HomeMy WebLinkAboutMisccITY oF RENTON coUNm AGENDA BILL /-\cf-<'. r1\c" 6 / /
-, Al-#: ____ s..L-.,jjltt{
Submitting Data:
Dept/Div/Board ..
Staff Contact. .....
ASD/City Clerk
Jason Seth
f--------------------------1
Subject:
Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Final Decision upon
Reconsideration dated 12/5/2014 regarding the Vuecrest Estates
Preliminary Plat. (File No. LUA-13-000642)
f--------------------------,'1
Exhibits:
! *City Clerk's letter (12/5/2014) {".
7-*Appeal -Brent Carson, Van Ness Feldman (11/26/201
-S *HEX's Final Decision upon Reconsideration -(11/15/, 014)
c•I *Reply to Order Authorizing Reconsideration & Res onse
Thereto -Brent Carson, Van Ness Feldman (11/5/ 014)
c:-*City's Answer on Reconsideration Reques b plicant by
City Attorney's Office (I 0/22/2014)
P *Hex's Order Authorizing Reconsideration ( /21/201¥
1 *Request for Reconsideratwn by Brent Car n, Van Ness
Feldman (10/16/2014) ""-
c;:= *HEX's Final Decision (10/3/2014t /
I
Recommended Action: /
Refer to Planning and Developme¥t Committee.
Fiscal Impact: N / A
For Agenda of: 1/5/2015
Agenda Status
Consent. ........... .
Public anng ..
Corre ondence ..
solution ........... .
Old Business ....... .
New Business ...... .
Study Sessions ..... .
Information ........ .
(y;:,tv···
\ c·
/\
Approvals:
Legal Dept. ....... .
Finance Dept. .... .
Other .............. .
Expenditure Required .. . Transfer/ Amendment. ..... .
Amount Budgeted ...... . Revenue Generated ........ .
Total Project Budget City Share Total Project..
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision upon Reconsideration on the Vuecrest Estates
Preliminary Plat was filed on 12/5/2014 by Brent Carson, Van Ness Feldman, accompanied by
the required $250,00 fee.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Council to take action on the Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat appeal.
Rentonnet/agnbiJI/ bb
X
Denis Law • r<· . Cityof l --=Mayo,-------~ · ·. · 2-'r· · .. ··1·.• r ( y r. ) _! ~-. _,..u ._J._,
City Clerk -Jason A. Seth, CMC
December 5, 2014
APPEAL FILED BY: Brent Carson, Van Ness Feldman
RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Final Decision upon Reconsideration dated November 15,
2014, regarding the Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat located at the 4800 Block of
Smithers Ave. South (File No. LUA-13-000642)
To Parties of Record:
Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the hearing
examiner's final decision upon reconsideration on Vuecrest Estates land use application has been
filed with the City Clerk.
In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 OF, the City Clerk shall notify all
parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. Other parties of record may submit letters limited to
support of their positions within ten (10) days of the date of mailing of the notification of the
filing of the appeal. The deadline for submission of additional letters is 5:00 pm, Friday,
December 19, 2014.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeal and other pertinent documents will be
reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee. The Council Liaison will
notify all parties ofrecord of the date and time of the Planning and Development Committee
meeting. If you are not listed in local telephone directories and wish to attend the meeting,
please call the Council Liaison at 425-430-6501 for information. The reco=endation of the
Committee will be presented for consideration by the full Council at a subsequent Council
meeting.
Enclosed you will find a copy of the appeal and a copy of the Renton Municipal Code regarding
appeals of Hearing Examiner decisions or reco=endations. Please note that the City Council
will be considering the merits of the appeal based upon the written record previously established.
Unless a showing can be made that additional evidence could not reasonably have been available
at the prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner, no further evidence or testimony on this
matter will be accepted by the City Council.
For additional information or assistance, please feel free to call me at 425-430-6502.
Enclosures
cc: Council Liaison
1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • (425) 430-6510 I Fax (425) 430-6516 • rentonwa.gov
City of Renton Municipal Code; Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110 -Appeals
4-8-110C4
Filing of Appeal and Fee: The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 5-
1-2, the fee schedule of the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-1982; Ord. 5660, 5-14-2012; Ord. 5688, 5-13-2013)
4-8-llOF: Appeals to City Council-Procedures
1. Standing: Unless otherwise provided by State law or exempted by a State or federal agency, only the
applicant, City or a party of record who has been aggrieved or affected by the Hearing Examiner's
decision and who participated in the Hearing Examiner's public hearing may appeal the Hearing
Examiner's decision. A person(s) will be deemed to have participated in the public hearing process if
that person(s):
a. Testified or gave oral comments at the public hearing; or
b. Submitted any written comments to City staff or the Hearing Examiner
regarding the matter prior to the close of the hearing; or
c. Has been granted status as or has requested to be made a party of record prior
to the close of the public hearing.
2. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall
notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal.
3_ Opportunity to Provide Comments: Parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions
within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal.
4. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional
evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council. The cost of transcription of the hearing
record shall be borne by the applicant. If a transcript is made, the applicant is required to provide a copy
to the City Clerk and the Renton City Attorney at no cost. It shall be presumed that the record before
the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 5675, 12-3-2012)
S. Burden: The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant.
6. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the
record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional arguments based on the
record by parties.
7. Findings and Conclusions Required: If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an
application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-8-07DH1, as it exists or may be amended, and after
examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the
record, it may modify or reverse the decision of the Hearing Examiner accordingly. (Ord. 5675, 12-3-
2012)
8. Decision Documentation: The decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any
modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing
Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record.
9. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving, modifying or rejecting a decision of the
Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames established under
subsection GS of this Section. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-1982; Ord. 4389, 1-25-1993; Ord. 4660, 3-17-1997; Ord.
5558, 10-25-2010)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
CITY OF HENTON
NOV 2 6 2014 U'; 3 I,..,.
RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
l}1C'-.., 0,lzit_ ~\Jc_~:,,,~
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
9 RE: Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Preliminary Plat
LUA13-000642
APPEAL OF HEARING
EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION
UPON RECONSIDSERATION
The Applicant for Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat, by and through its counsel of
record, Brent Carson and Van Ness Feldman LLP, files this appeal oftbe Hearing
Examiner's Final Decision Upon Reconsideration dated Nov=ber 15, 2014 (tbe
"Decision") and asks the City Council to eliminate or modify Condition 13 oftbe
Decision for tbe reasons set forth below.
I. Standing
Pursuant to Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-8-11 O(F), the Applicant has
standing to appeal the Hearing Examiner's Decision.
APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S
FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION 1 I Van Ness
Feldman"'
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 623-9372
1 II. Substantial Errors Justifying Elimination or Modification of Condition 13
2 A. Introduction
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
This Appeal is focused entirely on the requirement of Condition 13 in the
Decision. Condition 13 forces the Applicant to extend a public road, Smithers Ave. S.,
over adjoining private property that the Applicant does not own or control. The record
demonstrates that the owner of that adjoining private property refused to grant the
Applicant any rigbts of access. With the condition, as imposed, the Applicant has no
ability to develop the Vuecrest Estate's plat.
No other subdivision previously approved in this area under the same conditions
has been placed in this unfair, unreasonable and illegal predicament. These prior
subdivisions each extended Smithers Ave. S. througb their properties and ended that
public road with a temporary cul-de-sac. The Applicant for Vuecrest Estates likewise
proposed to extend Smithers Ave. S. througb its property and build a temporary cul-de-sac
at the end of its property. When the adjoining property to the east develops, Smithers
Ave. S. will be extended by that owner to Main Ave. S. (102"d Ave. SE) providing a
secondary access route for this neigbborhood. Unfortunately, unlike each of the prior
subdivision approvals, the Hearing Examiner in this case rejected a temporary cul-de-sac
and imposed Condition 13, which requires the Applicant, prior to final plat approval, to
extend Smithers Ave. S. to the east, across another owner's private property, to connect to
Main Ave. S.
In addition to the disparate treatment ofVuecrest Estates, as compared with other
subdivisions in this neigbborhood, the Staff in this case misrepresented to the Applicant
APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S
FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION 2 I Van Ness
Feldman"'
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 623-9372
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
that a temporary cul-de-sac would be approved. At the very start of the process, the Fire
Department's representative stated in writing to the Applicant that: "A proposed
temporary cul-de-sac would be acceptable if it meets all required dimensions and
construction requirements." Exhibit 35, Att. B. The City's senior planner also confirmed
the City's position on the acceptance of a temporary cul-de-sac:
"The City is asking that you provide stub to the property to the east but are
not asking you to make the improvements to provide secondary access as
part of the proposed development. However, without the secondary access ·
a cul-de-sac would be required for fire tum around . . . ."
Ex. 35, Att. C. When the City Staff proposed that the Applicant apply for a variance in
order to approve a temporary cul-de-sac, Staff wrote: "it will be supported by the City."
Ex. 35, Att. H.
Based on the Staff's clear representations to the Applicant on the acceptability of a
temporary cul-de-sac, the Applicant invested hundreds of thousands of dollars to process
this preliminary plat and address all issues raised by the City. If a secondary access were
going to be required, the Applicant would not have a proceeded with this project. Yet,
when the staff report was issued weeks before the Preliminary Plat public hearing, the
Staff reversed course, rejecting the previously accepted temporary cul-de-sac design, and
demanding extension of Smithers Ave. S. to 102 Ave. SE. The Staff's behavior in this
matter and their last-minute reversal justifies the City Council to question the credibility
of the City's testimony and to strike or revise Condition 13.
APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S
FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION 3 I Van Ness
Feldman"'
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 623-9372
1 B. A Temporary Cul-De-Sac Complies with RMC 4-6-060.H.l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
The Hearing Examiner erred by finding that a temporary cul-de-sac, as proposed
by the Applicant, and as originally accepted by Staff, failed to meet the requirements of
R.MC 4-6-060.H.l. The City's dead end street standards prohibit permanent dead end
streets unless a future connection is physically impossible. RMC 4-6-060.H. l. However,
this code provision, as previously interpreted by City Staff, allows a temporary cul-de-sac
to be built if, in the future, that road can be extended when the adjoining property is
developed.
The Applicant did not propose a permanent dead end street. Instead, it proposed a
temporary cul-de-sac. To mitigate impacts, the Applicant proposed to install sprinkler
systems on every home in the development and to provide an internal circulation road
within the plat. Moreover, development of Vuecrest Estates would bring this
neighborhood one step closer to having a completed secondary access. With Condition
13, the plat cannot develop and the opportunity to extend Smithers Ave. S. closer to 102°d
Ave. SE is lost.
18 c.
19
If Required, a Variance from the Secondary Access Requirement Should have
been Granted
20
21
22
23
24
25
As presented above, the temporary cul-de-sac should have been approved without
the need for a variance. However, if a variance is required, it should have been granted by
the Hearing Examiner. Council should reverse the Hearing Examiner and grant the
vanance.
APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S
FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION 4 I Van Ness
Feldman W'
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 623~9372
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
I. The Hearing Examiner Applied the Wrong Variance Criteria.
The Hearing Examiner mistakenly applied the street improvement modification
provisions set forth in RMC 4-9-250(C) rather than the variance provisions in RMC 4-9-
250(B). Had the correct variance provisions been applied, the unrefuted evidence
presented by the Applicant and its experts should have led the Hearing Examiner to grant
the variance from the secondary access requirements.
The subject application was for a Preliminary Plat. Preliminary Plats are regulated
under Title IV, Chapter 7 of the Municipal Code. RMC 4-7-150 establishes the general
and minimum street requirements for plats. RMC 4-7-1 SO(D), which imposes the
requirements for streets in subdivisions, states that: "The street standards set by RMC 4-
6-060 shall apply unless otherwise approved." (Emphasis Added). The street standards in
RMC 4-6-060 include those provisions in RMC 4-6-060(H) Dead End Streets. Thus, in a
plat application, the street standards in RMC 4-6-060 are applied through the minimum
street requirements as set forth in Chapter 7, Section 4-7-150 and may be varied in the
preliminary plat approval.
The Hearing Examiner is given express authority to grant variances from the
requirements for subdivisions, as set forth in Chapter 7, including variances from the
street standards. See RMC 4-7-240(1). The Hearing Examiner may grant such a variance
by following the variance procedures set forth in RMC 4-9-250(B). RMC 4-7-240(A)
states: "A variance from the requirements of this Chapter may be approved by the
Hearing Examiner, pursuant to RMC 4-9-250(B)".
APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S
FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION 5 I Van Ness
Feldman"'
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 623-9372
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
The Applicant applied for a variance under RMC 4-9-250(B), seeking a variance
from the secondary access standards in RMC 4-6-060, which were being imposed on this
subdivision through RMC 4-7-150. Exhibit 35, Att. I. The variance application provided
an analysis showing compliance with each of the four criteria under RMC 4-9-250(B)
including, in particular, criteria RMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(b) which states that "'the granting of
the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the
property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is
situated." The Applicant never asked for a street improvement modification under section
RMC 4-9-250(C). It was an error for the Hearing Examiner to apply the street
improvement modification provisions, under RMC 4-9-250(C), when a variance was
sought under RMC 4-7-240(A).
2. The Evidence Supports the Granting of a Variance
Witnesses for the Applicant presented unrefuted evidence that the variance criteria
had been met and that the variance should have been granted. See Testimony of Mr.
Maher J oudi; Testimony of Mr. Carl Anderson; and written testimony of Vincent J.
Geglia, Exhibit 35, Att. K.
Mr. Vince Geglia, a traffic engineer with TraflEX, provided a report
demonstrating that the surrounding streets in this neighborhood carry low volumes of
traffic at relatively low speeds and concluding that the risk of traffic accidents that would
block access to emergency vehicles is very low. Exhibit 35, Att. K. His report also
confirms that the looped road proposed for Vuecrest Estates will provide opportunities for
circulation of emergency vehicles within the plat.
. APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S
FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION 6 I Van Ness
Feldman"'
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 623-9372
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
Mr. Maher Joudi, a civil engineer with DR Strong Consulting Engineers Inc.,
testified that the wide roadways (32.5' of pavement) and adjacent sidewalks (4.5' each
side) provide a total width of over 40 feet for an emergency vehicle to travel from the
intersection of 102 Ave. SE and SE 186th Street to the proposed development. He noted
the minimal on-street parking on these streets, given that each home along this roadway
has a garage and off-street parking in their driveway.
Mr. Carl Anderson, a registered Fire Protection Engineer with The Fire Protection
International Consortium, Inc., presented expert testimony regarding the minimal risks to
life and safety posed by this development without having a secondary access and the
significant reduction in risk by the Applicant agreeing to install sprinklers in every home.
His unrefuted testimony was that the addition of20 lots "would not be a significant
detriment to public safety based on what's already in the area~
The allegation by Staff, that this project would create a dead end street being 2400
feet long with 99 homes ori it was fully refuted by Mr. Carl Anderson who demonstrated
that only 800 feet of the roadway would have a single access because of internal
secondary access loops that are provided off this street along its length. Mr. Anderson
also confirmed that, of the 99 homes that Staff alleged to be on this street, 42 of those are
on two different streets, S. 47th PL and SE 185th PL, that have no impact on access to and
from Vuecrest Estates. Furthermore, of the existing 57 homes not on those two streets, 3 6
are within the Stonehaven Plat that has a looped road, which allows for two ways of
access or egress within that plat.
APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S
FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION 7 I Van Ness
Feldman"'
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 623-9372
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
These facts, coupled with the significant mitigation of sprinklering these homes,
led :Mr. Anderson to his expert opinion that there would be no material detriment to public
safety by granting the requested variance. That testimony is unrefuted.
If the City Council determines that a variance was required, based upon this
testimony, the City Council should grant that variance and strike Condition 13 from the
Decision.
8 D. Condition 13 is Arbitrary and Capricious
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Requiring Vuecrest Estates to provide secondary access in this case, as imposed by
Condition 13, is arbitrary aud capricious. The prior subdivisions in this neighborhood
were authorized to extend Smithers Ave. S. through their properties to a temporary cul-de-
sac. No secondary access was required for these other projects. Vuecrest Estates merely
sought to be treated like all other applicants under similar conditions. There is no basis to
impose on secondary access requirement on this applicant.
It is also arbitrary and capricious to require secondary access given the City Staff's
express representations to the Applicant that a secondary access would not be required.
Those representations were made four separate times. In the second Pre-Application
meeting, the City's Fire Department representative stated the Fire Department's position
clearly: "A proposed temporary cul-de-sac would be acceptable ... " Ex. 35, Att. B. This
was reconfirmed in the Fire Department's email: "the actual [ secondary access]
connection does not have to be achieved at this time." Ex. 35, Att. C. After the project
was put on hold, and there were further discussions with City Staff and the Mayor and the
City attorney's office, the Fire Chief elected to withdraw an earlier letter, and the City
APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S
FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION 8 I Van Ness
Feldman"'
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 623-9372
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
informed the Applicant that the application would be processed for approval without a
secondary access. According to the testimony of Ms. Higgins, withdrawal of the Fire
Chiefs earlier letter was done specifically to induce the Applicant to continue processing
its plat application. In January 2014, when the City informed the applicant that a formal
variance application was required, it was made clear in Ms. Higgins' email that the City
supported this variance request. Ex. 35, Att. H.
In light of these representations, Condition 13 should be eliminated and a
temporary cul-de-sac authorized.
E. Condition 13 Violates RCW 82.02.020
RCW 82.02.020 restricts the City from imposing conditions on a plat where there
is no nexus and rough proportionality between the condition imposed and the alleged
impacts. See City of Federal Way v. Town & Country Real Estate, UC, 161 Wu.App. 17,
45 (2011). Here, the roads serving this plat are adequate. There is no permanent dead end
. street proposed, merely a temporary cul-de-sac. This project is providing its fair share
contribution to a future secondary access by extending Smithers Ave. S. through its
property. This is consistent with the City's approval of the prior plats in the neighborhood
that were approved under similar circumstances without requiring a secondary access.
The obligation in Condition 13 to extend Smithers Ave. S. to the east, across
property that the Applicant does not own or control is a heavy burden that far exceeds the
impacts caused by the project. The added risk to public safety from approval of these 20
homes is negligible. The Applicant attempted, in good faith, to acquire rights from the
adjoining owner to extend the road to the east, and that owner would not agree to grant
APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S
FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION 9 I Van Ness
Feldman"'
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 623-9372
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
--------·------------·-------·------··---·-------·· -. ··-·---····-
such access rights. Condition 13 is therefore impossible to meet and effectively results in
denial of this project. With Condition 13, as written, until the property to the east
develops or agrees to dedicate a right-of-way to the City, no reasonable use can be made
of the subject property. This raises the potential of a uncompensated taking.
F. Condition 13 Violates the Applicant's Substantive Due Process Rights
Condition 13 also violates the Applicant's substantive due process rights. A land
use regulation violates substantive due process where (1) the regulation fails to achieve a
legitimate public purpose; (2) the means adopted are not reasonably necessary to achieve
that purpose; or (3) the regulations are unduly burdensome on the property owner.
Robinson v. City of Seattle, 119 Wn.2d 34 (1992). While the City's proposed secondary
access requirement may meet the first prong, it fails the second two.
A secondary access is not reasonably necessary. The roads serving this plat meet
or exceed City standards. There is ample width for emergency vehicles to access this plat.
The total road and sidewalk width of over forty feet ( 40'), the low traffic volumes, the low
speeds through this neighborhood, and low probability of blocking accidents and the
internal circulation demonstrate that the risk of a fire truck or ambulance failing to gain
access to this plat through existing access roads is negligible. To mitigate impacts, every
home in this development will have a sprinkler system, designed to quickly and
effectively respond to a fire emergency. Smithers Ave. S. will be extended through
Vuecrest Estates eastward to the adjoining property that fronts on 102nd Ave. SE.
Vuecrest Estates moves this neighborhood one step closer to achieving the desire for
secondary access. The other plats in this neighborhood were approved without a
APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S
FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION 10 I Van Ness
Feldman UY
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 623-9372
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
secondary access. Expert testimony from the Applicant's witnesses demonstrated that
there is no significant increase in risk from the addition of twenty new homes.
Regarding the third factor, courts consider the (a) nature of the harm to be avoided;
(b) the availability and effectiveness ofless drastic measures; and (c) the economic loss
suffered by the property owner. Presbytery of Seattle v. King Cy., 114 Wn.2d 320,331,
(1990). Other nonexclusive factors that may be helpful in the balancing required under
the third factor include the seriousness of the public problem, the extent to which the
landowner's property contributes to the problem, the degree to which the regulation solves
the problem, and the feasibility ofless burdensome solutions. Id.
Here, imposition of Condition 13 effectively results in denial of the project, the
loss of over hundreds of thousands of dollars invested to date in the Project and the loss of
millions of dollars in lost profit. The City already approved neighboring plats on this
same road without requiring a secondary access, so the determination was already made
by the City that this is not a serious problem. Moreover, the repeated position of City
Staff that a secondary access connection would not be required for Vuecrest Estates
confirms that City Staff did not observe this to be a serious issue. The Applicant made a
good faith effort to either acquire the adjoining property.to the east or_ acquire a right-of-
way through that property, but the adjacent owner would not agree to sell or grant such a
right-of-way.
There are far less burdensome solutions to address the City's concerns and these
have been agreed upon. Every home will have a fire sprinkler. An alley has been
APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S
FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION 11 I Van Ness
Feldman"'
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 623·9372
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
designed to provide a looped system through this plat to provide enhanced
maneuverability around the homes. The internal roads have been designed 4 feet wider
than the City minimum standards. All of these measures address the City's concern with
far less impact on the Applicant.
III. Relief Requested
For all of the reasons noted above, we urge the City Council to strike Condition 13
from the Decision.
In the alternative, we ask the City Council to revise Condition 13 to allow the
Applicant to provide secondary access in ways other than extending Smithers Ave. S.
immediately to the east and to the specified intersection.
As shown in Exhibit 37, on sheet I of 1, there is one parcel ofland (the "Easterly
Parcel") immediately east of the easterly end of Smithers Ave. S. as proposed to be built
by the Applicant. Mr. Jamie Waltier testified that the owner ofthis Easterly Parcel will
not sell his property or provide an easement for secondary access. Exhibit 3 7 shows on
Sheet I of I another parcel ofland (the "Southeasterly Parcel") located between Tract "B"
and Tract "C' on the Proposed Vuecrest Estates plat and I 02"d Ave. SE. Secondary
access might be available through that parcel.
Condition 13, as currently written, reads:
Prior to the recording of the final plat, a secondary fire access shall be
constructed that extends Smithers Ave S to the east to directly connect to
Main Ave S (] 02nd Ave SE). The extent of street improvements necessary to
effectuate this connection shall be determined by the City of Renton Fire
Department in accordance with applicable fire code standards and shall be
the minimum necessary to provide for safe and effective secondary access for
fire trucks and emergency vehicles.
APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S
FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION 12 I Van Ness
Feldman ue
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 623-9372
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
As written, it appears that this condition can only be satisfied by acquiring a public
access easement through the Easterly Parcel and providing a fire access road to the
specified intersection. Even if a secondary access could be established between the plat to
a location on 102"d Ave. SE through the Southeasterly Parcel, or through some other
parcel, it would appear that this would not meet the specific terms of Condition 13.
If the City Council does not strike Condition 13, which it should do, Condition 13
should, at a minimum, be revised to read as follows:
Prior to the recording of the final plat, a secondary fire access shall be
constructed providing a second means of access from Main Ave S (I 02"d
Ave. SE) to the plat by fire trucks and emergency vehicles. The extent of
street improvements necessary to effectuate this connection shall be
determined by the City of Renton Fire Department in accordance with
applicable fire code standards and shall be the minimum necessary to
provide for safe and effective secondary access for fire trucks and emergency
vehicles
At least this revised condition will provide the Applicant with some flexibility to seek a
secondary fire access route.
Dated this 26th day of November, 2014.
APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S
FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION 13 I Van Ness
Feldman ..
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 623-9372
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
I, Jennifer Sower, declare as follows:
That I am over the age of 18 years, not a party to this action, and competent to be a
witness herein;
That I, as a legal assistant in the office of Van Ness Feldman, LLP, caused true and
correct copies of the following documents to be delivered as set forth below:
1. Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Final Decision Upon Reconsideration; and
2. Exhibits 35 and 37 entered into the record in September 16, 2014 hearing; and
3. This Certificate of Service
and that on November 26, 2014, I addressed said documents and deposited them for
delivery as follows:
Mr. Jason Seth
Acting Deputy Clerk
City of Renton Clerk's Office
1055 S. Grady Way
Seventh Floor
Renton, WA 98057
Larry Warren
Renton City Attorney
Renton City Hall
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
[x J Via hand delivery
[x] Via email
[x] Via U.S. mail
lwarren@rentonwa.gov
I certify under penalty of perjury under the Jaws of the State of Washington that
the foregoing is true and correct.
EXECUTED at Seattle, Washington on this 26th day ofNovember, 2014.
J
APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S
FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION 14 I Van Ness
Feldman"'
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 623-9372
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
10
11
12
13
14
15
RE: Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat
)
) .-,
16
17
Preliminary Plat
LUAI3-000642
) FINAL DECISION UPON
) RECONSIDERATION
)
)
)
)
________________ )
SUMMARY
The applicant of the above-captioned matter has requested reconsideration by letter dated October
16, 2014. The reconsideration request is limited to eliminating or modifying Condition No 13 and
also to admitting an exhibit that was erroneously excluded from the administrative record. Condition
18 No. 13 will not be eliminated, but will be modified largely as requested by the applicant. The
resume of Carl Anderson is admitted as Exhibit No. 38. 19
EXIITBITS 20
21
22
In addition to the addition of Exhibit No. 38, the following exhibits are admitted as part of the
reconsideration process:
23 Exhibit 39:
Exhibit 40:
24 Exhibit 41:
25
26
Exhibit 42:
Order Authorizing Reconsideration, dated October 21, 104.
City's Answer on Reconsideration Request, dated October 22, 2014
Sundance response to Reconsideration, dated October 31, 2014.
Reply to Order Authorizing Reconsideration, dated November 5, 2014.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND FINDINGS OF FACT
PRELIMINARY PLAT RECONSIDERATION-1
<
_J
1
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
The issues raised in the applicant's reconsideration request are individually addressed below:
I. Applicable Variance/Waiver Criteria. The street waiver standards ofRMC 4-9-250(C) apply
to the applicant's request to waive the secondary access requirement of RMC 4-6-060(H)(2). The
applicant argues that the variance criteria of RMC 4-9-250(B)(5) apply because RMC 4-7-240(A)
provides that RMC 4-9-250(B) applies to the requirements "of this Chapter". The applicant argues
that since RMC 4-7-150(D) requires compliance with RMC 4-7-060, that this transforms RMC 4-7-
060 into a part "of this Chapter", specifically Chapter 4-7 RMC. Reasonable minds could certainly
disagree as to whether the RMC 4-7-150(0) mandate for compliance with RMC 4-7-060 makes that
provision a part "of this Chapter". Indeed, the fact that RMC 4-7-0-060 is not expressly incorporated
by reference into Chapter 4-7 RMC would lead most people to conclude that RMC 4-7-060 is not a
part of Chapter 4-7 RMC and is simply a requirement in another chapter of the RMC that applies to
subdivisions. For the reasons identified in the Order Authorizing Reconsideration, Ex. 39, it is
concluded as a matter of law that the street waiver criteria of RMC 4-9-250(C) apply to the
applicant's request to waive the secondary access requirement ofRMC 4-6-060(H)(2).
2. Failure to Provide Secondary Access Significantly Unsafe. As a finding of fact, 1t 1s
determined that the failure to provide secondary access to the proposed subdivision creates a
significantly unsafe condition. The applicant focuses upon the inconsistencies in the City staff
position to argue that the secondary access is unnecessary. As noted in the Final Decision on this
matter, the inconsistencies in the staff position are troubling. However, there is nothing in the record
to suggest or explain why City fire personnel had any reason to overstate the dangers of waiving
secondary fire access. In several prior examiner decisions, City staff have often taken highly
unpopular positions counter to extensive public opposition in order provide objective
recommendations on the application of development standards. There is nothing to suggest in this
administrative record that City staff have succumbed to public pressure to require a secondary
access.
Despite the odd sounding comments made by Ms. Higgins, it appears likely that staffs vacillation on
the secondary road issue arises from the difficulties of balancing past permitting decisions, public
safety, recent safety problems (e.g. the wildfires identified by the fire chief) and the applicant's
constitutional nexus/proportionality rights. All these factors pose very complex and challenging legal
and policy issues. Given these multiple factors, it is not surprising that staff remained open minded
about the secondary access issue until late in the permitting process.
In focusing all of its reconsideration attention on the testimony of City staff, the applicant glosses
over the fact that its own fire expert was unable to opine that there would be no safety problems with
waiver of the secondary access requirement. As discussed in the Final Decision of this case, Mr.
Anderson was unable to provide any assurance that a secondary fire access was urmecessary for safe
and adequate fire response, despite a direct request from the Examiner to provide that assurance. If
the City's fire chief takes the position that secondary access is necessary for safe fire response and
the applicant's own fire expert can't dispute that position, it is difficult to see how the applicant can
seriously question why a finding is ultimately made that secondary access is necessary for safe fire
PRELIMINARY PLAT 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
response.
3. Unsafe Fire Response is Materially Detrimental to Public; Unsafe Access Not Consistent
with Waiver. Modification or Variance Criteria. Unsafe fire access is unquestionably counter to the
public welfare. The applicant takes the remarkable position that unsafe fire access is not materially
detrimental to the public welfare, and therefore there is no consistency issue with the materially
detrimental criterion for variances, RMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(b). The applicant asserts that the examiner
erred by requiring the applicant to demonstrate that the proposed single access was safe under the
materially detrimental standard. See Ex. 39, p. 5. Under the applicant's reasoning, the public
welfare is not adversely affected if the residents ofVuecrest are left with a street system that prevents
fire apparatus from reaching them within the time necessary to safely respond to emergencies. The
applicants are essentially arguing that variances to fire access standards should be approved even
when such variances would endanger City residents. This is a patently absurd construction of the
"public welfare" term and the City's variance standards. If the single access does not provide for
safe fire access as determined by the hearing examiner, there is no question under any reasonable
interpretation that as a conclusion of law the applicant's proposal fails to qualify for a variance under
the material detrimental criterion ofRMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(b), fails to qualify for a street waiver under
the "no detrimental effect" standard ofRMC 4-9-250(C)(5)(e) and fails to qualify for a modification
under the "safety" criterion (the most obvious, other criteria are unmet as well) of RMC 4-9-
250(D)(2)(b ).
4. Record Does not Establish that Improved Secondary Access Necessary for Resident Egress.
The applicant correctly argues that it shouldn't be responsible for providing for a fully developed
secondary access route and that there should be some flexibility in where the route is located. This
position is reasonable. The City's fire chief did not focus his testimony on problems associated with
resident egress from the subdivision during emergencies. It is determined as a finding of fact that
there is nothing in the record to suggest that pavement and curb, gutter and sidewalk is necessary to
provide safe egress to residents during times of emergency. If the primary access route becomes
unusable during an emergency and residents must leave to protect themselves, it doesn't appear that
that they will hesitate to use a dirt road to do so. Given the nexus/proportionality issues associated
with requiring the applicant to provide for secondary access beyond its subdivision borders, any
secondary access requirement should be designed to be the minimum necessary to assure for public
safety.
DECISION
The Final Decision of the above-captioned matter dated 10/13/14 is supplemented with the
additional findings of fact and conclusions of law made above. Condition No. 13 is also revised to
provide as follows:
13. Prior to the recording of the final plat, a secondary fire access shall be constructed that
extends Smithers Ave S to the east to directly connect to Main Ave S (102nd Ave SE). The
extent of street improvements necessary to effectuate this connection shall be determined by
PRELIMINARY PLAT RECONSIDERATION-3
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
the City of Renton Fire Department in accordance with applicable fire code standards and
shall be the minimum necessary to provide for safe and effective secondary access for fire
trucks and emergency vehicles.
DATED this 15th day ofNovember, 2014.
. • ).,·to .. · ..
, -·< . "'-(._."?<.__ l'hifA,<Jihr~~l~11,-· ..... . .. ·-.
City of Renton Hearing Examiner
Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
RMC 4-8-080 provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is subject to appeal to the
Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-I IO(E)(l4) 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 m valuation for property tax purposes
notwithstanding any program ofrevaluation.
PRELIMINARY PLAT RECONSIDERATION-4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
CITY OF RENTON
NOV O 5 2014
RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S 0"FICE
L1 t. A JJc, u 5,c. 1 r,,,. '".,.
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
9 RE: Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Preliminary Plat
LUA13-000642
REPLY TO ORDER AUTHORIZING
RECONSIDERATION AND
RESPONSES THERETO
This Memorandum replies to the Hearing Examiner's Order Authorizing
Reconsideration and demonstrates why the variance requested under Renton Municipal
Code (RMC) 4-7-240 should be granted. This Memorandum also replies to the two
responses to the Applicant's Request for Reconsideration received by October 31, 2014.1
I. THE PLAIN MEANING OF THE CITY CODE CONFIRMS THAT THE
VARIAN CE PROVISIONS IN RMC 4-7-240 AND THE VARIAN CE CRITERIA
IN RMC 4-9-250.B.5 APPLY
The Order Authorizing Reconsideration raises questions about the City Council's
intent in passing RMC 4-7-240 and whether the City Council intended another code
provision, such as the street waiver provision in RMC 4-9-250.C, to be the only means by
1 These two responses are the October 31, 2014 Memorandum from David N. Rasmussen, President,
Sundance at Talbot Ridge HOA and the City ofRenton's October 22, 2014 City's Answer on
Reconsideration Request by Applicant
REPLY TO ORDER AUTHORIZING
RECONSIDERATION AND
RESPONSES THERETO 1
I Van Ness
Feldman'"
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
{206) 623-9372
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
which relief from the dead-end street standard in RMC 4-6-060 may be granted. The City
Council's intent, however, is irrelevant.
Rules of statutory construction used by courts in interpreting state law apply in the
context of interpreting City ordinances. Griffin v. Thurston County, 165 Wn.2d 50, 55
(2008). If statutory language is unambiguous, the canons of statutory construction are not
to be used. Id. The meaning of an unambiguous statute must be derived from the code
language. The Hearing Examiner is not permitted to look for the City Council's intent
that might be imputed to the Council or to construe the code in a way that the Hearing
Examiner believes will best accomplish some legislative purpose. See State v. Tvedt, 153,
Wn.2d 705, 732 (2005).
RMC 4-7-240 plainly and unambiguously provides that "A variance from the
requirements of this Chapter may be approved by the Hearing Examiner pursuant to RMC
4-9-250B." The phrase "This Chapter" used in RMC 4-7-240 clearly refers to Chapter 7
Subdivision Regulations, codified in Title IV Development Regulations of the Renton
Municipal Code. When the City reviews a proposed subdivision of real property, the
application must meet specific requirements for streets as set forth in RMC 4-7-150
Streets-General Requirements and Minimum Standards. RMC 4-7-150.D expressly
states: "The street. standards set by RMC 4-6-060 shall apply unless otherwise approved."
This language in RMC 4-7-150.D unambiguously incorporates the street standards of
RMC 4-6-060 into the provision of Chapter 7. Moreover, by expressly stating that the
street standards in RMC 4-6-060 apply "unless otherwise approved," this code provision
REPLY TO ORDER AUTHORIZING
RECONSIDERATION AND
RESPONSES THERETO 2
I Van Ness
Feldman''"
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 623-9372
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
offers the opportunity to vary the requirements of RMC 4-6-060 when approving a
subdivision. The phrase "unless otherwise approved" cannot be ignored or deemed
superfluous. State v. Bunker, 144 Wn.App. 407,418 (2008). Rather, it demonstrates that
approval of a subdivision under Chapter 7 may vary these street standards. The
mechanism provided to vary any requirement in Chapter 7 is through a variance, as noted
in RMC 4-7-240.
The fact that alternative means may be provided under the City Code to modify a
City standard is not unusual, nor does it cause the City Code to be ambiguous. For
example, the City's critical area regulations provide multiple options for modifying those
requirements. See RMC 4-3-050.N -Alternatives, Modifications and Variances. The fact
that the City Code provides a subdivision applicant a means to seek a variance from the
street standards through a variance under RMC 4-7-240 must be accepted by the Hearing
Examiner as an unambiguous requirement to consider and rule on such a request.
There is no ambiguity that the Applicant requested a variance under RMC 4-7-240.
Exhibit 35, Attachment I is the letter submitted by Maher Joudi entitled "Vuecrest Estates
-Variance Request." That letter sets forth the four criteria for a Variance under RMC 4-
9-250.B.5.
The Applicant demonstrated that these four variance criteria in RMC 4-9-250.B.5
were met. We again ask the Hearing Examiner to apply the correct criteria, grant the
variance, and strike Condition 13.
REPLY TO ORDER AUTHORIZING
RECONSIDERATION AND
RESPONSES THERETO 3
I Van Ness
Feldman u,
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 623-9372
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
II. Response to Sundance at Talbot Ridge HOA
The October 31, 2014 Memorandum from David N. Rasmussen, President of the
Sundance at Talbot Ridge HOA, fails to address any of the arguments presented in
Applicant's Request for Reconsideration pertaining to the requested variance, other than a
conclusory statement that the request should be rejected. The Talbot Ridge HOA has
apparently failed to understand the Applicant's request-that the Hearing Examiner (and
the City Staff) applied the wrong standard in reviewing the variance request, and that
based upon the record before the Hearing Examiner, the variance should have been
granted. No further response is needed.
III. Response to City's Answer on Reconsideration Request by Applicant
The first issue presented in the City's Answer on Reconsideration Request by
Applicant ("City's Answer") concerns whether the variance provisions should apply. The
Applicant has already adequately addressed this issue in its Request for Reconsideration
and in the reply above to the Hearing Examiner's Order on Reconsideration.
The City's second issue, concerning the weight of testimony, deserves a response.
In particular, the Applicant strongly disagrees with the City's statement that the Applicant
provided no reason to examine the credibility of Chief Peterson. See City's Answer at 3.
As borne out by the record, Corey Thomas, the Plan Review Inspector for the City
of Renton Fire Department, expressly informed the Applicant that a temporary cul-de-sac
was an acceptable street design. Exhibit 35, Attachment B ("A proposed temporary cul-
de-sac would be acceptable if it meets all required dimensions and construction
REPLY TO ORDER AUTHORIZING
RECONSIDERATION AND
RESPONSESTHERETO 4
I Van Ness
Feldman,,
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 623-9372
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
requirements."); Exhibit 35, Attachment C ("The road section can be 28-feet if you
provide the stub road only for future connection, the actual connection does not have to be
achieved at this time."). Chief Peterson reversed these written representations by Fire
Department representative Corey Thomas when Chief Peterson wrote in his August 15,
2013 letter that "any request for a secondary access variance will be denied." (Exhibit 35,
Attachment E). Chief Peterson reversed himself two months later when, on October 7,
2013, he wrote: "I am withdrawing my letter dated August 15, 2013, regarding Vuecrest
Preliminary Plat. Please understand that I reserve the right to reissue the letter based on
the final plat design." Exhibit 35, Attachment G. Then, in testimony before the Hearing
Examiner, Chief Peterson reversed the Fire Department's position yet again, opposing the
requested variance. Chief Peterson never acknowledged his October 7 letter and the fact
that there was no change in the plat design justifying reversal of his October 7, 2013
decision.
The inconsistent statements by Chief Peterson and other Fire Department
representatives present the fundamental issue of witness credibility. As courts have noted:
"a person who speaks inconsistently is thought to be less credible than a person who does
not." State v. Allen S. 98 Wn.App. 452, 467 (1999).
The record also demonstrates that the October 7, 2013 letter was written explicitly
for the Applicant to believe that a temporary cul-de-sac would be approved and to induce
the Applicant to continue processing its preliminary plat application. Testimony of
Elizabeth Higgins. Past misrepresentations of a witness provide further means to judge a
REPLY TO ORDER AUTHORIZING
RECONSIDERATION AND
RESPONSES THERETO 5
I Van Ness
Feldman'"
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
{206) 623-9372
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
witness's credibility. In the Matter of the Disciplinary Proceedings Against Marshall,
160 Wn.2d 317 (2007).
Given the inconsistent positions taken by the Fire Department over the history of
this preliminary plat application, and the Fire Chiefs October 7, 2013 letter, the Hearing
Examiner should question the credibility ofChief Pederson's testimony. Moreover, the
Hearing Examiner heard from three separate experts, Registered Fire Protection Engineer
Carl Anderson, Civil Engineer Maher Joudi, and Traffic Engineer Vince Geglia on why
the variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare.
The third issue presented in the City's Answer concerns the Applicant's request, in
the alternative, to modify Condition 13 to provide greater flexibility. While the Applicant
appreciates the City's support for greater flexibility in Condition 13, the Applicant
disagrees with the City's demand that a fully improved road section be built by Vuecrest
Estates on property it does not own or control.
To illustrate the importance of greater flexibility in Condition 13, and to address
the City's position on the extent of road improvements for a secondary fire access, page
one from Exhibit 37 is attached to this Reply Memorandum and marked as "Attachment
A". Attachment A shows the two separate parcels ofland between the Vuecrest Estates
Preliminary Plat and 102"d Ave. SE. For illustrative and argument purposes, these two
parcels have been marked on Attachment A as Parcel A and Parcel B.
To implement the specific language of Condition 13, as imposed in the Hearing
Examiner's Final Decision, access would be required through Parcel A. That is because
REPLY TO ORDER AUTHORIZING
RECONSIDERATION AND
RESPONSESTHERETO 6
I Van Ness
Feldman""
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 623-9372
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
Condition 13 reads "Smithers Ave. S shall ... be extended to the east ... " The record
demonstrates that the owner of Parcel A is unwilling to sell or grant an easement.
Testimony of Jamie Waltier.
Hypothetically, a temporary alternative secondary fire access might be able to be
established through Parcel B to 102nd Ave. SE or through some other route. Such a
secondary fire access might provide access to fire and emergency vehicles until a full
public roadway is established through Parcel A when Parcel A is developed.
The City's argument against allowing a temporary fire access and requiring a
"fully improved road section" is based on an unsupported claim that the "road will never
be built to standards." In fact, under the linkage and connection requirements in RMC 4-7-
l 50(E)(2) and ( 4), whenever Parcel A develops, the full road section established for
Smithers Ave.Swill need to be continued from the eastern boundary ofVuecrest Estates
to 102 Ave. SE. That is a burden rightfully imposed on the owner of Parcel A. If the
variance is denied because of concerns for fire access, then Condition 13 should address
fire access only and provide Vuecrest Estates with flexibility on achieving that objective.
IV. Conclusion
We urge the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his Final Decision, grant the
requested variance and strike Condition 13. If the Hearing Examiner denies the variance,
we ask the Hearing Examiner to revise Condition 13 to allow a temporary fire access lane
to be established, prior to final plat approval, across any parcel that could provide a
secondary means of access for fire and emergency vehicles.
REPLY TO ORDER AUTHORIZING
RECONSIDERATION AND
RESPONSESTHERETO 7
I Van Ness
Feldman u,
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 623-9372
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
Dated this 5th day of November, 2014.
REPLY TO ORDER AUTHORIZING
RECONSIDERATION AND
RESPONSES THERETO 8
By:.
Btefn
I Van Ness
Feldman""
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 623-9372
1 I, Jennifer Sower, declare as follows:
2 That I am over the age of 18 years, not a party to this action, and competent to be a
3 witness herein;
4 That I, as a legal assistant in the office ofVan Ness Feldman, LLP, caused true and
5 correct copies of the following documents to be delivered as set forth below:
6 1. Reply on Order on Reconsideration;
7 2. This Certificate of Service; and
8 3. Attachment A
9 and that on November 5, 2014, I addressed said documents and deposited them for
10 delivery as follows:
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Mr. Jason Seth
Acting Deputy Clerk
City of Renton Clerk's Office
1055 S. Grady Way
Seventh Floor
Renton, WA 98057
Mr. Phil A. Olbrechts
City of Renton Hearing Examiner
Larry Warren
Renton City Attorney
Renton City Hall
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
[ x J Via hand delivery
[x] Via email
polbrechts@omwlaw.com
[x] Viaemail
[x] Via U.S. mail
lwarren@rentonwa.gov
I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that
the foregoing is true and correct.
EXECUTED at Seattle, Washington on this 5th day of November, 2014.
REPLY TO ORDER AUTHORIZING
RECONSIDERATION AND
RESPONSES THERETO 9
I Van Ness
Feldman u;
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 623-9372
ATTACHMENT A
I
l
l
• ' ' !
!
' i
!
I
I
~
.!
I
L _____ I
i
••
I
i
i ----i
11 l
I L ____ _
I
.. _,, .....
)>
~
I I
I i I
I •i
0
I
~ m z
-i
)>
' !
I
I ~i
I •'
I '!
I I
I ' I I I .
I
~I
I
HARBOUR HOMES, UC VUECRESTEBTATff
14't NMTHST. sutrEJllO SM/1HERSA\IE8
86'1~ 11M llllffD SOI.ITHOF 8 U1'H sr1lEET'
(111,J ,ts-,,,o RIINTON, WASHIIGJ'CW
~· 1d
f l· i.j
' ' \":
" " -
'C
-<
~
...1
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
CITY OF RENTON
OCT 2 2 2014
RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
RE: Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat
Preliminary Plat
LUAB-000642
CITY'S ANSWER
ON RECONSIDERATION
REQUEST BY APPLICANT
INTRODUCTION
This Vuecrest Plat application primarily revolves around a dispute as to
whether on extra-long, dead end street should be allowed. The Examiner decided that
it should not be allowed.
The Request for Reconsideration (Reconsideration) raises three basic points,
each of which is without merit. The Examiner should refuse to reconsider his decision,
except to rephrase Condition 13.
ARGUMENT
The three points will be rephrased as responses to the Reconsideration.
1. The Examiner used the Correct Criteria in Denying the Waiver.
The Reconsideration argues that the Examiner erred in denying a Waiver
under RMC 4-9-250.C.5, and that the Examiner should have used the variance procedure
under
City's Answer to Applicant's
Request for Reconsideration -1
ORIGINAL
Renton City Attorney
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057-3232
Phone: (425) 430~480
Fax: (425) 430~498
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
2. 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
RMC 4-9-250.B. However, variances are applicable to only certain land use regulations
4-9-250 B.1, none of which are street standards. This point was made in the Examiner's
decision footnote 3 at page 27. But even if there was a variance available both waiver
and variance criteria require a finding that there will be no detriment to the public
welfare, 4-9-250.B.5.b for variances and 4-9-250.C.5.e for waiver, a fact that was not
established by the Applicant. The Reconsideration also refers to the "modification
provisions "(page 4 at line 3 citing to 4-9-250.C.) but modification is dealt with in
subsection 4-8-250.D, again noted in Examiner decision in footnote 3 at page 27, as
unavailing and requires a finding that public safety is met.
2. The Examiner Should Not Give Greater Weight to Testimony of the Applicant's
Expert than that of the Fire Chief.
The Reconsideration incorrectly states, in several spots, that there is
unrefuted testimony that the variance criteria had been met, (page 2, line 2; page 5,
line 21). These assertions, of necessity, emphasize testimony about lack of detriment to
public welfare. They were, of course, refuted by the testimony of Chief Peterson about
concerns of greater response time and potentially blocked access in case of fire or
natural disaster, summarized in the Examiner's decision at page 8. In fact, Chief
Peterson's early opposition to this plat was recently reinforced by a wildfire, in the city,
that blocked egress for citizens from their homes down a long, dead end access road.
(Examiner's decision pg. 8)
Further, the City has a strongly stated policy against long, dead end roads
expressed in RMC 4-6-060.H. The policy is clear under RMC 4-6-060.H.2 that any dead
end street over 700 feet in length requires two mean ¥C and fire sprinklers for all
City's Answer to Applicant's O"~;-¢; Renton City Attorney
Request for Reconsideration -2 1, 1, + 1055 South Grady Way + _. Renton. WA 98057-3232
jl-~ Phone: (425) 430-6480
~Neto Fax: (425) 430-6498
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
houses beyond 500 feet. The only exception to that policy is for waiver of the
turnaround to be granted by the CED Administrator with approval of the Fire &
Emergency Services. There is no provision for waiver of the limitations of the length of
the dead end street. There is also no room for an expert witness to argue that the
policy, so clearly enunciated, can be ignored because in the expert's opinion "there
would be no material detriment to public safety." (Reconsideration, pg. 6, lines 6, 7).
That opinion not only contradicts City policy but also recent experience from the
wildfire. It is also refuted by the testimony of Chief Peterson, one of the City
Administrators charged with enforcing and interpreting the code section in question.
There is also no reason shown in the Reconsideration why the Examiner
should change his opinion that Chief Peterson's testimony was more persuasive than
the expert, Mr. Anderson. The failure to state a reason to re-examine credibility alone,
should be enough to carry the day for the City.
3. Public Safety Should Not be Compromised by Changing Staff Positions.
The essence of this dead end road conflict is public safety. The Examiner is
asked, because of conflicting staff messages, to ignore public safety, City policy and
State policy and grant a waiver of code that limits the length of the dead end street.
The Examiner is asked to ignore by implication, RCW 58.17.110(1) (a) that each plat to
be approved, must provide appropriate streets and RCW 58.17.110(1) (b) that the plat
would be in the public interest. The Examiner is without jurisdiction to do.
The Reconsideration advances an estoppel argument without so stating. That
is unsurprising because estoppel generally does not run against the State or its
City's Answer to Applicant's
Request for Reconsideration -3
~y 0
0~;.,;, Renton City Attorney .!.m • 1055 South Grady Way
• ~ Renton, WA 98057-3232
~ -~ Phone: (425) 430-6480 :a,N'fo Fax: (425) 430-6498
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
:.0
11
12
13
14
15
:_ 6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
subdivisions, such as the City. Estate of Hambelton v. Department of Revenue_
Wn.2d. __ (October, 2014). Estoppel is even more inappropriate if public safety is
clearly implicated, as in this case.
Applicant can hardly act surprised by Chief Peterson's position. He opposed
the plat by letter dated August 15, 2013, and only conditionally withdrew it by letter
dated October 7, 2013. He did not state that he would approve the road length if the
plat stayed the same. And, subsequently, the Chiefs fears were vindicated not only by a
wildfire incident in the City but undoubtedly by the 050 landslide.
And, applicant knew by State law and City code that approval of the extra
length dead end road was not within the power of the mid-level staff. The ultimate
approval had to come from the Examiner and the Examiner's authority could not be
fettered by staff statements. And Applicant should have been aware that any variance,
waiver or modification of the road length had to be granted by the CED Administrator in
consultation with the Fire and Emergency Services or the Examiner, as the case may be.
No statement of mid-level staff can remove the authority of the Examiner and City
Administrators to make decisions about this dead end road and the plat itself.
The Reconsideration does acknowledge that the applicant was on notice of
Chief Peterson's opposition to the extra-long, dead end street. But it does not
acknowledge that the platting process often involves opposition on one or more aspects
of the plat that are ultimately resolved. And such was the case here. Concerns about
drainage and set-backs from steep slopes were resolved. The applicant doesn't claim to
be na"ive about the give and take of the process. This preliminary plat has been
City's Answer to Applicant's
Request for Reconsideration -4
(\'Y 0
(!~;-¢; Renton City Attorney ~ + 1055South Grady Way
+ ~ Renton, WA 98057-3232
jl-~ Phone: (425) 430-6480
&'N'tO Fax: (425) 430-6498
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1S
16
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
approved in all respects, with conditions. Once the condition of providing a secondary
means of access has been met the plat may proceed. It may not be timely today, but
may be tomorrow.
MODIFIED CONDITION 13
The City agrees that Condition 13 can be modified to provide the applicant
with more flexibility in providing a secondary means of access. But, that condition
should not be limited to access by fire and emergency services vehicles only; it should
also state that the secondary access must be a fully improved road section so that it
would provide an acceptable road surface for egress for citizens in an emergency.
Otherwise, the road will never be built to standards as the "final link" development will
have legal access to developed City streets that are nearby and will not trigger the City's
dead end road limitations and thus would not require the later developer to bring
Applicants secondary means of access to City standards. There would remain, only an
emergency access road, not a completed standard street section.
Alternatively, if the Examiner is not willing to modify the conditions as
proposed, then the original condition should remain.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, the Reconsideration should be denied, but Condition
13 modified as stated above.
J DATED THIS J2.__ day of October, 2014.
City's Answer to Applicant's
Request for Reconsideration -5
// / ~/l, --A ~'lff,0~--~ {<AA ' a wren~~ WSBA #5853
Renton City Attorney
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057 -3232
Phone: (425) 430-6480
Fax: (425) 430--6498
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
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
RE: Vuecrest Preliminary Plat
LUA! 3-000642
)
)
) ORDER AUTHORIZING
) RECONSIDERATION
)
)
)
)
I
I~
The Applicant has requested reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's decision on the above-captioned
matter. Since the reconsideration request affect parties of record and the interests of the City, the parties
ofrecord who testified at the hearing and City staff will be given an opportunity to respond to the request
for reconsideration before a decision on the reconsideration request is issued. Any responses must be
based upon evidence that is already in the record. No evidence that has not been recorded at the hearing
or entered as an exhibit at the hearing will be considered in the reconsideration request.
The Applicant seeks reconsideration of its denial of a variance request to the requirements of RMC 4-6-
060, which prohibits the Applicant's proposed dead end street. The Applicant raises a challenging
reconsideration issue, because there are three different sets of variance/modification/waiver 1 criteria that
each arguably apply to the proposed dead end street. The Applicant argues that the variance criteria of
RMC 4-9-250(C) apply. City staff, in the staff report, asserts that the request is a "modification", which
would require application of the RMC 4-9-250(D) criteria. The final decision employed the street
"waiver" criteria ofRMC 4-9-250(C).
1 For those not familiar with Renton's variance/modification/waiver standards, RMC 4-9-250(B)(5) allows for the
"variance" of zoning standards identified in RMC 4-9-250(Bl(l) and other standards in the RMC that expressly
authorize application of RMC 4-9-250(C). RMC 4-9-250(C) allows for the "waiver' of street improvements. RMC
4-9-250(D) allows for "modification" of"standards", apparently those standards not subject to the variance or street
waiver process. The Applicant's reconsideration request presents the issue of which of these three types of re\Oew
processes apply-variance, 'Waiver or modification?
Reconsideration -1
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
The weak point in the Applicant's position is that the RMC 4-9-250(C) criteria only applies ifRMC 4-6-
060 is considered a requirement of Chapter 4-7 RMC. RMC 4-7-240(A) provides that the criteria of
RMC 4-9-250(C) apply to "the requirements of this Chapter [Chapter 4.7 RMC]". Of course, RMC 4-
6-060 is a part of Chapter 4-6 RMC. The Applicant notes that RMC 4-7-150(D) requires compliance
with RMC 4-6-060. Through this cross-reference, the Applicant argues that RMC 4-6-060 should be
considered a part of Chapter 4-7 RMC. The Applicant's interpretation raises some troubling issues,
notably:
I. For the reasons outlined in Footnote 3 of the Final Decision, the variance criteria
advocated by the Applicant would not apply if RMC 4-6-060 were not considered a part of
Chapter 4.7 RMC. This means that a dead end road built as part of a subdivision would be
subject to variance criteria while the waiver criteria would apply for the same dead end street
proposed as part of another type of development proposal. For example, under the
Applicant's interpretation the RMC 4-9-250(C) variance criteria would apply to its proposed
dead end since it's part of a subdivision, but if the exact same street configuration were
proposed as part of a college campus or apartment complex, the modification criteria ofRMC
4-9-250(C) would apply instead. Why would the City Council intend that a different safety
standard (as applied in the variance/waiver criteria) apply to the same dead end street simply
because it's part of a subdivision as opposed to another type of development project?
2. Street waiver criteria, RMC 4-9-250(C), are precisely designed to address the unique
circumstances applicable to street improvements. Why would the City Council intend to
forego these specifically applicable waiver standards for the generic variance standards of
RMC 4-9-250(B) because a street was proposed as part of a subdivision?
3. Subdivision review is subject to numerous development standards that are not cross-
referenced in Chapter 4.7 RMC, such as zoning bulk and dimensional standards 2 and
drainage standards. Why would the City Council intend applicable variance criteria to
differ depending on whether or not a development standard is cross-referenced in Chapter 4-7
RMC?
A response from the City on the issues raised above would be of particular value, due to the City's
extensive experience in the adoption and application of the numerous variance/waiver/modification
criteria in RMC 4-9-250. The City is also requested to explain why it chose to apply the modification
criteria as opposed to the waiver criteria. The applicability of the modification criteria as opposed to the
waiver criteria is already addressed to some extent in Footnote 3 of the Final Decision. Further, if the
issue of which variance/modification/wavier criteria applies has been contested in past examiner
proceedings, it would be useful for staff to submit copies of the examiner decisions resolving those issues.
ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION
2 Some, but not all, bulk and dimensional standards are expressly subject to RMC 4-9.250(B) criteria and therefore
don't have to be cross-referenced in Chapter 4-7 RMC for RMC 4-9-250(B) to apply. See RMC 4-9-250(B)(l).
Reconsideration -2
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
I. Persons who testified at the hearing on the above-captioned matter and City staff shall have until 5 :00
pm, October 31, 2014 to provide written comments in response to the request for reconsideration
submitted by the Applicant, dated October 16, 2014.
The Applicant shall have until November 5, 2014 at 5:00 pm to provide a written reply to the
responses authorized in the preceding paragraph.
3. All written comments authorized above may be emailed to the Examiner at olbrechtslaw@gmail.com
and Elizabeth Higgins at EHiggins@Rentonwa.gov. In the alternative v.ritten comments may be
mailed or delivered to Elizabeth Higgins, City of Renton Senior Planner, at 1055 South Grady Way,
Renton, WA 98057. Mailed or delivered comments must be received by the City by the deadlines
specified in this Order.
4. No new evidence may be presented in the replies or responses. All information presented must be
drawn from documents and testimony admitted into the public hearing of this proceeding, held on
September 11, 2014. Applicable laws, court opinions and hearing examiner decisions are not
considered new evidence and may be submitted if relevant to a response or reply to the Applicant's
request for reconsideration.
DATED this 21st day of October, 2014.
City of Renton Hearing Examiner
Reconsideration -3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
CITY OF RENTON
OCT 16 2014
RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S OFFIC
;1 ;'tr /-tyc; I cc,-,,;
BEFORE THE HEARING EXMilNER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
9 RE: Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Preliminary Plat
LUA13-000642
REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION
I. INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-8-1 OO(G)(9) and RMC 4-8-
11 O(E)(l3), the Applicant for the Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat requests that the
Hearing Examiner reconsider his Final Decision dated October 3, 2014 (the "Decision")
with respect to the issue of secondary access. The Hearing Examiner failed to apply the
correct criteria to consider the variance, which was sought under RMC 4-9-250(B). By
applying the wrong criteria under RMC 4-9-250(C)(5), the Hearing Examiner reached an
erroneous conclusion in his Decision and in the imposition of Condition 13.
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION -1
S7722-7
I Van Ness
Feldman ill'
719 Second AvenLJe Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
{206) 623~9372
I' '-l
;,111,
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
The Hearing Examiner should also reconsider his decision to accurately apply the
unrefuted testimony by the Applicant's expert, Mr. Carl Anderson 1
, demonstrating that the
variance criteria was met, and in particular, that granting the variance would not be
materially detrimental to public welfare.
The Hearing Examiner also should grant the variance and remove Condition 13 to
remedy the fraudulent or negligent misrepresentations by City staff that secondary access
would not be required.
Finally, in the alternative, the Hearing Examiner should revise the language in
Condition 13 to provide greater flexibility to achieving secondary access in the future.
II. ARGUMENT
13 A. The Hearing Examiner Should Reconsider the Decision, Apply the Correct
Variance Criteria, Grant the Variance and Eliminate Condition 13.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
The Hearing Examiner Decision mistakenly applied the street improvement
modification provisions set forth in RMC 4-9-250(C) rather than the variance provisions
in RMC 4-9-250(B). Had the correct variance provisions been applied, the unrefuted
evidence presented by the Applicant and its experts should have led the Hearing Examiner
to grant the variance from the secondary access requirements. We ask the Hearing
Examiner on reconsideration to grant the requested variance and strike Condition 13.
The approval considered· by the Hearing Examiner, in the matter, is for a
Preliminary Plat. Preliminary Plats are regulated by the City of Renton under Title IV,
24 1 The Examiner also erred by failing to include as an Exhibit in the Decision, Exhibit 38, the resume of
Mr. Anderson, which was offered and admitted (a copy of Exhibit 38 as submitted at the hearing is
25 attached).
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION~ 2
57722-7
I Van Ness
Feldman"'
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle. WA 98104
(206) 623-9372
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
Chapter 7 of the Municipal Code. RMC 4-7-150 establishes the general and minimum
street requirements for plats. RMC 4-7-150(D), which imposes the requirements for
streets in subdivisions, states that: "The street standards set by RMC 4-6-060 shall apply
unless otherwise approved." The street standards in RMC 4-6-060 include those
provisions in RMC 4-6-060(H) Dead End Streets, which were the topic of much
discussion at the public hearing and are at the crux of the secondary access issue. Thus, in
a plat application, the street standards in RMC 4-6-060 are applied through the minimum
street requirements as set forth in Chapter 7, Section 4-7-150.
The Hearing Examiner is given express authority to grant variances from the
requirements for subdivisions, as set forth in Chapter 7, includiog variances from the
street standards. See RMC 4-7-240(1). The Hearing Examiner may grant such a variance
by following the variance procedures set forth in RMC 4-9-250(8). RMC 4-7-240(A)
states: "A variance from the requirements of this Chapter may be approved by the
Hearing Examiner, pursuant to RMC 4-9-250(B)".
The Applicant applied for a variance under RMC 4-9-250(B), seeking a variance
from the secondary access standards in RMC 4-6-060, which were being imposed on this
subdivision through RMC 4-7-150. See Exhibit 35, Att. I. The variance application
provided an analysis showing compliance with each of the four criteria under RMC 4-9-
250(8) including, in particular, criteria RMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(b) which states that "the
granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the subject
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION -3
577'12-7
IVanNess
Feldman'"'
719 ·second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle. WA 9810.d.
(206) 623-9372
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
property is situated." The Applicant never asked for a street improvement modification
under section R.\1C 4-9-250(C). It was an error for the Hearing Examiner to apply the
street improvement modification provisions under RMC 4-9-250(C) when a variance was
sought under RMC 4-7-240(A).
At the plat hearing, the witnesses for the Applicant presented unrefuted evidence
that the variance criteria had been met and that the variance should have been granted. In
particular, these witnesses established that approval of the variance would "not be
materially detrimental" as provided in RMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(b). See Testimony of Mr.
Maher Joudi; Testimony of Mr. Carl Anderson; and written testimony of Vincent J.
Geglia, Exhibit 35, Att. K.
The Hearing Examiner erred by applying the street improvement modification
standards in RMC 4-9-250(C). By applying the wrong criteria, the Hearing Examiner
mistakenly applied a "no detrimental effect" standard from RMC 4-9-250(C)(5)(e) to the
facts in the case. See Decision at 27.
The Decision acknowledges that the unrefuted testimony from the Applicant's fire
expert, Mr. Carl Anderson, was that the addition of20 lots "would not be a significant
detriment to public safety based on what's already in the area." This expert testimony
confirms compliance with criteria RMC 4-9-250(B)(S)(b) that the variance would not be
materially detrimental to the public welfare. By applying the improper "no detrimental"
standard from RMC 4-9-250(C)(5)(e), the Hearing Examiner mistakenly concluded that
Mr. Anderson's testimony was not persuasive.
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION -4
577'11.-1
I Van Ness
Feldman"'
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 623-9372
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
Repeatedly, the Decision, as written, demonstrates that by applying the wrong
criteria the Hearing Examiner reached the wrong conclusions in response to the
Applicant's variance request. For example, the Decision states that the burden was on the
Applicant to demonstrate that the single access "would be safe." Decision at 15. There is
no such criterion within the context of the requested variance. The Decision likewise
asserts that the burden was on the Applicant that sprinklers would reduce the fire hazard
"to insignificant levels." Again, these conclusions may be appropriate under the
modification criteria of "no detriment," but these conclusions are erroneous under the
applicable variance criteria
The Examiner should apply the correct variance criteria and, based on the evidence
in this record, grant the variance as requested and strike Condition 13.
B. On Reconsideration, the Hearing Examiner Should Give Proper Weight to
the Applicant's Experts who Established that Granting the Variance Would
not be Materially Detrimental to Public Welfare.
On reconsideration, the Hearing Examiner should give proper weight to the
testimony of the Applicant's experts and should discount the exaggerated and
questionable testimony presented by staff. The allegation by staff of a dead end street
being 2400 feet long with 99 homes on it failed to accurately describe the "on-the ground"
conditions. Mr. Carl Anderson's unrefuted testimony demonstrated that only 800 feet of
the roadway will have a single access because of the internal secondary access loops that
are provided off of this street along its length. Mr. Anderson's testimony confirmed that,
of the 99 homes that staff alleged to be on this street, 42 of those are on two streets, S 4 7th
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION -5
57T"2-7
I Van Ness
Feldman"'
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 623-9372
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
PL and SE 185th PL, that have no impact on access to and from Vuecrest, and of the
existing 57 homes not on those two streets, 36 are within the Stonehaven Plat that has a
looped road which allows for two ways of access or egress within that plat.
These facts, coupled with the significant mitigation of sprinklering these homes,
led Mr. Anderson to his expert opinion that there would be no material detriment to public
safety by granting the requested variance. That testimony is unrefuted.
In his October 7, 2013 letter, Fire Chief Mark Peterson went on record
withdrawing his August 15, 2013 letter and thereby confirming that a secondary access
would not be required for this plat. There have been no changes in the plat design since
the time of that October 7th letter that would provide Mr. Peterson with a basis to "reissue"
his August 15 1h letter. 1n fact, Mr. Peterson has never reissued that letter. Instead, Mr.
Peterson testified at the plat hearing as if his October 7, 2013 letter never existed and that
he had never given his authorization on October 7th for the plat review to continue without
providing a secondary access. Given Mr. Anderson's unrefuted testimony and the lack of
credible testimony by staff, the Hearing Examiner should, on reconsideration, grant the
variance, as requested, and strike Condition 13.
20 C. The Hearing Examiner Should Grant the Variance and Remove Condition 13
to Remedy the City Staff's Fraudulent or Negligent Misrepresentations that a
Secondary Access would not be Required. 21
22
23
24
25
The record in this case establishes that the City staff expressly represented to the
Applicant that a secondary access would not be required. Those representations induced
the Applicant to process this preliminary plat through the preliminary plat hearing.
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION -6
s1m-1
I Van Ness
Feldman"'
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 623-9372
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
The first representations on this issue occurred during the second pre-application
conference. Mr. Corey Thomas, on behalf of the Fire Department, prepared a detailed
written memo dated November 13, 2012 confirming that a temporary cul-de-sac would be
acceptable to the Fire Department. He wrote:
"Street system shall be designed to be extended to adjoining
underdeveloped properties for future extension. It was previously decided
to require a 32-foot wide street if the street grid could not be extended. If
this future extension can be achieved, the required 32-foot paved street
may be reduced to 28-feet of pavement A proposed temporary cul-de-sac
would be acceptable if it meets all required dimensions and construction
requirements."
Exhibit 35, Att. B. (Emphasis added)
Prior to formally submitting the preliminary plat application, the Applicant sought
confirmation of the Fire Department's position that a temporary cul-de-sac would be
acceptable. For the second time, the Fire Department expressly represented in a January
23, 2013 email to the Applicant that a secondary access would not be required:
"The road section can be 28-feet if you provide the stub road only for
future connection, the actual connection does not have to be achieved at
this time. A temporary 90-foot diameter cul-de-sac is acceptable also ....
All homes require fire sprinkler systems . . . . The only way to eliminate
the fire sprinklers is to complete the road connection to l 02nd right away
[sic]."
Ex. 35, Att. C. (Emphasis added) The City's senior planner, Vanessa Dolbee crystalized
the City's position that a cul-de-sac would be authorized:
"The City is asking that you provide stub to the property to the east but are
not asking you to make the improvements to provide secondary access as
part of the proposed development However, without the secondary access
a cul-de-sac would be required for fire tum around . . . "
Id. (Emphasis added)
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION -7
5m1-7
I Van Ness
Feldman'"'
719 Second A'ienue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
{206) 623-9372
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
After submitting the application, and after receiving the August 15, 2013 letter
from Fire Chief Peterson, which indicated that a secondary access would be required,
there were detailed discussions with the City. These discussions led to the Fire Chiefs
letter of October 7, 2013; a letter that withdrew his August i 5th letter. The Applicant
accepted the Fire Chief at his written word that, so long as the final plat design did not
change, a secondary access would not be required. The Applicant relied on that letter and
continued a lengthy and expensive process to answer all staff issues to bring the
preliminary plat to hearing, including paying for an additional geotechnical report.
Ms. Higgins testified at the hearing that the October 7th letter, informing the
Applicant that a secondary access was not going to be required, was solicited by Ms.
Higgins in order to induce the Applicant to continue processing the preliminary plat
application. Fire Chief Peterson's testimony at the hearing indicates that he had no
intention of allowing the preliminary plat to proceed without requiring a secondary access.
Tragically, this was never disclosed to the Applicant until the staff report was issued in
September 2014 proposing Condition 13 to require a secondary access.
The Hearing Examiner should be deeply troubled by the actions of City staff in
this matter and by Ms. Higgins' testimony about her soliciting Fire Chief Peterson's
October 7th letter to induce the Applicant to support a secondary geotechnical study. The
behavior of Ms. Higgins and the prior representations of City staff that no secondary
access would be required may ultimately support a damages claim against the City by the
Applicant for fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation. By confirming that the Fire Chief
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION -8
:577.U-7
I Van Ness
Feldman"'
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 623-9372
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
was withdrawing his prior letter, Ms. Higgins and Chief Peterson intended for the
Applicant to believe that no secondary access would be required. Yet, apparently, this
was all a hoax, and Chief Peterson never intended to allow this plat to be approved
without a secondary access. This hoax only came to light weeks before the preliminary
plat hearing after the Applicant spent tens of thousands of dollars to reach the preliminary
plat hearing. The Applicant would have ended this application a year ago had the October
15th letter not been issued.
The Examiner correctly notes in the Decision at 16 that these actions by staff strain
the credibility of the City's testimony. While the Hearing Examiner may not have the
authority to find fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation in this matter, the Hearing
Examiner has the opportunity to avoid such future claims by the Applicant and to remedy
the outrageous behavior of City staff by granting the requested variance and striking
Condition 13.
D. If the Variance is not Granted, The Hearing Examiner on Reconsideration
should, in the Alternative, Revise Condition 13 to Provide Greater Flexibility
for Secondary Access.
In the event the Hearing Examiner does not agree to reconsider the standards
applied to the requested variance, or applies the variance criteria but concludes that the
variance should not be granted, the Applicant asks the Hearing Examiner to revise
Condition 13 to allow the Applicant to provide secondary access in ways other than
extending Smithers Ave. S. immediately to the east and to the specified intersection.
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION -9
57722.7
I Van Ness
Feldman"'
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 9.S104
(206) 623-9372
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
As shown in Exhibit 37, on sheet 1 of 1, there is one parcel of land (the "Easterly
Parcel") immediately east of the easterly end of Smithers Ave. S as proposed to be built
by the Applicant. l\1r. Jamie Waltier testified that the owner ofthis Easterly Parcel will
not sell his property or provide an easement for secondary access. Exhibit 37 shows on
Sheet 1 of 1 another parcel of land (the "Southeasterly Parcel") located between Tract "B"
and Tract "C" on the Proposed Vuecrest Estates plat and 102"d Ave. SE. Secondary
access might be available through that parcel.
Condition 13, as currently written, reads:
Smithers Ave. S. shall connect to S. 48'h Pl and be extended to the east to
provide a secondary access from ,'ifain Ave. S (102"d Ave. SE) at its
intersection with SE J 8(/' St.
As written, it appears that this condition can only be satisfied by acquiring a public
access easement through the Easterly Parcel and providing a fire access road to the
specified intersection. Even if a secondary access conld be established between the plat to
a location on 102ru1 Ave. SE through the Southeasterly Parcel, or through some other
parcel, it would appear that this would not meet the specific terms of Condition 13.
On reconsideration, if Condition 13 is not deleted based upon the granting of
Applicant's variance request, Condition 13 should be revised to read as follows:
Prior to recording the final plat, a secondary fire access shall be
constructed providing a second means of access from Main Ave S (102nd
Ave. SE) to the plat by fire trucks and emergency vehicles. The extent of
improvements for this secondary fire truck access shall be determined by
the City of Renton Fire Department in accordance with applicable fire
code standards and shall be the minimum necessary to provide for safe
and effective secondary fire access.
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION -10 I Van Ness
Feldman"'
S71'22-1
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 623-9372
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
III. CONCLUSION
The Applicant was induced into proceeding with this plat application by repeated
representations by City staff that no secondary access would be required. The Applicant
has met its burden to obtain a variance from the secondary access standard. On remand,
the Hearing Examiner should apply the variance criteria in RMC 4-9-205(B)(5), not the
modification provisions in RMC 4-9-250(C), give proper weight to the Applicant's expert
testimony that established compliance with these criteria, approve the variance and strike
Condition 13.
Dated this 16th day of October, 2014
By: --,,L-,,£....:..---,f---------
Brent
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION -11
STTT2-1
I Van Ness
Feldman"'
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seat1le, WA 98104
(206) 623-9372
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CTIY OF RENTON
9 RE: Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat
IO
11
12
Preliminary Plat
LUAB-000642
13 I, Jennifer Sower, declare as follows:
REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION
14 That I am over the age of 18 years, not a party to this action, and competent to be a
15 witness herein;
16 That I, as a legal assistant in the office ofVan Ness Feldman, LLP, caused true and
17 correct copies of the following documents to be delivered as set forth below:
J 8 1. Applicant's Request for Reconsideration; and
19 2. This Certificate of Service
20 and that on October 16, 2014, I addressed said documents and deposited them for delivery
21 as follows:
22
23
24
25
Mr. Jason Seth
Acting Deputy Clerk
City of Renton Clerk's Office
1055 S. Grady Way
Seventh Floor
Renton, WA 98057
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE -1
[ x] Via hand deli very
I Van Ness
Feldman"'
7'19 Sec:ond Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
{206) 623-9372
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Mr. Phil A. Olbrechts
City of Renton Hearing Examiner
Larry Warren
Renton City Attorney
Renton City Hall
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
[x] Via =ail
polbrechts(al,omwlaw.com
[x] Via =ail
[x] Via U.S. mail
lwarren@rentonwa.gov
I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that
the foregoing is true and correct.
EXECUTED at Seattle, Washington on this 161b day of October, 2014.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE -2 I Van Ness
Feldman U}
719 Second Avenue Su1te 1150
Seattle, WA 9B104
(206) 623-9372
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
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
RE: Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat
Preliminary Plat
LUAI3-000642
)
)
) FINAL DECISION
)
)
)
)
)
_______________ )
SUMMARY
(;
. '
(, .. ./
The applicant requests preliminary plat approval, street improvement waiver and possibly a critical
area exemption for a 20-lot residential subdivision. The street wavier is to allow a dead-end road in
excess of 700 feet. The critical area exemption is for placing a drainage line across the face of a
steep slope. The preliminary plat is approved. The street improvement waiver is not approved. The
applicant was unable to establish that the street waiver would not result in an unsafe fire response
condition for residents of the proposed subdivision.
The critical area exemption is not considered to be consolidated with the preliminary plat and street
modifications of this proposal. The staff report at no point identifies the exemption as consolidated
with the preliminary plat application. The proposal summary makes no mention of the critical area
exemption. However, Page 17 of the staff report recommends approval of a critical areas exemption,
suggesting that consolidation was intended. If the exemption was intended to be consolidated with
the preliminary plat application, there is insufficient information in the record to assess its merits.
RMC 4-3-050(C)(5)(d)(iv) requires a geotechnical report to be prepared that assesses compliance
with the exemption criteria and to also propose mitigation. No reference to any such report is made
in the staff report and no such geotechnical report could be found in the administrative record.
Impacts of the proposed stormwater vault and retaining walls are assessed in the geotechnical
reports, but nothing else in the geotechnical reports could be found that specifically addressed the
drainage line or the exemption criteria. Given the absence of this needed information and the fact
PRELIMINARY PLAT-I
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
that the staff report does not clearly identify the administrative exemption decision as consolidated
for hearing examiner review, the exemption decision will not be considered as consolidated with the
preliminary plat and street improvement modification request.
TESTIMONY
Staff Testimony
Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner, City of Renton
Ms. Higgins described the project as a proposed 20 lot single family development in South Renton.
The original application had 21 lots, but was subsequently revised to 20 lots. The proposal as
submitted generally meets the Renton municipal code with the exception of street standards relating
to access. The applicant bas submitted a request for a street modification. There are environmentally
sensitive areas on or near the property and critical areas regulations apply. The project conforms to
the critical areas code.
The 9.3 acre site is south of Carr Road and east of Talbot Road in south Renton. The project is in an
area of residential development with various densities. To the east are condos at higher density. To
the south and southeast are lower density residential developments. Densities to the north and
northeast are consistent with the project.
The project was originally an undeveloped portion of an existing condo development. The site is
isolated from the condos by a steep slope. The project was submitted in 2013 but was placed on
hold for additional geoteclmical reports due to concerns about the slope. Three separate geotechnical
reports were submitted by three individual firms. New notification was sent out. The Environmental
RevieVI' Committee added six additional conditions of approval. No appeals were filed.
The site has protected slopes on the west side. Slopes are 45 degrees or more. The site plan was
revised to eliminate a rockery retaining wall on the top of the slope and stormwater facilities were
moved farther away from the slope. The project will have a IO-foot No Disturb area on the top of
the slope.
There are wetlands on site. The depression wetlands are Category II wetlands. These require a 50
foot buffer. The project proposes to do buffer averaging. Properties adjacent to the project will be
included in the buffer. Up to 50% of the buffer width will be reduced in places. The north wetland
abuts a portion of the wetland that is part of the Stonehaven wetland reserve. Stream studies indicate
there is a stream that is nearby, but not within the project site. The water collects across the subject
property but the stream is not on it. The property was vacant except for a temporary cul de sac.
The property has a mix of deciduous and evergreen trees. The Applicant submitted a tree
PRELIMINARY PLAT-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
replacement plan. There are JOI significant trees on the property. These are trees measuring 6" in
diameter. 54 trees will be removed for streets and alleys. There are be 120 trees in critical areas
buffers, all will be retained. 42 of the significant trees will be retained. 23 significant trees must be
replaced with 140 2" trees. All of the new trees will be planted in Tract C.
The site has three different zoning classifications. They are R-14, a medium density residential
development near the condos, an R-1 zone, a low density designation in the sloped area, and 6. 06
acres ofR-8 in the upper portion. The 20 lots are in the R-6 zone. After deduction for critical areas
and roadways there are 4.57 developable acres. With 20 lots the resultant density is 4.23 du/acre,
which is above the 4 du/acre minimum.
There will be 20 single family residential lots of 4,500sf to 8,000sf. Tract A is a stormwater tract.
Tracts B and E are wetlands tracts. Tract C is the tree replacement area. Tract D is an open space
tract. Tract F is a Native Growth Protection Area on the slope. There will be an alley to provide rear
access to abutting lots.
Staff recommends formation of a homeowners association to have equal undivided ownership of the
tracts, alley and private road. Another recommended condition of approval (Staff Report #9) lots 17-
20 would provide easements to other lots to allow alley to provide through access. With respect to
access, Applicant has requested a modification to street standards. Renton requires a secondary
access when primary access is a dead end street over 700 feet in length. Staff does not support the
modification request because it does not meet the test that there is no physical way a second access
can be achieved. There are no physical constraints that cannot be overcome. They believe the second
access is possible. They recommend a condition of approval requiring construction of a second
access prior to recording of the final plat.
A portion of the project is included in the Talbot Urban Separator which imposes requirements for
development. With a single exception, these requirements don't apply because the project does not
propose development within the Urban Separator. This exception is the drainage facility which will
extend from the top of the slope through the Urban Separator. Vegetation removed during
installation of the storm water conveyance system must be replaced.
With respect to drainage, the stormwater system has been revised from the original plan to minimize
the impact to the critical slope. Discharge from the stormwater vault will be within a closed 12"
pipe down the slope. Staff recommends a condition of approval requiring a stormwater easement.
The project meets compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan and development regulations, if
the required conditions of approval are met. Staff recommends the Applicant submit a detailed
landscape plan. The project complies with the critical areas regulations if the conditions of approval
from Environmental Review Committee are met. With the exception of the street requirement, the
project meets the requirements of the subdivision code and the Talbot Urban Separator. In terms of
public services (police, fire, parks, schools), resources are available to provide services to the
property. Students would need to be bussed to school. There are sidewalks available for safe
walking routes to bus stops. A certificate of water availability would be required by the Soos Creek
PRELIMINARY PLAT -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
Water District. A storrnwater easement is required to demonstrate that downstream systems would
be available. Staff recommends approval of the project with conditions.
In response to a question by the Hearing Examiner, Ms. Higgins stated the Applicant would have to
negotiate an agreement with adjacent property owners to acquire an access easement or purchase
land. The Applicant does not own the property the City will require for secondary access. Staff
stated they would not allow the Applicant to record the final plat without this secondary access, in
the event the Applicant was unable to purchase the adjacent property or acquire an easement.
Applicant Testimony
Maher Jouei, ER Strong Consulting Engineers, Applicant's Agent
Mr. Jouei thanked Staff for the thorough review of the project. The Applicant concurs with the
majority of the report with the exception of the secondary access.
Public Testimony
Owen Reese
Mr. Reese is a civil engineer with Aspect Consulting. He is representing the Campen Springs Condo
Association. He was hired to review the proposed development. Harbor homes approached the
Condo Association with respect to the storrnwater lines. The Condo Association is on the downside
of the steep slope to west of the proposed development. The Condo Association had questions about
storrnwater management and protection of the steep slope. Harbor Homes and their agents have
been very open and helpful. The Condo Association issued a Jetter of intent to allow an easement for
storrnwater lines. The Condo Association and Harbor Homes are working together cooperatively.
The Condo Association has identified several minor issues along the western line of lots. Harbor
Homes has been very responsive. The Condo Association is providing testimony today to allow
Staff and the Hearing Examiner to hear their issues.
There are no current retaining walls proposed. The Condo Association is requesting the City to
allow only engineered retaining walls to be constructed on the proposed development, rather than
just erosion control structures. They further request any new fill should be free draining structural
fill and not native soils. The native soils will not provide the needed results with respect to drainage.
The back yards of western lots slope towards the steep slope. At one point there was a proposed
interceptor trench. The Condo Association requests the City require Harbor Homes to minimize the
extent of the western lot that drains to the slope. Whatever does drain there, please make sure it does
so in a dispersed manner.
The storrnwater tight line should be designed using sound engineering practices in a straight line
PRELIMINARY PLAT-4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
with high density plastic. The Condo Association is requesting anchors along only the top and
bottom of the pipe rather than along the whole length as the City recommended. This will keep the
pipe in place even if the slope moves. The anchors should be designed to allow for tree fall and soil
movement. The water should be slowed down before entering the Condo Association property. The
pipeline should be constructed at the top and pulled down the slope rather than moving it up hill.
An engineering geologist from Aspect Consulting reviewed the site. With respect to the ephemeral
stream, the stream is in a well-defined channel outside the wetlands and then disperses down the
slope, depositing sediment on the downhill side in an alluvial fan. This stream is prone to
movement. The concern is that if the stream changes its channel, it may deliver sediment
downstream and overwhelm the Campen Springs stormwater system. The Condo Association is
asking Harbor Homes to monitor the stream and create a more defined channel. In response to
questioning from the examiner, Mr. Reese responded that the proposal will not exacerbate the
condition of the stream.
Eric Hanson
Mr. Hanson testified he understands Vuecrest will be developed. He believes the existing proposal
is not consistent with the character of the area or Renton. He stated this proposal should be denied
for two reasons. The first reason is because of the variance to extend Smithers Road to another dead
end. The second reason is he feels the proposal gives only meager concessions to critical areas.
Mr. Hanson noted the Renton municipal code requiring a secondary access. He stated the road is
needed for emergency services and traffic flow. He supports the Staff requirement for secondary
access. He does not feel mitigation is adequate because the road is 2,400 feet from the main arterial,
more than three times farther than code requirements. He stated the deviation is major. He is not
surprised the Renton Fire Department and Community Development staff does not support the
deviation. He stated the traffic will double or triple on local streets due to the proposed
development. He is concerned about pedestrian safety. There are no engineering or geographical
reasons for the variance. The only reason is that the Applicant does not own the adjacent property.
Mr. Hanson's second concern is environmental sensitivity. The project has steep slopes, a wetland
and a stream. He stated the environmental review identified 401 significant trees. Removal of the
trees would create erosion and slide risks. The existing vegetation also sustains deer in the area. The
proposed mitigation for the trees is not sufficient. Only 65 trees would be replaced or retained. The
emphasis should be on retaining the trees rather than replacing them with less robust trees. He
acknowledges 140 additional 2" diameter trees will be planted. Immature trees are a poor substitute
for existing trees and vegetation. They won't effectively prevent erosion.
David Rasmussen
Mr. Rasmussen is the president of the Sundance Talbot Ridge Homeowners Association. He
concurs with Mr. Hanson's comments and believes they represent those of the HOA. He is
PRELIMINARY PLAT-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
26
concerned about water access during an emergency situation. Sundance abuts green lands on three
sides. There are plans to develop one of these sides. His concern with water flow is the chance of a
wild fire on the greenbelt. He's concerned there will be insufficient access for emergency fire
protection. Additionally, there must be secondary access.
Jim Condelles
Mr. Condelles represents the Reserve at Stonehaven Homeowners Association which is adjacent to
the Sundance association. Mr. Condelles objects for the same reasons as Mr. Rasmussen and Mr.
Hanson. Secondary access should be required. There is a bottleneck on a dead end road.
He urges the development be scaled back. He stated he doesn't feel the wetlands buffer averaging is
effective. He wants to see full 50 foot setbacks adjacent to all parts of the wetlands. He notes the
varying seasonal character of the wetlands. He stated the small change to the project from the
original proposal is insufficient to protect the critical areas. The character of the northwest is being
eroded by piecemeal development. He noted all the types of wildlife he's seen on this property. He
also noted the old growth evergreen trees. This is a virtual rainforest in an urban area that serves as a
wildlife corridor. He wants to see a rethinking of the scope.
Ell en Brighten
Ms. Brighten owns two adjacent properties. She owns property in Campen Springs. She has not
been notified of the project. She also owns at Talbot Park. She regularly sees deer. She also stated
there are water problems. The springs at Campen Springs move. She is concerned about drainage
issues. Ms. Brighten displayed several pictures of the area (Ex. 34).
Travis Martinez
Ms. Martinez is the president of the HOA for Talbot Park due north of Campen Springs. They have
a water problem that results in $50,000 worth of damage per year due to the springs. They are very
concerned stormwater issues will increase. They have received no guarantee that they will not be
adversely affected or reimbursed when they are affected by project related stormwater.
Ron Hensen
Mr. Hensen lives on Smithers Avenue. Smithers Road is adjacent to the proposed development. He
has owned the property for 12 years. He has maintained the property for years. He recounted the
development history of the area. He knew development would happen on this property eventually.
He is concerned about his property values and safety. There is a 50 acre Department of Natural
Resources property to the north that is currently for sale. Altogether, there was a single point of
access for a couple dozen homes. In the near future, that number could be 150 homes on the same
single point of access. This will result in more traffic and a reduced quality of life for existing
residents.
PRELIMINARY PLAT-6
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
There is an unnoted existing drainage out of the wetlands. There used to be another smaller stream
that was obliterated by the traffic circle. The stream can be observed about 8-9 months of the year.
During rain events, the system is overwhelmed and water overtops into the stormwater drainage
system. There is a subsurface hydrologic connection that connects the wetlands. Proposed Lot 17 is
a seep that will not support a residential development. He is in support of a stormwater system that
proactively drains this development and future developments.
Mr. Hensen also described abundant wildlife in the area.
Staff Response
Larry Warren, Renton City Attorney
The Hearing Examiner asked the City Attorney if there is a proportionality problem in that the
Applicant is being asked to provide secondary access now when it should have been provided by
past developments for developments farther down the road. Are the Applicants being asked to create
an improvement that mitigates more than their own impact?
In response, Mr. Warren stated he had not considered the question in that framework. He stated he
did not feel there was a proportionality problem because each future development along the line
would be required to do their part.
The Hearing Examiner asked if the City was considering a latecomers agreement to allow the
Applicant to be reimbursed for a portion of the costs when later development took place. Mr.
Warren stated the Applicant must request a latecomers agreement. He stated there was only one lot
between the proposal site and the connection point. The expense should not be huge.
Elizabeth Higgins
Ms. Higgins addressed the request by Mr. Reese related to retaining walls. She stated mitigation
measure #4 from the Environmental Review Committee requires a building permit for retaining
walls for any proposed wall, regardless of location or size.
Steven Lee, City of Renton Engineer
Mr. Lee responded to Mr. Reese's recommendations. He stated he concurred with Mr. Reese. He
agreed that all of Mr. Reese's suggestions should be implemented as conditions of approval. He
wanted to add one further condition. With respect to the stormwater pipe on the slope, he suggests
the addition of a slip joint at the base of the hill to allow for movement.
Mr. Lee stated he felt the project will not affect downstream stormwater. He noted other projects
have been installed on steeper slopes than this. These prior projects have been successful m
avoiding erosion. The closed tight line stormwater pipe will eliminate erosion impacts.
PRELIMINARY PLAT -7
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
In response to the Hearing Examiner, Mr. Lee stated he was unaware of the small stream that used
to be in the location of the temporary cul de sac. The post project result will be a reduction in
surface run off from the project than current conditions. He stated slope stability will be improved
post project.
Mark Peterson, Chief, Renton Fire Department
In response to the Hearing Examiner, Mr. Peterson stated the fire department is opposed to the street
modification. He feels the length of the street is too challenging to service to the area by fire
apparatus. He stated last year there was a wildfire traveling along the electric easement in a nearby
neighborhood. This neighborhood had one access point that was cut off by the fire. The fire
department could not get in to help residents and residents could not evacuate. Mr. Peterson is also
concerned about the neighborhood being cut off in a seismic event. City code requires a secondary
access in roads over 700 feet. The fire department cannot maintain adequate response times to the
neighborhood. Without secondary access, an additional minute is added to the response time to this
neighborhood.
Applicant Response
Brent Carson, Van Ness Feldman. Applicant's Agent
The Applicant disagrees with the Staff with respect to the street modification. In response to Mr.
Peterson, Mr. Carson noted the Renton Fire Department has sent the Applicant a letter stating they
would not support the project without a secondary access. He further noted the Fire Department had
rescinded that letter, with the condition that they could reinstate the letter at any time based on final
plat design. He noted that the fire department reinstated the letter even though there had been no
change in fire access since the time the letter had been rescinded.
Mr. Carson introduced a letter into the record (Ex. 35) with attachments addressed to the Examiner.
This packet included a letter from the Applicant's traffic consultant. Mr. Carson called several
witnesses. Mr. Carson introduced two further exhibits (Ex. 36 and Ex. 37), the resume of Mr. Jouei
Maher and a set of site plans.
Maher Jouei, ER Strong Consulting Engineers, Applicant's Agent
Mr. Jouei stated the Vuecrest Estates project drainage is tight lined to Campen Springs. Talbot Park
drainage goes a different direction than the project drainage. The Vuecrest system will collect all
impervious surface drainage and send it to Campen Springs.
Mr. Jouei stated the City sent them a letter stating a proposed temporary cul de sac might be
acceptable under certain conditions including a stub road for future connections. They would not be
asked to construct the actual connection. The pre-application meetings did not suggest they would
be required to provide a completed secondary access. On July 3, 2014 the Applicant received
PRELIMINARY PLAT -8
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
preliminary comments with an email note that said the situation regarding the second access had
changed. They subsequently were told they could not construct the project as proposed because the
Fire Department would not support the project without secondary access. That letter was rescinded
in October 2013. In February 2014, they received a letter from Ms. Higgins that stated the City
would support a street modification to permit the project to go forward without secondary access.
The City did not mention they would not support the modification until August 2014. There has
been no material change to the layout since October 2013. Mr. Jouei stated the project is a part of
the solution by construction a stub for future access. There is one undeveloped property left before
the grid system is completed.
Mr. Jouei stated the project complies with the road dimension requirements in the code. He stated
emergency vehicles can access the project even in worst case scenarios with cars parked on both
sides. The road curvatures meet the requirements. There is a loop road in Stonehaven that provides
secondary access.
Mr. Jouei reviewed the variance criteria in the street modification. He stated the project suffers from
unique circumstances because Talbot Ridge and the Reserve at Stonehaven were approved with the
same variance the current Applicant proposes. He stated the variance will not be materially
detrimental to the public welfare because the roads meet the dimensional requirements. He noted the
additional trips from Vuecrest would result in 1.6 additional vehicles per minute in the PM Peak
Hour. These roads are all LOS A with no accident history. He stated the project benefits the welfare
of the public by connecting the grid system. The project has an internal loop system with the alley.
The alley will be designed to accommodate emergency vehicles. The project will not ask for any
special considerations beyond those already granted to existing developments. The proposal is the
minimum requested by the City by providing a stub road. The project provides what the City asked
for initially. Nothing has changed since then.
Mr. Jouei noted there are not many on-street parked cars. All area homes include two car garages for
every lot to accommodate parking.
Jamie Waltier, Hansen Homes
Mr. Waltier thanked Staff for their efforts on the project. He stated the neighbor to the east is not
interested in selling his property. They will not be able to purchase a right of way or easement. Mr.
Waltier stated the City had supported the stub road without a secondary access. They've incurred
significant costs in designing this project they would not otherwise have spent if the City has been
consistent on their requirement for a secondary access. As is, the project is not financially viable
with the requirement for a secondary access.
Carl Anderson, Fire Protection Engineer. Applicant's Agent
Mr. Anderson discussed the second access issue from an emergency access perspective. He also
suggested mitigation measures. With respect to the public welfare, the proposal is at the end of a
PRELIMINARY PLAT -9
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
dead end. It does not materially affect the existing homes in the area. For the new plat, there are
mitigating measures that can be taken. The Applicant is intending to put in a temporary cul de sac to
City standards. The internal alley will also provide emergency access, though it is not intended as a
primary emergency access. Although not specifically spelled out in the variance request, the
intention is to put fire sprinkler systems in each proposed home. In terms of mitigating fire response
to the area, a fire sprinkler system reduces the need for fire responses. The homes will not require
full structural responses. The Staff Report mentions 99 homes are accessed on the dead end. The
dead end will be 2,400 feet. However, the actual road network has internal secondary means that
reduces the housing served by only the dead end itself. Stonehaven has an internal looped road that
would allow another access into Vuecrest. Only about 800 feet of roadway will be single access.
The 2012 International Fire Code Appendix D-107 addresses substitution of fire sprinklers rather
than the provision of secondary fire access. This appendix was not adopted in Renton, though it
does support the variance.
In response to Mr. Carson, Mr. Anderson stated he is familiar with the International Fire Code
Section 503.1.2 which reads the Fire Marshall may require secondary access based on a range of
conditions. Mr. Anderson stated the project does not meet any of the conditions in the
aforementioned Fire Code Section. This project will eventually result in improved access.
Hearing Examiner asked Mr. Anderson ifhe is testifying that he has no fire safety concerns over
the fact that this subdivision only has one access point. Mr. Anderson responded, "I don't
believe that the addition of Vuecrest is a significant detriment to public safety based on what's
already there in the area." The Hearing Examiner stated, "There are a couple points along that Yi
mile dead end route where if the road was blocked there'd be no way for the fire department to
get to the subdivision, isn't that correct?" Mr. Anderson responded "That's correct." The
Hearing Examiner, "What about the Fire Chief Peterson's concern about if you had people
evacuating quickly that would make it more difficult for the Fire Department to get to the site, is
that a problem here at all, really?" Mr. Anderson responded "It could be a concern, but in the
type of isolated events you'd run into, is the likelihood that these additional 20 homes create a
significant additional detriment to public safety? I wouldn't think that number would be
detrimental, particularly given that this is another piece toward making an eventual connection,
which corrects an existing I, 700 foot dead end."
Brent Carson, Van Ness Feldman, Applicant's Agent
Mr. Carson stated his letter goes into detail regarding each of the aforementioned issues. He wanted
to highlight a few points. He stated the 11th hour switch in the City's position. The City's code is
clear related to pre-application meetings when submitting long plats in order to avoid the
circumstance where applicants are not clear about what codes will apply. The first pre-application
stated a permanent dead end street is not approvable given the City code. The second pre-
application meeting allowed a temporary cul de sac with a future stub to allow for eventual
completion of a loop system. The Code says once the pre-application is done, the applicant should
PRELIMINARY PLAT-10
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
proceed in concert with the City's advice. The Applicant has done that.
With respect to Mr. Peterson's withdrawal of his letter, this is no minor thing. Mr. Peterson stated in
August 2013 that a secondary access would be required for approval. Mr. Carson was hired at this
point. He spoke to the City Staff and the Mayor which Jed to Mr. Peterson's withdrawal of the letter.
Mr. Peterson stated he could reissue the Jetter based on the final design. The design was not changed
and Mr. Peterson did not reissue the Jetter. Mr. Peterson desires to have a secondary access but has
not proven the need. Mr. Carson noted Ms. Vanessa Dolby of the City of Renton stated they would
not need to provide secondary access. Ms. Higgins also provided a letter that stated the City would
approve a street modification to allow the project to move forward without a secondary access. The
Applicant contends a variance is not required because they are not proposing a permanent dead end,
but are instead providing a temporary cul de sac. However, to the extent a variance is required; the
Examiner has the authority to grant the variance. The Applicant supports approval of the variance
request (street modification).
Mr. Carson notes Stonehaven was approved with a dead end of more than 700 feet because
Stonehaven provided a temporary stub to adjacent properties. No variance was required in that plat.
All secondary access will be provided in the future as adjacent properties develop.
The adjacent property owner in this case refuses to sell the property or grant an access easement.
The Staff requirement of a secondary access point represents a significant hardship to the Applicant.
If this was a significant public interest, they could use their condemnation authority. Otherwise, this
represents an unnecessary hardship to the Applicant. The Applicant has offered adequate mitigation
in the form of sprinklers for every residence. The effect of the City's recommendation is legally
arbitrary and capricious. The Applicant asks to remove Condition 5 and grant the variance and the
plat request.
Staff Rebuttal
Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner, City of Renton
Ms. Higgins answered a question from the Hearing Examiner regarding the typical condition of
requiring a gravel, gated access road as emergency access. Ms. Higgins stated the secondary access
would need to comply with the Fire Code. Ms. Higgins also stated the Fire Department always asks
for secondary access. Public Works assumes there will be no dead ends. She stated she doesn't
know the history here and cannot discuss the historical interpretation of secondary access.
Since February, the City has taken a closer look at developments next to slopes. They have studied
slope stability on existing slopes with respect to vegetation and stormwater.
She also stated pre-application conferences allow for recommendations with respect to requirements
but do not provide enough information to set those requirements. Ms. Higgins stated the letter from
Chief Peterson was withdrawn at her request to get the Applicant to support a secondary
PRELIMINARY PLAT -11
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
geotechnical study. The Applicant suggested they would not invest more money in the geotechnical
study if the Chiefs letter remained.
Larry Warren, Renton City Attorney
Mr. Warren addressed the comment of dead end roads. He stated this project extends the dead end
road. There is no way to tell how long before the adjacent property owner will want to develop the
property, if ever. The road may exist as a dead end road ad infinitum. This project creates a longer
dead end road that could be blocked at some point. There is no solution to the dead end road as
currently proposed.
The City Code on dead end roads (RMC 4-6-060(H)) requires two means of access and sprinklers
for roads over 700 feet. There is no waiver of secondary means of access. There is only a waiver for
methods of turn around. This code was in place before the Application but after the other existing
subdivision located along the dead end road. There is no definition of a dead end road in City code.
Common definitions would call this road a dead end. This is an infill project on a difficult site.
Applicant's Rebuttal
Brent Carson, Van Ness Feldman, Applicant's Agent
Mr. Carson noted RMC 4-6-060(H)(6) regarding the waiver of a turnaround does not apply. Under
certain circumstances is related to the circumstances when a turnaround does not apply. The Code
section that does apply is RMC 4-7-240 in the subdivision code. This allows variances to be
approved by the Hearing Examiner.
This is the same situation as Stonehaven. There is no substantial increased to the public welfare but
the Staff recommendation does provide a significant burden to the Applicant.
Public Rebuttal
David Rasmussen
Mr. Rasmussen stated that parking in front of Stonehaven do not represent the true parking
21 situation, especially around the holidays.
22 EXHIBITS
23
24
25
26
Exhibits 1-31 listed on page 2 of the September 15, 2014 Staff Report, in addition to the Staff Report
itself (Ex. I), were admitted into evidence during the public hearing. Additional exhibits admitted
during the hearing are the following:
PRELIMINARY PLAT-12
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
Ex. 32 Eric Hanson Testimony Summary
Ex. 33 Owen Reese Testimony Summary
Ex. 34 Ellen Brighten Pictures of Campen Springs and wildlife
Ex. 35 Brent Carson Letter to HE (9/15/14)
Ex. 36 Resume of Mr. Maher Jouie
Ex. 37 Set of maps showing subject site and surrounding area.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural:
8 1. Applicant. Harbour Homes.
9 2. Hearing. The Examiner held a hearing on the subject application on September 11, 2014 in
IO
the City of Renton Council City Chambers.
11 3. Project Description. The applicant has submitted an application for a 20 lot Preliminary Plat.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
The application includes a request for the waiver of street improvements to allow a dead-end road in
excess of 700 feet. Approval of the project would result in the subdivision of a 9.31 acre property,
located in the Talbot planning area of the City, into 20 lots suitable for single-family residential use.
The proposed density is 4.23 dwelling units per net acre. The project site is currently undeveloped,
except for a paved, temporary cul-de-sac.
The site contains three land use zones, Residential I dwelling unit per net acre ( du/ac ), Residential 8
(8 du/ac) and Residential 14 (14 du/ac) [Exhibit 3]. Additionally, the area zoned R-1 is located
within the Urban Separator overlay. Only the 6.06 acre (263,328 sf) portion that is zoned R-8 is
proposed to be developed. The proposed density would be 4.23 du/ac Subdivision into 20 lots would
result in a density of 4.05 dwelling units per net acre. Lot sizes would range from 4,500 square feet
to 8,134 square feet. In addition to the 20 lots, 6 tracts are proposed for sensitive areas and tree
retention.
The site is proposed to be accessed via an extension of Smithers Ave. S. The requested modification
of Renton Municipal Code, if approved, would permit this access although it is considered to be a
"dead end" road from the intersection of SE 186th St. The undeveloped site has approximately 400
trees that have been deemed to be "significant." Trees will be removed, retained, and replaced as
required by Renton Municipal Code. An estimated 3,396 cy of cut and I 0,035 cy of fill would be
required for site construction. A stormwater detention vault is proposed that would discharge to a
closed conveyance system on site and subsequently transported to an area-wide system off site. The
applicant has submitted a Critical Areas Report, Supplemental Stream Study, Traffic Impact
Analysis, Slope Analysis, Geotechnical Engineering study, and a Drainage Technical Information
Report with the application.
PRELIMINARYPLAT-13
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
4. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. As conditioned, the project will be served by
adequate/appropriate infrastructure and public services as follows:
A. Water and Sewer Service. Although the project site lies within the boundaries of the
Renton Water Service Area, the City does not have water service mains near the project
site. Water service would be provided by the Soos Creek Water and Sewer District from
an existing water main located at the Smithers Ave S street end at the north portion of the
property. A certificate of water availability from SCWSD must be provided prior to
issuance of construction permits. The site is provided sanitary sewer service by the City
of Renton. There is a sewer main and a manhole at the south end of Smithers Ave S.
B. Police and Fire Protection. Police service would be provided by the Renton Fire
Department. The Renton Police Department has commented that there would be minimal
impacts from the project.
Fire service would be provided by the Renton Fire Department. Fire Prevention staff
indicate that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development;
subject to the condition that the applicant provides Code required improvements and fees
(presumably including fire impact fees) and that a second access be provided to the site in
accordance with RMC 4-6-060H, which prohibits dead end streets longer than 700 feet in
length.
The need for a second access is the most significant factual issues presented in this
hearing. The applicant disputes the need for the secondary access. It is determined that
the secondary access is necessary to provide adequate/appropriate fire protection service.
The proposed project site is located at the end of an existing dead end street in excess of
700 feet. The proposal asks for approval of a temporary cul-de-sac on an extension of this
street. The length of the extended dead-end street would be approximately 2,364 feet,
from the point at which it becomes a dead end at Main Avenue South (SE I 02nd St) and
SE 186th St to the new street end within the proposed project. Currently, there are 99 lots
that are accessed by this dead end street.
As testified by Renton Fire Mark Peterson, the length of the street is too challenging to
service to the area by fire apparatus. He stated last year there was a wildfire traveling
along the electric easement in a nearby neighborhood. This neighborhood had one access
point that was cut off by the fire. The fire department could not get in to help residents
PRELIMINARY PLAT-14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
and residents could not evacuate. Mr. Peterson is also concerned about the neighborhood
being cut off in a seismic event. City code requires a secondary access in roads over 700
feet. The fire department cannot maintain adequate response times to the neighborhood.
Without secondary access, an additional minute is added to the response time to this
neighborhood.
The applicant presented its own fire expert, Carl Anderson, to provide testimony on the
safety of fire access. Mr. Anderson's testimony was not persuasive. The hearing
examiner asked Mr. Anderson if he had any safety concerns over the fact that the
proposed subdivision only has one access point. Mr. Anderson did not respond with a
simple "yes" or "no". Mr. Anderson did not testify that the subdivision would have safe
or adequate fire access with one fire access road. Rather, he concluded that the addition
of the proposed 20 lots would not be "a significant detriment to public safety based on
what's already in the area". Mr. Anderson's somewhat tortured response leaves the very
strong impression that he did not want to opine on the fire safety of a single access point
to the subdivision; that instead the most supportive comment he could make for his client
was that in the context of the safety problems faced by the 99 other lots in the area, the
safety impact to the proposed subdivision was not that significant. The fact that other
subdivisions may have similar safety issues has no bearing on whether the single access
to the proposed subdivision is safe and adequate. In short, the applicant has not provided
any expert testimony to refute the Fire Chiefs testimony that the proposed single access
would be safe or adequate for the proposed 20 lots.
Mr. Anderson noted that the applicant would be willing to provide sprinkler systems to
mitigate against the single access. He did not testify that this would completely mitigate
against the dangers of single access. Mr. Anderson noted that Appendix D to the
International Fire Code addresses the use of fire sprinklers to substitute for secondary
access roads. Appendix D was not offered into evidence and the examiner cannot take
judicial notice of it because it has not been adopted by the City of Renton. More
determinative is that the Renton Municipal Code does not expressly authorize a
substitution of secondary access roads with fire sprinklers. In fact, RMC 4-6-060(H)(2)
already requires sprinklers in addition to two access roads for streets longer than 700 feet
in length. Clearly, fire sprinklers are not considered an adequate substitute for secondary
access under city standards if they are already required in addition to secondary access for
dead end roads such as the one serving the proposed development. If the applicant
wishes to use fire sprinklers as a substitute for secondary access, it has the burden of
establishing that the sprinklers will reduce the fire hazard to insignificant levels. The
PRELIMINARY PLAT-15
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
C.
applicant has only shown that the fire hazard is reduced, but has not established or even
asserted that the reduction in hazard would be reduced to acceptable levels.
The applicant's arguments are well noted that the single access road was found sufficient
for the other 99 lot served by it and that staff has changed its position on the adequacy of
the access for the proposed subdivision. The inconsistencies in the staff's position does
undermine the credibility of their position. However, the reasoning of the fue chiefs
testimony is highly compelling; that testimony is largely left unchallenged by the
applicant; and the need for the two access points is clearly laid out in the City's
development standards with no express exception for sprinkler systems. Further, it must
also be acknowledged that circumstances have changed since the approval of other
subdivisions along the dead end road. In prior years development occurred at a much
more rapid pace and expectations were high that a looped road would be completed
relatively quickly. The length of the dead end road was of course shorter for each
preceding subdivision and the amount of road necessary to complete a looped system was
correspondingly longer.
The applicant presented testimony that accidents were unlikely to prevent frre access
given the width of the single access road, but the fire chief was well aware of this
condition when he presented his testimony.
The preponderance of evidence and substantial evidence in the record establish that two
access points are necessary to provide adequate/appropriate and safe fire access to the
proposed subdivision.
Drainage. The applicant submitted a drainage report and drainage plan on July 15, 2014,
Ex. 11. Staff have determined that the report demonstrates compliance with 2009 King
County Surface Water Manual and additional requirements, based on specific site
conditions, as required by the Department of Community and Economic Development.
This proposal is specifically required to comply with the 2009 King County Surface
Water Manual and the 2009 City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapter I and
2. Based on the City's flow control map, this site falls within the Flow Control Duration
Standard, Forested Conditions. This means that off-site flow volumes and rates may not
be higher than predeveloprnent levels. The site is subject to full drainage review. The
project is required to provide detention and water quality under the current King County
Surface Water Manual. The engineer has provided a design for a combined detention and
water quality vault to be located on Tract A of the site. A tightlined storrnwater
conveyance system shall be utilized to transport discharged storrnwater from a vault to an
PRELIMINARY PLAT-16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
existing system at the bottom of the protected slope (Tract F). A recorded easement
agreement demonstrating access to the existing system is required by the conditions of
approval prior to issuance of construction permits.
Owen Reese, a civil engineer retained by the homeowner's association of the neighboring
Campen Springs development, made several recommendations on drainage mitigation
during the hearing. City engineering staff confirmed that the stormwater suggestions
made by Mr. Reese should be added to the conditions of approval. The suggestions
reasonably protect against slope stability, are made by qualified experts and there is no
evidence to the contrary. The drainage and slope stability recommendations made by Mr.
Reese will be made conditions of approval 1•
D. Parks/Open Space. City ordinances require the payment of park impact fees prior to
building permit issuance. RMC 4-2-115, which governs open space requirements for
residential development, does not have any specific requirements for open space for
residential development in the R-lor R-8 district. RMC 4-2-115 does impose open space
requirements for the R-14 district based upon the number of dwelling units, but since no
dwelling units are proposed for the R-14 portion of the development, no open space is
required. RMC 4-3-110 requires that 50% of the portion of the plat within the Urban
Separator Overlay shall be designated as a non-revocable open space tract. As
determined in the staff report, p. 14, the open space tract proposed by the applicant
satisfies this standard (which appears to be accomplished by Tract F, which takes up most
if not all of the Urban Separator property, see Ex. 4) . The impact fees in conjunction
with the open space tract required by the Talbot Urban Separator provide for adequate
parks and open space.
E. Streets. The proposal provides for adequate/appropriate streets. Access to the plat is
proposed via Smithers Ave and the conditions of approval require the applicant to extend
Smithers through the adjoining property to the east to 102nd Ave S. Internal access
includes looped alley access. The applicant prepared a traffic impact analysis, admitted
as Ex. 30, that was reviewed and approved by City public works staff. The study
determined that the proposal would generate I 6 am peak hour trips and 21 pm peak hour
trips. The study shows that affected intersections would maintain a level of service A
with or without the project. There is no concurrency analysis submitted into the record.
25 1 Mr. Reese also recommended that the applicant monitor a migrating stream channel located off-site. Mr. Reese and
staff acknowledged that the -proposal does not adversely affect or exacerbate this condition. Consequently, the
26 project cannot be legally conditioned to address the issue.
PRELIMINARY PLAT -17
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
However, given the lack of any significant impact on affected intersections it is
determined at this time the proposal is consistent with the City level of service standards.
F. Parking. Sufficient area exists, on each lot, to accommodate required off street parking
for a minimum of two vehicles per dwelling unit as required by City code.
G. Schools. Adequate/appropriate provision is made for schools. The proposal is located
within the Renton School District. The staff report notes that it is anticipated that the
Renton School District can accommodate additional students generated by this proposal
at the following schools: Benson Hill Elementary, Nelson Middle School, and Lindbergh
High School. These schools are not within walking distance of the proposed
development. Transportation would be required.
A School Impact Fee, based on new single family lots, will also be required in order to
mitigate the proposal's potential impacts to the Renton School District. The fee is payable
to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code. Currently the fee is assessed at
$5,455.00 per single family residence.
5. Adverse Impacts. There are no adverse impacts associated with the proposal as conditioned
with secondary access. Adequate public facilities and drainage control are provided as determined in
Finding of Fact No. 4. The proposal involves single-family housing at a density 4.23 dwelling units
per acre, which is at the bottom end of the 4-8 units per acre required in the R-8 zone. This is a
legislatively set standard of what is considered a compatible density for the area. Consequently,
there are no issues of compatibility with surrounding development based on density.
Many of the public comment letters expressed concern over the loss of trees. There are 401
trees on site with diameters of more than six inches. The applicant proposes to retain 42 of these
trees and replace the remaining trees with 140 two-inch diameter trees. Most development of
undeveloped areas involves the removal of trees. What constitutes an acceptable level of tree
removal is a highly subjective determination. As with density, the Renton City Council has
legislatively determined an acceptable level of tree removal by the adoption of tree retention
ordinance codified as RMC 4-4-130. As noted at p. 14 of the staff report, the applicant's tree
retention and replacement plan is consistent with RMC 4-4-130. Consequently, the proposed tree
removal cannot be considered a significant impact of the proposal.
There are protected slopes, wetlands, and a stream located within proposed sensitive area
tracts (Native Growth Protection Areas) on the site. The anticipated impacts of these areas have been
addressed in technical reports and studies [Exhibits 16-27] and the Environmental Review
Committee Report [Exhibit 31]. The project complies with all critical area regulations provided all
mitigation measures are met as identified in the Environmental Review Committee Report. A storm
drainage line is proposed across the face of the protected slopes. A critical area exemption is
required for placing drainage lines on protected slopes. Staff determined that the proposed drainage
line, as conditioned, would improve slope stability. Staff has found slope stability to improve for
PRELIMINARY PLAT-18
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
other proposals under the same conditions. As concluded in the conclusions of law, this resulting
increase in slope stability serves as the basis for approving the critical area exemption.
Several public comment letters expressed concern over the encroachment of the project onto
the fifty foot buffer of a Category II wetland and at least one comment letter asserted there are two
Category II wetlands on-site as opposed to one. As depicted in a site plan attached to the critical area
study, Ex. 17, five2 lots encroach onto the fifty foot buffer of the wetland as well as Tract A (the
storm drainage tract) and portions of the interior road. The applicant has proposed to remove these
encroachments through buffer averaging, which is allowed by the code and involves the replacement
of buffer reduction area by 1:1 increases in buffer area at other parts of the buffer. A total of 10,463
square feet of buffer will be reduced and a total of 12, 198 square feet will be added in the buffer
averaging proposal. The buffer averaging proposal has been reviewed and approved by qualified
third party review, Ex. 16, as well as by staff. The critical area studies provide a compelling and
thorough justification for the averaging based upon best available science. There is no evidence in
the record that the proposed averaging would adversely affect the wetland or that the wetland
delineations are inaccurate. For these reasons, the proposed buffer averaging is determined to be
consistent with the City's critical area regulations and will not create any significant adverse impacts
to the wetland functions or values.
Erosion and slope stability were also cited in numerous public comment letters as an area of
concern. As noted previously, staff have concluded that the proposed drainage line across the steep
slope will serve to improve slope stability. The City has detailed erosion control standards
applicable to clearing and grading activities that will protect adjoining properties from erosion
impacts. As previously noted, the City stormwater regulations require off-site stormwater flow
volumes and velocities to be at or less than pre-development conditions. The proposal has also been
subject to extensive geotechnical review coupled with third party review designed to assure that the
proposal will not adversely affect slope stability, as shown in Ex. 19-26 and 31. There has been no
expert testimony to show that the analysis and mitigation pertaining to erosion and slope stability is
deficient, except for some suggestions made by Mr. Reese, all of which have been adopted except a
request to monitor stream channel migration that Mr. Reese acknowledged is not affected by the
proposal. For all these reasons, it is determined that the proposal will not create any significant slope
stability or erosion impacts.
Conclusions of Law
I. Authority. RMC 4-7-020(C) and 4-7-050(D)(5) provide that the Hearing Examiner shall hold
a hearing and issue a final decision on preliminary plat applications. RMC 4-8-0SO(G) classifies
preliminary plat applications as Type III applications. RMC 4-8-0SO(G) classifies development
standard modifications as Type I applications. RMC 4-8-080(C)(2) requires consolidated permits to
25 2 The site plan actually only shows a buffer reduction in four lots, neglecting to identify a reduction in buffer for Lot
21. The text of the critical areas study, however, identifies at p. 14 that the buffer on Lot 21 will be removed through
26 averaging. Consequently, it is understood that the site plan incorrectly fails to identify buffer removal from Lot 21.
PRELIMINARYPLAT-19
1
2
each be processed under "the highest-number procedure", which in this case is Type ill review,
involving a review and a final decision issued by the hearing examiner.
3 2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The developed portion of the property is zoned
4
5
R-8. Other portions of the property are zoned R-1, R-1 and the western third is within the Talbot
Urban Separator Overlay. The comprehensive plan designations are Residential Low Density
(RLD), Residential Single-Family (RSF) and Residential Medium Density (RMD).
6 3. Review Criteria. Chapter 4-7 RMC governs the criteria for subdivision review. Applicable
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
standards are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions oflaw.
RMC 4-7-0SO(B): A subdivision shall be consistent with the following principles of acceptability:
I. Legal Lots: Create legal building sites which comply with all provisions of the City Zoning Code.
2. Access: Establish access to a public road for each segregated parcel.
3. Physical Characteristics: Have suitable physical characteristics. A proposed plat may be denied
because of flood, inundation, or wetland conditions. Construction of protective improvements may
be required as a condition of approval, and such improvements shall be noted on the final plat.
4. Drainage: Make adequate provision for drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water
14 supplies and sanitary wastes.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
4. As to compliance with the Zoning Code, Conclusion K(2) of the staff report is adopted by
reference as if set forth in full. As depicted in the plat map, Ex. 3 7, each proposed lot will directly
access Smithers Ave S., a public road, or indirectly via a private alley. As determined in Finding of
Fact No. 4 and 5, the project is adequately designed to prevent any impacts to critical areas. No
flooding problems are anticipated because as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4 the proposal is
served by adequate/appropriate stormwater facilities and the project is not located in a floodplain.
As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the proposal provides for adequate public facilities.
5. RMC 4-7-080(1)(1): ... The Hearing Examiner shall assure conformance with the general
purposes of the Comprehensive Plan and adopted standards ...
6. The proposed preliminary play is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan as outlined
in Conclusion K(l) of the staff report, which is incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full.
RMC 4-7-120(A): No plan for the replatting, subdivision, or dedication of any areas shall be
approved by the Hearing Examiner unless the streets shown therein are connected by swfaced road
or street (according to City specifications) to an existing street or highway.
PRELIMINARY PLAT-20
I 7. All of the internal roads of the proposed subdivision eventually connect to Smithers Ave S.,
2
3
4
5
6
7
an existing road.
RMC 4-7-I20(B): The location of all streets shall conform to any adopted plans for streets in the
City.
8. The City's adopted street plans are not addressed in the staff report or anywhere else in the
administrative record. However, the only other street connections that appear possible with the
steep slope and open space limitations to the west are those proposed and required by this decision.
RMC 4-7-I20(C): If a subdivision is located in the area of an officially designed [sic} trail,
8 provisions shall be made for reservation of the right-o.f way or for easements to the City for trail
purposes.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
9. The subdivision is not located in the area of an officially designated trail.
RMC 4-7-I30(C): A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication shall be prepared in conformance
with the following provisions:
1. Land Unsuitable for Subdivision: Land which is found to be unsuitable for subdivision includes
land with features likely to be harmful to the safety and general health of the future residents (such
as lands adversely affected by flooding, steep slopes, or rock formations). Land which the
Department or the Hearing Examiner considers inappropriate for subdivision shall not be
subdivided unless adequate safeguards are provided against these adverse conditions.
a. Flooding/inundation: If any portion of the land within the boundary of a preliminary plat is
subject to flooding or inundation, that portion of the subdivision must have the approval of the State
according to chapter 86.16 RCW before the Department and the Hearing Examiner shall consider
such subdivision.
b. Steep Slopes: A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication which would result in the creation of a
lot or lots that primarily have slopes forty percent (40%) or greater as measured per RMC 4-3-
050Jla, without adequate area at lesser slopes upon which development may occur, shall not be
approved.
3. Land Clearing and Tree Retention: Shall comply with RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land
Clearing Regulations.
4. Streams:
PRELIMINARY PLAT-21
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
a. Preservation: Every reasonable effort shall be made to preserve existing streams, bodies of water,
and wetland areas.
b. Method: If a stream passes through any of the subject property, a plan shall be presented which
indicates how the stream will be preserved. The methodologies used should include an overflow
area, and an attempt to minimize the disturbance of the natural channel and stream bed.
c. Culverting: The piping or tunneling of water shall be discouraged and allowed only when going
under streets.
d. Clean Water: Every effort shall be made to keep all streams and bodies of water clear of debris
and pollutants.
9 I 0. The criterion is met. The land is suitable for a subdivision as the stormwater design assures
10
11
12
13
that it will not contribute to flooding and that water quality will not be adversely affected.
Development will not encroach into critical areas except as authorized by the City's critical area
regulations. No piping or tunneling of streams is proposed. Trees will be retained as required by
RMC 4-4-130 as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5. The on-site stream will be protected by the
critical area ordinance compliant buffer that applies to it. The City's stormwater regulations provide
for adequate protection of water quality for the on-site stream and wetlands.
14 RMC 4-7-140: Approval of all subdivisions located in either single family residential or multi-
15 family residential zones as defined in the Zoning Code shall be contingent upon the subdivider 's
dedication of land or providing fees in lieu of dedication to the City, all as necessary to mitigate the
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
adverse effects of development upon the existing park and recreation service levels. The
requirements and procedures for this mitigation shall be per the City of Renton Parks Mitigation
Resolution.
11. City ordinances require the payment of park impact fees prior to building permit issuance.
RMC 4-7-lSO(A): The proposed street system shall extend and create connections between existing
streets unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. Prior to approving a street
system that does not extend or connect, the Reviewing Official shall find that such exception shall
meet the requirements of subsection E3 of this Section. The roadway classifications shall be as
defined and designated by the Department.
12. As conditioned, the proposed street system connects existing streets.
RMC 4-7-JSO(B): All proposed street names shall be approved by the City.
13. As conditioned.
PRELIMINARY PLAT-22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
RMC 4-7-ISO(C): Streets intersecting with existing or proposed public highways, major or
secondary arterials shall be held to a minimum.
14. There is no intersection with a public highway or major or secondary arterial.
RMC 4-7-ISO(D): The alignment of all streets shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works
Department. The street standards set by RMC 4-6-060 shall apply unless otherwise approved. Street
alignment offeets of less than one hundred twenty five feet (125') are not desirable, but may be
approved by the Department upon a showing of need but only after provision of all necessary safety
measures.
15. As determined in Finding of Fact 4, the Public Works Department has reviewed and
approved the adequacy of streets, which includes compliance with applicable street standards.
RMC 4-7-ISO(E):
12 1. Grid: A grid street pattern shall be used to connect existing and new development and shall be the
predominant street pattern in any subdivision permitted by this Section.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2. Linkages: Linkages, including streets, sidewalks, pedestrian or bike paths, shall be provided
within and between neighborhoods when they can create a continuous and interconnected network
of roads and pathways. Implementation of this requirement shall comply with Comprehensive Plan
Transportation Element Objective T-A and Policies T-9 through T-16 and Community Design
Element, Objective CD-Mand Policies CD-50 and CD-60.
3. Exceptions:
a. The grid pattern may be adjusted to a "flexible grid" by reducing the number of linkages or the
alignment between roads, wherf! the following factors are present on site:
i. Infeasible due to topographical/environmental constraints; and/or
ii. Substantial improvements are existing.
4. Connections: Prior to adoption of a complete grid street plan, reasonable connections that link
existing portions of the grid system shall be made. At a minimum, stub streets shall be required
within subdivisions to allow fature connectivity.
5. Alley Access: Alley access is the preferred street pattern except for properties in the Residential
Low Density land use designation. The Residential Low Density land use designation includes the
PRELIMINARY PLAT -23
1
2
3
RC, R-1, and R-4 zones. Prior to approval of a plat without alley access, the Reviewing Official shall
evaluate an alley layout and determine that the use of alley(s) is not feasible,,,
6. Alternative Configurations: Offeet or loop roads are the preferred alternative configurations.
4 7. Cul-de-Sac Streets: Cul-de-sac streets may only be permitted by the Reviewing Official where due
to demonstrable physical constraints no future connection to a larger street pattern is physically
5 possible.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
16. The proposed and required connections are the maximum that can be included given the steep
slopes to the west, critical areas to the south, existing development and the vacant parcels to the
south. Lots 11-16 are accessed by an alley.
The proposal as conditioned contains a looped road and no cul-de-sac is proposed. The criterion
above is met.
RMC 4-7-lSO(F): All adjacent rights-of-way and new rights-of-way dedicated as part of the plat,
including streets, roads, and alleys, shall be graded to their fall width and the pavement and
sidewalks shall be constructed as specified in the street standards or deferred by the
Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee.
17. As proposed.
RMC 4-7-lSO(G): Streets that may be extended in the event of future adjacent platting shall be
required to be dedicated to the plat boundary line. Extensions of greater depth than an average lot
shall be improved with temporary turnarounds. Dedication of a fall-width boundary street shall be
required in certain instances to facilitate fature development.
18. There are no streets that could be extended in the event of future adjacent platting under the
approved subdivision design.
RMC 4-7-170(A): Insofar as practical, side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines or radial
to curved street lines.
As depicted in Ex. 3 7, the side lines are in conformance with the requirement quoted above. 21 19.
22 RMC 4-7-170(8): Each lot must have access to a public street or road. Access may be by private
23 access easement street per the requirements of the street standards.
24 20. As previously determined, each lot has access to a public street.
25
26
RMC 4-7-l 70(C): The size, shape, and orientation of lots shall meet the minimum area and width
requirements of the applicable zoning classification and shall be appropriate for the type of
PRELIMINARY PLAT -24
1 development and use contemplated. Further subdivision of lots within a plat approved through the
2 provisions of this Chapter must be consistent with the then-current applicable maximum density
3
4
5
6
7
8
requirement as measured within the plat as a whole.
21. As previously determined, the proposed lots comply with the zoning standards of the R-8
zone, which includes area, width and density.
RMC 4-7-170(D): Width between side lot lines at their foremost points (i.e., the points where the
side lot lines intersect with the street right-of-way line) shall not be less than eighty percent (80%) of
the required lot width except in the cases of(]) pipestem lots, which shall have a minimum width of
twenty feet (20') and (2) lots on a street curve or the turning circle of cul-de-sac (radial lots), which
shall be a minimum of thirty five feet (35 ').
As shown in Ex. 3 7, the requirement is satisfied. 9 22.
10 RMC 4-7-170(E): All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys,
shall have minimum radius of fifteen feet (15 '). 11
As conditioned. 12 23.
13 RMC 4-7-190(A): Due regard shall be shown to all natural features such as large trees,
watercourses, and similar community assets. Such natural features should be preserved, thereby 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
adding attractiveness and value to the property.
24. The on-site wetland and stream is set-aside from the developed portion of the subdivision.
The criteria above is met.
RMC 4-7-200(A): Unless septic tanks are specifically approved by the Public Works Department
and the King County Health Department, sanitary sewers shall be provided by the developer at no
cost to the City and designed in accordance with City standards. Side sewer lines shall be installed
eight feet (8') into each lot if sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision
development.
21 25. As conditioned.
22
23
24
RMC 4-7-200(B): An adequate drainage system shall be provided for the proper drainage of all
surface water. Cross drains shall be provided to accommodate all natural water fl.ow and shall be of
sufficient length to permit fall-width roadway and required slopes. The drainage system shall be
designed per the requirements of RMC 4-6-030, Drainage (Surface Water) Standards. The drainage
25 system shall include detention capacity for the new street areas. Residential plats shall also include
detention capacity for future development of the lots. Water quality features shall also be designed to
26 provide capacity for the new street paving for the plat.
PRELIMINARY PLAT-25
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
26. The proposal provides for adequate drainage that is in conformance with applicable City drainage
standards as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. The City's stormwater standards, which are
incorporated into the technical information report and will be further implemented during civil plan
review, ensure compliance with all of the standards in the criterion quoted above.
RMC 4-7-200(C): The water distribution system including the locations of fire hydrants shall be
designed and installed in accordance with City standards as defined by the Department and Fire
Department requirements.
27. As conditioned.
8 RMC 4-7-200(0): All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any
utilities installed in the parking strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the
9 planting of trees. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, including all
JO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
service connections, as approved by the Department. Such installation shall be completed and
approved prior to the application of any surface material. Easements may be required for the
maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department.
28. As conditioned.
RMC 4-7-200(E): Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic
utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line
by subdivider as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or alley
improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. The cost of
trenching, conduit, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore required to
bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or land owner. The subdivider
shall be responsible only for conduit to serve his development. Conduit ends shall be elbowed to
18 final ground elevation and capped. The cable TV company shall provide maps and specifications to
19 the subdivider and shall inspect the conduit and certify to the City that it is properly installed.
20 29. As conditioned.
21 RMC 4-7-210:
22 A. MONUMENTS:
23
24
25
26
Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at each and every controlling comer of
the subdivision. Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the Department. All surveys
shall be per the City of Renton surveying standards.
B. SURVEY:
PRELIMINARY PLAT-26
1
2
3
4
5
6
All other lot corners shall be marked per the City surveying standards.
C. STREET SIGNS:
The subdivider shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision.
30. As conditioned.
Street Improvement Waiver
7 31. RMC 4-6-060(H)(2) requires two means of access for homes served by a dead end street
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
longer than 700 feet. The applicant wishes to have this secondary access requirement waived for the
dead end street that serves it, Smithers Ave. S. The length of Smithers Ave. S. as extended by the
proposed subdivision would be 2,364 feet.
RMC 4-9-250(C)(2) authorizes the waiver of the installation of street improvements3 subject to the
determination that there is reasonable justification for such wavier. RMC 4-9-250(5) provides that
reasonable justification shall include but not be limited to the following:
a. Required street improvements will alter an existing wetlands or stream, or have a
negative impact on a shoreline's area.
b. Existing steep topography would make required street improvements infeasible.
c. Required street improvements would have a negative impact on other properties,
such as restricting available access.
d. There are no similar improvements in the vicinity and there is little likelihood
that the improvements will be needed or required in the next ten (JO) years.
e. In no case shall a waiver be granted unless it is shown that there will be no
detrimental effect on the public health, safety or welfare if the improvements are not
installed, and that the improvements are not needed for current or future
development.
22 3 The secondary access required by staff may not have to be "improved" since its sole purpose is to provide for
emergency access and no paving or even grading may be necessary. The issue at hand could be characterized as
23 more of a street grid issue than a street improvement issue. Consequently, it is debatable whether the RMC 4-9-
250(C)(2) waiver process applies in this instance. The alternative modification process would be RMC 4-9-250(D),
24 which applies to those standards not covered by RMC 4-9-250(B) or (C). The proposal would also fail to meet the
RMC 4-9-250(D), since authorizing one access point would not meet the intent or safety objectives of the Code.
25 The applicant used the criteria of RMC 4-9-250(B)(5) in its briefing, which clearly does not apply to the requested
modification. The RCW 4-9-250(B)(5) criteria only apply to the development standards expressly identified in
26 RCW 4-9-250(B)(l). RMC 4-6-060(H)(2) is not listed amongst those standards.
PRELIMINARY PLAT-27
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
The requested waiver cannot be approved because it fails to meet RMC 4-4-080(C)(5)(e). As
determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, waiver of the proposed secondary access requirement would
prevent the provision of safe and appropriate/adequate fire response. Consequently, the proposal will
have a detrimental effect on public safety. As testified by the Fire Chief, one access point can prevent
fire apparatus from reaching the subdivision in case of emergency due to large numbers of persons
leaving the emergency scene or damage caused by the emergency (such as seismic events and
wildfires).
The applicant asserts that the proposed stub ending for Smithers Road does not qualify as a "dead
end" under RMC 4-6-060(H), and hence the two access requirement does not apply. The applicant
argues that a stub road should not be considered a dead end because it is only a temporary situation
that will be removed upon development of the adjoining subdivision to the east. It is concluded that
the proposed stub road qualifies as a dead end. This interpretation is supported by both the plain
meaning and the intent of the ordinance. The Meriam Webster definition of "dead end" is "a street
that ends instead of joining with another street so that there is only one way in and out of it". The
proposed stub road clearly meets this definition. The idea that a stub road is not a "dead end" road
does not meet the intent of the two access requirement, which is to prevent a dangerous situation.
The "temporary" road stub could be in place for years and even decades before the adjoining property
to the east is developed. The risk of preventing fire access, which is what the two access requirement
is designed to minimize, is not materially reduced by a stub road that could remain in place for this
period of time. It is also noteworthy that the "dead end" situation for development along Smithers
Ave. S. could have always been considered temporary, since Smithers will eventually form a looped
system. Despite this "temporary" situation, staff in the Stonehaven development, located along S.
47th St. (which is an extension of the Smithers dead end street) still required a modification to the
two access requirement ofRMC 4-6-060(H)(2)4. See Ex. 37, alt. J, Finding of Fact No. 14.
The applicant points out in its briefing that RMC 4-6-060(H)(l) provides that cul-de-sacs and dead
ends should only be authorized in circumstances where no "future connection" to a road grid is
physically possible. If "road stub" qualifies as a cul-de-sac or dead end, then RMC 4-6-060 would
have to be read as only authorizing road stubs if no "future connection" to a road grid is possible,
which of course makes no sense. The conclusion to be drawn from this language is either that (I) a
cul-de-sac or dead end does not include a road stub; or (2) RMC 4-6-060(H)(l) impliedly only applies
to permanent cul-de-sacs or dead ends (i.e. not road stubs). Given the plain meaning of the "cul-de-
sac" and "dead end" terms and the fire safety objectives of RMC 4-6-060(H)(2), the latter
interpretation is determinative. The City Council likely intended that RMC 4-6-060(H)(l) would
require staff to only authorize permanent dead ends when it was physically not feasible to require a
connection and if any dead ends had to be allowed, the fire safety impacts would be mitigated by the
secondary access and sprinkler standards imposed by RMC 4-6-060(H)(2). Given that a "future"
24 4 At the hearing the City Attorney noted that RMC 4-6-060 has been amended several times over the years and its
unclear whether the same two access requirement applied to other subdivisions along the Smithers Ave S dead end
25 road system. A look at the legislative history available to the examiner reveals that RMC 4-6-060(H) has remained
the same since at least 1995, when RMC 4-6-060 was first adopted. The Stonehaven preliminary plat was approved
26 in2004.
PRELIMINARY PLAT-28
I
2
3
4
5
connection could take decades to complete, it is doubtful that the Council would have intended a road
stub to remain in place for decades without the mitigation required by RMC 4-6-060(H)(2).
The most difficult issue raised by the applicant is the potential violation of its constitutional property
rights. It is logical to presume that the Council does not intend its development regulations to be
interpreted in a manner that is inconsistent with the constitutional rights of property applicants. At
the least, violation of those rights is counter to the financial interests of the City since property rights
violation easily translate into damages claims. An exaction that exceeds the proportional
responsibility of an applicant for a development impact is a violation of the takings clause. See, e.g.
6 Burton v. Clark County, 91 Wn. App. 505, 516-17 (1998). A strictly proportionate requirement from
the applicant for a looped fire access road system would arguably just be requiring the construction of
that portion of the loop located on the preliminary plat property. However, even if this were
technically correct for strict proportionality, only rough proportionality is required in exactions cases.
See, Sparks v. Douglas County, 127 Wn.2d 901,918 (1995)("it is not necessary for the government to show a
"precise mathematical calculation" of the connection between the exaction and the impact of the proposed
development.") It is also of high relevance that the public interest at stake is at the high end of the range of
compelling government interests, namely public safety. Requiring the applicant to acquire access rights
across private property to mitigate against congestion or aesthetic impacts may be questionable under a
proportionality analysis. However, the City is in a very good position to argue that requiring the acquisition
of access rights across one adjoining lot is entirely proportionate to avoiding the dangers identified by the
Renton Fire Chief as attendant to placing an additional 20 homes near the end of a half mile dead end road.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Ultimately, the merits of the applicant's constitutional arguments do not have to be addressed. As
previously discussed, the constitutional issues are relevant to the interpretation of City development
standards. Beyond this, the examiner has no authority to waive City development standards if they
violate the constitutional property rights of an applicant. RMC 4-9-250(C)(5)(e) strictly provides that
"in no case" shall a waiver be granted unless it is shown that there will be no detrimental effect on the
public health, safety or welfare. There may be some room to allow constitutional restrictions to
influence what level of risk of harm should be considered "detrimental" under the standard, but that
only goes so far. The Renton Fire Chief testified that in case of emergency there was a danger that he
may be prevented from dispatching his fire trucks to the proposed subdivision because of the half
mile long dead end road. As determined in the findings of fact, the applicant did not provide any
convincing evidence to the contrary. No matter how liberally construed to achieve consistency with
constitutional requirements, there is no way to reach a conclusion of "no detrimental" effect on
public safety given the testimony of the fire chief.
DECISION
The proposed preliminary plat and street improvement waiver is approved, subject to the following
conditions:
1. The applicant shall comply with mitigation measures issued as part of the Mitigated
Determination of Non-Significance for the proposal.
PRELIMINARY PLAT -29
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. All proposed street names shall be approved by the City.
3. All lot comers at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys, shall have
minimum radius of fifteen feet (15').
4. Side sewer lines shall be installed eight feet (8') into each lot if sanitary sewer mains are
available, or provided with the subdivision development.
5. All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any utilities
installed in the parking strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the planting
of trees. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, including all
service connections, as approved by the Department of Public Works. Such installation shall
be completed and approved prior to the application of any surface material. Easements may
be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department of
Public Works.
6. Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic utilities are
installed to serve each Jot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each Jot line by
Applicant as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or
alley improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. The
cost of trenching, conduit, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore
required to bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or land
owner. The applicant shall be responsible only for conduit to serve his development. Conduit
ends shall be elbowed to final ground elevation and capped. The cable TV company shall
provide maps and specifications to the applicant and shall inspect the conduit and certify to
the City that it is properly installed.
7. The applicant shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision prior to final plat
approval.
8. The easements for the alley shall authorize access to all lots of the proposed subdivision.
9. The applicant shall comply with nine the mitigation measures issued as part of the
Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated, dated August 26, 2014 [Exhibit 14].
10. The applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan, meeting all landscape plan submittal
requirements of RMC 4-8-1201. The detailed landscape shall be submitted to and approved
by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to issuance of construction permits. Street
PRELIMINARY PLAT -30
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
trees shall not include Callery Pear and trees on S. 48th Pl shall be a different type from those
on Smithers Ave S.
11. The Replacement Tree Plan shall be revised to show the proposed locations for replanting
140 two-inch diameter replacement trees.
12. Vegetation (trees, shrubs, and ground cover) shall be planted to replace vegetation (trees,
shrubs, and ground cover) removed for installation of the stormwater conveyance between
the stormwater vault and the west property boundary of the property. Type and quantities
shall be sufficient to ensure erosion control in the protected slope area.
13. The primary access road, Smithers Ave S, shall connect to S 48th Pl and be extended to the
east to provide a second access from Main Ave S (102nd Ave SE) at its intersection with SE
186th St. The completion of this street and its connection to Main Ave S shall be a condition
of project approval. The extent of street improvements necessary to effectuate this
connection shall be determined by the City of Renton Fire Department in accordance with
applicable fire code standards and shall be the minimum necessary to provide for safe and
effective secondary fire access. The extended street, providing a second access to the
proposed development, shall have construction completed prior to recording the final plat.
14. A recorded easement agreement demonstrating access to the existing downslope stormwater
control system shall be submitted prior to issuance of construction permits.
15. A Homeowners' Association shall be incorporated for maintenance and equal and undivided
ownership of the tracts, the private access road, and the alley.
16. An easement shall be recorded along the east property boundary for future extension of the
sanitary sewer system. The easement shall be at the time of recording the final plat.
17. All new fill shall be composed of free draining structural fill and not native soils.
18. Drainage from western lots into the steep slopes shall be minimized and all such drainage
shall be dispersed.
19. Anchors for the storm water tight line shall only be placed on the top and bottom of the pipe.
The anchors should be designed to withstand tree fall and soil movement. The pipeline
should be constructed at the top and pulled down the slope rather than moving it up the hill.
PRELIMINARYPLAT-31
1
2
3
4
5
6
DATED this 3rd day of October, 2014.
City of Renton Hearing Examiner
Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
7 RMC 4-8-080 provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is subject to appeal to the
8
Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(£)(14) 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.
10
9 A request for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal
period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(13) and RMC 4-8-I00(G)(9). A new fourteen (14) day
appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Additional information
regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall -
7'h floor, ( 425) 430-6510. 11
12
Affected property owners may request a change m valuation for property tax purposes
13 notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PRELTh1INARY PLAT -32
Elizabeth Higgins
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Elizabeth Higgins
Tuesday, September 16, 2014 2:45 PM
Phil Olbrechts (olbrechtslaw@gmail.com)
More on Exhibits
,/ ,/
According to my ~tes, Owen Reese's submittal should be 32, Eric Hanson's should be 33, Ellen Breiten's cell phone
photographs are 34 (haven't gotten them, but will print them out when I do), Brent Carson letter and exhibits are 35,
still not sure about 36 & 37, Carl Anderson submittal.is 38, and the City of Renton (COR) electronic maps are 39.
't_"L. ""· ·.·-·· . "''.'. ,, -f I) .. ' .1.--,··. \ ·--,._,.,,..._ j·' c· • \ . I • r
What do you need me to provide to yciu? ,.x,u,·• ' r-",.u,~~..... 'Le r :·. nl \(A .. , I(,
Elizabeth
Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner
Department of Community and Economic Development
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton WA 98057
425-430-6581
~1-l\'&' ri&
EN,-e.~eo ,~
fo ~ p.ewe.t>
1'}uP..I ...lC..-1" I:
µE>,P..I tJt,-~
"/1"/ I~
1
,r· ( . < V'
'(' ·, ' \ .·\ \ .
-' '
Public Comment on Behalf of Campen Springs Condominium Association on
Vuecrest Estates
LUAB-000642, ECF, PP
Comment by Owen Reese, PE, Aspect Consulting
• Condo Association was approached by Harbour Homes to negotiate connecting the
stormwater tightline from the proposed Vuecrest development into the existing
Campen Springs stormwater system. The Condo Association's property is located
immediately west of the proposed development at the toe of the steep slope. The
Condo Association rightly had questions about the stormwater management and slope
stability aspects of the proposed development.
• The Condo Association retained Aspect Consulting to provide engineering and
geotechnical advice to the Condo Association. Harbour Homes and their engineering
firm (DR Strong) have been very cooperative in providing access to information, access
to their property, and facilitating our review.
• The Condo Association issued a Letter of Intent (Exhibit 17) indicating willingness to
grant easements for connecting to the Condo Association's stormwater system. They
are now working cooperatively with Harbour Homes to arrange for the necessary
easements.
• Through our review, the Condo Association has identified several generally minor
concerns with the western line of lots. We've raised these concerns with Harbour
Homes and they have been responsive in addressing them. I have been asked by the
Condo Association board to raise them here as well, so that we're all coordinated and
the concerns become part of the record. Specifically, the Condo Association has asked
Harbour Homes that:
o Any retaining walls along the western line of lots be engineered walls and not
just erosion protection rockeries or walls without structural connection of block
facings to retained soils.
o Fill placed along the western line of lots be imported select, free-draining
structural fill rather than reused native soils.
o The backyards of the western line of lots drain towards the slope. We ask that
an effort be made to minimize the area draining to the slope and that stormwater
be allowed to discharge diffusely to the slope rather than being concentrated or
collected in an interceptor trench dug into the slope.
o The storm water tightline be designed using sound engineering practices for
outfall lines on sensitive or unstable slopes:
Constructed of thick wall, butt-welded HOPE;
Generally aligned straight down the slope, with some deflection to allow
for thermal expansion;
Anchored at the top and bottom, but not anchored on the slope itself,
with the top anchor designed to accommodate the pipe weight plus
additional loading from burial by soil and subsequent surficial slope
movement or tree fall onto the pipe;
Include energy dissipation before entering the Condo Association's
system, and;
Constructed in a way to minimize impacts on the Condo Association
property -welded and pulled from the top of the slope down.
We ask that the hearing examiner impose these conditions as Mitigation Measures.
• Finally, an engineering geologist with Aspect Consulting recently completed a slope
reconnaissance and noted one condition with the existing site worthy of additional
attention. There is an ephemeral stream in the southwest portion of the project site
originating from the mapped wetlands. The stream has a defined channel with some
evidence of erosion and incision as it descends the steeper upper portion of the slope.
As it approaches the Campen Springs property, the channel becomes less defined
and disappears about 50 feet east and upgradient of the Condo property as sediment
transported from the top of the slope has deposited in a bit of an alluvial fan on the
lower less steep portions. This disperses flow to the hillside. Campen Springs has a
collection system in place to collect and bypass runoff from offsite, and there is a risk of
water and sediment reaching the buildings and roadway should the interceptor system
be plugged or flow from the stream change course as a result of the ongoing sediment
deposition. Our recommendation is that Harbour Homes periodically observe the
stream and strive to maintain a stream channel through the sediment deposition area
directing the flow to its natural course on the adjacent property.
Thoughts on Vuecrest Estates at Ta blot Hill
Members of the board, et al.
C 'f H--/ f?7 / T
7~
I am not naive enough to believe that Vuecrest will never be developed. It will, eventually. But
this proposal is not right for Renton or the community living on Talbot Hill. It sets a bad
precedent.
I was hopeful that when this proposal was put on hold last year, that the owner, Schneider
Homes, LLC, and the developer, Harbour Homes, LLC, would go back to the drawing board and
reevaluate this proposal. Unfortunately, this hasn't happened.
There are two good reasons why this project should not be approved as proposed. The first is
the variance to extend Smithers Avenue beyond what is reasonable into another dead end. The
second is the meager concessions to the documented environmental sensitivity of the
development and surrounding area.
Let's take a look at the proposal with respect to the road development into Vuecrest. Schneider
and Harbour wish a variance from Renton Municipal Code 4-6-060H, which states that for roads
longer than 700 feet, sprinkler systems must be installed for all houses beyond 500 feet. It also
states that two means of access are required. Simply stated, Vuecrest must have an additional
road installed that connects to 102nd Avenue. There are good reasons for this, both from an
emergency services standpoint and a traffic mitigation standpoint. The longer the road is, the
longer the delay is for fire, police, and medical services. It also reduces the ability for said
services to access the area in the event that the road is blocked. Additionally, it increases the
traffic burden to the secondary roads that lead into the development.
I could be persuaded that a mitigation might be warranted if the proposed end of the road
were 300 feet beyond the code requirement, but it is not. According to the proposal, the road
will extend nearly 2400 feet from the main arterial, or more than triple the code requirement.
That is nearly a half mile, or thirty seconds additional time to reach the end of the road at sixty
miles per hour, a velocity that would be impossible to travel at given the bends in the road at
Smithers and 47th and Vuecrest. This is a major deviation. It is not surprising that both the
Renton Fire Department and the Department of Community and Economic Development
oppose this variance.
The other reason this is a problem is due to traffic. The additional homes at Vuecrest will
conservatively triple or quadruple the traffic burden on Smithers, and double or triple the
traffic on 47th. Families walk down Smithers and 47th daily. It's a nice neighborhood jaunt. I
agree that the number of houses in Vuecrest is not large, but the effect is cumulative all the
way up 47th to 102nd. Adding more traffic on this road puts these pedestrians at additional
risk.
There is no engineering or geographical reason why secondary access can't be provided to this
site. The developers would like you to believe that there is. But the fact is that Schneider do not
own the property that would plumb Vuecrest into 102nd Avenue SE, and that is it. There might
be a good reason for that, and it may be economic or something completely different, but that
does not mean that the developer can get a pass on this code requirement.
The second concern I have about this proposal is the environmental sensitivity of the site. The
property has a wetland, stream and a steep slope for its borders. The road actually backs up to
the stream. Also, the environmental review identified 401 trees as significant. Most ofthese
trees are mature, large in diameter, and with a robust root system. Removal of these trees
increase erosion and slide risk. The surrounding area is already listed as a moderate to high risk
for landslides, and listed as a high erosion hazard. The existing vegetation also sustains a
significant number of deer in the area, which I see on occasion. This point seems to have been
missed by Wetlands Resources, Inc: there are more than just coyotes, rabbits, and opossum in
the area.
There has been a mitigation proposed to handle this situation, but the proposal is not sufficient.
The proposal states that 65 trees would be "replaced or retained". The problem is for efficient
development, the emphasis will be on replaced, not retained. The language of the proposal
allow the developer to clearcut the property, and replace the trees with something not nearly
as robust.
I will acknowledge that the proposal requires 140 additional trees to be planted but there are
two problems with this. The first is the tree replacements are for two inch diameter trees, and
the second is the proposal further reduced it in the latest report to 69. These immature trees
are a poor substitute for the existing vegetation. They will do nothing to mitigate runoff,
erosion, or slide risk.
It is for these two big reasons -the lack of secondary access to the site, and the environmental
treatment of the site, that this proposal be rejected. As I mentioned previously, I have no doubt
that this plat will be developed, but this proposal is not sufficient.
Respectfully submitted,
Eric R. Hanson
4711 Smithers Ave S
Renton, WA 98055
Sundance Resident
EXHIBIT
Bottom of slope at Talbot Ridge
Bottom of slope at Talbot Ridge
Talbot Ridge during floodin
EXHIBIT Q.?\ p · Z.
albot Ridge flooded
albot Ridge without flooding
{d Van Ness
I Feldman LLP
Mr. Phil A. Olbrechts
Hearing Examiner
Renton City Hall
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
September 16, 2014
Re: Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat
Project No. LUA13-000642; ECF, PP, MOD
Dear Mr. Olbrechts:
~f-+l P-, IT
719 Second Avenue, Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104-1728
206-623-9372
vnf.com
This office represents Harbour Homes, LLC in the above-referenced matter.
I present this letter in support of the Preliminary Plat application for Vuenest Estates, as
proposed by the Applicant, with a temporary cul-de-sac at the end of the internal street. We ask
that you approve this project as recommended by staff but without proposed condition No. 5.
Under our interpretation of the City code, the secondary access provisions in Renton
Municipal Code (RMC) 4-6-060.H.2 do not apply because the Applicant is not seeking approval
for a permanent dead-end street. However, if you determine that this code section applies, we
ask that you grant the variance from this code section that was requested by the Applicant. The
evidence in the written record, in the attachments to this letter, and in the oral testimony to he
presented at the hearing demonstrates that the variance criteria are met. Moreover, to deny this
variance and impose recommended condition No. 5 would be arbitrary and capricious and would
result in a violation ofRCW 82.02.020 and the Applicant's substantive dLie process rights.
The Applicant proceeded with this plat application based on written statements by City
staff, reconfinned on several occasions, that this project would be approved with a temporary
cul-de-sac at the end of the plat's internal road. The staff accepted this temporary cul-se-sac,
recognizing that the Applicant did not control the parcel ofland east of the project site required
to connect the project's internal road to 102nd Ave. SE. The staff recognized that when the
adjoining property is developed, in the future, secondary access to 102nd Ave. SE will be
established for Vuecrest Estates and for the immediately adjacent plats, including the Stonehavcn
Plat that was previously approved without a secondary access even though it was located on a
road more than 700 feet long. The staff conditioned their acceptance on three requirements: I)
that the internal road in the plat be built with a temporary cul-de-sac but be able to be extended
to the east, in the future, to provide secondary access; 2) that sprinklers be installed in every
Phil A. Olbrechts 2 September 16, 2014
home built in the new development; and 3) that the internal road be built with twenty-eight feet
(28') of pavement. The Applicant agreed to each of these conditions and proceeded in good faith
with this application.
It came as a shock to the Applicant when it was discovered at the end of August, 2014
that City staff would arbitrarily reverse course at the 11th hour and demand a secondary access.
The Applicant has proceeded in processing this application for over a year, responding dutifully
to every City comment and expending hundreds of thousands of dollars in reasonable reliance on
the City staffs prior decision expressly acknowledging that a secondary access would not be
required. The City's recommended condition No. 5, to require a secondary access prior to final
plat approval, represents the worst in bad faith municipal behavior. The recommendation is not
supported by the facts or the law and should be rejected by the Hearing Examiner.
A summary of the history of the City's repeated acceptance of a temporary cul-de-sac is
presented below, followed by a summary of the facts to be presented at the hearing by experts
demonstrating that a secondary access should not be required at this time. This letter then
demonstrates why the plat satisfies the code requirements concerning dead-end streets and why,
if a variance from the dead-end street standards is required, the Hearing Examiner should grant
that variance. Finally, this letter demonstrates why imposition of staff recommended condition
1'.o. 5 would violate RCW 82.02.020 and the Applicant's substantive due process rights.
STAFF'S PROPOSED CONDITION NO. 5 REVERSES THE CITY'S CLEARLY
STATED PRIOR APPROVAL OF A TEMPORARY CUL-DE-SAC FOR THIS
PROJECT
On September 13, 2012 the Applicant held its first mandatory Pre-Application meeting
with the City and all relevant Department representatives, including representatives from the Fire
Department. The Pre-Application meeting was held as required by RMC 4-7-080.D.4 which
states: "Any recommendations of the various departments for revision of the tentative plan
should be discussed at such meeting as well as recorded in writing." RMC 4-7-080.D.4.
The Applicant presented a preliminary design of this project showing a proposed
permanent cul-de-sac at the end of the internal street that would serve the proposed plat. Both
the Fire Department representative Corey Thomas (the plan reviewer) and the Public Works
Department representative wrote memos for this Pre-Application meeting that addressed the
proposed internal street. The Fire Department representative stated: "Street system shall be
designed to be extended to adjoining underdeveloped properties for future extension." The
Public Works Department representative stated: "The internal street is required to be extended to
the southeast boundary of the parcel to provide future connection to SE 186th Street and Main
Avenue South. . ... No additional right-of-way was required." Attachment A. These
comments emphasized that connection in the future would be required.
Based upon these comments, the Applicant redesigned the proposed plat to include a
temporary cul-de-sac at a location where the internal road could be extended to the east in the
future. This redesign was submitted for a new Pre-Application meeting, which was held on
November 21, 2012. Mr. Corey Thomas, on behalf of the Fire Department, prepared a detailed
written memo in response to this redesign and confirmed that a temporary cul-de-sac would be
acceptable to the Fire Department. In his November 13, 2012 memo, Mr. Thomas wrote:
Phil A. Olbrechts 3 September 16, 2014
"Street system shall be designed to be extended to adjoining underdeveloped
properties for future extension. It was previously decided to require a 32-foot
wide street if the street grid could not be extended. If this future extension can be
achieved, the required 32-foot paved street may be reduced to 28-feet of
pavement. A proposed temporary cul-de-sac would be acceptable if it meets all
required dimensions and construction requirements."
Attachment B. The position of the Fire Department presented at the second Pre-Application
meeting was a critical decision since, under RMC 4-7-080.D.6, it outlined the preliminary plat's
fundamental roadway design that would be acceptable to the Fire Department so that the
Applicant could ''proceed to the preliminary plat stage."
In an abundance of caution, before the Applicant's civil engineer formally submitted the
preliminary plat application, he submitted an email to Mr. Thomas to confirm the Fire
Department's position on the temporary cul-de-sac and road widths. This email and the
responses from Mr. Thomas and the City's Department of Community & Economic
Development representative, Senior Planner Vanessa Dolbee, are attached as Attachment C. The
Fire Department's representative confirmed:
"The road section can be 28-feet if you provide the stub road only for future
connection, the actual connection does not have to be achieved at this time. A
temporary 90-foot diameter cul-de-sac is acceptable also .... All homes require
fire sprinkler systems .... The only way to eliminate the fire sprinklers is to
complete the road connection to 102°d right away [sic]."
Ms. Dolbee's email crystalized the City's position on what would be an acceptable
configuration:
"The City is asking that you provide stub to the property to the east but are not
asking you to make the improvements to provide secondary access as part of the
proposed development. However, without the secondary access a cul-de-sac
would be required for fire turn around . . . . "
These emails confirmed the position of the City. The design of the preliminary plat
would be acceptable to the City without a secondary access, so long as sprinklers were installed
in all of the homes, the internal roadway was designed so that it could be extended in the future
to the east to 102"d Ave. SE, and that a temporary cul-de-sac was provided. This is precisely the
design that the Applicant formally submitted to the City on May 21, 2013. On June 7, 2013 that
application was deemed complete and a tentative hearing scheduled for August 13, 2013.
Attachment D.
Unfortunately, for reasons only the City can explain, the staff arbitrarily placed this
project on hold. Fire Chief Mark Peterson took the position that he would not approve any
further development of this area without a secondary access road. Mr. Peterson stated his
position in an August 15, 2013 letter. Attachment E.
I was personally engaged by the Applicant at that time. My review of the applicable
section of the city code revealed that the City appeared to be misreading the language of RMC 4-
6-060 H.1. That code section reads:
Phil A. Olbrechts 4 September 16, 2014
"Cul-de-sac and dead-end streets are limited in application and may only be
permitted by the Administration where, due to demonstrable physical constraints,
no future connection to a larger street pattern is physically possible."
This code language effectively defines a "dead-end street" as a street where, due to physical
constraints, no future connection is possible. Where a future connect is physically possible but
an applicant does not control that property, a temporary cul-de-sac can be provided and there is
no permanent dead-end street proposed. The staff appears to have applied this code
interpretation in the responses provided in the two Pre-Application meetings. In the first Pre-
Application meeting, the City staff noted that a permanent dead-end street would not be allowed.
In the second Pre-Application meeting, and in the emails from City staff in January, 2013, staff
confirmed that the plat would be approved so long as the internal roadway was designed for a
future connection that would provide secondary access and that a temporary cul-de-sac would be
approved. This staff determination is consistent with the code language in RMC 4-6-060H. l.
On August 22, 2013, I sent an email to Chip Vincent, the City's Development Manager,
explaining the pre-application decisions by the City and my reading of the Code. Attachment F.
I was also in communication with City Attorney Larry Warren at that time. On October 3, 2013
I received a voicemail from Mr. Warren indicating that he had talked with Mr. Vincent and the
Mayor and that the City had decided to stand by the City's previous position to accept the
temporary cul-de-sac and not require a secondary access. Days later Mr. Peterson officially
withdrew his August 15, 2013 letter. Attachment G. Project review recommenced at that point.
In February, 2014, the City planner working on this project, Elizabeth Higgens, asked the
Applicant to file a formal request for a variance regarding the secondary access code provisions.
Attachment H. This was presented as a formality. Ms. Higgens wrote:
"My understanding is that if you submit a request for a modification from the
code requirement for a second access when the primary access is a dead-end street
of 700 feet or greater, it will be supported by the City."
In response to Ms. Higgens' request, the Applicant's civil engineer prepared a formal
variance request noting, however, that because the Applicant was not proposing a permanent
dead-end street, and was providing a future means of secondary access, that a variance should
not be required. Attachment I. Nonetheless, the variance request detailed why each of the
variance criterion in RMC 4-9-250.B was met.
No response to the variance request was received and no comments concerning secondary
access were raised in any communication from the City from February 2014 until late August
2014. During this period, the Applicant worked diligently to address several of the issues raised
by staff to proceed to hearing. On August 21, 2014, Mr. Warren informed me by email and
voiccmail that the City had reversed course and was going to require a secondary access. No
explanation was given. This change was officially presented to the Applicant in the Staff Report
and recommended condition No. 5, which proposed to prohibit final plat approval until the
internal road, Smithers Ave. S, is extended to the east, across property owned by Joseph and
Martha Mackenzie (King County Parcel No., 322305-917 l) and connected to I 02"d Ave. SE.
Phil A. Olbrechts 5 September 16, 2014
THE FACTS SUPPORT APPROVAL OF A TEMPORARY CUL-DE-SAC THAT WILL
BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE WHEN THE ADJOINING PROPERTY IS
DEVELOPED
The Staff Report provides no explanation for why staff reversed the previously confirmed
position to allow a temporary cul-de-sac. The Staff Report presents no specific site or
individualized analysis that demonstrates why a secondary access should be required prior to
final plat approval and why the requested variance should be denied. The Staff Report merely
notes that the Fire Department has "concerns for public health and safety in the event of an
emergency situation" and that the Applicant '"has not demonstrated that there are insurmountable
physical constraints" for the secondary access connection.
The Staff Report notes that the length of the dead-end street would be 2,364 feet but fails
to address why previous developments were approved with homes along this length of road
without a secondary access. The Staff Report states that there are currently 99 lots accessed by
this dead-end street but fails to note that 42 of these are on S. 47th PL and SE 185 1h PL that have
no impact on access to and from Vuecrest Estates. The Staff Report also fails to disclose that, of
the existing 57 homes not on those two streets, 36 are within the Stonehaven Plat and are on a
looped road that allows for two ways to access or egress within that plat. Furthermore, the Staff
Report fails to produce any evidence that these streets would be impassable by emergency
vehicles or why this proposal should be treated differently from the Stonehaven Plat, for which
no secondary access was required. Attachment J.
The Applicant will present evidence at the hearing from several experts that demonstrates
why recommended condition No. 5 should not be imposed.
Mr. Jamie Waltier will describe the significant effort he made to secure an agreement
from Mr. Mackenzie to continue the internal roadway eastward and provide a secondary access
across Mr. Mackenzie's property to 102nd Ave. SE. Mr. Mackenzie refused to sell or grant
easements for such a secondary access. Mr. Waltier will describe that recommended condition
No. 5 effectively grants veto power to Mr. Mackenzie over approval of a final plat for Vuecrest
Estates. This results in there being no reasonable use available for this property.
Mr. Vince Geglia, a traffic engineer with TraffEX, is unable to attend the hearing but has
prepared written testimony in Attachment K. His analysis demonstrates that the surround streets
carry low volumes of traffic at relatively low speeds with the conclusion that the risk of traffic
accidents that would block access to emergency vehicles is very low. He also notes that the
looped road proposed for Vuecrest Estates will provide opportunities for circulation of
emergency vehicles within the plat.
Mr. Maher Joudi, a civil engineer with DR Strong Consulting Engineers Inc., will
present expert testimony concerning the wide roadways (32.5' of pavement) and adjacent
sidewalks ( 4.5' each side) that provide a total width of over 40 feet for an emergency vehicle to
travel from the intersection of 102nd Ave. SE and SE 186 1h Street to the proposed development.
He will describe the minimal on-street parking that occurs on these streets, given that each home
along this roadway has a garage and off-street parking in their driveway. He will address the
internal circulation to be provided within Vuecrest Estates and how it provides circulation for
emergency vehicles. He will discuss the adjoining Stonehaven Plat that received plat approval
Phil A. Olbrcchts 6 September 16, 2014
without a secondary access even though its lots were located along a road more than 700 feet in
length. Mr. Joudi will explain that Vuecrest Estates is part of the solution for future secondary
access, because after Vuecrest Estates is built, this entire community will be one step closer to
having a secondary access to I 02nd Ave. SE. Mr. J oudi will also address the variance he sought
and why, if a variance is required, this project meets the variance criteria.
Mr. Carl Anderson, a registered Fire Protection Engineer with The Fire Protection
International Consortium, Inc., will present expert testimony regarding the minimal risks to life
and safety posed by this development without having a secondary access and the significant
reduction in risk by the Applicant agreeing to install sprinklers in every home.
This testimony supports the Hearing Examiner approving this plat with a temporary cul-
de-sac that can be extended in the future to provide secondary access when the adjacent property
develops.
A VARIANCE FROM THE SECONDARY ACCESS STANDARD, IF REQUIRED,
SHOULD BE APPROVED
As noted above, the correct reading of RMC 4-6-060.H. l is that the provision of a
temporary cul-de-sac meets these standards because a permanent dead-end street is not being
constructed and a future secondary access is being provided. Where a future connection is
physically possible, but an Applicant does not control that property, a temporary cul-de-sac can
be approved because there is no permanent dead-end street proposed.
Nonetheless, if the Hearing Examiner determines that RMC 4-6-060.H. l requires a
secondary access, the Hearing Examiner should grant the variance that was requested. The
Hearing Examiner has the authority to approve a variance from any of the requirements of the
subdivision regulations. RMC 4-7-240. Review of such a variance follows the provisions in
RMC 4-9-250.B.
The variance request presented why the variance should granted. Attachment I. The
Staff Report addresses a "modification" request in general terms but fails to respond to each of
the variance criteria.
This project meets each of the variance criteria in RMC 4-9-250.B.5:
• Criteria a: This site is located in an area that is not adjacent to another public road
in which to provide public access. Other owners, such as the owner of the adjacent
Stonehaven Plat, were granted subdivision approval, even though they were located
on a road more than 700 feet long and did not provide secondary access.
• Criteria b: The evidence demonstrates that granting the variance will not be
materially detrimental to the public welfare. As noted above, evidence to be
presented by the Applicant's experts will demonstrate that approval of these
additional lots does not cause any substantial increased risks of harm. Roadways
that provide access to this site are 32'.5 feet in width with 4.5' sidewalks on either
side, providing ample room for maneuvering emergency vehicles. The quiet
residential neighborhood has no history of accidents. The low traffic volumes and
slow speeds of residential traffic do not pose a significant risk of blocking
Phil A. Olbrechts 7 September 16, 2014
accidents. There is internal circulation provided along S. 47th St. and is proposed
in Vuecrest Estates. Every home will have a sprinkler system. Rather than being
materially detrimental, approval of this variance will benefit public welfare because
it will allow Smithers Ave. S. to be extended closer to 102nd Ave. SE and nearer to
completion of a secondary access for this entire neighborhood.
• Criteria c: The Stonehaven Plat, immediately adjacent, was granted plat approval
without providing a secondary access even though it faced the same limitations of
being on a street longer than 700 feet in length. Granting this variance would not
constitute a grant of special privilege and would avoid the City taking an arbitrary
and capricious action, in violation ofRCW 82.02.020 and the Applicant's
substantive due process rights.
• Criteria d: The variance requested, providing a temporary cul-de-sac for a future
connection to a secondary access, is the minimum to accomplish this purpose. The
Applicant has already agreed to build streets wider than code requirements and to
place fire sprinklers in every home, providing a significantly enhanced level of
safety for this neighborhood.
The variance, if required, should be granted by the Hearing Examiner.
REQUIRING SECONDARY ACCESS WOULD BE ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS,
CONTRARY TO RCW 82.02.020 AND A VIOLATION OF THE APPLICANT'S
SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS RIGHTS
The City should be held to its prior determination that secondary access is not required
for this plat. That determination was made four times. In the second Pre-Application meeting,
the City's Fire Department representative stated the Fire Department's position clearly: "A
proposed temporary cul-de-sac would be acceptable ... " Attachment B. This was reconfirmed
in the Fire Department's email: "the actual [secondary access] connection does not have to be
achieved at this time." Attachment C. After the project was put on hold, and there were further
discussions with City staff and the Mayor and the City attorney's office, the Fire Chief
withdrawal an earlier letter, and the City informed the Applicant that the application would be
processed for approval without a secondary access. In January 2014, when the City informed the
applicant that a formal variance application was required, it was made clear in Ms. Higgens·
email that the City supported this variance request. Attachment H.
My client has expended hundreds of thousands of dollars in reliance on the City's clear
representations that a secondary access would not be required. For the City to now reverse
course is an arbitrary act with significant liability for damages under Chapter 64.40 RCW.
Furthermore, RCW 82.02.020 restricts the City from imposing conditions where there is
no nexus and rough proportionality between the condition imposed and the alleged impacts. See
City of Federal Way v. Town & Country Real Estate, LLC, 161 Wn.App. 17, 45 (2011 ). The
roads serving this plat are adequate. There is no dead-end street proposed, merely a temporary
cul-de-sac. This project is providing the future link to a secondary access that will not only serve
this project but the prior projects to the north that were approved by the City under similar
circumstances, without requiring a secondary access. The obligation in recommended condition
Phil A. Olbrechts 8 September 16, 2014
No. 5, to extend Smithers Ave. S. to the east, across property that the Applicant does not own or
control is a heavy burden that far exceeds the impacts caused by the project. The added risk
from approval of these 20 homes is negligible. While the Fire Department clearly desires a
secondary access, the City has presented no evidence that that there are significant impacts that
warrant the imposition of this draconian condition. The Applicant attempted in good faith to
acquire rights from the adjoining owner to extend the road to the east and that owner would not
agree to grant such access rights. Staff recommended condition No. 5, if accepted, would
impose a condition that would be impossible to meet, effectively resulting in denial of this
project. With recommended condition No. 5, until property to the east develops or agrees to
dedicate a right-of-way to the City, no reasonable use can be made of the subject property.
Recommended condition No. 5 also violates the Applicant's substantive due process
rights. A land use regulation violates substantive due process where (I) the regulation fails to
achieve a legitimate public purpose; (2) the means adopted are not reasonably necessary to
achieve that purpose; or (3) the regulations are unduly burdensome on the property owner.
Robinson v. City of Seattle, 119 Wn.2d 34 ( 1992). While the City's proposed secondary access
requirement may meet the first prong, it fails the second two.
As noted earlier, a secondary access is not reasonably necessary. The roads serving this
plat meet or exceed city standards. There is ample width for emergency vehicles to access this
plat. The total road and sidewalk width of over forty feet ( 40'), the low traffic volumes, the low
speeds through this neighborhood, and low probability of blocking accidents and the internal
circulation demonstrate that the risk of a fire truck or ambulance failing to gain access to this plat
through existing access roads is negligible. To mitigate impacts, every home in this development
will have a sprinkler system, designed to quickly and effectively respond to a fire emergency.
Smithers Ave. S. will be extended through Vuecrest Estates eastward to the adjoining Mackenzie
property that fronts on 102°<l Ave. SE. Vueercst Estates moves this neighborhood one step closer
to achieving the desire for secondary access. The Plat of Stonehaven, adjoining this project to
the northeast, was approved without a secondary access. Expert testimony from the Applicant's
witnesses will establish that there is no significant increase in risk from the addition of twenty
new homes.
Regarding the third factor, courts consider the (a) nature of the harm to be avoided; (b)
the availability and effectiveness ofless drastic measures; and (c) the economic loss suffered by
the property owner. Presbytery o.f Seattle v. King Cy., 114 Wn.2d 320, 331, ( 1990). Other
nonexclusive factors that may be helpful in the balancing required under the third factor include
the seriousness of the public problem, the extent to which the landowner's property contributes
to the problem, the degree to which the regulation solves the problem, and the feasibility oflcss
burdensome solutions. Id.
Here, imposition of recommended condition No. 5 effectively results in denial of the
project, the loss of over hundreds of thousands of dollars invested to date in the Project and the
loss of millions of dollars in lost profit. The City already approved the neighboring Plat of
Stonehaven without a secondary access, so the determination was already made by the City that
this is not a serious problem. Moreover, the repeated position of City staff that a secondary
access connection would not be required for Vuecrest Estates confirms that most staff did not
observe there to be a serious issue. The Applicant made a good faith effort to either acquire the
Phil A. Olhrechts 9 September 16, 2014
Mackenzie property to the east or acquire a right-ot~way through that property, but the adjacent
owner would not agree to sell or grant such a right-of-way.
There are far less burdensome solutions to address the City's concerns and these have
been agreed upon. Every home will have a fire sprinkler. An alley has been designed to provide
a looped system through this plat to provide enhanced maneuverability around the homes. The
internal roads have been designed 4 feet wider than the City minimum standards. All of these
measures address the City's concern with far Jess impact on the Applicant.
The facts presented in this case can he easily distinguished from those in Isla Verde
International Holdings, Inc. vs. City of Camas, 146 Wn.2d 740 (2002), where a secondary access
condition was affirmed. In Isla Verde, the roads leading to the proposed plat were steep and
impassable in winter conditions, with residents having to park their vehicles at the bottom of the
hill. 146 Wn. 2d at 746. There was a danger of wildfires in the area. Id. There was no offer or
agreement by the applicant in Isla Verde to provide the homes with sprinkler systems. Id. at
n.18. A significant risk of harm was established.
Here, in the Vuecrest Estates case, there is no significant risk. The access to the proposed
plat is across wide, low volume streets that do not have the constrains present in the Isla Verde
case. The homes in Vuecrest Estates will be sprinklered, which the developer in Isla Verde did
not agree to. The sprinkler system to he installed here will provide an effective alternative
means to address the City's perceived risk.
Finally, there were many opportunities for secondary access in the Isla Verde case to
meet a general requirement to provide any means of secondary access. Here, Renton staff has
recognized that the secondary access must be provided by extending Smithers Ave. S. to the east,
across property owned by Mr. Mackenzie, who has refused to sell or grant a right-of-way.
Recommended condition No. 5 is arbitrary and capricious, in violation of RCW
82.02.020 and in violation of the Applicant's substantive due process rights. This condition
should not be imposed by the Hearing Examiner.
CONCLUSION
We urge the Hearing Examiner to approve the Vuecrest Estate project, as recommended
by staff, but without proposed condition No. 5, allowing this project to construct a temporary
cul-de-sac that will eventually he converted to a secondary access when the property to the east,
not owned or controlled by the Applicant, is developed in the future.
Very truly yours,
#;
Brent Carson
cc: Client
PREAPPLICATION MEETING FOR
SCHNEIDER PRELIMINARY PLAT ON SHATTUCK AVES
SOUTH END OF SHATTUCK AVES SOUTH OF S 4
CITY OF RENTON
Department of Community and Economic Development
Planning Division
PRE12-070
Contact Information:
Planner: Vanessa Dolbee Phone: 425.430.7314
Public Works Reviewer: Arneta Henninger Phone: 425.430.7298
Fire Prevention Reviewer: Corey Thomas Phone: 425.430. 7024
Building Department Reviewer: Craig Burnell Phone: 425.430. 7290
Please retain this packet throughout the course of your project as a reference.
Consider giving copies of it to any engineers, architects, and contractors who work
on the project. You will need to submit a copy of this packet when you apply for
land use and/or environmental permits.
Pre-screening; When you have the project application ready for submittal, call and
schedule an appointment with the project manager (planner) to have it pre-
screened before making all of the required copies.
The pre-application meeting is informal and non-binding. The comments provided
on the proposal are based on the codes and policies In effect at the time of review.
The applicant is cautioned that the development regulations are regularly
amended and the proposal will be formally reviewed under the regulations in
effect at the time of project submittal. The information contained in this summary
is subject to modification and/or concurrence by official decision-makers (e.g.,
Hearing Examiner, Planning Director, Development Services Director, Department
of Community and Economic Development Administrator, Public Works
Administrator and City Council).
FIRE & EMERGENCY SERVICES DEPA-RT_M_E-NT ____ _.. t) .City_of, , .
1
~
j _ sil r rjJJ ·J~1
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 15, 2012
TO: Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner
FROM: Corey Thomas, Plans Review Inspector
SUBJECT: Preliminary comments for Schneider Preliminary Plat
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. Existing fire hydrants can be
counted toward the requirements as long as they meet current code
including 5-inch storz fittings. A water availability certificate is
required from Soos Creek Water and Sewer District
2. The fire mitigation impact fees are currently applicable at the rate
of $488.00 per single family unit This fee is paid prior to recording
the plat
3. Fire department apparatus access roadways are required to be a
minimum of 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.
Approved apparatus turnarounds are required for dead end roads
exceeding 150-feet Cul-de-sac turnarounds of 90-foot diameter
are required for dead end streets over 500-feet long. Dead end
streets exceeding 500-feet require all homes to be provided with
an approved fire sprinkler system, Dead end streets exceeding
700-leet are not allowed without approved secondary access
roadways being provided. Access as proposed will not meet
current code. $,tr• $¥Stem shal. be designed tlil be ~eel ~o
~ fllderdevefoped properties for future extension. i
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
M E M O R A N D U M
September 7, 2012
Vanessa Dolbee, Planner
Arneta Henninger, Plan Review /(4-
Utility and Transportation Comments for:
Schneider Plat
South of S. 47'" ST & Smithers Ave S
Pre 12-070, Parcel 3123059048
NOTE: The applicant is cautioned that information contained in this summary is preliminary and non-
binding and may be subject to modification and/or concurrence by official city decision-makers. Review
comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes required by
City staff or made by the applicant.
I have completed a preliminary review for the above-referenced 27-lot plat proposal, located at the end
of Smithers Ave S., just south of S. 47'' St in Sect. 31, Twp 23N Rng 5 E. The following comments are
based on the pre-application submittal made to the City of Renton by the applicant.
Water
1. The proposed subdivision is within the City of Renton retail water service area. However, there is no
City water main in the vicinity of the development that can be extended to provide the necessary water
pressure.
2. It appears that Soos Creek Water & Sewer District (SCWSD) has an existing water main along the
north side of the property that can be extended to serve the subject development. The applicant shall
contact SCWSD and obtain a certificate of water availability.
3. The City's Water Utility will be able to release the water service to this property to SCWSD upon
confirmation that the District can provide water service to the proposed development.
4. Per the City Fire Marshal, the preliminary fire flow requirement for a single family home is a
minimum 1,000 gpm 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; two hydrants if the fire flow
goes up to 1,500 gpm. Lateral spacing of fire hydrants is predicated on hydrants being located at street
intersections.
5. All fire hydrants need to be brought up to current code if not existing.
Schneider Plat PRE 12-070
Page 2 of 3
September 7, 2012
6. The City of Renton System Development Charges (SDC) are based on the size of the domestic water
meters. These -fees are collected at the time a construction permit is issued.
Sanitary Sewer
1. This site is located in the City of Renton sanitary sewer service boundary.
2. There is an existing 8" sewer main in Smithers Ave S. See City of Renton sanitary sewer drawing #S-
2776 for details.
3. Project plans need to show how sanitary sewer will be provided to each unit with an individual sewer
service line. Per code, sanitary sewer needs to be extended along the full frontage of the parcel being
developed.
4. This proposal appears to be located in Specia! Assessment District {SAD} 0013 and 8405. SAD 8406 is
Valley Medical, and it appears ta,have been paid. SAD 0013 is the Summit Park Latecomer, and it also
,ippears to have been paid. /
S. Sanitary Sewer SDC fees are based on the size of the domestic water meters. These fees are
collected at the time a construction permit is issued.
Storm Drainage
1. There are existing storm drainage facilities in S. 47th St and in Smithers Ave S. See drawing #R-2776.
2. A drainage plan and drainage report will be required with the site plan application. The report shall
comply with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and the 2009 City of Renton Amendments to
the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. All core and any special requirements shall be contained in the report.
Based on the city's flow control map, this site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard, Forested
Conditions. The drainage report will need to follow the area specific flow control requirements under
Core Requirement #3.
3. A geotechnical report for the site is required. Information on the water table and soil permeability
with recommendations of appropriate flow control BMP options with typical designs for the site, from
the geotechnical engineer, shall be submitted with the application.
4. Surface Water SDC fees are $1,012 per lot if individually owned or $0.405 per square foot of new
impervious area if lots are not individually owned. These fees are collected at the time a construction
permit is issued.
Transportation/Street
1. Installation of curb, gutter, sidewalk, and street lighting is required on the full frontages of the parcel
being developed. 11\e mtenw street i$ re'¥11<ed tobe e)(tended to tne wutneast boundary of the parcil
to provide futllf'.e ~11ectlon to SE l8611f~~cf'Mfflh'"1lveni1e'~
2. Street improvements for the interior road are 32 feet in pavement width. The right-of-way is to be
58 feet in width, with an 8-foot planter strip and a 5-foot sidewalk. Additional right-of-way not required.
3. Street lighting shall be per current City of Renton standards and specifications. The residential
decorative lighting on black poles spaced approximately 110' is required. See City of Renton details.
4. Per City of Renton code, all lot corners at intersections of dedicated public right-of-ways shall have a
minimum radius of 15 feet. J/ 1 ~ t,,'-P.. '\ \,..e..
/?, pf) -+-t> 'q-t-_§ + (p J "'1
~tvtlf
H:\CED\Planning\Current Pianning\PREAPPS\12-070.Vcinessa\Plan Review Comments PRE 12-070.doc
Schneider Plat PRE 12-070
Page 3 of3
September 7, 2012
5. All new electrical, phone, and cable services and lines must be undergrounded. The construction of
these franchise utilities must be inspected and approved by a City of Renton public works inspector prior
to recording the plat.
6. Traffic mitigation or impact fees apply; these fees are approximately $750 per lot.
7. A traffic study is required. ~ ~ \.A.,h h ~IA....e ~-> +-, ~
General Comments
1. All required utility, drainage, and street Improvements will require separate plan submittals
prepared according to City of Renton drafting standards by a licensed Civil Engineer.
2. All plans shall be tied to a minimum of two of the City of Renton Horizontal and vertical Control
Network.
3. Permit application must include an itemized cost estimate for these improvements. Half of the fee
must be paid upon application for building and construction permits, and the remainder when the
permits are issued. There will be additional fees for water service related expenses. See Drafting
Standards.
H:\CED\Planning\Current Planning\PREAPPS\12~070.Vanessa\Pian Review Comments PRE 12-070.doc
PREAPPLICATION MEETING FOR
Schneider Homes Plat on Smithers
4800 Block of Smithers Ave. S
PRE 12-000108
CITY OF RENTON
Department of Community & Economic Development
Planning Division
Contact Information:
Planner: Vanessa Dolbee, 425.430.7314
Public Works Plan Reviewer: Arneta Henninger, 425.430.7298
Fire Prevention Reviewer: Corey Thomas, 425.430.7024
Building Department Reviewer: Craig Burnell, 425.430.7290
Please retain this packet throughout the course of your project as a reference. Consider
giving copies of it to any engineers, architects, and contractors who work on the
project. You will need to submit a copy of this packet when you apply for land use
and/or environmental permits.
Pre-screening: When you have the project application ready for submittal, call and
schedule an appointment with the project manager to have it pre-screened before
making all of the required copies.
The pre-application meeting is informal and non-binding. The comments provided on
the proposal are based on the codes and policies in effect at the time of review. The
applicant is cautioned that the development regulations are regularly amended and the
proposal will be formally reviewed under the regulations in effect at the time of project
submittal. The information contained in this summary is subject to modification and/or
concurrence by official decision-makers (e.g., Hearing Examiner, Planning Director,
Development Services Director, Department of Community & Economic Development
Administrator, Public Works Administrator and City Council).
FIRE & EMERGENCY SERVICES DEPARTMENT --r. City of, . __ . ~ ____ ..-.--1 ;_ E=' fl [ CJJl 1:Ji;;.:6!
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 13, 2012
TO: Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner
FROM: Corey Thomas, Plans Review Inspector
SUBJECT: Preliminary comments for Schneider Preliminary Plat
1. The lire flow requirement for a single family home is 1,000 gpm
minimum for dwellings up to 3,600 square feet (including garage and
basements). II 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-leet of the proposed buildings and two hydrants if
the fire flow goes up to 1,500 gpm. Existing fire hydrants can be
counted toward the requirements as long as they meet current code
including 5-inch storz fittings. A water availability certificate is required
from Soos Creek Water and Sewer District
2. The fire mitigation impact fees are currently applicable at the rate of
$488.00 per single family unit This fee will be reduced to $479.28
as of January 1st, 2013. This fee is paid prior to recording the plat
3. Fire department apparatus access roadways are required to be a
minimum of 20-feet wide fully paved, with 25-feet inside and 45-feet
outside turning radius. Fire access roadways shall be constructed to
support a 30-ton vehicle with 322-psi point loading. Access is
required within 150-feet of all points on the buildings. Approved
apparatus turnarounds are required for dead end roads exceeding
150-feet Cul-de-sac turnarounds of 90-foot diameter are required
for dead end streets over 500-feet long. Dead end streets exceeding
500-feet require all homes to be provided with an approved fire
sprinkler system. Dead end streets exceeding 700-feet are not
allowed without approved secondary access roadways being
provided. -..a&iti1ittlil'litl:Nt~w"~'°'
a~•sNJe'#llll~-.~fl:N'fwlr,~. IJ·W!if
~de~tg"'~ea ~wkfeSWeet if the.sueetgriq
~-·-~11tlftll,~~i;$\-.~.~
~·~~·--··~·~·rt>2MrieH)fi ,,...1illlfit,f).:~i% ,--~b~WOIJldi">e~table if I
itmeets all r. IQ I f i~--ifi!Q§tj-.;1iilJNwntt,:·
From:
To:
Maher Joudi
Brent Carson
Subject:
Date:
FW: Sc!-'.nc:der Property Feasibility PRE 12-000108
Tuesday, August 20, 2013 12:56:08 PM
Email from Vanessa.
ll!liiJJ
D,R, STRONG
ConsuJUng Englne£rs
lnc~
-\1:_ ::N::;U\~:RS 0 Lt.f\i\lER~
S'JP'J!::YC·P.~
Maher A. Joudi, P.E.
Sr.Project E1;1rec,, Vice Pres;dent
620 7th Avenue
Kirkland, WA 98033
Office: (425) 827-3063
Ce!I: (206) 948-7002
Fax: (425) 827-2423
2•/'a·2rc ~i·ct /J._;·-1.ice :::" 3-,. c:;~L1:::c,·t.c.-· ::-:::,,2·-s:.i,-c, :r~)·~,a~,o-""'."·a\' '.K -:::s~c,::t2: b 11 s:2::e ar::: 'co::e:-a p~:v2c·. :2 ,::,_
1-,;:::·L·. :-c ··<2:;,:::2 1· c 0 -r-s .~2c:-'.-:c·:;;.e ~;re; r·::.( :1'2 ·1:en,:2::-, :·ecip,2r:, ,c,__: 2-::: ,e··et'-r-.::::·:'ec ::2~ ,,,o._. sr:s..JiCJ -;:;:
i".J;tt,,c· ::,sse-c,.:;:e. c::s~r;:::d'~. Jc fc ,-,2r·::: :·,·5: E-~2: r-.2ss2;c. ~f ,,C~· :-c,,.e -e,:2 ,,ec c1--.1c: F-rr,oi: :-o e'rcr :::1c.::s~
"(''. r./ t"'e ser:::1e·· c;:-,:::; :::e'cc~t :·,c -".;;:2·.a -~~~ cc: ·1 -~, >'~--". ,-i::l~·;, 1,c,,.:
From: Vanessa Dolbee [mailto:VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 4:21 PM
To: Maher Joudi
Cc: Arneta J. Henninger; Corey W Thomas
Subject: RE: Schneider Property Feasibility PRE 12-000108
Maher,
Just to clarify Corey's e-mail below. The City is asking that you provide a stub to the property to
the east but are not asking you to make the improvements to provide secondary access as a part of
the proposed development. However, without the secondary access a cul-de-sac would be
required for fire turn around, either on the neighboring property and/or the subject site. Because
the stub road is required to be provided your road section can be 28-feet.
Please give rne a call if you have any more questions.
'1..anessa Do[6ee
Senior Planner
Department of Community & Economic Development
City of Renton
Renton City Hall -6th Floor
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
425.430.7314
From: Corey W Thomas
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 9: 16 AM
To: 'Maher Joudi'
Cc: Vanessa Dolbee; Arneta J. Henninger
Subject: RE: Schneider Property Feasibility PRE 12-000108
Maher,
The road section can be 28-feet if you provide the stub road only for future connection, the actual
connection does not have to be achieved at this time. A temporary 90-foot diameter cul-de-sac is
acceptable also.
If the stub road is not provided, the road section will be required to be 32-feet and a permanent
cul-de-sac is to be provided.
All homes require fire sprinkler systems in both of the above scenarios. The only way to eliminate
fire sprinklers is to complete the road connection to 102nd right away.
Corey W Thomas
Plan Rtvitw.ilti.spector
City of Renton fire Departme-nt
(4251430-7024 v.o,,
cthomas@rentonwa.gov
WA
From: Maher Joudt [mailto·maher joudi@drstrooa com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 08:54
To: Corey W Thomas
Cc: Vanessa Dolbee; Arneta J. Henninger
Subject: Schneider Property Feasibility PRE 12-000108
We are getting ready to put the prelim plat for this project together and need to remember where
we left the road section issue. If we stub to the east and provide a temp turn around, the road
section can remain 28' curb to curb, righP Or does it need to be 32 feet if we don't actually make
the connection to 102nd7
I only ask because my second pre app notes still say 28 feet of pavement in the memo from Arneta
but Corey's memo says:
"It was previously decided to require a 32-foot wide street if the street grid could not be
extended. If this future extension can be achieved, the required 32 feet may be reduced to 28 feet
of pavement. A proposed temporary eds would acceptable if it meets all required dimensions and
construction requirements"
Am I to read that as saying the temp turn around allows for the 28 feet of pavement??
Any info would be appreciated. Thanks.
ll!liill
D.R. STRONG
ConsuJ'liing Engineers
Inc.
c:v:L cr·.:G:\IEERS Plj,J·.Jf\lfRS
':i~R'..if-Y(_h':,
Maher A. Joudi, P.E.
Sr.ProJect Engineer, Vice
President
10604 N.E. 38th Place
Suite -#232
Kirkland, WA 98033
Office: (425) 827-3063
Cell: (206) 948-7002
Fax: (425) 827-2423
,e -----:".?.\·:,, , H·;:; ---.r; -,·essog2, 2°·-G ci,·1, ',:cos:,,::-·::·-~:c.::::
·,, E°?f'::: • :;:; 1-.:ccr::e:: O'"'·'y ·'er ~~e wscc ::,f '_-re -::::,,.,-::.:_:c: s ··c::" 2'.:
1LJN -
< ! , '~
·_: ,.,;
Denis Law
Mayor
June 7, 2013
Maher Joudi
D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers
10604 NE 38'" Place lt232
Kirkland, WA 98033
City of ,
-~ ~1_1 r 0.11
Department of Community and Econornic Development
C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator
Subject: Notice of Complete Application
Vuecrest Estates, LUAB-000642, ECF, PP
Dear Mr. Joudi:
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.
It is tentatively scheduled for consideration by the Environmental Review Committee on
July 1, 2013. Prior to that review, you will be notified if any additional information is
required to continue processing your application.
In addition, this matter is tentatively scheduled for a Public Hearing on August 13, 2013
at 10:00 a.m., Council Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady
Way, Renton. The applicant or representative(s) at 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.
Please contact me ;1t (425) 430-7314 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Vaness'1 Dolbee
Senior Planner
cc: Schneider Homes I, LLC / Owner(s)
Jamie Waltier / Applicant
Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov
·8
Denis law
Mayo,
August 15, 2013
Harbour Homes
Mr. Jamie Waltier
Land Acquisition Manager
1441 N 34'" Street #200
Seattle, WA 98103
Dear Mr. Waltier:
rt r· City of I
J!. 1_~JJ r.,r··\JJ1 -,J.... .;;;c~
Mark Peterson, Fire Chief I Emergency Services Administrator
Fire & Emergency Services Deparlment
After careful review of the Vuecrest Preliminary Plat material and the Talbot Ridge and Stonehaven plats
which adjoin the proposed Vuecrest plat, I have determined that I will not approve any further
development of this area without a secondary access road.
It is my opinion that any plat where the access is greater than 700 feet (the Vuecrest plat has only one
way in and one way out) impacts our ability to provide timely emergency response. Citizens will
therefore be put at risk if the single access is cut off for any reason and we cannot reach them. In
addition, the single access route slows our ability to respond to a secondary event should that become
necessary. Quick response times are critical when responding to emergencies.
A review of the Talbot Ridge and Stone haven files shows City of Renton Staff and the Hearing Examiner's
intent has always been to connect Smithers Avenue South to a secondary access point.
In 2004, the Stone haven plat material discloses several times where opposition to the long dead end
access was addressed by both the Fire Marshal and Assistant Fire Marshal. A letter from the City of
Renton dated March 30, 2004 to Mr. Lafe B. Hermansen regarding the Stonehaven Preliminary Plat
states, "The intent of providing secondary access beyond 700 feet is to avoid situations where
emergency vehicles cannot access a property due to blockage of the single route." Also, "Further
development of the properties west and south of this site will include completion of a looped street
system, removing the dead end status for this neighborhood."
Finally, throughout the Vuecrest Preliminary Plat process, the position of the Renton Fire & Emergency
Services Department is to oppose long access roads. In summary, any request for a secondary access
variance will be denied.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Respe.ctfully,gr-. /'7 -. /' vr yl---7 (Ii . ,· I/ c.__..V I
' Mark Peterson
Fire Chief/Emergency Services Administrator
MP/jh
c: Chip Vincent, CED Admlnt5trator
Dave Pargas, Assistant Fire Mar.shal
Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renoon, Washington 98057 • (425) 430-7000 / Fa, (425) 430-7044 • rentonwa.gov
(
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Brent Carson
Brent Carson
FW: Vuecrest Estates
Tuesday. September 02, 2014 2:05:14 PM
Email from Cory PDE
Vuecrest Estates Plat Mao PDF
Peterson l etter 8-1 5-13 PDE
Seoterrber 13 2012 Preaoo.POF
November 21 2012 Preaoo PDF
Dead End Street Standard PDF
------------·----------------------
From: Brent Carson
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 1:23 PM
To: 'cvincent@rentonwa.gov'
Subject: Vuecrest Estates
Chip,
Thanks for returr1ing my call cmd for your wiJ:1ngncs::, to look into this and work with me on a
reasonable solution.
I am attaching portions of the two preapp:ication meeting noles1 an email exchange with Co:y
Tho:nas, the recent le~ter from Mark Peterson and the key section of yow code
As we discussed, my client is not prooosing a deadend s0 reet or cul de sac. My cl ent is prooosing to
build a -cad that wil!, in the future, connect back to 1CJ2'd Ave. S2 , and will build a temporary turr·-
around that mee:'s crty standards. Cory's preapp comments and ema I correctly reflect the code
lan3Ja3e and authorized what :s proposed My cl!ent has agreed to spr·rnkler these homes and also
offered other solutions (suer as widening Tract D to prov,de a secondary fire apparatus access roac
through :re p:at) to erisure safe co:iditions.
Please get back to rre ct you~-earliest oppor:unily w·e arl' 1ivilling to meet cny t'me to discuss :h 1 s.
Thank you.
Brent Carson
Partner
Van r\ess Feldman GordonDerr
The Seattle Office of Van Ness Feldman, LLP
719 Second Avenue, Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104-1700
Phone: 206-623-9372
Fax: 206-623-4986
www.vnf com I www.vnfad com
Follow our blog: www oorthwestlaodmatters com
..,, 0' '
PRIV:LEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL This e-rnail 1s intended only for the use al the mdrvid..;a' or entity to whom 1t 1s addressed and may conla1n
Denis law
Mayor
October 7, 2013
Harbour Homes
Mr. Jamie Waltier
Land Acquisition Manager
1441 N 341
' Street #200
Seattle, WA 98103
Dear Mr. Waltier:
Marl< Peterson, Fire Chief/ Emergency Services Administrator
Fire·& Emergency S.ervke.s Department
I am withdrawing my letter dated August 15, 2013 regarding the Vuecrest Preliminary Plat.
Please understand that I reserve the right to reissue the letter based on the final plat design.
Respectfully., J_
,l'?JJ;U
Mark Peterson
Fire Chief/Emergency Services Administrator
MP/jh
c: Chip Vincent, CED Administrator
Dave Pargas, Assl5tant Fire Marshal
Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • (425) 430-7000 / Fax {425) 430-7044 • rentonwa.gov
F.-om;
To:
Subject;
Date:
Jarr1e Walt1er
Brent Carson; John Bannaer; Maher Joudi
FW: Vuecrest
Tuesday, September 02, 2014 2:15:38 PM
-----Original Message-----
From: Elizabeth Higgins [mailto·EHiggins@Rentonwa gov]
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 3:12 PM
To: Jamie Waltier
SubJect: RE: Vuecrest
Apparently, the argument your attorney made was that the alley could be used by fire trucks, so the
distance of the dead end was not very great. That would presume an adequate turn radius for fire and
other emergency vehicles at each end of an alley. I realize the most recent plan we have seen did not
show an alley, but your attorney made that argument.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jamie Waltier [mailto:iwaltier(a.harbourbomes.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 2:14 PM
To: Elizabeth Higgins
Subject: Re: Vuecrest
Just to clarify, do you mean the modification would be supported without the alley configuration, so long
as we build to the R6 standard and show the future stub7
Sent from my iPhone
> On Feb 5, 2014, at 1:42 PM, "Elizabeth Higgins" <EHiggins@Rentonwa.gov> wrote:
>
> No, but on another subject, my understanding is that if you submit a request for a modification from
the code requirement for a second access when the primary access is a dead-end street of 700 feet or
greater, it will be supported by the City.
>
> I will call the consultant about the geotech report and get back to you.
>
>
> Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner
> Department of Community and Economic Development City of Renton
> 1055 South Grady Way
> Renton WA 98057
>
> 425-430-6581
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jamie Waltier [mailto:iwaltier@harbourhomes,comJ
> Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 1:38 PM
> To: Elizabeth Higgins
> Cc: Jennifer T. Henning
> Subject: Re: Vuecrest
>
> Any updates from the Geotech on a due date7
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jamie
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 30, 2014, at 1:04 PM, "Elizabeth Higgins"
<EHiggins@Rentonwa.gov< mailto· EHiaains@Rentonwa aov> > wrote:
>
> I have asked for a due date, and will let you know. I have been answering questions and providing
information to the geotech, so I know he is working on it.
>
> Elizabeth
>
> From: Jamie Waltier [mailto:1waltier(dlharbourhomes.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2014 11:11 AM
> To: Jennifer T. Henning; Elizabeth Higgins
> Subject: RE: Vuecrest
>
> Good morning, any updates on the geotech review7
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jamie
>
>
> Please Note:
>
> The information in this E-mail message, and any files transmitted with it, is confidential and may be
legally privileged. It is intended only for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are the
intended recipient, be aware that your use of any confidential or personal information may be restricted
by state and federal privacy laws. If you, the reader of this message, are not the intended recipient,
you are hereby notified that you should not further disseminate, distribute, or forward this E-mail
message. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender and delete the material
from any computer. Thank you.
> From: Jamie Waltier
> Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 4:11 PM
> To: Jennifer T. Henning
> (Jhenning@Rentonwa.gov< mailto· lhennjng@Rentonwa gov>); Elizabeth
> Higgins (EHiggins@Rentonwa.gov< mailto: EHiggins@Rentonwa.gov>)
> Subiect: Vuecrest
>
> Good afternoon ladies,
>
> I wanted to touch base to see if you had a schedule yet for the third geotechnical opinion.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jamie
>
> Jamie Waltier
> Harbour Homes, LLC
> (206) 315-8130 phone
> (206) 315-8131 fax
>
(1•):IB)
C:i"ly o-f .Re·,·--rlon P:~in.r;.i_ng [J'1vis,:on
·1 055 s~urr: Grady V\/By
Renton. '1\/l-98057
Ro: Vuecres1 Estates -Variance Reque.st
DRS-Projesl No. ·;2·102
The Projecl is pro_:oos),1£; lo cxt&ncl Srnilhsrs }\v.srrue -.S :h:c,1-1.g~: the p!oper~f \Nhic"-1 ·l1,..1rn.s ink
.SE ·135\·h P!i1cs before slubbJ.n;i to u-;e Projec"t's Eastern pro_oer1y line.
Variance Req,iestecj
Pf'viC -<l-6-0BO, Str9e't SlE1nciarc}s, )-/. Deere.I ET.icl Sl.reel.s: Fer cleeci encl !Slreets }ongsr L1at7 ~?00
lee! in ienglh, !',No _rr;ean3 uf acces.s ancf !J're sprinklers re(1ufrecl :for fi/} hOLj:363 beyor.~_c} -500 leet.
},\'hough the appliciolffl cbes nol -agree lhai ihe Project is proposillfl a c!eacl ei;d i;treel, ancl is i_c;
-.fcict praviding -a secoi:d mean.s o-.f access by ·way o-.f 'the proposed roachvay :stuP, a variance
frorn provicJjrg 8 second rneans crf Bccess is being _reqtiesled per the c:ty of Pe:r.dOi::/s .requesl
Per the City of Renton \/;:1(1or.ce Subrnjtt£1l Requlrernent.s, in orcle~ ·to approve ··B vt1riance
re:1ueF!, the fo!'.,J\vir:[; ·four ,:;ondl"tions rnust exist
-1. The apo1icBn·t .suJfsrs 1,1nclue h8n.:1ship ~nd lhe V8riance i.s nec:essflry .bec:c1cse·0-.f special
cirn1rnsta:1ces c!pplcc!b!e to the subject. properly. 1r-cluciing size, shape, topography, a;-:d
,ocatio:i or sumJuric!in9s of the -s(ibJe,ct i:;roperty: ,1nci the strict application of '.he 8uiklin9 ancl
ZorinfJ cocle .is tou.nc1 to clepr_ive sutje(,..; property c~vner u,:: r.19_}-:r~s ar.d privile9es en\oyecl bv
c:U·1 t!r D'Cper-tv :JYvrisrs in the v\:;i::ity anc) under identicc1i 0JE1-ssi'ficBL1on. · ·
2. The grantirig o-f the v9ri2~rce ·,,1i'il) not be rnateri:aily delrirnent!:1) ·to lhs public \>Ve)·_fare or
!nj'_1ric1us t,:; tns t1 roce_rty c: }rn:orover:nsnls in ·the viciri'tj ;nc1 "Z·:ire in w.hich subjt!C! property is
si'tu21-ted.
,t. The vcpr-y/fil. a:::; ,:leterrn;necl _the Revie;.'J]n~i CYffici~1i.-is ·the r:i)n):T1:Jrri -,.,:rir)0nCE! t~a: ·~\l.i.:.I
a:c':.J!"l"!r;ii3h t-e :iesi.recl p(1_rpose.
Jm, ti fie.a lion
'1. .Provir)j_·ng r1 S6'COnr:1vr:_; 8C.:CBS.$ \VDUkl rer.1u:1_re :rc,~1,:hvay conS";'.nJc:'.io.q gncl ~Jghl i:'f ··,Vf.lY
r1eciic:afr:w thrcrJgh t!)e neighi"Jor:n;1 c:_n::,0e:--!y ·,'.o ths svs.t, :./ v;hir;f• the siµpE-::::1n! h8.:-;)CJ ccmt;-c/
TJ!sci;Jc,w::m,:e of v-:i3 v9:i·ancs 'i''V'Jid iirni-r 1;-ie :::;rcipcss·ci rciach 1.1ay ·to ·.:7C, _\ns·::11 Iss·! ~70C h:;.T_,
l_:;·lBtssci.:,:1_11 1:1.f z:; .i_ii 11 BtrB~:!'t f!ncl E3' .. J.·ierl CD',Jf~ -'Si r:r'1ci ?10:..1Jcl pote1-1'.i8]iy eiir_r;Jn:sr'.B ')2 t:; ·).t~ '.t:t.'3
f:r.::~ the pn:;pr:rser:i ci5\.,·s:1co:rr's:r:.t, ~-i':ir)--) i!O\..J!c! er:i.:ss:rlj~1)::,1 terrr1in81e the Pro_js,:;·\
:y:t_:: ,::L)C!".· tiTT!£: BS ciev~loi:;r::;e~~t :/ \:"ls :or·JP6\'"~Y {,:,, l:\5' C'E/-Bt OGCUf'.5.
February '19. 2014
Page 2 of 2
2. The Project is proposing to stub the proposed roadway to the eastern property line lo
continue ihe progress of what will eventually be a fully looped road system back to 'I02"d
Avenue SE. The app!iccmt understcinds the City-of Renton F!re iv'!arshc1i conLerns and is
proposing a 12-foot paved alley way behind proposed lots 12 through ·1 s with adequate !urning
radii into, and out of saicl alley way. This alley way. which could double as a hammerhead
turn-around, is in addition lo the proposed, 90-foot diameter, temporary cul cle sac.
Aclditionaiiy, !he curb-to-curb wicllr1 o/ the proposed roadway is 28 feel; four feel wider than ihe
standard City of Renton roadway requirement Given the measures mentioned. we do not 'feel
that approval of this variance would be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which subject property is situated
3. .Approval of the variance request would allow for development of this plat which would
be in line with the neighboring developments in size, magnitude and density. Granting of this
variance would not constitute special privilege inconsistent with projects in the vicinity.
4. Approval of the variance request is !he minimum required to allow for this development
to proceed.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Should you have any questions or
request any clanfications, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincert\lY yours,
D. RA 11rRONG Consulting Engineers Inc
• 1 J' I _ ___......4 i' /' ,,, ,
.....____.,i1 ( ''1' ' , ' , ,,. 'i /. '--~-
Maher A Jpucli, PE.
Principal, Yice President
/ '--~~-
MAJ
Enclosure Project Site Plan
R:\.2012\"1\12102\Correspondence\Letters\OUt\De\Jiation Request doc
OFFJCF OF THE: HFARIJ\'G EXAMINER
CITY OF RENTON
April 22, 200'!
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
APPLICANT
OWNERS
LOCATION:
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
DEVELOP1'1ENT SERVICES REPORT:
PlJBLJC: HEAIUNG
Sten~ Beck
19 l 29 SF I 45'" Street
Renton, WA 98059
Fred & Debra Gustufc;on
JS,139 102"" Aw. SE
Kenton, WA 98055
Carl fa]L et al
191'.'9 SE J.·Js'h Street
Renton, \Vi\ 93059
StonehaYen Preliminary Plat
File No: !.1-!A-04-003,n,ECF
4801 & 4815 i'\iain Avenue South (102'' Ave SE in King
County)
SubdiYide a 5_95-acre prnpcrty into 36-Jot subdivision for the
construction of detached single-fam il:y homes.
Development Services Recom1T1endation: Approve with
conditions
The Development Services Report was received hy the
Examiner on March 30, 2004.
;\fter reviewing the Development Scn,ices Report, examining
un1ilablc information on file with the application, field
checking the property and stirronnding area; the Examiner
conducted a public hearing en the subject as follows:
The follmving minutes are a summary of the April 6, 2004 hearing.
The legal record is recorded on CD.
Tiie hearing opened on Tuesday, April 6, 2004, at 9:36 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor ufthe
Renton City Ha!L Parties wishing to testify were affinned by the Examiner.
The follO\ving exhibits were entered into the record·
Exhibit No.1: Yellov,: file containjng the original
applJCation, reports, staff comments and other
documcntatio_~_E~~~~-~nt t_? the !~_view of the proj_~~~t.
.EB•ibit_l'fo, 2: Neighb,;rhood Detail Map ______ _
-----------------~-----
Sk)]lehaven Preliminary Plat
File No .. LUA-04-003-ECF, PP
April 22. 2004
Page 2
J,;>:hi_bit:\'o. J: _l'rciinnnary Pla_t _P_l,_ll_1 ____ -_-_-_-_-:_---t-E-x_h_i_b-it_'.'<_'_o_. -4, Preliminary G-ra_d_i,-1gand Utility Plan--
Exbibit No. 5: /.onin_g_J\1'1_p __ _
The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by SusanXiala, Senior Planner, De\'elopment
Services, City ofRenhm, 1055 S Grady \Vay, Renton, \\'a;;hing.ton 98055. There arc t\n1 separate parceb
comprising the 5.95racn: site. There are two separate property mvncrs. This prnperty •sas annexed into the City
in December 2003 and is located in the Residential -8 (R-8) zor1ing designation. The propo,':ial \\'\.)U]d create 36
lots intended for the eventual development of detached singlc~farn ily homes. 1l1ere is an existing single family
home that i.s proposed to remain on \Vhat would become ne\v lot 24, on the larger p3rce1 to the no11h. On the
narrow southern parcel arc a mobile home c1nJ several outbuildings. Thus\..' are prnposc-<l hl be removed as part
of the development of the plat.
There are two tracts1 Tract A is located in the soutlnvest corner of the site_. \Vhich contains a Category 2 wetland,
approximately ).000 square feet is located on this pmcel: the remaining is on other parcels. A 50-foot buffer is
required and \vill be maintalned. Track B \vould contain the storm detention foci lit) located in the northeast
portion of the site.
The Examiner noted that in the staff report the storm detention facility is listed as being In the northwest portion
of the ~ite and it is actually in the northeast portion.
1\1s. Fiala continued stating that access to the plat is from !\fain Avenlle South\\ ithin the City of Renton or 102"d
Avenue SE ;:is well as South 47th Street. Internal to the plat would be two ne\v roads designated as Road A and
Road B.
The plat is di\ided into three areas, Lots l-16 follov,.-ing the western and southern property lines. A central
block~ containing nine lots, and the northeast block which will contain the storm Jckntiun, the existing home,
and several ne\',: lots.
The project was revle\veJ by the Environmental Rcviev,-· Committee (ERC) who issued a Detem1ination ofNon-
Significance Mitig0ted (DNS-M). The DNS-1\1 included seven mitigation measures. There were no appeals
filed. The seven mitigation measures included those related to erosion control, temporary and permanen1
fencing for the wetland area, the storm drainage facilities would be designed to the 1990 King County Surface
\Vater Design 1\1anual for 100 year storms, and standard mitigation fees for Fire, Traffic and Parks.
The Comprehensive Pl3n is Residential Single Family, it complies with the land use element, housing, and
environmental element as related to residential single family. Tt meets all density requireme-Ht.s as well as
completing housing infill by adding 35 new lots to an undeveloped lot
\Vith respect to the underlying zoning designation, the de.nsity after deduction of the critical area wetland, streets
and roads is 7.42 dwelling units per acre.
All Jots meet ,vidth, depth and area rcqufrcments. The proposal meets all front, rear and side yard setback
requirements, but will be verified at the time of individual building pennits.
There are several comer lots, Lots 1, 16, 17,21 1 27, 28, 32, :n and 36. It is necessary to insure that they are at
the appropriate front yard setbacks, it is not appropriate for the front of a yard to be facing South 4 7th Street
Stonehaven PrelirninJry Pht
File No .. LL\ O" nlri-HT, PP
April 22. 200,J
Page 1
versus Road A_ tlii.~ \,·ill be a cr-.nciition of approv:.:.il tlrnt Lots 1, 16, 17, 2 l 3nd 16 face Road A and Lots 28. and
32 face Roaci B.
1 he internal road system Jias been requested to reduce the right-l)f-',Y3'/ from 50' to 42' \Vith 32· of pavement.
including curb, gutter. sidewalk and street lighting on both sides of the street and as approµnatc.
Staff lrn . .s several recommendations, dl1e to the distance from secondary 3Cc-ess all huildings within the plat, ,,vith
the exception oftlie existing home, will liave to be sprinklered, provide a 20'access easement between proposed
lots 10 and] l, and to place "No Parking" signs alor1g Main Avenue South.
Staff also recommends as a condition of plat approval the establishment ofa hnrne\m-ner's n.ssociation or
maintenance agre~ment ;nctuding but llDl limited 1o common improvements.
Fire, Transportation a11d Parks mitigat1nn fees are required.
The plat is within the Rentc,n School District, the proposed plat wi!J ge-nerate c.pproxirnutely !6 adrli1io1wl
snidcnts and the school dis1rict is abfc 1n handle these ne\\/ students.
TI1~ plat is wit!1in the Soos Creek \Vater and Sewer District, as a condition of approval the applicant be required
to obtain a certificate of water and snver availability from the \Vater l )istrict prier lo obtainlng a construction
pem1it.
1n conclusinn, :;laffrecomniencis apprn\·cJl of the project subject to cnrni'1tions.
Lafe Herm.il)scn, Core Design, 1471 J NE 29 1
1i Place, Suite 101, Bellevue. 'NA 98007 stated the he represents
the applicant and prope1iy owners, a11d are in agreement wlth most eve:-r)1hing that stafflrns reported. Tlle only
contention is\\ ith the access easement, there is room to provide it v,..'ith the adjustir,ent of Lots 1, 2, and 3,
sliding all of them up around the comer. However, the hl 1 uses being built are required to be sprinklered and the
additional acces . .:; easement with the property owner to the southwest has indicated that he has no interest in
developing or granting an casement. It this is a requirement, then that easement will have to be relocated.
1be vvatcr/sewer certificate oC availability has been obtained from Snos Creek and copies will be provided to the
City.
The Examiner furiher inquired as to the easement requirement by the Fire Department.
}5_~}':_[~D Kittrick, Di:vclopmcnt Services, 1055 South Grady \Vay, Renton, \VA 98055 stated that in regard to the
Required casement stated that it was recogni?ed from the beginning that the mvner may no.1..J.Yish to grant such
an casement and therefore, it \Vas a preferred alternative but not a required one. It is not a requirement that 1here
be a 20'casement.
The Examiner asked about a reference to a stom1 drainnge system tliat \Vould be routed around the detention
facility. What is that reference all about?
David Ca:yton, Core Design, l 4 711 NE 291
h Place, Suite, 101, Bellevul', \\li\ 98007 stated there is an existing
pipe coming om of the main street that runs through the tract 1o a culvert. A proposed by-pass system that will
go around the pond, it is a direct off-site n111offtlirough the site aJ1d around the pond. It is not draining this site,
but collecting drainage from the southi.::aslerly area. J\.1ost of the recharge of the aquifer occms from off~site
nmoff.
Stonehaven Prelimmary Plat
file No.: LI.JA.CJ.1-003-ECF. PP
April 22, 20Q!l
l\ige 4
fc-:arLFal_~, 1902 Bigelow Avenue Nurtli. Seattle 98109 stated that he is one of the l)\\.'ners of the prope1iy Jnd has
read the report and agrees v.·iih the recommendations. If any adjustments are necessary, they are wil!Jng to work
\vith the Fire Department to make this \V()rk.
Fred Gustafson, 18439 l 02"J Avenue SE, Renton 98055 stated that he is one of the owners of the propecty and
he supports the project and Lhinks that it v,,;jJJ be r.n imprm,crncnt to the neigl1borhood. There currently arc fann
animals anJ they are not a gcoJ mix with rcsidcntiJI areas.
_Steve Beck.1 19129 SE ]45 11i Street. Rentun 98059 stated that he is the applicant for Stoncliaven Plat and tht.1t in
order to clarify some oftl1e Fin: Department requirements, it \vas that ifan easement could be obtained and shift
the lots over and run a 20' access through the adjoining property then no sprinkler systerns would be required
for the individual homes. The attempt was made \vith the property 01,.vner_, he has no interest in ever deYelopirJg.
Therefore ,vith individual sprinklers required in each individual home il will be a very safe ncighhorhood, there'
are roads corning in and out of that .'i-acrc tract.
f\1r Kittrick stated that she had just spoken with J\1r. Rudy, tlie Fire iVfarshall and had a discussion on tbe 20'
easement. They do want the 20' easement tu the south., but it doesn't have to go through the propeny but they
do \vish it left open in this plat so tlrnt eventually someday perhaps \\·hen this property is developed, they wish
there to be a secondary access available to all the properties involved.
l11e Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There ,vas no one else v, .. ,jshing to speak., and
no further comments from staff The hearing closed at 10: 17 a.m.
:flNDIN_(:;_S, CONCLUSIONS & REC0l\1l\1ENDJ\TI0,"1
Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following:
FINDINGS:
1. TI,e applicant, Steve Beck, filed a request for approval of a 36-lot Preliminary Plat.
2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation
and other pertinent materials \vas entered into the record as Exl1ibit # l.
3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official, issued a Declaration of
Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M) for the subject proposal.
4. The subject proposal was reviewed by atl <leparirnents with an interest in the matter'-
5. The subject site is located at 4801 and 4815 Main Avenue South. The suhject site is located on the west
side of Main (102nd Avenue SE in King County) immediately somh of South 47th Street. The subject
site consists of two underlying lots. A single family home and separate mobile home are currently
located on the site. The single family home would be retained on what would be Proposed Lot 24. All
other structures would be removed.
6. A Category 2 wetland is located in the southwest corner of the subject site. There are apprnxinrntely
3, 129 square feet of the wetland on tlie subject site. Its buffer would be cast of the wetland. 111e
Category 2 wetland requires a SO-foot buffer.
7. The subject ~ite is approxiniately 5.95 acres or 259,251 square feet in area. The parcel is rectangular. 11
Stonel1avcn Prclirniri:iry Plot
hie No .. Ll'A-04-003-[CL PP
April 22. 200°1
Page-5
is cipprnxirnatel} 6.36 feet wide (ca;;t to \\·ec;t) and "106 frt.:r du·p.
8. The subject site gcncrall.v slupes upY1,-:ird to the \Vest appreximately 2°1() to 3% bul readies approximately
22'}°<) at th:.:: '.iouthwest corner oftht site near the wetland.
9. The sub_ject site contains eYergreen m1J deciduous forest and brush_ Ornamental vegetation is located
near tlie existing home. Vegetation around the home and wetland will be maintaiueJ while most of the
remaining \"egetation will he rec1m·eri to .iccornrnodatc roads and building pad:-;.
I 0. The subject site \Vas annexed to the: City wirl1 tl1c ad(1ption c:f Ordinance 50:J] :>.nacted in December
2001
11. The subject site i-; currently zc111ed R-8 (Single Family -S J·,\'clln:g u11its/acre).
12. The map element of the Comprehensive Phrn designates the area in which the strbject site is located ;is
suitable for the development of single-family tJses.
l J. The applicant proposes dividing the .subject site into 36 lots for the development of detached single-
fami]y uses. The lots \\.Ould more or lc:ss be arra:1ged as t\YO blocks divided b:,.1 a new, north south road
and a separnte tier of lots along the south and \Ve~;t margins of the site that follo\VS the curve of a new
east-west road
I4. Access to the plat v..ill be provided from both Main, east of the site and S. 47th Street north of the site.
both of these access roads originate fror:1 the same roadway system and are considered a "dead end 11
roadway. The length of the system exceeds 700 feet. The applicnnt has rcq11ested and been granted a
modification aJiowing a longer than permitted dead end road system. Jlomes beyond 500 feet will haYc
to ha·vc sprinklers installed. In addition; the city has required an casement in the vicinity of Proposed
Lots JO ;ind 11 to provide potential access to 1h~ south eventually. The rroperty owner of the property
to the south will not at this time provide acces:; across that property. The applicant has indicated that Jot
lines on nearby lots can be shifted to accommodate this easement.
15. J'he di\"ision of the subjl:ct site into 36 Jots yields a density of 7.42 units per ac.re after subtracting
roadways (44,716 sq fl) and the sm"ll part of the wetland fou,id on the subject site (3,129 sq ft\. The
wetland buffor is not subtracted when calculating density.
16. The stormv,:ater detention system \Viii be located in die northeast corner of the site. Jt \vill be an open
pond system approximately 16,347 syuarc feet in size on Proposed Tract B. The topography oftlic site
will necessitate routing storm water to both the wetland (clean water sources) and the detentiun pond
area. The ERC imposed a I 00~:-/ear stonn plus 30% additional cnpacity on the project due to its terrain
and location.
17. Tl1e wetland on the subject site is a portion of a larger 20,000 square foot wetland located on adjacent
property. As noted above, the wetland is a Category 2 \.Yetland and a 50-foot buffer \.Viii be maintained
on the subject site. The wetland and buffer \vill be contained on Proposed Tact A and \Vil! be
approximately 10,456 square feet.
18. Staff has noted that Proposed L(1ts ! , 16, 17, 2J, 27, 32, 33 and 36 are conH .. T Jots. In order to create
Cl1nsistent building setback lines and somewhat uniform frunt yards staff has rccommencled that
Proposed Lots 1, 16, 17, 21 and ]6 front on proposed Rot1d A (a city street name has not yet been
assigned). Similarly. staff recommended that Proposed Lots 28 and 32 front proposed Road B.
Stonchaven Preliminary Plat
File No.: LU,\-0·1-003-ECF, PP
April 22, 200·1
Page 6
19. The subject proposal \Vtiul<l genernte approximately fifteen school age children. Tht:~c :c;tudcnts woulJ
ancnd the Renton School District and \\'ould be spread across the grades and be assigned on a space
available basis.
20. The subject site is located in the Soos Creek \Vater District. s~nitary sewer and domestic water will be
provideJ by that district The applicant has been provided availability certificates.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The proposed 36-lo1 plat appears to serve the public use and interest. The applicant vlill be preserving
the srn<.Jll on-site por1ion of a Category 2 wetland and providing the rc4uired 50-foot se1.back buffer.
The subdivi:-,ion "\Vill create nearly rectangular Jots in fairly standard hlock and tier J.rrangements.
2. The an.:a has or can be provided ,vith appropriate utllities. It appears that the site has made provision for
storm ,.vat er detention while also assuring the wetlanJ's character is mai11tained.
3. There will be increased traffic but the street system can apparently handle it The applicant will he
paying a traffic mitigation fee to help with overall circulation Dow. ·1hc applicant has agreed to create
an easement near tlie southv,·cst comer of the subject site that may uJtimate]y serve to shorten v,:hat is
no,v considered an excessi,,c dead end stred pattern. That easement though will not provide any quick
relicf
1
as the adjacent property owner has not agreed to allow passage at this time.
4. The subdivision will increase the tax base of the City. The additional taxes plus the mitiga1ion fees will
offset some of the impacts particularly on parks and fire.
5. The plat meets the density required by the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan.
6. Staff's recommc:ndations on the lssue of which direc1ion corner lots should face appear appropriate and
will he made a condition of approval.
7. ln conclusion, the proposed preliminary plat should be approved hy the City Council subject to the
conditions enumerated below.
RECOMMEJ\'DA TION:
The Preliminary Plat is approved subject to the follo,ving conditions:
J. The applicant shall indicate on the face of the final plat the orientation of the front yard of Lots 1, 16,
17, 21, 27 and 36 to face Road A and Lots 28 and 32 to face Road B. 111e satisfaction of this
requirement is subject to the review and approval of Development Services Division prior to the
recording of the final plat
2. The applicant shall obtain a demolition permit and complete all inspections and approvals for all
buildings located on the property prior to the recording of the final plat. The satisfaction of this
requirement is subject to tbe review and approval of the Development Services Project 11anager.
3. A homco\vner's association or maintenance agreement sh:ill be c.re:ited concurrently 1,vith the recording
of the final plat in order to establish maintenance responsibilities for all shared improvements. A draft
nfthe document(s), if necessary, shail be submitted to the City of Renton Development Services
Strn1ehavc11 Preliminary Plal
File No.: u_:;\-04-1103-FCF. pp
April 22. 2004
Page/
Division for review anJ approval by the City Attorney and Property Servi1..:i.:s :;cction pri(.ir to rf'(orJing
ufthe final plat.
4. The applicant shall obtain a Certificate of Water and Se,ver A \'ailahility from Soos Crl?ek \\later and
Sevver District. The certificate shall be submitted to the City of Renton Development Services Division
prior to the is;--;uance of a utility construction permit
5. The applicant shall comply with the Conditions imposed by the ERC
ORDERED TIIJS 22"' clay of April, 2004.
--..-''~iv~-~\ ~ t,a_,___.,J
FRED J. fu\ :J J\1A'-l .
HEARING E. Al'v1INER
TRANSMITTED THIS 22'0 day of Apcil, 2004 to the parties of record:
Susan Fiala
1055 S Grady Way
Renton. WA 98055
Kayren Kittrick
I 055 S Grady Way
Renton, \VA 98055
Carl Falk
1902 Bigelow Ave N.
Seattle, WA 98109
FreJ & Debra Gustafson
18439-102"' Ave SE
Renton, \VA 98055
Steve Deck
19129 SE 145'h St.
Renton. WA 98059
Lafe HerrniJ.nsen
14711 NE 29"' Pl., Ste. JOI
Bellevue. WA 98007
TRANSMITTED TIIIS 22"' day of April 2004 to the following
Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler
Jay Covington, Chief AJministrative Officer
Julia J\.1edzegian, Coum:i] Liaison
Larry Rude, Fire Marshal
Lav,Tcnce J. \Varren, City J\ttomey
Transportution Systems Division
Utilities System Division
King County Journal
Gregg 7immem1an. Plan/Bldg/PW Admin.
Neil Watts, Development Services Director
I\1embers~ Renton Planning Commission
Alex Pidsch, Econ. Dev. Administrator
Larry Meckling, Building Official
Jennifer I-Ierming. Development Services
Janet Conklin, Development Servlls:s
Patrick Roduin, Development Services
Pursuant to Title JV, Chapter 8, Section ]OOGofthe City's Code, request for recon_sidcralion m!~~-p~ filed in
writing on or before 5:00 p.m., l\1av 6, 2004. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner
is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of lmv or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new
evjdencc which could not be reasoIJahly available at the prior hearlng may make a \vritten rcgucst for a review
by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. Tim request shall set forth
the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, aHcr revie\V of the
record, take further action as he deems proper.
An appeal lo the City Council is governed by Title IV, Ckipter 8, Sc.Tticin 110, which requires th~tt such appeal
he filed with the City Clerk, accompa11yi11g a filing frc of $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements.
Strn1ek1ven Preliminary Plat
Fiic :'lo. LUA-04 003-ECF, PP
April 22, 2004
Page 8
Copies of this ordinance are a\·ailable for inspection or purchase in the finance Department, first iloor of City
Hall. .~n appeal must be filed in writ_i.ng.9Jl_or:before 5:00 p.m., l\layj;, 200'1.
If the .Ex:amjner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Rcstrirti"e Covenants,_!_~_':
~xecuted Co\·cnants ~yj)l be required prior to _~Pr:~lY~~ _by Cit:y C~un_c~t ~!}ln~_! p_1_-_£)~-~~~ng__ of the fiJc_ You
maJ contact this office for information on formatting covcnant.s.
rhc Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte {private one-pn~one) communications may occur
concerning pending land use decisions. l'his means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in
private \'Vith aT1y decision-maker concerning the proposai. Decision-makers in the land use p1occss include both
the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council
All communications cunccrning the proposal must be made i11 public. T11is public ctm:municcJtion permits ,111
interested parties to knmv the contents of the communication and would allov.-i them to c,penly rebut the
evidence. Any violation of this doctrine \vould result in the inYalidation of the request by the Cour1
Tiie Doctrine <1.pplics nut only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as \vcll as
Appeals to the City Council.
I\
'i\ '' ''
.I
§~
:z:.
~ m z
" 0
1'
E t
' 7
f':
(/) e-,J
0 z
t11 ~r ,--1
,>•
<'
til z
"f~-l
llJ=
~-~-~~· ~---~--"'
7 i '" " ; T w
0 ~
6
0
D
D rn
' ),
r
l
" '
' !!·
i~! ' ,, ;~is -....
~~t Ll
" ~ -r
" !! ,.
"'
~~ ' i! I ' lo I !>, .,
' l
i,b ·,
--!
'
~I
f. I cc·~ -_j ·rs,. -·--1
1-."<i .. 1
L 'J
1 r ........ -;':;1
1• -~ \I u ___ '.J
!, [;.Jt~J
,..,.,, .. ,...,._.,., ...... _...-...-_
..,uu.,...,, ... ,,~
I
I
·,
July 19, 2004
Development Services:
Skywire Short Plat ROW
Dedication, Index Ave 1'1E &
NE 5th Pl
Annexation: Anthone', Talbot
Rd S & SE 192nd St
Plat: Stonehaven. Main Ave S,
PP-04-003
Human Resources: 2004
Group Health Cooperative
Medical Coverage Agreements
Utility: SW 7th .St Storm
System Improvement Project
& Small Drainage Projects
Program, Fund Transfer
Separate Consideration
Item 6.f.
Fire: King County Emergency
Medical Services Lease at
Station #14
CORRESPONDENCE
Citizen Comment: Rigley -
Sev,'er Srcrvice Connection
Request, 148th Ave SE
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Public Safetv Committee
Development Services:
Portable Generators, Noise
Ordinance Revision
Transportation (A ,iation)
Committee
Public Works: Access Roads
with RR Crossings for Barbee
Mill Plat, Public or Private
Renton City Council Minutes Page 239
Development Services Division recommended acceptance of the dedication of
additional right-of-way at the comer of Index Ave. NE and NE 5th Pl. to fulfill
a requirement of the Skywire Shon Plat (SHP-04-023). Council concur.
Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Plalllling Department
submitted 10% Notice of Intent to annex petition for the proposed Anthone'
Annexation, 4.84 acres located east of Talbot Rd. S. and south of SE 192nd St.,
and recommended a public meeting be set on 8/02/2004, to consider the
petition. Council concur.
Hearing Examiner recommended approval, with conditions. of the Stonehavcn
Preliminary Plat; 36 single-family lots on 5.95 acres located at 4801 and 4815
Main Ave. S. (PP-04-003). Council concur.
Human Resources and Risk !vfanagement Department recommended approval
of the 2004 Group Health Cooperative medical coverage agreements for
LEOFF I Employees; LEOFF I Retirees; and all other City of Renton covered
employees. Refer to finance Conunittee.
Utilities Systems Division requested approval to transfer $165,000 from the NE
10th St. and Anacortes Ave. NE Storm System Improvement Project to the SW
7th St. Storm System Improvement Project ($120.000) and the Small Drainage
Projects Program ($45,000). Refer to Utilities Committee.
MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL APPROVE THE
CONSENT AGENDA AS A..1\1ENDED TO REMOVE ITEM 6J. FOR
SEPARATE CONSIDERATION. CARRIED.
Fire Department recommended approval of a lease with King County in the
amount of $751.29 per month plus escalation clause, to continue allowing the
stationing of a King County paramedic unit in Renton·s Fi.re Station #14.
MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL REFER ITEM
6.f. TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE. CARRIED.
A letter was read from David Rigley, 9845 148th Ave. SE, Renton, 98059.
requesting connection to Renton's se\ver for a future single-family residence at
9831148th Ave. SE (King County parcel #032305-9257-06), located outside
the Renton City limits.
Noting that this request meets City Code requirements, it was MOVED BY
CLAWSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL APPROVE DA YID
RIGLEY'S REQUEST FOR SEWER CONNECTION. CARRIED.
Public Safety Committee Chair Law presented a report concurring in the staff
recommendation that Ren ton's noise ordinance be modified so portable
generator use is permitted during times 1,vbcn no electrical service is available
due to a natural disaster or power outagi.;. The Committee further
rl'.cornmcnJi..:<l that the ordinance regarding this matter be presented for reading
at a subsequent meeting. MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY NELSON,
COUNCIL CO!\CUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED.
Transportation (Aviation) Committee Chair Palmer presented a report regarding
access roads for Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat (LUA-02-040). The prope11y
owner for the proposed plat has requested approval from City Council,
designating the two proposed railroad crossings providing aLc:ess to the site a:s
public crossings. These two at-grade crossings of the Burlington Northern
(;:fu_Qf: RENTON_COUNCil 1'.GE"llA .,,LL
f
Submitting Data: For Agenda of: 7il9/2004 I
Dept/Di\'/Board ..
Staff ConLacl..
Hearing Examiner
Fred J. Kaufman, ext. 6515 Agenda Status
__ . -·--1 Consent ..
Subject
Stoneha\'en Preliminary Plat
Pile No. LlJA-04-003, PP, ECF
Public Hearing.
Correspondence.
Ordinance.
Resolution
Old Business .. -------------j
Exhibits:
Hearing Examiner's Report and Recommendation
Request for Delay and Examiner's Response
Legal Description aml Vicinity l\fap
Recommended Action:
Council Concur
Fiscal Impact:
NIA
N ew Business.
Study Sessions
Information ..
Approvals:
Leg a I Dept ..
Finance Dept..
Other.
Transfer/ Amendment ...
Revenue Generated.
X
Expenditure Required.
Amount Budgeted.
Total Project Budget City Share Total Project.. ---------~
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
The Hearing Examiner's Report and Recommendation on the Stoneha\'en Preliminary Plat was
published on April 22, 2004. The appeal period ended on May 6, 2004. The Examiner
recommends appro\'al of the proposed preliminary plat, subject to the conditions outlined on
page 6 of the Examiner's Report and Recommendation. Staff submitted a Request for Delay of
Final Decision concerning a ''stream course" on the site on May 6, 2004. After further review
and correspondence, The Examiner's response was issued on June 28. 2004 approving the
developrnem of the plat as now proposed. The appeal period ended on July J 2, 2004. This
office notes that the conditions placed on this project are to be met a later states of the plattmg
process.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Stonehaven Preliminary Plat.
Rentnn:.er/agnbill: bl1
TraFF@x{
September 15, 2014
Harbour Homes, LLC
Attn: Jamie Waltier
1441 N. 34 1" Street #200
Seattle, WA 98103
Re: Vuecrest Plat -City of Renton
NCJRTHWE:ST TRAFFIC £XPFRTS
114:D NF 1?4U1 St., #S9C ~,1rk.,'.r:d 'l;',1~ 8P.f114
~ll~flE' 42-J.5?2.4 1 15 fax: ~'25.522 4311
Traffic Information in Support of Variance Request
Dear Mr. Waltier:
The purpose of this letter is to provide traffic information in support of the DR
Strong February 19, 2014 Variance Request to the code for dead end streets longer
than 700 feet tn length. Traffex prepared the original April 23, 2013 Traffic Impact
Analysis (TIA) for the Vuecrest plat.
We feel the Vuecrest plat will have little bearing on emergency vehicle access to
the area for the following reasons.
• Low Traffic Volumes -Traffic volumes in the area are very low. There are only
18 existing homes beyond the Burnett CUS 47th St intersection to the cul de sac
end of Smithers Ave. These homes would generate about 18 PM peak hour
trips. The Vuecrest plat would add another 20 trips for a total of 38 peak hour
trips on this street section. That equates to about 1 trip every 1.6 minutes during
the peak hour.
• Low speeds -The posted speed limit is 25 mph on this residential street. The
low vehicle speeds in conjunction with the low traffic volumes reduces the
potential for a high impact, street blocking type collision. Minor, fender bender
type accidents would be more likely which typically would not block the entire
street cross section.
• No Accidents -City records show no accidents have occurred on this street
section over the last 3 years.
• Tree height -It appears there are no trees in this section of street from the
Burnett CUSE 47th St. intersection to the cul de sac end of Smithers Ave. of
sufficient height to block emergency vehicle access if one happened to fall..
• Two Access routes are provided -The site plan shows there will two access
routes provided by the plat street and alley starting from the location of the
Page 1
Vuecrest Plat TraH&l:I
existing cul de sac. From a practical point of view, this layout does not increase
the length of the ·'single access" street in this area since two access points are
being provided from the existing cul de sac end of Smithers Avenue. Therefore. It
is our opinion a variance should not even be required.
• Vuecrest Plat is part of ultimate solution -The Vuecrest plat street provides about
half the total length of the ultimate street loop needed to provide two access
points to the whole area wide street system north of the S. 1861h SU102nd St. SE
intersection
For these reasons we recommend the variance request be approved.
If you have any questions, please call 425-522-4118. You may also contact us via e-
mail at vince@nwtralfex.com or ]arry(dlnwtralfex.com.
Very truly yours,
/
I ' , I I I 1/ c.,.
Vincent J. Geglia
Principal
TralfEx
Page 2
Larry D. Hobbs, P E
Principal
TralfEx
22901 41'1 Avenue SE
Bothell, Washington 98021
206 948.7002
maher.joudi@drstrong.com
..-; I I , .·, . --.--t:. . ,1\ ;,,q ;
Maher A. Joudi, P.E.
Experience 2013-2014 D.R. STRONG Kirkland, WA
Principal, Senior Vice President
• Review detailed design of storm drainage, sanitary sewer and water
systems.
• Perform planning services and complex feasibility studies.
• Review detailed grading design.
• Review and sign construction drawings
• Manage staff and give detailed instruction to complete tasks.
• Consult and advise large clients.
• Attend and lead meetings with differing municipalities with regard to
engineering and development issues.
2010-2013 D.R. STRONG Kirkland, WA
Senior Project Engineer, Vice President
• Review detailed design of storm drainage, sanitary sewer and water
systems.
• Perform planning services and complex feasibility studies.
• Review detailed grading design.
• Review and sign construction drawings
• Manage staff and give detailed instruction to complete tasks.
• Consult and advise large clients
• Attend and lead meetings with differing municipalities with regard to
engineering and development issues.
2008-2010
Project Engineer
D.R. STRONG Kirkland, WA
• Perform detailed design of storm drainage, sanitary sewer and water
systems.
• Perform planning services.
• Perform detailed grading design.
• Assemble construction drawings with the use of AutoCAD LDD.
• Manage junior staff and give detailed instruction to complete tasks.
• Consult and advise large clients
• Attend and lead meetings with differing municipalities with regard to
engineering and development issues.
2005-2008 D.R. STRONG Kirkland, WA
Senior Design Engineer
• Manage all aspects of residential projects including coordinating all
subconsultant work
. .
Education
Other Skills
• Perform detailed design of storm drainage, sanitary sewer and water
systems for both residential and commercial projects.
• Perform detailed grading design.
• Perform planning services.
• Perform residential planning of small and large subdivisions.
• Assemble construction drawings with the use of AutoCAD LDD.
• Manage junior staff and give detailed instruction to complete tasks.
• Consult and advise large clients
• Attend and lead meetings with differing municipalities with regard to
engineering and development issues.
• Confer and discuss pertinent issues with Project Engineers and
Licensed Senior Staff.
Detail and Implement training for new employees and existing staff.
2004-2005
Design Engineer
D.R. STRONG Kirkland, WA
• Performed residential planning of subdivisions under direct supervision
of senior staff.
• Performed utility design for both residential and commercial projects
under the direct supervision of senior staff.
• Performed full project design work for single family storm drainage
systems.
2001-2004
Intern
D.R. STRONG Kirkland, WA
• Extensive work as a chain person on a 2-person survey crew.
• Performed miscellaneous office related tasks such as filing and
organizing.
• Performed detailed design of on-site septic systems.
• Performed necessary field tasks for design of on-site septic systems.
2000-2002 Shoreline Community College Shoreline, WA
• Course work required to transfer to the Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering at the University of Washington
2002-2004 University of Washington
Bachelor of Science in Civil and Environmental Engineering
other Languages
Fluent in Arabic
Seattle, WA
• T
I I \
,. I ,, I \ ,. I I I II! I
I I •• \ " ,1 " a
/ I I TAUO>T-\ : : ~I i 1
1
I ~ ........ , ... ,1.\ ~ .
.--1---""'-L L ~I,\' "' I --= = _),-·-·-· -·-·-_____ __j.L._. ___ , <:I
lot
!
~
lo "HOP-
E.AST Of' HERE:'
f;: 74-l 1 p,., I T ~7
'>i(>p-,;
Mmw;" a "HO
OIJ1IE1"
"
I I \ .,;:·/--
____ I I 11 -,°\&· ----------. ---------r--t ----' ---/5 .. L/,--r-------------------------------1
'
1IUCT.
TRACT"F" -.-.. 141,mtJU.
·"
... ~ -..,, , .. ·
1 r ---;----;; ~r,_-;-/-::::---~· ~:--~T;;·-~·;:·~r~-~-~--1=:;;;::;:
I I .. . ;; ;' / .'/ a'P~l:MIC •'" ·1· I lo~ 10 • , r ·, .:.. ·
I I /, ' / '/ -.-,go· I I
111UCT•r-----1/ · (/ / · I • I • I
I I · ~-Ii./ i ::_ .. ' · I I I • ( s:i•, t-' "· [ _ l_ JL ml : ! --_:c_ ~ -;-__ -+I __ j _ _ ~ JI I = ;-= = = i ~I '. ! ', . I T = =
I . . ... 1. -~ET I ., , ., I , I 1 . ; -... ". , ,., : j •. . . . I
0
1 ~¥ •• ""· i .. ~ r-... :::'-~ ~-J I
/-;"=---.:.:·-<~-·
/ ' ' ',
TRACT·Er. ,.
S:C.,·:P
TRACT-C-
~-~
-· .... _
5 !
:r-~-~ ~ s,.,.
~
lo
<:I
' !
I
i r ............ ·\ 'ti) l!
'"'C
r~
--
1NE M3Dl'IE AT STDNENAWN
~~~' /
/
/ /.
/I
i
j
~ i -"-A j
"' _-::::;;:;:;;:; ~ --~ ! ~ ----~~
/
·/
~~~~ --....
i'" r ~-----·~ ::c====~~El".~~~~~---IQ ~ -----!~
' / ....,_V 1 / I ' ··
\ / / I I I I I ~~
\ // I I I I I I Ii I I ~/! \ < I I I I I I I I ~ I I IJ' S/111-~
\ I ' I I I I I I I I
___ = = = = = ~ = = = L = _ _l ___ L l_ ___ I ___ J... __ _J ___ l... __ J: -__: ~
-~,_,__~~-----========================---~
/,,,,,,'
.... _________ .,,,,,,,,,,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
S47THPL
~· -T. CtJ'1B
• 'vii'
SE185THPL
(l.,. -T. CtJ'1B
,.#No QJTIET"
SE18671fST
I Ir GRAPHIC SCALE . :r Mill' l· I ; 0 25 50 100
ICIIQATA~ 1· ··~f)JW I l &.--,v _J / .;:-.:™
1
I :. l ;.=--=--=-~~----~~~~-=---= = = = = = = = = = = -= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 1 INCH •50FT
R: \20f2\1\12102\..J\l)'l:,•Jn~\8a:N\.JFIREHOl 21/J2.drg 9/l!J/?!J14 t:.J2:50 PiJ PO T COPYRIGHT@ 2014 , O.R. STRCNC CCN SULTINC ENGINEERS INC.
~[))RS]
D.R.STRONG
CONSUL nNG ENGINEERS
_,.__
--MA ____ _ 0.....,. .... ,41U1'7..IGI
t
!
~
~
~
~ ra ...
la ~ ~
u .... ....
~ i i
i
....
I
~ ~
w~
ti)~~
~ti)~
"'(~~
~"t~
!!J ti) 31:: ~ l.l.~· -Oo i~;
ij
!IA~ s1~ ti) .... 1-,.·ll
(1) ....
~~-~ ~i~
1
ORAFT£D BY: C£N
DE:S1GN£D BY:
PRO.ECT ENG/Na:R: MAJ
DATE: 09.15.2014
PRO.ECT NO.: 12102
DRA WING: 1
SHEFT: 1 OF 1 I
11111
NQJ.!JNIHSVM 'NO.l.N3~ O&JHJe (IXZ) ...
"( .J.3iRJJ.S HJ.Lt, S ~ H.Jf/OS ecJJ86 YM '37.J..J.Y3S ::a. "' -;,; 15:t~ S 3"\ Y Sl:BHJ.Jl'IS ~ 3.lJnS 'J.S H.J.te N Jt,t,J
~ "' ~ -s~ ! 1 I-. ~ Iii •, .l/8JHX3 11//H:ltl
,:: >,: iS "': c:i Clij.._ OJ OJ OS <: :i 1; e ... c::, ... (:S Qi I io S3.L tf .1S3 .1S3H~3f1lt ~11 1S3WOH HnosHttH
NO!SV,3/1 31YO ~!I~~ Ii 2s ~ 8:
~
~ NO.l!JNIHSVM 'NOJ.N3~ 0£JHJe (gre) .., .. 1111 £0186 YM ':11.LJ.V3S ~ "'
.J.33W.S HJ.L~ S ;JO HUIOS
.: 15 :!: ~ ... S 31\ \f Sli3H.LJWS Dre 3.J.JnS '.J.s H.J.te N SH'S
~ !OJ ~ -I~ ~~ 11· •• ~ 'O •• .LJ8/HX3 7'lnl3\f ~liiiS;~ :I t! e .... c::, .... cs
tJ11 1S3INOH HnoERWH ~!~~~ I i Qi I :a S3.L tf J.S3 J.S3HtJ3fllt
YdV NOISl/t3Y 31 YG
2"s lt ~lt
~
NOJ.SN/HSYM 'N01N3~
.133HLS ff.lit S :10 MU10S
S 31'\ V SSH.J./WS
.iJ8/HX31VI~
S3.L Y.J.S3 .J.S3N:J3f1/t
oeil1"9ie (sod
ecnoo vM '37.LJ. V3S
OM 3.LJnS '.J.S HJ.tt N i;;i
HdY NOISVt3H 31YG
~[))RS])
O.R.STRONG
CONSUL nNG ENGINEERS _,,,_~
--MA"9C.E'Jai11M1AMJ. 14M-D....,...am l'.a41/B..Xl:J
~
~ ~
~
1§
fa t,;;;;
~
ffl ....
{3
3 ~
u
::t
">' I ~
!
0 I
w~ ~ {I)~~
§ ~~~ ~ i~!
I Iii
~~ Si~ {I) .... ~1:g {I) ....
~~l")
~1::i ~~~
i
DRAFTED BY: CEN
Df:SICN[D BY:
PRo.ECT ENGINEER: MM
DA TE:: 09.15.2014
PRo.ECT NO.: 12 102
[
DRA 'MNG: 2009
COP"'1GHT @ 2014, O.R. STRONG CON SULTING ENQ>£ERS INC. SHEET: 1 OF 1 I
NO.J.SNIHWM 'NO.J.N:nl
J33&S H.U1' S :JO H.iflOS
S 31\ \f SH3H.JJWS
.UB/HX3 7'ml3\f
S3.J. tf .LS3 .LS3'1:/~311/t
QeJ(H;J£ (IJOD
£0186 \fM '37.J..J. Y3S
«K 3.1.JnS '.J.S HJ.r& N J;t,J
YdY NO/SJl\3Y 31 VG
..,
~ "' -~ 15 ! ~
~l's ~ I.:;~~ ~~1~~ ~ -~ e .. .. (;
(3 ~ Iii ~ I i ~ ~ a: ~ a: ~
NO.LDN/Hst/M 'NOJ.N3~
.J.33W.S HU,-S ;JO H.1.flOS
S 31\Y S~HJ.JWS
.JJSJHX3 1YnBtl
S3.L tf .lS3 .lS3ll:J3M
0£JB-9Se (IKK)
efJJ86 YM '31LJ.tl3S
ore :Wns '.J.s HJ.re N '""'
:,77 'S3JNOH llflOSl/tfH
NOJSIA3/:J 31 VO
NOJ.!JNIHS'vM 'No.lN3~
~ ff.Uy s :/0 HJ.l10S
S 31\'v S~fWJ'iS
118IHX3 MH3V
S3.L Y.LS3 .LS3H:J3111&
O&JHJ€ (9<K)
£0J86 'vM :111.l'v3S
~ 3.J.JnS '.J.S H.J.t-€ N JyyJ
:J11 'S3WOH HnOSH\fH
31YO
II I !! NO.J.~NIHWM ·~ 0£J.~J.£(90d .,
~ .. J.3:/W.S H.U1' S :JO H.1l10S £0J.B6 VM ':11.LJ.V:IS
~ ~ i ~ -S :1/IV~H1/IYS 00& :/J.JnS '.1S H.J.l'e N J.,,,,J.
~~ ! I I, .L/fl/HX3 "WnBV s.: s.: I ~ ci ~-a,<b "'~ :~ 1; ~EP ·
0
'-ii :,77 'S3WOH HnOERWH i's ~ ~ ~ ~; I :0 S3.L 't'.LS3 .LS3'l/:J3l1A
lidV NO/Sv\3li 31.VO ~ ~ a: ~ 8: ~
•
SUMMARY
,---·-, , .. --. ', i' l
l r;c:s,o: I rr=· ' ', I I ·,
l 1'.'.:::~'j '1 I • )), II Ii
l r-· , I Jr,:=::_.,. , i 1
l.:J ,_:;J ~; ,, __ _
CARL P. ANDERSON, P.E.
The FPI Consortium, Inc.
360-878-9267
Cell 360-259-1627
Mr. Anderson is a Registered Professional Fire Protection Engineer with over 20 years
experience providing fire protection engineering and consulting services. Areas of
expertise include: building plan review and inspection for compliance with fire, building
and life safety codes; preparation of hazardous materials compliance reports and
hazardous materials inventory statements for fire code compliance; and application of
Uniform Facilities Criteria (UFC 3-600) llre protection ~uirements for Iederal
construction projects. Mr. Anderson is also experienced in fire alarm, fire sprinkler and
special suppression system specification, design, review, inspection and failure
analysis.
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
The Fire Protection International Consortium, Inc. (2011 to present)
Principal/Fire Protection Engineer
Responsible for delivery of fire protection consulting engineering se1vices for the
Seattle, WA/Portland OR area and consulting services throughout the Pacific NW and
western US. Services provided include: code consulting, fire protection system
specification and design, negotiations with local officials, hazardous materials code
compliance consulting, performance based design. evaluation of existing buildings and
fire protection systerns, failure analysis, and forensic services.
Tacoma Fire Department -Tacoma, WA (1994 to 2011)
Fire Protection Engineer/Fire Code Official
Lead plan review and construction inspection section of the Fire Prevention Division.
Responsible for plan review and inspection of new and modified fire protection systems
including fire sprinkler, fire alarm, standpipe, fire pump, smoke control, and other
speciali2ed systems. Conducted and supervised plan review and inspectio11 of new and
existing buildings for fire code compliance. Conducted analysis of existing buildings for
code required improvements for re-occupancy and change of occupancy. Conducted
1·eview and approval of alternate methods using performance-based design
Developed State and local fire code amendments and sat on the NFPA 13 Technical
Committee for Sprinkler System Design Criteria.
MDE Engineers, Inc. -Seattle, WA (2004 to 2006)
Associate, Fire Protection Engineer
Forensic Engineering: Reviewed fire protection systems including suppression and
detection systems, plan review and field inspections. Analyzed hazards, fire spread,
building co11struc:tio11, c:ode compliance, modeling and testing.
Consulting Engineering: Reviewed fire protection strategies, systems and equipment.
Conducted plan review and inspections for Code compliance.
US Anny-Various locations (1991 to 1994)
Engineer Officer
Cor1struction Officer, Safety and Hazardous Materials Officer, Exec:utive Officer and
Platoon Leader. Developed and implemented construction plans for a variety of projects
including refugee camps at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and initial planning for US border
roads and border patrol observation point improvements. Modernized unit safety and
hazardous materials procedures.
Firepro, Inc. -Burlington, MA (1990 to 1991)
Fire Protection Consultant
Part of a team of engineers responsible for facility inspection. fire protection system
specification and design, and forensic e11gineering related to fire loss.
Schirmer Engineer -Chicago, IL (1989)
Fire Protection Consultant/Graduate Intern
Responsible for: building inspection for fire and building code compliance, fire protection
system surveys for deficiencies and development of improvement recornrnendations,
and fire protection system design and layout.
US Coast Guard, Marine Fire Research Branch -Avery Point, CT (1986)
Fire Protection I ntem
Assisted with research involving enhanced methods of predicting fire propagation 011
Coast Guard ships and minimizing impact of fire on mission critical equipment.
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION AND CERTIFICATION
Registered Fire Protection Engineer, State of Washington, #31714
Registered Fire Protection Engineer, State of Oregon, #85990PE
Registered Fire Protection Engineer, State of California, #FP1794
Registered Fire Protection Engineer, State of Florida, #74975
EDUCATION & TRAINING
M.S. Fire Protection Engineering, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA. 1991
B.S. Civil Engineering, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA. 1988
US Army Engineer Officer Basic Course, Ft. Leonard Wood, MO. 1991
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS
Member -National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
Member -NFPA Technical Committee for Sprinkler Discharge Criteria
Member -Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE)
Past Member -SFPE Fire Service Committee, 2000 -2004
Subject Matter Expert -SFPE Licensing Committee, PE Exam, Water Based Fire
Suppression Systems, 2004 -Present
Member and Past President, Pacific NW Chapter of the SFPE, 1994 -Present
Member -Washington State Association of Fire Marshals. 2003 -Present
Member -Salamander Fire Protection Engineering Honor Society
Past Member -International Congress of Building Officials, 1994 to 2002
Past Member -International Fire Code Institute, 1994 to 2002
Past Member -International Code Congress, 2003 -2011
Past Member -State of WA Fire Code Tectrnical Advisory Group, 1995 to 2003
Chairman and member -Technical Advisory Board, Bates Technical College, Tacoma,
WA, Fire Protection Teclrnology program, 2004 -2011
PUBLICATIONS & PRESENTATIONS
Master of Science thesis, A Methodology for t11e Use of Hazard-1 in Reside11tial Fire
Investigation 1990.
Materials section for SFPE Sho11 Course entitled Fire Sprinkler System Design for
Engineers.
NFPA/SFPE's Designer's Guide to Automatic Sprinkler Systems, Chapters 2, 5 and 18.
Short course on Fire Sprinkler Plan Review for the V'tasl1ington Association of Building
Officials, 2005.
PROFILE OF REPRESENTATIVE PROJECT WORK
Engineer responsible for determination of commodity classification for fire sp1·inkler
design in a variety of high-piled storage warehouses. Collected and reviewed MSDS
and commodity information to determine appropriate classification to allow correct fire
sprinkler system design criteria and facilitate permitting process with local Building and
Fire Officials.
Responsible for the development of high-piled storage plans for warehousing clients
(records storage and tire storage) to gain compliance with International Fire Code (IFC)
Chapter 23 requirements.
Engineer responsible for preparing a code compliance report for rack storage of
aerosols and a variety of flammable and combustible liquids for an automotive fluids
distribution warehouse. Report and analysis allowed client to respond to a Fire Ha2ard
notice issued by the local Fire Marshal's office without losing storage capacity or
incurring significant expense to upgrade
Developed a comprel1e11sive International Fire Code, Chapter 27 hazardous materials
compliance repo11 for a ground water treatment facility using several hazardous
substances in the water treatment process. Report included development of required
Hazardous Materials Inventory Statements.
Developed dust control reports for International Fire Code, Mechanical Code and NFPA
654 compliance for indoor installation of both enclosed and unenclosed dust collectors
for industrial customers involved in plastics cutting and paper st1redding.
Provided third party plan review services for fire alan11 and fire sprinkler system design
to assist witl1 local Fire Marshal approval.
Professional Fire Protection Engineer responsible for Independent Technical Review of
Fire Protection specifications for several federal government construction projects in
Alaska including a health di11ic, enlisted soldier housing, maintenance aircraft hangar,
and battle command training center.
Responsible for review of the fire protection specifications for several Veterans'
Administration {VA) l1ospital building renovations.
Assisted client in obtaining hazardous materials and marine termi11al permits for a
marine fueling operation in a large west coast port city.
Provided fire protection engineering and code analysis suppo11 to attorneys and
insurance companies on a variety of forensic cases including sprinkler pipe failure due
to exposure to freezing temperatures, and determination of code required fire protection
features related to fire loss investigations
Provided code review and field inspections related to potential construction defects
involving fire stopping and fire sating in existing high-rise buildings.
Provided professional review of International Building Code Chapter 34 Analysis for Fire
and Life Safety in an existing high-rise building.
Developed retrofit fire pump specification and sprinkler system upgrade guidance for an
existing hospital. Responsible for bid review and review of sprinkler and fire pump
drawings and submittals by the fire sprinkler contractor.
Fire code official and fire protection engineer for the City of Tacoma, Washington for
over 15 years. Responsible for all phases of construction permitting and inspections
related to fire code compliance. Interpreted and enforced tile Uniform Fire Code (UFC),
International Fire Code {IFC), and several NFPA standards including; NFPA 13, NFPA
14, NFPA 20 NFPA 24, NFPA 25, NFPA 33, and NFPA 72.