The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutJurgens - LUA20-000006 - Appeal of Administrative Decision 05.25.2020 Ad1-FINAL LUA20-000006 – Appeal of Administrative Decision Jurgens RUV 2301 Jones Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 Prepared and Submitted By: Steve Jurgens 206-661-1761 sjurgens22@gmail.com 05/25/2020 (Addendum 1) Condition #2: The applicant shall establish a Native Growth Protection Easement that encompasses the entire wetland mitigation area (approx. 1,100 SF) identified as “New Native Trees and Shrubs” on the Wetlands Mitigation Site Plan (Exhibit 10). Appeal: 1- The establishment of a NGPE in the wetland mitigation area is not part of the Wetland Mitigation Site Plan submitted by the applicant in the variance submittals. The submitted plan is the plan that the City of Renton performed a precursory review on and did not think they would have any problem supporting. A comment provided in the review was that the City of Renton would like to see some additional plantings along the northern boundary, which was a comment also made by the Washington Department of Ecology; the applicant had revised their Wetland Mitigation Site Plan on 02/21/2020 to include these additional plantings. This precursory review was requested by the applicant in response to the City of Renton offering to let the applicant know what they would or would not support prior to submitting their application so that there would be no surprises that come up in the variance review. The condition of establishing a NGPE in the wetland mitigation area is seen as a surprise to the applicant since it was never discussed. (Exhibits 5, 6) 2- The establishment of a NGPE in the wetland mitigation area was not recommended by the applicant’s Ecologist (Altmann Oliver Associates), the Washington Department of Ecology and the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee. (Exhibits 9, 10, 18) 3- The establishment of a NGPE in the wetland mitigation area would not allow for continual maintenance of the plantings included as part of the mitigation plan. Himalayan blackberry is listed as an invasive species by the applicant’s Ecologist in a report for LUA13-000795, another land use application on Jones Ave NE. This plant is highly prevalent within the wetland and due to the plant’s aggressive growth nature would threaten the longevity of the mitigation plan plantings. Reed canarygrass and morning glory are also widespread in the wetland, of which are also invasive species. (Exhibits 16, 17) 4- The establishment of a NGPE in the wetland mitigation area would remove the applicant’s legally non-conforming use of the area as landscaped vegetation. Per the City of Renton Critical Areas code, existing activities may be continued that existed prior to the passage of the Critical Areas Regulations. It can be seen in historic aerial imagery that this area has historically been landscaped vegetation. (Exhibits 3, 15) Condition #3: The applicant shall install a standard split rail fence with City of Renton standard wetlands signage along the southern edge of the Native Growth Protection Easement in order to protect the proposed new native trees and shrubs. The location of the split rail fence shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to installation. Appeal: 1- Reference appeal of Condition #2 2- The installation of a fence along the southern edge of the NGPE would not allow the ability to maintain the north elevation of the addition to the home. Furthermore, not being able to maintain vegetation directly adjacent to the home would cause maintenance issues once the vegetation becomes overgrown in this area. (Exhibit 19) 3- The underground electrical line for the home on the property runs parallel underneath the fence location along the north end of the property. It is not a good practice to place a fence directly above an electrical service due to safety during the installation and possible maintenance of the line. (Exhibit 1) 4- Although not documented in an email or other form of documented communication, the applicant had mentioned to the City of Renton during a phone call discussing the mitigation plan that the installation of a fence would not be supported by the applicant since a fence would eliminate the legally non-conforming use of the area as landscaped lawn. (Exhibit 15) 5- If this condition ultimately stands, the applicant is requesting a defined fence location (ex. Dimensions from lot line) as a future review and approval is a grey term. Condition #4: The applicant shall demonstrate compliance with both the Native Growth Protection Easement and split fence requirement for the wetlands prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the addition. Appeal: 1- Reference appeal of Condition #2 2- Reference appeal of Condition #3 Condition #5: The applicant shall establish a Native Growth Protection Easement that encompasses the area including the stream and area east of the stream between the public ROW and stream (apprx. 1,400 SF) identified as “stream mitigation area” on the staff prepared site plan (Exhibit 11). Appeal: 1- The proposed addition does not encroach into the standard stream buffer dimension of 65 feet, therefore no mitigating measures were proposed in the applicant’s mitigation plan and none should be required. This condition is seen as a piggybacked condition since the proposed addition complies with the current City of Renton Critical Areas regulations being that it is located outside of the standard stream buffer and structure setback and would have not triggered the need for a revised buffer dimension through an Administrative Alteration or variance. 2- The establishment of a NGPE for the stream and area east to the public ROW is not part of the Wetland Mitigation Site Plan submitted by the applicant in the variance submittals. The submitted plan is the plan that the City of Renton performed a precursory review on and did not think they would have any problem supporting. This precursory review was requested by the applicant in response to the City of Renton offering to let the applicant know what they would or would not support prior to submitting their application so that there would be no surprises that come up in the variance review. The condition of establishing a NGPE for the stream and area east to the public ROW is seen as a surprise to the applicant since it was never discussed. (Exhibits 5, 6) 3- The establishment of a NGPE for the stream and the area east to the public ROW would significantly increase the amount of improved buffer area from the variance’s mitigation plan. This approximate 57% increase is seen as unreasonable as the applicant had proposed mitigation greater than a 1:1 ratio with 2,250 sf being restored for a net 1,520 sf addition. (Exhibit 11) 4- The establishment of a NGPE for the stream and area east to the public ROW was not recommended by the applicant’s Ecologist (Altmann Oliver Associates), the Washington Department of Ecology and the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee. (Exhibits 9, 10, 18) 5- As precedents, the City of Renton did not require the establishment of a NGPE for a similar type Ns stream in LUA15-000761 or LUA16-000307. (Exhibit 13, 14) 6- While some aerial imagery and photographs depict taller grasses in the area between the stream and the public ROW, this area has historically been landscaped vegetation as most photos show this area to be mowed grass. Previous owners of the property neglected maintenance, which can be seen by the excessive weeds, debris and vehicles throughout the property in the aerial imagery and photos. (Exhibit 2, 3) 7- The establishment of a NGPE for the stream and area east to the public ROW would result in approximately 75% of the property’s road frontage to not be able to be maintained and landscaped. The NGPE would result in a neglected appearance to the property, not similar to any other property’s frontage along Jones Ave NE. 8- The establishment of a NGPE for the stream and area east to the public ROW would result in an appearance that is not consistent with the City of Renton ordinance that developed lots are to have grass and weeds no taller than 12”. (Exhibit 21) 9- The establishment of a NGPE for the stream and area east to the public ROW would remove the applicant’s legally non-conforming use of the area as landscaped vegetation. Per the City of Renton Critical Areas code, existing activities may be continued that existed prior to the passage of the Critical Areas Regulations. It can be seen in historic aerial imagery and photos from LUA05-050 that this area between the stream and public ROW has been mowed vegetation and the stream channel has been historically maintained. (Exhibits 3, 7, 15) 10- It can be seen in historic aerial imagery and photos from LUA05-050 that this area between the stream and public ROW has been mowed vegetation and the stream channel has been maintained historically prior to the City of Renton having buffer regulations in their municipal code for streams per the Ecologist’s report for LUA05-050; which is the same wetland to the north of the applicant’s property. (Exhibits 3, 7, 12) 11- This seasonal non-fish bearing stream (Ns) is essentially a means for storm water conveyance, as storm sewers discharge into it. It is also within a culvert upstream through the property of 2216 Jones Ave NE and downstream for approximately 600 feet when it passes underneath I-405 and properties to the west of the interstate, therefore it has very little habitat functionality that would need protection via a NGPE. Its hydrologic functions are not being changed or impacted, particularly since the proposed addition is outside of the standard stream buffer of 65 feet. (Exhibit 20) 12- The establishment of a NGPE for the stream and area east to the public ROW would deliberately place the property’s sanitary sewer stub within the easement. The location of the sanitary sewer stub also suggests that this area would have been maintained landscape in 1984 when the sanitary sewer system was installed on Jones Ave NE. It would have not made sense to locate it within an inaccessible area. (Exhibit 8) 13- Historic photographs and aerial photos suggest that the northern driveway entrance to the property had existed, even though at times it was overgrown. (Exhibit 2, 3, 7) 14- The Existing Conditions plan page from the Bartell Short Plat, LUA-04-007, shows that a northern driveway entrance existed for 2301 Jones Ave NE on 11/3/04. The establishment of a NGPE for the stream and area east to the public ROW would remove the applicant’s legally non-conforming use of this area and driveway entrance. (Exhibit 22) (Addendum 1) 15- When comparing the growth rate of the vegetation on the storm water tract of the Bartell short plat directly east of the subject property on Jones Ave NE via historic street view imagery, it can be seen that the area around the stream and area east to the public ROW has been maintained since the height and density of the vegetation is much lesser. The establishment of a NGPE for the stream and area east to the public ROW would remove the applicant’s legally non-conforming use of the area as landscaped vegetation. (Exhibit 23) (Addendum 1) Condition #6: The applicant shall restore the stream to a native state including removal of any manmade armoring or fill from the stream channel. The restoration shall occur prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the addition. Appeal: 1- The restoration of the stream to a native state is not part of the Wetland Mitigation Site Plan submitted by the applicant in the variance submittals. The submitted plan is the plan that the City of Renton performed a precursory review on and did not think they would have any problem supporting. This precursory review was requested by the applicant in response to the City of Renton offering to let the applicant know what they would or would not support prior to submitting their application so that there would be no surprises that come up in the variance review. The condition of restoration of the stream to a native state is seen as a surprise to the applicant since it was not part of the mitigation plans reviewed by the City of Renton. (Exhibits 5, 6) 2- The restoration of the stream to a native state was not recommended by the applicant’s Ecologist (Altmann Oliver Associates), the Washington Department of Ecology and the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee. (Exhibits 9, 10, 18) 3- Historic imagery and aerial photos show a clear stream channel with armoring along the stream prior to streams being regulated by the City of Renton around 2005 per the Ecologist’s report in LUA05-050, which is the same wetland to the north of the applicant’s property. The restoration of the stream to a native state would remove the legally non- conforming activity of the stream being armored that is allowed to continue per the City of Renton Critical Areas Regulations. (Exhibits 3, 4, 12, 15) 4- The culvert that the stream flows through underneath the north driveway likely had historically been in place to shield the underground electrical service that it intersects. Daylighting the stream in this area would likely expose the electrical service feed as the stream bottom is approximately 40” below the surface of the adjacent grade when it exits the culvert at the north property line. The property was built in 1974 and would have received electrical service at this time. (Exhibit 1) 5- The culvert that the stream flows through underneath the north driveway likely had been in place in 1984 when Jones Ave NE had received sanitary sewer service. Due to the placement of the sanitary sewer stub, it would have not made sense to place it in an inaccessible location. The culvert would have, and still is, been the location that the side sewer would intersect the stream. (Exhibit 8) Condition #7: The applicant shall install a standard split rail fence with City of Renton standard stream signage along the perimeter of the Native Growth Protection Easement in order to protect the stream and stream buffer. The location of the split rail fence shall be reviewed and approved by the Currently Planning Project Manager prior to installation. Appeal: 1- Reference appeal of Condition #5 2- If this condition ultimately stands, the applicant is requesting a defined fence location (ex. Dimensions from lot line) as a future review and approval is a grey term. Condition #8: The applicant shall demonstrate compliance with both the Native Growth Protection Easement and split rail fence requirement for the stream prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the addition. Appeal: 1- Reference appeal of Condition #5 2- Reference appeal of Condition #7 EXHIBIT 1 PSE LOCATE, 12/05/2018 EXHIBIT 2 RE/MAX EASTSIDE BROKERS LISTING PHOTO, 2013 SDCI AERIAL, 2002 KC GIS AERIAL, 2005 GOOGLE AERIAL, 05/2005 SDCI AERIAL, 2009 EXHIBIT 3 GOOGLE AERIAL, 05/2010 COR AERIAL, 2012 GOOGLE AERIAL, 07/2012 GOOGLE AERIAL, 05/2013 EXHIBIT 3 (CONTINUED) EXHIBIT 4 GOOGLE STREET VIEW, 08/2011 GOOGLE STREET VIEW, 06/2018 LOT COVERAGE LANDSCAPED VEGITATION 9,251 SF 43.7% +0.01% STEEP SLOPE 3,368 SF 15.9% -2.9% GRAVEL DRIVEWAY 3,244 SF 15.3% -13.7% STRUCTURES 2,481 SF 11.7% +6.0% BUFFER (FUNCTIONAL) 2,234 SF 10.5% +10.5% CONCRETE PATIO 612 SF 2.9% +0.0% IMPERVIOUS AREA 3,093 SF 14.6% +6.1% SEMI-IMPERVIOUS (GRAVEL) 3,244 SF 15.3% -13.7% NET IMPERVIOUS AREA -7.6% LOT AREA 21,190 SF *LARGE / SIGNIFICANT TREE 260 258 256 264 262 266 254 254 252 252 250 250 248 248 246 244 242 240 23810'-11"200'107'100'30'7'170' EXISTING SHED EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE PROPOSE D ADDITION DEMOLISH EXISTING PORCH JONES AVE NEPROPOSED SITE PLAN SCALE: 1" = 20' FIRE HYDRANT EXISTING GRAVEL DRIVEWAY EXISTING CONCRETE PATIO EXISTING RETAINING WALL (TO BE DEMOLISHED) EXISTING RETAINING WALL6'-7"33'-11"35'-10"31'-2"24'-11"15'-2"3'-3" 2'-6" 8'-6" 36'-0" 46'-11" 44'-5" 94'-3" 97'-6" 19'-8" EXISTING GRAVEL DRIVEWAY 5'-9"9'-6"13'-2"13'-2"16'-5" PROPOSED CONCRETE RETAINING WALL 6'-7"6'-7"590 sf 59 sf 1,788 sf 2,269 sf 131 sf 413 sf 67 sf SEPTIC FIELD 3,797 sf 1,605 sf 427 sf 1,078 sf 2,186 sf * **** 260 258 256 264 262 266 254 254 252 252 250 250 248 248 246 244 242 240 23810'-11"200'107'100'30'7'170' EXISTING SHED EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE PROPOSE D ADDITION DEMOLISH EXISTING PORCH JONES AVE NECURRENT SITE PLAN SCALE: 1" = 20' FIRE HYDRANT EXISTING GRAVEL DRIVEWAY EXISTING CONCRETE PATIO EXISTING RETAINING WALL (TO BE DEMOLISHED) EXISTING RETAINING WALL6'-7"33'-10"35'-9"31'-1"24'-10"15'-2"3'-3" 2'-5" 8'-5" 35'-10" 46'-9" 44'-4" 93'-11" 97'-2" 19'-8" EXISTING GRAVEL DRIVEWAY 5'-9"9'-6"13'-1"13'-1"16'-4" PROPOSED CONCRETE RETAINING WALL 6'-7"6'-7"4,120 sf 4,135 sf 586 sf 59 sf 1,411 sf 2,670 sf 130 sf 410 sf 67 sf 737 sfSEPTIC FIELD * * *** LOT COVERAGE LANDSCAPED VEGITATION 9,242 SF 43.6% GRAVEL DRIVEWAY 6,151 SF 29.0% STEEP SLOPE 3,985 SF 18.8% EXISTING STRUCTURES 1,200 SF 5.7% CONCRETE PATIO 612 SF 2.9% BUFFER (FUNCTIONAL) 0 SF 0% IMPERVIOUS AREA 1,812 SF 8.5% SEMI-IMPERVIOUS (GRAVEL) 6,151 SF 29.0% LOT AREA 21,190 SF *LARGE / SIGNIFICANT TREE REPLACE EXISTING CULVERT WITH LARGER DIAMETER CULVERT FOR FISH PASSAGE R-4 ZONING DISTRICT REASONABLE USE 9,000 SF MINIMUM LOT SIZE 35% LOT COVERAGE BY STRUCTURES (3,150 SF) 50% IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE (4,500 SF) 2301 JONES AVE STRUCTURES 2,481 SF -669 SF 2301 JONES AVE IMPERVIOUS SURFACES 3,093 SF -1,407 SF +SEMI-IMPERVIOUS SURFACES 6,337 SF +1,837 SF LOT COVERAGE LANDSCAPED VEGITATION 12,376 SF 58.4% +14.8% STEEP SLOPE 3,481 SF 16.3% -2.5% STRUCTURES 2,481 SF 11.7% +6.0% GRAVEL DRIVEWAY 2,275 SF 10.7% -18.3% CONCRETE PATIO 612 SF 2.9% +0.0% RESTORED VEGITATION 2,412 SF 11.4% +11.4% IMPERVIOUS AREA 3,093 SF 14.6% +6.1% SEMI-IMPERVIOUS (GRAVEL) 2,275 SF 10.7% -18.3% NET IMPERVIOUS AREA -12.2% LOT AREA 21,190 SF *LARGE / SIGNIFICANT TREE 260 258 256 264 262 266 254 254 252 252 250 250 248 248 246 244 242 240 23810'-11"200'107'100'30'7'170' EXISTING SHED EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE PROPOSE D ADDITION DEMOLISH EXISTING PORCH JONES AVE NECURRENT SITE PLAN SCALE: 1" = 20' FIRE HYDRANT EXISTING GRAVEL DRIVEWAY EXISTING CONCRETE PATIO EXISTING RETAINING WALL (TO BE DEMOLISHED) EXISTING RETAINING WALL6'-7"33'-10"35'-9"31'-1"24'-10"15'-2"3'-3" 2'-5" 8'-5" 35'-10" 46'-9" 44'-4" 93'-11" 97'-2" 19'-8" EXISTING GRAVEL DRIVEWAY 5'-9"9'-6"13'-1"13'-1"16'-4" PROPOSED CONCRETE RETAINING WALL 6'-7"6'-7"4,120 sf 4,135 sf 586 sf 59 sf 1,411 sf 2,670 sf 130 sf 410 sf 67 sf 737 sfSEPTIC FIELD * * *** LOT COVERAGE LANDSCAPED VEGITATION 9,242 SF 43.6% GRAVEL DRIVEWAY 6,151 SF 29.0% STEEP SLOPE 3,985 SF 18.8% EXISTING STRUCTURES 1,200 SF 5.7% CONCRETE PATIO 612 SF 2.9% BUFFER (FUNCTIONAL) 0 SF 0% IMPERVIOUS AREA 1,812 SF 8.5% SEMI-IMPERVIOUS (GRAVEL) 6,151 SF 29.0% LOT AREA 21,190 SF *LARGE / SIGNIFICANT TREE R-4 ZONING DISTRICT REASONABLE USE 9,000 SF MINIMUM LOT SIZE 35% LOT COVERAGE BY STRUCTURES (3,150 SF) 50% IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE (4,500 SF) 2301 JONES AVE STRUCTURES 2,481 SF -669 SF 2301 JONES AVE IMPERVIOUS SURFACES 3,093 SF -1,407 SF +SEMI-IMPERVIOUS SURFACES 2,275 SF +868 SF 260 258 256 264 262 266 254 254 252 252 250 250 248 248 246 244 242 240 23810'-11"200'107'100'30'7'170' EXISTING SHED EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE PROPOSE D ADDITION DEMOLISH EXISTING PORCH JONES AVE NEPROPOSED SITE PLAN SCALE: 1" = 20' FIRE HYDRANT EXISTING GRAVEL DRIVEWAY EXISTING CONCRETE PATIO EXISTING RETAINING WALL (TO BE DEMOLISHED) EXISTING RETAINING WALL6'-7"33'-10"35'-9"31'-1"24'-10"15'-2"3'-3" 2'-5" 8'-6" 35'-11" 46'-10" 44'-4" 94'-0" 97'-4" 19'-8" EXISTING GRAVEL DRIVEWAY 5'-9"9'-6"13'-1"13'-1"16'-5" PROPOSED CONCRETE RETAINING WALL 6'-7"6'-7"587 sf 59 sf 1,809 sf 2,258 sf 130 sf 411 sf 67 sf SEPTIC FIELD 3,783 sf 1,599 sf 426 sf 1,016 sf 1,533 sf * **** 648 sf OPTION 1 OPTION 2 EXHIBIT 5 REFERENCE YELLOW HIGHLIGHTS EXHIBIT 6 EXHIBIT 6 (CONTINUED) EXHIBIT 6 (CONTINUED) EXHIBIT 6 (CONTINUED) EXHIBIT 6 (CONTINUED) EXHIBIT 7 PAGE FROM COR LUA05-050 EXHIBIT 7 (CONTINUED) PAGE FROM COR LUA05-050 SANITARYSEWERAVAILABILITYthCITYOFRENTONResetForm6FloorCustomerService1055SGradyWay,Renton,WA98057Phone:(425)430-7200Fax:(425)430-7300TOBEFILLEDOUTBYAPPLICANT:DateofRequest/OI’ApplicantsName:Skv___________PhoneNo.(20G),&iicoiMailingAddress:City________________________State____________ZipCode___________________________Emailaddress:i\’.Afoeng2Za)grrcI.ccrmCheckone:ç_ProposedSingleFamilyHomeProposed______LotShortPlatExistingSingleFamilyHomeOnSepticOther(Specify)___________________________________Location/Address:230(5LCe’5’-4zKingCountyTaxAccountNo:33/Ljc—oTHISAPPLICATIONSHALLINCLUDEACOPYOFTHEPROPOSEDSITE!PLOTPLAN.INFORMATIONPROVIDEDBYCITY:‘41.SanitarySewerServicewillbeprovidedbysidesewerconnectiononlytoanexistingsizesewermainlocatedwithin7,.ILó/4’/J_CityrecordsshowasidesewerstubtothepropertyAYesUNoUSanitarysewerservicewillrequireanextensionofapproximately_______________of_______sizesewermainlocatedwithinUNoSewerAvailabilityisgranted.Annexationwillberequiredfortheprovisionofsanitarysewerservicetothisproposeddevelopment.0Theproposeddevelopmentlieswithin________________________________servicearea;therefore,theapplicantshallcontactTheDistrict/Agencyat_______________________________(phone)forseweravailability.3242i&‘4Zd-/-/2ñk’h-/4V-%4t-6rzjp,A6d76i-7ø%-2.Paymentofallapplicablesystemdevelopmentfees.(Feesaresubjecttochangewithoutnotice.):•SystemDevelopmentCharge(basedonsizeofdomesticwatermeterservinghome):Ifservedby5/8”x3/4”meteror1”meter2837.00(chargeforlargermeteruponrequest)$_______________•ResidentialorCommercialBuildingSewerPermit:BuildingSewerPermit/BuildingtoPropertyLine(pereach):315.00SideSewerStub/SewerMaintoPropertyLine(pereach):—•Latecomers,specialassessmentfees:_______________________________$______________________________$/________________________________________________________________________________$_________________•RightofWayFee($31500ifapplicable)$_________________•RightofWayBond($2,000.00Refundable)$________________3.0Asaconditionofconnection,asthesubjectpropertyisnotwithinthecurrentcorporateboundariesofRenton,theownermustexecuteaCovenanttoAnnextotheCity.4.0TheRentonportionoftheWastewaterUtilityRatesforcustomersoutsidethecitylimitsis1.5timesthestandardrateforcustomersinsidethecitylimits.(CityCodesection8-5-15C)(over)EXHIBIT 8 I.‘LLzzhia’Lo00qLjLJ4’ICI4Iy-””•:1:::::.2:..:...•..:.I...:————L..T.L..1‘40p44_LLJ:LESCCCCC4—u4—C—a—c,IC—C’‘4If-IfIco,.L?S3350,H•L2•’-L*.EXHIBIT 8 (CONTINUED) CityofRentonPrintmapTemplateCityandCountyBoundaryAddressesParcelsQWaterServiceAreasLiLiftStationCleanOutsManholesCServiceConnectionsWasterwaterTapstFiftinrie—RentonPrivateGravityMainsRentonPrivateWastewaterServiceAreas@KCMetroManholes—KCPressurizedMainswKCGravityMainsRne.nicIAsepqempntflimtrir.teNotesNoneLegendL.0—I6403264FeetWGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_SphereFinance&ITDivisionIInformationTechnology-GISThismapisausergeneratedstaticoutputfromanInternetmappingsiteand1isforreferenceonly.DatalayersthatappearonthismapmayormaynotbeRentonMapSupport@Rentonwa.govaccurate,current,orotherwisereliable.I6/7/2018THISMAPISNOTTOBEUSEDFORNAVIGATIONEXHIBIT 8 (CONTINUED) STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Northwest Regional Office  3190 160th Avenue SE  Bellevue, Washington 98008-5452  (425) 649-7000 711 for Washington Relay Service  Persons with a speech disability can call (877) 833-6341 February 13, 2020 Alex Morganroth Department of Community and Economic Development City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Re: Jurgens RUV File# LUA20-000006/PR20-000048, Ecology SEPA# 202000590 Dear Alex Morganroth: Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Jurgens RUV project. Based on review of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) checklist associated with this Project, the Department of Ecology (Ecology) has the following comments: The variance applicant proposes an expansion to an existing residence on existing impermeable surface within both stream and wetland buffer. As a mitigation measure, the applicant proposes removing an unauthorized driveway through the wetland/stream buffer and over the stream and replacing it with grass lawn, which is not a significant improvement in buffer function. Replacing the existing driveway with a buffer consisting of native shrubs and/or trees would provide a clear ecological lift, as compared with a maintained grass lawn. In Ecology's view, this change would result a more compelling argument for granting the variance. Thank you for considering these comments from Ecology. If you have any questions or would like to respond to these comments, please contact Neil Molstad from the Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program at (425) 649-7007 or by email at neil.molstad@ecy.wa.gov. Sincerely, Katelynn Piazza SEPA Coordinator Sent by email: Alex Morganroth, amorganroth@rentonwa.gov ecc: Neil Molstad, Ecology EXHIBIT 9 Steve Jurgens July 8, 2019 Page 3 Recommendation Since it is not possible to develop the expansion outside of the standard or reduced buffers on the site, the project can only occur utilizing an alternate buffer that meets all of the criteria outlined in RMC 4-3-050.G.9.d.ii. These criteria include the preparation of a buffer enhancement planting plan that would demonstrate an increase in the functions of the buffer over current conditions. It is my recommendation that a meeting be held with the City of Renton Planning Department to determine whether an alternate buffer would likely be approved prior to the preparation of detailed site plans. If you have any questions, please call me at (425) 333-4535. Sincerely, ALTMANN OLIVER ASSOCIATES, LLC John Altmann Ecologist Attachments EXHIBIT 10 EXHIBIT 11 2,250 1,858 sf 3,534 sf Original improved buffer: 2,250 sf NGPE size: 3,530 sf "New" square footage of land to be utilized for buffer improvement: 1,860 sf (difference of NGPE and original improved buffer) Percent increase of improved buffer area from the variance's mitigation site plan: 57% '. • '.' " • 'j ',' .,:. :THE RILEY 'GROU"I"') . INC .. ". ' ..... -.. ': .,: . ,'. :'~" .. ' : '. -, ,', • t"'~~" ~ ; . .J.; ~ , r;.;.~ '"" ... ~ .. 1,., ;,.">-,_.:'.,,::','\~',J., .. . :.' ; .. ". ~,~:<.' ~ .. -;."_':--i,:·~ef.,.,.~ ,I. ~, "--': •• ~~~,-"':'_:/:.:7.,"';;',"3/~~ ': .. :~;: ~':': 1··""\'t!" .. ;~< .• ~.· '~~:j~;h;, .~d:~.k·_:;~~;:: .. ~",.t:,:',' _~;;Jl';·.~ '~1 4.1 CITY OF RENTON REGULATIONS 4.1.1 WETLANDS The wetland on the subject site meets the criteria as a forested Category 3 wetland. The wetland classification is based upon the wetland size (greater than 5,000 square feet); severe disturbance, including the dominance of invasive species within the wetland, specifically Himalayan blackberry; the presence of fill material within the wetland and its buffer to the south and west as well as roadway fill on the north and east property lines, and; ditching of the stream at the southeast comer Gust off-site). Category 3 wetlands are protected with 25-foot buffers. 4.1.2 STREAMS The City of Renton is in the process of revising the municipal code sections related to streams. The City of Renton defines stream, creek, river, or water-course as, "any portion of a channel, bed, bank; or bottom waterward of the ordinary high water mark in which fish may spawn, reside, or through which they may pass, and tributary waters with defined beds or bank which influence the quality of fish habitat downstream. This includes watercourses which flow on an intermittent basis or which fluctuate in level during the year, and applies to the entire bed of such watercourse whether or not the water is at peak level. This definition does not include irrigation ditches, canals, stormwater runoff devices, or other entirely artificial watercourses, except where they exist in a natural watercourse which has been altered by humans or except where there are salmonids." At this point in time, there is neither a stream classification system nor buffer requirements in the municipal code. The on-site stream is unlikely to support salmonids. 5. Report Limitations Work for this project was performed, and this report prepared for, Bill Robertson in accordance with generally accepted professional practices. This report is not meant to represent a legal opinion. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Wetland bo~daries delineated by Riley are subject to verification and approval by regulatory agencies. Any site design work prior to verification of wetland boundaries is subject to corrective changes. EXHIBIT 12 City of Renton Department of Community & omic Development CertiJ. of Exemption from Critical Areas Regulations 2816 Kennewick Stream and Buffer Enhancement LUAlS-000761 CONDITIONS: 1. The bank armoring to be removed as identified on the approved planting plar is not approved through this Critical Areas Exemption. A separate exemption and Environmental (SEPA) Review process is required for the bank armoring removal proposal. This separate permit shall be submitted to the City within 180 days (or 6 months) ofthis permit approval. 2. The applicant shall provide a monitoring report one-year following the installation ofthe approved stream buffer plantings, to Current Planning Project Manager, Kris Sorensen, for review and approval. a. The monitoring report shall be prepared by a biologist or stream specialist with an analysis ofthe approved mitigation/enhancement plan, the numbers and types of plants planted, survival of the plants, and recommendation for replacing of plants if they are dead, decaying, or not suited for the site. b. The biologist or stream specialist shall provide a recommended planting plan for any plants that need to be replaced. c. The applicant shall install the plants recommended to be replanted by the specialist once the Current Planning Project Manager has reviewed and approved the one-year monitoring plan. 3. No mechanical equipment shall be used to install the mitigation/enhancement plantings within stream buffer areas. 4. The applicant shall contact Current Planning Project Manager, Kris Sorensen, 425-430-6593, following installation ofthe approved mitigation /enhancement plan for inspection and final approval. 5. No cutting or maintenance of grasses or other native vegetation shall be allowed within the stream buffer area unless such maintenance is required for the establishment period of the approved stream buffer mitigation/enhancement plan. Maintenance of invasive plants may be allowed provided it is consistent with the approved planting plan, for a period of 5 years after which a new Critical Areas Exemption would be required. SIGNATURE & DATE OF DECISION : November 03, 2015 Date The above land use decision will become final if the decision is not appealed within the 14-day appeal period (RCW 43.21.C.075(3); WAC 197-11-680). Page 3 of 4 EXHIBIT 13 CRITICAL AREA: Type Ns Stream EXEMPTION JUSTIFICATION: RMC 4-3-0SOC3aiii. Approved Restoration/Mitigation FINDINGS: DECISION: CONDITIONS: The proposed development is consistent with the following findings pursuant to RMC section 4-3-0SOC.2.d: i. The activity is not prohibited by this or any other provision of the Renton Municipal Code or State or Federal law or regulation; ii. The activity will be conducted using best management practices as specified by industry standards or applicable Federal agencies or scientific principles; iii. Impacts are minimized and, where applicable, disturbed areas are immediately restored; iv. Where water body or buffer disturbance has occurred in accordance with an exemption during construction or other activities, revegetation with native vegetation shall be required; v. If a hazardous material, activity, and/or facility that is exempt pursuant to this Section has a significant or substantial potential to degrade groundwater quality, then the Administrator may require compliance with the Wellhead Protection Area requirements of this Section otherwise relevant to that hazardous material, activity, and/or facility. Such determinations will be based upon site and/or chemical-specific data. An exemption from the Critical Areas Regulations is hereby Approved with Conditions. 1. ERC Mitigation: The applicant shall follow the recommendations of the July 28, 2016 Standard Stream Study and Biological Assessment prepared by 7K Environmental. 2. ERC Mitigation: The applicant shall remove the unpermitted block wall and install the restoration following approvals from other applicable agencies and no later than August 1, 2017. 3. The applicant shall remove the unpermitted footbridge crossing the stream. 4. Prior to the start of construction, the applicant shall provide a surety device 2EXHIBIT 14 PAGES FROM LUA16-000307 for the installation, maintenance, and monitoring of the stream bank restoration as indicated in the Standard Stream Study and Biological Assessment, except that a monitoring report shall also be provided to the City on Year 2 of the 3-year monitoring plan. SIGNATURE & DATE OF DECISION: September 16, 2016 lanning Director Date The above land use decision will become final if the decision is not appealed within the 14-day appeal period (RCW 43.21.C.075(3); WAC 197-11-680). APPEALS: An appeal of this administrative land use decision must be filed in writing together with the required fee to the City of Renton Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, on or before 5:00 p.m., on September 30, 2016. RMC 4-8-110 governs appeals to the Hearing Examiner and additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. RECONSIDERATION: Within 14 days of the decision date, any party may request that the decision be reopened by the approval body. The approval body may modify his decision if material evidence not readily discoverable prior to the original decision is found or if he finds there was misrepresentation of fact. After review ofthe reconsideration request, if the approval body finds sufficient evidence to amend the original decision, there will be no further extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action must file a formal appeal within the 14-day appeal time frame. EXPIRATION: Five (5) years from the date of decision (date signed). Attachments: Site Plan CC: Alyssa Tran, 18364 160th Pl SE, Renton, WA 98058 3 EXHIBIT 14 (CONTINUED) EXHIBIT 15 EXHIBIT 15 (CONTINUED) Dumitru Roman December 23, 2013 Page 5 Under the proposed buffer averaging plan, 5,374 s.f. of buffer area would be reduced and 17,954 s.f. of buffer area would be provided. The plan would therefore result in a net gain of 12,580 s.f. of buffer area. d) The proposed buffer standard is based on consideration of the best available science as described in WAC 365-195-905; or where there is an absence of valid scientific information, the steps in RMC 4-9-250F are followed. The proposed buffer would not be reduced beyond 50% of the standard buffer and would be consistent with best available science. Implementation of the buffer averaging and enhancement plan would increase the functions and overall area of the stream buffer on the site over current conditions. 8.0 STREAM BUFFER ENHANCEMENT As part of the proposed stream buffer enhancement plan, the reduced buffer lawn area to the east of the existing and proposed residences would be planted with a variety of native tree and shrub species to increase the plant species and structural diversity of the buffer. These plantings and the split-rail fence would also provide a physical and visual screen to the stream from the residences and would significantly increase the habitat and protection functions of the buffer over current conditions. 8.1 Goal, Objectives, and Performance Standards for Enhancement Area The primary goal of the enhancement plan is to increase the value of the buffer over current conditions. To meet this goal, the following objectives and performance standards have been incorporated into the design of the plan: Objective A: Increase the structural and plant species diversity within the enhancement area. Performance Standard: Following every monitoring event for a period of at least five years, the enhancement area will contain at least 7 native plant species. In addition, there will be 100% survival of all woody planted species throughout the enhancement area at the end of the first year of planting. Following Year 1, success will be based on an 80% survival rate or areal cover of planted or recolonized native species of 15% at construction approval, 20% after Year 1, 30% after Year 2, 40% after Year 3, 50% after Year 4 and 60% after Year 5. Objective B: Limit the amount of invasive and exotic species within the enhancement area. Performance Standard: After construction and following every monitoring event for a period of at least five years, exotic and invasive plant species will be maintained at levels below 10% total cover in all planted areas. These species include, but are not limited to, Himalayan and evergreen blackberry, reed canarygrass, morning glory, Japanese knotweed, English ivy, thistle, and creeping nightshade. EXHIBIT 16 July 8, 2019 AOA-5910 Steve Jurgens Sjurgens22@gmail.com SUBJECT: Wetland and Stream Review for Jurgens Property 2301 Jones Ave. NE, Parcel 334450-0210 Renton, WA Dear Steve: On May 21, 2019 I conducted a wetland and stream reconnaissance on the subject property utilizing the methodology outlined in the May 2010 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0). The site is currently developed with your existing residence, gravel parking areas, and yard. Kennydale Creek flows from southeast to northwest through the yard in the northeast corner of the site. One wetland (Wetland A) was observed along the creek within a broad topographic swale immediately off-site to the north. The southern boundary of the wetland in the vicinity of your north property line was delineated with pink flagging numbered A-1 through A-6 during the site review. Wetland A and Kennydale Creek Wetland A consists of a Riverine Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) class wetland containing a forested plant community that included black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), red alder (Alnus rubra), Pacific willow (Salix lasiandra), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), lady fern (Athyrium filix- femina), and skunk cabbage (Lysichiton americanum). Hydrologic support to the wetland appears to be from both groundwater seepage and overbank flooding. Wetland A was determined to meet the criteria for a Category II wetland with 4 Habitat Points (Attachment A). Category II wetlands with 4 Habitat Points require a standard 100-foot buffer and 15-foot building setback per RMC 4-3-050.G.2. It is my understanding that Kennydale Creek is considered a Type Np stream and requires a standard 75-foot buffer plus 15-foot building setback. EXHIBIT 17 Enclosure February 25, 2020 Stephan Jurgens 2301 Jones Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) THRESHOLD DETERMINATION PR20-000048 Jurgens RUV, LUA20-000006, ECF, V-A Dear Mr. Jurgens: This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) to advise you that they have completed their review of the subject project and have issued a threshold Determination of Non- Significance-Mitigated with Mitigation Measures. Please refer to the enclosed ERC Report, for a list of the Mitigation Measures. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed pursuant to RMC 4-9-070.R. If you have any further questions, please call me at (425) 430-7219 For the Environmental Review Committee, Alex Morganroth Senior Planner EXHIBIT 18 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Jurgens RUV Staff Report to the Environmental Review Committee LUA20-000006, ECF, RUV Report of February 24, 2020 Page 2 of 4 SR_ERC Staff Report_200219_v3_FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In compliance with RCW 43.21C.240, the following environmental (SEPA) review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. A. Environmental Threshold Recommendation Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials: Issue a DNS-M B. Mitigation Measures 1. The applicant be required to submit a revised buffer enhancement plan that includes the planting of native shrubs and/or trees along the north of the site for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager. C. Exhibits Exhibit 1: Environmental Review Committee (ERC) Report Exhibit 2: Site Plan Exhibit 3: Floor Plan Exhibit 4: Utilities Plan Exhibit 5: Wetland and Stream Review, prepared by Altmann Oliver Associates, LLC, dated July 8, 2019 Exhibit 6: Site Photos Exhibit 7: Aerial Photography Exhibit 8: Letter from Department of Ecology, dated February 13, 2020 D. Environmental Impacts The Proposal was circulated and reviewed by various City Departments and Divisions to determine whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development. Staff reviewers have identified that the proposal is likely to have the following probable impacts: 1. Water a. Wetland, Streams, Lakes Impacts: Due to the presence of a wetland to the north of the project site and a stream on the eastern portion of the project site, the applicant submitted a Wetland and Stream Review prepared by Altmann Oliver Associates that included analysis of current conditions as well as analysis of the proposed project and its potential impacts on the two critical areas. The existing wetland adjacent to the site is located within a native growth protection easement created as part of the development of a four (4) lot short plat in 2005 (LUA05-050). The easement is located across the four single-family homes that were a part of the subject short plat. Based on the observations made by the consultant during a reconnaissance survey conducted in May of 2019, the wetlands (identified as Wetlands A in the report) were classified as Category II with four (4) habitat points. According to the report, the hydrology of the wetlands, a Riverine Hydrogeomorphic class containing a forested plan community, was found to be sustained from both groundwater seepage and overbank flooding created by development in the area. Plants identified in the wetland included salmonberry, Pacific willow, black cottonwood, skunk cabbage, Himalayan blackberry, and lady fern. According to the report, Wetland A, while not part of a larger wetlands system, provides EXHIBIT 18 (CONTINUED) City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Jurgens RUV Staff Report to the Environmental Review Committee LUA20-000006, ECF, RUV Report of February 24, 2020 Page 4 of 4 SR_ERC Staff Report_200219_v3_FINAL Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall submit a revised buffer enhancement plan that includes the planting of native shrubs and/or trees along the north of the site as recommend by the Department of Ecology (Exhibit 7) for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit application. Nexus: State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Environmental Review and RMC 4-3-050 Critical Areas Regulations E. Comments of Reviewing Departments The proposal has been circulated to City Department and Division Reviewers. Where applicable, their comments have been incorporated into the text of this report and/or “Advisory Notes to Applicant.”  Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File and may be attached to this report. EXHIBIT 18 (CONTINUED) 200'107'100'30'7'170' EXISTING SHED EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE PROPOSED ADDITION DEMOLISH EXISTING PORCH JONES AVE NEWETLAND MITIGATION SITE PLAN SCALE: 1" = 20' PROJECT DESCRIPTION CONSTRUCTION OF A 2-STORY ADDITION TO THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. DEMOLITION OF EXISTING PORCH. ADDITION CONSISTS OF GARAGE ON 1ST FLOOR AND ADDITIONAL LIVING SPACE ON 2ND FLOOR. N EXISTING GRAVEL DRIVEWAY EXISTING CONCRETE PATIO EXISTING RETAINING WALL EXISTING GRAVEL DRIVEWAY LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 330, HILLMANS LK WN GARDEN OF EDEN # 5 N 107 FT OF E 200 FT LESS S 7 FT OF W 30 FT THOF ADDRESS: 2301 JONES AVE NE, RENTON, WA 98056 SEPTIC FIELD * *** * ** * ** * ** * * * 1,100 sf 2,220 sf 1,703 sf LEGEND 1,100 SF NEW GRASS (ORIGINALLY GRAVEL) 1,150 SF NEW NATIVE TREES AND SHRUBS (SEE PLANTINGS SCHEDULE) 1,703 SF ADDITION TO EXISTING STRUCTURE (NET 1,523 SF AFTER DEMOLITION) 2,220 SF REMAINING IMPERVIOUS GRAVEL AREA (WAS 5,740 SF) CATEGORY 2 WETLAND KENNYDALE CREEK EXISTING TREE 1,150 sf * PLANTINGS SCHEDULE SYMBOL SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME QTY SIZE L LONICERA INVOLUCRATA BLACK TWINBERRY 11 1 GAL PC PHYSOCARPUS CAPITATUS PACIFIC NINEBARK 11 1 GAL R ROSA PISOCARPA CLUSTERED ROSE 11 1 GAL S SYMPHORICARPOS ALBUS SNOWBERRY 11 1 GAL TP THUJA PLICATA WESTERN RED CEDAR 12 2 GAL TPTPTPTPTPTPTPTPTPTPTPTP L L L L L L L L L L L PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PCRRRRRRRRRRRSSSSSSSSSSS EXHIBIT 19 4,514 376 City of Renton - Kennydale Creek This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. 4/20/2020 Legend 2560128 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION Feet Notes 256 WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Information Technology - GIS RentonMapSupport@Rentonwa.gov Environment Designations Natural Shoreline High Intensity Shoreline Isolated High Intensity Shoreline Residential Urban Conservancy Jurisdictions Streams (Classified) <all other values> Type S Shoreline Type F Fish Type Np Non-Fish Type Ns Non-Fish Seasonal Unclassified Not Visited Wetlands Network Structures Access Riser Inlet Manhole Utility Vault Clean Out Unknown Control Structures Pump Stations Discharge Points EXHIBIT 20 Vehicles »All vehicles on residential property must be licensed and operable »Auto repair is not a business allowed in a residential area »For vehicles parked on the street for over 72 hours or for inoperable or unlicensed vehicles parked on the street , call 425-430-7561 Residential parking The city’s parking ordinance allows up to four licensed and operable vehicles to be parked on a residential lot. Garbage »Garbage, yard waste and recyclable items must be stored in an approved container with a tight fitting lid »Plastic garbage bags are not an approved storage container »Containers should be placed at the curb site no earlier than 24 hours before scheduled pick up and removed within 24 hours after pick up »Garbage service is mandatory Vegetation »Grass and weeds must be 12 inches or less in height on a developed lot »Grass and weeds must be 24 inches or less on an undeveloped lot »Cannot encroach onto private property, public sidewalks or streets »Overhanging vegetation must be trimmed to a height of 12 feet or higher above roadways and eight feet or more over sidewalks Outdoor storage »Backyard storage only »Height limit of six feet »Must be neatly stacked Tent/canopy structures »May not be located in front or side yard setback »May not be located closer than six feet to any structure »Must comply with outdoor storage code »Must be maintained in good condition Cargo containers Commonly known as shipping containers, are not allowed in residential areas Building permits The Renton Municipal Code requires building permits to be issued for any person, firm or corporation to erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, improve, remove, convert or demolish, use, occupy or maintain any building or structure in the city. EXHIBIT 21 EXHIBIT 22 AD.1 GOOGLE STREET VIEW, JULY 2008 GOOGLE STREET VIEW, AUGUST 2014 GOOGLE STREET VIEW, AUGUST 2011 GOOGLE STREET VIEW, JUNE 2018 EXHIBIT 23 AD.1 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Jurgens Reasonable Use Variance Administrative Report & Decision LUA20-000006, ECF, RUV Report of April 14, 2020 Page 5 of 12 D_Admin Report_Jurgens Reasonable Use Variance_200224_v6_FINAL application for development on sites located within 50 feet of a geotechnical hazard, unless waived by the Building Official. Compliance for this standard would be verified at the time of building permit review.  Streams: The following buffer requirements are applicable to streams in accordance with RMC 4-3-050.G.2: Type F streams require a 115-foot buffer, Type Np streams require a 75-foot buffer, and Type Ns streams require a 50-foot buffer. An additional 15-foot building setback is required from the edge of all stream buffer areas. Staff Comment: A Type Ns stream is located on the eastern portion of the site according to both COR Maps and the Wetlands and Stream Review submitted by the applicant (Exhibit 5). The existing home is located approximately 75 feet from the stream (at its closest point) and is outside of the required stream buffer and building setback for Type Ns streams. As proposed, the addition would also be located outside of the required stream buffer and building setback if constructed. Therefore, the project complies with the stream buffer and setback standards. Per RMC 4-3-050, streams and their buffers are required to be placed in a Native Growth Protection Area (NGPA) with split rail fencing installed around the perimeter of the entire NGPA. Based on aerial imagery and Google streetview data (Exhibit 12) reviewed by staff, the buffer area between the street and stream was relatively untouched until approximately 2015. However, the same imagery indicated that manicured lawn has been established on the north side of the stream for at least a decade and has been used was used as a recreation space by previous property owners as well as the applicant. In order to assist with the reestablishment of native plants in the buffer area between the ROW and stream, as well as to reduce the potential for future impacts, the stream and buffer area to the east of the stream should be protected by establishing a Native Growth Protection Easement and requisite split-rail cedar fencing. In addition, the stream should be restored to its unmolested state and all armoring both in-water and out of water removed, as is shown in the earlier imagery. Due to the fact that the area between the existing house and stream has historically consisted of manicured lawn, the split rail fence and Native Growth Protection easement may be established directly north of the stream . The full Native Growth Protection easement and fencing would then run along the stream until reaching the legally established driveway on the south side of the site, where it would then continue east until reaching the ROW. See Exhibit 11 for a detailed site plan showing the recommended easement area. In conclusion, staff recommends as a condition of approval that the applicant establish a Native Growth Protection Easement that encompasses the area between the west side of the stream and the public right- of-way identified as the “Stream NGPE area” on the site plan prepared by staff (Exhibit 11). The applicant should also be required to install a standard split rail fence with signage along the NPGE boundary on the north side of the stream in order to protect the stream from future impacts. The location of the split rail fence would be reviewed and approved by the Currently Planning Project Manager prior to installation. Staff also recommends as a condition of approval that applicant be required to demonstrate compliance with the Native Growth Protection Easement and split fence requirement prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the addition. After completion of the mitigation plan, compliance with the requirements for long-term (5 years) maintenance and monitoring of the mitigation area plantings would be required per the process outlined in RMC 4-3-050.L.3.  Wellhead Protection Areas: DocuSign Envelope ID: 34C80822-CE90-47F6-A17C-7826571E0423 EXHIBIT 24 AD.1 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Jurgens Reasonable Use Variance Administrative Report & Decision LUA20-000006, ECF, RUV Report of April 14, 2020 Page 8 of 12 D_Admin Report_Jurgens Reasonable Use Variance_200224_v6_FINAL property line (rear yard). The siting of the addition on the site would not affect the privacy or view of any of the surrounding homes due the large size of the property. Second, the claims that the granting of the variance for the buffer encroachment would not negatively impact the wetlands to the north located on private property, as demonstrated in the Wetlands and Stream Review (Exhibit 7) submitted by the applicant. The applicant contends that removal of a large portion of the existing gravel driveway within the buffer would actually provide a public benefit by reducing the amount of pollution-generating runoff entering the wetlands, the stream, and eventually Lake Washington. Staff has reviewed the applicant’s justifications and concurs with the reasoning provided. Staff finds that the proposed wetlands buffer encroachment would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated based on both the large size of the site and the findings of the submitted wetlands review. Staffs analysis assumes compliance with the SEPA mitigation measure approved by the Environmental Review Committee, which requires the applicant to submit an updated mitigation plan that adds native trees and shrubs in the buffer area. The granting of the variance would not result in an increase of impervious surface and would not require the removal of any significant vegetation. In addition, if constructed, the new addition would be located almost 50 feet from the nearest home to the northeast and the home would remain screened by existing vegetation along the north property line. Therefore construction of the addition in the proposed location would have a minimal visual impact on the adjacent neighbors to the north, south, and west and would not be materially detrimental or injurious to neighboring properties or the existing critical areas on and near the site.  b. There is no reasonable use of the property left if the requested variance is not granted. Staff Comment: The applicant did not directly address the criterion, but contended that reasonable use of the property in a manner similar to the surrounding properties is not possible due to the environmental constraints on the property. The lot, at 21,190 sq. ft., is significantly larger than the surrounding R-4 lots that range from approximately 5,400 sq. ft. to 12,000 sq. ft. The applicant purchased the larger lot in order to utilize the square footage for improvements such as a larger home and multiple accessory buildings. While other properties may utilize a building coverage limit 35%, the applicants available building coverage is significantly less after critical areas regulations are applied. Staff has reviewed the applicant’s justifications and concurs that there is no reasonable use of the property left if the requested variance is not granted. Due to the wetlands buffer covering the majority of the site, the existing home could not be expanded without obtaining a reasonable use variance and would be limited to the existing building coverage of approximately 5%. If the variance is granted, the construction of the addition would create a building coverage of approximately 10% which brings the building coverage percentage closer to that afforded to the neighboring property owners without environmental constraints (35% in the R-4 zone). Therefore the granting of the variance would allow the property to be used in a manner that is both reasonable and similar to adjacent properties in the R-4 zone.  c. That the approval is a minimum variance that will accomplish the desired purpose. DocuSign Envelope ID: 34C80822-CE90-47F6-A17C-7826571E0423 EXHIBIT 24 (CONTINUED) AD.1 EXHIBIT 24 (CONTINUED)AD.1