HomeMy WebLinkAboutC_On-Hold_2_Canopy_200424
April 24, 2020
Jordan Salisbury
Blue Fern Development, LLC
11232 120th Ave NE, Suite 204
Kirkland, WA 98033
SUBJECT: "On Hold" Notice
Canopy PUD Preliminary Plat / LUA19-000223
Dear Mr. Salisbury:
The Department of Community and Economic Development accepted the above master application for review on
October 31, 2019 and then placed the project on hold January 28, 2020 to request additional information and for
the applicant to provide corrections to the proposal. During our review of those resubmitted items, staff has
determined that additional information and corrections are necessary in order to proceed. The following
information will need to be submitted before July 23, 2020 so that we may continue the review of the above
subject application:
1. Home variations – There remains concern on the variations of home styles on several areas of the plat. In the
resubmittal, Lots 1-6 and 7-16 provide a good mix of housing types that avoid monotony and result in a visually
interesting streetscape. The concern is for the following:
a. Lots 17-26 – These lots contain an alternating row of only two home styles. The initial on-hold letter
indicated a minimum of four home variations would be required for Lots 17-29. Two of the styles are
limited to 27-29 while the other two styles alternate over 10 lots (17-26). There will need be additional
variety spanning Lots 17-26 to meet the intent of the initial on-hold letter. Additionally, please provide
alternating front door locations similar to Lots 7-16 instead of locating all of them on the same corner
of the street facing façade.
b. Lots 30-40 – Please alter these four homes styles over the entire span of the row instead of alternating
only two styles over rows of five and six lots.
c. Lots 48-55. Similar to the comments above, provide spread out the assortment three housing types
over eight lots. Lots 53-55 are the same model. Additionally, please provide alternating front door
locations similar to Lots 7-16 instead of locating all of them on the same corner of the street facing
façade.
d. The architectural streetscape plans (Sheets SS1-SS2 and S3) were helpful in visualizing the homes
within the plat and would also assist the Hearing Examiner as the decision maker, but the plans were
limited to Lots 1-6 and Lots 30-40. Please include all the homes in the streetscape plans with the
resubmittal.
2. Setbacks – The front yard setbacks for 7-15, 17-29, and 48-55 will need to be increased to meet the 15-foot
minimum. The following suggestions would assist in attaining the needed setback:
a. For Lots 7-15, reduce Alley 1 to 16-feet in width with 12-feet paved and widen the vault access road
to accommodate emergency vehicle access. This would also eliminate the hammerhead in the alley
and the large retaining wall.
b. For Lots 17-29, reduce the rear yard setback one-foot to accommodate the space needed for a 15-
foot front yard setback.
c. For Lots 48-55, reduce the rear yard setback to the paved alley to accommodate the space needed for
the 15-front yard setback.
3. Sideyards for Lots 30-39 – Staff continues to recommend alternative side yard spacing per the initial on -hold
letter to maximize usable yard space and reduce pavement within the front yards for the shared driveways.
Light impacts from the reduced setbacks could be mitigated with the use of skylights and solar tubes. Two
track or paver driveway treatments should be used to minimize the paving.
4. Common Open Space – Provide corrections and clarification regarding the following common open space
items:
a. Remove Alley 2 hammerhead from the open space calculation and provide additional space as needed
to comply with standards. RMCs open space definition excludes those areas designed for vehicle
travel.
b. The alignment of the trail along the eastern ROW will need to be altered as the width of the
unimproved ROW is 30-feet and not the 60-feet as shown.
c. The concentrated open space requirement (50sf per DU) is additional to the 10-percent requirement.
Please provide clarification in the calculation that the concentrated space has been carved out and is
not included in the 10-percent calculation.
5. Critical Area Tract Boundary Lot 6 – Removing the hammerhead from Alley 1 (per comment 2) should have
rectified the issue. If not, adjust the boundaries of Lot 6 so no portion of the critical area buffer or tract is
within the lot.
6. Protected Slope – Provide an exhibit map in the geotechnical report identifying where the protected slopes
are located on the subject property.
7. Colored Rendering – Please provide a computer-generated exterior color view of the proposed buildings,
site, and landscaping in three (3) dimensional form per the PUD submittal requirements. See RMC 4-8-120C.
8. Walls – Provide corrections and clarification regarding the following wall items:
a. Clarify on the wall exhibit those areas where the walls exceed six feet. Several areas conflict with the
legend where highlighted areas are meant to exceed six feet but the description indicates the walls
may be code compliant.
b. Include cross sections as part of the wall exhibit and confirm that no portions of the vault wall will be
exposed at the surface.
c. Redi-Rock wall blocks shall be of a smaller variety consistent with the scale of single-family residential
development. 60-inch blocks as shown on the Terra detail appear to be too large.
d. Relocate the sidewalk between station 13+00 and 14+20 directly behind the curb resulting in the
planter strip to be between the sidewalk and the retaining wall. Plant street trees between retaining
wall and sidewalk.
e. The second row of street trees that was discussed in exchange for the narrowed ROW to
accommodate a rockery is not shown on the landscape plan between station 12+20 and 13+00 as
indicated in the March 3, 2020 CORE response letter.
9. Fire Comments – Please obtain written confirmation from the Renton Regional Fire Authority to utilize
hammerhead turnarounds for alleys that extend further than 300-feet. You may correspond with Corey
Thomas, Lead Plans Review Inspector at cthomas@rentonrfa.org. Please carbon copy the request and forward
the response to mherrera@rentonwa.gov. Be advised that consideration for the use of hammerheads will
likely result in the requirement to provide fire sprinklers in the homes affected by the modified turnaround.
10. Secondary Geotechnical Comments – From Lyle Stone, PE, GE GeoEngineers, Inc.
We reviewed the comment response letter and reviewed the sections of the report that were indicated as
revised. We did not go into the details of the calculation package or revised report to confirm that nothing
else had changed. It appears everything that was addressed in the Geotech report, but not all the edits made
it to the plan set. There are two remaining issues where it’s not clear that they have been or will be formally
addressed in the final plan set.
1) In the response to comment #4, Terra states that rockeries at the toe of slopes will be replaced with
Ready-Rock walls. The Ready-Rock walls they are proposing are appropriate, in our opinion. But, this is
not yet fully reflected on the plans, only in the area where there is an encroachment on the critical slope.
This original comment was intended for all areas where walls are close to permanent inhabited structures.
The plans still indicate that there are rockeries right behind the structures in plats 41 – 47. The rockeries
are as tall as 8 feet and have a slope above the rockery. This is not as steep a slope as other areas, but
there is some slope. The condition where there is a rockery with a slope above is not covered in the typical
cross sections. It appears a rockery failure would impact a structure in at least one location. Furthermore,
maintenance, repairs, or replacement of the rockery will be difficult or totally impractical should it be
required in the future.
2) In the response to comment #5 Terra states “a chain-link fence could be added”. In our opinion this
should be addressed more proactively. One of the purpos es of that setback at the toe of a steep slope
critical area is to mitigate runout or erosion potential. If the setback is eliminated, there should be another
method to manage the risk of runout or erosion. A chain-link fence can stop some debris, but it’s not
designed for that application. Terra also states that it will be addressed in the field. In general, a field fit
can be an appropriate approach. However, in this case if “additional measures” as stated, are required it
could effectively make the walls taller. It’s not always possible to make those adjustments once the wall
is constructed and it’s clear they are needed. In our opinion it is preferable to design the walls with the
measures included and then omit them if site grades and conditions warrant the change.
11. Engineering Comments – The following comments are provided as a courtesy from Michael Sippo, Civil
Engineering Plan Reviewer, (msippo@rentonwa.gov) early in the process. Typically these comments are
provided as Advisory Notes attached to the SEPA Determination to be implemented with the civil construction
permit, however staff finds providing these comments now may assist the applicant in project planning. Please
note these are not a complete list of early advisory notes and again these comments can be addressed at the
civil construction permit stage.
a. The proposed grading cuts will intersect the groundwater seepage potentially resulting in surface
flows that will need to be captured and conveyed as not cause surface flooding.
b. Storm drainage vault control structures shown on the Preliminary Civil Plans do not match hydraulic
model.
c. Lid and access panels for the detention vault shall be located outside of the ADA paths and stalls and
shall meet the requirements of the RSWDM.
d. Use of bypass areas and treatment trades shall meet the requirements of Sections 1.2.3 and 1.2.8 of
the RSWDM.
e. Pipe sizes shown do not appear to have the capacity as required by RSWDM. Conveyance and
backwater analysis will be required.
f. Pipe connects into the proposed structures shall be evaluated for constructability. Details of
structure connections shall be provided.
g. Soil Amendments and Tree Retention Credit shall be evaluated.
h. Final evaluation of the application of on-site BMPs to the maximum extent feasible shall be
completed. The applicant may be required to apply additional on-site BMPs in order to meet the
minimum requirements outlined in Core Requirement #9.
i. Each single family lot shall be evaluated for the On-Site BMPs as part of the Building Permit
Applications.
j. The roadway centerline on the north side of Lincoln (along the ‘straight’ portion of roadway adjacent
to the north site access) shall coincide with the centerline of existing right of way.
k. Where Lincoln curves east and west, the existing road geometry shall be maintained to the
maximum extent feasible. If additional pavement is added to the western road shoulder adjacent to
the embankments, a guardrail may be required.
l. Alley 1 is proposing 20’ paved width with a maximum 13’ tall “green flex MSE wall” at the hammer-
head turnaround. Due to the wall height, a guardrail or similar mechanism will be required for
vehicular and pedestrian fall protection.
m. Alley 3 is proposing 16’ paved width with a maximum 11’ tall “green flex MSE wall” adjacent to the
alleyway to the west. Located within the alley prism is sewer, water and storm drainage mainlines
and due to the wall height, a guard rail or similar mechanism will be required for vehicular and
pedestrian fall protection. Due to the narrow roadway prism and multiple appurtenances and utilities,
the City requires that the applicant provide further geotechnical and engineering justification ensuring
that all utility separations, guardrail location, structural requirements and setbacks are met. Proposed
public utilities cannot be located beneath retaining wall tie-backs or within the 1:1 load line of the
wall without engineering justification.
n. Walls adjacent to Alleys 1 and 3, currently do not provide any spacing to accommodate the width of
WSDOT standard guardrail between the back of wall and the travelled way. Alley locations shall be
revised to accommodate the width of a WSDOT standard guardrail (approximately 4-feet).
At this time, your project has been placed “on hold” pending receipt of the requested information. Please provide
written responses to each of the correction items noted above and provide cross-reference sheet and/or reports
to confirm compliance. The maximum time for resubmittal shall be within ninety (90) days of this notice. Please
contact me at 425.430.6593 or mherrera@rentonwa.gov should you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Matt Herrera, AICP
Senior Planner
cc: Earlington 60 Inc / Owner(s)
K. Walter / Party(ies) of Record