Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVantage Point Apartments, Site Plan, Lot LineAdjustment, Critical Areas Exemption and Street Modification1 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 SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT - 1 CAO VARIANCE - 1 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: Vantage Point Apartments Site Plan, Lot Line Adjustment, Critical Areas Exemption and Street Modification LUA14-000226, LLA, SA-H, MOD, CAE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FINAL DECISION Summary The King County Housing Authority has applied for a site plan approval, a critical areas exemption, a lot line adjustment and street modification. The site plan approval, critical areas exemption, lot line adjustment and street modification are approved with conditions. The applications are for the construction of a 4-story multi-family building containing 77 senior assisted living apartment units. The vacant 5.02 acre site contains two parcels located within the Residential Multi-Family (RMF) and Residential Manufactured Home (RMH) zoning classifications on the southwest corner of SE 180th St and 105th Pl SW. Primary vehicular access to the site would be provided from curb cuts along 105th Pl SE and SE 180th St. An approved short plat (LUA08 -137) vested the proposal, for up to 90 residential units, to King County development regulations including the King County R-12 zoning development standards. The Applicant, King County Housing Authority, has taken lead agency for the proposal's SEPA review. A DNS threshold determination was issued on February 27, 2014. A street modification from RMC 4-6-060 is being requested in order to maintain the existing 18 -foot wide travel lane, with a 6-foot wide sidewalk, no parking, and a 10-foot wide planting strip. A total of 60 parking spaces would be provided within surface and structured parking areas on site. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT - 2 CAO VARIANCE - 2 The Applicant is proposing to re-grade approximately 8,858sf of critical slopes. KCC 21A.24.310.D.2 allows re-grading within steep slopes through an alteration process. The City of Renton does not have an alteration process. Consequently, the Applicant has requested a Critical Area Exemption to alter the steep slopes on site. Finally, the Applicant is requesting a Lot Line Adjustment to revise the Native Growth Protection Tract (Tract C-2) in order to reflect a recent survey of critical areas on site and the proposed re-grading of critical slopes. Testimony Rocale Timmons, senior planner, stated that the project site is located in the south portion of Renton. The site is west of 180th Ave SE, a principal arterial street, and contains two parcels. The site is surrounded by multi-family uses and a Fred Meyers. The existing Vantage Point location is south of the site and consists of single-family manufactured homes. The two parcels form an “L-shape” and are zoned residential multi-family (RMF) and residential manufactured homes (RMH). Development would primarily occur on the RMF zoned parcel with limited grading on the RMH zoned which is in a Native Growth Protection Tract which contains critical slopes, landslide and erosion hazards, and a wetland. The primary lot fronts onto public streets. Tract C-2, which abuts the site, contains 1.7 acres of open- space area. According to Ms. Timmons, the facility will contain 77 senior-assisted living apartments. A short plat was approved and recorded which vests the proposal for up to 90 residential units. King County Housing Authority took lead agency with respect to SEPA. A determination of non-significance was issued on February 27, 2014. The comment period ended on March 13, 2 014, and no appeals were filed. The 4- story facility would contain two wings which would be connected by a single, common space. The proposal contains 60 parking stalls including both structured and surface spaces. Primary vehicular access to the site would be provided from 4 curb cuts along 10 5th Place SE and 180th Ave SE. The structure is concentrated in the center of the site and oriented to the north. There is an approximate 80ft- wide natural and mature, vegetative buffer which will be maintained in proposed tract C-2. There is planned hardscaping and landscaping throughout the site. The proposed pedestrian system is adequate in staff’s opinion. The Applicant is proposing to reduce the massing view from neighboring properties and increase the setbacks. Staff found that the proposal complies with the King County Comprehensive Plan. The proposal provides safe housing for people of all income-levels. The Applicant has proposed common and open space with variation in building facades and materials. The proposal meets the County’s R-12 zoning standards as well. The staff report contains conditions regarding landscaping and refuse collection to ensure compliance with King County Code. Ms. Timmons added that staff is in support of the critical area exemption requ est if all conditions are met. The Applicant is proposing to grade 9,000sqft in the steep slope area. The geo-tech report states that the re-grading of the site will not increase the slope in excess of 50 percent and will not adversely impact the site. Staff is recommending secondary review of the water seepage effects in the geo-tech report. The site plan meets Renton’s site plan review criteria. The proposal provides adequate services and 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 SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT - 3 CAO VARIANCE - 3 infrastructure. The Applicant provided a water and sewer availability certificate. In regard to drainage, a preliminary drainage report was submitted with the application which was in accordance with the 2009 King County Water Manual. The Applicant intends to collect storm water in a series of catch basins and route the water to detention ponds on site. Staff supports the requested street modification; however, this is subject to future review by the Transportation Department. The proposal meets the lot line adjustment criteria. Staff recommends approval of the proposal, subject to 8 conditions. Applicant Testimony Bob Johns, representing King County Housing Authority, submitted the final determination of non- significance for the proposal (Ex. 16). The Applicant has reviewed the staff report and is in concurrence with the recommendations. In regard to Condition 8, the city district and Applicant have agreed no school fees are necessary becau se the facility is for seniors. Staff recommended that a covenant be imposed saying no children in the facility. It is a violation of the Federal Fair Housing Act to create a covenant requiring everyone to be a certain age; however, the Applicant plans to record a covenant that, if a child was to live in the senior-assisted housing facility, a school impact fee would be assessed and paid. Public Testimony Cecilia Miller noted that the Vantage Lease Agreement for her mobile home site states (Page 4 of 7), the Housing Authority is not responsible for earth movement of the home or damages during any improvements to the premise. She is concerned that the construction from the project will damage the mobile homes in Vantage Glen. The new project’s site has a very high hill, and the grading will have impacts. The Housing Authority owns the property on which the mobile homes are located, but the individuals own the actual mobile homes. Ms. Hill testified that she lives on the existing Vantage Glen mobile home property. She was unaware that Vantage Glen was not owned by King County government when she moved to the property. She does not trust that King County Housing Authority has good intentions and believes it is taking advantage of seniors to gain money for projects. She is concerned about the steep slopes near the property and noted that there has already been water leakage into the mobile home park. Staff Rebuttal Rocale Timmons stated that Renton reviewed the geo-technical report submitted by the Applicant and found it would be beneficial to require an independent-party review of the report. Steve Lee, Development Engineering Manager, testified that he reviewed the geotechnical report. The geotechnical report is intertwined with the stormwater and grading review. The secondary review will include stormwater mitigation analysis. The independent review may find the need for additional mitigation measures or decide no work should be done on the slopes. Rocale Timmons noted that, if the independent review found that no work could be done on the slopes, the next steps in the permit process would depend upon how the Applicant redesigned the project, most 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 SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT - 4 CAO VARIANCE - 4 importantly how fire access would be handled. Exhibits The April 1, 2014 staff report Exhibits 1-15 identified at page 2 of the staff report itself were admitted into the record during the hearing. Exhibit 8 was amended at the hearing. Additionally, the Examiner admitted Exhibit 16, the Final DNS letter. FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural: 1. Applicant. King County Housing Authority. 2. Hearing. The Examiner held a hearing on the subject application on April 8, 2014 at 1:00 pm in the City of Renton Council Chambers. 3. Project Description. The Applicant proposes to construct a 4-story multi-family building containing 77 senior assisted living apartment units. 11. The 77 units (72 one-bedroom and 5 two bedroom units) would be used for low-income, affordable senior assisted living housing. The vacant 5.02 acre site contains two parcels located within the Residential Multi-Family (RMF) and Residential Manufactured Home (RMH) zoning classifications on the southwest corner of SE 180th St and 105th Pl SW. Primary vehicular access to the site would be provided from curb cuts along 105th Pl SE and SE 180th St. The primary lot (Lot 2) which fronts onto the public streets is a cleared grass covered, relatively flat site of approximately 3.3 acres. Tract C-2 contains approximately 1.7 acres which wrap around the eastern and southern boundaries of Lot 2. An application for the Vantage Glen Short Plat was submitted to the King County Department of Development and Environmental Services (KC DDES) for review on October 17, 2007. Before the application could be reviewed and a decision issued, the subject property was annexed to the City of Renton as part of the Benson Hill Annexation (Ordinance #5327) on March 1, 2008. 13. The short plat, vested to King County Code, was approved by the City on May 12, 2009 (Ex. 11 and 14). The approved short plat (LUA08-137) vests the proposal, for up to 90 residential units, to King County development regulations including the King County R-12 zoning development standards in place at the time of Short Plat application (Ex. 12). The existing Vantage Glen community, to the east, west and south of the subject site, consists of single- family manufactured homes and a community center. To the north are residential multi-family and a Fred Meyer anchored retail shopping center. 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 SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT - 5 CAO VARIANCE - 5 On February 27, 2014, the King County Housing Authority, SEPA lead agency, issued a Determination of Non-Significance for the Vantage Point Apartments (Ex. 6). A 14-day combined comment and appeal period commenced on March 13, 2014 and ended on March 23, 2014. No appeals of the threshold determination were filed. No public or agency comments have been received on the subject proposal. A street modification from RMC 4-6-060 is being requested in order to maintain the existing 18 -foot wide travel lane, with a 6-foot wide sidewalk, no parking, and place a 10-foot wide planting strip behind the sidewalk in the right of way. The site is located within a High Erosion Hazard area and an unclassified Landslide Hazard Area. Protected slopes, which exceed a 40 percent grade, are also located on site. The site steep slopes are located within Tract C-2 and cover approximately 51,851sf. The northwest edge of the tract also contains a 550 square foot Category IV wetland, as classified by the King County Code. The Applicant is proposing to re-grade approximately 8,858sf of critical slopes. KCC 21A.24.310.D.2 allows re- grading within steep slopes through an alteration process. However, the City of Renton does not have an alteration process and the request to alter the steep slopes on site will be reviewed through a requested Critical Area Exemption. Finally, the Applicant is requesting a Lot Line Adjustment to revise the Native Growth Protection Tract (Tract C-2) in order to reflect a recent survey of critical areas on site and the proposed re-grading of critical slopes. 4. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate infrastructure and public services as follows: A. Water and Sewer Service. The site is served by the Soos Creek Water and Sewer District for all water and sewer service. B. Fire and Police. Fire and police department staff have determined that existing facilities are adequate to serve the development if the Applicant provides Code required improvements and pays the Fire Impact Fee. C. Drainage. City staff have determined that the conceptual drainage plan complies with the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Ma nual, the City’s applicable stormwater development standards. The Applicant proposes to grade the project site to drain into catch basins, a swale and/or a rain garden. The catch basins, swale and rain gardens would connect to an underground infiltration system that would allow water to infiltrate into the site soils. Stormwater from the development would be collected in a series of catch basins and swales. Target pollution generating surfaces would be treated by on-site rain gardens to receive Enhanced Basic Water Quality treatment. The runoff would then be routed to a detention pond which then outlets to the City owned storm system in 105th Place SE. 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 SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT - 6 CAO VARIANCE - 6 D. Parks/Open Space. The proposed development will impact the Parks and Recreation system. These impacts will be mitigated by payment of the Parks Impact Fee for each multi -family unit. The Applicant is proposing a total of 13,330 square feet of courtyards which exceeds the King County recreation requirements. Proposed recreation space would include interior community spaces, decks, patios, and other outdoor recreation areas. The Applicant is proposing pedestrian seating throughout the site. E. Transportation. Traffic impacts are adequately mitigated by the proposal. Level of service standards will not be reduced below adopted levels for the proposal and traffic impact fees will be assessed to pay for proportionate share transportation system impacts. Primary vehicular access to the site would be provided from curb cuts along 105th Pl SE and SE 180th St. The proposal is anticipated to generate 24 weekday PM peak hour trips and 31 weekday AM peak hour trips. The relatively low trips would likely not have a significant impact on traffic flow on the adjacent streets or to and from the arterials. The Applicant is proposing a modification from the street standards in order to maintain and extend the existing improvements (18 -foot wide travel lane, 6-foot wide sidewalk, and no parking) and place a 10 -foot planter behind the sidewalk within the right-of–way. There is no need for a parking lane along the frontage of the site and the existing curb could continue to be used as the character of the road has been established without the use of parking. Additionally, the Applicant is providing 21 more stalls than required by code on site. The Applicant is also providing increased widths for landscaping and sidewalk within the right of way. The requested modification meets the objective and safety of the code requirements. The proposed street cross section would not be injurious to surrounding property owners and can be shown to be justified for the situation intended. T he No Parking area is subject to possible revision in the future as found necessary by the City Transportation Department. F. Schools. The Applicant is proposing housing exclusively for the elderly. If the Applicant records the necessary covenants or declarations of restrictions on the property to ensure no children will reside in the development, no School Impact Fees will be required. G. Parking. The proposal provides adequate parking. The proposed development includes an apartment building with two four story wings connected by a central common space. The north wing has one level of structured parking, underground. T he partially underground first floor of the south wing is mostly parking (Ex. 5). There are two surface parking areas, one 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 SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT - 7 CAO VARIANCE - 7 associated with the north building and the other with the south wing. The Applicant is proposing a total of 60 parking stalls. H. Bicycle Stalls. There are no bicycle parking requirements in the King County code. I. Vehicular Access and Internal Circulation. The subject development is proposing to take access via four curb cuts from 105th Place SE and SE 180th St. The access road would provide emergency access to the rear of the building complex as well as for building and site maintenance. The proposal promotes safe and efficient circulation through the proposed access points. The proposed pedestrian circulation system will eventually provide linkages to Benson Drive S and SE Petrovitsky St. The proposed site plan is designed such that vehicles are separated from pedestrian areas. J. Pedestrian Circulation. The Applicant is proposing a pedestrian circulation system throughout the project site which connects all opens space and park ing areas spaces. The Applicant has achieved safe and attractive pedestrian connections throughout the site. K. Landscaping. A conceptual landscape plan was submitted with the project application (Ex. 3). The landscape plan includes a diverse planting plan. The landscaping is used to provide transitions between the proposed development and surrounding properties to reduce noise and glare, maintain privacy, and generally enhance the appearance of the project. The landscaping softens the appearance of parking areas, and helps to define and enhance open spaces, and generally works to enhance the appearance of the project. It is unclear if the proposed landscape plan complies with spacing requirements of KCC 21A.16 .050. Landscaping square footage for parking areas was not submitted with the land use application (KCC 21A.16.070). L. Refuse Enclosure. The proposed facility would require an 116sf deposit area for the 77 unit proposal. The Applicant is proposing to locate refuse and recycle utility areas within the building at three different locations. The square footage of designated refuse and recyclable areas were not submitted with the land use application. M. Building Facade Modulation. The proposal includes a variety of building articulations and modulations in order to break down the scale and massing of the structure. Though the proposal appears to comply with the modulation requirements of the King County Code, Staff was unable to confirm compliance. 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 SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT - 8 CAO VARIANCE - 8 N. Recreation. Proposed recreation space would include interior community spaces, decks, patios, and other outdoor recreation areas resulting in a total of 13,330 sf of area. The proposal complies with the requirements of the King County Code. 5. Adverse Impacts. There are no significant adverse impacts associated with the project. Few adverse impacts are anticipated. Adequate infrastructure serves the site as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. The steep critical areas on-site are the result of past mining activity. The Critical Areas Exemption (Modification) proposes re-grading of the site. The re-grading will not increase the existing slope inclinations in excess of 50% and will not adversely impact slope stability. All grading will occur outside the buffer for Wetland A. Impacts are more specifically addressed as follows: A. Compatibility. The proposal is fully compatible with surrounding land uses. Adjoining uses to the north are commercial with residential on all sides. The City’s extensive design and landscaping standards assure aesthetic compatibility with the surrounding multi-family. B. Views. According to the staff report, the proposal would not affect view corridors to shorelines and Mount Rainer. Territorial views to the south enjoyed by the multi-family residential use to the north of the site may be impacted. The primary structure is proposed to be sited in the center of the site. However, the scale and bulk would be reduced as viewed from neighboring properties due to the increase in the setbacks (Ex. 2). The scale and bulk of the building is also visually reduced through the use of differing materials, building articulation and modulation and differing roof profiles (Ex. 5). Additionally, a natural and mature vegetated buffer with an approximate average width of 80 -foot will be retained along the western and southern portion of the site within the Critical Area Tract. C. Lighting. The Applicant did not provide an on-site lighting plan. A condition of approval will require the Applicant to provide such a plan. D. Screening. Landscaping has been thoughtfully incorporated into the site plan in order to screen parking areas (Ex. 3). All mechanical units and refuse and recyclable areas are proposed to be located within the building and would not be visible from the public. E. Privacy and Noise. Noise impacts are adequately mitigated. Staff anticipates most of the noise impacts would occur during the construction phase of the project. The Applicant has submitted a Construction Mitigation Plan that provides measures to reduce construction impacts such as noise, control of dust, traffic controls, etc. In addition, the project would be required to comply with the City’s noise ordinance regarding construction hours. The building has a primary orientation to the northeast. The open space and courtyard areas have been thoughtfully located throughout the site and are located in areas that allow residents to enjoy territorial views to the south and west. The approximate 80 -foot wide natural and mature vegetated buffer to be retained along the western and southern portions of the site would assist in the provision of privacy for the residents of the proposal in addition to increased setbacks from the north and the east. 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 SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT - 9 CAO VARIANCE - 9 F. Natural Features. King County Code 16.82.156 ‘Significant Trees’ requires that significant trees located in the interior of the development proposal, excluding critical areas or their buffers, shall be retained in an apartment or townhouse development at the rate of ten trees per acre or five percent of the trees, whichever is greater (Ex. 12). The tree retention plan provided does not demonstrate compliance with the tree retention requirements of the King County Code. The site is located within a High Erosion Hazard Area and an unclassified Landslide Hazard Area. The slope gradients on site vary from 40 percent to approximately 60 percent with a change in elevation from 30-45 feet. The slopes on site meet the definition for steep slope geologic hazard areas as defined by KCC 21.A.24. The existing steep slope area currently totals 51,851 square feet. The grading of the steep slope is estimated at 8,858 square feet and would occur in the upper zone of the steep slope area. KCC 21.A.24.200 requires a building setback of 15 feet be established from all critical area buffers (Ex. 12). The following improvements are allowed within the building setback: landscaping, uncovered decks, building overhangs not more than 18 -inches, impervious ground surfaces, and utilities. The Applicant is proposing an access drive aisle, sidewalks, and drainage utilities within the required 15-foot setback. The proposal appears to comply with the Critical Area building setback requirements. The proposed impervious area of the site would be 99,799 square feet, on the 214,900 square foot project site (after street dedications), resulting in an impervious cover of 46.4 percent. The proposal complies with the impervious cover requirements of the zone. The proposed building would have a gross area of approximately 99,087 square feet and building footprint of 27,597 square feet resulting in a building lot coverage of approximately 12.8 percent. The proposal complies with the building standards of the zone. On site soil removal would be required. The approximate volume of cut would be 23,000 cubic yards and 1,100 cubic yards of fill will be brought to the site for net 21,900 cubic yards of cut. G. Critical Areas. The site is located within a High Erosion Hazard Area and an unclassified Landslide Hazard Area. The Applicant provided a geotechnical report, prepared by GEODesign, Inc., on February 18, 2014 in addition to a Geologic Hazard Report (Ex. 13). The reports concluded that the subject site and surrounding parcels have been extensively graded during past aggregate mining activities on the property and that the slopes were created as a result of mining activity. Re-grading of the steep slope areas is allowed by the vested King County Code (KCC21A.24.310.D.2) through a Critical Area Alternation. The City does not have a Critical Area Alteration process. Alternatively, the applicant is requesting a Critical Area Exemption (also a Tier I permit) to re-grade within the steep slopes. 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 SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT - 10 CAO VARIANCE - 10 The geotechnical report states that proposed re-grading of the site would not increase the existing slope inclinations in excess of 50-percent and would not adversely impact the slope stability of the site. The proposed re-grading is also not anticipated to impact the slope stability on adjacent properties of the Steep Slope Hazard Areas. The report recommends that slopes should be graded to drain back from the top of slopes. The main considerations noted in the geotechnical reports include the existence of moisture sensitive clay soils, anticipated water seepage, the height of proposed cuts, the presence of a weathered and fractured upper soil zone and associated risk of shallow soil movements. There is concern regarding the potential for instability if water seepage is allowed on the slope both during and after construction. Additionally, the reports mention that the discharge of groundwater along the slopes and excessive groundwater levels near the slopes could cause a reduction in slope stability. The scope of services did not include any environmental assessment or evaluation regarding the presence or absence of wetlands or hazardous or toxic material in the soil, surface water, groundwater, air, and on or below or around the site. The Applicant also provided a wetland report, prepared by ESA, in January of 2014 (Ex. 15). One wetland was delineated on the subject property. Wetland A is an unmapped palustrine forested wetland located at the northeast end of 104th Ave SE and is approximately 550 sf in size. The Category IV wetland is located next to the base of the steep slope and requires a 25 - foot buffer beyond the toe of the slope. There is a break in the steep slope approximately 40- feet upslope from the wetland. Extending the 25-foot wetland buffer from the break in the slope results in a buffer that is slightly larger than 50-feet. There are no impacts proposed to Wetland A and the proposed grading would occur outside of its buffer. Conclusions of Law 1. Authority. Assisted Living facilities are permitted in the Residential Multi-family zone (RMF) but not in the Residential Manufactured Home zone (RMH) (RMC 4 -2-060(C). The proposal is vested to the King County Code and therefore subject to the King County’s R-12 zoning designation development standards. KCC 21.A provides development standards for development within the R-12 zoning classification for which the project is vested (Ex. 12). Pursuant to KCC21.A.08, Senior Citizen Assisted Living uses are outright permitted within the KC R-12 zoning classification. The Applicant has requested site plan review, a lot line adjustment and modifications to the critical areas ordinance and to the street standards. Lot Line Adjustments and Street Modifications are Type 1 Administrative Decisions (RMC 4 -8-080(G)). Site Plan Review is a Type II Administrative Decision (RMC 4-8-080(G)). Because the slopes on the subject site are manmade, the critical areas exemption is a Type I decision (RMC 4-8-070(D)(3)(b), RMC 4-9-050(D)(4)(b)(i)(d), and RMC 4-9- 050(N)(2)(a)(ii)(a)). 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 SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT - 11 CAO VARIANCE - 11 The Environmental Review Committee has significant concerns related to the proposed re-grading of the steep slope. Because significant environmental concerns remain, a public hearing by the Hearing Examiner is required (RMC 4-9-200(D)(2)(a)). If the environmental concerns did not remain, the entire process would be an administrative decision. The requirement for a public hearing held by the Hearing Examiner grants the Examiner the authority to hold a hearing and issue a final decision on the permit requests, subject to closed record appeal to the City Council (RMC 4-8-080(G) and RMC 4-9- 200(F)(9)). 2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The subject property is in two zones. A portion of the project is zoned Residential – Manufactured Home (RMH). The other portion of the project is zoned Residential- Multi-family (RMF). The comprehensive plan land use designation is Residential Multi Family (RMF). However, the proposal is vested to the King County Code and therefore subject to King County’s R-12 zoning designation development standards. KCC 21.A provides development standards for development within the R-12 zoning classification for which the project is vested (Ex. 12). Pursuant to KCC21.A.08, Senior Citizen Assisted Living uses are outright permitted within the KC R-12 zoning classification. 3. Review Criteria. Site plan review standards are governed by RMC 4-9-200(E)(3). Street modifications are governed by RMC 4-9-250(C)(5). Critical Areas Exemptions are governed by RMC 4- 9-050. Lot Line Adjustments are governed by RMC 4 -7-060. The Vantage Glen Short Plat vested to King County Code on May 12, 2009. In addition to the applicable City of Renton Codes, the following King County Codes apply: KCC 21A.08 Permitted Uses; KCC 21A.12 Development Standards, Density and Dimensions; KCC 21A.14 Development Standards, Design Requirements; KCC 21A.16 Development Standards, Landscaping and Water Use; KCC 21A.18 Development Standards, Parking and Circulation; and KCC 21A.24 Critical Areas. All applicable criteria are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. King County Code 4. King County Code 21A.12 Bulk and Dimensional Standards. King County Code 21A.12.030 allows a base density of 12 units/acre in the R-12 zone. The maximum density is 18 dwelling units/acre. The minimum density is 80% of the base density. The minimum density for the subject site is a based on a calculation of the total site area of the Vantage Glen Short Plat (Ex. 11) and is further noted in Note 21 recorded on the face of the short plat (Ex. 14). The maximum density for the subject site is limited to 90 dwelling units. The proposal for 77 units complies with the density requirements of the zone (KCC. 21A.12.030). 5. There is a 30-foot minimum lot width requirement. There are no other minimum lot size or depth requirements in the R-12 zone. The proposed lot line adjustment would comply with the lot dimension requirements of the King County Code. 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 SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT - 12 CAO VARIANCE - 12 6. The R-12 zoning designation requires a minimum street setback of 10 feet to the building. The minimum side yard setback is 5 feet. There are no minimum rear yard setbacks in the R -12 zone. The front yard setback of 22’3” and the side yard setback of 165’ comply with the setback requirements of the R-12 zone. 7. The building height is restricted to 60 feet. The allowed impervious surface coverage is 85 percent. The height of the proposed structure is 51’ at the highest point. The proposed impervious area of the site is 99,799sf, on the 214,900sf project site (after street dedications), resulting in an impervious cover of 46.4%. The proposal complies with the impervious cover requirements of the zone. The proposed building would have a gross area of approximately 99,087 sf and building footprint of 27,597 sf resulting in a building lot coverage of approximately 12.8 %. The proposed building height and impervious coverage comply with the King County Code. KCC 21A.16.050. 10 feet of Type III landscaping shall be provided for a commercial or attached/group residence development. Type III landscaping shall minimally consist of: A mix of evergreen and deciduous trees generally interspersed throughout the landscape s trip and spaced to create a continuous canopy; at least 70 percent deciduous trees; trees provided at the rate of one per linear 25 feet of landscape strip and spaced no more than 30 feet apart on center; shrubs provided at the rate of one per four linear feet of landscape strip and spaced no more than 8 feet apart on center. 8. As noted in Findings of Fact No. 4(K), a conceptual landscape plan was submitted with the project application (Ex. 3). The landscape plan includes a diverse planting plan. It is u nclear if the proposed landscape plan complies with spacing requirements of KCC 21A.16.050. Landscaping square footage for parking areas was not submitted with the land use application (KCC 21A.16.070). In order to ensure consistency with the landscaping requirements, a condition of approval will require the Applicant to submit a detailed landscape plan demonstrating compliance with KCC 21A.16. The detailed landscape shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. KCC 21A.14.090 . Apartment and townhouse developments and all group residences shall provide building facade modulation on facades exceeding 60 feet and facing abutting streets or properties zoned R-1 through R-4. The following standards shall apply: A. The maximum wall length without modulation shall be 30 feet; and B. the sum of the modulation depth and the modulation width shall be no less than eight feet. Neither the modulation depth nor the modulation width shall be less than two feet. 9. As noted in Findings of Fact No. 4(M), the proposal includes a variety of building articulations and modulations in order to break down the scale and massing of the structure. Though the proposal appears to comply with the modulation requirements of the King County Code, Staff was unable to confirm compliance. In order to ensure consistency with the building facade modulation requirements of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT - 13 CAO VARIANCE - 13 the King County Code, as a condition of approval, the Applicant will be required to submit to the Current Planning Project Manager length and depth detail for the building modulation in accordance with KCC 21A.14.090 prior to building permit approval. KCC 21A.14.180 . A. Residential developments of more than four units in the UR and R -4 through R-48 zones ... shall provide recreation space for leisure, play and sport activities as follows. ... 4. Apartments and townhouses developed at a density of greater than eight units per and mixed use: a. Studio and on bedroom: ninety square feet per unit b. Two bedrooms: one hundr ed and seventy square feet per unit. 10. Indoor recreation areas may be credited towards the total recreation space requirement, if the director determines that the areas are located, designed and improved in a manner that provides recreational opportunities functionally equivalent to those recreational opportunities available outdoors. For senior citizen assisted housing, indoor recreation areas need not be functionally equivalent but may include social areas, game and craft rooms, and other multipurpose entertainment and education areas (KCC 21A.14.180.D). The proposed facility would require 7,330sf of recreation area for the 77 unit facility. Proposed recreation space would include interior community spaces, decks, patios, and other outdoor recreation areas resulting in a total of 13,330 sf of area. The proposal complies with the requirements of the King County Code. 11. Pursuant to KCC 21A.14.210, multi-family developments require a minimum of 1.5sf per dwelling unit for refuse deposit areas. Additionally, at least one deposit area/collection point for every 30 dwelling units is required. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 4(L), the proposed facility would require a 116sf deposit area for the 77 unit proposal. The square footage of designated refuse and recyclable areas were not submitted with the land use application. In order to ensure consistency with the square footage requirements staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the Applicant is required to submit to the Current Planning Project Manager sizing detail for the refuse and recyclable deposit areas prior to building permit approval. Additionally, the Applicant is required to demonstrate how refuse and recyclables would be picked up and where these would be located on pick-up day to the satisfaction of the Current Planning Project Manager. 12. KCC 21A.18.030 requires one parking space per two dwelling units for Assisted Senior Living Residential Units. Based on the use, 39 parking spaces would be required in order to meet code. The Applicant proposed to provide a total of 60 spaces. The parking conforms to the minimum requirements for drive aisle and parking stall dimensions and the provision of ADA accessible parking stalls pursuant to KCC 21A.18.110. 13. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 5(F), King County Code 16.82.156 ‘Significant Trees’ requires that significant trees located in the interior of the development proposal, excluding critical areas or their buffers, shall be retained in an apartment or townhouse development at the rate of ten trees per acre or 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 SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT - 14 CAO VARIANCE - 14 five percent of the trees, whichever is greater (Ex. 12). The tree retention plan provided does not demonstrate compliance with the tree retention requirements of the King County Code. A condition of approval will require the Applicant to submit a tree retention plan in compliance with KCC 16.82.156 ‘Significant Trees’. Site Plan RMC 4-9-200(E)(3): Criteria: The Administrator or designee must find a proposed project to be in compliance with the following: a. Compliance and Consistency: Conformance with plans, policies, regulations and approvals, including: i. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan, its elements, goals, objectives, and policies, especially those of the applicable land use designation; the Community Design Element; and any applicable adopted Neighborhood Plan; ii. Applicable land use regulations; iii. Relevant Planned Action Ordinance and Development Agreements; and iv. Design Regulations: Intent and guidelines of the design regulations located in RMC 4- 3-100. 14. The proposal is consistent with applicable comprehensive plan policies, City of Renton and King County zoning regulations and design guidelines as outlined in Findings 24(a)-(k) of the staff report, which is adopted by this reference as if set forth in full, including the findings and conclusions. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(b): Off-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and uses, including: i. Structures: Restricting overscale structures and overconcentration of development on a particular portion of the site; ii. Circulation: Providing desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets, walkways and adjacent properties; iii. Loading and Storage Areas: Locating, designing and screening storage areas, utilities, rooftop equipment, loading areas, and refuse and recyclables to minimize views from surrounding properties; iv. Views: Recognizing the public benefit and desirability o f maintaining visual accessibility to attractive natural features; 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 SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT - 15 CAO VARIANCE - 15 v. Landscaping: Using landscaping to provide transitions between development and surrounding properties to reduce noise and glare, maintain privacy, and generally enhance the appearance of the project; and vi. Lighting: Designing and/or placing exterior lighting and glazing in order to avoid excessive brightness or glare to adjacent properties and streets. 15. The assisted living units are necessarily concentrated on one portion of the site due to the topography, but the impacts of this concentration are negligible given the small portion of the site that is occupied by buildings and the large setbacks and significant amount of landscaping that separates the facility from adjoining uses. The facility could not be considered “overscale” considering the relatively small amount of area occupied by buildings. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, lighting and view impacts are adequately mitigated and landscaping, as conditioned, is effectively used to protect adjoining properties from noise and glare and to maintain privacy and enhance the appearance of the project. The project will be conditioned to provide for adequate screening of refuse and recyclables and to provide screening from utilities and rooftop structures. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the project provides screening of loading areas to minimize views from surrounding properties. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(c): On-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to the site, including: i. Structure Placement: Provisions for privacy and noise reduction by building placement, spacing and orientation; ii. Structure Scale: Consideration of the scale of proposed structures in relation to natural characteristics, views and vistas, site amenities, sun light, prevailing winds, and pedestrian and vehicle needs; iii. Natural Features: Protection of the natural landscape by retaining existing vegetation and soils, using topography to reduce undue cutting and filling, and limiting impervious surfaces; and iv. Landscaping: Use of landscaping to soften the appearance of parking areas, to provide shade and privacy where needed, to define and enhance open spaces, and generally to enhance the appearance of the project. Landscaping also includes the design and protection of planting areas so that they are less susceptible to damage from vehicles or pedestrian movements. 16. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, landscaping has been well designed to provide for privacy and noise reduction. There is nothing in the record to reasonably suggest that the scale, spacing and orientation of the project could be modified to provide for more privacy and noise reduction without unreasonably interfering with the objectives of the facility. The scale of the facility will not create any adverse impacts as discussed and is compatible with vehicle and pedestrian circulation as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5. In addition, there is nothing in the record to reasonably suggest 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 SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT - 16 CAO VARIANCE - 16 that the scale of the project is incompatible with sunlight, prevailing winds or natural characteristics. Impervious surfaces are significantly less than those authorized by applicable zoning regulations. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(d): Access and Circulation: Safe and efficient access and circulation for all users, including: i. Location and Consolidation: Providing access points on side streets or frontage streets rather than directly onto arterial streets and consolidation of ingress and egress points on the site and, when feasible, with adjacent properties; ii. Internal Circulation: Promoting safety and efficiency of the internal circulation system, including the location, design and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian access points, drives, parking, turnarounds, walkways, bikeways, and emergency access w ays; iii. Loading and Delivery: Separating loading and delivery areas from parking and pedestrian areas; iv. Transit and Bicycles: Providing transit, carpools and bicycle facilities and access; and v. Pedestrians: Providing safe and attractive pedestrian connections between parking areas, buildings, public sidewalks and adjacent properties. 117. The proposal provides for adequate access and circulation as required by the criterion above for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 4(I) and (J). RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(e): Open Space: Incorporating open spaces to serve as distinctive project focal points and to provide adequate areas for passive and active recreation by the occupants/users of the site. 18. The proposal provides for open space that serves as distinctive project focal points and also provides for recreation as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4(N). RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(f): Views and Public Access: When possible, providing view corridors to shorelines and Mt. Rainier, and incorporating publi c access to shorelines. 19. There are no view corridors to shorelines or Mt. Rainier affected by the proposal. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(g): Natural Systems: Arranging project elements to protect existing natural systems where applicable. 20. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 5(F), the site is located within a High Erosion Hazard Area and an unclassified Landslide Hazard Area. The slope gradients on site vary from 40 percent to approximately 60 percent with a change in elevation from 30 -45 feet. The slopes on site meet the 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 SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT - 17 CAO VARIANCE - 17 definition for steep slope geologic hazard areas as defined by KCC 21.A.24. The existing steep slope area currently totals 51,851 square feet. The grading of the steep slope is estimated at 8,858 square feet and would occur in the upper zone of the steep slope area. The grading is the subject of the Critical Areas Exemption – Modification below (See Conclusion of Law No. 23). KCC 21.A.24.200 requires a building setback of 15 feet be established from all critical area buffers (Ex. 12). The Applicant is proposing an access drive aisle, sidewalks, and drainage utilities within the required 15-foot setback. The proposal appears to comply with the Critical Area building setback requirements. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(h): Services and Infrastructure: Making available public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use. 21. The project is served by adequate services and facilities as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(i): Phasing: Including a detailed sequencing plan with dev elopment phases and estimated time frames, for phased projects. 22. The project is not phased. Critical Areas Exemption - Modification RMC 4-8-070(D)(8)(b): Authority: The Community and Economic Development Administrator shall review and act on the following: ... 8. Modifications: ... b. Modification of geologic hazard regulations for manmade slopes; RMC 4-9-050(D)(4)(b)(i)(d): Review Authority – Geologic Hazards, Habitat Conservation, Streams and Lakes, and Wetlands: The Administrator is authoriz ed to make the following administrative allowances and determinations: ... i. Geologic Hazards. ... (d) Grant a modification for created slopes per subsection N2 of this Section. 23. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(G), the site is located within a High Erosion Hazard Area and an unclassified Landslide Hazard Area. The Applicant provided a geotechnical report, prepared by GEODesign, Inc., on February 18, 2014 in addition to a Geologic Hazard Report (Ex. 13). The reports concluded that the subject site and surrounding parcels have been extensively graded during past aggregate mining activities on the property and that the slopes were created as a result of mining activity. RMC 4-8-070(D)(8)(b) and RMC 4-9-050(D)(4)(b)(i)(d) allow for modification of geologic hazard 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 SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT - 18 CAO VARIANCE - 18 regulations for manmade slopes. Re-grading of the steep slope areas is also allowed by the vested King County Code (KCC21A.24.310.D.2) through a Critical Area Alternation. The City does not have a Critical Area Alteration process. Alternatively, the applicant is requesting a Critical Area Exemption to re-grade within the steep slopes. RMC 4-9-050(N)(2)(a)(ii)(a): Geologic Hazards – Modifications: An applicant may request that the Administrator grant a modification to allow: (a) Regrading of any slope which was created through previous mineral and natural resource recovery activities or was created prior to adoption of applicable mineral and natural resource recovery regulations or through public or private road installation or widening and related transportation improvements, railroad track installation or improvement, or public or private utility installation activities; The following procedures shall apply to any of the above activities: (1) The applicant shall submit a geotechnical report descr ibing any potential impacts of the proposed regrading and any necessary mitigation measures; (2) All submitted reports shall be independently reviewed by qualified specialists selected by the City at the applicant’s expense; (3) The Department Administra tor may grant, condition, or deny the request based upon the proposal’s compliance with the applicable modification criteria of RMC 4 -9-250D; and (4) Any slope which remains forty percent (40%) or steeper following site development shall be subject to all applicable geologic hazard regulations for steep slopes and landslide hazards, in this Section. (5) In addition to the criteria of RMC 4 -9-250D, Modification Procedures, the following criteria shall apply: The proposed modification is based on considerat ion of the best available science as described in WAC 365 -195-905; or where there is an absence of valid scientific information, the steps in RMC 4 -9-250F are followed. 24. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 5(G), the geotechnical reports concluded that the subject site and surrounding parcels have been extensively graded during past aggregate mining activities on the property and that the slopes were created as a result of mining activity. The site therefore qualifies for a Geologic Hazards Modification pursuant to RMC 4-9-050(N)(2)(a)(ii)(a). The main considerations noted in the geotechnical reports include the existence of moisture sensitive clay soils, anticipated water seepage, the height of proposed cuts, the presence of a weathered and fractured upper soil zone and the associated risk of shallow soil movements. There is concern regarding the potential for instability if water seepage is allowed on the slope both du ring and after construction. 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 SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT - 19 CAO VARIANCE - 19 Additionally, the reports mention that the discharge of groundwater along the slopes and excessive groundwater levels near the slopes could cause a reduction in slope stability. This concern was also expressed my members of the public during the public hearing. The GEODesign scope of services did not include any environmental assessment or evaluation regarding the presence or absence of wetlands or hazardous or toxic material in the soil, surface water, groundwater, air, and on or below or around the site. The geotechnical report states that proposed re-grading of the site would not increase the existing slope inclinations in excess of 50% and would not adversely impact the slope stability of the site. The proposed re-grading is also not anticipated to impact the slope stability on adjacent properties of the Steep Slope Hazard Areas. The report recommends that slopes should be graded to drain back from the top of slopes. Pursuant to RMC 4-9-050(N)(2)(a)(ii)(a)(2) a condition of approval will require the Applicant to provide an independent review of the submitted geotechnical report and the geologic hazard report prior to construction permit approval. The independent analysis shall be paid at the Applicant’s expense, and the Administrator shall select the third-party review professional. Additionally, the drainage report may have to be updated based on the results of the secondary review of the geotechnical report and geologic hazard report. If the independent review determines the re-grading of the site would harm the public health, welfare or safety, the Critical Areas Exemption shall be denied. Lot Line Adjustment RMC 4-7-060: PRINCIPLES OF ACCEPTABILITY: A lot line adjustment shall be consistent with the following principles of acceptability: 1. Correcting: Adjust lot lines including the elimination of a comm on lot line in order to correct property line or setback encroachments; 2. Im proving: Create better lot design, or improve access; 3. Conforming: Conform to Applicable Zoning: See chapter 4-2 RMC, subdivision and other code requirements pertaining to lot design, building location, and development standards. 25. The Applicant is proposing a Lot Line Adjustment in order to adjust the lot line between Lot 2 and Tract C-2. The original lot line was created in order reflect a survey of the critical areas on the site. The Applicant is proposing re-grading approximately 8,858sf within upper zone of the steep slope area. Once the re-grading is accomplished, the boundary of the critical areas and associated buffers will change. The lot line adjustment will correct the setback encroachments for the revised critical areas boundaries. The new lot line will improve the lot design by setting the critical areas bounda ries. The proposal complies with the applicable King County Zoning regulations therefore meeting all principles of acceptability. Street Modification 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 SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT - 20 CAO VARIANCE - 20 RMC 4-9-250(D)(2): Whenever there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of this Title, the Department Administrator may grant modifications for individual cases provided he/she shall first find that a specific reason makes the strict letter of this Code impractical, that the intent and purpose of the governing land use designati on of the Comprehensive Plan is met and that the modification is in conformity with the intent and purpose of this Code, and that such modification: a. Substantially implements the policy direction of the policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and the Community Design Element and the proposed modification is the minimum adjustment necessary to implement these policies and objectives; b. Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon sound engineering judgment; c. Will not be injurious to other property(ies) in the vicinity; d. Conforms to the intent and purpose of the Code; e. Can be shown to be justified and required for the u se and situation intended; and f. Will not create adverse impacts to other property(ies) in the vicinity. 26. The criterion above are met for the requested modification to RMC 4 -6-060 for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 4(E). There is no need for a parking lane along the frontage of the site and the existing curb could continue to be used as the character of the road has been established without the use of parking. Additionally, the applicant is providing 21 more stalls than required by code on site. The applicant is also providing increased widths for landscaping and sidewalk within the right of way. The requested modification meets the objective and safety of the code requirements. The proposed street cross section would not be injurious to surrounding property owners and can be shown to be justified for the situation intended. DECISION The site plan, street modification, critical areas exemption, and lot line adjustment are approved subject to the following conditions. 1. The Applicant shall be required to submit a detailed landscape plan demonstrating compliance with KCC 21A.16.050 for landscape spacing. The detailed landscape shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 2. The Applicant shall be required to submit to the Current Planning Project Manager length and depth detail for the building modulation in accordance with KCC 21A.14.090 prior to building permit approval. 3. The Applicant shall be required to submit to the Current Planning Project Manager sizing detail for the refuse and recyclable deposit areas prior to building permit approval. Additionally, the Applicant would be required to demonstrate how refuse and recyclables would be picked up 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 SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT - 21 CAO VARIANCE - 21 and where it would be located on pick-up day to the satisfaction of the Current Planning Project Manager 4. The Applicant shall be required to submit a detailed landscape plan demonstrating compliance with KCC 21A.16.070 for parking area square footage landscaping. The detailed landscape shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 5. The Applicant shall provide an independent review of the submitted geotechnical report and the geologic hazard report prior to construction permit approval. The independent analysis shall be paid at the Applicant’s expense, and the Administrator shall select the third-party review professional. Additionally, the drainage report may have to be updated based on the results of the secondary review of the geotechnical report and geologic hazard report. If the independent review determines the re-grading of the site likely result in harm to the public health, welfare or safety, the Critical Areas Exemption shall be denied. 6. The Applicant shall be required to submit a tree retention plan in compliance with KCC 16.82.156 Significant Trees. The tree retention plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 7. The Applicant shall be required to submit a revised drainage plan depicting a five-foot separation between all stormwater structures and property lines. The revised drainage plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Plan Reviewer prior to construction permit approval. 8. The Applicant shall be required to record the necessary covenants or declarations of restrictions on the property to ensure that no children will reside in the development. The recorded documents shall be submitted to by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. DATED this 22nd day of April, 2014. City of Renton Hearing Examiner Appeal Right and Valuation Notices RMC 4-8-110(E)(9) provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4 -8-110(E)(9) 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 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 SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT - 22 CAO VARIANCE - 22 for reconsideration to the hearing e examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(8) and RMC 4-8-100(G)(4). A new fourteen (14) day appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk’s Office, Renton City Hall – 7th floor, (425) 430-6510. Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation.