HomeMy WebLinkAboutHEX Final Decision 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
9 )
10 RE. Vueerest Estates Preliminary Plat FINAL DECISION
11 Preliminary Plat )
LUA13-000642 )
12 )
13 )
14
SUMMARY
15
16 The applicant requests preliminary plat approval, street improvement waiver and possibly a critical
area exemption for a 20-lot residential subdivision. The street wavier is to allow a dead-end road in
17 excess of 700 feet. The critical area exemption is for placing a drainage line across the face of a
steep slope. The preliminary plat is approved. The street improvement waiver is not approved. The
18 applicant was unable to establish that the street waiver would not result in an unsafe fire response
19 condition for residents of the proposed subdivision.
20 The critical area exemption is not considered to be consolidated with the preliminary plat and street
modifications of this proposal. The staff report at no point identifies the exemption as consolidated
21 with the preliminary plat application. The proposal summary makes no mention of the critical area
22 exemption. However, Page 17 of the staff report recommends approval of a critical areas exemption,
suggesting that consolidation was intended. If the exemption was intended to be consolidated with
23 the preliminary plat application, there is insufficient information in the record to assess its merits.
RMC 4-3-050(C)(5)(d)(iv) requires a geotechnical report to be prepared that assesses compliance
24 with the exemption criteria and to also propose mitigation. No reference to any such report is made
in the staff report and no such geotechnical report could be found in the administrative record.
25 Impacts of the proposed stormwater vault and retaining walls are assessed in the geotechnical
26 reports, but nothing else in the geotechnical reports could be found that specifically addressed the
drainage line or the exemption criteria. Given the absence of this needed information and the fact
PRELIMINARY PLAT- 1
1 that the staff report does not clearly identify the administrative exemption decision as consolidated
for hearing examiner review, the exemption decision will not be considered as consolidated with the
2 preliminary plat and street improvement modification request.
3
4 TESTIMONY
5
6 Staff Testimony
7
Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner,-City of Renton
8
Ms. Higgins described the project as a proposed 20 lot single family development in South Renton.
9 The original application had 21 lots, but was subsequently revised to 20 lots. The proposal as
10 submitted generally meets the Renton municipal code with the exception of street standards relating
to access. The applicant has submitted a request for a street modification. There are environmentally
11 sensitive areas on or near the property and critical areas regulations apply. The project conforms to
the critical areas code.
12
13 The 9.3 acre site is south of Carr Road and east of Talbot Road in south Renton. The project is in an
area of residential development with various densities. To the east are condos at higher density. To
14 the south and southeast are lower density residential developments. Densities to the north and
northeast are consistent with the project.
15
The project was originally an undeveloped portion of an existing condo development. The site is
16 isolated from the condos by a steep slope. The project was submitted in 2013 but was placed on
17 hold for additional geotechnical reports due to concerns about the slope. Three separate geotechnical
reports were submitted by three individual firms. New notification was sent out. The Environmental
18 Review Committee added six additional conditions of approval. No appeals were filed.
19 The site has protected slopes on the west side. Slopes are 45 degrees or more. The site plan was
20 revised to eliminate a rockery retaining wall on the top of the slope and stormwater facilities were
moved farther away from the slope. The project will have a 10-foot No Disturb area on the top of
21 the slope.
22 There are wetlands on site. The depression wetlands are Category II wetlands. These require a 50
23 foot buffer. The project proposes to do buffer averaging. Properties adjacent to the project will be
included in the buffer. Up to 50% of the buffer width will be reduced in places. The north wetland
24 abuts a portion of the wetland that is part of the Stonehaven wetland reserve. Stream studies indicate
there is a stream that is nearby, but not within the project site. The water collects across the subject
25 property but the stream is not on it. The property was vacant except for a temporary cul de sac.
26 The property has a mix of deciduous and evergreen trees. The Applicant submitted a tree
PRELIMINARY PLAT-2
I replacement plan. There are 101 significant trees on the property. These are trees measuring 6" in
diameter. 54 trees will be removed for streets and alleys. There are be 120 trees in critical areas
2 buffers, all will be retained. 42 of the significant trees will be retained. 23 significant trees must be
3 replaced with 140 2"trees. All of the new trees will be planted in Tract C.
4 1 The site has three different zoning classifications. They are R-14, a medium density residential
development near the condos, an R-1 zone, a low density designation in the sloped area, and 6.06
5 acres of R-8 in the upper portion. The 20 lots are in the R-6 zone. After deduction for critical areas
6 and roadways there are 4.57 developable acres. With 20 lots the resultant density is 4.23 du/acre,
which is above the 4 du/acre minimum.
7 There will be 20 single family residential lots of 4,500sf to 8,000sf. Tract A is a stormwater tract.
Tracts B and E are wetlands tracts. Tract C is the tree replacement area. Tract D is an open space
8 tract. Tract F is a Native Growth Protection Area on the slope. There will be an alley to provide rear
9 access to abutting lots.
10 Staff recommends formation of a homeowners association to have equal undivided ownership of the
tracts, alley and private road. Another recommended condition of approval (Staff Report#9) lots 17-
11 20 would provide easements to other lots to allow alley to provide through access. With respect to
12 access, Applicant has requested a modification to street standards. Renton requires a secondary
access when primary access is a dead end street over 700 feet in length. Staff does not support the
13 modification request because it does not meet the test that there is no physical way a second access
can be achieved. There are no physical constraints that cannot be overcome. They believe the second
14 access is possible. They recommend a condition of approval requiring construction of a second
15 access prior to recording of the final plat.
16 A portion of the project is included in the Talbot Urban Separator which imposes requirements for
development. With a single exception, these requirements don't apply because the project does not
17 propose development within the Urban Separator. This exception is the drainage facility which will
extend from the top of the slope through the Urban Separator. Vegetation removed during
18 installation of the stormwater conveyance system must be replaced.
19
With respect to drainage, the stormwater system has been revised from the original plan to minimize
20 the impact to the critical slope. Discharge from the stormwater vault will be within a closed 12"
pipe down the slope. Staff recommends a condition of approval requiring a stormwater easement.
21
22 The project meets compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan and development regulations, if
the required conditions of approval are met. Staff recommends the Applicant submit a detailed
23 landscape plan. The project complies with the critical areas regulations if the conditions of approval
from Environmental Review Committee are met. With the exception of the street requirement, the
24 project meets the requirements of the subdivision code and the Talbot Urban Separator. In terms of
public services (police, fire, parks, schools), resources are available to provide services to the
ZS property. Students would need to be bussed to school. There are sidewalks available for safe
26 walking routes to bus stops. A certificate of water availability would be required by the Soos Creek
PRELIMINARY PLAT- 3
I Water District. A stormwater easement is required to demonstrate that downstream systems would
2 be available. Staff recommends approval of the project with conditions.
3 In response to a question by the Hearing Examiner, Ms. Higgins stated the Applicant would have to
negotiate an agreement with adjacent property owners to acquire an access easement or purchase
4 1 land. The Applicant does not own the property the City will require for secondary access. Staff
stated they would not allow the Applicant to record the final plat without this secondary access, in
5 the event the Applicant was unable to purchase the adjacent property or acquire an easement.
6
Applicant Testimony
7
8 Maher Jouei, ER Strong Consulting Engineers,Applicant's Agent
9 Mr. Jouei thanked Staff for the thorough review of the project. The Applicant concurs with the
majority of the report with the exception of the secondary access.
10
Public Testimony
11
12 Owen Reese
13 1 Mr. Reese is a civil engineer with Aspect Consulting. He is representing the Campen Springs Condo
Association. He was hired to review the proposed development. Harbor homes approached the
14 Condo Association with respect to the stormwater lines. The Condo Association is on the downside
of the steep slope to west of the proposed development. The Condo Association had questions about
15 stormwater management and protection of the steep slope. Harbor Homes and their agents have
16 been very open and helpful. The Condo Association issued a letter of intent to allow an easement for
stormwater lines. The Condo Association and Harbor Homes are working together cooperatively.
17
The Condo Association has identified several minor issues along the western line of lots. Harbor
18 Homes has been very responsive. The Condo Association is providing testimony today to allow
19 Staff and the Hearing Examiner to hear their issues.
20 There are no current retaining walls proposed. The Condo Association is requesting the City to
allow only engineered retaining walls to be constructed on the proposed development, rather than
21 just erosion control structures. They further request any new fill should be free draining structural
22 fill and not native soils. The native soils will not provide the needed results with respect to drainage.
23 The back yards of western lots slope towards the steep slope. At one point there was a proposed
interceptor trench. The Condo Association requests the City require Harbor Homes to minimize the
24 extent of the western lot that drains to the slope. Whatever does drain there,please make sure it does
25 so in a dispersed manner.
26 The stormwater tight line should be designed using sound engineering practices in a straight line
PRELIMINARY PLAT-4
I with high density plastic. The Condo Association is requesting anchors along only the top and
bottom of the pipe rather than along the whole length as the City recommended. This will keep the
2 pipe in place even if the slope moves. The anchors should be designed to allow for tree fall and soil
3 movement. The water should be slowed down before entering the Condo Association property. The
pipeline should be constructed at the top and pulled down the slope rather than moving it up hill.
4
An engineering geologist from Aspect Consulting reviewed the site. With respect to the ephemeral
5 stream, the stream is in a well-defined channel outside the wetlands and then disperses down the
6 slope, depositing sediment on the downhill side in an alluvial fan. This stream is prone to
movement. The concern is that if the stream changes its channel, it may deliver sediment
7 downstream and overwhelm the Campen Springs stormwater system. The Condo Association is
asking Harbor Homes to monitor the stream and create a more defined channel. In response to
8 questioning from the examiner, Mr. Reese responded that the proposal will not exacerbate the
9 condition of the stream.
10 Eric Hanson
11 Mr. Hanson testified he understands Vuecrest will be developed. He believes the existing proposal
12 is not consistent with the character of the area or Renton. He stated this proposal should be denied
for two reasons. The first reason is because of the variance to extend Smithers Road to another dead
13 end. The second reason is he feels the proposal gives only meager concessions to critical areas.
14 Mr. Hanson noted the Renton municipal code requiring a secondary access. He stated the road is
needed for emergency services and traffic flow. He supports the Staff requirement for secondary
15 access. He does not feel mitigation is adequate because the road is 2,400 feet from the main arterial,
16 more than three times farther than code requirements. He stated the deviation is major. He is not
surprised the Renton Fire Department and Community Development staff does not support the
17 deviation. He stated the traffic will double or triple on local streets due to the proposed
development. He is concerned about pedestrian safety. There are no engineering or geographical
18 reasons for the variance. The only reason is that the Applicant does not own the adjacent property.
19
Mr. Hanson's second concern is environmental sensitivity. The project has steep slopes, a wetland
20 and a stream. He stated the environmental review identified 401 significant trees. Removal of the
trees would create erosion and slide risks. The existing vegetation also sustains deer in the area. The
21 proposed mitigation for the trees is not sufficient. Only 65 trees would be replaced or retained. The
22 emphasis should be on retaining the trees rather than replacing them with less robust trees. He
acknowledges 140 additional 2" diameter trees will be planted. Immature trees are a poor substitute
23 for existing trees and vegetation. They won't effectively prevent erosion.
24 1 David Rasmussen
25 Mr. Rasmussen is the president of the Sundance Talbot Ridge Homeowners Association. He
26 concurs with Mr. Hanson's comments and believes they represent those of the HOA. He is
PRELIMINARY PLAT- 5
I concerned about water access during an emergency situation. Sundance abuts green lands on three
2 sides. There are plans to develop one of these sides. His concern with water flow is the chance of a
wild fire on the greenbelt. He's concerned there will be insufficient access for emergency fire
3 protection. Additionally,there must be secondary access.
4 Jim Condelles
5 Mr. Condelles represents the Reserve at Stonehaven Homeowners Association which is adjacent to
6 the Sundance association. Mr. Condelles objects for the same reasons as Mr. Rasmussen and Mr.
Hanson. Secondary access should be required. There is a bottleneck on a dead end road.
7
He urges the development be scaled back. He stated he doesn't feel the wetlands buffer averaging is
8 effective. He wants to see full 50 foot setbacks adjacent to all parts of the wetlands. He notes the
9 varying seasonal character of the wetlands. He stated the small change to the project from the
original proposal is insufficient to protect the critical areas. The character of the northwest is being
10 eroded by piecemeal development. He noted all the types of wildlife he's seen on this property. He
also noted the old growth evergreen trees. This is a virtual rainforest in an urban area that serves as a
11 wildlife corridor. He wants to see a rethinking of the scope.
12 Ellen Brighten
13
Ms. Brighten owns two adjacent properties. She owns property in Campen Springs. She has not
14 been notified of the project. She also owns at Talbot Park. She regularly sees deer. She also stated
there are water problems. The springs at Campen Springs move. She is concerned about drainage
15 issues. Ms. Brighten displayed several pictures of the area(Ex. 34).
16
Travis Martinez
17
Ms. Martinez is the president of the HOA for Talbot Park due north of Campen Springs. They have
18 a water problem that results in $50,000 worth of damage per year due to the springs. They are very
19 concerned stormwater issues will increase. They have received no guarantee that they will not be
adversely affected or reimbursed when they are affected by project related stormwater.
20
Ron Hensen
21 Mr. Hensen lives on Smithers Avenue. Smithers Road is adjacent to the proposed development. He
22 has owned the property for 12 years. He has maintained the property for years. He recounted the
development history of the area. He knew development would happen on this property eventually.
23 He is concerned about his property values and safety. There is a 50 acre Department of Natural
Resources property to the north that is currently for sale. Altogether, there was a single point of
24 access for a couple dozen homes. In the near future, that number could be 150 homes on the same
25 single point of access. This will result in more traffic and a reduced quality of life for existing
residents.
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT- 6
I There is an unnoted existing drainage out of the wetlands. There used to be another smaller stream
that was obliterated by the traffic circle. The stream can be observed about 8-9 months of the year.
2 During rain events, the system is overwhelmed and water overtops into the stormwater drainage
3 system. There is a subsurface hydrologic connection that connects the wetlands. Proposed Lot 17 is
a seep that will not support a residential development. He is in support of a stormwater system that
4 proactively drains this development and future developments.
Mr. Hensen also described abundant wildlife in the area.
5
6 Staff Response
7 Larry Warren, Renton City Attorney
8 The Hearing Examiner asked the City Attorney if there is a proportionality problem in that the
9 Applicant is being asked to provide secondary access now when it should have been provided by
past developments for developments farther down the road. Are the Applicants being asked to create
10 an improvement that mitigates more than their own impact?
11 In response, Mr. Warren stated he had not considered the question in that framework. He stated he
12 did not feel there was a proportionality problem because each future development along the line
would be required to do their part.
13
The Hearing Examiner asked if the City was considering a latecomers agreement to allow the
14 Applicant to be reimbursed for a portion of the costs when later development took place. Mr.
Warren stated the Applicant must request a latecomers agreement. He stated there was only one lot
15 between the proposal site and the connection point. The expense should not be huge.
16
Elizabeth Higgins
17
Ms. Higgins addressed the request by Mr. Reese related to retaining walls. She stated mitigation
18 measure #4 from the Environmental Review Committee requires a building permit for retaining
19 walls for any proposed wall,regardless of location or size.
20 Steven Lee, City of Renton Engineer
21 Mr. Lee responded to Mr. Reese's recommendations. He stated heconcurred with Mr. Reese. He
22 agreed that all of Mr. Reese's suggestions should be implemented as conditions of approval. He
wanted to add one further condition. With respect to the stormwater pipe on the slope, he suggests
23 the addition of a slip joint at the base of the hill to allow for movement.
24 Mr. Lee stated he felt the project will not affect downstream stormwater. He noted other projects
have been installed on steeper slopes than this. These prior projects have been successful in
25 avoiding erosion. The closed tight line stormwater pipe will eliminate erosion impacts.
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT- 7
1 In response to the Hearing Examiner, Mr. Lee stated he was unaware of the small stream that used
2 to be in the location of the temporary cul de sac. The post project result will be a reduction in
surface run off from the project than current conditions. He stated slope stability will be improved
3 post project.
4 Mark Peterson, Chief, Renton Fire Department
5 In response to the Hearing Examiner, Mr. Peterson stated the fire department is opposed to the street
6 modification. He feels the length of the street is too challenging to service to the area by fire
apparatus. He stated last year there was a wildfire traveling along the electric easement in a nearby
7 neighborhood. This neighborhood had one access point that was cut off by the fire. The fire
department could not get in to help residents and residents could not evacuate. Mr. Peterson is also
8 concerned about the neighborhood being cut off in a seismic event. City code requires a secondary
9 access in roads over 700 feet. The fire department cannot maintain adequate response times to the
neighborhood. Without secondary access, an additional minute is added to the response time to this
10 neighborhood.
11 Applicant Response
12 Brent Carson, Van Ness Feldman, Applicant's Agent
13
The Applicant disagrees with the Staff with respect to the street modification. In response to Mr.
14 Peterson, Mr. Carson noted the Renton Fire Department has sent the Applicant a letter stating they
would not support the project without a secondary access. He further noted the Fire Department had
15 rescinded that letter, with the condition that they could reinstate the letter at any time based on final
16 Plat design. He noted that the fire department reinstated the letter even though there had been no
change in fire access since the time the letter had been rescinded.
17
Mr. Carson introduced a letter into the record (Ex. 35) with attachments addressed to the Examiner.
18 This packet included a letter from the Applicant's traffic consultant. Mr. Carson called several
19 witnesses. Mr. Carson introduced two further exhibits (Ex. 36 and Ex. 37), the resume of Mr. Jouei
Maher and a set of site plans.
20
Maher Jouei, ER Strong Consulting Engineers, Applicant's Agent
21
22 Mr. Jouei stated the Vuecrest Estates project drainage is tight lined to Campen Springs. Talbot Park
drainage goes a different direction than the project drainage. The Vuecrest system will collect all
23 impervious surface drainage and send it to Campen Springs.
24 Mr. Jouei stated the City sent them a letter stating a proposed temporary cul de sac might be
25 acceptable under certain conditions including a stub road for future connections. They would not be
asked to construct the actual connection. The pre-application meetings did not suggest they would
26 be required to provide a completed secondary access. On July 3, 2014 the Applicant received
PRELIMINARY PLAT- 8
I preliminary comments with an email note that said the situation regarding the second access had
changed. They subsequently were told they could not construct the project as proposed because the
2 Fire Department would not support the project without secondary access. That letter was rescinded
3 in October 2013. In February 2014, they received a letter from Ms. Higgins that stated the City
would support a street modification to permit the project to go forward without secondary access.
4 The City did not mention they would not support the modification until August 2014. There has
been no material change to the layout since October 2013. Mr. Jouei stated the project is a part of
5 the solution by construction a stub for future access. There is one undeveloped property left before
6 the grid system is completed.
7 Mr. Jouei stated the project complies with the road dimension requirements in the code. He stated
emergency vehicles can access the project even in worst case scenarios with cars parked on both
8 sides. The road curvatures meet the requirements. There is a loop road in Stonehaven that provides
9 secondary access.
10 Mr. Jouei reviewed the variance criteria in the street modification. He stated the project suffers from
unique circumstances because Talbot Ridge and the Reserve at Stonehaven were approved with the
11 same variance the current Applicant proposes. He stated the variance will not be materially
12 detrimental to the public welfare because the roads meet the dimensional requirements. He noted the
additional trips from Vuecrest would result in 1.6 additional vehicles per minute in the PM Peak
13 Hour. These roads are all LOS A with no accident history. He stated the project benefits the welfare
of the public by connecting the grid system. The project has an internal loop system with the alley.
14 The alley will be designed to accommodate emergency vehicles. The project will not ask for any
special considerations beyond those already granted to existing developments. The proposal is the
15 minimum requested by the City by providing a stub road. The project provides what the City asked
16 for initially. Nothing has changed since then.
17 Mr. Jouei noted there are not many on-street parked cars. All area homes include two car garages for
18 every lot to accommodate parking.
19 Jamie Waltier, Hansen Homes
20 Mr. Waltier thanked Staff for their efforts on the project. He stated the neighbor to the east is not
interested in selling his property. They will not be able to purchase a right of way or easement. Mr.
21 Waltier stated the City had supported the stub road without a secondary access. They've incurred
22 significant costs in designing this project they would not otherwise have spent if the City has been
consistent on their requirement for a secondary access. As is, the project is not financially viable
23 with the requirement for a secondary access.
24 Carl Anderson, Fire Protection Engineer, Applicant's Agent
25 Mr. Anderson discussed the second access issue from an emergency access perspective. He also
26 suggested mitigation measures. With respect to the public welfare, the proposal is at the end of a
PRELIMINARY PLAT- 9
I dead end. It does not materially affect the existing homes in the area. For the new plat, there are
mitigating measures that can be taken. The Applicant is intending to put in a temporary cul de sac to
2 City standards. The internal alley will also provide emergency access, though it is not intended as a
3 primary emergency access. Although not specifically spelled out in the variance request, the
intention is to put fire sprinkler systems in each proposed home. In terms of mitigating fire response
4 to the area, a fire sprinkler system reduces the need for fire responses. The homes will not require
full structural responses. The Staff Report mentions 99 homes are accessed on the dead end. The
5 dead end will be 2,400 feet. However, the actual road network has internal secondary means that
6 reduces the housing served by only the dead end itself. Stonehaven has an internal looped road that
would allow another access into Vuecrest. Only about 800 feet of roadway will be single access.
7 The 2012 International Fire Code Appendix D-107 addresses substitution of fire sprinklers rather
than the provision of secondary fire access. This appendix was not adopted in Renton, though it
8 does support the variance.
9 In response to Mr. Carson, Mr. Anderson stated he is familiar with the International Fire Code
10 Section 503.1.2 which reads the Fire Marshall may require secondary access based on a range of
conditions. Mr. Anderson stated the project does not meet any of the conditions in the
11 aforementioned Fire Code Section. This project will eventually result in improved access.
12 Hearing Examiner asked Mr. Anderson if he is testifying that he has no fire safety concerns over
13 the fact that this subdivision only has one access point. Mr. Anderson responded, "I don't
believe that the addition of Vuecrest is a significant detriment to public safety based on what's
14 already there in the area." The Hearing Examiner stated, "There are a couple points along that '/2
mile dead end route where if the road was blocked there'd be no way for the fire department to
15 get to the subdivision, isn't that correct?" Mr. Anderson responded "That's correct." The
16 Hearing Examiner, "What about the Fire Chief Peterson's concern about if you had people
evacuating quickly that would make it more difficult for the Fire Department to get to the site, is
17 that a problem here at all, really?" Mr. Anderson responded "It could be a concern, but in the
type of isolated events you'd run into, is the likelihood that these additional 20 homes create a
18 significant additional detriment to public safety? I wouldn't think that number would be
19 detrimental, particularly given that this is another piece toward making an eventual connection,
which corrects an existing 1,700 foot dead end."
20
21 Brent Carson, Van Ness Feldman,Applicant's Agent
22 Mr. Carson stated his letter goes into detail regarding each of the aforementioned issues. He wanted
23 to highlight a few points. He stated the 11th hour switch in the City's position. The City's code is
clear related to pre-application meetings when submitting long plats in order to avoid the
24 circumstance where applicants are not clear about what codes will apply. The first pre-application
25 stated a permanent dead end street is not approvable given the City code. The second pre-
application meeting allowed a temporary cul de sac with a future stub to allow for eventual
26 completion of a loop system. The Code says once the pre-application is done, the applicant should
PRELIMINARY PLAT- 10
I proceed in concert with the City's advice. The Applicant has done that.
2 With respect to Mr. Peterson's withdrawal of his letter, this is no minor thing. Mr. Peterson stated in
3 August 2013 that a secondary access would be required for approval. Mr. Carson was hired at this
point. He spoke to the City Staff and the Mayor which led to Mr. Peterson's withdrawal of the letter.
4 Mr. Peterson stated he could reissue the letter based on the final design. The design was not changed
and Mr. Peterson did not reissue the letter. Mr. Peterson desires to have a secondary access but has
5 not proven the need. Mr. Carson noted Ms. Vanessa Dolby of the City of Renton stated they would
6 not need to provide secondary access. Ms. Higgins also provided a letter that stated the City would
approve a street modification to allow the project to move forward without a secondary access. The
7 Applicant contends a variance is not required because they are not proposing a permanent dead end,
but are instead providing a temporary cul de sac. However, to the extent a variance is required; the
8 Examiner has the authority to grant the variance. The Applicant supports approval of the variance
9 request(street modification).
10 Mr. Carson notes Stonehaven was approved with a dead end of more than 700 feet because
Stonehaven provided a temporary stub to adjacent properties. No variance was required in that plat.
11 All secondary access will be provided in the future as adjacent properties develop.
12 The adjacent property owner in this case refuses to sell the property or grant an access easement.
13 The Staff requirement of a secondary access point represents a significant hardship to the Applicant.
If this was a significant public interest, they could use their condemnation authority. Otherwise, this
14 represents an unnecessary hardship to the Applicant. The Applicant has offered adequate mitigation
in the form of sprinklers for every residence. The effect of the City's recommendation is legally
15 arbitrary and capricious. The Applicant asks to remove Condition 5 and grant the variance and the
16 plat request.
17 Staff Rebuttal
18 Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner, City of Renton
19
Ms. Higgins answered a question from the Hearing Examiner regarding the typical condition of
20 requiring a gravel, gated access road as emergency access. Ms. Higgins stated the secondary access
would need to comply with the Fire Code. Ms. Higgins also stated the Fire Department always asks
21 for secondary access. Public Works assumes there will be no dead ends. She stated she doesn't
22 know the history here and cannot discuss the historical interpretation of secondary access.
23 Since February, the City has taken a closer look at developments next to slopes. They have studied
slope stability on existing slopes with respect to vegetation and stormwater.
24
25 She also.stated pre-application conferences allow for recommendations with respect to requirements
but do not provide enough information to set those requirements. Ms. Higgins stated the letter from
26 Chief Peterson was withdrawn at her request to get the Applicant to support a secondary
PRELIMINARY PLAT- 11
I geotechnical study. The Applicant suggested they would not invest more money in the geotechnical
2 study if the Chief's letter remained.
3 Lang Warren, Renton City Attorney
4 Mr. Warren addressed the comment of dead end roads. He stated this project extends the dead end
road. There is no way to tell how long before the adjacent property owner will want to develop the
5 property, if ever. The road may exist as a dead end road ad infinitum. This project creates a longer
6 dead end road that could be blocked at some point. There is no solution to the dead end road as
currently proposed.
7
The City Code on dead end roads (RMC 4-6-060(H)) requires two means of access and sprinklers
8 for roads over 700 feet. There is no waiver of secondary means of access. There is only a waiver for
9 methods of turn around. This code was in place before the Application but after the other existing
subdivision located along the dead end road. There is no definition of a dead end road in City code.
10 Common definitions would call this road a dead end. This is an infill project on a difficult site.
11 Applicant's Rebuttal
12 Brent Carson, Van Ness Feldman, Applicant's Age
13
Mr. Carson noted RMC 4-6-060(H)(6) regarding the waiver of a turnaround does not apply. Under
14 certain circumstances is related to the circumstances when a turnaround does not apply. The Code
section that does apply is RMC 4-7-240 in the subdivision code. This allows variances to be
15 approved by the Hearing Examiner.
16
This is the same situation as Stonehaven. There is no substantial increased to the public welfare but
17 the Staff recommendation does provide a significant burden to the Applicant.
18 Public Rebuttal
19
David Rasmussen
20
Mr. Rasmussen stated that parking in front of Stonehaven do not represent the true parking
21 situation, especially around the holidays.
22 EXHIBITS
23
24 Exhibits 1-31 listed on page 2 of the September 15, 2014 Staff Report, in addition to the Staff Report
itself(Ex. 1), were admitted into evidence during the public hearing. Additional exhibits admitted
25 during the hearing are the following:
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT- 12
1 Ex. 32 Eric Hanson Testimony Summary
Ex. 33 Owen Reese Testimony Summary
2 Ex. 34 Ellen Brighten Pictures of Campen Springs and wildlife
3 Ex. 35 Brent Carson Letter to HE(9/15/14)
Ex. 36 Resume of Mr. Maher Jouie
4 Ex. 37 Set of maps showing subject site and surrounding area.
5
FINDINGS OF FACT
6
7 Procedural:
g 11. Applicant. Harbour Homes.
9 2. Hearing. The Examiner held a hearing on the subject application on September 11, 2014 in
10 the City of Renton Council City Chambers.
11 3. Project Description. The applicant has submitted an application for a 20 lot Preliminary Plat.
The application includes a request for the waiver of street improvements to allow a dead-end road in
12 excess of 700 feet. Approval of the project would result in the subdivision of a 9.31 acre property,
13 located in the Talbot planning area of the City, into 20 lots suitable for single-family residential use.
14 The proposed density is 4.23 dwelling units per net acre. The project site is currently undeveloped,
except for a paved, temporary cul-de-sac.
15
The site contains three land use zones, Residential 1 dwelling unit per net acre (du/ac), Residential 8
16 (g du/ac) and Residential 14 (14 du/ac) [Exhibit 3]. Additionally, the area zoned R-1 is located
17 within the Urban Separator overlay. Only the 6.06 acre (263,328 sf) portion that is zoned R-8 is
proposed to be developed. The proposed density would be 4.23 du/ac Subdivision into 20 lots would
18 result in a density of 4.05 dwelling units per net acre. Lot sizes would range from 4,500 square feet
to 8,134 square feet. In addition to the 20 lots, 6 tracts are proposed for sensitive areas and tree
19 retention.
20 The site is proposed to be accessed via an extension of Smithers Ave. S. The requested modification
21 of Renton Municipal Code, if approved, would permit this access although it is considered to be a
"dead end" road from the intersection of SE 186th St. The undeveloped site has approximately 400
22 trees that have been deemed to be "significant." Trees will be removed, retained, and replaced as
23 required by Renton Municipal Code. An estimated 3,396 cy of cut and 10,035 cy of fill would be
required for site construction. A stormwater detention vault is proposed that would discharge to a
24 closed conveyance system on site and subsequently transported to an area-wide system off site. The
applicant has submitted a Critical Areas Report, Supplemental Stream Study, Traffic Impact
25 Analysis, Slope Analysis, Geotechnical Engineering study, and a Drainage Technical Information
26 Report with the application.
PRELIMINARY PLAT- 13
1
2 4. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. As conditioned, the project will be served by
adequate/appropriate infrastructure and public services as follows:
3
4 A. Water and Sewer Service. Although the project site lies within the boundaries of the
Renton Water Service Area, the City does not have water service mains near the project
5 site. Water service would be provided by the Soos Creek Water and Sewer District from
6 an existing water main located at the Smithers Ave S street end at the north portion of the
property. A certificate of water availability from SCWSD must be provided prior to
7 issuance of construction permits. The site is provided sanitary sewer service by the City
8 of Renton. There is a sewer main and a manhole at the south end of Smithers Ave S.
9 B. Police and Fire Protection. Police service would be provided by the Renton Fire
10 Department. The Renton Police Department has commented that there would be minimal
impacts from the project.
11
12 Fire service would be provided by the Renton Fire Department. Fire Prevention staff
indicate that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development;
13 subject to the condition that the applicant provides Code required improvements and fees
14 (presumably including fire impact fees) and that a second access be provided to the site in
accordance with RMC 4-6-060H, which prohibits dead end streets longer than 700 feet in
15 length.
16
The need for a second access is the most significant factual issues presented in this
17 hearing. The applicant disputes the need for the secondary access. It is determined that
18 the secondary access is necessary to provide adequate/appropriate fire protection service.
19
The proposed project site is located at the end of an existing dead end street in excess of
20 700 feet. The proposal asks for approval of a temporary cul-de-sac on an extension of this
21 street. The length of the extended dead-end street would be approximately 2,364 feet,
from the point at which it becomes a dead end at Main Avenue South (SE 102nd St) and
22 SE 186th St to the new street end within the proposed project. Currently,there are 99 lots
23 that are accessed by this dead end street.
24 As testified by Renton Fire Mark Peterson, the length of the street is too challenging to
25 service to the area by fire apparatus. He stated last year there was a wildfire traveling
along the electric easement in a nearby neighborhood. This neighborhood had one access
26 point that was cut off by the fire. The fire department could not get in to help residents
PRELIMINARY PLAT- 14
I and residents could not evacuate. Mr. Peterson is also concerned about the neighborhood
2 being cut off in a seismic event. City code requires a secondary access in roads over 700
feet. The fire department cannot maintain adequate response times to the neighborhood.
3 Without secondary access, an additional minute is added to the response time to this
4 neighborhood.
5 The applicant presented its own fire expert, Carl Anderson, to provide testimony on the
6 safety of fire access. Mr. Anderson's testimony was not persuasive. The hearing
examiner asked Mr. Anderson if he had any safety concerns over the fact that the
7 proposed subdivision only has one access point. Mr. Anderson did not respond with a
g simple "yes" or "no". Mr. Anderson did not testify that the subdivision would have safe
or adequate fire access with one fire access road. Rather, he concluded that the addition
9 of the proposed 20 lots would not be "a significant detriment to public safety based on
10 what's already in the area". Mr. Anderson's somewhat tortured response leaves the very
strong impression that he did not want to opine on the fire safety of a single access point
11 to the subdivision; that instead the most supportive comment he could make for his client
12 was that in the context of the safety problems faced by the 99 other lots in the area, the
safety impact to the proposed subdivision was not that significant. The fact that other
13 subdivisions may have similar safety issues has no bearing on whether the single access
14 to the proposed subdivision is safe and adequate. In short, the applicant has not provided
15 any expert testimony to refute the Fire Chief s testimony that the proposed single access
would be safe or adequate for the proposed 20 lots.
16
17 Mr. Anderson noted that the applicant would be willing to provide sprinkler systems to
mitigate against the single access. He did not testify that this would completely mitigate
18 against the dangers of single access. Mr. Anderson noted that Appendix D to the
19 International Fire Code addresses the use of fire sprinklers to substitute for secondary
access roads. Appendix D was not offered into evidence and the examiner cannot take
20 judicial notice of it because it has not been adopted by the City of Renton. More
21 determinative is that the Renton Municipal Code does not expressly authorize a
substitution of secondary access roads with fire sprinklers. In fact, RMC 4-6-060(H)(2)
22 already requires sprinklers in addition to two access roads for streets longer than 700 feet
23 in length. Clearly, fire sprinklers are not considered an adequate substitute for secondary
access under city standards if they are already required in addition to secondary access for
24 dead end roads such as the one serving the proposed development. If the applicant
25 wishes to use fire sprinklers as a substitute for secondary access, it has the burden`of
26 establishing that the sprinklers will reduce the fire hazard to insignificant levels. The
PRELIMINARY PLAT- 15
I applicant has only shown that the fire hazard is reduced, but has not established or even
2 asserted that the reduction in hazard would be reduced to acceptable levels.
3 The applicant's arguments are well noted that the single access road was found sufficient
4 for the other 99 lot served by it and that staff has changed its position on the adequacy of
the access for the proposed subdivision. The inconsistencies in the staff's position does
5 undermine the credibility of their position. However, the reasoning of the fire chief's
6 testimony is highly compelling; that testimony is largely left unchallenged by the
applicant; and the need for the two access points is clearly laid out in the City's
development standards with no express exception for sprinkler systems. Further, it must
g also be acknowledged that circumstances have changed since the approval of other
subdivisions along the dead end road. In prior years development occurred at a much
9 more rapid pace and expectations were high that a looped road would be completed
10 relatively quickly. The length of the dead end road was of course shorter for each
preceding subdivision and the amount of road necessary to complete a looped system was
11 correspondingly longer.
12
The applicant presented testimony that accidents were unlikely to prevent fire access
13 given the width of the single access road, but the fire chief was well aware of this
14 condition when he presented his testimony.
15
The preponderance of evidence and substantial evidence in the record establish that two
16 access points are necessary to provide adequate/appropriate and safe fire access to the
17 proposed subdivision.
18 C. Drainage. The applicant submitted a drainage report and drainage plan on July 15, 2014,
19 Ex. 11. Staff have determined that the report demonstrates compliance with 2009 King
County Surface Water Manual and additional requirements, based on specific site
20 conditions, as required by the Department of Community and Economic Development.
21 This proposal is specifically required to comply with the 2009 King County Surface
Water Manual and the 2009 City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapter 1 and
22 2. Based on the City's flow control map, this site falls within the Flow Control Duration
23 Standard, Forested Conditions. This means that off-site flow volumes and rates may not
be higher than predevelopment levels. The site is subject to full drainage review. The
24 project is required to provide detention and water quality under the current King County
25 Surface Water Manual. The engineer has provided a design for a combined detention and
water quality vault to be located on Tract A of the site. A tightlined stormwater
26 conveyance system shall be utilized to transport discharged stormwater from a vault to an
PRELIMINARY PLAT- 16
I existing system at the bottom of the protected slope (Tract F). A recorded easement
2 agreement demonstrating access to the existing system is required by the conditions of
approval prior to issuance of construction permits.
3
4 Owen Reese, a civil engineer retained by the homeowner's association of the neighboring
Campen Springs development, made several recommendations on drainage mitigation
5 during the hearing. City engineering staff confirmed that the stormwater suggestions
6 made by Mr. Reese should be added to the conditions of approval. The suggestions
reasonably protect against slope stability, are made by qualified experts and there is no
7 evidence to the contrary. The drainage and slope stability recommendations made by Mr.
8 Reese will be made conditions of approval'.
9 D. Parks/Open Space. City ordinances require the payment of park impact fees prior to
10 building permit issuance. RMC 4-2-115, which governs open space requirements for
residential development, does not have any specific requirements for open space for
11 residential development in the R-Ior R-8 district. RMC 4-2-115 does impose open space
12 requirements for the R-14 district based upon the number of dwelling units, but since no
dwelling units are proposed for the R-14 portion of the development, no open space is
13 required. RMC 4-3-110 requires that 50% of the portion of the plat within the Urban
14 Separator Overlay shall be designated as a non-revocable open space tract. As
15 determined in the staff report, p. 14, the open space tract proposed by the applicant
satisfies this standard (which appears to be accomplished by Tract F, which takes up most
16 if not all of the Urban Separator property, see Ex. 4) . The impact fees in conjunction
17 with the open space tract required by the Talbot Urban Separator provide for adequate
parks and open space.
18
19 E. Streets. The proposal provides for adequate/appropriate streets. Access to the plat is
proposed via Smithers Ave and the conditions of approval require the applicant to extend
20 Smithers through the adjoining property to the east to 102nd Ave S. Internal access
21 includes looped alley access. The applicant prepared a traffic impact analysis, admitted
as Ex. 30, that was reviewed and approved by City public works staff. The study
22 determined that the proposal would generate 16 am peak hour trips and 21 pm peals hour
23 trips. The study shows that affected intersections would maintain a level of service A
with or without the project. There is no concurrency analysis submitted into the record.
24
25 1 Mr.Reese also recommended that the applicant monitor a migrating stream channel located off-site. Mr.Reese and
staff acknowledged that the-proposal does not adversely affect or exacerbate this condition. Consequently, the
26 project cannot be legally conditioned to address the issue.
PRELIMINARY PLAT- 17
I However, given the lack of any significant impact on affected intersections it is
2 determined at this time the proposal is consistent with the City level of service standards.
3 F. Parking. Sufficient area exists, on each lot, to accommodate required off, street parking
4 for a minimum of two vehicles per dwelling unit as required by City code.
5 G. Schools. Adequate/appropriate provision is made for schools. The proposal is located
6 within the Renton School District. The staff report notes that it is anticipated that the
Renton School District can accommodate additional students generated by this proposal
7 at the following schools: Benson Hill Elementary, Nelson Middle School, and Lindbergh
8 High School. These schools are not within walking distance of the proposed
9 development. Transportation would be required.
10 A School Impact Fee, based on new single family lots, will also be required in order to
mitigate the proposal's potential impacts to the Renton School District. The fee is payable
11 to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code. Currently the fee is assessed at
12 $5,455.00 per single family residence.
13 5. Adverse Impacts. There are no adverse impacts associated with the proposal as conditioned
14 with secondary access. Adequate public facilities and drainage control are provided as determined in
Finding of Fact No. 4. The proposal involves single-family housing at a density 4.23 dwelling units
15 per acre, which is at the bottom end of the 4-8 units per acre required in the R-8 zone. This is a
legislatively set standard of what is considered a compatible density for the area. Consequently,
16 there are no issues of compatibility with surrounding development based on density.
17 Many of the public comment letters expressed concern over the loss of trees. There are 401
trees on site with diameters of more than six inches. The applicant proposes to retain 42 of these
18 trees and replace the remaining trees with 140 two-inch diameter trees. Most development of
undeveloped areas involves the removal of trees. What constitutes an acceptable level of tree
19 removal is a highly subjective determination. As with density, the Renton City Council has
20 legislatively determined an acceptable level of tree removal by the adoption of tree retention
ordinance codified as RMC 4-4-130. As noted at p. 14 of the staff report, the applicant's tree
21 retention and replacement plan is consistent with RMC 4-4-130. Consequently, the proposed tree
removal cannot be considered a significant impact of the proposal.
22 There are protected slopes, wetlands, and a stream located within proposed sensitive area
23 tracts (Native Growth Protection Areas) on the site. The anticipated impacts of these areas have been
addressed in technical reports and studies [Exhibits 16-27] and the Environmental Review
24 Committee Report [Exhibit 31]. The project complies with all critical area regulations provided all
mitigation measures are met as identified in the Environmental Review Committee Report. A storm
25 drainage line is proposed across the face of the protected slopes. A critical area exemption is
26 required for placing drainage lines on protected slopes. Staff determined that the proposed drainage
line, as conditioned, would improve slope stability. Staff has found slope stability to improve for
PRELIMINARY PLAT- 18
I other proposals under the same conditions. As concluded in the conclusions of law, this resulting
increase in slope stability serves as the basis for approving the critical area exemption.
2 Several public comment letters expressed concern over the encroachment of the project onto
3 the fifty foot buffer of a Category U wetland and at least one comment letter asserted there are two
Category H wetlands on-site as opposed to one. As depicted in a site plan attached to the critical area
4 study, Ex. 17, five2 lots encroach onto the fifty foot buffer of the wetland as well as Tract A (the
storm drainage tract) and portions of the interior road. The applicant has proposed to remove these
5 encroachments through buffer averaging, which is allowed by the code and involves the replacement
6 of buffer reduction area by 1:1 increases in buffer area at other parts of the buffer. A total of 10,463
square feet of buffer will be reduced and a total of 12, 198 square feet will be added in the buffer
7 averaging proposal. The buffer averaging proposal has been reviewed and approved by qualified
third party review, Ex. 16, as well as by staff. The critical area studies provide a compelling and
8 thorough justification for the averaging based upon best available science. There is no evidence in
9 the record that the proposed averaging would adversely affect the wetland or that the wetland
delineations are inaccurate. For these reasons, the proposed buffer averaging is determined to be
10 consistent with the City's critical area regulations and will not create any significant adverse impacts
to the wetland functions or values.
11 Erosion and slope stability were also cited in numerous public comment letters as an area of
12 concern. As noted previously, staff have concluded that the proposed drainage line across the steep
slope will serve to improve slope stability. The City has detailed erosion control standards
13 applicable to clearing and grading activities that will protect adjoining properties from erosion
impacts. As previously noted, the City stormwater regulations require off-site stormwater flow
14 volumes and velocities to be at or less than pre-development conditions. The proposal has also been
subject to extensive geotechnical review coupled with third party review designed to assure that the
15 proposal will not adversely affect slope stability, as shown in Ex. 19-26 and 31. There has been no
16 expert testimony to show that the analysis and mitigation pertaining to erosion and slope stability is
deficient, except for some suggestions made by Mr. Reese, all of which have been adopted except a
17 request to monitor stream channel migration that Mr. Reese acknowledged is not affected by the
proposal. For all these reasons, it is determined that the proposal will not create any significant slope
18 stability or erosion impacts.
19
20 Conclusions of Law
21
1. Authori . RMC 4-7-020(C) and 4-7-050(D)(5)provide that the Hearing Examiner shall hold
22 a hearing and issue a final decision on preliminary plat applications. RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies
23 preliminary plat applications as Type III applications. RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies development
standard modifications as Type I applications. RMC 4-8-080(C)(2) requires consolidated permits to
24
25 2 The site plan actually only shows a buffer reduction in four lots,neglecting to identify a reduction in buffer for Lot
21. The text of the critical areas study,however,identifies at p. 14 that the buffer on Lot 21 will be removed through
26 averaging. Consequently,it is understood that the site plan incorrectly fails to identify buffer removal from Lot 21.
PRELIMINARY PLAT- 19
I each be processed under "the highest-number procedure", which in this case is Type III review,
2 involving a review and a final decision issued by the hearing examiner.
3 2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The developed portion of the property is zoned
R-8. Other portions of the property are zoned R-1, R-1 and the western third is within the Talbot
4 Urban Separator Overlay. The comprehensive plan designations are Residential Low Density
5 (RLD), Residential Single-Family(RSF) and Residential Medium Density(RMD).
6 13. Review Criteria. Chapter 4-7 RMC governs the criteria for subdivision review. Applicable
7 standards are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law.
8 RMC 4-7-080(B): A subdivision shall be consistent with the following principles of acceptability:
9 1. Legal Lots: Create legal building sites which comply with all provisions of the City Zoning Code.
10 2. Access:Establish access to a public road for each segregated parcel.
11 3. Physical Characteristics: Have suitable physical characteristics. A proposed plat may be denied
12 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.
13
4. Drainage: Make adequate provision for drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water
14 supplies and sanitary wastes.
15 4. As to compliance with the Zoning Code, Conclusion K(2) of the staff report is adopted by
16 reference as if set forth in full. As depicted in the plat map, Ex. 37, each proposed lot will directly
access Smithers Ave S., a public road, or indirectly via a private alley. As determined in Finding of
17 Fact No. 4 and 5, the project is adequately designed to prevent any impacts to critical areas. No
18 flooding problems are anticipated because as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4 the proposal is
19 served by adequate/appropriate stormwater facilities and the project is not located in a floodplain.
As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the proposal provides for adequate public facilities.
20
5. RMC 4-7-080(n(1): ...The Hearing Examiner shall assure conformance with the general
21 purposes of the Comprehensive Plan and adopted standards...
22 6. The proposed preliminary play is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan as outlined
23 in Conclusion K(1) of the staff report, which is incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full.
24 RMC 4-7-120(A): No plan for the replatting, subdivision, or dedication of any areas shall be
25 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.
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT-20
1 7. All of the internal roads of the proposed subdivision eventually connect to Smithers Ave S.,
2 an existing road.
3 RMC 4-7-120(B): The location of all streets shall conform to any adopted plans for streets in the
City.
4
8. The City's adopted street plans are not addressed in the staff report or anywhere else in the
5 administrative record. However, the only other street connections that appear possible with the
6 steep slope and open space limitations to the west are those proposed and required by this decision.
7 RMC 4-7-120(C): If a subdivision is located in the area of an officially designed[sic] trail,
8 provisions shall be made for reservation of the right-of-way or for easements to the City for trail
purposes.
9
10 9. The subdivision is not located in the area of an officially designated trail.
RMC 4-7-130(C): A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication shall be prepared in conformance
11
with the following provisions:
12
1. Land Unsuitable for Subdivision: Land which is found to be unsuitable for subdivision includes
13 land with features likely to be harmful to the safety and general health of the future residents (such
14 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
15 subdivided unless adequate safeguards are provided against these adverse conditions.
16 a. Flooding/Inundation:If any portion of the land within the boundary of a preliminary plat is
17 subject to flooding or inundation, thatportion 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
18 such subdivision.
19
b. Steep Slopes:A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication which would result in the creation of a
20 lot or lots that primarily have slopes forty percent(40%) or greater as measured per RMC 4-3-
21 050JIa, without adequate area at lesser slopes upon which development may occur, shall not be
approved.
22
23
3. Land Clearing and Tree Retention: Shall comply with RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land
24 Clearing Regulations.
25
4. Streams:
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT- 21
I a. Preservation:Every reasonable effort shall be made to preserve existing streams, bodies of water,
2 and wetland areas.
3 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
4 area, and an attempt to minimize the disturbance of the natural channel and stream bed.
5 c. Culverting� The piping or tunneling ofwater shall be discouraged and allowed only when going
6 under streets.
7 d. Clean Water: Every effort shall be made to keep all streams and bodies of water clear of debris
8 and pollutants.
9 10. The criterion is met. The land is suitable for a subdivision as the stormwater design assures
that it will not contribute to flooding and that water quality will not be adversely affected.
10 Development will not encroach into critical areas except as authorized by the City's critical area
11 regulations. No piping or tunneling of streams is proposed. Trees will be retained as required by
RMC 4-4-130 as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5. The on-site stream will be protected by the
12 critical area ordinance compliant buffer that applies to it. The City's stormwater regulations provide
13 for adequate protection of water quality for the on-site stream and wetlands.
14 RMC 4-7-140: Approval of all subdivisions located in either single family residential or multi-
15 family residential zones as defined in the Zoning Code shall be contingent upon the subdivider's
dedication of land or providing fees in lieu of dedication to the City, all as necessary to mitigate the
16 adverse effects of development upon the existing park and recreation service levels. The
17 requirements and procedures for this mitigation shall be per the City of Renton Parks Mitigation
Resolution.
18
19 11. City ordinances require the payment of park impact fees prior to building permit issuance.
RMC 4-7-150(A): The proposed street system shall extend and create connections between existing
20 streets unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. Prior to approving a street
21 system that does not extend or connect, the Reviewing Official shall find that such exception shall
22 meet the requirements of subsection E3 of this Section. The roadway classifications shall be as
defined and designated by the Department.
23
12. As conditioned,the proposed street system connects existing streets.
24
RMC 4-7-150(B): All proposed street names shall be approved by the City.
25
13. As conditioned.
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT-22
1 RMC 4-7-150(C): Streets intersecting with existing or proposed public highways, major or
2 secondary arterials shall be held to a minimum.
3 14. There is no intersection with a public highway or major or secondary arterial.
4 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
5 alignment offsets of less than one hundred twenty five feet(125) are not desirable, but may be
6 approved by the Department upon a showing of need but only after provision of all necessary safety
7 measures.
8 15. As determined in Finding of Fact 4, the Public Works Department has reviewed and
approved the adequacy of streets,which includes compliance with applicable street standards.
9
10
RMC 4-7-150(E):
11
12 1. Grid:A grid street pattern shall be used to connect existing and new development and shall be the
predominant street pattern in any subdivision permitted by this Section.
13
2. Linkages:Linkages, including streets, sidewalks,pedestrian or bike paths, shall be provided
14 within and between neighborhoods when they can create a continuous and interconnected network
15 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
16 Element, Objective CD-Mand Policies CD-50 and CD-60.
17 3. Exceptions:
18 a. The grid pattern may be adjusted to a 'flexible grid" by reducing the number of linkages or the
19 alignment between roads, where the following factors are present on site:
20 i. Infeasible due to topographical/environmental constraints; and/or
21 ii. Substantial improvements are existing.
22
4. Connections:Prior to adoption of a complete grid street plan, reasonable connections that link
23 existing portions of the grid system shall be made.At a minimum, stub streets shall be required
within subdivisions to allow future connectivity.
24
25 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
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT -23
I RC, R-1, and R-4 zones. Prior to approval of a plat without alley access, the Reviewing Official shall
2 evaluate an alley layout and determine that the use of alley(s) is not feasible...
3 6. Alternative Configurations: Offset or loop roads are the preferred alternative configurations.
4 7. Cul-de-Sac Streets: Cul-de-sac streets may only be permitted by the Reviewing Official where due
to demonstrable physical constraints no future connection to a larger street pattern is physically
5 possible.
6
16. The proposed and required connections are the maximum that can be included given the steep
7 slopes to the west, critical areas to the south, existing development and the vacant parcels to the
8 south. Lots 11-16 are accessed by an alley.
The proposal as conditioned contains a looped road and no cul-de-sac is proposed. The criterion
9 above is met.
10 RMC 4-7-1500: All adjacent rights-of-way and new rights-of-way dedicated as part of the plat,
11 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
12 Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee.
13 17. As proposed.
14
RMC 4-7-150(G): Streets that may be extended in the event of future adjacent platting shall be
15 required to be dedicated to the plat boundary line. Extensions of greater depth than an average lot
16 shall be improved with temporary turnarounds. Dedication of a full-width boundary street shall be
required in certain instances to facilitate future development.
17
18. There are no streets that could be extended in the event of future adjacent platting under the
18 approved subdivision design.
19
RMC 4-7-170(A): Insofar as practical, side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines or radial
20 to curved street lines.
21 19. As depicted in Ex. 37,the side lines are in conformance with the requirement quoted above.
22 RMC 4-7-170(B): Each lot must have access to a public street or road. Access may be by private
23 access easement street per the requirements of the street standards.
24 20. As previously determined, each lot has access to a public street.
25 RMC 4-7-170(C): The size, shape, and orientation of lots shall meet the minimum area and width
26 requirements of the applicable zoning classification and shall be appropriate for the type of
PRELIMINARY PLAT- 24
1 development and use contemplated. Further subdivision of lots within a plat approved through the
2 provisions of this Chapter must be consistent with the then-current applicable maximum density
requirement as measured within the plat as a whole.
3
21. As previously determined, the proposed lots comply with the zoning standards of the R-8
4 zone, which includes area, width and density.
5 RMC 4-7-170(D): Width between side lot lines at their foremost points (i.e., the points where the
6 side lot lines intersect with the street right-of-way line)shall not be less than eighty percent(80%) of
7 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
8 shall be a minimum of thirty five feet(35).
9 22. As shown in Ex. 37, the requirement is satisfied.
10 RMC 4-7-170(E): All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys,
11 shall have minimum radius offifteen feet(15).
12 23. As conditioned.
13 RMC 4-7-190(A): Due regard shall be shown to all natural features such as large trees,
14 watercourses, and similar community assets. Such natural features should be preserved, thereby
adding attractiveness and value to the property.
15
24. The on-site wetland and stream is set-aside from the developed portion of the subdivision.
16 The criteria above is met.
17
RMC 4-7-200(A): Unless septic tanks are specifically approved by the Public Works Department
18 and the King County Health Department, sanitary sewers shall be provided by the developer at no
19 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
20 development.
21 25. As conditioned.
22 RMC 4-7-200(B): An adequate drainage system shall be provided for the proper drainage of all
23 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
24 designed per the requirements of RMC 4-6-030, Drainage (Surface Water) Standards. The drainage
25 system shall include detention capacity for the new street areas. Residential plats shall also include
26 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.
PRELIMINARY PLAT-25
1 26. The proposal provides for adequate drainage that is in conformance with applicable City drainage
2 standards as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. The City's stormwater standards, which are
incorporated into the technical information report and will be further implemented during civil plan
3 review, ensure compliance with all of the standards in the criterion quoted above.
4 RMC 4-7-200(C): The water distribution system including the locations of fire hydrants shall be
5 designed and installed in accordance with City standards as defined by the Department and Fire
6 Department requirements.
27. As conditioned.
7
8 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
9 planting of trees. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, including all
10 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
11 maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department.
12 28. As conditioned.
13
RMC 4-7-200(E): Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic
14 utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line
15 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
16 trenching, conduit, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore required to
17 bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or land owner. The subdivider
shall be responsible only for conduit to serve his development. Conduit ends shall be elbowed to
18 final ground elevation and capped. The cable TV company shall provide maps and specifications to
19 the subdivider and shall inspect the conduit and certify to the City that it is properly installed.
20 129. As conditioned.
21 RMC 4-7-210:
22 A. MONUMENTS:
23 Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at each and every controlling corner of
24 the subdivision. Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the Department. All surveys
shall be per the City of Renton surveying standards.
25
B. SURVEY:
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT- 26
1 All other lot corners shall be marked per the City surveying standards.
2 C. STREET SIGNS.-
3
IGNS.3
The subdivider shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision.
4
30. As conditioned.
5
6 Street Improvement Waiver
7 31. RMC 4-6-060(H)(2) requires two means of access for homes served by a dead end street
longer than 700 feet. The applicant wishes to have this secondary access requirement waived for the
8 dead end street that serves it, Smithers Ave. S. The length of Smithers Ave. S. as extended by the
9 proposed subdivision would be 2,364 feet.
10 RMC 4-9-250(C)(2) authorizes the waiver of the installation of street improvements3 subject to the
11 determination that there is reasonable justification for such wavier. RMC 4-9-250(5) provides that
reasonable justification shall include but not be limited to the following:
12
13 a. Required street improvements will alter an existing wetlands or stream, or have a
negative impact on a shoreline's area.
14 b. Existing steep topography would make required street improvements infeasible.
15 c. Required street improvements would have a negative impact on other properties,
such as restricting available access.
16 d. There are no similar improvements in the vicinity and there is little likelihood
that the improvements will be needed or required in the next ten (10)years.
17 e. In no case shall a waiver be granted unless it is shown that there will be no
detrimental effect on the public health, safety or welfare if the improvements are not
18 installed, and that the improvements are not needed for current or future
19 development.
20
21
22 s The secondary access required by staff may not have to be "improved" since its sole purpose is to provide for
emergency access and no paving or even grading may be necessary. The issue at hand could be characterized as
23 more of a street grid issue than a street improvement issue. Consequently, it is debatable whether the RMC 4-9-
250(C)(2)waiver process applies in this instance. The alternative modification process would be RMC 4-9-250(D),
24 which applies to those standards not covered by RMC 4-9-250(B) or(C). The proposal would also fail to meet the
RMC 4-9-250(D), since authorizing one access point would not meet the intent or safety objectives of the Code.
25 The applicant used the criteria of RMC 4-9-250(B)(5) in its briefing,which clearly does not apply to the requested
modification. The RCW 4-9-250(B)(5) criteria only apply to the development standards expressly identified in
26 RCW 4-9-250(B)(1). RMC 4-6-060(H)(2)is not listed amongst those standards.
PRELIMINARY PLAT-27
1 The requested waiver cannot be approved because it fails to meet RMC 4-4-080(C)(5)(e). As
determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, waiver of the proposed secondary access requirement would
2 prevent the provision of safe and appropriate/adequate fire response. Consequently, the proposal will
3 have a detrimental effect on public safety. As testified by the Fire Chief, one access point can prevent
fire apparatus from reaching the subdivision in case of emergency due to large numbers of persons
4 leaving the emergency scene or damage caused by the emergency (such as seismic events and
5 wildfires).
The applicant asserts that the proposed stub ending for Smithers Road does not qualify as a "dead
6 end" under RMC 4-6-060(H), and hence the two access requirement does not apply. The applicant
argues that a stub road should not be considered a dead end because it is only a temporary situation
7 that will be removed upon development of the adjoining subdivision to the east. It is concluded that
8 the proposed stub road qualifies as a dead end. This interpretation is supported by both the plain
meaning and the intent of the ordinance. The Meriam Webster definition of"dead end" is "a street
9 that ends instead of joining with another street so that there is only one way in and out of it". The
proposed stub road clearly meets this definition. The idea that a stub road is not a "dead end" road
10 does not meet the intent of the two access requirement, which is to prevent a dangerous situation.
I I The "temporary" road stub could be in place for years and even decades before the adjoining property
to the east is developed. The risk of preventing fire access, which is what the two access requirement
12 is designed to minimize, is not materially reduced by a stub road that could remain in place for this
period of time. It is also noteworthy that the "dead end" situation for development along Smithers
13 Ave. S. could have always been considered temporary, since Smithers will eventually form a looped
14 system. Despite this `'temporary" situation, staff in the Stonehaven development, located along S.
47 St. (which is an extension of the Smithers dead end street ) still required a modification to the
15 two access requirement of RMC 4-6-060(H)(2)4. See Ex. 37, aft. J,Finding of Fact No. 14.
16 The applicant points out in its briefing that RMC 4-6-060(H)(1) provides that cul-de-sacs and dead
ends should only be authorized in circumstances where no "future connection" to a road grid is
17 physically possible. If"road stub" qualifies as a cul-de-sac or dead end, then RMC 4-6-060 would
have to be read as only authorizing road stubs if no "future connection" to a road grid is possible,
18 which of course makes no sense. The conclusion to be drawn from this language is either that (1) a
19 cul-de-sac or dead end does not include a road stub; or(2) RMC 4-6-060(H)(1) impliedly only applies
to permanent cul-de-sacs or dead ends (i.e. not road stubs). Given the plain meaning of the "cul-de-
20 sac" and "dead end" terms and the fire safety objectives of RMC 4-6-060(H)(2), the latter
interpretation is determinative. The City Council likely intended that RMC 4-6-060(H)(1) would
21 require staff to only authorize permanent dead ends when it was physically not feasible to require a
connection and if any dead ends had to be allowed, the fire safety impacts would be mitigated by the
22 secondary access and sprinkler standards imposed by RMC 4-6-060(H)(2). Given that a "future"
23
24 4 At the hearing the City Attorney noted that RMC 4-6-060 has been amended several times over the years and its
unclear whether the same two access requirement applied to other subdivisions along the Smithers Ave S dead end
25 road system. A look at the legislative history available to the examiner reveals that RMC 4-6-060(H)has remained
the same since at least 1995,when RMC 4-6-060 was first adopted. The Stonehaven preliminary plat was approved
26 in 2004.
PRELIMINARY PLAT-28
I connection could take decades to complete,it is doubtful that the Council would have intended a road
2 stub to remain in place for decades without the mitigation required by RMC 4-6-060(H)(2).
The most difficult issue raised by the applicant is the potential violation of its constitutional property
3 rights. It is logical to presume that the Council does not intend its development regulations to be
4 interpreted in a manner that is inconsistent with the constitutional rights of property applicants. At
the least, violation of those rights is counter to the financial interests of the City since property rights
5 violation easily translate into damages claims. An exaction that exceeds the proportional
responsibility of an applicant for a development impact is a violation of the takings clause. See, e.g.
6 1 Burton v. Clark County, 91 Wn. App. 505, 516-17 (1998). A strictly proportionate requirement from
the applicant for a looped fire access road system would arguably just be requiring the construction of
7 that portion of the loop located on the preliminary plat property. However, even if this were
8 technically correct for strict proportionality, only rough proportionality is required in exactions cases.
See, Sparks v. Douglas County, 127 Wn.2d 901, 918 (1995)("it is not necessary for the government to show a
g `precise mathematical calculation" of the connection between the exaction and the impact of the proposed
development.") It is also of high relevance that the public interest at stake is at the high end of the range of
10 compelling government interests, namely public safety. Requiring the applicant to acquire access rights
across private property to mitigate against congestion or aesthetic impacts may be questionable under a
11 proportionality analysis. However, the City is in a very good position to argue that requiring the acquisition
of access rights across one adjoining lot is entirely proportionate to avoiding the dangers identified by the
12 Renton Fire Chief as attendant to placing an additional 20 homes near the end of a half mile dead end road.
13 Ultimately, the merits of the applicant's constitutional arguments do not have to be addressed. As
previously discussed, the constitutional issues are relevant to the interpretation of City development
14 standards. Beyond this, the examiner has no authority to waive City development standards if they
15 violate the constitutional property rights of an applicant. RMC 4-9-250(C)(5)(e) strictly provides that
"in no case" shall a waiver be granted unless it is shown that there will be no detrimental effect on the
16 public health, safety or welfare. There may be some room to allow constitutional restrictions to
influence what level of risk of harm should be considered "detrimental" under the standard, but that
17 only goes so far. The Renton Fire Chief testified that in case of emergency there was a danger that he
18 may be prevented from dispatching his fire trucks to the proposed subdivision because of the half
mile long dead end road. As determined in the findings of fact, the applicant did not provide any
19 convincing evidence to the contrary. No matter how liberally construed to achieve consistency with
constitutional requirements, there is no way to reach a conclusion of "no detrimental" effect on
20 public safety given the testimony of the fire chief.
21
22 DECISION
23 The proposed preliminary plat and street improvement waiver is approved, subject to the following
24 conditions:
25 1. The applicant shall comply with mitigation measures issued as part of the Mitigated
Determination of Non-Significance for the proposal.
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT -29
1 2. All proposed street names shall be approved by the City.
2 3. All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys, shall have
3 minimum radius of fifteen feet(15').
4 4. Side sewer lines shall be installed eight feet (8') into each lot if sanitary sewer mains are
5 available, or provided with the subdivision development.
6 5. All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any utilities
7 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
8 service connections, as approved by the Department of Public Works. Such installation shall
9 be completed and approved prior to the application of any surface material. Easements may
be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department of
10 Public Works.
11
6. Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic utilities are
12 installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line by
13 Applicant as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or
alley improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. The
14 cost of trenching, conduit, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore
15 required to bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or land
owner. The applicant shall be responsible only for conduit to serve his development. Conduit
16 ends shall be elbowed to final ground elevation and capped. The cable TV company shall
17 provide maps and specifications to the applicant and shall inspect the conduit and certify to
18 the City that it is properly installed.
19 7. The applicant shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision prior to final plat
approval.
20
21 8. The easements for the alley shall authorize access to all lots of the proposed subdivision.
22 9. The applicant shall comply with nine the mitigation measures issued as part of the
23 Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated, dated August 26,2014 [Exhibit 14].
24 10. The applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan, meeting all landscape plan submittal
requirements of RMC 4-8-120L. The detailed landscape shall be submitted to and approved
25 by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to issuance of construction permits. Street
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT- 30
I trees shall not include Callery Pear and trees on S. 48th PI shall be a different type from those
2 on Smithers Ave S.
3 11. The Replacement Tree Plan shall be revised to show the proposed locations for replanting
4 140 two-inch diameter replacement trees.
5 12. Vegetation (trees, shrubs, and ground cover) shall be planted to replace vegetation (trees,
shrubs, and ground cover) removed for installation of the stormwater conveyance between
6 the stormwater vault and the west property boundary of the property. Type and quantities
7 shall be sufficient to ensure erosion control in the protected slope area.
8 13. The primary access road, Smithers Ave S, shall connect to S 48th PI and be extended to the
9 east to provide a second access from Main Ave S (102nd Ave SE) at its intersection with SE
186th St. The completion of this street and its connection to Main Ave S shall be a condition
10 of project approval. The extent of street improvements necessary to effectuate this
11 connection shall be determined by the City of Renton Fire Department in accordance with
applicable fire code standards and shall be the minimum necessary to provide for safe and
12 effective secondary fire access. The extended street, providing a second access to the
13 proposed development, shall have construction completed prior to recording the final plat.
14 14.A recorded easement agreement demonstrating access to the existing downslope stormwater
15 control system shall be submitted prior to issuance of construction permits.
16 15.A Homeowners' Association shall be incorporated for maintenance and equal and undivided
17 ownership of the tracts, the private access road, and the alley.
18 16. An easement shall be recorded along the east property boundary for future extension of the
19 sanitary sewer system. The easement shall be at the time of recording the final plat.
20
17. All new fill shall be composed of free draining structural fill and not native soils.
21
18. Drainage from western lots into the steep slopes shall be minimized and all such drainage
22 shall be dispersed.
23
19. Anchors for the stormwater tight line shall only be placed on the top and bottom of the pipe.
24 The anchors should be designed to withstand tree fall and soil movement. The pipeline
25 should be constructed at the top and pulled down the slope rather than moving it up the hill.
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT- 31
1 DATED this 3rd day of October,2014.
2 `
F'h 3 v 01b hIs
3
4 City of Renton Hearing Examiner
5
6 Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
7 RMC 4-8-080 provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is subject to appeal to the
8 Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(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.
9 A request for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal
period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(13) and RMC 4-8-100(G)(9). A new fourteen (14) day
10 appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Additional information
regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall —
11 7th floor, (425) 430-6510.
12
Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
13 notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT-32