HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-06-2023 - Towns on 12th - LUA-22-0001801
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Unit Lot Subdivision - 1
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
RE: Towns on 12th
Preliminary Plat, Site Plan Review, and
Street Modification Approval.
PR22-000160
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
FINAL DECISION
SUMMARY
Ben Paulus of Blue Fern requests approval of applications for preliminary plat, site plan and street
modification approval for 90 townhomes to be located at located the south side of NE Sunset Blvd and
west of Union Ave NE. The applications are approved subject to conditions.
TESTIMONY
A computer-generated transcript has been prepared of the hearing to provide an overview of the
hearing testimony. The transcript is provided for informational purposes only as Appendix A.
EXHIBITS
Exhibits 1-28 as presented in the staff prepared document entitled “Exhibits” during the March 21,
2023 hearing were admitted into the record.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Unit Lot Subdivision - 2
1. Owner/Applicant. Ben Paulus, Blue Fern, 18300 Redmond Way #120, Redmond, WA 98052
2. Hearing. A hearing on the application was held on March 21, 2023 at 11:00 am on-line via the
Zoom meeting application, Meeting ID 946 7233 4580.
Substantive:
3. Project Description. Ben Paulus of Blue Fern requests approval of applications for
preliminary plat, site plan and street modification approval for 90 townhomes to be located at located
the south side of NE Sunset Blvd and west of Union Ave NE.
The subject property is 285,453 sq. ft. (6.55 acres) in size and contains two (2) single-family homes
with associated accessory structures. All lots would gain access via a new public residential access
street off of NE 12th St with internal public alleys extending off of the public road to provide
vehicular access to the majority of the units. Frontage improvements are proposed within the NE 12th
St and NE Sunset Blvd ROWs, as well as along both sides of the new residential access road
proposed. The proposal also includes five open space tracts, a storm drainage tract, and two critical
areas tracts. Critical areas mapped on the site include sensitive (25-40%) and protected (>40%)
slopes, a moderate landslide hazard and a Category III wetlands buffer.
The Applicant’s street modification request is a waiver of the street frontage requirements required
by RMC 4-6-060.F.2 for NE Sunset Blvd. The Applicant is proposing to retain existing curb-to-curb
improvements and construct a new 5-foot wide sidewalk, 5-foot planter strip with a potential
retaining wall with varying height along a the sidewalk (Exhibit 20). RMC 4-6-060.F.2 requires an
8-foot sidewalk and 8-foot planter strip.
4. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate and
appropriate infrastructure and public services as follows:
A. Water and Sewer Service. Water and sewer service are provided by the City of Renton.
B. Police and Fire Protection. Fire protection would be provided by the Renton Regional Fire
Authority and police service by the Renton Police Department. Police and Fire Prevention
staff indicates that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed
development subject to the condition that the Applicant install required improvements and
fees. A Fire Impact Fee, currently assessed at $964.53 per dwelling unit, would be
applicable to the proposal. The fee in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance would
be assessed for this project. Credit will be granted for the removal of the existing homes.
C. Drainage. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate stormwater drainage
facilities. The proposal is subject to the City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual
(“Manual”), which requires that the project not generate off-site stormwater flows that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Unit Lot Subdivision - 3
exceed predevelopment, forested conditions. City staff have reviewed the Applicant’s
preliminary stormwater design and found it consistent with the requirements of the Design
Manual.
The Applicant submitted a Preliminary Technical Information Report, dated February 18,
2022; Exhibit 11. The report notes that due to the soils found on the site, infiltration via full
dispersion is not possible. As such, a vault flow control facility is proposed on the northern
portion of the site between future Road A and existing NE Sunset Blvd. The vault sizing
and design, enhanced water quality treatment, and on-site BMPs will be reviewed for
compliance with the Manual.
The Applicant will also be required to pay for its fair share of impacts to the City’s
stormwater collection system. The current surface water system development fee is
currently $0.92 per square foot of new impervious surface, but not less than $2,300.00.
Such fees are payable prior to issuance of the construction permit.
D. Parks/Open Space. The project provides for adequate parks and open space. RMC 4-2-
115E.2 and RMC requires open space for residential development of four or more dwelling
units in the R-10 zone to consist of at least 350 square feet of open space per dwelling unit.
This standard also applies to townhome unit-lot subdivisions in the RMF zone via RMC 4-
7-090F.5. Based on the proposal for 90 townhome units, a total of 31,500 square feet of
common open space would be required. The Applicant submitted an open space plan,
Exhibit 3, which includes 18,117 square feet within four (4) common open space tracts
(Tracts G, M, N, O) located along the public street frontages. Approximately 16,180 square
feet of additional open space is proposed within pedestrian easements located between units
10 through 37, units 46 through 59, and units 66 through 70. The proposed common open
green spaces of all four (4) tracts would comply with a required 30-foot of open space in
any direction, except for the areas with pedestrian easements where widths can be reduced
to twenty feet (20’). The open space plan will be subject to review and approval by the
Current Planning Project Manager.
The code requires that open space shall include picnic areas, space for recreational
activities, and other activities as appropriate. The project proposal includes a conceptual
plan showing some benches in the pedestrian access easements and a few in the open space
tracts, but does not include details of any other potential passive or active recreational
activities. Therefore, a condition of approval requires that the Applicant shall provide an
open space programming plan that includes specifications on proposed furniture,
recreational activities, and other activities as appropriate within the common open space for
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Unit Lot Subdivision - 4
review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager at the time of civil
construction permit.
To mitigate added demand upon the City’s parks, a park impact fee will be required at
building permit issuance for the townhomes. The current fee is $2,222.84.
E. Pedestrian Circulation. The proposal provides for safe and efficient pedestrian circulation.
The townhome units would provide direct pedestrian connections from ROWs to each unit
and to common open spaces throughout the project site. The proposed concrete sidewalks
would provide a safe and efficient pedestrian circulation system. A combination of a shared
temporary access driveway and the public alley would provide vehicular access through the
project site. None of the townhomes would directly access off a public right-of-way,
thereby providing a safe and efficient pedestrian circulation pattern.
F. Transportation. The proposal is served by adequate and appropriate transportation
infrastructure.
Access to the site is proposed via a new 53-foot wide residential access road off of NE 12th
St (Road A). Secondary emergency access is provided via a 20-foot wide alley off of NE
12th St that loops northeast to connect with Road A.
Road A includes a cul-de-sac and hammerhead turn around to meet Renton Regional Fire
Authority access requirements. Residential Access roads shall have a minimum 53 -foot
right-of-way that includes a 26-foot paved road with, on either side, a 0.5-foot curb, an 8-
foot planting strip, a 5-foot sidewalk and street trees. Per RMC 4-6-060.H, dead-end streets
may only be used in limited applications if due to physical constraints making no future
connections to a larger street patterns possible. Due to the steep slopes along the north side
of the site on the border of the NE Sunset Blvd ROW, a connection between with NE 12 St
is not possible. Along the west side of the site, an established single-family neighborhood
with access via private roads create a large obstacle to a potential connection. Lastly, a
connection west of the project site is also constrained by steep topography, in addition to
the Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning which may create an incompatible connection.
Therefore, staff concurs with the justification for the dead-end.
As proposed, Road A would include an eight-foot (8’) planter strip and five-foot (5’)
sidewalk along the perimeter. Per RMC 4-6-060 cul-de-sacs shall have a minimum paved
and landscaped radius of forty-five feet (45') with a right-of-way radius of fifty five feet
(55') for the turnaround. A landscaped center island with a radius of twenty feet (20')
delineated by curbing shall be provided in the cul-de-sac in lieu of providing an eight-foot
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Unit Lot Subdivision - 5
planting strip around the perimeter. Therefore, a condition of approval requires that the
Applicant incorporate a landscape center island with a radius of twenty feet (20’) into the
cul-de-sac. A revised detailed preliminary plat plan and landscape plan showing the center
island is required to be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a civil construction
permit.
Increased traffic created by the development would be mitigated by payment of
transportation impact fees. According to the submitted TIA prepared by TENW and dated
February 23, 2022 (Exhibit 4), the project is anticipated to generate 500 net new average
weekday trips with 31 net new trips (8 in/23 out) occurring during the AM peak hour and
39 net new trips (25 in/14 out) occurring during the PM peak hour. The proposed project
passes the City of Renton Traffic Concurrency Test per RMC 4-6-070.D (Exhibit 15).The
current rate of transportation impact fee is assessed at $12,208.54 per dwelling. Payment of
the transportation impact fee is applicable on the construction of the development at the
time of building permit issuance. A credit would be given for any existing homes.
The proposal provides for linkages that create a continuous and interconnected network of
roads and pathways. As shown in Exhibit 2, all proposed units would front either NE 12th
St, twenty-foot (20’) wide pedestrian easements, or the sidewalks of future Road A. These
pathways in turn ultimately connect to the sidewalks of NE 12th, which as shown in Google
Maps extend to surrounding areas.
The proposal provides for a safe and efficient internal circulation system. The townhome
units would provide direct pedestrian connections from ROWs to each unit and to common
open spaces throughout the project site. The proposed concrete sidewalks would provide a
safe and efficient pedestrian circulation system. A combination of a shared temporary
access driveway and the public alley would provide vehicular access through the project
site. None of the townhomes would directly access off a public right -of-way, thereby
providing a safe and efficient vehicular circulation pattern.
A King County Metro bus stop is located directly in front of the project site on the north
side of NE 12th St. The bus stop serves both the 105 and 240 bus routes, both of which
serve the greater Renton Highlands Area.
One-half (0.5) bicycle parking space per one (1) dwelling unit is required for projects with
more than five (5) dwelling units. Based on the proposal for 90 townhome units, City
regulations require a total of 45 bicycle parking spaces. The Applicant has proposed storage
space within the garage space of each unit large enough to store a standard bicycle (Exhibit
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Unit Lot Subdivision - 6
6). Therefore, the proposed storage space within each garage would comply with the
minimum bicycle parking standard.
G. Schools. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate schools and safe walking
conditions to and from school.
It is anticipated that the Renton School District can accommodate any additional students
generated by the proposal at the following schools: Honey Dew Elementary, Risdon Middle
School and Hazen High School.
Any new middle or high school students from the proposed development would be bussed
to their respective middle or high schools. All elementary school students are within
walking distance of the elementary school. The bus stop for high school and middle school
students is located at the corner of NE 12th St and Redmond Pl NE to the west of the
project site. Students would leave the development and utilize the new sidewalk the
Applicant would install on NE 12th St to walk west until reaching the adjacent property.
Once no longer in front of the site, the students would continue walking on the shoulder for
approximately 160 feet until reaching sidewalk again, which continues another 150 feet
until the bus stop at the intersection of NE 12th St and Redmond Pl NE.
Students attending Honey Dew Elementary School would walk to school, approximately
0.45 miles from the project site. Elementary school students cross NE 12th St in front of the
development and walk east on NE 12th St behind the existing curbing that creates a
separation between pedestrians and the traveler lanes until reaching the intersection of NE
12th St and Union Ave NE. Students would then turn right and walk along the sidewalk on
the west side of Union Ave NE until reaching the pedestrian signal crossing adjacent to
Honey Dew Elementary near the intersection of NE 8th St and Union Ave NE. Students
would then activate the signal and cross Union Ave NE to reach the school.
A potential conflict point for students walking to Honey Dew Elementary School is at the
location directly in front of the project site where students would cross NE 12th St to reach
the protected walking area on the south side of the road. Traffic does not stop on NE 12th
St. and no crossing infrastructure is currently place. To ensure a safe route to school for
students, a condition of approval requires that the Applicant submit a plan identifying a safe
walking route from the proposed subdivision to Honey Dew Elementary School. The
submitted plan, as well as any infrastructure proposed to support the safe route included in
the plan, shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works plan reviewer prior to
issuance of the civil construction permit.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Unit Lot Subdivision - 7
A School Impact Fee, based on new multi family dwellings, will be required to mitigate the
proposal’s potential impacts to the Renton School District. The fee is calculated and
payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of building
permit issuance. Currently the fee is assessed at $3,697.00 per multi family dwelling unit.
H. Parking. Staff has determined that the proposal complies with applicable parking
regulations.
Parking regulations require that a minimum of two parking spaces be provided for each
Townhome, however, 1 per dwelling unit may be permitted for 1 bedroom or less dwelling
units. Tandem parking is allowed. For unit lot subdivisions, the number of parking spaces
required may be averaged and dispersed among unit lots or within the parent site; however,
at least one parking space shall be provided within each unit lot.
The Applicant submitted floor plans and a rendering for the proposed townhome units
(Exhibits 7 and 8). According to the submitted floor plans, each of the townhome units
would have between three (3) and four (4) bedrooms, which would require a minimum of
two (2) parking spaces per dwelling unit. The Applicant is proposing to provide all required
parking on each unit lot as opposed to averaging the spaces throughout the development.
Two (2) parking spaces would be provided within the designated double bay or tandem-
style garages for each unit. While the non-tandem style garages meet the minimum
dimensional requirements for parking stalls in private garages, one of the stalls in the
tandem-style garages proposed in some of the units do not appear to meet the dimensional
requirements. Therefore, a condition of approval requires that the proposed parking meet all
dimensional requirements as verified during building permit review.
5. Adverse Impacts. There are no significant adverse impacts associated with the proposal.
Pertinent impacts are addressed individually as follows:
A. Critical Areas. The proposal includes critical areas. The critical areas are composed of
geologically hazardous areas and Category III wetlands. Those critical areas have been
adequately protected pursuant to staff’s findings that the proposal conforms to the City’s
critical area standards as follows:
1. Geologically Hazardous Areas. According to City of Renton (COR) Maps,
portions of the property are located within a moderate landslide hazard area. Both
sensitive (15-40%) and protected (>40%) slopes are also mapped on the site. The
steepest slopes are primarily located on the north side of parcel #0423059063
where the site slopes downwards towards NE Sunset Blvd. Similarly, the moderate
landslide hazard is concentrated along the northern border of the site adjacent to
the NE Sunset Blvd ROW. As such, the Applicant submitted a Geotechnical
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Unit Lot Subdivision - 8
Report prepared by Terra Associates (Exhibit 10). The site has a high point in the
middle with slopes ranging from 5 to 20% extending away for an overall average
relief of approximately 25 feet. Closer to the north properly line, the slope
transitions from moderate to steep and descends to NE Sunset Boulevard with an
overall vertical change of approximately 30 feet.
The report notes that although typically a 50-foot building setback would be
required for the subject slope due to the soil characteristics, a 15 -foot building
setback may be possible if additional geotechnical analysis is completed. Proposed
units 39, 40, 41, and 42 are located within the potential 50-foot slope setback and
therefore may not be able to be constructed depending on the results of the
additional geotechnical analysis. As such, the Environmental Review Committee
issued a Determination of Non-Significance- Mitigated that included a mitigation
measure requiring professional evaluation of the feasibility of locating structures
within the 50-foot setback area (Exhibit 24).
The Applicant has placed the steep slopes in the tract in two (2) critical areas
tracts, Tract K and G. A Native Growth Protection Easement is required to be
established over the tracts per RMC 4-3-050.G.3.
2. Wetlands. The Applicant has submitted a Critical Areas Study prepared by
Altmann Oliver Associates, LLC, dated February 21, 2022 (Exhibit 13). The
report identified the presence of a wetlands on the site directly adjacent the
western property line (parcel # 0423059046), identified in the report as Wetland A.
According to the consultant, Wetland A consists of an isolated Depressional
Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) class wetland located immediately off-site to the
southwest. The report determined that the wetland should be classified as a Class
III wetland. Per RMC 4-3050.G.2, non-low impact land development is required
to maintain a 75-foot buffer from the wetland. As part of the application, the
Applicant has requested a 25% buffer reduction as outlined in RMC 4-3-050I.3.a,
in conjunction with buffer enhancement. If approved, the proposed reduced buffer
would be approximately 56.25 feet in width. Wetland buffer enhancement
proposed includes the removal of invasive species and planting a variety of native
trees, shrubs, and groundcovers to increase the value of the buffer. The plantings
would provide wildlife habitat value while also providing a physical and visual
screen to the wetland from the proposed development. In addition, a split rail fence
with the required signage would be installed around the portion of the buffer on
the project site, protecting it from future impacts or disturbance. According to the
consultant, restoration of the reduced buffer would significantly increase the plant
species and structural diversity of the buffer, resulting in increases of the habitat
and protective functions of the buffer over current conditions.
A mitigation plan prepared by Altman Oliver Associates, LLC was submitted with
the application (Exhibit 13, p. 10) and includes a restoration proposal for the buffer
around Wetland A. Native plantings proposed for the buffer would include Vine
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Unit Lot Subdivision - 9
maple, Douglas fir trees, in addition to a variety of native shrubs and grasses,
including but not limited to Snowberry, Red currant, Nootka rose, Swordfern, and
Oregon grape. A Native Growth Protection Easement is required to be established
around the entire buffer area per RMC 4-3-050.G.3. The Applicant will also be
required to install a standard split rail fence with wetlands signage along the
boundary of the Wetlands A buffer, whose location would be reviewed and
approved by the Currently Planning Project Manager prior to installation. 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. The report concludes that
after restoration and enhancement of the Wetland A buffer, there would be no net
loss of ecological function.
Staff concur that the proposed mitigation qualifies the wetland for the Applicant’s
requested buffer reduction. A Native Growth Protection Easement is required to
be established around the entire buffer and wetlands area per RMC 4-3-050.G.3.
Based on the submitted mitigation plan, the Applicant shall be required to
establish a Native Growth Protection Easement (NGPE) that encompasses the
entire Wetland A buffer as identified in the Wetlands Mitigation Plan (Exhibit 13).
The report also identified an off-site wetland labelled as Wetland C. The
Applicant will be required to install a standard split rail fence with wetlands
signage along boundary of the Wetlands C buffer, whose location would be
reviewed and approved by the Currently Planning Project Manager prior to
installation.
After completion of the mitigation plan for the wetlands of the site, 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.
B. Tree Retention. The proposal provides for adequate preservation of trees because it is
consistent with the City’s tree retention standards.
The City’s tree retention standards (RMC 4-4-130) require the retention of 20 percent
(20%) of trees in a residential development. The Applicant submitted an Arborist Report
prepared by Greenforest Incorporated and dated January 28, 2022 with the application
(Exhibit 12). The report identified a total of 390 trees on the site including 53 landmark
trees, 337 significant trees, and 53 dangerous trees on the project site. The report
identified a total of 34 trees within proposed right-of-way, 37 tree within proposed tracts,
and 35 trees in critical areas on the site, leaving a total number of 231 viable trees
available for retention.
Based on a retention rate of 20%, the Applicant would be required to retain 46 trees (231
significant trees x 0.2 = 46 trees). Of the 231 significant trees in the developable area, the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Unit Lot Subdivision - 10
Applicant is proposing to retain 49 trees. Of the 49 trees proposed for retention, the
Applicant is proposing to retain two (2) landmark trees including 36-inch and 45-inch
caliper Western red cedars. The other trees proposed for retention include a mix of
Western red cedar, Maple, Douglas fir, and Madrona species. The majority of the trees
proposed for retention are located within two (2) open space tracts (Tracts M and G) on
the east and west sides of the site (Exhibit 3) and are designated as Priority One or Two
per the tree ordinance in effect at the time of application (Exhibit 25). A cluster of trees
near the wetlands buffer on the west side of the site are also proposed for retention. New
tree planting would occur as part of the proposal along the street frontages, within the
open spaces, and around the new buildings. All retained trees (i.e., protected trees) would
be required to be protected during construction pursuant to itemized standards set forth in
RMC 4-4-130H.9.
Based on a total lot size of 285,204 sq. ft., the Applicant is also required to provide a
minimum of 228 trees. According to the Applicants tree density calculation contained in
the landscape plan (Exhibit 3), the Applicant is providing 114 new 2”-caliper trees.
Combined with the 46 trees proposed for retention, the Applicant would have a total of
160 trees counted towards the tree density requirement, or 68 less than required.
Therefore, a condition of approval requires that the Applicant either retain additional trees
or plant new trees to meet the minimum tree density for the parent site. The retained or
new trees shall be shown on an updated Detailed Landscaping Plan submitted with the
civil construction permit application for review and approval by the Current Planning
Project Manager prior to civil construction permit issuance.
C. Compatibility/Aesthetic. The proposal is compatible in both use and aesthetics with
surrounding uses. If all conditions of approval related to landscaping, building design, and
access are met, the scale and intensity of the development is compatible with the existing
surrounding uses which are predominantly smaller single-family lots to the west and south,
with commercial uses to the east.
The proposal would not result in an overconcentration of development on a particular
portion of the project site. The proposed development would include the construction of 90
townhome units in 28 buildings on the project site. The proposed townhomes in the RMF-
zoned portion of the site, consisting of 24 buildings, would have three (3) stories and a
maximum wall plate height of 32 feet. The proposed townhomes in the R-10-zoned portion
of the site, consisting of four (4) buildings, would have two (2) stories and a maximum wall
plate height of 24 feet. The proposed two-story structures have been sited such that all four
(4) of the buildings would be oriented towards NE 12th St. The proposed structures along
NE 12th St are similar in scale to the single-family uses across the street. The other three-
story structures are concreted away from the existing public ROW and the various open
space and critical areas tracts help break up the concentration of structures in the
development. In addition, no structures proposed contain more than four units, which while
larger than a typical single-family home, is not grossly out of proportion with the other
development in the area.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Unit Lot Subdivision - 11
The proposal will not include roof mounted equipment and loading areas that are
incompatible with the residential character of the area. The proposed townhomes will not
include loading and storage areas. The Applicant did not provide sufficient details of roof
or surface mounted equipment and/or screening identified for such equipment with the land
use application. Therefore, a condition of approval requires that the Applicant shall submit
a separate detailed utility and landscape plan set identifying the location and screening
provided for all surface and roof top utility/mechanical equipment required for each
townhome. The surface mounted utility plan shall include cross-section details and
screening measures consistent with the overall design of the development with the civil
construction permit application. The Applicant shall work with franchise utilities to ensure,
as practical, utility boxes are located out of public ROW view, active common open spaces,
and they shall not displace required landscaping areas. The utility and landscape plan set
shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to permit
issuance.
As conditioned, the proposal will include landscaping designed to provide shade and
privacy where needed, to define and enhance open spaces, and generally to enhance the
appearance of the project. The Applicant submitted a Conceptual Landscape Plan (Exhibit
3) that shows that landscaping is primarily concentrated in the proposed pedestrian access
easements between buildings, along the perimeter of the site, in the various open space
tracts, and along the project’s existing (NE 12th St) and new (Road A) street frontages. A
variety of native trees, shrubs, and groundcover is proposed within the buffer around
Wetland A as part of the mitigation plan for the proposed 25% buffer reduction (see FOF
20: Critical Areas Analysis; Wetlands).
A planter strip along NE 12th St includes a total of 13 Flame amur maple street trees spaced
approximately 30 feet on center. Along the new internal road (Road A), the Applicant has
proposed the installation of Chanticleer callery pear street trees spaced approximately 30
feet on center. No street trees are shown along NE Sunset Blvd, but would be required to be
installed as part of the frontage improvements. In addition, the Flame amur maple and
Chanticleer callery pear trees shown in the ROWs are not approved species on the City’s
Approved Tree List and Spacing Guidelines document. Therefore, a condition of approval
requires that the Applicant utilize a tree species from the Approved Street Tree List and
Spacing Guidelines document for the NE 12th St, new future roadway on the site (identified
as Road A on site plan) and NE Sunset Blvd ROW street trees.
To preserve the privacy of the existing single-family uses to the west of the site, the
Applicant has proposed a row of Kwanzan Japanese flowering cherry trees adjacent to units
Japanese flowering cherry trees are also proposed within the common open space between
the units 77 to 90. In order to provide privacy and noise attenuation between the units on
east side of the site and the adjacent commercial uses, the Applicant has proposed the
installation of Incense cedar is proposed on the individual lots including on lots 1 , 10, and
37, as well in Tracts O, H, J, and K. Incense cedars, a non-native tree that does not tolerate
moist conditions, should be utilized sparingly on the site. In addition, Japanese flowering
cherry trees are not a native tree species. Per RMC 4-4-070G.6, vegetative preference
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Unit Lot Subdivision - 12
within required screening areas includes native coniferous trees, followed by native
deciduous trees and then other native vegetation. Therefore to provide additional tree
diversity and increase the chances of survival, a condition of approval requires that the
Applicant shall substitute native large-stature native tree species such as Western red
cedars, Douglas fir, and Western hemlock or similar for at least half (21 total) of the
Incense cedar trees identified on the landscape plan and half of the flowering cherry trees
identified on the west site in the landscape buffer.
Ten feet (10') of on-site landscaping is required along all public street frontages, with the
exception of areas for required walkways and driveways and those zones with building
setbacks less than ten feet (10'). This requirement applies to lots and tracts alike and thus
the first 10 feet of the private open space and common open space/utility tracts, as
measured from the back of sidewalk, would be required to include a mix of trees, shrubs,
and ground cover to comply with landscape regulations. In addition, a partially o bscuring
landscape buffer ranging in width from twelve feet (12’) to fifteen foot (15’)-wide is shown
along the west perimeter of the site where the site abuts a less intensive residential use
(single-family residential). A four-foot wide concrete sidewalk is located in the buffer area,
which may allow for an adequate visual buffer if enough plants are installed. Neither the
on-site landscaping or site-obscuring buffer areas were shown in detail on the submitted
plans (Exhibit 3) and therefore compliance could not be confirmed. Therefore, a condition
of approval requires that the Applicant submit a final detailed landscape plan that identifies
compliance with the partial or fully-obscuring landscape buffer on the west side of the site.
As proposed, Tracts G, H, J, K, L, M, N, and O would be required to be maintained by the
subdivisions’ Homeowners Association. A condition of approval requires that the Applicant
create a Homeowners’ Association (“HOA”) that maintains all improvements and
landscaping in the common open space, critical areas, and storm drainage tracts and any
and all other common improvements.
D. Noise, Privacy, Light and Glare. The proposal will not create any significant noise, light or
glare impacts and is sufficiently designed to provide for privacy both off and on-site.
Lighting impacts will be sufficiently addressed through the City’s lighting standards and
associated conditions of approval. The Applicant did not submit an illumination plan and
as such, staff was unable to complete a lighting analysis. Residential streets shall have
minimum light levels of 0.8 foot-candle within the intersections and 0.3 foot-candle along
the sidewalks at a six to one (6:1) uniformity ratio per RMC 4-6-060.I.3. Final lighting
plans for the public streets including NE 12th St, NE Sunset Blvd, and future Road A,
would be reviewed at the time of construction utility permit.
A complete exterior architectural lighting plan for each dwelling unit was not provided with
the application. Therefore, a condition of approval requires that the Applicant submit an
architectural lighting plan at the time of building permit review. To ensure safety and avoid
excessive brightness, pedestrian scale lighting should be provided on the primary entries of
each unit, rear elevations facing the alley, along the interior pedestrian walkways as
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Unit Lot Subdivision - 13
necessary to provide sufficient lighting for pedestrian safety while minimizing light spill
and glare onto adjoining properties. In addition, lighting plans were not provided for the
common areas such as the pedestrian easement areas or open tracts. Therefore a condition
of approval requires the Applicant to submit a site-wide lighting plan to be provided at the
time of civil construction permit review. To ensure safety and avoid excessive brightness,
pedestrian scale lighting should be provided in all common areas and along all common
pedestrian walkways, including the walkway down to NE Sunset Blvd.
Common open space areas have been sited throughout the development. In addition,
various critical areas tracts are located on the periphery of the site which provide privacy
and a natural buffer for some of the noise either entering or leaving the project site. A
condition of approval also requires landscaping trees to be planted in a manner that
enhances privacy and noise reduction and many of the trees already proposed by the
Applicant have been further designed to enhance privacy.
E. Views. According to uncontested findings of the staff report, it is not anticipated that the
proposed townhomes would impact any views of the surrounding properties or views to
shorelines or Mt. Rainier.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Procedural:
1. Authority. RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies preliminary plat applications as Type III permits.
RMC 4-8-080(C)(2) requires consolidated permits to each be processed under “the highest-number
procedure”. Since all three permit applications are Type III or below, the Type III review process is
the “highest-number procedure” and therefore must be employed for all of the permit applications.
As outlined in RMC 4-8-080(G), the Hearing Examiner is authorized to hold hearings and issue final
decisions on Type III applications subject to closed record appeal to the Renton City Council.
Substantive:
2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The subject site is comprised of seven (7) parcels
located on south side of NE Sunset Blvd and west of Union Ave NE (APNs 0423059063,
0423059067, 0423059099, 0423059140, 0423059101, 0423059247 and 0423059100). Four (4) of the
parcels have frontage along NE 12th St and are in the Residential - 10 (R-10) zone. The other three
(3) parcels are located to the north, one with frontage along NE Sunset Blvd, and are in the
Residential Multi-Family (RMF) zone.
3. Review Criteria/Approval of Street Modification. Chapter 4-7 RMC governs the criteria for
subdivision review. RMC 4-9-200.E.3 governs the criteria for site plan review. Applicable standards
are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. All applicable
criterion quoted below are met for the reasons identified in the corresponding conclusions of law.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Unit Lot Subdivision - 14
Street modification standards are governed by RMC 4-9-250.D. The findings and conclusions of
Finding No. 22 of the staff report, as well as Finding No. 3 of this decision, are adopted to determine
that the proposal meets the criteria for street modification.
Subdivision
RMC 4-7-080(B): A subdivision shall be consistent with the following principles of acceptability:
1. Legal Lots: Create legal building sites which comply with all provisions of the City Zoning Code.
2. Access: Establish access to a public road for each segregated parcel.
3. Physical Characteristics: Have suitable physical characteristics. A proposed plat may be denied
because of flood, inundation, or wetland conditions. Construction of protective improvements may
be required as a condition of approval, and such improvements shall be noted on the final plat.
4. Drainage: Make adequate provision for drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water
supplies and sanitary wastes.
4. The criterion is met. As to compliance with the Zoning Code (including design standards),
Findings 17 and 18 of the staff report are adopted by reference as if set forth in full. As shown in
Ex. 2, each proposed lot will access a public road via Road A and connecting public alleys. As
determined in Finding of Fact 5A, the environmentally sensitive areas of the project site, which are
limited to wetlands and geologically hazardous areas, are fully protected by conformance to the
City’s critical area regulations. No frequently flooded areas are mapped for the site. As
determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the proposal provides for adequate public facilities.
RMC 4-7-080(I)(1): …The Hearing Examiner shall assure conformance with the general purposes
of the Comprehensive Plan and adopted standards…
5. The criterion is met. The proposed preliminary play is consistent with the Renton
Comprehensive Plan as outlined in Finding 16 of the staff report, which is incorporated by this
reference as if set forth in full.
RMC 4-7-120(A): No plan for the replatting, subdivision, or dedication of any areas shall be
approved by the Hearing Examiner unless the streets shown therein are connected by surfaced road
or street (according to City specifications) to an existing street or highway.
6. The criterion is met. As previously noted, the proposed lots access a public road via Road A
and connecting public alleys.
RMC 4-7-120(B): The location of all streets shall conform to any adopted plans for streets in the
City.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Unit Lot Subdivision - 15
7. The criterion is met. The proposal is not subject to any adopted street plan.
RMC 4-7-120(C): If a subdivision is located in the area of an officially designed [sic] trail,
provisions shall be made for reservation of the right-of-way or for easements to the City for trail
purposes.
8. The criterion is met. The proposal does not touch upon any designated trail.
RMC 4-7-130(C): A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication shall be prepared in conformance
with the following provisions:
1. Land Unsuitable for Subdivision: Land which is found to be unsuitable for subdivision includes
land with features likely to be harmful to the safety and general health of the future residents (such
as lands adversely affected by flooding, steep slopes, or rock formations). Land which the
Department or the Hearing Examiner considers inappropriate for subdivision shall not be
subdivided unless adequate safeguards are provided against these adverse conditions.
a. Flooding/Inundation: If any portion of the land within the boundary of a preliminary plat is
subject to flooding or inundation, that portion of the subdivision must have the approval of the State
according to chapter 86.16 RCW before the Department and the Hearing Examiner shall consider
such subdivision.
b. Steep Slopes: A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication which would result in the creation of a
lot or lots that primarily have slopes forty percent (40%) or greater as measured per RMC 4-3-
050J1a, without adequate area at lesser slopes upon which development may occur, shall not be
approved.
…
3. Land Clearing and Tree Retention: Shall comply with RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land
Clearing Regulations.
4. Streams:
a. Preservation: Every reasonable effort shall be made to preserve existing streams, bodies of water,
and wetland areas.
b. Method: If a stream passes through any of the subject property, a plan shall be presented which
indicates how the stream will be preserved. The methodologies used should include an overflow
area, and an attempt to minimize the disturbance of the natural channel and stream bed.
c. Culverting: The piping or tunneling of water shall be discouraged and allowed only when going
under streets.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Unit Lot Subdivision - 16
d. Clean Water: Every effort shall be made to keep all streams and bodies of water clear of debris
and pollutants.
9. The criterion is met. The land is suitable for a subdivision as the stormwater design assures
that it will not contribute to flooding and all affected critical areas, which includes steep slopes, are
fully protected under the City’s critical areas ordinance as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4C and
5A. No piping or tunneling of streams is proposed. Trees will be retained as required by RMC 4 -4-
130 as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5B. No streams are located on the property.
RMC 4-7-140: Approval of all subdivisions located in either single family residential or multi-
family residential zones as defined in the Zoning Code shall be contingent upon the subdivider’s
dedication of land or providing fees in lieu of dedication to the City, all as necessary to mitigate the
adverse effects of development upon the existing park and recreation service levels. The
requirements and procedures for this mitigation shall be per the City of Renton Parks Mitigation
Resolution.
10. The criterion is met. City ordinances require the payment of park impact fees prior to
building permit issuance. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 4D, the Applicant will also be
providing 34,297 square feet of open space, which exceeds the 31,500 square feet of common open
space required for the proposal. The Applicant will also be paying park impacts fees to mitigate
against added demand placed upon the City’s park system.
RMC 4-7-150(A): The proposed street system shall extend and create connections between existing
streets unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. Prior to approving a street
system that does not extend or connect, the Reviewing Official shall find that such exception shall
meet the requirements of subsection E3 of this Section. The roadway classifications shall be as
defined and designated by the Department.
11. The criterion is met. Road A does is a dead-end road and doesn’t make any potential
connections on the north, east or west sides. As identified in Finding of Fact No. 4F, the connections
are not feasible due to steep slopes and existing development such that the connections are not
required as authorized in RMC 4-7-150E3.
RMC 4-7-150(B): All proposed street names shall be approved by the City.
12. The criterion is met. The proposal is conditioned upon City approval of alley names, if any.
RMC 4-7-150(C): Streets intersecting with existing or proposed public highways, major or
secondary arterials shall be held to a minimum.
13. The criterion is met. There is no street intersection with a public highway or major or
secondary arterial.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Unit Lot Subdivision - 17
RMC 4-7-150(D): The alignment of all streets shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works
Department. The street standards set by RMC 4-6-060 shall apply unless otherwise approved. Street
alignment offsets of less than one hundred twenty-five feet (125') are not desirable, but may be
approved by the Department upon a showing of need but only after provision of all necessary safety
measures.
14. The criterion is met. The Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed street
configuration and staff has recommended approval as proposed.
RMC 4-7-150(E):
1. Grid: A grid street pattern shall be used to connect existing and new development and shall be the
predominant street pattern in any subdivision permitted by this Section.
2. Linkages: Linkages, including streets, sidewalks, pedestrian or bike paths, shall be provided
within and between neighborhoods when they can create a continuous and interconnected network
of roads and pathways. Implementation of this requirement shall comply with Comprehensive Plan
Transportation Element Objective T-A and Policies T-9 through T-16 and Community Design
Element, Objective CD-M and Policies CD-50 and CD-60.
3. Exceptions:
a. The grid pattern may be adjusted to a “flexible grid” by reducing the number of linkages or the
alignment between roads, where the following factors are present on site:
i. Infeasible due to topographical/environmental constraints; and/or
ii. Substantial improvements are existing.
4. Connections: Prior to adoption of a complete grid street plan, reasonable connections that link
existing portions of the grid system shall be made. At a minimum, stub streets shall be required
within subdivisions to allow future connectivity.
5. Alley Access: Alley access is the preferred street pattern except for properties in the Residential
Low Density land use designation. The Residential Low Density land use designation includes the
RC, R-1, and R-4 zones. Prior to approval of a plat without alley access, the Reviewing Official shall
evaluate an alley layout and determine that the use of alley(s) is not feasible…
6. Alternative Configurations: Offset or loop roads are the preferred alternative configurations.
7. Cul-de-Sac Streets: Cul-de-sac streets may only be permitted by the Reviewing Official where due
to demonstrable physical constraints no future connection to a larger street pattern is physically
possible.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Unit Lot Subdivision - 18
15. The criterion is met. Additional road linkages are infeasible due to topographical and
physical constraints as identified in Finding of Fact No. 4F. As further identified in Finding of Fact
No. 4F, the pedestrian connections of the project site link the townhome units to the sidewalk system
of NE 12th and Road A is interconnected to the extent feasible to create a continuous and
interconnected network of roads and pathways with the surrounding area. As outlined in Finding of
Fact 4F the proposed cul-de-sac is permitted because topographical and existing developed
conditions do not make other connections reasonably physically possible. Alley access is proposed
for most if not all units.
RMC 4-7-150(F): All adjacent rights-of-way and new rights-of-way dedicated as part of the plat,
including streets, roads, and alleys, shall be graded to their full width and the pavement and
sidewalks shall be constructed as specified in the street standards or deferred by the
Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee.
16. The criterion is met. As proposed except for the street modification approved by this
decision.
RMC 4-7-150(G): Streets that may be extended in the event of future adjacent platting shall be
required to be dedicated to the plat boundary line. Extensions of greater depth than an average lot
shall be improved with temporary turnarounds. Dedication of a full-width boundary street shall be
required in certain instances to facilitate future development.
17. The criterion is met. No additional street extensions are proposed or feasible for the reasons
identified in Finding of Fact 4F.
RMC 4-7-170(A): Insofar as practical, side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines or radial
to curved street lines.
18. The criterion is met. As depicted in Ex. 2, the side lines are in conformance with the
requirement quoted above.
RMC 4-7-170(B): Each lot must have access to a public street or road. Access may be by private
access easement street per the requirements of the street standards.
19. The criterion is met. As previously determined, each lot has access to a public street.
RMC 4-7-170(C): The size, shape, and orientation of lots shall meet the minimum area and width
requirements of the applicable zoning classification and shall be appropriate for the type of
development and use contemplated. Further subdivision of lots within a plat approved through the
provisions of this Chapter must be consistent with the then-current applicable maximum density
requirement as measured within the plat as a whole.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Unit Lot Subdivision - 19
20. The criterion is met. As previously determined, the proposed lots comply with the zoning
standards of the R-14 zone. As authorized by RMC 4-7-090E1, individual lots in plats that qualify as
unit lot subdivisions are not required to comply with the minimum lot size, width, and depth
requirements of the underlying zoning designation. All unit lot subdivision requirements are met for
the reasons identified in Finding No. 17 and 21 of the staff report.
RMC 4-7-170(D): Width between side lot lines at their foremost points (i.e., the points where the
side lot lines intersect with the street right-of-way line) shall not be less than eighty percent (80%) of
the required lot width except in the cases of (1) pipestem lots, which shall have a minimum width of
twenty feet (20') and (2) lots on a street curve or the turning circle of cul-de-sac (radial lots), which
shall be a minimum of thirty five feet (35').
21. The criterion is met. As identified in COL No. 20, lots in unit lot subdivisions are not subject
to any minimum width standards.
RMC 4-7-170(E): All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys,
shall have minimum radius of fifteen feet (15').
22. As conditioned.
RMC 4-7-190(A): Due regard shall be shown to all natural features such as large trees,
watercourses, and similar community assets. Such natural features should be preserved, thereby
adding attractiveness and value to the property.
23. The criterion is met. The natural features addressed by the criterion quoted above are
considered to be critical areas and trees protected by the City’s tree retention ordinance. These
features have been protected as required by City ordinances as outlined in Finding of Fact 5A and
5B.
RMC 4-7-200(A): Unless septic tanks are specifically approved by the Public Works Department
and the King County Health Department, sanitary sewers shall be provided by the developer at no
cost to the City and designed in accordance with City standards. Side sewer lines shall be installed
eight feet (8') into each lot if sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision
development.
24. The criterion is met as conditioned.
RMC 4-7-200(B): An adequate drainage system shall be provided for the proper drainage of all
surface water. Cross drains shall be provided to accommodate all natural water flow and shall be of
sufficient length to permit full-width roadway and required slopes. The drainage system shall be
designed per the requirements of RMC 4-6-030, Drainage (Surface Water) Standards. The drainage
system shall include detention capacity for the new street areas. Residential plats shall also include
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Unit Lot Subdivision - 20
detention capacity for future development of the lots. Water quality features shall also be designed to
provide capacity for the new street paving for the plat.
25. The criterion is met. The proposal provides for adequate drainage that is in conformance with
applicable City drainage standards as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4C. The City’s stormwater
standards, compliance of which is incorporated into the technical information report, Ex. 11, and will
be further implemented during civil plan review, ensure compliance with all of the standards in the
criterion quoted above.
RMC 4-7-200(C): The water distribution system including the locations of fire hydrants shall be
designed and installed in accordance with City standards as defined by the Department and Fire
Department requirements.
26. The criterion is met as proposed and as shall be regulated during civil plan review.
RMC 4-7-200(D): All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any
utilities installed in the parking strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the
planting of trees. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, including all
service connections, as approved by the Department. Such installation shall be completed and
approved prior to the application of any surface material. Easements may be required for the
maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department.
27. The criterion is met as conditioned.
RMC 4-7-200(E): Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic
utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line
by subdivider as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or alley
improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. The cost of
trenching, conduit, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore required to
bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or landowner. The subdivider
shall be responsible only for conduit to serve his development. Conduit ends shall be elbowed to
final ground elevation and capped. The cable TV company shall provide maps and specifications to
the subdivider and shall inspect the conduit and certify to the City that it is properly installed.
28. The criterion is met as conditioned.
RMC 4-7-210:
A. MONUMENTS:
Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at each and every controlling corner of
the subdivision. Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the Department. All surveys
shall be per the City of Renton surveying standards.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Unit Lot Subdivision - 21
B. SURVEY:
All other lot corners shall be marked per the City surveying standards.
C. STREET SIGNS:
The subdivider shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision.
29. The criterion is met. It will be enforced by staff during final plat review and sign installation
is required by a condition of approval.
Site Plan
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3): Criteria: The Administrator or designee must find a proposed project to be in
compliance with the following:
a. Compliance and Consistency: Conformance with plans, policies, regulations and approvals,
including:
i. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan, its elements, goals, objectives, and
policies, especially those of the applicable land use designation; the Community Design
Element; and any applicable adopted Neighborhood Plan;
ii. Applicable land use regulations;
iii. Relevant Planned Action Ordinance and Development Agreements; and
iv. Design Regulations: Intent and guidelines of the design regulations located in RMC 4-3-
100.
30. The criterion is met. As discussed in Conclusions of Law Nos. 4 and 5, and as conditioned,
the proposal is consistent with the City’s development and design regulations. The proposal is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the reasons stated in Finding 16 of the staff report. There
does not appear to be any planned action applicable to the project site. A portion of the project site is
subject to a Development Agreement (King County Recording #20031229000202) executed on
December 8th, 2003 (Exhibit 22). Parties of the agreement, which has a 20-year term, include four
(4) individual property owners and the City of Renton. The agreement was established to mitigate
impacts from a rezone (LUA02-139) and comprehensive plan land use map amendment (2003-M-12)
that involved the subject properties by setting forth specific development standards related to
screening, allowed uses, and vehicular access. Since establishment of the agreement, the subject
properties have been subsequently rezoned to zones not identified in the agreement. For this reason
the development agreement is no longer found to be applicable.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Unit Lot Subdivision - 22
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(b): Off-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and
uses, including:
i. Structures: Restricting overscale structures and overconcentration of development on a
particular portion of the site;
ii. Circulation: Providing desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets, walkways
and adjacent properties;
iii. Loading and Storage Areas: Locating, designing and screening storage areas, utilities,
rooftop equipment, loading areas, and refuse and recyclables to minimize views from
surrounding properties;
iv. Views: Recognizing the public benefit and desirability of maintaining visual accessibility
to attractive natural features;
v. Landscaping: Using landscaping to provide transitions between development and
surrounding properties to reduce noise and glare, maintain privacy, and generally enhance
the appearance of the project; and
vi. Lighting: Designing and/or placing exterior lighting and glazing in order to avoid
excessive brightness or glare to adjacent properties and streets.
31. The criterion is met. The proposal is not overscale or include an overconcentration of
development for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 5C. The circulation systems provides
for desirable transitions for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 4F. No loading or storage
areas are proposed and other unsightly features will be screened as outlined in Finding of Fact 5C.
Views will not be adversely affected as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5E. Landscaping will be
used to provide transitions between development and surrounding properties to reduce noise and
glare, maintain privacy, and generally enhance the appearance of the project as determined in Finding
of Fact No. 5D. Lighting impacts will be adequately mitigated as determined in Finding of Fact No.
5D.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(c): On-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to the site, including:
i. Structure Placement: Provisions for privacy and noise reduction by building placement,
spacing and orientation;
ii. Structure Scale: Consideration of the scale of proposed structures in relation to natural
characteristics, views and vistas, site amenities, sunlight, prevailing winds, and pedestrian
and vehicle needs;
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Unit Lot Subdivision - 23
iii. Natural Features: Protection of the natural landscape by retaining existing vegetation
and soils, using topography to reduce undue cutting and filling, and limiting impervious
surfaces; and
iv. Landscaping: Use of landscaping to soften the appearance of parking areas, to provide
shade and privacy where needed, to define and enhance open spaces, and generally to
enhance the appearance of the project. Landscaping also includes the design and protection
of planting areas so that they are less susceptible to damage from vehicles or pedestrian
movements.
32. The criterion is met. Open Space and landscaping has been sited throughout the development,
which would provide privacy and buffer some of the noise either entering or leaving the project site
as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5D. The scale of the project is appropriate for its location as for
the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 5C. The proposal will not impact any significant natural
features as identified in Finding of Fact No. 5A and the City’s clearing and grading regulations and
zoning standards adequately limit impervious surfaces and adequately regulate fills and cuts. The
proposed landscaping will provide shade and privacy where needed, define and enhance open spaces,
and generally to enhance the appearance of the project as outlined in Finding of Fact No. 5C.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(d): Access and Circulation: Safe and efficient access and circulation for all
users, including:
i. Location and Consolidation: Providing access points on side streets or frontage streets
rather than directly onto arterial streets and consolidation of ingress and egress points on the
site and, when feasible, with adjacent properties;
ii. Internal Circulation: Promoting safety and efficiency of the internal circulation system,
including the location, design and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian access points,
drives, parking, turnarounds, walkways, bikeways, and emergency access ways;
iii. Loading and Delivery: Separating loading and delivery areas from parking and
pedestrian areas;
iv. Transit and Bicycles: Providing transit, carpools and bicycle facilities and access; and
v. Pedestrians: Providing safe and attractive pedestrian connections between parking areas,
buildings, public sidewalks and adjacent properties.
33. The criterion is met. The proposal provides for safe and efficient access and circulation as
required by the criterion above for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 4E and 4F. No
loading or delivery spaces are proposed. The facility will be served by adequate transit and bicycle
facilities (most notably bicycle parking spaces) for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 4F and
4H. Safe and attractive pedestrian connections are provided as outlined Finding of Fact No. 4E.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Unit Lot Subdivision - 24
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(e): Open Space: Incorporating open spaces to serve as distinctive project
focal points and to provide adequate areas for passive and active recreation by the occupants/users
of the site.
34. The criterion is met. As shown in Exhibit 2, the open space of the project area is located along
the periphery of the project, serving the dual role of providing focal points for many of the units while
also buffering the units from adjoining uses and vice-versa.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(f): Views and Public Access: When possible, providing view corridors to
shorelines and Mt. Rainier, and incorporating public access to shorelines.
35. The criterion is met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5E, there are no view corridors to
shorelines or Mt. Rainier affected by the proposal.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(g): Natural Systems: Arranging project elements to protect existing natural
systems where applicable.
36. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 5A.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(h): Services and Infrastructure: Making available public services and
facilities to accommodate the proposed use.
37. The criterion is met. The project is served by adequate services and facilities as determined in
Finding of Fact No. 4.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(i): Phasing: Including a detailed sequencing plan with development phases
and estimated time frames, for phased projects.
38. No further phasing is proposed.
DECISION
The proposed preliminary plat (including qualifying as a unit lot subdivision), hearing examiner site
plan and street modification comply with all applicable criteria for the reasons identified in the
conclusions of law of this decision and are all approved, subject to the following conditions:
1. The Applicant shall comply with the five (5) mitigation measures included as part of the
Determination of Non-Significance – Mitigated on February 6, 2023 by the Renton
Environmental Review Committee:
1) The Applicant shall adhere to the recommendations in the geotechnical report,
prepared by Terra Associates, Inc and dated August 5, 2021 and revised
February 15, 2022, or future addenda.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Unit Lot Subdivision - 25
2) The geotechnical engineer shall submit a sealed letter stating that he/she has
reviewed the construction and building permit plans and in their opinion the
plans and specifications meet the intent of the report(s).
3) The Applicant shall submit a revised geotechnical report prepared by a licensed
geotechnical engineers that analyzes the protected slope on the northern portion
of the site and makes a specific finding regarding the feasibility of locating
structures within the 50-foot setback identified in the original geotechnical
report. The updated report shall be submitted with the civil construction permit
plans to be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager
prior to permit issuance.
4) The Applicant shall coordinate with King County Metro prior to submitting
construction permits to identify any needed accommodations for the abutting
transit stop on NE 12th St that need to occur during construction of the site.
Evidence of the coordination with King County Metro and the accommodation(s)
shall be shown on the civil construction permit plans to be reviewed and
approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to permit issuance.
5) The Applicant shall submit an archeological survey prepared by a qualified
professional prior to the start of any construction and provide notification of the
survey to Tribes’ cultural committee and the Washington State Department of
Archeology and Historic Preservation.
2. The Applicant shall utilize a tree species from the Approved Street Tree List and Spacing
Guidelines document for the NE 12th St, new future roadway on the site (identified as
Road A on site plan) and NE Sunset Blvd ROW street trees. The revised street trees shall
be shown on an updated Detailed Landscaping Plan submitted with the civil construction
permit application for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager
prior to civil construction permit issuance.
3. The Applicant shall submit a final detailed landscape plan that identifies compliance with
the partial or fully-obscuring landscape buffer on the west side of the site. Use of a partial
or fully-obscuring buffer shall be determined by the width of the buffer. The final
detailed landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project
Manager prior to issuance of a civil construction permit.
4. The Applicant shall substitute native large-stature native tree species such as Western
red cedars, Douglas fir, and Western hemlock or similar for at least half (21 total) of the
Incense cedar trees identified on the landscape plan and half of the flowering cherry
trees identified on the west site in the landscape buffer. The trees shall planted in a
triangular pattern with understory shrubs and groundcover to provide better privacy and
noise attenuation. The trees and understory shall be shown on an updated Detailed
Landscaping Plan submitted with the civil construction permit application for review
and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to civil construction permit
issuance.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Unit Lot Subdivision - 26
5. The Applicant shall create a Homeowners’ Association (“HOA”) that maintains all
improvements and landscaping in the common open space, critical areas, and storm
drainage tracts and any and all other common improvements. The HOA documents shall
be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to
recording of the Unit Lot Subdivision. Such documents shall be recorded concurrently
with the Unit Lot Subdivision.
6. The Applicant shall either retain additional trees or plant new trees to meet the minimum
tree density for the parent site. In addition, the Applicant shall substitute native large-
stature native tree species such as Western red cedars, Douglas fir, and Western hemlock
or similar for at least half of replacement trees identified on the landscape plan. The
Applicant shall demonstrate compliance by submitting an updated tree density
calculation. The retained or new trees shall be shown on an updated Detailed
Landscaping Plan submitted with the civil construction permit application for review and
approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to civil construction permit
issuance.
7. The Applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan that demonstrates compliance with
the fence and retaining wall regulations for review and approval by the Current Planning
Project Manager at the time of civil construction permit application.
8. The Applicant shall submit an architectural lighting plan at the time of building permit
review for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager. To ensure
safety and avoid excessive brightness, pedestrian scale lighting should be provided on the
primary entries of each unit, rear elevations facing the alley, along the interior pedestrian
walkways as necessary to provide sufficient lighting for pedestrian safety while
minimizing light spill and glare onto adjoining properties.
9. The Applicant shall submit a site-wide lighting plan be provided at the time of civil
construction permit review for review and approval by the Current Planning Project
Manager prior to Civil Construction Permit issuance. To ensure safety and avoid
excessive brightness, pedestrian scale lighting should be provided in all common areas
and along all common pedestrian walkways, including the walkway down to NE Sunset
Blvd.
10. The Applicant shall submit revised floor plans for the townhomes that identify adequate
storage area in the attached garages of the townhome units for both a bicycle and the
individual trash and recycling containers. The revised floor plans shall be reviewed and
approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to issuance of a building permit.
11. The Applicant shall provide more variation in corner and interior individual unit lot
setbacks across the unit lot subdivision to create a greater variety of home sizes and
vertical modulation. A revised preliminary plat plan shall be provided at the time of
building permit review for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager.
12. The Applicant shall submit additional information with the civil construction permit
application demonstrating the project’s the Applicant submit additional information with
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Unit Lot Subdivision - 27
the civil construction permit application demonstrating the project’s compliance with the
common open space requirements including but not limited to, maximum slope,
contiguousness to the majority of the dwellings, location in a highly visible area, and lack
of obstructions such as retaining walls or fences. The common open space plan would be
subject to review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager.
13. The Applicant shall provide an open space programming plan that includes specifications
on proposed furniture, recreational activities, and other activities as appropriate within
the common open space for review and approval by the Current Planning Project
Manager at the time of civil construction permit.
14. The Applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the standards for private yards and
open space guidelines by incorporating a combination of ground amenities, porches, or
decks. The proposed private open space shall be reviewed and approved by the Current
Planning Project Manager at the time of building permit application review.
15. The Applicant shall incorporate addition concrete pathways with a minimum width of
four-feet (4’) at the following locations: North/south connections between units 62 and
63, 57 and 56, 48 and 49, 28 and 27, 19 and 20, 7 and 8, 2 and 3, 12 and 13, and 34 and
35; connection between Tract L and the NE 12th St ROW along the west side of ROW 4;
connection between Tract G and the new sidewalk in future Road A. The location of the
pathways shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior
to issuance of the civil construction permit.
16. The Applicant shall record a public access easement over the all pathway connections on
the site, except for those not located in a common open space area or tract.
17. The Applicant shall submit a revised preliminary plat plan and landscape plan that
identifies pedestrian connections for all unit lots. Public sidewalks shall be 5 feet or o 8
feet wide, depending on the street section. Common open space pathways shall be a
minimum width of 3 feet and front yard entry walks on private property (i.e. the
individual lots) shall be a minimum width of 3 feet with a maximum of 4 feet. The
revised plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager
prior to construction permit issuance.
18. The Applicant shall submit revised elevations providing the required three and one-half
inches (3 1/2") minimum trim surrounding all windows and doors and one of the
following architectural details: shutters, knee braces, flower boxes, or columns.
Alternatively, the Applicant may submit a modification request to vary from any of these
standards. The revised elevations or modification request shall be submitted to the
Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval at the time of building permit
review.
19. The Applicant shall submit a materials board and color palette coded to each building
elevation, be provided to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval
at the time of building permit review. The color palette provided shall utilize a minimum
of four (4) hues and may not exclusively utilize shades of blue, grey, or similar neutral
colors.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Unit Lot Subdivision - 28
20. The Applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan with utility box locations and any
utility boxes that are visible to the public shall be screened with berms and/or
landscaping. The final detailed landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
Current Planning Project Manager prior to civil construction permit approval.
21. The Applicant shall submit the draft Native Growth Protection area easement documents
at the time of construction permit application submittal for review and approval by the
Current Planning Project Manager. The Applicant shall be required to record the
easement and related documents at the time of final plat recording.
22. The Applicant shall place all common open space, including the pedestrian easements
fronting proposed units, into separate tracts. A revised detailed preliminary plat plan and
open space plan identifying the tracts shall be submitted to and approved by the Current
Planning Project Manager prior to issuance of a civil construction permit.
23. The Applicant shall reduce the paved width of all the alleys, except ROW 4, to twelve
(12’) with two feet (2’) of clear space on each side, unless otherwise approved by the
Current Planning Project Manager or as required by Renton Regional Fire Authority. A
revised detailed preliminary plat plan showing the new alley widths is required to be
submitted and approved prior to issuance of a civil construction permit.
24. The Applicant shall incorporate a landscape center island with a radius of twenty feet
(20’) into the cul-de-sac. A revised detailed preliminary plat plan and landscape plan
showing the center island is required to be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a
civil construction permit.
25. The Applicant shall install Maxiforce collapsible bollards (Item #MCSW-SS3-EZ) within
ROW 4 adjacent to the NE 12th St sidewalk. The location of the bollards shall be
reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager Prior to issuance of a
civil construction permit.
26. The Applicant shall submit a separate detailed utility and landscape plan set identifying
the location and screening provided for all surface and roof top utility/mechanical
equipment required for each townhome. The surface mounted utility plan shall include
cross-section details and screening measures consistent with the overall design of the
development with the civil construction permit application. The Applicant shall work
with franchise utilities to ensure, as practical, utility boxes are located out of public ROW
view, active common open spaces, and they shall not displace required landscaping areas.
The utility and landscape plan set shall be reviewed and approved by the Current
Planning Project Manager prior to permit issuance.
27. The Applicant shall submit a plan identifying a safe walking route from the proposed
subdivision to Honey Dew Elementary School. The submitted plan, as well as any
infrastructure proposed to support the safe route included in the plan, shall be reviewed
and approved by the Public Works plan reviewer prior to issuance of the civil
construction permit.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Unit Lot Subdivision - 29
28. As identified in Finding of Fact No. 5H, the Applicant’s floor plans shall be revised for
building permit review to conform to applicable parking dimension standards.
29. Street names shall be approved by the City and street signs shall be installed if required
by City staff.
30. Sanitary sewers shall be provided by the developer at no cost to the City and designed in
accordance with City standards. Side sewer lines shall be installed eight feet (8') into each
lot if sanitary sewer mains are available.
31. All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any utilities
installed in the parking strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the
planting of trees. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed,
including all service connections, as approved by the Department. Such installation shall
be completed and approved prior to the application of any surface material. Easements
may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the
Department.
32. Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic utilities
are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot
line by subdivider as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including
sidewalks, or alley improvements when such service connections are extended to serve
any building. The cost of trenching, conduit, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well
as easements therefore required to bring service to the development shall be borne by the
developer and/or landowner. The subdivider shall be responsible only for conduit to serve
his development. Conduit ends shall be elbowed to final ground elevation and capped.
The cable TV company shall provide maps and specifications to the subdivider and shall
inspect the conduit and certify to the City that it is properly installed.
33. Lot corners shall be marked as required by RMC 4-7-210.
34. As required by RMC 4-7-090F8a, the title of the final plat shall include the term “unit lot
subdivision.”
DATED this 6th day of April, 2023.
City of Renton Hearing Examiner
Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Unit Lot Subdivision - 30
RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies the consolidated application(s) subject to this decision as Type III
applications subject to closed record appeal to the City of Renton City Council. Appeals of the
hearing examiner’s decision must be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the
decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed within this 14-
day appeal period.
Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
Transcript by Rev.com Page 1 of 12
Appendix A
March 21, 2023 Hearing Transcript
Towns on 12th -- PR22-000160
Note: This is a computer-generated transcript provided for informational purposes only. The
reader should not take this document as 100% accurate or take offense at errors created by the
limitations of the programming in transcribing speech. A recording of the hearing is available
on the City’s website should anyone need an accurate rendition of the hearing testimony.
Phil Olbrechts:
All right. For the record, it is March 21st, 2023, 11:00 AM. I'm Phil Olbrechts, hearing examiner for
Renton. We have a application this morning for a town home development involving a preliminary plat
request, site plan approval, a street modification. This is file number LUA22-000180. Looks like lead staff
on this one is Mr. Morganroth, Alex Morganroth, on behalf of the city. He'll be giving us an overview of
what the project is about. Once he's done, we'll move on to applicant comments if they want to make
any. You don't have to, but then is your chance to speak. After that we'll move on to public comments,
that's the purpose of the hearing, to see if there are any concerns out there from the public or anyone
who wants to support the project, anything of that nature. Ms. Cisneros, at this point, do we have any
potential people from the public who want to speak? Do you see?
Mrs Cisneros:
We do have some that are in the queue there, so once we get to that point, if they want to raise their
hand and go over the instructions on when they want to comment, we can do that.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. Yeah, like Ms. Cisneros said, once we get to the public comment portion of the hearing, if anyone
wants to say anything, we'll be sure to let you know how you can be heard and get your comments
noted. So after public comments, that'll be a chance for Mr. Morganroth to answer any questions that
were raised by members of the public and provided any necessary rebuttal evidence. And then the
applicant gets final word and I get 10 business days, which is two weeks essentially to issue a final
decision. Now by state law, I'm only allowed to consider evidence that's put into the record and Ms.
Cisneros, you usually have a little list that contains all the documents that staff has put together that
they'd like to see put in the record and I've already had a chance to review those, so we'll put that on
the screen. See here if there are any objections out there. Is this the full list, Mr. Cisneros, along with the
Google map?
Mrs Cisneros:
Yes, this is the list of exhibits and we also have the HEX report list of exhibits.
Phil Olbrechts:
Oh I see.
Transcript by Rev.com Page 2 of 12
Mrs Cisneros:
Yeah, I've kind of separated them out and then these are basically them all together.
Phil Olbrechts:
Oh okay.
Mrs Cisneros:
With some additional exhibits that have been added, adhere to the list. We had a staff report
PowerPoint from the city and an applicant PowerPoint as well, and then our normal core maps in Google
Earth that we'd like to add to the record.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay let's go back to the first one, one through 19 so I can just kind of quickly summarize.
Mrs Cisneros:
Sure.
Phil Olbrechts:
All right. So yeah, as you can tell, we have a total of, I think it was 26, a lot of the documents to look at
there, there's a lot of review that goes into these kind of projects. As you can see on the list we have the
environmental review committee report. That's the city staff committee that figures out what kind of
environmental review is necessary and what kind of mitigation measures are necessary under the State
Environmental Policy Act. We have the site plan, the landscaping plan, grading and drainage, utilities
plan, tree retentions, floor plans, architectural renderings, geotechnical analysis, technical information
report, which deals with stormwater critical areas, traffic analysis, transportation, concurrency,
hazardous waste. We did get a comment from the Duwamish tribe, a comment from King County Metro,
advisory notes. Those are staff comments that are usually engineering recommendations. Then the next
few exhibits, Ms Cisneros?
Mrs Cisneros:
Yes.
Phil Olbrechts:
Then we also have the staff report going to me, the public meeting packet. I guess there's a rezone
development agreement there, covenants that apply to the project, the environmental committee
determination with tree ordinance, that applies to this project. And then the final list, Ms. Cisneros.
Just some of the materials the staff wanted to go over today and just review in general was the staff's
PowerPoint, applicant's PowerPoint, and I guess some staff report requested changes by the applicant
that were received and then the core mass at City of Renton maps, those would be aerial photographs
of the project site and environmentally designated area maps, that kind of thing. And then finally,
Google Earth is more aerial photos, so actually total 30 exhibits for this project.
Does anyone have any objections over entry of those documents to the record? If you do, just raise the
virtual hand that's clicked on the virtual hand at the bottom of your screen or unmute yourself and say,
"I object." And we'll entertain your objections. Objections are usually based on the documents aren't
Transcript by Rev.com Page 3 of 12
relevant to this proceeding or they may be inauthentic, that there's a photograph there that says it's a
photograph of the project site and by accident it's actually a photograph of someplace else. That kind of
objection. All right. Hearing then I'll go ahead and admit exhibits one through 30, Mr. Morganroth, let
me swear you in. Just raise your right hand. Do you swear affirm tell the truth, nothing but the truth in
this proceeding?
Alex Morganroth:
I do.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay, great. Go ahead.
Alex Morganroth:
Thanks Mr. Examiner. Let me get my screen shared here. One second. Okay. Okay, is that showing up
okay?
Phil Olbrechts:
Yeah.
Mrs Cisneros:
Yes.
Alex Morganroth:
Awesome. Okay, thank you. So I'm Alex Morganroth, senior planner with City of Renton, and I'm going
to be making a staff recommendation for the Towns on 12th unit lot subdivision. So the project site, so
it's highlighted there in yellow, about 6.55 acres, consists of seven parcels. It's split zone, so it's a little
bit unique. There's RMF, so residential multi-family zoning on the three larger parcels to the north and
then the four parcels that front northeast 12th Street are all zoned R10.
It does have frontage on both Northeast 12th Street and Northeast Sunset Boulevard. Access is
proposed, which you'll see in a couple slides via a new residential access road off of northeast 12th.
There is no access proposed to Northeast Sunset Boulevard. There's some pretty steep grade changes
that go down to that very busy road and it was determined not to be feasible based on those grade
changes. Critical areas on this site, there's a moderate landslide hazard, sensitive and steep slopes I
should say. And then there's a category three wetlands buffer. There is one place in the staff report that
notes that there's a wetlands on the site. Actually the wetlands is just offsite on a parcel to, I'll show that
in a couple slides, but to the southwest. It's only the category three buffer that is on the project site, so
just a clarification there.
So this is the site plan, the preliminary plat plan. So again, the applicant's requesting hearing, an
examiner site plan review and preliminary subdivision approval as well as a street modification. They're
also requesting a wetlands buffer reduction as part of the application. So the project is for 90 fee simple
townhomes. So it's a unit lot subdivision, meaning each individual townhome exists on its own piece of
land and with the private open space that can be sold off. And then the remainder of the parcel, the
parent parcel, is in separate tracts.
So you've got eight different tracts there. You've got three critical areas, tract one for the wetlands
buffer, two for steep slopes. You've got one storm tract with a mostly below grade vault. That is one
Transcript by Rev.com Page 4 of 12
other area to note in the staff report, it's a little unclear in the submittal items whether or not there was
any portion of that that was above grade. There is a small portion of the northwest corner that may be
three to four feet basically out of the ground according to the applicant. So there is a condition related
to that that I'll get into, but again, just one other clarification.
A second clarification there is the significant trees. So there's a few iterations of this and the staff report
calls out an old iteration which showed a different tree retention and so they're now proposed 49
significant trees is the accurate number. I think it says 46 in the staff report. Either way it met the tree
retention requirements, but 49 is the accurate number with seven landmark trees. So just another
correction there. Again, access is proposed via the 53 foot wide street ending in a cul-de-sac. And then
you've got alleys kind of off the main spine road there. These are public alleys and again they are
proposing a wetlands buffer reduction, which I'll get into a little bit more.
Zoning and land use in the neighborhood. So again, the parcel's split zoned RMFR10. To the east, you've
got commercial arterial with some commercial uses. To the west, single family uses zoned R10 and R8.
To the south, same thing but zoned only R8. Just have our standard medium density kind of single family
residential. Cross Sunset is zoned residential, multifamily. And yeah, really the site's kind of right near a
little commercial node you can see at the intersection of union and Sunset Boulevard. So kind of right on
the edge of that commercial area, which is why it's zoned a little bit higher density than some of the
parcels surrounding it.
Again, critical areas on the site. And so the wetlands, we didn't actually have mapped in core maps. This
was picked up by the applicant, so that's why it's not shown there. The green circle is just an
approximate area. That's about where the wetlands is. It's on the site that's not included in the project
there. It's a small category three wetlands which requires a 75 foot buffer. And so again, they are
requesting that 25% buffer reduction.
There's a moderate landslide hazard not shown here, but it's basically along the northern portion of the
site, it's just a big orange square, so it's not super accurate but it's essentially where it gets a lot steeper
there and that's where the moderate landslide hazard is. There's no specific setbacks or anything from
there. And then the steep slopes are 40% or greater grade and that's the red you see there and that's
really where the challenge was with punching a road through to there. It's also a state highway which
makes it difficult as well, but a lot of trees there, steep grade and so that's kind of where the critical
areas tracks are also kind of on the northeast and northwest sides of the site up there where it slopes
down pretty good to Sunset.
Wetlands impact. So here you can see the... You don't see the wetland but you see the buffer that
extends onto the site. So this is showing the full 75 feet. So they did submit a critical area study
prepared by a professional wetlands biologist and the wetlands biologist did some site visits and
determined that the wetland has kind of cut off from everything else. It's not super high quality, it's got
a lot of invasives in it and it's obviously got development around it. It's kind of been... I don't want to say
unmaintained, but this parcel before or as it currently is now is kind of half maintained. It's got some
mowed grass areas, gravel storage. There's a couple houses on there that are closer to Northeast 12 and
so it's just kind of accumulated a lot of trash and other things.
And so wetlands was not in the best shape and so they are proposing that reduction in return for some
enhanced mitigation, so invasives removal and then reestablishment of some native vegetation there.
So certainly would be an improvement over what's there now. The critical areas study, the wetlands
biologist did find that this would function at a higher level with the reduced buffer than it does
currently. And so staff does support the enhanced buffer and then the reduced buffer to 56.25 feet.
So just touching a little bit, there's obviously a lot of analysis in the staff report, but again, accesses via
that 53 foot wide residential access road. The site or the proposals for a mix of two, three, and four unit
Transcript by Rev.com Page 5 of 12
buildings, the townhomes along the southern boundary, they're oriented towards northeast 12th, will
be two stories or proposed two stories. Back when you get into the R M F zone, you can go up to three
or higher so they're going up to three stories with those, so they'll be a little bit narrower. And then
three stories with garages on the first floor and living space on the second two floors there. Other town
homes besides the ones that are along northeast 12th will be oriented towards common open space,
excuse me, or in the internal public street. And there is a condition of approval related to that.
Public alleys provide vehicle connectivity throughout the site pretty well, kind of have a spoke system
there of the alleys going off and one of the alleys does serve as a secondary fire access, which I'll get into
a little more in the next slide. Now there's a mix of active and passive open space throughout the site.
You've got the common open space, the walkways between the units. You've got some open space
tracts that are spread out around the site. You've also got the tract where the vault's going to be mostly
underground. That'll be usable for recreation. So yeah, pretty good. Again, pretty good mix there and it's
accessible via pathways to all the units. So pretty good connectivity there, again with a couple
conditions of approval related to that you'll find in the staff report.
So access and transportation, I already covered a lot of this, but again, this helps having the diagram
here you can see. So you've got the cul-de-sac and again, the only reason we typically don't allow dead
end roads like this, but again, because there's just no easy way to connect down to Sunset this is
supported by staff, this dead end. We got the public alleys off of road A, so they're shown at 20 feet of
pavement. There's a condition of approval to bring them down to 12 feet of pavement with two feet of
clear space on either side. And that's our city standard for alleys, our minimum. There are some areas
that, like right of way four, which kind of wraps, I don't know if you can see my cursor, but wraps down
to northeast 12th here, that is going to need to be 20 feet because that is the secondary fire access and
they require a minimum of 20 feet.
Same for up at right of way six, a portion of it up here in the northwest corner might need to be or
probably need to be 20 feet and possibly right of way three. We are going to work a little more with the
Renton Fire Authority on that and the condition of approval, it's amended slightly to give a little more
flexibility there. Basically it's going to say, what we're recommending that it's conditioned that all the
alleys need to be 12 feet paved, two feet of clear space, unless otherwise approved by the current
planning project manager because there's also some utility separation issues potentially. And so we'll
definitely work with them on that, but in this kind of conceptual stage, it's kind of unclear exactly where
it would need to be a little bit wider. There's a public, this is pretty important that we did have a
neighborhood meeting before they submitted and one of the things was brought up, was that it'd be
nice to have a public pedestrian connection down to Sunset there.
So right now the neighborhoods that are to the south kind of got to go all the way to Union and around
or there's a couple private dead end streets to the west and so they got to go way further west to get
down there. And so they did propose a connection down to sunset that would be essentially a public
pathway, a public sidewalk down there. So that's a pretty important piece of the project.
Speaker 4:
Where's that on the site plan?
Alex Morganroth:
That is up, you can see the little S curve here, before the bulb. Yep. So yeah, that's going to go down,
that'll be a really nice pedestrian connection down there. And then offsite frontage improvements are
proposed on Northeast Sunset Boulevard and the right of way there and I'll get a little more into that.
Transcript by Rev.com Page 6 of 12
They are requesting a modification for those standards and then they'll be installing the standard right
of way improvements along northeast 12th there as well as the internal road obviously.
So the street modification, so the picture here, this is kind of looking, I guess it'd be southwest from
Sunset at the site. And so you can kind of see the grade change there a bit. But the typical complete
street standards for this section would be eight and eight. So eight foot sidewalk, eight foot planter
strip. We worked with the applicant a lot on this, coming up with conceptual drawings. It was going to
require very large retaining walls and a lot of vegetation clearing to get that eight and eight. So right
now what's there, I think it's a six foot sidewalk, maybe five and a half, six feet right next to the road. So
it's not a very pleasant place to walk. Traffic speeds are pretty high here going around the corner. And so
after working with them, we determined that we would support kind of a reduction to five and five.
So you'd, you'd still get that five foot separation, you'd get a new sidewalk, but it would significantly
reduce the number of trees that need to come down, which are providing screen and privacy, noise
attenuation, all that for the new homes as well as reducing the height of the walls necessary or the
terracing necessary. So it was kind of a middle ground found. It's just a tough frontage. And so again, we
are recommending approval of that modification as it will provide both a safer pedestrian environment
that's currently there by providing that separation and new street trees, but also reducing the amount
of trees that will need to get removed on the site and the height of the walls.
Just to note, that did go through environmental review with the city as the lead agency. DNSM was
issued on February 6th of this year, 14 day comment period and no comments during that and there
were five mitigation measures. These are all outlined in one of the findings of fact in the staff report, but
five mitigation measures related to the geotechnical hazards, cultural resources and then impacts to
King County Metro Service because there is a bus stop on Northeast 12th Street in front of the site.
Some of the integral project features, just wanted to note. So the pedestrian pathway connecting to the
development, connecting Sunset to the development, significant pedestrian connectivity both on and
offsite, some of them proposed, some which are conditions of approval that are recommended.
Implementation of an enhanced wetlands buffer, reduction of alley whistler, possible programs in
accessible open space. And then the replanting of large stature tree species, western seeders dug firs.
Again, this is related to a condition of approval, but just trying to make up for, there are some large
trees in the site that are coming down. And so we just want to make sure that those are replaced with
trees that have equal potential to get to that size. And also just the native species just have a lot higher
survivability rate and so that's another reason that we usually push for the larger native trees on the
site. So a few recommended amendments to conditions that are in the staff report. So this PowerPoint
is going to be an exhibit obviously to go back and reference, but a couple errors and a couple changes.
So first, this is condition number six related to the minimum tree density. And so it was pointed out
correctly by the applicant that, I'm sorry, let me back up here.
So we recently changed our tree code within the last year and so they submitted this project under the
old tree code, so they were vested to the previous tree code that was in effect for multiple years. And so
that was what the analysis was based off of. However there was one minor change in that old tree code
that I missed that basically there's an exemption for development from the tree density standards in the
RMF zone. So essentially there's the RMF and the R10 zone. The minimum tree density based on the
ordinance and effect of the time does not apply to the portion of the site in the RMF zone. So basically I
amended the condition to kind of take that out to make sure it's just clear that we want to make sure
they're meeting the minimum density requirements for the R10 zone and it keeps in some of the
language about the replacing for native tree species. So again, just taking out that section that is tree
density not applicable to the RMF portion of the site.
Transcript by Rev.com Page 7 of 12
Condition 16. So this is the original condition said, "The applicant should record public access easement
over all the pathway connections." So that should really be pedestrian access easement. We don't
require the walkways between the units and stuff to be have a public easement. It should just be a
pedestrian easement so people that live there can use it. Obviously the sidewalks are public that are on
the road. But as far as the common open space pathways and stuff, that is for the use of the residents,
the exception to that would be the connection down to sunset. So I did include that, we do want a
public access easement there and so folks in other neighborhoods connect can use the public sidewalk
system on future road A to drop down to sunset there on that pathway.
And then last in the amended conditions, this is just related to the alley width. So the original condition
recommended was as written there, reduced the pave width of all alleys except right of way four to 12
feet. And that was the fire access, the secondary fire access. They pointed out, and again rightly, that
there might be some other restrictions for fire turnarounds, specifically of way six at the northwest
corner of the site and possibly I think it's right of way four I think on the other side. And so either way
what I did is change the condition to be a little more flexible. So essentially the outcome we want is to
reduce to 12 feet wherever we can. Obviously there's going to be some fire restrictions. This was
conceptual that Corey, the Renton Fire Authority did look at it, but that's something we'll need to have
them look at again.
So it was just revised to basically reduce all alleys unless otherwise approved. The applicant did note and
they'll probably [inaudible 00:22:48] they requested that this condition be written as approved by the
current planning manager or the Renton Regional Fire Authority. I'm comfortable, we're comfortable
just keeping it as written with the current planning project manager because obviously we work with the
Renton Regional fire Authority and if they say something's got to meet fire width requirements, we're
going to follow that. And then one additional condition, and this is related, so this is a new one, not an
amended one, this is, so it would be condition number 28. This is regarding the vault and the potential
for it to be above grade in one of the corners a little bit, three or four feet. And so this is kind of a
standard condition we put on, I mean we prefer all vaults to be located fully below grade, obviously for a
number of reasons in this case because of the steep grades we understand that a small portion of it
might be need to stick out a bit.
And so basically this is related to screening that, and they've already indicated that they would provide
landscape screening, but landscape screening or some kind of veneer veneer treatment on the side of
the cement, the concrete wall, or combination of both, and that would just be reviewed and approved
by the current planning project manager.
Yeah, so onto the recommendation. So recommending approval of the Towns on 12th unit lot
subdivision site. Plan review, preliminary plat street mod application as well as the wetlands buffer
reduction subject to the 27 conditions in the staff report and as amended in those two previous slides
and then one additional condition and slide 13 and there's just a rendering. This is looking at the cul-de-
sac, kind of above over Sunset, just a rendering what it could look like. And I'm happy to answer any
questions?
Phil Olbrechts:
Nope, pretty straightforward. Thanks Mr. Morganroth. All right, let's move on to applicants. Does
anyone from the applicant team want to say anything at this point?
Holli Heavrin:
Yeah, I just have a brief presentation.
Transcript by Rev.com Page 8 of 12
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. Let's see. And I'm having a little trouble reading my screen. How do you spell your last name there
ma'am?
Holli Heavrin:
It's Heavrin. H-E-A-V-R-I-N.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay, let me swear you in. Just raise your right hand. Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, nothing
but the truth in this proceeding?
Holli Heavrin:
I do.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay, great. Go ahead
Holli Heavrin:
Jenny. Do I have a ability to share?
Mrs Cisneros:
Yes, you do.
Holli Heavrin:
Perfect. Okay. I'm not as familiar with Zoom, so please tell me if you can see my presentation.
Phil Olbrechts:
Yeah, we can see it.
Mrs Cisneros:
We can see it, but it's not in presenter mode.
Holli Heavrin:
Oh.
Mrs Cisneros:
Yeah.
Holli Heavrin:
Well...
Mrs Cisneros:
You go to slideshow at the top.
Transcript by Rev.com Page 9 of 12
Holli Heavrin:
Thank you.
Mrs Cisneros:
From beginning, your arrows.
Holli Heavrin:
Perfect.
Phil Olbrechts:
There you go.
Holli Heavrin:
Okay, so I'm going to just kind of briefly peruse over this because Alex did a great job already of
providing me with all the backup and Mr. Hearing Examiner, you have this app up here, this slideshow as
a exhibit as well. So Towns on 12th preliminary plat. We have been working with the city for about a
year and a half on this, going through different iterations and trying to come create a neighborhood that
is inviting from both our side as well as the city's. We've gone through different areas of consideration,
design, neighborhoods, safe walk as well. Our team consists of myself, professional engineer with Core.
Our landscape architect, Lindsey Solario, also with Core. Our project architect with Milbury architects,
Alex, as well as our geotechnical and traffic engineers.
Overall, the site as Alex noted, about six and a half acres retaining a fair amount of open space and
critical area protection and 90 town homes total.
Overview of the site. Near Union and Sunset, not too far just to the west of that intersection. This
actually is noted as a condition of approval, which we just provided anyway. We tend to look at this at
the preliminary level of safe walk route. The site will send elementary students to Honey Do elementary
and safe walk is provided along that entire route. We also looked at safe walk over to the high school, at
Hazen High School, and those are provided as well.
Application history, Alex outlined it perfectly. We have no objection to anything that he wrote in there.
Project infrastructure will be provided, sewer, stormwater and water, all city of Renton we will be
meeting. Apologies, this notes 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design manual. I know that has
updated to the, I believe 2022 now. So we will adhere to that current manual and fire protection
provided by Renton Regional Fire.
It is our burden of proof to prove that we are consistent with all of the city's requirements, zoning
regulations. We believe that we have and in support of the city, in their recommendation of the project
they believe we have as well. In general, we concur with the staff report. We've spent a fair amount of
time with Alex, which we appreciate the time he's given to us over the last few days to hash out a couple
of areas of concern that we had with the staff report. We did submit one additional letter this morning
of three conditions that we do still request just a touch of more clarity on. And so we request approval
of that and that's it.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay, great. Thanks for your comments. All right, let's move on to public comments at this time. And I've
been told we might have some members of the public out there. If any of you want to speak at this
point, just raise your virtual hand at the bottom of your screen. Not seeing any takers on either of the
Transcript by Rev.com Page 10 of 12
lists. Let's see. Nope. So, all right, well, Ms. Cisneros, she has her phone number posted up there as well
as her email address. You can see it behind her head there on the screen. If any of you are trying to
participate and can't figure out why the buttons aren't working or whatever, give her a call or email to
her there at jcisneros@rentonwa.gov. The phone number's (425) 430-6583. Email address is
jcisneros@rentonwa.gov. So you got any takers there?
Mrs Cisneros:
Mr. Olbrechts, there was a hand up. Ms. Orni had her hand up.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. Ms. Orni, is she, she's not muted, right? So Ms. Orni, are you there?
Ms. Orni:
Can you hear me?
Phil Olbrechts:
Yeah, I can hear you. Let me swear you in real quick. Well, first of all, is your last name spelled O-R-N-I?
Is that correct?
Ms. Orni:
That is correct.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay, let me swear in. Do you swear, affirm, to tell the truth, nothing but the truth in this proceeding?
Ms. Orni:
I do.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay, great. Go ahead.
Ms. Orni:
First of all, I'd like to thank staff and the Blue Fern team for working to resolve some of the questions
with some of these conditions. I fully support the revised conditions as written and I'd like to encourage
the examiner to approve this project.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay, thanks Ms. Orni, appreciate your comments. All right. Anybody else out there want to say
anything? Don't see any takers. So let's go back to Mr. Morganroth. Any final comments?
Alex Morganroth:
No, no comments. I did, like Holli mentioned, I came in this morning, so I did try to review a little bit
some of the conditions requested for changing via the document that's now an exhibit. And I generally
think our conditions as written still will work. I know there's just some kind of clarity on the alley width
Transcript by Rev.com Page 11 of 12
conditions. So they noted asking for, basically approved by the current planning project manager or as
required for fire access. And again, I just go back to that, we work with them very closely as another
agency. And so we certainly, if they required something to be 20 feet for fire access, that's not
something where we would tell them no, essentially. So we try to keep it, the review in current planning
there and then we work with them as we develop any new requirements for the widths. So I guess I
don't think it's a bad ask, but I think how it's written will still achieve the same outcome.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. I mean, would it help to leave the record open a day or two just to make sure since it came out
kind of at the last minute or not? You comfortable with your position?
Alex Morganroth:
I'm comfortable with my position. Yeah, I think we'll get there with fire. Yeah, we have a very good
relationship with them and we will make sure to get that sorted out ASAP.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. All right. Thanks Mr. Morgan.
Alex Morganroth:
And then sorry, one other thing. There was just another thing noted when the advisory comments with
the fire authority but not related to a condition, and we will certainly get clarity on that, although I think
we already have clarity on that, but we will, because Nate has worked hard with them on the water
main requirements and stuff, so I think we're already there, but we can certainly give them another
confirmation of being okay with that if requested.
And then lastly, oh, condition 17. And so this is related to the widths and they called out specific widths
based on what... So we have different width requirements, whether it's a public sidewalk or a pathway
or an entry to a home. They called out the specific code required widths on there. I didn't in mine. I think
I'm okay if they want to include that in there as I mean, it's just a code requirement. If they think that'll
add clarity, I don't have any issue with the number three in their letter condition number 17 being
changed if that's... Yeah, I think it would achieve the same outcome.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. All right. Thank you Mr. Morganroth. Ms. Heavrin, any final comments?
Holli Heavrin:
No, we basically agree with what Alex has just noted, as long as we can get clarity and confirmation with
the Renton Regional Fire, that was really the biggest concern.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. Sounds good. All right, I'll go ahead and close the hearing then. And as usual, I think everything
has been very thoroughly addressed in this project. And obviously that long list of exhibits, it doesn't
look like any stone's been left unturned, even though there have been some challenges to developing
the site with the steep slopes and the wetlands, that kind of thing. But should be a pretty
straightforward approval so I'll consider the applicant's request for some modifications to the conditions
Transcript by Rev.com Page 12 of 12
there, but other than that, I'll probably be approving as recommended by staff. So anyway, thank you all
for participating. We're adjourned for this morning. Have a great day.