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

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCouncil 10/03/2005AGENDA REN'TON CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING October 3, 2005 Monday, 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL 3. PROCLAMATIONS: a. National Breast Cancer Awareness Month - October, 2005 & National Mammography Day - October 21, 2005 b. Fire Prevention Week - October 9 to 15, 2005 c. National Domestic Violence Awareness Month - October, 2005 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS: a. Park Terrace Annexation and zoning for 80 acres located between SE 112th and 122nd Streets, if extended, and east of Anacortes Ave. NE' to 142nd and 144th Avenues SE b. Residential uses in the Commercial Arterial zone 5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT 6. AUDIENCE COMMENT (Speakers must sign up prior to the Council meeting. Each speaker is allowed five minutes. The comment period will be limited to one-half hour. The second audience comment period later on in the agenda is unlimited in duration.) When you are recognized by the Presiding Officer, please walk to the podium and state your name and address for the record, SPELLING YOUR LAST NAME. 7. CONSENT AGENDA The following items are distributed to Councilmembers in advance for study and review, and the recommended actions will be accepted in a single motion. Any item may be removed for further discussion if requested by a C ouncilmember. a. Approval of Council meeting minutes of 9/26/2005. Council concur. b. Court Case filed on behalf of MT Development, LLC, Banane Properties, LLC, and King County (involuntary) by Bill H. Williamson, Williamson Law Office, 701 5th Ave., Suite 5500, Seattle, 98 104, concerning zoning and the issuance of water and sewer certificates for property located at the intersection of Talbot Rd. S. and S. 55th St. in unincorporated King County. Refer to City Attorney and Insurance Services. c. Hearing Examiner recommends approval, with conditions, of the Wedgewood Lane Division 2 Preliminary Plat; 46 single-family residences on 7.16 acres located on I loquiam Ave. NE, (PP-05- 009). Council concur. d. Transportation Systems Division recommends concurrence with the Washington State Department of Transportation regarding the SR-167 mainline alignment from the southern Renton City limit to 1-405. Refer to Transportation (Aviation) Committee. e. Utility Systems Division recommends approval of Addendum No. 3 to CAG-03-168, contract with HDR Engineering, Inc., for additional work on the Maplewood Water Treatment Facility in the amount of $134,21 1. Refer to Utilities Committee. S. CORRESPONDFNCE 9. UNFINISIIED 13USINESS (CONTINU1-J) ON REVERSE SIDE) 10. RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES 11. NEW BUSINESS (Includes Council Committee agenda topics; call 425-430-6512 for recorded information.) 12. AUDIENCE COMMENT 13. ADJOURNMENT COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA (Preceding Council Meeting) Council Chambers 5:00 p.m. Annexation Study Results (East Plateau, West Hill, Fairwood) • Hearing assistance devices for use in the Council Chambers are available upon request to the City Clerk • CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE TELEVISED LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 21 AND ARE RE-CABLECAST TUES. & THURS. AT 1 1:00 AM & 9:00 PM, WED. & FRI. AT 9:00 AM & 7:00 PM AND SAT. & SUN. AT 1:00 PM & 9:00 PM RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting October 3, 2005 Council Chambers Monday. 7:00 p.m. MINUTES Renton City Hall CALL TO ORDER Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler called the meeting of the Renton City Council to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. ROLL CALL OF TERRI BRIERE, Council President; DENIS LAW; DAN CLAWSON; TONI COUNCILNIEMBERS NELSON; RANDY CORMAN; DON PERSSON; MARCIE PALMER. CITY STAFF IN KATHY KEOLKER-WHEELER, Mayor; JAY COVINGTON, Chief ATTENDANCE Administrative Officer; LAWRENCE J. WARREN, City Attorney; BONNIE WALTON, City Clerk; GREGG ZIMMERMAN, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator; ALEX PIETSCH, Economic Development Administrator; DON ERICKSON, Senior Planner; REBECCA LIND, Planner Manager; TINA HARRIS, Domestic Violence Victim Advocate; LINDA HERZOG, Interim Assistant to the CAO; DEPUTY CHIEF LARRY RUDE, Fire Department; COMMANDER FLOYD ELDRIDGE, Police Department. PROCLAMATIONS A proclamation by Mayor Keolker-Wheeler was read declaring the month of National Breast Cancer October, 2005, to be "National Breast Cancer Awareness Month" and the day Awareness Month - 10/2005 & of October 21, 2005, to be "National Mammography Day" in the City of Renton National Mammography Day - and encouraging all citizens to join in this special observance. MOVED BY 10/21/2005 BRIERE, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL. CONCUR IN THE PROCLAMATION AS READ. CARRIED. Fire Prevention Week - A proclamation by Mayor Keolker-Wheeler was read declaring the week of October 9 to 15, 2005 October 9 to 15, 2005, to be "Fire Prevention Week" in the City of Renton in commemoration of the Great Chicago Fire of 1871, which killed more than 250 persons, left 100,000 homeless, and destroyed more than 17,400 buildings. MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE PROCLAMATION AS READ. CARRIED. Deputy Fire Chief Larry Rude accepted the proclamation with appreciation on behalf of the Renton Fire Department. Ile encouraged citizens to check their smoke detectors and practice their home evacuation plans frequently, and be careful in their use of candles. National Domestic Violence A proclamation by Mayor Keolker-Wheeler was read declaring the month of Awareness Month - October, October, 2005, to be "National Domestic Violence Awareness Month" in the 2005 City of Renton and encouraging everyone in the community to take an active role in supporting all victims so they can lead healthy lives, safe from violent and abusive behavior. MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE PROCLAMATION AS READ. CARRIED. Tina Harris, Domestic Violence Victim Advocate, and Ken Colman, Domestic Violence Task Force Co -Chair, accepted the proclamation on behalf of the Renton Domestic Violence Task Force. Ms. Harris expressed her appreciation for the continued funding of the domestic violence programs, and explained that citizens can help victims by directing them to available programs, donating clothing and household items to local shelters, and donating old cell phones. Additionally, Ms. Harris recognized various people and businesses for their contributions to domestic violence programs. Councilwoman Nelson thanked Ms. Harris for all of her efforts in supporting the victims. October 3, 2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 336 PUBLIC HEARINGS This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in Annexation: Park Terrace, SE accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Keolker-Wheeler opened the I I2th PI & Anacortes Ave NE public hearing to consider the proposed expanded annexation and zoning of 80 acres located generally between SE 112th Pl. on the north and NE 6th Pl. on the south, and between 136th Ave. SE on the west and 144th Ave. SE, if extended, on the east (Park Terrace). Don Erickson, Senior Planner, stated that this is the second of two public hearings on the expanded annexation proposal, the area of which was approved for expansion from 7.65 acres by the Boundary Review Board. He explained that 112 structures currently exist on this peninsula of unincorporated land, which abuts Renton on more than 80% of its perimeter. Public services are currently provided by Fire District #25, Water District #90, Renton water, Renton sewer, and the Renton School District. Reviewing the fiscal impact analysis, Mr. Erickson estimated that the City will realize a surplus of $481 at current development, and a surplus of $39,955 at full development. He reviewed the site's current King County zoning, and reported that Renton's Comprehensive Plan designates the northern tip of the site as Residential Medium Density, for which R-10 (ten dwelling units per net acre) zoning is proposed for this 3.14-acre area consisting of three parcels. The remaining 59.9 acres, consisting of 113 parcels, is designated Residential Single Family, for which R-8 (eight dwelling units per net acre) zoning is proposed. Mr. Erickson stated that the proposed annexation is generally consistent with Boundary Review Board objectives and City policies, and appears to serve the best interests and general welfare of Renton. Mr. Erickson noted the need to continue the public hearing to 10/17/2005, as a 30-day separation is required per State law between the first public hearing and the second public hearing at which action will be taken on the matter. Councilmembers Briere and Persson recommended expanding the R-10 zone to include the parcels south and west of the Kingdom Hall Church parcel. Economic Development Administrator Alex Pietsch explained that an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is needed to expand the R-10 zone, and he indicated that staff will work with the property owners to that effect. He pointed out that the proposed annexation can proceed with the current R-8 designation, and a Comprehensive Plan amendment can be considered at a later time. Responding to Councilman Law's inquiry, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator Gregg Zimmerman confirmed that improvements are needed on Duvall Ave. NE (138th Ave. SE) in the estimated amount of $500,000. Public comment was invited. Bret Holmes, 3711 NE IOth Lane, Renton, 98056, stated that he is currently developing property located at 11827 141 st Ave. SE, and expressed his support for the annexation. Mayor Keolker-Wheeler referred Mr. Holmes' concerns regarding the permitting process to Mr. Zimmerman. There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL: CONCUR WITH THE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD AND EXPAND THE PARK TERRACE ANNEXATION SITE TO 80 ACRES BY INCLUDING THE UNINCORPORATED October 3, 2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 337 PENINSULA OF LAND TO THE NORTH AND EAST; SUPPORT FUTURE ZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO 10/17/2005 FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE ANNEXATION ORDINANCE AND THE R-8 AND R-10 REZONE ORDINANCES. CARRIED. Planning: Residential Uses in This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in Commercial Arterial Zones accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Keolker-Wheeler opened the public hearing to consider zoning code amendments pertaining to residential uses in the Commercial Arterial (CA) zone. Rebecca Lind, Planner Manager, explained that the purpose of the amendments is to promote a better connection between the residential and commercial components of the CA zone. She reviewed the issues raised that led to these proposed changes, such as determining the purpose of residential development in the CA zone and whether stand-alone residential uses should be allowed. Ms. Lind noted that staff is working with the Planning and Development Committee and the Planning Commission on this matter. Ms. Lind reviewed the proposed CA zone changes, as follows: — Amend the purpose of the CA zone by stating "Limited residential uses may be integrated into the CA zone if there are permanent physical connections to commercial uses." — Allow attached and semi -attached housing in the NE 4th, Puget, and Sunset Business Districts, specifically limited to townhouse units with an administrative conditional use permit. — Disallow detached single-family units. — Reduce the minimum lot size for attached residential plats. This allows for the development of platted townhomes. Currently, the 5000 square foot minimum lot size prevents the development of a fee simple ownership residential product. — Create development and design standards for the NE 4th, Puget, and Sunset Business Districts in the Commercial Business District Overlay. Ms. Lind detailed the following changes to commercial and residential uses: — Include public plazas at major intersections. — Designate future pads for development. — Limit parking to minimum requirement. — Require pedestrian connections between the entry and the street, from the parking area to the entry, and to adjacent uses. — Require design standards set for pedestrian connections. Continuing, Ms. Lind reviewed the changes to the residential only uses, which include: compliance with Urban Center design standards, rear access parking within an enclosed structure, and a modified street grid system for dwellings fronting on the street. In regard to the mixed use areas, changes include: limiting hammerhead turnarounds, reserving 1st floor development for commercial development, conforming to Urban Center Design Guidelines District B standards, and providing residential parking below surface for the residential use. Additionally, Ms. Lind reviewed the added conditional use criteria for residential uses in business districts. She noted the recommendation that October 3, 2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 338 residential uses may not be developed within 150 feet of the adjacent arterial, ►oust be surrounded by a mix of uses, and must have a physical connection to other uses in the zone. Ms. Lind explained that the proposed changes tie the commercial and residential uses closer together, and still allow limited residential development in the business districts. She pointed out that as a conditional use, not every parcel, nor every project, will be suitable for residential development in the districts. Correspondence was read from Charlotte VanLaningham, Davis Real Estate Group, 1201 Monster Rd. SW, Suite 320, Renton, 98055, expressing concern regarding the proposed change that does not allow stand-alone residential projects to be developed within 150 feet of the adjacent arterial. She suggested that an option be included that allows the 150-foot rule to be waived administratively, and that the 150-foot rule not be applied when the parcel is less than 25,000 square feet. A memorandum was read from the Planning Commission requesting that if a development is to include residential as a conditional use, that there be a condition to have allocation for a public street grid for future use. Public comment was invited. Patrick Gilroy, LandTrust, Inc., 1560 140th Ave. NE, Suite 100, Bellevue, 98005, expressed his support for the changes to the CA zone, and commented that builders now prefer stand-alone townhouse development to stacked -flat development. Mr. Gilroy recommended allowing the Development Services Division some flexibility to work with design standards at the building permit stage. There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL REFER THE TWO ITEMS OF CORRESPONDENCE TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. ADMINISTRATIVE Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington reviewed a written administrative REPORT report summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of its business plan for 2005 and beyond. Items noted included: The Washington State Department of Transportation will host an open house regarding SR-169 (Maple Valley Hwy.) on October 13th, from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. at the Renton Community Center. Development Services: Mr. Covington reported that the abandoned Bagnariol Building at 421 Union Demolition of Abandoned Ave. NE was demolished by the owner on October 1st. Gregg Zimmerman, Bagnariol Building, Union Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator, displayed photographs of the Ave NE building before and after its demolition. Stating that this building has been the subject of long-standing code compliance actions, Mr. Zimmerman emphasized that the demolition of the structure is a significant accomplishment for the REACT program. CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. Council Meeting Minutes of Approval of Council meeting minutes of 9/26/2005. Council concur. 9/26/2005 October 3, 2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 339 Court Case: MT Development Court Case filed on behalf of MT Development, LLC, Banane Properties, LLC & Banane Properties, CRT-05- and King County (involuntarily) by Bill H. Williamson, Williamson Law Oil Office, 7015th Ave., Suite 5500, Seattle, 98104, concerning zoning and the issuance o"T,water and sewer certificates for property located at the intersection of Talbot Rd. S. and S. 55th St. in unincorporated King County. Refer to City Attorney and Insurance Services. Plat: Wedgewood Lane Hearing Examiner recommended approval, with conditions, of the Wedgewood Division 2, Hoquiam Ave NE, Lane Division 2 Preliminary Plat; 46 single-family residences on 7.16 acres PP-05-009 located at 700, 750, 760, and 780 Hoquiam Ave. NE (PP-05-009). Council concur. WSDOT: SR-167 Mainline Transportation Systems Division recommended concurrence with the Alignment Concurrence Letter Washington State Department of Transportation regarding the SR-167 mainline alignment from the southern Renton City limit to I-405. Refer to Transportation (Aviation) Committee. CAG: 03-168, Maplewood Utility Systems Division recommended approval of Addendum No. 3 to CAG- Water Treatment Facility 03-168, contract with HDR Engineering, Inc., for additional work on the Improvements, HDR Maplewood Water Treatment Facility improvements in the amount of Engineering $134,211. Refer to Utilities Committee. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. NEW BUSINESS Councilman Corman reported that the Eastside Transportation Partnership met Transportation: Bus Rapid last Friday and discussed the issue of bus rapid transit. He indicated that City Transit staff is preparing a report on the matter for presentation at next week's Council meeting. Community Services: Farmers Councilman Corman emphasized that the rumor regarding the Spirit of Market Washington Dinner Train wanting to get rid of the Farmers Market is not true. He noted that the dinner train leases the Pavilion Building, which is located next to the Piazza where the Farmers Market is held. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL ADJOURN. CARRIED. Time: 8: p.m. //11 &LtiYl-tomS W'.CL Bonnie 1. Walton, CMC, City Clerk Recorder: Michele Neumann October 3, 2005 RENTON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETING CALENDAR Office of the City Clerk COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS SCHEDULED AT CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 3, 2005 COMMITTEE/CHAIRMAN DATE/TIME AGENDA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (B riere) COMMUNITY SERVICES (Nelson) FINANCE (Persson) MON., 10/10 MON., 10/10 CANCELLED CANCELLED MON., 10/10 Vouchers; 6:00 p.m. Business License Fee Reporting Period Changes; Contract Policy & Procedure PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT THURS., 10/06 Aberdeen Ave. NE Street Vacation (Clawson) 2:00 p.m. (briefing only); 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendments; Zoning Text Amendments re: Residential Uses in the Commercial Arterial Zone PUBLIC SAFETY (Law) TRANSPORTATION (AVIATION) THURS., 10/06 (Palmer) 3:30 p.m. SR-167 Mainline Alignment Concurrence with WSDOT; Sprint Master Use Agreement; Bosair Lease Addendum and AcuWings Operating Permit; Metro's Proposed Service Changes for Route 110 (briefing only); Lakeshore Landing (briefing only) UTILITIES THURS., 10/06 Fund Transfer to Springbrook Creek (Corman) 4:30 p.m. Floodplain Map Update & N 26th St./Park Pl. N Storm Improvement Projects; Contract Addendum with HDR Engineering for Maplewood Water Treatment Facility NOTE: Committee of the Whole meetings are held in the Council Chambers unless otherwise noted. All other committee meetings are held in the Council Conference Room unless otherwise noted. CITY OF RENTON Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Wh.efrea*, October, 2005, is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month and October 21, 2005, is National Mammography Day; and W1AP_ rea4-, breast cancer is the most common cancer among women, except for non -melanoma skin cancers, and is the second leading cause of cancer death in women, exceeded only by lung cancer; and W11efrea4-, African American women are disproportionately affected by breast cancer deaths, and the chance of developing invasive breast cancer at some time in any woman's life is about 1 in 7, and; Wh.erect4; over 210,000 new cases of female invasive breast cancer will be diagnosed in 2005 and more than 40,000 will die from the disease; and Wh.efreaW; nearly 1,700 new cases of male breast cancer will be diagnosed in 2005 and more than 450 will die of the disease; and W1AP_ reap; death rates from breast cancer have been declining, and this change is believed to be the result of earlier detection and improved treatment; and Where w, mammography, an "x-ray" of the breast, is recognized as the single most effective method of detecting breast changes that may indicate cancer long before physical symptoms can be seen or felt; NOW, rherefcwe; I, Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor of the City of Renton, do hereby proclaim the month of October, 2005, to be and October 21, 2005, to be in the City of Renton, and I encourage all citizens to join me in this special observance. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the City of Renton to be affixed this 3`d day of October, 2005. � AAA A _ Kathy Ke lker-Wheeler Mayor of the City of Renton, Washington RE TN oN 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425) 430-6500 / FAX (425) 430-6523 MThis oaoer contains 50 % recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE CITY OF RENTON Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Whewea�, in 1822, President Woodrow Wilson declared the week containing October 9th to be Fire Prevention Week in special observance of the Great Chicago Fire of 1871; and Wh.erea,; an estimated 18,000 home fires are started by candles each year, causing an estimated direct annual property loss of $264 million; and Wh-,re,C , these fires, causing an estimated 190 deaths and 1,450 civilian injuries annually, can easily be prevented by taking simple safety precautions; and Whev'e,a4; developing a home fire escape plan and practicing it at least twice a year are critical to escaping a fire safely; and W hereaa; proper installation, testing, and maintenance of smoke alarms are part of a thorough home fire escape plan; and W hewea4; by preventing the leading causes of home fires, and by developing and practicing a thorough home escape plan, people can greatly reduce their fire risk; and W 1W,re W, the City of Renton fire service is dedicated to the protection of life and property from the devastating effects of fire; Now, There -are, I, Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor of the City of Renton, do hereby proclaim the week of October 9-15, 2005, to be: F64/�Tlr"e4AU4)-w W eely in commemoration of the Great Chicago Fire of 1871, which killed more than 250 persons, left 100,000 homeless, and destroyed more than 17,400 buildings. I encourage all citizens to join me in this special observance. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the City of Renton to be affixed this 3rd day of October, 2005. Kathy K olker-Wheeler Mayor of the City of Renton, Washington 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425) 430-6500 / FAX ( 25-6523 E N TO N ) eThis paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE CITY OF RENTON Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler WheYeaW, domestic violence is a leading cause of death, killing more women than car crashes, muggings, and rape combined; and Whev,v, ; it has been estimated that every nine seconds a woman is beaten by her husband or boyfriend in this country and, in more than half those instances, children under the age of 12 are present; and WheYea_j,- each year in our nation, male intimates kill 1,000 to 1,600 female partners; and WheYea-i,- research suggests that a large number of women who commit suicide do so because of their violent victimization at the hands of an intimate male partner; and WheYeaW, in Renton, 2,092 domestic violence offenses were reported in 2004; and U1heYeaj,- families and communities are strengthened by holding domestic violence perpetrators accountable for their crimes; and WheYea-k, recognizing domestic violence victims is important for our communities to promote healing and empowerment; and Whev-eaW; October is nationally recognized as Domestic Violence Awareness Month, and increasing public awareness and understanding of domestic violence will promote safety, health, and wellness for victims; /Voui 7hP�'e1E7-te, I, Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor of the City of Renton, do hereby proclaim the month of October, 2005, to be in the City of Renton, and encourage everyone in our community to take an active role in supporting all victims so they can lead healthy lives safe from violent and abusive behavior. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the City of Renton to be affixed this 3rd day of October, 2005. _ & A A A Kathy Kklker-Wheeler Mayor of the City of Renton, Washington 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425) 430-6500 / FAX (425) 430-6523 ® This paper contains 50 % recycled material, 30 % post consumer RENTON AHEAD OF THE CURVE Y PARK TERRACE ANNEXATION - EXPANDED PUBLIC HEARING EXPANDED ANNEXATION AND PROPOSED R-8 & R-10 ZONING October 3, 2005 The Boundary Review Board for King County notified the City on July 16, 2005 that the Park Terrace — Expanded Annexation, had been approved by that body. The original 7.65-acre Park Terrace Subdivision annexation site was expanded to approximately 80-acres by bringing in the so called "hook", a peninsula of unincorporated King County along 138`h Avenue SE that is surrounded by the City along approximately 85% of its perimeter. Staff noted at the July 12, 2004 public meeting that it was possible that the Boundary Review Board at a later date would expand the original boundaries to include this enlarged area. Council held the first of two required public hearings on future zoning for the expanded annexation on September 12, 2005. Tonight's hearing is the second of two required public hearings on the now enlarged area. The expanded annexation site abuts the City on its western, northern, southern, and most of its eastern boundaries (see map on reverse side). 1381h Avenue SE (Duvall Avenue NE), if extended, defines portions of its eastern and western boundaries. Also, it is the major arterial that bisects this expanded annexation area. The expanded area includes 112 existing dwelling units and is expected to grow to 206 dwelling units at full development. There are some major anticipated costs, primarily for road resurfacing, associated with the expanded annexation area. Staff estimates a cost of $483,000 for roadway resurfacing and approximately $131,183 for future parks acquisition and development. Council is holding tonight's public hearing to further consider whether it wishes to accept the expanded 80-acre annexation site, and if it does, what future zoning for it should be. Renton's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map shows two designations for this area, Residential Medium Density (RM) for a small area at the northern tip of this unincorporated peninsula, and Residential Single Family (RS) for the majority of area remaining to the south. To be consistent with these land use designations the northern portion would most likely be zoned R-10, ten units per net acre, and the remaining area, R-8, eight units per net acre. The Administration is recommending that Council: • Accept the recommendation of the Boundary Review Board to expand the original 7.65- acre Park Terrace Annexation to 80-acres by bringing in the unincorporated peninsula to the north, • Rezone the non -street portions of the enlarged annexation site to R-8, south of SE 113`h Street, if extended, and to R-10, north of SE 1131h Street, if extended, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. • Continue tonight's hearing to October 17, 2005 for first reading of the zoning and annexation ordinances. 0 O o w ro n b m X :3 � N (DD Q A> m J C) O O O O N O O C) N Z �t• , 3 __- A�Yi� "Yuji 1A Background • Initially submitted as 7.65 acre annexation • At 60% public hearing Council authonzed staff to send Notice of Intent to BRB where it Aas likely the boundaries would be extended to the north • BRB considered expanded annexation at its public hearing on May 24, 2005 • BRB notified City July 16, 2005 that it was expanding original annexation by 72.35 acres to eliminate unincorporated peninsula • Tonight's hearing H ill be the second of tti o required to consider future zoning for enlarged area Park Terrace Annexation - Expanded Second Public Hearing on Future Zoning October 3, 2005 Existing Conditions • PAA - Expanded area within Renton's Potential Annexation Area • Location - West and east sides of 138'h Avenue SE, bet,,\ cen 1361h Avenue SE on the N est and 1441h Avenue SE, if extended, on the east • Size - + 80 acres, including abutting street ROW • Uses - 112 existing single-fammty dwellings • Boundaries - This peninsula of unincorporated land abuts Renton on more than 80' o of its perimeter Fiscal Impact Analysis Assumes 1 I� neH units i Current Full and 90 rrmaunng units Development Development Revenues $138,141 S319,07 Costs 1 $137,660 $279,912 Surplus/ S481 539,955 Deficit King County Current Zoning K.C. 7.onina ' R-4 (7.76 acres) 1 I 4� - Residential 4 duhr. ac* (xvest of 13&Axe SE and 09 t south of SE 12W', i1'extend.) Wusrp R-6 (38.85 acres) IIi11� ` 'aA •� Residential 6 du/gr.ac* aa.n (east of 13811, Axe SF: to 142"a Axe SF. excluding original�'? Z6i acre site) ` �i "�,c •. llltiil: 1 - = R-8 (16.39 acres) - Residential 8 dulgr.ac` 138", Axe SE 14011i �• 1.: �D w (between and Ave SE, north of NE 80' St) `•R-4 hwnn. up to 6 du g, a< H-h hnrnnr, ap to ihr. r rrc •R-X hnnrnrc up to 1 tl du tr ur Proposed R-10 Zoning Condominiums Mauldin, Property Kingdom Hall • 3 parcels • 3.14 acres King County Comp Plan Designation K C. Land Use Man - Crban Residential 4-12du/ac SITE " R-4 bonuses up to 6 dulgr oc County Comprehensive :Nap R-6 bonuses up to 9 dulgr tic Renton Comp Plan Designation and Proposed Zoning Renton Comp Plan Land, rt�i l se Ma r� t Residential Rj e Single Family (RS)� i�Ie. Residential Medium Density(RO) Renton ZoningMap I R-10 ( l O du net acre) r R-8 (8 du net acre) AHIS re... SITE 'Renton Comprehensive Plan Proposed R-8 Zoning 1 13 parcels 59.9 acres e1` C O 0. rO•-�� (" a C O C ry a � c faro V• CD ¢ ��`1 _ �a•� o O EL J CP � Is, oo,. 0 � _c.y � v. s c ,o� 'w-moo F; woo mrtg��. n, o � � O ~-' �� oa^� or , f c$ Ito ❑� GAG D =� n �, ry 8� •o _ 0 7�V �• s " o w w� ao °� � O '� � � s c � � w a ( !D O � n� �� F. n a am o n a o r 'Sy. � ca. � C C G d I+C `y0 nn7 b7� G7 C7 !7 C:) = �. 0.. m p =• CD G. Nay CD rDCD NK. O (DCL CD CL CD CD CD 14. O �� ua O =r C m Y PUBLIC HEARING COMMERCIAL ARTERIAL, (CA) RESIDENTIAL CODE CHANGES October 3, 2005 The purpose of this code amendment is to better implement the Comprehensive Plan vision for the Commercial Arterial (CA) zone, which envisions the CA zone to be a vibrant, pedestrian - oriented district. In the proposed Amendment there is additional opportunity for residential development in the NE 4`h, Sunset, and Puget Business Districts. This change allows residential only, or "stand alone" residential uses in the Business Districts at a maximum density of 20 du/ac (dwelling units per acre) with an Administrative Conditional Use Permit. Under the specifications for approval of the Administrative Conditional Use permit, stand alone residential projects may not be developed within 150 ft. of the adjacent arterial, in order to protect commercial frontage in the CA zone for commercial uses. Additionally, the conditional use requires that the proposal meet Business District development standards, including standards for pedestrian connections and high quality design. A change in minimum lot size from 5,000 square feet to 1,200 square feet allows fee simple townhouse development. Residential development may occur as part of a mixed use project with a bonus density of a maximum 60 du/ac. Development standards for the Business District have been created to shape commercial, residential, and mixed use projects in these areas. In general, the NE 41h, Sunset, and Puget Business Districts are: limited to a maximum front setback of 15 feet, subject to the creation of public plazas at arterial intersections, required to reserve future commercial development pads, and subject to parking standards established to limit the impact of parking on the Districts. Pedestrian connections are required to link uses throughout the District, and are subject to design and landscaping standards. Residential only uses are required to: develop a public street grid and limit hammerheads, provide ground floor entries for units, reserve open space for each unit, limit buildings to 4 attached units, comply with District B standards from the Urban Center Design Guidelines, and provide rear access parking. Mixed uses are required to: limit hammerheads, reserve 1" floor development for commercial development, conform to District B standards from the Urban Center Design Guidelines, and provide residential parking below the residential use. Other changes include simplifying the naming of the affected areas. References would be changed so that "Business district" refers to the CA overlay zone and "Commercial Corridor" refers to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation. Maps have been amended to reflect these changes as well. There will be corresponding changes to the terminology used in the Comprehensive Plan to ensure consistency. Those changes are being proposed as a Comprehensive Plan amendment and will be subject to a public hearing prior to the end of the year. Staff is recommending that Council adopt these changes to Title IV to provide better implementation of the Comprehensive Plan vision for the Commercial Arterial areas. Issues • What is the purpose of residential development in the CA zone and does it comply with the Comprehensive Plan? • Should the City allow stand alone residential uses in the comzmercial uses?hould they be given the same priority as • If stand alone residential is desired, what type of uses should be allowed? Should there be simplified language relating to Commerclal Corridor designations? Recommended Code Changes ' Amend the purpose of the CA zone to acknowledge that limited residential use is appropriate when it is well integrated with surrounding commercial development. New purpose wording: ~limited residential uses may be integrated into the zone if there are permanent Physical connections to commercial uses." Promoting the Commercial Arterial Zone as a Walkable Community Title IV Amendment Public Hearing October 3, 2005 Policy Direction from the Planning and DeveloPment Committee Consider platted stand-alone townhouse development to support an ownership housing product. Eliminate stacked flats unless part of a mixed use proiect Make stand-alone residential a conditional use. Require commercial and residential uses to be connected to Promote an integrated, walkable community. Recommended Code Changes • Amend the use tables at to allow attached and semi -attached housing in the CA zone • NE 4th, Puget and Sunset Business Districts • Allow townhouse units in the Business Districts with an Administrative Conditional Use Permit. • Does not allow detached single family Recommended Code Changes Amend the development standards for the CA zone to reduce the minimum lot size for attached residential plats. This change allows for the creation of platted town homes in the CA zone. Currently, the 5000 sq. ft. minimum lot size prevents the development of a fee simple ownership residential product. Recommended Code Changes Commercial and Residential: • Must include public plazas at major intersections. • Must designate future pads for development. • Parking limited to minimum requirement, with design standards for landscaping. • Pedestrian connections required between the entry and the street, from the parking area to the entry, and to adjacent uses. • Design standards set for pedestrian connections. Recommended Code Changes Mixed use: • Access standards limit hammerhead turnarounds • Minimum 30 ft. depth for 11d floor commercial along arterial frontage • Subject to Urban Center Design Guidelines District B standards • Parking must be under residential development, surface parking okay for guests. Recommended Code Changes Residential: • Urban Center design standards. • Rear access parking within an enclosed structure • A modified street grid system dwellings fronting on the street. • Planning Commission recommends public street system Recommended Code Changes Add Conditional Use Criteria for Residential Uses in Business Districts: • More than 150' from arterial intersections. • Must be surrounded by a mix of uses. • Commercial use is not feasible due to: lack of commercial frontage, access, critical areas or buffers, or property configuration. 2 Recommended Code Changes Add Conditional Use Criteria for Residential Uses in Business Districts, continued: • Must have a physical connection to other uses in the zone. • Provides a transition between purely commercial and purely residential zones. Conclusion • Fairly prescriptive design and development standards are required. • Both the Commercial and the Residential guidelines must be adjusted to strengthen the physical and community connections in these Districts. • Less confusing terminology aids in the implementation of the code. Conclusion • The proposed changes allow limited residential development in the Business Districts. • As a Conditional Use not every parcel, nor every project, will be suitable for residential development in the District. • Residential uses need to be more integrated with the commercial uses to fulfill the vision of the Commercial Corridor in the Comprehensive Plan. g r o u p September 30, 2005 Renton City Council C/o City Clerk 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 pai(zi A& - 49" 4�60� V64?u ea CITY OF RENTON OCT 0 3 2005 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 4ee ' 0 Re: Monday 10/03/05, Public Hearing, Proposed Changes — CA Residential Code, To: Renton City Council: It is our understanding that under the proposed change, minimum lot size changed to 1200 square feet. However, the proposed change does not allow stand alone residential projects to be developed within 150' of the adjacent arterial, in order to protect commercial frontage in the CA zone for commercial uses. A) Davis Consulting, Inc. and our clients have under completion and have completed a substantial number of projects in the CN and CA zones. We propose the Administrative Conditional Use Permit provide and allowances as follow: When the project site is surrounded by existing residential it is our belief that the 150 foot rule cannot be universally applied. We request that the CA code change include an option that the 150 feet rule can be waived administratively. • When the parcel is less than 25,000 sf, the 150 foot rule does not apply. Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have any questions you may reach me at the office 425- 228-5959 or my cell 206-853-6004. Sincerely, &4�VA.4&L , j4` W/an/ Charlotte VanLaningham Project Manager Davis Real Estate Group Cc: Rebecca Lind, Planning Manager Pt AIrc HearI4 C�orr�s�o 1�eoda .Tfem �y ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC�v ' PLANNING DEPARTMENT M E M O R A N D U M 3 DATE: October N, 2005 TO: Members of Renton City Council Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor FROM: Renton Planning Commission SUBJECT: 2005 Commercial Arterial Zone Code Amendments The Renton Planning Commission met Wednesday, September 21, 2005 to review the Commercial Arterial Zone code amendment. The Commission reviewed the issue and suggested staff take the following recommendation to the Planning and Development Committee for its meeting on Thursday, October 6, 2005. RECOMMENDED ACTION: M/�RQ/GJ) to accept Staff s Recommendation in the Commercial Business Districts issue paper dated 09/07/04, with the following condition: If a development is to include residential as a conditional use, there be a condition to have allocation for a public street grid for future use. MOTION CARRIED. For: Robert Bonner, Jimmy Cho, Jerrilynn Hadley, Gerrie Jackson, Nancy Osborn, Rosemary Quesenberry Against: None Absent: None Signed ' Ra iometti, Chair Renton Planning Commission hAednsp\planning comm\recommendations\2005\ca code amendment.doc CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: October 3, 2005 TO: Terri Briere, Council President Members of the Renton City Council FROM: Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer SUBJECT: Administrative Report In addition to our day-to-day activities, the following items are worthy of note for this week: GENERAL INFORMATION Twisted Flicks will be presented at the Renton IKEA Performing Arts Center on Friday, October 7th, at 8:00 p.m. It is a movie experience like no other. A classic, cheesy `B" movie is shown without its original soundtrack. All dialogue, sound effects, and music are improvised live based on suggestions from the audience. Great entertainment for the whole family. Call the Performing Arts Center box office at 425-204-3455 for tickets and information. The Washington State Department of Transportation will host an Open House regarding SR 169 on Thursday, October 13th, from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. at the Renton Community Center, located at 1715 Maple Valley Highway. The Open House will give residents the opportunity to review the Route Development Plans that identify short- and long-term improvements along this corridor. For further information about the Open House, call 206-464-1288. The City of Renton joins over 90 cities to "Walk Across Washington" in an effort to raise statewide awareness of the important role physical activity plays in improving health and the availability of recreational opportunities offered by community parks and trails. In Renton, the walk will be held on Saturday, October 15th. Registration and check -in for the walk will begin at 12:00 noon at the Piazza, followed by a kick-off celebration at 12:30 p.m. The celebration will include a proclamation by Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, who will also participate in the three- mile walk from the Piazza along the Cedar River Trail, slated to begin at 12:45 p.m. The free event is being held in conjunction with Piazza Renton's 4th Annual Harvest Festival and the Greater Renton Chamber of Commerce Business Expo. ADMINISTRATIVE/JUDICIAL/LEGAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT • The October 2005 edition of CitySource, the City's newsletter to citizens and businesses, will be featured in the October 5th issue of the Renton Reporter. This edition will feature detailed information about state and local transportation projects; emergency preparedness resources; flood insurance options; Citizen of the Year program; Walk Across Washington event; September City Council highlights; and a calendar of upcoming events. CitySource is distributed to over 31,000 households and can also be found on the City's website through the Spotlight section under the press release option. Administrative Report October 3, 2005 Page 2 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT On Friday, September 30th, Ron Regis Park was the site of the Recreation Division's annual youth soccer challenge. This free event drew over 100 youth, ages 12 and under, who competed to represent the City of Renton in the State Championship, which will be held later in October. The competition included ball throw-in, distance kick, goal shooting, and dribbling. Each child was awarded a certificate of participation. • Over 275 Renton area senior citizens enjoyed a fabulous pancake breakfast on Saturday, October 1st at the Renton Senior Activity Center. The free breakfast was sponsored by the City of Renton employees union local 2170, with 25 City of Renton employees volunteering for this annual event. PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT The abandoned Bagnariol Building at 421 Union Avenue NE was demolished by the owner on Saturday, October 1st. This building has been the subject of long-standing code compliance actions, so the demolition of the structure is a significant accomplishment for the REACT program. CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBMITTING DATA: Dept/Div/Board.. AJLS/City Clerk Staff Contact... Bonnie Walton SUBJECT: CRT-05-011; Court Case MT Development, LLC & Banane Properties, LLC; & King County (involuntary) v. City of Renton & King County Review Board of the State of Washington EXHIBITS: Summons and Complaint Al11 #: FOR AGENDA OF AGENDA STATUS: Consent.... Public Hearing.. Correspondence.. Ordinance... Resolution... Old Business....... New Business...... Study Session.... Other.... RECOMMENDED ACTION: APPROVALS: Legal Dept...... Refer to City Attorney and Insurance Services Finance Dept.... Other. FISCAL IMPACT: Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment.. Amount Budgeted ........ Revenue Generated... SUMMARY OF ACTION: X Summons and Petition for Constitutional & Statutory Writs of Review, Mandamus, and Prohibition; Complaint for Declaratory Relief; & Appeal of King County Boundary Review Board Annexation Decision filed in King County Superior Court by Bill H. Williamson, Williamson Law Office, 701 5th Ave., Suite 5500, Seattle, 98104, on behalf of MT Development, LLC, Banane Properties, and King County (involuntary plaintiff) concerning zoning and the issuance of water and sewer certificates for property located at the intersection of Talbot Rd. S. and S. 55th St. in unincorporated King County. 1 2 3 4 5 6' 71 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CITY OF RENTON SEP2320Q5 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE by IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR THE COUNTY OF KING MT DEVELOPMENT, LLC a Washington State limited liability company; BANANE PROPERTIES, a Washington State limited liability company, Plaintiffs/Petitioners, KING COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Washington, Involuntary Plaintiff/Petitioner, V. CITY OF RENTON, a municipality of the State of Washington, Defendant/Respondent, V. KING COUNTY REVIEW BOARD OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, an agency of the State of Washington, Defendant/Respndent. PAI ,-05-2-31151 - 7KNi SUMMONS (20 DAY) f SEP 2 3 2005 g Ct.;siiw; ja"Oit cuer�r (� <r1 (leik ' ee: mays 4� dmr �6Pw f}d�m�nis-frc�i-or Summons - 1 WILLIAMSON LAW OFFICE 701 FIFTH AVE., SUITE 5500 BANK OF AMERICA TOWER SEATTLE, WA 98104 r 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 TO THE NAMED DEFENDANTS ABOVE: A lawsuit has been started against you in the above entitled court by MT DEVELOPMENT, LLC. Plaintiff's claims are stated in the written complaint and petition, a copy of which is served upon you with this Summons. In order to defend against this lawsuit, you must respond to the complaint by stating your defense in writing, and serve a copy upon the person signing the Summons within 20 days after service of the summons, excluding the day of service, or a default judgment may be entered against you without notice. A default judgment is one where the Plaintiff is entitled to what he asks for because you have not responded. If you serve a Notice of Appearance on the undersigned person, you are entitled to notice before a default judgment may be entered. You may demand that the Plaintiff' file this lawsuit with the Court. If you do so, the demand must be made in writing and must be served upon the person signing this Summons. Within 14 days after you serve the demand, the Plaintiff must file this lawsuit with the Court, or the service upon you of this Summons and Complaint will be void. If you wish to seek the advice of an attorney in this matter, you should do so promptly so that your written response, if any, may be served in time. This Summons is issued pursuant to Rule 4 of the Superior Court Civil Rules of the State of Washington. S Dated thi�/ ay of September 2005. Bill H. Wil iamson, WSBA #4304 Attorney for Plaintiffs Summons - 2 WILLIAMSON LAW OFFICE 701 FIFTH AVE., SUITE 5500 BANK OF AMERICA TOWER SEATTLE, WA 98104 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 11 $ SEp 2 3 2005 $1 CITY OF RENTOM SIm P 2 3 ZOO5 RECEIVED CITY CLERKS OFFICE IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR THE COUNTY OF KING MT DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a Washington State limited liability company; BANANE PROPERTIES, a Washington State limited liability company, Plaintiffs/Petitioners, KING COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Washington, Involuntary Plaintiff/Petitioner, AIM CITY OF RENTON, a municipality of the State of Washington, Defendant/Respondent, KING COUNTY REVIEW BOARD OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, an agency of the State of Washington, Defendant/Respondent. NO. 5-2-3 151-7 PETITION FOR CONSTITUTIONAL & STATUTORY WRITS OF REVIEW, MANDAMUS, AND PROHIBITION; COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF; & APPEAL OF KING COUNTY BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD ANNEXATION DECISION (RCW 36.93.160) I. PARTIES 1.1 Plaintiff/Petitioner MT Development, LLC ("MT"), is the owner of King County Tax Parcel Nos. 7931000151, 7931000152, and 7931000154) in King County, WA, which are the subject of this litigation ("Subject Property") as portions of Lot 11 of the Plat of Springbrook Acres EXTRAORDINARY WRIT & OTHER RELIEF - 1 COPY WILLIAMSON LAW OFFICE 7015"'Avenue -Suite 5500 SEAaE, WA 98104 fnnU nnn nAI 1 1 CAV lnnl% nnn n019 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 Plat. The Subject Property is located at the intersection of Talbot Road South and South 550' Street in unincorporated King County. See Exhibit A vicinitymap, incorporated byreference herein. The Subject Property is located within King County's Urban Growth Boundary adjacent to but outside the incorporated boundaries of the City of Renton. MT's agent for purposes of developing the Subject Property acting on its behalf is Banane Properties, LLC, a limited liability company in the State of Washington with offices located at 9016 356`h Avenue SE, Snoqualmie, WA; and Pacific Engineering Design, LLC, a civil engineering form with offices located at 4180 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98053. 1.2 Plaintiff/Petitioner Banane Properties, LLC (`Banane") is the agent of MT assisting MT in the development of the Subject Property. Plaintiff Banane maintains offices located at 9016 356 th Avenue SE, Snoqualmie, WA. 1.3 Involuntary Plaintiff/Petitioner King County ("County") is a political subdivision of the State of Washington with offices located at 516 Third Avenue, King County Courthouse, Seattle, WA. The County is responsible for administering inter alia implementation of the Washington State Growth Management Act, RCW Chapter 36.70A, and the enforcement of the King County Comprehensive Plan, King County Comprehensive County -wide Planning Policies, the administration of King County's Urban Growth Area, and the regulation and administration of development standards for parcels of real property located in unincorporated King County. 1.4 Defendant/Respondent City of Renton ("City") is a non -charter code municipal corporation of the State of Washington organized under RCW Title 35A with offices located at 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. The City is the sole provider of water and sewer utility services to enable development of the subject property. The City provides certificates of water and sewer availability submitting applications for project permits as defined by RCW 36.70B.020(4). 1.5 Defendant/Respondent King County Boundary Review Board of the State of Washington (`BRB") is an agency ofthe State of Washington with offices located at the Yesler Building, Room EXTRAORDINARY WRIT & OTHER RELIEF - 2 WILLIAMSON LAW OFFICE 701 5'' Avenue - Suite 5500 SEAaE, WA 98104 Inn II nnn nA, 1 , rnv enn„ nni, nn, n 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 26 402, 400 Yesler Way, Seattle, WA 98104. The Boundary Review Board considers proposals for creation of or changes to boundaries by cities, including annexations. The BRB evaluates applications to ensure compliance with criteria established under the Boundary Review Board Enabling Act, RCW 36.93, and compliance with the GMA, King County Comprehensive Plan, and various other regional and local plans. II. VENUE & JURISDICTION 2.1 Jurisdiction to hear this request for extraordinary relief is conferred under Article 4, § 6 of the State Constitution and RCW Chapter 7.16. 2.2 Jurisdiction for hearing before this court is also conferred under RCW 2.08.010 in all cases where real property is involved. All subject parcels are located in King County, Washington. 2.3 Jurisdiction to review appeals of actions by the King County Boundary Review Board is conferred under RCW 36.93.160. 2.4 . Venue and jurisdiction properly lie within King County and before King County Superior Court. III. ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION & CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 3.0 Plaintiff believes that the principal controversy involved in this litigation is the application of Renton City Code ("RCC') 4-6-040 and 4-7-090, and the authority of the Defendant City to zone or otherwise control the development of real property outside of its jurisdictional boundaries prior to annexation through withholding or revoking the issuance of certificates of water and sewer availability. See Exhibit B code materials. 3.1 The City is the sole provider of water and sewer services to the Subject Property located in unincorporated King County's Urban Growth Boundary lying south of the City. 3.2 The City has an affirmative and public duty to provide water and sewer service to its surrounding unincorporated Urban Growth Area, including the Subject Property. EXTRAORDINARY WRIT & OTHER RELIEF - 3 WILLIAMSON LAW OFFICE 701 5"' Avenue - Suite 5500 SEATTLE, WA 98104 5 6 7 8 9 10 11. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3.3 Plaintiff is the owner of 2.88 acres of real property in unincorporated King County within the County's Urban Growth Boundary seeking to develop 18 single family residential lots under applicable R-6 County zoning at 6 dwelling units per acre. 3.2 On or about October 5, 2004, Plaintiff's predecessor in interest executed an annexation agreement with the City for purposes of obtaining water and sewer service to support development of the Subject Property for approximately 17 new homes as affordable dwelling units for middle income families in unincorporated King County near the City's southerly jurisdictional boundary. See Exhibit C annexation agreement. Plaintiff agreed to no density limitations (dwelling units per acre) for development of the Subject Property. II3.3 In the Spring and Summer of 2005, Plaintiff MT retained Banane and Pacific Engineering Design to complete its feasibility and to submit a preliminary plat application to DDES. In meetings with the City, Plaintiff's representative Banane confirmed in meetings with City representatives, Jennifer Henning, Principal Planner and Rebecca Lind, Planning Manager, and in phone conferences with Sr. Planner Donald Erickson, that upon annexation the City would zone the County R-6 zoned property at equivalent City R-8 zoning densities. In doing so this would have allowed MT to realize 17 dwelling units under existing King County R-6 zoning. See Exhibit D declaration of MT principal Alicia Mena". 3.4 The King County Development and Environmental Services ("DDES") is the permitting jurisdiction with authority under RCW Chapter 36.70A and Chapter 36.70B for the review and processing of project permits within unincorporated King County. King County enforces its Comprehensive Plan and zoning code, including development standards for residential plats lying within its zoning districts under King County Code ("KCC"), including KCC Chapters 19A and 21 A. King County is solely responsible for regulating the density of proposed development within its Urban Growth Area. EXTRAORDINARY WRIT & OTHER RELIEF - 4 WILLIAMSON LAW OFFICE 701 5'' Avenue - Suite 5500 SEATTLE, WA 98104 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2311 24 25 26 3.5 On or about August 5, 2005, MT requested re -issuance of water and sewer certificates of availability from Defendant City for approximately 17 lots based upon R-6 County/R-8 City zoning densities so that MT could file a completed plat application with DDES. Exhibit E. II3.6 In response to questions of the Boundary Review Board (`BRB") members concerning the history of the proposed annexation held on August 30, 2005 and August 31, 2005, the City revised its densities to provide for a maximum next density of 5 dwelling units per acre. II3.7 On August 15, 2005, MT received a certificate of water availability from the City for the proposed subdivision. See Exhibit F. 3.8 On September 2, 2005, to MT's surprise, the City, following repeated requests that the City release the promised certificate of sewer availability to accompany the certificate of water availability, responded by telling Plaintiff that its proposed development was subject to RCC Section 4-6-040C. See Exhibit G. In this letter, the City states that the proposed plat did not meet the City's R-4 zoning standards of 4 dwelling units per acre. During hearing before the King County, City later changed the proposed density to R-5 with the following comments: "...in order to receive sewer availability from the Cityyou must resubmit with a pro lap t that does not exceed a maximum net density of 5 d u per acre and have it reviewed and approved by the City. (Emphasis added); See Exhibit G. 3.9 Under applicable King County R-6 zoning, Plaintiff would realize a net density of 17 dwelling units. Under City R-4 zoning, Plaintiff would be permitted only 9 dwelling units on much larger suburban estate sized lots or a net loss of 8 dwelling units. Under the City's revised R-5 densities, Plaintiffwould be permitted 11 dwelling units, representing a net loss of 6 dwelling units. 3.10 Upon Plaintiff MT's information and belief, the City has routinely allowed and continues to issue certificates of water and sewer availability to other properties, including an adjoining parcel (King County Tax No. 7931000154) lying within the County's Urban Growth Area and annexation hearings. See Exhibit H. Upon information and belief, the City has not objected to or challenged EXTRAORDINARY WRIT & OTHER RELIEF - 5 WILLIAMSON LAW OFFICE 701 Vh Avenue - Suite 5500 SEAME, WA 98104 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 similar plat applications with County R-6 densities with King County DDES densities within its Urban Growth Boundary. 3.11 In hearings before the BRB on August 30, 2005 and August 31, 2005, the City presented testimony and reports showing inter alia that the property zoning designation for the subject property was low density residential and that upon annexation, the Subject Property would be zoned City R-4. 3.12 During the BRB hearings, MT presented evidence that Plaintiff had received repeated representations that the Subject Property would receive equivalent City R-8 zoning. MT requested that annexation of the Subject Property be approved by the BRB only with equivalent City R-8 zoning in order to prevent surrounding R-6 zoned parcels from becoming legally non -conforming and to conform to Plaintiff MT's earlier representations from the City that the Subject Property would receive equivalent R-8 zoning upon annexation. See Exhibit I. 3.13 On August 25, 2005, during the pendency of annexation proceedings before the BRB, Plaintiff MT, demanded that the City re -issue its certificate of sewer availability for tax parcel nos. 7931000151, 7931000152, and 7931000154 so that Plaintiff could file its plat application with DDES to realize R-6 densities enjoyed by other property owners within the County's Urban Growth Boundary. See Exhibit J. 3.14 On September 2, 2005, the City notified MT's agent, Pacific Engineering, that it was withholding issuance of the certificate of sewer availability, and that the City would not release the certificate of sewer availability until the proposed plat was resubmitted to the City based upon reduced densities of 5 dwelling units per acre. Exhibit G. 3.15 On September 8, 2005, and again during the pendency of BRB hearings, Plaintiff MT requested that it be treated like other plat applicants before DDES. MT again demanded that the City issue a certificate of sewer availability and treat MT as the City had done for the owners of abutting King County Tax Parcel No. 7931000153. Exhibit K. Upon information and belief, King EXTRAORDINARY WRIT & OTHER RELIEF - 6 WILLIAMSON LAW OFFICE 701 5"' Avenue - Suite 5500 SEATRE, WA 98104 rorw oo,)_nA I i % GAv OnAl 000_nz IA 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 County indicated to PlaintiffMT that the only jurisdiction with land use authority in unincorporated King County to review and act on plat applications remained with King County, not the City of Renton. Upon information and belief, the actions of City to reduce densities on the Subject Property through a denial of utility service not only injures Plaintiff's right and entitlement to develop property at densities under applicable County R-6 zoning and land -use entitlements, but such actions also violate the County's Comprehensive Plan and its Comprehensive Countywide Planning Policies. II3.16 Upon information and belief, Defendant City exceeded its authority granted under the Growth Management Act, and used the annexation proceedings to purposefully delay issuance of a necessary certificate of sewer availability, which it commonly grants to properties outside the City boundaries, to prevent Plaintiff MT from filing a vested plat application with DDES. 3.16 On September 12, 2005, the BRB approved the Anthone Annexation, for purposes of compliance with RCW 36.93.170 and RCW 36.93.180 as a final action. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff MT believes that the City failed and refused to act in a timely manner for issuing certificates of sewer availability until the City first completed annexation proceedings before the BRB. In doing so, the City has misused its procedures and authorities for reviewing and issuing routine certificates of sewer availability, including its annexation procedures and hearings before the BRB to adopt implementing City R-4 zoning before Plaintiff MT could duly file and vest a plat application with DDES under applicable County R-6 zoning. 3.17 In a City letter dated September 12, 2005 (received September 14, 2005) at Exhibit L in response to Plaintiff MT's demands for release of the certificate of sewer availability, the City indicated that: "The City as the sewer provider, in the general area, has a responsibility to provide sewer. However, the timing and conditions upon which sewer will be extended or hook ups permitted, is a decision for the City." EXTRAORDINARY WRIT & OTHER RELIEF - 7 WILLIAMSON LAW OFFICE 701 5°i Avenue - Suite 5500 SEATTLE, WA 98104 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3.16 On September 14, 2005, Plaintiff MT received the City's September 12, 2005 letter. See Exhibit L. 3.17 Plaintiff MT is aggrieved, adversely affected, and injured by the actions of the City in withholding issuance of the certificate of sewer availability. MT is without any plain and speedy remedy, or any right to appeal the complained of actions by Cityto withhold release of its certificate of sewer availability, which the City is obligated issue upon demand by the public.. II3.18 The complained of actions of the City deny MT the benefits, privileges, protected, property rights and entitlements it has routinely granted adjoining owners within the same Urban Growth Area, who have recently filed a plat application with DDES for developing property at R-6 densities. 3.19 Based upon the actions of the City, MT believes that the City: (1) is misusing and exceeding its authority by attempting to regulate land use controls outside of its jurisdictional municipal boundaries; (2) is misusing its municipal authorities to withhold issuance of it possesses requisite standing to bring this action, as it has no plain adequate or speedy remedy at law, and that this review is not subject to the Land Use Petition Act, RCW Chapter 36.70C, as there has not been any final administrative action to deny, condition, or approve his building permit application; (3) is misusing the annexation process to effectively down -zone parcels entitled to develop and County zoned R-6 densities without first seeking an amendment to the County's comprehensive plan amendment and rezone of Plaintiff's parcels; (4) is violating Plaintiff's right to vest an application for development under applicable King County development regulations; (5) is violating its protected rights of substantive and procedural due process of law, to equal protection of the law, and to be free from an uncompensated regulatory taking ofproperty without just compensation; and (6) is violating rights protected under the Fifth Amendment and 14`h Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Article I, Section 3 and Article I, Section 16 of the Washington State Constitution. EXTRAORDINARY WRIT & OTHER RELIEF - 8 WILLIAMSON LAW OFFICE 701 5"' Avenue - Suite 5500 SEATILE, WA 98104 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 IV. CAUSE OF ACTION - EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF WRITS OF REVIEW, MANDAMUS, & PROHIBITION 4.1 Plaintiff MT restates allegations contained in 113.0 through 3.19 herein as if set forth verbatim. 4.2 Plaintiff MT possesses requisite standing to petition the Court for extraordinary relief and to request the court's review of the City's actions, including whether such actions unlawfully usurp comprehensive planning, zoning, and land -use controls of King County through the conditioning of City's utility services to achieve lower land -use densities for the Subject Property. 4.3 Plaintiff MT seeks a determination whether the City's actions violate their statutory and constitutional rights, including without limitation, whether the complained of actions, are unlawful, in excess of authority, made without authority, or are arbitrary and capricious for purposes of Article 4, Section 6, and RCW Chapter 7.16, and are unconstitutional. 4.4 Plaintiff MT is entitled to request that this court issue a writ of review requiring the certification of a complete and accurate administrative record compiled to date by the Clerk of the City of Renton and the Planning/Building/Public Works Department through the filing of a Return with the court. This request for issuance of the Writ is made for purposes of Article 4 Section 6 of the State Constitution and RCW 7.16.060. 4.5 Plaintiff is entitled to relief including a determination that: the City has violated Plaintiff MT's constitutional rights of procedural and substantive due process, including their rights to an appeal, including whether the City has violated the vesting doctrine under Washington State common law, including RCW 58.17.033. 4.6 Plaintiff seeks a ruling by the court that the City is under an affirmative duty to issue a remaining certificate of sewer availability upon demand, without conditions related to land -use controls or zoning, including desired City densities upon annexation. EXTRAORDINARY WRIT & OTHER RELIEF - 9 WILLIAMSON LAW OFFICE 701 5 h Avenue - Suite 5500 SEATTLE, WA 98104 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 4.7 Plaintiff seeks a ruling by this court that Defendant City's actions for purposes of Article 4, Section 6, RCW Chapter 7.16, and RCW 7.16.120, RCW 7.16.150, RCW 7.16.160, and RCW 7.16.290 finding inter alia that the City's are arbitrary and capricious, in excess of authority and jurisdiction, contrary to law, and unconstitutional under Article 11, Section 11 of the State Constitution through an attempted exercise of its police powers outside of its boundaries. 4.8 Plaintiff is entitled to issuance of a writ ofmandate directing that the City immediately issue Plaintiff's requested certificate of sewer availability any further information requests and without further delay. II4.9 Plaintiff seeks an Order staying and prohibiting any further processing of the annexation proceedings by the City and BRB, including an order staying the running of any appeals period under RCW 36.93.160. 4.10 Plaintiff are entitled to issuance of a peremptory or alternative order for purposes of Article 4, Section 6, RCW Chapter 7.16, and RCW 7.16.290, ordering the City to cease and desist from attempting to apply utilize utility services to affect or change land -use densities and usurp land -use control of parcels undergoing development in unincorporated King County. Plaintiff are entitled to an Order prohibiting the City and BRB from undertaking any further annexation proceedings pending a ruling by this Court on the lawfulness and constitutionality of the City's actions in asserting land -use controls over the development ofproject permits in unincorporated King County. V. CAUSE OF ACTION - DECLARATORY JUDGMENT 5.1 Plaintiff restates all allegations in paragraphs 1.1 through 4.10 above. 5.2 Plaintiffis aggrieved by actions of the City and possesses requisite standing as owner and/or applicant for a development permit with the City, and are without any plain, adequate or speedy remedy at law for purposes of the Declaratory Judgments Act, RCW 7.24.020. 5.3 Plaintiff upon information believes that the County has adopted and applied RCC 4-6-040C in violation of Article 11, Section 11 of the State Constitution, the City's non -charter Code EXTRAORDINARY WRIT & OTHER RELIEF - 10 WILLIAMSON LAW OFFICE 701 5' Avenue - Suite 5500 SEATiLE, WA 98104 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 authorities under RCW Chapter 35A, the Washington State Growth Management Act, RCW 36.70A, King County Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinances, and King County Comprehensive County -wide Planning Policies to unlawfully by-pass formal County Comprehensive Plan and rezone amendment procedures to down -zone the Subject Property prior to annexation. II5.4 Plaintiff seeks a declaratory ruling that RCC 4-6-040C on its face, or as applied by the City, operates to violate and defeat Plaintiff's constitutional and statutory rights to vest a project permit (subdivision) application to develop the Subject Property at County R-6 densities, including entitlements conferred under RCW 58.17.033. 5.5 Plaintiff MT seeks a declaratory ruling that the Exhibit C annexation petition executed by Plaintiff s predecessor in interest, which either purports to, or implies a binding agreement with Plaintiff or Plaintiff's predecessor to limit development in the King County Urban Growth Area to the City's desired urban densities, or only after annexation to the City of Renton is ultra vires, in excess of authority, null and void for violating public policy, or is contrary to law, and/or unconstitutional. 5.6 A real and justiciable controversy exists between the City and Plaintiff regarding the lawfulness of RCC 4-6-040C. Plaintiff is entitled pursuant to the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, RCW Chapter 7.24, to a declaration that: (1) the City possesses no legal authority to require an owner of real property located outside ofthe City's jurisdictional boundaries to comply with City development standards or zoning densities as a condition of receiving utility service; (2) RCC 4-6- 040C and the action of the City to withhold release of a certificate of sewer availability until the City reviews and approves Plaintiff's plat application violate Washington State common law, statutes, and federal and state constitutions. 5.7 Plaintiff requests that the court review RCC 4-6-040C, and applicable City and County codes and authorities, including all relevant statutory, administrative, constitutional, and common EXTRAORDINARY WRIT & OTHER RELIEF - 11 WILLIAMSON LAW OFFICE 701 5" Avenue - Suite 5500 SEATRE, WA 98104 OnAl !JO')_nAI i % [nv ronci nm not 0 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 law, to determine the relative rights ofPlaintiffs under applicable vesting requirements and land -use code authorities relating to Urban Growth Areas. Plaintiff seeks a determination by the Court that RCC 4-6-040C and the City's action violate KCC 13.28.045A.2 which requires South King County water purveyors, including the City of Renton, to "...not use water service as a vehicle to supersede the land use policies and zoning within unincorporated King County." VI. CAUSE OF ACTION - EQUITABLE & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 6.1 Plaintiff restates all allegations in ¶¶ 1.1 through 5.7 above. 6.2 Plaintiffhas suffered, and will continue to suffer significant irreparable harm from the City's attempt to enforce RCC 4-6-040C. Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of this dispute, as the City possesses no land use controls outside of its jurisdictional boundaries. Plaintiff is entitled to temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief for purposes of RCW Chapter 7.40 and CR 65, including issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order against further annexation proceedings by the City and BRB, including a stay of the 30-day appeal period under RCW 36.93.160. 6.3 Plaintiff is entitled to equitable relief under doctrines of equitable and/or promissory estoppel from withholding issuance of Plaintiff certificates of sewer availability when the City has already issued a certificate of water availability to Plaintiff, and when the City has routinely issued such certificates to other property owners within the County's Urban Growth Boundary. VII. CAUSE OF ACTION - INVERSE CONDEMNATION - TAKING OF PROPERTY WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION - VIOLATION OF PROCEDURAL & SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS 7.1 Plaintiff restates all allegations in paragraphs 1.1 through 6.3 above. 7.2 Contrary to Article I, Section 16 of the Washington State Constitution, the 5th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution protecting procedural due process, and substantive due process rights protected by 42 USC § 1983, the City has damaged and/or condemned Plaintiff's property and/or taken Plaintiffs property without just compensation having first been paid, and without advancing a legitimate public purpose by arbitrarily and capriciously reducing Plaintiff's EXTRAORDINARY WRIT & OTHER RELIEF -12 WILLIAMSON LAW OFFICE 701 5 h Avenue - Sude 5500 SEATTLE, WA 98104 12061 292-n41 1 \ FAX 12061 292-n313 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 development densities and with it the fair market value of the property developed at higher land -use II densities. 7.3 The City acted arbitrarily and capriciously, maliciously, and unlawfully, in violation of federal and state constitutions which have denied Plaintiffs any beneficial use during the interim period while its application has been delayed. 7.4 Plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of damages plus attorney fees as provided under RCW 8.25.075(3). VIII. APPEAL OF KING COUNTY BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FINAL DECISION 8.1 Plaintiff restates all allegations in paragraphs 1.1 through 7.4 above. 8.2 Plaintiff is an aggrieved party to BRB proceedings under King County Boundary Review Board Annexation (File No. 2199-City of Renton) with standing to appeal the Board's action approving annexation of the Subject Property into the City of Renton who owns real property in the area affected by the Board's decision. 8.3 Plaintiffhereby provides Notice of its Appeal of the Board's actions under RCW 36.93.160. 8.3 Plaintiff is entitled to an automatic stay of any further annexation proceedings before the City pending Plaintiff's appeal as provided by RCW 36.93.160(5). 8.4 Plaintiff seeks the introduction of additional evidence as provided under RCW 36.93.160 for purposes of showing that the annexation proceedings have been misused by the City as a course of conduct together with its actions to withhold issuance of a certificate of sewer availability designed to prevent Plaintiff from filing a vested plat application with King County DDES. The actions of the City, and the procedure employed by omitting this evidence from the record before the BRB, is in violation of federal and state constitutional provisions, in excess of statutory authority, including inter alia the review criteria conferred upon Boards under RCW 36.93.170 and the objectives of the Board under RCW 36.93.180. EXTRAORDINARY WRIT & OTHER RELIEF - 13 WILLIAMSON LAW OFFICE 701 5' Avenue - Suite 5500 SEATTLE, WA 98104 (2061 292-041 1 1 FAX f9n(,) 999-n.'Al.A 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 X. PRAYER FOR EXTRAORDINARY & OTHER RELIEF WHEREFORE, upon the foregoing, Plaintiff prays for the following relief- II10.1 Issuance of constitutional and statutory writs of review, mandamus, and prohibition directing the City Clerk, and the Secretary to the Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County to show cause why an Order should not issue directing the preparation of a certified Returns containing all records and files related to Plaintiffs request for issuance of a certificate of sewer availability, and annexation file no. 2199 to the above -entitled court for the court's review for purposes of requested constitutional and statutory writ relief, on or before two (2) weeks following issuance of an Order to Show Cause why such Writ certifying the record of proceedings should issue and why any final approval of the annexation should not be stayed. 10.2 For an Order directing a speedy hearing in this action for declaratory judgment and advancing such hearing on the Court's calendar pursuant to CR 57. 10.3 For declaratory judgment in favor of Plaintiff finding that RCC 4-6-040C is null and void, unlawful and/or unconstitutional on it face, or as applied, and that the City has unlawfully misused the annexation process to deny Plaintiffs right to vest an application for development with King County DDES . 10.4 For extraordinary or injunctive relief prohibiting the City from enforcing RCC 4-6-040C. 10.5 For extraordinary relief mandating that the City immediately issue, without conditions relating to zoning, density or other land -use controls exclusively reserved to the County, the requested certificate of sewer availability to Plaintiff. 10.6 An award of attorney fees and costs as permitted under RCW Chapter 7.16, 42 USC § 1988, including common law and equitable claims. 10.7 An award of damages and costs as permitted under RCW 7.16.260 and Article 4, Section 6 of the Washington State Constitution, as a direct proximate result of the City's failure to release the requested sewer certificate. EXTRAORDINARY WRIT & OTHER RELIEF - 14 WILLIAMSON LAW OFFICE 701 5"i Avenue - Suite 5500 SEATTLE, WA 98104 (9nA1 7o7_nnt i % Gev On,,1 0o2n1i A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16' 17 18 19 20 21 2211 23 24 25 26 10.8 Issuance of any other alternative, peremptory, remedial, declaratory, mandatory, and prohibitory Orders of writ relief as the court deems to be necessary and proper, including staying any annexation of the Subject Property within the City of Renton, and awarding Plaintiff relief sufficient to file an application for preliminary plat approval before further consideration of any annexation into the City of Renton by the Renton City Council or the expiration of the 30 day BRB appeal period. 10.9 For permission to amend the pleadings to conform to proof and as a result of discovery. 10.10 Issuance of an order continuing jurisdiction of this court. 10.11 For stay of appeal proceedings to review the decision of the BRB pending review by the Court of Plaintiffs' claims related to actions undertaken by the City to withhold issuance of the certificate of sewer availability. 10.12 For other relief which as maybe just and equitable. 10.13 For such other rights to discovery, including inspection and review ofKing County approval criteria and conditions for other building permit applications. Dated this2l if`ay of September 2005. 1�Q Bill H. Williamson, WSBA# 4304 Attorney for Plaintiff EXTRAORDINARY WRIT & OTHER RELIEF -15 WILLIAMSON LAW OFFICE 701 5°i Avenue - Suite 5500 SEATTLE, WA 98104 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 VERIFICATION/SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT I, the undersigned, upon oath certify, and state that the following, including the allegations contained in the Application/Petition for Writ Relief and Complaint as set forth above, is accurate and truthful: 1. I am over the age of 18 and competent to testify to the matters contained herein 2. I am the agent for Plaintiff MT responsible for preparing a preliminary plat application for filing with the King County Department ofDevelopment and Environmental Services. lam a resident of King County and I believe that the owner, MT, has been aggrieved and injured by the actions of the City of Renton, which have taken place, and continue to take place, in King County, Washington. I personally contacted Renton Planning Staff officials in meetings and in telephone contacts which I believe fully support the allegations in this Complaint and Petition for Writ relief. 3. I make this Certification in support of extraordinary relief before this Court as MT no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at law, including any statutory or administrative appeal which can otherwise be taken to an adjudicative official or appeals court. I incorporate by reference herein the allegations and claims stated in the Complaint above and MT's Petition for Extraordinary Relief. I believe that the allegations represent a complete and accurate statement of facts upon which I possess personal knowledge of and believe to be true. 4. This constitutional and statutory writ relief being sought Writ of Review (Certiorari), Writ of Prohibition, and Writ of Mandamus, and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief seek expedited judicial review as the subject matter involves the use, ownership, and enjoyment of real property for tax parcels located in King County, which I believe, as applicant, is being injured and adversely affected by actions undertaken by King County. 5. In making this Verification, I have also made these representations to my attorney and being truthful and accurate. Dated this day of September 2005. STATE OF WASHINGTON County of King ss. BANANE PROPERTIES, LLC By: Its: EXTRAORDINARY WRIT & OTHER RELIEF - 16 WILLIAMSON LAW OFFICE 701 5°i Avenue -Suite 5500 SEATTLE, WA 98104 (?(mil 299-n41 1 k FAY 19n�0 W9-MI s 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Patrick White is the person that appeared before me, and that he signed the foregoing verification and acknowledged it to be his free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Sworn and subscribed to before me this _day of June, 2002 at Washington. Notary Public for State of Washington Residing at My Commission Expires EXHIBIT LIST A. King County iMap of Subject Property showing area zoning districts. B. Renton City Code Section 4-6-040; RCC 4-7-090 C. Petition to Annex to City of Renton dated October 5, 2004. D. Declaration of Alicia Mena" dated August 11, 2005. E. Renton Certificate of Water Availability Application dated August 5, 2005; Renton Certificate of Sewer Availability Application dated August 5, 2005. F. Executed King County Certificate of Water Availability dated August 15, 2005 with attached August 15, 2005 Water Availability letter of Abdoul Gafour, Water Utility Engineering Supervisor. G. September 2, 2005 letter from David Christiansen to Joseph Hopper Re: Sewer Availability Certificate for Proposed Plat. H. King County Sewer Certificate for Laurance Anthone' dated December 2, 2004. I. August 11, 2005 letter from Plaintiffto Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County, WA, Renton City Clerk & Donald Erickson, Sr. Planner Re: Anthone' Annexation with attached Declaration of Alicia Mena", Letter of Jon Potter dated August 12, 2005, and attached sub -Exhibits A through I. J. August 25, 2005 letter to City Attorney Warren from Bill H. Williamson with attachments Re: Hold Up on Issuance of Certificate of Sewer Availability. K. September 8, 2005 letter from Williamson to City Attorney Warren with attached Anthone' Certificate of Sewer Availability dated December2, 2004 and September 2, 2005 letter from David M. Christiansen to Joseph Hopper, PE of Pacific Engineering. L. September 12, 2005 letter from City Attorney Warren to Bill H. Williamson. MT.Writ.090905.wpd EXTRAORDINARY WRIT & OTHER RELIEF -17 WILLIAMSON LAW OFFICE 701 5"' Avenue - Suite 5500 SEAPIE, WA 98104 (206) 299-041 1 \ FAY MAI 709-ns11 SEP-21-2005 09:14A FROM: TO:12062920313 P.2/2 Sep eu euua 1: LUrn W1LLJ"nbu ff L"WSUrrJ6r- CUOGJCUO" r+. a... 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 YBRIFICATXOMSU PORTrNG AFFIDAVIT >; the undersigned, upon oath certify, and state that the following, including the allegations contained in the ApplicatiOWPetition for Writ Relief and Complaint as set forth about, is accurate and truthful: 1. I am over the age of 18 and competent to testify to the matters contained herein. 2. 'am the agent for Plaintiff MT responsible for preparing apreliminary plat application for filing with the King County Deputment of Development and Environmental Services. jam a resident ofKing County and I believe that the owner, MT, has been aggrieved and injured by the actions of the City of Renton, which have taken place, and continue to take place in King CO", Washington. I personally contacted Renton Planning Staff officials in meetings and in telephone contacts which I believe fully supportthe allegations in this Complaint and Petition for writ relief; 3. Imake this Certification in support ofextraordhu"reliefbefore this Courtas MT no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at law, including any statutory or administrative appeal which can otherwise be taken to an adjudicative official or appeals court. I incorporate by reference herein the allegations and claims stated in the Complaint above and MT's Petition for Extraordinary Relief I believe that the allegations represent a complete and accurate statement of facts upon which I possess personal knowledge of and believe to be true. 4. This constitutional and statutorywrit relief being sought Writ ofReview (Certiorari). Writ of Prohibition, and Writ of Mandamus, and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief seek expedited judicial review as the subject matter involves the Use, ownership, and e*YMM of teal property for tax parcels located in King County, which I believe, as applicant, is being injured and adversely affected by actions undertaken by King County. 5. In making this Verification, I have also made these representations to myattorneyand being truthful and accurate. Datod this�'flday 0f September 2005. STATE OF WASNINGTON County of King XTRAORDINARY WRIT & OTHER RELIEF -16 BAN PROPERTMI LLC By: P4 �KIY''� Its: rfs —1116<94tr-1 W11l VSON LAW OFFICE 7015 Avenue - Subs 65M (206) 292-0411 FAX 12060 92-0913 SEP-21-2005 09:13A FROM: TO.12062920313 P.1/2 Sep eu euu� t:iirn W1LL1Hn5UngL►1WuurrlUt cuococuyla V.�_ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2] 22 23 24 25 26 I certify that 1 know or bsve satidlCtory evidence that Patrick White is the person tbit appearod befare m*, and that he dpod the foregoing verification and aclmowkdged it to be his five and voluntary act for the uWS and PMposw mentioned in the iwtnu=t, Swam and subsen'bed to before nit thislD da of , 90 at at"—M—i e Washington y�AA2 at M. Yon �✓ •�+ � / \ Y V ``+�1� • ,�P, Go�;ii .'FAA; fj►y�� (n� Notary Publi or State of Washington k : .r a . : * ; Residing ei P-)'010 ,j A My Commission Expires to - 2 S- 0 1 9F vr..err\�O EXEIBIT LIST A. King County iMap of Subject Property showing area zoning districts. B. Renton City Code Section 4-6-040; RCC 4-7-090 C. Petition to Annex to City of Renton dated October 5, 2004. D. Declaration ofAlicia Mcna` dated August 11, 2005. E. Renton Certificate of Water Availability Application dated August 5, 2005; Renton Certificate of Sewer Availability Application dated August 5, 200. F. .Executed King County Certificate of Water Availability dated August 15, 2005 with attached August 15, 2005 Water Availability letter of Abdoul Gafour, Water Utility Engineering Supervisor. G. Segtcrnber 2, 2005 letter from David Christiansen to Joseph Hopper Re: Sewer Availability Certificate for Proposed Plat. H. King County Sewer Certificate for Laurance Anthone' dated December 2, 2004. L August 11, 2005 letter from Plaintiffto Washington State BoundaryReview Board. forKing County, WA, Renton City Clerk & Donald Erickson, Sr. Planner Re: Anthone' Annexation with attached Declaration of Alicia Mena% LetterofJon Potter dated August 12, 2005, and attached sub -Exhibits A through 1. J. August 25, 2005 letter to City Attorney Warren $om Bill H. Williamson with attachments Re: Hold Up on Issuance of Certificate of Sewer Availability. K. September 8, 2005 letter from Williamson to CityAttorney Warren with attached Anthone' Certificate of SewcrAvailabilitydatedDecomber2, 2004 and Scpternber2, 2005 letter from David M. Christiansen to Joseph. Hopper, PE of Pacific gineering. L. September 12, 2005 letter from City Attorney Warren to ]lilt H. Williamson. trtr.wrtu.M90s.w,pd XTRAORDINARY WRff & OTHER RELIEF - 17 MIJANISON LAW OFFICE 701 5" Avenue • Sufte 5500 SFAME. WA 98104 (206) 292-0411 1 FAX f 2061 909-A-41 v map uuipui King County rd9U i vi I- �. ti!!I+rR`�r4�li.'y'1 WAP - Property Information _rZC, . uJ u_SPv, y_rrJ _.. u•J� y_F_V 9Jlutl�$� 'u^tfVu3li;u'5J urty{r wr lit < r- - — Uf�J (Ii1WI _ wltpW1 t?39 2 r4DC; -.._ 9t � 113J tl. n rttd1 .r u31t3 r u tvJJA 1. L6�s`1 On IL - 6JV z 93_ts' sq.' ^_�_ _�_ _ __ �y `/yam�■ ry CtJJJ rt IS;,t R��V Uf.��• a Sj J.'69 s_ - 913t ii� . '19 .: Cit l's �j n Is ,n R 4#0e F' (Cl 200SKmpCouatY {lrgj'f: Ctr {ErS - 0C Legend Selected Parcels Zoning Labels 1 _ County Boundary Zoning Streets oundary duc;Wn Disl"- B j i Production Districl Boundary Alf urban Gro.%Ih Area Line 0 Lakes and Large Rivers I'• 5treanls nMw:klashoot Tribe King County awned propertes Pa rw is A 10 i'g oaara.Q-1 IIJ x 1')a A 35 Agncstra aw. -:i aL 35 ace-. l• M1 c V \6.qe-a RA2.5 3�y A-ra.u-Ir 7J r• i:crs RA 5 R ra A-w uric 0-1 ae• 5 xrcu RA 10 rRra kw a-Ic uJ ac• 1Js:•c. JR J-txnRtc.w.ac3Jnc•5a-ram R-1 RC-d_-ra.uc..i-ix.-a'--rc R= Rr&Y.a E�' Jtwm7c Rlf Rr.rk.•r.:16DJaa•"c R 8 Rcs drea 8 -J r_- acre R 12 Rc..-irta U2-Jw a-c PI-11118 +?.15mi, L. R2t Rr�d-ta2:JJarw-c Rtd Rcz:4rna.43DJa-s:-c 77---1 VS Ye<Yux'rrod3r-r_�s CS Ccru-smn-yax--IG. R1 Rayam aims 4 Ciae MO U � - Incorporated Area EXHIBIT lk information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to ige without notice. King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, pleteness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. King County shall not be liable for any general, ial, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting the use or misuse of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or information on this map is http://www5.metrokc.gov/servlet/com.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceName=overview&ClientVersion=4.0... 7/21 /2005 H. Any waters or wastes containing suspended solids of such character and quantity that unusual attention or expense is required to handle such materials at the sewage treatment plant. Any noxious or malodorous gas or substance capable of creating a public nuisance. (Ord. 1552, 6-12-56; amd. Ord. 2847, 5-6-74) • MI SANITARY SEWER STANDARDS: A. CONNECTION TO CITY SEWER REQUIRED: The owner of each house, building or property used for human occupancy, employment, recreation or other purpose, situated within the City and abutting on any street, alley or right-of-way in which there is now located or may in the future be located a public sanitary or combined sewer of the City which said public sewer is within three hundred thirty feet (330') of the property line and which has been determined to be a health hazard by the City or the Seattle -King County Health Department, or its successor agencies, or which has participated and been included in a local improvement district, is hereby required at the owner's expense to install suitable toilet facilities therein and to connect such facilities directly with the proper public sewer in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter, within ninety (90) days after the date of official notice to do so. 1. Exception for Connection to Private Sewage System: Where a public sanitary or combined sewer is not available under the provisions of this Chapter, the building sewer shall be connected to a private sewage disposal system complying with the provisions of this Section. (Ord. 4343, 2-3-1992) B. RESPONSIBILITY FOR SEWER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES: Any facility improvements identified by the current adopted long-range wastewater management plan (comprehensive sewer system plan) that are not installed or in the process of being installed must be constructed by the property owner(s) or developer(s) desiring service. (Ord. 4343, 2-3-1992) C. SERVICE OUTSIDE OF CITY: 1. Permitted When: Sewer service to properties outside the City's corporate limits will be permitted when the property is within the City's adopted Potential Annexation Area (PAA), approved sanitary sewer service boundary, or within a special assessment district of the City. Sanitary sewer service will only be granted to those parcels whose proposed connection(s) meet(s) the following three (3) Renton adopted land use dimensions: a. Use allowed under adopted general land use category, i.e., residential, commercial, office, or industrial; b. Allowed residential density within adopted land use category; and EXHIBIT c. Allowed structure type and scale within adopted land use category, i.e., number of residential units per building 2. Potential Annexation Area: The owner(s) of property in Renton's Potential Annexation Area shall, prior to connecting to the sewer, execute a covenant running with the land by which the owners, their heirs, successors, or assigns are obligated to affirmatively support any legal and constitutional method of annexation. 3. Rates: The rates to such special users shall be as stipulated in RMC 8=5- 15. (Ord. 4467, 8-22-1994; Amd. Ord. 4677, 8-4-1997; Ord. 4907, 6-4-2001; Ord. 4969, 6-3-2002; Ord. 4981, 8-5-2002; Ord. 5002, 2-10-2003; Ord. 5123, 1-3-2005) Chapter 6 STREET AND UTILITY STANDARDS 4-6-040 SANITARY SEWER STANDARDS: Page I of I A. CONNECTION TO CITY SEWER REQUIRED: The owner of each house, building or property used for human occupancy, employment, recreation or other purpose, situated within the City and abutting on any street, alley or right-of-way in which there is now located or may in the future be located a public sanitary or combined sewer of the City which said public sewer is within three hundred thirty feet (330') of the property line and which has been determined to be a health hazard by the City or the Seattle -King County Health Department, or its successor agencies, or which has participated and been included in a local improvement district, is hereby required at the owner's expense to install suitable toilet facilities therein and to connect such facilities directly with the proper public sewer in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter, within ninety (90) days after the date of official notice to do so. I. Exception for Connection to Private Sewage System: Where a public sanitary or combined sewer is not available under the provisions of this Chapter, the building sewer shall be connected to a private sewage disposal system complying with the provisions of this Section. (Ord. 4343, 2-3-1992) B. RESPONSIBILITY FOR SEWER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES: Any facility improvements identified by the current adopted long-range wastewater management plan (comprehensive sewer system plan) that are not installed or in the process of being installed must be constructed by the property owner(s) or developers) desiring service. (Ord. 4343, 2-3-1992) C. SERVICE OUTSIDE OF CITY: 1. Permitted When: Sewer service to properties outside the City's corporate limits will not be permitted except under the following conditions: a. Public Entity: The applicant is a municipal or quasi -municipal corporation including a school, hospital or fire district, County of King, or similar public entity; or b. Necessary Service: Service is necessary to convert from a failed or failing septic system or the area has been defined by the Seattle -King County Health Department as a health concern area; or e. Vested Service: Those properties for which the City has granted a valid sewer availability certificate prior to the effective date of Ordinance 4969, which was July 7, 2002; or d. In the City's Potential Annexation Area, Existing Legal Lot(s) Desiring to Construct One Single Family Residence or Connect One Existing Single Family Residence: The City Council may approve the connection of one existing single family residence or the connection to sanitary sewer for the construction of one single family residence on an existing legal lot. In consideration of such connection, the property owner(s) shall be required to execute an agreement with the City requiring that any development occurring on the lot shall be in compliance with City of Renton zoning and development standards; or e. Outside the City's Potential Annexation Area, Existing Legal Lot(s) Desiring to Construct One or More Single Family Residence(s): The City Council may approve connection of one or more single family residences or the connection to sanitary sewer for the construction of one or more single family residences on existing legal lots, as long as the properties to be served are connected within the sewer service area of the City or within a Special Assessment District of the City. 2. Potential Annexation Area: The owner(s) of property in Renton's Potential Annexation Area shall, prior to connecting to the sewer, execute a covenant running with the land by which the owners, their heirs, successors, or assigns are obligated to affirmatively support any legal and constitutional method of annexation. 3. Rates: The rates to such special users shall be as stipulated in RMC _ -5-I5. (Ord. 4467, 8-22-1994; Amd. Ord. 4677, 84-1997; Ord. 4907, 6-4-2001; Ord. 4969, 6-3-2002; Ord. 4981, 8-5-2002; Ord. 5002, 2-10-03) EXHIBIT f� 2 4-7-090 PROPERTY ANNEXED TO CITY WITH PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL IN COUNTY: In instances where property annexed to the Citv has received preliminary plat approval from King County prior to annexation, the following review shall occur: le - A. CITY STAFF REVIEW: The Department and Fire Department shall review the plat. City plan checking review and inspections shall be subject to fees pursuant to RMC 4-1-170. B. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND FINDINGS: If the City staff finds that the preliminary plat complies with the following requirements, the subdivision can proceed to the final plat stage without a preliminary plat hearing by the Hearing Examiner and City Council: 1. Density Requirements: Overall density of the subdivision shall not exceed the maximum density allowed pursuant to the Zoning Code. Lot size and lot width requirements need not comply with Zoning Code so long as overall density complies with the Code. 2. Public Works Improvements: Adequate provision shall be made for drainage, streets, alleys, public ways, water, and sanitary wastes. The City may add conditions to the preliminary plat in order to ensure conformance with City standards. C. EXPIRATION DATE: The preliminary plat shall comply with RMC 4-7-080L pertaining to expiration of the preliminary plat. The date of approval will be that date on which King County approved the preliminary plat. D. INSTALLATION OF IMPROVEMENTS OR BONDING IN LIEU OF IMPROVEMENTS: If the improvements are not constructed prior to annexation to the City, the subdivision must comply with RMC 4-7-100. E. FINAL PLAT PROCEDURES: The procedures for final plat shall be the same as those outlined in RMC 4-7-110. 4-7-100 INSTALLATION OF IMPROVEMENTS OR BONDING IN LIEU OF IMPROVEMENTS: A. REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS: The following tangible improvements shall be required before a final plat or a short subdivision is recorded: grading and paving of streets and alleys, installation of curbs, gutters, sidewalks, monuments, sanitary and storm sewers, street lights, water mains and street name signs, together with all appurtenances thereto to specifications and standards of this Code, approved by the Department and in accordance with other standards of the City. A separate construction permit will be required for any such improvements, along with associated engineered plans prepared per the City drafting standards and associated fees as listed in RMC 4-1-140 through 4-1-200, Fee Schedules. (Amd. Ord. 4751, 11-16- 1998) B. INSPECTION, APPROVAL AND FEES: The Department shall be responsible for the supervision, inspection and acceptance of all subdivision improvements. C. PERMITS: Prior to proceeding with subdivision improvements, the subdivider shall make application for such permits from the City as are necessary. The applicant is also responsible for complying with all permit requirements of other Federal, State and local agencies. D. FINAL RECORDING: No final plat or any short subdivision shall be recorded until all improvements are constructed in a satisfactory manner and approved by the responsible departments or a security approved by the City has been posted for deferred improvements. (Amd. Ord. 4751, I1-16-1998) E. DEFERRED IMPROVEMENTS: C"orncwoXETITION TO ANNEX TO THE CITY OF RENT0N� -- ::_�; RECEIVED UNDER RCW 35A.14.120 v�=J�`�- OCT D 4 200h (60% Petition Anthone'Annexation) FAdPdre7ss:f,ag2,0G t: ,h,�P 4,.�,�� i3U1LD1NGP lS*H1E CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON _&4vo. _: k4rw 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Telephone NdC�w _. 40 The undersigned are owners of not less than sixty percent (6001.) in value according to the assessed valuation for general taxation, of real property located contiguous to the City of Renton. We hereby petition that such property be annexed to the City of Renton under the provisions of RCW 35A.14.120 et seq. The territory proposed to be annexed is within King County, Washington, and is contiguous to the City of Renton. A map (Exhibit 1) and legal description (Exhibit 2) :are included as part of this petition. In response to a duly filed and considered "Notice of Intention" to �mmeuee__annFxab proceedings, the City Council of the City of Renton met with the initiating parties under RCW 35A.14.120 on January 8, 2001. The City Council then determined that the City would accept the proposed annexation. Further, pursuant to RCW 35A.14.120, the undersigned petitioners agree to: (1) Accept the City's simultaneous adoption of zoning regulations for the subject property; '(2) Accept the City's Comprehensive Plan designations as they affect the subject property, and (3) Assume their proportional share of the City's pre-existing outstanding indebtedness, all as noted in the minutes of the Council meeting and contained in the electronic recording of such meeting. WHEREFORE, the undersigned property owners petition the City Councifand ask: (a) That the City Council fix a date for a public hearing about such proposed annexation, cause a notice to be published and posted, specifying the time and place of such hearing, and inviting all persons who are interested to appear at the hearing and state their approval or disapproval of such annexation or to ask questions; and (b) That following such hearing, and consistent with any approval by the Boundary Review Board, the City Council by ordinance annex the above described territory to become part of the City of Renton, Washington, subject to its laws and ordinances then and thereafter in force, and to receive City public services. This two page form is one of a number of identical forms which comprise one petition seeking the annexation of the described territory to the City of Renton, Washington as above stated, and may be filed with other pages containing additional signatures. Page 1 of EXHIBIT WAMIiNG: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who �nowingly signs more tlwn one of these petWoA or signs a petition seeking an dection when he or The s not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she is otherwise not qual4W to sign, or who makes herein anY false Jtaxement shall be guilty ofa misdemeanor. The undersignzd have read do 4bove p,--ddm and consent to the fift of Us petition. (Names of pt WONe" should be in Wended form as the nam tkat appears on record in the title to the real estate.) 1 1.1 t/ t_ �. �i �F�r� •�.^ �G�L1�1�' �4a �,:� 1� _' , • • . � � N • •.:. .,', s�.,a.>:•, �.`�y�.�� 1 � ~�z`�.��` _ j '�*'clr� "`y�.�.,�'�;��+y� �x�� tea' � ��_ r�Fii+`�-caL�:_ •��L.� �1 / it 1 ' is / . , / I / / ♦ . 1 Y � •'� 1 �I I/ t ` I � �I� 1 Page 2of2 H:�SY15S0t1 SW�T51f�LANtdSt}GIAASN�C110 Noi (or assessed ValUa_docXDE OW4/04 Exhibit A ANITiONE- ANNEXATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION That portion of Tract 11, Springbrook Acre Tracts, according to the plat There in Volume 12 of Plats, Page 60, records of Kin P of recorded westerl f p g County, Washington, lying northerly and - y a the plat of Talbot l states, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 172 of Plats, Pages I through 3, inclusive, records of King County, Washington; EXCEPT - � , the west 10 feet thereof lying within Talbot Road S. right -of --way; and EXClP'I' that portion of the north lU feet thereof lying within � S 55"' Street• way; fight -of - TOGETHER Wig Tract `�t�� o —Talbot-Est . All situate in the northeast quarter of Section 6, T°wnshi 22 N in King County, Washington. P orth, Range 5 East; W.M., EEIIo _ D rj] D Proposed Anthone' Annexation Figure 3: Existing Structures Map Stricture Q��N) Economic Dcvcbpmcn� Ncigbbo&oods & S"Icgic PlanningCq LUMs Ak. Pkn k Aminiscmtxva��,�J.- -'W4 -,Proposed Amex Area Exhibit B ' 2-- 12 0 200 400 I : 2400 IN BEFORE THE WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR KING COUNTY DECLARATION OF ALICIA MENA I, THE UNDERSIGNED, under the pains and penalties of the laws of perjury of the State of Washington, declare and state: 1. I am over the age of 18 and competent to testify to the matters contained herein. 2. 1 maintain offices located at 11625 Rainier Avenue South, Renton, WA. I am a co- principal with M&T Development, Inc. M&T is a local a family -owned company that invests in local property for the development of middle income single-family residential plats in King County. Most of the parcels we buy and develop are constructed for the local housing market. We purchased this property which is still zoned R-6 with the intent that it would be developed for middle -income families working in the Renton area. 3. In deciding to the purchase this 2 %2 acre property which was part of the Anthone Annexation, we relied upon representations by the City that our property, which we were then in the process of closing, would continue the urban densities established in King County (R-6) through the City's adoption of R-8 zoning. There is essentially no difference in these zoning districts for the number of homes that can be built, because the City calculates density after public streets, private access easements, and critical areas have been deducted. King County on the other hand uses a gross density calculation. After calculating the loss for density Mena BRB Dedaration -1 WILLIAMSON LAW OFFICE 7015T" Avenue - Suite 5500 EXHIBIT SEAniE WA98199 (206) 292-04111 LAX (206) 292-0313 williamsonl(o,msn.com calculations, the City's R-8 yields virtually the same number of lots we would receive by the County, or approximately 17 dwelling units (2.3 acres X 6 du's per acre). 4. In determining to buy this property, we relied upon representations made by City Staff that this property would at least receive initial R-8 City Zoning which is the functional equivalent of the County's R-6 zoning district. Based upon this information, and the ability to build 17 homes, we closed our sale with the Seller. The City confirmed these densities again in meetings with our consultant, Pat White, in the early Spring of 2005. , 5. Following the meetings which Mr. White had with the City which confirmed that R-8 zoning would be followed, we were completely shocked to see a later Staff Report prepared by the City, in which the City is now attempting to limit development to low density residential at 4 dwelling units per acre. RA zoning would mean that we could only construct about 8 homes on this property. This is not at all what we understood the agreement was with the City in proceeding with the annexation. The R-8 zoning district we seek is consistent with surrounding County R-6 zoned parcels to the south and east, which abut our property. Property to the north is zoned at R-14, a much higher urban density that what we seek in the City's R-8. 6. This property cannot possibly be economically developed at RA densities and we will lose our invested monies in this property. And there is no reason for this. Lots to the south and east of our parcel, which are also included in the annexation, have already been platted by King County as R-6 lots. Surely, this Report to the Board about R4 densities must simply be a mistake. If this is not corrected, it will have devastating financial consequences in our attempts to build middle income homes so badly needed in the Renton housing market. 7. On behalf of M&T, I request that the Board show in its record that the only agreement on density for purposes of the annexation petition has always been R-8, not R-4. Mena BRB Dedaration - 2 WILLIAMSON LAW OFFICE 7015T" Avenue - Suite 5500 P.O. Box 99821 SEATRE WA 98199 (206) 292-041111 AX (206) 292-0313 williamsonb@msn.com AuQ-11-2005 11:/6am From -Alicia Mona { T-077 P.004/004 F-852 Datcd. this U_dny ofAugunt, 2005 at Renton, WA. M&T. Were.Deal,rnoae.tf 1 DOS.dne Meng OM DcGlemtion - 9 ( L4:�� • 'Cie Mem WILLL %SON �IAyWW FT CE P.O.�,,�D821 (206) 2w C T 1 (FII 7-031J Received Aut-11-ZOUS 11:20em From- To-Alieip Neva Page 003 WATER AVAILABILITY FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CITY OF RENTON 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 Phone: (425) 430-7200 Fax: (425)430-7300 TO BE FILLED OUT BY APPLICANT: Date of Request Applicant's Name: BAN;✓ �P,= �T - Phone No. Mailing Address: noitp "��(� Av,, 1 City - '4001AL—MIL State WA Zip Code ) jp Check one: ❑ Proposed Single Family Home IX Other (Specify) ?-40 P ,4 p(7L47- Location/Address: . IsLezdt j`[�Q S Xotl S., S-rjtEr, King County Tax Account NO: I t31t t 1Sdo3 `pj3.j0001Sjt-G; Legally Described as: 4T " SPt2 k%(- DC,"- AC P—r— gA CTS, THIS APPLICATION SHALL INCLUDE A COPY OF THE PROPOSED SITE/PLOT PLAN. INFORMATION PROVIDED BY CITY: I • ❑ Water Service will be provided by the City of Renton by a water meter connection only to an existing size water main located within The rate of flow from the above described water main is: ❑ Less than 500 gpm (approx. gpm) ❑ 500 to 999 gpm ❑ 1000 gpm or more The static water pressure from the above described water main is: psi at the existing street elevation. Current Uniform Plumbing Code Section 608.2 requires: Where local static pressure is in excess of 80 psi, the owner at the owner's cost and expense must install, operate and maintain an approved pressure reducing valve (PRV) "downstream" of the water meter. (over) EXHIBIT f0 Water Availability Form Page 2 ❑ City records show a water service stub and meter to the property ❑ Yes ❑ No or . Water service will require an extension of approximately 150( 1 � of )Z size water main located within fir: L l wi A3 or The proposed development lies within applicant shall contact The District/Agency at availability. See attached letter dated Reference data Payment of all applicable system development fees: (Fees are subject to change without notice) System Development Charge Single Family $1,525.00 service area; therefore, the (phone) for water Mobile -home, Manufactured -home $1,220.00 per dwelling unit Multi Family $915.00 per dwelling unit ❑ Latecomers, special assessment fees: 4. ❑ Payment of all applicable water meter installation fees: The applicant shall determine the size of the water meter and supply pipe from the meter to the building(s) in accordance with Section 1009 of the current Uniform Plumbing Code. - Water Service Stub and Meter Installation Charge: ❑ ❑ 3/4" meter "full installation' by City 3/4" "full $1,300.00 (inside City limits) ❑ meter installation' by City 1"meter "full $1,400.00 (outside City limits) ❑ installation" by City 1"meter "drop $1,400.00 ❑ -in" by City 1 $250.00 ❑ 2" meter full installation by City 1 %" "drop $2,400.00 (full installation) meter -in" by City $300.00 Other: Water availability form pwwtravail/revised 2005 Water Availability Form Page 3 CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION: Fire Hydrants) Requirements: 1. All new single family dwelling(s) must be with 300 feet of a fire hydrant, per current City's standard. The hydrant must able to able to deliver a flowrate of 1,000 gallon per minute (gpm). 2. It is the responsibility of the owner/developer to verify by a field measurement, whether the proposed single family dwelling is located within the 300 feet distance from an existing fire hydrant. The distance shall be measured from the hydrant, and along the traveled portion of the roadway, private access road, and driveway to the proposed structure. 3. If the proposed structure is located more than 300 feet from the existing hydrant, the owner/developer is required to install a new hydrant in front of the property, or at a location within 300 feet of the proposed structure. The final location of the new hydrant must be approved by the Fire Marshal. 4. If the proposed structure is located within 300 feet from an existing fire hydrant that does not meet current City standards ( i.e.: a hydrant with two pumper ports), the owner/developer is required to replace the existing hydrant with a new fire hydrant meeting the current City's standards. 5. When the available flow rate from an existing hydrant and connecting water main is greater than 500 gpm and less than 1,000 gpm, the owner/developer may install a residential fire sprinkler system in the new single family dwelling. The design and installation of the fire sprinkler system must be approved by the Fire Marshal. The structure must also be within 300 feet of an existing fire hydrant. 6. When the available flow rate from an existing hydrant and connecting water main is less than 500 gpm, the owner/developer is required to install a new water main and hydrant per City's standards. The new water main shall extend from an existing water main capable of delivering 1,000 gpm, and along the frontage road to the extreme boundary of the property line. I hereby certify that the above water availability information is true. This certification shall be valid for one year from date of signature. (Fee information is subject to change without notice). CITY OF RENTON - WATER UTILITY Signature Water Utility Section Date Water availability forth pwwtravail/rcviscd 2005 1 S 79 XWE \ • NOTES 1. TOTQZ J'ITE 14RE,4 :'Z. gM,4C MIN. Z 07 ARfA 4, SOD 2.F \ a 4. M.M. 107 MOTfl f 5O (d0 �p CORN 5. EX/J T ZONE - R 6 14 16 1- o' �o C t�T1 d o. PacifiC 4180 LIND AVE. B.W. ry g IRENTON, WA 99055 C!D7efi lneerin (425) 251-e811 L 1 gn, LLC FAX, (425) 251-ee90 WE9 BITE, \ Civil Engineering and PACENd.eOM Planning Consultants SANITARY SEWER AVAILABILITY FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CITY OF RENTON 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 Phone: (425) 430-7200 Fax: (425) 4.M-7300 TO BE FILLED OUT BY APPLICANT: q Date of Request Applicant's Name: } hT ,1 li l E. AZ`a _P c `m �C Phone No. � Mailing Address: CA 1Wb A t [ < t q City S^,p (;Z�; I'ME State !`!!' j_... _ Zip Code Check one: Proposed Single Family Home Existing Single Family Home On Septic Proposal f Lot Short Plat Other (Specify) Location/Address: King County Tax Account No: "131 O iS�1o3 `1� 3 t �G�StCLegally Described as: --- Lc-r It Ski`( 3i onit,- :[�c THIS APPLICATION SHALL INCLUDE A COPY OF THE PROPOSED SITEIPLOT PLAN. INFORMATION PROVIDED BY CITY: ❑ Sanitary Sewer Service will he provided by side sewer connection only to an existing size sewer main located within City records show a side sewer stub to the property ❑ Y ❑ N or ❑ Sanitary sewer service will require an extension of approximately n of, size sewer main located within. 1VGu 1 lnr-li -[)�L�, or, ❑ The proposed development lies within service area; therefore, the applicant shall contact The DistrictlAgency at (phone) for sewer availability. ❑ See attached letter dated 2. ❑ Payment of all applicable system development fees: (Fees are subject to change without notice) - System Development Charge: 900 per single family residence - Residential building sewer permit: 60 per single family residence - Latecomers, special assessment fees: S - Right of Way Fee $ - Right of Way Bond (Refundable) Sanitary Sewer Availability Form Page 2 3• ❑ Reference data 4. ❑ Applicant shall abandon the existing septic system in accordance with Section 1119 of the current Uniform Plumbing Code and Section 4-6-040.I.6 of the City Code. 5. ❑ Customers malting a first time connection to sanitary sewers in King County, including Renton's Sewer Service Area, are subject to a sewage treatment capacity charge. The purpose of this King County charge is to pay for building sewage treatment capacity to serve newly connected customers. Single- family customers pay $34.05 a month (billed by King County as $204.30 every six months) for 15 years. At the customer's choice, this fee may be paid to King County as a lump sum of $4,136.93. This fee is in addition to the monthly charge for treatment that Renton is required to collect and pass to King County. 6. ❑ The Renton portion of the Wastewater Utility Rates for customers outside the city limits is 1.5 times the standard rate for customers inside the city limits. (City Code section 8-5-15C) 7. ❑ The proposed project is within the corporate limits of the City of Renton or has been granted King County Boundary Review Board (BRB) approval for extension of service outside the City.. or ❑ Annexation or BRB approval will be necessary for the provision of sanitary sewer service. 8. ❑ The sewer system improvement is in conformance with a County approved sewer comprehensive plan. or ❑ The sewer system improvement will require an amendment to the Renton Long -Range Wastcwatcr Management Plan. 9. ❑ The sewer system improvement will be within an existing franchise from King County allowing the installation of facilities in the County Rights) -of Way. or ❑ The sewer system improvement will require that Renton obtain a franchise from King County to install the facilities in the County Right(s)-of Way. CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION• 1) It is the responsibility of the owner/developer to verify, by an engineering study, whether it is possible to connect by gravity line to the existing City sewer system (a private lift station may be installed, but is not desirable). The City may require, at it's option, the verification to be in the form of a letter signed by a professional civil engineer. 2) When new sanitary sewer lines are installed, the City typically installs or requires to have installed stub -outs to the Property line. This is done as a courtesy to the property owners. The City does not guarantee a stub for all properties nor does it guarantee the condition or location of the stub. It is the responsibility of the owner/contractor to have an approved connection from the building sewer to the City's sewer main. If there is a stub, it is in good condition, and the owner/contractor can locate it, then it is available for use. The determination of condition of existing sanitary sewer stubs shall be the sole responsibility of the City and the City's decision shall be final. If the stub is broken or the City inspector determines that the stub's condition is not acceptable, it shall be the owner/contractor's responsibility to repair the stub, replace the stub at the existing tee, or to install a new stub and tee directly into the main. The method of repair/replacement to be determined by the City's inspector. I hereby certify that the above sanitary sewer information is true. This certification shall be valid for one year from date of signature. (Fee information is subject to change without no ' ). CITY OFRENTON - WASTEWATER UTILITY )� Signato Na' e v 1 W water Utility Section Signature Date dclpwssavail.dm Rentonnet pwssavail 12/04 bh pno Suo;avnincaoo SmmcvI j ` ` ' ` � \ i l— NOCYON3OVd uo�m8ng peT� + 1 1 1 f 11 3L8 8a7M twc-ttz (fliv �ZZ `TISIS3Q k 99096 VM 'NOJ.N2k1 $uTlaauTSil� ' 1 0 M'S'BAY CNI-70MV .7T�T'J$d ,• \ v%ii� 1Ni1� I i lz 1 ;� - 8� 21vOZ 1 J'/X3 NY �? 0V , OS' N10IM 107 WkV '., J' 09S`� - t/:?,YV 107 %V/N 'o B/ : J:LO7 20 'ON 06'B8l. = Y3,Y1> 31/.f' 71y101 7 L S31ON � 1 ' I AUG-19-2905 15*12 CITY OF PENTON PWW 425 430 7241 P.02/04 (IN DDES County Department Of Public Health and the Department of Development and DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AND Environmental Services with information ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES necessary to evaluate development 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwcst proposals. Renton, Wa 98055-1219 King County Certificate of Water Availability Do not write in this box number name ❑ Building Permit 11( Preliminary Plat erPt7CT' ❑ Short Subdivision p ❑ Rezone or other Applicant's name: f A� 11) k i i _ A N ►,"6 Qt1at'£0i (6 - a p I - 356� � $6 p M106 KC I w %& biy; 0 al� L (�- Lots SuoEarnu►iV U1 QQl7tzj Proposed use: Location: x Wot*K u0 i : ns) boo IS403 X ;Vj 316001510,( LW tt-—SR"CGO40►G kcal -fta's SG(attach map and legal description if necessary) Water utility information: 1. D a. Water will be provided by se Ice nnecth�tMN of on only to an existing (2- wi, (size) water main that is OR Y 56 feet from the stte. �ps o-,r0,µ4 dt S. Se st) llll.... b. Water service will require an improvement to the water system of: ❑ (i) feet of water main to reach the site; and/or n 2) The construction of a distribution system on the site; and/or 3) Other (describe) St'-f� k %"y tltlfay 00AV l-Lu-v 106S !! '' A &WMV0 Qt&M1uMW LAItart air ur*w CA/ KMl lvift fqq 14C14, 2. a OR The water system has a txrrrent County -approved water comprehensive plan and franchise. O b. The water system does not have a current County -approved water comprehensive plan or franchise and YAI require a new or amended water comprehensive plan or franchise. (This may cause a delay in issuance of a permit or approvap. 3. a. The proposed project is within the corporate Emits of the utility, or the utility has been granted Boundary Review Board approval for service area annexation, or the project is within the County -approved service area of the utility. OR ❑ b. Boundary Review Board approval of an annexation will be necessary to provide service. 4. ❑ a. Water is or will be available at the rate of flow and duration Indicated below at no less than 20 psi measured at the nearest fire hydrant feet from the building/property (or as marked on the attached map): Rate of flow at Peak Demand Duration O less fhan 500 gpm (approx. gpm) ❑ less than 1 hour ❑ 500 to 999 qpm ❑ 1 hour to 2 hours �( 1000 gpm or more Xf 2 hours or more l7 flow test Of gpm Cj O calculation of gpm other (Note: Commercial building permits which includes multifamily structures require flow test or calculation.) OR 0 b. Water system Is not capable of providing fire flow. 5. � a. OR Water system has certificates of water right or water right claims sufficient to provide service. ❑ b. Water system does not currently have ne�e syy water rights or water right claims. Av Nac �I Comments/conditions: 866 IR1 Q%(V IfM4'tlktt 1t' K0iwL WhCWhMJ It1lRouFxtEKi% Q6tXOM F6E;S . certify that the above water utility information is true. This certificate shall be valid for one year from date of signature Cncy Rfusa►l �bpau� �yh(/ WAgency name / Si netory name " SKrfAuisrrr/ O „ /' Auam- 15, ?6o5 Title Signature Date Nov. 24, 1999 EXHIBIT f: AW-19-2005 15:13 CITY OF RENTON PUM 425 430.7241 P.03iO4 r T CITY OF RENTON 1X Planninp�Building/PublieWorks Department Kathy Keolker-Wheeler. Mayor GreggZimmerminP.E.,Administrator August 15, 2005 T Pat White 13anane Properties 9016 356"' Ave SE Snoqualmie, WA 98065 SUBJECT: Water Availability For Proposed Subdivision of King County Tax Parcels No'& 743100015403 and 7931000151061 Dear Mr. White: This letter is to certify that the subject property is within the City of Renton's water service area, in the 350-zone pressure gradient. Water service to the proposed subdivision will require the following water main improvements: 1. An extension of about 370 feet of water main, 8-inch minimum diameter, along South 55'f' Street from Talbot Road South to the east property line. 2. An extension of about 500 feet of 8-inch minimum diameter water line in the new roadway within the proposed plat. 3. An extension of about 300 feet of 12-inch water line along Talbot Road South from South 55ei Street to the new roadway within the plat. 4. Installation of fire hydrants, water meters and related appurtenances. 5• Civil plans for the water main extensions are required and shall be prepared by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Washington. The subdivision is subject to applicable fees including, but not limited to: 1. Water system development charge of $1,525.00 per single-family lot. 2. Water meter installation cost of $250 per "drop -in"'/. -inch meter. 3. Plan review and inspection fee in the amount of 5% of the estimated construction cost of the water main extension. We recommend that you contact Laureen Nicolay, Senior Planner, of the City's Development Services and Planning Department at (425) 430-7294, to schedule a pre -application meeting. The purpose of this meeting is to provide you with additional information on City codes and development regulations applicable to the proposed subdivision. if you have any questions, please contact meat (425) 430-7210. Sincerely, 1 Abdoul Gafour Water Utility Engineering Supervisor Enclosures cc: Ka)Ten Kittdct:, Plan Revicw/Ucvclopment Services Supervisor IAunrn Nicola.•, Development Services Senior planner __ 11101e SytWTR . nrinkinr W�r.•r f frill WTR 17 W r e r �•r ��.n v ra 1055 south Grad W ^rCr Av+a�nn r�tC SSrh �r&'RTW 1 0 1 V y ay -Renton, Washtngton 98055 :nt By: Pacific Engineering V`• "� ��✓ aJ•GV Z� s}- ..1t tcae,y xbnn NAW(cf. itayor September 2, 2005 Design; 425 251 8880; Sep-2-05 3:45PM; Page ntniun r" 425 430 7241 P.e2/02 C� J. IL Y "r, .a. v i . Joseph M. Hopper Pacific FJngineering Design, LLC 4180 Lind Avenue SW Renton, WA 99055 Plannia Ouilding/PublicWorlcs Department Gregg Zimmerman rX , Admialontor SUBXCT: Sewer Availability Talbot Rd and S. 55a`, Proposed Plat KCP1(D no 793100-0154 and 0151 Dear Mr. Hopper: The City of Renton has reviewed your proposed single-family plat at the subjcd location for eonf"niancc to Section 4-6-040C of Renton City Code, Service Outside the City. The plat as submitted dots not meet the critorion of density matching City proposed density. The plat as submitted has a nct density of approximately 7.78 d.u. per acre. The City has identified this as Part of its Land Use effort as low density residential. While that typically has a maximum density of it net 4 d.u. per acre, we also understand that the City proposes to modify the allowed density in this area as put of the proposed annexation to a maximum net density of S d.u. per acre. As such, in order to receive sewer availability from the City you must resubmit with a proposed Plat that does not exceed a maximum net density of 5 d.u. per acre, and havo it roviewed and approved by the City. Once you resubmit, the City will need approximately three weeks to review your submittal. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at 425430-7212. 105 South Grady Way _Renton, Washington 98035 - ' ntiFno or rN< <:v&vc EXHIBIT CA _ Asa o� 7- King County l7lY 7yp'�� F Department of Development and Environmental Services Building Services Division `� ED Re on, Washington Avenue Southwest Alternative formats available• 4- iF Renton, Washington 98055-1219 206-296-6600 M 206-296-7217 upon request 0 Dk� . s King County Certificate of Sewer Availability KING COUNTY Tins certificate provides the Seattle LAND USE SERVICES �9 County Department of Public Health and the Department of Develop ment and Environmental Services with information necessary to evaluate development proposals. rr*l write in ttus box ❑ WIding Permit ❑ Preliminary Plat or PUD Start Subdivision ❑ Rezone or other _"_...._.._ ._._.._.._ -r.. _.... -_... Applicant's name: Proposed use: Location: (?6,S/ S 2:� S77 W.n� o (attactr map legal descnptan 9 necessary)Sewer �— . . t • ❑ a. Sewer service will be provided by side sewer connection only to an existing size sewer feet from the site and the sewer system has the capacity to serve the proposed use. OR iyv b. Sewer service will r, !ap t ement to the sewer system of: Y feet of sewer trunk or lateral to reach the site; and/or The construction of a cdlection system on the site; and/or ❑ (3) Other (describe) 2. a. The sewer system irprovement is in conformance with a County approved sewer comprehensive plan. OR ❑ b. The sewer system improvement will require a sewer comprehensive plan amendment. 3• a. The proposed project is witt>in the corporate limits of the "district or has been granted Boundary Review Board approval for extension of service outside the district or city. OR ` ❑ b. Annexation or Boundary Review Board (B EXHIBIT )approval will be necessaryto provide service. 4. Service is subject to the following: � A — a. Connection charge: b. Easement(s): C. Comments: certify that the above sewer agency information is true. This cerlif lion shall be vat' or one ^gency parne Title Check out the DDES Web site at www.metrokc.aov/ddes sewer ava0abaityform bcert-sewecpdf 05-19-2003 dale of signature. K�(M FILE COPY Pan.. I..11 WILLIAMSON LAW OFFICE August 12, 2005 Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County Attention: Board Members Attention: Lenora Blauman Executive Secretary Yesler Building, Room 402 400 Yesler Way Seattle, WA 98104 City Clerk City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Don Erickson, AICP Senior Planner/Strategic Planning City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Re: Anthone Annexation Proceedings - BRB File No. 2199; City of Renton File No. A- 04-003; King County Tax Parcel Nos. 7931000151, 7931000152, and 7931000154 M&T Development, Inc. Testimony Re: Proposed R-4 Zoning Ladies & Gentlemen: On behalf of M&T Development, Inc., the owner of the parcels which are the subject of these proceedings before the Boundary Review Board and City of Renton, and who is a party herein as a petitioner in support of annexation into the City of Renton, this letter serves as their written comment and testimony related to the pending annexation. 1. Correction on Number of Dwelling Units Intended for Subject Anthone Property. The supporting declaration submitted by Alicia Mena of M&T Development, Inc. expresses the intent of the Petitioners at the time they executed the that their property (King County Tax Parcel Nos. 7931000151, 7931000152, and 7931000154) that their property receive an equivalent King County R-6 density designation of R-8 under the City's residential zoning, not R-4 as indicated by Bank of America Tower ♦ 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5500 ♦ P.O. Box 99821 ♦ Seattle, Washington 98139-0821 Office:206.292.0411 ♦ Fax:206.292.0313 ♦ eFax: 208.567.1998 williamsonb@msn.com E X H I R IT Anthone Annexation M&T Development, LLC Letter August 12, 2005 Page 2 by the City, are 2.3 X 8 du's per acre or approximately 18 total dwel ling units. M&T intends to build 17 homes, which appears to be consistent with the 16 dwelling units as indicated in the "Summary (File No. 2199)" information filed with the Board. Exhibit `B." However, the information provided by the City appears to apply to the entire 4.84 acre parcel, and not just the 2.3 acre M&T portion of the Anthone annexation proposal. 2. Prezoning to R-8 is Consistent with the County's R-14 and R-6 Urban Densities The Anthone/M&T parcels are within a urban boundary area of unincorporated King County which contains higher urban densities not only for the M&T parcels, but as well for abutting parcels to the north (CountyR-14), and east and south (County R6-SO). As is shown in the attached colored King County iMap, the M&T parcels are presently zoned R6-SO. See attached undated City "Anthone Annexation and Vicinity Prezone Project Narrative and Proposal Summary." RCW 36.93.157 provides that BRB decisions are to be consistent with Growth Management Act. See RCW 36.70A.040, RCW 36.70A.020, 36.70A.110, and 36.70A.210. RCW 36.93.170 requires that the Board consider certain factors, including: (1) population and territory; (2) population density; (3) land area and land uses; (4) comprehensive plans and zoning; and (5) the likelihood of significant growth in the area and in adjacent incorporated and unincorporated areas during the next ten years. The proposed annexation is required to be consistent with RCW 36.70A.020, 36.70A.110, and 36.70A.210. See Stewart v. Washington State BRB,100 Wash.App. 165, 171-173, 996 P.2d 1087 (2000). The information provided to the City Council for purposes of requesting annexation of the 2.48 acre parcel owned by M&T Development mistakenly refers to adjoining County parcels as being "R-4." As the attached report of Planner Jon Potter indicates, these surrounding lots, both east and south of the M&T parcels, are in fact "R-6," a much higher residential density. Accordingly, to be consistent with the substantive provisions of planning policies, the record before the Board should reflect the convect zoning on the adjoining unincorporated parcels as "R-6." Implementing Renton zoning to be consistent with this zoning district should be identified as "R-8." As noted in Stewart v. BRB, supra. at 174, "...the legislature intended to require the BRB to make its decisions consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan and the policies." The R-6 zoning district, which implements the County's Comprehensive Plan,requires that an equivalent R-6 zoning (City R-8) continues the County's land -use densities for the M&T parcels, including surrounding parcels to the east and west which are also included in the annexation. Any attempt by the City to change its mind and now designate the Anthone parcels as R-4 would create an inconsistent low density island of R-4 in the midst of much more intense development to the north and east which would not be consistent with the County's R-6 densities and the County's Comprehensive Plan and Growth Management Act policies. As the County's zoning maps show, abutting southerly R-6 lots to the south and east of the M&T parcels, also immediately abut the City's Resource Conservation zone. It follows that there would be no "separator" purpose served by down -zoning the M&T parcels Anthone Annexation M&T Development, LLC Letter August 12, 2005 Page 3 as R-4. While annexation is necessary for purposes of providing water and sewer services to these parcels, it would be a mistake to designate or downzone the M&T parcels as R4 as they do not touch the conservation area and would not be needed for purposes of protecting the conservation area. 3. Inclusion of Adjacent R-6 Zoned Property Already Platted for Construction of Dwellings at R-6 Densities Warrants that the M&T Parcels Be Treated Equally. The City of Renton has recently filed its Notice of Intention to expand the annexation area to include abutting easterly and southerlyR-6 within the annexed areas. As discussed briefly above, any down - zoning of the developed R-6 lots to the east and south of the M&T parcel, from R-6 to R-4 would cause these adjoining lots to become legally "non -conforming." As R-4, they could no longer meet minimum lot size requirements of County R-6 lots. Nor would they meet the City's equivalent R-8 zoning district. Because these R-6 zoned lots should retain their County R-6 densities through equivalent R-8 zoning, it follows that the M&T parcels, which abut these parcels should also retain their existing R-6 densities through R-8 zoning. Sincerely, Bill H. Williamson enclosures: cc: Pat White, M&T Alicia Mena, M&T M&T.BoardLetter,080805.wpd BEFORE THE WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR KING COUNTY DECLARATION OF ALICIA MENA 1, THE UNDERSIGNED, under the pains and penalties of the laws of perjury of the State of Washington, declare and state: 1. I am over the age of 18 and competent to testify to the matters contained herein. 2. I maintain offices located at 11625 Rainier Avenue South, Renton, WA. I am a co- principal with M&T Development, Inc. M&T is a local a family -owned company that invests in local property for the development of middle income single-family residential plats in King County. Most of the parcels we buy and develop are constructed for the local housing market. We purchased this property which is still zoned R-6 with the intent that it would be developed for middle -income families working in the Renton area. 3. In deciding to the purchase this 2 % acre property which was part of the Anthone Annexation, we relied upon representations by the City that our property, which we were then in the process of closing, would continue the urban densities established in King County (R-6) through the City's adoption of R-8 zoning. There is essentially no difference in these zoning districts for the number of homes that can be built, because the City calculates density after public streets, private access easements, and critical areas have been deducted. King County on the other hand uses a gross density calculation. Mena BRB Declaration -1 After calculating the loss for density WILLIAMSON LAW OFFICE 7015T" Avenue - Suite 5500 P.O. Box 99821 SEATTLE WA 98199 (206) 292-04111 VAX (206) 292-0313 williamsonb(@msn.com calculations, the City's R-8 yields virtually the same number of lots we would receive by the County, or approximately 17 dwelling units (2.3 acres X 6 du's per acre). 4. In determining to buy this property, we relied upon representations made by City Staff that this property would at least receive initial R-8 City Zoning which is the functional equivalent of the County's R-6 zoning district. Based upon this information, and the ability to build 17 homes, we closed our sale with the Seller. The City confirmed these densities again in meetings with our consultant, Pat White, in the early Spring of 2005. . 5. Following the meetings which Mr. White had with the City which confirmed that R-8 zoning would be followed, we were completely shocked to see a later Staff Report prepared by the City, in which the City is now attempting to limit development to low density residential at 4 dwelling units per acre. R4 zoning would mean that we could only construct about 8 homes on this property. This is not at all what we understood the agreement was with the City in proceeding with the annexation. The R-8 zoning district we seek is consistent with surrounding County R-6 zoned parcels to the south and east, which abut our property. Property to the north is zoned at R-14, a much higher urban density that what we seek in the City's R-8. 6. This property cannot possibly be economically developed at R4 densities and we will lose our invested monies in this property. And there is no reason for this. Lots to the south and east of our parcel, which are also included in the annexation, have already been platted by King County as R-6 lots. Surely, this Report to the Board about R4 densities must simply be a mistake. If this is not corrected, it will have devastating financial consequences in our attempts to build middle income homes so badly needed in the Renton housing market. 7. On behalf of M&T, I request that the Board show in its record that the only agreement on density for purposes of the annexation petition has always been R-8, not R-4. Mena BRB Dedaration - 2 WILLIAMSON LAW OFFICE 701 5T" Avenue - Suite 5500 P.O. Box 99821 SEATTLE WA 98199 (206) 292-04111 PAX (206) 292-0313 williamsonb(@msn.com AuQ-I1-2005 11:16am From -Alicia Mani T-077 P.004/004 F-952 Dated this -1 L day ofA-ugunt, 2005 of Rentori. WA. • C-* o— 'cia Mena M&T-U-%Dtal.n000.oil DDS.dvo Mane BRO DoclsmUoo - 9 WILLI §SOR lAW OFFICE loI SP..O.. 1 - 9�a I° 2gW t2%w(Yamspnb aai.wm2-0313 Racelved Aut-11-2005 11:Zo&m From- To-Alicit Mano Pate 003 Northwest Planning & Development Services August 12, 2005 Mr. Reggie Holmes Boundary Review Board for King County Yesler Building, Room 402 400 Yesler Way Seattle, Washington 98104 Re: Anthone Annexation to the City of Renton — King County Boundary Review File 2199 Dear Mr. Holmes, I am a land use planner with nearly 30-years experience in the public and private sectors. I have reviewed the City of Renton's Acceptance of the 60% Petition, the Notice of Intention to Annex, Renton City Council Minutes, King County's Countywide Planning Policies, King County Zoning Code, the City of Renton's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code, and other annexations to the City of Renton. In summary, I believe that the City of Renton has proposed a down -zone of the property that is inconsistent with King Countywide Planning Policies, RCW 36.70A.100 and inconsistent with surrounding zoning. King County Countywide Planning Policies: LU-37: "All jurisdictions shall cooperate in developing comprehensive plans which are consistent with those adjacent jurisdictions and with the Countywide Planning Policies.", (See Exhibit A, "King County Countywide Planning Policies"). The following discussion shows a marked discrepancy between the City of Renton and the County's planned residential densities for the annexation area. King County Comprehensive Plan Map: The King County Comprehensive Plan Map shows the site designated "Urban Residential Medium, 4-12du/ac. The designation is footnoted with the following: "Densities shown on this map do not include density lost from environmental controls nor additional density achievable through clustering and allowed bonuses" (See Exhibit B, "King County Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map"). The attached King County Code analysis describes how the buildout under the County's zoning code allows up to 9 DUs per acre. King County Zoning Atlas: The site is currently zoned R-6 - Residential, 6 DU per acre, (See Exhibit C, "King County Zoning Atlas"). King County Zoning Code: The County's R-6 zone allows 500/9 greater density than the City's R- 4 zone. King County Code 21A.12.030 "Densities and dimensions —residential zones" establishes development in the R-6 zone can qualify for density bonuses that reach 9 DUs per acre, (225% of the City's proposed 4-DUs/ac.); (See Exhibit D, Chapter 2IA. 34, "General Provisions — Residential Density Incentives"). 3611 291hAvenue West Seattle, Washington 98199 Phone: (206) 579-0088 Fax: (206) 284-6099 email: jpotter936@aol.com Comment: Clearly, the City's annexation of the site represents a significant downzone of property inconsistent with King Countywide Planning Policy LU-37 and RCW 36.70A.100 that requires consistency between jurisdictions comprehensive plans. In the case of the Anthone Annexation, the allowable development potential under the City's R4 zone is less than one-half the density allowed under the County's current R-6 zoning. City of Renton's Annexation Analysis: The City inadvertently created an error with their exhibit in the January 24, 2005 Public Meeting by noting the County's R-6 zone as allowing 4-residences per gross acre. As described above, the zone allows up to 9 residences per acre, (See Exhibit E, "King County Comp Plan Designation and Current Zoning" prepared by the City). The property owners purchased the property based on their understanding the property could be developed under a zoning density similar to the County's R-6 zone. Further, the City's May 5, 2005 annexation analysis misstated development under the County's R-6 zone could achieve a density of up to 6 DUs/acre instead of 9 DUs/acre, (See page 4, Policy U-206 analysis in Exhibit F, "Factors the Board Must Consider"). The record should show the City's R-8 zone is most similar or equivalent to the County's R-6 zone. Surrounding Densities: The MT Development property is sandwiched between R-14 zoned property to the north and more intensely developed property zoned R-6 to the south and east. The City's proposed RA zone would be inconsistent with the zoning in the immediate vicinity. (See Exhibit H, King County Zoning Map and City of Renton Zoning Map). January 5, 2005 Renton City Council Minutes: Don Erickson, Renton Senior Planner acknowledged the County's R-6, (6-units per acre), zoning designation and stated they are reviewing the possible redesignation of the area to "Residential Single Family, allowing an R-8 zone, (8 units per acre), (See Exhibit G, Renton City Council Minutes). We encourage the Board to determine that the consistency requirements of the Growth Management Act, require that any annexation by the City redesignate the Anthone Annexation area as R-8 designation consistent with the County's R-6 zones to the south and east, and the City's R-14 zone to the north. Ton cerelPotter Attachments KING COUNTY COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICIES RCW 36.70A.100 COMPREHENSIVE PLANS MUST BE COORDINATED King County Countywide Planning Policies, Updated June 2005 This document includes all amendments approved and ratified through June 2005. If you have questions about the Countywide Planning Policies document, please contact Paul Reitenbach of the Department .of Development and Environmental Services at 206.296.6705. b. The ability of the annexing jurisdiction to demonstrate a capability to provide urban services at standards equal to or better than the current service providers; and C. Annexations in a manner which discourages unincorporated islands of development. The Growth Management Act requires that city and County comprehensive plans be coordinated and consistent with one another. Consistency is required "where there are common borders or related regional issues " (RCW 36.70A.100). Joint planning is fundamental to all the framework policies. LU-37 All jurisdictions shall cooperate in developing comprehensive plans which are consistent with those of adjacent jurisdictions and with the Countywide Planning Policies. 4. Cities in the Rural Area The cities and unincorporated towns in the Rural Areas are a significant part of King County,s diversity and heritage. Cities in this category include: Black Diamond, Carnation, Duvall, Enumclaw, North Bend, Snoquahnie and Skykomish. They have an important role as local trade and community centers. These cities and towns are the appropriate providers of local rural services for the community. They also contribute to the variety of development patterns and housing choices within the County. As municipalities, the cities are to provide urban services and be located within designated Urban Growth Areas. The urban services, residential densities and mix of land uses may differ from those of the large, generally western Urban Growth Area. LU 38 In recognition that cities in the Rural Area are generally not contiguous to the Countywide Urban Growth Area, and to protect and enhance the options cities in Rural Areas provide, these cities shall be located within Urban Growth Areas. These Urban Growth Areas generally will be islands separate from the larger Urban Growth Area located in the western portion of the County. Each city in the Rural Area and King County and the Growth Management Planning Council shall work cooperatively to establish an Urban Growth Area for that city. The Urban Growth Area for cities in the Rural Area shall: a. Include all lands within existing cities in the Rural Area; b. Be sufficiently free of environmental constraints to be able to support. rural city growth without major environmental impacts; c. Be contiguous to city limits; d. Have boundaries based on natural boundaries, such as watersheds, topographical features, and the edge of areas already characterized by urban development; e. Be maintained in large lots at densities of one home per five acres or less with mandatory clustering provisions until such time as the city annexes the area; f. Be implemented through interlocal agreements among King County, the cities and special purpose districts, as appropriate, to ensure that annexation is phased, nearby open space is protected and development within the Urban Growth Area is compatible with surrounding Rural and Resource Areas; and 30 Page 1 of 1 Inside the Legislature • Find Your Legislator * Participating in the Process Pik Legislative Calendars • Bill Information • Laws and Agency Rules • Legislative Agencies is Legislative E-mail Lists • Kids'Pages Outside the Legislature * Washington State History and Culture • Congress - the Other Washington • TV Washington * Washington Courts Access Washington„ OIKai�f !Nr Ca+u�way YIa lil. About Us I Contact Us I Email Lists I Search I Hel Legislature Home I Senate I House of Representative RCW TITLES » TITLE 36 >> CHAPTER 36.70A >> SECTION 36.70A.100 36.70A.OW << 36.70A.100 » 36.70A.103 RCW 36.70A.100 Comprehensive plans —Must be coordinated. The comprehensive plan of each county or city that is adopted pursuant to RCW 36.70A.04( coordinated with, and consistent with, the comprehensive plans adopted pursuant to RCW 3 other counties or cities with which the county or city has, in part, common borders or related 119901st ex.s. c 17 § 10.) Comments about this site I Privacy Notice I Accessibility Information i Disclaimer http://www.leg.wa-gov/RCW/index.cfm?section=36.70A.100&fuseaction=section 8/12/2005 KING COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP SING COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE 'LAN _AND USE MAP ?004 ownship 23 Range 5 icludes Comprehensive Ian Land Use changes Trough Ordinance #15028 Dictober 2004) Information Included on this map has been compiled by County staff from a variety of sources and Is subject to change wt notice. King County rakes no representations or anlies, express or Implied, as to accuracy, completeness, Iness, or rights to the use of such Information. King County not be liable for any general, special, Indirect, Inclderdal, or equential damages Including, but not limited to, lost hues or lost protits resulting from the use or misuse of the 'notion contained on this map. Any sale of this map or 'notion on this map Is prohibited except by written permission of County. Unincorporated Activity Center Community Business Center Neighborhood Business Center Commercial Outside of Centers Urban Plan Development Urban Residential, high, > 12dutac• Urban Residential, medium, 4-12du/ec' Urban Residential, low,1 dulee Rural City Urban Growth Area Rural Town Rural Neighborhood Rural Residential, 1dut2.5-10ac IndusMal N Forestry + = Agriculture MEMining MEGreenbelt/Urban Separator King County Owned Open Space/Recreation =? fir• Other Park31 Wlldemea Incorporated City Urban Growth v Area Boundary 0 0.23 0.5 1 lea rV 'DensNles shown on this map do not Include density lost from environmental controls nor additional density schleveabte through clustering and allowed bonuses. (du - dwelling unit; se - acre) The maps In the King County Comprehensive Plan and No technical appendices and this atlas are produced with a Geographic information System. For additional Information about features depicted on this map or other Comprehensive Plan maps, please contact the appropriate agency Noted on the Information sheet located In the Inside front pocket of the Comprehensive Plan Binder, or call the Growth Management Hotline at 20e-208-8777. For parcel-epecl8c land use or zoning Inquiries, please call the Department of Development and Environmental Services at Zoo-zee-eeoo This atlas can be viewed on the Internet at: Mtp:ltwww.motmW-Uov/ddes/gIsAunotes.htm ® King County Map generated: Jan 3, 2005 AWC Uddea7071p1s-mVnapa12003011awc-20050103_cpiul4.pdf m1tonylproJecistatlaslcplu.mxd im KING COUNTY ZONING ATLAS / s:.�_., �� - = - ��. - _ _ .ter I WI so 1 KING COUNTY CODE 21A.12.030 DENSITY AND DIMENSIONS - RESIDENTIAL ZONES KING COUNTY CODE 21A.34 GENERAL PROVISIONS - RESIDENTIAL DENSITY INCENTIVES DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - DENSITY AND DIMENSIONS 21A-12.010 - 21A.12.030 21A.12.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to establish basic dimensional standards for development relative to residential density and as well as spec rules for general application. The standards and rules are established to provide flexibility in project design, and maintain privacy between adjacent uses. (Ord. 10870 § 338, 1993). 21A.12.020 Interpretation of tables. A. K.C.C. 21A.12.030 and 21A.12.040 contain general density and dimension standards for the various zones and limitations specific to a particular zone(s). Additional rules, exceptions, and methodologies are set forth in K.C.C. 21A.12.050 through 21A.12.210. B. The density and dimension tables are arranged in a matrix format on two separate tables and are delineated into two general land use categories: 1. Residential; and 2. Resource and CommercialAndustrial. C. Development standards are fisted down the left side of both tables, and the zones are listed at the top. The matrix cells contain the minimum dimensional requirements of the zone. The parenthetical numbers in the matrix identify spec requirements applicable either to a specific use or zone. A blank box indicates that there are no specific requirements. If more than one appears in a cell, each standard will be subject to any applicable parenthetical footnote foll standard. (Ord. 10870 § 339, 1993). 21A.12.030 Densities and dimensions - residential zones` A. Densities and dimensions - residential zones_ --RESMENTIAL Z RURAL tames o M iEIiYE E f �' AIDS isRAd RMRI RA,2e M &I(M R-4 It{ Rf WU R•W SFSt R-f ta�0ansf4r. L2 t2 Ll fed LT / f f i U % S• 40 dufx dupe */x *Ix du/x duhc *lae *lac Eilx duhc dwat 4A.- 4fac Sfi CHI lel �'�"w"A0ini74 D.K'q to WI=* L' Ad= u *lacPq f • u u a ac n dupe dilae duds ddae d+lx dupe dulx Mala.wn e.n,iq! aSx fax fax fax Tax Tax fax 1�1 t+fl t�l tul 0% Wh'k plot N"(11J 1.f7a ac 5.n x T.S. 15x fuidn..n lot Van ASR us it tl5t =ft 352 SSA MR wit Wft MR 3M MR SO,R m m StYda�am S4.4 f.iAacic Soft M Sat HI am 14 =a M MR M MR cat left 10A loft 10R tort WA ftr M R R If1 W PI a (01 ►"— a-tb-A SR al 1tl ft- -1; —a— SA SR St SR SA $a St $A Sft PI a a) m m (10 t+a t+w (101 f--14ie10 Iq 10ft IOR 00t tOR SSA SSA Sift as* 351 SBA SOft Soo "* PSI 4St fSA so go: f0R Iw rw 041 an (+q q.uart..q M�y.,y;o„a ssx left lax 1zsK Sax Sax ssx Tt+1S Tax asx fax fax fox CR tr/9yi tml t+f1 aA Psl t»I au ail ail as n� D. uevelopment convroons. 1. This maximum density may be achieved only through the application of residential density incentives in accordance with K.C.C. chapter 21A.34 or transfers of development rights in accordance with KC.C. chapter 21A.37, or any combination of density incentive or density transfer. Maximum density may only be exceeded in accordance with K.C.C. 21A.34.040.F.1.g. and F.6. 2. Also see KC.C. 21A.12.060. 3. These standards may be modified under the provisions for zero -lot -line and townhouse developments. 21A-105 GENERAL PROVISIONS - RESIDENTIAL DENSITY INCENTIVES Chapter 21A.34 GENERAL PROVISIONS - RESIDENTIAL DENSITY INCENTIVES Section: 21A.34.010 Purpose. 21A.34.020 Permitted locations of residential density incentives. 21A-34.030 Maodmum densities permitted through residential density incentive review. 21A.34.040 Public benefits and density incentives. 21A.34.050 Rules for calculating total permitted dwelling units. 21A.34.060 Review process. 21A.34.070 Minor adjustments in final site plans. 21A.34.080 Applicability of development standards. 21 A-285 21A.34 GENERAL PROVISIONS - RESIDENTIAL DENSITY INCENTIVES 21A.34.010 - 21A.34.040 21A.34.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to provide density incentives to developers of residential lands in urban areas and rural activity centers, in exchange for public benefits b help achieve Comprehensive Plan goals of affordable housing, open space protection, historic preservation and energy conservation, by: A. Defining in quantified terms the public benefits that can be used to earn density incentives; B. Providing nudes and formulae for computing density incentives earned by each benefit; C. Providing a method to realize the development potential of sites containing unique features of size, topography, environmental features or shape; and D. Providing a review process to allow evaluation of proposed density increases and the public fits offered to earn them, and to give the public opportunities to review and comment. (Ord. 10870 § 1993). 21A.34.020 Permitted locations of residential density incentives. Residential density incentives (RDI) shall be used only on sites served by public sewers and only in the following zones: A. In R-4 through R-48 zones; and B. In NB, CB, RB and O zones when part of a mixed use development (Ord.10870 § 561,1993). 21A.34.030 Maximum densities permitted through residential density incentive review. The maximum density permitted through RDI review shall be 150 percent of the base density of the underlying zone of the development site or 200 percent of the base density for RDI proposals with 100 percent affordable units. (Ord.10870 § 562,1993). 21A.34.040 Public benefits and density incentives. A. The public benefits eligible to earn increased densities, and the maximum incentive to be earned by each.benefit, are in subsection F of this section. The density incentive is expressed as additional bonus dwelling unit, or fractions of dwelling units, earned per amount of public benefit provided.. B. Bonus dwelling units may be earned through any combination of the listed public benefits. C. The guidelines for affordable housing bonuses including the establishment of rental levels, housing prices and asset limitations, will be updated and adopted annually by the council in the consolidated housing and community development plan. D. Bonus dwelling units may also be earned and transferred to the project site through the transfer of development rights (TDR) program established in KC.C. chapter 21A.37, by providing any of the open space, park site or historic preservation public benefits set forth in subsection F.2. or 3. of this section on sites other than that of the RDI development. E. Residential development in R-4 through R-48 zones with property specific development standards requiring any public benefit enumerated in this chapter, shall be eligible to earn bonus dwelling units in accordance with subsection F of this section if the public benefits provided exceed the basic development standards of this title. If a development is located in a special overlay district, bonus units may be earned if the development provides public benefits exceeding corresponding standards of the special district. 21 A-287 21A.34.040 (Kng County 3-2005) ZONING F. The following are the public benefits eligible to earn density incentives through RDI review BENEFIT 1. AFFORDABLE HOUSING a. Benefit units consisting of rental housing permanently priced to serve nonsenior citizen low- income households (that is no greater than 30 percent of gross income for households at or below 50 percent of King County median income, adjusted for household size). A covenant on the site that specifies the income level being served, rent levels and requirements for reporting to King County shall be recorded at final approval. b. Benefit units consisting of rental housing designed and permanently priced to serve low- income senior citizens (that is no greater than 30 percent of gross income for 1- or 2-person households, 1 member of which is 62 years of age or older, with incomes at or below 50 percent of King County median income, adjusted for household sue). A covenant on the site that specifies the income level being served, rent levels and requirements for reporting to King County shall be recorded at final approval. c. Benefit units consisting of senior citizen assisted housing units 600 square feet or less. d. Benefit units consisting of moderate income housing reserved for income- and asset - qualified home buyers (total household income at or below 80 percent of King County median, adjusted for household size). Benefit units shall be limited to owner -occupied housing with prices restricted based on typical underwriting ratios and other lending standards, and with no restriction placed on resale. Final approval conditions shall specify requirements 21A-288 DENSITY INCENTIVE 1.5 bonus units per benefit unit, up to a maximum of 30 low-income units per five acres of site area; projects on sites of less than five acres shall be limited to 30 low- income units. 1.5 bonus units per benefit unit, up to a maximum of 60 low-income units per five acres of site area; projects on sites of less than five acres shall be limited to 60 low- income units. 1 bonus unit per benefit unit 0.75 bonus unit per benefit unit for reporting to IGng County on both buyer eligibility and housing prices. (King County 3-2005) GENERAL PROVISIONS - RESIDENTIAL DENSITY INCENTIVES BENEFIT e. Benefit units consisting of moderate income housing reserved for income and asset - qualified home buyers (total household income at or below 80 percent of IGng County median, adjusted for household size). Benefit units shall be limited to owner -occupied housing with prices restricted based on typical underwriting ratios and other lending standards, and with a 15 year restriction binding prices and eligibility on resale to qualified moderate income purchasers. Final approval conditions shall specify requirements for reporting to ling County on both buyer eligibility and housing prices. f. Benefit units consisting of moderate income housing reserved for income- and asset - qualified home buyers (total household income at or below 80 percent of icing County median, adjusted for household size). Benefit units shall be limited to owner -occupied housing, with prices restricted to same income group, based on current underwriting ratios and other lending standards for 30 years from date of first sale. A covenant on the site that specifies the income level and other aspects of buyer eligibility, price levels and requirements for reporting to IGng County shall be recorded at final approval. g. Projects in which 100 percent of the units are reserved for moderate income - and asset - qualified buyers (total household income at or below 80 percent of the I(ing County median, adjusted for household size). All units shall be limited to owner - occupied housing with. prices restricted based on current underwriting ratios and other lending standards, and with prices restricted to same income group, for 15 years from date of first sale. Final approval conditions shall specify requirements for reporting to IGng County on both buyer eligibility and housing prices. 21 A-289 21 A.34.040 DENSITY INCENTIVE 1 bonus unit per benefit unit. 1.5 bonus units per benefit unit 200 percent of the base density of the underlying zone. Limited to parcels 5 acres or less in size and located in the R-4 through R-8 zones. Housing types in the R-4 or R-6 zones shall be limited to structures containing four or less units, except for townhouses. Such RDI proposals shall not be eligible to utilize other RDI bonus density incentives listed in this section. h. Benefit units consisting of mobile home park space or pad reserved for the relocation of an insignia or noninsignia mobile home, that has been or will be displaced due to closure of a mobile home park located in incorporated or unincorporated King County. 21A.34.040 BENEFIT 2. OPEN SPACE, TRAILS AND PARKS 1.0 bonus unit per benefit unit. (King County 3-2005) ZONING DENSITY INCENTIVE a. Dedication of park site or trail right -of- 0.5 bonus unit per acre of park area way meeting King County location and size or quarter -mile of trail exceeding the standards for neighborhood, community or regional minimum requirement of K.C.C. 21 A.14 for park, or trail, and accepted by the parks division. on -site recreation space or trail corridors, computed on the number of dwelling units permitted by the site's base density. b. Improvement of dedicated park site to King County standards for developed parks. c. Improvement of dedicated trail segment to King County standards. d. Dedication of open space, meeting King County acquisition standards to the county or a qualified public or private organization such as a nature conservancy. 21 A-290 0.75 bonus unit per acre of park improvement If the applicant is dedicating the site of the improvements, the bonus units earned by improvements shall be added to the bonus units earned by the dedication. 1.8 bonus units per quarter mile of trail constructed to county standard for pedestrian trails; or 2.5 bonus units per quarter mile of constructed to county standard for multipurpose trails (pedestrian/ bicyde/equestrian). Shorter segments shall be awarded bonus units on a pro rata basis. If the applicant is dedicating the site of the improvements, the bonus units earned by improvements shall be added to the bonus units earned by the dedication. space. 0.5 bonus unit per acre of open (IGng County 3-2005) GENERAL PROVISIONS - RESIDENTIAL DENSITY INCENTIVES BENEFIT 3. HISTORIC PRESERVATION a. Dedication of a site containing an historic landmark in accordance with KC.C. chapter 20.62, to K g County or a qualifying nonprofit organization capable of restoring and/or maintaining the premises to standards set by the King County landmarks commission.. b. Restoration of a site or structure designated as an historic landmark in accordance with KC.C. chapter 20.62 to a specific architectural or site plan approved by the IGng County landmarks commission. 4. ENERGY CONSERVATION a. Benefit units that incorporate conservation features in the construction of all on - site dwelling units heated by electricity that save at least 20 percent of space heat energy use from the maximum permitted by the Northwest Energy Code, as amended. No more than 50 percent of the required savings may result from the installation of heat pumps. None of the required savings shall be achieved by reduction of glazing area below 15 percent of floor area. Energy use shall be expressed as allowable energy load per square foot or as total transmittance (UA). 21 A.34.040 DENSITY INCENTIVE 0.5 bonus unit per acre of historic site. 0.5 bonus unit per acre of site or one thousand square feet of floor area of building restored. 0.15 bonus unit per benefit unit that achieves the required savings. b. Benefit units that incorporate 0.10 bonus unit per benefit unit that conservation features in the construction of all on- achieves the required savings. site dwelling units heated by natural gas, or other nonelectric heat source, that save at least 25 percent of space heat energy use from the maximum permitted by the Northwest Energy Code, as 21 A-291 amended. None of the required savings shall be achieved by reduction of glazing area below 15 percent of floor area. Energy use shall be expressed as allowable energy load per square foot or as total transmittance (UA). c. Developments located within 114 mile of transit routes served on at least a half-hourly basis during the peak hours and hourly during the daytime nonpeak hours. 21A.34.040 - 21A.34.050 BENEFIT 5. PUBLIC ART a. Devoting 1 % of the project budget to public art on site. b. Contributing 1 % of the project budget to the King County public art fund for development of art projects. The contribution shall be used for projects located within a one mile radius of the development project 6. COTTAGE HOUSING Provision of three to sixteen detached cottage units clustered around at least one common open space. 10 percent increase above the base density of the zone. (ling County 3-2005) ZONING DENSITY INCENTIVE 5 percent increase above the base density of the zone. 5 percent increase above the base density of the zone. Two hundred percent of the base density of the underlying zone. Limited to parcels in the R4-R8 zones. Such RDI proposals shall not be eligible to utilize other RDI bonus density incentives listed in this section. If proposed energy conservation bonus units of this section are reviewed in conjunction with a subdivision or a short subdvision, the applicant shall provide data and calculations for a typical house of the type to be built in the development that demonstrates to the departmenCs satisfaction how the required savings will be achieved. A condition of approval shall be recorded with the plat and shown on the title of each lot specifying the required energy savings that must be achieved in the construction of the dwelling unit. The plat notation shall also specify that the savings shall be based on the energy code in effect at the Erne of preliminary plat application. (15032 § 38, 2004: Ord.14190 § 36, 2001: Ord.14045 § 56, 2001: Ord. 10870 § 563, 1993). 21A-34.050 Rules for calculating total permitted dwelling units. A. The formula for calculating the total number of dwelling units permitted through RDI review is as follows: DUs allowed by + Bonus DUs + DUs allowed by = TOTAL RDI RDI site base sending site DUs density density (if any) 21 A-292 steps: B. The total dwelling units permitted through RDI review shall be calculated using the following 1. Calculate the number of dwellings permitted by the base density of the site in accordance with K.C.C. chapter 21A.12; 2. Calculate the total number of bonus dwelling units earned by providing the public benefits fisted in K.C.C. 21A.34.040; 3. Add the number of bonus dwelling units earned to the number of dwelling units permitted by the base density; 4. Add the number of dwelling units permitted by the base density of the site sending TDRs, if any; 5. Round fractional dwelling units to the nearest whole number, .49 or less dwelling units are rounded down; and 6. On sites with more than one zone or zone density, the maximum density shall be calculated for the site area of each zone. Bonus units may be reallocated within the zones in the same manner set forth for base units in K.C.C. 21 A.12.180. (Ord. 14190 § 37, 2001: Ord. 10870 § 564, 1993). (IGng County 3-2005) GENERAL PROVISIONS - RESIDENTIAL DENSITY INCENTIVES 21A.34.060 - 21A.34.080 21A.34.060 Review process. A. AN RDI proposals shall be reviewed concurrently with a primary proposal to consider the proposed site plan and methods used to earn extra density as follows: 1. For the purpose of this section, a primary proposal is defined as a proposed subdivision, conditional use permit or commercial buildiing permit. 2. When the primary proposal requires a public hearing under this code or Tide 19A, the public hearing on the primary proposal shall serve as the. hearing on the RDI proposal. The reviewing authority shall make a consolidated decision on the proposed development and use of RDI and consider any appeals of the RDI proposal under the same appeal procedures set forth for the development proposal; 3. When the development proposal does not require a public hearing under this title or K.C.C. Tide 19A, the RDI proposal shall be considered along with the development proposal, and any appeals of the RDI proposal shall be considered under the same appeal procedures set forth for the development proposal; and 4. The notice for the RDI proposal also shall include the development's proposed density and a general description of the public benefits offered to earn extra density. B. RDI applications which propose to earn bonus units by dedicating real property or, public facilities shall include a letter from the applicable county receiving agency certifying that the proposed dedication quardies for the density incentive and will be accepted by the agency or other qualifying organization. (Ord. 14190 § 38, 2001: Ord.10870 § 565,1993). 21A.34.070 Minor adjustments in final site plans. When issuing building permits in an approved RDI development the department may allow minor adjustments in the approved site plan involving the location or dimensions of buildings or landscaping, provided such adjustments shall not: A. Increase the number of dwelling units; B. Decrease the amount of perimeter landscaping (if any); C. Decrease residential parldng Wities (unless the number of dwelling units is decreased); D. Locate structures closer to any site boundary line; or E. Change the locations of any points of ingress and egress to the site. (Ord.10870 § 566,1993). 21A.34.080 Applicability of development standards. A. RDI developments shall comply witli dimensional standards of the zone with a base density most closely comparable to the total approved density of the RDI development, provided that an RDI proposal in the R-4 through R-8 zone shall conform to the height requirements of the underlying zone in which it is located. B. RDI developments in the R4 through R-8 zones shall be landscaped as follows: 1. When 75 percent or more of the units in the RDI development consists of townhouses or apartments, the development shall provide perimeter landscaping and tree retention in accordance with K.C.C. 21A.16 for townhouse or apartment projects. 21A-293 2. When less than 75 percent of the units in the RDI consists of townhouses or apartments, the development shall provide landscaping and tree retention in accordance with K.C.C. 21A.16 for townhouses or apartments on the portion(s) of the development containing such units provided that, if buildings containing such units are more than 100 feet from the developments perimeter, the required landscaping may be reduced by 50 percent 21A.16. 3. All other portions of the RDI shall provide landscaping or retain trees in accordance with KC.C. C. RDI developments in all other zones shall be landscaped or retain trees in accordance with K.C.C. 21A.16. 21 A.34.080 (ICng County 3-2005) ZONING D. RDI developments shall provide parking as follows: 1. Projects with 100 percent affordable housing shall provide one off-street parting space per unit The director may require additional parting, up to the maximum standards for attached dwelling units, which may be provided in common parting areas. 2. All other RDI proposals shall provide parking for a. market rate/bonus units at levels consistent with KC.C. 21A.18, and b. benefit units at 50 percent of the levels required for market rate/bonus units. E RDI developments shall provide on -site recreation space as follows: 1. Projects with 100 percent affordable housing shall provide recreation space at 50 percent of the levels required in KC.C. 21A.14. 2. All other RDI proposals shall provide recreation space for a. market rate/bonus units at levels consistent with KC.C. 21A.14, and b. benefit units at 50 percent of the levels required for market rate/bonus units. (Ord. 10870 § 567,1993). 21 A-294 ANTHONE ANNEXATION KING COUNTY COMP PLAN DESIGNATION AND CURRENT ZONING �c / \ /j / \ \ k ok�kk & 2 f I §222 \i tk}(k RN e § �ƒR . �Q■ �0� . 2 q § � . m � � E § 2K g §mJ . f�Uz_ tt§ '\ ' CO 2 f0' © § U ©3 £° J ©f \k � 2-aa 022-. � ®% $# =7 C-13 Gem , � ca � so z :. •4 S��•iTA N H .a S Gn 'b c:. c J ("� h•� .-► tri 15" O � o Vl r y F �q . un• a � n N �C al NO 3D aw L,sav j� ,.,� C.•c�. O W o o '^ x Nc'►b a s .=a w O In on p oa ts % o: w A a. ,. �. .r .- Rsfb El + OO to o �. ►� y T gj ell y'.'iR4 rt� A . � a N pr. cr o • die �% .'C r - -a Q' -n N 1,.,ni cz :. o w O. (D ' .ao V. o O '� •�' rm ...• . .n 0�ou IQ ,� C7 A • � v r �. w M � � .� a o. . 103 VIP O N Cr w MOO P. f0/1 iu N Oi .3 1y N0 W W C CU °`ado o ' •�4 I e�ti• "�' a k00 illO 00 O~ c V ,• O !� �. ANTONE'S ANNEXATION FACTORS THE BOARD MUST CONCIDER •• �•,•••�•�.. otaVc nvunaary 1 CMW board for King County Proposed Anthone' Annexation 05/11/05 Page 2 4) The boundaries, including future service area boundaries, of all cities or special service districts having jurisdiction in or near the proposal. NOTE: The City and County library service area boundaries are. coterminous with the City's corporate boundary. 5) King County Urban Growth Area and City of Renton Potential Annexation Area boundaries established under the Growth Management Act. C. Exhibit G: • A map of the cur ent City of Renton corporate limits upon which the proposed Anthone' Annexation boundaries have been delineated. D. Exhibit H: City of Renton Comprehensive Plan band Use Designations. II. FACTORS THE BOARD MUST CONSIDER 1. Overview A. o lction: The population of the proposed Annexation area is estimated to be about 40 persons at full bu"dout based upon 2.5 persons per household and a total of 16 households. The City of Renton population as of April 2004 was 55,360. B. T_ emr�t : The proposed annexation area includes approximately 26.14 acres. C. lction Der gw. The proposed population density of the Anthone' Annexation area is estimaW to be about 8.26 persons per gross acre. D. ssessed VRluatron: The current assessed value of the properties proposed for annexation is approximately $746,000. 2. TAnd Use A-' FAMar. Existing uses include one single-family home with . an estimated population of 3 persons. B• A portion of the subject annexation has been looked at as a preliminary application for a preliminary plat. The annexation is proposed - to facilitate the development of these properties for single-family residential uses at up to four (4) units per net acre. 3. Comprehensive Plans/Franchise(s) A. Conformance wit} County Countywide Planning policies adopted by King_County The proposed action is consistent with the Countywide Planning Policies in general, and the following policies in particular: LU-31 In collaboration with adjacent counties and cities and King County, and in consultation with residential groups in affected areas, each city shall designate a potential annexation area. Each potential annexation area shall be specific to each city.... Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County Proposed Anthone' Annexation 05/11/05 Page 4 ti r jc KuSe) op - 0 9 Cb/a-ct'e Chapter Two, Urban Land Ust, Section II C, Urban Growth Area Targets U 208 King County shall provide adequate land capacityfor residential, commercial and industrial growth in the urban unincorporated area. This land capacity shall include both redevelopment opportunities as well as opportunities for development on vacant lands. Renton's proposed R-4 zoning, on the subject properties, would result in nearly 50 percent less capacity than that represented by the existing King County zoning, which is R-4, if the latter wore bonused up to it's maximum of 6 du/gross acre. This because the density allowed under Renton's R-4 zone is based upon net acreage whereas the County's calculates density based upon ss acreage. Also, the County's R-4 zone is easily bonused up to 6 du/gross acre. An estimated 29 units could be provided under the County's R4 zoning (without bonuses) and only approximately 15 units could be provided under Rentods proposed. R-4 zoning. C$abler Two, Urban Land Use, Section M.A. Planning with King C _x&s Cities for Future An_ncrtafi U-301 King County should work with cities to focus countywide growth within their boundaries and should supporl annexations within the Urban Growth Area when consistent with the King County Comprehensive Plan and Countywide Planning Policies. U-304 King County should support annexation proposals when: a. The proposal is consistent with the King County Comprehensive Plan, b. ?he proposed area is wholly within the Urban Growth Area and within the ciO4 designated Potential Annexation Area (for annexations), . C. Ae city is planning for urban densities and efficient land use patterns consistent with the Countywide Planning Policies and King County land use plans, and, d. Adopted Countywide goals and policies for urban services, environmental .and cultural resource protection will be supported. The proposal is generally consistent. with the King County Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map. The area proposed for annexation is ' Wholly within the Urban Growth Area and within Renton's designated Potential Annexation Area. The City's Comprehensive Plan policies and development regulations support countywide goals and policies for urban densities, urban services and environmental and cultural resource protection. The proposed R-4 zoning is urban, small lot zoning, which will achieve urban densities and efficiencies consistent with adopted countywide goals and policies for urban services. Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County Proposed Anthone' Annexation /05 �o _ �� 3) Adonted Vine County Coma Plan designation: The adopted King County ComMhensive Plan land use designation for the proposed annexation area is Urban Residential - 4-12 du/ac. This designation is implemented with the R-4 Zone on the subject site. 4) Com son of Cily and Coup re latio for sensitive areas etc: With annexation,. King County ordinances and regulations would be supplanted with those of the City of Renton. City of Renton ordinances and regulations applicable to the proposed action include the following: a. Regulations for the Motection of sensitive args: The City of Renton's Critical Areas Ordinance (RMC 4-3-050) describes pe mitted 'and prohibited activities and uses, waivers, modifications and variances, and additional criteria and permit processes• for development in critical areas. Critical areas regulated by the Ordinance include aquifer recharge areas, flood and geologic hazard areas, native habitat and wetlands. Although specific regulations vary, Chapter 21A.24, Environmentally Sensitive Areas of the King County Code provides comparable regulatory protection of sensitive areas. The City of Renton Critical Areas Ordinance is available upon request. b. Regulations for the vreservation of a ricultural or other r %Min— lands: Regulations preserving agricultural uses are not applicable to the subject area,.as the proposed annexation area is not within any of the agricultural districts identified for fast, second or third priority for the purchase of development rights. Further, the property is not designated for agricultural production. or other resource lands in the King County Comprehensive Plan and is not currently under agricultural use. The City of Renton does not have a program authorizing transfer or purchase of development rights. c. Preservation of Landmarks or Landma;k_Districts: The City of Renton has no regulations corparable to Chapter 20.62, ELote ft and Preservation ofLandmarlE:s �ndmanE SitPc and Districts in the King County Code. However, no landmark sites or districts are identified in the Newcastle Community Plan or are known to exist in the subject annexation area. d. Surface Watu Control: The City of Renton has adopted the 9t? in County Surface Water Design A�fanual by reference, in the City's Drainage (Surface Water) Standards (RMC 4-6-030) as the design standard for surface water control in development projects. Higher standards such as those of he 1998 Kin SurEac� Water D�41Ylt Manual, Level 2 standard are often applied through environmental review. C.tY of Renton Comprehensive Plan/Franchisc 1) City Plannine Under the Growth Manag t Act Renton City Council adopted the current Comprehensive Plan in 1995, consistent with the requirements of the Growth Management Act. The 1995 Comprehensive Plan was updated in the 2004 Mandated GMA Comprehensive Plan Review. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County Proposed Anthone' Annexation 0511 I105 Page 6 identifies Potential Annexation Areas, including the area currently proposed for annexation, and shows land use designations for such areas. (See Exhibit H, City of Renton Land Use Designations) The proposal is consistent with the Land Use Element policies of the Renton Comprehensive Plan that support annexation of lands: • that are within RentoWs Potential Annexation Area where the availability of infrastructure and services allow for the development of urban densities (Objective LU 1); • that are vacant and subject to development pressure (LU-37.3); • that are available for urbanization under county comprehensive planning, zoning, and subdivision regulations (LU-37.5); • for which the City of Renton should logically be the primary provider of urban infrastructure and services (LU-36); • that would include those who already use City services or who impact City infrastructure (LU-41); and • that inchides environmentally sensitive areas and vacant land where future development could adversely. influence the environmental and land use character of Renton (LU-42). 2) PAA status and PAA a>~re=Mts with other cities if any: The City of Renton has an adopted Potential Annexation Area. This area is identified on Renton's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and on the King County )interim Potential Annexation Area Map. The City has also negotiated a PAA boundary agreement with the City of Kent. No PAA agreement was. necessary for the area currently proposed for annexation. 3) Reouired Comprehensive Plan amendments if and: No amendment to Renton's Comprehensive Plan is necessary to process the current proposed annexation. 4) Comprehensive Plan approval date: Renton's current Comprehensive Plan was initially gdopted on February 20, 1995, with annual amendments in subsequent Years-- The latest, 2004 Growth Management Act Mandated Comprehensive Plan Review, is a comprehensive update of the 1995 Comprehensive Plan. 5) Required franchises to serve ' area: No franchise will be required for the City of Renton to provide services to the subject area. 6). ,Pre -annexation Zoning ARxeements: The subject area has not been the subject of a pre -Annexation Zoning Agreement. 7) Proposed land use designation: The subject area is designated Residential Low Density in the City's Comprehensive Plan. R4 zoning is proposed to supplant the existing King County R4 zoning, consistent with the adopted Residential Low Density land use designation upon annexation. Under Renton's annexation process, zoning is. adopted concurrent to adoption of the annexation ordinance. RENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 24, 2005 Renton City Council Minutes Page 23 Noting that the area is located within Renton's potential annexation area (PAA), Councilman Corman stated that despite the cost the PAA is part of the City's responsibility. Councilman Clawson pointed out that the area will eventually have to annex to Renton or to another City. Mr. Erickson reported that a community meeting will be held if the annexation proposal proceeds to the 60% petition level. There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC MEETING. CARR TF,D. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL ACCEPT THE MAPLEWOOD ADDITION ANNEXATION 10% NOTICE OF INTENT TO ANNEX PETITION AND AUTHORIZE CIRCULATION OF THE 60% DIRECT PETITION TO ANNEX, WHICH REQUIRES PROPERTY OWNERS TO SUPPORT THE ADOPTION OF FUTURE ZONING CONSLSTENT WITH THE CPTY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND REQUIRES THAT PROPERTY OWNERS ASSUME A PROPORTIONAL SHARE OF THE CTTY'S EXISTING OUTSTANDING INDEBTEDNESS. CARRIED. RECESS MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES. CARRIED. Time: 8:51 p.m The meeting was reconvened at 8:57 p.m.; roll was called; all Councilmembers present. PUBLIC HEARINGS This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in Annexation: Anthone', Talbot accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Keolker-Wheeler opened the Rd S & S 55th St public hearing to consider the 60% Notice of Intent to annex petition for the proposed Anthone' Annexation consisting of 4.84 acres, including the abutting street right-of-way, located at the southeast comer of the intersection of S. 55th St. and Talbot Rd. S. Don Erickson, Senior Planner, stated that the site contains one single-family dwelling, and has a three percent upward slope from the southwest corner to the northeast comer. Reviewing the public services, Mr. Erickson indicated that Fire District #37, Renton water and sewer, and the Kent School District serve the site. He explained that existing King County zoning is R-6 (six units per gross acre). The land use designation under the City's Comprehensive Plan is Residential Low Density, for which R-4 (four units per net acre) zoning is proposed Mr. Erickson noted that the City is reviewing the possible redesignation of the area to Residential Single Family, for which concurrent zoning is R-8 (eight units per net acre). Mr. Erickson indicated that despite the smaller than normal annexation area and the limitation of future development to approximately 16 lots, the annexation proposal provides a potential catalyst for annexing a larger area to the south, and facilitates upgrading the intersection of Talbot Rd. S. and S. 55th St. He reported that the fiscal impact analysis reveals a surplus of $465 at current development, and a surplus of $875 at full development. The estimated one- time parks acquisition and development cost is $8,528. Mr. Erickson concluded that the proposed annexation is consistent with City annexation policies except for size, and is consistent with Boundary Review i:�::i: KING COUNTY ZONING MAP CITY OF RENTON ZONING MAP N 01 IVIi:y:i:�, hill f,141 , V., U X tt Rik fal Loll KING COUNTY ZONING MAP CITY OF RENTON ZONING MAX rag ON 4 - a.�5. "rn[unl • �-C:..•r _ • to >.i=wMimi ' B .—.o•'C:+r��=;��"'„-,",�'':�a�.'%i°o a 'eon a�lp.n uUi11�■s '�1:n Av—uuM•'..•.•,."� rEfu r._�� '��.. r��il-•`�'�-'r��:..,��' •� %' A/ �� O Of 1� ii .`ice�' ��,.! era:.- - �GC �e a7.._4 _`fit 1�2Y•::�''`e® -��i�� Yr�1�L•i; ". �. 1 WILLIAMSON LAW OFFICE August 25, 2005 Hand Delivered Larry Warren, City Attorney City of Renton Warren Barber & Fontes 100 South Second Street P.O. Box 626 Renton, WA 98057 Re: Hold Up on Issuance of Certificate of Sewer Availability Dear Larry: AUG 252005 (WARREN BARBER & FONTES, P. S. EXHIBIT My apologies for bothering you with this matter. However, my clients are thoroughly confused by Public Works decision to withhold issuance of Certificate of Sewer Availability; even though they issued a Certificate of Water Availability for the same project based upon a combined application for both utility services on August 15, 2005. This is a straight forward residential subdivision in unincorporated King County. See attached application materials. In returning to the City to pick up both certificates, my client's engineer, Joe Hopper, PE, of Pacific Engineering, was told by Public Works on August 22` d that the Certificate of Sewer Availability is being withheld because a planner is apparently reviewing the application based upon the City's comprehensive plan and zoning -related issues. I have been advising developers in my practice since the late 80's and I simply cannot find any language within the City's sewer utility service provisions at RMC 4-6-040C.3 that in any way adds a separate review layer by the City's Department of Development Services. See attached code provisions. The delay, and questionable review, is effectively holding up the filing of a plat application with the County. As you may know DDES will not accept the plat application as being complete without both certificates (water and sewer). Pat White of Banane Properties is adamant that he was told by Public Works Staff that both certificates would be issued promptly by Public Works. Staff has been polite and accommodating in assisting with the plat application with the County. In Pat's words, it makes no sense to issue the water certificate without the sewer certificate. Both are needed for the application with DDES. Please give me a call after you have looked into this as soon as you can so that I can instruct the Engineer on picking up the remaining sewer certificate. My apologies for the sudden request. Bank of America Tower ♦ 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5500 ♦ P.O. Box 99821 ♦ Seattle, Washington 98139-0821 Office: 206.292.0411 ♦ Fax: 206 292 0313 ♦ eFax• 208 567 1998 williamsonb@msn.com Cn r n p Y Larry Warren Letter Re: Banane Properties Certificates of Water & Sewer Availability August 25, 2005 Page 2 However, given the application timeframes, my clients simply is unable to wait any longer to have this issue resolved. Sincerely, Bill H. Williamson enclosures cc: Pat White, Banane Properties Joe Hopper, PE waff«n.t,eu«.082505.wpa AUG-19-2005 15:12 CITY OF PENTON PEPU 425 430 7241 P.02/04 U DIVERSthe Department of Public Health and the Department of Development and DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AND Environmental Services with information ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES necessary to evaluate development 900 Oakesdalc Avenue Southwcst proposals. Renton, Wa 98055-1219 King County Certificate of Water Availability Oo not write in this box number name ❑ Building Permit �( Preliminary Plat erftT ❑ Short Subdivision 0 Rezone or other Applicant's name: Pik< W t,iz _ %A N "A6 ffwat Eb - aQ1C- S56It kw se tcn10614 1m, Sub blyi01 0uo,;,'OAK16 Luck. QQoo Proposed use: � � 14_ t�� Location: _ 1'kY kft0tad W i , n sl b oo IS40.s x ;1i-9 3l a oo i5 J 0,; LW ll. Sti'4,1 C&A4dV_ kcdz- -WACVS Sty (attach map and legal description if necessary) Water utility information: 1. O a. Water will be provided by service nnection only to an existing 12-'141% (size) water main that is OR Y 56 feet from the site. Zbry OF 'r K4T S. ge- Sk� b. Water service will require an improvement to the water system of. ❑ (1) feet of water main to reach the site; and/or tl I2) The construction of a distribution system on the site; and/or ! 'j3) Other (describe)Sff, rkt�t,[nCro tk�v Ok(� Aa6ttsC �� onS k krgAw Mtn+tI M %44 t�,l l r tl Rtlor v°►tCwti. 2. a OR The water system has a current County -approved water comprehensive plan and franchise. ❑ b. The water system does not have a current County -approved water comprehensive plan or franchise and will require a new or amended water comprehensive plan or franchise. (This may cause a delay in issuance of a permit or approval). 3. a. The proposed project is within the corporate limits of the utility, or the utility has been granted Boundary Review Board approval for service area annexation, or the project is within the County -approved service area of the utility. OR ❑ b, Boundary Review Board approval of an annexation will be necessary to provide service. 4. ❑ a. Water is or will be 8VO03ble at the rate of Now and duration indicated below at no less than 20 psi measured at the nearest fire hydrant feet from the btftng/property (or as marked on the attached map): Rate of flow at Peak Demand Dundon O less than 500 gpm (approx. gpm) ❑ less than 1 hour O 500 to 999 gpm ❑ 1 hour to 2 hours 1000 gpm or more flow test of X( 2 hours or more gpm O calculation of gpm other (Note: Commercial building permits which includes muNifamiy structures require lbw test or calculation.) OR ❑ b. Water system Is not capable of providing fire Now. 5. a. OR Water system has certificates of water right or water right claims sufficient to provide service. ❑ b. Water system does not currently have ne shy water rights or water right claims. Comments/conditions: k kii MW lfty r lAk9 liL &tmu L wW fAiriQ I V%f go t,&-t(Ki "LoAW 1 certify that the above water utility information is true. This certificate shall be valid for one year from date of signature. CITE ac utotJ __ 602w, Agency name Sr natory name Title,V �'1�t�ffAVisrrt/ p . :it&W_/ au&s1" 15, ?e05 Signature Date Nov. 24, 1999 nW-19-2005 15:13 CITY OF RENTON PBPW 425 430 7241 P.03iO4 �- CITY OF RENTON UKPlanninouilding/PublicWorks Department •Wheeler. Mayor Gregg 7,immermsa P.E-,Administrator August 15, 2005 Pat White Banane Properties 9016 356'h Ave SE Snoqualmie, WA 98065 SUBJECT: Water Availability For Proposed Subdivision of King County Tax Parcels No's. 7VIO0015403 and 7931000151061 Dear Mr. White: This letter is to certify that the subject property is within the City of Renton's water service area, in the 350-zone pressure gradient. Water service to the proposed subdivision will require the following water main improvements: 1. An extension of about 370 feet of water main, 8-inch minimum diameter, along South 556 Street from Talbot Road South to the east property line. 2. An extension of about 500 feet of 8-inch minimum diameter waterline in the new roadway within the proposed plat. 3. An extension of about 300 feet of 12-inch water line along Talbot Road South from South 55' Street to the new roadway within the plat. 4. Installation of fire hydrants, water meters and related appurtenances. 5. Civil plans for the water main extensions are required and shall be prepared by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Washington. The subdivision is subject to applicable fees including, but not limited to: 1. Water system development charge of S 1,525.00 per single-family lot. 2. Water meter installation cost of $250 per "drop -in" 3/.-inch meter. 3. Plan review and inspection fee in the amount of 5% of the estimated construction cost of the water main extension. We recommend that you contact Laureen Nicolay, Senior Planner, of the City's Development Services and Planning Department at (425) 430-7294, to schedule a pre -application meeting. The purpose of this meeting is to provide you with additional information on City codes and development regulations applicable to the proposed subdivision. if you have any questions, please contact meat (425) 430-7210. Sincerely, I Abdoul Gafour Water Utility Engineering Supervisor Enclosures cc: Ka)Ten Kittrick. Plan Revicw/Development Services Supervisor l.aurmn Nicolay, Development Services Senior Planncr _ N•\Fil�[ydWTR _ Drinl-inr W+r • lrrilirvlWTR U trr-� • 'r�r li��prl'R 17 Jn,^S �!r r Gray Way -enton, Washington 98055 �`RT1 O NIO55 SouthdR AUG-19-2005 15:12 CITY OF RENTON PBPW 425 430 7241 P.01iO4 �0 1 ,SCALE 1 r`= 50- - t 1 i 1 C"r 425-�{3o"�1U 8° • IVOT"E4� Z TOML SITC.4964: ZM4C "S' i 85 ', �, 7 IUO. OF LOTY /8 A MIN. IOT 4PIA = 4,340 s F. q. or woo _ sa' O'W01 M S � 5. MR. YONE = 98 / `0. Pacific 41801 LtND AVE SW - 111. WA 98055 Engineering PHONE; (425) 251-8811 Des1 LLC FAX: bile (425) 251-8680 WED S(TE= Civil Enginzer'ing and PACC�.COM Planning Consultants � 414 c Baf o vi Pi a 91 TIZ? -.. N _ JQ6 QJG-19-2005 11:35P FROM: TO: 1425251BBM P.1I1 od tos > CITY OF RENTON .dl Planning/Building/PublicWorks Department Kathy Kcolkor-Whccicr, Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Adminlstrator August 15, 2005 Pat White Banane .Properties 9016 356i.h Ave SE Snoqualmie, WA 98065 SUBJECT: Water Availability For Proposed Subdivision ofKing County Tax Parcels No's. 703100015403 and 7931000151061 Dear Mr. White: This letter is to certify that the subject property is within the City of Renton's water service area, in the 350-zone pressure gradient. Water service to the proposed subdivision wilt require the following water main improvements: I . An extension of about 370feet of water main, 8-inch minimum diameter, along South 55th Street from Talbot Road South to the east property line. 2. An extension of about 500 feet of 8-inch minimum diameter water line in the new roadway within the proposed plat. 3. An extension of about 300 feet of 12-inch. water line along Talbot Road South from South 550' Street to the new roadway within the plat. 4. Installation of fire hydrants, water meters and related appurtenances. 5. Civil plans for the water main extensions are required and shall be prepared by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Washington. The subdivision is subject to applicable fees including, but not limited to: 1. Water system development charge of S t,525.00 per single-family lot. 2. Water meter installation cost of $250 per "drop -in" -1/,-inch meter. 3. Plati review and inspection fee in the amount of 5% of the estimated construction cost of the water main extension. We recommend that you contact I,aureen Nicolay, SeniorPlanner, of the City'9 Development Services and Planning Ucpartment at.(425) 430-7294,-Io schedule a.pre-application meeting. Tile purpose of this meeting is to provide you with additional information on City codes and development regulations applicable to the proposed subdivision. If you have any questions, please contact me at (425) 430-7210. Sincerely, kDoul., 444'z� Abdoul Gafour Water Utility Engineering Supervisor Enclosures cc: Krlyrcn Kittrick, Plan ReviewMevelopment Services Supervisor Laurcen Nicolay, DevclopmentServices Senior Planner H1FitnSySSWTR-briltr,W r-111ilirytwru-17.WamrAmailAhn;rt5w•ra-1Z')nntwn •A•-llnhi1;f)&'_SSd SrS i c��rl�r 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 LV 1 eTNe popor wnlelne 50%recyded material, 301C peel consumer A r1 r. A b OF r rt r c u R v r WATER AVAILABILITY FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CITY OF RENTON 1055 S Grady Way, Reason, WA 98055 Phone: (42S) 430-7200 Fax: (425) 430-7300 TO BE FILLED OUT BY APPLICANT: Applicant's Name: Mailing Address: Date of Request v b -fzocy� No. —101tD fkVi �>1' City _ State —WA—Zip Code )toS Check one: ❑ Proposed Single Family Home i� Other (Specify) Pcsr ,> 1b Lc;—, `�HOt27 1�c AT Location/Address: TALFdT } p^yi 5 X,41A S ri STIt = King County Tax Account No:T131C100le—SA03 y�°t3-10001S)t�f Legally Described as: l4c P-C_I aACV5, THIS APPLICATION SHALL INCLUDE A COPY OF THE PROPOSED SITE/PLOT PLAN. INFORMATION PROVIDED BY CITY: ❑ Water Service will be provided by the City of Renton by a water meter connection only to an existing size water main located within The rate of flow from the above described water main is: ❑ Less than 500 gpm (approx. gpm) ❑ 500 to 999 gpm ❑ 1000 gpm or more The static water pressure from the above described water main is: psi at the existing street elevation. Current Uniform Plumbing Code Section 608.2 requires: Where local static pressure is in excess of 80 psi, the owner at the owner's cost and expense must install, operate and maintain an approved pressure reducing valve (PRV) "downstream" of the water meter. (Over) Water Availability Form Page 2 City records show a water service stub and meter to the property ❑ Yes ❑ No or Water service will require an extension of approximately sOc Z1~ of M size water main located within Jlr. '?g7Pc)&.4c-p b lyli ► -bV-- I/3 ' or The proposed development lies within service area; therefore, the applicant shall contact The District/Agency at _ (phone) for water availability. - See attached letter dated Reference data Payment of all applicable system development fees: (Fees are subject to change without notice) System Development Charge Single Family $1,525.00 Mobile -home, Manufactured -home $1,220.00 per dwelling unit Multi Family $915.00 per dwelling unit ❑ Latecomers, special assessment fees: s 4. ❑ Payment of all applicable water meter installation fees: The applicant shall determine the size of the water meter and supply pipe from the meter to the building(s) in accordance with Section 1009 of the current Uniform Plumbing Code. - Water Service Stub and Meter Installation Charge: ❑ ❑ 3/4" meter "full installation" by City 3/4" "full $1,300.00 (inside City limits) ❑ meter installation" by City 1"meter "full $1,400.00 (outside City limits) installation" by City $1,400.00 ❑ I"meter "drop -in" by City $250.00 ❑ ❑ 1 %Z" meter full installation by City 1 %" "drop $2,400.00 (full installation) meter -in" by City $300.00 Other: Water availability form pwwtravail/revised 2005 Water Availability Form Page 3 CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION: Fire Hydrant(s) Requirements: 1. All new single family dwelling(s) must be with 300 feet of a fire hydrant, per current City's standard. The hydrant must able to able to deliver a flowrate of 1,000 gallon per minute (gpm). 2. It is the responsibility of the owner/developer to verify by a field measurement, whether the proposed single family dwelling is located within the 300 feet distance from an existing fire hydrant. The distance shall be measured from the hydrant, and along the traveled portion of the roadway, private access road, and driveway to the proposed structure. 3. If the proposed structure is located more than 300 feet from the existing hydrant, the owner/developer is required to install a new hydrant in front of the property, or at a location within 300 feet of the proposed structure. The final location of the new hydrant must be approved by the Fire Marshal. 4. If the proposed structure is located within 300 feet from an existing fire hydrant that does not meet current City standards (i.e.: a hydrant with two pumper ports), the owner/developer is required to replace the existing hydrant with a new fire hydrant meeting the current City's standards. 5. When the available flow rate from an existing hydrant and connecting water main is greater than 500 gpm and less than 1,000 gpm, the owner/developer may install a residential fire sprinkler system in the new single family dwelling. The design and installation of the fire sprinkler system must be approved by the Fire Marshal. The structure must also be within 300 feet of an existing fire hydrant. 6. When the available flow rate from an existing hydrant and connecting water main is less than 500 gpm, the owner/developer is required to install a new water main and hydrant per City's standards. The new water main shall extend from an existing water main capable of delivering 1,000 gpm, and along the frontage road to the extreme boundary of the property line. I hereby certify that the above water availability information is true. This certification shall be valid for one year from date of signature. (Fee information is subject to change without notice). CITY OF RENTON - WATER UTILITY Signature ��r1�� r! // LA 1 r� Water Utility Section Date Water availability form pwwtravail/rcviscd 2005 WOO'ON3OVd Pug Supa7uata(},a.UG Sam AID -_ 1 0992-lgb (4Zb) xvd GNOHd �TrrsaauiSu {A1' 92098 VM 'NO. NNkl I � IY1 /l Yj1 h�31 � 91 8� 2)VOZ 1dl)(3 1 1 ITS , H10/M 10 7 N/4Y '6 I gBZ. = Y-?,Yr 311r 7U101 7 \ ~ S31N • � DB � � I �1 \ I .os . •„I �7l�,�S 1 ,.. ,/0�l91 I ti qu I i SANITARY SEWER AVAILABILITY FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CITY OF RENTON 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 Phone: (425) 430-7200 Fax: (425) 430-7300 TO REFILLED OUT BY APPLICANT: Dale of Request Applicant's Name: - W1 t Co -�An1AN1- ��nQi- 7fi: �► Phone No. Mailing Address: �G� (il _ (r}/'� A t c /� q City S ("��;/�[) State —Lli _ Zip Code Check one: Proposed Single Family Home Fxisting Single Family Home On Septic Proposed i Lot Short Plat Other (Specify) — Location/Address:4: King County Tax Account No: ,-1e'131000 1�—A03 5--1'(3 itc�GkSlC4�-Legally Described as: _ 1'CiT It 3KC"� A<-P- Tigc%-r-, THIS APPLICATION SHALL INCLUDE A COPY OF THE PROPOSED SITFIPLOT PLAN. INFORMATION PROVIDED BY CITY: 1 • ❑ Sanitary Sewer Service will be provided by side sewer connexion only to an existing size sewer main located within City records show a side sewer stub to the property ❑ Y ❑ N or ❑ Sanitary sewer service will require an extension of approximately zsb ") tc of 91 size sewer main located within or ❑ The proposed development lies within service area; therefore, the applicant shall contact The District/Agency at (phone) for sewer availability. ❑ Se; attached letter dated 2. ❑ Payment of all applicable system development fees: (Fees are subject to change without notice) - System Development Charge: 900 per single family residence - Residential building sewer permit: $660 per single family residence - Latecomers, special assessment fees: a $ $ - Right of way Fee $ - Right of Way Bond (Refundable) $ - a (over) Sanitary Sewer Availability Form Page 2 3. ❑ Reference data 4. ❑ Applicant shall abandon the existing septic system in accordance with Section 1119 of the current Uniform Plumbing Code and Section 4-6-040.I.6 of the City Code. 5. ❑ Customers making a fast time connection to sanitary sewers in King County, including Renton's Sewer Service Area, are subject to a sewage treatment capacity charge. The purpose of this King County charge is to pay for building sewage treatment capacity to serve newly connected customers. Single- family customers pay $34.05 a month (billed by King County as $204.30 every six months) for 15 years. At the customer's choice, this foe may be paid to King County as a lump sum of $4.136.93. This fee is in addition to the monthly charge for treatment that Renton is required to collect and pass to King County. 6. ❑ The Renton portion of the Wastewater Utility Rates for customers outside the city limits is 1.5 times the standard rate for customers inside the city limits. (City Code section 8-5-15C) 7. ❑ The proposed project is within the corporate limits of the City of Renton or has been granted King County Boundary Review Board (BRB) approval for extension of service outside the City.. or ❑ Annexation or BRB approval will be necessary for the provision of sanitary sewer service. 8. ❑ The sewer system improvement is in conformance with a County approved sewer comprehensive plan. or ❑ The sewer system improvement will require an amendment to the Renton Long -Range Wastewater Management Plan. 9. ❑ The sewer system improvement will be within an existing franchise from King County allowing the installation of facilities in the County Right(s)-of Way. or ❑ The sewer system improvement will require that Renton obtain a franchise from King County to install the facilities in the County Rights) -of Way. CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION: 1) It is the responsibility of the owner/developer to verify, by an engineering study, whether it is possible to connect by gravity line to the existing City sewer system (a private lift station may be installed, but is not desirable). The City may require, at its option, the verification to be in the form of a letter signed by a_ Professional civil engineer. 2) When new sanitary sewer lines are installed, the City typically installs or requires to have installed stub -outs to the property line. This is done as a courtesy to the property owners The City does not guarantee a stub for all properties nor does it guarantee the condition or location of the stub. It is the responsibility of the owner/wntractnr to have an approved connection from the building sewer to the City's sewer main. If there is a stub, it is in good condition, and the owner/contractor can locate it, then it is available for use. The determination of condition of existing sanitary sewer stubs shall be the sole responsibility of the City and the City's decision shall be final. If the stub is broken or the City inspector determines that the stub's condition is not acceptable, it shall be the owner/contractor's responsibility to repair the stub, replace the stub at the existing tee, or to install a new stub and tee directly into the main. The method of repair/replacement to be determined by the City's inspector. I hereby certify that the above sanitary sewer information is true. This certification shall be valid for one year from date of signature. (Fee information is subject to change without n?/gSignat ' CITY OF RENTON - WASTEWATER U M ITY Na aWastility Section Signature Date dc/pwuavail.doc Rentonnct pwssavail 12/04 bh Chapter 6 STREET AND UTILITY STANDARDS 4-6-040 SANITARY SEWER STANDARDS: A. CONNECTION TO CITY SEWER REQUIRED: Page I of 1 The owner of each house, building or property used for human occupancy, employment, recreation or other purpose, situated within the City and abutting on any street, alley or right-of-way in which there is now located or may in the future be located a public sanitary or combined sewer of the City which said public sewer is within three hundred thirty feet (330') of the property line and which has been determined to be a health hazard by the City or the Seattle -King County Health Department, or its successor agencies, or which has participated and been included in a local improvement district, is hereby required at the owner's expense to install suitable toilet facilities therein and to connect such facilities directly with the proper public sewer in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter, within ninety (90) days after the date of official notice to do so. 1. Exception for Connection to Private Sewage System: Where a public sanitary or combined sewer is not available under the provisions of this Chapter, the building sewer shall be connected to a private sewage disposal system complying with the provisions of this Section. (Ord. 4343, 2-3-1992) B. RESPONSIBILITY FOR SEWER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES: Any facility improvements identified by the current adopted long-range wastewater management plan (comprehensive sewer system plan) that are not installed or in the process of being installed must be constructed by the property owner(s) or developer(s) desiring service. (Ord. 4343, 2-3-1992) C. SERVICE OUTSIDE OF CITY: I. Permitted When: Sewer service to properties outside the City's corporate limits will not be permitted except under the following conditions: a. Public Entity: The applicant is a municipal or quasi -municipal corporation including a school, hospital or fire district, County of King, or similar public entity; or b. Necessary Service: Service is necessary to convert from a failed or failing septic system or the area has been defined by the Seattle -King County Health Department as a health concern area; or C. Vested Service: Those properties for which the City has granted a valid sewer availability certificate prior to the effective date of Ordinance 4969, which was July 7, 2002; or d. In the City's Potential Annexation Area, Existing Legal Lot(s) Desiring to Construct One Single Family Residence or Connect One Existing Single Family Residence: The City Council may approve the connection of one existing single family residence or the connection to sanitary sewer for the construction of one single family residence on an existing legal lot. In consideration of such connection, the property owner(s) shall be required to execute an agreement with the City requiring that any development occurring on the lot shall be in compliance with City of Renton zoning and development standards; or e. Outside the City's Potential Annexation Area, Existing Legal Lot(s) Desiring to Construct One or More Single Family Residence(s): The City Council may approve connection of one or more single family residences or the connection to sanitary sewer for the construction of one or more single family residences on existing legal lots, as long as the properties to be served are connected within the sewer service area of the City or within a Special Assessment District of the City. 2. Potential Annexation Area: The owner(s) of property in Renton's Potential Annexation Area shall, prior to connecting to the sewer, execute a covenant running with the land by which the owners, their heirs, successors, or assigns are obligated to affirmatively support any legal and constitutional method of annexation. 3. Rates: The rates to such special users shall be as stipulated in RMC -5- 5. (Ord. 4467, 8-22-1994; Amd. Ord. 4677, 8-4-1997; Ord. 4907, 6-4-2001; Ord. 4969, 6-3-2002; Ord. 4981, 8-5-2002; Ord. 5002, 2-10-03) WILLIAMSON LAW OFFICE September 8, 2005 Transmitted by Fax (425.255.5474) & Regular Mail EXHIBIT Larry Warren, City Attorney IT City of Renton Warren Barber & Fontes 100 South Second St. P.O. Box 626 Renton, WA 98057 Re: Demand for Release of Certificate of Sewer Availability - Alicia Mena -- --King County Tax Parcel -Nos. 7931000-151-2-1521 1S4 Dear Larry: For your information, I have enclosed copies of certificates of water and sewer availability issued by the City to a property owner (Anthone') in the City's PAA immediately adjacent to the Alicia Mena property. These certificates appear to have been issued after the City's update to its Comprehensive Plan on November 1, 2004. You will note at the attached certificate to Mr. Anthone' states that: "Service is subject to annexation to the City and following city zoning and land use requirements." It is evident that this other property owner, who is also within the same annexation area as Ms. Mena, is now being treated far differently than Ms. Mena, who is simply seeking the same development rights as Mr. Anthone'. My clients were to receive the Certificate of Sewer Availability from the City on September 2, 2005. However, as the attached letter dated September 2, 2005 from David -- Christiansen of the City's Wastewater Utility indicates, the City is withholding the Certificate of Sewer Availability until Ms. Mena reduces project densities from the County's 8 du's per acre to the City's 5 dn's per acre. This letter also indicates that the City will not release the Certificate of Sewer Availability until it completes a review of her project permit (plat) application. Information provided by Pacific Engineering shows that withholding of the Certificate of Sewer Availability has delayed this project at least three (3) months. My client has received a Certificate of Water Availability from the City, and is again demanding that the City immediately release the promised companion Certificate of Sewer Availability so that she can file her plat application with the County. In contacts with King County, the County Executive Staff have indicated that the City of Renton possesses no land use jurisdiction to "down -zone" the M&T parcels in unincorporated areas by forcing M&T to accept the City's lower densities. The County's Bank of America Tower ♦ 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5500 ♦ P.O. Box 99821 ♦ Seaftle, Washington 98139-0821 Office:206.292.0411 L Fax:206.292.0313 A eFax:208.567.1998 williamsonb@msn.com (M r- f_% system of assigning densities for the County under its Comprehensive Plan, and its Comprehensive County -wide Planning Policies which are binding on suburban cities, would be meaningless if its density designations and growth targets for urban areas could be unilaterally reduced by a city unwilling to accept these designated densities. Unless action is taken by the City to release the earlier promised Certificate of Sewer Availability, Ms. Mena by close of business, Monday, September 12, 2005, my client will have no recourse other than to seek legal redress and begin proceedings before King County Superior Court. Sincerely, J � ` Bill H. Williamson ----- —Enclosures:-(1)-King-C-ounty4Certificateof Sewer-Availability-dated-12/2/04 (DDES File No.4:0450032); - - - -- -- - - (2) September 2, 2005 Letter from David Christiansen, Renton Wastewater Utility Supervisor cc: Pat White, Banane Properties (via fax) Joe Hopper, PE, Pacific Engineering (via fax) Greg Zimmerman, Administrator, Renton Planning Building & Public Works Alex Pietsch, Administrator, Economic Development Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning Rebecca Lind, Planning Manager, Renton EDSP Maura Brueger, Deputy Chief of Staff, King County Executive (hand delivered) John Briggs, King County Prosecuting Attorney's Office (hand delivered) Waffcn.Leuer.090205.wpd King County tf7�� Department of Development j 3 and Envir�� wm amtalServices Building S��- rvices Dtvtston T� 9W Oakesdale Avenue southvrest f~. la Renton. wasting(«, 9e05s-1219 Alternative formats available 206-2%-,W00 1lY 2W-296-721 T upon request DE t King County Certificate of Sewer Availability, . KING COUNTY s certrr�cate provides the Seattle M9 County Department of Pubric Health and the LAND USE SERVICES This Development and Environmental Services with information necessaryto evaluate development merg of bPmenl Proposals. Do not write in Pus box ❑ Budding Penm:A ❑ Preliminary Plat or PUD . Short SubdrRsion ❑ Rezone o(other APPr#ca(ws name: Proposed use: Location: PS-/ S ' wA)SNi map end legal descrij> t(i( S—Teragency information: . a �. ❑ a. Sewer service will tie provided by sidesewer connection only ban e ' feet from the $ite and the sewer system has the capacity size sewer OR proposed use. f+ b• Sewer service 11 req d yement b the sewer cycler of: feet o(sewer.kvnk or lateral to reach the site; and/or The corlulltion of a oolleclioa system on the site; and/or ❑ (3) Other(descrbe) 2. a The sewer system knpruvemer� is in m4onnance with a County approved sewer comprehensive plan. OR ❑ b. The sewer system knprovemeni wdl require a sewer compretmensiwe plan amendment. 3' a The used project is witlan the corporate WAS 0110 'drstrtct or has been granted Boundary Review Board appal for extension of service outside the OR district or city. ❑ b. Am*xation or Boundary Review Board (B ) approval WIT be necessaryb - provide service. 1. Service is subject to jhe rotlowkrg: A. Confection charge: . b. Easement(s} Sent By: Pacific Engineering Design; 425 251 8880; Sep-2-05 3:45PM; Page 2 • ` ","� �, i u r�tn i un t'nrw 425 430 7241 P. 02i02 .rt PlamiiagMuilding/PublicWorks Depatmtettt Kathy K•attca-whaler. MAY*( Gregg Timmerman P-E , Adminlstrxtor September 2, 2005 Joseph M. Hopper Pacific Engineering Design, LLC 4190 Lind Avenue SW Renton, WA 98055 SUB7ECTi Sewer Availability Talbot Rd and S. 55*, Proposed Plat KCPID no 793100-0154 aatl 0151 Dear Mr. Hopper: The City of Renton has reviewed your proposed single-family plat at the subject location for conformance to Section 4-6-040C of Renton City Code, Service Outside the City. The plat as submitted does not meet the criterion of density matching City proposed density. The plat as su6mtttcd liar i net density of 4ppcoiciina�ety-7:78 d�u= per acre.- TlieCity has ident'iFied this_a�_ - - - -_- -- part of its Land Use effott as low den3ity, residential. While that typically has a maximum density of a net 4 d.u. per acre, we also understand that the City proposes to modify the allowed density in this area as pan of the proposed annexation to a maximum net density of 5 d.u. per acre. As such, in order to receive sewer availability from the City you must resubmit with a proposed plat that does not exceed a maximum net density of 5 d.u. per acre, and havo it reviewed and approved by the City. once you resubmit, the City will need approximately duce weeks to review your submittal. If you have any questions regarding this letter, pleam contact me at 425-430-7212. �,� , i nra� ro cddauerLStu�t 1uyi1 L'h r rre(R-K ljM(N T O N 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - - L \ 1 i 1 V Jl �1 ATIEAO OF THE (:U0.VE CITY OF RENTON Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor September 12, 2005 Bill Williamson Williamson Law Office Bank of America Tower 701 5`l' Avenue - Suite 5500 P.O. Box 99821 Seattle, WA 98139-0821 Re: Certificate of Sewer Availability — Alicia Mena Dear Bill: Office of the City Attorney Lawrence J. Warren Senior Assistant City Attorneys Mark Barber Zanetta L. Fontes Assistant City Attorneys Ann S. Nielsen `. Garmon Newsom II j Sasha P. Alessi I have your letter of September 8, 2005. Please be advised'that City Code prevents the extension of sewers to your client's property as explained in David Christensen's letter to Joseph M. Hopper dated 2, 2005. The City as the sewer provider, in the general area, has a responsibility to provide sewer. However, the timing and conditions upon which sewer will be extended or hook ups permitted, is a decision for the City. The example that you have provided with extension to the Anthone property shows that the City is being consistent. If you will notice under item 4(c), the applicant is required to follow City zoning and the land use requirements. I have little ability to change what the City Council has enacted. I can inform them of your concerns and see if they wish to take any different action. EXHIBIT L Post Office Box 626 -Renton, Washington 98057 - (425) 255-8678 / FAX (42, ) i i-S474 R E I V T O I V Mr. Bill Williamson September 12, 2005 Page 2 of 2 However, as matters stand, your client has not met the City Code and the administrative staff is powerless to grant the requested certificate of sewer availability. Very truly yours, Lawrence J. arren LJW: scr Cc: Jay Covington Mike Webby Gregg Zimmerman David Christensen 1 L 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR THE COUNTY OF KING MT DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a Washington State limited liability company; BANANE PROPERTIES, a Washington State limited liability company, Plaintiffs/Petitioners, KING COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Washington, Involuntary Plaintiff/Petitioner, V. CITY OF RENTON, a municipality of the State of Washington, Defendant/Respondent, KING COUNTY REVIEW BOARD OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, an agency of the State of Washington, Defendant/Respondent. Im MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT RELIEF (Clerk's Action Required) MOTION & REQUESTED RELIEF PlaintiffMT DEVELOPMENT, LLC, , by and through its attorney, Bill H. Williamson of the Williamson Law Office, moves this court pursuant to CR 7, LR 7, RCW Chapter 7.16, kXn'PTnXT T'. " 1T:i - r,-.- . WILLIAMSON LAW Office 701 5"' Avenue - Suite 5500 Bank of America Tower SFArn F we oai nA 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 and Article 4, Section 6, for entry of an order to show cause why the following writ relief should not be awarded that: (1) reviews the lawfulness of the complained of City actions under Renton City Code ("RCC") 4-6-040 and 4-7-090, and the authority of the Defendant City to zone or otherwise control the development of real property outside of its jurisdictional boundaries prior to annexation through withholding or revoking the issuance of certificates of water and sewer availability. See Complaint Exhibit B. STATEMENT OF FACTS Plaintiff believes that based upon the facts set forth in the Complaint and Petition for Writ Relief, the Defendant City of Renton ("City") has violated the State's Growth Management Act, RCW 36.70A, common law and statutory vesting laws by unlawfully, arbitrarily and capriciously, without authority, and in excess of lawful authority withholding issuance of a certificate of sewer availability to allow development of the Subject Property before the King County Department of Development at King County urban densities. STATEMENT OF ISSUES 1. Whether the City has misused its utility system authority to unlawfully freeze development on the Subject Property by unlawfully withholding issuance of a certificate of sewer availability. 2. Whether the City has unlawfully attempted to usurp land -use control authority outside of its corporate boundaries within the King County Urban Growth Area excluisvely regulated by King County. EVIDENCE RELIED UPON 1. Complaint/Petition for Writ Relief with attached Exhibits A through L. 2. Declaration of Pat White of Banane Properties. 3. Declaration of Alicia Mena'. 4. Declaration of Joseph Hopper, PE of Pacific Engineering. WILLIAMSON LAw Office 701 5 h Avenue - Suite 5500 Bank of America Tower SFATn F WA oR i nn 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 11 22 23 24 25 26 5. Declaration of King County Director of Development and Environmental Services, Stephanie Warden. 6. Declaration of Bill H. Williamson. AUTHORITY Authority for issuance for extraordinary preliminary and permanent relief is provided in Plaintiff's attached Legal Memorandum. CONCLUSION It is futile, if not impossible, for MT Development as a property owner or applicant to proceed with attempts to file a preliminary plat application with King County as the plenary land -use jurisdiction which regulates land -use and development in the County's unincorporated Urban Growth Area. M&T has no adequate, speedy remedy at law, and no appeal rights from the City's actions to withhold issuance of a certificate of sewer availability which is required for filing of a plat application with the County. MT requests that this reviewing court: (1) accept review of Plaintiff's complaints and claims for extraordinary relief; (2) issue initial writ relief, including inter alia orders requiring the City to withhold any further action to finalize annexation of the Subject Property into the City of Renton; and (3) issue an Order directing the filing of a Return to the Court by the Clerk of the City of Kent and Secretary of the King County Boundary Review Board ; (4) issue and Order for later hearing as permitted under RCW 7.16.050 directing the City to show cause why a permanent order awarding Plaintiff relief should not be granted. A proposed Order for this purpose is submitted for this purpose. Dated this`Z/ St day of September 2005. MT. Writ.CMMotion.092I05.wpd .A�� 11A 12r� �_� Bill H. Wil iamson, WSBA #4304 Attorney for Petitioner MT Development WILLIAMSON LAW Office 701 51' Avenue - Suite 5500 Bank of America Tower 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 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR THE COUNTY OF KING MT DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a Washington State limited liability company; BANANE PROPERTIES, a Washington State limited liability company, Plaintiffs/Petitioners, KING COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Washington, Involuntary Plaintiff/Petitioner, V. CITY OF RENTON, a municipality of the State of Washington, Defendant/Respondent, KING COUNTY REVIEW BOARD OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, an agency of the State of Washington, Defendant/Respondent. No. EXTRAORDINARY ORDER OF PROHIBITION & ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE THIS MATTER having come for hearing before the above entitled court pursuant to Plaintiff's Petition for Extraordinary Writ Relief pursuant to Article 4, Section 6 of the Washington WILLIAMSON Law Office 701 5°i Avenue - Suite 5500 Bank of America Tower ¢Fern G %A/A OR i nn 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 State Constitution and RCW Chapter 7.16, and the Court having reviewed Plaintiff's Motion, the records and files herein, including but not limited to Plaintiffs' Petition for Writ Relief and Complaint for Declaratory Relief, and the supporting declarations of Patrick White, Stephanie Warden, and Bill H. Williamson, and the court being advised in the premises, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 1. The City of Renton and King County Review Board of the State of Washington, shall, pending further order of this court, cease and desist from taking any further legislative or administrative action to annex the Subject Property as legally described in PlaintiffMT's Complaint. 2. Defendants City of Renton and the King County Review Board shall certify and prepare a Return to the court for the Court's review on or before Friday, October 7, 2005, a complete and accurate copy of the Anthone' Annexation File No. 2199 related to Plaintiff's causes of action and claims for relief, including Renton annexation application files, and hearing records for the court to determine whether Defendant's complained of actions are unlawful, unconstitutional, or are in excess of or without lawful authority for purposes of extraordinary relief accorded under Article IV, Section 6 of the Washington State Constitution and RCW Chapter 7.16. 4. Defendants City of Renton and King County Review Board shall thereafter appear before this court, on 2005, at : AM/PM before at the King County Courthouse, 516 Third Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104, and then and there show cause why this court should not enter an Order which: (1) continues the relief provided in Paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Order; and (2) awards Plaintiff its requested writ relief, including but not limited to a determination that the City's actions in utilizing annexation proceedings and refusing to issue a certificate of sewer availability to Plaintiff MT Development, LLC, is unlawful and contrary to law, unconstitutional, and/or is in excess of or without lawful authority. 5. The court retains further jurisdiction on remaining and necessary writ and declaratory relief WILLIAMSON Law Office 701 5"i Avenue - Suite 5500 Bank of America Tower r)l?nRD LYID SEATTLE, WA 98104 1 2 3 41 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 for purposes of enforcement of this Order as may be just and necessary in these proceedings. 6. The Court retains for later hearing and trial the extent of any damages suffered by Plaintiff to which he may be entitled, including costs and attorney fees to which Plaintiff may be entitled. 7. Dated this day of September 2005. Presented by: Bill H. it iamson Attorney for Plaintiffs, WSBA #4304 Approved as to form; Notice of Presentation Waived: Lawence J. Warren, WSBA #5853 Attorney for Defendant City of Renton Robert C. Kaufinan, WSBA #12543 Attorney for Defendant King County Boundary Review Board M&T.OSCOrder.092105.wpd Judge WILLIAMSON Law Office 701 Vh Avenue - Suite 5500 Bank of America Tower CFAnF wA QA1nd CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI #: Submitting Data: For Agenda of: 10/3/2005 Dept/Div/Board.. Hearing Examiner Agenda Status Staff Contact...... Fred J. Kaufman, ext. 6515 Consent .............. X Public Hearing.. Subject: Correspondence.. Wedgewood Lane Division 2 Preliminary Plat Ordinance ............. File No. LUA-05-009, ECF, PP Resolution............ Old Business........ New Business....... Exhibits: Hearing Examiner's Report and Recommendation Study Sessions...... Legal Description and Vicinity Map Information......... Recommended Action: Council Concur Approvals: Legal Dept......... Finance Dept...... Other ............... Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... N/A Transfer/Amendment....... Amount Budgeted....... Revenue Generated......... Total Project Budget City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: The Hearing Examiner's Report and Recommendation on the Wedgewood Lane Division 2 Preliminary Plat was published on September 12, 2005. The appeal period ended on September 26, 2005. The Examiner recommends approval of the proposed preliminary plat subject to the conditions outlined on pages 9 and 10 of the Examiner's Report and Recommendation. Conditions placed on this project are to be met at later stages of the platting process. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Council approval of the Wedgewood Lane Division 2 Preliminary Plat with conditions as outlined in the Examiner's Report and Recommendation. Rentonnet/agnbill/ bh OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON Minutes APPLICANT: OWNERS: LOCATION: SUMMARY OF REQUEST: SUMMARY OF ACTION: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT Patrick Gilroy Land Trust, Inc. 1560 1401h Avenue NE, Suite 100 Bellevue, WA 98005 Carolyn Bigelow 6314 42nd Ave SW, Apt. 101 Seattle, WA 98136 Troy J. Matthewson 760 Hoquiam Ave. NE Renton, WA 98059 September 12, 2005 Wesley Anderson 37210 200`h SE Auburn, WA 98042 Walter/Kathy Johnson 2305 Quail Run Rd. Cottonwood, AZ 86326 Wedgewood Lane (Division 2) Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA 05-009, ECF, PP 700, 750, 760, and 780 Hoquiam Avenue NE Approval for a 46-lot subdivision of a 7.16-acre site intended for detached single-family residences. Development Services Recommendation: Approve subject to conditions The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on August 16, 2005. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining available information on file with the application, field checking the property and surrounding area; the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the August 23, 2005 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, August 23, 2005, at approximately 9:18 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing the original application, proof of posting, proof of publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit No. 2: Neighborhood Detail Map Wedgewood Lane Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-05-009, ECF, PP September 12, 2005 Page 2 Exhibit No. 3: Preliminary Plat Plan Exhibit No 4: Boundary and Topographic Survey Exhibit No. 5: Tree Cutting/Land Clearing, Plan Exhibit No. 6: Preliminary Grading and Utility -Plan Exhibit No. 7: Street Tree Planting Concept Exhibit No. 8: Storm Detention Tract Exhibit No. 9: Overall Plan of Wedgewood Lane Exhibit No. 10: Zoning Map Project Exhibit No. 11: ERC Mitigation Measures Exhibit No. 12: Northwest corner of site showing easements Exhibit No. 13: Southeast corner of site showing Exhibit No. 14: Wetland agreement access easement Exhibit No. 15: Revised Preliminary Plat Plan_- - - Exhibit No 16: Mai of wetland areas Exhibit No 17: Letter dated August 15, 2005 from Exhibit No. 18: Wedgewood bane Division I Record Garet Munger re Wetland Evaluation Exhibit 19: better of August 23, 2005 From Renee Korsmo and Mark F,n_baum The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by NanSy Weil, Senior Planner, Development Services, City of Renton, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055. The site is located to the east of Hoquiam Avenue, south of the Aspen Woods approved preliminary plat and Division I of Wedgewood Lane, and it is west of Nile Avenue. East of this site is the proposed Wedgewood Lane Division 3. The applicant has asked for approval to develop a 46-lot subdivision of a 7.16-acre site located within the Residential-8 (R-8) zone and the Residential -Single -Family designation per the Comprehensive Plan. There is a regulated wetland on the site located in the southwestern section of the site. Staff supported the filling of the wetland due to the connection to the existing intersection of SF, 2151 Street and Iloquiam. This is an isolated Category 3 wetland and the applicant has proposed to recreate and enhance a wetland in Division 3, which has a Category 2 wetland and stream in a large open space buffer area. The site drains from west to east, and the storm water detention facility will be located in Division 3. The storm water line cuts across the northeast corner into Division 3. The site is fairly flat with a 5% grade. There will be on -site grading and filling of the wetland. The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M) with twelve mitigation measures. No appeals were filed. In calculating the density for R-8, with the 46-lots before the regulated wetland, did meet density, however with the deduction of that square footage, it is over dense. They are actually 2 lots over dense, the applicant is present and has a revised proposal to present that will drop the lots to 45 and will meet the new density. Lots 25, 26, 27, and 28 have a private access easement off a pipestem lot and will have a shared driveway. No additional driveway would be allowed and all four lots would share the access easement driveway. In the Wedgewood Lane Preliminary Plat File No.: LIJA-05-009, FCF, PP September 12, 2005 Page 3 southeast corner, Lots 10, 11, and 12 have an access easement with a similar situation. Lot 12 is a pipestem lot and as such creates the access easement for all three lots to utilize. The overall layout of the lots as proposed does provide adequate area for setbacks as well as other building standards, which will be verified at the time of the building permit process. A landscaping plan was submitted with this project. The tree clearing plan does cover the entire site, in order to deal with the filling of the wetland, the construction of the public streets and private easements, and preparation for the building pads, the applicant has proposed to clear the site. The landscape plan that was submitted does comply with the new regulations. Upon review there did not appear to be any trees of significant caliper that could be saved. Staff is not aware of any trees of great significance that should be retained. Prior to the issuance of building permits, detailed landscape plans must be submitted and approved. All lots comply with arrangement and access requirements of the subdivision regulations. There are four internal streets, these public street would be dedicated and constructed to City standards. Private Road signs with addresses for the lots served from the private street should be in place at the location of the public right-of- way prior to issuing occupancy permits. Fire, Transportation and Park Mitigation Fees have been imposed for this plat. This site is required to meet Level 2 of the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual. There are four existing structures on the site and they will be removed prior to the final plat approval. The subject site is located within the Renton School District and they have indicated that they can accommodate the additional students. The storm water facility, as with Division 1, is being linked to Division's 3 regional facility that will be used by all three divisions, as is the Sanitary Sewer lift station. All the maintenance agreements and easements must be in place prior to the final plat approval. A homeowner's association shall be created concurrently with the recording of the final plat for all shared private improvements in this development. Patrick Gilroy, Land Trust, Inc., 1560 140t' Avenue NE, Suite 100, Bellevue, WA 98005 stated that he is the applicant. The parent company, Wedgewood Lane, LLC, has recently purchased the property and is now under control of all six parcels in Division 2 and is also in control of all parcels that make up Division 3, there is one ownership that controls all the areas in concern as far as the relocation of the wetland. They would be open to signing a covenant with the City if necessary, that the wetland will be relocated as described. Ile read a proposed agreement that was submitted as Exhibit 14. A waiver was received from the Director of Development Services stating that they did not have to provide a tree survey on top of the land clearing and mitigation plan. They are proposing to grade the entire site because the topsoil on the site is quite thick and in order to meet structural requirements for design of single-family homes on the site, significant regrading of the site is necessary. That type of grading would destroy the root system of many existing trees and most likely create a fall hazard during the next big storm. Secondly, 40% of the site of Division 3 is being set aside as open space and the trees in that area will be preserved. The permits have been pulled and the demolition of the four existing structures on the site will start this week. Wedgewood Lane Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-05-009, ECF, PP September 12, 2005 Page 4 Regarding the density of the site, he presented a proposal that would stem the loss of two lots and reduce that to a loss of only one lot. The revised plan shows the wetland and two access tracts that adjusts the net site area to add approximately 990 square feet to the site, they would be able to lose only one lot and maintain a net density of 7.9. Lot 15 would be eliminated. On Recommendations 3 and 4 he would like to add a provision that the maintenance agreement may be set forth on the face of the final plat as opposed to being a separate recorded document. Secondly, that the recording of a maintenance covenant, rather than restrictive covenant, that would encumber hots 11, 12, 27 and 28 also may be recorded on the face of the final plat. Garret Munger, Alder Northwest, 518 N 591h Street, Seattle, WA 98103 stated that he did the wetland delineation work and the preparation of the reports addressing the wetlands for the project. The wetland on this project is an isolated wetland, it has been subject to disturbance over the years by equipment, ruts throughout it, a portion of it is within the yard grass area of the existing house. It is not a highly functional wetland, it was his evaluation that given the requirements for the road alignment to meet the intersection and also the internal alignment of roads that would leave just a small portion of it, that portion would not be appropriate to try and preserve it as a functioning wetland within the surrounding development and therefore, it made more sense to fill the wetland and mitigated in accordance with the requirements of the City of Renton. The area suggested for the mitigation is within the Wedgewood Division 3 area and will be associated with existing wetlands on that project. As well there will be mitigation for some impacts to the stream within Division 3. This will create approximately 5,900 square feet of new wetland at two locations adjacent to the large Category 2 wetland that is off the property. The mitigation that is being provided is to create a new wetland at a 1: l replacement ratio and enhance 6,000 square feet at a 1:1 replacement ratio as well. Davi_d_Flalinen, Attorney for applicant stated that Patrick Gilroy's testimony included a reference to Divisions 1, 2 and 3 of Wedgewood Lane essentially being an overall project. The Division 3 property was detained in terms of it being applied for as a preliminary plat due to the progress of the annexation that had to precede it before it could come in. Had it not been for that fact, all of the phases would have come in as one integrated application, as it was, the Gilroy's needed to wait for the final processing of the annexation. Scott BorQeson, Core Design, 14711 NE 291h Place, Bellevue, WA 98007 stated that they are the engineers for this project. The project has been designed to integrate all three divisions and deal with the stormwater collectively. That does add value to the project and to the public in general, it will help make the facilities more integrated with the adjacent wetland. There will be more opportunities for plantings that will help make that area blend with the natural surrounding of the wetland. Both facilities will have a trail system that will connect and allow for more enjoyment for the residents. Some of the lots' roof drainage will be dispersed along property lines to flow over a large stretch of the wetland rather than just at two concentrated points. This location is not in the aquifer recharge area. Renee Korsmo, 5424 NE 10`h Street, Renton, WA 98059 stated that she owns a home on an acre and a quarter of land, recently annexed to the City of Renton under the Wedgewood Lane annexation. She has the same concerns with the development of Wedgewood Lane Division 2 that she had with regard to Wedgewood Lane Division 1, which are listed in her letter dated July 26, 2005. Several critical requirements necessary to the development of Wedgewood Lane 1 and 2 lie within the boundaries of proposed Wedgewood Lane 3 development, which is not scheduled for hearing until October 11, 2005. These include the internal road structure and public access connection to NE IUh Street, drainage connections and storm water facility, sewer lines and sanitary lift station. She did have specific drainage concerns with Wedgewood Lane 2, the front of he property fronts the northern boundary of the large Category 2 Wetland in Wedgewood Lane 3, which drains into Honey Creek and runs through her property. There was nothing in the Wedgewood Lane 2 to show where the Wedgewood Lane Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-05-009, ECF, PP September 12, 2005 Page 5 haul routes and excavating equipment will be, it was mentioned at the previous hearing that NE 10`h Street from Nile would not be used as a haul route, but rather a route from Hoquiam Avenue would be used. Will that same haul route be used for Wedgewood Lane 2? James Gray, Assistant Fire Marshal, City of Renton stated that most of the access concerns have been addressed in the prior planning. The connection through Aspen Woods is critical for Division I and 3 and would also provide secondary access for Division 2. Kayren Kittrick, Development Services Division stated that demolition permits have been issued for the demolition of the homes, the haul route is being reviewed so that it clears the wetlands and everything will be properly staked and the route will run through Division 2. It will run from Division 1 into Division 3 and from there to Division 2 and out to Hoquiam or out through Aspen Woods. The only equipment seen along NE 10`h would be what is necessary for the installation of the sewer lift station. The King County 1998 Stormwater Manual requires that the water be detained/retained on site and that the flows be regulated and not exceed what it was before the property was developed. They have to hold on to the water sufficiently so that it can soak in or at least not increase the downstream flows. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at approximately 11:03 a.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: The applicant, Patrick Gilroy, filed a request for a 46-lot Preliminary Plat. This Preliminary Plat is Division 2 of the Wedgewood Lane Plat. 2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit # 1. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official issued a Determination of Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M). The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. The subject site is located at 700, 750, 760 and 780 Hoquiam Avenue NE. The subject site is located on the east side of Hoquiam Avenue NE. The subject site is located south of NE 8th Street if it were extended east from Hoquiam. 6. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of single-family residential uses, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. The subject site is currently zoned R-8 (Single-family - 8 dwelling units/acre). 8. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinances 5097 and 5147 enacted in November 2004 and July 2005, respectively. Wedgewood Lane Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-05-009, HCF, PP September 12, 2005 Page 6 9. The subject site is approximately 7.16 acres or 312,034 square feet. The parcel is rectangular and is approximately 632 feet deep (east to west) by approximately 493 feet wide. Four existing homes, located on the subject site, would be removed if the plat is approved. The applicant has already acquired the necessary demolition permits. 10. 'The subject site has a moderate 5 percent slope. The site generally slopes to the east. IL After initially determining that there were no regulated wetlands on the subject site that met the threshold for preservation, staff determined that there was a discrepancy. The wetlands were resurveyed. It was determined that the 5,887 square -foot wetlands is located near the southwestern portion of the subject site. Regulated Class 3 wetlands are greater than 5,000 square feet. The discrepancy in this case is just under 20%, which is fairly substantial - meaning not only was the initial wetland underrated with a threshold of 5,000 square feet, but this even larger wetland was originally misevaluated. 12. The plat, its lots and roads, were designed prior to the in the discovery of the wetland calculation discrepancy. The discovery of the discrepancy meant that the 5,887 square -foot wetland and an additional area, that would be its required buffer, would have to be accommodated. That is, the entire plat would have had to be redesigned to work with and around this regulated wetland. It appears that, rather than redesign the plat, the applicant sought permission to fill this regulated wetland, enlarge a wetland offsite, and enhance a portion of that offsite wetland. It would appear that the plat design drove the desire to relocate the wetland to simplify the development of the subject site. Staff noted that, in order to avoid affecting wetlands, roads have been relocated or not permitted in other instances. As an example, the pipestem to I loquiam from Division l of this plat was preserved as a wetland and no direct access was permitted to 1loquiam from Division 1. It appeared that the wetland in question could be filled, since it was degraded, with machine tracks crossing it and, hence, its Class 3 classification. (See below for a discussion of the interrelated features of Wedgewood Divisions 1, 2 and 3 including the wetland relocation and enhancement). 13. The applicant proposes removing all vegetation, including larger trees, from the subject site. The applicant noted that the topsoil depth would not support proper foundation work and that the removal of the soils would adversely affect tree roots. 14. The applicant proposes dividing the acreage into 46 single-family lots. The density permitted in the zone is eight units per acre. Staff noted that the density calculations originally did not account for the sensitive areas contained in the wetland. Recalculating density after subtracting roads (59,941 square feet) and the wetland area (5,887 square feet) would result in a net acreage of 5.62 acres. Forty -Six homes on 5.62 acres would have a density of 8.19 dwelling units per acre. This would exceed the permitted range of 8 dwelling units per acre in the R-8 "Lone. Staff noted that two (2) lots would need to be eliminated to meet density, thereby reducing the plat to 44 lots. 15. The applicant agreed to reduce the plat to 45 lots and add acreage (actually, approximately 900 square feet) to the existing site, Division 2, using a Lot Line Adjustment). The property would be transferred from property that is part of what would be Division 3. A sliver of land would be used to widen the northeast corner of the plat enough to satisfy density calculations according to the applicant. Lot 15, or another in that tier, could be eliminated and the other lots expanded slightly. Staff did not have a chance to review this aspect of the proposal as it was submitted at the last minute. Wedgewood Lane Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-05-009, E,CF, PP September 12, 2005 Page 7 16. At this juncture, reducing the number of lots by one or two would not substantially alter the applicant's proposed lot layout and so the layout will be reviewed as initially submitted. The lots would be arranged around a center loop road that connects on the southwest corner to Hoquiam Avenue NE and on the northeast corner to a new north to south roadway heading north to NE 10 Street (and other interconnecting roads (see below). Lots would be arranged around the perimeter of the subject site and in a new interior block. Pipestem driveways, or shared driveways/easements, would provide access to interior parcels in the northwest, southwest and southeast corner of the plat as well as to an interior parcel in the new block in the middle of the plat. 17. The subject site is located within the Renton School District. The project is expected to generate approximately 18 or 19 school age children. These students would be spread across the grades and would be assigned on a space available basis. 18. The development will increase traffic approximately 10 trips per unit, or approximately 460 trips for the originally proposed 46 single-family homes. Approximately ten percent of the trips, or approximately 46 additional peak hour trips, will be generated in the morning and evening. Total trips would be based upon the ultimate number of homes that will depend on satisfying density standards for this site. 19. The development of the infrastructure for this plat, Division 2 of Wedgewood bane, will follow a pattern similar to that required for Division 1. That is, this division depends on the development of Division 3, which will be reviewed in the next month or two. Actually, this plat will depend to a large measure on development of Division 3's infrastructure. Division 3 will provide a major road network that will provide the additional, and necessary, second road connection to open public streets. Division 3 will also provide the storm drainage detention ponds, open space, and sanitary sewer lines used by Division 1 and Division 2 of the Wedgewood plat. A sewer lift station will also be constructed in conjunction with this development, but will be located in Division 3. 20. In addition, since the late discovery of Class 3 wetlands on the subject site, the applicant will also relocate those wetlands to Division 3 in order to develop the plat as originally envisioned rather than preserving the wetlands on the subject site. The proposal is to create new wetlands in a 1:1 ratio somewhat northeast and southeast of existing Class 2 wetlands located on Division 3 of the plat. In addition, the applicant would be enhancing an area of the Division 3 wetlands generally equivalent to those that will be filled as part of the proposed plat. 21. Stormwater would be routed to a large shared system that would be developed in Division 3, located east of the subject site. The system would provide both detention and water quality treatment and would be subject to the 1998 King County Manual. 22. Sewer would be provided by the City with a lift station necessary to serve the subject site. The lift station will be located along NE 1 Oth Street and it would be located in a portion of Division 3. 23. Water would be provided by Water District 90. 24. As noted above, the development of this plat will be dependent on the ultimate development of roads, stormwater facilities and a sewer lift station that are part of Proposed Divisions 2 and 3 being developed by this same applicant. Proposed Division 3 covers a large area east of the subject site and running south and connecting with Proposed Division 2. In addition, the road system also depends on the completion of the approved, but incomplete, Aspen Woods plat south of the subject site. Division 2 would be located south of Aspen Woods that is south of the subject site. Currently, the proposed access road would be over 700 feet in length and, therefore, this plat needs a secondary access that meets code. Wedgewood Lane Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-05-009, ECF, PP September 12, 2005 Page 8 This will require access both to the south and then to Iloquiam, and to the north and then along 1 Oth either to the east (Nile Avenue) or west (lloquiam Avenue). Currently, NE 1 Oth is substandard and would need to be at least 20 feet wide. The Fire Department has made it clear that the appropriate roads will need to be available to grant final approval to this plat. 25. The timing of an annexation for the property involved in Proposed Division 3 determined the order of submission. That annexation is to be finalized in time for the development of the three separate, but interrelated, divisions of Wedgewood Lane. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed plat, in general, appears to serve the public use and interest, although the wetland issues do appear to create a precedent that should not be repeated. Unlike Division 1, where wetland preservation prevented an access road from being built, the applicant will be filling a 5,887 square foot wetland in order to create this plat. It would appear that the filling of this wetland was driven by the fact that the size of the wetland and, therefore, its regulated nature, was miscalculated and redesigning the plat was too onerous. It is understood that the wetland's quality was degraded and the creation of an expanded and enhanced wetland on adjacent property will protect against a net loss of wetland. Even so, more care needs to be given to initial calculations to assure that this type of error does not reoccur. The plat, in order to fully serve the public use and interest and in order to provide some safeguards to avoid exploiting erroneous calculations, should create wetlands and buffers that fully account for the land that would have been encompassed in wetland and buffer as if the wetland had been accommodated in designing this plat. Therefore, when the "relocation" of this wetland to Division 3 occurs, the applicant shall create an offsite area of both created wetland and buffer area that equals, in size, the total size that would have been encumbered by the 5,887 square -foot wetland and its 25 foot buffer area. That area is not necessarily the same as the area that would be encumbered on Division 3 by merely creating an enlarged wetland of 5,887 square feet. This office is charged with determining that a proposed plat serves the public use and interest and that environmentally sensitive areas are protected. While "moving" the wetland appears to serve some of this purpose, it is not a precedent that should easily be established and the trade-off should not be an increase in density. Division 2 mirrors Division I in most other particulars, other than its larger size. The conclusions are similar. Division 2 of Wedgewood Lane appears to serve the public use and interest as long as the appropriate infrastructure promised in Division 3 occurs in a timely fashion. As discussed, Division 2 cannot stand alone. It completely relies on supporting roads, storm water containment systems and sewer facilities that will be constructed as part of Division 3, which is not yet approved. It also relies on the completion of roads in Aspenwoods, which is under development. Frankly, to an outside observer and to some neighbors, it appears that the current review of a plat so dependent on subsequent development is untimely. City staff have noted that it is not entirely unusual to plan a multi -division plat that will need infrastructure that can only be accommodated by additional offsite development such as would occur in this proposal. The timeframe of this and the other applications was based on the fact that annexation of property was necessary for Division 3. 2. The plat will provide additional housing choices in the R-8 'Lone. It will be developed in an area where urban services are available or, as in this case, can be readily extended to serve the new development. Clearly, until the infrastructure such as roads, sewers, and storm facilities are in place, Division 2, this plat, cannot be occupied. Once those facilities are available, the plat will provide reasonable homeownership opportunities for new residents. Wedgewood bane Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-05-009, F,CF, PP September 12, 2005 Page 9 The plat will be well served by necessary transportation corridors and the applicant will be paying a fee to offset some of those impacts. Both domestic water and sewer is, or will be, available. The development of the new plat will increase the tax base of the City and does not appear to overly burden the existing City services. 4. It appears that the applicant will be providing a storm system on Division 3 that will maintain current flows in the drainage basin and recharge an offsite wetland. The City will control haul routes and make sure that appropriate roads and routes are used. 6. In conclusion, while it might have seemed more reasonable to defer Divisions I and 2 until appropriate infrastructure existed to fully support it, it should be approved by the City Council with the proviso that the applicant is fully aware that it cannot be finalized until full provisions have been made for all necessary infrastructure to be in place and operating. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should approve the 45-lot plat subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall comply with the conditions imposed by the ERC. The applicant shall create an offsite area on Division 3 of created wetland and buffer area that equals, in size, the total size that would have been encumbered by the 5,887 square -foot wetland and its 25 foot buffer area. Prior to the commencement of Division 2 construction, the applicant shall provide the City with a covenant recorded against the portion of the Division 3 site that is intended for the wetland mitigation area with the covenant to benefit the Division 2 site. The covenant shall require the creation of the amount of wetland and buffer required by Condition Number 2 above, whether or not Division 3 is otherwise developed. 4. Full provisions have been made for all necessary infrastructure to be in place and operating in Division 3 of the Wedgewood Lane Plat as well as Aspenwoods. 5. Division 2 shall not be developed as a 45-lot plat until a Lot Line Adjustment conveys sufficient land from Division 3 acreage to Division 2. 6. The applicant shall revise density calculations to actually reflect the required deductions. If the revised density calculations still show the proposed 46 lots to be over -dense, then the applicant shall be required to reduce the number of proposed lots. The satisfaction of this requirement is subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Project Manager prior to recording of the final plat. 7. The applicant shall revise the preliminary plat to provide shared driveways for abutting pipestem lots, or reconfigure the lots to eliminate the pipestem. The satisfaction of this requirement is subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Project Manager prior to final plat. The applicant shall establish a maintenance agreement for the shared, private access, easements. Additionally, the applicant shall install a "Private Road" sign indicating addresses served from the private street at the intersection of the private street and the proposed 42-foot internal public street. The applicant shall have the plat revised to reflect a shared private access easement along the abutting pipestems. Maintenance for this shared access easement, as well as for ones between Lots 11 and 12 and Lots 27 and 28 shall be established through the recording of a restrictive covenant. The satisfaction of Wedgewood Lane Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-05-009, ECF, PP September 12, 2005 Page 10 this requirement is subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Project Manager prior to recording of the final plat. 10. The applicant shall obtain a demolition permit and complete all inspections and approvals for all buildings located on the property prior to the recording of the final short plat. The satisfaction of this requirement is subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Project Manager. 11. The applicant shall be required to have all utility maintenance agreements and easements in place prior to final plat approval. This condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. 12. The applicant shall ensure that the infrastructure is constructed and in compliance with City standards prior to the recording of the final plat. The satisfaction of this condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division prior to the recording of the final plat. 13. A homeowner's association or maintenance agreement shall be created concurrently with the recording of the final plat in order to establish maintenance responsibilities for all shared private improvements of this development. A draft of the document(s) shall be submitted to the City of Renton Development Services Division for review and approval by the City Attorney and Property Services section prior to the recording of the final plat. ORDERED THIS 121h day of September 2005. FRED J. KAU N HEARING E MINER TRANSMITTED THIS 121h day of September 2005 to the parties of record: Nancy Weil Patrick Gilroy Rene Korsmo 1055 S Grady Way Land Trust, Inc 5424 NE 10'h Street Renton, WA 98055 1560 140`h Avenue NE #100 Renton, WA 98059 Kayren Kittrick 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Troy J. Matthewson 760 Hoquiam Ave NE Renton, WA 98059 Bellevue, WA 98005 Carolyn Bigelow 6314 42°d Ave SW, Apt. Seattle, WA 98136 Walter/Kathy Johnson 2305 Quail Run Rd Cottonwood, AZ 86326 Scott Borgeson David Halinen Core Design Attorney at Law 14711 NE 29`h Place 10500 NE 8`h, Suite 1900 Bellevue, WA 98007 Bellevue, WA 98004 Wesley Anderson 101 37210 200`h SE Auburn, WA 98042 Garret Munger Alder Northwest 518 N 59`h Street Seattle, WA 98103 Wedgewood Lane Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-05-009, ECF, PP September 12, 2005 Page l I TRANSMITTED THIS 121h day of September 2005 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Larry Warren, City Attorney Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services Stan Engler, Fire Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transportation Division Utilities Division Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services King County Journal Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100Gof the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., September 26, 2005. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. An appeal must be filed in writiniz on or before 5:00 p.m., September 26, 2005. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processinp, of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision -maker concerning the proposal. Decision -makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. D6 - 3 T23N R5E E 1/2 ZONING PAVPW 'TECHMCAL SERVICES 12/2&04 F6 - 15 T23N R5E E 1/2 __ -_ - .- Renton City ilmitp Z°° .°° E6 1;leoo 10 T23N ME F 1/2 ! 1 h .7 6 , rn 4 s - i ' r r o q t _ ----- LI 7. a. bt rIsil—_ _ }, I _ 1 E 1 i .• 1 1 I A 1: � � ' LW � � � � 1 � � 1 ` a • .a IT11 t i l t 1 i low 4I !�1 m s� i ! �plj¢_€ g,3-�a JANa4 I :4 1a:Qy ��g9i akQv , 9b�n�F N, "]7 1 ]�33 �. PEA E� Ft9 Gj V N11, NN ci Cv� 1,i bxa rt �� ' JtWAR IC 2005 �. � ik,.�..n� crr--- �'IT�EIL/M/W/SIIFa'ti✓ IT�'L�Y so- WEOG—YWooIO "fWE EVV 2 fv/I�T/q,ZJ�T o CUGn A]VC y: vE I360 — N At£. N.[, —a 1M -a.l.....•�o- Bti1EN.[ WA A5fkt5 < m A., q- �2O . PSI F' mm s ag�g z e i ff �OfSIGN (MGlnff f,M(: It�nn,nG SUf �f ♦,n.. 1117 9111 Inn N; g Pal a��g 4� D I � r D a n Pp Frilll M iatf 3 ` I .. -�= ir' - �*-` {- ..iv ,1 --\sr-.-.:.-a• t,J g�=ism f. i ;lad y"iA 64. It'llF 9 Ij j . �. fiti � tiC a� 8y pAlp y, ¢ _ af 141 I} \R MT 3g; I zmf n 141E t44: Mm E�h Fs pF; 4� p I I �Ij Rt 1a TREE CUMNG AND CLrAR/NG PLAN - cWEOGE_W000 L4 NE O/V_ 2 NORTNW.4R0 NOME-S FO(.AR X_h�l• P[ I?60 /{p!N AVE NE, RNR /W ,a/' _ - L,TCCEN,C WA 9:IPU5 EHGINFftIHG .'/ANN/HG - SUEYE IIH4 -- - C LD CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA05-009, PP, ECF APPLICANT: LandTrust, Inc., Patrick Gilroy PROJECT NAME: Wedgewood Lane Division 3 Preliminary Plat DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant, LandTrust Inc, is requesting SEPA environmental review and Preliminary Plat approval for a 46-lot subdivision of a 7.16-acre site located within the Residential — 8 (R-8) dwelling units per acre zone. The lots are proposed to range in size from 4,500 net square feet to 7,507 net square feet. The site contains a Category 3 wetland near the western portion near Hoquiam Avenue NE. Stormwater facility and Sanitary Sewer Lift Station for this project will be dependant on the development of proposed Wedgewood Lane Division 3 to the east. Access will be required to connect to the public street grid to the north. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 700, 750, 760 and 780 Hoquiam Avenue NE LEAD AGENCY: The City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. Due to the revised square footage of the on -site Category 3 wetland, the applicant shall disclose anticipated fill amount as part of the construction plan grading and clearing plan. 2. The applicant shall be required to perform all earthwork activities in the drier summer months (April — October) ur otherwise approved by the City's Development Services Division. 3. The applicant shall install a silt fence along the downslope perimeter of the area to be disturbed. The silt fence shall be in place before clearing and grading is initiated and shall be constructed in conformance with the specifications presented in the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual. This condition shall be required during the construction of both off -site and on -site improvements as well as building construction. 4. Shallow drainage swales shall be constructed to intercept surface water flow and route the flow away from the construction area to a stabilized discharge point. Vegetation growth shall be established in the ditch by seeding or placing sod. Depending on site grades, it may be necessary to line the ditch with rock to protect the ditch from erosion and to reduce the flow rates. The design and construction of the drainage swales shall conform to the specifications presented in the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual. Temporary pipe systems can also be used to convey stormwater across the site. This condition shall be required during the construction of both off -site and on -site improvements as well as building construction. 5. The project contractor shall perform daily review and maintenance of all erosion and sedimentation control measures at the site during the construction of both on -site and off -site improvements as well as building construction. 6. The project Engineer shall submit weekly reports on the status and condition of the erosion control plan with any recommendations of change or revision to maintenance schedules to the Public Works Inspector. 7_ Certification of the installation, maintenance, and proper removal of the erosion control facilities shall be required prior to recording of the plat. 8. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained within the Wetland Evaluation Report dated May 13, 2003 and the supplement dated January 19, 2005, prepared by AlderNW in regards to wetland maintenance, monitoring and construction of the project. 9. This project shall be subject to the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual Level 2. 10. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee based on a rate of $488.00 per new single-family lot F to the recording of the final plat. 11. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Traffic Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per each new average daily trip associated with the project prior to the recording of the final plat. 12. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Parks Mitigation Fee based on $530.76 per new single-family lot prior to the recording of the final plat. F 20041102( ORDINANCE NO. 5096 EXFHBIT A JOHNSON ANNEXATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION The SE'/a of the SW 1/a of the NE'/a AND the North 3i4 of the NE y of the NW y of the SE y of Section 10, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington; EXCEPT the North 30 feet of the West 30 feet thereof, said exception being within the City Limits of Renton per City of Renton Ordinance 4215. TOGETHER WITH that portion of the East 30 feet (142" d Ave SE) of the West 1/4 of the East 1/z of said Section 10, lying southerly of the easterly extension of the southerly right-of-way margin of NE 9'h St, said easterly extension also being the City Limits of Renton per City of Renton Ordinance 4215, and northerly of the westerly extension of the south line of said North:% of the NE 1/4 of the NW 1/ of the SE 1/ of Section 10. H.\File Sys\LND - Land Subdivision & Surveying Records\LND-01 - Legal Descriptions\0099.doc D6 - 3 T23N R5E E 1/2 tizY o F6 - 15 T23N R5E E 1/2 e 2 .vo E6 ZONING — — — — Renton City umito 1>4600 ♦ I� ♦ P/WM TECBMCAL SMVIM U/28/04 10 T23N R5E E 1/2 5310 L� \in CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Al N: Submitting Data: Planning/Building/Public Works For Agenda of. October 3, 2005 Dept/Div/Board.. Transportation Systems Agenda Status Staff Contact...... Nick Afzali, x7245 Consent .............. Public Hearing.. Subject: Correspondence.. SR 167 Mainline Alignment — Renton Southern City Ordinance ............. Limit to I-405 Concurrence Letter Resolution............ Old Business........ New Business....... X Exhibits: Issue Paper Study Sessions...... Concurrence Letter Information......... Figure 6 Ma Recommended Action: Approvals: Legal Dept......... X Refer to the Transportation (Aviation) Committee Finance Dept...... Other. ... Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... $0 Transfer/Amendment....... $0 Amount Budgeted....... $0 Revenue Generated......... $0 Total Project Budget $0 City Share Total Project.. $0 SUMMARY OF ACTION: The Mayor, Council, and staff have provided input to the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) regarding the alignment of SR 167 in the I-405 Master Plan, specifically widening of SR 167 and the impacts to properties on both sides of the freeway from the southern Renton city limit to I-405. The recommended mainline alignment minimizes impacts to businesses and the Panther Creek Wetlands, as much as possible, and includes a direct connection from SR 167 to Rainier Avenue South. Establishing concurrence regarding the I-405 Master Plan alignment is necessary in order to understand and establish the design and location of the I-405 Implementation Plan for the City of Renton to be in position for funds from a potential regionally funded transportation package. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to provide a concurrence signature to the Washington State Department of Transportation regarding the SR 167 mainline alignment from the southern Renton city limit to I-405. The recommended mainline alignment is titled Figure 6, Renton -SR 167 Direct Connection, Combination Alignment. FI:\TRANSWDMW\AGENDA 2005\SR 167 Alignment Agenda Bill /rexa 11 0� PLANNING/BUILDING/ -3- , PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: October 3, 2005 TO: Terri Briere, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA:-joKathy Keolker-Wheel , Mayor FROM: �14 Gregg Zimmermae dministrator STAFF CONTACT: Nick Afzali, Transportation Planning and Programming Manager, x7245 SUBJECT: SR 167 Mainline Alignment — Renton Southern City Limit to I-405 Concurrence Letter ISSUE: Should the Mayor provide the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) a concurrence signature regarding the SR 167 mainline alignment from the southern Renton city limit to I-405? RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to provide a concurrence signature to the Washington State Department of Transportation regarding the SR 167 mainline alignment from the southern Renton city limit to I-405. The recommended mainline alignment is titled Figure 6, Renton -SR 167 Direct Connection, Combination Alignment. BACKGROUND SUMMARY: The October 2002 I-405 Corridor Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) established the Master Plan concept for I-405. The 5-cent gas tax enacted by the State Legislature in 2003 provides for the Nickel Projects in Renton and 5% design of the Master Plan in Renton. The Mayor, Council, and staff have provided input to WSDOT regarding the alignment of SR 167 in the Master Plan, specifically widening of SR 167 and the impacts to properties on the west side of the freeway and to the wetlands on the east side of the freeway from the southern Renton city limit to I-405. The recommended mainline alignment minimizes impacts to businesses and the Panther Creek Wetlands, as much as possible, and includes a direct connection from SR 167 to Rainier Avenue South. Terri Briere, Council President Members of the Renton City Council October 3, 2005 Page 2 Re: SR 167 Mainline Alignment — Renton Southern City Limit to I-405 Concurrence Letter Attached for review is the proposed concurrence letter, technical memo explaining the preferred alignment, and diagrams (figures) of all options considered throughout this process. The recommended mainline alignment is titled Figure 6, Renton -SR 167 Direct Connection, Combination Alignment. Establishing concurrence regarding the I-405 Master Plan alignment is necessary in order to understand and establish the design and location of the I-405 Implementation Plan for the City of Renton to be in position for funds from a potential regionally funded transportation package. Attachments Cc: Sandra Meyer, Transportation Systems Director Nick Afzali, Transportation Planning and Programming Manager Keith Woolley, Transportation Planning n:\TRANS\ADMIN\AGENDAS 2005\ SR 167 Alignment Issue Paper Congestion Relief & Bus Rapid Transit Projects 600 — 108th Avenue NE, Suite 405 Bellevue, WA 98004 Main 425456-8500 Fax 425-456-8600 August 17, 2005 Gregg Zimmerman, Planning/ Building/ Public Works Administrator City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Dear Mr. Zimmerman: Re: SR 167 Mainline Alignment — Renton Southern City Limit to I-405 Letter of Concurrence This letter documents that the City of Renton (City) and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) concur with the SR 167 mainline alignment from I-405 to the southern Renton city limit at the SW 43rd Street interchange. How are I-405 Projects Defined, Funded, and Phased? As you know, the I-405 Corridor Environmental Impact Statement was approved by the FHWA and FTA in October 2002 with a Record of Decision (ROD). The ROD identified the Selected Alternative (the I-405 Master Plan) which provided transportation improvements throughout the I-405 study area including a conceptual SR 167 mainline alignment. The design detail provided in the Selected Alternative is conceptual design, or approximately one percent design. In spring 2003, the Washington State Legislature approved a Nickel Funding Package providing more than $4 billion over 10 years for a variety of highway improvements throughout the state. In spring 2005, the Legislature approved the Transportation Partnership Account (TPA) providing more than $8 billion over 16 years for transportation projects statewide. Projects on I-405 and SR 167 in the City of Renton were included in both of these transportation bills. Together, the Nickel and TPA fund the overall scope defined as the "Renton Nickel Improvement Project". The Renton Nickel Improvement Project is the first step toward achieving the I-405 Master Plan. The NEPA Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Renton Nickel Improvement Project began in January 2005, and project construction is scheduled to begin in late 2007. Part of the original "Nickel Project" funds work to advance the I-405 Master Plan "footprint" through the City of Renton. Footprint design ensures that the Renton Nickel Improvement Project is consistent with the Master Plan and that it does not unintentionally constrain the Master Plan Projects. What is the SR 167 Mainline Alignment? A mainline alignment concept is provided in the I-405 ROD. To refine the Master Plan alignment concept, WSDOT and the City closely examined alignment options: widen to the west, widen to the east, and combination. The combination alignments incorporate alignment ..A. %/ w ington Mats S:10051adminlcommifinentslConcwence1SR167MainlineAlignmenf LetterofConcurence.doc rtmant of Transportation Gregg Zimmerman, Planning/ Building/ Public Works Administrator City of Renton Page 2 August 17, 2005 choices from the east and west options. The alignment options were further evaluated based on the connection between SR 167 and Rainier Avenue S. Please refer to the attached document, "SR 167 Alignment and Rainier Connection Recommendation" memo, for a detailed description of the connection design and the factors evaluated in the screening process. The combination alignments were advanced to establish the Rainier connection design. What is the Rainier Connection Design? The Rainier connection design defines how Rainier Avenue S. connects to SR 167. WSDOT and the City closely examined two connection options: Direct Connection, which connects Rainier Avenue S. directly to SR 167 similar to its current configuration, and Indirect Connection, which connects Rainier Avenue S to East Valley Road with a new general-purpose half interchange to SR 167. Please refer to the previously mentioned memo for the detail description of the screening process. The recommended option is a direct connection between SR 167 and Rainier Avenue S, as exists today, with a SR 167 HOV only half -interchange in the vicinity of SW 27`h Street and an I-405 HOV only interchange at Rainier Avenue South. The project team has worked closely with City staff to examine the assumptions used to develop the solution and to evaluate the results. Why is there a need for Footprint Certainty? The I-405 / SR 167 interchange is a key component of the I-405 Corridor program. Discussions are currently underway to develop a regionally funded transportation package. In order to be in a position for these funds the I-405 team needs to develop additional detail to define the project. The project team needs to understand the design of the I-405 Implementation Plan, which includes many improvements in common with the I-405 Master Plan. Two future Master Plan components that influence the design of the Implementation Plan are the SR 167 mainline alignment and the SR 167 connection design. These Master Plan components need to be understood at a footprint level to ensure that the Implementation Plan does not unintentionally constrain future projects. What are the Next Steps? The environmental assessment for the South Renton Implementation Plan Project is scheduled to kick off in January 2006. This environmental assessment will cover the TPA funded SR 515 (Talbot) interchange as well as improvements anticipated with additional regional funding. WSDOT will work closely with City staff to refine the mainline alignment as the engineering progresses. The project team will consider the Master Plan SR 167 mainline alignment and Rainier connection as they progress with the Implementation Plan design. Gregg Zimmerman, Planning/ Building/ Public Works Administrator City of Renton Page 3 August 17, 2005 Concurrence I am anticipating a project that will set a high standard of cooperation between the City and WSDOT. By signing below, the City and WSDOT concur with the combination SR 167 mainline alignment from I-405 to the southern Renton city limit and with the direct Rainier connection between SR 167 and Rainier Avenue S as we move forward in developing the I-405 Master Plan. Sincerely, Craig J. Stone, PE Deputy Administrator, Urban Corridors Office City of Renton Concurrence: Kathy Keolker — Wheeler Date Mayor, City of Renton cc: Administrators Executive Committee members City Design Team members City Traffic Analysis Task Force members I-405 Project Files Attachments CJS:bah Congestion Relief & Bus Rapid Transit Projects 600 — 108th Avenue NE, Suite 405 Bellevue, WA 980( Main 425456-850u Fax 425-456-8600 SR 167 Alignment and Rainier Connection Recommendation Presented by: City of Renton Traffic Analysis Task Force August 2005 Recommendation This document presents the SR167 Rainier Avenue direct connection combination alignment as the SR 167 alignment and interchange configuration endorsed by the City of Renton Traffic Analysis Task Force for the SR 167 Master Plan design. Major features of this design include: • A balance of wetland and business impacts along SR 167 between SW 43rd St and 1-405, • "Stacked" freeway ramps to reduce footprint size, • Direct Connection between SR 167 and Rainier Avenue South, • Additional improvements to Lind Avenue SW intersections with Grady Way and SW 16ih Street, • HOV Direct Access on SR 167 at SW 27th Street, and • HOV Direct Access on 1-405 at Rainier Avenue South / SR 167. Project Description (1-405/SR 167 Vicinity) A key component of the 1-405 Congestion Relief and Bus Rapid Transit Projects program is the reconstruction of the 1-405 / SR-167 interchange. Proposed improvements to the existing "clover -leaf" interchange include separating local access from "system -to -system" access as follows: • Eliminates the existing "loop" ramps and adds HOV and general-purpose direct -connector ramps between I- 405 and the south leg of SR 167, • Replaces the 1-405 access at Rainier Avenue with two new half -diamond interchanges, one with 1-405 access at Lind Avenue SW and the other with 1-405 access at SR 515 (Talbot Road), • Provides a one-way couplet that connects these two new 1-405 half -diamond interchanges, • Maintains the connection between SR 167 and Rainier Avenue South, • HOV Direct Access on SR 167 at SW 27th Street, and • HOV Direct Access on 1-405 at Rainier Avenue South / SR 167. Description of Options The task force considered several conceptual configurations for the SR 167 corridor. Three options were considered for the mainline alignment of SR 167. Two options were considered for the connecting SR 167 and Rainier. The mainline alignment design options are: • Widen to west (avoid more wetlands), • Widen to East (avoid more businesses), and • Combination (balance between wetland and business impacts). Amlk� SA0051roadway1reports1Reoom Memo - SR167 Algnment and Wffl��110 n State roeparfmant of Transportation Congestion Relief S Bus Rapid Transit Projects The SR 167 connection to Rainier Avenue South design options are: • Indirect Connection: Rainier Avenue South connection to East Valley Road with a new half interchange in vicinity of SW 2711 and • Direct Connection: Rainier Avenue South connection to SR 167, similar to current configuration, with "stacked" ramps. The above interchange options could be mixed and matched to obtain the best configuration for the SR 167 corridor. Design Issues and Considerations In reviewing the interchange options, the Task Force has considered the following project functions: local operations, freeway operations, and environmental impact avoidance. The evaluation of these functions considered the following: Local Operations: • Level of service for local roadway network, • Queuing at intersections, • Vehicle travel time, • Access to local businesses, and • Driver's expectations. Freeway Operations: • SR 167 mainline operations between SW 431d Street and the 1-405 and • Driver's expectations. Environmental Impact Avoidance: • Wetland Impacts to Panther Creek Wetlands, • Wetland Impacts along west side of SR 167, and • Property impacts to businesses along East Valley Road. Local Operations The traffic analysis for the Lind interchange showed that the local operations for all the considered options operated at an acceptable level of service with the year 2030 traffic forecasts. The analysis of the Direct Connection assumed the eastbound dual left turns at the Rainier Ave / Grady Way intersection were in place as recommended by the Rainier Avenue Corridor Study. The Direct Connection option includes additional improvements to the Lind Ave intersections with Grady Way and SW 16th Street (these improvements are not needed with the Indirect Connection option). These improvements include dual northbound left turn lanes at Grady Way and an additional southbound through lane at SW 16th, terminating at the next driveway south. The Direct Connection option traffic operations along Lind Ave could be further improved by eliminating the east leg of the SW 16th intersection. With this variation, East Valley Road directly connects to SW 19th St and access to the two hotels located north of SW 19th St (Hilton Garden Inn and Larkspur Landing) and the East Valley Office Complex is provided at the East Valley Road / SW 19th connection. The access road at the front of these properties is smaller than East Valley Road, allowing the footprint to be slightly reduced in this area. The traffic analysis also showed that the SW 43rd / S 180th Street interchange and associated intersections operate acceptably. The 1405 project is showing the King County Carr Road Study recommended option (an additional southbound SR 167 off -ramp, a new southbound collector -distributor roadway, the extension of Lind Ave to the S:10051roadwaylreports\Recom Memo - SR167 Alignment and Configuration.doc Page 2 of 5 Last printed 8/18/2005 2:39 PM Congestion Relief S Bus Rapid Transit Projects south, and widening of the SW 431d Street overpass) with an additional on -ramp to southbound SR 167 from East Valley Road south of SW 43nd Street. The final configuration of this interchange will be determined with the SR 167 Corridor project and in coordination with the City of Kent and King County. The Direct Connection option provides shorter travel times for vehicles traveling between downtown Renton and SR 167 and is more in line with driver's expectation for entering Renton. As a comparison, the Indirect Connection downtown Renton bound traffic must exit northbound SR 167 traffic near SW 431d Street, approximately a mile and a half south 1-405, and then continue along local streets to access the downtown Renton area. Access to commercial properties from East Valley Road was considered to be a critical element for local access; therefore, connection options that restricted access along East Valley Road were less desirable than the options that maintained full access. Both connection options restrict access along SW 27d' to allow for the HOV Direct Access ramps; however the Indirect Connection option impacts accesses to more businesses than the Direct Connection option because of the new half interchange. As seen in the SR 167 Alignment Comparisons table, the Direct Connection impacts four business accesses while the Indirect Connection impacts twelve business accesses. Freeway Operations The traffic analysis of the freeways in the vicinity of the 1-405 / SR 167 interchange showed that both the Direct Connection and Indirect Connection operate at acceptable levels of service with the year 2030 forecasts. The Indirect Connection requires additional improvements to eliminate the weaves northbound and southbound between the SW 43,d interchange and the SW 270, St general-purpose half -interchange. These improvements, such as braided ramps, are necessary to separate the entering and exiting traffic along SR 167. With the Direct Connection, the SW 27m St general-purpose half interchange is not needed as Rainier Avenue South connects directly to SR 167. No additional improvements for weaving vehicles are required along SR 167 with this configuration. Environmental Impact Avoidance All configurations have impacts on nearby properties and the wetlands and surface water along the eastside and westside of SR 167, though to a varying degree. Indirect connection options have a larger footprint increasing the amount of impacts as compared to the direct connection options. East Valley Road widens to accommodate Rainier to SR 167 traffic routed onto East Valley Road, and SR 167 footprint is wider without stacking. The SR 167 Alignment and Rainier Connection Comparisons table details the different impacts for each option. The Traffic Task force realizes the importance of the Panther Creek Wetlands and has attempted to strike a balance between wetland impacts and business impacts. It is understood that the final SR 167 mainline alignment will be determined through the NEPA process in determining what level of impacts to wetlands are acceptable to the regulatory agencies. The widen west options reduce impacts to the Panther Creek Wetlands that run along the eastside of SR 167. Conversely, these same options increase impacts to the commercial properties between SR 167 and East Valley Road. These impacts include two hotels, the Hilton Garden Inn and the Larkspur Landing, the East Valley Office Complex (EVOC), Imperials Bingo, an office park near SW 27th Street, and other businesses. SA005troadway1reportARecom Memo - SR167 Alignment and Configuration.doc Page 3 of 5 Last printed 8/18/2005 2:39 PM Congestion Relief S Bus Rapid Transit Projects Options widening to the east reduce the impacts to the businesses along East Valley Road by widening further into the Panther Creek Wetlands. The only property impacts that could not be avoided are businesses impacted by the HOV direct access or the general-purpose ramps (indirect connection options only) at SW 27"h Street. The combination options create a balance of wetland impacts and business impacts by shifting the alignment between the east and west alignment limits to minimize impacts to businesses while limiting impacts to the Panther Creek Wetlands. Impacts to the two hotels and the EVOC are reduced to planting strip impacts, avoiding impacts to the associated parking lots, by shifting the alignment to the east at the SR 167 interchange. The Direct Connection options have reduced impacts to businesses and wetlands as compared with the Indirect Connection options because of the smaller "footprint". The Direct Connection has a smaller footprint with no general purpose half interchange near SW 27th and "stacking" select ramps within the 1-405 / SR 167 interchange. East Valley Road is also maintained in its current 3-lane configuration with the Direct Connection options, while the Indirect Connection requires additional lanes to accommodate traffic between Rainier and SR 167 which shifts onto East Valley Road. Summary The aforementioned issues have been considered in evaluating the various proposed SR 167 Alignment and Rainier Connection options. Based on the resulting impacts and related functions, the Traffic Analysis Task Force recommends the Combination alignment with a Direct Connection between Rainier Avenue South and SR 167, as the preferred configuration for the SR 167 alignment and Rainier connection. The traffic analysis completed demonstrates the proposed configuration concept operates at an acceptable level for the year 2030 conditions. Compared to a 2030 "Do Nothing" option, there is significantly less delay and more vehicles served on the surrounding street network with the recommended option, particularly in the vicinity of the Rainier Avenue / Grady Way intersection which currently operates at LOS F. . Although the Lind interchange configuration of the recommended option operates at an acceptable level, the operations could be improved further by eliminating the east leg of the Lind Ave intersection with SW 161, St. Impacts to the Panther Creek Wetlands in this area are also reduced from a slightly smaller footprint. With the rerouting of East Valley Road and the revision to the access to the two hotels and EVOC, the final decision on this variation will be done with further coordination with the City of Renton and the property owners. S:10051roadwaylreportslReeom Memo - SR167 Al' nment and Confguration.doc Page 4 of 5 Last printed 8/18/2005 2:39 PM IWV Congestion Relief & Bus Rapid Transit Projects 1-405 Tukwila -to -Renton SR 167 Alignment Comparisons Indirect Connection (Rainier Avenue to East Valley Road) Business5i mi, pa s '4 We Impa S tittom 0 East iNg,'Nett Side Total, cres,�Iff.`. "Ac; Acres xn- crest A Acres Widen to West 12 30 33.8 6.6 7.9 14.5 (Avoid More Wetlands) Widen to East 12 7 12.9 21.0 3.5 24.5 (Avoid More Businesses Combination 12 23 16.9 7.2 6.3 13.5 Direct Connection (Stacked: Rainier Avenue to SR 167 t8i u s I ,im pacts us e n ss,pe Wetland Im'pacts Rf ... . ..... Fe' it on N*4uls 1 I ',t "N Pr East S lde`-., Sidi, Jota o �6, rtiis� F n� Each 1 ;Eachpg ' Acres Acres Acres AcreS Ades Widen to West 4 25 18.6 3.5 7.5 11.0 (Avoid More Wetlands) Widen to East 4 4 2.7 15.0 4.7 19.7 (Avoid More Businesses) Combination 4 21 8.0 5.8 6.6 12.4 S:10051roadwayVepor m Memo - SR167 Alignment and Configuration.doc Figure 1 Renton - SR167 Indirect Connection a�• Widen West Alignment l g Legend - Properties with access impact (12) Property /Business impact (30 - 33.8 ac) ;OM/•,, Wetlands impact (6.6 cc eastside, 7.9 oc westside) N J10 ' Proposed Master Plan Edge of Pavement � \ \.! t I v, y� vi F �1 -0 Lind ": 1 East ` ^, Cl Valle �prvipJ * h v_ i { 6 Exist RlW �� Widen West PantheoCreekt Well nds j ti =1 e, m Y s9 I i •.t l'� Ili r r � 7 ^ _ e.y qt' r9F I. ...... ..... DRAFT SCALE IN FEET A.wne.z00s i,•- ��./ L ilia, ^ ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Figure 2 Renton - SR167 Indirect Connection Widen East Alignment Legend Properties with access impact (12) Property/ Business impact (7 — 12.9 ac) Wetlands impact (21.0 ac easisicle, 3.5 ac westsicle) Proposed Master Plan Edge of Pavement yc-0941 Ottled III A 7"N Whir creek, We Widen East E Panth6 Crei .Well nds Ii 0 40() 100 SCALE IN FEET 7 :A Figure 3 Renton - SR167 Indirect Connection Combination Alignment Legend Properties with access impact (12). Property / Business impact (23 - 16.9 ac) Wetlands impact (7.2 ac eastside, 6.3 ac westside) -I`-�Proposed Master Plan Edge of Pavement it �, ' I�,l !, t J (Y I�C ' Jt f I 11 \ Hrs ens j Complec I 7 Panther Creekll, Wetlands _ R/W Combination 1 4, Ed'' e C/ ? PaWe I Cdee� k Om DRArT1 O SCALE OIN FEE Boo �.-- ?fu4ac�►ye 1 Figure 4 Renton - SR1 67 Direct Connection Widen West Alignment Legend Properties with access impact (4) Property/ Business impact (25 - 18.6 cc) Wetlands impact (3.5 cc oustside, 7.5 cc westside) Proposed Master Plan Edge of Pavement II ji Panther Cre I -Wetl 3nds T), Sam D RAV 0 400 800 SCALE IN FEET 9, 2005 7 :-7L I li 7 7T -7 E, EaSt,I tte "'.? r s C 'Wi 412i k, Yanther Creek Wetlands Widen Wes 11 �Eldsi 11 -Ede re 4. ... ....... t I I Figure 5 Renton - SR167 Direct Connection Widen East Alignment Legend Properties with access impact (4) Property / gusiness impact (4 — 2.7 ac) Wetlands impact (IS.0 ac eastside, 4.7 cc westside) Proposed Master Plan Edge of Pavement PIN 7q 'T M En Panthe Cre I Iffetl n.d Ili D mft KAFT 0 400 800 SCALE IN FEET A,g,O 6, 200S C ONE A, NEI ..................... ............ assss, Figure 6 Renton - SR167 Direct Connection Combination Alignment Legend Properties with access impact (4) .� ,. Property /Business impact (2) - 8.0 ac) Wetlands impact (S.8 cc eastside, 6.6 oc westside) Proposed Master Plan Edge of Pavement I T` i I � � J im II � p I I � I II I I N IL --,I 14 Lind e i c —z East E VO11e Ice ' J IC omplex' I — Wetlands I Combination I I SR panther Creek' -~ II \ Panther CreelC —r� Wetlands I —777 I r -- 1i o 400 Boo SCALE IN FEET r� �1 F ntnier Ave S 1 CITY OF RF,NTON COUNCIL, AGENDA BILI, Al 4: � Submitting Data: Planning/Building/Public Works For Agenda of: Dept/Div/Board Utility Systems Division October 3, 2005 Agenda Status Staff Contact Abdoul Gafour, x7210 Consent .............. X Public Hearing.. Subject: Addendum No. 3 to CAG-03-168 Engineering Consultant Correspondence.. Agreement with HDR Engineering, Inc. for Construction Ordinance ............. Phase Assistance for Maplewood Water 'Treatment Resolution............ Improvements Old Business........ New Business....... Exhibits: Issue paper Study Sessions...... Addendum No. 3 to CAG-03-168 Infortnation......... Recommended Action: Approvals: Refer to Utilities Committee Legal Dept......... X Finance Dept...... X Other ............... Fiscal Impact: N/A Expenditure Required $134,211.00 ['ransfer/Amendment Amount Budgeted $150,000 (project budget for Revenue Generated contingencies) Total Project Budget $12,257,700 (2003-2005) City Share "Total $134,211.00 Project (Add No. 3) SUMMARY OF ACTION: The Water Utility section requests the approval of Addendum No. 3 to consultant contract CAG-03- 168, with HDR Engineering, Inc., formerly Economic and Engineering Services, in the amount of $134,21 1. The addendum is needed to cover additional work by the consultant for the reviews and responses to the contractor's submittals and requests for clarification related to the construction of the Maplewood Water Treatment Facility. In the development of the original budget for the consultant contract, I IDR Engineering, Inc., underestimated the number of submittals and questions that they would be receiving from the contractors throughout the project and did not allocate sufficient labor hours to review and respond to the contractors' submittals. The Water Utility has budgeted sufficient contingency funds in the Maplewood Water Treatment Facility total project budget (# 421.00500.018.5960.0034.65.055562) for 2004-2005 to cover this extra work. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute Addendum No. 3 to CAG-03-168, in the amount of $134.21 11, with HDR Engineering, Inc. I I: I ilc Sv s "'I R -Drinking Water UtiIity,vA IR-27 -Water Project Files\W I R-27-2953 - Maplewood Water Treatment Impro�cmcnts CAG-03-168 - Construction Phase - EFS\Addendum 3\agenda hill lin contract addendum no. 3.doc\AGtp r `l l O� PLANNING/BUILDING/ �- , PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT lz� 1V&% M E M O R A N D U M DATE: September 22, 2005 TO: Terri Briere, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: "'Kathy Keolker-Whee r, Mayor FROM:y+� Gregg Zimmerm ministrator STAFF CONTACT: Abdoul Gafour, Water Utility Supervisor (ext. 7210) J.D. Wilson, Water Utility Engineer (ext. 7295) SUBJECT: Addendum No. 3 to CAG-03-168 Engineering Consultant Agreement with HDR Engineering for Construction Phase Assistance for Maplewood Water Treatment Facility ISSUE: The Water Utility section requests approval of Addendum No. 3 to the consultant contract CAG 03-168, with HDR Engineering, Inc. (formerly Economic and Engineering Services, Inc.), in the amount of $134,211. The addendum is needed to cover additional work to be performed by the consultant for the reviews and responses to the contractor's submittals and requests for information related to the construction of the Maplewood Water Treatment Facility. The Water Utility has budgeted sufficient contingency funds in the Maplewood Water Treatment Facility total project budget (# 421.00500.018.5960.0034.65.055562) for 2004-2005 to cover this extra work. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the addendum and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute Addendum No. 3 to CAG-03-168, in the total amount of $134,211, with HDR Engineering, Inc. BACKGROUND SUMMARY: The City entered into consultant agreement CAG-03-168 with HDR Engineering, Inc., formerly Economic and Engineering Services, Inc., on November 6, 2003, for services during construction of the Maplewood Water Treatment Facility. The original contract amount was $686,700. In June 2004, the City approved Addendum No. 1 to the contract, in the amount of $71,976.35, to cover additional geotechnical work and for specialized Council/Add 3, CAG03-168 September 22, 2005 Page 2 of 2 inspections required for the project. In January 2005, the City approved Addendum No. 2 to the contract, in the amount of $116,500, for additional work by the consultant to review and respond to an extraordinarily large number of technical materials requests submitted by the prime contractor and sub -contractors, and to assist City staff in the review and evaluation of change order requests. The consultant based their estimate of the cost of Addendum No. 2 on the assumption that the contractor would submit about 100 requests for information through the completion of the project. To date, the consultant has received and responded to 260 requests for information from the contractors, including 96 requests from the electrical sub -contractor. As a result of the consultant's timely and detailed reviews and responses to the contractors' submittals and questions, we have kept the amount of change orders to less than 2% of the total project construction cost. Typically, on a complex project like this facility, we plan for a contingency of 20% or higher to cover change orders and unexpected work items. The consultant is requesting the City approve an additional $134,211 to cover their actual labor costs and expenses to date, and to cover the estimated remaining contract work to the completion of the project, anticipated to be mid -October 2005. The Water Utility staff has carefully reviewed the consultant's request and evaluated the actual work completed, and determined that the request is reasonable. The Water Utility has budgeted sufficient contingency funds in the Maplewood Water Treatment Facility project budget to cover this extra work. CONCLUSION: The consultant, HDR Engineering, Inc., has performed and needs to perform additional detailed reviews and responses to the contractor's submittals and requests for information up to the completion of the project. The additional work by the consultant has and will reduce the City's cost for change orders and claims from the contractor. Staff recommends Council's approval of Addendum No. 3 to CAG-03-168, with HDR, Inc., in the amount of $134,211. cc: Lys Hornsby, Utility Systems Director Tom Malphrus, Water Utility Engineer 14AFile Sys\WTR - Drinking Water Utility\WTR-27 - Water Project Files\WTR-27-2953 - Maplewood Water Treatment Improvements\C'A(i-03-168 - Construction Phase - FFs•.Addendum 3\Issue-Paper-Addendum-No- 3.doc\AGtp ADDENDUM NO. 3 to CONSULTANT AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CAG 03-168 Dated: November 6, 2003 This Addendum is made and entered into this day of , 2005 by and between the City of Renton, hereinafter called the "City" and HDR Engineering, Inc. (formerly Economic and Engineering Services, Inc.), hereinafter called the "Consultant". WITNESSETH THAT: Whereas, the City engaged the services of the Consultant under Consultant Agreement CAG 03-168 dated November 6, 2003, for project "Maplewood Water Treatment Improvements and Golf Course Improvements — Construction Phase Assistance" and Whereas, the City does not have sufficient qualified engineering employees to provide the engineering within a reasonable time; and Whereas, the City and the Consultant have determined that additional work is required to meet the goal of the project. Those additional work items being defined in Exhibit A with costs anticipated as shown in Exhibit B. NOW, therefore, in accordance with Section VIII, Extra Work, of Consultant Agreement CAG 03- 168, dated November 6, 2003, the agreement is amended as follows: 1. Revise the maximum amount payable under section VI, Payment, from $875,186.35 to $1,009,397.35, which represents an increase of $134,211.00. EXECUTION IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Addendum No. 3 to CAG 03-168 with HDR Engineering, Inc. as of the date and year first above written. CONSULTANT CITY OF RENTON Signature Date Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor Date Wade E. Aathhorn Vice President ATTEST: Bonnie Walton, City Clerk Date H:\File Sys\WTR - Drinking Water Utiht0WTR-27 - Water Project Files\WTR-27-2953 - Maplewood Water Treatment Improvements\CAG-03-168 - ConstrUCtIon Phase - EES\Addendum 3\Addendum#3-CAG-03-168.doc\AGtp Exhibit A Addendum No. 3 to Consultant Agreement CAG 03-168 for Professional Services for Maplewood Water Treatment Improvements Summary: There have been two major factors that have resulted in this request for a budget amendment for this project. One is the extended period of construction and the second is the level of effort associated with submittals and RFIs. General - Construction Schedule Impact. The original contracted budget was for $686,700. Per the (:ity's request, that budget was based on projected costs for services through the end of 2004, with the understanding that an amendment would be developed to cover costs to project completion in 2005. Two addendums to the original budget have been executed. Addendum No. 1 was executed in May 2004 for $71,976 to cover the additional geotechnical costs associated with stone columns installation. In May/June 2004, 11DR developed estimated costs for 2005 to complete the scope of work. At that time, the contractor was still projecting to be at or near the original construction completion schedule of mid -May 2005, so the budget estimate was based on that assumption. Addendum No. 2 was executed in January 2005 for $116,500, bringing the budget to the current authorized amount of $875,186. The construction schedule has been extended by at least 4 months (May 2005 to October 2005), which has added to the costs associated with attending construction meetings, site visits, RFI responses, and project management and coordination. 3-100 — On -Site Construction Progress Assistance Add. No. 3 Amount: $0 No changes needed for this task. 3-200 — Engineering Support. Add. No. 3 Amount: $141,967 There has been a significantly higher labor effort and cost associated with submittals and RFIs than was anticipated in the original scope of work. The original budget was based on reasonable cost assumptions based on other similar projects to develop the submittals/RFI reviews task budget over a time period up to the original construction completion time, which was mid -May 2005. There have been over 140 submittals that have been reviewed for the project and 57 of these required at least one re -submittal before approval. Several critical submittals required multiple re -submittals, most notably those for the chemical pumps, pressure filters and GA(' contactors with associated O&M manuals, and the I&C system. The current authorized budget for submittals reviews provides for about 1700 hours of labor, however the level of effort has required over 2100 hours and several outstanding submittals remain to be reviewed and approved. For RFIs, the current authorized budget provides for about 880 labor hours, but over 1450 hours have been required. Together, the level of effort for submittals and RFIs has resulted in an additional cost with an estimated total of $141,967 to the completion of the project. 3-300 — Startup and Initial Operations Assistance - Add. No. 3 Amount: $8,244 The extended plant startup schedule has required additional labor effort for this task. 3-400 — Record Drawings. No changes needed for this task. 3-500 — O&M Manual. Add. No. 3 Amount: $0 Add. No. 3 Amount: 410,000 A reduction of $10,000 for this task will be made with no changes in the scope of work or deliverables. 3-600 — Coordination and Management. Add. No. 3 Amount:-$6,000 A reduction of $6000 for this task will be made with no changes in the scope of work or deliverables. 3-700 — Contingency. Add. No. 3 Amount: $0 The previous allowance of $20,000 for this task will be used only if specific needs arise that are outside the scope and budget for Tasks 3-100 through 3-600. Written authorization from the City is required prior to using the allocation for this task. H:\File Sys\WTR - Drinking Water Utility\WTR-27 -Water Project Files\WTR-27-2953 -Maplewood Water Treatment Improvements\CAG-03-168 - Uonstruction Phase - EES\Addendum 3\Adden-3-rev ised-Exhibit-A.doc\AGtp Exhibit B Addendum No. 3 to Consultant Agreement for September 2005 Professional Services CAG 03-168 Budget Revisions Task Existing Adjustment Adjustment Revised Task Budget Labor Direct Exp. Budgets 3-100 On -Site Construction Progress Assistance 303,384 0 0 303,384 3-101 Pre -Construction Activities 26,536 0 0 3-102 Field Engineering Assistance 47,656 0 0 3-103 Special Observations and Reviews 68,002 0 0 3-104 Geotechnical Support 122,359 0 0 3-105 Surveying Support 10,801 0 0 3-106 Project Acceptance Assistance 28,030 0 0 3-200 Engineering Support 349,563 139,967 2,000 491,530 3-201 Submittals Reviews 206,305 53,000 800 3-202 Responses to RFIs 108,406 80,967 1,000 3-203 Assistance with Change Orders 34,852 6,000 200 3-300 Startup and Initial Operations Assistance 37,116 7,244 1,000 45,360 3-400 Record Drawings 25,433 0 0 25,433 3-500 O&M Manual 50,328 -10,000 0 40,328 3-600 Coordination & Management 89,361 -6,000 0 83,361 3-700 Additional Services (if needed)" 20,000 0 0 20,000 Subtotal of Above Tasks $875,185 $1,009,396 Subtotal of Adjustments $131,211 $3,000 Total Budget Adjustment $134,211