The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutReport 1{-------- I I I I I I . \/ >- "'_..,,,-cT1r 1 1 / \ I T+T,, + I I I I I I 11111 I I I I I + +-+i+-+++1+1+++-+i, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1--J.-- I f-- I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 I I I f--~~~+-+-+-+-+~+~++-J-LL+Tt-+- I I I I I I I I I I I I I f-- I I ~, I 11 1-_JI I DA~-·=---· ._...,~-.LLC 12965SE~7'tl--·W"-- NEIGHBORHOOD DETAIL MAP RAD HOLDINGS, LLC VALLEY VUE - 3106i31l2 TALBOT/WADS ::~ CITV OF RENTON WASHINGTON I ! -lt-r, I I ls~I ~ ~ ? ~ ' I ' --3 '"Cl z w V, 0 ~ i N 0 ~ w ~ 0 "' t.O 0 N 00 j I j Ii I I 11 l I! I I 111,rn 11 ill!'ll!i!l Kf~liJtt f!i '''Ill' Pti~ I i: i ,,, i ,!! I• P0)y-'t. ~ ~~ 5~ ; i ! 'I 0 ~~~3~5 111m ' I l! ii g,; Hi ' ' / i • MATCHUNE srrsiurr2 ' i~ ~·~· I • i :; 1. •. ! ECEIVED APR 1 2 2016 CITY OF RENTON I lTIH~ 3JS 3NTJH:l.l 'ffl I'#' / 100.0<' --- . " iii i "! I / ,! ~~! ~ ' . RECEIVED: APR 1 2 2016 ; CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION ' I~ ~i~· x ., .. TREE CUTTING/LAND CLEARING PLAN PRELIIMINARY PLAT RAD HOLDINGS, UC VALLEY VUE 3!06i:tfl2 TALBOT ROADS. 'I . ,. ' I' I i . i' CITY OF RENTON WASHINOTON 100.0,' =-=-PL l:,, lit::'""-"·~--~ 1;;;>----~ "t:'"-'----, ~ ...,.,..,,..,.. .... t:,. ....., ........ , t:,. '""'''"' t:,. • • r --~----·····-·- -••,oUl•>illll -II' :11w1: 1 • 1 .. ,~ 11111 /i: 11 11: 'Ill "',"l!ll! l!!l I 1111111 11111111111 I 11iii>p•j11 11 "" !I h!! I I I ' lj ip !11 ! Ip l I I . ! I ••• , ..... s •• I ~11 'f I ;iii i I! Ii ii ii I j!lij 11'1! •lj' I h1! I I . ; '·'; DD i EJA::) h~ , ! I I COVERS!'.,,;fl\ll\JING OIVISIO~--·".:"" .•.. -... -.. " .. '.-.. ; :::!;:.."'.'.':_, 1=1 I J. ~-~ PRELIMINAFffflA't'. '"':"' ......... ' !._; -T~·---- lJ I! ~,r;.:;;5~:-DA~"'""'·-·'=--" RADHDLDINGS,LLC i:' .......... ~ . ' ;i ~[~~,#•' l-~-LLC 1Z111iSE4J'1,"'-_, , 1~ · -.w ... -VALLEY VUE ..-~ r \,.,;',.t;::. -310dt.31f2TALSOTROADS. :: 10 " ~ ..,. ______________ ,_ ______________________ LOe£!nY!fO'C£"~'"'!f"""'!.._ ____ _JW~"!!'!"'""""'~O·'..!'"""=-c:::::· :=JLf,~L.l __ lJ..jJ ·-----~----·----·--··-- ., NOUVA:313 ~ 1i -1 ____ r1-i:"1':; hl ···········[·-··········· ! 1 ........ 1· &: . 1··rN ~ !-I ! I · 11 ~ ... ··1 1 t.l+1.l I •.. I. i I i l!J I! 8l ;:i: u1 l!I ELEVATION I DA GRAD/NG ANDO RENTON RA/NAGE PLA ' PRELIMINARY p,;:ND PROFILE RAD HOLDINGS, LLC VALLEY VUE 310&l112 TALBOTRa,t.DS. CITV OF RE~ON WASHINGTON ""'"""' ~111!0 :t.=...,, .. . -~- ' -. r:_ ~-, ., CITY OF RENTON ~ I 1 I ) RAD HOLDINGS, LLC VALLEY VUE 31ocv.J112 TALBOT ROADS OU,, t'!!=-· &-·--6 ·r "i ~ 1= --16 I':""";'';~ .•• , _ I t •• 6 ""'"""""'' 6 WASHINGTON ,u.-. DEPARTMENT OF col\'luNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT -----'i{enton e ADMINISTRATIVE STREET MODIFICATION [XI APPROVAL D DENIAL PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: PROJECT MANAGER: APPLICANT: ZONING CLASSIFICATION: PROJECT LOCATION: SUMMARY OF REQUEST: EVALUATION FORM & DECISION Valley Vue Short Plat LUA16-000272, C17-001891 Ian Fitz-James, Civil Engineer Ill Rory Dees 1040 W. Lk. Sammamish Prky SE Bellevue, WA 98008 RB-Residential (8 DU/ AC) 3106 and 3112 Talbot Rd S, Renton WA 98055 Pursuant to RMC 4-9-250D The applicant is requesting a modification from RMC 4-6-060F.2 "Minimum Design Standards Table for Public Streets and Alleys" in order to eliminate the required 8-foot planter strip and the 5-foot sidewalk along the north side of S 32nd Pl and install a driveway apron per along the 24.06' street frontage. BACKGROUND: S 32nd Pl is a Residential Access Street with an existing ROW width of 44 feet (as per assessor map). The existing roadway section from south to north is an approximate 5-foot planter strip, 5-foot sidewalk, 0.5-foot curb, 28-foot pavement section, 0.5-foot curb, and an approximate 5- foot planter strip on the north side of the roadway adjacent to the project. A Residential Street classification requires a minimum right-of-way width of 53 feet. To meet the City's complete street standards, half street improvements include 14-foot paved roadway, 8-foot planter strip and 5-foot sidewalk is required to be constructed in the right of way fronting the development along with a minimum right-of-way dedication of 8 feet per City Code 4-6-060. The existing homes along S 32nd Pl are only 20 feet or so away from the existing right-of-way. An increase in right-of-way of 8-feet on the north side of the roadway would encroach into the required building setback per zoning. EXHIBITS: Exhibit 1: Site Plan • • City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development Valley Vue Short Plat -STREET MODIFICATION Admin. Modification Request Report & Decision LUA16-000272, Cll-001891 Report of October 30, 2017 Page 2 of 3 ANALYSIS OF REQUEST: The proposal is compliant with the following modification criteria, pursuant to RMC 4-9-250D, if all conditions of approval are met. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of the requested modification, subject to conditions as noted below: ,, Complia'nce., , StreetJ\llodification Criteria an·d,Analysis . _·. · · .. ·' ':. ' . ,.. :, ,, '•;-,:' :'.:;. \· ,,, {:,1[''.i/t:. {>; ·': ·'<·, ·, ,']i,,-:.·x~;'.;' Hi'., .. /;;,;; '1LT;;,-:!(i ,., ,:: ,. 1},.A:, ,;'.".t. L~ • ,.!j;,. iJ.'• ... ' . .. a. Substantially implements the policy direction of the policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and the Community Design Element and the proposed modification is the minimum adjustment necessary to implement these policies and objectives. Staff Comment: The Community Design Element has applicable policies listed under a separate section labeled Streets, Sidewalks and Streetscapes. These policies address walkable neighborhoods, safety and shared uses. The intent of the policies is to Compliant if promote new development with walkable places that support grid and flexible grid condition of street and pathway patterns, and are visually attractive, safe, and healthy approval ls environments. The requested street modification is consistent with these policy met guidelines provided the driveway apron becomes part of a future 5-foot wide sidewalk directly adjacent to the existing curb and gutter. This standard would ensure that the north side of the roadway is consistent with the existing configuration on the south side of the roadway. Given that the frontage along S 32nd Pl is only about 24 feet wide, a driveway apron with driveway wings meeting City of Renton Standards Driveway Detail (COR Std Plan 104.1) would encompass the entire frontage. The sidewalk and driveway approach would also be required to be located solely within the public right-of-way. If the improvements are outside of the existing right-of-way, additional right-of-way dedication would be required on S 32nd Pl. b. Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon sound engineering judgment. Staff Comment: The City's Community and Economic Development section reviewed S ti' 32nd St and the surrounding area and have determined that locating the sidewalk directly adjacent to the roadway is more suitable for this location of S 32nd St. This determination was based on the fact that the roadway is directly adjacent ta single family residences and there is insufficient space between the existing right-of-way and the existing homes to expand the roadway section to meet the full Residential Street standards. c. Will not be injurious to other property(ies) in the vicinity. ti' Stoff Comment: There are no identified adverse impacts to other properties from the requested modification. d. Conforms to the intent and purpose of the Code. ti' Staff Comment: This modification provides for a safe pedestrian route in and around the existing neighborhood. • City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development Valley Vue Short Plat-STREET MODIFICATION Report of October 30, 2017 • Admln. Modification Request Report & Decision WA15-000272, Cll-001891 Page 3 of 3 e. Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended; and ,/ Staff Comment: The revised street standards provide a safe design far vehicles and pedestrians. f, Will not create adverse impacts to other property(ies) in the vicinity. ,/ Staff Comment: See comments under criterion 'c'. DECISION The proposal satisfies 6 of the 6 criteria listed in RMC 4-9-250D.2 for the requested modification. Therefore, the street modifications for the Valley Vue Short Plat, Project Number LUA16-000272/C17-001891 is approved with the following condition. 1. The applicant shall provide a driveway apron with driveway wings and a 5-foot wide sidewalk along the street frontage of Tract H. The driveway approach and sidewalk shall be located solely within the public right-of-way. If the improvements are outside of the existing right-of-way, additional right-of-way dedication would be required from Tract H on S 32nd Pl. 10/30/2017 Brianne Bannwarth, Development Engineering Manager Date The decision to approve the modification will become final if not appealed in writing together with the required fee to: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 on or before 5:00 pm, on November 13, 2017. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's office, Renton City Hall -7th Floor, 425.430.6510. If you have any further questions regarding this decision, feel free to contact the project manager, Ian Fitz-James, at 425.430.7288 or ifitz-james@rentonwa.gov. ,------------------------------------------- City of Renton Print map Template None 0 64 0 32 64 Feet WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere City of fl =rrton Ci~,, ·--~. "7:ti.- Finance & IT Division CJ City and County Boundary Addresses [1 Parcels Information Technology -GIS RentonMapSupport@Rentonwa.gov 10/30/2017 fhis map is o ui,er gu11efllltJ1J sta\oc output from un ln!emet mapping silo and is for reference only. Oala layers Iha! appear oo this map rnay or may not be accurate, currenl, or otherwise retiable. THIS MAP IS NOTTO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION Clark Close From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Good Afternoon, • • Tracy Conover <tracy@jandmmanagement.com> Tuesday, October 10, 2017 4:14 PM Clark Close; Chip Vincent; Jennifer T. Henning Dees-Valley Vue Letter to Mr. Dees re Winsper HOA (2).PDF; ValleyVueresponseoct12017.pdf Please see the email below from the President of the Winsper Community in Renton. Although the Winsper HOA has received two recent communications from Mr. Dees, neither of these is a response to the proposal sent to Mr. Dees on our behalf by our legal representative Mr. Greenfield of Davis, Wright and Tremaine (DWT). Although DWT sent the proposal to Mr. Dees dated March 14, 2017, he has never responded or even acknowledge to us or our legal representative that he received it, yet he has now referred to it twice in communications to the city. That document offered the negotiation of a compromise proposal of granting easement rights across Tract H for the purpose of the city required emergency access for the proposed Lot 28 development. This would satisfy the city's emergency access requirement without the need to transfer the deed to Tracts H and G to Mr. Dees. We do not believe that transfer of the Tracts to Mr. Dees is necessary or in our best interests, since to our knowledge, he does not have any plans for addressing ongoing maintenance, an HOA that would be responsible for that maintenance, or any other forum for us to address neighborhood concerns regarding this Tract, which is after all, actually located in our community, once construction is finished and these planned two homes are sold. In fact, his plan seems to show that he intends to use the Winsper neighborhood and access tracts as the primary development access portal, which is outside the scope of approved use for this tract as designated by the hearing examiner, since this does not constitute "emergency access". The only reason that we can discern for Mr. Dees' continued insistence on the transfer of the deed, despite the proposal of a viable alternative that should satisfy the needs of all parties, is that Mr. Dees still harbors some notion of enlarging the scope of the development of Lot 28. Winsper Board of Directors 1 Mr. Rory Dees RAD Holdings, LLC • 1040 W. Lake Sammamish Parkway S.E. Bellevue, WA 98008 Dear Mr. Dees, • RECEIVED OCT 1 0 2017 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION The Winsper HOA has received your two recent communications; however neither of these represents a response to the proposal sent to you on our behalf by our legal representative Mr. Greenfield of Davis, Wright and Tremaine (DWT) March 14, 2017. As per the hearing examiner's final decision rendered on July 11, 2016, "In short, the subdivision will never be finally approved by this decision unless and until the applicant acquires emergency access rights across Tract H." After this decision, the Board, with the communities' management company acting as its agent, requested the services of Davis, Wright and Tremaine to represent us in this matter. For clarity, to summarize the position of the Winsper Community Homeowner's Association regarding the emergency access easement as set forth by DWT in the March 14, 2017 letter: • We do not believe the HOA is legally required to convey the easement. • Nonetheless, the HOA is willing to convey the easement, subject to the nine conditions set forth in the DWT letter (see attached). • The HOA may be willing to discuss reasonable and minimal modifications to the conditions described in the letter, if necessary, to allow the emergency access easement to satisfy City requirements,'but the HOA is not willing, under any circumstances, to permit any use or disturbance, even on a temporary basis, of any property outside of Tract H. Sincerely, Winsper Community HOA Board of Directors • iffl Davis \[\/right 111: ... Tremaine LLP March 14, 2017 VIA US MAIL Mr. Rory Dees RAD Holdings, LLC 1040 W. Lake Sammamish Parkway S.E. Bellevue, WA 98008 Re: Winsper Community Homeowner's Association Dear Mr. Dees: • Suite 2200 120! Third Avenue Senttle, WA 98101-3045 .hlmcs A. Grccnlicld 206.757.8055 tel 206.757.7055 fnx j i mgreenJi cl cl@d wt. com RECEIVED OCT IO 2017 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION We represent the Winsper Community Homeowner's Association ("Winsper HOA"). I understand that you have requested that the Winsper HOA convey to RAD Holdings LLC ("RAD") an emergency access easement upon the Winsper HOA's Tract I-I in order to satisfy one of the conditions of the Final Decision Upon Reconsideration by the City of Renton upon the Valley Vue Preliminary Short Plat dated July 11, 2016. I further understand that you have based your request upon·a note on the face of the plat ofWinspcr Division l, recorded on March 14, I 989 (the "Plat Note"). For a number of reasons, we believe that the Plat Note may not require the Winsper HOA to convey such an easement to RAD. Nonetheless, in order to avoid a protracted dispute, Winsper HOA is willing to convey an emergency access easement to RAD upon the following conditions: l. The easement shall be for emergency access only and only upon Tract I-I. 2. The easement shall conform to applicable fire access standards of the City of Renton, but shall be constructed with a 12-foot wide permeable surface material, within a total of20 foot clearance area. RAD must engage the services of a project design specialist for a 12 foot wide permeable surface fire lane with a buffer zone on each side. The design elements must be consistent with the elements in the Winsper Community and must be presented to the Winsper HOA for approval prior to any construction. DGS or grass pavers are preferred. The emergency access must be at least 6 feet from the property line of tax lot 39 (618 S 32nd Place), which may result in the emergency access lane being :.1 R 16-(,527-1 Hi6v.J O l 0858)-00000 I I Anchorago B,:,Uevue Lc:,sAngdc5 10(.)'fo@ I New York Pcrtlimd San Francisco I Seattle Shanghai Washington. D.C. www.dwt.com I I I I I I I \ I I i I I I I I I I I I I March 14, 2017 Page2 • • slightly off center within this easement. Construction of the emergency access improvements within the easement shall occur entirely within Tract H. The easement will convey no rights of use -temporary or otherwise -to any other property within the Winsper Community. 3. Proper drainage must be installed along the downward side of the easement abutting the property line of tax lot 39 and along the shared property line between tax lot 28 and Tract H. 4. RAD must install a fence at the prope1ty line dividing Tract H and the RAD prope1ty. The fence must have a lockable gate.· The design of said fence, gate and lock must conform to Winsper HOA CC&Rs and Renton Regional Fire Authority ("RFA") standards and must be approved by the Wins per HOA and the RF A prior to construction. The gate must be locked at all times unless required temporarily by the RF A. The key is to be held by the RFA only. Winsper HOA, the RAD, or any other current or future owner of that RAD property or Winsper property shall not have or be given a copy of that access key. 5. RAD will be responsible for and shall promptly pay all costs associated with the improvements, including design, development, permitting, legal fees (including reasonable Winsper HOA legal fees) and will pay Winsper HOA $15,000 to establish an endowment fund to cover the cost of future superficial maintenance and miscellaneous administrative fees which need to be paid by the Winsper HOA. RAD shall not allow any statutory liens to be placed on Tract H and shall have no authority to bind Tract H for purposes of any statutory liens. 6. RAD and its successors and assigns shall be solely responsible for the long term maintenance and repair, if necessary, of the emergency access improvements. RAD may request access periodically to inspect such improvements and, if necessary, make repairs. Winsper HOA shall not unreasonably deny such request. 7. RAD shall indemnify, defend and hold Winsper HOA harmless from and against any and all liens, claims, costs, expenses (including attorneys' and experts' fees), injuries or damages arising out of or involving any entry onto Tract H or any construction, use or maintenance activity allowed by the easement. RAD will at all times maintain adequate commercial general liability insurance and will name Winsper HOA as an additional insured. Any such activity shall be undertaken only after securing any necessary permits from the appropriate governmental agencies, if any, and providing Winsper HOA with · appropriate certificates of insurance. ,is I (J.6527· l 876v ,J O I OSSSJ-00000 I March 14, 2017 Page 3 • • 8. RAD will preserve and protect all utilities currently occupying Tract H. These include, without limitation, telephone and cable utilities and the drainage system along tax lot 39. 9. RAD will relinquish all other real property interests it may have in the Winsper Community properties, including but not limited to Winsper Tracts H and G, by delivering a quit claim deed to the Winsper HOA. RAD shall also convey to the Winsper HOA a restrictive covenant upon the Valley Vue properties limiting subdivision to two lots as provided in the City of Renton Preliminary Short Plat LUA 16-000272. If these conditions are acceptable to RAD, please let me know and I will prepare the necessary documents for your review. Very truly yours, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP cc: N. Lynn Rastelli-Lee, Winsper HOA President 4816-6527-! 876v.J O l 1)8583-00000 I '· Rory Dees, RAD Holdings, LLC Jon Nelson, Land Development Advisors Parties of Record (Signature of Sender): STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING • Applicant Contact See Attached Notary (Print): __ ...;l+"'«"l,§l4''---7+-,=.,,,"'"'.,."'v.,_r ______________ _ My appointment expires: ft'tJ c.,.~/--;).'(, ::i.or7 Valley Vue Short Plat LUA16-000272, SHPL-A, MOD template -affidavit of service by mailing BRIAN & CHERIE YORITA 607 5 32nd Pl Renton. WA 98055-5086 CARL KIMINKI 703 S 32nd St Renton. WA 98055 Doug Dalen 721 S 31st St Renton, WA 98055 ' Jenn McLaughlin 612 5 32nd Pl Renton. WA 98055 M/M Lee 902 S 32nd Pl Renton. WA 98055 Mitchell Masich 700 S 32nd Pl Renton. WA 98055 Rachel or Current Resident 648 S 32nd Pl Renton. WA 98055 Rorv Dees 1040 W Lake Sammamish Pkwy SE Bellevue. WA 98008 Steven Nguyen 619 S 32nd Pl Renton. WA 98055 Virginia Klaas. MD 618 S 32nd Pl Renton. WA 98055 CAROL & JESS TOMAS J C ENTERPRISES 739 5 32nd Pl Renton. WA 98055-5095 Dvlan Moline 715 S 32nd Pl Renton. WA 98055 Jerome Jaeb 701 S 32nd Pl Renton. WA 98055 M/M Tu kola 601 S 32nd Pl Renton. WA 98055 Nona Braun 606 S 32nd Pl Renton. WA 98055-5094 Resident Resident 637 S 32nd Pl Renton, WA 98055 Rorv Dees RAD HOLDINGS LLC 1040 W Lake Sammamish Pkwy SE Bellevue, WA 98008 STEVEN THOMPSON INSIGNIA SIGN INC 706 S 32nd Pl Renton. WA 98055-5000 Virginia Klaas, MD 618 S 32nd Pl Renton. WA 98055 .&AAi&ZUi&M_ZiiiiQi! .e.z Bruce Truong 3101 Smithers Ave S Renton, WA 98055 Donald Duncan 709 S 31st St Renton. WA 98055 Hisami Haglund 727 S 32nd Pl Renton, WA 98055 Jon Nelson Land Development Advisors, LLC 12865 SE 47th Pl Bellevue, WA 98006 Marv Klaas Schultz 618 S 32nd Pl Renton. WA 98055 Phoong Nguyen 642 S 32nd Pl Renton. WA 98055 Richard Lee 902 S 32nd Pl Renton. WA 98055 Stanely Mitchell 3107 Smithers Ave S Renton. WA 98055 Thao Vuong 601 S 32nd Pl Renton. WA 98055 Walter Charles 652 S 32nd St Renton. WA 98055 Denis Law MaYC?.r July 13, 2016 Jon Nelson • Land Development Advisors, LLC. 12865 SE 47th Place Bellevue, WA 98006 Subject: Hearing Examiner's Final Decision City Clerk -Jason A. Seth, CMC RE: Valley Vue Preliminary Short Plat (LUA-16-000272) Dear Mr. Nelson: . The City of Renton's Hearing Examiner has issued a Final Decision dated July 11, 2016. This document is immediately available: • Electronically online at the City of Renton City Clerk Division website at www.rentonwa.gov/cityclerk. Click the "Hearing Examiner Decisions" link on the right side of the screen ·1ocated under the section titled, "Helpful Links." The Hearing Examiner Decisions are filed by year and then alphabetical order by project name. • To be viewed at the City Clerk's office on the 7th floor or Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, between 8 am and 4 pm. Ask for the project file by the above project number; and • For purchase at a copying charge of $0.15 per page. The estimated cost for the Hearing Examiner Documents is $2.10, plus a h·andling and postage cost {this cost is subject to change if documents are added). APPEAL DEADLINE: RMC 4-8,080 provides that the final decision of the Hearing Examiner is subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E){14) requires appeals of the Hearing Examiner's decision to be filed within fourteen (14) calendardays from the date of the hearing examiner's decision. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee to the City Council, ·city of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Additional information regarding_the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall -7th Floor, {425) 430-6510. 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • (425) 430-6510 / Fax (425) 43D-6516 • rentonwa.gov I i I I I I I I I I ' I ' I I I ' I • • RECONSIDERATION: 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-· 100(G)(9). 'Reconsiderations must be-filed in writing to the Hearing Examiner, City of_ Renton, 105.5 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Additional information regarding the recons_ideration process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office,' Renton City Hall - 7th Floor, (425) 430-6510. A new fourteen (14) ,day appeal period 'shall commence upon t!'ie issuance of a reconsideration.decision: I can be reached at (425) 430-6510 or jseth@ren.tonwa.gov. Thank you . . Sincerely, · J_ason A. Seth, CMC City Clerk cc: Hearing Examiner Clark Close, Senior Planner Jennifer Henning, Planning Director Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager Brianne Ban_nwarth, Development Engineering Mana·ger Craig Burnell, Building Official Sabrina Mirante, Secretary, Planning Division Ed Pri~ce; City Coun_cilmember · Julia Medzegian, City Council Liaison · Parties of Reco_rd (29) .... ...._ ·~ . Denis Law · MaYor July 13, 2016 · STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING • CERT1FicATE OF MAILING ) ) § ) JASON A. SETH·, City Clerk for the City of Renton, b~ing first duly sworn on oath, deposes and · says.that he is~ citizen of the United States and a resident of the St~te of Washington, civer the age of 21·and not a party to nor fnterested in this.matter. That on the 13th ·day ofJuly, 2016, at the.hour of 4;30_p.m .. your affiant:duly mailed _and placed ·· in the United States Post Office at Renton, King County, Washington, by first class.mail the . . ' . . . . . ' . ' . . ' HEX's Final Decision for Valley Vue Preliminary Short Plat (LUA'.16-000272) to the attached -. . -. . . . . parties of record .. · Jason SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE.me this 13th day of July, 2016. 1055 _South Grady Way , Renton, Washington 98057 , (425) ·430-6510 / Fax (425) 430-6516 • rento_nwa.gov BRIAN & CHERIE YORITA 607 S 32nd Pl Renton. WA 98055-5086 CARL KIMINKI 703 S 32nd St Renton, WA 98055 Doug Dalen 721 S 31st St Renton. WA 98055 Jenn Mclaughlin 612 S 32nd Pl Renton, WA 98055 M/M Lee 902 S 32nd Pl Renton. WA 98055 Mitchell Masich 700 S 32nd Pl Renton, WA 98055 Rachel or Current Resident 648 S 32nd Pl Renton, WA 98055 Rorv Dees 1040 W Lake Sammamish Pkwy SE Bellevue. WA 98008 Steven Nguyen 619 S 32nd Pl Renton. WA 98055 Virginia Klaas, MD 618 S 32nd Pl Renton, WA 98055 • BRUCE AND SHARON WICKS 3121 Smithers Ave S Renton, WA 98055-5301 Carol & Jess Tomas J C Enterprises 739 S 32nd Pl Renton, WA 980SS-S095 Dvlan Moline 715 S 32nd Pl Renton, WA 98055 Jerome Jaeb 701 S 32nd Pl Renton, WA 98055 M/M Tu kola 601 S 32nd Pl Renton, WA 98055 Nona Braun 606 S 32nd Pl Renton, WA 98055-5094 Resident Resident 637 S 32nd Pl Renton. WA 98055 Rorv Dees RAD HOLDINGS LLC 1040 W Lake Sammamish Pkwy SE Bellevue, WA 98008 STEVEN THOMPSON INSIGNIA SIGN INC 706 S 32nd Pl Renton, WA 98055-5000 Virginia Klaas, MD 618 S 32nd Pl Renton. WA 98055 • Bruce Truong 3101 Smithers Ave S Renton. WA 98055 Donald Duncan 709 S 31st St Renton, WA 98055 Hisami Haglund 727 S 32nd Pl Renton. WA 98055 Jon Nelson Land Development Advisors, LLC 12865 SE 47th Pl Bellevue. WA 98006 Marv Klaas Schultz 618 S 32nd Pl Renton, WA 980S5 Phoong Nguven 642 S 32nd Pl Renton, WA 98055 Richard Lee 902 S 32nd Pl Renton, WA 98055 Stanelv Mitchell 3107 Smithers Ave S Renton. WA 98055 Thao Vuong 601 S 32nd Pl Renton, WA 98055 Walter Charles 652 S 32nd St Renton. WA 98055 V 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I I 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: Valley Vue Preliminary Short Plat FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION LUA16-000272, SHPL-A, MOD ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) I. SUMMARY The applicant has applied for approval of a two lot short subdivision and a street modification. The preliminary plat application is approved subject to conditions. The proposed access through Tract H of the Winsper Division I subdivision shall be limited to emergency access only as opposed to the shared driveway access proposed by the applicant. The modification was requested to frontage improvement requirements to the shared driveway. Since the shared driveway is not approved as part of the short subdivision, the modification request is rendered moot and not addressed in this decision. Ownership of Tract His apparently currently held by the Winsper Homeowner's Association and at least one project opponent testified that the HOA had no obligation to transfer ownership or access rights to Tract H to the applicant. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law of this decision, the examiner has no authority to adjudicate disputed ownership or access rights. The conditions of approval provide that no final plat shall issue until the applicant provides proof of ownership rights to City staff. This places the applicant in the position of having to work out any access issues with the HOA prior to final approval of the short subdivision. PRELIMINARY PLAT -Preliminary Short Plat -I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I I 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 • • In addition to the ownership issue, there are a few other outstanding issues that will have to be worked out administratively. Since general vehicular access is no longer authorized across Tract H, there may be outstanding street standard compliance issues that apply to the existing access road. From staff testimony at the hearing, it appears that the current access road may not comply with some currently adopted street standards. The existing road may very well not be subject to current standards because it may qualify as a legal nonconforming use. The administrative record was not developed to address this issue, as there is no information in the record on what approvals the road and existing home acquired and what development standards applied at the time of approval. The conditions of approval leave it to staff to work out whether there are any remaining compliance issues with the existing road. If compliance issues do exist the applicant will have to acquire administrative modifications, waivers or variances as necessary to move forward to final plat approval. At the hearing concerns were expressed about the use of Tract G as an access tract to the proposed short subdivision. This decision only approves Tract H for access. If the applicant wishes to use Tract G for access, that would be considered an amendment to the subdivision approved by this decision that would have to be processed accordingly by City staff. II. TESTIMONY Note: This "Testimony" section of this decision is only provided as a convenience lo readers as a summary of the concerns and comments raised by hearing parties. Nothing in this summary should be construed as a finding or conclusion made by the examiner. No assurances are made as to accuracy. For an accurate rendition of hearing testimony, reference should be made to the hearing recording available at Renton City Hall. Clark Close, Renton planner, summarized the proposal. Fire Chief Mark Peterson testified that a house fire had occurred on the project site and the fire department was only able to get one fire truck onto the property. The fire truck became enveloped in smoke along with all responders and crews performing first aid. The existing road is too narrow and too steep. The proposed access through Tract H is 16 feet and that access will be difficult because the trucks are eight feet wide. Access will be difficult, but will be acceptable if the homes are sprinklered. Access is necessary for both fire and medical assistance. Chief Peterson noted that space for emergency vehicle turn-around would also be necessary. The examiner inquired whether a hammerhead was being proposed. Clark Close noted that there was space for emergency vehicles to turn around, but no hammerhead was being proposed. Chief Peterson noted he would have to consult with his staff to determine whether the existing space for turn-around would be sufficient. The examiner noted he may condition the project to require a hammerhead as deemed necessary by the fire department. PRELIMINARY PLAT -Preliminary Short Plat -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 • • The examiner inquired of staff as to how the project was able to comply with RMC 4-6-060(1), which requires at least one lot served by a shared driveway must abut public right of way. Mr. Clifford stated that Lot 28 of the Winsper division (the project site) in conjunction with Lot 38 meets this requirement, as Lot 38 has public road frontage. In response to examiner questions, Mr. Close noted that the new minimum width for shared driveways (which didn't apply in the first Valley Vue application) is 20 feet. In response to examiner questions about the safety of the narrow access tract, Ian Fitz-James, City of Renton development engineer, testified that the primary concerns regarding safety in the first Valley Vue application were over the access tract to the east, Tract G. The access tract to be used by this project, Tract H, has more separation from adjoining homes. The other access tract also needed construction easements because it is sloped and needs retaining walls. The subject access road is flat and no easements would be required from adjoining neighbors. Vanessa Dolbee, planning manager, also noted that the number of lots, and hence trips, has been greatly reduced since the original application and also the width standard has been changed since the original application as well, from 26 feet to the current 20 feet. Mary Klaas-Schultz, neighbor, testified that the geotech report conclusions are based upon a different project. The proposal is not a development, it's a lot split. She noted that the access to the Winsper subdivision was originally 25% grade, just like the Talbot access to the proposal. Consequently, the applicant should be able to grade his current access from Talbot just as the Winsper developer did. The existing Talbot access has been used for 70 years. The existing access road should be improved to its full 12-foot width. She noted that the current access was wide enough for fire trucks to access the property, the problem was the lack of a tum-around and parking. The existing road is 8-10 feet wide but it can be widened to 12 feet. The Talbot Road access is the most direct route. The proposed access requires fire access through a high density neighborhood through an access tract sandwiched between two homes. The currently existing road only spans 274 and 739 feet respectively from Talbot to the existing homes. The proposed access would require fire trucks to travel 1,702 and 1,575 feet respectively from Talbot to the existing homes. Ms. Klaas-Schultz noted that the prior application had been denied because there was only five-foot separation from adjoining homes and this provided insufficient space for vehicle course correction. She noted that this condition hasn't changed in the new application. She noted that her living room will be located only a few feet from cars travelling on the access tract. Virginia Klaas, neighbor, argued that Tract H, the proposed access from Winsper, had a covenant that provided it would only be deeded to the owner of Lot 28 when King County approved development of Lot 28, the project site. The application is a lot split, not a development. Lot 28 will be undisturbed. She noted that neither proposed lot abuts public right of way as required by RMC 4-6-060(1). Ms. Klaas also noted that the "disturbance limits" identified in project exhibits extended onto her lot and would damage her drainage system and extends onto her driveway and living room. A six-foot fence is right on her property line and she's not removing it for this project. Ms. Klaas also argued that RMC 4-4-080 requires driveways to be located five feet or more from side property lines. Ms. Klaas also pointed out that the staff report incorrectly identifies the proposal fronts onto S. 32"d Place. She PRELIMINARY PLAT -Preliminary Short Plat -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 • • asserts that the applicant is proposing no frontage on S. 32"d Place since the lots front the access tract, not S. 32"d Place. Bruce Truong, neighbor, submitted a petition of 25 people opposed to the project. He noted that the disturbance plan encroached onto private property. He noted that the proposed drainage was to use the drains on Winsper, but these already flood during heavy rainstorms. He noted that in a prior fire response incident in Winsper the fire truck had difficult turning onto his street. In response to examiner questions, Virginia Klaas noted that the disturbance zones depicted in the power points come from the civil plans submitted to the City. Sharon Gangwish, neighbor, noted she lives next to Access Tract G. She noted that the easement is sloped 15% and any driveway would require cutting into the slope 5 feet and require a retaining wall. She noted that the original application had been denied because this retaining wall work would have adversely affected the foundation of her home. Despite this finding, Mr. Dees in November, 2015 still proposed the use of Tract G. The SEPA report then concluded that only access along Tract H was required. Ms. Gangwish wanted to know if this guaranteed that there would be no access through Tract G. She wanted some assurance that Tract G could not be used for access in the future. Luz Chan, neighbor, testified she opposes the project because it's not consistent with city code. Mary Lou Hanley, neighbor, testified that she opposes the project. Byron Gangwish, neighbor, testified that he opposes the proposal, especially for safety concerns. Mike Luu, neighbor, testified that he opposes the proposal. Lilly Luu, neighbor, testified she opposes the proposal. Andrea Smith, neighbor, strongly opposes the project due to safety and drainage concerns. Laura Kiel, KOMO radio host, testified she was interested in seeing how homeowners and regulators work together to develop a community. She was curious about how many variations are allowed on a project. She wanted to know why bother about adopting regulations if unlimited modifications are allowed. She noted that the investment in a home is usually a person's biggest investment and that the homeowners rely upon the regulators to maintain the integrity of the development standards. Jerome Jaeb, neighbor, stated he rejects the application. He noted there are several inconsistencies in the City's project documents and it was difficult to access the application due to a change in project name. He identified five code violations: (I) RMC 4-6-060 provides that the driveway cannot be longer than 200 feet -he noted that the actual distance to the house is 284 feet; (2) one of the lots using the driveway must have 50 feet of frontage on public right of way; (3) the driveway must be more than five feet from adjoining property lines; (4) the maximum width ofa driveway can't exceed more than 40% of the frontage; and (5) there must be maintenance assured for the easement. PRELIMINARY PLAT-Preliminary Short Plat -4 ~--------------------------------------- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I I 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 • • Wayne Dong, neighbor, testified he opposes the project. Carl Kaminki, neighbor, testified that any more traffic on S. 32"d St. would be a hazard. Nobody yields when going on to S. 32"d St. Rhodora Darang, neighbor, strongly opposes the development. She has three young children that plats on Smithers. Additional traffic would be detrimental to them. Bruce Wicks, neighbor, testified that he opposes the project. Laura Rastelli, neighbor and president of Winsper Homeowner's Association ("HOA"), noted that the HOA has not been approached with assuming any responsibility for assuming responsibility for project wetlands and she doesn't believe the HOA should have any such responsibility. Clark Close clarified that the disturbance limit is identified in Ex. 7. He also noted that the project is exempt from drainage review. Mr. Close also noted that there have been numerous code changes since the last application. The length of the driveway is to the lot and not the home. The five-foot setback is not applicable to shared driveways, it only applies to driveways to single-family lots. In response to examiner questions, Mr. Fitz-James clarified that the disturbance zone was not an accurate representation. The disturbance area is limited to the driveway and utility improvements. No encroachment will actually occur on the adjoining lots. Brianne Bannwarth, City of Renton Development Engineering Manager, testified that the primary reason for the second access is to accommodate emergency access. The length of the substandard existing access road is too long ( exceeds 150 feet) for adequate fire access. In response to examiner questions, Ms. Bannwarth said it would be acceptable to the City to limit Tract H to emergency access. Chief Peterson noted it would also be acceptable to put a fire gate at the access point. Mr. Close noted that a secondary access is required by City code because one of the homes is located more than 200 feet from Talbot Road. Mr. Close stated that staff would be open to a condition limiting Tract H to emergency access in conjunction with a modification to the 200 foot-requirement for Talbot. Mr. Close noted that if Tract H is limited to emergency access it would have to be improved with a hard surface. Ms. Bannwarth clarified that the if improvements are limited to creating a hard surface to Tract H that stormwater requirements would not be triggered -however if a hard surface turnaround is required that would trigger stormwater review. Ms. Bannwarth opined that the small amount of impervious surface added to Tract H would not generate enough additional stormwater to be of any concern to the downstream properties. Rory Dees, applicant, noted that the property could have been developed with 14 lots if it weren't for the access problems. Typically lot splits don't even go to the hearing examiner. He noted that the home purchasers should have been aware of the potential development of and access to Lot 28 when they bought their lots. He also wanted to be able to only use the hydrant on Talbot. PRELIMINARY PLAT-Preliminary Short Plat -5 ~------------------------------------------------------------ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 • • III. EXHIBITS The 26 exhibits of page 2 of the staff report were admitted into the record during the hearing. The following exhibits were also admitted during the hearing: Ex. 27: Ex. 28: Ex. 29: Ex. 30: Ex. 31: Ex. 32: Ex. 33: Procedural: Staff power point. City of Renton core maps, located at City's website Google maps of project site. Klaas-Schultz power point and written materials. Virginia Klaas power point, written materials and access easement. Truong power point and written materials. Sharon Gangwish power point. IV. FINDINGS OF FACT 1 1. Applicant. RAD Holdings, LLC. 2. Hearing. A consolidated hearing on the preliminary plat application and modification request was held on June 28, 2016 in the Renton City Council meeting chambers in Renton City Hall. Substantive: 3. Project Description. The applicant has applied for approval ofa two lot short subdivision and a street modification. The site is 99,994 square feet (2.3 acres) and is located at 3106 and 3112 Talbot Rd S (APN: 302305-9028), adjacent to Winsper Division No. 1 subdivision. There are two (2) single family residences (3106 and 3112) located on this parcel that gain access to the site from Talbot Road S. The proposed short plat would subdivide the parcel into two (2) residential lots, leaving both existing houses undisturbed, and one (1) Native Growth Protection Tract (Tract A). The two proposed residential lots are 41,970 SF (Lot 1) and 40,200 SF (Lot 2) with an average lot size of 41,085 SF. The residential density is 0.96 dwelling units per net acre. Access to the new residential lots is proposed via a 16-foot wide driveway from S 32nd Pl through 1 The Findings of Fact include some applications of City legal standards that would normally be considered to be conclusions of law. Legal standards are applied when they are construed as legislative standards of adequacy, such as street standards for the adequacy of streets or critical area regulations for the adequacy of critical area protection. In the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, conformance to directly applicable City legal standards is considered to establish adequacy of infrastructure/mitigation and adequacy of mitigation. PRELIMINARY PLAT-Preliminary Short Plat -6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 • • Winsper Division No. 1 Subdivision (Tract H) via the 24-foot wide dedicated ingress/egress easement area. There are 142 significant trees on the site and the applicant is proposing to retain all of the original trees. The eastern portion of the site is comprised of established forest with a Category Ill wetland that extends off-site to the east and south. No impacts to critical areas onsite are proposed. The application is also requesting a street modification from the required half-street frontage improvements along S 32nd Pl, along the access tracts, to maintain the existing improvement condition of the neighborhood. The applicant has submitted a Critical Areas Study and a Geotechnical Engineering Study with the application. 4. Surrounding Area. The subject site is surrounding on all sides by single family residential development zoned R-8. 5. Adverse Impacts of Proposed Street Modification. As conditioned by this decision, there are no significant adverse impacts associated with the proposal. Since the two homes on the project site have already been constructed, the primary impacts of concern are those associated with the use and development of Tract H as an access point. Those issues are addressed in Finding of Fact No. 6, addressing adequacy of infrastructure. The only critical areas on the project site are wetlands and steep slopes. As the applicant proposes no new construction in the steep slopes, no steep slope mitigation is necessary. Wetland impacts can still occur as a result of residential use of the project site, so the staff report has made recommendations tha are implemented by this decision that protect the wetlands in conformance to the City's critical area regulations. The applicant submitted a Critical Areas Study prepared by Acre Environmental 17 Consulting, LLC (dated September 4, 2013, revised dated November 23, 2015; Exhibit I I). According to the report, the wetland is located in the eastern portion of the subject site and extends off-site to the east and south. This wetland exhibits a minimum of human related physical alteration, and therefore, meets the criteria for a Category lll wetland with moderate habitat scores (5 to 7 points). A Category lll wetland with moderate habitat function receives a minimum I 00 foot (I 00') standard buffer from the delineated edge (RMC 4-3-050G.2). In order to preserve and protect the wetland and its associated buffer, the applicant is proposing to establish a Native Growth Protection Easement for the Category lll wetland and its associated IOO-foot buffer area within Tract A. Pursuant to the City's critical areas ordinance, this decision requires that the applicant provide a wood, split-rail fence with wetland signage along the west boundary of the wetland. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 6. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. As conditioned, the project will be served by adequate/appropriate infrastructure and public services, as would be expected since no new dwelling units will be constructed. Infrastructure/services are more specifically addressed as follows: PRELIMINARY PLAT-Preliminary Short Plat -7 ~------------------------------------- 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 • • A. Water and Sewer Service. The site is served by the City of Renton for both water and sewer. B. Police and Fire Protection. Police and fire service would be provided by the City of Renton. Police and fire service staff have concluded they have sufficient resources to serve the proposal. Fire impact fees will be collected during building permit review to pay for proportionate share fire system improvements. The fire chief persuasively testified that the existing access from Talbot Road is insufficient for fire access, since its eight to ten-foot width is insufficient to accommodate the eight-foot wide fire apparatus vehicles used for emergency response. The project site also has no emergency turn-around, which is required by City fire code standards for driveways of the length of the project site. In order to remedy the situation, the applicant proposes use of Tract H for fire access. The Fire Chief found this proposed access to be appropriate, in conjunction with the sprinklering of the dwelling units at the project site. City planning staff testified that there was sufficient space at the project site to provide for fire apparatus turn-around, but the Fire Chief was unable to confirm whether this undeveloped space was sufficient for fire access needs. The conditions of approval will require that provision for turn-around be provided as required by City fire access standards. C. Drainage. The City's stormwater standards, primarily adopted as the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual and City amendments thereto, assures that there will be no adverse impacts to surrounding properties caused by stormwater discharge resulting from the development. As testified by Public Works staff, those stormwater standards require no storm water improvements because the proposed addition of impervious surface, limited to the paving of Tract H, is not sufficient to trigger any stormwater analysis or improvements. As confirmed by Public Works staff, the amount of impervious surface will not create any flows that are significant enough to adversely affect neighboring properties. There was no expert testimony to the contrary on this issue. D. Parks/Open Space. No park impact fees are required by City standards because no new residential development is being proposed. Beyond park impacts fees, City standards don't require any parks or open space mitigation for R-8 developments. E. Streets. As conditioned, the proposal provides for adequate/appropriate streets. The primary point of contention for this application was the applicant's proposed use of Tract H for a secondary access point to the proposed subdivision. It is determined that Tract H should be limited to emergency access only. There are two primary reasons for determining that Tract H must be limited to emergency access. First, use of Tract H for a shared driveway violates RMC 4-6-060(J)(l)(a), which requires that at least one of the lots using the access point must front public right of way PRELIMINARY PLAT-Preliminary Short Plat -8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 • • with at least 50 feet. City staff contend that this standard is met because Lot 38 of the Winsper subdivision, which abuts the shared driveway, has street frontage. However, Lot 38 doesn't use Tract H for access. As shown in aerial photographs, Lot 38 has direct driveway access to 32"d Ave. RMC 4-6-060(J)(l)(a) expressly provides as follows: When Permitted: Shared driveways may be allowed jiJr access to four (4) or.fewer residential lots, provided: a. At least one ofthefiJur (4) lots abuts a public right-of-way with at least .fifiy (50) linear feel of"properly; and ... The standard above requires that at least one of "the (4) lots" must abut public right of way. As noted in the preceding sentence of the standard, those "(4) lots" are the lots that have access to a shared driveway. Lot 38 doesn't use Tract H for access, therefore it cannot be used to satisfy the right of way frontage requirement. The second reason is safety. As noted in by project opponents during the hearing, it is significant that in the original application for a nine lot division of the project site, it was determined that the use of Tracts G and H would serve as a safety hazard due to proximity of adjoining houses one either side of each tract. Public works staff had testified in the hearing on the original application that there was insufficient space in both access tracts for vehicles to correct and/or adjust vehicular movement without colliding into the adjoining homes. The homes on either side of Tract H are only about five feet from the property lines of the tract. When asked to address whether this safety issue has changed since the original application, public works staff focused on the fact that the original application involved access from both Tract G and Tract H and that Tract G necessitated retaining walls that would encroach into adjoining private property. The current application is only using Tract H for access. Tract His flat and won't need retaining walls. The planning manager also pointed out that there would be less vehicular trips because the number of lots was reduced from 9 to 2. Except for the reduction in traffic, there is nothing to suggest that the current application has resolved the safety concerns raised in the nine-lot application. More importantly, public works staff made no express determination that the safety problems caused by the proximity of adjoining homes was no longer a concern. Consequently, it cannot be concluded that more likely than not the proposed access from Tract H would not create a safety problem. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(8), Tract H does have to be used as an emergency access point for the proposal. The net result is that the applicant may have to acquire modifications, waivers or variances to street standards that might apply to the currently existing internal access road. If the currently existing residential development and access was approved by a City of Renton or King County development permit, it appears more likely that the access point qualifies as a protected nonconforming structure under Chapter PRELIMINARY PLAT -Preliminary Short Plat -9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 • • 4-10 RMC and that no modifications, waivers or variances would even be required2 • The answer to that legal question might depend upon whether or not the street standards that applied when the existing road was approved would have differed if the applicant had applied for a two lot short plat at the time instead of building or other permits that may have approved the road. Those issues are left to the applicant and staff to work out administratively. Whether or not a modification, waiver or variance would be required for the existing access road, the use of Tract H for general vehicular access as proposed does not provide for adequate or appropriate infrastructure because of its safety issues and because it clearly violates the street frontage requirements ofRMC 4-6-060(J)(l)(a). F. Parking. As determined by staff, 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. The proposal will be served by adequate/appropriate school facilities. No additional students would be generated by the proposed short subdivision. The emergency access route could be used as an alternative route from the site to a school bus stop located at Talbot Road South. Concrete sidewalks are available from S 32"d Place to the bus stop. Therefore, there are safe walking routes to the school bus stops. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I. Authority. RMC 4-7-070(H)(5) provides that the Administrator may refer a short plat application to the hearing examiner for a public hearing if the Administrator determines that there are sufficient concerns by area residents to warrant a public hearing. The Administrator has so referred the subject short subdivision application to the hearing examiner. 2 Note that although the existing access road may not be subject to current street standards as a nonconforming structure, this status does not protect it from the need for secondary emergency access. As outlined in the Conclusions of Law, secondary emergency access is required as a result of the "public safety" and "appropriate" provision for streets criteria imposed by RMC 4-7-070(H)(3) and RCW 58.17.110. Compliance with applicable development standards will generally be sufficient to establish compliance with the more general "public safety" and "appropriate" subdivision standards. However, when compelling evidence is presented that applicable development standards are not sufficient, the more general subdivision criteria may be used to fill in the gap. In this case the direct evidence on public safety presented by the Fire Chief in conjunction with the newly adopted standards constituted sufficiently compelling evidence that the street standards that may apply via the nonconforming structure status of the existing access was insufficient to provide for appropriate streets or public safety. PRELIMINARY PLAT-Preliminary Short Plat -I 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 JO 11 12 13 14 • • 2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The project site is zoned Residential 8 dwelling units per net acre (R-8). The comprehensive plan map land use designation is Residential Single Family (RSF). PRELIMINARY SHORT PLAT 3. Review Criteria. RMC 4-7-070 governs the criteria for preliminary review. Applicable standards are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. RMC 4-7-070(A): A subdivision shall be consistent with the following principles of acceptability: 1. Legal Lots: Create legal building sites which comply with all provisions of the City Zoning Code. 2. Access: Establish access to a public road for each segregated parcel. 3. Physical Characteristics: Have suitable physical characteristics. A proposed plat may be denied because of flood, inundation, or wetland conditions. Construction of protective improvements may be required as a condition of approval, and such improvements shall be noted on the final plat. 4. Drainage: Make adequate provision for drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies and sanitary wastes. 4. The criterion is met. As to compliance with the Zoning Code, Finding 22 of the staff report is 15 adopted by this reference. As demonstrated in Finding 22, the proposed building sites comply with the Zoning Code. Existing access currently exists from each proposed lot to Talbot Road, which is a 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 public road. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5 of this decision, as conditioned the proposal is consistent with the City's critical area regulations so it is concluded that the lot is physically suitable for development as the City's critical areas ordinance covers all of the physical characteristics identified in the criterion above. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 6, the proposal makes adequate provision for all of the infrastructure improvements identified in the criterion above. RMC 4-7-070(H)(3): Approval: lfihe Administralorfinds !hat !he proposed pie// makes appropriale provisions for the public heailh, safety, and general welfare and for such open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, waler supplies, sanitary wastes, parks, playgrounds, sitesfiJr schools and school grounds and all other relevant.fac/s and thal lhe public use and interesl will be served by the proposed short plat, then it shall be approved. The applicant shall he not/fled in writing <!f the decision. 5. The criterion is met. The proposal makes adequate provision for public health, safety, and general welfare because it complies with all applicable development standards as outlined in the staff report while at the same time not creating any adverse impacts on adjoining properties as determined PRELIMINARY PLAT-Preliminary Short Plat -11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 • • in Finding of Fact No. 5. A key determination in this finding on public safety, however, is that secondary emergency access is necessary to provide adequate access to fire and medical response apparatus. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 6, the proposal provides for adequate infrastructure improvements as required by the criterion above. One issue raised by project opponents is that the Winsper Homeowner's Association currently owns Tract H and it has no obligation to grant ownership rights to Tract H to the applicant until "development" necessitating the access has been approved. Project opponents argue that the proposed short subdivision is not development and hence the tract does not have to be conveyed. Even if the short subdivision is not considered development, development has in fact been approved in the form of the building permits for the two homes and access is now necessitated for that approval by the terms of this decision. Regardless, the examiner does not have authority to adjudicate the ownership rights to Tract H. See Halverson v. Bellevue, 41 Wn. App. 457 (1985). The conditions of approval of this decision provide that no final plat may be issued (and hence no lots subdivided) until the applicant shows proof of emergency access rights across Tract H. In short, the subdivision will never be finally approved by this decision unless and until the applicant acquires emergency access rights across Tract H. V. DECISION J 4 The proposed two lot short subdivision is approved subject to the following conditions: 15 16 17 18 19 I. The SEPA responsible official shall issue a revised SEPA addendum that provides for consistency with the terms of this decision. If the SEPA responsible official determines in its independent discretion that revisions needed for consistency are not consistent with SEPA, the official shall file a request for reconsideration so that this decision may be revised accordingly. 2. Tract H shall be developed for emergency access only along with a gate that prevents general vehicular access from 32nd Pl. The emergency access shall conform to applicable fire access standards as modified by the authority of the Fire Chief and other personnel with appropriate administrative 20 jurisdiction. To the extent compatible with emergency access improvements, a pedestrian pathway shall be included across Tract H to the extent necessary as determined by plan'ning staff to provide safe walking conditions to and from school bus stops. The applicant shall supply proof of emergency access rights across Tract H prior to final plat approval to the Current Planning Manager. The final plat shall depict Tract H as emergency access only. 21 22 23 24 25 26 3. An emergency turn-around shall be added to the project site as found necessary by the Fire Chief to conform to applicable fire standards. 4. The applicant shall provide landscaping within Tract H that visually screens the shared· driveway within Tract H from the abutting residential properties. A final detailed landscape plan shall PRELIMINARY PLAT-Preliminary Short Plat -12 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 • • be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit issuance. 5. The applicant shall provide a permanent four-foot (4') to six foot (6') tall fence outside the shoulders of the Tract H emergency access. The applicant shall coordinate with the neighboring property owners prior to construction. The fence shall maintain compliance with height and vision clearance sections of the code. A fencing detail, location and cross section shall be identified on the final landscaping plan. The final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit issuance. 6. The applicant shall install a wood, split-rail fence with wetland signage along the west boundary of Category Ill wetland buffer. The fence (with signage) shall be constructed prior to recording the final short plat. The final landscape plan shall include all specifications for fencing and signage and shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering permit approval. 7. Prior to final plat approval the applicant shall acquire modifications, waivers or variances as deemed necessary by the Current Planning Manager to establish conformance of the existing internal access road with applicable street standards. The Current Planning Manager may determine that the existing access road is not subject to some or all currently adopted street standards because the road qualifies as a legal nonconforming use subject to the provisions of Chapter 4-10 RMC. DA TED this I I th day of July, 2016. City of Renton Hearing Examiner APPEAL RIGHTS 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 4-8-1 I0(E)(I4) requires appeals of the hearing examiner's decision to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner's decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed within this I 4 day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-l lO(E)(13) and RMC 4-8-100(0)(9). A new fourteen (14) day appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Additional information regarding PRELIMINARY PLAT -Preliminary Short Plat -13 ~------------------------------------------------------------------------~ 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 appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall-7th floor, (425) 430-6510. Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program ofrevaluation. PRELIMINARY PLAT -Preliminary Short Plat -14 ~-------------------------------- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 • • BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY RE: Valley Vue AL DECISION UPON Preliminary Short Plat LUA16-000272, SHPL-A, MOD I. The applicant has applied for approva of a two lot short subdivision and a street modification. The preliminary plat application is appro d subject to conditions. The proposed access through Tract H of the Winsper Division I subdivis"on shall be limited to emergency access only as opposed to the shared driveway access propose by the applicant. The modification was requested to frontage improvement requirements to th shared driveway. Since the shared driveway is not approved as part of the short subdivision, them [lification request is rendered moot and not addressed in this decision. Ownership of Tract His ap arently currently held by the Winsper Homeowner's Association and at least one project opponen testified that the HOA had no obligation to transfer ownership or access rights to Tract H to the pplicant. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law of this decision, the examiner has no autho ity to adjudicate disputed ownership or access rights. The conditions of approval provide thatfo final plat shall issue until the applicant provides proof of ownership rights to City staff. This pJaces the applicant in the position of having to work out any access issues with 26 the HOA prior to final approval of the short subdivision. PRELIMINARY PLAT-Preliminary Short Plat -I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 • • In addition to the ownership issue, there are a few other outstanding issues that will have to be worked out administratively. Since general vehicular access is no longer authorized across Tract H, there may be outstanding street standard compliance issues that apply to the existing access road. From staff testimony at the hearing, it appears that the current access road may not comply with some currently adopted street standards. The existing road may very well not be subject to current standards because it may qualify as a legal nonconforming use. The administrative record was not developed to address this issue, as there is no information in the record on what approvals the road and existing home acquired and what development standards applied at the time of approval. The conditions of approval leave it to staff to work out whether there are any remaining compliance issues with the existing road. If compliance issues do exist the applicant will have to acquire administrative modifications, waivers or variances as necessary to move forward to final plat approval. At the hearing concerns were expressed about the use of Tract G as an access tract to the proposed short subdivision. This decision only approves Tract H for access. If the applicant wishes to use Tract G for access, that would be considered an amendment to the subdivision approved by this decision that would have to be processed accordingly by City staff. II. TESTIMONY Note: This "Testimony" section of this decision is only provided as a convenience to readers as a summary of the concerns and comments raised by hearing parties. Nothing in this summary should be construed as a finding or conclusion made by the examiner. No assurances are made as to accuracy. For an accurate rendition of hearing testimony, reference should be made to the hearing recording available at Renton City Hall. Clark Close, Renton planner, summarized the proposal. Fire Chief Mark Peterson testified that a house fire had occurred on the project site and the fire department was only able to get one fire truck onto the property. The fire truck became enveloped in smoke along with all responders and crews performing first aid. The existing road is too narrow and too steep. The proposed access through Tract H is 16 feet and that access will be difficult because the trucks are eight feet wide. Access will be difficult, but will be acceptable if the homes are sprinklered. Access is necessary for both fire and medical assistance. Chief Peterson noted that space for emergency vehicle turn-around would also be necessary. The examiner inquired whether a hammerhead was being proposed. Clark Clifford noted that there was space for emergency vehicles to turn around, but no hammerhead was being proposed. Chief Peterson noted he would have to consult with his staff to determine whether the existing space for turn-around would be sufficient. The examiner noted he may condition the project to require a hammerhead as deemed necessary by the fire department. PRELIMINARY PLAT-Preliminary Short Plat -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 • • The examiner inquired of staff as to how the project was able to comply with RMC 4-6-060(J), which requires at least one lot served by a shared driveway must abut public right of way. Mr. Clifford stated that Lot 28 of the Winsper division (the project site) in conjunction with Lot 38 meets this requirement, as Lot 38 has public road frontage. In response to examiner questions, Mr. Clifford noted that the new minimum width for shared driveways (which didn't apply in the first Valley Vue application) is 20 feet. In response to examiner questions about the safety of the narrow access tract, Ian Fitz-James, City of Renton development engineer, testified that the primary concerns regarding safety in the first Valley Vue application were over the access tract to the east, Tract G. The access tract to be used by this project, Tract H, has more separation from adjoining homes. The other access tract also needed construction easements because it is sloped and needs retaining walls. The subject access road is flat and no easements would be required from adjoining neighbors. Vanessa Dolbee, planning manager, also noted that the number of lots, and hence trips, has been greatly reduced since the original application and also the width standard has been changed since the original application as well, from 26 feet to the current 20 feet. Mary Klaas-Schultz, neighbor, testified that the geotech report conclusions are based upon a different project. The proposal is not a development, it's a lot split. She noted that the access to the Winsper subdivision was originally 25% grade, just like the Talbot access to the proposal. Consequently, the applicant should be able to grade his current access from Talbot just as the Winsper developer did. The existing Talbot access has been used for 70 years. The existing access road should be improved to its full I 2-foot width. She noted that the current access was wide enough for fire trucks to access the property, the problem was the lack of a turn-around and parking. The existing road is 8-10 feet wide but it can be widened to I 2 feet. The Talbot Road access is the most direct route. The proposed access requires fire access through a high density neighborhood through an access tract sandwiched between two homes. The currently existing road only spans 274 and 739 feet respectively from Talbot to the existing homes. The proposed access would require fire trucks to travel I, 702 and I ,575 feet respectively from Talbot to the existing homes. Ms. Klaas-Schultz noted that the prior application had been denied because there was only five-foot separation from adjoining homes and this provided insufficient space for vehicle course correction. She noted that this condition hasn't changed in the new application. She noted that her living room will be located only a few feet from cars travelling on the access tract. Virginia Klaas, neighbor, argued that Tract H, the proposed access from Winsper, had a covenant that provided it would only be deeded to the owner of Lot 28 when King County approved development of Lot 28, the project site. The application is a lot split, not a development. Lot 28 will be undisturbed. She noted that neither proposed lot abuts public right of way as required by RMC 4-6-060(J). Ms. Klaas also noted that the "disturbance limits" identified in project exhibits extended onto her lot and would damage her drainage system and extends onto her driveway and living room. A six-foot fence is right on her property line and she's not removing it for this project. Ms. Klaas also argued that RMC 4-4-080 requires driveways to be located five feet or more from side property lines. Ms. Klaas also pointed out that the staff report incorrectly identifies the proposal fronts onto S. 32"d Place. She PRELIMINARY PLAT-Preliminary Short Plat -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 • • asserts that the applicant is proposing no frontage on S. 32"d Place since the lots front the access tract, not S. 32nd Place. Bruce Truong, neighbor, submitted a petition of 25 people opposed to the project. He noted that the disturbance plan encroached onto private property. He noted that the proposed drainage was to use the drains on Winsper, but these already flood during heavy rainstorms. He noted that in a prior fire response incident in Winsper the fire truck had difficult turning onto his street. In response to examiner questions, Virginia Klaas noted that the disturbance zones depicted in the power points come from the civil plans submitted to the City. Sharon Gangwish, neighbor, noted she lives next to Access Tract G. She noted that the easement is sloped 15% and any driveway would require cutting into the slope 5 feet and require a retaining wall. She noted that the original application had been denied because this retaining wall work would have adversely affected the foundation of her home. Despite this finding, Mr. Dees in November, 2015 still proposed the use of Tract G. The SEPA report then concluded that only access along Tract H was required. Ms. Gangwish wanted to know if this guaranteed that there would be no access through Tract G. She wanted some assurance that Tract G could not be used for access in the future. Luz Chan, neighbor, testified she opposes the project because it's not consistent with city code. Mary Lou Hanley, neighbor, testified that she opposes the project. Byron Gangwish, neighbor, testified that he opposes the proposal, especially for safety concerns. Mike Luu, neighbor, testified that he opposes the proposal. Lilly Luu, neighbor, testified she opposes the proposal. Andrea Smith, neighbor, strongly opposes the project due to safety and drainage concerns. Laura Kiel, KOMO radio host, testified she was interested in seeing how homeowners and regulators work together to develop a community. She was curious about how many variations are allowed on a project. She wanted to know why bother about adopting regulations if unlimited modifications are allowed. She noted that the investment in a home is usually a person's biggest investment and that the homeowners rely upon the regulators to maintain the integrity of the development standards. Jerome Jaed, neighbor, stated he rejects the application. He noted there are several inconsistencies in the City's project documents and it was difficult to access the application due to a change in project name. He identified five code violations: (1) RMC 4-6-060 provides that the driveway cannot be longer than 200 feet -he noted that the actual distance to the house is 284 feet; (2) one of the lots using the driveway must have 50 feet of frontage on public right of way; (3) the driveway must be more than five feet from adjoining property lines; (4) the maximum width of a driveway can't exceed more than 40% of the frontage; and (5) there must be maintenance assured for the easement. PRELIMINARY PLAT-Preliminary Short Plat -4 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I I 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 • • Wayne Dong, neighbor, testified he opposes the project. Carl Kaminki, neighbor, testified that any more traffic on S. 32nd St. would be a hazard. Nobody yields when going on to S. 32nd St. Rhodora Darang, neighbor, strongly opposes the development. She has three young children that plats on Smithers. Additional traffic would be detrimental to them. Bruce Wicks, neighbor, testified that he opposes the project. Laura Rastelli, neighbor and president of Winsper Homeowner's Association ("HOA"), noted that the HOA has not been approached with assuming any responsibility for assuming responsibility for project wetlands and she doesn't believe the HOA should have any such responsibility. Clark Close clarified that the disturbance limit is identified in Ex. 7. He also noted that the project is exempt from drainage review. Mr. Close also noted that there have been numerous code changes since the last application. The length of the driveway is to the lot and not the home. The five-foot setback is not applicable to shared driveways, it only applies to driveways to single-family lots. In response to examiner questions, Mr. Fitz-James clarified that the disturbance zone was not an accurate representation. The disturbance area is limited to the driveway and utility improvements. No encroachment will actually occur on the adjoining lots. Brianne Bannwarth, City of Renton Development Engineering Manager, testified that the primary reason for the second access is to accommodate emergency access. The length of the substandard existing access road is too long ( exceeds 150 feet) for adequate fire access. In response to examiner questions, Ms. Bannwarth said it would be acceptable to the City to limit Tract H to emergency access. Chief Peterson noted it would also be acceptable to put a fire gate at the access point. Mr. Close noted that a secondary access is required by City code because one of the homes is located more than 200 feet from Talbot Road. Mr. Close stated that staff would be open to a condition limiting Tract H to emergency access in conjunction with a modification to the 200 foot-requirement for Talbot. Mr. Close noted that if Tract H is limited to emergency access it would have to be improved with a hard surface. Ms. Bannwarth clarified that the if improvements are limited to creating a hard surface to Tract H that stormwater requirements would not be triggered -however if a hard surface turnaround is required that would trigger stormwater review. Ms. Bannwarth opined that the small amount ofimpervious surface added to Tract H would not generate enough additional storm water to be of any concern to the downstream properties. Rory Dees, applicant, noted that the property could have been developed with 14 lots if it weren't for the access problems. Typically lot splits don't even go to the hearing examiner. He noted that the home purchasers should have been aware of the potential development of and access to Lot 28 when they bought their lots. He also wanted to be able to only use the hydrant on Talbot. PRELIMINARY PLAT-Preliminary Short Plat -5 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 l l 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 • • III. EXHIBITS The 26 exhibits of page 2 of the staff report were admitted into the record during the hearing. The following exhibits were also admitted during the hearing: Ex. 27: Ex. 28: Ex. 29: Ex. 30: Ex. 31: Ex. 32: Ex. 33: Procedural: Staff power point. City of Renton core maps, located at City's website Google maps of project site. Klaas-Schultz power point and written materials. Virginia Klaas power point, written materials and access easement. Truong power point and written materials. Sharon Gangwish power point. IV. FINDINGS OF F ACT 1 1. Applicant. RAD Holdings, LLC. 2. Hearing. A consolidated hearing on the preliminary plat application and modification request was held on June 28, 2016 in the Renton City Council meeting chambers in Renton City Hall. Substantive: 3. Project Description. The applicant has applied for approval of a two lot short subdivision and a street modification. The site is 99,994 square feet (2.3 acres) and is located at 3106 and 3112 Talbot Rd S (APN: 302305-9028), adjacent to Winsper Division No. 1 subdivision. There are two (2) single family residences (3106 and 3112) located on this parcel that gain access to the site from Talbot Road S. The proposed short plat would subdivide the parcel into two (2) residential lots, leaving both existing houses undisturbed, and one (1) Native Growth Protection Tract (Tract A). The two proposed residential lots are 41,970 SF (Lot 1) and 40,200 SF (Lot 2) with an average lot size of 41,085 SF. The residential density is 0.96 dwelling units per net acre. Access to the new residential lots is proposed via a 16-foot wide driveway from S 32nd Pl through 1 The Findings of Fact include some applications of City legal standards that would normally be considered to be conclusions of law. Legal standards are applied when they are construed as legislative standards of adequacy, such as street standards for the adequacy of streets or critical area regulations for the adequacy of critical area protection. ln the absence of compelling evidence to the contra!)', conformance to directly applicable City legal standards is considered to establish adequacy of infrastructure/mitigation and adequacy of mitigation. PRELIMINARY PLAT· Preliminary Short Plat -6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I I 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 • • Winsper Division No. 1 Subdivision (Tract H) via the 24-foot wide dedicated ingress/egress easement area. There are 142 significant trees on the site and the applicant is proposing to retain all of the original trees. The eastern portion of the site is comprised of established forest with a Category III wetland that extends off-site to the east and south. No impacts to critical areas onsite are proposed. The application is also requesting a street modification from the required half-street frontage improvements along S 32nd Pl, along the access tracts, to maintain the existing improvement condition of the neighborhood. The applicant has submitted a Critical Areas Study and a Geotechnical Engineering Study with the application. 4. Surrounding Area. The subject site is surrounding on all sides by single family residential development zoned R-8. 5. Adverse Impacts of Proposed Street Modification. As conditioned by this decision, there are no significant adverse impacts associated with the proposal. Since the two homes on the project site have already been constructed, the primary impacts of concern are those associated with the use and development of Tract H as an access point. Those issues are addressed in Finding of Fact No. 6, addressing adequacy of infrastructure. The only critical areas on the project site are wetlands and steep slopes. As the applicant proposes no new construction in the steep slopes, no steep slope mitigation is necessary. Wetland impacts can still occur as a result of residential use of the project site, so the staff report has made recommendatins that are implemented by this decision that protect the wetlands in conformance to the City's critical area regulations. The applicant submitted a Critical Areas Study prepared by Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC (dated September 4, 2013, revised dated November 23, 2015; Exhibit I I). According to the report, the wetland is located in the eastern portion of the subject site and extends off-site to the east and south. This wetland exhibits a minimum of human related physical alteration, and therefore, meets the criteria for a Category III wetland with moderate habitat scores (5 to 7 points). A Category III wetland with moderate habitat function receives a minimum I 00 foot (I 00') standard buffer from the delineated edge (RMC 4-3-050G.2). In order to preserve and protect the wetland and its associated buffer, the applicant is proposing to establish a Native Growth Protection Easement for the Category III wetland and its associated I 00-foot buffer area within Tract A. Pursuant to the City's critical areas ordinance, this decision requires that the applicant provide a wood, split-rail fence with wetland signage along the west boundary of the wetland. 6. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. As conditioned, the project will be served by adequate/appropriate infrastructure and public services, as would be expected since no new dwelling units will be constructed. Infrastructure/services are more specifically addressed as follows: PRELIMINARY PLAT· Preliminary Short Plat· 7 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 • • A. Water and Sewer Service. The site is served by the City of Renton for both water and sewer. B. Police and Fire Protection. Police and fire service would be provided by the City of Renton. Police and fire service staff have concluded they have sufficient resources to serve the proposal. Fire impact fees will be collected during building permit review to pay for proportionate share fire system improvements. The fire chief persuasively testified that the existing access from Talbot Road is insufficient for fire access, since its eight to ten-foot width is insufficient to accommodate the eight-foot wide fire apparatus vehicles used for emergency response. The project site also has no emergency tum-around, which is required by City fire code standards for driveways of the length of the project site. In order to remedy the situation, the applicant proposes use of Tract H for fire access. The Fire Chief found this proposed access to be appropriate, in conjunction with the sprinklering of the dwelling units at the project site. City planning staff testified that there was sufficient space at the project site to provide for fire apparatus turn-around, but the Fire Chief was unable to confirm whether this undeveloped space was sufficient for fire access needs. The, conditions of approval will require that provision for turn-around be provided as required by City fire access standards. C. Drainage. The City's stormwater standards, primarily adopted as the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual and City amendments thereto, assures that there will be no adverse impacts to surrounding properties caused by stormwater discharge resulting from the development. As testified by Public Works staff, those stormwater standards require no stormwater improvements because the proposed addition of impervious surface, limited to the paving of Tract H, is not sufficient to trigger any stormwater analysis or improvements. As confirmed by Public Works staff, the amount of impervious surface will not create any flows that are significant enough to adversely affect neighboring properties. There was no expert testimony to the contrary on this issue. D. Parks/Open Space. No park impact fees are required by City standards because no new residential development is being proposed. Beyond park impacts fees, City standards don't require any parks or open space mitigation for R-8 developments. E. Streets. As conditioned, the proposal provides for adequate/appropriate streets. The primary point of contention for this application was the applicant's proposed use of Tract H for a secondary access point to the proposed subdivision. It is determined that Tract H should be limited to emergency access only. There are two primary reasons for determining that Tract H must be limited to emergency access. First, use of Tract H for a shared driveway violates RMC 4-6-060(J)(l)(a), which requires that at least one of the lots using the access point must front public right of way PRELIMINARY PLAT-Preliminary Short Plat -8 ~------------------------------ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I I 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 • • with at least 50 feet. City staff contend that this standard is met because Lot 38 of the Winsper subdivision, which abuts the shared driveway, has street frontage. However, Lot 38 doesn't use Tract H for access. As shown in aerial photographs, Lot 38 has direct driveway access to 32"d Ave. RMC 4-6-060(J)(l)(a) expressly provides as follows: When Permitted: Shared driveways may he allowed for access to four (4) or fewer residential lots, provided: a. At least one of the four (4) lots abuts a public right-<~f-way with al leaslfifiy (50) linear feel ofproperty; and ... The standard above requires that at least one of "the (4) lots" must abut public right of way. As noted in the preceding sentence of the standard, those "(4) lots" are the lots that have access to a shared driveway. Lot 38 doesn't use Tract H for access, therefore it cannot be used to satisfy the right of way frontage requirement. The second reason is safety. As noted in by project opponents during the hearing, it is significant that in the original application for a nine lot division of the project site, it was determined that the use of Tracts G and H would serve as a safety hazard due to proximity of adjoining houses one either side of each tract. Public works staff had testified in the hearing on the original application that there was insufficient space in both access tracts for vehicles to correct and/or adjust vehicular movement without colliding into the adjoining homes. The homes on either side of Tract H are only about five feet from the property lines of the tract. When asked to address whether this safety issue has changed since the original application, public works staff focused on the fact that the original application involved access from both Tract G and Trach H and that Tract G necessitated retaining walls that would encroach into adjoining private property. The current application is only using Tract H for access. Tract H is flat and won't need retaining walls. The planning manager also pointed out that there would be less vehicular trips because the number of lots was reduced from 9 to 2. Except for the reduction in traffic, there is nothing to suggest that the current application has resolved the safety concerns raised in the nine-lot application. More importantly, public works staff made no express determination that the safety problems caused by the proximity of adjoining homes was no longer a concern. Consequently, it cannot be concluded that more likely than not the proposed access from Tract H would not create a safety problem. As deterrnined in Finding of Fact No. 5(8), Tract H does have to be used as an emergency access point for the proposal. The net result is that the applicant may have to acquire modifications, waivers or variances to street standards that might apply to the currently existing internal access road. If the currently existing residential development and access was approved by a City of Renton or King County development perrnit, it appears more likely that the access point qualifies as a protected nonconforming structure under Chapter PRELIMINARY PLAT -Preliminary Short Plat -9 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 • • 4-10 RMC and that no modifications, waivers or variances would even be required 2• The answer to that legal question might depend upon whether or not the street standards that applied when the existing road was approved would have differed if the applicant had applied for a two lot short plat at the time instead of building or other permits that may have approved the road. Those issues are left to the applicant and staff to work out administratively. Whether or not a modification, waiver or variance would be required for the existing access road, the use of Tract H for general vehicular access as proposed does not provide for adequate or appropriate infrastructure because of its safety issues and because it clearly violates the street frontage requirements of RMC 4-6-060(1)(1 )(a). F. Parking. As determined by staff, 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. The proposal will be served by adequate/appropriate school facilities. No additional students would be generated by the proposed short subdivision. The emergency access route could be used as an alternative route from the site to a school bus stop located at Talbot Road South. Concrete sidewalks are available from S 32"d Place to the bus stop. Therefore, there are safe walking routes to the school bus stops. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I. Authority. RMC 4-7-070(H)(5) provides that the Administrator may refer a short plat application to the hearing examiner for a public hearing if the Administrator determines that there are sufficient concerns by area residents to warrant a public hearing. The Administrator has so referred the subject short subdivision application to the hearing examiner. 2 Note that although the existing access road may not be subject to current street standards as a nonconforming structure, this status does not protect it from the need for secondary emergency access. As outlined in the Conclusions of Law, secondary emergency access is required as a result of the "public safety" and "appropriate" provision for streets criteria imposed by RMC 4-7-070(H)(3) and RCW 58.17.110. Compliance with applicable development standards will generally be sufficient to establish compliance with the more general "public safety" and "appropriate" subdivision standards. However, when compelling evidence is presented that applicable development standards are not sufficient, the more general subdivision criteria may be used to fill in the gap. In this case the direct evidence on public safety presented by the Fire Chief in conjunction with the newly adopted standards constituted sufficiently compelling evidence that the street standards that may apply via the nonconforming structure status of the existing access was insufficient to provide for appropriate streets or public safety. PRELIMINARY PLAT-Preliminary Short Plat -I 0 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. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The project site is zoned Residential 8 dwelling units per net acre (R-8). The comprehensive plan map land use designation is Residential Single Family (RSF). PRELIMINARY SHORT PLAT 3. Review Criteria. RMC 4-7-070 governs the criteria for preliminary review. Applicable standards are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. RMC 4-7-070(A): A subdivision shall be consistent with the followjng 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 supplies and sanitary wastes. 4, The criterion is met. As to compliance with the Zoning Code, Finding 22 of the staff report is adopted by this reference. As demonstrated in Finding 22, the proposed building sites comply with the Zoning Code. Existing access currently exists from each proposed lot to Talbot Road, which is a public road. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5 of this decision, as conditioned the proposal is consistent with the City's critical area regulations so it is concluded that the lot is physically suitable for development as the City's critical areas ordinance covers all of the physical characteristics identified in the criterion above. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 6, the proposal makes adequate provision for all of the infrastructure improvements identified in the criterion above. RMC 4-7-070(8)(3): Approval: If the Adminislratorfinds Iha/ the proposed plal makes appropriale provisions/or the public health, safety, and general welfare am/for such open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks, playgrounds, sites/or schools and school wounds and all other relevanlfacts and that !he public use and interest will be served by !he proposed short plat, then it shall be approved. The applicant shall be nol//ied in wriling of the decision. 5. The criterion is met. The proposal makes adequate provision for public health, safety, and general welfare because it complies with all applicable development standards as outlined in the staff report while at the same time not creating any adverse impacts on adjoining properties as determined PRELIMINARY PLAT -Preliminary Short Plat -11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 • • in Finding of Fact No. 5. A key determination in this finding on public safety, however, is that secondary emergency access is necessary to provide adequate ac,cess to fire and medical response apparatus. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 6, the proposal provides for adequate infrastructure improvements as required by the criterion above. One issue raised by project opponents is that the Winsper Homeowner's Association currently owns Tract H and it has no obligation to grant ownership rights to Tract H to the applicant until "development" necessitating the access has been approved. Project opponents argue that the proposed short subdivision is not development and hence the tract does not have to be conveyed. Even if the short subdivision is not considered development, development has in fact been approved in the form of the building permits for the two homes and access is now necessitated for that approval by the terms of this decision. Regardless, the examiner does not have authority to adjudicate the ownership rights to Tract H. See Halverson v. Bellevue, 41 Wn. App. 457 (1985). The conditions of approval of this decision provide that no final plat may be issued (and hence no lots subdivided) until the applicant shows proof of emergency access rights across Tract H. In short, the subdivision will never be finally approved by this decision unless and until the applicant acquires emergency access rights across Tract H. V. DECISION J 4 The proposed two lot short subdivision is approved subject to the following conditions: 15 16 17 18 19 I. The SEPA responsible official shall issue a revised SEPA addendum that provides for consistency with the terms of this decision. If the SEPA responsible official determines in its independent discretion that revisions needed for consistency are not consistent with SEPA, the official shall file a request for reconsideration so that this decision may be revised accordingly. 2. Tract H shall be developed for emergency access only along with a gate that prevents general vehicular access from 32"d Pl. The emergency access shall conform to applicable fire access standards as modified by the authority of the Fire Chief and other personnel with appropriate administrative 20 jurisdiction. To the extent compatible with emergency access improvements, a pedestrian pathway shall be included across Tract H to the extent necessary as determined by planning staff to provide safe walking conditions to and from school bus stops. The applicant shall supply proof of emergency access rights across Tract H prior to final plat approval to the Current Planning Manager. The final plat shall depict Tract Has emergency access only. 21 22 23 24 25 26 3. An emergency turn-around shall be added to the project site as found necessary by the Fire Chief to conform to applicable fire standards. 4. The applicant shall provide landscaping within Tract H that visually screens the shared driveway within Tract H from the abutting residential properties. A final detailed landscape plan shall PRELIMINARY PLAT-Preliminary Short Plat -12 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 • • be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit issuance. 5. The applicant shall provide a permanent four-foot (4') to six foot (6') tall fence outside the shoulders of the Tract H emergency access. The applicant shall coordinate with the neighboring property owners prior to construction. The fence shall maintain compliance with height and vision clearance sections of the code. A fencing detail, location and cross section shall be identified on the final landscaping plan. The final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit issuance. 6. The applicant shall install a wood, split-rail fence with wetland signage along the west boundary of Category Ill wetland buffer. The fence (with signage) shall be constructed prior to recording the final short plat. The final landscape plan shall include all specifications for fencing and signage and shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering permit approval. 7. Prior to final plat approval the applicant shall acquire modifications, waivers or variances as deemed necessary by the Current Planning Manager to establish conformance of the existing internal access road with applicable street standards. The Current Planning Manager may determine that the existing access road is not subject to some or all currently adopted street standards because the road qualifies as a legal nonconforming use subject to the provisions of Chapter 4-10 RMC. DATED this 11 1h day of July, 2016. City of Renton Hearing Examiner APPEAL RIGHTS 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-l 10(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. A request for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-l lO(E)(l3) and RMC 4-8-IOO(G)(9). A new fourteen (14) day appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Additional information regarding PRELIMINARY PLAT-Preliminary Short Plat -13 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 appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall -7th floor, (425) 430-6510. Affected property owners may request a change m valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. PRELIMINARY PLAT-Preliminary Short Plat -14 Denis Law Mayor June 21, 2016 . Parties of Record Various ·. SUBJECT: Reporno the Hearing Examiner ' . Valley Vue Short Pl~t, LUAlG-000272, SHPL-A, MOD Dear Parties of Record: ., . A public hearing on Valley Vue Short .. P.lat will be hel9 on Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 11:00 am in the City Council C~ambers of Renton City Hall; located at 1055 S Grady Way. The Staff Report-. . to the Hearing Examiner; including exhibits and public ·comment le!ters, is available: • Electronically on line at the City of Rente>n website (www.rentonwa,gov), · • To be viewed at the City Cler.k's office on· the 7th Floor at Renton City Hall, 1055 S Grady Way, between 8 am and 4 pm .. Ask for the project file· by the proje~t number LUA16' 000?72 · . . . . . . • Purchased for a copyi~g charge of $0.15 per p~ge. The estimatedi cost for the staff report is $6.75, plus a handling and postage cost of $2.00 (this cost is subject to change if documents are _added). · · · · · Please contact me at (425) 430-7289 cir cclose@r~ntonwa,gov if you have any questions. ' . . ·. . . ,, . . . Sincerely, (faA ·. ff-: ce--- Clark H. Close Senior Planner Reriton City Hail • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, \Vclshington 9gQ5'7 • ren.tori~a.gov DEPARTMENT OF COM.NITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT --------•Renton® A. REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER HEARING DATE: June 28, 2016 Project Name: Valley Vue Short Plat Owner: RAD Holdings LLC, 1040 W. Lk. Sammamish Prky SE, Bellevue, WA 98008 Applicant/Contact: Rory Dees, 1040 W. Lk. Sammamish Prky SE, Bellevue, WA 98008 File Number: LUA16-000272, SHPL-A, MOD Project Manager: Clark H. Close, Senior Planner Project Summary: The applicant is requesting approval of a 2-lot short plat and a street modification. The site is 99,994 square feet (2.3 acres) and is located at 3106 and 3112 Talbot Rd S (APN: 302305-9028), adjacent to Winsper Division No. 1 subdivision. The property is in the Residential-8 (R-8) zoning district. There are two (2) single family residences (3106 and 3112) located on this parcel that gain access to the site from Talbot Road S. The proposed short plat would subdivide the parcel into two (2) residential lots, leaving both existing houses undisturbed, and one (1) Native Growth Protection Tract (Tract A). The two proposed residential lots are 41,970 SF (Lot 1) and 40,200 SF (Lot 2) with an average lot size of 41,085 SF. The residential density is 0.96 dwelling units per net acre. Access to the new residential lots is proposed via a 16-foot wide driveway from S 32nd Pl through Winsper Division No. 1 Subdivision (Tract H) via the 24-foot wide dedicated ingress/egress easement area. There are 142 significant trees on the site and the applicant is proposing to retain all of the original trees. The eastern portion of the site is comprised of established forest with a Category Ill wetland that extends off-site to the east and south. No impacts to critical areas onsite are proposed. The application is also requesting a street modification from the required half-street frontage improvements along S 32nd Pl, along the access tracts, to maintain the existing improvement condition of the neighborhood. The applicant has submitted a Critical Areas Study and a Geotechnical Engineering Study with the application. Project Location: 3106 and 3112 Talbot Rd S, Renton WA 98055 Site Area: 2.3 acres Project Location Map HEX Report City of Renton Department of Co.ity & Economic Development VALLEY VUE SHORT PLAT • Hearing Examiner Recommendation WA16-000272, SHPL-A, MOD Report of June 28, 2016 Page 2 of 18 I 8. EXHIBITS: Exhibit 1: Exhibit 2: Exhibit 3: Exhibit 4: Exhibit 5: Exhibit 6: Exhibit 7: Exhibit 8: Exhibit 9: Exhibit 10: Exhibit 11: Exhibit 12: Exhibit 13: Exhibit 14: Exhibit 15: Exhibit 16: Exhibit 17: Exhibit 18: Exhibit 19: Exhibit 20: Exhibit 21: Exhibit 22: Exhibit 23: Exhibit 24: Exhibit 25: Exhibit 26: Hearing Examiner Staff Recommendation (dated June 28, 2016) Neighborhood Map Winsper Division No. 1 Final Plat (Sheets 1 through 4) Valley Vue Civil Plan Cover Sheet Valley Vue Preliminary Short Plat Plan Topographic/ Boundary Survey Map (Sheets 1 and 2) Grading and Drainage Plan and Profile Sanitary Sewer and Water Plan and Profile Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Geotech Consultants, Inc. (dated May 27, 2014) Critical Areas Study prepared by Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC (dated September 4, 2013; revised dated November 23, 2015) Construction Mitigation Description Street Modification Request (dated November 5, 2015) Hearing Examiner Report for Valley Vue Preliminary Plat LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD (dated July 14, 2015) Hearing Examiner Decision for Valley Vue Preliminary Plat (dated July 28, 2015) Public comment letter from Jerome Jaeb (dated April 15, 2016) Public comment letter from Bruce Troung, plus signatures (dated April 19, 2016) Public comment letter from Mary Klaas Schultz (dated April 26, 2016) Public comment letter from Virginia Klass to staff (dated April 26, 2016) Public comment letter from Virginia Klass to Chief Peterson (dated April 26, 2016) Staff's response letter to parties of record (dated April 27, 2016) Comment email from Renton Fire & Emergency Services (dated April 27, 2016) Renton Fire & Emergency Services Incident Report (alarm date July 29, 2015) Environmental "SEPA" Determination and ERC Mitigation Measures (publication date May 22, 2015) Environmental "SEPA" Addendum, ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Advisory Notes to Applicant I c. GENERALINFORMAT/ON: 1. Owner(s) of Record: Z. Zoning Classification: Hex Report Rory Dees, Rad Holdings, LLC, 1040 W. Lake Sammamish PKWY SE, Bellevue, WA 98008 Residential -8 du/ac (R-8) City of Renton Department of Com.ty & Economic Development VALLEY VUE SHORT PLAT .earing Examiner Recommendation LUA16-000272, SHPL-A, MOD Report of June 28, 2016 Page 3 of 18 3. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: Residential Single Family (RS) 4. Owner(s) of Record: Rory Dees, Rad Holdings, LLC, 1040 W. Lake Sammamish PKWY SE, Bellevue, WA 98008 5. Zoning Classification: Residential -8 du/ac (R-8) 6. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: Residential Single Family (RS) 7. Existing Site Use: Residential Medium Density 8. Critical Areas: Category Ill wetland and steep slopes 9. Neighborhood Characteristics: a. North: b. East: c. South: d. West: 7. Site Area: Residential Medium Density (RMD} Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation; Residential-8 DU/AC {R-8} zone Residential Medium Density (RMD} Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation; Residential-8 DU/AC {R-8) zone Residential Medium Density (RMD} Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation; Residential-8 DU/AC (R-8) zone Residential Medium Density {RMD} Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation; Residential-8 DU/AC (R-8) zone 99,994 SF (2.3 acres) I D. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND: Action Comprehensive Plan Zoning Annexation (Winsper) Valley Vue Preliminary Plat I E. PUBLIC SERVICES: 1. Existing Utilities Land Use File No. N/A N/A A-93-002 LUA14-001040 Ordinance No. 5758 5758 4476 N/A Date 06/22/2015 06/22/2015 10/26/1994 07/28/2015 a. Water: Water service is provided by the City of Renton. There is an existing 12 inch (12") water main west of the site along the eastern frontage of Talbot Rd S. 3106 and 3112 Talbot Rd S are currently served by%" services connected to this main. The meters are located near the end of the site's private driveway along the Talbot Rd S frontage. There is also an existing 8" water main south of the site in S 32nd Pl. b. Sewer: Sewer service is provided by the City of Renton. There is an existing 8" concrete sewer main west of the site along the eastern frontage of Talbot Rd S that flows from south to north. There is an eight inch (8") PVC sewer main north of the site that flows northwest from the northern site boundary beginning at a 48" manhole. 3106 Talbot Rd S is served by an existing four inch (4") PVC side sewer which enlarges to a six inch (6") PVC side sewer that connects to the eight inch (8") PVC sewer main downstream of the 48" manhole. There is also an existing eight inch (8") D.I. sewer main south of the site in S 32nd Pl that flows from east to west. 3112 Talbot Rd S is served by a private onsite septic system. c. Surface/Storm Water: The site slopes from east to west. Portions of the site's slope exceed 15%. Drainage from the site either infiltrates or sheet flows to the west. There is an existing stormwater Hex Report ----------------·------=, City of Renton Department of Co.ity & Economic Development VALLEY VUE SHORT PLAT • Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA16-000272, SHPL-A, MOD Report of June 28, 2016 Page 4 of 18 ditch along the eastern frontage of Talbot Rd S. west of the site. Drainage in the ditch flows to the north. There is also a 12" CMP piped storm drainage conveyance system south of the site in S 32nd Pl that flows from northeast to southwest. 2. Streets: The site is not bordered by any City of Renton Public street. Access to both lots on the site comes via a private driveway/road that connects west to Talbot Rd S. There are two empty tracts that lie between the site and S 32nd Pl to the south. Tract H of the Winsper Division I subdivision (KC Parcel No: 9485750570) connects the western portion of the site to S 32nd Pl, while Tract G of the Winsper Division 1 subdivision (KC Parcel No: 9485750570) connects the eastern portion of the site to S 32nd Pl. Tract H has 24.06 feet of frontage along S 32nd Pl and Tract G has 24.01 feet of frontage along S 32nd Pl. Per the Winsper Division 1 Plat Recording, Tract Hand Tract G can serve as a future ingress/egress, and utility access to the subject lot. Talbot Rd S is classified as a neighborhood collector arterial. S 32nd Pl is classified as a residential access street. There are no street improvements along Talbot Rd S. On the north side of S 32nd Pl there is a concrete curb and gutter. On the south side of S 32nd Pl there is a curb and gutter and a 5 foot (5') sidewalk at the back of curb. 3. Fire Protection: City of Renton Fire Authority (RFA) F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE: 1. Chapter 2 Land Use Districts a. Section 4-2-020: Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts b. Section 4-2-060: Zoning Use Table -Uses Allowed in Zoning Designations c. Section 4-2-llOA: Residential Development Standards for Residential Zoning Designations d. Section 4-2-115: Residential Design and Open Space Standards 2. Chapter 3 Environmental Regulations a. Section 4-3-050: Critical Area Regulations 3. Chapter 4 City-Wide Property Development Standards 4. Chapter 6 Streets and Utility Standards 5. Chapter 7 Subdivision Regulations a. Section 4-7-070: Detailed Procedures for Short Subdivisions b. Section 4-7-120: Compatibility with Existing Land Use and Plan -General Requirements and Minimum Standards c. Section 4-7-150: Streets-General Requirements and Minimum Standards d. Section 4-7-160: Residential Blocks -General Requirements and Minimum Standards e. Section 4-7-170: Residential Lots -General Requirements and Minimum Standards 6. Chapter 9 Permits -Specific a. Section 4-9-250: Variances, Waivers, Modifications, and Alternates 7. Chapter 11 Definitions G. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: 1. Land Use Element I H. FINDINGS OF FACT (FOF): 1. The applicant is requesting a Short Plat, Environmental (SEPA) Addendum and a Street Modification for a two (2) lot short plat. Hex Report City of Renton Department of Co.ity & Economic Development VALLEY VUE SHORT PLAT Report of June 28, 2016 -----------'============- .Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA16-000272, SHPL-A, MOD Page 5 of 18 2. The 2.3-acre site is located at 3106 and 3112 Talbot Rd S, Renton WA, within the SEY. of Section 30, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., east of Talbot Road South and north of S 32nd Pl (Exhibit 2). The project site consists of one (1) parcel (Parcel Number 302305-9028). 3. The project site is currently occupied with two (2) single family residences with a 142 significant trees throughout the lot. No trees are proposed to be removed. 4. The single family house at 3106 Talbot Rd S is currently connected to City of Renton sewer and the single family house at 3112 Talbot Rd S is currently served by a private septic system. The existing private septic system would be abandoned in accordance with King County Department of Health regulations. 5. Two .(2) new water service connections and one (1) sanitary side sewer to 3112 Talbot Rd S would be routed from S 32nd Pl through Tract H (Parcel Number 948575-0570) of the Winsper Division I subdivision to the site (Exhibit 3). 6. The proposed development would result in a net density of 0.96 dwelling units per acre. 7. The Planning Division of the City of Renton accepted the above master application for review on April 12, 2016 and determined the application complete on April 20, 2016. The project complies with the 120-day review period. 8. Access to the two (2) new residential lots is proposed via a 24-foot wide dedicated ingress/egress and utility easement tract (Tract H) from S 32nd Pl through Winsper Division No. 1 subdivision via the shared private driveway standards of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC 4-6-060J), which was passed by the Renton City Council on October 20, 2014 (Ord. No. 5727, effective October 29, 2014). 9. The property is located within the Residential Medium Density (RMD) Comprehensive Plan land use designation. 10. The site is located within the Residential -8 (R-8) zoning classification. 11. Surrounding uses include single family residences in the Residential -8 (R-8) zone. 12. The site is mapped with wetlands and steep slopes. 13. The site topography decends from east to west with elevation change from 208 feet to 130 feet across the entire project site (Exhibit 6). The west portion of the site maintains the steepest slopes. 14. The applicant submitted a Critical Areas Study prepared by Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC (dated September 4, 2013, revised dated November 23, 2015; Exhibit 11). According to the report, there is a wetland located in the eastern portion of the subject site and extends off-site to the east and south. This wetland exhibits a minimum of human related physical alteration, and therefore, meets the criteria for a Category Ill wetland with moderate habitat scores (5 to 7 points). A Category Ill wetland with moderate habitat function receives a minimum 100 foot (100') standard buffer from the delineated edge (RMC 4-3-050G.2). 15. Staff received and responded to multiple public comment letters (Exhibits 16-21). To address public comments the following report contains analysis related to public notice, access, development standards, public safety, and quality of life. 16. Staff received comments and an incident report from the Renton Fire Authority (RFA) on April 27, 2016 (Exhibits 22 & 23). On April 26, 2016, Renton and Fire District #25 voters approved Proposition 1, creating a regional fire authority (RFA). The RFA became effective on July 1, 2016. 17. Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21C, 1971 as amended), on May 18, 2015 the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M) for the Valley Vue Preliminary Plat (Exhibit 24). The DNS-M included four (4) Hex Report City of Renton Department of Co.ity & Economic Development VALLEY VUE SHORT PLAT .Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA16-000272, SHPL·A, MOD Report of June 28, 2016 Page 6 of 18 mitigation measures. A 14-day appeal period commenced on May 22, 2015 and ended on June 5, 2015. No appeals of the threshold determination were filed. 18. On May 16, 2016, the Environmental Review Committee, pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (WAC 197-11-600), issued a SEPA Addendum for Valley Vue Short Plat to retain mitigation #1, remove mitigation measures #2 and #3 and modify mitigation measure #4 (Exhibit 25). There is no comment period for a SEPA Addendum. 19. Based on an analysis of probable impacts from the short plat proposal, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) issued the following mitigation measures with the Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated: a. Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations found in the Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Geotech Consultants, Inc. dated May 27, 2014 or an updated report submitted at a later date. b. The applicant shall provide a paved 16-foot wide shared driveway through the existing Winsper Division No. 1 Tracts H that is consistent with the shared private driveway standards of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC 4-6-060J). The private access roads shall meet the minimum necessary to provide for safe and effective access for the existing residents, proposed residents, and fire and emergency vehicles. 20. Representatives from various city departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and address issues raised by the proposed development. These comments are contained in the official file, and the esse.nce of the comments has been incorporated into the appropriate sections of this report and the Departmental Recommendation at the end of this report (Exhibit 26). 21. Comprehensive Plan Compliance: The site is designated Residential Medium Density (RMD) on the City's Comprehensive Plan Map. The purpose of the RMD designation is to allow a variety of single- family and multi-family development types, with continuity created through the application of design guidelines, the organization of roadways, sidewalks, public spaces, and the placement of community gathering places and civic amenities. The proposal is compliant with the following development standards if all conditions of approval are met: Compliance Comprehensive Plan Analysis Goal L-U: Preserve, protect, and enhance the quality and functions of the City's ,/ sensitive areas including: lakes, rivers, major and minor creeks, intermittent stream courses and their floodplains, wetlands, ground water resources, wildlife habitats, and areas of seismic and geological hazards. Policy L-29: Minimize erosion and sedimentation in and near sensitive areas by ,/ requiring appropriate construction techniques and resource practices, such as low impact development. ,/ Policy L-31: Maintain or increase the quantity and quality of wetlands. Development activities shall not decrease the net acreage of existing wetlands. Policy L-32: Protect buffers along wetlands and surface waters to facilitate infiltration ,/ and maintain stable water temperatures, provide for biological diversity, reduce amount and velocity of run-off, and provide for wildlife habitat. ,/ Policy L-49: Address privacy and quality of life for existing residents by considering scale and context in infill project design. ,/ Policy L-51: Respond to specific site conditions such as topography, natural features, and solar access to encourage energy savings and recognize the unique features of the Hex Report -------------- City of Renton Department of Com.ty & Economic Development VALLEY VUE SHORT PLAT e-,earing Examiner Recommendation WA16-000272, SHPL·A, MOO Report of June 28, 2016 Page 7 of 18 site through the design of subdivisions and new buildings. Policy L-56: Preserve natural landforms, vegetation, distinctive stands of trees, natural ,/ slopes, and scenic areas that contribute to the City's identity, preserve property values, and visually define the community and neighborhoods. 22. Zoning Development Standard Compliance: The site is classified Residential-8 (R-8) on the City's Zoning Map. Development in the R-8 Zone is intended to create opportunities for new single family residential neighborhoods and to facilitate high-quality infill development that promotes reinvestment in existing single family neighborhoods. It is intended to accommodate uses that are compatible with and support a high-quality residential environment and add to a sense of community. The proposal is compliant with the following development standards if all conditions of approval are met: Compliance Compliance Hex Report Residential Zoning Designation Residential: Detached dwelling units are a permitted land use in the Residential -8 (R-8) zone. Residential density is limited to one detached dwelling per lot. Staff Comment: The existing lot contains two (2) existing single family structures on one lot. The short plat would divide the existing lot into two building lots and each structure would occupy one lat each. The division of the property would bring the dwelling units into conformance with the maximum number af detached dwelling a/lawed per Jot. R-8 Zone Develop Standards and Analysis . Density: The allowed density range in the R-8 zone is a minimum of 4.0 to a maximum of 8.0 dwelling units per net acre. Net density is calculated after the deduction of sensitive areas, areas intended for public right-of-way, and private access easements. Staff Comment: After factoring in all density deductions (including private access easements and critical areas) the site has a net square footage of 91,199 square feet ar 2.09 net acres {99,994 sf-8,795 sf= 91,199 sf). The 2-/ot proposal would arrive at a net density of 0.96 dwelling units per acre (2 lats/ 2.09 acres = 0.96 du/ac}, which falls below the permitted density range for the R-8 zone. In the event the applicant can show that minimum density cannot be achieved due to lot configuration, lack of access, environmental or physical constraints, minimum density requirements may be waived (RMC 4-2-110D.1.b/. The previous preliminary plat application (LUA14- 001040, ECF, PP, MOD/ was denied because of insufficient access due in part to Tracts G and H not complying with Renton's street standards due to insufficient width (Exhibits 14 & 15/. Access from Talbot Rd S is a constraint to the site; therefore, minimum density is being waived for this project. See also FOF 25 for more information on access. Lot Dimensions: The minimum lot size permitted in the R-8 zone is 5,000 sq. ft. A minimum lot width of 50 feet is required (60 feet for corner lots) and a minimum lot depth of 80 feet is required. The following table identifies the proposed approximate dimensions of the lots and tracts for Valley Vue Short Plat (Exhibit 4): Proposed Lot Lot Size (sq. ft.) Lot Width {feet) Lot Depth {feet) Lot 1 41,970 100 421 Lot 2 40,200 100 401 -----------------------------------------·---~ City of Renton Department of Com.ity & Economic Developm·ent VALLEY VUE SHORT PLAT. .Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA16-000272, SHPL-A, MOD Report of June 28, 2016 Page 8 of 18 Tract A 17,824 100 178 Tract G 4,822 24 100-100.5 Tract H 24 100-102 Staff. Comment: As demonstrated in the Jot dimensions table, all lats meet the requirements far minimum Jot size and lat depth. Setbacks: The required setbacks in the R-8 zone are as follows: front yard is 20 feet, side yard is 5 feet, side yard along the street 15 feet, and the rear yard is 20 feet. ,/ Staff Comment: No new homes are proposed as part of the short plat. The existing homes would remain in place and the both comply with the minimum setbacks of the R-8 zone. Building Standards: The R-8 zone has a maximum building coverage of 50%, a maximum impervious surface coverage of 65%, and a maximum building height of 2 ,/ stories with a wall plate height of 24 feet. Stoff Comment: Building height, building coverage, and impervious surface coverage for the existing single family residences is consistent with the building standards of the R-8 zone. Landscaping: The City's landscape regulations (RMC 4-4-070) require a 10-foot landscape strip along all public street frontages. Additional minimum planting strip widths between the curb and sidewalk are established according to the street development standards of RMC 4-6-060. Street trees and, at a minimum, groundcover, are to be located in this area when present. Spacing standards shall be as stipulated by the Department of Community and Economic Development, provided there shall be a minimum of one street tree planted per address. Any additional undeveloped right-of-way areas shall be landscaped unless otherwise determined by the Administrator. Where there is insufficient right-of-way space or no public frontage, street trees are required in the front yard subject to approval of the Administrator. A minimum of two trees are to be located in the front yard prior Compliant if to final inspection for the new Single Family Residence. condition of Staff Comment: The applicant's property is landlocked and access is proposed approval is through Tract H. No new landscaping has been proposed as port of the short plot met application. Where there is no public frontage, o minimum of two /2) trees are required to be located in the front yard of each new Jot. The applicant is requesting a modification from RMC 4-6-060F.2 "Minimum Design Standards Table for Public Streets and Alleys" in order to eliminate the required 8- foot planter strip and the 5-foot sidewalk along the north side of S 32nd Pl and install a driveway apron along the 24-foot street frontage. Staff is recommending approval of the street modification subject to two (2) conditions of approval. In addition, staff is recommending, as a condition of approval, that the applicant provide landscaping within Tract H that visually screens the shared driveway within Tract H from the abutting residential properties. A final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit issuance. Tree Retention: The City's adopted Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations ,/ require the retention of 30 percent of trees in a residential development. Significant trees shall be retained in the following priority order: Hex Report _____________________________________________.__ City of Renton Department of Co.ity & Economic Development VALLEY VUE SHORT PLAT .Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA16-000272, SHPL-A, MOD Report of June 28, 2016 Hex Report Page 9 of 18 Priority One: Landmark trees; significant trees that form a continuous canopy; significant trees on slopes greater than twenty percent {20%); Significant trees adjacent to critical areas and their associated buffers; and Significant trees over sixty feet {60') in height or greater than eighteen inches ( 18") caliper. Priority Two: Healthy tree groupings whose associated undergrowth can be preserved; other significant native evergreen or deciduous trees; and Other significant non-native trees. Priority Three: Alders and cottonwoods shall be retained when all other trees have been evaluated for retention and are not able to be retained, unless the alders and/ or cottonwoods are used as part of an approved enhancement project within a critical area or its buffer. . A minimum tree density shall be maintained on each residentially zoned lot. For detached single family development, the minimum tree density is two (2) significant trees for every five thousand (5,000) square feet. The tree density may consist of existing trees, replacement trees, trees required pursuant to RMC 4-4-070Fl, Street Frontage Landscaping Required, or a combination. Staff Comment: The property is covered with a variety of trees. Vegetation in the western portion of the property is comprised of maintained lawn represented by tall fescue, blue wildrye, hairy Cat's-ear, velvetgrass, colonial bentgrass, creeping buttercup, and white clover. The lawn is interspersed with patches of Himalayan blackberry and scattered trees, including big leaf maple and Oregon ash. Vegetation in the eastern part of the site is forested, represented by a canopy of big leaf maple, Oregon ash, and western red cedar, with snowberry, osoberry, Himalayan blackberry, hazelnut, Oceanspray, thimbleberry, dewberry, and sword fern, in the understory. There are 142 trees over 6 inches in diameter throughout the project site. After certain trees are excluded from the retention calculations (trees that are dead, diseased or dangerous, public streets, private access easements, critical area deductions), 126 become subject to the minimum requirement to retain thirty percent (30%) of the significant trees. The applicant is not proposing to remove any trees as part of the development and short plat of the lot (Exhibit 9}. Therefore, the applicant complies with the minimum tree retention requirement of 30 percent. The minimum tree density would be verified at the time of the final detailed landscape plan. It appears that the lots would comply with the minimum tree density without the need to plant additional trees. Parking: Parking regulations require that a minimum of two parking spaces be provided for each detached dwelling. Driveway cuts are required to be a minimum of 5 feet from property lines and new driveways may be a maximum of 16 feet in width at the property line. Maximum driveway slopes shall not exceed fifteen percent (15%); provided, that driveways exceeding eight percent (8%) shall provide slotted drains at the lower end with positive drainage discharge to restrict runoff from entering the garage/residence or crossing any public sidewalk. -Staff Comment: The new shared driveway would be required to comply with the maximum slope thresholds. The existing driveway from Talbot Rd S exceeds the 15% maximum driveway slope a/lawed for fire access. Sufficient area exists, on each lot, to accommodate off-street parking for a minimum of two (2) vehicles. City of Renton Deportment of Com.ity & Economic Development VALLEY VUE SHORT PLAT .Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA16-000272, SHPL·A, MOD Report of June 28, 2016 Compliant if condftion of approval is met Page 10 of 18 Fences and Retaining Walls: In any residential district, the maximum height of any fence, hedge or retaining wall shall be seventy two inches (72"). Except in the front yard and side yard along a street setback where the fence shall not exceed forty eight inches (48") in height. There shall be a minimum three-foot (3') landscaped setback at the base of retaining walls abutting public rights-of-way. Staff Comment: The applicant is proposing approximately 30 cubic yards of material to be excavated to construct the shared driveway. No fences or walls were identified in the civil plan set. The applicant is proposing to limit the disturbance to access and utility improvement in S 32nd Pl, Tract H, the 20-foot wide ingress, egress & utility easement onsite, and the southwest portion of Lot 1 between Tract H and the existing single family home. Staff received several public comments concerned about safety and direct access to and from Tract H. Therefore, staff is recommending, as a condition of approval, that the applicant shall provide a permanent four foot (4'} tall fence outside the shoulders of the shared driveway within Tract H. The applicant shall coordinate with the neighboring property owners prior to construction. The fence shall maintain compliance with height and vision clearance sections of the code. A fencing detail, location ond cross section shall be identified on the final landscaping plan. The final detailed landscape pion shall be submitted to ond approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior ta construction permit issuance. 23. Design Standards: Residential Design and Open Space Standards (RMC 4-2-115) are applicable in the R-8 zone. The Standards implement policies established in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. According to the submitted materials, no new single family homes are proposed to be constructed or remodeled as part of the short plat; therefore these standards are not applicable. 24. Critical Areas: Project sites which contain critical areas are required to comply with the Critical Areas Regulations (RMC 4-3-050). The proposal is consistent with the Critical Areas Regulations, if all conditions of approval are complied with: Geologically Hazardous Areas: Based upon the results of a geotechnical report and/or independent review, conditions of approval for developments may include buffers and/or setbacks from buffers. A standard 15-foot building setback is required for all structures from Protected Slope areas. Compliant if A SO-foot buffer and 15-foot building setback are required from Very High Landslide condition of Hazard Areas. approval is Staff Comment: No landslide hazards were identified on the City of Renton (COR) met mops. A geotechnical engineering study, prepared by Geotech Consultants, Inc., found that the site soils are not susceptible to seismic liquefaction because of their dense nature. A SEPA mitigation measure includes compliance with the recommendations found in the Geotechnical Engineering Study by Geotech Consultants, Inc. dated May 27, 2014 or an updated report submitted at a later date. Streams: The following buffer requirements are applicable to streams in accordance with RMC 4-3-0SOG.2: Type F streams require a 115-foot buffer, Type Np streams N/A require a 75-foot buffer, and Type Ns streams require a SO-foot buffer. An additional 15-foot building setback is required from the edge of all stream buffer areas. Staff Comment: A Critical Areas Study prepared by Acre Environmental Consulting, Hex Report City of Renton Department of co4ity & Economic Development VALLEY VUE SHORT PLAT .Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA16-000272, SHPL-A, MOO Report of June 28, 2016 Page 11 of 18 LLC (dated September 4, 2013; revised dated November 23, 2015; Exhibit 11) was submitted with the application materials. According ta the repart, there is ane critical area lacated ansite and that was a wetland lacated in the eastern partian of the subject site. Wetlands: The following buffer requirements are applicable to wetlands in accordance with RMC 4-3-050G.2: Wetland Category Buffer Width Structure Setback beyond buffer High Moderate Low All Other Habitat Habitat Habitat Scores Function Function Function (8-9 (5-7 (3-4 points) points) points) Category I- Bogs & Natural 200 ft. Heritage 15 ft. Wetlands Category I -All 200 ft. 150 ft. 115 ft. 115 ft. Others Category II 175 ft. 150 ft. 100 ft. n/a Compliant if Category Ill 125 ft. 100 ft. 75 ft. n/a condition of approval is Category IV so ft. n/a met Staff Comment: According to the Critical Areas Study, there is one wetland located in the eastern portion of the subject site and extends off-site to the east and south. This wetland and buffer likely provide a moderate level of habitat for a variety of wildlife species. The study found that due to the sites vegetative structure, the subject wetland provides habitat far use by terrestrial wildlife species including birds and mammals. Animals identified or observed included an American Crow, a song sparrow, a black-capped chickadee, squirrels, and evidence of a comman raccoon. The established vegetation within the wetland and associated buffer on this site serves to intercept rain fall be/are it strikes the soil, thereby reducing erosion and improving water quality. The dense vegetation serves to trap sediment and pollutants and provide increased woter quality functions that aid in a reduction of sediment which results in cleaner water leaving the site. The wetland received a score between 16 and 19 points for all functions which are classified as a Category Ill wetland on the DOE Wetland Rating Form for Western Washington /2014 Update). A Category Ill wetland typically receives a 100-foot standard buffer from their delineated edge /RMC 4-3-0SOG.2). In order to preserve and protect the wetland and its associated buffer, the applicant is proposing to establish a Native Growth Protection Easement for the Category Ill wetland and its associated 100-foot buffer area within Tract A. A split-rail fence and wetland signage, along the outer buffer edge, are requirements of Renton Municipal Hex Report City of Renton Department of Com.ty & Economic Development VALLEY VUE SHORT PLAT .earing Examiner Recommendation LUA16-000272, SHPL-A, MOD Report of June 28, 2016 Page 12 of 18 Code when associated with a tree protection tract. Staff is recommending, as a condition of approval, that the applicant provide a wood, split-rail fence with wetland signage along the west boundary of Category Ill wetland buffer. The fence (with signage) shall be constructed prior to recording the final short plat. The final landscape plan shall include all specifications for fencing and signage and shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering permit approval. 25. Compliance with Subdivision Regulations: Chapter 4-7 RMC provides review criteria for the subdivision. The proposal is consistent with the following subdivision regulations if all conditions of approval are complied with: Compliance Subdivision Regulations and Analysis N/A N/A Hex Report . Access: Each lot must have access to a public street or road. Access may be by a shared driveway per the requirements of the street standards. The maximum width of single loaded garage driveways shall not exceed nine feet (9') and double loaded garage driveways shall not exceed sixteen feet (16'). Staff Comment: Access to the two (2) new residential lots is proposed to be served from Winsper Division No. 1 Subdivision (Tract H) via the existing 24-foot wide dedicated ingress/egress easement areas through the development on S 32nd Pl. The proposed 16-foot-wide paved shared driveway terminates roughly 5 feet north of Tract H. The applicant is not proposing a turnaround (hammerhead or cul-de-sac) within the development. The shared driveway standard would be required to meet RMC 4-6-0601 and provide for safe and effective access for the existing residents, proposed residents, and fire and emergency vehicles as required by RCW 58-17-110. The existing driveway out to To/bot Rd S slopes steeply from east to west, and would not be able to provide adequate fire emergency access alone under its current constructed status. The proposed hauling and transportation routes would be on the west end of the property (Talbot Rd S to Benson Dr S) when accessible. Otherwise, out the access tract located along S 32°d Pf to Smithers Ave S to S 32nd St to Talbot Rd S to Benson Dr S (Exhibit 12). The Renton Fire Authority (RFA) provided an incident report that occurred on the property on July 29, 2015. The report identifies the challenges associated with the access to this property, including long, narrow, steep unpaved private access roadway from Talbot Rd S without any fire apparatus turnarounds onsite (Exhibits 22-24). The proposed 16-feet wide paved access road from S 32nd Pf has been determined to be a slight compromise from the code required minimum of 20 feet, but would stiff suffice for the proposed 2 lot short plat and greatly improves access to this property that now is only accessible from a very long, steep and narrow driveway that only now measures approximately 8 to 10 feet in width. RFA approved a 16 feet road width variance as the road is only approximately 100 feet long and lessens the impacts to the neighboring homes. This new access road would also improve fire safety to all the neighboring existing homes as it will improve response time and greatly improve RFA's ability to keep future fires from spreading. Blocks: Blocks shall be deep enough to allow two tiers of lots. Staff Comment: Depth of property limits this requirement. Lots: The size, shape, orientation, and arrangement of the proposed lots comply with City of Renton Department of Co,,.ity & Economic Development VALLEY VUE SHORT PLAT .Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUAl6·000272, SHPL·A, MOO Report of June 28, 2016 Hex Report Page 13 of 18 the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations and the Development Standards of the R-8 zone and allow for reasonable infill of developable land. Width between side lot lines at their foremost points (i.e., the points where the side lot lines intersect with the street right-of-way line) shall not be less than eighty percent (80%) of the required lot width except in the cases of (1) pipestem lots, which shall have a minimum width of twenty feet {20') and (2) lots on a street curve or the turning circle of cul-de-sac (radial lots), which shall be a minimum of thirty five feet {35'). Staff Comment: The lots are rectangular in shape with orientation ta Talbot Rd S. Streets: The proposed street system shall extend and create connections between existing streets per the Street Standards outlined in RMC 4-6-060 Street Standards. Staff Comment: The applicant is proposing to construct a shored driveway through Tract Hof the Winsper Division 1 subdivision. The proposed driveway would connect the site's internal private road along the south end of the property from S 32nd Pl to Talbot Rd 5 and would serve as the site's point of access. As port of the proposed development, the lots would gain approximately 24 feet of street frontage along S 32nd Pf as Tract H is proposed to be used as an ingress/egress point. Tract H was intended to serve as future ingress, egress, and utilities tracts to serve Tax Lot 28 (project site), and are currently awned and maintained by Winsper Community Organization until deeded to Tax Lot No. 28 at na cost when development approvals are granted by the authorized jurisdiction. S 32nd Pl is classified as a residential access street. Per RMC 4-6-060, the minimum right-of-way for a residential access street is 5_3 feet with a minimum pavement width of 26 feet, a 0.5-foot wide curb, an 8-foot wide landscaped planter, and a 5-faot wide sidewalk. The applicant submitted a formal modification request, as part of the short plat application, regarding the required street frontage improvements along S 32nd Pl /Exhibit 13). The applicant is proposing to construct a concrete driveway apron and maintain the existing frontage improvements along the S 32nd Pl frontage in lieu of construction the planting strip and sidewalk. See FOF 27 for more information. The applicant is proposing a 16-foot wide paved shared driveway that is fess than 200 feet in length. This meets the City's minimum standards for a shared driveway found in RMC 4-6-0601.1.e and RMC 4-6-0601.2. The proposed shared driveway was also determined to be acceptable to the RFA. The shared driveway shall have a pavement section containing a minimum of 4" of asphalt over 6" of crushed rock. The maximum grade for the shared driveway shall be 15%. The shared driveway shall be located wholly in a tract. An ingress/egress access easement to 3106 and 3112 Talbot Rd S would be required for the entirety of the shared driveway tract /Exhibit 7). Prior to construction permit approval, the drainage control plan and utility plan shall show how stormwater is collected and routed to an appropriate drainage facility. The separation between the rear yard fences of 618 and 624 S 32nd Pf is approximately 20 feet. The construction plans should give the contractor specific instructions on the installation of the shared driveway in the vicinity of these fences. If fence protection is recommended, it should be noted on the plans. If the neighbor's fences would be affected by the construction of the shared driveway within Tract H, the contractor shall coordinate with the respective property owners prior ta construction. In addition, the relocation of franchise utility structures would require coordination with the respective utility owner prior to construction. Paving and trench restoration within the City's right- of-way must comply with the City's Trench Restoration and Overlay Requirements. There is a direct correlation between the number of homes and the number of trips City of Renton Department of Co.ity & Economic Development VALLEY VUE SHORT PLAT .Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA16-000272, SHPL·A, MOO Report of June 28, 2016 Page 14 of 18 anticipated to utilize the shared driveway. Staff feels that the lack of single family construction/building and limited utility and site access improvements as part af the short plat would not result in a detriment to public safety and general welfare as it pertains to the Winsper Subdivision. The City's trip threshold is 20 peak hour trips; therefore, no traffic impact analysis was required as part of the two (2) lot short plat. Because there is no new single family homes associated with this short plat, it is not anticipated that the proposed project would result in any new long-term impacts to the City's street system. Transportation impact fees would be credited since the short plat is not adding any additional homes. Relationship to Existing Uses: The proposed project is compatible with existing surrounding uses. Staff Comment: The subject site is bordered by single-family homes around all sides of v" the property. The properties surrounding the subject site are residential medium density and are designated R-8 on the City's zoning map. The proposal is similar to existing development patterns in the area and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code, which address privacy and quality of life for existing residents by considering scale and context in infill project design. 26. Availability and Impact on Public Services: Compliance Availability and Impact on Public Services Analysis Police and Fire: Police and Fire Prevehtion staff indicates that sufficient resources exist v" to furnish services to the proposed development; subject to the applicant providing one new fire hydrant within 300 feet of the existing homes. Schools: No additional students would be generated by this proposal. The shared driveway would provide an alternative route (S 32nd Pl, Smithers Ave S, S 32nd St) from v" the site to the bus stop location at Talbot Rd S and S 32nd St for all grades. Co.ncrete sidewalks are available from S 32nd Pl to the school bus stop. Therefore, there are safe walking routes to the school bus stops. Parks: A Park Impact Fee would be required for any future accessory dwelling units. The v" current Park Impact Fee for an ADU is $1,532.56. The fee in effect at the time of building permit application is applicable to this project and is payable at the time of building permit issuance. Storm Water: An adequate drainage system shall be provided for the proper drainage of all surface water. Staff Comment: The site is located in part of the Black River Basin. Runoff from the site is split with approximately the easterly 150' draining overland towards the wetland along the east boundary. The remainder of the site sheet flows in a westerly direction ultimately entering the swale along the east side of Talbot Road. Based on the City's v" flow control map, this site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard, Forested Condition. The project is proposing 1,780 square feet of new and/or replaced impervious surface. The project is also proposing less than 7,000 square feet of land disturbing area. Per Section 1.1.2 of the adopted 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual {KCSWDM), the project is exempt from drainage review. Drainage improvements along the S 32nd Pl frontage would be required to conform ta the City's street standards found in RMC 4-6-060 and Storm drainage SDCs would be credited as the proposed short plat is not creating new single family homes. Hex Report ----l City of Renton Department of Co.ity & Economic Development VALLEY VUE SHORT PLAT .Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA16·000272, SHPL·A, MOO Report of June 28, 2016 Hex Report Page 15 of 18 A geotechnicol report, doted Moy 27, 2014, wos submitted by Geotech Consultants, Inc. /Exhibit 10/. A SEPA mitigation determination and addendum measure /Exhibits 24 & 25/ was imposed by the City's Environmental Review Committee /ERC/, requiring thot the project construction comply with the recommendations outlined in the submitted geotechnicol report (or on updated report submitted at o later dote). The geotechnico/ report indicates that o Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control pion would be prepared with the final construction plans in order to prevent, to the maximum extent possible, the transport of sediment to downstream drainage systems, water resources and adjacent properties. Best Management Practices {BMPs/ anticipated include clearing limit delineation, cover measures (straw, plastic, etc.), traffic area stabilization (rock construction entrance) and pf!rimeter protection /silt fencing) in accordance with City of Renton requirements. The Natural Resources Conservation Service {NRCS/ mopped the subject property as being underlain by Alderwood gravelly sandy loom, 6 to 15 percent slopes. The NRCS describes Alderwood gravelly sandy loom, 6 to 15 percent slopes as rolling with irregularly shaped oreos. Water: Water service is provided by the City of Renton. The site is located in the To/bot Hill 350 hydraulic water pressure zone. There is on existing 12" water main /COR Facility ID: WM 03001} west of the site along the eastern frontage of To/bot Rd S. 3106 and 3112 Talbot Rd S ore currently served by two 3/4" services connected to this main and the meters are located near the end of the site's private driveway along the Talbot Rd S frontage. There is also on existing 8 inch /8"/ water main (COR Facility ID: WM 03498/ south of the site in S 32nd Pl. A new fire hydrant would be required to be installed within 300 feet of the existing homes, as new lots created through the short plot process ore required to conform to the fire code. An 8" water main extension north through Tract H of the Winsper Division 1 subdivision, from the 8" main in S 32nd Pl, would be required to serve the new hydrant. The new water main and fire hydrant must be designed and _installed per City stondords ond shall be located in o utility easement. The final survey and plans must show oil existing water infrastructure. The existing hydrant (COR Facility ID: HYD S 00483/ located in front of 636 S 32nd Pl /KC Parcel No: 9485750360/ is not shown on the sewer and water pion. The existing residences at 3106 and 3112 Talbot Rd S would each require new 1" water meters connected to the new 8" water main for service. The meters would be installed by the City of Renton. The current /2016/ fee to install each meter is $3,310.00. The lots will be credited for the System Development Charge /SDC/ as they ore currently connected to the City's water system. The meters shall be located in a utility easement. The existing water 3/4" meters and service lines that currently serve 3106 and 3112 Talbot Rd S shall be abandoned and capped at the main in Talbot Rd Sin accordance with the City's standards. Sanitary Sewer: Sewer service is provided by the City of Renton. There is an existing 8" concrete sewer main west of the site along the eastern frontage of Talbot Rd S that flows from south to north. There is on eight inch /8") PVC sewer main north of the site that flows northwest from the northern site boundary beginning at o 48" manhole. 3106 Talbot Rd Sis served by on existing four inch /4"/ PVC side sewer which enlarges too six inch /6") PVC side sewer that connects to the eight inch /8") PVC sewer main (COR Facility ID: GM04113/ downstream of the 48" manhole. This existing connection is acceptable for this home /Exhibit 8/. There is also on existing eight inch /8"} D.I. sewer main south of the site in S 32nd Pl that flows from east to west. 3112 To/bot Rd S is currently served by o private onsite septic City of Renton Department of Co.ity & Economic Development VALLEY VUE SHORT PLAT • Hearing Examiner Recommendation WA16·000272, SHPL·A, MOD Report of June 28, 2016 Page 16 of 18 system. New lots created through the short plat process are required ta connect to the public sewer system. The existing private septic system would be required to be abandoned in accordance with King County Department of Health regulations. The applicant shall obtain a sewer availability certificate from the City far the new connection for 3112 Talbot Rd S and a new 6" sewer service shall be installed to serve 3112 Talbot Rd S. The new service shall be designed and installed per City Standards and would be required ta extend from the existing 48" manhole {COR Facility ID: MH3167}, located south of the site in S 32nd Pl, north through Tract H of the Winsper Division 1 subdivision to the site. The new service line would only serve 3112 Ta/bat Rd S. The new sewer connection for 3112 Talbot Rd S requires payment of a SOC. The SOC for sewer service is based on the size of the water service. The current SOC for sewer service with a 1" water meter installation is $2,242.00. The SOC far 3106 Talbot Rd S would be credited as it is currently connected to the City's sewer system. 27. Street Modification Analysis: The applicant is requesting a modification from RMC 4-6-060F.2 "Minimum Design Standards Table for Public Streets and Alleys" in order to eliminate the required 8- foot planter strip and the 5-foot sidewalk along the north side of S 32nd Pl and install a driveway apron per along the 24.06' street frontage. S 32nd Pl is a Residential Access Street with an existing ROW width of 44 feet (as per assessor map). The existing roadway section from south to north is an approximate 5-foot planter strip, 5-foot sidewalk, 0.5-foot curb, 28-foot pavement section, 0.5-foot curb, and an approximate 5-foot planter strip on the north. side of the roadway adjacent to the project. A Residential Street classification requires a minimum right-of-way width of 53 feet. To meet the City's complete street standards, half street improvements include 14-foot paved roadway, 8-foot planter strip and 5-foot sidewalk is required to be constructed in the right of way fronting the development along with a minimum right-of- way dedication of 8 feet per City Code 4-6-060. The existing homes along S 32nd Pl are only 20 feet or so away from the existing right-of-way. An increase in right-of-way of 8-feet on the north side of the roadway would encroach into the required building setback per zoning. The proposal is compliant with the following modification criteria, pursuant to RMC 4-9-2SOD, if all conditions of approval are met. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of the requested modification, subject to conditions as noted below: Compliance Street Modification Criteria and Analysis a .. Substantially implements the policy direction of the policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and the Community Design Element and the proposed modification is the minimum adjustment necessary to implement these policies and objectives. Staff Comment: The Community Design Element has applicable policies listed under Compliant if a separate section labeled Streets, Sidewalks and Streetscapes. These policies address walkable neighborhoods, safety and shared uses. Two specific policies condition of support the decision to modify the street standards in order to extend the existing approval is sidewalk at a width of five feet and eliminate the need for the landscape met requirement between the curb and the sidewalk. These policies are Policy CD-102 and Policy CD-103 which state that the goal is to promote new development with "walkable places," "support grid and flexible grid street and pathway patterns," and "are visually attractive, safe, and healthy environments." The requested street modification is consistent with these policy guidelines provided the driveway apron becomes part of a future 5-foot wide sidewalk directly adjacent to the existing curb and gutter. This standard would ensure that the north side of the roadway is Hex Report City of Renton Deportment of Com.ty & Economic Development VALLEY VUE SHORT PLAT .earing Examiner Recommendation LUA16·000272, SHPL·A, MOD Report of June 28, 2016 Page 17 of 18 consistent with the existing configuration on the south side of the roadway. Given that the frontage along S 32nd Pl is only about 24 feet wide, a driveway apron with driveway wings meeting City of Renton Standards Driveway Detail (COR Std Plan 104.1} would encompass the entire frontage. The sidewalk and driveway approach would also be required to be located solely within the public right-of-way. If the improvements are outside of the existing right-of-way, additional right-of-way dedication would be required on S 32nd Pl. A condition to this effect is included in the recommendation section of this report. b. Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon sound engineering judgment. Staff Comment: The City's Community and Economic Development section reviewed ,/ S 32nd St and the surrounding area and have determined that locating the sidewalk directly adjacent to the roadway is more suitable for this location of S 32nd St. This determination was based on the fact that the roadway is directly adjacent ta single family residences and there is insufficient space between the existing right-of-way and the existing homes to expand the roadway section to meet the full Residential Street standards. c. Will not be injurious to other property(ies) in the vicinity. ,/ Staff Comment: There are no identified adverse impacts to other properties from the requested modification. d. Conforms to the intent and purpose of the Code. ,/ Staff Comment: This modification provides for a safe pedestrian route in and around the existing neighborhood. e. Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended; and ,/ Staff Comment: The revised street standards provide a safe design for vehicles and pedestrians. f. Will not create adverse impacts to other property(ies) in the vicinity. ,/ Staff Comment: See comments under criterion 'c'. I 1. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The subject site is located in the Residential Medium Density (RMD) Comprehensive Plan designation and complies with the goals and policies established with this designation, see FOF 9 and FOF 21. 2. The proposal is the minimum land use action to bring the existing homes in compliance with the R-8 single-family residential zone with one dwelling per lot, see FOF 22. 3. The subject site is located in the Residential-8 (R-8) zoning designation and complies with the zoning and development standards established with this designation provided the applicant complies with City Code and conditions of approval, see FOF 10 and FOF 22. 4. The proposed plat complies with the Residential Design and Open Space Standards, see FOF 23. 5. The proposed plat complies with the Critical Areas Regulations provided the applicant complies with City Code and conditions of approval, see FOF 24. Hex Report ~---------------- City of Renton Department of Co,,.ity & Economic Development VALLEY VUE SHORT PLAT .Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA16·000272, SHPL·A, MOD Report of June 28, 2016 Page 18 of 18 6. The proposed plat complies with the subdivision regulations as established by City Code and state law provided all advisory notes and conditions are complied with, see FOF 25. 7. The proposed plat complies with the street standards as established by City Code, provided the project complies with all advisory notes and conditions of approval contained herein, see FOF 25 and FOF 27. 8. There are safe walking routes to the school bus stop, see FOF 26. 9. There are adequate public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed plat, see FOF 26. I J. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Valley Vue Short Plat and Street Modification, File No. LUA16-000272, SHPL-A, MOD, as depicted in Exhibit 5, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the two (2) mitigation measures issued through the SEPA Addendum process by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on May 16, 2016 (Exhibit 25). a. Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations found in the Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Geotech Consultants, Inc. dated May 27, 2014 or an updated report submitted at a later date. b. The applicant shall provide a paved 16-foot wide shared driveway through the existing Winsper Division No. 1 Tracts H that is consistent with the shared private driveway standards of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC 4-6·060J). The private access roads shall meet the minimum necessary to provide for safe and effective access for the existing residents, proposed residents, and fire and emergency vehicles. 2. The applicant shall provide landscaping within Tract H that visually screens the shared driveway within Tract H from the abutting residential properties. A final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit issuance. 3. The applicant shall provide a permanent four foot (4') to six foot (6') tall fence outside the shoulders of the shared driveway within Tract H. The applicant shall coordinate with the neighboring property owners prior to construction. The fence shall maintain compliance with height and vision clearance sections of the code. A fencing detail, location and cross section shall be identified on the final landscaping plan. The final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit issuance. 4. The applicant shall install a wood, split-rail fence with wetland signage along the west boundary of Category Ill wetland buffer. The fence (with signage) shall be constructed prior to recording the final short plat. The final landscape plan shall include all specifications for fencing and signage and shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering permit approval. 5. The applicant shall provide a driveway apron with driveway wings and a 5-foot wide sidewalk along the street frontage of Tract H. The driveway approach and sidewalk shall be located solely within the public right-of-way. If the improvements are outside of the existing right-of-way, additional right-of-way dedication would be required from Tract H on S 32nd Pl. Hex Report / / • • DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY ~ CITYOF • ------=---Ren ton ~ ;(~ AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL {SEPA) DETERMINATION OF NON°SIGNIFICANCE (DNS-M) -MITIGATED ' ' ' Pursuant to.WAC 197-lla600(4)(c) and WAC 197-11°625 Addend uni to the Valley Vue Preliminary Plat (LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD} as Addended by the City of Renton (LUAlG-000272, SHPL-A, MOD) Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M) · , & Economic nt Oep~rtrr,~c.r RentC/Tyo, · ... ' ' i~ . May 16, 2016 , May 18, 2015 ;radyWay 1057-3232 OU@ 632 S 32nd Pl Renton w ' A 98055 :::;;:::•.-. ·~·c::Ir.~1Pi!::'•'I'.··-_ ·~--:.:,:;•f::::i,.J9 .• -: ... ! . --. sea DE· , . . • C ~.~.!"L_1_!:,!.~ .'f~ ... ~.e"-... :.· .· 00·0s1.,.,:, •. 980 ~ ~101 into the subaiv,,, __ . 5 ~ @3 2 3 2 "'l:.JI '-,,I ....... .,,. • • : .... 3 ~,/~15. ·:!-,~ .. "' ~-u G;; "i :---.::)J'.O_~-'-~ Be -,1 ... .r,. .. E:-} ·:::-,_ ·i_JJ·Ma-t:!:::-·· :. -9:g 8 r., ....... ·+'C/'. .. _,::·_,.,,;_~~:~;~:. . . · .. l liiJ ~ 7 3 2 3·2 c::,.. . ......'.··•-;-:,;~Utz,. ... . is proposed to be retained. As pa,,-· .. 1/u/11 .. , .. 1,1,1 1/1 "1' 1 • 01 ~ 6 . · · · , '/tu ,1;,, ...... 01,2'0, · · access the eight (8) new residential lots from Winsµ.,, -. . ' /////1 /!J•ll,fn/n1Jii; ;-2 0.-1 9 dedicated ingress and egress tracts (Tract G and Tract H) located norm.,, _ _ . I 11 1/11.f /I. 1 The project site is also referenced as Tax Lot No. 28 of the Winsper Division I Plat and two separate tracts (Tract G and Tract H) were recorded specifically for the future ingress, egress and utilities to Tax Lot No. 28. The tracts are owned and maintained by Winsper Community Organization until deeded to Tax Lot No. 28 at no cost when development approvals are granted by the authorized jurisdiction (Recording Number 198903141032). J' ;f J i .·.~· I i I f ' ' I & Economic DEPARTMENT OF COM-NITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT • ---------Renton@ ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA} DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS-M} -MITIGATED Pursuantto .WAC 197-11-600(4)(c) and WAC 197-11-625 · . . ' . Addendum to the Valley Vue Preliminary Plat (LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD) as Acldended by_ the City of Renton (LUA16-000272, SHPL-A; MOD) Determination of Non-Significance -1v'•ici:ated (DNS-M) · -, 1t Department · ·• · -----_Renton ® :;radyWay !8057-2~:;2 · ~arv Klaas Schultz--·-- 678 S 32nd Pl Renton, WA 98055 NI XIE' 980': DE··i 000S/23/!6" 98055$5094 C10i 98057@3232 BC: 98·0S.7 3,2'3-2 S.S * 01.2 6--e;t-97 2-2 0-19 1111111111111.1, 1,11, rlnli 1111, 11,1,, 1 !• q,, 11111, 1,, ,11111, 11 P into the subdivision. The existing home at 3112 was formerly proposed to be demolished, but it is proposed to be retained. As part of the original 9-lot subdivision, the applicant was proposing access the eight (8) new residential lots from Winsper Division No. 1 Subdivision via two (2) dedicated ingress and egress tracts (Tract G and Tract H) located north of S 32nd Pl. 1 The project site is also referenced as Tax Lot No. 28 of the Winsper Division I Plat and two separate tracts (Tract G and Tract H) were recorded specifically for the future ingress, egress and utilities to Tax Lot No. 28. The tracts are owned and maintained by Winsper Community Organization until deeded to Tax Lot No. 28 at no cost when development approvals are granted by the authorized jurisdiction (Recording Number 198903141032). ' i ~ -' ,!i I~ .,, Ji II 11 / DEPARTMENT OF COMMul-v AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADDENDUI\II.TO ENVIRPNMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION OF · NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS-M)-MITIGATED . . .,'' . Pursuant to WAC,197-11-600(4)(c) andWAC197-ll,fi25 Addendum to the Valley Vue Preliminary Plat (LUA14-001040, ECF '. PP, MOD) as Addended by the City of. Renton (LUA16-000272, SHPL-A, MOD) Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M) Date of Addendum: . ' Date of o_rigin:l··'ssuance of ~-~ee,,i["·<!·~· ···· petermination: · May 16, 2016 May, 18, 2015 Propon~r{ "< Rr-"1 c,· . \. LLC " --··--· .. --.,.· _. !,,{ '~ .,, . .,,,). ........ • •• ,~"''' ,_.,. ~\ ,",--•··. ) J·J1 ,f.:.-.: ... : .• .:' --.... _ .... ~. ,· '\ I ,/: ' ~151 @~~(R\o ffi) ~rk_:-t ---------~~.!.!..U. l1\Wil.U. '""(c• 1055 South Grady Way -Renton WA 98057-3232 Robert Johnseine 650 Nile Ave NE Renton, WA 98059 !HXI:': JJ00S,../23/1-6 98057@3232 .R*E.-TlfRN" "t""o s'ENoE·R .!..'i"TE'f;t?, 7E;_Ti -. 'ffUT 'K'i'-~O'WNi .. -~rt!'A·S: !_ -~ T"·~J; ~ ·OR:·~,l\~·fJ BC: 980S7323Z55 *9126-01352-19-36 _I I\ Ii I I Ii•\ I l I I' l I\ 11 1 'ii 11 · i JI, Ii IJ; l, \i 'i' II•\\ ll j, 1 I \hi' 1,, 11 . i Leslie Betlach • • ----~Renton® Plan Review Routing Slip Plan Number: Site Address: LUA16-000272 3106 TALBOT RDS Name: Valley Vue Description: The applicant is requesting approval of a 2-lot short plat and a street modification. The site is 100,188 square feet (2.3 acres) and is located at 3106 and 3112 Talbot Rd S (APN: 302305-9028), adjacent to Winsper Division No. 1 subdivision. The property is in the Residential-8 (R-8) zoning district. There are two (2) single family residences (3106 and 3112) located on this parcel that gain access to the site from Talbot Road S. The proposed short plat would subdivide the parcel into two (2) residential lots, leaving both existing houses undisturbed, and one (1) Native Growth Protection Tract (Tract A). The two proposed residential lots are 41,970 SF (Lot 1) and 40,200 SF (Lot 2) with an average lot size of 41,0BS SF. The residential density is 0.96 dwelling units per net acre. Access to the new residential lots is proposed via a 16-foot wide driveway from S 32nd Pl through Winsper Division No. 1 Subdivision (Tract H) via the 24-foot wide dedicated ingress/egress easement area. There are 142 significant trees on the site and the applicant is proposing to retain all of the original trees. The eastern portion of the site is comprised of established forest with a Category Ill wetland that extends off-site to the east and south. No impacts to critical areas onsite are proposed. The application is also requesting a street modification from the required half-street frontage improvements along S 32nd Pl, along the access tracts, to maintain the existing improvement condition of the neighborhood. The applicant has submitted a Critical Areas Study and a Geotechnical Engineering Study with the application. Review Type: Community Services Review-Version 1 Date Assigned: 04/20/2016 Date Due: 05/04/2016 Project Manager: Clark Close Environmental Impact Earth Animals Air Environmental Health Water Energy/Natural Resources Plants Housing Land/Shoreline Use Aesthetics Where to enter your comments: Manage My Reviews Which types of comments should be entered: Light/GI a re Historic/Cultural Preservation Recreation Airport Environmental Utilities 10,000 Feet Transportation 14,000 Feet Public Service Recommendation -Comments that impact the project including any of the Enivornmental Impacts above. Correction -Corrections to the project that need to be made before the review can be completed and /or requesting submittal of additional documentation and/or resubmittal of existing documentation. What statuses should be used: Reviewed -I have reviewed the project and have no comments. Reviewed with Comments -I have reviewed the project and and I have comments entered in Recommendations. Correction/Resubmit -I have reviewed the project and the applicant needs to submit and/or resubmit documentation and I have added corrections in Corrections. /{P Signature of Director or Authonzed Representative Date Rory Dees Jon Nelson Parties of Record (Signature of Sender): STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING Dated: Ar,,;~ 2.0 2P\C. ) • ) ) ss ) Applicant Contact See Attached Notary (Print): ___ -"'dt>-"""'t'-"~;;>,--\'--'-'®"'"""'i.!'4'.S~----------- My appointment expires: ~ \Ai~ .::2'\ .:lot-:'.\- LUA16-000272, SHPL-A, MOD . VALLEY VUE SHORT PLAT template -affidavit of service by mailing 1NldlllllliMillilli&.MHiiiiFHIFlll&Mi&ILua• Jon Nelson Marv Klaas Schultz Land Development Advisors, LLC . 618 S 32nd Pl 12865 SE 47th Pl Renton, WA 98055 Bellevue, WA 98006 l!Nlllllt....all'IIIIIII Rorv Dees RAD HOLDINGS LLC 1040 W Lake Sammamish Pkwy SE Bellevue, WA 98008 Virginia Klaas, MD 618 S 32nd Pl Renton, WA 98055 Rorv Dees 1040 W Lake Sammamish Pkwy SE Bellevue; WA 98008 • • 8899210290 8899210260 3023059115 2014-2 IH BORROWER LP AMANDUS JAMES A & LAURA M BERRY PAUL 901 MAIN ST #4700 2715 CEDAR AVES 3129 TALBOT RDS DALLAS, TX 75202 RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98055 8899210430 9485750410 9485750220 BLIER STEPHEN M BRAUN NONAJ BREZONICK CARRI L 3008 SMITHERS CT S 606 S 32ND PL 707 S 32ND PL RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98055 9485750330 9485750480 8899210490 CHAN WALTER K+LUZ S VELASCO CHANG JEANNIE+PERVAN TODD CHAUNG CHI-JAN+MEEI-FOO 9856 SO 168TH PL 631 S 32ND PL 3012 WHITWORTH AVES RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98055 9485750380 8899210280 9485750530 CHEN ANDY MING CHEN KUNNAN CHU LAURA H WU 4616 NE 1ST CT 701 S 31ST ST 3117 SMITHERS AV S RENTON, WA 98059 RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98055 8899210320 8899210460 9485750360 DALEN DOUGLAS J DANNEMAN ADELINA V DONG WAYNE VINH LIEN 721 S 31ST ST 3007 SMITHERS CT S 636 S 32ND PL RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98055 8899210300 8899200130 8899210380 DUNCAN DONALD D SR DUNCAN RUSSELL DEBRA L ECCHER RICHARD D 709 S 31ST ST 829 S 31ST ST 820 S 31ST ST RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98056 9485750450 9485750290 8899210390 EKINS DONALD E ENG WILLIAM+ROSEMARIE EVANS CHRISTOPHER T+GIUNTIN 613 S 32ND PL 716 32ND PL 808 S 31ST ST RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98055 3023059116 9485750320 9485750270 FULLER NATHAN GANGWISH JAMES+ SHARON GARVIDA MELCHOR R+JESUSA 3113 TALBOT RDS 700 S 32ND PL 733 S 32ND PL RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98055 3023059093 3023059075 8899210210 GASTINEAU PATRICK GRAHAM SULTANA+BRIAN DEAN A HERLEY PETER E+CYNTHIA M 17611 EASON AVE 3107 TALBOT RDS 517 S 31ST ST BOTHELL, WA 98011 RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98055 9485750260 9485750340 8899210480 HOGLUND WILLIAM E+HISAMI S HUANG LI SE HUMPHREY JANICE H 727 S 32ND PL 102 153RD PL NE 700 S 31ST ST RENTON, WA 98055 BELLEVUE, WA 98007 SEATILE, WA 98055 • • 8899210290 8899210260 3023059115 2014-2 IH BORROWER LP AMANDUS JAMES A & LAURA M BERRY PAUL 901 MAIN ST #4700 2715 CEDAR AVES 3129 TALBOT RDS DALLAS, TX 75202 RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98055 8899210430 9485750410 9485750220 BLIER STEPHEN M BRAUN NONAJ BREZONICK CARRI L 3008 SMITHERS CT S 606 S 32ND PL 707 S 32ND PL RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98055 9485750330 9485750480 8899210490 CHAN WALTER K+LUZ S VELASCO CHANG JEANNIE+PERVAN TODD CHAUNG CHI-JAN+MEEI-FOO 9856 SO 168TH PL 631 S 32ND PL 3012 WHITWORTH AVES RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98055 9485750380 8899210280 9485750530 CHEN ANDY MING CHEN KUNNAN CHU LAURA H WU 4616 NE 1ST CT 701 S 31ST ST 3117 SMITHERS AV S RENTON, WA 98059 RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98055 8899210320 8899210460 9485750360 DALEN DOUGLAS J DANNEMAN ADELINA V DONG WAYNE VINH LIEN 721 S 31ST ST 3007 SMITHERS CT S 636 S 32ND PL RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98055 8899210300 8899200130 8899210380 DUNCAN DONALD D SR DUNCAN RUSSELL DEBRA L ECCHER RICHARD D 709 S 31ST ST 829 S 31ST ST 820 S 31ST ST RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98056 ' 9485750450 9485750290 8899210390 EKINS DONALD E ENG WILLIAM+ROSEMARIE EVANS CHRISTOPHER T+GIUNTIN 613 S 32ND PL 716 32ND PL 808 S 31ST ST RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98055 3023059116 9485750320 9485750270 FULLER NATHAN GANGWISH JAMES+ SHARON GARVIDA MELCHOR R+JESUSA 3113 TALBOT RDS 700 S 32ND PL 733 S 32ND PL RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98055 3023059093 3023059075 8899210210 GASTINEAU PATRICK GRAHAM SULTANA+BRIAN DEAN A HERLEY PETER E+CYNTHIA M 17611 EASON AVE 3107 TALBOT RDS 517 S 31ST ST BOTHELL, WA 98011 RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98055 9485750260 9485750340 8899210480 HOGLUND WILLIAM E+HISAMI S HUANG LI SE HUMPHREY JANICE H 727 S 32ND PL 102 153RD PL NE 700 S 31ST ST RENTON, WA 98055 BELLEVUE, WA 98007 SEATTLE,WA 98055 8899200120 HUNT KORBEY G 14410 22ND AVE SW BURIEN, WA 98166 9485750210 JAEB JEROME R 701 S 32ND PL RENTON, WA 98055 . 9485750390 · KLAAS VIRGINIA E 618 S 32ND PL RENTON, WA 98055 9485750420 LOUIE KRISTE NA A+PHAM THO 600 S 32ND PL RENTON, WA 98055' 9485750300 MANULAT PAUL V+RALNA L 710 S 32ND PL RENTON, WA 98055 9485750370 MATSUMURA MARC K+DELGADO LI 630 S 32ND PL RENTON, WA 98055 9485750240 MOLINE DYLAN 715 S 32ND PL RENTON, WA 98055 9485750350 NGUYEN PHUONG D+PHUONG THI 642 S 32ND PL RENTON, WA 98055 9485750310 OLELS DEBORAH+THOMPSON STEV 706 S 32ND PL RENTON, WA 98055 9485750230 PELAYO ALFONSO G 711 S 32ND PL RENTON, WA 98055 • 8899210470 ISDELL WILLIAM 3013 SMITHERS CT S RENTON, WA 98055 3023059033 JOHNSON MICHAEL 11112 NE 124TH LN MOUNTLAKE TERRACE, WA 98043 8899210230 LANGLOIS KARL A 601 S 31STST RENTON, WA 98055 8899210420 LYNDA LEE RODRIGUEZ TRUST VW 1118 2010 PO BOX 386 SOUTH PRAIRIE, WA 98385 3023059011 MARDAKHAYEV ERIK+SEMYON 1530 16TH AVE NE #K1530 ISSAQUAH, WA 98029 8899210140 MERRILL MINNIE MARY M 17815 E LAKE DESIRE DRS RENTON, WA 98058 9485760280 MUELLNER CHARLES D+MARGUERI 903 S 32ND PL RENTON, WA 98055 3023059121 NGUYEN THU HA THI 3011 TALBOT RDS RENTON, WA 98055 8899210240 PARK JOON H & JAE EUN 607 S 31STST RENTON, WA 98055 3023059122 PENA ELMER C+EVELYN D 3021 TALBOT RDS RENTON, WA 98055 • 9485750560 J & M MANAGEMENT 17404 MERIDIAN E SUITE F PMB 171 PUYALLUP, WA 98375 9485750250 KING ALBERT STEPHEN 721 S 32ND PL ·RENTON, WA 98055 9485760270 LEE RICHARD F+N LYNN 902 S 32ND PL RENTON, WA 98055 3023059029 MACLEOD TERRANCE & KATHRYN 3124 TALBOT RDS RENTON, WA 98055 8899210270 MASUNAGA JILL A 623 SOUTH 31ST ST RENTON, WA 98055 9485750510 MITCHELL STANLEY E 3107 SMITHERS AVES RENTON, WA 98055 9485760260 NGUYEN MAIT 908 S 32ND PL RENTON, WA 98055 8899210410 NILES PAUL W+NILES CARYN M 802 S 31ST ST RENTON, WA 98055 8899210800 PARK VICTORIA HOMEOWERS PO BOX 1104 RENTON, WA 98055 9485750470 POOLE DEBORAH J 625 S 32ND ST RENTON, WA 98055 • • 8899210400 8899210150 3023059081 POQUIZ ALEXANDER F+AMIHAN 0 SAUCEDA RAY SCHNEIDER KATHLEEN E 814 S 31STST 606 S 31ST ST 3037 TALBOT RDS RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98055 8899210130 8899210360 3023059114 SILVERBLATI MARK+GINA SISCO JERI SMITH ARTHUR L & MARIE W 3007 WHITWORTH AVE SOUTH 821 S 31STST PO BOX 59512 RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98058 9485750520 8899210220 8899210340 SMITH WILLIAM E+ANDREA L SMITH-CHARITY MARGARET SPOSARI JAMES R 3111 SMITHERS AVES 523 S 31ST ST 809 S 31ST ST RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98055 9485750490 3023059019 8899210170 TANG YU TAK DAVID+ELSA S TATRO DON L THORESON MATIHEW D 18307 151ST CT SE 3211 TALBOT RDS 512 S 31ST ST RENTON, WA 98058 RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98055 8899210330 9485750280 8899210370 TITIALII PAUL+ROMINA B TOMAS CAROL P+JESS L TRAN MYDUNG N 803 SOUTH 31ST STREET 739 S 32ND PL 826 S 31ST ST RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98055 9485750500 8899210160 8899210250 TRUONG BRUCE G+DARANG RHODO TURNER DYLAN S+JENNIFER A VENISHNICK JAMES+REBECCA H 3101 SMITHERS AVES S18 S 31STST 613 S 31ST ST RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98055 SEATLE, WA 98055 3023059030 9485750430 9485750460 VU HOWARD D+LANPHUONG T+ALA VUONGTHAOT VUONG THAO THANH 15028 66TH CT NE 601 S 32ND PL 619 S 32ND PL KENMORE, WA 98028 RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98055 8899210350 3023059123 9485750440 WONG CHIFAI WOO PETERC YORITA BRIAN G+CHERIE D 6450131ST AVE SE 3031 TALBOT RDS 607 S 32ND PL BELLEVUE, WA 98006 RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98055 9485750400 8899210310 ZHANG HAO ZIELIE FREDERICK R 26930 232ND AVE SE 715 S 31STST MAPLE VALLEY, WA 98038 RENTON, WA 98055 • _ __..-Kenton® NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-M) A MHllr APllll<otl•n hi> b,.,, ftled ind 1<e1~1d with tt.. Dtplflmt11t of Community• E<•!IOmM: D1,1lopm1nt (ett>I-Plonnl .. Ol,lolon oltllo City al-•"-Tho lollowln1 brloflv ducriba tho lppllalh,n Ofld tho nouuary l'llbacApprovall. !!An Ill" Nanct Of N'PUC..nDN, April lO. 2D1S I.AND USI NLIMBQ: WAIHOO.Z72, SHPL•,\ MOO PIIOJKTCIISCM"!IOIOI, Tllo~ .. ~_.. of• 1-lot-plrttrd. - mOdilkatbn. Tho -11100.111 ........ -(J.l ..,..I and Is k>calad ot 31115 Md 3Ul T-Rd S (APlo: lOlJOS. 902l~~taWIMporD-No.lS<lbdMalon.TM_.,,lolntho-!~) ....... dlflrttt.Tllffl, ... two(2J,l ...... t.mily-.nc:at3lOli1nclllll)locatadanth1>.....,..lllolpln ...... 111tt,o,itol'n,mTllbotlloldS. Tho p,opo,od shon pllt W<Juld subdMo• !he porat l"to ""° 111 -•I lots. l•mlll both e>Ortl,. """'"" ull<llst\ir'*', and ono (1) Nallvl Gnlwth P,01K1lan Troa: {Troct A). Tllo two proposal mldemlal lots ,,. 4U1Q Sf ll.ol I) ,no 40,200 SF !1.ot 1] Mlh an .. ..-.,o lal ,rw ol 41.0l5 s,. Tllo rmldonUal dOMity ~ 0.91 d...-.1111111 ""Ill pu not o,:ro. Am,u to tho now mlOond1l lots 11 prop111ed ,.jo • !I-loot wldo drlvolnjr from S llnd ~ thto\1111 Wlnspot Dl,hlon No. 1 S1Jbi!M1lon lfratt HJ ,I, lho 14-/1,orwido dtcllalld lnr,as,/o.,..a oaomEll ,mi. Tt,o,. .,. !4l ollnlliant !rHI on tho ,1111 ,rid tho •l>!'licant Is prcpo1ln1 to r111i.. •~ ot tho oMalnal Ir-T!,o ,mom portion of tho 14111 ~ a,mpMHd of ombllshed ,.,,.,, wRh • C.tap,,y Ill '""'lond !hot """ndo 011' .. k, to tftll tHt ond 1<>U1h. No lmpoctt to <rttlal 1,011 on,H• oro prnpostcl. T!io 1ppllallon 11 ,1 .. requutln1 o 11,0,t modl~atlon from U,1 roqulrod h1ll"tror1 fron1op lm1><...m1111S 1lon1 S llnd Pl, olon1 tho occal tror:ts. to maintain !NI Hillln1 lmpro .. m,M mndlHon 01 tho noli;ht>offlooO. Tho opptlant hll submitted o CnHcal Ar110 5Mly ,r,d • Goollchnlcal En1lnHMn1 St"dy wUh tho 1ppllca~on. PROJECT t.OCATION: l60l an111112 r,roo, ~dS DmDNAL DmRMIIU.TlDM Of NON·51GNIFICANCI, MmOV.ltll (DNMI~ ,., the lad Aprl<y, !ho Dty ol Rot>ton ha d-....,od that .icntfic:ont onvt...........ial lmpctJ .,. IA'llikely"' .-ft from tho""""""" p,ojoct. TI,orofoN. a pann-...-111o~two.nc.1w.111101yof-lo"""'thoOi>tlotlalDN$--M_..,.,..,.,_....,. DrG-M 11~ tu bel......i.""""*>t ~lotll,o pn,jffl:1nd1"' pro;,osld Df'IS.-M 1rolntqn1odlnto, .,._ -poriod.Tller.wrilbetlO_ ........ -...... --ofllw_Dal_of_ Slv,lfbr,n-Mltlptad IONS-M~ Thll ""Y t>o Ille....., o~ '° ,;ammont on II-. -.1111mpoca of u,,. P<Opmai.A14-day__..~wMllollaw!l,.llluanaofll'IIIDrG-M. NDTIQ Qf CCIMPl.rn APPUCAT1DN1 APPUCANT/l'IIOJECl"COHTACT PutllDN, 011 .... ,.....,._m,wbe """l...r, AprtlU.1011 A;,~110,1016 Jon Nolonn, Lind D .... opment: """11Dfl, UC J 121ft SI 47"" Pl / Bou .. uo, WA HOOS/ Oll-4&6-51113 / londftnduloai"IIP<amco1r.not fmm'111V11ontal (w>AJ ltlvtow, Shon 1'!11 Rmow If...., wauld fiko ID be mado a pany of roconl tu nlUlft fur1hor lnfannltjon on 1111, prollQHd projtcr. complr,a Intl fomtond l'fl.lm tDcOtyoflletlton,CEll-Pl1nnt"I ~ lOSSSo.GractyW-,. llenton. WA!IIQS7. N,mtff ... "'°'' V.....,VUO Short Pia! /UJAl-72. SHl'l.·A,. IMlD NAME: ________________________ _ MAIUNGADDAESS: ___________ C!TY/'Sl"ATI/ZIP:, ___ __c __ _ Tl:i.E.P~DNEIIO.: __________ _ '! CONSISn;NCI' OVIRVIIW! lonlnl/Land u,11 Envl""1mlllllll Doaa-thn Evol...,.lhoPn,pa1 ... Pr<>)K11 OONlopmtnt R'lullllDIII Uood for ""'Jttt Mlllplbr, Dopfflm,m GICcmm«nlty. ~o.wtopn, .... (UDI -l'lannlna ::~""' Slrth f!Qa, Rorrtcn City H•II, 1au Sautl, Grady w.,., RtfflGII, WA T!i1 wb)oct •~• hu I d"'l1n1~"" al lltlldontlal Modlum lluUty (RMO) Comproh1n1MI Land UH Mop and llftl-lol-t lHII on th• City's lon1r>1 Mo <n•l<onmon,.I (5£PA) c:t,,dllst Tho projoct will bo sutrjad to tho <1ty'1 S£P1 or,!Jnm<a, IIMC4'1•1l.OA. 4-4, M OIO, 4-7, ._. ond -opplbbla-Md...-.-.. oppn,p,t!Q. ....._..Ylt!pllan-_, The -.... MIii-in_.... will U...., bt 1-on d>I --p,ojo,tt. Tbno _ t.lttlptlon ___ projed: lmpocb -m-.i,,,tm11rc<0<1aond,...,. ____ _ Pra}ttt tOnstnlttlan shall h required to comp!)' whh the l'fffJmmendatlons found ln the GRtechn/c:al Engineering Study prepared by Geottth Con,ultanu, Inc. dated Mtiy 27, 20.1.4 or an updated report submitted at a /a~rdate. eammen1o "" tlio •bovo opplh:atl"" most be submlttacl In writ1nc 1a Clorll H. ao., S...lof ,11o>nor, cm -Plonnlllf I DM1lot1, !Olli 5oultl Q,adf W-,, llllnton, WA 1105', by 5:0CI PM an May t, 1011. If you 1,o.o que,tlon1 1tlout thlo I propo,ol. or wl1h to bo modi I porty ol ,0<0rd and ru.lvo oddldon1I no~Hcotlon bv mo!, contoci llio l'fojoel Man•ior. Anyono who submlto wrltton commonto will 1utomo~collv betomo I 1>1111' of r0<0rd 1nd will bo nollftld DI ony doti~on , on thl, proJ1tt. A <"PY of tho wb1equ1nt thr11hold dot1mtln,t1on I, 1V1ilabl1 upon raquon. , CONTACT PERSON: Clark Close, Senior Planner; Tel: (425) 430-7289; Email: ccloie@rentonwa,1ov . CERTIFICATION 1, C lt'/71,f,;.. 14-· CA.-o r,,F hereby certify that 3 copies of the above document were posted in _3_ conspicuous places or nearby the described property on Date· .. _ --'-'t....1./..=2._I) t...:/1:...:.6 ____ _ Signed:._....,.~..:c.c.-:......=../t.--'='~:..__------ STATE OF WASHINGTON 55 COUNTY OF KING I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that C.\<>r IL H. C..los-e signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated:.,6;~Q, 2e; ...,.,, ~,,,,, o"~' ~IP'' ti~;~~ \ ~\ '°"-~1 , ~ j -,~8.29.'\ ~: ~. s~~..? ,., . W/Ji "'" '\\~,,,,,,,, ..... Notary (Print): My appointment expires: __ -LA;:="-"'6s:t=-i-.....::.;;;,..q:.,.,......s2oa0..:..,.\ 3:....1... __ _ ~ I / DEPARTMENT OF coliuNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT • ----------Ren ton ® ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS-M) -MITIGATED Pursuant to WAC 197-11-600(4)(c) and WAC 197-11-625 Addendum to the Valley Vue Preliminary Plat (LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD) as Addended by the City of Renton (LUA16-000272, SHPL-A, MOD) Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M) Date of Addendum: Date of Original Issuance of SEPA Threshold Determination: May 16, 2016 May 18, 2015 Proponent: Project Numbers: Project Name: Location: Lead Agency: Review Process: Rory Dees, Rad Holdings, LLC LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD and LUA16-000272, SHPL-A, MOD Formerly Valley Vue Preliminary Plat now Valley Vue Short Plat 3106 and 3112 Talbot Road S, Renton, WA 98055 (APN 302305-9028) City of Renton, Department of Community & Economic Development Addendum to previously issued Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M) Proposal/ Purpose of Addendum: The original SEPA threshold determination for the Valley Vue Preliminary Plat was issued on May 18, 2015. The original application included a proposal for a 9-lot subdivision over a 2.3-acre site 1 . The project site is located within the Residential Medium Density (RMD) land use designation and the Residential-8 zoning district. The original proposal included retaining the existing single family house located at 3106 and incorporating it into the subdivision. The existing home at 3112 was formerly proposed to be demolished, but it is proposed to be retained. As part of the original 9-lot subdivision, the applicant was proposing access the eight (8) new residential lots from Winsper Division No. 1 Subdivision via two (2) dedicated ingress and egress tracts (Tract G and Tract H) located north of S 32nd Pl. 1 The project site is also referenced as Tax Lot No. 28 of the Winsper Division I Plat and two separate tracts {Tract G and Tract H) were recorded specifically for the future ingress, egress and utilities to Tax lot No. 28. The tracts are owned and maintained by Winsper Community Organization until deeded to Tax Lot No. 28 at no cost when development approvals are granted by the authorized jurisdiction (Recording Number 198903141032). • Addendum to Environmental (SEPA) Review • Page 2 of 5 May 16, 2016 The original SEPA determination included four (4) mitigation measures requiring compliance with the recommendations found in the Geotechnical Engineering Study, all planting within the critical area buffer to be by hand, access to the stormwater tract for maintenance and operation of the utility via a utility access easement, and access to the lots be constructed using the up-and-coming (at the time} shared driveway standards that were adopted after the application was determined complete. The City of Renton's Hearing Examiner issued a Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law & Final Decision on July 28, 2015 to deny the Valley Vue Preliminary Plat. A 14-day appeal period commenced from the date of the hearing examiner's decision and ended on August 11, 2015. No appeals or requests for reconsideration were filed. The current proposal, for the same 2.3-acre parcel, is a 2-lot short plat and a street modification. The proposed short plat would subdivide the parcel into two (2) residential lots, retaining both existing single family homes, and one (1) Native Growth Protection Tract (Tract A}. The applicant is no longer proposing a stormwater tract so Mitigation Measure #3 would no longer be applicable to the project. The two proposed residential lots are 41,970 SF (Lot 1) and 40,200 SF (Lot 2) with an average lot size of 41,085 SF. The residential density is 0.96 dwelling units per net acre. Access to the two (2) new residential lots is proposed via a 24-foot wide dedicated ingress/egress and utility easement tract (Tract H} from S 32nd Pl through Winsper Division No. 1 subdivision. The applicant is proposing to comply with the current shared private driveway standards of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC 4-6-0GOJ}, which was passed by the Renton City Council on October 20, 2014 (Ord. No. 5727, effective October 29, 2014). Proposed roadway improvements to the site include a paved 16-foot wide shared driveway through Tract H and a driveway apron with driveway wings meeting City of Renton Standards Driveway Detail (COR Std Plan 104.1) would be required within the within the public right-of-way along S 32nd Pl. The previous preliminary plat proposal was subject to private street standards which contributed to developments that was not in keeping with the vision of the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, vehicular and pedestrian access would no longer be required to the eastern part of the lot, so the shared driveway through the existing Winsper Division No. 1 Tracts G would no longer be applicable to the project. There are 142 significant trees on the site and the applicant is proposing to retain all of the original trees. No new trees are proposed to be planted so this would make Mitigation Measure #2 no longer applicable to the project. The eastern portion of the site is comprised of an established forest that extends off-site to the east and south with a Category Ill wetland with moderate habitat scores (5 to 7 points). No impacts to critical areas onsite are proposed. The application is also requesting a street modification from the required half-street frontage improvements along S 32nd Pl, along access Tract H, in order to maintain the existing improvement condition of the neighborhood. Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21C, 1971 as amended) on May 18, 2015 the City's Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M) for the Valley Vue Preliminary Plat. The DNS-M included four (4) mitigation measures. A 14-day appeal period commenced on May 22, 2015 and ended on June 5, 2015. No appeals of the threshold determination were filed. • • Addendum to Environmental (SEPA) Review Page 3 of 5 May 16, 2016 Original Mitigation Measures: 1. Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations found in the Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Geotech Consultants, Inc. dated May 27, 2014 or an updated report submitted at a later date. 2. The applicant shall plant all trees that are within the 50-foot standard wetland buffer by hand and without heavy machinery. To the greatest extent feasible, these trees should be planted in areas where invasive species are present. A tree planting plan shall be provided to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval prior to construction permit issuance. 3. The applicant shall provide a minimum 12-to 15-foot wide utility access easement to the stormwoter tract (Tract D) for maintenance and operation of the utility. The easement shall be recorded and documentation provided to the City prior to approval the issuance of the construction permit application. 4. The applicant shall provide a shared driveway through the existing Winsper Division No. 1 Subdivision tracts (Tracts G and H) that ore consistent with the shared private driveway stand[ards] of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC 4-6-060K}. The private access roads shall meet the minimum necessary to provide for safe and effective access for the existing residents, proposed residents, and fire and emergency vehicles. Analysis: It has been determined that the environmental impacts of the proposal were adequately addressed under the analysis of significant impacts contained within the previously adopted DNS-M. Based on WAC 197-11-600{4)(c), the addendum process may be used if analysis or information is added that does not substantially change the analysis of significant impacts and alternatives in the existing environmental document. The City of Renton is hereby issuing a SEPA Addendum pursuant to WAC 197-11-600. This Addendum is appropriate because it contains only minor information not included in the original Determination and there are no additional environmental impacts related to inclusion of the new information. The proposal will not change the analysis or impacts in the original SEPA Review. However, the proposed revision and resubmittal of the plat has also increased the standard buffer from the delineated wetland edge from 50 feet to 100 feet as a result of the adoption of new Critical Areas Regulations (Ordinance No. 5757, effective dote July 5, 2015). Therefore, the applicable mitigation measure to be retained includesMitigation Measure #1 and the modified Mitigation Measure #4. They are as follows: Proposed Mitigation Measures: 1. Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations found in the Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Geotech Consultants, Inc. dated Moy 27, 2014 or on updated report submitted at o later dote. • • Addendum to Environmental (SEPA) Review Page 4 of S May 16, 2016 4. The applicant shall provide a paved 16-foot wide shared driveway through the existing Winsper Division No. 1 Tracts H that is consistent with the shared private driveway standards of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC 4-6-0601}. The private access roads shall meet the minimum necessary to provide for safe and effective access far the existing residents, proposed residents, and fire and emergency vehicles. DECISION: The City of Renton is hereby issuing a SEPA Addendum pursuant to WAC 197-11- 600 to retain mitigation #1, remove mitigation measures #2 and #3 and modify mitigation measure #4 as proposed. Additional Information: If you would like additional information, please contact Clark Close, Senior Planner, City of Renton Planning Division, Department of Community & Economic Development at (425) 430-7289. There is no comment period for this Addendum, dated May 16, 2016 issued by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee. • Addendum to Environmental (SEPA) Review Page 5 of 5 May 16, 2016 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE SIGNATURES: Community Services Department C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator Department of Community & Economic Development • Date Date Date • ATTN: Clark H. Close Department of Community& Economic Development 1055 South Grady Way Renton VVA 98055 April 26, 2016 Dear Mr. Close, • I have numerous concerns regarding the Valley Vue Short Plat proposal (LUA16--000272). My first concern was that short-plat proposals do not require a public hearing. This parcel was subject to substantial community input during the previous proposal and hearing process (LUA14-001040) in July 2015. I was relieved when you notified me that the Administrator agreed that a public hearing is warranted and transferred the decision of this proposal to the Hearing Examiner, because any access to the parcel from the Winsper Community would require variances to the standard. codes. However, since we have not received a notice of hearing and the 14 day comment period has started, I feel compelled to get my concerns on record. The previous proposal was denied by the Hearing Examiner finding that: " ... the denial is due to private access roads proposed by the applicant that fail to meet city code or qualify for code modifications." It was also noted that "the adjoining homes next to the access tract are located only five feet from the property lines of the access tracts and there is no room within the access tracts for any shoulder or other space to accommodate any vehicular course corrections." The access tractH has not changed, and the conditions that warranted a denial are still relevant. The current proposal does not address maintenance of access easement, nor does it meet Code Standards for private driveway, shared driveway, private road, or limited residential access. Additionally, Mr. Dees is requesting a variance suggesting that "The lot creation will provide frontage onto the access easement and not a right-of-way S. 32nd Place". My driveway flairs within one foot of the property line, and the house is angled towards the proposed shared driveway, that would have vehicle traffic passing within a few feet of my front door and living room bay window. This is a detriment to personal wellbeing. I_ ask that no discretionary modifications/variances be granted as any modification is at the expense of the Winsper Community. This request would allow for the easement to be a public road without following codes, in addition it would give the Dees parcel a Right Of Way (ROW) frontage for future higher development consideration. In essence, it would allow him to develop "through the back door, that which he would have never been allowed through the front". Higher development density would impact the safety, privacy, and enjoyment of the bordering Winsper neighbors. I ask that no discretionary modifications/variances be granted for this project as they are clearly at the expense of the surrounding neighbors. With regards to the comment period for the DNS-M, and the proposed mitigation measure for this proposal; I strongly oppose the use the 2014 Geotechnical report being used for this purpose. The 2014 report and recommendations are not relevant to the LUA-16-000272 proposal, as they were derived for the LUA-14-001040 proposal which was substantially different in content. This report clearly states that the recommendations are based on 8 residential lots, storm water detention pond, grading, and retaining walls. None of these elements are part of the LUA-16-000272 plan. The 2014 report also states that if the scope of the project changes, modifications to recommendations and conclusions may be warranted. I also object to this document being used because it does nothing to address the safety concerns voiced by neighbors and articulated in the Hearing Examiner report. There was a Geological Risk waiver signed by Dees, but no public information as to why this was required. The project narrative suggests that the wetland area to the east will be placed in a tract for inclusion with the adjacent protect area tract located in Winsper. I doubt that the Wins per HOA is on board with t.his, _. \D concept. The Winsper Community paid a great deal of money to fence the wetland to proteqt'ag'i!i~s!J 'f: liability, and has no desire to increase liability with additional wetlands. \<I: •.-.1 L--• ,, ')"' ,;, r,pp ~\ ,'.l i_•\.J ,..J.., 'I " • In addition, The Winsper Division Plat map, clearly states the intended condition required to grant the Winsper access tracts (see graphic). King County will not be approving development for this, as Renton is the hearing body. in· addition, the proposal is for a lot split, with the existing houses remaining. No new development is being proposed, • ... .;:·;ACT .H • ~TUAE INOAES~~-;~Q!I ANO UTILITIES ONLY TO :,<AX LOT NO, -z.e -OWNED AHO llilAINr.&!l'.'!0 BT WINSP[A ,•COMMUNIT'(',ORV,11,NIZATION UNTIL o~o TO TM[ OWNER o, ... •'rA)C LOT NOH .t,NO COST WHEH KINC,'.cou~n 4flf'ROV[S ~ DMLOl't.l!NT 0~ 1'Ax LOT NO. 29 WHICH' .R[OUIF!e:S THE US( .. Oft· THIS (ff4CT ANO{Oft TRACT a: '•',, IA,.~. LO! ~·', 28 ·,·.-.... . "·:: . .,.-SOUTH€ and the existing houses do not need ingress/egress from the WinsperTract H as they are still being served off the private road from Talbot that has served them for 50 years. This road is paved, labeled "private road" with the house numbers, and is the same slope as that leading into the Winsper · neighborhood. This proposal does not meet the requirements to have the easements granted by the Winsper Community. In closing, I would like to emphasize that the existing private road from Talbot is the same slope as that in the Winsper Community and has been the access to this parcel for 50 years. It is already is paved. to lot 28 and has a street sign saying "Private Road 3106, 3112 and 3120". Talbot Rd.Sis classified by the. City as a collector arterial and should be improved for public safety. This is the most direct emergency access to this parcel. Emergency access through Winsper would require navigation of four additional tight turns, though a high density neighborhood where kids play in the street, to travel down a non-conforming driveway without the required. width or setbacks, and sandwiched between two houses. It's a recipe for disaster! Sincerely, i_! ([A \LC >(_ Mary Klaas Sch!)llz ·-} 618 s 32"• Place Renton WA 98055 , / / I • I .~,. l./··' cc: Denis law, Renton Mayor Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer) Chartes Vincent, Director, Department of Community and Eoonomic Development (CED) Jennifer Henning, Director, CED, Planning Division Vanessa Dolbee, Manager, CED, Planning Division • ' 'j ~ ., ,O*e·i>···n· .. ::.t·· 'o··· _:Yn9Fi·:• . ,,. ·! :-,, ·1•' ;·_-, ..• .IX. .; -~· / ·.··: ·._ < .: ' -·<g.- .•• ,. ' . ' •., -. .-.. ~-· ,, ' ·• .• \ ' .. i' '.·f·· ,· ... ,.. . ... . ',' : ',/' '•i,:... .• ti· ,,.-·,,, NOTICE OFAPPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF . . NON-SIGNIFICANCE~MIJIGATED (PNS-M)' A Master Appl1'8tlon haS been· flied and a~epted With the Department Of. Community&" EC~!"offllc Deve.loP.ment · . . (CED)-Planning iiivlslori of the City of Renton; The foll owing briefly descrlbei the appllciltlon 'and the riecessarv . Public Approvals. ' · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · .: DATE DF NOTICE DF APPLICATION: AprH iil, 2016 . LAND USE NUMBER: . . LUAi6-000272, S~PL-A: MOD PROJECT NAME: Valley Vue Short Plat · . PROJECT DESCRIPTION: .. . Th~. applica~t is requesti,;g approval of a i;lot short. plat. and a street modification. Tli.-Slte·1s·100,1as· square feel"(B 'acres)alid Is iocatea a0106 and. 3112 Talbot-Rd'S (APN:~302305' 9028}, adjacent.to Winsper Division N0.1-subdivislon; The property is in the Resid~ntial-8 (R-8} zoning district. There are · · two (2) single family residences (3106 and 3112) located on th~ parcel that gain access to the site from Talbot Road S. ·The pr(;posed. short ·Plat -would subdivide' _the·.:parc'el: Into· two (2) residential IDts, leaving both exiSting, houses . . undiSturbed, and one (1) NatiVe Growth P~otection_ Tract (Tract A}. ThE!' two. prOpoSed're"side'ntial lots are 41,970 SF (Lof 1) and 40,200 SF (Lot 2) ·with an average lot size of 4i,OS5 SF .. The residential density is 0.96 dwelling units per net acre. AccesS to the rlew r~sidE!ntial·lots.Js projJosed.Via·a 16.foot wide d~il/ewayfrom S 32nd Pl thr~ugh Winsper Divlslon:No. l. · Subdivision (Tract H) vi.i the 24-foot"wide ded1caied lngress/egre_ss ea"semenfarea. There are 142 slgnlfltant trees on the· site ·and the "applicant Is propoSing -tO .retain all Of th~ ori&inal tr·ees. The eastern P~rtlon o( the Site js compriSi!d ~f established forest with ··a catego_ry Ill wetland:that exterids ·off-site to. t~e east and _south. No impacts to critiC31 areas · onsite are proposed. The. applicatiorl is· ii1so· requesting a street modification· from the required half-street trOntage improvements along_ S 32nd Pl, _along the access tracts, to maintain the: existing lmProvement _conditio·n of the neighb~rhoOd. The ·applicant has submitted a .CrltJcal Areas .Study and a G'eotechnical Engineering Study with th_e ·application.-; · PROJECT LOCATION: 3601 and 3112 Talbot Rd S ' ' . . . ' 0°PTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NDN-SIGNIACANCE, MITIGATED (DNS-M): As the Lead Agenq, the :aty of ·Renton has determined that' significant environmental imp.ii:ts are ·unlikely to result fr'om' the propOsed ·project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW .43.2iC.110, the City of Renton Is using the Optional ONS-M process to give notic'e that a oNs-. M 1s·nke1{to be iss~ed; Comment Periods for thE!::project ·and the ·propoSed DNS~M are ·1ntegrated.lnto·a single comment period. There will be no cofflment period following the ·issuance of the Threshold Determincition of Non- Signlflcance-Mitlgated (DNS·M)_-Thls may be the only opportunity to comment on the environmental impacts· of the proposal. A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS·M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: . . . . NOTICE OF COMPLETE A~PLICATION: APPLICANT /PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Permits/Review Requested: Other Permits which may be required: Requested.Studies: April 12; 2016 April 20, 2016 . Jon Nelson, Land Development Advisors, LLC / 12865 SE 47"' Pl / Bel!evue, WA 98006 / 4zs.466-5203 / landdevadvisors@comcast.net Env~ronmental (SEPA) Review, Short Plat ~eviewR EC E f VE D · construction Permit · Geotechnical Report, Wetland Assessment APR 2 7 2016 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: aty of Renton, CED-Planning Division, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Name/File No.: Valley Vue Short Plat /LUA16-000272, SHPL-A, MOD NAME: 1)(fy/& 't [44/ Ul;1'\ MAILING ADDRESS: 70"f 5°,) 3 / 4T TELEPHONE NO.: 2..o1' -'f "s-0 '-i 3 clTY/STATE/ZIP, K-4ii, 2JA 91 o-.S <{' • • April 19, 2016 1055 South Grady Way Renton,Wash.98055 To: Mayor Dennis Law • RECEIVED APR 2 2 2016 MAYOR'S OFFICE Project No. PRE15-000691 Project Name: Valley View Short Plat The project plan calls for using the west easement in Winsper Div 1 I am rejecting this Project because it does not meet a number of the Standard Codes adopted by the City of Renton for using Easements as well as other related issues. See attached pages. Bruce Truong • • Valley View Petition We the undersigned residents ofWinsper Community object to the Valley View proposal going forward and request a Public Hearing to voice our concerns. The access tract to the parcel from our Community has not changed since the previous "Valley Vue" proposal was denied in July 2015 by the Hearing Examiner finding that; "Since the private access tracts proposed by the applicant do not meet the city code and the noncompliance does not qualify for a modification, the subdivision must be denied. " The new Valley View proposal clearly does not meet a number of the Renton Codes for a Shared Driveway, Private Driveway or a Limited Residential Access . 4-6-060 J. SHARED DRIVEWAY STANDARDS: 1. When Permitted: Shared driveways may be allowed for access to four (4) or fewer residential lots, provided: a. At least one of the four (4) lots abuts a public right-of-way with at least fifty (SO) linear feet of property; and e. The shared driveway is no more than two hundred feet (200') in length; and (the access from 32nd Place, across tract Hand to the back house would be at least 286 ft long according to the King County Parcel map) f. The shared driveway poses no safety risk and provides sufficient access for emergency vehicles and personnel; (statements from the City and the Hearing Examiner have already stated that the tract is insufficient to provide adequate spacing and presents a safety risk to adjacent neighbors at 618 and 624) Driveway standards: (all others) 4-4-080 I b ii. Driveway width (aggregate width if more than one driveway exists) shall not exceed forty percent (40%) of the street frontage. (Ord. 3988, 4-28-1986) iii. Driveways shall not be closer than five feet (S') to any property line (except as allowed under subsection 17 of this Section, Joint Use Driveways). • . . Name 511~/'oN Wi~ (a.,,..J_ ;:r, K'; Y·" I y, Ki • Address Phone Number ~~-.2Z?-57Sc) i / ,J, I SM,_; T He& 4 So 1-2..s-'lifK'£? 3SFO 1 c, S s-1b :$0 r:i..R I t v '-kJ..S a.. J 7 fi '7,)7 i Name • Address • Phone Number 4'2..Y I) tJ 44-- • April 19, 2016 1055 South Grady Way Renton,Wash.98055 • To: Clark H. Close, Planning Divison Project No. PRE15-000691 Project Name: Valley View Short Plat The project plan calls for using the west easement in Winsper Div 1 I am rejecting this Project because it does not meet a number of the Standard Codes adopted by the City of Renton for using Easements as well as other related issues. See attached pages. ~ .. ·J:ce Truong NOISl/110 8NINNVld NO!N:lcl ::10 All:> 9tOZ 9 Z t!d\f 03/\13:)3cJ • • Valley View Petition • We the undersigned residents ofWinsper Community object to the Valley View proposal going forward and request a Public Hearing to voice our concerns. The access tract to the parcel from our Community has not changed since the previous "Valley Vue" proposal was denied in July 2015 by the Hearing Examiner finding that; "Since the private access tracts proposed by the applicant do not meet the city code and the noncompliance does not qualify for a modification, the subdivision must be denied. " The new Valley View proposal clearly does not meet a number of the Renton Codes for a Shared Driveway, Private Driveway or a Limited Residential Access. 4-6-060 J. SHARED DRIVEWAY STANDARDS: 1. When Permitted: Shared driveways may be allowed for access to four (4) or fewer residential lots, provided: a. At least one of the four (4) lots abuts a public right-of-way with at least fifty (50) linear feet of property; and e. The shared driveway is no more than two hundred feet (200') in length; and (the access from 32"d Place, across tract Hand to the back house would be at least 286 ft long according to the King County Parcel map) f. The shared driveway poses no safety risk and provides sufficient access for emergency vehicles and personnel; (statements from the City and the Hearing Examiner have already stated that the tract is insufficient to provide adequate spacing and presents a safety risk to adjacent neighbors at 618 and 624) Driveway standards: (all others) 4-4-080 I b ii. Driveway width (aggregate width if more than one driveway exists) shall not exceed forty percent (40%) of the street frontage. (Ord. 3988, 4-28-1986) iii. Driveways shall not be closer than five feet (5') to any property line (except as.allowed under subsection 17 of this Section, Joint Use Driveways). l • Clark H. Close Department of Community & Economic Development 1055 South Grady Way Dear Mr. Close, • We have just been informed that Mr. Dees is proposing another plan to develop the property behind the Winsper community, with access from our neighborhood. It appears that the new plan does not meet a number of the Renton Codes which are in place to protect the public. We do not want this property to be accessed through our neighborhood because it puts the residents in our neighborhood in harm's way. It was made very clear by the Hearing Examiner for the previous Valley Vue project that spacing along these easements were insufficient and would place the nearby property owners and public at risk for injury. The easements have not changed, nor have the neighboring houses and conditions. The fire at this property was a real wake-up call for many of us in the neighborhood about how important the codes that protect our safety are. There was a fatality in that fire last year, and the newspaper stated that the rescue was compromised by poor access. The access in this new proposal would be even more difficult for a large fire truck to navigate and put many more people at risk. We urge you to support the improvement of the current access directly off of Talbot. It is the only thing that seems to make sense. • • • Based on the latest proposal which approved by the City of Renton, Valley Vue Short Plat /LUAlG-000272, SHPL-A, MOD, dated April 20, 2016, we do not agree with the City of Renton going forward plan. We strongly request the City of Renton to hold a public hearing to address concerns and code violations on this project to ensure the safety of the Winsper residence. • Clark H. Close Department of Community & Economic Development 1055 South Grady Way Dear Mr. Close, • We have just been informed that Mr. Dees is proposing another plan to develop the property behind the Winsper community, with access from our neighborhood. It appears that the new plan does not meet a number of the Renton Codes which are in place to protect the public. We do not want this property to be accessed through our neighborhood because it puts the residents in our neighborhood in harm's way. It was made very clear by the Hearing Examiner for the previous Valley Vue project that spacing along these easements were insufficient and would place the nearby property owners and public at risk for injury. The easements have not changed, nor have the neighboring houses and conditions. The fire at this property was a real wake-up call for many of us in the neighborhood about how important the codes that protect our safety are. There was a fatality in that fire last year, and the newspaper stated that the rescue was compromised by poor access. The access in this new proposal would be even more difficult for a large fire truck to navigate and put many more people at risk. We urge you to support the improvement of the current access directly off of Talbot. It is the only thing that seems to make sense. RECEIVED . APR 2 5 2016 · Cli"Y OF RENTON ?LANNING DIVISION --~---------------- • I ' ' -• • Based on the latest proposal which approved by the City of Renton, Valley Vue Short Plat /LUA16-000272, SHPL-A, MOD, dated April 20, 2016, we do not agree with the City of Renton going forward plan. We strongly request the City of Renton to hold a public hearing to address concerns and code violations on this project to ensure the safety of the Winsper residence. ;. • Clark H. Close Department of Community & Economic Development 1055 South Grady Way Dear Mr. Close, • We are strongly opposed to the Valley View plan. This would bring dust, rats and traffic into our peaceful neighborhood. We are concerned that this does not seem to conform to the Renton laws. We understood from the Hearing of Valley Vue that if that plan was denied, Dees would need to follow the new set of Codes which were adopted recently. This plan is dangerous to our neighbors who live adjacent to the easements (mentioned previously by Charles Vincent and the Hearing Examiner) and are too narrow to meet the code which requires a minimum of 50 feet public road frontage for a shared driveway. In addition, code requires that driveways not exceed 40% of the public road frontage, which is an issue as 40% of this access is nine feet and would create numerous safety issues. A driveway going from 32"d Place access tract, to the rear exceeds the 200 feet fire safety code. This lot and the existing houses have always been served from the Talbot access, and it is an established access. This access should be maintained and imoroved. RECEIVED APR 2 5 2016 CITY OF RENTON PLANN'NG DIVISION • • Based on the latest proposal which approved by the City of Renton, Valley Vue Short Plat /LUAlG-000272, SHPL-A, MOD, dated April 20, 2016, we do not agree with the City of Renton going forward plan. We strongly request the City of Renton to hold a public hearing to address concerns and code violations on this project to ensure the safety of the Winsper residence. • pClark H. Close Department of Community & Economic Development 1055 South Grady Way Dear Mr. Close, • We have just been informed that Mr. Dees is proposing another plan to develop the property behind the Winsper community, with access from our neighborhood. It appears that the new plan does not meet a number of the Renton Codes which are in place to protect the public. We do not want this property to be accessed through our neighborhood because it puts the residents in our neighborhood in harm's way. It was made very clear by the Hearing Examiner for the previous Valley Vue project that spacing along these easements were insufficient and would place the nearby property owners and public at risk for injury. The easements have not changed, nor have the neighboring houses and conditions. The fire at this property was a real wake-up call for many of us in the neighborhood about how important the codes that protect our safety are. There was a fatality in that fire last year, and the newspaper stated that the rescue was compromised by poor access. The access in this new proposal would be even more difficult for a large fire truck to navigate and put many more people at risk. We urge you to support the improvement of the current access directly off of Talbot. It is the only thing that seems to make sense. Sincere! , RECE\\/ED p..PR 2 5 2G\\i en'< Of REN1"0N PLANNING DNIS\ON ' ... •. I ,,,. • • Based on the latest proposal which approved by the City of Renton, Valley Vue Short Plat /LUA16-000272, SHPL-A, MOD, dated April 20, 2016, we do not agree with the City of Renton going forward plan. We strongly request the City of Renton to hold a public hearing to address concerns and code violations on this project to ensure the safety of the Winsper residence. • Clark H. Close Department of Community & Economic Development 1055 South Grady Way Dear Mr. Close, • We are strongly opposed to the Valley View plan. This would bring dust, rats and traffic into our peaceful neighborhood. We are concerned that this does not seem to conform to the Renton laws. We understood from the Hearing of Valley Vue that if that plan was denied, Dees would need to follow the new set of Codes which were adopted recently. This plan is dangerous to our neighbors who live adjacent to the easements (mentioned previously by Charles Vincent and the Hearing Examiner) and are too narrow to meet the code which requires a minimum of 50 feet public road frontage for a shared driveway. In addition, code requires that driveways not exceed 40% of the public road frontage, which is an issue as 40% of this access is nine feet and would create numerous safety issues. A driveway going from 32"d Place access tract, to the rear exceeds the 200 feet fire safety code. This lot and the existing houses have always been served from the Talbot access, and it is an established access. This access should be maintained and improved. Sincerely, RECEIVED APR 2 5 2016 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION • • Based on the latest proposal which approved by the City of Renton, Valley Vue Short Plat /LUA16-000272, SHPL-A, MOD, dated April 20, 2016, we do not agree with the City of Renton going forward plan. We strongly request the City of Renton to hold a public hearing to address concerns and code violations on this project to ensure the safety of the Winsper residence. • Clark H. Close Department of Community & Economic Development 1055 South Grady Way Dear Mr. Close, • We would like to go on record saying that we are opposed to the Valley View proposal because it does not conform to the current Renton Municipal Codes and the proposed access point has insufficient spacing which puts our community in direct danger. Sincerely, fl, '.5 ()(/fu,' 1'-1 sf. J 0 Ad Piette /?e;,,f7ln/ wit 5'J"oJJ RECEIVED APR 2 5 2016 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION • • Based on the latest proposal which approved by the City of Renton, Valley Vue Short Plat /LUAlG-000272, SHPL-A, MOD, dated April 20, 2016, we do not agree with the City of Renton going forward plan. We strongly request the City of Renton to hold a public hearing to address concerns and code violations on this project to ensure the safety of the Winsper residence. ., ' • Clark H. Close Department of Community & Economic Development 1055 South Grady Way Dear Mr. Close, • We have just been informed that Mr. Dees is proposing another plan to develop the property behind the Winsper community, with access from our neighborhood. It appears that the new plan does not meet a number of the Renton Codes which are in place to protect the public. We do not want this property to be accessed through our neighborhood because it puts the residents in our neighborhood in harm's way. It was made very clear by the Hearing Examiner for the previous Valley Vue project that spacing along these easements were insufficient and would place the nearby property owners and public at risk for injury. The easements have not changed, nor have the neighboring houses and conditions. The fire at this property was a real wake-up call for many of us in the neighborhood about how important the codes that protect our safety are. There was a fatality in that fire last year, and the newspaper stated that the rescue was compromised by poor access. The access in this new proposal would be even more difficult for a large fire truck to navigate and put many more people at risk. We urge you to support the improvement of the current access directly off of Talbot. It is the only thing that seems to make sense. Sincerely, C ~ (t· ' . RECEIVED APR 2 5 2016 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION I -• • Based on the latest proposal which approved by the City of Renton, Valley Vue Short Plat /LUAlG-000272, SHPL-A, MOD, dated April 20, 2016, we do not agree with the City of Renton going forward plan. We strongly request the City of Renton to hold a public hearing to address concerns and code violations on this project to ensure the safety of the Winsper residence. • Clark H. Close Department of Community & Economic Development 1055 South Grady Way Dear Mr. Close, • We would like to go on record saying that we are opposed to the Valley View proposal because it does not conform to the current Renton Municipal Codes and the proposed access point has insufficient spacing which puts our community in direct danger. S~in ~·'v,,,,.. ,. £:k~{;) i)1 ~ · 7i-,,.~ ft- ~;yf 'l>Vj tJ k 1t i?j( 1i.s/ 7,7,-(-~2--77 RECEIVED APR 2 i1 2016 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION ,., • • Based on the latest proposal which approved by the City of Renton, Valley Vue Short Plat /LUAlG-000272, SHPL-A, MOD, dated April 20, 2016, we do not agree with the City of Renton going forward plan. We strongly request the City of Renton to hold a public hearing to address concerns and code violations on this project to ensure the safety of the Winsper residence. • Clark H. Close Department of Community & Economic Development 1055 South Grady Way Dear Mr. Close, • We would like to go on record saying that we are opposed to the Valley View proposal because it does not conform to the current Renton Municipal Codes and the proposed access point has insufficient spacing which puts our community in direct danger. Sincerely, RECEIVED APR 2 5 2016 CITY or: ~ENTON PLAla>.,!NG DIVISION ----------, .. ~ ·• • • Based on the latest proposal which approved by the City of Renton, Valley Vue Short Plat /LUA16-000272, SHPL-A, MOD, dated April 20, 2016, we do not agree with the City of Renton going forward plan. We strongly request the City of Renton to hold a public hearing to address concerns and code violations on this project to ensure the safety of the Winsper residence. ~.' • Clark H. Close Department of Community & Economic Development 1055 South Grady Way Dear Mr. Close, • We have just been informed that Mr. Dees is proposing another plan to develop the property behind the Winsper community, with access from our neighborhood. It appears that the new plan does not meet a number of the Renton Codes which are in place to protect the public. We do not want this property to be accessed through our neighborhood because it puts the residents in our neighborhood in harm's way. It was made very clear by the Hearing Examiner for the previous Valley Vue project that spacing along these easements were insufficient and would place the nearby property owners and public at risk for injury. The easements have not changed, nor have the neighboring houses and conditions. The fire at this property was a real wake-up call for many of us in the neighborhood about how important the codes that protect our safety are. There was a fatality in that fire last year, and the newspaper stated that the rescue was compromised by poor access. The access in this new proposal would be even more difficult for a large fire truck to navigate and put many more people at risk. We urge you to support the improvement of the current access directly off of Talbot. It is the only thing that seems to make sense. @ RECEIVED APR 2 5 20'', CITY OF Rl~;,,·-·)N PLANNING " ;,vN . . • • Based on the latest proposal which approved by the City of Renton, Valley Vue Short Plat /LUA16-000272, SHPL-A, MOD, dated April 20, 2016, we do not agree with the City of Renton going forward plan. We strongly request the City of Renton to hold a public hearing to address concerns and code violations on this project to ensure the safety of the Winsper residence. • Clark H. Close Department of Community & Economic Development 1055 South Grady Way Dear Mr. Close, • We would like to go on record saying that we are opposed to the Valley View proposal because it does not conform to the current Renton Municipal Codes and the proposed access point has insufficient spacing which puts our community in direct danger. V RECE\\/ED t,PR '1 5 ?J'.S 'f Of R.ENiON C~ANN\NG DIVISION " . ' . • • Based on the latest proposal which approved by the City of Renton, Valley Vue Short Plat /LUA16-000272, SHPL-A, MOD, dated April 20, 2016, we do not agree with the City of Renton going forward plan. We strongly request the City of Renton to hold a public hearing to address concerns and code violations on this project to ensure the safety of the Winsper residence. ~--------------------- . . • .,_ ' • Clark H. Close Department of Community & Economic Development 1055 South Grady Way Dear Mr. Close, • We would like to go or, record saying that we are opposed to the Valley View proposal because it does not conform to the current Renton Municipal Codes and the proposed access point has insufficient spacing which puts our community in direct danger. RECEIVED APR 2 5 2016 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING Dtv1Sl0N ·'J • "I';--· • • Based on the latest proposal which approved by the City of Renton, Valley Vue Short Plat /LUA16-000272, SHPL-A, MOD, dated April 20, 2016, we do not agree with the City of Renton going forward plan. We strongly request the City of Renton to hold a public hearing to address concerns and code violations on this project to ensure the safety of the Winsper residence. • Clark H. Close Department of Community & Economic Development 1055 South Grady Way Dear Mr. Close, • We would like to go on record saying that we are opposed to the Valley View proposal because it does not conform to the current Renton Municipal Codes and the proposed access point has insufficient spacing which puts our community in direct danger. Sincerely, ~ RECEIVED APR 2 5 2016 CITY Of RENTON PLANNING D1V1Si0N • • Based on the latest proposal which approved by the City of Renton, Valley Vue Short Plat /LUA16-000272, SHP~-A, MOD, dated April 20, 2016, we do not agree with the City of Renton going forward plan. We strongly request the City of Renton to hold a public hearing to address concerns and code violations on this project to ensure the safety of the Winsper residence. ' .I .. I • Clark H. Close Department of Community & Economic Development 1055 South Grady Way Dear Mr. Close, • We are strongly opposed to the Valley View plan. This would bring dust, rats and traffic into our peaceful neighborhood. We are concerned that this does not seem to conform to the Renton laws. We understood from the Hearing of Valley Vue that if that plan was denied, Dees would need to follow the new set of Codes which were adopted recently. This plan is dangerous to our neighbors who live adjacent to the easements (mentioned previously by Charles Vincent and the Hearing Examiner) and are too narrow to meet the code which requires a minimum of 50 feet public road frontage for a shared driveway. In addition, code requires that driveways not exceed 40% of the public road frontage, which is an issue as 40% of this access is nine feet and would create numerous safety issues. A driveway going from 32"d Place access tract, to the rear exceeds the 200 feet fire safety code. This lot and the existing houses have always been served from the Talbot access, and it is an established access. This access should be maintained and improved. RECEIVED APR 2 5 20'.6 CITY OF RENTON .'LANNING DIVISION I ./•. • • Based on the latest proposal which approved by the City of Renton, Valley Vue Short Plat /LUA16-000272, SHPL-A, MOD, dated April 20~ 2016, we do not agree with the City of Renton going forward plan. We strongly request the City of Renton to hold a public hearing to address concerns and code violations on this project to ensure the safety of the Winsper residence. '· • Clark H. Close Department of Community & Economic Development 1055 South Grady Way Dear Mr. Close, • We have just been informed that Mr. Dees is proposing another plan to develop the property behind the Winsper community, with access from our neighborhood: It appears that the new plan does not meet a number of the Renton Codes which are in place to protect the public. We do not want this property to be accessed through our neighborhood because it puts the residents in our neighborhood in harm's way. It was made very clear by the Hearing Examiner for the previous Valley Vue project that spacing along these easements were insufficient and would place the nearby property owners and public at risk for injury. The easements have not changed, nor have the neighboring houses and conditions. The fire at this property was a real wake-up call for many of us in the neighborhood about how important the codes that protect our safety are. There was a fatality in that fire last year, and the newspaper stated that the rescue was compromised by poor access. The access in this new proposal would be even more difficult for a large fire truck to navigate and put many more people at risk. We urge you to support the improvement of the current access directly off of Talbot. It is the only thing that seems to make sense. Sincerely, Jj/~~ IPD& S, 3 'lt\_d.._ Pr, RECEIVED APR 2 5 20\5 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION . , ,• ' • • Based on the latest proposal which approved by the City of Renton, Valley Vue Short Plat /LUA16-000272, SHPL-A, MOD, dated April 20, 2016, we do not agree with the City of Renton going forward plan. We strongly request the City of Renton to hold a public hearing to address concerns and code violations on this project to ensure the safety of the· Winsper residence. • Clark H. Close Department of Community & Economic Development 1055 South Grady Way Dear Mr. Close, We are strongly opposed to the Valley View plan. This would bring dust, rats and traffic into our peaceful neighborhood. We are concerned that this does not seem to conform to the Renton laws. We understood from the Hearing of Valley Vue that if that plan was denied, Dees would need to follow the new set of Codes which were adopted recently. This plan is dangerous to our neighbors who live adjacent to the easements (mentioned previously by Charles Vincent and the Hearing Examiner) and are too narrow to meet the code which requires a minimum of 50 feet public road frontage for a shared driveway. In addition, code requires that driveways not exceed 40% of the public road frontage, which is an issue as 40% of this access is nine feet and would create numerous safety issues. A driveway going from 32"d Place access tract, to the rear exceeds the 200 feet fire safety code. This lot and thee isting houses have always been served from the Talbot access, an~ 'l hed1'."'· ~ •;;:j'~/'"'ji.'d and lmpmved. Sincerely, °J .. • , r • • Based on the latest proposal which approved by the City of Renton, Valley Vue Short Plat /LUA16-000272, SHPL-A, MOD, dated April 20, 2016, we do not agree with the City of Renton going forward plan. We strongly request the City of Renton to hold a public hearing to address concerns and code violations on this project to ensure the safety of the Winsper residence. • ' r' • Clark H. Close Department of Community & Economic Development 1055 South Grady Way Dear Mr. Close, --------------• \/ We would like to go on record saying that we are opposed to the Valley View proposal because it does not conform to the current Renton Municipal Codes and the proposed access point has insufficient spacing which puts our community in direct danger. Sincerely, s= ~ Nrr I ~~s} PAD . nor on ~<k< RECE\VED /l,PR ?, 5 20\6 CIT'I Qi= RENTON Pt.ANNING DIVISION . ' ' ' • • Based on the latest proposal which approved by the City of Renton, Valley Vue Short Plat /LUA16-000272, SHPL-A, MOD, dated April 20, 2016, we do not agree with the City of Renton going forward plan. We strongly request the City of Renton to hold a public hearing to address concerns and code violations on this project to ensure the safety of the Winsper residence. . . .. • pClark H. Close Department of Community & Economic Development 1055 South Grady Way Dear Mr. Close, • We have just been informed that Mr. Dees is proposing another plan to develop the property behind the Winsper community, with access from our neighborhood. It appears that the new plan does not meet a number of the Renton Codes which are in place to protect the public. We do not want this property to be accessed through our neighborhood because it puts the residents in our neighborhood in harm's way. It was made very clear by the Hearing Examiner for the previous Valley Vue project that spacing along these easements were insufficient and would place the nearby property owners and public at risk for injury. The easements have not changed, nor have the neighboring houses and conditions. The fire at this property was a real wake-up call for many of us in the neighborhood about how important the codes that protect our safety are. There was a fatality in that fire last year, and the newspaper stated that the rescue was compromised by poor access. The access in this new proposal would be even more difficult for a large fire truck to navigate and put many more people at risk. We urge you to support the improvement of the current access directly off of Talbot. It Is the ooly thlog that seems to make "'(§) 1 V ~1>~~ Sincerely, /J~ qn? RECEIVED APR 2 5 20\6 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION . . • • Based on the latest proposal which approved by the City of Renton, Valley Vue Short Plat /LUA16-000272, SHPL-A, MOD, dated April 20, 2016, we do not agree with the City of Renton going forward plan. We strongly request the City of Renton to hold a public hearing to address concerns and code violations on this project to ensure the safety of the Winsper residence. . , .. • Clark H. Close Department of Community & Economic Development 1055 South Grady Way Dear Mr. Close, • We have just been informed that Mr. Dees is proposing another plan to develop the property behind the Winsper community, with access from our neighborhood. It appears that the new plan does not meet a number of the Renton Codes which are in place to protect the public. We do not want this property to be accessed through our neighborhood because it puts the residents in our neighborhood in harm's way. It was made very clear by the Hearing Examiner for the previous Valley Vue project that spacing along these easements were insufficient and would place the nearby property owners and public at risk for injury. The easements have not changed, nor have the neighboring houses and conditions. The fire at this property was a real wake-up call for many of us in the neighborhood about how important the codes that protect our safety are. There was a fatality in that fire last year, and the newspaper stated that the rescue was compromised by poor access. The access in this new proposal would be even more difficult for a large fire truck to navigate and put many more people at risk. We urge you to support the improvement of the current access directly off of Talbot. It is the only thing that seems to make sense. ~~;rJ J'° QV '71 S ?-J~ RECEIVED /\ ~ APR 2 5 2016 Sincerely, CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION • • Based on the latest proposal which approved by the City of Renton, Valley Vue Short Plat /LUA16-000272, SHPL-A, MOD, dated April 20, 2016, we do not agree with the City of Renton going forward plan. We strongly request the City of Renton to hold a public hearing to address concerns and code violations on this project to ensure the safety of the Winsper residence. • • ATIN: Charles Vincent, Administrator Department of Community& Economic Development 1055 South Grady Way · RECEIVED APR 2 7 2016 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION Renton WA 98055 April 24, 2016 Dear Mr. Vincent, The new Dees proposal "Valley Vue" still falls seriously short of meeting multiple Renton Municipal Codes. I am appalled that Mr. Dees would again introduce a plan that clearly is not even close to what is required by law in terms of spacing and safety. I assume that since the City of Renton recently placed a huge amount of resources and care into the overhaul of essentially all of the Renton Municipal codes, and did this with intent and the vision of future development, that the City is highly vested in wanting to uphold these new codes. As you can see from the picture, because of the location of my house on the cul-de-sac, my front yard is only a sliver of property! The first person to underestimate the turn or try to maneuver to miss hitting a pedestrian is likely to run me over in my yard or barrel right into my living room! The Hearing Examiner clearly stated when denying the first proposal that • "the adjoining homes next to the access tract are located only five feet from the property lines of the access tracts and there is no room within the access tracts for any shoulder or other space to accommodate any vehicular course corrections." This was one of the major contentions for complete denial of the plan. The spacing issues have not changed! This access does not meet code for a shared or private driveway. Code clearly states that: "Shared driveways may be allowed for access to four (4) or fewer residential lots, provided: a. At least one of the four (4) lots abuts a public right-of-way with at least fifty (50) linear feet of property; The proposed plan does not meet either of these conditions. 4-4-080 states that: ii. Driveway width (aggregate width if more than one driveway exists) shall not exceed forty percent (40%) of the street frontage. (Ord. 3988, 4-28-1986) In this case 9 ft. iii. Driveways shall not be closer than five feet (5') to any property line (a 16 ft. driveway on a 24 ft easement does not allow for proper spacing) • • Additionally an access from 32"d Place to the back house would be in excess of the 200ft maximum limit adopted for fire safety. An access to the front house would be longer than 300 ft. The April 20, 2016 "Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non-Significance- Mitigated" references the Geotech report from May 2014. This report is based the previous 9 lot proposal, which included plans for a storm water detention pond, as well as specific drainage recommendations and grading. The current proposal is considerably different; therefore the Geotech report is outdated and not applicable. I understand that the Talbot access is not ideal, but it is the same slope as Winsper and has served as access for this parcel for 50 years. It is already paved to the Dees property line and has a street sign saying "Private Road 3106, 3112 and 3120". Talbot Rd.Sis classified by the City as a collector arterial and should be the preferred access option. Since none of the potential access points meet new criteria for private or shared driveway, the existing access route should be maintained, and improved. One person already died when the fire department had access issues to this property just a couple of months ago. It is outrageous to propose an emergency access that is even more dangerous by introducing four additional tight turns, non- conforming driveway (in width, setbacks, length), though a high density neighborhood where kids play in the street! The Winsper Community strongly opposes the request to modify the frontage requirement. Codes are "Laws" to be adhered to, not merely "Suggestions". Please, no variances or modifications to the Codes which were carefully put in place to insure the safety and privacy of the citizens of Renton. I anticipate that if the City decides to proceed with this plan, this will present a dangerous situation for myself and family, and will negatively impact my home. I would request to work closely with the City to insure that appropriate conditions are put in place to help militate against my losses. With great concern, ~£/µ Virginia Klaas MD cc: Clark Close, Senior Planner, Department of Community and Economic Development (CED) Rory Dees Managing Mcrntx:r RAD Holdings LLC • 1040 West Lake Sammamish Pkwy S[ Bellevue, WA 9800C 206 715-455S Clark Close Associate Planner 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 • April 18, 2016 RE: Geologic.ii Risk St,Jtcmcnt for 3i06 und 3.l l2 T.Jibot Road S. or V;:illey Vue Plat Dear Mr. Close, Clark, Please accept this as my acknoVJlcdgmcnt of rcsponsibi!it y: I undcrst::.nd the Geologic Risk of-. development in the area specific to the development of the accc,;s ro;::d in!o proposed short- pl d V;:illcy Vue, and I accept this risk. anaging Member RAD Holdings LLC , . ,. ··t - _·...:D~~:;:.}a ... w·._:·-· ·---,,,_.~~. 1"'1~,, ,...<;..· : -~~it-4ly 't'tt®f -i' ---· 7". ----~- () . ~· . , ·~' I'\ ·rn; . "' '' ; ""' \)· . ,~. ,, \ . t . . , 'I • ' ' '. ' ! . ''.'. .. - . April 20, 2016 . COrT)rllUnity &'EcononiicDevelopme~t:Departnient -: . . . . C.E."ChijlVincent, Administrator . . ' . ' . · ·.Jon Ne]son Land Development Advisors, LLC. ' 12865 SE 47'h Pl; , . . . Bellevue, WA 98006 Su~ject: . Notice ofCompleteApplicati6n·. , . ·.. . .. " ValleyVue Short Plat, LUAlG,000272; SHPL-A; MOD ._ . .. •-, ,: . '.' . . . . -. ' ' ·.'' •i' Dear Mr. Nelson: . ··. The Planning Diyision of .the Clty'of Renton ha; d~termined that the:subject application . : is complete according tci submitta'i.requi~emerits and, therefore, is accepted for review ... ; ' ';. ·. . ; .... ' , .. •,· .. : ; ·. ·.. . ·.·.. ·. ·. . ' . ·• . . .. It is tentatively schedul~d for ccihsideratiori b'{the Environmental ReviewComrilittee ori: May 16, 2016; .Prior to that review; you will be n6tified:if ahy additional information. is required to confinue'processingyour application. .' . . ' . . . . . . . . Please co~tact me at{425) 430-.7289 if you have any qu~stions. · .. Sincerely, . ~-·· . . . //:.. /'/J. : · .. ·. ' .·. ' . . ' . ~ ' ,: .· · .. ' .. ' ' . Clark H. Close Senior Planner cc: RAD Holdings, LLC / Owner(s) Rory Dees, RAD Holdings, LLC / Applicant Renton City Hall , 1055 South Grady Way , Renton, Washington 98057 , rentonwa.gov • ·RentOilE> NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-M) A Master Application has been filed and accepted with the Department of Community & Economic Development (CED)-Planning Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: LAND USE NUMBER: PROJECT NAME: April 20, 2016 LUA16·000272, SHPL·A, MOD Valley Vue Short Plat PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting approval of a 2-lot short plat and a street modification. The site is 100,188 square feet (2.3 acres) and is located at 3106 and 3112 Talbot Rd S (APN: 302305· 9028), adjacent to ~insper Division No. 1 subdivision. The property is in the Residential-8 (R-8) zoning district. There are two (2) single family residences (3106 and 3112) located on this parcel that gain access to the site from Talbot Road S. The proposed short plat would subdivide the parcel into two (2) residential lots, leaving both existing houses undisturbed, and one (1) Native Growth Protection Tract (Tract A). The two proposed residential lots are 41,970 SF (lot 1) and 40,200 SF (Lot 2) with an average lot size of 41,085 SF. The residential density is 0.96 dwelling units per net acre. Access to the new residential lots is proposed via a 16-foot wide driveway from S 32nd Pl through Winsper Division No. 1 Subdivision (Tract H) via the 24-foot wide dedicated ingress/egress easement area. There are 142 significant trees on the site and the applicant is proposing to retain all of the original trees. The eastern portion of the site is comprised of established forest with a Category Ill wetland that extends off-site to the east and south. No impacts to critical areas onsite are proposed. The application is also requesting a street modification from the required half-street frontage improvements along S 32nd Pl, along the access tracts, to maintain the existing improvement condition of the neighborhoo'd. The applicant has submitted a Critical Areas Study and a Geotechnical Engineering Study with the application. PROJECT LOCATION: 3601 and 3112 Talbot Rd S OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED (DNS-M): As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110, the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS-M process to give notice that a DNS-M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non- Significance-Mitigated (DNS-M). This may be the only opportunity to comment on the environmental impacts of the proposal. A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Permits/Review Requested: Other Permits which may be required: Requested Studies: April 12, 2016 April 20, 2016 Jon Nelson, Land Development Advisors, LLC / 12865 SE 47" Pl/ Bellevue, WA 98006 / 425-466-5203 / landdevadvisors@comcast.net Environmental (SEPA) Review, Short Plat Review Construction Permit Geotechnical Report, Wetland Assessment If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City of Renton, CED -Planning Division, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Name/File No.: Valley Vue Short Plat /LUA16·0002~2. SHPL-A, MOD NAME:----------------------------------- MAILING ADDRESS: _______________ CITY/STATE/ZIP: _________ _ TELEPHONE NO.: _____________ _ Location where appllca.ay be reviewed: CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Zoning/Land Use: Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: Proposed Mitigation Measures: Department of Community & Economlc.elopme':'t (CED) -Planning Division, Sixth Floor Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 The subject site has a designation of Residential Medium Density (RMD) Comprehensive Land Use Map and Residential-8 (R-8) on the City's Zoning Map. Environmental (SEPA) Checklist. The project will be subject to the City's SEPA ordinance, RMC 4·2·110A, 4-4, 4-6· 060, 4·7, 4.9 and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate. The following Mitigation Measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project. These recommended Mitigation Measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above. • Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations found in the Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Geotech Consultants, Inc. dated May 27, 2014 or an updated report submitted at a later date. Comments on the above application must be submitted In writing to Clark H. Close, Senior Planner, CED -Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, by 5:00 PM on May 4, 2016. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail, contact the Project Manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. A copy of the subsequent threshold determination is available upon request. CONTACT PERSON: Clark Close, Senior Planner; Tel: (425) 430-7289; Email: cclose@rentonwa.gov PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION • • ~ ' ) . ·~· Denis Law Mayor ~ . . . . Community & Economic Development C. E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator June 2, 2017 N. Lynn Rastelli-Lee Winsper HOA President 902 S 32nd Pl Renton, WA 98055 Subject: Winsper Community Homeowner's Association Valley Vue Short Plat, LUAlG-000272, SHPL-A, MOD Dear Ms. Rastelli-Lee: The City of Renton Community & Economic Development Department recently received a civil construction permit (C17001891) for Valley Vue Short Plat on April 26, 2017 (attached). The construction permit is currently under review. Based on the history of the proposed project, staff would like to provide the Winsper HOA a courtesy copy ofthe Civil Construction Plans (version 1) submitted by Land Development Advisors, LLC. On a related matter, on March 30, 2017, the Department's Planning Division received a copy of an attorney's letter ("Letter") from Davis Wright Tremaine LLP addressed to Mr. Rory Dees dated March 14, 2017 (attached). The Letter appears to relate to Condition #2 of the July 11, 2016 decision of the City's Hearing Examiner approving the preliminary plat of the Valley Vue Short Plat. (The Hearing Examiner's decision is attached for reference.) Condition #2 requires the applicant to supply proof of emergency access rights across Winsper Division l's Tract H prior to final plat approval of the Valley Vue Short Plat. Such emergency access was anticipated in the plat ofWinsper Division 1, as recorded on March 14, 1989. A note on the face of that plat reads: "Tract H -Future ingress, egress, and utilities only to tax lot no. 281 -owned and maintained by Winsper community 1 The Valley Vue Short Plat is comprised of the referenced "tax lot no. 28." 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 • rentonwa.gov • • orgonizotion until deeded to the owner of tax lat no. 28 at no cost when King County approves development of tax lot no. 28 which requires the use of this tract." The Letter identified nine (9) conditions in order for Winsper HOA to convey an easement for the anticipated emergency access easement upon Tract H to RAD Holdings LLC ("RAD"). The following summary provides the Winsper HOA with information relevant to the Letter's stated nine (9) conditions. • Based on Environmental (SEPA) Review of the short plat (attached), the submitted civil construction permit complies with the SEPA mitigation measure to provide a paved 16-foot wide shared driveway through the existing Winsper Division 1 Tracts H that is consistent with the shared private driveway standards of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC 4-6-060J). • Sixteen feet is the minimum paved surface required by the Renton Regional Fire Authority ("RFA") to provide safe access for safe and effective access for fire and emergency vehicles. • A lesser road standard would not comply with Renton Municipal Code, RFA code, or the SEPA determination. • Moreover, the Hearing Examiner found that an emergency turn-around (per RMC 4-6-060H) must be added to the project site ·as found necessary by the Fire Chief to conform to applicable fire standards. • The secondary emergency fire access road located in Tract H would be constructed to City of Renton Standards and would be restricted by a locking gate for emergency vehicles only. • A key to the gate would be located in a Knox-box per RFA Fire Marshal approval. • All construction costs associated with the improvements, including design, development, permitting would be the responsibility of RAD. • Through the permitting process all existing utilities would be preserved, protected or improved. • Terms of the access easement or the deeding of Tract H will dictate responsibility for long-term maintenance and repair of the improvements proposed in Tract H or any other real property interests between Winsper HOA and RAD. • No improvements are proposed by RAD upon Winsper HOA's Tract G per the civil construction drawings. • The Simplified Drainage Assessment, prepared by Land Development Advisors, LLC (dated January 2017), stated that permeable pavement is infeasible due to the existing poor infiltrating soils and existing perched ground water as discussed in the full infiltration best management practices (BMP) evaluation. • Furthermore, the geotechnical report discusses the shallow perched ground water and the concern for infiltrating water near any existing structures would be concern and have potential for liability. 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 • rentonwa.gov ® • • • Basic dispersion would be provided to mitigate runoff from the new impervious surface and the remaining areas that cannot be mitigated would be collected and conveyed to the City's existing storm drainage system. • Copies of the Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Geotech Consultants, Inc. (dated May 27, 2014) and the Simplified Drainage Assessment prepared by LOA, LLC (dated January 2017) are available for review upon request. If Winsper HOA has comments or questions regarding Valley Vue Short Plat, please submit them by June 30, 2017 so that we may continue our review of the civil construction permit. Prior to approval of the subject construction permit, the City will require documentation from RAD that Condition #2, quoted above, is complied with. Please contact me at (425) 430-7289 if you have any questions. Sincerely, ~/!-~---- Clark H. Close Senior Planner Enclosures: Civil Construction Plan Set (Version 1, Date Received April 26, 2017) Valley Vue Preliminary Short Plat Final Decision upon Reconsideration (Dated July 11, 2016) Attorney's letter from Davis Wright Tremaine LLP (Dated March 14, 2017) Environmental (SEPA) Review Addendum (Dated May 16, 2016) Emergency Access Road Landscape Plans (Version 1, Received April 26, 2017} cc: Rory Dees, RAD Holdings, LLC / Applicant Jon Nelson/ Contact LUA16-000272 / File 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 • rentonwa.gov -. ---, I ' ~ 1-n, NO.LONI. V , .. .,,..,, .. ~ i!OlAINrW'lr 6'1V0~10SW1.l'Ul:l901f ~ M 3011 A3lllfll "1--~-,;;,al "' -~-1 ::m·s~N/Q?OHQ'-"- 1 ~,--~ -------~•_::_a __ _ V ........... - NOlN3~ ~ AJJ:J • .L33HSH3/\0::J ,. 11111111 I 11 • 11111111 111 . , I I ! 1 hhht~ 1 11 Ii I l 11111 l,1!• i I II.«· •• ·• 1~ []LlOE!llfil 11 h I ml l'! ! l•·•+-'11.-1 ••1 ~, j I j I ! , ! I 1! I ·I ·i !• 1 1 , 11 1 11 ' h11hiuiii!m11 I !ill! · , .... 11 ilhhm1!11u i:11111111 lj\111 -·1 1111 ('"''• ·-iii 11\!1 . 1 ~l"1 '[ -·-- NOlN31:1 ~ A.11::l ·s CJVml.lOlllV.l ZI/C/9tllC 3nAA3111fA :rn 'soN10101-1 0 ~ .. 0~ .1N3W/D3S QN'tf NO NY1d 10H.1N /Sm/3 ,UM:fOdW3.1. • ii?~ 1' •• liil '., I !di 1P! ,l 1lil I • i \H ii !II .. .. ~ ,~:,-;; ~ • ...,iiaiiiii,..., 'v 'l!'9i;? i1---~I 30AA31711'A :rn 'SDN1a1ou aim i ~ --------------'v ~ ~, - '°""" ir,O i ;:_-.:;:-- C S3ll;l0~d QN't/ N'tlld 3D'ltNMJD QN'tf DNl~D \ \ -/ -;.----,_ I ( \ ---. I , ( I. I I I ;t;: k ml 1T • • I I I ....... IIJ'l3 ·-Ua 111 I , .. ;.,a1111 ,! "! h :h .. " • I' m • w ~ C .: • 0 0: § IL ELEV"TlON • I ' • • ' --IT I I I I T·-· . -"• • I ' h ' " _\_ -~ w .. it :..:.. lil 5 IL • ELEVATION " ....,.n, ,ow. N011'13tl ~ All::> • " ,..,.,,.,.,~ " ·s OVOll.iOIIW.i lllfJ!lOIC " -· " -;;, iJnAA311VA IIOONVM'_ .. " -dll.!t3S-~I ::i,,~-..aa-, " ~ :)11 'SDN/010H C1lfH '""™""'""d.c.J .. "!Li·"·-d"' 0 I " " ~ " 3~=-== 3DVN~Q ONV !JNl(JlflJ!J .. ..Q .. :\: -NI]·"" 531.0N QNV S11Vl3D a!:IVDNV1S -'"""'----------------·- !1 l•I • 11' II .1 l, Ml ', ' II !I Iii lii I Iii, i! I'll ii! 11!!1·,:j!l!i II I ,u Ill • 11 II ' 111 , ... , i! : 11 i,.li1 1111!11 I, !111 ii.I Ii! Iii, 11l,!1li,f!!,I ii I 1 111 , .. , 1 •1 1,· 1·1 ·· i ~ •· l ! !Ii !n ;ll1 !1 illi _11 :ii iii 1ihii!i! ii • Et.EVA.TION ' •· I f Ii\ ··-·------·------1.:1 :::.11 I ·~ 1 !r, ) ;:1 "ii" ljl \ jJ I u: h , I : • 1 t I ' 1'( ;r • ! 1l111i t1, !1111 I 1 1j I t '1 dih • I•' I'• !'I fl•if i ' cj, •'1 e«.11 •• ;!! I I 'i'' I . I • •I • I'"· J= •111, t · 1 J I .r 1 • I I n1• 1w,.ql i'1·I !lili l I l Iii ,1!! I i1!ri·11 I !ffii". I ntj• ' , 1'1 µ. , d" ' 11!11!11il Iii !ii1li,l1 !P1 i 1!! lil,1 ii ii~I 11 1 ll"I ''' ,, 1 h II lu I• • •• lli,1 11,( .. il, IP.I ;,1111 n I., 11.11! ,t ,,.i, • ~ • ~·. 1 •• i a .. i ; ' ····-··-----------··-'··-·"·"·"''''--····"''"""'"""-···,;;;····-'·---·-·""''''"""'''''""'''"""-·•····-~ 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: Valley Vue FINAL DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION Preliminary Short Plat LUA16-000272, SHPL-A, MOD ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) I. SUMMARY The applicant has applied for approval of a two lot short subdivision and a street modification. The preliminary plat application is approved subject to conditions. The proposed access through Tract H of the Winsper Division I subdivision shall be limited to emergency access only as opposed to the shared driveway access proposed by the applicant. The modification was requested to frontage improvement requirements to the shared driveway. Since the shared driveway is not approved as part of the short subdivision, the modification request is rendered moot and not addressed in this decision. Ownership of Tract H is apparently currently held by the Winsper Homeowner's Association and at least one project opponent testified that the HOA had no obligation to transfer ownership or access rights to Tract H to the applicant. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law of this decision, the examiner has no authority to adjudicate disputed ownership or access rights. The conditions of approval provide that no final plat shall issue until the applicant provides proof of ownership rights to City staff. This places the applicant in the position of having to work out any access issues with the HOA prior to final approval of the short subdivision. PRELIMINARY PLAT-Preliminary Short Plat -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 • • In addition to the ownership issue, there are a few other outstanding issues that will have to be worked out administratively. Since general vehicular access is no longer authorized across Tract H, there may be outstanding street standard compliance issues that apply to the existing access road. From staff testimony at the hearing, it appears that the current access road may not comply with some currently adopted street standards. The existing road may very well not be subject to current standards because it may qualify as a legal nonconforming use. The administrative record was not developed to address this issue, as there is no information in the record on what approvals the road and existing home acquired and what development standards applied at the time of approval. The conditions of approval leave it to staff to work out whether there are any remaining compliance issues with the existing road. If compliance issues do exist the applicant will have to acquire administrative modifications, waivers or variances as necessary to move forward to final plat approval. At the hearing concerns were expressed about the use of Tract G as an access tract to the proposed short subdivision. This decision only approves Tract H for access. If the applicant wishes to use Tract G for access, that would be considered an amendment to the subdivision approved by this decision that would have to be processed accordingly by City staff. II. TESTIMONY Note: This "Testimony" section of this decision is only provided as a convenience to readers as a summary of the concerns and comments raised by hearing parties. Nothing in this summary should be construed as a finding or conclusion made by the examiner. No assurances are made as to accuracy. For an accurate rendition of hearing testimony, reference should be made to the hearing recording available at Renton City Hall. Clark Close, Renton planner, summarized the proposal. Fire Chief Mark Peterson testified that a house fire had occurred on the project site and the fire department was only able to get one fire truck onto the property. The fire truck became enveloped in smoke along with all responders and crews performing first aid. The existing road is too narrow and too steep. The proposed access through Tract H is 16 feet and that access will be difficult because the trucks are eight feet wide. Access will be difficult, but will be acceptable if the homes are sprinklered. Access is necessary for both fire and medical assistance. Chief Peterson noted that space for emergency vehicle tum-around would also be necessary. The examiner inquired whether a hammerhead was being proposed. Clark Close noted that there was space for emergency vehicles to tum around, but no hammerhead was being proposed. Chief Peterson noted he would have to consult with his staff to determine whether the existing space for tum-around would be sufficient. The examiner noted he may condition the project to require a hammerhead as deemed necessary by the fire department. PRELIMINARY PLAT-Preliminary Short Plat -2 I 2 3 4 5 6 • • The examiner inquired of staff as to how the project was able to comply with RMC 4-6-060(]), which requires at least one lot served by a shared driveway must abut public right of way. Mr. Clifford stated that Lot 28 of the Winsper division (the project site) in conjunction with Lot 38 meets this requirement, as Lot 38 has public road frontage. In response to examiner questions, Mr. Close noted that the new minimum width for shared driveways (which didn't apply in the first Valley Vue application) is 20 feet. In response to examiner questions about the safety of the narrow access tract, Ian Fitz-James, City of Renton development engineer, testified that the primary concerns regarding safety in the first Valley 7 Vue application were over the access tract to·the east, Tract G. The access tract to be used by this project, Tract H, has more separation from adjoining homes. The other access tract also needed construction easements because it is sloped and needs retaining walls. The subject access road is flat and no easements would be required from adjoining neighbors. Vanessa Dolbee, planning manager, also noted that the number of lots, and hence trips, has been greatly reduced since the original application and also the width standard has been changed since the original application as well, from 26 feet to the current 20 feet. 8 9 10 11 12 13 Mary Klaas-Schultz, neighbor, testified that the geotech report conclusions are based upon a different project. The proposal is not a development, it's a lot split. She noted that the access to the Winsper subdivision was originally 25% grade, just like the Talbot access to the proposal. Consequently, the applicant should be able to grade his current access from Talbot just as the Winsper developer did. 14 The existing Talbot access has been used for 70 years. The existing access road should be improved to its full 12-foot width. She noted that the current access was wide enough for fire trucks to access the property, the problem was the lack ofa tum-around and parking. The existing road is 8-10 feet wide but it can be widened to 12 feet. The Talbot Road access is the most direct route. The proposed access requires fire access through a high density neighborhood through an access tract sandwiched between two homes. The currently existing road only spans 274 and 739 feet respectively from Talbot to the existing homes. The proposed access would require fire trucks to travel 1,702 and 1,575 feet respectively from Talbot to the existing homes. Ms. Klaas-Schultz noted that the prior application had been denied because there was only five-foot separation from adjoining homes and this provided insufficient space for vehicle course correction. She noted that this condition hasn't changed in the new application. She noted that her living room will be located only a few feet from cars travelling on the access tract. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Virginia Klaas, neighbor, argued that Tract H, the proposed access from Winsper, had a covenant that 22 provided it would only be deeded to the owner of Lot 28 when King County approved development of Lot 28, the project site. The application is a lot split, not a development. Lot 28 will be undisturbed. 23 24 25 26 She noted that neither proposed lot abuts public right of way as required by RMC 4-6-060(1). Ms. Klaas also noted that the "disturbance limits" identified in project exhibits extended onto her lot and would damage her drainage system and extends onto her driveway and living room. A six-foot fence is right on her property line and she's not removing it for this project. Ms. Klaas also argued that RMC 4-4-080 requires driveways to be located five feet or more from side property lines. Ms. Klaas also pointed out that the staff report incorrectly identifies the proposal fronts onto S. 32"d Place. She PRELIMINARY PLAT-Preliminary Short Plat -3 l I • • 1 asserts that the applicant is proposing no frontage on S. 32"d Place since the lots front the access tract, not S. 32"d Place. 2 3 Bruce Truong, neighbor, submitted a petition of 25 people opposed to the project. He noted that the disturbance plan encroached onto private property. He noted that the proposed drainage was to use 4 the drains on Winsper, but these already flood during heavy rainstorms. He noted that in a prior fire response incident in Winsper the fire truck had difficult turning onto his street. 5 In response to examiner questions, Virginia Klaas noted that the disturbance zones depicted in the 6 power points come from the civil plans submitted to the City. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Sharon Gangwish, neighbor, noted she lives next to Access Tract G. She noted that the easement is sloped 15% and any driveway would require cutting into the slope 5 feet and require a retaining wall. She noted that the original application had been denied because this retaining wall work would have adversely affected the foundation of her home. Despite this finding, Mr. Dees in November, 2015 still proposed the use of Tract G. The SEPA report then concluded that only access along Tract H was required. Ms. Gangwish wanted to know if this guaranteed that there would be no access through Tract G. She wanted some assurance that Tract G could not be used for access in the future. Luz Chan, neighbor, testified she opposes the project because it's not consistent with city code. Mary Lou Hanley, neighbor, testified that she opposes the project. 14 Byron Gangwish, neighbor, testified that he opposes the proposal, especially for safety concerns. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Mike Luu, neighbor, testified that he opposes the proposal. Lilly Luu, neighbor, testified she opposes the proposal. Andrea Smith, neighbor, strongly opposes the project due to safety and drainage concerns. Laura Kiel, KOMO radio host, testified she was interested in seeing how homeowners and regulators work together to develop a community. She was curious about how many variations are allowed on a project. She wanted to know why bother about adopting regulations if unlimited modifications are allowed. She noted that the investment in a home is usually a person's biggest investment and that the homeowners rely upon the regulators to maintain the integrity of the development standards. Jerome Jaeb, neighbor, stated he rejects the application. He noted there are several inconsistencies in the City's project documents and it was difficult to access the application due to a change in project name. He identified five code violations: ( 1) RMC 4-6-060 provides that the driveway cannot be longer than 200 feet -he noted that the actual distance to the house is 284 feet; (2) one of the lots using the driveway must have 50 feet of frontage on public right of way; (3) the driveway must be more than five feet from adjoining property lines; ( 4) the maximum width of a driveway can't exceed more than 40% of the frontage; and (5) there must be maintenance assured for the easement. PRELIMINARY PLAT -Preliminary Short Plat -4 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 • • Wayne Dong, neighbor, testified he opposes the project. Carl Kaminki, neighbor, testified that any more traffic on S. 32nd St. would be a hazard. Nobody yields when going on to S. 32nd St. Rhodora Darang, neighbor, strongly opposes the development. She has three young children that plats on Smithers. Additional traffic would be detrimental to them. Bruce Wicks, neighbor, testified that he opposes the project. Laura Rastelli, neighbor and president of Winsper Homeowner's Association ("HOA"), noted that the HOA has not been approached with assuming any responsibility for assuming responsibility for project wetlands and she doesn't believe the HOA should have any such responsibility. Clark Close clarified that the disturbance limit is identified in Ex. 7. He also noted that the project is· exempt from drainage review. Mr. Close also noted that there have been numerous code changes since the last application. The length of the driveway is to the lot and not the home. The five-foot setback is not applicable to shared driveways, it only applies to driveways to single-family lots. In response to examiner questions, Mr. Fitz-James clarified that the disturbance zone was not an accurate representation. The disturbance area is limited to the driveway and utility improvements. No encroachment will actually occur on the adjoining lots. Brianne Bannwarth, City of Renton 14 Development Engineering Manager, testified that the primary reason for the second access is to accommodate emergency access. The length of the substandard existing access road is too long (exceeds 150 feet) for adequate fire access. In response to examiner questions, Ms. Bannwarth said it would be acceptable to the City to limit Tract H to emergency access. Chief Peterson noted it would also be acceptable to put a fire gate at the access point. Mr. Close noted that a secondary access is required by City code because one of the homes is located more than 200 feet from Talbot Road. Mr. Close stated that staff would be open to a condition limiting Tract H to emergency access in conjunction with a modification to the 200 foot-requirement for Talbot. Mr. Close noted that if Tract 15 16 17 18 19 His limited to emergency access it would have to be improved with a hard surface. Ms. Bannwarth clarified that the if improvements are limited to creating a hard surface to Tract H that stormwatcr requirements would not be triggered -however if a hard surface turnaround is required that would trigger stormwater review. Ms. Bannwarth opined that the small amount of impervious surface added to Tract H would not generate enough additional stormwater to be of any concern to the downstream 20 21 22 properties. Rory Dees, applicant, noted that the property could have been developed with 14 lots if it weren't for the access problems. Typically lot splits don't even go to the hearing examiner. He noted that the 24 home purchasers should have been aware of the potential development of and access to Lot 28 when they bought their lots. He also wanted to be able to only use the hydrant on Talbot. 23 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT -Preliminary Short 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 • • III. EXHIBITS The 26 exhibits of page 2 of the staff report were admitted into the record during the hearing. The following exhibits were also admitted during the hearing: Ex. 27: Ex. 28: Ex.29: Ex. 30: Ex. 31: Ex. 32: Ex. 33: Procedural: Staff power point. City of Renton core maps, located at City's website Google maps of project site. Klaas-Schultz power point and written materials. Virginia Klaas power point, written materials and access easement. Truong power point and written materials. Sharon Gangwish power point. IV. FINDINGS OF FACT 1 I. Applicant. RAD Holdings, LLC. 2. Hearing. A consolidated hearing on the preliminary plat application and modification request was held on June 28, 2016 in the Renton City Council meeting chambers in Renton City Hall. Substantive: 3. Project Description. The applicant has applied for approval of a two lot short subdivision and a street modification. The site is 99,994 square feet (2.3 acres) and is located at 3106 and 3112 Talbot Rd S (APN: 302305-9028), adjacent to Winsper Division No.1 subdivision. There are two (2) single family residences (3106 and 3112) located on this parcel that gain access to the site from Talbot Road S. The proposed short plat would subdivide the parcel into two (2) residential lots, leaving both existing houses undisturbed, and one (1) Native Growth Protection Tract (Tract A). The two proposed residential lots are 41,970 SF (Lot 1) and 40,200 SF (Lot 2) with an average lot size of 41,085 SF. The residential density is 0.96 dwelling units per net acre. Access to the new residential lots is proposed via a 16-foot wide driveway from S 32nd Pl through 1 The Findings of Fact include some applications of City legal standards that would normally be considered to be conclusions of law. Legal standards are applied when they are construed as legislative standards of adequacy, such as street standards for the adequacy of streets or critical area regulations for the adequacy of critical area protection. In the absence of compe11ing evidence to the contrary, conformance to directly applicable City legal standards is considered to establish adequacy of infrastructure/mitigation and adequacy of mitigation. PRELIMINARY PLAT -Preliminary Short Plat -6 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 • • .. Winsper Division No. 1 Subdivision (Tract H) via the 24-foot wide dedicated ingress/egress easement area. There are 142 significant trees on the site and the applicant is proposing to retain all of the original trees. The eastern portion of the site is comprised of established forest with a Category III wetland that extends off-site to the east and south. No impacts to critical areas onsite are proposed. The application is also requesting a street modification from the required half-street frontage improvements along S 32nd Pl, along the access tracts, to maintain the existing improvement condition of the neighborhood. The applicant has submitted a Critical Areas Study and a Geotechnical Engineering Study with the application. 4. Surrounding Area. The subject site is surrounding on all sides by single family residential development zoned R-8. 5. Adverse Impacts of Proposed Street Modification. As conditioned by this decision, there are no significant adverse impacts associated with the proposal. Since the two homes on the project site have already been constructed, the primary impacts of concern are those associated with the use and development of Tract H as an access point. Those issues are addressed in Finding of Fact No. 6, addressing adequacy of infrastructure. The only critical areas on the project site are wetlands and steep slopes. As the applicant proposes no new construction in the steep slopes, no steep slope mitigation is necessary. Wetland impacts can still occur as a result of residential use of the project site, so the staff report has made recommendations that are implemented by this decision that protect the wetlands in conformance to the City's critical area regulations. The applicant submitted a Critical Areas Study prepared by Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC (dated September 4, 2013, revised dated November 23, 2015; Exhibit I I). According to the report, the wetland is located in the eastern portion of the subject site and extends off-site to the east and south. This wetland exhibits a minimum of human related physical alteration, and therefore, meets the criteria for a Category Ill wetland with moderate habitat scores (5 to 7 points). A Category III wetland with moderate habitat function receives a minimum 100 foot ( 100') standard buffer from the delineated edge (RMC 4-3-0SOG.2). In order to preserve and protect the wetland and its associated buffer, the applicant is proposing to establish a Native Growth Protection Easement for the Category III wetland and its associated 100-foot buffer area within Tract A. Pursuant to the City's critical areas ordinance, this decision requires that the applicant provide a wood, split-rail fence with wetland signage along the west boundary of the wetland. 6. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. As conditioned, the project will be served by adequate/appropriate infrastructure and public services, as would be expected since no new dwelling units will be constructed. Infrastructure/services are more specifically addressed as follows: PRELIMINARY PLAT -Preliminary Short Plat -7 l 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 • • A. Water and Sewer Service. The site is served by the City of Renton for both water and sewer. B. Police and Fire Protection. Police and fire service would be provided by the City of Renton. Police and fire service staff have concluded they have sufficient resources to serve the proposal. Fire impact fees will be collected during building permit review to pay for proportionate share fire system improvements. The fire chief persuasively testified that the existing access from Talbot Road is insufficient for fire access, since its eight to ten-foot width is insufficient to accommodate the eight-foot wide fire apparatus vehicles used for emergency response. The project site also has no emergency tum-around, which is required by City fire code standards for driveways of the length of the project site. 1n order to remedy the situation, the applicant proposes use of Tract H for fire access. The Fire Chief found this proposed access to be appropriate, in conjunction with the sprinklering of the dwelling units at the project site. City planning staff testified that there was sufficient space at the project site to provide for fire apparatus tum-around, but the Fire Chief was unable to confirm whether this undeveloped space was sufficient for fire access needs. The conditions of approval will require that provision for tum-around be provided as required by City fire access standards. C. Drainage. The City's storm water standards, primarily adopted as the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual and City amendments thereto, assures that there will be no adverse impacts to surrounding properties caused by stormwater discharge resulting from the development. As testified by Public Works staff, those stormwater standards require no stormwater improvements because the proposed addition of impervious surface, limited to the paving of Tract H, is not sufficient to trigger any stormwater analysis or improvements. As confirmed by Public Works staff, the amount of impervious surface will not create any flows that are significant enough to adversely affect neighboring properties. There was no expert testimony to the contrary on this issue. D. Parks/Open Space. No park impact fees are required by City standards because no new residential development is being proposed. Beyond park impacts fees, City standards don't require any parks or open space mitigation for R-8 developments . E. Streets. As conditioned, the proposal provides for adequate/appropriate streets. The primary point of contention for this application was the applicant's proposed use ofTraet H for a secondary access point to the proposed subdivision. It is determined that Tract H should be limited to emergency access only. There are two primary reasons for determining that Tract H must be limited to emergency access. First, use of Tract H for a shared driveway violates RMC 4-6-060(J)(l)(a), which requires that at least one of the lots using the access point must front public right of way PRELIMINARY PLAT-Preliminary Short Plat -8 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 • • with at least 50 feet. City staff contend that this standard is met because Lot 38 of the Winsper subdivision, which abuts the shared driveway, has street frontage. However, Lot 38 doesn't use Tract H for access. As shown in aerial photographs, Lot 38 has direct driveway access to 32nd Ave. RMC 4-6-060(J)(l)(a) expressly provides as follows: When Permitted: Shared driveways may be allowed for access to four (4) or fewer residential lots, provided: a. At least one of the four (4) lots abuts a public right-of-way with at /east fifty (50) linear feet of property; and ... The standard above requires that at least one of "the (4) lots" must abut public right of way. As noted in the preceding sentence of the standard, those "(4) lots" are the Jots that have access to a shared driveway. Lot 38 doesn't use Tract H for access, therefore it cannot be used to satisfy the right of way frontage requirement. The second reason is safety. As noted in by project opponents during the hearing, it is significant that in the original application for a nine lot division of the project site, it was determined that the use of Tracts G and H would serve as a safety hazard due to proximity of adjoining houses one either side of each tract. Public works staff had testified in the hearing on the original application that there was insufficient space in both access tracts for vehicles to correct and/or adjust vehicular movement without colliding into the adjoining homes. The homes on either side of Tract H are only about five feet from the property lines of the tract. When asked to address whether this safety issue has changed since the original application, public works staff focused on the fact that the original application involved access from both Tract G and Tract H and that Tract G necessitated retaining walls that would encroach into adjoining private property. The current application is only using Tract H for access. Tract H is flat and won't need retaining walls. The planning manager also pointed out that there would be less vehicular trips because the number of lots was reduced from 9 to 2. Except for the reduction in traffic, there is nothing to suggest that the current application has resolved the safety concerns raised in the nine-lot application. More importantly, public works staff made no express determination that the safety problems caused by the proximity of adjoining homes was no longer a concern. Consequently, it cannot be concluded that more likely than not the proposed access from Tract H would not create a safety problem. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(8), Tract H does have to be used as an emergency access point for the proposal. The net result is that the applicant may have to acquire modifications, waivers or variances to street standards that might apply to the currently existing internal access road. If the currently existing residential development and access was approved by a City of Renton or King County development permit, it appears more likely that the access point qualifies as a protected nonconforming structure under Chapter PRELIMINARY PLAT -Preliminary Short 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 I. • • 4-10 RMC and that no modifications, waivers or variances would even be required2 • The answer to that legal question might depend upon whether or not the street standards that applied when the existing road was approved would have differed if the applicant had applied for a two lot short plat at the time instead of building or other permits that may have approved the road. Those issues are left to the applicant and staff to work out administratively. Whether or not a modification, waiver or variance would be required for the existing access road, the use of Tract H for general vehicular access as proposed does not provide for adequate or appropriate infrastructure because of its safety issues and because it clearly violates the street frontage requirements ofRMC 4-6-060(J)(l)(a). F. Parking. As determined by staff, 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. The proposal will be served by adequate/appropriate school facilities. No additional students would be generated by the proposed short subdivision. The emergency access route could be used as an alternative route from the site to a school bus stop located at Talbot Road South. Concrete sidewalks are available from S 32°d Place to the bus stop. Therefore, there are safe walking routes to the school bus stops. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Authority. RMC 4-7-070(H)(5) provides that the Administrator may refer a short plat application to the hearing examiner for a public hearing if the Administrator determines that there are sufficient concerns by area residents to warrant a public hearing. The Administrator has so referred the subject short subdivision application to the hearing examiner. 2 Note that although the existing access road may not be subject to current street standards as a nonconforming structure, this status does not protect it from the need for secondary emergency access. As outlined in the Conclusions of Law, secondary emergency access is required as a result of the "public safety" and "appropriate" provision for streets criteria imposed by RMC 4-7-070(H)(3) and RCW 58.17.llO. Compliance with applicable development standards will generally be sufficient to establish compliance with the more general ''public safety" and "appropriate" subdivision standards. However, when compelling evidence is presented that applicable development standards are not sufficient, the more general subdivision criteria may be used to fill in the gap. In this case the direct evidence on public safety presented by the Fire Chief in conjunction with the newly adopted standards constituted sufficiently compelling evidence that the street standards that may apply via the nonconforming structure status of the existing access was insufficient to provide for appropriate streets or public safety. PRELIMINARY PLAT -Preliminary Short Plat -10 • • I 2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The project site is zoned Residential 8 dwelling 2 units per net acre (R-8). The comprehensive plan map land use designation is Residential Single Family (RSF). 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 PRELIMINARY SHORT PLAT 3. Review Criteria. RMC 4-7-070 governs the criteria for preliminary review. Applicable standards are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. RMC 4-7-070(A): A subdivision shall be consistent with the following principles of acceptability: J. Legal Lots: Create legal building sites which comply with all provisions of the City Zoning Code. 2. Access: Establish access to a public road for each segregated parcel. 3. Physical Characteristics: Have suitable physical characteristics. A proposed plat may be denied because of flood, inundation, or wetland conditions. Construction of protective improvements may be required as a condition of approval, and such improvements shall be noted on the final plat. 4. Drainage: Make adequate provision for drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies and sanitary wastes. 14 4. The criterion is met. As to compliance with the Zoning Code, Finding 22 of the staff report is 15 adopted by this reference. As demonstrated in Finding 22, the proposed building sites comply with the Zoning Code. Existing access currently exists from each proposed lot to Talbot Road, which is a 16 17 18 public road. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5 of this decision, as conditioned the proposal is consistent with the City's critical area regulations so it is concluded that the lot is physically suitable for development as the City's critical areas ordinance covers all of the physical characteristics identified in the criterion above. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 6, the proposal makes adequate 19 provision for all of the infrastructure improvements identified in the criterion above. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 RMC 4-7-070(H)(3): Approval: ff the Administrator finds that the proposed plat makes appropriate provisions for the public health, safety, and general welfare and for such open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks, playgrounds, sites for schools and school grounds and all other relevant facts and that the public use and interest will be served by the proposed short plat, then it shall be approved. The applicant shall be notified in writing of the decision. 5. The criterion is met. The proposal makes adequate provision for public health, safety, and general welfare because it complies with all applicable development standards as outlined in the staff report while at the same time not creating any adverse impacts on adjoining properties as determined PRELIMINARY PLAT -Preliminary Short Plat -11 I 2 3 • • in Finding of Fact No. 5. A key determination in this finding on public safety, however, is that secondary emergency access is necessary to provide adequate access to fire and medical response apparatus. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 6, the proposal provides for adequate infrastructure improvements as required by the criterion above. 4 One issue raised by project opponents is that the Winsper Homeowner's Association currently owns 5 Tract H and it has no obligation to grant ownership rights to Tract H to the applicant until 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 "development" necessitating the access has been approved. Project opponents argue that the proposed short subdivision is not development and hence the tract does not have to be conveyed. Even if the short subdivi§.ion is not considered development, development has in fact been approved in the form of the building permits for the two homes and access is now necessitated for that approval by the terms ohhis decision. Regardless, the examiner does not have authority to adjudicate the ownership rights to Tract H. See Halverson v. Bellevue, 41 Wn. App. 457 (1985). The conditions of approval of this decision provide that no final plat may be issued ( and hence no lots subdivided) until the applicant shows proof of emergency access rights across Tract H. In short, the subdivision will never be finally approved by this decision unless and until the applicant acquires emergency access rights across Tract H. V. DECISION 14 The proposed two lot short subdivision is approved subject to the following conditions: 15 1. The SEP A responsible official shall issue a revised SEP A addendum that provides for 16 consistency with the terms of this decision. If the SEP A responsible official determines in its independent discretion that revisions needed for consistency are not consistent with SEP A, the official shall file a request for reconsideration so that this decision may be revised accordingly. 17 18 19 2. Tract H shall be developed for emergency access only along with a gate that prevents general vehicular access from 32nd Pl. The emergency access shall conform to applicable fire access standards as modified by the authority of the Fire Chief and other personnel with appropriate administrative 20 jurisdiction. To the extent compatible with emergency access improvements, a pedestrian pathway shall be included across Tract H to the extent necessary as determined by planning staff to provide safe walking conditions to and from school bus stops. The applicant shall supply proof of emergency access rights across Tract H prior to final plat approval to the Current Planning Manager. The final plat shall depict Tract H as emergency access only. 21 22 23 24 25 26 3. An emergency tum-around shall be added to the project site as found necessary by the Fire Chief to conform to applicable fire standards. 4. The applicant shall provide landscaping within Tract H that visually screens the shared driveway within Tract H from the abutting residential properties. A final detailed landscape plan shall PRELIMINARY PLAT -Preliminary Short Plat -12 • • I be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit issuance. 2 3 5. The applicant shall provide a permanent four-foot (4') to six foot (6') tall fence outside the shoulders of the Tract H emergency access. The applicant shall coordinate with the neighboring property owners prior to construction. The fence shall maintain compliance with height and vision 4 clearance sections of the code. A fencing detail, location and cross section shall be identified on the final landscaping plan. The final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit issuance. 5 6 7 8 6. The applicant shall install a wood, split-rail fence with wetland signage along the west boundary of Category III wetland buffer. The fence (with signage) shall be constructed prior to recording the final short plat. The final landscape plan shall include all specifications for fencing and signage and shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering 9 permit approval. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 7. Prior to final plat approval the applicant shall acquire modifications, waivers or variances as deemed necessary by the Current Planning Manager to establish conformance of the existing internal access road with applicable street standards. The Current Planning Manager may determine that the existing access road is not subject to some or all currently adopted street standards because the road qualifies as a legal nonconforming use subject to the provisions of Chapter 4-10 RMC. DATED this 11th day of July, 2016. <;;;:;Je::e~. Ph,fA. Olbrcchts City of Renton Hearing Examiner APPEAL RIGHTS 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-l 10(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. A request for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-I IO(E)(l3) and RMC 4-8-IOO(G)(9). A new fourteen (14) day appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Additional information regarding PRELIMINARY PLAT-Preliminary Short Plat -13 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 appeal process maybe obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall-7th floor, (425) 430-6510. Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. PRELIMINARY PLAT -Preliminary Short Plat -14 • iiJ Davi$ Wright 111 ... Tremaine LLP March 14, 20 l,'. VIA US.MAIL M,. Rory Dees RAD Holdings,ILLC 10:40 W. Lake Sammamish Parkway S\E. ; . f 1 Bellevue, WA 98008 Re: Winspe~ Community HomeoW11er's Association Dear Mr. Dees: • Suite 2200 \20l Thirll Avenue _$.ean!e, \VA 9s1·oj.3645 .James A. Greenfield 206. 1s1.spss· tcl 206.757.7055 fax j i mgrcen tield@d\\'t. c(lm W~ represent(hp \Yinsper CommunitylHomeowncr's Association ("Winsper HOA"). · 'i I ' · -. ' I understand that Y<.\U have requested that the Winsper HOA convey to RAD Holdings LLC ("RAD") an einhgehcy access easement upon the WinsperHOA's Tract Hin ordh to satisfy one of the conaitioris of the Final Decision Upon Reconsideration by·the City ofRcnton upon the Valley Vue PrbimiJ1aty Short Plat dated July ll, 2016. I further understand that {au have based. your request u./ibn ai note on the face o:ll the plat of Winsper Division. I, recorded op March 14, 1989 (the "Plat Note"). For a number of reasons, we believe that the Plat Note may not require the WinsperHOA to convey such al, ;easementto RAD. Nohetheless, in order to avoid a protracted dispute, Wins per HOA is willing 'to convey an emergentjy.access easement to RAD upon the folloW:ing conditions: I. The easement shall. be for emergency access only and onlyupon Tract H. 2. The easement shall conform to applicable fire access standards of the City 'of Renton, but shall bi, con~.tructed with a 12-fi~ot Wide permeable surface material, withi1~ a tot.al of20 foot c1d4ance area. RAD mus engage the services ofa project design spe~ialist for a 12 foot wiUe permeable surface fir . lane with a buffer zone on each side. Thd design demenH m11st be ~onsistent wi\h the elements in the \Vinsper Community pnd must be presented to :the W,insper HOA ifor approval prior to any construction. DGS or grass pavers ~}c preferred. The erner~ency access must be at least 6 feet from thh property line of tax !pt 39:(618 S 32nd Placej, whichmay result in the emergency acces~ lane being .18!6-6527-t.'n(iv.J OlOS~SJ-000001 ! Anr.horage i 8,}llnvH.i, i Los Angolec. l'..)()<'-to{f) I. ., NewVo,k \ P,,,tl.v,d ! Snn Frllr>ciSCO [ Sea\lln I Shs:,.nqhai ! W~hlnglOJ\ OJ.:. WWw.dwt.com • • . I' M.arch J 4, 201;71 Page2 slightly offcentcr:within this ehsement. Construction of the emergency adcess irt;proi~m.en. ts within the easenl1ent shall occur enti:e!Y within Tract H. T~e eas~m.ent will con~cy no nghts of use -t~mporary or otherwise -to any other prope/tY w1thm the Winspbr Community. 3. Properldrairiage must be installfd along the downward side of the easement abutting the prope~~ line of tax lot 39 and q.Jong the shared property line between tax l~t 28 and Tract H. 4. RAD rilµst ipstall a fence at th' property line dividing Tract Hand the RAI) property. The feMe niust h8;ve a lockabl gate.The design of said fence, gate and 14k must conforiij to Winsper HOA CC Rs and.Renton Regional Fire Authority ("fFA") standards and must be approve by the Winsper HOA and the.RF A prior to construction. f I ! · -1 The gaf~ must be 1ocked at a11 imes unless required temporarily by the RijA. The key is to be held by the RFA only. insper HOA, the RAD, or any other current or future owner. 1 b;r th~t RAD property or Winsper property shall not have or be giv~n a copy of that access ]<ey .' : 5. RAD will be responsible for a d shall promptly pay all costs associated with the impro{~me~ts, including desig , development, permitting, legal fees (inclpding reasonhble Winsper HOA lega fees) and will pay Winsper HOA $15,000 to establish an endow!rtent;fund ,to cover the est of future superficial maintenance and niiscellaneous admin~strative fees which need to be paid by the Winsper HOA. RAD shdll not allow any stdtttory liens to be placed on Tract H and shall have no authority to Bind Tract H for If f· , .I purposes o any statutory hens. 6. RAD an'd its successors and astigns shall be solely responsible for the long term mainte'n~nce and repair, if necessary, of the emergency access improvements. RAD may request hccJss periodically to ihspect such improvements· and, if necessar{ make repairs. ,,. ' . j. .,. . ""'•· ; Winsper HOA shall not unreaspnably deny such request. 7. RAD sh'all i11demnify, defend ~nd hold Winsper HOA harmless from and against any and all lie~s; cl~,i~1s, costs, ex~ens'J5 _(including attorneys' and experts' fees), f iuries or damag~~ an!nng out of orrnvo!,vmg any entry onto Tract Hor any constr.uct10n, use or maintenance activity allowed ~y the easement. RAD will at all times maiAtain adequate comm9rcial:·.genera. l liability·infurance and will name Winsper HOA as anladdition. al insured.I Any such activity sha[I be undertaken only after securing any necessary permits from t~e appropriate governm~1tal agencies, if any, and providing Winsp~r HOA with · appropriate certificates of insu ance. 1 ' • • • '' M.arch 14, 20n Page 3 8. RAD ,~in preserve and proiecdall utilities currently occupying Tract H. 1)hcse include, withoJt;limitation, telephone aiid cable utilities and the drainage system along tax lot 39. 9. RAD ,vill relinquish all other rfal property interests it may have in the Wihsper Commphity\propertks, includiig but not limited to Winsper Tracts Hand JG, by delivc1iAg a1quit claim deed to he Winsper HOA. RAD shall also conve~ to the Winsper HOA a {estr,ictive :covenant up /I the Valley Vue properties limiting subdiyision to two lots as ~r6vi.ded in the City of Renton Preliminary Short Plat LUA 16-000~72. If these condit'ions Jre acceptable to K,f\U, please let me know and I will prepare tpe necessary d . . . fi I ' . I , • o~uments. orryour1rev1ew. Very truly yoqrt Davis Wright ;J'remaine LLP ; . 11 t : • I ~ IIL-"---..J-,---'\1.../1" . . l 1 ! .I a es A. Greepfield cc! N. Lynh!Rastelli-Uec, Winsper !TOA President . I! ' ;\8 I 6~6527· 1 S7riv .. 1 0108583·00000 I ' ' ~--------------• DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT • --------Iten ton® ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS-M) -MITIGATED Pursuant to WAC 197-11-600(4)(c) and WAC 197-11-625 Addendum to the Valley Vue Preliminary Plat (LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD) as Addended by the City of Renton (LUAlG-000272, SHPL-A, MOD) Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M) Date of Addendum: Date of Original Issuance of SEPA Threshold Determination: May 16, 2016 May 18, 2015 Proponent: Project Numbers: Project Name: Location: Lead Agency: Review Process: Rory Dees, Rad Holdings, LLC LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD and LUA16-000272, SHPL·A, MOD Formerly Valley Vue Preliminary Plat now Valley Vue Short Plat 3106 and 3112 Talbot Road S, Renton, WA 98055 (APN 302305-9028} City of Renton, Department of Community & Economic Development Addendum to previously issued Determination of Non-Significance • Mitigated (DNS-M) Proposal/ Purpose of Addendum: The original SEPA threshold determination for the Valley Vue Preliminary Plat was issued on May 18, 2015. The original application included a proposal for a 9-lot subdivision over a 2.3-acre site 1. The project site is located within the Residential Medium Density (RMD) land use designation and the Residential-8 zoning district. The original proposal included retaining the existing single family house located at 3106 and incorporating it into the subdivision. The existing home at 3112 was formerly proposed to be demolished, but it is proposed to be retained. As part of the original 9-lot subdivision, the applicant was proposing access the eight (8) new residential lots from Winsper Division No. 1 Subdivision via two (2) dedicated ingress and egress tracts (Tract G and Tract H) located north of S 32nd Pl. 1 The project site is also referenced as Tax Lot No. 28 of the Winsper Division I Plat and two separate tracts (Tract G and Tract H) were recorded specifically for the future ingress, egress and utilities to Tax lot No. 28. The tracts are owned and maintained by Winsper Community Organization until deeded to Tax Lot No. 28 at no cost when development approvals are granted by the authorized jurisdiction (Recording Number 198903141032). l • Addendum to Environmental (SEPA) Review Page_ 2 of 5 May 16, 2016 • The original SEPA determination included four (4) mitigation measures requiring compliance with the recommendations found in the Geotechnical Engi~eering Study, all planting within the critical area buffer to be by hand, access to the stormwater tract for maintenance and operation of the utility via a utility access easement, and access to the lots be constructed using the up-and-coming (at the time) shared driveway standards that were adopted after the application was determined complete. The City of Renton's Hearing Examiner issued a Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law & Final Decision on July 28, 2015 to deny the Valley Vue Preliminary P_lat. A 14-day appeal period commenced from the date of the hearing examiner's decision and ended on August 11, 2015, No appeals or requests for reconsideration were filed. The current proposal, for the same 2.3-acre parcel, is a 2-lot short plat and a street modification. The proposed short plat would subdivide the parcel into two (2) residential lots, retaining both existing single family homes, and one (1) Native Growth Protection Tract (Tract A). The applicant is no longer proposing a stormwater tract so Mitigation Measure #3 would no longer be applicable to the project. The two proposed residential lots are 41,970 SF (Lot 1) and 40,200 SF (Lot 2) with an average lot size of 41,085 SF. The residential density is 0.96 dwelling units per net acre. Access to the two (2) new residential lots is proposed via a 24-foot wide dedicated ingress/egress and utility easement tract (Tract H) from S 32nd Pl through Winsper Division No. 1 subdivision. The applicant is proposing to comply with the current shared private driveway standards of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC 4-6-060J), which was passed by the Renton City Council on October 20, 2014 (Ord. No. 5727, effective October 29, 2014). Proposed roadway improvements to the site include a paved 16-foot wide shared driveway through Tract H and a driveway apron with driveway wings meeting City of Renton Standards Driveway Detail (COR Std Plan 104.1) would be required within the within the public right-of-way along S 32nd Pl. The previous preliminary plat proposal was subject to private street standards which contributed to developments that was not in keeping with the vision of the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, vehicular and pedestrian access would no longer be required to the eastern part of the lot, so the shared driveway through the existing Winsper Division No. 1 Tracts G would no longer be applicable to the project. There are 142 significant trees on the site and the applicant is proposing to retain all of the original trees. No new trees are proposed to be planted so this would make Mitigation Measure #2 no longer applicable to the project. The eastern portion of the site is comprised of an established forest that extends off-site to the east and south with a Category Ill wetland with moderate habitat scores (5 to 7 points). No impacts to critical areas onsite are proposed. The application is also requesting a street modification from the required half-street frontage improvements along S 32nd Pl, along access Tract H, in order to maintain the existing improvement condition of the neighborhood. Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21(, 1971 as amended) on May 18, 2015 the City's Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M) for the Valley Vue Preliminary Plat. The DNS-M included four (4) mitigation measures. A 14-day appeal period commenced on May 22, 2015 and ended on June 5, 2015. No appeals of the threshold determination were filed. • Addendum to Environmental (SEPA) Review Page 3 of 5 May 16, 2016 Original Mitigation Measures: • 1. Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations found in the Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Geotech Consultants, Inc. dated May 27, 2014 ar an updated report submitted at a later date. 2. The applicant shall plant all trees that are within the SO-foot standard wetland buffer by hand and without heavy machinery. Ta the greatest extent feasible, these trees should be planted in areas where invasive species are present. A tree planting plan shall be provided to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval prior to construction permit issuance. 3. The applicant shall provide a minimum 12-to 15-foot wide utility access easement to the stormwater tract (Tract D) for maintenance and operation of the utility. The easement shall be recorded and documentation provided to the City prior to approval the issuance of the construction permit application. 4. The applicant shall provide a shared driveway through the existing Winsper Division No. 1 Subdivision tracts (Tracts G and H) that ore consistent with the shared private driveway stand[ardsj of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC 4-6-060K). The private access roads shall meet the minimum necessary to provide for safe and effective access for the existing residents, proposed residents, and fire and emergency vehicles. Analysis: It has been determined that the environmental impacts of the proposal were adequately addressed under the analysis of significant impacts contained within the previously adopted DNS-M. Based on WAC 197-11-600(4)(c), the addendum process may be used if analysis or information is added that does not substantially change the analysis of significant impacts and alternatives in the existing environmental document. The City of Renton is hereby issuing a SEPA Addendum pursuant to WAC 197-11-600. This Addendum is appropriate because it contains only minor information not included in the original Determination and there are no additional environmental impacts related to inclusion of the new information. · The proposal will not change the analysis or impacts in the original SEPA Review. However, the proposed revision and resubmittal of the plat has also increased the standard buffer from the delineated wetland edge from 50 feet to 100 feet as a result of the adoption of new Critical Areas Regulations (Ordinance No. 5757, effective date July 5, 2015). Therefore, the applicable mitigation measure to be retained includesMitigation Measure 111 and the modified Mitigation Measure 114. They are as follows: Proposed Mitigation Measures: 1. Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations found in the Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Geotech Consultants, Inc. dated May 27, 2014 or an updated report submitted at a later date. • Addendum to Environmental (SEPA) Review Page 4 of 5 May 16, 2016 • 4. The applicant shall provide a paved 16-foot wide shared driveway through the existing Winsper Division No. 1 Trocts H that is consistent with the shared private driveway standards of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC 4-6-0601). The private access roads shall meet the minimum necessary to provide for safe and effective access for the existing residents, proposed residents, and fire and emergency vehicles. DECISION: The City of Renton is hereby issuing a SEPA Addendum pursuant to WAC 197-11- 600 to retain mitigation #1, remove mitigation measures #2 and #3 and modify mitigation measure #4 as proposed. Additional Information: If you would like additional information, please contact Clark Close, Senior Planner, City of Renton Planning Division, Department of Community & Economic Development at (425) 430-7289. There is no comment period for this Addendum, dated May 16, 2016 issued by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee. • Addendum to Environmental (SEPA) Review Page Sot 5 May 16, 2016 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITIEE SIGNATURES: Gregg Zimmer a , Adl}lrnistrator Public Works Dep rtm"ent Community Services Department M?Z,:.f.l{, Fire & Emergency Services Department C,E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator Department of Community & Economic Development • . I I Date Date 7 r Date I Date ::;! ;;: w IO w (!) a: z Kl a: /! 0 "' c.i w C/J " ' ll I 1,,i ·!1 I a 1:: j,' ! -t,, ll1! ,I . ' i ~ ~ I I ! e -~· I V 1N3'tl Qli 1081\fl ~£/90H: NVld 3dV0SONVl OVOl::I SS3::>0V AON3'DH3ri3 ::m 'SclNIOlOH av~ -11/ld 3n11 ,l3ll'v'/\ i I I I ! ....... ..... (~ I I i~ ~ z :s I c.. ~ w c.. I " j C/J ~ 0 z :s 0 <( 0 ! a: C/J C/J . z, w ' N () . . "' () . . <( •. , >- ' () ··~ z w (!) a: w ::;; w g {) w Cl) .V iN3H "' 01::11081Vl £/90H: 1~• ~ ~ I or-i NVld 3dVOSONVl OVOl::I SS300V AON3~1::13~3 <Ji:)dl1 1 !t li I;; _ ~ ::m 'S8N10l0H 011'1 -l\lld 3n11 >.31111/1 . e . ! S ...J ' j§ )'j ~ -' 1 " / -/ -/ - / --w -{) I z w LL C ~ 0 0 s:: ~ w jl s Cl) w "' • --I ---i ' -~ -I .. , I " ' I I . . . . .Ol·,l I I ... , ' N • CITY OF RENT04 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM Date: June 28, 2016 To: City Clerk's Office From: Sabrina Mirante Subject: Land Use File Closeout Please complete the following information to facilitate project closeout and indexing by the City Clerk's Office Project Name: Valley Vue Short Plat LUA (file) Number: LUA16-000272, SHPL-A, MOD Cross-References: AKA's: Project Manager: Clark H. Close Acceptance Date: April 21, 2016 Applicant: Rory Dees, RAD Holdings Owner: Rory Dees, RAD Holdings Contact: Jon Nelson, Land Development Advisors PID Number: 3023059028 ERC Determination: Date: Anneal Period Ends: Administrative Decision: Date: Anneal Period Ends: Public Hearing Date: June 28, 2016 Date Appealed to HEX: By Whom: ~ {~ vJ) ~ Date: HEX Decision: 'l -'il1lP <' Anneal Period Ends: Date Appealed to Council: By Whom: Council Decision: Date: Mylar Recording Number: Project Description: The applicant is requesting approval of a 2-lot short plat and a street modification. The site Is 100,188 square feet (2.3 acres) and is located at 3106 and 3112 Talbot Rd S (APN: 302305-9028), adjacent to Wlnsper Division No. 1 subdivision. The property is in the Residential-8 (R-8) zoning district. There are two (2) single family residences (3106 and 3112) located on this parcel that gain access to the site from Talbot Road S. The proposed short plat would subdivide the parcel into two (2) residential lots, leaving both existing houses undisturbed, and one (1) Native Growth Protection Tract (Tract A). The two proposed residential lots are 41,970 SF (Lot 1) and 40,200 SF (Lot 2) with an average lot size of 41,085 SF. The residential density is 0.96 dwelling units per net acre. Access to the new residential lots Is proposed via a 16-foot wide driveway from S 32nd Pl through Winsper Division No. 1 Subdivision (Tract H) via the 24-foot wide dedicated Ingress/egress easement area. There are 142 significant trees on the site and the applicant is proposing to retain all of the original trees. The eastern portion of the site is comprised of established forest with a Category III wetland that extends off-site to the east and south. No impacts to critical areas onsite are oronosed. The annlication is also reouestinq a street modification from the req d half-street frontage improvement ng S 32nd Pl, along the access tracts, to maintain the ex sting improvement condition of the neighborhood. The applicant has submitted a Critical Areas Study and a Geotechnlcal Engineering Study with the application. Location: 3106, 3112 Talbot Rd S Comments: ERC Determination Types: DNS -Determination of Non-Significance; DNS-M -Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated; DS -Determination of $ignificance. -1 ADVISORY NOTES TO APPtf ANT LUA 16-000272 Application Date: April 12, 2016 Name: Valley Vue ---•---,..Renton® Site Address: 3112 Talbot Rd S Renton, WA 98055-5023 PLAN -Planning Review -Land Use Version 1 I June 20, 2016 I '' , n i-' ,' '4 ·;C. "i , '/ , ' _" ~·:. ·1 '\ " · ,. ' ,.. • . '/ -• , , ·. , Planning Review Comments ",, , . . , • . ·. . 'contact: Clark Close I 425-430-7289 ·1 cclose'@rentonwa.gov Recommendations: 1. RMC section 4 4 030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. 2. Construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 3. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. 4. The applicant will be required to comply with all the code requirements of RMC 4 3 050 Critical Areas. This includes, but is not limited to, placing the critical area within a Native Growth Protection Easement and providing fencing and signage. 5. The applicant may not fill, excavate, stack or store any equipment, dispose of any materials, supplies or fluids, operate any equipment, install impervious surfaces, or compact the earth in any way within the area defined by the drip line of any tree to be retained. 6. The applicant shall erect and maintain six foot (6') high chain link temporary construction fencing around the drip lines of all retained trees, or along the perimeter of a stand of retained trees with 25 feet of construction activities onsite. Placards shall be placed on fencing every fifty feet (50') indicating the words, "NO TRESPASSING -Protected Trees" or on each side of the fencing if less than fifty feet (50'). Site access to individually protected trees or groups of trees shall be fenced and signed. Individual trees shall be fenced on four (4) sides. In addition, the applicant shall provide supervision whenever equipment or trucks are moving near trees. 7. The permit shall comply with the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The permitted is responsible for adhering to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Bald Eanle Manaaement Guidelines (2007\ and /or vour U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service oermit. · Building Review • Planhing Comment~· Contact: Craig Burnell I 425-430-7290 I cburneU@rentonw'a.gov . Recommendations: follow the recommendations of the soils reoort. "I, ,,. , ", / ,;•,,, I '';ry; . '" / ,' ,.,,\'-'.1 11 ,','.' ,·· ';l.,i / ,, . , ·· ;,'· • ' ,_o-:;; ---,.;·, \. ," , Transportation' Engineering Review.Comments . 'Contact:'.'BrianrieBannwartl\l425'.430-7299 I bbannwarth.@rentonwa..gov. Recommendations: Street Modification Analysis: The applicant is requesting a modification from RMC 4 6 060F.2 "Minimum Design Standards Table for Public Streets and Alleys" in order to eliminate the required 8 foot planter strip and the 5 foot sidewalk along the north side of South 32nd Place and install a driveway apron per along the 24.06' street frontage. South 32nd Place is a Residential Street with an existing ROW width of 44 feet (as per assessor map). The existing roadway section from south to north is an approximate 5 foot planter strip, 5 foot sidewalk, 0.5 foot curb, 28 foot pavement section, 0.5 foot curb, and an approximate 5 .foot planter strip on the north side of the roadway adjacent to the project. A Residential Street classification requires a minimum right of way width of 53 feet. To meet the City's complete street standards, half street improvements include 14 foot paved roadway, 8 foot planter strip and 5 foot sidewalk is required to be constructed in the right of way fronting the development along with a minimum right of way dedication of 8 feet per City Code 4 6 060. The existing homes along South 32nd Place are only 20 feet or so away from the existing right of way. An increase in right of way of 8 feet on the north side of the roadway would encroach into the required building setback per zoning. The proposal is compliant with the following modification criteria, pursuant to RMC 4 9 2500, if all conditions of approval are met. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of the requested modification, subject to conditions as noted below: RECOMMENDED CONDITION 1. A 5 foot sidewalk will be required directly adjacent to the roadway. Given that the frontage along N 28th Street is only 24.06', a driveway apron with driveway wings meeting City of Renton Standards Driveway Detail (COR Std Plan 104.1) will encompass the entire frontage. 2. Sidewalk and driveway approach shall be located solely within the public right of way. If the improvements are outside of the existing right of way, additional right of way dedication will be required. Compliance Street Modification Criteria and Analysis a. Substantially implements the policy direction of the policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and the Community Design Element and the proposed modification is the minimum adjustment necessary to implement these policies and objectives. Ran: June 28, 2016 Page 1 of 5 • A,DVISORY NOTES TO APPL.NT IJUA 16-000272 ' --------Renton® ~LAN -Planning Review -Land Use Version 1 I June 20, 2016 , ,, :' '."'/',)!:"/->_!" _, '.i _::µrni;:,;;J;,L::, _, / ,,. ,J,,/:!4F)jJ;;g4':',> .__,:/; ,, -, ., /,' ,, ;r,;< :-. :: , , , <>:> , ' TrlinspJ>rtation Engineeringr RevieJ,VX<::pmments//ii; Contact:'Briapne Bannwarth I 425-430-7299 I bbannwai:th@rentonwa.gov Staff Comment: The Community Design Element has applicable policies listed under a separate section labeled Streets, Sidewalks and Streetscapes. These policies address walkable neighborhoods, safety and shared uses. Two specific policies support the decision to modify the street standards in order to extend the existing sidewalk at a width of five feet and eliminate the need for the landscape /equirement between the curb and the sidewalk. These policies are Policy CD 102 and Policy CD 103 which state that the goal is to promote new development with "walkable places," "support grid and flexible grid street and pathway patterns," and "are visually attractive, safe, and healthy environments." The requested street modification is consistent with these policy guidelines provided the driveway apron will be part of a future 5 foot sidewalk directly adjacent to the existing curb and gutter. This is to ensure that the north side of the roadway is consistent with the existing configuration on the south side of the roadway. b. Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon sound engineering judgment. Staff Comment: The City's Community and Economic Development section reviewed South 32nd Street and the surrounding area and have determined that locating the sidewalk directly adjacent to the roadway is more suitable for this location of South 32nd Street. This determination was based on the fact that the roadway is directly adjacent to single family residences and there is insufficient space between the existing right of way and the existing homes to expand the roadway section to meet the full Residential Street standards. c. Will not be injurious to other property(ies) in the vicinity. Staff Comment: There are no identified adverse impacts to other properties from the requested modification. d. Conforms to the intent and purpose of the Code. Staff Comment: This modification provides for a safe pedestrian route in and around the existing neighborhood. e. Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended; and Staff Comment: The revised street standards provide a safe design for vehicles and pedestrians. f. Will not create adverse impacts to other property(ies) in the vicinity. Staff Comment: See comments under criterion 'c'. . Engineering,Reviev,/C~inments,, .: ['.' Recommendations: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Contact: Ian Fitz-James I 425-430-7288 I ifitz-james@rentonwa.gov I I M E M O R A N D U M I DATE: May 11, 2016 I ' TO: Clark Close, Senior Planner FROM: Ian Fitz James, Civil Plan Reviewer ·suBJECT: Utility and Transportation Comments for the Valley Vue Short Plat 3106 and 3112 Talbot Road S. ' I LUA 16 000272 ' ,I have reviewed the application for the Valley Vue Short Plat located at 3106 and 3112 Talbot Road S. and have the following comments: EXISTING CONDITIONS ' The site is approximately 2.3 acres in size and is rectangular in shape. It has an east to west orientation. It contains two single family residences with address of 3106 and 3112 Talbot Road S. The residence at 3106 Talbot Road S. occupies the western portion of the site ,while the residence at 3112 Talbot Road S. occupies the eastern portion of the site. I ,WATER: Water.service is provided by the City of Renton. There is an existing 12" water main (COR Facility ID: WM 03001) west of the site along the eastern frontage of Talbot Road S. 3106 and 3112 Talbot Road S. are currently served by 3/4" services connected to this main. The meters are located near the end of the site's private driveway along the Talbot Road S. frontage. There is also an existing 8' water ' main (COR Facility ID: WM 03498) south of the site in S. 32nd Place. I Ran: June 28, 2016 Page 2 of 5 ADVISORY NOTES TO APPtfANT LUA 16-000272 PLAN • Planning Review • Land Use -----•----Renton® Version 1 I June 20, 2016 ,' • . : ;' .• ,, • '.,(' ," >' : ' ,"' '. " '. -. . ' Engineering Review Comments Contact': Jan Fiti:-James,l 425-430-7288 l'ifitz.james@rentonwa.gov SEWER: Sewer service is provided by the City of Renton. There is an existing 8" concrete sewer main (COR Facility ID: GM04110) west of the site along the eastern frontage of Talbot Road S. that flows from south to north. There is an 8" PVC sewer main (COR Facility ID: GM04113) north of the site that flows northwest from the northern site boundary beginning at a 48" manhole (COR Facility ID: MH3013). 3106 Talbot Road S. is served by an existing 4" PVC side sewer which enlarges to a 6" PVC side sewer that connects to the 8" PVC sewer main downstream of the 48" manhole. There is also an existing 8" D.I. sewer main (COR Facility ID: GM04154) south of the site in S. 32nd Place that flows from east to west. 3112 Talbot Road S. is served by a private on site septic system. STORM DRAINGE: The site slopes from east to west. Portions of the site's slope exceed 15%. Drainage from the site either infiltrates or sheet flows to the west. There is an existing stormwater ditch along the eastern frontage of Talbot Road S. west of the site. Drainage in the ditch flows to the north. There is also a 12" CMP piped storm drainage conveyance system (COR Facility ID: 118502) south of the site in S 32nd Place that flows from northeast to southwest. STREETS: The site is not bordered by any City of Renton Public street. Access to both lots on the site comes via a private driveway/road that connects west to Talbot Road S. There are two empty tracts that lie between the site and S. 32nd Place to the south. Tract H of the Winsper Division I subdivision (KC Parcel No: 9485750570) connects the western portion of the site to S. 32nd Place, while Tract G of the Winsper Division 1 subdivision (KC Parcel No: 9485750570) connects the eastern portion of the site to S. 32nd Place. Tract H has 24.06' of frontage along S. 32nd Place and Tract G has 24.01' of frontage along S. 32nd Place. Per the Winsper Division 1 Plat Recording, Tract H and Tract G can serve as a future ingress/egress. and utility access to the subject lot. Talbot Road S. is classified as a neighborhood collector arterial. S. 32nd Place is classified as a residential access street. There are no street improvements along Talbot Road S. On the north side of S. 32nd Place there is a concrete curb and gutter. On the south side of S. 32nd Place there is a curb and gutter and a 5' sidewalk at the back of curb. CODE REQUIREMENTS WATER COMMENTS 1. Per City Code, a new fire hydrant is required within 300' of the existing homes. New lots created through the short plat process are required to conform to the code. An 8" water main extension north through Tract Hof the Winsper Division 1 subdivision from the 8" main in S. 32nd Place is required to serve the hydrant. The new water main and fire hydrant shall be designed and installed per City standards. The water main and fire hydrant shall be located in a utility easement. 2. The survey and plans need to show all existing water infrastructure. The existing hydrant (COR Facility ID: HYO S 00483) located in front of 636 S. 32nd Place (KC Parcel No: 9485750360) is not shown on the sewer and water plan. 3. 3106 and 3112 Talbot Road S. require new 1" water meters connected to the new 8" water main for service. The meters will be installed by the City of Renton. The current (2016) fee to install each meter is $3,310.00. The lots will be credited for the System Development Charge (SDC) as they are currently connected to the City's water system. The meters shall be located in a utility easement. 4. The existing water 3/4" meters and service lines that currently serve 3106 and 3112 Talbot Road S. shall be abandoned and capped at the main in Talbot Road S. in accordance with the City's standards. SEWER COMMENTS 1. 3106 Talbot Road S. is currently connected via a PVC side sewer to the existing 8" sewer main (COR Facility ID: GM04113) running northwest from the site's northwest corner. This existing connection is acceptable for this home. 2. 3112 Talbot Road S. is currently served by a private septic system. Per City Code, new lots created in the short plat process require sewer service that connects to the public sewer system. The existing private septic system shall be abandoned in accordance with King County Department of Health regulations. 3. The applicant shall obtain a sewer availability certificate from the City for the new connection for 3112 Talbot Road S. A new 6" sewer service shall be installed to serve 3112 Talbot Road S. The new service shall extend from the existing 48" manhole (COR Facility ID: MH3167) located south of the site in S. 32nd Place north through Tract Hof the Winsper Division 1 subdivision to the site. The new service shall be designed and installed per City Standards. The new service line shall serve only 3112 Talbot Road S. 4. The new sewer connection for 3112 Talbot Road S. requires payment of a SDC. The SDC for sewer service is based on the size of the water service. The current SDC for sewer service with a 1" water meter installation is $2,242.00. The SOC for 3106 Talbot Road S. would be credited as it is currently connected to the City's sewer system. Ran: June 28, 2016 Page 3 of 5 ADVISORY NOTES TO APPL.NT LUA 16-000272 I PLAN -Planni_ng Review -Land Use ! Engineering Review Comments • --------Renton® Version 1 I June 20, 2016 Contact: Ian Fitz-James I 425'.430-7288 I ifitz-james@rentonwa.gov I STORM DRAINAGE COMMENTS 1 1. The project is proposing 1,780 SF of new and/or replaced impervious surface. The project is also proposing less than 7,000 SF of : land disturbing area. Per Section 1.1.2 of the adopted 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM), the project is exempt 'from drainage review. 2. Drainage improvements along the S. 32nd Place frontage are required to conform to the City's street standards found in AMC 4 6 060. 13. Storm drainage SDCs would be credited as the proposed short plat is not creating new single family homes. I TRANSPORTATION /STREET COMMENTS 1. The project proposes to construct a shared driveway through Tract H of the Winsper Division 1 subdivision. The proposed driveway , would connect the site's internal private road to S. 32nd Place. This would serve as the site's point of access. j 2. As part of the proposed development, the lot will gain 24.06' of street frontage along S. 32nd Place as Tract H is proposed to be used , as an ingress/egress. S. 32nd Place is a residential access street. Per AMC 4 6 060, the minimum right of way for a residential access : street is 53'. A 0.5' curb, 8' planting strip, and 5' sidewalk is required along the entire project frontage. I . a. The applicant submitted a formal modification request dated November 5, 2015 regarding the required street frontage improvements . along S. 32nd Place. The applicant is proposing to construct a concrete driveway apron and maintain the existing frontage improvements I along the S. 32d Place frontage in lieu of construction the planting strip and sidewalk. I I b. City staff is recommending approval of the applicant's modification request. A 5' sidewalk will be required directly adjacent to the : roadway. The applicant shall construct a concrete driveway apron with wings in accordance with the City's Driveway Standard (COR Std. Plan 104.1) for the entire 24.06' of frontage. The sidewalk and driveway approach shall be located solely within the public right of way. If the improvements are outside of the existing right of way, additional right of way dedication will be required. Please see the formal response to the modification request for more information. !3. The proposed shared driveway is 16' in width and less than 200' in length. This meets the City's minimum standards for a shared jdriveway found in AMC 4 6 060. This is also acceptable to the Fire Department. The driveway shall have a pavement section containing a ,minimum of 4" of asphalt over 6" of crushed rock. The maximum grade for the shared driveway shall be 15%. The shared driveway shall ,be located wholly in a tract. An ingress/egress access easement to 3106 and 3112 Talbot Road S. is required for the entirety of the shared driveway tract. The plan for the shared driveway shall show how stormwater is collected and routed to appropriate drainage ,facilities. 14. The separation between the backyard fences of 618 and 624 S. 32nd Place is approximately 20'. The proposed shared driveway has a pavement width of 16'. The construction plans should give the contractor specific instructions on the installation of the shared driveway '.in the vicinity of these fences. If fence protection is recommended, it should be noted on the plans. If the fences will be affected by the construction, the contractor shall coordinate with the respective property owners prior to construction. ,5. Relocation of franchise utility structures required for construction of the shared driveway shall be coordinated with the respective utility :owner prior to construction. I '6. Paving and trench restoration in the City's right of way shall comply with the City's Trench Restoration and Overlay requirements. I 7. Transportation impact fees will be credited since the short plat is not adding any additional homes. ,GENERAL COMMENTS ,1. The SDCs listed are for 2016. The fees that are current at the time of the building permit application will be levied. Please see the :city of Renton website for the current SDCs. I 2. The survey and all civil plans shall conform to the current City of Renton survey and drafting standards. Current drafting standards can be found on the City of Renton website. I i R,an: June 28, 2016 Page 4 of 5 ADVISORY NOTES TO AP-CANT LUA 16-000272 ----•----·Renton® PLAN -Planning Review -Land Use Version 1 I June 20, 2016 . EngineJ:irig fi;liiJw Com~Jfi~~; , : ·•· ) ~ ':} iif~[Cii1tact: lar{fiti~Jtlh~§' I' 425'{;~off?~B;'f'ifitz-ja'.rriigf@i?e;ifbmva.gbV/ 3. A final survey that is stamped and signed by the professional land surveyor ot record will need to be provided. All existing utilities need to be surveyed and shown. Please reference COR Maps tor mapping and records of existing utilities in the project vicinity. 4. Separate plan submittals will be required tor construction permits tor utility work and street improvements. All plans shall be prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer in the State ot Washington. 5. Separate permits tor the new water and sewer services will be required. 6. When utility plans are complete, please submit tour (4) copies ot the plans, two (2) copies of the drainage report, an electronic copy of each, the permit aoolication, an itemized cost of construction estimate, and anolication fee to the counter ot the sixth floor .·" -. ·-'~Xii--'.'-!U-.,);; : ·. ·';_ .,,;:f;,h;;;,,:_-_;·_ .\ •. ~):':_'.1,]~;bt-'.::::.3:'i/~iii';;:;/1ftt~:+ ''.·::.:' : _.,: -'il:::-: :',:,:;;~:;_;;:,:;,:/-"'.'.:;· . ',( . ·. °',;/'-'··:,..~; .. · -:< ', ' -'_ -;';''. __ . __;::-/-,"·'_' ':.' _-'•<;,'. Police.Plan ;Review, Comments!fiC, .":•,i•1rr:#it}·:",':N/:·•,' ril'l!i•'~:!'ill!t:~'! Contact:,.Cynd1e• !?arks: k425,43Qi 7.521 I cparks@rentonwa: gov, Recommendations: Minimal impact on police services. ': ,,, .. ,.·.' .-::.1mrs:::hH/·i·J;ij_.LY;(::': s:::0 \;;;L;Ji:'.!;iji.11.t,i·i·;h) .-''{ '·p· :: \')J;.'i!.·:1·1.f.ii#!·>·i·i·ih·if!J•l.'.J,.:').!'!l;li:l!·i·)i:·;·1·:·'·~·'U/l.ii.iBiili!i.iI!f·;;·i!+ii.;.'f.".. "l'l\;'j !.;ii!ili;'..)/;flii.'l·i·!·,·:i·,·'·!;Hf,.tji!ii; .. 1<i-'t(,:>;,-;;.,;:[iFi!li!ii·/j·'·lii·'.:'i:i''.'.!::;h>:,· ', .. : ·~'.,i;Lji(.":/:L;)Ji:!J'! L '' ' .····'1' </'{fi;;J; Technical! Services. Comri(entsi,;;' ,; ·· , :1i/"1iJ';'iff1i!jITJ!!i':1:.,11!l1•/:1 iir,,,Fi!iC:Ontai:t:•Amandar:C.skreri 1·;425l430,7369I · aaskren@rentonwa.gov, Recommendations: Encroachments shown on the north line of Lot 2. I Fir8' R8Vi~~1,~: B~ilditlg .Co;'ri1e'l1tS1i ·; ·1: ,Jii!/iiiiufl18l!ln,~J;.~1iii!1UM:'/!i!INi!ljff1iU1f11~~6l;c~:.'i.d6i~~~:]fi~:M:!~:. 11i2.5E.4~0}lb~4;;·i: dhO·~~~f@:f ~'nt'ont~:::~;iJi . Recommendations: Environmental Impact Comments: 1. No tire impact tees are applicable. Code Related Comments: 1. Proposed access to existing homes is acceptable. Access shall be a minimum ot 16 feet wide approved paved roadway across Tract H. 2. Provide one new tire hvdrant within 300 feet of the existina homes. ::·co~,-~wtiHiti~.it1~.iC'e;f ·R.i~1i::wrc:6~fn1~Wt:1rmW/J/i:!ffil!i?i:/!J/il//JWl!i1J[~i6:~·i~'~t:::'t£~.~Ili~lij1~trnicih·:·1.·425~~J1Qii~1~Yij::.r1:·LB~ti:~bB'.~:f ~~:trin~~:~g·Jv;t Recommendations: 1. Parks Impact tee per Ordinance 5670 annlies. Ran: June 28, 2016 Page 5 of 5 .,DEPARTMENT OF COM.ITV AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT --------1-----Rentoll 8 Planning Division LAND USE PERMIT MASTER APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNER(S) PROJECT INFORMATION NAME: RAD Holdinas LLC PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: Valley Vue ADDRESS: 1040 W. Lk. Sammamish Prkv SE PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE: 3601 and 3112 Talbot Road S Renton, WA 98055 CITY: ZIP: Bellevue, WA 98008 TELEPHONE NUMBER: 206 715-4559 KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER($): 302305-9028-01 APPLICANT (if other than owner) NAME: EXISTING LAND USE(S): two single family residences Rorv Dees COMPANY (if applicable): Managing Member of RAD PROPOSED LAND USE(S): two single family residences Holdinns LLC EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: ADDRESS: 1040 W. Lk. Sammamish Prkv SE RS PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION CITY: ZIP: (if applicable) RS Bellevue, WA 98008 TELEPHONE NUMBER: EXISTING ZONING: R-8 206 715-4559 CONTACT PERSON PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): R-8 NAME: SITE AREA (in square feet): 100,188 sq ft or 2.3 acres Jon Nelson SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE COMPANY (if applicable): Land Development Advisors, DEDICATED: none LLC SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS: ADDRESS: 12865 SE 47th Pl 2400 PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET CITY: ZIP: ACRE (if applicable) 1 approximately. Bellevue, WA 98006 TELEPHONE NUMBER AND EMAIL ADDRESS: NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable) 2 425 466-5203 landdevadvisors@comcast.net NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): 0 ncri:I\ ,en ~-.. 1 APR 1 2 ?016 C:\Users\Rory Dees\Documents\RPD\Personal\RPD flnancial\General Real Estate'C,Vl''IO'ft'leENl'S~·doc PLANNING DIVISION Rev:08/2015 ·-· .OJECT INFORMATION (co.nued) ,.:...:::...:....:---->..::..::..:..:..:==='-----------~ NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): PROJECT VALUE: 2 550,000 SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): 0 IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): 3050 SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): 0 SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): 0 NET FLOOR AREA ON NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): 0 NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable): 0 0 AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA ONE 0 AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA TWO 0 FLOOD HAZARD AREA D GEOLOGIC HAZARD D HABITAT CONSERVATION D SHORELINE STREAMS & LAKES ~ WETLANDS LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY __ sq.ft. __ sq.ft. __ sq.ft. __ sq.ft. 6,605+/-sq. ft. /Attach leaal description on seoarate sheet with the followina information included} SITUATE IN THE north 100 feet of the northeast quarter of the southeast QUARTER OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 23 north, RANGE 5 East, IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Print Name/s) Rory Dees, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that I am (please check one) ~ the curre ner f the property involved in this application or O the authorized representative to act for a corporation (please f of autho · ation) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith are in all reel to the best of my knowledge and belief. Signature of Owner/Representative Date STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Rae~ Tu~ signed this instrument and acknowledge it to be ®,er/their free and voluntary act for the use and purpose mentioned in the instrument. OLt /as / 201 \12 Dated 1 MEGAN TAYLOR VUJICA STATE OF WASHINGTON NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 05-15-19 ~ 11/J, -zt;::2 Nry%if;n a~r the Stat~ ashington My appointment expires: _,O=,.F}..,_-_l.1.s5...,_-_IL'1_,_ __________ _ 2 C:\Users\Rory Dees\Documents\RPD\Personal\RPD Financial\General Real Estate\masterapp two lot 4-4-16.doc Rev:08/2015 .... ..,..., • DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ------::::::::--::-· -------Renton 0 • WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425-430·7200 I www.rentonwa.gov LANO USE PERMIT SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: WAIVED MODIFIED BY: BY: Arborist Report 4 001:- Biological Assessment 4 ca1culatlons , Colored Maps for Display 4 C,,tl'!,-- Construction Mitigation Description ,,..o 4 Deed of Right-of-Way Dedication 1 Density Worksheet 4 COMMENTS: VJ'FL~{ P€TE}t,n /wt"V ltT" R-/.Ml!1L () 't1i" Drainage Control Plan 2 1/rA.. uni...::, M .... ) or, . .I l I\(. y,,,. r '/ Drainage Report 2 V"\ u. nu._ e,£C12e&.5 't-1'\ Ve_bht:(d . I I\ I Elevations, Architectural 3AND 4 -(Ah:.. (31r1~01,rt,. el.EV" lh? rrr .r Environmental Checklist 4 Existing Covenants (Recorded Copy) 1••0• Existing Easements (Recorded Copy) •••o• Flood Hazard Data 4 Floor Plans , ••• • Geotechnical Report ,..0 , Grading Elevations & Plan, Conceptual 2 Grading Elevations & Plan, Detailed 2 Habitat Data Report 4 vlft:.- Improvement Deferral 2 Irrigation Plan 4 PROJECT NAME: VA-UliY V/tW flfr/l'-1 Pf.,,lt-, DATE: _ _..._/ ..... 'i-+/_,_l ... f'/'"""J""""S------------ RECEIVED 1 APR 1 2 2016 H:\CED\Data\Forms-Templates\Self-Help Handouts\Planntng\Walversubmlttalreqs.docx CITY of 'Ttt1Nf6N Pl.ANNING DIVISION ·, • • LAND USE PERMIT SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: WAIVED MODIFIED COMMENTS: BY: BY: King County Assessor's Map Indicating S1te 4 Landscape Plan, Conceptual 4 at"t. /Jf(l.(r( 0"'1!ll.Jf'IJ•n.,> Ar P un,/7t. 0/'rTF • Landscape Plan, Detailed, Legal Description 4 Letter of Understanding of Geological Rlsk 4 Map of EKistlng Site Conditions, Master Application Form 4 Monument Cards (one per monument) 1 Neighborhood Detail Map 4 U/<... • I /!So ,cm.C Overall Plat Plan 4 Parking. Lot Coverage & Landscaping Analysis 4 Plan Reductions (PMTs) • Post Office Approval 2 Plat Name Reservation • Plat Plan• Preapplication Meeting Summary 4 Publlc Works Approval Letter2 Rehabilitation Plan 4 Screening Detail 4 Shoreline Tracking Worksheet 4 Site Plan 2AN0• Stream or Lake Study, Standard, Urt-- Stream or Lake Study, Supplemental 4 Stream or Lake Mitigation Plan 4 Street Profiles 2 Trtle Report or Plat Certificate •••o• Topography Map 3 Traffic Study 2 Tree Cutting/Land Clearing Plan 4 Urban Design Regulations Analysis, Utilities Plan, Generallzed 2 Wetlands Mitigation Plan, Final 4 Wetlands Mitigation Plan, Preliminary 4 z H:\CED\Data\Forms~Templates\Se!f.Help Handcuts\Planning\Walversubmlttalreqs.docx Rev:08/2015 . ' . ' • LAND USE PERMIT SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: Wetlands Report/Delineation 4 Wireless: Applicant Agreement Statement ZAND> Inventory of Existing Sites 2 AND, Lease Agreement, Draft u•o, Map of Existing Site Conditions 2 ,.,.,3 Map of View Area,,.,.., Photosimulations 2,No> This Requirement may be waived by: 1. Property Services 2 Development Engineering Plan Review 3 Building 4 Planning WAIVED MODIFIED BY: BY: 3 H:\CED\Data\Forms-Templates\Self-Help Handouts\Planning\Walversubmittalreqs.docx • COMMENTS: Rev: 08/2015 • • • PRE-APPLICATION MEETING COMMENTS FOR VALLEY VIEW SHORT PLAT PRE15-000691 CITY OF RENTON Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division October 15, 2015 ----------~ RECEIVED Contact Information: Planner: Clark H. Close, 425-430-7289 Public Works Plan Reviewer: Vicki Grover, 425-430-7291 Fire Prevention Reviewer: Corey Thomas, 425-430-7024 Building Department Reviewer: Craig Burnell, 425-430-7290 APR 1 2 2016 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION 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 ------Renton® DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM October 15, 2015 Clark Close, Senior Planner Corey Thomas, Plans Review Inspector (Valley View Short Plat -3106 & 3112 Talbot Rd S) PRElS-000691 1. Proposed access to existing homes is acceptable. Access shall be a minimum of 20- feet wide approved roadway across Tract H. Any future development (additions, ADU's, demo and rebuild or new plats) would have to meet current code. 2. Fire impact fees apply, however are a net zero dollars as credit is applied for the retained existing homes. 3. Existing fire hydrants are acceptable for existing homes in their current location. Any future development would have to meet current code. • ' 11 ) ;,• • DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT • MEMORANDUM DATE: October 15, 2015 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Clark Close, Senior Planner Vicki Grover, Plan Review Pre-Application for 3112 & 3106 Talbot Road South Pre15-000691 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 proposal located at PID #3023059028. The following comments are based on the pre-application submittal made to the City of Renton by the applicant. EXISTING CONDITIONS WATER -Both of the existing residents are currently served by the City of Renton water service area. SEWER. The existing residence located at 3106 Talbot Road South is currently served by the City of Renton sewer service area. The existing residence located at 3112 Talbot Road South is currently being served by a septic system. STORM There are drainage improvements with in S. 32"' Place CODE REQUIREMENTS Water 1. Need to show the existing water services for 3106 & 3112 Talbot Road South on the submittal plans. The existing meters are located in the right of way along Talbot Road South, through the short plat process the meters may be required to be relocated to the front of each lot which will require a 6-inch water main extension. 2. No new water infrastructure is being proposed with this pre-application submittal. Sewer 1. Need to show the existing side sewer connection for 3106 Talbot Road South. I i I I I I I i I I I I I I Valley Vue Pre-App 15-000691 Page 2 of 3 October 15, 2015 • • 2. The existing residence located at 3112 Talbot Road South will need to connect a new minimum 6-inch diameter side sewer connection to the existing 8-inch sewer main connected to Manhole No. 3167 (Record drawing 5-189204) located within S 32°• Place. The side sewer connection will run through Tract Hof the Winsper Division 1. 3. System development fee for sewer is based on the size of the domestic water meter that is currently serving 3112 Talbot Road South. Applicant shall obtain a sewer availability certification from the City of Renton prior to submittal for construction/utility permit application. 4. Existing septic system will be required to be abandoned in accordance with King County Department of Health. SURFACE WATER 1. A drainage plan and drainage report complying with the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual and City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2 shall be required. Based on the City's flow control map, this site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard, Forested Site Conditions. The majority of the site is within the Black River Drainage Basin. Refer to Figure 1.1.2.A-Flow Chart to determine the type of drainage review required by the City of Renton 2009 Surface Water Design Manual Amendment. The final drainage plan and drainage report must be submitted with the construction/ utility permit application. TRANSPORTATION/STREET 1. The proposal shows a shared driveway through Tract Hof the Winsper Division 1. Per RMC 4-6- 060), the length shall not be greater than 200 ft. and the minimum width shall be 16 ft., drainage improvements pursuant to City Code are required (i.e., collection and treatment of storm water), as well as an approved pavement thickness (minimum of four inches (4") asphalt over six inches (6") crushed rock). The maximum grade for the shared driveway shall not exceed fifteen percent (15%). 2. Paving and trench restoration shall comply with the City's Trench Restoration and Overlay Requirements. GENERAL COMMENTS 1. This project will comply with all undergrounding requirements. 2. All construction utility permits for drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals. All utility plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. A licensed Civil Engineer shall prepare the civil plans. 3. Separate permit and fees will be required for the side sewer connection, and storm water connection. 4. Water service, sewer stub, and a drainage flow control BMP is required to be provided to each new lot prior to recording of the short plat. • , • • DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ------Renton@ DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: M E M O R A N D U October 15, 2015 Pre-Application File No. 15-000691 Clark H. Close, Senior Planner M Valley View Short Plat -3106 & 3112 Talbot Rd S General: We have completed a preliminary review of the pre-application for the above- referenced development proposal. The following comments on development and permitting issues are based on the pre-application submittals made to the City of Renton by the applicant and the codes in effect on the date of review. The applicant is cautioned that information contained in this summary may be subject to modification and/or concurrence by official decision-makers (e.g., Hearing Examiner, Community & Economic Development Administrator, Public Works Administrator, Planning Director, Development Services Director, and City Council). 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. The applicant is encouraged to review all applicable sections of the Renton Municipal Code. The Development Regulations are available for purchase for $50.00 plus tax from the Finance Division on the first floor of City Hall or online at www.rentonwa.gov. Project Proposal: The project site is located at 3106 and 3112 Talbot Rd S (King County parcel no. 3023059028) between S 27th Pl and S 32nd St. The rectangular parcel is approximately 100,188 square feet (2.3 acres) in size, according to the King County Department of Assessments. The proposal would subdivide the subject property into 2 single-family residential lots and a wetland tract. The applicant is proposing to retain the two existing homes in their current locations on the lot. Topographically, the site generally slopes from east to west with elevation change from 208 feet to 130 feet across the entire project site. Upgrades would include providing private drive access, onsite storm drainage and sewer to the single family residences. Presently, access to the two residences is made along Talbot Rd S. Additional access could be provided from two 24-foot wide tracts through Winspur Subdivision to the south along s 32nd Place. The applicant is proposing to utilize the westerly tract (Tract H) in order to access either one or two parcel(s), via a 16-foot paved driveway, following the short plat process. The site includes a Category 2 wetland along the east property line. Approximately, 54 trees would be removed and 75 new trees would be replanted onsite. The parcel was annexed into the City under the Winsper Annexation in 1994, per Ord. No. 4476 and has a Comprehensive Land Use designation of Residential Medium Density. Current Use: The land, consisting of 1 tax parcel (3023059028) and has two existing single-family residences constructed in 1932 (3106 Talbot Road S) and 1963 (3112 Talbot Road S). Zoning: The property is located within the Residential-8 (R-8) zoning designation. The R-8 zone was established for single family residential dwellings allowing a range of 4 to 8 dwelling units ; I I '\ ' I I I I \ ' I \ I \ I \ \ \ ' \ I ' I \ I I I \ \ I i \ \ I I i \ \ I I, I \ I \ I I I I \ I • Valley View Short Plat, PRElS-000691 Page 2 of 6 October 15, 2015 • per net acre (du/ac). The Residential Medium Density Land Use designation is intended to implement the R-8 zone. Development in the R-8 zone is intended to create opportunities for new single family residential neighborhoods and to facilitate high-quality infill development that promotes reinvestment in existing single family neighborhoods. It is intended to accommodate uses that are compatible with and support a high-quality residential environment and add to a sense of community. Detached single family residential dwelling units are a permitted uses within the R-8 zoning designation. Density: The area of private access easements, private roads, critical areas (wetlands, streams, slopes in excess of 40 percent), and public right-of-way dedications are deducted from the total area to determine the "net" site area prior to calculating density. The gross density of the site was calculated to be 0.9 du/ac (2 units/ 2.3 acres). A final density worksheet would be required at the time of formal land use application. The applicant would be required to demonstrate compliance with the net density requirements of the zone at the time of formal application. In the event the applicant can show that minimum density cannot be achieved due to lot configuration, lock of access, environmental or physical constraints, minimum density requirements may be waived. Staff Is supportive of a reduced density on this site due to the limited access. Development Standards: The project would be subject to RMC 4-2-llOA, "Development Standards for Single Family Zoning Designations" effective at the time of complete application (noted as "R-8 standards" herein). Minimum Lot Size. Width and Depth -The minimum lot size permitted in the R-8 zone, is 5,000 square feet for parcels being subdivided. Minimum lot width is 50 feet for interior lots and 60 feet for corner lots; minimum lot depth is 80 feet. The proposal appears to comply with the minimum lot width and depth requirements of the zone. It Is the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate compliance with the minimum lot size, width and depth criteria of the zone at the time of formal application, Building Standards -The R-8 standards allow a maximum building coverage of 50% of the lot area. The maximum impervious coverage in the R-8 zone is 65%. The maximum wall plate height is restricted to 24 feet, and the buildings shall be not more than two stories. Roofs with a pitch equal to or greater than 4:12 may project an additional six (6) vertical feet from the maximum wall plate height; common rooftop features, such as chimneys, may project an additional four (4) vertical feet from the roof surface. Non-exempt vertical projections (e.g., decks, railings, etc.) shall not extend above the maximum wall plate height unless the projection is stepped back one-and-a-half (1.5) horizontal feet from each fa~ade for each one (1) vertical foot above the maximum wall plate height (see Code Interpretation 73 (Cl-73) for more information about residential building height). Detached accessory structures must remain below a height of 15 feet. The gross floor area must be less than that of the primary structure. Accessory structures are also included in building lot coverage calculations. Lots 1 & 2 both have existing homes that would comply with the maximum building coverage although no data was submitted. Verification af the bullding coverages for both lats would need to be provided at time of short plat submittal. Setbacks -Setbacks are the minimum required distance between the building footprint and the property line. The required setbacks for the R-8 zone are: Front yard: 20 feet for the primary structure; Rear yard: 20 feet; Side yards: 5 feet; and Side yards along streets: 15 feet. H:\CED\Planning\Current Planning\PREAPPS\2015 Preapps\15-000691 , / • Valley View Short Plat, PRElS-000691 Page 3 of 6 October 15, 2015 • The application materials did not identify setback distances for the two existing homes to be retained to the new property lines of the short plat. All setback measurements far the existing home must comply with the setback minimums of the zone and would be required to be identified on the Short Plat application materials. Access/Parking: Access to the lots is proposed to be gained through an existing access easement through Tract H (a 24-foot wide tract in Winsper Division No. 1 Subdivision) from S 32nd Place. Each lot is required to accommodate off street parking for a minimum of two vehicles. Shared driveways are required to be completely within a tract. Per RMC 4-6-060J.1 Shared driveways may be allowed for access to four (4) or fewer residential lots, provided: a. At least one of the four (4) lots abuts a public right-of-way with at least fifty (SO) linear feet of property; and b. The subject lots are not created by a subdivision of ten {10) or more lots; and c. A public street is not anticipated by the City of Renton to be necessary for existing or future traffic and/or pedestrian circulation through the short subdivision or to serve adjacent property; and d. The shared driveway would not adversely affect future circulation to neighboring properties; and e. The shared driveway is no more than two hundred feet (200') in length; and f. The shared driveway poses no safety risk and provides sufficient access for emergency vehicles and personnel. Per RMC 4-6-060H.2 an approved turnaround is required for dead end streets 150 feet or longer and a cul-de-sac Is required for a dead end street from 300 feet to 500 feet. A modification request would need to be granted for any deviations from the street code standards. Driveways: The maximum driveway slopes cannot exceed 15%. If the grade exceeds 15%, a variance is required. The maximum width of single loaded garage driveways shall not exceed 9 feet and double loaded garage driveways shall not exceed 16 feet. Landscaping: With the exception of critical areas, all pervious area shall have landscape treatment. Landscaping may include hardscape such as decorative paving, rock outcroppings, fountains, plant containers, etc. Where there is insufficient right-of-way space or no public frontage, street trees are required in the front yard subject to approval of the Administrator. A minimum of two (2) trees are to be located in the front yard prior to final inspection. A conceptual landscape pion shall be provided with the formal land use application as prepared by a registered Landscape Architect, a certified nurseryman or other certified professional. Storm drainage facilities are required to comply with the minimum 15-foot perimeter landscaping strip on the outside of the fence unless otherwise determined through the site plan review or subdivision review process. Please refer to landscape regulations RMC 4-4-070 for further general and specific landscape requirements. Fences/Walls: If the applicant intends to install any fences or retaining walls as part of this project, the location must be designated on the landscape plan or grading plan. A fence and/or wall detail should also be included on the plan. A fence taller than 6 feet shall require a building permit or an explicit exemption from the Building Official. A retaining wall that is 4 feet or taller, H:\CED\Planning\Current Planning\PREAPPS\2015 Preapps\15-000691 • Valley View Short Plat, PRE15-000691 Page4of6 October 15, 2015 • as measured by the vertical distance from the bottom of the footing to the finish grade at the top of the wall requires a building permit. A fence shall not be constructed on top of a retaining wall unless the total combined height of the retaining wall and the fence does not exceed the allowed height of a standalone fence. For more information about fences and retaining walls refer to RMC 4-4-040. Significant Tree Retention: An aerial image of the site identifies mature trees on the site. If significant trees (greater than 6-inch caliper or 8-caliper inches for alders and cottonwoods) are proposed to be removed, a tree inventory and a tree retention plan along with an arborist report, tree retention plan and tree retention worksheet shall be provided with the formal land use application as defined in RMC 4-8-120. The tree retention plan must show preservation of at least 30% of significant trees. The Administrator may authorize the planting of replacement trees on the site if it can be demonstrated to the Administrator's satisfaction that an insufficient number of trees can be retained. Please refer to landscape regulations RMC 4-4-130 for further general and specific tree retention and land clearing requirements. In addition to retaining 30% of existing significant trees, each new lot would be required to provide a minimum tree density of 2 trees per 5,000 square feet of lot area onsite. Protected trees that do not contribute to a lot's required minimum tree density shall be held in perpetuity within a tree protection tract. Significant trees shall be retained in the following priority order: Priority One: Landmark trees; significant trees that form a continuous canopy; significant trees on slopes greater than twenty percent (20%); Significant trees adjacent to critical areas and their associated buffers; and Significant trees over sixty feet (60') in height or greater than eighteen inches (18") caliper. Priority Two: Healthy tree groupings whose associated undergrowth can be preserved; Other significant native evergreen or deciduous trees; and Other significant non-native trees. Priority Three: Alders and cottonwoods shall be retained when all other trees have been evaluated for retention and are not able to be retained, unless the alders and/ or cottonwoods are used as part of an approved enhancement project within a critical area or its buffer. The Administrator may require independent review of any land use application that involves tree removal and land clearing at the City's discretion. If staff determines that the trees cannot be retained, replacement trees, with at least a 2-inch caliper or an evergreen at least 6 feet tall, shall be planted at a rate of 12 caliper inches of new trees to replace each protected tree removed. A formal tree retention plan prepared by an arborlst or landscape architect would be reviewed at the time of the Short Plat application. Critical Areas: There is one wetland located in the eastern portion of the subject site that extends off-site to the east and south. This wetland exhibits a minimum of human related physical alteration, and therefore, meets the criteria for a Category 2 wetland. Due to its vegetative structure, the subject wetland provides habitat for use by terrestrial wildlife species including birds and mammals. Animals identified or observed included an American Crow, a song sparrow, a black-capped chickadee, squirrels, and evidence of a common raccoon. A Category 2 wetland receives a critical area buffer width of 150 feet to 75 feet from the delineated edge depending on the habitat function (High: 150 ft, Moderate: 100 ft or Low: 75 feet). Critical Areas Regulations can be found under RMC 4-3-050. H:\CED\Planning\Current Planning\PREAPPS\2015 Preapps\15-000691 • Valley View Short Plat, PRElS-000691 Page 5 of 6 October 15, 2015 • A geotechnical analysis for the site may be required to be provided by a qualified professional. If the study is required, it must demonstrate that the proposal would not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent properties beyond the predevelopment conditions, the proposal will not adversely impact other critical areas, and the development can be safely accommodated on the site. In addition, the study would assess soil conditions and detail construction measures to assure building stability. Critical Areas Regulations can be found under RMC 4-3-050. It is the applicant's responsibility to ascertain whether any additional critical areas or environmental concerns are present on the site during site. If so, the proposal would need to be revised accordingly. Environmental Review: Except when located in sensitive areas (such as wetland) or lands covered by water, short plats of 9 or fewer residential lots are categorically exempt from Environmental (SEPA) Review. Due to the presence of wetlands identified on the site, the applicant would be required to complete Environmental (5EPA) Review. An environmental determination was made on June 18, 2015 as part of the Valley Vue Preliminary Plat Application (LUA14-001040, ECF, PP, MOD). Provided that there are no new impacts to the wetland an Addendum to the SEPA DNS-M threshold determination issued as part of LUA14-001040 could satisfy the SEPA requirement of the proposed 2-iot short plat. Permit Requirements: The proposal would require approval of an administrative short plat. The administrative short plat request would be reviewed within an estimated time frame of six to eight weeks. The 2015 fee for a short plat application is $2,000.00 plus a 3% technology surcharge fee. Detailed information regarding the land use application submittal items have been provided in the attached handouts or are also available on line. The applicant will be required to install a public information sign on the property. Detailed information regarding the land use application submittal requirements is provided in the attached handouts. Once Preliminary Short Plat approval is obtained, the applicant must complete the required improvements and dedications, as well as satisfy any conditions of the preliminary approval before submitting for Final Short Plat review. Once final approval is received, the plat may be recorded. The newly created lots may only be sold after the plat has been recorded. Fees: In addition to the applicable building and construction fees, impact fees would be required. Such fees would apply to all projects and would be calculated at the time of building permit application and payable prior to building permit issuance. The fees for 2015/2016 are as follows and fees will be changing on January 1, 2016: • A Transportation Impact Fee based on $2,214.44/$2,951.17 per each new single family residence; • A Parks Impact Fee based on $1,441.29/$1,887.94 per each new single family residence; • A Fire Impact fee of $495.10/$495.10 per each new single family residence; and • Renton School District Impact Fee is $5,541.00/$5,541.00 per each new single family residence. A handout listing Renton's development-related fees is available on the City of Renton website for your review. H :\CED\Planning\Current Planning\PREAPPS\2015 Preapps\15-000691 • Valley View Short Plat, PRElS-000691 Page 6 of 6 October 15, 2015 • Note: When the formal application materials are complete, the applicant Is strongly encouraged to have one copy of the application materials pre-screened at the 6th floor front counter prior to submitting the complete application package. Please call Clark H. Close, Senior Planner at 425-430-7289 for an appointment. Expiration: Upon approval, the short plat is valid for two years with a possible one year extension (RMC 4-7-070M). H:\CED\Planning\Current Planning\PREAPPS\2015 Preapps\15-000691 ., . " " --~ ,._,.. 1------- 1 ,------r------r------ ~---,---- ' ( -'---._--'---- \ \ ____ .::,.___ • ~------1--- 1--lli I I I I L ____ _ ---,--,;----,--r-,- 1---\ , /1---"= ___ _J_, I-- I-- • sec. 30, TWP. 23N, ROE. 5E W.M. I I --'r-"-_.,__ -~- -i -+- I -+--+- =i--- I i<l<l<l<l<l<l<l<l<l<l<l ' ll11l(~,I ii I I I la1~ ' ' I I I ! -'-+-'-' I ; ~ ~ i -+- I--I Ii! -+- ==1--i .. ! -+--+-' --1 i -+-' --1 6 -+-·::::; I I , ,. -+--~ !ii I 'ii -+- I I l -+- I -+-< I --1 -u cl 1---1 l • ------~x-001 ru,m 1. 1 • SEC. JD, TWP, 23N, RGE. SEW.M. • !!II I Id I ! Proposed plat: Applicant: Requesting: Proposal: • • PROJECT NARRATIVE Valley View Rory Dees, owner 1040 W. Lake Sammamish Pkwy SE, Bellevue, WA 98008 206 715-4559 Jon Nelson, Land Development Advisors, LLC / Contact 12865 SE 47th St., Bellevue, WA 98006 425 466-5203 3023059028 Submittal for Short-plat Subdivision We propose to develop the site into two residential lots, leaving both of the houses to the west and east undisturbed, except for providing private drive access, onsite storm drainage, and sewer upgrade. The parcel is approximately 2.3 acres in size and has dimensions of 100 by 1000. The current zoning is R8, 5445 square feet minimum per lot. The lots/houses would be made available for sale to home buyers. The topography is primarily level and is our goal to minimize soil disturbance in the creation of these lots. The proposed lots will be consistent with the surrounding subdivisions in improvement square footage, and building quality. Current use: Currently located on this parcel are two single family residences (3112 and 3106 Talbot Road South, Renton 98055). Both are on city water, one (3106) is also on sewer, which is stubbed to the corner of the NWC of the parcel. The other house which is further into the parcel on the NEC is on a septic system. Both properties are serviced by natural gas as per the owner. Location: This parcel is located at 3106 Talbot Road South, Renton between two completed larger subdivisions and has three potential accesses to its interior. Presently, access to the two residences is made along Talbot Road South. Additionally, two recorded, dedicated easement areas of 24 feet in width are accessed through Winspur Subdivision to the south along S. 32nd Place. The westerly easement would be improved to access the two or one parcel(s). The existing house the west would continue to access Talbot Road S. Improvements: The site would be accessed by private roads through the easement already described. On-site improvements would include a buffer area in the identified wet area to the east in a separate tract, 2 new water service connections and 1 sanitary side sewer (3106 Talbot) will be routed through RECEIVED APR 1 2 2016 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION • • the Winspur westerly access easement. Existing fire hydrants in Winspur are within the acceptable distances to serve the subdivision. Total projected construction costs are $100,000 and an estimated fair market value of $750,000. Soil excavation quantities and type: approximately 30 cubic yards of material will be excavated to construct the shared driveway. No trees are proposed to be removed as part of this development. The wetland area to the east will be placed in a tract for inclusion with the adjacent protect area tract located in Winspur. There are no shorelines or significant creeks nearby. A construction trailer will not be needed on-site during the construction period. The heights of the existing buildings are conforming to code and do not exceed 35 feet above average grade. Construction Mitigation Description: Proposed construction dates: TBA Hours of operation: M-F 7 AM to 6 PM, Saturday 9 AM to 5 PM, Sunday no work Proposed hauling/transportation routes: On the west end of the property: when accessible Talbot Road South to Benson Drive S. Otherwise, out the access easements located along S. 32 Place to Smithers Ave S to S 32 Street to Talbot Road S to Benson Drive S. Measures to control dust: Creating a section of quarry spall rock path for trucks to clear tires, tire brushing, and water washing. Special hours of operation: Not anticipated to be needed Preliminary Traffic Control Plan: waived Draft Legal Documents: No HOA, street dedications, restrictive covenants, or other legal documents pertaining to the development or land use. -2-PDXDOCS:1710395.1 ! c-" ' • • Parcel Map Check Report BOUNDARY North: 167,829.3881' Segment# I: Line Course: NI 0 45'40"E North: 167,929.3709' Segment# 2: Line Course: S89°40'03 "E North: 167,923.5677' Segment# 3: Line Course: SI 0 52'08"W North: 167,823.5809' Segment# 4: Line Course: N89°40'03"W North: 167,829.3830' Periineter: 2,199.89' Error Closure: 0.0054 Error North : -0.00514 Precision I: 407,385.19 East: 1,299,461.3946' Length: I 00.03' East: 1,299,464.4687' Length: 1,000.00' East: 1,300,464.4519' Length: I 00.04' East: 1,300,461.1893' Len1,>1h: 999.81' East: 1,299,461.3962' Area: 99,994.07Sq.Ft. Course: SI 7°18'28"E East: 0.00160 RECE\VED /l-.PR 1 2 20\6 OfREN'tON C~~NNING DIVISION • LOT I North: 167,827.0480' Segment# 1 : Line Course: N0°22'44"E North: 167,927.0458' Segment# 2: Line Course: S89°40'03"E North: 167,924.6027' Segment# 3: Line Course: S 1 °52'08"W North: 167,824.6160' Segment# 4: Line Course: N89°40'03"W North: 167,827.0440' Perimeter: 1,039.42' Error Closure: 0.0043 Error North : -0.00406 Precision I: 241,725.58 • East: 1,299,864.5784' Length: 100.00' East: 1,299,865.2397' Length: 420.99' East: 1,300,286.2226' Length: 100.04' East: 1,300,282.9601' Length: 418.39' East: I ,299,864.5771' Area: 41,970.43Sq.Ft. Course: S 17°56'53 "W East: -0.0013 2 LOTZ North:167,829.3881' • Segment# I: Line Course: NI 0 45'40"E North: 167,929.3709' Segment# 2: Line Course: S89°40'03 "E North: 167,927.0451' Segment# 3: Line Course: S0°22'44"W North: 167,827.0473' Segment# 4: Line Course: N89°40'03"W North: 167,829.3871' Perimeter: 1,004.01' Error Closure: 0.0031 Error North: -0.00108 Precision I: 323,870.97 • East: 1,299,461.3946' Lenhrth: l 00.03' East: 1,299,464.4687' Lenhrth: 400. 78' East: 1,299,865.2420' Length: I 00.00' East: 1,299,864.5807' Length: 403 .19' East: 1,299,461.3975' Area: 40,199.68Sq.Ft. Course: S69°43'49"E East: 0.00292 • TRACT A North: 167,824.6197' Segment# I : Line Course: N 1 °52'08"E North: 167,924.6065' Segment# 2: Line Course: S89°40'03"E North: 167,923.5722' Segment# 3: Line Course: SI 0 52'08"W North: 167,823.5854' Segment# 4: Line Course: N89°40'03"W North: 167,824.6197' Perimeter: 556.55' Error Closure: 0.0000 Error North : 0.00000 Precision 1: 556,540,000.00 • East: 1,300,282.9598' Length: 100.04' East: 1,300,286.2224' Length: 178.23' East: 1,300,464.4494' Length: 100.04' East: 1,300,461.1868' Length: 178.23' East: 1,300,282.9598' Area: 17,823 .96Sq .Ft. Course: N0°00'00"E East: 0.00000 Rory Dees Managing Member RAD Holdings LLC • 1040 West Lake Sammamish Pkwy SE Bellevue, WA 98008 206 715-4559 • November 5, 2015 Clark Close Associate Planner 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 RE: Modification request for 3112 Talbot Road S. or Valley Vue Plat Dear Mr. Close, RECEIVED APf; 1 2 2016 status: CITY OF RENTON Currently we are proposing a two-lot short plat subdivision for the properties addresse!datiBW ranttSati!l6 Talbot Road 5., Renton APN 12-000280. The subject parcel is currently improved with two houses (3106 and 3112 Talbot Road 5) that access off of Talbot Road 5. Under the proposed Valley Vue short plat, additional access would be provided to the newly created lots over two recorded easements shown on the adjacent Winspur subdivision map. The easements clearly state their purposes as to provide access, egress, and utility easement for the parcel no. 28, which is cited by number. These easements will allow access the proposed two lots along two private roads, and would be dedicated to the subject parcel when this short plat is approved; moreover, the creation of these two lots would create a conforming design for the two existing house improvements. Furthermore, the steeper grade and 12 feet wide access off of Talbot Road is not remotely feasible within the constraints of Renton's Codes. As a point of information, these easements are 24 feet wide and were created in King County, and annexed into Renton, irrespective of the Renton codes. Of the two easements at this time, the easement to the west in Tract H will be improved for access to the proposed two lots. The lot creation will provide frontage onto the access easement and not a right-of-way 5. 32°d Place. Modification: When the Winspur subdivision was created in King County, the code provided for sidewalk improvements only along one side--the south side of the 5. 32°d Place. Subsequently, the subdivision was annexed into the City of Renton. Current Renton code states Sidewalk improvements are required for both sides of a right-of-way. I am requesting a modification to right-of-way frontage condition requirement of a sidewalk improvement where the private access road accessing these two lots contacts the right-of-way on S. 32°d Place. This requirement would be adding a sidewalk improvement on a side of the right-of- way that is not already improved with supporting or connecting sidewalk. Therefore, approval of a modification of not requiring a sidewalk on the north side of the right-of-way given the existing King County neighborhood pedestrian movement design would be in conformity with the intent and purpose of the Renton Code. The current configuration with one side of the right-of-way improved with a sidewalk provides for safe pedestrian movement and is consistent with the neighborhood expectations and safe use. Moreover, the current pedestrian sidewalk design substantially implements the policy direction and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use and the Community Design Elements. The proposed modification maintains an improvement condition that is consistent and complimentary with the annexed neighborhood subdivision. Property owners in the neighborhood would find a short sidewalk improvement across the 24 foot access from S 32°d Place onto the private access easement unusual, inconsistent, and awkwardly out-of-place. Ultimately, this would be a detriment to the neighborhood as ---------------i I • • the sidewalk and curb cut would start and stop in the 24 feet easement space and not be connected to any other sidewalk improvement. The purpose of the code was to provide a recognized safe travel area for pedestrian movement, which the existing design does satisfy. The current single-side sidewalk is recognized as the pedestrian side of the right-of-way and satisfies the intent and purposes of the Code. Improvement of the access easements may require construction of retaining walls and likely rebuilding or/and enhance the existing fencing and landscaping. I would be open to looking at elevating the fencing height or other possible concerns the neighbors might have in addressing the construction issues surrounding this (these) access road(s). Thank you for your consideration of this modification. I will also be forwarding this to you as an email. Yours, Rory Dees Clark Close From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Clark, • Rory Dees <RoryDees@hotmail.com> Tuesday, April 12, 2016 12:50 PM Clark Close Rory Dees Re: Valley Vue short-plat • Thank you for the follow-up information. Please accept this as my acknowledgment of responsibility: I understand the Geologic Risk of development in the area specific to the development of the access road, and I accept this risk. A hard copy letter to follow upon my return to Seattle. Yours, Rory Dees Managing Member of RAD Holdings LLC 1 RECEIVED APR I 2 2016 CITY OF REi\lTON PLANNING DIVISION City of Renton TREE RETENTION WORKSHEET 1. Total number of trees over 6" in diameter 1 on project site: 1. 142 trees 2. Deductions: Certain trees are excluded from the retention calculation: Trees that are dead, diseased or dangerous 2 1 trees Trees in proposed public streets O trees Trees in proposed private access easements/tracts O trees Trees in critical areas 3 and buffers 16 trees Total number of excluded trees: 2. 17 trees 3. Subtract line 2 from line 1: 3. 125 trees 4. Next, to determine the number of trees that must be retained 4 , multiply line 3 by: 0.3 in zones RC, R-1, R-4, or R-8 0.1 in all other residential zones 0.05 in all commercial and industrial zones 4. 38 trees 5. List the number of 6" or larger trees that you are proposing 5 to retain 4 : 5. 38 trees 6. Subtract line 5 from line 4 for trees to be replaced: (If line 6 is less than zero, stop here. No replacement trees are required). 6. 0 trees 7. Multiply line 6 by 12" for number of required replacement inches: 7. 0 inches 8. Proposed size of trees to meet additional planting requirement: (Minimum 2" caliper trees required) 8. N/A 9. Divide line 7 by line 8 for number of replacement trees6 : (if remainder is .5 or greater, round up to the next whole number) g_ O~CE\VED 1 · Measured at chest height. ":I '·1· -/:\Pf: l ,,, ' · 1 2· Dead, diseased or dangerous trees must be certified as such by a forester, registered landscape architect, or certified arborist, and approved by the City. C\lY Of RENTON 3· Critical Areas, s~c_h as wetlands, streams, floodplains and protected slopes, are defined in~U?(ltiG~OON the Renton Munrc1pal Code (RMC). 4 · Count only those trees to be retained outside of critical areas and buffers. 5 The City may require modification of the tree retention plan to ensure retention of the maximum number of trees per RMC 4-4-130H7a 6 Inches of street trees, inches of trees added to critical areas/buffers, and inches of trees retained on site that are less than 6" but are greater than 2" can be used to meet the tree replacement requirement. C:\Uscrs\Admin\Documcnts\Land Development Advisors\Dees\Short Plat App Matls\submittal docs\Completed T reeRetent ion Worksheet.doc 12/08 • • DENSITY WORKSHEET RECEIVED APR 1 2 2016 --.. --1'4, .......... PLANNING DIVISION City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 1. Gross area of property: 1. 99.994 square feet 2. Deductions: Certain areas are excluded from density calculations. These include: Public streets** Private access easements** Critical Areas* Total excluded area: 3. Subtract line 2 from line 1 for net area: 4. Divide line 3 by 43,560 for net acreage: 5. Number of dwelling units or lots planned: 0 square feet 1500 square feet 6.605 square feet 2. 8 795 square feet 3. 91 199 square feet 4. 2.09 acres 5. 2 units/lots 6. Divide line 5 by line 4 for net density: 6. 0.96 = dwelling units/acre *Critical Areas are defined as "Areas determined by the City to be not suitable for development and which are subject to the City's Critical Areas Regulations including very high landslide areas, protected slopes, wetlands or floodways." Critical areas buffers are not deducted/excluded. ** Alleys (public or private) do not have to be excluded. https://d.docs.live.net/c938740897e62f2a/J3Civil/Projects/DEES SP/J3 APP FORMS/COMPLETED density worksheet.doc -I -03/08 , • • GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. RAD Holdings, LLC 1040 West Lake Sammamish Parkway Southeast Bellevue, Washington 98008 • 13256 Northeast 20th Street, Suite 16 Bellevue, Washington 98005 (425) 747-5618 FAX (425) 747-8561 May 27, 2014 JN 14177 Attention: Rory Dees via email: rorydees@hotmail.com Subject: Transmittal Letter -Geotechnical Engineering Study Proposed Residential Development 3112 Talbot Road South Renton, Washington Dear Mr. Dees: We are pleased to present this geotechnical engineering report for the residential development to be constructed in Renton. The scope of our services consisted of exploring site surface and subsurface conditions, and then developing this report to provide recommendations for general earthwork and design criteria for foundations, ·retaining walls, and pavements. This work was authorized by your acceptance of our proposal, P-8823, dated September 6, 2013. The attached report contains a discussion of the study and our recommendations. Please contact us if there are any questions regarding this report, or for further assistance during the design and construction phases of this project. TRC/MRM: at Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. RECEIVED APR l 2 2016 CITY OF RENTON PlANNlNG DIVISION GEOTECH CONSULTANTS. INC. • • GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Proposed Residential Development 3112 Talbot Road South Renton, Washington This report presents the findings and recommendations of our geotechnical engineering study for the site of the proposed residential development to be located in Renton. We were provided with a topographic survey of the site prepared by Axis Survey & Mapping dated August 28, 2013. We have also been provided with project plans by Land Development Advisors dated May 7, 2014. Based on these plans, we understand that the eastern of the two site residences will be removed and the western residence will remain. The development will consist of 8 residential lots and a stormwater detention pond. The lots will be accessed from the south with two driveways from South 32"ct Place. Retaining walls up to 4 feet high will be constructed on the eastern side of the two proposed access driveways. Grading for the proposed lots will include cuts and fills of up to 4 feet. A stormwater detention pond will be located at the west side of the development, and a cut of up to 10 feet will be made for the pond. The pond slopes will have an inclination of 2:1 (H:V). If the scope of the project changes from what we have described above, we should be provided with revised plans in order to determine if modifications to the recommendations and conclusions of this report are warranted. SITE CONDITIONS SURFACE The Vicinity Map, Plate 1, illustrates the general location of the rectangular-shaped parcel. The site is surrounded by residences and is accessed from the west by a driveway from Talbot Road South. The site has dimensions of 100 feet in the north-south direction and 1,000 feet in the east-west direction. The property is developed with two residences; both of which are accessed from Talbot Road South by a driveway along the south edge of the site. The western residence has two stories and a basement, and the eastern residence has one story and a basement that daylights toward the west. The ground surface within the site slopes gently to moderately down toward the west, with a change in elevation of about 70 feet across a distance of 1,000 feet. There are no steep slopes on, or near, the site. Approximately the eastern 300 feet of the site is thickly vegetated with young to mature evergreen and deciduous trees and brush. Most of the remainder of the site is covered with grass lawn, with scattered mature trees and landscaping bushes. Blackberry vines grow in the western portion of the planned development area. SUBSURFACE The subsurface conditions were explored by excavating four test pits at the approximate locations shown on the Site Exploration Plan, Plate 2. Our exploration program was based on the proposed GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. RAD Holdings, LLC May 27, 2014 • • JN14177 Page 2 construction, anticipated subsurface conditions and those encountered during exploration, and the scope of work outlined in our proposal. The test pits were excavated on May 21, 2014 with a small excavator. A geotechnical engineer from our staff observed the excavation process, logged the test pits, and obtained representative samples of the soil encountered. "Grab" samples of selected subsurface soil were collected from the backhoe bucket. The Test Pit Logs are attached to this report as Plates 3 and 4. Soil Conditions The test pits found topsoil that had a thickness of about one foot. Below the topsoil, Test Pit 2 encountered loose to medium-dense silt with sand. Below this silt in Test Pit 2, and beneath the topsoil in the other explorations, we encountered loose to medium-dense silty sand with gravel. This material included pieces of dense silt in Test Pits 1 and 2. The silty sand with gravel became medium-dense at a depth of about 2 to 3 feet, and dense at a depth of about 4 to 7 feet. The dense silty sand with gravel extended to the maximum depth of the test pits, 6 to 8.8 feet below the surface. No obstructions were revealed by our explorations. However, debris, buried utilities, and old foundation and slab elements are commonly encountered on sites that have had previous development. Groundwater Conditions Perched groundwater seepage was observed at a depth of 3 feet in Test Pit 4. The test pits were left open for only a short time period, but were conducted following a very wet fall and winter. The seepage levels on the logs represent the location of transient water seepage and may not Indicate the static groundwater level. It should be noted that groundwater levels vary seasonally with rainfall and other factors. We anticipate that groundwater could be found in more permeable soil layers and between the near-surface weathered soil and the underlying denser soil. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types at the exploration locations. The actual transition between soil types may be gradual, and subsurface conditions can vary between exploration locations. The logs provide specific subsurface information only at the locations tested. The relative densities and moisture descriptions indicated on the test pit logs are interpretive descriptions based on the conditions observed during excavation. The compaction of test pit backfill was not in the scope of our services. Loose soil will therefore be found in the area of the test pits. If this presents a problem, the backfill will need to be removed and replaced with structural fill during construction. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL THIS SECTION CONTAINS A SUMMARY OF OUR STUDY AND FINDINGS FOR THE PURPOSES OF A GENERAL OVERVIEW ONLY. MORE SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ARE GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. RAD Holdings, LLC May 27, 2014 • • JN 14177 Page 3 CONTAINED IN THE REMAINDER OF THIS REPORT. ANY PARTY REL YING ON THIS REPORT SHOULD READ THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT. The test pits conducted for this study encountered medium-dense silty sand with gravel that will provide adequate support to the proposed residences and pavements. The test pits found suitable bearing soils at a depth of 2 to 3 feet. The silty soils will be susceptible to disturbance and softening in wet conditions. As a result, it would be prudent to protect footing subgrades with a thin layer of crushed rock. If foundations are constructed within the footprint of the existing basements, it will be important to verify that suitable native bearing soils are first exposed. This usually requires removal of the foundations and slabs. We anticipate that perched water may be encountered in the sidewalls of the proposed stormwater detention pond excavation. This could cause erosion and instability near the seepage zone. We recommend that the portion of the pond more than 3 feet below the existing surface be armored with a one-foot-thickness of 2-to 4-inch rock spalls to reduce the potential for erosion of the pond sides. The proposed excavations for the east sides of the two access driveways will be within 10 feet of adjacent residences. To avoid impacting those residences, no excavation should extend below a 1.5:1 (H:V) inclination extending outward from the base of the residence foundations. Shallow perched groundwater may result in seepage entering crawl spaces and/or basements under the planned houses. In addition to footing drains and free-draining wall backfill, drainage should be provided beneath the houses. This typically consists of a 6-to 9-inch layer of free- draining gravel below the vapor retarder, with perforated pipes burled in the gravel on 15-to 20-foot spacing. This underdrainage can be connected to the same outlet as the footing drains. The erosion control measures needed during the site development will depend heavily on the weather conditions that are encountered. We anticipate that a silt fence will be needed around the downslope sides of any cleared areas. Existing pavements, ground cover, and landscaping should be left in place wherever possible to minimize the amount of exposed soil. Rocked staging areas and construction access roads should be provided to reduce the amount of soil or mud carried off the property by trucks and equipment. Wherever possible, the access roads should follow the alignment of planned pavements. Trucks should not be allowed to drive off of the rock-covered areas. Cut slopes and soil stockpiles should be covered with plastic during wet weather. Following clearing or rough grading, it may be necessary to mulch or hydroseed bare areas that will not be Immediately covered with landscaping or an impervious surface. On most construction projects, it is necessary to periodically maintain or modify temporary erosion control measures to address specific site and weather conditions. The on-site soil and groundwater conditions are not suitable for infiltration of runoff from impervious surfaces. This includes avoiding using drywalls for downspout runoff. The drainage and/or waterproofing recommendations presented in this report are Intended only to prevent active seepage from flowing through concrete walls or slabs. Even in the absence of active seepage into and beneath structures, water vapor can migrate through walls, slabs, and floors from the surrounding soil, and can even be transmitted from slabs and foundation walls due to the concrete curing process. Water vapor also results from occupant uses, such as cooking and bathing. Excessive water vapor trapped within structures can result in a variety of undesirable GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. RAD Holdings, LLC May 27, 2014 • • JN 14177 Page 4 conditions, including, but not limited to, moisture problems with flooring systems, excessively moist air within occupied areas, and the growth of molds, fungi, and other biological organisms that may be harmful to the health of the occupants. The designer or architect must consider the potential vapor sources and likely occupant uses, and provide sufficient ventilation, either passive or mechanical, to prevent a build up of excessive water vapor within the planned structure. Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be allowed to review the final development plans to verify that the recommendations presented in this report are adequately addressed in the design. Such a plan review would be additional work beyond the current scope of work for this study, and it may include revisions to our recommendations to accommodate site, development, and geotechnical constraints that become more evident during the review process. We recommend including this report, in its entirety, in the project contract documents. This report should also be provided to any future property owners so they will be aware of our findings and recommendations. SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS In accordance with the International Building Code (IBC), the site class within 100 feet of the ground surface is best represented by Site Class Type C (Very Dense Soil and Soft Rock). The site soils are not susceptible to seismic liquefaction because of their dense nature. CONVENTIONAL FOUNDATIONS The proposed structure can be supported on conventional continuous and spread footings bearing on undisturbed, medium-dense, native soil, or on structural fill placed above this competent native soil. See the section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fifi for recommendations regarding the placement and compaction of structural fill beneath structures. Adequate compaction of structural fill should be verified with frequent density testing during fill placement. Prior to placing structural fill beneath foundations, the excavation should be observed by the geotechnical engineer to document that adequate bearing soils have been exposed. We recommend that continuous and individual spread footings have minimum widths of 12 and 16 Inches, respectively. Exterior footings should also be bottomed at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent finish ground surface for protection against frost and erosion. The local building codes should be reviewed to determine if different footing widths or embedment depths are required. Footing subgrades must be cleaned of loose or disturbed soil prior to pouring concrete. Depending upon site and equipment constraints, this may require removing the disturbed soil by hand. An allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf) is appropriate for footings supported on competent native soil. A one-third increase in this design bearing pressure may be used when considering short-term wind or seismic loads. For the above design criteria, it is anticipated that the total post-construction settlement of footings founded on competent native soil, or on structural fill up to 5 feet in thickness, will be about one-inch, with differential settlements on the order of one-half-inch in a distance of 30 feet along a continuous footing with a uniform load. Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between the foundation and the bearing soil, or by passive earth pressure acting on the vertical, embedded portions of the foundation. For the latter condition, the foundation must be either poured directly against relatively GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. RAD Holdings, LLC May 27, 2014 • • JN 14177 Page 5 level, undisturbed soil or be surrounded by level, well-compacted fill. We recommend using the following ultimate values for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading: VALUL I Coefficient of Friction 0.45 Passive Earth Pressure 350 pcf Where: {l) pcf Is pounds per cubic foot, and (11) passive earth pressure Is computed using the equivalent fluid density. If the ground in front of a foundation is loose or sloping, the passive earth pressure given above will not be appropriate. We recommend maintaining a safety factor of at least 1.5 for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading, when using the above ultimate values. FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS Retaining walls backfilled on only one side should be designed to resist the lateral earth pressures imposed by the soil they retain. The following recommended parameters are for walls that restrain level backfill: Active Earth Pressure * 35 pcf Passive Earth Pressure 350 pcf Coefficient of Friction 0.45 Soil Unit Weight 130 pcf Where: (I) pct Is pounds per cubic foot, and (JI) active and passive earth pressures are computed using the equivalent fluld pressures. 11 For a restrained wall that cannot deflect at least 0.002 times Its height, a uniform lateral pressure equal to 1 O psf times the height of the wall should be added to the above active equivalent fluid pressure. The design values given above do not include the effects of any hydrostatic pressures behind the walls and assume that no surcharges, such as those caused by slopes, vehicles, or adjacent foundations will be exerted on the walls. If these conditions exist, those pressures should be added to the above lateral soil pressures. Where sloping backfill is desired behind the walls, we will need to be given the wall dimensions and the slope of the backfill in order to provide the appropriate design earth pressures. The surcharge due to traffic loads behind a wall can typically be accounted for by adding a uniform pressure equal to 2 feet multiplied by the above active fluid density. Heavy construction equipment should not be operated behind retaining and foundation walls within a distance equal to the height of a wall, unless the walls are designed for the additional lateral pressures resulting from the equipment. The values given above are to be used to design only permanent foundation and retaining walls that are to be backfilled, such as conventional walls constructed of reinforced concrete or masonry. It is not appropriate to use the above earth pressures and soil unit weight to back-calculate soil strength parameters for design of other types of retaining walls, such as soldier pile, reinforced GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. RAD Holdings, LLC May 27, 2014 • • JN 14177 Page 6 earth, modular or soil nail walls. We can assist with design of these types of walls, if desired. The passive pressure given is appropriate only for a shear key poured directly against undisturbed native soil, or for the depth of level, well-compacted fill placed in front of a retaining or foundation wall. The values for friction and passive resistance are ultimate values and do not include a safety factor. We recommend a safety factor of at least 1.5 for overturning and sliding, when using the above values to design the walls. Restrained wall soil parameters should be utilized for a distance of 1.5 times the wall height from corners or bends in the walls. This is intended to reduce the amount of cracking that can occur where a wall is restrained by a corner. Wall Pressures Due to Seismic Forces The surcharge wall loads that could be imposed by the design earthquake can be modeled by adding a uniform lateral pressure to the above-recommended active pressure. The recommended surcharge pressure is 7H pounds per square foot (psf), where H is the design retention height of the wall. Using this increased pressure, the safety factor against sliding and overturning can be reduced to 1.2 for the seismic analysis. Retaining Wall Backfill and Waterproofing Backfill placed behind retaining or foundation walls should be coarse, free-draining structural fill containing no organics. This backfill should contain no more than 5 percent silt or clay particles and have no gravel greater than 4 inches in diameter. The percentage of particles passing the No. 4 sieve should be between 25 and 70 percent. The native soils are not free-draining. If they are used as compacted wall backfill, a minimum 12-inch thickness of free-draining gravel should be placed against the wall. The later section entitled Drainage Considerations should also be reviewed for recommendations related to subsurface drainage behind foundation and retaining walls. The purpose of these backfill requirements is to ensure that the design criteria for a retaining wall are not exceeded because of a build-up of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall. Also, subsurface drainage systems are not intended to handle large volumes of water from surface runoff. The top 12 to 18 inches of the backfill should consist of a compacted, relatively impermeable soil or topsoil, or the surface should be paved. The ground surface must also slope away from backfilled walls to reduce the potential for surface water to percolate into the backfill. Water percolating through pervious surfaces (pavers, gravel, permeable pavement, eel.) must also be preve.nted from flowing toward walls or into the backfill zone. The compacted subgrade below pervious surfaces and any associated drainage layer should therefore be sloped away. Alternatively, a membrane and subsurface collection system could be provided below a pervious surface. It is critical that the wall backfill be placed in lifts and be properly compacted, in order for the above-.recommended design earth pressures to be appropriate. The wall design criteria assume that the backfill will be well-compacted in lifts no thicker than 12 inches. The compaction of backfill near the walls should be accomplished with hand-operated equipment to prevent the walls from being overloaded by the higher soil forces that occur during compaction. The section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill contains additional recommendations regarding the placement and compaction of structural fill behind retaining and foundation walls. The above recommendations are not intended to waterproof below-grade walls, or to prevent the formation of mold, mildew or fungi in interior spaces. Over time, the GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. RAD Holdings, LLC May 27, 2014 • • JN14177 Page 7 performance of subsurface drainage systems can degrade, subsurface groundwater flow patterns can change, and utilities can break or develop leaks. Therefore, waterproofing should be provided where future seepage through the walls is not acceptable. This typically includes limiting cold-joints and wall penetrations, and using bentonite panels or membranes on the outside of the walls. There are a variety of different waterproofing materials and systems, which should be installed by an experienced contractor familiar with the anticipated construction and subsurface conditions. Applying a thin coat of asphalt emulsion to the outside face of a wall is not considered waterproofing, and will only help to reduce moisture generated from water vapor or capillary action from seeping through the concrete. As with any project, adequate ventilation of basement and crawl space areas is important to prevent a build up of water vapor that is commonly transmitted through concrete walls from the surrounding soil, even when seepage is not present. This is appropriate even when waterproofing is applied to the outside of foundation and retaining walls. We recommend that you contact an experienced envelope consultant if detailed recommendations or specifications related to waterproofing design, or minimizing the potential for infestations of mold and mildew are desired. SLABS-ON-GRADE The building floors can be constructed as slabs-on-grade atop competent native soil or on structural fill. The subgrade soil must be in a firm, non-yielding condition at the time of slab construction or underslab fill placement. Any soft areas encountered should be excavated and replaced with select, imported structural fill. The General section should be reviewed for underdrainage recommendations. Even where the exposed soils appear dry, water vapor will tend to naturally migrate upward through the soil to the new constructed space above it. This can affect moisture-sensitive flooring, cause imperfections or damage to the slab, or simply allow excessive water vapor into the space above the slab. All interior slabs-on-grade should be underlain by a capillary break drainage layer consisting of a minimum 4-inch thickness of clean gravel or crushed rock that has a fines content (percent passing the No. 200 sieve) of less than 3 percent and a sand content (percent passing the No. 4 sieve) of no more than 1 O percent. Pea gravel or crushed rock are typically used for this layer. As noted by the American Concrete Institute (ACI) in the Guides for Concrete Floor and Slab Structures, proper moisture protection is desirable immediately below any on-grade slab that will be covered by tile, wood, carpet, impermeable floor coverings, or any moisture-sensitive equipment or products. ACI also notes that vapor retarders such as 6-mil plastic sheeting have been used in the past, but are now recommending a minimum 10-mil thickness for better durability and long term performance. A vapor retarder is defined as a material with a permeance of Jess than 0.3 perms, as determined by ASTM E 96. It is possible that concrete admixtures may meet this specification, although the manufacturers of the admixtures should be consulted. Where vapor retarders are used under slabs, their edges should overlap by at least 6 inches and be sealed with adhesive tape. The sheeting should extend to the foundation walls for maximum vapor protection. If no potential for vapor passage through the slab is desired, a vapor barrier should be used. A vapor barrier, as defined by ACI, is a product with a water transmission rate of 0.01 perms when tested in accordance with ASTM E 96. Reinforced membranes having sealed overlaps can meet this requirement. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. RAD Holdings, LLC May 27, 2014 • EXCAVATIONS AND SLOPES • JN 14177 Page 8 Excavation slopes should not exceed the limits specified in local, state, and national government safety regulations. Temporary cuts to a depth of about 4 feet may be attempted vertically in unsaturated soil, if there are no indications of slope instability. However, vertical cuts should not be made near property boundaries, or existing utilities and structures. Based upon Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 296, Part N, the soil at the subject site would generally be classified as Type B. Therefore, temporary cut slopes greater than 4 feet in height should not be excavated at an inclination steeper than 1 :1 (Horlzontal:Vertical), extending continuously between the top and the bottom of a cut. The above-recommended temporary slope inclination is based on the conditions exposed in our explorations, and on what has been successful at other sites with similar soil conditions. It is possible that variations in soil and groundwater conditions will require modifications to the inclination at which temporary slopes can stand. Temporary cuts are those that will remain unsupported for a relatively short duration to allow for the construction of foundations, retaining walls, or utilities. Temporary cut slopes should be protected with plastic sheeting during wet weather. It is also important that surface runoff be directed away from the top of temporary slope cuts. Cut slopes should also be backfilled or retained as soon as possible to reduce the potential for instability. Please note that sand or loose soil can cave suddenly and without warning. Excavation, foundation, and utility contractors should be made especially aware of this potential danger. These recommendations may need to be modified if the area near the potential cuts has been disturbed in the past by utility installation, or if settlement-sensitive.utilities are located nearby. All permanent cuts into native soil should be inclined no steeper than 2:1 (H:V). Permanent cut slopes encountering groundwater may require gravel armoring. Compacted fill slopes should not be constructed with an inclination greater than 2:1 (H:V). To reduce the potential for shallow sloughing, fill must be compacted to the face of these slopes. This can be accomplished by overbuilding the compacted fill and then trimming it back to its final inclination. Adequate compaction of the slope face is important for long-term stability and is necessary to prevent excessive settlement of patios, slabs, foundations, or other improvements that may be placed near the edge of the slope. Water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any temporary or permanent slope. All permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve the stability of the surficial layer of soil. DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS Footing drains should be used where (1) crawl spaces or basements will be below a structure, (2) a slab is below the outside grade, or (3) the outside grade does not slope downward from a building. Drains should also be placed at the base of all earth-retaining walls. These drains should be surrounded by at least 6 inches of 1-inch-minus, washed rock that is encircled with non-woven, geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or similar material). At its highest point, a perforated pipe Invert should be at least 6 inches below the bottom of a slab floor or the level of a crawl space. The discharge pipe for subsurface drains should be sloped for flow to the outlet point. Roof and surface water drains must not discharge into the foundation drain system. A typical drain detail is attached to this report as Plate 5. For the best long-term performance, perforated PVC pipe is recommended for all subsurface drains. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. RAD Holdings, LLC May 27, 2014 • • JN 14177 Page 9 As a minimum, a vapor retarder, as defined in the Slabs-On-Grade section, should be provided in any crawl space area to limit the transmission of water vapor from the underlying soils. Crawl space grades are sometimes left near the elevation of the bottom of the footings. As a result, an outlet drain is recommended for all crawl spaces to prevent an accumulation of any water that may bypass the footing drains. Providing even a few inches of free draining gravel underneath the vapor retarder limits the potential for seepage to build up on top of the vapor retarder. Groundwater was observed during our field work. If seepage is encountered in an excavation, it should be drained from the site by directing it through drainage ditches, perforated pipe, or French drains, or by pumping it from sumps interconnected by shallow connector trenches at the bottom of the excavation. Final site grading in areas adjacent to buildings should slope away at least 2 percent, except where the area is paved. Surface drains should be provided where necessary to prevent ponding of water behind foundation or retaining walls. Drainage measures on multi-lot developments sometimes have to be modified or upgraded to address post-grading conditions. A discussion of grading and drainage related to pervious surfaces near walls and structures is contained in the Foundation and Retaining Walls section. PAVEMENT AREAS The pavement section may be supported on competent, native soil or on structural fill compacted to a 95 percent density. The pavement subgrade must be in a stable, non-yielding condition at the time of paving. Granular structural fill or geotextile fabric may be needed to stabilize soft, wet, or unstable areas. To evaluate pavement subgrade strength, we recommend that a proof roll be completed with a loaded dump truck immediately before paving. In most instances where unstable subgrade conditions are encountered, an additional 12 inches of granular structural fill will stabilize the subgrade, except for very soft areas where additional fill could be required. The subgrade should be evaluated by Geotech Consultants, Inc., after the site is stripped and cut to grade. Recommendations for the compaction of structural fill. beneath pavements are given in the section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill. The performance of site pavements is directly related to the strength and stability of the underlying subgrade. The pavement for lightly loaded traffic and parking areas should consist of 2 inches of asphalt concrete (AC) over 4 inches of crushed rock base (CRB) or 3 inches of asphalt-treated base (ATB). We recommend providing heavily loaded areas with 3 inches of AC over 6 inches of CRB or 4 inches of ATB. Heavily loaded areas are typically main driveways, dumpster sites, or areas with truck traffic. Increased maintenance and more frequent repairs should be expected if thinner p_avement sections are used. The pavement section recommendations and guidelines presented in this report are based on our experience in the area and on what has been successful in similar situations. As with any pavements, some maintenance and repair of limited areas can be expected as the pavement ages. Cracks in the pavement should be sealed as soon as possible after they become evident, in order to reduce the potential for degradation of the subgrade from infiltration of surface water. For the same reason, it is also prudent to seal the surface of the pavement after it has been in use for several years. To provide for a design without the need for any maintenance or repair would be uneconomical. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. RAD Holdings, LLC May 27, 2014 • GENERAL EARTHWORK AND STRUCTURAL FILL • JN14177 Page 10 All building and pavement areas should be stripped of surface vegetation, topsoil, organic soil, and other deleterious material. It is important that existing foundations be removed before site development. The stripped or removed materials should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural fill, but they could be used in non-structural areas, such as landscape beds. Structural fill is defined as any fill, including utility backfill, placed under, or close to, a building, behind permanent retaining or foundation walls, or in other areas where the underlying soil needs to support loads. All structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts with a moisture content at, or near, the optimum moisture content. The optimum moisture content is that moisture content that results in the greatest compacted dry density. The moisture content of fill is very important and must be closely controlled during the filling and compaction process. The allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type selected, the compaction equipment used, and the number of passes made to compact the lift. The loose lift thickness should not exceed 12 inches. We recommend testing the fill as it is placed. If the fill is not sufficiently compacted, it can be recompacted before another lift is placed. This eliminates the need to remove the fill to achieve the required compaction. The following table presents recommended relative compactions for structural fill: Use of On-Site Soil L l'I Beneath footings, slabs 95% or walkwavs Filled slopes and behind 90% retalninn walls 95% for upper 12 inches of Beneath pavements subgrade; 90% below that level Where: Minimum Relative Compaction Is the ratio, expressed In percentages, of the compacted dry density to the maximum dry density, as determined Jn accordance with ASTM Test Designation D 1557-91 {Modified Proctor). If grading activities take place during wet weather, or when the silty, on-site soil is wet, site preparation costs may be higher because of delays due to rain and the potential need to import granular fill. The on-site soil is generally silty and therefore moisture sensitive. Grading operations will be difficult during wet weather, or when the moisture content of this soil exceeds the optimum moisture content. Moisture-sensitive soil may also be susceptible to excessive softening and "pumping" from construction equipment, or even foot traffic, when the moisture content is greater than the optimum moisture content. It may be beneficial to protect subgrades with a layer of imported sand or crushed rock to limit disturbance from traffic. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. RAD Holdings, LLC May 27, 2014 • • JN 14177 Page 11 Structural fill that will be placed in wet weather should consist of a coarse, granular soil with a silt or clay content of no more than 5 percent. The percentage of particles passing the No. 200 sieve should be measured from that portion of soil passing the three-quarter-inch sieve. LIMITATIONS The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on site conditions as they existed at the time of our exploration and assume that the soil and groundwater conditions encountered In the test pits are representative of subsurface conditions on the site. If the subsurface conditions encountered during construction are significantly different from those observed in our explorations, we should be advised at once so that we can review these conditions and reconsider our recommendations where necessary. Unanticipated conditions are commonly encountered on construction sites and cannot be fully anticipated by merely taking samples in test pits. Subsurface conditions can also vary between exploration locations. Such unexpected conditions frequently require making additional expenditures to attain a properly constructed project. It is recommended that the owner consider providing a contingency fund to accommodate such potential extra costs and risks. This is a standard recommendation for all projects. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of RAD Holdings, LLC and its representatives for specific application to this project and site. Our conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in accordance with our understanding of current local standards of practice, and within the scope of our services. No warranty is expressed or implied. The scope of our services does not include services related to construction safety precautions, and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. Our services also do not include assessing or minimizing the potential for biological hazards, such as mold, bacteria, mildew and fungi in either the existing or proposed site development. ADDITIONAL SERVICES Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be retained to provide geotechnical consultation, testing, and observation services during construction. This is to confirm that subsurface conditions are consistent with those indicated by our exploration, to evaluate whether earthwork and foundation construction activities comply with the general intent of the recommendations presented in this report, and to provide suggestions for design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. However, our work would not include the supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor and its employees or agents. Also, job and site safety, and dimensional measurements, will be the responsibility of the contractor. During the construction phase, we will provide geotechnical observation and testing services when requested by you or your representatives. Please be aware that we can only document site work we actually observe. It is still the responsibility of your contractor or on-site construction team to verify that our recommendations are being followed, whether we are present at the site or not. The following plates are attached to complete this report: Plate 1 Vicinity Map GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. RAD Holdings, LLC May 27, 2014 • Plate 2 Plates 3 -4 Plate 5 • Site Exploration Plan Test Pit Logs Typical Footing Drain Detail JN 14177 Page 12 We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. Please contact us if you have any questions, or if we can be of further assistance. TRC/MRM: at Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. (Sourca: Microsoft Streats and Trips, 2004) VICINITY MAP 3112 Talbot Road South Renton, Washington L.I J_ob-No.;...:;.;.;.;_1_0..;;at'"'e:....;;.;;.;..;....&I ___ ___.I._P_la_1e_: _..........,1 · . 14177 May 2014 . . Legend: [:.ii Test pit location -·,f 11-.~l~=e'l,-,:,,,---s",::;,;-=""""==- GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, JNC. \ ' / /. ' r ' ' NORTH-+- ! I ,,-· ' ,,F-------\ / "; . ,· ~~ i'· __ ;ii, ' ., :\, ( SITE EXPLORATION PLAN 3112 Talbot Road South Renton, Washington Job No: Date: Plate: 14177 Ma 2014 No Scale 2 - 5- ---- 10- - --- 5 - I- I- I-- 10 -- TEST PIT 1 Description TOPSOIL Dark-brown silty SAND with occasional gravel, roots, and organics, fine to coarse-grained, moist, loose to medium-dense SM :; : rrf: -becomes brown and medium-dense, with pieces of dense silt -decreased gravel content -becomes dense * Test Pit terminated at 8.8 feet on May 21, 2014. • No groundwater seepage was observed during excavation. • No caving observed during excavation. • • • TEST PIT 2 Description TOPSOIL WJ Rust-brown mottled gray SILT with sand, fine to medium-grained, non-plastic, moist, ML loose to medium-dense l ''''·: ,:: Brown silty SAND with gravel and pieces of dense silt, fine to coarse-grained, moist, ;~'ii medium-dense -becomes dense lff ! .... Jt Test Pit terminated at 6.0 feet on May 21, 2014. No groundwater seepage was observed during excavation . No caving observed during excavation. GEOTECH CONSULTANJ'S, INC. TEST PIT LOG 3112 Talbot Road South Renton, Washington Job Date: Logged by: Plate: 14177 Ma 2014 TRC 3 s- ---- 10- 5 10 TEST PIT 3 Description I TOPSOIL ]I Rust-brown mottled gray silty SAND with gravel, fine to coarse-grained, moist, ,! loose .Y -becomes brown and medium-dense i SM -becomes dense * Test Pit terminated at 6.0 feet on May 21, 2014. * Slight groundwater seepage was observed at 3.0 feet during excavation. • No caving observed during excavation. TEST PIT 4 Description TOPSOIL Rust-brown mottled gray silty SAND with gravel, fine to coarse-grained, moist, loose -becomes brown and medium-dense -becomes dense * Test Pit terminated at 6.0 feet on May 21, 2014. * No groundwater seepage was observed during excavation. * No caving observed during excavation. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. TEST PIT LOG 3112 Talbot Road South Renton, Washington Job Date: Logged by: Plate: 14177 Ma 2014 TRC 4 Slope backfill away from foundation. Provide surface drains where necessary. Backfill (See text for requirements) Washed Rock (7/8" min. size) Nonwoven Geotextile Filter Fabric Tightline Roof Drain (Do not connect to footing drain) Vapor Retarder/Barrier and Capillary Break/Drainage Layer (Refer to Report text) NOTES: 4" Perforated Hard PVC Pipe (Invert at least 6 inches below slab or crawl space. Slope to drain to appropriate outfall. Place holes downward.) (1) In crawl spaces, provide an outlet drain to prevent buildup of water that bypasses the perimeter footing drains. (2) Refer to report text for additional drainage, waterproofing, and slab considerations. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. FOOTING DRAIN DETAIL 3112 Talbot Road South Renton, Washington I Job No: I Date: . 14177 May2014 I Plate: 5 • • CRITICAL AREAS STUDY FOR RAD Holdings, LLC -3112 Talbot Road Tax Parcel No. 302305-9028 Acre Project #13039 Prepared By: Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC. 17715 281h Ave. NE Lake Forest Park, WA 98155 {206) 450-7746 For: RAD Holdings, LLC Attn. Rory Dees 6252 167'h Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98006 September 4, 2013 Revision #1: November 23, 2015 RECEIVED t,,PR 1 2 2016 CITY OF P.ENTON PIANNIN~mo RFCt., • • TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF SITE DESCRIPTION 2 METHODOLOGIES OF CRITICAL AREAS EVALUATION 2 BOUNDARY DETERMINATION FINDINGS 4 EXISTING FUNCTIONS AND VALUES ANALYSIS 6 USE OF THIS REPORT 7 REFERENCES 8 ATTACHMENTS: 1. WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORMS (6 DATA POINTS ON-SITE) 2. WETLAND RATING FORM FOR WESTERN WASHINGTON: 2014 UPDATE (1 RATING FORM) 3. CRITICAL AREAS MAP SHEET CAl.00 Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC Critical Areas Study for-RAD Holdings, LLC-Talbot Rd. Renton, WA Rl: November 23, 2015 Page 1 • • INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF SITE DESCRIPTION On July 25, 2013 Acre Environmenta( Consulting, LLC visited the subject property located at 3112 Talbot Road in the City of Renton, Washington. The purpose of this site visit was to assess and locate regulated critical areas on and adjacent to the subject site. The site is further located as a portion of Section 30, Township 23N, Range 05E, W.M.rThe tax parcel number for this property is 302305-9028. Per the King County Assessor's office, the site encompasses approximately 2.3-acres. Surrounding land use is comprised of single family residences. Access to this site is from the west via a gravel driveway that leads from Talbot Road. The subject property has a west aspect slope with the western portion occupied by two single-family residences and maintained lawn. The eastern portion of the site is comprised of established forest with a Category Ill wetland that extends off-site to the east and south. In the City of Renton, Category Ill wetlands with moderate habitat scores (5 to 7 points) adjacent to moderate or high impact land uses receive a 100-foot standard buffer measured from the delineated wetland edge. METHODOLOGIES OF CRITICAL AREAS EVALUATION In July of 2013, Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC conducted a site visit to locate and verify wetlands and streams occurring on and adjacent to the subject site. The methods used for delineating, classifying, and rating the wetlands and streams in the project area are consistent with current Federal, State, and City of Renton requirements. At the time of our July 25, 2013 site investigation, the weather was sunny with a temperature of 68 degrees Fahrenheit. Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC used the routine methodologies described in the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #96-94, March 1997) to make a determination regarding regulated wetlands. In addition, Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC evaluated the site using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual produced in 1987 and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region produced in May 2010 (hereinafter referred to as "the Corps Regional Supplement"). The Corps Regional Supplement is designed for concurrent use with the 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual and all subsequent versions. The 2010 Regional Supplement provides technical guidance and procedures for identifying and delineating wetlands that may be subject to regulatory jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Where differences in the two documents occur, the Corps Regional Supplement takes precedence over the Corps Manual for applications in the Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region. Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC Critical Areas Study for-RAO Holdings, LLC -Talbot Rd. Renton, WA Rl: November 23, 2015 Page 2 • • According to the federal and state methodologies described above, identification of wetlands is based on a three-factor approach involving indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and the presence or evidence of persistent hydrology. Except where noted in the manuals, the three-factor approach discussed above requires positive indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology, to make a determination that an area is a regulated wetland. Using the aforementioned manuals, the procedure for making a wetland determination is as follows: 1.) Examination of the site for hydrophytic vegetation (species present/percent cover); 2.) Examination for the presence of hydric soils in areas where hydrophytic vegetation is present; and 3.) The final step is determining if wetland hydrology exists in the area examined under the first two steps. Per industry standards, Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC examined the entire project site. Per current City of Renton requirements, Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC also assessed adjacent properties within 300 feet of the proposed project limits, to the maximum extent possible without entering adjacent properties. While a detailed assessment of Critical Areas on adjacent properties was not possible due to the lack of legal access, Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC conducted a review of all available information to assess the presence of off-site Critical Areas within 300 feet of the subject site. This review is necessary to determine if any regulated Critical Areas exist off-site which would cause associated protective buffers to extend onto the property and affect the development proposal. In addition to on-site field reviews, Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC examined aerial photographs and topographical data (elevation contours) on King County's interactive mapping system (iMAP). Soil survey maps produced by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS}, National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), SalmonScape fish distribution maps produced by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW}, and StreamNet fish distribution maps produced by Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission were also evaluated by Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC as part of this project consultation. Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC Critical Areas Study for -RAD Holdings, LLC -Talbot Rd. Renton, WA Rl: November 23, 2015 Page 3 • • BOUNDARY DETERMINATION FINDINGS Wetlands were classified according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Cowardin system Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al., 1979) and rated, by categories, rated, by categories according to the Washington State Department of Ecology Wetland Rating Form for Western Washington: 2014 Update as required by the City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-3-050 (Critical Areas Regulations). Buffers are also determined by this chapter. Wetland A Cowardin: Pa\ustrine, Forested wetland, Broad-leaved Deciduous, Seasonally Flooded/Saturated (PFOlE) Ecology Rating: Category 111 City of Renton Rating: Category Ill, 100' Buffer This wetland is located in the eastern portion of the subject site and extends off-site to the east and south. This hydrogeomorphic (HGM) class depressional wetland received a total score for functions of 19 points (6 points for Water Quality Functions, 7 points for Hydrologic Functions, and 6 points for Habitat Functions) on the DOE Wetland Rating Form for Western Washington: 2014 Update. Wetlands with scores between 16 and 19 points for all functions are classified as Category Ill wetlands, per RMC 4-03-0SO(G)(2). In the Renton, Category Ill wetlands with habitat scores between 5 and 7 points adjacent to moderate or high intensity land use, typically receive 100-foot protective buffers from their delineated edge. Vegetation in this wetland is represented by a canopy of Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia, FacW) and black cottonwood (Populus ba/samifera, Fae), with and understory comprised of red osier dogwood (Camus sericea, FacW), hardhack (Spiraea douglasii, FacW), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus, FacU). reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea, FacW). creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens, FacW), and sword fern (Polystichum munitum, FacU) on hummocks. Soils in this wetland have a Munsell color of very dark greyish brown (lOYR 3/2) with redoximorphic features of brown (lOYR 4/3). and a texture of silt loam from Oto 18 inches below the surface. Soils in this wetland were saturated at 12 inches below the surface during our July 2013 site visit. Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC Critical Areas Study for -RAD Holdings, LLC -Talbot Rd. Renton, WA Rl: November 23, 2015 Page 4 • • Non · Wetland Vegetation in the western portion of the property is comprised of maintained lawn represented by tall fescue (Schedonorus arundinaceu, Fae), blue wildrye (Elymus g/aucus, FacU), hairy Cat's· ear (Hypochaeris radicata, FacU), velvetgrass (Holcus lanatus, Fae), colonial bentgrass (Agrastis tenuis, Fae), creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens, Fae), and white clover (Trifalium repens, Fae). The lawn is interspersed with patches of Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus, FacU) and scattered trees, including big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum, FacU) and Oregon ash (Fraxinus /atifolia, FacW). Vegetation in the eastern part of the site is forested, represented by a canopy of big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum, FacU), Oregon ash (Fraxinus /atifolia, FacW), and western red cedar (Thuja plicata, Fae), with snowberry (Symphoricarpas a/bus, FacU), osoberry (Oemleria cerasiformis, FacU), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus, FacU), hazelnut (Cory/us cornuta, FacU), Oceanspray (Holodiscus discolor, FacU), thimbelberry (Rubus parviflorus, FacU), dewberry (Rubus ursinus, FacU), and sword fern (Polystichum munitum, FacU), in the understory. Typical soils in the non-wetland portions of the site have a Munsell color of very dark greyish brown (lOYR 3/2), with redoximorphic features of brown (lOYR 4/3), and a texture of silt loam from O to 18 inches below the surface. Soils in the non-wetland portions of this property were dry during our July 2013 site visit. NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION SERVICE SOILS DESCRIPTION: The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) mapped the subject property as being underlain by Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes. The NRCS describes Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes as rolling with irregularly shaped areas ranging from 10 to about 600 acres in size. The A horizon ranges from very dark brown to dark brown. The B horizon is dark brown, grayish brown, and dark yellowish brown. Permeability is moderately rapid in the surface layer and subsoil and very slow in the substratum. Available water capacity is described as low. Included within this soil unit are the poorly drained Norma, Bellingham, Seattle, Tukwila, Shalcar soils, and Alderwood soils that have slopes more gentle or steeper than 6 to 15 percent. Included soil units make up no more than 30 percent of the total acreage. Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC Critical Areas Study for-RAD Holdings, LLC -Talbot Rd. Renton, WA Rl: November 23, 2015 Page 5 • • EXISTING FUNCTIONS AND VALUES ANALYSIS The methodologies for this functions and values analysis are based on professional opinion developed through past field analyses and interpretations. This assessment pertains specifically to the subject wetland, but is typical for assessments of similar systems throughout western Washington. The three main functions provided by wetlands include water quality, stormwater / hydrologic control, and wildlife habitat. The wetland and buffer on the subject site are forested, dominated by native trees and shrubs. Wetlands in western Washington often contain necessary wildlife habitat resources such as food, water, thermal cover, and hiding cover in close proximity. The subject wetland and buffer likely provide a moderate level of habitat for a variety of wildlife species. During our site visit, Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC observed an American Crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), a song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), a black-capped chickadee (Poecile atricapillus), and evidence of a common raccoon (Procyon lotor), using the subject site. Due to its vegetative structure, the subject wetland provides habitat for use by terrestrial wildlife species including birds and mammals. The wetland and associated buffer provide protected habitat, which becomes increasingly important as areas become further populated with humans and habitat areas become fragmented. Habitat fragmentation and isolation from other resources resulting from the surrounding development serves to limit the habitat values that the subject wetland and buffer provide for wildlife. The established vegetation within the wetland and associated buffer on this site serves to intercept rain fall before it strikes the soil, thereby reducing erosion and impr-0ving water quality. Furthermore, the dense vegetation and adsorbent soils serve to trap sediment and pollutants and provide increased water quality functions that aid in a reduction of sediment which results in cleaner water leaving the site. Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC Critical Areas Study for -RAD Holdings, LLC -Talbot Rd. Renton, WA Rl: November 23, 2015 Page 6 • • TERMS & CONDITIONS The environmental consulting work conducted, including this Critical Areas Study (the "Services") is supplied to Rad Holdings, LLC (the "Client") as a means of determining whether any wetlands, streams, and/or fish and wildlife habitats regulated by the City of Renton Critical Areas Regulations exist on, or within 300 feet of the site. The Services are provided in accordance with the following General Terms and Conditions (the "Terms"). In accepting the Services provided by Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC ("Acre"), the Client voluntarily enters into and agrees to the binding effect of the following Terms. This report is intended to provide information deemed relevant in the Client's attempt to comply with the regulations currently in effect. The work for this report has conformed to the standard of care employed by professional ecologists in the Pacific Northwest. All other representations or warranties, whether express or implied, are hereby disclaimed concerning the work or this report. This report is based largely on readily observable conditions and, to a lesser extent, on readily ascertainable conditions. No attempt has been made to determine hidden or concealed conditions. If such conditions exist or arise, the information contained in this report may be rendered inaccurate or incomplete based upon those conditions. Acre acts solely as an independent contractor in providing the Services to the Client, and nothing in the provision of such Services shall be construed as creating an agency, partnership, joint venture or other similar legal relationship between Acre and the Client. Please note that Acre did not provide detailed analyses of other permitting requirements not discussed in this report (i.e., structural, drainage, geotechnical, or engineering requirements). The laws applicable to Critical Areas are subject to varying interpretations. While Acre observed professional industry standards when completing this review, the information included in this report does not guarantee approval by any federal, state, and/or local permitting agencies. Therefore, all work on this property should not commence until permits have been obtained from all applicable agencies. If there are any questions regarding this report, please contact me at 206.450.7746. Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC. Louis Emenhiser Principal Wetland Ecologist Professional Wetland Scientist #1680 Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC Critical Areas Study for -RAD Holdings, LLC -Talbot Rd. Renton, WA Rl: November 23, 2015 Page 7 ~---------------------------- • • REFERENCES Cowardin, et al, 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-79/31. December 1979. Environmental Laboratory. (1987). "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss. Hruby, T. 2004. Washington State wetland rating system for western Washington -Revised. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication# 04-06-025. King County iMAP: Interactive Mapping Tool. Administered by the City of Kirkland GIS Center. http://www.kingcounty.gov/operations/gis/Maps/iMAP.aspx. Website last visited August 16, 2013. Lichv ar, R.W. 2013. The National Wetland Plant List: 2013 wetland ratings. Phy toneuron 2013- 49: 1-241. Renton Municipal Code. Section 4-3-050 (Critical Areas Regulations). Renton, Washington. SalmonScape. Interactive Mapping website administered by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. http:ljwdfw.wa.gov/mapping/salmonscape/index.html. Website last visited on August 16, 2013. StreamNet. Fish Data for the Northwest. Administered by the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. http://www.streamnet.org/. Website last visited on August 16, 2013. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2010). "Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0)," ERDC/EL TR- 10-3, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory Wetlands http:J/107.20.228.18/Wetlands/WetlandsMapper.html#. Last updated July 8, 2013. last visited on August 16, 2013. Mapper. Website Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication #96-94. March 1997. Web Soil Survey. United States Department of Agrifulture. Natural Resources Conservation Service. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm. Website last visited on August 16, 2013. Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC Critical Areas Study for -RAD Holdings, LLC -Talbot Rd. Renton, WA Rl: November 23, 2015 Page 8 WETLAND DETE.ATION DATA FORM-Western Mounia,, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: RAD Holdings, LLC Applicant/Owner: RAD Holdings, LLC lnvestigator(s): Louis Emenhiser City/County: King County I Renton Sampling Date: 07.25.13 State: WA Sampling Point: _D_P_1 ____ _ Section, Township, Range: _S_3_o_. _T_23_N_._R_5_E_._w_.M_. __________ _ Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): _T_e_rr_a_ce __________ Local relief (concave, convex, none): _C_o_n_c_a_v_e _____ Slope(%):~ Subregion (LRR): _L_R_R_-_A ____________ Lat 47.4520 Long: -122.2076 Datum:----- Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes NWI classification: _P_F_0_1_E _______ _ Are climatic/ hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes_./ __ No ___ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation __ , Soil ___ , or Hydrology_ _ significantly disturbed? Are ~Normal Circumstancesff present? Yes_ I _ No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) Are Vegetation __ , Soil ___ , or Hydrology ___ naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes __f__ No --Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes -,/ -No --,/ ,/ within a Wetland? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No --------- Remarks: Wetland A VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 meters ) 06, Cover Sgecies:Z Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Fraxinus latifolia 60 y FacW That Are OBL, FACW, or FAG: 6 (A) 2. Populus balsamifera 30 y Fae Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 7 (B) 4. 90 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species 86 Sa12ling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 10 meters ) That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (NB) 1. Cornus alba 20 y FacW Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Spiraea douglasii 20 y FacW Total% Cover of· Multi12ly by: 3. Rubus armeniacus 10 y Facu OBL species 0 X 1 = Q 4. FACW species 160 x2= 320 5. FAC species 60 x3= 180 50 = Total Cover FACU species 15 x4= 60 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1 meter ) UPL species 0 x5= 0 1. Phalaris arundinacea 60 y FacW 235 560 Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Ranunculus repens 30 y Fae 3. Polystichum munitum 5 N FacU Prevalence Index = 8/A = 2.38 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. ,I Dominance Test is >50% - 6. ,I Prevalence Index is :53.0 1 7. Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting 8. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1 -9. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 10. 11. 1lndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 95 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Hydrophytic 2. Vegetation ,I Present? Yes No ------= Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 5 Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0 SOIL • • Sampling Point· DP1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches} Color (moist) __!&_ Color {moist) __!&_ _TuQL Loe~ Texture Remarks 0-18 10YR 3/2 95 10YR 4/3 5 C M silt loam --------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ --------- ------------ ------------ 1Tvne: C=Concentration, D=Deoletion RM=Reduced Matrix CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Unina, M-Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydrlc Soils3 : _ Histosol (A1) _ Sandy Redox (SS) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) -Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) -Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) -Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A 12) ./ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ./ No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primai:y Indicators (minimum of on~ reguired; check all that ai;ii;ilyl Seconda[Y Indicators (2 or more reguiredl _ Surface Water (A 1) _ Water-Stained Leaves (89) (except MLRA _ Water-Stained Leaves (89) (MLRA 1, 2, _ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 48) 4A, and 4B) .!._ Saturation (A3) _ Salt Crust (811) _ Drainage Patterns (B10) _ Water Marks (81) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) _ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (82) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Drift Deposits (B3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) :!_ Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (84) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) _ Iron Deposits (85) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ./ FAG-Neutral Test (DS) _ Surface Soil Cracks (86) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) . Raised Ant Mounds (06) (LRR A) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) . Frost-Heave Hummocks (07) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes --No ./ Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes_./_ No Depth (inches): 15 -- Saturation Present? Yes ./ No __ Depth (inches): 12 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ./ No ------(includes capillary frinoe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0 WETLAND DETE.ATION DATA FORM-Western Moun&, Valleys, and Coast Region ProjecVSite: RAD Holdings, LLC Applicant/Owner: RAD Holdings, LLC lnvestigator(s): Louis Emenhiser City/County: King County I Renton Sampling Date: 07.25.13 State: WA Sampling Point _D_P_2 ____ _ Section, Township, Range: _S_3_0.c, _T_23_N_,c...R_5_E_c,_w_.M_. __________ _ Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): _H_i_lls_lo-'p_e __________ Local relief (concave, convex, none): _c_o_n_v_ex ______ Slope(%):~ Subregion (LRR): _L_R_R_-_A ____________ Lat: 47.4520 Long: -122.2079 Datum:----- Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes NWI classification:---------- Are climatic/ hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes_./ __ No ___ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation __ , Soil ___ , or Hydrology_ _ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances~ present? Yes_ ../ _ No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) Are Vegetation __ , Soil ___ , or Hydrology ___ naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc . Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ---No -./ -Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes -I -No --I ./ within a Wetland? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ---No --- Remarks: Non-wetland west of Wetland A. VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 meters ) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Acer macrophyllum 70 y FacU That Are OBL, FACW, or FAG: 1 (A) 2. Thuja plicata 20 y Fae Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 5 (B) 4. 90 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species 20 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (NB) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 10 meters ) 1. Corylus cornuta 30 y FacU Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Oemleria cerasiformis 30 y FacU Total% Cover of: Multlpl~ b~: 3. Rubus armeniacus 5 N Facu OBL species 0 X 1 = Q 4. FACW species 0 x2= 0 5. FAC species 20 x3= 60 65 = Total Cover FACU species 205 x4= 820 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1 meter ) UPL species 0 x5= 0 1. Polystichum munitum 60 y FacU Column Totals: 225 (A) 880 (B) 2. Rubus ursinus 10 N FacU 3. Prevalence Index = BIA= 3.91 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. -Dominance Test is >50% 6. Prevalence Index is ::03.01 7. Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting 8. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1 -9. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 10. 11ndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 11. be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 70 = Total Cover Wood~ Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Hydrophytic 2. Vegetation ,/ Present? Yes No ------= Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 10 Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0 SOIL • • Sampling Point: _D_P_2 __ _ Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features {inches) Color (moist) ___!&_ Color (moist) ___!&_~ Loe" Texture Remarks 0-18 10YR 3/2 95 10YR 3/3 5 C M silt loam --------- --------- --------- --------- ------------ --------- --------- ------------ 1 Tvne: C=Concentration D=Deoletion RM=Reduced Matrix CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Linina M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Solls3 : _ Histosol (A 1) _ Sandy Redox (55) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) ._ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A 12) I Redox Dark Surface (F6) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ./ No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: PrimaJY Indicators (minimum of one reguired· check all that aggly:) Seconda!Y Indicators (2 or more reguired} _ Surface Water (A 1) _ Water-Stained Leaves (89) (except MLRA _ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, _ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and4B) _ Saturation (A3) _ SaltCrust(B11) _ Drainage Patterns (810) _ Water Marks (81) Aquatic Invertebrates (813) _ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (82) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C 1) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Drift Deposits (B3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (84) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aquitard (03) _ Iron Deposits (85) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilted Soils (C6) . FAG-Neutral Test (D5) _ Surface Soil Cracks (86) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (01) (LRR A) . Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) . Frost-Heave Hummocks (07) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes --No I Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No I Depth (inches): ---- Saturation Present? Yes __ No _I_ Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No I ------(includes capillarv frinoe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0 WETLAND DETE.ATION DATA FORM -Western Moun&, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: RAD Holdings, LLC Applicant/Owner: RAD Holdings, LLC lnvestigator(s): Louis Emenhiser City/County: King County/ Renton Sampling Date: 07.25.13 State: WA Sampling Point _D_P_3 ____ _ Section, Township, Range: -'S-'3-'-0'-, T--'2'-'3-'-N..:.'.:..R..:.5-=E'-, W-'-'-.M'------------- Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): _H_il_ls_loc.cp_e __________ Local relief (concave, convex, none): _c_o_n_v_ex ______ Slope{%):~ Subregion (LRR): LRR-A Lat: 47.4519 Long: -122.2085 Datum: ____ _ Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes NWI classification:---------- Are climatic/ hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes_./ __ No ____ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation __ , Soil ___ , or Hydrology_ _ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes_ I _ No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) Are Vegetation __ , Soil ___ , or Hydrology ___ naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc . Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ---No -./ -Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ./ ./ ----within a Wetland? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ./ --------- Remarks: Non-wetland on the forested slope. VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 meters ) 06 Cover Sgecies? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Acer macrophyUum 60 y FacU That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) 2. Fraxinus latifolia 30 y FacW Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 6 (B) 4. 90 -Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species 16 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Sagling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 10 meters ) 1. Symphoricarpos albus 30 y FacU Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Oemleria cerasiformis 20 y FacU Total 06 Cover of: Multigl)'. b)'.: 3. Rubus armeniacus 20 y FacU OBL species 0 X 1 = Q 4. Holodiscus discolor 10 N FacU FACW species 30 x2= 60 5. Rubus parviflorus 10 N FacU FAG species 0 x3= 0 90 = Total Cover FACU species 160 x4= 640 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1 meter ) UPL species 0 x5= 0 1. Polystichum munitum 10 y Facu Column Totals: 190 (A) 700 (B) 2. 3. Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.68 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. -Dominance Test is >50% 6. Prevalence Index is S3.01 7. Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1 -9. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain) 10. 11ndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 11. be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 10 = Total Cover Wood)'. Vine Stratum (Plot size: I 1. Hydrophytic 2. Vegetation ./ Present? Yes ---No = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 5 Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast-Version 2.0 SOIL • • Sampling Point _D_P_3 ___ _ Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) --3L,__ Color {moist) --3L,___ -llQL Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-18 10YR 3/2 100 silt loam ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- ------------ ------------ ------------ 1T""'e: C=Concentration, D=Denletion RM=Reduced Matrix CS-Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lininn, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 : _ Histosol (A1) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) ·-Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A 12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S 1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (FS) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ,/ Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Prima[Y Indicators (minimum of one reguired· check all that ag12l:t) Seconda!Y Indicators (2 or more reguired) _ Surface Water (A 1) _ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA _ Water-Stained Leaves (89) (MLRA 1, 2, _ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 48) 4A, and 4B) _ Saturation (A3) _ Salt Crust (811) _ Drainage Patterns (B10) _ Water Marks (81) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) _ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Drift Deposits (B3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Geomorphic Position (02) Algal Mat or Crust (84) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) _ Iron Deposits (85) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) . FAG-Neutral Test (D5) _ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (01) (LRR A) . Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) . Frost-Heave Hummocks (07) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface {88) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes __ No_:!___ Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No _I_ Depth (inches): -- Saturation Present? Yes __ No _I_ Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No I ------'includes ca,..llJan., frinne\ Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0 WETLAND DETE.ATION DATA FORM-Western Moun&, Valleys, and Coast Region ProjecUSite: RAD Holdings, LLC Applicant/Owner: RAD Holdings, LLC lnvestigator(s): Louis Emenhiser City/County: King County/ Renton Sampling Date: 07.25.13 State: WA Sampling Point: _D_P_4 ____ _ Section, Township, Range: _S_3_0_, T_2_3_N_,_R_5_E_,_W_.M_. __________ _ Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): _H_il_ls_lo_p_e __________ Local relief (concave, convex, none): _c_o_n_ve_x ______ Slope(%):~ Subregion (LRR): LRR-A Lat: 47.4520 Long: ·122.2094 Datum:----- Soil Map Unit Name: A1derwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes NWI classification:---------- Are climatic/ hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes_./ __ No ___ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation __ , Soil ___ , or Hydrology_ _ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances~ present? Yes_ I _ No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) Are Vegetation __ , Soil ___ , or Hydrology ___ naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc . Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ---No -./ -Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes -./ -No --within a Wetland? ./ Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ./ ------ Remarks: Non-wetland in maintained lawn. VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: T r§!e ~tratum (Plot size: 30 meters ) % Cover Sgecies? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Fraxinus latifolia 20 y FacW That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) 4. 20 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species 50 Sagling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 10 meters ) That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (NB) 1. Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Total% Cover of: Multigly by: 3. OBL species 0 X 1 = 0 4. FACW species 20 x2= 40 5. FAG species 50 x3= 150 = Total Cover FACU species 50 x4= 200 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1 meter ) UPL species 0 x5= 0 1. Schedonorus arundinaceus 20 y Fae 120 390 Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Elymus glaucus 20 y FaeU 3. Hypochaeris radicata 20 y FacU Prevalence Index = B/A= 3.25 4. Agrostis tenuis 10 N Fae Hydrophytlc Vegetation Indicators: 5. Holcus lanatus 10 N Fae -Dominance Test is >50% 6. Ranunculus repens 10 N Fae Prevalence Index is s3.01 7. Trifolium pratense 10 N Facu Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting 8. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1 9. - 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 11. 11ndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 100 -Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Hydrophytic 2. Vegetation ,/ Present? Yes No ------= Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 5 Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0 SOIL • • Sampling Point: _D_P_4 __ _ Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features {inches} Color (moist) ----1_ Color (moist) ----1_ ....I:tmL_ Loc 2 Texture Remarks 0-18 10YR 3/2 95 10YR 4/3 5 C M silt loam ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ --------- --------- 1Tvne: C=Concentration, D=Deoletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Linina M-Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 : _ Histosol (A 1) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) __ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A 12) ,/ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S 1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (FB) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ,/ No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primai:y Indicators (minimum of one reguired· check all that ai;212lx:} Secondai:y Indicators (2 or more reguired} _ Surface Water (A 1) _ Water-Stained Leaves (89) (except MLRA _ Water-Stained Leaves (89) (MLRA 1, 2, _ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 48) 4A, and48) _ Saturation (A3) _ SaltCrust(811) _ Drainage Patterns (B10) _ Water Marks (81) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) _ Ory-Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C 1) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Drift Deposits (B3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Geomorphic Position (02) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aquitard (03) _ Iron Deposits (85) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) , FAG-Neutral Test (05) _ Surface Soil Cracks (86) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (01) (LRR A) . Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (07) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BB) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes --No _j__ Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes --No_./_ Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No _I_ Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ,/ --------(includes caoillarv frinae) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0 WETLAND DETE.ATION DATA FORM-Western Moun&, Valleys, and Coast Region ProjeeUSite: RAD Holdings, LLC Applicant'Owner: RAD Holdings, LLC lnvestigator(s): Louis Emenhiser City/County: King County I Renton Sampling Date: 07.25.13 State: WA Sampling Point: _D_P_5 ___ _ Section, Township, Range: _S_3_0_, _T_23_N_._R_5_E_._w_.M_. __________ _ Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): _H_i_lls_lo_p_e __________ Local relief (concave, convex, none): _c_o_n_v_ex ______ Slope(%): 4 % Subregion (LRR): LRR·A Lat: 47.4519 Long: _-_12_2_.2_0_9_7 ______ Datum:----- Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes NWI classification:---------- Are climatic/ hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes_./ __ No ___ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation __ , Soil ___ , or Hydrology_ _ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes_ ./ _ No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) Are Vegetation __ , Soil ___ , or Hydrology ___ naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ---No -,/ -Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes -,/ -No --,/ within a Wetland? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ,/ --------- Remarks: Non-wetland in maintained lawn/ blackberry patch. VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 meters ) % Cover Sgecies? Status Fraxinus latifolia 10 y Facw Number of Dominant Species 2 1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAG: (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 6 (B) 4. 10 Percent of Dominant Species 33 = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Sagling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 10 meters ) 1. Rubus armeniacus 50 y Facu Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Total% Cover of" MultiRIY.. bY..: 3. OBL species 0 X 1 = 0 4. FACW species 10 x2= 20 5. FAG species 60 x3= 180 50 = Total Cover FACU species 85 x4= 340 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1 meter ) UPL species 0 x5= 0 1. Holcus lanatus 20 y Fae 155 540 (B) Column Totals: (A) 2. Elymus glaucus 10 y FacU 3. Hypochaeris radicata 10 y FacU Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.48 4. Dactylis glomerata 10 y FacU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. Schedonorus arundinaceus 10 N Fae Dominance Test is >50% - 6. Ranunculus repens 10 N Fae Prevalence Index is :S3.0 1 7. Agrostis tenuis 10 N Fae Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting Conium maculatum 5 N Fae data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1 Cirsium vulgare 5 N Facu -9. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain) 10. 1lndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 11. be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 90 = Total Cover Woody_ Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Hydrophytic 2. Vegetation ,/ Present? Yes No ------= Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum D Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0 SOIL • • Sampling Point: _D_P_S __ _ Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches} Color (moist) ~ Color (mois!) ~ ___TuruL_ Lael! Texture Remarks 0-18 10YR 3/2 95 10YR 4/3 5 C M silt loam ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 1 T"ne: C=Concentration, D=Deoletion, RM-Reduced Matrix CS-Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore LininA, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydrlc Soils3 : _ Histosol (A1) _ Sandy Redox (SS) _ 2 cm Muck (A 10) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) ·-Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) ,/ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes .f No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primar,: Indicators (minimum of one reguired· check all that aggl~) Secondart Indicators (2 or more reguired) _ Surface Water (A 1) _ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA _ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, _ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) _ Saturation (A3) _ Salt Crust (B11) _ Drainage Patterns (B10) _ Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) _ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C 1) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Drift Deposits (B3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Geomorphic Position (02) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) _ Iron Deposits (B5) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAG-Neutral Test (D5) _ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (01) (LRR A) . Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) . Frost-Heave Hummocks (07) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BB} Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes __ No_.!__ Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes __ No _I_ Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes __ No_./_ Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ,/ ---<includes caoillarv frinae) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast-Version 2.0 ~----------- WETLAND DETE.ATION DATA FORM-Western Moun.s, Valleys, and Coast Region ProjecVSite: RAD Holdings, LLC ApplicanUOwner: RAD Holdings, LLC lnvestigator(s): Louis Emenhiser City/County: King County I Renton Sampling Date: 07.25.13 State: WA Sampling Point: _D_P_6 ___ _ Section, Township, Range: _S_3_0_,_T_2_3N_, R_5E_,_w_.M_. __________ _ Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): _H_il_ls_lo_p_e __________ Local relief (concave, convex, none): _C_o_n_v_e_x _____ Slope(%): 16 % Subregion (LRR): LAA-A Lat: 47.4519 Long: -122.2100 Datum:----- Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes NWI classification:---------- Are climatic/ hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes_./ __ No ___ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation __ , Soil ___ , or Hydrology_ _ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances~ present? Yes_ ./ _ No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) Are Vegetation __ , Soil ___ , or Hydrology ___ naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Remarks: Non-wetland in blackberry patch. Yes No ./ Yes No ./ Yes No ./ VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 meters ) % Cover 1. Acre macrophyllum 30 2. 3. 4. 30 S!;!J!lingt§hrub Stratum (Plot size; 10 meters ) 1. Rubus armeniacus 70 2. Symphoricarpos albus 10 3. 4. 5. BO Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1 meter ) 1. Elymus glaucus 20 2. Ranunculus repens 20 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 40 Woody_ Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum O Remarks: , US Army Corps of Engineers Is ihe Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes __ _ No_./ __ Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Species? Status Number of Dominant Species y Facu That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species 25 That Are DBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) y FacU Prevalence Index worksheet: N FacU Total % Cover of: Multigly by: OBL species 0 X 1 = 0 FACW species 0 x2= 0 FAC species 20 x3= 60 = Total Cover FACU species 130 x4= 520 UPL species 0 x5= 0 y FacU Column Totals; 150 (A) 580 (B) y Fae Prevalence lndex = BIA= 3.86 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% - Prevalence Index is s3.01 Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 - Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain) 1Jndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation ./ Present? Yes No ------= Total Cover Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0 SOIL • • Sampling Point _D_P_6 __ _ Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) ~ Color {moist) ~-ImL Loe" Texture Remarks 0-18 10YR 3/2 100 silt loam --------- ------------ ------------ --------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 1T,me: C=Concentration, D=Denletion RM=Reduced Matrix CS-Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL -Pore Linina, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 : _ Histosol (A 1) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy GI eyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (FB) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ./ No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Prima!)'. Indicators {minimum of one reguired· check all that ai:rn:1¥) Seconda!)'. Indicators {2 or more reguired) _ Surface Water (A 1) _ Water-Stained Leaves (89) (except MLRA _ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, _ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 48) 4A, and 48) _ Saturation (A3) _ SaltCrust(B11) _ Drainage Patterns (B10) _ Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B 13) _ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Drift Deposits (83) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Geomorphic Position (02) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) _ Iron Deposits (BS) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) . FAG-Neutral Test (DS) _ Surface Soil Cracks (86) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) . Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) . Frost-Heave Hummocks (07) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BB) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes __ No_.!__ Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes --No_{_ Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes __ No _I_ Depth (inches); Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No { ------<includes caoillarv frinae) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Version 2.0 \Yalattd i::11n,: 1:r ,·umh~r .Li_ RATING SUMMARY -Western Washington t.',Pn(· nf ·wr.tl.nd(91 mo;: 'g. C•.t/ ~/ J,,,.11~ .. t,IJtf fl {i;jteols;temit: ,:-I-O'I -f 3 Jt.l(~d 11vLGn..-,•Jl,11 sr/ _,__.Tfdi:11.'d !7'f(t,A,g-,·? . .:f,c~ _fft,S\atc~ t1ofoi<1K~_1:. .. ~o"" I'-/ ttGMCL1iS U1ed for ra1lna~e1 t !,:,, r'J,J~ Wetland has rnt:ltii;leHG~.', classes?_',' ..6..u NOTT: form lo; not complete v.·i100m the fi;:t1rcs requested l',g":t:scoo t,e rombineo). • ~rec of t.asc aciri11I pholc/m.ap fu 00 91 \· 6:-v'f:!:l .. -,~ 'I/ 7 lc}\J .ai(""f I ".( 1,rf OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY \ \ \ tbu~ctf on hw~t;om.)(o· spc,;:;,,1c1i,rac:chtio_t • • 1. Category of wetland bJsed on FUNCTIONS ___ Catqo,y I -·1otal "(<lrr."' :,J. n __ eatceOfV 11-·rotal ~-:::,r11 .. zc~ 12 -~ ... t.ileg0fylll-Tct.1lscete :.16· !.9 ___ r.a1egor,1V-Tot.:Jfs6Jre= 9-IS tUNCJIOH trnalf'0\'1Ai """°''"" ' Habitat W•U!rQ.t~ty <or.ii: r.~r nr.i=fl:ICM"~t" J"~t11::1,.1 it~f'OICllltill ' ""f "5' ,; ~ W.ilH;spe Pcll"ioti~I v·<.ffr-,-9_.'" 1 __ ~ .IJ.!_ VtililC E M L ~~-'-!!.__:__•_. Off! B.lsedcB k> _::}:_ _y.:_ •• TOT;L· \'l 2. Category based on SPECl'IL OlARACTERISllCS of welland CfUtillt.CJ[IISTIC CATEtiOIY -Ei.tu~1lne I II Wrtbl.t of Higfl C0<1se<vatfonValue I ... I Matun, Forni I OloGrowthfort!St I Co.n.t.111.a;ocn I II b:terdmu1I I II 111 IV Nnl"r c:! 1h11' .t!in·oP. \\'..tl.•ml R.1tk,: :>nt .. r, !orl'.'1'1'.l'm \VA: ;w1, U;,d.a1: 1:ottr;irorm-1::11•·~·,:o·I' ~1n,uq '~:!OJS · s«,rc fDr each fu11 :tlon II ased onthh'"e ratiMS !ll.••1-ti o/ m:U:'fi !, ,wt !'T.pt:!ftJ,'11} 9 .. 11,11,11 3;;. IJ,11,1.1 ];;.tJ,H,I "ii'fi,M.M 6 = 11.M.l (•a.M.M.M ~ .. u.l,l s = M.M.l 4 •M.l.l ) • l,l.l c~.,{e.1.J'''1 I\\ N, o i\ ,,,,,,., \e. j-1,,;,,; i-,-.A- -=--\. r,0 1 &1 !f-.,-. \\'e1llml u:1:n .. nr n:111,11~, /~t- Maps and figures required lo answer questions correctly for Western Washington lH.;:,ressiM;il Wl'tl-wd~ .~--·--___ ---·--_ I toal'ISll!Tfc:=dor.J: IFl5117,;'1 ;:-(YN.-,e:,.p1.,n1cbU," lo :~l,li '·!· .. 1 . .\ __ _ 1"11\J",?~\ ~·-----0 .. .4_..fll,a J -··--------~, lt..::;atiJ'IOIC,cdiot(,-aot,,;;J-Jr111.:.,,;tp?(}'A"VP"'~/ ._,,~---~--'l>!.l,.l.l!.t , llot.ir,c:l'!l'_otarta ·•1th.In l:,,C hot11'1<1 w,,1t.n.:.',.J1J6or-lldti,•,.i ti,11.,..,., .. ~Jf!;o1 ... } ·I o;t2,fl ~,t ___ __j M.•t:clth\'v:il':,i~i .. 11:ba,,"! 043,ll.\.'I __ ___J ~, ,.rt1Poh'P~,,, .. ,1,n ,.d•t><l1 I ltrf,i,r,,::,itifl:-"'etl.mdee;~ • i11c: .Jdirc f 112.1..11-::i, h :.J --l ~~!;!~h,.!\:,:,?l.l"C'JllthlflJliledhat~zt , --- ~rrenaipti. -.offl'li; c.fJDJl4tllstt:fw.11»urt\t.;.1il" 1h,l'11fr<~ '''"b}'ld I O ).1.0 ~ 2 ~nl'lrbp(<;. ~ofl:~ot-TMC1 .. ,forWP. r..inv.hichun,:hte:udtim!'"'>""':-.";";-c , n:u ______ _ Rr,..f'iinf! '~.'td,,ndS ·c;....:;;,::.;';i';;;;:;n~, I ,11.1.11 :.4 ---~ I \l.lpof. r,:;;;;-.,,,;;-4~-;--, ,iJvr4:I ,t,.,d,:,p,.,,,:,:11 .._ :-t 1.1 _____ _ !~~!''~"'~'------'n: t I I S:,undiyiJl,ai~a ~·.r() !!tOts nil:.. ... -~tt,n<t{:c;t,:~-!.::,.:,.ll(Nh•JJ,~irl_! ?:~."-------! I ~11."lt<QO'lfft:1 11'ee1,.~v113:,1,nc:-.~rtafa11.~Jl!Mlll LF.J.:~lli-- ! '/f'.dlli o1, .. ·,t •I, "'1/hfo.of!!"!!'ll{nnNoii,t~ ~on.::,:1t,ttf!;-: t,: !.I ~P.<>llt•!:!~!.:.:i?!!'i~&t1,!n ----; F.1.i, it:!'J, l'i L.• . } t 1,...?,1/1,t.)~Aru !h:d ,i.1tl'l•b l >•c1"_!un_.iu• -1.-1:I c.dp,· irehtc·"II: I IIL':,I! i . .:. ti 1J ~fOfltf.ltk<oll•-~l,;,b.1.<:....t .. r,!,;lu,1:>!!,f.,ilbilla\ _______ J _____ _ :._~.!_IC~j~~potro~ld!Lu..:,: .,-i:.1~(1lbufnjll<at<'F,'C'l~l'i"t.,.,.14;1,..1 tv~----~--. . L~!i:'.±:e"'l (,' r,1 ..:.rn.t)h!;.>T\':IUAL"I .. -.J, .. uniit kfol:-.d ,,r.mi-ti ! ":: 1. u.:1 Lal.e [rin;e W~1bod, rM,;;Fa ---_, ----_::-::::.:::.-·----·-raatiffoC,~5tlom! ,1.-;,.,. I }~f!.E:,rttb=i I l.l.1-11.tiU l!U _ j Wu: co,;:ioftr•~. 1t-i.,h\,..1ndt,..q1baoc:-~"'' .;cl010'~------l--- lk:.,r,,:br, d 11r(:J 'l'i\11'.!r, J~l f1 cf the "°,:1t,n4 f,'tl,l t~ G:!J!l".I IC .:.:~Mr ,., 01010',-cc-~:,:-,---I--- I b,• f(.).je": "1u thatie•1e-i:h J <mlfc~tnt:-.'l'"tti.111<:1 r:ll;11 •iinclld1rt H :n, ti '1.1, u i.1 I ¢,i;c:;,,fo:;ti;:ev.,:Ye,;)M•t:~Ufld,!1••-'1•cdt>iwi.t _, _ -f ';c--r f•i!llff'\'cf l"'ll>oi Jll!:dl l~ted \'oo)tcr~l1>~'1>:t1.>mfwlo,ey-b"1:1j l .5 1,: .= ;· s:;;;,:;-,~t;";;;i\,u !!' !.'·!.N.:,1,:.: ~~IA i11 ... h,::t-<.'s"litP. ~:,ur>C (from web! t 1. ! filim~~1L11cts ,~.;;;-;:;:,-'"~' -I fl~..:· 1 ~~ntcbt~ lH:.I HJ,4 - M_!;J~~ 11+,J,epo,1;.c.ik ---~---· i ti :...1 ' 1'!anlCIJ\WCf *ml't.f:..i WJb4.•.,:tt..nl:~{llApli'l!l 0..!:l N,n, «70'l!1 cf llernc-. rti:kl !fe(.I. thr..:)i, M'<: • .,e,t.,t.:cc· .. : i:,l.1r ii 1 '.>4,1 ;witW-~r,.,'pffec.X-.-:J ! Sr:,ur,Jtl'(nl l~O ltbuf~i:rif-t"l! J:t$di:dl04:'>~l"-e:f~d f S 1.1, :5.!i.l 1 "'"""~ :.r•JF.lf.,; 11,1 .. w!lo I lmf-mi· er;ti<e .. 1!::l:end'Nl.zl' -i-n,.rlfrc t 11.'..l,.Jl ':.:.'l..1! l.3 ~ .. 1.ww:"'t~il~l::·~at~vi:flr.ur)C':fhll::tt:: · l==:J ~ .. ~;;;,_;;p-.:,f'I01':i°i1;;;.;::-,Wlll""''i"b.,Jinl'j<,'Tll:<Llm""'·:~-!I!) • !..J.t.~1.1 ____ _ kttr11c)Dt1.-.of•,!:>I IMDUbxWlll:.>11wNc.hU11,t,ik;-.md~!,-~.il'L._J~!} _____ _ \•u~1 . .,,.: lt..1:ngSfH.,w (.,, W,'l<l~,tr ',\',\: :.!t1 Ml:p.-!J\<' 1t.111r12 f.:."11"."' llf«tr,;:: ).uu..iiy I, ;>illS • W!:tl.111dn:1n11.:or111:mhi:r ,f's_ HGM Classlflcation of Wetlands in Western Washington Fur •1•1~"!:lions 1-7, lhL' c1 llnl:i tk~Tiht-d musl,lfl(lly k, th,: ,mtin.· 11nit being r.'IIL"ll. lflh~ i.,-.rro!o1:ic ..:rllt'ri.1 listed 111 ~•ch •11tt-stlon do nol apr.ly to the 1•n1i:..• 1inl1 bcinr, r;1tl•d,)·1,u r,roh.;iMy haYt· .1 ur.il witb nu1hi1•Jc IHiM cl.isso, In llii~c.1.o;~. w~nlify wt:kh hydroltiJ!K'c11t1•ri;1 in qll(;'_~tio11-. F: npply,.anll pj tt, Que..-.tinn ll, I. ~·,:I:. in lht'. rnlin.· unit US:J.l!I)' ,,,n,,•~nl•ll h)' lhks t::11CL·1n Llu;ini: fk1vd .. :- ~ .. _~o t,, 2 ) VES-:lew.111,md rl1~s i;Tidal J'rlngo-g;,to 1.1 i.1 I~ t~f dw w.1h'r ,luting pt":ii.JJs of annu.11 lllW flow ht•l(>WO.S 1111: f J•art,; l't'"f tll:)USJQJj? HU-SaltwatuTidal rr1ng,~ (1: .. 1u.1rtnl") Y•:s-rrcshw.aler'nd.il 1:rlngl' If )CIJr¥t.·tt1aoou1nbedas::mooasaRal:W:":la nrui Fringn.ethclamst~ Riverine¥.ct 1~:m n ii i:iS:!llV'lata Tidal r:11rigutt i:cilfl E:.tua,1r:ewt1IM:Ji1rld i~r!oA ~a:l 7tws~he<lcari,:tr. lxrn:~aJ to ro:::rc-tllrx.tit)OSlcr etur.r inewalar•E. L 'l'b\." rnlift.' ._..,x,t:int± unit;, 11.it ~ml ;tr~:.-ipi:.ati:,n i~ tl1t' .:111ly !!ot•t1n.-1i \;,'Jff'..:,1,,fw,"1ICrti, IL Grour.d·,v.;1,,;r ;1111! •urfxt: w:1trr n.11101T an· Nill' .sn;m .... ·s•1f WJkr 1:i tbi uolr. ~ Yt:S -Thti W\.·llatld <·h .... .:. l:i fl.its 'ii ~~.;fu can !Xl d a!U liOO asi! F. a~ s""''EI 1;!.rt,:t ~ tho ru-rn ,~ [).:pr essi onal wul.w:1$ ~{. Do.:.'S thC' C'l1ll•,~ Wl'l!,md 11nil nicct all (lftlic fdJ.1wh r. aitcrb? _Th,· ~~t.11,iiJ p.'ul uithv wetJ.,nJt'> ,1n 1lw ~h,nti~ of., tiiurly nfpi.•rni;:nl•r,I OJlt';~ w;iler (wHl11~utn:1y rbnt.s c:11 !1tc ~:1rfon: at:a11ytimt.' oflht~ )'t'itt a~n le-.1 .. 1 21.J .iC' ~8 hal in :,.i1.i!'; _l,1 !C-J!>I 30t'1.;.1,ftlw 011t·11 w.11crarC"a isdC'(·r::.-r1h.m h ti !1 (2 tr,). =------ .·m-hi1to'1 -------YIL',-Thc ~cllant.l d.1~.; 1.; 1.ake Fri nee (l.a\W.!riiw f1 In;,·) •1. IJ••·-~ :t~ i:-n:fr~wct!in:I ~•ult mrct all ol th<.· fo1lnw!n;:r1 il•·ri;ft _'TI',: ·.V1::J.1n,t lf;on aJ;!u~ {!iq,Acan t,s~yfraOOaO. • _ 1b~ u-.1:n tl,m•s thru:q;h the ·.vctl:md 1111,nl"dir ... rtit:n ! 1miJ1n.-..·d<m:i!J am\ 11~u.111'; 1·~m1~ fwm !i•,'C'J•~ II rn.1y l1tn·1 ~ut:.::urLl·:t>,.1,;sJw,'.·lf111w,t:r-in :1 :..w:1.k witb:mf di .. 1im·tt,anks. _ 1ln.•,vatl'r fl.'.w1~I; thL· w1:tl.1nJ without hi!lnr. irut,omltft'd. -,--.... ~fJ..,.,;.,1a~ \'f.S-Th•.·wc:l.11:d rf;1,..:i..;S1opl· ... ~.;.cc '.\'3li.'rdc~:i. u,,l p,H:tl in thL•sc t!ipvuf Wl'tbmh 1!'.J!t·cr•t c:-i.~:..i1in:dly in ,·:.,y .~ma11 anti .'i.l<.;1l~.,w1!r-prt':s'.!eicns or ?le hind bm11111,n:k.,-,d::r,n·s,;ions ,lit' u,u:ilty<!-It Ji.1m.:to::1·,1ml ll'::O} tii:111 I It Jct>;,), llf!-~rht• rt11in'• w<.•11.,/\il unit mcd.111,'ifth,· fi,11,rn:ing ,:ritcrfo? _The urait 1,;ii1 a Y,11ky. or 5lfl':tm t:h.1nnd, wt:cri• t1 t:d:.· inund.11-.,i by •K-<!1li;111k lJI.Jf;.;iin;:fmr1l tfott :-J:P":am••rrlv,r, _'fac not"rt,;mk fboc!i11t; ,1i1·,:u,:; ill kl.St Clk'\.' every 2 y..-;1~. Wflhn,,I l:.itr.-g ~,t:•·m 1,,.,·a\'•..,INu ',Y.",: ZCl M l:pd,1tr W.1:1ric I i,•m -t:"(«liv<!' (!nu,1ry I, 2i•t.'i :0 Wdlamtn:1111corm1mh~r _Ii ~) \'J;S -Th,• .-.·e1l.1n:l ,:l.1.::S' i:. IUt'crine NOn::T11c m ... crinc anit t·,,n o;nt.1111 dl'p1,i,\Jvt1:o.lh.1t.1n.· til!cli ',Y!lh ·.v.1kl'wl,..,,1 thr rh"c:ris 11ut l1r.:1dir,g 6, 1.:. l!tt; c111ir1! ·,,-.,11,nal unit in a ~«Jr.();.T.1;,hk• do:J>fCS5h•n ir1 wtikh w.ilt"r ptiml.,;, nrls;.S.'ll11r:11~,l 1,·, tt.l• !'.Utfarc.:u Smn•:lir,~ tlJrin;t ll1t" y~·.,r? lhisnM:ut5lh;lt anyoJtlct. ,I pimr.t, ist-:gf'lff' tha,1 theintai,::r cJ 1ncwo.lan:1 HO -go lo 7 \..._ \'ES-The w.-tl11t1,I, !a;,-: h ll'-TH'ssional -:·~:::-:;-:-""'-'.,:-::ccc::-;c:c==-· Is Itit'L'n:ln·Wi.'tl::nd ul'.it liN.';1tt"tl ir1 :1 \•,.:ry !IJI arL"il wit!111u lll11t1i•l1S' ,kpn..~lun ,u:d n,:~1wo:-rb,wt. ifoo:lin:c:? Tt.c ur:it ducsr:ot 11or:d ... u, (.;11v w;11t.•r 1m,ro.· th.1n .i few lr.d:r-., 'l"h~· •mitst·cnr. :,i ht" urnl;il:lint-:J by highJ~r.J·Jr.t:~ .. ·;1tcr 111 lhf' a:~-.... 'fh,• Wl·lhr.,I m.'l_;• l\c d:ld1~"ll, l1ut !.::_._ ru,"wimr::; n.itur.11 (HJ{\,01. .~n-,-,,r.,n Yl:."i'. -Tll1· wctl.u;d d,1-o;si.; Ue1,re.~\im1:1I El. i',:urwctl.111d 1.111il .:;1'1m1•. lo lw dtflirnll ~· classify mtJ pwli:,M:, n•nl~1in:,; H-V~·r.11 t!if(N~·nl 111;•.1 ,d.lSSt.'•. f;,r cC11r:p!l•. !,i.'l'lr; :ii lhl' t:1;1,.1.· tlf.a d11r.t.• tn 1y ~fad.:: ln:o n I iv,•rino; llt;<11lpl.1in. ,;r a s111all :i.tn:-Jm withlna IJ•/fR"'.',\iu:1.11 w~tl:md bs.1,1111c ••fl1:111c!ing;1l11111~ ils.s'.Lll."S. GO FL\Ct,: A~~O IUtiNTIF\' w1n::u OFTIU: m·o1tnrnt.1r. Ulir:JMh'"S D~CRIHED r; QlJf$'nl)NS 1,;1 1'11'PL\"TO OIFFEllF.NT l,K.l:A.S IN TIIF. UWTlnm".;1· 11 t•n1c11!>l;.:b:h t•> hl."lp fl•U di'd,11·). IJ:-1~ 1l11· iu!luwini; lahk' !•~ i,lemi(y lht• .aj•pru;tri,lkdass ~) tFc inrfa1· m;ia~ ~·J:.lt·m ii ycu h,wc !'>1.~vcr.11 thi.'I i:L,~!.ie~ J'.fC:SL'fll withl:t the \\"t'IL111tl 1:nit bdng Hared. NO rt.·: u.,,: lhhl:1tlt' ur,I)· ifth.;.· ci:iss lh.:il i~11~1mam·;1l11·d in 111.;.· SL·cr.nd colws111 rrl'h""...:r.b 10~•, nr mllre of th<! fol,i! ,11,t1 ol :hl· \'odlan1I ur.it hem,:-: 1·,1tcd. If 1b•:1rt•.1 •,I 1hc IIG.\l ,la:;-, J1.,kC: iJI 1,1la111n ~ is l:.'S.'1: th,-111 1 tJ'!-:, 11! 1h,.• ,.nil; lla-.'.!ili1hc-\\~tlrmd u:;iflJl 1fu~ d!'i'<'.> tha: n:rn-s1:nL.:: m,1n.• 1h;1119D% 1;f th! lut,11:ll"l''.l . HGM das.s.c~ !hithfn tllf! v,;,,'lt,111d 1mit IIGM tLlH l•.l' beir1g,.i1r.,I ule i11 rnti11r. Slop<!'• R,ff!i,-.,. fliw.,irn: . 51o,=e I ~pre'.\i\Mla1 -l>f'llrt'H~u,a.af ~l:,,.,..d.ll('l1i11p;C I .ik,: r :11 111 !." Ocpreuiooal ~ Rl\o,~rinc .1:0:12 -~tu:vra l~;ut,;:;k,11.tl ------··~~!• br.m•l.uv ,.,1 d~'tlrt~~icn f?!pra-.Wn:tl+ 1.t"•.1: fri"f;t!' Oe;m•_•.-.ii;,1,.sl ! P.i~MifH? J l.t;I.' hlO?C Ri·.·cri1u: -Salt \"o'alP.f ltcal ft!nf;~ .)fltl art',' oth!r iu:JI .r5 I I d.t\\ ol ,,~stni.~.atcr '.v'(!tland €5TUAflltfE l 11 )Otaroa111 un.a::i101odctamir1owl8ffirt thflatx:-.-eaitC!iil opply to}urt w:itr.M,<:t it )CtLJ Ila~ ,1a::1 a than 2 HCMOaS&::5wttnin awdt.111:i OOUrrl:it•{, dil$fyt1" .. JWdl<ttn:Jastu1rffiio,al f::,r the rnti»a \\'ctl.t""l:1 RJ:.lntl~·~ll'l'1 lor\'Or;,rr, Wt\· 111 H llfodJI =' J:,:1iu; f~·,n -l;tf~1in-S.,n:..~r; 1,:.:01•; • z L ' ~ I)::, () " /ff 0 . ~ 2 iji • ,i ~ ;;, -- Q ~ -,. ~ --- . " • l/ J -a ·• ~ "' ~ ~ ;; ' .. " ; I~ I ::c. t' ,. G ~ ,. • RATING ANSWERS FOR WETLAND A D1 .1 & D4.1 Wetland has a highly constricted, intermittently flowing outlet. D1 .3 Wetland has persistent ungrazed plants > 95% of the area (the wetland is forested). D1 .4 Area that is seasonally ponded is >1/2 total area of the wetland. D2.2 & D5.2 Approximately 54% of the area within 150' of Wetland A is in land use that generates pollutants and excess runoff. Pollution generating areas (typ.) N CD SCALE 1" = 200' ,,:->. '··· SI. II . :i, ~ .,.,_ \~i ~-~~ • •CS, $ " g ~ u ~ ~ cii ~ 5 .!:w;;~ :li l's':;:>;::;~ §E~g_g O~.f:!_~ iij c( Cll(O Cl! ii~~~~ E"' :£ ii 111 w.c@ 0 .!!! , > a..!? &:i j = • • • E :i w C ~ 0:: .... "' 0 .. m o i ;;! :,: .... 0 .. c( "' -> .. L..._T"";:.,O r-M ~ M l ~eg ..J z ..J Cl)~~ .... a:: w c( ;,: C Q. ..J ~ 0 .... :c C cl! l ~ .. mg O::..JW .co o ~w w o, ooc><t c~>-<~ -c::: J: ~ cor-w ..J a:,... ::, ~:z~[i ci:~:::i ~<(~~ m ~ M -g Q) U) ~ ... "'.,_<') . . ;,,'.,i: 0 N -g ID c: .-...; ., c~ e".'"::1:t ~~w5i~~ _Q__j u::_o g_ -~ . -·--------· --· ·-· ,-,_-,_·= = --~-= ,-.,:-= ____ ::.:.....·--~= == ·= -==------ ~-r """Tl-;:-,:;_ 0n 'i' =~p----,1r , . --,,:~ ~!l"'-f 1;\ :. -.. : -.l-::',j ·1~~f;c: ·'-'i'if:A\\.' ~,..,,,_ .. ., ~JD, \, . ,,,\ ,i·~·~,Q·} , ~ it~t \~',,, \,;:' -t-_:~.;~~ ':, ~ ',-.!~-~-j--l.. ' ..,_ ~TJ! , • .-~· '/~-. c:£2-~ ·,,t',.\ .. ~ ·,;: ' ~ -: ... ::;.. -. --·--.. i --.J,..F ... ~., ·-• Jw t \)~~ \ ~-\ i tr/8,-,,~:;;•J~-Lra• ,;;,:,,.';,.• ..• J ~,-. ..;··,;;-·-:f""']~--, • .. •I ~ • .,. :. . ' •• " ' . t.c ···.-·•1· -~Pi:·. "t' t.. " : . , . ~ n. 0·" ~-. , .., , , r.'< ' -.,. • .r~ " I-""' l,,-.-,. '"'· .. z-. •• 'j• . • . ~--::, ~-l) • •·a>"" -·t ...... . • ,,.,.__ • ·;:• • I --" ·.!!" ~-·= ['I 'l .. :ie, · • 51,_ •. • • '. . V , ~-:-:-·-..,;.~-~' ~---.--:<' · c"i r,._ '.-._,_---:ft t ~' ~s3utCF ·"' · ~-·. '.3 .., ""~ ~ ••• ,_ .... • -""'7""i:;.:, • ., -... ~--;. • • ~...::. • r:SJ.:"'., 't ~-• F • 1~ ", -;I ·;Jr·.·.;:_..,;;••,_cra,;;;, ... • ... \J,/'.¥,;)c,. ;~'·'' ~!: \,~E'-~-"i'"""· -.:·,r.;1.;~-,, .. -~~ -.:---.-.;:, y·,·· kb ~ -1··1 ~~~,-}"\7;..,% . \:_ .\ f:It:';'). •, ~ . ~-.,...;..-. ._ _ .....,., +~-,--"''-' --''-• --:;.t • .-•11 '...._~ , '!/ \ ~-:::: <·r·;t 1'\-,1. ,..,, ~-~ .;.....~ -~t'lnill ·. ,, -l.. /:.. 1,~r ,r ~l >;\_....-. :, 5.1.'t. ·-· • t ,, IL •J • . 'J.tJ . .;, . . u. -s.....:..., "' ,.-~ ... ~. , ''-"' .,0-·-~ '--.! ~. , ... · ..• , .•••... d"-· ·,P \. :.:., .. ,· ;);:';? 7 ~ ::_ :,:cL '...:":.: ., --. ~ . --~ ·~ ,· . . ~:-.·:,· _: . ;,"~ ; _..::~ -' ·' ,"". ;' v'.';1· . ' ~I _i:. • ··~ . ',-r;. .. . ~-.. _) -·civ '""" ".''7 ~J,-} ,}.7';:-ii11 ·c:\=: /.:::.~·_.,, --'. C1. i-~,.: ""' 1 ->,_l~/:,: . .-. i !~\' . :~ ~ ':2;~' ,A~. '. '~'·· I/· . r-; ··[]:~cl"· .. i ;..,_ ... : . D ~ r.Ji."12"d-rr;!f" c: . . _; l . " I'· , ' :'.~'*\ \-, 1'.; .'i ·-~_·, --~v -Ji }r_, ,~ -~ ~ 'J...~1.u..... '-4.,; --· ------':: J ,/, ' ;! .,\,. ~ ,, .. · -~\--. • .·,., ~-:, __.. ·. -:t '.~-;;,/ · { \ -1 \ • i ~-;,.; -... \ l~,Ll u. Ji :.. 1T·1!..!...,,::-. 'il Jr-,c-o, ?'~ • • ·• , ,·( !.l,_. /,_ivf-ur j .• " ._,,. "!/.~·-._, -..:.·.,. . -f. ]J/r ~ ' -. i a; t"l'--L.:_~ · .---r..-·.·;-··::.:..! \ · .·, .. ~ ••. ~ • -~' !1,-\. • ..' :r,£1)1"'.· -,_,. ! . a,,::, f'. . ;., tfi);,Yj -.[" --,--• • '\, .. _ '1-t·f'". "' j -I "'-f "-----~-7 ··.--L 2 • \: . ,, •2 ,. '!' 1 • ' ·1,,.1 • , 1l;'. /J... · / · --t!G·, .J L • · -[, · ,\ .:'cJl:;;4 v ,,-~r--~-i .;_? ,I rf..;'.,;. r'l~/~,-~l•,, \\;~::•f..J/.. ·--;a~.~~1 . ' ,,· .,.'.:-~L;i" 1···,L· __ 'f'',_' , ~ . . --, l·'.,, ·Ll , .. J1 · n f, c.'f' . ·•-'1>· · ~ • ~ "'--./ ~;,.;..,J;_f/J 1' --t .-• 'tr'". ai::--J • :1:,' ... • · \•" • ;-s-;·· , •• <>. · •1 • r-, -... ~-'-·, pi-1H· r,~ _;.,·, . -..... , · ·-.-.-_ .. !"~--· • ,., . 'J t~"'e--':J. v~~,:-1 ,r-.:.... 't:~if._ -:;· --:-,., .,.713. -~ · "'-...., ·..;'·· ··;,.. ;if ;:c, . ,'\\ .. -' f"f~..:..-~ ,. ' -• . :,; . •. . --/~>~ .r,...,-----,,-F=l i . "i!I . ef", I .. 'ij .... · ,.,. . . i'", '. .·'-··,\': ~ • • •• -""" ,---''C '• ..... 4,1' ~t,I,, \-r[:, ·~ ,. : '·~~ !-,-, ..-~ ·1 i .. n"..54~-.-,-t ,' • :---• _:.,__;I.)] ~ "7°:~ ,,·i.;-~'o,J"' . . .0.".-:--,, j , -~ •1<1.~:1 1'fi , ... -1 · 1_Q ·:. ·. , -J . ---. , ·-~± , -_ '"-~ - -_; . · 4~ · -:-:ff 1 4 ,i.-, ti,,'?.'ifr-~~ .. "': · ·. ~· f:, ,~l. , -":i , J · ':_ L H =t'""' "-: .; 1t"'l · il>!·l':_; -± : ~ ~ ~ ~ _... ,:; ... " w·-· r· ..• ·, ,_. . -c· ; 1, !LSL .... ....: a""" ri"1~3/'°' -.--<.-.,. _ J-. -. 7,,i \. '·?: 1\'-. &f " , -~= .,:.: ,_...:..ss:/i,iu.;..,,...µ -· . · "11 ,--1 · '""'•• ~~ -~,!-;. .~-,.-,~~·~-,-.~~-,j?.~ -··· :,______ - WETLAND A RATING UNIT RATING ANSWERS FOR WETLAND A CONTRIBUTING BASIN FOR WETLAND A D4.3 the contributing basin for Wetland A is -207,021 square feet in size/ the -18,070 square foot wetland rating unit= 11.45 (basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit). D5.3 Greater than 25% of the contributing basin of Wetland A is covered with intensive land uses (primarily residential). N CD SCALE 1" = 200' <.> E ~ 0 ~ u • II) ...: = ~ • l~!:i:ii~} u, ,;,<r,... r;:: ~ ~ ~ ~ e u ~.Jli•> -< .. _c ~.c~~I •.~it£ 0 • ] w j : ! .iii u E <( w ~ 0 a: ~ ., 0 "' a! 0 .J "' ::.1 <( J, ~ 0 "' <( "' ->"' ->o "' . .., ,ZQ o 0 z ...I !z ...I <i .,_w w _,.,a:~ ,~ 0 ~ :c C il! l ~:zill ~ •W u.i en enc>< (!) > ,c(:: ~~~t~ ..J a:'°> Oz..-w :z::~"'1..J a.~<~~ ~ g 0 g 4i '° <"! ; ii ~5 ~ C: ~ ID':":~ ~ j~ Jj ~ LEGEND Im SUBJECT WETLANDS [[] HIGH INTENSITY LAND USE B MODERATE, AND LOW INTENSITY LAND USE l22ZJ RELATIVELY UNDISTURBED LAND ONE KILOMETER POLYGON LINE Note: Land use definitions are derived from H2.0 Table 3 of the Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update RA TING ANSWERS FOR WETLAND A (H2.1 H2.2 & H2.3) 1 km Area = 35,620,867 sf High Intensity Land Use = 28,735,157 sf (80%) Moderate & Low Intensity Land Use = 3, 17 ,2809 sf (10%) Accessible Moderate & Low lntensty LU= 156,157 sf (4%) Relatively Undisturbed Land Use = 3,713,483 (10%) Accessible Relatively Undisturbed LU = 59,195 sf (1%) N (]) SCALE 1" = 1,000' r-----.•-•:: 0 J ere Job: 13039 1 Drawn By; [ L. Emenhiser 1 Figure 3 of 5 PREPARED FOR: RAD HOLDINGS, LLC A TIN. RORY DEES 6252 167TH AVE. SE BELLEVUE, WA 98006 1KM POLYGON MAP {UNDISTURBED & ACCESIBLE HABITAT} RAD HOLDINGS, LLC. 3112 TALBOT ROAD RENTON,WA ! Date: 11.23.2015 i Rev#: TAX PARCEL NO. 302305-9028 wo::i·1e1uewuo111,uee1:ie@s1no1 :11ew3 9l'LL·OSF (9oz) :&U04d SS~86 VM ')!Jed l&.•1 3N enUM'd' 4l8Z ::,11 '8umnsuo::, 1e1uew u3 e.J:>t,' .xa a39Vd3Qd 8Z06·SO£ZO£ "ON 13:lHlfd Xlfl lfM 'N01N3HA avoH 1oa1v1 Z((t -:>11 'sWla10H avH (aln)ae:i uaal5s) ujses uJ slaieAA lPJtot 300 -~ 90086 VM '3nl\.31138 3S "31\.V HJ.l9~ C:SZ9 S330 AMOM "Nl.J.V' :::n, 'S9NI010H aw . . ! I I! ;; :Mod d3Q\fd38d j ~ 'o ~ °ci'J 0 "' "' 0 "' a, a, £ £ C: 0 C: u 0 a, .!!l -~ .c (.) u E ! ;: ~ a, ~ ~ 2 "' -"' ;: (.) >, "' C: ai "' -a, 0 £ ~ "' .E "' C: 'iii .E "' £ .c a, '§ E u "' a, "' <ii a, (.) .c .Q -.E 0 ~ C: .!!l "' "' u u C: C: "' "' 11; 11; ;: ;: t3 -(.) a, a, :c :c ::, ::, "' "' a, a, .c .c f-f- ~ N M M 0 0 :#1'8c:I s ~oz·cz· ~ i :atea s 10; ain61::1 1es14uaw3 ·1 ;f;9 UMBJO acoc ~ :qor aJ::i W~TER QUAf.!Tr IMPROVEMENT, PROJECTS ITMDL>) ?1oje~t Cil:lb; by WRJA by CDurrty :-1 :;*::.1 C>~v::l;:;.,ruem ;;r~iilv li:.G RELATED ECOLOGY PRO.GRAMS • • WRIA 9: Duwamish-Green T!'.l: L.?n::,1h:; L1l>~ li::.t:. ~·:~1·:~w id::Jm.1tb:i.b w.:1k; qca1!~.'/ lm~:l!v::1mml ;::Qj~!:. fia::lLJ:!i::f; t~l:I r:1:::~.imt.:m :!j\k b:1:!:., ~, TMCiL:.) %~1 lhi:.1·1::!l~t 1::t.-~1..::.~ ill,•!:.111:.l!Y .:f,:!"j fWRiA i. F-l!:4:.e 1..:.~ liub (1-.,J·.!!1!! ,n•ja:1b~) f:.i1 m::-1:: info.:m::iti:m ::n ;:1 p~jet.t. Counti~ W.tterbt:ldy Nam~ DLt'li:W1iLlt <11·~ L':l"~/ G1t1:!I' R.i1•'!:!r Pollut&nb r::• .• ,ilC-::libm St4tus--• l,1!·;.1\J<1~'.! bv EDA H:i:.-irn i.:n,bmi!r.!Jlb1i :.<l.111 i\1,J;!1::•.'!d !>\• ::,A p;;J, '.:::l!::ln !.:::\:::::. ;-1~:r,rn1) C:!1::;:.:: 1 S, 1i:'W5 \'/.:1t::1 Qc.::1!1h J\::il:!:.:.m:wl TMDL leitd b:111,-.::.,1:1:1 Q ·~~.:,: ... ·~ k;:11, t-::.-k111 n r:-;.;!;-~~: T1 i::i.:i 511".,!Jbm 0 ·~:.:•:.j~H G1e-~11 Ai·,•er :1:d Kew,wku:i Ci~~k Tc1:1~1ti':1t::r1: !'.!i:.:.:>!~,,e:~t o~v;;~n G:='(!J\ Riv~t TMi)L J\::i>'l"J-~t:! Jt,.rn 1:::l:111 !iv .:P,, 0 ~X!3·a::.::: £:•bi.:l•:d Ctxt;!!n Tt:m:.H:r:!!l!rt: fur murt! informdtiun abuul WRIA 9; N::w=~h:111 (1~i. TMD!. ,,~·µr:'V!;;l L'j' E:h\ h.1~ :1:\. im~'k!m~11t:1tf.:11 :)Lll! W.;1r:1V:>:!r.?~ in i'1:::lJ. ;; • t.!~lli; the \'l.;1i:r Q:;;1hrv ,h.:.::S:.::1~nt Qt:!::rv T::~-1 • \1i.it-,:1e..!r.::! !d::-1111.1tie:1 r::i: l'IRV.; .:_ TM L\l~·.:i1l1wHL::I !::.!.-IZ':/V :H,1 ~th::· ;.Jilli.: l !::..~~!'-!: 'Wist<h' b I H~I t:.:, tj~ ~l.1t!:!':.. n:;tj'.Jr .-1:1tf!:,,!;d !;~i.1r!,. Di:•.•<)! {;,i:bl':.1 9 JJH.!;-i:~1 l~:111 U::lm Q. ,.::._:..:~:-.:::~s D3.3 No TMDL's have been identified for the Black River basin. ere Job: 13039 Drawn By: L Emenhiser Figure 5 of 5 Date: 11.23.2015 Rev#: PREPARED FOR· RAD HOLDINGS, LLC ATIN. RORY DEES 6252 167TH AVE. SE BELLEVUE, WA 98006 TMDL'S FOR WRIA 9 (Screen Capture) RAD HOLDINGS, LLC -3112 TALBOT ROAD RENTON,WA TAX PARCEL NO. 302305-9028 PREPARED BY; Acre Environmental Consulting, LLC 17715 28th Avenue NE Lake Forest Park, WA 98155 Phone: (206) 450-7746 Email: touls@acreenvironmental.com oo· ~"::> :133HS d'111\1 • • • • wo:>·1eiuewuOJ!AU88J:>e@s1no1 :uew3 91'LL-OS1' (9oz) :aU04d SS~B6 "IM ')IJ8d 1-saJo:1 e>1e1 3N anu&Alf 418Z S!LH ::,11 'Bumnsuo::, JeJuawuoJJAUFJ &J:>tf :Xe d39\td39d 0:: w LL • LL 0 ::J ~ ((l (.!) z I-en o:: XLL wen 8Z06-!i0£ZO£ "ON 13::l~"lfd X"lf l "lfM 'NO!N3~ C"lfO~ l08l"lfl ZH£ -::,11 ·snNIClOH a~ d"lfW SV38'if l"lf::>1118::> ~ ... -,,-······ 0 0 0 • --· 12 _ '" "' ' ' . . , .. .. ··---· o?. ,.• ·-_,.., .:l" i~~ 90086 IIM '3nll31138 3S "31111 H.LL9L ZSZ9 S33C A!IO!I "N.L.LII :lll 'S!>NIClOH Cll!I :Qo~ C3!1\ld39d ~ ...J <( I- 0 I- co ~ I-z z 0 (.!) z 0 0:: en ::i w a... LL <( <( I-LL ~ a... w ::J (.!) s: ((l 0 z D • • i·£n1:1#••l:I £1oz·wso :aiea Jas,4uaw3 ·1 :As uMeJa 6£0£ ~ :qor aJ::>'f .o ~ "2 Q) 0 .c: --C: 0 Q) ~ a: ~ >, ·ro .o ~ ,, 0 Q) " > >-e -C. w g. (.) u, z"' UJ ~ LL Z. >< • @. CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY OF WASHINGTON • SUPPLEMENT NO. 1 Title Officer: Commercial I Unit 6 Property: APN/Parcel ID: 302305-9028-01 Borrower(s): Rad Holdings, LLC, a Washington Limited Liability Company Seller(s): Order No.: 0019652-06 The above numbered report with an Effective .Date of December 11, 2015 including any supplements or amendments thereto, is hereby modified and/or supplemented in order to reflect the following: The effective date is amended as follows: The Effective Date of July 9, 2014 is hereby amended to be: December 11, 2015 at 08:00 AM The following Items/notes have been changed on your report: ITEMS: 6. General and special taxes and charges, payable February 15, delinquent if first half unpaid on May 1, second half delinquent if unpaid on November 1 of the tax year (amounts do not include interest and penalties): Year: 2015 Tax Account No.: 302305-9028-01 Levy Code: 2104 Assessed Value-Land: Assessed Value-Improvements: General and Special Taxes: $269,000.00 $154,000.00 Billed: Paid: Unpaid: $5,357.02 $5,357.02 $0.00 The following items/notes have been intentionally deleted from your report: ITEMS: 3. Supplemental SSCORPD5190.doc I Updated: 10.30.14 Page 1 Printed: 12.18.15@08:10AMbyMH ---0019652-06 • SUPPLEMENTAL (continued) • For title inquiries, please contact the issuing office: Chicago Title Company of Washington 701 5th Avenue, Suite 2300 Seattle, WA 98104 Supplemental Date: December 18, 2015 Countersigned By: Authorized Officer or Agent Supplemental SSCORPD5190.doc I Updated: 10.30.14 Page2 Phone: (206)628-5610 Fax: (206)628-9717 Email: CTISEATitleUnit6@ctt.com Printed: 12.18.15@08:10AMbyMH -0019652-06 • • SUBDIVISION Guarantee/Certificate Number: Issued By: ® CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY 0019652-06 CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY a corporation, herein called the Company GUARANTEES RAD Holdings, LLC, and Axis Survey and Mapping herein called the Assured, against actual loss not exceeding the liability amount stated in Schedule A which the Assured shall sustain by reason of any incorrectness in the assurances set forth in Schedule A. LIABILITY EXCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS 1. No guarantee is given nor liability assumed with respect to the identity of any party named or referred to in Schedule A or with respect to the validity, legal effect or priority of any matter shown therein. 2. The Company's liability hereunder shall be limited to the amount of actual loss sustained by the Assured because of reliance upon the assurance herein set forth, but in no event shall the Company's liability exceed the liability amount set forth in Schedule A. Please note carefully the liability exclusions and limitations and the specific assurances afforded by this guarantee. If you wish additional liability, or assurances other than as contained herein, please contact the Company for further information as to the availability and cost. Chicago Title Company of Washington 701 5th Avenue, Suite 2300 Seattle, WA 98104 Countersigned By: Authorized Officer or Agent Subdivision Guarantee/Certificate Page 1 Chicago Title Insurance Company By: Attest: President Secretary Printed: 07.15.14@10:23AM WA-CT-FNSE-02150.622476-SPS-1-14-0019652-06 • • CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY GUARANTEE/CERTIFICATE NO. 0019652-06 . " ,t:Liability, : ' ' . ' ;, ' I $1,000.00 Effective Date: July 9, 2014 at 08:00AM I"' ISSUING OF~iCE: Title Officer: Commercial / Unit 6 Chicago Title Company of Washington 701 5th Avenue, Suite 2300 Seattle, WA 98104 Main Phone: (206)628-5610 Email: CTISeaTitleUnit61nlctt.com SCHEDULE A Premium. : :, $350.00 The assurances referred to on the face page are: ,. Tax $33.25 That, according to those public records which, under the recording laws, impart constructive notice of matter relative to the following described property: SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATIACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF Title to said real property is vested in: RAD Holdings, LLC, a Washington limited liability company subject to the matters shown below under Exceptions, which Exceptions are not necessarily shown in the order of their priority. END OF SCHEDULE A Subdivision Guarantee/Certificate Page2 Printed: 07.15.14@ 10:23AM WA-CT -FNSE-02150. 622476-SPS-1-14-0019652-06 • EXHIBIT "A" Legal Description • That portion of the north 100 feet of the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter in Section 30, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington, lying east of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the north line of said subdivision which is north 89°33'31" west 1,000 feet from the northeast corner thereof; thence south 1 °52'12" west to the south line of said north 100 feet, and the terminus of said line; Together with an easement for roadway over the south 12 feet of the north 106 feet of the west 275 feet of that portion of said subdivision lying east of the Kent-Renton Road, County Road No. 80; Except portion lying within the above described main tract. Subdivision Guarantee/Certificate Page 3 Printed: 07.15.14@ 10:23AM WA-CT -FNSE-02150.6224 76-SPS-1-14-0019652-06 • • CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY GUARANTEE/CERTIFICATE NO. 0019652-06 SCHEDULE B GENERAL EXCEPTIONS A. Rights or claims of parties in possession, or claiming possession, not shown by the Public Records. B. Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land. C. Easements, prescriptive rights, rights-of-way, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records. D. Any lien, or right to a lien, for contributions to employee benefit funds, or for state workers' compensation, or for services, labor, or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, all as imposed by law, and not shown by the Public Records. E. Taxes or special assessments which are not yet payable or which are not shown as existing liens by the Public Records. F. Any lien for service, installation, connection, maintenance, tap, capacity, or construction or similar charges for sewer, water, electricity, natural gas or other utilities, or for garbage collection and disposal not shown by the Public Records. G. Unpatented mining claims, and all rights relating thereto. H. Reservations and exceptions in United States Patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof. I. Indian tribal codes or regulations, Indian treaty or aboriginal rights, including easements or equitable servitudes. J. Water rights, claims or title to water. K. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the Public Records, or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed Insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. Subdivision Guarantee/Certificate Page4 Printed: 07.15.14@ 10:23AM WA-CT -FNSE-02150. 622476-SPS-1-14-0019652-06 • • CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY GUARANTEE/CERTIFICATE NO. 0019652-06 SCHEDULE B (continued) SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS 1. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto, as granted in a document: Purpose: Recording Date: Recording No.: Affects: Roadway March 22, 1947 3669076 A westerly portion of the southerly 6 feet of said premises and other property 2. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto, as granted in a document: Granted to: Purpose: Recording Date: Recording No.: Affects: Puget Sound Power & Light Company Electric transmission and/or distribution system July 11, 1952 4244147 As constructed 3. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto, as granted in a document: Purpose: Recording Date: Recording No.: Affects: Roadway March 3, 1964 5705702 The south 20 feet of said premises We find Mutual Releases of Easement recorded under Recording Nos. 20140627001668, 20140627001669 and 20140627001670 which purport to vacate and terminate said Easement. 4. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto, as granted in a document: Granted to: Purpose: Recording Date: Recording No.: Affects: Puget Sound Power & Light Company An electric line and all necessary appurtenances November 27, 1963 5669641 Portion of said premises, as staked or as may be relocated by mutual consent 5. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto, as granted in a document: Granted to: Purpose: Recording Date: Recording No.: Affects: Subdivision Guarantee/Certificate Washington Natural Gas Gas ·pipelines January 4, 1991 9101040242 South 10 feet Page 5 Printed: 07.15.14@10:23AM WA-CT -F NSE-02150 .622476-SPS-1-14-0019652-06 ~------------------------------------- • • CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY GUARANTEE/CERTIFICATE NO. 0019652-06 SCHEDULE B (continued) 6. General and special taxes and charges, payable February 15, delinquent if first half unpaid on May 1, second half delinquent if unpaid on November 1 of the tax year (amounts do not include interest and penalties): Year: 2014 Tax Account No.: 302305-9028-01 Levy Code: 2104 Assessed Value-Land: Assessed Value-Improvements: General and Special Taxes: $245,000.00 $122,000.00 Billed: Paid: Unpaid: $5,237.52 $2,618.76 $2,618.76 7. Please be advised that our search did not disclose any open mortgages of record. If you should have knowledge of any outstanding obligation, please contact the Title Department immediately for further review prior to closing. 8. Terms and conditions of the Limited Liability Company Agreement for RAD Holdings, LLC, a Washington limited liability company. 9. Your application for title insurance was placed by reference to only a street address or tax identification number. Based on our records, we believe that the legal description in this report covers the parcel(s) of Land that you requested. If the legal description is incorrect, the seller/borrower must notify the Company and/or the settlement company in order to prevent errors and to be certain that the correct parcel(s) of Land will appear on any documents to be recorded in connection with this transaction and on the policy of title insurance. END OF EXCEPTIONS NOTES The following matters will not be listed as Special Exceptions in Schedule B of the policy. There will be no coverage for loss arising by reason of the matters listed below because these matters are either excepted or excluded from coverage or are not matters covered under the insuring provisions of the policy. Note A: Note B: Note: FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY: The following may be used as an abbreviated legal description on the documents to be recorded, per Amended RCW 65.04.045. Said abbreviated legal description is not a substitute for a complete legal description within the body of the document: Pin. NE 1/4 SE 1/4 Sec 30 Twp 23 N Rge 5 E, W.M. Tax Account No.: 302305-9028-01 Note: Any map furnished with this Guarantee is for convenience in locating the land indicated herein with reference to streets and other land. No liability is assumed by reason of reliance thereon. END OF NOTES END OF SCHEDULE B Subdivision Guarantee/Certificate Printed: 07.15.14@ 10:23AM WA-CT -F NS E-02150, 6224 76-SP S-1-14-0019652-06 Page6 ,------- I I ., ot 81J11 t tltt ···; . ' ~- 1,ot 4 6XO ept the N l2!i tt Bl c .5 IS.aour•, lflgln,117 Ge.lt'clen Tt,; No 2 111 per pl:~t. reo in v~J. 21 a:' plat,a pg J7 :reo .ot ko a1JI iia klli'II · · . . ult.hall rxt.ra all4 aqt1ipa1111t used in ooo,n w1'1b eel proa, 111.l dea~u,4 i,art ot the rselt71 to,; ot t1.50. 11S.tb .b~ a<!o t.o t1114 · · In 011 fol. pra,6a tr,z vi oat or aohg reo . eilid all! t,s a11 H.W.Hollaan lllldred B.Holl1t411 · ttow Mar 2.L~47 1>7 B. W.lloll111an an4 Mildred l3.Holl.Jaan, 1111 buf f;rila Bang,aund np tor 1111 rea et • bS .Tan 2~48 (Ml sp l.J25 4tll A·,e flt1 · l'S'rIOo) . -- J .. atrllt Oon~ ~ D "ar 24•·47 .)66917:1 ,~'j/. l''a:r 20-47 . 'l'ol rood /f\ , 'lionald o.<ier.rle.lcS alld floharta T,G1tttiotd, hw r .. .,,,-:, '?'_ to tlll1141taxxliuaau.114.mt.uuur11:xJ.h,•na1:um . _ •, .... ; .. •~ Jfrnnlc Prentloe and 1ilan1ta B Pro11t1 u,, h11 ~ // Ip; hbJ a ti and ao t.o 11p tb.t ool't11\a·. eon t, ~11t.d into on ital' 4-,~6 i·•'" Ohaat.-r Noren en4. Ga nova Nora.n, Ju, ,aa sellera and \'ii lliaa1. en,u,y 11.114 ll1lla l.1)11 Snoe:,, hll a11 pu.r tor t.tie aalo and pu:· ot tho t dre 1.a lcc111 lotm ll4 .t,nd llS Blk: "J• or lltlllw Csrdena, 111 par pletrc,o illr:()l 2 9 or .Pl11 t,s pg 25 rao ot ad o o SubJ to rt, ot I.be pub 11114 rstnr. -ot· 3'80 en•S rp 'a .. a, and. 01 ad PZ'lllll to •~ 11ho. nbr. n11i;:.u1, en4 ae;r,,e to J!'11.ltill, '.. t h11 (I oud1 or 8d I) o:21i IJol'lald a ~Oa!'.1'lela ··· liobiarta 'l'.0111'1'1ol.4 · , . / kOII Ma,r 2t-47 bf· D,1J1t114 o.aor:rii<ld IIID .R,i!rnrlie 'l\Oettic1ld. bsi1' Few.,\\ tlno,quiat. np tor aw r,oa n t a ~ '. Oo ~ 18•:IO · , (111, Irenic Prentice, l~IJ27 14th A,e rm tl,I by PSTJ.Oo} --- ( a) RECEIVED A~.: I 2 2016 cay OF RENTON ·' "'llflG DIVISION ii ' I ,i :I :.i ,i 'I J ., :1 ftauagardner County of Kins On thla 26th __ _..., of februat7 A' 0 9 64 , · hi I , t -before m,e, the unr.lenianed, a Notary Public in o.nd lor the State of lfH a,!.tOn_______ d I · l -n '. CC?~ml .. lonod and .-worn peno~Alh1 •. ppaared. Ela P. Baumgardner '' ··~ : .. : ,,i,d lor R....,d~•·• ,.if Ill-I . 1..2 1:/f11, '"'1,,." of .l.,,q._"S ........ ~1~-,.. .. ~._... OO!!RT 'I.. MOnrs:-=-x.:i;i;,. . ' .: "i ,..J ' ' ' ,I ·:,·1 .. , • • Ill llll!l ll~lili ~ill~III ilml~ Ii II 20140627001668 JOHNS "ONAOE EAS 74.00 PAGE-001 OF 003 06/Z7/Z014 14:59 KING COUNTY, UA Return Addrts5: Robert D. Johns Johns Monroe Mitsunaga Kolouskova PLLC 1601 I 14111 Avenue SE, Suite I JO Bellevue, WA 98004 EXCISE TAX NOT REQUIREO King Co. Records Division AUDITOR/RECORDER'S INDEXING FORM ORIGIN~~pllfy Do<ument Title(s): I MUTUAL RELEASE OF EASEMENT Grantors: RAD HOLDINGS, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; and MYLES G. GILBERT Grantees: RAD HOLDINGS, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; and MYLES G. GILBERT Documents 5705702 referenred: Legal Portion of North 100 feet of the NE quarter of the SE quarter of Section 30, Township 23 Description: (abbreviated) North, Range 5 East, W.M., records of King County, Washington X Additional legal is on 2 of document. pages Assessor's Property Tax Parcel/Account Numbers: 1302305-9028, 302305-901 l MUTUAL RELEASE OF EASEMENT RAD HOLDINGS, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; and MYLES G. GILBERT enter into the following Mutual Release of Easement: Recitals A. On February 26, 1964, Ella P. Baumgardner executed a Grant of Road Easement over and across property she owned which granted a roadway easement over the south 20 feet from west to east over the following described property: That portion ofNorth 100 feet of the NE quarter of the SE quarter of Section 30, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., records of King County, Washington, lying easterly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the north line of said subdivision, at a point on the north line of said subdivision which is north MUTUAL RELEASE OF EASEMENT -I • • 89"33' 31" west I 000 feet from the northeast corner thereof; thence south I 0 52' 12" west to the south line of said 100 feet, W.M., records of King County, Washington B. RAD HOLDINGS, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; and MYLES G. GILBERT are collectively the owners of both the dominant and servient interests in the Easement described above. C. Each of the parties has access by road to their property without use of the Easement. As a result, the continuing existence of the Easement provides no benefit to any of the properties allegedly benefitted by the Easement, but the Easement does create an unnecessary burden on each. The Easement no longer serves .any purposes and the parties wish to terminate it. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual release of obligations created by the Easement, the sufficiency of which is confirmed by the parties to be adequate consideration, the parties agree that the Easement recorded under King County Recording No. 5705702 is hereby vacated and terminated immediately and shall have no further effect. Each party releases the other parties from any rights or obligations created under or in connection with the Easement. by (printed named) Its authorized agent MUTUAL RELEASE OF EASEMENT -2 • STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING ) ) ss ) • I hereby certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Rory P. Dees is the authorized agent of RAD HOLDINGS, LLC, a Washington limited liability company, is the person who appeared before me, and acknowledged that he signed this instrument, on oath stated that he is authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the voluntary act of RAD HOLDINGS, LLC, to be the free and voluntary act of such limited liability company for the uses and pUIJlOses mentioned in this instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and year first above written. STA TE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING ) ) ss ) (Print or stamp name of Notary) NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at '5~ , ~ My Appointment Expires: iij ti, I hereby certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that M '11 £5 Cf G-1 ~ is the authorized agent of MYLES G. GILBERT, is the person who appeared before me, and acknowledged that he signed this instrument, on oath stated that he is authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as his voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and year first above written. .,.,unu.,,,._ ,1•• ~ NG(i'"" /; ,t ....... J-,,.. ... '°:,''",111· EXi,',,"":,; .. , •t.,o .• -,, I~:' ~o'f.ARi,-\ i : -e-lzl \ • c, "'•O• Ill'• a PUB\.I ~· i;;;, ;.>.•. C' ~..- \ '1>,'•!.0seR ii:,· ~r::, ·,~o· .. ~··s~~ .,,, F WPi •" "'"""''''' MUTUAL RELEASE OF EASEMENT -3 (Print or stamp name o Notary) NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of ~ Washington, residing at 5~ My Appointment Expires: ~ {; I . \ Return Address: • ~~ii ill I I ii ij~l ltl~ml Ii~ 20140627001669 JOHNS "ONROE EAS 75.ee PAGE-001 OF 004 06/27/2014 14:59 Robert D. Johns KING COUNTY, UA Johns Monroe Mitsunaga Kolouskova PLLC 1601 I 14~ Avenue SE, Suite I IO Bellevue, WA 98004 EXCISE TAX NOT REQUIRED King Co. - By r~ OM' AUDITOR/RECORDER'S INDEXING FORM ORIGINAL / , ueputy I MUTUAL RELEASE OF EASEMENT ' Document Title(s): Grantors: RAD HOLDINGS, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; TERRANCE W. MACLEOD and KATHRYN J. MACLEOD, a mania) community Grantees: RAD HOLDINGS, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; TERRANCE W. MACLEOD and KATHRYN J. MACLEOD, a marilal community Documents 5705702 referenced: Legal Portion of North 100 feet of the NE quarter of the SE quarter of Section 30, Township 23 Destription: North, Range 5 East, W.M., records of King County, Washington (abbreviated) X Additional legal is on 2 of document. pages . Assessor's Property Tax Parcel/Account Numbers: I 302305-9028; 302305-9029 MUTUAL RELEASE OF EASEMENT RAD HOLDINGS, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; and TERRANCE W. MACLEOD and KATHRYN J, MACLEOD, a marital community enter into the following Mutual Release of Easement: Recitals A. On February 26, 1964, Ella P. Baumgardner executed a Grant of Road Easement over and across property she owned which granted a roadway easement over the south 20 feet from west to east over the following described property: That portion of North I 00 feet of the NE quarter of the SE quarter of Section 30, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., records of King County, Washington, MUTUAL RELEASE OF EASEMENT -I ------' I • • lying easterly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the north line of said subdivision, at a point on the north line of said subdivision which is north 89"33'31" west 1000 feet from the northeast comer thereof; thence south I 0 52' 12" west to the south line of said I 00 feet, W.M., records of King County, Washington B. RAD HOLDINGS, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; and TERRANCE W. MACLEOD and KATHRYN J. MACLEOD, a marital community, are collectively the owners of both the dominant and servienl interests in the Easement described above. C. Each of the parties has access by road to their property without use of the Easement. As a result, the continuing existence of the Easement provides no benefit to any of the properties allegedly benefitted by the Easement, but the Easement does create an unnecessary burden on each. The Easement no longer serves any purposes and the parties wish to terminate it. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual release of obligations created by the Easement, the sufficiency of which is confirmed by the parties to be adequate consideration, the parties agree that the Easement recorded under King County Recording No. 5705702 is hereby vacated and terminated immediately and shall have no further effect. Each party releases the other parties from any rights or obligations created under or in connection with the Easement. DATED this l.l_ of WOJW,/3A~Ol3 , LLC, a Washington limited liability company (printed named) Its authorized agent MUTUAL RELEASE OF EASEMENT -2 • STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING ) ) ss ) • I hereby certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Rory P. Dees is the authorized agent of RAD HOLDINGS, LLC, a Washington limited liability company, is the person who appeared before me, and acknowledged that he signed this instrument, on oath stated that he is authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the voluntary act of RAD HOLDINGS, LLC, to be the free and voluntary act of such limited liability company for the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument. lN WITNESS WHEREOF I. have hereunto et my hand and official seal the day and year first above written. JON W. NELSON STATE OF WASHINGTON NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 09-25-15 MUTUAL RELEASE OF EASEMENT -3 (Print or stamp name of Notary) NOTARY PUBLIC in ancl for theS~te of Washington, residing at ~~'-ic=i-~~-- My Appointment Expires: ~ -Z.S-t5 .. . . . • • ST A TE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss COUNTY OF KING ) I hereby certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that _________ -iii;;s 111111._~ aYtkeFiaee age11t 6fTERRANCE W. MACLEOD, is the person who appeared before me, and acknowledged that he signed this instrument, on oath stated that he is authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as his voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunt1 set my hand and official seal the day and year first above written. c;)qy\, w llik JON W. NELSON STATE OF WASHINGTON NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 09-25-15 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss COUNTY OF KING ) (Sib'llature of Notary) (Print or stamp name of Notary) NOTARY PUBLIC in an<j.for the State of Washington, residing at t::>~ My Appointment Expires: 9 -2..S-15 I hereby certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence tha1 _________ is d,c all1bm:i~ed agc11t vfKA THRYN J. MACLEOD, is the person who appeared before me, and acknowledged that she signed this instrument, on oath stated that she is authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as her voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereu:r~ my hand and official seal the day and year first above written. ...&JA.. \ A) ~.- JON W. NELSON (Signature of Notary) STATE OF WASHINGTON NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 09-25-15 MUTUAL RELEASE OF EASEMENT -4 (Print or stamp name of Notary) NOTARY PUBLIC in an~tate of Washington, residing at !,1.6 My Appointment Expires: 9 -2S-t '5 Return Address: • 11111\i 111111111~1~ II~ 11111\11\11\111 20140627001670 JOHNS nONROE EAS 75.01l PAGE-001 OF 004 05/27/2014 14:59 KING COUNTY, 1111 Robert D. Johns Johns Monroe Mitsunaga Kolouskova PLLC 1601 I 14~ Avenue SE, Suite 110 Bellevue, WA 98004 AUDITOR/RECORDER'S INDEXING FOR~ a iG I NAL -. -. .. -' - I MUTUAL RELEASE OF EASEMENT Documenl Title(s): Grantors: RAD HOLDINGS, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; SKINNERONE, LLC, a Washington limited liability company. Grantees: RAD HOLDINGS, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; SKINNERONE, LLC, a Washington limited liability company. Documents 5705702 referenced: Legal Portion of North 100 feet of the NE quarter of the SE quarter of Section 30, Township 23 Description: North, Range 5 Eas~ W.M., records of King County, Washington (abbreviated) X Additional legal is on 2 of document. pages Assessor's Property Ta, Parcel/Account Numbers: J 302305-9028; 302305-9033 MUTUAL RELEASE OF EASEMENT RAD HOLDINGS, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; and SKINNERONE, LLC, a Washington limited liability company enter into the following Mutual Release of Easement: Recitals A. On February 26, 1964, Ella P. Baumgardner executed a Grant of Road Easement over and across property she owned which granted a roadway easement over the south 20 feet from west to east over the following described property: That portion of North 100 feet of the NE quarter of the SE quarter of Section 30, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., records of King County, Washington, MUTUAL RELEASE OF EASEMENT -1 • • lying easterly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the north line of said subdivision, at a point on the north line of said subdivision which is north 89°33'3 I" west I 000 feet from the northeast comer thereof; thence south I 0 52' 12" west to the south line of said 100 feet, W.M., records of King County, Washington B. RAD HOLDINGS, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; SKINNERONE, LLC, a Washington limited liability company are collectively the owners of both the dominant and servient interests in the Easement described above. C. Each of the parties has access by road to their property without use of the Easement. As a result, the continuing existence of the Easement provides no benefit to any of the properties allegedly benefitted by the Easement, but the Easement does create an unnecessary burden on each. The Easement no longer serves any purposes and the parties wish to terminate it. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual release of obligations created by the Easement, the sufficiency of which is confirmed by the parties to be adequate consideration, the parties agree that the Easement recorded under King County Recording No. 5705702 is hereby vacated and tem1inated immediately and shall have no further effect. Each party releases the other parties from any rights or obligations created under or in connection with the Easement. DATED this .iL of~.w4Jit.., 2013 by (printed named) Its authorized agent SKINNER NE, LLC, a Washington limited liability company 1 (printed named) Its authorized agent s O r...,s--,'-( t57"1 6-«- MUTUAL RELEASE OF EASEMENT -2 • STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss COUNTY OF KING • I hereby certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence thaJ.!/i c.,/11-m ... L. J;;.,,-)JoJ is the authorized agent ofSKINNERONE, LLC, a Washington limited liability company, is the person who appeared before me, and acknowledged that he signed this instrument, on oath stated that he is authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the voluntary act ofSKJNNERONE, LLC, to be the free and voluntary act of such limited liability company for the uses and purposes mentioned in this instniment. IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and year first above written. ~ A 1 ~ MUTUAL RELEASE OF EASEMENT -4 (Signature of Notary) (Print or stamp name of Notary) NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the Stat~of Washington, residing at \t,lcod.i f\\J i \le.. ,WA My Appointment Expires: a.~~ -IV) • • STA TE OF WASHINGTON ) ss COUNTY OF KING ) I hereby certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Rory P. Dees is the authorized agent of RAD HOLDINGS, LLC, a Washington limited liability company, is the person who appeared before me, and acknowledged that he signed this instrument, on oath stated that he is authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the voluntary act of RAD HOLDINGS, LLC, to be the free and voluntary act of such limited liability company for the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto. C set .. my hand and official seal the day and year first above writt~n. -4fv w ~ JON W. NELSON STATE OF WASHINGTON NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 09-25-15 MUTUAL RELEASE OF EASEMENT -3 (Signature of Notary) (Print or stamp name of Notary) NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at i,eu.evy...E My Appointment Expire~::.is-\5 The center line of said •lectric /in• to bo locO~;d·o, now stoked ocrou. sold prop•rty or_ by mutual COnsent. · · · ' -~" .. ;J; The.Company shall. hGve·occ~u for ·the purpos91 at~fOd.and ,hall be r1:pori~1ble for cl~moiii' couH~ by, ~o;l,J;.nce .Of .:f ' ·• ;t ' ' -,i • 19 --, blltfor'e :fte·,· tho. vnd9nlon•df-pa'rSc:inGlly aj,peClfad~- •· -·· 'w. On thla---}:lor of------------- -':~~>: ------~------------md----------------,----c:-- to me known to be the> -·----' Prosldent and ________ Secret~Y, ·.'i-e1pocti-iely, 'of ----~---~·•_·,_·_,/Ji . ,· -( J. •• . • •. •. . . . • ·; .~. ' . · · · • ·• • · · · · · , the.corporatitl-ff that eXOC:Uffd . , the foregoing in1;trumont, and ocknowledgod the ·,aid ,i.ntt~urnonMo .bill the ~·· ·?ncfy4tuntary~ ~c~ ~iid:~••(11;~a1(c~_~}!M,_:·~-,. for tho usu ond,p1.1rpo .. s therein mentioned, ond on oath-stated that outhorla.-d to 01tecllfe the 1aidiinstrument · and that the seai ~ffixed is the cofporote ,eal of 1ald·C:orp~atlon, "': '' · · ·-·-:.;. · :~· .: • · -· .'., · Witness-my hand ond official saol her'"to offlked the day oncfyeor first a~• Wriiteo. Notary Public In.a!'~ ,or the State of Wo1hlt19t~! rHldlng at---------~--~ ' .·;.' . " ;: ·' 1 I I ; :\ .~. " j! ;{ ~ • ;'LEASE RETURN TO: · ',~HINGTON NATURAL GAS CO. ':n an:oN: LEGAi. DEPt : . G. BOX 1869 SEATTLE, WA 98lll 0 • II !II :\l t -· ••• 912-J 18 .. Cl!\11',\:'o\" \!) EASEMENT ·n,c (irant,,r. __ ,El.l.i\.P,. T_IIAYF.~.-~--·-·-·· -----·· ·-· in co11sidcr;1tion nf O~F f)C)I.I.AR tSl.00), in hand pai<l,;1m..l othcr~lmd and va]u;1hkcon,idL·ra1i,111, rL·n·ipt whereof is hcn:hy ai:know!cd!!cd. dues hereby ctmn:y and warrant tn \VASlll~GTO;-.; :'\,\TllRAI. {i,\S C:Ot>.·tPA:-,;Y, a \\'11shirt!!lnn Corporatinn, its succcw1rs am.I assigns. herein referred hi a., '"(irantcc". a lllHH·xclusi\'ccascmcnt for a g;Ls pipeline or pipdincs unJcr, o\'cr. through and acros~ lhc t'ul!owing dcscrihcd property of the Grantor located in the Counl)' of ___ Kl!!JL ______ ~----·-------· ·-·-·-• St:1tc of Washington: The North 100 feet or the North hulr or lhe Nor1h hair or lhc Norcheast quarler orlhc Southeast quarter or Src:lion JO, Township 23 North, Runge 51-::USt lying 1-:USI or Kent-Ren Ion CounlJ' Rond No. 80 (now known as 96th A,;enue Soulh), EXCI-YI' thut portion or1hc abo,·e drsrribcd purcel or lnnd IJ'ing Wtsl or1hc rollowing described line: Beginning at the East quarter corner or s:aid Section JO; thence North 89°JJ'Jl" West along the Enst West centerline or .""'-id Sedion JO J,000 fret 10 lltc POJNT ()I,' JIEGINNINC; nhuid line; thence Snulh 01°52'12" Wc:st 100.0 fed lo the lcrmlnu.~ ur ~aid line. Siluatc in Kin;: Cuunly, Wn,hinglon. E~1scmcnt locnlion: ;.\.:• Said ca.o;emcnt is located on the South 10 re1:1 or !ht? abO\·c described p11rccl or land. ·?-Pi. ,~1. t"':1 i tU-. &~~«~ , c,:GISE TAX NOT REQUIRED ,- King, Co, Records Division ' I, \ I , 'o~-f-. .( l,....)+ trQ Deputy ... :, -. .,, LS _, giving :md granting IO Grantee !he right lo conslruct, ins1all, opcrnte, maintain. pro1cct, impro\'c, repair. replace and :1bandon in place si1id i:as pipeline or pipelines, logclhcr with the non-cxclusi\'e rii;h, of access to :md from s:tid property. /\s used herein, the term "pipeline" shall include piL'i lines and ser\'ices together with suc.n surface or sub-:,;urfo~c pipeline nppurlcnances and facili1ies as arc neccss.iry, in 1hc judgemcm uf Grnntce, for the opcrntion and maintenance of said pipeline or pipelines. By the m:-ccptam:c ot'thi!> cn.,;emcnt Grantee agrees 10 hn!d the Gran tor harmless from any loss, c:ust or<lnrnagc resultini; from the operntion or maintenance of such pipeline or pipelines except as may he attribu1ahlc to the sole negligence uf Gr:mtor. Gr.intor ngrccs nut to erect any structures on said casement. D/\TED this _I 7__cl;iy of fi) J_ ~, ......... 1.~"--, 19.2.Q. STATE OF IVASfllNGTO~ ) ('01 INTY Of f< ._;,,,_) SS. 9'1/0:11"04 't(•:'4? Jfl ~---~--~F-Crr·cF~--s~.no~o~-- RECFEE CASHSL 2.00 ........... ?.00 55 On rhi.~ _/_[_day of _j") ;(;· .!..---. 19._2a, before me, the undersigned, a i\'01ary Puh!ic. duly cmnmi~si,inetl and sworn. pcrsonully appeared before me /:2/,r, /? -7.Jwj'_if-_ _______ _ )F. I h,1,e hereunto set 111) h,ind ,1rn.l aftixcd my notarial seal the da} mu.I yc,1r in th1~ ncn. ~!~¥.~flV,LSl1ing1,,n, rc~idmg ,II ,j~_/(1.:.... '?~_'> __ '""-_______ _ / l !) DEPARTMENT OF IMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ______ •_...Iteiiton ® AFFIDAVIT OF INSTALLATION OF PUBLIC INFORMATION SIGN STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING i<ol2-~ D~f-5 Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425-430-7200 I www.rentonwa.go\~E CE \VE D ) ) ss ) APR 1 2 2016 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION being duly sworn on oath, deposes and says: first 1. On the Cs> day of ~/+f!~g.~1 =L--~· 20 I k , I installed -~ public information sign(s) and plastic flyer box on the property located at \0'.>f(Y'WT Au:Nq: (plf, "> 1>'.2 f'L for the following project: l'cwfe•t-> Va LLr.,y vu£. Project Name Owner Name 2. I have attached a copy of the neighborhood detail map marked with an "X" to indicate the location of the installed sign. 3. 6 H:\CED\Data\Forms-Templates\Self-Help Handouts\Planning\pubsign.doc Rev:08/201S • RECEIPT EG00051840 BILLING CONTACT Rory Dees RAD HOLDINGS LLC 1040 W Lake Sammamish Pkwy SE Bellevue, WA 98008 REFERENCE NUMBER FEE NAME LUA16-000272 PLAN -Modification PLAN -Short Plat Fee Technology Fee Printed On: April 12, 2016 Prepared By: Clark Close • ~----;::;:-;::----:---. --------Renton® TRANSACTION TYPE Fee Payment Fee Payment Fee Payment 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 Transaction Date: April 12, 2016 PAYMENT METHOD Check #1051 Check#1051 Check#1051 SUBTOTAL TOTAL AMOUNT PAID $150.00 $2,000.00 $84.50 $2,214.50 $2,214.50 Page 1 of1