Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutC_PreScreen_Response_Letter_190917_V1.pdf August 20, 2019 Matt Herrera, Senior Planner City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057-3232 Re: Canopy CORE Project No. 18054 Dear Matt: We have received your comments dated August 13, 2019 from the Pre-Screening of the Canopy project. We have made changes to the submittal items in response to your comments. Below are our written responses to your comments. Review Comments (August 5, 2019 1. Please label and format all submittal items per the attached Electronic File Standards. Response: All submittal items have been named and formatted per the electronic file standards 2. Provide authorizations for Jordon to sign the master applications for non Blue Fern properties. Response: Authorization and revised applications are included with this resubmittal. 3. Please clarify the number of lots in the project. There are references to 55 and 56 lots on various sheets. Also the architectural elevation sheets do not match the lots on the plat. Please provide consistent unit counts on all sheets and reports. Response: Apologies. The proposal is for 55 lots. All documents now reflect this. 4. The site is not within an urban design district however it is subject to the Residential Design and Open Space Standards. Provide a written report/packet on how the site meets the R-8 Residential Design and Open Space Standards in RMC 4-2-115 or requested modifications per the PUD. Response: Please see R-8 Residential Design and Open Space Justification report. August 20, 2019 Matt Herrera, Senior Planner Page 2 J:\2018\18054\Submittals\2019-08-XX PPlat and PPUD\PreScreen Responses.docx 5. The statement addressing the public benefit is not adequately articulated. We are unable to identify how this project is superior to a typical subdivision. Again Chip, Vanessa, and I will be meeting again to go through each of the requested modifications and determine a public benefit(s) that is commensurate with the number of modifications and other discretionary approvals that are being requested. Response: Please see revised Justification Statement of Code Compliance. 6. Please provide copies of all easements recorded on each of the properties. Response: Please see attached title reports with all exceptions included. 7. Provide notes from the neighborhood meeting. Response: Neighborhood meeting notes included with resubmittal. 8. The proposed 8-percent tree retention as shown on the retention worksheet is too far below the 30- percent compliance for the R-8 zone. Are there opportunities to retain more trees in Tract C above the wall? The alley behind Lots 17-29 is 20-feet wide when the required width is 16-feet. Are there opportunities there? The City does not automatically default to replacement for 30-percent retention. Additional effort and/or justification is needed for any deficits in tree retention. Response: Due to the extensive critical areas and grading constraints on site the site developable area is clustered. Unfortunately, this leaves little room to retain trees. We have made every effort to retain as many trees as possible. We will continue to work with the arborist to see if any additional measure may be taken to retain more trees. It should be noted that over 70 trees on site are located within critical areas and their buffers. All these trees will be retained as well. 9. Please provide an additional detail map in the geotech report that delineates the hazard areas. Identify graphically the protected slopes and other hazard areas noted in the report. Response: See revised Goetech Report provided by Terra Associates 10. Retaining walls visible to the ROW need to be terraced to bring down their height. Any consideration of over height walls in back yards on the eastern portion of the property need to be integrated into the foundation of the homes so you can have usable space in the backyard and not have 5-feet of clear before you reach a 10-foot high wall. Response: Walls visible from ROW have been terraced where possible. Unfortunately, due to road slopes, critical areas and setbacks, there are locations where this is not possible. Again, we have made every effort possible. Walls in the rear of homes 37-47 have been designed to be as short as possible, but again, due to critical areas, existing grades and in an effort to retain trees, they are over the allowed height. Approx. 20 feet of vertical relief is already planned to be taken up through the foundations of these lots. August 20, 2019 Matt Herrera, Senior Planner Page 3 J:\2018\18054\Submittals\2019-08-XX PPlat and PPUD\PreScreen Responses.docx 11. Each lot needs to provide the minimum amount of private open space (225sf) per lot. We would not and can not modify that PUD standard. Response: Private open space exceeds 225 SF on each lot. Please see revised plan and associated table. 12. Lots 15 and 16 and 30 through 40 contain access to the project’s spine road instead of the required alley access for the R-8 zone. These lots will either need to contain R-6 widths of 60-feet or shared driveways with 16-foot wide maximum curb cuts. Response: Lots 30-39 and 15-16 have been revised to have shared driveways. Lot 40 has been revised to be 60 feet in width. 13. Consideration of lot width reduction will require varying lot widths and architectural home elevations/styles. See residential design standards RMC 4-2-115. Response: Understood. Lot widths throughout the project do vary. Architectural layouts with elevations and styles have been added to the resubmittal. As you can see from the architectural plans, there is a wide variety of elevations, styles, facades, etc. 14. Provide an open space exhibit that clearly quantifies and graphically with notes shows the required 43,821sf of open space designed for provide active and/or passive recreation. Please do not include areas such as critical areas or their buffers (except for trails), tree retention tracts or native growth protection easement (except for trails), or other access areas for stormwater facilities. Also, graphically identify and note the additional concentrated open space that is at least 50sf per dwelling unit. Response: Open space tabulation and exhibit has been revised to clearly show all required open spaces with their designations. It should be noted that we are greatly exceeding the requirement for open space, private open space and concentrated open space in an effort to provide exceptional public benefit. 15. The proposed modification to encroach into the protected slope does not appear to meet the criteria (as no evidence was provided) as the slope was not created through mining activities or transportation improvements. Development on protected slopes would require a critical areas variance with special review criteria related to steep slopes. See RMC 4-9-250B.9. Response: See revised Geotechnical Report and slope stability analysis. 16. Please review your grading plan and ensure you are not creating protected slopes as this would not be permitted either. August 20, 2019 Matt Herrera, Senior Planner Page 4 J:\2018\18054\Submittals\2019-08-XX PPlat and PPUD\PreScreen Responses.docx Response: Understood. It should be noted that grades shown through the units themselves will be taken up through the foundations. So no protected slopes will be created. Additional modification comments (August 13, 2019): 1. The front yard setbacks for the alley loaded lots that front the spine road will need to be a minimum of 15-feet from the back of sidewalk. Response: We are asking for relief from this per the PPUD modifications. 2. The front yard setbacks for lots 15 and 16 and 30-40 that would gain vehicle access from the spine road will need to be setback a minimum of 20-feet from the back of sidewalk. Response: We are asking for relief from this per the PPUD modifications. 3. Provide a shade/shadow and view impact analysis for the increased height of the proposed home. Impacts on the site and off site will need to be looked at. Response: Shade/shadow analysis created and included with resubmittal. Public Benefit Comments: In addition to the public trail provided along the unopened ROW abutting the east side of the property, here are two options we would accept as public benefits that would be commensurate to the proposed PUD modifications: 1. RMC 4-9-150D.2.a,b, and e.i: Purchase one of the two properties located at 3709 Jones Ave NE (334270-0590) or APN 334270-0595 for an offsite open space, natural feature preservation/enhancement, and tree replacement receiving area; or Response: These 2 properties are not for sale. In lieu, we are proposing the purchase of parcel 334330-0861. This parcel would allow for open space, tree retention and extensive natural feature preservation. This is a vast benefit to the public. 2. RMC 4-9-150D.2.c: Provide public facilities that could not be required by the City for development of the subject property without a PUD. Construct frontage improvements along properties abutting your development along Lincoln Ave NE, NE 40th St, and along Cedar Rim Apartments. This would provide a pedestrian link to the new transit center. The following properties include 4006 Lincoln Ave NE, 4124 Lincoln Ave NE, 4348 Lincoln Ave NE, and APN 334330-0800. Response: Please see above noted public benefit option. August 20, 2019 Matt Herrera, Senior Planner Page 5 J:\2018\18054\Submittals\2019-08-XX PPlat and PPUD\PreScreen Responses.docx Sincerely, CORE DESIGN, INC. Holli H. Heavrin, P.E. Associate Partner Project Manager