HomeMy WebLinkAboutMaplewood Park East, Preliminary Plat1
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
OF FRENT01-14
0 V 131 201
r-15CEIVED
CLERK'S OPFICE
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
RE: Maplewood Park East
FINAL DECISION
Preliminary Plat )
LUA12-018, ECF, PP )
Summary
The Applicant requests preliminary plat approval for a fourteen lot residential subdivision. The
preliminary plat is approved with conditions. Street modification requests for Road B are denied
without prejudice due to lack of supporting information in the administrative record. Staff will be
able to reprocess the request at the administrative level without adding any significant delay to
processing of the application. Requests to face homes towards NE 2nd street is deferred to building
permit review where it is normally addressed. Orientation cannot be addressed at this time because
there is no information in the record as to how staff has applied the orientation standards in the past
and the orientation criteria are at least partially dependent upon specific housing design, which is not
review until building permit review. Ultimately, although the Applicant is understandably adverse to
further design modifications, placing Road B along the northern perimeter of the subdivision would
resolve the orientation issues of the subdivision. Such an alternative design would be contrary to
regulations that "prefer" alley access, but given the unique circumstances of the plat (only one block
of homes between a park and a street), this is one situation where alley access is not ideal.
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 1
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Testimony
City Staff
Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, City of Renton
Ms. Dolbee described the Maplewood Park East Preliminary Plat. The site is located on the NE
corner of NE 2nd Street and 152nd Avenue SE (Rosario Avenue NE). The site is a vacant 4.5 acres,
zoned Residential 4 (R-4) dwelling units per net acres and is in the Residential Low Density
designation in the Comprehensive Plan. The net density is proposed to be 4.02 dwelling units per
acre. Lot sizes vary from 8,135 to 10,926 square feet. Two tracts are proposed, a stormwater tract
(Tract A) and a landscape/utilities tract (Tract B). The site contains 271 protected trees of which 18
are proposed to be retained with 103 replacement trees. The site contains no critical areas. Street
frontage improvements would be provided along NE 2nd Street and new internal road systems are
proposed. On September 24, 2012 the SEPA Responsible Official issued an MDNS with four
conditions. No appeals were filed. One public comment related to traffic was received. The proposal
is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and, as conditioned, will be compliant with the zoning
code. The lot widths do no currently conform. The landscape plan does not currently meet the city
code with respect to street trees or significant tree retention and/or replacement. There was a road
modification request issued on January 3, 2012. New information was subsequently provided that
demonstrated a lack of critical areas on the site. The lack of critical areas triggered street frontage
requirements. Staff is recommending modifications to the requirements of the January 3rd letter.
These include the elimination of Road C, the extension of Road B and the frontage and asphalt width
requirements along the internal roads and on 152nd Avenue SE.
In response to the Examiner, Ms. Dolbee stated that Road A will still be directly across the street
from an existing house. The public comment letter expressed concern about headlight glare on their
house from Road A. Staff recommends that landscape screening be provided around the stormwater
detention facility on the outside of fencing or along the perimeter of the tract. Police, fire, school,
water, sewer and stormwater facilities are adequate as conditioned.
The Applicant is proposing both rain gardens and a stormwater pond in conformance to the 2009
King County Stormwater Manual. Staff recommends approval of the Maplewood Park Preliminary
Plat subject to ten conditions (the original eleven recommended conditions minus condition #5).
In response to the Examiner, Ms. Dolbee stated the Applicant will meet the City's required LOS. She
also noted the definition of a significant tree is a 6" diameter tree as measured 4' above the ground.
With respects to impacts to the house at the terminus of Road A, Ms. Dolbee stated MDNS measures
were considered, but that the design as proposed is the best solution.
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 2
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
With respect to the extensive changes recommended on the plat by the conditions of approval, Ms.
Dolbee stated that though the changes were significant, the Staff felt that the potential impacts of the
changes would be to reduce the project's impacts and that the Applicant would not need to apply for a
plat alteration.
Applicant
Tiffany Brown, Burnstead Construction Company
Ms. Brown stated they had only had the staff report for three days and that they were frustrated by
the extensive conditions. Many of the conditions had not been mentioned in the year and a half since
the project had started. They stated that the code table for the R-4 zone allowed lot size, width or
depth could be reduced to achieve the allowable density. She stated the plat always looked as it did.
Ms. Brown also stated the City said they had no plans for extending Rosario Avenue NE. Bumstead
pointed out that extension of that road cannot go anywhere because of critical areas. The Applicant
has always stated there are no critical areas on site or off-site buffer impacting the site. They did not
learn until July 2012 that they had to prove there were no wetlands on site. Burnstead agreed to allow
a third party reviewer, Otak, to analyze whether the off-site wetland buffer impacted the subject site.
The wetland has since disappeared. The Applicant feels they have to completely change their plat at
a very late date with little notice. They have gone back to the drawing board three days before a
hearing. Ms. Brown stated there is no benefit in these conditions of approval which came out of left
field. Ms. Brown stated they'd had many meetings with the City and feel they've been led astray by
the Staff.
Matt Hough, CP I H, Project Civil Engineer and Planner
In response to the Examiner, Mr. Hough stated Rosario Avenue NE cannot be extended to the south
because of existing development and critical areas south of NE 2nd Street. The same is true north of
the project. The two northern parcels are parks parcels which are presently undeveloped. The City
stated they had no intention of approving this road to the north. Road A was designed the way it was
to allow for connectivity to the north in lieu of extending Rosario Avenue NE. Mr. Hough stated they
had this plan layout for 18 months with the exception of modifications in response to the January 3rd
letter. They do not see how the footnote to the R-4 table is not applicable here. Mr. Hough stated he
could see where Staff had made an effort to minimize changes to the plat, but the changes they have
asked for in the Staff Report are new and significant and coming very late in the process. The
Applicant does not see a benefit to the proposed changes. They also note that improving Rosario
Avenue NE to the Staff's recommendations will create an off -set intersection that may not be
approved by Public Works. Mr. Hough stated they had done what they could do to reduce the
impacts of this project while still meeting the density requirements.
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 3
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
Public Comment
Shara Hagerman
Ms. Hagerman stated she lived in a home on 132nd (NE 2nd Street) in the County facing this
development. Ms. Hagerman stated her neighborhood is established. She stated she had spoken with
Staff about the orientation of the houses. Ms. Hagerman was hoping that the homes would face the
street, rather than the backs of the houses. Ms. Hagerman said the City has assured them the houses
would face them, but that the Staff Report makes it clear the houses will face internally to the plat.
The neighborhood character would be improved by having the houses face the existing streets. Ms.
Hagerman said she was worried about the drainage pond. She stated most of the drainage ponds in
the area were ugly, large and insufficiently screened. Ms. Hagerman also noted the Staff Report
stated the schools in the area are in the Renton School District when they are in fact in the Issaquah
School District.
Robert Hagerman
Mr. Hagerman echoed his wife's comments. He wants to look at front doors and front yards, not
back fences or driveways.
Terry Taylor
Mr. Taylor stated he was the person who wrote the public comment letter. He stated Road A is
directly across from his house. He is concerned about excessive traffic from this road as they are
trying to back out of their driveway. Mr. Taylor stated the location of Road A is very poorly located
with respect to his house and the placement of his windows. He is concerned about traffic and
headlight glare impacting his home. He also does not understand why Road A is located where it is.
In response, Mr. Hough stated that the City required a north -south connection that was not Rosario
Avenue NE.
Mr. Taylor asked what will happen with Road A. The property north of Road A is where the
Duwamish sludge was placed when the river was cleaned up. It is now pasture land, though it is
designated by King County as park land. Mr. Taylor is not against development, just the impacts to
his house. He would like to see Road A farther east to a location that is opposite a more suitable use,
such as garages or vacant roads. This development represents a significant change from the way his
property has functioned for the 38 years he has lived there. Mr. Taylor also noted that NE 2nd Street
has become a cut through route and traffic has been increasing in recent years.
Doug Bornstine
Mr. Bornstine lives next door to the Taylors. Mr. Bomstine is also concerned about traffic. He's been
working with King County to try to discourage cut through traffic on NE 2nd Street. The traffic is
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
moving significantly faster than the posted 25 mph or the recommended 20 mph. The road is narrow,
unlined and not traffic controlled. Some of the cut through traffic is moving at 60 mph. Mr.
Bornstine is working with King County to get cameras installed or additional police presence on the
road. Mr. Bomstine stated the parcel to the north of the subject is not landlocked. It extends to 156th
Street. He does not see the need for a north -south connector here.
Rebuttal
Upon rebuttal, Ms. Dolbee stated that the R-4 zone has residential design standards. The homes are
required to be accessed by Road B. The residential design guidelines for primary entries require the
house to have wrapped porches and front doors facing and engaging the street. The fronts of the
homes will face NE 2nd Street and Road B will function more as an alleyway for the three southern
lots. NE 2nd Street is the primary street. Road B has been reduced through road modifications to
function more as an alleyway. Lots 6-8 will face the rear of the houses on Lots 12-14. Staff requests
a further condition of approval that requires houses to face NE 2nd Street.
Ms. Dolbee agreed that the children from the houses would attend school in the Issaquah School
District. Ms. Dolbee described the frontage improvements and road designs being recommended by
Staff for NE 2nd Street.
With respect to road alignment and the requirement for a north -south connector, the City anticipates
there will be a connection to the property to the north. There are two large parcels there. The City is
attempting to preserve the possibility of future connectivity. There is existing right of way on the
west side of the parks properties, but north of there are housing developments. Therefore, 152nd
Avenue SE cannot be feasibly extended. The location of Road A is in a much more feasible and
likely location for future road connections.
Ms. Dolbee read the requirements for reducing lot widths. She stated the City deducts road width
when considering density. The City has already allowed two road width modifications to reduce the
width of the internal roadway. If the City required the full roadway width of the code, there would be
less land available to count toward the net density. Ms. Dolbee stated by allowing the roadway
modifications and requiring standard lot widths, the plat is likely to maintain 13 of the 14 proposed
lots. Whereas in the circumstance where the City denied the roadway modifications but allowed for
reduced lot widths, the plat would likely be reduced to less than 13 lots. The Staff agreed to reduce
the street widths to allow for the opportunity for increased density.
Ms. Dolbee stated the road realignment was not a mitigation measure from environmental review
and is more appropriately a condition of approval. Ms. Dolbee stated the realignment of Road B will
allow for an additional entry to the King County Park land. Staff recommends that the improvements
happen within the existing right of way plus an additional three feet. Rosario Avenue NE is currently
unimproved. Ms. Dolbee stated the code favors alley configurations. There is no requirement to
provide 15 feet of landscaping, the requirement is 10 feet.
Kayren Kittrick, City of Renton, Lead Construction Inspector
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Ms. Kittrick stated Applicants are required to provide frontage improvements along their entire
frontage, but the City has recommended reduced requirements and a realigned internal road network.
Staff also stated that the location for Road A could potentially be realigned to move it away from its
present location. There will be sidewalks and street lights on NE 2"d Street.
Tiffany Brown
Ms. Brown stated the alley load requirement for Lots 12-14 is last minute. She stated they were
required to put in a 10 foot landscape tract adjacent to all the public roads inside the sidewalk and
landscape strips. The homes do not start for 50 feet beyond the landscaping. Also, the homes are at a
different grade and behind privacy fencing and the street trees. The impact of alley loaded lots within
the subdivision is much more significant than having the rear of the houses facing NE 2"d Street. She
noted an alley is not an alley if only half of the homes utilize it as such and the others front on it. The
Applicant is very concerned that down the road they will be penalized for the offset of the Rosario
Avenue NE intersection that is being required here. Ms. Brown also stated that the code does not
discuss rounding issues with density and that the requirements here are new.
Matt Hough
Mr. Hough stated that the plat has not changed and the City never brought up the lot width issues.
The lot sizes are larger than required. Road C originally was just a hammerhead. They extended it
through to provide pedestrian connectivity. Mr. Hough stated he does not understand the process and
that information from the City has changed. The secondary connection is not needed because of
intersection spacing and impacts significant trees. The design is better aesthetically and
environmentally to leave the Rosario Avenue NE right of way vacant. The discussions with the City
had always been a pedestrian connection on Rosario Avenue NE. The Applicant did originally have
Road A in another location but the City had them move it. The Applicant thought the road
modification they requested included the waiver for the lot width. They also said the City had
initially and often stated they did not need to extend Rosario Avenue NE.
Exhibits
Exhibits 1-21 listed on page 2 of the October 16, 2012 staff report are admitted into evidence at the
public hearing. The following additional exhibits were also admitted during the hearing:
Ex. 22: Vanessa Dolbee's presentation.
Ex. 23: Email correspondence between Staff and the Applicants dated October 23, 2012.
Ex. 24: A revised interior road network.
FINDINGS OF FACT
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 6
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
Procedural:
1. Applicant. Bumstead Construction, LLC.
2. Hearing. The Examiner held a hearing on the subject application on October 23, 2012 in
the City of Renton City Council Chambers.
3. Project Description. The Applicant is requesting Preliminary Plat approval for a 14 lot single
family residential subdivision. The site is located on the NE corner of NE 2nd Street and 152nd
Avenue SE, zoned Residential 4 (R-4) dwelling units per net acres. Lot sizes vary from 8,135 to
10,926 square feet. 40,946 square feet would be dedicated for new public roadways, and a 31,376
square foot stormwater tract is proposed. The net density is proposed to be 4.02 dwelling units per
acre. The site is currently vacant and contains no critical areas. The site contains 271 protected trees
of which 18 are proposed to be retained with 103 replacement trees. The project would result in
11,000 cubic yards of excavation with 10,000 cubic yards of fill. Street frontage improvements would
be provided along NE 2nd Street and new internal road systems are proposed. The City granted a
street modification request, with conditions, on January 3, 2012 to allow for modifications from the
City's street code for the new internal streets. With the application the Applicant submitted a storm
drainage report, geotechnical report, wetland reconnaissance, and a traffic study.
4. Characteristics of the Area. The project site is surrounded on three sides by single-family
development. The property adjoining to the north appears to be vacant from the aerial photograph
included in the staff report. The surrounding property to the east is within the City of Renton and is
zoned R-4. The subject is bordered by unincorporated King County land to the north, south and west.
All of the unincorporated King County properties are zoned R-4 by the County.
5. Adverse Impacts. There are no significant adverse impacts associated with the proposal.
There are no critical areas on site and a mitigated determination of non -significance has been issued
for the proposal. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 6, the project will be served by adequate
public services and infrastructure.
One issue of significant concerns to neighbors was the orientation of the homes along NE 2nd Street.
Adjacent property owners requested the houses on Lots 12-14 be required to face NE 2nd Street so
that the existing neighbors did not have to look at the backs of houses across NE 2nd Street. Staff
stated the Primary Entry guidelines (RMC 4-2-115(3)) would require the developer to construct the
houses facing the street. The Applicant argued that requiring the houses on Lots 12-14 to face NE 2nd
Street would be injurious to the houses on Lots 6-8 who would have to look directly across a reduced
width road at garages and the backs of houses; whereas there will be a landscape strip, sidewalk,
landscape buffer with street trees, a privacy fence and a grade change between the houses in the plat
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 7
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
and the existing neighbors across NE 2nd Street. As discussed in Conclusion of Law No. 5, this issue
will be deferred to the staff review level where the orientation of housing is more appropriately
addressed.
6. 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 will be served by adequate water and sewer. Water
service will be provided by Water District #90. A water availability certificate will be
required to be submitted to the City prior to or along with Construction Permit
Application.
Sewer service will be provided by the City of Renton. There is an 8 -inch sewer main
located in NE 2nd Street. Extension of an 8 -inch sewer main in the new roadways will be
required. The subject parcel falls within the assessment area known as the Wyman
latecomer Agreement. The Wyman final sewer assessment is $45,948.04. Payment of this
fee will be required prior to issuance of utility construction permit. A 6 -inch sewer stub
shall be provided to each lot.
B. Police and Fire Protection. Police and Fire Prevention staff indicates that sufficient
resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development; subject to the condition
that the Applicant provides Code required improvements and fees. A Fire Impact Fee,
based on new single-family lot with credit given for the existing single-family residence,
was recommended as part of the SEPA review, in order to mitigate the proposal's
potential impacts to City emergency services. The fee is payable to the City as specified by
the Renton Municipal Code.
All new construction must have fire hydrants capable of delivering a minimum of 1,000
gpm. One primary hydrant is required within 300 feet of the buildings. Homes larger than
3,600 square feet will require an additional hydrant and may require sprinklers. Final
determination will be made by the Fire Department. Sewer service will be provided by the
City of Renton.
C. Drainage. Drainage has been adequately addressed through the preparation of a drainage
report that proposes storm drainage facilities that staff have determined complies with the
standards of the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual as amended by the City
of Renton. Under existing conditions the site drainage infiltrates as the site is currently
undeveloped and forested. The storm drainage and TESC standards for the project are
established by the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual (KCSWM) and City of
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 8
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
Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. Based on the City's flow control
map, this site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard, Forested Conditions. The
development site is required to provide Basic Water Quality treatment in addition to Level
2 flow control.
The Applicant submitted a Preliminary Stormwater Drainage Report ("TIR") prepared by
CP I H Consultants, dated March, 8 2012 (Ex. 11). Based on the provided TIR the
Applicant is proposing to develop an on-site combined detention and water quality pond in
conjunction with a series of on-site rain gardens. The drainage report discusses meeting
the area specific flow control requirement under Core Requirement #3. Additionally a
Level 2 analysis will be required. A Construction Stormwater General Permit from the
Department of Ecology and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be
required for development of the subject site.
The provided Geotechnical Report (Ex. 12) evaluated the on-site soils to determine their
percolation rate. Based on the provided Geotechnical Report the whole scale infiltration
of development stormwater would not be feasible as the silty -sand with gravel observed in
the test pits has a low permeability and typically would not be suitable for infiltration of
stormwater on a large scale.
D. Parks/Oben Space. The MDNS for the project requires the Applicant to pay a Parks and
Recreation Impact fee at the time of final plat recording. The impact fees provide for
adequate parks and open space.
E. Streets. The proposal is served by adequate streets. There are currently no street
improvements fronting the site on NE 2nd Street. An undeveloped public right of way
borders the subject's western property line (152"d Avenue SE/Rosario Avenue NE). The
Proposed access to Lots 1-6 would be provided along a new public road, Road A. Lots 11
— 14 would be accessed via a new public road, Road B. In addition to Road A and B, the
Applicant has proposed a new public road, Road C. As proposed, both Road C and Road
A would provide direct access from NE 2nd Street and Road B would connect Road C and
Road A through the middle of the proposed development.
The residential access road standard for a public street is a 53 -foot right of way including
five-foot sidewalks and eight -foot landscaping strips on both sides, and two ten -foot travel
lanes and a six foot parking lane on one side (RMC 4-6-060(F2)). The City's private street
standards are applicable to streets that access six or fewer lots, provided that at least two of
the lots abut a public right of way. Private streets are only allowed in the circumstance
where there will be no future traffic and/or pedestrian circulation through the subdivision
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 9
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
to or to serve adjacent property. The minimum standard from private streets is a 26 -foot
easement with a twelve -foot pavement width and an approved turnaround.
A street modification was recommended by a letter dated January 3, 2012 by the
Development Services Division Director, modifying the street standards for the subject
development (Ex. 10). The proposed modifications are summarized as a `pavement width
of 20 feet, without separate sidewalks" for internal Roads B and C and a reduction in these
right of way widths to 20 feet. The letter partially denied the requested modifications and
recommended others for approval by the hearing examiner with conditions. The January 3,
2012 modification recommended a reduction in the street width on Roads B and C to 20 -
feet of pavement with no parking or sidewalks, but with a 6 -foot pedestrian walkway
marked on one side of the pavement area. The right-of-way was recommended to be a
minimum of 26 feet in width. This modification is primarily consistent with the City's
private street standards. The January 2, 2012 modification recommendation also required
Road A to comply with City of Renton street standards, resulting in 53 feet of required
right-of-way, consistent with a public residential access street.
RMC 4-6-060(E1) requires the dedication of right of way where the existing width for any
right of way adjacent to a development site is substandard. RMC 4-6-060(C) requires the
extension full of street improvements along the entire border of any development site
adjacent to a public right of way. In this case, the Applicant would be required to dedicate
land and construct full street improvements along Rosario Avenue NE/152nd Avenue SE
along its entire western border. Staff testified that when the Applicant first applied for the
plat, they were under the assumption that a previously existing wetland to the west of the
subject property still existed. The Applicant testified they had been under the assumption
from the beginning that this wetland did not exist. They stated Staff had told them from
the pre -application stage that street improvements along Rosario Avenue NE/152nd
Avenue SE would not be required. The Staff testified they did not initially require
extension of the street improvements because the presumed wetland and/or its buffer could
have been impacted by the extension of Rosario Avenue NE/152nd Avenue SE. Staff
requested proof that the previously existing wetland was still there. On July 15, 2012, the
Applicant provided evidence that the wetland had indeed disappeared. At the hearing,
Staff testified the lack of wetlands and buffers in the project vicinity triggered the code
requirement to provide street improvements along all frontages, including Rosario Avenue
NE/152nd Avenue SE. Frontage improvements are also required to be constructed along
NE 2nd Street.
Staff testified that they were now recommending modified half street improvements to
Rosario Avenue NE/152nd Avenue SE which would result in a street extension of only
about half the depth of the plat and the need for a dedication of three feet along the
western border. They also recommended Road C be eliminated entirely and the extension
of Road B from Road A in the east to intersect with the newly constructed Rosario Avenue
NE on the west. Staff justified this request by noting that even though there are no longer
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 10
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
concerns about a wetland impacting the site, existing development patterns to the north
would prohibit Rosario Avenue SE from ever being extended in that direction. Staff
indicated the improved Rosario Avenue SE to Road B would provide an extra possibility
for future connection to the King County park land to the north of the plat. Road A is
already proposed to be a public street connecting NE 2"d Street to the King County park
property to the north. Staff testified with the exception of these changes, they continue to
support the road modifications recommended by the January 3, 2012 letter. Road B would
now serve nine lots (Lots 6-11 and 12-14) and be connected to public roads on both
terminuses (Road A and Rosario Avenue NE).
The Applicant stated they had been in the design process for 18 months and only found out
three days before the hearing that Staff was recommending an almost entirely new street
layout and improvements to 152nd Avenue SE/Rosario Avenue NE. The Applicant stated
the City had told them in the pre -application meeting and throughout the design process
that they had no intention of requiring the Applicant to construct half -street improvements
to 152nd Avenue; this is, in fact, why the Applicant had designed Road A to terminate at
the northern property boundary. The design of Road A provided connectivity to the King
County undeveloped park land to the north in a location that might be feasibly extended to
the north. 152nd Avenue SE is located along an alignment that cannot be feasibly extended
north due to existing development and critical areas.
The Applicant also stated the construction of half street improvements to 152nd Avenue
NE will create an intersection misalignment. The Applicant is concerned that the
misalignment will not be allowed and that they will be required to once again redesign the
plat at a later stage. Staff stated the requirement for the improvements on Rosario Avenue
NE was triggered by the new knowledge that there was no wetland in the vicinity of 152nd
Avenue NE as there had previously been. The Applicant noted that information was given
to the City in July after an exhaustive attempt by the Applicant to prove the lack of the
critical area. The Staff had over three months to provide the new road layout
recommendations to the Applicant but did not so do before the Staff Report (Ex. 1) was
issued three days before the hearing.
Some comments were made at the hearing by adjoining property owners related to the
location of Road A. Road A is currently designed in such a way that it aligns with the
driveway and front windows of the house to the south across NE 2"d Street. The property
owner expressed concern regarding his safety when attempting to back out of his
driveway and also of the impact of headlights sweeping across his windows. Staff
suggested studies show offsetting the new road from the existing driveway would be
more dangerous than aligning the two. Another adjacent property owner expressed
concern regarding the increasing cut through traffic on NE 2"d Street which has become
hazardous in recent years with the increase in cars traveling at higher than posted speeds.
Under the preponderance of evidence standard, the Examiner must side on the staff s
conclusions on this issue. The City's public works department, which has extensive
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 11
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
experience in traffic design and safety, has determined that the safest place for
subdivision intersections is directly across from driveways and the department has also
concluded that NE 2nd St. is adequately designed to accommodate traffic generated by the
proposal. The neighbors have not provided any specific evidence to outweight this expert
testimony. The location of the subdivisions access points and NE 2nd St. is determined to
be adequate and to not create any significant adverse impacts on neighboring property
owners.
The City code requires extension of 152nd Avenue (Rosario Avenue NE) with full
frontage improvements along the west boundary of the site, adjacent to the existing public
right-of-way. City Staff has argued the development of Road A to the north, will
accomplish the same purpose by providing a northern connection through the subject site
but that they recommend improvements to Rosario Avenue NE to allow for a secondary
access to the King County park land should it ever be developed. The Applicant argues
the King County Land extends all the way to 156th Avenue SE and that Road A already
functions as a secondary connection without the requirement to provide a less than full
length, half street improvement that creates a misaligned intersection. Staff contents the
elimination of Road C and extension of Road B to intersect with the newly improved
Rosario Avenue NE will retain a secondary access into the plat while reducing the curb
cuts on NE 2nd Street.
The conditions of approval will require street extension along the west boundary of the
site (along 152nd Avenue) to extend north from NE 2nd Street to the intersection with
Road B. The street improvements in Rosario Avenue NE are further modified to require
20 feet of pavement, 8 foot planter and 5 foot sidewalk on the west side of the street. This
would result in the need to provide 3 feet of dedication along the entire western property
edge.
A condition of approval will require the Applicant to provide an updated plat plan for
review and approval by the Development Services Division with the re -designed road
system prior to construction permit issuance.
F. Parking. Sufficient area exists, on each lot, to accommodate required off street parking for
a minimum of two vehicles. NE 2nd Street will accommodate parking on both sides. New
Road A will accommodate parking on one side. New Road be will no accommodate on -
street parking.
G. Tree Retention. The Applicant submitted two Arborist reports dated February 14, 2012
and July 24, 2012 (Ex. 16). The Arborist reported the site contains 271 significant trees.
Of these, the Applicant's Arborist determined 91 are dead and/or dangerous. 78 of the
trees are located in the proposed roadway and 18 are proposed to be retained. The City's
Urban Forester and Natural Resources Manager, Terry Flatley, visited the subject site and
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
reviewed the February 14, 2012 Arborist report. Mr. Flatley presented his findings via e-
mail on June 27, 2012 (Ex. 21). Based on the City's Urban Forester's conclusions, 16 trees
should be subtracted from the dead and/or dangerous list included in the February 14,
2012 Arborist report, resulting in a total of 75 dead and/or dangerous trees. Based on the
number of significant trees, the Applicant must retain the 18 trees proposed to be retained,
and provide an additional 114 replacement trees at 2 -inch caliper. The Applicant has
proposed to plant only 103 replacement trees. The Applicant must provide an updated tree
retention worksheet and planting plan that meets the minimum retention and/or
replacement requirements.
Conclusions of Law
1. Author i . RMC 4-7-020(C) and 4-7-050(D)(5) provide that the Hearing Examiner shall hold
a hearing and issue a final decision on preliminary plat applications. RMC 4-9-250(C)(2) grants the
Community and Economic Development Administrator or his/her designee the authority to approve
waivers to street improvements. The waiver is classified as a Type I permit by RMC 4-8-080(G).
However, RMC 4-8-080(C)(2) requires consolidated permits to each be processed under "the highest -
number procedure". Staff testified that the street waiver request has been consolidated with the
preliminary plat application, which is classified as a Type III application by RMC 4-8-080(G).
Consequently, the street waiver request is also classified as a Type III application, which is subject to
hearing examiner approval pursuant to RMC 4-8-080(G).
2. Zonin /Coprehensive Plan Designations. tions. The subject property is zoned Residential 4
dwelling units per net acre (R-4). The comprehensive plan map land use designation is Residential
Low Density (RLD).
3. Review Criteria. Chapter 4-7 RMC governs the criteria for subdivision review. Applicable
standards are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law.
RMC 4-7-080(B): A subdivision shall be consistent with the following principles of acceptability:
1. Legal Lots: Create legal building sites which comply with all provisions of the City Zoning Code.
2. Access: Establish access to a public road for each segregated parcel.
3. Physical Characteristics: Have suitable physical characteristics. A proposed plat may be denied
because of flood, inundation, or wetland conditions. Construction of protective improvements may be
required as a condition of approval, and such improvements shall be noted on the final plat.
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
4. Drainage: Make adequate provision for drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water
supplies and sanitary wastes.
4. As noted in Finding of Fact 6, this criterion is not satisfied with respect to lot width
requirements (RMC 4-2-110). The Applicant contends the lot layout and widths have not been altered
in the 18 months since the plat was originally proposed. It is not clear from the administrative record
whether Staff addressed this concern during the review process. The Applicant stated they had
assumed their request for street modifications encompassed a request for the plat layout as presented
and that the Staff's recommended approval of the street modifications represented tacit approval of
the plat as presented. There is nothing in the administrative record or in the testimony that suggests
the Staff was aware of or in agreement with the Applicant's assumption that the street modification
represented approval of the plat as presented.
The Applicant also argued that RMC 4-2-11OD- 11 should apply because a reduction in lot width is
necessary to achieve the maximum density on the plat. Staff argues the opposite stating the Applicant
could achieve the allowable density without it. In either case RMC 4-2-110 defines a maximum
allowable density; it does not define either a minimum density or guarantee that all plats will achieve
the maximum density permitted under the zone. While it is unfortunate that the issue of the lot widths
was not addressed in a more timely fashion, the code requirements have not changed. Condition of
Approval 3 requires the Applicant to re -design the plat plan to provide for lots that meet the
minimum lot dimensional standards and submit the new plat plan for review and approval by the
Current Planning Project Manager prior to Construction Permit issuance. The proposed lots comply
with all other requirements of the R-4 zoning district as detailed by staff at page 7-9 of the staff
report, which is adopted and incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full.
As noted in the staff report and shown on the preliminary plat map (Ex. 2), each lot will access new
Roads A or B. No access will be permitted from NE 2nd Street. As discussed in Finding of fact 6(E),
proposed Road C will be eliminated and 152nd Avenue SE will be extended to meet Road B at the
western property boundary.
As noted in the Findings of Fact 5, there are no critical areas on the property. Consequently, the site
has physical characteristics suitable for development. As determined in the Finding of Fact No. 7 and
as conditioned, the proposal makes adequate provision for drainage, streets, water and sewer.
RMC 4-7-080(1)(1): ...The Hearing Examiner shall assure conformance with the general purposes
of the Comprehensive Plan and adopted standards...
5. The proposed preliminary plat is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan as outlined
in Section I(1) of the staff report, which is incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. The
proposal is consistent with applicable subdivision regulations as outlined in detail in the other
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 14
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
conclusions of law in this decision. The proposal is consistent with applicable zoning standards and
design standards as outlined in Section I(2) and (3) of the staff report, adopted by this reference as if
set forth in full, excluding the staff's conclusions regarding lot width.
One design standard that was raised during the hearing regarded house orientation. Members of the
public expressed a desire to have the houses face NE 2nd Street as their front facade in order to
provide a better aesthetic and community feel to the existing neighborhood. The Applicant notes that
placing the front facade of the houses on Lots 12-14 towards NE 2nd Street is problematic, because
then the lots on the north portion of the plat will be facing the rear of the houses on Lots 12-14 from a
distance of only a 26' road, whereas the southern part of the property will have a landscape strip,
sidewalk, 15' landscape buffer with street trees, a privacy fence and a grade change. Staff stated that
the houses could be conditioned to face NE 2nd Street based on RMC 4-2-115-3, the primary entry
guidelines.
It is premature to address building orientation at this time. There is no information on proposed
building design and orientation and none of this information is expected or required during
subdivision review. RMC 4-2-115(3) regulates the orientation of single-family homes within
subdivisions and provides that "front doors shall face the street and be on the facade closest to the
street." Staff testified Road B is proposed to be less than a full street width, so they do not view it as a
street in the sense envisioned by RMC 4-2-115-3. However, staff's interpretation of RMC 4-2-115(3)
was "off the cuff' during the hearing and there is no indication whether this interpretation is
consistent with past applications and whether the interpretation is supported by the legislative history
of the regulation. Further, the required orientation of a home is dependent upon the location of
building facades. There is no information in the record on building design or proposed building
locations. None of this information is required or expected during subdivision review. RMC 4-2-
115(3) is a building design regulation that should be designed when building design is proposed and
can be evaluated, which is the building permit review stage of development. Consequently, the
resolution of this building design issue will be deferred to building permit review. The staff will be
required to provide notice of this application of RMC 4-2-115(3) to affected neighbors, so that they
have the opportunity to appeal the staff s application should they disagree with it.
One option of dealing with the orientation issue would be to relocate Road B to the northern
perimeter of the proposal. This would enable the Applicant to orient the homes along NE 2nd St. to
their neighbors to the south and the homes along Road B to face the park property to the north. Of
course, this redesign would have to comply with all City standards and staff would have to determine
whether the redesign would trigger additional public review. Of course, moving Road B further north
will require more frontage improvements along Rosario. If relocation of Road B is considered, staff
and the Applicant will have to work out whether the added improvements are worth resolving the
orientation issues.
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
91
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
RMC 4-7-120(A): No plan for the replatting, subdivision, or dedication of any areas shall be
approved by the Hearing Examiner unless the streets shown therein are connected by surfaced road
or street (according to City specifications) to an existing street or highway.
6. The internal circulation system of the subdivision, as conditioned, connects to NE 2nd Street
and 152nd Avenue SE (Rosario Ave NE).
RMC 4-7-120(B): The location of all streets shall conform to any adopted plans for streets in the
City.
7. As discussed in Finding of fact 6(E), City code requires extension of 152nd Avenue (Rosario
Avenue NE) with full frontage improvements along the west boundary of the site, adjacent to the
existing public right-of-way. However, the development of Road A to the north will accomplish the
same purpose by providing a northern connection through the subject site. As conditioned, proposed
Road C will be eliminated and 152nd Avenue SE will be extended to meet Road B at the western
property boundary.
RMC 4-7-120(C): If a subdivision is located in the area of an officially designed [sic] trail,
provisions shall be made for reservation of the right-of-way or for easements to the City for trail
purposes.
8. The staff report and administrative record do not identify any officially designated trail in the
vicinity.
RMC 4-7-130(C): A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication shall be prepared in conformance
with the following provisions:
1. Land Unsuitable for Subdivision: Land which is found to be unsuitable for subdivision includes
land with features likely to be harmful to the safety and general health of the future residents (such as
lands adversely affected by flooding, steep slopes, or rock formations). Land which the Department
or the Hearing Examiner considers inappropriate for subdivision shall not be subdivided unless
adequate safeguards are provided against these adverse conditions.
a. Flooding/Inundation: If any portion of the land within the boundary of a preliminary plat is
subject to flooding or inundation, 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
such subdivision.
b. Steep Slopes: A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication which would result in the creation of a
lot or lots that primarily have slopes forty percent (4001o) or greater as measured per RMC 4 -3 -
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 16
1 050J1 a, without adequate area at lesser slopes upon which development may occur, shall not be
2 approved.
3 ---
4 3. Land Clearing and Tree Retention: Shall comply with RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land
5 Clearing Regulations.
6 4. Streams:
7 a. Preservation: Every reasonable effort shall be made to preserve existing streams, bodies of water,
and wetland areas.
8
b. Method: If a stream passes through any of the subject property, a plan shall be presented which
9 indicates how the stream will be preserved. The methodologies used should include an overflow area,
10 and an attempt to minimize the disturbance of the natural channel and stream bed.
11 c. Culverting: The piping or tunneling of water shall be discouraged and allowed only when going
12 under streets.
13 d. Clean Water: Every effort shall be made to keep all streams and bodies of water clear of debris
and pollutants.
14
9. As discussed in Conclusion of Law No. 4, the land is suitable for development. The property
15 is not designated as a floodplain and there are no streams or steep slopes on site.
16
As discussed in Findings of Fact 8(G), there are significant trees on the site. The City's Urban
17 Forester has made recommendations regarding the number of trees that must be retained or replaced.
The Applicant has proposed to retain 18 trees and provide 103 replacement trees at 2 -inch caliper.
18 The City code requires 114 additional trees. As conditioned, the Applicant must provide an updated
19 tree retention worksheet and planting plan that meets the minimum retention and/or replacement
requirements.
20
RMC 4-7-140: Approval of all subdivisions located in either single family residential or multi -
21 family residential zones as defined in the Zoning Code shall be contingent upon the subdivider's
22 dedication of land or providing fees in lieu of dedication to the City, all as necessary to mitigate the
adverse effects of development upon the existing park and recreation service levels. The requirements
23 and procedures for this mitigation shall be per the City of Renton Parks Mitigation Resolution.
24 10. The MDNS requires the payment of Park and Recreation Impact fees.
25
RMC 4-7-150(A): The proposed street system shall extend and create connections between existing
26 streets unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. Prior to approving a street
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 17
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
system that does not extend or connect, the Reviewing Official shall find that such exception shall
meet the requirements of subsection E3 of this Section. The roadway classifications shall be as
defined and designated by the Department.
11. As discussed in Conclusion of Law 7, as conditioned, the proposed internal street system
provides connectivity to NE 2nd Street and 152nd Avenue SE (Rosario Avenue NE) via proposed
Roads A and B. Proposed Road A stubs at the northern property boundary.
RMC 4-7-150(B): All proposed street names shall be approved by the City.
12. As conditioned.
RMC 4-7-150(C): Streets intersecting with existing or proposed public highways, major or
secondary arterials shall be held to a minimum.
13. The record does not contain any information on the classification of NE 2nd Street or 152nd
Ave SE, though neither road appears to be a public highway or major or secondary arterial. The
proposal as conditioned will eliminate proposed Road C, and extend proposed Road B to connect
with 152nd Ave SE, reducing the number of connections to the higher traveled road, NE 2nd Street.
RMC 4-7-150(D): The alignment of all streets shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works
Department. The street standards set by RMC 4-6-060 shall apply unless otherwise approved. Street
alignment offsets of less than one hundred twenty five feet (125) are not desirable, but may be
approved by the Department upon a showing of need but only after provision of all necessary safety
measures.
14. As conditioned the road network will be redesigned and submitted for approval by the Public
Works Department. As noted in Finding of Fact 5, the present alignment of Road A could impact the
existing house across from the road's planned southern terminus. A condition will require the
Applicant and City to review the road location to determine if a better location for the southern
terminus can be found that will reduce potential impacts while maximizing traffic safety.
RMC 4-7-150(E):
1. Grid: A grid street pattern shall be used to connect existing and new development and shall be the
predominant street pattern in any subdivision permitted by this Section.
2. Linkages: Linkages, including streets, sidewalks, pedestrian or bike paths, shall be provided within
and between neighborhoods when they can create a continuous and interconnected network of roads
and pathways. Implementation of this requirement shall comply with Comprehensive Plan
Transportation Element Objective T -A and Policies T-9 through T-16 and Community Design
Element, Objective CD -Mand Policies CD -50 and CD -60.
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 18
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
3. Exceptions:
a. The grid pattern may be adjusted to a "flexible grid" by reducing the number of linkages or the
alignment between roads, where the following factors are present on site:
i. Infeasible due to topographical/environmental constraints; and/or
ii. Substantial improvements are existing.
4. Connections: Prior to adoption of a complete grid street plan, reasonable connections that link
existing portions of the grid system shall be made. At a minimum, stub streets shall be required
within subdivisions to allow future connectivity.
5. Alley Access: Alley access is the preferred street pattern except for properties in the Residential
Low Density land use designation. The Residential Low Density land use designation includes the
RC, R-1, and R-4 zones. Prior to approval of a plat without alley access, the Reviewing Official shall
evaluate an alley layout and determine that the use of alley(s) is not feasible...
6. Alternative Configurations: Offset or loop roads are the preferred alternative configurations.
7. Cul -de -Sac Streets: Cul-de-sac streets may only be permitted by the Reviewing Official where due
to demonstrable physical constraints no future connection to a larger street pattern is physically
possible.
15. As recommended by staff, the Applicant will be required to extend Road B to Rosario and
eliminate Road C. This will eliminate the cul-de-sac discouraged by the regulations above and will
also foster the grid system encouraged by the regulations. As testified by staff, the connection to
Rosario was initially not required because it was believed that wetlands blocked the connection.
Since those wetlands were ultimately determined to not be present, the connectivity required by the
regulations above should be implemented.
RMC 4-7-150(F): All adjacent rights-of-way and new rights-of-way dedicated as part of the plat,
including streets, roads, and alleys, shall be graded to their full width and the pavement and
sidewalks shall be constructed as specified in the street standards or deferred by the
Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee.
16. As discussed in Conclusion of Law 30 and as conditioned, subject to the street modification
approval (Ex. 10), as amended herein.
RMC 4-7-150(G): Streets that may be extended in the event of future adjacent platting shall be
required to be dedicated to the plat boundary line. Extensions of greater depth than an average lot
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 19
I shall be improved with temporary turnarounds. Dedication of a full -width boundary street shall be
2 required in certain instances to facilitate future development.
3 17. As conditioned and as discussed in Conclusion of Law 7.
4 RMC 4-7-170(A): Insofar as practical, side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines or radial
to curved street lines.
5
6 18. As depicted in Ex. 2, the side lines as currently proposed are in conformance with the
requirement quoted above. However, as noted in Finding of Fact 6 and Conclusion of Law 3, the
7 Applicant will be required to re -design and resubmit the lot plan for the review and approval of the
8 Current Planning Project Manager prior to Construction Permit issuance to comply with lot
dimensional requirements. Compliance with this criterion will be reassessed at that time.
9
RMC 4-7-170(0): Each lot must have access to a public street or road. Access may be by private
10 access easement street per the requirements of the street standards.
11 19. As previously determined, each lot will have access to a public street or road via proposed
12 private Roads A and B.
13 RMC 4-7-170(C): The size, shape, and orientation of lots shall meet the minimum area and width
14 requirements of the applicable zoning classification and shall be appropriate for the type of
development and use contemplated. Further subdivision of lots within a plat approved through the
15 provisions of this Chapter must be consistent with the then -current applicable maximum density
16 requirement as measured within the plat as a whole.
17 20. Some of the lots of the proposed subdivision do not appear to comply with applicable lot
width requirements. RMC 4-2-110(A) requires a minimum lot width of 70 ft for interior lots and 80
18 feet for corner lots. Eight of the fourteen proposed lots do not meet the lot width requirements. The
19 Applicant testified that the lot configurations have not changed in 18 months and that Staff had never
brought up the lot width consideration before. Additionally, the Applicant stated they felt that their
20 request for street modification was also a request for relief from the requirement to meet the
21 minimum lot widths. The Applicant noted the lots were larger than the minimum size and met depth
22 requirements. The Applicant argued that RMC 4-2-110(D) Footnote No. 11 allows lots to be reduced
to 60 feet wide if necessary to meet achieve a density of four dwelling units per net acre. Staff argued
23 the Applicant will meet 4 dwelling units per acre without the variance and also that staff has granted
24 some modifications to street width requirements in order to enable the Applicant to achieve the 4
du/acre density.
25
RMC 4-2-110(D) does provide that "lot ...width... may be reduced ...when due to lot configuration
26 or access, four (4) dwelling units per net acre cannot be achieved". It is fairly self-evident from the
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
L�
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
plat map of the proposal that the lot configuration cannot be altered in any meaningful way to achieve
compliance with lot width requirements. Consequently, the Applicant must be permitted to reduce lot
widths to 60 feet to the extent necessary to achieve a four dwelling per acre density. Staff testified
that the proposal already has achieved a density of four units per acre. There is no information in the
record that enables the Examiner to precisely verify that the density of the proposal has achieved a net
density of four units per acre as defined by RMC 4-11-040. Further, if the Applicant is required to
revise its plat to expand the lot widths to those required by RMC 4-2-110(A), there is nothing the
record to suggest that the proposal would continue to have a net density at or more than four units per
acre if it already does so presently. For these reasons, the proposal shall be conditioned to require
staff to verify that the net density is at four units per acre or more and that if that density is currently
achieved that the widths of substandard lots shall be reconfigured to required widths to the maximum
possible until a maximum density of 3.501 dwelling units per acre or more is achieved.
As noted in Finding of Fact 6 and Conclusion of Law 4, this criterion is not satisfied with respect to
lot width and lot width variation requirements (RMC 4-2-115). Condition of Approval 3, requires the
Applicant to re -design the plat plan to provide for lots that meet the minimum lot dimensional
standards and submit the new plat plan for review and approval by the Current Planning Project
Manager prior to Construction Permit issuance. The proposed lots comply with all other requirements
of the R-4 zoning district.
RMC 4-7-170(D): Width between side lot lines at their foremost points (i.e., the points where the
side lot lines intersect with the street right-of-way line) shall not be less than eighty percent (80016) of
the required lot width except in the cases of (1) pipestem lots, which shall have a minimum width of
twenty feet (20) and (2) lots on a street curve or the turning circle of cul-de-sac (radial lots), which
shall be a minimum of thirty five feet (35).
21. As conditioned.
RMC 4-7-170(E): All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys,
shall have minimum radius offifteen feet (15).
22. As conditioned.
RMC 4-7-190(A): Due regard shall be shown to all natural features such as large trees,
watercourses, and similar community assets. Such natural features should be preserved, thereby
adding attractiveness and value to the property.
1 RMC 4-11-040 provides that density calculations resulting in a fraction of 0.50 or greater shall be rounded up to
the nearest whole number.
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
►Z!
25
26
23. With the exception of the tree retention requirements discussed in Finding of fact 6(G) and
Conclusion of Law 9, no natural features as described above are located at the project site.
RMC 4-7-200(A): Unless septic tanks are specifically approved by the Public Works Department
and the King County Health Department, sanitary sewers shall be provided by the developer at no
cost to the City and designed in accordance with City standards. Side sewer lines shall be installed
eight feet (8) into each lot if sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision
development.
24. As designed and as conditioned, the proposal provides for adequate sanitary sewer facilities in
conformance with applicable City sanitary sewer standards as determined in Finding of Fact No. 8
(A).
RMC 4-7-200(B): An adequate drainage system shall be provided for the proper drainage of all
surface water. Cross drains shall be provided to accommodate all natural water flow and shall be of
sufficient length to permit full -width roadway and required slopes. The drainage system shall be
designed per the requirements of RMC 4-6-030, Drainage (Surface Water) Standards. The drainage
system shall include detention capacity for the new street areas. Residential plats shall also include
detention capacity for future development of the lots. Water quality features shall also be designed to
provide capacity for the new street paving for the plat.
25. The proposal provides for adequate drainage that is in conformance with applicable City drainage
standards as determined in Finding of Fact No. 8 (C).
RMC 4-7-200(C): The water distribution system including the locations of fire hydrants shall be
designed and installed in accordance with City standards as defined by the Department and Fire
Department requirements.
26. As conditioned.
RMC 4-7-200(D): All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any
utilities installed in the parking strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the
planting of trees. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, including all
service connections, as approved by the Department. Such installation shall be completed and
approved prior to the application of any surface material. Easements may be required for the
maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department.
27. As conditioned.
RMC 4-7-200(E): Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic
utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
by subdivider as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or alley
improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. The cost of
trenching, conduit, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore required to
bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or land owner. The subdivider
shall be responsible only for conduit to serve his development. Conduit ends shall be elbowed to final
ground elevation and capped. The cable TV company shall provide maps and specifications to the
subdivider and shall inspect the conduit and certify to the City that it is properly installed.
128• As conditioned.
I RMC 4-7-210:
I A. MONUMENTS:
Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at each and every controlling corner of
the subdivision. Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the Department. All surveys
shall be per the City of Renton surveying standards.
I B. SURVEY.•
All other lot corners shall be marked per the City surveying standards.
C. STREET SIGNS:
The subdivider shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision.
29. As conditioned.
RMC 4-9-250(C)(5): Decision Criteria for Waivers of Street Improvements: Reasonable
justification shall include but not be limited to the following:
a. Required street improvements will alter an existing wetlands or stream, or have a
negative impact on a shoreline's area.
b. Existing steep topography would make required street improvements infeasible.
c. Required street improvements would have a negative impact on other properties, such as
restricting available access.
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.
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 23
1 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 installed, and that
2 the improvements are not needed for current or future development.
3 30. The dedication requirements of RMC 4-6-060(E1) and street improvement requirements of
4 RMC 4-6-060(C) are waived to the extent that they apply to Rosario north of its connection with
Road B. requires the extension full of street improvements along the entire border of any
5 development site adjacent to a public right of way. The waiver is justified under RMC 4-9-
6 250(C)(5)(d) because Rosario is not improved to the north and as determined in the findings of fact it
is unlikely that Rosario will ever be improved north of Road B because of development to the north.
7 No detrimental effect on the public health, safety or welfare if the improvements are anticipated by
8 the waiver and the waived improvements are not needed since connectivity to properties to the north
9 is assured by Road A. The administrative record contains absolutely no justification for any
modifications to the street standards of Road B. There is nothing apparent from the record that
10 establishes how the proposed deviations from Road B standards satisfies the criteria of RMC 4-9-
11 250(C)(5). Especially as a through street that serves as part of the areas street grid system, there is no
apparent reason why Road B should be designed differently than any other residential access street. It
12 is far from clear, but one reason staff may have justified the Road B waiver is in order to enable the
13 Applicant to achieve a higher density. This by itself does not serve as sufficient grounds to justify a
waiver under RMC 4-9-250(C)(5). Since the RMC authorizes the staff to make a final decision on
14 street waiver requests and there may be a valid reason why the requests for Road B deviations should
15 be approved, the requested deviations to Road B standards are denied without prejudice so that staff
may review the request on its own and make its own record for establishing compliance with RMC 4-
16 9-250(C)(5).
17 DECISION
18
The requested street modifications are approved and denied in part as outlined in Conclusion of Law
19 No. 30. The proposed preliminary plat is approved, subject to the following conditions:
20
1. The Applicant shall comply with the four mitigation measures issued as part of the
21 Determination of Non -Significance Mitigated, dated September 24, 2012.
22 2. The site contains two existing easements for road and utilities per LLA489033, 5872161,
23 5958267, and restated by Rec. No. 8410250053. The Applicant shall provide proof of
relinquish of the subject easements to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final
24 plat recording.
25 3. A final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning
26 Project Manager prior to Final Plat recording.
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 24
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
4. The Applicant shall provide an updated tree retention worksheet, tree retention plan and
planting plan that meet the minimum retention and/or replacement requirements of RMC 4-
4-130. The above plan sets and worksheet shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project
Manager for review and approval prior to construction permit issuance.
5. The Applicant shall provide screening landscaping along the perimeter of Tract A. A
landscaping plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning Project
Manager prior to Construction Permit issuance. Screening landscaping shall be required to
be installed and inspected prior to final plat recording.
6. A water availability certificate will be required to be submitted to the City prior to or along
with Construction Permit Application.
7. Staff will apply the design standard related to primary entry (RMC 4-2-115-3) during
building permit review or whenever this issue is normally addressed by staff. Notice of the
staff's decision on application of RMC 4-2-115(3) along with associated appeal rights shall
be mailed to all property owners on the southern side of NE 2nd St that are facing the
proposal at the time the decision is made.
8. Staff shall determine the net density of the proposed subdivision as defined by RMC 4-11-
040. If the proposal exceeds 3.50 du/acre, the Applicant shall, to the maximum extent
possible and as approved by staff, increase the substandard lot widths (up to required widths)
to reduce the density to 3.50 du/acre.
9. Road C shall be eliminated and Road B shall be extended to Rosario. Road B shall comply
with all applicable road standards unless a waiver is approved by staff. Road B may be
moved to the northern perimeter of the plat in order to resolve the home orientation issues
addressed in Finding of Fact No. 5 if determined by staff to comply with all applicable
development standards and that the redesign would not trigger additional public review.
DATED this 9th day of November, 2012.
Phi .Olbrechts
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
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 25
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
to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner's decision. A
request 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 — 7t'
floor, (425) 430-6510.
Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 26