HomeMy WebLinkAboutCanyon Terrace Final Plat Comments-Response11 of 6
Plan to Permit, LLC
7233 Douglas Ave SE
Snoqualmie, WA 98065
Jan Illian
City of Renton
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
RE: Canyon Terrace Final Plat Comments
December 21, 2016
Dear Jan:
Thank you for the email with comments dated November 10, 2016, in response, regarding the Canyon Terrace
final plat (LUA16-000758). In hopes that it may help with the city’s review, I have included an itemized list of
comments from the email (in bold), followed by responses (in italics):
A. Technical Services Comment
CC&R’s:
There are still numerous blanks within the document to be filled in prior to recording. Overall no comment
on the language. Plan reviewed in electronic Format. Please see redlines for comments
Response:
Thank you for providing comments directly on the plat map, in an electronic format. The blanks have been
filled in on the revised plat map. Each redline comment has been addressed on the revised plat map.
Attached to this resubmittal is a copy of the redlines received, with responses (in blue) to each comment.
Also attached is an email confirming that Lillian Watson has requested the road between lots 21 and 22 not
be named.
B. Fire Review – Building Comments
1. Provide Street name signage as required throughout the plat.
Response:
The street names signage is scheduled to be installed on December 28, 2016.
2. Provide 4 inch square blue fire hydrant reflectors in the middle of the road adjacent to all fire hydrants
throughout the plat.
Response:
The four inch blue fire hydrant reflectors are scheduled to be installed on December 28, 2016.
3. Provide “No Parking Any Time” signage throughout the plat as required.
Response:
Metal signs that state “No Parking Any Time” are scheduled to be installed on December 28, 2016.
2 of 6
C. PLAN – Addressing Review – Planning Comments
Add road names to face of plat
Response:
Road names have been added to the face of the revised plat map. Attached is an email confirming that
Lillian Watson has requested the road between lots 21 and 22 not be named.
D. Planning Review Comments
1. All landscaping (including street trees) needs to be installed and inspected. Wetland mitigation must also
be installed and inspected prior to recording. Please provide a timeline of when you expect to have this
accomplished. You also mentioned that you had an arborist review the trees along 188th St where the
sidewalk was installed. Please provide a copy of that analysis for the project file.
Response:
All street trees and trees within open space tracts have been installed. All wetland mitigation has been
installed. No trees will be planted within the lots until the building permits are constructed. The street trees
and plantings have been inspected and approved by Mona Davis. Attached are two copies of the As-Built
Report by The Watershed Company dated December 7, 2016.
2. It appears by the plat conditions of approval that a 15 foot BSBL (building setback line) is required from the
NGPA tracts. This is not reflected on lots 59 70 that abut a NGPA tract.
Response:
After further clarification between Mona Davis and myself, no BSBL’s will be on the face of the plat. This is
to ensure consistency with the plat map redlines by Amanda Askren, which requested that BSBL’s not be on
the face of the plat.
3. [For tracking purposes, the single paragraph comment is separated into parts a. through e. below]
a. Please clearly depict all tract designations on Sheet 4. Tracts A, C, D, E, H, M & N are missing.
Response:
The tracts A, C, D, E, H, M and N have been added to sheet 4 (now sheet 5). Thank you for the
specificity Mona.
b. In addition, roadways should be named and the boundary of the plat should be clear.
Response:
The roadway names have been added. Attached is an email confirming that Lillian Watson has
requested the road between lots 21 and 22 not be named. The plat is shown in a darker line, solid
line. Adjacent lot lines (outside of the plat) have a semi-dashed line pattern.
c. Please label 124th Ave SE.
Response:
124th Ave SE label has been added to the associated right of way on sheets 5, 7, and 8.
d. The NGPA tract behind lots 59 [through] 70 should be clearly delineated as not part of the plat and
owned by King County and part of a critical area buffer and possibly Soos Creek Trail.
Response:
On sheets 5, 7, and 8, the NGPA east of lots 59 through 70 has been labeled as “KING COUNTY
PARKS (NOT PART OF THIS PLAT)”.
e. Tracts M & N should be identified (pedestrian?) and the shared access tracts D, E, F, G & H should
reference the lots they serve for clarity.
Response:
Tracts M (between lots 40 and 41 on sheet 7) and N (between lots 49 and 50 on sheet 8) have been
identified as pedestrian easements, as they contain stairs to connect the two roads. Sheet 2 now
3 of 6
spells out the requirements for the plat. There is specific language on the civil plans that have been
added per the City’s previous request.
4. Please demonstrate how condition #7 (from the modification approval) was met for Soos Creek Regional
Trail connectivity. It is not clear to me where the trail is located at or near the site and doesn't appear to
be depicted on the final plat. Please verify that mitigation was provided as a result of the proposed
connections to the Soos Creek Regional Trail.
Response:
The connection was anticipated to occur between lots 65 and 66, where a tract is shown on the final plat.
At time of preliminary plat approval, the County anticipated improving the Soos Creek Regional Trail
adjacent to the plat. However, a change in County priorities has resulted in the trail not being improved for
the foreseeable future adjacent to the plat. The tracts are present if the trail is ever connected by King
County.
Deferral of improvements to the on-site tract was approved with the approved construction drawings.
Please see sheet C-020, approved by the City of Renton on 5/13/2016 (attached).
5. Please provide a King County density worksheet. Your compliance document indicates that lot density and
dimension requirements are listed on the cover sheet of the final plat, but I'm not finding any data around
lot density.
Response:
Attached to the resubmittal is the King County density worksheet.
6. Please provide a letter from the City of Kent that discussed the emergency vehicle access along SE 192nd
St. This may have been provided during the construction permit review, but it would be helpful if you
could provide a copy to verify this condition (Condition #3 of the modification approval) was met.
Response:
Attached are copies (reduced in size) of the approved plan set by the City of Kent regarding vehicle access
along SE 192nd Street.
7. Please provide additional information/clarification around the modification that refers to a stormwater
vault and pond, specifically on when the plat was modified to remove the vault and recreation space. This
will be helpful in preparing our staff report response to the hearing examiner. Was the vault undersized to
accommodate all three developments? What triggered the change from vault to stormwater pond?
Clarification is all that I need as I realize this was probably discussed more thoroughly during the
construction permit review.
Response:
The stormwater pond modification was approved prior to plat improvement construction, by the City of
Renton. This was due to increased efficiency, reduced maintenance, and improved functions in the current
location.
8. [For tracking purposes, the single paragraph is separated into a. through d. below]
a. Please provide information around the tree retention. It appears that all the trees were allowed to
be removed and retention was not required. It would be helpful to have a better understanding of
this prior to preparing the staff report for the hearing examiner, particularly since I was not involved
in the construction permitting process and tree retention was a condition of the initial plat
approvals with King County; there's no mention of tree retention in the modification approval.
Response:
The extensive site grading and installation of utilities required the trees to be removed. The removal
was approved by the City with the approval of the grading and utility plans. Significant replanting of
4 of 6
the trees has occurred in the open space tracts. The replacement tree calculations are shown on the
“Overall Landscape Plan” sheet L-100, on the bottom left side.
b. In referencing the approved landscape plan, the open space is heavily landscaped. Was this
landscaping required as mitigation for the tree replacement?
Response:
Yes, tree replacement mitigation was required, and approved to be within Tract I. While a minimum
of 1-inch and 3-inch caliper trees were required to be planted, the replacement trees are at least 1-
inch larger than required.
c. There should be reference to the maintenance and retention of this landscape somewhere in the
final plat notes since the open space tracts will be owned by the HOA.
Response:
The surveyor has added maintenance and retention language to the face of the plat. Please see
note 11 on Sheet 2.
d. In addition, are there trees planted on specific lots (i.e., lots 66 70) to mitigate for the tree loss? If
so, there should be notes and references to those lots specifically to clearly indicate those are
retained trees and cannot be removed by future property owners without replacement.
Response:
All trees shown on sheet L-100 of the overall landscape plan are necessary to meet the tree
replacement requirements. The type of trees to be 1-inch, and 3-inches, are shown on the top left of
sheet L-100. The number of each tree is shown. The specific location of each try (and type) is shown
on the overall map on sheet L-100.
9. Sheet 1 should include the open space and NGPA tracts conveyed to the HOA. Remove the recreation
reference (2nd line of 4th paragraph under Dedication) as the recreation space has been removed from
the plat conditions and there is none. You may also want to remove the reference to 2016 on the
recording certificate in the event that this final plat records in early 2017. In addition, there is a typo in
the Finance Division certificate (first line).
Response:
The requested changes have been made to sheet 1.
10. Sheet 2 has easement provisions missing and the existing easements referenced per the title report are
either missing items or need to have the numbering removed. The layout is confusing. The flow control
BMP table needs to have the lot area and impervious calculations revised for lots 1 and 68 to match the
calculations on the lots.
Response:
a. The easements have been added to sheet 2. We are hopeful the new layout meets the city’s
requirements.
b. The lot areas have been added to sheet 3.
c. The impervious calculations have been revised for lots 1 and 68 to match the calculations on the lots.
11. Thank you for providing additional clarification around some of the conditions and modifications that
occurred between preliminary plat approval with King County and the utility/construction plan approval
with modifications prior to final plat. The previous project manager resigned and I was assigned to
complete the final plat. Some of the clarification I asked for may be redundant, but is helpful for me to
expedite your approval since we are under a tight time frame to record the final plat prior to expiration
on January 12, 2017. Please feel free to contact me with any questions around my correction requests.
Thank you, Mona Davis (425) 430 7246 or mdavis@rentonwa.gov
Response:
5 of 6
The City staff report for the Minor Modification references a vault. However, the preliminary plans
submitted called out a “Detention Pond”, “Facility Open Space Tract”, and a “Detention Treatment
Facility”. The plans were approved by the city for construction, and deemed consistent with the
preliminary plat at that time. The detention tract is the same size shown on the administratively approved
plans.
E. Engineering Review Comments
1. Maximum impervious surface coverage per zoning is 65% as stated in the project TIR. The proposed
individual lot BMP is the use of perforated pipe connection with reduced impervious surface (10%).
Therefore the maximum impervious surface area is 55%. Please verify and adjust accordingly.
Response:
Thank you for the heads up Ann. The BMP’s have been adjusted to 55% on most lots. Lots 59 through 70
remain 65% per the project TIR, as discussed.
2. A storm drainage easement is required along the underdrain system installed along the westem border of
the project site.
Response:
The storm drainage easement has been added along the underdrain system installed along the western
border of the project site. The easement is labeled as I and J.
3. A storm drainage easement is required for the roof drain system. The as builts do not show the roof drain
system within the 10 ft utility easement along the property frontages. Either update the as builts to
reflect the rood drain system location, or an additional easement will be required for the roof drain
system.
Response:
The additional easement for the roof drain system has been added.
4. A storm drainage easement is required for the rip rap outfalls along the southeast portion of the project
site which discharge into Soos Creek.
Response:
The storm drainage easement would fall outside of the plat boundary, and thus cannot be dedicated by
the face of the plat. Copies of the recorded easement for the outfall is attached.
5. Lots 71 and 72 do not appear to have a utilities easement along the alley frontage. Please verify. At a
minimum, an easement for the roof drain lines is required.
Response:
A 10’ utility easement has been added to the frontages of lots 71 and 72. Please see Sheet 7.
6. Add consistent Easement Legend to each sheet.
Response:
A consistent easement legend has been added to sheets 6 through 8.
7. Add Flow Dispersion Trench Easement to Easement Legend.
Response:
The flow dispersion trench easement has been added to the easement legend.
8. Shared Access Tract between Lots 23 & 24 is missing the Legend Call out tag.
Response:
The access tract between lots 23 and 24 now has a legend call out tag (Access Tract G) on sheet 7.
9. Provide easement language for public and private easements on page 2 for review.
Response:
6 of 6
Public and private easement language has been added to sheet 2.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if there is anything that I can do to help is the review. Thank you for your
review and continued assistance.
Sincerely
George Steirer
Plan to Permit, LLC
Attachments:
A - Canyon Terrace Final Plat Map, dated December 1, 2016 (2 18”x24” copies, and 2 11”x17” copies)
B - Askren plat redlines, with applicant comments to each (2 copies)
C - Email from Lillian Watson (City of Renton) to George Steirer (Plan to Permit, LLC) stating road between lots
21 and 22 will remain unnamed.
D- As-Built Report by The Watershed Company dated December 7, 2016 (2 copies)
E - King County Density Worksheet (2 copies)
F - Sheet C-020, approved by the City of Renton on May 13, 2016 (2 copies)
G - Approved plan set (reduced in size) by the City of Kent regarding vehicle access along SE 192nd Street (2
copies)
H - Easement for outfall (Recording #20130927001468)
I - USB thumb drive of all above files and this memorandum (1 copy)