HomeMy WebLinkAboutCombined Enclosures1
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 -
Preliminary Short Plat - 1
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
RE: Valley Vue
Preliminary Short Plat
LUA16-000272, SHPL-A, MOD
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
FINAL DECISION UPON
RECONSIDERATION
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.
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 -
Preliminary Short Plat - 2
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 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.
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 -
Preliminary Short Plat - 3
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. 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 ac cess 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 turn-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 ap proved 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. 32nd Place. She
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 -
Preliminary Short Plat - 4
asserts that the applicant is proposing no frontage on S. 32nd 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 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 mus t 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.
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 -
Preliminary Short Plat - 5
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 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.
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 -
Preliminary Short Plat - 6
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: Staff power point.
Ex. 28: City of Renton core maps, located at City’s website
Ex. 29: Google maps of project site.
Ex. 30: Klaas-Schultz power point and written materials.
Ex. 31: Virginia Klaas power point, written materials and access easement.
Ex. 32: Truong power point and written materials.
Ex. 33: Sharon Gangwish power point.
IV. FINDINGS OF FACT1
Procedural:
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 t o 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.
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 -
Preliminary Short Plat - 7
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 En vironmental
Consulting, LLC (dated September 4, 2013, revised dated November 23, 2015; Exhibit 11). 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 100 foot (100’) standard buffer from th e
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 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:
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 -
Preliminary Short Plat - 8
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, sin ce 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 l ength 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)(1)(a), which
requires that at least one of the lots using the access point must front public right of way
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 -
Preliminary Short Plat - 9
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)(1)(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 least 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 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 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(B), 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
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 -
Preliminary Short Plat - 10
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 of RMC 4-6-060(J)(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 32nd Place to the bus stop.
Therefore, there are safe walking routes to the school bus stops.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. 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 a pply via the nonconforming structure status of the existing
access was insufficient to provide for appropriate streets or public safety.
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 -
Preliminary Short Plat - 11
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
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(H)(3): Approval: If 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
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 -
Preliminary Short Plat - 12
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 ap plicant
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
The proposed two lot short subdivision is approved subject to the following conditions:
1. 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
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.
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
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 -
Preliminary Short Plat - 13
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 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
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 11th 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 4-8-110(E)(14) requires appeals of the hearing examiner’s decision to
be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner’s decision. 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). A new fourteen (14) day appeal
period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Additional information regarding
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 -
Preliminary Short Plat - 14
the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk’s Office, Renton City Hall – 7th floor, (425)
430-6510.
Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
CITYOFDEPARTMENTOFCOMMPMENTRenton0ADDENDUMTOENVIRONMENTAL(SEPA)DETERMINATIONOFNON-SIGNIFICANCE(DNS-M)-MITIGATEDPursuanttoWAC197-11-600(4)(c)andWAC197-11-625AddendumtotheValleyVuePreliminaryPlat(LUA14-001040,ECF,PP,MOD)asAddendedbytheCityofRenton(LUA16-000272,SHPL-A,MOD)DeterminationofNon-Significance-Mitigated(DNS-M)DateofAddendum:May16,2016DateofOriginalIssuanceofSEPAThresholdDetermination:May18,2015Proponent:RoryDees,RadHoldings,LLCProjectNumbers:LUA14-001040,ECF,PP,MODandLUA16-000272,SHPL-A,MODProjectName:FormerlyValleyVuePreliminaryPlatnowValleyVueShortPlatLocation:3106and3112TalbotRoad5,Renton,WA98055(APN302305-9028)LeadAgency:CityofRenton,DepartmentofCommunity&EconomicDevelopmentReviewProcess:AddendumtopreviouslyissuedDeterminationofNon-Significance-Mitigated(DNS-M)Proposal/PurposeofAddendum:TheoriginalSEPAthresholddeterminationfortheValleyVuePreliminaryPlatwasissuedonMay18,2015.Theoriginalapplicationincludedaproposalfora9-lotsubdivisionovera2.3-acresite1.TheprojectsiteislocatedwithintheResidentialMediumDensity(RMD)landusedesignationandtheResidential-Bzoningdistrict.Theoriginalproposalincludedretainingtheexistingsinglefamilyhouselocatedat3106andincorporatingitintothesubdivision.Theexistinghomeat3112wasformerlyproposedtobedemolished,butitisproposedtoberetained.Aspartoftheoriginal9-lotsubdivision,theapplicantwasproposingaccesstheeight(8)newresidentiallotsfromWinsperDivisionNo.1Subdivisionviatwo(2)dedicatedingressandegresstracts(Tract6andTractH)locatednorthofS32ndP1.‘TheprojectsiteisalsoreferencedasTaxLotNo.28oftheWinsperDivisionIPlatandtwoseparatetracts(TractGandTractH)wererecordedspecificallyforthefutureingress,egressandutilitiestoTaxLotNo.28.ThetractsareownedandmaintainedbyWinsperCommunityOrganizationuntildeededtoTaxLotNo.28atnocostwhendevelopmentapprovalsaregrantedbytheauthorizedjurisdiction(RecordingNumber198903141032).
AddendumtoEnvironmental(SEPA)ReviewPage2of5May16,2016TheoriginalSEPAdeterminationincludedfour(4)mitigationmeasuresrequiringcompliancewiththerecommendationsfoundintheGeotechnicalEngineeringStudy,allplantingwithinthecriticalareabuffertobebyhand,accesstothestormwatertractformaintenanceandoperationoftheutilityviaautilityaccesseasement,andaccesstothelotsbeconstructedusingtheup-and-coming(atthetime)shareddrivewaystandardsthatwereadoptedaftertheapplicationwasdeterminedcomplete.TheCityofRenton’sHearingExaminerissuedaFindingsofFact,ConclusionsofLaw&FinalDecisionon]uly28,2015todenytheValleyVuePreliminaryPlat.A14-dayappealperiodcommencedfromthedateofthehearingexaminer’sdecisionandendedonAugust11,2015.Noappealsorrequestsforreconsiderationwerefiled.Thecurrentproposal,forthesame2.3-acreparcel,isa2-lotshortplatandastreetmodification.Theproposedshortplatwouldsubdividetheparcelintotwo(2)residentiallots,retainingbothexistingsinglefamilyhomes,andone(1)NativeGrowthProtectionTract(TractA).TheapplicantisnolongerproposingastormwatertractsoMitigationMeasure#3wouldnolongerbeapplicabletotheproject.Thetwoproposedresidentiallotsare41,970SF(Lot1)and40,200SF(Lot2)withanaveragelotsizeof41,085SF.Theresidentialdensityis0.96dwellingunitspernetacre.Accesstothetwo(2)newresidentiallotsisproposedviaa24-footwidededicatedingress/egressandutilityeasementtract(TractH)fromS32ndP1throughWinsperDivisionNo.1subdivision.TheapplicantisproposingtocomplywiththecurrentsharedprivatedrivewaystandardsoftheRentonMunicipalCode(RMC4-6-060i),whichwaspassedbytheRentonCityCouncilonOctober20,2014(Ord.No.5727,effectiveOctober29,2014).Proposedroadwayimprovementstothesiteincludeapaved16-footwideshareddrivewaythroughTractHandadrivewayapronwithdrivewaywingsmeetingCityofRentonStandardsDrivewayDetail(CORStdPlan104.1)wouldberequiredwithinthewithinthepublicright-of-wayalongS32ndP1.ThepreviouspreliminaryplatproposalwassubjecttoprivatestreetstandardswhichcontributedtodevelopmentsthatwasnotinkeepingwiththevisionoftheComprehensivePlan.Inaddition,vehicularandpedestrianaccesswouldnolongerberequiredtotheeasternpartofthelot,sotheshareddrivewaythroughtheexistingWinsperDivisionNo.1TractsGwouldnolongerbeapplicabletotheproject.Thereare142significanttreesonthesiteandtheapplicantisproposingtoretainalloftheoriginaltrees.NonewtreesareproposedtobeplantedsothiswouldmakeMitigationMeasure#2nolongerapplicabletotheproject.Theeasternportionofthesiteiscomprisedofanestablishedforestthatextendsoff-sitetotheeastandsouthwithaCategoryIllwetlandwithmoderatehabitatscores(5to7points).Noimpactstocriticalareasonsiteareproposed.Theapplicationisalsorequestingastreetmodificationfromtherequiredhalf-streetfrontageimprovementsalong532ndP1,alongaccessTractH,inordertomaintaintheexistingimprovementconditionoftheneighborhood.PursuanttotheCityofRenton’sEnvironmentalOrdinanceandSEPA(RCW43.21C,1971asamended)onMay18,2015theCity’sEnvironmentalReviewCommitteeissuedaDeterminationofNon-Significance-Mitigated(DNS-M)fortheValleyVuePreliminaryPlat.TheDNS-Mincludedfour(4)mitigationmeasures.A14-dayappealperiodcommencedonMay22,2015andendedonJune5,2015.Noappealsofthethresholddeterminationwerefiled.
AddendumtoEnvironmental(SEPA)ReviewPage3of5May16,2016OriginalMitigationMeasures:1.ProjectconstructionshallberequiredtocomplywiththerecommendationsfoundintheGeotechnicalEngineeringStudypreparedbyGeotechConsultants,Inc.datedMay27,2014oranupdatedreportsubmittedatalaterdate.2.Theapplicantshallplantalltreesthatarewithinthe50-footstandardwetlandbufferbyhandandwithoutheavymachinery.Tothegreatestextentfeasible,thesetreesshouldbeplantedinareaswhereinvasivespeciesarepresent.AtreeplantingplanshallbeprovidedtotheCurrentPlanningProjectManagerforreviewandapprovalpriortoconstructionpermitissuance.3.Theapplicantshallprovideaminimum12-to15-footwideutilityaccesseasementtothestormwatertract(TractD)formaintenanceandoperationoftheutility.TheeasementshallberecordedanddocumentationprovidedtotheCitypriortoapprovaltheissuanceoftheconstructionpermitapplication.4.TheapplicantshallprovideashareddrivewaythroughtheexistingWinsperDivisionNo.1Subdivisiontracts(TractsGandH)thatareconsistentwiththesharedprivatedrivewaystand[ards]oftheRentonMunicipalCode(RMC4-6-060K).Theprivateaccessroadsshallmeettheminimumnecessarytoprovideforsafeandeffectiveaccessfortheexistingresidents,proposedresidents,andfireandemergencyvehicles.Analysis:IthasbeendeterminedthattheenvironmentalimpactsoftheproposalwereadequatelyaddressedundertheanalysisofsignificantimpactscontainedwithinthepreviouslyadoptedDNS-M.BasedonWAC197-11-600(4)(c),theaddendumprocessmaybeusedifanalysisorinformationisaddedthatdoesnotsubstantiallychangetheanalysisofsignificantimpactsandalternativesintheexistingenvironmentaldocument.TheCityofRentonisherebyissuingaSEPAAddendumpursuanttoWAC197-11-600.ThisAddendumisappropriatebecauseitcontainsonlyminorinformationnotincludedintheoriginalDeterminationandtherearenoadditionalenvironmentalimpactsrelatedtoinclusionofthenewinformation.TheproposalwillnotchangetheanalysisorimpactsintheoriginalSEPAReview.However,theproposedrevisionandresubmittaloftheplathasalsoincreasedthestandardbufferfromthedelineatedwetlandedgefrom50feetto100feetasaresultoftheadoptionofnewCriticalAreasRegulations(OrdinanceNo.5757,effectivedateJuly5,2015).Therefore,theapplicablemitigationmeasuretoberetainedincludesMitigationMeasure#1andthemodifiedMitigationMeasure#4.Theyareasfollows:ProposedMitigationMeasures:1.ProjectconstructionshallberequiredtocomplywiththerecommendationsfoundintheGeotechnicalEngineeringStudypreparedbyGeotechConsultants,Inc.datedMay27,2014oranupdatedreportsubmittedatalaterdate.
AddendumtoEnvironmental(SEPA)ReviewPage4of5May16,20164.Theapplicantshallprovideapaved16-footwideshareddrivewaythroughtheexistingWinsperDivisionNo.1TractsHthatisconsistentwiththesharedprivatedrivewaystandardsoftheRentonMunicipalCode(RMC4-6-060J).Theprivateaccessroadsshallmeettheminimumnecessarytoprovideforsafeandeffectiveaccessfortheexistingresidents,proposedresidents,andfireandemergencyvehicles.DECISION:TheCityofRentonisherebyissuingaSEPAAddendumpursuanttoWAC197-11-600toretainmitigation#1,removemitigationmeasures#2and#3andmodifymitigationmeasure#4asproposed.AdditionalInformation:Ifyouwouldlikeadditionalinformation,pleasecontactClarkClose,SeniorPlanner,CityofRentonPlanningDivision,DepartmentofCommunity&EconomicDevelopmentat(425)430-7289.ThereisnocommentperiodforthisAddendum,datedMay16,2016issuedbytheCityofRentonEnvironmentalReviewCommittee.
AddendumtoEnvironmental(SEPA)ReviewPage5of5May16,2016ENVIRONMENTALREVIEWCOMMITTEESIGNATURES:,W’1/)/i1tGreggZimmerriari,AdministratorPublicWorksDeprtn(entC.E.“Chip”Vincent,AdministratorDepartmentofCommunity&EconomicDevelopment1)1!DateKellyBeymer,AdministratorDateCommunityServicesDepartment(•/Marketerson,/dministratorDateFire&EmergencyServicesDepartmentDate