minimum open space dimension of
30’. The reasons for this objection are as follows:
1) In Paragraph 17 “Design Standards” on page 12 of the Staff Report, the statement is
made “Residential Design and Open Space Standards (RMC 4-2-115 are applicable in the R-14
zone.” The Standards implement the policies established in the Land Use Element of the
Comprehensive Plan…..
Furthermore, the 20’ minimum dimension is stated as being required in the R-14 Zone in this
RMC (as quoted in number 2 herein after).
2) On page 13 of the Staff Report, under “Standards for Common Open Space:
Developments of four (4) or more units: Required to provide common open space as outlined
below”…… in the “Staff Comments”, sentence number 3 states “In Addition, per RMC 4-2-
115E.2, all common open space areas shall”…..
Then, in RMC 4-2-115E.2 in “Standards for Open Space” Paragraph number 4 under heading 2.
Open Space” for Zones R-10 and R-14, it states:
“Open Space(s) shall be contiguous to the majority of the dwellings in the Development and
accessible to all dwellings and shall be at least twenty (20’) wide”.
3) This RMC 4-2-115, as quoted, has not been modified in any way in the City of Renton Code
Section.
4) Since this is the Code stated to be complied with in the “Staff Report” plus since it is still in
the City Code Section, the project of Emerald Highlands does comply and , consequently, this
Twenty feet (20’) dimension should be used for approving the project. The “Staff Report”
states that the dimension shown on the submitted Plans is 19.86’. However, it was intended
to be, and it easily can be 20’.
5) I just found out, from Angelea Weihs, at the end of the day last Thursday, May 23rd , two
business days before the Public Hearing, that the City of Renton has taken action to change
the twenty feet (20’) dimension to thirty feet (30’). However, the Code that controls this
dimension has not been changed and so, the twenty feet (20’) dimension should be applied to
Emerald Highlands just as stated in the Code.
6) Angelea also told me that there is a provision for a “Fee in Lieu of Common Open Space”. I
appreciate that she also sent me a copy of this document. In part this document states “The
fee shall be the equivalent of the monetary value of the required improvements for common
open space plus the monetary value of the land area required to be placed in common open
space.” The fact is that the project contains 4,305 square feet of common open space which
exceeds the required 3,500 square feet of common open space by 23%.
7) I have had the experience more than once in the past, in other jurisdictions, when a
disparity in two regulations have had a dissimilar effect on a project, the regulation benefiting
the applicant has taken president. I do request that Renton City Code RMC 4-2-115E.2 be used
in this case to set the Common Open Space minimum dimension at 20’.
5. The yard space and pedestrian connection between the two proposed structures (between units 5
and 6) shall be placed in a common open space tract.
This will be done.
6. The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan that demonstrates compliance with the fence and
retaining wall regulations and minimum tree spacing standards for review and approval by the Current
Planning Project Manager at the time of Civil Construction Permit application.
The Landscape Plans have already been updated and attached hereto. As shown on Sheet L-2 of the
plans, the approximately 2’ high by 2.5’ wide by approximately 30” long individual solid concrete
blocks comprising the retaining wall is an encroachment. The plan is to dedicate the wall and area to
the adjacent south property on the Final Plat prior to recording. We have already agreed with the
subject property owner to complete this process. The existing fence, located along the north side of
the existing retaining wall as now shown on both the Landscape Plan and the Site Plan, is a 6’ tall
cedar fence which meets the City of Renton fence requirements.
The updated Landscape Plans also show the tree spacing to be 40’ as required.
7. The balcony railings for the proposed structures shall be mostly transparent and two different color
pallets shall be used for the two structures. A materials board showing the two-color palettes, coded to
the exterior building elevations, shall be provided to the Current Planning Project Manager for review
and approval at the time of Building Permit review.
The Project Architect will specify metal railings with 1-1/2” diameter posts at a maximum 6- ‘-0” on
center spacing with 1’1/4” diameter railings and a 1-1/2” diameter top rail. Rails will be spaced so a 4”
diameter sphere cannot pass through. Two (2) colors will be used as required.
8. The applicant shall submit revised elevations for the northern building on the project site, utilizing a
different dormer roof form, or other modified roof form alternative for the proposed structure, for
review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager, at the time of Building Permit
application. In addition, each building shall utilize a different roof color.
A gabled dormer roof shaped will be provided.. In addition, a different color will be provided for each
of the two building roofs.
9. The applicant shall submit revised elevations at the time of Building Permit application providing the
required three and one-half inches (3 1/2”) minimum trim surrounding all windows and doors and one
of the following architectural details: shutters, knee braces, flower boxes, or columns. Alternatively, the
applicant may submit a modification request to vary from any of these standards for review and
approval, prior to Building Permit application.
Revised elevations will be submitted with the Building permit Application. The elevations will include
3-1/2” trim around all windows and doors and columns will be utilized as an additional architectural
detail.
10. The applicant shall submit a revised tree retention and replacement plan that demonstrates
compliance with minimum tree replacement planting requirements, at the time of Civil Construction
permit application.
Sheet L-1 of the updated Landscape Plans is a revised Tree Retention Plan. Sheet L-1 identifies and
locates all trees on the property. It includes a Tree Retention Worksheet which shows that all trees on
the site will be removed. Sheet L-2 under “Plant Schedule” lists all replacement trees which includes
11 evergreen trees plus 8 deciduous trees for a total of 21 replacement tress. 12” DBH of replacement
trees is required (As shown in the Tree Retention Worksheet) and 16” DBH of trees is being provided.
The construction contract for the Public Alley along the west property line will include specific
instructions to protect the three offsite trees (Trees number 2, 3 and 5 on Sheet L-1).
11. The applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan with utility box locations and any utility boxes
that are visible to the public be screened with berms and/or landscaping. The final detailed landscape
plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to Building Permit
approval.
This will be done.
12. The applicant shall submit revised plans with the Building Permit application identifying the location
of trash and recycling containers. The revised plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Current
Planning Project Manager prior to Building Permit approval.
Individual trash and recycling containers will be located in each garage, as allowed by Renton City
Code, and they will be shown on the Architectural Plans at the time the plans are submitted with the
first Building Permit Application.
13. The applicant shall submit a separate detailed plan set identifying the location and screening
provided for all surface and roof top utility/mechanical equipment with the Building Permit application.
The plan set shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to Building
Permit approval.
This will be done.
14. A lighting plan shall be provided at the time of Building Permit review for review and approval by the
Current Planning Project Manager. To ensure safety and avoid excessive brightness pedestrian scale
lighting should be provided on the primary entries of each unit as well as along the pedestrian walkways
as necessary to provide sufficient lighting for pedestrian safety but shall also be designed to minimize
light spill and glare onto adjoining properties.
The lighting Plan will be submitted prior to or with the first Building Permit Application.
15. The proposed temporary access driveway shall be privately owned and maintained by a
Homeowners Association. The applicant shall record a note on the face of the plat that executes a
shared maintenance agreement for equal ownership and maintenance responsibilities for
improvements in the shared driveway easement. A draft version of a shared maintenance agreement
shall be submitted for review and approval by the current planning project manager prior to plat
recording.
This document has already been prepared and it will be submitted for review and approval prior to
Final Plat Recording.
16. The applicant shall dedicate eight (8) feet of public right-of-way (ROW) from the west property line
for the public alley and any additional dedication needed to ensure the transition of the public alley to
the north of the site re-aligns to the center of the properties. The public alley shall extend from the
north property line and stub at the south property line. The applicant shall include a minimum of 10 feet
of pavement width, starting from the west property line, for the full length of the property from north to
south. The additional two (2) feet of paving, beyond the edge of the alley ROW, shall be placed within a
temporary public access easement. In addition, the proposed Biopod system, which is located within the
vicinity of the new public alley, shall be flush the finished alley grade.
The dedication of the 8’ wide portion of the Public right-of-way will be submitted for review and
approval along with the submittal of the Final Plat and the dedication will be placed on the Final Plat
prior to recording. The additional 2’ of paved area will be placed in a temporary public access
easement as required. The Biopod will be installed flush with the finished alley grade as required.
Attachment 1: Updated Landscape Plans.
Attachment 2: Comments from the Project Architect related to the various proposed Conditions of
Approval.
KNIT Designing Communities
Freeman Fong, AIA, NCARB
Associate Principal
P: 425.595.3456 | C: 206.399.3071 | knitstudios.com
BICYCLE PARKING: There is space set aside and, on the Building Permit Plans, we will show bicycle
parking in the garage for each unit.
FENCES AND RETAINING WALLS: The City Planner asked for civil to show the fences, but we will show
them on the architectural site plan as well.
REFUSE AND RECYCLABLES: There is space set aside for refuse and recyclable containers as well as for a
furnace and hot water tank in the garage. We will indicate locations on the Building Permit Plans.
DEVELOPMENTS OF FOUR (4) OR MORE UNITS: We will revise the building access walkways so one will
be at the end of each building and one will be in the middle in between the two buildings. The three
walkways will be connected by a walkway running north-south near the front of each building.
SIDEWALKS, PATHWAYS, AND PEDESTRIAN EASEMENTS: See DEVELOPMENTS OF FOUR (4) OR MORE
UNITS above.
PRIMARY ENTRY: The entry porch is a minimum of 5’-0” wide. We will raise the porch 12” above grade.
FAÇADE MODULATION: The units facing the street have modulations of 2’-0” or more. On the north side
elevation, we will add a minimum one side articulation that is least one foot (1’) in depth.
WINDOWS AND DOORS: We will provide 3-1/2” wide trims, minimum on all doors and windows.
SCALE, BULK, and CHARACTER: We are planning to use metal railings with 1-1/2” diameter posts at a
maximum 6’-0” on center spacing, with 1-1/4” diameter railings and a 1-1/2” diameter top rail. Rails will
be spaced so a 4” diameter sphere cannot pass through. We will provide two different color palettes for
each building.
ROOFS: We are looking at using a gable dormer. We will also provide two colors for the roofs as
required.
EAVES: Eaves are a minimum 12”. We will include gutters that are a minimum 5” deep.
ARCHITECTURAL DETAILING: We will be providing a minimum 3-1/2” wide trims at windows and doors.
We will be using columns as an additional architectural feature. The columns will be a minimum 6” x 6”
that are banded. We will be using either corner boards or metal corner clips.
MATERIALS AND COLORS: We will submit fully detail material and color boards at the time of
permitting.
MAIL AND NEWSPAPER: We will locate mailboxes on the Site Plan and have this approved prior to
submittal of Building Permit Plans.
DUMPSTER/TRASH/RECYCLING COLLECTION AREA: All units will have individual trash and recycling
containers in the garage. They will be shown on the permit drawings.
7. We are planning to use metal railings with 1-1/2” diameter posts at a maximum 6’-0” on center
spacing, with 1-1/4” diameter railings and a 1-1/2” diameter top rail. Rails will be spaced so a 4”
diameter sphere cannot pass through. We will provide two colors as required.
8. We will be providing a gabled dormer roof shape. We will provide a different colored roof for
each building.
9. We will provide 3-1/2” trims around all the windows and doors and utilize columns as an extra
required detail.
916510TR. BOPENSPACETR. APUBLICALLEY82347NE 15TH PLACEKIRKLAND AVENUE NE TREE #1TREE #2TREE #3TREE #5TREE #4 (DEAD)TREE #6TREE #7JEFFERSON HIGHLANDSLUA 19-000163TREE LISTTREE NO. SPECIESDBH*RETAIN/REMOVE1CEDAR2x18"REMOVE2CEDAR10"OFFSITE3DOUGLAS FIR30"OFFSITE4UNKNOWN18"DEAD5CEDAR16"OFFSITE6ELM10",15",22"REMOVE7SPRUCE16"REMOVE*DBH:DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHTCEDAR: Thuja plicata / Western Red CedarDOUGLAS FIR: Pseudotsuga menziesiiELM: Ulmus sp.SPRUCE: Picea sp.Know what'sCallbelow.before you dig.RIN COMPLIANCE WITH CITY OF RENTON STANDARDSJEFF VARLEY landscape architect19819 30th Dr SE Bothell Washington 98012email varley_jeff@hotmail.com phone 425-466-9430www.varleylandscape.comVARLEY VARLEY VARLEYL-1NorthEXISTING OFFISTE TREE TO BERETAINED4Existing zoning: Residential-14 (R-14)1000031061122"SEE SHEET L-2 FOR REPLACEMENT TREE SPECIES AND LOCATIONS
916510TR. BOPENSPACETR. APUBLICALLEY82347NE 15TH PLACEKIRKLAND AVENUE NE BRAAAAAAAAAAAAEgSbEgEgEgEgEgSbSbSbSbSbsfOGOGOGEHEHsfsfEHEHEHOGOGsfsfsfOGOGOGEHsfsfEHEHEHOGOGOGOGsfsfOGOGNZHYDHYDNZNZHYDNZEgEgEgSbSbSbEgEgEgSbSbSbHYDHinACHinACACHinHinHinACACHinEgEgEgBRRHSbSbHYDAZDayDayDayDayGFGFGFFGFGFGAZFGFGGsGsGsFGLaLaNZNNNDayDayGsGsGsCavFGDayDayDayDayDayDayDayDayDayDayDayDayDayDayDayDayGsGsGsGsGsGsCavCavFGFGLaLaLaLaLaLaMONNNLaLaHYDCavCavFGFGBRGFGFGFLLLLLLSbSbAZHYDAZFGFGMOCavNNNLaLaEgEgEgBRSbLLLLLLCavHYDSbEgEgEgFGMOLaLaLaFGRHFGFGEgEgEgTREE #2TREE #3TREE #5NZNZHYDSbSbSbEgEgEgEgEgSbSbJEFFERSON HIGHLANDSLUA 19-000163OGEHEgFull and Matching, min. 8'-10' htFull and MatchingFull and Matching, min. 8'-10' htFull and MatchingFull and Matching, min. 8'-10' htTilia americana*Chamaecyparis nootkatensis 'Pendula'*Styrax japonica'*Chamaecyparis obtusa 'Gracilis'**Acer palmatum 'Bloodgood'*Linden (Street tree)Weeping Alaska CedarJapanese SnowbellSlender Hinoki CypressJapanese Maple1-1/2" cal8'-10' ht.2" cal**6'-7' ht.2" cal.**All street trees to be specimen grade with a single leader. Tree height listed is from top of rootball to top of tree at time ofplanting. Damaged trees shall be replaced with same species and minimum 2" caliper.Street trees are 40' on-center except where utility conflicts occur.Note: caliper is measured 4.5' above top of rootball.TREES65464Full and MatchingFull and MatchingFull and MatchingFull and MatchingFull and MatchingFull and MatchingFull and MatchingFull and MatchingFull and MatchingFull and MatchingFull and MatchingFull and MatchingFull and MatchingFull and MatchingFull and MatchingFull and MatchingFull and MatchingFull and MatchingFull and MatchingFull and MatchingFull and Matching/Plant 24" o.c.Full and Matching/Plant 24" o.c.Full and Matching/Plant 24" o.c.Pieris japonica 'Cavatine'*Rhododendron 'Cunningham White'*Rhododendron 'Nova Zembla'Azalea sp. 'Sherwood Orchid'*Hydrangea 'Endless Summer'*Pennisetum alop. 'Hameln'*Euonymus fortunei 'Emerald n Gold'*Spiraea bumalda 'Goldmound'*Berberis thunbergii 'Royal Burgundy'*Nandina domestica 'Obssession'*Polystichum munitum*Thuja occidentalis 'Emerald Green'*Sarcoccocca hook. humilis*Mahonia aquifolium*Vaccinium ovatum*Hemerocallis sp. 'Stella d'Oro'*Lavandula sp. 'Hidcote Blue'*Euonymus fortunei 'Gold Splash'*Nandina 'Lemon Lime'*Choisya ternata 'Sundance'*Arctostaphyllos uva-ursi*Vinca minor*Erica sp. 'Mediterranean Pink'*PierisRhodieRhodieAzaleaHydrangeaDwarf Ft GrassEuonymusSpiraeaBarberryNandinaSword FernArborvitaeSweetboxTall Oregon GrapeEvergreen HuckleberryDaylilyLavenderEuonymusNandinaMexican OrangeKinnikinnikDwarf PeriwinkleHeather5 gallon21"-24" ht.21"-24" ht.2 gallon2 gallon2 gallon2 gallon2 gallon2 gallon2 gallon2 gallon5'-6' ht.2 gallon2 gallon2 gallon1 gallon2 gallon1 gallon2 gallon2 gallon1 gallon1 gallon1 gallon727491730649101223151022151293As req'dAs req'dAs req'dLa*Considered drought tolerant in Pacific Northwest once establishedLawn, shovel cut transition between lawn and landscape bedsRHNFGAZ*Considered drought tolerant in Pacific Northwest once established**Proposed replacement tree, 12" total inches required, 16 inches providedBOTANICAL NAMEPLANT SCHEDULECOMMON NAMEQTYSIZEREMARKSSHRUBS and GROUND COVEREgBRGFHYDASbOGEHsfACNZKing County Design Manual Biofiltration Swale Hydroseed MixSeed Mix:75-80% Festuca arundinacea / Tall Fescue10-15% Agrostis palustris / Creeping Bentgrass5-10% Agrostis alba / Redtop BentgrassRate:80 lbs. per acreWood Fiber Mulch:1500 lbs per acre3-1-3 Fertilizer:90 lbs per acre (slow-release)Tackifier:40 lbs per acreHinDayCavGsLLMO4" depth 58" minus crushed rock over weed barrier fabricKnow what'sCallbelow.before you dig.RIN COMPLIANCE WITH CITY OF RENTON STANDARDSJEFF VARLEY landscape architect19819 30th Dr SE Bothell Washington 98012email varley_jeff@hotmail.com phone 425-466-9430www.varleylandscape.comVARLEY VARLEY VARLEYL-2NorthEXISTING OFFISTE TREE TO BERETAINED10' LANDSCAPE BUFFER REQUIRED. MINIMUM 50%OF THE TOTAL LINEAL FEET OF THE LANDSCAPEBUFFER LOCATED ADJACENT TO PROPERTY LINE.REMAINDER LOCATED ADJACENT TO BUILDING224 LINEAL FEET OF 10' LANDSCAPE BUFFER REQ'D.MINIMUM 114 LINEAL FEET ADJACENT TO PROPERTYLINE. 146 LINEAL FEET PROVIDEDEXISTING OFFISTE TREE TO BERETAINEDPROPOSED 10' WIDTH PLANTER STRIP WITHBIOFILTRATION SWALE. SEE PLANT SCHEDULETHIS SHEET FOR SEED MIX. SEE CIVIL SETFOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION8" BARK MULCH MOWSTRIPWHEN LAWN IS ADJACENTTO PROPOSED BUILDINGEXISTING ONISTE TREE TO BERETAINEDFOUR 4'x6' RAISED VEGETABLE BEDSCRUSHED ROCKHOSE BIDEXISTING CONCRETE RETAININGWALL TO BE RETAINED. FUTUREPROPERTY DEDICATIONFUTURE DEDICATION AREA. BARKMULCH ONLYSTREET TREES
40' ON-CENTER
6' WIDTH BENCH, MODEL SE-5130, BY PACIFICOUTDOOR PRODUCTS, OR APPROVED EQUAL. BLACKOR GREEN POWDER COAT COLOR AND RECYCLEDPLASTIC LUMBER SEAT AND BACK. IN-GROUNDMOUNT PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS6' WIDTH PICNIC TABLE, MODEL SE-5330, BY PACIFICOUTDOOR PRODUCTS, OR APPROVED EQUAL. BLACKOR GREEN POWDER COAT COLOR. IN-GROUNDMOUNT PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS
Know what'sCallbelow.before you dig.RIN COMPLIANCE WITH CITY OF RENTON STANDARDSJEFF VARLEY landscape architect19819 30th Dr SE Bothell Washington 98012email varley_jeff@hotmail.com phone 425-466-9430www.varleylandscape.comVARLEY VARLEY VARLEYL-3LANDSCAPE NOTES
916510TR. BOPENSPACETR. APUBLICALLEY82347NE 15TH PLACEKIRKLAND AVENUE NE BRAAAAAAAAAAAAEgSbEgEgEgEgEgSbSbSbSbSbsfOGOGOGEHEHsfsfEHEHEHOGOGsfsfsfOGOGOGEHsfsfEHEHEHOGOGOGOGsfsfOGOGNZHYDHYDNZNZHYDNZEgEgEgSbSbSbEgEgEgSbSbSbHYDHinACHinACACHinHinHinACACHinEgEgEgBRRHSbSbHYDAZDayDayDayDayGFGFGFFGFGFGAZFGFGGsGsGsFGLaLaNZNNNDayDayGsGsGsCavFGDayDayDayDayDayDayDayDayDayDayDayDayDayDayDayDayGsGsGsGsGsGsCavCavFGFGLaLaLaLaLaLaMONNNLaLaHYDCavCavFGFGBRGFGFGFLLLLLLSbSbAZHYDAZFGFGMOCavNNNLaLaEgEgEgBRSbLLLLLLCavHYDSbEgEgEgFGMOLaLaLaFGRHFGFGEgEgEgTREE #2TREE #3TREE #5NZNZHYDSbSbSbEgEgEgEgEgSbSbJEFFERSON HIGHLANDSLUA 19-000163OGEHEgKnow what'sCallbelow.before you dig.RIN COMPLIANCE WITH CITY OF RENTON STANDARDSJEFF VARLEY landscape architect19819 30th Dr SE Bothell Washington 98012email varley_jeff@hotmail.com phone 425-466-9430www.varleylandscape.comVARLEY VARLEY VARLEYL-4NorthEXISTING OFFISTE TREE TO BERETAINED8" BARK MULCH MOWSTRIPWHEN LAWN IS ADJACENTTO PROPOSED BUILDING
Know what'sCallbelow.before you dig.RIN COMPLIANCE WITH CITY OF RENTON STANDARDSJEFF VARLEY landscape architect19819 30th Dr SE Bothell Washington 98012email varley_jeff@hotmail.com phone 425-466-9430www.varleylandscape.comVARLEY VARLEY VARLEYL-5
Know what'sCallbelow.before you dig.RIN COMPLIANCE WITH CITY OF RENTON STANDARDSJEFF VARLEY landscape architect19819 30th Dr SE Bothell Washington 98012email varley_jeff@hotmail.com phone 425-466-9430www.varleylandscape.comVARLEY VARLEY VARLEYL-6
January 26, 2020
Revised May 23, 2020
Jim Howton
Phone 425 985-2024
Via email: Jimhjim1111@comcast.net
SUBJECT: PROPERTY AT 1501 KIRKLAND AVE NE - RENTON, WA
EXISTING TREE EVALUATION
Dear Jim,
I conducted a site visit at the above-referenced site on January 25 to evaluate the
overall health of each tree per the City of Renton's Municipal Code Section 4-4-130.
Following are the existing significant trees found on the site along with their species,
dbh, drip line (radius), overall health. See also Landscape Plan Sheet L-1.
4 significant trees were identified and assessed on the property. The species list is
below. According to City of Renton code, a significant tree is a “tree with a caliper of at
least six inches (6”), or an Alder or Cottonwood tree with a caliper of at least eight
inches (8”). Trees planted within the most recent ten (10) years shall qualify as
significant trees, regardless of the actual caliper.”
Each tree in this report was visited. Tree diameters were measured by the surveyor and
are shown in the table below and on the tree retention plan. Each tree was visually
examined for defects and vigor. The tree assessment procedure involves the
examination of many factors:
- The crown of the tree is examined for current vigor. This is comprised of
inspecting the crown (foliage, buds and branches) for color, density, form, and
annual shoot growth, limb dieback and disease. The percentage of live crown is
estimated for coniferous species only and scored appropriately.
- The bole or main stem of the tree is inspected for decay, which includes cavities,
wounds, fruiting bodies of decay (conks or mushrooms), seams, insects,
bleeding, callus development, broken or dead tops, structural defects and
unnatural leans. Structural defects includes crooks, forks with V-shaped
crotches, multiple attachments, and excessive sweep.
- The root collar and roots are inspected for the presence of decay, insects, and/or
damage, as well as if they have been injured, undermined or exposed, or original
grade has been altered.
A ‘viable’ tree is “a significant tree that a qualified professional has determined to be in
good health, with a low risk of failure due to structural defects, is wind firm if isolated or
remains as part of a grove, and is a species suitable for its location.” Tree considered
‘non-viable’ are trees that are in poor condition due to disease, age-related decline,
have significant decay issues and/or cumulative structural defects, which exacerbate
failure potential.
TREE RETENTION CALCULATION
A total of 4 significant trees were identified on the subject property, one of them is dead.
As shown in the City of Renton tree calculation worksheet, the dead tree is part of the
calculations. No Landmark trees were on the site. The property is within the
‘Residential-14’ (R-14) zoning code classification. 20% of existing viable significant
trees are required to be retained.
4 existing trees – 1 dead tree = 3 significant trees,
3 X 20% = 0.6 significant trees required to be retained.
0 existing significant trees are proposed to be retained.
1 replacement tree required. Equivalent of 12” caliper inches. See Sheet L-2 for
replacement tree species and locations
SIGNIFICANT TREES ON SITE
TREE # SPECIES DBH DRIP LINE HEALTH REMOVED / RETAIN
001 Cedar 2x18" 12' dia. Good Remove
002 Cedar 10" 9' dia. Good Offsite
003 Douglas Fir 30" 20' dia. Good Offsite
004 Unknown 18" 0' Dead Remove
005 Cedar 16" 10' Good Offsite
006 Elm 10",15”,22” 15' Good Remove
007 Spruce 16” Varies Good Remove
There is no warranty suggested for any of the trees subject to this report.
Respectfully,
Jeff Varley
Landscape Architect
Varley Varley Varley
19819 30th Drive SE
Bothell, WA 98012
1
CITY OF RENTON,WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO.5966
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON,WASHINGTON,AMENDING
SUBSECTION 4 2 115.E.2 OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE,AMENDING
RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS FOR COMMON OPEN SPACE,PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY,AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS,open space is a significant element in the development of livable communities
and creates opportunities for good health;and
WHEREAS,usable open space becomes increasing important as density increases;and
WHEREAS,this matter was duly referred to the Planning Commission for investigation
and study,and the matter was considered by the Planning Commission;and
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 2,2019,considered
all relevant matters,and heard all parties in support or opposition,and subsequently forwarded
a recommendation to the City Council;and
WHEREAS,pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106,on October 16,2019,the City notified the State
of Washington of its intent to adopt amendments to its development regulations;
NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON,WASHINGTON,DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I.All portions of the Renton Municipal Code in this ordinance not shown in
strikethrough and underline edits remain in effect and unchanged.
SECTION II.Subsection 4 2 115.E.2 of the Renton Municipal Code is amended as
shown below.All other provisions in 4 2 115.E remain in effect and unchanged.
2.Open Space:
ORDINANCE NO.5966
2
OPEN SPACE:Open space is a significant element in the development of livable communities
and creates opportunities for good health.
Guidelines:All open space shall be designed to preserve existing trees particularly native
conifers,native deciduous trees,and other native vegetation consistent with RMC 4 4 070,
Landscaping.Except for Native Growth Protection Areas,all common open space areas shall
be designed to accommodate both active and passive recreational opportunities and be visible
and open to the street.Pocket parks shall be designed to serve four 4)to ten 10)homes.
Private yards are located at the rear or side of homes and can include trees,planting beds,and
privacy fences.Reciprocal use easements can provide greater usability of private yards.
Landscaping:
R 10
and
R 14
See RMC 4 4 070,Landscaping.
Standards for Parks:
R 10
and
R 14
For developments that are less than ten 10)net acres:No park is required,but is
allowed.
For developments that are greater than ten 10)net acres:A minimum of one one
half 5)acre park,in addition to the common open space requirement,is required.
Standards for Common Open Space:
R 10
and
R 14
Developments of three 3)or fewer dwelling units:No requirement to provide
common open space.
Developments of four 4)or more units:Required to provide common open space as
outlined below.Above ground drainage facilities i.e.,ponds,swales,ditches,rain
gardens,etc.)shall not be counted towards the common open space requirement.
1.For each unit in the development,three hundred fifty 350)square feet of
common open space shall be provided.
2.Open space shall be designed as a park,common green,pea patch,pocket park,
or pedestrian entry easement in the development and shall include picnic areas,
space for recreational activities,and other activities as appropriate.
3.Open space shall be located in a highly visible area and be easily accessible to
the neighborhood.
ORDINANCE NO.5966
3
4.Open space(s)shall be contiguous to the majority of the dwellings in the
development and accessible to all dwellings.For sites one 1)acre or smaller in
size,open space(s)and shall be at least twenty thirty feet 230')in at least one
1)dimension.For sites larger than one 1)acre in size,open space(s)shall be at
least forty feet 40’)in at least one 1)dimension.For all sites,to allow for
variation,open space(s)of less than the minimum dimension thirty feet 30')or
forty feet 40'),as applicable)are allowed;provided that when all of a site’s
open spaces are averaged the applicable dimension requirement is met.
5.A pedestrian entry easement can be used counted as open space to meet the
access requirements if it has a minimum width of twenty feet 20')with and
within that twenty feet 20’)a minimum five feet 5')of sidewalk is provided.
6.Pea patches shall be at least one thousand 1,000)square feet in size with
individual plots that measure at least ten feet by ten feet 10'x 10').
Additionally,the pea patch shall include a tool shed and a common area with
space for compost bins.Water shall be provided to the pea patch.Fencing that
meets the standards for front yard fencing shall surround the pea patch with a
one foot 1')landscape area on the outside of the fence.This area is to be
landscaped with flowers,plants,and/or shrubs.
7.Grass crete or other pervious surfaces may be used in the common open space
for the purpose of meeting the one hundred fifty feet 150')distance
requirement for emergency vehicle access but shall not be used for personal
vehicle access or to meet off street parking requirements.
8.Common open space areas shall have a maximum slope of five percent 5%).
9.Obstructions,such as retaining walls and fences,shall not be placed in common
open spaces.
Standards for Private Yards:
ORDINANCE NO.5966
4
R 10
and
R 14
Developments of three 3)or fewer dwelling units:Each individual dwelling shall
have a private yard that is at minimum six hundred 600)square feet in size.Backyard
patios and reciprocal use easements may be included in the calculation of private
yard.
Developments of four 4)or more dwelling units:Each ground related dwelling shall
have a private yard that is at least two hundred fifty 250)square feet in size with no
dimension less than eight feet 8')in width.
An additional two hundred fifty 250)square feet of open space per unit shall be
added to the required amount of common open space for each unit that is not
ground related.
Common Open Space or Park Substitutions:
R 10
and
R 14
See RMC 4 1 240.
Sidewalks,Pathways,and Pedestrian Easements:
R 10
and
R 14
All of the following are required:
1.Sidewalks shall be provided throughout the neighborhood.The sidewalk may
disconnect from the road,provided it continues in a logical route throughout the
development.Permeable pavement sidewalks shall be used where feasible,
consistent with the Surface Water Design Manual.
2.Front yards shall have entry walks that are a minimum width of three feet 3')
and a maximum width of four feet 4').
3.Pathways shall be used to connect common parks,green areas,and pocket
parks to residential access streets,limited residential access streets,or other
pedestrian connections.They may be used to provide access to homes and
common open space.They shall be a minimum three feet 3')in width and made
of paved asphalt,concrete,or porous material such as:porous paving stones,
crushed gravel with soil stabilizers,or paving blocks with planted joints.
Sidewalks or pathways for parks and green spaces shall be located at the edge of
the common space to allow a larger usable green and easy access to homes.
ORDINANCE NO. 5966
4. Pedestrian Easement Plantings: Shall be planted with plants and trees. Trees are
required along all pedestrian easements to provide shade and spaced twenty
feet (20') on center. Shrubs shall be planted in at least fifteen percent (15%) of
the easement and shall be spaced no further than thirty six inches (36") on
center.
5. For all homes that do not front on a residential access street, limited residential
access street, a park, or a common green: Pedestrian entry easements that are
at least fifteen feet (15') wide plus a five-foot (5') sidewalk shall be provided.
SECTION III. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or work of this
ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court or competent jurisdiction,
such invalidity or unconstitutionality thereof shall not affect the constitutionality of any other
section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or word of this ordinance.
SECTION IV. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five (5)days after publication
of a summary of this ordinance in the City's official newspaper. The summary shall consist of this
ordinance's title.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 2nd day of March, 2020.
Jaso A. Set , City Clerk
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 2nd day of March, 2020.
Armondo Pavone, Mayor
5
ORDINANCE NO. 5966
Approved as to form:
Shane Moloney, City Attorney
4,4,
Date of Publication: 3/6/2020 (Summary)
r
ORD:2099:12/2/19
6
Legal Invoice
Sound Publishing, Inc.
Unit Attn: A/R
PO Box 930
Everett WA 98206-0930
Bill To:
City of Renton/City Clerk -LEGAL ADS
1055 S Grady Way
Renton WA 98057
Legal Description:
Desc: ORDS
Ordered By: SANDI WEIR
Issues Ordered: 1
Date: 03/06/2020
Renton Reporter
Customer Account #: 50450640
Legal Description: REN893054
Legal #: REN893054
Ad Cost: $ 169.63
Published: Renton Reporter
Start Date: 03/06/2020 End Date: 03/06/2020
Due: $ 169.63
Please return this with payment. Questions? Call 1-80OA854920
City of Renton/City Clerk -LEGAL ADS Account M 50450640
1055 S Grady Way Invoice M REN893054
Renton WA 98057
Due: $169.63
STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING }
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
PUBLIC NOTICE
Rudi Alcott, being first duly sworn on oath that he is the
Vice President of Advertising for Sound Publishing,
which publishes the
Renton Reporter
a weekly newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of general
circulation and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date
of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language
continuously as a weekly newspaper in King County, Washington. The
Renton Reporter has been approved as a Legal Newspaper by order of
the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County.
The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues of
the Renton Reporter (and not in supplement form) which was regularly
distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed
notice, a:
Public Notice
was published on March 6, 2020
The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the
sum of $169.63
Rudi Alcott
Vice President, Advertising
Subscribed and sworn to me this 6' day of March, 2020
3en ' er Trib6et , otary Public for the State of Washington, Residing in
rting, Washington
Classified Proof
CITY OF RENTON
NOTICE OF
ORDINANCES
ADOPTED BY THE
RENTON
CITY COUNCIL
Following is a summary
of the Ordinances adopt-
ed by the Renton City
Council on March 2,
2020:
ORDINANCE NO. 5963
An Ordinance of the City
of Renton, Washington,
amending Subsections
4-2-060.M,
4-2-M.A.29, 44-110.A,
4-4-110.B, 4-4-110.C,
and 4 110.D.3.B.iii,
and Section 4-1-190 of
the Renton Municipal
Code, by classifying bulk
storage in the Zoning
Use Table, permitting
bulk storage in industrial
zones, providing for
minimum separation dis-
tances from residential
zoning designations,
simplifying storage fa-
cilities, bulk in Section 4-
4-110, adding bulk stor-
age to the definitions of
Storage, Indoor,"
Storage, Outdoor,"
Storage, Self -Service;
and "Storage, Vehicle" in
Section 4-11-190, pro-
viding for severability,
and establishing an ef-
fective date.
Effective: 3/11/2020
ORDINANCE NO. 5964
An Ordinance of the City
of Renton, Washington,
amending Subsection 4-
3-100.B.1.B of the Ren-
ton Municipal Code, by
revising design district
applicability regulations
in the City's urban de-
sign districts 'B' and 'D,'
providing for severability,
and establishing an ef-
fective date.
Effective: 3/11/2020
ORDINANCE NO. 5965
An Ordinance of the City
Proofed by Jennifer Tribbett, 03/03/2020 11:36:32 am Page: 2
Classified Proof
of Renton, Washington,
amending Subsections
4-1-045.G.3, 4-1-
045.G.4, 42-120.A, 4-2-
120.6, 4-2-120.C, 4-2-
130A, and 4-2-130.6,
and Section 4-9-030 of
the Renton Municipal
Code, revising Condi-
tional Use Permit crite-
ria, adding new Subsec-
tions 4-9-030.F and 4-9-
030.G regarding deci-
sion criteria for height in-
creases and density in-
creases, providing for
severabiltty, and estab
lishing an effective date.
Effective: 3111/202O
ORDINANCE NO. 5966
An Ordinance of the City
of Renton, Washington,
amending Subsection 4-
2-115.E.2 of the Renton
Municipal Code, amend-
ing residential standards
for common open space,
providing for severability,
and establishing an ef-
fective date.
Effective: 3/11/2020
Complete text of these
ordinances can be found
on the City's website at
www.rentonwa.gov.
Upon request to the City
Clerk's office, (425) 430-
6510, copies will also be
mailed for a fee.
Jason A Seth, MMC,
City Clerk
Published in the Renton
Reporter. 3/6/2020
893054
Proofed by Jennifer Tribbett, 03/03/2020 11:36:32 am Page: 3