Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPre-app Mtg Summary - 20-000179.pdf1 PRE-APPLICATION MEETING FOR Cedar River Bank Stabilization Project PRE20-000179 CITY OF RENTON Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division August 13, 2020 Contact Information: Planner: Alex Morganroth, 425-430-7219, amorganroth@rentonwa.gov Public Works Plan Reviewer: Jonathan Chavez, 425-430-7288, jchavez@rentonwa.gov Fire Prevention Reviewer: Corey Thomas, 425-276-9582, cthomas@rentonrfa.org Please retain this packet throughout the course of your project as a reference. Consider giving copies of it to any engineers, architects, and contractors who work on the project. You will need to submit a copy of this packet when you apply for land use and/or environmental permits. Pre-screening: When you have the project application ready for submittal, call and schedule an appointment with the project manager to have it pre-screened before making all of the required copies. The pre-application meeting is informal and non-binding. The comments provided on the proposal are based on the codes and policies in effect at the time of review. The applicant is cautioned that the development regulations are regularly amended and the proposal will be formally reviewed under the regulations in effect at the time of project submittal. The information contained in this summary is subject to modification and/or concurrence by official decision-makers (e.g., Hearing Examiner, Planning Director, Development Services Director, Department of Community & Economic Development Administrator, Public Works Administrator and City Council). 2 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: August 7, 2020 TO: Alex Morganroth, Senior Planner FROM: Jonathan Chavez, Civil Engineer III SUBJECT: Cedar River Bank Stabilization Project PRE20-000179 I have reviewed the pre-application submittal for the Cedar River Bank Stabilization Project (KC Parcel ID: 1723059177). The applicant is proposing to temporarily re-align the existing Cedar River trail away from the edge of the embankment as recommended by the Geotechnical Engineer. WATER 1. This site is located in the Aquifer Protection Area, Zone 1. Per Section 1.3.6 of the 2017 RSWDM, the following drainage features are prohibited: a. Open facilities such as flow control and water quality treatment ponds, stormwater wetlands and infiltration facilities b. On-site BMPs that rely on infiltration (On-site BMPs that rely on dispersion are allowed for non- PGIS) c. Open conveyance systems such as ditches and channels. SEWER 1. N/A SURFACE WATER 1. A drainage report complying with the current version of the City adopted Surface Water Design Manual (SWDM) will be required. Based on the City’s flow control map, the site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard area matching Forested Site Conditions and is within the Lower Cedar River Drainage Basin. Refer to Figure 1.1.2.A – Flow chart to determine the type of drainage review required in the RSWM. All stormwater improvements as per the drainage review along with stormwater improvements in the frontage are required to be provided by the developer. 2. The site topography slopes moderately from the southwest to the northeast. There is an existing unmapped storm water ditch along the southeast side of the existing Cedar River trail. 3. Storm drainage improvements are required to conform to the City’s street and stormwater conveyance standards. Any new storm drain installed on or off-site shall be designed and sized in accordance with standards found in Chapter 4 of the 2017 RSWDM and shall account for the total upstream tributary area, assuming developed conditions for onsite tributary areas and existing conditions for any offsite tributary areas. 4. The site contains flood hazard, landslide hazard, coal mine hazard, regulated slope, and regulated shoreline areas. 5. This site is located in the Aquifer Protection Area, Zone 1. Per Section 1.3.6 of the 2017 RSWDM, the following drainage features are prohibited: 3 a. Open facilities such as flow control and water quality treatment ponds, stormwater wetlands and infiltration facilities b. On-site BMPs that rely on infiltration (On-site BMPs that rely on dispersion are allowed for non- PGIS) c. Open conveyance systems such as ditches and channels. 6. Detailed plans for any proposed cut and fill operations shall be submitted. These plans shall include the angle of slope, contours, compaction and retaining walls. 7. Maintenance access is required for any proposed stormwater tracts and shall be designed and installed in accordance with the City adopted SWDM. 8. Appropriate on-site BMPs satisfying Core Requirement #9 will be required to help mitigate the new runoff created by this development to the maximum extent feasible. On-site BMPs shall be evaluated as described in Section C.1.3 of the 2017 RSWDM. A preliminary drainage plan, including the application of on-site BMPs, shall be included with the land use application, as applicable to the project. The final drainage plan and drainage report must be submitted with the utility construction permit application. 9. A geotechnical soils report for the site is required per the 2017 Renton Surface Water Design Manual Section C.1.3. Information on the water table and soil permeability (measured infiltration rates), with recommendations of appropriate on-site BMPs per Core Requirement #9 and Appendix C shall be included in the report. The report should also include information concerning the soils, geology, drainage patterns and vegetation present shall be presented in order to evaluate the drainage, erosion control and slope stability for site development of the proposed plat. The applicant must demonstrate the development will not result in soil erosion and sedimentation, landslide, slippage, or excess surface water runoff. 10. Erosion control measures to meet the City requirements shall be provided. 11. The current City of Renton Surface Water Standard Plans that shall be used in all drainage submittals are available online at the City of Renton website. 12. The 2020 Surface water system development fee is $0.76 per square foot of new impervious surface, but no less than $1,900.00. This is payable prior to issuance of the construction permit. This fee is subject to change based on the calendar year the construction permit is issued. TRANSPORTATION 1. A Traffic Control Plan shall be submitted prior to construction, showing how pedestrian traffic will be re- routed safely. 2. Provide grading and point slopes for the trail to show ADA compliance. GENERAL COMMENTS 1. All civil construction permits for utility and street improvements will require separate plan submittals. All utility plans shall confirm to the Renton Drafting Standards. A licensed Civil Engineer shall prepare the civil plans. Please visit the Development Engineering Forms page for the most up-to-date plan submittal requirements: http://rentonwa.gov/business/default.aspx?id=42473 2. A landscaping plan and tree retention shall be included with the civil plan submittal. Each plan shall be on separate sheets. 3. Additional Building Permit Applications will be required for the following: a. Any retaining walls that exceed 4 feet in height, as defined by RMC 4-4-040. b. Detention vaults for storm water flow control. c. Demo of any existing structures on the project site(s). 4. Fees quoted in this document reflect the fees applicable in the year 2020 only and will be assessed based on the fee that is current at the time of the permit application or issuance, as applicable to the permit type. Please visit www.rentonwa.gov for the current development fee schedule. 4 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: August 12, 2020 TO: Pre-Application File No. 20-000179 FROM: Alex Morganroth, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Cedar River Trail Bank Stabilization PRE20-000172 General: We have completed a preliminary review of the pre-application for the above-referenced development proposal. The following comments on development and permitting issues are based on the pre-application submittals made to the City of Renton by the applicant and the codes in effect on the date of review. The applicant is cautioned that information contained in this summary may be subject to modification and/or concurrence by official decision-makers (e.g., Hearing Examiner, Community & Economic Development Administrator, Public Works Administrator, Planning Director, Development Services Director, and City Council). Review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes required by City staff or made by the applicant. The applicant is encouraged to review all applicable sections of the Renton Municipal Code. The Development Regulations are available online at https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Renton/. Project Proposal: The City of Renton Community Services Department is proposing to repair an embankment of the Cedar River near the location of the existing Cedar River Trail. The project site is located on the left bank of the Cedar River at approximately River Mile 2.5 and is approximately 0.5 miles east of the parking lot for the Cedar River Dog Park. The embankment was damaged due to a storm event in February of 2020 where high flows in the Cedar River resulted in heavy erosion of a section of the left riverbank. Half of the trail is currently closed due to concerns that ongoing slope erosion caused by the initial storm event could undermine the trail. A geotechnical engineer, GeoEngineers, was hired to document existing conditions, develop recommendations for temporary slope stabilization, and provide discussion of possible long-term repair alternatives. The end goal of the project is to provide a temporary, emergency repair that could be incorporated into a larger bank stabilization project that would re-establish habitat and protect the riverbank from erosion in future high flow events. Critical areas are mapped on the project site and include protected slopes (>40%), sensitive slopes (25-40%), a high seismic hazard, a flood hazard area, a coalmine hazard and the Wellhead Protection Area Zone 1. The site is located within the Reach C of the Cedar River Shoreline and includes the Urban Conservancy, and Aquatic Shoreline designations. Current Use: The subject site contains the Cedar River Trail. Zoning: The subject property is located within the Resource Conservation (RC) zoning district. The Resource Conservation Zone (RC) is established to provide a very low-density residential zone that endeavors to provide some residential use of lands characterized by extensive critical areas or lands with agricultural uses. It is intended to implement the Low Density Residential Comprehensive Plan designation. This zone promotes uses that are compatible with the functions and values of designated critical areas and allows for continued production of food and agricultural products. No minimum density is required. Development Standards: The project would be subject to RMC 4-2-110A, “Development Standards for Residential Zoning Designations “(RC)” effective at the time of complete application. Critical Areas: Based on the City’s Critical Areas Maps, the proposed site of the WCF is mapped with protected slopes (>40%), sensitive slopes (>25%) a high seismic hazard, and the Wellhead Protection Area Zone 1. 5 It is the applicant’s responsibility to ascertain whether any additional critical areas or environmental concerns are present on the site during site development. The applicant shall provide updated studies. Shoreline Regulations: The objective of the Urban Conservancy Overlay protect, conserve, restore, and manage existing areas with ecological functions of open space, floodplain, and other sensitive lands where they exist in urban and developed settings, while allowing compatible uses. The objective of the Aquatic Shoreline overlay protect, restore, and manage the unique characteristics and resources of the areas waterward of the ordinary high water mark. New or existing overland trails are permitted in the Urban Conservancy Overlay provided that the use does not degrade the ecological functions or natural character of the shoreline area. Vegetation Conservation Objective for Reach C of the Cedar River - Enhancement of native riparian vegetation shall be implemented as part of management of public parks. Full standard native vegetation buffers should be maintained on the public open space on the south side of the river, subject to existing trail corridors and other provisions for public access. Specific criteria related to new or expanded shoreline stabilization structures can be found in RMC 4-3-090 Shoreline Master Program Regulations: i. Avoidance of Need for Stabilization: The need for future shoreline stabilization should be avoided to the extent feasible for new development. New development on steep slopes or bluffs shall be set back sufficiently to ensure that shoreline stabilization is unlikely to be necessary during the life of the structure, as demonstrated by a geotechnical analysis. ii. Significant Impact to Other Properties Prohibited: The need for shoreline stabilization shall be considered in the determination of whether to approve new water-dependent uses. Development of new water-dependent uses that would require shoreline stabilization which causes significant impacts to adjacent or down-current properties and shoreline areas should not be allowed. iii. Shoreline Stabilization Alternatives Hierarchy: Structural shoreline stabilization measures should be used only when more natural, flexible, nonstructural methods such as vegetative stabilization, beach nourishment and bioengineering have been determined infeasible. Alternatives for shoreline stabilization should be based on the following hierarchy of preference: (a) No action (allow the shoreline to retreat naturally), increase building setbacks, and relocate structures. (b) Flexible defense works constructed of natural materials including measures such as soft shore protection, bioengineering, including beach nourishment, protective berms, or vegetative stabilization. (c) Flexible defense works, as described above, with rigid works, as described below, constructed as a protective measure at the buffer line. (d) A combination of rigid works, as described below, and flexible defense works, as described above. (e) Rigid works constructed of artificial materials such as riprap or concrete. iv. Limited New Shoreline Stabilization Allowed: New structural stabilization measures shall not be allowed except when necessity is demonstrated in one of the following situations: (a) To protect existing primary structures: (1) New or enlarged structural shoreline stabilization measures for an existing primary structure, including residences, should not be allowed unless there is conclusive evidence, documented by a geotechnical analysis, that the structure is in danger from shoreline erosion caused by currents, or waves within three (3) years, or where waiting until the need is immediate would prevent the opportunity to use measures that avoid impacts on ecological functions. Normal sloughing, erosion of steep bluffs, or shoreline erosion itself, without a scientific or geotechnical analysis, is not demonstration of need. The geotechnical analysis should evaluate on-site drainage issues and address drainage problems away from the shoreline edge before considering structural shoreline stabilization if on-site drainage is a cause of shoreline instability at the site in question. 6 (2) The shoreline stabilization is evaluated by the hierarchy in subsection F4aiii of this Section. (3) The shoreline stabilization structure will not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions. (4) Measures to reduce shoreline erosion in a channel migration zone (CMZ) require a geomorphic assessment by a Washington-licensed geologist with engineering geology or hydrogeology specialty license plus experience in conducting fluvial geomorphic assessments. Erosion control measures are only allowed if it is demonstrated that: the erosion rate exceeds that which would normally occur in a natural condition; the measure does not interfere with fluvial hydrological and geomorphologic processes normally acting in natural conditions; and the measure includes appropriate mitigation of impacts to ecological functions associated with the stream. (b) New Development: In support of new development when all six (6) of the conditions listed below apply and are documented by a geotechnical analysis: (1) The erosion is not being caused by upland conditions, such as the loss of vegetation and drainage. (2) Nonstructural measures, such as placing the development further from the shoreline, planting vegetation, or installing on-site drainage improvements, are not feasible or not sufficient. (3) The need to protect primary structures from damage due to erosion is demonstrated through a geotechnical report. The damage must be caused by natural processes, such as currents and waves. (4) The shoreline stabilization structure is evaluated by the hierarchy in subsection F4aiii of this Section. 5) The shoreline stabilization structure together with any compensatory mitigation proposed by the applicant and/or required by regulatory agencies is not expected to result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions. (6) The proposed new development is not located in a channel migration zone (CMZ). (c) Restoration and Remediation Projects: To protect projects for the restoration of ecological functions or hazardous substance remediation projects pursuant to chapter 70.105D RCW when both of the conditions below apply and are documented by a geotechnical analysis: (1) The shoreline stabilization structure together with any compensatory mitigation proposed by the applicant and/or required by regulatory agencies is not expected to result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions. (2) The shoreline stabilization structure is evaluated by the hierarchy in subsection F4aiii of this Section. (d) Protect Navigability: To protect the navigability of a designated harbor area when necessity is demonstrated in the following manner by a geotechnical report: (1) Nonstructural measures, planting vegetation, or installing on-site drainage improvements, are not feasible or not sufficient. (2) The shoreline stabilization structure together with any compensatory mitigation proposed by the applicant and/or required by regulatory agencies is not expected to result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions. (3) The shoreline stabilization structure is evaluated by the hierarchy in subsection F4aiii of this Section. v. Content of Geotechnical Report: Geotechnical analysis pursuant to this Section that addresses the need to prevent potential damage to a primary structure shall address the necessity for shoreline stabilization by estimating time frames and rates of erosion and report on the urgency associated with the specific situation. The geotechnical analysis shall evaluate the need and effectiveness of both hard and soft armoring solutions in preventing potential 7 damage to a primary structure. Consideration should be given to permit requirements of ot her agencies with jurisdiction. vi. Stream Bank Protection Required: New or expanded shoreline stabilization on streams should assure that such structures do not unduly interfere with natural stream processes. The Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee shall review the proposed design for consistency with State guidelines for stream bank protection as it relates to local physical conditions and meet all applicable criteria of the Shoreline Master Program, subject to the following: (a) A geotechnical analysis of stream geomorphology both upstream and downstream shall be performed to assess the physical character and hydraulic energy potential of the specific stream reach and adjacent reaches upstream or down, and assure that the physical integrity of the stream corridor is maintained, that stream processes are not adversely affected, and that the revetment will not cause significant damage to other properties or valuable shoreline resources. (b) Revetments or similar hard structures are prohibited on point and channel bars, and in salmon and trout spawning areas, except for the purpose of fish or wildlife habitat enhancement or restoration. (c) Revetments or similar hard structures shall be placed landward of associated wetlands unless it can be demonstrated that placement waterward of such features would not adversely affect ecological functions. (d) Revetments or similar structures shall not be developed on the inside bend of channel banks in a stream except to protect public works, railways and existing structures. (e) Revetments shall be designed in accordance with WDFW stream bank protection guidelines. (f) Groins, weirs and other in-water structures may be authorized only by Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, except for those structures installed to protect or restore ecological functions, such as woody debris installed in streams. A geotechnical analysis of stream geomorphology both upstream and downstream shall document that alternatives to in-water structures are not feasible. Documentation shall establish impacts on ecological functions that must be mitigated to achieve no net loss. b. Design Criteria for New or Expanded Shoreline Stabilization Structures: When any structural shoreline stabilization measures are demonstrated to be necessary, the following design criteria shall apply: i. Professional Design Required: Shoreline stabilization measures shall be designed by a qualified professional. Certification by the design professional may be required to ensure that installation meets all design parameters. ii. General Requirements: The size of stabilization measures shall be limited to the minimum necessary. Use measures shall be designed to assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. Soft approaches shall be used unless demonstrated not to be sufficient to protect primary structures, dwellings, and businesses or to meet resource agency permitting conditions. iii. Restriction of Public Access Prohibited: Publicly financed or subsidized shoreline erosion control measures shall be ensured to not restrict appropriate public access to the shoreline except where such access is determined to be infeasible because of incompatible uses, safety, security, or harm to ecological functions. See public access provisions; WAC 173-26-221(4). Where feasible, ecological restoration and public access improvements shall be incorporated into the project. iv. Restriction of Navigation Prohibited: Shoreline stabilization should not be permitted to unnecessarily interfere with public access to public shorelines, nor with other appropriate shoreline uses including, but not limited to, navigation, public or private recreation and Indian treaty rights. v. Aesthetic Qualities to Be Maintained: Where possible, shoreline stabilization measures shall be designed so as not to detract from the aesthetic qualities of the shoreline. vi. Public Access to Be Incorporated: Required restoration and/or public access should be incorporated into the location, design and maintenance of shoreline stabilization structures for public or quasi-public 8 developments whenever safely compatible with the primary purpose. Shore stabilization on publicly owned shorelines should not be allowed to decrease long-term public use of the shoreline. Shoreline Transportation Project Development Standards: a. General Standards: New and expanded transportation facilities shall be designed to achieve no net loss of ecological functions within the shoreline. To the maximum extent feasible the following standards shall be applied to all transportation projects and facilities: i. Facilities shall be located outside of the shoreline jurisdiction and as far from the land/water interface as possible. Expansion of existing transportation facilities shall include analysis of system options that assess the potential for alternative routes outside shoreline jurisdiction or set back further from the land/water interface. ii. Facilities shall be located and designed to avoid significant natural, historical, archaeological, or cultural sites, and mitigate unavoidable impacts. iii. Facilities shall be designed and maintained to prevent soil erosion, to permit natural movement of groundwater, and not adversely affect water quality or aquatic plants and animals over the life of the facility. iv. All debris and other waste materials from construction shall be disposed of in such a way as to prevent their entry by erosion into any water body and shall be specified in submittal materials. v. Facilities shall avoid the need for shoreline protection. vi. Facilities shall allow passage of flood waters, fish passage, and wildlife movement by using bridges with the longest span feasible or when bridges are not feasible, culverts and other features that provide for these functions. vii. Facilities shall be designed to accommodate as many compatible uses as feasible, including, but not limited to: utilities, viewpoint, public access, or trails. d. Trails: i. Trails that provide public access on or near the water shall be located, designed, and maintained in a manner that protects the existing environment and shoreline ecological functions. Preservation or improvement of the natural amenities shall be a basic consideration in the design of shoreline trails. ii. The location and design of trails shall create the minimum impact on adjacent property owners including privacy and noise. iii. Over-water structures may be provided for trails in cases where: 9 (a) Key trail links for local or regional trails must cross streams, wetlands, or other water bodies. (b) For interpretive facilities. (c) To protect sensitive riparian and wetland areas from the adverse impacts of at grade trails, including soil compaction, erosion potential and impedance of surface and groundwater movement. iv. Trail width and surface materials shall be appropriate for the context with narrow soft surface trails in areas of high ecological sensitivity where the physical impacts of the trail and the number of users should be minimized with wider hard-surfaced trails with higher use located in less ecologically sensitive areas. Environmental Review: The project would be subject to Environmental Review (SEPA) due to the work taking place on land wholly or partly covered by water. A SEPA checklist would be required to be submitted with the application. Permit Requirements: The proposal would require Environmental (SEPA) Review and would likely require a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. Both applications would be processed concurrently within an estimated time frame of 6 to 8 weeks, from the time that the application is accepted as complete. The fees is as follows: Environmental (SEPA) Review: $1,580.00 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit $2,640 Detailed information regarding the land use application submittal can be found on the City’s new website by clicking “Land Use Applications” on the Community & Economic Development page, then “All Forms (A to Z).” The City now requires electronic plan submittal for all applications. The City’s Electronic File Standards can also be found on the City’s website at https://edocs.rentonwa.gov/Documents/Browse.aspx?startid=867190&dbid=0. In addition to the required land use permits, a separate building and construction permit(s) would be required. Public Information Sign: The applicant is required to install a proposed land use action sign on the subject property per the specifications provided in the accompanied public information sign handout. The applicant is solely responsible for the construction, installation, maintenance, removal, and any costs associated with the sign. Note: When the formal application materials are complete, the applicant is strongly encouraged to have one copy of the application materials pre-screened at the 6th floor front counter prior to submitting the complete application package. Please call Alex Morganroth, Senior Planner at 425-430-7219 for an appointment. Expiration: Building permits, licenses or land use permits required as part of the project shall be applied for within two (2) years of the date the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit approval.