HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA-08-093_Report 2Minutes
APPLICANT:
OWNER:
LOCATION:
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
ff O(!tJ-U..-0L,'m,~
/Jw.~lC..£0
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF RENTON
Wayne Potter
Barghausen Consulting Engineer
18215 72"" Avenue S
Kent, WA 98032
David Petrie
811 S 273"' Court
Des Moines, WA 98198
Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat/ Appeal
File No.: LUA 08-093, PP, ECF
April 28, 2009
Southeast ofl 62"" A venue SE and SE 140th Street
Requesting Preliminary Plat approval for the subdivision of an
8.95-acre parcel into 36 lots for the eventual development of
single-family residences, with tracts for recreation, stormwater,
joint use driveways and sensitive areas.
Environmental Appeal of Mitigation Measures
Development Services Recommendation: Approve subject to
conditions.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: The Development Services Report was received by the
Examiner on March IO, 2009.
PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining
available information on file with the application, field
checking the property and surrounding area; the Examiner
conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows:
MINUTES
The following minutes are a summary of the March 17, 2009 hearing.
The legal record is recorded on CD.
The hearing opened on Tuesday, March 17, 2009, at 9:02 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of
the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner.
The following exhibits were entered into the record:
Exhibit No. 1: Project file (Yellow file) containing
the original application, proof of posting, proof of
publication and other docnmentation pertinent to the
review of the nroiect.
Exhibit No. 2: Vicinity Map
Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat/Appeal
File No.: LUA-08-093, PP, ECF
April 28, 2009
Page2
Exhibit No. 3: Preliminary Plat Plan
Exhibit No. 5: Grading P]an/Drnin•ae Plan
Exhibit No. 7: To by Mao
Exhibit No. 9: Proiect Time Line
Exhibit No. 11: Typed Statement along with 3 Photos
presented by Gwendolvn Hi"'1
Exhibit No. 13: Road Classification Mao
Exhibit No. 4: Tree Retention
Exhibit No. 6: Aerial Photo
Exhibit No. 8: King County Zoning Man
Exhibit No. 10: Revised Preliminary Plat Plan
Exhibit No. 12: Drainage Report
Ann Nielsen, Assistant City Attorney had some preliminary issues to discuss: Mr. Watts was present and would
testify during the Appeal portion of this bearing. The reason for requesting the Preliminary Plat portion to be
heard first is to have the testimony beard in that hearing incorporated into the relevant part of the Appeal
Hearing. There were no objections by the applicant. Relevant portions of the King County Ordinances and
Comprehensive Plan were offered to the Hearing Examiner. This project is vested to King County Development
Standards, but it is the City's position that procedural rules of the City of Renton apply.
A new copy of the appeal, which contains the streamlined specific appeal issues was presented. The appeal now
bas only three issues.
The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Rocale Timmons. Associate Planner, Community
and Economic Development Department, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way. Renton, Washington 98055. The
site is located in northeast Renton.just sooth of NE 4th Street (SE 128,. Street) along the eastern border of the
City. The site is located on the 14100 block, 162nd Ave SE is on the west and 164"' Ave SE is on the east. The
site is located in King County and City of Renton R-4 zoning district. Both streets along the frontage of the site
are unimproved. There is a pending plat just north of the site, Cavella.
Ms. Timmons went through the Project Time Line with appropriate dates of events in relation to this plat.
Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated with 6 measures
relating to erosion control, drainage, mitigation fees and monitoring for wetland and stream impacts. One
appeal was filed by the applicant, which is before the Examiner today.
The site is zoned R-4 and the Comprehensive Plan designation is Residential-Low Density. However, the
project is vested to the 2004 R-4 development standards and the Urban Residential Comprehensive Plan
Designation of King County. It is the City's position that the annexed properties are not vested to rules and
procedures of the King County Code and that the project, once annexed, would follow the rules and procedures
outlined by the City of Renton code.
The proposed density for the plat would be approximately 4/du per gross acre, the lots range in size from 5,900
square feet to approximately 9,300 square feet. Access to the lots was originally proposed via 16200 Ave SE
with three new internal streets extended from I 62nd Ave SE. There are no minimum lot size or depth
requirements in the King County R-4 zone, however the minimum width requirement is 30-feet.
The proposed lots would meet the width requirements.
Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat/ Appeal
File No.: LUA-08-093, PP, ECF
April 28, 2009
Page 3
The proposed lots appear to provide adequate area to meet front, side and rear setback requirements. All
setbacks would be verified at the time of building permit review. There is also adequate area to provide off-
street parking of two spaces per each lot.
The site is heavily wooded and contains 266 trees of which 8 are proposed to remain. The applicant is in
compliance with the County's tree retention requirements. A final tree retention plan will be required prior to
utility construction.
The landscape plan indicates the installation of 48 trees placed in the front yards of the lots along the interior
roads to the site. In addition to street trees, 91 of the I 09 replacement trees are being used to buffer the site
along 16411, and the southern border until the sensitive areas tract is reached. The sensitive areas tract includes a
Class ill stream as well as a Class II wetland. A derailed landscape plan will be provided and approved prior to
plat recording.
King County requires 390 square feet of recreation space per lot be provided on site, the applicant has proposed
recreation space within Tract B, which is also the drainage tract in the amount of20,200 square feet. In addition
the applicant has proposed a tot lot, sports field, and a sports court to comply with additional King County Code
requirements.
The site is fronted on the east and west by unimproved rights-of-way. The only access to the site is via 16411,
Avenue SE, due to impacts and distances from improved streets, the applicant was required to provide two
points of access suitable for domestic, emergency and pedestrian safety. Originally the access would have been
from 162"" Ave SE, which the applicant proposed to make half street improvements on 162"" from the 13800
block south to SE 144th Street. Staff has since recommended that there be an east/west road connection. The
applicant has submitted a revised preliminary plat plan that shows entering the plat from 162nd and continuing
east to 164th, which road would be designated SE 14011, Place. This new road does not affect lot count. As part
of the revised drawing the applicant would make half street improvements to 16411, Avenue SE, which is
currently 30-feet wide. As previously mentioned, 162nd Ave SE is encumbered by two separate wetlands plus a
Class ill stream. The applicant has requested a variance to modify the street frontage improvements to 162"'
Ave SE. Development Services Division would review and make a recommendation following the preliminary
plat hearing.
A Transportation Mitigation Fee was imposed on this project. School impact fees would also be required.
The proposed project site has an average slope of 15 percent; with an elevation change of 46 feet from the
southwest quarter to the northeast quarter of the site. Drainage currently runs off from the northeast portion of
the site to the Class ill stream, water then flows southeasterly to the eastern side of 162"" Ave SE and disburses
into sheet flow to the south within the unimproved 16200 Ave SE right-of-way to SE 14411, Ave intersection
where it then flows by culvert/pipe to the Cedar River and then to Lake Washington.
The applicant would collect stormwater runoff and convey it into a proposed stormwater vault located in Tract
B. The outfall would be conveyed back into the stream channel and leave the property. The applicant has
proposed using the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual, however the applicant has submitted a
Level ill downstream drainage analysis, which identifies several drainage problems. The ERC required the
applicant to use the 2005 drainage manual for both detention and water quality improvements.
The site is served by Water District 90. The property is currently served by public sewer, extension of the
existing sewer line would be required to serve the new plat.
Liberty Gardens Prelimina,y Plat/ Appeal
File No.: LUA-08-093, PP, ECF
April 28, 2009
Page4
Hans Korve, DMP Engineer, 726 Auburn Way N. Auburn, 98002 stated that he would be doing the majority of
the speaking. Wayne Potter and Dan Balmelli from Barghausen, and Gary Norris a traffic consultant were also
present representing the applicant.
The new design addresses many of the issues; the primary access comes south along 162"' entering the site at SE
140"' with a second access as required to 164 "'. This was done to meet the needs of the community and to
provide a better product for future buyers. They are worldng with a new plat to the north, Cavella to provide
improvements and secondary access to the entire area. Cavella has agreed to extend 164"' to the north.
The Examiner stated that if this project were to be developed first, there must be a public access that serves Fire
and Emergency Services as well as the residents. If Cavella fails to develop, then this project would be
responsible for developing that road in its entirety.
Mr. Korve stated that they understood that completely. This is a private agreement between the three
developments, Liberty Gardens, Cavella and Threadgill. 1bis agreement came about because all three projects
needed secondary access in order to do improvements in this area. All three agreed to share the costs of doing
the needed improvements on a per lot basis. They believed that the improvements made would eliminate most
of the CARE concerns.
Drainage issues will be addressed during the SEP A appeal.
The Examiner stated that drainage would be needed for this project and while SEP A is out there, he needs to
know what the proposed drainage is, and what improvements have been made.
Mr. Korve stated that this project is peifectly self sustainable with the 1998 Manual Level III as proposed. King
County agreed that the 1998 manual is more than adequate to address the issues. The report was provided as a
group review for all three projects. The other two projects are not vested to the 1998 manuaL so when Mr.
McCarthy did his review it would have been useless to review to a standard for all three that only applied to one.
When Mr. McCarthy did the overall review, he used the 2005 manuaL did the analysis and made his
representations. Mr. McCarthy was out of town and unavailable to be present at the hearing. His findings were
in no way intended to be taken in the context that somehow the 2005 manual must apply to this project. That
was never his intent and not what his conclusions meant to say and if that is what was understood, he
apologizes. That was not his intention.
10:04 am: IO minute break was taken.
Dan Balme!IL Barghausen Engineers, 18215 72"' Avenue S, Kent 98032 stated that he is the project engineer for
both the Liberty Gardens and Cavella projects. They also coordinated with the Threadgill project, which is
further to the north, the three projects in conjunction hired Mr. McCarthy to complete a detailed Level III
drainage analysis. All three projects had the same downstream drainage issues. A portion of the Threadgill
project drains to the same basin. It was beneficial to all three projects to have one study done to analyze the
downstream system. Mr. McCarthy modeled the project in existing conditions and developed conditions; came
to conclusions as to what the extent of the problems are and recommend options for either correcting the
downstream problems or to provide on-site mitigation so the downstream conditions are not exacerbated.
On page 3. I of the study, the mitigation options are outlined; provide on-site detention to King County Level ill
flow control standard, some other options included downstream improvements, some conveyance system
upgrades, and some improvements to the water quality system.
The three parties all agreed to provide Level III on-site detention, King County reviewed this option and agreed
to the mitigation. At that time it was proposed to extend 16200 from the project site to 144"', there is an existing
Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat/ Appeal
File No.: LUA-08--093, PP, ECF
April 28, 2009
Page 5
conveyance ditch and stonnwater pond within the right-of-way. With the construction of the roadway, the pond
would have been eliminated. It was agreed that that portion of the roadway would be tightlined to provide more
room for the road. Now that 162"" is not going to be extended to 14411> the roadway would not require
modifications and so the tightlining of the drainage channel is no longer required. This project should be
approved under the 1998 standard.
Gwendolyn High, CARE, PO Box 2936, Renton 98056 (home: 155 Yakima Ave NE, Renton 98059) [a copy of
these minutes and decision will be sent to both addresses]
The following concerns are focused on KCC 21 a 24, they are details that were not previously elaborated on:
-Vegetation Management Plan, there is a requirement for protection of sensitive areas, the site is heavily wooded
with 266 significant identified trees of which 8 trees are proposed to be retained. There is no indication
regarding the Jogging practices.
The Examiner questioned the trees to be retained.
A temporary erosion and sedimentary plan would be required, the code does allow the logging practices to be
incorporated. They asked that that be required.
-Building setback requirement of 15 feet from all edges of all sensitive area buffers with the exception of
impervious ground areas such as driveways and patios may be allowed, subject to special drainage provisions.
The west tenninus of SE 141 ~ Place cul-de-sac and the driveway of Lot 28 are immediately adjacent, they are
the boundary of the wetland buffer for Tract A. There is zero building setback and as such would require
adherence to the King County 2005 drainage manual.
-As far as they can tell, the access route for the sewer has not been detennined, it may have been slated to come
up 162 .... If it were still proposed to be run through the unimproved right-of-way of 162.,. Ave SE code would
prevent that, the sewer would have to go through the wetland buffers.
-Mr. Foley stated in an earlier email that if the County were to consider a capital project on SE 14411> the size,
cost and complexity suggest that it would take years for it to be built Some more limited downstream
improvements by the developer might make more sense than an uncertain King County project. A downstream
fix seems to be more feasible. This appears to support staff's requirements to using the 2005 Manual.
-They were pleased to see that the applicant has proposed access to the site from the south via 16411>, it does
address quite a lot of the outstanding issues. There are general issues that still exist, there has been no
consideration of the traffic flow patterns from the Alpine Nursery. The Transportation Impact Analysis did not
consider any of the impacts along 144", there was no intersection analysis presented. It appears that the TIA
should be redone particularly with such significant impact that can be expected on 14411> and the traffic issues
there. In light that 136" would be the other main access, the intersection of 136" at 15611> was the road that was
required as a condition of the earlier plats in order to mitigate the imfacts of SE 12811> Ave and 160" Ave SE.
To help that situation, King County required this new road from 160 to 156"', there was a failing level of
service at the intersection of 136" and 15611>. With the occupation of some of the new developments, traffic
signals were needed and have been added and their classification is now that of an arterial.
-Further concerns were with a sidewalk on 162°' there are sections that have sidewalk and sections that do not.
There are some issues with people attending events and sporting events that are parking in that area with new
drivers, insufficient lighting and no walkways and they would like to have curb, gutter and sidewalk along the
entire length of 162 ....
-It appears that the improvements along 16411> would be only half street improvements. It can be expected that
there would be more parking along that street as well. In the dark, inexperienced drivers with an inadequate
Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat/Appeal
File No.: LUA-08-093, PP, ECF
April 28, 2009
Page6
parking situation, they would like the staff to review this area and make sure that they have public
improvements to meet the actual public needs.
-Two further things that the TIA did not consider are the two projects in the King County Transportation Needs
Report for pedestrian improvements on 144th. There also is no walkway indicated on the map seen today from
the eastern terminus of SE 144th cul-de-sac to the middle school. Previously there was a walkway proposed and
it does not seem to be on the map now.
Mr. Korve stated that that walkway was omitted when the new internal roads were designed.
Ms. High continued with regard to the possibility of increased parking and access to the high school ball fields
and the park near 164th Ave SE. King County agreed that the increased parking and access to the high school
would make the TIA's so far submitted obsolete.
Patricia Payne-Gammell, 16043 SE 142°" Place, Renton 98059 stated that she resides just southwest of the
subject site. A group of neighbors filed an appeal on the extension of 162°" to the south because of the large
ditch that travels down the right-of-way and joins the ravine of the plat and comes back into the drainage ditch
on 16200• Most of the concerns in the appeal have been taken care of if the extension of the road is not
permitted. They are concerned about the impact of the drainage ditch and any of the site water that might enter
this drainage ditch. The subject site is north of Mr. Moore's property (the western large lot at the southwest
comer of the subject site}, the Class ill creek flows across the subject site, enters Mr. Moore's site and swings
back to the west toward 162°" street, and if any water is added to this small ditch, it would overflow and flood
the comer Mr. Moore's basement.
Gary Norris. PO Box 54 7. Preston 98050 stated that he is the traffic engineer representing the applicant. He
prepared the Traffic Impact Analysis for Threadgill, Cavella and Liberty Gardens. The date on the report was
October 2006, conditions and times have changed and development proposals in the area are increasing and
would have impacts on any analysis that would have been done at that time. This Traffic Analysis was not
required as part of the typical requirements of King County. The relevant section of the King County Code
would be the Intersection Standards, which requires a development that is impacting an intersection by 30 or
more pm peak hour trips to conduct an analysis and determine appropriate mitigation. None of the three plats
involved in this analysis met that requirement individually. The County did ask the development to provide this
analysis to facilitate an evaluation of the impacts of the projects on the high accident locations and the
evaluation of the potential extension of SE 136th street from 162°"over and across to 168th Avenue. That was
the basis of the analysis done.
In no case was there any consideration that the mitigation that would be required for impacted intersections or
deficient level service standards, those were all acco=odated through the concurrency and the MPS system
elements of the King County Code. The effect of this document was to evaluate and determine that a secondary
access would be beneficial to addressing the impacts to i:he high accident locations. Subsequently the desire to
extend 162°" and now the connection to 164"' was a result of this analysis.
In tenns of the King County requirements, there would be no need to redo or update the Traffic Analysis. This
plat does not generate more that 30 p.m. peak hour trips through a specific intersection.
Concurrency is the King County analysis for different zones throughout the King County arterial network which
they maintain on an ongoing basis. The concurrency analysis is constantly being updated with the new
development as it occurs. At the time of this application, they were concurrent and so they were allowed to
proceed. A development is not allowed to proceed through the review process if it does not meet concurrency.
If concurrency standards changed, it would not affect this project because it was already vested into the system.
Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat/Appeal
File No.: LUA-08-093, PP, ECF
April 28, 2009
Page 7
If the system should become non-<:oncurrent the impacts of this plat have already been considered and is
included in that analysis, it is still vested and concurrent as long as the application continues to move forward.
Jfthe application drops, then it drops out of the system and the applicant must reapply.
The high accident locations have been identified as being along 160th at SE 128th, 162"" Ave SE at SE 128 .. and
164th Ave SE at SR900.
Neil Watts, Director Development Services stated that he had reviewed the files and all the included reports.
Typical trips made from a single family house peak hour are one per house that would mean 36 peak hour trips
from this site. A real quick estimate of distribution would show approximately 70% of the trips going north and
30% would be heading south, which after doing the math that would be below the threshold.
The street design requirements become somewhat complex due to several projects with similar requirements and
overlapping requirements. Code requirements would be all adjacent right-of-ways, 162"", 164"', all the interior
streets with curb, gutter and sidewalks. On the adjacent existing streets the code would be half street
improvements. The King County standards allow the reviewing jurisdiction to do some level of off-site
improvements, this project would also require the extension of 162"" to the north to 13 7th Place with half street
improvements of curb, gutter and sidewalk along one side of the street. The new interior streets would need to
be fully paved with curb, gutter and sidewalks on both sides of the street.
In the City of Renton, there are no variances for street modifications, they do modifications, this would be a
modification and not a variance. This would typicalJy be done as a staff modification prior to the hearing,
however, since they did not have this particular submittal they have not done that. If the Examiner elects to
keep the record open, they would provide a written modification from staff addressing 162"" and would be able
to support that modification for any type of roadway improvements south SE 140th Place. That would be
contingent of no driveways coming off of that street.
They would request a condition that no driveways be provided to any of these lots so that there would be no
driveway access from either 164" or 162"", all driveways would access from the internal streets. There have
been some concerns about parking on 164 .. , there will most likely be some parking on that street with people
going to playfield facilities at the high school. There would only be parlcing on one side of 164 ...
In working with the project to the north the intent is to continue the extension of 164 .. to the north to the end of
the other development site. Beyond that the lots are already developed and there does not appear to be an
opportunity to extend the road beyond that point.
The sewer would be extended up 164".
Regarding the King County Manual, for a fully wooded site such as this site appears to be no difference in
amount of detention or water quality requirements between the '98 manual and the 2005 manual. However,
there are some procedural differences between the two manuals, there also is a broader range of options that are
allowed in the 2005 manual. The 2005 manual is also closer to being consistent with the City's NPDES
requirements. It was strongly recommended that that condition be kept in place. The City's policy for the east
plateau area has been for everything to go to the highest level of requirements available, which is the 2005
Manual. There are downstream drainage impacts from this site and this community has identified what the
acceptable realm of environmental impacts for drainage is in this area. The 1998 Manual does not suffice for
proper environmental protection for these community standards.
Staff would not oppose the Hearing Examiner making this a plat condition.
Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat/ Appeal
File No.: LUA-08-093, PP, ECF
April 28, 2009
Page 8
Regarding the Issaquah School District Impact Fee, in the body of the report it was listed to be paid at the time
of building pennit. The Impact Fees are, however established by City Code and code specifies that those fees
are to be paid at building pennit stage. (Condition #7)
They also recommended that the street design include a pedestrian linkage between the most southerly cul-de-
sac over to I 64 "'. Tract E was previously located between proposed Lots 18 and 19 and with the new interior
roads, that access would now be located between Lots 19 and 20.
They do recognize that there are challenges in this neighborhood as it develops and with the existing
intersections, as the volumes increase there will probably be a likelihood for more accidents. The City will
continue to make adjustments as they can. The purposes of the Traffic Mitigation Fees are to do the offsite
improvements. There are some challenges for the intersections and pedestrian walkways.
Regarding the missing gap on the sidewalk on 162"', this project should be conditioned to bring the sidewalk all
the way up to 137"'. The streets in this area have lots of capacity. Most of the time the level of service on these
streets would be A, there may be times in the day that they would come down to B or C. On 164th it will be
Level Service A and it will remain that level of service. The neighbors are used to seeing very few cars on that
street, with the change of the roadway system, the new development and the development to the north, they will
see a significantly higher percentage of cars on these streets. These are acceptable levels of service and
acceptable capacity to accommodate this development. No offsite improvements are being recommended.
Doris Y!<PAA, 164-44 SE 135'" Street, Renton 98059 stated that she lives north of Liberty High School and she
walks all around that area. She has walked on 164th from Liberty High School where the ball fields are located.
Back of the ball fields there is a dirt path that goes through to 164th, she was wondering what kind of
improvements would be made in that area, there are a lot of students that walk in that area.
There is a development called Starwood there is a lot of erosion and ruts in the path. The path has become so
eroded with large ruts that it is now useable, there is a lot of water coming down that direction now.
The Examiner stated that the dirt path would become a half street with a curb, gutter and sidewalk on the west
side.
Mr. Korve stated that the Liberty Lane sidewalk extension to the north according to King County does not
require off site improvements of curb, gutter and sidewalks, they usually do the fire access, the appropriate
amount of pavement and then a shoulder. They request that they be held to the vested road standards for offsite
improvements.
There was some discnssion as to improvements to the roadways, some would require full City staudards, there
may be some agreements between this project and Cavella, but if a secondary access is necessary, then this
project must provide that road. That means that this development would be responsible for not only a pathway
but actually a real sidewalk, curb, street and gutter in that location.
Mr. KotVe stated that it is the offsite portions, the areas not fronting this project under the King County road
standards, once you leave your site, the level of improvements drops from the full urban frontage, which is the
project's responsibility, to a lesser standard of safe walking. You still have to provide extended gravel or an 8-
foot paved shoulder or something like that.
The Examiner stated that 162 00 would have to be developed up to SE 137~ Place. There needs to be frre access,
domestic access and pedestrian access.
Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat/ Appeal
File No.: LUA-08-093, PP, ECF
April 28, 2009
Page 9
Mr. Watts stated that there were a number of ways to cost share.
Mr. Korve stated that with the clarification, they are in total agreement.
The subject of re-introducing Tract E was proposed, the applicant would oppose such a condition on the basis
that there is no need for this pedestrian connection now that 140"' Place has been extended. Any children
walking to or from the park or school would be going north and it is a short distance to go along the interior
sidewalks. There is the security factor as well.
Dao Balmelli stated that regarding the drainage concerns of CARE, first, a portion of the email from Steve Foley
bringing up the potential for the offsite mitigations. Those were discussed with the County's staff and that was
just some of the comments from Steve and the County staff, as a result of the final proposal and the complexity
of the possible offsite proposals, they chose to propose the Level IlI, the County staff all reviewed and agreed to
that mitigation and it became a condition. That issue has been addressed adequately.
Second, the concern with 162°", since 162"" has been eliminated most ofCARE's concerns also have been
removed. Their drainage will discharge into the channel at a very reduced and restricted rate under the Level lII
detention, it will re-enter the drainage channel and the existing pond further south of where most of their
concerns with Mr. Moore's property. They are not required to mitigate for existing conditions.
Rocale Timmons had three items: I. Pedestrians and potential students might not only travel north to Liberty
High School, they might also travel south of 144,. to the high school and elementary school in this area. 2. The
applicant made reference to the building setbacks for the sensitive area tract. King County Code specifies that
the driveway or access be setback 15-feet, but that special drainage considerations must be made for those areas
or driveways that are abutting within that 15-foot setback. 3. Regarding the wetland at the NW portion,
assuming that the southern portion of 162°" Ave SE is foregone, the applicant will need to submit a revised
mitigation plan for impacts to that upper Class II wetland and buffer.
Hearing was adjourned at 12:00 for lunch
Hearing resumed at I :30 pm
The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and
no further comments from staff. The hearing was adjourned for lunch at 12:00 p.m.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION
Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following:
FINDINGS:
I. The applicant, Wayne Potter, Barghauseu Consulting Engineer, filed a request for a Preliminary Plat.
2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEP A) documentation
and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit #I.
3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official issued a Determination of
Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M).
4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter.
Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat/ Appeal
File No.: LUA-08-093, PP, ECF
April 28, 2009
Page 10
5. The subject site is located along portions of undeveloped rights-of-way. It is generally northeast of the
intersection of 162nd Avenue Southeast and SE 142nd Street if those streets were extended. The
eastern boundary is 164th Avenue SE if that street were extended.
6. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as
suitable for the development of single family uses, but does not mandate such development without
consideration of other policies of the Plan.
7. The subject site is currently z.oned R-4 (Single Family -4 dwelling units/acre). The subject site is
vested under King County's zoning which is generally equivalent to Renton's designation but the
standards for lot area, yard setbacks or dimensions and development standards would be judged against
King County standards in effect when the application was submitted on December 29, 2004.
8. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 5398 enacted on August 11,
2008.
9. The subject site is approximately 8.95 acres of389,862 gross square feet. The subject site is
approximately 655 feet wide (east to west) by 594 feet deep.
10. The subject site slopes downward from the northeast to the southwest with an average slope of about 15
to 20 percent. A Class II wetland and Class ill creek are located in the southwest comer of the site. A
Class II wetland is located offsite to the northwest.
11. The Class ill stream requires a 25 foot buffer since it is non-salmonid bearing. The wetland requires a
50 foot buffer which encompasses the stream and stream buffer. In order to protect these critical areas
the ERC required that they not be available for separate sale and that each abutting owner or the
Homeowners Association have an undivided interest in the property. A 15-foot building setback line
was also established from the edge of the preserved areas.
12. The tree inventory found approximately 266 significant trees on the subject site. The applicant proposes
retaining approximately three percent of those trees and planting an additional 157 trees.
13. The applicant proposes dividing the subject site into 36 lots and 6 tracts. The lots would range in size
from approximately 5,900 square feet to 9,350 square feet.
14. Access would be provided by 162nd Avenue along the west boundary of the site and then by three new
internal roads. Proposed SE 140th Place would run east into the site and terminate in a cul-de-sac.
Prior to the cul-de-sac 163rd Avenue SE would branch off to the south and that in tum would intersect
with Proposed SE 141 st Place that would run east and west with both ends terminating in cul-de-sac
turnarounds.
15. Proposed Lots 1 to 8 would run east to west across the north property line generally north of Proposed
SE 140th Place. Proposed Lots 9, IO, 11 and 17 to 21 would be located along the eastern property line
with access via two cul-de-sacs and pipestems or easements. Proposed Lots 28 to 36 would form a two-
tier block of lots in the west central area of the plat. The remaining lots would be clustered around the
cul-de-sacs east and south of 163rd and 141st, respectively.
16. Staff bas recommended that SE 140th Place be continued to the east as a through-street that would
connect to 164th Avenue SE. An exhibit was submitted showing that roadway extended across the site.
The lot count would remain at 36 even with the roadway extension.
Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat/ Appeal
File No.: LUA-08-093, PP, ECF
April 28, 2009
Page 11
17. Code requires the planting of one tree for every 40 feet of street frontage. That would be approximately
48 trees but might change if additional roads are developed as proposed by staff. The applicant
proposes additional tree plantings in the drainage/recreation area.
18. The density for the plat would be approximately 4 dwelling units per acre using King County standards.
19. The subject site is located within the Issaquah School District. Developments within that school district
are required to pay an impact fee on a per lot basis. The fee is accessible at the time of building permit
approval and is $6,021.00 per lot.
20. The development will increase traffic approximately IO trips per unit or approximately 360 trips for the
36 single family homes. Approximately ten percent of the trips, or approximately 36 additional peak
hour trips will be generated in the morning and evening. Traffic analysis indicates that intersections can
handle the additional traffic. King County's applicable concurrency standards do not require changes in
the proposal or more specific traffic analysis since no one intersection will handle more than 30
afternoon/evening peak hour trips. Staff recommended that the applicant pay the City's mitigation fees
for traffic. King County does require the identification of "High Accident Locations" (HAL) and they
were identified. To help moderate impacts the City has recommended that traffic be better dispersed by
opening a connection through the plat to the east, to 164 ... This would allow traffic to flow out of the
plat along two roads rather than just the western 16200• Separately, the applicant has entered into an
agreement with two other proposed plats in the area for joint development of access road 162"". Staff
has recommended that the roadways meet the King County standards although a modification or
variance may be appropriate.
21. Stormwater control is an issue for the subject site. There are existing flooding problems that were
identified in the SE 144th Street Level 3 Downstream Drainage Analysis (McCarthy, June 15, 2007) and
his subsequent mitigation suggestions (March 3, 2008). Those two documents discussed and
recommended Level 3 Flow Controls and references are to standards in the 2005 Design Manual. See a
fuller discussion in the companion SEP A Appeal Decision issued as part of this concurrent Plat and
Enviromnental review. Driveways are overtopped by stormwater and third party property floods
serving as a de facto stormwater detention pond during storm events. Stormwater would be contained in
a vault on Tract B and then directed back to its natural channels, the creek and wetland.
22. Sewer service will have to be provided to the proposed plat. A 15-inch line is located at the intersection
of160th Avenue SE and SE 144th Street and a 12-inch line is located in 160th. An 8-inch line meeting
City standards will be required.
23. Water District 90 serves the site. A domestic water line will have to be extended to serve the site.
24. Neighbors were concerned about traffic and storrnwater impacts of this development on the surrounding
community. There was concern about parking and impacts on the school. Flooding, identified above,
was an issue. The natural features and trees were also presented as an issue.
25. The applicant noted that the McCarthy drainage documents were prepared for three projects including
the subject application. They maintain that it does not mean that the recommendations in those
documents for imposition of 2005 Design Manual are applicable to the subject proposal, only that it was
not practical to separately address the needs of each project based on its own vesting timeframe.
CONCLUSIONS:
Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat/ Appeal
File No.: LUA-08-093, PP, ECF
April 28, 2009
Page 12
I. If the applicant complies with all the requirements under both King County and City regulations for
sanitary sewer, domestic drinking water, storrnwater control systems and access improvements the
proposed plat appears to serve the public use and interest. In this case, things are complicated by the
applicant's reliance on older King County regulations with the overlay in some instances of City
requirements such as impact fees. While the applicant is entitled to protection, as it were, of older
regulations that vest certain standards, that does not mean a plat which might exacerbate flooding
problems can escape appropriate review. Whether one calls them environmental mitigation or making
sure the plat provides for and accommodates the potential negative effects of its development, a plat can
only be approved if the applicant submits a plat with appropriate features. There are different standards
that apply to development. Some such as density, lot sire, lot width and depth, building height and
setbacks could be considered aesthetic. These factors determine how spacious lots are, the separation
between homes, how large homes can be, aspects of development that are termed bulk standards. Then
there are other standards that affect public safety or protect from property damage -storrnwater control,
erosion control, fireflow and safe drinking water and sanitary sewers. Then there are factors that might
be considered a combination of aesthetics and safety -road width, sidewalks and street lighting. A
paved street provides access for residents but it also needs to provide a safe durable and wide enough
surface to allow emergency vehicles access without getting bogged down in mud or hampered by
parked cars (safety) besides cutting down on dust and runoff(aesthetic).
2. In other words, this plat must provide appropriate stormwater controls. A report commissioned by this
applicant specifically identified controls from the 2005 Design Manual. The applicant apparently chose
a report that dealt with three projects and together the projects' impacts were reviewed and analyz.ed.
There is no way to pull out or tease from these reports the separate measures that this applicant now
expects to use, older, potentially less stringent measures, from those found in these reports. The reports
specifically identified measures to assure that downstream flooding, flooding that affects roads,
driveways and ponds on third-party property, is not worsened. The critical issue is that this plat cannot
be approved if flooding might be exacerbated. This plat cannot be approved if it does not serve the
public use and interest. This plat is held to the standards enunciated in the two McCarthy reports. The
stormwater record and public use and interest is based on following those recommendations. The City
Council should not approve this plat if those measures are not followed. The newer 2005 Manual
reflects changes that overcome weaknesses, flaws or limitations in the older standards. The newer
standards must be followed.
3. Similarly, as discussed in the companion Appeal portion ofthis report, sedimentation occurs when
erosion occurs. Flooding problems associated with clearing nearly eight acres will be accompanied by
erosion. Erosion should be controlled by the most modem methods of control. Those are contained in
the Department of Ecology's most recent manuals. The applicant's plat cannot serve the public use and
interest if wetlands are jeopardired by flooding which is accompanied by erosion.
4. The best management practices need to be applied to this project or it will not serve the public use and
interest. Again, things like lot sires and building heights and bulk change in response to market
demands, density preferences and aesthetics. But current knowledge of flooding and erosion and how to
best handle them are very different issues. Life safety and the functioning of wetlands are critical
issues that need to be properly addressed. 1bis plat can only be approved if those consequences are
appropriately solved.
5. Staff reviewed traffic for the proposal and determined that under King County regulations as well as the
need for two points of entry, that traffic safety would be addressed by connecting a through street from
east to west from 162nd to 164th. That appears appropriate. It provides better access for residents and
Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat/ Appeal
File No.: LUA-08-093, PP, ECF
April 28, 2009
Page 13
certainly better access for both police and fire services. Separately, the applicant has entered into an
agreement with two other proposed plats in the area for joint development of access road 162nd.
Whether those agreements come to fruition or how they are timed will not eliminate the need for the
access if this plat were to be occupied. Therefore, in order to approve this plat the appropriate roads that
connect this plat with surrounding arterials will be required prior to sale or occupancy.
6. The proposal does appear to otherwise satisfy the bulk standards such as lot size, width and density
required. It meets the tree schedules required. It will be protecting the natural areas if storrnwater and
erosion are appropriately handled.
7. The development of the subject site is appropriate given the Comprehensive Plan's objectives and the
appropriate Zoning Code. The development will increase the tax base of the City. The new lots will
provide additional housing choices for new residents and will protect the valuable amenities on the
subject site.
8. The is no doubt that developing an eight acreage site that has been forested aod undisturbed in the main
will change the character of the site and the surrounding community. These changes were clearly
anticipated when the Comprehensive Piao aod Zoning were adopted for the area and this site in
particular. There will be more traffic aod more comings and goings by new residents. Housing for new
residents is a vital part of any planning process and changes result when property is finally developed.
9. In conclusion, the City Council should approve the proposed 36-lot plat subject to the conditions noted
below.
RECOMMENDATION:
The City Council should approve the 36-lot Preliminary Plat subject to the following conditions:
I. The applicant will be required to submit a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan
(TESCP) designed pursuant to State Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control
Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the 200 I Storrnwater Management Manual. The plan
must be submitted to and approved by the Development Services Division Plan Review staff
prior to issuance of the utility construction and during utility and road construction.
2. The detention system for this project shall be required to comply with the requirements found in
the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Maoual to meet both detention (Conservation Flow
control -a.k.a. Level 3) aod water quality improvements."
3. The applicaot shall comply with the conditions imposed by the ERC as modified in the appeal
decision
4. The applicant shall provide an east/west road connection from 162nd Ave SE to 164"' Ave SE in
order to create highly connective road network. All construction and upgrading of public and
private roads shall be done in accordance with the King County Road Standards established and
adopted by Ordinance No. 11187 as amended (1993 KCRS).
5. The applicaot shall be required to submit a revised plat plao, depicting an east/west road
connection from 162"' Ave SE to 164" Ave SE, which is also consistent with all preliminary
plat review criteria. The revised plat plan shall he submitted for review and approval by the
Liberty Gardens Preliminaiy Plat/ Appeal
File No.: LUA-08-093, PP, ECF
April 28, 2009
Page 14
Development Services Division and the Current Planning Project Manager, prior to engineering
plan approval.
6. Both frontages, 162°" Ave SE and 164th Ave SE, for the full length of the property shall be
improved to the satisfaction of the City of Renton Development Services Division subject to the
King County Road Standards or as modified by variance. 162°" Ave SE shall be designed and
constructed to meet the urban neif borhood collector standard. No lot shall have a driveway
entering off 162°" Ave SE or 164 Ave SE.
7. The applicant shall create pedestrian paths and links as determined by Staff.
8. The Applicant shall be required to provide a detailed tree retention plan with the engineering
review application. The tree retention plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current
Planning Project Manager prior to engineering permit approval.
9. The applicant shall pay a Transportation Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per net new average
daily trip attributed to the project. The fee for the proposed plat is estimated at $25,839.00
($75.00 x 9.57 trips x 36 lots= $25,839.00) and is payable to the City prior to the recording of
the final plat.
I 0. The applicant shall establish a homeowners' association for the development, which would be
responsible for any common improvements and/or tracts within the plat prior to final plat
recording.
11. The applicant shall pay school impact fees per RMC 4-1-160, D, tot eh City of Renton, on
behalf of the Issaquah School District The fee for the proposed plat is estimated at
$216,756.00 ($6,021.00 X 36 ]ots = $216,756.00).
******************************************************************************************
The hearing reopened on Tuesday, March 17, 2009, at I :35 p.m ..
Liberty Gardens Preliminaiy Plat Appeal
LUA 08-093
Appellant Hans Korve
Ann Nielsen: Representing the City of Renton
Ann Nielsen stated the appeal has been modified. The issues before the Examiner today are in Subsection B, I,
4 and 5, those are the three remaining issues.
The following Exhibits were entered:
Exhibit No. A: Anr1P.a l Timeline Exhibit No. B: Vicinitv Mao
Exhibit No. C: Pre!' Plat Plan Exhibit No. D: Drainru,e Plan (2008)
Exhibit No. E: Aerial Photo Exhibit No. F: Tooounmhv Mao
Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat/ Appeal
File No.: LUA-08-093, PP, ECF
April 28, 2009
Page 15
Exhibit No. G: Plat Plan (March 16, 2008) Exhibit No. H: Revised A eal Letter
Hans Korve stated that items I, 4 and 5 are the only items they are dealing with.
No. I deals with the use of the DOE manual for storrnwater and erosion control. They are vested to the King
County 1998 Manual for erosion control. There was nothing in the environmental study that showed that the
vested document was insufficient. Where there is an acceptable level of service, in the case of the 1998 manual,
temporary erosion control is very well covered. There is nothing unique about this site, there is nothing in the
environmental review document produced by the City indicating that there is anything unique and special about
this site that would require using the 2001 DOE manual to remedy. Part of staff's original presentation was that
they would need an MPDES Permit which would supersede what is happening at the site. DOE would be
monitoring the site during the development. They would like to have the vested documents apply to the project.
Using SEPA to undo vested rights seems to be wrong.
No. 4 regards the maintenance and surety devices which is the driving force behind the appeal. King County
code clearly allows bonding. He did not know if this was a policy statement as opposed to a development
regulation by staff, they feel that the King County Code allows for bonding and they would like to be allowed to
bond as per King County Code. There are no probable adverse environmental impacts that would justify the
removal bonding as a viable means of taking care of maintenance, surety and performance issues with the plat.
There was no discussion of this adverse environmental impact in the environmental study produced by the City.
SEPA requires identification of the environmental impact and then show the mitigation. This issue was not
covered.
No. 5 covers the use of the King County manual. The appellant's engineer pointed out that the 1998 vs. 2005
manual are virtually the same in a forested condition. He agrees to that, the point remains that the use of SEPA
to undo the vested rights is not appropriate. There would be no adverse harm is using the 1998 manual, they are
virtually the same. The drainage facilities would be designed to the 1998 manual, King County acknowledges
the 1998 manual more than sufficient to address the environmental impacts and it is also covered in the King
County staff report, page 4 states that the drainage issues will be addressed through Level ill flow control of the
1998 manual.
Ann Nielsen stated that as previously stated prior to the Preliminary Plat hearing, she would like to have
incorporated the relevant portions of the facts and testimony that were given. She would be relying on the
information that was given during the Preliminary Plat stage and that they be incorporated into the Appeal
hearing for purposes of factual testimony and evidence for the appeal. She would present a summary to wrap up
the Appeal hearing.
Regarding the surety issue, the City does concede that the appellant is clearly vested to the King County
Development Standards, however, they have always maintained the position that it is the procedural roles of the
City of Renton that apply here. With respect to the surety devices, the King County code speaks to financial
guarantee. Mr. Korve is relying on these particular provisions to request that they be considered a bond as
proposed to the satisfied surety, which is more in line with what the City of Renton requires.
This is a procedural issue, there is nothing in the King County Code provisions that would lend itself to being a
development code and as such the City would submit that as a procedural aspect of this should be compelled to
submit to the City of Renton procedures. It was her understanding that there is a City of Renton ordinance that
specifically requires a set aside or surety in lieu of a bond.
Liberty Gardens Prelimiruuy Plat/ Appeal
File No.: LUA-08-093, PP, ECF
April 28, 2009
Page 16
The difference between the two is that cash is set aside in a bond and not available to the developer as opposed
to getting a bond from a bonding company where you pay 3% of a million dollars, so they are only out the 3%,
it's like buying an insurance policy.
Regardless of what the times are, it has been the City's policy to require a surety device, which has been through
years of experience where a bond has been found to be insufficient The nature of this particular plat is such that
there is going to be a higher level of environmental concerns and the issue of a five year monitoring of the
wetland versus three years. There is a higher level of environmental concern here, as a result this was tied into a
SEP A condition, and this is purely a procedural issue and they would ask the Examiner to render a decision with
that information in mind.
There was discussion between Ms. Nielsen and The Examiner as to whether this matter was truly a SEP A
condition or purely a procedural issue and how it should be handled.
In the environmental checklist that was submitted, the l 0/13/2005 report, it talks about proposed measures to
reduce or control surface, ground and runoff water impact, if any. A further section reads; A Level I drainage
analysis prepared by DMP engineering and a Level ID drainage report prepared by Ed McCarthy are available
for review. These reports analyzed the required onsite detention requirements as well as analyzing the
downstream drainage basin. The stormwater detention manual requires that the project engineer analyz.e
impacts to downstream drainage systems and make recommendations with respect to any proposed measures to
improve offsite drainage. The last sentence reads: please review the drainage reports for any potential required
measures to help reduce or control surface water impacts.
Ms. Nielsen continued to read from the McCarthy report regarding roadway flooding along SE 144th which was
considered to be a severe flooding problem according to King County Standards. Between the intersection of
16200 Ave SE and 160"' Ave SE the driveway culverts along the ditch to the north side of SE 144" Street, would
cause the north side of SE 144" street to become overtopped posing a threat of unpaved access due to driveway
edges. This would cause an unsafe condition. There are several drainage issues emanating from this
development
There are broader options in the 2005 manual and they are more consistent with the NPDES regulations. It
further indicates that the City generally in the east plateau area has consistently used the 2005 manual. Given
the particular nature of this project, the lower manual that they are vested to does not adequately address the
specific environmental issues that are unique to this particular site.
She asked that the Hearing Examiner to focus on the testimony and evidence that was presented by Mr. Watts to
show that this particular site has specific unique environmental impacts that necessitate the mitigated conditions
that were proposed, namely the elevation of the 1998 stormwater manual to 2005 standard along with the
erosion control manual up to DOE standards.
Mr. Korve stated that staff has brought up the King County Staff Report and King County Findings and yet
ignored or discounted the actual report as it was presented to the Examiner that they believe the 1998 manual
was more than enough to address the issues, it was in their MDNS and in the staff report. The concerns of the
community are valid and important, that is not a justification for imposing a SEPA condition, the City is
required to indicate in their Environmental Review what the issues are, how they are adverse and significant and
then how this proposed condition mitigates that.
The simple statement that this is a site with wetlands is not a compelling argument for circumventing applicable
code, many sites and King County and Renton have wetlands, there is nothing unique and special about this one.
The NPDES that they are required to adhere to as part of the stormwater controls is beyond City regulations it
Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat/Appeal
File No.: LUA-08-093, PP, ECF
April 28, 2009
Page 17
goes to State and National regulations that are used in implementing the National Pollution Stormwater controls.
Those items of stormwater control will be addressed through the NPDES process, DOE will have monitoring
crews out, there is a person assigned to the site who will be available at all times.
The Examiner stated that the issue appears to be whether they want to come back and try policing after the
erosion has occurred or make sure that the project complies with current standards that address the problem.
However, this plat must pass muster today, he must make a recommendation to the Council that with the
mitigation measures imposed by the ERC are addressed and covered appropriately. Storm water and erosion
control are met by this plat and will not exacerbate problems.
Mr. Korve stated that these issues are not actually the main issues of their appeal. The key issue is the surety, a
financial situation. It is in the King County code, it is an adopted ordinance and is part of their development
regulations, there whole section on wetlands and how to mitigate and how to assure that wetlands are mitigated,
maintained and monitored refers to Section 27a, which is the surety section; that is not a policy statement, it is a
Code.
The Examiner stated that he did not know if the Courts had established what vesting covers, it usually is density,
zoning, yards and things like that. He did not know if it deals with monetary issues or not. He may ask the City
Attorney for clarification in this matter. He is not sure it is an issue he can decide
The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and
no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 2: IO p.m.
FINDINGS. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION
Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following:
FINDINGS:
I. The appellant, Hans A. Korve, filed an appeal of an environmental determination issued by the City on
December 15, 2008.
2. The appeal was filed in a timely manner.
3. The appellant is Planning Manager for a proposed plat known as Liberty Gardens. The plat would
divide approximately 8.95 acres into 36 lots for the eventual development of detached single family
homes.
4. The subject site is located east of 162nd Avenue SE and north of SE 144th Street.
5. The subject site was annexed to the City on August 11, 2008 by Ordinance 5398. Prior to annexation
the property was under the jurisdiction of King County.
6. Just prior to the Public Hearing the appellant amended their appeal and limited the appeal issues to three
primary issues. The ERC imposed six conditions in its Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance.
The appellant ultimately challenged three of those conditions. The challenged conditions, numbered per
the original determination, are:
"1. The applicant will be required to submit a Temporary Erosion
Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat/ Appeal
File No.: LUA-08-093, PP, ECF
April 28, 2009
Page 18
and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to
State Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control
Requirements, outlined in Volwne II of the 2001 Stormwater
Management Manual. The plan must be submitted to and
approved by the Development Services Division Plan Review
staff prior to issuance of the utility construction and during
utility and road construction.
4. The applicant shall provide a maintenance surety device ( a
letter of credit or irrevocable set aside letter) (italics in
original), prior to plat recording, set at an amount totaling
125% of the cost, to guarantee satisfactory performance of the
mitigation plan for a minimum of five years.
5. The detention system for this project shall be required to
comply with the requirements found in the 2005 King County
Surface Water Design Manual to meet both detention
(Conservation Flow control -a.k.a. Level 3) and water quality
improvements. 11
7. A major contention of the appellant is that this project was initiated when the property was located in
King County and that the appellant is entitled to develop the subject site under land use rules and
regulations that were in effect when the application was submitted. The application was submitted on
December 29, 2004.
8. The appellant also maintains that SEPA, specifically, RCW 43.21C.240 prohibits the imposition of
SEPA mitigation conditions if the impacts generated by the project are already addressed by existing
regulations.
"Furthermore, Subsection ( 4) A states that a development regulation
shall be considered to adequately address an impact if the municipality,
through tbe planning and environmental review process under Chapter
36.70A RCW and this chapter, has identified the specific adverse
environmental impacts and :
'(b) The legislative body of the municipality has designated as
acceptable certain levels of service or development standards required
or allowed by chapter 36. 70A RCW'"
9. The appellant argued that the King County 1998 Storm Water Design Manual provided applicable
standards for both stormwater mitigation as well as erosion control measures. Those were the standards
applicable to storm water and erosion when the proposal was submitted on December 29, 2004 under
which the appellant argues they are vested.
I 0. Finally, the appellants argue that the manner in which the ERC imposed financial guarantees to assure
the proposed wetland and buffer mitigation improvements were accomplished did not inclnde methods
permitted by the King County Code, namely bonding. The claim is the appellant is vested in this
method or, at least, can avail themselves of this method.
11. A downstream drainage analysis was prepared for the appellant's project as well as two nearby parcels.
Liberty Gardens Prelimiruuy Plat/ Appeal
File No.: LUA-08-093, PP, ECF
April 28, 2009
Page 19
The three projects are Threadgill, Cavella and Liberty Gardens, the appellant's project. The analysis is
titled "SE 144th Street Level 3 Downstream Drainage Analysis" (Ed McCarthy, June 15, 2007).
12. The Cover Page of the SE 144th Street Level 3 Downstream Drainage Analysis, hereinafter Analysis
includes the following text:
"Prepared for: Mr. Dave Petrie
81 I So. 273rd Ct.
Des Moines, WA 98198."
13. Page 1-1 states:
"The conveyance route is downstream from three proposed single-family
residential developments that are current under drainage review at King County
DDES. These developments include Threadgill Plat, Liberty Gardens, and
Cavella." (emphasis supplied)
Page 2-8 SE 144th Street Level 3 Downstream Drainage Analysis (Ed McCarthy, June 15, 2007):
"Roadway flooding along SE 144th Street would be considered as 'severe
roadway flooding problem' ( enclosed in quotes in original) according to King
County standards (King County Department ofNatural Resources, January
2005) due to the following conditions:
Between the intersections of 162nd Avenue SE and 160th Avenue SE
driveway culverts along the ditch on the north side of SE 144th Street
would become overtopped, posing a threat of unsafe access due to
indiscernible driveway edges.
Floodwater over the driveways on the north side of SE I 44th Street
between 160th Avenue SE and CB-llA would be deeper than 0.5 foot
posing a severe impediment to emergency vehicle access."
14. Driveways, according to the report, would be overtopped by 0.7 feet. The report also indicates that
overflow from catch basins is conveyed to the west in the north side of the roadway until it reaches low
lying private property where it settles. Neighbors reported this property does get flooded.
15. Ed McCarthy submitted a letter or report to King County ODES on March 3, 2008. It was intended as a
follow up to his initial report with suggested mitigation measures. It states in its opening paragraph:
"The results of the hydraulic assessment I prepared for the downstream
conveyance system (June 15, 2007) predicted flooding along the north side of
SE 144th Street and at the intersection of 160thAvenue SE. There has also
been residential flooding at SE I 42nd Place, which is adjacent and tributary to
the downstream system of the proposed developments. After consideration of
the basin and downstream conditions, I offer the stormwater mitigations
described below for the proposed plat to address existing flooding problems
along SE 144th Street and at the end of SE 142nd Place."
16. He then describes conditions that could aggravate "an existing severe flooding problem." (Page 2, Para
Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat/ Appeal
File No.: LUA-08-093, PP, ECF
April 28, 2009
Page 20
I) Continuing at Paragraph 2:
"On the other hand, adopting Level 3 flow control would mitigate impacts of
the projects on this downstream flooding area. The predicted 100-year stage in
the downstream flood flow path would not be increased. In light of the
downstream conditions, providing Level 3 detention standards is an appropriate
stormwater mitigation for each of the proposed developments." Paragraph 3
contains the following statement: "These estimated volumes do not include a
factor of safety which would increase the required volumes ... "
17. His letter concludes with this text "Please note that the applicants for the proposed plats willingly offer
the mitigations that would benefit the property owners along SE 142nd Place provided that the
mitigations can be designed and implemented without incurring unreasonable delays that may be
confronted in acquiring construction easements, permits, or other construction-related authorizations."
18. There had been an earlier determination by the ERC and an appeal was filed by neighbors of that
determination. The City rescinded that decision and the appeals were voided at that time. Therefore, no
part of this decision is directed at the earlier determination or appeal. c=--· .
... CONCLUSIONS:
I. The decision of the governmental agency acting as the responsible official is entitled to substantial
weight. Therefore, the determination of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the city's
responsible official, is entitled to be maintained unless the appellant clearly demonstrates that the
determination was in error.
2. The Determination of Non-Significance in this case is entitled to substantial weight and will not be
reversed or modified unless it can be found that the decision is "clearly erroneons." (Hayden v. Port
Townsend, 93 Wn 2nd 870,880; 1980). The court in citing Norway Hill Preservation and Protection
Association v. King County Council, 87 Wn 2d 267,274; 1976, stated: "A finding is 'clearly erroneous'
when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the
defmite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed."
Therefore, the determination of the ERC including conditions it found necessary to mitigate the impacts
of the development on City services and facilities will not be modified or reversed if it can meet the
above test. For reasons enumerated below, the decision of the ERC is affirmed in part and reversed in
part.
3. The clearly erroneous test has generally been applied when an action results in a DNS since the test is
less demanding on the appellant. The reason is that SEPA requires a thorough examination of the
environmental consequences of an action. The courts have, therefore, made it easier to reverse a DNS.
A second test, the "arbitrary and capricious" test is generally applied when a determination of
significance (DS) is issued. In this second test an appellant would have to show that the decision clearly
flies in the face of reason since a DS is more protective of the environment since it results in the
preparation of a full disclosure document, an Environmental Impact Statement.
4. An action is determined to have a significant adverse impact on the quality of the environment if more
than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment is a reasonable probability. (Norway, at 278).
Since the Court spoke in Norway, WAC 197-11-794 has been adopted, it defines "significant" as
follows:
Liberty Gardens Preliminruy Plat/ Appeal
File No.: LUA-08--093, PP, ECF
April 28, 2009
Page 21
Significant. (1) "Significant" as used in SEPA means a reasonable likelihood of more
than a moderate adverse impact on environmental quality.
(2) Significance involves context and intensity ... Intensity depends on the magnitude
and duration of an impact .... The severity of the impact should be weighed along with
the likelihood of its occurrence. An impact may be significant if its chance of occurrence
is not great, but the resulting environmental impact would be severe if it occurred.
5. Also redefined since the Norway decision was the term "probable."
Probable. ·"Probable" means likely or reasonably likely to occur, ... Probable is used
to distinguish likely impacts from those that merely have a possibility of occurring,
but are remote or speculative. (WAC 197-11-782).
6. Impacts also include reasonably related and foreseeable direct and indirect impacts including short-term
and long-term effects. (WAC 197-1 I-060(4)(c)). Impacts include those effects resulting from growth
caused by a proposal, as well as the likelihood that the present proposal will serve as precedent for
future actions. CW AC 197-11-060( 4 X d)). In the current case, the Drainage Report and Mitigation
letter specifically refers to the 2005 Design Manual. Page references are to the manual. Real flooding
occurs under existing conditions and would increase with this development.
7. The appellant maintains that the King County standards that were applicable to this project when it was
submitted on December 29, 2004 are controlling under the vested rights doctrine. This office has to
disagree. The appellant is correct when it comes to certain aspects of review. At the same time, the
ERC is entitled to review the record including evidence of flooding and potential mitigation measures.
The ERC is especially permitted to rely on documents and reports submitted by the appellant or
appellant's representatives. The report and mitigation documents submitted by the appellant or on
behalf of the appellant recommend Level 3 of the 2005 King County Manual. While those documents
may not have acknowledged or distinguished the appellant's vested rights, they appear to recommend
the most appropriate method of dealing with stormwater where critical, life-safety issues were identified
or where property rights were affected. The appellant and other property owners apparently chose the
combined report for three projects, Threadgill, Cavella, and the appellant's own Liberty Gardens. Each
developer submitted applications at a different time and potentially vested in different requirements.
The appellant's consultant did not distinguish the different projects or their different submission dates.
Rather the review suggested appropriate measures that would not exacerbate stormwater issues that
resulted in overtopped culverts, flooded driveways and ponding on private property.
8. So whether one looks at whether or not vested rights guarantees the application of old standards or
whether or not King County Code takes precedence over SEPA review, there is no escaping that the
recommendations submitted on behalf of the appellant recommend the imposition of Level 3 conditions
-2005 Manual. The ERC properly considered this evidence and the appellant failed to demonstrate that
the reliance on the reports was clearly erroneous.
9. Again, the appellant invited the ERC to make the decision they did by presenting the City with lhe two
documents by McCarthy. One was lhe Level 3 drainage analysis and then his proposed mitigation
measures. Those documents indicated that flooding and/or ponding of water occurs and could be
exacerbated by the new development. Yes, the report is based on three (3) separate projects and lhose
projects may be subject to separate code standards under certain "vesting doctrines" but this applicant
Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat/Appeal
File No.: LUA-08-093, PP, ECF
April 28, 2009
Page22
chose the route of a consolidated report and it is that report that suggested the newer standards were
appropriate to avoid creating additional stonnwater problems in this area. So, back to a basic
environmental question -would the development of this project cause more than a probable impact on
the quality of the environment? If so, are there appropriate mitigations measures that can avoid those
impacts? The first question is answered by reports that suggest that flooding is already an issue and it
would likely be exacerbated by this project. Can those impacts be mitigated? Apparently, the reports
suggest that following the newest standards would avoid further harm to the area.
I 0. Now, does the fact that flooding was identified as a problem that imposing of newer standards would
mitigate those problems mean that the newer erosion control standards of the 200 I DOE Manual are
also appropriate? Or would the older standards be sufficient. It would appear that stormwater flooding
would more probably than not sluice materials in any drainage course and also on surfaces. Clearing the
property as generally proposed and removing the heavy vegetative cover that exists was expected to
increase flooding. It seems that such deforestation would also increase erosional impacts. The newer
standards are designed to protect stream and wetland areas from sediment. Unlike certain bulk
standards that are mainly directed as aesthetic qualities where vesting does not generally invite
additional harm, stormwater and by extension erosion standards address harmful conditions that more
current knowledge was intended to address. This office believes that the ERC properly applied the
newer 2001 DOE Manual's standards to address real problems with erosion.
11. This leaves the final issue, the appropriateness of the method imposed to guarantee the proposed
wetland and buffer mitigation improvements. This office understands that there are financial
consequences to how wetland mitigation is financed but there does not seem to be a tenable link
between the method of financing the guarantees and the environmental outcome. Additionally, this
condition seems one that is already regulated by Code and one that the ERC, itself; might not need to
address. This office finds little relationship between the method of guaranteeing, bonding, letter of
credit or what have you, a mitigation measure and the impact to be mitigated. Clearly, the mitigation
required needs to be accomplished or the project would fail to pass environmental review creating
untoward unmitigated environmental impacts. But that does not mean the ERC has a right to impose a
specific manner of accomplishing the guarantee. The fact that this office has agreed that Condition #4 is
an inappropriate SEP A mitigation measure does not mean that the City does not have the ability to
require the same manner of guarantee to accomplish the same environmental result under its other
ordinances. This office does not rule on the vesting principle in resolving this issue in the appellant's
favor as a matter ofSEPA review. Condition Number 4 was erroneously imposed by the ERC and is
reversed.
12. The reviewing body should not substitute its judgment for that of the original body with expertise in the
matter, unless the reviewing body has the finn conviction that a mistake has been made. This office was
not left with a firm conviction that the ERC made a mistake. This office finds the ERC appropriately
reviewed the stonnwater documents and appropriately applied the mitigation measures suggested by
those documents. No reasons were advanced to suggest this office reverse that decision or substitute
another judgment. On the other hand, Condition Number 4 seems an inappropriate decision to backup
up the appropriate decision requiring wetland mitigation itself.
13. The appealing party has a burden of demonstrating error and that was only partially met in the instant
case.
DECISION:
The decision of the ERC is affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat/ Appeal
File No.: LUA-08-093, PP, ECF
April 28, 2009
Page 23
Conditions I and 5 are affirmed.
Condition 4 is reversed and removed from the determination.
ORDERED TIIIS 28,. day of April 2009.
HEARING EXAMINER
TRANSMITIED TIIIS 28" day of April 2009 to the parties of record:
Rocale Timmons Kayren Kittrick
Development Services Development Services
Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057
Daniel Balmelli, PE Marshall Brenden
Barghausen Consulting Engineer 18225 SE 128"' Street
18215-7200 Avenue S Renton, WA 98059
Kent, WA 98032
HansKorve
Linda Corgiat Dmp Eng., Inc.
16039 SE 14200 Place 726 Auburn Way N
Renton, WA 98059 Auburn, WA 98002
Norm & Patricia Grammell Don & Andrea Gregg
16043 SE 14200 Place 16046 SE 14 200 Place
Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98059
Richard & Teri Langdon Jennifer McCall
14201 -164th Ave SE Lozier Homes Corp.
Renton, WA 98059 1203 -1141h Avenue SE
Bellevue, WA 98004
Michael Ritchey
14225 -164th Ave SE Curtis Schuster
Renton, WA 98059 KBSill,LLC
12320 NE 8th Street, Ste. 100
Kolin Taylor
12320 NE 8,. Street, Ste. 100
Bellevue, WA 98005
Bellevue, WA 98005 Claudia Donnelly
10415 147,. Ave SE
Steve Bottheim, Supervisor Renton, WA 98059
CPLN LUSD MS OAK DE 0100
Trishah Bull
Nick Gillen, Env. Scientist DDES LUSD MS OAK DE O I 00
CAS LUSD MS OAK DE 0100
Shirley Goll, ASII
Bruce Whittaker, Sr. Engr. CPLN LUSD MS OAK DE 0100
Wayne Potter
Barghausen Consulting Engineer
18215-7200 Avenue S
Kent, WA 98032
John & Nenita Ching
16038 SE 14200 Place
Renton, WA 98059
Debbie Eberle
18225 SE 147,. Street
Renton, WA 98059
Gwendolyn High
C.A.R.E.
PO Box2936
Renton, WA 98059
David Petrie
811 S 273ni Court
Des Moines, WA98198
Seattle KC Health Department
East District Environ. Health
14350 SE Eastgate Way
Bellevue, WA 98007
Norm Mohr
16224 SE 144th Street
Renton, WA 98059
Kim Claussen, PPMill
CPLN LUSD SE OAK DE Ol 00
Kelly Whiting, KC DOT
RD SERV DIV MS OAK DE 0100
Liberty Gardens Preliminruy Plat/ Appeal
File No.: LUA-08-093, PP, ECF
April 28, 2009
Page24
CAS LUSD MS OAK DE 0100
King County ODES
Land Use Services Division
900 Oakesdale Ave SW
Renton, WA 98057
Kris Langley, Sr. Engr Traffic
CPLN LUSD MS OAK DE O I 00
Larry West, Env Scientist
CAS LUSD MS OAK DE 0100
Alex Perlman
DDES LUSD MS OAK DE 0100
TRANSMITIED THIS 28~ day of April, 2009 to the following:
Mayor Denis Law Dave Pargas, Fire
Steve Townsend, Supervisor
LUIS LUSD MS OAK DE 0100
Lisa Dinsmore
DOES LUSD MS OAK DE O I 00
Chad Tibbits
ODES LUSD MS OAK DE 0100
Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer
Julia Medugian, Council Liaison
Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator
Alex Pietsch, Economic Development
Jennifer Henning, Development Services
Stacy Tucker, Development Services
Marty Wine, Assistant CAO
Larry Meckling, Building Official
Planning Commission
Transportation Division
Utilities Division
Neil Watts, Development Services
Janet Conklin, Development Services
Renton Reporter
Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section IOOGofthe City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in
writing on or before 5:00 p.m., May 12. 2009. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner
is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new
evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review
by the Examiner within fourteen ( 14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth
the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the
record, take further action as he deems proper.
An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal
be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements.
Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City
Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., May 12, 2009.
If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the
executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You
may contact this office for information on formatting covenants.
The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur
concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in
private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both
the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council.
All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all
interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the
evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court.
The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as
Appeals to the City Council.
!
ii ,,
r
' I
I
I
Department of Community ,e. & Economic Development
~ Alex Pletsch, Administrator
EXHIBIT 7
Legend
o~-"' C:Ja,u,,;s -a...-
File Name: H:\CED\GIS_projects\vicinity_maps\
mxdslparcels _ 145700145&0150 _liberty _garden. mxd
Liberty Garden
Topo Map
February 26, 2009
0 75 150 300 --==---Feet
1:3,250
Deparbnent of Community ®& Eamomic Development
Alex Pietsch, Administrator -. -. -.
EXHIBIT 2
Legend
ClLiberty-
C.latyum•
D Renm Parcel$
Rle Name: H:\CED\G1S_projects\vicinity_maps\
mxds\parcels_ 14570014 5&0150_1iberty_garden.mxd
Liberty Garden
Vicinity Map
February 24, 2009
0 150 300 600 --==---Feet
1:6,000
--
<><~¥..,~I
«8 W1d otlUf('ld 3d'cf080ffi
~ ~JNVO\::ltfDIS OIY
hOU.~ P"l:fO.LS ~ -
~ w •
rg !
!it i~ ~~
ti \ . ¥--+·--
~.f§ :f. _"::'?
~i " ~
i ~
•
agg...~ {L'S?)
M96 VM 'S~ 830
10 G:IDLZ S lt8
311:1.L3d l'I OVIVO
·ic ..
!JI ·-· + .. ,· ·~ ' -
-I
~ ' i <
! i
~ ! i ,i
I i
i
I
-~
I
I I 11 I
lt I
ii ! •
' .
I
' ' " .,
J
i' f
,1 I
I 11 I
!
Ill ---------------'.
'-·.-;'
. •= . _b~~ .. ·.~_-·:_·-_.c_,_.-.:, .. ,..,.~ ,.
•-.,.J. "•c __ .•• ',-• ,;· ·:.::,";.,'': -··~.----· _.,. .· '., ·-'-'~'""'"'
I
LIBERTY GARDENS
A PORTION OF TIE SE 1/4 Of' SECTION 6 TOWHSHI' 22 N. RANGE 5 E, WJA
. KlNG eot.l'ilY, WASfil'drON .
( ----·...___----ti-' .
< --· r --· .....
,sr;;J7 ,-~A • :r=,::
""'"'' --i
r
EXHIBIT3
----· ----------------.---------·--·-----·--·----........ -------------
May10,2010
Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner
City of Renton
1055 So. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Re: Plat Alteration Liberty Gardens (LUA 08-093, PP, ECF)
Dear Mr. Examiner:
CITY OF RENTON . '""'
-~<
MAY I O 201~
RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
I request that my plat of Liberty Gardens be placed in a state of abeyance for a period of no less then
three months from the date of this letter to allow me time to submit a Plat Alteration to the City of Renton
for the subject property.
I feel it would be unproductive to request the City Council approve a preliminary plat that will be altered in
the near future.
I appreciate your continued support of this project.
Dave Petrie
Owner/Developer Liberty Gardens Plat
CC: Anne Nielson, Assistant City Attorney
Terri Briere, City Council
Bonnie Walton, Renton City Clerk ,_..,.--
CITY OF RENTON
HEARING EXAMINER
PUBLIC HEARING
March 17, 2009
AGENDA
COMMENCING AT 9:00 AM,
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7TH FLOOR, RENTON CITY HALL
The application(s) listed are in order of application number only and not necessarily the order in which they will be
heard. Items will be called for hearing at the discretion of the Hearing Examiner.
PROJECT NAME: Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat
PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-08-093, ECF, PP
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant submitted an application with the King County Department
of Development and Environmental Services for Environmental (SEPA) Review and Preliminary Plat
approval for the subdivision of an 8.95 acre parcel into 36 -lots for the eventual development of
single family residences, with tracts for recreation, stormwater, joint use driveways and sensitive
areas. The project site is located within the City's Residential -4 (R-4) dwelling units per acre zoning
designation; however, the project is vested to King County's R-4 zoning designation's development
regulations. The proposed density would be approximately 4 dwelling units per gross acre. The
proposed lots would range in size from approximately 5,900 square feet in area to 9,350 square feet.
Access to the lots would be provided via three new internal dead end streets extended from 162nd
Ave SE. A Class II wetland and a Class Ill stream are located in the southwest corner of the property.
The subject property was annexed to the City of Renton on August 11, 2008.
HEX Agenda 3-17-09.doc
PUBLIC City of Renton
HEARING Department o{Comnwnitv and Economic Development
PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER
A. SUMMARY AND Pl!RPOSE OF REQUEST:
REPORT DATE: March I 7, 2009
Project Name: Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat
Applicant: Wayne Potter, Barghauscn Consulting Engineer, 18215 72nd Avenue S, Kent, WA 98032
Owner: David Petrie, 811 S 273rd Court, Des Moines, WA 98198
File Number: LUAOS-093, ECF, PP (King County ODES File No. L04P0034)
Project Manager: Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner
Project Description: The applicant submitted an application with the King County Department of Development
and Enviromnental Services for Environmental (SEPA) Review and Preliminary Plat
approval for the subdivision of an 8.95 acre parcel into 36 -lots for the eventual
development of single family residences, with tracts for recreation, stormwater, joint use
driveways and sensitive nrc:as. The project site is located within the City's Residential -4
(R-4) dwelling units per acre zoning designation; however, the project is vested to King
County's R-4 zoning designation's development regulations. The proposed density would
be approximately 4 dwelling units per gross acre. The proposed lots would range in size
from approximately 5,900 square feet in area to 9,350 square feet. Access to the lots
would be provided via three new internal dead end streets extended from 162"d Ave SE. A
Class II wetland and,, Class Ill stream are located in the southwest corner of the property.
The subject property was annexed to the City of Renton on August 11, 2008.
Project Location: Southeast of 162"' A venue SE and SE 140'" Street
Project Location Map
City of Renton Community and Economic Deve.vrment Department
L1BER1Y GARDENS PRELJMINARY PLAT
, reliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner
LUAOS-093, PP, ECF (Killg Co1111tv DDES File No. L04P0034)
PUBLIC /!EARING DATE March 17. 2009 Page 2 of J 2
B. HEARING EXHIBITS:
Exhibit 1: Project file ("yellow file") containing the application, reports, staff comments, and other
material pertinent to the review of the project.
Exhibit 2:
Exhibit 3:
Exhibit 4:
Exhibit 5:
Exhibit 6:
Exhibit 7:
Exhibit 8:
Vicinity Map
Preliminary Plat Plan (7/7/2008)
Tree Retention/ Conceptual Landscape Plan (7/7/2008)
Grading Plan / Drainage (7/7/2008)
Aerial Photo
Topography Map
King County Zoning Map
C. GENERAL INFORMATION:
]. Owner of Record: David Petrie
811 S 273'd Court
Des Moines, WA 98198
2.
3.
4.
Zoning Designation:
Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Existillg Site Use:
Residential -4 du/ac (R-4); (King County -R-4)
Residential Low Density (RLD) (King County -Urban
Vacant
5. Neighborhood Characteristics:
North: Vacant-Pending Single-Family Preliminary Plat (R-4 zone)
East: Liberty High School (King County R-4 zone)
South: Single Family Residential (R-4 zone)
West: Single Family Residential (R-4 zone)
6. Site Area: 8.95 acres (389,862 gross square feet)
D. HISTORICAUBACKGROUND:
Annexation
Comprehensive Plan
Zoning
E. PUBLIC SERVICES:
1. Utilities:
Land Use File No.
NIA
NIA
NIA
Ordinance No.
5398
5099
5100
Date
8/11/2008
11/1/2004
11/112004
Water: The property is currently not served by a public water system. There is an existing water
main in 160th Avenue SE, part of the Water District #90 system.
Sewer: The property is currently not served by a public sewer line. There is a City of Renton
15-inch sanitary sewer line at the intersection of 160th Avenue SE and SE 144th Street. A
12-inch diameter sewer line is in 160th Avenue SE.
Surface Water/Storm Water: Surface water conveyance facilities currently are available to serve
this site in SE 144th Street
2. Streets: The site is fronted on the east and west by unimproved rights-of-way; 162"' ave SE and
164th Ave SE.
3. Fire Protection: City of Renton Fire Department
City a/Renton Community and Ecunomu: De1·e,(,pment Depan111ui1
l/BERTYGARDENS ?RHIM/NARY PLAT
PUBLIC IIFAR/l'./G DAT/:.' March 17. 2009
J'l"l'liminarv Report to the Heuring Ewminer
LUA08-093, PP, ECF (King County DDES File No. L04P0034)
Page 3 of 12
F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE KING COUNTY CODE:
1. Title 16 Grading (Dec 2004)
Section 16.82.156 Significant Tree Retention
2. Title 19A Land Segregation (Dec 2004)
3. Title 20 Planning (Dec 2004)
4. Title 21A Zoning (Dec 2004)
G. DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS:
1. Project Description/Background
The application for Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat was submitted to King County Department of
Development and Environmental Services (KC DOES) for review on December 29, 2004. During the
review by King County the applicant submitted two separate street vacation requests, for the vacation of
both 164'" Ave SE and 162"d Ave SE, of which both were denied. After multiple revisions, on June 20,
2008 a SEPA threshold determination. Determination of Non-Significance (DNS), was issued by KC
ODES. An appeal of the SEPA detennination was filed by Conununity Alliance to Reach Out & Engage
("CARE"), on July 7, 2008. As required by state law, the hearing for this appeal was combined with the
hearing on the preliminary plat application and scheduled to be heard on July 17, 2008 before the King
County Hearing Examiner. Due to the appeal filed the scheduled hearing was postponed. Before this
matter could be heard, the subject property was annexed into the City of Renton as pm1 of the Liberty
Annexation (Ordinance #5398) on August I I. 2008. Based on this annexation; both the SEPA appeal
and the application for the Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat came under the jurisdiction of the City of
Renton.
On October 6, 2008, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) issued a DNS for the Liberty Gardens
Preliminary Plat. This Determination was an adoption of the threshold determination issued by KC
ODES on June 20, 2008. ERC adopted KC ODES' threshold detennination solely to comply with state
law provisions to hold only one open record hearing to hear the preliminary plat and all appeals; and to
initiate a new appeal period. On October 22, 2008, during the new appeal period, a second joint appeal
of the SEPA determination was filed by 7 individuals who live in the vicinity of the property.
During the process of preparing for the appeal, City Staff discovered that the circumstances surrounding
this plat necessitated a more thorough review. Moreover, further analysis of the case revealed that the
DNS reconunendation previously issued by King County and relied upon by the ERC may create conflict
and problems with the ensuing plat review. Therefore, the ERC decided, on November 10, 2008, to
rescind the October 61
" threshold determination pending further analysis of potential environmental
impacts of the project. The rescission of the ERC's DNS negated the two existing appeals. On December
15, 2008, ERC issued a new Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M); for which one
appeal was filed by the applicant.
The project site is located between 162"0 Ave SE on the west and 164th Ave SE on the east; and SE 140'h
St to the north and SE 142°d St to the south. Access is proposed via 162"d Ave SE which is proposed to
be improved as part of the plat improvements. Internal access is proposed via three new dead-end public
streets; SE 140'h Place, 163"' Ave SE, and SE 141" Place. All lots would have access to a public street
via separate private driveways.
Proposed lot sizes range from 5,913 to 9,353 square feet with an average lot size of 7,015 square feet.
The proposed residential density would be approximately 4.0 du/ac. The site is vegetated primarily with
trees and shrubs. A tree inventory indicates approximately 266 significant trees are on the site, of which
City of Renton Community and Economic Dnelopment Depar!!ni·nr
LIBERTY GARDE.11/S PREUM!NARY PLAT
Preliminarv Report to rhe Hearing Examinrr
LUA08-093, PP, ECF (Ki11g County DDES File No. l04P0034)
PUBLIC HEARING DATE i'v!arch I 7, 2001.J Page 4 of 12
3 percent are proposed to remain following development. The applicant is proposing to plant a total of
157 trees. The proposed project site has an average slope of 15 percent; with an elevation change of 46
feet from the northeast quarter to the southwest quarter of the site. A Class 2 wetland is located in the
southwest corner of the property and is associated with a small Class 3 intermittent stream. In addition
there is another isolated Class 2 wetland located offsite to the west of the northwest comer of the site.
2. Environmental Review
Pursuant to the City ofRenton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21C, 1971 as amended),
on December 15, 2008, the Environmental Review Committee issued a Detennination of Non-
Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M) for the Libe11y Gardens Preliminary Plat. The DNS-M included 6
mitigation measures. A 14-day appeal period commenced on December 22, 2008 and ended on January
5, 2009. One appeal of the threshold determination has been filed.
3. Compliance with ERC Conditions
Based on an analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, the Environmental Review Committee
(ERC) issued the following mitigation measure with the Detennination of Non-Significance -Mitigated:
4.
1. The applicant will be required to submit a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the State Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment
Control Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Stonnwater Management Manual.
The plan must be submitted to mid approved by the Development Services Division Plan
Review staff prior to issuance or the utility construction and during utility and road
construction.
2. A covenant shall be recorded on the Sensitive Areas Tract, restricting its separate sale, prior
to or in conjunction with the tinal plat recording. Each abutting lot owner or the
homeowners' association shall have an undivided interest in the tract. A draft version of this
document shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior
to plat recording.
3. The applicant shall submit a maintenance and monitoring plan, for a period no less than five
years, for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to plat
recording.
4. The applicant shall provide a maintenance surety device (a letter of credit or irrevocable set
aside letter), prior to plat recording, set at an amount totaling 125% of the cost; to guarantee
satisfactory performance of the mitigation plan for a minimum of five years.
5. The detention system for this project shall be required to comply with the requirements
found in the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual to meet both detention
(Conservation Flow control -a.k.a. Level 3) and water quality improvements.
6. The applicant shall provide secondary access to the plat suitable for domestic, emergency
and pedestrian safety; to the satisfaction of the City of Renton Development Services
Division subject to the King County Road Standards (1993).
Staff Review Comments
Representatives from various departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and
address issues raised by the proposed development. These comments are contained in the official file,
and the essence of the comments has been incorporated into the appropriate sections of this report and
the Departmental Recommendation at the end of the report.
5. Consistency With Preliminarv Plat Criteria
Approval of a plat is based upon several factors, The following preliminary plat criteria have been
established to assist decision-makers in the review of the plat:
Ci(v of Ren/on Community and Economic Dew>/opment Department
LIBERTY GARDENS PRELIMINARY PLAT
Preliminmy Report lo the Heal'/ng Examiner
LUA08-093, PP, ECF (King Cou11tr DDES File No. L04P0034)
PUBLIC HEARING DATE ;\4arch /7, 2009 Page 5 of/2
a) Compliance with the Comprehensh•e Plan Designation
The site is designated Urban Residential-Medium on the King County Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Map. The Urban Residential-Medium land use designation is implemented by the
following King County zones: R-4; R-6; R-8; and R-12. The proposal is consistent with three
of the four following ComprchensiYc Plan Land Use policies:
Policy U-133. Urban residential neighborhood design should preserve historic and natural
characteristics and neighborhood identity, while providing privacy, community space, and
safety and mohilityfor pedeslrians and bicyclists .
./ Policy Objective Met DNotMet
Policy U-140. Residential Dei-dopments within the Urban Growth Area, including mobile
home parks, shall provide theti,1/m,·ing types of improvements.
a) Paved Streets (ancl a/lei's if appropriate}, curbs and sidewalks, and internal
walkways when appmpriulc;
b) Adequate parking und consideration of access to bus service and passenger
facilities;
c) Street lighting and street trees;
cl) Stormwater control:
e) Public water supply;
f) Public sewers; and
g) Landscaping around rhc> pcri111eter and parking areas of multifamily development .
./ Policy Ob_jccti\'e Met ONotMet
Policy U-142. Recreation ,\/!<IC<' hased on the size a/the developments shall he provided on-
site except that in limited case.,, fi-e payments for local level park and outdoor recreation
needs may be accepted
./ Policy Objective Met DNotMet
Policy T-307. King County (City or Renton) should encourage the development o/ highly
connective, grid based arterial and 11011 arterial road networks in developments and areas of
in-fill development. To this end. 1he County (City) should:
a. Make specific detennirwlive findings to establish non-arterial grid system
routes needed jiJ/· public and emergency access in in 0fill developments at the
time of/and use permit reriew.
b. Encourage new commercial, multifamily, and single-family residential
developments to develop highly connective street networks to promote better
accessibility by all modes. The use ol cul-de-sacs should be discouraged, but
where they are used. they should include pedestrian pathways to connect with
nearby streets.
D Policy Objective Met ./ Not Met
Staff Comment: As proposed SE 140'" Place and SE 141" Place would dead-end in cul-de-
sacs and would preclude potential for street connectivity. Staff considered the potential
connection of the proposed streets to 164 1h Ave SE, abutting the property to the west, in
order to allow for street connectivity and reduce the use of cul-de-sacs. Staff has determined
that connectivity could be achieved if there were an east/west road connection from 162"d
Ave SE to 1641
h Ave SE. In addition, there are no environmental or topographical
City of Renton Community and Economic Deve/opmef!l Deparrmenl
LIBERTY GARDFNS PRlVMJNARY PLAT
Prd11ninwy Report to the Hrnring Examiner
Ll/AOS-093, PP, ECF (King Counr,• DDES File No. L04P0034)
PUBL!C HEARJ.iVG DATE /vfarch J 7. 2009 Page (i o.f 12
b)
constraints that would preclude the applicant from providing such connection. Therefore
staff recommends, as a condition or an approval, the applicant provide an east/west road
connection from 162"d Ave SE to 164'" Ave SE in order to create a highly connective road
network. All construction and upgrading of public and private roads shall be done in
accordance with the King County Road Standards established and adopted by Ordinance No.
11187 as amended (1993 KCRS). In addition staff recommends, as a condition of approval,
the applicant be required to submit a revised plat plan depicting the east/west road
connection from 162"d Ave SE to 164 1
" Ave SE, which is also consistent with all preliminary
plat review criteria. The revised plat plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the
Development Services Division and the Current Planning Project Manager; prior to
engineering plan approval.
Compliance with the Under(ying Zoning Designation
The subject site is designated R-4 on the City of Renton Zoning Map however the project is
vested to the King County (KC) R-4 standards. The proposed development would allow for
the future construction of 36 new single-family dwelling units.
Density: The base density for the subject site is 4.0 dwelling units per gross acre. The
allowed number of lots is computed by multiplying the site area by the base density;
therefore the applicant would be allowed 36 lots once rounded up (8.95 ac x 4.0 du/ac =
35.8 lots). Rounding up is allowed per KCC 2 lA.12.070 Calculations.
Lot Dimensions: There is no minimum lot size or depth requirements in the KC R-4 zone. A
minimum lot width of 30 feet is required. As proposed and demonstrated in the table below,
all lot s meet the reauuements for minimum width.
Net
Lo Area Area Area Widt
t lsn. ft,) Width Lot /su. ft.) Width Lot I so, ft.) h
I 7,173 73 13 6,723 JOO 25 7,125 65
2 7,000 70 14 6.496 66 26 5,913 84
3 7,000 70 15 6,525 37 27 7.008 62
4 7,002 70 16 6,481 86 28 9,353 70
5 6,502 65 17 7,606 70 29 8,175 65
6 6,502 65 18 7,683 65 30 7,196 65
7 6,701 50 19 6,580 65 31 6,855 70
8 8,378 70 20 6,571 65 32 6,998 70
9 7,143 65 21 7,655 63 33 6,871 70
10 6,455 65 22 6,575 65 34 6,489 65
11 8,541 100 23 6,500 65 35 6,499 65
12 7,053 86 24 6,361 65 36 6,859 70
Setbacks: The required setbacks in the KC R-4 zone are as follows: street setback is IO feet
for the primary structure and 20 feet for any attached garage, carport, or other fenced parking
area; and interior setbacks are 5 feet. As proposed all lots appear to contain adequate area to
provide all required setback areas. Compliance with building setback requirements would be
reviewed at the time of building permit review.
Ciry of Ren/on Community and Lconomic De1,cfopmLnl DBpar/mc'iH
L!BlRTY GARDENS PRELIMINARY PLAT
PUBLIC HEt1R/NG DATE March 17, 20oY
Preiiminmy Report lo the Hearing Lrnminer
LUA08-093, PP, ECF (King County DDES File No. /.04P0034)
Page 7 of 12
Building Standards: The KC R-4 zone permits one residential structure per lot. Each of the
proposed lots would support the construction of one detached unit. Building height in the
KC R-4 zone is limited to 35 feet. The maximum impervious lot coverage in the KC R-4
zone is 55 percent. The building standards for proposed lots would be verified at the time of
building permit review.
Internal Circulation: The site is proposed to gain access from 162'"1 Ave SE, and urban
neighborhood collector. The site would be served by SE 140'" Place, 163'' Avenue and SE
141" Place all urban minor access roads ending in a cul-de-sac. See further discussion, on
pages 5 and 6, under Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan Designation
Parking: KC 21A.18.030 requires that single detached dwellings provide a minimum of 2
oft~street parking spaces. As proposed, each lot would have adequate area to provide two
off~street parking spaces. Compliance with the parking requirements will be verified at the
time of building permit review.
c) Natural Environment
Topography: The proposed project site has an average slope of 15 percent; with an elevation
change of 46 feet from the southwest quarter to the northeast quarter of the site. The average
slope of the site is approximately 20% and drains to the south. The applicant is not aware of
the amount of grading that would happen as a result of the proposal.
Soils: The soils on the site arc classi tied as Alderwood series.
Wetland & Streams: A wetland is located in the southwest corner of the property and is
associated with a small intermittent stream. There is another isolated wetland located offsite
to the west of the northwest corner or the site. The applicant submitted a Wetland/Stream
Evaluation and Mitigation Plan. by B-12 Wetland Consulting, Inc. (dated November 19,
2004), delineating the wetlands and stream on site as well as classifying the wetlands as
Class II and the stream as Class lll according to the County's critical area rating system
(KCC 21 A.24, 2004). A secondary study/revised mitigation plan was submitted by the
applicant, conducted by Clwd A.rmour, LLC (dated May 16, 2007), in which the
classification and delineation by B-12 were affirmed.
The Class II wetlands and Class lll stream extend oft~site into the unimproved right-of-way,
162"" Ave SE, at the southwest and northwest corner of the site. The wetland associated
with the stream is a small forested wetland characterized by an overstory of red alder and
cottonwood with salmonberry. lady fern, and manna grass in the understory. The stream
channel is a narrow 12-inch gravel/soil bottom channel which appears to be intermittent
with no fish use. The off-site wetland, located at the northwest comer, is a young forested
wetland dominated by il11111aturc alder, salmonberry, and lady fem. Per the 2004 County
critical area regulations a Class Ill stream is a non-salmonid bearing intermittent stream and
requires a minimum 25-foot buffer. The standard SO-foot buffer for the Class II wetland is
the encumhering buffer, rendering the stream buffer il11111aterial to the development of the
site.
In order to preserve and protect the wetland and its buffer the applicant will be required to
establish a Sensitive Areas Tract (SAT) over that part of the site encompassing the
stream/wetland and buffer area. The applicant will also be required to clearly mark the
extent of the SAT with signage and fencing. A mitigation measure, as part of SEPA, was
imposed requiring a covenant be placed on the tract restricting its separate sale. Each
abutting lot owner or the homeowners' association shall have an undivided interest in the
tract. In addition a 15-foot building setback line (BSBL) is required from the edge of the
SAT and shall be shown on the affected lots on all plans.
City of Renton Cornmuni(Y and Economic De1·ewpme11r lkp,,11111, n.r
LIBERTY GARDENS PRU!MINARY PLAT
Pre/iminmy Report{() the I/earing Lxamim:r
LUAOB-093, PP, £CF (King Cou1111, DDES File No. L04P0034/
PUBLIC HEARING DA TE iV!md1 17. 200!) Page 8 of 12
d)
The applicant proposes lo impruve 162'"1 Ave SE with half street improvements, thus
causing impacts to the ofl~site wetlands, stream and associated buffers. The applicant
indicates that approximately 2,387 square feet of wetland and 14,840 square feet of buffer
would be affected as a result of the proposed improvement to 162"' Ave SE. In addition a
portion of the stream, in the amount of 30 linear feet, is proposed lo be placed in a 48-inch
culvert.
A conceptual mitigation plan for the proposed impacts was submitted with the project
application. If the applicant intends on altering the wetlands or stream, as part of an
improvement to l 62"d Ave SE. a detailed final plan to mitigate for impacts from that
alteration will be required to be reviewed and approved, in accordance with KCC 21 A.24
(2004), prior lo the approval of the plat engineering plans. The mitigation plan shall be
implemented and plantings inst,dled prior to recording of the final plat.
In order to ensure the success of the mitigation plan staff recommended, as a SEPA
mitigation measure, that the iipplicant submit a maintenance and monitoring plan, for a
period no less than five years. for review and approval by the Current Planning Project
Manager prior to final plat recording. After the approval of the final maintenance and
monitoring plan, a performance surety must be provided to the City of Renton for the
maintenance and monitoring period prior to the recording of the final plat. Staff also
recommended, and the FRC mlopted as a SEPA rrritigation measure, that the applicant
provide a maintenance surety device (a letter of credit or irrevocable set aside letter) set at
an amount totaling 125% or the cost to guarantee satisfactory performance of the mitigation
plan for a minimum offiyc yc.:1rs.
Vegetation: The project site is heavily wooded with 266 significant trees; a mixture of
coniferous and broad-leafed trees native lo the Pacific Northwest. Groundcover consists of
Northwest native species including salal, swordfem and grasses.
Wildlife: Small birds and m,nrnnals inhabit the site. Larger species may visit the site on
occasion. No threatened or endangered species are known to exist on or near the property.
Community Assets
Landscaping: Per KCC 21 A.16.050 street trees, for single family subdivisions, shall be
planted at a rate of one tree for every 40 feel of street frontage along all public streets. A
conceptual landscape plan was submitted with the application that includes the installation of
street trees spaced approximately 40 feel on center . The applicant is proposing to plant a
total of 48 street trees on the site. The applicant is also proposing additional landscaping
within the proposed Drainage/Recreation Tract (Tract B), including: Douglas fir, flowering
cherry, and dogwood trees: white rockrose, morning light silver grass and ceanothus shrubs;
kinnikinnick and lawn groundcovers. The proposal appears to comply with the landscaping
requirements of the King County Code. A detailed landscape plan will be required to be
submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering
plan approval.
In addition to street trees the applicant is proposing to plant 109 trees (18 of the 109 trees are
located in Tract B) to satisfy the tree retention requirements outlined in KCC 16.82.156
Significant Trees. The applicant submitted a Tree Inventory plan as part of the Prelirrrinary
Plat application. There arc approximately 266 trees on the site. The site consists of mostly
deciduous upland forest that includes big leaf maple and red alder. Understory vegetation
consists of a salmonberry, Indian plum, hazelnut, sword fem, salal and bracken fem. The
applicant proposes to clear a majority of the site's existing trees and vegetation to
accommodate grading and building site preparation.
City ()fRPtlf()/1 Communitv and Economic Development Depun111uu Prelimina,y Reporl lo 1he Hearing Fxaminer
LIBERTY GARDENS PRELIMINARY PLAT LUAOS-093, PP, ECF (King Co1111tr DDES File No. L04P0034)
Pf..JBLJC J-/EARl/'>/G DATE March 17, 200!1 t,ge !J of 12
s : 1J ,,'re
KCC 16.82.156 requires tlrnt the greater of: l O trees per acre or 5% of the trees on site be
retained. Of the 266 trees that are on site, 90 trees are required to be retained at he IO trees
per acre retention rate. A tree inventory submitted by the applicant indicate,{9 trees would
be retained with three mlditional tree credits given for 3 retained trees located in close
proximity to the critical area buffers on site; resulting in the retention of approximately 1.3
trees per acre. The applicant is proposing to plant a total of 109, three-inch caliper,
replacement trees; which would meet the County tree retention requirements. Staff
reconunends, as a condition or c1pproval, the applicant be required to provide a detailed tree
retention plan with the engineering review application. The tree retention plan shall be
reviewed and approved by the Current Planning project manager prior to engineering permit
approval.
Recreation: Per KCC 21 A. 14 residential subdivisions, more than four units, developed at a
density of eight units or less per acre, are required to provide 390 square feet of recreation
space on-site. The 36 lot proposal would require 14.040 square feet (36 lots x 390 square
feet) of recreation space. The applicant is proposing recreation space within Tract B, in the
amount of 20,267 square feet; which meets the recreation space requirement. For 26-50 lot
developments the applicant is also required to provide two or more of the facilities listed in
KCC 21 A.14.190 in addition to a tot lot or children' s play area. The proposed recreation
area includes a tot lot, sports l!eld and sports court; complying with the recreation facilities
requirement in the County Code.
e) Adequacy of Public Facilities 1111d Services
Roads/ Access: The site is fronted tl!l the east and west by unimproved rights-of~way. No
current improved access exists except nominally from 164'h Avenue SE. The property is
located at approximately 1300 linear feet from the intersection of 162"' Ave SE and SE 136'"
Place. The property is apprnximately 600 linear feet from SE 144 1h Street on both 162"' and
164'" Avenues SE with the proposed entrance on 162'"1 Avenue located at about 1150 linear
feet from centerline to centerline. fligh Accident Locations (HAL) have been identified as
effected by this development. Due to the identified impacts and the distances listed above;
staff recommended, as a SEl'A mitigation measure, the applicant provide two points of
access suitable for domestic, emergency and pedestrian safety.
The improvement of 162'"1 Ave SE, from where it currently terminates near the 138xx block
to SE 144'h St, was proposed by the applicant in order to provide secondary access. The
applicant has entered into a three-party contract with other pending development proposals
in the area (Cavalla, LUAOS-097.'DDES L06P0001 and Threadgill ODES L05P0026) in
order to jointly improve the extension of 162"" Ave SE to SE 144'h St. Construction of an
internal street that connects 162"' Ave SE to 164'" Ave SE would provide an alternative for
secondary access. The applicant may opt to not improve the off-site extension of 162"' Ave
SE from the southwest comer of the site to 1441h Ave SE as long as secondary access is
provided to the plat.
In addition, all right-of-way frontages of the property abutting and impacted by the
development are required to be constructed to comply with King County street standards for
the full length of the property, As a condition of approval staff has recommended the
applicant be required to provide an cast/west road connection from 164 1h Ave SE to 162"d
Ave SE in order to create a highly connective grid system; thereby creating an impact to
1641h Ave SE. Therefore, staff also recommends as a condition of approval that both
frontages, 162"d Ave SE and 164'" Ave SE, for the full length of the property are required to
be improved to the satisfaction of the City of Renton Development Services Division subject
to the King County Road Standards or as modified by variance. 162"' Avenue SE shall be
designed and constructed to meet the urban neighborhood collector standard.
City of Renton Community and Economic De1·elopme111 Dr:parl.>111·111
l!Bt'RTY GARDENS PRELIMINARY PLAT
PUBLIC HEARING DATE :\1ard1 17. 20()1)
Prclim111ary Report to 1he I fearing Ewminer
LUAOS-093, PP, ECF (King Coullly DDES File No. L04P0034)
Page !Oofl2
As discussed earlier in the report: 162"' Ave SE is encumbered by two separate Class II
wetlands and a Class Ill stream The applicant may request a variance for modification to
the frontage improvement requirements in order to avoid impacts to the critical areas located
in the unimproved right of way. However, secondary access must still be provided.
Per KCC 14.75 an appropriate Trnfltc Mitigation Fee or Impact Fee shall be assessed and
paid prior to plat recording. The proposed preliminary plat is anticipated to generate
additional traffic on the City's street system. In order to mitigate transportation impacts,
staff recommends the applicant pay a Transportation Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per net
new average daily trip attributed to the project. 36 lots are expected to generate
approximately 9.57 new average weekday trips per each lot. The fee for the proposed plat is
estimated at $25,839.00 ($75.00 x 9.57 trips x 36 lots = $25,839.00) and is payable to the
City prior to the recording of the final plat.
Surface Water:
The site lies within the Lower Cedar sub-basin of the Cedar River/Lake Washington
watershed. Currently runoff discharges into the Class Ill stream located at the southwest
comer of the site from the northeast. Water then flows southwesterly to eastern side of 162"ct
Ave SE and disperses into a sheet !low south, within the unimproved 162"' Ave SE right-of-
way. Further south, water passes through a rockery dam located approximately 150 feet
from the 162"' Ave SE and SF 144"' Ave intersection. Water then enters a small detention
pond also located within the unimproved 162"' Ave SE right-of-way. From the detention
pond, water is conveyed acrnss SE 144 11
' Street via an J 8-inch culvert. Water then travels
west within an 18-inch conveyance facility along the southern side of SE 144'h St. The
enclosed pipe system continues west, past 156'" Ave SE, continuing west eventually
outfalling to Tributary 0307. Tributary 0307 then turns south and outlets to the Cedar River.
The applicant proposes to collect storm water runoff from the proposed streets, sidewalks,
homes, and lawns and covey into a proposed storm water vault located in Tract B in the
southwestern portion of the site. The outfall of the proposed vault would be conveyed back
into the stream channel before leaving the property along its natural drainage course. The
applicant is proposing water quality treatment and retention in accordance with the 1998
King County Surface Water Design Manual.
The applicant submitted a level 111 Downstream Drainage Analysis prepared by Ed
McCarthy P.E., dated July 2, 2008. The report identifies several downstream problems and
includes recommendations to mitigate for the proposed development's impacts of
downstream flooding. A letter with additional recommended storm water mitigation was
received March 11, 2008, from Ed McCarthy P.E. Due to potential downstream drainage
problems a SEPA mitigation measure was imposed requiring the project to comply with the
2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual for both detention (Conservation Flow
control -a.k.a. Level 3) and water quality improvements.
In addition, staff recommends a condition of approval requiring the applicant establish a
homeowners' association for the development, which would be responsible for any common
improvements and/or tracts within the plat prior to final plat approval.
A Surface Water System Development charge is required for each new single-family lot.
Payment of this fee will be required prior to issuance of utility construction permit.
Police and Fire: Police and Fire Prevention staff indicated that sufficient resources exist to
furnish services to the proposed development.
Schools: The project site is served by schools in the Issaquah School District. It is
anticipated that the Issaquah School District can accommodate any additional students
Ci(v of Renton Community and Economic De11e!opme111 Departmrn.r
UBER FY GARDtNS PRELIMINARY PLAT
PUBLIC fl FARING LJA 7J:: March 17, 2009
Preliminary Report to tlw Hearing Lxaminer
LUA08-093, PP, £CF (King Co1111t1, DDES File No. L04P0034)
I'age I I of 12
generated by this proposal at the following schools: Briarwood Elementary, Maywood
Middle School and Liberty lligh School. KCC 21A.43.050 requires that an impact fee be
assessed for each new lot in order to fund school system improvements to serve the new
development within the proposed plat. In order to mitigate school impacts staff
recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant pay school impact fees per RMC 4-1-
160.D, to the City of Renton. on behalf of the Issaquah School District. The fee for the
proposed plat is estimated at S2 I 6. 756.00 ($6,021.00 x 36 lots= $216,756.00) and is payable
at the time of building permit iipproval.
Water: The site is served by the Water District #90. There is an existing water main in 160'"
Avenue SE, part of the Water District #90 system. Extension of a water main of sufficient
size to serve domestic service and fire standards is required. Plans designed and approved
by Water District #90 with appropriate separate pennit and fees is required with the
construction plans for review.
The applicant will show, during engineering review, the location and distance of all existing
fire hydrants within 300 feet of the site. Existing and new hydrants will be required to be
retrofitted with Storz "quick disconnect" fittings, if not already in place.
Sewer: The property is currently not served by a public sewer line. There is a City of Renton
15-inch sanitary sewer line nt the intersection of 160'" Avenue SE and SE 144'" Street. A 12-
inch diameter sewer line is in 160 11
' ;\ venue SE. Extension of a minimum 8-inch diameter
sanitary sewer meeting City or Renton standards is required to serve this plat. A System
Development Charge (SDC) per lot is required for any new development and will be charged
with the construction permit. The site is also subject to the Central Plateau Interceptor Phase
II SAD unit charge of $344. 71 per lot.
H. RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat, Project File No. LUAOS-093, PP,
ECF (King County DOES File No. L04P0034) subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall provide an cast/west road connection from 162"'' Ave SE to 164'" Ave SE
in order to create a highly connective road network. All construction and upgrading of public
and private roads shall be done in accordance with the King County Road Standards
established and adopted by Ordinance No. 11187 as amended (I 993 KCRS).
2. The applicant shall be required to submit a revised plat plan, depicting an east/west road
connection from 162"d Ave SE to 164 11
' Ave SE, which is also consistent with all preliminary
plat review criteria. The revised plat plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the
Development Services Division and the Current Planning Project Manager; prior to
engineering plan approval.
3. Both frontages, 162"d Ave SE and 164'" Ave SE, for the full length of the property shall be
improved to the satisfaction of the City of Renton Development Services Division subject to
the King County Road Standards or as modified by variance. 162nd Avenue SE shall be
designed and constructed to meet the urban neighborhood collector standard.
4. The applicant shall be required to provide a detailed tree retention plan with the engineering
review application. The tree retention plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current
Planning project manager prior to engineering pennit approval.
5. The applicant shall pay a Transpmiation Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per net new average
daily trip attributed to the project. The fee for the proposed plat is estimated at $25,839.00
($75.00 x 9.57 trips x 36 lots= $25,839.00) and is payable to the City prior to the recording of
the final plat.
City of R('nron Communiry and Eco11om1c Dnelopment Depar/111( nr
LIBERTY GARDENS PRELIMINARY PLAT
PUBLIC lltARliVG DATE March 17, 200')
Prelimina,y Report lo the I !earing Examiner
LUAOB-093, PP, ECF (Ki11g County DDES File No. L04P0034)
Page 12 of 12
6. The applicant shall establish a homeowners' association for the development, which would be
responsible for any common improvements and/or tracts within the plat prior to final plat
recording.
7. The applicant shall pay school impact fees per RMC 4-1-160.D, to the City of Renton, on
behalf of the Issaquah Scll(lnl District. The fee for the proposed plat is estimated at
$216,756.00 ($6,021.00 x 36 lots ~ S2 l 6,756.00) and is payable prior to the recording of the
final plat.
EXPIRATION PERIODS:
The Preliminary Plat approval will expire sixty (60) months from the date of approval. An extension may be requested pursuant to
RMC section 4-7-080.M.
Department of Community ~ & Economic Development
~ _ Alex Pietsch, Administrator
EXHIBIT 2
Legend
c::::J Liberty Garden
C:.i Ctty Limits
c:J Renton Parcels
Fi1e Narre· H •,CF.O\GIS_pr0Jects\v1cinity_maps\
mxds\parce!s_ 14570C · 45&01 SO_liberty_garden mxd
I ---1
I
Liberty Garden
Vicinity Map
February 24, 2009
0 150 300 600
Feet
1:6,000
ao
--.., .. "" .. --.... -"" " -""'
1jt,l.8tl VM ::i::jNlvn l:dU
l::) Ol:1£:Ll s lUl
311:ti3d 'f'i OtA v'O
-,-..-1
,._,, ·-;.·-.,!
' ' ! ¥
if!: I
" ! !i i
;;-i~"'-tP 1/:,/1/ i :ii::~----ii s !S
~ I :.i::i:i :i
11fll HI!
i J iii hilii1
i, I' I ...... 11!1
.-
~O::I NV1d ON.1.N'v'1d 3dVOSONVl
N3t'l30'nd31:! 33ill l.NV:J!::llNOIS QNV
N0U ~/30VNl'100 V'f!::!OlS Al::IVNtt'in -.., ... .., ....
r .
I !
I I
f ! . '
a ~
0
0
"
~
C)l..':':t-=tt.;IG/
8&86 VM 'S3NIOO S30
l:JO!:Jf:a Sll8
311::U..3d ·r4 Olti't"G
! ~ I •
~~
r • so· ,,i ,fq .. ,; ;J·
,A
i .,
PRELIMfNAR'f GAAD1NQ f,.1,0 STOfV,.I DAAINAOE PLAN
OF
LIBERTY GARDENS
A PORTION OF n-lE SE 1/ 4 OF $EC TION 15 TOWNSHIP 22 N, RANCE 5 E. WM
KING COUNTY, WASHINOTON
i:i~~,:,
,,-.. ~,:.;:,·~--
•"',-··' __ ,,, .. ..__,,._,,, .•
},J·· . -:~~t~~4~~S-~-
tL/_.q: · ..
. -.. ·~ • .t.,.. .,,J. .. ,·
··~ " I ; --......_........__
I . .1 7 I -
., '"·"'',•
£7>~
i1 L,ss,,,,,
,1, I s~~U/, "
\=I '
---·'/>
,•
. , ", /_,
s J2 I
'/' 1"1''..' !
31
Li~-JcTI--,
.• ~ ... 'I.. '.~\\·. ,
". ,
·---~ ,.. 1-.-;. ...... ,. ..... .. ,,,,,.,
<::
EXHIBIT 5
f--::~ J, ... -" li ,m,,.
\y-_L __ r
• 24 I .. ,,.
j
,.,
25
J._·
d
,_T ~;,;;-,
---~~~
' -' I
i
~-":'R~~
,,~--.-
,;:,--·
~:::
--,...,....;,~ ~~~"'-
"
.;:.._,I
.,. I
,.,._,,. _J
~ I
.,,,,,,., I _.,,-,, , ...
11 " ,.: l:i~\:4£21:l_:li · :i ;,,
, ·-·· =· -"' _/'77· . ........ ,c,,,,,:O(>t //
.-.... C0,.....::1tooc.,~·-/ ............,.. -'"""'"°"'" / .,,~AL
--,..,.,...,., ... , ., __ ACCESS TRACT SECTION -•ot'<"""'"'""-°"""'-''I<'"< '"'
"!.
1!
j
!I I' l 2 z 'i ; ~
h 1~ " 'I ! Iii " i l'; ii ~ a
BUI " ii!
'!!!,Z!11 'I ;~ ..
B~!i! .
~ki i
"'·:: ..
r
w1-i. le O -o:; Iii ;. '
.. ~ffl-, ~ ~ z: ~ ~ g: .. " '
0 ~
h I,
,1,1,1,111
l·1 l'1
~ II
" d " ·! ~ h
~ If ' t:14~ ,,.. "< 1,
I ...., •-• --<> I -I
~ -"'" , -· ~· ,_'.:~b,; :.uz ·s:s.p+1i@dliid..zj,=l 1;;\,1
§ t,
_, I § .. ~ ... ~ ..
"( ~
:: ' -....0.,.,... ........ ,__ / _..._, .. ~-
!~~" °""" ,t____/ / /
~.:::..~""...:""''-/ /
"""'"""'--""'""_/ ~-°"--"''''''""" ... Stt•.O,
rrPICAL ON-srrE
PUBLIC ROAD SEC1PH
'\. l "",i ~ c~~"'~
i ~
I]
EXHIBIT 6
Legend
Cl 01:111mits
·-·· ·:·.-j L_,b~rty Garden
;;:ent:cn Parcels
. ::-!~=:, ' --,_r:·,c:;::s
·s_:,~ J-:--, ::;2-1c."
Liberty Garden
Aerial
February 24, 2009 ,
150 300 600 ~
----===::iFeet W 0
1:6,000
Department of Community
& Economic Development
Alex Pietsch, Administrator
EXHIBIT 7
Legend
CJ Liberty Garden
C.J City Limits
--Eleva lion
File Name H \CEO\•JIS_projects\vicinity_maps\
mxds\parcels_ 1457001 C:5&0150_1iberty _garden mxd
Liberty Garden
Tope Map
February 26, 2009
0 75 150 300
Feet
1:3,250
EXHIBIT 8
East Renton
Legend
~ Urban Growth Boundary 2004
~Streets
Q Parcels 0 Liberty Annexation /vea
t!/JJ Incorporated keas 2004
Zoning 2004
A-10-Agricultural, one DU per 10 acres
"" A-35 -l>{iriClJltural, one DU per 35 acres
II F -Forest
'1' M -Mineral
RA-2.5 -Rural Area, one DU per 5 acres
RA-5 -Rural Area, Ofle DU per 5 acres
ifl" RA-10 -Rural Area, one DU per 10 acres
UR -Urban Reserve, one DU per 5 aa-es
R-1 -Residential, one DU per acre
R-4 -Residential. 4 DU per acre
R-6 -Residential. 6 DU per acre
R-8 -Residential, a DU per acre
~ R-12-Residential, 12 DU per acre
• R-18-ResidenUal, 18 DU per acre
.,. R-24-ResidenUal, 24 DU per acre
., R-48-Residen~al, 48 OU per acre
illf NB -Neighborhood Business
~ CB -Community Business
• RB -Regional Business
., 0-Office
I -Industrial
0 500 1,000 2,000
Feet
DATE: MONDA'( MARCH 9, 2009 2:26:20 PM
M:\SHELLEY\MAPS\2:00903\20090309 _ RN _ZONINGOII.MXD
M:\MMS\200903\WILSONSM_20090309_RN_20NING04.PDF
WILSONSM
Tho rlarmll!on Ind""°" on this map ~ ... tffrl <OmJlll<d <>)'
/<a,g Co•ntio oto~Jroma "''..ty ofoou,:n ondis •LJbtoe11ocM~
.;lhol« nollco. ~g County mol<n no ,.--"'
"""-· ur,r-ot i'nphd. •• to a=.nc:y. ~Ole-t,
tn.lneff. O< tlgl:"G 1o 1l'lo ... DI such --· K,,g Cour,ty
... 11 not 1111 -· lo< ~ gorwal, spe,:,al, l~td. lndderal. OI
.,,,....,._I <lama-1ndldlg. ~ nol Ide<! to. l..r
JW-Ol<>l1r,rol!s~fl<l<n11'1o..-eo,""°"""o1IIMI
iilo<mallon a>nlainod an thi1 mop i""l ••e ofthi1 ""POI
iibrrnala1onthiarrap1&Jn1111:1jt,,,:l~oepl<>)'Wllttenporm,,,liano/
i<a,gCounty
ERG
REPORT
ERC MEETING DATE:
Project Name:
Owner:
Applicant:
File Number:
Project Manager:
Project Summary:
Project Location:
Site Area:
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION:
City of Renton
Department of Community and Economic Development
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITIEE REPORT
December 15, 2008
Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat
David Petrie, 811 S 2 73 rd Court, Des Moines, WA 981 98
Wayne Potter, Barghausen Consulting Engineer, 18215 72nd Avenue S, Kent, WA
98032
LUA08-093, ECF, PP (King County DOES File No. L04P0034)
Rocale Timmons. Associate Planner -----------------------
The applicant submitted an application with the King County Department of
Development and Environmental Services for Environmental (SEPA) Review and
Preliminary Plat approval for the subdivision of an 8.95 acre parcel into 36 -lots
for the eventual development of single family residences, with tracts for recreation,
stonnwater, joint use driveways and sensitive areas. The project site is located
within tbe City's Residential -4 (R-4) dwelling units per acre zoning designation;
however, the project is vested to King County's R-4 zoning designation's
development regulations. The proposed density would be approximately 4 dwelling
units per grossacre. The proposed lots would range in size from approximately
5,900 square feet in area to 9,350 square feet. Access to the lots would be provided
via three new internal dead end streets extended from 162"d Ave SE. A Class 11
wetland and a Class Ill stream are located in the southwest corner of the property.
The subject property was annexed to the City of Renton on August 11, 2008.
Southeast of 162"" Avenue SE and SE 140'h Street
8.95 acres
Staff Recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a
Determination of Non-Significance (DNS-M).
Project Location Map
ERC Report 08-093
City of Renton Department of Comm J & Economic Development Env1 tenta/ Review Committee Report
LIBERTY GARDENS PRELIMINARY PLAT LUAOS-093
Report of December 15, 2008 Page 2 of7
I PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION' BACKGROUND
The application for Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat was submitted to King County Department of Development
and Environmental Services (KC DDES) for review on December 29, 2004. On June 20, 2008 a SEPA threshold
determination, Determination of Non-Significance (DNS), was issued (attached). An appeal of the SEPA
determination was filed by Community Alliance to Reach Out & Engage ("CARE"), on July 7, 2008. As
required by state law, the hearing for this appeal \\as combined with the hearing on the preliminary plat
application and scheduled to be heard on July 17. 2008 before the King County Hearing Examiner. Before this
matter could be heard, the subject property was annexed to the City of Renton as part of the Liberty Annexation
(Ordinance #5398) on August 11, 2008. Based on this annexation; both the SEPA appeal and the application for
the Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat came under the jurisdiction of the City of Renton.
On October 6, 2008, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) issued a Determination of Non-Significance
(DNS) for the Liberty Gardens Preliminary Plat. This Determination was an adoption of the threshold
determination issued by King County Department of Development and Environmental Services (KC DDES) on
June 20, 2008. ERC adopted KC DDES' threshold determination solely to comply with state law provisions to
hold only one open record hearing to hear the preliminary plat and all appeals; and to initiate a new appeal
period. During the new appeal period, a second joint appeal of the SEPA determination was filed by 7
individuals who live in the vicinity of the property, on October 22, 2008.
During the process of preparing for the appeal. City Staff discovered that the situation and circumstances
surrounding this plat necessitated a more thorough review. Moreover, further analysis of the case revealed that
the DNS recommendation previously issued by King County and relied upon by ERC may create conflict and
problems with the ensuing plat review. Therefore, the decision was made, on November l 0, 2008, to rescind the
threshold detennination of the project pending furiher analysis of potential environmental impacts to the site. The
rescission of the ERC's DNS resulted in the negating the two existing appeals that have been filed.
The project site is located between 162"' Ave SE on the west and 1641h Ave SE on the east; and SE 140th St on
the north and SE 142"d St on the south. Access is proposed via 162"d Ave SE which is proposed to be improved
as part of the plat improvements. Internal access is proposed via three new public streets; SE 140'" Place, 163''
Ave SE, and SE 141" Place.
I PART TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
In compliance with RCW 43.21C.240, the following environmental (SEPA) review addresses only those project
impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations.
A. Environmental Threshold Recommendation
Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials:
Issue a DNS-M with a 14-day Appeal Period.
B. Mitigation Measures
1. The applicant will be required to submit a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan
(TESCP) designed pursuant to the State Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control
Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual. The plan must
be submitted to and approved by the Development Services Division Plan Review staff prior to
issuance of the utility construction and during utility and road construction.
2. A covenant shall be recorded on the Seusitive Areas Tract, restricting its separate sale, prior to or in
conjunction with the final plat recording. Each abutting lot owner or the homeowners' association
shall have an undivided interest in the tract. A draft version of this document shall be submitted to
and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to plat recording.
3. The applicant shall submit a maintenance and monitoring plan, for a period no less than five years,
for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to plat recording.
ERC Report 08-09 3
City of Renton Department of Commu & Economic [kl'eloprnent Envi. ental Review Committee Report
LIBERTY GARDENS PRELIMINARY PLAT LUAOS-093
Report of December 15, 2008 Page 3 of7
4. The detention system for this project shall be required to comply with the requirements found in the
2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual to meet both detention (Conservation Flow control
-a.k.a. Level 3) and water quality improvements. \,.~,t+i.i [:r),.,•[ ((,
5. The applicant shall provide secondary access to the plat suitable for domestic, emergency and
pedestrian safety; to the satisfaction of the City of Renton Development Services Division subject to
the King County Road Standards ( 1993 ).
C. Exhibits
Exhibit I
Exhibit 2
Exhibit 3
Exhibit 4
Exhibit 5
Exhibit 6
Yellow File ( containing the application, reports, staff comments, prior staf£'county
decisions and other material pertinent to the review of the project)
Zoning Map
Aerial Photo
Preliminary Plat
Drainage Plan
KCC Sensitive Areas Code KCC 21 A.24 (2004)
D. Environmental Impacts
The Proposal was circulated and reviewed by various City Departments and Divisions to determine whether
the applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in
conjunction with the proposed development. Staff reviewers have identified that the proposal is likely to
have the fol/odwing probable impacts:
1. Earth
Impacts: The proposed project site has an average slope of 15 percent; with an elevation change of 46 feet
from the southwest quarter to the northeast quarter of the site. The soils on the site are classified as
Alderwood series. The applicant is not aware of the amount of grading that would happen as a result of the
proposal. The majority of the grading required for the project would be for the construction of the proposed
roads, building pads, utilities, and stormwater detention facilities and will be balanced on-site.
Approximately 70 percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces upon completion of the
project.
Due to the potential for erosion on the subject site, the applicant will be required to submit a Temporary
Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the State Department of Ecology's
Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Stormwater Management
Manual
Mitigation Measures: The applicant will be required to submit a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation
Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the State Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment
Control Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual. The plan must
be submitted to and approved by the Development Services Division Plan Review staff prior to issuance of
the utility construction permits and during utility and road construction.
Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations, DOE Manual
2. Water
a. Wetland, Streams, Lakes
Impacts:
A wetland is located in the southwest comer of the property and is associated with a small
intermittent stream. There is another isolated wetland located offsite to the west of the northwest
comer of the site. The applicant submitted a Wetland/Stream Evaluation and Mitigation Plan, by B-
12 Wetland Consulting, Inc. (dated November 19, 2004), delineating the wetlands and stream on site
as well as classifying the wetlands as Class II and the stream as Class Ill according to the County's
critical area rating system (KCC 21A.24). A secondary study/revised mitigation plan was submitted
ERC Report 08-093
City of Renton Department of Comm, & Economic Devdopment Envi ental Review Committee Report
LIBERTY GARDENS PRELIMINARY PLAT LUAOB-093
Report of December 15, 2008 Page 4 of7
by the applicant, conducted by Chad Armour, LLC ( dated May 16, 2007), in which the classification
and delineation by B-12 were affirmed.
The Class 2 wetlands and Class 3 stream extend oft:site into the unimproved right-of-way, 162"' Ave
SE, at the southwest and northwest corner of the site. The wetland associated with the stream is a
small forested wetland characterized by an overstory of red alder and cottonwood with salmon berry,
lady fem, and manna grass in tbe understory. The stream channel is a narrow 12-inch gravel/soil
bottom channel which appears to be intermittent with no fish use. The off-site wetland, located at the
northwest comer, is a young forested wetland dominated by immature alder, salmonberry, and lady
fem. Per the 2004 County regulations a Class Ill stream is a non-salmonid bearing intermittent
stream and requires a minimum 25-foot buffer. The standard SO-foot buffer for the Category 2
wetland is the encumbering buffer, rendering the stream buffer immaterial to the development of the
site.
In order to preserve and protect the wetland and its buffer the applicant will be required to establish a
Sensitive Areas Tract over that part of the site encompassing the stream/wetland and buffer area.
Staff recommends a mitigation measure requiring a covenant be placed on the tract restricting its
separate sale. Each abutting lot owner or the homeowners' association shall have an undivided
interest in the tract. A draft version of this document should be submitted to the Planning Project
Manager prior to final plat recording.
The applicant proposes to improve 162"'1 Ave SE with half street improvements, thus causing impacts
to tbe off-site wetland and stream. The applicant indicates that approximately 2,387 square feet of
wetland and 14,840 square feet of buffer would be affected as a result of the proposed improvement
to 162'' Ave SE. In addition a portion of the stream, in the amount of 30 linear feet, is proposed to
be placed in a 48-inch culvert.
A conceptual mitigation plan for the proposed wetland buffer impacts was submitted with the project
application. If the applicant intends on altering the wetlands or stream, as part of an improvement to
162nd Ave SE, a detailed final plan to mitigate for impacts from that alteration will be required to be
reviewed and approved, in accordance with KCC 2 lA.24 (2004), prior to the approval of the plat
engineering plans.
A performance bond, in accordance with KCC 27 A, or other financial guarantee will be required at
the time of plan approval to guarantee that the mitigation plan is installed according to the approved
final plan. The installation of the approved final mitigation plan must be completed prior to the final
plat recording. In order to ensure the success of the mitigation plan staff recommends as a mitigation
measure that the applicant submit a maintenance and monitoring plan, for a period no less than five
years, for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final plat recording.
After the approval of the final maintenance and monitoring plan, a performance surety must be
provided to the City of Renton for the maintenance and monitoring period prior to the issuance final
plat recording. Staff recommends, as a mitigation measure, that the applicant provide a maintenance
surety device (a letter of credit or irrevocable set aside feller) set at an amount totaling 125% of the
cost to guarantee satisfactory performance of the mitigation plan for a minimum of five years.
In order to provide the amount of security necessary for the maintenance and monitoring of the
wetland mitigation plantings, signagc, and fencing, we will need a copy of the signed maintenance
and monitoring contract for this work shall be provided. A draft (followed by a final) maintenance
and monitoring contract (or contracts) for City review prior to execution of the contract shall be
provided. The draft contract language must ensure compliance with the performance standards of the
approved mitigation plan as well the maintenance and monitoring standards.
Conditions associated with preliminary plat will likely include wetland signs and fencing, as allowed
by County Code.
Mitigation Measures:
1. A covenant shall be recorded on the Sensitive Areas Tract, restricting its separate sale, prior to or
m conjunction with the final plat recording. Each abutting lot owner or the homeowners'
ERC Report 08-09 3
City of Renton Department o/Commw & Economic Development Envir mtal Review Committee Report
LIBERTY GARDENS PRELIMINARY PLAT LUAOS-093
Report of December 15, 2008 Page 5 of7
association shall have an undivided interest in the tract. A draft version of this document shall be
submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to plat recording.
2. The applicant shall submit a maintenance and monitoring plan, for a period no less than five
years, for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to plat recording.
Nexus: KCC 21 A.24; SEPA Environmental Regulations
b. Storm Water
Impacts: The site lies within the Lower Cedar sub-basin of the Cedar River/Lake Washington
watershed. Currently runoff discharges into the Class III stream located at the southwest comer of the
site from the northeast. Water then flows southwesterly to eastern side of 162"' Ave SE and disperses
into a sheet flow south, within the unimproved 162"' Ave SE right-of-way. Further south, water
passes through a rockery dam located approximately 150 feet from the 162"' Ave SE and SE 144th
Ave intersection. Water then enters a small detention pond also located within the unimproved 162"d
Ave SE right-of-way. From the detention pond, water is conveyed across SE 144th Street via an 18-
inch culvert. Water then travels west within an 18-inch conveyance facility along the southern side of
SE 144'h St. The enclosed pipe system continues west, past 156'h Ave SE, continuing west eventually
outfalling to Tributary 0307. Tributary 0307 then turns south and outlets to the Cedar River.
The applicant proposes to collect stonn water runoff from the proposed streets, sidewalks, homes, and
lawns and covey into a proposed storm water vault located in Tract B in the southwestern portion of
the site. The outfall of the proposed vault would be conveyed back into the stream channel before
leaving the property along its natural drainage course. The applicant is proposing water quality
treatment in accordance with the J 993 King County Surface Water Design Manual.
The applicant submitted a Level Ill Downstream Drainage Analysis prepared by Ed McCarthy P.E.,
dated July 2, 2008. The report identifies several downstream problems and includes
recommendations to mitigate for the proposed development's impacts of downstream flooding. A
letter with additional recommended storm water mitigation was received March 11, 2008, from Ed
McCarthy P.E. Due to potential downstream drainage problems, staff recommends a mitigation
measure requiring the project to comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual to
meet both detention (Conservation Flow control -a.k.a. Level 3) and water quality improvements.
Mitigation Measures: The detention system for this project shall be required to comply with the
requirements found in the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual to meet both detention
(Conservation Flow control -a.k.a. Level 3) and water quality improvements.
Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations. King County Surface Water Design Manual
3. Transportation
Impacts: The site is fronted on the east and west by unimproved rights-of-way of 162"' and !64'h Ave SE.
The property is located approximately 1,300 linear feet from the intersection of 162"d Ave SE and SE 136th
Place; 400 feet from the intersections of SE 144'h Street and 162"' Ave SE as well as the intersection of SE
144th Street and 164'h Ave SE. No current improved access exists except nominally from 164'h Avenue SE.
High Accident Locations have been identified as effected by this development.
Per King County Road standards (KCRS 1.03) -1993 any land development abutting and impacting existing
roads shall improve the frontage of those roads in accordance with KCRS. The applicant is currently
proposing the improvement along the frontage of 162"' Ave SE only. Staff will be recommending a
condition of approval, as part of the preliminary plat review; that requires the applicant to improve the street
frontage along 164th Ave SE in addition to 162"d Ave SE to the satisfaction of the City of Renton
Development Services Division subject to the King County Road Standards (1993).
As discussed earlier in the report; l 62"d A vc SE is encumbered by two separate Class II wetlands and a Class
Ill stream. The applicant may request a variance for modification to the frontage improvement requirements
in order to avoid impacts to the critical areas located in the unimproved right of way. However, secondary
access must still be provided; see discussion below.
ERC Report 08-093
City of Renton Department ofCommur Economic Development Envir( 1tal Review Committee Report
LIBERTY GARDENS P,v:,L/MINARY PLAT LUAOS-093
Report of December 15, 2008 Page 6 of7
Due to the identified impacts and the one-way distance from the nearest intersection, staff recommends a
mitigation measure requiring the applicant to provide secondary access suitable for domestic, emergency and
pedestrian safety. The improvement of 162"' Ave SE, from where it currently terminates near the 138xx
block to SE J 44<h St, was proposed by the applicant in order to provide secondary access. The applicant has
entered into a three party contract with other pending development proposals in the area (Cavalla, LUA08-
097/DDES L06POOOI and Threadgill DDES L05P0026) in order to jointly improve the extension of 162"'
Ave SE to SE 144'h St. Construction ofan internal street that connects 162"' Ave SE to 164'h Ave SE would
provide an alternative for secondary access. The applicant may opt to not improve the off-site extension of
162"d Ave SE from the southwest corner of the site to 144th Ave SE as long as secondary access is provided
to the plat.
A Traffic Mitigation fee shall be assessed as appropriate and payable with the final plat.
Mitigation Measures:
1. The applicant shall provide secondary access to the plat suitable for domestic, emergency and pedestrian
safety; to the satisfaction of the City of Renton Development Services Division subject to the King
County Road Standards (1993).
Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations, King County Road Standards -1993
E. Comments of Reviewing Departments
The proposal has been circulated to City Depat1ment and Division Reviewers. Where applicable, their
comments have been incorporated into the text of this report and/or "Advisory Notes to Applicant."
-I' Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File and may be attached to this
report.
Environmental Determination Appeal Process: Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed
in writing on or before 5:00 PM, January 5, 2009.
Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 O.B governs appeals to the Hearing Examiner. Appeals must be filed in
writing at the City Clerk's office along with a S75.00 application fee. Additional information regarding the
appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall -7th Floor, 1055 S. Grady Way,
Renton WA 98057.
ERC Report 08-093
City of Renton Department ofCommu ec Economir..: Deve/01,ment Envir intal Review Committee Report
LIBERTY GARDENS PRELIMINARY PLAT LUAOB-093
Report of December 15, 2008 Page 7 of7
ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT
The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land
use action and are not all inclusive; for more code requirements please refer to the King County Code.
Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for the land use
actions.
Planning:
I. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday unless otherwise
approved by the Development Services Division.
2. The applicant will be required to establish a Native Growth Protection Tract over that part of the site encompassing the
stream/wetland and buffer area.
3. Sensitive area tract boundaries must be clearly marked with bright orange construction and silt fencing prior to
construction or site clearing activities. The boundaries shall remain marked until construction is complete.
4. Building and other structures shall be setback a distance of 15 feet from the edges of all sensitive area buffers.
5. A detailed final plan to mitigate for impacts from any alterations to critical areas will be required to be reviewed and
approved, in accordance with KCC 21A.24 (2004), prior to the approval of the plat engineering plans.
6. The applicant will be required to improve the street frontage along l 64'h Ave SE in addition to 162nd Ave SE to the
satisfaction of the City of Renton Development Services Division subject to the King County Road Standards (1993).
Water:
I. All fire hydrants installed or serving this subdivision are required to be fitted with a quick disconnect Storz fitting.
2. Extension of a water main of sufficient size to serve domestic service and fire standards is required. Plans designed and
approved by Water District #90 with appropriate separate permit and fees is required with the construction plans for
review.
Sanitary Sewer:
I. A System Development Charge (SOC) per lot is required for any new development and will be charged with the
construction permit.
2. The site is also subject to the Central Plateau Interceptor Phase II SAD unit charge of$344.71 per lot.
3. Extension ofa minimum 8-inch diameter sanitary snvcr meeting City of Renton standards is required to serve this plat.
Surface Water:
1. This project is required to comply with the 2005 King County surface water design manual. The preliminary drainage
report (TIR) submitted with the project Environmental Review has addresses requirements for detention and water
quality per the 1990 KCSWM, and used the 1998 KCSWDM modeling (KCRTS model) to design detention and water
quality facilities.
2. The Surface Water System Development Charge (SDC) per lot is required for this site.
Transportation:
1. Half street improvements including, but not limited to paving, sidewalks, curb and gutter, storm drain, landscape,
streetlights and street signs will be required along the frontage of the parcel (162"' Ave SE and 164"' Ave SE) and on
the interior streets in accordance with the King County Road Standards (1993).
2. Two points of access are required for this development due to the one-way distance from the nearest point of public
access.
3. A Traffic Mitigation fee shall be assessed as appropriate and payable with the final plat.
Miscellaneous:
1. Construction plan indicating haul route and hours, construction hours and a traffic control plan shall be submitted for
approval prior to any permit being issued.
2. Separate permits and fees for side sewer, domestic water meter, landscape irrigation meter, and any backflow devices
will be required.
ERC Report 08-093
E7 -11 T23N RSE E 1/2
SE 129th SI
SE 132nd?I
"\
I SE 1i)41!';_St
:R-4 i
~ i SF. l~~lh ~' .... j
I
:$ j
R-4 r
..i ' "· "' ~: P::: ! <{'
---------··-··--------.!tl.j SE 136:h S'. § z , ...,
.§ M
E-..,. SE. 137!hPJ . ....
t--SE:-1371",PI
~
SE 1:«!tl!PI
SE 1,J9111Pi
SE 141st Pi
SE '.~2nd!,I
s~ ,~7%1,,1
~U:lr>dPI
SE 14Jn:1 St
I
SE 14-<tr. SI ~
< ~
SE 144111 Pl ~--!·
G7 -23 T23N RSE E 1/2
~~ EXHIBIT 2 0;R ZONING .. .. ..
rP.i 0~
PW TECHNICAL SER'
NT 07/15/08
lll
VI
.)
)
4.
1,1
\jl
.!I
, /·
. ·se fai~Pi
SE IJ}nd SI'"-
SE f35ui' SI . .i1-·
j~
SE _1,37()1 Pl
(,
"pJ~
I_//" ..
.. /.
//',./· ..
~·
!
~'
,.
• !
*
~.
t
~
t • . !,
.:ft33rdPI
-1~ 'v'tl
st:: 1:i2iiiiSt
. .
.<
I
' ---!
Lt~\2.T'/ F7 ~=NS
::, ''"'
14 T23N RSE E 1/2
5314
'zj
QO
I .... ....
-3
N ....
2
:=i:i
Ul
t"'1
::;; ....
N
N
t
Renton City Limits
Parcels
Renton
SCALE 1 • 4,607
200 0 200
FEET
http•i /rentonnet. o rg/MapG u ide/m aps/Pa reel. mwf
400 600
N
A
EXHIBIT 3
Tuesday, September 30, 2008 4 50 PM
SN301::lVO A.ll::!38n ,o
~:~_: __ "I
..... """I0/,;1/11
..., .... <0/<t/('
: : .,., ' / : l ...
6i9fMW6 (cs;;;
l96 'IIM 'S3Nlorl S3G
1:i a1::1ca s LLB
31!:il3d ~ Olt, l;fG
~ 0 ·-\----j
0 . '
i. ' I
u ~ I:'
\ ... ~ .. ~ )'
w ~
1, l 1 i 111 H,
-:; ,~~ ~~ -,!II i ::!~~~~!i
I
!. .
! 411
hilii,
i . ., ...
• ' / I!.
\ ------._,
( ~ l
'ii I
•11
, ..
~ ! !
j ::i :i :i
! i II s ...
f ii! iu s 11d
;-
'
Ill 11
11
1:
"'P"tl--l. ____ _
-=:I'
I::;
a::i .... :c >< w
t~
f. ,o·
~ : ~
,•
I
-~'Pl
. ",'Y
-· •'
,,
PREUt.AINARY Oft.l.Dlt-.lO. A1'0 STO!'IM ORAINAOE PLAN
OF
UBERTY GARDENS
A PORnON OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION IS TOWNSHf' 22 N, RANCE ~ E. WM
KNO COIMTY, WASHNOTON
"-· ,:.i.i~Y'
-· '". ,.. "' "' "~. ti_::·~·:'.?!,:::
'· ~--2c~~-~J::::"'E~:-·· -· ·· ;r--;__ . •· -,· --7 -,T7 --"":-~4~-.,.;
/fl·,·· .,.J,~,_, .. '-~··•\ --··.P11. I 11\· lr,z
I 1 ·),:1ir7 Y,., \ ·,, I
,' ·1· . \ .
• ~I I I 1"'Y'~ \
' I. I I ~· ·''·'[-. ' '
11 15 1' · ,,· ...
,• , I
.,.,.i:;o .., .. , ....... "
"
EXHIBIT 5
i,...:.o:c-.:;=:....
~t
L--. ,._,,. __ __,
~1 anr~n. I o:,"11'.J" I
I.J!; I I I -0 .... ZZM,,L II, :LI Iii ',i'
r«-«><oot=c....,,o•/ _./-'/"f"
-;:' ::::. w,,,,_/_/ ,....._, ,...,ru .... , / T'l'PICAL ==-~ ,;:·,:,-/ c•c=,===cTRA=CT=,ec=cTION= --·«·•• "°' .......
17.·±t->''~,., ::.?; I
•l'l"~"' -~; .... ~, I ..
j-=-.J .L,:'"n
!l'.::r
-°'"""°'"
~·
,,__ ........ ""',·°'"·'" :~:~:...~;"'_."":"';_~.:_.. _/ //
!;.;Xr,"~:f:"' ,c,,. ,,_... //' T'l'PICAL ON-SITE
;;,:::,~;r.'~°I"'''--' ./ PUSU: ROAD SECTION
..,..,_,,,..,.,""""''"~·· '"""''°"' ~"'-.~~"<,"'"·
h
I
ii
!1 I l i1
.nh
Iii ii
llllli
i~
11~1
,~ i
~
! b:' ~ i ~!
!2«>;i.'i 2§ ii ti) !j
l'i
•I• I 'I •. !I I !I h
i 11
' ! ; ; !I : !!~ I I
.,. .•.• ~r
•. u I ~Hi i
• \ l f )t ~i!.~ l
i m1!
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS 21A.24
Sections:
21A.24.010
21A.24.020
21A.24.030
21A.24.040
21A.24.050
21A.24.060
21A.24.070
21A.24.075
21A.24.080
21A.24.090
21A.24.100
21A.24.110
21A.24.120
21A.24.130
21A.24.140
21A.24.150
21A.24.160
21A.24.170
21A.24.180
21A.24.190
21A.24.200
21A.24.210
21A.24.220
21A.24.230
21A.24.240
21A.24.250
21A.24.260
21A.24.270
21A.24.275
21A.24.280
21A.24.290
21A.24.300
21A.24.310
21A.24.320
21A.24.330
21A.24.340
21A.24.345
21A.24.350
21A.24.360
21A.24.370
21A.24.380
21A.24.390
21A.24.400
21A.24.410
21A.24.420
21A.24.500
21A.24.510
EXHIBIT 6
Chapter 21A.24
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS
Purpose.
Applicability.
Appeals.
Sensitive areas rules.
Complete exemptions.
Partial exemptions.
Exceptions.
Modification or waiver of sensitive area requirements -urban lots.
Sens i1ive area rr aps and inventories.
Disclosure by applicant.
Sensitive area review.
Sensitive area special study requirement.
Contents of sensitive area special study.
Mitigation, maintenance, monitoring and contingency.
Financial guarantees.
Vegetation management plan.
Sensitive area markers and signs.
Notice on title.
Sensitive area tracts and designations on site plans.
Alteration.
Building setbacks.
Coal mine hazard areas: Development standards and permitted alterations.
Erosion hazard areas: Development standards and permitted alterations.
Flood hazard areas: Components.
Flood fringe: Development standards and permitted alterations.
Zero-rise floodway: Development standards and permitted alterations.
FEMA floodway: Development standards and permitted alterations.
Flood hazard areas: Certification by engineer or surveyor.
Channel relocation and stream meander areas.
Landslide hazard areas: Development standards and permitted alterations.
Seismic hazard areas: Development standards and permitted aiterations.
Volcanic hazard areas: Development standards and permitted alterations.
Steep slope hazard areas: Development standards and permitted alterations.
WeUands: Development standards.
Wetlands: Permitted alterations.
Wetlands: mitigation requirements.
Wetlands: Mitigation banking.
Wetlands: Limited exemption.
Streams: Development standards.
Streams: Permitted alterations.
Streams: Mitigation requirements.
Sensitive areas mitigation fee -Creation of fund.
Sensitive areas mitigation fee -Source of funds.
Sensitive areas mitigation fee -Use of funds.
Sensttive areas mitigation fee -Investment of funds.
Sensitive area designation.
Effect of approval of septic system design based on sensitive area designation.
(King County 9-2004)
21A--183
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS 21A24.010 -21A.24.020
21A.24.01D Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to implement the goals and policies of lhe
Washington State Environmental Policy Act, RCW 43.21 C, and the King County Comprehensive Plan
which call for protection of the natural environment and the public health and safety by:
A. Establishing development standards lo protect defined sensitive areas;
B. Protecting members of the public and public resources and facilities from injury, loss of life,
property damage or financial loss due to flooding, erosion, avalanche, landslides, seismic and volcanic
events, soil subsidence or steep slope failures;
C. Protecting unique, fragile and valuable elements of the environment including, but not limited lo,
wndlife and its habitat;
D. Requiring mitigation of unavoidable impacts on environmentally sensitive areas by regulating
alterations in or near sensitive areas;
E. Preventing cumulative adverse environmental impacts on water availability, water quality, ground
water, we«ands and streams;
F. Measuring the quantity and quality of wetland and stream resources and preventing overall net
loss of wetland and stream functions;
G. Protecting the public trust as to navigable waters and aquatic resources;
H. Meeting the requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program and maintaining King County
as an eligible community for federal flood insurance benefits;
I. Alerting members of the public including, but not limited to, appraisers, owners, potential buyers or
lessees to the development limitations of sensitive areas; and
J. Providing county off,cials with sufficient infonnation to protect sensitive areas. (Ord. 11621 § 69,
1994: 10870 § 448, 1993).
21A.24.020 Applicability.
A. The provisions of this chapter shall apply lo all land uses in King County, and all persons within
the county shall comply with the requirements of this chapter. ·
B. King County shall not approve any permrt or otherwise issue any authorization to alter the
condition of any land, water or vegetation or to construct or alter any structure or Improvement without first
assuring compliance with the requirements of this chapter.
C. Approval of a development proposal pursuant to the provisions of this chapter does not discharge
the obligation of the applicant to comply with the provisions of this chapter.
D. When any provision of any other chapter of the King County Code conflicts with this chapter or
when the provisions of this chapter are in conflict, that provision which provides more protection to
environmentally sensitive areas shall apply unless specifJCally provided otherwise in this chapter or unless
such provision conflicts with federal or state laws or regulations.
E. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all forest practices over which the county has
jurisdiction pursuant to RCW 76.09 and WAC 222. (Ord. 10870 § 449, 1993).
(King County 9-2004)
21A-185
V$) \
I
. 'L-,,
~C,· ··,Y
21A.24.030 -21A.24.050 ZONING
21A.24.030 Appeals. Any decision to approve, condition or deny a development proposal based on
the requirements of K.C.C. 21A.24 may be appealed according to and as part of the appeal procedure for the
permit or approval involved. (Ord. 10870 § 450, 1993).
21A.24.040 Sensitive areas rules. Applicable departments within King County are authorized to
adopt, pursuant to K.C.C. 2.98, such administrative rules and regulations as are necessary and appropriate
to implement K.C.C. 21A.24 and to prepare and require the use of such forms as are necessary to its
administration. (Ord. 10870 § 451, 1993).
21A.24.050 Complete exemptions. The following are exempt from the provisions of this chapter
and any administrative rules promulgated thereunder:
A Alterations in response to emergencies which threaten the public health, safety and welfare or
which pose an imminent risk of damage to private property as long as any alteratiOA undertaken pursuant to
this subsection is reported to the department immediately. The director shall confirm that an emergency
exists and determine what, if any, mitigation shall be required to protect the health, safety, welfare and
environment and to repair any resource damage;
B .. Agricultural activijies as described below, in existence before November 27, 1990, and performed
not less often than once every five years thereafter:
1. Mowing of hay, grass or grain crops;
2. Tilling, discing, planting, seeding, harvesting, soil preparation, crop rotation and related activities
for pasture, food crops, grass seed or sod if such activities do not take place on steep slopes;
3. Normal and routine maintenance of existing irrigation and drainage ditches not used by
salmonids;
4. Normal and routine maintenance of farm ponds, fish ponds, manure lagoons and livestock
watering ponds; and
5. grazing by livestock.
C. Public water, electric and natural gas distribution, public sewer collection, cable communications,
telephone utility and related activities undertaken pursuant to county-approved best management practices,
as follows:
1. Normal and routine maintenance or repair of existing utility structures or rights-of-way;
2. Relocation of electric faciltties, lines, equipment or appurtenances, not including substations,
with an associated voltage of fifty-five thousand volts or less, only when required by a local governmental
agency which approves the new location of the facilities;
3. Replacement, operation, repair, modification, installation or construction in existing developed
utility corridors, an improved county road right-of-way or county-authorized private roadway of all electric
facilities, lines, equipment or appurtenances, not including substations;
4. Relocation of public sewer local collection, public water local distribution, natural gas, cable
communication or telephone facilities, lines, pipes, mains, equipment or appurtenances, only when required
by a local governmental agency which approves the new location of the facilities;
5. Replacement, operation, repair, modification, installation or construction of public sewer local
collection, public water local distribution, natural gas, cable communication or telephone facillties, lines, pipes,
mains, equipment or appurtenances when such facilities are located within an improved public right-of-way
or county authorized private roadway;
D. Maintenance, operation, repair, modification or replacement of publicly improved roadways as
long as any such alteration does not involve the expansion of roadways or related improvements into previ-
ously unimproved rights-of-way or portions of rights-of-way;
E. Maintenance, operation or repair of publicly improved recreation areas as long as any such
alteration does not involve the expansion of improvements into previously unimproved recreation areas;
F. Public agency development proposals only to the extent of any construction contract awarded
before November 27, 1990, provided that any law or regulation in effect at the time of such award shall apply
to the proposal;
(King County 9-2004)
21A-186
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS 21A.24.050 -21A.24.060
G. All clearing and grading activities which are exempt from the requirement for a clearing and
grading permit as specified in K.C.C. 16.82.050, unless these activities 'require other permits or
authorizations as specified in K.C.C. 21A.24.020.
H. The following exempt activities are permitted in coal mine hazard areas, provided that the
applicable landowner, operator or utility is made aware of potential hazards:
1 . Forest practices;
2. Agricultural activities;
3. Mining activities;
4. Power, telephone, and cable television utility Jines;
5. Grading, filling, stockpile removal, and reclamation activities performed in conjunction with or
by the Department of Interior's Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement with the intent of
eliminating or mitigating threats to human health, public safety, environmental restoration or protection of
property; and
6. Land uses and activities that existed prior to November 30, 1998. (Ord. 13319 § 6, 1998:
Ord. 11621 § 71, 1994: 10870 § 452, 1993).
21A.24.D60 Partial exemptions.
A. The following are exempt from the provisions of this chapter and any administrative rules
promulgated thereunder, except for the notice on title provisions, K.C.C. 21A.24.170 -21A.24.180, and the
flood hazard area provisions, K.C.C. 21A24.230 -21A.24.270:
1. Structural modification of, addition to or replacement of structures, except single detached
residences, in existence before November 27, 1990 which do not meet the building setback or buffer
requirements for wetlands, streams or steep slope hazard areas if-the modification, addition, replacement or
related activity does not increase the existing footprint of the structure tying within the above-described
building setback area, sensitive area or buffer;
2. Structural modification of, addition to or replacement of single detached residences in existence
before November 27, 1990 which do not meet the building setback or buffer requirements for wetlands,
streams or steep slope hazard areas if the modification, addition, replacement or related activity does not
increase the existing footprint of the residence lying within the above-described buffer or building setback
area by more than 1000 square feet over that existing before November 27, 1990 and no portion of the
modification, addition or replacement is located closer to the sensitive area or, if the existing residence is in
the sensitive area, extends farther into the sensitive area; and
3. Maintenance or repair of structures which do not meet the development standards of this
chapter for coal mine, landslide; seismic or volcanic hazard areas if the maintenance or repair does not
increase the footprint of the structure and there is no increased risk to life or property as a result of the
proposed maintenance or repair;
B. The grazing of livestock is exempt from the provisions of this chapter and any administrative rules
promulgated thereunder, except for the ·livestock restriction provisions, K.C.C. 21A.24.320 and 21A.24.360,
and any animal density limitations established by law, if the grazing activity was in existence before
November 27, 1990;
C. A permit or approval sought as part of a development proposal for which multiple permits are
required is exempt from the provisions of this chapter and any administrative rules promulgated thereunder,
except for the notice on title provisions, K.C.C. 21A.24.170 -21A.24.180, if:
1. King County previously reviewed all sensitive areas on the site;
2. There is no material change in the development proposal since the prior review;
3. There is no new information available which is importanl to any sensitive area· review of the site
or particular sensitive area;
4. The permit or approval under which the prior review was conducted has not expired or, if no
expiration date, no more than five years lapsed since the issuance of that permit or approval; and
5. The prior permit or approval, including any conditions, has been complied with. (Ord. 10870 §
453, 1993).
(King County 9-2004)
21A-187
21A.24.070 -21A.24.075 ZONING
21A.24.070 Exceptions.
A. If the application of this chapter would prohibit a development proposal by a public agency and
utility, the agency or utility may apply for an exception pursuant to this subsection:
1. The public agency or· utility shall apply to the department and shall make available to the
department other related project documents such as permit applications to other agencies, special studies
and SEPA documents.
2. The department shall review the application based on the following criteria:
a. there is no other practical alternative to the proposed development with less impact on the
sensitive area; and
b. the proposal minimizes the impact on sensitive areas.
3. The department shall process exceptions, provide public notice, and provide opportunity for the
public to request a public hearing, and provide an appeal process consistent with the provisions of K.C.C.
20.20.
4. This exception shall not allow the use of the following sensitive areas for regional stormwater
management facilities except where there is a clear showing that the facility will protect public health and
safety or repair damaged natural resources:
a. class 1 streams or buffers;
b. class 1 wedands or buffers with plant associations of infrequent occurrence: or
c. class 1 or 2 wedands or buffers which provide critical or outstanding habitat for herons, raptors
or stale or federal designated endangered or threatened species unless· clearly demonstrated by the
applicant that there will be no impact on such habit.at.
B. If the application of this chapter would deny all reasonable use of the property, the applicant may
apply for an exception pursuant to this subsection:
1. The applicant may apply for a reasonable use exception without first having applied for a
variance if the requested exception includes relief from standards for which a variance cannot be granted
pursuant to the provisions of K.C.C. chapter 21A.44. The applicant shall apply lo the department, and the
department shall make a final decision based on the following criteria:
a. the application of this chapter would deny all reasonable use of the property;
b. there is no other reasonable use with Jess impact on the sensitive area;
c. the proposed development does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety or
welfare on or off the development proposal site and is consistent with the general purposes of this chapter
and the public interest: and
d. any alterations permitted to the sensitive area shall be the m.inimum necessary to allow for
reasonable use of the property; and any authorized alteration of a sensitive area under this subsection shall
be subject to conditions established by the department including, but not limited to, mitigation under an
approved mitigation plan. (Ord. 13190 § 19, 1998: Ord. 12196 § 54, 1996: Ord. 11621 § 73, 1994: Ord.
10870 § 454, 1993). .
21A.24.075 Modification or waiver of sensitive area requirements -urban lots. The
purpose of this sect, n is to provide an alternative to the variance, and exception processes for minor
development. A furth purpose of this section is to minimize impacts to sensitive areas by allowing minor
modifications of the zo ·ng code which allow single family residences on existing, legal urban lots without
requmng a variance or ception. The director shall have the discretion to modify or waive some or all of
the requirements of this itle, including mitigation requirements, pertaining to class 3 wetlands, class 3
streams, and their associ ed buffers or building setback areas in accordance with the provisions of this
section.
A. An applicant may
section provided the lot or Jo
Plan; and
uest a modification or waiver of sensitive area requirements pursuant to this
are located in an urban area designated in the King County Comprehensive
B. The applicant for tH modification or waiver of sensitive area requirements shall submit any
sensitive area special studies follo, 'ng a preapplication review meeting as required under K.C.C. 21A.24.110
as well as· such other documents, studies, as requested by the director.
(King County 9-2004)
21A-188
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS 21A.24.075 -21A.24.090
C. The director may grant a modification or waiver of sensmve area requirements provided:
1. The proposal is the minimum necessary to accommodate the buHding footprint and access. In
no case, however, shall the building footprint exceed 5000 square feet, including access,
2. Access is located so as to have the least impact on the sensmve area and its buffer,
3. The proposal preserves the functions and values of wetlands and streams to the maximum
extent possible,
4. Adverse impacts resulting from alterations of steep slopes are minimized,
5. The proposal includes on-site mitigation to the maximum extent possible,
6. The proposal will not signHicantly affect drainage capabilities, flood potential, and steep slopes
and landslide hazards either on neighboring properties or on the proposal itself; and 7-:'/
7. The proposal first develops nonsensitive area land, tihen the sensitive ar buffer before the
sensitive area itself is developed.
The director may require on-site or off-site mitigation measures to comp sate for tihe loss of the
functions and values of the sensmve areas and may impose mitigating cond' · ns to tihe modHication or
waiver in order to meet the standards of this subsection C.
D. Where a modHication or waiver of sensitive area requirements u er tihis section is proposed, the
director shall give written mailed notice of the proposed modification waiver to all owners of property
located witihin three hundred feet of any boundary of the subject prope and to tihe water and land resources
division and shall allow fifteen calendar days for comment before aking a decision. The decision of the
director regarding the modffication or waiver shall be mailed to t e applicant and to any other person who
requests a copy. The decision shall state the reasons for deni91/or any required mmgBtion or other conditions
imposed. The decision of the director regarding the modifltation or waiver may be appealed per K.C.C.
21A.24.030. .·
E. This section shall not apply to the following steep slope hazard areas:
1. Steep slope hazard areas tihat are unmitiga'table landslide hazard areas; and
2. Steep slope hazard areas of slope greater than seventy percent where etther the lot or slope are
abutting and above a class 1 or 2 wetland stream, a'nd associated buffer, or an open stormwater conveyance
system. (Ord. 13190 § 20, 1998: Ord. 11621 § TO, 1994).
I ,
21A.24.080 Sensitive area maps ajd inventories.
A. The distribution of many envir nmentally sensmve areas in western King County is displayed on
maps in the Sensitive Areas Map Folio. any of tihe wetlands are inventoried and rated and that infonnation
is published in the King County Wetla s Inventory Notebooks. Many flood hazard areas are mapped by the
Federal Insurance Administration in scientific and engineering report entitled ·The Rood Insurance Study
for King County.' If tihere is a con among the maps, inventory and site-specific features, the department
of development and environme al services shall verify the actual presence or absence of the features
defined in this tifle as sensitive reas. The determination may be challenged by the property owner. (Ord.
11621 § 74, 1994: Ord. 10870 § 455, 1993).
21A.24.090 Disclosure by applicant.
A. The applicant shall disclose to King County tihe presence of sensitive areas on tihe development
proposal sne and any mapped or identifiable sensitive areas witihin 100 feet of the applicant's property.
B. If the development proposal site contains or is witihin a sensitive area. tihe applicant shall submit
an affidavit which declares whether the applicant has knowledge of any illegal alteration to any or all sensmve
areas on the development proposal site and whether the applicant previously has been found in violation of
this chapter, pursuant to K.C.C. Title 23. If the applicant previously has been found in violation, tihe applicant
shall declare whether such violation has been corrected to the satisfaction of King County. (Ord. 10870 §
456, 1993).
(King County 9-2004)
21A-189
21A.24.100-21A.24.120 ZONING
21A.24.100 Sensitive area review.
A. Except as provided in subsection C of this section, King County shall perform a sensitive area
review for any development proposal permit application or other request for permission to proceed with an
alteration on a site that includes a sensitive area or is within an identified sensitive area buffer or building
setback area.
B. As part of the sensitive area review, King County shall:
1. Determine whether any sensitive area exists on the property and confirm its nature and type;
2. Determine whether a sensitive area special study is required;
3. Evaluate the sensitive area special study;
4. Determine whether the development proposal is consistent with this chapter;
5. Determine whether any proposed alteration to the sensitive area is necessary; and
6. Determine if the mitigation and monitoring plans and bonding measures proposed by the
applicant are sufficient to protect the public health, safety and welfare, consistent with the goals, purposes,
objectives and requirements of this chapter.
C. If a development proposal does not involve any site disturbance, clearing, or grading and only
requires a permit or approval under K.C.C. chapter 16.04 or 17.04, sensitive area review is not required,
unless the development proposal is located within a landslide hazard area, seismic hazard area, or coal mine
hazard area and the proposed development will cause additional loads on the foundation, such as by
expanding the habitable square footage of the structure or by adding or changing structural features Iba!
change the load bearing characteristics of the structure. Sensitive area review required under this subsection
shall be limited to consideration of the development proposal and the hazard area ·in which it is localed. (Ord.
14449 § 9, 2002: Ord. 10870 § 457, 1993).
21A.24.110 Sensitive area special study requirement.
A. An applicantfor a development proposal which includes a sensitive area or is within an
identified sensitive area buffer shall submit a sensitive area special study to adequately evaluate the proposal
and all probable impacts.
B. King County may waive the requirement for a special study if the applica[lt shows, to King
County's satisfaction, that:
1. There will be no alteration of the sensitive area or buffer;
2. The development proposal will not have an impact on the sensitive area in a manner contrary lo
the goals, purposes, objectives and requirements of this chapter; and
3. The minimum standards required by th.is chapter are met.
C. If necessary to insure. compliance with this chapter, King· County may require additional
information from the applicant, separate from the special study. (Ord. 10870 § 458, 1993).
21A.24.120 Contents of sensitive area special study.
A The sensitive area special study shall be in the form of a written report and shall contain the
following, as applicable:
1. Identification and characterization of all sensitive areas on or encompassing the development
proposal site;
2. Assessment of the impacts of any alteration proposed for a sensitive area or buffer, assessment
of the impacts of 1;1ny alteration on the development proposal, other properties and the environment, and/or
assessment of the impacts to the development proposal resulting from development in the sensitive area or
buffer;
3. Studies which propose adequate mitigation, maintenance, monitoring and contingency plans
and bonding measures; ·,,.
4. A scale map or .ttie development proposal site; and
5. Detailed studies, a~ required by King County.
B. A sensitive area special study may be combined with any studies required by other laws and
regulations; and ,
C. If the development proposal will affect only a part of the development proposal sije, the county
may limit the scope of the required special study to include only that part of the site which may be affected by
the development. (Ord. 10870 § 459, 1993).
(King County 9-2004)
21A-1.90
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS 21A-24.130 -21A.24.170
21A.24.130 Mitigation, maintenance, monitoring and contingency.
A As determined by King County, mitigation, maintenance and monitoring measures shall be in
place to protect sensitive areas and buffers from alterations occurring on the development proposal site.
B. Where monitoring reveals a significant deviation from predicted impacts or a failure of mitigation
or maintenance measures, the applicant shall be responsible for appropriate corrective action which, whe.,n ~·
approved, shall be subject to further monitoring. (Ord. 10870 § 460, 1993). .. ~
21A.24.140 Financial guarantees. Financial guarantees shall be required consistent with the
provisions of Title 27A (Ord. 12020 § 54, 1995: Ord. 10870 § 461, 1993).
21A.24.150 Vegetation management plan.
A. For all development proposals where preservation of existing vegetation is required by this
chapter, a vegetation management plan shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of the permit or
other request for permission to proceed with an alteration.
. B. The vegetation management plan shall identify the proposed clearing limit,;.forthe project and
any areas where vegetation in a sensnive area or its buffer is proposed to be distur~,,.
C. Where clearing includes cutting any merchantable stand of timber, as·defined in WAC 222-16-
010(28), the vegetation management plan shall include a description of propcfsed logging practices which
demonstrates how all sensitive areas will be protected in accordance with the'provisions of this chapter.
D. Clearing limtts as shown on the plan shall be marked in )hi; field in a prominent and durable
manner. Proposed methods of field marking shall be reviewed and approved by King County prior to any site
alteration. Field marking shall remain in place until the certificate of occupancy or final project approval is
granted.
E. The vegetation management plan may be incorporated into a temporary erosion and sediment
control plan or landscaping plan where either of these plans is required by other laws or regulations.
F. Submttlal requirements for vegetation management plans shall be set forth in administrative
rules. (Ord. 10870 § 462, 1993).
21A.24.160 Sensitive area markers and signs.
A. Permanent survey stakes delineating the boundary between adjoining property and sensitive area
tracts shall be set, using iron or concrete markers as established by current survey standards-
B. The boundary between a sensitive area tract and contiguous land shall be identified wilh
permanentsigns. (Ord.10870§463, 1993).
21A.24.170 Notice on title. /_,,,.,.-----
A. Except as otherwise provided in subsection of C of this section, the owner of any property
containing sensitive areas or buffers on which a deveiopment proposal is submitted shall file .a notice
approved by King County wtth the records, elections and licensing services division. The required contents
and fonm of the notice shall be set forth in administrative rules. "J:he notice shall inform the public of the
presence of sensitive areas or buffers on the property, of the application of this chapter to the property and
that limitations on actions In or affecting such sensitive areas or buffers may exist. The notice shall run with
the land.
B .. The applicant for a development proposal shall submit proof that the notice required by this
section has been filed for public record before King County shall approve any development proposal for the
property or, in the case of subdivisions,_ shor1 subdivisions and binding site plans, at or before recording.
C. The notice required under subsection A of this section is not required if:
1. The property is a public right-of-way or the site of a permanent public facmty; or
2. The development proposal does not require sensitive area review under K.C.C. 21A.24.100C.
(Ord. 14449 § 10, 2002: Ord. 14187 § 3, 2001: Ord. 10870 § 464, 1993).
(King County 9-2004)
21A-191
21A.24.180 -21A.24.210 ZONING
21 A.24.180 Sensitive area tracts and designations on site plans.
A. Sensitive area tracts shall be used to delineate and protect those sensitive areas and buffers
listed below in development proposals for subdivisions, short subdivisions or binding stte plans and shall be
recorded on all documents of title of record for all affected lots:
1. All landslide hazard areas and buffers that are one acre or greater in size;
2. AJ.I steep slope hazard areas and buffers that are one ,acre or greater in size;
3. All wetlands and buffers; and
4. All streams and buffers.
B. Any required sensitive area tract shall be held in an undivided interest by each owner of a building
lot wtthin the development with this ownership interest passing with the ownership of the lot or shall be held
by an incorporated homeowner's association or other legal entity which assures the ownership, maintenance
and protection of the tract.
C. Site plans submitted as part of development proposals for building permits, master plan
developments and clearing and grading perm its shall include and delineate:
1. All flood hazard areas, if they have been mapped by FEMA or King County or if a special study is
required;
2. Landslide, volcanic, coal mine and steep slope hazard areas;
3. Streams and wetlands;
4. Buffers; and
5. Building setbacks.
D. If only a part of the development site has been mapped pursuant to K.C.C. 21A.24.120C, the part
of the stte that has not been mapped shall be clearly identified and labeled on the stte plans. (Ord. 14449 §
11, 2002: Ord. 10870 § 465, 1993). -
21A.24.190 Alteration. Any human activity which results or is likely to result in an impact upon the
existing condition of a sensitive area is an alteration which is subject to specific limitations as specified for
each sensttive area. Alterations include, but are not limtted to, grading, filling, dredging, draining,
channelizing, applying herbicides or pesticides or any hazardous substance, discharging pollutants except
stormwater, grazing domestic animals, paving, constructing, applying gravel, modifying for surface water
management purposes, cutting, pruning, topping, trimming, relocating or removing vegetation or any other
human activity which results or is likely to result in an impact to existent vegetation, hydrology, wildlife or
wildlife habttat. Alterations do not include walking, fishing or any other passive recreation or other similar
activities. (Ord. 10870 § 466, 1993).
21A.24.200 Building setbacks. Unless otherwise provided, buildings and other structures shall be
set back a distance of 15 feet from the edges of all sensitive area buffers or from the edges of all sensitive
areas, if no buffers are required. The following may be allowed in the buiding setback area:
A. Landscaping;
B. Uncovered decks;
C. Building overhangs if such overhangs do not extend more than 18 inches into the setback area;
and
, D. Impervious ground surfaces, such as driveways and patios, provided that such improvements
1,') may be subject to special drainage provisions specified in administrative rules adopted for the various
r"-·sensitive areas, (Ord. 10870 § 467, 1993).
' !..-, ,,. ; 0:
21A.24.210 Coal mine hazard areas: Development standards and pennitted alterations.
A Alterations wtthin coal mine hazard areas shall not be permitted wtthout prior acceptance of a
coal mine hazard assessment report and provided that:
1. Based upon recommendations contained within the report, a studied stte shaH be classified as
one or a combination of the following:
a. declassified coal mine areas;
b. moderate coal mine hazard areas; or
c. severe coal mine hazard areas.
(King County 9-2004)
21A-192
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS 21A.24.210
2. The coal mine hazard assessment report shall be prepared by a professional engineer using
methodology and assumptions consistent with standards or professional engineering guidelines adopted by
the department. The report may contain the following as determined by the department to be necessary for
the review of the proposed use:
a. a statement of the professional engineer's qualifications and licensing information, together
with a signature and stamped seal;
b. a list of references utilized in preparation of the report; .
c. a description of the analytical tools and processes that have been used in the report;
d. surface exploration data such as borings, drill holes, test pfts, wells, geologic reports, and other
relevant reports or site investigations that may be useful in making conclusions or recommendations about
the site under investigation;
e. a description of historical data and information used in the evaluation, together with sources.
Such data and information shall include:
(1) topographic maps at a scale and contour interval of sufficient detail to assess the site. The
sife boundaries and proposed sife development shall be overlain with the mine plan view inap, as
appropriate; ·
(2) copies of illustrative coal mine maps showing remnant mine conditions, if available;
(3) aerial photography, as appropriate;
(4) geological data including geologic crosssections and other illustrative data as appropriate;
and
(5) available historic mine records indicating the dates of operation, the date of cessation of
active mining, the number of years since abandonment, mining methods, shoring and timbering information,
the strength of the overlying rock strata, the extracted seam thickness, the dip or inclination of the strata,
workings and surface, the projected surface location of the seam outcrop or subcrop, the estimated depth of
the seam outcrop or subcrop, if covered by glacial outwash, glacial till or other materials at depth, total coal
tonnage produced, estimated coal mine by-product material produced and the estimated extraction ratio.
f. a mine plan view map, reproduced al the same scale as the topographic map, showing the
location of the mine, the extent of mining, the proposed sife development, if applicable, and any remnant
abandoned mine surface features. The following shall be included:
(1) the layout of the underground mine;
(2) the location of any mine entries, portals, adifs, mine shafts, air shafts, timber shafts, and
other significant mine features;
(3) the location of any known sinkholes, significant surface depressions, trough subsidence
features, coal mine spoil piles and other mine-related surface features;
(4) the location of any prior site improvements that have been carried out to mitigate abandoned
coal mine features; and
(5) zones showing varying overburden-cover-to-seam-thickness ratios, when appropriate.
g. a statement as to the relative degree of accuracy and completeness of the maps and
information reviewed, especiaHy regarding historic mine map accuracy, and reasons why such sources are
considered reliable for the purpose of the hazard assessment report;
h." a mitigation plan containing recommendations for mitigation, as appropriate, for the specific
proposed alteration;
i. recommendations for addltional study, reports, development standards or architectural
recommendations for subsequent and more specific proposed alterations, as appropriate;
j. analysis and recommendations, if any, of the potential for future trough subsidence and special
mitigation; and
k. a delineation of coal mine hazard areas for the site under investigation using a map identifying
the specific category (i.e., severe, moderate, or declassified) of mine hazard area. For the purposes of
obtaining accurate legal descriptions, the mine hazard areas shall be surveyed and the survey map shall be
drawn at a scale of not less than 1 "=200'.
(King County 9-2004)
21A.24.210 ZONING
3. Giving great weight to the licensing requirements of professional engineers and standards of
professional accountability and liability, the department shall review the coal mine hazard assessment report
and within the time period specified in K.C.C. 20.20.050 either accept the report, recommend revisions or
additions to the report or return the report to the applicant as unaccepted and detail the specific deficiencies.
In the event of a disagreement, the applicant may submit the report to a mutually agreed-upon third party
professional engineer who will conduct the review and issue a decision binding upon the department and
applicant.
4. When a hazard assessment report has been accepted, the applicant shall record a notice on the
tiHe of the property as follows:
"NOTICE"
'This property is located in an area of historic coal mine activity. A coal mine hazard
assessment report has been prepared to characterize the potential hazards contained on this
property. The report is dated [insert date of the final report], was prepared by [insert name of
professional engineer with license number] at the direction of [insert name of property owner],
and reviewed by the King County department of development and environmental services
{and, if necessary, include name of peer reviewing professional engineer with license
number]. A review of the report is advised prior lo undertaking unregulated or exempt land
use activities and is required prior to undertaking regulated land use activijies."
B. Permitted alterations within a coal mine hazard area are allowed as follows, subject to other King
County Code penn~ requirements:
1. W~in declassified coal mine areas all alterations are permitted.
2. W~hin moderate coal mine hazard areas and coal mine by-product stockpiles, all alterations are
permitted subject to a mitigation plan to minimize risk of structural damage using appropriate criteria to
evaluate the proposed use.
If required or recommended by the hazard assessment report, the mitigation plan to address
potential trough subsidence must be prepared by a professional engineer and may be included in the coal
mine hazard assessment report or may be an additional study or report, as appropriate.
3. Within severe coal mine hazard areas the following alterations are permitted:
a. all grading, filling, stockpile removal, and reclamation activities undertaken pursuant to a coal
mine hazard assessment report with the intent of eliminating or mitigating threats to human health, public
safety, environmental restoration or protection of property, provided that
(1) signed and stamped plans have been prepared by a professional engineer;
(2) as-built drawings are prepared following reclamation activities; and
(3) the plans and as-built drawings shall be submitted to the department for inclusion wijh the
coal mine hazard assessment report prepared for the property.
b. private road construction and maintenance activities, provided that mitigation to eliminate or
minimize significant risk of personal injury ar,:, incorporated into road construction or maintenance plans.
c. buildings with less than four thousand square feet of floor area that contain no living quarters
and that are not used as places of employment or public assembly, provided that mitigation to f!liminate or
minimize significant risk of personal injury are incorporated into s~e. building, and/or landscaping plans.
d. additional land use activities provided that they are consistent w~ recommendations contained
within any mitigation plan required by the hazard assessment report. (Ord. 13319 § 7, 1998: Ord. 11896 § 1,
1995: Ord. 10870 § 468, 1993).
(King County 9-2004)
21A-194
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS 21A.24.220 · 21A.24.230
21A.24220 Erosion hazard areas: Development standards and permitted alterations.
A. Clearing on an erosion hazard area is allowed only from April 1 to September 1, except that:
1. Up to 15,000 square feet may be cleared on any lot, subject to any other requirement for
vegetation retention and subject to any clearing and grading permit required by K.C.C. 16.82; and
2. Timber harvest may be allowed pursuant to an approved forest practice permit issued by the
Washington Department of Natural Resources.
B. All development proposals on sites containing erosion hazard areas shall include a temporary
erosion control plan consistent with this section and other laws and regulations prior to receiving approval.
Specific requirements for such plans shall be set forth in administrative rules,
C. All subdivisions, short subdivisions or binding site plans on sites with erosion hazard areas shall
comply with the following addltional requirements:
1. Except as provided in this section, existing vegetation shall be retained on all lots until building
permits are approved for development on individual lots;
2. If any vegetation on the lots is damaged or removed during construction of the subdivision
infrastructure, the applicant shall be
required to submit a restoration plan to King County for review and approval. Following approval, the
applicant shall be required to implement the plan;
3. Clearing of vegetation on lots may be allowed without a separate clearing and grading permit if
King County determines that:
a. such clearing is a necessary part of a large scale grading plan;
b. it is not feasible to perform such grading on an individual lot basis; and
c. drainage from the graded area will meet water quality standards to be established by
administrative rules.
0. Where King County determines that erosion from a development site poses a significant risk of
damage to downstream receiving waters, based either on the size of the project, the proximity to the
receiving water or the sensitivity of the receiving water, the applicant shall be required to provide regular
monitoring of surface water discharge from the site. If the project does not meet water quality standards
established by law or administrative rules, the county may suspend further development work on the site until
such standards are met.
E. The use of hazardous substances, pesticides and fertilizers in erosion hazard areas may be
prohibited by King County. (Ord. 10870 § 469, 1993).
21A.24230 Flood hazard areas: Components.
A. A flood hazard area consists of the following components:
1. Floodplain;
2. Flood fringe;
3. Zero-rise floodway; and
4. Federal Emergency Management Agency ("FEMA") floodway.
B. King County shall determine the flood hazard area after obtaining, reviewing and utilizing base
· flood elevations and available floodway data for a flood having a one percent chance of being equaled or
exceeded in any given year, often referred to as the "100:year flood." The base flood is determined for
existing conditions, unless a basin plan including projected flows under future developed conditions has been
completed and adopted by King County, in which case these future flow projections shall be used. In areas
where the Flood Insurance Study for King County includes detailed base flood calculations, those
calculations may be used until projections of future flows are completed and approved by King County. (Ord.
10870 § 470, 1993).
•
(King County 9-2004)
21A-195
·•
21A.24.240 ZONING
21A.24.240 Flood fringe: Development standards and permitted alterations. Development
proposals on sites within the flood fringe area shall meet the following requirements:
A. Development proposals shall not reduce the effective base flood storage volume of the
floodplain. Grading or other activity which would reduce the effective storage volume shall be mitigated by
creating compensatory storage on the site or off the site if legal arrangements can be made to assure that
the effective compensatory storage volume will be preserved over time. Grading for construction of _livestock
manure storage facilities to control non-point source water pollution designed to the standards of and
approved by the King Conservation District is exempt from this compensatory storage requirement.
B. All elevated construction shall be designed and certified by a professional structural engineer
licensed by the Slate of Washington and shall be approved by King County prior to construction.
C. Subdivisions, short subdivisions and binding site plans shall meet the following requirements:
1. New building lots shall contain 5,000 square feet or more of buildable land outside the zero-rise
floodway, and building setback areas shall be shown on the face of the plat to restrict permanent structures
to this buildable area;
2. All utillties and facilities such as sewer, gas, electrical and water systems shall be located and
constructed consistent with subsections D., E. and H;
3. Base flood data and flood hazard notes shall be shown on the face of the recorded subdivision,
short subdivision or binding site plan including, but not limlted to, the base flood elevation, required flood
protection elevations and the boundaries of the floodplain and the zero-rise floodway, if determined; and
4. The following notice shall also be shown on the face of the recorded subdivision, short
subdivision or binding site plan for all affected lots:
"NOTICE"
"Lots and structures located within flood hazard areas may be inaccessible by emergency vehicles
during flood events. Residents and property owners should take appropriate advance precautions."
D. New residential structures and substantial improvements of existing residential structures shall
meet the following requirements:
1. The lowest floor shall be elevated to the flood protection elevation;
2. Portions of a structure which are below the lowest floor area shall not be fully enclosed. The
areas and rooms below the lowest floor shall be designed lo automatically equalize hydrostatic and
hydrodynamic flood forces on exterior walls by allowing for the entry and exit of floodwaters. Designs for
satisfying this requirement shall meet or exceed the following requirements:
a. a minimum of two openings on opposite walls having a total open area of not less than one
square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding shall be provided;
b. the bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above grade; and
c. openings may be equipped with screens, louvers or other coverings or devices if they permit
the unrestricted entry and exit of floodwaters;
3. Materials and methods which are resistant to and minimize flood damage ·shall be used; and
4. All electrical, heating, venblation, plumbing, air conditioning equipment and other utility and
service facilities shall be flood-proofed to or elevated above the flood protection elevation.
E. New nonresidential structures and substantial improvements !)f existing nonresidential structures
shall meet the following requirements:
1. The elevation requirement for residential structures contained in subsection D.1 shall be met; or
2. The structure shall be flood-proofed to the flood protection elevation and shall meet the following
requirements:
a. the applicant shall provide certification by a professional civil or structural engineer licensed by
the State of Washington that the flood-proofing methods are adequate to withstand the flood-depttis,
pressures, velocities, impacts, uplift forces and other factors associated with the base flood. After
construction, the engineer shall certify that the pemiitted work conforms with the approved plans and
specifications;and
(King County 9-2004)
21A-196
ENVIRONMENT All Y SENSITIVE AREAS 21A.24.240
b. approved building permits for flood-proofed nonresidential structures shall contain a statement
notifying applicants that flood insurance premiums shall be based upon rates for structures which are one
foot below the flood-proofed level; ·
3. Materials and methods which are resistant to and minimize flood damage shall be used; and
4. All electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, air conditioning equipment and other utility and
service facilities shall be flood-proofed to or elevated above the flood protection elevation.
F. All new construction shall be anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement of the
structure.
G. Mobile homes and mobile home parks shall meet the following requirements:
1. Mobile homes shall meet all requirements for flood hazard protection for residential structures,
shall be anchored and shall be installed using methods and practices which minimize flood damage; and
2. No permft or approval for the following shall be granted unless an mobile homes within the
mobile home park meet the requirements for flood hazard protection for residential structures:
a. a new mobile home park;
b. an expansion of an existing mobile home park; or
c. any repair or reconstruction of streets, utilities or pads in an ·existing mobile home park which
equals or exceeds 50 percent of the value of such streets, utilities or pads.
H. Utilities shall meet the following requirements.
1. New and replacement utilities including, but not limited to, sewage treatment facilities shall be
flood-proofed to or elevated above the flood protection elevation;
2. New orrsfte sewage disposal systems shall be, to the extent possible, located outside the limits
of the base flood elevation. The installation of new on-sfte sewage disposal systems in the flood fringe may
be allowed if no feasible alternative site is available;
3. Sewage and agricultural waste storage facilities shall be flood-proofed to the flood protection
elevation;
4. Above-ground utility transmission lines, other than electric transmission lines, shall only be
allowed for the transport of norrhazardous substances; and
5. Buried utility transmission lines transporting hazardous substances shall be buried at a minimum
depth of four feet below the maximum depth of scour for the base flood, as predicted by a professional civil
engineer licensed by the State of Washington, and shall achieve sufficient negative buoyancy so that any
potential for flotation or upward migration is eliminated.
I. Critical facilities may be allowed within the flood fringe of the floodplain, but only when no feasible
alternative sfte is available. Critical facilities shall be evaluated through the conditional or special use permit
process. Critical facilities constructed within the flood fringe shall have the lowest floor elevated to three or
more feet above the base flood elevation. Flood-proofing and sealing measures shall be taken to ensure that
hazardous substances will not be displaced by or released into floodwaters.
Access routes elevated to or above the base flood elevation shall be provided to all critical facilities from
the nearest maintained public street or roadway.
J. Prior to approving any permit for alterations in the flood fringe, King County shall determine that
all permns required by state or federal law have been obtained. (Ord. 11621 § 76, 1994: Ord. 10870 §
471, 1993).
•
(King County 9-2004)
211\--197
21A.24.250 ZONING
21A.24.250 Zero-rise floodway: Development standards a_nd permitted alterations.
A. The requirements which apply to the flood fringe shall also apply to the zero-rise floodway. The
more restrictive requirements shall apply where there is a conflict.
B. A development proposal including, but not limited to, new or reconstructed structures shall not
cause any increase in the base flood elevation unless the following requirements are met:
1. Amendments to the Flood Insurance Rate Map are adopted by FEMA, in accordance with 44
CFR 70, to incorporate the increase in the base flood elevation; and
2. Appropriate legal documents are prepared in which all property owners affected by the
increased flood elevations consent to the impacts on their property. These documents shall be filed with the
title of record for the affected properties.
C. The following are presumed to produce no increase in base flood elevation and shall not require
a special study to establish this fact:
1. New residential structures outside the FEMA floodway on lots in existence before November 27,
1990 which contain less than 5,000 square feet of buildable land outside the zero-rise floodway and which
have a total building footprint of all proposed structures on the lot of less than 2,000 square feet;
2. Substantial improvements of existing residential structures in the zero-rise floodway, but outside
the FEMA floodway, where the footprint is not increased; or
3. Substantial improvements of existing residential structures meeting the requirements for new
residential structures in K.C.C. 21A.24.240.
D. Post or pDing construction techniques which permit water flow beneath a structure shall be used.
E. All temporary structures or substances hazardous to public health, safety and welfare, except for
hazardous household substances or consumer products containing hazardous substances, shall be removed
from the zero-rise floodway during the flood season from September 30 to May 1.
F. New residential structures or any structure accessory to a residential use shall meet the following
requ~ements:
1. The structures shall be outside the FEMA floodway; and
2. The structures shall be on lots in existence before November 27, 1990 which contain less than
5000 square feet of buildable land outside the zero-rise floodway.
G. Utilities may be allowed within the zero-rise floodway if King County determines that no feasible
alternative site is available, subject to the following requirements:
1. Installation of new on-site sewage disposal systems shall be prohibited unless a waiver is
granted by the SeatUe/King County department of public health; and
2. Construction of sewage treatment facilities shall be prohibited.
H. Critical facilities shall not be allowed within the zero-rise floodway except as provided in
subsection J.
I. Livestock manure storage facilities and associated non-point source water pollution facilities
designed, constructed and maintained to the standards of and approved in a conservation plan by the King
County Conservation District may be allowed if King County reviews and approves the location and design of
the facillties. · ·
J. Structures and installations which are dependent upon· the floodway may be located in the
floodway if tlhe development proposal is approved by all agencies with jurisdiction. Such structures include,
but are not limlted to:
1. Dams or diversions for water supply, flood control, hydroelectric
production, irrigation or f,sheries enhancement;
2. Flood damage reduction facilities, such as levees and pumping stations;
3. Stream bank stabilization structures where no feasible alternative exists for protecting public or
private property;
4. Storm water conveyance facilities subject to the development standards for streams and
wetlands and the Surface Water Design Manual;
5. Boat launches and related recreation structures;
6. Bridge piers and abutments; and
7. Other fisheries enhancement or stream restoration projects. (Ord. 10870 § 472, 1993).
(King County 9-2004)
21A-198
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS 21A.24.260 -21A.24.280
21A24.260 FEMA floodway: Development standards and permitted alterations.
A The requirements which apply to the zero-rise floodway shaff also apply to the FEMA floodway.
The more restrictive requirements shall apply where there is a conflict.
B. A development proposal including, but not limited to, new or reconstructed structures shall not
cause any increase in the base flood elevation.
C. New residential or nonresidential structures are prohibited within the FEMA floodway.
D. Substantial improvements of existing residential structures in the FEMA floodway, meeting the
requirements of WAC 173-158-070, as amended, are presumed to produce no increase in base flood
elevation and shall not require a special study to establish this fact. (Ord. 10870 § 473, 1993).
21A24.270 Flood hazard areas: Certification by engineer or surveyor.
A. For all new structures or substantial improvements in a flood hazard area, the applicant shall
provide certification by a professional civil engineer or land surveyor licensed by the State of Washington of:
1. The actual as-built elevation of the lowest floor, including basement; and
2. The actual as-built elevation lo which the structure is flood-proofed, if applicable.
B. The engineer or surveyor shall indicate if the structure has a basement.
C. King County shall maintain the certifications required by this section for public inspection. (Ord. ·
10870 § 474, 1993).
21A.24.275 Channel relocation and stream meander areas. No structure shall be allowed
which would be al risk due to channel relocation or stream meander until the promulgation of a public rule.
(Ord. 11621 § 75, 1994).
21A24.280 Landslide hazard areas: Development standards and permitted alterations. A
development proposal on a site containing a landslide hazard area shall meet the following requirements:
A. A minimum buffer of 50 feet shall be established from all edges of the landslide hazard area.
The buffer shall be extended as required to mitigate a steep slope or erosion hazard or as otherwise
necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare. For landslide hazard areas that are also steep
slopes over 200 feet in height, the building setback shall be 50 feet from the buffer. The building setback
may be reduced to a minimum of 15 feet from the buffer if, based on a special study, King County determines
that the reduction will adequately protect the proposed development and the sensitive area. For single family
residential building permits only, King County may waive the special study requirement and authorize building
setback reductions, pursuant to K.C.C. 21A.24.075 or if King County determines that the reduction will
adequately protect the proposed development and the sensitive area;
B. Unless otherwise provided herein or as part of an approved alteration, removal of any vegetation
from a landslide hazard area or buffer shall be prohibited, except for lim~ed removal of vegetation necessary
for surveying purposes and for the removal of hazard trees determined to be unsafe according to tree
selection rules promulgated pursuant to this chapter. Notice to King County shall be provided prior to any
vegetation removal permitted by this subsection;
C. Vegetation on slopes within a landslide hazard area or buffer which has been damaged by
human activity or infested by noxious weeds may be replaced with vegetation native to King County pursuant
to an enhancement plan approved by King County. The use of hazardous substances, pesticides and
fertBizers in landslide hazard areas and their buffers may be prohibited by King County; and
D. Alterations to landslide hazard areas and buffers may be allowed only as follows:
1. A landslide hazard area located on a slope 40% or steeper may. be altered only if the alteration
meets the standards and limitations set forth for steep slope hazard areas in K.C.C. 21A.24.310;
2. A landslide hazard area located on a slope Jess than 40% may be altered only if the alteration
meets the following requirements:
a. the development proposal will not decrease slope stability on contiguous properties; and
b. mitigation based on the best available engineering and geological practices is -implemented
which either effminates or minimizes the risk of damage, death or injury resulting from landslides; and
3. Neither buffers nor a sensitive area tract shall be required if the alteration meets the standards
of subsection D.2. (Ord. 12822 § 9, 1997: Ord. 10870 § 475, 1993).
(King County 9-2004)
21A-199
21A.24.290 -21A.24.310 ZONING
21A.24.290 Seismic hazard areas: Development standards and permitted alterations. A
development proposal on a site containing a seismic hazard area shall meet the following requirements:
A. Unless exempt, development proposals shall be subject to review standards based on two
occupancy types: critical facilities and other structures. The review standards for critical facillties shall be
based on larger earthquake reoccurrence intervals. The review standards for both occupancy types shall be
set forth in administrative rules;
B. Alterations to seismic hazard areas may be allowed only as follows:
1. The evaluation of site-specific subsurface conditions shows that the proposed development site
is not located in a seismic hazard area; or
2. Mitigation based on the best available engineering and geological practices Is implemented
which either eliminates or minimizes the risk of damage, death or injury resulting from seismically induced
settlement or soil liquefaction; and
3. Mobile homes may be placed in seismic hazard areas without performing special studies to
address the seismic hazard. Such mobile homes may be subject to special support and tie-down
requirements. These requirements shall be set forth in administrative rules.
C. Buildings with less than 2500 square feet of floor area or roof area (whichever is greater) that
contain no living quarters and that are not used as places of employment or public assembly exempt from the
provisions of this section. (Ord. 10870 § 476, 1993).
21A.24.300 Volcanic hazard areas: Development standards and permitted alterations. A
development proposal on a site containing a volcanic hazard area shall meet the following requirements:
A. Within volcanic hazard areas located along the White River upstream from Mud Mountain Dam:
1. No critical facilities shall be constructed or located;
2. No new apartments, ·townhouses or commercial structures shall be constructed or located;
3. All new lots created by subdivision, short subdivision or binding site plan shall require building
areas outside of the volcanic hazard area which shall be designated with building setback areas; and
4. New single detached residential construction on existing lots may be allowed W the applicant
records with the records and elections dMsion the following notice on all title documents:
"NOTICE"
"The structures on this property are located in an area which may be Inundated by mudflows originating
on Mount Rainier. For further information regarding this hazard, please contact King County";
B. Within volcanic hazard areas located along the White River downstream from Mud Mountain
Dam and Green and Duwamish Rivers: critical facillties shall be evaluated for risk of inundation or flooding
resulting from mudflows originating on Mount Rainier. These structures shall be designed to withstand,
without damage, the effects of mudflows equal in magnitude to the prehistoric Electron Mudflow; and
C. This section shall not become effective until King County has completed the required modeling
and mapping of volcanic hazard areas. (Ord. 10870 § 477, 1993).
21A.24.310 Steep slope hazard areas: Development standards and permitted alterations. A
development proposal on a site containing a steep slope hazard area shall meet the following requirements:
A. A minimum buffer of fifty feet shall be established from the top, toe and along all sides of any
slope forty percent or steeper. The buffer shall be extended as required to mitigate a landslide or erosion
hazard or as otherwise necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare. The buffer may be
reduced to a minimum of ten feet ff, based on a special study, King County determines that the reduction will
adequately protect the proposed development and the sensitive area. The buffer may only be reduced to
twenty-five feet in the case of erosion hazard areas. For single famRy residential building permits only, King
County may waive the special study requirement and authorize buffer reductions, pursuant to KC.C.
21 A.24.075 or ff King County determines that the reduction will adequately proteci the proposed development
and the sensitive area;
(King County 9-2004)
21A-200
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS 21A.24.310
B. Unless otherwise provided herein or as part of an approved alteration, removal of any vegetation
from a steep slope hazard area or buffer shall be prohibtted, except for limited removal of vegetation
necessary for surveying purposes and for the removal of hazard trees determined to be unsafe according to
tree selection rules promulgated pursuant to this chapter. Notice to King County shall be provided prior to
any vegetation removal permitted by this subsection;
C. Vegetation on steep slopes within steep slope hazard areas or their buffers which has been
dam,;,ged by human activtty or infested by noxious weeds may be replaced with vegetation native to King
County pursuant to a vegetation management plan approved by King County. The use of hazardous
substances, pesticides and fertmzers in steep slope hazard areas and their buffers may be prohibtted by King
County;
D. Alterations to steep slope hazard areas and buffers may be allowed only as follows:
1. Approved surface water conveyances, as specified in the Surface Water Design Manual, may
be allowed on steep slopes if they are installed in a manner to minimize disturbance to the slope and
vegetation;
2. Public and private trails may be allowed on steep slopes as approved by the county. Under no
circumstances shall trails be constructed of concrete. asphalt or other impervious surfaces which will
contribu1e to surface water run-off, unless such construction is necessary for soil stabilization or soil erosion
prevention or unless the trail system is specifically designed and intended to be accessible to handicapped
persons. Addttional requirements for trail construction may be set forth in administrative rules;
3. Utiltty corridors may be allowed on steep slopes if a special study shows that such alteration will
not subject the area to the risk of landslide or erosion;
4. Limited trimming and pruning of vegetation may be allowed on steep slopes pursuant to an
approved vegetation management plan for the creation and maintenance of views if the soils are not
disturbed and the activity is subject to administrative rules; · ·
5. Approved mining and quarrying activities may be allowed; and
6. Stabilization of sites where erosion or landsliding threaten public or private structures, utilities,
roads. driveways or trails, or where erosion and landsliding threatens any lake, stream. welland or shoreline.
Stabilization work shall be performed in a manner which causes the least possible disturbance to the slope
and tts vegetatille cover; and
7. Reconstruction, remodeling or replacement of existing structures.
Reconstruction, remodeling, or replacement of an existing structure upon another portion of an
existing impervious surface which was established pursuant to King County laws and regulations may be
allowed provided: ·
· a. if within the buffer, the structure is located no closer to the steep slope than the existing
structure,
b. the existing impervious surface within the buffer or steep stope is not expanded as a result of
the reconstruction or replacement.
E. Point discharges from surface water facilities onto or upstream from steep slope hazard areas
that are also erosion hazard areas shall be prohibited except as follows:
1. Conveyed via continuous storm pipe downslope to a point where there are no erosion hazard
areas downstream from the discharge; ·
2. Discharged at flow durations matching predeveloped conditions, wijh adequate energy
dissipation, Into existing channels that previously conveyed stormwater runoff in the predevelopment state; or
3. Dispersed discharge upslope of the steep slope onto a low-gradient undisturbed buffer
demonstrated to be adequate to infiltrate all surface and storrnwater runoff.
F. The following are exempt from the provisions of this section:
1. Slopes which are forty percent or steeper with a vertical elevation change of up to twenty feet if
no adverse impact will result from the exemption based on King County's review of and concurrence with a
so,ls report prepared by a geologist or geotechnical engineer; and
2. The approved regrading of any slope which was created through previous legal grading
activtties. Any slope which remains forty percent or steeper following stte development shall be subject to all
requirements for steep slopes. (Ord. 13190 § 21, 1998: Ord. 11621 § 77, 1994: Ord. 11273 § 5, 1994: Ord.
10870 § 478, 1993).
(King County 9-2004)
21A-201
9, \ \
1) {J,,
,-;, \ -;,
s 1 J;
1\~
.-:;,u ,,o
21A.24.320 -21A.24.330 ZONING
21A.24.320 Wetlands: Development standards. A development proposal on a site containing a
wetland shall meet the following requirem~nts:
A. The following minimum buff /s shall be established from the wetland edge:
1. A class 1 wetland shall h e a 100-foot buffer;
2. A class 2 wetland shall h ve a 50-foot buffer;
3. A class 3 wetland shall ave a 25-foot buffer;
4. Arry wetland restored relocated, replaced or enhanced because of a wetland alteration shall
have the minimum buffer requted or the highest wetland class involved; and
. 5. Any wetland wtthin 2 feet of the toe of a slope 30% or steeper, but less than 40%, shall have:
a. the minimum buff/ required for the wetland class involved or a 25-foot buffer beyond the top of
the slope, whichever is greate~ if the horizontal length of the slope including small benches and terraces is
within the buffer for that wetlal)d class; or
b. a 25-foot buffer beyond the minimum buffe_r required for the wetland class involved if the
horizontal length of the slope including small benches and terraces extends beyond the buffer for that
weUand class; 1
I B. Buffer width ayeraging may be allowed by King County if it will provide additional protection to
wetlands or enhance the~ functions, as long as the total area contained in the buffer on the development
proposal site does not de¢rease;
C. Increased bllffer widths shall be required by King County when necessary to protect weUands.
Provisions for additional/buffer widths shall be contained in administrative rules promulgated pursuant to this
chapter including, but r,iot limited to, provisions pertaining to critical drainage areas, location of hazardous
substances, crifical fit and wildlife habitat, landslide or erosion hazard areas contiguous to weUands,
groundwater recharge. nd discharge and the location of trail or utility corridors; ·
D. The use. qi hazardous substances, pesticides and fertilizers in ihe wetland and its buffer may be
prohibited by King Co~nty;
E. Unless Olherwise provided, the following restrictions shall apply to all development proposals
which include the inlr</"Uclion of livestock:
1. To prevent damage to class 1 and 2 wetlands:
a. a plan ~o protect and enhance the wetland's water quality shall be implemented pursuant to
' 21A.30; or . ·
b. fencing located not closer than the buffer edge shall be-required; and
2. Standard~ pertaining to access to streams for watering purposes, stream aossing requirements
arid use of natural bank<rs and vegetative buffering in lieu of fencing shall be included in administrative rules
promulgated pursuant to this chapter;
F. The livestock restrictions contained in subsection E. shall not apply to weUands defined as grazed
wet meadows, regardless of their classification. (Ord. 10870 § 479, 1993). ·
21A.24.330 Wetlands: Permitted alterations. Alterations to wetlands and buffers may be allowed
pursuant to K.C.C. 21A.24.075 or as follows:
A Aherations may be permitted if King County determines, based upon Its review of special studies
completed by qualified professionals, that:
1. The wetland does not serve any of the valuable functions. of wetlands identified in K.C.C.
21A.06.1415 including, but not limited to, biologic and hydrologic functions; or
2. The proposed development will;
a. protect, restore or enhance the wildlife habitat, natural drainage or other valuable functions of
the wetland resulting in a net improvement to the functions of the wetland system;
b. develop a plan for Its design, implementation, maintenance and monttoring prepared by a civil
engineer and a qualified biologist;
c. perform the restoration or enhancement under the direction of a qualified biologist; and
d. will otherwise be consistent with the purposes of this chapter.
(King County 9-2004)
21A-202
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS 21A.24.330
B. To establish the conditions in subsection A., detailed studies may be required as part of the
special study on habitat value, hydrology, erosion and
deposition and/or water quality. Such detailed studies shall include specific recommendations for mitigation
which may be required as a condition of any development proposal approval. The recommendaJiens may
include, but are not /
limited to, construction techniques or design, drainage or density specifications; /
C. If a weUand is in a flood hazard area, the applicant shall notify affected co""'unities and native
tribes of proposed alterations prior to any alteration and submit evidence of such no!!Jication to the Fe.deral
Insurance Administration; /
D. There shall be no introduction of any plant or Wildlife which is not ind7nous to King County into
any wetland or buffer unless authorized by a state or federal permit or approval/
E. Utilities may be allowed in wetland buffers if: /.
1. King County determines that no practical alternative location is,available; and
2. The utility corridor meets any additional requirements set f9rth in administrative rules including,
but not limited to, requirements for installation, replacement of vegeta~pn and maintenance;
F. Sewer utility corridors may be allowed in wetland buffers;fnly if: ·
1. The applicant demonstrates that sewer lines are nec!'5sary for gravity flow;
2. The corridor is not located in a wetland or buffp used by species listed as endangered or
threatened by the state or federal government or containinyrcritical or outstanding actual habitat for those
species or heron rookeries or raptor nesting trees; / . .
3. The corridor alignment including, but not limited to, any allowed maintenance roads follows a
path beyond a distance equal to seventy-five of the buffe~ width from the wetland edge;
4. Corridor construction and maintenance ,protects the wetland and buffer and is aligned to avoid
cutting trees greater than twelve inches in diaf)l'eter at breast height, when possible, and pesticides,
herbicides and other hazardous substances are not used;
5. An addttional, contiguous and u.<disturbed buffer, equal in width to the proposed corridor
including any allowed maintenance roads, is prbvided to protect.the wetland;
6. The corridor is revegetated wittilappropriate vegetation native to King County at pre-construction
densities or greater immediately upon con,iiletion of construction or as soon thereafter as possible, and the
sewer utility ensures that such vegetationfourvives;
7. Any additional corridor ac¢'ess for maintenance is provided, to the extent possible, at specific
points rather than by a parallel road; an'd .
· 8. The width of any nec:issary parallel road providing access for maintenance is as small as
possible, but not greater than fifteen feet, the road is maintained without the use of herbicides, pesticides or
other hazardous substances and the location of the road is contiguous to the utility corridor on the side away
from the wetland; 1
G. Joint use of an approved sewer utility corridor by other utilities may be allowed.
H. The following surface water management activities and faciltties may be allowed in wettands or
their buffers only as follows:
1. Surface water discharge to a wetland from a flow control or water quality treatment facility,
sediment pond or other surface water management activity or fac~ity may be allowed if the discharge does
not increase the rate of flow. change the plant composition· in a forested wetland or decrease the water
quality of the wetland;
2. A class 1, 2 or 3 weUand or buffer may be used for a regional retention/detention facility if:
a. a public agency and utility exception is granted pursuant to K.C.C. 21A.24.070;
b. all ?*luirements of the Surface Waler Design Manual are me~
c. the use will no! alter the rating or !he factors used in rating the wetland;
d. the proposal is in compliance with the latest adopted findings of the Puget Sound Wetlands
Research Project; and
e. there are no significant adverse impacts to the wetland;
(King County 9-2004)
21A-203
21A.24.330 ZONING
3. Isolated class 3 weUands and buffers which are grazed wet meadows may be used as a flow
control facility if:
a. presettlement pond or water quality treatment is required prior to flow into the wetland, and
b. they are not part of, or immediately adjacent to. an LSRA, RSRA or a designated wildlife habitat
corridor and all requirements of the Surface Water Design Manual are met; and
4. Use of a weUand buffer for a surface water management activity or facility, other than a flow
control or water quality treatment facility, such as an energy dissipater and associated pipes, may be allowed
only if the applicant demonstrates. to the satisfaction of King County, that:
a. no practicable alternative exists; and
b. the functions of the buffer or the wetland are not adversely affected;
I. Public and private trails may be allowed in weUand buffers only upon adoption of administrative
rules consistent with the following:
1. The trail surface shall not be made of impervious materials, except that public multi-purpose
trails such as the Burke-Gilman Trai may be made of impervious materials if they meet all other
requirements including water quality; and
2. Buffers shall be expanded, where possible, equal to the width of the trail corridor ·including
disturbed areas;
J. A dock, pier, moorage, float or launch facility may be allowed, subject to the provisions of K.C.C.
Title 25, if:
1. The existing and zoned density around the weUand is three dwelling units per acre or more;
2. At least seventy-five percent of the lots around the weUand have been built upon and no
significant buffer or wetland vegetation remains on these lots; and
3. Open water is a significant component of the wetland;
K. Alterations to isolated weUands may be allowed only as follows:
1. On sites of less than twenty acres in size, one isolated wetland may be altered by relocating its
functions into a new weUand on the site pursuant to an approved mitigation plan;
2. On sites twenty acres or greater in size, up to three isolated wetlands may be altered by
combining their functions into one or more replacement weUands on the site pursuant to an approved
mitigation plan; and
3. Whenever an isolated wetland is altered pursuant to this subsection. the replacement weUand
shall include enhancement for wildlife habitat;
L. One additional agricultural building or associated residence may be allowed within the weUand
buffer on a grazed wet meadow if all hydrologic storage is replaced on the site;
M. Subject to a clearing and grading permit issued pursuant to K.C.C. chapter 16.82, the cutting of
up to one cord of firewood may be permitted in buffers of five acres or larger in any year if the overall function
of the buffer is not adversely affected. Removal of brush may also be permitted for the purpose of enhancing
tree growth if the area of removal is limited to the diameter of the tree canopy at the time of planting; and
N. WeUand road crossings may be allowed if:
1. King County determines that no alternative access is practical;
2. All crossings minimize impact to the wetland and provide mitigation for unavoidable impacts
through restoration, enhancement or replacement of disturbed areas;
3. Crossings do not change the overall wetland hydrology;
4. Crossings do not diminisn the flood storage capacity of the wetland; and
5. All crossings are constructed during summer low water periods.
0. Reconstruction, remodeling, or replacement of existing structures. Reconstruction, remodeling,
or replacement of an existing structure upon another portion of an existing impervious surface which· was
established pursuant to King County laws and regulations may be allowed provided:
1. If within the buffer, the structure is located no closer to U,e wetland than the existing structure,
2. The existing impervious surface within the buffer or wetland is not expanded as a result of the
reconstruction or replacement.
(King County 9-2004)
21A-204
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS 21A.24.330-21A.24.340
P. Wetland enhancement or restoration not associated with any other development proposal may
be allowed if accomplished according lo a plan for its design, implementation, maintenance and monitoring
prepared by a civil engineer and a qualified biologist and carried out under the direction of a qualified
biologist. Restoration or enhancement must result in a net improvement to the functions of the wetland
system; and
Q. A minor wetland restoration project for fish habitat enhancement may be allowed if:
1. The restoration is sponsored by a public agency With a mandate to do such work;
2. The restoration is not associated with mitigation of a specific development proposal;
3. The restoration is limited to revegetation of wetlands and their buffers and other specific fish and
wildlife habttat improvements that result in a net improvement to the functions of the wetland system;
4. The restoration only involves the use of hand labor and light equipment, or ihe use of helicopters
and cranes which deliver supplies to the project site provided that they have no contact with sensitive areas
or their buffers; and
5. The restoration is performed under the direction of a qualified biologist (Ord. 13190 § 22, 1998:
Ord. 11621 § 78, 1994: Ord. 11273 § 6, 1994: Ord. 10870 § 480, 1993).
21A.24.340 Wetlands: mitigation requirements.
A. Restoration shall be required if a wetland or its buffer is altered in violation of law or without any
specific permission or ariproval by King County. The following minimum requirements shall be met for the
restoration of a wetland:
1. The original wetland configuration shall be replicated including its depth, width, length and
gradient at the original location;
2. The original soil type and configuration shall be replicated;
3. The wetland edge and buffer configuration shall be restored to its original condition;
4. The wetland, edge and buffer shall be replanted with vegetation native to King County that
replicates the original vegetation in species, sizes and denstties; and
5. The original _wetland functions shall be restored including, but not limited to, hydrologic and
biologic functions.
B. The requirements in subsection A. of this section may be modified if the applicant demonstrates
that greater wetland functions can otherwise be obtained.
C. Replacement shall be required if a buffer is altered under an approved development proposal or
a wetland is used for a regional flow control facility or other apriroved use. The requirements for the
restoration of wetlands shall be met by replacement wetlands.
D. Enhancement may be allowed if a wetland or buffer will be altered under to a development
proposal, but the wetland's biologic and/or hydrologic functions will be improved. Minimum requirements for
enhancement shall be established in administrative rules.
E. All alterations of .wetlands shall be replaced or enhanced on the site or within the same drainage
basin using the following formulas: class 1 and 2 wetlands on a two-to-One basis and class 3 wetlands on a
one-t<rone basis with equivalent or greater biologic functions including, but not limited to, habit:;,! functions
and with equivalent hydrologic functions including, but not limited to, storage capacity.
F. Replacement or enhancement off the site may be allowed if the applicant derrionstrales to the
satisfaction of King County that the off-site location is in the same drainage sul:Hlasin as the original wetland
and that greater biologic and hydrologic functions will be achieved. The formulas in subsection E of this
section shall apply to replacement and enhancement off the site.
G. Surface water management or flood control alterations including, but not limited to, wetponds
shall not constitute replacement or enhancement unless other functions ar.e simultaneously improved.
H. Mitigation sttes should be localed lo alleviate wildlife habitat fragmentaUon and avoid impacts to
and prevent loss of farmable land within agricultural production districts. (Ord. 14045 § 48, 2001: Ord.
13190§23, 1998: Ord.11621 §79, 1994: Ord.10870§481, 1993).
,J /
1. --/-) ) .
at11
7 .
(King County 9-2004)
21A-205
21A.24.345 -21A.24.360 ZONING
21A24.345 Wetlands: mitigation banking. King County . may consider and approve
replacement or enhancement of unavoidable adverse impacts to wetlands caused by the development
activities through an approved wetland mitigation bank. Wetland mitigation banking is not allowed in the
agricultural production districts if the purpose is to compensate for filling wetlands for development outside
of the agricultural production districts. Compensatory mitigation in advance of authorized impacts must be
provided through an approved mitigation bank. Criteria governing the creation and use of a mitigation
bank shall be established in administrative rules. A pilot project or projects, complete with evaluation
should be initiated that would test the viability of the mitigation bank concept before to its full
implementation. (Ord. 14045 § 49, 2001: Ord.11621 § 72, 1994).
21A.24.350 Wetlands: Limited exemption. Isolated wetlands less than 1000 square feet may be
exempted from the provisions of K.C.C. 21A.24.320 -21A.24.340 and may be altered by filling or dredging if
King County determines that the cumulative impacts do not unduly counteract the purposes of this chapter
and are mitigated pursuant to an approved mitigation plan. (Ord. 10870 § 482, 1993).
·--· 21 A.24.360 Streams: Development standards. A development proposal on a site containing a
r ~ A. The following minimum buffers shall be established from the ordinary high water mark or from the
!\,, · if •stream shall m~t the follov,ing requirements:
')'.;; top of the bank · the ordinary high water mark cannot be identified:
1. A cl~ss 1 stream shall have a 100-foot buffer;
2. A cl!!fs 2 stream used by salmonids shall have a 100-foot buffer;
3. A cla~s 2 stream shall have a 50-foot buffer;
4. A clas,s 3 stream shall have a 25-foot buffer;
5. In the \)ear Creek Basin, class 1 and 2 streams used by salmonids, shall _have a 150-foot buffer;
6. In the ~ar Creek Basin, a class 2 stream not used by salmonids, shall have a 100-foot buffer;
7. In the ··13ear _Creek Basin, a class 3 stream shall have a 50-foot buffer except in designated
regionally significant ~esource areas where a class 3 stream shall have a 100-foot buffer;
_8. Any stre~m restored, relocated, replaced or enhanced because of a stream alteration shall have
the minimum buffer required for the stream class involved;
9. Any strea1m with an ordinary high water mark within 25 feet of the toe of a slope 30% or steeper,
but Jess than 40%, shall have: · ·
a. the minirri,um buffer required for the stream class involved or a 25-foot buffer beyond the top of
the slope, whichever is '\Jreater. if the horizontal length of the slope including small benches and terraces is
within the buffer for that s.tream class; or
b. a 25-foot ·buffer beyond the minimum buffer required for the stream class involved if the
horizontal length of the sldpe including small benches and terraces extends beyond the buffer for that stream
class; and ,
·10, Any stream adjoined by a riparian wetland or other contiguous sensitive area shall have the
buffer required for the stream class involved or the buffer which applies to the wetland or other sensitive area,
whichever is greater;
B. Buffer width averaging may be allowed by King County if it will provide additional natural resource
protection, as long as. the total area contained in the buffer on the development proposal sne does not
decrease;
C. Increased buffer widths shall be required by King County when necessary to protect streams.
Provisions for addnional buffer widths shall be contained in administrative rules· promulgated pursuant to
this chapter including, but not limfted to, critical drainage areas, location of hazardous substances, critical fish
and wildlife habitat, landslide or erosion hazard areas contiguous to streams, groundwater recharge and
discharge and the location of trail or utility corridors;
D. The use of hazardous substances, pesticides and fertilizers in the stream corridor and its buffer
may be prohibited by King County; and
E. The livestock restrictions in K.C.C. 21A.24.320 shall also apply to class 1 and 2 streams and their
buffers except that barrier fencing shall not be required in the floodplain of the Snoqualmie River. (Ord.
12015 § 4, 1995: Ord. 10870 § 483, 1993).
(King County 9-2004)
21A-206
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS 21A24.370
21A.24.370 Streams: Permitted alterations. Alterations to streams and buffers may be allowed
pursuant to K.C.C. 21A.24.075 or as follows:
A. Alterations may only be permitted if based upon a special study;
B. The applicant shall notify affected communities and native tribes of proposed alterations prior to
any alteration if a stream is in a flood hazard area and shall submtt evidence of such notification to the
Federal Insurance Administration;
C. There shall be no introduction of any plant or wildlife which is not indigenous to King County into
any stream or buffer unless authorized by a state or federal perm it or approval;
'/ D. Utilities may be allowed in stream buffers if: /
1. No practical alternative location is available; /
2. The uti~ty corridor meets any additional requirements set forth in administrativJr'rules including,
but not limited to, requirements for installation, replacement of vegetation and maintenance;
3. The requirements for sewer utility corridors in K.C.C. 21A.24.330 shall ¥0 apply to streams;
and /
4. Joint use of an approved sewer utility corridor by other utiltties may be ~1(,,wed;
E. The following surface water management activities and facilitates ,may be allowed in stream
buffers as follows: · /
1. Surface water discharge to a stream from a flow control or ,ater quality treatment facility,
sediment pond or other surface water management activity or facility ma~oe allowed if the discharge is in
compliance with the Surface Water Design Manual; /.
2. A class 2 stream or buffer may be used for a regional storm~ter management facility if:
a. a public agency and utility exception is granted pursuantt K.C.C. 21A.24.070;
b. all requirements. of the Surface Water Design Manual ar met;
c. the use will not alter the rating or the factors used in ra? g the stream;
d. there are no significant adverse impacts to the strea , and
3. A class 3 stream or buffer may be used as a regi al stormwater management facility if the
alteration wiff have no lasting adverse impact on any stream nd all requirements of the Surface Water
Design Manual are met;
F. Except as provided in subsection G, public and ivate trails may be allowed in stream buffers
only upon adoption of administrative rules consistent with the allowing:
1. The trail surface shall not be made of impe ious materials, except that public multi-purpose
trails such as the Burke-Gilman Trail may be made f impervious materials if they meet all other
requirements including water quality; and
2. Buffers shall be expanded, where possi9le, equal to the width of the trail corridor including
disturbed areas; ~
G. Stream crossings may be allowed and ma encroach on the otherwise required stream buffer if:
1. All crossings use bridges or other cons ction techniques which do not disturb the stream bed
or bank, except that bottomless culverts or other ppropriate methods demonstrated to provide fisheries
protection may be used for class 2 or 3 streams tif the applicant demonstrates that such methods and their
implementation will pose no harm to the stream or nhibit migration of fish;
2. All crossing are constructed~uri the summer low flow and are timed to avoid stream
disturbance during periods when use is critical t salmonids;
3. Crossings do not occur over sal onid spawning areas unless King County determines that no
other possible crossing site exists;
4. Bridge piers or abutments are not placed within the FEMA floodway or the ordinary high water
mark;
5. Crossings do not diminish the flood,::arrying capacity of the stream;
6. Underground utility crossings are laterally drilled and located at a depth of four feet below the
maximum depth of scour for the base flood predicted by a civil engineer licensed by the state of Washington.
Temporary bore pits to perform such crossings may be permitted within the stream buffer established in
K.C.C. 21A.24.360. Crossing of Class 3 streams when dry may be made with open cuts; and
7. Crossings are minimized and serve multiple purposes and properties whenever possible;
(King County 9-2004)
21A-207
21A.24.370 ZONING
H. Stream relocations may be allowed only for:
1. Class 2 streams as part of a public road project for which a public agency and utility exception is
granted pursuant to K.C.C. 21A.24.050; and
2. Class 3 streams for the purpose of enhancing resources in the stream if:
a. appropriate floodplain protection measures are used; and
b. ttie relocation occurs on the site, except that relocation off the site may be allowed if the
applicant demonstrates that any on-site relocation is impracticable, the applicant provides all necessary
easements and waivers from affected property owners and the off-site location is in the same drainage sub-
basin as the original stream;
I. For any relocation allowed by this section, the applicant shall demonstrate, based on information
provided by a civil engineer and a qualified biologist, that:
1. The equivalent base flood storage volume and function will be maintained;
2. There will be no adverse impact to local groundwater;
3. There will be no increase in velocity;
4. There will be no interbasin transfer of water;
5. There will be no increase in sediment load;
6. Requirements set out in the mitigation plan are met;
7. The relocation conforms to other applicable laws~ and
8. All work will be carried out under the direct supervision of a qualified biologist;
J. A stream channel may be stabilized if:
1. Movement of the stream channel threatens existing residential or commercial structures, public
facilities or improvements, unique natural resources or the only existing access to property; and
2. The stabilization is done in compliance with the requirements of K.C.C. 21A.24.230 through
21A.24:210 and administrative rules promulgated pursuant to this chapter;
K. Stream enhancement not associated with any other development proposal may be allowed if
accomplished according to a plan for Its design, implementation, maintenance and monitoring prepared by a
civO engineer and a qualified biologist and carried out under the direction of a qualified biologist;
L. A minor stream restoration project for fish habitat enhancement may be allowed if:
1. The restoration is sponsored by a public agency with a mandate to do such work;
2. The restoration is unassociated with mitigation of a specific development proposal;
3. The restoration is limited to placement of rock wiers, log controls, spawning gravel and other
specific salmonid habitat improvements;
4. The restoration only involves the use of hand labor and light equipment; or the use of helicopters
and cranes which deliver supplies to the project site provided that they have no contact with sensitive areas
or their buffers; and
5. The restoration is performed under the direction of a qualified biologist;
M. Roadside and agricultural drainage ditches which carry streams with salmonids may be
maintained through the use of best management practices developed in consultation with relevant county,
state and federal agencies. These practices shall be adopted as administrative rules;
N. Subject to a dearing and grading permit issued pursuant to K.C.C. 16.82, the cutting of up to one
cord of firewood may be permitted in buffers of five acres or larger in any year if the overall function of the
buffer is not adversely affected. Removal of brush may also be permitted for the purpose of enhancing tree
growth ifthe area of removal is limited to the diameter of the tree canopy at the time of planting.
0. Reconstruction, remodeling, or replacement of existing structures. Reconstruction, remodeling,
or replacement of an existing structure upon another portion of an existing impervious surface which was
established pursuant to King County laws and regulations may be allowed provided:
1. If within the buffer, the structure is located no doser to the stream than the existing structure,
2. The existing impervious surface within the buffer or stream is not expanded as a result of the
reconstruction or replacement. (Ord. 13190 § 24, 1998: Ord. 11621 § 80, 1994: Ord. 11273 § 7, 1994: Ord.
10870 § 484, 1993).
(King County 9-2004)
21A-208
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS 21A.24.380 -21A.24.420
21A.24.380 Streams: Mitigation requirements.
A. Restoration shall be required when a stream or its buffer is altered In violation of law or without
any specific permission or approval by King County. A mitigation plan for the restoration shall demonstrate
that:
1 . The stream has been degraded and will not be further degraded by the restoration aclivity;
2. The restoration will reliably and demonstrably improve the water quality and fish and wildlife
habitat of the stream;
3. The restoration will have no lasting significant adverse impact on any stream functions; and
4. The restoration will assist in stabilizing the stream channel.
B. The toHowing minimum requirements shall be met for the restoration of a stream:
1. All work shall be carried out under the direct supervision of a qualified biologist;
2. Basin analysis shall be performed to determine hydrologic conditions;
3. The natural channel dimensions shall be replicated including its depth, width, length and
gradient at the original location, and the original horizontal alignment (meander lengths) shall be replaced;
4. The bottom shall be restored with identical or similar materials;
5. The bank and buffer configuration sha II be restored to Its original condition;
6. The channel, bank and buffer areas shall be replanted with vegetation native to King County
which replicates the original vegetation in species, sizes and densities; and
7. The original biologic functions of the stream shall be recreated.
C. The requirements in subsection B. may be modified if the applicant demonstrates to the
satisfaction of King County that a greater biologic function can otherwise be obtained;
D. Replacement or enhancement shall be required when a stream or buffer is altered pursuant to an
approved development proposal. There shall be no net loss of stream functions on a development proposal
site and no impact on stream functions above or below the site due to approved alterations.
E. The requirements which apply to the restoration of streams in subsection B. shall also apply to
the relocation of streams, unless the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of King County that a greater
biologic function can be obtained by modifying these requirements.
F. Replacement or enhancement for approved stream alterations shall be accomplished iri streams
and on the site unless the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of King County that:
1. Enhancement or replacement on the site is not possible;
2. The off-site location is in the same drainage sub-basin as the original stream; and
3. Greater biologic and hydrologic functions will be achieved. .. . ..
G. Surface water management or flood control alterations shall not be considered enhancement '; b -(/
unless other functions are simultaneously improved. (Ord. 10870 § 485, 1993).
21A.24.390 Sensitive areas mitigation fee -Creation of fund. There is hereby created a
Sensitive Areas Mitigation Fund. This fund shall be administered by the King County Office of Finance.
(Ord. 10870 § 486, 1993).
21A.24.400 Sensitive areas mitigation fee -Source of funds. All monies received from penalties
resulting from the violation of rules and laws regulating development and activities within sensitive areas
shall be deposited into the fund. (Ord. 10870 § 487, 1993).
21A.24A10 Sensitive areas mitigation fee • Use of funds. Monies from the fund shall only be
used for paying the cost of enforcing and implementing sensitive area laws and rules. (Ord. 10870 § 488,
1993).
21A.24.420 Sensitive areas mitigation fee -Investment of funds. Monies in the fund not needed
for immediate expenditure shall be deposited in a separate investment fund pursuant to RCW 36.29.020.
The director shall be designated as the investment fund d!rector. (Ord. 10870 § 489, 1993).
(King County 9-2004)
21A-209
L
l (,'"' )
21A.24.500 ZONING
21A.24.500 Sensitive area designation.
A 1. A property owner or the property owners agent may request a sensitive area designation for
part or all of a site, without seeking a permit for a development proposal, by filing with the department a·
written application for a sensitive area designation on a form provided by the department. If the· request is for
review of a portion of a site, the application shall include a map identifying the portion of the site for which the
designation is sought.
2. The designation shall be limited to the following determinations:
a. The existence, location, and boundaries of any stream, wetland, coat mine hazard area,
landslide hazard area or steep slope on the site; and
b. The. classification of any stream or wetland.
3. The designation shall not include any evaluation or interpretation of the applicability of sensitive
area buffers or other sensitive area standards to a future development proposal.
B. In preparing the sensitive area designation, the department shall perform a sensitive area review
to:
1. Determine whether any sensitive area that is subject to this designation process exists on the
site and confirm its type, location, boundaries and classification;
2. Determine whether a special study is required to identify and characterize the location,
boundaries and classification of the sensttive area;
3. Evaluate the special study, if required; and
4.. Document the existence, location and classification of any sensitive area that is subject to this
designation process.
C. If required by the department, the applicant tor a sensitive area designation shall prepare and
submit to the department the special study required by subsection B.2. of this section.
D. The department's determination of a sensitive area designation shall be made in writing within
one hundred twenty days after the application for a sensitive area. designation is complete, as provided in
K.C.C. 20.20.050. The periods set forth in K.C.C. 20.20.1 OOA.1 through A.5 shall be excluded from the one-
hundred-lwenty<lay period. The written determination made pursuant to tl)is section as to the existence,
location, and classification of a sensitive area shall be effective for two years from the date the determination
is issued. The department ·shall rely on the determination in its review of a complete application for a permit
or approval filed within two years after the determination is issued. If the detennination appljes to less than
an entire site, the determination shall clearly identify the portion of the site to which the determination applies.
E. The applicant for a sensitive area designation shall be responsible for fees as provided in K.C.C.
Title 27. .
F. If the department designates sensitive areas on a site pursuant to this section, the applicant for a
development proposal on that site shall submit proof that a sensitive area notice on title has been filed as
required by K.C.C. 21A.24.170.
G. The department by rule may provide for the designation of other sensitive areas identified by this
chapter as established by council ordinance in addition to those provided for in this section.
H.1. Except as provided In 2. of this subsection, the departmenfs determination under this section is
final.
2. If the department relies. on a sensitive area designation made pursuant to this section during its
review of an application for a permit or other approval of a development proposal and the permit or other
approval is subject to an administrative appeal, any appeal of the designation shall be consolidated with and
is subject to the same appeal process as the underlying development proposal. If the King County hearing
examiner makes the county's final decision with regard to the permit or other approval type for the underlying
development proposal, the hearing examiner's decision constitutes the county's final decision on the
designation. If the King County councH, acting as a quasi-judicial body, makes the county's final decision with
regard to the permit or other approval type for the underlying development proposal, the King County
council's decision constitutes the county's final decision on the designation. (Ord. 14187 § 1, 2001 ).
(King County 9-2004)
21A-210
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS 21A.24.510
21A.24.510 Effect of approval of septic system design based on sensitive area
designation. If the department of Seattle-King County public health approves a septic system design
based on a sensitive area designation made pursuant to K.C.C. 21A.24.500 and the applicant submits a
complete application to \he department of development and environmental services within two years after
the date the department of development and environmental service issues the sensitive area designation
under K.C.C. 21A.24.500, the standards of this chapter in effect at the time of the department of Seattle-
King County public health's approval of the septic system design shall apply to the department of
development and environmental services's determination ofwhether the septic system design complies
with the provisions of this chapter for those sensitive areas for which a sensitive area designation has
been issued. ( Ord. 14187 § 2, 2001 ).
{King County 9-2004)
21A---211
-:_,,.D L, ,.,.
I
•
®
King County
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
LAND USE SERVICES DIVISION
KING COUNTY, W ASIDNGTON
PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER
July 17, 2008-PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:30 A.M.
DOES Hearing Room
900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest
Renton, WA 98057-5212
Phone: (206) 296-6600
PROPOSED PLAT OF LIBERTY GARDENS FILE NO: L04P0034
PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO: 2008-0351
A. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION:
This is a request for a subdivision of 8.95 acres into 36 lots for detached single-family
dwellings. The proposed density is 4 dwelling units per acre. The lot sizes range from
approximately 5,900 to 9,350 square feet. See Attachment I for a copy of the proposed
plat map.
B. GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Engineer:
STR:
Location:
Zoning:
Acreage:
Number of Lots:
David Petrie
811 S. 273'' Ct.
Des Moines, WA 98198
253-946-6619
Barghausen Consulting Engineers
18215 72"' Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032
425-251-6222
14-23-05
Located on 162°d Avenue SE, approximately~ mile south of the
16200 Avenue SE and SE 136" Street intersection.
R-4
8.95 acres
36
Density: Approximately 4 units per acre
Lot Size Range: Approximately 5,900-9,350 square feet in size
Proposed Use: Single Family Detached Dwellings
Sewage Disposal: City of Renton
Water Supply: King County Water District No. 90
Fire District: King County Fire District No. 25
School District: Issaquah School District No. 411
Complete Application Date: January 26, 2005
C.
D.
E.
HISTORY/BACKGROUND:
The Subdivision Technical Committee (STC} of King County has conducted an on-site
examination of the subject property. The STC has discussed the proposed development
with the applicant to clarify technical details of the application, and to determine the
compatibility of this project with applicable King County plans, codes, and other official
documents regulating this development. As a result of preliminary discussions, the
applicant presented the Technical Committee with a revised plat on May 2, 2008. The
pri~ modifications include: eliminating the proposed road vacation along the west half
of 164 A venue SE.
THRESHOLD DETERMINATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE:
Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), RCW 43.ZIC, the responsible
official of the Land Use Services Division (LUSD) issued a threshold determination of
non-significance (DNS) for the proposed development on June 20, 2008. This
determination was based on the review of the environmental checklist and other pertinent
documents, resulting in the conclusion that the proposal would not cause probable
significant adverse impacts on the environment. Therefore, an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) was not required prior to proceeding with the review process.
Agencies, affected Native American tribes and the public were offered the opportunity to
comment on or appeal the determination for 14 days. The DNS was not appealed by any
party, including the applicant, and it has been incorporated as part of the applicant's
proposal.
AGENCIES CONTACTED:
I. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks: No response.
2. King Cowity Fire Protection Engineer: Fire protection engineering preliminary
approval has been granted.
3. Issaquah School District No. 411: The comments from this district have been
incorporated into this report.
4. City of Renton (sewer): The comments from this district have been incorporated
into this report.
5. King Cowity Water District No. 90: The comments from this district haVe been
incorporated into this report.
6. Washington State Department of Ecology: No response.
7. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife: No response.
8. Washington State Department of Natural Resources: No Response
9. Washington State Department of Transportation: No response.
I 0. METRO: No response.
11. City of Renton: Letter dated March 17, 2005 (Attachment 2). The City of Renton
has requested street improvements be in accordance with the City standards.
However, this property is located within unincorporated King County jurisdiction
and King County standards apply.
2 FILE NO: L04P0034
F. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT:
I. fi0p6giaphy: •The site is undeveloped and as an average slope of20% generally
draining to the south.
2. ~Is:' Alderwood gravely, sandy loam surfaces soils are found on this site per King
County Soil Survey, 1973. AgC -Alderwood gravely, sandy loam; 6-15% slopes.
Runoff is slow to medium and the hazard of erosion is moderate. This soil has a 7era. te limitation for foundations, due to a seasonally high water table and slope.
3. v~•treams,_
A Revised Critical Areas Analysis Report and Conceptual Mitigation report was
prepared by B-12 Wetland Consulting, Inc. dated November 19, 2004.
A Class II wetland located in the southwest comer of the property will be required
to have a SO-foot undisturbed buffer as measured from the wetland edge. This has
been identified on the revised site plan as Tract A. A Class ill stream is located
within the on-site wetland and will have a 25-foot undisturbed buffer as measured
from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM).
Bo~d stream and their buffers will be placed in a Sensitive Areas
~t (SAT) forkmg term protect10n $1gnage and fencing (tour foot high, split-
railed cedar or similar) will be required along the SAT boundaries tocleai-Tymark
the extent of the tract.
A IS-foot building s_et_back line (BSBL) is required from the edge of the SAT and
-will be shown on al_l aff_ected lots within the proposed subdiv1s1on.
Additional sensitive/critical areas include an off-site Class Il wetland and a Class ill
stream. These additional areas are primarily located within the unimproved right-
of-way known as 162"' Avenue SE. hnprovements of 16200 Avenue are required
for plat approval, thus unavoidable impacts to sensitive/critical areas and their
buffers shalt occur. Impacts to sensitive areas for road improvements may be
allowed per KC 21A.24. However mitigation will be required. Construction , ,...,, tJ,r/ftJ/1.
techniques such as retaining walls maybe required at such crossings or {;ll' u:.-
improvements to limit impacts. A final mitigation p)M will be require~ during
.engineering review.
Sensitive area tract boundaries must be clearly marked with bright orange
construction and silt fencing prior to construction or site clearing activities.
boundaries shall remain marked until construction is complete.
The
Hydrology may not be altered either during or after development. A hydrology
analysis may be required during engineering review to show how the hydrology
will be maintained after and during site development.
Work within the OHWM may require an HPA from the State Department of Fish
and Wildlife. It will be lhc applicant's responsibility to coordinate with WDFW to
determine if an HP A is needed.
~ f The site lies within the Lo~er Cedar River drainage basin. I f1,C.£'<A/1 ~
4. ~: This site is rvgr.iern:tel ooded with a second and third-growth mixture of
coniferous and broad-leafed trees native to the Pacific Northwest and second-story
vegetation, and groundcover consists ofNorthwest native species including salal, sword
fern, beny vines, and grasses. 15_0
5. ( Wildlife:*Small birds and animals undoubtedly inhabit this site; however, their
population and species are limited due to nearby development. Larger species may
visit this site on occasion. No threatened or endangered species are known to exist on
or near the property. 1
3 FILE NO: L04P0034
G.
H.
NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS:
The property is located in an urban area of King County. Surrounding properties to the
southeast are all single-family detached residences. Liberty High School baseball field is
located northeast of the property. Properties directly adjacent to this site to the north, west and
east are undeveloped. Currently this site is undeveloped. The property is located southwest of
Liberty High School an~~
SUBDMSION DESIGN FEATURES:
I. I.,. Patlml and Density: The proposed lot and street layout is in confonnance with
V King County Code (K CC) 7J A (Zoni&g). The plat's proposed density of 4 dwelling
7ts per acre is in conformance with KCC 21.A and the R-4 zone.
2. /lnlllmal Circulation: The site will access 162'• Avenue SE, and will be served by SE
140th Place, 163"' A venue SE and SE 141" Place all urban minor access roads ending in
a c9-l-0e-sac.
/~ Section:, The roads will be designed and constructed to the urban standards
ofth~993 King County Road Standard9'
{§ · i,,j]n,e Liberty Gardens subdivision is located in the Orting Hill Subbasin
of the Lliwer Cedar River basin. The site is subject to the Level II flow control and
Basic water quality requirements of the 1998 KCSWDM. Level III Flow Control
is proposed by the applicant to address downstream drainage problems in the area.
The existing site drainage generally sheet flows from the northeast to the southwest,
leaving the site along the south property line in an existing water course. The flow
continues offsite to the southwest, combining with another drainage course in the
unopened 162'' Ave SE R/W. The downstream continues south through a ponding
area in the unopened R/W, to SE 144th Street. The drainage then enters a cross
culvert under SE 144'" St and turns to the west along the south side of SE 144th St in
an enclosed pipe system. The enclosed pipe system continues west, past 156th Ave
SE, continuing west eventually outfalling to Tributary 0307. Tributary 0307 then
turns south and outlets to the Cedar River.
The proposal is to collect most runoff from the project site and direct it to a single
detention and water quality facility located in Tract Bin the southwest portion of
the site. Separate underground detention/water quality facilities are proposed for
J the offsite road improveme.nts. ~evel wnstream Drainage Anal~is {r.l..
, , , I prepar~artli,'_P}?,, was received July O , ~1 /1 yl-"' additional Recommended Stormwater Mitigations was received M I, 2008.
. ~ -. , k(b \ Several capacity and drainage problems were identified in the are~~ applicant % aA €JI v-· is proposing Level 111 Flow Control to address the downstream ~; ~roblems. ~ (/~ ~ applicant is also proposing to construct 16200 ,!v; SE to COllllect to SE 144th St,· ~ . This is appropriate mitigation per Core Requirement 2 of the KCSWDM. The /
\: ~ ~ lfincluding related offsite drainage improvemen~ ? yJff°?
I. TRANSPORTATION PLANS:
G l}JM #,_ (e,vQ;( ff l.
d.U>'IL 1 2.
{IJ I "1 Ft~-
rruiztt~
i""'"l'Qrtation Plans: The subject subdivision is not in conflict with Transportation,
Non-motorizeff'llffll Trails plan.
/
Subdivision Access: The site will gain access from 162"' A venue SE by the internal . fl f, ~
plat road of SE 140" Place. t\-v,;l i.).)>""
Traffic Generation: It is expected that approximately 360 vehicle trips per day will be ..• ~. , f(\'( 1
generated with full development of the proposed subdivision. This calculation includes fl""' ·
service vehicles (i.e., mail delivery, garbage pick-up, school bus) which may currently {
serve this neighborhood, as well as work trips, shopping, etc.
4 FILE NO: L04P0034
J.
4. Adequacy of Arterial Roads: This proposal has been reviewed under the criteria in
King County Code 14.70, 'transportation Concurrency Management-14.80,
Intersection Standar<ls.;_and King Crn,nty Code ] 4. 75; Mitigation Payinent Syste~.
a.
b.
King County Code 14. 70 -Traosportation Concummcy Manag!"11,;,,l.i The
Transportation Certificate of Concurrency dated October 20, 2004, indicates
that transportation improvements or strategies will be in place at the time of
development, or that a financial commitment is in place to complete the
improvements or strategies within six (6) years, according to RCW
36.70A.070(6).
King County Code 14:80 I .1 iiiiil&QD Stanaards: During review of the ,!'lat a
High Accident Location (HAL) "'.as identified at the intersection SE 1281 Street
and 160th Avenue SE. ~ ~
. ,.,.. j ,;,µ
In order to address the incremental impacts of the development of the
Liberty Gardens plat, and the cumulative impacts with other pending
development proposals in the area (Threadgill, DDES File L05P0026, and
Cavalla, DDES File L06POOOI), on the High Accident Location (HAL) at
the intersection of SE !28th Street/ 160th Avenue SE), the Applicant will be
required to individually or jointly with other developers in the area construct
an offsite extension of 162nd Avenue SE in general conformance with the
conceptual plan submitted to DDES (dated: July 2, 2007) for the plat of •. A /.I
Cavalla, from the current south terminus of 162nd Avenue SE (near the SE Jll),'".,
138xx block) to SE 144th Street. These improvements will include no less , • t'" l S r{\ .Atlfl" f'¥!/
than 22 feet of roadway paving, plus all associated appurtenances, and all · IJ.)yv,-· J..f Al f,->1 ' dV"
storm drainage conveyance/ detention/treatment facilities as determined by a,,i,1, ,•1 _, ~e, ,
DDES. These improvements will also include a tight-lining of the existing V ·~ /(.'' tAJV: ,,r _ .t I.
water-course located on the westerly halfofthe 162 00 Avenue SE right-of-{)»"" u I)}"". SU""'
way. (KCC 14.80.030B) ...µ..p
Note: a multi-party agreement between the three pending plat applicants
(Threadgill, Liberty Gardens, and Cavalla) has been reached to implement
this requirement. Portions of this improvement are located along the ·
frontage of the Liberty Gardens and Cavalla plats, and will require
additional roadway frontage improvements as conditions of both plat
approvals.
c. King County Code 14. 75 -Mlligatioo Payment Systevi:
King County Code 14. 75, Mitigation Payment System (MPS), requires the
payment of a traffic impact mitigation fee (MPS fee) and an administration fee
for each single-family residential lot or unit created. MPS fees are determined
by the zone in which the site is located. This site is in Zone 452 per the
MPS/Quartersection list. MPS fees may be paid at the time of final plat
recording, or deferred until building permits are issued. The amount of the fee
will be determined by the applicable fee ordinance at the time the fee is , J
O
.1 1 n J., ,Ii
collected. cf(Vn : th,t0-llo we vt!'J"'.-' -n\...l(, a~~
PUBLIC SERVICES: ~ ,Ri!i }JJ
(YI r0,l
cJ-~ '7
4-tt#, .
l. Selmols: •TIIis proposal has been reviewed under RCW 58.17.110 and King County
Code 21A.28 (School Adequacy).
a. Soh<!ol Facilities: The subject subdivision will be served by Briarwood
Elementary School, Maywood Middle School and Liberty High School all
located within the Issaquah School District No. 411.
b. Sc)Qul Jn;q,act Fees: Issaquah School District No. 411 requires that an impact
fee per lot be imposed to fund school system improvements to serve new
5 FILE NO: L04P0034
K.
L.
development within the district. Payment of this fee in a manner consistent with
KCC 21A.43 will be a condition of subdivision approval.
c. S~l~ss: .162"' Avenue SE, from the north subdivision boundary to SE
136111 Street shall be improved to provide a minimum 22-feet of pavement (two
11-foot wide lanes for vehicular traffic) together with one of (or, combination -
depending upon the location) the following shoulder improvements for school-
age pedestrians on the east (plat) side of 162nd Avenue SE:
• A minimum eight (8) foot wide paved shoulder (for a total of 19-feet of
pavement from the centerline of 162nd Avenue SE, with I I-feet of pavement
on the west side of the centerline)
• AD.-.type shoulder design~concrete curb, gutter and sidewalks (for a
total of16-feet of pavement from the centerline of162"" Avenue SE,
together with concrete curbs, gutters and sidewalks, with! I-feet af ,
pavement on the west side of the cenµ C£U1, we tJ.11/:):'fR-11 ~ W.l1J ~
• A minimum five (5) foot wide paved pedestrian walkway, together with
sufficient paving to install an extruded curb to provide a two (2) foot shy
distance between the edge line of the traveled-way and the roadway-side ·
face of the extruded curb, with the paved-width notw~~ ,LtVttlf t.~
• A graded gmvel sbQHlder shall be provided on the west side of the road the
full limits of this section of 162nd Avenue SE.
2. Parks and Recreation Space: The nearest public park is Maplewood Heights Park,
located at 168th Avenue SE and SE 140th Street Renton, WA.
K.C.C. 21 A.14 requires subdivisions in the UR and R zone classifications to either
provide on-site recreation space or pay a fee to the Parks Division for establishment and
maintenance of neighborhood parks. At this time, the applicant is proposing to provide
suitable recreation space Tract B. The Subdivision Technicil Committee concurs )Vith ,. .1.1Lr, J v:;; ;/
the applicant's proposal /JP ,ni;ttqcdu,rt o./0 f ~ =·
3. Fire Protection: The Certificate of Water Availability from King County Water District
No. 90 indicates that water is presently available to the site in sufficient quantity to
satisfy King County Fire Flow Standards.
Prior to fina~reco di~ of the pla. t, the water service facilities must be reviewed and
approved p ·ng Conni;, Fire Flow Standards .
.\ ?
UTILITIES l)Y4' ,vJl rf CL,v,l.JJ/&tJ.td b"f,
1. S@wage Disposal: The applicant proposes to serve the subject subdivision by means of
a public sewer system managed by the City of Renton. A Certificate of Sewer
Availability, dated July 1, 2004, indicates this sewer provider's capability to serve the
proposed development.
2. H atct Suwt,: The applicant proposes to serve the subject subdivision with a public
water supply and distribution system managed by King County Water District No. 90.
A Certificate of Water Availability, dated December 29, 2004, indicates this district's
capability to serve the proposed development.
COMPREHENSIVE AND COMMUNITY PLAN:
??
' '
1. ~ 4.3~ ,:: This plan is governed by the 2004 l(iag Comity .-Pe&~ ? which designates this area a IL rhe proposed subdivision .. _j .111 ~
is not in conflict with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. C1/1)ftvV,,JV~
6
uw,p~t~
FILE NO: L04P0034
~ ..
"
M.
N.
o.
2. Community Plans: The subject subdivision is located in the Newcastle Community
Plan. The subject subdivision is not in conflict with the goals, guidelines and . , ~. ~
policies of the Newcastle Community Plan. (tyi.tl. ~ neJl..)(;IJ.Y}J,.R,~-
STATUTES/CODES: ,.,....,..., "
i.,Jtld t:.f ( /1. &tJ!C/1.,C-e
If approved with the recommended conditions in this report, the proposed development will / ' .., /V-, ,/J
comply with the requirements of the County and State Platting Codes and Statutes, and the /l.. ~ T /
lots in the proposed subdivision will comply with the minimum dimensional requirements '
of the zone district.
CONCLUSIONS:
The subject subdivision will comply with the goals and objectives of the King County
Comprehensive Plan and will comply with the requirements of the Subdivision and Zoning
Codes and other official land use controls of King County, based on the conditions for final
plat approval.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is recommended that the subject subdivision, revised and received May 2, 2008, be
granted preliminary approval subject to the following conditions of final approval:
4.
5.
6.
Compliance with all platting provisions of Title 19A of the King County Code.
All persons having an ownership interest in the subject property shall sign on the
face of the final plat a dedication that includes the language set forth in King
County Council Motion No. 5952.
The plat shall comply with the base density and minimum density requirements of
the R-4 zone classification. All lots shall meet the minimum dimensional
requirements of the R-4 zone classification or shall be shown on the face of the
approved preliminary plat, whichever is larger, except that minor revisions to the
plat which do not result in substantial changes may be approved at the discretion of
the Department gfl)e1·ele~li1Cllt and ~tivhwnnent Su ,ices. Ph.rln'-liq bv1rtJA-.
Any/all plat boundary discrepancy shall be resolved to the satisfaction ofDDES
prior to the submittal of the final plat documents. As used in this condition,
"discrepancy11 is a boundary hiatus. an overlapping boundary or a physical
appurtenance which indicates an encroachment, lines of possession or a conflict of
::;~nstruction and upgrading of public and private roads shall be done in /:: \~
accordance with the King County Road Standards established and adopted byl!:J.(0
Ordinance No. 11187, as amended (1993 KCRS).__.-~---...,::::-----~ U
The applicant must obtain the approval of the ·ng County Fire Protection
for the adequacy of the fire hydrant, water main, an re ow o Chapter
17.08 of the King County Code. f7YI ,iy -fp --fu,id ~
The drainage facilities shall meet the requirements of the 1998 King County
Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM). The drainage design shall meet
Level m Flow Control and Basic Water Quality requirements in the KCSWDM .
• 11 (l 7. The following road improvements are required to be constructed according to the
'-fl'-'" 1993 King County Road Standards(KCRS): (Note that portions of the below 162"•
/J... •-, _ ,J I.01 Ave SE road improvements are also conditioned with the plat of Threadgill
v I t;,rY !'.,VI t?V L05P0026 or to be conditioned with the plat of Cavalla L06P0001.)
J • , • n I\J1 1 A ~ '*°, ~-~:ess stree-t-standa . -SE shall be improved at a minimum to the urban ~JV'· _ eportionofSE 140'"PLeastof163"' Ave SE(
~S '-~, O QJl)'l 'fhi)M/!11 if IS ~ 4fcvt. J w I q q1 ftW1WJ'-' 7 FILE NO: L04P0034
C.
d.
e.
•
to the cul-<l-sac) shall be improved at a minimum to
street standards.
SE 141" Place shall be improved at a minimum to
street standards.
OFFSITE ROAD/WALKWAY IMPROVEMENTS: 16200 Aveoue SE,
from the north subdivision boundary to SE 136" Street shall be improved to
provide a minimum 22-feet of pavement (two II-foot wide lanes for
vehicular traffic) together with one of ( or, combination -depeoding upon
the location) the following shoulder improvemeots for school-age
pedestrians on the east (plat) side of 162•' Avenue SE:
• minimum eight (8) foot wide paved shoulder (for a total of 19-feet
of pavement from the centerline of 16200 Avenue SE, with II-feet of
pavement on the west side of the centerline)
An urban-type shoulder design: concrete curb, gutter and sidewalks
(for a total of 16-feet of pavement from the centerline of 162•'
Avenue SE, to gcther with concrete curbs, gutters and sidewalks,
with I I-feet of pavement on the west side of the centerline)
A minimum five (5) foot wide paved pedestrian walkway, together
with sufficient paving to install an extruded curb to provide a two (2)
foot shy distance betweeo the edge line of the traveled-way and the
roadway-side face of the extruded curb, with the paved-width noted
for vehicle traffic.
A graded gravel shoulder shall be provided on the west side of the
road the full limits of this section of 162nd Avenue SE.
OFFSITE ROAD/WALKWAY IMPROVEMENTS: 162.., Avenue SE,
from the south subdivision boundary to SE 144"' Street shall improved to a
minimum 22-foot paved width, plus urban shoulder improvements on the
east side of the roadway in general conformance with the conceptual
roadway improvement plans received March 11, 2008 or as approved by
DOES. Any design clements of the roadway aligmnent: pl file, that
' ' avati8nce reviewed through the office of DOES
evel912ro~nt E~eef; or a Variance reviewed through th ffice e
oun oad Engineer, shall be subject to a requirement ofhavmg an
approve variance before the approval of the engineering plans. Any
plan/profile design elements that are not consistent with the KCRS, and are
not approved/conditionally-approved through one of the two variance
processes noted, shall require redesign.
• A graded gravel shoulder shall be provided on the west side of the road the
full limits of this section of 162nd Avenue SE.
• An existing water course enters the unopened 162nd Ave SE R/W from the '11c
west, at approximately the south property line(adjoining the north line of the 'J. re0
Gragg property at 16046 SE 142•' St). An appropriate inlet structure(cage
type or as approved by ODES), for this drainage course shall be designed f':nr~S l{J~
and shown on the engineering plans.
• The new drainage conveyance system for this improvement at 162nd Ave SE
and SE 144th St shall be designed to route potential overflow to the west
~~ 8 FILENO:L04P0034
~8.
9.
along the north side of SE 144"' St Note that the existing overflow route is
to the west at this location.
f. The joint use driveways and private access tracts shall be improved per
Section 3.01 and 2.09 of the KCRS. These Tracts shall be owned and
maintained by the Lot owners served.
g. /Mollifications to the above road conditions may be considered according to
~ariancc provisions in Section 1.08 oftheKCRS.
All utilities with_i!! proposed rigb~;':ay must be included within a franchise
approvedby~ngCountyC;~rio~~ ~!~~ ~
The applicant or subsequent owner shall comply with King County Code 14. 75,
Mitigation Payment System (MPS), by paying the required MPS fee and
~
. nistration fee as determined by the applicable fee ordinance. The applicant has
,a e option to either: (l) pay lhe MPS fee at the final plat recording, or (2) pay the
MPS fee at the time of building permit issuance. If the first option is chosen, the
~/· , fee paid shall be the fee in effect at the time of plat application and a note shall be \)Ja placed on the face of the plat that reads, "All fees required by King County Code
fvt. j\, 14.75, Mitigation Payment System (MPS), have been paid." If the second option is
\.)IT , .. ,Q... chosen, the fee paid shall be the amount in effect as of the date of building permit
'1.-r application.
10.
IL
Lots within this subdivision are subject to King County Code 2IA.43, which
imposes impact fees to fund school system improvements needed to serve new
development. As a condition of final approval, fifty percent (50%) of the impact
fees due for the plat shall be assessed and collected immediately prior to the ~
recording, using the fee schedules in effect when the plat receives final approval.
The balance of the assessed fee shall be allocated evenly to the dwelling units in the
plat and shall be collected prior to building permit issuance.
The proposed subdivision shall comply with the Sensitive Areas Code as outlined in
K.C.C. 21A.24. Permanent survey marking, and signs as specified in K.C.C.
2 JA.24.160 shall also be addressed prior to fmal plat approval. Temporary marking
of sensitive areas and their buffers (e.g .• with bright orange construction fencing)
shall be placed on the site and shall remain in place until all construction activities
are completed.
12. Preliminary plat review has identified the following specific requirements which
apply to this project. All other applicable requirements from K.C.C. 21A.24 shall
also be addressed by the applicant.
Wetlands
a. The Class ii wetland shall have a 50-foot undisturbed buffer as measured
from the wetland edge.
b. The Class Ill stream located within the on-site wetland shall have a 25-foot
undisturbed buffer as measured from the ordinary higb water mark
(OHWM).
c. Both wetlands and streams and their buffers shall be placed in a Sensitive
Areas Tract (SAT) for long term protection. Signage and fencing (four foot
high, split-railed cedar or similar) shall be installed along the SAT
boundaries to clearly mark the extent of the tract.
d. A 15-foot building set back line (BSBL) is required from the edge oflhe
SAT and shall be shown on all affected lots within the proposed
subdivision.
e. Additional sensitive/critical are.as include an off-site Class Il wetland and a
Class III stream. These additional areas are primarily located within the
unimproved right-of-way known as 162nd Avenue SE. Improvements of
162" Avenue are required for plat approval, thus unavoidable impacts to
sensitive/critical areas and their buffers shall occur. Impacts to sensitive
9 FILE NO: L04P0034
f.
g.
h.
areas for road improvements may be allowed per KC 21A.24. However
mitigation shall be required. Construction techniques such as retaining
walls maybe required at such crossings or improvements to limit impacts. A
final mitigation plan shall be required during engineering review.
Sensitive area tract boundaries shall be clearly marked with bright orange
construction and silt fencing prior to construction or site clearing activities.
The bmmdaries shall remain marked until construction is complete.
Hydrology may not be altered either during or after development. A
hydrology analysis may be required during engineering review to show how
the hydrology will be maintained after and during site development. .
rk within the OHWM may require an HP A from the State Department o~
hand Wildlife. It will be the applicant's responsibility to coordinate with ~
FW to determine if an HP A is needed.
l. The engineering plans shall be routed to Critical Areas Staff for review of
compliance to the above conditions.
Alterations to Streams or Wetlands
~ations of streams and/or wetlands are approved in conformance with K.C.C.
2 IA.24, theu a detailed plan to mitigate for impacts from that alteration will be
required to be reviewed and approved along with the plat engineering plans. A
p~ormance bond or other finan~~al ~arantee will b~.:~~ired at the ti_me of plan _.,-'"
approval to guarantee that the m1t1gatton m ·e mslall to th._.......-
plan. Once the mitigation work is complet to a DDES Senior Ecologi
satisfaction, the pnnance bond may be rep · e ond for the /'
remainder ofth~ve-year monitoring period to guarantee the success of the _ J~
ruitlgation.]The applicant shall be responsible for the installation, maintenance and ?1
monitoring of any approved mitigation. The mitigation plan must be installed prior -\
to final inspection of the plat. ~ \
C,
The following note shall be shown on the final engineering plan and recorded plat:
RESTRICTIONS FOR SENSITIVE AREA TRACTS AND SENSITIVE
AREAS AND BUFFERS
Dedication of a sensitive area tract/sensitive area and buffer conveys to the public a
beneficial interest in the land within the tract/sensitive area and buffer. This interest
includes the preservation of native vegetation for all purposes that benefit the public health,
safety and welfare, including control of surface water and erosion,. maintenance of slope
stability, and protection of plant and animal habitat. The sensitive area tracVsensitive area
and buffer imposes upon all present and future owners and occupiers of the land subject to
the tract/sensitive area and buffer the obligation, enforceable on behalf of the public by
King County, to leave widisturbed all trees and other vegetation within the tract/sensitive
area and buffer. The vegetation within the tract/sensitive area and buffer may not be cut,
pruned. covered by fill, removed or damaged without approval in writing from the King
County Department of Development and Environmental Services or its successor agency,
wtless otherwise provided by law.
The common boundary between the tracttsensitive area and buffer and the area of
development activity must be marked or otherwise flagged to the satisfaction of King
County prior to any clearing, grading, building construction or other development activity
on a lot subject to the sensitive area tract/sensitive area and buffer. The required marking
or flagging shall remain in place until all development proposal activities in the vicinity of
the sensitive area are completed.
No building foundations are allowed beyond the required 15-foct building setback line,
unless otherwise provided by law.
14. Suitable recreation space shall be provided consistent with the requirements of
K.C.C. 21A.14.180 and K.C.C. 21A. 14.190 (i.e., sport court[s], children's play
equipment, picnic table[s], benches, etc,).
10 FILE NO: L04P0034
15.
~~6.
a.
b.
A detailed recreation space plan (i.e., location, area calculations,
dimensions, landscape specs, equipment specs, etc.) shall be submitted for j
review and approval by DDES and King County Parks prior to or concurrent _ .~
with the submittal of engineering plans. e.,JJ"-
A performance bond for recreation space improvements shall b_e post~~. J..< _A 7
priortorecordingoftheplat. \J()W \!, \{ ~--· ,
A homeowners' association or other workable organization shall be established to '<I.)
the satisfuction ofDDES which provides for the ownership and continued .• ,J ~
maintenance of the recreation, open space and/or sensitive area tracl(s). ~~~
Street trees shall be provided as follows (per KCRS 5.03 and K.C.C. 21A. 16.050): Y/,.,--I ~r:r-, -,
a. Trees shall be planted at a rate of one tree for every 40 feet of frontage along
all roads. Spacing may be modified to accommodate sight distance _
requirements for driveways and intersections. fb..<J (!,fJ..,f1, t:f /Jt, ~ ,J
_,-,I v,,J' b. Trees shall be located within the street right•of-way and planted in ,. .• J..r/1 ?
_ 0 ,J~ 11,,,p accordance with D!a ing No. 5·009 of the 1993 King County R;~ ----vC/1 -J , r A I'/ .J:J! Standards, unless ing County Department ofTransportati'#de~es
7 I ~ T-that trees should e located in the street right-of-way.
('J} ~-Jc. If King County determines that the required street trees should not be
,,,yi,o~ · located within the right-of-way, they shall be located no more than 20 feet
11 from the street right-of-way line.
d.
e.
f.
g.
The trees shall be owned and maintained by the abutting lot owners or the
homeowners association or other workable organization unless the county
has adopted a maintenance program. Ownership and maintenance shall be
noted on the face of the final recorded plat.
The species of trees shall be approved by DDES iflocated within the right-
of-way, and shall not include poplar, cottonwood, soft maples, gum, any
fruit~bearing trees, or any other tree or shrub whose roots are likely to
obstruct sanitary or storm sewers, or that is not compatible with overhead
utility lines.
The applicant shall submit a street tree plan aod bond quantity sheet for
review and approval by DDES prior to engineering plan approval.
The applicant shall contact Metro Service Planning at (206) 684-1622 to
determine if 162"' Avenue SE is on a bus route. If 162"" Avenue SE is a bus
route, the street tree plan shall also be reviewed by Metro.
h. The street trees must be installed and inspected, or a performance bond
posted prior to recording of the plat. If a performance bond is posted, the
street trees must be installed and inspected within one year of recording of
the plat. At the time of inspection, if the trees are found to be installed per
the approved plan, a maintenance bond must be submitted or the
performance bond replaced with a maintenance bond, and held for one year.
After one year, the maintenance bond may be released after DDES has
completed a second inspection and determined that the trees have been kept
healthy aod thriving.
17. A landscape inspection fee shall also be submitted prior to plat recording. The
inspection fee is subject to change based on the current cotmty fees.
18. To implement K.C.C. 21A.38.230 which applies to the site, a detailed tree retention
plan shall be submitted with the engineering plans for the subject plat. The tree
retention plan (and engineering plans) shall be consistent with the requirements of
II FILE NO: L04P0034
Q.
R.
K.C.C. 21A.38.230. No clearing of the subject property is permitted until the final
tree retention plan is approved by LUSD. Flagging and temporary fencing of trees
to be retained shall be provided, consistent with K.C.C. 21A.38.230.B.4. The
placement of impenrious surfaces, fill material, excavation work, or the storage of
construction materials is prohibited within the fenced areas around preserved trees,
except for grading work pem1itted pursuant to K..C.C. 21A.38.230.B.4.d.(2).
A note shall be placed on the final plat indicating that the trees shown to be retained
on the tree retention plan shall be maintained by the future owners of the proposed
lots, consistent with K.C.C. 21 A.38.230.B.6. (Note that the tree retention plan shall
be included as part of the final engineering plans for the subject plat.)
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS:
I. The subdivision shall conform to K.C.C. 16.82 relating to grading on private
property.
2. Development of the subject property may require registration with the Washington
State Department of Licensing, Real Estate Division.
3. Preliminary approval of this application does not limit the applicant's responsibility
to obtain any required permit or license from the State or other regulatory body.
This may include. but is not limited to the following:
a. Forest Practice Permit from the Washington State Department of Natural
Resources.
b. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit from
WSDOE.
c. Water Quality Modification Permit from WSDOE.
d. Water Quality Certification (401) Permit from U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
TRANSMITTED TO PARTIES LISTED HEREAFfER:
BARGHAUSEN ENGRS
18215 72ND AVES KENT WA 98032
BOTTHEIM STEVE SUPERVISOR
CPLNLUSDMS OAKDEOIOO
BRENDEN MARSHALL M.
18225 SE 128TH ST. RENTON, WA 98059
BULL TRISHAH PPMIII
CPLN LUSD MS OAK DE O I 00
CARE C/0 GWENDOLYN HIGH
P.O. BOX 2936 RENTON WA 98059
CLAUSSEN KIM PPMIII
CPLN LUSD MS OAK DE 0100
CORGIAT LINDA
16039 SE 142ND PLACE RENTON, WA 98059
DINSMORE LISA PPM N
CPLNLUSDMS OAKDEOIOO
DMP ENGINEERING
726AUBURNWAYNORTHAUBURN, WA98002
12 FILE NO: L04P0034
GILLEN NICK ENV SCIENTIST
CASLUSDMS OAKDEOlOO
GOLL SHIRLEY ASII
CPLNLUSDMS OAKDEOlOO
HEARING EXAMINER
LANGDON RICHARD & TERI
14201164TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98059
LANGLEY, KRIS SR ENGR
CPLN LUSD MS OAK DE 0100
LOZIER HOMES JENNIFER MCCALL
1203 114TH AVE SE BELLEVUE WA 98004
PETRIE DA YID M.
811 S. 273RD CT. DES MOINES, WA 98198
RITCHEY MICHAEL
14225 164TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98059-7515
SCHUSTER, CURTIS G. KBS DEVELOPMENT CORP
12320 NE 8TH ST SUITE# l 00 BELLEVUE WA 98005
SEATTLE KC HEALTH DEPT E. ENVIRON HEALTH
14350 SE EASTGATE WAY BELLEVUE WA 98007
TIBBITS CHAD PPMIIJ
CPLNLUSDMS OAKDEOlOO
TOWNSEND STEVE SUPERVISOR
LUIS LUSD MS OAK DE O l 00
WEST LARRY ENV SCIENTIST
CASLUSDMS OAKDEOlOO
WHITING KELLY KC DOT
RD SERV DIV MS KSC TR0231
WHITTAKERBRUCESRENGR
ERS LUSD MS OAK DE 0100
ZIMMERMAN GREGG ADMJNJSTRATOR CITY OF RENTON
I 055 SOUTH GRADY WAY RENTON WA 98055
13 FILE NO: L04P0034
•
pn ...... !
' '! ! I '!!!l'I J iUi Ill' ! ~ ~ .t ~
' . Ziiii~; & ..
• ii I i ! :
I ~ ~
'-~ ' i ':
\REVISION I
~ ~t
\
\
\
ans 273fDCT
DES MC»E:I, WA 98198 ---.. ... ---------.::--................
Lo'-/ Po0.3~
f5) ~t.e!E!~~!D) /
IJl} MAY 02 2008 ATIACHMENT_~-
. / OF / ,. PAGE --='PA~G=E~
··~
Ka:thy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor
"----••
PJannin
'"'.r . ~ _l "'llj .I '"'_l"'llj
tlding/PublicWorks Department
. gg Zimmerman P.E.; Administrator
March 17, 2005
Department of Development and.Environmental Services
Land {Jse Services Division .
Attn: Trishah.Bull
900 Oakesdale Ave. S. W.
Renton, WA 98055~1219
SUBJECT: NOTICE; OF APPLICATION, FILE#L04POOM~fflERTY GARDEN
Dear Ms. Bull:
..
Thank you for the opportunity ofre¥iewing and commenting on this proje<:t proposal
Planning/Building/Public Works p'epartment comments are as follows: ·
Renton's ·
I. The proposed project is located \Vithin the Water Distri~t #90,water service area and City
Sewer is available for 18 lots.·· · ·
2. The proposed development is within Renton's Potential Annexation Area. Therefore; we
request the following: · · ···
• Right-of. Way for all ~ets withir1the .clevelopment site sh01dd conform to City of
Renton standards. ().¢,minimum of 42-footwidth versus th:e.40-foot width proposed ·
on the Preliminary Plat·Plan). · · · ·
• Street improvements (t,idway pavement Width and thickness, cur\) and guttef, .
sidewalks ahd street iigiiHng, etc.) fot ihe streetsyste!Ilwlthinthesite and along .
162°d Ave SE abutting the site should be iit~lled in:aecordance with City of Renton
standards. ·
. Sincerely, .
</J1eJa %;11/~ .··
· Gregg Z1i6;;J:rm~dm1mstrator. · ·
Planning/Building/Public Works Dept.
cc: Neil Watts
Jennifer Henning
Lys·HoffiSby
Sandra Meyer 2 ATTACHMENT~:...-;..~
p{GE. OF·---p/..,...,AG=E-,-~ ..
------""10""s-s'""s-ou_t.,..h-Gr-a_d_y_W_a""'y--.,-R-en_t_on-,-W-a-shcci-ng_t_on---,.9,:-80"'5'"'5-· --,,.-'"--~~-R E N T Q N
..(t\_ AHEAD QF T_HE CURVE'· ~ This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% postoonsu'nier