HomeMy WebLinkAboutCedars at the Highlands Prelminary Plat, Street Modification, Tier 2 Tempoary Use Permit1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT, SM, TUP - 1
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
RE: Cedars at the Highlands
Preliminary Plat, Street Modification,
Tier 2 Temporary Use Permit
LUA17-000189, PP, MOD, TUP
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSINS OF
LAW AND FINAL DECISION
SUMMARY
The Applicant requests Preliminary Plat approval, a street modification, and a Tier 2
Temporary Use Permit for a proposed 13-lot subdivision for a parcel located at 14120 160th Ave SE.
The proposal is approved subject to conditions.
The proposed subdivision generated considerable concerns from two individuals regarding
wetland buffers and stormwater impacts. Gerald Smith, owner of the project site, expressed his
concerns over wetland regulation independently of the project Applicant. He strongly believes that
the wetlands on his property have been improperly classified and that the required buffer should be
50 feet instead of the 1001 feet recommended by staff. Staff recommended conditions of approval
related to these buffers may result in the loss of one the proposed lots. The evidence in the record
establishes that the staff’s findings on required 100 buffer width are consistent with City regulations.
Applicable buffer width standards are heavily contested in several rounds of wetland assessments
prepared by the Applicant’s wetlands consultant and a third party peer review consultant hired by the
City. The point of disagreement between the consultants rests upon whether the wetland in question
qualifies as a depressional wetland (requiring a 100 buffer) or a sloped wetland (requiring a 50 foot
1 The required base buffer width is 100 feet, but staff is also recommending that this buffer may be reduced to 75 feet
via RMC 4-3-050, which authorizes a 25% reduction in buffer width if applicable criteria are met.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT, SM, TUP - 2
buffer). In Exhibit 18, the Applicant’s consultant emphasizes the fact that the wetland under
question doesn’t involve any significant impoundment of waters, which is the basis for creating
sensitive wetland functions and values and the most prominent distinguishing factor from
depressional wetlands. In Exhibit 19, the peer review wetlands consultant identifies that the wetland
shares characteristics of depressional, sloped and riverine wetlands. Referencing the Washington
State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update, prepared by the Washington
State Department of Ecology, the peer review consultant noted that wetlands that contain two or
more hydrogeomorphic classes should be rated as depressional since hydrologically complex
wetlands tend to always have some features of depressional wetlands. Given the independence of the
peer review consultant, consistency problems with the wetland reports initially submitted by the
Applicant (as identified in the Findings of Fact below) and the afore-mentioned guidance provided
by the Rating System manual for hydrologically complex wetlands, it is concluded that the wetland in
question qualifies as a depressional wetland subject to 100 foot buffers2.
In his written (Ex. 20) and verbal comments, Mr. Smith did not refer to the depressional/sloped
debate of the wetland consultants, but rather focused on his belief that the wetland was artificially
created by actions authorized or undertaken by the City and that the City’s wetland classification
system was not rational. Both the City and the Applicant consultant were able to agree that some
hydrological features on the project site were not protected as streams or wetlands because they were
artificially created. However, those same consultants were not disputing (at least in later rounds of
assessments, see Ex. 17) that the wetland at issue was subject to protection under City regulations –
their dispute was limited to whether the wetland qualifies as depressional or sloped wetland as
previously discussed. Mr. Smith presented no expert testimony supporting a finding that the wetland
was exempt as artificially created. Given these circumstances, the expert opinions of both the City
and Applicant consultants are determinative and the wetland at issue is not found to be exempt from
wetland regulations as an artificially created wetland.
As to Mr. Smith’s concerns with the City’s wetland classification system, the hearing examiner has
no authority to assess the validity of that system. The hearing examiner’s authority is limited to
determining whether City regulations are correctly applied and does not extend to assessing whether
those regulations comply with state law. A hearing examiner’s authority is limited to that expressly
granted by statute and ordinance and those additional powers impliedly necessary to carry out its
responsibilities. See, LeJeune v. Clallam County, 64 Wn. App. 257 (1992). The courts have
historically strictly applied this standard See, Id. (absent an express code provision, County
Commissioners have no authority to reconsider their quasi-judicial decisions); Chaussee v.
Snohomish County Council, 38 Wn. App. 630 (1984), (hearing examiner has no authority to consider
equitable estoppel defense because the examiner was not given this authority by ordinance or
statute); Exendine v. City of Sammamish 127 Wn. App. 574, 586-87 (2005)(hearing examiners do
2 In Ex. 20 the Applicant’s wetland consultant stated that it had requested DOE review of the wetland as well.
Apparently the City was not open to this additional review according to the reports submitted by t he Applicant’s
consultant. For future reference, DOE assessments have proven to be very helpful in disputed wetland classification
proceedings and would have been of considerable use for this application.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT, SM, TUP - 3
not have the authority to enforce, interpret or rule on constitutional challenges). No ordinance or
state law authorizes hearing examiners to invalidate ordinances or ignore them if deemed invalid, so
the wetland classification system adopted by the City cannot be questioned or ignored by the
examiner. As to Mr. Smith’s point that the City’s classification system is different than that used by
the state, it may also be helpful to point out that the City is given a wide degree of flexibility in
structuring its wetland regulations, so long as the regulations are based upon “best available science”
as required by RCW 36.70A.172. If Mr. Smith were to research the legislation adopting the City’s
wetland regulations, he likely would find references to detailed scientific studies that justify the
City’s buffer requirements. The fact that the City’s wetland classification system may be different in
some respects from the state system does not necessarily render it invalid.
The stormwater concerns were raised by Patricia Payne-Gammell, a resident of the Lea Hill Crest
neighborhood, located downstream to the south of the project site. Ms. Payne-Gammell testified she
was testifying on behalf of her neighborhood. As outlined in the Testimony section below, Ms.
Payne-Gammell identified that her neighborhood has been a dumping ground for excess stormwater
originating from 160th and nearby development. At the hearing, stormwater problems in the Lea Hill
Crest neighborhood were acknowledged by Rohini Nair, a City public works engineer. Both Ms.
Nair and the Applicant’s engineer, Maher Joudi, testified that the City’s stormwater regulations
prohibit off-site stormwater flows that exceed pre-development, forested conditions. The Applicant
has been required to prepare a preliminary stormwater analysis that establishes that proposed
stormwater facilities (for this project a detention vault) will be at or below pre-development flows.
The Applicant has prepared that analysis, see Ex. 8 and 11, which has been reviewed and approved
by City staff. The City’s stormwater regulations also require the flows to discharge at their natural
discharge locations, which in this case is a stream. Further, the discharge velocities must not be
increased in order to prevent the project from causing off-site erosion. The velocity issue and
associated mitigation measures will be addressed in more detail during final engineering review. The
only off-site stormwater flows headed south from the project site that won’t be collected into the
project stormwater system will be flows originating from some vegetated slopes. Mr. Joudi testified
those flows would be negligible. Mr. Joudi further testified that the conveyance system constructed
for the proposal will probably reduce off-site stormwater problems currently caused by the project
site.
Given that (1) the only engineering evidence on stormwater issues in the record comes from Mr.
Joudi and Ms. Nair; (2) the Applicant has demonstrated through detailed engineering design and
calculations that the proposal will not create stormwater impacts that adversely affect neighboring
properties; and (3) the City’s detailed stormwater regulations require that development not increase
off-site flows; it must be determined that the proposal will not add to the stormwater problems of the
Lea Hill Crest neighborhood.
TESTIMONY
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT, SM, TUP - 4
Alex Morganroth, City of Renton Associate Planner, summarized the staff report. In response to
examiner questions, Mr. Morganroth stated that additional lots would likely not be lost as a result of a
condition requiring potential additional wetland mitigation. Mr. Morganroth also noted that the
condition requiring safe walking conditions to and from school may result in additional mitigation
requirements from the Applicant.
Gerald Smith, owner of the project site, expressed heavy concerns about a 75 foot wetland buffer
encroaching onto his property. Mr. Smith believes that the wetlands were created by the City of
Renton from dumping water from a northern property into his property. He also noted that similar
wetlands on other subdivisions were only subject to 50 foot buffers and his property should be treated
similarly. Mr. Smith also noted that the language around wetlands and the classification system was
confusing and misleading.
Patricia Payne-Gammell, neighbor, noted she has lived in the area for some time and was at the
hearing to represent the residents of the Lea Hill Crest neighborhood. Ms. Payne-Gammell
expressed concerned about a 24-inch pipe on 160th that collects stormwater for 160th up to 137th and
then it dumps it into lots 12 and 13 of the adjoining Rich Lea Crest subdivision. She noted that filling
in the area has increased drainage into the Rich Lea subdivision and that King County had to install a
series of swales to slow down the drainage rate. Ms. Payne-Gammell stated that her main concern is
about how the proposal will affect the drainage currently entering the Rich Lea Hill subdivision. She
feels that both a downstream and upstream analysis needs to be done for the project.
Mr. Smith mentioned that the water issue Ms. Payne-Gammell faces comes from 3 ponds that are
above the properties she was discussing. Mr. Smith noted he resonates with Ms. Payne-Gammell’s
problems and concerns. Ms. Payne-Gammell added that she believes a swale is necessary to catch
the runoff between the plats.
In response to Ms. Payne-Gammell’s concerns, Ms. Rohini noted that the City’s stormwater
standards require upstream flows to be routed through the site to the on-street system, but they’re not
required to be detained on the site. The City is aware of the downstream problems cited by Ms.
Payne-Gammell and that’s why the City has required a flood problem flow control facility that serves
as the highest level of flow control required by the City’s stormwater manual. This flow control
facility should prevent any downstream problems. The project complies with Flow Control
Requirement No. 1 of the City’s stormwater manual, which requires discharge along natural drainage
flows, which for this project is the creek. An upstream and downstream study has been conducted by
the Applicant and reviewed by the City. In response to examiner questions, Ms. Rohini confirmed
that pursuant to City standards the project’s stormwater system will prevent any increase in off-site
stormwater flows. The Applicant has provided the calculations necessary to establish that off-site
flows will not increase. The City’s stormwater standards require that off-site flows do not exceed
pre-development 100 year peak flow rates. The Applicant is proposing a stormwater detention vault
to regulate flows.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT, SM, TUP - 5
In rebuttal, Mr. Morganroth mentioned that the Mindy’s Place and Liberty Gardens subdivisions were
developed under previous critical areas regulations, which is why they’re subject to smaller buffer
requirements. The required buffers were increased by the City Council in 2015. Mr. Morganroth
noted that the wetlands for the proposal, Liberty Gardens and Mindy’s Place are part of the same
wetlands system but the buffers are different due to code changes since their respective times of
installment.
On the stormwater concerns, Vanessa Dolbee, City of Renton Planning Manager, elaborated that on
the southern portion of the site there are several trees that will remain in place as required by the
City’s tree preservation standards. Presumably, there will be little or no grading in this area, which
should also help prevent any problems with downstream flow issues.
In closing comments, Mr. Maher Joudi, a project engineer, clarified that the Applicant proposes to
route the upstream runoff through the site using a pipe system and discharge into its natural discharge
location. As far as the concerns about tight-lining water and resulting erosion in the stream to which
the waters are discharged, Mr. Joudi stated that stormwater standards require energy dissipation
measures depending on the velocity of flows that are entering a downstream system. Adherence to
this requirement will be assessed during final engineering review and mitigation such as installing rip
rap into the stream may be required to prevent downstream erosion. Additionally, Mr. Joudi
mentioned that, as far as runoff heading to the south, the trees on lot 6 will be retained as identified by
Ms. Dolbee, which will make for minimal grading. He also stated that all the runoff from the
impervious surface of lots 6 and 7 is required to be tight-lined to the proposed conveyance system
within the plat and the detention vault. So, the run-off to the south will be limited to just the sloped
area which will be vegetated and thus will only produce negligible runoff. In fact, the runoff
conditions will be much better and less severe than they are in their current state. To further Ms.
Nair’s point about the flow control facility, Mr. Joudi stated they are proposing a detention vault that
is required to meet level 3 flood problem control standards that matches duration to a historic site,
not even necessarily the existing, but a fully forested site to meet reduced rates of runoff. Whatever
outfall the manual requires, the Applicant will end up alleviating many—if not most—of the concerns
that have been expressed in the hearing. This all means that flows to the south will be reduced with
the stormwater measures required of the project. At this stage of review stormwater design is only
preliminary and the City will make an in depth review of stormwater design during engineering plan
review.
EXHIBITS
Exhibits 1-28 listed on page 2 of the September 18, 2018 Staff Report were admitted into evidence
during the public hearing. Additional exhibits admitted during the hearing are as follows:
Exhibit 29 – City of Renton COR Maps
Exhibit 30 – Power Point Presentation
Exhibit 31 – Google Map (Aerial)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT, SM, TUP - 6
Exhibit 32 – Rich Lea Crest Plat Map
FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural:
1. Applicant. Harbour Homes, LLC, 400 N. 34th ST., Suite 300, Seattle, WA 98103.
2. Hearing. A hearing on the application was held on September 18, 2018 in the City of
Renton Council City Chambers.
3. Project Description. The Applicant requests Preliminary Plat approval, a street modification,
and a Tier 2 Temporary Use Permit for a proposed 13-lot subdivision for a parcel located at 14120
160th Ave SE. The project site is 195,531 square feet (4.49 acres). The proposed single-family
residential lots range in size from 9,000 square feet to 17,565 square feet with an overall proposed
density of 3.48 dwellings per acre. Additional proposed improvements include a 3,500 sq. ft. storm
drainage tract (Tract A) on the western portion of the site and partially within the proposed Road A
right-of-way (ROW), a 3,500 sq. ft. tree retention tract (Tract C) along the north property line
adjacent to lots 11 and 12, and a 20,246 native growth protection tract (Tract B) in the north-east
corner to encompass the proposed 75-foot reduced wetland buffer. The proposed lots would be
served by a new public residential access street off of 160th Ave SE that would end in a cul-de-sac.
Construction of the proposed subdivision infrastructure improvements would result in approximately
4,450 cubic yards of cut and 7,266 cubic yards of fill.
The requested Temporary Use Permit would allow for two existing outbuildings to remain on the site
for a period of five years. The structures are located across proposed Lot 9, Lot 10, and Tract B. The
street modification seeks to maintain the existing street and frontage section along 162nd Ave SE
without bringing that section up to current frontage standards. The modification was requested due to
the presence of a stream that runs through the ROW and altering the existing conditions of 162nd
Ave SE would impact the stream and adjacent wetlands.
4. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate and
appropriate infrastructure and public services as follows:
A. Water and Sewer Service. Water service will be provided by King County Water District
No. 90. Sewer will be provided by the City of Renton. Water and sewer mains are
available along 160th Ave to serve the proposed lots.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT, SM, TUP - 7
B. Police and Fire Protection. Police and Fire Prevention staff indicate that sufficient
resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development.
C. Drainage. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate stormwater drainage
facilities. The proposal is subject to the City’s 2017 City of Renton Surface Water
Design Manual, which requires that the project not generate off-site stormwater flows that
exceed predevelopment, forested conditions. City staff have reviewed the Applicant’s
preliminary stormwater design and found it consistent with the requirements of the
Design Manual.
The Applicant’s preliminary stormwater design was submitted as a Technical Information
Report (TIR) prepared by DR Strong dated June 29, 2018, Ex. 11. A detention vault is
proposed to meet the flow control facility requirement to satisfy Core Requirement #3.
The detention vault has been sized to the City’s Flood Problem Flow Control Standard
(King County Level 3) to help mitigate potential downstream drainage issues. The project
matches the pre-developed discharge rates from 50% of the 2-year peak flow up to the
full 50-year peak flow and peak discharge rates for the 2 and 10-year return periods as
required in the City’s Flow Control Duration Standard (Forested Site Conditions) area. In
addition, the site matches the 100-year peak discharge rate to the pre-developed 100-year
peak discharge rate to meet the City’s Flood Problem Flow Control Standard.
Due to site constraints, the detention vault is proposed to be located partially in the
proposed internal road right of way. Per the 2017 Renton Surface Water Design Manual,
the Administrator may allow for a vault to be located in a public ROW if it would not
impact existing utilities and if there is no possibility for future roadway extension. In
order to ensure that the vault does not impact the design of the proposed frontage
improvements in the cul-de-sac, a condition of approval requires that the vault be
designed in a manner that completely retains the sidewalk, planter strip, and vertical
curbing proposed in the ROW.
The project is subject to Basic Water Quality treatment standards to satisfy Core
Requirement #8. A stormwater quality vault following the detention vault will be utilized
to address this requirement. The project is subject to on-site best management practices
(BMP) requirements found in Core Requirement #9. Full dispersion and full infiltration
are not feasible for on-site BMPs as the minimum design requirements cannot be met.
Permeable pavement, bioretention, and rain gardens were deemed infeasible per the
infiltration testing in the geotechnical report. Limited infiltration is deemed infeasible due
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT, SM, TUP - 8
to the till soils. Basic dispersion may be feasible. If feasible, basic dispersion should be
implemented to the maximum extent feasible which may be more than 10% of the total
lot area. Feasibility of on-site BMPs for each lot will be reviewed at the time of single-
family building permit. The restricted footprint BMP can still be used in addition to
receive the 10% lot area modeling credit when sizing the detention vault.
During the hearing, concerns were raised about drainage impacts to the adjoining Rich
Lea Crest neighborhood to the south. As detailed in this finding of fact and for the
reasons identified in the Summary section of this decision (incorporated by this
reference), the proposal is found to adequately mitigate against any significant adverse
stormwater impacts to the Rich Lea Crest neighborhood.
D. Parks/Open Space. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate parks and open
space.
City ordinances require the payment of park impact fees prior to building permit issuance.
City regulations do not require any specific set-aside for open space for residential
development in the R-4 zone. However, the proposal does include a 3,500 sq. ft. tree
retention tract to comply with the City’s tree retention standards. In the absence of any
specific open space requirements or any demonstrated need for open space, the Applicant
cannot be legally required to set aside any open space and it must be determined that the
proposal provides for adequate parks and open space through the payment of park impact
fees and the inclusion of the tree retention tract.
E. Streets. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate streets. The proposal has
been designed and staff has recommended several conditions adopted by this decision
that provide for safe and efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation by incorporating a
well linked and defined pedestrian and vehiculation system on-site that is integrated into
adjoining streets and sidewalks.
The proposal fronts 160th Ave SE along its west property line. 160th Ave SE is classified
as a Residential Access Road. Existing ROW width is approximately 60 feet, which
satisfies the RMC 4-6-060 required minimum ROW width of 53 feet. No additional right-
of-way fronting the site will be required. To provide consistency with the existing
pavement width in the corridor adjacent to the project site, a half street paved width of 16
feet, gutter, 0.5 feet wide curb, 8 feet wide landscaped planter, 5 feet wide sidewalk,
street trees, storm drainage improvements and undergrounding of any overhead utility
lines along the frontage of the property are required on the project frontage.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT, SM, TUP - 9
The proposed development fronts 162nd Ave SE along its east property line. 162nd Ave
SE is classified as a Residential Access Road, and is an unimproved right-of-way.
Existing ROW width is approximately 60 feet, which satisfies the RMC 4-6-060 required
minimum required ROW width of 53 feet. Per RMC 4-6-060, a paved half street width of
13 feet, a 0.5-foot curb, an 8-foot planting strip, a 5-foot sidewalk, street trees, storm
drainage improvements, and undergrounding of all utilities are required on the project
frontage. The Applicant has submitted a street modification request to allow the existing
street and frontage section to remain. The modification was requested due to the presence
of the stream that runs through the ROW and altering the existing conditions of 162nd
Ave SE would impact the stream and the adjacent critical area.
A dead end public street with 53-foot ROW width and 26-foot wide pavement is
proposed for the internal site access. The proposed internal street connects to 160th Ave
SE. Dead end streets or cul-de-sacs may be approved by the administrator where no
future connection to a larger street pattern is physically possible due to demonstrable
physical constraints. Due the presence of critical areas (Type Ns stream and Category III
wetlands), the administrator determined that a street connection with 162nd Ave SE
would significantly impact the critical areas both on- and off-site and is therefore not
feasible. 0.5-foot wide curbs, 8-foot wide planters and 5-foot wide sidewalks are
proposed on both sides of the internal street. The proposed widths meet the minimum
required widths mentioned in RMC 4-6-060. Undergrounding of all utilities is required.
City standards only require an off-site traffic analysis if a proposal generates more than 20
trips per AM or PM peak hour. As demonstrated in the Applicant’s traffic study, Ex. 21,
the proposal will generate less than 20 peak hour trips so no additional traffic study or
off-site traffic mitigation is required. The City’s traffic impact fee ordinance assures that
the Applicant will pay for its proportionate share of system-wide traffic impacts.
F. Parking. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate parking. Parking
regulations require that a minimum of two (2) parking spaces be provided for each
detached dwelling. Sufficient area exists, on each lot, to accommodate off-street parking
for a minimum of two (2) vehicles. This is typically achieved by providing a two (2) car
garage for each single-family home. In addition, the proposed internal residential access
street will provide one 6-foot parking lane.
G. Schools. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate schools and walking
conditions to and from school. It is anticipated that the Issaquah School District can
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT, SM, TUP - 10
accommodate any additional students generated by this proposal at the following schools:
Briarwood Elementary, Maywood Middle School and Liberty High School. According to
school district staff, any new students from the proposed development would be bussed to
their schools. The bus stop is located approximately 0.4 miles from the project site at the
intersection of 160th Ave SE and SE 136th St. The proposed project includes the
installation of frontage improvements along 160th Ave SE frontage, including sidewalks.
Students would walk north along 160th Ave SE in order to get to the bus stop. Sidewalks
are currently installed sporadically along the route and students may have to cross the
road multiple times in order to safely get to the bus stop. While students will need to be
bussed to both Briarwood Elementary and Maywood Middle School, high school students
are likely to utilize the pedestrian trail to the east of the property which would provide a
walking route through neighboring Liberty Gardens subdivision to Liberty High School
approximately 0.25 miles in length. Currently, a section of the pedestrian walking path in
the 160th Ave SE ROW directly north of the project site is inundated by water from the
wetlands and stream during the winter months. In order to provide a safe pathway for
students expected to utilize the pathway to go to and from Liberty High School, a bridge
or similar structure would need to be constructed over the inundated section of trail. In
order to ensure a safe route to all schools, a condition of approval requires that the
Applicant provide some combination of a physical structure to allow passage to and from
Liberty High School, a plan showing existing and proposed improvements to create a safe
route from the project site to the bus stop, or documentation from the Issaquah School
District that an additional stop will be added closer to the project site.
A School Impact Fee, based on new single-family lots, will be required in order to
mitigate the proposal’s potential impacts to the Issaquah School District. The fee is
payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code. Currently the fee is
assessed at $8,762.00 per single-family residence.
5. Adverse Impacts. As conditioned, there are no significant adverse impacts associated with
the proposal. Adequate public facilities and drainage control are provided as determined in Finding
of Fact No. 4. Pertinent impacts are more specifically addressed as follows:
A. Compatibility. As conditioned, the proposal is compatible with surrounding
development. The subject site is bordered by single-family homes on all sides. As shown
in the neighborhood detail map, Ex. 3, the size of the proposed lots is consistent with the
size of other subdivided parcels in the vicinity. Since the proposed use is consistent in
type and scale with surrounding development, it is considered generally compatible
subject to mitigation of a couple design issues addressed below.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT, SM, TUP - 11
One of those design issues is the stormwater detention vault. The Applicant has proposed
a stormwater detention vault within Tract A, which would be adjacent to the 160th Ave
SE public right-of-way. A stormwater detention vault that is located entirely underground
and is landscaped appropriately would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood,
however a stormwater pond or a vault that the partially expose above ground would not
be as compatible with the existing surrounding uses. Therefore, a condition of approval
requires that any proposal to convert the stormwater vault within Tract A to a stormwater
detention pond be considered a Major Plat Amendment subject to the requirements
outlined under RMC 4-7-080M.2.
The other design issue involves a proposed asphalt vault access roadway that would
connect Road A with the unimproved 162nd Ave SE ROW. In order to ensure that the
access can also be used as a pedestrian connection between the site and the existing
pedestrian trail in the 162nd Ave SE ROW to the east of the site, the roadway needs to be
designed in a manner that fits into both the built and natural environment and encourages
pedestrians to utilize the linkage. Therefore, a condition of approval requires that the
Applicant submit an updated plan that utilizes a pedestrian-focused design for the vault
roadway access at the time of construction permit application submittal.
B. Tree Retention. The proposal complies with the City’s tree retention standards, thus
ensuring that in conjunction with the City’s landscaping requirements that impacts to
wildlife habitat and natural aesthetics are adequately mitigated. The Applicant submitted
an Arborist Report, Ex. 12, prepared by Greenforest Incorporated (dated March 20, 2017).
The report identifies 284 trees located on the project site. The Arborist Report identified
19 landmark trees, 170 significant trees, 85 dangerous trees, and 10 trees within the
critical area buffer. Approximately 41 of the identified trees were located within the
proposed road network. The City’s minimum tree retention requirement is thirty percent
(30%) in the R-4 zone. Therefore, the Applicant must retain at least 47 trees. After street
and critical area deductions, the Applicant is proposing to retain 34 trees, or thirteen (13)
trees less than the amount required by code. Per RMC 4-4-130, a replacement ratio of 12
caliper inches per tree is required for each tree less than the total required to be retained.
Therefore, a total of 156 caliper inches is required for replanting. All retained trees (i.e.,
protected trees) would be required to be protected during construction pursuant to RMC
4-4-130.
The Applicant is proposing to replant the subdivision with 48 three-inch caliper trees for
a total of 144 caliper inches. The majority of the proposed on-site replacement trees
would be used to meet street frontage landscaping and planter strip requirements and
includes street trees, front yard trees, and trees near the storm water vault in Tract A. Per
RMC 4-4-130, only up to 50% of trees required pursuant to the landscape code may
contribute to the replacement tree requirement. Therefore, additional trees must be added
in order to meet the tree replacement requirement of 156 inches. A condition of approval
requires that the Applicant submit an updated tree retention and replanting plan that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT, SM, TUP - 12
demonstrates compliance with RMC 4-4-130 for review and approval by the Current
Planning Project Manager prior to issuance of the construction permits.
C. Critical Areas. The proposal complies with the City’s critical area regulations and thus is
found to adequately mitigate against significant adverse impacts to environmentally
sensitive areas. The only critical areas located on the project site are a stream and
associated wetlands.
According to the City of Renton COR Maps there are existing wetlands and a Type Ns
stream on the northeast portion of the site and immediately off-site to the north. A Critical
Areas Determination Report prepared by Sewall Wetland Consulting, LLC (dated March
28, 2017; Exhibit 14) with the original application identified the Type NS stream that
originates from the parcel to the north, continues across the northeast corner of the subject
site, and exits into the unimproved ROW to the east of the site. During review of the
report, staff determined that the report did not adequately address the wetlands located to
the north (described as Wetlands A in the report) of the project site on parcel
#1457500106. These wetlands were identified in a wetlands report completed by the same
consultant in 2012 as part of the submittal for Mindy’s Place Short Plat. A revised
Critical Areas Study prepared by Sewall (Dated October 3, 2017; Exhibit 15) was
submitted at staff’s request. The revised study delineated the off-site wetlands to the north
of the site and classified the wetlands as a Category II “depressional” system. The report
reiterated the presence of the Type NS stream, requiring a 50 foot buffer, but concluded
that no wetlands were located on the project site. After reviewing the new assessment
against data in COR maps, staff continued to find inconsistencies between the two
Critical Area Determinations submitted by the Applicant and the study completed in 2012
for Mindy’s Place. Inconsistencies were primarily related to the delineation of wetlands
on the project site. Although the Sewall studies showed the wetlands ending at the
property line, staff was concerned that the linear system likely followed the path of the
Type NS stream and continued SE across the project site and unimproved public ROW.
In order to resolve the inconsistency issues and obtain accurate information on the
wetlands, Otak was hired as a secondary reviewer of the on-site and off-site wetlands. At
the City’s request, Otak submitted a new report (Dated December 6, 2017; Exhibit 16) to
staff, which contained findings and analysis based on a November 20, 2017 site visit
completed by Otak staff. The report concluded that the original wetlands categorization of
“Wetlands A” on the northeast corner of the site in the report submitted by Sewall
Wetland Consulting was calculated incorrectly. Otak recommended multiple revisions to
the initial determination, including a re-categorization of Wetlands A from a Category II
“depressional” to a Category III “depressional” wetlands system with a habitat score of 4,
requiring a 100 foot buffer per RMC 4-3-050. Otak also recommended a re-evaluation of
the delineation due to the presence of wetlands onto the project site.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT, SM, TUP - 13
In early February of 2018, a technical memo prepared by Soundview Consultants on
behalf of the Applicant was submitted to staff (Dated January 31, 2018; Exhibit 17). The
memorandum served as a rebuttal to the report prepared by Otak in December and
concluded that the wetlands should be classified as a Category II “sloped” wetlands
system with a habitat score of 4, requiring a 50-foot buffer per RMC 4-3-050. After
submitting the report, Soundview Consultants requested a site visit in order to discuss
some of the issues in-person. On March 14, 2018, representatives from Otak, Soundview
Consultants, the City, and Harbour Homes met and walked the site. After the site visit,
Soundview Consultants submitted another technical memo reiterating their support for
their original determination (Dated April 4, 2018; Exhibit 18). After receipt of the
Soundview memo, Otak submitted a final memorandum maintaining their position on the
classification (Dated April 16, 2018; Exhibit 19). Based on the classification of Wetlands
A as a Category III wetlands system with a moderate habitat score (4), a 100-foot buffer
with a 15-foot structure setback is required per RMC 4-3-050. A 50-foot buffer is
required for a Type NS stream per RMC 4-3-050. Due to the location of the stream near
the center of the wetlands area, the required 100-foot buffer for the wetlands would meet
the buffer requirements of both the wetlands and stream (50 feet).
The Applicant has proposed a reduced buffer of 75 feet over an area of approximately
15,460 square feet. RMC 4-3-050 gives the administrator the ability to authorize a 25%
reduction in the wetlands buffer if certain conditions are met. The buffer in its current
state is highly disturbed and includes mowed lawn, junk cars and debris, and a significant
amount of Himalayan blackberry. The wetlands report includes a mitigation plan that
includes the removal of junk cars and debris, the eventual removal of the existing
building encroaching on the buffer, and the installation of native plantings (Exhibit 21).
The plan identifies the types of species proposed for planting in the buffer, but does not
identify the number of each plant. The Applicant will need to submit a revised mitigation
plan indicating the number and location of each plant species in the wetland buffer, in
addition to a phasing plan for project mitigation to be completed after the removal of the
barn. Staff anticipates an interim mitigation plan and a final mitigation plan that would
completely restore the buffer at a later date after the barn is removed after the expiration
of the temporary use permit.
Temporary impacts to the wetlands buffer are anticipated due to the construction of the
vault directly adjacent to the southern edge of the buffer. The Applicant will need to
submit an updated study prior to construction permit submittal, addressing the temporary
impacts and the methods used to mitigate for these impacts. Native plantings proposed
for the buffer would include Sitka spruce, Douglas fir, Western red cedar, and a variety of
native shrubs and grasses, including but not limited to Red-twig dogwood, Salal,
Salmonberry, Western swordfern, Streamside lupine, and Spike bentgrass. The entire
buffer area would be placed in a tract (Tract B) with a Native Growth Protection
Easement on top of the entire buffer and wetlands area. The mitigation plan report
concludes that the wetland hydrology and water quality function would see significant
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT, SM, TUP - 14
improvements if the plan is implemented. Due to the degraded state of the existing
wetland buffer and anticipated environmental lift, staff is supportive of the buffer
reduction, provided the restoration work is completed in accordance with an effective
mitigation plan. In order to confirm that the reduced buffer would function at a level
higher than the standard buffer as required by code, a condition of approval requires that
both phases of the mitigation plan for a reduced buffer be reviewed the City’s secondary
wetlands reviewer, Otak, at the Applicants expense. Provided the secondary reviewer
concurs with the design of the reduced buffer and the project complies with the Critical
Areas regulations staff, does not anticipate any negative impacts to the wetlands.
At the hearing, the owner of the project site still expressed disagreement with the wetland
classification adopted by the staff report, specifically that a 100 foot buffer is required for
Wetland A. For the reasons identified in the Summary section of this decision,
incorporated by this reference, it is determined that the wetland was properly classified
and subject to a 100 foot buffer, which can be reduced to 75 feet as outlined in this
finding.
Conclusions of Law
1. Authority. RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies preliminary plat applications as Type III permits. The
street modification request is classified by RMC 4-8-080(G) as a Type I review and the Tier 2
Temporary Use Permit is classified as a Type II review. RMC 4-8-080(C)(2) requires consolidated
permits to each be processed under “the highest-number procedure”. The Type III plat review is the
“highest-number procedure” and therefore must be employed for all of the permit applications. As
outlined in RMC 4-8-080(G), the Hearing Examiner is authorized to hold hearings and issue final
decisions on Type III applications subject to closed record appeal to the Renton City Council.
2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The subject property is zoned R4. The
comprehensive plan map land use designation is Residential Low Density.
3. Review Criteria/Street Modification/Temporary Use Permit. Chapter 4-7 RMC governs the
criteria for subdivision review. Applicable standards are quoted below in italics and applied through
corresponding conclusions of law. All applicable criterion quoted below are met for the reasons
identified in the corresponding conclusions of law. Street modification standards are governed by
RMC 4-9-250.D. The findings and conclusions of Finding No. 22 of the staff report are adopted to
conclude that the proposal meets the criteria for street modification. Tier 2 Temporary Use Permit
criteria are governed by RMC 4-9-250.B.5. The findings and conclusions of Finding No. 23 of the
staff report are adopted to conclude that the proposal meets the criteria for Tier 2 Temporary Use
Permits.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT, SM, TUP - 15
RMC 4-7-080(B): 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. As to compliance with the Zoning Code, Finding 18 and 19 of the staff report is adopted by
reference as if set forth in full. Each proposed lot will directly access a public road as depicted in the
preliminary plat map, Ex. 2 As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4 and 5, the project is adequately
designed to prevent any impacts to critical areas and will not cause flooding problems as it is not
located in a floodplain critical area and will be served by adequate and appropriate drainage
facilities. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the proposal provides for adequate public
facilities.
RMC 4-7-080(I)(1): …The Hearing Examiner shall assure conformance with the general purposes
of the Comprehensive Plan and adopted standards…
5. The proposed preliminary play is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan as outlined
in Finding 17 of the staff report, which is incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full.
RMC 4-7-120(A): No plan for the replatting, subdivision, or dedication of any areas shall be
approved by the Hearing Examiner unless the streets shown therein are connected by surfaced road
or street (according to City specifications) to an existing street or highway.
6. The single proposed internal road connects to 160th Ave SE as required by the criterion
quoted above.
RMC 4-7-120(B): The location of all streets shall conform to any adopted plans for streets in the
City.
7. The proposed internal road is consistent with the City’s adopted road plans.
RMC 4-7-120(C): If a subdivision is located in the area of an officially designed [sic] trail,
provisions shall be made for reservation of the right-of-way or for easements to the City for trail
purposes.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT, SM, TUP - 16
8. The criterion is met. Conditions of approval require that provisions be made for linkage to
trails existing on the 160th and 162nd right of way.
RMC 4-7-130(C): A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication shall be prepared in conformance
with the following provisions:
1. Land Unsuitable for Subdivision: Land which is found to be unsuitable for subdivision includes
land with features likely to be harmful to the safety and general health of the future residents (such
as lands adversely affected by flooding, steep slopes, or rock formations). Land which the
Department or the Hearing Examiner considers inappropriate for subdivision shall not be
subdivided unless adequate safeguards are provided against these adverse conditions.
a. Flooding/Inundation: If any portion of the land within the boundary of a preliminary plat is
subject to flooding or inundation, that portion of the subdivision must have the approval of the State
according to chapter 86.16 RCW before the Department and the Hearing Examiner shall consider
such subdivision.
b. Steep Slopes: A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication which would result in the creation of a
lot or lots that primarily have slopes forty percent (40%) or greater as measured per RMC 4-3-
050J1a, without adequate area at lesser slopes upon which development may occur, shall not be
approved.
…
3. Land Clearing and Tree Retention: Shall comply with RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land
Clearing Regulations.
4. Streams:
a. Preservation: Every reasonable effort shall be made to preserve existing streams, bodies of water,
and wetland areas.
b. Method: If a stream passes through any of the subject property, a plan shall be presented which
indicates how the stream will be preserved. The methodologies used should include an overflow
area, and an attempt to minimize the disturbance of the natural channel and stream bed.
c. Culverting: The piping or tunneling of water shall be discouraged and allowed only when going
under streets.
d. Clean Water: Every effort shall be made to keep all streams and bodies of water clear of debris
and pollutants.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT, SM, TUP - 17
9. The land is suitable for a subdivision as the stormwater design assures that it will not
contribute to flooding and development will not encroach into critical areas. No piping or tunneling
of streams is proposed. Trees will be retained as required by RMC 4-4-130 as determined in Finding
of Fact No. 5. No steep slopes are located on the property.
RMC 4-7-140: Approval of all subdivisions located in either single family residential or multi-
family residential zones as defined in the Zoning Code shall be contingent upon the subdivider’s
dedication of land or providing fees in lieu of dedication to the City, all as necessary to mitigate the
adverse effects of development upon the existing park and recreation service levels. The
requirements and procedures for this mitigation shall be per the City of Renton Parks Mitigation
Resolution.
10. City ordinances require the payment of park impact fees prior to building permit issuance.
As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the payment of impact fees and the proposed tree retention
tract provide for all the open space and park space that can be required by City ordinances.
RMC 4-7-150(A): The proposed street system shall extend and create connections between existing
streets unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. Prior to approving a street
system that does not extend or connect, the Reviewing Official shall find that such exception shall
meet the requirements of subsection E3 of this Section. The roadway classifications shall be as
defined and designated by the Department.
11. The criterion is met. The cul-de-sac proposed by the Applicant has been approved by the
Public Works Department as outlined in Finding of Fact No. 4 on the basis the wetlands and stream
on the property and adjoining right of way prevent further street connection.
RMC 4-7-150(B): All proposed street names shall be approved by the City.
12. As conditioned.
RMC 4-7-150(C): Streets intersecting with existing or proposed public highways, major or
secondary arterials shall be held to a minimum.
13. There is no intersection with a public highway or major or secondary arterial. As previously
identified, the proposed internal road will connect to 160th Ave SE, which is classified as a
residential access road.
RMC 4-7-150(D): The alignment of all streets shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works
Department. The street standards set by RMC 4-6-060 shall apply unless otherwise approved. Street
alignment offsets of less than one hundred twenty five feet (125') are not desirable, but may be
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT, SM, TUP - 18
approved by the Department upon a showing of need but only after provision of all necessary safety
measures.
14. As determined in Finding of Fact 4, the Public Works Department has reviewed and
approved the adequacy of streets, which includes compliance with applicable street standards and
acceptable street alignment. .
RMC 4-7-150(E):
1. Grid: A grid street pattern shall be used to connect existing and new development and shall be the
predominant street pattern in any subdivision permitted by this Section.
2. Linkages: Linkages, including streets, sidewalks, pedestrian or bike paths, shall be provided
within and between neighborhoods when they can create a continuous and interconnected network
of roads and pathways. Implementation of this requirement shall comply with Comprehensive Plan
Transportation Element Objective T-A and Policies T-9 through T-16 and Community Design
Element, Objective CD-M and Policies CD-50 and CD-60.
3. Exceptions:
a. The grid pattern may be adjusted to a “flexible grid” by reducing the number of linkages or the
alignment between roads, where the following factors are present on site:
i. Infeasible due to topographical/environmental constraints; and/or
ii. Substantial improvements are existing.
4. Connections: Prior to adoption of a complete grid street plan, reasonable connections that link
existing portions of the grid system shall be made. At a minimum, stub streets shall be required
within subdivisions to allow future connectivity.
5. Alley Access: Alley access is the preferred street pattern except for properties in the Residential
Low Density land use designation. The Residential Low Density land use designation includes the
RC, R-1, and R-4 zones. Prior to approval of a plat without alley access, the Reviewing Official shall
evaluate an alley layout and determine that the use of alley(s) is not feasible…
6. Alternative Configurations: Offset or loop roads are the preferred alternative configurations.
7. Cul-de-Sac Streets: Cul-de-sac streets may only be permitted by the Reviewing Official where due
to demonstrable physical constraints no future connection to a larger street pattern is physically
possible.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT, SM, TUP - 19
15. The criterion is met. As previously identified in Conclusion of Law No. 11, the Public
Works department has approved the proposed cul-de-sac on the basis that wetlands and a stream
prevents further connectivity. Since the property is designed Low Density Residential, alley access
is not required.
RMC 4-7-150(F): All adjacent rights-of-way and new rights-of-way dedicated as part of the plat,
including streets, roads, and alleys, shall be graded to their full width and the pavement and
sidewalks shall be constructed as specified in the street standards or deferred by the
Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee.
16. As proposed except for the street modification approved by this decision.
RMC 4-7-150(G): Streets that may be extended in the event of future adjacent platting shall be
required to be dedicated to the plat boundary line. Extensions of greater depth than an average lot
shall be improved with temporary turnarounds. Dedication of a full-width boundary street shall be
required in certain instances to facilitate future development.
17. Taking into consideration the on-site wetland and stream, no additional street extensions are
proposed, possible or necessary for the proposal.
RMC 4-7-170(A): Insofar as practical, side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines or radial
to curved street lines.
18. As depicted in Ex. 2, the side lines are generally in conformance with the requirement quoted
above.
RMC 4-7-170(B): Each lot must have access to a public street or road. Access may be by private
access easement street per the requirements of the street standards.
19. As previously determined, each lot has access to a public street.
RMC 4-7-170(C): The size, shape, and orientation of lots shall meet the minimum area and width
requirements of the applicable zoning classification and shall be appropriate for the type of
development and use contemplated. Further subdivision of lots within a plat approved through the
provisions of this Chapter must be consistent with the then-current applicable maximum density
requirement as measured within the plat as a whole.
20. As previously determined, the proposed lots comply with the zoning standards of the R4
zone, which includes area, width and density.
RMC 4-7-170(D): Width between side lot lines at their foremost points (i.e., the points where the
side lot lines intersect with the street right-of-way line) shall not be less than eighty percent (80%) of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT, SM, TUP - 20
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').
21. As shown in Ex. 2, the requirement is satisfied.
RMC 4-7-170(E): All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys,
shall have minimum radius of fifteen feet (15').
22. As conditioned.
RMC 4-7-190(A): Due regard shall be shown to all natural features such as large trees,
watercourses, and similar community assets. Such natural features should be preserved, thereby
adding attractiveness and value to the property.
23. There are no significant on-site natural features.
RMC 4-7-200(A): Unless septic tanks are specifically approved by the Public Works Department
and the King County Health Department, sanitary sewers shall be provided by the developer at no
cost to the City and designed in accordance with City standards. Side sewer lines shall be installed
eight feet (8') into each lot if sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision
development.
24. As conditioned.
RMC 4-7-200(B): An adequate drainage system shall be provided for the proper drainage of all
surface water. Cross drains shall be provided to accommodate all natural water flow and shall be of
sufficient length to permit full-width roadway and required slopes. The drainage system shall be
designed per the requirements of RMC 4-6-030, Drainage (Surface Water) Standards. The drainage
system shall include detention capacity for the new street areas. Residential plats shall also include
detention capacity for future development of the lots. Water quality features shall also be designed to
provide capacity for the new street paving for the plat.
25. The proposal provides for adequate drainage that is in conformance with applicable City drainage
standards as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. The City’s stormwater standards, which are
addressed in the Applicant’s technical information report and will be further implemented during
civil plan review, ensure compliance with all of the standards in the criterion quoted above.
RMC 4-7-200(C): The water distribution system including the locations of fire hydrants shall be
designed and installed in accordance with City standards as defined by the Department and Fire
Department requirements.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT, SM, TUP - 21
26. These requirements will be imposed during engineering review for final plat approval.
RMC 4-7-200(D): All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any
utilities installed in the parking strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the
planting of trees. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, including all
service connections, as approved by the Department. Such installation shall be completed and
approved prior to the application of any surface material. Easements may be required for the
maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department.
27. As conditioned.
RMC 4-7-200(E): Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic
utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line
by subdivider as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or alley
improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. The cost of
trenching, conduit, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore required to
bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or land owner. The subdivider
shall be responsible only for conduit to serve his development. Conduit ends shall be elbowed to
final ground elevation and capped. The cable TV company shall provide maps and specifications to
the subdivider and shall inspect the conduit and certify to the City that it is properly installed.
28. As conditioned.
RMC 4-7-210:
A. MONUMENTS:
Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at each and every controlling corner of
the subdivision. Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the Department. All surveys
shall be per the City of Renton surveying standards.
B. SURVEY:
All other lot corners shall be marked per the City surveying standards.
C. STREET SIGNS:
The subdivider shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision.
29. As conditioned.
DECISION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT, SM, TUP - 22
The proposed preliminary plat, street modification tier 2 temporary use permit comply with all the
development standards quoted above and are therefore approved subject to the following conditions
of approval:
1. The Applicant shall comply with the mitigation measure issued as part of the Determination
of Non-Significance Mitigated, dated August 24th, 2018.
2. A final detailed a final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted compliant with RMC 4-8-
120 and RMC 4-4-070 and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to issuance of
the construction permits.
3. The Applicant shall submit an updated tree retention and replanting plan that demonstrates
compliance with RMC 4-4-130 for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager
prior to issuance of the construction permits.
4. The Applicant shall create a Home Owners Association (“HOA”) that maintains all
improvements and landscaping in the Storm Tract and any and all other common improvements. A
draft of the HOA documents shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project
Manager and the City Attorney prior to Final Plat recording. Such documents shall be recorded
concurrently with the Final Plat.
5. Proposed Lots 12 and 13 shall utilize a joint-use driveway for vehicular access. An updated
plan shall be provided at the time of Construction Permit Application for review and approval by the
Current Planning Project Manager, a note to this effect shall be recorded on the face of the plat.
6. A photometric study and street lighting plan shall be submitted at the time of construction
permit for review and approval by the City’s Plan Reviewer prior to issuance of a construction
permit.
7. A covenant shall be required as a part of the final plat pursuant to RMC 4-2-110D, Note 14.
8. The Applicant shall provide a combination of the following in order to ensure a safe route to
all three schools: a physical structure to allow passage to and from Liberty High School, a plan
showing existing and proposed improvements to create a safe route from the project site to the bus
stop, or documentation from the Issaquah School District that an additional stop will be added closer
to the project site. The proposal for a safe route to school would be subject to review and approval by
the Current Planning Project Manager during construction permit application review.
9. The builder/Applicant (Harbour Homes) shall restore the impacted critical areas buffer in
Tract B per the Wetlands Buffer Mitigation Plan reviewed and approved by Otak after expiration of
the TUP. The document shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Plat and the condition should
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT, SM, TUP - 23
be recorded on the face of the Final Plat and as a covenant on Lot 8. The Applicant shall submit a
separate surety device for the final mitigation phase to ensure full restoration of the buffer after the
barn/carport on Lot 8 and Tract B is demolished.
10. No commercial or industrial-style lighting shall be utilized on the Lots 8 or 9. If any
commercial or industrial-style lighting is currently installed on either of the two buildings, the
lighting shall be removed prior the issuance of the first residential building permit.
11. Any proposal to convert the stormwater vault within Tract A to a stormwater detention pond
shall be considered a Major Plat Amendment subject to the requirements outlined under RMC 4-7-
080M.2.
12. The proposed stormwater vault within Tract A shall be located entirely below ground.
Engineered construction plans showing the vault entirely below ground shall be submitted at the time
of Construction Permit review for review and approval.
13. The vault shall be designed in a manner that fully retains the sidewalk, planter strip, and
vertical curbing proposed in the ROW and does not impact any required ROW improvements.
14. The Applicant shall incorporate a pedestrian connection within Tract A (vault) for review and
approval by the Current Planning Project Manager at the time of construction permit application
review
15. The Applicant shall submit an updated plan that utilizes a pedestrian-focused design for the
vault roadway access at the time of construction permit application submittal. The new design would
be subject to review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and Publics Work staff.
16. The Applicant shall record an easement encompassing the portion of the barn/carport
structure in the critical areas buffer (Tract B) that would automatically be extinguished after
expiration of the Temporary Use Permit. The document shall be recorded concurrently with the Final
Plat.
17. The initial and final mitigation plan for the reduced wetlands buffer shall be subject to review
and approval by the City’s secondary wetlands reviewer, Otak. The review shall occur at the
Applicant’s expense.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT, SM, TUP - 24
18. All road names shall be approved by the City.
19. Sanitary sewers shall be provided by the developer at no cost to the City and designed in
accordance with City standards. Side sewer lines shall be installed eight feet (8') into each lot if
sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision development.
20. Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at each and every controlling
corner of the subdivision. Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the Department. All
surveys shall be per the City of Renton surveying standards. All other lot corners shall be marked per
the City surveying standards. The subdivider shall install all street name signs necessary in the
subdivision.
21. All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any utilities
installed in the parking strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the planting of
trees. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, including all service
connections, as approved by the Public Works Department. Such installation shall be completed and
approved prior to the application of any surface material. Easements may be required for the
maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Public Works Department.
22. Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic utilities are
installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line by subdivider
as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or alley improvements
when such service connections are extended to serve any building. The cost of trenching, conduit,
pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore required to bring service to the
development shall be borne by the developer and/or land owner. The subdivider shall be responsible
only for conduit to serve his development. Conduit ends shall be elbowed to final ground elevation
and capped. The cable TV company shall provide maps and specifications to the subdivider and shall
inspect the conduit and certify to the City that it is properly installed.
23. All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys, shall have
minimum radius of fifteen feet (15').
DATED this 2nd day of October, 2018.
City of Renton Hearing Examiner
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT, SM, TUP - 25
Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies the application(s) subject to this decision as Type III applications
subject to closed record appeal to the City of Renton City Council. Appeals of the hearing
examiner’s decision must be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the decision.
A request for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed within this 14-day appeal
period.
Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
notwithstanding any program of revaluation.