Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPRE_Meeting_with_Renton_Staff_Notes_190807_v1.pdf 2701 1st Ave, Suite 520, Seattle, Washington 98121 | 206·624·7880 | www.tonkinarchitecture.com Habitat for Humanity La Fortuna Meeting Notes Date: August 7, 2019 Location: Renton City Hall Present: City of Renton Alex Morganroth AMorganroth@Rentonwa.gov City of Renton Habitat for Humanity Habitat for Humanity Tonkin Architecture Tonkin Architecture Coterra Engineering Justin Johnson Brett Vanslyke Brett D’Antonio Pam Derry Heather Jenkins Max Berde BVanslyke@habitatskc.org pam@tonkinarchitecture.com heather@tonkinarchitecture.com max@coterraenginering.com General Topic: Propose to complete the La Fortuna site development with 12 additional townhouses in 3 buildings with four townhouses per building. The work is subject to Renton municipal code requirements for R-10 zoning. In preparation for a land use submittal we would like Renton staff comments on the following: Building Density and Layout 1. We propose to calculate the density using site area minus the area of the wetlands. Response: Yes, this is how the density is to be calculated. 2. It is our understanding that the wetland buffers that cross the existing internal street can be reduced per Renton Municipal Code 4-3-050.B.1g and that with this reduction that area of the site may be developed. What is the process for this approval? Is there anything in addition to a wetland report that needs to be submitted in order to have this wetland buffer adjustment approved? Response: SEPA is required. The current wetland report is sufficient. 3. We propose the townhouse layout shown in the attached preliminary site. Within the parcel is it acceptable for side yards to abut front yards? Response: Yes, however avoid direct site lines between windows. 4. It is our understanding that a 15 foot minimum setback along the parcel boundary is required, but within the parcel the front setback from the internal street is not required to be 20 feet. The front setbacks of new townhouses are to align with those constructed under a previous permit. Response: Yes, at the internal street this is acceptable. 5. It is our understanding that individual town house lots are not required, although a private yard is required for each townhouse. Response: Individual lots are not required. RECEIVED 11/04/2019 amorganroth PLANNING DIVISION 6. Per Renton Municipal Code Section 4-2-115E-3, entry porches or stoops are to be a minimum of 5 feet deep and 12” above grade. Habitat prefers to have accessible entrances to make the townhouses universally accessible. What would the City accept for an alternative accessible entry porch? Response: A written justification will be required for administrative approval of this modification. It is recommended to submit the building plans and elevations for informal review in advance of the land use submittal. Informing the neighbors of the proposed development is recommended, but not required. Open Space 7. We proposed to provide two open space areas: a p-patch garden at the south end of the site and a play area on the east side of the parcel. Response: The total open space area must meet Renton Municipal Code Requirements, refer to Section 4-2-115. Back deck areas count toward open space. Parking 8. For 12 three or four bedroom units we calculate that including guest parking, 21 parking spaces are required. However, the 23 existing units have insufficient parking. They were built with tandem garages, but the residents aren’t using the tandem spaces. We therefore propose to provide 32 new parking spaces instead of the minimum of 21 required spaces. Response: The Renton Municipal Code has recently been altered. A minimum of 2 parking spaces per townhouse is now required. Refer to code section 4-4-080F. The parking area proposed near the center of the site, will need some modifications. While pavement would be allowed in the wetland buffer setback, a retaining wall would not be allowed in the setback. The maximum height (measured from grade) allowed for a retaining wall is 6 feet. A retaining wall over 3 feet in height requires a permit. Retaining walls 4 or more feet high require structural engineering. Internal Street 9. We propose to add street lighting as described in the attached narrative. We propose to make no other street improvements. Response: We haven’t read the street lighting narrative. The City would prefer street lighting that matches the public way standards, but street lighting that matches code requirements is acceptable. This lighting would be considered “parking lot” lighting. A civil construction permit will be required. Landscaping 10. All trees on the site are shown on the survey in order to have an accurate tree count. Trees located in the wetlands and wetland buffers will not be disturbed by the proposed development. It is our understanding that an arborist’s report and a tree retention worksheet are not required. Response: There will have to be an approved waiver. Traffic 11. Will the City waive the requirement for a traffic study? Response: No, a traffic study is required, but if less than 20 new trips will be generated, the traffic report may be a simple memo, prepared by a qualified traffic consultant. Fire Protection 12. It is our understanding that instead of enlarging the water mains on the site or adding additional fire hydrants, the new buildings can be built with monitored fire alarm and fire sprinkler systems. Response: Questions regarding fire protection must be submitted to fire marshal. Corey Thomas. Water and Sewer 13. It is our understanding that certificates of availability are required for both water and sewer. Response: Yes, contact Soos Creek. Storm Drainage 14. We would like to confirm flow control and drainage requirements. Our civil engineer would like to discuss whether the current stormwater detention structures are sufficient for the proposed additional impervious area and buildings. Response: Don’t assume that capacity of the current drainage control system is sufficient. It was built under an old code. The capacity of the while drainage system must be evaluated per the 2016 storm manual. It may be necessary to supplement the capacity of the current system. The site is classified as “forested”. Additional Questions 15. The on-site road will need to be restored after utility work is performed. What standards should be met? Response: COR standards are recommended. 16. Is a sidewalk is required on the west side of the on-site street, due to the proposed parking lot on the west side of the site? Response: A sidewalk is not required on the west side of the on-site road. For pedestrian access to the proposed west side parking lot, a striped crosswalk across the on-site road to the sidewalk on the east side is recommended. 17. The new townhouses will not have garages. This makes individual trash storage locations awkward. Can there be a shared trash collection location instead? Response: It is acceptable to provide a shared trash enclosure as long as it complies with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-4-090 including being screened. 18. Follow up discussion after the meeting. See attached email for clarifications discussed after the meeting. 1 Pam Derry From:Alex Morganroth <AMorganroth@Rentonwa.gov> Sent:Wednesday, August 14, 2019 10:45 AM To:Pam Derry Cc:Brett Vanslyke (BVanslyke@habitatskc.org); Heather Jenkins; Max Berde (Max@coterraengineering.com); Peter Apostol Subject:RE: Habitat La Fortuna Hi Pam, Please see my answers below in red. Thank you, Alex Morganroth, AICP - Associate Planner City of Renton | CED | Planning Division 1055 S Grady Way | 6th Floor | Renton, WA 98057 (425) 430-7219 | amorganroth@rentonwa.gov   Please consider the environment before printing this email Permit Counter 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Financial Transactions 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. From: Pam Derry [mailto:Pam@tonkinarchitecture.com] Sent: Monday, August 12, 2019 11:39 AM To: Alex Morganroth <AMorganroth@Rentonwa.gov> Cc: Brett Vanslyke (BVanslyke@habitatskc.org) <BVanslyke@habitatskc.org>; Heather Jenkins <Heather@tonkinarchitecture.com>; Max Berde (Max@coterraengineering.com) <Max@coterraengineering.com>; Peter Apostol <peter@coterraengineering.com> Subject: Habitat La Fortuna Alex, Thanks for meeting with us last week. Following up on our meeting, I have the following questions/comments: 1. I am attaching brief notes from our meeting. Please let us know if there is anything in the responses that is not accurate. I am attaching it as a Word file, to give you the options of adding comments directly. – I did not see anything incorrect. 2. You mentioned that we would need to submit a waiver request in order for an arborist’s report to not be required. Please send the form for the waiver request.- Feel free just email me a list of the items you are requesting a waiver from and I will respond. My email response will serve as your waiver. 3. You were going to check on whether parking spaces directly off the internal street would be allowed. You suggested that the City may only allow 2 accessible parking spaces directly off of the street. I am surprised that 8 spaces in this configuration is an issue, since a car parked in a driveway would have a similar relationship to 2 the street. Please let us know, if the City will allow these spaces or some of these spaces. – We would not allow any more than one or two space at the location, which would be similar to a residential driveway. 4. You mentioned that the parking code has changed to require 2 a parking spaces for reach townhouse. When I look at the Renton Municipal Code on line Section 4-4-08F-10 says: Detached dwellings and townhouses: A minimum of 2 per dwelling unit, however, 1 per dwelling unit may be permitted for 1 bedroom or less dwelling units. Tandem parking is allowed. A maximum of 4 vehicles may be parked on a lot, including those vehicles under repair and restoration, unless kept within an enclosed building. But it also says: Attached dwellings in RMF, R-14 and R-10 Zones: A minimum and maximum of 1.6 per 3 bedroom or large dwelling unit; 1.4 per 2 bedroom dwelling unit; 1.0 per 1 bedroom or studio dwelling unit. In addition to the minimum parking stalls required, a minimum 10% of the total number of required parking spaces shall be provided for guest parking and located in a common area accessible by guests. Under definitions attached dwelling and townhouse are defined as: DWELLING, ATTACHED: A dwelling unit connected to one or more dwellings by common roofs, walls, or floors or a dwelling unit or units attached to garages or other nonresidential uses. This definition includes assisted living facilities but excludes boarding and lodging houses, accessory dwelling units, adult family homes, group home I or group home II as defined herein. Attached dwellings include the following types: A. Flat: A dwelling unit attached to one or multiple dwelling units by one or more common roof(s), wall(s), or floor(s) within a building. Typically, the unit’s habitable area is provided on a single level. Unit entrances may or may not be provided from a common corridor. B. Townhouse: A ground-related dwelling attached to one or more such units in which each unit has its own exterior, ground-level access to the outside, no unit is located over another unit, and each unit is separated from any other unit by one or more vertical common walls. Townhouse units may be multi-story. After reading this I am confused. To me this appears to say that in an R-10 zone, 1.6 spaces are required for a 3 bedroom or larger dwelling unit in an R-10, R-14, or RMF zone, but if an attached dwelling unit is located in a different zoning area and is also a townhouse 2 parking spaces are required. The guest parking space requirement doesn’t appear in the language regarding townhouses, but does in the section regarding R-10 zoning. Is the code I found current? Please clarify how the City interprets these potentially conflicting code sections. We hope to provide more parking than the minimum, but we aren’t clear on what code requirement to reference. -The use you are proposing is defined as a townhome, therefore the parking requirements for detached dwellings and townhouses would apply (2 spaces). I know I mentioned guest parking in the meeting, but looking again at our code, guest parking is only required for attached dwellings (i.e. flats) in the R-10, R-14, RMF zones. Therefore you would not be required to provide guest parking. Thanks, Pam Derry Principal Architect, AIA, LEED® AP