HomeMy WebLinkAboutD_Reconsideration Decision_Jones SP_210303_v4_FINAL
March 4, 2021
Mick Matheson
Core Design Inc.
12100 NE 195th St, Suite 300
Bothell, WA 98011
Subject: Reconsideration Request Decision
Jones Renton Short Plat, LUA20-000237, SHPL-A
Dear Mr. Matheson:
We received your timely request for reconsideration of the Short Plat decision. Your request for
reconsideration asked that we review five (5) conditions of approval including 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11 as
identified in the short plat decision.
Condition 3 - Future Lot 5 shall retain a 61-foot front yard setback from the south property line of
proposed Lot 4 to ensure a consistent development pattern and setback from the roadway when the lot
to the south (APN 3342103250) redevelops. This setback requirement shall be recorded on the face of
the plat.
Analysis: In the justification for your request, you state the City’s only reason for the condition is to
ensure a consistent development pattern in the area. While consistency of development patterns is an
important factor, the condition was intended to ensure the lot met the development standards of the
zone as it relates to lot width, depth, and orientation. Pursuant to the City’s definition of Yards and
defined definition of Lot Depth measurement, the strict application of the code would render Lot 5
non-compliant. As currently designed the front yard of Lot 5 would face west towards Road A,
therefore the measurement of lot depth would be from west to east, resulting in a lot dept of 69 feet.
The R-6 development standards require a lot depth of 90 feet, rendering the lot non -compliant.
The extension of the road to the properties east boundary would bring this lot closer to con formance
with the development standards of the R-6 zone. As noted in the staff report, the City believes the
extension of Road A to the east is unlikely in the near term; however a road extension may be
necessary in the medium or long term should the site to the east redevelop. Per RMC 4 -7-150.E, stub
streets shall be required within subdivisions to allow future connectivity. Based on all these factors, in
lieu of requiring a road extension or elimination of Lot 5 due to it lot orientation, staff proposed a
setback requirement that would accomplish the intent of the code and allow for the reasonable
development of Lot 5. The setback conditions accomplishes the following as it applies to code; first the
conditioned setback allows for the lot orientation to be north to south , this allows lot depth
measurement to be north to south, which would bring the lot into compliance with the lot depth
standards. Furthermore, the setback preserves the opportunity for a road extension in the medium to
long term by ensuring that a home is not built in the location of a potential road extension. Therefore,
staff supports amending the condition to provide an alternative to the setback requirement. The
alternative would require Road A to be extended to the east property line in order to allow for a future
connection to the parcel to the east. In addition to providing connectivity as required by code, the
extension of the road would ensure that proposed Lot 5 would meet the lot width, depth and
orientation requirements as identified above.
Condition 5 - The applicant shall submit an updated tree retention plan that includes the retention of at
least eleven (11) existing trees. A minimum of eight (8) trees shall be non-invasive species. A final tree
retention plan shall be submitted at the time of Civil Construction Permit review for review and
approval by the Current Planning Project Manager.
Analysis: In the justification for your request, you state that the subject condition limits the flexibility of
the applicant and City with respect to final tree retention and replacement. The intent of the condition
was to ensure the applicant understood the retention regulations with respect to priority and
replacement rates, as the applicant’s arborist report did not explicitly address the feasibility of
retaining the required 30%. Due to the fact that report did not address the feasibility of retaining 30%
of the trees as required by code or the priority order for retention, staff elected to add a condition to
the short plat requiring the retention of 11 trees (i.e. 30% of significant trees), eight (8) of which would
be non-invasive (i.e. low priority).
Therefore, staff supports striking the specific number of trees in the condition and requiring the
applicant to submit an updated arborist report and final retention plan that addresses all the criteria of
RMC 4.4.130, including but not limited to feasibility of a 30% retention rate as well as the priority order
for retention. The updated report and plan s hall be submitted at the time of Civil Construction Permit
application for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager. Please note that
secondary review may be required pursuant to RMC 4-4-130.E.2 if the updated arborist report finds
that 30% of significant trees cannot be retained.
Condition 7 - Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 shall be required to take access from Road B as shown on the
submitted Short Plat Plan (Exhibit 3). Access shall be taken from proposed Road B regardless of whether
a driveway tract or alley is ultimately utilized. The applicant shall record this restriction on the face of
the plat.
Analysis: In the justification for your request, you state that additional driveways off of Road A would
not create an unusual or dangerous risk of vehicular/pedestrian conflict. While curb cuts on public
roads are not unusual, they should be limited to reduce the number of opportunities for conflicts
between pedestrians and vehicles. The presence of a driveway curb cut along a relatively short section
of street frontage will increase the danger for pedestrians utilizing the sidewalk along the north side of
proposed Road A and is unnecessary due to the planned driveway tract which also can be used for
access. Restricting curb cuts on Park Ave N, a Collector Arterial, is also important due to the heavy
traffic volumes and high travel speeds. Limiting curb cuts to the driveway tract (Tract B) will allow
pedestrians to walk or bike on the sidewalk to Park Ave N and then off the site without the risk of
encountering a vehicle backing out of a driveway. Utilizing sound engineering judgment, it is clear that
each new driveway crossing over a sidewalk increases risks to pedestrians and especially school age
students. Using the proposed driveway tract, one consolidated location, for access will minimize the
opportunity for pedestrian and vehicular conflicts, avoid impacting the sidewalk and landscape strip,
and will provide for an overall safer pedestrian environment for the neighborhood. In order to provide
some flexibility to the applicant, staff supports allowing an alternative access option for lots 2 and 3 via
the 10-foot access easement on the north side of the site, as it would not increase the overall number
of curb cuts on the site. Lastly, as it relates the analysis for Condition 9 below, staff supports striking
the second sentence of Condition 7, “Access shall be taken from proposed Road B regardless of
whether a driveway tract or alley is ultimately utilized.”.
Condition 9* - The applicant shall incorporate an alley in-lieu of the proposed driveway tract that
provides a connection between future Road A and the access easement on north side of the site, as
shown on Exhibit 2. Alternatively, the applicant may propose an alternativ e method of access that
allows for adequate emergency access and rear-loading of Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4. The final design of the
alley or proposed alternative shall be subject to review and approval by the Current Planning Project
Manager at the time of Civil Construction Permit application.
*Incorrectly referred to as “Condition #11” in the applicant’s reconsideration request.
Analysis: Although staff disagrees with the applicant’s justification for striking this condition, staff
supports striking the condition, as the City’s objective of ensuring a safe pedestrian environment and
providing for emergency access can be obtained by applying condition of approval #7 as amended
below.
Condition 11* - The applicant shall record a public access easement over the entire open space tract
(Tract B) prior to recording of the final short plat. The final easement language shall be reviewed and
approved by the Current Planning Project Manager.
Analysis: In the justification for your request, you equate the provision of a public access easement on
Tract A as a cessation of private property rights. The intent of the condition was to preserve the ability
for future single-family development to the south to utilize the new public street for access. In order to
preserve the private property rights of the future homeowners, staff supports allowing the applicant to
propose narrower easement language that would only allow for the installation of both driveway and
utilities for development on the lot to the south. In addition, the language should allow the future HOA
to sell the land to the property owner to the south for future development. The updated language
would allow the future HOA to retain the property and provide limited access for driveways and
utilities or to sell the tract for future development to the south. The language should specify that the
use or sale of the tract would only occur upon development of the adjacent site to the south. The
update language would be subject to review and approval by the Current P lanning Project Manager at
the time of Civil Construction Permit Application.
*Incorrectly referred to as “Condition #9” in the applicant’s reconsideration request.
Decision: Therefore, the reconsideration request to amend the conditions for the Jones Short Plat,
LUA20-000237, is partially approved. The original conditions shall be amended as written below:
Condition 3: Future Lot 5 shall retain a 61-foot front yard setback from the south property line
of proposed Lot 4 to ensure compliance with lot width, depth, and orientation requirements
and maintain a code compliant setback from the roadway if extended,. Alternatively, the
applicant shall redesign the short plat to extend Road A to the east property line for a minimum
of 80% of the lot width as required by RMC 4-7-170 in order to allow for a future connection to
the parcel to the east and bringing Lot 5 into conformance with lot width, depth, and
orientation standards of the R-6 zone.
Condition 5: The applicant shall submit an updated arborist report and final retention plan
that addresses all criteria in RMC 4.4.130, including but not limited to the feasibility of retaining
30% of significant trees and the priority order for retention. The updated arboris t report and
tree retention plan shall be submitted at the time of Civil Construction Permit application for
review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager.
Condition 7: Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 shall be required to take access from Tract B as shown on the
submitted Short Plat Plan (Exhibit 3). Alternatively, lots 2 and 3 may utilize the 10-foot wide
access easement on the north side of the site if the applicant provides documentation of the
requisite easement rights. The applicant shall record this restriction on the face of the plat.
Condition 9: Condition removed.
Condition 11: In order to ensure that parcel number 3342103250 located directly south of
Tract B, retains the ability to access the public street (Road A), upon future development, the
applicant shall record a public access easement over the entire tract (Tract B) prior to recording
of the final short plat, or the applicant may propose easement language allowing for the
installation of both driveways and utilities as approved by the City should the property to the
south develop or subdivide. In addition, the easement language could allow the future HOA to
sell the tract to the property owner to the south for future development. The proposed
language shall specify that the use or sale of the tract shall only be permitted upon
development or subdivision of the adjacent site to the south (APN 3342103250). The update
language shall be submitted at the time of Civil Construction Permit application for review and
approval by the Current Planning Project Manager.
Sincerely,
Vanessa Dolbee
Planning Director
cc: C.E. “Chip” Vincent, CED Administrator
Matt Herrera, Interim Current Planning Manager
Alex Morganroth, Senior Planner
Owner, Alan Jones
Applicant, Wei Yang
File No. LUA20-000237