The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLUA-08-093_Report 1! _.I r:x/1::j tlu,vVer\5 cfi5-cA3 09(8/09(9.,il.i0A\f J8AP 81Ql)PdWOJ WW L9 X WW 9G )BWJOj ap auanb!)~ ' 09 (8/09 l9@ AJ3A\f U)IM 81Q!lBdWOJ .. 8/9 G x "f 0Z!S 1aqB1 Marshall Brenden 18225 SE 128th Street Renton, WA 98059 Hans Korve DMP Eng., Inc. 726 Auburn Way N Auburn, WA 98002 Don & Andrea Gragg 16046 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 Jennifer McCall Lozier Homes, Corp 1203 -114th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98004 Curtis Schuster KBS III, LLC 12320 NE 8th Street ste: #100 Bellevue, WA 98005 Claudia Donnelly 10415 147th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 Norm Mohr 16224 SE 144th Street Renton, WA 98059 Marshall M Bender 18225 SE 128th Street Renton, WA 98059 Wayne Potter Barghausen Consulting Engineer 18215 -72nd Avenue S Kent, WA 98032 John & Nenita Ching 16038 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 Debbie Eberle 18225 SE 14 7th Street Renton, WA 98059 Gwendolyn High C.A.R.E PO Box 2936 Renton, WA 98059 David Petrie 811 S 273rd Court Des Moines, WA 98198 Seattle KC Health Department East District Environ. Health 14350 SE Eastgate Way Bellevue, WA 98007 Karen Walter Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division 39015 172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 Peter C. Hayes Coldwell Banker Bain 150 Bellevue Way SE Bellevue, WA 98004 t,;,/,/Jf - Daniel Balmelli, PE Barghausen~onsulting Engineer 18215 -72nd Avenue S Kent, WA 98032 Linda Corgiat 16039 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 Norm & Patricia Grammell 16043 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 Richard & Teri Langdon 14201 -164th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 Michael Ritchey 14225 -164th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 Kolin Taylor 12320 NE 8th Street ste: #100 Bellevue, WA 98005 Gerald Smith 8524 S 125th Street Renton, WA 98057 tifo#!+i . label size 1 ·· x 2 518" compatible with Avery @5160/8160 Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery@5160/8160 Steve Bot CPLN D ) MS AK DE 0100 • l ' J Kelly Whi . g, KC DOT Road c Div MS AK DE 0100 rd) PARTIES OF RECORD LIBERTY GARDENS PREL PLAT LUA08-093, PP, ECF, AAD, MOD, ECF2 Kim Claussen pPMfir CPLN LU$D/ M;-,PAK DE 0100 Steve T send, Supervisor / ' (party of recor3Y .,,/ Nick GilleFr;'Env. Scientist CAS L.\fSD rAKDE0100 (party of reco LUI SD ' (party of record) / I I ey, Traffic Engineer ·~ ~ rry st, Env. Scientist CPLN SD MS AK DE 0100 ecord) Chad -r.· bits DDE LUSD MS AK DE 0100 ' (party of record) John & Nenita Ching 16038 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Debbie Eberle 18225 SE 147th Street Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Updated: 04/27 /11 C USD SOAK DE 0100 ' _,,.. (party of 70) Al~x P ·man DD LUSD M OAK DE 0100 ' (party of record) Wayne Potter Barghausen Consulting Engineer 18215 -72nd Avenue S Kent, WA 98032 (applicant/ contact) Linda Corgiat 16039 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Norm & Patricia Gammell 16043 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) ' (party of record) ' (party of record) Daniel Balmelli, PE Barghausen Consulting Engineer 18215 -72nd Avenue S Kent, WA 98032 (party of record) Hans Korve DMP Eng., Inc. 726 Auburn Way N Auburn, WA 98002 (contact) Gwendolyn High C.A.R.E PO Box 2936 Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) (Page 1 of 2) PARTIES OF RECORD LIBERTY GARDENS PREL PLAT LUAOB-093, PP, ECF, AAD, MOD, ECF2 Richard & Teri Langdon 14201 -164th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Michael Ritchey 14225 -164th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Kolin Taylor 12320 NE 8th Street ste: #100 Bellevue, WA 98005 (party of record) Donald & Andrea Gragg 16046 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 tel: (425) 793-7370 (party of record) Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division 39015 172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 (party of record) Updated: 04/27 /ll Jennifer McCall Lozier Homes, Corp 1203 -114th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98004 (party of record) Curtis Schuster KBS III, LLC 12320 NE 8th Street ste: #100 Bellevue, WA 98005 (party of record) Claudia Donnelly 10415 147th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Gerald Smith 8524 S 125th Street Renton, WA 98057 tel: (206) 772-5418 (party of record) Peter C. Hayes Coldwell Banker Bain 150 Bellevue Way SE Bellevue, WA 98004 tel: (425) 454-0470 eml: petehayes@cbbain.com (party of record) David Petrie 811 S 273rd Court Des Moines, WA 98198 (owner) Seattle KC Health Department East District Environ. Health 14350 SE Eastgate Way Bellevue, WA 98007 (party of record) Norm Mohr 16224 SE 144th Street Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Marshall M Bender 18225 SE 128th Street Renton, WA 98059 tel: (425) 255-6210 (party of record) (Page 2 of 2) Hans Korve DMP Eng., Inc. 726 Auburn Way N Auburn,WA 98002 Jay Mezistrano 1512 So. s'h Place .Renton, WA 98058 Gerald Smith 8524 S 125th Street Renton,WA 98057 Robert Johns Johns Monroe Mitsunaga & Kolouskova 1601114'h Av SE, Suite 110 Bellevue, WA 98004 Garmon Newson, City Atty office David Petrie 811 S 273rd Court Des Moines, WA 98198 Gwendolyn High C.A.R.E PO Box 2936 Renton, WA 98059 Marshall M. Bender 1822 SE 128'h Street Renton, WA 98059 Roca le Timmons, Dev Serv Debbie Eberle 18225 SE 147th Street Renton,WA 98059 Rahal Petrie 6042 Blue Heroin Place Bremerton, WA 98312 Kristy Hill 13527 156th Av SE Renton, WA 98059 Jennifer Henning, CED CLIENT DAVID M. PETRIE 811 SOUTH 273rd COURT, DES MOINES, WASHINGTON 98198 PHONE No. (253)946-6619 FAX No. (253)529-2110 PROJECT LIBERTY GARDENS EXISTING TREES IN AREA TO REMAIN UNDEVELOPED DRAWN BY LM SC<LE 1" = 50' DRAWING CONCEPTUAl\\!llOVAUA 1 SHECT ______ _ APPROVED LM DATE AUG. 11, 201 0 JOB/ 01540 DF __ 1 ~-- 3 2 28" COTIONWOOD ~ 45 111 l~i:t 111 1 1 n 46 rff I JLI I I I I r°fll I!; 47 48 30" CEDAR 40" CEDAR 36 35 34 33 I 32 I I 31 TRACTF 30 14",14",18" MAPLE X I ~I~ ..-0.. u..jl en 26 ::ttj·'···.: :_-.:-· .. · J··. :._ ' .: '.'. .' .. : ... :· : . -·vr .. r'--...:, . ·.. • _. . : ~-:t=.·.:· ·,: ?j_': < TRACT D ~:. ·. ---~-,J .. 29 24" CEDAR 48" CEDAR -14" ALDE 14" MAPLE X:c'?:/ I</ Hr,24" MAPLE '2@24" M 30" CEDAR LE 14" ALDER ~ v OPEN SPACE/ RECREATION (lRACTS 'B' AND 'E'): 71,218 S.F. / 1.63 AC. 24",MAPLE 2@18" ALDER CEDAR City of Renton Planning Division NOV -F .J10 !R{~(C\E~"J~[» Denis Law Mayor April 2, 2015 DR Horton 12910 Totem Lake Blvd. NE, Suite 220 Kirkland, WA 98034 Community & Economic Development Department CE. ·chip"Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: Receipt of As-Built/Installation Letter, Surety, and Start of Monitoring Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat City of Renton File LUAOB-093 To Whom It May Concern: We reviewed and approved the final wetland mitigation plan/monitoring proposal for Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat dated April 29, 2014 and received by the City on May 6, 2014. Monitoring and Maintenance Period Start Date: On February 25, 2015 the Certificate of Installation, for the Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat mitigation project, from Sewall Wetland Consulting was received. Therefore, the date of this letter marks the beginning of your minimum 5-year maintenance and monitoring period. As a reminder, reports are due quarterly for the first year and annually thereafter. Your first quarterly monitoring report is due to the City on June 20. 2015. Please send three copies of the report to my attention. Additionally, we will initiate the paperwork to release the surety device for the installation of the mitigation in the amount of is for $13,453.45. The release applies to the wetland mitigation installation. This letter is also confirming the City has received a surety device (check) in the amount of $16,390.00 to cover the cost of a minimum five years successful maintenance and monitoring. In order to assure the quickest possible release of your surety device, please ensure prompt monitoring and maintenance are performed for the duration of your monitoring period. If at any time during your minimum five-year monitoring period the mitigation project falls below performance standards, the monitoring period will be placed on hold. Once the mitigation project regains compliance with approved performance standards, Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov April 2, 2015 Page 2 the maintenance and monitoring timeframe will restart for a period necessary to establish that performance standards have been met. I look forward to receiving your first quarterly maintenance and monitoring report, which is due on June 20, 2015. Sincerely, :1::!.~ Current Planning Division cc: Stacy Tucker, Planning Technician Wetland Resources Yellow File DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Stacy, MEMORANDUM March 20, 2015 Stacy Tucker Rocale Timmons Release of Assignment of Funds Liberty Gardens Mitigation Installation City of Renton LUAOS-093 Please initiate the paperwork to release, the assignment of funds for the installation of the mitigation project for the Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat. The amount is for $13,453.45. The release applies to the wetland mitigation installation. A copy of the paperwork should also go in the yellow file and to the City Clerk's office. Thank you! h:\ced\planning\current planning\wetlands\liberty gardens\install assignment offunds. release.doc RECEIPT EG00036092 . Ir . Cityof _..--..---· .. ::,;, r ·.···. r .! '..<..# _J · .. ~ Transaction Date: April 02, 2015 BILLING CONTACT SSHI, LLC, OBA DR HORTON 12910 Totem Lake Blvd NE, #220 Kirkland, WA 98034 REFERENCE NUMBER FEE NAME 40156 Plan LUAOB-093 Wetland Maintenance & Monitoring - Cash .. • 3954 (65ll.000000.000.237.00,0!Mllllj1f Printed On: April 02, 2015 Prepared By: Stacy Tucker TRANSACTION TYPE Bond Payment PAYMENT METHOD Check #40156 TOTAL AMOUNT PAID $16,390.00 $16,390.00 Page 1 of 1 I Wetb11tl R.eso11rces, fife. !jl ········································-····-·-·-············-·-· .. . . ..... ··_ --~-----_-_-:::.-:::.==---------··_·-~= =~~~ :.:.J \{f~ DeHnealion i Mitigation f Restora!ion; Habitat Creation P,~r'nt /\~;sbt:H'.ce 9505 19th Avenue S.E. February 24, 2015 DR Horton Attn: Kyle Lublin 12910 Totem Lake Blvd NE #220 Kirkland, WA 98034 RE: Liberty Gardens -Initial Compliance Report (As-built) Suite 106 Everett, Washington 98208 (425) 337.3174 Fax(425)337·3045 On February 24, 2015, Wetland Resources, Inc. (WRI) conducted a site visit at the Liberty Gardens project located south of 162nd Ave Street SE and SE 137th Place in Renton, WA. The purpose of this site visit was to assess compliance with the approved Addendum to the Liberry Gardens Critical Areas Ana!J,sis Report and Conceptual Mitigation P/,an prepared by Wetland Resources, Inc., revision dated April 29, 2014. The approved mitigation measures called for: a total of 5,860 square feet of wetland enhancement (Wetland A/B and \Vetland C) and a total of 4,230 square feet of buffer enhancement/restoration in two locations. The approved mitigation plant lists are listed below. Wetland Enhancenient Planting -Wetland C (960 sqxare feet) Co1D1Don Name Latin Name Size S2acing Quantitt Red osier dogwood Comus sericea 1 gal 5' 5 Black twinberry Lmicera involucrata 1 gal 5' 5 Pacific willow Salix lucida whip 3' 20 Sitka willow Salix sitchensis whip 3' 20 Slough sedge Carex obnupta spng 18" 100 Wetland Enhancenient Planting -Wetland A/B (4,900 sqxare feet) Co1D1Don Name Latin Name Size . __ S-c21=a ... c ... in_,,g.,_ _ _..Q..,u,.,an=ti,,,'=tt Western red cedar 1hrga plicata 2 gallon 20' 13 Lady fem Athyriumfelix~emina 1 gal 5' 25 Bxffer Enhancenient Plantings Adjacent to Wetland C (2,545 square feet) ColDIDOD Nanit! Latin Name Size s~~g Quantitt Douglas fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 5 gallon 10' 12 Western Red Cedar 1hrga plicata 2 gallon 1 O' 6 Big leaf maple Acer macrophyllum 1 gallon 1 O' 5 Salmonberry Ruhus spectabilis 1 gallon 8' 6 Osoberry Oemleria cerasiformis 1 gallon 8' 5 Snowberry Symphoricarpos a/bus 1 gallon 8' 5 Baldhip rose Rosa gymnocarpa 1 gallon 8' 5 Buffer Restoration Plantings for Temporary Impact ( 1, 685 square feet) Comm.on Name J;..lltin N am.e . Size . .~P.1"~!!lg. . . Q._u.lll'.ltjl:y Sitka willow Salix sitfhensis whip 3' 20 Red osier dogwood Comus sericea whip 3' 20 Salmon berry Rubus spectabilis I gallon 5' 10 Osoberry Oenderia cerasifonnis 1 gallon 5' 10 Snowbcrry S_wnplwrirnrpos a/bus 1 gallon 5' I 0 The installed mitigation includes a few variations from the approved plan. The installed fence is a three-rail fence, whereas the approved plan specifies a two-rail fence. The installed three-rail fence matches the style of a foncc previously installed as part of the Cavalla development. The lady fern specified in Wetland A/B enhancement were substituted for sword rcrn, which were planted along the edges of the wetland. The approved numbers of willow and dogwood plants/ stakes were installed, but they were distributed across all three planting areas. These minor va1iations do not detract from the goals of the approved plan. Based on the February 2'l. :ZO 1 :i observations, it appears that the intent of the approved mitigation plan has been met. All plantings are Hagged with colored surveyors ribbon, woodchip mulch has been applied around the base of each plant, and invasive species have been controlled per the approved general planting notes. Critical Area signs have been installed on the fencing along the perimeter of the wetland and stream buffers. It is my understanding that the abandoned truck within the \Vet land C/ Butler planting "ill be removed. This should be done as soon as possible to avoid damaging plants ali:er they arc established. Year 1 monitoring for the mitigation areas should begin in the fall of :ZO 16. Aller the Y car l site inspection, a detailed monitoring report will be submitted to the City of Renton. Maintenance of the mitigation planting areas should be conducted a minimum of two times per growing season. Maintenance should include controlling blackberry, reed canaiygrass, and other invasive or noxious species within the planting areas to prevent establishment in the mitigation areas. Irrigation should be prmidcd dming the first two grm,ing seasons to ensure the project meets the 100 percent survival standard required for Y car I. Since Liberty Gardens is still actively under construction, the silt fences along the wetland and buffer cdges arc still in place. The necessity of these fences should be reevaluated during the Y car I monitoring visit. Should you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to call us at ('l25) 337-317°t lVet/and Resoums, Inc. :Vkryl Kamowski As.wciale Ewlogisl Enclosures: As-built photos, sheets 1-2 2 PHOm POINT ONE : LO OKING SOUTH ALONG WETLA ND C ENHANCEMENT. PHOTO POINT THRE E: BUFFER ENHANCEMENT SOUTH OF WETLAND C. PHOTOS 1-4 UBER TY GARDENS _:_ASJJU/LT (FEBRUARY 2015) PH OTO POINT TWO : LOOKING WEST INTO CENTER AREA OF WETLAND C ENH ANCEMENT. PH OTO POINT FOU R: UND ERSTORY CEDAR PLANT ING IN WETLAND A/B. PHOTO POINT FIVE: PHOTO POINT SEVEN: WILLOW AND DOGWOOD ALONG OUTFALL PAD. PHOTOS 5-8 J.1B.EBTLENIDEN~JJUIU (FEBRUARY 201 S) PHOTO POINT SIX : LOOKING NORTHEAST THROUGH STORM OUTFALL BU FFER RESTORATION. PHOTO POINT EIGHT: FENCING WITH CRIT ICAL AR EA SIGN ALONG BUFFER EDGE. • Denis Law Mayor April 2, 2015 D.R. Horton 12910 Totem Lake Blvd NE, Suite 220 Kirkland, WA 98034 • Community & Economic Development Department C.E. "Chip"Vi ncent, Administrator WA08-Gl5 SUBJECT: RELEASE OF WETLAND INSTALLATION IRREVOCALBE LITTER OF CREDIT #LCA2998NY LIBERTY GARDENS PLAT; SE 140™ STREET, RENTON Dear Sir/Madam: This letter will serve as the authority to release the Irrevocable Letter of Credit #LCA2998NY issued on May 29, 2014 to D.R. Horton, Inc., in the amount of $13,453.45, posted to the City of Renton on behalf of the Liberty Gardens Plat wetland mitigation improvements. Enclosed is the original documentation for your reference. If you have any questions, please contact the project manager, Rocale Timmons at (425) 430-7219. Sincerely, ~J~~ Jennifer Henning Planning Director Enclosure: Original Irrevocable Letter of Credit #LCA2998NY cc: D.R. Horton 301 Commerce Street, Suit~ 500 Fort Worth, TX 76102 The Royal Bank of Scotland pie Connecticut Branch 600 Washington Boulevard Stamford, CT 06901 Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way , Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov • IRREVOCABLE LETIER OF DATE OF ISSUANCE: MAY 29, 2014 CREDIT NO.: LCA2998NY ADDRESSEE/ BENEFICIARY: CITY OF RENTON 1055 S. GRADY WAY RENTON, WA 98057 RE: LIBERTY GARDENS APPLICANT: D.R. HORTON, INC. 301 COMMERCE STREET SUITE 500 FORT WORTH, TX76102 EXPIRY DATE: MAY 28, 2015 RBS International Banking The Royal Bank of Scotland pie Connecticut Branch 600 Washington Boulevard Stamford, Connecticut 06901 Telephone: + 1 203 897 7619 Facsimile: + 1 203 873 3569 www.rbs.com/mib AMOUNT:$ 13,453.45 (THIRTEEN THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY THREE AND 45/100 UNITED STATES DOLLARS) WE HEREBY ESTABLISH OUR STANDBY IRREVOCABLE LETIER OF CREDIT ("LOC'') IN FAVOR OF THE CITY OF RENTON FOR THE ACCOUNT OF D.R. HORTON, INC. WE ARE INFORMED THAT THE PURPOSE OF THIS LETIER OF CREDIT IS FOR THE SECURING OF A PERFORMANCE BOND FOR WETLAND MITIGATION INSTALLATION SUBMITIED BY D.R. HORTON, INC. AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY OF RENTON. THIS LOC SHALL BE VALID UP TO THE AMOUNT ABOVE STATED. IT SHALL BE AVAILABLE BY A SIGHT DRAFT BY THE CITY OF MADISON DRAWN ON THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC ON OR BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE, IF ACCOMPANIED BY THE FOLOWING STATEMENT PURPORTEDLY SIGNED BY AN AUTHORIZED OFFICIAL OF THE CITY OF RENTON REFERENCING LOC NUMBER LCA2998NY AND DATE: "THIS DRAFT IS MADE AGAINST THE ATIACHED LOC SUBMITIED TO THE CITY OF RENTON BY D.R. HORTON, INC. AS SECURITY FOR A PERFORMANCE BOND POSTED AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY. WE HEREBY CERTIFY THAT D.R. HORTON, INC. HAS FAILED TO SATISFACTORILY AND COMPLETELY INSTALL THE WETLAND MITIGTION IMPROVEMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE SUBDIVISION. FUNDS DRAWN UNDER THE ATIACHED LOC AND RECEIVED FROM THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC WILL BE USED TO COMPLETE THE IMPROVEMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS." WE HEREBY ENGAGE WITH BONA FIDE HOLDERS THAT DRAFTS DRAWN STRICTLY IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THE LOC AND ANY AMENDMENTS THERETO ON OR BEFORE THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON THE EXPIRY DATE SHALL MEET WITH DUE HONOR UPON PRESENTATION TO THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC AT OUR OFFICE LOCATED AT 600 WASHINGTON BOULEVARD, STAMFORD,CT,06901, ATIN: LETTER OF CREDIT DEPARTMENT. THIS LETTER OF CREDIT IS SUBJECT TO THE UNIFORM CUSTOMS AND PRACTICE FOR DOCUMENTARY CREDITS (2007 REVISION), INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE PUBLICATION NO. 600 ("UCP 600") AND SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT. IN THE EVENT OF CONFLICT BETWEEN UCP 600 AND A NON-MANDATORY (VARIABLE) PROVISION OF SUCH LAW, UCP 600 SHALL GOVERN. VERY TRULY YOURS, THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC ~) -~ ti/It~ Richa~mmicn -7-.''-+.......,~--~--- Authorized Sjgnalor1 Mattllew Wilson RBS conducts its U.S. secunties business through RBS Securities Inc., a US registered tA.:u.tJMilr.a~~www.finra.org) and SIPC (http://www.slpc.org), and an indired wholly-owned subsid0ry of The Royal Bank of Scutland pie. RBS Is the marketing name for the securiUes business of RBS Securities Inc From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Jennifer T. Henning Tuesday, August 23, 2011 12 52 PM Rocale Timmons; Bonnie Walton Chip Vincent FW: Liberty Gardens: Request for Additional Information on Reconsideration -Submitted Materials CavallaPP _HE_20091103 pd!; CavallaPP2_HE_20100301.pdf; PetrieCavallaAppealComments. pdf Here are the comments for the Liberty Gardens Appeal. From: Phil Olbrechts [mailto:olbrechtslaw@gmail.com) Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 12:50 PM To: Jennifer T. Henning Subject: FW: Liberty Gardens: Request for Additional Information on Reconsideration -Submitted Materials Here are her comments. I hadn't noticed that these were sent to me directly and not cc'd to staff, since I hadn't given my email address to her. From: Highlands Neighbors (mailto:highlands neighbors@hotmail.com) Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 1:10 PM To: olbrechtslaw@gmail.com Subject: liberty Gardens: Request for Additional Information on Reconsideration -Submitted Materials Dear Mr. Hearing Examiner, In response to your Request for Additional Information on Reconsideration, and since I believe I meet the definition of party in this instance, I have attached copies of the two Hearing Examiner Reports from the Cavalla project and a copy of the comments I submitted on its Appeal for your consideration. We believed in the case of Cavalla, as in Liberty Gardens, that the use of TDRs was not vested because the application submitted to King County did not request the use of TORs. Neither did the applicant subsequently submit any indication to King County that TDRs would be used. Request to use TDRs at Cavalla was only submitted to King County. However, we are an all volunteer organization, and as I said in the Liberty Gardens hearing, neither I nor any of our members is an attorney. At the time, we were unaware of the cases you have cited on vesting case law, and thus did not bring them up. The attached Hearing Examiner reports record very little reasoning to support the decision that the TOR use was vested. As I and my neighbors who attended the Cava Ila hearings recall, there seemed to be such certainty that TOR use was vested that there was very little discussion at all. It was merely taken as a given by applicant, staff and the examiner. We did raise the very issue that extreme care was required in the Cavalla decision because of the possibility that approval would set a precarious precedent. We dearly hope we were wrong. Respectfully submitted, Gwendolyn High C.A.R.E. -Community Alliance to Reach Out & Engage ... doing what we can, with our neighbors, for our community ... 206.888.7152 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 CITY OF RENTON AUG 18 2011 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat Major Amendment; SEPA Appeal LUA08-093, ECF, MOD ) ) ) DECISION ON RECONSIDERATION ) ) ) ) ) 14 The request for reconsideration is denied. The decision denying the application for the above- captioned matter is sustained. 15 16 Background 17 Tue Examiner denied the application for the above-captioned matter by decision dated June 2?1\ 18 2011. The Applicant submitted a timely request for reconsideration on July 11, 2011. The Examiner issued an order dated July 18, 2011 requesting additional information and providing an opportunity for all participants in the hearing to brief the issues raised in the reconsideration request. Hearing participants were given until July 29, 2011 to file their briefs and all parties were allowed to file 19 20 response briefs by August 5, 2011. The Applicant, the Renton City Attorney and Gwendolyn High all submitted written argument by the July 29, 2011 deadline. No reply briefs were submitted. 21 22 Ruling 23 In his July 18, 2011 order, the Examiner requested briefing on three legal issues, which are quoted in italics and analyzed below. The City Attorney's Office and Ms. High largely agreed with the 24 Examiner's resolution of these issues in his June 27, 2011 decision, so only the Applicant's 25 arguments will be addressed below. 26 Whether a revision to a preliminary plat alteration proposing a significant increase in the Reconsideration -1 I 2 number of lots is vested to the development regulations applicable to the original preliminary plat application under Noble Manor Co. v. Pierce County, 133 Wn.2d 269 (1997). As discussed in the Examiner's July 18, 2011 decision, Noble Manor stands for the principle that a subdivision applicant vests to the uses identified in a complete subdivision application. The 4 Applicant argues that it has vested to King County's transfer of development rights ("TOR") program because an increase in density does not change its proposed use, i.e. it was proposing residential use when it vested to a 36 lot subdivision and it continued to propose residential use when it increased the 6 number of lots to 46. 3 5 7 The Examiner acknowledged in his July 18, 2011 decision that it is unclear from the Noble Manor court whether differences in density would constitute different uses for purposes of vesting. In its 8 reconsideration brief, the Applicant made a somewhat compelling argument that under both Renton 9 and King County regulations residential "uses" are categorized as "single detached", "townhouse", "apartment" and so forth. However, it doesn't necessarily follow that King County's definition of JO "use" is what the Noble Manor court had in mind when it used the term "use", especially since King County regulations weren't even under consideration under Noble Manor. It is also noteworthy that 11 King County itself presumably considers differences in residential density to serve as different uses under the Noble Manor decision. As discussed below, KCC 19A.12.030(A) provides that an increase 12 in density divests a plat application of vested rights. Noble Manor's interpretation of subdivision 13 vesting is based upon state subdivision statutes, which apply to King County. Since King County is presumed to have adopted its regulations in conformance with state law, it is presumed to have 14 interpreted Noble Manor vesting as not including increases in density. 15 For the reasons stated in the Examiner's July 18, 2011 decision, it doesn't appear that the Noble 16 Manor court had any intention to allow a Trojan horse form of vesting where developers could vest a low density subdivision and then switch it for significantly more density years later when 17 circumstances no longer made such conversions compatible with neighboring uses. 18 19 20 21 22 23 Whether a revision to a preliminary plat alteration proposing a significant increase in the number of lots is allowed to vest to the development regulations applicable to the original preliminary plat application under KCC I 9A.12. 030(A). The Applicant did not contest the issue quoted above directly, instead arguing below that KCC 19A.12.030(A) does not apply in the City of Renton. Whether the Hearing Examiner is bound by KCC 19A.12.030(A) in the review of the subject application. 25 24 Although there is some room for credible disagreement on the applicability of Noble Manor, the Applicant's position on the applicability of KCC 19A.12.030(A) is not very compelling. The Applicant takes the position that KCC l 9A.12.030(A) is a procedural requirement and is not subject 26 to vesting. There are several problems with this position. Reconsideration -2 • • l First, the Applicant submits no case law or other legal authority for the proposition that vesting doesn't apply to procedural requirements. That's because there is none. In point of fact, the courts in 2 two separate cases assumed that vesting does apply to procedural rules without expressly addressing the issue. See, Roger Wynne, Washington's Vested Rights Doctrine: How We have Muddled a Simple concept and How We Can Reclaim It, Seattle University Law Review, v. 24, p. 851, 879-882. In the case of annexations the County loses jurisdiction over permit review so there is no choice but to substitute City decision makers for those of the County. Beyond this there is no legal authority for 5 the proposition that all other procedural rules do not vest. 3 4 6 Second, it is unlikely that KCC 19A.12.030(A) would be characterized as a procedural rule. KCC 7 J9A.12.030(A) dictates what permit criteria apply to a subdivision application, which is a substantive requirement. 8 9 Third, the Applicant should not be in a position to selectively vest in permitting requirements that serve to put itself in a better position in the City of Renton than in King County. Under King JO County's regulatory program, if King County chooses to eliminate its TDR program it can do so without any plats vested to that entitlement. Should the TRD program prove to create unanticipated 11 problems, King County can completely remove the program. Under the Applicant's interpretation, 12 the City of Renton won't have that option for vested plats. In this sense Renton, which doesn't want a TDR program in the first place, has a more engrained TDR program than King County. The courts 13 have made it clear that permit applicants cmmot selectively vest to development regulations by waiving vesting to some regulations in order to subject themselves to more flexible, subsequently 14 adopted regulations. East County Reclamation Co. v. Bjornsen, 125 Wn. App. 432, 435 (2005) review denied, 155 Wn.2d 1005 (2005). In Bjornsen, one of the pitfalls the court saw to selective l5 vesting was it enabled the developer to "cherry pick" the regulatory program it wished by waiving 16 vesting to regulations it found unfavorable. Subdivision owners have more limited flexibility to selective vesting than the Bjornsen applicant, but those who have the option of annexing into the City 17 can "cherry pick" its regulations by annexing into the City and thereby permanently vesting its TDR rights. As a substantive regulation, Renton could not deprive the subdivision of this vesting by the 18 subsequent adoption of a provision like KCC l 9A.12.030(A), since the applicant would have vested 19 against it. 20 The Applicant has also made the point that the Examiner should follow the precedent set in the Cavalla Preliminary Plat decision, Renton File No. LUA 08-097, PP, ECF. Consistency with prior 21 decision making is certainly very important. However, the Examiner's decision in that case provides 22 no analysis of vesting and doesn't make any reference to the Noble Manor decision or KCC 19A.12.030(A). Given that staff in this case argued against vesting on the basis of KCC 23 19A.!2.030(A), it doesn't appear that the Examiner in Cava/la was confronted with the applicability of that code provision. Due to these considerations, and the fact that the precedent to the contrary is 24 not legally supportable, the Cavalla decision is overruled to the extent that it finds plats annexed into the City of Renton vested to King County's TDR program. 25 26 Reconsideration -3 1 DECISION 2 The Applicant's July 11, 2011 request for reconsideration is denied. The Examiner's June 27th, 2011 3 final decision on the above-captioned matter is sustained. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 DATED this 17th day of August, 2011. Phil A. Olbrechts City of Renton Hearing Examiner Appeal Right and Valuation Notices RMC 4-8-110(£)(9) and/or RMC 4-8-1 lO(F)(l) provides that the Major Amendment decision of the hearing examiner is final subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-11 O(E)(9) requires appeals of the hearing examiner's decision to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner's decision. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall -7th floor, ( 425) 430- 6510. Affected property owners may request a change rn valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. Reconsideration -4 Denis Law Mayor August 17, 2011 Hans A. Korve, Planning Manager .DMP, Inc. 726 Auburn Way N. Auburn, WA 98002 Re: Hearing Examiner Decision on Reconsideration City Clerk -Bonnie I. Walton Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat -LUA-08-093, ECF, MOD Dear Mr. Korve: Enclosed is the Hearing Examiner's Decision on Reconsideration dated August 17, 2011, as referenced. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or the Development Services Division staff. Sincerely, Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk Enclosure cc: Parties of Record (10) Jennifer Henning, Planning Manager Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner Garmon Newson, Assistant City Attorney File No: LUA-08-093 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • (425) 430°6510 / Fax (425) 430-6516 • rentonwa.gov August 17, 2011 STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING CERTIFICATE OF MAILING ) ) § ) BONNIE I. WALTON, City Clerk for the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that she is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 21 and not a party to nor interested in this matter. That on the 17th day of August,, 2011, at the hour of 4:30 p.m. your affiant duly mailed and placed in the United States Post Office at Renton, King County, Washington, by first class mail to all parties of record the Hearing Examiner's Decision on Reconsideration for the Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat-Major Amendment; SEPA Appeal (LUA-08-093, ECF, MOD) Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 17th day of August, 2011. l/11r//;r.,,.,_ ,, .......... ,111\~1:~.t\.tr;-"O:.. "' {'\ It , -S:' ,..:,; <;\C N 1,";_•., ,:. -::. \ / \ -.•~7 1,(J ·~ , ~ '\J-\ ,-( ~ 0 ,t~o,AAr\.\ \ ''\" ,, ·-~ :u .... ~Cl):~ ~...;:,,.~-'-~-2--,,-~~'!1-,,_~~.____,~*'-''~-,-C-• ~ Cynthi~ R. Moya' ~ '-.., ~ \ i'>UB\.\C. f g ~ ~fJ'l,.>,\ .n """/A.;;~ Notary Public in and for the State of "'-,.,;:._.,?~27-\,•.:.,..c, 111 ..,..,.. -er •••,u•~• ~~i •' Washington, residing in Renton ~~~ OF W r,,.fi 111 1 ,,,.,...,.,,~,1H/J/I My Commission expires: 8/27/2014 Hans Korve DMP Eng., Inc. 726 Auburn Way N Auburn.WA 98002 Jay Mezistrano 1512 So. s'h Place .Renton, WA 98058 Gerald Smith 8524 5 125th Street Renton,WA 98057 Robert Johns Johns Monroe Mitsunaga & Kolouskova 1601114'h Av SE, Suite 110 Bellevue, WA 98004 Garmon Newson, City Atty office ..Javid Petrie 811 5 273rd Court Des Moines, WA 98198 Gwendolyn High C.A.R.E PO Box 2936 Renton,WA 98059 Marshall M. Bender 1822 SE 128th Street Renton, WA 98059 Roca le Timmons, Dev Serv Debbie Eberle 18225 SE 147th Street Renton,WA 98059 Rahal Petrie 6042 Blue Heroin Place Bremerton, WA 98312 Kristy Hill 13527 156th Av SE Renton, WA 98059 Jennifer Henning, CED 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat Major Amendment; SEP A Appeal LUA08-093, ECF, MOD ) ) ) DECISION ON RECONSIDERATION ) ) ) ) ) II~--------------) The request for reconsideration is denied. The decision denying the application for the above- captioned matter is sustained. Background The Examiner denied the application for the above-captioned matter by decision dated June 27tli, 2011. The Applicant submitted a timely request for reconsideration on July 11, 2011. The Examiner issued an order dated July 18, 2011 requesting additional information and providing an opportunity for all participants in the hearing to brief the issues raised in the reconsideration request. Hearing participants were given until July 29, 201 1 to file their briefs and all parties were allowed to file 20 response briefs by August 5, 2011. The Applicant, the Renton City Attorney and Gwendolyn High all submitted written argument by the July 29. 2011 deadline. No reply briefs were submitted. 21 22 Ruling 23 In his July 18, 2011 order, the Examiner requested briefing on three legal issues, which are quoted in italics and analyzed below. The City Attorney's Office and Ms. High largely agreed with the 24 Examiner's resolution of these issues in his June 27, 2011 decision, so only the Applicant's 25 arguments will be addressed below. 26 Whether a revision to a preliminary plat alteration proposing a significant increase in the Reconsideration -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 • number of lots is vested to the development regulations applicable to the original preliminary plat application under Noble Manor Co. v. Pierce County, 133 Wn.2d 269 (1997). As discussed in the Examiner's July 18, 201 l decision, Noble Manor stands for the principle that a subdivision applicant vests to the uses identified in a complete subdivision application. The Applicant argues that it has vested to King County's transfer of development rights ("TDR") program because an increase in density does not change its proposed use, i.e. it was proposing residential use when it vested to a 36 lot subdivision and it continued to propose residential use when it increased the number oflots to 46. The Examiner acknowledged in his July 18. 2011 decision that it is unclear from the Noble ~Manor court whether differences in density would constitute different uses for purposes of vesting. In its reconsideration brief, the Applicant made a somewhat compelling argument that under both Renton and King County regulations residential "'uses" are categorized as "single detached", "townhouse", "apartment" and so forth. However, it doesn't necessarily follow that King County's definition of "use" is what the Noble Manor court had in mind when it used the term "use", especially since King County regulations weren't even under consideration under Noble Manor. It is also noteworthy that King County itself presumably considers differences in residential density to serve as different uses under the Noble Manor decision. As discussed below, KCC I9A.l2.030(A) provides that an increase in density divests a plat application of vested rights. Noble Manor's interpretation of subdivision vesting is based upon state subdivision statutes, which apply to King County. Since King County is presumed to have adopted its regulations in conformance with state law, it is presumed to have interpreted Noble Manor vesting as not including increases in density. For the reasons stated in the Examiner's July 18, 2011 decision, it doesn't appear that the Noble Manor court had any intention to allow a Trojan horse form of vesting where developers could vest a low density subdivision and then switch it for significantly more density years later when circumstances no longer made such conversions compatible with neighboring uses. Whether a revision to a preliminary plat alteration proposing a significant increase in the number of lots is allowed to ves/ 10 the development regulations applicable to the original preliminary plat application under KCC l 9A. l 2. 030(A). The Applicant did not contest the issue quoted above directly, instead arguing below that KCC 19A.12.030(A) does not apply in the City of Renton. Whether the Hearing Examiner is bound by KCC 19A.J2.030(A) in the review of the subject application. Although there is some room for credible disagreement on the applicability of Noble Manor, the Applicant's position on the applicability of KCC J9A.12.030(A) is not very compelling. The Applicant takes the position that KCC 19A.12.030(A) is a procedural requirement and is not subject to vesting. There are several problems with this position. Reconsideration -2 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 First, the Applicant submits no case law or other legal authority for the proposition that vesting doesn't apply to procedural requirements. That's because there is none. In point of fact, the courts in two separate cases assumed that vesting does apply to procedural rules without expressly addressing the issue. See, Roger Wynne, Washington 's Vested Rights Doctrine: How We have Muddled a Simple concept and How We Can Reclaim It. Seattle University Law Review, v. 24, p. 851, 879-882. In the case of annexations the County loses jurisdiction over permit review so there is no choice but to.substitute City decision makers for those of the County. Beyond this there is no legal authority for the proposition that all other procedural rules do not vest. Second, it is unlikely that KCC 19A.12.030(A) would be characterized as a procedural rule. KCC 19A.12.030(A) dictates what permit criteria apply to a subdivision application, which is a substantive requirement. Third, the Applicant should not be in a position to selectively vest in permitting requirements that serve to put itself in a better position in the City of Renton than in King County. Under King County's regulatory program, if King County chooses to eliminate its TDR program it can do so without any plats vested to that entitlement. Should the TRD program prove to create unanticipated problems, King County can completely remove the program. Under the Applicant's interpretation, the City of Renton won't have that option for vested plats. In this sense Renton, which doesn't want a TDR program in the first place, has a more engrained TDR program than King County. The courts have made it clear that permit applicants cannot selectively vest to development regulations by waiving vesting to some regulations in order to subject themselves to more flexible, subsequently adopted regulations. East County Reclamation Co. v. Bjornsen, 125 Wn. App. 432, 435 (2005) review denied, 155 Wn.2d 1005 (2005). In Bjornsen, one of the pitfalls the court saw to selective vesting was it enabled the developer to "cherry pick" the regulatory program it wished by waiving vesting to regulations it found unfavorable. Subdivision owners have more limited flexibility to selective vesting than the Bjornsen applicant, but those who have the option of annexing into the City can "cherry pick" its regulations by annexing into the City and thereby permanently vesting its TDR rights. As a substantive regulation, Renton could not deprive the subdivision of this vesting by the subsequent adoption of a provision like KCC l 9A. I 2.030(A), since the applicant would have vested against it. The Applicant has also made the point that the Examiner should follow the precedent set in the Cavalla Preliminary Plat decision. Renton File No. LUA 08-097, PP, ECF. Consistency with prior decision making is certainly very important. However, the Examiner's decision in that case provides no analysis of vesting and doesn't make any reference to the Noble Manor decision or KCC 19A.12.030(A). Given that staff in this case argued against vesting on the basis of KCC 19A.12.030(A), it doesn't appear that the Examiner in Cava/la was confronted with the applicability of that code provision. Due to these considerations, and the fact that the precedent to the contrary is not legally supportable, the Cava/la decision is overruled to the extent that it finds plats annexed into the City of Renton vested to King County's TDR program. Reconsideration -3 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 DECISION The Applicant's July 11, 2011 request for reconsideration is denied. The Examiner's June 27th, 2011 final decision on the above-captioned matter is sustained. DATED this 17th day of August, 2011. \s\ Phil 0/brechts (Signed original in official file) Phil A. Olbrechts City of Renton Hearing Examiner Appeal Right and Valuation Notices RMC 4-8-11 O(E)(9) and/or RMC 4-8-11 O(F)(l) provides that the Major Amendment decision of the hearing examiner is final subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-11 O(E)(9) requires appeals of the hearing examiner's decision to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner's decision. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall -7th floor, (425) 430- 6510. Affected property owners may reg uest a change m valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. Reconsideration -4 ' ,. I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CITY OF REN" JUL 2 9 2011 RECEIVED CITY CJ.ERK'S OFFICE City of Renton Planning Division BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON Re: LIBERTY GARDENS PRELIMINARY PLAT NO. LUAOS-093, ECF, MOD SUPPLEMENT AL BRIEF RE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION The Applicant, David Petrie, through its legal counsel, Robert D. Johns of Johns Monroe Mitsunaga Kolouskova. PLLC submits the following supplemental briefing pursuant to the Request for Additional Information on Reconsideration issued by the Hearing Examiner on July 18, 2011. The Examiner has indicated he will accept additional legal briefing on three issues: a. Whether a revision to a preliminary plat alteration proposing a significant increase in the number of lots is vested to the development regulations applicable to the original preliminary plat application under Noble Manor v. Pierce County, 133 Wn.2d 269 (1997). b. Whether a revision to a preliminary plat alteration proposing a significant increase in the number of lots is allowed to vest to the development regulations applicable to the original preliminary plat application under KCC l 9.A. l 2.030(A). c. Whether the Hearing Examiner is bound by KCC l 9A.12.030(A) in the review of the subject application. Because the answer to issues (b) and (c) is dependent on the applicability of KCC J 9A.12.030(A), those two issues are addressed together. Supplemental Brief re Motion for Reconsideration Page I of 6 ORIGINAL JOHNS MONROE MITSUNAGA KOLOUSKOVA PLLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1601 114" Ave. SE, Suite 110 Bellevue, WA 98004 Tel: ( 425) 451 2812 / Fax: ( 425) 451 2818 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I. Noble Manor v. Pierce County is inapplicable to the present case. The Applicant in this case has requested a Major Amendment of the preliminary plat approval of Liberty Gardens to allow the use of TDR's to increase the number of lots in the plat from 36 to 46. In his original decision, the Examiner correctly pointed out that the Applicant originally applied for a 36 lot plat while the subject property was in King County and that the original application did not include the use of TDR to set the number of permitted lots. After the subject property was annexed to Renton, the Applicant learned that a neighboring property known as the Cavalla plat, which was annexed to the City at the same time as the subject property, had been allowed to add lots through the King County TDR process. Assuming his application would receive the same treatment and in reliance on statements by City staff that he could also use the TOR process, the Applicant submitted an application for a Major Amendment to the City pursuant to RMC 4-7-080. In the Examiner's Final Decision, he concluded that the Noble Manor decision precluded the Applicant in this case from using TDR's because that "use" had not been disclosed at the time of the original plat application. It is the Applicant's position that this conclusion misreads the Noble Manor decision. As the Examiner's decision explains, Noble Manor addressed the issue of whether a plat application vested the applicant's right to subdivide but did not vest the right to develop the property. In that case, the applicant had applied for a short plat to create three lots to be developed with three duplexes. After the application was submitted but before building permits were issued, Pierce County changed the zoning so that duplexes were no longer allowed, and took the position that the only use Supplemental Brief re Motion for Reconsideration Page2 of6 JOHNS MONROE MJTSUNAGA KOLOUSKOV A PLLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1601 114" Ave. SE, Suite 110 Bellevue, WA 98004 Tel: (425) 451 2812 / Fax: (425) 451 2818 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 permitted on the three lots were single family homes. The Supreme Court disagreed and held that the applicant was vested to the use -i.e., duplexes -that was disclosed in the short plat application. The situation in this case is different than in Noble Manor. In Noble Manor, the Court held that as long as the disclosed use did not change, the applicant did not lose its vested rights. Since the developer in that case had disclosed duplexes as the planned use, it retained a vested right to develop duplexes despite the zoning change. In this case, the use proposed by the applicant -single family housing -has not changed. What has changed is the proposed density of housing. But most critically, a change in density is not a change in use. The permitted use of the subj cct property, under both the King County Code and the City of Renton Municipal Code is detached single family housing. KCC 21A.08.010 provides: "The use of a property is defined by the activity for which the building or lot is intended, designed, arranged, occupied, or maintained." KCC 21A.08.030 lists the "uses" permitted in each zone. The residential uses in that list include "single detached," "townhouse:· "apartment" and so forth. Neither KCC 21A.08.010 or 21 A.08.030 contains any reference to the size of a lot or the number of lots in a subdivision as a factor to be determined in deciding the "use" of a property. Under the County Code, the proposed "use" of the subject property is "single family detached." Since that has not changed, the Noble Manor case is not implicated. The provisions of RMC 4-2-060 are comparable to the description of "uses" in the King County Code. RMC 4-2-060 describes residential "uses" as "detached dwellings," Supplemental Brief re Motion for Reconsideration Page3 of6 JOHNS MONROE MITSUNAGA KOLOUSKOVA PLLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1601 114'" Ave. SE, Suite 110 Bellevue, WA 98004 Tel: ( 425) 451 2812 / Fax: (425) 451 2818 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 "attached dwellings," and so forth. Again. there is no reference to the size of a lot or the number oflots as a factor to be used when determining the "use" ofa piece of property. Since the "use" of the property in this case for single family detached homes is unchanged and Noble Manor only indicates that an applicant is not vested to an undisclosed "use" of a property, that case is inapplicable to the analysis of the issue of whether Mr. Petrie is vested in a manner that allows him to use TDR for the Liberty Gardens plat. 2. A Revision to the Plat which Increases the Number of Lots is allowed despite KCC 19A.12.030(A). The Examiner's Final Decision cites KCC l 9A.12.030(A) as a basis on which approval of the applicant's request to use TDR's should be denied. The Applicant acknowledges that KCC l 9A.12.030(A) says that, under King County procedures for a plat amendment, "revisions that result in any substantial changes shall be treated as a new application for purposes of vesting" and that an increase in the number of lots 1s a "substantial change." However, this provision does not apply to the pending application. It has been a fundamental cornerstone of the law related to armexations and vested rights that when property which is the subject of a pending permit application is armexed to a city, the application remains vested to the substantive provisions of the county codes that applied to the application but is not vested to the procedural provisions. This has been the practice in Renton and elsewhere for many years. In fact, this distinction is the reason this Supplemental Brief re Motion for Reconsideration Page 4 of6 JOHNS MONROE MITSUNAGA KOLOUSKOV A PLLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1601 114" Ave. SE, Suite 110 Bellevue, WA 98004 Tel: (425) 451 2812 / Fax: (425) 451 2818 \ ' I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 case is being processed by City of Renton staff and the City of Renton Hearing Examiner using Renton procedures. The applicable procedural requirements for Plat Amendments in Renton are set forth in RMC 4-7-808 (M), which provides. in relevant part: At any time after preliminary plat approval and before final plat approval, the applicant may submit an application to the Administrator that proposes an amendment to the approved or conditionally approved preliminary plat. 2. Major Amendments: /1. major amendment shall include, but is not limited to, the following: b. Any amendment that would result in increasing the number of lots in the subdivision beyond the number previously approved; 3. Process for Major Amendments: If the Administrator determines that the proposed amendment is major, the Hearing Examiner shall hold a public hearing on the proposed major amendment in accordance with the requirements for preliminary plat approval found in subsection I of this Section; provided, however, that any public hearing on a proposed major amendment shall be limited to whether the proposed major amendment should or should not be approved. Following the public hearing, the Hearing Examiner shall approve or disapprove any proposed major amendment and may make any modifications in the terms and conditions of the preliminary plat approval to the extent that they are reasonably related to the proposed amendment. If the applicant is unwilling to accept the proposed major amendment under the terms and conditions specified by the Hearing Examiner, the applicant may withdraw the proposed major amendment and develop the subdivision in accordance with the original preliminary plat approval ( as it may have previously been amended). The critical fact is that RMC 4-7-08(M) does not include the provision contained in the KCC l 9.A.12.030(A) which provides that an applicant loses its vested rights if it applies for a major amendment that increases the number of lots. KCC 19A.12.030(A) does not apply in this case. Instead, as Mr. Petrie was advised when he first approached the City Supplemental Briefre Motion for Reconsideration Page 5 of6 JOHNS MONROE MITSUNAGA KOLOUSKOV A PLLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1601 114'" Ave. SE, Suite 110 Bellevue, WA 98004 Tel: ( 425) 451 2812 / Fax: (425) 451 2818 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 • • about using TDR's, the applicable process was contained in RMC 4-7-08(M), which allows a plat amendment increasing the number of lots. Since KCC l 9A.12.030(A) does not apply, the Applicant does not lose vesting under that provision and the Examiner is not bound by it. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing analysis, the Applicant requests the Examiner grant the motion for reconsideration, allow the requested major plat amendment allowing the use of TDR and address the remaining issues that were raised at the public hearing. ~ Respectfully submitted thiJ~ Jay of July, 2011. By;_::_~'.1.2!..d:;~:::::_~~~~~ Robert D. Jo n , WSBA #7086 Attorneys f. 1650-1 supplemental brief on vesting 7-27-2011 Supplemental Brief re Motion for Reconsideration Page6of6 JOHNS MONROE MITSUNAGA KOLOlJSKOV A PLLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1601 114"' Ave. SE, Suite 110 Bellevue, WA 98004 Tel: (425) 451 2812 I Fax: (425) 451 2818 Hearing Examiner Phil A. Albrechts Reconsideration Date: July 28, 2011 BEFORE THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) RE: Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat, ) ) Major Amendment, SEPA Appeal ) ) LUA 08-093, ECF, MOD ) ) RENTON'S REPLY TO · THE HEARING EXAMINER'S REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION I. INTRODUCTION The City of Renton (hereinafter "Renton") opposes Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's decision to deny Petitioner's request for a major amendment. The Hearing Examiner has asked for the parties to answer three questions related to Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. Renton offers this brief in response to the Hearing Examiner's request. 1 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS On or about June 13, 2011, the Hearing Examiner held an administrative hearing to consider Petitioner's request for a major amendment under RMC 4-7-080(M)(2) and (3). The Hearing Examiner found that Petitioner's "proposed Major Amendment is not vested to the King County TOR program or any other regulations in effect upon the vesting of the 2004 King County Liberty Gardens application (KC ODES File No. L04P0034)." (Final Decision, p. 4 I. 2). The Hearing Examiner relied on the decision in Noble Manor Co. v. Pierce County, 133 Wn.2d 269 (1997), as well as RCW 58.17 to conclude that the "Major Amendment is for a separate application, subject to its own individual vesting. The application of RCW 58.17.170 to the original subdivision application would not result in the vesting of any King County TOR regulations applicable to the modification application." III. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES 1. Whether a preliminary plat revision proposing a significant increase in the number oflots is vested to the development regulations applicable to the original preliminary plat application under Noble Manor Co. v. Pierce County, 133 Wn.2d 269 (1997)? 2. Whether a major or significant revision of a preliminary plat is allowed to vest to the development regulations applicable to the original plat application under KCC 19A.12.030 (A)? 3. Whether the Hearing Examiner is bound by KCC 19A.12.030 (A) in review of the subject application? 2 IV. AUTHORITY AND ARGUMENTS A. A PRELIMINARY PLAT REVISION PROPOSING A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF LOTS IS NOT VESTED TO THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE ORIGINAL PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION UNDER NOBLE MANOR CO. V. PIERCE COUNTY, 133 WN.2D 269,943 P.2D 1378 (1997). The Washington State Supreme Court in Noble Manor, relying on its decision in State ex rel. Ogden v. Bellevue, 45 Wn.2d 492; 275 P.2d 899 (1954), stated that the vested rights doctrine "provides that a party filing a timely and sufficiently complete building permit application obtains a vested right to have that application processed according to zoning, land use and building ordinances in effect at the time of the application." (Emphasis added). Noble Manor, 133 Wn.2d at 277. In Noble Manor, the Court also discussed RCW 58.17.033, and noted that the "vesting of rights doctrine has not been applied to applications for preliminary or short plai approvals." (Italics removed). Noble Manor, 133 Wn.2d at 277. The Court then observed that in RCW 58.17.033, [t]he vesting of rights doctrine is extended to applications for preliminary or short plat approval. The requirements for a fully completed building permit application or preliminary or short plat application shall be defined by local ordinance." (Italics removed). Noble Manor, 133 Wn.2d. at 278. Applying the Court's reasoning in Odgen v. Bellevue, and the Court's Noble Manor interpretation of RCW 58.17.033, which expanded the vested rights doctrine to preliminary plats, the zoning, land use and building ordinances in effect in 2004 was vested to Petitioner's original application, not subsequent significant or major modifications. The decisions in Ogden and Noble Manor do not state that the vested rights doctrine applies to any and every revision that an applicant makes after the initial 3 approval. The language in Ogden is clear that the vested right applied to "that application processed" according to the ordinances in effect at that time. The zoning, land use or building code in effect at the time of the original application was KKC 19A.12.030. B. A MAJOR OR SIGNIFICANT REVISION OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT IS NOT ALLOWED TO VEST TO THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS APPLIABLE TO THE ORIGINAL PLAT APPLICATION UNDER KCC l9A.12.030(A). KKC 19.12.030(A) was adopted in 1999 and was in effect when Petitioner's preliminary plat was approved. It states that "[a]pplications to revise subdivisions that have received preliminary plat approval ... that result in any substantial change as determined by the department, shall be treated as a new application for purposes of vesting." It also states that "substantial change includes the creation of additional lots, the elimination of operi space or changes to conditions of approval on an approved preliminary subdivision." (Emphasis added). RMC 4-8-080(M)(2)(b) provides that major amendments include "[a]ny amendment that would result in incre11$ing the number of lots in the subdivision beyond the number previously approved". (Emphasis added). RMC 4-8-080(M)(2)(a) states that major amendments include any amendment that decreases "the aggregate area of open space in the subdivision by ten percent (10%) or more. In the instant matter, Petitioner seeks to add ten (10) additional residential lots to his previously vested preliminary plat application from 2004. Under K.KC l 9A. l 2.030, (A) that would be a substantial change since it involves the "creation of additional lots." Under RMC 4-8-080(M)(2)(b) and possibly subsection (a) as well, it would be a major amendment because it "increases the number of lots in the subdivision beyond the 4 number previously approved, and because it has the effect of decreasing the aggregate area of open space in the subdivision by ten percent (10%) or more. The City found and the Hearing Examiner agreed lhal under RMC 4-8-080(M)(3), it was a substantial change (therefore a major amendment) and denied Petitioner's request. C. THE HEARING RXAMIKER IS BOUND BY KCC 19A.12.030 (A) IN REVIEW OF THE SUBJECT APPLICATION. As a result of Petitioner's insistence that his project be vested to the KC Code in place when he originally filed his preliminary plat, the Hearing Examiner and Petitioner are bound to KKC 19A.12.030. To do otherwise would afford Petitioner the benefit of picking and choosing the codes or versions of the codes that he wants based on the circumstances and his desires. That is not the intent of the Supreme Court in Ogden, Nobel Manor or the Legislature in RCW 58.17.033. They each wanted to provide developer/applicants with a shield from potentially unfair or unreasonable applications of code, as well as predictability in their application. If Petitioner was not vested to KKC 19A.12.030 he would fall under RMC 4-8- 060(b), entitled Vesting of Application. In RMC 4-8-060(b), [r]evisions requested by an applicant to a vested, but not yet approved, application shall be deemed a new application when such revisions would result in substantial change in the basic site design plan, intensity, density, and the like, involving a change often percent (10%) or more in area or scale. (Emphasis added). As noted above, ten (10) new residential units raising the subdivision from a 36 lot subdivision to a 46 lot subdivision would be substantial. As a result, under Renton's code, like the KC code, Petitioner would no longer be vested to the old version of the KC code or the KC code at all. 5 D. PETITIONER'S APPEAL FAILED TO SHOW THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE HEARING EXAMINER WERE IMPROPER. 1. Bwden of Proof. Petitioner has failed to meet his burden of proof and has finled to prove that the City's decision was clearly erroneous under RMC 4-8-l IO(EX7)(bXv) as a matter of law. The fact that the Hearing Examiner has questions about what the applicable ordinance is, and whether the ordinance's requirements have been met. illustrate that Petitioner bas failed to meet his burden of proof or burden of persuasion. In addition. RCW 4321 C.090, and RMC 4-8-110(E)(7)(a) (which both requirelhal "the decision of the goveunnental agency be accorded substantial wcight"), show that Petitioner bas :tailed to meet his bunlen of per.ruasion and his motion should be denied. VI. CONCLUSION The City of Renton respectfully requests that the Hearing Examiner deny Petitioner's motion for reconsideration. DATED TIIIS 27 July 2011, at Renton, Washington. LAWRENCE J. WARREN, RENTON CITY ATTORNEY By· f,( ] -_µ~ h04o.'\A.7i Gannon Newsom II, WSBA No. 31418 fyj~~ 6 Denis Law Mayor July 19, 2011 City Clerk -Bonnie I. Walton Re: Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat Reconsideration Order -LUA-08-093, ECF, MOD Dear Hearing Participant: Enclosed is a Request for Additional Information on Reconsideration, issued by the Hearing Examiner, dated July 18, 2011, as referenced. The Hearing Examiner is requesting additional timely information. See page 2 for submittal requirements and deadlines. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or Roca le Timmons, Associate Planner in the Development Services Division at 425-430-7219. Sincerely, Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk Enclosure cc: Parties of Record (9) Jennifer Henning, Planning Manager Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner File No. LUA-08-093 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • (425) 430-651 O / Fax (425) 430-6516 • rentonwa.gov Hans Korve DMP Eng., Inc. 726 Auburn Way N Auburn,WA 98002 Rahal Petrie 6042 Blue Heroin Place Bremerton, WA 98312 Gerald Smith 8524 S 125th Street Renton,WA 98057 Garmon Newson City Attorney's Office David Petrie 811 S 273rd Court Des Moines, WA 98198 Gwendolyn High C.A.R.E PO Box 2936 Renton,WA 98059 Marshall M. Bender 1822 SE 128'h Street Renton, WA 98059 Rocale Timmons Development Services Debbie Eberle 18225 SE 147th Street Renton,WA 98059 Jay Mezistrano 1512 So. 5th Place Renton, WA 98058 Kristy Hill 13527 156th Av SE Renton, WA 98059 Jennifer Henning, CED 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat Major Amendment; SEPA Appeal LUA08-093, ECF, MOD ) ) ) REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL ) INFORMATION ON RECONSIDERATION ) ) ) ) 15 14 Additional information specifically identified in the last paragraph of this Order is requested by the Examiner in order to evaluate a request for reconsideration filed by the Applicant of the above- captioned matter. The appeal period for the final decision on the above-captioned matter is tolled 16 pending resolution of the reconsideration request as specified in RMC 4-8-l lO(E)(S)(a). 17 As background, the Examiner denied the application for the above-captioned matter by decision dated 18 June 27'\ 2011. The Applicant submitted a timely request for reconsideration on July 11, 2011. Denial was based upon a determination that the proposed increase in density utilizing King County 19 transfer of development rights ("TDR") was not authorized because the Major Amendment was not vested under King County TDR standards. In its reconsideration request, the Applicant asserts that 20 the Renton Hearing Examiner and the Renton City Council determined that vesting did apply under similar circumstances to the Cavalla Plat (LUA-08-097, PP, ECF). The Applicant further asserts that the Cavalla plat was filed and vested under King County jurisdiction and that "following annexation [into Renton], the applicant submitted an amended application to the City to increase the number of lots using the King County transfer of development program." 21 22 23 In making his decision, the current Examiner relied upon the prior Examiner's written 24 recommendation to the City Council on the Cavalla application, dated March 1, 2010. The 25 recommendation noted that the Cavalla application had been submitted and. vested while the subject property was in unincorporated King County, but none of the findings or conclusions of that 26 recommendation noted that the TDRs were requested after annexation in the City of Renton. The Reconsideration -1 1 minutes to the City Council Planning and Development Committee for the meeting of April 26, 201 O appear to confmn that the Cavalla applicant revised its application subsequent to annexation into 2 Renton to increase density under King County's TDR program. 3 Consistency with the City Council's decision on the Cavalla application is certainly a significant 4 consideration for this application. However, it is not clear whether the City Council was aware of the ramifications of the Noble Manor case discussed at length on the decision of the subject application. 5 Also, it is not clear whether the Council was aware that King County regulations, specifically KCC 6 19A.12.030(A), expressly provide that vesting does not apply to plat revisions that include an increase in the number of proposed lots. There might be some room for debate on the applicability of 7 Noble Manor, but it is difficult to see how an applicant can still vest to IDRs under the fairly clear language ofKCC l 9A.12.030(A). 8 9 More information is necessary to address the reconsideration request submitted by the Applicant. If possible, the timing of the Cavalla TDR revision in relation to its annexation needs to be clarified as Io well as the City Council's reasoning in finding vesting applicable to the TDR revision. The parties should also be given an opportunity to brief the issues raised by the reconsideration request. 11 Specifically: 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 243 25 26 I. The City is requested to provide documentation on the Council approval of the Cavalla application. The record is closed but the Examiner will take judicial notice of any documents approved by the City Council as well as any legislative l:ristory (limited to written Council reports and written staff/hearing examiner recommendations) that helps interpret any actions taken by the Council and/or clarifies the timing of the Cavalla IDR revision. 2. If any party so chooses, the Examiner will accept legal briefing on the following issues: a. Whether a revision to a preliminary plat alteration proposing. a significant increase in the number of lots is vested to the development regulations applicable to the original preliminary plat application under Noble Manor Co. v. Pierce County, 133 Wn.2d 269 (1997). b. Whether a revision to a preliminary plat alteration proposing a significant increase in the number of lots is .allowed to vest to the development regulations applicable to the original preliminary plat application under KCC l 9A.12.030(A). c. Whether the. Hearing Examiner is bound by KCC 19A.12.030(A) in the review of the subject application. The information requested above shall be received by 5:00 pm, July 19, 2011. Replies to any information requested may be made by any party and must be received by 5:00 pm, August 5, 2011. The information and replies may be emailed to the Examiner at olbrechtslaw@gmail.com or mailed 9r delivered to Rocale Timmons, City of Renton Associate Planner, at 1055 South Grady Way, Reconsideration -2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Renton, WA 98057. A "party" for purposes of this order is anyone who submitted written or verbal testimony at the hearing on the above-captioned matter (the Liberty Gardens application). Any information provided is limited to evidence already submitted into the record, legal argument and the documents identified in Paragraph 1 above. No copies of any information requested by this Order will be forwarded to any other party unless the other party requests that information by 5:00 pm, July 28, 2011 to the Examiner by email or to Ms. Timmons in writing. DATED this 18th day of July, 2011. <~cPc.9~ -bilA.Olbrechts City of Renton Hearing Examiner Reconsideration -3 * ' . ~ July11,2011 Renton Hearing Examiner c/o City Clerk City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 CITY OF RENTON JUL 11 2 0 11 ffe:u ,,.,-.-1 .. q:~ RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE .,. ~ .;• ', __ .,·~ --·' ' DALEY-MORROW-POBLETE, INC. ENGINEERING-SURVEYING-LAND PLANNING 726 Auburn Way North Auburn, WA 98002 (253)333-2200 FAX (253)333-2206 RE: LUAOB-093, ECF, MOD -Liberty Gardens -Plat Amendment-Motion for Reconsideration Dear Mr. Examiner: The Applicant, David Petrie, moves for reconsideration pursuant to RMC 4-8-11 O(E)(8) and 4-8-100(G)(3). The Final Decision of the Hearing Examiner denied approval of a Major Amendment requesting an increase in the number of lots in the plat via the use of transferable development rights pursuant to the King County Zoning Code requirements to which the plat is vested. The Examiner's decision concludes that the vested rights of the applicant applied only to the number of lots in the Applicant's original plat application to King County and that the applicant is not allowed, after the property was annexed, to request application of the King County TDR program. The Examiner's Decision is erroneous as a matter of law and is inconsistent with prior interpretations of the law by the City of Renton. Specifically, the Renton City Council, in its decision on the Cavalla Plat (LUA-08-097, PP, ECF), reached the exact opposite conclusion. The Cavalla Plat, which is immediately, north of the Liberty Gardens site, involved virtually identical circumstances: The applicant filed and vested a preliminary plat application in King County. The property was then annexed to Renton. Following annexation, the applicant submitted an amended application to the City to increase the number of lots using the King County transfer of development program. The Hearing Examiner and the Renton City Council both approved the plat with the additional lots created by use of the County's transfer of development rights process. The Hearing Examiner cites the Noble Manor decision as a basis for his decision. However, the Noble Manor decision does not support a denial of the Major Amendment in this case. The decision in Noble Manor is that "the party filing the application [has] a vested right to have the application processed under the land use laws in effect at the time of the 01-540 Liberty Gardens application." In this case, the King County TOR program was in effect and part of King County's subdivision standards at the time the Liberty Gardens application was submitted. The same TOR program was in effect when the Cavalla Plat application was submitted and the applicant in that case was allowed to revise its application using the TOR program after annexation to the City. The decision in this case denying the applicant the right to do the exact same thing is erroneous as a matter of law. The City must apply its interpretations of land use codes and requirements in a consistent and unifonn manner. Any other outcome will produce the result that now faces the Applicant in this case: After more than a year of time, effort and money spent working with the City staff in reliance on the City Council's decision in the Cavalla plat case that it was permissible to use the TOR process, the City has now inexplicably reversed its interpretation and denied use of the TOR process. The applicant requests that the Hearing Examiner reconsider his decision and approve the Major Amendment to the Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat. Sincere Hans . Korve Planning Manager DMP Inc. 01-540 Liberty Gardens 2 ... ' .. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ,c/Ty OF RENTON JUL 21 2011 CITY &i~EK'IVED SOFF/CE BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat Major Amendment; SEP A Appeal LUA08-093, ECF, MOD ) ) ) REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL ) INFORMATION ON RECONSIDERATION ) ) ) ) 15 14 Additional information specifically identified in the last paragraph of this Order is requested by the Examiner in order to evaluate a request for reconsideration filed by the Applicant of the above- captioned matter. The appeal period for the final decision on the above-captioned matter is tolled 16 pending resolution of the reconsideration request as specified in RMC 4-8-l lO(E)(8)(a). 17 18 As backfound, the Examiner denied the application for the above-captioned matter by decision dated June 27 , 2011. The Applicant submitted a timely request for reconsideration on July 11, 2011. Denial was based upon a determination that the proposed increase in density utilizing King County 19 transfer of development rights ("TOR") was not authorized because the Major Amendment was not vested under King County TOR standards. In its reconsideration request, the Applicant asserts that 20 the Renton Hearing Examiner and the Renton City Council determined that vesting did apply under similar circumstances to the Cavalla Plat (LUA-08-097, PP, ECF). The Applicant further asserts that the Cavalla plat was filed and vested under King County jurisdiction and that "following annexation [into Renton], the applicant submitted an amended application to the City to increase the number of lots using the King County transfer of development program." 21 22 23 In making his decision, the current Examiner relied upon the prior Examiner's written 24 recommendation to the City Council on the Cavalla application, dated March I, 2010. The 25 recommendation noted that the Cavalla application had been submitted and vested while the subject property was in unincorporated King County, but none of the findings or conclusions of that 26 recommendation noted that the TDRs were requested after annexation in the City of Renton. The Reconsideration -I • • 1 minutes to the City Council Planning and Development Committee for the meeting of April 26, 2010 appear to confirm that the Cavalla applicant revised its application subsequent to annexation into 2 Renton to increase density under King County's TDR program. 3 Consistency with the City Council's decision on the Cavalla application is certainly a significant 4 consideration for this application. However, it is not clear whether the City Council was aware of the ramifications of the Noble Manor case discussed at length on the decision of the subject application. 5 Also, it is not clear whether the Council was aware that King County regulations, specifically KCC 6 19A.!2.030(A), expressly provide that vesting does not apply to plat revisions that include an increase in the number of proposed Jots. There might be some room for debate on the applicability of 7 Noble Manor, but it is difficult to see how an applicant can still vest to TDRs under the fairly clear language ofKCC I9A.l2.030(A). 8 9 More information is necessary to address the reconsideration request submitted by the Applicant. If possible, the timing of the Cavalla TDR revision in relation to its annexation needs to be clarified as JO well as the City Council's reasoning in finding vesting applicable to the TDR revision. The parties should also be given an opportunity to brief the issues raised by the reconsideration request. 11 Specifically: 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 243 25 26 l. The City is requested to provide documentation on the Council approval of the Cavalla application. The record is closed but the Examiner will take judicial notice of any documents approved by the City Council as well as any legislative history (limited to written Council reports and written staffi'hearing examiner recommendations) that helps interpret any actions taken by the Council and/or clarifies the tirning of the Cavalla TDR revision. 2. If any party so chooses, the Examiner will accept legal briefing on the following issues: a. Whether a revision to a preliminary plat alteration proposing a significant increase in the number of lots is vested to the development regulations applicable to the original preliminary plat application under Noble Manor Co. v. Pierce County, 133 Wn.2d 269 (1997). b. Whether a revision to a preliminary plat alteration proposing a significant increase in the number of lots is allowed to vest to the development regulations applicable to the original preliminary plat application under KCC 19A. I 2.030(A). c. Whether the Hearing Examiner is bound by KCC 19A.12.030(A) in the review of the subject application. The information requested above shall be received by 5:00 pm, July 29, 2011. Replies to any information requested may be made by any party and must be received by 5:00 pm, August 5, 201 I. The information and replies may be emailed to the Examiner at olbrechtslaw@gmail.com or mailed or delivered to Rocale Timmons, City of Renton Associate Planner, at 1055 South Grady Way, Reconsideration -2 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 l3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 _, ' Renton, WA 98057. A "party" for purposes of this order is anyone who submitted written or verbal testimony at the hearing on the above-captioned matter (the Liberty Gardens application). Any information provided is limited to evidence already submitted into the record, legal argument and the documents identified in Paragraph I above. No copies of any information requested by this Order will be forwarded to any other party unless the other party requests that information by 5:00 pm, July 28, 201 l to the Examiner by email or to Ms. Timmons in writing. DA TED this 18th day of July, 2011. ~~ c':-..1 v~ · hilA.Olbrechts City of Renton Hearing Examiner Reconsideration -3 July 19, 2011 STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING CERTIFICATE OF MAILING ) ) § ) BONNIE I. WALTON, City Clerk for the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that she is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 21 and not a party to nor interested in this matter. That on the 19th day of July, 2011, at the hour of 4:30 p.m. your affiant duly mailed and placed in the United States Post Office at Renton, King County, Washington, by first class mail to all parties attached, the Hearing Examiner's Reconsideration Order for the Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeal (LUA-08-093, ECF, MOD) Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 19th day of July, 2011. ,,,,,,,.,,,,.,.., r'-. 111'~ ~ !-IIA R_ ---- -' 11 0..i. .-:~s·sio;//~o..,__-::.. r r"'\ \, ... ~ ':t ··. ".L ~ ' -.\ ' ( . \I'\ ~ :·~~OTAJ;,1..'~:-._-,,~ -~_..:,,-.-_,~------_-::,· ,.,-~-'l\~\L-._' .;ii'.:a,...";'..:-~;:.-_:::__-4~,---,,,--\-f ~,.,,.,,__ ....... r l ~ ~ Cynth1B R. Moya" ' \-. \ ~ \ -ueuc i l • ~ -,. A', d' "' "-, •' 0;1/:' 11 N P bl . . d f h s f ":.. ~ •••• <7-"\ ... , •• "'-' 11 otary u 1c m an or t e tate o -:. 0 ,......... c,"' 11 Washington, residing in Renton ----!' WAS\o\\\-1:1,1 11 ..,.,.,.J.,/,///J/1 My Commission expires: 8/27/2014 From: Sent: To: Rocale Timmons Monday, July 18, 2011 1 :04 PM 'Phil Olbrechts' Cc: Subject: kolbrechtslaw@gmail.com; Bonnie Walton RE: Order on Reconsideration The sign in sheet is with the formal file in the City Clerk's office. Roca le T. From: Phil Olbrechts (mailto:olbrechtslaw@gmail.com1 Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 9:47 AM To: Rocale 11mmons Cc: kolbrechtslaw@gmail.com Subject: Order on Reconsideration Hi Rocale, My first reconsideration order on Liberty Gardens is attached. It will need to be sent to everyone who participated in the hearing. Do you recall if you have the sign in sheet, or did I take it? 1 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . ' BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat Major Amendment; SEPA Appeal LUAOS-093, ECF, MOD ) ) ) REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL ) INFORMATION ON RECONSIDERATION ) ) ) ) ____ ___, __________ ) 15 14 Additional information specifically identified in the last paragraph of this Order is requested by the Examiner in order to evaluate a request for reconsideration filed by the Applicant of the above- captioned matter. The appeal period for the final decision on the above-captioned matter is tolled 16 pending resolution of the reconsideration request as specified in RMC 4-8-1 lO(E)(S)(a). 17 As background, the Examiner denied the application for the above-captioned matter by decision dated 18 June 27'h, 2011. The Applicant submitted a timely request for reconsideration on July 11, 2011. Denial was based upon a determination that the proposed increase in density utilizing King County 19 transfer of development rights ("TDR") was not authorized because the Major Amendment was not vested under King County TDR standards. In its reconsideration request, the Applicant asserts that 20 the Renton Hearing Examiner and the Renton City Council determined that vesting did apply under similar circumstances to the Cavalla Plat (LUA-08-097, PP, ECF). The Applicant further asserts that the Cavalla plat was filed and vested under King County jurisdiction and that "following annexation 22 [into Renton], the applicant submilled an amended application to the City to increase the number of 21 lots using the King County transfer of development program." 23 In making his decision, the current Examiner relied upon the prior Examiner's written 24 recommendation to the City Council on the Cavalla application, dated March l, 2010. The 25 recommendation noted that the Cavalla application had been submitted and vested while the subject property was in unincorporated King County, but none of the findings or conclusions of that 26 recommendation noted that the TDRs were requested after annexation in the City of Renton. The Reconsideration -l 1 2 3 4 5 6 minutes to the City Council Planning and Development Committee for the meeting of April 26, 2010 appear to confirm that the Cavalla applicant revised its application subsequent to annexation into Renton to increase density under King County's TDR program. Consistency with the City Council's decision on the Cavalla application is certainly a significant consideration for this application. However, it is not clear whether the City Council was aware of the ramifications of the Noble Manor case discussed at length on the decision of the subject application. Also, it is not clear whether the Council was aware that King County regulations, specifically KCC l 9A.12.030(A), expressly provide that vesting does not apply to plat revisions that include an increase in the number of proposed lots. There might be some room for debate on the applicability of 7 Noble Manor, but it is difficult to see how an applicant can still vest to TDRs under the fairly clear language of KCC l 9A.12.030(A). 8 9 More information is necessary to address the reconsideration request submitted by the Applicant. If possible, the timing of the Cavalla TDR revision in relation to its annexation needs to be clarified as 10 well as the City Council's reasoning in finding vesting applicable to the TDR revision. The parties should also be given an opportunity to brief the issues raised by the reconsideration request. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 243 25 26 Specifically: 1. The City is requested to provide documentation on the Council approval of the Cavalla application. The record is closed but the Examiner will take judicial notice of any documents approved by the City Council as well as any legislative history (limited to written Council reports and written stafti'hearing examiner recommendations) that helps interpret any actions taken by the Council and/or clarifies the timing of the Cavalla TDR revision. 2. If any party so chooses, the Examiner will accept legal briefing on the following issues: a. Whether a revision to a preliminary plat alteration proposing a significant increase in the number of lots is vested to the development regulations applicable to the original preliminary plat application under Noble Manor Co. v. Pierce County, 133 Wn.2d 269 (1997). b. Whether a revision to a preliminary plat alteration proposing a significant increase in the number of lots is allowed to vest to the development regulations applicable to the original preliminary plat application under KCC 19A.12.030(A). c. Whether the Hearing Examiner is bound by KCC 19A.12.030(A) in the review of the subject application. The information requested above shall be received by 5:00 pm, July 29, 2011. Replies to any information requested may be made by any party and must be received by 5:00 pm, August 5, 2011. The information and replies may be emailed to the Examiner at olbrechtslaw@gmail.com or mailed or delivered to Rocale Timmons, City of Renton Associate Planner, at 1055 South Grady Way, Reconsideration -2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ,· . Renton, WA 98057. A "party" for purposes of this order is anyone who submitted written or verbal testimony at the hearing on the above-captioned matter (the Liberty Gardens application). Any information provided is limited to evidence already submitted into the record, legal argument and the documents identified in Paragraph l above. No copies of any information requested by this Order will be forwarded to any other party unless the other party requests that information by 5 :00 pm, July 28, 2011 to the Examiner by email or to Ms. Timmons in writing. DATED this 18th day of July, 2011. <::,--b?:~ ~·-~~ _/ Phil A. Olbrechts City of Renton Hearing Examiner Reconsideration -3 July 11, 2011 Renton Hearing Examiner c/o City Clerk City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 CITY OF RENTON JUL 11 2011 ~u o:"' RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE DALEY-MORROW-POBLETE, INC. ENGINEERING-SURVEYING-LAND PLANNING 726 Auburn Way North Auburn, WA 98002 (253)333-2200 FAX (253)333-2206 RE: LUAOS-093, ECF, MOD -Liberty Gardens -Plat Amendment-Motion for Reconsideration Dear Mr. Examiner: The Applicant, David Petrie, moves for reconsideration pursuant to RMC 4-8-110(E)(8) and 4-8-1 OO(G)(3). The Final Decision of the Hearing Examiner denied approval of a Major Amendment requesting an increase in the number of lots in the plat via the use of transferable development rights pursuant to the King County Zoning Code requirements to which the plat is vested. The Examiner's decision concludes that the vested rights of the applicant applied only to the number of lots in the Applicant's original plat application to King County and that the applicant is not allowed, after the property was annexed, to request application of the King County TOR program. The Examiner's Decision is erroneous as a matter of law and is inconsistent with prior interpretations of the law by the City of Renton. Specifically, the Renton City Council, in its decision on the Cavalla Plat (LUA-08-097, PP, ECF), reached the exact opposite conclusion. The Cavalla Plat, which is immediately, north of the Liberty Gardens site, involved virtually identical circumstances: The applicant filed and vested a preliminary plat application in King County. The property was then annexed to Renton. Following annexation, the applicant submitted an amended application to the City to increase the number of lots using the King County transfer of development program. The Hearing Examiner and the Renton City Council both approved the plat with the additional lots created by use of the County's transfer of development rights process. The Hearing Examiner cites the Noble Manor decision as a basis for his decision. However, the Noble Manor decision does not support a denial of the Major Amendment in this case. The decision in Noble Manor is that "the party filing the application [has) a vested right to have the application processed under the land use laws in effect at the time of the 01-540 Liberty Gardens application." In this case, the King County TOR program was in effect and part of King County's subdivision standards at the time the Liberty Gardens application was submitted. The same TOR program was in effect when the Cavalla Plat application was submitted and the applicant in that case was allowed to revise its application using the TOR program after annexation to the City. The decision in this case denying the applicant the right to do the exact same thing is erroneous as a matter of law. The City must apply its interpretations of land use codes and requirements in a consistent and uniform manner. Any other outcome will produce the result that now faces the Applicant in this case: After more than a year of time, effort and money spent working with the City staff in reliance on the City Council's decision in the Cavalla plat case that it was permissible to use the TOR process, the City has now inexplicably reversed its interpretation and denied use of the TOR process. The applicant requests that the Hearing Examiner reconsider his decision and approve the Major Amendment to the Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat. Sincere , i Hans . Korve Planning Manager DMP Inc. OJ.540 Liberty Gardens 2 • LAND USE HEARING SIGN-IN SHEET {Liberty Gardens LUAOS-093) June 13, 2011 -PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY ADDRESS Phone # with area code Email NAME (including City & Zip} (optional) (optional) ~1~.i)DI..C(_~ ~~ l\'.SS L/4. r:::. 1 i_.)A,_ A Vt tJt=-~I-) VJA, 1 {1)S7 /!£rd.1( Kr-vdf'A" //]~,? S',£, /.?(J' ,~pA 7'fC~~ ' / ~\ enew-\-L I i ;,1 ;;l "::l :ss llt-75'\-e.~ ~~~\ ?et~1t ~'jZ, JY[{e-f/n,11. n ,~JAl{!ttr,i,, ) ~ ~ \Z. 61::12tz V S' 1v1 t T?-' g,-z.'f S' 0 ' / 2,')~ A. k?e~ 1 RDS'"}' ' k r, .,+"' U ,' l ( I 3 5"' ,;i. 7 I<: 1_ Ave, S,€:;;?e,1+011 '1!()~"1 -;) -,· \ . L.1....:-•-; -\ Q ---z:'_,-.....:c.,....__'('-·'--"= .:::, ' -·~:;'> -2.. ·::'"""" ~ ......,, ~-+''-- °? ,.I <:::r.., t·-"-----t • LAND USE HEARING SIGN-IN SHEET (Liberty Gardens LUAOS-093) June 13, 2011 -PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY ADDRESS Phone # with area code Email NAME (including City & Zip} (optionol} (optiono/J -- i I ' ---~----~ "------- i i _" ______ ------------1----------______ j I • i LAND USE HEARING SIGN-IN SHEET (Liberty Gardens LUAOS-093) June 13, 2011 -PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY ADDRESS Phone # with area code Email NAME (including City & Zip} (optional} (optional) ----~ . From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: • Bonnie Walton Monday, July 11, 2011 3:01 PM 'Phil Olbrechts' Rocale Timmons; Chip Vincent; Garmon Newsom; Jennifer T. Henning; Larry Warren liberty Gardens -Request for Reconsideration liberty Garden Req Recon 7 -11-11.pdf This is to notify you that a Request for Reconsideration of the Hearing Examiners decision dated 6/27/11 regarding the Liberty Gardens plat amendment was filed in the City Clerk's office today by Hans A. Korve, Planning Manager, DMP Inc. on behalf of applicant David Petrie. Copy of the filing is attached. Bonnie Walton City Clerk City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425·430-6502 1 CITY OF RENTON JUL 11 2011 ffe?., o-"' (£'.:>" July 11, 2011 Renton Hearing Examiner c/o City Clerk City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 • RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE DALEY-MORROW-POBLETE, INC. ENGINEERING-SURVEYING-LAND PLANNING 726 Auburn Way North Auburn, WA 98002 (253)333-2200 FAX (253)333-2206 RE: LUAOS-093, ECF, MOD -Liberty Gardens -Plat Amendment -Motion for Reconsideration Dear Mr. Examiner: The Applicant, David Petrie, moves for reconsideration pursuant to RMC 4-8-110(E)(8) and 4-8-1 OO(G)(3). The Final Decision of the Hearing Examiner denied approval of a Major Amendment requesting an increase in the number of lots in the plat via the use of transferable development rights pursuant to the King County Zoning Code requirements to which the plat is vested. The Examiner's decision concludes that the vested rights of the applicant applied only to the number of lots in the Applicant's original plat application to King County and that the applicant is not allowed, after the property was annexed, to request application of the King County TDR program. The Examiner's Decision is erroneous as a matter of law and is inconsistent with prior interpretations of the law by the City of Renton. Specifically, the Renton City Council, in its decision on the Cavalla Plat (LUA-08-097, PP, ECF), reached the exact opposite conclusion. The Cavalla Plat, which is immediately, north of the Liberty Gardens site, involved virtually identical circumstances: The applicant filed and vested a preliminary plat application in King County. The property was then annexed to Renton. Following annexation, the applicant submitted an amended application to the City to increase the number of lots using the King County transfer of development program. The Hearing Examiner and the Renton City Council both approved the plat with the additional lots created by use of the County's transfer of development rights process. The Hearing Examiner cites the Noble Manor decision as a basis for his decision. However, the Noble Manor decision does not support a denial of the Major Amendment in this case. The decision in Noble Manor is that "the party filing the application [has] a vested right to have the application processed under the land use laws in effect at the time of the 01-540 Liberty Gardens application." In this case, the King County TOR program was in effect and part of King County's subdivision standards at the time the Liberty Gardens application was submitted. The same TOR program was in effect when the Cavalla Plat application was submitted and the applicant in that case was allowed to revise its application using the TOR program after annexation to the City. The decision in this case denying the applicant the right to do the exact same thing is erroneous as a matter of law. The City must apply its interpretations of land use codes and requirements in a consistent and uniform manner. Any other outcome will produce the result that now faces the Applicant in this case: After more than a year of time, effort and money spent working with the City staff in reliance on the City Council's decision in the Cavalla plat case that it was permissible to use the TOR process, the City has now inexplicably reversed its interpretation and denied use of the TOR process. The applicant requests that the Hearing Examiner reconsider his decision and approve the Major Amendment to the Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat. Sincere , I Hans . Korve Planning Manager DMP Inc. 01-540 Liberty Gardens 2 Section 4-8-110 Page I of 1 8. Optional Request for Reconsideration: a. When a reconsideration request has been submitted, the matter shall be held in abeyance pending the outcome of the reconsideration. A new fourteen (14) day appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. b. In order to request reconsideration, the person or entity must have been made a party of record prior to the close of the hearing, participated in the hearing or have submitted written comments to the Hearing Examiner prior to the close of the hearing. http://www.codepublishing.com/wa/renton/html/Renton04/Renton0408/Renton040811 O.html 7/7/2011 Denis Law Mayor June 28, 2011 Hans A. Korve, Planning Manager DMP, Inc. 726 Auburn Way N. Auburn, WA 98002 City Clerk -Bonnie I. Walton Re: Hearing Examiner Decision on Major Amendment andSEPA Appeal; Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat -LUA-08-093, ECF, MOD Dear Mr. Korve: Enclosed is the Hearing Examiner's Decision dated June 27, 2011, as referenced. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or the Development Services Division staff. Sincerely, Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk Enclosure cc: Parties of Record (24) Jennifer Henning, Planning Manager Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner File No. LUA-08-093 1055 South Grady Way , Renton, Washington 98057 , (425) 430-:651 O / Fax (425) 430-6516 • rentonwa.gov £fsy ('~.JI® Labels Use Avery® Template 5160® Wayne Potter Barghausen Consulting Engineer 18215 -72nd Avenue S Kent, WA 98032 Linda Corgiat 16039 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 Norm & Patricia Gammell 16043 SE 142nd Place Renton,WA 98059 Jennifer McCall Lozier Homes, Corp 1203 -114th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98004 Curtis Schuster KBS Ill, LLC 12320 NE 8th Street ste: #100 Bellevue, WA 98005 Claudia Donnelly 10415 147th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 Gerald Smith 8524 S 125th Street Renton, WA 98057 Peter C. Hayes Coldwell Banker Bain 150 Bellevue Way SE Bellevue, WA 98004 Jay Mezistrano 1512 So. 5th Place Renton, WA 98058 Etiquettes fadles a peter Utilisez le gabarit AVERv® 5160® ' ' ' J I I t J . -Feed Paper - l Bend along line to I expose Pop-Up Edge™ J Daniel Balmelli, PE Barghausen Consulting Engineer 18215 -72nd Avenue S Kent, WA 98032 Hans Korve DMP Eng., Inc. 726 Auburn Way N Auburn, WA 98002 Gwendolyn High C.A.R.E PO Box 2936 Renton, WA 98059 David Petrie 811 S 273rd Court Des Moines, WA 98198 Seattle KC Health Department East District Environ. Health 14350 SE Eastgate Way Bellevue, WA 98007 Norm Mohr 16224 SE 144th Street Renton, WA 98059 Marshall M. Bender 1822 SE 1281h Street Renton, WA 98059 Rahal Petrie 6042 Blue Heroin Place Bremerton, WA 98312 • Sens de chargement Repliez a la hachure afin de I reveler le rebord Pop-Up™ J /.;,9~-11 @ AVERY® s1&o® l John & Nenita Ching 16038 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 Debbie Eberle 18225 SE 147th Street Renton, WA 98059 Richard & Teri Langdon 14201 -164th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 Michael Ritchey 14225 -164th Avenue SE Renton,WA 98059 Kolin Taylor 12320 NE 8th Street ste: #100 Bellevue, WA 98005 Donald & Andrea Gragg 16046 SE 142nd Place Renton,WA 98059 Karen Walter, Team Leader Watersheds & Land Use Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries 39015 172nd Avenue SE Auburn,WA 98092 Kristy Hill 13527 1561h Av SE Renton, WA 98059 www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY i ' ! \' ' June 28, 2011 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING ) ) § ) BONNIE I. WALTON, City Clerk for the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that she is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 21 and not a party to nor interested in this matter. That on the 28th day of June, 2011, at the hour of 5:00 p.m. your affiant duly mailed and placed in the United States Post Office at Renton, King County, Washington, by first class mail to all parties of record the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision for the liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeal {LUA-08-093, ECF, MOD) Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 28th day of June, 2011. ,,,,,1,/,.,,.,..,. 111 1.,~THJ,1 ----1' I C, --" '" •• • /:y -:;. l ···o~ss,ci~·.: ~ "\ ( ··~ ,~ /"' NO>-~\O-::. ' (_ ' '\ ' • '"1.s> "O•..C.~ . . s"': .... ;i..'11:>~ ~-I. ..o.,~ ., ffi: ~ ~,.:;:::..__=· '::o<-=-' _-4, _ _.:,·.:::,,..=~~-----''~.,.:;._;:...,....:veL. .. : ~ Cynt ia R. Moya Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing in Renton My Commission expires: 8/27/2014 ,.,. ..4"I. • JC : ~ ... '\'' .,,.!I .. ' "':. 0 ·-~i"~14 ,..._,_ 11 ""-~ ,, ............ 0"°111 -; __ •v,1SH!Ne:,'\ 111 1 ,.,.,..,,,..,/////1/11 ,, I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat Major Amendment; SEPA Appeal LUA08-093, ECF, MOD ) ) ) FINAL DECISION ) ) ) ) ) Summary 16 The Applicant has applied for a Major Amendment to increase the number of lots in a subdivision from 36 to 46 lots. The application is denied and an associated appeal under the Washington State 17 Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") is dismissed as moot. 18 The Major Amendment is denied because it proposes a density that exceeds that allowed by City of 19 Renton zoning standards. The Applicant proposes to exceed Renton standards through the use of King County transfer of development rights ("TDR"). The Applicant apparently believes that it has 20 vested to the TDR regulations because it filed its 36 lot subdivision application in 2004 prior to the annexation of the subdivision property into the City of Renton from unincorporated King County. The TDRs do not apply to the proposed IO additional lots because those lots were not identified in the 22 2004 application to King County. For subdivisions, the vested rights doctrine only applies to uses identified in the application. Put differently, the Applicant vested to an application for a 36 lot subdivision, not a 46 lot subdivision. 21 23 24 25 Testimony 26 The hearing encompassed almost five hours of testimony, mostly from the Applicant. Since the MAJOR AMENDMENT -I I application is denied on the narrow grounds of vesting, and the testimony had little to do with this issue, no summary of testimony is provided. 2 3 4 Exhibits 5 Exhibits 1-8 identified in the June 13, 2011 staff report, in addition to the staff report itself, were all admitted into the record during the June 13, 2011 hearing. In addition, the 6 following documents were also admitted into the record during the hearing: 7 9. Letter from Daley-Morrow-Poblete to Rocale Timmons, dated 1/11/2011. 10. Letter from Daley-Morrow-Poblete to Rocale Timmons, dated 2/10/2011. 11. King County MDNS; Liberty Grove Plat dated 12/16/2003 8 9 12. Renton MDNS: Liberty Gardens. 13. KC Comprehensive Plan Policy U-124. 10 14. Density and Dimension Calculations for Liberty Grove (EXAMPLE). 15. Letter from Daley-Morrow-Poblete (DMP) to Rocale Timmons, dated 10/18/2011. 16. Side by Side Comparison of Liberty Gardens and Cavalla Plat, dated 9/23/2010. 11 12 17. Side by Side Comparison of Liberty Gardens and CavallaPlat, dated 6/9/2010. 18. Liberty Gardens trail network site plan. 13 19. King County Assessor Map SE 14-23-05, dated 8/17/2010. 14 20. Letter (10-page) from Daley-Morrow-Poblete to Office of the Hearing Examiner, dated 6/13/2011. 15 21. Letter (I I-page) from Daley-Morrow-Poblete to Office of the Hearing Examiner, dated 6/13/2011. 16 22A. Report of Proposed Preliminary Plat of Liberty Grove Contiguous Rezone hearing, dated 2/10/2004. 17 22B. Report of Proposed Preliminary Plat of Liberty Grove Rezone hearing, dated 18 2/10/2004. 23. Report and Decision for Proposed Preliminary Plat for Liberty Grove Contiguous, 19 dated 2/27/2004. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 24. 3 King County Ordinances dated 5/6/2004. 25. Plats and legal descriptions of Liberty Grove, Liberty Grove Contiguous, Liberty Lane, and Nichol's Place. 26. Letter to City of Renton Hearing Examiner from CARE, dated 6/13/2011. 27. Letter to Hearing Examiner from Michael Rae Cooke, dated 6/8/2011. Findings of Fact Procedural: I. Owner. David Petrie. MAJOR AMENDMENT -2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2. Hearing. The Examiner held a hearing on the application at 9:00 am on June 13, 2011, in the City of Renton City Council Chambers. Substantive: 3. Description of Proposal. The Applicant is requesting a Major Amendment to the approved Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat. The Amendment includes the utilization of TDRs for ten additional lots, resulting in a 46 lot single family subdivision. The Amendment includes a revised lot layout, landscaping and utility plan. The original application, for 36 lots, was filed with the King County Department of Development and Environmental Services (KC DOES) for Environmental (SEPA) Review and Preliminary Plat approval on December 29, 2004 under KC DOES File No. L04P0034. Prior to King County making any final decision on the application, the City of Renton annexed the property of the subdivision on August 11, 2008. Applying vested King County regulations, the City approved the preliminary plat application on April 28, 2009. The Applicant filed an application for the subject Major Amendment at a date that is not readily evident from the record. An appeal of the associated SEP A mitigated determination of nonsignificance was filed by the Applicant by letter dated January 11, 2011. See Ex. 9. The proposed subdivision is for a parcel of property 8.95 acres in size. The proposed density would be approximately 5.3 dwelling units per acre utilizing King County TDRs. The subdivision is currently located within the R-4 zoning district of the City of Renton. 4. Disclosure of Uses Within King County Application. The application for the 2004 King County 36 lot subdivision application is not in the record and there was no testimony provided on what uses were proposed in that application. Given that if the Applicant had planned on using TDRs at the time of the 2004 applicant it would have simply applied it at that time, more likely than not TDRs were not proposed or identified in the 2004 application. Conclusions of Law Procedural: 1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. RMC 4-7-080(M) provides that any changes to an approved preliminary plat shall be processed as a Major Amendment if the amendment includes any increase in the number of lots. The subject proposal qualifies as a Major Amendment because it includes an increase often lots. RCW 4-7-080(M)(3) provides that the Examiner shall hold a hearing and issue a final decision on requests for Major Amendments. RMC 4-8-11 O(E) provides that the Examiner shall hold a hearing and issue a final decision on SEPA threshold determinations. MAJOR AMENDMENT -3 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Substantive: 2. Vesting ofTDR's. The proposed Major Amendment is not vested to the King County TDR program or any other regulations in effect upon the vesting of the 2004 King County Liberty Gardens application (KC DDES File No. L04P0034). The seminal case on the application of the vested rights doctrine to subdivisions is Noble Manor Co. v. Pierce County, 133 Wn.2d 269 ( 1997). In Noble Manor, Pierce County approved a short subdivision to divide property into three lots. The applicant clearly disclosed in its application that the lots were to be used for duplexes. At the time the applicant filed its short subdivision application, Pierce County regulations required a minimum of 13,000 square feet for duplex lots. The three lots proposed by the applicant all exceeded 13,000 square feet. Subsequent to the filing of the application, but prior to its approval, Pierce County adopted an interim ordinance that mandated a minimum of 20,000 square feet for duplex lots. All three lots proposed by the applicant were smaller than 20,000 square feet. Pierce County subsequently approved the short plat and then issued building permits for construction of the duplexes. After the applicant had undergone substantial construction of the duplexes, Pierce County issued stop work orders on grounds that the interim ordinance prohibited duplexes on lots less than 20,000 square feet. The applicant appealed the stop work orders, in part upon the grounds that it had vested to the 13,000 square foot duplex requirements and was not subject to the 20,000 square foot minimum lot size imposed by the interim ordinance. The Court of Appeals concluded that for subdivisions, an applicant vests to the uses disclosed in the subdivision application. The Court's analysis focused upon an interpretation of RCW 58.17.033(1), which provides as follows: A proposed division of land, as defined in RCW 58.17. 020, shall be considered under the subdivision or short subdivision ordinance, and zoning or other land use control ordinances, in effect on the land at the time a folly completed application for preliminary plat approval of the subdivision, or short plat approval of the short subdivision, has been submitted to the appropriate county, city or town official. Pierce County argued that the only right that vests under RCW 58.17.033 was the right to subdivide the property into smaller lots and that there was no vesting to any use rights. The applicant argued that the language in RCW 58.17.033, that the proposed division be considered under the "zoning or other land use control ordinances in effect on the land," has no meaning under the County's interpretation. The Court agreed with the applicant's position. It cited a legislative bill report for RCW 58.17.033, which noted that the statute extended the vested rights doctrine to subdivision applications, not just divisions. The Court noted that the purpose of the vested rights doctrine is to provide a measure of certainty to developers and to protect their expectations against fluctuating land use policy. The Court concluded as follows: MAJOR AMENDMENT -4 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 We conclude that when the Legislature extended the vested rights doctrine to plat applications, it intended to give the party filing an application a vested right to have that application processed under the land use laws in effect at the time of the application. Therefore, if the County requires an applicant to apply for a use for the property in the subdivision application, and the applicant discloses the requested use, then the applicant has the right to have the application considered for that use under the laws existing on the date of the application. If all that the Legislature was vesting under the statute was the right to divide land into smaller parcels with no assurance that the land could be developed, no protection would be afforded to the landowner. The Court also more specifically assessed what uses vest in a subdivision application: Two alternatives are possible. Either (I) all uses allowed by the zoning and land use laws on the date of the application for the short plat should be vested at the time of application, irrespective of the uses sought in an application; or (2) an applicant should have the right to have the uses disclosed in their application considered by the county or local government under the laws in existence at the time of the application. We conclude the second alternative comports with prior vesting law. In West Main, this Court stated that under the vested rights doctrine, 'developers who file a timely and complete building permit application obtain a vested right to have their application processed according to the zoning and building ordinances in effect at the time of the application.' West Main Assocs., Inc. v. City of Bellevue, 106 Wash.2d 47, 50-51, 720 P.2d 782 (1986) (emphasis added); see also Vashon Island, 127 Wash.2d at 767-68, 903 P.2d 953 (citing Friends, 123 Wash.2d at 522, 869 P.2d 1056 (a land use application will be considered under the laws in effect at the time of the application's submission)). Additionally, the purpose of the vesting doctrine is to protect the expectations of the developer against fluctuating land use laws. E.g., Friends, 123 Wash.2d at 522, 869 P.2d 1056; West Main, 106 Wash.2d at 51, 720 P.2d 782. The statute provides that the proposed division of land shall be considered under the zoning or other land use control ordinances in effect at the time of the application. RCW 58.17.033(1). Our construction of the statute makes 'permit speculation ' less probable. Short plats could not simply be frozen under existing zoning for any possible use without an application for a particular use. Since the applicant in Noble Manor had disclosed in its application that the short subdivision was proposed for duplexes, the Court held that it had vested to the minimum lot size applicable to duplexes and that it could proceed with construction. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the Applicant of this case submitted an application for a 36 lot subdivision to King County in 2004. This application did not identify the densities proposed in the modification. Even if the 2004 application did reserve the right to modify the proposed densities by the County's MAJOR AMENDMENT -5 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 IDR program, it is unlikely this reference would vest the right to such a modification. The Court's references to "the application" in legislative history and prior case law establish that RCW 58.17.033(1) only applies to the application under review and not future applications that would encompass an increase in density or any other modification. The judicial (and now legislative) requirement for a "complete application" is a vesting point designed to prevent permit speculation that demonstrates a substantial commitment by the developer, such that good faith of the applicant is generally assured. Graham Neighborhood Ass'n v. F.G. Associates, _P.3d __ (201 l). To allow a developer to lock in vested rights for future modifications by simply providing lists of every conceivable modification would invite the very permit speculation that the requirements for a complete application are intended to prevent. It is slightly unclear from the Noble Manor case as to what level of detail is locked into a use description, i.e. since the Applicant likely disclosed in its King County subdivision application that it intended to develop its subdivision for residential purposes, would this disclosure encompass any density of residential use? The answer is most likely that the disclosure only vests to the proposed densities and not broadly to every conceivable type of density. Going back to the judicial policy forbidding permit speculation, there is a vast difference between investing the time and money in proposing a specific subdivision design based upon a specific density to broadly proclaiming that the subdivision will accommodate residential use. Minor changes in density consistent with overall project design may be acceptable as an inevitable result of the iterative process of subdivision review 1, but major increases in density that were clearly beyond the contemplated design and that could only be accomplished by the implementation ofTDRs are not. One distinguishing feature of the Noble Manor case is that it concerned a short subdivision. As discussed above, the Noble Manor ruling rests upon an interpretation of RCW 58.17.033, which expressly applies to short and long subdivisions. However, long subdivisions are also subject to RCW 58.17.170, which provides in relevant part as follows: ... A subdivision shall be governed by the terms of approval of the final plat, and the statutes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of approval under RCW 58.17.150(1) and (3) for a period of five years after final plat approval unless the legislative body finds that a change in conditions creates a serious threat to the public health or safety in the subdivision. In construing the statute above, the Court noted it gave rights to a developer to use a subdivision in accord with "the laws in effect on the date of final plat approval (not the date of application) for a period of five years from the date of approval." In this case the property subject to the application was annexed into the City prior to approval of the preliminary plat by the City. It does not appear that final plat approval was ever granted. Even if it were, the application subject to vesting was the original application submitted to King County. For the same policy reasons governing RCW 1 The dividing line may well be what separates a minor from a Major Amendment, but that is an issue that can be 26 further investigated when and if the issue arises in another application. MAJOR AMENDMENT -6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 58.17.033, the present Major Amendment is for a separate application, subject to its own individual vesting. The application of RCW 58.17 .170 to the original subdivision application would not result in the vesting of any King County TDR regulations applicable to this modification application. King County vesting regulations are consistent with the interpretation of state law above. KCC 19A.12.030(A) provides that revisions that result in any substantial changes shall be treated as new applications for purposes of vesting. KCC l 9A.12.030(A) further provides that the creation of additional lots constitutes a substantial change. Consequently, King County regulations themselves prohibit the vesting of the King County TDR regulations in this case. KCC 19A.12.030(A) was adopted by King County in 1999, well before the Applicant vested its subdivision application. Arguably, the Examiner would be bound by KCC 19A.12.030(A), even if it conflicted with state law, since the Examiner has no authority to invalidate local ordinances. See, e.g., Le.Jeune v. Clallam County, 64 Wn. App. 257 (l 992)(authority of administrative body such as examiner must be either expressly granted by ordinance or statute or implied and is not inherent); Exendine v. City of Sammamish, 127 Wn. App. 574 (2005)(hearing examiners do not have the authority to enforce, interpret or rule on constitutional challenges). 4. Proposed Modification Inconsistent with Renton Subdivision Criteria. RMC 4-7-170(C) n ,/ requires a subdivision to conform to applicable density requirements. RMC 4-2-11 OA provides that K/ ~. the maximum density for property zoned R-4 is four dwelling units per acre. The proposed density ./ is 5.3 dwelling units per acre, which violates RMC 4-2-1 IOA. 5. SEPA Appeal Moot. A case is moot if a court cannot provide effective relief. Davidson Series and Associates v. Kirkland, 159 Wn. App. 616 (2011). In this case the proposal is subdivision modification is denied because it fails to comply with RMC 4-2-11 OA. Given this factor, a ruling on the SEPA appeal would not provide any relief to the parties and is moot. DECISION Application for the proposed Major Amendment is denied. The associated SEP A appeal 1s 19 dismissed. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 DATED this 27th day of June, 2011. MAJOR AMENDMENT -7 -~c:Y«:- Phil A. Olbrechts City of Renton Hearing Examiner . ,, I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 JO JI 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Appeal Right and Valuation Notices RMC 4-8-1 JO(E)(9) and/or RMC 4-8-l lO(F)(l) provides that the Major Amendment decision of the hearing examiner is final subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-11 O(E)(9) requires appeals of the hearing examiner's decision to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner's decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing e examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-11 O(E)(8) and RMC 4-8-100(0)(4). A new fourteen (14) day appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Pursuant to WAC 197-Jl-680(3)(a)(iv) there is no further administrative appeal available for the SEP A threshold determination. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall -7th floor, (425) 430-6510. Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. MAJOR AMENDMENT -8 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat Major Amendment; SEPA Appeal LUAOS-093, ECF, MOD ) ) ) FINAL DECISION ) ) ) ) ) _________________ .) Summary 16 The Applicant has applied for a Major Amendment to increase the number of lots in a subdivision from 36 to 46 lots. The application is denied and an associated appeal under the Washington State 17 Enviroumental Policy Act ("SEPA") is dismissed as moot. 18 The Major Amendment is denied because it proposes a density that exceeds that allowed by City of 19 Renton zoning standards. The Applicant proposes to exceed Renton standards through the use of King County transfer of development rights ("TDR"). The Applicant apparently believes that it has 20 vested to the TDR regulations because it filed its 36 lot subdivision application in 2004 prior to the annexation of the subdivision property into the City of Renton from unincorporated King County. The TDRs do not apply to the proposed 1 0 additional lots because those lots were not identified in the 2004 application to King County. For subdivisions, the vested rights doctrine only applies to uses identified in the application. Put differently, the Applicant vested to an application for a 36 lot subdivision, not a 46 lot subdivision. 21 22 23 24 25 Testimony 26 The hearing encompassed almost five hours of testimony, mostly from the Applicant. Since the MAJOR AMENDMENT -I 1 2 3 4 application is denied on the narrow grounds of vesting, and the testimony had little to do with this issue, no summary of testimony is provided. Exhibits 5 Exhibits 1-8 identified in the June 13, 2011 staff report, in addition to the staff report itself, were all admitted into the record during the June 13, 2011 hearing. In addition, the 6 following documents were also admitted into the record during the hearing: 7 9. Letter from Daley-Morrow-Poblete to Rocale Timmons, dated 1/11/2011. 8 10. Letter from Daley-Morrow-Poblete to Rocale Timmons, dated 2/10/2011. 11. King County MONS; Liberty Grove Plat dated 12/16/2003 9 12. Renton MONS: Liberty Gardens. 10 13. KC Comprehensive Plan Policy U-124. 14. Density and Dimension Calculations for Liberty Grove (EXAMPLE). 15. Letter from Daley-Morrow-Poblete (DMP) to Rocale Timmons, dated I 0/18/2011. 16. Side by Side Comparison of Liberty Gardens and Cavalla Plat, dated 9/23/2010. 11 12 17. Side by Side Comparison of Liberty Gardens and Cavalla Plat, dated 6/9/2010. 18. Highlighted King County Assessor Map SE 14-23-05, dated 8/17/2010. 13 19. King County Assessor Map SE 14-23-05, dated 8/17/2010. 20. Letter (] 0-page) from Daley-Morrow-Poblete to Office of the Hearing Examiner, 14 dated 6/13/2011. 15 21. Letter (] I-page) from Daley-Morrow-Poblete to Office of the Hearing Examiner, dated 6/13/2011. 16 22A. Report of Proposed Preliminary Plat of Liberty Grove Contiguous Rezone hearing, 17 18 dated 2/10/2004. 22B. Report of Proposed Preliminary Plat of Liberty Grove Rezone hearing, dated 2/10/2004. 23. Report and Decision for Proposed Preliminary Plat for Liberty Grove Contiguous, 19 dated 2/27/2004. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 24. 3 King County Ordinances dated 5/6/2004. 25. Plats and legal descriptions of Liberty Grove, Liberty Grove Contiguous, Liberty Lane, and Nichol's Place. 26. Letter to City of Renton Hearing Examiner from CARE, dated 6/13/2011. 27. Letter to Hearing Examiner from Michael Rae Cooke, dated 6/8/2011. Findings of Fact Procedural: I. Owner. David Petrie. MAJOR AMENDMENT -2 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 JO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2. Hearing. The Examiner held a hearing on the application at 9:00 am on June 13, 2011, in the City of Renton City Council Chambers. Substantive: 3. Description of Proposal. The Applicant is requesting a Major Amendment to the approved Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat. The Amendment includes the utilization of TDRs for ten additional lots, resulting in a 46 lot single family subdivision. The Amendment includes a revised lot layout, landscaping and utility plan. The original application, for 36 lots, was filed with the King County Department of Development and Environmental Services (KC DDES) for Environmental (SEPA) Review and Preliminary Plat approval on December 29, 2004 under KC DDES File No. L04P0034. Prior to King County making any final decision on the application, the City of Renton annexed the property of the subdivision on August 11, 2008. Applying vested King County regulations, the City approved the preliminary plat application on April 28, 2009. The Applicant filed an application for the subject Major Amendment at a date that is not readily evident from the record. An appeal of the associated SEPA mitigated determination of nonsignificance was filed by the Applicant by letter dated January 11, 2011. See Ex. 9. The proposed subdivision is for a parcel of property 8.95 acres in size. The proposed density would be approximately 5.3 dwelling units per acre utilizing King County TDRs. The subdivision is currently located within the R-4 zoning district of the City of Renton. 4. Disclosure of Uses Within King County Application. The application for the 2004 King County 36 lot subdivision application is not in the record and there was no testimony provided on what uses were proposed in that application. Given that if the Applicant had planned on using TD Rs at the time of the 2004 applicant it would have simply applied it at that time, more likely than not TD Rs were not proposed or identified in the 2004 application. Conclusions of Law Procedural: 1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. RMC 4-7-080(M) provides that any changes to an approved preliminary plat shall be processed as a Major Amendment if the amendment includes any increase in the number of lots. The subject proposal qualifies as a Major Amendment because it includes an increase of ten lots. RCW 4-7-080(M)(3) provides that the Examiner shall hold a hearing and issue a final decision on requests for Major Amendments. RMC 4-8-1 JO(E) provides that the Examiner shall hold a hearing and issue a final decision on SEPA threshold determinations. MAJOR AMENDMENT -3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Substantive: 2. Vesting of TDR's. The proposed Major Amendment is not vested to the King County TOR program or any other regulations in effect upon the vesting of the 2004 King County Liberty Gardens application (KC ODES File No. L04P0034). The seminal case on the application of the vested rights doctrine to subdivisions is Noble Manor Co. v. Pierce County, 133 Wn.2d 269 (] 997). In Noble Manor, Pierce County approved a short subdivision to divide property into three lots. The applicant clearly disclosed in its application that the lots were to be used for duplexes. At the time the applicant filed its short subdivision application, Pierce County regulations required a minimum of 13,000 square feet for duplex lots. The three lots proposed by the applicant all exceeded 13,000 square feet. Subsequent to the filing of the application, but prior to its approval, Pierce County adopted an interim ordinance that mandated a minimum of 20,000 square feet for duplex lots. All three lots proposed by the applicant were smaller than 20,000 square feet. Pierce County subsequently approved the short plat and then issued building permits for construction of the duplexes. After the applicant had undergone substantial construction of the duplexes, Pierce County issued stop work orders on grounds that the interim ordinance prohibited duplexes on lots less than 20,000 square feet. The applicant appealed the stop work orders, in part upon the grounds that it had vested to the 13,000 square foot duplex requirements and was not subject to the 20,000 square foot minimum lot size imposed by the interim ordinance. The Court of Appeals concluded that for subdivisions, an applicant vests to the uses disclosed in the subdivision application. The Court's analysis focused upon an interpretation of RCW 58.17.033(1 ), which provides as follows: A proposed division of land, as defined in RCW 58.17. 020, shall be considered under the subdivision or short subdivision ordinance, and zoning or other land use control ordinances, in effect on the land at the time a fully completed application for preliminary plat approval of !he subdivision, or short plat approval of the short subdivision, has been submitted lo the appropriate county, city or town official. Pierce County argued that the only right that vests under RCW 58.17.033 was the right to subdivide the property into smaller lots and that there was no vesting to any use rights. The applicant argued that the language in RCW 58.17.033, that the proposed division be considered under the "zoning or other land use control ordinances in effect on the land," has no meaning under the County's interpretation. The Court agreed with the applicant's position. It cited a legislative bill report for RCW 58.17.033, which noted that the statute extended the vested rights doctrine to subdivision applications, not just divisions. The Court noted that the purpose of the vested rights doctrine is to provide a measure of certainty to developers and to protect their expectations against fluctuating land use policy. The Court concluded as follows: MAJOR AMENDMENT -4 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 We conclude that when the Legislature extended the vested rights doctrine to plat applications, it intended to give the party filing an application a vested right to have that application processed under the land use laws in effect at the time of the application. Therefore, if the County requires an applicant to apply for a use for the property in the subdivision application, and the applicant discloses the requested use, then the applicant has the right to have the application considered for that use under the laws existing on the date of the application. If all that the Legislature was vesting under the statute was the right to divide land into smaller parcels with no assurance that the land could be developed, no protection would be afforded to the landowner. The Court also more specifically assessed what uses vest in a subdivision application: Two alternatives are possible. Either (1) all uses allowed by the zoning and land use laws on the date of the application for the short plat should be vested at the time of application, irrespective of the uses sought in an application; or (2) an applicant should have the right to have the uses disclosed in their application considered by the county or local government under the laws in existence at the time of the application. We conclude the second alternative comports with prior vesting law. In West Main, this Court stated that under the vested rights doctrine, 'developers who file a timely and complete building permit application obtain a vested right to have their application processed according to the zoning and building ordinances in effect at the time of the application.' West Main Assocs., Inc. v. City of Bellevue, 106 Wash.2d 47, 50-51, 720 P.2d 782 (1986) (emphasis added); see also Vashon Island, 127 Wash.2d at 767-68, 903 P.2d 953 (citing Friends, 123 Wash.2d at 522, 869 P.2d 1056 (a land use application will be considered under the laws in effect at the time of the application's submission)). Additionally, the purpose of the vesting doctrine is to protect the expectations of the developer against fluctuating land use laws. E.g., Friends, 123 Wash.2d at 522. 869 P.2d 1056; West Main, 106 Wash.2d at 51, 720 P.2d 782. The statute provides that the proposed division of land shall be considered under the zoning or other land use control ordinances in effect at the time of the application. RCW 58.17.033(1). Our construction of the statute makes 'permit speculation' less probable. Short plats could not simply be frozen under existing zoning for any possible use without an application for a particular use. Since the applicant in Noble Manor had disclosed in its application that the short subdivision was proposed for duplexes, the Court held that it had vested to the minimum lot size applicable to duplexes and that it could proceed with construction. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the Applicant of this case submitted an application for a 36 lot subdivision to King County in 2004. This application did not identify the densities proposed in the modification. Even if the 2004 application did reserve the right to modify the proposed densities by the County's MAJOR AMENDMENT -5 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 TDR program, it is unlikely this reference would vest the right to such a modification. The Court's references to "the application" in legislative history and prior case Jaw establish that RCW 58.17.033(1) only applies to the application under review and not future applications that would encompass an increase in density or any other modification. The judicial (and now legislative) requirement for a "complete application" is a vesting point designed to prevent permit speculation that demonstrates a substantial commitment by the developer, such that good faith of the applicant is generally assured. Graham Neighborhood Ass 'n v. FG. Associates, _P.3d __ (2011). To allow a developer to lock in vested rights for future modifications by simply providing lists of every conceivable modification would invite the very permit speculation that the requirements for a complete application are intended to prevent. It is slightly unclear from the Noble Manor case as to what level of detail is locked into a use description, i.e. since the Applicant likely disclosed in its King County subdivision application that it intended to develop its subdivision for residential purposes, would this disclosure encompass any density of residential use? The answer is most likely that the disclosure only vests to the proposed densities and not broadly to every conceivable type of density. Going back to the judicial policy forbidding permit speculation, there is a vast difference between investing the time and money in proposing a specific subdivision design based upon a specific density to broadly proclaiming that the subdivision will accommodate residential use. Minor changes in density consistent with overall project design may be acceptable as an inevitable result of the iterative process of subdivision review 1, but major increases in density that were clearly beyond the contemplated design and that could only be accomplished by the implementation of TD Rs are not. One distinguishing feature of the Noble Manor case is that it concerned a short subdivision. As discussed above, the Noble Manor ruling rests upon an interpretation of RCW 58.17.033, which expressly applies to short and long subdivisions. However, long subdivisions are also subject to RCW 58.17.170, which provides in relevant part as follows: ... A subdivision shall be governed by !he terms of approval of the final plat, and the statutes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of approval under RCW 58.17.150(1) and (3) for a period of.five years after final plat approval unless the legislative body finds that a change in conditions creates a serious threat to the public health or safety in the subdivision. In construing the statute above, the Court noted it gave rights to a developer to use a subdivision in accord with "the laws in effect on the date ofjinal plat approval (not the date of application) for a period of five years from the date of approval." In this case the property subject to the application was annexed into the City prior to approval of the preliminary plat by the City. It does not appear that final plat approval was ever granted. Even if it were, the application subject to vesting was the original application submitted to King County. For the same policy reasons governing RCW 1 The dividing line may well be what separates a minor from a Major Amendment, but that is an issue that can be 26 further investigated when and if the issue arises in another application. MAJOR AMENDMENT -6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 58.17.033, the present Major Amendment is for a separate application, subject to its own individual vesting. The application ofRCW 58.17.170 to the original subdivision application would not result in the vesting of any King County TOR regulations applicable to this modification application. King County vesting regulations are consistent with the interpretation of state law above. KCC 19A.12.030(A) provides that revisions that result in any substantial changes shall be treated as new applications for purposes of vesting. KCC 19A.12.030(A) further provides that the creation of additional lots constitutes a substantial change. Consequently, King County regulations themselves prohibit the vesting of the King County TOR regulations in this case. KCC 19A.12.030(A) was adopted by King County in 1999, well before the Applicant vested its subdivision application. Arguably, the Examiner would be bound by KCC 19A.12.030(A), even if it conflicted with state law, since the Examiner has no authority to invalidate local ordinances. See, e.g., LeJeune v. Clallam County, 64 Wn. App. 257 (l 992)(authority of administrative body such as examiner must be either expressly granted by ordinance or statute or implied and is not inherent); Exendine v. City of Sammamish, 127 Wn. App. 574 (2005)(hearing examiners do not have the authority to enforce, interpret or rule on constitutional challenges). 4. Proposed Modification Inconsistent with Renton Subdivision Criteria. RMC 4-7-170(C) requires a subdivision to conform to applicable density requirements. RMC 4-2-1 IOA provides that the maximum density for property zoned R-4 is four dwelling units per acre. The proposed density is 5.3 dwelling units per acre, which violates RMC 4-2-l lOA. 5. SEPA Appeal Moot. A case is moot if a court cannot provide effective relief. Davidson Series and Associates v. Kirkland, 159 Wn. App. 616 (2011 ). In this case the proposal is subdivision modification is denied because it fails to comply with RMC 4-2-11 OA. Given this factor, a ruling on the SEPA appeal would not provide any relief to the parties and is moot. DECISION Application for the proposed Major Amendment is denied. The associated SEPA appeal 1s 19 dismissed. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 DATED this 27th day of June. 2011. MAJOR AMENDMENT -7 Isl Phil A. Olbrechts (Signed original in official file) Phil A. Olbrechts City of Renton Hearing Examiner I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Appeal Right and Valuation Notices RMC 4-8-110(E)(9) and/or RMC 4-8-1 IO(F)(l) provides that the Major Amendment decision of the hearing examiner is final subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(9) requires appeals of the hearing examiner's decision to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner's decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing e examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-11 O(E)(8) and RMC 4-8-100(0)(4). A new fourteen (14) day appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Pursuant to WAC 197-11-680(3)(a)(iv) there is no further administrative appeal available for the SEP A threshold determination. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall -7th floor, (425) 430-6510. Affected property owners may request a change m valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. MAJOR AMENDMENT -8 E,a,;y Peet® Labels Use Avery® Template 5160® Wayne Potter Barghausen Consulting Engineer 18215 -72nd Avenue S Kent, WA 98032 Linda Corgiat 16039 SE 142nd Place Renton,WA 98059 Norm & Patricia Gammell 16043 SE 142nd Place Renton,WA 98059 Jennifer McCall Lozier Homes, Corp 1203 -114th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98004 Curtis Schuster KBS 111, LLC 12320 NE 8th Street ste: #100 Bellevue, WA 98005 Claudia Donnelly 10415 147th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 Gerald Smith 8524 S 125th Street Renton,WA 98057 Peter C. Hayes Coldwell Banker Bain 150 Bellevue Way SE Bellevue, WA 98004 Jay Mezistrano 1512 So. s'h Place Renton, WA 98058 Etiquettes faciles a peler Utilisez le gabarit AVERv@ 5160® I I I 1 I I I J . -Feed Paper - I Belld alohg line to , expose Pop-Up Edge™ ,I Daniel Balmelli, PE Barghausen Consulting Engineer 18215 -72nd Avenue S Kent, WA 98032 Hans Korve DMP Eng., Inc. 726 Auburn Way N Auburn, WA 98002 Gwendolyn High C.A.R.E PO Box 2936 Renton, WA 98059 David Petrie 811 S 273rd Court ' ' . Des Moines, WA 98198 \ Seattle KC Health Department East District Environ. Health 14350 SE Eastgate Way Bellevue, WA 98007 Norm Mohr 16224 SE 144th Street Renton, WA 98059 Marshall M. Bender 1822 SE 1281h Street Renton, WA 98059 Rahal Petrie 6042 Blue Heroin Place Bremerton, WA 98312 • Sens de chargement RepUez a la hachure afin de i reveler le rebord Pop-Up"' .I @ AVERY® s1&o® l John & Nenita Ching 16038 SE 142nd Place Renton,WA 98059 Debbie Eberle 18225 SE 147th Street Renton, WA 98059 Richard & Teri Langdon 14201-164th Avenue SE Renton,WA 98059 Michael Ritchey 14225 -164th Avenue SE Renton,WA 98059 Kolin Taylor 12320 NE 8th Street ste: #100 Bellevue, WA 98005 Donald & Andrea Gragg 16046 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 Karen Walter, Team Leader Watersheds & Land Use Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries 39015 172nd Avenue SE Auburn,WA 98092 Kristy Hill 13527 1561h Av SE Renton, WA 98059 www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY I I ' ! . ' ,. . CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT-PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 6th day of June, 2011, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Recommendation to the Hearing Examiner documents. This information was sent to: Wayne Potter Applicant/Contact David Petrie Owner Parties of Record See Attached (Signature of Sender): ~ 1z,1 \J{.A ... ~ STATE OF WASHINGTON 7 ~ ) ss COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy M. Tucker signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: -~"~~ 7~-~el-~{)~/_/ _ Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Notary(Print): -;:Jonn/e I. Walfan ---~~-------------------- 'My appointment expires: ;2 ... 9-;)Ol'f Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat LUAOS-093, MOD template -affidavit of service by mailing Marshall Brenden 18225 SE 128th Street Renton, WA 98059 Hans Korve DMP Eng., Inc. 726 Auburn Way N Auburn, WA 98002 Don & Andrea Gragg 16046 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 Jennifer McCall Lozier Homes, Corp 1203 -114th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98004 Curtis Schuster KBS III, LLC 12320 NE 8th Street ste: #100 Bellevue, WA 98005 Claudia Donnelly 10415 147th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 Norm Mohr 16224 SE 144th Street Renton, WA 98059 Marshall M Bender 18225 SE 128th Street Renton, WA 98059 Wayne Potter Barghausen Consulting Engineer 18215 -72nd Avenue S Kent, WA 98032 John & Nenita Ching 16038 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 Debbie Eberle 18225 SE 147th Street Renton, WA 98059 Gwendolyn High C.A.R.E PO Box 2936 Renton, WA 98059 David Petrie 811 S 273rd Court Des Moines, WA 98198 Seattle KC Health Department East District Environ. Health 14350 SE Eastgate Way Bellevue, WA 98007 Karen Walter Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division 39015 172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 Peter C. Hayes Coldwell Banker Bain 150 Bellevue Way SE Bellevue, WA 98004 Daniel Balmelli, PE Barghausen Consulting Engineer 18215 -72nd Avenue S Kent, WA 98032 Linda Corgiat 16039 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 Norm & Patricia Grammell 16043 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 Richard & Teri Langdon 14201 -164th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 Michael Ritchey 14225 -164th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 Kolin Taylor 12320 NE 8th Street ste: #100 Bellevue, WA 98005 Gerald Smith 8524 S 125th Street Renton, WA 98057 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING JUNE 13, 2011 AGENDA COMMENCING AT 9:00 AM, COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7TH FLOOR, RENTON CITY HALL The application(s) listed are in order of application number only and not necessarily the order in which they will be heard. Items will be called for hearing at the discretion of the Hearing Examiner. PROJECT NAME: Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat PROJECT NUMBER: LUA08-093, ECF, MOD PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting a Major Modification to the approved Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat. The modification includes the utilization of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR's) for 10 additional lots; resulting in a 46 lot single family subdivision. The modification includes a revised lot layout, landscaping and utility plan. The original application, for 36 lots, was filed with the King County Department of Development and Enviromental Services (KC DDES) for Environmental (SEPA) Review and Preliminary Plat approval (KC DDES File No. L04P0034) and was approved by the City on April 28, 2009. The 8.95 acre parcel is located within the City's Residential -4 (R-4) dwelling units per acre zoning designation; however, the project is vested to King County's R-4 zoning development regulations. HEX Agenda 6-13-11.doc DEPARTMENT OF COM~ IITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDATION REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST REPORT DATE: June 13, 2011 Project Name: Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat Owner: David Petrie; 811 S 273'' Ct; Des Moines, WA; 98198 ------------------· Applicant/Contact: File Number: Project Manager: Project Summary: Project Location: Site Area: DMP, Inc.; Hans Korve; 726 Auburn Way N; Auburn, WA; 98002 LUA08-093, ECF, MOD -------------------- Roca I e Timmons; Associate Planner The applicant is requesting a Major Modification to the approved Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat. The modification includes the utilization of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR's) for 10 additional lots; resulting in a 46 lot single family subdivision. The modification includes a revised lot layout, landscaping and utility plan. The original application, for 36 lots, was filed with the King County Department of Development and Enviromental Services (KC ODES) for Environmental (SEPA) Review and Preliminary Plat approval (KC DOES File No. L04P0034) and was approved by the City on April 28, 2009. The 8.95 acre parcel is located within the City's Residential -4 (R-4) dwelling units per acre zoning designation; however, the project is vested to King County's R-4 zoning development regulations. The proposed density would be approximately 5.3 dwelling units per acre with the use of TD R's. The proposed lots would range in size from approximately 4,400 square feet in area to 6,800 square feet. Access to the lots would be provided via two new internal dead end streets extended from 162nd Ave SE and one connecting street to 164th Ave SE. A Class II wetland and Class Ill stream is located in the southeast corner of the property. Additionally a Category II wetland and buffer is located on northwest portion of the site witin the unimproved right of way 162'' Ave SE. The subject property was annexed to the City of Renton on August 11, 2008. Southeast of 162'' Avenue SE and SE 140'h Street 8.95 acres Project Location Map Modification Report.doc Qty of Renton Department of Corr ity & Economic Development LIBERTY GARDENS PRELIMINARr PLAT Ad :trative Short Plat Report & Decision LUAOB-093, ECF, Report of June 13, 2011 I 8. EXHIBITS: Exhibit 1: Neighborhood Detail Map Exhibit 2: Proposed Preliminary Plat Plan (dated 3/16/09) Exhibit 3: Approved Preliminary Plat Plan (dated 11/4/10} Exhibit 4: Environmental Review Committee Report (dated 1/24/2011) Exhibit 5: Hearing Examiner Preliminary Plat Decision (dated 4/28/09) Exhibit 6: Conceptual Preliminary Plat Pian -Created by City Staff Exhibit 7: Aerial Photograph Exhibit 8: Approved Cavalla Preliminary Plat Plan I C. GENERAL INFORMATION: David Petrie 1. Owner(s) of Record: 811 s 273'd Ct Des Moines, WA; 98198 Page 2 of 12 2. Zoning Designation: Residential-4 du/ac (R-4); (King County -R-4) 3. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: Residential Low Density (RLD) (King County- Urban) 4. Existing Site Use: Vacant 5. Neighborhood Characteristics: a. North: b. East: c. South: d. West: 6. Access: 7. Site Area: Vacant-Approved Single-Family Preliminary Plat -Cava/la (LUAOB-097) (R-4 zone) Liberty High School (King County R-4 zone) Single Family Residential (R-4 zone) Single Family Residential (R-4 zone) Access is proposed via 162"d and 164th Ave SE. Internal access is proposed via two new public dead end streets (163'd Ct SE and SE 141st Place), a street connecting 162"d to 164th Ave SE, and an alley for a tier of lots on the interior of the site. 8.95 acres {389,862 gross square feet) I D. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND: Action Comprehensive Plan Zoning Annexation Modification Report.doc Land Use File No. N/A N/A N/A Ordinance No. 5099 5100 5398 Date 11/01/04 11/01/04 8/11/08 City of Renton Department of Com 'ty & Economic Development LIBERTY GARDENS PRELIMINARY PlA T Ad, trative Short Plat Report & Decision LUAOB-093, ECF, Report of June 13, 2011 Page 3 of 12 I E. PUBLIC SERVICES: 1. Utilities a. Water: The property is currently not served by a public water system. There is an existing water main in 1601h Avenue SE, pa rt of the Water District #90 system. b. Sewer: The property is currently not served by a public sewer line. There is a City of Renton 15-inch sanitary sewer line at the intersection of 1601h Avenue SE and SE 1441h Street. A 12-inch sewer line is also in 1601h Avenue SE. c. Surface/Storm Water: Surface water conveyance facilities currently are available to serve this site in SE 1441h Street. 2. Streets: The site is fronted on the east and west by unimproved rights-of-way; 162"d Ave SE and 1641h Ave SE. 3. Fire Protection: City of Renton Fire Department F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE KING COUNTY AND RENTON MUNICIPAL CODES: 1. KCC Title 19A Land Segregation (Dec 2004) 2. KCC Title 20 Planning (Dec 2004) with exception to procedures for subdivisions 3, Title 21A Zoning (Dec 2004) 4. RMC Title 4 Chapter 7 Subdivision Regulations a. Section 4-7-080: Detailed Procedures for Subdivisions 5. RMC Title 4 Chapter 9 Procedures and Review Criteria 6. RMC Title 4 Chapter 11 Definitions I G, DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS: 1. Project Description/Background The applicant, DMP engineering on behalf of Mr. David Petrie, received approval with conditions for the subject 36-lot Preliminary Plat on April 29, 2009. Following the approval of the preliminary plat and participation in, and appealing of, the neighboring Cavalla Plat the applicant submitted the request to incorporate additional lots through the use of TD R's. While the addition of lots, in King County Code (KCC 19A.12.030, Revisions to Preliminary Subdivisions), following Preliminary Plat approval would result in a substantial change and be treated as a new application for purposes of vesting; provisions within the City code (RMC 4-7- 080M, Process for Major Amendments) allow for modifications to approved preliminary plats and are silent as to the modification's effects on vesting. It has been a challenge for staff to determine how TDR's are applied in the City as we do not have such allowances in the City Code. And more specifically, in this case, how TDR's are utilized as part of major amendment process in which the major amendment provisions were never intended to allow for increases in density, following Preliminary Plat approval; especially density allowances in King County Modification Report.doc City of Renton Department of Com ·iy & Economic Development Ad LIBERTY GARDENS PRELIMINARY PLAT Report of June 13, 2011 which far exceed the density permissible in the City. trotive Short Plat Report & Decision LUAOB-093, ECF, Page 4 of 12 As a solution, staff offers a recommendation which heavily relies upon policy should the Hearing Examiner determine the major amendment has vested rights to utilize TDR's. The application for Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat was originally submitted to KC DDES for review on December 29, 2004 (King County DDES File No. L04P0034). On June 20, 2008 a SEPA threshold determination, Determination of Non-Significance (DNS), was issued by the County. An appeal of the SEPA determination was filed. Before this matter could be heard by the King County Hearing Examiner, the subject property was annexed to the City of Renton as part of the Liberty Annexation (Ordinance #5398) on August 11, 2008. Based on this annexation; both the SEPA appeal and the application for the Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat came under the jurisdiction of the City of Renton. On October 6, 2008, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) issued a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) for the Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat. This Determination was an adoption of the threshold determination issued by KC DDES on June 20, 2008. An appeal of the City's SEPA determination was filed. On November 10, 2008 a decision was made by the ERC to rescind the threshold determination pending further analysis of potential environmental impacts to the site. The rescission of the ERC's DNS resulted in the negation ofthe two existing appeals that were filed. On December 15, 2008 the City issued a new threshold Determination of Non-Significance- Mitigated (DNS-M) which contained six mitigation measures for which an appeal was filed by the applicant. The appeal/preliminary plat hearing was held before the City's Hearing Examiner on March 17, 2009. On April 28, 2009, the City's Hearing Examiner issued a decision on the preliminary plat which contained 9 conditions of approval and affirmed the ERC determination in part and reversed in part. Mitigation measures 1-3, and 5 were affirmed (see Exhibit 5, Hearing Examiner Preliminary Plat/Appeal Decision, dated April 28, 2009) and mitigation measure 4 was reversed and removed from the determination. The project site is located within the City's Residential -4 (R-4) dwelling units per acre zoning designation; however, the project is vested to King County's R-4 zoning development regulations. The applicant is now requesting Environmental Review and a Major Amendment to the approved Preliminary Plat in order to utilize TDR's, as outlined in KCC 21A.37. TDR's allow the applicant to use the development regulations of the next higher zoning classification including a density in this case of up to 6 units per acre. The applicant is requesting 10 additional lots, beyond the 36 lots currently approved, resulting in a total of 46 single family lots and a density of 5.3 units per acre. Pursuant to RMC 4-7-080M.2 a major amendment shall include any amendment that would result in increasing the number of lots in the subdivision beyond the number previously approved. The amendment includes a revised lot layout, landscaping and utility plan. The project site is located between 162°d Ave SE on the west and 1641h Ave SE on the east; and SE 1401h St on the north and SE 142°d St on the south. Access is proposed via 162nd and 164'h Ave SE which is proposed to be improved as part of the plat improvements. Internal access is proposed via two new public dead end streets, a street connecting 162nd to 164th Ave SE and an alley for a tier of lots on the interior of the site. Modification Report.doc City of Renton Deportment of Com ity & Economic Development LIBERTY GARDENS PRELIMINARY PLAT Report of June 13, 2011 Ad trative Short Plot Report & Decision LUAOB-093, ECF, Page 5 of 12 Proposed lot sizes range from 4,465 to 6,845 square feet with an average lot size of 5,021 square feet. The site is vegetated primarily with trees and shrubs. A tree inventory indicates approximately 266 significant trees are on the site. The proposed project site has an average slope of 15 percent; with an elevation change of 46 feet from the northeast quarter to the southwest quarter of the site. A Class II wetland is located in the southwest corner of the property and is associated with a small Class Ill intermittent stream. In addition there is another isolated Class II wetland located offsite to the west ofthe northwest corner of the site. 2. Environmental Review Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21C, 1971 as amended}, on January 24, 2011, the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M) for the Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat Modification. The DNS-M included 5 mitigation measures. A 14-day appeal period commenced on January 28, 2011 and ended on February 11, 2011. One appeal of the threshold determination has been filed by the applicant. 3. Compliance with ERC Conditions Based on an analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) issued the following mitigation measures with the Determination of Non- Significance -Mitigated: 1. The applicant will be required to submit a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the State Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual. The plan must be submitted to and approved by the Development Services Division Plan Review staff prior to issuance of the utility construction permit and during utility and road construction. 2. A covenant shall be recorded on the Sensitive Areas Tract, restricting its separate sale, prior to or in conjunction with the final plat recording. Each abutting lot owner or the homeowners' association shall have an undivided interest in the tract. A draft version of this document shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to plat recording. 3. The applicant shall submit a maintenance and monitoring plan, for a period no less than five years, for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to plat recording. 4. The detention system for this project shall be required to comply with the requirements found in the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual to meet both detention (Conservation Flow control -a.k.a. Level 3) and water quality improvements. 5. The applicant shall provide secondary access to the plat suitable for domestic, emergency and pedestrian safety; to the satisfaction of the City of Renton Development Services Division subject to the King County Road Standards {1993}. Modification Report.doc City of Renton Department of Corr ity & Economic Development LIBERTY GARDENS PRELIMINAR~ PIA T Report of June 13, 2011 4. Staff Review Comments Ad ,trative Short Plat Report & Decision LUAOB-093, £CF, Page 6 of 12 Pursuant to RMC 4-7-080M, Amendments, any time after preliminary plat approval and before final plat approval, the applicant may submit an application to the Administrator that proposes an amendment to the approved or conditionally approved preliminary plat. The request to increase the number of lots in the subdivision beyond the number previously approved would require a major amendment according to provisions stated above. The following is an analysis of the proposed major amendment's compliance with the requirements for preliminary plat approval found in subsection RMC4-7-080 limited to the major amendment alone. The recommendation assumes the Hearing Examiner would allow the applicant to retain the vesting of development standards according to the original Preliminary Plat application date, of December 29, 2004. Representatives from various city departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and address issues raised by the proposed modification. These comments are contained in the official file, and the essence of the comments has been incorporated into the appropriate sections of this report and the Departmental Recommendation at the end of this report. Analysis of Preliminary Plat Modification The site is designated Urban Residential-Medium on the King County Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The Urban Residential-Medium land use designation is implemented by the following King County zones: R-4; R-6; R-8; and R-12. The proposal is inconsistent with two of the four following King County Comprehensive Plan Land Use policies, therefore staff is recommending denial of the major modification: Policy U-133. Urban residential neighborhood design should preserve historic and natural characteristics and neighborhood identity, while providing privacy, community space, and safety and mobility for pedestrians and bicyclists. D Policy Objective Met Not Met The neighboring approved plat, Cava Ila (LUA08-097) (Exhibit 8), to the north can be used to best illustrate compliance with the above stated policy and achieving a balance between the existing and planned identity of the area. Due to this area's recent annexation there are: developed plats which used TDR's reviewed and implemented solely by the KCDDES; preliminary plats to be reviewed by the City vested to King County development standards allowing the use of TDR's; and large vacant parcels that could potentially come in for platting using City development standards which do not allow the use TDR's. The resolution, to the complex land use pattern of the area, Cava Ila provided was an enhanced design which included a highly connective road design, lot size/width variation, enhanced landscaping, increased front yard setbacks and the incorporation of recreation areas as a central feature to the development. These enhanced elements were used to mitigate the potential impacts of increased density and serves as a precedent for the use of TDR's within the City and demonstration of compliance with the above mentioned policy. Modification Report.doc City of Renton Department of Com ity & Economic Development LIBERTY GARDENS PRELIMINARY PlA T Report of June 13, 2011 Ad trative Short Plat Report & Decision LUAOB-093, ECF, Page 7 of 12 While the applicant has included some enhancements to the revised plat design; as proposed, the plat modification does not comply with the above stated policy (see analysis below). Therefore staff recommends denial of the proposed modification. Should the modification be approved, conditions of approval related to internal street design, the number of lots, landscaping, setbacks, and recreation space should be applied to the project. Policy U-140. Residential Developments within the Urban Growth Area, including mobile home parks, shall provide the following types of improvements: a) Paved Streets (and alleys if appropriate), curbs and sidewalks, and internal walkways when appropriate; b) Adequate parking and consideration of access ta bus service and passenger facilities; c) Street lighting and street trees; d) Stormwater control; e) Public water supply; f) Public sewers; and g) Landscaping around the perimeter and parking areas of multifamily development. Policy Objective Met D Not Met Policy U-142. Recreation space based on the size of the developments shall be provided on- site except that in limited cases, fee payments far local level park and outdoor recreation needs may be accepted. Policy Objective Met D Not Met Objective T-307. King County (City of Renton) should encourage the development of highly connective, grid based arterial and non arterial road networks in developments and areas of in-fill development. To this end, the County (City) should: a) Make specific determinative findings ta establish non-arterial grid system routes needed for public and emergency access in in-fill developments ot the time of land use permit review. b) Encourage new commercial, multifamily, and single-family residential developments to develop highly connective street networks to promote better accessibility by all modes. The use of cul-de-sacs should be discouraged, but where they are used, they should include pedestrian pathways to connect with nearby streets. D Policy Objective Met Not Met As proposed 163'd Ct SE and SE 14151 Place would dead-end with cul-de-sacs and would prevent potential for street connectivity. Staff considered the potential connection of the proposed streets to 162"d and 1641h Ave SE, abutting the property to the east and west, in order to allow for street connectivity and reduce the use of cul-de-sacs. Staff has determined that connectivity could be achieved and better accessibility could be provided for both Modification Report.doc City of Renton Department of Com ity & Economic Development LIBERTY GARDENS PRELIMINARY PIA T Report of June 13, 2011 Ad trative Short Plat Report & Decision LUAOB-093, ECF, Page 8 of 12 pedestrian and vehicular access. In addition, there are no environmental or topographical constraints that would preclude the applicant from providing such connections. As mentioned above staff is recommending denial of the plat modification, however, should the modification be approved staff recommends as a condition of approval, the applicant eliminate the two cul- de-sacs which are used to terminate 163'd Ct SE and SE 141'1 Pl in order to create a highly connective internal road network, with landscaping between the curb and sidewalk (where applicable) and alley access be provided for all tiered lots on the interior of the subject site. The revised plat plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Development Services and the Current Planning Project Manager; prior to engineering plan approval. Staff was able to create a conceptual design which depicts a desirable grid-system for the proposed plat and should be adhered to as closely as possible, see Exhibit 6. Density: The subject site is designated R-4 on the City of Renton Zoning Map however the project is vested to King County (KC) R-4 standards. The base density of the R-4 zone classification is 4 dwelling units per acre, and the maximum density is 6 dwelling units per acre. Density in excess of the base density, up to the maximum density, is permitted utilizing the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program pursuant to Chapter 21A.37 of the King County Code. With the use of TDR's the density allowed for the subject site would be 6.0 dwelling units per gross acre. The applicant is proposing the utilization of the King County Transfer of Development Rights (TDR's) for 10 additional lots beyond the 36 single family lots which are approved. A total of 46 lots are being proposed, resulting in a density of S.14 du/ac. While the resulting density of 5.14 dwelling units is within the maximum density permitted by the KC R-4 zoning designation, there is large area which would be dedicated to the preservation of the critical areas (Tract E) on site. Therefore the effective net density is much higher. If the modification is approved, staff recommends as a condition of approval, the applicant eliminate two of the 10 additional proposed lots in order to take into consideration the portion of the site which is unable to be developed as it is dedicated to critical areas. A revised plat plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning ProjecrManager prior to engineering permit approval. Additionally, should the modification be approved, staff recommends prior to engineering plan approval, the applicant provide a valid Transfer of Development Rights (TOR) Certificate approved by the King County Department of Natural Resources in order to accommodate the any additional lots over the base density within the proposed development. The certificate or other valid legal document(s) must show the applicant or successor as the lawful owner of the development rights. Lot Dimensions/Lot Layout: There are no minimum lot size or depth requirements in the KC R-4 zone. A minimum lot width of 30 feet is required. As proposed and demonstrated in the table below, all lots meet the requirements for minimum width. Modification Report.doc City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Adm'-istrative Short Plat Report & Decision LIBERTY GARDENS PRELI MINA LAT LUADB-093, ECF, --------------Report of June 13, 2011 Page 9 of 12 - Net Area Area Area Lot {sg. ft.} Width Lot (sg. ft.} Width Lot (sg. ft.} Width 1 5,534 58 17 5,023 54 32 5,145 37 2 5,156 53 18 4,803 54 33 4,705 48 3 5,156 53 19 5,023 54 34 4,705 18 4 5,156 53 20 6,194 55 35 4,705 48 s 5,156 53 21 4,842 50 36 4,705 48 6 5,156 53 22 4,807 71 37 5,207 55 7 5,156 53 23 4,942 57 38 4,828 51 8 5,156 53 24 4,958 57 39 4,465 46 9 5,156 53 25 4,511 71 40 4,465 46 10 5,156 53 26 3,949 44 41 4,935 51 11 5,521 64 27 4,653 51 42 4,465 51 12 5,520 54 28 6,845 53 43 4,465 56 13 5,023 54 29 6,146 54 44 4,465 56 14 5,023 54 30 5,484 48 45 4,465 56 - 15 5,023 54 31 5,197 48 46 4,813 51 16 5,023 54 The neighboring plat to the north provided a variation in lot width in order to provide a diverse streetscape and a variety of floor plans, home size, and character. The proposed lots were arranged so that smaller lots were located in the interior of the site, and the larger lots located along the perimeter of the site. The location of the larger lots on the perimeter of the site provide a transition to the surrounding R-4 development by creating a buffer for the denser lots in the interior of the site. In order to comply with Policy U-133 should the proposed modfication be approved, staff recommends as a condition of approval that the applicant revise the plat plan to depict a variation in lot width and arrange the lots so that larger lots are used to buffer smaller lots from surrounding R-4 development. The revised plat plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering permit approval. Setbacks: The required setbacks in the KC R-4 zone are as follows: street setback is 10 feet for the primary structure and 20 feet for any attached garage, carport, or other fenced parking area; and interior setbacks are 5 feet (including the rear yard). Due to the increase of density proposed through the use of TDR's, the neighboring Cavalla plat to the north increased front yard setbacks to an average of 23 feet, from the back of the curb, in order to reduce the impacts of the future homes' scale and bulk along the streetscape. Due to the proposed increase in density, the resulting aesthetic impact along the streetscape and the need to comply with Policy U-133, staff is recommending, as a condition of approval should the Modification Report.doc City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Administrative Short Plat Report & Decision UBERTYGARDENS PREUMINA ;;.A;,;,T ___________ _ LUAOB-093, ECF, Report of June 13, 2011 Page 10 of 12 modification be approved, the applicant submit supplemental materials including: a letter outlining recommended setbacks or another approved setback plan that averages front yard setbacks at 23 feet from the back of the curb; a revised plat plan depicting all setbacks; and a draft of the Codes Covenants and Restrictions (CC & R's) for the Homeowner's Association, with an inclusion of the setback requirements of the plat. The supplemental materials shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to the recording of the plat. Landscaping: Per KCC 21A.16.050, street trees, for single-family subdivisions, shall be planted at a rate of one tree for every 40 feet of street frontage along all public streets. A revised conceptual landscape plan was submitted with the application that includes the installation of street trees spaced at least 40 feet on center. Visual barriers by way of a 10-foot landscape easement parallel to 162nd and 1641h Ave SE with significant landscaping and a good neighbor fence, modulated along 1641h Ave SE, is also being proposed. In effect there is at least a 20- foot landscape strip, along 162nd and 1641h Ave SE, from the back of the curb to face of the fence. The applicant is also proposing a 5-foot landscape strip in between the curb and some of the sidewalks within the plat. It does not appear trees are proposed within the lots. With the recommendation for increased front yard setbacks there is an opportunity to provide significant trees within the front yards of all of the lots and due to the number of trees currently on site and the community's concern with regard to the reduction in canopy staff is recommending, as a condition of approval should the modification be approved, the applicant submit a revised landscape plan depicting at least two street trees within the front yard of each lot not bordered by a planter in between the curb and the sidewalk. The revised landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering permit approval. Recreation: Per KCC 21A.14 residential subdivisions, more than four units, developed at a density of eight units or less per acre, are required to provide 390 square feet, per lot, of recreation space on-site. A 46-lot proposal would require 17,940 square feet (46 lots x 390 square feet = 17,940 square feet) of recreation space. The applicant is proposing active recreation space within Tract B, in the amount of 23,866 square feet; which meets the recreation space requirement. For 26-50 lot developments the applicant is also required to provide two or more of the facilities listed in KCC ZlA.14.190 in addition to a tot lot or children' s play area. The proposed recreation area includes a tot lot, sports field and sports court; complying with the recreation facilities requirement in the County Code. However, the proposed location for the recreation/drainage tract is isolated within the plat and serves as a backyard to Lots 21, 22, 25, and 26. In order for the recreation area to function as a true amenity and be used by the community it should function as a central feature of the plat with enhanced pedestrian access. Should the modification be approved, staff recommends the applicant revise the plat plan in order to incorporate Tract B as a central feature for the community with enhanced pedestrian access. The revised plat plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering permit approval. Staff was able to create a conceptual design which depicts a desirable plat plan using a highly connective grid system to assimilate the recreation area into the community as a central feature (See Exhibit 6). Roads/Access: The site is fronted on the west by an unimproved right-of-way of 162"dAve SE and on the east, unimproved right-of-way, 1641h Ave SE. No current improved access exists Modification Report.doc City of Renton Department of Comm· ·nity & Economic Development Admi-'strative Short Plat Report & Decision LIBERTY GARDENS PRELIMINA, A;.;.;..T ___________ _ LUAOB-093, ECF, Report of June 13, 2011 Page 11 of 12 except nominally from 164'h Ave SE. The applicant is proposing half-street improvements for both 162nd and 164th Ave SE. While the applicant is vested to the King County Road Standards they have elected to improve the road sections with conformance to some of the City of Renton standards. Street improvements that exceed King County Road Standards include: vertical curbs; landscape planters between the back of the curb and some of the sidewalks within the plat; and on-street parallel parking. The applicant is also proposing an alley for the rear loading of the some of the tiered interior lots {Lots 32-43). With the condition of approval noted above, for a highly connective grid system and the conceptual design provided by staff, additional landscaping and alley loaded lots would be realized demonstrating consistency with the design of the plat to the north and full compliance with Policy U-133. Staff recommends, as a condition of approval, that all lots which abut an alley be limited to access from the alley only. Schools: The project site is served by schools in the Issaquah School District. It is anticipated that the Issaquah School District can accommodate any additional students generated by this proposal at the following schools: Briarwood Elementary, Maywood Middle School, and Liberty High School. KCC 21A.43.050 requires that an impact fee be assessed for each new lot in order to fund school system improvements to serve the new development within the proposed plat. In order to mitigate school impacts staff recommends, the applicant will be required to pay school impact fees per RMC 4-1-160.D, to the City of Renton, on behalf of the Issaquah School District. The fee for the proposed plat is estimated at $175,168.00 {$3,808.00 x 46 lots= $175,168.00) and is payable at the time of building permit approval. I H. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends denial of the Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat Modification as proposed. Should a major modification be approved the following conditions of approval are recommended as a supplement to the original decision and conditions of approval issued on April 28, 2009 {Exhibit 5): 1. The applicant shall eliminate the two cul-de-sacs which are used to terminate 163'd Ct SE and SE 141" Pl, in order to create a highly connective internal road network, with landscaping between where the curb and sidewalk exist and alley access for those lots on the interior of the subject site. The revised plat plan shall adhere to, as much as possible, a conceptual design created by staff (Exhibit 6). The revised plat plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Development Services and the Current Planning Project Manager; prior to engineering plan approval. 2. The applicant shall remove two of the proposed lots in order to take into consideration the portion ofthe site dedicated to critical areas which is not able to be used as developable land. A revised plat plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering permit approval. 3. Prior to engineering plan approval, the applicant shall provide a valid Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Certificate approved by the King County Department of Natural Resources in order to accommodate the any additional lots over the base density within the proposed development. The certificate or other valid legal document(s) must show the applicant or successor as the lawful owner of the development rights. Modification Report.doc Oty of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Administrative Short Plat Report & Decision LIBERTY GARDENS PRELI MINA LAT LUAOB--093, ECF, --------------Report of June 13, 2011 Page 12 of 12 4. The applicant shall revise the plat plan to depict a variation in lot width and arrange the lots so that larger lots are used to buffer smaller lots from surrounding R-4 development. The revised plat plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering permit approval. 5. The applicant shall submit supplemental materials including: a letter outlining recommended setbacks or another approved setback plan that averages front yard setbacks at 23 feet, for all lots, from the back of the curb; a revised plat plan depicting all setbacks; and draft CC & R's for the Homeowner's Association, with an inclusion of the setback requirements of the plat. The supplemental materials shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to the recording of the plat. 6. The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan depicting at least two street trees within the front yard of each lot not bordered by a planter in between the curb and the sidewalk. The revised landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering permit approval. 7. The applicant shall revise the plat plan in order to incorporate the drainage tract (Tract B) as a central feature for the community. The revised plat plan shall adhere to, as much as possible, a conceptual design created by staff (Exhibit 6). The revised plat plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering permit approval. 8. All lots which abut an alley shall be limited to vehicular access from the alley only. Modification Report.doc • ;, -r E7 -11 T23N RSE E 1/2 . -·~iiiiil1-t·· r-· SE ,32,,,jPI_ .. _______ , ' l i ; i / / / / / / ~ .. / ·-'···· ;_: r~ R-4 1 1. - r-7'-:-'c----,--i-------~ ~01l:WPi I ! i ---R.,4_ R4 ZONING MAP BOOK PW TECHNICAL SERVICES PRINTED ON 11/13/09 -"""'-·· .. ~--__ .. _O<Wnt!<•.-.:ll>bos<doo, .... _..._ ............ , .... ----~--""°"'''pioyOll,pooo>""" R-4 se1lZt)PI .... ,_ • l ! . S<' 13<1.hl'I. R-4 " ' R-4 EXHIBIT 1 . i,: -S1;J)4lh !I!:.: l i I • i ·-· 117 r c-· L. ______ j_ ~ 0 t ir' i ' ' ; .. i SE 1:mt, Pl R.,4 '/ .. J .. i J ! . " J t .__ p -~-~-----~---~ G7 -23 T23N RSE E 1/2 F7 0 200 k.J 400 I Feet 14 T23N RSE E 1/2 1 :4,800 5314 ' i r i. 1. I --- '!i .. G\, I .··.~ It. . I )::··, . ~""'%-..: ,~ N l~ I-.... r:a / .... ::c >< w r. I I I \ ··"~ " \ ~JI"'-. -- 1\ \ \ \ t (""') --....... .....-- -~-JVJ ri14ll-\'il:(~~1 ~-\S'Z(S:Zt) m1as m 'l/llll JlJJ10S 3rita\Y ONU. !il~I ' . ! ¥ ~ A lil?:!ii§ii!!! i lifst .. --, i ; i ,! ! ~ ,f 11 g M;ii, lli ~ d, H' i ··-··· ---.. \ jil 1m1 ' • ". ~ ! 5 ii:i:i:i ~H! f i! I I, r ' ud ~ ~ p... ~ -<Zl Q ~ 0 ~ t .,: g 0 ;;a 0 \ \ \ \ JI I ·---------) I ~\\_\ \.,,,,., •. : \ '/i ~ '-.. "-I! -.,I \. \ \ '-:[ I , \ \ \ \ :: I: I -.. '\ \ ,. r, \ ' \ '\ ~-~·tltt' \ \ \,\J-"\ ' ' ~>~ ~. I I ! -------- ' ', ··,~t<t:t DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT ERC MErrtNG DATE: January 24, 2011 Project Name: Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat -------------------------------- Owner/Applicant: Contact: File Number: Project Manager: Project Summary: Project location: Site Area: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: David Petrie; 811 S 273'' Ct; Des Moines, WA; 98198 DMP, Inc.; Hans Korve; 726 Auburn Way N; Auburn, WA; 98002 LUA08--093, ECF, MOO Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner The applicant is requesting Environmental Review in order to modify the approved Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat. The modification includes the utilization of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR's) for 1D additional lots for a total of 46 single family lots. The modification includes a revised lot layout; landscaping and utility plan. The original application, for 36 lots, was filed with the King County Department of Development and Enviromental Services for Environmental (SEPA) Review and Preliminary Plat approval (King County ODES File No. L04P0034) and was approved by the City on April 28, 2009. The 8.95 acre parcel is located within the City's Residential -4 (R-4) dwelling units per acre zoning designation; however, the project is vested to King County's R-4 zoning designation's development regulations. The proposed density would be approximately 5.3 dwelling units per acre after the use of TDR's. The proposed lots would range in size from approximately 5,900 square feet in area to 9,350 square feet. Access to the lots would be provided via three new internal streets extended from 162nd Ave SE connecting to 164th Ave SE. A category II wetland and a Class Ill stream is located in the southeast corner of the property. The subject property was annexed to the City of Renton on August 11, 2008. Southeast of 162"' Avenue SE and SE 140th Street 8.95 acres Staff Recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (ONS-M). ---------------------- Project Location Map ERC Report Ill.doc EXHIBIT 4 14 Minntes APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: SUMMARY OF REQUEST: SUMMARY OF ACTION: ff ot:d.h.-~1-;nvrrwn'>o [Jw.~lekJ OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON Wayne Potter Barghausen Consulting Engineer 18215 72 00 Avenue S Kent, WA 98032 David Petrie 81 l S 273"' Court Des Moines, WA 98198 Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat/ Appeal File No.: LUA 08-093, PP, ECF April 28, 2009 Southeast of 162 00 Avenue SE and SE 1401h Street Requesting Preliminary Plat approval for the subdivision of an 8.95-acre parcel into 36 lots for the eventual development of single-family residences, with tracts for recreation, stormwater, joint use driveways and sensitive areas. Environmental Appeal of Mitigation Measures Development Services Recommendation: Approve subject to conditions. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on March 10, 2009. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining available information on file with the application, field checking the property and surrounding area; the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUfES The following minutes are a SU11lltUl,Y of the March 17, 2009 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, March 17, 2009, at 9:02 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: Project file (Yellow file) containing Exhibit No. 2: Vicinity Map the original application, proof of posting, proof of publication and other documentation pertinent to the review of the nroiect. EXHIBIT 5 ~ 1,014.3 0 City of Renton , Washington LUaOB-093 Liberty Gardens 507 .1 5 1,014.3 Feet EXHIBIT 7 , Internet mapping site and his map may or may not be 1rrent , or otherwise rel iable. USED FOR NAVIGATION Lakes and Rivers Parcels Street Names Rights of Way Streets Roads Jurisdictions Bellevue Des Moines Issa quah Kent Ki ng County Me,ce, Island Newcastle RENTON SeaTac Seattle Tu kwila Aerial (March 2010) a Red· Band_ 1 • Green: Band_2 a Blue: Band_3 1: 6,086 @8.5" X 11" Notes Enter Map Description 0 ,... .. _ .... ..., • • • I t • • , ~---• • ..... .,. .. t l =·---~~- • ,,,,.--- ~ •• ~./'..v'"c '-~d ~ :,-,.Lf'>+-,"{ "'eff':>J"Q,..,..,-7 .J..,IJ-:),V~,;;' I • I ,-- • I i I I I '.o/ ~/! s-' • 1· •• ----·· l,,;<r'I STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING } AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC NOTICE Linda M Mills, being first duly sworn on oath that she is the Legal Advertising Representative of the Renton Reporter a weekly newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of general circulation and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continuously as a weekly newspaper in King County, Washington. The Renton Reporter has been approved as a Legal Newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County. The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues of the Renton Reporter (and not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a: Public Notice was published on April 22, 2011. The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of $84.00. ~$~~ Lmaa M. Mills Legal Advertising Representative, Renton Reporter Subscribed and SWJi'lll to me this 22nd day April, 2011. athy D~g/Notary Pu}9(c for the State of Washington, Residing in Coving(on, Washingto Ad Numbers: 481395/481399/481507 NOTICE OF APPEAL HEARING RENTON HEARING EXAMINER RENTON, WASHINGTON An appeal Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington, on May 3, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. to consider the follow- ing petitions: Liberty Gardens Modified Preliminary Plat Appeal LUA#OS-093 Location: SE of 162nd St SE and SF. 140th St. Appeal of Emiron- mental Review threshold DNS - Mitigated. Proposal is to subdivide an 8.95 acre site into 46 single fam- ily lots. The public hearing for the mod- ification to the Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat will be heard im- mediately following the appeal hearing.Legal descriptions of the files noted above are on file in the City Clerk's Office, Seventh Floor, City Hall, Renton. All in-terested persons are invited to be present at the Public Hearing to express their opinions. Questions should be di· .. ~~\. \\ \ \ \, \ \ 1, rected to the Hearing Examiner at ,·.:> ... ,· 'illl-430-6515. ::---'.: · ·~ . .-~hf~ed in the Renton Reporter • ... ,;·, , d~{IP'J},22,2011.#482616. ·-.; -.,. // -~_,'TA~,·. ·?:: ·,;, ,, / / ... May 11, 2011 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING ) ) § ) BONNIE I. WALTON, City Clerk for the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that she is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 21 and not a party to nor interested in this matter. That on the 11th day of May, 2011, at the hour of S:00 p.m. your affiant duly mailed and placed in the United States Post Office at Renton, King County, Washington, by first class mail to all parties of record a notification of Hearing Examiner's Hearing for the Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeal {LUA-08-093, ECF, MOD) Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 11th day of May, 2011. Cynthi R. Moya Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing in Renton My Commission expires: 8/27/2014 ; .; Wayne Potter Barghausen Consulting Engineer 18215 -72nd Avenue S Kent, WA 98032 Linda Corgiat 16039 SE 142nd Place Renton,WA 98059 Norm & Patricia Gammell 16043 SE 142nd Place Renton,WA 98059 Jennifer McCall Lozier Homes, Corp 1203 -114th Avenue SE Bellevue,WA 98004 Curtis Schuster KBS 111, LLC 12320 NE 8th Street ste: #100 Bellevue, WA 98005 Claudia Donnelly 10415 147th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 Gerald Smith 8524 S 125th Street Renton,WA 98057 Peter C. Hayes Coldwell Banker Bain 150 Bellevue Way SE Bellevue, WA 98004 Daniel Balmelli, PE Barghausen Consulting Engineer 18215 -72nd Avenue 5 Kent, WA 98032 Hans Korve DMP Eng., Inc. 726 Auburn Way N Auburn, WA 98002 Gwendolyn High C.A.R.E PO Box 2936 Renton,WA 98059 David Petrie 811 S 273rd Court Des Moines, WA 98198 Seattle KC Health Department East District Environ. Health 14350 SE Eastgate Way Bellevue, WA 98007 Norm Mohr 16224 SE 144th Street Renton, WA 98059 Marshall M. Bender 1822 SE 128th Street Renton, WA 98059 John & Nenita Ching 16038 SE 142nd Place Renton,WA 98059 Debbie Eberle 18225 SE 147th Street Renton, WA 98059 Richard & Teri Langdon 14201 -164th Avenue SE Renton,WA 98059 Michael Ritchey 14225 -164th Avenue SE Renton,WA 98059 Kolin Taylor 12320 NE 8th Street ste: #100 Bellevue, WA 98005 Donald & Andrea Gragg 16046 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 Karen Walter, Team Leader Watersheds & Land Use Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries 39015 172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 Denis Law Mayor May 11, 2011 Hans A. Korve, Planning Manager DMP, Inc . . 726 Auburn Way N. Auburn, WA 98002 City Clerk -Bonnie I.Walton Re: Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeal -LUA-08-093, ECF, MOD · Dear Mr. Korve and Parties of Record: You are hereby notified that a hearing before the Hearing Examiner has been scheduled for Monday, June 13, 2011, at 9:00 a.m. to consider the Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat and SEPA appeal as referenced. The hearing will be held in the City Council Chambers, 7th floor of Renton City Hall, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton, 98057. If this office can provide further information or assistance, please email me at· bwalton@rentonwa.gov. Sincerely, Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk cc: Larry Warren, City Attorney Jennifer Henning, Development Services Rocale Timmons, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services David Petrie, Property Owner Parties of Record (22) 1055 South Grady Way• Renton, Washington 98057 • (425) 430-6510 I Fax (425) 430-6516 • rentonwa.gov Denis Law Mayor May 11, 2011 Hans A. Korve, Planning Manager DMP, Inc. 726 Auburn Way N. Auburn, WA 98002 City Clerk -Bonnie I. Walton Re: Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeal -LUA-08-093, ECF, MOD Dear Mr. Korve and Parties of Record: You are hereby notified that a hearing before the Hearing Examiner has been scheduled for Monday, June 13, 2011, at 9:00 a.m. to consider the Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat and SEPA appeal as referenced. The hearing will be held in the City Council Chambers, 7th floor of Renton City Hall, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton, 98057. If this office can provide further information or assistance, please email me at bwalton@rentonwa.gov. Sincerely, Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk cc: Larry Warren, City Attorney Jennifer Henning, Development Services Roca le Timmons, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services David Petrie, Property Owner Parties of Record (22) 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • (425) 430-6510 / Fax (425) 430-6516 • rentonwa.gov Denis Law Mayor February 16, 2011 . Hans A. Korve, Planning Manager DMP, Inc. 726 Auburn Way N. Auburn;WA 98002 City Clerk -Bonnie I. Walton Re: Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat and SEP A Appeal~ LUA-08-093, ECF, MOD Dear Mr. Korve (and Parties of Record): On January 26, 20il, you were notified in a letter from Associate Planner Roca le Timmons of the date and time set for a Public Hearing to be held regarding the Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat. On February 11, 2011, Mr. Korve, you filed an appeal ofthe Environmental Review ' . . ' ' ) Committee (ERC} Determination; therefore, the preliminary plat hearing and the appeal hearing will be heard together. Yciu are. hereby notified that the hearing originally scheduled to take place February 22, 2011, has been .cancelled due to the appeal filing and due to the unavailability of a Hearing Examiner · on that date.· A revised hearing date has not. yet been determined. As soon as rescheduled, you and all parties of record will receive prior written notice of the date and time that the hearing will be held to addre.ss both the preliminary plat and the State Environmental_Policy Act (SEPA) review appeal filing. Until then, if I can provide further information or assistance, please-feel free to contact me, or · Associate Planner Rocale Timmons at 425-430-7219. Sincerely, Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk cc: Larry Warren, City Attorney Jennifer Henning, Development Services Roca le Timmons, Development SeNices _Stacy Tucker, Development SeNices David Petrie, Property Owner Parties of Record {21) • 1055 South Grady Way• Renton, Washington 980S7 • (425) 430-6510 / Fax(425) 430-6516 • rentonwa.gov I 1 . '. •" Hans Korve DMP Inc. 726 Auburn Way N Auburn, WA 98002 John & Nenita Ching 16038 SE 142nd Place Renton,WA 98059 Debbie Eberle 18225 SE 147th Street Renton,WA 98059 Gwendolyn High C.A.R.E PO Box 2936 Renton,\NA 98059 David Petrie 811 S 273rd Court Des Moines, WA 98198 Seattle KC Health Department East District Environ. Health 14350 SE Eastgate Way Bellevue,WA 98007 Norm Mqhr 16224 SE 144th Street Renton,WA 98059 Karen Walter, Team Leader Watersheds & Land Use Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries 39015 172nd Avenue SE Auburn,WA 98092 Wayne Potter Barghausen Consulting Engineer 18215 -72nd Avenue S Kent, WA 98032 Linda Corgiat 16039 SE 142nd Place Renton,WA 98059 Norm & Patricia Gammell 16043 SE 142nd Place Renton,WA 98059 Richard & Teri Langdon 14201 -164th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 Michael Ritchey 14225 -164th Avenue SE Renton,WA 98059 Kolin Taylor 12320 NE 8th Street ste: #100 Bellevue, WA 98005 Donald,& Andrea Gragg 16046 SE 142nd Place Renton,WA 98059 m~rn-~ I 8':;. :I. 5' .!, c. I J. ? ..., .,!../. ~1 WA 9'ilo59 J.-J.a-11 )aniel Balmelli, PE Barghausen Consulting Engineer 18215 -72nd Avenue S Kent, \NA 98032 Hans Konie DMP Eng., Inc. 726 Auburn Way N Auburn,\NA 98002 Don & Andrea Gragg 16046 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 Jennifer McCall Lozier Homes, Corp 1203 -114th Avenue SE Bellevue,WA 98004 Curtis Schuster KBS Ill, LLC 12320 NE 8th Street ste: #100 Bellevue, WA 98005 Claudia Donnelly 10415 147th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 Gerald Smith 8524 S 125th Street Renton,WA 98057 LIBERTY GARDENS PLAT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LUA 08-093 Project Condition Source of When Compliance Party Condition is Reouired Resoonsible Provide an east/west road connection from 162"" Ave SE to 164'" HEX Prior to engineering Applicant/ Ave SE in order to create a highly connective road network. All plan approval Builder construction and upgrading of public and private roads shall be done in accordance with the King County Road Standards established and adopted by Ordinance No. 11187 as amended (1993 KCRS). Required to submit a revised plat plan, depicting an east/west HEX Prior to engineering Applicant/ road connection from 162"J Ave SE to 164'" Ave SE. which is plan approval Builder also consistent \Vith all preliminarv nlat review criteria. Both frontages. 162"'1 Ave SE and 164"' Ave SE. for the full HLX During engineering Applicant length of the property shall be improYcd to the satisfaction of the con:,;tructinn and Builder City of Renton Development Services Division subje...::t to rhe pri\)r h) the recording King County Road Standards or as modified by variance. 162"" of the plat Avenue SE shall be designed and constructed to meet the urban neighborhood collector standard and no lot shall have a driveway entering off 162"'1 Ave SE or 164'" Ave SE Create pedestrian paths and links as determined by Staff HEX During engineering Applicant/ construction and Builder prior to the recording of the plat Required to provide a detailed tree retention plan. The tree HEX Prior to engineering Applicant/ retention plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current plan approval Builder Planning project manager. Pay a Transportation Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per net new HEX Prior to the recording Applicant/ average daily trip attributed to the proj eel. The fee for the of the plat Builder proposed plat is estimated at $25,839.00 ($75.00 x 9.57 trips x 36 lots ~ $25,839.00) Establish a homeowners' association for the development, which HEX Prior to the recording Applicant! would be responsible for any common improvements and/or of the plat Builder tracts within the plat. I . . . ,• Compliance Notes Shmature/Date Liberty Gardens Plat Conditions of Approval Page 2 of3 Pay school impact fees per RMC 4-1-160.D, to the City of Renton, on behalf of the Issaquah School District. The fee for the proposed plat is estimated at $216,756.00 ($6,021.00 x 36 lots= $216,756.00). Required to submit a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the State Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual. The plan must be submitted to and approved by the Develooment Services Division Plan Review staff. A covenant shall be recorded on the Sensitive Areas Tract, restricting its separate sale. Each abutting lot owner or the homeowners' association shall have an undivided interest in the tract. A draft version of this document shall be submitted to and annroved by the Current Planning Project Manager. Submit a maintenance and monitoring plan, for a period no less than five years, for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager. The detention system for this project shall be required to comply with the requirements found in the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual to meet both detention (Conservation Flow control -a.k.a. Level 3) and water quality imorovements. Provide secondary access to the plat suitable for domestic, emergency and pedestrian safety; to the satisfaction of the City of Renton Development Services Division subject to the King Countv Road Standards ( 1993 ). Protection measures, per RMC 4-4-130.H.8 shall apply for all trees that are to be retained in areas subject to construction. A maintenance surety device as required by the City of Renton code is required to guarantee satisfactory performance of the mitigation plan for a minimum of five years HEX ERC ERC ERC ERC ERC Code Code Prior to the recording Applicant/ of the plat Builder Prior to and during Applicant/ utility/road Builder construction Prior to utility Applicant/ construction Builder Prior to the recording Applicant/ of the plat Builder Builder During utility Applicant/ construction Builder During utility Applicant/ construction Builder During Project Applicant/ Construction Builder Prior to the recording Applicant/ of the plat Builder ~. \•. Liberty Gardens Plat Conditions of Approval Page 3 of3 Haul hours are limited from 8:30 am to 3:30 pm Monday through Friday Within 30 days of completion of grading work the applicant shall hydroseed or plant appropriate vegetation. Construction hours are from 7:00 am to 8:00 pm Monday through Friday and 9:00 am to 8:00 pm on Saturday and no work is allowed on Sundays. Code During Project Builder Construction Code During Project Contractor/ Construction Builder Code During Project Contractor/ Construction Builder Vested R-4 King County Development Standards include. but not limited to, the following: Develooment Standard Lot Size LtH \Vidth ! I .ot Depth I Street ~ctback (FY nr SYAS) Attached Garage Setback Detached Structures Interior Setbacks (SY or RY) Building Height Lot Coverage Landscaping Recreation cc: City of Renton File-LUA 08-093 Chip Vincent, Planning Director Jennifer Henning, CutTcnt Planning Manager Kayren Kittrick, Plan Reviewer Reauirement None - j() led I ----- I !\one'. ------- -·-----1 (_) f~(· pri1~:~r;_._· __ ~rlll'~~L_1:~· _(~c'C garage be Ill\\') 20 feet for entrance City of Renton Code ! 5 feet I 35 feet I ' ' 55 percent ' Per annrovcd olan ! Per annroved plan ' ._, ... I Denis Law Mayor February 16, 2011 Hans A. Korve, Planning Manager DMP, Inc. 726 Auburn Way N. Auburn, WA 98002 City Clerk -Bonnie I. Walton Re: Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeal -LUA-08-093, ECF, MOD Dear Mr. Korve (and Parties of Record): On January 26, 2011, you were notified in a letter from Associate Planner Rocale Timmons of the date and time set for a Public Hearing to be held regarding the Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat. On February 11, 2011, Mr. Korve, you filed an appeal of the Environmental Review Committee (ER(} Determination; therefore, the preliminary plat hearing and the appeal hearing will be heard together. You are hereby notified that the hearing originally scheduled to take place February 22, 2011, has been cancelled due to the appeal filing and due to the unavailability of a Hearing Examiner on that date. A revised hearing date has not yet been determined. As soon as rescheduled, you and all parties of record will receive prior written notice of the date and time that the hearing will be held to address both the preliminary plat and the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review appeal filing. Until then, if I can provide further information or assistance, please feel free to contact me, or Associate Planner Rocale Timmons at 425-430-7219. Sincerely, Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk cc: Larry Warren, City Attorney Jennifer Henning, Development Services Roca le Timmons, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services David Petrie, Property Owner Parties of Record (21) 1055 South Grady Way• Renton, Washington 98057 • (425) 430-6510 / Fax (425) 43o-6516 • rentonwa.gov i . ,t Hans Korve DMP Inc. 726 Auburn Way N Auburn, WA 98002 John & Nenita Ching 16038 SE 142nd Place Renton,\NA 98059 Debbie Eberle 18225 SE 14 7th Street Renton,\NA 98059 Gwendolyn High C.A.R.E PO Box2936 Renton,INA 98059 David Petrie 811 S 273rd Court Des Moines, \NA 98198 Seattle KC Health Department East District Environ. Health 14350 SE Eastgate \Nay Bellevue, IN A 98007 Norm Mqhr 16224 SE 144th Street Renton,\NA 98059 Karen Walter, Team Leader \Natersheds & Land Use Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries 39015 172nd Avenue SE Auburn, \NA 98092 Wayne Potter Barghausen Consulting Engineer 18215 -72nd Avenue S Kent, \NA 98032 Linda Corgiat 16039 SE 142nd Place Renton, \NA 98059 Norm & Patricia Gammell 16043 SE 142nd Place Renton, \NA 98059 Richard & Teri Langdon 14201 -164th Avenue SE Renton, \NA 98059 Michael Ritchey 14225 -164th Avenue SE Renton,\NA 98059 Kolin Taylor 12320 NE 8th Street ste: #100 Bellevue, \NA 98005 Donald.& Andrea Gragg 16046 SE 142nd Place Renton, \NA 98059 Daniel Balmelli, PE Barghausen Consulting Engineer 18215 -72nd Avenue S Kent, WA 98032 Hans Korve DMP Eng., Inc. 726 Auburn \Nay N Auburn,VvA 98002 Don & Andrea Gragg 16046 SE 142nd Place Renton,INA 98059 Jennifer McCall Lozier Homes, Corp 1203 -114th Avenue SE Bellevue,\NA 98004 Curtis Schuster KBS Ill, LLC 12320 NE 8th Street ste: #100 Bellevue,\NA 98005 Claudia Donnelly 10415 147th Avenue SE Renton, \NA 98059 Gerald Smith 8524 S 125th Street Renton, \NA 98057 February 16, 2011 Hans A. Korve, Planning Manager DMP, Inc. 726 Auburn Way N. Auburn, WA 98002 Re: Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeal-LUA-08-093, ECF, MOD Dear Mr. Korve (and Parties of Record): On January 26, 2011, you were notified in a letter from Associate Planner Rocale Timmons of the date and time set for a Public Hearing to be held regarding the Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat. On February 11, 2011, Mr. Korve, you filed an appeal ofthe Environmental Review Committee (ERC) Determination; therefore, the preliminary plat hearing and the appeal hearing will be heard together. You are hereby notified that the hearing originally scheduled to take place February 22, 2011, has been cancelled due to the appeal filing and due to the unavailability of a Hearing Examiner on that date. A revised hearing date has not yet been determined. As soon as rescheduled, you and all parties of record will receive prior written notice of the date and time that the hearing will be held to address both the preliminary plat and the State Environmental Policy Act {SEPA) review appeal filing. Until then, if I can provide further information or assistance, please feel free to contact me, or Associate Planner Rocale Timmons at 425-430-7219. Sincerely, Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk cc: Larry Warren, City Attorney Jennifer Henning, Development Services Rocale Timmons, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services David Petrie, Property Owner Parties of Record (21) February 11, 2011 Renton Hearing Examiner c/o City Clerk City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 • CITYOF RENTON c~ FEB 11 2011 "3'..S--optr RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE DALEY-MORROW-POBLETE, INC. ENGINEERING-SURVEYING-LAND PLANNING 726 Auburn Way North Auburn, WA 98002 (253)333-2200 FAX (253)333-2206 RE: LUA08-093, ECF, MOD -Liberty Gardens -Plat Amendment-SEPA Appeal Dear Mr. Examiner: Please find the attached documentation which explains the nature of my clients SEPA appeal. In summary, we are appealing the Environmental Review Committees report and determination for the above noted project. Our issues are discussed in the attached letters. We seek remedy for the Staff violations of: • WAC 197-11-058 • WAC 197-11-060 • WAC 197-11-350 • WAC 197-11-660 • RMC 4-7-080(M) H nsA. Korve Planning Manager DMP Inc. 01-540 Liberty Gardens SEPA Appeal .. February 10, 2011 Rocale Timmons City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 • DALEY-MORROW-POBLETE, INC. ENGINEERING-SURVEYING-LAND PLANNING 726 Auburn Way North Auburn, WA 98002 (253)333-2200 FAX (253)333-2206 RE: LUA08-093, ECF, MOD -Liberty Gardens -Plat Amendment -SEPA Appeal Dear Ms. Timmons: I have received a copy of the Environmental Threshold (SEPA) Determination, dated January 24, 2011, for the Liberty Gardens Plat. On behalf of our Client, and in accordance with RMC 4-8-110.B, we officially appeal the determination issued by the Environmental Review Committee for the above noted project. As discussed in the attached comment letter, we specifically object to the addition of proposed Mitigation Measure #5. Mitigation Measure #5 violates multiple aspects of the WAC;s as well as Renton Municipal code. While it can be argued that most, if not all, of the other proposed mitigation measures would be disqualified under WAC 197-11-158, it is particularly true in the case of condition #5. Aside from the fact that the secondary access element of the condition is included as part of the applicant's proposal, the Applicants January 11, 2011 SEPA comment letter clearly references the applicable portions of the King County Road Standards which would render condition #5 unnecessary. In addition, under section 3 of the Environmental Review Committees own report, Staff stipulates that the Applicant proposal provides secondary access and described the road geometry that makes such secondary access a requirement of the road standards. This alone makes the Applicant argument for him. Under WAC 197-11-060 (SEPA), Staff must explain why an identified impact is likely to occur. The only discussion of an identified "Impact" in the Staffs environmental review is the "likelihood of revisions or utilization of one of the formerly approved designs". Aside from the use of the term "likelihood", this explanation in no way addresses the review criteria described in WAC 197-11-060. Staff's comment that the Applicant may some day revise his proposal is purely "speculative". There is no evidence that the Applicant will revise his proposal in the future; there is no 01-540 Liberty Gardens SEPA Appeal discussion as to how this possible future revision would adversely and significantly impact the environment or how such a speculative impact would be unregulated by existing code. (WAC 197-11-158) Furthermore, Staff fails to point out that any possible future alteration of the site plan, which would include the elimination or alteration of secondary access, would fall under the "Major Revision" provisions of RMC 4-7-080(M)(2)(d).which states: d. Any amendment that would result in the relocation of any roadway access point to an exterior street from the plat; Under this section of the code, the Hearing Examiner shall hold a Public Hearing on the proposed Major Amendment and the Examiner may make any modifications in the terms and conditions of the preliminary plat approval, to the extent that they are reasonably related to the proposed amendment. This is the exact process that the Applicant is currently engaged in. As such, Staff's claim that a SEPA condition is required to provide "clarity and surety" is incorrect and irrelevant to the SEPA process. RMC 4-7-0BO(M) provides "surety" that any future plat alteration will be reviewed by the City of Renton, and the applicable road standards provide the required "clarity". It should be emphasized that nowhere in the WAC's does it state that the purpose of SEPA is to provide "clarity or surety". It should also be noted, that under the provisions of RMC 4-7-0BO(M) (3) as quoted above, new conditions must be related to the proposed amendment. As such, the proposed addition of 10 residential lots has no impact on the point of access to 162"d or 154th Ave SE. That portion of the site plan is unaffected from the original approval. Therefore the Staff proposal not only violates three provisions for the WAC, but also the approval procedures of RMC 4-7-080(M)(3). ' Hans A. Korve Planning Manager DMP Inc. Attached -Jan. 11, 2011 comment letter 01-540 Liberty Gardens -2011 SEPAAppeal Letter 2 • DALEY-MORROW-POBLETE, INC. January 11, 2011 Rocale Timmons City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 ENGINEERING-SURVEYING-LAND PLANNING 726 Auburn Way North Auburn, WA 98002 (253)333-2200 FAX (253)333-2206 RE: LUAOB-093, ECF, MOD -Liberty Gardens-Plat Amendment Dear Ms. Timmons: I have received a copy of the Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M), dated January 4, 2011, for the Liberty Gardens Plat. In reviewing the proposed mitigation with my Client, and against the applicable code provisions, a number of concerns were raised. In an attempt to articulate our concerns, I have provided excerpts of the applicable Washington Administrative Code (WAC) sections as reference, and then provided a brief explanation below. The referenced WAC sections have been abridged to reference the applicable aspects of the code. Underlines have been added for emphasis. It is our hope that after reviewing these code sections, that Staff will issue a revised DNS and eliminate the proposed mitigation. If Staff is not inclined to make the requested correction based on the information provided, then please consider this to be our official Appeal of the proposed SEPA Mitigation. The applicable WAC provisions are as follows: WAC 197-11-060 Content of environmental review. ( 4) Impacts. (a) SEP A's procedural provisions require the consideration of"environmental" impacts, with attention to impacts that are likely, not merely speculative. 01-540 The issue raised by Staff'in the D.\S-M is "Secondary Access" A review of !he proposal indicates that the Applicant has provided secondary pedeslrian as well as vehicular access lo the projccl us pan of rhe initial design. As such, Stajf'review of the proposal does nor identify a "likely" impac/. To he clear, the proposed mitigation make., 110 reference to any identified impact. Liberty Gardens Narrative WAC 197-11-158 GMA project review --Reliance on existing plans, laws, and regulations. (5) If a OMA county/city's development regulations adequately address some or all of a project's probable specific adverse impacts, the OMA county/city shall not require additional mitigation under this chapter for those impacts. Section 2. 08 (B) of the vested King C ·ounty Road Standards sets the maximum length of a cul-de-sac at 600/eet. /Jused on .specific site restrictions. that length may be extended to 1. 000.fcel ifthe road is serving less than 50 units. Under the Applicant's propusul. ho1h of the proposed cul-de-sacs are less than 600' long. However, if the ,Jpplicunr had not already proposed a road connection to 16/h Ave SE, the cul-de-sacs would have been approximately 1,300 and 1.500 linierfeet re.1pectil·ely. The vested road standards would clearly not have allowed this de1ig11, and the Applicant would haw been required to provide an additional connection. in swnma,y, the Applicant's proposal is in compliance with the adopted road standard~ and no likely environmcnral impact has been identified. Had an impact been identified. then under the provisions of WAC 197-11-158 (5). the City of Renton could not impose an addirional mitigation measure over the issue. WAC 197-11-350 Mitigated DNS. The purpose of this section is to allow clarifications or changes to a proposal prior to making the threshold determination. (2) .. If the lead agency indicates a DS is likely, the applicant may clarify or change features of the proposal to mitigate the impacts which led the agency to consider a DS likely. The applicant shall revise the environmental checklist as may be necessary to describe the clarifications or changes. The Applicant ·s proposal included u secondary access point as a matter of"the original December 7. 2010 su/Jmillul. As such, there is no identifiable impact. With no identifiable impact. no a/rcrarion <!/the SEPA checklist or the site plan has been requested or is required. 7her~fore, no SEPA condition is warranted. WAC 197-11-660 Substantive authority and mitigation. (b) Mitigation measures shall be related to specific, adverse environmental impacts clearly identified in an environmental document on the proposal and shall be stated in writing by the decision maker. The decision maker shall cite the agency SEPA policy that is the basis of any condition. (d) Responsibility for implementing mitigation measures may be imposed upon an applicant only to the extent attributable to the identified adverse impacts of its proposal. Voluntary additional mitigation may occur. 01-540 Liberty Gardens -2011 SEPA Response Letter 2 • ( e) Before requiring mitigation measures, agencies shall consider whether local, state, or federal requirements and enforcement would mitigate an identified significant impact. As previously indicate,!, Staflhas 1101 ident/fied any environmental impacts in its DNS-lvf document dated.Ja1111arv 4, 2011. Staflonly identifies a proposed mirigarion measure. In accordance with WAC 197-11-660 (d), as listed above. mifigafion may only be imposed to the extenr attributable to the identified impact. With no impact idenli/icd. 1he proposed mitigation is no/ in compliance wilh the W4C. Furthermore, as indicated in sub-section (e), hefiJre requiring mitigation, a11 agenq must consider applicahle code requirements. We have already shown that section 2.08 (B) of the vested Road Standards would have addressed this issue il it had not already been so. In closing, we would like to remind Staff that the Applicant is proposing to maintain the overall site layout that was originally approved by the Hearing Examiner. The Applicant is not requesting a major modification of the approved site plan. With the exception of modifications required to convert several of the lots to alley-loaded, the overall road network remains unchanged. We would also like it noted that the revised Liberty Garden design provides improved pedestrian walking facilities to almost every home in the project. Sidewalks have been separated from the travel lanes along the primary and half of the secondary internal roads. These improvements far exceed what is required under the vested codes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Hans A. Korve Planning Manager DMP Inc. 01-540 Liberty Gardens -2011 SEPA Response Letter 3 L, ___ ,, .. , . I ,.'itY (} ·o~& ·~ + d:i "'o'<, ~ D Cash ~Check No. Description: CITY OF RENTON City Clerk Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425-430-6510 d I 11.-j ,\ ' ' \ \. -\ ; ' ' ,·., ' D Copy Fee ~Appeal Fee _,('·-'-' ' ,.:,, ('' \ I .-· ·'· I. \ ci:s \ .. \ \_ .. -_~ .. r..._ ·,., Funds Received From: Name Address ',. '\ . -i \ \ ~)..A_)\( \j Q -'\:-( \ £ - ~.i,11 S, a1~01 CT City/Zip 0 \ 00 ) £ ·, C{\.-., ,, () s I \.;\j,,,...__ ............ ;..-·;,..~ Receipt · ·~ 1724 Date d -) \ -\ \ D Notary Service D _________ _ ' i ~-~ ._(,-.~ '\-. ' ..... '\ ·-·\ ( ...... ,'.'·-~~'·, ........... . -2\ [Amount$ ;)50- "\ "\ \ ' \ ' \ \\ !/ :'\.\-~ \..::... \ 6. . -- IAlEJ-IIIIDIW-POBIETl.111:. 7HAU8URNWAY N. AUBURN, WA II002 (263) 333•2200 (FAX) {2531 333-2206 ~ne.ue • HUIA.KNVE -...::: i: ,J N ,:r f ~· ;;t· u., ~ '' f '· 11 ~ ~ !Li w il Ii. ij .. 1·':;f'""fSf'TiJE.ot "-VAoe-;,;;;;;;.~.:> --.. ~ . lfili1t DAD, 8 M ~~ • ' Hans Korve From: Sent: To: Dave Petrie [DavePetrie@comcast.net] Wednesday, February 09, 2011 4:23 PM Bonnie Walton Cc: Subject: Rocale Timmons; Hans Korve ofc Re: Your check An initial version was submitted in a letter to Rocale Timmons by DMP INC (Hans Korve) on January 11, logged into Planning Divisio~ Jan 13. -----Original Message----- From: "Bonnie Walton" <Bwalton@Rentonwa.gov> To: <'davepetrie@comcast.net'> Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 1:43 PM Subject: Your check Mr. Petrie: In today's postal mail, a check from yo:....i. in the amount of $250 was received, however, no paperwork was attached or included and no phone number is given. You have written on the check itself ~ha~ this is for a Land Use SEPA appeal, however, you have provided no appeal letter or documentation to support an appeal, and no note to indicate such letter or documentation is being submitted separately. Please know that I cannot accept this check as an appeal unless it is accompanied by written documentation stating what it is you are appealing and why. The fee and the appeal letter are to be filed in this office simultaneously. If I do not hear from you regarding this matter, I will be returning your check by postal mail. Sincerely, Bonnie Walton City Clerk City of Renton 425-430-6502 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG -www.avg.com Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3432 -Release Date: 02/08/11 23:34:00 1 February 11, 2011 Renton Hearing Examiner c/o City Cieri< City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 CffY OF RENTON t=:E8 11 2011 RECEIVED · CITY CLERK'S OFFl(:E , //,'t11J QM -l't.r e,,,,.a.J ----~ · -~ 4~ ·k!J.i~~ DALEY-MORROW-POBLETE, INC. ENGINEERING-SURVEYING-LAND PLANNING 726 Auburn Way North AuDurn, WA 98002 (253)333-2200 FAX (253)333-2206 RE: LUA08-093, ECF, MOD -Liberty Gardens -Plat Amendment-SEPA Appeal Dear Mr. Examiner: Please find the attached documentation which explains the nature of my clients SEPA appeal. In summary, we are appealing the Environmental Review Committees report and determination for the above noted project. Our issues are discussed in the attached letters. We seek remedy for the Staff violations of: • WAC 197-11-058 • WAC 197-11-060 • WAC 197-11-350 • WAC 197-11-660 • RMC 4-7-080(M) Sincerely, H nsA. Korve Planning Manager DMP Inc. 01-540 Liberty Gardens SEPA Appeal February 10, 2011 Rocale Timmons City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 DALEY-MORROW-POBLETE, INC. ENGINEERING-SURVEYING-LAND PLANNING 726 Auburn Way North Auburn, WA 98002 (253)333-2200 FAX (253)333-2206 RE: LUAOS-093, ECF, MOD -Liberty Gardens -Plat Amendment-SEPA Appeal Dear Ms. Timmons: I have received a copy of the Environmental Threshold (SEPA) Determination, dated January 24, 2011, for the Liberty Gardens Plat. On behalf of our Client, and in accordance with RMC 4-8-11 O.B, we officially appeal the determination issued by the Environmental Review Committee for the above noted project. As discussed in the attached comment letter, we specifically object to the addition of proposed Mitigation Measure#5. Mitigation Measure #5 violates multiple aspects of the WAC;s as well as Renton Municipal code_ While it can be argued that mpst, if not all, of the other proposed mitigation measures would be disqualified under WAC 197-11-158, it is particularly true in the case of condition #5. Aside from the fact that the secondary access element of the condition is included as part of the applicant's proposal, the Applicants January 11, 2011 SEPA comment letter clearly references the applicable portions of the King County Road Standards which would render condition #5 unnecessary. In addition, under section 3 of the Environmental Review Committees own report, Staff stipulates that the Applicant proposal provides secondary access and described the road geometry that makes such secondary access a requirement of the road standards_ This alone makes the Applicant argument for him. Under WAC 197-11-060 (SEPA), Staff must explain why an identified impact is likely to occur. The only discussion of an identified "Impact" in the Staffs environmental review is the "likelihood of revisions or utilization of one of the formerly approved designs". Aside from the use of the term "likelihood", this explanation in no way addresses the review criteria described in WAC 197-11-060. Staff's comment that the Applicant may some day revise his proposal is purely "speculative". There is no evidence that the Applicant will revise his proposal in the future; there is no 01-540 liberty Gardens SEPA Appeal discussion as to how this possible future revision would adversely and significantly impact the environment or how such a speculative impact would be unregulated by existing code. (WAC 197-11-158) Furthermore, Staff fails to point out that any possible future alteration of the site plan, which would include the elimination or alteration of secondary access, would fall under the "Major Revision" provisions of RMC 4-7-080(M)(2)(d).which states: d. Any amendment that would result in the relocation of any roadway access point to an exterior street from the plat; Under this section of the code, the Hearing Examiner shall hold a Public Hearing on the proposed Major Amendment and the Examiner may make any modifications in the terms and conditions of the preliminary plat approval, to the extent that they are reasonably related to the proposed amendment. This is the exact process that the Applicant is currently engaged in. As such, Staffs claim that a SEPA condition is required to provide "clarity and surety" is incorrect and irrelevant to the SEPA process. RMC 4-7-0SO(M) provides "surety" that any future plat alteration will be reviewed by the City of Renton, and the applicable road standards provide the required "clarity". It should be emphasized that nowhere in the WAC's does it state that the purpose of SEPA is to provide "clarity or surety''. It should also be noted, that under the provisions of RMC 4-7-0SO(M) (3) as quoted above, new conditions must be related to the proposed amendment. As such, the proposed addition of 10 residential lots has no impact on the point of access to 162nd or 1641 h Ave SE. That portion of the site plan is unaffected from the original approval. Therefore the Staff proposal not only violates three provisions for the WAC, but also the approval procedures of RMC 4-7-080(M)(3). Hans A. Korve Planning Manager DMP Inc. Attached -Jan. 11, 2011 comment letter 01-540 Liberty Gardens -2011 SEPA Appeal Letter 2 STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING } AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC NOTICE Linda M Mills, being first duly sworn on oath that she is the Legal Advertising Representative of the Renton Reporter a weekly newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of general circulation and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continuously as a weekly newspaper in King County, Washington. The Renton Reporter has been approved as a Legal Newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County. The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues of the Renton Reporter (and not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a: Public Notice was published on January 28, 2011. The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of $115.50. ~#z'.~@ Wnda M~Mills Legal Advertising Representative, Renton Reporter Subscribed and swomto me this 28th day January, 2011. ,r the State of Washington, Residing ''''''"''\\1 ,,, 111 ::-'' Qf\LSECG' ,,, -'<':-I.. ,,\,\\\'.1"11 // : ,..::·' ~, E"p t,1 / -J ' ::-' . 1.,,)1' ..._ /~ '11 'I: -r-...,. --J' •r...-.. I; / :='CT=-. .':? "\,.Ry ,.~1, / -.... :::, . 0 '/ ./ § X 3::i ~ _. (J 1 i ::: / ' -~ '/. .... ~" .- :..;. ,,.. J,/ ' '-., NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC HEARING RENTON,WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee has issued a Deter- mination of Non-Significance for the following project under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. Liberty Gardens Preliminal)' Plat LUAOS-093, EC,, MOD Location: SE of 162nd Ave SE and SE 140th St. Subdivision of an 8. 95 ac site into 46 lots using TDR 's to achieve a density of 5 .3 du/ac. Located in the City's R4 zone however vested to King County R-4 zoning. Access provided via 162nd and 164th Ave SE. Site contains a Class Ill stream and Class 11 wetland Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on February 11, 2011 Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, l 055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)430-6510. A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers, City Hall, on February 22, 20ll at 9:00 a.m. to consider the major modification to the approved Preliminary Plat. If the Envi- ronmental Determination is appea1ed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. Interested parties are invited to attend the public hearing. Published in Renton Reporter on January 28,201 L #455891. NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION AND PUBLIC HEARING ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATJON Of NON-SIGNIFICANCE· MmGATED (DNS-M) ~STED TO NOTIFY :NTERESTED PcASON~ OF AN EN~IRONMEMTAL ACT10N P'ROJftT NAME, llbe,ti, G•n:l•n• Preliminary Pl•t PROJftT NUM8El\: UJ.C.08·1l93, EC~, MOO lOCATION: Sou1t,,,.,1 of 16i"'' "••n"" SE and Sf 1•o"'su.o1 OUOIIPTIOfl:. The applicant 1, "q""Jlffll ·i!n~lninrnent,I R-w !n ...,., to """'lfr ~ app=otl LI~ Gardons l'N!llmlna,y Pl•t. Tho modlRcatlor, !r'ldudo, tl!e lrtlllrallon afTransfu ol Onwlupment Rl1ht1 (TDR •J ro'. 10 addl~on,I lot, l.:Jr a tot.I of 46 ,;nJI• lamlly lat,. Thi mo<ftfk:atk>n J,.<luda a ,..i,..,1 kit larullt, londoup,n1 md otlllty plan .. Th• or1glnal applkttlan, for l6 lot<, w•• fllod wflh tho KIIII' County Do""rtmem: or O•....,lopmont and Env<romon!al Senilce< for Em-ln:,nmltftbl (SEPA) Rn/aw and Preliminary Plat approval (Kllll:Covnty DOES FIi" No. LMPOOl4l and was appri,votl by tht Cty on April 28, 2009. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAl IIEV•E:W COMMIITH (ERC) liAS DITERMINED TliAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT liAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals aFth• enviroMMntal determl~atlon mYsl be llled ln wrttln1 on or bdon! 5:00 p.m. on February 11 2011. Appaa!1 murt be hied In wrlt,ng together with th• requln!d In with: Hearlni E .. mln~, Oty af .hnton, 1055 Saulh Gr.dy Way, Renton. WA 9S057. Appeals ta the Eumlner ii.re aavarned by Oty al R1n1an M1111!dpal Cod., S..dlan 4-8·110.a. Additional inlormetlon regarding 1h~ appeal p,ac..• may be ab1afn&d from the Ranton City Clerk's Offico, (425) 430-6510. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HHD HY THE RENTON Hf"RING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEH!NG IN TliE COUNCIL CHAMBEFl5 ON THE 7TK HOO~ OF CIT" KALL, l055 SOUTH GRADY WAY RENTON WASHINGTON ON FEBRUARY 22, 1011 AT 9:00 AM TO CONSIDER THE PRELIMINARY Pt.AT. 'If THE eNvrAONMENTAl DETERMINATION IS APPEALED~WE APPEAL Will OE HEARD A5 PARTOF' THIS PUBLIC HE.ARING. Please Include the project NUMBER when calllng kir proper flle ldentifleatlon. CERTIFICATION I, ·~ ~ \ l:?o\l . hereby certify that .3 copies of the above document were posted in .3_ conspicuous places or nearby ~roperty on Date: q.z'f-/1l Signed~ ~ STATE OF WASHINGTON ss COUNTY OF KING I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that R c, ~ce,, )A) , \<;or--. signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the US~,iil'I\UIJl~moses mentioned in the instrument . ............ ,, b ,,,,, ·f"ti~, ""' 'T ,, 2. ____ 1~1 ~d~~0vi"+""4~~) __________ _ f :::r:J'i';. ~ Notary Public £and for the State of Washington ~ if I~·.. i o ~ % \~ ~u!'!,.._">j; ff Notary (Print): __ __:.11cc·.,1.A-'·~li..?w· '"''""'·-"io"'e.,_·,_' ________ _ II ,1111, 1111 8~~~ ... ~ ... ~.: I. V'11,. IJI ._.,,, -~ -'11 r,f 1h11m•'-'" t::,'~ : \, ~ OF 'Ii t-,,,;:-,, ·1 • , ....... ' \\:\,.\,\">'\' My appointment expires: __ ~A~·~"-t.j~' ,.,~/ __ J_a-'-l1J-~-· _o~l ... 3~----- .. CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF.COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT-PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 26th day of January, 2011, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing ERC Determination documents. This information was sent to: /;!!''~l'~,. . ' ' . '"' -'" ----------~---~,,--·,1 SI' r...-' ~ Agencies See Attached Hans Korve Contact David Petrie Owner Parties of Record See attached (Signature of Sender): ,~0 "'7r/ ,JatJ{l.v STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )SS I. iOC: COUNTY OF KING ) i • • S! j t-'! ~ _ ..... ::>= C, -~ N"""~· .! ~ -\ 1--r,,;> ~ .cc I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy M. Tucker ''i ·~ ""'"'' t-':i _,f signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for trrll,.';1.llil&lfptii:poses mentioned in the instrument. 111111\""'''' Notar Public in and for the State of Washington Notary (Print): ___ _:f:..:.'• __c·::..·' ___,G-::.,,c,.:"",.\,.,,_,L-______________ _ My appointment expires: , / c>.C1 / ;;i_ o G LUAOS-093, ECF, MOD template -affidavit of service by mailing .. Dept. of Ecology • Environmental Review Section PD Box47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 WSDOT Northwest Region * Attn: Ramin Pazooki King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240 PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers * Seattle District Office Attn: SEPA Reviewer PO Box C-3755 Seattle, WA 98124 Boyd Powers * Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Serv. Attn: SEPA Section 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 Metro Transit Senior Environmental Planner Gary Kriedt 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Seattle Public Utilities Real Estate Services Attn: SEPA Coordinator 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERC DETERMINATIONS) WDFW -Larry Fisher• 1775 12th Ave. NW Suite 201 Issaquah, WA 98027 Ouwamish Tribal Office * 4717 W Marginal Way SW Seattle, WA 98106-1514 KC Wastewater Treatment Division • Environmental Planning Supervisor Ms. Shirley Marroquin 201 S. Jackson ST, MS K5C-NR-050 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 City of Newcastle Attn: Steve Roberge Director of Community Development 13020 Newcastle Way Newcastle, WA 98059 Puget Sound Energy Municipal Liaison Manager Joe Jainga PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-OlW Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. • Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer 39015-172"' Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program * Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert 39015172"d Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092-9763 Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation* Attn: Gretchen Kaehler PO Box 48343 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 City of Kent Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP Acting Community Dev. Director 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, WA 98032-5895 City of Tukwila Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 •Note: If the Notice of Application st3tes that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the checklist, Site Plan PMT, and the notice of application. template -affidavit of service by mailing .. ,• OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION AND PUBLIC HEARING ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS·M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: LOCATION: Liberty Gardens Prelimlnary Plat LUAOS-093, ECF, MOO Southeast of 162nd Avenue SE and SE 140th Street DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Environmental Review in order to modify the approved liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat. The modification includes the utilization of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR's) for 10 additional lots for a total of 46 slngle family lots. The modification includes a revised lot layout, landscaping and utility plan. The original application, for 36 lots, was filed with the King County Department of Development and Enviromental Services for Environmental (SEPA} Review and Preliminary Plat approval (King County DDES File No. L04P0034) and was approved by the City on April 28, 2009. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on February 11, 2011. Appeals must be filed In writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4·8·110.B. Additional Information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, {425) 430·6510. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE 7TH FLOOR OF CITY HALL, 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON FEBRUARY 22, 2011 AT 9:00 AM TO CONSIDER THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. ; l FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AT (425) 430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Please include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file identification. Denis Law Mayor January 26, 2011 Hans.Korve DMP Inc. 726 Auburn Way N Auburn, WA 98002 Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch,Administrator SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL THRESHOLD (SEPAi DETERMINATION Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat, LUAOB-093, ECF, MOD Dear Mr. Korve: This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) to advise you that they have completed their review of the subject project and have issued a threshold Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated with Mitigation Measures. PleaserereYtotneenclosed ERC Report and Decision, Part-2;-section B for a lisfofthe Mitigation Measures. Appeals of t_he environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on February 11, 2011. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8- 110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. Also, a Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington, on February 22, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. to consider the Preliminarf Plat. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant is required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you prior to the hearing. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. The preceding information will assist you in planning for impl.ementation of your project and enable you to exercise your appeal rights more fully, if you choose to do so. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at (425) 430-7219. Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov ' ' Hans Korve Page 2 of 2 January 26, 2011 For the Environmental Review Committee, ~ Roe e Timmons Enclosure cc: David Petrie/ Owner(s) See attached/ Party(ies) of Record ERG Oetermination Ltr_ 1-24-11 _ 08-093.doc ' Steve Botheim, upervisor CPLN LUSD MS OAK Kelly Whiting, Road Svc Di MS OAK Chad Tib . DDES D MS O DE 0100 rty of record) John & Nenita Ching 16038 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Debbie Eberle 18225 SE 14 7th Street Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Updated: 01/25/11 PARTIES OF RECORD LIBERTY GARDENS PREL PLAT LUA08-093, PP, ECF, AAD, MOD, ECF2 Kim Clausse2PP III CPLN LUSD MS OAK ... 00 ' of record) Nick Gillen, Envf~ntist --~~· CAS LUS ,$,1' MS O · E 0100 arty of record) Larry West, EQi!S:~entist CAS LUSD__," MS /.JfJE 0100 ~ of record) Alex Perlma11.;p~ DDES LUSP.,>!"' ~s o/df. 0100 (pit of record) Wayne Potter y of record) Shirley Goll, CPLN LUS MSOA Daniel Balmelli, PE Barghausen Consulting Engineer 18215 -72nd Avenue S Barghausen Consulting Engineer 18215 -72nd Avenue S Kent, WA 98032 (applicant/ contact) Linda Corgiat 16039 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Norm & Patricia Gammell 16043 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Kent, WA 98032 (party of record) Hans Korve DMP Eng., Inc. 726 Auburn Way N Auburn, WA 98002 (party of record) Don & Andrea Gragg 16046 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) (Page 1 of 2) ' PARTIES OF RECORD LIBERTY GARDENS PREL PLAT LUAOS-093, PP, ECF, AAD, MOD, ECF2 Gwendolyn High C.A.R.E PO Box 2936 Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) David Petrie 811 S 273rd Court Des Moines, WA 98198 (owner) Seattle KC Health Department East District Environ. Health 14350 SE Eastgate Way Bellevue, WA 98007 (party of record) Norm Mohr 16224 SE 144th Street Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Marshal M Brenden 18225 SE 128th Street Renton, WA 98059 tel: (425) 255-6210 (party of record) Updated: 01/26/11 Richard & Teri Langdon 14201 -164th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Michael Ritchey 14225 -164th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Kolin Taylor 12320 NE 8th Street ste: #100 Bellevue, WA 98005 (party of record) Donald & Andrea Gragg 16046 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 tel: (425) 793-7370 (party of record) Jennifer McCall Lozier Homes, Corp 1203 -114th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98004 (party of record) Curtis Schuster KBS III, LLC 12320 NE 8th Street ste: #100 Bellevue, WA 98005 (party of record) Claudia Donnelly 10415 147th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Gerald Smith 8524 S 125th Street Renton, WA 98057 tel: (206) 772-5418 (party of record) (Page 2 of 2) DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NO(S): APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: LUAOS-093, ECF, MOD David Petrie Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental Review in order to modify the approved Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat. The modification includes the utilization of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR's) for 10 additional lots for a total of 46 single family lots. The modification includes a revised lot layout, landscaping and utility plan. The original application, for 36 lots, was filed with the King County Department of Development and Enviromental Services for Environmental {SEPA) Review and Preliminary Plat approval (King County DDES File No. L04P0034) and was approved by the City on April 28, 2009. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: Southeast of 162"d Avenue SE and SE 1401h Street The City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. Planning: 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. 2. The applicant will be required to establish a Native Growth Protection Tract over that part of the site encompassing the stream/wetland and buffer area. 3. Sensitive area tract boundaries must be clearly marked with bright orange construction and silt fencing prior to construction or site clearing activities. The boundaries shall remain marked until construction is complete. 4. Building and other structures shall be setback a distance of lS feet from the edges of all sensitive area buffers. 5. A detailed final plan to mitigate for impacts from any alterations to critical areas will be required to be reviewed and approved, in accordance with KCC 21A.24 (2004), prior to the approval of the plat engineering plans. Water: ERC Advisory Notes Page 1 of 2 1. All fire hydrants installed or--· ing this subdivision are required to b_ ,._ted with a quick disconnect Storz fitting. 2. Extension of a water main of sufficient size to serve domestic service and fire standards is required. Plans designed and approved by Water District #90 with appropriate separate permit and fees is required with the construction plans for review. Sanitary Sewer: 1. The site is also subject to the Central Plateau Interceptor Phase II SAD unit charge of $344.71 per lot. 2. Extension of a minimum 8-inch diameter sanitary sewer meeting City of Renton standards is required to serve this plat. Surface Water: 1. This project is required to comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual. 2. The Surface Water System Development Charge (SDC) per lot is required for this site. Transportation: 1. Half street improvements including, but not limited to paving, sidewalks, curb and gutter, storm drain, landscape, streetlights, and street signs will be required along the frontage of the parcel (162nd Ave SE and 1641h Ave SE) and on the interior streets to the satisfaction of the City of RenOton Development Services Division subject to the King County Road Standards (1993). 2. Two points of access are required for this development due to the one-way distance from the nearest point of public access. 3. A Traffic Mitigation fee shall be assessed as appropriate and payable with the final plat. Miscellaneous: 1. Construction plan indicating haul route and hours, construction hours and a traffic control plan shall be submitted for approval prior to any permit being issued. 2. Separate permits and fees for side sewer, domestic water meter, landscape irrigation meter, and any backflow devices will be required. ERC Advisory Notes Page 2 of2 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE APPLICATION NO(S): APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: -MITIGATED (DNS-M} LUAOS-093, ECF, MOD David Petrie Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental Review in order to modify the approved Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat. The modification includes the utilization of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR's) for 10 additional lots for a total of 46 single family lots. The modification includes a revised lot layout, landscaping and utility plan. The original application, for 36 lots, was filed with the King County Department of Development and Enviromental Services for Environmental (SEPA) Review and Preliminary Plat approval (King County DOES File No. L04P0034) and was approved by the City on April 28, 2009. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: Southeast of 162"' Avenue SE and SE 1401 h Street City of Renton Environmental Review Committee Department of Community & Economic Development The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-6-6 Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on February 11, 2011. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8- 110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: DATE OF DECISION: SIGNATURES: Terry Higashiyama, Administrator Community Services Department January 28, 2011 January 24, 2011 Date Date Fire & Emergency Services Economic Development I hvlr ~ ' ,, D te DEPARTMENT OF co ..... lUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ------1Ft~mi~@llli e TO: FROM: MEETING DATE: TIME: LOCATION: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA Gregg Zimmerman, Public Works Administrator Terry Higashiyama, Community Services Administrator Mark Peterson, Fire & Emergency Services Administrator Alex Pietsch, CED Administrator Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager Monday, January 24, 2011 3:00 p.m. Sixth Floor Conference Room #620 Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat (Timmons) LUAOB-093, ECF, MOD Location: Southeast of 162"d Avenue SE and SE 140'h Street. Description: The applicant is requesting Environmental Review in order to modify the approved Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat. The modification includes the utilization of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR's) for 10 additional lots for a total of 46 single family lots. The modification includes a revised lot layout, landscaping and utility plan. The original application, for 36 lots, was filed with the King County Department of Development and Enviromental Services for Environmental (SEPA) Review and Preliminary Plat approval (King County DDES File No. L04P0034) and was approved by the City on April 28, 2009. The 8.95 acre parcel is located within the City's Residential -4 (R-4) dwelling units per acre zoning designation; however, the project is vested to King County's R-4 zoning designation's development regulations. The proposed density would be approximately 5.3 dwelling units per acre after the use of TDR's. Consent Item: Citywide Drainage Maintenance Program (Dolbee) LUA10-089, ECF, SME, CAR Location: Various. Description: The applicant has requested SEPA Environmental Review for continued maintenance of the Citywide stormwater infrastructure, including channels, ditches, catch basins, manholes, outfalls, pipes and culverts. These facilities are located in critical areas: including, the Cedar River, May Creek, Springbrook Creek, Thunder Hills Creek, Panther Creek, Ginger Creek, Maplewood Creek, Honey Creek, Greens Creek, Kennydale Creek, Gypsy Creek, Johns Creek and Lake Washington. cc: D. Law, Mayor J. Covington, Chief Administrative Officer S. Dale Estey, CED Director• W. Flora, Deputy Chief/Fire Marshal• Richard Perteet, Deputy PW Administrator -Transportation C. Vincent, CED Planning Director• N. Watts, Development Services Director• L. Warren, City Attorney • F. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner D. Pargas, Assistant Fire Marshal J. Medzegian, Council DEPARTMENT OF COMMU ... V AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT ERC MEETING DATE: Project Nome: Owner/Applicant: Contact: File Number: Project Manager: Project Summary: Project Location: Site Area: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: January 24, 2011 Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat David Petrie; 811 S 273'' Ct; Des Moines, WA; 98198 DMP, Inc.; Hans Korve; 726 Auburn Way N; Auburn, WA; 98002 LUA08-093, ECF, MOD Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner The applicant is requesting Environmental Review in order to modify the approved Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat. The modification includes the utilization of Transfer of Development Rights (TD R's) for 10 additional lots for a total of 46 single family lots. The modification includes a revised lot layout, landscaping and utility plan. The original application, for 36 lots, was filed with the King County Department of Development and Enviromental Services for Environmental (SEPA) Review and Preliminary Plat approval (King County DDES File No. L04P0034) and was approved by the City on April 28, 2009. The 8.95 acre parcel is located within the City's Residential -4 (R-4) dwelling units per acre zoning designation; however, the project is vested to King County's R-4 zoning designation's development regulations. The proposed density would be approximately 5.3 dwelling units per acre after the use of TDR's. The proposed lots would range in size from approximately 5,900 square feet in area to 9,350 square feet. Access to the lots would be provided via three new internal streets extended from 162nd Ave SE connecting to 164th Ave SE. A Category II wetland and a Class Ill stream is located in the southeast corner of the property. The subject property was annexed to the City of Renton on August 11, 2008. Southeast of 162"' Avenue SE and SE 140'" Street 8.95 acres Staff Recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M). Project Location Map ERC Report Ill.doc City of Renton Department of Commun LIBERTY GARDENS PRELIMINARY PLAT Report of January 24, 2011 Economic Development PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ BACKGROUND onmental Review Committee Report LUAOB-093, ECF, MOD Page 2 of 7 The application for Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat was submitted to King County Department of Development and Environmental Services (KC DDES) for review on December 29, 2004 (King County DDES File No. L04P0034). On June 20, 2008 a SEPA threshold determination, Determination of Non-Significance (DNS), was issued. An appeal of the SEPA determination was filed. Before this matter could be heard by the King County Hearing Examiner, the subject property was annexed to the City of Renton as part of the Liberty Annexation (Ordinance #5398) on August 11, 2008. Based on this annexation; both the SEPA appeal and the application for the Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat came under the jurisdiction of the City of Renton. On October 6, 2008, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) issued a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) for the Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat. This Determination was an adoption of the threshold determination issued by KC DDES on June 20, 2008. An appeal of the City's SEPA determination was filed. On November 10, 2008 a decision was made by the ERC to rescind the threshold determination of the project pending further analysis of potential environmental impacts to the site. The rescission of the ERC's DNS resulted in the negation of the two existing appeals that were filed. On December 1S, 2008 the city issued a new threshold determination (DNS-M) which contained six mitigation measures for which an appeal was filed by the applicant. The appeal/preliminary plat hearing was held before the City's Hearing Examiner on March 17, 2009. On April 28, 2009, the Hearing Examiner issued a decision on the preliminary plat which contained 9 conditions of approval and affirmed the ERC determination in part and reversed in part. Mitigation measures 1-3, and 5 were affirmed (see Exhibit 1, Hearing Examiner Preliminary Plat/Appeal Decision, dated April 28, 2009) and mitigation measure 4 was reversed and removed from the determination. The project site is located within the City's Residential -4 (R-4) dwelling units per acre zoning designation; however, the project is vested to King County's R-4 zoning designation's development regulations. The applicant is now requesting Environmental Review and a Major Amendment to the Preliminary Plat in order to utilize TDR's, as outlined in KCC 21A.37. TDR's allow the applicant to use the development regulations of the next higher zoning classification including a density in this case of up to 6 units per acre. The applicant is requesting 10 additional lots, beyond the 36 lots currently approved, resulting in a total of 46 single family lots and a density of 5.3 units per acre. Pursuant to RMC 4-7-080M.2 a major amendment shall include any amendment that would result in increasing the number of lots in the subdivision beyond the number previously approved. The amendment includes a revised lot layout, landscaping and utility plan. The project site is located between 162"' Ave SE on the west and 164'" Ave SE on the east; and SE 140'" St on the north and SE 142"' St on the south. Access is proposed via 162"' and 164'" Ave SE which is proposed to be improved as part of the plat improvements. Internal access is proposed via three new public streets. Staff received a comment letter, on the optional DNS-M, from the applicant (Exhibit 6). The letter includes a request to revise the optional determination to a DNS due to the proposals inclusion of secondary access. The applicant contends that the mitigation measure for secondary access is unnecessary. I PART TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In compliance with RCW 43.21C.240, the following environmental (SEPA) review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. A. Environmental Threshold Recommendation Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials: Issue a DNS-M with a 14-day Appeal Period. ERC Report Ill.doc City of Renton Department of Communi~• & Economic Development LIBERTY GARDENS PRELIMINARY PLA, E ,ironmental Review Committee Report LUAOB-093, ECF, MOD Report of January 24, 2011 Page 3 of 7 B. Mitigation Measures (_ 1. The applicant will be required to submit a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the State Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual. The plan must be submitted to and approved by the Development Services Division Plan Review staff prior to issuance of the utility construction permit and during utility and road construction. 2. A covenant shall be recorded on the Sensitive Areas Tract, restricting its separate sale, prior to or in conjunction with the final plat recording. Each abutting lot owner or the homeowners' association shall have an undivided interest in the tract. A draft version of this document shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to plat recording. 3. The applicant shall submit a maintenance and monitoring plan, for a period no less than five years, for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to plat recording. 4. The detention system for this project shall be required to comply with the requirements found in the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual to meet both detention (Conservation Flow control - a.k.a. Level 3) and water quality improvements. 5. The applicant shall provide secondary access to the plat suitable for domestic, emergency and pedestrian safety; to the satisfaction of the City of Renton Development Services Division subject to the King County Road Standards (1993). Exhibits Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4 Exhibit S Exhibit 6 Yellow File (containing the application, reports, staff comments, prior staff/county decision and other material pertinent to the review of the project) Zoning Map Revised Preliminary Plat Amendment Map (dated November 5, 2010) Approved Preliminary Plat Map (dated March 16, 2009) Aerial Photo DMP Comment Letter (dated January 13, 2011) D. Environmental Impacts The Proposal was circulated and reviewed by various City Departments and Divisions ta determine whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development. Staff reviewers have identified that the proposal is likely to have the following probable impacts: 1. Earth Impacts: The proposed project site has an average slope of 15 percent; with an elevation change of 46 feet from the southwest quarter to the northeast quarter of the site. The soils on the site are classified as Alderwood series. The applicant is not aware of the amount of grading that would happen as a result of the proposal. The majority of the grading required for the project would be for the construction of the proposed roads, building pads, utilities, and stormwater detention facilities and will be balanced on-site. The applicant is proposing to clear a majority of the site with the exception of the critical areas and their buffers. The removal of the heavy vegetation cover that exists on site is expected to increase erosional impacts. As part of the approved preliminary plat a mitigation measure was imposed and upheld by the £RC Report Ill.doc City of Renton Department of Communi•., & Economic Development LIBERTY GARDENS PRELIMINARY PLA Report of January 24, 2011 " -ironmental Review Committee Report LUAOB-093, ECF, MOD Page 4 of7 Hearing Examiner requiring the submittal of a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to State Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual (see Exhibit 1, Hearing Examiner Preliminary Plat/Appeal Decision, dated April 28, 2009). The Environmental (SEPA) Review appeal decision, issued by the Hearing Examiner on April 28, 2009, states: "The newer standards are designed to protect stream and wetland area from sediment. Unlike certain bulk standards that are mainly directed as aesthetic qualities where vesting does not generally invite additional harm, stormwater and by extension erosion standards address harmful conditions that more current knowledge was intended to address. This office believes that the ERC properly applied the newer 2001 DOE Manual's standards to address real problems with erosion." The aforementioned conclusions are appropriate in their application to the modified proposal in that there will continue to be erosional impacts associated with the proposal if not an increase due to the additional 10 lots proposed. Therefore, staff recommends the applicant continue to be required to submit a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the newer State Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual. Mitigation Measures: The applicant will be required to submit a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the State Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual. The plan must be submitted to and approved by the Development Services Division Plan Review staff prior to issuance of the utility construction permits and during utility and road construction. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations, DOE Storm water Manual 2. Water a. Wetland, Streams, Lakes Impacts: A wetland is located in the southwest corner of the property and is associated with a small intermittent stream. There is another isolated wetland located offsite to the west of the northwest corner of the site. The applicant submitted a Wetland/Stream Evaluation and Mitigation Plan, by B-12 Wetland Consulting, Inc. (dated November 19, 2004), delineating the wetlands and stream on site as well as classifying the wetlands as Category II and the stream as Class Ill according to the County's critical area rating system (KCC 21A.24). A secondary study/revised mitigation plan was submitted by the applicant, conducted by Chad Armour, LLC (dated May 16, 2007), in which the classification and delineation by B-12 were affirmed. A confirmation letter was submitted by the applicant, conducted by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. (dated June 22, 2010), in which the classification and delineation by B-12 and Chad Armour, LLC were determined to still be valid. The larger Category II wetland and Class Ill stream extend off-site into the unimproved right-of-way, 162"' Ave SE, at the southwest and northwest corner of the site. The wetland associated with the stream is a small forested wetland characterized by an overstory of red alder and cottonwood with salmonberry, lady fern, and manna grass in the understory. The stream channel is a narrow 12-inch gravel/soil bottom channel which appears to be intermittent with no fish use. The off-site wetland, located at the northwest corner, is a young forested wetland dominated by immature alder, salmonberry, and lady fern. Per the 2004 County regulations a Class Ill stream is a non-salmonid bearing intermittent stream and requires a minimum 25-foot buffer. The standard SO-foot buffer for the Category II wetland is the encumbering buffer, rendering the stream buffer immaterial to the development of the site. As part of the approved preliminary plat a mitigation measure was imposed and upheld by the Hearing Examiner requiring the applicant to establish a Sensitive Area Tract for the critical areas on site. The ERC Report Ill.doc City of Renton Department of Communi··· & Economic Development LIBERTY GARDENS PRELIMINARY PLA Report of January 24, 2011 r: .... ·ironmental Review Committee Report LUADB-093, ECF, MOD Page 5 of7 modified proposal would also require the preservation and protection of the wetland and its buffer. Therefore, staff recommends a mitigation measure requiring the applicant to establish a Sensitive Areas Tract over that part of the site encompassing the stream/wetland and buffer area. Additionally, a covenant shall be placed on the tract restricting its separate sale. Each abutting lot owner or the homeowners' association shall have an undivided interest in the tract. A draft version of this document shall be submitted to the Planning Project Manager prior to final plat recording. The applicant proposes to improve the northern portion of 162"' Ave SE with half street improvements, in order to enter the project site, causing impacts to the buffer of the smaller off-site wetland. The applicant indicates that approximately 6,217 square feet of buffer, would be affected as a result of the proposed improvement to 162"' Ave SE. The applicant is proposing an approximate area of 10,280 square feet for buffer enhancement/buffer averaging as mitigation. As part of the approved preliminary plat a mitigation measure was imposed and upheld by the Hearing Examiner requiring the submittal of a final mitigation plan. A final mitigation plan will continue to be needed for the altered impacts to the wetland at the northwestern portion of the site. Therefore, staff recommends a mitigation measure requiring a detailed final mitigation plan. The final mitigation plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager, in accordance with KCC 21A.24 (2004), prior to the approval of the preliminary plat engineering plans. A performance bond, in accordance with KCC 27 A, or other financial guarantee will be required at the time of plan approval to guarantee that the mitigation plan is installed according to the approved final plan. The installation of the approved final mitigation plan must be completed prior to the final plat recording. In order to ensure the success of the mitigation plan staff recommends as a mitigation measure that the applicant submit a maintenance and monitoring plan, for a period no less than five years, for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final plat recording. Mitigation Measures: 1. A covenant shall be recorded on the Sensitive Areas Tract, restricting its separate sale, prior to or in conjunction with the final plat recording. Each abutting lot owner or the homeowners' association shall have an undivided interest in the tract. A draft version of this document shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to plat recording. 2. The applicant shall submit a maintenance and monitoring plan, for a period of no less than five years, for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to plat recording. Nexus: KCC 21A.24; SEPA Environmental Regulations b. Storm Water Impacts: The site lies within the Lower Cedar sub-basin of the Cedar River/Lake Washington watershed. Currently runoff discharges into the Class Ill stream located at the southwest corner of the site from the northeast Water then flows southwesterly to eastern side of 162"' Ave SE and disperses into a sheet flow south, within the unimproved 162"' Ave SE right-of-way. Further south, water passes through a rockery dam located approximately 150 feet from the 162"' Ave SE and SE 1441h Ave intersection. Water then enters a small detention pond also located within the unimproved 162"' Ave SE right-of-way. From the detention pond, water is conveyed across SE 1441h Street via an 18-inch culvert. Water then travels west within an 18-inch conveyance facility along the southern side of SE 1441 h St. The enclosed pipe system continues west, past 156"' Ave SE, continuing west eventually outfalling to Tributary 0307. Tributary 0307 then turns south and outlets to the Cedar River. The applicant proposes to collect storm water runoff from the proposed streets, sidewalks, homes, and lawns and covey into a proposed storm water vault located in Tract B along the southern border of the site. The outfall of the proposed vault would be conveyed back into the stream channel before leaving the property along its natural drainage course. ERC Report Ill.doc City of Renton Department of Communih• & Economic Development LIBERTY GARDENS PRELIMINARY PLAi E ironmenta/ Review Committee Report LUAOB-093, ECF, MOD Report of January 24, 2011 Page 6 of 7 As part of the preliminary plat application the applicant submitted a Level Ill Downstream Drainage Analysis prepared by Ed McCarthy P.E., dated July 2, 2008. The report identifies several downstream problems and includes recommendations to mitigate for the proposed development's impacts to downstream flooding. A letter with additional recommended storm water mitigation was received March 11, 2008, from Ed McCarthy P.E. As part of the preliminary plat modification, the applicant submitted a revised Level I Downstream Analysis, prepared by Daley-Morrow-Poblete, Inc., dated June 3, 2010. The applicant is proposing detention and water quality treatment in accordance with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual. While the applicant is now proposing compliance with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual, it was not a requirement of the King County Code and without a mitigation measure nothing would prohibit the applicant from revising the proposal accordingly. Given the likelihood of revisions or the utilization of one of the formerly approved designs staff is recommending the following as a mitigation measure in order to provide clarity and surety that there is mitigation for identified downstream drainage problems: The detention system for this project shall be required to comply with the requirements found in the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual to meet both detention (Conservation Flow control -a.k.a. Level 3) and water quality improvements. Mitigation Measures: The detention system for this project shall be required to comply with the requirements found in the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual to meet both detention (Conservation Flow control -a.k.a. Level 3) and water quality improvements. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations, 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual 3. Transportation Impacts: The site is fronted on the east and west by unimproved rights-of-way of 152°• and 164'• Ave SE. The property is located approximately 1,300 linear feet from the intersection of 152°• Ave SE and SE 136'h Place; 400 feet from the intersections of SE 144th Street and 162"' Ave SE as well as the intersection of SE 144'• Street and 164'h Ave SE. No current improved access exists except nominally from 164'• Avenue SE. As discussed earlier in the report; 162°• Ave SE is encumbered by two separate Category II wetlands and a Class Ill stream. The preliminary plat modification includes the abandoning of the 162"' Ave SE extension to SE 144•• St. The applicant is proposing to terminate improvements at the northern portion of 162"' Ave SE in order to avoid impacts to the critical areas located in the southern portion of the unimproved right of way. Improvements to 164'• Ave SE, adjacent to the site, are proposed in order to provide secondary access to the site. The proposed extension along with the proposed internal road system connecting 162"' Ave SE to 164"' Ave SE would meet the requirement for secondary access. Given the likelihood of revisions or the utilization of one of the formerly approved designs staff is recommending the following mitigation measure in order to provide clarity and surety that there is mitigation for identified impacts associated with the one-way distances from the nearby intersections: The applicant shall provide secondary access to the plat suitable for domestic, emergency and pedestrian safety; to the satisfaction of the City of Renton Development Services Division subject to the King County Road Standards (1993). A Traffic Mitigation fee shall be assessed as appropriate and payable with the final plat. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall provide secondary access to the plat suitable for domestic, emergency and pedestrian safety; to the satisfaction of the City of Renton Development Services Division subject to the King County Road Standards (1993). Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations, King County Road Standards -1993 ERC Report Ill.doc City of Renton Department of Commun;•,, & Economic Development LIBERTY GARDENS PRELIMINARY PLA: f,··ironmental Review Committee Report WAOB-093, ECF, MOD Report of January 24, 2011 Page 7 of 7 E. Comments of Reviewing Departments The proposal has been circulated to City Department and Division Reviewers. Where applicable, their comments have been incorporated into the text of this report and/or "Advisory Notes to Applicant." " Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File and may be attached to this report. Environmental Determination Appeal Process: Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, February 11, 2011. Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B governs appeals to the Hearing Examiner. Appeals must be filed in writing at the City Clerk's office along with the required fee. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall -7th Floor, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton WA 98057. ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action and are not all inclusive; for more code requirements please refer to the King County Code. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for the land use actions. Planning: 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. 2. The applicant will be required to establish a Native Growth Protection Tract over that part of the site encompassing the stream/wetland and buffer area. 3. Sensitive area tract boundaries must be clearly marked with bright orange construction and silt fencing prior to construction or site clearing activities. The boundaries shall remain marked until construction is complete. 4. Building and other structures shall be setback a distance of 15 feet from the edges of all sensitive area buffers. 5. A detailed final plan to mitigate for impacts from any alterations to critical areas will be required to be reviewed and approved, in accordance with KCC 21A.24 (2004), prior to the approval of the plat engineering plans. Water: 1. All fire hydrants installed or serving this subdivision are required to be fitted with a quick disconnect Storz fitting. 2. Extension of a water main of sufficient size to serve domestic service and fire standards is required. Plans designed and approved by Water District #90 with appropriate separate permit and fees is required with the construction plans for review. Sanitary Sewer: 1. The site is also subject to the Central Plateau Interceptor Phase II SAD unit charge of $344.71 per lot. 2. Extension of a minimum 8-inch diameter sanitary sewer meeting City of Renton standards is required to serve this plat. Surface Water: 1. This project is required to comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual. 2. The Surface Water System Development Charge (SOC) per lot is required for this site. Transportation: 1. Half street improvements including, but not limited to paving, sidewalks, curb and gutter, storm drain, landscape, streetlights, and street signs will be required along the frontage of the parcel (162'' Ave SE and 1641 h Ave SE) and on the interior streets to the satisfaction of the City of RenOton Development Services Division subject to the King County Road Standards (1993). 2. Two points of access are required for this development due to the one-way distance from the nearest point of public access. 3. A Traffic Mitigation fee shall be assessed as appropriate and payable with the final plat. Miscellaneous: 1. Construction plan indicating haul route and hours, construction hours and a traffic control plan shall be submitted for approval prior to any permit being issued. 1. Separate permits and fees for side sewer, domestic water meter, landscape irrigation meter, and any backflow devices will be required. ERC Report Ill.doc ZONING MAP BOOK 94W ,:~, 1ssw c2···tc3 RESIDENTIAL @ {RC) Resource Conservation [;;i::i--j {R-1} Residential 1 du/ac ~ (R-4) Residential 4 du/ac ~ (R-8) Residential 8 du/ac ~ (RMH) Residential Manufactured Homes ~ (R-10) Residential lOdu/ac B (R-14) Residential 14 du/ac I RM·FI (RM-F} Residential Multi-Family jRM-T I (RM-T} Residential MUiti-Famiiy Traditionai 'RM-u I (RM-U) Residential Multi-Family Urban Center MIXED USE CENTERS _ .. (CV) Center VIiiage ~c-~·-J (UC-Nl) Urban Center-North 1 ---: c_ (UC-N2J Urban Center-North 2 :~J (CO} Center Downtown COMMERCIAL _::::;c ': (COR) Commercial/Office/Residential -~ {CA) Commercial Arterial --=-;:---·, {CO) Commercial Office -r. : (CN) Commercial Neighborhood 36 J7 " 2 T22N ASE 1 T2 INDUSTRIAL ~ (IL) Industrial -Light [BJ (IM) Industrial-Medium QQ (IH) Industrial· Heavy -----Renton City Llmits -·-·-·-Adjacent City Limits KROLL PAGE PAGE# INDEX SECT/TOWN/RANGE .. ~_132,ldSl . ..---~-- I 1 . i• ii II E7 -11 T23N R5E E 1/2 t····· I' ~-- ~.1_-_·~.:· R-4 5!-_·~--t:.~. ---,---,------------l~·.iiEM2no""l; . ZONING MAP BOOK PW TECHNICAL SERVICES PRINTED ON 11/13/09 1N,<1ownwn1uar•P'"<"IW ... -- 1U...,_d.,,......,.1«UrKl',1nd~OOl,odon ..................... ..,., .... -.. 0,,,.,. __ TN,_b .... ndod""Ol'f~pu'l""<'only. G7 -23 T23N R5E E 1/2 0 200 400 kJ I Feet 1:4,800 F7 14 T23N R5E E 1/2 5314 ' :1~ ' ' •• _, . ii~ i :!. ~,~ I \ I ~ I \ ~\ \ \ '\ \ I ' It M 1- i-t al i-t ::c >< w I ' I ' I \ r I . I \, \' \ "I ' I "J /~ ~! 5< .I ;i i: • I, -I "' \ ~ " ~ i ! ~ ij it ! i a; I~~ i! ~ ~ii • ':; 0 • " !I 0 ~ i \ ., • ' ~ '~ ~ 0 ii ~ ':; 0 .. ~ ~ 0 • -_!l-9>6(ese) 86186 'r/M. '63NIOr-l S3a J..O al::Ea s l18 3l:I.L3d ~ awe I 11•~ h!1 ji., li.i i! 1_:! ,. 1,,1 11• I!• lj '! s! [ 1! I !ill hlI Iii ii i I I I I I \ \ ~ -,_ ' . ',, \ \ ',, \ '\o ;. "\ 1t-i~\ 'l \ I I ¢••1ir..,, LT {' ~ ! 1 >----'~ t _,,,OJ v~~ -~-X'iJ rua--isi(~Z~) zrn,--1,z(sz~) iro96 YM '~::;~ 111.J10S JnNJ.\V QNU ~IZlh .s.,.,17'1-\~"'t) \ i •• ! ; '--; sH ! I I, !! ' i il!';!§!l! ". ' :ilf= ... , ~H i 1f!L ,;; ~ ::i ::i '' l' 9 ;i • r iii i !Uih i, r, i ••••• , ud ~ "' z < \ .-l 0. ~ -"' 0 ~ > 0 ~ ll. ll. < .-l g 0 2 0 \ \ \ \ ', '!, \ \"' \,\ \..,../ 11' I \ \ \ " :: i ' \. \ \ ', II JI -\\ ":." \ ... ......:::1:: ~ \ \. H I ~ \ \ \ \ , r" -:--t'\l 'I:,\ \ ,, I ' \ \ ·, ' ''-~"', ":,, j . --------- .. ~~t~ ~ 1,014.3 0 City of Renton, Washington LUaOS-093 Liberty Gardens 507.15 EXHIBIT 5 11:ic output from an Internet mapping site and ; that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. PIS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION Lakes and Rivers Parcels Street Names Rights of Way Streets Roads Jurisdictions Bellevue Des Moines Issaquah Kent King Caunly Mercer Island Newcastle RENTON SeaTac Seattle Tukwila Aenal (March 2010) a Red: Band_ 1 • Green: Band_2 • Blue· Band_3 1:6,086 @8.5" X 11" Notes Enter Map Description 0 City of Renton Plann,·ng 0 .. 1v1sion JAN 1 a zan DALEY-MORROW-POBLETE, INC. January 11, 2011 Rocale Timmons City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 ENGINEERING-SURVEYING-LAND PLANNING 726 Auburn Way North Auburn, WA 98002 (253)333-2200 FAX (253)333-2206 RE: LUAOS-093, ECF, MOD -Liberty Gardens -Plat Amendment Dear Ms. Timmons: I have received a copy of the Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M), dated January 4, 2011, for the Liberty Gardens Plat. In reviewing the proposed mitigation with my Client, and against the applicable code provisions, a number of concerns were raised. In an attempt to articulate our concerns, I have provided excerpts of the applicable Washington Administrative Code (WAC) sections as reference, and then provided a brief explanation below. The referenced WAC sections have been abridged to reference the applicable aspects of the code. Underlines have been added for emphasis. It is our hope that after reviewing these code sections, that Staff will issue a revised DNS and eliminate the proposed mitigation. If Staff is not inclined to make the requested correction based on the information provided, then please consider this to be our official Appeal of the proposed SEPA Mitigation. The applicable WAC provisions are as follows: WAC 197-11-060 Content of environmental review. ( 4) Impacts. (a) SEP A's procedural provisions require the consideration of "environmental" impacts, with attention to impacts that are likely. not merely speculative. 01-540 The issue raised by Stqffin the DNS-Af is "Secondary Access" A review of the proposal indicates that the Applicant has provided secondary pedestrian as well as vehicular access to the project as part of the initial design. As such, Staff review of the proposal does not identify a ·'likely" impact. To be clear, the proposed mitigation makes no reference to any idemified imnact Liberty Gardens Narrative EXHIBIT 6 WAC 197-11-158 GMA project review --Reliance on existing plans, laws, and regulations. ( 5) If a GMA county/city's development regulations adequately address some or all of a project's probable specific adverse impacts, the GMA county/city shall not require additional mitigation under this chapter for those impacts. Section 2.08 (B) of the vested King County Road Standards sets the maximum length of a cul-de-sac at 600 feet. Based on specific site restrictions. that length may be extended to 1.000 feet !/the road is sen,ing less than 50 units. Under the Applicant's proposal. both of the proposed cul-de-sacs are less than 600' long. However, if the Applicant had not already proposed a road connection to J 6lh Ave SE, the cul-de-sacs would have been approximately 1,300 and 1,500 /inier feet respectively. The vested road standards would clearly not have allowed this design, and the Applicant would have been required to provide an additional connection. In summa,y, the Applicant's proposal is in compliance with the adopted road standards and no likely environmental impact has been ident/fied. Had an impact been identified. then under the provisions of WAC 197-11-158 (5), the City of Renton could not impose an additional mitigation measure over the issue. WAC 197-11-350 Mitigated DNS. The purpose of this section is to allow clarifications or changes to a proposal prior to making the threshold determination. (2) .. If the lead agency indicates a DS is likely, the applicant may clarify or change features of the proposal to mitigate the impacts which led the agency to consider a DS likely. The applicant shall revise the environmental checklist as may be necessary to describe the clarifications or changes. The Applicant 's proposal included a secondary access point as a matter of the original December 7, 20 IO submittal. As such, there is no identifiable impact. With no ident/fiable impact. no altcrarion of the SEPA checklist or the site plan has been requested or is required. Therefore, no SEP A condition is warranted WAC 197-11-660 Substantive authority and mitigation. (b) Mitigation measures shall be related to specific, adverse environmental impacts clearly identified in an environmental document on the proposal and shall be stated in writing by the decision maker. The decision maker shall cite the agency SEP A policy that is the basis of any condition. (d) Responsibility for implementing mitigation measures may be imposed upon an applicant only to the extent attributable to the identified adverse impacts of its proposal. Voluntary additional mitigation may occur. 01-540 Liberty Gardens • 2011 SEPA Response Letter 2 ( e) Before requiring mitigation measures, agencies shall consider whether local, state, or federal requirements and enforcement would mitigate an identified significant impact. As previously indicated, Staff has not identified any environmental impacts in its DNS-M document dated January 4, 2011. Staff only identifies a proposed mitigation measure. In accordance with WAC 197-11-660 (d), as listed above, mitigation may only be imposed to the extent attributable to the identified impact. With no impact identified. I he proposed miligation is not in compliance with the WAC. Furthermore, as indicated in sub-section (e), before requiring mitigation, an agency must consider applicable code requirements. We have already shown that section 2. 08 (BJ oft he vested Raad Standards would have addressed this issue if it had not already been so. In closing, we would like to remind Staff that the Applicant is proposing to maintain the overall site layout that was originally approved by the Hearing Examiner. The Applicant is not requesting a major modification of the approved site plan. With the exception of modifications required to convert several of the lots to alley-loaded, the overall road network remains unchanged. We would also like it noted that the revised Liberty Garden design provides improved pedestrian walking facilities to almost every home in the project. Sidewalks have been separated from the travel lanes along the primary and half of the secondary internal roads. These improvements far exceed what is required under the vested codes. Please let me know if you have any questions. ans A. Korve Planning Manager DMP Inc. 01-540 Liberty Gardens • 2011 SEPA Response Letter 3 City o. ton Department of Community & Economic . elopment ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: D\OXl -=Re-,;,,~..:::, COMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 18, 2011 APPLICATION NO: LUA08-093, ECF, MOD DATE CIRCULATED: JANUARY 4, 2011 • . • ~· ...... "" cc ),_..: 11~:Ls_1,:~1v:.__1': I ·~-''·, \ \' i'~·•~-..· APPLICANT: Hans Korve PROJECT MANAGER: Rocale Timmons C! ;Y ( :,:: ;'(:'. \i';'C!•: PROJECT TITLE: Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat -Modification PROJECT REVIEWER: Kayren Kittrick , , "' " '" on tt SITE AREA: 8.95 acres EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: Southeast of 162"' Avenue SE and SE 140'h Street PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant submitted an application for a modification to the approved Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat. The modification includes the utilization of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR's) for 10 additional lots for a total of 46 single-family lots. The modification includes a revised lot layout, landscaping and utility plan. The application, for 36 lots was originally filed with the King County Department of Development and Environmental Services for Environmental (SEPA) Review and Preliminary Plat approval and was approved by the City on April 28, 2009. The 8.95 acre parcel is located within the City's Residential . 4 (R-4) dwelling units per acre zoning designation; however, the project is vested to King County's R-4 zoning designation's development regulations. The proposed density would be approximately 5.1 dwelling units per acre after the use of TDR's. The proposed lots would range in size from approximately 5,900 square feet in area to 9,350 square feet. Access to the lots would be provided via three new internal streets extended from 162nd Ave SE connecting to 164th Ave SE. A Category II wetland and a Class Ill stream are located in the southeast corner of the property. The subject property was annexed to the City of Renton on August 11, 2008. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code} COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housin" Air Aesthetics Water litJhtlGlare Pfonts Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals TrOnsnortation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Natural Resources Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14 000 Feet 8. POL/CY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date City~ ton Department of Community & Economic elopment ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Y~ COMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 18, 2011 APPLICATION NO: LUA08-093, ECF, MOD DATE CIRCULATED: JANUARY 4, 2011 APPLICANT: Hans Korve PROJECT MANAGER: Roca le Timmons PROJECT TITLE: Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat -Modification PROJECT REVIEWER: Kayren Kittrick SITE AREA: 8.95 acres EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: Southeast of 162"' Avenue SE and SE 140" Street PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant submitted an application for a modification to the approved Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat. The modification includes the utilization of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR's) for 10 additional lots for a total of 46 single-family lots. The modification includes a revised lot layout, landscaping and utility plan. The application, for 36 lots was originally filed with the King County Department of Development and Environmental Services for Environmental (SEPA) Review and Preliminary Plat approval and was approved by the City on April 28, 2009. The 8.95 acre parcel is located within the City's Residential -4 (R-4) dwelling units per acre zoning designation; however, the project is vested to King County's R-4 zoning designation's development regulations. The proposed density would be approximately 5.1 dwelling units per acre after the use of TDR's. The proposed lots would range in size from approximately 5,900 square feet in area to 9,350 square feet. Access to the lots would be provided via three new internal streets extended from 162nd Ave SE connecting to 164th Ave SE. A Category II wetland and a Class Ill stream are located in the southeast corner of the property. The subject property was annexed to the City of Renton on August 11, 2008. A-ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code} COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housina Air Aesthetics Water Liaht/Glore Plants Recreation land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Trans rtation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment . 10,000Feet 14.000 Feet 8. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS . :) ~Cl{LfLD~ Iv /cv;!:c} We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or ateas whe e additional informa o is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date . .. r '. .. . .... DATE: TO: CITY OF RENTON FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU MEMORANDUM January 7, 2011 Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner FROM: Corey Thomas, Plans Review Inspector Comments for Liberty Garden's Preliminary Plat SUBJECT: Environmental Impact Comments: 1. Fire mitigation fees are applicable at the rate of $488.00 per single family unit. This fee is paid prior to recording the plat. Code Related Comments: 1. The fire flow requirement for a single family home is 1,000 gpm minimum for dwellings up to 3,600 square feet (including garage and basements). If the dwelling exceeds 3,600 square feet, a minimum of 1,500 gpm fire flow would be required. A minimum of one fire hydrant is required within 300-feet of the proposed buildings and two hydrants if the fire flow goes up to 1,500 gpm. A water availability certificate is required from King County Water District 90. 2. Fire department apparatus access roadways are required to be minimum 20-feet wide fully paved, with 25-feet inside and 45-feet outside turning radius. Fire access roadways shall be constructed to support a 30-ton vehicle with 322-psi point loading. Access is required within 150-feet of all points on the buildings. Access roadways shall not exceed 15 percent maximum grade. CT:ct liberty Current City of Renton ordinances do not allow dead-end streets in excess of 500- feet without secondary emergency access roadways. All future homes beyond 500- feet are required to be equipped with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. This will apply to lots numbered 26, 29, 30 and 31 on Landscape Concept plan dated November 2, 2010. Dead end streets that exceed 150-feet in length require an approved turnaround. Streets exceeding 300-feet dead end require a minimum of a 90-foot diameter cul-de-sac. Proposed fire apparatus turn arounds do not meet this requirement. City o. ton Department of Community & Economic e/opment ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: ~ i r c_, COMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 18, 2011 APPLICATION NO: LUA08-093, ECF, MOD DATE CIRCULATED: JANUARY 4, 2011 APPLICANT: Hans Korve PROJECT MANAGER: Roca le Timmons PROJECT TITLE: Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat -Modification PROJECT REVIEWER: Kayren Kittrick SITE AREA: 8.95 acres EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: Southeast of 162"' Avenue SE and SE 1401h Street PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant submitted an application for a modification to the approved Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat. The modification includes the utilization of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR's) for 10 additional lots for a total of 46 single-family lots. The modification includes a revised lot layout, landscaping and utility plan. The application, for 36 lots was originally filed with the King County Department of Development and Environmental Services for Environmental (SEPA) Review and Preliminary Plat approval and was approved by the City on April 28, 2009. The 8.95 acre parcel is located within the City's Residential -4 (R-4) dwelling units per acre zoning designation; however, the project is vested to King County's R-4 zoning designation's development regulations. The proposed density would be approximately 5.1 dwelling units per acre after the use of TDR's. The proposed lots would range in size from approximately 5,900 square feet in area to 9,350 square feet. Access to the lots would be provided via three new internal streets extended from 162nd Ave SE connecting to 164th Ave SE. A Category II wetland and a Class Ill stream are located in the southeast corner of the property. The subject property was annexed to the City of Renton on August 11, 2008. A. . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g: Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housina Air Aesthetics Water Liah£/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14 000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. ~d?r:Ohc#-<? Signature of Director or Authorized Repredentative ( ( lz/1 r Date .. ~ CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT-PLANNING· DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 4th day of January, 2011, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Acceptance Letter, NOA, Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT documents. This information was sent to: I ----I ! "~:..j1):.r:.t.i'.:.Ji)~l!J'· ' . I '------------~--------· • -· ------_ _j Agencies See Attached Hans Korve Contact David Petrie Owner Parties of Record See Attached 500' Surrounding Property Owners See Attached (Signature of Sender): {((1/' STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy M. Tucker signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Notary (Print): ____ --1.h1.:-c.!:J._,_-~C.::.;.r!:....!=:::2"-'c ___________ _ My appointment expires: A """~ v'> \ ;;). C\ 1 ;;i o l.'3 Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat (Modification) LUAOS-093, ECF, PP, MOD template -affidavit of service by mailing • NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-M) DATE: LAND USE NUMBER: PROJECT NAME: January 4, 2011 LUAOB-093, ECF, MOO Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant submitted an appllcation for a modification to the approved Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat. The modification includes the utilization of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR's) for 10 additional lots for a total of 46 single-family lots. The modification includes a revised lot layout, landscaping and utllity plan. The application, for 36 lots was originally filed with the King County Department of Development and Environmental Seivices for Environmental (SEPA) Review and Preliminary Plat approval and was approved by the City on April 28, 2009. The 8.95 acre parcel is located within the City's Residential -4 {R-4) dwelling units per acre zoning designation; however, the project is vested to King County's R-4 zoning designation's development regulations. The proposed density would be approximately 5.1 dwelling units per acre after the use of TDR's. The proposed lots would range in size from approximately 5,900 square feet in area to 9,350 square feet. Access to the lots would be provided via three new internal streets extended from 162nd Ave SE connecting to 164th Ave SE. A Category II wetland and a Class Ill stream are located in the southeast corner of the property. The subject property was annexed to the City of Renton on August 11, 2008. PROJECT LOCATION: Southeast of 162"d Avenue SE and SE 1401h Street OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED (DNS-M): As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110, the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS-M process to give notice that a DNS- M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non- Significance-Mitigated (DNS-M). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M, PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: December 7, 2010 January 4, 2011 APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Hans Korve; DMP Inc.; 726 Auburn Way N; Auburn, WA 98002 Environmental (SEPA) Review and Modification approval Permits/Review Requested: Other Permits which may be required: Requested Studies: Location where application may be reviewed: PUBLIC HEARING: Construction and Building Permits Wetland, Traffic, and Drainage Studies Department of Community & Economic Development (CED)-Planning Division, Sixth Floor Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 Public hearing is tentatively scheduled for February 22, 2011 before the Renton Hearing Examiner in Renton Council Chambers. Hearings begin at 9:00 a.m. on the 7th floor of the new Renton City Hall located at 1055 South Grady Way. If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City of Renton, CEO -Planning Division, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Name/File No.: Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat/LUA08-093, ECF, MOD NAME:------------------------------------ MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NO.: CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Zoning/Land Use: Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: Proposed Mitigation Measures: The subject site is designated Residential ·4 (R·4) on the King County Comprehensive Land Use Map and Urban Residential -Medium on the County's Zoning Map. Environmental (SEPA) Checklist The project will be subject to the City of Renton's and King County's SEPA ordinance, King County's KCC16, 194, 20, 21A and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate. The following Mitigation Measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project. These recommended Mitigation Measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above. The applicant will be required to provide secondary access to the plat suitable for domestic, emergency and pedestrian safety; to the satisfaction of the City of Renton Development Services Division subject to the King County Road Standards. Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Rocale Timmons, Assoclate Planner, CED - Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, by 5:00 PM on January 18, 2011. Thls matter ls also tentatively scheduled for a public hearing on February 22, 2011, at 9:00 a.m., Council Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. If you are interested in attending the hearing, please contact the Development Services Division to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled at (425) 430·7282. If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above, you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments on the proposal before the Hearing Examiner. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional information by mail, please contact the project manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner; Tel: 425-430-7219; Eml: rtimmons@rentonwa.gov Dept. of Ecology • Environmental Review Section PO Box47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 WSDOT Northwest Region * Attn: Ramin Pazooki King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240 PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers * Seattle District Office Attn: SEPA Reviewer PO Box C-3755 Seattle, WA 98124 Boyd Powers * Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Serv. Attn: SEPA Section 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 Metro Transit Senior Environmental Planner Gary Kriedt 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Seattle Public Utilities Rea I Estate Services Attn: SEPA Coordinator 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING {ERC DETERMINATIONS) WDFW -Larry Fisher• Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept.* 1775 12th Ave. NW Suite 201 Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer Issaquah, WA 98027 39015 -112'' Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 Ouwamish Tribal Office• Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program* 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092-9763 KC Wastewater Treatment Division * Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation* Environmental Planning Supervisor Attn: Gretchen Kaehler Ms. Shirley Marroquin PO Box 48343 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: Steve Roberge Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director 13020 Newcastle Way 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Municipal Liaison Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Joe Jainga 6200 Southcenter Blvd. PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-OlW Tukwila, WA 98188 Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 *Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the checklist, Site Plan PMT, and the notice of application. template -affidavit of service by mailing Steve Bot 1m, Supervisor CPLN L. D MS p:AK DE 0100 ,·, (party of record) Kelly Whiti , KC DOT Road S iv MS KDE 0100 / ' (party of record) Kris Langle , raffle Engineer CPLN L MS. / ,, '· Trish DD LUSD OAK DE 0100 Chad T its DD LUSD OAK DE 0100 ' (party of record) Marshall Brenden 18225 SE 128th Street Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Hans Korve DMP Eng., Inc. 726 Auburn Way N Auburn, WA 98002 (party of record) Updated: 01/04/11 PARTIES OF RECORD LIBERTY GARDENS PREL PLAT LUA08-093, PP, EC!:,-AAD, MOD, ECF2 Kim Claussen PPMIII CPLN LUSD M~AK DE 0100 1< (party of recordy· Nick Gillen, J,rfv. Scientist CAS Luso· 7KDE0100 (party of recorV Larry Wesµnv. Scientist CAS LUfal'J /KDEOlOO ' (party of record) / Alex Perlman ~~~LUSD ~vAK DE 0100 ' ' (party of record) Wayne Potter Barghausen Consulting Engineer 18215 -72nd Avenue S Kent, WA 98032 (applicant/ contact) John & Nenita Ching 16038 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Debbie Eberle 18225 SE 14 7th Street Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Steve J,m,:/~send, Supervisor LUI.S--lUSD ( (party of record) Shirley I, ASII CPL USD OAK DE 0100 Lisa Di more DD LUSD OAK DE 0100 ' (party of reco r ' (party of record) Daniel Balmelli, PE Barghausen Consulting Engineer 18215 -72nd Avenue S Kent, WA 98032 (party of record) Linda Corgiat 16039 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Norm & Patricia Gammell 16043 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) (Page 1 of 2) Don & Andrea Gragg 16046 SE 142nd Place Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Jennifer McCall Lozier Homes, Corp 1203 -114th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98004 (party of record) Curtis Schuster KBS III, LLC PARTIES OF RECORD LIBERTY GARDENS PREL PLAT LUA08-093, PP, ECF, AAD, MOD, ECF2 Gwendolyn High C.A.R.E PO Box 2936 Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) David Petrie 811 S 273rd Court Des Moines, WA 98198 (owner) Richard & Teri Langdon 14201 -164th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Michael Ritchey 14225 -164th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Kolin Taylor 12320 NE 8th Street ste: #100 Bellevue, WA 98005 Seattle KC Health Department East District Environ. Health 14350 SE Eastgate Way Bellevue, WA 98007 12320 NE 8th Street ste: #100 Bellevue, WA 98005 (party of record) (party of record) Claudia Donnelly 10415 147th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Updated: 01/04/11 (party of record) Norm Mohr 16224 SE 144th Street Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) (Page 2 of 2) 7695500330 BOLANOS ROBERT + DEBRA 14220 164TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 7253700100 GAMMELL NORMAN D+PAYNE-GAMM PATRICIA A 16043 SE 142ND PL RENTON WA 98059 1323059038 ISSAQUAH SCHOOL DIST #411 16655 SE 136TH ST RENTON WA 98059 7695500350 LAMB MAVIS J 14212 164TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 1457500095 LEE STEVEN P 13802 160TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 1457500156 MOHR NORBERT W 16224 SE 144TH ST RENTON WA 98059 1457500159 RITCHEY MICHAEL A+CHRISTINE 14225 164TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 1457500101 WILMOT ROBERT C+CAROL LYNN 13900 160TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 1457500106 GEROS VIRGINIA M BRENDON MILTON M 18225 SE 128TH RENTON WA 98055 7253700140 GIBBONS ALLISTER M+MANDY J 16032 SE 142ND PL RENTON WA 98059 1457500135 KBS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 13804 162ND AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 1457500160 LANGDON RICHARD & TERI 14201 164TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 1457500154 MAY ALVIN 16238 SE 144TH RENTON WA 98059 7695500360 NEAR FRANK J 14206 164TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 1457500110 SMITH GERALD C 8524 S 125TH RENTON WA 98055 7253700130 CHING JOHN KW+NENITA L 16038 SE 142ND PL RENTON WA 98059 7253700110 GRAGG DONALD B 16046 SE 142ND PL RENTON WA 98059 1323059095 KING COUNTY 500 KC ADMIN BLDG 500 4TH AVE SEATILE WA 98104 7253700150 LATIMER LANCE+STEPHANIE 16024 SE 142ND PL RENTON WA 98056 1457500100 MCNAIR DANNY M 13928 160TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 1457500150 PETRIE RAHUL B PETRIE DAVID 811 S 273RD CT DES MOINES WA 98198 1457500097 THATCHER JESSE T +ERIN N 13817 162ND AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 January 4, 2011 Hans Korve DMP Inc. 726 Auburn Way N Auburn, WA 98002 SUBJECT: Notice of Complete Application liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat, LUAOS-093, MOD, ECF (KC File #L04P0034) Dear Mr. Korve: An application has been made to modify the approved Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat in order to utilize King County Transfer of Development Rights. The proposed modification would include 10 additional lots, beyond the 36 lots that were approved, for a total of 46 single-family residential lots. The Planning Division of the City of Renton has determined that the subject application is complete according to submittal requirements and, therefore is accepted for review. The. major modification is tentatively scheduled for consideration by the Environmental Review Committee on January 24, 2011. In addition, this matter is tentatively scheduled for a Public Hearing on February 22, 2011 at 9:00 a.m., Council Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant are required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you prior to the scheduled hearing. If you have any further questions, please contact me at (425) 430-7219. Sincerely, ~~;__ ·. ·:~ra~iate Planner cc: C.E. Vincent, Planning Director Jennifer Henning, Current Plann.ing Manager David. Petrie/ Owner Community Alliance to Reach Out & Engage ("CARE")/ Appellant Parties of Record Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Printed: 12-07-2010 Payment Made: CITY OF RENTON 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Land Use Actions RECEIPT Permit#: LUAOB-093 12/07/2010 10:49 AM Receipt Number: Total Payment: 1,000.00 Payee: DAVID PETRIE Current Payment Made to the Following Items: Trans Account Code Description Amount 5010 000.000000.007.345 Environmental Review 1,000.00 Payments made for this receipt Trans Method Description Amount Payment Check 2171 1,000.00 Account Balances Trans Account Code Description Balance Due 3021 5006 5007 5008 5009 5010 5011 5012 5013 5014 5015 5016 5017 5018 5019 5020 5021 5022 5024 5036 5909 5941 5954 5955 5998 303.000000.020.345 Park Mitigation Fee 000.000000.007.345 Annexation Fees 000.000000.011.345 Appeals/Waivers 000.000000.007.345 Binding Site/Sharl Plat 000.000000.007.345 Conditional Use Fees 000.000000.007.345 Environmental Review 000.000000.007.345 Prelim/Tentative Plat 000.000000.007.345 Final Plat 000.000000.007.345 PUD 000.000000.007.345 Grading & Filling Fees 000.000000.007.345 Lot Line Adjustment 000.000000.007.345 Mobile Home Parks 000.000000.007.345 Rezone 000.000000.007.345 Routine Vegetation Mgmt 000.000000.007.345 Shoreline Subst Dev 000.000000.007.345 Site Plan Approval 000.000000.007.345 Temp Use, Hobbyk, Fence 000.000000.007.345 Variance Fees 000.000000.007.345 Conditional Approval Fee 000.000000.007.345 Comprehensive Plan Amend 000.000000.002.341 Booklets/EIS/Cop~es 000.000000.007.341 Maps (Taxable) 650.237.00.00.0000 DO NOT USE -USE 3954 000.05.519.90.42.1 Postage 000.000000.000.231 Tax Remaining Balance Due: $0.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 R1005342 October 18, 2010 Rocale Timmons City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 :,:·•:+:R?~~-tl!;:~~tl~:ff:t~)t(J{i'.·:: DALEY-MORROW-POBLETE, INC. 726 AUBURN WAY N. AUBURN, WASHINGTON 98002 TELEPHONE: (253) 333-2200 FAX: (253) 333-2206 City of Renton Planning Division RE: LUA08-093 Liberty Gardens -Plat Amendment NOV -, 1010 Dear Ms. Timmons: Thank you for taking the time last month to meet with me, and for encouraging me to attend the recent Council Committee meeting, to discuss how TDR policy might impact the proposed Liberty Garden Major Amendment. I found our conversation and discussion with the Council members to be highly instructive. We made modifications to the site plan to bring it more into conformance with the issues you identified in our meeting. I also contacted Gwen High, and scheduled a series of community meeting to discuss the project. We have made further modifications based on the comments we received from the community. The majority of the modification requests were reasonable and only resulted in the loss of 2-lots. With that said, I offer the following summary and comparison of our proposal: • Site Design -The Applicant is proposing to maintain the overall site layout that was approved by the King County Hearing Examiner. The Applicant is not requesting a major modification of the approved site plan. With the exception of modifications required to convert several of the lots to alley-loaded, the overall road network remains unchanged. The resulting lots have been reduces in width to accommodate the use of 10 TOR credits. • Lot Density -The Applicant proposes to make use of the vested TDR provisions of the King County Code by altering the project to support 46 residential lots. This is an increase of 10-lots from the approved design. Similar revisions to the adjacent Cavalla Plat resulted in an 11-lot increase and an overall project density to approximately 5.4 du/ac. The proposed density of the revised Liberty Garden project will be 5.1 du/ac. In both cases, this increase is less than the 6 du/ac allowed outright by the King County Code. 01-540 Liberty Gardens Narrative • Perceived Impacts -Density along the north and south property line of Liberty Gardens is similar to that found in the original project. Smaller, alley loaded lots have been located towards the center of the project. This design feature is similar to the one used in Cavalla to increase overall project density while limiting the impact to the surrounding community. The size, shape and density of the perimeter lots, which are adjacent to any existing resident, are almost identical to the original project. There is no discernable difference between the original design and the current proposal. Almost 72% of the south boundary of the plat is recreation or open space, and has no perceivable negative impact on the adjacent residents. Both the east and west boundary of the plat are bordered by public street or open space. When considered in total, the proposed plat amendment will have no discernable negative impact on the adjacent community, and will be indistinguishable from the original project. • Meaningful Street Trees -As a voluntary effort to address community concerns, the revised project will have a significant increase in landscaping over a standard King County Plat. The Applicant will provide landscape strips and street trees along the majority of the project's roadways. 1 O' landscape buffers have been added along the developed portions of both 162"d and 1641h Ave SE. This new landscape buffer provides a better transition between the existing neighborhood and the proposed development. It also provides for continuous landscaping which is consistent with the landscaping proposed by the Cavalla Plat to the north. As noted in the comparison exhibit, the total area of perimeter buffer is almost identical in both projects. • Pedestrian Safety -While the Cavalla Plat provides limited pedestrian improvements, consistent with a more traditional King County Development, the revised Liberty Garden design provides safe pedestrian walking facilities to almost every home in the project. Sidewalks have been separated from the travel lanes along the primary and half of the secondary internal roads. Both projects propose to create approximately the same amount of nature trails for public enjoyment. The Applicant feels that improved pedestrian amenities and safety will encourage greater pedestrian activity in the neighborhood. • Natural Amenities -As discussed above, the revised landscape plan now includes an extension of the 162"d Ave SE sidewalk as it transitions into a nature path. The new path connects 162"d to SE 141•1 Place, then continues to the eastern edge of the recreational facility. The path extends along almost the entire length of the creek frontage in the southeast corner of the project. The majority of the vegetation in this area will remain undisturbed, and will provide an excellent backdrop to several homes as well as the community park. The area contains approximately 52 mature maple and cedar trees as well as extensive undergrowth. Overall, the open space and recreation area provided by the revised Liberty Garden proposal will be 33% larger than that of the neighboring Cavalla Plat. Ot-540 Liberty Gardens Narrative 2 • Neighborhood Variety -Similar to the Cavalla Plat, the revised Liberty Garden project provides for a mixture of lot sizes and access opportunities. 13 of the lots now access from the proposed alley. Lots located near the recreation and open space features have more irregular shapes and sizes that conform more to the natural features and amenities. These features reduce the number of driveway cuts in the project, improve pedestrian safety and increase the diversity of the housing stock. In summary, the voluntary project revisions have resulted in an increase of pedestrian facilities, street trees, creation of external landscape buffers and a more integrated recreation and open space system. The amount of area dedicated to landscape and pedestrian improvements is equal to or exceeds that of the Cavalla Plat to the north, while maintaining an overall project density less than its neighbor. The Liberty Garden project achieved all these community improvements while making the minor increase in total lots imperceptible to the surrounding community. We are pleased to present you with the revised Liberty Garden Plat for your consideration, and look forward to presenting the project to the Hearing Examiner and City Council as soon as possible. You may refer to the attached Community Comments and comparison exhibit for a more detailed breakdown of the improvements by category. Please let me know if you have any questions. Hans A. Korve Planning Manager DMP Inc. 01-540 Liberty Gardens Narrative 3 LIBERTY GARDENS Written Comments Submitted by CARE (Comments are based on CARE internal email discussions and not the Public Meeting) Meeting Date -August 23, 2010 Meeting Date -September 27, 2010 The Renton City Council asked the owner of Liberty Gardens to reach out to the surrounding community and listen to their concerns, regarding the proposed use of TDR credits, to expand the previously approved project. Although not a code requirement, the Applicant's representative met with the community on two occasions and had numerous email, phone and personal meetings with a community spokesperson to review the issues. Using the Cavalla project as a template, the Applicant voluntarily modified the project to address many of the Community concerns. The following is a summary of the comments received by email, as well as those gathered from the community meetings. • Perimeter landscaping should be equivalent to Cavalla's. Liberty Gardens has provided perimeter landscaping equivalent to Cavalla. • In order to prevent the straight-through raceway that the current proposed street from 162nd Ave SE to 164th Ave SE presents, the connection to 164th Ave SE should be offset to the south, but not so far south as to present a burden (noise or intersection spacing) on the homes already existing on 164th Ave SE During the community meeting, the "bulb-out" traffic calming proposal was described to the attendees. The proposed 140th Street connection will be designed and built as a residential street, with I I-residential driveway connections and two landscape bulbs. As an internal road, we respectfully remind the Community that the road design will not impact the existing residents and is not impacted by the proposed TDR use. The road will remain in its current configuration. • While not 100%, there is a strong recommendation that the loop road should run along the wetland/open-space/Cedar Grove in order for this space to provide an obvious public space or "everybody's front yard" feel instead of the backyard of a few folks. This comment is not representative of Community concerns expressed at the August 23rd meeting. This comment was later attributed to the community spokes person as a summary of several email comments made by members of the community who were not present at the meeting. Redesigning the project to add additional impervious surface and a substandard road network is not an option. This suggested alteration would also result in the extension of 162"d Ave SE 100' to 180' into the tree preservation area, which was set aside in the Applicant's proposal. In private conversations with residents, the briefly discussed Staff Liberty Gardens Community Outreach DMPOl-540 idea was resoundingly rejected. As an internal road, we respectfully remind the Community that the projects final internal design will not impact the existing residents, and its design is not impacted by the proposed TD R use. The proposed road alignment is almost identical to the one that was approved originally. The road will remain in its current configuration. • 8 foot planting strips along all interior streets- The Applicant's proposal provides for 5' planting strips on both sides of SE 140th and 163'd, and on one side of SE 141'' Ct. Five foot (5') planters are standard in almost every municipality in the Seattle Metro area. Providing planter strips on both sides of the street improves pedestrian safety and provides for consistent tree canopy coverage. We would also like to point out that providing IO' of overall street landscaping is superior to providing 8' oflandscaping. As an internal road, we respectfully remind the Community that it will not impact the existing residents and its alignment was not altered by the proposed TOR use. The road will remain in its current configuration. • Front setback variation equivalent to Cavalla Front yard setbacks are related to the plat interior. They have no impact on the surrounding community. A future builder can be encouraged to modulate his building frontages, but such modulation would be strongly dependant on the style and size of the future units. There is no code requirement for such a condition and the proposed use of TOR credits has no impact on the neighborhood that would relate to this request. • The public/nature trail/sidewalk system should be more straightforward and better connected from 162nd Ave SE to 164th Ave SE. The current proposal seems to basically dead-end at the vaults instead of providing clear pedestrian connections The Applicant's proposal has two 5' sidewalks running east/west between 162"d and 164th. With the exception of three proposed homes on SE 141't Ct, every home in the community has direct access to a public sidewalk. The proposed Nature Trail is a voluntary extension of the 162"d Ave sidewalk, which will run among the mature Cedar and Maple trees in the unopened right-of-way, and along the creek buffer in Tract E. The trail provides direct connection to SE 141" Ct, and then connects to the park facilities in Tract B. The west edge of the park facility is connected to the sidewalks on 163'd. The nature trail connects all three of the public sidewalks and creates a total pedestrian loop. The pedestrian facilities for this project have been specifically modified to avoid dead- ends. • There should be similar provisions as recorded in the Hearing Examiner's recommendations for Cavalla -specifically numbers 3, 4, 5, 6, 12 & 13 (partial report copy attached) 3) Setbacks -The Applicant will not utilize alternative front yard setbacks. They are internal to the plat and have no impact on the existing community. Liberty Gardens Community Outreach 2 DMPOl-540 4) Tree Size -The applicant will plant the exterior buffers with a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs in accord with King County standards. The condition is too general to have any specific impact on the proposal. 5) Tree Retention Plan -King County Code requires a tree retention plan. No additional conditions are required. 6) Public Access -The Cavalla condition specified a desire for public access between 162"a and 164th Ave. The public sidewalks proposed for this project will provide pedestrian access throughout the neighborhood. The nature trail will be constructed within both an existing public right-of-way as well as within Tract E. The trail is open to public use. The recreational facilities within the project will be maintained by the neighborhood HOA, and are not intended for use by the general public. Maplewood Heights Park is adjacent to Liberty Gardens and open to the general public. 12) Fence Construction -1bis condition is specific to Cavalla. Only proposed lot 20 is located near an existing home. Traditionally, wood fences are constructed with the new homes. Fence construction is not required by King County Code. 13) Conifer Trees -As indicated above, this condition is specific to Cavalla. Lots along the northern boundary of Liberty Gardens will be adjacent to other new lots. The southern boundary of Liberty Gardens is dominated by the Native Growth Area and the Park. DMP Notes from August 23, 2010 Meeting (Notes based on actual public comment) • 164th Ave buffer planting is important to the community, even though there are no existing homes fronting the road. The applicant agreed to provide buffer planting, similar to Cavalla, and add an additional planning strip to provide separation for the proposed pedestrian facilities. The proposed planting is consistent with the proposed Cavalla improvements. • Community members expressed a concern about the use of weed killers and other herbicides around the stream buffer. It was explained that restrictions could be added to the CC&R's. • Community members expressed concerns about SE 140th St. acting as a "short cut" for area drivers. It was pointed out that the Applicant's proposal includes standard traffic calming techniques, such as reducer road width and landscape bulb-outs. • Community members described the "Shared Experience" as being the Community's interaction with the new neighborhood from the outside. One Liberty Gardens Community Outreach 3 DMP 01-540 Community member correctly pointed out that the internal workings of the plat were outside CARE's area of responsibility. Only one existing residence is located adjacent to the proposed Liberty Gardens plat. • The Community was concerned about the preservation of existing trees. Liberty Gardens will preserve almost two acres of open space and unimproved right-of way with mature second growth trees. By comparison, Cavalla is preserving no existing trees and will be replanting all proposed trees in its storm water tract. DMP Notes from September 27, 2010 Meeting (Notes based on actual public comment) • DMP began the presentation with a brief history of the project and the approved site plan. DMP also listed the issues of concern to the community and how the Applicant's revised site plan addressed each one. Most importantly, it was made clear to the Community that this is a voluntary process of outreach, and that the vested King County Code allows for the use of almost twice as many TDR credits as are being proposed under the current design. At the same time, the Applicant reaffirmed his willingness to work with the community to improve the neighborhood through future partnerships with the City of Renton and the Kinfil County Parks Department. The Applicant fully supports the expansion of 164' along the park frontage, and the construction of parking facilities on the County park land for use by visitors as well as patrons to the adjacent school ball fields. • The Community was concerned about the impact of the project on schools and utilities. Other issues included traffic and wetland impacts. DMP tried to explain that the issue at hand was the IO additional residential lots, and that each new home was required to pay impact and utility service fees. Some residents felt that impact fees did not cover the full cost of service impacts. The issue was left at that point. • DMP tried to address the incremental issues of traffic and the imperceptible nature of IO additional trips. Residents have concerns about the larger traffic issues facing the area and the perceived 'dumping' of new housing on the neighborhood. One resident, unfamiliar with the original project, expressed concerns with wetland buffer impacts within the 162"d St. ROW. DMP explained that the issue was resolved in the original approval, and that the proposed modifications had no impact on the approved access point for the project. Liberty Gardens Community Outreach 4 Maplewood Heights Park :.E. olRT R(lb.D --,(2,)1\~ g,.::,_~.;',\.i'. ~ 11 18 12 13 14 15 16 V 18 10 19 '"' ----i 9 ,. -~ _,-.. <---,._ , _ TRACTIA 10 ~ ,.....,, ' .... -.. ,. ' ,....,._, . ' .. 38 I I ~~ "111 I I 23 j tt a 111 ; Mtf I I ~vi LTAACTC ' I! [,~ hi I " 40 ; f _:_lf~·~· 1~ I 24 ii .,!_ ~ 35 ~ ~ 25 , ! ~ wr 6 rl i? WI 41 I -I l ,·,c,1 I __ .___ TAACTD 5 I • ~ 42 4 !mlrf 28 \ Z7 32 :--i ~ 43 ~~ ~ : : 45 46 29 L~---· ~ ~ }~~~\ ~),. f .,-~ QO W:) ~~~i,,<.:,,. ,~0 ,·,.,,rf,' t)ti:ti;~;,j:;:t~:\ -, ;·i·-·,·• EXST. BLDG., 19 20 II! . ' I fffi''t'' ~\ /~r:·_~ 21 ,,. ·e{~'~ . -~ := .• ~ : .. ·. }: :~:-.-.;":"--,-.-- . ,. ".\iJ ~'Jr ~ OPEN SPACE/ RECREATION (TRACTS 'B' AND 'E'): 71,218 SF. / 1.63 AC. , 0 -~~ r y"k'Ar"-Af'1!!?\~ "'-.I . lc~"'1LfJ, _ Q__ I -~:t l'T'P'b);. ' 'it I i I " II • • "' • 7 0, • ------------11 I 5 ,? • • • ~ , Ave SE. SIDE BY SIDE COMPARISON OF LIBERTY GARDENS AND CA VALLA PLAT A PORTION OF SE 1/4, SE 1/4, SEC. 14-T23N-R5E, W.M. KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON " " GRAPfflC SCALE " ,~ .. (JlfnaT) I iDolll • IIQ ft. U)erty High School Maplewood Heights Park "' • " D 14 II • f1 II 10 • .. • 21 .. ZI 7 .. .. •.3 I .. -.. • ... .. ---[{, .. .. ., -• - 21 • .. .. --.. .. :u • ~-· -- • .. ,., -.. .. - • -.. 211 .. --.. .. ------------------~M. CAVAU.A Pu..T t.l!Et.lii UIBIIY<WDENI PCN1 / RE£1ElilD 11UCl'l: 41,231 l.F'. / LH A.C.171.211 :U. / UJi AC. S1ll£ET FRCN1'AIE 11.ffERS: 1Q.D11 s.r. / D.23 A.C. 111.0N SF. / D.23 AC. PLAN1ER S1RPS: 12.820 SI, / D.21 AD. 'lt,341 S.F. / tl.28 N:. IUaJt a, l.013: 4CI 41 SIIEM<k ........ &N AC. 5.47 00/AI! &N AC. S.'Q DJ//,,/; ~i .. ,I_ .. .. .. .. .. 17 • ., .. ~u .. I .. "' .. -.. .. .. .. .. -----·~ DALEY-MOAROW-PCIBLEI NC. 7211 AUBIJR'N WAY N. AUBURN. WA. 98002 Pl:IONEl ("3)~2200 FAX: (:Z:J.3)333-22°-! l OFENBPN:E/ !EaEA1lON ClllACT8 'B' ND 'E") 71.218 BF. / 163 AC. ------------------ --- DAW> 11. PEllE 811 SOU1H 27Jrd COURT, O£S MOINES, WASHINGTON 981118 PHONE No, (253)94&-1$819 FAX No. (253)520--2110 ~ L&fflYQAADENS ~~ SCJe BY8DE COI.PAFl!k»i EXl&T-cPOON'B' -"' LM _,. 1"" • 5CI" -Gll:lPDIIHllllL -__ -LW -SEP. :U. 2010 -01540 ,,_1_ • I ~~ 1" • 50' p-.f r '" I 6§? ul"J'?Lp,.. ,,-t.D l"-A J. T-23N, R-5(. w_._"-·~~- .i, T-23N. R-5£. WM. 164th Ave. &E VACAlED) (VAC~Tro) ','~4.-"';f/+-:J;.·?, --~· / / / / o'< ,.... / / ~/'4:---// ,.... &3P ,./' / / / / I _.... .,... ,.... ,.... / •'° . ) /~/-/, -'~</2/ // .,..-·• ,_./ ~, I 7,~L± / / /I,/ // -~)" / L.,/----~- -/ ,,.../ , 100' ·,_ ot/ ~<}I / .• / / / ---" /,r / ./ ,.r ,...., r>• / / / .. ,..--/ ;? 7,060 d.~ / / / .. / ( ( " //(/ ' \' / : ,., L ·. r-7-1 I ---·1··----·'-/ . ' ----T--··---7-, 17-~ --/-------/~ ---1-.i /'t,, ! ::-· #,' I ~ --r. ,,,) , . : 't___ --,.--/ ' --1 J.R£A1ID SE OlSIUfi88) 1 ~ I 881 s.fJ; I =-I -...... ~~ ' ' i I ' ' i i l"_A PRELIMINARY ROAD PLAN OF LIBERTY GARDENS A POR1lON OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 6 TOWNSHIP 22 N, RANGE 5 E, W.M KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON ~ ,:"1£.D \jNp\-P.. 6.&~.f.± -_ I I ' .' ; 70' /\ " I < """"' ""' RW,D/PAl'H 1D -~-~ l..~ \ 26 I ) 6,1r 1H; ~ ---. /{10 . \ I ' \ a· I ·. sm'™ 4:A.6.CJJ!E:AmN 1'~5.1.J: > ;, 1i I p ~p..o.,L../'2 ,-s : sN'°" ,1-"'!\50 I 1 sE.R "'oL· ,.,,,9 \ " ' u I ,,,.<' j",/ ',, I Q"<f I , ,, , " I , , L ' < ' / ' ( / / _____ ... ,o----- ; ·-----,~OIi--- ' ~ ~-A 16411 --~ 28 I, \ ) \ t-~---~~-----··--~--- l l-1\ \ '·· I ) ) / ;,;; @P .,,-. ,... ) . \ \// . ·, -"<'I' ·1 / '..A\./. / \i34 /' 6'°"" ~.1.:1: / '-·-.,.' • '·"'~)l, \ \ ···-....// j \ ·1 tt' ' ' . ,~ . // --~-----/ ,o...· 29 -. ... ,-r.849 •,!cf ! \ I \ ~....::. \ \ \@ ., }s11 :o.t.:t ,., 1~ :E' SOO'Wff/5/'fl/(/ H' (/lj I I ' / / ill ! ; I f' 1[ 1 ( I -~ . -'"-::-; ,yr~ ' , ~ /) \ I -"'~ ... 1\1 """' //j/;I ·,d,,.1,, r . '\ ,o ... "E -( / ' ' ' 1 ,j •· ,_, " \ \ • -.,,, , ' . ' '• "~ ', \ \•, ,,.-"" ~·· ,, • I ,. , . --\ '-....:.. ' ,, ,_. -<::--·-' ." .. I ~ " ~-A -~ I I $ ~ I ', I.. , \'---."---... y -~) ' ·-"-....... i \ I ,, I ORIGINAL APPROVED SITE PLAN VICINn' MAP --a- LEGAL DESCAIP'JJON UW:.S s AhlP &. III.OCI( 'f ~ PMK F1J[ N::11£ lRAC7$. ~ ID TH£ Pl.AT n£ffmF" RECOODEO IN ',l:,'.ll..tAE 15 Of Pl.Al$, PAGE" 91, IN kthl; COOMY, WASHNGTCW. ya:mcAL DAl\lt,4, '"""" PER CtrV OF" REJfJ'ON SU,MV OONIRCL IIEIWOOIC BENCHMAflK, Bl¥$$ DISK IN ~ MONl..l,jENf " ll£ ~ Of S.C. lfflCI l'i.lCE ANO 1~ IW£.. S..£. ......... MERDIAN: ~JB(8d,I.IKTI"SUll'l'l'f~ BASISOFB~ TIE s. LN. <Y" ~S£,i,i:c.¥tt!H-~ W.W. B[,lfl1NQ Nl)IS'$1'40-it ag,.JEER/PLANNER ~ CCINSUU'll'IG EMGIHW!S, INC. 182t-' 12l'd IW(. 5QUtll =j:,~ tAX (41S) 251-8782 corucf: ALI ~ WA'rW( P(fl1EI O'ffl'ER/PEYELOPER ,WU. PETRIE/ ~ M. PEllslE a,, s. VJ.RD er D£S 'IQW6. 1114 911193 {2SJ) 946-6819 lt,DEX TO SHEETS Cl OF 5 PllB.JMtlARY Pl.AT MAP UTUT1ES{$fRVIQfS """ """' ...... CITY OF REN«»II 10!)0 S Gftl4)'( WAY -.. ..,,. (425} 430-8852 Klf'«l 00.INTY WATEll DiS'T, 190 I~ S£ 12tm\ ST. RENl'llN. WA eSOM (4~) 255-9'!00 PUG(l"SOUM)~ 105 15fffi1~N( eruLW<. .. (800) :m-m, Nl\'Mb\l ~ PIJG£f SOIJNtl ENERGY 105 !50ltl A'ltNUE NE """"-.. """'- """' ""' S'CHOOL: (800} 321-4-321 -4:IO 110TH N.ENU£ NE """"' .. """ """' """'5f 402a AIJBUIIH ~ N M.81JRH, WA 03002 KfG ~ flRE ~ NO. 25 12023 lSSTJl ,MNJE Sf R~WA~ ('426}~5151 C2 OF 5 PfBJMtlARY ROAD />liD DAAtlAClE PL.AN C3 OF 5 PAB.JMtlARY ROAD l'ROFLEEI ISS/IQUIIH sttn)L OST. fm 5611 !fl' liOlLY SIJIEEt ~-~99021 C4 OF 5 PIB.NIAflY FIOAD IFIIOVSENT PL.AN Alt::> PROFLE C5 OF 5 ADJACENT PflOfB!lY OWIERS MAP PL1 OF 2 ~ PAIi< />liD I.AIOSCAPe PLAN PL2 OF 2 8IONACANT 1llEE fEl1ENTION PL/IN BlFFER MAKE-UP TAILE ~ 1. ~ PARCEL NUMBER= 145750--0145. 0150 2, sm: AOllRESS! 1112ND No'EHlf£ SE * SE 1WTH Pl 3.. CIIOS5 !IIIE AA!A: 8.QS ~ (Jes,9111 SF) 4. OCISTlNG USE: VN:Nff S.. PIIQ'OSED USE: .J6-LOI' Slfml.£ FAUI.Y Rt$tOUIC£ o. DIISTINI, ZONl"9; lt-4 7. PIICIP05ED ZONING: R-4 a. D.'ISm::. COWPfil:IENSNE PiAW OE:SIGHQlott: \Jll8HI. R£llllDa 4-12 00/M: 8. ll£QURED IINlltlM lDI' .WIDTH: 30 FEET 10. PIO"OS8) MINIM.U wr 111ttmt. 85 m:r 11. WUllNQ: ~--fl,DNT 10 rEtr ........ S10E .I: R£ililt YARD$: -, Fm iMilN). ~ ~ l:1i FEET 12. ~ LOT NlfA: U&O SQ. fl, IJ. sot.lllCE OF BOU'CWff ANO TQPOORAPH'I': (».1£<~-POBUlt,. INC., DECEMBER 200f SUttui: IIPA.'.:T NIU' 14,585 S.F. (162HD JN£.. S.E.J ~~"~-UP.IID !~SF. NEf 81.fl:ER INCRfASE +41~ Sf lRACTTABLE -"" ""'"') ' --"·"" • -~-20,110 C -"" """"' 2,0ll ' _,..,""""" '·"' ' '""'" 1.070 ' "'"" ,.,,,,, "°" $9,1311 TOTAL ll'W;:I AA.fJ<./Raw IJ7,434 S.F. 3.15 AC;. lOToll. LOT Aff[Jo 25Z,S$9 S.F. 5.1!0 AC. TOTAL Sl':t AREA 369,996 S.f". 0.95 AC;. AVEJl,bt;£ LOT AAt:A 6.990 s.r. ~ ~ !I ~ ~ ti jo ~ ' ~ e-,. t :::J l;l;i i ~ ~ ~ f:1:1 :, ~ s: !!,!1-~m e:0<(5 wo;;::f ... a: -i • <') 0) :; "' w oC\Jz-> 0) 0 f3 <&i:;~ Q ~ 5 f ,i_ u. l !. : I ~ i ~ , ~ 1 ~ I l i ic ~ 0 ~ w ~ ~ z ~ ~~NN ONW ~~~~ ~~~~ NN ;S~-~~ ro w --t-v -::.:: .............. i~ , z ~ ~ l ! • " <it'.: ·~ !; !! u ;;:;; 'i ~~ ., "" ~ 0•·,.,,., 0 '?. .::, 0 '< t :r: / od.-~" l>--e ,co,i.? ! ;:1j , st 11 ~ ~ lli ~1 ~1 cua.r ...,AVID M. PETRIE 811 SOUTH 273rd COURT. DES MOINES, WASHINGTON 98198 PHONE No. (253)946-6619 FAX No. (253)529-2110 -. PROJFO LIBERTY GARDENS SlREET CROSS-SECTIONS DRAWN BY LM SCALE , .. = 50' ORAWWG CONIIPJUAL \l!lHCAVAflA SI-IECT __ ! ____ , __ APPROVE-0 LM DMf SEP. 23, 2010 JOBI 01540 OF 1 ----------- \\000 FENCE (T'IP.) 1641H AVENUE SE. N.T.S. Q Q a' 'ill° t 162M> AVENUE SE N.T.S. SE 1401H STilEEl N.T.S. ~ ~ Denis Law Mayor September 16, 2010 Hans Korve DMP Inc. 726 Auburn Way N Auburn, WA 98002 SUBJECT: "On Hold" Notice Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator Liberty Gardens/ LUAOS-093, MOD (KC File #L04P0034) Dear Mr. Korve: The Planning Division of the City of Renton accepted the above request, for modification of the approved Preliminary Plat, on August 4, 2010. During our review, staff received a request from you to place the modification request on hold as you continue to make revisions to your proposal. At this time, your project has been placed "on hold" pending receipt of your revised proposal. Please contact me at (425) 430-7219 if you have any questions. Sincerely, 1j:~ Associate Planner cc: Dave Petire / Owner(s) Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov .. c·ty , of Rento __________________________ P!..../LaPILJ.OA'llR.il'l@O· • • 0 From: gary.norris@comcast.net [mailto:gary.norris@comcast.net] ,v,s,on Sent: Thursday. July 22, 2010 8:20 AM AUG _ 4 2 To: Hans Korve 010 Subject: Re: Liberty Gardens Preliminary Traffic Distribution Findings.fRl~({;~OW', Hi Hans, ~/l)J As we discussed the appropriate KCC Section for the preliminary intersection review is 14.80.030 -(Intersection Standards). Based on my analysis, and this is conditioned on the information you provided regarding the proposed number of lots (48), under the current submittal: 66 percent of the traffic generated at Liberty Gardens will head south as it is bound for SR 169. This distribution and assignment determination was based on extensive field studies in regards to travel time and current traffic assignment patterns in the area. And quite frankly, this distribution pattern served these (Cavalla I Liberty Gardens) developments quite well when the County was considering potential impacts to SE 128th Street for the original projects At any rate, with this distribution the project, under the current proposed lots, sends 31 trips through the 162nd Avenue SE/SE 144th Street intersection; the 156th Avenue SE/SE 144th Street intersection; and the 156th Avenue SE /SE 142nd Place intersection. The intersection of concern in regards to the KCC requirements would be the 156th Avenue SE/SE 142nd Place intersection . . This information should be sufficient for the initial submittal and review by Kayren Kittrick. We can provide additional analysis as needed. Please let me know if you have any additional questions Gary DN Traffic Consultants PO Box 547 Preston, WA 98050 (425)765-5721 I t .. Hans Korve From: Kayren K. Kittrick [Kkittrick@Rentonwa.gov] Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 8:56 AM To: 'Hans Korve' Cc: gary.norris@comcast.net; Rocale Timmons Subject: RE: Liberty Gardens Intersection Standards Question Mr. Korve, Page I of3 Your summary is thoughtful, fact based on King County standards, and complete. I agree with the facts as presented and that a minimum analysis is sufficient at this time. As a side note, if this project were coming in under City of Renton standards, additional analysis would also be required as the additional trips associated with the additional Jots alone exceed the threshold for study. It is understood that if any further alterations, up or down, occur a final analysis may indeed be required for a complete project record prior to any hearing or administrative action. If you have any further updates or comments, please feel free to contact me with a courtesy copy to Rocale Timmons, the planning project manager. Sincerely, Kayren K. Kittrick Development Engineering Supervisor Community & Economic Development email: kkittrick@rentonwa.gov Phone: 425-430-7299 --·------------·--- From: Hans Korve [mailto:hans@dmp-inc.us] Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 8:33 AM To: Kayren K. Kittrick Cc: gary.norris@comcast.net Subject: Liberty Gardens Intersection Standards Question Kayren - ____ , .. ___ , .. ,,.,_ .. Thank you for taking the time to discuss the proposed plat alteration of the Liberty Gardens subdivision. As you know, we are proposing to add 12 new lots to the project as part of this alteration. As such, under the provisions of Chapter 14.80 of the vested King County Code, we would fall under the definition of Significant adverse impacts (14.80.030) if 30 or more peak hour trips generated by the project impact an intersection under the conditions described in the section. (see below). As such, we have conducted a trip distribution analysis to determine the impacts of our proposal. Based on our conversation, I believe we have conducted the minimum analysis needed 7/22/2010 I r Page 2 of3 to submit the plat alteration application. We understand that additional analysis may be required if we exceed the threshold limit. Given that project review often results in an alteration of the original proposal and the possible loss of lots, we prefer to submit only the minimum analysis at this time and to wait for further review by Staff before investing any more resources in this area of review. Based on our extensive conversation today, please review this summary and let me know if I have accurately represented your understanding of the applicable codes. If I have misstated any aspect of our conversation, I will make any required alterations and re- submit the summary for your review. Thank you for your considerable time and effort. Hans Korve Planning Manager DMP-lnc Attached: Sections: 14.80.010 14.80.020 14.80.030 14.80.040 14.80.050 14.80.060 14.80.200 Chapter 14.80 INTERSECTION STANDARDS Authority and purpose. Definitions. Significant adverse impacts. Mitigation and payment of costs. lnte~urisdictional agreements. Relation to other permit authority. Severabi lily. 14.80.010 Authority and purpose. A. This chapter is enacted pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, K.C.C. 20.44, and RCW 58.17 and the King County Charter as a home rule county, Article 11, § 11 of the Washington State Constitution. B. The purpose of this chapter is to: 1. Assure adequate levels of service, safety, and operating efficiency on the King County road system, at intersections serving and directly impacted by proposed new development; 2. Establish standards for intersection operation and define the relationship between new developments on road intersection function; 3. Identify development conditions to assure intersection capacity, safety and operational efficiency; and 4. Require that owners of new developments pay the proportionate costs of required intersection improvements. (Ord. 11617 § 57, 1994). 14.80.020 Definitions. A. Highway Capacity Manual. Highway Capacity Manual means Special Report 209 of the Transportation Research Board of the National Research Council, as currently amended. 8. Road Standards. Road Standards means the King County Road Standards, 1993, K.C.C. 14.42 (Ordinance 11187, 1993). Terms used in the Road Standards shall have the same meaning when used in this chapter. References and authorities cited in the Road Standards shall also apply to this chapter. (Ord. 11617 § 58-59, 1994). 14.80.030 Significant adverse impacts. For the purposes of SEPA and this chapter, a significant adverse impact is defined as any traffic condition directly caused by proposed development that would reasonably result in one or more of the following conditions at the time any part of the development is completed and able to generate traffic: 7/22/2010 I 22-JUN•lO 08:15 FROI.I-SEWALL WELANO CNSULTING +2538524732 T-277 P.02/02 F-914 June 22, 2010 Dave Petrie 811 South 273rd Coun Des Moines, Washington 98198 zr1141 Covington w.y se 112 Covington, WA 98042 RE: Wetland and Stream Confirmation -Liberty Gardens SWC Job #Al-186 Dear Dave, Phone: 253 859 0515 Fax: 253-862-4732 c·ty 1 ot Renton Planning Division AUG -4 ZD10 This letter describes my findings on the proposed Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat site, and 8.9 acre property located off 164'" Avenue SE ill: the City of Renton, Washington. The purpose of this work was to confirm the accuracy of the previously submitted "Liberty Gardens -Critical Areas Analysis Report and Conceptual Mitigation Plan" prepared by our company under its previous trade narne ofB-12 Wetland Consulting, Inc., and dated November 19, 2004 (Revised). Ed Sewall of Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. inspected the site on June 11, 2010. The site was reviewed using methodology described in the Washington State Wetlands Identification Manual (W ADOE, March 1997). This is the methodology currently recognized by King County, City of Renton, and the State of Washington for wetland determinations and delineations. The site was also reviewed using the methodology described in the US Army Corps of Engineers publication Interim Regional Suppleme11t to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manutd: Watern Mountains, Valleys and Coast Region (USACOE April 2008) as required by the US Anny Corps of Engineers starting in June of 2009. Soil colora were identified using the 1990 Edited and Revised Edition of the M1111sefl Soil Color Charts (Kollmorgen Instruments Colp. 1990). Our findings arc that the wetlands and stream as delineated and rated under King County Code in the previously submitted and approved report arc still valid. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at (253) 859-0515 or cscwall@scwallwc.com Sincerely, Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. ~~ Ed Sewall Senior Wetland Ecologist PWS #212 01-540 Liberty Garden Preliminary I REVISED 2010 -SEPA Checklist Major Modification Purpose of Checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help King County and/ or any other agencies with jurisdiction to identify impacts from a proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help King County decide whether an EIS is required. A BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable Liberty Garden -REVISED (June 7, 2010) (January 20, 2011) 2. Name of proponent David M. Petrie 3. Address and phone number of proponent and contact person: Proponent: Contact Person: 4. Date checklist prepared: David M. Petrie 811 S. 273'd. CT Des Moines, WA 98198 (253) 946-6619 Phone Hans Korve DMP Engineering 726 Auburn Way North (253) 333-2200 Phone (253) 333-2206 Fax November 5, 2004 REVISED (June 7, 2010) (January 20, 2011) 5. Agency requesting checklist King County, DDES 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Original Application Submittal... ............. November 2004 Revised Application ................................. June 2010 Public Hearing .......................................... August 2010 Final Action ............................................... October 2010 Engineering Submittal ............................ December 2010 Site Grading .............................................. April 2012 Final Plat ................................................... September 2014 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansions, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes please explain. No. 1 FOR AGENCY USE ONLY ity of Re fanning o· n.ton iv1s1on JAN 2 4 2011 01-540 Liberty Garden Pre:iminary P REVISED 2010. SEPA CheckFst \llajor Mod/fic2ticn 8. List any information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. The following information will be prepared and submitted under separate cover or is available in County files: • Level 1 Downstream Analysis, DMP • Conceptual Drainage Plan, DMP • Traffic Study, DN Traffic Consultants • Wetland Analysis, Sewall Wetland Consultant. REVISED June 2010 REVISED June 2010 REVISED June 2010 REVISED June 2010 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by this proposal? • None 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Traffic Concurrency SEPA Threshold Determination (Revised) Preliminary and Final Plat Approval Clearing and Grading Permits Building Permits King County Renton Renton Renton Renton 11. Give brief, complete description of the proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. The proposal is to subdivide two lots, totaling approximately 8.95 acres into approximately 46 single-family lots, open space, internal plat roads and access tracts, in was originally a King County designated R-4 zone. Applicant will utilize TDR credits to achieve the proposed density of approximately 5.3 DU/Ac 12. Location of the proposal. Provide a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if available. The subject proposal is situated on two lots, totaling approximately 8.95 acres, located within the Jurisdictional boundaries of unincorporated King County in the SE y. of Section 14 Township 23 North, Range 5 East W.M. The site is located on parcel(s) 145750-0145 and -0150. Please refer to the Preliminary Plat map for the legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map. 2 FOR AGENCY USE ONLY • 01-540 Liberty Garden Preiiminary I REVISED 20'.0 -SEPA Checklist Major Modification B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one):!flatl, lromngj, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous. The site has a gentile slope to the southwest with several A TV paths eris- crossing the property. An unimproved road is evident along the existing 164"' Ave. SE ROW. The site is vegetated with third growth deciduous trees with a mixture of shrubs and understory plants. A small intermittent stream is located in the southwest corner of the site, adjacent to the 162"" Ave. SE ROW. A small Class II wetland has been identified in association with this intermittent stream / ditch. A larger wetland has been identified approximately 50' off-site south southwest. Slopes across the majority of the site are less then 10%, with the steepest slopes along the intermittent stream bank. Please refer to the preliminary plat map for contour information. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Aceording to the field topographic survey, the steepest slope on the site is approximately 15% +-located along the intermittent stream. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, and muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. According to the US Soil Conservation Service Soil Map, the site Is primarily Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam (AgC) (6-15%).The soil is moderately well drained. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. According to the King County Sensitive Areas Map, there are no unstable soils within the project site. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Grading of the site will be necessary to modify the site for stormwater drainage flow. The exact quantity of grading is not known at this time, however, it is anticipated that the grading activities would be designed to balance and not require import or export of soil f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Some erosion could occur on-site as a result of construction activities; however, temporary erosion and sedimentation control measures to be approved by King County will be employed to reduce erosion impacts. All construction during the wet season will comply with the VESTED 1998 3 FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 01~540. Liberty Garden Preliminary P REVISED 2010 -SEPA Checklist 111ajor Modification 2. Air Surface Water Design Manual, Appendix "D" concerning site coverage techniques. Previous SEPA determinations have mandated the use of the 2005 manual for level 3 flow control. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Due to the preliminary nature of the plans, the exact percentage of impervious surface associated with this project is currently unknown. The subject proposal will not exceed the maximum impervious surface area as required by KCC 21A.12.030 h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: During construction, the contractor will follow an approved temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan meeting KCC standards. Typical measures, which may be employed, include the use of silt fences, straw bales, and temporary storm drainage features. Hydroseeding exposed soils and cleared areas after construction will also reduce the potential for erosion. All construction during the wet season will comply with the adopted Surface Water Design Manual, concerning site coverage techniques .. Previous SEPA determinations have mandated the use of the 2005 manual for level 3 flow control. a_ What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, and industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Construction: Emissions and dust particulates generated primarily by construction equipment will be produced during the construction phase of this project. The amount of emissions to the air will be minimal and will occur during the actual construction of the development. Long Term Air Quality: Long-term air impacts would be those typically associated with residential land uses. Sources of long-term emissions and odor could include vehicle emissions from increased vehicle use generated by the new residential units and emissions from wood burning fireplaces (if permitted). The additional vehicular emissions in these areas are not anticipated to concentrate and therefore are not anticipated to create a health hazard to the residents or surrounding areas. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe_ No. 4 FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 01-540 Liberty Garden Preliminary REVISED 2010 -SEPA Checklist Major Modification c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: 3. Water If particulates become suspended during construction, frequent watering of the site during the construction phase of the project would be used to help control dust and other particulates generated on the site. This will be accomplished in accord with the adopted Surface Water Design Manual. . Previous SEPA determinations have mandated the use of the 2005 manual for level 3 flow control. a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, and wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. According to the King County Sensitive Areas Folio, there are no recorded streams or other water bodies on the subject site. The site is not within any 100 year flood plain. Field reconnaissance however identified a Class two wetland and Class Ill stream in the southwest corner of the site. Please refer to the original Sewall Wetland report. /REVISED June 2010\ 2) Will the project require any work over, in or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Yes. The described stream and wetland have an associated 50' maximum buffer. All lots as well as the internal plat roads are proposed outside the required buffers, but within 200 feet of the wetland. The proposed access to the project through 162"d Ave. SE-will involve the filling of approximately 6,217 Sq. Ft of wetland buffer within the existing right-of- way. Buffer mitigation/ enhancement are proposed on site. Please refer to the following question and the attached wetland study. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. Construction of the 162"d Street improvements to service the proposed plat will result in a wetland buffer fill of approximately 6,217 Sq. Ft. A proposed mitigation area of 10,280 Sq. Ft. is proposed or is available as needed. The amount of fill may be minimized during the engineering phase of the project, depending on the final design and chosen construction techniques. Some buffer averaging may be proposed during the engineering phase as needed. The proposed buffer enhancement/ mitigation location contains excess area. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No 5 FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 01-540 Liber:y Garden Pre:iminary F REVISED 20~0 -SEPA Checklist Major Modification 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan According to the King County Sensitive Areas Maps, no portion ofthe site lies within the 100-foot floodplain. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? · If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No. b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, agricultural; etc.) Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. None known at this time. c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. On-site storm water runoff will primarily be generated from roadways, residential structures, and associated driveways. Storm water will be collected in catch basins within the roadways and/or tight-lined from residential roof tops and conveyed to a proposed detention facility located on the project site. Please refer to the REVISED Level One Report for further details .. Previous SEPA determinations have mandated the use of the 2005 manual for level-3 flow control. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Some pollutants normally associated with residential development could enter the surface water; however, the amount would be minimal since the on-site drainage will be conveyed to a water quality and detention facility in conformance with the adopted Surface Water Design Manual. Previous SEPA determinations have mandated the use of the 2005 manual for level-3 flow control. 6 FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 01-540 Liberty Garden Pre!iminary REVISED 2010 -SEPA Checklist Major Modificaticn d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: The storm water runoff will be collected and conveyed to a detention facility(s) that will be designed and constructed in conformance with the adopted Surface Water Design Manual. Previous SEPA determinations have mandated the use of the 2005 manual for level-3 flow control. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other. evergreen tree: fir, cedar, hemlock, pine, other shrubs grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other: b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? The site is currently wooded with third growth evergreen and deciduous trees. Off road vehicle tracts are present throughout the site. The majority of existing vegetation will be removed during the grading process. Tree and vegetation removal will be kept to a minimum when possible. Off-site vegetation will be removed during construction of the access road to the site. The applicant proposes an area of almost 10,280 Sq. Ft for buffer mitigation/ buffer averaging to offset this intrusion or other permitted alteration. Please see the original wetland report. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. There are no known threatened or endangered plant species on/ near the site. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: The proposed preliminary plat anticipates retaining existing trees when possible. The new single-family residences will provide new landscaping including lawns, shrubs, and ornamental trees. Native vegetation will be utilized, where appropriate. Some additional trees and vegetation will be incorporated into the storm water facility where appropriate. Additional landscaping will be added as part of the wetland mitigation proposal. 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals, which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: rodents fish: bass, perch, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other 7 FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 01-540 Uberty Garden Preliminary P REVISED 2010 -SEPA Cr.ecklist ~ajor Modification b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None Known. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. No. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Installation of native landscaping throughout the plat will provide coverage and habitat for urban tolerant wildlife. Additional planting in the wetlands and buffers will enhance the existing habitat. 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electrical energy will be the primary source of power serving the needs of the project and natural gas will be made available for the purpose of heating and other needs associated with residential living. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: The residential buildings that will be constructed as a result of this project will meet or exceed the applicable single-family residential energy conservation/consumption requirements in King County/Renton and the International Building Codes. 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. It is unlikely under normal working conditions that environmental health hazards would be encountered. All project-related construction will meet or exceed current, ~County, State and Federal laws. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. In the event that environmental health hazards are encountered or occur during construction, all appropriate precautionary measures will be employed. Any emergency situation would be addressed by the existing resources of Fire District #25. 8 FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 01-540 Liberty Garden Pre>iminary P! REVISED 2010 -SEPA Checkl'sl 11ajor Modification 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: State regulations regarding safety and the handling of hazardous materials will be followed during the construction process. Equipment refueling areas would be located in areas where a spill could be quickly contained and where the risk of hazardous materials entering surface water is minimized. On-site management will be equipped with mobile communications equipment at all times to contact emergency services in the event of an incident. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area, which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment operation, other)? There are no dominant sources of noise in the project vicinity. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Short-term impacts would result from the use of construction equipment during site development. Construction would occur during permitted construction hours and in compliance with King County/Renton noise standards. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Construction activity will be limited to permitted construction hours and construction equipment will not be allowed to idle for continuous periods of time, which will help to mitigate the impacts of potential construction noise. Hours of operation will be posted on-site. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The site is currently made up of two undeveloped lots. Adjacent land uses consist of a low density single-family residence. Maplewoods Heights Park is located northeast of the site. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. It is not believed that the site was utilized for agricultural production in the past. c. Describe any structures on the site. NA d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? NA 9 FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 01-540 Liberty Garden Pre!Jminary F REVISED 2010 -SEPA Checklist Major Modification e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The project site is zoned under King County as R-4 (Low Density Residential, 4 dwelling units per acre). The applicant intends to increase the density to just over 5 dwelling units per acre through the use of a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? According to the King County Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the area is designated -Urban Residential. (R-4 to R-12) The proposed use of TDR's is consistent with the vested comprehensive plan designation. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Not applicable. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. According to the 1990 King County Sensitive Areas Folio the project has no environmental sensitive areas. However, field investigations conducted by Sewall wetland consultants, identified a small Class 3 intermittent stream and an associated Class 2 riparian wetland. A second wetland was also identified off site, to the west of 162"" Ave. SE. Please refer to the original wetland reports. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Assuming 2.5 persons per household, approximately 120 people would reside in the proposed project. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: The proposed project will provide 46 -new housing units. I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The project will be developed in accordance with applicable VESTED King County development and land use codes to ensure the project is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and applicable development regulations in effect at the time of a complete Preliminary Subdivision application. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. 46 new middle-income housing units will be provided. 10 FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 01-540 Liberty Garden Preliminary P REVISED 2010 • SEPA Checklist Aajor Modification b. Approximately how many units, if any would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Adherence to the comprehensive plan and growth management planning goals of King County would ensure that housing development is consistent with those policies stated in the applicable land use plan. 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterio_r building material(s) proposed? No specific building plans are included with this project; however, it is anticipated that houses built on the site would conform to the King County development regulations and be limited to a height of 35 feet in accordance with 21A.12.030. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Development of the site would result in a change to the visual character of the site for the nearest existing residences and roadways to that of a single- family neighborhood area. No significant views would be obstructed. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: The site plan has been developed to provide a site design layout consistent with the development regulations in place for the VESTED R-4 zone. The proposed project incorporates landscape and open space areas in accordance with King County development regulations. 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Light and glare from the completed project is anticipated to be that typically generated by single-family residences, mainly occurring during the evening hours, and be associated with vehicle headlights, streetlights and residential unit lighting. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Not under normal circumstances. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None. 11 FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 01-540 Liberty Garden Preliminary F REVISED 2010 • SEPA Checklist Major Modific2t1on d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Installation of street trees along the street frontages and landscaping in open space areas will help to alleviate some of the light and glare created by streetlights, headlights and residential unit lighting from the adjacent properties. The proposal will only install those street lights approved by King County/ Renton. 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Liberty High School is located northeast of the project site. The school has many recreational fields. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. The project would not displace any existing recreational uses. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: The proposed project will provide a minimum of 390 square feet of open space/recreation area per single-family lot (18,720 SF) pursuant to 21A.14. The applicant proposes to construct recreational facilities on site or pay the appropriate fee-in-lieu of recreational facilities to offset any potential adverse impacts of the project. The current proposal is to construct tennis or sport courts on top of the proposed storm water vaults, in addition to providing tot- lot facilities. The proposal will also include trail improvements within the wetland/stream buffer adjacent to the recreation area. This will allow expanded public access to the park and enhance public appreciation of the natural amenities. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. None known. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. To the best of our knowledge, there are no landmarks or evidence of any significant historic, archaeological, scientific or cultural resources known to be on or next to the site. 12 FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 01-540 Liberty Garden Preliminary P REVISED 2010 -SEPA Checklist vlajor Modttication c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: If any such historic or cultural evidence is encountered during construction or installation of improvements, work would be halted in the area and a state- approved archaeologist/historian would be engaged to investigate, evaluate and/or move or curate such resources, as appropriate. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The proposed project will take primary access from 162.., Ave SE and secondary access from 164'" Ave SE. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Yes. The nearest transit stop is located near the comer of SE 144'" St. & 164'" Av. SE, approximately .14 miles away from the project site_ The Metro bus rout providing service to that stop is #111. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? None. The proposed project will provide parking in private driveways, garages and on-street parking. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). Yes, the proposed project will require improvement of the project frontage the east half of 162"" Ave_ SE, the west half of 164'" Ave SE and construction of internal circulation roads and access tracts. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No_ f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes wou Id occur. Assuming 10 trips per household per day, the completed project will generate 460 new vehicular trips per day. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: The applicant or subsequent owner(s) will comply with Title 14 of the King County Code, which contains provisions for payment of MPS (Mitigation Payment System) Fees. Applicant will either pay the MPS fee at the time of 13 FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 01-540 Liberty Garden Preliminary Pl REVISED 2010 -SEPA Checkl;st ~aJor Modification final plat application or at the time of building permit application. If the first option is chosen, the fee paid will be the fee in effect at the time of plat application, and a note will be placed on the face of the plat staling, "All Mitigation Payment System Fees required by Title 14 have been paid." If the second option is chosen, the MPS fee paid will be the fee in effect at the time of building permit application. Contributions to projects listed in the MPS program may receive credit towards the MPS payment due. The estimated MPS fee for this project at the time of application will be, based on a 48 (new) unit subdivision. 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. The completed project would result in an increased need for police and fire protection as well as emergency medical service. Additional recreational and school facilities will also be required to address the increase in demand for recreational opportunities. b_ Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. The project will be designed and constructed with adequate water pressure, properly located fire hydrants and roadways constructed to allow adequate access for fire, medic and police protection vehicles. Increased property valuation will result in increased taxes generated to support public services. The proponent will pay necessary school and traffic mitigation fees to offset the potential impacts to the school and transportation system. The project is located in the Issaquah School District #411. The current school impact fee is $3,924 per single-family unit. Assuming 46 new units, the total school impact fee would be $180,504. Recreational facilities will be constructed on site in accordance with the requirements of 21A.14 to offset the potential impacts on the existing recreational system or a fee-in-lieu of those facilities will be offered. 14 FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 01-540 Liberty Garden Pre!iminary P REVISED 2010 -SEPA Checklist 16. Utilities ..1ajor Modif1caticn a. Indicate utilities currently available at the site: Electricity. Natural Gas, Water, Telephone, Sanitary Sewer, Septic System, Refuse Service, Other. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Water System -Water District #90 Sanitary Sewer System -City of Renton -Extension of a 10" sewer main in 162"" St. SE from the Plat of Liberty Grove. Storm Water - Electricity: King County / Renton Puget Sound Energy Natural Gas: Puget Sound Energy Telephone: Qwest Refuse Service: Robanco Cable TV: Fire Dist: C. SIGNATURE AT&T Broadband #25 The above answers are tru ' and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying them to make its decision. Signature: Date Prepared: Hans A. Korve Planning Manager DMP., Inc. November 5, 2004 June 7, 2010 January 20, 2011 REVISED to 48 REVISED to 46 15 FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 0) rP ...... ,-,-----r, ... ... :.. ,.. ... ... • .-'-, -_ Slom1w-..,t1111· lj --~ . .£.. ' ' · .. \ \ --~J:-· ,, .. ..... • ., • ~p~I) • • , 1, \ Pm>; \\ -~ cc:(·==;~:#~:~~:;;;:~~~~-~:j~~~.~: ~~:~t~'111l~ I I I ·I I ,, • ~-«~t .... ..._ ~l>N~.'--~ ... .- ,/ · ( · . . '-·,_';:.t'\'fA)I\Ci F I l 18 f ~::T 17 19 ~ ' 'st~!!/"''" AREA I II' ' 20,· 1 21 'W' l t '1 I ' .., ____ , I I ;~a'\.,. 22 ~ 23 \'r ·._, ' I\ Ii 1 · . : . \ , ' I ... I •JI I 1:{ I _____ J \-.,. ~-::::.o;:_.:::)+.+··~i------•\. '10,,. TRACT 20' J.U.O. _..-· ;'\. /" ... '-~ ', Ii I ·1 I \ /-/ ! :_) l.. l I I \ .fC4/"' ' --------L-jf___ ;';.(/2; J): \\ ! t, t / .•.. (" ~. I / : / I ~j) ~ I ..•. -~,1;rr"t· / . I! J .JP I / ,•l ,/'!'::: .. ·.·:' .·' I ' ' '-"i"cc;;..-!--,..,.,---'\-..L_--'6'-+' ---,L,----"-\ .··i ., I :i' ' y / J ) ,' 15 / --•, .. ·'· , Buffarl ~-;jf:,:t--,~,h..,....,--";:q-'\"=::·_' r' i";i,."-fl.L-+---+'--._ i! • r "' • 1 I I r -: I I! , 13, \\2,6\'11 ) :1/ 1 .J 1 : I : ; esP•'2,. , 1 1 . I : ' y 9 1 _;, t,\·., : / 14 , , , 1 j ; I I \ I . , I I ; ' I I I '· / O I .; ai··· ' , " , 8 ; I , 1 ..,.r I l ,ii~~ ···1_. '_ I_ .. . _ •'° , /i\.: / 11 :, ~t-,1 r 11 ,·"" L ,J.7 ) -~ > • 1, __ ·1_ 1i :::, , , I, , ,,.. , ,e,I , / , I I z ~ ; '" ''' • . I I ; . ,P-1 ·11' ~~I ,c:, .. 1 rj· • ·1:2 -'•''\,1' • .-;· ,', ,,,12 / ,,.,-' \ \.J' I I i~ ,i) /[, t_, i#.•,: t. 7'~ /, Jr . -,()., -~o 1 ''~ • ,, : I ~r~~~LJ '-, \ 1 1 -~ ! 0 _! 1--···•-·,:·,.· . ·/•. ·. '1 1. / / ?' ~' ,' , ,L, ,.\ ~ ",, ' \ f I ,, ' t --, --.1' ,. _ . -----· ~'.::,, .. ~::. , ... · ~-=~1~,t-~.~ ,, .. ~ _ ·----::= -· -----,/ ·----_-c_, :·-1-~11/l i ,, . "-· ~~(10 i,Y £. (c,/\0 1,0"'\'I c-i:-"" cl'~ · ~ 1~:i\/'.~~-::~~ '.'.::'.:::::'J ::} ···,. __ .#.'i:.(A,.:.::_,,,1:it -_ ,·j_ -! ~ _' ·"" ~& l-. i h i ]". j,:::f;oc/·=~-l.,,·,~---;~!;,·:~~-f"t-;~;~~~~~~= ! I --·---,,cc:·,7··-~-,--·--·? ~ ~--.. ':'\v~\\ -~1 • . 1;.:· ,. , i1, ,, __ ,,-i,1-.·-. ,,-=-'-:t 1 •. ---· ...... , ,1\ ~ '>\ If --~' --·--·:..•~ I.ti... ..•. _ ,,., \ A/ ....... \, I• \i _· ~/ .J,,,.0 1,0"°'~ I 0"¢# ' • SP·1 Sampling Number and Approximate LocaUon Source; ESM Consulting Englnl!ll!IJ"l!I. ~m,mu, ~~\,cil!,'r."'~v,,....-_,,,_,_ ....,....~IOl.nf '!/ x1puadd'!f cc:' cf, ''Y. "' 0 50 100 Scale Jn Feel -\J ~, FIGURE 2: SITE PLAN I I I I Rosewood Hlghlrinds Pralhllnary Plat Renton, Wuhlngton ChBld Armour, LLC 6500 t2lUh Av11nue SE .8ellevu11. Wa•hl"{llon 9800II " . • • ' LEVEL I OFF-SITE ANALYSIS FOR LIBERTY GARDENS CLIENT: David M. Petrie 811 South 273rd Court Des Moines, WA 98198 Phone: (253) 946-6619 PREPARED BY: Daley-Morrow-Poblete, Inc. 726 Auburn Way N Auburn, WA 98003 Phone: (253) 333-2200 Fax: (253) 333-2206 PROJECT: 01-540 DATE: Nov. 12, 2003 Revised June 3, 2010 ~--. City of Renton Planning Division AUG -4 1010 • # TASK 1: TASK2: TASK 3: TASK 4: TASKS: Appendix TABLE OF CONTENTS Study Area Definition and Maps General Information On-Site Drainage Analysis Upstream Drainage Analysis Downstream Drainage System Description Future Site Conditions Resource Review 1. Flood Plain/Floodway (FEMA) Maps 2. Offsite Analysis Reports 3. Sensitive Areas Information 4. SWM Division Drainage Investigation Information 5. King County Soils Survey Maps Field Inspection 1. Investigation of Reported or Observed Problems During Resource Review 2. Location of Existing/Potential Constrictions or Lack of Capacity in the Existing Drainage System 3. Identify Existing/Potential Flooding Problems 4. Identify Existing/Potential Overlapping, Scouring, Bank Sloughing, or Sedimentation 5. Identification of Significant Destruction of Aquatic Habitat or Organisms 6. Collect Qualitative Data on Land Use, Impervious Surfaces, Topography and Soil Types 7. Collect Information on Pipe Sizes, Channel Characteristics and Drainage Structures 8. Verify Tributary Basins Delineated in Task 1 9. Contact Neighboring Property Owners in the Area 10. Note the Date and Weather Conditions at the Time of the Site Visit Drainage System Description and Problem Description 1. Drainage System Descriptions 2. Problems Mitigation of Existing or Potential Problems • Exhibit A Exhibit 8 Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F ExhibitG Exhibit H Exhibit I Exhibit J APPENDIX Vicinity Map Drainage Basin Map Downstream Drainage System Map FEMA Map Assessors Map Sensitive Areas Information SWM Division Drainage Investigation information King County Soils Survey Map Off-Site Analysis Drainage System Table Site Plan of Liberty Gardens •• TASK 1: Study Area Definition and Maps General Information The proposed Liberty Gardens development includes two separate parcels, located approximately 630 feet north of the intersection of 144th Avenue SE and SE 162"d Street (if extended). The property is between 162"d Avenue SE and 1641h Avenue SE (if both streets were extended). The north half of the site is parcel 1457500145, while the south half is parcel 1457500150. The parcels are located within the SE quarter of Section 14, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, Willamette Meridian, King County Washington. The project site is located within an area zoned under King County as R-4. There are no existing structures on site. The site is mostly covered with trees and shrubs. The site has a total area of approximately 9 acres, and generally drains to the south. There is a Class 3 intermittent stream in the southwest corner, with associated Class2 riparian wetland surrounding the stream. A wetland and stream analysis report, dated September 9, 2002 and updated July 1, 2010 was prepared by B-twelve Associates, Inc. Site soils have been identified as Alderwood gravelly sandy loam by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS). On-Site Drainage Analysis The site has an average slope of approximately 10 percent, and generally drains to the south and southwest via sheet flow into a well vegetated shallow ravine and drainage course which collects and conveys storm water off-site in an open channel southerly to SE 1441h Street. Upstream Drainage Analysis As shown in Exhibit B, the site receives direct surface water runoff from approximately 10 acres of off-site property. The upstream basin consists of woods, brush and a portion of the play field of Liberty High School. Storm water from said basin enters the site via sheet flow along the northern and eastern property lines. Water also enters the site via an intermittent stream at the southwest corner of the site. The stream will be protected within a sensitive area tract and is separated from the development area by a 50-foot buffer. Since the stream and its upstream basin will not affect the proposed development, this basin will not be discussed in detail in this report. Downstream Drainage System Description The project site is within the Lower Cedar Basin of the Cedar River. Site runoff presently discharges into an earth-lined intermittent stream channel near its south property line. Water then continues to flow south and southwest to the eastern side of the162"d Avenue SE ROW and disperses into sheet flow within the unimproved 162"d AVE SE ROW. Further south, water passes through a rockery dam located approximately 150 feet north of the north ROW line of SE 144th Street. Water then enters a small detention pond within the 162"d Avenue SE ROW. From the detention facility, water is conveyed across SE 144th Street via an 18" CMP culvert. Water then travels west within 18" conveyance facilities along the southern side of SE 144th Street. The system components are shown in Exhibit C, and are itemized in the Off-site Analysis Drainage System Table (Exhibit I). Future Site Conditions This development involves the creation of forty-eight single-family residential lots within the two parcels. Access roads and roadway improvements will also be part of the development. The SEPA MONS issued by the City of Renton requires that stormwater facilities shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the guidelines of the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual. The new detention facility will be constructed in the south portion of the site, and will be sized per the Level 3 Flow Control criteria. A water quality facility sized per the Basic Water Quality Menu, will be constructed below the detention facility. The proposed facility will discharge to the stream at the southwest property corner. ' TASK 2: Resource Review The following is a description of each of the resources reviewed in preparation of this Downstream Analysis: 1. 2. Flood Plain/Floodway (FEMA) Maps The site is not within a 100-year floodplain. Refer to Exhibit D. Offsite Analysis Reports We have reviewed the Level 3 Downstream Drainage Analysis for the Evendell Plat. Evendell Plat is located in the southwest corner of the intersection of SE 1361h Street and 1601h Avenue SE. We also reviewed the Level I Off-site Analyses for Liberty Grove and Liberty Grove Contiguous. The two plats are located in the northwest and southeast corners of the previously mentioned intersection. The three projects are required to upgrade downstream facilities, but do not affect Liberty Gardens. A Level 3 Downstream Drainage Analysis was also prepared by Edward McCarthy, P.E. in 2007 at the request of King County ODES in conjunction with the review of the Liberty Gardens, Threadgill, and Cavella Plats. The report provides an assessment of the conveyance system along SE 1441h Street downstream from the proposed projects. Due to identified potential downstream flooding impacts along SE 144th Street from the proposed projects, the report recommends either on-site Level 3 flow control standards be applied or one of three potential off-site conveyance and infiltration system upgrades be implemented. The on-site Level 3 flow control standards has been selected as the preferred alternative for Liberty Gardens. See the above referenced report for details. 3. Sensitive Areas Information 4. We have included a printout from the King County website as Exhibit F in this report. The printout shows that there are no sensitive areas on or adjacent to the site. However, a stream with associated wetlands has been identified in the southwest corner of the site. A wetland and stream report, dated September 9, 2003 and updated July 1, 2010, was prepared by B-twelve Associates, Inc. SWM Division Drainage Investigation Information A map showing the location of the different drainage complaints within the area is included in this report as Exhibit G. There is only one drainage complaint within Y. mile downstream. Complaint No. 97-206 is attached. The complaint is about 5. off-site flows impacting the property. Discharge from the Liberty Gardens site will bypass this property, and will therefore not affect said property. The above referenced Level 3 Downstream Drainage Analysis prepared by Edward McCarthy, P.E addresses potential downstream drainage impacts along SE 144th Street from three proposed plats. Implementation of one of the recommended mitigation options indentified in the report will prevent additional adverse downstream impacts to properties along SE 144th Street as a result of the proposed development of the Liberty Gardens Subdivision. King County Soils Survey Maps The soil underlying the site is Alderwood. A copy of the relevant page from the King County Soils Survey Map is included as Exhibit H. , TASK 3: Field Inspection The conveyance facilities downstream from the proposed detention facility were inspected. The following was performed as part of the inspection. 1. Investigation of Reported or Observed Problems During Resource Review Please see Exhibits G and I and also Task 2 of this report. 2. Location of Existing/Potential Constrictions or Lack of Capacity in the Existing Drainage System See Exhibit I. 3. Identify Existing/Potential Flooding Problems 4. 5. There were no existing or potential problems identified. Identify Existing/Potential Overtopping. Scouring, Bank Sloughing. or Sedimentation See Exhibits I Identification of Significant Destruction of Aquatic Habitat or Organisms At the time of the site visit, there where no signs of aquatic habitat or organism destruction. 6. Collect Qualitative Data on Land Use. Impervious Surfaces. Topography and Soil Types Qualitative data has been collected from previous field visits. This information is included within this report. 7. Collect Information on Pipe Sizes. Channel Characteristics and Drainage Structures See Exhibits C and I. 8. Verify Tributary Basins Delineated in Task 1 At the time of the site visit, the tributary basins described in Task 1 were verified as being accurate. • 9. Contact Neighboring Property Owners in the Area There were no neighbors available during our site visit. 10. Note the Date and Weather Conditions at the Time of the Site Visit The site and downstream system were visited on October 23, 2003. The sky was clear that day. 1. TASK 4: Drainage System Description and Problem Description Drainage System Descriptions: As previously stated, runoff from the site and upstream areas leaves the site at the south property line and travels south. The individual drainage components are listed in Exhibit I, and are shown in Exhibit C. Except for the stream that enters the adjacent property to the south, the remaining downstream conveyance facilities are within public ROW. 2. Problems: There is some erosion in Point 2 (See Exhibits C and I), which may have to be stabilized. Also see the Level 3 Downstream Drainage Analysis prepared by Edward McCarthy, P.E. in 2007. This report specifically addresses the SE 144th Street storm drainage facilities at the request of King County ODES in conjunction with the review of the Liberty Gardens, Threadgill, and Cavella Plats. The new on-site detention facility for Liberty Gardens will be constructed in the south portion of the site, and will be sized per the Level 3 Flow Control criteria to mitigate potential downstream impacts caused by the proposed development. A water quality facility, sized per the Basic Water Quality Menu, will also be constructed below the detention facility. ' TASK 5: Mitigation of Existing or Potential Problems This development involves the creation of forty-eight single-family residential lots within the two parcels. Access roads and roadway improvements will also be part of the development. Stormwater facilities will be provided, and will be sized per the guidelines of the King County Surface Water Design Manual. The new detention facility will be constructed in the south portion of the site, and will be sized per the Level 3 Flow Control criteria. A water quality facility, sized per the Basic Water Quality Menu, will be constructed below the detention facility. The proposed facility will discharge to the stream at the southwest property corner. This level 1 analysis in conjunction with the SE 144th Street Level 3 Downstream Drainage Analysis provides a complete review of the downstream conditions. With implementation of the recommended conveyance, detention and water quality standards, the project should not pose significant negative impacts to the downstream drainage course. • / I ' SE 136TH ST SE 137TH PL ~ ~ w w (/) (/) w > w w <( > > 11 Sc,~ <( <( 0 SITE I z I- N co ~ co co (~ t----~ ~ w I (/) . >--~ I- I st-w co > ~ <( SE 1144TH ST i!: w (/) r--- ' co -' ~ u. VICINITY MAP SCALE: 1•.9oo';I: EXHIBIT A • r DRAINAGE BASIN MAP EXHIBIT B I ) ( \ • "I ~ / \ \ \__ ~1 :Z I ·i ·c 0 (\1 II o• a ~ ·' / ..:r,:3,.,1 tli,oo.s"' I 0 !! w U) (\] (!) _, ~ .. • "' .. • 0 :i " ~~ °'" "' .. 7 ., Iii V ~·' • \I °' .. B Ill II ..... V ST. LlJ ... ·-----'--'-·---------------f--1 <>o 0.. <C :E Wo ... U) ~ " Q:: !::: JI ~ Iii: Om~ ~ II) U) -w V U) :c-' w ><~ U) w (I) U) /(', . <C ,() /~· ~-., V I tic· oiit5 I f'/81!, • u, • Z4 >'I ~ LOT 3 ~ ' 0 LOT 2 .,e ~'lo 0 V co Q 'l, 01!'i 6 140.Sc:; . . ... ~..... . X / ,,9_,,.._.o y, ,~-.s-2~ . .a.2 l() UJ I N 0 (T') ~(\J "I'll I I 0 z Cl) u.il en > <( :3: c.n V> "' " / SE 132ND z w 0 :!! , I SlllEET I w ::, w z ::, r w z "' ~ !;; w le ::, z :i: w >- "' ~m SOUTHEAST w 134TH "' 0 r "' w i w w m V> V> V> w w SE 135TH STREET ::, :, z z w ~ w "' "' 14 I 0 r w >-z t; V> 0 N i" i" SE 136TH le SOUTHEAST 136TH STREET \ 138TH STRE SE 137TH PLACE t; <( >-w V> Q I <( z >-w N ::, r le 0 .... V> ::, 0 "' SOUTHEAST ,. ZONE X ~ ~ w w ::, z :, w z "' w "' SOUTHEAST w .... ::, "' z <( WW w > I "' <( .... w :, I I ~ SE 143~0 u 161ST AVENUE i '.'i \,; -/SE PLACE a. :!! t; I :" lo le SOUTHEAST .... /;; l;; "' <( ,3 162ND AVENUE w '5 :r iE / SOUTHEAST .... i'= ::, g 0 ::, SE V> 145TH STREET 0 6 V> ~~ >- 145TH SE w V> ::, <( <fl z w w r w "' .... w ~ :, () 0 ~ :3 "' FEMAMAP SE 146TH PLACE Q. <L w " ~ . " \2 23 a. EXHIBIT D l , C I r "' .... I I .... '8 ~ in lo !e SCALE: 1"= 500' :!! :!! '} SE 147TH SIBEET t 161ST COURT 169TH AVENUE sour\ SOUTHEAST I -------c.- 162ND COURT I SOUTHEAST -~ ... • (® King County IIIIIrmmllll lEmJII Ki§4 1iid4W Comments Hi¥i#A,M 14230b9(~, ~<12~29 SE_141SJJ!L C0t1nty Boundary ,N Stmels Pan:;el lncoJparated Area p Fis.h and Ditch Wi:::Uife Nel'M:Jrk SAO Slra.am ~ Ct:mt I Cl.ms 2 Pt.mt;~ p C:arz.2S::!irncnd ./"~/ Cl.ms 3 '""'' Legend lh:: ,r...-;. '.c:d O L.:1kes. .and Lmga RiveJS ~ f!aod;.\-ay CJ HJ>J Year Fbadplain E, SAO Wet:and (zZl SAO Landstcle ffl SAO Goa! Mine ~ SAO Seismt:: SAO Erosf.J11 Landslide Ha.zard Drainage A,va Ill! O·.,"'>' (an:/ , J2.30500.3,8 information included on this map has been co~iled by King County slaff from a variety of sources and is subject to change withoUt notice. County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such formation. King County shall not be liable for any general, special. indirect, incidental, or consequential damages indudlng, but not llmlted to, st revenues or lost profits resulting from the US11 or misuse of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or lnfomm.tion on is ma is hibited axce written mission of · Cou tGng County I GIS Center I News I ~rvices I Comments I Search e, visiting this and other King County web pages, you expressly agree to be bound by terms and concfftions of the site. The details. SENSITIVE AREAS INFORMATION EXHIBIT F @) King County a:mmtlll lEEIII W-i44·!i34W Sheets Parcel jt,/ Fish and Ditch Lakes and Large Rivers Legend YVLRD Drainage Com~laints Topo Conlours !511) Comments 85¥03,M information included on this map has been COIT1)11ed by King County staff from a variety of sources and Is subjed. to change without nob, County rrakas no representations or 'IN&rranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, oomplateness, timeliness, or rights to the we of such n. King County shal not be llablefor any general, special, indirect.. incidental, or consequential darrages Including, but not limited to, revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map, MY sale of this map or information on Is ma is ibiled exce written rmission of Coun King County I GIS Center I ~e-~ I §~_ryjr;~.§.1 Comments I Search ~ visiting this and other King County web pages, you exprnssly agree to be bound by terms and conditions of the site. The details SWM Division Drainage Investigation information EXHIBIT G .. '. J~. 0.2001 5:04PM KC r..t...RD -H0.642 '"'P.3/9 ·! ·. . --[/,, /·_. KJNQ-EIOUNTY SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT D1V1""S1""6""1f>--: --<.../ -DllAINAGE INVESTIGATION RE};'ORT Ps{/a 0 ,; .1NVESTIGATIOrn1EQ!JEST ·. oats, !)q1:)' ~~.i _1>v: -, A•i-lo.. 97-c1D{p Pl31·r:ame= Let No.; · ii Block NO: No.Fleld Investigation Needed __ _ ;: ~\ t¥tt@ &-•u« ·,¥~~a@i~iPkWf#&N:1PJJ£?@fu#@W4MD@¥tt&Rk@ctV+:r .:z.I;,__.1JI::.' Z.3. ~ Patceltlo.. 7.2. ~'57o-O/I<> Krell ?iiE Th.Brcs:New657c'. 11•. 6 T .. --.• • Old 3'5Fl Bos!n £Cl5'-Counca 01st / :2 <::hwi;e No: ._ Lead agency has bun nalllld -~'-c---~~--===--'---'-------.sc=====-::===::::. = Problem has been corrected..· _ No probl.em has been Identified. Pnof' Investigation addresses prot -S-•'Fol-.• - Private problem -NDAP will nr:,: consider beowse.- .-. -__ Watar originat,u omne a.rd/or on miighboring parcef . LoeatJon Is outside SWM Service· Area. -·• . DATECL0SE.D:.l..i.2J.2.:::µ~ by:..µ... /~ . Othor (Specify), . . . -_ 5"1<:-:-0ff· Drainage Complaints -From the Files of KCWLRD --\iii '- '- \iii ... ... ,.. ,.. ,.. ,.. ,.. ,. ,. ,. ,. ,. ,. ,. ,. ,. ,. ,. ,. ,. ,. ,. ,. ,. ,. ,. ,. ,. ,. ,. ,. ,. ,. ~ tr tr ,,. ff' r. • I ! Ji=r'i. 8.2001 5:04PM KC "-RD Complaint 97-206; Don GQ.1CJ;. 16046 SE 14z"" Pl,.Rbnton Investigated ~:i" S.::an Groom cm 01/14/91 N0.642 P.4/9 Den Gagg: bu livt:d At the a":x,v,::: ~ location since tlu:: cu:ty 60.s (hl.s house n-as 9l:XOtld built in the 4CVdap~O-Sud.ace &toroi WBto flows beg.an :tlocxling bis g:an.g:e approxim2tely fi.1,~yea::s ago. At hi$ awn o:pdlS"e .at that time he ~ht: "bad:. boc in t0 cut a dninage dilcl:i. along: the bacic" side af his pn,pcrty. 'Ibis apen crcnc:b prori&:s: Rlief chariDg !DOO pttcipibt.tiou crvcrrts &Ul'fziCI:! warr:r :mava around hi& prapc::rty. Stonn water doe$ breech 1he top occasionally. Tot; ditd:t fills ~ up and he clean the dill:h of ddms tbs!: !loan ao,,,n ~ reduces :flow. He walks" the drain.a~ ditch dnring" lm1'm. a-ttit!I (he wam "t a.round .far the z.asc stoma cvc.nt) m ooscrve its functionality B$ a precantion as wcll. He: wants lhc d:I:ainage. to continne down 1601!1 Ave. SE~ or a ~ce sysn::m a.roam his and ncighbar'1 property. Appate:ntfy, u dc'9dopmcnt north d.his propeny .hat ~ .additJonal runotfis <:xmcco.trated. into the drainage aloug 160*-A'W. SB and SDbscqocntfy nws·t(J his property. 160" Ave S.E. Si=dm,r w=r. nmotlfrom 160" A-.. SE ges m:to this area. Low pc:c:cl:l1ion. sud the land can "t be~ they don't havt: CIC percolation for :intihraticm of septic~ SE 142"" Place ·-... -. Drainage Complaints -From the Files of KCWLRD JR't. a. 2001 5:05PM KC 1-LRD NO. 642 P.7/9 97-JO(p on:IOIIS .1Jd) D:rBCU&SXOlf Mr-Gragg i.• co:o~ a.bout continui.ng u.pstreaizt davel.~t whicb typica1l.y ra11Jul.to i.n tw.o:i:-e 1JUrfaee water fl.g:wa through bi• drainage ditch ~ occaa~n.a1l.y i..l:lto h.i• yard. I expla.i.ned. thll.t f.or l.a.rger ~l.opmenta wh8ro 1DOre than !I", 000 equ~ fv.•t of .inpazvi.ou• eurt:a.eea a.r• constructed. the d•vol-opci,r•e .v;ngln.ee.r i.• only r~ 1';0 revi.ew_ :t.ba 4.rai.nage 19]'W"tGIII • a capac1-ty up to ... ne quarter Of ill ai1.e downlS'trellBI ·froffl tbe proposed plat·• outl.et po1...nt. Por ai.ngle bomeaite111,. there in DOrlDAI.1y no down.ts:tre.a1111 .an.a..l.yflie requi.red •.i.nce there J.• usa.al.ly l.eQe <than 5,000 .qua.re fevt o:! new .il!lpervi.ou• •ur.faeaa <:onatruc-ted. :I augqeatad that Hr .. Gra.9,;-l.ook for I>ava1opment Si.gm, .a.long 160th north o"f" h:ta b~. Whtn ll• ea-ea new ei.,gns, .ha can att.end publ.i.c bear i.nge .and wxi.t.6 letter• ~--11i.ng hie concerna ~d O'Qtl.i.ni.ng bi• d:t'ai.nage PROPOSED f;OLO'!t"%0Jf: No •ol.uti.on to thi..e drain""9e problem va• identified. Mr. Gr~9g requa•ted that; we cl.ean .out bis draln.age di.1:::ch. Me of~er-.:d to cl.ean out part of bi• ditch lf oqr contr4ct.or can get tha necenaary equipment £ran Graqg•a driveway i.n.to t.b. .. di.tch. 3 Drainage Complaints -From the Files of KCWLRD .-... ... ... ,.. ... ,. ,. ,. ,. ,. ,. ,. ,. ,. ,. ,. ,. ,. ,. ,. ,. ,. ,. ,. ~ ~ ~ I!' f/1 ,, ,, • JRi. 8.2001 5:84"M KC l,LRD bll.ff: 3-J..9-97 PJU»h Al.an 119yer• U: RDAP ~TION FOR caMPL,l..l.NT .JIO.. '97-02.0& G1tAGG l.6046. ff l.4.2UD YLACB RDr'l'Olf :il:35-0J.68 CCIG"LADr.r CHllOlllOLOGY I •. ~- BW OJUC:nmt 1.-10-sn FZBI.D DIV 2-14-97 Br SKQf CROOK FXELD EVJ.L. 3-7-97 BY~~- or.D pn,gs, JiOlm Pl.ease aee the .at.tac.had d.J:;~ coa,,p1•:Lnt iit.vwvt.1.qat.i.ou report. ¢at«! l-X4-97 by Sean Or-oooti. .Sine• the probl-. aest:D all. o:f tha HD.AP project cri.teri..a .1.5..•ted .bel.ov, it q1.11ll..i.fi.ea £or and ha.a bean i.ov~•ti.gated. under the RDAP progrq:r. • Tbe prot>l.e:n,. 111.te i.a 1r.i.:thi.D the SliM •crviee area and doea not 1..it."f'Ob,e a. lln-9 County (XC) cod• vl.ol.ati.on. • nit probl.e.i:i aite •hcw111 e-,riden~c or or reported .loe•1i.-d flood.J.nq. ero11iOD imd/or ...u..eatation wi.t.hi.n the off ro•d drainage •yat~ on priv•te re•~denti4l .and/or COftDercLal. proparty duo& 1.n part to later upatream davelop:11ent. • Tlle problem ia caue&d by aurlace s.rater fl'"OCDi more t.ba.o one &djohin.g property·. SOILS: Acco.rdLng to the !CC nail.• .ap. the aite 1.11 1ocated i.n the foll.owing soil asGoci~ticn: ALl"IERWOOO ASSOCIATJ:Oll= .KOdar&'Cal.y wel.l d.rained uodtll.atin9 to h~lly ao11• that h&Te denae, ve,:y al.owly pez:m,aabl.e glacial tLi~ at~ dapth a~ 20 to ,o inehaa; on upland~ and terraces. I. -.et v~th M:c. Gragg on k4.rch -,th and tgurecl bi.e property. JU <level.~ oon.ti.nu•• i.n tho ,llPPrt:JJt"i.taate 60 acre drai.nage b .. .1.n nort:.J:I, of h1.a property·~ lbOrt'!: drai.n.a.g11. water has Dl!!'et.t. routed •OU.th into the pond l.oea.t.ed juc,;t IN of hia property whi.ch tbeo. d.ratn. •a•t •nd aoatb. aronnd the ~ of bi.Iii;; pro~rty. 1 Drainage Complaints -From the Files of KCWLRD • 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 • 4 4 4 4 • • 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 C 4 4 4 C C 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 "' ' JFW-4_ 8-2001 5:05PM KC W-9D P_G,'3 He. rFqUe8~ed. that the drain•? tlowi..n-g •outb a1ong the eaat l!lid• of 160th Avanue SX be rR..J:"OUte<1 •~raight eouth -1.ong the eAst SJ.de of 160th paet SE 2~2nd ~1•c• r~tber tban the currant rout-which riow. G&ill't and aou.tb around hi• p:rop&rty, Hr. Gragg •ta-tad t.hat --.ra.l. long terq;i. reai.dent• bn:v• to1d him the cir.a~ ut11ed t.O fl.ow lltL'ai.9ht •outh •long tha va•t and e&•t •ide• o:f l&Dt.h ai1 "tha w&y down to SE 144.th_ :l 9tated. ,:hat oi.ay be true bot tbe ex.1et1.ng dcai.na.ge ~tterl\ i.e old and cscnot be ravi.••d bec•uee it~& coneidared t..ba eetab1iGbed. drainage pattern ~or hi.10 area. I revi.lEW9d hi.a and hlo two ne.i.gbbor•a ~a...tn..q,a :ral.ated i=pacta a!ld &cored t.ba problem at 14 wi.th his 9arag• end ~.i.c ayatam irD:pa.cte and ya.rd damn.g• to two ~--Al.though the l.-t *-ew ~· b.-.. bo'Nl eupecia.11:y -t and bad, I rated tho event frequency a.t l.O or once every 2-5 yea..ra ..abi.ch i.e: lflY QDt.i.Jaa,te 0£ the f~ of how often hi.• eepti.c •ystecD w:il.l. be 111wvaral.y i.tnpact-1 o-rer tha l.ong tarm. MJ:'. cragg atat.ad tha.t bie pumped e~£luent agpt~c •y•tam ~ ,..arked ~in. ~or the rl.rst ~5 year11. ~, he h.8• b\ll"l1ed up ;f,i;,ur pampu w.ithi.n the 1a.s.t threa ,..ara du"" to the UJ.cre.aaed groundwater :t"1cw.-.l.nto f:ti.• •apti.c tank/dra..inf.i.el.d .ar&a. r"t:"oa;i. h!.11 vet/dry oee.eion ob&ervllti.Dn•, be a convinced that 11110•t ot the ~ater com,eg from. tbe drai..nb.ge dit:.ch looat$d ju.et aboYc hi.a dra.i.nf .ia1d. We reviewed wayu of protect.i.ng his aept:.ie d:l":&io.fiald frotA the li.10Y6:Aient o:f groundwater from the uphill pond and drainage di.tch. We di•Cti•i.u,d ways to eeal. the caithe~ d.i.tch itaal.£ uaing a pL ... tic l.il:i,er or• l.a.rge ha.l~ ~ound or ~u11 p~pe sectioiJ:• along about SO ~&et o~ d~tch ~ hie dra.i1t.fi.eld. :I point&d out tbat conBi.der~le ground.watec ma.y utill :!low t'rot11 no~h to &out:h W1a..r the ditcb section so that •ee.li.ng tbe di.tch ~ay not solve the probl.iam- Dependi.ng on the depth to tu.rdpan, ~ .impervious veri:.ic.al. ltaye:r of pla~tic or b4itnton.ite Blurry located uphill of hi.• dr-inC.ield bet.we-ea h.ie drai.nf:.ield .u,.d. the ditch "WOUld probably be the e.&.Bi.e11t IIZld aio15t e:ffactive ao.lut.ion to thia problBlfl• Thi• iaipe.r-viOLI• J.ayer wroul.d run fron, tb& 9round aurface down to the hardpan 1ayer wbere ~t would be Jc.ayed down i.nto tbe ha.rd.pan layer. JJeeau9e aruch a l.~yer would restrict the flow of ground water, higher groundwater ievels im.i.ght ceeult i.n this pnrt of; Gragg• a: yard with more: groundwater •urfac.1.ng during the wet ••••on eepec~ally ne•r cacb end of such an i.mp,arv.1.ou• wal1 resulting in ~re wet &aaaon gurf•ce wa~gi; ooe.pa.ge/flowa and icy ec:mditi.orta on pcrti.ont:1 o~ Mr. Cragg' g driveway. Por any work thi.e c1oae to the drainf~aid. any yard drain or .i.mperviouB facility of thi.a ki.nd would have to be reviewed. .i.:nd api;,roved by the I.ing County Ke1111.l.th Depa~nt (Wayne OJ.sen at 296-9737). 2 Tm£ Drainage Complaints -From the Files of KCWLRD -~ ·,t ;:·· .. • :· I I I .. :"· r ... :~ ·:··.: • : • I • I I I ""'""'"~~="'e'::~b""'~F ·-.. = ==i I I I I I I I I I I l 680 COO FEET • ' ' ' . -:~r ], Ej" .. -·: .Jr.6 . ·-AgC ·: 14 r·,\ · ... . " ' --·i:: " ·:. ' ; " " • " • " <: .. \ '~ ·-F \ SOILS MAP EXHIBITH SCALE: 1"=2000' . . . .. • ... Pc r ~ ~ vl ...... "i ht Basin; Lower Cedar River .;ocatior Drainage ID component Type, Name, and Size see Type: sheet flow, swale, map stream, channel, pipe. Size: diameter, width 1 400LF CHANNEL 100LF OF 2 DISPERSING CHANNEL 3 50LF VEGETATED AREA 4 ROCK DAM 40'X5'X3' 5 DETENTION FACILITY 130'x40' 3:1 SLOPES 6 55LF 18" CMP 7 TYPE I CB 8 122LF 18" CMP 9 TYPE I CB 10 316LF 18" CMP 11 TYPE I CB 12 206LF 18" CMP LIBERTY GARDENS • ~ • • OFF-SITE ANALYSIS DRAINAGE SYSTEM TABLE Drainage Distance from Component Slope Site Discharge Description drainage basin, 1/4 mile=1,320 ft vegetation, cover, depth, (%) (FT) tvn.. of sensitive area SOUTH 4' WIDE 2' DEEP 1-2% PROPERTY LINE WOODED AREA 2.0% SOUTHWEST OF PROPERTY BLACKBERRY BRUSH 2.0% 500-550 PARTIALLY COVERED NIA 550 IN BLACKBERRY BRUSH GRASS LINED 0.5% 550-680 UNDER SE 144TH ST. 1.0% 680-735 5.2' DEEP NIA 735 ALONG ROADSIDE 1.0% 735-857 7.5' DEEP NIA 857 ALONG ROADSIDE 1.0% 857-1173 6.4'DEEP N/A 1173 ALONG ROADSIDE 1.0% 1173-1379 SEE EXHIBIT C Site Visit 1 0/23/2003 Weather CLEAR Existing Potential Observations of Field · Problems Problems Inspector, Resource Reviewer, or Resident constrictions, under capacity, ponding, tributary area, likelihood of overtopplng, scouring, bank sloughing, problem, overflow sedimentation, Incision, other erosion COLLECTS WATER FROM NONE VISIBLE NONE VISIBLE NORTH SHEET FLOW WATER FROM NORTH AND CARRIES EROSION OF FROM CHANNEL. MAY NEED SEDIMENTS NATIVE SOIL SOUTH STABILIZATION NONE VISIBLE NONE VISIBLE VEGETATION AND EARTH LINED NONE VISIBLE NONE VISIBLE WATER FILTRATION NONE VISIBLE NONE VISIBLE GOOD WORKING CONDITION . NONE VISIBLE NONE VISIBLE GOOD WORKING CONDITION NONE VISIBLE NONE VISIBLE INLET (N,S,E) 16" CMP OUTLET /W\ 18" CMP NONE VISIBLE NONE VISIBLE OUTLET WEST INLET (E) 18" CMP NONE VISIBLE NONE VISIBLE INLET (SW) 12" CONC. OUTLET /W\ 18" CMP NONE VISIBLE NONE VISIBLE AC PAVEMENT COVER NONE VISIBLE NONE VISIBLE INLET (E) 18" CMP OUTLET (W) 18" CMP NONE VISIBLE NONE VISIBLE AC PAVEMENT COVER • LIBERTY GARDENS ' • OFF-SITE ANALYSIS DRAINAGE SYSTEM TABLE Basin; Lower Cedar River , .,ocatior Drainage Drainage Distance from Existing Potential Observations of Field ID component Type, Component Slope Site Discharge Problems Problems Inspector, Resource Name, and Size Description Reviewer, or Resident see Type: sheet now, swale, drainage basin, 1 /4 mlle=1,320 ft constrictions, under capacity, ponding, tributary area, llkelihoo( • map stream, channel, pipe. vegetation, cover, depth, {%) (FT) overtopping, scouring, bank sloughing, problem, overflow Size: diameter, width tvrie of sensitive area sedimentation, incision, other erosion 13 TYPE I CB 4.5' DEEP N/A 1379 NONE VISIBLE NONE VISIBLE INLET (E) 18" CMP OUTLET /Ill/\ 18" CMP 14 40LF 18" CMP ALONG ROADSIDE 1.0% 1379-1419 NONE VISIBLE NONE VISIBLE AC PAVEMENT COVER 5' DEEP INLET (E) 18" CMP 15 TYPE I CB LOCKING GRATE N/A 1419 NONE VISIBLE NONE VISIBLE INLET (N) 12" PVC OUTLET Mil 18" CMP 16 130LF 18" CMP ALONG ROADSIDE 1.0% 1419-1549 NONE VISIBLE NONE VISIBLE AC PAVEMENT COVER 17 TYPE I CB 4.5' DEEP N/A 1549 NONE VISIBLE NONE VISIBLE INLET (E) 18' CMP OUTLET Mil 18" CMP 18 154LF 18" CMP ALONG ROADSIDE 1.0% 1549-1703 NONE VISIBLE NONE VISIBLE AC PAVEMENT COVER 19 TYPE I CB 4.5' DEEP NIA 1703 NONE VISIBLE NONE VISIBLE INLET (E) 18" CMP OUTLET 11M 18" CMP 20 174LF 18" CMP ALONG ROADSIDE 1.0% 1703-1877 NONE VISIBLE NONE VISIBLE AC PAVEMENT COVER -INLET (E) 18" CMP 21 TYPE I CB 4.9' DEEP N/A 1877 NONE VISIBLE NONE VISIBLE INLET (N) 12" CMP OUTLET Mil 18' CMP SEE EXHIBIT C • • • • Site Plan of Liberty Gardens EXHIBIT J SCALE: 1" = 100' • • • •· ) / ..• (~_.;'_.,....,::_·_,_ j,/,/fl 'l I., . I t/1 ,-v ,·1 I L.... __ ,.....,.a.:......1 ... L ---:::------,--, . I I l./ I>.-, I I f , I J.-L ______ J,.:.J r-,----_..,-, I $ t I I I 1- ~ -I I L _____ ..:'.._.J:.J r---.,..-+ I I • I • L-.;.-~-r,...._...,.. __ I 7 r j rr---~---, t I,. 4I I I 1. I I I ';,L ______ _t Site Plan of Liberty Gardens EXHIBIT J SCALE: 1" = 100' / + / -~ / ,,, . -· /• /~·----- / ,( • I ___ ,,..'" If.. ---/· j I ;- CITY OF RENTON 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Printed: 08-04-20 I 0 ~-----~----~-----__.ujt.w.-of Renton Planning Division Land Use Actions RECEIPT AUG -4 lUlU Payment Made: Permit#: LUAOS-093 08/04/2010 02:26 PM Receipt Number: Total Payment: 100.00 Payee: DAVUD PETRIE Current Payment Made to the Following Items: Trans Account Code Description Amount 5022 007.345.81.00.019 Variance Fees 100.00 Payments made for this receipt Trans Method Description Amount Payment Check 2162 100. 00 Account Balances Trans Account Code Description Balance Due ------------------------ 3021 303.000.00.345.85 Park Mitigation Fee .00 5006 000.345.81.00.0002 Annexation Fees .oo 5007 000.345.81.00.0003 Appeals/Waivers .00 5008 007.345.81.00.004 Binding Site/Short Plat .00 5009 007.345.81.00.006 Conditional Use Fees .00 5010 007.345.81.00.007 Environmental Review .oo 5011 007.345.81.00.008 Prelim/Tentative Plat .00 5012 007.345.81.00.009 Final Plat . 0 0 5013 007.345.81.00.010 PUD . 00 5014 007.345.81.00.011 Grading & Filling Fees .00 5015 007.345.81.00.012 Lot Line Adjustment .00 5016 007.345.81.00.013 Mobile Home Parks .00 5017 007.345.81.00.014 Rezone .oo 5018 007.345.81.00.015 Routine Vegetation Mgmt .00 5019 007.345.81.00.016 Shoreline Subst Dev .00 5020 007.345.81.00.017 Site Plan Approval .00 5021 007.345.81.00.018 Temp Use, Hobbyk, Fence .oo 5022 007.345.81.00.019 Variance Fees . 00 5024 007.345.81.00.024 Conditional Approval Fee .00 5036 007.345.81.00.005 Comprehensive Plan Amend .00 5909 007.341.60.00.024 Booklets/EIS/Copies .oo 5941 007.341.50.00.000 Maps (Taxable) .00 5954 650.237.00.00.0000 DO NOT USE -USE 3954 .00 5955 000.05.519.90.42.1 Postage .00 5998 000.231.70.00.0000 Tax .00 Remaining Balance Due: $0.00 R1003472