Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA-07-018_Report 1Denis Law Mayor November 6, 2009 Michael Chan, President Tridor, Inc. P.O. Box 747 Bellevue, WA 98009 • Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator SUBJECT: EXTENSION REQUEST FOR GRANT AVENUE TOWNHOMES (LUA-07-01B, SA-A, ECF) Dear Mr. Chan, This office has reviewed your request to extend an approved site plan (File No. LUA07-018, ECF) pursuant to Renton Municipal Code 4-9-200L.2. Specifically, the Code allows the original approving body to issue a single two (2) year extension. As the decision for the Grant Avenue Townhomes (as adopted by City Council via Appeal) was issued on December 10, 2007, and was valid for two years, your request is timely. Therefore, the project expiration date has been extended to December 10, 2011. You should be aware that this office is empowered to issue only one such extension. If the requirements of the site plan are not completed by December 10, 2011, the project application will expire and cannot be extended again. Please feel free to contact Jennifer Henning at (425) 430-7286 should you have any further questions or comments regarding this extension. Sincerely, J =sf- C,Z. ''--- C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Director Planning Division cc: File lUA07-018 Jennifer Henning, Planning Manager Stacy Tucker, Secretary Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov · . May 6, 2009 Mr. C.E.Vincent City of Renton lOSS South Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98057 Subject: Request for extension for Gant Avenue Townhouses. City of Renton File LUA07-0 18, SA-A Dear Sirs: With reference to your letter dated May 18,2009, the above land use and subdivision approvals will be expired by December 10,2009 and it is entitled for a two (2)-years extension upon written request. Hereby, I am writing to request for the 2 years standard extension under Ordinance NO.S4S2. I am also forwarding my contact information below, in case that I am needed to be contact in person or by phone. [ will be traveling outside of the country from 14th Nov 2009 and be back by 5'h Dec 2009. S' cerely, President Tridor Inc. Person to contact: Michael Chan, President Email Address:mikechanliVseattlechinesetimes.com Cell Phone: 206-498-8808 Mailing Address: r.O.Box 3707 Bellevue, WA98009 Secondary contacts: Ted Chesledon Cell:206-778-7920 Garry Chan Cell: 206-390-8809 CITY OF RENTON RECEIVED NOV 05 2009 BUILDING DIVISION P.O.Box 747 Bellevue, WA98009 • Phone 206-498-8808' mikechan@seattlechinesetimes.com Denis Law Mayor May 18, 2009 Austin Kovach Kovach Architects 101 W Main Street Monroe, WA 98272 Department of Community & Economic Development SUBJECT: Expiration period for Grant Avenue Townhouses City of Renton File LUA07-018, ECF, SA-A Dear Mr. Kovach: The City of Renton Planning Division approved the above referenced application on December 10, 2007. This approval is ordinarily good for two (2) year(s). Pursuant to RMC 4-9-200L.2 of the Renton Municipal Code, you may upon written request, prior to the expiration of the project, receive a single two (2)-year extension from the Planning Division. In addition to the above two (2)-year extension, the City Council under Ordinance No. 5452 (enclosed), has granted an extension of the period of validity on land use and subdivision approvals. Therefore, certain land use and/or subdivision approvals expiring after April 1, 2009, upon written request and prior to the expiration of the project, may receive an additional one-time two (2)-year extension beyond the standard expiration date listed in RMC 4-8 and RMC 4-9. Our records indicate that the above referenced application will expire on December 10, 2009. This letter is to inform you that prior to the expiration date of this project, you may submit a written request for the standard extension the project would normally receive under RMC 4-7, RMC 4-8, and RMC 4-9, as well as request the additional two (2)-year extension under Ordinance No. 5452. Please be aware that this extension does not apply to temporary use permits, building permits, or public works permits. Also, this provision shall automatically expire on December 31, 2010, and shall be removed from the code at that time unless another ordinance is passed extending this date. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Laureen Nicolay at (425) 430-7294. Sincerely, I I '-.il C.Z:.\J~ C. E. Vincent Planning Director Enclosure: Copy of Ordinance #5452 cc: Andrew Kovach / Applicant, lridor, Inc., Sara E. McDonald /Owner(s) City of Renton File No. LUA07-018, ECF, SA-A Chip Vincent, Planning Director Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager Neil Watts, Development Services Director Kayren Kittrick, Development Engineering Supervisor Renton City Hall • 1055 South GradyWay • Renton,Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov From: To: Date: Subject: Stacy Tucker Medzegian, Julia; Walton, Bonnie 2/29/20088:34:35 AM Grant Avenue Townhomes (LUA07-018) Please note the following change in address for the applicant for the Grant Avenue Townhomes LUA07- 018: Austin Kovach Kovach Architecture 2115 Colby Avenue Everett W A 98201 Stacy M, Tucker Secretary Development Services/PBPW City of Renton (425) 430-7282 cc: Henning, Jennifer Denis law Mayor November 6, 2009 Michael Chan, President Tridor, Inc. P.O. Box 747 Bellevue, WA 98009 • Departme~t of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator SUBJECT: EXTENSION REQUEST FOR GRANT AVENUE TOWN HOMES (LUA-07-01S, SA-A, ECF) Dear Mr. Chan, This office has reviewed your request to extend an approved site plan (File No. lUA07-018, ECF) pursuant to Renton Municipal Code 4-9-200l.2. Specifically, the Code allows the original approving body to issue a single two (2) year extension. As the decision for the Grant Avenue Townhomes (as adopted by City Council via Appeal) was issued on December 10, 2007, and was valid for two years, your request is timely. Therefore, the project expiration date has been extended to December 10, 2011. You should be aware that this office is empowered to issue only one such extension. If the requirements of the site plan are not completed by December 10. 2011, the project application will expire and cannot be extended again. Please feel free to contact Jennifer Henning at (425) 430-7286 should you have any further questions or comments regarding this extension. Sincerely, J * C_~. ,'---- C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Director Planning Division cc: File LUA07-018 Jennifer Henning, Planning Manager Stacy Tucker, Secretary Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton. Washington 98057 .• rentonwa.gov ·. I • May 6,2009 Mr. C.E. Vincent City of Renton JOSS South Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98057 Subject: Request for extension for Gant Avenue Townhouses. City of Renton File LUA07-018, SA-A Dear Sirs: With reference to your letter dated May 18,2009, the above land use and subdivision approvals will be expired by December 10,2009 and it is entitled for a two (2)-years extension upon written request. Hereby, I am writing to request for the 2 years standard extension under Ordinance NO.5452. I am also forwarding my contact information below, in case that I am needed to be contact in person or by phone. I will be traveling outside of the country from 14'h Nov 2009 and be back by 5th Dec 2009. President Tridor Inc. Person to contact: Michael Chan, President Email Address:mikechanrii!seattlechinesetimes.com Cell Phone: 206-498·8808 Mailing Address: P.O.Box 3707 Bellevue, WA98009 Secondary contacts: Ted Chesledon CeIl:206-778-7920 Garry Chan Cell: 206-390-8809 CITY OF RENTON RECEIVED NOV 05 2009 BUILDING DIVISION P.O.Box 747 Bellevue. WA98009 • Phone: 206·498-8808 • mikechan@seatllechinesetimes.com , . August 9, 2007 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPELLANTS: PUBLIC HEARING: Robin Jones 1626 Grant Avenue Renton, W A 98055 Andrew S. Kovach, Representing Tridor Inc. Kovach Architects 101 West Main St. Monroe, W A 98272 Grant Avenue Townhomes Site Plan Appeals LUA-07-018, SA-A, ECF After reviewing the Appellant's written requests for a SEPA Appeal hearing and the Applicant and Appellant request an appeal hearing on the underlying site plan for the project, examining available information on file, the Exanriner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the June 26,2007 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, June 26, 2007, at 10:50 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affIrmed by the Exanriner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No.1: Yellow file and the inclusive Appeal Exhibit No.2: Andrew Kovach Resume file containing the original appeal letter and other pertinent information by reference Exhibit No.3: Exhibit IE, Drawing of Grant Avenue Exhibit No.4: Exhibit ID, Site Plan for Grant Avenue Townhomes project Townhomes Exhibit No.5: Exhibit IF and 1 G Exhibit No.6: Photograph oftri-unit with attached single unit Exhibit No.7: Preliminary Site Plan Exhibit No.8: Heritage Village Site Plan Exhibit No.9: Aerial of actual site at built in 1986 Parties Present: Mark Barber, Senior Assistant City Attorney Grant Avenue Townhomes Appeal LUA-07-0l8, SA-A, ECF Augnst 9 2007 Page 2 Elizabeth Higgins, Development Services Sally Brick, Attorney for Applicant, 925 4th Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104 Robin Jones, Appellant, 1626 Grant Avenue S., Apt. B-203, Renton, WA 98055 Andrew Kovach, Representing Tridor, Inc., 101 West Main St. Monroe, WA 98272 Sally Brick stated that this project was custom designed for this specific lot. The designs are more than what is normally seen in developments of the same category. In the City's decision they acknowledged that the architectural details creates a visually interesting structure that would make a positive contribution to the physical condition and visual experience of the neighborhood. This project does not max out the site and while it is a more attractive development than could be built on this lot it also is not the biggest development that could be put on this lot. It is less than the maximum density, less than the maximum site coverage and less than the maximum pervious surface coverage. Its height is seven and a half feet less than the City could approve during the site plan review. The project applicant and their architects have worked with the staff to corne up with a project that looks at emergency exits, building envelopes, road width and on-site parking. Over time the number of units was reduced from 39 to 36. When the decision was returned there was one condition, which required the south side setback to be increased from the standard 13-feet to 25-feet. This would require a floor plan reduction of approximately 11,070 square feet which is 34% less than what was in the original plans. They are also appealing condition 2, the triplex condition, which requires the triplex unit which is attached to a single unit by a breezeway with a common roof to become a four-plex unit. According to the SEP A conditions, there are three parts to their argument; first the City has relied on a code provision that applies in situations where the abutting property is in a less intense zone. In this case the abutting property is in the same zone. After talking to the City, they now say it was an error to rely on that code provision and now agree with the applicant. Now they say they had discretion under a more general criteria. Their primary argument is that there is no legal basis for going beyond the standard setback. Second, even if the City did have discretion to do this, they can only impose reasonable conditions. This condition is unreasonable because it dramatically alters the scope of the project. Third, these allegations are not supported by the facts and therefore do not justifY the condition. The City's Report and Decision states that they have relied on the code provision that state the setback provisions for residential multi-family specifY that side yard setbacks should be l2-feet for a property this wide and because it is a 3-story development, one additional foot would be added, a 13-foot side yard setback is required. Further in the code there is a provision that expressly applies to residential multi-family developments. It states that properties abutting a less intense residential zone may be required to incorporate special design standards, which includes larger setbacks. It was her understanding after speaking with Mr. Barber, that they now agree that that provision is not a good basis for the setback. The Examiner asked Mr. Barber if the City no longer was relying on RMC 4-2-IIOF, who stated that that was an error and was the wrong citation. The City will not be relying on that particular citation. Grant Avenue Townhomes Appeal LUA-07-018, SA-A, ECF August 9 2007 Page 3 Ms. Brick continued by stating that Mr. Barber had given her more citations that they will now be relying on in their case. These citations appear to be more generic in their overall site plan review criteria. Mr. Barber stated that the City is now relying on RMC 4-9-200A and E. Ms. Brick with the change there is a new basis for the setback conditions. The project was designed with those in mind, it was designed to address impacts to neighbors, privacy, visual effects, all of which have been addressed. These provisions do not appear to justifY or give the City a legal basis for nearly doubling a setback. Can the City under some general discretion cut the height in half, can they cut by half the site coverage, where does this begin and end. The Examiner stated that zoning law in this state has more recently been subject to SEPA requirements. This overly of SEPA does actually give the City discretion to deny a project that would otherwise meet all the zoning planning requirements. Ms. Brick replied that there is a place in the code where the discretion is specifically limited to circumstances where the adjacent zone is less intense. That does not apply here. Site plan review is all about looking at the overall picture, whether that allows a setback to be nearly doubled is quite another matter. The code sets out several examples of the types of conditions that are appropriately applied to the site plan review. One of those places is RMC 4-9-200G.15c. Doubling this setback requires a loss in square footage of678 square feet in eleven of the units, 722 square feet in another 5 units. That equates to a loss in project value of over 2 million dollars. There would have to be unique circumstances that provide a basis for imposing conditions over and above what otherwise might apply. The rationale that the City has relied upon, privacy, light, and visual impact, in this two- year process the applicant and the architects went through developing this project, they were working with the City to address all the issues so that the project did meet the site plan criteria. Andrew Kovach, Kovach Architects, 101 W Main Street, Monroe, W A 98272 stated that he is a licensed architect in Washington, with a degree in Landscape Architecture and has been in private practice since 1986. He is the design architect for this particular project. The site was challenging, the units are larger than typical in this area, there is below building parking. The site gently slopes to the east with a 12% slope. There have been lots of challenges with setbacks and getting the drainage to work. They have tried to create a project that fits into a neighborhood and looks like single-family homes. They have tried to make the site more livable, they have added more trees for privacy, boulevard plantings on both sides of the street as well as a lot of design elements on the buildings. The buildings have an Arts and Crafts look to them. They have worked on this project for over two years. Special features have been added to help soften this project to the development to the south. The back of each unit has as much detail as the front of the units. Using Exhibits IF and IG he showed how the setbacks would affect the units and how it would affect the usability of the unit itself. On the first floor, the den could be removed without any problems, however, on the second floor the additional setback requirement would take 90% of the main living space. The kitchen, dining and living areas and access to the upper level need to be there. The unit would be left with a substandard living space. It would not meet code for light, ventilation, and open area. If the units were reconfigured, there would be a possibility of building a 700 square foot unit on three floors, which would be financially unfeasible to approach. The center unit could be reconfigured to be more compact and would lose two of the upstairs bedrooms leaving the center unit a single bedroom unit. The minute the features begin to be reduced, the market sell price goes down and that would have a huge effect on the project. Grant Avenue Townhomes Appeal LUA-07-01S, SA-A, ECF August 9 2007 Page 4 They believed that per the code they would be allowed to have a single unit, City staff disagreed. They thought if they did a connection, it could be called part of the same building, which is what they did. They were trying to avoid doing a fourplex, it becomes a much larger building and too imposing. They would like to have it remain as a single unit and not be combined as a fourplex. Trying to resolve the issue with the City it was their suggestion that the two units be connected with a common roof. Ms. Brick stated that she had a letter from a licensed realtor that states their official opinion that this project would increase the values of homes in the general area. Mr. Barber cross-examined Mr. Kovach who stated that a preliminary site plan was done by their firm, and that the units on the south side show a setback of at least 25' or more. The initial site plan was done in schematic design stage that was an offering of what the project could be. As they worked on the project, criteria become more evident, aspects of that original plan led to the plan before us tOday. They cannot go back to that original plan due to the loss of parking and the square footage of the units, it was a much different project. They were required to make adjustments to the original site plan due to fire access turnaround was in an inappropriate place. At that point units were lost and so they moved forward. It was true that on the original plan, at least six units were able to be located in such a position that a setback of 25' or more was applied. Today's plan is a better plan. The City does believe this is a good project, there is just a disagreement on certain issues. In a pre-application conference a memorandum was submitted and stated that the applicant is cautioned that modifications may be made by official decision makers (Hearing Examiner, Zoning Administrator, Board of Adjustment, Board of Public Works and City Council). It further stated that review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes reqnired by City staff or made by the applicant. The unusualness of this memorandum would be related to the timing. The initial site plan was submitted in 2005 and the site plan before us today was submitted in February of2007. They had made several attempts for the application to be accepted over the course of a six-month period. That site plan had been discussed with the City and numerous changes were required. After working very close with the City the site plan was accepted. Rearranging these units on the site is just not attainable. Mr. Kovach described why the current site plan is as it is today, stating lack of parking as a major issue, they wanted parking for residents, guests, and Emergency vehicles. Upon questioning by Mr. Barber, Mr. Kovach stated south of this parcel is the Heritage Village Condominiums where Mr. Jones resides, to the north of this parcel is the BPA Easement, an area where there can be no construction, it is for power access only. Mr. Kovach thought it was a good idea to move the entire project to the north and leave the correct sethack to the south, but in all likelihood, he didn't think it was possible. The Examiner stated that the triplex, it is the City's case, but he would like to know a little more about the City's arguments. Mr. Barber stated that the RM-F zone does not allow for single residences. Elizabeth Higgins stated that the RM-F zone does not allow a detached dwelling, which is a single-family residence or one family one-unit structure. What is allowed in the RM-F zone are attached dwellings. The problem is the definition of "attached". An attached dwelling is one or more one-family dwellings attached with common roofs, walls or floors. (from RMC 4-11-040 Definitions) This is a common roof, whether a roof ofa breezeway was intended to be defmed equally with a roof of a structure, it is not articulated clearly. Grant Avenue Townhomes Appeal LUA-07-018, SA-A, ECF August 9 2007 Page 5 The plan for Heritage Village was approved by the City of Renton, the north boundary of Heritage Village is the south boundary ofthe Grant Avenue project. The units are canted slightly with the parking almost reaching the property line. The aerial photograph of the area appears to show that Heritage Village was closer to its north property boundary than allowed because there are no setbacks shown. The boundaries on an aerial photograph may not be accurate. A survey was submitted by the applicant, which shows the north edge of the asphalt parking lots (that are seen on the aerial) are along the boundary lines. The units are closer to the ends of the parking lots than were proposed. For some reason, the Heritage project was not built with the setback from the north property line that is shown on the plan. It is quite a bit closer to the north property boundary. This raises concerns as to where the Grant Avenue property would be constructed if it were only 13-feet from the property line. There were at least two errors in the staff report; first was on page 5 of 16, Section C, the code citation should have been RMC 4-9-200. The citation was wrong, however, the criterion was correct. Secondly, on page 11 of 16, which states "the discretion available when two projects are abutting one another and one is in a lower density zone than the other", that was not an applicable citation to use in this instance. The Examiner asked if doubling the setback for this project was necessary? Ms. Higgins stated that the alternative, when looking at either the existing development or the proposed project, would be mitigated by this project alone and the answer would have to be no. The alternative to denying the project would be to provide the relief of the larger setback. The Examiner stated that the trees that are in existence and the additional ones that are to be planted seem to be providing an acceptable buffer. Is there anything being added with the additional setback distance when the trees buffer the space between the two projects. Upon questioning by Mr. Barber, Mr. Robin Jones stated that with regard the light, shading, air and privacy they are actually talking about fourteen units out of a 30-unit association, that are being affected by this new construction. It is profound, the areas affected are not bedrooms, they are the living rooms, dining rooms and kitchens, which are north facing and the impact of losing light is profound. There ar'; problems with the boundaries, they have been aware of that from the association. Having a wall of buildings thirteen feet away will have profound impact on the light, a fence will have impact on the lower levels. Upon questioning by Ms. Brick, Mr. Jones stated that the windows on the south and west sides of the buildings in Heritage Village are the bedrooms. The trees outside are on the lower level windows for the living areas and they do block some light to the upper and lower levels, but not solidly as a building would. Closing arguments were given by: Ms. Brick stated that the key basis articulated in the staff report regarding the setback condition has now been withdrawn. The City has alluded to some further general provisions and made no attempt to describe how those provisions give them discretion to nearly double any standard setback. This does raise the question about where the City's discretion begins and ends. The development standards must mean something and if this general language can authorize the City in the final hour, at the end of a more than two year process, that involves considerable expense to develop a project, to double the setback provision, it raises the question about what else they can do to the site plan review at other development stages. It does not appear that the City has a legal basis for imposing specific conditions of the site plan review that nearly doubles the standard setback in the zone where the abutting zone is exactly the same zone. Grant Avenue Townhomes Appeal LVA-OH1l8, SA-A, ECF August 9 2007 Page 6 · . Even if there was a legal basis for doing this, the impacts of lighting, air and privacy have already been addressed in the project design and in the existing features of the site. This condition amounts to a significant limitation to the development that is otherwise permitted by the code. The code requires that site plan conditions be reasonable, this condition is not reasonable and it should be repealed. Finally on the triplex condition there are instances where the code may not specifically address the situation but does afford an opportunity to devise a structure that meets the technical definition. That is what has been done here under the advisement of the City. To change it would involve additional expense and would not add anything, in fact it would detract from the visual standards. Mr. Barber stated that the appellant has a heavy burden to overturn the City's decision, they must show that it was clearly erroneous or arbitrary and capricious. The City's decision is entitled to substantial weight, he quoted from Renton Municipal Code 4-I-090.C. The next issue is in regards to the pre-application memo, the applicant was cautioned that there could be modifications that could occur from subsequent decision makers and also that there could be revisions to their potential site plan and other design changes required by City staff. It further indicated that the comments on development and permitting issues would be based upon codes in effect at the date of review. RMC 4-9-200. A & E were adopted by ordinance and subsequently amended well before the time period of this application being filed for development. Both parcels are in the RMF zone. Looking at the development standards, it is almost as if what's occurring is a discussion that if you meet the minimum that is all that is required, there is no more review or discussion that can occur. Regarding setbacks, the code (RMC 4-2-110 F) states "minimum side d" yar . The Examiner commented that over the two-year period, doubling the setback substantially changes the design of these buildings. A den does not get removed along with two bedrooms and maybe a kitchen depending on the orientation of the building, without expecting the site plan to go through a substantial reorganization or renovation. It seems that there should have been a hint of this change prior to the final site plan. It seems to have taken the applicant/appellant by surprise. Mr. Barber stated that he could not speak to that issue, there is no testimony from the City's side on that issue in the record. However, the code further talks about purpose and intent and how that affects the site plan review stage. The site plan process is the detail management of project elements, with an additional purpose to ensure quality development. Policy LV 188 was cited, it talks about evaluating project proposals in residential multi- family designations to consider the transition to lower density uses where multi-family sites abut lower density zones. It further states that taller bnildings, greater than two stories, should have larger side yard sethacks. By requiring the 25-foot sethack, the City is complying with the site plan review process as mandated by the Renton Municipal Code in that it is follOwing the Comprehensive Plan objectives and policies that are specified and referred to specifically in RMC 4-9-200 A and RMC 4-9-200 E. Ms. Brick further stated that the Comprehensive Plan is a guide and not a document designed for making specific land use decisions. Mr. Jones stated that he was not able to view the full plan until just a few days ago, his arguments are more of a general nature. The general concern comes from the overall project, this piece of land has been up for sale a number of times and they have known that a development would eventually be built on the site. The focus appears to be how to get the most bang for the buck on this piece of property. The scope narrows and the neighbors next door go by the wayside. He would argue that the increased setback is not reasonable to the appellant because it turns it into a bad business deaL It has been argued that there is no impact here, there is an Grant Avenue Townhomes Appeal LUA-07-0l8, SA-A, ECF August 9 2007 Page 7 impact, a 3-story building 13-feet away from our homes does create impacts, light, sight, views, and air. There is no guarantee that they will not be able to look into each other's living room. They have argued that this will be great because his property values will go up, he disagrees, perhaps if they were building single family homes, but condo properties are based on the price of what the last units sold for, it doesn't matter what is next door, or how fancy it is, it is based on the selling price of the last unit sold. The greater worry is that his property values will go down, there are water problems in Heritage Village, he will have a less desirable piece of property to sell because he has a giant condo looking into his home, there is a muddy trench behind his home because he has lost the light. He has a reasonable expectation to be able to maintain the same lifestyle as he had prior to this new construction. He does appreciate what the City is doing. He quoted from the Code provisions previously cited in this hearing. 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 I: II pm. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: I. The appellants, Robin Jones for himself and Andrew S. Kovach for Tridor, Inc, filed appeals of an administrative decision approving a Site Plan for the Grant Avenue Homes. 2. Andrew S. Kovach (hereinafter Kovach) represents the applicant for the proposal. 3. The appellant Robin Jones (hereinafter Jones) owns a condominium unit on the adjacent property to the south and resides in that unit. 4. The appeals were filed in a timely manner. 5. Jones indicates that the very limited lot layout and awkward lot size results in high density buildings being too close to the common property line between Heritage and other properties and the Grant Avenue development. 6. Kovach, representing the applicant objected to two conditions imposed as a result of the Site Plan review process. There is an objection to: Condition 2: The site plan shall be revised to show the southeast triplex and detached unit as one fourplex structure. Revised plans must be submitted and shall be subject to review and approval of the Development Services Division project manager prior to issuance of building permits. Condition 4: The site plan shall be revised, by reducing the size of the floor plans if necessary, to increase the south side yard building setback to a minimum of 25 feet where buildings 8 through 12 would be located. Revised plans must be submitted and shall be subject to review and approval of the Development Services Division project manager prior to issuance of building permits. Grant Avenue Townhomes Appeal LUA-07-018, SA-A, ECF August 9 2007 Page 8 7. Jones noted that 14 units would be affected by the proximity of the proposal to Heritage Village. The living areas such as living room, dining room and kitchen face the north or common property line. The loss of light would be profound according to him. He did testifY that the trees probably block some light, too, but not as significantly as the proposed buildings. 8. Kovach objected to the almost doubling of the required 13-foot setback to 25 feet. There was also the objection that this project had been subj ect to ongoing City review and adjustments and that this significant increase in setback would entirely alter the project at this late date. It was noted that the reduction in area due to the increased setback would be approximately 11,070 square feet or approximately a 34% reduction and this breaks out to be approximately 678 square feet in each of II units and 722 square feet in each of 5 additional units. The appellant/applicant indicated that this would be a substantial loss in terms of economics making the project infeasible. 9. The density of the neighboring Heritage Village is 16.16 dwelling units per acre as opposed to the proposed density for the subject development at 17.06 dwelling units per acre. 10. The subject site is located in the RM-F zone. Heritage Village is also in the RM-F zone. II. The RM-F zone requires a 20-foot front yard setback and 20 feet is proposed .. Code requires 12 feet of side yard setback for lots III feet wide or wider and one additional foot for a 3rd story. This 158 foot wide lot would have to provide a side yard setback of 13 feet, which is what is proposed. A IS-foot rear yard is required and is proposed. 12. The building height permitted is 35 feet and 3 stories and with special amenities it may be 45 feet tall. The proposed height is 37 feet 3 inches or 2 feet 3 inches (2.25 feet) above the normally permitted height. Staff suggested increasing the south side setback along with the project's design features would allow the taller building. 13. Lot coverage may be 35 percent and 33 percent has been proposed. hnpervious service cannot exceed 75 percent and 70 percent has been proposed. 14. The Staff Report addresses the two areas of concern raised by Kovach. They are: Page 11 of16: "Site plan review affords the opportunity to require increased setbacks where proposed projects abut "a less intense residential zone" (RMC 4-2-1 I OF). Although the density is comparable between the abutting projects, the mass and bulk of the Grant Avenue Homes is significantly greater than, and not compatible with, the Heritage Village structures. Staff recommends, therefore, that the site plan be revised, by reducing the size of the floor plans if necessary, to increase the south side yard building setback to a minimum of 25 feet where buildings 8 through 12 would be located. In addition, the detailed landscape plan shall indicate sufficient landscaping at locations where buildings of the two developments face each other to provide partial building screening, without light blockage, at maturity of vegetation. The detailed landscape plan must show the building and window locations on the abutting property in order to demonstrate this goal would be met. The proposed height of the Grant Avenue Homes (43 feet II inches to roof peak) would be considerably taller than the existing 2 story structures of Heritage Village. Grant Avenue Townhomes Appeal LUA-07-018, SA-A, ECF August 9 2007 Page 9 This situation would also be mitigated somewhat by the wider setback." Page 2 of 16 "Thirty-six units would be constructed as a duplex (building #7), 10 triplex buildings (#1-6 and 8-11), and a fourplex building (#12) [Exhibit 4]. Submittal information items refer to both a "single unit building" (Site Access / Traffic Impact Fee Analysis Report) and fourplex (Site Data, sheet AI). The unites) in question appear on the site plan as a triplex connected to a single, detached unit by a breezeway. This is not a recognized unit type by the City of Renton. Single-family detached units are not permitted in the RM-F zone. Staff recommends that the "single" unit be either eliminated or added to the triplex to create a fourplex structure. This shall be a condition of the site plan approval." 15. The following definition referring to attached multiple family dwellings is applicable to this decision: 4-11-040 Definitions D: "DWELLING, MULTI-F AMIL Y: Dwelling, Attached: A one-family dwelling attached to one or more one-family dwellings by common roofs, walls, or floors. This definition may also include a dwelling unit or units attached to garages or other nonresidential uses. This definition does not include retirement residences, boarding and lodging houses, accessory dwelling units, adult family homes, group home I or group home II as defmed herein." 16. Apparently, the City became aware that its citation ofRMC 4-2-11 OF addressing abutting projects where one is in "a less intense residential zone" was inapplicable in this case since both projects are in the same RM-F Zone. The City then decided to rely on Section 4-9-200, and more probably 4-9- 200(A)(2)(6): "To protect neighboring owners and uses by assuring that reasonable provisions have been made for such matters as sound and sight buffers, light and air, and those other aspects of site plans which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses." CONCLUSIONS: I. The appellant has the burden of demonstrating that the decision of the City Official was either in error, or was otherwise contrary to law or constitutional provisions, or was arbitrary and capricious (Section 4- 8-11 0(E)(7)(b). The appellant Kovach has demonstrated that the action of the City should be reversed in the main. The appellant Jones has not shown the decision approving the project should be reversed. The decision is modified only in respect to the permitted height of the complex. Due to the general issues raised by the proximity of the two complexes, the proposal shall be restricted to the Code permitted height and not be allowed to attain additional height. The proposed height is 37 feet 3 inches or 2 feet 3 inches above the normally permitted height and it shall be reduced to 35 feet. 2. Arbitrary and capricious action has been defined as willful and unreasoning action in disregard of the facts and circumstances. A decision, when exercised honestly and upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances, is not arbitrary or capricious (Northern Pacific Transport Co. v Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, 69 Wn. 2d 472, 478 (1966). Grant Avenue Townhomes Appeal LUA-07-018, SA-A, ECF August 9 2007 Page 10 3. An action is likewise clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing body, on the entire evidence, is left with the definite and frrm conviction that a mistake has been connnitted. (Ancheta v Daly, 77 Wn. 2d 255,259 (1969). An appellate body should not necessarily substitute its judgment for the underlying agency with expertise in a matter unless appropriate. 4. Other than the height increase for the buildings of2 feet 3 inches that staff approved subject to the increased south, side yard setback, which should not be approved, the appellant Jones has not demonstrated that staff made a mistake. The two properties have the same zoning and their densities are generally comparable. The impacts of multiple-family housing on similar multiple-family housing are not unique, unexpected or untoward. There are already a row of tightly planted trees that shade Jones property or screen the view so that the view to the north is not expansive at this time. Jones did not carry the burden necessary to show any clearly erroneous decision making. 5. On the other hand, appellant Koyach for the applicant has demonstrated that the City action was mistaken. There does not appear to be any justification for almost doubling the code mandated minimum setback in this case from 13 feet to 25 feet. As noted above, the two properties bear the same zoning category, RM-F. That zone allows a density of up to 20 units per acre, allows buildings to have 13 foot side yards unless there is less intense zoning on the adjacent property, allows greater lot coverage and greater impermeable area than is proposed. The property could support 42 units whereas the appellant Kovach has proposed 36 units. The two properties share almost identical densities. The proposed housing may be taller, permitted in the zone, but it is not more dense than its neighbor. 6. When a community adopts zoning that permits more density, urban-scale density, there are consequences and not all of them can be easily remediated or mitigated. The adoption of increased density requires the community to anticipate that adjacent properties will "mix it up." There will be shading, shadows, view blockage and loss of air and light to some extent. There will be tradeoffs between preserving trees, open space and providing reasonably sized units, reasonably designed units and reasonably dense development patterns. Some developers will maximize their footprints, using all of the ground space available under the specific zoning provisions and meet the setback requirements but not necessarily allow more generous setbacks. Others may be more generous but then they may sacrifice the density that seems favored by some provisions of the Growth Management Act. At the same time, the fact that older standards provided less setback or that errors in construction may have created less setback and, therefore, potential impacts, should not fall inappropriately or disproportionately on the adj acent property in all cases. In this case though, the appellant's proj ect is not much more dense, meets or falls below limits set by code, appears to be well designed by exploiting, not inappropriately, its ground space. 7. The photographs of the rear of the adjacent Heritage complex, the size of the trees and the apparent separation between the trees and the Heritage buildings provide visual clues that show a setback more generous than staff suggests may exist. Staff did not measure the setback but used aerial photos to guess about the setback. It is not appropriate to base a decision on unknown factors. In addition, this office has to take notice of the fact that the cited basis for the original setback decision was the "less intense zone" that Heritage stood in. That proved to not be the case. The more generic basis that replaced does not appear to provide a strong basis for almost doubling the setback. The current applicant reduced its original proposal from 39 units to the cUITent 36 units. The proposed density would be 17.06 dwelling units per acre while code permits a maximum of20 dwelling units per acre. The 2.1 I-acre site appears capable of supporting 42 units if maximum density were to be achieved. 8. This office believes that staff was mistaken in applying the greater standards based on aerial overviews of the property and the fact that the two properties are zoried the same. At the same time, staff did Grant Avenue Townhomes Appeal LUA-07-018, SA-A, ECF August 9 2007 Page 11 justifY the greater height proposed by the applicant based on a presumably 25-foot setback That cannot be justified as this point. The buildings have no need to tower over the Heritage complex more than they will at 3-5 feet. While this office could remand the application for further review in this regard, the process has been delayed due to scheduling issues and it appears reasonable to scale the height down when allowing the normal 13-foot setback The buildings cannot exceed the 35-foot height limit of the RM-Fzone. 9. It also appears that while staffs objectives in trying to more closely combine the "semi-attached" single- family unit to the triplex may be noble, code does not sanction that decision. This office can probably sympathize with the fact that the provisions requiring structures to be attached was not more clear in what aspects of a building or buildings needed to be attached to one another, code appears to allow a roof, even if only a breezeway roof attachment to suffice. Code writers may not have anticipated such latitude that might have been abused but it appears that the design meets the defmition or limitations and the Site Review Process encourages flexibility. 10. In conclusion, one appellant, Jones, has not shown that approving a multiple family complex to be a neighbor of another multiple family complex was in any way erroneous. The applicant-appellant has demonstrated that staff made a mistake in seeking to almost double the required setback and requiring the merging of the "one-plex" to a more "attached" status with the triplex. At the same time, staffs decision to allow a 37 foot 3 inch building was based on the larger side yard and can no longer be sanctioned. DECISION: The decision affirmed in part and reversed as noted in the above conclusions subject to: The buildings cannot exceed the 35-foot height limit of the RM-F zone. ORDERED TIllS 9th day of August 2007. ~~' ·hJ. '" ..., FRED J. K.A r HEARING E INER TRANSMITTED TIllS 9 th day of August 2007 to the parties of record: Mark Barber Elizabeth Higgins Sally Brick Senior Assistant City Attorney Development Services K&LGates City of Renton City of Renton 925 4th Ave, Ste. 2900 Seattle, W A 98104 Robin Jones Andrew Kovach 1626 Grant Ave Kovach Architects Sarah E. McDonald Renton, WA 101 West Main Street PO Box 1825 Monroe, W A 98272 Renton, W A 98057 Aaron Redhage Cathy Joss Tridor, Inc 1626 Grant Ave S, #B-I02 1626 Grant Ave S, #D-I03 PO Box 747 Renton, W A 98055 Renton, W A 98055 Bellevue, W A 98009 Grant Avenue Townhomes Appeal LUA-07-018, SA-A, ECF August 9 2007 Page 12 Mark Jacobs Bill Taylor 7731 8'" Ave SW Seattle, W A 98106 PO Box 1787 Issaquah, W A 98027 Charlie Wolff 1708 SE 16th Place Renton, WA 98055 Betty & Raymond Barry 1625 Jones Drive SE Renton, W A 98055 TRANSMITTED THIS 9th day of August 2007 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Gregg Zitnmerman, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services King County J oumal Mark Peterson, Fire Marshal Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transportation Division Utilities Division Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section I OOGof the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed In writing on or before 5:00 p.m., August 23, 2007. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors oflaw 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 .. August 23. 2007. 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 ofthe 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. PARTIES OF RECORD GRANT AVENUE TOWNHOUSES LUA07-018, SA-A, ECF Austin Kovach Kovach Architects 101 W Main Street Monroe, WA 98272 tel: (206) 617-2899 eml: austin@kovacharchitects.com (contact) Charlie Wolff 1708 SE 16th Place Renton, WA 98055 tel: (425) 228-4203 (party of record) Aaron Redhage 1626 Grant Avenue S ste: #B- 102 Renton, WA 98055 tel: (425) 687-7396 (party of record) Updated: 04/25/07 Andrew Kovach Kovach Arch itect5 101 W Main Street Monroe, WA 98272 tel: (360) 794-1943 (applicant) Robin Jones 1626 Grant Avenue S ste: #B- 203 Renton, WA 98055 (party of record) Cathy Joss 1626 Grant Avenue S ste: #D- 103 Renton, WA 98055 tel: (425) 271-8402 (party of record) Tridor Inc. PO Box 747 Bellevue, WA 98009 (owner) Betty & Raymond Barry 1625 Jones Drive SE Renton, WA 98055 (party of record) Sarah E. McDonald PO Box 1825 Renton, WA 98057 (owner) (Page 1 of 1) ...-: , 1 "'-1 ~<' 0 .. I -"0 ___ -___ " ___ 0_ l 5 , , " t ; ! • , , 1 j I\. ! ~ ~ i 1. ! I l \ , I ~11i ~ bl I • 1 i , , , ! l ! ! i I i I I I ' f L . l 1 ! I ! 1 1 1 ; i 1 , . . , ~ b l 1'_ t , p!,' ! i ~ • , , , I ; " r . " ~I!I iL" & I : I ! • j ~ " i : 1 , i • • • • ~ , I i • • ! i , i i , I , d I ~ • i , ! , • 'I; ~(i ij ~} " ll~i i , I , , i , • 1 " • i i I , • , , 2 ~ , 8 , j I ~ i 1 I • I I I Fi , , ~ , , ~ ] \ \' ! i i ! \ ~ ~ I l l ~ , , I ? /. 'j \ ! ! 2 , ~ ~ ~q ! i i , d~ • <1 ,~ ~ n~ i I , "' .. ~ I i ~ " \ i ~ , ! , 1 '{ , ~ < ? " , 'i l! . " ~ ~ i}, ,~! :: ,~ ,{ ; ~ ~ .. ~" "" It l ~ ~ •••• LIO (\ " I ~HH if : " .. ~~ B:)'&~:l. H i " .... .,,,,, ~ 1 " , !j, " ~ ;n , """ . "'" ~" ~ " <l ~~ ., !'~~~~~ i' ~!' " f::t ,. tj , 'I J f .' ; ( , l ~ f ~ , 2 ~ j ,I, Hn II ,\ ".; ~ ~ H "'h ~ , 0 ~ H~ , . 1 ; , L;:;; ~ l f f ~ " ~ ~ di 1 i l~ 'L~ ~ ':} In;d o .,1. ~~ ,-~ • t • 1 :111 ( 1 ~ i1 'n~ ~ , ~ " ~ & \ £ ,1" <1 ;:L ~ , 'j / d I f I ~ ~!i tl ' . " o ~ rt • ~ ~ • • -' , 3 i ~ " ~ t= " ~ • I i ! I -- ;..:....,:. ,~ -! .~ I~: k~ #11 ':::';", ,~ , i i~" ,~_\ n ~\ .-:-" ::-:::) Q , ! <,;:::::' ',!:!.~ i~:' • ; • !~; (;;"; (~~ ~ • I ; 1~'-0 (~~, I'e'! .. • l , I " (3 \~/ H I =.1 .... ~. :!:.i -, ~ ~ i , .... .. .. .. " • , " " :~ " , , , , , -. g ~ e} ~I I~} (-=-) " I I{ ~ , , ~: 1 I , , , , ! (-: '. :~' l , • , ~, \ , \ 1 , , • . ' • ",) .' • :E! . , , , • '. " (~: I~; , j ? ~ , , , , , .. , " ; ;; t , , , '=5: ft (e:: -8 .' l " :'-.:; • ::=) ';;':.1 :~ ;=::'. " 'I ~ ~ , , 1 1 ~ ~ I , • •• ~, ~ •• , 0 (;-) n I Ii I ,;;"I~ 'I' S (qI ~[ill li i T , , .' . , -'" , , -I ~ ~r ·H (~) I 9 , . , , , '-'-) \~! I , ~, ! , " , ~. 1=', ~I r;", ,~~, • ;;' , ~ (;~ H "'':;;, d~ '-!l~ . , (~) , , I' , . , . , • , • , '. • = i c-" ~, ~rnJ~ £ I~) t , , :;;,. 'AI •• ft· ~ . , , , , . , , (i< , < ft '-' :~ ! ,~'.' , o l H' .. (oj @ I~) • ,; ii " ~ ~i ~,' ~o ; ~" t" ~? ~~ 1>: ~i " !~ ~~ ,2 ~~ t~ , ~; ~~ , t ~ ~ ~, "~I ~ , " ~it " ~ ~ ~ ; ~ i H ~ ~, I! ~ , ~ . -8 , , , /! ~ ~ ~ , i'!~ ! , , ~ii~ ! !! _~!i!" 'II" ' ~~ ~~e'!l I '. " ""I !' :1 ,Iii ' ;! l!l -i -~ (i 1~ ·~~)'x j !' I' !il;i ' ,! ; " , , '"I I ; ,!!;j )'tI ~'ii~t ~ ,,~ ~~. I< '11 j; ;c !i ,liill. I,i ~~~~ ~ "l!:~ I-:: ~ .. ~:t "'I j;h", 1'1 ~§ "< r .,,!,! " Ej;!!.~ .I!1'~1 CI ~ ~ .. ~ ~hg~~ ti;5'1 h • il "j'l Ii U , !" _ ~s:ta; ~ .~~: ~ ~3 i§~e i ~ " 11 lil!;!g1 'I 2'i ~a~ h [I f~ i ~r > lit , ~ ! , ~!~ • l~ Ii ! I 1-:--. ~ L r I-_. L • .:-'1 , "' -'. ::i: 1- -J '3---. , j f; I <,-.-, , I~ "-: -I . . · f il i lii' I" -Ii ,I .n i iii l I .. ~][ Ii I, h I _____ 1 ... -\~- ,/1 I , i , , ~ i ~ \ 1 I, -i I I" llW N . ___ ----,,;,----_-,----, c.:I: r HI ""I o ~ i C\J . '. :,' C\Jo . I • , , <--------- , hl :;\ • '~~T ... -< ~cc ,i , I ~ oiJ.fc _"""- I , , '/ I i --r~'~ I """,, ~>' / / & I ~ ~ ~ I , .. E8 z\.. _ zl <t' -' .. z i Q !l1 , ~ l w II ~ Ii ::; '. "' ~! ~ ~~ .. !' Q ,I ! CO 'I ~ 33 I..a.J ~i ~ ~ tj~ V>-" .. "" , ~~-~ I lIi~ C\J ,(') I ;u l , I ! \ \ ~ \' ~ " " \\ \ \\. "~':~ .', .. -------+ , \\;~ , \ \ ~ \\ , I ~r i ~~ ~~ ~ Ii , I,! , .. ., . ~ .. , .: iii l' fLit i ;~;j I ' ~_u ., , 1 ;-. ! •. ', i , i I i r, /' ) I r i , ' i _ ,L _ ~ _oJ C':l ,C') ;0 , ;, I EC I I I I ,I 'r-' ~~--ci rT"",=' -~r1-~ ___ rJ J-r--~~1 I L" ~,;...rr7l'~.~~ ~:_~--l "ii/...tt-"'l .... _l~: FJ..-~ . ~ 1 : : . , r" Wi'!' -;;,-,-.------, .~' : -I JC -11 , I I li7 ! ;', , , , I ..- , !iil~ :~ , I' < ; I! " , I 2Ef~i , j z! .. ;r ; j!! x w z ~ ~ ~ t·-· ~" 1'-- \ \ \- '\ \ I. \ \ , ; \\ '\ \ \ \ \\ , .... \ \ \ I ~ ill , ' I : I ! ! ; ! ~~ ~hb ~ , ",l ~~;~~ c=: ~~ ,lail " III I ~~ '. !---' ," I ' ~;3 .:: .! "' " -, ~ .~ ~ I ;~ /~ ~ i ?t' i i ~ 'CI~ H'-" (-, 1i~ ~r ~; " .JL II ~f !~~ 5~ !cli .tJ I I ' ! •. " , ' , 1 I···· H ,!l ••...••. ;,il iii ----1'1".. '" H: ........ <,;I ~ __ ~ . ~ ~ y f£J 'fj z :I "-, oj \ I!! I I <t !z ~ I , , , ,('. " Ii , I , /-11 ( \ i ~ 1 I I , ,I , II ~ ~ !aj ~ !z ~ .. REPORT AND DECISION APPELLANT: PUBLIC HEARING: OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON Robin Jones 1626 Grant Avenue Renton, WA 98055 August 9, 2007 Grant Avenue Townhomes ERC Determination Appeal LUA-07-018, SA-A, ECF After reviewing the Appellant's written requests for a SEP A Appeal hearing and the Applicant and Appellant request an appeal hearing on the underlying site plan for the project, examining available information on file, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the June 26, 2007 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, June 26, 2007, at 9:48 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor ofthe Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No.1: Yellow file and the inclusive Appeal Exhibit No.2: Power Point Presentation file containing the original appeal letter and other pertinent information. Exhibit No.3: Mark Jacobs, Traffic Engineer Exhibit No.4: Bill Taylor, Taylor Engineering Resume Consultants Resume Exhibit No.5: Drawing IE of Grant Ave Townhomes Exhibit No.6: Site Plan for Grant Ave Townhomes project (lD) Parties Present: Mark Barber, Senior Assistant City Attorney Elizabeth Higgins, Development Services Sally Brick, Attorney for Applicant, 925 4th Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104 Robin Jones, Appellant, 1626 Grant Avenue S., Apt. B-203, Renton, WA 98055 Robin Jones stated that he is arguing on two points in terms of the Environmental; first the ERC failed to correctly impose conditions to mitigate impacts related to the project on the traffic at the entrance. This is a Grant Avenue Townhomes Appeal LUA-07-018 SA-A, ECF August 9, 2007 Page 2 tough site plan that leads to a very narrow entrance, the traffic analysis was based on 25 MPH, which sign has been in place for a long time and most likely does not reflect the real traffic conditions. There has been a great deal of development and 25 MPH is not the realistic speed that is happening on that road. The issue is not traffic, but traffic is part of the problem. As you travel south on Grant Avenue the road curves and the entrance to the project is just behind the curve. The study itself recognizes that there are some stopping issues at the 25 MPH, which probably is not the speed of most vehicles on that road. The mitigation plan gets no better if you cut the vegetation, that vegetation is not on any land that is controlled by the applicant. The mitigation plan is not realistic and he would ask that a new traffic study be done. The second part of the environmental appeal is that the ERC failed to describe accurately the project and the impacts. The ERC did not understand the issues that Heritage Village is facing, nor did they accurately describe the project because they did not receive the full information from the plan. There currently are ground water issues at Heritage Village. The study that was done for this site did not look at the overall conditions, they picked a very optimistic location and time to do some of the tests. Initially Heritage was the sole property on that road, Steeple Chase was built to the south in the last five years. Since that time, Heritage has had significant drainage problems, about 18-months ago a spring came up on the south side. Is seems that once the property is built, no one wants to deal with issues, their plan is to raise issue before the property is built. They have been working with the City of Renton, the water has been tested, it is definitely not from a broken pipe, they are working on a solution, which consists of putting in a $5,000 French Drain, this would be the third one on the property. The parking lot is starting to shift and sink into the ground, the road was resurfaced in 2005 and there are cracks already in the middle ofthe roadway. To the north side there is a lot of standing water. The groundwater testing was done in May with validation in August, not the wettest months of the year. The location for the test pit was near a house, on high ground. Approximately three weeks prior to the test pits being dug, there was standing water on the property next door, the tests were not done in that area. They would like to have the test pit done again in a more rainy time of year, and a location that is more realistic to what it is going to impact. Mr. Barber had no questions. Ms. Brick inquired as to Mr. Jones expertise. Mr. Jones stated that he is not a registered professional civil engineer, traffic engineer or an expert in any capacity. However both his parents are geologists and he has grown up with years of geological knowledge. The City reached its conclusions after receiving many technical analyses prepared by professional environmental consultants for the applicant. The traffic study, geotechnical study and drainage study were reviewed by the respective departments at the City of Renton. Mr. Jones is appealing the mitigated DNS-M, but offers only unsupported lay opinions and generalized complaints, they cannot meet the heavy burden of proof to demonstrate that the DNS-M is clearly erroneous. The appeal should therefore be denied. Mark Jacobs, 7731 8th Ave SW, Seattle, W A 98106, stated that he is a Traffic Engineer and gave a detailed statement on how he completed his report on this project. All information was given to him by the architect for the applicant, he then contacted Kayren Kittrick at the City to identify the things they were interested in seeing in a traffic study. The major concern was sight lines at the site access. They looked at the possibility of relocating the access, the proposed access is going to provide the best stopping sight distance to and from the north and south. It meets the criteria for the posted 25 MPH as well as 30 MPH. He did recommend pruning some of the vegetation, some of the vegetation is actually within the 30-feet of right-of-way. It has been fairly well kept by the City of Renton, they may have the ability to remove even more of the vegetation after speaking with Puget Sound Energy. Grant Avenue Townhomes Appeal LUA-07-0IS SA-A, ECF August 9, 2007 Page 3 Parking could occur in the future and he would suggest that parking restrictions be placed within 30 feet of the access point. Mr. Jones stated that Mr. Jacobs is very well qualified, however, he is trying to bring in is an understanding of the local environment. Mr. Jacobs stated that nighttime conditions are actually easier because there are headlights on vehicles and the vehicles can be seen from a greater distance than during daylight hours. The City of Renton has done a great job in maintaining vegetation, must better than some of the other agencies he has dealt with. Mr. Barber had no questions. Bill Taylor, PO Box 1787, Issaquah, W A 98027 stated his qualifications for the record. He was asked to do some site inspections and evaluations regarding water drainage. The analysis that was prepared concluded that it is a fairly standard sloping site and there are moisture issues. The topography does not slope towards the appellant's property, the Heritage property, rather this project tends to slope down to the roadway to the west where there is a natural draw that conveys the water from the general vicinity and further on to the west. He did not feel that the drainage would cause more problems to the Heritage property. There are two separate terms, standing water, which is surface water and ground water is sub-surface water. Ground water can come to the surface through a spring and that may very well be occurring on the Heritage property. That water is not the same that is on this property. Code requires that all water be discharged to the same place it was going prior to the development ofthe property. There was a question about the date on the TIR is the date of submittal, not the date of the inspection. Mr. Jones inquired if Mr. Taylor was aware of any of the drainage problems that Heritage was having when the plan for this site was prepared? Mr. Taylor stated that it was not part of their scope to explore drainage problems, they do solicit drainage problems that are on file with the City. The Heritage property was not explored in any detail due to it being uphill and not something that this project would impact. The inspection was not to evaluate the ground water, Mr. Jones may be referring to the Nelson Geotechnical Investigation that was not done by Mr. Taylor's company. They did walk the site after the site had been cleared, and a visual confirmation of the survey was done. The survey is much more accurate and is based on field measurements and elevations throughout the site. This inspection was done during the summer months. Ms. Brick summed up the testimony and stated that the geotechnical report stated that there were minor to moderate amounts of ground water at shallow digs and it was their opinion that the ground water they found did not represent a regional ground water table. The SEPA Appeal Hearing closed at 10:50 am. FINDINGS. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The appellant, Robin Jones, filed an appeal of a decision by the Environmental Review Committee (ERe). The appeal was filed in a timely manner. Grant Avenue Townhomes Appeal LUA-07-018 SA-A, ECF August 9, 2007 Page 4 ... . " .. 2. The City reviewed the proposed Grant Avenue Townhomes, a 36-unit, multiple family complex proposed for 1600 Grant Avenue SE. The City issued a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M). 3. The complex would be located immediately north and adjacent to Heritage Village Condominiums where the appellant resides and owns a unit. 4. The appellant alleges that the DNS-M was inadequate and that the threshold determination was deficient. The allegations were that: The review failed to consider serious drainage and groundwater problems and particularly the additional impervious surfaces adding to drainage problems at Heritage Village Condominiums. The geotechnical evaluation was based on old, dated information, failed to account for newer developments in the area, is conclusionary and again, fails to address groundwater problems on adjacent property. The determination relies of faulty assumptions regarding groundwater and seismic activity. The traffic study is inadequate and suggests inadequate mitigation for sight distance problems for the entrance to the proposal-pruning vegetation not controlled by the underlying applicant. The appellant suggests that alternative proposals be considered to lessen or limit the impact of development on the environment and that the DNS-M be rescinded. 5. The appellant noted that the 25 mph speed limit used in the traffic analysis was not realistic and the traffic study did not recognize the whole picture. He is concerned that the curve in the road near the new entrance would create stopping and turning issues since most cars do not travel the 25 mph limit. The proposed mitigation measure was to trim vegetation in the vicinity of the curve/entrance and the appellant did not believe that was sufficient and the vegetation is not property controlled by the developer. 6. The appellant noted that his complex has suffered serious and expensive storm drainage problems. A French drain has been requited and the parking lot is shifting and sinking. He attributed many of these problems to newer development in the area since his complex has been there for quite some time and did not suffer issues until more recent development occurred. He noted that there are standing water issues on the north side of his complex, the side where the new development would occur. The appellant alleged that the test pits were done in May and validated in August and should have occurred in wetter months. 7. The traffic engineer for the applicant's project testified that he used information about the project, the roadways and input from the City to determine what areas to emphasize. The City suggested "sight lines" would be an issue. Two main issues were the stopping sight distance and the entering sight distance. They measured the sight distance and explored moving the entrance but found the proposed location provided the best "stopping distance sight lines" both north and south. The sight distance met the criteria for both the posted 25 mph limit and for a 30 mph speed, which exceeded the posted limit. He noted that some of the vegetation is within the right-of-way and could be trimmed. He also noted that the sight distance is appropriate even if vegetation is not pruned. He expected the City could contact Puget Power to maintain additional vegetation. He also noted that nighttime situations should be better since headlights increase the distance at which vehicles generally see each other. Grant Avenue Townhomes Appeal LUA-07-018 SA-A, ECF August 9, 2007 Page 5 8. The person responsible for the drainage report and permit documents testified that the site is a fairly standard sloping site. The site slopes generally to the west and not toward the south, Heritage Village, where the appellant resides. The design of the proposed detention system will collect stonnwater, using curbs, gutters to direct the flow to a detention vault. The water will then be released to its natural discharge point, which is not toward Heritage Village. Solving current issues on fhe Heritage Village site is not part of the scope of their analysis and since the Heritage site is uphill from the subject site it was not an issue. CONCLUSIONS: I. The decision of the governmental agency acting as the responsible official is entitled to substantial weight. Therefore, fhe 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 Detennination of Non-Significance in this case is entitled to substantial weight and will not be reversed or modified unless it can bc found that the decision is "clearly erroneous." (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 finn conviction fhat a mistake has been committed." Therefore, the determination of the ERC will not be modified or reversed if it can meet the above test. For reasons enumerated below, the decision of the ERC is affinned. 3. The clearly erroneous test has generally been applied when an action results in a DNS since the test is less demanding on fhe appellant. The reason is fhat SEP A 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 (OS) is issued. In this second test an appellant would have to show fhat fhe 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 detennined 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: Significant. (I) "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 fhe 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 tenn "probable." Grant Avenue Townhomes Appeal LUA-07-018 SA-A, ECF August 9, 2007 Page 6 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. mAC 197-11-782). 6. hnpacts also include reasonably related and foreseeable direct and indirect impacts including short-term and long-term effects. mAC 197-II-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. mAC 197-11-060(4)(d)). 7. The appellant has failed to demonstrate the information compiled for the traffic analysis, specifically, the sight distance to and from the proposed driveway was not adequately addressed and for the stormwater aspects of the project, specifically, stormwater impacts on his residence was not adequately reviewed. 8. The traffic assessment involved gleaning from the City the main issues, finding that sight distance was a major concern and measuring, reviewing and assessing the sight distance for entering and stopping vehicles from a new driveway along Grant Avenue. The assessment found that at the posted speed and at 5 mph over that speed, the sight distances were adequate. The review found even if pruning of certain vegetation near existing curves were not accomplished, sight distance was still adequate. 9. Similarly, the stormwater analysis does not reveal any deficits regarding the handling of stormwater for this project. While the complex the appellant resides in does apparently suffer from either groundwater or surface water problems, the proposal is not expected to exacerbate any of those issues nor is it required to address issues on the adjacent property. The stormwater information shows that stormwater reaching the subject site will be appropriately channeled by curbs and gutters and detained in a suitable vault for appropriate release at its natural point of discharge. The point of discharge should not affect the appellant's residence or complex due to the fact that Heritage Village sits higher than the subject site. 10. The appellant has not provided any meaningful proof that the ERC decision was wrong. 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 firm conviction that a mistake has been made. This office was not left with a firm conviction that the ERC made a mistake. The appellant has the burden of demonstrating the ERC's determination was erroneous and the appellant has failed in meeting that burden. II. The appealing party has a burden that was not met in the instant case. The decision ofthe ERC must be affirmed. DECISION: The decision of the ERC is affirmed. ORDERED THIS 9th day of August 2007. HEARING EXAMINER , Grant Avenue Townhomes Appeal LUA-07-018 SA-A, ECF August 9, 2007 Page 7 TRANSMITTED THIS 9th day of August 2007 to the parties of record: Mark Barber Senior Assistant City Attorney City of Renton Robin Jones 1626 Grant Ave Renton, WA Elizabeth Higgins Development Services City of Renton Andrew Kovach Kovach Architects 101 West Main Street TRANSMITTED THIS 9th day of August 2007 to the following: Sally Brick K&LGates 925 4th Ave, Ste. 2900 Seattle, WA 98104 Sarah E. McDonald PO Box 1825 Mayor Kathy Keolker Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, DeVelopment Services King County Journal Mark Peterson, Fire Marshal Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transportation Division Utilities Division Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 1 OOGof the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be fded in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., August 23, 2007. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors oflaw 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 fded in writing on or before 5:00 p.m .. August 23. 2007. 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 fde. 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. , Kathy Keolket, Mayor · December 17, 2007 Kova,ch Architects 101 West Main Street Monroe, wi\. 98272 . Robin Jones 1626 Grant Ave. S. Renton, WA 98055 CIT1 F RENTON City Clerk Bonnie I. Walton Re: Appeal of Hearing EXaminer's decision dated 8/9/2007, regarding the Grant Avenue Townhoines Site Plan application, 1002 Park Ave. N., (FileNo. LUA-06~071, SA-A) Dea,r Appellant: At tlie regula,r Council meeting of December 10, 2007, the Renton City Council took action on . the referenced appeal by adopting the recommendation ofthe Planning and Development · Committee. Enclosed is copy of the Platming and DevelopmentCommitte.e report as adopted. Unless an appeal of the decision of the City Counoi! is filed with King County Superior Court as · indicated in Renton Municipal Code, the decision of the City Council is final. 'rncan provide further information, please feel free to contact me .. Sincerely, . Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk Enclosure cc: . Mayor Kathy Keolker COlUlcil Presiqent Toni Nelson Larry Warren; City Attorney Jennifer fIenning, Principal Planner • Parties of Record (10) . -1O-S-'S-S-OU-th-G-rad-'-y-W-a-y--R-e-n-to-n,-w-as-hln-'-gto-n-9-80-5-7--(-4-25-)-43-0-~-51-()~/-FAX-.-(4-2S-)-4-30-~-S-16~ ~ * Thi~papercontains 50% recycledmatertal, 3O%postconsumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE Austin Kovach Kovach Architects 101 W Main Street Monroe, W A 98272 Charlie Wolff 1708 SE 16th Place Renton, W A 98055 Aaron Redhage 1626 Grant Av S #B-I02 Renton W A 98055 Sally Brick K&LGates 925 4th Ave, Suite 2900 Seattle, W A 98104 Andrew Kovach Kovach Architects 101 W Main Street Monroe, W A 98272 Robin Jones 1626 Grant Av S #B-203 Renton, W A 98055 Cathy Joss 1626 Grant Av S #D-103 Renton W A 98055 Mark Jacobs 7731 8th Ave SW Seattle, W A 98106 " . _ridor Inc, P.O. Box 747 Bellevue, WA 98009 Betty & Raymond Barry 1625 Jones Drive SE Renton, W A 98055 Sarah E. McDonald P,O. Box 1825 Renton W A 98057 Bill Taylor P,O, Box 1787 Issaquah, W A 98027 .. " COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE COMMITTEE REPORT December 10, 2007 ·&. AP:"ROVED BY ] CLYV COUNCIL Date J,~-IO-~OO \ . Appeals of Grant Avenue Townhomes Site Plan Approval File No. LUA-07-018, SA-A, ECF (October I, 2007) The Committee of the Whole ("Committee") heard these appeals on December 3, 2007. Appellant Robin Jones ("Appellant Jones") appealed the Hearing Examiner's Decision, dated August 9, 2007, that reversed the City's requirement of a 25-foot side yard setback from the project's south boundary, to a minimum 13-foot side yard setback. Appellant, Kovach Architects, ("Appellant Kovach") appealed the Hearing Examiner's Decision of the same date that limited the project's building height to 35 feet from the proposed 37 feet 3 inches. The Committee recommends,thatthe City Council find that Appellant Jones failed to show that the Hearing Examiner made a substantial error of fact or law by finding that the subject site is located.in·the RM-F zone; that the Renton MunicipalCode requires a minimum 12-foot side yard setback for lots III feet Or wider; that the lot at iss'Ue is 158 feet wide; and, that one additional foot is permitted for a third .~tDry, or a 13-foot si(.l'!,:yard setback, which is proposed for the subject site. Accordingly, 'the Committee recommends .that the City Council affirm the decision of the Hearing Examiner asto the side yard setback. With regard to the appeal of'theproject's building height, the Committee recommends that the City Council find that AppeHimtKovach has shmyn that thll' Hearing Examiner made a substantial error of fact or law'\bylimiting the project's .building height to 35 feet from the proposed 37 feet 3 inches on the grounds that the building height permitted is 35 feet and 3 stories, and with special amenities it may be 45 feet tall; and that the proposed height of the project is 37 feet 3 inches, or 2 feet 3 inches (2.25 feet) above the normally permitted height. The Hearing Examiner's decision is in error as it is based on erroneous evidence that the neighboring Heritage Village condominiums are located on or immediately adjacent to the property line and therefore, that the project would be closer to the adjacent Heritage Village condominiums. In fact, the Committee tinds that the Heritage Village condominiums are actually located from 12 to 20 feet from the property line. Accordingly, the Committee recommends that the City Council reverse the decision of the Hearing Examiner limiting the project's buildings' height to 35 feet and fmiher recommends that the buildings' proposed height be 37 feet 3 inches, as proposed by City Staff. Pursuant to RMC 4-8-llOF(5) and (6), the Committee's decision and recommendation is limited to the record, which consists of, but is not limited to, the Hearing Examiner's Decision, the Notice of Appeal and the submissions by tbe parties. After reviewing the record and the submissions by the parties, and having heard oral argument by Mf. Robin Jones, Ms. Sally Brick, attorney for Kovach Architects, and the City's Development Services Planning Manager, Jennifer Henning, and Senior Planner, Elizabeth Higgins, the Committee hereby recommends to the City Council that the decision of the Hearing Examiner of August 9, 2007, be affirmed in part and reversed in part as stated above. cc: Jennifer Henning Lawrence J. Warren , . .... . ...... 2 I December 10, 2007 Monday, 7 p.m. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL OF COUNCILMEMBERS CITY STAFF IN ATTENDANCE SPECIAL PRESENTATION Police: CALEA Accreditation & Employee Recognition APPEAL Committee of the Whole ,Appeal: Grant Ave Townhomes Site Plan, Jones & Kovach Architects, SA-07-0IS RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting MINUTES Council Chambers Renton City Hall Mayor Kathy Keolker called the meeting of the Renton City Council to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. TONI NELSON, Council President; RANDY CORMAN; DON PERSSON; MARCIE PALMER; TERRI BRIERE; DENIS LAW; DAN CLAWSON. KATHY KEOLKER, Mayor; JAY COVINGTON, Chief Administrative Officer; LA WRENCE J. WARREN, City Attorney; BONNIE WALTON, City Clerk; GREGG ZIMMERMAN, Planning/BuildinglPublic Works Administrator; PETER HAHN, Deputy Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator -Transportation; ALEX PIETSCH, Economic Development Administrator; SUZANNE DALE ESTEY, Economic Development Director; MIKE WEBBY, Human Resources Administrator; MICHAEL BAILEY, Finance and Information Services Administrator; LESLIE BETLACH, Parks Director; PREETI SHRIDHAR, Communications Director; MARTY WINE, Assistant CAO; EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR DEBORAH NEEDHAM, CHIEf I. DAVID DANIELS, DEPUTY CHIEF ROBERT VAN HORNE, and DEPUTY CHIEF CHUCK DUFFY, Fire Department; CHIEF KEVIN MILOSEVICH, DEPUTY CHIEF TIM TROXEL, and COMMANDER KENT CURRY, Police Department. Police Chief Milosevich recognized Business Systems Analyst Debbie Scott for her work on the upgrade to the Police Department's records management system, and prescntcd her with a plaque in appreciation. Additionally, Chief Milosevich announced that the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies awarded the Police Department re-accreditation status for the fifth time on November 16. He explained that the accreditation process was developed by law enforcement agencies to voluntarily demonstrate that they meet an established set of criteria and guidelines. The Chief recognized Commander Curry for his oversight of the program and presented him with a plaque in appreciation of his hard work. Council President Nelson presented a Committee of the Whole report regarding the Grant Ave. Townhomes Site Plan appeals. The Committee heard these appeals on 12/3/2007. Appellant Robin Jones appealed the Hearing Examiner's decision, dated 8/912007, that reversed the City's requirement ofa 25-foot side yard setback from the project's south boundary, to a minimum 13-foot side yard setback. Appellant Kovach Architects appealed the Hearing Examiner's decision of the same date that limited the project's building height to 35 feet from the proposed 37 feet 3 inches. The Committee recommended that Council find that Appellant Jones failed to show that the Hearing Examiner made a substantial error of fact or law by finding that the subject site is located in the RM-F (Residential Multi-Family) zone; that the City Code requires a minimum 12-foot side yard setback for lots III feet or wider; that the lot at issue is 158 feet wide; and, that one additional foot is permitted for a third story, or a 13-foot side yard setback, which is proposed for the subject site. Accordingly, the Committee recommended that Council affirm the decision of the Hearing Examiner as to the side yard setback. December 10, 2007 Added PROCLAMATION Outgoing Councilmember Toni Nelson Appreciation ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT AJLS: Outgoing Mayor Kathy Keolker Comments Renton City Council Minutes Page 432 With regard to the appeal of the project's building height, the Committee recommended that Council find that Appellant Kovach Architects has shown that the Hearing Examiner made a substantial error of fact or law by limiting the project's building height to 35 feet from the proposed 37 feet 3 inches on the grounds that the building height permitted is 35 feet and 3 stories, and with special amenities it may be 45 feet tall; and that the proposed height of the project is 37 feet 3 inches, or 2 feet 3 inches (2.25 feet) above the normally permitted height. The Hearing Examiner's decision is in error as it is based on erroneous evidence that the neighboring Heritage Village condominiums are located on or immediately adjacent to the property line and therefore, that the project would be closer to the adjacent Heritage Village condominiums. In fact, the Committee found that the Heritage Village condominiums are actually located from 12 to 20 feet from the property line. Accordingly, the Committee recommended that Council reverse the decision of the Hearing Examiner limiting the project's buildings' height to 35 feet and further recommended that the buildings' proposed height be 37 feet 3 inches, as proposed by City staff. Pursuant to City Code 4-8-II0F(5) and (6), the Committee's decision and recommendation is limited to the record, which consists of, but is not limited to, the Hearing Examiner's decision, the notice of appeal, and the submissions by the parties. After reviewing the record and the submissions by the parties and having heard oral argument by Robin Jones; Sally Brick, attorney for Kovach Architects: and Development Services Planning Manager Jennifer Henning and Senior Planner Elizabeth Higgins; the Committee recommended that the decision of the Hearing Examiner of 8/912007 be affirmed in part and reversed in part as stated above. MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRlED. A proclamation by Mayor Keolker was read honoring the many years and many types of service to the community of outgoing Councilmember Toni Nelson, who has served as City Councilmember since 1988, and proclaiming her to be an extraordinarily involved and dedicated citizen and City Councilmember who is to be emulated and honored for her efforts. MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE PROCLAMATION. CARRlED. Councilmember Nelson accepted the proclamation with appreciation. Chief Administrative Officer Covington reviewed a written administrative report summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of its business plan for 2007 and beyond. Items noted included: .. The annual K-9 Candy Cane Fun Run was held December 2 and, despite the weather, over 175 runners and walkers turned out with their dogs. .. In connection with the 1-405 Renton freeway widening project, the Tukwila Parkway ramp to northbound 1-405 will be closed on the nights of December 10 and 17. This closure is weather dependent. Mayor Keolker stated that it has been a privilege to serve the City of Renton as the Mayor for the last four years and as a Councilmember for 20 years. She thanked the people of Renton, recognized City administrators and employees, highlighted accomplishments, welcomed new citizens from the Benson Hill Communities Annexation area, and expressed her appreciation to her family and to Councilmember Nelson. , COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE COMMITTEE REPORT December 10,2007 APPROVED BY'· J cun COUNCIL Date J~-IO·,;,OO . Appeals of Grant Avenue Townhomes Site Plan Approval File No. LUA-07-018, SA-A, ECF (October 1,2007) The Committee of the Whole ("Committee") heard these appeals on December 3, 2007, Appellant Robin Jones ("Appellant Jones") appealed the Hearing Examiner's Decision, dated August 9, 2007, that reversed the City's requirement of a 25-foot side yard setback from the project's south boundary, to a minimum 13-foot side yard setback. Appellant, Kovach Architects, ("Appellant Kovach") appealed the Hearing Examiner's Decision of the same date that limited the project's building I:leight to 35 feet from the proposed 37 feet 3 inches, The Committee recommends th~t the City Council find that Appellant Jones failed to show that the Hearing Examiner made',asubstantial error of fact or law by finding that the subject site is located in the RM-F zone; that the Renton Municipal Code requires a minimum 12-foot side yard setback for lots 111 feet 01". wider; that the lot at issue is 158 feet wide; and, that one additional foot is pennitted for a thiTdlltOry, or a 13-fOOl side yard setback, which is propbsed for the subject site, Accordingly, the Committee recommends that the City Council affinn the decision of the Hearing Examiner as)~o the side yard setback. With regard to the appeal of1tile'pr?ject's building height, the Committee recommends that the City Council find that AppdtlentF Kovach has shown that the Hearing Examiner made a substantial error of fact or lawhy limiting the project's building height to 35 feet from the proposed 37 feet 3 inches on the grounds that the building height pennitted is 35 feet and 3 stories, and with special amenities it may be 45 feet tall; and that the proposed height of the project is 37 feet 3 inches, or 2 feet 3 inches (2,25 feet) above the normally pennitted height. The Hearing Examiner's decision is in error as it is based on erroneous evidence that the neighboring Heritage Village condominiums are located on or immediately adjacent to the property line and therefore, that the project would be closer to the adjacent Heritage Village condominiums, In fact, the Committee finds that the Heritage Village condominiums are actually located from 12 to 20 feet from the property line. Accordingly, the Committee recommends that the City Council reverse the decision of the Hearing Examiner limiting the project's buildings' height to 35 .feet and further recommends that the buildings' proposed height be 37 feet 3 inches, as proposed by City Staff. Pursuant to RMC 4-8-110F(5) and (6), the Committee's decision and recommendation is limited to the record, which consists of, but is not limited to, the Hearing Examiner's Decision, the Notice of Appeal and the submissions by the parties, After reviewing the record and the submissions by the parties, and having heard oral argument by Mr. Robin Jones, Ms. Sally Brick, attorney for Kovach Architects, and the City's Development Services Planning Manager, Jennifer Henning, and Senior Planner, Elizabeth Higgins, the Committee hereby recommends to the City Council that the decision of the Hearing Examiner of August 9, 2007, be affinned in part and reversed in part as stated above, Toni Nelson, Council sident cc: Jennifer Henning Lawrence 1. Warren , 2 December 3, 2007 APPEAL Committee of the Whole Appeal: Grant Ave Townhomes Site Plan, Jones & Kovach Architects, SA-07-018 AUDIENCE COMMENT Citizen Comment: McOmber- Highlands Neighborhood Caroling Party CONSENT AGENDA Council Meeting Minutes of 11126/2007 Appointment: Advisory Commission on Diversity Legislature: 2008 Council Agenda & Statement of Policy Positions Fire: Department Name and Responsibility Changes Human Resources: Reclassification of Positions Police: Jail Inmate Health Services, Occupational Health Services Renton City Council Minutes Page41S Heights Elementary School during peak times in the morning and afternoon; the City of Newcastle will not close the May Creek Bridge during its construction project; traffic modeling showed that if Duvall Ave. NE was closed, the Summerwind neighborhood would be less affected by pass-through traffic; and assurance that communication and access will be maintained to those who front Duvall Ave. NE so that individual needs are met when work is conducted on the driveways. There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. (See page 422 for further discussion.) Council President Nelson announced that the Committee of the Whole report regarding the Grant Ave. Townhomes Site Plan appeals will be presented at the next Council meeting. Howard McOmber (Renton) stated that a Highlands neighborhood caroling party will be held at the Highlands Neighborhood Center. He indicated that there is no City involvement and that everyone is welcome. Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. Approval of Council meeting minutes of 11/26/2007. Council concur. Mayor Keolker reappointed the following individuals to the Advisory Commission on Diversity: Sandel DeMastus, for a term expiring 12/3112008; Raymond Lam, for a term expiring 12/3112009; and Charles Thomas, for a term expiring 12/31/2009. Council concur. Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department recommended approval of the 2008 State Legislative Agenda and Statement of Policy Positions, which serve as guidance for staff for the State legislative session. Refer to Committee of the Whole. Fire Department requested authorization to change its name to Fire and Emergency Services Department, to change the administrator's title to Fire ChieflEmergency Services Administrator, and to establish and define the four sections of the department's organizational structure. Council concur. (See page 423 for ordinance.) Human Resources and Risk Management Department recommended reclassification of positions, effective January 2008, in the Administrative, Judicial and Legal Services; Finance and Information Services; Human Resources and Risk Management; Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning; Community Services; Planning/Building/Public Works; Fire; and Police Departments. Refer to Finance Committee. Police Department recommended approval of a contract with Occupational Health Services (Public Hospital District No. I of King County) in the amount of$186,958 for health services for Renton jail inmates for 2008. Council concur. MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. Grant Avenue Townhomes Appeal Timeline Address: Applicant: 1600 Grant Ave S (north of South 18th Street) Tridor, Inc Contact: Andrew Kovach, Kovach Architects File No. LUA-Proposal: LUA07-018 Time Line June 16, 2005 Feb 8, 2007 Feb 14, 2007 March 12, 2007 April 2, 2007 April 5, 2007 April 19, 2007 June 26, 2007 June 26, 2007 August 9, 2007 August 9, 2007 August 25, 2007 December 3, 2007 Pre-application meeting date Application submitted Application deemed complete; comment period commences Environmental review (SEPA) threshold determination issued 14-day appeal period of environmental determination ends, one appeal filed by appellant Robin Jones Site plan review decision issued to approve project with conditions Appeal period for land use action (site plan review) ends, two appeals filed, one by Robin Jones, and one by applicant Andrew Kovach Appeal hearing before the City's Land Use Hearings Examiner on appeal of environmental (SEPA) determination Appeal hearing before the City's Land Use Hearings Examiner on two appeals of site plan review decision Decision issued by Hearing Examiner to deny the SEPA appeal and affirm the City's decision Decision issued by the Hearing Examiner to affirm in part and deny in part the City's site plan review decision, and requiring that the building not exceed a 35-foot height limit of the RM-F Zone 14-day appeal period ends for both Hearing Examiner decisions; two appeals filed by Robin Jones and Andrew Kovach Appeal hearing before City Council Committee of the Whole .. " . ---- • , 'I , I , J • € / / / / / , / , / t;-" ,~ /~ / "'" ",Ib~ ....... ~/if\: ,~y a CIT'\ :>FRENTON Renton City Council . O~4i.· . :& +.~ + ~ -~ Kathy Keolker, Mayor ~N~O~------------------------------~~~~- November 28, 2007 APPEALS FILED BY: DEC 0 3 2007 RECEIVED ClTY CLERK'S OFFICf 1) Mr. Robin Jones, 1626 Grant Ave. S, Renton, WA 98055 2) Kovach Architects, Attn: Austin Kovach, 101 West Main St., Monroe, W A 98272 RE: Appeals of Hearing Examiner's decisions dated August 9, 2007 regarding site plan approval for constructing 36 townhome units on a 2.1 I-acre site, located at 1600 Grant Ave. S, known as the Grant Avenue Townhomes. (File No. LUA-07-018, SA, ECF) To Interested Parties: The Renton City Council's ColIlIIlittee of the Whole will meet to deliberate the above-referenced item on the following date (PL~t NOTE: THIS RAS BEENlUl-SCHEDULED): . Monday, December 3,2007 *5:00'pril* 7th Floor/CouncU Chambers City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington This Council Committee meetiri.g is open to the public, but it is not a public hearing. It is a . working session of the Committee of the Whole. No new testimony or evidence will be taken. However, the parties are expected to attend and be prepared to explain why the Council Committee should uphold or overturn the decision of the Hearing Examiner. If you have questions regarding these meetings, please phone Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison, at 425-430-6555. Sincerely, --;~?£~~ Toni Nelson, Chair Committee of the Whole Renton City Council -----;'-;;-05::-:5:-:S::-o-:ut-:-h-::O-:ra-:dy-W:::-ay-.-=R=-e-nt-o-n,-=W=-a-=sh-=in-gt-o-n-9-g.,-OS-5-.-:(4-2-S)-4-3-0.-65-0-'----~ * This paper contains 50% recycl~ material, 30% postconsur'ner AHEAD OF THE CURVJ:o: """'" ". A&tin Kovach Kovach Architects 101 W Main Street Monroe, W A 98272 Charlie Wolff 1708 SE 16th Place Renton, W A 98055 Aaron Redhage 1626 Grant Av S #B-I02 Renton WA 98055 Sally Brick K& LGates 925 4th Ave, Suite 2900 Seattle, WA 98104 Andrew Kovach Kovach Architects 101 W Main Street Monroe, W A 98272 Robin Jones 1626 Grant A v S #B-203 Renton, W A 98055 Cathy Joss 1626 Grant Av S #D-I03 Renton W A 98055 Mark Jacobs 7731 8th Ave SW Seattle, W A 98106 " """. " Tridor Inc. P.O. Box 747 Bellevue, W A 98009 Betty & Raymond Barry 1625 Jones Drive SE Renton, WA 98055 Sarah E. McDonald P.O. Box 1825 Renton W A 98057 Bill Taylor P.O. Box 1787 Issaquah, WA 98027 " iJuiia Med;:;gian -P:3rileSofRecord for lUAblJ[e:'S;]anI0.venue TownhoLiS~ .. From: To: Date: Subject: Stacy Tucker Walton, Bonnie 10116120073:03:23 PM Parties of Record for lUA07-018 -Grant Avenue Townhouses I received from one of the planners an additional Party of Record for the above referenced project. I believe this project was appealed to the council. If no decision has been made, can you add him to the listing and make sure he gets a copiof the decision? Thank you. Wes Falkenborg Bent Nose Building & Development 1215 120th Avenue NE Bellevue, WA 98005 Stacy M. Tucker Secretary Development ServiceslPBPW City of Renton (425) 430-7282 cc: Medzegian, Julia I~Fie CITY OF RENTON :!!: Renton City Council 1055 South Grady Way -Renton Washington 98055 Wes Falkenborg Bent Nose Building & Development 1215 120th Avenue NE Bellevue, WA 98005 Kathy Keolker, Mayor November 13, 2007 APPEALS FILED BY: CIT"' ~F RENTON Renton City Council CITY OF RENTON DEC 0 3 2007 RECEIVED any ClERK'S OFFIO 1) Mr. Robin Jones, 1626 Grant Ave. S, Renton, WA 98055 2) Kovach Architects, Attn: Austin Kovach, 101 West MainSt., Mouroe, W A 98272 RE: Appeals of Hearing Examiner's decisions dated August9, 2007 regarding site plan approval for constructing 36 townhome units on a 2.1 I-acre site, located at 1600 Grant Ave, S, known as the Grant Avenue Townhomes, (File No. LUA-07-01S, SA, ECF) To Interested Parties: The Renton City Council's Committee of the Whole will meet to deliberate the above-referenced item on the following date (PLEASE NOTE: THIS HAS BEEN RE-SCHEDULED): Monday, December 3,2007 4:00 p.rn.: 7th Floor/Council Chambers City of Renton lOSS South Grady Way Renton, Washington This Council Committee meeting is open to the public, but it is not a public hearing, It is a working session of the Committee of the Whole, No new testimony or .evidence will be taken. However, the parties are expected to attend and be prepared to explain why the Council Cornrilittee should uphold or overturn the decision of the Hearing Examiner. . If you have questions regarding these meetings, please phone Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison,at 425-430-6555. . Sincerely, -/~~ Toni Nelson, Chair Committee of the Whole Renton City Council ~---l-OS-S-S-ou-th-G-ra-dy-W-ay---R-e-nt-o-n,-W-a-sl-lin-gt-o-n-9-g-0S-S---(4-2-S)-4-3-0--6S-0-1----~ * This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% postconsumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE Austin Kovach Kovach Architects 10 I W Main Street Momoe, W A 98272 Charlie Wolff 1708 SE 16th Place Renton, W A 98055 Aaron Redhage 1626 Grant Av S #B-102 Renton W A 98055 Sally Brick K& LGates 925 4th Ave, Suite 2900 Seattle, WA 98104 Andrew Kovach Kovach Architects 101 W Main Street Momoe, W A 98272 Robin Jones 1626 Grant A v S #B-203 Renton, W A 98055 Cathy Joss 1626 Grant Av S #D-I03 Renton W A 98055 Mark Jacobs 7731 8th Ave SW Seattle, WA 98106 Tridor Inc. P.O. Box 747 Bellevue, W A 98009 Betty & Raymond Barry 1625 Jones Drive SE Renton, W A 98055 Sarah E. McDonald P.O. Box 1825 Renton W A 98057 Bill Taylor P.O. Box 1787 Issaquah, W A 98027 From: To: Date: Stacy Tucker Walton, Bonnie 10/16/2007 3:03:23 PM Subject: Parties of Record for LUA07-018 -Grant Avenue Townhouses I received from one of the planners an additional Party of Record for the above referenced project. I believe this project was appealed to the council. If no decision has been made, can you add him to the listing and make sure he gets a copy of the decision? Thank you. Wes Falkenborg Bent Nose Building & Development 1215120th Avenue NE Bellevue, WA 98005 Stacy M. Tucker Secretary Development Services/PBPW City of Renton (425) 430-7282 cc: Medzegian, Julia ~ CITY OF !!~:c~~ 1055 South Grady Way -Renton Washington 98055 Wes Falkenborg Bent Nose Building & Development 1215 120th Avenue NE Bellevue, WA 98005 CITY Kathy Keolker, Mayor .October 15, 2007 :>F RENTON Renton City Council ClOY OF R~TON DEC 0 3 2007 R€CEIVED . CnVQERK'S OFFIC APPEALS FILED BY: 1) Mr. Robin Jones, 1626 Grant Ave~ S, Renton, WA 98055 2) Kovacb Architects, Attn: Austin Kovach, 101 West Main St., Monroe, W A 98272 RE: Appeals of Hearing Examiner's decisions dated August 9, 2007 regarding site plan approval for constructing 36 townhome units on a 2.1 I-acre site, located at 1600 Grant Ave. S,known as the Grant Avenue Townhomes. (File No. LUA-07-01S, SA, ECF) To Interested Parties: The Renton City Council's Committee of the Whole will meet to deliberate the above-referenced item on the following date: Monday, November 26, 2007 4:00 p.Ol. 7th Floor/CouncilCbambers City ofRcnton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington This Council Committee meeting is open to the public, but it is not a public hearing. It is a working session of the Committee of the Whole. No neW' testimony or evidence willbe taken . . However, tbepartiesare expected to attend and be prepared to explain why the Council Committee should uphold or overturn the decision of the HearingExaminer. If you have questions regarding these meetings, please phone Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison, at 425-430-6555. . Sincerely, -./~~ Toni Nelson, Chair . Committee ofthe Whole Renton City Council ----IO-S-S-S-ou-th-'-G-ra-dy-W-,-ay---:R-e-nt-on-,-W-a-:sh-cin-gt-o-n-:9-:cg-OS=-=S-.-:(4-:cZ-=S)-4-=30:---=6S=-=O.,-'----~ * This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHE·AD OF THE CURVE Austin Kovach Kovach Architects 101 W Main Street Monroe, W A 98272 Charlie Wolff 1708 SE 16 th Place Renton, W A 98055 Aaron Redhage 1626 Grant Av S #B-102 Renton W A 98055 Sally Brick K& LGates 925 4th Ave, Suite 2900 Seattle, WA 98104 Andrew Kovach Kovach Architects 101 W Main Street Monroe, W A 98272 Robin Jones 1626 Grant Av S #B-203 Renton, W A 98055 Cathy Joss 1626 Grant Av S #D-103 Renton W A 98055 Mark Jacobs 7731 8th Ave SW Seattle, W A 98106 Tridor Inc. P.O. Box 747 Bellevue, WA 98009 Betty & Raymond Barry 1625 Jones Drive SE Renton, W A 98055 Sarah E. McDonald P.O. Box 1825 Renton W A 98057 Bill Taylor P.O. Box 1787 Issaquah, W A 98027 · . From: To: Date: Subject: Stacy Tucker Walton, Bonnie 10/16/2007 3:03:23 PM Parties of Record for LUA07-018 -Grant Avenue Townhouses I received from one of the planners an additional Party of Record for the above referenced project. I believe this project was appealed to the council. If no decision has been made, can you add him to the listing and make sure he gets a copyof the decision? Thank you. Wes Falkenborg Bent Nose Building & Development 1215 120th Avenue NE Bellevue, WA 98005 Stacy M. Tucker Secretary Development Services/PBPW City of Renton (425) 430-7282 cc: Medzegian, Julia ~ CITY OF !!~:C~n~ 1055 South Grady Way -Renton Washington 98055 Wes Falkenberg Bent Nose Building & Development 1215 120th Avenue NE Bellevue, WA 98005 October I, 2007 Appeal: Grant Ave Townhomes Site Plan, Jones & Kovach Architects, SA-07-018 ADJOURNMENT Recorder: Michele Neumann October I, 2007 Renton City Council Minutes Page 343 MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL REMOVE THE TOPIC OF DRIVEWAY WIDTHS FROM THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AND REFER THE MATTER TO THE TRANSPORT ATION (AVIATION) COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Councilmember Corman stated for the record that he cannot think of a single appeal out of Planning and Development Committee this whole year that Council has not approved. He indicated his preference for the item to stay in Planning and Development Committee. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL REMOVE THE TOPIC OF THE APPEAL OF THE GRANT AVE. TOWNHOMES SITE \ .. PLAN FROM THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AND REFER THE ITEM TO THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. CARRIED. I MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL ADJOURN. CARRIED. Time: 9: 10 p.m. ~ J. Uaez:,.,v Bonnie I. Walton, CMC, City Clerk e9/17/2007 14:45 FAX 2066237022 K & L GATES LLP SEATILE ~002 p ,,'\\) ~V\J ~~? K&L I GATES Kir~ patrICk & lockhart Preston Gates Ellis UP 925 fourth Avenue SUite 2900 September 17,2007 Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98057 8,,'110, WA 98104-1158 T 2116.623.7580 •••. klgates.com CtTY OF RENTON SEP 1 7 2007 CITY 6ll1:<tIR~E8FFICE Viti -{'q)/.; e-mail /!C.: ma,!or ~ov.l1cil t.ily AHy N(il iJJtiIIs Re: Appeals of Hearing Examiner's Decisions Dated August 9, 2007 Regarding Site Plan Approval for Grant Avenue Townhomes (File No. LUA-07-018, SA, ECF) Dear Ms. Walton: We represent Tridor, Inc. the Applicant for Grant Avenue Townhomes. In accordance with RMC 4-8-11 OF.3, please find attached Iridor's comments in support of its position regarding appeals of the Hearing Examiner's decision. Tridor's comments address the appeal filed by Mr. Robin Jones, and also support the position taken in the Applicant's own appeal. Very truly yours, KlRKPA TRICK & LOCKHART PRESTON GATES ELLIS LLP By Sally Brick SBRtlt cc: Mr. Robin Jones Kovach Architects 09/17/2007 14:45 FAX 2066237022 K & L GATES LLP SEATTLE ~003 BEFORE THE CITY OF RENTON CITY COUNCIL IN THE MATTER OF THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR GRANT A VENUE TOWNHOMES FileNo. LUA-07-018, SA, ECF TRlDOR, INC. COMMENTS SUPPORTING POSITIONS ON APPEAL I. INTRODUCTION The Applicant, Tridor Inc., committed nearly two years and considerable resources working with the City to arrive at a site plan for the Grant A venue Homes project ("Project") that would conform with City requirements and deliver an attractive, high-quality project that complements its surroundings.l The Applicant was taken by surprise when the final Site Plan Approval included not the standard ]3' setback on the south sideyard but instead nearly doubled that to impose a 25' setback. The Hearing Examiner held unequivocally that City Staff were mistaken on two counts when they imposed this much greater setback: I) City neighboring staff based their decision on a "guess" about the proximity of the Heritage Village condominiums to the property line (and subsequent . 2 evidence showed that guess to be wrong by 12-20 feet); and 2) The Code provision cited as the basis for the decision applies only to situations where the adjacent property has less intense zoning, and that is not the case here (as the City ultimately conceded). H.E. Cone!. ~8. Mr. Jones, the sole opponent of the Project, does not in any way demonstrate that the Hearing Examiner committed a substantial error in fact or law in reversing the 25' setback based on these mistakes. Rather, Mr. Jones' appeal indicates a misunderstanding , See, Minutes of Rearing, H.E. Decision, pg 3 (Andrew Kovach). . 2 See, Tridor Post-Hearing Brief, and in particular the professional surveys in fuhibit I. The surveys demonstrate that the Heritage ViUage buildings are, in fact, between 12.3 feet and 20.3 reet from the TRIDOR COMMENTS -1 '09/17/2007 14:46 FAX 2066237022 K & L GATES LLP SEATTLE ~004 of the Hearing Examiner's role andlor a misunderstanding of the applicable legal tests or standards of review. He also appears to misinterpret the Hearing Examiner's legal reasoning. Mr. Jones' appeal has no merit whatsoever and should be dismissed. The Renton City Council should, however, carefully reassess the Hearing Examiner's decision to disallow the proposed Project height because the standard 13' sideyard setback is being applied: (1) The Code grants Staff clear discretion to approve additional height of up to 10 feet where, as here, amenities such as roof pitch are provided. RMC 4-2-IIOF, n.5, n.6. There is nothing in the Code to suggest that additional height should be disallowed because the standard Code setbacks are being applied. The Code criteria for additional height do not mention setbacks. Jd. (2) Moreover, the Hearing Examiner's reasoning is fundamentally flawed: his rationale for reversing the height is that the Project will now be closer to Heritage Village than the City assumed. H.E. ConcL 'If 8. However, due to the City's mistaken guess about the proximity of Heritage Village, the Staff assumed a combined 25' setback. Staff Testimony.3 That same combined setback will in fact be achieved with a \3' Project setback (taken together with the actual 12-20' setback at Heritage Village). (3) Furthermore, the proposed height allows a roof pitch that is designed to mimic single family housing in the area and create architecturally well-proportioned structures.4 To deny this pitch would reduce compatibility with the neighborhood -not enhance it in any way. common property line with the Project site. The average distance of the Heritage Village buildings from the property line is 15.2 feel 3 See Minutes of Hearing, RE. Decision, pg 4-5, Elizabeth Higgins; see also Tridor Post-Hearing Brief, Exhibit A, partial transcript ofE. Higgin's Hearing Testimony: ''The concern was that, the assumption with • 13 foot setback is that there is a corresponding setback on the abutting project, but it appeared from all of the evidence that we had that in fact there wasn't a corresponding setback on the abutting project and therefore instead of something like two 13 foot setbacks or a 13 foot and a whatever it was in 1986, it might have been 10 feet or it could have even been .. .! don't know, I can't tell from the scale of the drawing what the intention was, but instead of a two 13 or 23 or 26 fee~ that there would only be 13 reet between these two buildings and with the taller buildings being three stories it would be an even more significant impact because of the narrow space ." Unfortunately, it's the people who come in later that have to make up the difference." 'Testimony of Kovach Architects. TRIDOR COMMENTS -2 09/17/2007 14:46 FAX 2066237022 K " L GATES LLP SEATILE 1i!i004 of the Hearing Examiner's role and/or a misunderstanding of the applicable leglli tests or standards of review. He also appears to misinterpret the Hearing Examiner's legal reasoning. Mr. Jones' appeal has no merit whatsoever and should be dismissed. The Renton City Council should, however, carefully reassess the Hearing Examiner's decision to disallow the proposed Project height because the standard 13' sideyard setback is being applied: (1) The Code grants Staff clear discretion to approve additional height of up to 10 feet where, as here, amenities such as roof pitch are provided. RMC 4-2-1 lOF, n.5, n.6. There is nothing in the Code to suggest that additional height should be disallowed because the standard Code setbacks are being applied. The Code criteria for additional height do not mention setbacks. ld. (2) Moreover, the Hearing Examiner's reasoning is fundamentally flawed: his rationale for reversing the height is that the Project will now be closer to Heritage Village than the City assumed. H.E. Concl. , 8. However, due to the City's mistaken guess about the proximity of Heritage Village, the Staff assumed a combined 25' setback. Staff Testimony.3 That same combined setback will in fact be achieved with a 13' Project setback (taken together with the actual 12-20' setback at Heritage Village). (3) Furthermore, the proposed height allows a roof pitch that is designed to mimic single family housing in the area and create architecturaIly well-proportioned structures.4 To deny this pitch would reduce compatibility with the neighborhood -not enhance it in any way. common property line with the Project site. The average distance of the Heritage Village buildings from the property line is 15.2 feet. 3 See Minutes of Hearing, H.E. Decision, pg 4-5, Elizabeth Higgins; see also Tridor Post-Hearing Brief, Exhibit A, partial transcript ofE. Higgin's Hearing Testimony: 'The concern was that, the assumption with a 13 foot setback is that there is a corresponding setback on the abutting project, but it appeared from all of the evidence that we had thai in fact there wasn't a corresponding ae!hack on the abutting project and therefore instead of something like two 13 foot setbacks or a 13 foot and a whatever it was in 1986, it might have been 10 feet or it could have even been .. .! don't know, 1 can't tell from the aca1e of the drawing what the intention was, but instead of a two 13 or 23 or 26 feet, that there would only be 13 feet between these two buildings and with the ta1ler buildings being three stories it wou1d be an even more significant impact because of the narrow space ... Unfortunately, it's the people who come in later that have to make up the difference." • Testimony ofKovaoh Architects. TRIDORCOMMENTS-2 ~/17/2007 14:46 FAX 2066237022 K & L GATES LLP SEAITLE i4J005 II. MR. JONES' APPEAL Mr. Jones bears the burden of proof. RMC 4-8-110.F.9. The City Council must uphold the decision of the Hearing Examiner unless Mr. Jones has shown that the Hearing Examiner committed a substantial error in fact or law. RMC 4-8-110.F.7. Mr. Jones does not come close to that threshold. Alleged Error #1 Mr. Jones erroneously suggests that the Hearing Examiner did not apply the decision criteria in RMC 4-8-11-E(7)(b), and he thereby indicates a misunderstanding of the legal test. Jones Appeal, Alleged Error 1. Mr. Jones is concerned that the Hearing Examiner analyzed whether "mistakes" were made. Id. In fact, that is precisely what the Hearing Examiner was supposed to do under the terms of RMC 4-8-11-E(7)(b). That provision states: The Examiner may affirm the decision or remand the case for further proceedings, or it may reverse the decision if the substantial rights of the applicant may have been prejudiced because the decision is: . i. In violation of constitutional provisions; or ii. In excess of the authority or jurisdiction of the agency; or iii. Made upon unlawful procedure; or iv. Affected by other error of law; or v _ Clearly erroneous in view of the entire record as submitted; or iv. Arbitrary or capricious_ The Hearing Examiner identified the last two criteria as being the most applicable, and explained (with reference to case law) that they concern either a disregard for the facts or a mistake. H.E. ConcL, ~2-3. Specifically, the Hearing Examiner explained that an action is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing body, on the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. H.E. Cone!. ~ (citing Ancheta y_ Daly, 77 Wn. 2d 255, 259 (1969). Similarly, he explained that a decision is arbitrary and capricious when it is willful and unreasoning in disregard of the facts and circumstances (citing Northern TRilloR COMMENTS - 3 09/17/2007 14:47 FAX 2066237022 K & L GATES LLP SEATTLE IaJ 006 Pacific Transport Co. v Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission. 69 Wn. 2d 472,478 (1976). H.E. Concl.12. These are indeed the tests that the Hearing Examiner went on to apply. He analyzed whether City staff made a mistake in nearly doubling the south sideyard setback and/or whether they disregarded the facts and circumstances. In particular, th~ Examiner reviewed the factors suggesting that the City should have applied the Code-mandated setback: the two properties bear th~ sante zoning category, they share almost identical densities, the zone allows greater lot coverage and greater permeable area than is proposed, and the project appears to be well designed in regard to its ground space. H.E. Concl. mr 5-6. Moreover, the Examiner analyZed and based his decision on two fundamental errors underlying the City's 25' setback: (1) City staff did not measure the setback of the neighboring property but guessed instead (based on aerial photos) and thus based their decision on unknown factors; and (2) City staff proceeded on the erroneous basis that the neighboring property was in a less intense zone than the Project site. H.E. Concl. ~ 7. He was thus explicitly concerned with whether facts had been disregarded or mistakes had been made. The evidence in the record clearly supports the Hearing Examiner's conclusion as to mistake. City staff testified that, based on aerial photos only, they had assumed that there was only a negligible setback between Heritage ViJIage and the common boundary line with the Project site.s Staff further testified that, the Code's standard 13' setback. assumes a somewhat similar setback on the neighboring property, and their (wrong) guess as to a negligible Heritage Village setback therefore meant that the Project setback had to be increased to compensate.6 Professional surveys in the record demonstrate iliere is in fact a setback of between 12.3 feet and 20.3 feet from ilie property line wiili the , Supra n. 3-Minutes of Hearing, H.E. Decision, pg 4-5, Elizabeth HiggiDB; S~ also Tridor Post-Hearing Brief, Exlnbit A. 61d. TiuDoR COMMENTS - 4 09/17/2007 14:47 FAX 2066237022 K & L GATES LLP SEATILE ~007 Project site (on average 15.2 feet).' Accordingly, with the standard 13 foot setback for the Project, there would be the 25 + foot combined setback anticipated by the Code and desired by the City in this case. The factual underpinnings for the City's decision are undeniably wrong. As to the second mistake, the City conceded at the Hearing that the Code provision cited as basis for the 25' setback did not in fact apply because the two properties have identical zoning. H.E. Minutes, pp. 2, 5. The Code identifies only one situation where a setback may be increased during Site Plan Review, i.e., where the property abuts a less intense residential zone. RMC 4-2-11 OF. The City agreed that reliance on that provision was "an error." !d. For these reasons, Mr. Jones' first alleged error lacks merit and should be disregarded. Alleged Error #2 In an apparent selective reading of the Hearing Exanliner's Decision, Mr. Jones erroneously suggests that the Hearing Examiner failed to consider the Project's size, scale and bulk in comparison to Heritage Village. Jones Appeal, Alleged error #2. As indicated above, the Hearing Examiner addressed in some detail how the features of the Project support application of the Code's standard 13' setback -and he specifically considered impacts of the Project's size, scale and bulk on Heritage Village. He discussed how the impacts of the Project on similar multiple-family housing are not unique, unexPected or untoward; how there is already a row of tightly planted tress that shade Heritage Village and screen the view such that the view is not expansive at this time; how the Project proposes only 36 units whereas 42 are allowed under the Code; that its lot coverage is less than permitted; and, how the two properties have almost identical densities. H.E. Concl. ml4-6. Thus, on its face, Mr. Jones' second alleged error has no merit. 7 Supra n. 2-Exhibit 1, Tridor Post-Hearing Brief. TRIDoR COMMENTS - 5 U9/1712007 14:48 FAX 2066237022 K " L GATES LLP SEATILE 141008 Alleged Error #3 Jones' Appeal further demonstrates a misunderstanding of the legal tests in suggesting that the Hearing Examiner should have disregarded the fundamental mistake (concerning the Heritage Village setback) because the Staff found that the Project would have some impacts. Alleged Error #3. Under the terms of the Code, and in accordance with established caselaw, the Hearing Examiner must overturn a decision when, "although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing body, on the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. H.E. Concl. 'f.l. Thus, the Hearing Examiner could not properly ignore evidence of an underlying mistake and focus selectively on other findings by the City Staff. Hearing Examiner must base his decisions on the entire evidence. In this case that entire body of evidence includes the City StaWs concession that they assumed Heritage Village was not built with the required setback from the common property line with the Project site, that this assunIption was part of the fundamental rationale for nearly doubling the Project south sideyard setback (to make up the difference), and the professional surveys showing the actual 15.2' average setback. 8 Moreover, there is nothing about the Hearing Examiner's approach to suggest that substantial weight was not given to the City StaWs impact analysis. There was in fact little for the Examiner to give substantial weight to. The City's decision contained only conclusory statements about impacts to Heritage Village. The analysis regarding light and air impacts is merely two sentences; it contains only a conclusion,and not any analysis as to how that conclusion was reached: 7. Provision of adeqnate light and air. The development could have a negative impact on the north Heritage Village Condominium units, in terms of reduction of available natural light., The recommended condition requiring an increased setback should reduce this potential impact however. Staff Report, pg 12, W. Moreover, the Staff Report agreed that the architectural design and details of the Project result in visually interesting structures that promote a sense of hunIan scale, and "ensure that the property would make a positive contribution to the 8 See n. 2 and 3 above. TRillOR COMMENTS - 6 r ~!17!2007 14:49 FAX 2066237022 K & L GATES LLP SEATTLE physical condition and visual aesthetic of the neighborho<)d." Staff Report, at 3, 13. The Hearing Examiner properly considered all the evidence before him, which included the Staff Report, but also photographic evidence at the Hearing which showed already compromised light and views. H.E. Concl. ,4. Accordingly, alleged appeal error #3 also has no merit. Alleged Error #4 Mr. Jones' fourth alleged error largely repeats arguments made under Alleged Errors 1-3; to the extent it raises anything new it also indicates a misunderstanding of the role of the Hearing Examiner, the standards of review he must apply, and how they were applied in this case. Mr. Jones is apparently concerned about the Hearing Examiner's conclusion there was not a "strong basis" for the setback decision. Jones suggests that the EXanliner somehow substituted this test for the comprehensive plan and site plan review criteria. In fact, the Hearing Examiner is precisely referencing those generic criteria in the sentence of concern: "The more generic basis [i.e. comprehensive plan and site plan review'criteria] that replaced [the more specific criterion originally cited] does not appear to provide a strong basis for almost doubling the setback." H.E. Concl. W. The EXanliner is referring to the City's ultimate concession that the cited basis for the 25' setback, i.e., RMC 4-2-110F, does not apply because the Project site and the Heritage Village property to the soufu are zoned the Sanle. H.E. Minutes, pg. 2, 5. RMC 4-2-11 OF aufuorizes the City to increase fue standard 13' setback in one specific situation: when the property abuts a less intense residential zone. Thus, at the Hearing, fue City was forced to argue that, despite the one specific authorization in RMC 4-2-11 OF (that does not apply), fue more generic references to neighborhood impacts in the comprehensive plan and site plan review criteria somehow also provide legal authority for nearly doubling a standard setback. H.E. Minutes, pg. 3 (Mr. Barber). Accordingly, Mr. Jones is mistaken in suggesting that the Examiner ignored these criteria. The EXanliner's reference to "the more generic basis" indicates that he expressly considered them. Moreover, he rightly concluded that those more general, qualitative criteria do not authorize such a departure from fue standard setback. It is a well- established legal principle that where the legislative drafters explicitly limit a rule (Le. the TRIDOR COMMENTS - 7 ~009 09/17/2007 14:49 FAX 2066237022 K & L GATES LLP SEATTLE setback may be increased) to one specific factual situation (Le. where the adjoining zone is a less intense zone), and omit to apply it to any other situation (Le. where the properties are zoned the same), the reviewing body should assume the omission was intentional. Washington Natural Gas Co. v. Public Util. Dist. No.1. 77 Wn.2d 94, 98, 459 P.2d 633 (1969); Kitsap County v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Bd., 158 P.3d 638, 645(2007). Accordingly, in this case, the Hearing Examiner properly held that those generic provisions did not provide a strong basis for expanding the standard setback. m. APPLICANT APPEAL Code's Height Approval Provisions Unrelated to Sideyard Setback The Hearing Examiner erred in reversing approval for an additional 2.25' in height simply because the standard sideyard setback is being applied. There is nothing in the Code to suggest that additional height is contingent on a greater-than-standard setback being imposed. The Hearing Examiner wrongly conflated these two notions. Rather, the Code provides that up to 10' additional height may be approved where there are additional amenities such as pitched roofS. and provided compatibility with adjacent residential development: In all districts except the "u" and ''T,'' more stories and an additional ten feet UQ.) in height may be .obtained through the provision of additional amenities such as Pitcbed roofs. additional recreational facilities, underground parking, and/or additional landscaped open space areas, as determined through the site plan review process. In the "F" District, additional height for a residential dwelling structure may be obtained through the site development plan review process depending on the comnatibility of the proposed buildings with adjacent existing residential development. In no case shall the height of a residential structure exceed forty five feet (45 '). RMC 4-2-11 OF, n.5, n.6 (emphasis added). In this case, the additional 2.25' accommodates a steeper pitch, which mimics the pitch of the existing single-family residential development in the area and thereby enhances compatibility. The approval thus fell squarely within the City's discretion. TRIDOR COMMENTS - 8 "!I 010 , ~/17/2007 14:50 FAX 2066237022 K & L GATES LLP SEATTLE 1i!l01l Hearing Examiner Overlooked Staff's Mistake About Combined Setback Furthermore, the Hearing Examiner based his reversal on an erroneous assumption that, with a 13' setback, the Project would be closer to Heritage Village than Staff had assumed when they approved the additional height. Specifically, the Hearing Examiner held that since the City justified the extra height on the basis of a 25' setback, that extra height should no longer be allowed with a 13' setback. Concln. ~8. This reasoning is fatally flawed. The Examiner has overlooked the fact that Staff were mistaken about the Heritage Village setback (assuming it was negligible) when they approved the extra height. The Staff thus assumed a combined 25' setback between the two buildings. The evidence in the record now shows that even with a 13' Project setback there will in fact be the combined 25'+ setback that the City assumed.9 The 15' average setback at Heritage Village (which the City did not know about) combined with the 13' Project setback, will create the desired space. Thus, to the extent that the 25' combined setback was used by the City to justify the greater height, that factual basis still exists. The fundamental premise oftbe Hearing Examiner's decision is therefore invalid. In addition, it is not at all clear that City Statrs approval of the height limit was contingent on the 25' setback. The Staff Report did not directly discuss its rationale for allowing the additional 2.25' in height. Rather, in seeking to justify the nearly doubled setback, the Staff Report simply commented that the proposed height would "be mitigated somewhat by the wider setback." Staff Report, pg II. Thus, there is not the tight correlation between height and setback that the Hearing Examiner assumed. Additional Height Enhances Neighborhood Compatibility Moreover, the additional 2.25' height enhances compatibility with the neighborhood, and other goals of the Site Plan Review process. The proposed height reflects the roof pitch which is part of the overall careful design of the Project, intended to ensure well-proportioned structures and enhance aesthetics. Flattening of the roofs would look like a project-wide afterthought (or miscued design) and would detract from the full potential of what the Project could contribute to the surrounding neighborhood. As indicated above, the Staff Report agreed that the architectural design and details of the , See n. 2 and 3 above. TRlDOR COMMENTS -9 Project result in visually interesting structures that promote a sense of human scale, and "ensure that the property would make a positive contribution to the physical condition and visual aesthetic of the neighborhood." Staff Report, at 3,13. Moreover, there is no evidence in the record to suggest that the additional couple of feet would make any difference to neighborhood impacts. To the contrary, the Hearing Examiner found that existing tightly planted trees are already a controlling factor regarding light and views at Heritage Village. H.E. Concln. ~4. The Hearing Examiner thus did not demonstrate that the City's height approval was (i) in violation of constitutional provisions; or (ii) in excess of their authority or jurisdiction; or (iii) made upon unlawful procedure; or (iv) affected by other error oflaw; or (v) clearly erroneous in view of the entire record as submitted; or (iv) arbitrary or capricious. RMC 4-8-II-E(7)(b). Rather, as set out in this submission, the Hearing Examiner committed substantial errors in law and fact in reversing the height approval. RMC 4-8-11O.F.7. IV. CONCLUSION Mr. Jones has failed to show that the Hearing Examiner committed a substantial error in fact or law. The City Council should approve the Hearing Examiner's decision to apply the standard 13' south sideyard setback. Conversely, the Hearing Examiner did commit substantial errors in law and fact in overturning the City's 2.25' additional height approval. His decision in that regard should be reversed. Respectfully submitted this 1:111... day of September, 2007 TRIDOR COMMENTS -10 KIRKPATRICK & LocKHART PRESTON GATES & ELLIS LLP BY~--S-~WSB2S6~ Attorney for Appellant, Tridor, Inc. 09/17/2007 14:44 FAX 2066237022 K & L GATES LLP SEATTLE I4J 001 K&LIGATES Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis LLP 925 Fourth Avenue COMMENTS: Suite 2900 Seattle. WA 98104-1158 206.623.7580 F 206.623.7022 FAX Date' September 17. 2007 Pages' ~ 12 Time' Transmit To· Ms. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk Company/Firm' City of Renton Telephone No.' 425.430.6510 Fax No.' 425.430.6516 From· Sally Brick Phone· (206) 370-8133 Secretary • Phone· Lawyer 10' Client/Matter Name' Client/Matter No .• When you are sending to us, please be sure to Include B cover sheet with your transmittal and a telephone number where you can be contacted in case of equipment malfunction. Transmitted by: Time: IMPORTANT: The materials transmitted by this facsimile are sent by a lawyer or hislher agent, and are considered confidenUal and are intended onty for the use of the individual or entity named. If the addressee is a client, these materials may also be slJbject to applicable prlvileges. If the recipient of these materials is not the addressee, or lI1e employee or agent responsible for lI1e delivery of these materials to the addressee, please be aware Ihat any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error. pleBSe Immediately notlly us at (206) 623·7510 (colfect) and return the transmilled materials to us at the above address via the U.S. Postal Service, We will reimburse you any costs incurred in connection with this erroneous transmission and your return of these materials. Thank you, Please report problems with reception by calling (206) 623·7580. From: To: Date: Subject: "Brick, Sally" <Sally,Brick@klgates,com> <bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us> 9/17/2007 3:48:28 PM Response to Appeals of Grant Avenue Townhomes This electronic message contains information from the law firm of Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis LLP. The contents may be privileged and confidential and are for the use of the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not an intended addressee, note that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this message is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please contact me at Sally.Brick@klgates.com. K&LiGATES September 17, 2007 Bonnie L Walton City Clerk City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98057 Kirkpatrick & lockhart Preston Gates Ellis LIP 925 Fourth Ave,", Suile 2900 Seattle. Wi 98104-1158 I 206.623.7580 .... klg'tes.com Re: Appeals of Hearing Examiner's Decisions Dated August 9, 2007 Regarding Site Plan Approval for Grant Avenue Townhomes (File No. LUA-07-018, SA, ECF) Dear Ms. Walton: We represent Tridor, Inc. the Applicant for Grant Avenue Townhomes. In accordance with RMC 4-8-IIOF.3, please find attached Tridor's comments in support of its position regarding appeals of the Hearing Examiner's decision. Tridor's comments address the appeal filed by Mr. Robin Jones, and·also support the position taken in the Applicant's own appeal. Very truly yours, KIRKPATRICK & loCKHART PRESTON GATES ELLIS LLP ~~~ By Sally Brick SBB:tlt cc: Mr. Robin Jones Kovach Architects BEFORE THE CITY OF RENTON CITY COUNCIL IN THE MA TIER OF THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR GRANT AVENUE TOWNHOMES File No. LUA-07-018, SA, ECF TRIDOR, INC. COMMENTS SUPPORTING POSITIONS ON APPEAL I. INTRODUCTION The Applicant, Tridor Inc., committed nearly two years and considerable resources working with the City to arrive at a site plan for the Grant Avenue Homes project ("Project") that would conform with City requirements and deliver an attractive, high-quality project that complements its surroundings. I The Applicant was taken by surprise when the final Site Plan Approval included not the standard 13' setback on the south sideyard but instead nearly doubled that to impose a 25' setback. The Hearing Examiner held unequivocally that City Staff were mistaken on two counts when they imposed this much greater setback: I) City staff based their decision on a "guess" about the proximity of the neighboring Heritage Village condominiums to the property line (and subsequent evidence showed that guess to be wrong by 12-20 foot);2 and 2) The Code provision cited as the basis for the decision applies only to situations where the adjacent property has less intense zoning, and that is not the case here (as the City ultimately conceded). H.E. Cone!. 'lr8. Mr. Jones, the sole opponent of the Project, does not in any way demonstrate that the Hearing Examiner committed a substantial error in fact or law in reversing the 25' setback based on these mistakes. Rather, Mr. Jones' appeal indicates a misunderstanding I See. Minutes of Hearing, H.E. Decision, pg 3 (Andrew Kovach). 'See, Tridor Post-Hearing Brief, and in particular the professional surveys in Exlubit 1. The surveys demonstrate that the Heritage Village buildings are, in fact, between 12.3 feet and 20.3 feet from the TRIDOR COMMENTS - 1 of the Hearing Examiner's role andlor a misunderstanding of the applicable legal tests or standards of review. He also appears to misinterpret the Hearing Examiner's legal reasoning. Mr. Jones' appeal has no merit whatsoever and should be dismissed. The Renton City Council should, however, carefully reassess the Hearing Examiner's decision to disallow the proposed Project height because the standard 13' sideyard setback is being applied: (I) The Code grants Staff clear discretion to approve additional height of up to 10 feet where, as here, amenities such as roof pitch are provided. RMC 4-2-110F, n.5, n.6. There is nothing in the Code to suggest that additional height should be disallowed because the standard Code setbacks are being applied. The Code criteria for additional height do not mention setbacks. Id. (2) Moreover, the Hearing Examiner's reasoning is fundamentally flawed: his rationale for reversing the height is that the Project will now be closer to Heritage Village than the City assumed. H.E. Concl. , 8. However, due to the City's mistaken guess about the proximity of Heritage Village, the Staff assumed a combined 25' setback. Staff Testimony. 3 That same combined setback will in fact be achieved with a 13' Project setback (taken together with the actual 12-20' setback at Heritage Village). (3) Furthermore,' the proposed height allows a roof pitch that is designed to mimic single family housing in the area and create architecturally well-proportioned stmctures.4 To deny this pitch would reduce compatibility with the neighborhood -not enhance it in any way. common property line with the Project site. The average distance of the Heritage Village buildings from the property line is 15.2 feet. 3 See Minutes of Hearing, H.E. Decision, pg 4-5, Elizabeth Higgins; see also Tridor Post-Hearing Brief, Exhibit A, partial transcript ofE. Higgin's Hearing Testimony: "The concern was that, the assumption with a J3 foot setback is that there is a corresponding setback on the abuttiog project, but it appeared from all of the evidence that we had that in fact there wasn't a corresponding setback on the abutting project and therefore instead of something like two 13 fool setbacks or a 13 foot and a whateverit was in 1986, it might have been 10 feet or it could have even been .. .! don't know, I can't tell from the scale of the drawing what the intention was, but instead of a two 13 or 23 or 26 feet, that there would only be 13 feet between these two buildings and with the taller buildings being three stories it would be an even more significant impact because of the narrow space ... Unfortunately, it's the people who come in later that have to make up the difference." , Testimony of Kovach Architects. TRIDOR COMMENTS -2 II. MR. JONES' APPEAL Mr. Jones bears the burden of proof. RMC 4-S-11D.F.9. The City Council must uphold the decision of the Hearing Examiner unless Mr. Jones has shown that the Hearing Examiner committed a substantial error in fact or law. RMC 4-S-110.F.7. Mr. Jones does not come close to that threshold. Alleged Error #1 Mr. Jones erroneously suggests that the Hearing Examiner did not apply the decision criteria in RMC 4-8-11-E(7)(b), and he thereby indicates a misunderstanding of the legal test. Jones Appeal, Alleged Error 1. Mr. Jones is concerned that the Hearing Examiner analyzed whether ''mistakes'' were made .. [d. In fact, that is precisely what the Hearing Examiner was supposed to do under the terms of RMC 4-8-11-E(7)(b). That provision states: The Examiner may affinn the decision or remand the case for further proceedings, or it may reverse the decision if the substantial rights of the applicant may have been prejudiced because the decision is: i. In violation of constitutional provisions; or ii. In excess of the authority or jurisdiction of the agency; or iii. Made upon unlawful procednre; or iv. Affected by other error oflaw; or v. Clearly erroneous in view ofthe entire record as submitted; or iv. Arbitrary or capricious. The Hearing Examiner identified the last two criteria as being the most applicable, and explained (with reference to case law) that they concern either a disregard for the facts or a mistake. H.E. Concl., ~2-3. Specifically, the Hearing Examiner explained that an action is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing body, on the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. H.E. Concl. ~3 (citing Ancheta v. Daly, 77 Wn. 2d 255, 259 (1969). Similarly, he explained· that a decision is arbitrary and capricious when it is willful and unreasoning in disregard of the facts and circumstances (citing Northern TRmOR COMMENTS - 3 Pacific Transport Co. v Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission. 69 Wn. 2d 472,478 (1976». H.E. Concl. ~2. These are indeed the tests that the Hearing Examiner went on to apply. He analyzed whether City staff made a mistake in nearly doubling the south sideyard setback andlor whether they disregarded the facts and circumstances. In particnlar, the Examiner reviewed the factors suggesting that the City should have appljed the Code-mandated setback: the two properties bear th~ same zoning category, they share almost identical densities, the zone allows greater lot coverage and greater permeable area than is proposed, and the project appears to be well designed in regard to its ground space. H.E. Concl. ,~ 5-6. Moreover, the Examiner analyzed and based his decision on two fundamental errors underlying the City's 25' setback: (1) City staff did not measute the setback of the neighboring property but guessed instead (based on aerial photos) and thus based their decision on unknown factors; and (2) City staff proceeded on the erroneous basis that the neighboring property was in a less intense zone than the Project site. H.E. Concl. ~ 7. He was thus explicitly concerned with whether facts had been disregarded or mistakes had been made. The evidence in the record clearly supports the Hearing Examiner's conclusion as to mistake. City staff testified that, based on aerial photos only, they had assumed that there was only a negligible setback between Heritage Village and the common boundary line with the Project site.5 Staff further testified that, the Code's standard 13' setback assumes a somewhat similar setback on the neighboring property, and their (wrong) guess as to a negligible Heritage Village setback therefore meant that the Project setback had to be increased to compensate.6 Professional surveys in the record demonstrate there is in fact a setback of between 12.3 feet and 20.3 feet from the property line with the , Supra n. 3-Minute. of Hearing, H.E. Decision, pg 4-5, Elizabeth Higgins; see also Tridor Post-Hearing Brief, Exhibit A. • ld. TRlDOR COMMENTS - 4 Project site (on average 15.2 feet).' Accordingly, with the standard 13 foot setback for the Project, there would be the 25+ foot combined setback anticipated by the Code and desired by the City in this case. The factual underpinnings for the City's decision are undeniably wrong. As to the second mistake, the City conceded at the Hearing that the Code provision cited as basis for the 25' setback did not in fact apply because the two properties have identical zoning. H.E. Minutes, pp. 2, 5. The Code identifies only one situation where a setback may be increased during Site Plan Review, i.e., where the property abuts a less intense residential zone. RMC 4-2-110F. The City agreed that reliance on that provision was "an error." ld. For these reasons, !I.1r. Jones' first alleged error lacks merit and should be disregarded. Alleged Error #2 In an apparent selective reading of the Hearing Examiner's Decision, Mr. Jones erroneously suggests that the Hearing Examiner failed to consider the Project's size, scale and bulk in comparison to Heritage Village. Jones Appeal, Alleged. error #2. As indicated above, the Hearing Examiner addressed in some detail how the features of the Project support application of the Code's standard 13' setback -and he specifically considered impacts of the Project's size, scale and bulk on Heritage Village. He discussed how the impacts of the Project on similar multiple-family housing are not unique, unexpected or untoward; how there is already a row of tightly planted tress that shade Heritage Village and screen the view such that the view is not expansive at this time; how the Project proposes only 36 units whereas 42 are allowed under the Code; that its lot coverage is less than permitted; and, how the two properties have almost identical densities. H.E. Concl. ,"4-6. Thus, on its face,!I.1r. Jones' second alleged error has no merit. 7 Supra n. 2-Exhibit 1, Tridor Post·Hearing Brief. TRIDOR COMMENTS - 5 Alleged Error #3 Jones' Appeal further demonstrates a misunderstanding of the legal tests in suggesting that the Hearing Examiner should have disregarded the fundamental mistake (concerning the Heritage Village setback) because the Staff found that the Project would have some impacts. Alleged Error #3. Under the terms of the Code, and in accordance with established caselaw, the Hearing Examiner must overturn a decision when, "although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing body, on the entire evidence, is left with the definite and finn conviction that a mistake has been committed. H.E. Concl. Thus, the Hearing Examiner could not properly ignore evidence of an underlying mistake and focus selectively on other findings by the City Staff. Hearing Examiner must base his decisions on the entire evidence.· In this case that entire body of evidence includes the City Staff's concession that they assumed Heritage Village was not built with the required setback from the common property line with the Project site, that this assumption was part of the fundamental rationale for nearly doubling the Project south sideyard setback (to make up the difference), and .the professional surveys showing the actual 15.2' average setback. 8 Moreover, there is nothing about the Hearing Examiner's appioach to suggest that substantial weight was riot given to the City Staff's impact analysis. There was in fact little for the Examiner to give substantial weight to. The City's decision contained only conclusory statements about impacts to Heritage Village. The analysis regarding light and air impacts is merely two sentences; it contains only a conclusion, and not any analysis as to how that conclusion was reached: 7. Provision of adequate light and air. The development could have a negative impact on the north Heritage Village Condominium units, in terms of reduction of available natural light.· The recommended condition requiring an increased setback should reduce this potential impact however. Staff Report, pg 12, 1]. Moreover, the Staff Report agreed that the architectural design and details of the Project result in visually interesting structures that promote a sense of human scale, and "ensure that the property would make a positive contribution to the , See D. 2 and 3 above. TRIDOR COMMENTS - 6 physical condition and visual aesthetic of the neighborhoqd." Staff Report, at 3,13. The Hearing Examiner properly considered all the evidence before him, which included the Staff Report, but also photographic evidence at the Hearing which showed already compromised light and views. H.E. Cone!. ~. Accordingly, alleged appeal error #3 also has no merit. Alleged Error #4 Mr. Jones' fourth alleged error largely repeats arguments made under Alleged Errors 1-3; to the extent it raises anything new it also indicates a misunderstanding of the role of the Hearing Examiner, the standards of review he must apply, and how they were applied in this case. Mr. Jones is apparently concerned about the Hearing Examiner's conclusion there was not a "strong basis" for the setback decision. Jones suggests that the Examiner somehow substituted this test for the comprehensive plan and site plan review criteria. In fact, the Hearing Examiner is precisely referencing those generic criteria in the sentence of concern: "The more generic basis [Le. comprehensive plan and site plan review' criteria] that replaced [the more specific criterion originally cited) does not appear to provide a strong basis for almost doubling the setback." H.E. ConcL ~7. The Examiner is referring to the City's ultimate concession that the cited basis for the 25' setback, i.e., RMC 4-2-11 OF, does not apply because the Project site and the Heritage Village property to the south are zoned the same. H.E. Minutes, pg. 2, 5. RMC 4-2-110F authorizes the City to increase the standard 13' setback in one specific situation: when the property abuts a less intense residential zone. Thus, at the Hearing, the City was forced to argue that, despite the one specific authorization in RMC 4-2-110F (that does not apply), the more generic references to neighborhood impacts in the comprehensive plan and site plan review criteria somehow also provide legal authority for nearly doubling a standard setback. H.E. Minutes, pg. 3 (Mr. Barber). Accordingly, Mr. Jones is mistaken in suggesting that the Examiner ignored these criteria. The Examiner's reference to "the more generic basis" indicates that he expressly considered them. Moreover, he rightly concluded that those more general, qualitative criteria do not authorize such a departure from the standard setback. It is a well- established legal principle that where the legislative drafters explicitly limit a rule (i.e. the TRIDoR COMMENTS -7 · setback may be increased) to one specific factual situation (Le. where the adjoining zone is a less intense zone), and omit to apply it to any other situation (Le. where the properties are zoned the same), the reviewing body should assume the omission was intentional. Washington Natural Gas Co. v. Public Util. Dis!. No.1, 77 Wn.2d 94, 98, 459 P.2d 633 (1969); Kitsap County v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Bd., 158 P.3d 638, 645(2007). Accordingly, in this case, the Hearing Examiner properly held that those generic provisions did not provide a strong basis for expanding the standard setback. III. APPLICANT APPEAL Code's Height Approval Provisions Unrelated to Sideyard Setback The Hearing Examiner erred in reversing approval for an additional 2.25' In height simply because the standard sideyard setback is being applied. There is nothing in the Code to suggest that additional height is contingent on a greater-than-standard setback being imposed. The Hearing Examiner wrongly conflated these two notions. Rather, the Code provides that up to 10' additional height may be approved where there are additional amenities such as pitched roofS. and provided compatibility with adjacent residential development: In all districts except the "U" and "T," more stories and an additional ten feet il.Q.'l in height may be obtained through the provision of additional amenities such as pitched roofs, additional recreational facilities, underground parking, andlor additional landscaped open space areas, as determined through the site plan review process. In the "F" District, additional height for a residential dwelling structure may be obtained through the site development plan review process depending on the compatibility of the proposed buildings with adjacent existing residential development. In no case sball the height of a residential structure exceed forty five feet (45'). RMC 4-2-110F, n.5, n.6 (emphasis added). In this case, the additional 2.25' accommodates a steeper pitch, which mimics the pitch of the existing single-family residential development in the area and thereby enhances compatibility. The approval thus fell squarely within the Ciiy's discretion. TRIDOR COMMENTS -8 Hearing Examiner Overlooked StaWs Mistake About Combined Setback Furthermore, the Hearing Examiner based his reversal on an erroneous assumption that, with a 13' setback, the Project would be closer to Heritage Village than Staff had assumed when they approved the additional height. Specifically, the Hearing Examiner held that since the City justified the extra height on the basis of a 25' setback, that extra height should no longer be allowed with a 13' setback. Concln. '\18. This reasoning is fatally flawed. The Examiner has overlooked the fact that Staff were mistaken about the Heritage Village setback (assuming it Was negligible) when they approved the extra height. The Staff thus assumed a combined 25' setback between the two buildings. The evidence in the record now shows that even with a 13' Project setback there will in fact be the combined 25' + setback that the City assumed. ~ The 15' average setback at Heritage Village (which the City did not know about) combined with the 13' Project setback, will create the desired space. Thus, to the extent that the 25' combined setback was used by the City to justifY the greater height, that factual basis still exists. The fundamental premise ofthe Hearing Examiner's decision is therefore invalid. In addition, it is not at all cIear that City Staff's approval of the height limit was contingent on the 25' setback. The Staff Report did not directly discuss its rationale for allowing the additional 2.25' in height. Rather, in seeking to justifY the nearly doubled setback, the Staff Report simply commented that the proposed height would "be mitigated somewhat by the wider setback." Staff Report, pg II. Thus, there is not the tight correlation between height and setback that the Hearing Examiner assumed. Additional Height Enhances Neighborhood Compatibility Moreover, the additional 2.25' height enhances compatibility with the neighborhood, and other goals of the Site Plan Review process. The proposed height reflects the roof pitch which is part of the overall careful design of the Project, intended to ensure well-proportioned structures and enhance aesthetics. Flattening of the roofs would look like a project-wide afterthought (or miscued design) and would detract from the full potential of what the Project could contribute to the surrounding neighborhood. As indicated above, the Staff Report agreed that the architectural design and details of the 9 See n. 2 and 3 above. TRIDOR COMMENTS - 9 Project result in visually interesting structures that promote a sense of human scale, and "ensure that the property would make a positive contribution to the physical condition and visual aesthetic of the neighborhood." Staff Report, at 3, 13. Moreover, there is no evidence in the record to suggest that the additional couple of feet would make any difference to neighborhood impacts. To the contrary, the Hearing Examiner found that existing tightly planted trees are already a controlling factor regarding light and views at Heritage Village. H.E. Concln. ~4. The Hearing Examiner thus did not demonstrate that the City's height approval was (i) in violation of constitutional provisions; or (ii) in excess of their authority or jurisdiction; or (iii) made upon unlawful procedure; or (iv) affected by other error of law; or (v) clearly erroneous in view of the entire record as submitted; or (iv) arbitrary or capricious. RMC 4-S-11-E(7)(b). Rather, as set out in this submission, the Hearing Examiner committed substantial errors in law and fact in reversing the height approval. RMC 4-S-11O.F.7. IV. CONCLUSION Mr. Jones has failed to show that the Hearing Examiner committed a substantial error in fact or law. The City Council should approve the Hearing Examiner's decision to apply the standard 13' south sideyard setback. Conversely, the Hearing Examiner did commit substantial errors in law and fact in overturning the City's 2.25' additional height approval. His decision in that regard should be reversed. Respectfully submitted this I.J 11.... day of September, 2007 TRJDOR COMMENTS -10 KIRKPATRICK & LoCKHART PRESTON GATES & ELLIS LLP BY~­-satY'k,WSB2567 Attorney for Appellant, Tridor, Inc. September 17, 2007 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT AUDIENCE COMMENT Citizen Comment: Osborne - Off-Leash Dog Park CONSENT AGENDA Council Meeting Minutes of 9/10/2007 Appeal: Grant Ave Townhomes Site Plan, Jones & Kovach Architects, SA-07-018 Community Services: City Hall Lease (5th Floor), Communities in Schools of Renton Development Services: Fees Waiver, The Chelsea & Blakey Townhomes Appeal: Vineyards Construction Latecomer Agreement, Green, LA-06-002 Renton City Council Minutes Page 314 Chief Administrative Officer Covington reviewed a written administrative report summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of its business plan for 2007 and beyond. Items noted included: * Renton residents are invited to a community meeting and presentation on September 26 to learn about airport noise effects and to provide input for the airport noise study which is jointly funded by the cities of Renton and Mercer Island. * Kids ages four to twelve are invited to compete in the annual Soccer Challenge on October 4 at Ron Regis Park. Pre-registration is required. * Beginning this week, Washington State Department of Transportation crews will be paving and preparing the shoulders for future widening on southbound SR-167 in Renton. The 1-405 Widening Project is the first stage of improvements on 1-405 between 1-5 and SR-167. Ross Osborne (King County) spoke about the feasibility of an off-leash dog park in Renton, questioning whether the Narco site (1500 Houser Way S.) is a possible location for this type of park. Community Services Administrator Higashiyama noted the possibility of using the site as a temporary off-leash dog park, and stated that she will be happy to discuss the topic of a dog park with Mr. Osborne. Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. Approval ofeouneil meeting minutes of 9/\0/2007. Council concur. City Clerk reported two appeals of Hearing Examiner's decisions regarding Grant Ave. Townhomes site plan application; appeals filed on 8/23/2007 by Robin Jones and by Kovach Architects, each accompanied by required fee. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. * Community Services Department requested approval of a lease with Communities in Schools of Renton for space on the fifth floor of City Hall; revenue generated over five-year term is $30,139.92. Refer to Finance Committee. Development Services Division recommended approval to waive the development, building, and impact fees per City Code owner-occupied housing incentive for The Chelsea condominium project, 513 S. 2nd St., and Blakey Townhomes, 604 Mon'is Ave. S. Estimated total fees for The Chelsea are $55,852.85 and $56,404.55 for Blakey Townhomes. Refer to Finance Committee. Hearing Examiner submitted recommendation regarding appeal filed on behalf of Norma J. Randall concerning the Vineyards Construction, LLC latecomer agreement for sewer main extension along NE 7th PI. Hearing Examiner recommended including the appellant's property in the latecomer agreement. Council Concur. *Mayor Keolker reported receipt of an added item of correspondence related to the appeal of the Grant Ave. Townhomes site plan (item 7.b.) from Sally Brick, Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis LLP, who represents the applicant Tridor, Inc. She noted that the correspondence also needs to be referred to the Planning and Development Committee. Cl OF RENTON COUNCIL AGEND,.LL I eEl A1[E#:==~7 • b. Submitting Data: For Agenda of: 9/17/2007 DeptlDiv/Board .. AJLS/City Clerk Staff Contact. ..... Bonnie I. Walton Agenda Status Consent.. ............ X Subject: Public Hearing .. Appeals of Hearing Examiner's decisions dated 8/9/2007 Correspondence .. regarding Grant Avenue Townhomes Site Plan Ordinance ............. Application. (File No. LUA-07-0l8, SA, ECF) Resolution ............ Old Business ........ Exhibits: New Business ....... • City Clerk's letter (91712007) Study Sessions ...... • Appeals -Robin Jones (8/23/2007) Information ......... Kovach Architects (8/23/2007) • Response to Request for Reconsideratiun (8/23/2007) • Request for Reconsideration -Robin Jones (8/9/2007) • Hearing Examiner's Report & Decision Robin Jones (8/9/2007) Kovach Architects (8/9/2007) Recommended Action: Approvals: Refer to Planning and Development Committee Legal Dept ........ . Finance Dept .... .. Other .............. . Fiscal Impact: N/A Expenditure Required .. . Transfer/Amendment. ..... . Amount Budgeted ...... . Revenue Generated ........ . Total Project Budget City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision on the Grant Avenue Townhomes Site Plan application was filed separately on 8/23/2007 by Robin Jones, for himself, and by Kovach Architects, each accompanied by the required $75 fee. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Council to take action on the Grant Avenue Townhomes Site Plan application appeals. cc: Jennifer Henning Larry Warren RentonnetJagnbilil bh September 7, 2007 CITY )FRENTON City Clerk Bonnie I. Walton APPEALS FILED BY: .1) Mr. Robin Jones, 1626 Grant Av S, Renton, WA 98055 2) Kovach Architects, Attn: Austin Kovach,IOI West Main St., Momoe, W A 98272 RE: Appeals of Hearing Examiner's decisions dated August 9, 2007 regarding site plan approval for constructing 36 townhome units on a 2.11 acre site, located at 1600. Grant Av S, known as the Grant Avenue Townhomes. (FileNo. LUA-07 cOI8, SA, ECF) To Parties of Record: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances, two written appeals of the hearing examiner's decisioriori the Grant A venue Townhomes Site plan application have been filed with the City Clerk. In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110F, within five days ofreceip! of the notice ofappeal,orirIlmediately after all appeal periods with the Hearitig Examiner have expired,. the City Cl\lrk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt ofthe:appeal. Other parties of record may submit letters limited to support of their positions regarding the appeal within ten (\ 0) days of the date of mailing of this notification, . The deadline for submission of additionalktters is September 17, 2007. . NOTICE. IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeals and other pertinentdoGuments will be reviewed by the Cbuncil'sPlannil)g and Devel~lpment Committee~t2:00p.m. on Thurs4ay, October, ·18, 2007, 111 the Connct! Chambers, 7 Floor of Renton CIty Hall, 1055 South Grady. Way, Renton, Washington 98055. The recommendationsofthe Committee will bepresented for consideration by the full council at a subsequent Council meeting. . .. Copy of the appeals and the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeals ofHearingExarniner . decisionsbr reconlnlendations is attached. Please note thattheCity Council will beconsideritig the merits of each appeal based upon the written record previously estabHSh2d.Unless a . showing canbe made that additional evidence could not reasohably have been:availalrle at the prior hearing held by the Hearing Exanliner, no furtherevidenceortestimonyonthis matter will be acdeptedbythe City Council. .. . Foradditionalinfortnation or assistance, please feel free to call me at 425-430~6510 . . Sincerely, BOnilie.l. Walton City Clerk Attachments ·~1-0""55-S-0-u-th~G-r-ad-Y-W-aY---R-e-nt-o-n,-w-as~· -hi-n-gt-on-9-S0-S-7---(4-2-S)-4-3-0--6-S-10-/-F-AX-C-42-5-)-4~30~-6-'-5-1-6 ~ ®, ThiS paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% pos! consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE City of Renton Municipal C Title IV. Chapter 8. Section 110 -Awe 4-8-110C4 The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 4-1-170, the fee schedule of the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-IIOF: Appeals to City Council-Procedures I. Time for Appeal: Unless a specific section or State law providing for review of decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court or any other body, any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the City Council, upon a form furnished by the City Clerk, within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. 2. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record ofthe receipt of the appeal. 3. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. 4. Transmittal of Record to Council: Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the City Council all of the pertinent documents, including the written decision or recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report, the notice of appeal, and additional letters submitted by the parties. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-1982) 5. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required, the Council shall remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of additional evidence. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the applicant. In the absence of an entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, and a remand to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 4389,1-25-1993) 6. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties. 7. Findings and Conclusions Required: If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-050FI, and after examination of the record, the Council detennines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may remand the proceeding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly. 8. Council Action: If, upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-050F2 and F3, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, or that a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified, the City Council may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the application. 9. Decision Documentation: In any event, the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specif'y any modified or amended fmdings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord 3658, 9-13-1982) 10. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving, modifying or rejecting a decision of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames established under subsection G5 of this Section. (Ord. 4660, 3-17-1997) APPEAL TO RENTON CITY COUN-:.,...., OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISIONIRECOMMENDATION APPUCATlON NAME 6,,, .. 1 AVA fOl.yAl bouse O''a 1"" t FILE NO. t~~I1i!~r:i~N The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recomienAafon of the Land Use Hearing Ex.aminer, dated 9 A,,'l .... ,J . , 20 o "To. AUG 2 3 2007 l. IDENTIFICATION OF PMTY APPELLANT: Name: 7!1 r, Rob;[\! J"oNefi Address: 16;)(, Wool I Av-e '2 Phone Number: lidS :fl"dB 1f39(, Email: Rob':., H "J fi) M.,N. CoWl RECEiVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE REPRESENTATIVE (IF ANY): 2-'/1(; I'M ~ Name: ----------------------- Address: ____________ _ Phone Number: __________ _ Email: _____________ _ 2. SPECIF[CATION OF ERRORS (Anach additional sheets, if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: Finding of Fact: (Please designate. number as denoted in the Examiner's Report) No. Error: See A Hoc b{'d ..:.!S~b~t'ii>-p.J..I ____ ~_------- Correction: Conclusions: No. Error: See AHar ~ .. d Gbeef Correction: Other: No. Error: ~ AHa' LeJ Sbt'~ /. Correction: 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Atti!ch explanation, if desired) Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: l( Other: 5".e /ttlq, ~ f'J 511 C"e ~ Type/Printed Name NOTE: Please refer to Title IV, Chapter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4·8.110F, for specific appeal procedures. ex', ~t'e y1 /Up.//t' H, C-.ly' -1;fy !/Ii-II Wq lis Dc v' ~v'C S ])r /<"'c fv-/ J;"",t! ,c<,,,f':-'<"-Y1, ift"C'---I'~" I~X~/"" ~ Robin Jones Appeal SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS The City Council has required that approval of a site plan "requires the additional finding that the project complies with the intent and policies of the Land Use and Community Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan.# RMC 4-9-200F (emphasis added). The Hearing Examiner evidently believed that mere compliance with a minimum setback was all that was required, and did not make any finding or conclusion that the minimum setback complied with the Comprehensive Plan. The City Council has directed staff to review the impacts of a proposed development on surrounding properties, specifically seeking to avoid undesirable impacts of proposed structures that could impair the enjoyment of surrounding uses and structures, and to mitigate unnecessary and avoidable impacts of new construction on views from existing buildings. RMC 4-9- 200F(l) (a), (f). The intent of the site plan review process is to "minimize discordant and undesirable impacts of development . . off-site" and to "protect neighboring owners . • . by assuring that reasonable provisions have been made for such matters as sound and sight buffers, light and air, and those other aspects of site plans which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses." RMC 4-9-20011.(2) (1), (6) (emphasis added). The specific decision criteria include conformance with the Comprehensive Plan,' mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties, and provision of adequate light and air. RMC 4~9- 200E (1) (a), (c), (g). "The Hearing Examiner shall give substantial weight to any discretionary decision of the City rendered pursuant to this Chapter/Title." RMC 4-B-lIOE(7) (a). The staff report found that the proposed development would have structures 44 feet 5 inches from finished grade to the roof peak, adjacent to Robin Jones home in Heritage Village, which consists of only two-story buildings. Report and Decision of Administrative Site Plan Review, dated April 4, 2007 (hereinafter, "Decision"), at pages 6-7. The developer proposed a setback of only thirteen (13) feet. Staff proposed a setback of twenty-five (25) feet, to which the Hearing Examiner should have given substantial weight. The staff p~operly considered the Comprehensive Plan, as required by RMC 4-9-200F. In particular, staff noted that Policy LU-1S6 requires "[nlew stacked flat and townhouse development in Residential Multifamily designations should be compatible in size, scale, bulk, use, and design with existing multi-family developments in the vicinity." Decision at page 6. Staff was , The code also requires conformance with land use regulations, but the Examiner required that (and only that). RMC 4-9-200E (1) (b) . concerned that the new development would not be compatible in times of size, scale, and bulk. The impact would be "significant." Decision 10.' Staff found that "the mass and bulk [of the development] is significantly greater than, and not compatible with, the Heritage Village structures." Decision 11. Jones testified that the Heritage Village homes have their living rooms and kitchens facing the new development, which staff considered in stating the devclopment also could have a negative impact "in terms of reduction of available natural light." Decision 12. Staff also required landscape screening "to provide partial building screening, without light blockage, at maturity of vegetation.-Decision 11. The Hearing Examiner erred in not giving substantial weight to the staff's review and decision, and in ignoring the requirement to consider policies in the Comprehensive Plan and as required in site plan review, which he required nothing more than compliance with the minimum setback set forth in the land use regulations. The Hearing Examiner made the following specific errors: 1. He used as a criteria to reverse a conclusion that the staff made a "mistake," see Conclusion 4 or was "mistaken," Conclusion 5, rather than the requirements set forth in RMC 4-8-110E (7) (b). 2. He did not consider the development's size, scale, or bulk in comparison to Heritage Village, as required by Comprehensive Plan Policy LU-186. See Conclusion 6. 3. He did not give substantial weight to the fact that the staff found impacts even if they were incorrect in how close Heritage Vi 11 age was to the property line. See Conclusion 7. 4. He required a "strong basis" for increasing the land use minimum setback regulations, rather than giving substantial weight to the staff's interpretation of the comprehensive plan and judgment, and the City Council's criteria for site plan review. Conclusion 7. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED Uphold the decision to require no building (including any part of a deck) built closer than twenty-five (25) feet from the property to the south, by reversing the Hearing Examiner's decision that would allow buildings over forty (40) feet high to be located within thirteen (13) of the adjacent property. 2 The developer argued that staff was incorrect in looking at how close Heritage Village was to the property line, but the actual decision makes clear that the impact was an issue, even if the existing buildings were not particularly close to the property line. • "'PEAL TO RENTON CITY COUN"TT, OF HEARl EXAMINER'S DECISIONIRECO rENDA TION APPLICATION NAME Cz~\ Mel-.me.. '-kttG-S FILE NO. Lu&. 61-.C!\& The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recomm;~?i~~tpg~ Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated hVJ44~f Or '11-1-, 20~. AUG 23 2007 RECEIVED 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELI.,ANT: Name: J~Al..*" f!x(ZG\'T'\SG1S CITY CLERK'S OFfiCE'; REPRESENTATIVE (IF ANY): ~,z.o ,.>... ,-1:!5 Address: lOl. 1.Jes" t\~!.l "2~.r tlot-l(7(£.. W b.-'lb'2."l1.. Phone Number: 1;p 0 . 1 "l~. \'iL£::> Email: ftu. ... -r • ..Je..I4:..!A4-ML<.4k1'"wrs, c..ot"'\ Name: ____________________________ _ Address: __________________________ _ Phone Number: ______________________ _ Email: ____________________________ _ 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: Finding of Fact: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's Report) No. ~ Error: 7F'~€-~ Correction: ____________________________________________________ _ Conclusions: No. Error: ________________________________________________________ _ Correction: __________________________________________________ _ Other: No. Error: _______________________________________________ _ Correction: __________________________________________________ _ 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attach explanation, if desired) Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: Other: L App iantIRepresentative Signature Type!Printed Name 'OTE: Please refer to Title IV, Chapter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4-8-11 OF, for specific appeal procedures. City of Renton Municipal ~ 'e: Title rv, Chapter 8, Section 110 -Ap 4-8-IIOC4 The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 4-1-170, the fee schedule of 'the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-11OF: Appeals to City Council-Procedures L Time for Appeal: Unless a specific section or State law providing for review of decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court or any other body, any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the City Council, upon a form furnished by the City Clerk; within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. 2. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeaL .' 3. Opportunity to Provide Comment~: Other parties of record rnaysubmit letters in support of their positions within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeaL 4. Transmittal of Record to Council: Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the City Council all of the pertinent documents, including the written decision or recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report, the notice of appeal, and additional letters submitted by the parties. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-1982) 5. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held. by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the. City Council unless a showing is made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence could rioi reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required, the Council shall remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of additional evidence. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the applicant. In the absence of an entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, and a remand to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record be [are the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 4389, 1-25-1993) 6. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record, the Hearing Exami ncr's repon, the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties. 7. Findings and Conclusions Required: If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-050FI, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may remand the proceeding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly. 8. Council Action: If, upon appeal from a reconunendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-050F2 and F3, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, or that a recommendation of the·Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified, the City Council may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the application. 9. Decision Documentation: In any event, the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord 3658, 9-13-1982) 10. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving, modifying or rejecting a decision of the Examiner shall be final and concIusi ve, unless appealed within the time frames established under subsection 05 of this Section, (Ord, 4660, 3-17-1997) 8123/07 CITY OF RENTON Development Services Devision 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 (425) 430.7200 Fax. (425) 430.7231 Project Name: Grant Avenue Homes Project Description and Location: 1600 Grant Avenue South Subject: Hearing Examiner Report and Decision LVA-07-018, SA-A, ECF Notification of Appeal We are choosing to Appeal the decision that the buildings connot exceed the 35-foot height limit. Item 8 of the conclusions states" While this ofice could remand the application for further revie in this regaurd, the process has been delayed due to scheduling issues and it appears reasonaIble to scale the height down" While it is not a technical difficulty to change the pitch of the roof to bring the hight of the buIding down to meet the standard hight limit, We feel that it does adversly effect the asthetics of the project. Respectfully yours, Austin Kovach Kovach Architects August 23, 2007 Robin Jones 1626 Grant Avenue S, Ste. G-206 Renton, W A 98055 CIT Re: Grant Avenue Townhomcs Site Plan Appeals LUA 07-018, SA-A, ECF Dear Mr. Jones: ..IF RENTON Hearing Examiner Fred J. Kaufmau This office has reviewed your correspondence regarding this matter. Based ona review of the entire record this office finds no reason to alter its original decisions. The SEPA analysis was apprDpriate and based on the potential impacts of this development on the environment. There was apprDpriate review of geotechnical issues and traffic issues. The Site Plan was approved by the City and while this office reversed the City's requirement that the project be moved further from"its southern property line and that certain units be combined, nothing in the record reflects that the City decision approving the Site Plan was otherwise erroneous, An appeal of this decision may be taken to the City Council by paying a $75.00 fee and filing apprDpriate documents with the City Clerk within 14 days of this decision" Sincerely, b-lJK+- Fred J. KautnlJ Hearing Examiner FKlnt ee: Mark Barber, Senior Assistant City Attorney Jennifer Henning, Development Services Elizabeth Higgins, Development Services Sally Brick, K&L Gates Andrew Kovach, Kovach Architects Tridor, Inc. All Parties of Record ----lO:-:S--S--s-ou-th-Gr-a-dy-W-ay-,-R-e-nt-on-,-W-a-sh-in-g-to-n-9-8-05-S-,-(4-2-S)-4-3-0.-6S-[-5----"~ AHEAD OF THE CU~VE Hearing Examiner City of Renton lOSS South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Robin H. Jones 1626 Grant Ave S Apt # B203 Renton, WA 98055 RE; Response to Tridor Inc. 's, Post Hearing Brief Documents Grant Ave Town Houses: LAU-07-0IS, SA-A.ECF 1. OVERVIEW; 09 August 2007 In considering the Post Hearing Briefs on the Grant Avenue Town Homes Project submitted by Tridor, Inc. (Respondent) the Hearing Examiner must be consistent in his standards of review. The Respondent asks the Hearing Examiner to alternate between two opposing viewpoints. a. In the conclusion of the Administrative Site Plan Post Hearing Document the Respondent notes: "The Applicant committed nearly two years and considerable resources arriving at a site plan and project design that would conform with City Requirements and expectations and deliver an attractive, high-quality project that complements its surroundings. In the final hour, and based on a false actual premise, and inapplicable illegal provision, and/or the concerns of only one neighbor, the city changes the rules of the game and imposed a Setback Condition and fundamentally undermines the Project. The Setback Condition is unreasonable and unlawful and should be reversed. The implication presented is that Tridor Inc. was Dot in close communication with the City of Renton and was completely surprised by the action b. In the Environmental Site Plan Post Hearing Document the Respondent notes: "City Staff reviewed technical reports prepared by three professional consulting fnms hired by Tridor, Inc. (Tridor) to conducted evaluations of the Project proposal City staff worked with these consultants to define the cases of the studies". Page 4. I "The study scope for the Traffic reports was developed in coordination with the Development Engineering supervisor at the City of Renton" Page 4. "The technical analyses prepared by profession environmental consultants and reviewed by City staff" Page 9. The implication presented is that Tridor Inc. was in close communication with the City of Renton. c. The Respondent is selectively arguing that they were working in conjunction with City of Renton and then they were not. In reviewing the Post Hearing Briefwritten by the Respondent the Hearing Examiner must decide which viewpoint is correct and apply that standard to both Appeals_ 2. ENVIRONMENTAL APPEAL The Renton City Hearing Examiner under RCW 4-8-11 O.E. 7 may "affirm the decision or remand the case for further proceedings, or it may reverse the decision if the substantial rights of the applicant may have been prejudiced because the decision is ... " v. Clearly erroneous in view of the entire record as submitted; or. .. "iv. Arbitrary or capricious_ " As stated at the hearing, I do nol present myself as an expert, nor do I doubt the skills or experience of the consultants used_ What I presented are observations of local conditions and ongoing environmental issues that the City of Renton was not aware of when making their initial Environmental Determination_ In the Post Hearing Brief the Respondent does restate the credibility and results of the different studies, but they do not directly answer the two central issues of the environmental appeal. a. That the Traffic Engineer Study minimized potential issues associated with the physical properties ofthe road, in conjunction with actual year round conditions that were raised. The solutions presented were not realistic and are difficult to implement. The City of Renton when making the Environment Site Review was not aware of these conditions b. That the time of year and methodology of the Geological Study could hardly fail not to produce the positive results that are restated in the Post Hearing Brief. These results are not representative of the local conditions thru out the majority of the year. The City of Renton when making the Environment Site Review was not aware ofthese conditions. All environmental issue were not known at the time of the Environmental Site Review by the City of Renton and the Respondent has not directly addressed the issues raised at the Hearing. A new Environmental Site review is needed. 2 3. ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL The Hearing Examiner must begin his analysis of the Respondents appeal on the premise that the City of Renton is correct on all parts of the appeal and that the Respondent must address alI areas of the Administrative Site Plan Review. Additionally, the Hearing Examiner must ensure that the concerns of the impacted neighbors are not arbitrarily dismissed based on the Respondent's perception. a. The crux of the Respondent's arguments are based on a new site survey completed on July 01, 2007. The Hearing Examiner should view the new arguments as selective and singular in their approach, addressing only one part of the problem, but with no context to the whole. It does not address the Administrative Site Review in its entirety. Furthermore, it is exceptionally difficult to evaluate the accuracy or impact of the presented survey because there is no linkage to the overall Site plan, no linkage to the requested changes requested by the City of Renton to the detached four-plex, and it is difficult to discern the base reference points associated with the setback distances given. Lastly, RCW 44-8-060 (b) implies that changes to plans beyond a 10% mark should be considered new plans ... 'revisions requested by an applicant to a vested, but not yet approved, application shall be deemed a new application when such revisions would result in a substantial change in the basic site design plan, intensity, density, and the like, involving a change often percent (10%) or more in area or scale." The Hearing Examiner in reviewing the new information must determine whether the sites plan, with all this additional information, has become a new plan; beyond the scope of what was discussed at the public hearing. b. The Hearing Examiner should disregard the Respondent's assertion that there is only a "Lone Neighbor Opponent" involved. Clearly noted in all documents supporting these appeals are the parties of record, which include: 1. Charlie Wolf, 1708 SE 16th Place, Renton, WA 98055 2. Betty & Raymond Barry, 1625 Jones Drive SE, Renton, 98055 3. Cathy Joss 1626 Grant Avenue, B -103, Renton, 98055 Ms. Joss is the President of Heritage Village Association; the other two parties are the owners of the adjacent properties to the North of the proposed development. All neighboring parties to the proposed development are represented, alI parties have demonstrated interest in the development thm their parties of record request, and I am in communication with them all. The fact that only one person was at the Hearing Examiner's Hearing is reflections of the time of the hearing, during working hours, verse the level of interest and commitment. 3 4. CONCLUSION In reviewing the Post Hearing Briefs written by the Respondents the Hearing Examiner must decide whether Tridor Inc. has been working closely with the City of Renton or has diverged to their own plan. One viewpoint must be applied as the standard to both Appeals. I ask the Hearing Examiner to required a new Environmental Site Review, which would address the issues, raised in the Environmental Appeal, which were unknown by the City of Renton at the time, and which are unanswered by the Respondents Post Hearing Brief Additionally, I ask the Hearing Examiner to uphold the City of Renton's Administrative decisions because the Respondent's additional arguments are selective in nature and do not fully address all issues raised in the Administrative Review. The Respondent's appeal should be denied. Sincerely ~~ Robin H. Jones 4 REPORT AND DECISION APPELLANT: PUBLIC HEARING: OFFICE OF TDE DEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON Robin Jones 1626 Grant Avenue Renton, W A 98055 August 9, 2007 Grant Avenue Townhomes ERC Determination Appeal LUA-07-018, SA-A, ECF After reviewing the Appellant's written requests for a SEPA Appeal hearing and the Applicant and Appellant request an appeal hearing on the underlying site plan for the project, examining available information on file, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the June 26, 2007 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, June 26, 2007, at 9:48 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Exanriner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No.1: Yellow file and the inclusive Appeal Exhibit No.2: Power Point Presentation file containing the original appeal letter and other pertinent information. Exhibit No.3: Mark Jacobs, Traffic Engineer Exhibit No.4: Bill Taylor, Taylor Engineering Resume Consultants Resume Exhibit No.5: Drawing IE of Grant Ave Townhomes Exhibit No.6: Site Plan for Grant Ave Townhomes project (lD) Parties Present: Mark Barber, Senior Assistant City Attorney Elizabeth Higgins, Development Services Sally Brick, Attorney for Applicant, 925 4th Avenue, Seattle, W A 98104 Robin Jones, Appellant, 1626 Grant Avenue S., Apt. B-203, Renton, WA 98055 Robin Jones stated that he is arguing on two points in terms ofthe Environmental; first the ERC failed to correctly impose conditions to mitigate impacts related to the project on the traffic at the entrance. This is a Grant Avenue Townhomes Ai LUA-07-018 SA-A, ECF August 9, 2007 Page 2 tough site plan that leads to a very narrow entrance, the traffic analysis was based on 25 MPH, which sign has been in place for a long time and most likely does not reflect the real traffic conditions. There has been a great deal of development and 25 MPH is not the realistic speed that is happening on that road. The issue is not traffic, but traffic is part of the problem. As you travel south on Grant Avenue the road curves and the entrance to the project is just behind the curve. The study itself recognizes that there are some stopping issues at the 25 MPH, which probably is not the speed of most vehicles on that road. The mitigation plan gets no better if you cut the vegetation, that vegetation is not on any land that is controlled by the applicant. The mitigation plan is not realistic and he would ask that a new traffic study be done. The second part of the environmental appeal is that the ERC failed to describe accurately the project and the impacts. The ERC did not understand the issues that Heritage Village is facing, nor did they accurately describe the project because they did not receive the full information from the plan. There currently are ground water issues at Heritage Village. The study that was done for this site did not look at the overall conditions, they picked a very optimistic location and time to do some of the tests. Initially Heritage was the sole property On that road, Steeple Chase was built to the south in the last five years. Since that time, Heritage has had significant drainage problems, about 18-months ago a spring came up on the south side. Is seems that Once the property is built, no one wants to deal with issues, their plan is to raise issue before the property is built. They have been working with the City of Renton, the water has been tested, it is definitely not from a broken pipe, they are working on a solution, which consists of putting in a $5,000 French Drain, this would be the third one on the property. The parking lot is starting to shift and sink into the ground, the road was resurfaced in 2005 and there are cracks already in the middle of the roadway. To the north side there is a lot of standing water. The groundwater testing was done in May with validation in August, not the wettest months of the year. The location for the test pit was near a house, on high ground. Approximately three weeks prior to the test pits being dug, there was standing water on the property next door, the tests were not done in that area. They would like to have the test pit done again in a more rainy time of year, and a location that is more realistic to what it is going to impact. Mr. Barber had no questions. Ms. Brick inquired as to Mr. Jones expertise. Mr. Jones stated that he is not a registered professional civil engineer, traffic engineer or an expert in any capacity. However both his parents are geologists and he has grown up with years of geological knowledge. The City reached its conclusions after receiving many technical analyses prepared by professional environmental consultants for the applicant. The traffic study, geotechnical study and drainage study were reviewed by the respective departments at the City of Renton. Mr. Jones is appealing the mitigated DNS-M, but offers only unsupported lay opinions and generalized complaints, they cannot meet the heavy burden of proof to demonstrate that the DNS-M is clearly erroneous. The appeal should therefore be denied. Mark Jacobs, 7731 8th Ave SW, Seattle, W A 98106, stated that he is a Traffic Engineer and gave a detailed statement on how he completed his report on this project. All information was given to him by the architect for the applicant, he then contacted Kayren Kittrick at the City to identify the things they were interested in seeing in a traffic study. The major concern was sight lines at the site access. They looked at the possibility of relocating the access, the proposed access is going to provide the best stopping sight distance to and from the north and south. It meets the criteria for the posted 25 MPH as well as 30 MPH. He did recommend pruning some of the vegetation, some of the vegetation is actually within the 3D-feet of right-of-way. It has been fairly well kept by the City of Renton, they may have the ability to remove even more of the vegetation after speaking with Puget Sound Energy. Grant Avenue Townhomes Ap. LUA-07-018 SA-A, ECF August 9, 2007 Page 3 Parking could occur in the future and he would suggest that parking restrictions be placed within 30 feet of the access point Mr. Jones stated that Mr. Jacobs is very well qualified, however, he is trying to bring in is an understanding of the local environment Mr. Jacobs stated that nighttime conditions are actually easier because there are headlights on vehicles and the vehicles can be seen from a greater distance than during daylight hours. The City of Renton has done a great job in maintaining vegetation, must better than some of the other agencies he has dealt with. Mr. Barber had no questions. Bill Taylor, PO Box 1787, Issaquah, WA 98027 stated his qualifications for the record. He was asked to do some site inspections and evaluations regarding water drainage. The analysis that was prepared concluded that it is a fairly standard sloping site and there are moisture issues. The topography does not slope towards the appellant's property, the Heritage property, rather this project tends to slope down to the roadway to the west where there is a natural draw that conveys the water from the general vicinity and further on to the west. He did not feel that the drainage would cause more problems to the Heritage property. There are two separate terms, standing water, which is surface water and ground water is sub-surface water. Ground water can come to the surface through a spring and that may very well be occurring on the Heritage property. That water is not the same that is on this property. Code requires that all water be discharged to the same place it was going prior to the development of the property. There was a question about the date on the TIR is the date of submittal, not the date of the inspection. Mr. Jones iIlqurrediTMr. Taylor was aware'ofanyofthedrainageprohTemSthifHeriiage was liaVing wlietiffie plan for this site was prepared? Mr. Taylor stated that it was not part of their scope to explore drainage problems, they do solicit drainage problems that are on file with the City. The Heritage property was not explored in any detail due to it being uphill and not something that this project would impact. The inspection was not to evaluate the ground water, Mr. Jones may be referring to the Nelson Geotechnical Investigation that was not done by Mr. Taylor's company. They did walk the site after the site had been cleared, and a visual confirmation of the survey was done. The survey is much more accurate and is based on field measurements and elevations throughout the site. This inspection was done during the summer months. Ms. Brick summed up the testimony and stated that the geotechnical report stated that there were minor to moderate amounts of ground water at shallow digs and it was their opinion that the ground water they found did not represent a regional ground water table. The SEP A Appeal Hearing closed at 10:50 am. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The appellant, Robin Jones, filed an appeal of a decision by the Environmental Review Connnittee (ERC). The appeal was filed in a timely manner. Grant Avenue Townhomes Ap LUA-07-018 SA-A, ECF August 9, 2007 Page 4 2. The City reviewed the proposed Grant Avenue Townhomes, a 36-unit, multiple family complex proposed for 1600 Grant Avenue SE. 11,e City issued a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M). 3. The complex would be located immediately north and adjacent to Heritage Village Condominiums where the appellant resides and 0"118 a unit. 4. The appellant alleges that the DNS-M was inadequate and that the threshold determination was deficient. The allegations were that: The review failed to consider serious drainage and groundwater problems and particularly the additional impervious surfaces adding to drainage problems at Heritage Village Condominiums. The geotechnical evaluation was based on old, dated information, failed to account for newer developments in the area, is conclusionary and again, fails to address groundwater problems on adjacent property. The determination relies of faulty assumptions regarding groundwater and seismic activity. The traffic study is inadequate and suggests inadequate mitigation for sight distance problems for the entrance to the proposal -pmning vegetation not controlled by the underlying applicant. The appellant suggests that alternative proposals be considered to lessen or limit the impact of development on the environment and that the DNS-M be rescinded. 5. The appellant noted that the 25 mph speed limit used in the traffic analysis was not realistic and the traffic study did not recognize the whole picture. He is concerned that the curve in the road near the new entrance would create stopping and turning issues since most cars do not travel the 25 mph limit. The proposed mitigation measure was to trim vegetation in the vicinity of the curve/entrance and the appellant did not believe that was sufficient and the vegetation is not property controlled by the developer. 6. The appellant noted that his complex has suffered serious and expensive storm drainage problems. A French drain has been required and the parking lot is shifting and sinking. He attributed many of these problems to newer development in the area since his complex has been there for quite some time and did not suffer issues until more recent development occurred. He noted that there are standing water issues on the north side of his complex, the side where the new development would occur. The appellant alleged that the test pits were done in May and validated in August and should have occurred in wetter months. 7. The traffic engineer for the applicant's project testified that he used information about the project, the roadways and input from the City to determine what areas to emphasize. The City suggested "sight lines" would be an issue. Two main issues were the stopping sight distance and the entering sight distance. They measured the sight distance and explored moving the entrance but found the proposed location provided the best "stopping distance sight lines" both north and south. The sight distance met the criteria for both the posted 25 mph limit and for a 30 mph speed, which exceeded the posted limit. He noted that some of the vegetation is within the right-of-way and could be trimmed. He also noted that the sight distance is appropriate even if vegetation is not pmned. He expected the City could contact Puget Power to maintain additional vegetation. He also noted that nighttime situations should be better since headlights increase the distance at which vehicles generally see each other. Grant Avenue Townhomes App LUA·07·018 SA·A, ECF August 9,2007 Page 5 8. The person responsible for the drainage report and permit documents testified that the site is a fairly standard sloping site. The site slopes generally to the west and not toward the south, Heritage Village, where the appellant resides. The design ofthe proposed detention system will collect stormwater, using curbs, gutters to direct the flow to a detention vault. The water will then be released to its natural discharge point, which is not toward Heritage Village. Solving current issues on'the Heritage Village site is not part of the scope of their analysis and since the Heritage site is uphill from the subject site it was not an issue. CONCLUSIONS: 1. 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 erroneous." (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 will not be modified or reversed if it can meet the above test. For reasons enumerated below, the decision of the ERC is affirmed. 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 SEP A 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" testis 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: 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." Grant Avenue Townhomes A I LUA-07-D18 SA-A, ECF August 9, 2007 Page 6 Probable. "Probable" means likely or reasonably likely to occur, ... Probable is used to distinguish likely impacts from those that merely have a possibility of oecuning, 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 197-11-060(4)(c)). Impacts include those effects resulting from growth caused by a proposal, as wel1 as the likelihood that the present proposal will serve as precedent for future actions. (WAC 197-11-060(4)(d)). 7. The appellant has failed to demonstrate the information compiled for the traffic analysis, specifical1y, the sight distance to and from the proposed driveway was not adequately addressed and for the stormwater aspects of the project, specifical1y, stormwater impacts on his residence was not adequately reviewed. 8. The traffic assessment involved gleaning from the City the main issues, finding that sight distance was a major concern and measuring, reviewing and assessing the sight distance for entering and stopping vehicles from a new driveway along Grant A venue. The assessment found that at the posted speed and at 5 mph over that speed, the sight distances were adequate. The review found even if pruning of certain vegetation near existing curves were not accomplished, sight distance was still adequate. 9. Similarly, the stormwater analysis does not reveal any deficits regarding the handling of stormwater for this project. While the complex the appellant resides in does apparently suffer from either groundwater or surface water problems, the proposal is not expected to exacerbate any of those issues nor is it required to address issues on the adjacent property. The stormwater information shows that stormwater reaching the subject site will be appropriately channeled by curbs and gutters and detained in a suitable vault for appropriate release at its nalural point of discharge. The point of discharge should not affect the appellant's residence or complex due to the fact that Heritage Vil1age sits higher than the subject site. 10. The appel1ant has not provided any meaningful proof that the ERC decision was wrong. 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 firm conviction that a mistake has been made. This office was not left with a firm conviction that the ERC made a mistake. The appellant has the burden of demonstrating the ERC's determination was erroneous and the appellant has failed in meeting that burden. I L The appealing party has a burden that was not met in the instant case. The decision of the ERC must be affirmed. DECISION: The decision of the ERC is affirmed. ORDERED THIS 9'h day of August 2007. HEARING EXAMINER Grant Avenue Townhomes Ap. LUA-07-01S SA-A, ECF August 9, 2007 Page 7 1RANSMITTED THIS 9th day of August 2007 to the parties of record: Mark Barber Senior Assistant City Attorney City of Renton Robin Jones 1626 Grant Ave Renton, WA Elizabeth Higgins Development Services City of Renton Andrew Kovach Kovach Architects 10 1 West Main Street TRANSMITTED THIS 9 th day of August 2007 to the following: Sally Brick K&LGates 925 4th Ave, Ste. 2900 Seattle, W A 98104 Sarah E. McDonald PO Box 1825 Mayor Kathy Keolker Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services King County Journal Mark Peterson, Fire Marshal Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transportation Division Utilities Division Neil Watts, DeVelopment Services Janet Conklin, Development Services Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100Gof the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be fIled in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., August 23. 2007. 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 S, 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 .. August 23. 2007. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contalns 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 ofthe 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. August 9, 2007 OFFICE OF THE BEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPELLANTS: PUBLIC HEARING: Robin Jones 1626 Grant A venue Renton, W A 98055 Andrew S. Kovach, Representing Tridor Inc. Kovach Architects to 1 West Main St. Monroe, W A 98272 Grant Avenue Townhomes Site Plan Appeals LUA-07-018, SA-A, ECF After reviewing the Appellant's written requests for a SEPA Appeal hearing and the Applicant and Appellant request an appeal hearing on the underlying site plan for the project, examining available information on file, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the June 26, 2007 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, June 26, 2007, at 10:50 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: Yellow file and the inclusive Appeal Exhibit No.2: Andrew Kovach Resume file containing the original appeal letter and other pertinent information by reference Exhibit No.3: Exhibit IE, Drawing of Grant Avenue Exhibit No.4: Exhibit ID, Site Plan for Grant Avenue Townhomes project Townhomes Exhibit No.5: Exhibit IF and I G Exhibit No.6: Photograph oftri-unit with attached single unit Exhibit No.7: Preliminary Site Plan Exhibit No.8: Heritage Village Site Plan Exhibit No.9: Aerial of actual site at built in 1986 Parties Present: Mark Barber, Senior Assistant City Attorney Grant Avenue Townhomes API LUA-07-018, SA-A, ECF August 9 2007 Page 2 Elizabeth Higgins, Development Services Sally Brick, Attorney for Applicant, 925 4th Avenue, Seattle, W A 98104 Robin Jones, Appellant, 1626 Grant Avenue S., Apt. B-203, Renton, WA 98055 Andrew Kovach, Representing Tridor, Inc., 101 West Main St. Monroe, WA 98272 Sally Brick stated that this project was custom designed for this specific lot. The designs are more than what is normally seen in developments of the same category. In the City's decision they acknowledged that the architectural details creates a visually interesting structure that would make a positive contribution to the physical condition and visual experience of the neighborhood. This project does not max out the site and while it is a more attractive development than could be built on this lot it also is not the biggest development that could be put on this lot. It is less than the maximum density, less than the maximum site coverage and less than the maximum pervious surface coverage. Its height is seven and a half feet less than the City could approve during the site plan review. The project applicant and their architects have worked with the staff to come up with a project that looks at emergency exits, building envelopes, road width and on-site parking. Over time the number of units was reduced from 39 to 36. When the decision was returned there was one condition, which required the south side setback to be increased from the standard 13-feet to 25-feet. This would require a floor plan reduction of approximately 11,070 square feet which is 34% less than what was in the original plans. They are also appealing condition 2, the triplex condition, which requires the triplex unit which is attached to a single unit by a breezeway with a common roofto become a four-plex unit According to the SEPA conditions, there are three parts to their argument; first the City has relied on a code provision that applies in situations where the abutting property is in a less intense zone. In this case the abutting property is in the same zone. After talking to the City, they now say it was an error to rely on that code provision and now agree with the applicant. Now they say they had discretion under a more general criteria. Their primary argument is that there is no legal basis for going beyond the standard setback. Second, even if the City did have discretion to do this, they can only impose reasonable conditions. This condition is unreasonable because it dramatically alters the scope of the project. Third, these allegations are not supported by the facts and therefore do not justifY the condition. The City's Report and Decision states that they have relied on the code provision that state the setback provisions for residential multi-family specifY that side yard setbacks should be 12-feet for a property this wide and because it is a 3-story development, one additional foot would be added, a 13-foot side yard setback is required. Further in the code there is a provision that expressly applies to residential multi-family developments. It states that properties abutting a less intense residential zone may be required to incorporate special design standards, which includes larger setbacks. It was her understanding after speaking with Mr. Barber, that they now agree that that provision is not a good basis for the setback. The Examiner asked Mr. Barber if the City no longer was relying on RMC 4-2-IIOF, who stated that that was an error and was the wrong citation. The City will not be relying on that particular citation. Grant Avenue Townhomes A al LUA-07-018, SA-A, ECF August 9 2007 Page 3 Ms. Brick continued by stating that Mr. Barber had given her more citations that they will now be relying on in their case. These citations appear to be more generic in their overall site plan review criteria. Mr. Barber stated that the City is now relying on RMC 4-9-200A and E. Ms. Brick with the change there is a new basis [or the setback conditions. The project was designed with those in mind, it was designed to address impacts to neighbors, privacy, visual effects, all of which have been addressed. These provisions do not appear to justify or give the City a legal basis for nearly doubling a setback. Can the City under some general discretion cut the height in half, can they cut by half the site coverage, where does this begin and end. The Examiner stated that zoning law in this state has more recently been subject to SEPA requirements. This overly of SEPA does actually give the City discretion to deny a project that would otherwise meet all the zoning planning requirements. Ms. Brick replied that there is a place in the code where the discretion is specifically limited to circumstances where the adjacent zone is less intense. That does not apply here. Site plan review is all about looking at the overall picture, whether that allows a setback to be nearly doubled is quite another matter. The code sets out several examples of the types of conditions that are appropriately applied to the site plan review. One of those places is RMC 4-9-200G.J5c. Doubling this setback requires a loss in square footage of 678 square feet in eleven of the units, 722 square feet in another 5 units. That equates to a loss in project value of over 2 million dollars. There would have to be unique circumstances that provide a basis for imposing conditions over and above what otherwise might apply. The rationale that the City has relied upon, privacy, light, and visual impact, in this two- year process the applicant and the architects went through developing this project, they were working with the City to address all the issues so that the project did meet the site plan criteria. Andrew Kovach, Kovach Architects, 101 W Main Street, Monroe, WA 98272 stated that he is a licensed architect in Washington, with a degree in Landscape Architecture and has been in private practice since 1986. He is the design architect for this particular project. The site was challenging, the units are larger than typical in this area, there is below building parking. TIle site gently slopes to the east with a 12% slope. There have been lots of challenges with setbacks and getting the drainage to work. They have tried to create a project that fits into a neighborhood and looks like single-family homes. They have tried to make the site more livable, they have added more trees for privacy, boulevard plantings on both sides of the street as well as a lot of design elements on the buildings. The buildings have an Arts and Crafts look to them. They have worked on this project for over two years. Special features have been added to help soften this project to the development to the south. The back of each unit has as much detail as the front of the units. Using Exhibits IF and IG he showed how the setbacks would affect the units and how it would affect the usability of the unit itself. On the first floor, the den could be removed without any problems, however, on the second floor the additional setback requirement would take 90% of the main living space. The kitchen, dining and living areas and access to the upper level need to be there. The unit would be left with a substandard living space. It would not meet code for light, ventilation, and open area. If the units were reconfigured, there would be a possibility of building a 700 square foot unit on three floors, which would be financially unfeasible to approach. The center unit could be reconfigured to be more compact and would lose two ofthe upstairs bedrooms leaving the center unit a single bedroom unit. The minute the features begin to be reduced, the market sell price goes down and that would have a huge effect on the project. Grant Avenue Townhomes Ap LUA-07-018, SA-A, ECF August 9 2007 Page 4 They believed that per the code they would be allowed to have a single unit, City staff disagreed. They thought if they did a connection, it could be called part of the same building, which is what they did. They were trying to avoid doing a fourplex, it becomes a much larger building and too imposing. They would like to have it remain as a single unit and not be combined as a fourplex. Trying to resolve the issue with the City it was their suggestion that the two units be connected with a common roof. Ms. Brick stated that she had a letter from a licensed realtor that states their official opinion that this project would increase the values of homes in the general area. Mr. Barber cross-examined Mr. Kovach who stated that a preliminary site plan was done by their firm, and that the units on the south side show a setback of at least 25' or more. The initial site plan was done in schematic design stage that was an offering of what the project could be. As they worked on the project, criteria become more evident, aspects of that original plan led to the plan before us today. They cannot go back to that original plan due to the loss of parking and the square footage of the units, it was a much different project. They were required to make adjustments to the original site plan due to fire access turnaround was in an inappropriate place. At that point units were lost and so they moved forward. It was true that on the original plan, at least six units were able to be located in such a position that a setback of 25' or more was applied. Today's plan is a better plan. The City does believe this is a good project, there is just a disagreement on certain issues. In a pre-application conference a memorandum was submitted and stated that the applicant is cautioned that modifications may be made by official decision makers (Hearing Examiner, Zoning Administrator, Board of Adjustment, Board of Public Works and City Council). It further stated that review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes required by City staff or made by the applicant. The unusualness of this memorandum would be related to the timing. The initial site plan was submitted in 2005 and the site plan before us today was submitted in February of 2007. They had made several attempts for the application to be accepted over the course of a six-month period. That site plan had been discussed with the City and numerous changes were required. After working very close with the City the site plan was accepted. Rearranging these units on the site is just not attainable. Mr. Kovach described why the current site plan is as it is today, stating lack of parking as a major issue, they wanted parking for residents, guests, and Emergency vehicles. Upon questioning by Mr. Barber. Mr. Kovach stated south of this parcel is the Heritage Village Condominiums where Mr. Jones resides, to the north of this parcel is the BPA Easement, an area where there can be no construction, it is for power access only. Mr. Kovach thought it was a good idea to move the entire project to the north and leave the correct setback to the south, but in all likelihood, he didn't think it was possible. The Examiner stated that the triplex, it is the City's case, but he would like to know a little more about the City's arguments. Mr. Barber stated that the RM-F zone does not allow for single residences. Elizabeth Higgins stated that the RM-F zone does not allow a detached dwelling, which is a single-family residence or one family one-unit structure. What is allowed in the RM-F zone are attached dwellings. The problem is the definition of "attached". An attached dwelling is one or more one-family dwellings attached with common roofs, walls or floors. (from RMC 4-11-040 Definitions) This is a common roof, whether a roof ofa breezeway was intended to be defined equally with a roof of a structure, it is not articulated clearly. Grant Avenue Townhomes A al LUA-07-018, SA-A, ECF August 9 2007 Page 5 The plan for Heritage Village was approved by the City of Renton, the north boundary of Heritage Village is the south boundary ofthe Grant Avenue project. The units are canted slightly with the parking almost reaching the property line. The aerial photograph of the area appears to show that Heritage Village was closer to its north property boundary than allowed because there are no setbacks shown. The boundaries on an aerial photograph may not be accurate. A survey was submitted by the applicant, which shows the north edge of the asphalt parking lots (that are seen on the aerial) are along the boundary lines. The units are closer to the ends of the parking lots than were proposed. For some reason, the Heritage project was not built with the setback from the north property line that is shown on the plan. It is quite a bit closer to the north property boundary. This raises concerns as to where the Grant Avenue property would be constructed if it were only 13-feet from the property line. There were at least two errors in the staff report; first was on page 5 of 16, Section C, the code citation should have been RMC 4-9-200. The citation was \\Tong, however, the criterion was correct. Secondly, on page II of 16, which states "the discretion available when two projects are abutting one another and one is in a lower density zone than the other", that was not an applicable citation to use in this instance. The Examiner asked if doubling the setback for this project was necessary? Ms. Higgins stated that the alternative, wh"n looking at either the existing development or the proposed project, would be mitigated by this project alone and the answer would have to be no. The alternative to denying the project would be to provide the relief of the larger setback. The Examiner stated that the trees that are in existence and the additional ones that are to be planted seem to be providing an acceptable buffer. Is there anything being added with the additional setback distance when the trees buffer the space between the two projects. Upon questioning by Mr. Barber, Mr. Robin Jones stated that with regard the light, shading, air and privacy they are actually talking about fourteen units out of a 30-unit association, that are being affected by this new construction. It is profound, the areas affected are not bedrooms, they are the living rooms, dining rooms and kitchens, which are north facing and the impact of losing light is profound. There are problems with the boundaries, they have been aware of that from the association. Having a wall of buildings thirteen feet away will have profound impact on the light, a fence will have impact on the lower levels. Upon questioning by Ms. Brick. Mr. Jones stated that the windows on the south and west sides of the buildings in Heritage Village are the bedrooms. The trees outside are on the lower level windows for the living areas and they do block some light to the upper and lower levels, but not solidly as a building would. Closing argunnents were given by: Ms. Brick stated that the key basis articulated in the staff report regarding the setback condition has now been withdrawn. The City has alluded to some further general provisions and made no attempt to describe how those provisions give them discretion to nearly double any standard setback. This does raise the question about where the City's discretion begins and ends. The development standards must mean something and if this general language can authorize the City in the final hour, at the end of a more than two year process, that involves considerable expense to develop a project, to double the setback provision, it raises the question about what else they can do to the site plan review at other development stages. It does not appear that the City has a legal basis for imposing specific conditions of the site plan review that nearly doubles the standard setback in the zone where the abutting zone is exactly the same zone. Grant Avenue Townhomes API LUA-07-0IS, SA-A, ECF August 9 2007 Page 6 Even if there was a legal basis for doing this, the impacts of lighting, air and privacy have already been addressed in the project design and in the existing features of the site. This condition amounts to a significant limitation to the development that is otherwise permitted by the code. The code requires that site plan conditions be reasonable, this condition is not reasonable and it should be repealed. Finally on the triplex condition there are instances where the code may not specifically address the situation but does afford an opportunity to devise a structure that meets the technical definition. That is what has been done here under the advisement of the City. To change it would involve additional expense and would not add anything, in fact it would detract from the visual standards. Mr. Barber stated that the appellant has a heavy burden to overturn the City's decision, they must show that it was clearly erroneous or arbitrary and capricious. The City's decision is entitled to substantial weight, he quoted from Renton Municipal Code 4-1-090.C. The next issue is in regards to the pre-application memo, the applicant was cautioned that there could be modifications that could occur from subsequent decision makers and also that there could be revisions to their potential site plan and other design changes required by City staff. It further indicated that the comments on development and permitting issues would be based upon codes in effect at the date of review. RMC 4-9-200. A & E were adopted by ordinance and subsequently amended well before the time period of this application being filed for development. Both parcels are in the RMF zone. Looking at the development standards, it is almost as if what's occurring is a discussion that if you meet the minimum that is all that is required, there is no more review or discussion that can occur. Regarding setbacks, the code (RMC 4-2-110 F) states "minimum side yard", The Examiner commented that over the two-year period, doubling the setback substantially changes the design of these buildings. A den does not get removed along with two bedrooms and maybe a kitchen depending on the orientation of the building, without expecting the site plan to go through a substantial reorganization or renovation. It seems that there should have been a hint of this change prior to the final site plan. It seems to have taken the applicant/appellant by surprise. Mr. Barber stated that he could not speak to that issue, there is no testimony from the City's side on that issue in the record. However, the code further talks about purpose and intent and how that affects the site plan review stage. The site plan process is the detail management of project elements, with an additional purpose to ensure quality development. Policy LU 188 was cited, it talks about evaluating project proposals in residential multi- family designations to consider the transition to lower density uses where multi-family sites abut lower density zones. It further states that taller buildings, greater than two stories, should have larger side yard setbacks. By requiring the 25-foot setback, the City is complying with the site plan review process as mandated by the Renton Municipal Code in that it is following the Comprehensive Plan objectives and policies that are specified and referred to specifically in RMC 4-9-200 A and RMC 4-9-200 E. Ms. Brick further stated that the Comprehensive Plan is a guide and not a document designed for making specific land use decisions. Mr. Jones stated that he was not able to view the full plan until just a few days ago, his arguments are more of a general nature. The general concern comes from the overall project, this piece ofland has been up for sale a number of times and they have known that a development would eventually be built on the site. The focus appears to be how to get the most bang for the buck on this piece of property. The scope narrows and the neighbors next door go by the wayside. He would argue that the increased setback is not reasonable to the appellant because it turns it into a bad business deal. It has been argued that there is no impact here, there is an arant Avenue Townhomes A ,,1 LUA-07-018, SA-A, ECF August 9 2007 Page 7 impact, a 3-story building 13-feet away from our homes does create impacts, light, sight, views, and air. There is no guarantee that they will not be able to look into each other's living room. They have argued that this will be great because his property values will go up, he disagrees, perhaps if they were building single family homes, but condo properties are based on the price of what the last units sold for, it doesn't matter what is next door, or how fancy it is, it is based on the selling price of the last unit sold. The greater worry is that his property values will go down, there are water problems in Heritage Village, he will have a less desirable piece of property to sell because he has a giant condo looking into his home, there is a muddy trench behind his home because he has lost the light. He has a reasonable expectation to be able to maintain the same lifestyle as he had prior to this new construction. He does appreciate what the City is doing. He quoted from the Code provisions previously cited in this hearing. 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 I: II pm. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: I. The appellants, Robin Jones for himself and Andrew S. Kovach for Tridor, Inc, filed appeals of an administrative decision approving a Site Plan for the Grant Avenue Homes. 2. Andrew S. Kovach (hereinafter Kovach) represents the applicant for the proposal. 3. The appellant Robin Jones (hereinafter Jones) owns a condominium unit on the adjacent property to the south and resides in that unit. 4. The appeals were filed in a timely manner. 5. Jones indicates that the very limited lot layout and awkward lot size results in high density buildings being too close to the common property line between Heritage and other properties and the Grant Avenue development. 6. Kovach, representing the applicant objected to two conditions imposed as a result of the Site Plan review process. There is an objection to: Condition 2: The site plan shall be revised to show the southeast triplex and detached unit as one fourplex structure. Revised plans must be submitted and shall be subject to review and approval of the Development Services Division project manager prior to issuance of building pennits. Condition 4: The site plan shall be revised, by reducing the size of the floor plans if necessary, to increase the south side yard building setback to a minimum of 25 feet where buildings 8 through 12 would be located. Revised plans must be submitted and shall be subject to review and approval of the Development Services Division project manager prior to issuance of building permits. Grant Avenue Townhomes Ap LUA-07-018, SA-A, ECF August 9 2007 Page 8 7. Jones noted that 14 units would be affected by the proximity of the proposal to Heritage Village. The living areas such as living room, dining room and kitchen face the north or common property line. The loss of light would be profound according to him. He did testify that the trees probably block some light, too, but not as significantly as the proposed buildings. 8. Kovach objected to the almost doubling of the required 13-foot setback to 25 feet. There was also the objection that this project had been subject to ongoing City review and adjustments and that this significant increase in setback would entirely alter the project at this late date. It was noted that the reduction in area due to the increased setback would be approximately 11,070 square feet or approximately a 34% reduction and this breaks out to be approximately 678 square feet in each of II units and 722 square feet in each of 5 additional units. The appellant/applicant indicated that this would be a substantial loss in terms of economics making the project infeasible. 9. The density of the neighboring Heritage Village is 16.16 dwelling units per acre as opposed to the proposed density for the subject development at 17.06 dwelling units per acre. 10. The subject site is located in the RM-F zone. Heritage Village is also in the RM-F zone. II. The RM-F zone requires a 20-foot front yard setback and 20 feet is proposed. Code requires 12 feet of side yard setback for lots III feet wide or wider and one additional foot for a 3rd story. This 158 foot wide lot would have to provide a side yard setback of 13 feet, which is what is proposed. A 15-foot rear yard is required and is proposed. 12. The building height permitted is 35 feet and 3 stories and with special amenities it may be 45 feet tall. The proposed height is 37 feet 3 inches or 2 feet 3 inches (2.25 feet) above the normally permitted height. Staff suggested increasing the south side setback along with the project's design featnres would allow the taller building. 13. Lot coverage may be 35 percent and 33 percent has been proposed. Impervious service cannot exceed 75 percent and 70 percent has been proposed. 14. The Staff Report addresses the two areas of concern raised by Kovach. They are: Page II of 16: "Site plan review affords the opportunity to require increased setbacks where proposed projects abut "a less intense residential zone" (RMC 4-2-11 OF). Although the density is comparable between the abutting projects, the mass and bulk of the Grant Avenue Homes is significantly greater than, and not compatIble with, the Heritage Village structnres. Staff recommends, therefore, that the site plan be revised, by reducing the size of the floor plans if necessary, to increase the south side yard building setback to a minimum of 25 feet where buildings 8 through 12 would be located. In addition, the detailed landscape plan shall indicate sufficient landscaping at locations where buildings of the two developments face each other to provide partial building screening, without light blockage, at maturity of vegetation. The detailed landscape plan must show the building and window locations on the abutting property in order to demonstrate this goal would be met. The proposed height of the Grant Avenue Homes (43 feet II inches to roof peak) would be considerably taller than the existing 2 story structnres of Heritage Village. Grant Avenue Townhomes, 'al LUA-07-018, SA-A, ECF August 9 2007 Page 9 This situation would also be mitigated somewhat by the wider setback." Page 2 of 16 "Thirty-six units would be constructed as a duplex (building #7), I 0 triplex buildings (#1-6 and 8-11), and a fourplex building (#12) [Exhibit 4]. Submittal information items refer to both a "single unit building" (Site Access I Traffic hnpact Fee Analysis Report) and fourplex (Site Data, sheet A I). The unites) in question appear on the site plan as a triplex connected to a single, detached unit by a breezeway. This is not a recognized unit type by the City of Renton. Single-family detached units are not permitted in the RM-F zone. Staff recommends that the "single" unit be either eliminated or added to the triplex to create a fourplex structure. This shall be a condition of the site plan approval." 15. The following defmition referring to attached multiple family dwellings is applicable to this decision: 4-11-040 Definitions D: "DWELLING, MULTI-FAMILY: Dwelling, Attached: A one-family dwelling attached to one or more one-family dwellings by common roofs, walls, or floors. This definition may also include a dwelling unit or units attached to garages or other nonresidential uses. This definition does not include retirement residences, boarding and lodging houses, accessory dwelling units, adult family homes, group home r or group home II as defined herein." 16. Apparently, the City became aware that its citation ofRMC 4-2-1 \OF addressing abutting projects where one is in "a less intense residential zone" was inapplicable in this case since both projects are in the same RM-F Zone. The City then decided to rely on Section 4-9-200, and more probably 4-9- 200(A)(2)(6): "To protect neighboring owners and uses by assuring that reasonable provisions have been made for such matters as sound and sight buffers, light and air, and those other aspects of site plans which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses." CONCLUSIONS: 1. The appellant has the burden of demonstrating that the decision of the City Official was either in error, or was otherwise contrary to law or constitutional provisions, or was arbitrary and capricious (Section 4- 8-11O(E)(7)(b). The appellant Kovach has demonstrated that the action of the City should be reversed in the main. The appellant Jones has not shown the decision approving the project should be reversed. The decision is modified only in respect to the permitted height of the complex. Due to the general issues raised by the proximity of the two complexes, the proposal shall be restricted to the Code permitted height and not be allowed to attain additional height. The proposed height is 37 feet 3 inches or 2 feet 3 inches above the normally permitted height and it shall be reduced to 35 feet. 2. Arbitrary and capricious action has been defined as willful and unreasoning action in disregard of the facts and circumstances. A decision, when exercised honestly and upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances, is not arbitrary or capricious (Northern Pacific Transport Co. v Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, 69 Wn. 2d 472, 478 (1966). Grant Avenue Townhomes API LUA-07-018, SA-A, ECF August 9 2007 Page 10 3. An action is likewise clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing body, on the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. (Ancheta v Daly, 77 Wn. 2d 255, 259 (1969). An appellate body should not necessarily substitute its judgment for the underlying agency with expertise in a matter unless appropriate. 4. Other than the height increase for the buildings of2 feet 3 inches that staff approved subject to the increased south, side yard setback, which should not be approved, the appellant Jones has not demonstrated that staff made a mistake. The two properties have the same zoning and their densities are generally comparable. The impacts of multiple-family housing on similar multiple-family housing are not unique, unexpected or untoward. There are already a row of tightly planted trees that shade Jones property or screen the view so that the view to the north is not expansive at this time. Jones did not carry the burden necessary to show any clearly erroneous decision making. 5. On the other hand, appellant Kovach for the applicant has demonstrated that the City action was mistaken. There does not appear to be any justification for almost doubling the code mandated minimum setback in this case from 13 feet to 25 feet. As noted above, the two properties bear the same zoning category, RM-F. That zone allows a density of up to 20 units per acre, allows buildings to have \3 foot side yards unless there is less intense zoning on the adjacent property, allows greater lot coverage and greater impermeable area than is proposed. The property could support 42 units whereas the appellant Kovach has proposed 36 units. The two properties share almost identical densities. The proposed housing may be taller, permitted in the zone, but it is not more dense than its neighbor. 6. When a community adopts zoning that permits more density, urban-scale density, there are consequences and not all of them can be easily remediated or mitigated. The adoption of increased density requires the community to anticipate that adjacent properties will "mix it up." There will be shading, shadows, view blockage and loss of air and light to some extent. There will be tradeoffs between preserving trees, open space and providing reasonably sized units, reasonably designed units and reasonably dense development patterns. Some developers will maximize their footprints, using all of the ground space available under the specific zoning provisions and meet the setback requirements but not necessarily allow more generous setbacks. Others may be more generous but then they may sacrifice the density that seems favored by some provisions of the Growth Management Act. At the same time, the fact that older standards provided less setback or that errors in construction may have created less setback and, therefore, potential impacts, should not fall inappropriately or disproportionately on the adjacent property in all cases. In this case though, the appellant's project is not much more dense, meets or falls below limits set by code, appears to be well designed by exploiting, not inappropriately, its ground space. 7. The photographs of the rear of the adjacent Heritage complex, the size of the trees and the apparent separation between the trees and the Heritage buildings provide visual clues that show a setback more generous than staff suggests may exist. Staff did not measure the setback but used aerial photos to guess about the setback. It is not appropriate to base a decision on unknown factors. In addition, this office has to take notice of the fact that the cited basis for the original setback decision was the "less intense zone" that Heritage stood in. That proved to not be the case. The more generic basis that replaced does not appear to provide a strong basis for almost doubling the setback. The current applicant reduced its original proposal from 39 units to the current 36 units. The proposed density would be 17.06 dwelling units per acre while code permits a maximum of20 dwelling units per acre. The 2.1 I-acre site appears capable of supporting 42 units if maximum density Were to be achieved. 8. This office believes that staff was mistaken in applying the greater standards based on aerial overviews of the property and the fact that the two properties are zoned the same. At the same time, staff did • · . Grant Avenue Townhomes. LUA-07-018, SA-A, ECF August 9 2007 Page 11 al justify the greater height proposed by the applicant based on a presumably 25-foot setback. That cannot be justified as this point. The buildings have no need to tower over the Heritage complex more than they will at 35 feet. While this office could remand the application for further review in this regard, the process has been delayed due to scheduling issues and it appears reasonable to scale the height down when allowing the nonnal13-foot setback. The buildings cannot exceed the 35-foot height limit of the RM-Fzone. 9. It also appears that while staffs objectives in trying to more closely combine the "semi-attached" single- family unit to the triplex may be nobIe, code does not sanction that decision. This office can probably sympathize with the fact that the provisions requiring structures to be attached was not more clear in what aspects of a building or buildings needed to be attached to one another, code appears to allow a roof, even if only a breezeway roof attachment to suffice. Code writers may not have anticipated such latitude that might have been abused but it appears that the design meets the definition or limitations and the Site Review Process encourages flexibility. 10. In conclusion, one appellant, Jones, has not shown that approving a multiple family complex to be a neighbor of another multiple family complex was in any way erroneous. The applicant-appellant has demonstrated that staff made a mistake in seeking to almost double the required setback and requiring the merging of the "one-plex" to a more "attached" status with the triplex. At the same time, staffs decision to allow a 37 foot 3 inch building was based on the larger side yard and can no longer be sanctioned. DECISION: The decision affirmed in part and reversed as noted in the above conclusions subject to: The buildings cannot exceed the 35-foot height limit of the RM-F zone. ORDERED THIS 9 th day of August 2007. T:J~~ FREDJ.KA~~ HEARING E INER TRANSMITTED THIS 9 th day of August 2007 to the parties of record: Mark Barber Elizabeth Higgins Sally Brick Senior Assistant City Attorney Development Services K& LGates City of Renton City of Renton 925 4th Ave, Ste. 2900 Seattle, W A 98104 Robin Iones Andrew Kovach 1626 Grant Ave Kovach Architects Sarah E. McDonald Renton, WA 10 I West Main Street PO Box 1825 Monroe, W A 98272 Renton, W A 98057 Aaron Redhage Cathy Joss Tridor, Inc 1626 Grant Ave S, #B-I02 1626 Grant Ave S, #D-I03 POBox 747 Renton, W A 98055 Renton, W A 98055 Bellevue, W A 98009 Grant Avenue Townhomes App LUA-07-018, SA-A, ECF August 9 2007 Page 12 Mark Jacobs Bill Taylor 7731 8th Ave SW Seattle, W A 98106 POBox 1787 Issaquah, W A 98027 Charlie Wolff 1708 SE 16 th Place Renton, WA 98055 Betty & Raymond Barry 1625 Jones Drive SE Renton, W A 98055 TRANSMITTED THIS 9th day of August 2007 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services King County Journal Mark Peterson, Fire Marshal Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transportation Division Utilities Division Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100Gofthe City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m .• August 23. 2007. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision ofthe 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.. August 23, 2007. 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. . . September 7, 2007 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) § COUNTY OF KING ) BONNIE I. WALTON, City Clerk for the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that she is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of21 and not a party to nor interested in this matter. That on the 7th day of September, 2007, at the hour of5:00 p.m. your affiant duly mailed and placed in the United States Post Office at Renton, King County, Washington, by first class mail to all parties of record, notice of appeal filed by Robin Jones and Kovach Architects ofthe Hearing Examiner's decision regarding the Grant Avenue Townhomes Site Plan application. (File No. LUA-07-018, SA, ECF) Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 7th day of September, 2007. iaR. Moya Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing in Renton My commission expires: 8/2712010 September 7, 2007 CITY· IF RENTON City Clerk Bonnie I. Walton APPEALS FILED BY: I) Mr. Robin Jones, 1626 Grant Av S,Renton; WA 98055 2) Kovach Architects, Attn: AustinKovach, 101 WestMainSt" Momoe, W A 98272 RE: Appeals of ,Hearing Examiner's decisions dated August 9, 200hegarding site plan approval for 90nstructing 36 townhome units on a 2.11 acre site, located at 1600. Grant Av S, known as the Grant Avenue TowMomes. (File No. LUA-07-01S,SA, ECF) To Parties of Record: Pursua.pt to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances, twowrittei1 appeals'?fthe hearing examiner's decisionort the Grant A venue TownholIles Site plap application have been filed with the City Clerk. . . . Inaccordance with Renton MuniCipal Code Section 4-8-11OF, ,\\"ithiri five days ofreceipl orthe notice of appeal, or immediately after all appeal periods with the HeariIigExmninerhave expired, the City Clerk shall notify <Ill parties ofrecordofthereceiplofthe·appeal. Other . parties of record may submit letters limited to support.oftheir poSitions regarding tile appeal within ten (10) days of the date of mailing of this notification, The deadlineforsubmissionof additionalletters is Septemb!(r 17,2007. .... . . . . . '., .... .' . , NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeals and other pertinent documents will he reviewedhy the Council'sPlanrti~g and Devel~J'mentConmiittee~t2:00p.m. o~Thurs4ay, ... October, 18,2007, III the Council Chambers, 7 Floor of Renton City Hall, 1055 SotithGrady. Way, Renton, Washington98055. The recommendlJ.tionsofthe Committee will be presentedfor consideratkm by the full council at a subsequent Council meeting.· , . Copy of the appeals and the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeals QfHe::tring,Exam~ner . deeisionsor recommendations is .attached. Please note that.theCity COlfficil.will beconsiaeriitg· the. merits. of e·ach appeal based upon the written record previous1Y estabIished .. ··Unless a '. showin.g caube glade that addition;!1 evidence could not reasonably ha"ebeen availab:leat the prior hearingheld.bythe Hearing Examiner, no further evidence or testimony on this matter will . be accepted by the City Council. . .. . For additional informati~n or assistance, please feet free to call me itt 425-430~651O. Sincerely, BOnriie 1. Walton . City Clerk Attachments -1~O-55-S-0-ut-h-G-ra-d-Y-W-a-Y"--R-e-n-to-n,-w-as~hi'--ng-to-n-98-0-57---(-42-5-)4-3-0--6-5-10-I-F~AX-.-(4-2-5-)4-3~O''''';6-51~6-. ~ . a\. .' AHEAD Q'}:-THE cutrvE; ~ Thi$ paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post Consumer City of Renton Municipal C Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110 -Appe 4-8-IIOC4 The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 4-1-170, the fee schedule of the City, (Ord, 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-110F: Appeals to City Council-Procedures 1, Time for Appeal: Unless a specific section or State law providing for review of decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court or any other body, any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the City Council, upon a form furnished by the City Clerk, within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date ofthe Examiner's written report, 2, Notice to Parties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notifY all parties of record ofthe receipt of the appeaL 3, Opportuuity to Provide Comments: Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten (10) days ofthe dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal, 4. Transmittal of Record to Council: Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the City Council aU of the pertinent documents, including the written decision or recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report, the notice of appeal, and additionalletters submitted by the parties, (Ord, 3658, 9-13-1982) 5, Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City CounciL No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be acccpled by the City Council unless a showing is made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required, the Council shall remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of additional evidence, The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the applicant. In the absence of an entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, and a remand to the I learing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord, 4389,1-25-1993) 6, Council Evalnation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties, 7. Findings and Conclusions Required: It: upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-050FI, and after examination afthe record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may remand the proceeding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly. 8. Council Action: If, upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-I-050F2 and F3, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in ract or law exists in the record, ar that a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified, the City Council may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the application, 9, Decision Documentation: In any event, the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner, Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record, The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord 3658, 9-13-1982) 10. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving, modifying or rejecting a decision of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames established under subsection G5 of this Section. (Ord. 4660, 3-17-1997) 'PEAL TO RENTON CITY COUl' OF HEAR_. _ EXAMINER'S DECISIONIRECO ...... ENDATION APPLICATTONNAME Gz~\ W'eNlke.. *'M6-S FILENO. LIAA.. 01'-0\& CiTY OF RENJON The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation ot the Land Use Hearing Examiner. dated A.'l4I~r q 11-1-,20.Q:L. AUG 23 2007 RECEIVED 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT: Name: ~At.*" flt(ZG\,.\SC1":' CITY Cl.ERK'S OFfIC'" REPRESENT A TIVE (IF ANY): "5' Zt:> f",t-< ,:g Address: \0\ ~'\ t\b.lN ~ tlOt.1Qce.. W A-91:)1.31.. Phone Number: 'b!.oc>·1 "It{. tSl4::, Email: ltw .. 1.INel4::.!ikA-Ml.L.!I1"fi?-iS JOo-1. Nrune: ____________________________ _ Address: ___________________________ _ Phone Number: _____________________ _ Email: ____________________________ _ 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: Finding of Fact: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's Report) No. ~ Error: <2f ... €-b.1't~ Correction: _______________________________________________________ _ Conclusions: No. Error: ____________________________________________________________ __ Correction: _______________________________________________________ _ Other: No. Error: ___________________________________________________________ _ Correction: ______________________________________________________ _ 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REOUESTED The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attach explanation, if desired) Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: Other: L lantiRepresentative Signature Type/Printed Name NOTE: Please refer to Title IV, Chapter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4·8-1 IOF, for specific appeal procedures. City of Renton Municipal :; Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110 -App 4-8-IIOC4 The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 4-1-170, the fee schedule of the CitY. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-llOF; Appeals to City Council-Procedures l. Time for Appeal: Unless a specific section or State law providing for review of decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court or any other body, any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the City Council, upon a form furnished by the City Clerk, within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. 2. Notice to Parties of Record: Within fi ve (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. 3. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. 4. Transmittal of Record to Council: Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the City Council all of the pertinent documents, including the written decision or recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report, the notice of appeal, and additional letters submitted by the parties. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-1982) 5. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required, the Council shall remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of additional evidence. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the applicant. In the absence of an entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, and a remand to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 4389, 1-25-1993) 6. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties. 7. Findings and Conclusions Required: If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-050Fl, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may remand the proceeding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly. 8. Council Action: If, upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-050F2 and F3, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, or that a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified, the City Council may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the application. 9. Decision Documentation: In any event, the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord 3658, 9-13-1982) 10. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving, modifying or rejecting a decision of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames established under subsection 05 of this Section. (Ord. 4660, 3-17-1997) • 8123107 CITY OF RENTON Development Services Devision 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 (425) 430.7200 Fax. (425) 430.7231 Project Name: Grant Avenue Homes Project Description and Location: 1600 Grant Avenue South Subject: Hearing Examiner Report and Decision LUA-07-018, SA-A, ECF Notification of Appeal We are choosing to Appeal the decision that the buildings connot exceed the 35-foot height limit. Item 8 of the conclusions states" While this ofice could remand the application for further revie in this regaurd. the process has been delayed due to scheduling issues and it appears reasonalble to scale the height down" While it is not a technical difficulty to change the pitch of the roof to bring the hight of the bulding down to meet the standard hight limit. We feel that it does adversly effect the asthetics of the project. Respectfully yours. Austin Kovach Kovach Architects CITY OF RENTON City Clerk Division Receipt N~. 0937 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 425-430-6510 o Cash , J )Q. Check No. S ~ C] -:q.. Description: dp,1H'C, ( ~ b/t7=f Funds Received From: Date ----=9+/--'=z'--"3+1o~7'----I I o Copy Fee 0 Notary Service 51 Appeal Fee 0 _________ _ {tYI/fCt! 0 { Lv'do7-()/ g f:!cl -rQ/d1d hM It./? S F ~ Name 5. K:ovcc It I Amount $ 7';). Cl Cl Address City/Zip /DI tJ, • tI1arrl sf idJd , '\ . ..PPEAL TO REl'oiON CITY COUNL~ OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISIONIRECOMMENDA TION APPUCATION NAME &'0,,1 Au I".,.", bQIASf' {\"3ec.~ FILE NO. k!l'.f~~~i\j The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or reco~1,""en~a'fcm of the Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated 4 A~~\4'.b . ,2007'-. AUG 232007 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT: Name:1I\r, Roh " N "J"q ",e~ Address: l(.,:l{, 619"'/ A,,-e S Re",loN d \.,/4= CJ9Q51> Phone Number: lid 5 Q dB '13''', Email: Robi., H 'J fA) M."N ,(OWl REPRESENTATIVE (IF ANY): RECEIVED r.ITY CLERK'S OF"ICE -~.-', l/P f'll1 tf. Name: _____________ _ Address: ____________ _ Phone Number: __________ _ Email: _____________ _ 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Anach additional sheets, if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: Finding of Fact: (please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's Report) No._ Error: 5e.. A Hod'f'd Sbl"pi Correction: Conclusions: No. Error: Sec" It Hoc Led 5b eef Correction: Other: No. Error: SeC"' A-lfQ,LeJ Sb4!~ h Correction: 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REOUESTED The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attach explanation, if desired) Reverse the decision or reconunendation and grant the following relief: Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: J( Other: s..e AHqcl,rJ Sl,,,..~ ~ TypeIPrinted Name ~ &,0"1 Date NOTE: Please refer to Title IV. Chapter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4-8·110F, for specific appeal procedures. eC. U,.,//(..-r /Jf"//t'N, c..ly rfli/ 111(., I n/q lis, Dc / S-,-..'c:, V( ~'. r 1&/ ::VT'c/ KGzJ/l'vM~r-y'l1 #("['--"'1/ (--/r/,:~,.,~_ / Robin Jones Appeal SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS The City Council has required that approval of a site plan ~requires the additional finding that the project complies with the intent and policies of the Land Use and Community Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan." RMC 4-9-200F (emphasis added). The Hearing Examiner evidently believed that mere compliance with a minimum setback was all that was required, and did not make any finding or conclusion that the minimum setback complied with the Comprehensive Plan. The City Council has directed staff to review the impacts of a proposed development on surrounding properties, specifically seeking to avoid undesirable impacts of proposed structures that could impair the enjoyment of surrounding uses and structures, and to mitigate unnecessary and avoidable impacts of new construction on views from existing buildings. RMC 4-9- 200F (1) (a), (f). The intent of the site plan review process is to ~minimize discordant and undesirable impacts of development . . off-site" and to ~protect neighboring owners . . . by assuring that reasonable provisions have been made for such matters as sound and sight buffers, light and air, and those other aspects of site plans which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses." RMC 4-9-200A(2) (1), (6) (emphasis added). The specific decision criteria include conformance with the Comprehensive Plan,' mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties, and provision of adequate light and air. RMC 4-9- 200E(l)(a), (c), (g). ~The Hearing Examiner shall give substantial weight to any discretionary decision of the City rendered pursuant to this Chapter/Title." RMC 4-8-110E (7) (a). The staff report found that the proposed development would have structures 44 feet 5 inches from finished grade to the roof peak, adjacent to Robin Jones home in Heritage Village, which consists of only two-story buildings. Report and Decision of Administrative Site Plan Review, dated April 4, 2007 (hereinafter, ~Decision"), at pages 6-7. The developer proposed a setback of only thirteen (13) feet. Staff proposed a setback of twenty-five (25) feet, to which the Hearing Examiner should have given substantial weight. The staff properly considered the Comprehensive Plan, as required by RMC 4-9-200F. In particular, staff noted that Policy LU-186 requires ~[nlew stacked flat and townhouse development in Residential Multifamily designations should be compatible in size, scale, bulk, use, and design with existing multi-family developments in the vicinity." Decision at page 6. Staff was The code also requires conformance with land use regulations, but the Examiner required that (and only that). RMC 4-9-200E (1) (b). concerned that the new development would not be compatible in times of size, scale, and bulk. The impact would be "significant." Decision 10.' Staff found that "the mass and bulk [of the development) is significantly greater than, and not compatible with, the Heritage Village structures." Decision 11. Jones testified that the Heritage Village homes have their living rooms and kitchens facing the new development, which staff considered in stating the development also could have a negative impact "in terms of reduction of available natural light." Decision 12. Staff also required landscape screening "to provide partial building screening, without light blockage, at maturity of vegetation." Decision 11. The Hearing Examiner erred in not giving substantial weight to the staff's review and decision, and in ignoring the requirement to consider policies in the Comprehensive Plan and as required in site plan review, which he required nothing more than compliance with the minimum setback set forth in the land use regulations. The Hearing Examiner made the following specific errors: 1. He used as a criteria to reverse a conclusion that the staff made a "mistake," see Conclusion 4 or was "mistaken," Conclusion 5, rather than the requirements set forth in RMC 4-S-110E(7) (b). 2. He did not consider the development's size, scale, or bulk in comparison to Heritage Village, as required by Comprehensive Plan Policy LU-lS6. See Conclusion 6. 3. He did not give substantial weight to the fact that the staff found impacts even if they were incorrect in how close Heritage Village was to the property line. See Conclusion 7. 4. He required a "strong basis" for increasing the land use minimum setback regulations, rather than giving substantial weight to the staff's interpretation of the comprehensive plan and judgment, and the City Council's criteria for site plan review. Conclusion 7. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED Uphold the decision to require no building (including any part of a deck) built closer than twenty-five (25) feet from the property to the south, by reversing the Hearing Examiner's decision that would allow buildings over forty (40) feet high to be located within thirteen (13) of the adjacent property. 2 The developer argued that staff was incorrect in looking at how close Heritage Village was to the property line, but the actual decision makes clear that the impact was an issue, even if the existing buildings were not particularly close to the property line. og 4 H EthoQ h;t_k . CITY OF RENTON City Clerk Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 425-430-6510 Receipt N~ 0936 Date ~/ [$/0 7 [, o Cash ?Check No, /7 4 7.... o Copy Fee ~Appeal Fee o Notary Service 0 _________ _ Description: Afl.f(;' I It:) ~/.I f!(' I I c f L 1/ t1 -D 7 -() I 'is &, y ..:.---.-. .f-f/f;.hf'" ---,;;" ,,4 k ......... $ Funds Received From: Name Address City/Zip I' a Ir.r 2 U {JY?'"r I rive 5, II l-lt/3 f-(cl/i iVV1 b./d S 5' o:;:-;-~ I Amount $ . 75-Ot) I I I 2 I I 7 12 I 6 I I 1 C :Ierk's Office Distribution List Appeal, Grant Avenue Townhomes LUA-07-01S SA, ECF September 7, 2007 Renton Reporter City Attorney Larry Warren City Council * Julia Medzegian EDNSP/Economic Development Alex Pietsch Rebecca Lind Fire Marshal Mark Peterson Fire DeptiFire Prevention I. David Daniels Planning Commission Judith Subia Parties ofRecord** (see attached list) PBPW I Administration Gregg Zimmerman PBPWlDevelopment Services Neil Watts Jennifer Henning Stacy Tucker Elizabeth Higgins Janet Conklin Larry Meckling PBPW/Transportation Services Peter Hahn PBPW!Utilities & Tech Services Lys Hornsby LUA-07-018 • *City Clerk's Letter & POR List only • 4, Austin Kovach Kovach Architects 101 W Main Street Monroe, W A 98272 Charlie Wolff 1708 SE 16th Place Renton, W A 98055 Aaron Redhage 1626 Grant Av S #B-102 Renton W A 98055 Sally Brick K&LGates 925 4th Ave, Suite 2900 Seattle, W A 98104 Andrew Kovach Kovach Architects 101 W Main Street Monroe, W A 98272 Robin Jones 1626 Grant Av S #B-203 Renton, W A 98055 Cathy Joss 1626 Grant Av S #D-l03 Renton W A 98055 Mark Jacobs 7731 8th Ave SW Seattle, W A 98106 Tridor Inc. P.O. Box 747 Bellevue, W A 98009 Betty & Raymond Barry 1625 Jones Drive SE Renton, WA 98055 Sarah E. McDonald P.O. Box 1825 Renton WA 98057 Bill Taylor P.O. Box 1787 Issaquah, W A 98027 August 23, 2007 Robin Jones 1626 Grant Avenue S, Ste. G-206 Renton, W A 98055 CIT~ Re: Grant Avenue Townhomes Site Plan Appeals LUA 07-018, SA-A, ECF Dear Mr. Jones: )F RENTON Hearing Examiner Fred J. Kaufman This office has reviewed your correspondence regarding this matter. Based on a review of the entire record this office fmds no reason to alter its original decisions. The SEPA analysis was appropriate and based on the potential impacts of this development on the environment. There was appropriate review of geotechnical issues and traffic issues. The Site Plan was approved by the City and while this office reversed the City's requirement that the project be moved further from its southern property line and that certain units be combined, nothing in the record reflects that the City decision approving the Site Plan was otherwise erroneous. An appeal of this decision may be taken to the City Council by paying a $75.00 fee and filing appropriate documents with the City Clerk within 14 days ofthis decision. Sincerely, 1-LL.(J \\J~ ... Fred J. KaUfmW Hearing Examiner FKJnt cc: Mark Barber, Senior Assistant City Attorney Jennifer Henning, Development Services Elizabeth Higgins, Development Services Sally Brick, K&L Gates Andrew Kovach, Kovach Architects Tridor, Inc. All Parties of Record ------:-1O:-:5-=5-=S-ou-t:-h -=G-ra-=dy-W::::-ay---=R-e-nt-on-,-W-as-h-in-g-to-n-9-8-05-5-.-(4-2-5-) 4-3-0--6-51-5----~ ~ This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 Robin H. Jones 1626 Grant Ave S Apt # B203 Renton, WA 98055 RE; Response to Tridor Inc. 's, Post Hearing Brief Documents Grant Ave Town Houses: LAU-07-01S, SA-A.ECF I. OVERVIEW; 09 August 2007 In considering the Post Hearing Briefs on the Grant Avenue Town Homes Project submitted by Tridor, Inc. (Respondent) the Hearing Examiner must be consistent in his standards of review. The Respondent asks the Hearing Examiner to alternate between two opposing viewpoints. a. In the conclusion of the Administrative Site Plan Post Hearing Document the Respondent notes: "The Applicant committed nearly two years and considerable resources arriving at a site plan and project design that would conform with City Requirements and expectations and deliver an attractive, high-quality project that complements its surroundings. In the final hour, and hased on a false actual premise, and inapplicable illegal provision, and/or the concerns of only one neighbor, the city changes the rules of the game and imposed a Setback Condition and fundamentally undermines the Project. The Setback Condition is unreasonable and unlawful and should be reversed. The implication presented is that Tridor Inc. was not in close communication with the City of Renton and was completely surprised by the action. b. In the Environmental Site Plan Post Hearing Document the Respondent notes: "City Staff reviewed technical reports prepared by three professional consulting fIrms hired by Tridor, Inc. (Tridor) to conducted evaluations of the Project proposal. City staff worked with these consultants to defIne the cases of the studies". Page 4. I "The study scope for the Traffic reports was developed in coordination with the Development Engineering supervisor at the City of Renton" Page 4. "The technical analyses prepared by profession environmental consultants and reviewed by City staff" Page 9. The implication presented is that Tridor Inc. was in close communication with the City of Renton. c. The Respondent is selectively arguing that they were working in conjunction with City of Renton and then they were not. In reviewing the Post Hearing Brief written by the Respondent the Hearing Examiner must decide which viewpoint is correct and apply that standard to both Appeals. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL APPEAL The Renton City Hearing Examiner under RCW 4-8-110.E.7 may "affIrm the decision or remand the case for further proceedings, or it may reverse the decision if the substantial rights of the applicant may have been prejudiced because the decision is ... " v. Clearly erroneous in view of the entire record as submitted; or. .. "iv. Arbitrary or capricious. " As stated at the hearing, I do not present myself as an expert, nor do I doubt the skills or experience of the consultants used. What I presented are observations of local conditions and ongoing environmental issues that the City of Renton was not aware of when making their initial Environmental Determination. In the Post Hearing Brief the Respondent does restate the credibility and results of the different studies, but they do not directly answer the two central issues of the environmental appeal. a. That the Traffic Engineer Study minimized potential issues associated with the physical properties of the road, in conjunction with actual year round conditions that were raised. The solutions presented were not realistic and are difficult to implement. The City of Renton when making the Environment Site Review was not aware of these conditions b. That the time of year and methodology of the Geological Study could hardly fail not to produce the positive results that are restated in the Post Hearing Brief These results are not representative of the local conditions thru out the majority of the year. The City of Renton when making the Environment Site Review was not aware of these conditions. All environmental issue were not known at the time of the Environmental Site Review by the City of Renton and the Respondent has not directly addressed the issues raised at the Hearing. A new Environmental Site review is needed. 2 3. ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL The Hearing Examiner must begin his analysis of the Respondents appeal on the premise that the City of Renton is correct on all parts of the appeal and that the Respondent must address all areas of the Administrative Site Plan Review. Additionally, the Hearing Examiner must ensure that the concerns of the impacted neighbors are not arbitrarily dismissed based on the Respondent's perception. a. The crux of the Respondent's arguments are based on a new site survey completed on July 01, 2007. The Hearing Examiner shOUld view the new arguments as selective and singular in their approach, addressing only one part ofthe problem, but with no context to the whole. It does not address the Administrative Site Review in its entirety. Furthermore, it is exceptionally difficult to evaluate the accuracy or impact of the presented survey because there is no linkage to the overall Site plan, no linkage to the requested changes requested by the City of Renton to the detached four-pleK, and it is difficuh to discern the base reference points associated with the setback distances given. Lastly, RCW 44-8-060 (b) implies that changes to plans beyond a 10% mark should be considered new plans ... 'revisions requested by an applicant to a vested, but not yet approved, application shall be deemed a new application when such revisions would result in a substantial change in the basic site design plan, intensity, density, and the like, involving a change often percent (10%) or more in area or scale." The Hearing Examiner in reviewing the new information must determine whether the sites plan, with all this additional information, has become a new plan; beyond the scope of what was discussed at the public hearing. b. The Hearing Examiner should disregard the Respondent's assertion that there is only a "Lone Neighbor Opponent" involved. Clearly noted in all documents supporting these appeals are the parties of record, which include: 1. Charlie Wolf, 1708 SE 16th Place, Renton, WA 98055 2. Betty & Raymond Barry, 1625 Jones Drive SE, Renton, 98055 3. Cathy Joss 1626 Grant Avenue, B -103, Renton, 98055 Ms. Joss is the President of Heritage Village Association; the other two parties are the owners of the adjacent properties to the North of the proposed development. All neighboring parties to the proposed development are represented, all parties have demonstrated interest in the development thru their parties of record request, and I am in communication with them all. The fact that only one person was at the Hearing Examiner's Hearing is reflections of the time of the hearing, during working hours, verse the level of interest and commitment. 3 4. CONCLUSION In reviewing the Post Hearing Briefs written by the Respondents the Hearing Examiner must decide whether Tridor Inc. has been working closely with the City of Renton or has diverged to their own plan. One viewpoint must be applied as the standard to both Appeals. I ask the Hearing Examiner to required a new Environmental Site Review, which would address the issues, raised in the Environmental AppeaL which were unknown by the City of Renton at the time, and which are unanswered by the Respondents Post Hearing Brief Additionally, I ask the Hearing Examiner to uphold the City of Renton's Administrative decisions because the Respondent's additional arguments are selective in nature and do not fully address all issues raised in the Administrative Review. The Respondent's appeal should be denied. Sincerely ~~ Robio H. Jones 4 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON) ) ss. County of King ) Nancy Thompson being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and states: That on the 9th day of August 2007, affiant deposited via the United States Mail a sealed envelope(s) containing a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below entitled application or petition. Signature: Application, Petition or Case No.: ary Public in and teState of Washington siding at l!art far-, , therein. i Grant Avenue Townhomes Site Plan Appeals LUA 07-018, SA-A, ECF The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record. HEARING EXAMINER'S REPORT 'f .. August 9, 2007 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPELLANTS: PUBLIC HEARING: Robin Jones 1626 Grant Avenue Renton, W A 98055 Andrew S. Kovach, Representing Tridor Inc. Kovach Architects 101 West Main St. Monroe, W A 98272 Grant Avenue Townhomes Site Plan Appeals LUA-07-018, SA-A, ECF After reviewing the Appellant's written requests for a SEPA Appeal hearing and the Applicant and Appellant request an appeal hearing on the underlying site plan for the project, examining available information on file, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the June 16, 1007 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, June 26,2007, at 10:50 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: Yellow file and the inclusive Appeal Exhibit No.2: Andrew Kovach Resume file containing the original appeal letter and other pertinent information by reference Exhibit No.3: Exhibit IE, Drawing of Grant Avenue Exhibit No.4: Exhibit ID, Site Plan for Grant Avenue Townhomes project Townhomes Exhibit No.5: Exhibit IF and IG Exhibit No.6: Photograph of tri-unit with attached single unit Exhibit No.7: Preliminary Site Plan Exhibit No.8: Heritage Village Site Plan Exhibit No.9: Aerial of actual site at built in 1986 Parties Present: Mark Barber, Senior Assistant City Attorney Grant Avenue Townhomes Appeal LUA-07-018, SA-A, ECF August 9 2007 Page 2 Elizabeth Higgins, Development Services Sally Brick, Attorney for Applicant, 925 4"' Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104 Robin Jones, Appellant, 1626 Grant Avenue S., Apt. B-203, Renton, WA 98055 Andrew Kovach, Representing Tridor, Inc., 101 West Main St. Monroe, WA 98272 Sally Brick stated that this project was custom designed for this specific lot. The designs are more than what is normally seen in developments of the same category. In the City's decision they acknowledged that the architectural details creates a visually interesting structure that would make a positive contribution to the physical condition and visual experience of the neighborhood. This project does not max out the site and while it is a more attractive development than could be built on this lot it also is not the biggest development that could be put on this lot. It is less than the maximum density, less than the maximum site coverage and less than the maximum pervious surface coverage. Its height is seven and a half feet less than the City could approve during the site plan review. The project applicant and their architects have worked with the staff to come up with a project that looks at emergency exits, building envelopes, road width and on-site parking. Over time the number of units was reduced from 39 to 36. When the decision was returned there was one condition, which required the south side setback to be increased from the standard \3-feet to 25-feet. This would require a floor plan reduction of approximately 11,070 square feet which is 34% less than what was in the original plans. They are also appealing condition 2, the triplex condition, which requires the triplex unit which is attached to a single unit by a breezeway with a common roof to become a four-plex unit. .. According to the SEPA conditions, there are three parts to their argument; first the City has relied on a code provision that applies in situations where the abutting property is in a less intense zone. In this case the abutting property is in the same zone. After talking to the City, they now say it was an error to rely on that code provision and now agree with the applicant. Now they say they had discretion under a more general criteria. Their primary argument is that there is no legal basis for going beyond the standard setback. Second, even if the City did have discretion to do this, they can only impose reasonable conditions. This condition is unreasonable because it dramatically alters the scope of the project. Third, these allegations are not supported by the facts and therefore do not justifY the condition. The City's Report and Decision states that they have relied on the code provision that state the setback provisions for residential multi-family specifY that side yard setbacks should be 12-feet for a property this wide and because it is a 3-story development, one additional foot would be added, a 13-foot side yard setback is required. Further in the code there is a provision that expressly applies to residential multi-family developments. It states that properties abutting a less intense residential zone may be required to incorporate special design standards, which includes larger setbacks. It was her understanding after speaking with Mr. Barber, that they now agree that that provision is not a good basis for the setback. The Examiner asked Mr. Barber if the City no longer was relying on RMC 4-2-IIOF, who stated that that was an error and was the wrong citation. The City will not be relying on that particular citation. Grant Avenue Townhomes Appeal LUA-07-0l8, SA-A, ECF August 9 2007 Page 3 Ms. Brick continued by stating that Mr. Barber had given her more citations that they will now be relying on in their case. These citations appear to be more generic in their overall site plan review criteria. Mr. Barber stated that the City is now relying on RMC 4-9-200A and E. Ms. Brick with the change there is a new basis for the setback conditions. The project was designed with those in mind, it was designed to address impacts to neighbors, privacy, visual effects, all of which have been addressed. These provisions do not appear to justify or give the City a legal basis for nearly doubling a setback. Can the City under some general discretion cut the height in half, can they cut by half the site coverage, where does this begin and end. The Examiner stated that zoning law in this state has more recently been subject to SEP A requirements. TIris overly of SEP A does actually give the City discretion to deny a project that would otherwise meet all the zoning planning requirements. Ms. Brick replied that there is a place in the code where the discretion is specifically limited to circumstances where the adjacent zone is less intense. That does not apply here. Site plan review is all about looking at the overall picture, whether that allows a setback to be nearly doubled is quite another matter. The code sets out several examples of the types of conditions that are appropriately applied to the site plan review. One of those places is RMC 4-9-200G.lSc. Doubling this setback requires a loss in square footage of 678 square feet in eleven of the units, 722 square feet in another 5 units. That equates to a loss in project value of over 2 million dollars. There would have to be unique circumstances that provide a basis for imposing conditions over and above what otherwise might apply. The rationale that the City has relied upon, privacy, light, and visual impact, in this two- year process the applicant and the architects went through developing this project, they were working with the City to address all the issues so that the project did meet the site plan criteria. Andrew Kovach, Kovach Architects, 101 W Main Street, Monroe, WA 98272 stated that he is a licensed architect in Washington, with a degree in Landscape Architecture and has been in private practice since 1986. He is the design architect for this particular project. The site was challenging, the units are larger than typical in this area, there is below building parking. The site gently slopes to the east with a 12% slope. There have been lots of challenges with setbacks and getting the drainage to work. They have tried to create a project that fits into a neighborhood and looks like single-family homes. They have tried to make the site more livable, they have added more trees for privacy, boulevard plantings on both sides of the street as well as a lot of design elements on the buildings. The buildings have an Arts and Crafts look to them. They have worked on this project for over two years. Special features have been added to help soften this project to the development to the south. The back of each unit has as much detail as the front of the units. Using Exhibits IF and 1 G he showed how the setbacks would affect the units and how it would affect the usability of the unit itself. On the first floor, the den could be removed without any problems, however, on the second floor the additional setback requirement would take 90% of the main living space. The kitchen, dining and living areas and access to the upper level need to be there. The unit would be left with a substandard living space. It would not meet code for light, ventilation, and open area. If the units were reconfigured, there would be a possibility of building a 700 square foot unit on three floors, which would be financially unfeasible to approach. The center unit could be reconfigured to be more compact and would lose two of the upstairs bedrooms leaving the center unit a single bedroom unit. The minute the features begin to be reduced, the market sell price goes down and that would have a huge effect on the project. Grant Avenue Townhomes Appeal LUA-07-01S, SA-A, ECF August 9 2007 Page 4 They believed that per the code they would be allowed to have a single unit, City staff disagreed. They thought if they did a connection, it could be caIIed part of the same building, which is what they did. They were trying to avoid doing a fourplex, it becomes a much larger building and too imposing. They would like to have it remain as a single unit and not be combined as a fourplex. Trying to resolve the issue with the City it was their suggestion that the two units be connected with a common roof. Ms. Brick stated that she had a letter from a licensed realtor that states their official opinion that this project would increase the values of homes in the general area. Mr. Barber cross-examined Mr. Kovach who stated that a preliminary site plan was done by their firm, and that the units on the south side show a setback of at least 25' or more. The initial site plan was done in schematic design stage that was an offering of what the project could be. As they worked on the project, criteria become more evident, aspects of that original plan led to the plan before us today. They cannot go back to that original plan due to the loss of parking and the square footage of the units, it was a much different project. They were required to make adjustments to the original site plan due to fire access turnaround was in an inappropriate place. At that point units were lost and so they moved forward. .. It was true that on the original plan, at least six units were able to be located in such a position that a setback of 25' or more was applied. Today's plan is a better plan. The City does believe this is a good project, there is just a disagreement on certain issues. In a pre-application conference a memorandum was submitted and stated that the applicant is cautioned that modifications may be made by official decision makers (Hearing Examiner, Zoning Administrator, Board of Adjustment, Board of Public Works and City Council). It further stated that review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes required by City staff or made by the applicant. The unusualness of this memorandum would be related to the timing. The initial site plan was submitted in 2005 and the site plan before us today was submitted in February of2007. They had made several attempts for the application to be accepted over the course of a six-month period. That site plan had been discussed with the City and numerous changes were required. After working very close with the City the site plan was accepted. Rearranging these units on the site is just not attainable. Mr. Kovach described why the current site plan is as it is today, stating lack of parking as a major issue, they wanted parking for residents, gnests, and Emergency vehicles. Upon questioning by Mr. Barber, Mr. Kovach stated south of this parcel is the Heritage Village Condominiums where Mr. Jones resides, to the north of this parcel is the BPA Easement, an area where there can be no construction, it is for power access only. Mr. Kovach thought it was a good idea to move the entire project to the north and leave the correct setback to the south, but in all likelihood, he didn't think it was possible. The Examiner stated that the triplex, it is the City's case, but he would like to know a little more about the City's arguments. Mr. Barber stated that the RM-F zone does not allow for single residences. Elizabeth Higgins stated that the RM-F zone does not allow a detached dwelling, which is a single-family residence or one family one-unit structure. What is allowed in the RM -F zone are attached dwellings. The problem is the definition of "attached". An attached dwelling is one or more one-family dwellings attached with common roofs, walls or floors. (from RMC 4-11-040 Definitions) This is a common roof, whether a roofofa breezeway was intended to be defined equaIIy with a roof of a structure, it is not articulated clearly. Grant Avenue Townhomes Appeal LUA-07-0l8, SA-A, ECF August 9 2007 Page 5 The plan for Heritage Village was approved by the City of Renton, the north boundary of Heritage Village is the south boundary of the Grant Avenue project. The units are canted slightly with the parking almost reaching the property line. The aerial photograph of the area appears to show that Heritage Village was closer to its north property boundary than allowed because there are no setbacks shown. The boundaries on an aerial photograph may not be accurate. A survey was submitted by the applicant, which shows the north edge ofthe asphalt parking lots (that are seen on the aerial) are along the boundary lines. The units are closer to the ends of the parking lots than were proposed. For some reason, the Heritage project was not built with the setback from the north property line that is shown on the plan. It is quite a bit closer to the north property boundary. This raises concerns as to where the Grant Avenue property would be constructed ifit were only 13-feet from the property line. There were at least two errors in the staff report; first was on page 5 of 16, Section C, the code citation should have been RMC 4-9-200. The citation was wrong, however, the criterion was correct. Secondly, on page 11 of 16, which states ''the discretion available when two projects are abutting one another and one is in a lower density zone than the other", that was not an applicable citation to use in this instance. The Examiner asked if doubling the setback for this project was necessary? Ms. Higgins stated that the alternative, when looking at either the existing development or the proposed project, would be mitigated by this project alone and the answer would have to be no. The alternative to denying the project would be to provide the relief of the larger setback. The Examiner stated that the trees that are in existence and the additional ones that are to be planted seem to be providing an acceptable buffer. Is there anything being added with the additional setback distance when the trees buffer the space between the two proj eets. Upon questioning by Mr. Barber. Mr. Robin Jones stated that with regard the light, shading, air and privacy they are actually talking about fourteen units out of a 30-unit association, that are being affected by this new construction. It is profound, the areas affected are not bedrooms, they are the living rooms, dining rooms and kitchens, which are north facing and the impact oflosing light is profound. There are problems with the boundaries, they have been aware of that from the association. Having a wall of buildings thirteen feet away will have profound impact on the light, a fence will have impact on the lower levels. Upon questioning by Ms. Brick, Mr. Jones stated that the windows on the south and west sides ofthe buildings in Heritage Village are the bedrooms. The trees outside are on the lower level windows for the living areas and they do block some light to the upper and lower levels, but not solidly as a building would. Closing arguments were given by: Ms. Brick stated that the key basis articulated in the staff report regarding the setback condition has now been withdrawn. The City has alluded to some further general provisions and made no attempt to describe how those provisions give them discretion to nearly double any standard setback. This does raise the question about where the City's discretion begins and ends. The development standards must mean something and if this general language can authorize the City in the final hour, at the end of a more than two year process, that involves considerable expense to develop a project, to double the setback provision, it raises the question about what else they can do to the site plan review at other development stages. It does not appear that the City has a legal basis for imposing specific conditions of the site plan review that nearly doubles the standard setback in the zone where the abutting zone is exactly the same zone. Grant Avenue Townhomes Appeal LVA-07-018, SA-A, ECF August 9 2007 Page 6 Even if there was a legal basis for doing this, the impacts oflighting, air and privacy have already been addressed in the project design and in the existing features of the site. This condition amounts to a significant limitation to the development that is otherwise permitted by the code. The code requires that site plan conditions be reasonable, this condition is not reasonable and it should be repealed. Finally on the triplex condition there are instances where the code may not specifically address the situation but does afford an opportunity to devise a structure that meets the technical definition. That is what has been done here under the advisement of the City. To change it would involve additional expense and would not add anything, in fact it would detract from the visual standards. Mr. Barber stated that the appellant has a heavy burden to overturn the City's decision, they must show that it was clearly erroneous or arbitrary and capricious. The City's decision is entitled to substantial weight, he quoted from Renton Municipal Code 4-1-090.C. The next issue is in regards to the pre-application memo, the applicant was cautioned that there could be modifications that could occur from subsequent decision makers and also that there could be revisions to their potential site plan and other design changes required by City staff. It further indicated that the comments on development and permitting issues would be based upon codes in effect at the date of review. RMC 4-9-200. A & E were adopted by ordinance and subsequently amended well before the time period of this application being filed for development. Both parcels are in the RMF zone. Looking at the development standards, it is almost as if what's occurring is a discussion that if you meet the minimum that is all that is required, there is no more review or discussion that can occur. Regarding setbacks, the code (RMC 4-2-110 F) states "minimum side yard". The Examiner commented that over the two-year period, doubling the setback substantially changes the design of these buildings. A den does not get removed along with two bedrooms and maybe a kitchen depending on the orientation of the bnilding, without expecting the site plan to go through a substantial reorganization or renovation. It seems that there should have been a hint of this change prior to the final site plan. It seems to have taken the applicant/appellant by surprise. Mr. Barber stated that he could not speak to that issue, there is no testimony from the City's side on that issue in the record. However, the code further talks about purpose and intent and how that affects the site plan review stage. The site plan process is the detail management of project elements, with an additional purpose to ensure quality development. Policy LV 188 was cited, it talks about evaluating project proposals in residential multi- family designations to consider the transition to lower density uses where multi-family sites abut lower density zones. It further states that taller buildings, greater than two stories, should have larger side yard setbacks. By requiring the 25-foot setback, the City is complying with the site plan review process as mandated by the Renton Municipal Code in that it is following the Comprehensive Plan objectives and policies that are specified and referred to specifically in RMC 4-9-200 A and RMC 4-9-200 E. Ms. Brick further stated that the Comprehensive Plan is a guide and not a document designed for making specific land use decisions. Mr. Jones stated that he was not able to view the full plan until just a few days ago, his arguments are more of a general nature. The general concern comes from the overall project, this piece ofland has been up for sale a number of times and they have known that a development would eventually be built on the site. The focus appears to be how to get the most bang for the buck on this piece of property. The scope narrows and the neighbors next door go by the wayside. He would argue that the increased setback is not reasonable to the appellant because it turns it into a bad business deal. It has been argued that there is no impact here, there is an -, Grant Avenue Townhomes Appeal LUA-07-018, SA-A, ECF August 9 2007 Page 7 impact, a 3-story building 13-feet away from our homes does create impacts, light, sight, views, and air. There is no guarantee that they will not be able to look into each other's living room. They have argued that this wil1 be great because his property values will go up, he disagrees, perhaps if they were building single family homes, but condo properties are based on the price of what the last units sold for, it doesn't matter what is next door, or how fancy it is, it is based on the selling price of the last unit sold. The greater worry is that his property values will go down, there are water problems in Heritage Vil1age, he will have a less desirable piece of property to sell because he has a giant condo looking into his home, there is a muddy trench behind his home because he has lost the light. He has a reasonable expectation to be able to maintain the same lifestyle as he had prior to this new construction. He does appreciate what the City is doing. He quoted from the Code provisions previously cited in this hearing. 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 1: 11 pm. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The appel1ants, Robin Jones for himself and Andrew S. Kovach for Tridor, Inc, filed appeals of an administrative decision approving a Site Plan for the Grant Avenue Homes. 2. Andrew S. Kovach (hereinafter Kovach) represents the applicant for the proposal. 3. The appellant Robin Jones (hereinafter Jones) owns a condominium unit on the adjacent property to the south and resides in that unit. 4. The appeals were filed in a timely manner. 5. Jones indicates that the very limited lot layout and awkward lot size results in high density buildings being too close to the common property line between Heritage and other properties and the Grant Avenue development. 6. Kovach, representing the applicant objected to two conditions imposed as a result of the Site Plan review process. There is an obj eclion to: Condition 2: The site plan shall be revised to show the southeast triplex and detached unit as one fourplex structure. Revised plans must be submitted and shall be subject to review and approval of the Development Services Division project manager prior to issuance of building permits. Condition 4: The site plan shall be revised, by reducing the size of the floor plans if necessary, to increase the south side yard building setback to a minimum of25 feet where buildings 8 through 12 would be located. Revised plans must be submitted and shall be subject to review and approval of the Development Services Division project manager prior to issuance of building permits. Grant Avenue Townhomes Appeal LUA-07-018, SA-A, ECF August 9 2007 Page 8 7. Jones noted that 14 units would be affected by the proximity of the proposal to Heritage Village. The living areas such as living room, dining room and kitchen face the north or common property line. The loss of light would be profound according to him. He did testify that the trees probably block some light, too, but not as significantly as the proposed buildings. 8. Kovach objected to the almost doubling of the required 13-foot setback to 25 feet. There was also the objection that this project had been subject to ongoing City review and adjustments and that this significant increase in setback would entirely alter the project at this late date. It was noted that the reduction in area due to the increased setback would be approximately 11,070 square feet or approximately a 34% reduction and this breaks out to be approximately 678 square feet in each of II units and 722 square feet in each of 5 additional units. The appellant/applicant indicated that this would be a substantial loss in terms of economics making the project infeasible. 9. The density of the neighboring Heritage Village is 16.16 dwelling units per acre as opposed to the proposed density for the subject development at 17.06 dwelling units per acre. 10. The subject site is located in the RM-F zone. Heritage Village is also in the RM-F zone. II. The RM-F zone requires a 20-foot front yard setback and 20 feet is proposed. Code requires 12 feet of side yard setback for lots III feet wide or wider and one additional foot for a 3rd story. This 158 foot wide lot would have to provide a side yard setback of 13 feet, which is what is proposed. A 15-foot rear yard is required and is proposed. 12. The building height permitted is 35 feet and 3 stories and with special amenities it may be 45 feet tall. The proposed height is 37 feet 3 inches or 2 feet 3 inches (2.25 feet) above the normally permitted height. Staff suggested increasing the south side setback along with the project's design features would allow the taller building. 13. Lot coverage may be 35 percent and 33 percent has been proposed. Impervious service cannot exceed 75 percent and 70 percent has been proposed. 14. The Staff Report addresses the two areas of concern raised by Kovach. They are: Page II of 16: "Site plan review affords the opportunity to require increased setbacks where proposed projects abut "a less intense residential zone" (RMC 4-2-IIOF). Although the density is comparable between the abutting projects, the mass and bulk of the Grant Avenue Homes is significantly greater than, and not compatible with, the Heritage Village structures. Staff recommends, therefore, that the site plan be revised, by reducing the size of the floor plans if necessary, to increase the south side yard building setback to a minimum of 25 feet where buildings 8 through 12 would be located. In addition, the detailed landscape plan shall indicate sufficient landscaping at locations where buildings of the two developments face each other to provide partial building screening, without light blockage, at maturity of vegetation. The detailed landscape plan must show the building and window locations on the abutting property in order to demonstrate this goal would be met. The proposed height of the Grant Avenue Homes (43 feet II inches to roof peak) would be considerably taller than the existing 2 story structures of Heritage Village. " Grant Avenue Townhomes Appeal LUA-07-018, SA-A, ECF August 9 2007 Page 9 This situation would also be mitigated somewhat by the wider setback." Page 2 of 16 "Thirty-six units would be constructed as a duplex (building #7), I 0 triplex buildings (#1-6 and 8-11), and a fourplex building (#12) [Exhibit 4]. Submittal information items refer to both a "single unit building" (Site Access / Traffic Impact Fee Analysis Report) and fourplex (Site Data, sheet AI). The unit(s) in question appear on the site plan as a triplex connected to a single, detached unit by a breezeway. This is not a recognized unit type by the City of Renton. Single-family detached units are not permitted in the RM-F zone. Staff recommends that the "single" unit be either eliminated or added to the triplex to create a fourplex structure. This shall be a condition of the site plan approval." IS. The following definition referring to attached multiple family dwellings is applicable to this decision: 4-11-040 Definitions D: "DWELLING, MULTI-FAMILY: Dwelling, Attached: A one-family dwelling attached to one or more one-family dwellings by common roofs, walls, or floors. This definition may also include a dwelling unit or units attached to garages or other nomesidential uses. This defmition does not include retirement residences, boarding and lodging houses, accessory dwelling units, adult family homes, group home I or group home II as defined herein." 16. Apparently, the City became aware that its citation ofRMC 4-2-11OF addressing abutting projects where one is in "a less intense residential zone" was inapplicable in this case since both projects are in the same RM-F Zone. The City then decided to rely on Section 4-9-200, and more probably 4-9- 200(A)(2)(6): ''To protect neighboring owners and uses by assuring that reasonable provisions have been made for such matters as sound and sight buffers, light and air, and those other aspects of site plans which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses." CONCLUSIONS: 1. The appellant has the burden of demonstrating that the decision of the City Official was either in error, or was otherwise contrary to law or constitutional provisions, or was arbitrary and capricious (Section 4- 8-110(E)(7)(b). The appellant Kovach has demonstrated that the action of the City should be reversed in the main. The appellant Jones has not shown the decision approving the project should be reversed. The decision is modified only in respect to the permitted height of the complex. Due to the general issues raised by the proximity of the two complexes, the proposal shall be restricted to the Code permitted height and not be allowed to attain additional height. The proposed height is 37 feet 3 inches or 2 feet 3 inches above the normally permitted height and it shall be reduced to 35 feet. 2. Arbitrary and capricious action has been defined as willful and unreasoning action in disregard of the facts and circumstances. A decision, when exercised honestly and upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances, is not arbitrary or capricious (Northern Pacific Transport Co. v Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, 69 Wn. 2d 472, 478 (1966). Grant Avenue Townhomes Appeal LUA-07-018, SA-A, ECF August 9 2007 Page 10 3. An action is likewise clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing body, on the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. (Ancheta v Daly, 77 Wn. 2d 255, 259 (1969). An appellate body should not necessarily substitute its judgment for the underlying agency with expertise in a matter unless appropriate. 4. Other than the height increase for the buildings of 2 feet 3 inches that staff approved subject to the increased south, side yard setback, which should not be approved, the appellant Jones has not demonstrated that staff made a mistake. The two properties have the same zoning and their densities are generally comparable. The impacts of multiple-family housing on similar multiple-family housing are not unique, unexpected or untoward. There are already a row of tightly planted trees that shade Jones property or screen the view so that the view to the north is not expansive at this time. Jones did not carry the burden necessary to show any clearly erroneous decision making. 5. On the other hand, appellant Kovach for the applicant has demonstrated that the City action was mistaken. There does not appear to be any justification for almost doubling the code mandated minimum setback in this case from 13 feet to 25 feet. As noted above, the two properties bear the same zoning category, RM-F. That zone allows a density of up to 20 units per acre, allows buildings to have 13 foot side yards unless there is less intense zoning on the adjacent property, allows greater lot coverage and greater impermeable area than is proposed. The property could support 42 units whereas the appellant Kovach has proposed 36 units. The two properties share almost identical densities. The proposed housing may be taller, permitted in the zone, but it is not more dense than its neighbor. 6. When a community adopts zoning that permits more density, urban-scale density, there are consequences and not all of them can be easily remediated or mitigated. The adoption of increased density requires the community to anticipate that adjacent properties will "mix it up." There will be shading, shadows, view blockage and loss of air and light to some extent. There will be tradeoffs between preserving trees, open space and providing reasonably sized units, reasonably designed units and reasonably dense development patterns. Some developers will maximize their footprints, using all of the ground space available under the specific zoning prOvisions and meet the setback requirements but not necessarily allow more generous setbacks. Others may be more generous but then they may sacrifice the density that seems favored by some provisions of the Growth Management Act. At the same time, the fact that older standards provided less setback or that errors in construction may have created less setback and, therefore, potential impacts, should not fall inappropriately or disproportionately on the adjacent property in all cases. In this case though, the appellant's project is not much more dense, meets or falls below limits set by code, appears to be well designed by exploiting, not inappropriately, its ground space. 7. The photographs of the rear of the adjacent Heritage complex, the size of the trees and the apparent separation between the trees and the Heritage buildings provide visual clues that show a setback more generous than staff suggests may exist. Staff did not measure the setback but used aerial photos to guess about the setback. It is not appropriate to base a decision on unknown factors. In addition, this office has to take notice of the fact that the cited basis for the original setback decision was the "less intense zone" that Heritage stood in. That proved to not be the case. The more generic basis that replaced does not appear to provide a strong basis for almost doubling the setback. The current applicant reduced its original proposal from 39 units to the current 36 units. The proposed density would be 17.06 dwelling units per acre while code permits a maximum of 20 dwelling units per acre. The 2.1 I-acre site appears capable of supporting 42 units if maximum density were to be achieved. 8. This office believes that staff was mistaken in applying the greater standards based on aerial overviews of the property and the fact that the two properties are zoned the same. At the same time, staff did Grant Avenue Townhomes Appeal LUA-07-018, SA-A, ECF August 9 2007 Page 11 justify the greater height proposed by the applicant based on a presumably 25-foot setback. That cannot be justified as this point. The buildings have no need to tower over the Heritage complex more than they will at 35 feet. While this office could remand the application for further review in this regard, the process has been delayed due to scheduling issues and it appears reasonable to scale the height down when allowing the normal 13-foot setback. The buildings cannot exceed the 35-foot height limit of the RM-F zone. 9. It also appears that while staffs objectives in trying to more closely combine the "semi-attached" single- family unit to the triplex may be noble, code does not sanction that decision. This office can probably sympathize with the fact that the provisions requiring structures to be attached was not more clear in what aspects of a building or buildings needed to be attached to one another, code appears to allow a roof, even if only a breezeway roof attachment to suffice. Code writers may not have anticipated such latitude that might have been abused but it appears that the design meets the definition or limitations and the Site Review Process encourages flexibility. 10. In conclusion, one appellant, Jones, has not shown that approving a multiple family complex to be a neighbor of another multiple family complex was in any way erroneous. The applicant-appellant has demonstrated that staff made a mistake in seeking to almost double the required setback and requiring the merging of the "one-p]ex" to a more "attached" status with the triplex. At the same time, staffs decision to allow a 37 foot 3 inch building was based on the larger side yard and can no longer be sanctioned. DECISION: The decision affirmed in part and reversed as noted in the above conclusions subject to: The buildings cannot exceed the 35-foot height limit of the RM-F zone. ORDERED THIS 9th day of August 2007. HEARING E INER TRANSMITTED THIS 9'" day of August 2007 to the parties of record: Mark Barber Elizabeth Higgins Sally Brick Senior Assistant City Attorney Development Services K&L Gates City of Renton City of Renton 9254'" Ave, Ste. 2900 Seattle, WA 98104 Robin Jones Andrew Kovach 1626 Grant Ave Kovach Architects Sarah E. McDonald Renton, WA 101 West Main Street POBox 1825 Monroe, W A 98272 Renton, W A 98057 Aaron Redhage Cathy Joss Tridor, Inc 1626 Grant Ave S, #B-102 1626 Grant Ave S, #D-103 PO Box 747 Renton, W A 98055 Renton, W A 98055 Bellevue, W A 98009 Grant Avenue Townhomes Appeal LUA-07-0IS, SA-A, ECF August 9 2007 Page 12 Mark Jacobs Bill Taylor 7731 8th Ave SW Seattle, W A 98106 POBox 1787 Issaquah, W A 98027 Charlie Wolff 1708 SE 16th Place Renton, WA 98055 Betty & Raymond Barry 1625 Jones Drive SE Renton, W A 98055 TRANSMITTED THIS 9th day of August 2007 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services King County J oumal Mark Peterson, Fire Marshal Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transportation Division Utilities Division Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services Pursuant to Title N, Chapter 8, Section 100Gofthe City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., August 23, 2007. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors oflaw 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 N, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires tbat 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, frrst floor of City Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m .. August 23, 2007. 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 tbat 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 thern 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. REPORT AND DECISION APPELLANT: PUBLIC HEARING: OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON Robin Jones 1626 Grant Avenue Renton, W A 98055 August 9, 2007 Grant Avenue Townhomes ERC Determination Appeal LUA-07-018, SA-A, ECF After reviewing the Appellant's written requests for a SEPA Appeal hearing and the Applicant and Appellant request an appeal hearing on the underlying site plan for the project, examining available information on file, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the June 26, 2007 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, June 26, 2007, at 9:48 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: Yellow file and the inclusive Appeal Exhibit No.2: Power Point Presentation file containing the original appeal letter and other pertinent information. Exbibit No.3: Mark Jacobs, Traffic Engineer Exhibit No.4: Bill Taylor, Taylor Engineering Resume Consultants Resume Exhibit No.5: Drawing IE of Grant Ave Townhomes Exhibit No.6: Site Plan for Grant Ave Townhomes project (JD) Parties Present: Mark Barber, Senior Assistant City Attorney Elizabeth Higgins, Development Services Sally Brick, Attorney for Applicant, 925 4th Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104 Robin Jones, Appellant, 1626 Grant Avenue S., Apt. B-203, Renton, WA 98055 Robin Jones stated that he is arguing on two points in terms of the Environmental; first the ERC failed to correctly impose conditions to mitigate impacts related to the project on the traffic at the entrance. This is a Grant Avenue Townhomes Appeal LUA-07-018 SA-A, ECF August 9, 2007 Page 2 tough site plan that leads to a very narrow entrance, the traffic analysis was based on 25 MPH, which sign has been in place for a long time and most likely does not reflect the real traffic conditions. There has been a great deal of development and 25 MPH is not the realistic speed that is happening on that road. The issue is not traffic, but traffic is part of the problem. As you travel south on Grant Avenue the road curves and the entrance to the project is just behind the curve. The study itself recognizes that there are some stopping issues at the 25 MPH, which probably is not the speed of most vehicles on that road. The mitigation plan gets no better if you cut the vegetation, that vegetation is not on any land that is controlled by the applicant. The mitigation plan is not realistic and he would ask that a new traffic study be done. The second part of the environmental appeal is that the ERC failed to describe accurately the project and the impacts. The ERC did not understand the issues that Heritage Village is facing, nor did they accurately describe the project because they did not receive the full information from the plan. There currently are ground water issues at Heritage Village. The study that was done for this site did not look at the overall conditions, they picked a very optimistic location and time to do some of the tests. Initially Heritage was the sole property on that road, Steeple Chase was built to the south in the last five years. Since that time, Heritage has had significant drainage problems, about 18-months ago a spring came up on the south side. Is seems that once the property is built, no one wants to deal with issues, their plan is to raise issue before the property is built. They have been working with the City of Renton, the water has been tested, it is definitely not from a broken pipe, they are working on a solution, which consists of putting in a $5,000 French Drain, this would be the third one on the property. The parking lot is starting to shift and sink into the ground, the road was resurfaced in 2005 and there are cracks already in the middle of the roadway. To the north side there is a lot of standing water. The groundwater testing was done in May with validation in August, not the wettest months of the year. The location for the test pit was near a house, on high ground. Approximately three weeks prior to the test pits being dug, there was standing water on the property next door, the tests were not done in that area. They would like to have the test pit done again in a more rainy time of year, and a location that is more realistic to what it is going to impact. Mr. Barber had no questions. Ms. Brick inquired as to Mr. Jones expertise. Mr. Jones stated that he is not a registered professional civil engineer, traffic engineer or an expert in any capacity. However both his parents are geologists and he has grown up with years of geological knowledge. The City reached its conclusions after receiving many technical analyses prepared by professional environmental consultants for the applicant. The traffic study, geotechnical study and drainage study were reviewed by the respective departments at the City of Renton. Mr. Jones is appealing the mitigated DNS-M, but offers only unsupported lay opinions and generalized complaints, they cannot meet the heavy burden of proof to demonstrate that the DNS-M is clearly erroneous. The appeal should therefore be denied. Mark Jacobs, 7731 8th Ave SW, Seattle, W A 98106, stated that he is a Traffic Engineer and gave a detailed statement on how he completed his report on this project. All information was given to him by the architect for the applicant, he then contacted Kayren Kittrick at the City to identify the things they were interested in seeing in a traffic study. The major concern was sight lines at the site access. They looked at the possibility of relocating the access, the proposed access is going to provide the best stopping sight distance to and from the north and south. It meets the criteria for the posted 25 MPH as well as 30 MPH. He did recommend pruning some of the vegetation, some ofthe vegetation is actually within the 30-feet of right-of-way. It has been fairly well kept by the City of Renton, they may have the ability to remove even more of the vegetation after speaking with Puget Sound Energy. · " Grant Avenue Townhomes Appeal LUA-07-0\8 SA-A, ECF August 9, 2007 Page 3 Parking could occur in the future and he would suggest that parking restrictions be placed within 30 feet of the access point. Mr. Jones stated that Mr. Jacobs is very well qualified, however, he is trying to bring in is an understanding of the local environment. Mr. Jacobs stated that nighttime conditions are actually easier because there are headlights on vehicles and the vehicles can be seen from a greater distance than during daylight hours. The City of Renton has done a great job in maintaining vegetation, must better than some of the other agencies he has dealt with. Mr. Barber had no questions. Bill Taylor, PO Box 1787, Issaquah, W A 98027 stated his qualifications for the record. He was asked to do some site inspections and evaluations regarding water drainage. The analysis that was prepared concluded that it is a fairly standard sloping site and there are moisture issues. The topography does not slope towards the appellant's property, the Heritage property, rather this project tends to slope down to the roadway to the west where there is a natural draw that conveys the water from the general vicinity and further on to the west. He did not feel that the drainage would cause more problems to the Heritage property. There are two separate terms, standing water, which is surface water and ground water is sub-surface water. Ground water can come to the surface through a spring and that may very well be occurring on the Heritage property. That water is not the same that is on this property. Code requires that all water be discharged to the same place it was going prior to the development of the property. There was a question about the date on the TIR is the date of submittal, not the date of the inspection. Mr. Jones inquired if Mr. Taylor was aware of any of the drainage problems that Heritage was having when the plan for this site was prepared? Mr. Taylor stated that it was not part of their scope to explore drainage problems, they do solicit drainage problems that are on file with the City. The Heritage property was not explored in any detail due to it being uphill and not something that this project would impact. The inspection was not to evaluate the ground water, Mr. Jones may be referring to the Nelson Geotechnical Investigation that was not done by Mr. Taylor's company. They did walk the site after the site had been cleared, and a visual confirmation of the survey was done. The survey is much more accurate and is based on field measurements and elevations throughout the site. This inspection was done during the summer months. Ms. Brick summed up the testimony and stated that the geotechnical report stated that there were minor to moderate amounts of ground water at shallow digs and it was their opinion that the ground water they found did not represent a regional ground water table. The SEPA Appeal Hearing closed at 10:50 am. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The appellant, Robin Jones, filed an appeal of a decision by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC). The appeal was filed in a timely manner. Grant Avenue Townhomes Appeal LUA-07-018 SA-A, ECF August 9, 2007 Page 4 2. The City reviewed the proposed Grant Avenue Townhomes, a 36-unit, multiple family complex proposed for 1600 Grant Avenue SE. The City issued a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M). 3. The complex would be located immediately north and adjacent to Heritage Village Condominiums where the appellant resides and owns a unit. 4. The appellant alleges that the DNS-M was inadequate and that the threshold determination was deficient. The allegations were that: The review failed to consider serious drainage and groundwater problems and particularly the additional impervious surfaces adding to drainage problems at Heritage Village Condominiums. The geotechnical evaluation was based on old, dated information, failed to account for newer developments in the area, is conclusionary and again, fails to address groundwater problems on adjacent property. The determination relies of faulty assumptions regarding groundwater and seismic activity. The traffic study is inadequate and suggests inadequate mitigation for sight distance problems for the entrance to the proposal -pruning vegetation not controlled by the underlying applicant. The appellant suggests that alternative proposals be considered to lessen or limit the impact of development on the environment and that the DNS-M be rescinded. 5. The appellant noted that the 25 mph speed limit used in the traffic analysis was not realistic and the traffic study did not recognize the whole picture. He is concerned that the curve in the road near the new entrance would create stopping and turning issues since most cars do not travel the 25 mph limit. The proposed mitigation measure was to trim vegetation in the vicinity of the curve/entrance and the appellant did not believe that was sufficient and the vegetation is not property controlled by the developer. 6. The appellant noted that his complex has suffered serious and expensive storm drainage problems. A French drain has been required and the parking lot is shifting and sinking. He attributed many of these problems to newer development in the area since his complex has been there for quite some time and did not suffer issues until more recent development occurred. He noted that there are standing water issues on the north side of his complex, the side where the new development would occur. The appellant alleged that the test pits were done in May and validated in August and should have occurred in wetter months. 7. The traffic engineer for the applicant's project testified that he used information about the project, the roadways and input from the City to determine what areas to emphasize. The City suggested "sight lines" would be an issue. Two main issues were the stopping sight distance and the entering sight distance. They measured the sight distance and explored moving the entrance but found the proposed location provided the best "stopping distance sight lines" both north and south. The sight distance met the criteria for both the posted 25 mph limit and for a 30 mph speed, which exceeded the posted limit. He noted that some of the vegetation is within the right-of-way and could be trimmed. He also noted that the sight distance is appropriate even if vegetation is not pruned. He expected the City could contact Puget Power to maintain additional vegetation. He also noted that nighttime situations should be better since headlights increase the distance at which vehicles generally see each other. ", , , '. Grant Avenue Townhomes Appeal LUA-07-018 SA-A, ECF August 9, 2007 Page 5 8. The person responsible for the drainage report and permit documents testified that the site is a fairly standard sloping site. The site slopes generally to the west and not toward the south, Heritage Village, where the appellant resides. The design of the proposed detention system will collect stormwater, using curbs, gutters to direct the flow to a detention vault. The water will then be released to its natural discharge point, which is not toward Heritage Village. Solving current issues on the Heritage Village site is not part of the scope of their analysis and since the Heritage site is uphill from the subject site it was not an issue. CONCLUSIONS, 1. The decision of the governmental agency acting as the responsible official is entitled to substantial weight. Therefore, the determination ofthe Environmental Review Committee (ERe), 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 erroneous." (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 will not be modified or reversed if it can meet the above test. For reasons enumerated below, the decision of the ERC is affirmed. 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 SEP A 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 (OS) 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 ofthe 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: Significant. (I) "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." Grant Avenue Townhomes Appeal LUA-07-018 SA-A, ECF August 9, 2007 Page 6 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. hnpacts also include reasonably related and foreseeable direct and indirect impacts including short-term and long-term effects. (WAC I 97-11-060( 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. (WAC 197-11-060(4)(d». 7. The appellant has failed to demonstrate the information compiled for the traffic analysis, specifically, the sight distance to and from the proposed driveway was not adequately addressed and for the stormwater aspects of the project, specifically, stormwater impacts on his residence was not adequately reviewed. 8. The traffic assessment involved gleaning from the City the main issues, fmding that sight distance was a major concern and measuring, reviewing and assessing the sight distance for entering and stopping vehicles from a new driveway along Grant Avenue. The assessment found that at the posted speed and at 5 mph over that speed, the sight distances were adequate. The review found even if pruning of certain vegetation near existing curves were not accomplished, sight distance was still adequate. 9. Similarly, the stormwater analysis does not reveal any deficits regarding the handling of stormwater for this project. While the complex the appellant resides in does apparently suffer from either groundwater or surface water problems, the proposal is not expected to exacerbate any ofthose issues nor is it required to address issues on the adjacent propertY. The stormwater information shows that stormwater reaching the subject site will be appropriately channeled by curbs and gutters and detained in a suitable vault for appropriate release at its natural point of discharge. The point of discharge should not affect the appellant's residence or complex due to the fact that Heritage Village sits higher than the subject site. 10. The appellant has not provided any meaningful proof that the ERC decision was wrong. 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 firm conviction that a mistake has been made. This office was not left with a firm conviction that the ERC made a mistake. The appellant has the burden of demonstrating the ERC's determination was erroneous and the appellant has failed in meeting that burden. II. The appealing party has a burden that was not met in the instant case. The decision of the ERC must be affirmed. DECISION: The decision of the ERC is affirmed. ORDERED THIS 9 th day of August 2007. Grant Avenue Townhomes Appeal LUA-07-018 SA-A, ECF August 9, 2007 Page 7 TRANSMITTED THIS 9th day of August 2007 to the parties of record: Mark Barber Senior Assistant City Attorney City of Renton Robin Jones 1626 Grant Ave Renton, WA Elizabeth Higgins Development Services City of Renton Andrew Kovach Kovach Architects 101 West Main Street TRANSMITTED THIS 9th day of August 2007 to the following: Sally Brick K & L Gates 925 4th Ave, Ste. 2900 Seattle, WA 98104 Sarah E. McDonald PO Box 1825 Mayor Kathy Keolker Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services King County Journal Mark Peterson, Fire Marshal Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transportation Division Utilities Division Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100Gof the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be fIled in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., August 23, 2007. 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 ofthe Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review ofthe 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 .. August 23, 2007. 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. Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 Robin H. Jones 1626 Grant Ave S Apt # B203 Renton, W A 98055 RE; Additional Documents; Grant Ave Town Houses:. V.II" Dear Mr. Kaufinan 21 July 2007 I have received Ms. Brick's additional documents fur the above case. My understanding at the hearing was that additional supporting information could be submitted in support of the arguments that were presented in the hearing. I would point out that Ms. Brick has submitted a full point-by-point re-argument of both her client's administrative appeal, as well as a point-by-point challenge to my environmental appeal. In essence, she has submitted a new round of argument to which the City of Renton and I should be entitled to respond to. Accordingly, I would request that the City of Renton and I have equal time to respond to this new round of arguments and evidence, prior to you issuing your decision. Given the original hearing date of26 June 2007, I would request an equal amount of time that Ms. Brick had, 15 working days, or a close of response date by end of business 10 August 2007. Thank you for you time and understanding. I have sent this letter to Ms. Brick and Ms. Higgins. Sincerely ~~ Robin H. Jones CC Ms Brick -K&L Gates Ms Elizabeth Higgins -City of Renton ry; Robin Jones , .. 1626 Grant Ave. S. Apt B203 _.WA 9!1055 ~ ---~-.-) SEATTLE WA 981 . 2.3 .JI.I L ;;:'()fJ 7 PM -::, I. D<i>Qt~""f'Nj ot PI<2NIV:Nj Jt If,.,: ~ l.i~ hf' f I-, H'jfj ;He, c .. ~ or Rf>AolV 10 55 50"1"'~ ~J, \./0,7 ~lIIf(>,.J J'voI" <JSt;5 5 -0. •••• ..... _."...--.-.-._._- '=!t:1f_:!:: :"";j: . ..::.::::..=;.::: II, i"I"I,li,",I,1 ,III ,III Ii "' i,i 1I11.III,i I i, i, ,i,ill,,111 r Fred Kaufman -post~Hearing submissions ~rant Avenue Homes ' _______ ~____ _ " _. ___ _~_A. From: To: Date: Subject: "Brick, Sally" <Sally.Brick@klgates.com> <fkaufman@ci.renton.wa.us> 7/19/200712:12:31 PM Post-Hearing submissions -Grant Avenue Homes Dear Mr. Hearing Examiner, Please find attached the Applicant's post-hearing submissions in connection with the Grant Avenue Homes project (LUA-07 -018, SA-A, ECF), as authorized by you at the June 26 hearing. The first submission pertains to Tridor's appeal of the Setback Condition in the Administrative Site Plan approval. The second submission concerns the SEPA appeal filed by Mr. Jones. We mail hard copies of the submissions, with attachments, today. Regards, Sally Brick «20070719124810926.pdf» «Survey_for _ Grant_Ave_Project.PDF» «20070719124908960.pdf» Sally Brick Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis LLP 925 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2900 Seattle, W A 981 04-1158 ph. 206.370.8133 fx. 206.370.6297 sally.brick@klgates.com This electronic message contains information from the law firm of Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis LLP. The contents may be privileged and confidential and are for the use of the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not an intended addressee, note that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this message is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please contact me at Sally.Brick@klgates.com. cc: <mebarber@seanet.com>, <RobinHJ@msn.com>, <ehiggins@ci.renton.wa.us> [~~ed Kaufman -Re: -Post-Hearing submiss -Grant Avenue Homes From: To: Fred Kaufman Sally Brick .~~" .. ---- Subject: Re: Post-Hearing submissions -Grant Avenue Homes All correspondence with this office regarding pending land use applications must be part of the public record. Your email and this response will be placed in the official file. The PDF files were not printed as they were separately submitted. Please refrain from replying to this email as that would generate another series of printouts and replies. >>> "Brick, Sally" <Sally.Brick@klgates.com> 07/19/07 12:11 PM »> Dear Mr. Hearing Examiner, Please find attached the Applicant's post-hearing submissions in connection with the Grant Avenue Homes project (LUA-07-018, SA-A, ECF), as authorized by you at the June 26 hearing. The first submission pertains to Tridor's appeal of the Setback Condition in the Administrative Site Plan approval. The second submisSion concerns the SEPA appeal filed by Mr. Jones. We mail hard copies of the submissions, with attachments, today. Regards, Sally Brick «20070719124810926.pdf» «Survey_for _ Grant_Ave_Project.PDF» «20070719124908960.pdf» Sally Brick Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis LLP 925 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2900 Seattle, WA98104-1158 ph. 206.370.8133 fx. 206.370.6297 sally.brick@klgates.com This electronic message contains information from the law firm of Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis LLP. The contents may be privileged and confidential and are for the use of the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not an intended addressee, note that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this message is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please contact me at Sally.Brick@klgates.com. cc: Elizabeth Higgins; mebarber@seanet.com; RobinHJ@msn.com . Page 1. -Grant Avenue Homes ; Fred Kaufman -Re: Post-Hearing submiss' I __ ' , From: To: Date: Subject: "Robin Jones" <RobinHJ@msn.com> <fkaufman@ci.renton.wa.us>, "Brick, Sally" <Sally.Brick@klgates.com> 7/22/20075:50:37 PM Re: Post-Hearing submissions -Grant Avenue Homes Post-Hearing submissions -Grant Avenue HomesDear Mr. Kaufman I have received Ms. Brick's additional documents for the above case. My understanding at the hearing was that additional supporting information could be submitted in support of the arguments that were presented in the hearing. I would point out that Ms. Brick has submitted a full point-by-point re-argument of both her client's administrative appeal, as well as a point-by-point challenge to my environmental appeal. In essence, she has submitted a new round of argument to which the City of Renton and I should be entitled to respond to. Accordingly, I would request that the City of Renton and I have equal time to respond to this new round of arguments and evidence, prior to you issuing your decision. Given the original hearing date of 26 June 2007, I would request an equal amount of time that Ms. Brick had, 15 working days, or a close of response date by end of business 10 August 2007. Thank you for you time and understanding. I have sent this letter to Ms. Brick and Ms. Higgins. Sincerely Robin Jones -----Original Message ----- From: Brick, Sally<mailto:Sally.Brick@klgates.com> To: fkaufman@ci.renton.wa.us<mailto:fkaufman@ci.renton.wa.us> Cc: mebarber@seanet.com<mailto:mebarber@seanet.com> ; RobinHJ@msn.com<mailto:RobinHJ@msn.com> ; ehiggins@ci.renton.wa.us<mailto:ehiggins@ci.renton.wa.us> Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 12:11 PM Subject: Post-Hearing submissions -Grant Avenue Homes Dear Mr. Hearing Examiner, Please find attached the Applicant's post-hearing submissions in connection with the Grant Avenue Homes project (LUA-07-018, SA-A, ECF), as authorized by you at the June 26 hearing. The first submission pertains to Tridor's appeal of the Setback Condition in the Administrative Site Plan approval. The second submission concerns the SEPA appeal filed by Mr. Jones. We mail hard copies of the submissions, with attachments, today. Regards, Sally Brick Page 2 :-Fr~dKaufman: Re: Post-Hearing sUbmis~i -Grant Avenue Hom:.:.e::.:s~ ___ _ ~~-.-.-~-.. «20070719124810926.pdf» «Survey-for _ Grant_Ave_Project.PDF» «20070719124908960.pdf» Sally Brick Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis LLP 925 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2900 Seattle, WA98104-1158 ph. 206.370.8133 fx. 206.370.6297 sally.brick@klgates.com This electronic message contains information from the law firm of Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis LLP. The contents may be privileged and confidential and are for the use of the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not an intended addressee, note that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this message is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please contact me at Sally.Brick@klgates.com. cc: <mebarber@seanet.com>, <ehiggins@ci.renton.wa.us> ~---~ ~-~--:::c----::--c-:-:----c- : Fred Kaufman -Re: Post-Hearing submissi -Grant Avenue Homes From: Fred Kaufman To: Robin Jones; Sally Brick Subject: Re: Post-Hearing submissions -Grant Avenue Homes All correspondence with this office regarding pending land use applications must be part of the public record. Your email and this response will be placed in the official file. ~~~,-P",age 1 Please refrain from replying to this email as that would generate another series of printouts and replies. »> "Robin Jones" <RobinHJ@msn.com> 07/22/07 5:50 PM »> Post-Hearing submissions -Grant Avenue HomesDear Mr. Kaufman I have received Ms. Brick's additional documents for the above case. My understanding at the hearing was that additional supporting information could be submitted in support of the arguments that were presented in the hearing. I would point out that Ms. Brick has submitted a full point-by-point re-argument of both her client's administrative appeal, as well as a point-by-point challenge to my environmental appeal. In essence, she has submitted a new round of argument to which the City of Renton and I should be entitled to respond to. Accordingly, I would request that the City of Renton and I have equal time to respond to this new round of arguments and evidence, prior to you issuing your decision. Given the original hearing date of 26 June 2007, I would request an equal amount of time that Ms. Brick had, 15 working days, or a close of response date by end of business 10 August 2007. Thank you for you time and understanding. I have sent this letter to Ms. Brick and Ms. Higgins. Sincerely Robin Jones -----Original Message ----- From: Brick, Sally<mailto:Sally.Brick@klgates.com> To: !kaufman@ci.renton.wa.us<mailto:fkaufman@ci.renton .wa .us> Cc: mebarber@seanet.com<mailto:mebarber@seanet.com> ; RobinHJ@msn.com<mailto:RobinHJ@msn.com> ; ehiggins@ci.renton.wa.us<mailto:ehiggins@ci.renton.wa.us> Sent: Thursday, July 19, 200712:11 PM Subject: Post-Hearing submissions -Grant Avenue Homes Dear Mr. Hearing Examiner, Please find attached the Applicant's post-hearing submissions in connection with the Grant Avenue Homes project (LUA-07-018, SA-A, ECF), as authorized by you at the June 26 hearing. The first submission pertains to Tridor's appeal of the Setback Condition in the Administrative Site Plan approval. The second submission concerns the SEPA appeal filed by Mr. Jones. -Grant Avenue Homes Page 2 [Fred Kaufman -Re: Post-Hearing submissi -'------~~.-- We mail hard copies of the submissions, with attachments, today. Regards, Sally Brick «2007071912481 0926.pdf» «SurveLfor _ Grant_ Ave_ProjecI.PDF» «20070719124908960.pdf» Sally Brick Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis LLP 925 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2900 Seattle, W A 98104-1158 ph. 206.370.8133 fx. 206.370.6297 sally.brick@klgates.com This electronic message contains information from the law firm of Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis LLP. The contents may be privileged and confidential and are for the use of the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not an intended addressee, note that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this message is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please contact me at Sally.Brick@klgates.com. cc: Elizabeth Higgins; mebarber@seanet.com 1~!~dJ<~ufman~ Re:Appeal Memo -LUA-07 "'~SA-A, EC;F From: To: Date: Subject: Fred Kaufman Sally Brick 6/25/2007 8:26:20 AM Re: Appeal Memo -LUA-07-018, SA-A, ECF All correspondence with this office regarding pending land use applications must be part of the public record. Your email and this response will be placed in the official file. Please refrain from replying to this email as that would generate another series of printouts and replies. >>> "Brick, Sally" <Sally.Brick@klgates.com> 06/21/07 4:49 PM »> Dear Mr. Hearing Examiner, We are representing Tridor, Inc. in its appeal of certain conditions on the Administrative Site Plan approval for the Grant Avenue Homes Project. In connection with this appeal we have prepared the attached Appeal Memorandum, which we wanted you to have prior to the Hearing scheduled for next Tuesday. I am copying Mark Barber who is representing the City in this matter. We will also mail you a hard copy of the Appeal Memo (with color attachments). Regards, Sally Brick Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis LLP 425 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2900 Seattle, WA 98104-1158 ph. 206.370.8133 fx. 206.370.6297 sally.brick@klgates.com «20070621172942349.pdf» This electronic message contains information from the law firm of Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis LLP. The contents may be privileged and confidential and are for the use of the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not an intended addressee, note that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this message is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please contact me at Sally.Brick@klgates.com. cc: mebarber@seanet.com Page 1 ~~~~-- STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING } AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC NOTICE Daniele M Ledvina, being first duly sworn on oath that she is the Legal Advertising Representative of the Renton Reporter a bi-weekly newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of general circulation and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continuously as a bi-weekly newspaper in King County, Washington. The Renton Reporter has been approved as a Legal Newspaper by order of the Superior Court ofthe State of Washington for King County. The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues of the Renton Reporter (and not in supplement fOI111) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a: Public Notice was published on June 16,2007. The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of $84.00. /~ ~/;I;'4 Lfrlda M. Mills Legal Advertising Representative, Renton Reporter Subscribed and sworn to me this 28 th day of June, 2007. 8J)~c:n ,\\1"""'1/ """,, CAN I~:" ,'<')..v .... h •• ,-( "..", ..:--V •• ··\5S I0'/· ••• 0 -; 11 U Cantelon ~ ••• ~~ ~-r"G.~. :.z... ~ "-.. 0 -s:.~' Notary Public for the State of Washington, Residing in Kent, Washington i U No~, <;;': ::: -(f): '~'lY ,.: -P. O. Number: ::: --l: Pl"" Ie : _ ~ IWL : < ::: 'S.·~\ ... o /0'::' "","<\' •• ..5' () •• " .... ~ .. "o,··:H.1 .. ~Z~J:,·~·· .... () .$" .. ~;> ,,,,.,,,, .'-f~"~ . V:"c\A\' ~\. ... ~/,i . (, '.' \'\~ i'~"'1',\\' NOTICE OF APPEAL HEARING RENTON HEARING EXAMINER RENTON, WASHINGTON A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner in the C)luncil Chambers on the seventh f100r of Renton City Hall, 1065 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington, on June 26, 2007 at 9:00 AM to consider the following petiti<ms: Grant Avenue 'lbwnhomcs En"ironmental Determinaton and Site Plan Review Approval Appeals LUA07~118, SA-A, EGF Location: 1600 Grant Avenue SE. Henton. Description: A 36·unit townhouse projett, located on 2.11 acres of land in Southeast Renton, was given a Determination of Non- Significance, with Mitigation and received Administrcltive Site Plan Approval. Appeals ofhoth decisions were subsequently appealed to the City of Renton Hearing Examiner. All interested persons are invited to be present at the PubHc Hearing to express their opinions. Questions should be directed to the Hearing Examiner at 425-430-6615. Published in the Renton Reporter June 16,2007. #86.158.1 .----.~.--~ .. ------- iFred Kaufman -Appeal Memo ~_LUA-07-01-~A-A, ECF From: To: Date: Subject: "Brick, Sally" <Sally.Brick@klgates.com> <fkaufm an@ci.renton.wa.us> 6/21/20074:50:21 PM Appeal Memo -LUA-07-018, SA-A, ECF Dear Mr. Hearing Examiner, We are representing Tridor, Inc. in its appeal of certain conditions on the Administrative Site Plan approval for the Grant Avenue Homes Project In connection with this appeal we have prepared the attached Appeal Memorandum, which we wanted you to have prior to the Hearing scheduled for next Tuesday. I am copying Mark Barber who is representing the City in this matter. We will also mail you a hard copy of the Appeal Memo (with color attachments ), Regards, Sally Brick Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis LLP 425 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2900 Seattle, WA 98104-1158 ph,206,370.8133 fx. 206,370,6297 sally,brick@klgates.com «20070621172942349,pdf» This electronic message contains information from the law firm of Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis LLP, The contents may be privileged and confidential and are for the use of the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not an intended addressee, note that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this message is prohibited, If you have received this e-mail in error, please contact me at Sally.Brick@klgates,com. cc: <mebarber@seanetcom> Page 1 ~-Fre(U<aufman -Exhibits to 'fridor Appeal M 0 From: To: Date: Subject: "Brick, Sally" <Sally.Brick@klgates.com> <fkaufman@ci.renton.wa.us> 6/21/20074:52:05 PM Exhibits to Tridor Appeal Memo > «Exhibit 1-Site Plans & Architectural Drawings.pdf» «Exhibit > 2-Photos, Heritage Village & Trees.pdf» «Exhibit 3-Revised > Landscaping Plan.pdf» «Exhibit 4-Pre-Application Memo.pdf» > «Exhibit 5-Survey Plan of Heritage Village.pdf» «Exhibit 6-North > Elevation 4Plex.pdf» ______ Page 1 This electronic message contains information from the law firm of Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis LLP. The contents may be privileged and confidential and are for the use of the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not an intended addressee, note that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this message is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please contact me at Sally.Brick@klgates.ccm. cc: <mebarber@seanet.com> [Fred K~~fman -Re: EXh_ibitsto Tridor APPEl?' • 'ell2~ From: To: Subject: Fred Kaufman Sally Brick Re: Exhibits to Tridor Appeal Memo All correspondence with this office regarding pending land use applications must be part of the public record. Your email and this response will be placed in the official file. Please refrain from replying to this email as that would generate another series of printouts and replies. >>> "Brick, Sally" <Sally.Brick@klgates.com> 06/21/074:51 PM >>> > «Exhibit 1-Site Plans & Architectural Drawings.pdf» «Exhibit > 2-Photos, Heritage Village & Trees.pdf» «Exhibit 3-Revised > Landscaping Plan.pdf» «Exhibit 4-Pre·Application Memo.pdf» > «Exhibit 5-Survey Plan of Heritage Village.pdf» «Exhibit 6-North > Elevation 4Plex.pdf» This electronic message contains information from the law finm of Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis LLP. The contents may be privileged and confidential and are for the use of the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not an intended addressee, note that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this message is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please contact me at Sally.Brick@klgates.com. cc: mebarber@seanet.com Page 1 May 17, 2007 Robin Jones 1626 Grant A venue, #B-203 Renton, W A 98055 CIT'_ OF RENTON Hearing Examiner Fred J. Kaufman Re: Appeals of Grant Avenue Townhomes SEPA Tlueshold Determination, and Administrative Site Plan Review LUA 07-018, SA-A, ECF Dear Mr. Jones: We are in receipt of your letter requesting that the above matter be rescheduled to a time after the 19th of June due to your being out of state on Annual Training for the Army Reserve. Therefore, the appeal hearing on the above matter has been rescheduled for Tuesday, June 26, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. The hearing will take place in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. The address is 1055 S Grady Way in Renton. If this office can provide any further assistance, please address those comments in writing. Sincerely, Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton FJK/nt cc: Larry Warren, City Attorney Mark Barber, Assistant Attorney Neil Watts, Development Services Jennifer Henning, Development Services Andrew S. Kovach, Architect - Ol-OlJ' ----1-0-55-S-o-u-th-a-r-a-dy-W-ay--R-e-n-to-n-, W-as-h-in-gt-o-n-9-g-05-5---(4-2-5-) -43-0--6-5-1-5 ----~ * This paper contains 50'/0 recycled material. 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE Hearing Examiner 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 Robin H Jones B203 1626 Grant Ave S. Renton, W A 98055 RE; Appeals of Grant Avenue Town Houses; LUA 07-018, SA-A, ECF Dear Mr. Kaufman, I have received the letter indicating the hearing date the above property from your Office. I am currently a serving member of the Army Reserve, and I have been notified that I will be out of the state on Annual Training during the first part of June. I therefore would like to request a reschedule of the hearing date till after the 19th of June 2007. I thank you for your understanding. ~~ Robin Jones (425) 228 4396 April 24, 2007 Robin Jones 1626 Grant Avenue, #B-203 Renton, W A 98055 CIT'_ OF RENTON Hearing Examiner Fred J. Kaufman Re: Appeals of Grant Avenue Townhomes SEPA Threshold Determination, and Administrative Site Plan Review LUA 07-018, SA-A, ECF Dear Mr, Jones: The appeal hearing on the above matters has been scheduled for Tuesday, Juue 5, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. The hearing will take place in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. The address is 1055 S Grady Way in Renton. If this office can provide any further assistance, please address those comments in writing. Sincerely, Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton FJKlnt cc: Larry Warren, City Attorney Mark Barber, Assistant Attorney Neil Watts, Development Services Jennifer Henning, Development Services Andrew S. Kovach, Architect -------:-lO=-=S:::S-=S-ou--:th:-:Gr-ad-=-y--:W=-ay---=R=-e-nt-on-,-::W-=-as-=h:-in-gt-o-n-9-=g-=-OS:-:S---( 4-:2-S)-4-3-0--6-SI-S----R E N T ~ * This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE TO: Phone: Fax Phone: I SUBJECT: REMARKS: Cill of RenlOn Mayor's Office 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 o Original to o Urgent be mailed Date: . J-ti-() 7 FROM: Phone: 425-430-65fJt) (., S/ r Fax Phone: 425-430-6523 Number of pages including cover sheet: o Reply o Please 0 For your ASAP Comment review .f.. T; A' CUi d <..JI J ) c:::l fFL(ji) a b..-h ~ rLrJ 5\.. ..,; ~ ~.J(-u~ , {I 71~-<-<A /1 v RENTON AHEAD OF THE CURVE -0.'; IT 4/20/07 Wik/Ren/R/D Appeal. 4/20107 CITY OF RENTON Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 (425) 430.7200 Fax (425) 430.7231 Project Name: Grant Avenue Homes Project Description and Location: 1600 Grant Avenue South Subject: Administrative Site Plan review File No. LUA-07 -018 Notification of Appeal Dear Sara, CITY OF RENTON APR 202007 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 3.70pm N N Our office recently received (April 9'h) a Report and Decision document concerning the above-mentioned project. Both the Owner and Architect were out of town until last week. The Owner returned last evening and the report was made available to him by our office for review. He received no other notification of the report and decision. It has been noted that the appeal shall be filed within fourteen (14) days of publication of notice of such determination, which we calculate as the first full business day following the postmarking of the document (the 6'" of April). The Owner has expressed extreme hardship by the requirement of a 25 It South property line setback. This requirement has the potential of rendering each of the Southerly buildings unusable considering the resultant 25 It. deep envelope restriction. A fully detailed narration will be provided upon further discussion of this appeal with your department. We therefore choose to formally appeal this condition in part of section 3. Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and uses. Specifically paragraph 4, which address the minimum 25ft. South property line setback. Thank you for your attention to these matters. Respectfully yours. Andrew S. Kovach AlA, NeARS Principal Architect /,-\vu;, II N (2. \t6,)~c...\..\. f!.r,1-LthT1'oL.-:t'-; . LU,---\ ~ 1iI1t-'"2't.,C1?1 I,,' , ' 11'\-11'1 '")-;f.!-(::<,,_l '\l_'",,' L ",'1L1_'TL- CC: Lovt'v WWfevt, (,/-'( A ffy !Ut-,( tJc, tfs uc'/ 5>vcs I),~ , 5 tbtC '/ TucXtl; UV $'"dCS '~''1(<' 0c.ltcm, tlf C(c//< CITY OF RENTON City Clerk Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 425-430-6510 o Cash ,- IJ(Check No. r;'1 :(: o Copy Fee Jl Appeal Fee Receipt 1\' 0842 Date l.j j:, ! J i l---.-./ I I :.r ..... l -:-~~-' I t J o Notary Service 0 ________ _ .• f" j" ! r . i -, , _i '0' ,'1 \', ., i.",,' [ 1 i r . f Description: I,:.', '. >,.i\1 ·'r~· Iv ~.~ .... -( /'.~I". il(\;rt,'c .. , , I-I C ,l't,,; i Funds Received From: Name /\''1' (! e', i) t Address City/Zip • ,·l " '- :1" ' :\/;j(:'\ .I, ; I Amount $ 1 C, (!) I City Staff Signature · -~ . ~ (lC. Heritage Village Condominiums 1626 Grant Ave S # B203 Renton, W A 98055 V Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 Case: Grant Avenue Townhouses, LUA07-018, SA-A, ECF CITY OF RENTON APR 19 2007 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 3:00 pwt d;3 This letter is to notify the Hearing Examiner for the City of Renton, that I wish to appeal the Administrative Site Plan Review that was issued for the proposed Grant Avenue Townhouses, LUA07-018, SA-A, ECF. I believe that the very limited lot layout options available to the developer, plus the need to recover the purchase and development costs, resulted in the developer forcing a high revenue generating, design into a very unsuitable space. The focus on making a high revenue generating development, fit the awkward lot size, resulted in the developer placing incompatible, high density buildings, excessively close to the Heritage Village property line and other surrounding properties. Under the current plan, the encroachment of these structures will have a significant impact on the quality of life, ground water drainage, privacy, and available light on the adjacent properties. As a property owner living next door to this property, I strongly believe that Heritage Village Condominiums will be significantly impacted, negatively, both in terms of property value and quality of life, by the proposed design. I request a review with the Hearing Examiner. I can be reached at 425 228 4396 or RobinHJ@msn.com. 1 L· tr/,~..//{'/1/ l. c-{/tj five I! ! (I;, tis / :5fc;,c,i' 1v c rt'/, 5~>Y1 n I e ~J, (k.-v1 I ~ .. ~ .... //. Robin Jones • liIo • .. CITY OF RENTON City Clerk Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 425-430-6510 [1 Cash ~ Check NO'_LI--,7C-"D"-.2--<=:._ o Copy Fee Jl;! Appeal Fee Receipt N. 0839 Date ---'L/-f--t11 ___ 9+-'IZ"-"'tlQ"""'----'-7-I I o Notary Service 0 ________ _ Description: Aflec ( 1-0 !l6~ ,I, . t bc,//1'{ ¥,y LUri -0 Funds Received From: Name /Cc,bll1;/ Jtnv-S Address City/Zip • J ;; 0' I Amount $ -;75. UO I Ci e ... "/ REPORT & DECISION DATE. Project Name: Applicant: Contact: Owner: File Number: Project Manager: Project Summary: Project Location: Exist. Bldg. Area: Site Area: Project Location Map City of Renton Department of Planning / Building / Public Works ADMINISTRA TlVE SITE PLAN REVIEW April 4, 2007 Grant Avenue Homes Tridor, Inc.; P.O. Box 747; Bellevue, WA 98009 Andrew Kovach; Kovach Architects; 101 West Main SI.; Monroe WA 98272 Sarah E. McDonald; P.O. Box 1825; Renton WA 98057 LUA-07-018, SA-A, ECF Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner The proponent of the Grant Avenue Homes project is requesting an Administrative Site Plan Approval (SA-A) for development of a 91,911.6 square foot (2.11 A) property located in southeast Renton. The proposed project would result in 36 ground-related townhouse-style residential units. The property is in a Residential Multi-family zone (RM-F). 1600 Grant Avenue SE (north of S 18'h Street) Existing single-family house is to be removed Proposed New Building Area: 30,420 sf 91,911.6 s1l2.11 A To/allmpervious Area on site: 70 percent Admin Site Plan Review 07-0J City of Renton P/BlPW Oepa nt GRANT A VENUE HOMES REPORT OF APRIL 4, 2007 Page 2 of 16 Administrativi II PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND Plan Review Staff Report LUA-07-018, SA-A, ECF The 2.11 acre property proposed for development into the Grant Avenue Homes abuts the east side of Grant Ave S and the west side of the Rolling Hills subdivision, north of S 18th Street [Exhibit 2]. It has been developed with a single-story, single-family house since 1946. The existing house and 2 outbuildings would be removed prior to redevelopment. The vicinity of the property has a high concentration of utility easements and above- ground power transmission lines for Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), City of Seattle, and Puget Sound Energy (PSE). The Maple Valley Substation (BPA) and Talbot Hill Substation (PSE) are located northeast of the property. As mentioned, a single-family residential subdivision, Rolling Hills, abuts the property to the east. A 30 unit condominium project, Heritage Village, is abutting the project site to the south. Land to the west and abutting on the north are utility easements. Although Grant Ave S dead-ends at one of these easements to the north, there is a gated emergency-only access/egress that continues north from the street end. This access/egress is acceptable to the Renton Fire Department to mitigate a Renton Regulation prohibiting dead end streets in excess of 700 feet. Grant Ave S intersects with Puget Drive S, an arterial street, to the south, which would be the primary access to the development. The property has been designated Residential Medium Density on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use map and zoned Residential Multi-family (RM-F) [Exhibit 3]. Attached residential dwellings, as have been proposed, are an allowed use in the RM-F zone. Land north, west, and south are also zoned RM-F. Rolling Hills, to the east, has been developed as single-family residential and is zoned Residential 8 (R-8). Thirty-six units would be constructed as a duplex (building #7), 10 triplex buildings (#1-6 and 8-11), and a fourplex building (#12) [Exhibit 4]. Submittal information items refer to both a "single unit building" (Site Access I Traffic Impact Fee Analysis Report) and fourplex (Site Data, sheet A1). The unit(s) in question appear on the site plan as a triplex connected to a single, detached unit by a breezeway. This is not a recognized unit type by the City of Renton. Single-family detached units are not permitted in the RM-F zone. Staff recommends that the "single" unit be either eliminated or added to the triplex to create a fourplex structure. This shall be a condition of the site plan approval. The RM-F zone has an allowable density range of between 10 (minimum) and 20 (maximum). If 36 units are provided by the development, the density would be 17.06 dwelling units per net acre, which is within the allowable range for the zone. Structures would be 3 story townhouse building type [Exhibits 5 -20]. The architecture would have elements of Arts and Crafts style, with deep roof overhangs, paned glass windows, third floor bay windows supported from below by brackets, and both horizontal siding and shingle siding. Fa9ades would have modulations both from unit to unit and floor to floor. Second story, 40 sf decks would have heavy horizontal railings and sliding French doors. The same doors would open to 50 sf, paved patios, located directly below the decks. Admin Site Plan Review 07 ·018.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Dep GRANT A VENUE HOMES REPORT OF APRIL 4. 2007 Page 3 of 16 nt Administrativ , Plan Review Staff Report LUA-07-01B, SA-A, ECF Gabled roofs would be pitched at 8: 12, and have with gable dormers with modified arch braces in an Arts and Crafts style. The architectural details, paned windows, multi-layered modulation of fao;:ades, and differing surface materials, textures, and colors would result in visually interesting structures at a more human scale than would otherwise seem apparent. Two-vehicle parking garages on the first level would be accessed from a 20 foot wide central driveway. Garage doors would have a smooth surface finish and paned glass windows, four to a door. The driveway would terminate in a cul-de-sac at the east end of the property. Approximately 75 percent of the site would be impervious following construction. All pervious areas of the project site would be landscaped (Exhibits 21 and 22). II PART TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21 C, 1971 as amended), on March 12, 2007, the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M) for the Grant Avenue Homes project (Exhibit 23). The DNS-M included 10 mitigation measures. A 14-day appeal period commenced on March 19, 2007, and will end on April 2, 2007. As of the date of this report, no appeals of the threshold determination were filed. Based on an analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, the Environmental Review Committee issued the following mitigation measures with the Determination of Non- Significance -Mitigated: 1. The applicant shall be required to comply with the recommendations included in the geotechnical report. "Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation, Grant's Place, Renton WA, Prepared for Tridor, Inc," by Nelson Geotechnical Associates, Inc., dated June 10, 2005. 2. Site construction shall be limited to occur between April 1 st and November 1 st. 3. Due to the proposed drainage to Rolling Hills Creek, the project must comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual to meet both detention (Conservation Flow control -a.k.a. Level 2) and water quality improvements. The drainage report must be revised to be in compliance with the standards required as a condition of approval and resubmitted. 4. The applicant shall provide documentation that ensures that a stormwater detention structure is a permitted use of the overhead transmission line easement (recording number 5162689) area. The documentation shall be provided to the Development Services Division prior to receiving utility construction permits. 5. The applicant shall be req uired to provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements outlined in Volume II of the most recent Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual. Admin Site Plan Review 07·018.doc City of Renton PIBlPW Depa GRANT A VENUE HOMES REPORT OF APRIL 4. 2007 Page 4 of 16 It AdministrativE. Plan Review Staff Report LUA-07-018, SA-A, ECF This condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division prior to the issuance of building permits. 6. The applicant shall follow the recommendations of the report, "Tridor Townhomes Site Access 1 Traffic Impact Fee Analysis," by Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc., dated November 25, 2006. These recommendations shall be adhered to prior to occupancy of the project. 7. A Transportation Mitigation Fee shall be assessed at $75 per average weekday peak hour trips generated from the project. The fee (estimated at $14,250.00) shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. 8. The applicant shall submit information sufficient to calculate required fire flow prior to issuance of building permits. 9. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee based on a rate of $388.00 per new multi-family unit. Fire Mitigation Fees shall be assessed for the residential units prior to obtaining building permits. 10. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Parks Mitigation Fee based on $354.51 per new multi-family unit prior to obtaining building permits. Staff recommends, as a condition of Site Plan Approval, that the applicant comply with the Environmental Review Committee Mitigation Measures. II PART THREE: ADMINISTRATIVE LAND USE ACTION· REPORT & DECISION A. Type of Land Use Action x Site Plan Review Conditional Use Special Permit for Grade & Fill B. Exhibits Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Binding Site Plan Administrative Code Determination Exhibit 1: Yellow file containing: application, proof of posting and publication. environmental review and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit 2: Site Location Map (10/11106) Exhibit 3: Zoning Map (dated 02116(06) Exhibit 4: Site Plan (10111 (06) Exhibit 5: Duplex Elevation (South Elevation, View from Street) Exhibit 6: Duplex Elevation (North Elevation) Exhibit 7: Duplex Elevation (West Elevation) Admin Site Plan Review 07-018.doc City of Renton PIBIPW Dept nt GRANT A VENUE HOMES R£PORT OF APRIL 4, 2007 Page 5 of 16 Exhibit 8: Duplex Elevation (East Elevation) Administrativ , Plan Review Staff Report LUA-07-018, SA-A, ECF Exhibit 9: Triplex Elevation (South Elevation, Units North of Street, View from Street) Exhibit 10: Triplex Elevation (North Elevation, Units North of Street) Exhibit 11: Triplex Elevation (West Elevation, Units North of Street) Exhibit 12: Triplex Elevation (East Elevation, Units North of Street) Exhibit 13: Triplex Elevation (North Elevation, Units South of Street, View from Street) Exhibit 14: Triplex Elevation (South Elevation, Units South of Street) Exhibit 15: Triplex Elevation (West Elevation, Units South of Street) Exhibit 16: Triplex Elevation (East Elevation, Units South of Street) Exhibit 17: Fourplex Elevation (North Elevation, View from Street) Exhibit 18: Fourplex Elevation (South Elevation) Exhibit 19: Fourplex Elevation (West Elevation) Exhibit 20: Fourplex Elevation (East Elevation) Exhibit 21: Landscape Plan, Trees and Shrubs (01/13/07) Exhibit 22: Landscape Plan, Groundcovers (01/13/07) Exhibit 23: Determination of Non-Significance, Mitigated Exhibit 24: Site Pavement and Control Plan (08/09/06) B. Staff Review Comments Representatives from various City departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and address site plan issues regarding the proposed development. All of 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 Decision at the end of the report. C. Consistency with Site Plan Approval Criteria In reviewing the proposal with respect to the Site Plan Approval Criteria set forth in Section 4-31-33(D) of the Site Plan Ordinance, the following issues have been identified by City Departmental Reviewers and Divisional Reviewers: 1. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, its elements and poliCies The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation for the site is Residential Multi-Family (RMF). The Multi-family Residential land use designation is intended to encourage a range of multi-family living environments that provide shelter for a wide variety of people in differing living situations, from all income levels, and in all stages of life, Although some people live in multi-family situations because they do not have an alternative, others prefer living in multi- family environments rather than in single-family, detached houses, Regardless of why they live there, they want and deserve the same high standards for their homes and neighborhoods, Single-family and multi-family residential developments have different impacts on the community, Admin Site Plan Review 07-01B.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Oep GRANT A VENUE HOMES REPORT OF APRIL 4. 2007 Page 6 of 16 mt Administratil e Plan Review Staff Report . LUA-07-018, SA-A, ECF The following Residential Multi-family Comprehensive Plan policies are applicable to the proposal: Objective LU-JJ: Encourage the development of infill parcels with quality projects in existing multi-family districts. The project would be an infill project in a partially-developed area of southeast Renton. Policy LU-182: Residential Multi-family designations should be in areas of the City where projects would be compatible with existing uses and where infrastructure is adequate to handle impacts from higher density uses. The proposed project would be condominium townhouse units and would be compatible with condominium units on the abutting property to the south and higher density development to the north. Infrastructure has been provided to the area on a long-term basis. Policy LU-183: Land within the Residential Multi-family designation areas should be used to meet multi-family housing needs, without expanding the area boundaries, until land capacity in this designation is used. Residential Multi-family designations have the highest priority for development or redevelopment with multi-family uses. The proposed multi-family project. located on property currently zoned RMF, would meet this policy goal. Policy LU-185: Development density in the Residential Multi-family designation should be within a range of ten (10) dwelling units per acre as a minimum to twenty (20) dwelling units per acre as a maximum. The proposed project would meet the policy goal by having a net density of 17.06 dwelling units per acre. Objective LU-KK: Due to increased impacts to privacy and personal living space inherent in higher density living environments, new development should be designed to create a high quality living environment. The proposed project would be townhouse units with living space on 3 levels, including 3 bedrooms, 2.5 bathrooms, and 2 vehicle attached garages. Policy LU-186: New stacked flat and townhouse development in Residential Multifamily designations should be compatible in size, scale, bulk, use, and design with existing multi-family developments in the vicinity. The only development in the near vicinity is the Heritage Village Condominiums, which abuts very closely on the south property line of the proposed project site. Heritage Village was constructed in 1988, consists of "flats" with an average size of 935 sf each in six 2 story structures. Surface Admin Site Plan Review 07-018.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Dep GRANT A VENUE HOMES REPORT OF APRIL 4, 2007 Page 7 of 16 mt Administrati' e Plan Review Staff Report LUA-07-018, SA-A, ECF parking is open or in carports. The density, approximately 16. 16 dwelling units per net acre is somewhat lower than the proposed project (17.06 du/a). The most significant impact on Heritage Vii/age would be from the proximity of the newer project, which could be as close as 15 feet if there is no significant setback between the Heritage Village buildings and the property line. This would be possibly exacerbated by the height ofthe Grant Avenue Homes structures, which are proposed to be 44 feet 5 inches from finished grade to the roof peak. The proposed project would be compatible in use, would not be incompatible in design, but may not be compatible in terms of size, scale, and bulk. (see discussion, below) Policy LU-188: Evaluate project proposals in Residential Multi-family designations to consider the transition to lower density uses where multi-family sites abut lower density zones. Setbacks may be increased, heights reduced, and additional landscape buffering required through site plan review. 1) In order to increase the potential compatibility of multi-family projects, with other projects of similar use and density, minimum setbacks for side yards should be proportional to the total lot width, i.e. wider lots should require larger setback dimensions; 2) Taller buildings (greater than two stories) should have larger side yard setback dimensions; and 3) Heights of buildings should be limited to three stories and thirty-five (35) feet, unless greater heights can be demonstrated to be compatible with existing buildings on abutting and adjacent lots. Modifications to the building and site design would be required in order to meet this policy goal, see discussion below. Objective LU·LL: New Residential Multi-family projects should demonstrate provision of an environment that contributes to a high quality of life for future reSidents, regardless of income level. Policy LU-189: Support project design that incorporates the following, or similar elements, in architectural design: 1) Variation of facades on all sides of structures visible from the street with vertical and horizontal modulation or articulation; 2) Angular roof lines on multiple planes and with roof edge articulation such as mOdulated cornices; 3) Private entries from the public sidewalk fronting the building for ground floor units; Admin Site Plan Review 07 -018.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Dep~ nt GRANT A VENUE HOMES REPORT OF APRIL 4. 2007 Page B of 16 Administrativ, 4) Ground floor units elevated from sidewalk level; 5) Upper-level access interior to the building; , Plan Review Staff Report LUA-07-018, SA-A, ECF 6) Balconies that serve as functional open space for individual units; and 7) Common entryways with canopy or similar feature. The proposed project design would incorporate elements 1, 2, and 6. Elements 3 - 5 and 7 would not be applicable to this project. See discussion, below, for discussion of design features. Policy LU-190: Support project site planning that incorporates the following, or similar elements. in order to meet the intent of the objective: 1) Buildings oriented toward public streets. 2) Private open space for ground-related units, 3) Common open or green space in sufficient amount to be useful, 4) Preferably underground parking or structured parking located under the residential building, 5) Surface parking. if necessary, to be located to the side or rear of the residential building(s), 6) Landscaping of all pervious areas of the property, and 7) Landscaping, consisting of ground cover and street trees (at a minimum), of all setbacks and rights-of way abutting the property. The proposed project design would incorporate elements 2 and 6 -7. It would not incorporate elements 1 (buildings are oriented to an interior driveway) and 3 (no significant common open space would be provided). Element 4 and 5 relate to parking, which would be provided in individual attached garages. See discussion, below. for discussion of design features. Policy LU-191: Residential Multi-family projects in the RMF zone should have a maximum site coverage by buildings of 35 percent, or 45 percent if greater coverage can be demonstrated to be both mitigated on site with amenities and compatible with existing buildings on abutting and adjacent lots. The proposed project would have site coverage by buildings of approximately 33 percent, which meets the policy goal. Policy LU-192: Residential Multi-family projects should have maximum site coverage by impervious materials of seventy-five (75) percent. Admin Site Plan Review 07 -018.doc City of Renton PIB/PW Oep GRANT A VENUE HOMES REPORT OF APRIL 4, 2007 Page 9 of 16 mt Administrati e Plan Review Staff Report LUA-07-018, SA-A, ECF The proposed project would have an impervious site coverage of approximately 70 percent, which meets the policy goal, 2, Conformance with existing land use regulations The Multi-family Residential Comprehensive Plan land use designation is implemented by Residential Multi-family (RMF) zoning, The purpose of the RM-F zone is to allow the development of both infill parcels in existing multi-family districts with compatible projects and other multi-family development The proposed project must meet the development standards of the RM-F zone, There are no development standards in the zone regulating dwelling unit mix, number of units per lot, building design, The project would not be subdivided so standards relating to minimum lot size, width, or depth are not applicable. Development Standards Density: The minimum density in the RM-F zone is 10 dwelling units per net acre 9du/a) and the maximum density is 20 du/a, The proposed density of the Grant Avenue Homes project would be 17,06 du/a. Setbacks: The minimum front yard building setback is 20 feet in the RMF zone, The side yard setback is determined by the width of the property with an additional setback for structures greater than 2 stories in height The rear yard setback is 15 feet The project fronts on Grant Avenue and would have a 20 foot setback of buildings from the property line. Based on a lot width of 158 feet and a building height of 3 stories, the required side yard setback would be 13 feet (12 feet for lots 111 feet wide or more and 1 foot for the 3'" floor of buildings). The building side yard setback is proposed to be 13 feet wide, although it appears the decks and possibly the roof overhang may encroach within the side setback. Roof eaves may project no more than 24 inches into the side yard setback. Decks, however, must not intrude into the setback area, Due to the limited ground-related private open space, decks should be retained. The units must be redesigned so that decks do not encroach into the side setback area, Retaimng walls within the side yard setback must be landscaped (see discussion, below) The project rear yard building setback would be 15 feet, as is required, The Site Pavement and Layout Control Plan (Exhibit 24), however, indicates that landscaping of this setback would be limited due to retaining walls up to 48 inches in height, non-street paving up to 10 feet in width against the building foundation (not shown on the Landscape Plan, Exhibit 21), and the east 5 feet of the cul-de- sac located within the setback area (not shown on the Site Plan, Exhibit 4). A 15 foot landscape strip is required where the RM-F zone abuts the Residential 8 zone Admin Site Plan Review 07-018.doc City of Renton PIB/PW Depl GRANT A VENUE HOMES REPORT OF APRIL 4, 2007 Page 10 of 16 nt Administrativ, , Plan Review Staff Report LUA-07-018, SA-A, ECF to the east The site plan must be redesigned to remove paving and the cul-de-sac from the rear setback area, Building Height: The building height for the RM-F zone is 35 feet and 3 stories, Additional height may be allowed, through site plan review, up to 45 feet, depending upon compatibility with adjacent existing residential development Additional height, up to 10 feet, may also be allowed with provision of amenities, The proposed height would be 37 feet 3 inches, which is 2,25 feet taller than allowed by the development standards, without a grant of an increase in allowed height See discussion, below, Lot Coverage: The RM-F zone restricts lot coverage by buildings to no more than 35 percent of the total lot area, The maximum impervious area cannot exceed 75 percent The total coverage of the site by buildings would be about 33 percent The total impervious area would be 70 percent Landscaping: The development standard for landscaping is noted above, see rear yard setbacks discussion, Renton Municipal Code landscaping requirements require that all pervious areas of the site be landscaped, A conceptual landscape plan was submitted, but a detailed landscape plan meeting the requirements of RMC 4-4-070, "Landscaping" and RMC 4-8-120D12, "Landscaping Plan, Detailed," would be required to be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit Installation of landscaping is required prior to occupancy, 3, Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and uses The project is abutting the Heritage Village Condominium development, to the south, and the Rolling Hills single-family residential subdivision to the east Development to the north and west has been limited due to extensive utility easements and overhead transmission lines, The Rolling Hills subdivision has a considerably lower density than the proposed project The most easterly Grant Avenue Homes building, a duplex, would be highly visible to the west and northwest from the rear of abutting Rolling Hills properties, The cul-de-sac, however, would not have a significant visual impact The Grant Avenue development slopes down in a westerly direction, which would reduce the visibility of the other units. The required 15 foot landscape buffer should be planned to include trees and other vegetation that WOUld, at maturity, screen the duplex from abutting properties. Although the density of Grant Avenue Homes and Heritage Village are similar, 17.06 du/a and 16.16 du/a respectively, the impact of the proposed project on the Heritage Village Condominiums would be significant, particularly if there is a narrow building setback on the Heritage Village property. The 13 foot wide side Admin Site Plan Review 07-018.doc mt Adminislrati Page 11 of 16 yard setback at the proposed project may be inadequate to mitigate potential impacts of light blockage and aesthetics. Site plan review affords the opportunity to require increased setbacks where proposed projects abut "a less intense residential zone" (RMC 4-2-11 OF). Although the density is comparable between the abutting projects, the mass and bulk of the Grant Avenue Homes is significantly greater than, and not compatible with, the Heritage Village structures. Staff recommends, therefore, that the site plan be revised, by reducing the size of the floor plans if necessary, to increase the south side yard building setback to a minimum of 25 feet where buildings 8 through 12 would be located. In addition, the detailed landscape plan shall indicate sufficient landscaping at locations where buildings of the two developments face each other to provide partial building screening, without light blockage, at maturity of vegetation. The detailed landscape plan must show the building and window locations on the abutting property in order to demonstrate this goal would be met. The proposed height of the Grant Avenue Homes (43 feet 11 inches to roof peak) would be considerably taller than the existing 2 story structures of Heritage Village. This situation would also be mitigated somewhat by the wider setback. 4. Mitigation of impacts of the proposed site plan to the site The site has an existing single-family house, which is to be removed, but is otherwise vacant. The impacts to the site would consist of creating impervious areas where there currently are none. This would be mitigated by creation of an on-site surface water control system. There is a Bonneville Power Administration transmission line easement (recording no. 5162689) across the northwest corner of the property, where an underground stormwater vault would be located. The easement prohibits "structures" from the easement area. Since it is not clear from the easement agreement that this excludes underground structures, such as drainage vaults, staff recommends that the applicant provide the City with a letter from the BPA or other authorizing entity granting approval of the easement area as a location for the proposed drainage structure. Should such authorization not be forthcoming, the vault would be relocated out of the easement area. 5. Conservation of area-wide property values Development of the site, would increase the value of the property and other land in the area, both undeveloped and developed, with the possible exception of the certain Heritage Village Condominiums. Second floor units abutting the proposed project could have a decrease in value due to change of view and decrease in availability of natural light. The recommended condition for an increased setback and landscaping could mitigate this situation somewhat. Admin Site Plan Review 07-01B.doc City of Renlon P/BlPW Depa GRANT A VENUE HOMES REPORT OF APRIL 4, 2007 Page 12 of 16 ,I Administrativi Plan Review Staff Report LUA-07-018, SA-A, ECF 6, Safety and efficiency of vehicle and pedestrian circulation The access to the project would be from a curb cut in Grant Avenue S, The Grant Ave S driveway would be approximately 140 feet from the driveway of the Heritage Village Condominiums. The City requested an analysis of sight lines that would result from development of the project. This report, by JTE, Inc., dated 11/25/06, provided the following assessment. Grant Avenue is a 2 lane, unclassified City street with a posted speed limit of 25 mph. There is a warning and posted speed of 15 mph in the vicinity of the proposed access driveway to the project site, due to a curve in the road. The consultants determined that the proposed site access at Grant Avenue S would meet stopping sight distance criteria as required by the City of Renton (based on slandards of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials). In addition, the proposed location of the driveway would be preferable to locations either to the north (farther away from Heritage Village) or to the south on the property (closer to Heritage Village). 7, Provision of adequate light and air The development could have a negative impact on the north Heritage Village Condominium units, in terms of reduction of available natural light. The recommended condition requiring an increased setback should reduce this potential impact however. 8, Mitigation of noise, odors and other harmful or unhealthy conditions Noise and odor impacts would occur for a short period of time during building and site construction. The contractor would be limited to hauling according to "Haul Hours" (RMC 4-4-030C2) and working during "Permitted Work Hours in or Near Residential Areas" (RMC 4-4-030C3). Noise, following occupancy, would be typical of residential neighborhoods of this density. There would be no odors expected to be produced. 9. Availability of public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use The site is served by the City of Renton for all utilities. There is an eXisting 12 inch water line in Grant Ave S, which can deliver 2,600 gpm with static pressure of 105 psi. The proposed project is located in the 590 water pressure zone. There is an existing 8-inch sewer main adjacent and available to serve the site. Although Grant Ave S is paved and partially improved along the public right-of-way at the site frontage, improvements including curb, gutter, streetlights, and Admin Site Plan Review 07 ~018.doc Administrati Page 13 of 16 e Plan Review Staff Report ECF sidewalks would be required to be constructed as part of the proposed project, if they are not existing. There are surface water control pipelines and conveyance systems within the existing roadway. The Renton School District has verified that sufficient school facilities and capacity exist to accommodate the anticipated number of students that may result from the development of this project. Approximately 16 stUdents would attend Talbot Hill Elementary School, Dimmitt Middle School, and/or Renton High School. Transportation would be available to all these schools by bus. 10. Prevention of neighborhood deterioration and blight The architectural design and landscaping of the site would ensure that the property would make a positive contribution to the physical condition and visual aesthetic of the neighborhood. xx Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File. Copies of all Review Comments are attached to this report. D. Findings Having reviewed the written record in the matter, the City now enters the following: 1. Request: The Applicant has requested Environmental Review and Site Plan Approval for construction of a 36-unit townhouse development at 1600 Grant Ave S. 2. Environmental Review: The applicant's file containing the application, State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation, the comments from various City departments, the public notices requesting citizen comment, and other pertinent documents was entered as Exhibit 1. A Determination of Non- Significance with Mitigation was made by the Environmental Review Committee on March 12,2007 (Exhibit 23). 3. Site Plan Review: The applicant's site plan application complies with the requirements for information for site plan review. The applicant's site plan and other project drawings are entered as Exhibits No.2 -22 and 24. 4. Comprehensive Plan: The subject proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan deSignation of Residential Multi-family (RMF). 5. Zoning: The subject proposal complies with the zoning requirements and development standards of the Residential Multi-family (RM-F) Zoning designation. Admin Site Plan Review 07-01B.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Depa nt GRANT A VENUE HOMES REPORT OF APRIL 4, 2007 Page 140f16 Administrativi , Plan Review staff Report LUA-07-018, SA-A, ECF 6. Existing Land Use: Land uses surrounding the subject site are multi-family residential (Residential Multi-family Zone) on the north, west, and south and single-family residential (Residential 8 Zone) on the east E, Conclusions 1. The subject proposal complies with the policies and codes of the City of Renton provided that the applicant complies with the conditions of approval contained in this Report and Decision. 2. The proposal complies with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Residential Multi-family (RMF) and the zoning designation of Residential Multi- family (RM-F) provided that the applicant complies with the conditions of approval contained in this Report and Decision, F. Decision The Site Plan for the Grant Avenue Homes, File No. LUA07-018, is approved as proposed subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the Mitigation Measures requested by the Environmental Review Committee as part of their Determination of Non- significance -Mitigated threshold determination of March 12, 2007. 2. The site plan shall be revised to show the southeast triplex and detached unit as one fourplex structure. Revised plans must be submitted and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division project manager prior to issuance of building permits. 3. The units shall be redesigned so that decks do not encroach into the side setback areas. Revised plans must be submitted and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division project manager prior to issuance of building permits. 4. The site plan shall be revised, by reducing the size of the floor plans if necessary, to increase the south side yard building setback to a minimum of 25 feet where buildings 8 through 12 would be located. Revised plans must be submitted and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division project manager prior to issuance of building permits. 5. The detailed landscape plan shall indicate sufficient landscaping at locations where buildings of the Grant Avenue Homes and the Heritage Village Condominiums face each other to provide partial building screening, without light blockage, at maturity of vegetation. The detailed landscape plan must show the building and window locations on the abutting property in order to demonstrate this condition would be met Detailed landscape plans must be submitted and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division project manager prior to issuance of building permits, Admin Site Plan Review 07 -018.doc City of Renton PIBIPW Dep GRANT A VENUE HOMES nt Administratil 9 Plan Review Staff Report LUA-07-018, SA-A, ECF REPORT OF APRIL 4, 2007 Page 15 of 16 6. The applicant shall provide the City with a leller from the Bonneville Power Administration, or other authorizing entity, prior to obtaining construction permits, granting approval of the easement area as a location for the proposed drainage structure. EFFECTIVE DATE OF DECISION ON LAND USE ACTION: SIGNATURE: Neil Watts, Development Services Director TRANSMITTED this 4'h day of April, 2007 to the owner: Sarah E, McDonald PO. P.O. Box 1825 Renton WA 98057 TRANSMITTED this 4th day of April, 2007 to the applicant: Tridor, Inc, P.O. Box 747 Bellevue, WA 98009 TRANSMITTED this 4th day of April, 2007 to the applicant/contact: Andrew Kovach Kovach Architects 101 West Main SI. Monroe W A 98272 TRANSMITTED this 4th day of April, 2007 to the parties of record: Charlie Wolff 1708 SE 16th Place Renton, WA 98055 Aaron Redhage 1626 Grant Avenue S #B-102 Renton, WA 98055 Robin Jones 1626 Grant Avenue S #B-203 Renton, WA 98055 Cathy Joss 1626 Grant Avenue S #0-103 Renton, WA 98055 TRANSMITTED this 4th day of April, 2007 to the following: Larry Meckling, Building Official Larry Rude, Deputy Fire Chief/Fire Marshall Jennifer Henning, Development Services Planning Manager Kayren Kittrick, Development Engineering Supervisor Renton Reporter Admin Site Plan Review07-018.doc date Betty & Raymond Barry 1625 Jones Drive SE Renton, WA 98055 , • City of Renton PIBlPW Depi GRANT A VENUE HOMES REPORT OF APRIL 4, 2007 Page 16 of 16 nt Administrativ , Plan Review Staff Report LUA-07-018, SA-A, ECF Land Use Decision Appeal Process: Appeals of the land use decision must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on April 19, 2007 (14 days from the date appeal period begins). If no appeals are filed by this date, both actions will become final. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75,00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110, Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-430-6510. Admin Site Plan Review 07-01B.doc F="AI=<CE5L. :1:1= ::20:2.9c "~0.5::2 'SOO GFC!.ANT A" _ .~, I<E5NTON VVA S6c.-.JS ! EXHIBIT 2 / / " " ge PI. R-8 --, .. , 21st pt.- ·····R i·B· --,...".. ... : " ' . R-B > / / ! ." --"--'-., .. ---~ ... _--, .... -..i -.--... ~---i ---'';'T-I .-'"---1 _.--..-L .. ,, _____ '''- i i leA i F4 • 17 T23N R5E W V2 -""' .. - .. , \. :' \ ! C/1 a.\ :> < J' \/ 16'/1. • itA './st: RM-F 18th ..... <I) ......... ~ ~ RM-F '" .... t.'J Pu e ti Dr .: " ...... ·_·RM...:.f ............. 'i1M-F R-B H4 • 29 T23N R5E W V2 o :00 toO ZONING PIII/PW TBCHNICAL 8IIIlVICBS 02II6IIl6 - - - -ReD.toD dtV UmltII , ...... 20 T23N R5E R EXHIBIT 3 ~ l i y. ~ i ' J I I I . ! 1 II I I I ! I ' , j I . 1 • ! ! i i r ~ • I, e • , i e' ! e * j. ~ ( it ~ ~ j f ~"'- 1 , ~ R t ~ i , I ~: , , • .~;.,...,:... -~.;... • " " " " " - • , " " .. ... <II . .,.,..-~ ,,-..'*'~ .~' .. '. "61" " , ~ ~ , , • , ~, ; • • , i ; e" l'i' , , ~, , ~" -'\ ~ ! Ii 1 i I II ~ f I 'I " I Ii Ii ! 1,1 P " ! t ! 9 . ~ ! • ~ -i:Q -~ r-- ~ - 8 ~ e e . f e ~. I e I ! I .~ e • 8 e ." <8 ., e 2 8' I t , .. • @. @ I I e·! i e--· e e 8-• \ 1 • .,. ~ ~ • , :' 1 ~-, i ~. • E d ~""'.,;... -~ .. .;... • 0 ~ ~ • ....... e 8 e s e e J I" 'it S e @ § I § §l ~ • ~ t I ~ , • t I ! t E--< f---< p:) 0 f---< ::r: ....... ... -->< " .., .. .. 'I ~ • " _1 ~ :-~ • EJ e '2, § e e • , ! ! , , , • o e 8 e e s e e 8 In ~ f .~ , , , , ... " " ... ;. ..... ~ J ~ , ~; , , ~~ " ,. , , ~ ; , I , t • • ; a e e 8' ei e e' e " ! 11 II "! Ii ,I! " .-.. ... 1 ! l i 1: J l i ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ 'i ~ ; ~ . , , , E-< ....... co ....... M ::r: .- ~ '" :>< • ~ n ~j , I 1 , • 1 I i ~ , ! i I ! • • • ! ~, e ,1 ! J ! , , , , .. .~ '" ;.;: ....... I ; , ;~ :: f -.v.. ...... ,~ ~ , ;~ , , ,. , 1 , " ;\ l , • " " '" ~,~ ...... ~~~ ~ '. ~ '. f,: " y , \ , , t • • () ; , , , e . ~ i 8 1 i e , '11 I , , ~. I , ~ ~ , , ,,..;.,,.-. " " , i t :.; , z ~' " -'-'-'"i-Oif"" ~;",.,;..., ~ • " " • @ €I § § @ @ @ i§> '; @ ® e e ! , , • ;' ~ ~ , ~ I :~ . ~ s " e e e e I \ r-' ; I ~ ~ ...... co ...... ~ ~ t ~ , o l'-,....,. .J S 8 ~ *8 , , 8 ~ • e • j • f'! '" HI 8 ~ I 8 ~ @ I 8 a @ i @ I ® ! 2 @ 9 ~ , @ • ! , I @ • " ," ," El-i 8 , , ~ >.' e , ~ .. ~ I I 8 1 '" ~ e ~ El 8 ~ , • ~ ./' ! ~ , ! !' , ~: ! , , ~; ...;....l. " ;,;- , , ~: .~ ) , , , -;..~ ~ , I I I ! ; ~ .. , I ' ~ ~ , , I , H , Ii 'j '+ , o e • ~ , i . , ~. e ! ~ , , "'- " ~ -'-- ! !: t j Q';<:--~ , ... ~:"" ..... ~ , ~: , , " 6. " .. , ! , ! • • o o N ',lui i.. j ~u~ ~ U' '.1\ IUi1!r "",!. :::: UUa-1!. ..... «"........ . ... 1 , I f I " .. ; II I I". I··.·' ... ·.····· .; ..... ' ..... . j , 'I' 'J ~ ;. ,~ :-:(; ,--? %&' I '" .. f CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA07-018, SA-A, ECF APPLICANT: Andrew Kovach; Kovach Architects PROJECT NAME: Grant Avenue Townhouses DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The proponent of the Grant Avenue TownhouseS project is requesting an environmental detennination and Site Plan Review for development of a 91,911.6 square foot (2.11 A) property located in southeast Renton., The proposed project would result in 36 ground-related townhouse-slyle residential units. The property is in a Resid6f1tial Multi-family zone (RM-F). LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: MITIGATION MEASURES: 1600 Grant Avenue SE (north of S 18'" Street) The City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section '1. The applicant shall be required ta,.eomply with the.secomrnend!1f1liws includep in the geotechnical report, "Geotechnical Engineering EvallllBtlon. Granfs Place, Renton·WA,frepared for Tridor, Inc: by Nelson Geotechnical Associates, Inc., <lItited June 10, 2005. 2. Site construction shall belirnited to'!J6oGr between A11ift 1st and November 1st. 3. Due to the proposed draina~ t();;;Ro'ing~!ls .G1i~~,~laproject milS! qpmply with' the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual to' meet bOth def~' (ConservaOOn Rlow control -a.k.a. Level 2) and water quality improvements, The drai(lage report rntmtbe revi~d to be in compliance with the standards required as a condfiion of approval aQ<:f,fesubmilted. 4. The applicant shall provide documentAUon that ensures that a sIOTinwater detention structure is a permitted use of the overhead transmission lille easement (recording nwnber 5162689) area. The documentation shall be provided to the Development services Division prior to receiving utility construction permits. 5. The applicant shall be required to provide a Temporary Eros/on and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements outlined in Volume II of the most recent Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual. This condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division prior to the issuance of building permits. 6. The applicant shall follow the recommendations of the report, "Tridor Townhomes Site Access I Traffic Impact Fee Analysis," by Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc., dated November 25, 2006. These recommendations shall be adhered to prior to occupancy of the project. 7. A Transportation Mitigation Fee shall be assessed at $75 per average weekday peak hour trips generated from the project. The fee (estimated at $14,250,00) shall be paid prior to issuance of buildingpennits. 8. The applicant shall submit information sufficient to calculate required fire flow prior to issuance of building permits. 9. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee based on a rate of $388.00 per new multi-family unit. Fire Mitigation Fees shall be assessed for the resi,dential units prior to obtaining building permits. 10. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Parks Mitigation Fee based on $354.51 per neW multi-family unit prior to obtaining building permfis. ERC Mitigation Measures EXHIBIT 23 j , J , :I 'I ; , ~ ~ ." I , '" 1 J " I , 1 ~ . , i~ ~ ~I J ~ 0 , "0",,1 :oi J , :i , .J /1 "' , , .-'j 'I , . , '" '" .. .. ,.: ,.; '" , .. , '" .. " , ~ " ~ 1 ~ , , ! 1 .. ~ -I w '" , ,-I :1, ,jd." ., 'I RENTON POLICE DEPARTMENT Grant Avenue Townhomes 1600 Grant Avenue South POLICE RELATED COMMENTS 30 Police calls for service estimated annually CONSTRUCTION PHASE Theft from construction sites is one of the most commonly reported crimes in the City. To protect materials and equipment it is recommended that all materials and tools be locked up when not in use. The site will need security lighting, and any construction trailer or storage area should be completely fenced in with portable chain-link fencing. The fence will provide both a physical and psychological barrier to any prospective criminal and will demonstrate that the area is private property. Construction trailers should be kept locked when not in use, and should be fitted with heavy-duty deadbolts with a minimum 1-1/2" throw when bolted. Glass windows in construction trailers should be shatter-resistant. Toolboxes and storage containers should be secured with heavy- duty padlocks and kept locked when not in use. "No Trespassing" signs should be posted on the property during the construction phase. These signs will aid police in making contacts with unwanted individualfs on the property if they are observed vandalizing or stealing building materials. COMPLETED COMPLEX Each residential unit should have solid core doors, preferably metal or solid wood, with peepholes. The doors should have heavy-duty deadbolt locks with a minimum 1-%,' throw and installed with 3" screws. Any external storage areas should also have solid wood or metal doors, with dead bolts and latch guards installed. Sliding windows, including glass patio doors, should have secondary locks installed to restrict vertical movement. These secondary locks need to be placed into the top or bottom of the window frames to restrict vertical movement. Simply placing a sturdy, fitted dowel in the window tracks may be adequate. Alarm systems are recommended for each residential unit. Any stairways at the complex should be constructed of lattice, wood or metal railing so that visibility is possible through them. There should not be solid walls in any stairway that would limit visibility up and down the stairs, or provide a place for a criminal to hide while waiting for someone to target. Balcony construction should also be of lattice or railing -no solid walls, for the same reason. 1 Security lighting should be installed along sidewalks, in stairways, foyers and pathways. Each residential unit should have individual unit numbers clearly posted with numbers at least 6" in height and of a color contrasting with the building. Unit numbers should also be illuminated so that they are easily located. This will assist emergency personnel in locating the correct location for response. It's important to provide confidential entry information (i.e., a "secret" law enforcement-only code) to both fire and police in case of emergencies if this building is secured. Proper lighting in parking locations and pathways are especially important. Illumination in this area will contribute to the security of residents traversing from their vehicles to their residences, and will help reduce property crimes associated with unattended vehicles. Garages built beneath multi-housing structures are especially susceptible to criminal activity due to the lack of visibility by residents and/or pedestrians in the area. Latch guards should be installed on any and all doors leading from the outside in. And any lever-handled doorknob located on the outside is discouraged. These are easy to pry/damage to obtain access inside a building. Where egress might be an issue, bar- releases can be installed to meet Fire Code requirements. This would include any storage or maintenance shops, doors leading into the parking garage, etc. Any separate resident storage units should have latch guards and dead bolts installed. Dumpster locations should be secured within their own housing and well lit. Landscaping should be installed with the objective of allowing visibility: not too dense or too high. Too much landscaping will make residents feel isolated, and will provide criminals with concealment to commit crimes such as burglary and vandalism. 2 Cit ~enton Department of Planning / Building / I Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: runt: <.-COMMENTS DUE: FEBRUARY 28, 2007 APPLICATION NO: LUA07-018, SA-A, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: F _ ?nn7 APPLICANT: Andrew Kovach, Kovach Architects PROJECT MANAG~: E~th Higgins X PROJECT TITLE: Grant Avenue Townhouses PLAN REVIEW: Mike Dotson ) SITE AREA: 91 ,911.6 square feet BUILDING AREA (gross): NIA LOCATION: 1600 Grant Avenue S I WORK ORDER NO: 77725 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: A land use master application has been submitted requesting Site Plan Review for a 36 unit townhouse development that would be located at 1600 Grant Avenue S. The property is in a Residential Multi-family Zone. The proposed density on the 2.11 acre site would be 17 dwelling units per net acre. An environmental detennination would be required by Renton's Environmental Review Committee. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water LightIGlare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Trans alion Environmental Health Public Services Energy! Historic/Culturaf Natural Resources Preservation Airporl Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Date 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 CITY OF RENTON APR 02 2007 BEFORE TIlE RENTON CITY HEARING EXAMINER RECEIVED OBIN JONES, Appellant, v. CITY OF RENTON, a ashington Municipal Corporation, Respondent. CITY CLERK'S OFFICE /:3'( f'IH P' No. LUA07-018,SA-A,ECF APPEAL OF GRANT AVENUE TOWNHOMES SEPA THRESHOLD DETERMINATION PARTIES Robin Jones, an individual who dwells at the Heritage Village Condominiums at 1626 Grant Avenue, Unit B-203, Renton, Washington 98055, is the Appellant. The City of Renton, a Washington Municipal Corporation, located at 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton Washington, 98055, is the Respondent. The City of Renton has inappropriately issued a deficient SEPA Threshold Determination for the Grant Avenue Townhomes. GROUNDS FOR APPEAL 1. The SEPA Threshold Determination fails to take into account the serious drainage 18 and groundwater problems in the area. Further, it does not take into account the impact of 19 adding new impervious surfaces at the Grant Avenue Townhome to existing drainage problems 20 at the Heritage Village Condominiums, the adjacent property. 21 22 23 24 25 2. The Geotechnical Evaluation, Technical Information Report and other supporting documents on which the Threshold Determination are based, were done over a period of years, are dated and fail to take into account new development which occurred after the reports were prepared. Such reports are inadequate because they fail to take into account the effi:ct of this development on adjoining properties. The technical data which has been submitted in such Appeal of Grant Ave. Town Homes No. LUA07-018. SA-A.ECF ct'. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 reports, is set forth in a perfunctory, conclusory fashion; it fails to address serious drainage and groundwater problems currently being experienced in the area and the effect of springs located on the property and adjacent properties. 3. The Threshold Detennination relies on the number of fauhy assumptions regarding groundwater and seismic activity. 4. The traffic study is inadequate it reaches incorrect conclusions about mitigation and fails to take into account that the proposed location of the development's entrance is not suitable; the current posted speed limit on the road does not allow fur a proper stopping distance for vehicles. Due to the increased volume and flow of traffic generated by new developments along Grant Avenue, there is limited visibility on Grant Avenue. The traffic study proposes an ineffective solution to the safety problem --that vegetation be pruned. This is not workable because much of the blocking vegetation is on land that is not owned by the Developer. Thus the traffic study fails to propose a proper solution to a serious safety problem. For the above reasons, the Appellant requests that the SEPA Threshold Determination be remanded to the City's State Environmental Policy Act Responsible Official. The SEP A Threshold Determination fails to evaluate feasible alternatives to the proposed development that would have less impact on the environment. Proper mitigation under SEPA includes avoiding environmental impacts, or mitigating impacts, through limiting the degree or magnitude of the proposed action. For the above reasons, the Appellant requests that the SEPA Threshold Determination be rescinded. Dated this 'l day of April, 2007. Appeal of Grant Ave. Town Homes No. LUA07-018. SA-A.ECF LAW OFFICE OF JANE RYAN KOLER. PLLC CITY OF RENTON City Clerk Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 425·430·6510 o Cash j' (7 'Check No.,--L.Li<&....<:.5_{)_ Description: P{I.l.eq ( ~ /.-l/r4 -07-o/~ .. Funds Received From: Name lobi'" i! Jnv S Address 1&-2 &: (:;;; t'Q?d If 0/ t City/Zip 4.)'1'l trr1 . it/d l ,",. • "~I ._, .. , • / Receipt N. 0815 Date o Copy Fee Q{Appeal Fee /~, . d4 &-20? >'; ::~'3S= o Notary Service 0 ________________ __ I Amount $ 75:" 0 V STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING} AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC NOTICE Jody L. Barton, being first duly sworn on oath that she is the Legal Advertising Representative of the Renton Reporter a bi-weekly newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of general circulation and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continuously as a bi-weekly newspaper in King County, Washington, The Renton Reporter has been approved as a Legal Newspaper by order of the Superior COUl1 of the State of Washington for King County. The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues of the Renton Reporter (and not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a: Public Notice was published on March 17,2007, The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of$109.20_ alton eg~ Advertising Representative, Renton Reporter scribed and sworn to me this 20ili day of March, 2007. ,\\I\lUII/"11 \\ CANl'r-I, ", Q .... -•• "<'0"'" ~ ~ .,~\sS'ON ;,..... "A-:' ..... .. •• 'I>..~. "'"-'r"()"' .. -V" ~ :o~-~...-:. -:0 ~\: = : NOTARY"': ts lJ LantelOn = !....... : ~ t PUBLIC i 2' .:- Notary Public for the State of Washington, Residing in ~nJi',Washington .: 0:: 12j) (ZY;i;;!-;//T/) '/,,·.0 (!) •• J..::. .... P-0, Number: ~ (:' ·-.~!01l2o: •• •• 0 ~ -:. 0 ... _.... ,"'f.,' "I, 'I'-WAS'?\ \\' " \' 11"'It"\\ NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVlRONMENTAL REVlEW COMMITTEE RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Re\'lew Committee has issued Ii Determination of Non-Significance- Mitigated for the following project under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. Grant Avenue Townhouse3 LUA07.() IS, SA-A, F£F Location: 1600 Grant Avenue SE. The proponent or the Grant Avenue Townhou~es project IS rcqu('sting iln environmental detennination and Site Plan Rt'vie\l,,: fol' (]('velopment. of a 91,811.6 f'quare foot (2.11 Al property located in :'.outl10a~t ({enton. The pr-opo:=:cd projf'd would n,,.,u!t in ;)G ground- related townhouse-style residential units. The properly is in a Residential Multi-family zone lRM-Fl. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in 'WTiting on or before 5:00 PM on April 2, 2007. Appeals must be filed in writing together with tbe required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Henton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Aplw...als to the Examiner are governed by City of Rent-an Municipal Code Section 4-S-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may he obtained from the Rentnn C'ity Clerk's Office, (425) 430- 6510_ Published in the Renton Report~r March 17, 2007, ~863070 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIF1CANCE· MITIGATED (ONS-M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME; Gr.", Avenuv Townllou5es PROJECT NUMBER: LUA01-018, SA-A, ECF LOCATION: 1600 Grant Avenue SE DESCRIPTION: The proponent of the Grant Anm.'. TownhotjlllS project Ie rtquftUng an environmental delermlnlltlon .nd Site Plan Review fI,r development of II 91,911.6 aqua", foOl (2;.11 Al property located In loU'lhnt Renton. Th proposed project would !"lllult In 36 ground .... l.ted toWl'lhOUII" .. ty1111 I1iIlidential unlh-. The property III In II Resldentlal Mufti·famlly zone (RM-FI. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMlnEE (ERG) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appotalll of the environmental dlltermination must be Wed In .... rhlng On Or before 5:0{) PM on April 2, 2007. App"le _t be flied in .... ritlng logeth,r .... i\h the roquirod $n.oo appll ... tlon fee .... lIh: Haarlng Examln"r, City of R,nlOn, 10n South Gl1Idy Wq, Renton, WA 980-55. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Cod" SaclIon 04-8-110.B. Additional Information regarding the appeal p,oc ... may ba obWlned from the Renton City Clerk'e OffIce, 1425} 430-6&10, IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE SET AND ALL PARTIES NOTIFIED. DEVELOPMENT CERTIFICATION I, ~ 6Etsep , hereby certify that ~ copies of the above ,9.01~~ were posted by me in ~ conspicuous places or nearby the described DATE: ?Jo, t,.17]- l ot'" I , on the ""' day of -flft..!.',.,j[y",' "'-I.C",' -', _____ L<~~~::;:;tl'±~~!l CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 14'h day of March, 2007, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing ERC Determination documents. This information was sent to: Name Agencies Austin Kovach Andrew Kovach Tridor, Inc. Charlie Wolff Robin Jones Betty & Raymond Barry Aaron Redhage Cathy Joss (Signature of Sender): ~4(/h1,/ STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) See Attached Contact Applicant Owner POR POR POR POR POR I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy Tucker Representing signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for ~~~Irnd purposes mentioned in the instrument. $':1. '-~~~ I~IIII #' ,: .~t,,','f;f':;!'I1 ~ ~ Dated: 3-\'5-6J Gt loJ :~. 1;J1' oTA Cf. ~ Notary ublic in an or the Sate 6f VVEishll19!OD -oJ ~ S:. ~, : ~ () () ~ 1ft '~. "'u f.; r ~ :: Notary (Print): C1t\'\~*r i "'fVlD Ho~ tY'4 Q. \:;;'~~,~~\oA'>_E My appointment expires: .). 1'1 -10 I, ",""';"'"';P$" 1111 0" VvA~:":"'';:­ '111 1\\\\""" Project Name: Grant Avenue Townhouses Project Number: LUA07-018, SA-A, ECF template -affidavit of service by mailing Dept. of Ecology' Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 WSDOT Northwest Region' Attn: Ramin Pazooki King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240 PO Box 33031 0 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers • Seattle District Office Attn: SEPA Reviewer PO Box C-3755 Seattle, WA 98124 Jamey Taylor' Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Servo Attn: SEPA Section 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 Metro Transit Senior Environmental Planner Gary Kriedt AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERe DETERMINATIONS) WDFW -Stewart Reinbold' Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. • clo Department of Ecology Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer 3190 160'h Ave SE 39015 -172"' Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98008 Auburn, WA 98092 Duwamish Tribal Office '" Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program' 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015172"' Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092-9763 KC Wastewater Treatment Division' Office of Archaeology & Historic Environmental Planning Supervisor Preservation'" Ms. Shirley Marroquin Attn: Stephanie Kramer 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 PO Box 48343 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: Mr. Micheal E. Nicholson Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director 13020 SE 72 0d Place 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Municipal Liason Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Joe Jainga 6300 Southcenter Blvd. 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-01W Tukwila, WA 98188 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 Seattle Public Utilities State Department of Ecology Real Estate Services NW Regional Office Title Examiner 3190 160 'h Avenue SE 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 Bellevue, WA 98008-5452 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the checklist, PMT's, and the notice of application .• Also note, do not mail Jamey Taylor any of the notices she gets hers from the web. Only send her the ERC Detenmination paperwork. template -affidavit of service by mailing ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS-M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: Grant Avenue Townhouses PROJECT NUMBER: LUA07-018, SA-A, ECF LOCATION: 1600 Grant Avenue SE DESCRIPTION: The proponent of the Grant Avenue Townhouses project Is requesting an environmental determination and Site Plan Review for development of a 91,911.6 square foot (2.11 A) property located in southeast Renton. The proposed project would result in 36 ground-related townhouse-style residential units. The property is in a Residential Multi-family zone (RM-F). THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals ofthe environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on April 2, 2007. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $15.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.8. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE SET AND ALL PARTIES NOTIFIED. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT (425) 430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Please include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file identification. March 14,2007 Austin Kovach Kovach Architects 10 1 W Main Street Monroe, WA 98272 SUBJECT: Grant Avenue Townhouses LUA07-018, SA-A, ECF Dear Mr. Kovach: CIT' OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) to advise you that they have completed their review of the subject project and have issued a threshold Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated with Mitigation Measures. Please refer to the enclosed ERC Report and Decision, Part 2, Section B for a list of the Mitigation Measures. Appeals of the environmental determination must be flied in writing on or before 5:00 PM on April 2, 2007. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are govemed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-1 IO.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, a public hearing date will be set and all parties notified. The preceding information will assist you in planning for implementation of your project and enable you to exercise your appeal rights more fully, if you choose to do so. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at (425) 430-7382. For the Environmental Review Committee, Elizabeth Higgins, AICP Senior Planner cc: Tridor Inc. /Owner(s) Charlie Wolff, Robin Jones, Betty & Raymond Barry, Aaron Redhage, Cathy Joss / Party(ies) of Record Andrew Kovach / Applicant Enclosure ------------I-05-5-S-0U-th--Grn--dY-w--~---R-e-nt-on-.-W-a-sh-m-g-w-n-9-8-05-7-------------~ ~ Thio ... o,..,orn~~ .. ' ... "'.I;f)CI, ....,~,"" ........... "...,,,,,,, .,,.,01. " .... ".~ ... " ........ "" AHEAD OF THE CURVE CITL OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator March 14, 2007 Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Subject: Environmental Determinations Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on March 12,2007: DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: LOCATION: DESCRIPTION: Grant Avenue Townhonses LUA07-018, SA-A, ECF 1600 Grant Avenue SE The proponent of the Grant Avenue Townhouses project is requesting an environmental determination and Site Plan Review for development of a 91,911.6 square foot (2.11 A) property located in southeast Renton. The proposed project would result in 36 ground-related townhouse-style residential units. The property is in a Residential Multi-family zone (RM- F). Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on April 2, 2007. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11O.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. If you have questions, please call me at (425) 430-7382. For the Environmental Review Committee, £¥~-0.d£J~ Elizabeth Higgins, AICP Senior Planner cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division WDFW. Stewart Reinbold Enclosure David F. Dietzman, Department of Natural Resources WSDOT, Northwest Region Duwamish Tribal Office Karen Walter, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (Ordinance) Melissa Calvert, Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program US Anny Corp_ of Engineers Stephanie Kramer. Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation -------------'O-5-5-S-0u-th--G-ra-dY--W-a-Y--R-e-n-to-n-,\-V-a-sh-in-g-to-n-9-8-05-7--------------~ ~ -.-...,~ _______ ._, ___ ""~, ___ . ,_,_-' __ ,_-'_, "'''M ___ < ____ •• ___ A H EA D 0 F THE CURVE CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA07-018, SA-A, ECF APPLICANT: Andrew Kovach; Kovach Architects PROJECT NAME: Grant Avenue Townhouses DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The proponent of the Grant Avenue Townhouses project is requesting an environmental determination and Site Plan Review for development of a 91,911.6 square foot (2.11 A) property located in southeast Renton. The proposed project would result in 36 ground-related townhouse-style residential units. The property is in a Residential Multi-family zone (RM-F). LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: MITIGATION MEASURES: 1600 Grant Avenue SE (north of S 18'" Street) The City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section 1. The applicant shall be required to comply with the recommendations included in the geotechnical report, "Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation, Grant's Place, Renton WA, Prepared for Tridor, Inc," by Nelson Geotechnical Associates, Inc., dated June 10, 2005. 2. Site construction shall be limited to occur between April 1 st and November 1 st. 3. Due to the proposed drainage to Rolling Hills Creek, the project must comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual to meet both detention (Conservation Flow control -a.k.a. Level 2) and water quality improvements. The drainage report must be revised to be in compliance with the standards required as a condition of approval and resubmitted. 4. The applicant shall provide documentation that ensures that a stormwater detention structure is a permitted use of the overhead transmission line easement (recording number 5162689) area. The documentation shall be provided to the Development Services Division prior to receiving utility construction permits. 5. The applicant shall be required to provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements outlined in Volume II of the most recent Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual. This condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division prior to the issuance of building permits. 6. The applicant shall follow the recommendations of the report, "Tridor Townhomes Site Access I Traffic Impact Fee Analysis," by Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc., dated November 25, 2006. These recommendations shall be adhered to prior to occupancy of the project. 7. A Transportation Mitigation Fee shall be assessed at $75 per average weekday peak hour trips generated from the project. The fee (estimated at $14,250.00) shall be paid prior to issuance of building pemnits. 8. The applicant shall submit information sufficient to calculate required fire flow prior to issuance of building permits. 9. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee based on a rate of $388.00 per new multi-family unit. Fire Mitigation Fees shall be assessed for the residential units prior to obtaining building permits. 10. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Parks Mitigation Fee based on $354.51 per new multi-family unit prior to obtaining building permits. ERG Mitigation Measures Page 1 of 1 CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE·MITIGATED ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA07-018, SA-A, ECF APPLICANT: Andrew Kovach; Kovach Architects PROJECT NAME: Grant Avenue Townhouses DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The proponent of the Grant Avenue Townhouses project is requesting an environmental determination and Site Plan Review for development of a 91,911,6 square foot (2.11 A) property located in southeast Renton. The proposed project would result in 36 ground-related townhouse-style residential units. The property is in a Residential Multi-family zone (RM-F). LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: 1600 Grant Avenue SE (north of S 1Sth Street) The City of Renton Departmenl of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination, Because these notes are provided as Information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. Planning 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. The Development Services Division reserves the right to rescind the approved extended haul hours at any time if complaints are received. 2. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1 st and March 31 st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. 3. Construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 4. Site Plan Review may require revisions to the proposed site plan, including, but not limited to number of units, due to the proposal for a detached, single-family dwelling on the current plan, which is not allowed by the zone. Fire Prevention 1. In accordance with the Fire Department requirementat a minimum, one hydrant within 150 feet of the structure and additional hydrants are required within 300 feet of the structure. Additional fire flow and hydrants may be required depending on the construction type. According to the Fire Department, there was insufficient information provided to determine the specific fire flow requirements for this development. 2. Separate plans and permits are required for the installation of fire alarm and sprinkler systems. 3. The internal street shall be signed as no parking in accordance with Fire Department requirements. 4. Existing and new hydrants will be required to be retrofitted with Storz "quick-disconnect" fittings. ERe Advisory Notes Page 1 of 2 Plan Review -Surface Water 1. Surface Water System Development Charge is $0.265 per new square foot of impervious surface. The fee for 64,095 square feet of new impervious surface (as shown in the Drainage Report supplied with the application) is $16,985. This fee is due with the construction permit. 2. Drainage requirements must meet the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual. Plan Review -Water 1. The site is within the City of Renton water service area. 2. There is a 12-inch watermain within the existing roadway (Grant Ave S). 3. The project site is located in the 590-water pressure zone. 4. The site is outside of the Aquifer Protection Area. 5. Maximum Fire Flow available to the site is approximately 2,600 gpm. Static water pressure is approximately 105 psi. 6. Water System Development Charge is $1,174.00 per new unit Plan Review -Sanitary Sewer 1. There is an 8-inch sewer main adjacent and available to serve the site. 2. The Sanitary Sewer System Development Charges (SDC) is $610 per unit. This fee is payable at the time the utility construction permit is issued. Plan Review -Street Improvements 1. Street improvements including, but not limited to paving, sidewalks, curb and gutter, storm drain, landscape, street lighting, and street signs would be required along Grant Ave NE. 2. All wire utilities shall be installed underground per the City of Renton Undergrounding Ordinance. ERG Advisory Notes Page 2 012 CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) APPLICATION NO(S): LUA07-018, SA-A, ECF APPLICANT: Andrew Kovach; Kovach Architects PROJECT NAME: Grant Avenue Townhouses DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The proponent of the Grant Avenue Townhouses project is requesting an environmental determination and Site Plan Review for development of a 91,911.6 square foot (2.11 A) property located in southeast Renton. The proposed project would result in 36 ground-related townhouse-style residential units. The property is in a Residential Multi-family zone (RM-F). LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: 1600 Grant Avenue SE (north of S 18th Street) The City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-6-6 Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on April 2, 2007. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: March 17, 2007 DATE OF DECISION: March 12, 2007 SIGNATURES: 1;/;2#1 Date ') . .o;D~aJ.v;:!id~Dla"::ni~e~ls~, ~F=ire::::;C;:h;'ie-of----g/I2/07 Date Fire Depart nt ...... ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWOOMMlttEE MEETING NOTICE •• March 12, 2007 ••• ... ...•. To: Gregg Zimmerman, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator Terry Higashiyama, Community Services Administrator I. David Daniels, Fire Chief Alex Pietsch, EDNSP Administrator From: Jennifer Henning, Development Planning Meeting Date: Monday, March12, 2007 Time: 3:00PM ... Location: Sixth Floor Conference Room #620 • . ... Agenda listed below. A TS Automation Addition (Higgins) LUA07-003, SA-A, ECF The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and Administrative Site Plan approval of a proposed 7,400 gsf addition to an existing 23,815 gsf office building. The structure, the Old Milwaukee Substation, is located in South Renton. The 0.83 acre property consists of 2 parcels. Surface parking is currently on-site, but additional parking would be provided at a new off-site surface parking area (not a part of this project). Cassidy Cove Preliminary Plat (Higgins) LUA07-014, PP, SA-A, ECF The proponent of the Cassidy Cove Preliminary Plat is requesting SEPA environmental review, Site Plan Review, and Preliminary Plat approval for subdivision of 68 acres of land into 2 lots. The site currently functions as a King County Roads and Parks Operations and Maintenance Base. The 60 and 8 acre lots would subsequently developed for public facilities, one by King County and on by the City of Renton (Parks Department maintenance shops). The property is zoned Light Industrial -Public (IL-P). Grant Avenue Homes (Higgins) LUA07-018, SA-A, ECF The proponent of the Grant Avenue Homes is requesting an environmental determination and Site Plan Review for development of a 91,911.6 square foot (2.11 A) property located in south Renton. The proposed project would result in 36 ground-related townhouse-style residential units. The property is in a Residential Multi-family zone (RM-F). cc: K. Keolker, Mayor J. Covington, Chief Administrative Officer S. Dale Estey. EDNSP Director ® J. Gray, Fire Prevention N. Watts, P!B/PW Development Services Director ® F. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner L. Rude, Fire Prevention ® J. Medzegian, Council P. Hahn. P/B/PW Transportation Systems Director R. lind, Economic Development L. Warren, City Attorney ® REPORT City of Renton Department of Planning / Building / Public Works & DECISION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT ERe MEETING DATE: March 12, 2007 Project Name: Grant Avenue Townhouses Applicant: Andrew Kovach; Kovach Architects; 101 West Main SI.; Monroe WA 98272 Contact: Austin Kovach; Kovach Architects; 101 West Main SI.; Monroe WA 98272 File Number: LUA07-018, SA-A, ECF Project Manager: Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner Project Summary: The proponent of the Grant Avenue Townhouses project is requesting an environmental determination and Site Plan Review for development of a 91,911.6 square foot (2.11 A) property located in southeast Renton. The proposed project would result in 36 ground- related townhouse-style residential units. The property is in a Residential Multi-family zone (RM-F). Project Loca tion: 1600 Grant Avenue SE (north of S 18th Street) Existing building area: Existing single-family house is to Proposed new building 36 units ranging in be removed area: size from 1,850 to 2,000 sf RECOMMENDA TION: Staff recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M). Project Location Map ERe REPORT07'()18 (revised).doc City of Renton PIB/PW Department GRANT A VENUE HOMES REPORT OF MARCH 12, 2007 II PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND En nenlaf Review Committee Staff Report LUA07-018, SA-A, ECF Page 20f8 The 2.11 acre property proposed for development into the Grant Avenue Homes abuts the east side of Grant Ave S and the west side of the Rolling Hills subdivision, north of S 1S'h Street. It has been developed with a single-story, single-family house since 1946. The existing house and 2 outbuildings would be removed prior to redevelopment. The vicinity of the property has a high concentration of utility easements and above-ground power transmission lines for Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), City of Seattle, and Puget Sound Energy (PSE). The Maple Valley Substation (BPA) and Talbot Hill Substation (PSE) are located northeast of the property. As mentioned, a single- family residential subdivision, Rolling Hills, abuts the property to the east. A 30 unit condominium project, Heritage Village, is to the south. Land to the west and abutting on the north is a PSE easement. Although Grant Ave S dead-ends at one of these easements to the north, there is a gated emergency-only access/egress continues north from the street end that is acceptable to the Renton Fire Department to mitigate a Renton Regulation prohibiting dead end streets in excess of 700 feet. Grant Ave S intersects with Puget Drive S, an arterial street, to the south, which would be the primary access to the development. The property has been designated Residential Medium Density on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use map and zoned Residential Multi-family (RM-F). Attached residential dwellings, as have been proposed, are an allowed use in the RM-F zone. Land north, west, and south are also zoned RM-F. Rolling Hills, to the east, has been developed as single-family residential and is zoned Residential S (R-S). The 36 units are proposed to be constructed as 11 triplex buildings, 1 duplex unit, and a stand-alone unit. The stand alone unit, as a "detached structure," would not be allowed by the development standards of the RM-F zone (this issue will be addressed during the Site Plan Review). If 36 units are provided by the development, the density would be 17.06 dwelling units per net acre, which is within the allowable range for the zone. Structures would be 3 stories and 35 feet in height each with parking within the building accessed from a central private road. Approximately 75 percent of the site would be impervious following construction. All pervious areas of the project site would be landscaped. II PART TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In compliance with RCW 43.21 C.240, the following project environmental review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. A, Recommendation Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials make the following Environmental Determination: DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE Issue DNS with 14-day Appeal Period. B. Mitigation Measures x DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGA TED. Issue DNS-M with 14-day Comment and A eal Period. 1. The applicant shall be required to comply with the recommendations included in the geotechnical report, "Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation, Grant's Place, Renton WA, Prepared for Tridor, Inc," by Nelson Geotechnical Associates, Inc., dated June 10, 2005. 2. Site construction shall be limited to occur between April 1 st and November 1 st. 3. Due to the proposed drainage to Rolling Hills Creek, the project must comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual to meet both detention (Conservation Flow control -a.k.a. Level 2) and water quality improvements. The drainage report must be revised to be in compliance with the standards required as a condition of approval and resubmitted. ERC REPORT 07-018 (revised).doc City of Renton PIB/PW Departmer GRANT AVENUE HOMES mental Review Committee Staff Report LUA07-{)18, SA-A, ECF REPORT OF MARCH 12. 2007 Page 3 of 8 4. The applicant shall provide documentation that ensures that a stormwater detention structure is a permitted use of the overhead transmission line easement (recording number 5162689) area. The documentation shall be provided to the Development Services Division prior to receiving utility construction permits. 5. The applicant shall be required to provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements outlined in Volume II of the most recent Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual. This condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division prior to the issuance of building permits. 6. The applicant shall follow the recommendations of the report, "Tridor Townhomes Site Access I Traffic Impact Fee Analysis," by Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc., dated November 25, 2006. These recommendations shall be adhered to prior to occupancy of the project. 7. A Transportation Mitigation Fee shall be assessed at $75 per average weekday peak hour trips generated from the project. The fee (estimated at $14.250.00) shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. 8. The applicant shall submit information sufficient to calculate required fire fiow prior to issuance of building permits. 9. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee based on a rate of $388.00 per new multi- family unit. Fire Mitigation Fees shall be assessed for the residential units prior to obtaining building permits. 10. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Parks Mitigation Fee based on $354.51 per new multi-family unit prior to obtaining building permits. C. Environmentallmpacts The Proposal was circulated and reviewed by various City Departments and Divisions to determine whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development. Staff reviewers have identified that the proposal is likely to have the following probable impacts: 1. Earth Impacts: The site has regulated slopes of between 15 and 25 percent, primarily on the west and east ends of the property. Based on a topographic survey submitted with the application, areas to be developed have slopes of up to 19 percent. Following construction approximately 35 percent of the site would be covered by buildings and 75 percent covered with impervious surfaces. A geotechnical study, "Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation, Grant's Place, Renton WA, Prepared for Tridor, Inc," by Nelson Geotechnical Associates, Inc., dated June 10, 2005. The report summarizes existing surface and subsurface conditions and provides general recommendations for the site development as proposed. Conclusions in their report are based on a subsurface investigation, using analysis of material excavated from 8 test pits ranging from 4.5 to 8.5 feet in depth and documentation related to geology of the vicinity. There was no evidence found of previous coal mining activities, which were known to occur in the vicinity of the property. This, with research of records available at the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, resulted in the conclusion that mining operations were not specifically located at the site. The top 0.5 to 1.5 feet of the site consists of loose topsoil. This is underlain by competent native glacial till deposits, which was found to the bottom of the test pits. The geotechnical report concludes that the site is compatible with the proposed development and that structures may be founded on the native medium dense or better soil that would be encountered at approximately 1 to 2 feet below the existing ground surface. Use of shallow foundations, with footings extended through loose surficial soil to underlying competent glacial till soils is recommended. The recommendations of the geotechnical study, "Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation, ERG REPORT 07·018 (revised).doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department GRANT AVENUE HOMES REPORT OF MARCH 12, 2007 En mental Review Committee Staff Report LUA07-018, SA-A, ECF Page 4 0'8 Grant's Place, Renton WA, Prepared for Tridor, Inc: by Nelson Geotechnical Associates, Inc., dated June 10, 2005, should be fOllowed by the applicant as a condition of the environmental determination. Minor to moderate groundwater seepage, probably from perched water, was found at depths ranging from 2.5 to 7.5 feet below the existing grade. Although there is no indication of a regional groundwater table within the area explored, this groundwater would probably be present, in varying amounts depending on seasonal rainfall, throughout the year. The geotechnical report recommends that the property be developed during the dry season. Staff recommends that site construction be limited to occur between April 1 st and November 1 st. In addition, the design should include footing, wall, and underslab drains as well as cut-off or French drains at certain locations to maintain post-construction dry conditions, as recommended in the geotechnical report. Although the report concludes that the proposed project would be feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, the project proponent should follow the recommendations presented in the geotechnical study regarding site preparation (stripping of topsoil, diversion of surface water from development areas, avoidance of soil compaction, and placement of subgrade material), foundation support (including placement and dimensions of footings, bearing pressure, and foundation settlement tOlerance), structural fill (including necessity of use in relation to reliance on native material, specifications of material [moisture contentj, location and lift requirements, and compaction), slab-on-grade (including subgrade, hydraulic connection to footing drain system, vapor barrier, and underslab and perimeter drainage), and pavement. Mitigation Measures: 1. The applicant shall be required to comply with the recommendations included in the geotechnical report, "Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation, Grant's Place, Renton WA, Prepared for Tridor, Inc," by Nelson Geotechnical Associates, Inc., dated June 10, 2005. 2. Site construction shall be limited to occur between April 1st and November 1st. Nexus: RMC 4-4-060, "Grading, Excavation and Mining Regulations 2. Air Impacts: It is anticipated that some adverse air quality impacts would be associated with site work and building construction required to redevelop this property. Project impacts during construction include dust resulting from grading, exhaust from construction vehicles, odors from roofing installation, and roadway paving. Dust would be controlled through the use of temporary control measures and the sprinkling of the site with water as needed. Odor impacts during construction are unavoidable and would be short-term in nature. Post development impacts potentially include vehicle and heating system exhaust. These emissions are regulated by state and federal agencies. Nor further site specific mitigation for the identified impacts from exhaust is required. Mitigation Measures: None required Nexus: Not applicable 3. Stormwater Impacts: The project site drains to Rolling Hills Creek, a subbasin of the Black River Drainage Basin and the Lake Washington Watershed. The applicant submitted a "Technical Information Report for the Grant Place Townhomes, by Taylor Engineering consultants, dated August 9, 2006. This report analyzes off-site drainage and project site surface water collection and distribution. Due to the proposed drainage to Rolling Hills Creek, the project must comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual to meet both detention (Conservation Flow control -a.k.a. Level 2) and water quality improvements. The drainage report must be revised to be in compliance with the standards required as a condition of approval and resubmitted. ERG REPORT 07·018 (revised).doc City of Renton PIB/PW Departmen GRANT AVENUE HOMES REPORT OF MARCH 12, 2007 ,mental Review Committee Staff Report LUA07 -018, SA-A, ECF Page 50f8 On-site drainage improvements will include curbs, gutters, catch basins, and pipe network for collection of surface water runoff which will be tight-lined to a detention vault located at the northwest corner of the property. The proposed location of the vault is within an overhead transmission line easement (recording number 5162689). Staff recommends that the applicant provide documentation that ensures that such structure is a permitted use of the easement area. The applicant will be required to provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements outlined in Volume II of the most recent Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual. Mitigation Measures: 1. The project must comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual to meet both detention (Conservation Flow control -a.k.a. Level 2) and water quality improvements. The drainage report must be revised to be in compliance with the standards required as a condition of approval and resubmitted prior to obtaining construction permits. 2. The applicant shall provide documentation that ensures that a stormwater detention structure is a permitted use of the overhead transmission line easement (recording number 5162689) area. The documentation shall be provided to the Development Services Division prior to receiving utility construction permits. 3. The applicant shall be required to provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements outlined in Volume II of the most recent Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual. This condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division prior to the issuance of building permits. Nexus: SEPA Regulations 4. Streets and Transportation Impacts: The project would be accessed from Grant Avenue NE by a 20 foot wide internal private street. The 577 foot long road will terminate in a cul-de-sac (see Fire Protection section, below). Property to the east, beyond the street end has been developed with single-family homes of the Rolling Hills subdivision is not anticipated to see further development, so no potential connection to existing streets to the east appears likely. The private, internal access street would be sloped between 6.5 percent at the west end and 11 percent on the east end. The cul-de-sac would have a cross slope of 5 percent. Driveways to individual units would be sloped approximately 9 percent. Access roads with slopes in excess of 15 percent must be approved by the Renton Fire Prevention Bureau. Street improvements including, but not limited to paving, sidewalks, curb and gutter, storm drain, landscaping, street lighting, and street signs would be required along Grant Avenue NE. A analysis of traffic, "Tridor Townhomes Site Access I Traffic Impact Fee Analysis," by Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc., dated November 25. 2006, was submitted with the application. The analysis is intended to identify sight lines at the project entrance, calculate trip generation, and determine impact fees. Based on study of the proposed project and the existing conditions, the report concludes that the proposed site access at Grant Avenue S meets the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) stopping site distance criteria. The report makes recommendations regarding control of vegetation at the west portion of the property to increase safety. Following the recommendations of the report, "Tridor Townhomes Site Access I TraffiC Impact Fee Analysis," by Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc., dated November 25, 2006, will be a requirement of the environmental determination. The project would result in an increase in traffic trips; therefore, staff recommends that the applicant pay a Traffic Impact Fee based on a rate of $75.00 per new trip. For the proposal, the Traffic Impact Fee is estimated at $14,250. ERG REPORT 07-018 (revised).doc City of Renton PIB/PW Departmeni GRANT A VENUE HOMES REPORT OF MARCH 12, 2007 Mitigation Measures: En mental Review Committee Siaff Report LUA07-018, SA-A, ECF Page 60(8 1. The applicant shall follow the recommendations of the report, "Tridor Townhomes Sile Access I Traffic Impact Fee Analysis," by Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc., dated November 25, 2006. These recommendations shall be adhered to prior to occupancy of the project. 2. A Transportation Mitigation Fee shall be assessed at $75 per average weekday peak hour trips generated from the project. The fee (estimated at $14,250.00) shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. Nexus: SEPA, Transportation Mitigation Fee Ordinance No. 3100. 5, Fire Protection Impacts: Due to the width (20 feet) and length of the internal access street (577 feet), there is a concern that parking on the internal access street may occur and subsequently impede access to units by emergency vehicles. Therefore, all units must be equipped with automatic fire suppression systems (sprinklers). Insufficient information was submitted to calculate required fire flow for the project. Such information shall be submitted prior to issuance of building permits. Fire Prevention staff indicates that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development; subject to the condition that the applicant provide required improvements and fees. As the proposal would add 36 new residences to the City, staff recommends that the applicant be required to pay a Fire Mitigation Fee in the amount of $388.00 per new residence. Mitigation Measures: All units shall be equipped with automatic fire suppression systems (sprinklers). The applicant shall submit information sufficient to calculate required fire flow prior to issuance of building permits. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee based on a rate of $388.00 per new unit. Fire Mitigation Fees shall be assessed for the residential units prior to obtaining building permits. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations; Fire Mitigation Fee Resolution No. 2913, Ordinance 4527. 6, Parks & Recreation Impacts: The proposed development is anticipated to generate future demand on existing and future City parks, recreational facilities, and programs. Therefore, staff recommends that the applicant be required to pay a Parks Mitigation Fee based on $354.51 per each new unit. The fee is estimated at $12,762.36 (36 new units x $354.51 = $12,762.36). Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall pay the appropriate Parks Mitigation Fee based on $354.51 per new multi-family unit prior to obtaining building permits. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations; Parks Mitigation Fee Resolution No. 3082, Ordinance 4527. 7, Vegetation & Wildlife Impacts: The site has mown lawn in the vicinity of the existing house. The remainder of the site has brambles, native grasses and trees. A tree inventory was submitted with the application. Since the site would be cleared of all vegetation, landscaping and replacement of protected trees would be a requirement of City of Renton Municipal Code. Mitigation Measures: None Nexus: N/A ERC REPORT 07-018 (revised).doc City of Renton PIB/PW Departmen. GRANT AVENUE HOMES En mental Review Committee Staff Report LUA07-018, SA-A, ECF REPORT OF MARCH 12, 2007 Page 7 0(8 D. Comments of Reviewing Departments The proposal has been circulated to Cify Departmental/Divisional Reviewers for their review. Where applicable, these comments have been incorporated into the text of this report as Mitigation Measures and/or Notes to Applicant. --1L Copies of al/ Review Comments are contained in the Official File, __ Copies of al/ Review Comments are attached to this report. Environmental Determination Appeal Process Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, April 2, 2007. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110,8, Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510, ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action. 8ecause these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for the land use actions Planning 1, RMC section 4-4-030,C,2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. The Development Services Division reserves the right to rescind the approved extended haul hours at any time if complaints are received. 2, Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1 st and March 31 st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. 3. Construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a,m, and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m" Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a,m, and eight o'clock (8:00) p,m, No work shall be permitted on Sundays, 4. Site Plan Review may require revisions to the proposed site plan, including, but not limited to number of units, due to the proposal for a detached, single-family dwelling on the current plan, which is not allowed by the zone, Fire Prevention 1, In accordance with the Fire Department requirementat a minimum, one hydrant within 150 feet of the structure and additional hydrants are required within 300 feet of the structure, Additional fire flow and hydrants may be required depending on the construction type, According to the Fire Department, there was insufficient information provided to determine the specific fire flow requirements for this development. 2. Separate plans and permits are required for the installation of fire alarm and sprinkler systems. 3, The internal street shall be signed as no parking in accordance with Fire Department requirements, 4, Existing and new hydrants will be required to be retrofitted with Storz "quick-disconnect" fittings. Plan Review -Surface Water 1. Surface Water System Development Charge is $0.265 per new square foot of impervious surface, The fee for 64,095 square feet of new impervious surface (as shown in the Drainage Report supplied with the application) is $16,985, This fee is due with the construction permit. 2. Drainage requirements must meet the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual. Plan Review -Water 1, The site is within the City of Renton water service area, 2. There is a 12-inch watermain within the existing roadway (Grant Ave S), 3, The project site is located in the 590-water pressure zone, 4, The site is outside of the Aquifer Protection Area, 5. Maximum Fire Flow available to the site is approximately 2,600 gpm, Static water pressure is approximately 105 psi, 6, Water System Development Charge is $1,174,00 per new unit Plan Review -Sanitarv Sewer 1. There is an 8-inch sewer main adjacent and available to serve the site, 2. The Sanitary Sewer System Development Charges (SDC) is $610 per unit. This fee is payable at the time the utility construction permit is issued, ERG REPORT 07-018 (revised).doc City of Renton P/B/PW Departmen GRANT A VENUE HOMES REPORT OF MARCH 12, 2007 Plan Review -Street Improvements En mental Review Committee Staff Report LUA07-018, SA-A, ECF Page 8018 1. Street improvements including, but not limited to paving, sidewalks, curb and gutter, storm drain, landscape, street lighting, and street signs would be required along Grant Ave NE. 2. All wire utilities shall be installed underground per the City of Renton Undergrounding Ordinance. ERG REPORT 07-018 (revised).doc I="Al=I!.oeiL-:1* ::20::2,sc:: ~OS::2 1caOO c:3~NT AV __ • .£>, l=I!.elNTON VVA S'JSC-';S F4 • 17 T23N R5E W 112 (I) m· Q) (I) l O! i> ... (/) "'" Q) .i> "'" ge Pl. RM-F RM:-f 18th RM-~ (/) CA RM-F R-8 R-8 - 21st pL- ~M-F R-8 " R-8 RM-F H4 . 29 T23N R5E W 112 ~ ZONING ----Renton <lit,-, ....... '0 := TlICIINICAL IIB1lVICBS o _, toO G4 20 T23N R5E W 112 S320 I ! t ! ~ , " i ! I i i I I ~ ~ i ! ~ ~ , , , , II I 1 i I • • I , ! , ~ 1 I I \ I! i i \ I f i i ~ J ~ -p )) ~ t t!! j ,i i ' Hi I i 'j'" I '" !'! 'Ii' ' I ... '''f . ;'1' { ! I I. 1;1-; I' H !l~ Ii ,: t jilL lilt, .1 0 • R I i · ~ ~ g I r I i I ! 1 ! j 3 ' : ~ ! tit • ! • {) ! ! -' 1;' i 0 S! i ~ I I : i , '1! ~ 8 ~ !to .. B I I J I ! Iii I I ' i'" • 1 m I ! I i J ! I,: ","" I i iii i i I III ! !! I ill! ; I ; i ! i •• . ~ j' ¥ ~ . ~l 0 . ZEB , , f: r '''- i --...--8 !Jh ~~ . '-t~ ,~ ! ~i 7; ~, ~- PLANNINGIBUILDINGI PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: March 7, 2007 Elizabeth Higgins Mike Dotson ~t"- TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Grant Avenue Townhomes, LUA07-018, SA-A, ECF The following Utility and Transportation comments concern the Environmental and Development Application review for the subject project. EXISTING CONDITIONS WATER -The site is within the City of Renton water service area. There is a l2-inch watermain within the existing roadway (Grant Ave S). The project site is located in the 590-water pressure zone. The site is outside of the Aquifer Protection Area. Maximum Fire Flow available to the site is approximately 2,600 gpm. Static water pressure is approximately 105 psi. SEWER -There is an 8-inch sewer main adjacent and available to serve the site. STORM -There exist storm drainage pipelines and conveyance systems within the existing roadway. STREET -There is currently a paved and partially improved public right-of-way along the frontage of this site. CODE REOUIREMENTS WATER 1. In accordance with the Fire Department requirement (prior to recording the subdivision), at a minimum, one hydrant within 150 feet of the structure and additional hydrants are required within 300 feet of the structure. Additional fire flow and hydrants may be required depending on the construction type. According to the Fire Department, there was insufficient information provided to determine the specific fire flow requirements for this development. 2. The Water System Development Charge is $1,174.00 per new multi-family residential unit. A redevelopment credit may apply. The fees are due with the construction permit. SANIT ARY SEWER H :IDivision.sIDeve\op. ser\Dev&p\an.ingIP ROJ ECTSI07 -018. ElizabethlOrant OF .doc Page 2 01'2 I. The Sewer System Development Charge is $610 per new multi-family residential unit. A redevelopment credit may apply. The fees is due with the construction pennit. SURFACE WATER 1. Surface Water System Development Charge is $0.265 per new square foot of impervious surface. The fce for 64,095 square feet of new impervious suface (as shown in the Drainage Report supplied with the application) is $16,985. This fee is due with the construction penni!. 2. Drainage requirements must meet the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual. The Drainage Report submitted with the application appears to be in compliance with the required standards. TRANSPORT A TION I. The traffic mitigation fee of $75 per additional generated trip shall be assessed per additional single family home at a rate of 9.57 trips per day. This fee is payable at time of recording the plat. 2. All new electrical, phone and cable services must be underground. Construction of these franchise utilities must be inspected and approved by a City of Renton public works inspector prior to recording of the short plat. 3. Per City of Renton code this short plat is required to install curb, gutter, streetlights, and sidewalks, along the frontage of the parcel being developed. CONDITIONS I. Temporary Erosion Control shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the Department of Ecology Standards and staff review. 2. A Traffic Mitigation Fee of$75.00 per additional Average Daily Trip shall be assessed. The total for 36 new town home units is $14,250. H: IDivision. slDevelop. serlDev& plan. ingIP ROJ ECTS\07 -018. EI izabethlG rant GF .doc Cit . Renton Department of Planning / Building / I c Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: PlaYl R eVle,c "1 COMMENTS DUE: FEBRUA ... APPLICATION NO: LUA07-018, SA-A, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARy'14,20'O; Y .. IJ APPLICANT: Andrew Kovach, Kovach Architects PROJECT MANAGER: Elizabeth~inl 5 2007 PROJECT TITLE: Grant Avenue Townhouses PLAN REVIEW: Mike Dotson <I'"' n,w, SITE AREA: 91,911.6 square feet BUILDING AREA (uross): N/A LOCATION: 1600 Grant Avenue S I WORK ORDER NO: 77725 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: A land use master application has been submitted requesting Site Plan Review for a 36 unit townhouse development that would be located at 1600 Grant Avenue S. The property is in a Residential Multi-family Zone. The proposed density on the 2.11 acre site would be 17 dwelling units per net acre. An environmental determination would be required by Renton's Environmental Review Committee. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable M"", Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housin Air Aesthetics Water LightIGlare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transwnation Environmental Health Public Services E""'fJ'I/ Historic/Cuitural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS We have reviewed t ' ication with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or aJ inti rmation is needed to properly assess this proposal. ~/7107 Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Oat'? ; r Project Name: Project Address: Contact Person: Permit Number: Project Description: Land Use Type: o Residential o Retail o Non-retail Calculation: lQO ~T ---~----------~-------------, ~!?-!).W\ 1~-IQ.)\JGTQwlJ \.\Ov.:..,~ \\eoo Cct)~il,\..)T l\.\/l'? ~ Method of Calculation: o ITE Trip Generation Manual, 7'· Edition Ji"rtaffic Study o Other JT"b \U(.., i II}.<=; I JUt;>y I qo '( II 5::. 1J \'-\ ILSC. ,'l; Transportation tl ,.c 1'\ tf1J Mitigation Fee: ---.:lI':...,..:.I_L\:..tI.,::J0V..,.....::..:' __________ ---::--:,..-_---,,..-.,.-____ _ Calculated by: --'£-'-"'-" K""IM:u\=>,!' ...... [l\""-________ Date: &-\ I" \:m[f' Date of Payment: __________________________ _ City _ .. lenton Department of Planning / Building / I Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:)rllr n. A j,(,,("\ COMMENTS DUE: FEBRUARY 28, 2007 APPLICATION NO: LUA07-018, SA-A, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 14, 2007 APPLICANT: Andrew Kovach Kovach Architects PROJECT MANAGER: Elizabeth Higgins PROJECT TITLE: Grant Avenue Townhouses PLAN REVIEW: Mike Dotson R f c' t I V I: U SITE AREA: 91,911.6 square feet BUILDING AREA (gross): N/A FEB H LOCATION: 1600 Grant Avenue S WORK ORDER NO: 77725 D' '"~ n,~,,, SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: A land use master application has been submitted requesting Site Plan Review for a 36 unit townhouse development that would be located at 1600 Grant Avenue S. The property is in a Residential Multi-family Zone. The proposed density on the 2.11 acre site would be 17 dwelling units per net acre. An environmental determination would be required by Renton's Environmental Review Committee. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information EnvIronment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Watsr LiQhrlGlare Plants Recreation LamVShorefine Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ His/oric/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional informaUon is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date P 'ERTY SERVICES FEE REVIEW #200 )5 8<1 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ,. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET APPLICANT: <1'(a)'\l AVfL 1O(.utWQdSl2.'!.!Andn~IJ.} JOB ADDRESS: \1oQ;:2 ~~ Arl S NATURE OF WORK;(1)1t51i\j£ 36J;1I~ if -b.un\w!iL o SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AND CONNECTION FEES APPLIED ,s; SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AND CONNECTION FEES ESTIMATED o NOT APPROVED FOR APPLICATION OF FEES o VESTED 0 NOT VESTED o PLAN REVIEW ROUTING SLIP o O:;:;EIVEDFROM U\m(ml~ won (date) GREEN# __________ _ NEED MORE INFORMATION: 0 o SQUARE FOOTAGE 0 o FRONT FOOTAGE 0 LEGAL DESCRIPTION VICINITY MAP OTHER o This fee review supersedes and cancels fee review # ______ dated -----;0;--..=== /1" .r:;. 0 PARENT PID# (subject to changeL SUBJECTPROPERTYPID# ~Z5()2-qO~:L ___ 0 King Co. Tax Acct# (new) _______ _ Triggering mechanisms for the SDC fees will be based on current City ordinances and determined by the applicable Utility Section. Final fees will be based on rates in effect at time of Building Permit/Construction Permit application. The following quoted fees do NOT include inspection fees, side sewer permits, r/w permit fees or the cost of water meters. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS DISTRICT PARCEL METHOD OF ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT NO. NO. UNITS OR FEE DistrictlW SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE -WATER # OF UNITSI SDC FEE o Pd Never Pd $O.265/sq ft of new impervious area of property x @Ufll1.~ Sig 0 eVlewmg Au ority '< '" & 0 • 0 " .." * If subject property is within an UD, it is developer's responsibility to check with the Finance Dept. for paid/un-paid status. ** If an additional water meter (or hydrant) is being installed for fire protection or an additional water meter is being installed for private ;s1fir:~~PI:i\~a.saife~ha~g~~)~ rurl do rt cdiUS~' " ~ C) e' 0 • , CP 0 EFFECTIVE: January 2, 2007 Cit_ lenton Department of Planning / Building / I . c Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: D. ./ il SV«, COMMENTS DUE: FEBRUARY 28, 2007 APPLICATION NO: LUA07-018, SA-A, ECF'-' DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 14, 2007 APPLICANT: Andrew Kovach, Kovach Architects PROJECT MANAGER: Elizabeth Hieeins RFr.FI' ,'r.:O PROJECT TITLE: Grant Avenue Townhouses PLAN REVIEW: Mike Dotson , L .. SITE AREA: 91,911,6 square feet BUILDING AREA (aross): N/A LOCATION: 1600 Grant Avenue S WORK ORDER NO: 77725 CITY Of-HE.< .... ,\J "T" lTV SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: A land use master application has been submitted requesting Site Plan Review for a 36 unit townhouse development that would be located at 1600 Grant Avenue S. The property is in a Residential Multi-family Zone. The proposed density on the 2.11 acre site would be 17 dwelling units per net acre. An environmental detenTination would be required by Renton's Environmental Review Committee. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earlh louslno Air Water Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals • Environmental Health PubHc Serv;"es Energy/ Natural Resources M"".".' ' :~:~~~; B. POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or AuthOrized Representative Date Cit. ~enton Department of Planning / Building / f Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: C'.or1stYuc:Hr'n COMMENTS DUE: FEBRUARY 28, 2007 APPLICATION NO: LUA07-018, SA-A, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 14, 2007 APPLICANT: Andrew Kovach, Kovach Architects PROJECT MANAGER: Elizabeth Higgins PROJECT TITLE: Grant Avenue Townhouses PLAN REVIEW: Mike Dotson SITE AREA: 91,911.6 square feet BUILDING AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: 1600 Grant Avenue S WORK ORDER NO: 77725 I:'J:"D I i, ~~n., , .,. ,; .. , SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: A land use master application has been submitted requesting Site Plan Review for a 36 unit townhouse development that would be located at 1600 Grant Avenue S. The property is in a Residential Multi-famil:efm1!liNif/1I\'IIIl!~lil'd density on the 2.11 acre site would be 17 dwelling units per net acre. An environmental determination would be requireo oy Riltlt'6l\'s Environmental Review Committee. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth ~ous;no Air Water Plants Land/Shoreline Use • Animals Environmental Health Pub/ic Services Energy/ Natural Resources ~;;;V';';;' FO.I :~'~;'F;~' B. POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS L-7 Cj '-"'1"I'/ C~cG We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise af¥l have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additiona' information is needed to properly assess this proposal. (7 (' /> Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS "It is anticipated that the proposed development would generate future residents that would utilize existing City park and recreation facilities and programs. The City has adopted a Parks Mitigation Fee of $354.51 per each new multi family unit to address these potential impacts." ", Cit ~enton Department of Planning / Building / P Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: FEBRUARY 28, 2007 APPLICATION NO: LUA07-018, SA-A, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 14, 2007 APPLICANT: Andrew Kovach, Kovach Architects PROJECT MANAGER: Elizabeth Higgins PROJECT TITLE: Grant Avenue Townhouses PLAN REVIEW: Mike Dotson SITE AREA: 91,911.6 sauare feet BUILDING AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: 1600 Grant Avenue S I WORK ORDER NO: 77725 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: A land use master application has been submitted requesting Site Plan Review for a 36 unit townhouse development that would be located at 1600 Grant Avenue S. The property is in a Residential Multi-family Zone. The proposed density on the 2.11 acre site would be 17 dwelling units per net acre. An environmental determination would be required by Renton's Environmental Review Committee, A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Molor Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Hous/n Air Aesthetics Water LightIGfare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline USB Utililies Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public SefYices Energy/ Historic/Cuftura/ Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where dditional informatio is needed to properly assess this proposal. Date ~ I DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MITIGATION ITEMS: FIRE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM February 15, 2007 Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner ) / ~ James Gray, Assistant Fire Marshal r-.O~ Grant Ave. Townhouses, 1600 Gran~~e. S I. A fire mitigation fee of$13, 968.00 is required based on $388.00 per unit. FIRE CODE REQUIREMENTS: I. The preliminary fire flow is based on the total squares footage of the attached structures and type of construction. This information is needed to determine the preliminary fire flow. One hydrant is required within 150 feet of the structures and additional hydrants are required within 300 feet of the structures, based on fire flow. 2. Separate plans and permits are required for the installation of fire alarm and sprinkler systems. 3. Fire department access roadways are required to within 150 feet of all portions of the building exterior. Roadways are a minimum 20 feet in width with a turning radius of 45 feet outside and 25 feet inside. 4. Fire Department dead end access roadways over 150 feet in length are required to have an approved turnaround. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. i:\grantavetownerc.doc Clt~ __ Renton Department of Planning / Building /I 'Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: h r~ COMMENTS DUE: FEBRUARY 28, 2007 APPLICATION NO: LUA07-018, SA-A, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: FEB APPLICANT: Andrew Kovach, Kovach Architects PROJECT MANAGER: Elii~beth PROJECT TITLE: Grant Avenue Townhouses PLAN REVIEW: Mike Dotson ',I SITE AREA: 91,911.6 square feet BUILDING AREA (gross): NIA FEB 1 5 2007 LOCATION: 1600 Grant Avenue S I WORK ORDER NO: 77725 i ' : v ' __ ' . :-" ", ; SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: A land use master application has been submitted requesting Site Plan Review for a36 unit townhouse, development that would be located at 1600 Grant Avenue S, The property is in a Residenlial-MttltMamily Zone. The propOSed' density on the 2.11 acre site would be 17 dwelling units per net acre. An environmental determination would be required by Renton's Environmental Review Committee. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable Man> Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Ulilities Animals TranstxYfation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet AJ4 B. POLiCY-RELA TED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS this application w. nal information i particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or dod to prOperly assess this proposal. ()/ I~jp ?' Date City of Renton Development Planning 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 ATTN; Elizabeth Higgins Robin Jones 1626 Grant Ave South #B203 Renton, W A 9088 SUBJECT; Grant Avenue Townhouse, LUA07-018, SA-A, ECF 27 February 2007 I am writing to raise concerns, during the public comment period, about the Notice of Application that has been posted for 1600 Grant Ave. South, Renton, Washington. As a property owner living next door to this property, I strongly believe that Heritage Village Condominiums will be significantly impacted, both in terms of property value and quality of life, by the proposed design. My concerns with the proposed plans are as follows. 1. I have a general concern with the overall plan that has been developed for this site because it is an odd piece of land, long and narrow, sloping upwards along the length of the property. The slope and narrowness of this lot apparently gave the developer, no option other than for the development to run the length of the property parallel to us. Additionally, this property parallels the Puget Sound Power line, which limited the width of property that could be used, due to easements, and forced an overall creep of development against the Heritage Village Condominium's property line. The site easements also limited where the road access could connect with Grant Avenue. My general concern stems from the belief; that the very limited layout options available to the developer, plus the need to recover the purchase and development costs, resulted in the developer forcing a high revenue generating, design into a very unsuitable space. The focus on making a high revenue generating development, fit the awkward lot size, may have caused the developer not to acknowledge some of the impacts their plan has on their neighbors and the surrounding community. Beyond this overall concern with the general design of the development there are a number of specific areas of concern both environmental and design wise. 2. Closeness of building to the property -As mentioned in my general concern, the narrowness of the property, as well as the power line easement presented the developer with very limited width to work with, with the result that the plan sits very close to the Heritage Village property line. The close proximity of these large, tall, high-density units impacts the quality of life due to the increased noise, loss of view, loss of light, and loss of privacy. Since the new development will run parallel to Heritage Village, we will have unbroken line of sight into the 1 proposed units and they vice versa, particularly for those ofus on the second floor, above fence height. The closeness of these types of the units to Heritage Village while benefiting the proposed development's quality oflife, does so at our expense. 3. The proposed height of the buildings. -The proposed heights of the buildings are higher than the Heritage Village Condominiums. Given the orientation of the development towards our property line; our privacy will significantly suffer, with a line of residents able to look down into our property, particularly on the second floor, above any possible fence line. Additionally, because of the height and the orientation most sunlight to our property will be blocked by the proposed development. Currently the bulk of sunshine that is received in our units comes from the North and East due to the slope of the hill to the west. Three story townhouse running the length and against our property line will effectively block most of the natural light into our property. The height of these types of the units while benefiting developer's needs does so at our expense. 4. Road entrance and tum around -Because of the odd shape of the property and the easements, the entrance into this property is located very close to Heritage Village Condominiums. This will result in increased traffic noise to the Heritage Village Condominium units located adjacent to the entrance road. With the entrance located as planned, traffic noise will be present on both sides of some Heritage Village Condominium units. Additionally, the proposed entrance is located on the blind side of a downward curve on Grant Ave, which seem like a less then suitable placement. Lastly, because of the single access road, the plan incorporates a turn around at the top of the property that is useable by all traffic going in and out of this piece of property. Heritage Village Condominium units located near this tum around are facing significant increases in traffic noise and pollution. The unique design of the road and entrance necessary to accommodate the development's density goals again occurs at our expense. 5. Ground water runoff -Heritage Village Condominiums has increasingly suffered from drainage problems such as; excessive storm run off; water pooling from the rain runoff; a possible spring surfacing in the property, and the inability to maintain soil stability. There is a direct correlation to these problems increasing after the property on the other of side of Heritage Village Condominiums was built as well as when the site prep work for 1600 Grant Ave began. We are starting to recognize that there is an overall lack of understanding of the underground water flows in this area; something that I don't believe has been addressed in the development of the site plan. In addition to our visible surface water problems we continue to hear mention of the adjacent property possibly suffering from sink holes, possible underground streams, and other ground water issues. Being on the downward side of much of the runoff that would occur from the proposed development makes this an issue to us. The proposed development needs to go further to address the possibility of increased ground water issues that 2 would occur if the development proceeds as is. The developer needs to ensure that the solution to water run off in their property does not occur at our expense. These are my comments on the Notice of Application that has been posted for 1600 Grant Ave. South, Renton, Washington. In summary I believe that overall this plan has some issues for us because in attempting to make a high revenue generating, development fit the awkward lot size, the developers may not have acknowledged some of the impacts their plan has on us. I also believe that the developer has made a number of key design decisions, which consistently maximizes their benefits at our expense. If you have any question I can be reached at 4252284396. Sincerely ........... ~ ~nes 3 NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-M) DATE' February 14. 2007 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA07-0IS SA_A. ECF PROJECT NAME: Gra1t Avenue Town10,.ses PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A land use masjer a~pllcatoon Ilas t~e" suornilled reQuestl",' C;1:e i-'Iar' "-e'l e.-. fer a 36 unit :ownhouse :Je_elopme"t that would be localed at 1600 Gran: Avenue S The propert)-" .r .• 1 Re"d,ml,al MultI-family Zone The proposed denSity Gn the 2 11 acre Site ",cule be I' d"'eliing unitS p~r nel acre :.-er·.'r~·nmcn:al nete'rnlnd!lon would be reqLl'fe<l by Re~ton s EnVIronmental Re"ew CO(I'I~I:tee PROJECT LOCATION-1600 Grant Av€"u~ S OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON·SIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED IDNS·MI: As me Lead Agencv 're (:1', )' C(erlcn has determined that signifIcant ~nv"onmental Impacts ara unll<ely to result from Iha proposed prOject T herefere a5 permitted under tile ReW 43_21C 110. the CIty of Rentor IS uSlrg (he Optlon~1 DNS·M process 10 glv-. 'lotlce thai a DNS- M IS likely to be issuec Comme~t periods for Ihe prOlect and toe proposed DNS·M a'e Intagrated Into a '(-'c;le coO""ment perIOd Thare will be 00 comment period 10 lOWing t~a IS$llanCe of the Threshold Datermlnalion 01 Non-S'Qnlllcance- Mitigated (DNS-M) A t4·day appe"t per.od Will 10110"/11 tne Issuance of the DNS·M PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: February S. 2007 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION' Februar'i 14. 2007 APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Austin Kov~ch, Kov~ch Architects; Tel: (2061617-2899; Eml; auslln@kDvacharchltects.eom Permits/Reviuw JWquested: Envrronment<ollSEPA) Revlow, Sito Ptan ~pprovat Other Permits which may ~ required Construction and SUlldlng Permits R"quested Studies' Drainage and Geoteehn<c~1 Reports Location where application may be reviowed' Planning/Building/Public Wor~" Dapartm"nt, envelopment ServIces Divi~io~, Si~th Floor Renton City H~II, 10~5 South Grady Wa~. Rp~ton WA 98055 PUBLIC HEARING: NIA CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Zoning/land Use: Environmental Documant8that Evaluata tha Proposed Project: Development Regul~tions Used For Project Mitigation: The sut)ecl sIte lS deSlgo3ted Resloonllal Multl.Family IRMf-, en :I"c C t'. Renton ComprehenSive Land Use Map and Resldenllal Mu'tl-t-Jm,·, ,PI,T~ the C;.ty ~ lool"9 Map EnvironmenlaIISEPA:. CheG~IJst The pro,ec: WIll be subject 10 tI1e C,ty'~ SEPA ordlnarc~ R~,tC ~_'':_'1 F Development Standards lor r~sldentla; zomng des'9nalions d",j c(he ;IPr:,·~"ole code~ and regul~tlons ",s approprIate Propos.d Mfl:igillUon M.nu ..... : The foflowlng .\o1lllgallor Measures WI I likely te Imposed on Ih~ propose<j prO)ec:1 These recommeooeO Mitigation Measures address pro)eGI Impacts ~ot covered ~y ~xlsMg codes and re9JI~llon~ as CI',fl(l abo .. ~ Tile applicant will be reqll,,~,1 ~o pay ,.he Jppmprrala Tran$pona!IQrI MII<gatt(ln Fee The applicant will be mqlJlreG 10 pay the appropnate Parks MII/garlon Fee Comments O~ Ihe above ~ppllca!ion ""usl ~e submitted ,n wrrllng to Ehzabelh HI9glns. Se~lor Planner. Developme~! Services DNlslon. 1055 Sooth GradyWay. RentQ~, WA 98055. by5:00 PM on F.bruary 12. 2007. II you h3ve questions aboul :hl~ proposal. or wish to be made a par1y 01 record a~d r~:;eIVe additional ~otlflcatlon by mall. contact the Project M~nager Any.one w~o submits wrltte~ comments wolf aUIOmallGally become a party of recold and wIN be '1oblled of a~y decIsion on thiS project CONTACT PERSON: Elil!:.abelh Higgins, Senior Planner; T&I: (425) 430·7382; Eml: ehlgglns@cLrenton.wa.us PLEASE INCL.UDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION II _you would Ilka to be made a party of record to receive further ,nformatIon on thIS proposed project. complete thiS form .aM return 10 City of Renton. Developmenl Planning 1055 So Grady Way. Renton. WA 98055 Name/File No Grant Avenue TownhousesILUA07-018. SA-A. ECF NAME MAILING ADDRESS TELEPHONE NO CERTIFICATION I, ~ ~,Iit. , hereby certify that .5 copies of the above document were posted by me in ~ conspicuous places or nearby the described propertt,~\I,\\\lII." r,~ ~"}\.."M4~'l DATE: 2.-II/-o?-SIGNED: J?'T /?$./,. ,., ~,~~ / ." r I = it.J e ~-"()-~ A TrEST: Subscribed and sworn before me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of Washington resl~ng ~ . -6 -~ ~ '-' , , ~ , , -tv-..' /) J-",~~l'J f> fti \~ft, ,onthe I~ day of,:-t:.h ccc-'1Ct.-L(":) -~V;:0iiLiC~ ~ II\\~(' < CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the I y6 day of FWr""'J' 2004, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing 1'-lcf\ documents. This information was sent to: Agencies See Attached Tridor Inc Owner Surrounding Property Owners See Attached (Signature of Sender).:...: __ -,<;..;. . ..e:";..;.' 'J.,i '':-~ ______________ _ STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Holly Graber signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. ,. ... ,,~~"IIIJ ... ~ \..~ "" .:iF.' ,.,. "l ..*. \~,t, ~ L/I. ' Notary Public in and hffi'gto ). ... -" ~u _. _ i1 ~ -;-:;-~:. '-, . .r. r~-~> tP.}~ .fa;= ~~"'~'?7 "'li11~\~~"'(C< Notary (Print): \~IY'\" I' L'i '''10 H"Wtvw D My appointment expires: .?J ' \ '( -I D Grant Townhomes LUA07·018, SA-A, ECF template -affidavit of service by mailing Dept. of Eoology • Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 WSDOT Northwest Region' Attn: Ramin Pazooki King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240 PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers' Seattle District Office Attn: SEPA Reviewer PO Box C-3755 Seattle, WA 98124 Jamey Taylor' Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Servo Attn: SEPA Section 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Renton, WA98055-1219 Metro Transit Senior Environmental Planner Gary Kriedt AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERe DETERMINATIONS) WDFW -Stewart Reinbold' Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. • clo Department of Eoology Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer 3190 160th Ave SE 39015 _172"d Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98008 Auburn, WA 98092 Duwamish Tribal Office' Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program' 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015 172"d Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092-9763 KC Wastewater Treatment Division' Office of Archaeology & Historic Environmental Planning Supervisor Preservation* Ms. Shirley Marroquin Attn: Stephanie Kramer 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 PO Box 48343 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 OIYmoia, WA 98504-8343 Cily of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: Mr. Micheal E. Nicholson Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director 13020 SE 72"' Place 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Pugel Sound Energy City of Tukwila Municipal Liason Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Joe Jainga 6300 Southcenter Blvd. 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-01W Tukwila, WA 98188 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 Seattle Public Utilities State Department of Eoology Real Estate Services NW Regional Office Title Examiner 3190 160th Avenue SE 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 Bellevue, WA 98008-5452 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the checklist, PMT's, and the notice of application .• Also note, do not mail Jamey Taylor any of the notices she gets hers from the web. Only send her the ERC Determination paperwork. template -affidavit of service by mailing 739900005003 BARNHART JR ROBERT L 1633 JONES DR SE RENTON WA 98055 739900027007 GRIMM WILLIAM 1725 SE 16TH PL RENTON WA 98055 202305901300 PUGET SOUND ENERGY/ELEC PROPERTY TAX DEPT PO BOX 90868 BELLEVUE WA 98009 739900009005 SNIDER FRANK J 1724 SE 16TH PL RENTON WA 98055 739900006001 BARRY RAYMOND G 1625 JONES DR SE RENTON WA 98055 202305905285 MCDONALD SARAH E PO BOX 1825 RENTON WA 98057 739900008007 RHEE DAE & BOON 1716 SE 16TH PL RENTON WA 98055 739900003008 WEBB ROSALIE BEAUCHOU 1731 JONES DR SE RENTON WA 98055 739900026009 GOYT RICHARD+REESA 1632 JONES DR SE RENTON WA 98055 202305911408 N/A WOODCLIFFE-50 C/O NEVIS LEWBEL PROP MGMT 920 GARDEN ST STE A SANTA BARBARA CA 93101 739900004006 ROGERS M H 1709 JONES DR SE RENTON WA 98055 739900007009 WOLFF CHARLES E 1708 SE 16TH PL RENTON WA 98055 NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-M) DATE: February 14, 2007 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA07-018, SA-A, ECF PROJECT NAME: Grant Avenue Townhouses PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A land use master application has been submitted requesting Site Plan Review for a 36 unit townhouse development that would be located at 1600 Grant Avenue S. The property is in a ReSidential Multi-family Zone. The proposed density on the 2.11 acre site would be 17 dwelling units per net acre. An environmental determination would be required by Renton's EnVironmental Review Committee. PROJECT LOCATION: 1600 Grant Avenue S OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED (DNS·M): As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental Impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110, the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS-M process to give notice that a DNS- M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance- Mitigated (DNS-M). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M, PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: February 8, 2007 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: February 14, 2007 APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Austin Kovach, Kovach Architects; Tel: (206) 617·2899; Eml: austin@kovacharchitects.com PermitsJReview Requested: Environmental (SEPA) Review, Site Plan approval Other Permits which may be required: Construction and Building Permits Requested Studies: Drainage and Geotechnical Reports Location where application may be reviewed: Planning/Building/Public Works Department, Development Services Division, Sixth Floor Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 PUBLIC HEARING: N/A CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Zoning/Land Use: Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: The subject site is designated Residential Multi-Family (RMF) on the City of Renton Comprehensive Land Use Map and Residential Multi-Family (RMF) on the City's Zoning Map. Environmental (SEPA) Checklist The project will be subject to the City's SEPA ordinance, RMC 4-2-110F Development Standards for residential zoning deSignations and other applicable codes and regulattons as appropriate. I Proposed Mitigation Measures: The following Mitigation Measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project These recommended Mitigation Measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above. The applicant will be required to pay the appropriate Transportation Mitigalion Fee: The applicant will be required to pay the appropn·ate Fire Mitigation Fee; and The applicant will be required to pay the appropriate Parks Mitigation Fee. Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner, Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on February 12, 2007. If you have Questions about this proposal. or wish to be made a party of record and receive ......... :.0.;._ ... ...,. -.... ~ ... ~ ...... h ........ ~i1 ...... nf ...... + .h~ Project Manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically bee .,. .\. d of any decision on this project. {~ .. CONTACT PERSON: Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Eml: ehiggins@ci.renton.wa.us PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLI~ 1-7382; If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City of Renton. Development Planning. 1055 So. Grady Way. Renton, WA 98055. Name/File No.: Grant Avenue Townhouses/LUA07-018, SA-A, ECF NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NO.: February 14,2007 Austin Kovach Kovach Architects 101 West Main Street Monroe, WA 98272 Subject: Grant Avenue Townhouses LUA07-018, SA-A, ECF Dear Mr. Kovach: CIT-OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator The Development Planning Section of the City of Renton has determined that the subject application is complete according to submittal requirements and, therefore, is accepted for review. It is tentatively scheduled for consideration by the Environmental Review Committee on March 12,2007. Prior to that review, you will be notified if any additional information is required to continue processing your application. Please contact me at (425) 430-7382 if you have any questions. Sincerely, £Ji.J;;.d/-.J~- Elizabeth Higgins, AICP Senior Planner cc: Tridor Inc. / Owner Andrew Kovach / Applicant -------------,O-S-S-S-ou-fu-G-r-a-dY-W--ay--.R-e-n-to-n-,W--as-h-in-g-to-n-9-8-o5-7--------------~ ~ AHEAD OF THF. CllRVE ~ This paper contains 50% recycted material, 30% post consumer February 13, 2007 Michael Fortson Department of Transportation Renton School District 1220 N 4th Street Renton, WA 98055 Subject: Grant Avenue Townhouses LUA07-018, SA-A, ECF CIT"' ~F RENTON PlanningIBuildingJPublic Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E~ Administrator ~~~ MAR OJ,2 2007 RECEIVED The City of Renton Development Services Division has received an application for a 36-unit town-home development located at 1600 Grant Avenue S. Please see the enclosed Notice of Application for further details. In order to process this application, the Development Services Division needs to know which Renton schools would be attended by children living in residences at the location indicated above. Please fill in the appropriate schools on the list below and return this letter to my attention, Development Services Division, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055 by Feb.7~O~~.", .k ~ :::I:n::o:~hOOI: ~£lZV:«,~~} -)rt;;t -kw j ~ High School: ____ -I-~C2"""'''-l'--'·i (c...:' ):.... •• .....:,:....I.J.....:I".~'f'l.....:\.·_--'! IJ.A....<--'...::.....-''--. _________ _ Will the schools you have indicated be able to handle the impact of the additional students estimated to come from the proposed development? Yes No __ _ Any Comments: __________________________ _ -_ .. -. __ ._-_.-.. _--- Thank you for providing this important information. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact me at (425) 430-7382. Sincerely, Elizabeth Higgins, AICP Senior Planner Encl. ------1-05-5-S-0U-ili-G-rnd-~-W-Th-:-p:-:-,:-:-:~-:-~V-:-:~-:-!-:~-n-:-I~-~:-~--ro-",-" ... -----~ t City of Renton LAND USE PERMIT rEe -?, 11l1l1 RE~~ MASTER APPLICATION (J67-oV PROPERTY OWNER(S) ZIP: t{~ ooq TELEPHONE NUMBER: APPLICANT (if other than owner) NAMEA V~ COMP~V~ ADDRESS: MIA! , c> I CITY: 1'2 TELEPHONE NUMBER 114~ .~t:1f CONTACT PERSON ADDRESS: \ 0 l TELEPHQNE NUMBER AND E-MAIL ADDRESS: 'Z-C'{?(j?I'1.:ztse:rCf . _,/- N. ~ifea.-:> . {'VI'{~ Q:weblpw/devserv/formslplanningfmasterapp.doc PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: e PROJECT/ADDR!=SS(~OCATION AND ZIP CODE: I WO (tYeMlq---A~, 'b ~CV"'I INA q~~?7 KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): f2, CJ'2-~O?q O-t:/'2- ~ EXISTING LAND USE(S): "30u PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable): N EXISTING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): SITE AREA (in square feet): O'll VI.. ~ . SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED: ~ PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL ENSITY IN UNITS PER NET ACRE (if applicable):~", '2.11 ~ I NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable): N NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): '3if 071291fJ5 P .... )JECT INFORMA TION (continued) PROJECT VALUE: 7 I 7f;o, 000 ~. asf) NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): Ot-J SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENT AL IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF BUILDINGS (if applicable): '36l () sf ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA. PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON·RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (~ applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON·RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): NET FLOOR AREA OF NON·RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (~ applicable): NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE E~PI-?:~E. BY THE NEW PROJECT Cd applicable): ~ SQUARE FooTAGE(i! applicable): a AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA ONE a AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA TWO a FLOOD HAZARD AREA a GEOLOGIC HAZARD a HABITAT CONSERVATION a SHORELINE STREAMS AND LAKES a WETLANDS , LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY 1'-\11 sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. 't. sq. It. . (Attach legal description on separate sheetwiththefollowing information includ~ SITUATE IN THE Nl}J~ QJ QUARTER OF SECTION 1..D, TOWNSHIP'2~~ RANGE~, IN THE CITY OF RENTON. KING COUNTY. WASHINGTON. TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES List all land use apPI~S being applied for: CI? 1. ~1Y B~ ~(u()M\i)) Icat" 3. 2. /2:nU1 'ltul'iw k500 4. Staff will calculate applicable fees and. postage: $ . AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I. (Print Namels) &belA! ..:::;.. ~V¥b . declare that 1 am (please check one) _ the current owner of the property involved in this appIlca . or ~ the authoriZ lePresentative to act fOr a corporation (please a!lach proof of authollzation) and thetthe foregoinQ statements and answers hereln~ined and the intonnalion herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. ~4.~v~ (SM~~tive) (Signature of OwnerlRepresentative) Q:weblpw/devserv/formslpiaDninglmaslerapp.doc 1 certify that I.know or have satisfactory evidence thatc:-::::-.:-;--.,...-::-:::-=-=c:-.o= signed this Instrument and acknowledged tt to be hlslher/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrumenl Notary Public In and for the State of Washington Notary (Print) ___________ _ My appointment exp;res: ________ _ 2 07/29105 \ IINDERMERE Jan 30.07 ,09:08. Jan 30 2001 03;51pm P002 p.2 1 ' li:.!1fJ7 CITY OF REm'O,! Oevelopme,n Services Division 1055 30mh Grady Way Ren;on, ""e:h:og'on 98055 (425) 43C. 720J FBX (425) 430.7231 ProjeCG Name; GraDt AVEnue Homes Projec, Descr:ption and LOC8Gioo; Townhome DeveiopmenU600 Gran, Avenue South Subject: Prcof of Agency, ' Tb.is IS a n0tif:cation !ha. the Kovacil Architect:; have been granted power of ~ency for the pc.rposes Of t,1e app)~ir,g for and securing of all Site plan reviews and buiJd\og permits as necessary [or tlie ([)I!struclion of the Grsnt Place Towuaome Development Si€nar.:re of PrC])ert'i OW!1er ..."""j~~ __ 1c-___ & __ /u __ (_~ _______ _ .'~espe.ctfLljly yOi,irs~ .-'Ularew S, Kovach AlA. NCARB Pr;aci~a! Archi!ec.G !!& :: ~ELr~." .~ ,. \NNING r ION ··8 2007 , ._.;EIVED , TT<IOOT< TOWNHOMES !..AND USE PEI2.MIT MASTER APPL..ICATION 1aoo GI2.ANT AVE. S RENTON, WA 980SS 1011210a L.Ec:FAL.. PESCRIPTION A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTEI2. OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 23 NOI2.TH, I2.ANGE S EAST, WlL..!..AMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOL..L..OWS: BEGINNING ON THE EAST L..INE OF SAID SUBDIVISION AT A POINT WHICH IS: S 00·08'49" W 47S.79 FEET FROM THE NORTHEAST CORNER THEr<EOF; THENCE N 00·08'49" E 1S8.00 FEET; THENCE WEST PAI2.AL..L..EL.. WITH THE NORTH L..INE OF SAID SUBDIVISION aS4.S0 FEET; THENCE S 2a'18'S7' E TO THE INTEI2.SECTION WITH A L..INE EXTENDING WESTERL....,.. TH12.0UGH THE SAID POINT OF BEGINNING AND PAI2.AL..L..EL.. WITH THE NORTH L..INE OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE EAST AL..ONG SAID EXTENDED L..INE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPTING THEREF12.0M A STRIP OF !..AND 30 FEET WIDE PAI2.AL..L..EL.. WITH AND ADJOINING THE WESTEr<L....,.. L..INE OF SAID Tl2.ACT FOR ROAD PURPOSES. DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON FEB -8 2007 RECEIVED DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISlor WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS Applicant Agreement Statement 2AND 3 Lease Draft 2 of Existing Site Conditions Map of View Area 2 AND 3 Photosimulations 2AND3 This requirement may be waived by: 1. Property Services Section PROJECT NAME: bold t 7(/1?!l hlJm,¢4.-- 2. Public Works Plan Review Section 3. Building Section 4. Development Planning Section DATE: 1.2-./7 ,If» Q:\WE8\Pw\OEVSERv\Forms\Planning\waiverofsubmiUalreqs_9·06.xls 09106 ~ DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS This requirement may be waived by: 1. Property Services Section 2. Public Works Plan Review Section 3. Building Section 4. Development Planning Section Q;\WEB\PWlDEVSERVlFormslPlanning\waiverofsubmlttalreqs_9-06.xIs 09/06 - ~A~ce~~~o~so= ~e~ a ,aoo GI=2.AN"'i Ave ....... ~eN"'iON VVA sao. DENSITY WORKSHEET City of Renton Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, WA 98055 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 1. Gross area of property: 1. g L~ II . (P square feet • 2. Deductions: Certain areas are excluded from density calculations. These include: Public streets- Private access easements·· Critical Areas· Total excluded area: 3. SubtracUine 2 from line 1 for net area: 4 .. Divide Jine3 by 43,560 for net acreage: 5. NumbeJ:.ofdwelling units or lots planned: 6. Divide line 5 by line 4 for net density: ~ / A square feet ~ square feet ----±--square feet 2 .. ' Q square feet . 3.g Irq! I ~ {J . square feet 4.1· II acres 5. _'h~~ __ unitsllots 6. .........:'_1-1-_ = dwelling units/acre ·Critical Areas are defined as "Areas determined by the City to be not suitable for development and which are subject to the City's Critical Areas Regulations including very high landslide areas, protected slopes, wetlands or floodways." Critical areas buffers are not deducted/excluded. -Alleys (public or private) do not have to be excluded. Q,IWEBIPWlDEVSERV\FonnslPlanningldensity.doe , 10/12/06 CITY OF RENTON Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 (425) 430.7200 Fax (425) 430.7231 File Number: To Be Issued Later Project Name: Grant Avenue Homes Project Description and Location: 1600 Grant Avenue South Subject: Construction Mitigation Description. The following is a Narrative offered as part of the Site Plan Review Process: The planned start of construction will to a large degree be related to the permit review process timeline but as it now stands we are hoping for ground breaking in late March or early April with a substantial completion date of December this year or early January 2007. Standard hours of operation will be 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM Monday thru Saturday with occasional subcontractor and trouble shooting work through the weekend. Very little hauling of native soils will occur due to the balance of cut and fill, haulingl transporting will mainly be associated with typical amounts of structural fill, concrete, paving, and framing packages. The general routes will primarily utilize existing City arterials and State freeways. Most materials and supply deliveries to the site will occur during weekday hours typically as AM deliveries. We will be following State and City regulations pertaining to construction activity controls required for the protection of the public good, safety, and welfare. Traffic control measures and personnel in coordination with City of Renton Public Works Department, will be provided as needed for traffic control in order to minimize construction activil¥PLANNING impact and to maintain a smooth flow of traffic past our site. oE"E6i~~~ RENTON FEB -S 2001 RECE\'JEO _ i An Erosion and Drainage control plan has been developed by a State certified Civil Engineer specifically to minimize potential off-site impacts due to construction activity. An armored construction entrance and cleaning area will be provided to help minimize dirt drag in addition to a regular street cleaning regiment as determined necessary dependant on actual site and weather conditions. A watering truck will be provided when necessary to control excess dust during extended periods of dry weather while the site soils are open and grading activities are occurring. If you have any questions please call our office @ 360.794.1943 Respectfully yours. Andrew S. Kovach Principal Architect DATE 010112106 WikiRen/SP-R. 10/12106 CITY OF RENTON Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 (425) 430.7200 Fax (425) 430.7231 File Number: To Be Issued Later Project Name: Grant Avenue Homes Project Description and Location: 1600 Grant Avenue South Subject: Site Plan review. The following is a Narrative offered as part of the Site Plan Review Process: We represent Tridor Inc, who is planning to construct 36 condominium units on a mostly vacant parcel of property within Renton City limits. The site is Northeast of the downtown core and is zoned RM-F. The site currently has a Single-family residence with a few outbuildings. It is located adjacent to a Bonneville Power ROW to the North of the project (RM-F), apartment and condominium buildings to the South (RM-F), single family residential to the East and undeveloped open space to the West (R-8). Parcel size: 2.11 acres, 91,911.6 SF total lot area. There is an overall elevation gain West to East of approximately 64 It. along the length of the property that, at 635 It yields an average slope of about 1 It in 10 It or a 10% grade. The slope is fairly uniform from East to West and North to South. Each unit within each building is stepped to accommodate the slope of grade. Every end unit with a side entry has a finish floor elevation that match's the opposite adjacent unit to accommodate for shared entry walks between buildings. The site address is 1600 Grant Avenue South. Grant Avenue is a fairly busy road with curbs and nicely mowed side shoulders but no sidewalks. tJ>."'''I",G IvI"l4I" ~o1'l oeJE.6~ of f',E. t't.~ ~ ~ 1tl1)l R~C~\'J~O DATE 010/12106 WikiRen/SP-R. The existing site is rather featureless with overgrown brambles that may have been cleaned up by the time this narrative is read. There are several existing trees, mostly maple and alder with a few fir trees. All will be removed as part of site preparation. The site soils have been determined by the Geotechnical Engineer to be primarily structurally adequate glacial tills covered by a layer 12" to 18" deep of loose topsoil. There were indications of some perched water lenses that will be opened and drained as part of the initial grading activities. We are proposing to demolish the existing older residence that is in somewhat of a state of disrepair and build 36 condominium units in a triplex building configuration. 11 of the buildings will be triplexes; one will be a duplex and one a stand-alone unit. The unit sizes will vary between 1850 and 2,000 SF. The buildings will be two level townhouse configurations over a private garage. Each garage will provide area for two cars per unit. We will also provide one guest parking space per unit located between buildings in an area that also serves as the guest entry to the side units. Project waste management is based on individual storage and curbside pick up. We have accommodated for trash can and recycle storage both inside the unit and at curbside. The project will be accessed by a new entry drive located just to the North of the existing drive that will be abandoned. Street frontage improvements along Grant Avenue will include new concrete curb, sidewalk, and gutter with street trees planted at 30 ft ~C. Per city standards. All utilities required for the finished project are currently available and accessible within the RO.W. of Grant Avenue. Engineering has been completed for all frontage improvements and utility connections. The site contains an area for BPA overhead power lines located at the lower end of the site in the Northwest corner. This area will be used for onsite water drainage and detention. Due to the length of the site we will be providing a fire truck turnaround at the far East end of the property that will also serve as the postal drop off area for the residence. The development seems to be fairly straight forward, the site is gently sloping towards the West and will offer some nice territorial outlooks for the upper floors. Drainage patterns fall naturally towards the West and ultimately to the City storm water system along the East side of Grant Ave. DATE 010112106 WiklRenISP-R. There is an existing apartment project to the South that has similar topography and building alignment that seems to be a fairly good indicator of utility and storm water needs and solutions. The apartment project has mature landscaping that will aid in softening the interface between the two projects. The BPA ROW offers a nice open space greenbelt towards the North and there is a somewhat abrupt change of grade offsite to the East that will provide additional open space buffering and natural separation from the established residential neighborhood to the East We have engineered a balanced grading plan with as little earthwork as possible. 500 cubic yards would be an accurate estimate for overall cut and fill. The completed project of 36 units will have a total construction cost of 7.75 million dollars with an approximate market value of 9.5 million dollars. There will be limited visual access to the proposed project due to existing landscape vegetation and natural topography. One entire side of the development abuts a Bonneville Power R.O.W. and much of the land towards the West is not likely to be developed for some time due to topographical constraints. The existing multi-family housing to the south and the single family residential areas towards the East have mature vegetation that dramatically screens this site from view_ If you have any questions please call me direct on my mobile phone @ 260.310.0325 Thank you for your attention to these matters. Respectfully yours. Andrew S. Kovach Principal Architect DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF RENTON FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU MEMORANDUM June 6, 2005 Susan Fiala, Senior Planner Jim Gray, Assistant Fire Marshal~ IIJ .- Grant's Place Condominiums, 16J6 Grant Ave. S Fire Department Comments: 1. The preliminary fire flow is based on the total square footage of the attached structures and type of construction. This information is required to determine the actual fire flow. One hydrant is required within 150 feet of each structure and additional hydrants are required within 300 feet of each structure based on the preliminary fire flow. 2. A fire mitigation fee of $15,132.00 is required based on $388.00 per unit. 3. Separate plans and permits are required for the installation of the required sprinkler and fire alarm systems. Fire alarms are required to be central station monitored by building. 4. Fire Department access roadways are required to within 150 feet of all portions of the building exterior.'Roadways are a minimum 20 in width with a turning radius of 45 foot outside and 25 foot inside. 5. Fire department dead-end access roadways over 150 feet in length are required to have an approved turnaround. See attached diagram. Central islands are not allowed in the required cul-de-sac. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON FEB -82007 RECEIVED DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PLANNING/BUILDING/PljBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT M E M 0 RAN DUM June 15,2005 Susan Fiala _A~ l L . .J Mike Dotson /7{1I'- PreApplication Review Comments PREAPP No. 05-076 Grants Place Condominiums-1600 Grant Ave S. NOTE ON PRELIMINARY REVIEW COMMENTS CONTAINED IN TInS REPORT: The following comments on development and permitting issues are based on Ibe pre-appRcation snbmittals made to tbe City of Renton by the applicant. Tbe appRcant is cautioned that information contained in ibis summary may be subject to modification and/or concurrence by official decision makers (e.g. Bearing Examiner, Boards of Adjustment, Board of Public Works and City COllncll). Review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and olber design changes required by the City or made by tbe applicant. The following existing utility information was determined: WATER I. The site is currently served by City of Renton water. 2. The site is fronted with a 12-inch watermain. The fire-flow available to the site is approximately 2600 gpm. Static Water Pressure is approximately lOS psi. 3. If fire sprinkler systems are necessary, then a separate fire sprinkler permit will be required. 4. Any existing sub-standard hydrants (required for fire protection) will need to be replaced, or retrofitted with a Stortz fitting. 5. Water System Development Charge (SDC) is due in the amount of $915 per dwelling unit. This fee is due at time of issuance of a construction pennit or new water service application. SANITARY SEWER I. There is a sewer main located approximately 200 feet to the south of the subject parcel. 2. Therefore, this development will be required to extend a sewer main from the south along the full frontage of the parcel being developed (approximately 400 feet). 3. A new sewer main will also be required to be extended internally to the development and each new single-family building unit will be required to have a separate side-sewer to the new public mainline sewer (2% minimum slope). l:\Plan Review\PJ.m Review 2005\Grant Placepre app.doc 4. Existing septic systems must be abandoned in accordance with the Department of Health requirements. 5. The Sanitary Sewer System Development Charge is $540 per dwelling unit. These fees are due at the time of the utility construction permit. SURFACE WATER I. This site drains to the Rolling Hills Creek, a sub-basin of the Black River Basin. 2. A drainage analysis and design is required to comply with the requirements and standards of the 1990 King County Surface Water design manual. 3. The Surface Water System Development Charge is $0.249 per square foot of new impervious surface. This fee is due at the time the utility construction permit is issued STREET IMPROVEMENTS 1. New curb, gutter, paving, driveways, sidewalks, and street lighting, meeting current City Codes and street standards, will be required along Grant Ave South frontage. 2. Transportation Mitigation fees are $75 per additional generated trip/day generated. These fees shall be assessed for new multi-family units at a rate of 6.63 trips/day (39x6.63x$75=$19,392.75). 3. The new access to Grant Ave South is required to be at a perpendicular alignment. 4. All wire utilities shall be installed underground per the City of Renton Under-grounding Ordinance. GENERAL COMMENTS 1. Permit application will required separate plan submittals for all proposed public utilities, drainage and street improvements. Plans are required to be prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer according to City of Renton drafting standards. 2. Permit application must also include an estimated cost of construction for water, sewer and roadway/drainage improvements. The cost estimate will be used to calculate the fee(s) due for review and inspection of the utility improvements. Separate permits for water meters, and side sewers are required. And a separate utility pem1it to cut and cap existing utilities to existing structures on site will be required as part of the demolition permit. If there are any questions concerning the above· comments, please contact Mike Dotson at X-7304. CC: Kayren Kittrick 1:\Plan Review\Plan Review 2005\Grant Placepre app,doc /. / I I r I t'--:-:-~\'\\'( !\ ,3., ~. -- '", b)I'" " .' '" ~ '.' , "'i, - .. ~ • -- i i I I ~ -- \ \ \ \~ Ii ~ l~ \ _.' l~ -I • Fire Hydrants Renton City Limits D Parcels Il3:I Renton Aerial F"""' 200 0 SCALE 1 : 2,286 200 FEET httn"lh·cntnnnt:tot nr"J"!t~nt:l;llirl.Q/n'\-:Jo ..... .:-/D~ ....... ol ........ urf Renton N /~ "J_ 400 600 Sc::::c::::"H" '-Vil<lc::::f" t'l<'ID4- ·\t~ Ull.I«O) \.I~ \f~ 6"') u'\<t t 1'." 1,'00 (II.... "'""'''''W ~.. 1,610 r,w.) SThm-~.( ~ 10S~' ....",~ ~ S-"" ........... ~ C 1/!Lf1 wi W)) ~:I"'Ii"!ii . PI-.Q...N SCAI-E5: 1"::40'-0" DOC:Ut-1I!!N.,. OA"T"_t 8/25/0.!!!!5 o lO Xl 30 40fT , , TAX I='A~"'L-NO: ::20::zl!lOSS05::2 SITS A~~I'l.ee. ''''00 G ....... N-r AV S L-OT AI'l1!llA: ... ::2,347 e~FT (::2.,::2 ACI'lIl!!S) ~~.t:!~ 3!' UNrrS PIIO'v1DEO 42 UNrrS "'-LOWED 13 TRIPLEX BUllDtNGS 1650 SF 1WO STOIOrf .3 BEDROOM TOWNHOMES OVERG~ 68.!'33.6 SF IMI'EI>VlOUS "'-LOWED 56.215D SF IMI'EI>VIOUS PIWPOSeD 32169 $F SUII..DING ~ A1...LOVv'ED 27.857 Sr BUIL..OING MEA PROPOSED 2B.35B SF I'RIVA TE !'DAD AND Di<NES %ON-~ "CRUI-,MWN'-' "'-MInIrru-n DensIty tel unt., per oet .rre Ma>cinu'rI Density :::!O ~ per-"'"'" QC:I'"e •• " Ice Mh frcnt y.:rd ~. MIe yard Mh __ .f-en at 1 ... Max. StorIe. .:n:i heigTt -.....,.-Max"-""", ~ :>0" 12 ft (&!led an v.fdth) no.! ... ft k:rt width 15A- 3 storie&! 3S ft ~596 7so; t;. I ij [ , =±c G ....... .. ~ porl;Ing IocotIon 1!5 ft ~ 5ITi> dong <Jblstti1g ~ of Ii# _of", 5o.rft:IcI!'p.:r\I:t1g.~fnfheside e>nd rea-'tad ..--...vy p 1m y4e e. .......... ,gpedd.-.g., ~ may be~ . "." ... ' .. ,'" ; ... ' ::. MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: -'Construction Services, Fire Prevention, Economic Development, __ ' Plan Review, Project Planner . FROM: . Neil Watts, Development Services DMsion Dir:ector SUBJECT: New Preliminary Application: Gr-rM-t!sflaa .=:~. ~~7: S,",' "';;"" ',' . .. - -:i ·.~)r~)~:~~~\~·,::~~~;'~:.~ -.';:,,: . "Ame~ting with the applfcant ha1beeilscb~~~~ri~~~cJOPf1 . ,ThurSday, _~\{r!I7VI=---'-""----LI--,,~,,--_____ ~-", , in c:nle of the 6ihtlOorGonfer~mce rooms. Ifthis meeting is sc'heduled at1{):OO AM, toe MEetiNG .MUU BE -CONCLUDED PRIOR TO. 11 :00 AM to allow time to.!'repare for the 11,00 AM· meeting ... . Please review the attached projectplan.s pr:J9r to p\e scheduled meeting with the applicant. You will not need to doa thorough 'permit level" review at this time. Note only major Issues that must be resolved prior to formal land use and/or building permit application submittal. Plan Reviewer assigned is ,Ltf\.1.l\"''i1t",,''J ___ , Please submit your written comments to ? l1'1twv nil I ~ least tw (2) days before the meeting. Thank you. (Planner) at :UAA~~'-'""'--'-~ ~,,.<.~: .eIl. /lde..-~. 1t2~ ~~, PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: June 16,2005 TO: Pre-Application File No. 05-076 FROM: Susan Fiala, Senior Planner, (425) 430-7382 SUBJECT: Grant's Place Condos-(1600 Grant Ave. S.) General: We have completed a preliminary review of the pre-application for the above- referenced development proposal. The following comments on development and permitting issues are based on the pre-application submittals made to the City of Renton by the applicant and the codes in effect on the date of review. The applicant is cautioned that information contained in this summary may be subject to modification and/or concurrence by official decision-makers (e.g., Hearing Examiner, Zoning Administrator, Board of Adjustment, Board of Public Works, and City Council). Review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes required by City staff or made by the applicant. The applicant is encouraged to review all applicable sections of the Renton Municipal Code. The Development Regulations are available for purchase for $50.00, plus tax, from the Finance Division on the first floor of City Hall. NOTE: In advance of submitting the full land use application package, applicants are strongly encouraged to bring in one copy of each application material for a pre-screening to the customer service counter to help ensure that the application is complete prior to making all copies. Project Proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct 39, three-bedroom townhouses in I3 triplex buildings on a 2.12 acre site. The townhouse styled condos are proposed to be three stories with a lower level garage and two stories of living space. The units would be condominiums and range in size from 1,600 to 1,800 sq. ft. per unit. Zoning/Density Requirements: The subject property is located within the Residential Multi- Family (RM-F) zoning designation. The density range required in the RM-F zone is a minimum of 10 to a maximum of 20 dwelling units per acre (dulac). The method of calculating net density is as follows: A calculation of the number of housing units and/or lots that would be allowed on a property after critical areas and public rights-aI-way and legally recorded private access easements are subtracted from the gross area (gross acres minus public streets, easements and critical areas multiplied by allowable housing units per acre). Required critical area buffers and public and private alleys shall not be subtracted from gross acres for the purpose of net density calculations. No additional deductions appear necessary unless further research/information by the applicant dictates otherwise. Grant's Place Condos Pre AppllcaUon Meeting Page 2 of 8 Based on a site area of2.12 acres with 39 units, the proposed density would be 18.39 dulac, which is within the allowed density range. This calculation did not include any required deductions; therefore if any critical areas are found they would be deducted from the gross site area and would affect the above density calculation. For the fonnal land use submittal, all square footages must be accurately provided to determine the exact density and its compliance with the RM-F zone. Development Standards: The development of the site would require compliance with the applicable standards of the RM-F zone as discussed below: Minimum Lot Size, Width and Depth -No new lots are proposed as indicated in the pre- application materials. There is no minimum lot size in the RM-F zone. If, the applicant chooses to subdivide the property, a minimum lot width of 50 ft. and lot depth of 65 ft. are required. Setbacks -Setbacks are measured from the property lines to the nearest point of the structure. The required setbacks in the RM-F zone are 20 feet in the front and 15 feet in the rear. Minimum side yard is based on lot width, for lots 11 0.1 + feet requires 12 feet. Additional setback for structures greater than 2 stories, shall be set back an additional I-foot for each story in excess of 2 stories, maximum of 20-foot setback. Unless specified by the development standards, no portions of the structure may project into the required setback areas (refer to RMC section 4-2-110.H.8 -"Allowed projections into setbacks',). Building Standards -The RM-F zone restricts building height to 35 feet and 3 stories. Additional height for a residential dwelling structure may be obtained through the site plan review process depending on the compatibility of the proposed buildings with adjacent existing residential development. In no case shall the height of the residential structure exceed 45 feet. Lot coverage by buildings is limited to a maximum of 35%; however, maximum coverage may be increased to 45% with Hearing Examiner approval. In addition, a combined total of 75% of the lot area may be covered with impervious surfaces such as building footprint, sidewalks, and driveways. Coverage infonnation is required to be provided with the fonnal submittal of the land use application. Landscaping -The RM-F zone also requires al1 setback and open space areas be landscaped. The site abuts RM-F to the north, south and west and abuts R-8 to the east. The Reviewing Official may pennit a 10ft. wide landscaped setback with a sight-obscuring solid barrier wall in lieu of the 15 ft. as described in RMC 4-2-110.H.I7. Street frontage landscaping is required. All landscaped areas must include an underground irrigation system. A Conceptual Landscape Plan is required with the fonnal submittal of the land use application. ScreeninglRefuse and Recyclables -Screening must be'provided for all outside storage areas, as well as for surface-mounted and roof top utility and mechanical equipment pursuant to RMC 4-4-095. Multi family developments require a specific size and location for refuse and recyclable areas pursuant to RMC section 4-4-090. C and D. Approval of the proposed locations of dumpster 076_GrantsCondos_RMF.doc Grant's Place Condos Pre Application Meeting Page 3 of 8 areas by Rainier Waste Management is recommended .prior to the submittal for building permits (phone: 206-243-4050). The drawings submitted for building permit review will need to include elevations and details on the proposed methods of screening. Access and Parking: Access is proposed via Grant Ave. S, to a new internal private driveway serving the 39 units. The length of the road requires a cul-de-sac for turning around. For attached dwellings, each lot is required to accommodate off street parking for a minimum of two vehicles where tandem spaces are not provided or 2.5 spaces per unit where tandem parking is provided. Surface parking is permitted in the side and rear yards only. The applicant is proposing two spaces located within enclosed private garages on the ground level of each town home unit. Special Design Standards: Properties abutting a less intense residential zone may be required to incorporate special design standards (e.g. additional landscaping, larger setbacks, fayade articulation, solar access, fencing) through the site plan review process. Since the site abuts the R-8 zone to the east, where existing single family homes are located, staff strongly encourages the applicant to incorporate a minimum of one of the special design standards into the site. Sensitive Areas: Based on the City's Critical Areas Maps, the site is located within critical areas, including: Geologic Hazards (steep slopes), coal mine hazards, erosion hazards and landslide hazards. Geologic Hazards -The site appears to contain areas of 15% and possibly 25% slopes as shown on the City's Slope Analysis map. As required by the City'S Critical Areas Regulations, a slope delineation indicating the location of "sensitive" slopes will be required as part of the formal land use application. Sensitive slopes have grades from 25% to 40%. Specific standards also apply for development located within sensitive slopes, landslide and erosion hazard areas. Protected slopes are defined as topographical features that slope in excess of 40% and have a vertical rise of 15 feet or more. Pursuant to the Renton Municipal Code (RMC4-3-050J) the applicant will be required to obtain a geotechuical report stamped and signed from a Geotechuical Engineer stating that the proposed development is suitable with respect to the current site conditions for soils, slopes, landslides, erosion, etc. In addition, the report would need to address any special construction requirements deemed necessary by the Geotechnical Engineer. Through the site plan review process, the City may condition the approval of the development in order to require mitigation of any potential hazards based on the results of the studies. In addition, pursuant to RMC section 4-3-050J.3, the geotechuical report submitted with the application may be required to undergo independent secondary review by a qualified specialist selected by the City at the applicant's expense. Coal Mine hazards are within the site and within 200 and 500 feet of the site. According to RMC 4-3-050.J.8., these hazards are to be reviewed and addressed in a coal mine assessment report. 076_ GrantsCondos _ RMF .doc Grant's Place Condos Pre Application Meeting Page 4 of 8 A coal mine assessment report may be required-as part of the formal land use application. Environmental Review: The project requires SEPA review due to the number of units (greater than four dwelling units) and the presence of critical areas. The proposal would be brought to the Environmental Review Committee for review as it is their charge to make threshold detenninations for environmental checklists. Typically, mitigation of impacts is accomplished through fees related to issues such as transportation, fire and parks as well as measures to reduce impacts to environmental elements. Site Plan Review: All development within the RM-F zone requires Site Plan review, unless categorically exempt from SEPA review. The intent of site plan review is to review site layout, building orientation, pedestrian and vehicular access, landscaping, parking and other elements. Site planning is the horizontal and vertical arrangement of these elements so as to be compatible with the physical characteristics of a site and with the surrounding area. Permit Requirements: All projects initiated that include 4,000 sq. ft. of new building area; more than four dwelling units; or 20 or more parking spaces are subject to State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review. All development in the RM-F Zone is subject to Level I Site Plan Review. In review of the criteria to determine if a public hearing is required, the proposal is less than the SEPA thresholds of: 1) greater than 25,000 sq. ft. of nonresidential uses outside of the EA-V; The other thresholds include: 2) greater than 300 parking stans; 3) greater than 10 acres; and 4) 4 stories or greater than 60 feet in height. therefore, the site plan, as proposed, would be reviewed by Administratively. The project would require Administrative Levell Site Plan and Environmental (SEPA) Review. These pennits would be reviewed in an estimated timefrarne of 8 to 10 weeks. The application fee for joint land use applications is full price for the most expensive pennit (Administrative Site Plan at $1,000.00) and half off any subsequent pennits: and 'is of full fee for SEPA Review (Environmental Checklist) which is dependent on project value: less than $100,000 is $200.00 (112 of $400 full fee) and project value over $100,000 is a $500.00 fee (112 of$I,OOO full fee). The application fee would be $1,500.00 ($1,000.00 for the Administrative Site Plan review, and $500.00 for Environmental (SEPA) Review). Staff would prepare the notification list and labels for properties within 300 ft. of the site. In addition to the required land use pennits, separate construction, building and sign permits would be required. The review of these pennits may occur concurrently with the review of the land use permits, but cannot be issued prior to the completion of any appeal periods. Fees: In addition to the applicable building and construction pennit fees, the following mitigation fees would be required prior to the recording of the plat. • A Transportation Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per each ~ average daily trip attributable to the project; and. • A Fire Mitigation Fee based on $388.00 per new multifamily unit; and • A Parks Mitigation Fee based on $354.51 per new multi-family unit. A handout listing all of the City's Development related fees in attached for your review. 076_ GrantsCondos _ RMF .doc Grant's Place Condos Pre Application Meeting Page 50t 8 Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: The existing development is located within the Residential Multi Family (RM-F) Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation. It is the intent of the objectives and policies of this designation that a range of multi family living environments provide shelter for a wide variety of people in differing living situations, from all income levels, and in all stages of life. The proposed site plan generally appears to comply with the following objectives and policies: Residential Multi Family Land Use Designation: Objective L U-JJ: Encourage the development of infill parcels with quality projects in existing multi family districts. Policy LU-I82. Residential multi family designations should be in areas of the City where projects would be compatible with existing uses and where infrastructure is adequate to handle impacts from higher density uses. Policy LU-I8S. Development density in the Residential Multi family designation should be within a range of 1 0 dulac as a minimum to 20 dulac as a maximum. Objective LU-KK: Due to increased impacts to privacy and personal living space inherent in higher density living environments. new development should be designed to create a high quality living environment. Policy LU-I86. New stacked flat and townhouse development in Residential Multi family designations should be compatible in size. scale, bulk, use and design with existing multi family developments in the vicinity. Policy LU-I88. Evaluate project proposals in Residential Multi-family designations to consider the transition to lower density uses where multi-family sites abut lower density zones. Setbacks may be increased, heights reduced. and additional landscape buffering required through site plan review. Implementing code will be put in place within three years of the adoption of the 2004 Update. 1) In order to increase the potential compatibility of multi-family projects, with other projects of similar use and density. minimum setbacks for side yards should be proportional to the total lot width. i.e. wider lots should require larger setback dimensions; 2) Taller buildings (greater than two stories) should have larger side yard setback dimensions; and Heights of buildings should be limited to three stories and thirty-five (35) feet, unless greater heights can be demonstrated to be compatible with existing buildings on abutting and adjacent lots. Objective LU-LL: New Residential Multi-family projects should demonstrate provision of an environment that contributes to a high quality of life for future residents, regardless of income level. Implementing code will be put in place within two years of the adoption of the 2004 Update. 076_ GrantsCondos_RM:F.doc Grant's Place Condos Pre Application Meeting Page 6 of 8 Policy LU-189. Support project design that incorporates the following, or similar elements, in architectural design: 1) Variation of facades on all sides of structures visible from the street with vertical and horizontal modulation or articulation; 2) Angular roof lines on multiple planes and with roof edge articulation such as modulated cornices; 3) Private entries from the public sidewalkfronting the buildingfor groundjloor units; 4) Ground jloor units elevatedfrom sidewalk level; 5) Upper-level access interior to the building; 6) Balconies that serve as functional open space for individual units; and 7) Common entryways with canopy or similar feature. Policy LV-190. Support project site planning that incorporates the following, or similar elements, in order to meet the intent of the objective: 1) Buildings oriented toward public streets, 2) Private open space for ground-related units, 3) Common open or green space in sufficient amount to be useful, 4) Preferably underground parking or structured parking located under the residential building, 5) Surface parking, if necessary, to be located to the side or rear of the residential building(s), 6) Landscaping of all pervious areas of the property, and 7) Landscaping, consisting of groundcover and street trees (at a minimum), of all setbacks and rights-of way abutting the property. Implementation of this policy should be phased within three years of the adoption of the 2004 Update. Policy LV-I91. Residential Multi-family projects in the RMF zone should have a maximum site coverage by bUildings of thirty-five (35) percent, or forty-five (45) percent if greater coverage can be demonstrated to be both mitigated on site with amenities and compatible with existing buildings on abutting and adjacent lots. Policy LV-I92. Residential Multi-family projects should have maximum site coverage by impervious materials of seventy-five (75) percent. Community Design Element: A. Site Planning: Site planning is the art and science of arranging structures, open space, and non-structural elements on land in a functional way so that the purpose of the development can be met, while keeping those elements in harmony with each other and with the context of the project. Objective CD-D: New neighborhood development patterns should be consistent with Renton's established neighborhoods and have an interconnected road network. Policy CD-17. Development should be designed (e.g. building orientation, setbacks, landscape areas and open space, parking, and outdoor activity areas) to result in a high Grant's Place Condos Pre Application Meeting Page 7 of 8 quality development as a primary goal, rather than to maximize density as a first consideration. Policy CD-IS. Projects should only be approved at the upper end of density ranges when the following criteria are folly addressed in project level submission. a. Trees are retained, relocated, or planted to create sufficient vegetative cover to provide a landscape amenity, shade, and high quality-walking environment in an urban context. b. Lot size/configuration and lot coverage is sufficient to provide private recreation/outdoor space for each resulting lot. c. Structures can be sited so that entry, window, and door locations create and maintain privacy on adjoining yards and buildings. Architectural and landscape design should: • Prevent window and door openings looking directly into another structure, • Prevent over-reliance on fencing, or • Prevent projections of building elements into required setbacks in a pattern that reduces provision of light, visual separation, and/or require variances of modification of standards. Density may be reduced within the allowed range to bring projects into compliance with these criteria. Policy CD-19. During development, significant trees, either individually or in stands, should be preserved, replaced, or as a last option, relocated. Policy CD-24. Site design of development should relate, connect and continue design quality and site function from parcel to parcel. Policy CD-25. Site design should address the effects of light, glare, noise, vegetation removal, and traffic in residential areas. Overall development densities may be reduced within the allowed density range to mitigate potential adverse impacts. D. Architecture: It is not the intent of these policies to dictate the architectural style of structures in the City of Renton. The Community Design architectural policies are intended to encourage design of structures that fit well into the neighborhood, reflect the physical character of Renton, mitigate potential negative impacts of development, and function well in meeting the needs of both the building occupant and the community. Objective CD-G: Architecture should be distinctive and contribute to the community aesthetic. Policy CD-40. Structures should be designed (e.g. building height, orientation, materials, color and bulk,) to mitigate potential adverse impacts, such as glare or shadows on adjacent less intense land uses and transportation corridors. Policy CD-42. Design characteristics in larger new developments or individual building complexes should contribute to neighborhood and/or district identity. Objective CD-H: Ensure that structures buill in residential areas are consistent with the City's adopted land use vision and Purpose Statements for each Land Use Designation found in the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element, Residential Policies. 076_ GrantsCondos_ RMF .doc Grant's Place Condos Pre Application Meeting Page 8 of 8 Policy CD-43. A variety of architectural design and detailing should be encouraged as long as site fUnctions connect to adjacent development, Innovative use of building mate- rials and finishes should be promoted, Policy CD-44. Development should provide appropriate landscaping and. fa9ade treatment when located along designated City arterials or adjacent to less intense developments in order to mitigate potentially adverse visual or other impacts. E. Landscaping: Landscaping is a key element of the City, It can be used to create distinctive character for developments, neighborhoods and along city streets; to frame views; to block unsightly views; or mitigate the scale of large buildings. It can also be used to reduce traffic noise levels and the effects of pollution. Policy CD-45. Existing mature vegetation and distinctive trees should be retained and protected in developments, Policy CD-50. Trees should be planted along residential streets, in parking lots requiring landscaping, and in other pervious areas as the opportunity arises. Trees should be retained whenever possible and maintained using Best Management Practices as appropriate for each type. Objective CD-K: Site plans for new development projects for all uses, including residential subdivisions, should include landscape plans. Policy CD-53. Landscape plans for proposed development projects should include public entryways, street rights-of-way, stormwater detention ponds, and all common areas. Policy CD-54. Residential subdivisions and multi-family residential projects should include planting of street trees according to an adopted citywide landscape plan. Policy CD-55. Maintenance programs should be required for landscaped areas in deVelopment projects, including entryways, street rights-of-way, stormwater retention/detention ponds, and common areas, Policy CD-56. Suiface water retention/detention ponds should be landscaped appropriately for the location of the facility, ge PI. ~-rl -~:r;: _._.t __ ~ _.,L_._ .. __ ! , I-----'--,".L_- :/R-9 .1 __ -R-8 21st S·b -'1----( ~+B ,,/,,-,+---. ···....,,-..i , . . ~~ .. -: ,,! i i R-8 ZONING PtBIFW TIICBNJCAL 1IBIlV1C!8 I2l28104 F4 • 17 T23N R5E W 112 '-....• ""'.~- ...., LRM=F-~ \ : \. ; , / \1 , , , .---- , "- "- 18th RM-F . RfV'-=-T . "'-. . '-..~-r R-8 o :00 too -- --Jentoa. m.;, LlmIt/li , ..... G4 N 20 T23N R5E W 112 5320 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST City of Renton Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21 C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoi!;! impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. governmental agencies can assist you. as zoning, shoreline, and If you have problems, the The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NONPROJECT PROPOSALS: Complete this checklist for non project proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON PROJECT ACTIONS (part D). DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON FEB -8 2~=7 RECEIVED For nonproject actions (actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs), the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. MSlr.intnflh 2 A. BACKGROUND 1 Name of proposed project, if applicable: IGrant's Place Townhomes 2. Name of applicant: IScott Wiklo' 3, Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: ADplicant· Tridor, Inc. P.O. BDX 747 Bellevue, WA 98009 206-818-2590 Scott Wiklof Contact' TEC, Inc, P.O. Box 1787 Issaquah, WA 98027 425-391-1415 Bill Taylor 4. Date checklist prepared: IFebrUary 28, 2006 5. Agency requesting checklist: ICity of Renton 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): IApproximate completion for sale of units by summer 2007 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. INo 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. INone 9, Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. INane 3 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. The standard City of Renton permits for construction, including clear and grade, sitework construction, building permits and utility extensions will be required for this .oroiect. 11 Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. The' project will construct approximately 38 to 41 units of condominiumltownhome~ on a 2.12 acre parcel located at 1600 Grant Avenue South in Renton, Washington. If City zoning regulations allow, the project will pursue a binding site plan to allow fo the creation of "fee simple" properties for each unit. Otherwise it will be configurec as a conventional condominium develooment. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The project is located at 1600 Grant Avenue South in Renton, WaShington -parce number 2023059052 -SW , Section 20 Townshi 23N Ran e 5£ B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1 EARTH a. General description of the site (circle o~, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other ______ '!:..Y b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope?) lapproximately 15% c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. A detailed soils analysis by geotechnical engineer has yet to be performed for thi< !project, however, the native soils appear to be typical of the locale and the genera upland areas of the Puget Sound Basin. Sandy loam type soils are anticipatee during excavation and construction. Soil Conservation Service mapping shows the area to be of AgC -Alderwood gravelly sandy loam. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable Sails in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. history of unstable soils have been identified on the project site 4 e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. The project will seek to match the existing topography to the greatest exten possible. As such, we do not anticipate large quantities of filling and/or grading. We estimate on the order of 500 cubic yards of cut and fill. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Erosion could occur during construction, but standard Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be used to prevent erosion sediment transport in accordance with Cit} Ipermit requirements. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Approximately 60% of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces afte ro 'ect construction. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: The project will utilize standard BMPs for erosion control as provided by the City 0 Renton adopted King County Surface Weter Design Manual. Included will be sil fencing, sediment pond(s), catch basin protection, and surface protection such a~ mulch and seeding as necessary. 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (Le., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Exhaust emissions from equipment, both diesel and gas operated, will take place during construction. Dust may be emitted during compaction and grading throughou the construction ohase. b. Are there any off-site sources of emission or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. INo c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: earthwork activities will be controlled by watering and moistu~ 3. WATER a. Surface Water: 5 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. I There are no surface waters on the project property or in the immediate vicinity. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. INo 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. INone 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. INo 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year flood plain? If so, note location on the site plan. INo 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. INo b. Ground Water: 1} Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. INo 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals ... ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s} are expected to serve. INone c. Water Runoff (including storm water): M~~intn!lil;h Hn'II!Iil;Artc:;'Atc:;h·nAoe:;ktnn·RAntr'ln·~F"PA Anvt":hlll;.t rlnr. 6 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters, If so, describe. The source of runoff from the site will be storm water. The storm runoff will be collected in catch basins along the access driveway and roof drain systems for the buildinas. 2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. INo d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Runoff will be detained for flow control and treated for water quality in a combinea vault (or similar), in accordance with City requirements, prior to discharge to the Grant Avenue South Dublic drainage system. 4. PLANTS a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: .,' deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other .,' evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other .,' shrubs .,' grass pasture cabbage, other other b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? All of the existing vegetation will be removed for the project. However, there ere few, if any significant trees, and most of the vegetation can be categorized a~ invasive species or of very poor quality. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. INone d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: The normally required landscaping for permit approval will be provided by this project. Any tree replacement required to compensate for removal of significan trees will be done in accordance with City code requirements if aDDlicable. 5. ANIMALS a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the Site or are known to be on or near the site: 7 Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. INone c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain INo d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: INone 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. The normal residential energy sources including electricity and gas will be used t meet the needs of the ro ·ect. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. INo c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: INone 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. INo 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Local fire, police, aid units or ambulances may be required in case of an accident 0 durin the course of construction. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: INone 8 b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area. which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? The ambient traffic noise from Grant Avenue is expected to be low. No other off site noise is ex ected. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Short term noise from machinery during working hours will occur during the courSE of construction. Normal noise from residential neighborhood activities will occu after the proiect is completed and occupied. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Working hours can be established by contract, from 7:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. unless otherwise a 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? IResidential b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. INo c. Describe any structures on the site. lone single-family residence and separate garage d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? IAII existing structures will be demolished for the project. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? IRM-F f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? IRM to weekday g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program deSignation of the site? INot applicable g h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. INo Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? IApproximately 80 people will reside in the completed project. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? IThe project will displace approximately 2 people k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: INone Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: ICompliance with all applicable land-use and zoning codes 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Approximately 38 to 41 units will be provided. They will be configured as middle income housin . b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? whether high, middle, or low-income housing. lone middle-income housing unit will be eliminated. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: INone 10. AESTH ETICS Indicate a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed. IApproximately 38-faet, 9-inches from lowest grade to highest peak b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? INone c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: 10 The architectural design and finishes will be in compliance with the City of Rento Land Use codes. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? will result in the normal light resulting from residentiallmultifamil b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Generally, the level of lighting typical for this type of development and the topography inherent in the site will preclude any light from the finished project from becoming a safety hazard or interferinq with views .. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? INone d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: The light from the development can be shielded and lor directed away from adjacent properties to prevent safety hazards and protect views as applicable 0 necessary. 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? INone b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: IA tot lot and small park area will be provided as a part of the development. 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If $0, generally describe. INo MAr.intnqh Hn·II!CtArj;l,·A~h·np.s::ktnn·Rp.ntnn·~FPA Anvr.hld rlnr. 11 b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. INone c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: INot applicable 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The site is directly served by Grant Avenue South, which is fed by Puget Drive SE, which is fed b Benson Road South, and then Interstate 405. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? The public transit. Bus service is available on Puge to the south. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? The project will provide 2 parking places in enclosed garages for each unit for a total of approximately 80 enclosed spaces, and an additional 11 uncovered stalls fo a total of aooroximate/y 90 spaces. d. Will the proposal req uire any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private? No -as a condominium, the project wiff require no new roads. If the project i~ converted to "fee simple" townhomes, the City may require that the driveway be considered a Dubfic road extension. "To be determined". e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. INO f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: INone 12 · . 15. PUBLIC SERVICES a_ Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care. schools, other)? If so, generally describe. INo b_ Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any_ INane 16. UTILITIES a_ b_ Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed_ Utilities proposed for the project include new sanitary sewer and water, ne\'l telephone, cable TV/Communications, power and gas_ Utility Companies are as follows.· Comcast (cable) Qwest (local telephone) Puget Sound Energy (gas and electricity) Citv of Renton (water sewer and storm! C. SIGNATURE Proponent: Name Printed: Date: 0'7 --~----------------------- M~r.intn~n Hn·ll~fI!r,,-A~h·nil=l!l:.ldnn·Rt=lntnn·~FPA pnvr.nl!l:.t rlor. 13 Renton TRIDOR TOWNHOMES SITE ACCSESjTRAFFIC IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS lTE. Inc. JAKE TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. Prepared for Mr. Scott Wiklof TRIDOR INCORPORATED Po Box 747 Bellevue, WA 98009 Novem ber 25, 2006 Mark J. Jacobs, PE, PTOE, President 7731 8th Ave. SW -Seattle, WA 98106 -2007 Tel. 206.762.1978; Cell. 206.799.5692 Facsimile 206.762.1978 Email -jaketraffic@comcast.net DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON FEB -8 2007 RECEIVED j TE . Jake Traffic En~neering, Inc. . Mr. Scott Wiklof TRIDOR INCORPORATED PO Box 747 Bellevue, WA 98009 Re: Tridor Townhomes -Renton Site Access/Traffic Impact Fee Analysis Dear Mr. Wiklof; Hark J. Jacobs. PE, PTOE President 1731 8" Ave SW -Seattle, WA 98106 -2007 Tel. 206.762.1978 -Cell 206.799.5692 -Facsimile 206.762.1978 E-mail jaketralfi(@comcalt.net November 25, 2006 We are pleased to submit this Site Access/Traffic Impact Fee Analysis for the proposed Tridor Townhomes project in Renton. The proposed project is proposed to provide 36 units to be built in 11 triplex buildings, one duplex building and one single unit building. The project is located at 1600 Grant Avenue South on parcel #2023059052. Access to the site is provided via a driveway on Grant Avenue South. We have conducted a field review of the site and surrounding street system. The study scope was determined pursuant with our correspondence with Kayren Kittrick, Development Engineering Supervisor of the City of Renton. This report is prepared to identify the sight lines at the site access in regards to City criteria, identify the trip generation of the proposed development per ITE Trip Generation data and calculate the traffic impact fee. The summary and conclusions are on page five of this report. PROJECT INFORMATION Figure 1 is a vicinity map showing the location of the proposed site and surrounding street network. Figure 2 shows an aerial image of the project site. Figure 3 shows a preliminary site plan prepared by Kovach Architects dated October 11, 2006. The plan consists of the project layout comprising of 36 townhome units to be built on 11 triplex buildings, one duplex and one single unit building. Internal circulation is also shown. Access to the site is provided via access on Grant Avenue South. Full development and occupancy of the proposed Tridor Townhomes project is anticipated to occur by 2007/08, presuming the permits are issued in a timely manner. Mr. Scott Wiklof TRIDOR INCORPORATED November 25, 2006 Page -2- EXISTING ENVIRONMENT Project Site JTE, Inc. The project site is located on parcel #2023059052 and is presently developed with one existing Single family dwelling unit. This existing housing unit would be removed to make way for the subject project Additional information on this parcel is attached in the appendix. Street System Figure 3 shows the existing traffic control, number of street lanes, number of approach lanes at the intersections and other pertinent information. The primary streets within the study area and their classifications per the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan are as follows: ~ S. Puget Dr. ~ Grant Avenue South ~ S.l8th St. Minor Collector Unclassified Unclassified Grant Avenue South is a two lane street with a posted speed limit of 25 MPH. An advisory curve warning speed of 15 MPH is identified for the horizontal street curvature in the vicinity of the project site. SITE ACCESS SIGHT DISTANCE We have measured the available stopping sight distance (550) and entering sight distance (ESD) at the proposed site access. For informational purposes we also measured the SSD and ESD at the north and south property lines. The SSD was measured to a 2 ft. high object "vehicle taillight" standards. The 2 ft. object height is per the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Per conversation with City of Renton, we understand the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) criteria for sight distance is used. The results of the field measurements are summarized in Table 2. Table 2 shows the stopping and entering sight distance standards per the identified MPH at the proposed access and at the north and south property lines. The stopping and entering sight distance were obtained from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) A Policy on Geometrjc Design of Highwavs an Streets, 2001 Fourth Edition "Exhibit 9-55. Design Intersection Sight Distance -Case Bl -Left Turn from stop· (attached in the appendix). Grant Avenue South has a posted 25 MPH speed limit. An advisory speed sign of 15 MPH is also identified along the bend on Grant Avenue S. in the vicinity of the proposed project. Table 2 identifies the stopping and entering sight distance for the posted (25 MPH) speed limit and the advisory (15 MPH) speed. The 25 MPH speed limit is used as the basis ofthe report. Mr. Scott Wiklof TRIDOR INCORPORATED November 25, 2006 Page -3- JTE, Inc. Based on our analysis the proposed site access with Grant Avenue South meets the AASHTO stopping sight distance criteria. Both the SSD and ESD criteria are met for the advisory speed of 15 MPH. We recommend pruning/removing vegetation looking to/from the north to greater enhance sight visibility. Pruning/removing the vegetation along the right-of-way would increase the entering sight distance to/from the north -30 feet (-220 ft.). Below are pictures at the proposed site access. We have compared the proposed Site Access SSD and ESD with the SSD and ESD at the north and south property lines. The north property line with Grant Ave. S. also meets the SSD criteria and ESD criteria looking to/from the south. However the ESD is not met for the posted speed nor the advisory speed looking to/from the north; with vegetation pruning the ESD would stili likely be short for the advisory speed of 15 MPH. The sight lines at the north access are the least desirable of the three reviewed. Below are pictures at the north property line: The south property line yields similar results for the SSD and ESD in comparison to the proposed site access. The SSD criteria is met both looking to/from the north and south and ESD is not met for the posted speed limit but is met for the advisory speed. Moving the access point to the south property line does not yield a market improvement compared to Mr. Scott Wiklof TRIDOR INCORPORATED November 25, 2006 Page -4- JTE, Inc. the proposed site access shown on the site plan. Therefore the proposed site access (as shown on the site plan) would suffice as the site access point. Below are pictures atthe south property line: . TRIP GENERATION Definitions A vehicle trip is defined as a single or one direction vehicle movement with either the origin or destination (existing or entering) inside the proposed development. Traffic generated by development projects consists of the following types: Pass-By Trips: Diverted Link Trips: Captured Trips: Primary (New) Trips: Trip Generation Trips made as intermediate stops on the way from an origin to a primary trip destination. Trips attracted from the traffic volume on roadways within the vicinity of the generator but require a diversion from that roadway to another roadway to gain access to the site. Site trips shared by more than one land use in a multi-use development. Trips made for the specific purpose of using the services of the project. The proposed Tridor Townhomes project IS expected to generate the vehicular trips during the average weekday, street traffic AM and PM peak hours as shown in Table 1. The trip generation for the project is calculated using trip rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, Seventh Edition, for Single Family Detached Housing and Residential Condominium/Townhouse (ITE Land Use Code 210 and 230, respectively). All Mr. Scott Wiklof TRIDOR INCORPORATED November 25,2006 Page -5- JTE, Inc. site trips made by all vehicles for all purposes, including commuter, Visitor, and service and delivery vehicle trips are included in the trip generation values. Residential Condominium/Town homes generate predominantly primary trips. There would be some captured/pass-by trips that already exist within the vicinity; such as mail delivery, garbage, and other service/delivery traffic. Based on our traffic engineering experience we believe that captured/pass-by trip rates of five percent for reSidential condominium/townhouse type uses are appropriate. Thus we have applied a 5% factor that we believe to be conservative. Additionally, one existing single family dwelling unit exist on the site. Credits towards this single family dwelling unit were taken from the proposed Tridor Townhomes. Based on our analysis, the trips generated by the Tridor Townhomes project are calculated to be 190 net new daily and 17 net new trips during the PM peak hour. AGENCY TRAFFIC IMPACT MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS The City of Renton requires a traffic impact fee for new developments based on the number of new average daily trips generated. The current fee is $75.00 per new average daily trip. The proposed development is projected to generate 190 net new daily trips thus contribute $14,250 (190 net new daily trips x $75) towards the City of Renton's transportation improvement program. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION This letter was prepared to identify the site access sight distance measurements per City criteria. The proposed site access with Grant Avenue South meets the critical AASHTO stopping sight distance criteria for a 25 MPH speed limit and the AASHTO entering sight distance criteria for the advisory speed of 15 MPH and is the recommended access pOint (in comparison to the north and south property lines). In addition, the site trip generation and traffic impact fee were also identified. Based on our analysis the proposed Tridor Townhomes project is expected to generate 190 net new daily and 17 net new PM peak hour trips. A traffic impact fee of $14,250 is calculated to be contributed to the City of Renton's traffic impact fee program. The site would need to be constructed per City criteria. No other traffic mitigation should be necessary. Please contact me at (206) 762-1978 or email meatjaketraffic@comcast.netif you have any questions. Sincerely, Mark J. Jacobs, PE, PTOE, President JAKE TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC MJJ: cw //25' .... -06 I EJCIIIRE8 4131 OR I JTE, Inc. VEHICULAR TRIP GENERATION TABLE 1 TRIDOR TOWNHOMES -RENTON SITE ACCESS/TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS TIME TRIP TRIPS TRIPS TOTAL PERIOD RATE ENTERING EXITING Single Family Detached Housing.(ITE Land Use Code 210, one lot) -Existing Average Weekday T= 9.57X 5 (50%) 5 (50%) 10 AM Peak Hour T-0.75X 0(25%) 1 (75%) 1 PM peak Hour T -1.01X 1 (63%) 0(37%) 1 Residential Condominium/Townhouse (ITE Land Use Code 230, 36 units) -Proposed Average Weekday T = 5.86X 105 (50%) 105 (50%) 210 AM Peak Hour T -0.44X 3 (17%) 13 (83%) 16 PM peak Hour T 0.52X 13(67%) 6 (33%) 19 Total (Proposed -Existing) Average Weekday -100 100 200 (1901 ) AM Peak Hour -3 12 15 PM peak Hour -12 6 18 (171) T = trips X = number of lots/lots A vehicle trip is defined as a single or one direction vehicle movement with either the origin or destination (existing or entering) inside the study site. The above trip generation values account for all the site trips made by all vehicles for all purposes, including commuter, Visitor, recreation, and service and delivery vehicle trips 1 Applied 5% captured/pass-by trip percentage to account for trips that already exist within the vicinity (ie, mail delivery, garbage, and other service/delivery traffic). ·,[," ..... ·""'\·".~._\2006,O? l_I-."" ..... ,TnGo<' __ .'" ............ _~"' .. """'~_ JTE, Inc. SIGHT DISTANCE SUMMARY TABLE 2 TRIDOR TOWN HOMES -RENTON SITE ACCESSjTRAFFIC IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS AASHTO Criteria Proposed Access/ Looking Looking (MPH) to/from the to/from the Grant Ave. S. north south Advisory Posted 15 MPH 25 MPH Stopping Sight Distance (ft) 215' 220' 80' 155' Entering Sight Distance (ft) 190'; 220'2 240' 170' 280' AASHTO Criteria North Property Line/ Looking Looking (MPH) Grant Ave. S. to/from the to/from the north south Advisory Posted 15 MPH 25 MPH Stopping Sight Distance (ft.) 195' 2S5' SO' 155' Entering Sight Distance (ft.) 135'; 165' 2 305' 170' 280' AASHTO Criteria South Property Line/ Looking Looking (MPH) Grant Ave. S. to/from the to/from the north south Advisory Posted 15MPH 25 MPH Stopping Sight Distance (ft.) 250' 200' SO' 155' Entering Sight Distance (ft.) 200'; 230' 2 , 225' 170' 280' 2 Pruning/removing vegetation increases ESD to/from the north by -30 ft. Project: Tridor Townhomes -Renton Location: 1600 Grant Avenue South t NORTH TRIDOR TOWN HOMES -RENTON JTE, Inc. SITE ACCESSjTRAFFIC IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS FIGURE 1 VICINITY MAP Project: Tridor Townhomes -Renton Location: 1600 Grant Avenue South t NORTH Note: Image obtained from King County IMap TRIDOR TOWN HOMES -RENTON JTE, Inc. SITE ACCESS/TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS FIGURE 2 AERIAL IMAGE Project: TridorTownhomes -Renton Location: 1600 Grant Avenue South .... "ie- :!I ----- '------...... -~------ - = '-'_._-c::::::J o>~ __ ".. __ = ------------------ _ .... -.......o.-.:._~_," "'''' ... _ =-"'"--...:o_.~ ...... , .. --.. _--... . " .. ~--~-- Note: An 8.5 x 11· preliminary site plan is included with this report t NORTH --.... --~ ..... ~ TRIDOR TOWN HOMES -RENTON JTE, Inc. SITE ACCESSjTRAFFIC IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS FIGURE 3 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN , , ! I I I ' ~ d i i ! til al ! § i I I i III I i , , I ~ ! ! I I I H ~ ! i APPENDIX King County: Assessor PropertY Characteristics Report ® King County -=-~ Comments By law this information may not be used for commercial purposes. Taxpayer Tax Year Assessor Real PrJpe"'y ,~;E;cords: Parcel Number MCDONALD SARAH E Account Number 2006 Levy Code Tax Status TAXABLE Taxable Value Reason Appraised Land Value $88,500 Taxable Land Value 2023059052 202305905285 2110 NONE OR UNKNOWN $88,500 Appraised Improvement $0 Taxable Improvement Value $0 Value Parcel Number 2023059052 Taxpayer MCDONALD SARAH E Account Number 202305905285 Tax Year 2007 Levy Code 2110 Tax Status TAXABLE Taxable Value Reason NONE OR UNKNOWN Appraised Land Value $88,500 Taxable Land Value $88,500 Appraised Improvement $0 Taxable Improvement Value $0 Value Taxpayer Parcel Number 2023059052 MCDONALD SARAH E Account Number 202305905202 Tax Year 2006 Levy Code 2110 SENIOR Tax Status TAXABLE Taxable Value Reason CITIZEN EXEMPTION Appraised Land Value $144,500 Taxable Land Value $100,900 Appraised Improvement $56,000 Taxable Improvement Value $5,800 Value Taxpayer MCDONALD SARAH E Parcel Number 2023059052 Account Number 202305905202 Tax Year 2007 Levy Code 2110 SENIOR Tax Status TAXABLE Taxable Value Reason CITIZEN EXEMPTION Appraised Land Value $144,500 Taxable Land Value $100,900 Appraised Improvement $56,000 Taxable Improvement Value Value Assessor Property Sa;es ReGords: Tip: Use the R!lc:ord!lr~QffiC;e:Excise Tax Affil:'l!"ru; RePQr! to see more sales records details $5,800 http://www5.metrokc.gov/reoorts/orooertv reDort.asn?PTN=20210)90~) Page 1 of 3 11 II ,noo!> King County: Assessor Propert-nharacteristics Report Page 2 of3 Sale Date 8/29/1990 ISaie Price 1$0 Seller Name COBB GERALD A Buyer Name MCDONALD SARAH E Assessor Paree, F~ecords: District Name RENTON Property Name Property RESIDENTIAL Type Plat Name Present Single Family Use (C/I Zone) Plat Block Water WATER System DISTRICT Plat Lot Sewer PUBLIC System Lot Area 92,347 SqFt (2.12 acres) Access PUBLIC SectionlTownship/Range SW20235 Street PAVED Surface Assessor Legal Desv'intiop Records' , " Acccunt Number 202305905202 . Weccrd Number 01 ·03 20230552 BEG S 00·08-49 W 475.79 FT OF NE COR OF SW 114 TH N 158 FT TH W PLL WITH N LN OF SW 114 654.50 FT TH S 26·18·57 E TO PT W OF BEG TH E ON LN PLL TO N LN TO BEG LESS WL Y 30 FT LESS C & M RIGHTS TAXABLE PORTION PARTIALLY EXEMPT Legal Description UNDER RCW 84.36.381 THRU .389 BEG S 00-08-49 W 475.79 FT OF NE COR OF SW 114 TH N 158 FT TH W PLL WITH N LN OF SW 1/4 654.50 FT TH S 26·18-57 E TO PT W OF BEG TH E ON LN PLL TO N LN TO BEG LESS WLY 30 FT LESS C & M RIGHTS TAXABLE PORTION PARTIALLY EXEMPT UNDER RCW 84.36.381 THRU .389 NOT INCLUDED Assessor Residentia: Buiidir·r< Records' .'" Address 1600 GRANT AVE 5 98055 Building Grade Low Building number 1 Average Condition Average Bedrooms 3 Year Built 1946 Baths 1 Year Renovated 0 1/2 Baths 0 Total Living SqFt 1350 3/4 Baths 0 1st Floor SqFt 1200 Stories 1 Half Floor SqFt 0 Single Story Fireplace 0 2nd Floor SqFt 0 Multi Story Fireplace 1 httn:/ /www~ _metro'kc: CJov/rennrtQ./nrnnPrh.: TPnnrt ~<;;!n?PTl\T='J{),)1()~Ot),.., 11/1 'l/"}f\f\t;. - King County: Assessor Propel ~haracteristics Report Upper Floor SqFt 0 Free Standing 0 Fireplace Total Basement SqFt 1200 Basement Garage SqFt 0 Total Finished Basement 150 Attached Garage SqFt 0 SqFt Finished Basement Grade Fair Open Porch SqFt 0 Daylight Basement Enclosed Porch SqFt 0 Heat System Forced Air Deck SqFt 0 Heat Source Oil Percent Brick Stone 0 This repon. was generated: 11/13120064:12:35 PM Related on-line reoorts: King Gounly GIS:proP!lJ'l;yll1forl'!'lilti.QllfAQ King CountyAsses§oLSubmtt.!!Jl!.!lYl!l;lto correct thls_j!lfQrmi!tio~ DOE,S Permit APPJiC1!t.iQ!ls.Repo!1 King County l:!i$tric!l;<!f!I;IPeVelopme!'1t Conditions Reporj King CountyAssessor:eRea1properl;yJ3.eport (PDF formaJreq!lireliAGmtJ!it) Kingcou ntyAsse!;sor:Qua!1.!1r,S.el<.tioll .. N'lIpBeport (PJ)Eformal requjres Acro!)at) King c;oufily Jreasury Qpera\ioIls:PrQPertyT;ucll]!QJl1'I.atio!l Recorders QffjQ;:_ElIc.i$.eIl!.lIAJfldaviI$Report ReC;orcjers, Q1'fi.c;e:$cannedJmage!;ofplats .. surveys, anQoto.ermaP .. c:lo.CJ!l11ents Enter a 10 digit Parcel Number: or Enter an address: I Search I KingCC>lInty I GJSC~l1ter I News I Servi~s I C9mm~nt$ I Se~rc;h By visiting this and other King County web pages, you expressly agree to be bound by terms and conditions of the site Th~ _9E::tCl.[1~. Page 3 of3 11 11 'J: /'"){){)t:. Intersections Metric US Customary Intersection sight Intersection sight Stopping distance for Stopping distance for Design Sight passenger cars Design sight passenger cars speed distance Calculated Design speed distance Calculated Design (km/h) (m) (m) (mf (mph) (II) (II) (11)- 20 20 41.7 45 15 80 165.4 170 30 35 62.6 65 20 115 220.5 225 40 50 83.4 85 25 155 275.6 280 50 65 104.3 105 30 200 330.8 335 60 85 125.1 130 35 250 385.9 390 70 105 146.0 150 40 305 441.0 445 80 130 166.8 170 45 360 496.1 500 90 160 187.7 190 50 425 551.3 555 100 185 208.5 210 55 495 606.4 610 110 220 229.4 230 60 570 661.5 665 120 250 250.2 255 65 645 716.6 720 130 285 271.1 275 70 730 771.8 775 75 820 826.9 830 80 910 882.0 865 Note: Intersection sight distance shown is for a stopped passenger car to tum left onto a two-lane highway with no median and grades 3 percent or less. For other conditions, the time gap must be adjusted and required sight distance recalculated. Exhibit 9-55. Design Intersection Sight Distanc-Case Bl-Left Turn From Stop Sight distance design for left turns at divided-highway intersections should consider multiple design vehicles and median width. If the design vehicle used to determine sight distance for a divided-highway intersection is larger than a passenger car, then sight distance for left turns will need to be checked for that selected design vehicle and for smaller design vehicles as well. If the divided-highway median is wide enough to store the design vehicle with a clearance to the through lanes of approximately I m [3 ft) at both ends of the vehicle. no separate analysis for the departure sight triangle for left turns is needed on the minor-road approach for the near roadway to the left. In most cases. the departure sight triangle for right turns (Case B2) will provide sufficient sight distance for a passenger car to cross the near roadway to reach the median. Possible exceptions are addressed in the discussion of Case B3. If the design vehicle can be stored in the median with adequate clearance to the through lanes. a departure sight triangle to the right for left turns should be provided for that design vehicle turning left from the median roadway. Where the median is not wide enough to store the design vehicle, a departure sight triangle should be provided for that design vehicle to turn left from the minor-road approach. The median width should be considered in determining the number of lanes to be crossed. The median width should be converted to equivalent lanes. For example. a 7.2-m [24-ft) median should be considered as two additional lanes to be crossed in applying the multilane highway adjustment for time gaps in Exhibit 9-54. Furthermore, a departure sight triangle for left turns from the median roadway should be provided for the largest design vehicle that can be stored on 665 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION GRANT'S PLACE RENTON, WASIDNGTON PREPARED FOR TRIDOR, INC. DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON FEB -82007 RECEIVED 17311 -135~ Avenue NE, A-500 Woodinville, WA 98072 (425) 486-1669 • (425) Fax481-2510 June 10, 2005 Mr. Scott Wildof Tridor Inc. P.O. Box 747 Bellevue, W A 98009 NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS Be GEOLOGISTS Snohomish County (425) 337"1669 Wenatchee/Chelan (509) 784-2756 Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Grant's Place Renton, Washington NGA File No. 712005 Dear Mr. Wildof: We are pleased to submit the attached report titled "Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation -Grant's Place -Renton, Washington." This report summarizes the existing surface and subsurface conditions within the site and provides general recommendations for the proposed site development. Our services were completed in general accordance with the proposal signed by you on May 17, 2005. The site is currently occupied by a single-family residence and several outbuildings with brush and scattered trees within the western portion of the property. Development for this property is planned to consist of the construction of multiple three-story townhomes with associated pavement and utilities. Stormwater is to be managed on site via a detention system within the planned driveway access road. We monitored the excavation of eight test pits in the planned development areas. Our explorations indicated that the site is generally underlain by competent native glacial till deposits. The site is located in an area that was historically mined for coal. We did not observe evidence of mining operations such as mine shafts or tailings on this site. We also reviewed materials related to past coal mining activities in the site vicinity at the Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Based on our observations and the information we reviewed, it appears that mining operations were not specifically located on this site. We have concluded that the site is generally compatible with the planned development. We have recommended that the new structures be founded on the native medium dense or better soil for bearing capacity and settlement considerations. These soils should be encountered approximately one to two feet below the existing ground surface, based on our explorations. Minor to moderate amounts of groundwater were encountered within the upper soils in many of the test pits which may impact construction if earthwork activities take place during the wetter times of the year. Also, footing drains and other drainage systems should be incorporated into the design to control groundwater. In the attached report, we have also included general recommendations for site grading and drainage. Geotechnical Engineering Eva.""tion Grant's Place Renton, Washington June 10, 2005 NGAFileNo.712005 Summary -Page 2 It has been a pleasure to provide service to you on this project. Please contact us if you have any questions regarding this report or require further information. Sincerely, NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIA TES, INC. Three Copies Submitted TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ..................................................................... : ................................................................ 1 SCOPE ......................................................................................................................................................... 1 SITE CONDITIONS .. , ............................................................................................................................... 2 Surface Conditions .................................................................................................................................... 2 Subsurface Conditions .............................................................................................................................. 2 Hydrologic Conditions .............................................................................................................................. 3 SENSITIVE AREA EV ALUATION ......................................................................................................... 3 Seismic Hazard ......................................................................................................................................... 3 Erosion Hazard .......................................................................................................................................... 4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDA TIONS ................................................................................... 4 General ...................................................................................................................................................... 4 Erosion Control Measures ......................................................................................................................... 5 Temporary and Permanent Slopes ............................................................................................................ 5 Site Preparation and Grading .................................................................................................................... 6 Foundation Support ................................................................................................................................... 7 Structural Fill ............................................................................................................................................ 8 Slab-on-Grade ........................................................................................................................................... 9 Pavements ............................................................................................................................................... 10 Site Drainage ........................................................................................................................................... 10 USE OF TIllS REPORT .......................................................................................................................... 11 LIST OF FIGURES Figure I -Vicinity Map Figure 2 -Site Plan Figure 3 -Soil Classification Chart Figures 4 and 5 -Test Pit Logs NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. INTRODUCTION Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Grant's Place Renton, Washington This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering investigation and evaluation of the planned Grant's Place development in Renton, Washington. The project site is located at 1600 Grant Avenue South as shown on the Vicinity Map in Figure I. The purpose of this study is to explore and characterize the site's surface and subsurface conditions and to provide geotechnical recommendations for site development. For our use in preparing this report, we have been provided with a site plan titled "Grant's Place," dated May 10,2005, prepared by Kovach Architects. Development on the property will consist of the construction of 39 three-story, wood-framed townhome structures. A paved access driveway is planned for the middle of the property and will be accessed from Grant Avenue South on the western side of the property. Stormwater handling is planned to consist of an underground detention pipe or vault within the planned access road. The proposed site layont is shown on the Site Plan in Figure 2. SCOPE The purpose of this study is to explore and characterize the site surface and subsurface conditions, and provide general recommendations for site development. Specifically, our scope of services includes the following: I. Review existing soils, geologic, and coal mine maps of the area. 2. Explore the site subsurface soil and groundwater conditions with trackhoe-excavated test pits. Trackhoe was subcontracted by NGA. 3. Provide recommendations for site grading and earthwork, including structural fill. 4. Provide recommendations for foundation support and slabs-on-grade subgrade. 5. Provide recommendations for stormwater infiltration or detention system installations as needed. 6. Provide recommendations for site drainage and erosion control. 7. Provide recommendations for pavement subgrade preparation. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Eva. __ tion Grant's Place Renton, Washington June 10, 2005 NGA File No. 712005 Page 2 8. Document the results of our explorations, findings, conclusions, and recommendations in a written geotechnical engineering report. SITE CONDITIONS Surface Conditions The site is an approximate 2. I-acre, trapezoidal-shaped lot measuring approximately 62lfeet and 541 feet along the northern and southern property lines, respectively, and approximately 158 feet and 177 along the eastern and western property lines, respectively. The site is bounded to the east and south by residential properties, to the west by Grant A venue South, and to the north by and undeveloped land. A single-family residence with a maintained grass lawn, scattered trees, and several outbuildings occupy the western portion of the property. The site is generally level with a slight gradient down to the west. An old shed, blackberry bushes, and scattered trees occupy the eastern half of the property. A small irrigation pond with a 3-foot high retaining wall was observed within the eastern half of the site approximately 100 feet east of the residence and 75 feet north of the southern property line. Except for some water in the irrigation pond, we did not observe surface water on site during our visit on May 23, 2005. Subsurface Conditions Geology: The geologic units for this site are shown on the Geologic Map of the Renton Quadrangle, King County, Washington, by D. R. Mullineaux, (U.S.G.S., 1965). The site is mapped as Ground Moraine Deposits (Qgt) which is further described as two types of till with varying densities. The till deposits are described as an unsorted mixture of sand, silt, clay, and gravel. Our explorations generally encountered silty sand consistent with the description of the ablation till of the Ground Moraine Deposit. Explorations: The subsurface conditions within the site were explored on May 23, 2005 by excavating eight test pits to depths ranging from 4.5 to 8.5 feet below the existing surface using a trackhoe. The approximate locations of our explorations are shown on the Site Plan in Figure 2. A geologist from NGA was present during the explorations, examined the soils and geologic conditions encountered, obtained samples of the different soil types, and maintained logs of the test pits. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering EV<L __ jon Grant's Place Renton, Washington June 10, 2005 NGA File No. 712005 Page 3 The soils were visually classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System, presented in Figure 3. The logs of our test pits are attached to this report and are presented as Figures 4 and 5. We present a brief summary of the subsurface conditions in the following paragraph. For a detailed description of the subsurface conditions, the test pits logs should be reviewed. We encountered approximately 0.5 to 1.5 feet of loose topsoil at the surface in all of the test pits. Below the topsoil, we encountered medium dense to dense, orangish-brown to grayish-brown, silty, fine to medium sand with gravel, iron-oxide staining, and sand lenses. This soil was interpreted as glacial till. All test pits were terminated in the till deposit. Minor to moderate caving was encountered in most of the test pits. Hydrologic Conditions Minor to moderate groundwater seepage was encountered within all of the explorations at depths ranging from 2.5 to 7.5 feet below the existing ground surface. It is our opinion that this seepage is perched water. Perched water occurs when surface water infUtrates through less dense, more permeable soils and accumulates on top of a relatively impermeable material such as the underlying silty sand. The more permeable soils consist of the topsoil and the upper weathered zone of the till. Perched water does not represent a regional groundwater "table" within the upper soil horizons. Perched water tends to vary spatially and is dependent upon the amount of rainfall. We would expect the amount of perched water to decrease during drier times of the year and increase during wetter periods. Due to the shallow occurrence of groundwater in our explorations and the relatively level ground surface, we anticipate that groundwater will be present on this site throughout the year. SENSITIVE AREA EVALUATION Seismic Hazard Medium dense to dense glacial soils were encountered underlying the site. Based on the 2003 International Building Code (IBC), the site conditions best fit the description for Soil Class D. Hazards associated with seismic activity include liquefaction potential and amplification of ground motion by soft deposits. Liquefaction is caused by a rise in pore pressures in a loose, fine sand deposit beneath the groundwater table. Ground motion amplification is caused by thick deposits of soft material. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Ev ____ tion Grant's Place Renton, Washington June 10, 2005 NGA File No. 712005 Page 4 The medium dense to dense glacial till interpreted to underlie the site has a low potential for liquefaction or amplification of ground motion. Erosion Hazard The erosion hazard criteria used for determination of affected areas includes soil type, slope gradient, vegetation cover, and groundwater conditions. The erosion sensitivity is related to vegetative cover and the specific surface soil types, which are related to the underlying geologic soil units. The Soil Survey, King County Area. Washington, by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) was reviewed to determine the erosion hazard of the on-site soils. The site surface soils were classified using the SCS classification system as Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes. This unit is listed as having a moderate erosion hazard. The site soils should have a low potential for erosion if not disturbed. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General It is our opinion, that from a geotechnical standpoint, the site is compatible with the planned development. Our explorations within the site indicated that the site is generally underlain by competent glaCial till soils. These native soils should provide adequate support for the planned structure foundations, slab-on-grade, and pavement. We recommend that the buildings be designed utilizing shallow foundations. Footings should extend through any loose surficial soil or undocumented fill and be founded on the underlying medium dense or better native soils, or structural fill extending to these soils. Undocumented fill or loose soil could be encountered around the existing house and out buildings. Any undocumented fill or softJloose soil should be over-excavated as part of site preparation. Coal mining has been conducted in the past in the general site vicinity. We did not observe mine shafts, tailings, or other indications of mining operations on this site. Also, information collected at the Washington State Department of Natural Resources did not indicate that mining operations were specifically conducted on this site. We should note, however, that the reviewed DNR maps for coal mine shafts and tunnels are based on old records that may not be entirely accurate. The soils that are expected to be encountered during site development are considered highly moisture- sensitive and can disturb in wet conditions. Wet soil and seeping water was observed in our explorations NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Eva. __ tion Grant's Place Renton, Washington June 10, 2005 NGA File No. 712005 PageS at shallow depths. We recommend that the site be developed during the dry season. If construction takes place during the rainy months, the site soils may disturb and become difficult to work. Also, if construction takes place during the wet season, additional expenses and delays should be expected. Additional expenses could include the need for placing a blanket of rock spalls on exposed subgrades, construction traffic areas, and pavement areas prior to placing structural fill. NGA should be retained to determine if the on-site soils could be used as structural fIll material during construction. We anticipate that wet conditions will be prevalent on this site throughout the year. We recommend that footing and wall drains as well as underslab drains be incorporated in the design. Also, cut-off or French- type drains might be needed at certain locations to maintain dry conditions. Erosion Control Measures The erosion hazard for the on-site soils is considered moderate, but will be dependent on how the site is graded and how water is allowed to concentrate. Best Management Practices (BMPs) should be used to control erosion. Areas disturbed during construction should be protected from erosion. Measures taken may include diverting surface water away from the stripped areas. Silt fences or straw bales should be erected to prevent muddy water from leaving the site. Temporary and Permanent Slopes We do not anticipate major grading on this site as part of site improvements, however, if an underground stormwater detention vault or a large detention pipe is used for handling stormwater runoff, temporary cuts over four feet in height may be needed for the installation of these systems. Temporary cut slope stability is a function of many factors, including the type and consistency of soils, depth of the cut, surcharge loads adjacent to the excavation, length of time a cut remains open and the presence of surface or groundwater. It is exceedingly difficult under these variable conditions to estimate a stable, temporary, cut slope angle. Therefore, it should be the responsibility of the contractor to maintain safe slope configurations since he is continuously at the job site, able to observe the nature and condition of the cut slopes, and able to monitor the subsurface materials and groundwater conditions encountered. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Eva.. __ jon Grant's Place Renton, Washington June 10, 2005 NGA File No. 712005 Page 6 The following information is provided solely for the benefit of the owner and other design consultants and should not be construed to imply that Nelson Geotechnical Associates, Inc. assumes responsibility for job site safety. Job site safety is the sole responsibility of the project contractor. For planning purposes, we recommend that temporary cuts in the native glacial till soils be no steeper than 1.5 Horizontal to 1 Vertical (1.5H:IV). If significant groundwater seepage or sandier portions of the till are encountered, we would expect that flatter inclinations would be necessary. We recommend that cut slopes be protected from erosion. Measures taken may include covering cut slopes with plastic sheeting and diverting surface runoff away from the top of cut slopes. We do not recommend vertical slopes for cuts deeper than four feet, if worker access is necessary. We recommend that cut slope heights and inclinations confonn to appropriate OSHAIWISHA regulations. Site Preparation and Grading After the existing residence, trees, and ground cover have been removed, the next step of site preparation should be to strip any topsoil or loose material to expose medium dense or better native soils in foundation, pavement, and slab areas. Based on our observations, we anticipate an average stripping depth of the topsoil to be one to two feet across the site. However, additional stripping may be required in the Vicinity of the existing residence and outbuildings, the pond, or in the unexplored areas where fill may exist. If the ground surface, after stripping the unsnitable material and excavating down to planned sub grade elevations appears to be loose, it should be compacted to a non-yielding condition and then proof-rOlled with a heavy rubber-tired piece of equipment. Areas observed to pump or weave during the proof-roll test should be reworked to structural fill specifications or over-excavated and replaced with properly compacted structural fill or rock spalls. If significant surface water flow is encountered during construction, this flow should be diverted around areas to be developed and the exposed subgrade maintained in a semi-dry condition. After the water has been controlled, the site should be stripped and graded using large excavators equipped with wide tracks and smooth buckets. The exposed subgrade should not be compacted, as compaction of a wet subgrade may result in further disturbance of the native soils. Instead, a layer of crushed rock or all-weather material may be placed over the prepared areas to protect them from further disturbance. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Eva. __ tion Grant's Place Renton, Washington June 10,2005 NGA File No. 712005 Page 7 If a detention system is used, it should be excavated down to planned elevations while maintaining the recommended temporary excavation inclinations provided above. If groundwater seepage is encountered, this water should be pumped out of the excavation and the bottom of the excavation be covered with a minimum of six inches of crushed rock to reduce the potential for disturbing the sensitive subgrade and to provide a clean work surface for vault or pipe placement. As mentioned earlier, the site soils are considered highly moisture sensitive and can disturb when wet. We therefore recommend that construction take place in the summer during periods of extended dry weather, and suspended during periods of rainfall. If work is to take place during the wetter part of the year, care should be taken during site preparation not to disturb the site soils. This can be accomplished by utilizing large excavators equipped with smooth buckets and wide tracks to complete earthwork, and diverting surface and groundwater flow away from the prepared subgrades. Also, construction traffic should not be allowed on the exposed subgrade. A blanket of rock spalls should be used in construction access areas if wet conditions are prevalent. The thickness of this rock spall layer should be based on subgrade performance at the time of construction. For planning purposes, we recommend a minimum one-foot thick layer of rock spalls. Foundation Support Conventional shallow spread foundations for building support should be placed on undisturbed medium dense or better native soils or be supported on structural fill or rock spalls extending to those soils. Where less dense soils are encountered at footing bearing elevation, the subgrade should be over-excavated to expose suitable bearing soil. The over-excavation may be filled with structural fill, or the footing may be extended down to the bearing native soils. If footings are supported on structural fill, the fill zone should extend outside the edges of the footing a distance equal to one-half of the depth of the over-excavation below the bottom of the footing. Building footings should extend at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent finished ground surface for frost protection and bearing capacity considerations. Minimum foundation widths of 18 and 24 inches should be used for continuous and isolated footings, respectively, but footings should also be sized based on the anticipated loads and allowable soil bearing pressure. Standing water should not be allowed to NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Ev ___ tion Grant's Place Renton, Washington June 10,2005 NGA File No. 712005 Page 8 accumulate in footing trenches. All loose or disturbed soil should be removed from the foundation excavation prior to placing concrete. For foundations constructed as outlined above, we recommend an allowable design bearing pressure of not more than 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) be used for the building footing design for footings founded on the medium dense or better native soils or structural fill extending to the native competent material. The foundation bearing soil should be evaluated by a representative of NGA. We should be consulted if higher bearing pressures are needed. Current!BC guidelines should be used when considering increased allowable bearing pressure for short-term transitory wind or seismic loads. Potential foundation settlement using the recommended allowable bearing pressure is estimated to be less than one inch total and 112 inch differential between adjacent footings or across a distance of about 20 feet. Lateral loads may be resisted by friction on the base of the footing and passive resistance against the subsurface portions of the foundation. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be used to calculate the base friction and should be applied to the vertical dead load ouly. Passive resistance may be calculated as a triangular equivalent fluid pressure distribution. An equivalent fluid density of 250 pounds per cubic foot (pef) should be used for passive resistance design for a level ground surface adjacent to the footing. This level surface should extend a distance equal to at least three times the footing depth. These recommended values incorporate safety factors of 1.5 and 2.0 applied to the estimated ultimate values for frictional and passive resistance, respectively. To achieve this value of passive resistance, the foundations should be poured "neat" against the native medium dense to dense soils or compacted fill should be used as backfill against the front of the footing. We recommend that the upper one-foot of soil be neglected when calculating the passive resistance. Structural Fill General: Fill placed beneath foundations, pavement, or other settlement-sensitive structures should be placed as structural fill. Structural fill, by definition, is placed in accordance with prescribed methods and standards, and is monitored by an experienced geotechnical professional or soils technician. Field monitoring procedures would include the performance of a representative number of in-place density tests to document the attainment of the desired degree of relative compaction. The area to receive the fill NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Ev ___ tion Grant's Place Renton, Washington June 10, 2005 NGA File No. 712005 Page 9 should be suitably prepared as described in the Site Preparation and Grading subsection prior to beginning fill placement. Materials: Structural fill should consist of a good quality, granular soil, free of organics and other deleterious material and be well graded to a maximum size of about three inches. All-weather fIll should contain no more than five-percent fines (soil finer than U.S. No. 200 sieve, based on that fraction passing the U.S. 3!4-inch sieve). The use of on-site soils as structural fill should generally be feasible, but will be dependent on material moisture content at the time construction takes place. Most of the on-site soils will be very difficult to compact to structural fill specifications in wet conditions. Even in dry weather, some moisture-conditioning of the on-site material might be required to attain compactable conditions. We should be retained to evaluate proposed structural fill material prior to construction. Fill Placement: Following subgrade preparation, placement of structural fill may proceed. All filling should be accomplished in uniform lifts up to eight inches thick. Each lift should be spread evenly and be thoroughly compacted prior to placement of subsequent lifts. All structural fill underlying building areas and pavement subgrade should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of its maximum dry density. Maximum dry density, in this report, refers to that density as determined by the ASTM 0-1557 Compaction Test procedure. The moisture content of the soils to be compacted should be within about two percent of optimum so that a readily compactable condition exists. It may be necessary to over- excavate and remove wet soils in cases where drying to a compactable condition is not feasible. All compaction should be accomplished by equipment of a type and size sufficient to attain the desired degree of compaction. Slab-on-Grade Slabs-on-grade should be supported on subgrade soils prepared as described in the Site Preparation and Grading subsection of this report. We recommend that all floor slabs be underlain by at least six inches of free-draining sand or gravel for use as a capillary break. We recommend that the capillary break be hydraulically connected to the footing drain system to allow free drainage from under the slab. A suitable vapor barrier, such as heavy plastic sheeting (6-mil minimum), should be placed over the capillary break material. Due to the wet site conditions, it might be prudent to utilize a system of underslab drains that are in turn routed to the perimeter drains, to further reduce the potential for groundwater to produce damp conditions in the dwellings. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Eva._~jon Grant's Place Renton, Washington June 10,2005 NGA File No. 712005 Page 10 Pavements Pavement subgrade preparation, and structural filling where required, should be completed as recommended in the Site Preparation and Grading and Structural Fill subsections of this report. The pavement subgrade should be proof-rolled with a heavy, rubber-tired piece of equipment, to identify soft or yielding areas that require repair. We should be retained to observe the proof-rolling and recommend repairs prior to placement of the asphalt or hard surfaces. Site Drainage Surface Drainage: The finished ground surface should be graded such that stormwater is directed to an appropriate stormwater collection system. Water should not be allowed to stand in any area where footings or slabs are to be constructed. Final site grades should allow for drainage away from the structures. We suggest that the fmished ground be sloped at a minimum gradient of three percent, for a distance of at least 10 feet away from the structures. Surface water should be collected by permanent catch basins and drain lines, and be discharged into an appropriate discharge system. Subsurface Drainage: If groundwater is encountered during construction, we recommend that the contractor slope the bottom of the excavation and collect the water into ditches and smaIl sump pits where the water can be pumped out of the excavation and routed into a permanent storm drain. We recommend the use of footing drains around the planned structure. Footing drains should be installed at least one foot below planned finished floor elevation. The drains should consist of a minimum four- inch-diameter, rigid, slotted or perforated, PVC pipe surrounded by free-draining material, such as washed rock, wrapped in a filter fabric. We recommend that an 18-inch-wide zone of clean (less than three-percent fines), granular material be placed along the back of the walls above the drain. Pea gravel is an acceptable drain material or drainage composite may also be used instead. The free-draining material should extend up the waIl to one foot below the finished surface. The top foot of backfill should consist of impermeable soil placed over plastic sheeting or building paper to minimize surface water or fines migration into the footing drain. Footing drains should discharge into tigbtlines leading to an appropriate collection and discharge point with convenient clean outs to prolong the useful life of the drains. Roof drains should not be connected to footing drains. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Eva. __ jon Grant's Place Renton, Washington June 10, 2005 NGA File No. 712005 Page 11 Due to prevalent wet site conditions, cut-off or French-type drains may be required uphill of the planned improvements to control groundwater and maintain semi-dry pads. The need and extent of such systems should be determined in the field prior to the start of mass grading. Also, underslab drains might be considered for this site. The underslab drain systems usually consist of 4-inch perforated lateral pipes placed within the capillary break layer, 10 to IS feet apart. The laterals are routed to a solid main collector drain that in tum is routed into the footing drain system. We should be retained to review plans for site drainage. USE OF TIDS REPORT NGA has prepared this report for Tridor Inc., and their agents, for use in the planning and design of the development planned on this site only. The scope of our work does not include services related to construction safety precautions and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractors' methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. There are possible variations in subsurface conditions between the explorations and also with time. Our report, conclusions, and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of subsurface conditions. A contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in the budget and schedule. We recommend that NGA be retained to provide monitoring and consultation servIces during construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether or not earthwork and foundation installation activities comply with contract plans and specifications. We should be contacted a minimum of one week prior to construction activities and could attend pre-construction meetings if requested. Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our services have been performed in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices in effect in this area at the time this report was prepared. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Our observations, findings, and opinions are a means to identify and reduce the inherent risks to the owner. 0-0-0 NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Eva. __ tion Grant's Place Renton, Washington June 10, 2005 NGA File No. 712005 Page 12 It has been a pleasure to provide service to you on this project. If you have any questions or require further information, please call. Sincerely, NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. ~~~~ Bala Dodoye-Alali Project Geologist Khaled M. Shawish, PE Principal BD:KMS:lam Five Figures Attached fiJol 76S NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. NOT TO SCALE Project Number 712005 Figure 1 Granfs Place Vicinity Map ~-- ~ NEL.SON GEOTECHNICAL. ...... NGA~ ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS ~===: -- N No. Date RevIsion 5124105 OrtgmJ LEGEND Property Line Proposed Townhomes Existing Buildings Number and Approximate I----r----I Location of Test Pit Reference: Site Plan based on an electronic plan dated M; Scale: 1 inch = 50 feet N l!! :::> 0> i.L UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP GROUP NAME SYMBOL CLEAN GW WELL-GRADED. FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL COARSE-GRAVEL GRAVEL GP POORLY-GRADED GRAVEL . GRAINED MORE THAN 50 % GRAVEL OF COARSE FRACTION GM SILTY GRAVEL RETAINED ON WITH FINES SOILS NO. 4 SIEVE GC CLAYEY GRAVEL SAND CLEAN SW WELL-GRADED SAND. FINE TO COARSE SAND SAND SP POORLY GRADED SAND MORE THAN 50 % RETAINED ON MORE THAN 50 % NO. 200 SIEVE OF COARSE FRACTION SAND SM SILTY SAND PASSES NO.4 SIEVE WITH FINES SC CLAYEY SAND FINE-SILT AND CLAY ML SILT INORGANIC GRAINED LIQUID LIMIT CL CLAY LESS THAN 50 % SOILS ORGANIC OL ORGANIC SILT. ORGANIC CLAY SILT AND CLAY MH SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY. ELASTIC SILT MORE THAN 50 % INORGANIC PASSES LIQUID LIMIT CH CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FLAT CLAY NO. 200 SIEVE 50% OR MORE ORGANIC OH ORGANIC CLAY, ORGANIC SILT HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PEAT NOTES: 1) Field classification Is based on visual SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIERS: examination of soil In general accordance with ASTM D 2486-93. Dry -Absence of moisture. dusty, dry to the touch 2) Soli classlftcation using laboratory tests Moist -Damp, but no visible water. f Is based on ASTM D 2486-93. Il 3) Descriptions of soil density or Wet -Visible free water or saturated, ~ consistency are based on usually soli ts obtained from i Interpretation of blOW<XlUnt _, below water teble visual appearance of solis. andIor test data. CK ~ Project Number ~ELSON GEOTECHNICAL No. Date RevIsion By 712005 Grant's Place NGA ASSOCIATES, INC. , -0rIg"'" M;O BAD ~ Soil Classification GEOTECHNICAL ENGINIEIERB 8: GIEOLOGIBTS Figure 3 17311-136IhA .... NE,A-5OD ~==:'-a W_,WAB80T2 -,...,.. ~ 1425) 4116-16691 "u «"·25'10 -Z DEPTH (FEED TEST PIT ONE 0.0 -1.0 1.0-2.5 2.5 -7.0 7.0-8.5 TEST PIT lWO 0.0 -0.5 0.5 -2.0 2.0 -7.0 TEST PIT THREE 0.0-1.0 1.0-2.5 2.5 -7.0 TEST PIT FOUR 0.0 -1.0 1.0-2.5 2.5-4.5 ACO:BAD LOG OF EXPLORATION usc SOIL DESCRIPTION TOPSOIL (LOOSE, MOISD SM ORANGISH-BROWN TO BROWN, SILTY FINE TO COARSE SAND (MEDIUM DENSE, MOISD SM ORANGISH-BROWN TO BROWN, SILTY FINE TO COARSE SAND WITH GRAVEL AND COBBLES (DENSE, MOIST) SP·SM GRAY, FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT ANDGRAVEL (DENSE, WED SAMPLE WAS COLLECTED AT 4.5 FEET SM SM SM SM SM SM MINOR GROUNDWATER SEEPAGE WAS ENCOUNTERED AT 7.5 FEET MINOR TEST PIT CAVING WAS ENCOUNTERED FROM 7.0 TO 8.5 FEET TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 8.5 FEET ON 5123105 TOPSOIL WITH ROOTS (LOOSE, MOISD ORANGISH·BROWN, SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) GRAY, SILTY FINE TO COARSE SAND WITH GRAVEL (DENSE TO VERY DENSE, MOISD SAMPLE WAS COLLECTED AT 3.2 FEET MODERATE GROUNDWATER SEEPAGE WAS ENCOUNTERED AT 6.5 FEET TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 7.0 FEET ON 5123105 TOPSOIL (LOOSE, MOIST) ORANGISH·BROWN, SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST TO WED GRAYISH-BROWN, SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND (DENSE, MOIST TOWED SAMPLE WAS COLLECTED AT 2.0 FEET MINOR TO MODERATE GROUNDWATER SEEPAGE WAS ENCOUNTERED AT 3.0 FEET MINOR TEST PIT CAVING WAS ENCOUNTERED FROM 6.0 TO 7.5 FEET TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 7.0 FEET ON 5123105 TOPSOIL (LOOSE, MOIST) ORANGE, SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH GRAVEL (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST TO WED ORANGISH·BROWN, SILTY FINE TO COARSE SAND WITH GRAVEL (DENSE, MOISD SAMPLES WERE NOT COLLECTED MINOR TO MODERATE GROUNDWATER SEEPAGE WAS ENCOUNTERED AT 2.5 FEET TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 4.5 FEET ON 5123105 NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIA TES, INC. FILE NO 712005 FIGURE 4 DEPTH (FEEn TEST PIT FIVE 0.0-1.2 1.2 -5.0 5.0-6.0 TEST PIT SIX 0.0-1.0 1.0-3.0 3.0-5.0 TEST PIT SEVEN 0.0-1.0 1.0 -2.5 2.5 -6.5 TEST PIT EIGHT 0.0 -1.5 1.5-6.0 ACO:BAD usc SM SM SM SM SM SM SM LOG OF EXPLORATION SOIL DESCRIPTION TOPSOIL (LOOSE, MOIST) ORANGISH·BROWN, SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST TO WEn ORANGISH·BROWN, SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT LAYERS AND IRON·OXIDE STAINING (DENSE, MOIST) SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 3.0 NO 6.0 FEET MINOR TO MODERATE GROUNDWATER SEEPAGE WAS ENCOUNTERED FROM 2.5 TO 6,0 FEET MINOR TEST PIT CAVING WAS ENCOUNTERED FROM 0.0 TO 6.0 FEET TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 6.0 FEET ON 5123/05 TOPSOIL (LOOSE, MOIST) ORANGISH·BROWN, SL TY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE, MOISn ORANGISH·BROWN, SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH IRON-OXIDE STAINING (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST TO WEn SAMPLES WERE NOT COLLECTED MODERATE GROUNDWATER SEEPAGE WAS ENCOUNTERED AT 3.0 FEET MINOR TEST PIT CAVING WAS ENCOUNTERED FROM 4.0 TO 5.0 FEET TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 5.0 FEET ON 5123105 TOPSOIL (LOOSE, MOIST) ORANGE, SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH ROOTS (MEDIUM DENSE, MOISn ORANGISH·BROWN, SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH GRAVEL AND IRON·OXIDE STAINING (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, MOISn SAMPLE WAS COLLECTED AT 4.0 FEET MINOR GROUNDWATER SEEPAGE WAS ENCOUNTERED FROM 2,0 TO 6,5 FEET MINOR TEST PIT CAVING WAS ENCOUNTERED FROM 2,5 TO 6,5 FEET TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 6,5 FEET ON 5123/05 TOPSOIL WITH ROOTS (LOOSE, MOIST) ORANGISH·BROWN, SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT LAYERS AND IRON·OXIDE STAINING (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST TO WEn SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 2.0 AND 6.0 FEET MINOR GROUNDWATER SEEPAGE WAS ENCOUNTERED AT 4.5 FEET MINOR TEST PIT CAVING WAS ENCOUNTERED FROM 4,5 TO 5,0 FEET TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 6.0 FEET ON 5123/05 NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIA TES, INC. FILE NO 712005 FIGURE 5 TEe Project No. 373-WlK TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT for Grant Place Townhomes Tax Parcel No. 202305-9052 Pre-application No. __ Site Address: 1600 Grant Avenue S Renton, Washington 98055 205 Front 51. 5 .• P.O. Box 1787 • Issaquah, WA 98027.0073 • tel. (425) 391-1415 • fax (425) 391-1551 • www.tecdviI.com Technical Information Repo Grant Place Townhomes Section 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. B. 9. 10. Appendices Appendix A Appendix B TABLE OF CONTENTS Description Project Overview ......... '" ............................. . Conditions and Requirements Summary .......... . Off-Site Analysis .................................... '" .. . Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Analysis and Design ..... " .................. " .. " ..... . Conveyance System Analysis and Design .. " .. " Special Reports and Studies ................ " .... " .. Other Permits .. " .. """"'"'''' "" .................... . ESC Analysis and Design ............................. . Bond Quantities, Facility Summaries, and Declaration of Covenant.. ............................. . Operations and Maintenance Manual .. " .......... . Page Number 1 1 2 2 3 4 4 4 4 4 Figure 1. Technical Information Report (TIR) Worksheet Figure 2. Site Location Map Figure 3: Drainage Basins, Subbasins, & Site Characteristics Figure 4. SCS Soils Map Figure 5. Off-site Analysis Drainage System Table Figure 6. Off-site Analysis Drainage System Map Calculations TEe Technical Infonnation Repo Grant Place Townhomes SECTION 1 PROJECT OVERVIEW This Technical Information Report (TIR) is submitted to the City of Renton in accordance with the City-adopted King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM). Appendix A contains a Technical Information Report (TIR) worksheet for the project (Figure 1), as well as a Site Location Map. (Figure 2), a Drainage Basins, SubbaSins, and Site Characteristics figure (Figure 3), a copy of the SCS Soils map for the vicinity (Figure 4), an Off- site Analysis Drainage System Table (Figure 5), and Map (Figure 6). More detailed site information is included on the site plan drawings. The 2.12 acre site is located at 1600 Grant Avenue South, in Renton, Washington. SECTION 2 CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY The following summary describes how this new project will meet the eight "Core Requirements' and the "Special Requirements" that apply: Core Requirements 1. Discharge at the Natural Location: The site currently drains in a dispersed manner to the northwest comer of the site to the Grant Avenue South frontage drainage system. The project proposes to discharge detained runoff to this drainage system. 2. Off-Site Analysis: A Levell offsite analysis was conducted for this project as described in Section 3. 3. Flow Control: The project proposes a combined detention and treatment vault sized according to the requirements of the King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) as described in Section 4. . . 4. Conveyance System: The site piping has been sized to convey the 100-year runoff without flooding. The King County Backwater Analysis confirms this. See Section 5. 5. Erosion and Sedimentation Control: Runoff from the construction areas will be contained by a temporary construction entrance, silt fencing, temporary catch basin protection and a sediment trap, in accordance with the KCSWDM during construction. The ESC facilities will only be removed once all exposed site surfaces have been stabilized. Other temporary erosion and sedimentation control measures will be installed as needed. 6. Maintenance and Operations: The drainage system should be regularly inspected and maintained as described in Section 10. 7. Financial Guarantees and Liability: Pending. 8. Water Quality: Treatment of runoff will be provided in the permanently wet portion of the combination detention and treatment tank. Sizing of this wetpool volume is described in Section 4. Special Requirements 1. Other Adopted Area-Specific Requirements: Not Applicable. 2. FloodplainiFloodway Delineation: Not Applicable. 3. Flood Protection Facilities: Not Applicable. 4. Source Controls: Not Applicable. 5. Oil Control: Not Applicable. TEe Technical Information Repo Grant Place Townhomes SECTION 3 OFF-SITE ANALYSIS The following subsections describe the inspection and evaluation of the site and its surrounding areas particularly the downstream drainage path. Task 1. Study Area Definition and Maps Figure 3 in the Appendix A shows the extent of the study area and the local topography. The Site Plan drawing shows more detailed topographic information on the project site. Task 2. Resource Review The City's utility mapping was consulted. Task 3. Field Inspection A Level 1 off-site analysis was conducted on July 21, 2005. At the time of the site inspection, the weather was sunny and warm. Task 4. Drainage System Descriptions and Problem Descriptions Minimal runoff onto the site occurs in a dispersed manner from the east. Most runoff from this small area is likely captured in the storm drain system for that plat. Runoff on the site flows in a dispersed manner to the northwest, flowing into the public storm drainage system in Grant Avenue South. This system conveys runoff to the west side of Grant Avenue South and into a heavily vegetated swalelravine draining west. This ravine was inaccessible, but is presumed to be tributary to the Black River. The Offsite Analysis Drainage System Table in the Appendix A describes each segment of the downstream drainage path. Task 5. Mitigation of Existing or Potential Problems To mitigate any water quantity or quality impacts from the project, runoff will be detained and treated, in accordance with the King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM). SECTION 4 FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN The project proposes 67,477 square feet of new impervious surface, and 34,615 square feet is pavement, as shown on the figure in Appendix B. Detention and treatment of runoff were designed in accordance with the KCSWDM. Existing Site Hydrology (Part A) The drainage on the existing site was analyzed for this project with KCRTS. Figures provided in the KCSWDM and KCRTS manual were used to determine project location and scale factor parameters. The figure in Appendix B shows the delineation of the areas generating runoff on the site. Appendix B also contains the data and output from the hydrologic analysis. The site soils are classified Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam, with the more steep designation on the eastern portions (see Figure 4 in Appendix A). The existing site conditions identified for this project and used in the KCRTS modeling included 2.14 acres, modeled as fully forested. Developed Site Hydrology (Part B) The developed site drainage system will discharge site runoff to the Grant Avenue South drainage system. The developed site conditions identified for this project included 0.74 acres of roof, 0.71 acres of pavement areas, and 0.69 acres of landscaping. The frontage area includes 2 TEC Technical Information Repo . Grant Place Townhomes 0.11 acres of pavement and sidewalks, and 0.02 acres of landscaping that will bypass the detention system. Performance Standards (Part C) Level 2 duration matching criteria were used to size the detention system, including the bypass area in the point of compliance matching analysis. Basic water quality treatment parameters were used to size the treatment volume. Conveyance piping must convey runoff from the 25- year storm without flooding. Flow Control System (Part D) The Level 2 detention vault was sized using the KCRTS routine and includes over-detention to account for the un-detained runoff from the Grant Avenue South frontage improvements. The following table summarizes the sizing and control requirements for the detention vault. Detention Vault Required detention volume 23,760 cf Effective storage depth 9.0 ft Top area 2,640 sf Orifice #1 diameter 0.86" (13/16") Orifice #2 diameter 1.35" (1-5/16") Orifice #2 height above bottom 6.5 ft The project proposes a 2,643 square foot vault with 9.0 feet of live storage, which provides a detention volume of 23,787 cubic feel. Descriptions of the procedures used and calculations and computer output are included in Appendix B. The vault has been designed to meet the requirements of the KCSWDM. Water Quality (Part E) The area of new asphalt pavement on the site is 31,225 square feet, which is over the 5,000 square foot cutoff requiring water quality treatment. Water quality treatment will be provided in the 8,626 cubic foot dead storage volume at the bottom of the detention vault. The treatment volume has been sized and will be constructed according to the requirements of the KCSWDM for Basic Water Quality. The required treatment volume is 7,537 cubic feet. Calculations for sizing the treatment vault are included in Appendix B. Treatment of runoff from the detention bypass frontage areas is not proposed because new traffic pavement is not proposed. The following table summarizes the water quality treatment requirements for the treatment portion of the vault. Treatment Vault Treatment runoff (V,) 2,512 cf Required treatment volume (Vb) 7,537 cf 1 st cell volume >2,642 cf, < 3,699 cf SECTION 5 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN The conveyance pipe system was sized to convey the 25-year flow without flooding and in fact, the analysis shows that the 1 ~O-year flow can be contained in the system without flooding. The King County Backwater Analysis (KCBW) output is included in Appendix B. 3 TEe Technical Information Repo Grant Place Townhomes SECTION 6 SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES Not Applicable. SECTION 7 OTHER PERMITS Not Applicable. No other permits beyond those required by the City of Renton are anticipated to be required for this project. SECTION 8 ESC ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Erosion control for this project will include a stabilized construction entrance, a sediment trap, silt fencing, and temporary catch basin protection in accordance with the KCSWDM. The required surface area of the sediment trap is 1,438 square feet. SECTION 9 BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARIES, AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT The City Public Works Construction PermiUApproval Fee Calculation Worksheet is submitted under separate cover. The King County Stormwater Facility Summary Sheet in included in Appendix B. A Declaration of Covenant form will be provided under separate cover, if required. SECTION 10 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL The proposed drainage system should be inspected and maintained as follows: Conveyance Systems Pipes transport runoff from one place to another, in this case from catch basins to the dispersion system. To work properly, pipes must be kept free of silt and other debris. If pipes become blocked, surface flooding will usually occur. Catch Basins and Area Drains Catch basins collect surface drainage and direct it into storm conveyance pipes. They help prevent downstream drainage problems by trapping sediment and other debris that would otherwise flow downstream with the runoff. It is important to keep catch basins clean so accumulated silt is not flushed out during a significant storm. Also, if the outflow pipe becomes blocked with debris, surface flooding will usually occur. All catch basins should be inspected at least once each year and after major storms. Area drains convey runoff directly into conveyance pipes. To prevent surface flooding, their surface grates must be kept free of litter and debris. If dirt or other sediment gets into the pipes and they become blocked, the pipes will need to be cleaned, either manually or using a Vactor truck. Detention and Treatment Vault The purpose of the detention/treatment vault is to reduce the rate of runoff from the developed portion of the property and remove certain contaminants from the runoff. Water can flow freely into the vault, but orifices in the outflow riser restrict the outflow. When the inflow exceeds the 4 TEe Technicallnfonnation Repo Grant Place Townhomes capacity of the orifice or weir, the excess water is "stored" in the vault and released slowly after the storm abates. The "dead storage volume in the bottom of the vault allows certain contaminants to settle out of the runoff. In order to function properly, the facility must also be kept free of accumulated sediment. The outlet pipe also must be kept clean, as even a partial blockage could significantly impact the ability of a facility to store and treat runoff. The facility should be visually inspected for sediment accumulation and blockages at least once each year and also after every major storm greater than or equal to a 10-year return frequency. 5 TEe APPENDIX A FIGURES KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Project Owner _~~~~lJ...f!o.\IlLL __ Phone YZS~ ~q 3-q233 Address Do &)<1 J'-{] BelleY'", f' LJA '7 WDj , Project Engineer ! -Or AI>-To..yloy- Company Jt=z ( I r'\ ( . Phone o Landuse Services Subdivison . Short Sutxl. , UPD o Building Services MlF 'Commerical , SFR o Clearing and Grading o Right-ol-Way Use Other Type 01 Drainage Review (circle): Date (include revision dates): Q, Targeted , Large Site B9~S Perm~ # _________ _ Location Township .23 Range 5 Section "'-SW:u..<?D=-___ _ S~eAddress 1'00(;"".,+ Avr S o COE404 o DOE Dam Salety o FEMA Floodplain o COE Wetlands o Other Type (circle one): Date (inctude revision dates): o Shoreline Management fa Structural RockeryNaulV __ o ESA Section 7 (Engr. Plans) rFuiI) Modffied I ~iS~e Type (circle one): Standard , Comptex , Pre application , Experimental' Blanket Description: (include condmons in TIR Section 2) 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 1 Figure 1 TIR Worksheet (5 pages) 1/1/05 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Mon~oring Required: Yes / No Start Date: Completion Date: Community Plan: £005 err c k. Special District Overlays: _---:-_~.-------------------­ Drainage Basin: 'B I 0-C k (2 ~ve...- Stormwater Requirements: River/Stream _________ _ I:l Steep Slope ________ _ I:l Lake I:l Erosion Hazard _______ _ I:l Wetlands _________ _ I:l Landslide Hazard _______ _ I:l Closed Depression ________ _ I:l Coal Mine Hazard _______ _ I:l Floodplain _________ _ I:l Seismic Hazard _______ _ I:l Other __________ _ I:l Habitat Protection _______ _ I:l _________ _ Soil Type 8j~ Slopes &'-6 0/" Erosion Potential /5'-30 Z I:l High Groundwater Table (within 5 feet) I:l Sole Source Aquifer I:l Seeps/Springs I:l Other Additional Sheets Attached 2005 Sunace Water Design Manual 2 111/05 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET REFERENCE I2l Core 2 -Offsite Analysis o Sensitive/Critical Areas o SEPA o Other LIMITATION I SITE CONSTRAINT Leol'd ( 0 __________ _ o Additional Sheets Attached (all 8 apply) or at: Contact Phone: After Hours Phone: Maintenance and / Public Yes /No (include facility summary sheet) or Exemption No. _______ =_ Drainage I MOP I BP IlMP / Shared Fae. / None Type: Major / Minor / Exemption (5) lOO-year Base Flood Elevation (or range): _____ _ Datum: Flood Protection Describe: (comm.lindustriallanduse) Describe any structural controls: 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 111105 3 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Oil Control High-use Site: Yes I No Treatment BMP: Maintenance Agreement: Yes I No with whom? Other Dralnaoe Structures Describe: MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION Ia" Clearing Limits crCover Measures ~Perimeter Protection ca--Traffic Area Stabilization la'Sediment Retention ErSurface Water Control SDust Control 13' Construction Flow Control GrDetention o Infiltration o Regional Facimy o Shared Facility o Small Site BMPs o Other VcuJl- 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 4 AFTER CONSTRUCTION I;J-Siabilize Exposed Surfaces GI1lemove and Restore Temporary ESC Facilities Gtclean and Remove All Silt and Debris Ensure Operation of Permanent Facimies o Flag limits of SAO and open space preservation areas o Other _______ _ o Biofiltration BV"etpool Vadl o Media Rltration o Oil Control o Spill Control o Small Site BMPs o Other 111/05 KING COUNTY. WASHINGTON. SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET D,Drainage Easement ~ccess Easement o Native Growth Protection Covenant o Tract o Other in Place Vaun o Retaining Wall o Rockery > 4' High o Structural on Steep Slope o Other I, or a civil engineer under my supervision, have visrted the site. Actual site conditions as observed were incorporated into this worksheet and the attached Technical Information Report. To the best of my knowledge the information oro>vid·eII' -oro 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 111/05 5 1ap Output Page I of I i) King County lakes no representations or warranties. express hall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, or consequential damages incJuding. but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits resufting le use or misuse of the information contained on Ihis map. Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except by wriHen permission of King ttp://www5.metrokc.gov/servlet/com.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceName=overview&ClientVersion=4.0 ... 8/2/2006 lap Output Page 1 of 1 !> King County lakes no representations express or implied, as to accuracy. completeness. timeliness. hall not be liable for any general, special. indrrect. incidental, or consequential damages induding, but to. lost revenues or lost profits resulting le use or misuse of the infonnaliDn contained on this map. Any sale of lhis map or information on this map is prohibited except by written permission of King :ounty. ttp:lfwww5.metrokc.gov/servlet/com.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceName=overview&ClientVersion=4.0 ... 8/212006 Figure 4 SCS Soils Map 1" = 2,000' CoD D-E 98-4I;n804 Gutter 18" pipe Surface flow in poorly defined swale/ravine (assumed) Stream flow in well defined swale/ravine (assumed) FIGURES OFF-SITE ANALYSIS PRAINAGE SYSTEM TABLE SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL, CORE REQUIREMENT #2 ~ area the sheet flow leaving the project site & also about 230 If of Y, roadway measured from the additional portion Grant Ave from the S approximately 400 If Same as preceding plus any local surface flow from rainfall in the ravine footprint. This ravine has the entire vicinity of Grant Ave, Eagle Ridge Drive, S ISth St, & S to Puget Drive S as tributary area. 6 (assum ed) 12± 6± one apparent 1120'? -400' I None noted I Erosion of the ravine is possible 400' -1,900' None noted I is possible to W and the E margin of Grant Ave S. where it enters the existing public storm drainag street storm arama!!e system 18" CMP appears to discharge to the surface on the slope of the adjacent swale to the W. Due to heavy vegetation at th~ time of field investil!ation th(. I Black River lap Output Page I of I !) King County lakes no representations or ~~~~~~~~~~~tim~. ;eIiness~. . or rights 10 the use of such information. King han not be liable for any general, including, but no1limited to, lost revenues or lost profits resutting le use or misuse 01 the information contained on this map. on this map is prohibited except by written permission of King ;MAP ttp:llwww5.metrokc.gov/servletlcom.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceName=overview&ClientVersion=4.0 ... 8/212006 APPENDIX B CALCULATIONS KING COUN. " WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DES, uN MANUAL STORMW A TER FACILITY SUMMARY SHEET DDES Pennit Number _______ _ (provide one Stonnwater Facility Summary Sheet per Natural Discharge Location) Overview: Downstream Drainage Basins MajorBasinName '~/(#, lnunediate Basin Namei{ 1IEJ2 • Flow Control: Row Control Facility Name/Number _-"'t/.1UJ.-"14'U/-I-T _______ _ Facility Location~_A/.,-=,I1<lL/____,_,CO",_"re""'flfi!<,'a<="_o,,,,,__F___,r-=__,_,rl,__,£=_ __________ _ Ifnone, Row control provided in regional/shared facility (give location), ______________ _ No flow control required Exemption number ____________ _ General Facility Information: TypeJNumber of detention facilities: ___ ponds TypelNumbcr of infiltration facilities: ___ ponds -----1-vaults tanks tanks trenches Control Structure Location _-L"'I-!t",.{.uJ'---4c,.<A'\",I'?Nl=,-,<:=',-,K,-,"~~O"F"'---'£>l.L1L'lE-"="-________ _ Type of Control Structure _---'O""l?cwl-'Fi:::-<L<.C-'C:::_.=;"'--_____ Number of OrificesIRestrictions _-,z.~ __ _ H .O.'W~" :/ ') No. 2 _..Ll~. ~~~"------'( (P.f' Size of Orifice/Restriction: No.1 No.3 _____ _ No.4 _____ _ Row Control Perfonnance Standard L e vn 2.. Live Storage Volume ~ 3/ 7 (p 0 (',1 Depth __ 4-'-'.. O",,-_' __ Volume Factor of Safety _____ _ Number of Acres Served .),./ <j Number ufLots _~'oL/ _____ _ Dam Safety Regulations (Washington State Department of Erology) Reservoir Volume above natural grade ______ _ Depth of Reservoir above natural grade _____ _ Facility Summary Sheet Sketch All detention, infiltration and water quality facilities must include a detailed sketch. -se:E. S iJt::::]:!£} (II "xl?" reduced size plan sheets may be used) (12.2. 2005 Surface Water De,;gn Manual 1/1/05 1 KING COUNTY, WA _INGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MA,>lUAL Water Quality: TypeJNumber of water quality facilitiesIBMPs: bjofillration swa1e (regular/wet! or continuous inflow) ~ __ combined detentionlwetpond (wetpond portion basic or large) ~ combined detentionlwetvault ~ __ filter strip ~ __ flow dispersion ~ __ fann management plan ~~_ landscape management plan ____ oiVwater separator (baffle or coalescing plate) ~~_ sand filter (basic or large) ~ __ sand filter, linear (basic or large) ~ __ sand filter vault (basic or large) sand bed depth ___ (inches) stonnwater wetland ___ stonn fi]ter ___ wetpond (basic or large) wetvault ___ Is facility Lined? If so, what marker is used above Liner? ________ _ catch basin inserts: Manufacturer ___________________ _ ___ pre-settling pond ____ pre-settling structure: Manufacturer ____ high flow bypass structure (e_g., flow-splitter catch basin) sOuKecontrols _________________________ __ Design Information Water Quality design flow _____________ _ Water Quality treated volume (sandfilter) ______ _ Water Quality storage volume (wetpool) ..J~<Jr--::--7'-;jc":)'--",5<-7L--.-'--(+1 Facility Summary Sheet Sketch All detention, infiltration and water quality facilities must include a detailed sketch. ~ SHt:;E.r t"2. 2 (I I "xJ7" reduced size plan sheets may be used) 111/05 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 2 (8]~~~u [P)[l~~[E u(Q)W~~(Q)~[E~ " ,,-... /' ',jJ' V e. ,'~ .-; r""""",,-r f'I.H" ~ ;:t,.;" II,',M , ;, Y:' , ,;,;" 1«:" ,. t; •. ~. EXISTING (SF): SITE: ... '''~. 1£12" 1 IE .. (MO III FOREST: 93,101 (2.14 AC) \ ,,'~. .-....'\ . "-- 'i -I 1 I"~ Y '11'11"' + ~ ------,- FRONTAGE: FOREST: 5,468 (0.13 AC) ,I PROPOSED (SF): ::rr'E: BLDG: 31.657 (0.74 AC) DRI VEWA Y: 14,945 (0.34) PAVEMENT: 16,280 (0.37 AC) LANDSCAPE: 30,219 (0.69 AC) TOTAL 93,101 (2.14 AC) I / ! FRONTAGE (BY-PASS): PAVEMENT: 3,390 (0.08 AC) SIDEWALK: 1,205 (0.03 AC) LANDSCAPE: 873 (0.02 AC) TOTAL: 5,468 (0.13 AC) o I EB SCALE: 1" -80 tt. Grant place Townhomes Runoff calculations 7/10/06 Flow Frequency Analysis Time series File:exist.tsf project location:sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 0.143 2 2/09/01 18:00 0.039 7 1/06/02 3:00 0.106 4 2/28/03 3:00 0.004 8 3/24/04 21:00 0.063 6 1/05/05 8:00 0.110 3 1/18/06 20:00 0.093 5 11/24/06 4:00 0.183 1 1/09/08 9:00 (olllPuted peaks .---Annual peak Flow Rates--- Flow Rate Rank Time of peak (CFS) 0.413 0.341 0.496 0.374 0.449 0.439 0.544 0.831 computed Peaks 6 8 3 7 4 5 2 1 2/09/01 2:00 1/05/02 16:00 2/27/03 7:00 8/26/04 2:00 10/28/04 16:00 1/18/06 16:00 10/26/06 0:00 1/09/08 6:00 Flow Frequency Analysis Time series File:bypass.tsf project location:Sea-Tac ---Annual peak Flow Rates--- Flow Ra'te Rank Time of peak (CFS) 0.028 6 2/09/01 2:00 0.025 8 1/05/02 16:00 0.034 3 12/08/02 18:00 0.028 7 8/26/04 2:00 0.033 4 10/28/04 16:00 0.030 5 1/18/06 16:00 0.040 2 10/26/06 0:00 0.056 1 1/09/08 6:00 computed peaks sumpks.txt -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- --Peaks Rank Return prob (CFS) Period 0.183 1 100.00 0.990 0.143 2 25.00 0.960 0.110 3 10.00 0.900 0.106 4 5.00 0.800 0.093 5 3.00 0.667 0.063 6 2.00 0.500 0.039 7 1.30 0.231 0.004 8 1.10 0.091 0.170 50.00 0.980 -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- --Peaks Rank Return prob (CFS) Period 0.831 1 100.00 0.544 2 25.00 0.496 3 10.00 0.449 4 5.00 0.439 5 3.00 0.413 6 2.00 0.374 7 1.30 0.341 8 1.10 0.735 50.00 0.990 0.960 0.900 0.800 0.667 0.500 0.231 0.091 0.980 -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- --Peaks - -Rank Return prob (CFS) period 0.056 1 100.00 0.990 0.040 2 25.00 0.960 0.034 3 10.00 0.900 0.033 4 5.00 0.800 0.030 5 3.00 0.667 0.028 6 2.00 0.500 0.028 7 1. 30 0.231 0.025 8 1.10 0.091 0.051 50.00 0.980 Level 2 Deten'tion pond (5' deep) interv. size = 0.170-(0.063*0.5)/36-1 = 0.004 1st interv = 0.063*0.5 = 0.03 orif 2 ht = 3/4'5 =3.750 Qmax = 4/3*(0.03)-0.028 = 0.012 page 1 ".t.vJDFF CAt._U .. <.t-I~T1~_ OI.t.Tpv-r Fa t'.. ~ 1It-..\ Sf"l;It--/t; vault.exc KCRTS program ... File Directory: C:\K~SWDM\K~DATA\ [c] CREATE a new Time series ST 2.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 exist.tsf T 1.00000 T 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 Ti 11 Forest Till Pasture Ti 11 Grass outwash Forest Outwash Pasture Outwash Grass wetland Impervious [T] Enter the Analysis TOOLS Module [p] compute PEAKS and Flow Frequencies exist.tsf exist.pks [R] RETURN to previous Menu [cl CREATE a new Time Series ST dev.tsf T 0.00 0.00 0.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.45 1.00000 T 0.0Il 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000000 Till Forest 0.000000 Till pasture 0.000000 Till Grass o~oooooo outwash Forest 0.000000 outwash Pasture 0.000000 outwash Grass 0.000000 wetland 0.000000 Impervious !T] Enter the Analysis TOOLS Module p] compute PEAKS and Flow Frequencies ev.tsf dev.pks [R] RETURN to previous Menu [C] CREATE a new Time series ST 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 bypass. tsf T 1.00000 T 0.00 0.00 0.00 ·0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000000 Till Forest 0.000000 Till Pasture 0.000000 Till Grass 0.000000 outwash Forest 0.000000 outwash pasture 0.000000 Outwash Grass 0.000000 wetland 0.000000 Impervious [Tj Enter the Analysis TOOLS Module [p compute PEAKS and Flow Frequencies bypass.tsf bYfss.PkS [R RETURN to previous Menu [x eXlt KCRTS program page 1 f \..-V-N OVF L.Ai.. C{..lLA1l0"'S \tJPLlT fblZ ~TZOu Srl..lt\..kf sum15pks.txt: Grants pl ace IS-minute Timestep Runoff Conveyance calculations 7/10/06 f,~,\.L·..jOFF CALUJLA.-l1 O~£ Oo-rPvr ~O R. GDoJl/~Arvc£ I E. c... Flow Frequency Analysis Time series File:dev15.tsf Project Location:sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- Flow Rate Rank Tille of Peak (CFS) 0.691 6 8/27/01 18:00 0.484 8 1/05/02 15: 00 1.46 2 12/08/02 17:15 0.556 7 8/23/04 14:30 0.807 5 11/17/04 5: 00 0.818 4 10/27/05 10:45 0.960 3 10/25/06 22 :45 2.06 1 1/09/08 6:30 Computed Peaks Flow Frequency Analysis Time series File:bypass15."tsf projec"t location:sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rate Rank (CFS) 0.052 0.037 0.104 0.042 0.057 0.060 0.072 0.140 computed Peaks sediment Trap SA = 2,OBOxQ2 6 8 2 7 5 4 3 1 = 2.080xO.691 SA = 1.438sf Flow Rates--- Time of peak 8/27/01 18 00 9/17/02 17 45 12/08/02 17 IS 8/23/04 14 30 10/28/04 16 00 10/27/05 10 45 10/25/06 22 45 1/09/08 6 30 -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- --Peaks --Rank Return prob (CFS) Period 2,06 1 100.00 0.990 1.46 2 25.00 0.960 0.960 3 10.00 0.900 0.818 4 5.00 0.800 0.807 5 3.00 0.667 0,691 6 2.00 0.500 0,556 7 1.30 0.231 0.484 8 1.10 0.091 1.86 50.00 0.980 -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- --peaks --Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period 0.140 1 100.00 0.990 0.104 2 25.00 0.960 0,072 3 10.00 0.900 0,060 4 5.00 0.800 0.057 5 3.00 0.667 0.052 6 2.00 0.500 0.042 7 1. 30 0.231 0.037 8 1.10 0.091 0.128 50.00 0.980 page 1 oEv15.exc KCRTS program ... File Directory: C;\KC-SWDM\KC-DATA\ [c] CREATE a new Time series ST 0.00 0.00 0.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.45 dev15.~sf T 1.00000 F 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 Till Forest Till Pasture Till Grass outwash ForeSt outwash pasture outwash Grass wetland Impervious [Tj Enter ~he Analysis TOOLS MOdule [p compute PEAKS and Flow Frequencies dev15.~sf dev15.pks [Rj RETURN to previous Me~u [c CREATE a new Tlme Serles ST 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 bypass15. ~sf T 1.00000 F 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000000 Till Forest 0.000000 Till Pasture 0.000000 Till Grass 0.000000 outwash Forest 0.000000 Outwash Pasture 0.000000 Outwash Grass 0.000000 wetland 0.000000 Impervious [Tl Enter the Analysis TOOLS Module [p] compute PEAKS and Flow Frequencies bypass15.tsf by~aSs15.PkS [R RETURN to Previous Menu [x exit KCRTS program page 1 Q",.j~P CALCULAllul-J~ \Nc?l.rr fOR U0.!01ArJU:-/ e.. L Grant Place Townhomes Retention/Detention Facility Type of Facility: Facility Length: Facility Width: Facility Area: Effective Storage Depth: Stage a Elevation: Storage Volume: Riser Head: Detention Vault 55.00 ft 48.00 ft 2640. sq. 9.00 ft 0.00 ft 23760. cu. 9.00 it ft ft Riser Diameter: 12.00 inches Number of orifices: 2 Full Head Pipe Orifice I Height (ft) 0.00 G.50 Diameter Discharge Diameter 1 2 Top Notch Weir: Outflow Rating Curve: (in) 0.86 1. 35 None None reFS) (in) 0.060 0,078 4.0 Stage Elevation Storage Discharge (ft) (ft) (cu. ft) (ac-ft) (cfs) 0.00 0.00 O. 0.000 0.000 0.01 0.01 2G. 0.001 0.002 0.02 0.02 53. 0.001 0.003 0.03 0.03 79. 0.002 0.003 0.04 0.04 lOG. 0.002 0.004 0.05 0.05 132. 0.003 0.005 0.06 0.06 158. 0.004 0.005 0.07 0.07 185. 0.004 0.005 0.22 0.22 581. 0.013 0.009 0.38 0.38 1003. 0.023 0.012 0.53 0.53 1399. 0.032 0.015 0.68 0.68 1795. 0.041 0.017 0.83 0.B3 2191. 0.050 0.018 0.99 0.99 2614 . 0.060 0.020 1.14 1.14 3010. 0.069 0.021 1.29 1.29 3406. 0.078 0.023 1.44 1.44 3802. 0.087 0.024 1.60 1. 60 4224. 0.097 0.025 1. 75 1. 75 4620. 0.106 0.027 1. 90 1.90 5016. 0.115 0.028 2.05 2.05 5412. 0.124 0.029 2.21 2.21 5834. 0.134 0.030 2.36 2.36 6230. 0.143 0.031 2.51 2.51 6626. 0.152 0.032 2.66 2.66 7022. 0.161 0.033 2.B2 2.82 7445. 0.171 0.034 2.97 2.97 7841. O.lBO 0.035 3.12 3.12 8237. 0.189 0.035 3.2B 3.28 8659. 0.199 0.036 3.43 3.43 9055. 0.208 0.037 3.58 3.58 9451. 0.217 0.038 3.73 3.73 9847. 0.226 0.039 3.89 3.89 10270. 0.236 0.040 4.04 4.04 10666. 0.245 0.040 4.19 4.19 11062. 0.254 0.041 4.34 4.34 11458. 0.263 0.042 4.50 4.50 11880. 0.273 0.043 4.65 4.65 12276. 0.282 0.043 4.80 4.80 12672 . 0.291 0.044 4.95 4.95 1306B. 0.300 0.045 5.11 5.11 13490. 0.310 0.045 5.26 5.26 13886. 0.319 0.046 5.41 5.41 14282. 0.328 0.047 5.56 5.56 14678. 0.337 0.047 5.72 5.72 15101. 0.347 0.048 5.87 5.87 15497. 0.356 0.049 percolation (cfs) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 I)s:T£Nll O~ $,1'2;..1 tJC; .DVT{)i/I. , 6.02 6.02 15893. 0.365 0.049 0.00 6.17 6.17 16289. 0.374 0.050 0.00 6.3] 6.33 16711 . 0.384 0.050 0.00 6.48 6.48 11107. 0.393 0.051 0.00 6.50 6.50 17160. 0.394 0.051 0.00 6.51 6.51 17186. 0.395 0.052 0.00 6.53 6.53 17239. 0.396 0.053 0.00 6.5. 6.54 17266. 0.396 0.055 0.00 6.56 6.56 17318. 0.398 0.057 0.00 6.57 6.57 17345. 0.398 0.061 0.00 6.56 6.56 17371. 0.]99 0.06S 0.00 6.60 6.60 1742 •. 0.400 0.067 0.00 6.61 6.61 17450. 0.401 0.068 0.00 6.63 6.63 17503. 0.402 0.069 0.00 6.18 6.78 17899. 0.411 0.078 0.00 6.93 6.93 16295. 0.420 0.08S 0.00 7.08 7.06 1869l. 0.429 0.091 0.00 7.24 7.24 19114. 0.439 0.096 0.00 7.39 7.39 19510. 0.448 0.101 0.00 7.54 7.54 19906. 0.457 0.106 0.00 7.69 7.69 20302. 0.466 0.110 0.00 7.65 7.85 20724. 0.476 0.114 0.00 8.00 6.00 21120. O.48S 0.117 0.00 B.1S 6.15 21516. 0.494 0.121 0.00 8.30 8.30 21912. 0.503 0.124 0.00 8. '6 B .• 6 22334. 0.513 0.127 0.00 6.61 B.61 22730. 0.522 0.131 0.00 8.76 8.76 23126. 0.531 0.134 0.00 6.91 B.91 23522. 0.540 0_137 0.00 9.00 9.00 23760. 0.545 0.138 0.00 9.10 9.10 2.02 •. 0.552 0.448 0.00 9.20 9.20 24288. 0.556 1.010 0.00 9.30 9.30 24552. 0.564 1.740 0.00 9.40 9.40 24616. 0.570 2.540 0.00 9.50 9.50 25080. 0.576 2.820 0.00 9.60 9.60 253.4. 0.582 3.080 0.00 9.70 9.70 25608. 0.588 3.320 0.00 9.80 9.60 25872. 0.59' 3.540 0.00 9.90 9.90 26136. 0.600 3.740 0.00 10.00 10.00 26.00. 0.606 3.940 0.00 10.10 10.10 26664.. 0.612 4.120 0.00 10.20 10.20 26926. 0.618 4.300 0.00 10.30 10.]0 27192 . 0.624 4. 470 0.00 10.40 10.'0 27456. 0.630 4.640 0.00 10.50 10.50 27720. 0.636 4.800 0.00 10.60 10.60 27984. 0.6'2 4.950 0.00 10.70 10.70 28248. 0.6'8 5.100 0.00 10.80 10.80 28512. 0.655 5.240 0.00 Hyd Inf.low OUtflow Peak Storage Stage Elev (CU-Ft) (Ac-Ft) 1 0.63 0.49 9.11 9.11 24044 . 0.552 2 0.41 0.13 8.74 8.74 23068. 0.530 3 0.42 0.11 7.65 7.65 20186. 0.463 • 0.44 0.07 6.70 6.70 17700. 0.406 5 0.50 0.09 7.07 7.07 18667. 0.429 6 0.26 0.05 5.02 5.02 13255. 0.304 7 0.37 0.04 3.24 ].24 8557. 0.196 8 0.34 0.04 3.9' 3.94 10410. 0.239 Hyd RID Facility Tributary Reservoir POC Outflow Outflow Inflow Inflow Target Calc 1 0.49 0.06 '*'****'*** 0.34 0.51 2 0.13 0.03 ******** ******* 0.15 3 0.11 0.03 ******** *"' ... **** 0.12 • 0.07 0.03 ******** ******. 0.08 5 0.09 0.03 **.* •••• **.**** 0.10 6 0.05 0.02 ******** ******* 0.06 7 0.04 0.03 •• ****** * ... ***+* 0.06 8 0.04 0.02 ******** ,. ... * ......... * 0.05 Route Time Series through Facility Inflow Time Series File:dev.tsf Outflow Time Series File:rdout POC Time Series File:dsout Inflow/OUtflow Analysis Peak Inflow Discharge: Peak OUtflow Discharge: Peak Reservoir Stage: 0.831 CFS at 6;00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 0.491 CFS at 10:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 9.11 Ft Peak Reservoir Elev: 9.11 Ft Peak Reservoir Storage: 24044. Cu~Ft 0.552 Ac-Ft Add Time Series:bypass.tsf Peak Summed Discharge: 0.511 CFS at 10:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Point of Compliance File:dsout.tsf Flow Duration from Time Series File:rdout.tsf Cutoff count Frequency cnF Exceedence Probabil1ty crs % % % 0.002 35769 58.332 58.332 41.668 0.006 4878 7.955 66.267 33.713 0.009 4333 7.066 73.353 26.647 0.013 3714 6.057 79.410 20.590 0.017 2790 4.550 83.960 16.040 0.021 3487 5.687 89.646 10.354 0.024 1985 3.237 92.883 7.117 0.028 1189 1.939 94.822 5.178 0.032 995 1.623 96.445 3.555 0.036 760 1.239 97.684 2.316 0.039 462 0.753 96.438 1.562 0.043 431 0.103 99.141 0.859 0.047 231 0.317 99.511 0.483 0.050 155 0.253 99.710 0.230 0.054 0.058 0.062 0.065 0.069 0.073 0.077 0.060 0.064 0.088 0.092 0.095 0.099 0.103 0.106 0.110 0.114 0.118 0.121 0.125 0.129 0.133 31 12 o 3 6 10 8 7 4 6 6 6 7 6 7 5 2 2 2 3 3 3 0.051 0.020 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.016 0.013 0.011 0.007 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.011 0.010 0.011 0.006 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.005 0.005 0.005 99.821 99.840 99.840 99.845 99.655 99.871 99.664 99.696 99.902 99.912 99.922 99.932 99.943 99.953 99.964 99.972 99.976 99.979 99.962 99.987 99.992 99.997 0.179 0.160 0.160 0.155 0.145 0.129 0.116 0.104 0.098 0.OB8 0.078 0.068 0.057 0.047 0.036 0.028 0.024 0.021 0.016 0.013 0.008 0.003 Flow Duration from Time Series File:dsout.tsf Cutoff Count Frequency CDF Exceedence CFS %, % 0.002 35630 58.431 58.431 41.569 0.006 4925 8.0]2 66.463 33.537 0.010 4639 7.565 14.028 25.972 0.014 3506 5.718 79.746 20.254 0.018 3340 5.447 85.192 14.808 0.022 2921 4.764 89.956 10.044 0.027 1893 3.087 93.043 6.957 0.031 1297 2.115 95.158 4.842 0.035 891 1.453 96.611 3.389 0.039 712 1.161 97.772 2.228 0.417E+00 0.337E+00 0.266E+00 0.206E+00 0.160E+OO 0.104E+00 0.712E-Ol 0.518E-01 0.356E-Ol O.232E~Ol 0.156E-01 0.859&-02 O.483E~02 0.230E-02 O.179E~02 O.160E-02 0.160E-02 O.155E~02 0.145E-02 O.129E~02 0.116E-02 0.104E~02 0.978E~03 0.881E-03 0.783&-03 0.685E~03 O.571E-03 0.473&-03 0.359E~03 0.277&-03 O.245E-03 O.212E~03 o . 179B-03 O. 130E~03 O.815E~04 0.326E-04 probability 0.416E+00 0.335E+00 0.260E+00 0.203&+00 0.148E+OO O.100E+OO O.696B-01 0.484&-01 O.339E~OI 0.223E-01 0.043 484 0.789 98.562 1.138 0.144E-01 0.047 386 0.629 99.191 0.809 0.809E-02 0.051 242 0.395 99.586 0.414 0.414E-02 0.055 75 0.122 99.708 0.292 0.292E-02 0.059 32 0.052 99.760 0.240 0.240E-02 0.063 17 0.028 99.788 0.212 0.212E-02 0.067 21 0.034 99.822 0.178 0.178E-02 0.071 15 0.024 99.847 0.153 o .153E-02 0.075 12 0.020 99.866 0.134 o . 134E-02 0.080 11 0.018 99.884 0.116 o . 116E-02 0.084 6 0.010 99.894 0.106 0.106E-02 0.088 5 0.008 99.902 0.098 0.978E-03 0.092 6 0.010 99.912 0.088 0.aa1E-03 0.096 6 0.010 99.922 0.078 0.783E-03 0.100 6 0.010 99.932 0.068 0.685E-03 0.104 6 0.010 99.941 0.059 0.587E-03 0.10a 6 0.010 99.951 0.049 0.489E-03 0.112 6 0.010 99.961 0.039 0.391E-03 0.116 6 0.010 99.971 0.029 0.294E-03 0.120 4 0.007 99.977 0.023 0.228E-03 0.124 1 0.002 99.979 0.021 0.212E-03 0.128 2 0.003 99.982 0.018 0.179E-03 0.133 3 0.005 99.987 0.013 0.130E-03 0.137 2 0.003 99.990 0.010 0.978E-04 0.141 4 0.007 99.997 0.003 0.326E-04 0.145 1 0.002 99.998 0.002 0.163E-04 Duration Comparison Anaylsis Base File: exist.tsf New File: dsout.tsf Cutoff Units: Discharge in CFS -----Fraction of Time--------------Check of Tolerance------- Cutoff Base New %Change probability 0.031 0.48E-01 0.48E-Ol 0.0 I 0.48E-01 0.040 0.2lE-01 0.21E-01 0.0 I 0.21E-01 0.048 0.67E-02 0.67E-02 0.0 I 0.67E-02 0.057 0.27E-02 0.27E-02 0.0 I 0.27E-02 0.066 0.19E-02· 0.19E-02 0.0 I 0.19E-02 0.074 0.14E-02 0.14E-02 0.0 I o .14E-02 0.OB3 0.l1E-02 o . 11E-02 0.0 I 0.11E-02 0.092 0.B8E-03 0.86E-03 0.0 I 0.88E-03 0.101 0.67E-03 0.67E-03 0.0 I 0.67£-03 0.109 0.46E-03 0.46E-03 0.0 I O.46E:-03 0.118 0.28E-03 0.26E-03 0.0 I 0.28E-03 0.127 0.20E-03 0.20E-03 0.0 I 0.20E-03 0.135 0.l1E-03 o . 11E-03 0.0 I O.l1E~03 Maximum positive excursion = 0.004 ds I 2.9%) occurring at 0.140 cfs on the Base Data:exist.tsf and at 0.144 cfs on the New Data:dsout.tsf Maximum negative excursion = 0.000 cfs ( O.O%) occurring at 0.031 cfs on the Base Data:exist.tsf and at 0.031 cfs on the New Data:dsout.tsf Base New %Change 0.031 0.031 0.0 0.040 0.040 0.0 0.048 0.048 0.0 0.057 0.057 0.0 0.066 0.066 0.0 0.074 0.074 0.0 0.083 0.084 0.7 0.092 0.092 0.6 0.101 0.101 0.3 0.109 0.110 0.2 0.118 0.11B 0.0 0.127 0.127 0.0 0.135 0.136 0.6 ....... en LL () ~ Q) 01 ..... (lI .c 0 .!!! 0 0 ..-- 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 00 ____ _ ~ ~+-------------o o o o 0 rdout.dur' dsout.dur + target.dur, 111111111 1111I1111 111111111 111111111 111111111 10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 10° Probability Exceedence Treatment Pond Sizing Routine Project: Grant Place T ownhomes Treatment Vauft Date: 7/1112006 Blue represents manual entry fields Red represents calculated IlekIs Step 1: Wetpool volume facto. (f) ••• either 3 0' 4.5 f= 3 Step 2: Mean annual rainfall (R) .•. from Fig. 6.4.1.A, pg 6-69 R= 0.47 in Step 3: Runoff (V.) .•• Vr=(O.9A1+0.25Atg+O.1 OAtf+O.OtAo)xRlt2 Ai= Atg= All = Ao= Vr= 62,882 sf 30,219 sf o sf o sf 2.5t2 cf Step 4: Wetpool volume (Vb) ... Vb--fV. Vb= 7,537 cf Step 5: Welpool dImensions ... Vb=h(A1+A21/2 Solve by trial & error Al= 2,642 sf l= 30ft 3l= 89 It h= 4ft S= 0.0001 It A2= 2,642 sf "'Vb= 10,568 cf 'if Vb calculated in Step 5 < Vb from Step 4, then increase h Cell 1 must contain 25% -35% of total wetpool volume Cellt required volume between 2,642 and Cell 1 At = l= 3l= h= S= A2= V= 700 sf 15 It 46 It 4ft O.OOOt ft 700 sf 2,800 cf Cell 2 At = l= 3l= h= S= A2= V= 3,699 cf 1,942 sf 25 It 76 ft 3ft 0.0001 ft 1,942 sf 5,826 cf 'Vb = Note that loW ratio is > 5:t so cell divisions not calculated. Culvert connections will function as berm separation. Dra;nage Cales.xIs (T-Pond) 8f71"lOO6 8,826 cf Grant place Townhomes 8/8/06 pi pe. 'tXt KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Water and Land Resources Division BACKWATER ANALYSIS PROGRAM version S. 30h File opened for Reading:pipe.bwp File Opened for writing,pipe.doc BACKWATER COMPUTER PROGRAM FOR PIPES pipe data from file:pipe.bwp surcharge condition at: intenmediate junctions Tailwater Elevation:302.74 feet oischarge Range:1. to 5. Step of 1. [cfs] overflow Elevation:347.33 feet wei r:NONE upstream velocity:1. feet/sec 1'" I PI£. LO.-j V6YtvJ CC ~1-:z..11\.l 4 PIPE NO.1: 19 LF -12"cP III 7.95% OUTLET: 301.00 INLET: 302.51 INTYP, 5 JUNC NO.1: OVERFLOW-EL: 305.61 BEND: 90 DEG orA/WIDTH: 2.5 Q-RATIO: 2.00 Q(CFS) HW(FT) HW ElEV. * N-FAC DC DN TW DO DE HWO HWI ******************************************************************************* 1.00 0.57 303.08 • 0.012 0.43 0.21 1. 74 1.74 0.43 ***** 0.57 2.00 0.95 303.46 • 0.012 0.61 0.30 1. 74 1.74 0.61 ***** 0.95 3.00 1. 35 303.86 • 0.012 0.75 0.36 1. 74 1.74 0.75 ***** 1.35 4.00 1.92 304.43 * 0.012 0.85 0.42 1. 74 1.74 0.85 ***** 1.92 5.00 2.65 305.16 • 0.012 0.92 0.48 1. 74 1.74 0.92 ***** 2.65 PIPE NO. 2: 245 LF -8"cp @ 7.95% OlfTLET: 302.61 INLET: 322.08 INTYP: 5 JUNC NO. 2: OVERFLOW-El: 325.18 BEND: o DEG DIA/wIDrn: 2.5 Q-RATIO: 1.00 Q(CFS) HW(FT) HW ELEV. * N-FAC DC ON TW DO DE HWO HWI ******************************************************************************* O.H 0.35 322.43 • 0.012 0.27 0.14 0.47 0.47 0.27 ***** 0.35 0.67 0.55 322.63 • 0.012 0.39 0.20 0.85 0.85 0.39 ***** 0.55 1.00 0.73 322.81 • 0.012 0.48 0.24 1.25 1.25 0.48 ***** 0.73 1.33 0.98 323.06 • 0.012 0.55 0.28 1.82 1.82 0.55 ***** 0.98 1.67 1.29 323.37 • 0.012 0.60 0.32 2.55 2.55 0.60 ***** 1.29 PIPE NO.3: 250 LF -8"cP @ 8.86% OUTLET: 322.18 INLET: 344.33 INTYP: 5 Q(CFS) HW(FT) HW ELEV. * N-FAC DC ON TW DO DE HWO HWI ******************************************************************************* 0.17 0.21 344.54 • 0.012 0.19 0.10 0.25 0.25 0.33 0.33 344.66 • 0.012 0.27 0.14 0.45 0.45 0.50 0.44 344.77 • 0.012 0.34 0.17 0.63 0.63 0.67 0.53 344.86 • 0.012 0.39 0.19 0.88 0.88 0.83 0.63 344.96 • 0.012 0.44 0.21 1.19 1.19 File opened for Writing:pipe.bwt Save results to HW/TW file:pipe.bwt: Exit KCBW program KING COU~ DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Water and Land Resources Division BACKWATER ANALYSIS PRC:X;RAM versi on 5. 30h page 1 0.19 ***** 0.21 0.27 ***** 0.33 0.34 ***** 0.44 0.39 ***** 0.53 0.44 ***** 0.63 BWPIPE INPUT DATA Project: Grant Place Townhomes Date: 8/8/2006 pipe. CONVEYANCE PIPING TO DETENTION 4 = 25-yr flow for site 4.7 = 100-yr flow for site 302.74 = tailwater elev. (25-yrWS in vaUlt) CB # L (ft) DIA (in) TYPE RIM/OF EL BND ANG STR DIA (ft) 1 19 8 1 305.61 90 2.5 2 ~5 8 1 325.18 0 2.5 3 250 8 1 Drainage Calcs.xls BWPIPE 8/812006 347.33 OUTLET-IE INLET-IE INLET-TYPE Q-RAT 301 302.51 5 2 302.61 322.08 5 1 322.18 344.33 5 Rational Method Project: Date: Grant Place Townhomes 618/2006 Calculates the peak runoff 1) Compute Composite Runoff Coefficient Cc: A, A2 A3 ~,Cc A 0.74 0.71 0.69 i (tributary areas, acres) L 100 50 (length along flowpath, It) So 0.02 0.03 0.03 (slope along flowpath, ftllt) k, 20 20 7 (from Table 3.2.1.C -pg 3-13) C 0.9 0.9 0.2siiiiiiiiiilJiiHfromTable3.2.1.A-pg3-13) 2) Compute Peak Rainfall Intensity IR: 2a) First, compute Travel Time T c: T time, min) (6.3 minimum) 2b) Second, compute unit peak rainfall intensity factor, iR = aR'TcA-bR: R = 100 (storm return frequency, years) aR= 2.61 (coefficientfromTable3.2.1.B-pg3-13) ~ = 0.63 (coefficient from Table 3.2.1.6 ---pg 3-13) it. = _ 2c) Third, compute IR = PR*I R: PR = 3.9 (precip~ation, in) IR= _ 3) Compute Peak Runoff Rate, OR = CIRA: OR= _CIS Drainage Cales.xIs Rational Melhod 8/8/2006 Rational Method Project: Date: Grant Place Townhomes 8/812006 Calculates the peak runoff 1) Compute Composite Runoff Coefficient Cc : A, A,Cc A L So k, C 0.02 20 0.03 20 2) Compute Peak Rainfall Intensity IR: 2a) First, compute Travel Time T c: T 0.03 7 lnO'UIalry areas, acres) (length along flowpath, It) (slope along flowpath, Wit) (from Table 3.2.1.C -pg 3-13) . (from Table 3.2.1.A --pg 3-13) (travel time, min) (6.3 minimum) 2b) Second, compute unit peak rainfall intensity factor, iR = aR*TcA-bR: R = 25 (storm retum frequency, years) aR = 2.66 (coefficient from Table 3.2.1.B ---pg 3-13) b R = 0.65 (coefficient from Table 3.2.1.B -pg 3-13) i R = _ 2c) Third, compute IR = PR *'R: PR = 3.4 (precipitation, in) 'R= _ 3) Compute Peak Runoff Rate, OR = C'RA: OR= _cfs Drainage Cales.xIs Rational Method 8/812006 . '- 3.2.1 RATlONALMETIlOD ·.f:t:f~,:~$~LIR~.l.·;~F~U~RfflCPEFFlC'ENTs""c,~vALu~il},~l~~~~~~;iAp~~;;··~ •• :j:;·: . General Land Covers Single Family Residential Areas' Land Cover C land Cover Density C Dense forest 0,10 0.20 DU/GA (1 unit per 5 ac.) 0.17 light forest 0.15 0.40 DU/GA (1 unit per 2.5 ac.) 0.20 Pasture 0.20 0.80 DU/GA (1 unit per 1.25 ac.) 0.27 lawns ~ 1.00 DU/GA 0.30 Playgrounds 0.30 1.50 DU/GA 0.33 Gravel areas 0,80 2.00 DU/GA 0.36 Pavement and roofs CThD 2.50 DU/GA 0.39 Open water (pond; lakes, 1.00 3.00 DU/GA 0.42 wellands) 3.50DU/GA 0.45 4.00DU/GA 0.48 4.50DU/GA 0.51 5.00DU/GA 0.54 5.50 DU/GA 0.57 6.00DU/GA 0.60 Based on average 2,500 square feet per lot of impervious coverage. For combinations of land covers listed above, an area-weighted ·Cc:x A," sum should be computed based on the equation Cc: xA, = (C,xA,j + (C2 XA2 ) + ... +(C.XA.), where A. = (A, + A2 + ... +A.), the total drainage basin area. ') .: Design Stonn Return Frequency 2 years 5 years 10 years 25 YElars 50 years 100 years Land Cover Category Forest with heavy ground litter and meadow Fallow or,minimum tillage cultivation .' Short grass pasture and lawns . Neally bare ground Grassed waterway Paved area (sheet flow) and shallow gutter flow aR bll 1,58 0.58 2.33 0.63 2.44 0.64 @D <@D 2.75 0.65 c@ ~ 2.5 4.7 CD 10.1 15.0 . 2005 Swface Walei' Design Manual 112412005 3-13 SECTION 3.2 RUNOFF COMPUTA 11 ,ND ANALYSIS MElllODS I FIGURE 3.2.I.C 2S-YEAR 24-HOUR ISOPLUVIALS WESTERN KING COUNTY 25-Year 24-Hour Precipitation in Inches 112412005 .. o 2 "Miles , , ; 200S Surface Water Design Manual 3-16 I -.--/" I FIGURE 3.2.I.D I DO-YEAR 24-HOUR ISOPLUVIALS WESTERN KING, COUNTY :_.,'.' ' :.:. ~-'-.' -.. 1 OO-Y~r 24-Hour Precipitation in Inches 200>~ WalefDcsigp Manual 0 . N * 2 4 Mdes . . 3·17 3.2.1 RAllONALMETIlOD I 112412005 COMMITMEl\i FOR TIILE INSURANCE CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY CHICAGO TIILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Missouri corporation, herein called the Company, for a valuable consideration, hereby commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance, as identified in Schedule A, in favor of the proposed Insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagee of the estate or interest covered hereby in the land described or referred to in Schedule A, upon payment of the premiums and charges therefore; all subject to the provisions of Schedules A and B and to the Exclusions from Coverage (appearing herein) and to the Conditions and Stipulations hereof. This Commitment shal1 be effective only when the identity of the proposed Insured and the amount of the policy or policies committed for have been inserted in Schedule A hereof by the Company, either at the time of the issuance of this Commitment or by subsequent endorsement. This Commitment is preliminary to the issuance of such policy or policies of title insurance and all liability and obligations hereunder shall cease and terminate six months after the effective date hereof or wben the policy or policies committed for shall issue, whichever first occurs, provided that the failure to issue such policy or policies is not the fanlt of the Company. In Witness Whereof, CHICAGO TIILE INSURANCE COMPANY has caused this commitment to be signed and sealed as of the date of policy shown in Schednle A, the policy to become valid when countersigned by an authorized signatory. Issued by: CHICAGO TIILE INSURANCE COMPANY 10500 NE 8TH, #600 BELLEVUE, W A 98004 (425) 646-9880 CHICAGO TIILE INSURANCE COMPANY BY: ~j~'L President ~C/JI ;V~ENT pLANNING oE'C\ffOF RENTON FEB -82007 ECElVED CMJACKTlfRDAlO3OO CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS 1. The teIm ~mortgage," when used herein. shall include deed of trust. ttust deed or Other security instrument. 2. If the proposed Insured has or acquires actual knowledge of an)' defect, lien, encumbrance. adverse claim or other matter affecting the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment other than those shown in Schedule B hereof. and sbaJ1 fail to disclose such knowledge to the Company in writing, the Company shall be relieved from liability for any loss or damage reswting from any act of reliance hereon to the extent the Company is prejudiced by failure to so disclose such knowledge. If the proposed Insured shall disclose such knowledge to the Company, or if the Company otherwise acquires actual knowledge of any such defect. lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter, the Company at its option may amend Schedule B of this Commitment accordingly. but such amendment shall DOt relieve the Company from liability previously incurred pursuant to paragraph 3 of these Conditions and Stipulations. 3. Liability of the Company under this Commitment shall be only to the named proposed Insured and such parties included under the definition of Insured in the fonn of policy or policies committed for and only for actual lass incurred in reliance hereon in undertaking in good faith (a) to comply with the requirmJents hereof, or (b) to elimimate exceptions shown in Schedule B, or (c) to acquire or create the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. In no event shall such liability exceed the amount stated in Schedule A for the policy or policies committed for and such liability is subject to the insuring provisiom, the Conditions and Stipulations, and Exclusions from Coverage of the fonn of policy or policies committed for in favor of the proposed Insured where are hereby incorporated by reference and are made a part of this Commitment except as expressly modified herein. 4, Any action or actiom or rights of action that the proposed Insured may have or may bring against the Company arising out of status of the title to the estate or interest or the status of the mortgage thereon covered b}' this Commitment must be based on and are subject to the provisions of this Commitment. EXCLUSIONS NOTE: THE FORM OF POllCY COMMITI'ED FOR MAYBE EXAMINED BY REFERENCE TO FORMS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE INSURANCE COMMISSIONER ORBY INQUIRY AT THE OFFICE WmCH ISSUED THIS COMMITMENT. The Exclusions from coverage referred to in Pamgraph 3 of the Conditions and Stipulations are as foUows: ALTAOWNER'SPOllCYFORM 10-17-92 The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees or expenses which arise by reason of: I. (8) Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limited to building and zoning laws. ordinances, or regulations) restricting. regulating, prohibiting aT relating to (i) the occupancy, use., or enjoyment of the land; (li) the character, dimensions or location of any improvement now or hereafter erected on the land; (iii) a separation in ownership or a change in the dimensions or area of the land or any parcel of which the land is or was a part; or (iv) environmental protection, or the effect of any violation of these laws. ordinances or governmental regulations, except to the extent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or 8 notice of a defcct.lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy . (b) Any governmental police power not excluded b} (a) above. except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. 2, Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but not excluding from coverage any taking which has occun-ed prior to Date of Policy which would be binding on the rights of a purchaser for value without knowledge. 3, Defects. liens. encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters: (a) created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant; (b) not known to the Company, not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. but known to the insured claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the insured claimant prior to the date the insured claimant became an insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy; or (e) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the insured claimant bad paid value for the estate or interest insured by this policy. CMJACKT2IRDAI03OO 4. Any claim, which arises out of the transaction vesting in the Insured the estate or interest insured by this policy, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency. or similar creditors' rights laws. that is based on: (i) the transaction creating the estate or interest insured by this policy being deemed a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer; or (n) the transaction creating the estate or interest insured by this policy being deemed a preferential transfer except where the preferential transfer results: from the failure: (a) to timely record the instrument of transfer; or (b) of such recordation to impart notice to a purchaser for value or a judgment or lien creditor. ALTA LOAN POLICY FORM 10-17-92 The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs. attorneys' fees or expenses whicb arise· by reason of: 1. (a) Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limited to building and zoning laws, ordinances, or regulations) restricting, regulating, prohibiting or relating to (i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the land; (ii) the character, dimensions or location of any improvement now or hereafter erected on the land; (iii) 8 separation in ownership or a change in the dimensions or area of the land or any parcel of which the land is or was a part; or (tv) environmental protection, or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances or governmental regulations, except to the extent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice of a defect. lien or encumbrance resulting from 8 violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. (b) Any governmental police power not excluded by (a) above. except to the extent that 8 notice of the exercise thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. 2. Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but not excluding from coverage any taking which has occurred prior to Date of Policy which would be binding on the rights of a purchaser for value without knowledge_ 3. Defects, liens, encumbrances. adverse claims or other matters: (8) created. suffered. assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant; (b) not known to the Company. not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. but known to the insured claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the insured claimant prior to the date the insured claimant became an insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Polic)' (except to the extent that this policy insures the priority of the lien of the insured mortgage over any statutory lien for services.. labor. or material); or (e) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the insured claimant had paid value for the insured mortgage. 4. Unenforceability of the lien of the insured mortage because of the inability or failure of tile insured at Date of Policy. or the inability or failure of any subsequent owner of the indebtedness, to comply with applicable doing business laws of the state in which the land is situated. 5. Invalidity or unenforceability of the lien of the insured mortgage, or claim thereof. which arises out of the transaction evidenced by the insured mortgage and is based upon usury or any consumer credit protection or truth in lending law. 6. Any statutory lien for services., labor or materials (or the claim or priority of any statutory lien for services,labor or materials over the lien of the insured mortgage) arising from an improvement or work related to the land which is contracted for and commenced subsequent to Date of Policy and is not financed in whole or in part by proceeds of the indebtedness secured by the insured mongage which at Date of Policy the insured has advanced or is obligated to advance. 7_ Any claim, which arises out of the transaction creating the interest of the mortgagee insured by this policy. by reasOD of the operation of federal bankruptcy. state insolvency, or similarcred.itors' rights laws, that is based on: (0 the transaction creating the interest of the insured mortgagee being deemed a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer; or (ii) the subordination of the interest of the insured mortgagee as a.result of the application of the doctrine of equitable subordination; or (iii) the transaction creating the interest of the insured mortgagee being deemed a preferential transfer except where the preferential transfer results from the failure: (a) to timely .record the instrument of transfer, or (b) of such recordation to impart notice to a purchaser for value or a judgment or lien creditor_ OPJACKTCIRDAl0300 CHI~n.GO TITLE INSURANCE C01V.lr ANY 10500 NE 8TH, #600, BELLEVUE, WA 98004 A.L.TA COMMITMENT SCHEDULE A FOURTH COMMITMENT Order No,: 1150640 Title Unit: EIU Customer Number: TRIDOR INC. TRIOOR, INC. Phone: (425)646-9883 Buyer(s): Fax: (425)646-9879 Officer: EASTSIDE TITLE UNIT Commitment Effective Date: OCTOBER 4, 2006 at 8:00 A,M, 1 • Policy or Policies to be issued: PREMIUM APPUCABLE BE1WEEN $800,001.00 -$820,000.00 Amount: 1820,000.00 ALTA Owner's Policy 1992 STANDARD 70% RESIDENTIAL RESALE RATE Premium: S 1,491.00 Tax: 1 131.21 Proposed Insured: TRI DOR, INC., A WASH I NGTDN CORPORAT I ON Policy or Policies to be issued: ALTA Loan Policy Proposed Insured: Policy or Policies to be issued: ALTA Loan Policy Proposed Insured: Amount: • 0.00 Premium: Tax: Amount: 10.00 Premium: Tax: 2. The estate or interest in the land which is covered by this Commitment is: FEE SIMPLE 3. Title to the estate or interest in the land is at the effective date hereof vested in: SARAH E. MCDONALD, WHO ACQUIRED TITLE AS SARAH E. HILL, AS HER SEPARATE ESTATE 4. The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT COMMAIKlSIKLCIII.LOS _. CHICAGO TIlLE INSURANCE C;OMPANY A.L.T.A. COMMITMENT SCHEDULE A (Continued) Order No.: 1150640 Your No.: TRIDOR INC. LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT (paragraph 4 of Schedule A continuation) PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 20, TOIIIISHIP 23 NDRTH, RANGE 5 EAST, WILLAIIETTE IIERIDIAN, IN KINO COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; BEGINNING ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION AT A POINT WHICH IS SOUTH 00'08' 49' WEST 475.79 FEET FROM THE NORTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE NORTH 00'08'49' EAST 158.00 FEET; THENCE WEST PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION 654.50 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 26 0 18'57' EAST TO THE INTERSECTION WITH A LINE EXTENDING WESTERLY THROUGH THE SAID POINT OF BEGINNING AND PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE EAST ALONG SAID EXTENDED LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPTING THEREFROM A STRIP OF LANO 30 FEET WIDE PARALLEL WITH AND ADJOINING THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT FOR ROAD PURPOSES. CLTACMA6IRDAlom CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY A.L.T.A. COMMITMENT SCHEDULEB Order No.: 1150640 Your No.: TRIOOR INC. Schedule B of the policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following matters unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company. GENERAL EXCEPTIONS A. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records. B. Encroaclunents, overlaps, boundary line disputes, or other matters which would be disclosed by an accurate survey and inspection of the premises. C. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. D. Any lien, or right to a lien, for contributions to employee benefit funds, or for state workers' compensation, or for services, labor, or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, all as imposed by law, and not shown by the public records. E. Taxes or special assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the public records. F. Any service, installation, connection, maintenance, tap, capacity or construction charges for sewer, water, electricity, other utilities, or garbage collection and disposal. G. Reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; Indian tribal codes or regulations, Indian treaty or aboriginal rights, including easements or equitable servitodes. H. Water rights, claims, or title to water. I. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records, or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS FOLLOW WLTACOMBIRDAl0999 CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY ALTA COMMITMENT SCHEDULEB (Continued) Order No.: 001150640 Your No.: TRIDOR INC. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS 1. EASEIENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF; GRANTEE; PURPOSE; AREA AFFECTED: RECORDED; RECORDING NUMBER; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1 OR lORE LINE(S) OF ELECTRIC POWER TRANSIISS I ON STRUCTURE AND APPURTENANT PORTION OF SAID PREMISES IlAY 18, 1960 5162689 2. EXCEPTIONS AND RESERVATIONS CONTAIIIED IN DEEO; FROII; RECORDEO; RECORDING NUIBER: PUGET SOUND POWER & LI GHT COMPANY, A MASSACHUSETTS CORPORATION OCTOBER 31, 1935 2973823 AS FOLLOWS; EXCEPTING AND RESERVING THEREFROM THE FIRST PARTY, SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGIIS, ALL COAL, CLAY, STONE, OIL AND IIINERAL AND IINIIIG RIGHTS LYING IN AND UNDER THE SAID PROPERTY AND EVERY PART THEREOF, WHETHER HERETOFORE OR HEREAFTER DISCOVERED, WITH THE RIGHT TO liNE, QUARRY AND PROCURE THE SAME, AT ANY TilE HEREAFTER. 3. RELEASE OF DAMAGE AGREEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: BETWEEN; AND: RECORDED; RECORDING NUIIBER: CONAN L. HILL AND SARAH E. HILL, HIS WIFE RENTOII WATER DEPARTMEIIT NOVEMBER 5, 1971 7111050334 RELEASING CITY OF RENTON FROII ALL FUTURE CLAIIIS FOR DAMAGES RESULTING FROII: CONSTRUCTION OR ASSESSIENT FOR A PERMANENT WATER lAIN WHICH WILL NECESSARILY BE CONSTRUCTED IN THE STREET TO SERVE SAID PREMISES 4. PAYIIENT OF THE REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX, IF REQUIRED. CLTACMBtlRDAI0999 CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE C;OMPANY A.L.T.A. COMMITMENT SCHEDULEB (Continued) Order No.: 1150640 Your No.: TRIDOR INC. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SITUATED WITHIN THE BDUNDARIES OF LOCAL TAXING AUTHORITY OF CITY OF RENTON. PRESENT RATE IS 1.78%. ANY CONVEYANCE OOCUIIENT MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE OFFICIAL WASHINGTON STATE EXCISE TAX AFFIDAVIT. THE APPLICABLE EXCISE TAX MUST BE PAID AND THE AFFIDAVIT APPROVED AT THE TIME OF THE RECORDING DF THE CONVEYANCE OOCUIIENTS. 5. GENERAL AND SPECIAL TAXES AND CHARGES, PAYABLE FEBRUARY 15, DELINQUENT IF FIRST HALF UNPAID ON· MAY 1, SECOND HALF DELINQUENT IF UNPAID ON NOVEMBER 1 OF THE TAX YEAR (AMOUNTS DO NOT INCLUDE INTEREST AND PENALTI ES) : YEAR: TAX ACCOUNT NUIIIIER: LEVY CODE: ASSESSED VALUE·LAND: ASSESSED VALUE· IMPROVEMENTS: GENERAL I SPECIAL TAXES: 2006 202305·9052·02 2110 S 100,900.00 • 5,800.00 BILLED: I 339.26 PAID: 8 169.63 UNPAID: S 169.63 AFFECTS: EXEMPT PORTION OF SAID PREMISES 6. ANY LIABILITY FOR ADDITIONAL GENERAL TAXES ARISING AS THE RESULT OF TERMINATION OF THE CURRENT SENIOR CITIZEN'S EXEMPTION AND ADJUSTMENT OF THE ASSESSED VALUES: TAX ACCOUNT NUIIBER: 202305· 9052·02 NOTE: THIS PARAGRAPH WILL APPEAR IN ANY OWNER'S POLICY TO ISSUE UNLESS THE COUNTY HAS REMOVED THE EXEMPTION. 7. GENERAL AND SPECI AL TAXES AND CHARGES, PAYABLE FEBRUARY 15, DELI NQUENT IF FIRST HALF UNPAID ON MAY 1, SECOND HALF DELINQUENT IF UNPAID ON NOVEMBER 1 OF THE TAX YEAR (AMOUNTS DO NOT INCLUDE INTEREST AND PENALTIES) : YEAR: 2006 CLTACMBlIRD.AJOSl99 cmCAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY ALTA. COMMITMENT SCHEDULEB (Continued) Order No.: 1150640 Your No.: TRIDOR INC. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS TAX ACCOUNT NUiBER: LEVY CODE: ASSESSED VALUE·LAND: ASSESSED VALUE. IMPROVEMENTS: GENERAL a SPECIAL TAXES: 202305 ·9052 ·85 2110 I 88,500.00 I 0.00 BILLED: I PAID: I UNPAID: I 1,065.78 532.89 532.89 AFFECTS: REMAINDER OF SAID PREMISES 8. IN THE EVENT THAT THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN IS OCCUPIED BY A MARRIED PERSON AND SPOUSE AS A HOMESTEAD, THE CONVEYANCE OR ENCUMBRANCE OF THE PROPERTY MUST BE EXECUTED AND ACKNOWLEDGED BY BOTH HUSBAND AND WIFE, PURSUANT TO RCW 6.13 WHICH NOW PROVIDES FOR AN AUTOMATIC HOMESTEAD ON SUCH PROPERTY. 9. TITLE IS TO VEST IN TRIDOR, INC., AND WILL THEN BE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING MATTERS SHOWN AT PARAGRAPH(S, 10. 10. THE PROPOSED DEED OF TRUST OR MORTGAGE MUST BE AUTHORIZED BY RESOLUTION OF THE DIRECTORS OF TRIDOR, INC., AND A COpy SUBMITTED. NDTE 1: THE FOLLOWING DEED(S, AFFECTING SAID LAND WAS (WERE, RECORDED WITHIN 24 MONTHS OF THE DATE OF THIS COMMITMENT: NONE NOTE 2: EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1997. DOCUMENT FORMAT AND CONTENT REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN IMPOSED BY WASHINGTON LAW. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF THE DOCUMENT BY THE COUNTY RECORDER OR I MPOS I TI ON OF A ISO. DO SURCHARGE. FOR DETAILS OF THESE STATEWIDE REQUIREMENTS PLEASE VISIT THE KING COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE WEBSITE AT WWW.METROKC.GOV/RECELEC/RECORDS AND SELECT ONLINE FORMS AND DOCUMENT STANDARDS. THE FOLLOWING MAY BE USED AS AN ABBREVIATED LEGAL DESCRIPTION ON THE DOCUMENTS TO BE RECORDED TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF RCW 65.04. CLTACMBURDAI0999 CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY A.L.T.A. COMMITMENT SCHEDULEB (Continued) Order No.: 1150640 Your No.: TRIDOR INC. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS SAID ABBREVIATED LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR A COMPLETE LEGAL DESCRIPTION WHICH MUST ALSO APPEAR IN THE BODY OF THE DOCUMENT: PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST. END OF SCHEDULE B TO EXPEDITE THE COMPLETION OF YOUR CLOSING, PLEASE FORWARD YOUR CLOSING ORDER AND RECORDING DOCUIENTS TO: CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY • CENTRAL RECORDING 701 FIFTH AVENUE, 33RD FLOOR SEAnLE, WASHINGTON 98104 THANK YOU, UNIT 1 • EASTSIDE TITLE UNIT CLTACMB2IRDAIt1J99 Printed: 02-08-2007 Payment Made: :ITY OF RENTON 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Land Use Actions RECEIPT Permit#: LUA07-018 02/08/2007 04:21 PM Receipt Number: R0700553 Total Payment: 1,500.00 Payee: TRIDOR, INC Current Payment Made to the Following Items: Trans Account Code Description 5010 000.345.81.00.0007 Environmental Review 5020 000.345.81.00.0017 Site Plan Appr8val Payments made for this receipt Trans Method Description Amount Payment Check #7598 1,500.00 Account Balances Amount 500.00 1,000.00 Trans Account Code Description Balance Due 3021 5006 5007 5008 5009 5010 5011 5012 5013 5014 5015 5016 5017 5018 5019 5020 5021 5022 5024 5036 5909 5941 5954 5955 5998 303.000.00.345.85 000.345.81.00.0002 000.345.81.00.0003 000.345.81.00.0004 000.345.81.00.0006 000.345.81.00.0007 000.345.81.00.0008 000.345.81.00.0009 000.345.81.00.0010 000.345.81.00.0011 000.345.81.00.0012 000.345.81.00.0013 000.345.81.00.0014 000.345.81.00.0015 000.345.81.00.0016 000.345.81.00.0017 000.345.81.00.0018 000.345.81.00.0019 000.345.81.00.0024 000.345.81.00.0005 000.341.60.00.0024 000.341.50.00.0000 650.237.00.00.0000 000.05.519.90.42.1 000.231.70.00.0000 Park Mitigation ?ec Annexation Fees Appeals/Waivers Binding Site/Short Plat Conditional Use Fees Environmental Revie'l'l Prelim/Tentative Plat Final Plat POD Grading & Fil~ing E'ees Lot Line Adj U.'3 t me:) t Mobile Home ParKS Rezone Routine Vegetation Mgmt Shoreline Subst nev Site Plan Approval Temp Use or Fer:ce Review Variance Fees Conditional App~oval Fee Comprehensive JLan Amend Booklets/EISI opips Maps (Taxable Special Depos .• Postage Tax Remaining Balance Due: $0.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 G · 00 1'<\ pl./>.NI'IIN · OP'i£I.OP~~ ",,£~ON · Elii' CI1'I .00 % 1~~1 .00 rEa - ~~ce\'J~O