HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscCity of Renton
TREE RETENTION
WORKSHEET
1. Total number of trees over 6" in diameter' on project site: 1. ff'—trees
2. Deductions: Certain trees are excluded from the retention calculation:
Trees that are dead, diseased or dangerous2 _i�? trees
Trees in proposed public streets trees
Trees in proposed private access easements/tracts trees
Trees in critical areas3 and buffers trees
Total number of excluded trees:
2, & 6 trees
3. Subtract line 2 from line T: 3. Zq trees
4. Next, to determine the number of trees that must be retained4, multiply line 3 by:
0.3 in zones RC, R-1, R-4, or R-8
Q.1 in all other residential zones
0,05 in all commercial and industrial zones 4. trees
5. List the number of 6" or larger trees that you are proposing5 to retain4:
5. trees
6. Subtract line 5 from line 4 for trees to be replaced: 6. trees
(If line 5 is less than zero, stop here. No replacement trees are required).
7. Multiply line 6 by 12" for number of required replacement inches:
7. 40 inches
8. Proposed size of trees to meet additional planting requirement:
(Minimum 2" caliper trees required) 8. inches
per tree
9. Divide line 7 by line 8 for number of replacement trees:
(if remainder is .5 or greater, round up to the next whole number)
9. trees
', Measured at chest height.
2. Dead, diseased or dangerous trees must be certified as such by a forester, registered landscape architect, or
certified arborist, and approved by the City.
3, Critical Areas, such as wetlands, streams, floodpla ins and protected slopes, are defined in Section 4-3-050 of
the Renton Municipal Code (RMC).
4. Count only those trees to be retained outside of critical areas and buffers.
S' The City may require modification of the tree retention plan to ensure retention of the maximum number of
trees per RMC 4-4-130Fl7a
e Inches of street trees, inches of trees added to critical areastbuffers, and inches of trees retained on site that
are less than B" but are greater than 2" can be used to meet the tree replacement requirement.
htip:llrentnnwagovluploadedFiles/Business/PBPWJDEVSERV/FORMS_PI ANNINGfTreeRetentionWorksheet.doc 12108
OLYMPUS VILLA
CITY OFRENTON
CRITICAL AREAS REPORT
Prepared For:
Bill Finkbeiner
12011 Be] -Red Road
Bellevue 98005
December 16. 2010
Job#10-144
Sewall Wi-dantl Consulting, Inc llh)ne' 21'->_1-859-0 ,,,_;
27041 Cox iii�_,ton Vvin, ST.'_ `2 77 ax: 2J3-852-4737
(.ovirwt(),,. 'yV;\ ;042
OLYMP S VILLA
CITY OF RENTON
CRITICAL AREAS REPORT
Prepared For:
Bill Finkbeiner
12011 Bel -Red Road
Bellevue 98005
' December 16, 2010
Job#10-144
' Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. Phone: 253-859-0515
27641 Covington Way SE, #2 Fax: 253-852-4732
Covington, WA 98042
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Sewall Wetland Comul ing, lrt�.
27641 Covington Way 5E #2 Phone: 253-659-0515
Covington, WA 88042 Fax: 253-852-4732
OLYMPUS VILLA
CITY OF RENTON
CRITICAL AREAS REPORT
This report describes jurisdictional wetlands on the 6.65 acre proposed Olympus Villa
Plat located on the east side of Nile Avenue NE (148 th Avenue SE) in the City of Renton,
Washington (the "site")_ Specifically, the site consists of an irregular shaped parcel in a
portion of the SW '/4 of Section 11, Township 23 North, Range 5 East of the Willamette
Meridian in King County, Washington.
N
fiE '. 31h Sr r^lE 10th ;ai m
SE '1Frh S:
hE BtR r>,
SE ' 111a $1
a
t
mF.-
NE &-51
Sc 'yah 51
VE 7th v
.s
P
T L Y3 m
L �22
r NE 6Vh S1NF ST
m m .
F
t [W
Si= I i;Ah SI SE `15m 5; m �yy
m
s
m
h
P
P
SF F1,
s �
<
Y] S
1251h St
m
st •25th Sd
T
of d:^. L[
z 4E 54^ S. m > n
x -
m
O
n U
r
N= dt, P. '
SE 128M Si
NE sdi 51
NE 3-z -n
SE I Zeth St
W 3rd CI
4
tie Nd P
4 Ne :'d
SI b
a
T yFh,
NE 1d B1
Z
yC,
u
h
P
P
SF F1,
s �
<
m rr
m
Vicinity Map
The site consists of an undeveloped parcel containing both forest and pasture areas_
The site is proposed to be subdivided into 11 single family residential Lots with
associated roads and infrastructure.
i
4D
9
m
Olympus Villa/#10-149
,Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.
December 16, 2010
Page 2
2.0 METHODOLOGY
Ed Sewall of Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. inspected the site in August and October of
2010. The site was reviewed using methodology described in the Washington State
Wetlands IdeWication Manual (WADOE, March 1997)_ This is the methodology
currently recognized by the City of Renton and the State of Washington for wetland
determinations and delineations. The site was also inspected using the methodology
described in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental
Laboratory, 1987), and the Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast region Supplement
(Version 2.0) dated June 24, 2010, as required by the US Army Corps of Engineers. Soil
colors were identified using the 1990 Edited and Revised Edition of the Munsell Soil
Color Charts (Kollmorgen Instruments Corp. 1990).
1 3.0 OBSERVATIONS
3.1 Existing Site Documentation
Prior to visiting the site a review of several natural resource inventory maps was
' conducted. Resources reviewed included the King County Soils Survey, King County
The Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual and the Corps of
Engineers Wetlands Delineation ManuallRegional Supplement all require the use of the
three -parameter approach in identifying and delineating wetlands. A wetland should
'
support a predominance of hydrophytic vegetation, have hydric soils and display wetland
hydrology. To be considered hydrophytic vegetation, over 50% of the dominant species
in an area must have an indicator status of facultative (FAC), facultative wetland
(FACW), or obligate wetland (OBL), according to the National List of Plant Species That
Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9) (Reed, 1988)_ A hydric soil is "a soil that is
saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop
'
anaerobic conditions in the upper part". Anaerobic conditions are indicated in the field
by soils with low chromas (2 or less), as determined by using the Munsell Soil Color
'
Charts; iron oxide mottles; hydrogen sulfide odor and other indicators. Generally,
wetland hydrology is defined by inundation or saturation to the surface for a consecutive
period of 12.5% or greater of the growing season. Areas that contain indicators of
'
wetland hydrology between 5%-12.5% of the growing season may or may not be
wetlands depending upon other indicators. Field indicators include visual observation of
soil inundation, saturation, oxidized rhrzospheres, water marks on trees or other fixed
objects, drift lines, etc. Under normal circumstances, indicators of all three parameters
will be present in wetland areas.
Following delineation of the wetlands on the site, the flags were surveyed by Mead
'
Gilman and Associates (see attached survey).
1 3.0 OBSERVATIONS
3.1 Existing Site Documentation
Prior to visiting the site a review of several natural resource inventory maps was
' conducted. Resources reviewed included the King County Soils Survey, King County
Olympus Villa/#10-144
Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.
December 16, 2010
Page 3
Map website with sensitive areas layers activated, the National Wetlands Inventory, the
City of Renton's Water Class map, and the City of Renton's wetland Inventory map.
3.1.1 Sail Survey
According to the Soil Survey, King County Area, Washington (Snyder et at 1973), the
entire site is mapped as containing Alderwood gravelly loam soils (AgC ). Alderwood
soils are moderately -well drained soils formed in glacial till under conifers. Alderwood
soils are not listed as a "hydric" soil according to the publication Hydric Soils of the
United States (USDA NTCHS Pub No, 1491, 1991). However, Alderwood soils can
contain small inclusions of poorly drained hyric soils such Norma, Bellingham, Seattle,
Tukwila and Shalcar soil series.
Soil Map of the site
3.1.2 National Wetlands Inventory
According to the National Wetlands Inventory there are no wetlands are located on the
site. There is a forested wetland identified approximately 200' south of the west end of
the site. There is also a small forested and emergent wetland depicted south of the east
end of the site approximately 200'.
Olympus Villa/#10-144
Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.
December 16, 2010
Page 4
National Wetlands Inventory map
3.1.4 City of Renton Water Class Map
According to the City of Renton Draft Water Class Map, there are no streams on or near
the site.
u7� u
At
�II�Y, tl
W'* q _ 6
k kl, S!
Y47*41
g nprl Q �,
re 4E ,r it st 12,r. x SrFE
°` --�
� rM —
K
YYDS
bq
1•I c• ME N! 5t Y ti£ IN Sh S I 5t
Above: City ofRenton's Water Type Map
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Olympus Villal#10-144
Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.
Decemher 16, 2010
Page 5
3.1.5 City of Renton's Wetlands Map
�...-_�
y
y'� + SN
NTO
• `ts ��
Above: City of Renton's Wetland Inventory Map.
According to the City of Renton's Wetland Inventory Map, there is a wetland located to
the south of the east end of the site. The scale of the map and lack of most streets make
the actual distance from the site impossible to determine.
3.2 Field Observations
3.2.1 Uplands
The site is located on a relatively flat plateau area with a very slight slope to the west.
The site consists of an overgrown/fallow pasture area on the western half of the site, and
a deciduous forested area on the eastern half of the site.
1
Olympus Villa/#10-144
Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.
December 16, 2010
Page 6
Above: Oblique view of site looking east.
' The pasture area is vegetated with a mix of orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata), tall
fescue (Festuca arundinacea), Canadian thistle (Cirsium arvense) and Himalayan
blackberry (Rubus discolor). Several cottonwood (Populus balsamifera) trees are found
near the west end of the site bordering a small isolated wetland. There are also scattered
' bitter cherry (Prunus emarginata) seedlings and saplings in this area.
The eastern half of the site contains a deciduous forested wetland, surrounded by a
forested buffer on both the east and west. The forested upland buffer area is vegetated
with a mix of red alder (Alnus rubra), cottonwood (Populus balsamifera), big leaf maple
' (Acer macrophyllum), bitter cherry (Prunus emarginata), elderberry (Sambucus
racemosa), and a very thick shrub strata of Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor) with
some sword fern (Polystichum munitum) and bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum).
' 3.2.2 Wetlands
A total of two (2) wetlands were delineated on the site. Wetland A is located along the
east side of the site and Wetland B is located along the west side of the site.
Olympus Villa/#10-144
Sewall Weiland Consulting, Inc.
December 16, 2010
Page 7
IWetland A
1 Wetland A was delineated with pink flags labeled Al -Al I& AAI-AA6, and is located
along the east side of the site within the deciduous forest_ This depressional type wetland
is heavily overgrown with blackberry and contains a deciduous overstory canopy
' approximately 50 years in age. The wetland sits in a shallow depression that has an old
dug ditch at the north end of the wetland near flag Al 1. It is unknown if water actually
drains in or out this ditch as it has been dry during our site visits. There was no evidence
' that any flow occurred in this ditch, although in the winter it is feasible it does drain to
some degree.
Above: Looking north at the east end of the site where Wetland A is located
Vegetation in this wetland consists of an overstory of red alder that is 6"-18"dbh, with an
understory comprised of vine maple (Acer circinatum), red -osier dogwood (Cornus
stolinifera), salmonberry (Rubus spectahilis), and a substantial amount of Himalayan
blackberry. The herb strata is sparse due to the heavy blackberry cover, but consists of
patches of slough sedge (Carex obnupta), creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens), lady
fern (Athyrium filix femina) and some manna grass (Glyceria elates).
Sol] pits excavated within the wetland revealed a sandy loam with a matrix color of
10YR 212 with few, fine redoximoprhic concentrations. Soils were only moist during our
dry season site inspection, but water stained leaves and water marks on vegetation
indicate standing water is present within this wetland during the wet season.
11
Olympus Villal# 10- 144
Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.
December 18, 2010
Page 8
r
Wetland A would be classified as PFOIE (palustrine, forested, broad leaved deciduous,
persistent, saturated) according to the US Fish and Wildlife Wetland Classification
methodology (Cowardin et al. 1479).
'
According to the criteria in City of Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Chapter 4-3-050.M.1,
Wetland A would be classified as Category 2 wetland. Category 2 wetlands are defined
in the Code as follows;
'
& Category 2: Category 2 wetlands are wetlands which meet one or more
of the following criteria:
'
(a) Wetlands that are not Category I or 3 wetlands; andlor
(b) Wetlands that have heron rookeries or osprey nests, but are not
Category I wetlands; and/or
'
(c) Wetlands of any size located at the headwaters of a watercourse,
i.e., a wetland with a perennial or seasonal outflow channel, but with no defined influent
channel, but are not Category 1 wetlands; and/or
(d) Wetlands having minimum existing evidence of human -related
physical alteration such as diking, ditching or channelization; and/or
'
Wetland A best meets this rating as a wetland with minimum evidence of human related
physical alteration, but not meeting the criteria of a Category 1 or Category 3 wetland.
'
Typically, Category 2 wetlands have a 50' buffer measured from the wetland edge.
Wetland B
Wetland B (flags BI -B$) consists of a small, isolated depression with evidence of past
soil disturbance. This is located at the west end of the site in an old fenced in pasture
area, Portions of the wetland have old concrete debris which may be part of an old
'
foundation to a structure that was historically located in this area. This area also appears
to be excavated out as overgrown spoil piles are present along the south boundary
abutting the wetland.
1
dlyrnpus Villa/# IO -144
Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.
December 16, 2010
Page 9
This wetland is dominated by a mix of hardhack (Spirea douglasii), timothy (Phleum
' pretense), and fescue (Festuca arundinacea). Several small willows (Salix spp.)are
located near the excavation and the area surrounding the concrete debris.
' Soil pits excavated in this wetland revealed a dark (10YR 312) gravelly loam with faint
redoximorphic concentrations. Soils were only moist during our dry season site
inspection, but water stained leaves and water marks on vegetation indicate standing
' water is present within this wetland during the wet season,
Wetland B would be classified as PSS IE (palustrine, scrub -shrub, persistent, saturated)
' according to the US Fish and Wildlife Wetland Classification methodology (Cowardin et
aI. 1979).
According to the criteria in City of Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Chapter 4-3-050.M.1,
Wetland B would be classified as Category 3 wetland. Category 3 wetlands are defined
in Code as follows;
'
N. Category 3: Category 3 wetlands are wetlands which meet one or more
;� S rJ'
of the following criteria:
(a) Wetlands that are severely disturbed. Severely disturbed wetlands
are wetlands which meet the following criteria:
1
Olympus Villar' 10-144
Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.
December 16, 2010
Page 10
(1) Are characterized by hydrologic isolation, human -related
hydrologic alterations such as diking, ditching, channelization and/or outlet
modification; and
(2) Have soils alterations such as the presence offill, soil removal
and/or compaction of soils; and
(3) May have altered vegetation.
(b) Wetlands that are newly emerging. Newly emerging wetlands are:
(1) Wetlands occurring on top of fill materials; and
(2) Characterized by emergent vegetation, low plant species richness
and used minimally by wildlife. These wetlands are generally found in the areas such as
the Green River Valley and Black River Drainage Basin.
(c) All other wetlands not classified as Category 1 or 2 such as
smaller, high quality wetlands.
Wetland B meets these criteria justifying it as a Category 3 wetland;
a1. The wetland is disturbed with evidence of past excavation and placement of old
concrete, isolated with a dike/berm along its south side
a2. The soils are disturbed from historic grading, filling and compaction by apparent use
as a livestock holding area.
Typically, Category 3 wetlands have a 25' buffer measured from the wetland edge.
4.0 FUNCTIONS AND VALUES
' The two wetlands on-site were analyzed for function using the Washington State
Department of Ecology Wetlands rating System for Western Washington. This system is
typically utilized to classify wetlands, but the classification is function -based, scoring
three main functions, 1,) water quality, 2) hydrologic function, and 3) habitat functions_
Wetland A -Wetland A scored a total of 41 points indicating a Category 3 wetland under
this system which indicates moderate overall functional value. Its highest scoring
function was for water quality which scored 18 points, and its hydrologic function was
relatively low at 10 points as was its habitat value at 13 points. Factors reducing its
hydrologic function include the fact it has an outflow point on the north in the ditch,
water does not pond very deep within its borders, and it's relatively small size compared
to the hydrologic basin which it is located in.
Habitat value for this wetland is low, as a result of small size, no unique habitat features,
lack of a variety of plant communities, its isolation from other habitat areas, and the close
proximity of development to its boundaries.
1
u
Olympus N1141#10-144
Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.
December 16, 2010
Page 11
Wetland B -Wetland B scored a total of 37 points also indicating a Category 3 wetland
under this system which indicates low -moderate overall functional value. As with
Wetland A, its highest scoring function was also for water quality which scored lb
points, and its hydrologic function was moderate at 14 points and its habitat value was
very low at 7 points. Factors that made Wetland B's hydrologic function higher than
wetland A's are related primarily to the fact it is isolated with no outflow.
Habitat value for this wetland is very low, as a result of small size, no unique habitat
' features, lack of a variety of plant communities and species, its isolation from other
habitat areas, and the close proximity of development to its boundaries.
5.0 REGULATIONS
' In addition to the wetland regulations previously described for wetlands and streams,
certain activities (filling and dredging) within "waters of the United States" may fall
under the jurisdiction of the US Army Corps of Engineers (ALOE). The ACOE regulates
' all discharges into "waters of the United States" (wetlands) under Section 404(b) of the
Clean Water Act.
Due to the increasing emphasis on Endangered Species Act compliance for all fills of
Waters of the United State and Waters of the State, both the Corps of Engineers and
Washington Department of Ecology should be contacted regarding permit conditions,
compliance, and processing prior to commitment to any fill of wetlands or streams for
this project.
6.0 PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed project is the construction of an 11 lot subdivision with associated access
road, and storm water facility, In order to access the site the only feasible place for a
road into the property is off 148th Avenue SE (aka Nile Avenue NE). This access point is
very narrow and requires passing through the south end of Wetland B. In addition, City
Code would require a buffer to be maintained off the road access point which would
further impact a band 25' wide through this wetland. The resulting wetland would be
half of its original size and would be greatly reduced in function. Additionally, the only
feasible location for the storm water facility due to the sites topography is in the location
of Wetland B. As a result, it is our intention to fill Wetland B and provide adequate
mitigation for its lost functions. Impacts to wetlands must be justified through a
mitigation sequence as detailed in City of Renton Code. This sequencing requires
addressing the following criteria.;
11
1
Il
1
Olympus Villa/#10-144
Sewall Wedand Consulting, Inn.
December 16, 2010
Page 12
a. Avoid any disturbances to the wetland or buffer;
As detailed above, avoidence of the wetland and its buffer is not possible with the City
required access road (new NE 7t` Place), This will require impacts to approximatley %2 of
the wetland once the city required buffer is applied from the final road layout through the
wetland.
b. Minimize any wetland or buffer impacts;
The new NE 7`h Place access road has been reduced to City minium road widths of 45'.
Once a 25' buffer is added to the new road prism half of Wetland B will be impacted.
Additionally, the only feasible location for the stormwater facility is in this lower area of
the site as a result of the sites topography. This would further impact the wetland
removing the remainder of its area. There is no other feasible location that would work
for the stormwater facilty on the site.
c. Restore any wetlands or buffer impacted or lost temporarily; and
Resoration of this wetland in this location would not be feasible due to the location of the
impacts and configuartion of the parcela nd remaining wetland.
d. Compensate for any permanent wetland or buffer impacts by one of the following
methods:
i. Restoring a former wetland and provide buffers at a site once exhibiting
wetland characteristics to compensate for wetlands lost;
This is not applicable to this site as no historic wetlands are located on the property.
ii. Creating new wetlands and buffers for those lost; and
A total of 4,200sf of wetland will be filled as well as approximatley 9,900sf of buffer.
As described in Code; "Any applicant proposing to alter wetlands may propose to
restore wetlands or create new wetlands, with priority first for on-site restoration or
creation and then second, within the drainage basin, in order to compensate for
wetland losses. Restoration activities must include restoring lost hydrologic, water
quality and biologic functions ". Additionally, Code states" Where feasible, created
or restored wetlands shall be a higher category than the altered wetland. In no
cases shall they be lower".
i )ivinpris t li"a If)-144
�cliuii t -f erland I u r.rrlruf r, im.
C0dc S1CcifiCS the follt-Ming rnitigtztion ratios for wetland irrnpacts:
Ii. RATIOS FOR WETLANDS CREATION OR RESTORATION. 11
Wetland Category [Vegetation Type Creation/Restoration Ratios
Category 1 'Forested C times the area altered
Scrub -shrub I3 times the area altered.
Emergent =2 times the area altered-
] I 3
I
ICategory 2 Forested 13 times the area altered.
i Scrub -shrub 12 times the area altered.
s lErnercgent 11.5 times the area altered.
Category 3� IForest€ d 11 5 times the area altered.
?Scrub -shrub [1.5 tames the area altered.
!e=mergent ,i.5 times the area altered
Wetland t3 is a C:atgeor� 3 ww�ctland that i4 4.200sf in size.. The wwettand is scrub shrub in
character and as such. Code requires to 1,5::1 ratio for creation, This means a minimum of
6_100,sJ'ofxvcttang trrcrst be created to ttiitighate for the lost functions of this small
wetland to he impacted
to cosy pciisaic for the: impact to 4.200st'of'Cale.gory 3 wetland from the proposed access
road and storm water facility, 6,300sf of wetland will he ercated atom the south—west side
of Westland A. This mitigation will create Category 2 wetland for C'atcgorw; 3 irxtpacts
As depicted on tine attached Conceptual Mitigation Plan, 6,100sfof area will he
scm ated out to a similar depthtt) the exisong wefand to interccpt the surficial
,Iroundw aftt r table tend ert=e condttiotts favorable to create wwetlarid hydrology 'I his arca
wvl
'H then be i�racicd back at a slope no steeper than 14horizontal,ertical j_ 'l.'be area �will
then bt plantCd With ti MiN crt'native. trees, shrubs and llerbaecous':PCdes and also
include several habitat features (lois and snags) to increase its habluat function. The goal
wwill hQ to create at least (i, 3f}Gist of area naecting all three ww-etland criteria (hydric soils,
hydroph,tic veoe;tation, and wetland hydrology) as specified in i.be Kixshington Virte.
tfetlan(ls Idenly catioti.,11anutrl (WADOP,, March 1997),
Sornic mincer buffer averaging will hc; utilized for the western Nd.'fer of Wetland A. In
addition, approximately .19,49 1 st'of the averaged 50' buffer of Wetland A along its %kcst
side r ill be c nhanc d to increase its functional vaitae and remove cNo#ic hlackherr-v.
Enhancement of this area will include hand removal of hlackberrv�. and installation of a
native conifer understory' as %,veli as native trees and shrubs in areas that are co mpletek
covered in blackberr-w. This Nvill ri smore a native shrub sirmunt in this area throuLdl
rernovtal o(the exotic hlackberry acid will also initiate; the rctrtrn of conifer component
to this forested area wvhich is not present at this time.
10 10
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
. I
Olympus Pillal,#10-144
Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.
December 16, 2010
Page 13
Code Spec Ies the dowing mitigation ratios for wetland impacts,
L IOS-FOR V#ETLANPS C ATI O ESTORATION:
Hand Cat ry
Vegetati T e
Cre ion/Restoration Ratio
gory 1
t`ores d
imes the area altered.
Scr - rub
rub
3 times the area altered.
ent
2 tunes the area altered.
Gate ory,�
orested
3 times the area altered.
Scrub- rub
2 times the area altered.
Emer
1.5 times the are" red.
tegory
F rested
1.5 times-tFie area alte
Grub -shrub
1.5 te'e"s the area al ed.
Emergent
7:5 times the are Itered.
VandB a Catgeory 3, wetland that is , 00 n size. T wetland is scrub shrub in
aras such, Code requires a :1 io for crea ' n. This means a minimum of
6,30etland must be created t m' 'ghate for th ost functions of this small
welle impacted.
Mitigation
T/11 compensate for the
Toad acid storm water i
of Wetland A. This
' As,depicted on the atu
excavated out to �sim
groundwater table and
i will then be gr,
*ed ba.
G� then be plant#d with a
include sevoal habiolt
will be t�4c
eate at�ea,
hydroph veRefatioI
1 ctto 4,200 of Category. 34etland om the proposed access
ility, 6,300 of wetland '11 be cre ed along theautliwest si e
tigation wi create Category 2 w and for Category 3 impac .
shed Co ceptual Mitigation Pl , 6,300s�tif area will be
lFta
th to the existing we nd to intercept the surficial
conditions favorab to create wetland hydrolo This area
lope no steeper an 3:1` (horizontai:vertical . The area will
riiix of native trees, s rubs and herbaceous speci and will also
features (logs and ags) to increase its habita unction. The -g91
t 6,300sf of area eeting all three wetland c teria (hydric soils
and wetland droiogy) as specified int Warshington Staff
rt Manual (W OE, March 1997). ;
Some minor uffer averaging wil a utilized for the
addition, ap roximately 15,000s of the averaged 50'
side will b e hanced to increa a its functional value
Enhancem t of this area will n�lude hand removal
native conifer understory as A as native trees and
covered in blackberry. This ll restore a native s
removal of the exotic blackberry and will also ini
to this forested area which is not present at this time,
r
veste)di buffer of Wetla A. In
bu er of Wetland
A a ng its west
remove exotic b ckberry.
blackberry, and ' stallation of a
u�s in areas th are completely
�tratum in thi area through
the return of a ifer component
0
u
Olympus Villa/,# 10-144
Sewall Wetdand Consulting, Inc.
December 16, 2010
Page 14
The resulting wetland creation and buffer enhancement area will be monitored for 5 years
as required by Code_
If you have any questions regarding this report, please call us at (253) 859-0515 or at
esewall@sewallwc.com.
Sincerely,
Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.
Ed Sewall EDGAR EWALL
Senior Wetlands Ecologist PWS #212 000 0212_y��
Olympus Villa
Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.
December 1.6, 2010
Page 15
REFERENCES
Cowardin, L., V. Carter, F. Golet, and E. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
FWSfOBS-79-31, Washington, D. C.
Daubenmire, R. 1959. A canopy -coverage method of vegetational analysis. Northwest
Science 33:43-64.
Diers, R. and J.L. Anderson, 1984. Development of Soil Mottling. Soil Survey Horizons,
Winter 1984, pg 9-15.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,
' Technical Report Y-87-1. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
' City of Renton Municipal Code
Hitchcock, C. and A. Cronquist. 1976. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of
' Washington Press, Seattle, Washington.
Munsell Color. 1988. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Kollmorgen Instruments Corp.,
Baltimore, Maryland.
National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. 1991. Hydric Soils of the United States.
' USDA Misc. Pub]. No. 1491.
Reed, P., Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest
(Region 9). 1988_ U_ S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Inland Freshwater Ecology Section, St.
Petersburg, Florida.
Reed, P.B. Jr. 1993. 1993 Supplement to the list of plant species that occur in wetlands:
Northwest (Region 9). USFWS supplement to Biol. Rpt. 88(26.9) May 1988.
1
Olympus Villa
Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.
' December 16, 2010
Page 16
' 1.0 CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PROJECT OVERVIEW
To compensate for the fill of a 4,179sf Category 3 wetland, it is proposed to create
' 6,300sf of wetland along the west side of Wetland A, a Category 2 wetland, as well as
enhance the averaged buffer along the west side of the wetland.
2.0 MITIGATION CONCEPT AND GOALS
2.1 Mitigation Concept
' The mitigation proposal is to enlarge the existing Category 2 wetland on the site by
6,300sf and enhance the western buffer area. The wetland and buffer enhancement areas
will be densely planted with native vegetation. The use of diverse native plantings are
expected to significantly improve the overall function of the wetland and buffer as it will
remove dense thickets of exotic blackberry as well as add emergent and shrub plant
communities into what is now, a single class forested wetland.
2,2 Mitigation Goals
2.2.1 Create 6,300sf of emergent, scrub shrub and forested wetland.
2.2.2 Enhance the western wetland buffer and will consist of exotic vegetation removal
and replanting with native tree and shrub species.
3.0 CONSTRUCTION ,SEOUENCE
The construction sequence of this project will be implemented as follows:
3.1 Pre -construction meeting
' 3.2 Construction staking
3.3 Construction fencing and erosion control
3.4 Clearing and grading
' 3.5 Stabilization of mitigation area
3.6 Plant material installation
' 3.7 Construction inspection
3.8 Agency approval
3.9 Monitoring inspection and reporting
' 3.10 Silt fence removal
3.11 Project completion
' 3.1 Pre -construction Meeting
A pre -construction meeting will be held on-site prior to commencement of construction,
to include the biologist, the City, and the contractor. The approved plans and
specifications will be reviewed to ensure that all parties involved understand the intent of
Olympus Villa
Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.
December 16, 2010
Page 17
3.5 Stabilization of Mitigation Area
All graded areas in the wetland or buffer will be stabilized with native hydroseed mix or
mulch upon completion of grading. Orange construction fencing and erosion control
fences will be restored (if necessary) and placed around the critical areas.
3.6 Plant Material Installation
All plant material will be planted by hand per detail and Construction and Planting Notes.
The Mitigation Plan specifies the required size, species, quantity, and location of plant
materials to be installed. The contractor will re -seed or over -seed all hydroseeded areas
disturbed during the planting process. Upon completion of the planting, the erosion
control fencing will be restored and repaired. Plant substitutions or modifications to
locations shall be approved in writing by the Owner's biologist prior to installation.
3.7 Construction Inspection
Upon completion of installation, the County's biologist will conduct an inspection to
confirm proper implementation of the Mitigation Plan. Any corrections, substitutions or
missing items will be identified in a "punch list" for the landscape contractor. Items of
' particular importance will be soils in pits, pit size, plant species, plant size, mulch around
pits, and tree staking.
' Upon completion of planting, if installation or materials vary significantly from the
Mitigation Plan, the contractor will submit a reproducible "as -built" drawing to the
Owner.
3.8 Agency Approval
Following acceptance of the installation by the City, the County biologist should prepare
a letter granting approval of the installation.
the construction documents, specifications, site environmental constraints, sequences, and
inspection requirements.
'
3.2 Construction Staking
The limits of clearing and grading near the critical areas will be marked in the field by a
'
licensed professional land surveyor prior to commencement of construction activities.
3.3 Construction Fencing & Erosion Control
All erosion control measures adjacent to the critical areas, including silt fencing and
orange construction fencing, will be installed. Erosion control fencing will remain
around the mitigation area until clearing, grading and hydroseeding are complete in
'
upland areas outside the critical areas.
3.4 Clearing & Grading
Clearing and grading in and near the existing sensitive area will be per the approved Final
Mitigation Plans.
3.5 Stabilization of Mitigation Area
All graded areas in the wetland or buffer will be stabilized with native hydroseed mix or
mulch upon completion of grading. Orange construction fencing and erosion control
fences will be restored (if necessary) and placed around the critical areas.
3.6 Plant Material Installation
All plant material will be planted by hand per detail and Construction and Planting Notes.
The Mitigation Plan specifies the required size, species, quantity, and location of plant
materials to be installed. The contractor will re -seed or over -seed all hydroseeded areas
disturbed during the planting process. Upon completion of the planting, the erosion
control fencing will be restored and repaired. Plant substitutions or modifications to
locations shall be approved in writing by the Owner's biologist prior to installation.
3.7 Construction Inspection
Upon completion of installation, the County's biologist will conduct an inspection to
confirm proper implementation of the Mitigation Plan. Any corrections, substitutions or
missing items will be identified in a "punch list" for the landscape contractor. Items of
' particular importance will be soils in pits, pit size, plant species, plant size, mulch around
pits, and tree staking.
' Upon completion of planting, if installation or materials vary significantly from the
Mitigation Plan, the contractor will submit a reproducible "as -built" drawing to the
Owner.
3.8 Agency Approval
Following acceptance of the installation by the City, the County biologist should prepare
a letter granting approval of the installation.
Olympus Villa
Sewall Wetland Consulting, inc_
December 16, 2010
Page 18
3.9 Monitoring
The site will be monitored for 5 years to insure the success of the mitigation project.
3.110 Silt Fence Removal
Erosion control fencing adjacent to the mitigation area will remain in place for at least
one year, and/or until all areas adjacent to the mitigation area have been stabilized. The
County's Biologist may recommend that the fencing remain in place for a longer
duration.
4.0 CONSTRUCTION AND PLANTING NOTES
4.1 Site Preparation & Grading
4. 1.1 The Landscape Contractor will approve existing conditions of subgrade prior to
initiation of any mitigation installation work.
The Landscape Contractor will inform the Owner of any discrepancies between the
approved construction document and existing conditions.
4.1.2 The General Contractor will flag the limits of clearing with orange construction
fencing and will observe these limits during construction. No natural features or
vegetation will be disturbed beyond the designated "limits of clearing".
4.1.3 The Landscape Contractor will hand grub all blackberry varieties onsite. Weed
debris will be disposed of off site.
4.1.4 The wetland area will be excavated to the depths shown on the Final Mitigation
Grading Plan and brought to grade with S" of topsoil. The biologist will be on-site to
confirm the grading is acceptable for planting.
4.2 Plant Materials
4.2.1 All plant materials will be as specified in the plant schedule. Only vigorous plants
free of defects, diseases and infestation are acceptable for installation.
4.2.2 All plant materials will conform to the standards and size requirements of ANSI
260.1 "American Standard for Nursery Stock". All plant materials will be native to the
northwest, and preferably the Puget Sound Region. Plant materials will be propagated
from native stock; no cultivars or horticultural varieties will be allowed. All plant
materials will be grown from nursery stock unless otherwise approved.
4.2.3 All nursery grown plant materials will be in containers or balled and burlapped.
Bare root plantings will be subject to approval.
Olympus Villa
Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.
December 16, 2010
Page 19
I
4.2.4A11 plant materials stored on-site longer than two (2) weeks will be organized in
rows and maintained by the contractor at no additional cost to the owner. Plant materials
temporarily stored will be subject to inspection and approval prior to installation.
' 4.2.5 Substitution requests must be submitted in writing to the Owner and approved by
the Owner's biologist in writing prior to delivery to site.
4.2.6 All plant materials will be dug, packed, transported and handled with care to ensure
protection from injury. All plant materials to be stored on site more than 24 hours will be
heeled into topsoil or sawdust. Precautionary measures shall be taken to ensure plant
materials do not dry out before planting. Wetland plants will be shaded and saturated
until time of installation. Immediately after installation the mitigation planting area will
be saturated to avoid capillary stress.
4.2.7 The contractor will verify all plant materials, the quantities shown on the planting
plan, and the plant schedule. The quantity of plant materials shown on the plan takes
precedent over the quantity on the plant list.
4,3 Plant Installation
4.3.1 All plant materials must be inspected prior to installation to verify conformance of
the materials with the plant schedule including size, quality and quantity. Any plant or
habitat materials deemed unsatisfactory will be rejected.
4.3.2 All plant materials delivered and accepted should be planted immediately as
' depicted on the mitigation plan. Plant materials not planted within 24 hours will be
heeled -in per note 3.2.6. Plant materials stored under temporary conditions will be the
sole responsibility of the contractor. Plants will be protected at all times to prevent the
1 root ball from drying out before, during, or after planting.
' 4.3.3 All planting pits will be circular with vertical sides, and will be sized per detail on
the mitigation plan and filled with pit soils approved by the Owner's biologist. If native
soils are determined to be unacceptable by the Owner's biologist, pit soils will be
' amended with Cedar Grove mulch or equivalent.
4.3.4No fertilizers will be used within the wetland. In buffer areas only, install
"Agriform", or equal plant fertilizer to all planting pits as specified by manufacturer.
Fertilizers are allowed only below grade in the planting pits in the buffer areas. No
sewage sludge fertilizer ("SteerCo" or "Growco") is allowed in the mitigation area.
4.3.5 All containerized plant materials will be removed from their containers carefully to
prevent damage to the plant and its roots. Plants removed from their containers will be
planted immediately.
Olympus Villa
Sewall Weiland Consulting, Inc.
December 16, 2010
Page 20
4.3.6A11 plant materials will be placed as shown on the approved mitigation plan. If the
final installation varies from the approved mitigation plan, the contractor will provide a
reproducible mylar as -built of the installed conditions. All plant material will be flagged
by the contractor.
4.4 Planting Schedule and Warranty
4.4.1 A fall -winter installation schedule (October lit - March 15th ) is preferred for lower
mortality rates of new plantings. If plant
installation occurs during the spring or summer (March 15`h - Oct. 1s1 ) a temporary
irrigation system will be required, unless the area can be sufficiently hand -watered.
4.4.2A11 disturbed areas will be mulched or seeded with native mixes as specified on the
plans, as soon as the mitigation area grading is complete. The seed must be germinated
and a grass cover established by October l st. If the cover is not adequately established by
' October 1st, exposed soils will be covered with approved erosion control material and the
contractor will notify the Owner in writing of alternative soil stabilization method used.
4.4.3 The installer will warrant all plant materials to remain healthy and alive for a period
of one year after final acceptance. The installer will replace all dead or unhealthy plant
'
materials per the approved plans and specifications.
4.5 Site Conditions
4.5.1 The installer will coordinate with the Owner and the Owner's biologist for
construction scheduling.
t4.5.2
Landscape installation will begin after the City acceptance of grading and
construction. The Owner will notify the Owner's biologist of acceptance of final
grading.
4.5.3 Silt fences will be installed as shown on the approved mitigation grading plans. The
installer is responsible for repair and replacement of silt fences disturbed during plant
'
installation. No equipment or soils will be stored inside the silt fences.
4.5.4After clearing and grading is complete in the mitigation area, exposed soils will be
seeded or mulched. Orange construction fence will be placed around the mitigation area
to prohibit equipment and personnel in the mitigation area.
4.5.5 Final grading will be based upon soil conditions found during excavation of the
mitigation area.
Olympus Villa
Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.
December M 2010
Page 21
4.5.6 All plant material will be planted with suitable soils per planting details. Soils from
planting holes will be spread and smoothed across the mitigation area.
5.0 MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
This maintenance program outlines the program, procedures and goals for mitigation of
the stream and buffer impacts at the mitigation site. This maintenance program will be
the responsibility of the project owner through the duration of its ownership of the
mitigation area, or throughout the duration of the monitoring period, whichever is Ionger.
The maintenance contractor will complete the work as outlined below.
1 5.1 Maintenance Work Scope
1
5. 1.1 To accomplish the mitigation goals, normal landscaping methods must be modified
to include:
a. No mowing or trimming of ground cover or vegetation in the mitigation area.
b. No placement of fertilizers in the mitigation area.
c. No placement of bark mulch or equivalent in the mitigation area, except as noted
in the planting details.
d. No placement of grass clippings, landscape debris, fill or ornamental plant
materials in the mitigation area.
5.1.2 Work to be included in each site visit:
a. Remove all litter including paper, plastic, bottles, construction debris, yard
debris, etc.
b. Remove all blackberry varieties and scotch broom within the mitigation area.
All debris is to be removed from site and disposed in an approved landfill.
c. Repair silt and/or permanent fencing and signage as needed.
5.1.3 Work to be completed on an annual basis includes:
a. Areas containing Himalayan blackberry should be controlled by hand cutting
the blackberry and treating the remaining cut stems only with a glyphosphate
herbicide such as Roundup or Rodeo (applied by hand, not sprayed).
b. Replace dead or failed plant materials. Replacement plantings are to be of same
species, size and location as original plantings. Plantings are to be installed
during the dormant period.
C. Remove tree staking and guy wires from all trees after one year.
5.2 Maintenance Schedule
The Owner will conduct all items listed in the Maintenance Work Scope on an annual
basis. Additional work may be required per the Monitoring Report and as approved by
the City Biologist. Additional work may include removal of the grasses around each
shrub and tree, installation of wood chips at each shrub and tree base, reseeding the
mitigation area, re -staking existing trees and erosion control protection.
Olympus Villa
Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.
December 16, 2010
Page 22
5.3 Watering Requirements
'
5.3.1 If
plantings are installed within the dormant period throughout the winter months
(October through March 15th ), watering is not required. However, watering will be
encouraged if plants mortality rises due to dry conditions.
5.3.2 If plantings are installed during the summer months (March through October I" ), a
temporary irrigation system will be required, unless the area can be sufficiently hand -
watered. The temporary irrigation system may be removed after the first year providing
the plantings are established and acclimated to on-site conditions.
5.4 Close-out of Five -Year Monitoring Program
Upon completion of the monitoring program and acceptance of the wetland mitigation by
the County Biologist, the maintenance of the project will be reduced to include removal
of litter and debris, repair of perimeter fencing and signage, removal of noxious weeds
and undesirable vegetation, and repair of vandalized areas.
'
6.0 WETLAND AND BUFFER MONITORING PROGRAM
6.1 Sampling Methodology
P g
rfive-year
The created wetlands and their associated buffers will be monitored once per year over a
period, as required by the City. Monitoring will be conducted using the
techniques and procedures described below to quantify the survival and relative health
and growth of plant material. A monitoring report submitted following each monitoring
'
visit will describe and quantify the status of the mitigation at that time. The monitoring
schedule will be determined after the plant installation has been completed. Typically,
the first monitoring visit occurs one year after the installation sign -off.
6.1.2 Vegetation
The vegetation monitoring consists of two tasks. The first is the inspection of the planted
material to determine the health and vigor of the installation. All the planted material in
the stream and buffer will be inspected during each monitoring visit to determine the
'
level of survival of the installation.
6.1.3 Hydrology
Monitoring of hydrology within the created wetlands will be conducted to confirm that
wetland hydrology has been created. ^ sampling points will be established within the
created wetlands. At these points monitoring wells will be installed to determine the
level of surface or groundwater in these areas.
�L J
Olympus Villa
Sewall Wetland Consultinn, Inc.
December 16, 2010
Page 23
1 6.2 Standards of Success
-Replacing all plants lost to vandalism, drought, or disease, as necessary.
-Replacing any plant species with a 20 percent or greater mortality rate with the same
1species or similar species approved by the City Biologist.
-Irrigating the stream area only as necessary during dry weather if plants appear to be too
dry, with a minimal quantity of water.
-Reseeding stream and buffer areas with an approved grass mixture as necessary if
erosion/sedimentation occurs.
-Removing all trash or undesirable debris from the wetland and buffer areas as necessary.
6.2.1. Evaluation of the success of the mitigation project will be based upon a 100%
plant survival for all planted vegetation at the end of Year 1; 90% at the end of
Year 2; 85% at the end of Year 3; and 80% at the end of Year 5.
6.2.2. Up to 20% of any stratum can be composed of desirable native volunteers when
'
measuring cover.
6.2.3. No more than 10% cover of non-native or other invasive, e.g., Himalayan
blackberry, Japanese knotweed, evergreen blackberry, reed canary grass, Scots broom,
English ivy, morning glory, etc. Is permissible in any monitoring year. Bond -holders are
encouraged to maintain mitigation sites within these standards through the monitoring
period, to avoid corrective measures.
'
6.2.4 Wetland hydrology will be considered to be successfully attained when
inundation or saturation within 12" of the surface is present for 2 continuous weeks or
more in the growing season (March 15 -Oct 15).
7.0 CONTINGENCY PLAN
'
7.1 A contingency plan can be implemented if necessary. Contingency plans can include
g Y
regrading, additional plant installation, erosion control, modifications to hydrology, and
'
plant substitutions including type, size, and location.
7.2 Careful attention to maintenance is essential in ensuring that problems do not arise.
Should any of the site fail to meet the success criteria, a contingency plan will be
developed and implemented with the County approval. Such plans are prepared on a
case-by-case basis to reflect the failed mitigation characteristics.
7.3 Contingency/maintenance activities will include, but are not limited to:
-Replacing all plants lost to vandalism, drought, or disease, as necessary.
-Replacing any plant species with a 20 percent or greater mortality rate with the same
1species or similar species approved by the City Biologist.
-Irrigating the stream area only as necessary during dry weather if plants appear to be too
dry, with a minimal quantity of water.
-Reseeding stream and buffer areas with an approved grass mixture as necessary if
erosion/sedimentation occurs.
-Removing all trash or undesirable debris from the wetland and buffer areas as necessary.
N2
O
II �
I
Ir; U I
Q1 Ln
rSte; .� N
(f� ? VN 0-,j-
0 N 6
cn � p
O co
- - -- —� -T O v� Q Lf7
W oc Cr)
C) 0U-) ¢ 0,
ai o LU)
j cn NUN
i
ui
Q
� Q
C ti
N
t � �
w `n U ~ Q W
N
Q C O
a W
4 _
x
L-
Q
{ x�q
c
I � �
O Q
g �5
��tY
B
W
C 0
ja_ w
WJ
Z W
° W
9 Q
W
i
I
0
h
O
7
I
Q
0
m L
Q�
R
iF. 1i
11-Mff
i W
-- --- .— ---
i5;
1
1
1
1
.bL.8�u�
w
7
N
9 1.
0
0
Z
V'
mZ
to
�pp =
C}',2
2
L
7 �
Zia
O
z
W
W
J
d
0 <13
0 0
N N
M N
r m
[ E f0
r d
81
W
N
N
N
rn
T
[7
Q
E
l4
C
r
N
r
d}
-2.u
0
O
0o
N
t
m
z�o-
a
w
�
a
��
r
t c
=F
v
w ,O UW
E
dY
N C
�
�
i
C] y
x
N
O
m
}+ro
m a'
U
41
° a
z -E rm
Cn
a0
�
�
CQ
� n
u �
v
O
EQZ
C]
coN
n
+mac
y
L
¢
Q
W
�� O
N
Q�
g
�� •7
p
O
G
wp - O
3
C fp
O
E }` W y
E
In a
is2
m
re
_oo+
omR
•a
3 s
Q y
C?
y
Z€
N
W
O N O W
C
.E
y
]
a
4D
C
Y7
d m C
R
w
E
y
!2
b= �6
U.�
O
� a
w
W
a 7
111 in-
CLla
N
i
IO W
E
7 O
W
— z
m1'n
N
o
iV
-r-
a
(0 �t�
�,L
v a
0 <13
0 0
N N
M N
r m
[ E f0
r d
81
N
N
T
y
A
a
t c
ci
c
y
y
Zz
m
m
r
maWp
� n
O pp
P
d
y
L
y
7 r J Ja
y
y
o ca
In a
N
U a
o
sn
_oo+
y
3
N
1
w
�
e
p
m
0
a
Q
o
A
m
ra
Z`
4;
n
`o
u
Q
n a
..
a
to
a 6 a
3
`o
O
5
o
n
y
o
W
a
g
'�
`�
a
m
a n
LL
Q Y
m
mQm
m
P
Q
O C
W O m
O
m
Q
S.3 U C7 C7
b
C
.�
W
EL
o
A
u6
tl1
V
lA
C
VJ
8
C
fA
o
In N
�
a
r
m
aa
®
X • X C
€
®
G+
>
aani
a
0 <13
0 0
N N
M N
r m
[ E f0
r d
81
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Soil Map -King County Area, Washington
Forest Ridge
Map Unit Legend
King County Area, Washington (WA633)
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AN
AgC Aiderwood gravelly sanely loam, 6 to 15 6.8 100.0°%
percent slopes
Totals for Area of Interest 6,9 100.0O%
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 12111=10
aiiiiiiiiiiiiii Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3
Map Unit Description: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes—
King County Area, Washington
King County Area, Washington
AgC—Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
Elevation: 50 to 800 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 25 to 60 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 52 degrees F
Frost -free period: 180 to 220 days
Forest Ridge
' Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 1211 3/2010
conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 2
Map Unit Composition
Alderwood and similar soils: 95 percent
Minor components: 5 percent
'
Description of Aiderwood
Setting
Landform: Moraines, till plains
'
Parent material. Basal till with some volcanic ash
Properties and qualities
Slope: 6 to 15 percent
'
Depth to restrictive feature: 24 to 40 inches to dense material
Drainage class: Moderately well drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat). Very low
to moderately tow (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr)
Depth to water table: About 18 to 37 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
'
Available water capacity. Very low (about 2.5 inches)
Interpretive groups
'
Land capability (nonirrigated): 4s
Typical profile
0 to 12 inches: Gravelly sandy loam
12 to 27 inches: Very gravelly sandy loam
27 to 60 inches: Very gravelly sandy loam
Minor Components
'
Nonna
Percent of map unit: 1 percent
Landform: Depressions
Bellingham
Percent of map unit: 1 percent
'
Landform: Depressions
Seattle
Percent of map unit: 1 percent
'
Landform: Depressions
Tukwila
Percent of map unit. 1 percent
Forest Ridge
' Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 1211 3/2010
conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 2
u
1
1
[ - I
L
L
1
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Region ---- -.-.-.
Pfojecysite: City/County: �' o r"{'��F� Sampling Date: _Z0
ApplicanVDwner: t r State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): Z< 'o Section, Township, Range: ISI/ T- Z -% /V IZ 6- E
Landform (hiltslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope. (%):
Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: P -,,GU NWI classification:
Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes _ No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Norma! Circumstances' present? Yes ✓ No
Are Vegetation Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -- Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophyfic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes Na within a Wetland? Yes t No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
VEGETAT;ON -- Use scientific names of plants.
tj5 Army i orps or Lngineefs
Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.6
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: _ 1
% Cover Species? Status
�
Number of Dominant Species
'f
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across AN Strata: (B}
4.
Percent of Dominant Species V
Sapling./Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 1
= Total Corner
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A13)
1. %Z /�i di. f S'
P4 -L
Prevalence Index worksheet:
2.
Total % Cover of: Multi I by:
3.
08L species x 1 =
4.
FACW species X2=
5.
FAC species x3 --
3=Total
Total Cover
FACE) species x4=
Herb Stratum (Plot size: ��
UPL species x 5 =
CotumnTotals: (A) (B)
3.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
4.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators -
5.
_ Dominanoe Test is >50%
_ Prevalence Index is �3.0'
6.
7.
— Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
$
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
= Total Cover
—
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:. S
1.
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
2.
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydrophytic
= Total Cover
Bare Ground in Herb Stratum %Cover of Biotic Crust
Vegetation
Present? Yes �^ No
Remarks:
tj5 Army i orps or Lngineefs
Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.6
SOIL Sampling Point:%
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix _
Redox Features
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
finches) Color (moist) %
_ Color (moist) %_TY�e, tae
Texture Remarks
check all that apply) Sewndary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water JA1)
— Salt Crust (B11) _
Type: C=Concentration, D --Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pare Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all
LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
Histosol (Al)
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B)
_ Black Histic (A3)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (FI)
_ Reduced Vertic (F18)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Field Observations:
Thick Dark Surface (Al 2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (St)
_ Vernal Pools (F9)
wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
unless disturbed or problematic_
Restrictive Layer (if present):
incudes ca ills fringe)
Type:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Depth (inches)_
�� o'" a -� �er�,J � i� [�•Cy? 7� pti-r �,� /�-••-.- � r
Hydric Soil Present? Yes I/ No
H Y UKOLQUY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators_(minimum of one required:
check all that apply) Sewndary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water JA1)
— Salt Crust (B11) _
Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)
High Water Table (A2)
— Biotic Crust (8 12)
Sediment Deposits (132) (Riverine)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine)
— Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) _
Ddit Deposits (B3) (Riverine)
_ hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _
Drainage Patterns (610)
= Sediment Deposits (82) (Nonrivedne)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Drift Deposits (63) (Nonrivetine)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
—Recent Iron Reduction in Titled Soils (C6) _
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks) _
FAC -Neutral Test (DS)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes
No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes
No ✓ Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No
incudes ca ills fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
�'c S S v.�c�
�� o'" a -� �er�,J � i� [�•Cy? 7� pti-r �,� /�-••-.- � r
US Army Corps of Engineers
Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2,0
1
11
1
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes
Present? Yes
No ✓
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil
No —17
in a Welland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
f
Number of donririant Species -Z
WETLAND DETERMINATION
oast
DATA FORM —Western Mounta�ns�]ialkeys,and Coast -
—
ProjectlSite CSI ^^fl
.
CitylCounty: rSampling ]ate: �^ zc) - /Z)
Applicant/Owner: �F� �� ��
m _ State- Y✓if-_ - Sampling Point:
r-) � It
Investigator(s): ' Y ��
Section, Township, Range: S T 3 /V Tz 6 -
4.
Landform
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope
j%):
'
Subregion (LRR):
Lat: Long: Datum:
Percent of Dominant Species
Soil Map Unit Name: z/,&
NW classification:
` Total Cover
Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time o€ year? Yes L,1�' No (if no, explain in Remarks.)
SapGnglShrub
'
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology
significantly disturbed? Are 'Norma( Circumstances" present? Yes ✓
No
1.
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology
naturally problematic? (if needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
o iA e-
1
11
1
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes
Present? Yes
No ✓
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil
No —17
in a Welland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
f
Number of donririant Species -Z
Remarks:
�'b✓IAS r�� r5
VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants.
U5 Army Corps of Engineers
Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ?
% Cover
Species? Status
Number of donririant Species -Z
1.
�'b✓IAS r�� r5
6
—
That Are 05t_, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
2.
3-
Species Across Alf Strata: (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
` Total Cover
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A!B)
SapGnglShrub
Stratum (Plot size: 1
1.
TZ &,� _S
fs •
o iA e-
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total %Cover of: MultiplybY.
2. 02_,6_r ey�SCc.k-,-- 1!4 [cJ
3.
OBL species x 1 =
4.
FACW species x2=
5.
FAC species /U A x3= D
FACU species 90 x4= /G b
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: I
UPL species Ala X5= Ld 2_�
1.
4d i.rti .ti?r, .l.r Jr -61
0
Column Totals: FjV (A) (t3)
j.
3-
Prevalence Index = BIA
4.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
_ dominance Test is >50%
Index is n.0'
�_
5,
gPrevalence
7_
Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
8.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plo( size: )
1.
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
2
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Present? Yes No
Remarks:
U5 Army Corps of Engineers
Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SOIL
Sampling Point: -p p 117- —2-
ion: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Matrix
Redox Features
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Eradicators f2 or more uired)
Color (moist) %
F
Color (moist) % Type` Loc
Texture Remarks
_ High Water Table (A2)
_ Biotic Crust (612) _
7, 5 W�
_ Saturation (A3)
_ Aquatic Invertebrates (613) _
'T : G=Gonoentration, D=De letion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all
LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ i cm Mucic (A9) (LRR C)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR 13)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)
Reduced Vertic (F18)
Hydrogen Sutfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
u Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
(inches):
Thick Dark Surface (Al 2)
— Redox Depressions (F8)
31 idicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
_ Vernal Pools (179)
wetland hydrdogy must be present,
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Remarks:
Type.
Depth (inches)_
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Eradicators f2 or more uired)
_ Surface Water (A1)
_ Salt Crust (B11) _
Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)
_ High Water Table (A2)
_ Biotic Crust (612) _
Sediment Deposits (132) (Riverine)
_ Saturation (A3)
_ Aquatic Invertebrates (613) _
Drift Deposits (83) (alverine)
r Water Marks (131) (Nonriverine)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Drift Deposits (83) (Nonrivedne)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (66)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
Thin Muck Surface (C7) _
Shallow Aquitard (1)3)
Water -Stained Leaves (89)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks) _
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No[%/Depth
(inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No
✓ Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
I
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0
' WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys and -Coast Region
Project/Site: _ Q�t1 My u:
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SOIL
Sampling Point: �)f 4tS
Profile Description_ (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators 2 or more required)
inches Color_fmo€st)_ °/
Color (moist) % Type Loc
Texture Remarks
�O'VA 7_/I
MLRA 1, 2,4A. and 4B)
4A, and 481
hT : C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, GS=Covered or Coaled Sand Grains. zLocaGon: PL=Pure Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
_ Histosol (A1)
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3)
— Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)
` Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1)
_ Depleted Matrix (173)
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
< Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S 1)
— Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Redox Depressions (F8)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
/
x '-Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators 2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1)
` Water -Stained Leaves (69) (except _
Water -Stained Leaves (89) (MLRA 1, 2,
_ High Water Table (A2)
MLRA 1, 2,4A. and 4B)
4A, and 481
_ Saturation (A3)
_ Salt Crust (S 11) _
Drainage Patterns (B10)
-'Wafer Marks (61)
Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) _--„
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (132)
_ _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _--_
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Drift Deposits (133)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _
Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Iron Deposits (135)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (66)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (Di) (LRR A) _
Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks) _
Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7)
J Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
/
x '-Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes % No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers
Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0
' WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mounta�ns,-Valleys, and Coast-Region—
Project/Site: odd "s Cityicounty: C` F l A,,- Sampling Date: '6 -w -/o
Applicant/Owner:. _ _.. T3�jf Fr/plc State: t `��' Sampling Paint: 'W14 r
Investigator(s): Gam' 67C,___y / Section, Township, Range: S I T-7-3 25�F
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%9):
Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name:/17-/161 +^' F NWI classification:
Are climatic 1 hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"Norma! Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (It needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
1
1
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes
No
Dominance Test worksheet:
Hydric Sal Present? Yes
No
Is the Sampled Area
Welland Hydrology Present? Yes
No
within a Wettand? Yes No
Remarks:
2.
VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plaints.
IUS Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0
Absolute Domirlant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: t
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Strata: (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, FAC:
= Total Cover
Sapfing/Shru_ b Stratum (Plot size: )
or ` (AIB)
Prevalence Index worksheet -
ortrsheet2 Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
2.
OBL species x i =
3
FACW species x 2 =
4.
FAC species x 3 = 7
5.
FACU species 'T 14= 3 00
=Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: t
UPL species x 5 =
1. _ ��t�� Sip
FI��
Column Totals-, (A) 3 -7 _ (8)
Prevalence Index = BIA = 2: -7.5
2.
3.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4.
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5.
_ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
6.
3 - Prevalence Index is !�3.0'
7.
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
g.
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
_ 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants'
g.
10.
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
11,
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic,
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
2.
Present? Yes No
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Remarks:
IUS Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0
SOIL
Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
Primary Indicators (minimum of one reoulreds check all that apply) Secondary Indicators 2 or more required)
(inches) Calor (moist) %
Color (moist) % Type Loc
Texture Remarks
,:ar /OY4 Z /-Z •
MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48)
%a.--.
l� /D�I2 Zf Z
_ Salt Crust (13 11) _
Drainage Patterns (810)
IType, C=Concentration, D=De lett,,, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ?Location: PL=Pare Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all
LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
_ Histosol (A1)
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10)
_ His4 Epipedon (A2)
— Stripped Matrix (56)
` Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF1 2)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Dark Surface (Flt)
3indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one reoulreds check all that apply) Secondary Indicators 2 or more required)
_ Surface Water (Al)
_ Water -Stained Leaves (89) (except _
Water -Stained Leaves (89) (MLRA 1, 2,
High Water Table (A2)
MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48)
4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3)
_ Salt Crust (13 11) _
Drainage Patterns (810)
Water Marks (B1)
_ Aquatic Invertebrates (B 13)
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (62)
^_
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (133)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (64)
` Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Iron Deposits (B5)
— Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
_ Surtaoe Soil Cracks (86)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) _
Raised Ant Mounds (136) (LRR A)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87)
Other (Explain in Remarks) _
Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
/
Saturation Present? Yes No
✓ Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
1 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mounta�ns, Valieys, and Coast -Region- - -----
Project/Site: Q�t� +/1r<S �i /F i , CitylCounty: C-4 e>f A`/�F -i Sampling Date: g, -W -/O
Appticant/Owner..�F,-r ,pc .^~ State: �` Sampling Point b P 13 - 7-
Investigator(s):
Investigator(s): + C Section, Township, Range: S I I T -z -3 57-F
Landform (hi(lslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI ciassification:
Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are'Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes
No V11 -
�.7�
Absolute
Hydric Soil Present? Yes
No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
No
SpSSi s? Status
Remarks:
1.
VEGETATION —Use scientific names of plants.
IUS Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -- Version 2.0
",V-
Absolute
Domirlant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum
(Plot size: }
% Cover
SpSSi s? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAG: (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across AN Strata: (8)
4.
Peroent of Dominant Species
= Total Cover
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (AB)
Sapling/Shrub
Stratum (Pot size: 1
Prevalence Index worksheet:
` 4
1. _
v_ _ i S p� r S c U �r
(p 15
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
2.
T
OBL species x 1 =
3.
_
FACW species X2= r�
4.
FAC species 3 X3= 90
5
FACU species x 4 =
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum
(Plot size: }
-3a
r-
UPL species x 5 =
3 e d
1.
A5" 'r )-J- fJ
rA
Column Totals: / (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3 y
2
3.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4.
^ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5.
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
^_
B.
3 - Prevalence Index is �3.0'
7.
_ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
g.
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
- Weiland Non -Vascular Plants'
�_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
9,5
10.
11.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: l
1
2.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
= Total Cover
Present? Yes No
% Bare Ground
in Herb Stratum
Remarks:
IUS Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -- Version 2.0
",V-
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SOIL
Sampling Point: > Z- 7—
Profile
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
Primary Indicators minimum of one requifed• check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
_Color Col_or )moist) %
Color (moist) % Type Loc
Texture Remarks
�- �vy�31z
IALRA 1, 2,4A, and 4B)
4A, and 46)
_ Saturation (A3)
_ Sal# Crust (B 11) __..
Drainage Patterns (B10)
,Type. C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Locatiow PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all
LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
r Histosol (At)
Sandy Redox (S5)
_ 2 cm Muck (ASO)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Red Parent Material (fF2)
Black Histic (A3)
_ Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) (except MLRA 1)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF1 2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
;Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
r Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Redox Depressions (F8)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Depth (inches):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators minimum of one requifed• check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
_ Surface Water (At)
_ Water -Stained Leaves (69) (except
Water -Stained Leaves (69) (Mi_RA 1, 2,
_ High Water Table (A2)
IALRA 1, 2,4A, and 4B)
4A, and 46)
_ Saturation (A3)
_ Sal# Crust (B 11) __..
Drainage Patterns (B10)
_ Water Marks (B1)
_ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) _
OtySeason Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (82)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Drift Deposits (133)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _
Geomorphic Position (D2)
— Algal Mat or Crust (64)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
__._ Iron Deposits (B5)
— Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _
FAC -Neutral Test (05)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
—Stunted or Stressed Plants (01) (LRR A) _
Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks) _
Frost -Heave Hummocks (07)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No
pth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
1 I US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0
w
s
1
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountains, Valleys; and Coast Region -- -
ProjectlSile: � M L4 �S City1county: C -6z -F r /,,- Sampling Date: Wry'/0
Applicant/Owner: 9,)/'
•� �I � ' " State. Wer` Sampling Point: tom?
Invesfigator(s): E" Section, Township, Range: S t I T Z-5 5—F
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope
Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:
S l Ma Unit Name: l �''a NWI classification:
or p
Are climatic t hydrologic conditions an the site typical for this time of year? Yes Na (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are'Normal Circumstances present? Yes No
Are Vegetation Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (!f needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Sal Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Domirfant Indicator DominanceTestworksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: f % Coyer Species? Status Number of Dondnant Species
1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
2- Total Number of Dominant Z
3. Species Across All Strata: (B)
4
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: }
1.
2.
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes
No
IUS Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0
Percent of Dominant Species
= Total Cover
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (AIB)
SaplinalShrub Stratum (Plot size: }
�J7�1 �',%� ���--
-70���
Prevalence Index worksheet:
1.
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
2.
OBL species x 1 =
1
FACW species z X2= 'to
4.
FAC species X3=-
3=5.
5..
FACU species ?d x4= Zgf:
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum
(Plot size: }
UPL species x 5 =
4
1
JZy,• v. -c �i.-s �-.
-2 y XGw./
Column Totals: (A) _ (S)
2.
Prevalence Index = B!A = `�
3_
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4.
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5.
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
6.
3 - Prevalence Index is :53.0'
7.
_ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
_ 5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants'
8
y
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
10
_
11
' Indicators of hydric soil and wettand hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: }
1.
2.
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes
No
IUS Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
jai l
Sampling Paint: �? � 3 -3
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) „ Secondary Indicators (2 or more reg_uired)
(inches) Color (moist) %
Color moist % Type Loc
Texture Remarks
_ High Water Table (A2)
MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)
4A, and 4B)
_ Saturation (A3)
_ Salt Crust (1311) _
Drainage Patterns (B 10)
ITYPI, C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all
LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
Histosol (Al)
^_
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF 12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87)
_ Thick Dark Surface (All 2)
_ Redox Dark Surface (Ffi)
3Indicators of hydrophylic vegetation and
Sandy Mucky Mineral (Sl)
— Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
unless disturbed or problematic,
Restrictive Layer (if present):
` Depth (inches):
Type:
Water Table Present? Yes No–f5>–
epth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yea No
Remarks:
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
HYDROLOGY
Welland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) „ Secondary Indicators (2 or more reg_uired)
_ Surface Water (Al)
_ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except _
Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2,
_ High Water Table (A2)
MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)
4A, and 4B)
_ Saturation (A3)
_ Salt Crust (1311) _
Drainage Patterns (B 10)
Water Marks (81)
_ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) _
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (132)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3)
— Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _
Geomorphic Position (132)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (114)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Iron Deposits (65)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _
FAC -Neutral Test (1)5)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) _
Raised Ant Mounds (136) (LRR A)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks) _
Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
` Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No–f5>–
epth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes NoDepth
(inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), it available:
Remarks:
1 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast –Version 2.0
' WETLANDI DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Western Mountajns, Valleys,--and—Coast—Region - -- -- - -
Projectlsite: 14e "s t/i l �•t City/County: C' 6i . F /�?_""' Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: State: �} Sampling Point
' Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: S 11 TZ -3 33
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%}:
' Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: o NWI classification:
Are dimatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil of Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are 'Normal Circumstances' present? Yes No
Are Vegetation . Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydfophytic Vegetation Present?
Yes No
Dominance Test worksheet
Hydric Soil Present?
Yes _ / No
�7
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes No
Remarks:
3.
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
1 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0
Absolute Dom' nt Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet
Tree Stratum (Plot size: _ 1
1.
% Cover . Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant f
Species Across A8 Strata: (B)
3.
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: /110 (AIB)
5aplingf5hrub Stratum (Plot size: _ f
= Total Cover
Prevalence Index worksheet -
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
08L species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
,
1 a
2.
3.
4
5.
FAC species x3=
FACU species x4=
— Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: }
UPL species x 5 =
1-
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B!A =
2.
3.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4•
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5•
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
^_
B.
3 -Prevalence Index is s3.0'
?.
_ 4 - (Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
g.
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
g.
5 - Wetland Non -Vascular Plants'
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
10._
11.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 1
1
Hydrophytic
2-
Vegetation
=Total Cover
Present? Yes No
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Remarks:
1 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0
SOIL_
Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required:
(inches)— Color (moist) °!°
Calor (moist) __ % Type Loc
Texture Remarks
Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2,
High Water Table (A2)
�_
MLRA 1, 2,4A, and 48)
ITYP., C --Concentration, D=De ),tion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all
LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
Histosol (Al)
^_
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
` 2 cm Muck (Al 0)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Black Histic (A3)
J Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Other (Exp(ain in Remarks)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All 1)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_„_ Redox Dark Surfaoe (F6)
'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Surface Water Present? Yes
Type:
FHydr1kail
Depth (inches):
Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Water Table Present? Yes
No Depth (inches):
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required:
check all that aoply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
— Surface Water (Al)
— Water -Stained Leaves (B9) (except _
Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2,
High Water Table (A2)
�_
MLRA 1, 2,4A, and 48)
4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3)
— Salt Crust (1311)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (61)
_
_ Aquatic Invertebrates (B 13) _
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (132)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (CI) _
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (Cg)
_ Drift Deposits (133)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Geomorphic Position (132)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (84)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (65)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (01) (LRR A) _
Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) ,_,_ Other (Explain in Remarks) _
Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes
No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes
No Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ".., No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
�: a
v
g
n
V
i
N
�
b
w �
w
_
p
?
X a
a
4• :� 3
8 3 k o
.v
Y
ti
E
cn
�� Y
O � ✓h F
i.�
C � A
baE
rt
o 03y3
o
�
a
j-�'$
� �
•n n. U V u
47
b
?
__� G
~
y C
V V
�J
G
o 0 0 o
'. U
neo
d
V 4 C •O
� n � '� �
V
� '� � �
G
y
tr,
t
b 5 `�
b .rS 4..
b L 'J �°
y h
O V C •m
3
y�
w
R
o
bpPp3
�b E uts
V d
V
0.
;
x �a ao
V
V R
Vi h L° �vai�
W a u
Cali
cR/1
�: a
v
g
n
V
i
N
�
w �
w
_
p
?
X a
a
Ca a'1vl
tr. Lc
Ui
aS
'C
aux
a
•o
j
z
�J
o 0 0 o
'. U
d
y
p
3uwwzmeoL.)
y
y�
w
3 b w
o m
G
'}
W
I
C
O
Y i 6
C
U
OL
Y
•v
v
� �:: ::
y
LU
UUUU
R
3
7.
cC
U
�: a
v
g
n
V
i
N
�
w �
w
?
X a
a
Ca a'1vl
tr. Lc
Ui
aS
'C
aux
a
p
3uwwzmeoL.)
y
y�
w
ti Y
z j
�: a
F
0
wis Q yr .CbAo ti o
o>N04 a.E �'o4 ami
P4N a a
u —
W,run 'deo Y a 9
�4
�P4L� 3°rsS
u 7 3 n F o
E u r F o a a 3 d c
0�ON N:j Y E°
`o � � y � ui-' y d yGC� RF•Q k
h N
D N E o v v `° .`v��" '� x u o •701 F- >,. u E
•m+ •di ti o a 3 -°b -G 3 bb W u'ur c
w rhe :o y 3 P a ro c g F v x q rn m 5 N
E_
Y�
u zW Y
�' Yc a a lam^• � u� � r a� h� m �� b U n � °� rJ' a y
u h 8 k �° .�F' d e o a u c3A eorn�•• m
m p om4wi oenc°°° u�xs?pP�'Ya.aE
3
F
.d
n
�
P4 —
L
R
� U
_ I�C]aclAF=
3 0
u
AQ�
D
C
3
s
u
w
O
c
u
�
Y
t°
aoa.�.N
u
Y
a U
ti �
r
O
y
O O
nCi
nC]oi
3
S
3;
8
r
1
1
1
1
O
3�
3 11
I
la
F
Ro
-
U
os
u R h
2 i t
a 1 1 o
_
D
e
o
x„95.5p
''= -gZ4
�'
3
e
.�
q�q��"a �u�
s
v
.
'�
.fi
.9m
-0� .9Spa
� "�
-o b
0
o
y
b n a 3
1
o 4
w Z
E a .5
b
m a a
v
G
3oa4-4
11 Z Eu
O ° C b
=_� 5�o.
3 V D
h
-8;4`3 8 Zo
39u i37,
S ~
..,ry
G
d
AFU.
C O t
r
ry
' C �
U
C ' 9- 9 b w . r3'
3 6 U y
p0
A� a' {
a
mj
3 V 4 °^ •�+
G
`o�ti'eo�
m^a
dti5
��iwSgo� n.Ea O
u
Xmn�o
3M �0�3d'Nry nRC�iju
A QO3Ep ��b
T
D"�Gw
�,.
5� .. N y c
G V tl
rd $�� e u
a. p y P P
.. a.�.au
..". .� a,�$ Y Q
_
r 4 p b
S
L
.'
7 5 C N
y�`�g.2 C'
C
°!
'$
•,� .Ar
�����'.'4
c
C'Cy
;�. �c ���y
�
tl O ° O
u
N
N
X00
o� o�
.0 DF
r o f '^ � i F- � J m 3 O
N
m��
.`J ]
;ilyy
y� :d ��
�ERonnV
za���wano
"y
tl`o'
mE1�6�C
Q Q Q Q
Q Q
O
3�
3 11
-
U
os
�
u R h
2 i t
a 1 1 o
b w e L i c
o
x„95.5p
.fi
.9m
-0� .9Spa
-o b
0
3 '^ G
O O
aLVi
o u F� -^
T e CY S d
G
3
O
ry
' C �
p
A� a' {
y
,^_`?•oma
'$
•,� .Ar
�����'.'4
y!it
C'Cy
;�. �c ���y
�
.:,
u
a u❑ aa' c° z
N
X00
o� o�
.0 DF
r o f '^ � i F- � J m 3 O
N
m��
;ilyy
y� :d ��
�ERonnV
za���wano
"y
tl`o'
mE1�6�C
u
a
+4 C n
..�
N
v c a 4
N
u 6 6 6 6
y
ea4+.
3
G O
w
z
O O R
G
`3 Su
I I I I�
Fr=asN'y�VU�V
aN[eQOLI11
O
3�
3 11
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
a
a
1
I I
w
�h
aaaa
�L".�"..
U u
'O C
N-}.k3^'c�.. ?
C G9 "
.'Q
7'd 4
d
C .0 'D ryV-
o GG ? tw LLw j
Y
WQ Y
W4
a 0 A C p C a
h 5 91 i 7
.� p ' y
❑ c' c .ter.
¢3 0 5 'd 7 5 a N
4A. :8
.
1
N O
[L '�
mo$3
3
L
.142C
4
€
4F a
k EE
x
=
�aC,
vAA
a
}r i
a
aaaa
WQ Y
W4
a 0 A C p C a
h 5 91 i 7
.� p ' y
❑ c' c .ter.
¢3 0 5 'd 7 5 a N
4A. :8
.
x
=
a
}r i
1
k
L111
1
3
10
I
S
3�
0
pa
7.T
'9
sya
o
r,e ..s55
�
p°
�
o
�
J
E'�o
440o °
� �,� .R,a
a 2•v
a
p° b 0 o
4
��y4Q-1
ow�C
av
y V
y
v u.
u
yA..
�crauy°y o
vo
�r�a_�yyd
Yom.
2C7y' Re°bq Y,u-�
3 3 3 YZ
�zIOb
V{I s09 �n °w
?,
y e�
� .� O C •,
u
P
I
S
3�
0
pa
7.T
'9
J. s
�
J
a 1
p° b 0 o
4
��y4Q-1
ow�C
av
y V
y
v u.
u
yA..
�crauy°y o
vo
.5An N
wks"�:$.a
y.5
Rvm
N
?,
y e�
� .� O C •,
u
P
�
�
�� u
F} � j ;
�d
y_ b -C w V v m
��.--..`• vl Q C C n� L �
�
•�
�
�3
V
mz uuA
ti � i V— �
A U
C 6 J � R F 0. •" N
pu O
U
R
V
`",'m
,. o u
v = ..
o a oe - uo =3=
FcL " ��
- t
m -ta o •.. e o o .t o .� 0 0
O V U Wn
° °
z '-
w Z .� A
N V
4' I I
I I If 1
TxYoy x�w��
Q�g2I
I
S
3�
0
V
I I
U
rJ U q L
Y
7, Sad U n
A V t V7_ 3 3
oa,
v
v U G v o ro
ay
y
U
d-
�C
5 Ob i U y 4
c i d u as
•T•
O tl ij y RJ L
Vj b
'q
'9
z j
N n 3
^ c^• Y C.� 'S °
m
D 'Z
c, id •v a g =
c
a °
� � -
k.v';+'�.y,...`,4
o
•v o ."3 a F v A sa ,c
a
vi
OyC X'e1 X\fin
H>3
�ol` �ttaeU,�a�Nb
�zw
J p
u
V]
u
VJ
F4
U G
1
I I
e e
ay
U
d-
�C
5 Ob i U y 4
O°
•T•
O tl ij y RJ L
Vj b
'q
m
c, id •v a g =
c
0
3
a
OyC X'e1 X\fin
L
W m i 3 -• u� 3= u u
O
x
t"
0
S
3
4
3 11
3
14
.a
a
U
-
u
A
u �
w �
—
n
U
ti
K
�
4
�
� �'F
•D � .�+
V � R � �
°�' V 1;
d U R >+
.� �•�
G
a �
-c
O~ G
f
o c
N
�o�
p �
A _
.4. O
� z•
� `a N •h
� 'qv
a
„�i
u G
13F
O10-2
or
o
a
vo
c
'E
o c
`" " � d
4-
� o w
•N
� 'sc�c a � H
o
R
4i
•a
E ..
� �'
•y 4 � .h
n
�
_
O
j v.'?
�
k
vi
c
'S
ll
.N
.a
«y M ,`{
p .tm
S
as y
C V
G N
Z A •+ d
F V
F p
E u
WG.y i� ti
�
•O
A 'a
O^'G O
V C O
a v R
O m 0 `n
� d~_ tl
.a
a
U
—
n
U
ti
K
J.
N
�o�
p �
A _
a �
� `a N •h
� 'qv
a
„�i
or
o
a
vo
c
'E
o c
`" " � d
4-
� o w
•N
� 'sc�c a � H
o
R
•a
E ..
� �'
•y 4 � .h
C
O' �
� ` V
O
d. y 'r.
,.4 y 4" �
vi
c
'S
ll
.N
.a
«y M ,`{
p .tm
S
as y
C V
G N
Z A •+ d
F V
F p
E u
WG.y i� ti
�
•O
V
O^'G O
V C O
a v R
O m 0 `n
� d~_ tl
G
Lv
N O• 1,
y u
a'O C
C Gl .q
X �r
N »
u U �... C
p ^. Sp •-
O V u
`
q
T i 9
3
o�
U
pF�LG 4 � o°
I
Q 3 m
�. � n o
Y o p d
U 4 .�
7, y c � L
�• E, a a'o
y� o
0
$ i
�>
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3 !
{ k\
\
@a
G
mems
.�
\ \ \
Or
{
)
]j23z%))��`}
a=332\2aa{
02\»,;wZ¥
_�
aaoo/,
L)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3 11
W
T,
'L
moiIV`
W
� . b
W
w
C-
c
Fi
d 'L
.w�, ' .22
N
� N
� �
W
G
N
� •Y' Q
m
yn u
m u tib
22
-O� c
Ux
w
3
'
Y
i N�
•A V� C�
� 'C R
°FRIs]cmOU
7..
nc
' ea"a
is
ro 3. go
cw
a
`cam4
ZT a •o
u°
r
'a13 qqp.
a.oq��
0.
x C�
0gL°96
cn W R
Q + FLoi A V
5 4
V)
3 11
W
T,
'L
F�
Fi
d 'L
V
F
O
tl
�
Y
coCsv,ww`
Ux
w
3
W
°FRIs]cmOU
7..
3 11
n
3
u
a
:s
C
a
C
� R
� a
C
W v✓'i
b
S
V A
>�
N
v
�
� ]
W
A
p
w
O
Cv�p
3
5vso 2�'x E
..
17
N k❑ m v
N
o
T
F
O y
R �
w
F
a m •c.�
F-
d a 3
y �A
Fa �i oVo tr n S y
++
45
}gpIW'3i�3_n
O
p
�+
y E ccz
ter°
+ +
ut
o
'S x 3
a
:s
C
a
C
� R
� a
N
v
�
u
A
p
w
O
3
E�
w
t
N
o
T
F
O y
R �
w
F
++
45
+
+ +
ut
E E
�: r
�nmv�q
0.
C]v,
3
d p 4 ry'AS
G � O
CUL
'-
-13
a
u
�
kL til C �U V C nom, tl F p� °
]k .5O 7 E
t3 a c a E
k oo R aF. w 'C �'� E Z7
X U` 'C]
r
c 0.
o Z �`' ��. ��° `� QZ!
d4,cu`m
R N F
E
I j7 bgbai m a a
� .d I '7�
.F � •5 r 'n c � Y .F � `° .. � � iii] � E o � o F � � s N � � c � �
c
u . n E Yy'`u
a
C O}
n.
O a 00
Q t
24
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3�
A o
z
oil
I
tl
�
F G O.0
3 uz n v,
m
�,•
u r °
u
��
ti
O
° y
Cv .d.
o`
.o
o
a
d `oR P m
0 o
0
.'x.. of
°
3
—K
gb p
3
-�'eo
•�
IS,
o� �Ow
s
8
E
3 0 O°' a
•� ° o`
o":
`o a b e
a5 b 3 C` -`e
u 3
.01 y 7
O
4 bs� ^k Y'
d� C�
O ❑❑Y Q
°'
d ° °�
� i
pa
� � GS 0 `° C
A x
ii -0 �. F y W C
G .Y
'• 3 � 6 ,�
JU
Ii. � F
ZNr°- �
D
C C S 4,
D CJ
? 4 Q
O e a O O mP
Y
3
(y
S
_\" `_\`
�
cce«my
E
bo°ag 09
a° 05
����.�
n
W .5 �p S �'� .-.io f
g go��3-3�j\«fir.. O
E.
wj
a o C b 'c °"°
00
A
^'F.F-.FeFN�s�3����b��a
Q
QtV E
F
G
0.P. R. R.
�� y y ? � �� T
p A A A
A A
3�
A o
z
p 1�
C
�,•
u r °
u
��
ti
O
° y
Cv .d.
o`
.o
0
3
—K
3
IS,
4
8
E
3 0 O°' a
•� ° o`
o":
`o a b e
a5 b 3 C` -`e
_
M.
Y
S
_\" `_\`
3 a a o "'
a
tL tkL
q R o �, V
a o C b 'c °"°
00
0.P. R. R.
�� y y ? � �� T
+� Vi 4 u
t�aa��bnoa�
`.GDS.0
ilV�b000
Qy
�
N!'.�MS�l7
Q
�a�L
lfi
7 F+4 F�G'}i0
-5!
3�
A o
z
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
m
LL
LL
� i
O
C
p
U q S
3-
tj .�
3
N
�.�. - R A O
O4 � i �
•� n y pa � �
'd h
i '' C
ou
gra
q�1 wT : w
� 3
� V V N �,
� � LO "
� •� �
.9�
gym
��Q�5
•�� ip3 C
py
15
nye
S^a
9 tt
q
°v
o'
��
•s 3 �a
u �'�+R ' a
�w9
A+ '. t
�• \ d
`9
fi u U ae °' 4
e
4� m
�" I
A
71
vim{
ti�
�u�o �
o
E
E
V
�S
3
O
LL
LL
O
C
q�1 wT : w
� 3
� V V N �,
� � LO "
� •� �
T
A+ '. t
�• \ d
W W I- E ;
fi u U ae °' 4
e
4� m
�" I
��`I� � c `o
-ycyga. vi0<n ✓:VrL
ti�
�u�o �
o
�S
3
O
30
0
a11
3 1>
5
w
LL
'n
� 'O d w N
G .
✓� S 5
O O O
_v O
U v
•spy
O y ro T� S
A
�
a S
0 9 m
N •� � b b :c �
t
u'a
b�
to
9
o y
b
n
r
Z` R� z
e6_
v, o
n •ye
O
m u
u 0 y u 9
to �+ d
y�y
yc
�5�u b m
w�c3k
J .:mo°oa�'ovc
baro=
3"A
R
V
3 C a F -8
O -0h
ti d0•v<
zl
�a•-
y u 9 �ro�cw
°
z
u
u�HI �I
0
a11
3 1>
5
w
LL
m Z mD S
9
o y
b
n
r
Z` R� z
e6_
v, o
n •ye
O
y�y
yc
�5�u b m
w�c3k
J .:mo°oa�'ovc
baro=
3"A
R
V
3 C a F -8
O -0h
�'R
9
C O OC G
�a
w
WE
49 Oi]
0
a11
3 1>
3
I I
I 1 I
I I I
I
-
v
C
yN
U 'ro
,a
G I
go c v 3
.x
V4 v) 0�
V'S
� � Y a
O
.�,
o rC n
� �'
.. � � � �" y 'E n
•
oe
�
.� Y 0.V �
P �
a` V A ., 2
.•5t ..,
J V T
-'n—�a�•a "b �a�-
W
z a r w
Y
3
-
:n:
—
L
R�
I I
I 1 I
I I I
I
C
yN
,a
FC-)
.x
� � Y a
O
•o
_• .c
P �
a` V A ., 2
.•5t ..,
J V T
-'n—�a�•a "b �a�-
W
z a r w
Y
3
F- F -
,T -cam h h h �F
f"
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3 11
U
ro
-4
A
id
E
4
E a
E •� O �L' N T�
E
�
�
� a 'I
S 'O 4 •° H 7 �
Cr L S
b V Cu0
��� y
ca ri C w O
o •,� N.^w
E 3 `w t
Y v� r
v
°� v � o
"Fob
U-�^
�`a
y�
a V RV oEe
°
'° c
l
E 5 A
b �2 c d
u° ars v d
F
�v
c N
.9
'� ,-. u •tl `o o '9 a
o
a u q
O
= p• E r 3 a
Flo$
'� ,_
w 3 N o
� y
w
•G�
'�^u V
z ° u X
.,72
d ,`, Lig a w '3 b
u •�
a 3 x M O
�' o�EV�
F•°,aco
i,Ev�p
"
� E V `°� �`o� a
._oma-� ��.
EO
Fb3a
�S
a
'°•a
o °ice s
E
� `q p
.�. �� m�
. � v � m
� F- $Xn H H o�
D� � w d F
`
A E
I
�2 b
afl Y
U]
prix n
u
� �.V.
W b w ��
� 4
� 0 ami o
3 11
U
ro
E
I
E a
s
o
.9
� y
w
•G�
'�^u V
z ° u X
2 a '� d
p n`
a 3 x M O
o m {o
`o ea .5
m d V 7 °c'
•� a° D�
^.I
u A � fn 4i
� `q p
J- � �
. � v � m
^ •5 �, a
7
�2 b
V a • � � t � �
u
� �.V.
W b w ��
In C °�
� 0 ami o
O a_ � u
i' v 3 c ?
_R
3' cro'u
p V
••
Y
r`1
•° N
V ^ 6
r.� .. y
u
z
N
= a
O ,p. a
O b ea
�� .. �
m� 7
v
m
v u 5 •O
v
r 3 a x o
o
a M U
a
a_
3 3^
rn
❑
o6ap
,.. �
Da
II
w' G � N� `° �
�
m W
r
ae v A�
3
w Pa
o�
v A�
o
� a `_ v
o
Q p u A
N u V�
m
Z� }❑ .�. 7..o c
u. '�
�° c w
.o 0
u a
s Sn'd
M u a n �,-.
2 co
z w
> a
3 11
1
1
7
3 i
a
V V
�
�
c
=
m
E
r lz
_45
&u
3 y
y v
w w
s :,
7
3 i
BEFORE, the HEARING EXAMINER Pro Tempore for the
CITY of RENTON
DECISION
F] Ll," NI:11%1I31;1�: LUA1.0-090, ECF, PP
APPLICANT: Finkbeiner DcvelopTnent
ATJN: Bill l inkbeiner
12011 Bel -Red Road, Shite -,06
Bellevue. WA. 9800
0WNl'1�S! Robert Anderson &. (gale Mlhicr
13607 461" AVCn IC SE
North Bend, WA 98045
TYPE' OF CASE:
STAF.Ia IZ.E CO3NJNfl.iN17ATI0N
SUM ,WA Y UF 1)EUS1UN:
DA -H." 0.1 DECISION:
Preliminary SUbdivision (Olyi'�?p rs Villa)
Approve subject to conditions
GRANT subject to c{mditi{ins (revised)
April 22; 2011
INTRODUCTION r
Fink beine.r- Development (hinkbeiner) seeks preliminary approval of Olyj-?za Filla, mi 11 Sot single family
residential subdivision of a 6.72 acre site zoned R-4.
Finkbeiner filed the preliminary subdivision application on December 22.,20 10. (I:xliibit 11 2) The Renton
DC'.partrnent of COMMUnity and Economic Development, Plaitning Dlscion (Planning) deemed the
application to be complete on January 7, 2011. (Testimony)
,env statement in this section deemed to be either a Finding of Fact ora Conclusion ,)f Law, is hereby adopted as such.
` I_'xhibit citations are provided for the reader's benefit and indicate: 1) The source of a quote or specific fact; and/or 2)
"Tbe m3'�or document(s) upon which a stated fact is based. White the Examincr considers all relevant doctnnents in the
record, typically- only major docinnents are, cited_ The Exam';ner's Decision is based upon all documents in the record.
c documents and ccl:inus'bwalinilVocal scilulgsliem parhry inrc[ne1 ti�cs'coi�rcntnui?nokl 7dzy°una11ua30 (}y{}.�p�
I ll:.A [1 INN t XAMINER Pro T6l i;q)orc' DECISION
R1=.: 1,1j A 10-090, F..CF, PP (04mpus Villa;
April 22, 201 I
Ya,,c1of!5
fl h�, subject property is located at 12X.XX Nile Avenue NE (aka 14, "i Avenue SE), approximately 800 feet
not th of NE 61h Street (aka SE 1.24`h Street).
The Renton. Hearing Examiner Pro Tempore (Examiner) viewed the subject property on April 19, 2011.
The Examiner held an open record hearing on April 19, 2011. _ Planning gave notice of the hearing as
required by the Renton Municipal Code (RMC). (Exhibit 14)
The following exhibits were entered into the hearing record during the [scaring:
Exhibits 1 - 12. As enumcratcd in Exhibit 1, the Staff. Report
Exhibit 1.3_ Applicant -requested condition changes
Exhibit 14: Hearing notice documentation
"rhe Examiner held the hearing, record open for up to two days at the request ofFinkbeiner and Planning i:or
receipt of a water availability letter and for entry of -the Environmental Review Committee (ER(') Report.
'['he follo�Ning documents were entered pursuant to that authority:
Exhibit 15: Water District 90 water availability letter
Exhibit 16: Environmental Review Committee Repolf
The record closed on April 20, 20117 N ith receipt of Exhibit 15.
The action taken herein and the requirements, limitations and/or conditions imposed by this decision are, to
the best of the Examiner's knowledge or belief, only such as are lawfil and within the authority of the
Examiner to take pursuant to applicable law and policy.
ISSUES
Does the application meet the criteria lorprellminary subdivision approval as established within the RMC?
Should the subdivision's internal street system include a northerly extension of Pasco Place NE'?
FINDINGS OF FACT
The subject property is essentially a "flag" lot which has 54.42 feet of fronta,,e on the east side of
Nile Avenue NT and which extends some 1290 feet to the cast, eventually widening to
approximately 315 feet_ (Exhibit 3) The property is presently vacant, although the remains of a
buildingrw
, presurned to be a for -mer residence which was demolished at an unknown time in the past,
are located on the western portion of the site. (Exhibit 5 and testimony)
c',documcnis and settings%b% altonlloca1 soilingsllcmporary internes files'consent.oulicoklaid2yunallual4-Q90_doc
1l1_ARING l:.XA-MI; :V, Pr;) DkCIYON
RIL: UjAIp_090, 1...1'. i':' f[_Itir��rritrc f'z1 _ri
�t•r! ?, 2011
1'a e 3
of 1
2. A variety «l land rises abut the subject property.
A. The .ve.s#ern "notch" on the south side of the subject property created by the 157 foot
southerly "jog" in the south property lime is occupied by an approximate 2.3 Acre parcel (the
Shenk parcel). The Shenk parcel contains a single-farrrily residence near its Nile Avenue NE
f.i-orltage. (Exhibits 1. 5, and 12C and lcstirrrony)
B. The cast half of the south property line abuts the north edge of the developed 11'indwood
single-family residential subdivision, One of the streets in Wind,,vood, Pasco Place NE,
terminates against [lie common property line with the subject properly. Pasco Place NE
extelyds southerly through Windward to eventually provide a connection Lo N' 4'h Street (aka
St" 128", Street). Wimli ood is a development of some 100± homes_ (Exhibits 2, 3, and 5)
fVil &i,,00d was developed under King County regulations. (Testimorny)
C. -1 lic east properly lure abuts rhe rear lot line o f Six lilts in Waureen ,rlighlamis, another 100± -
lot sIOc-f 7iily residential subdivision developed under King Counly regulations_
f -V nd,voo(1 and rkhmreen Highlands ,.ire interconnected via N1 6"' Street which extends
westerly to Nile Avenue NE. (Exhibits 2, 3, and 5 and testimony)
D. The north properly line abuts all or a portion of seven acreage lots, anost of which access SE
120`1' SLrect a short distance to the north_ One of those lots (the Newn»r property) is larger
than the rest arid is undeveloped; the rest appear to each contain a single-family residence
(Exhibits 2 and 5 and testimony)
3. The subject property is essentially flat with a veay gentle downward slope from east to west. (F xhibit
,) Two regulated wetlands are found on the property: A small. Category 3, disturbed wetland near the
west erd of the site, and, a signi i icantly larger, forested, Category 2 wetland located just east of the
Pasco Place NE right-of-way alignment (cxtendcd). (Exhibits 3 and 7) Vegetation consists of a mix
of shrubs, groLind cove r, and 95 trees. (L-xhibits 1 and 5) The subject property is not located in the
Aquifer Protection Zone. (Exhibit 1, P. 3)
4. Finkbeiner proposes to subdivide the subject property into I 1 lots for single-family residential
development, two open space tracts (Tracts A and C) totaling 87,966 square feet (SF), a 15,837 SF
storrnwater control tract (Tract R), and a 62,705 SF tract for futlrre development ('Tract D). (Exhibit
3) Finkbeincr has no plans to develop Tract D. (Testimony) Tract D is effectively isolated by the
Category° 2 w=etland on Tract A frons the rest of the subject property and can realistically be accessed
only from the north. For all. intents and purposes, Tract D most likely cannot be developed until the
acreage lot to its north is further developed.
The proposed lots will be served by two public streets: An cast -west street (proposed NE 7th Place)
exten.din, from Nile Avenue NE to art extension of Pasco Place NIE through the property_ Proposed
cAdocuments anci set]inesVemporary• intcmel fiics',content,ontlool':x7dz r ,1i5a1� 090.doc.
HF;AlZ. NG EXAMINER Pro TeY1w)n D1:C.lS30N
RE: i.UA 10 090, F:C:T7 PP (Olympus Villa)
April 22, 2011
Page 4 of 35
NF. 7`h Place will be developed as a "half street" section, allowing for future widening to a 1111.1 -width
section at such time as the Shenk property develops. (Exhibit 3)
Finkbeiner proposes to use the "clustering" provisions of the RN1C for some of (he proposed -lots- As
depicted on Exhibit 3, Proposed Tots 1 — 5 take advantage of those provisions. Finkbeiner asked at
hearing to be allowed to include Proposed Lots 6 and 7 in the clustering calculations_ (Exhibits 1 and
3 and testimony)
The density, of Olj jmpus V711a as proposed will be 2.6 dwelling units per net acre. (Exhibit 1)
5. The subdivision design and all of the proposed lots comply with RMC zoning; street, street nem ork,
harks, blocks; and lot configuration requirements. All of the proposed single-family residential lots
access a public street. (Exhibits I and 3)
6_ The record contains evidence that appropriate provisions have been made or can be made li
[i1.iAP�NLi E..X,AIV IN R Yro K,mi)r D `-'Flat'\'
Rl--: 1.i ,'A]0-090, ]_f.}:__ I" (0,Y,-�7p7.1s
AI;ril
�cf15
D_ Alleys_ Propo.wd Lots 2 & 3 and 4 & 5 will be served by two private casements which will
function as alleys, allovvirrg access to those lots from the rear of the lots. (E..xhibit 3 and.
testimony)
E. Other Public vways. No need tier other public ways withiri the subdivision exists. (Exhibits i.
and J)
F. Potable water supply. The subject property lies within Water District 90 which. has conPzmed
the availability of an adequate supply of potable water. (E`xhibit 15)
G. Sanitary wastes_ Art 8" sanitary sewer main exists beneath Pasco Place NE. (Exhibit 1)
H. Parks and recreation. -fhe pro jecthas been i:cquired through the State E'Tivironmental Policv
Act (SFPA) threshold determination process (See binding of Fact 7, below.) to make a n,u-k
impact mitigation payrnent. (Exhibit 16)
RcntoWs SLPA Responsible Offficial, the ERC, issued a DetunninallonofNonSlgnil1cance-Mitigated
(DNS -M) on January 31, 201. 1. (Exhibit 8) The DNS -M w;is not appealed. (Exhibit 1) The DNS -M
is based on three mitigation measures: Payrnent of a parrs and rcereation. irnpact fee, a transportation
impact fee, and a fire impact fee_ (Exhibit 16) The three mitigation measures have been carried
forward by Planning as a recommended condition of approval. (E'xhibit 1, p. 1 I , Recornmcri :cd
Condition 1)
S. -N—lost residents o1" Windivood have no objection to subdivision of the lanai to their north nor to the
proposed design with but one important exception: They are strongly opposed to the extension of and
use of Pasco Place N1:. Windivood residents have experienced runny problems with speeding drivers,
especially since the development of llooreen Highlands which resulted in the opening up of 6i
Street NrE, through [lie neighborhood. Stop signs have beery. installed, but some motorists ignore them_
J'he TJIindrvood residents believe that the extension o("Pasco Place NE will only make the situation
worse. 'l hey see no reason why, their neighborhood needs to be connected to the 011-mpus Villu
neighborhood. (Exhibits 12A and 12D and lestimony)
The RMC. requires that all new, deveiopment establish and further an interconnecting grid system_
The code allows for exceptions to the grid street requirement in only two situations: Where
interconnection is infeasible due to topography; or wbere interconnection is infeasible due to existing
substantial improvements_ RMC 4-7-150, exceptions listed in 4-7-1-50173] Neither condition that
would _justify an exception is present in this case: No topographical problems exist and no
improvements would block the extension. (flxhibit ))
9. One of the abuttin« owners in ,11aureen Highlands wants the easterly 60 feet of Tract D set aside as
open space to protect three deer and a fawn who reportedly live in the area_ (Exhibit 1.2B) Another
c:',Zucuments and settings\bwaIto WlIucal se inrts'.terzpDrzry internes files',coiaicnt.ou[Iook'x7d }2+na Ji arU-090.dnc
IIFARING EXAMINER Pro tempore DECIMN
kl-': .LUA10-090, ECF, IT (0137177pus V111(rl'
April 22, 201 1
Page 6 of 15
A,Iaureen Highlands resident is concerned that the development not increase storniwratcr flows
towards the cast and would prefer fewer, larger lots. (Exhibit € 2F")
10. Newman, the owner of one of the lots to the north, would like to see the Pasco Place NL extension
curve more to the east than is proposed. He notes that, as designed, the right-ol-way will stub out j'ust
to the west of' the colrunon boundary between his property and the property of his neighbor to the
east. He would like the right -of way stub to be centered on their common boundary, so that further
extension to the north through their properties would encumber each equally. (Testimony)
`l'he alignment of the Pasco Place NE extension right-of-way cannot shirt measurably to the cast
within the subject property due to the location of the Category 2 wetland and its required buffer_
(exhibit 3 and testimony) In order to make the adjustment Newman seeks, a reverse curve would
have to occur just to the north of the subject property.
Street alignment within subdivisions must comply with standards set by RMC 4-6-060. [P ti,9C 4-7-
150D] A deflection angle oi' 10° or more must occur through a horizontal "curve ofreasonably long
radius''_ Furthcr_ vdicre.vcr a reverse curve is to occur (an "S" curve or a chicane), there must be a
"tangent section" (a straight segment between the curs=es) of not less than 1.00 feet for residential
access streets_ [1.NIC 4--6-0601,'7a and F7c] Given tbatNewman's parcel has a north -south dimension
of approxinialely 250 feet (measured born Exhibit 2), the required curves and tangent se.c.tion would
take most of the depth ofhis parcel to complete.
11, Shenk submitted a comment letter and testified at the hearing. The letter lists an un&cr ofconcerns
resulting from misunderstanding some of the notations on the proposed preliminary plat. (Exhibit
I 2C) Shenk did not Mention those concerns in his testimony_
Shenk wonders why Finkbcincr will not berequired to install sewer stub -guts towards the south
when he installs the s(.wel' beneath future NE 7'}' Place_ He suggests that installing them when the
sewer 3nain is initially laid 'would eliminate the need to tear up the street later when his property
develops. (l"cs113-11orly)
Staff responded chat a major problem with such. an. idea is that no one can know where the stub -outs
might be needed cm hitt side of the street until a development proposal for his property is put forth_
('Testimony)
12. E'lanning perfoi-med a comprehensive, detailed, thorough an of the proposal's conformance
with applicable requirements of the RMC. Planning concludes that the proposal complies, or can be
conditioned to comply, with all applicable requirements. (Exhibit 1)
1 I Plazin_ing recomn.3ends approval of the proposed subdivision subject to 10 conditions. (Exhibit L pp.
1 1 and 12) Finkbeiner asks for revision to four of the recommended conditions:
c.'�JocumcnLS and wUings\hwaltonJOL�il sctiing,licmporary inle.meL 5ks,contentoutlooklx7dn�unallizaI�-094.doc
il�Al' IN (i EXAMINER. Fro Tuporr_ DF(ASIONI
J,', 1-: IjTA10 090, FCF- PP (01 1'iil;rj
122'.2011
f'a c.7ol ]
A. R.ecommendcd Condition 3: FIukbeiner warits to be'-Ihlc to Mcludc Proposed l,ots 6 aild 7 in
the clustering process. l'inkbeiner wants to gairr incrunscd i'lexibilit�- so that Proposed Lotsz[
and 5 might be slightly enlarged. (xhibit 1-3) Planning supports that requested chane_
(Testimony)
B. lZecommended Condition 4: While Finkbeiner agrees that Proposed bots 2 -.5 should access
from NF 7"' Place, he does not like the lariguapc �vlrich wrould limit that access lo the
casements as depicted on Exhibit 3. He wants the f exibil ity to alter their alignrnerit_ (Exhibit
13) Planning has no objection to providing some flexibility, but wants to Iitnit the nrrnrlrcr of
curb cuts and prohibit direct access onto Pasco Place NT. (Testimony) The RMC- efiecti vcly
requires alley access in residential. cluster de.,7igns. ,-RMC". 4-7-150 5e]
C. Recommended Condition 6: 'This condition requires 1 "water meters to serve Proposed Lots
6 - 11. That condition is based on the fact that, as presearily designed, houses built on those
lots would have to be equipped with fire suppression sprinkler syslems (becartse of the width
oNhe half -street section) which in turn require a lar; Xr-than-normal water meter. Finkbeincr
wants the flexibility to adjust the plat (slightly �Yidcning the half street right -o( -way) such
that those lots would not need to be sprinklered. (l.xhibit 13 and testimony) Staff testified
that the hire ivtarshal determines which lots must he sprinklereti just before final constntction
plans are approved. Staff now believes that Recomrne.ndvd Condition 6 should have been
provided as an advisory note rather than as a recorrnnended condition of approval.
("I estilnorny)
1). Recorunended Condition 8: l"inkbeiner would like the flexibility to have the open space
tracts owned in common by a horneowners association instead ahowned in common by the
jot owners abuttinp the tracts. (Exhibit 13) Planning supports that requested change.
(Testimony)
14, Any Conclusion of Lawn deemed to be a Finciin'o of" Fact is hereby adopted as such.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK 3
The Examiner is legally required to decide this case within the framework created by the following
principles:
Authority
A preliminary subdivision is a Typc III application tivhich is subject to an open record hearing before the
Examiner. The Exarniner makes a final decision on the application which is subject to the right of
reconsideration and appeal to the City Council. (RNTC 4-08-0701-11 j; 4-8-0806- and 4-5-10OG4]
Any statement in this section deemed to be either a Findin7 of tact or a Conclusion of Law is hereby adopted as such.
c_ldocumencs and settinls',bwaltorllocal settingsltemporary iniumet filessconLent. uclllouk'x7diyuna'dua 10-090.doc
11F.ARING E.XilMiNi?R 1'rr7 7'Cmo re DPCISION
R1,: t,l?A 10-090, 1 `CF, IT (01_Y i ws 1%0(,,)
April 22, 2011
Pa�-'e S of I
1'11e 1:�xam11)er may
grant or deny the application, or the Examiner may require of the applicant such conditions,
Modifications and restrictions as the Examiner finds necessary to make the application
compatible with its environment and carry out the objectives and goals ofthe Comprehensive
Plan, the zoning regulations, the subdivision regulations, the cosies and ordinances of the
City of Renton - --- Conditions, modifications and restrictions which may be imposed are, but
are not limited to, additional Setbacks, screcrID)gs in the form of landscaping and fencing,
covenants, easements and dedications ofadditional road rights-of--�vay. Performance bonds
may be required to insurc coinpliance with the conditions, modifications and restrictions -
[RMC 4-8-100(33]
1ZeviewC rrteda
The review criteria for pieli.nlinary subdivisions are set forth at RMC 4-7-080BI
B. PR1NC11'1_,ES OF ACCEPTABILITY:
A subdivision shall be consistent with the following principles of acceptability:
1. Legal Lotti: Create legal building sites which comply with all provisions of the C tv
Zoning Code.
2. Access: Establish access to a public road for each. segregated parcel.
3. Physical Characteristics: have suitable physical characteristics. A proposed plat may
be denied because of flood, intuadation, or wetland conditions. Construction of protective
improvements may be required as a condition of approval, and such improvements shall be
noted on the final plat.
4. Drainage: Make adequate provision for drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public
trays, water supplies and sanitary wastes.
(Bold headings in original) Recluireineuts and standards for street and trail networks_ parks and open space,
streets, residential blocks, and lot configuration are set forth in RMC 4-7-120 and -140 — 170.
The Local Project Reviser Act IChapter 36-7013 RCW] establishes a mandatory "consistency" review 1161-
"project
iar"project permits", a term defined by the Act to include "building permits, subdivisions, binding site plans,
planned unit developments, conditional uses, shoreline substantial development permits, site plan review,
permits or approvals required by critical area ordinances, site-specific rezones authori-r.ed by a
cornprehensive plan or subarea plan". J RC N 36.705.020(4) J
(l) Fundamental land use planning choices made in adopted comprehensive plans and
development regulations shall serve as the foundation for project review. Ule review of a
proposed project's consistency with applicable development regulations or, in the absence ov
applicable regulations the adopted comprehensive plan, under R.CW 36,7013.040 shall
incorporate the determinations under this section.
c,Adocuments and sertingslbwahon'.local settirgS%temporary inlcmct+ileslconient.ou?iook'x7dz��ma''] iaLO-090.dac
1 H'A1 INO I-AAi1tINER Pro 7'Cmpurc 171;('ItiLt)ti
1?:: 1A.V% 10-040, ECF. IT (O.") rr2puy Vi!L:)
,1p3';1 22, 'O i '•
=;age 9 o, 1 7
DLiri.ng prosect review, aoca governme:rrt or �trry Su �s�gucm rcv;e Wvrn� roc y s a
determine whether the licmS listed in this subsecLiun arc defined in the development
reOuiati oras applicable to the proposed project or, lit the abscricc of applicable regulations the
adapted comprehensive plan. At a minimum, such applicable regulations or plans shall he
determinative of the:
(a) Type of land use permitted tit the site, including rIscs that may be allowed
r€nder certain circumstances, such as planned unit devclopincnts and conditional and
special uses, ifthc criteria for their approval have been satisfied;
(b) Density of residential development in urban growth areas; and
;c) Availabilify and adeq racy ofpub] Ic facilities idents lied in the comprehensive
plan, if the plan or deve;oprneLit regulations prov ide fir Binding of these f- 61 Lies as
required by [thc Growth Managenicnt At :t �.
j ROV 36.7013.0301
Vesfcd Pighls
Renlon lr;is j3oL enacted a cyencral vested rights provision. Thcrcfurc, appiic.:l:le provisions of state law
r�rrve�7z=
S�ibdlvision and short subdivisiou applicaLions are "OVerned h,,, a statutory vestingrirle: such
ripplicatiorss "Shall be considered under the. subdivision or short subdivision ordinance, and
zoning or other land use control ordinances, in effect on the band at the time a fUlly
completed application ... has been submitted .. -."
[R( --'.W 58.17.[)33, see also SMC 10.28.480] Therelore this preliminary subdivision application is vested to
the remmlations as they existed on January 7-2011.
Stan lard of RcvIew
The standard of review is preponderance, of the evidence;_ `bloc appliCallL h:Is Ole burden of proof.
She; sol- Considc ratioir
'l he Examiner has considered_ all of the evidence. and Lestirriony; apt}lic.able adopted laves, ordinances, plans,
and policies; and the pleadings, positions, and arguments of the parties of record.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The preponderance of the cv-idcrrcc demonstrate-, cornpliancc v,vlth the prelirtiinary subdivision
approval criteria in R -MC 4--7-080131: All of the proposed lots vii 11 comply with zoning reg ilatLon S.
c.adocumci�ts an intemetdoc
HFARE"Xi EXAMINER Pi-(-) ?F,rnpore MC{ Sl(_ N
RL: LUA 10 090, J --CF- 11t' (0lyui1:m l7lfc�1
April 22,2011
Page 10 0I- 1Cl5
2. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates compliance with the preliminary subdivision►
approval criteria in RMC 4-7-OS013 2: Each lot -"N,11 I. have access to a public street_
3. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates cornpliance with the preliminary subdivision
approval criteria 1nRMC MC 4- 7-080B3: The major on-site critical area is to be protected; rnitigation in
conformance with adopted standards is proposed for the loss of the lesser critical arca.
4_ The preponderance of the evicie€ice demonstrates compliance with the preliminary subdivision
approval criteria in RMC 4--7-4 8OB4: The streets and drainage systems .have been designed to
comply With City codes acrd slandards. A mirror shorffall in. open space call, be easily fixed by ati
appropriate condition. Adequate utility services are available.
5_ The preceding four Conclusions of Law show that Ulymlens Villa complies with all established
criferia for approval_ However, they Iikely don't answer sonic of the neighbors' concerns_ The, next
Conclusions of Law will address l_heir concerns_
6. -Hie Mndrvood design obviously contemplated the: eventual extension of Pasco Place NL to serve
subdivision of the acreage pat'ccls to the north, of which the subject property is one.'hi;ther tl:c
home purchasers clearly understood that or not, that is the reality presented by a street whicli stubs
out to an adjoining undeveloped parcel. Olympus Villa's design .is slinply bringi ng that expectation to
fruition_
Renton has strong requirements for interconnection of streets between and arnon�? adjoining
developments. Just because King County dict not have intercottrrection requirennerrts is no reason to
not irnpfernent and enforce the City's requirements. The interconnection of Pasco 'lace NE with
proposed NE 7'� Place will provicie a second access into not only Olynilms 1`illu, btlt also the north
end of 14,indwood: If an accident were to block [lie Pasco Place NI INF 6'h Street intersection ncnv,
emergency vehicles could not reach any of the homes on Pasco Place NE north ofNE 6t� Street. The
interconnection will provide an alternate access. Anel as one of the witnesses acknowledged; many if
not most of the speeders are neighborhood residents, not outsiders cutting through the neighborhood_
The neighbors and the City have a range of actions that can be taken to solve the speeding problem
short of ignoring adopted requirements far interconnection of streets.
7_ The RMC provides no basis upon which one could require that the eastern 60 feet of'Tract 1) be set
aside permanently as open. space. Wildlife presently living on the portions of the site which will be
converted into streets and house lots will, most likely, be lost. 'I'irat loss is a direct result of the
legislative decision to urbanize this area. Urbanization is. generally speaking, incompatible with
most wildlife species habitat, especially for animals such as deer, bear, coyote, etc. The legislative
decision to designate and zone the area I()r urbanization amounts to a conscious choice of human
habitat over wildlife habitat. That legislative choice is not debatable in the context of this (or any
other quasi-judicial) application_
uAdocuments and setrinP,5'+bwnRon1local settirngsltemporary intcnoct lileslcon±enl.uutlt>nk x?dfyunall FaiU-090.doc
1117AIZtNCF I:XAMF',,I- t Prn 7I',,jn io)-c DECISION
iii.. I J i t0 0901 ECF. PP (Uh:rr����s i-'rllrtj
, pFfl ?2, 2011
P;i. ,e I I
As to the dminagc coiicei'n of the other .NlIcmreen Ifi plum's resident, the evidence indicates that the
vast i injority of the storm ater runoff will be directed towaids the west and Nile Aveme NF, oot
t.ovvards ?llaarrc<m 11,h1ands on the east. There would seem to be virtually no chalice that the sinal l
amount of runoff from the residence on Proposed Lot I could ewer affect Maureen Highlands given
the size of'fract A with its wetland and inte.rvcCling Tract D. Control of stormvv°atcrrunoff from any
future development of Tract D will have to be: addressed at the time a proposal for such development
is put forward.
5. Were it not for the existence of the substantial Category 2 weal and just to the east of the Pasco Place
XrE right -of --waw (extended), Newman's request would likely have garnered the support of Both
Finkbeiner anti star(. But the wetland's location is a physical reality with which we all must live. City
policy and regulation strongly support protection of such wetlands. The street must avoid the wetland
to the greatest extent possible.
'rh(: unfortunatereality is that inost of airy right -c -1 -wait' aalignmciit adiustment will have to occur on
the proper ty(ies) to the north. It may be possible to hegiii a slight horizontal cuiA,'r, to the east gear the
north property line without imp,il ii)g on the wetland or its required buffer. (Mlnoi- jvvisions to
approved preliminary plats are allowed. [RMC 4-7--080M]) Nevvmari and his neighhor may want to
discuss the pros and cons of saicli an alignment shill. with Finkbeiner and City Staff before
construction plans are prepared.
This situation docs not warrant a delay in approval or redesign of the proposed preliininary plat.
9. Requiring sewer stubs to both sides of a nevv- street makes sense. bort only ]If both sides of the strcct
are Icing developed at the same time. No one can say wlicn, if ever. the Shenk property may
develop. No one can say what the land development requirements may he when the Shenk property
is proposed for development_ Therefore, no one caii say "ith any certainty exactly where sewer stubs
would be required. Installing; sewer stubs buscel ora hvpotlietical development would make no sense
- even if it wore legally defensible, Which it ]i:I;ely
10. Olympus T,`illa passes the "consistency" test_ Si igIc-f ainilyresidential is the primajy use in the RA
zone- the proposed density is within the range al lows A by applicable z ming anti adequate anility
services are available to the site.
11. The recommended conditions of approval as set forth in Exhibit I are reasonable, supported by the
evideiiec, and capable of ac.complishinent with. fhe following changes.-
A. A preliminary subdivision embodies the concept of approval of a specii:ic development
proposal. A prelim.iri ary subdivision eva.lctatic>n is based upon the specific preliminary p]at
submitted by the applicant. It is appropriate , therefore, that the conditions of approval clearly
identify the plat wloch is being approved. The Planning recommendation as drafted does not
do so. Exhibit 3 constitutes the plat proposal which has been reviewed in this hearing process
C, JOURIVI is anct settinas',hwaitonllocai sottinesltemporai�' ir;tcmct iiics',em?tent_i?utiei�k`,�7d�yunalkial0-090.dnc
REARING L)iAMINER Fro 1'criiporc DECISION
RL: LUA10-090, t;CP IT (04;mp s Villa)
April 22, 201 1
t'agc 12 of 15
and which should be approved. The Examiner will add a condition to specify that l� xhibit 3 i5
the approved preliminary plat; numbering of -the subsequent conditions will be incremented
accordingly.
13- Recommended Conditions 3 and 8: The Examiner will revise those two conditions as
requested by Finkbeincr and as supported by Plarrrring-
C. Recommended Condition 4: Both Firrkbeiner and Maiming made good points regarding the
wording of this condition. The Examiner will incorporate both pointy of view in revised
wording for this condition -
D, Recommended Condition b: The Examiner will eliminate this condition. The preliminary
subdivision approval stage is way too early in the process to be specifying for all. time the
size of water meters for specific lots. Authority exists under the Interrnational lire Code to
address the concern that led to this condition.
L',. Planning stated in the Staff Report that it was going to recommend placement of a note on
the face of the final plat regmi-irrg that the houses on Proposed Lots 1 .— 5 must be oriented
towards Pasco place M.7- (.EEhibit 1, p. 9) That condition never made it into the list of
recorr3nrended conditions- (Exhibit l , pp. 11 and 12) Finkbeiner objects to such a limitation
as pertains to Proposed Lots 3 and 4. (Testimony)
-liniununr corner lot width and depth requirements for R--4 zoned land in a small lot cluster
development are 60 feet and 65 sect, respectively- [RMC 4-2-11 OA -1 Proposed Lot 3 can meet
those requirements for either orientation, but Proposed Lot 4 works only it -its Pasco Place.
NI frontage is considered its front lot line. Proposed Lots 1, 2, 4, and 5 must front on Pasco
Place NE. A desirable streetscape requires that Proposed Lot 3 do likewise. The Examiner,
will irzapose P]anning's suggested condition -
F'. The Examiner prefers to not use the word "applicant-' in conditions. Land use e.ntitlenicrit
approvals, of which a preliminary subdivision approval is one type, `-run with Elie land.--
Simply put, that means the permit is still valid no matter how many times ownership oFthe
property may change. While it may be hype r-teclrrrical. sornc might argue that only the party
which sought preliminary subdivision approval was the "applicant," that any successor irr
interest Nvas something other than the "applicant," and that, therefore, any such successor was
not obligated to comply with conditions addressed to the "applicant." To avoid anv such
argument in the future, the Fxanuner prefers to use the word "plattor," meaning the party
subdividing (platting) the property- The Examiner will make that substitution throughout the
conditions. v
c:',dc,ument5 and settings%bNvAlmOccal settingsltemportw interna files',conlentauilook'�Y7d�ma'tlual(r-(}yQ.dch
iiI"' kZIWIT 1"XAMIIM:tt Pr) Ie?,npu,-L,DJC 1Y() !
' 1-'- t Ui W -01O, 1":C 11" IT
rril22 :'till -
:'.�:,� 1.3 of 1
(IT levy° [nlnor, 11mi-substantive structuiC. ,,7-ammar. aiid/or PU11Ctt1ati0n 1-cV151C1M t(7
Rccofrffncndcd Conditioos 1, 3, a11d 8 will 1111prUve rarallta construction, clarity, and 11mv
within the conditions. Such changes wi11 be ii
12. Any finding of fact deemed to be a Conclusion of f-.ar, - i5 hercby adopted as such.
DECISION
Based upon the preceding 1�indings o�f fact and Conclusions of (.yaw, the testimony and evidence 5uhmitted at
t.hc open record hearing, and the l-:xafnincr's site view, the FIxaminer GRANTS prcliminary subdivision
approval 1-01- Olymrus Villa SUBJECT TO TIDE ATTRCIII'D CONI)InONS-
De,cisiofi issued Al)ril 22, 2011.
\.S\.John :. (3�dt (5i-ned original in ofizcial tile:}
John Ii- 6�11t---- -
lfearirlg 11'xazmner Pro 1 empare
III~ HUNG PARTICIPikNTS 4
Rocale 1-inlrnons 1=3111 lzinkheincr
Kevin. Van Flanderen .lohii Newman
David Shenk Keil otiViCr
A-ayrcn Kittrick
NOTICE of RIGHT of RECONSIDERATION
"Any interested person feeling that the decision of the l--xalniner is based on an erroneous procod tire, cri-ors
of law or hict, error in judUment, or the discovery o:( new evidence 'A7Jaich could not be reasonably avail jhle
at the prior hearing inay" file a request/motion f.or reconsideration with L`the Examiner within fourteen (14)
days after the w=ritten decision of the Examiner has been rcridered. The [request/motion for reconsideration �
Shall set forth the specific errors relied upon." [R 4C 4-8-100(;4] Any request/motion fi>r reconsideration
shall be addressed to the Renton -Hearing Examiner and filed witl . the Cite' Clerk. See RA C 4-8- i 00G4 and
RMC 4-8-11OE8 for additional information and requirements regarding reconsideration.
d The officia] Parties of Record register is maintained by the City's Hearing Clerk.
c:Vioeunients and set*.in�;<lbwaltud'local setticpg lcrnporary internet f leslconlerrt.outiooklx'7c�} uraJua16-C9C.ciae
HF".AR1.NG EXAM NT.R Pro I, i?,fpors 131:C:iSION
EZE: LUAI O-090, 1_;Cf°, 1'l' (Uh t;aj>trs !%rllcx/
April 7.2, 20 i 1
Pare lei of 15
NOTICE of RIGHT cif APPEAL
This Decision becomes final and conclusive as of the fifteenth calendar day after the date of issuance of the
Decision unless reconsideration is timely requested. If reconsideration is timely requested, the Examincr's
order granting or denying reconsideration beco€nes the. final and conclusive decision for the City. The
sxammor's final decision is subject to the right o[ the applicant, City, or a party of record % ith standing, as
provided in RMC4-811 OV1 to file an appeal with the (,ity Council inaccordance with
the procedures of
RMC 4-8-110F, Any appeal must be tiled within 14 days following the issuance of the final decision. See
RMC 4-8-110L9 and RMC 4-8--1. 10F for additional inicorrnation and requirements regarding appeals to the
("ity Council.
The foIIov"ino stater -Lent is provided purse€ant to R(,W 3E;-7013.130: Aff:ected pr'operiy owners play request
�r change €n valum on for- property tax purposes notwi _l;starldina any progra€n of revaluation-"
CONDITIONS OF A.PPROV.A,L
OlyMPUS Villa
LiJAl0-090, ECF, P -P
This Preliminary Subdivision is sul jcct to compliance with all applicable provisions, requirements, and
standards of the Renlon Municipal Code, standards adopted pursuant thereto, and the following special
ctorrditions:
Exhibit i is the approved preliminary plat. Revisions to approved preliminary subdivisions plats are
regulated by R;14C 4-7-040111.
2. The plattor shall comply `vith the three mitigation measures issued as part of the Determination of
Nonsignificance -Mitigated; dated Fcbruary 4, 20 11. (1'?xhibi(s 8 and 16)
3. The plattor shall be required to place additional area within Tract A in order to comply �xlth the 30%
perlrranent open space requirement for clustering. The permanent open space easement shall be
recorded prior to or concurrently with the Final Plat.
4. The plattor shall place on the lace of the plat a covenant noting the setbacks of the R-8 zoning
designation apply on the clustered lots (Proposed bots 1-7) only- The covenant shall be Tern€-ded
concinTently with the Final Plat.
5. A note shall be placed on the face of the plat requiring Proposed Lots 2-5 to take vehicular access
from. NE 7i1' Place and requiring Proposed Lots 2 & 3 to share a common curb cut and Proposed bots
4 & 5 to share a common. curb cut unless compelling evidence is presented prior to construction
C%.documents alad scttings'.0 altod.locai settinesltempo.Lry iTaom,, l filencnalent.ouLloo)k'_,:?d7.)vna\Jua1Q-O9O doc
FI,i..A'RZ NG I-XA MIX -ti 1'r« Tenap,�re ULC 15I(_l
RFI: 1,0AIO-090, }:..CF. 1'P (U.enrfi�.rs b"-ilr;
rl122 011.
1',,«e l> of 15
permit approval to show that sharcd cul -b cuts arc not The iiotc shall be ivi-o-ted
concurrently with the Final flat.
ti. ']'he plattor shall be required to revise the drainage report (Exhibit 6) to Mclude conceptual sizill"
calculations for the detention pond and address the individual lot treatments. The revised plain small
be submitted to and approved by the Frigineering flan Reviewrr prior to construction permit
approval
The plattor shall establish and recortl a permancnt and irrcvocalc c.i.wmerlt on the property title of
the tract containing the critical arca and its bUffcr prior to 1=ir_al 11"hit recording- The protective
casement shall be held by current and future property owijers, shall run with the land, and shall
[).z-ohibit development, alteration, and disturbance within the c: i seni.ent except for pur=poses oI-habitat
enhancen-ent as part of -an enhancement project. "!'he enhanccl3lent project shall receive prior lwriitcll
approval fi-om the City, and from any other agency with jurisdiction over such activity.
coveriarrt shall be placed on the open space tracts restricting th.cir scparate sale prior to 1'in�rl Plat
iccordirtg. Mach abutting lot owner_ wvithin the plat, shall have atr undividcd interest in the tracts or
the tracts shall be conveyed to the honleowneCs association fo. the prr3ject.
t�. The common boundary between the native -rowth protection tract and the abuttirrII land must be
pen-nanently identi f ted_ This identification shall include a permaineri : wood split rail fence and banal
,,inns on treated or metal posts. The permanent wood split rail fence and signs shall be installed pcior
to Mina[ Plat recording.
1O. "the iollowint note shall appear on the face of the Final Plat and shall also be recorded as a covenant
mrining with the land on the title of record fOr all a(I-e-cted Lots on lhe title: "14.1AIN'1'l -NANCh,
RES PONS IB1f.1TY.- All owners of lots created or bcrieliting From this City action abutting or
including a native growth protection tract are responsible for Frlainterianec and protection of the taint.
Maintenance includes ensuring that no alterations occur withiii the tract and that all vegetation
remains undisturbed unless the eNpress written authorization of the City has been received."
11. A note shall be placed ou the face of the final plat requirint� that the front yard for Lots 1-5 face
toward extended Pasco Place N1. `I'Lie note shall be recorded concurrently with the final Plat.
c',docurnents and setlinas\bmaltnnlincal settincslteml nran intmet #ties',content outlook�x7cln una',.Iu:ilO-U90.doc
BEFORE the HEARING EXAMINER Pro T emf)ore for the
CI'VV of RENTON
DECISION
1; 1 LE NUMI' -,X: LUA10-090, 177'17, PP
APPFJCANT: lainkbeiner 1)cvc1opmcnt
ATTN: kill l`Inkbciner
12011 Bel -Red Road, Sul(c ')6
Rellevue, WA 9800-5
0WN1�RS: Robert Anderson & Gale diner
13607 461" !Avenue S I ?
North mend, WA 98045
1 YPE Of,
STA FF R}:CC?M1ti!I"iN1)A'1'[ON
SUMMARY 01-
DATP' O1= DI`CNION:
Preliminary SLIlIdIVISIOil (Oly'1?11:iiS I' llci)
Approve: strbjec( to conditions
CTIMN`h subfect to conditions (revised)
April 22, 201 1
INTRODUCTION r
Finkbeiner Developruent (t'inkbeiner) seeks preliminary approval of'Olvm7;us Villa- an 1 I lot single family
residential subdivision of a 6.72 acre site zoned R -''l.
Finkbeiner filed the preliminary subdivision application on December 22, 2010. (Exhibit 1.1 ` j The Keaton
Dcpartment of Community and Economic Development, Planning llivision (Plarinin�) deern.ed the
application to be complete on January 7. 2011. (Testimony)
Ariy statement in this section deemed to be either a Finding of Fact or a Conclu�ion ni'Law is hereby adopted as such.
1 -Exhibit citations sire provided for the reader's benefit and indicate: 1)11! source of a quGte or specific fact; and/or 2)
The major docament(s) upon which a stated fact is based. While the Examiner considers all relevant documents in the
record, typically only major documents are cited. The Examiner" Decision is based upon all documents in the record.
c-ldocumeIzts and sctrings',hVaStonllocai scrhn-,Sitemporary miernei files`,contentdoc
I1E 11t` G E AM1NERPro 9'empo!(e D7 C'ISIGN
RF:: L1 :110-090 FiCF, 1'1' ( lYnzpers i'iL?rr)
Api 11 212: X11 1
Page 2 o11, J.5
The subject property is located at 12XXX Nile .A.venue NE (aka 148111 Avenue SE), approximately 800 feet
rlorfO of NE 5th Street (aka SJ 124''' Street).
The Renton. Hearing Exan-iiner Pro Tempore (Examiner) viewed the subject property on April 19,2011-
The Examiner held an open record hearing on April 19, 2011. Planning gave; notice of the hearing as
required by the Renton Municipal Code (RIMC). (Exhibit 14)
l he following exhibits w�°ere entered into the hearing record during the hearitxg:
Exhibits 1 - 12: As enmxxerated in Exhibit 1, the Staff P\.eport
Exhibit 13: Applicant -requested condition changes
J?xhibit 14: Elearirn ; notice dOCunxentation
l 1 �e l_'.x�tnniner held the hearilr�� record open for t€p to tiro days at the request of f"inkbeiner azxd Planning for
receipt of a water availability letter and for entry of the Erivirorimental Review (_"orrnrnittec (ERC) l.Zeport.
The f6llowing dOCurrlents «'ere: entered pursuant to that authority:
Jlxhibit 15: Water District 90 water availability letter
Exhibit If)": Nivironmental. Review Committee Report
The record closed on April 20, 2011 . with receipt of Fxhi,bit 15.
'Flit action taken herein and the requirements, limitations and/or conditions imposed by this decision are,. to
the best of the Examiner's knowledge or belief, only such as are lawful and within the authority of the
Examiner to take pursuant to applicable law and policy.
ISSUES
Does [lie application meet the criteria for preliminary subdivision approval as established within the RMC?
Should the subdivision's internal street system include a northerly extension of Paseo Place NF?
FINDINGS OF FACT
The subject property is essentially a "flag" lot which has 54.42 feet of frontage on the cast side of
Nile Avenue NE and which extends some 1,290 feet to the east, eventually widening to
approximately 315 feet. (Exhibit 3) The property is presently vacant, although the remains of a
building; presumed to be a former residence which was dernolished at an unknown time in the past,
are located on the western portion of the site. (Exhibit 5 and testimony)
c:\docunicnts and settingslb`aalto n'Jneal settings\temporary inte;nel files\consent,outlookl,:7dz}2tnailaial0-094.dnc
KI:: t A : A 10-090. t':C:'�" 1'l't(-t
or 1 5
2. A variety o; tc,3lc uses al tic suh�cci propel -y-
A. Flit %vcstcrn "crotch" on the south side of the subject property created by the 177 foot
southCFI 4`j01I" in the south pn'operty fine is occupied by an approximate 2.3 acre parcel (the
Shenk parcel). The Shenk parcel contains a sin,le-family residence ucar its N'IIC Av"eni-le NE
frontage. (Exhibits 1, �, and .12C aril tesilmony)
I The Cast Mali" of thee south nropertA,, line abt.tts the north edge of the developed Wlntlii oocl
s1I_I tc-\artily residential subdivision. One of the streets in JVbuhhooci, Pasco Place NE.
tori-<sin.alcs alo unst the common property line Willi tile subject property. Pasco Place Nr
cxtcrld" southerly through J,Viridwood to eventually provide a connection to t F 4t' Street (aka
Sl 1)Stl' Street). Win(Pi ood is a develops neat of sonic 100--'- homes. (l:
IiFAR i -NG EXAMWL,P Pi'n Tompore I71 -, CTS I ON
RJ-': UjA10 090, FCF, PP (Olimpus Villa)
April 27, 2011
Page 4 of 15
NE 7`h Place will be developed as a " }Fall street" section. allowing for future widcnin to a Rill -width
section at such tune as [lie Shenk property develops. (Exhibit 3)
Firdkbeiner proposes to use the "clustering' provisions of the RMC for some of the proposed lots. As
depicted on Exhibit 3, Proposed Lots 1. -- 5 take advantage of those provisions. };inkbeiner asked at
hearing to be allowed to include Proposed Lots 6 and 7 in the clustering calculation,,. (Exhibits 1 and
3 and teStil-nosy)
The density of Olympus Vilia as proposed will be 2.6 dwelling tinits per net acre. (Exhibit l )
'Flit subdivision design arrd all of the, proposed lots comply with RMC zoning street, street nct, NNork,
parks, blocks. and lot configuration requi rern ents. At! of the proposed single --family residential fors
access a public Street. (Exhibits 1 and 3)
6. 1 he record contains evidence that aPpF0j)F'Mte provisions have been made or cna be made Jcrr:
A. Open space. Small lot clusters cif up to a maxirnuM ofllifty lots are allowed within the R-4
zone when at least 30 % of the site is permanently set aside as "si ;17ificant open space," Such
open space must be situ,,Acd to act as a visnal. buffer between small lot clusters and other
CleveloprnenL in the zone, The area of Tract A comes up a little shy of the 30% set aside
requirement (87,618 SF 129:3,:[_52 SF — 2.9,88%). While Tract D will riot be irn.rnediately
developed, iL is not proposed to be set aside as permanent open space and, therefore, cannot
count towards theopen space requirement. Tract C (348 SF) is also to be dedicated as open
space. However, "bract C is not located in an area which woutd serve as a visual bt3ffer
between the srrtall lot cluster and other developtncnt in the area. (Exhibit 1)
Finkbeirler testified that he could easily adjust the common boundary between "Tract,, A and
D to provide the necessary increase iii the area o.1 -Tract A. (festirrrony)
B. Drainage ways. All stormwater runofl-except that from Proposed Lot 1 will be collected and
transported to a detention pond on'Tract B Irorn which it will flow into the drainage system
along Nile Avenue NE. (Exhibit 6) The pond will replace the wetland now located there.
Mitigation fbr the loss of that wetland is proposed in the area of the wetland in Tract A.
(Exhibit 7)
Stormwater runoff izorn Proposed Lot 1 will be dispersed into the wetland to its north and
east, (Exhibit 6)
C. Streets and roads. The proposed streets and street system sheet City standards. (Exhibit. 1)
cAdocumenls and settings',hwaltnn%2nI setwigsAernporary inlcmct Gleslcnnicnt.oirilooklx7dzyunaJualO-04D-doe
t11: ^,1 1Mj 1:X,1.M.JNF`1.P o .10r porn 1"dVi`
>
LiJ.1 I') (11,10. riC;t'�, "T
of 1
D. Alleys. Proposed Lots 2 tL 3 ,Tn(i4 ill be scI-%ed by two private cascincrlts which wI I I
function as alleys; �1110wi,jll a(. -,cess to those lots from the rear of the lots. (Exhibit. 3 snd
testimony)
E. Outer public ways. No n��cd ii�r otherpublic wa��s Nvilhin the subdivision exists. (F,xlAibit_s I
and 3)
F. Potable water suppiy. The sti')ject property lies tivjthiT) Watc!-.District 90 which has confirmed
the availability of an adequate supply ofpot.ablc walcr_ ([exhibit 15)
C.. Sanitary wastes. An 8" sanitary scwcr main exists horlcath Pasco Place NE- (Exhibit 1)
H. Parks and recreation. 1 -tic project has been required throulgh the State Environmh'c:y
ental Po
Act (SEPA) threshold &ic ennination process (Scc 1"Inding of Fact 7, below'.) to make a
impact pay;nciA. (Exhibit 16)
"Rentons SEPA Responsible Official. the FRC, issued a Dctermiitation ofNonsi�7�aif�cancc-VJitig�_[cd
(DNS -itis) on January 31, 2011. 8) The DNS -111 w"Is not appcalcd- (ExhIbut I) The DNS -M
is teased on thre e inIt]gation measnresi Payment of a parks and recreation impact ice, atran5port<itioti
i mp ict fec, and a lire Kripact fee. (Exhibit 16) The three Iriitigation incasures have beat carried
forward by Planning as a recom needed condition of approval. (Exhibit 1, p. 11, Recornrncndcd
Condition 1)
8. Most residents of., Windlr'ood have no objection to subdivision of the lzand to their north nor to the
proposod dcsWn with but OTIC importarit (:xception: Thcv arc strongl), opposcdto the extension of anFd
rise of Pasco Placc NE'. IYin(A4-rood residents [rave experienced many problems with speeding drivers,
especially since the development of' Alaureen Iar;�,hlan(Is which resulted in t -he opening Tip of 6"]
Street N L� through the neighborhood. Stop signs have been installed but Same motor sts ignore the ; .
The t41in(.1i4;orld residents believe that the extension of Pasco Place NE will only make the situation
worse. They see no reason why their neighborhood needs to be connected to the Olyt l?us Villa
neighborhood. (Exhibits 12A and 1.21) and testimony)
The RNIC requires that all new development establish and further an interconnecting grid system.
The code allows for exceptions to the grid street requirement in only two situations: Where
interconnection isinfeasible due to topog�xaphy- or where in[erconnection is infeasible due to existing
substantial improvements. [R.MC 4-7-150, exceptions listed in 4-7-150E3] Neither condition that
would justify an exception is present in this case: No topographical problems exist and no
irnprovernents would blockthe extension. (Exhibit 3)
9. One of the abutting owners in Afaureen Hig-hiands wants the easterly 60 feet of Tract .D set aside as
open space to protect three deer and a faNvii who reportedly live in the area. (exhibit 12B) Another
cadociunenis and senin.5lbwaltonVocal settfngsltcmporary mternet;ileslcoment.ouilooklx7dztiiina`.iva]0-090.doc
HEARING .E AIMINER Pro Tempore DECISION
R.Li: L.UA 10-090, EC.1', YY (Uh rnrpus V711a)
April 22, 2011
Page G of I
Maureen flighlan(l resident is concerned that the development not increase stonaxwater flows
towards the east and would prefer fewer, larger lots_ (ExhibiL 12L;)
10. Newman, the owner of one of the lots to the north, would like to see the Pasco Place NF. extension
curve more to the cast than is proposed_ .He notes that, as designed, the right-of=way will stab out' list
to the west of the common boundary between his property and the property of his neighbor to the
east. He would like the d<)fit--o C -�vay stub to be centered on their cornmon boundary, so that further
extension to the rroril1 through their properties would cucumber each equally. (Testimony)
The alignment of the Pasco Place NE extension right-of-way cannot shi ft measurably to the east
within the subject property due to the location of the Category 2 tivetiand and i.ts required buffer-_
(F.xhibit 3 and testimony) Tn order to make the adjusLrneilt Newman seeks, a reverse curve would
have to occur just [o the north of the subject property.
Street alignment within subdivisions must comply vaith standards set by RMC 4-6-060. 1 RMC 4-7-
1500] A. de.:llec.t;on angle of 10' or more must occur Lhuni,h. a horizontal "curve of reasonably' lou
radius". Further, wherevcr a reverse curve is to occur- (an "S" curve or a chicane), Lhere mast he a
"tangent section" (a straight se!m1ont betW een the curves) trf not less than 100 feet for res:idenfiat
access streets. jRMC 4-6-0601r7a an(Mc] Given thatNc-vvn,rztn's parcel lxsrs a north -south dinrernsion
of approximately 250 beet (measured fromExhibit 2), the required curves and tangent section would
take most of the depth of .his parcel to corrrplete_
11. Shenk submitted a comnient letter and testifies] at the hearing. The letter lists a number of c.oricerns
resulting froth misundersfandi;tg surras of the notations on the proposed preliminary plat. (Exhibit
12.C) Shenk did not mention those cortcerns in his testirraony.
Shenk wonders why Finkbeiner will not be required to install sewer stub -outs towards [lie south
when lie installs the sewer bencath future 1E 7`" Place. lie sup -.gents that installing them when the
sewer main is initially laic] would eliminate the need to tear up the street Tater when his property
develops. (1'esiilrrony)
Staff responded that a major problem with such an idea is that no one can know where the stub -outs
might be needed on his side of the street until a development proposal f. -or his property is put forth.
(Testimony)
12. Planning performed a comprehensive, detailed, thorou,!h analysis of the proposal's conformance
with applicable requirements of the RMC. Planning concludes that the proposal complies, or can be
conditioned to comply, with all applicable requirements. (Exhibit 1)
13. }Tanning recomrncrtds approval ofthe proposed subdivision subject to 10 conditions. (Fxhibit 1, pp.
11 and 12) Finkbeiner asks for revision to four of the recommended conditions:
c:',.documents and settings',bwaltonU()ca1 settin<!s`dempora7 internctri}cslcnntentoutlooklxidr}una'Jua1Q-490_doe
111-hA IN(; Pro Tcrtiron, DIS:CNON
�l:_ LUAICI 0M). M PP (OIvwp;i� t`illr i
1,wo7cif']
Aq Rcconnncrnded Ccndition 3; F iilk hcInerwants to bc.'Ellie to irnehsdc Propos cc! Lots 6 and 7M
the clustering process. hinkbe.mer wants to gain i.rcre,aal flexibility so tlrat Proposed Lots'I
and might be slightly enlatoed_ (Exhibit 13) Planning suppoats that requested change_
(Testimony)
13. Recommended Condition 4: While F'inkbeiner agrees tilat Proposed Lots 2 - � should access
Froin NE 7"' Place, lie does not like the language which would limit that access to the
casements as depicted on Exhibit'). He wants the flexibility to alter their alignment. (Exhibit
I')) Plannin- has no objccti(into provIcling some IIoxi biIIty. but wants to Iimit the number of
curb cuts and prohibit direct access onto Pasco Phice NE. (Teshinony) The RNIC effectively
zequires alley access in residcntial cluster designs_ { RMC 4-7-15OF;5c�
C. Recorrrmendcd Condition 6: This condition requires 1 water meters to serve Proposed Lots
6 - 11. That condition is based on the Tact that, pis presimtly designed, houses built on those
Tots would have to be equipped with fire suppm sioo. sprinkler systems (because of the width
of the hal(-street section) which in turn require a water meter_ hinkb(-i>>er
wants the 11exiblIlty to ,)djust the plat (slightly wldc ming the half strcct right-ole-wny) such
that those lots wmdd iiot Y)eed to be sprinklered. (-:xhibit 13 and testimony) Stafftc;stiticd
that the Fire Marshal cletcrrnines which lots must lie spri rrkicred just betbre final construction
plans are approved_ Stale now believes that Recommended Condition 6 should have, been
provided as an Lrdvisory note rather than as a rccomnicndcd condition of approval.
(Testimony)
D_ Recommended Condition 8: hinkbeirrer would like the flexibility to have the open space
tracts owned in comrnorr by a homeowners association instead of. owned in common by the
lot o«-ners abutting the tracts. (Exhibit 1.3) Planning supports that requested change.
('h-estirnony)
^_ilny Conclusion of L,mv deemed to be a hindimg of F ict is here.hy adopted as such.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK 3
The Ixaniiner is legally required to decide this case within the framework created by the 1o1lowirlg
principles:
Authority
A preliminary subdivision is a Type III application which is subject to an open record hearing before the
,� XM-Mlle.r. The H'.xaminer makes a final decision on the application which is subject to the right of
reconsideration and appeal to the City Council. [RNIC: 4-08-0701`11j, 1-8-080G, and 4-8--100G4]
Any statement in this section deemedto be either a Finding of Fact or a CODCIUSi n of Law is hereby adoptcd as such.
C,'�JOCLimcrILs N11dI sc1tulos%bwalton'kIOL3I SCILiTILLtittmporary intemet �1�CS�tCOIIiF.L1j.Q1111bpk'iX ldl"jL lla'Illa�il-i){)�.(�{7C
HEARING EXAM1Nt=R Pro l'ernpore 0.�'.(ASIUN
1.T 1..UA10-C?9o; ,k-Gf , f P (0IVm011S t h;1,,0
AnFit 22. 2011
Pa,-<eSof"1
Yho Examiner may
grant or deny the application, or the F;xam iner may require of the applicant such conditions,
modifications and restrictions as the Examiner [inds necessary to mince the appli.catiort
compatible with its environment and carry out the objectives and goals of the Comprehensive.
Plan, the zoning regulations, the subdivision regulations, the codes and ordinances of the
City of -Renton _ _ . _ Conditions, modifications and restrictions which may be imposed are, but
are not limited to, additional setbacks, screenings in the form of landscaping and fencing,
covenants, eascrricnts and dedications of additional road rights-oF way_ 1'erf'ormanec bonds
may be required to insure compliance with the conditions, modifications and restrictions.
] RMC 4-9-100G ]
Review Criteria
l"he .review criteria for preliminary SUbdivislons are set North at iZMC 4-7-08013:
13. PRINCIPLES OF ACCEPTABILITY:
A subdivision shall be consi.slent with the following principles of acccptability-
1. Legal Lots: Create lctral briilding sites which comply with all provisions of the City
Zoning, Code.
2. Access: Establish access to a public road for each segregated parcel.
3. Physical Characteristics: T Jave suitable physical characteristics_ A proposed plat may
be denied because of flood, inundation, or wetland conditions. Construction of protective
improvements may be required as a condition of -approval, and such improvements shall be
noted on the final plat_
4. Drainage: 'Make adequate provision for drainage sways, streets, alleys, other public
w=ays, water supplies and sanitary wastes.
(Bold headings in original) Requirements and standards for street and trail networks, parks and open space,
streets, residential blocks, and lot configuration are set forth in RIN7C 4-7-120 and -140 — 170.
The Local Project Review Act [Chapter 36.7013 RCW] establishes a mandatory "consistency" review for
"project permits", a term defined by the Act to include "building permits, subdivisions, binding site plans,
planned unit developments, conditional uses; shoreline substantial development permits, site plan review,
pennits or approvals required by critical area ordinances, site-specific rezones authorized by a
cornprehensive plan or subarea plan". [RCW 36.701=3.020(4)]
(1) Fundamental land use planning choices made in adopted comprehensive plans and
development regulations shall serve as the foundation for project review. The review of a
proposed project's cons] stency with applicable development regulations or, in the absence of
applicable regulations the adopted comprehensive plan, under RCW 36.7013.040 shall
incorporate the determinations under this section.
cAdacuments and settineslbwaltonlloeal scMDQsltUmporary intemel fileslcontentoutlaokb 7dr}'una11ua14-o94.dnc
!Ii-11R1N(.i I.'•.'1.M1\IIk Pro `1 (Jf771.)or21),I:(.�ItilO,A`
RP: LU:^,1 [1 #"Jl), ,CV, YP (011vilpi.rs Vdia)
Page E1 o I 1
(2) 0111-ing, project revic.vv, a local govcri:unent or any silbs:'ylient i viewing body spial]
deterilline whethcr the items listed in this subsection are del-Mcd in the developnieiA
reti�uiations applicable. to the proposed project or, in the absence o l'applic:l-,ble regulations the
adopted comprehensive plan. At a minimum, such applicable regulations or plans shalt be
do.cm-Iilaative of the:
(a) Type of land use penriitted at the site, inchiding uses that may be allowed
under certain circulnstanccs, such as planned sunt devc.loprnents and conditional and
special uses, if the criteria Cor their approval have been sabsficd;
(b) Density of residential development in urban growth <yrcas; grid
(c) Availability and adequacy ofpt.lblic facilities icientifed in the comprehensive
plan, ifthe plan or development regulations provide for fmiding of these facilities as
required by [the Growth Managerrient Act]_
[RCW 6,Y013-030]
Vested RM -,lits
Renton has not enacted a general vested rights provision. Thcrcforc-, �iiaplicablu provisions of state law
5uhdivision and sl�<�rt sudivisinn applicatio��s are goveeti by sP-+iul��l.y vesting Wile: such
applications "shall be considered under the subdivision or short subdivision ordinance, and
zoning or other land use control ordinances, in effect on the land at (he tinge a Rill),
completed application ... has been submitted
LRCW -58.17.()>>; see also SMC 16.28.480] Therefore, this preliminary sul?divisi.on applicatioft is vested to
the regulations as they existed on January 7, 2011 _
Standard of Review
The standard of review- is preponderance of the evidence. 'rhe applicant has the burden of proof:
Scope of Consideration.
The E.xarniner has considered: all of the evidence and testimony; applicable adopted laws, ordinances, plans,
and policies; and the pleadings, positions, and arguments of the parties of record.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates compliance w-i'h the preliminary subdivision
approval criteria in RMC 4-7-08081: All of the proposed lots will coinply with zoning regulations.
zAdonuments and settsn?s'ttenipnrary internes fiIe 2onrent ontlooklx7dryanaluaI0-04D,doc
ttl ARlNG T'XAMIN L'R Pro 7 e:r7por c Dl`( 1S1ON
fel": LUA 10-090, LCI-', IT (Olympias V11j'a)
AprT2 ,'.)OJ l
Page 10 u C 15
I The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates compliance with the prelirnMary subdivision
approval criteria iri RM.0 4-7-O80132, Each lot will have access to a public street_
3. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates compliance with the preliminary subdivision
approval criteria in RMC. 4-7-080B3: The major on-site critical area is to be protccted. mitigation in
conformance with adopted standards is proposed for the loss of- i.he lesser critical area.
4. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates compliance with the preliminary subdivision
approval criteria in RMC 4-7-080134: The streets and dramaoc systcros have been designed to
comply with City codes and standards. A nlMor shod -fall in open space carr° be easily fixed by -in
appropriate condition. Adequate utility scrvices are avai€able_
5- The preceding Ebur Conclusions of Law show that Olympus Villa complies with all established
criteria for approval- However, They likely don't answer sonic of the neighbors' concerns. The next
Conclusions of Latin° will address their c0ncei-11s.
6_ The fVinod food design obviously contemplated the eventual extension of Pasco Place NF to serve
subdivision of the acreage parcels to the north- of which the subject property is one. Whether the
home purchasers clearly understood That or not; that is the reality presented by a street which stubs
out to an adjoining undeveloped parcel. Olympus Filla's design is simply bringing that expectation to
fruition.
Renton has strong requirements fbr interconnection of streets between and among adjoining
developments. Just because King County did not have interconnection requirements is no reason to
not implernent and enforce the City's requircrnents. The interconnection of Pasco Place N1.7. with
proposed NE '/'h Place will provide a second access into not only Olympus Villa, but also the north
end of If'-inchtood: if an accident were to block the Pasco Place NE'/NE 6"' Street intersection now,
emergency vehicles could not reach any of the homes on Pasco Place NE north of KE 6`h Street. The
interconnection will provide an alternate access_ And as one of the witnesses acknowledged, many if
not most of the speeders are neighborhood residents, not outsiders cutting through the neighborhood_
The neighbors and the City have a range of actions that can be taken to solve the speeding problem
short of ignoring adopted requirements for interc013nection of streets.
7- The RMC provides no basis upon which one could require that the eastenn 60 feet of Tract D beset
aside permanently as open space. Vtilildlife presently living on the portions of the site which will be
converted into streets and house lots will., most likely, be lost. That loss is a direct result of the
legislative decision to urbanize this area. Urbanization is, generally speaking incompatible with
most wildlife species habitat, especially for animals such as deer, bear, coyote, ctc. The legislative
decision to designate and zone the area for urbanization amounts to a conscious choice of human
habitat over wildlife habitat_ That legislative choice is not debatable in the context of this (or any
other quasi-judicial) application_
cadocuments and srttingsltcmporary inLcmvt fi1cslcontent_outfoo�'ix7d�yuna'dua1D-090.doc
1121\(Y I� :LtiiitiLlZ l'; Ir�r:;_�nr; M(A
�`.._. L,[ JA 10-090, I .0 F, 1' P i'7�rcx1
1pri1 ?01 1
As to the draw agcy concern o{ the other A-faurecn the cvidence, ilid icatcs, that 1110,
vast majority of IIIc sttxrrnwater rut offwill be directed towards the west and. Nilc AvenLae Nh., r)ot
towards .Azfaureen Highlands on the cast. 'There would seem to be Virtually no chance that the small
amounL 0f runoff frOM the residence on Proposed Lot 1 could eve7- affect 1Mour ren 1-1��Zhlanrls given
the size of Tract A with its wetland and intervening -.tract D. Control o f-stormwater runoff from any
future development of Tract D will have to be addressed at the tintc a proposal for such dc-velopment
is put forward.
8. Were it not for the existence of the substantial Catc�,ory 2 wetland just to the east of the Pasco Place
Nle right-of-way (extended), No,,vnian's request would likely have garnered the support of boot
FITikbeiner and staff. Birtthe wetland's locatior) is a physic,,3l reality with which Nvc all11rustlive. City
policy and reg:ulatiaar strontsly supporiprotectiora of such wetlands. The street must avoid the wetland
to the greatest extent possible.
The unfortunate reality is that most of any -aiihr,Mment adjustment vvill h.Ev- to occur oat
the property(ies) to the north_ It tra," be possible to be's!in a s 1 13 1t horirontal curve to the u,.ast near tht:
north propeAy line without inipin�,),ing on tl-Ie wetl„nd or its required buffer_ (llIMOr revisions to
approved preliminary plats are allowed. I Kit U 4- 7- 080MI) Newman and his neighbor may wa3-11L �o
discuss the pros acrd cons of such an all ninent shift with Finkbeiner and City staff before
construction plans are prepared.
this situation. does not warrant a delay in approval or redesign of the proposed preliminary pla.
9. requiring sewer stubs to both sides of a new street makes sense, but only if both sides of the street
are being developed at the same time. No one can srry when, i.f ever, the Shcn.k property may
develop. No one can say what the land deveiohment requirements may be whcn the Shenk propel.-ty
is proposed for deve.IoprncnI. Thereliore_ no one can say with any certainty exactly wlierc se«vcr stubs
would be required_ Irnstalling sewer stints bused on a layponcCtical developmcTIt would r;iake no sense
- even if it were legally defensible, which it likely- isn't.
10. 01vinpus Villa passes the "consistency' test: Single-[airnily residential is the primary use in the.R.4
zone; the proposed density is within the range allowcd by applicable zorniii- and adequate utility
services are available to the site.
11. The recommended conditions of approval as set forth in Exhibit 1 are reasonable. supported by the
evidence, and capable of accomplishment with the following changes:
A. A preliminary subdivision embodies the concept of approval of a specific development
proposal. A preliminary subdivision evaluation is based upon the specific preliminary plat
submitted b,,, the applicant. It is appropriate, therefore, that the conditions ofapproval clearly
identify the plat which is being approved. The P'..rnnM(, recommendation as drafted does not
do so. Exhibit 3 constitutes the plat proposal which has been reviewed in this heating process
c'documents and sMingslrempnrary infemet fileskontemcrutlook'x7d�}tin�lluAlD-D90.doc
HEAMN(1 EXAM MIEN. Pro 1<wp,,)rc D1:C:[SiON
RE: Ll JA 10-090, I;CF, PP (Olympus V71!a)
April 22, 2011
Page 12 of 15
and which should be approved. The Foxarninerwilt add a condition to specify that Exhibit 3 is
the approved preliminary plat; numbering of the subsequent conditions will be incremented
accordingly.
B. Recommended Conditions 3 and 8: The Examiner will revise those two conditions as
requesled by Fitikbeintr and as supported by Planning_
C. Recommended Condition 4: Doth Pinkbeiner and Planning made good points regarding the
wording of this condition. The E-xarrliner will incorporate both poirxfs of view in revised
Wi)rdirxg for this conditior,3.
D. Rccomniended Condition 6: The Examiner will eliminate this condition_ The preliminary
subdivision approval stage is way too early in the process to be specifying for all time the
size of Avater meters for specific lots_ Authority exists under the International b'.ire Code to
address the concern that led to this condition.
1;_ Planning stated in the Staff -Report that it was going to recommend placement ofa note on
the face of -the ti.nat plat requiring that the houses on Proposed Lots 1 5 must be oriented
towards Pasco place NE. (1_ xhibit 1, p. 9) That condition never made it into the List of
.recomiriendcd conditions. (1?xhibil 1, pp. 1 1 and 12)1'inkbeiner objects to such a limitallOn
as pertains to Proposed Lots 3 and 4. (Testimony)
Minimum corner lot width and depth requirements for R-4 zoned land in a small lot cluster
development are 60 feet and 65 feet respectively_ [RMC 4-2-11 OA] Proposed Lot 3 calx meet
those tequireinents for either orientation, but Proposed Lot 4 works only if its Pasco Place
NE frontage is cousidered its front lot line. Proposed Tots 1, 2, 4, and 5 must front on Pasco
Place NE._ A desirable strectscape requtz-es that Proposed Lot 3 do likewise_ The Examiner
will impose Planning's sugc)ested condition_
The F?xaniMer prefers to not use the word "applicant" in conditions. Land use entitlement
approvals, of which a preliminary subdivision approval is 011e type, :`run with the land_"
Simply put, that means the permit is still valid no matter how many times ownership of the
property nxay change_ While it may be hyper -technical, sonic might argue that only the party
which sought preliminary subdivision approval was the "applicant" that an `r successor in
interest was sor riething other than the "applicant," and that, therefore. any such successor was
not obligated to comply with conditions addressed to the "applicant." To avoid any such
argument in the future, the Examiner prefers to use the word "plattor," meaning the party
subdividing (platting.) the property. - he l.'xaminer wit l make that substitution throughout the
conditions.
c:lciocuments ane[ sdtingslrnMaltoriliocal se!if?? slten pora y infcrnet flcti'tcontent.❑utlogklx7dn�nzaih a10-09b.uoc
A:,!JNC\� NIN'i-I� Pro 7'cmplaj III%("NION
1.l',AI0-(P0, t;Ct�, l'1'(f)l1nqnr.
r of I
(J.' A 16v nil. loi 11011-SLlliStalllivc �;Iructure, for, arymnar, :-md/Oi- puilcivation revrSr(7ns to
Recommended C=onditions 1, :;_ and 8 will improve j,,un lcl construction, chirlty_ and flaw
within the, conditions_ Such c-lum-cs will be madc..
1' -no finding of fact deemed to be a Conclusion of Law is il�reby adopfc <d as such.
DECISION
:lased upon the preccd]rig 1�ind im-, of I act a] ILI Conclusions 01"LaNv, the testimony and evidence submitted at
iflc open record hearing, and the site view, the }Examine,- GRANTS preliminary subdivision
��t;prr>�al for 01vml..ms Vila SU1"3,IECT TO TiIE A i,-rA['HED (_'0N1)Fr1ONS.
Decision is.micd April 22, 2011.
Isl John E. {salt I i ;ncd ori�,inal in official tile}
J ohr31;. Galt - - - - -- ------
Ilearing Exarnirler Pro Tempore
HEARING PARTICIPANTS 4
Roeale Timrnons 13111 I�inkbeiner.,
Kcvin Van E'landeren John Newman
David Shenk Ken Rouvier
Kayterr Klttrick
NOTICE of RIGHT of RECONSIDERATION
-Any interested person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is based on an erroneous procedure, errors
ollaw or fact. error in judgment, or the discovery ol'new evidence which could not be reasonably available
at the prior hearing rnay" file a request/motion for reconsideration wlih "the Examiner- within fourteen (14)
days after thewritten decision of the Examiner has been rendered. The [request/motion for reconsideration]
shall set forth the specific errors relied upon.'' [R -MLC 4-8-10OG41 Any request/motion for reconsideration
shall be addressed to the Renton Hcaring Examiner and filed with the City Clerk. See RMC <1.8-1 OOG4 and
RMC. 4-8-114E8 for additional information and requirements regarding reconsideration.
4 The official Parties of Record resister is maintained by t]ae City's Bearing Clerk.
c:ldocnmenis and scttingslbts•allonllocai sctting•s'•lemhorary role=nc+, Zilcs'�coralcnt.outlookL�7dzy�mallua;0-09�.doc
I R."AMNCI t XAMINL"R l'ro "1 DF( iSJON
RFl : 1.1-A10-090, F(,F, I'I' (M;mlm i r`Ii7)
AI.r41 T, 1, "_'011
Pd�c 14 o1 I5
NOTICE of RIGHT oaf APPEAL
This Decision becomes final and conclusive as ofthu fii"tcenth caltodar duty after the date of -issuance of the
Decision unless reconsidezation is timely requested. If reconsideration is timely requestcd, the Examiner's
order granting or denymg, a-econsideration becomes the final and conclusive decision for the City. The
Examiner's final decision is subject to the rii,ht of the, applicant. City;or a party of record Nvith stmiding, as
provided in RMC 4-8-1 1 O 1, to file an appeal with the (.;itv Council iu accordance with the procedures of
RMC 4-8-1101'. Any appcal nntst be tiled within 14 days hallowing the issuance, of thin final decision. See.
RAIL. 4-8-1101?9 and K:•1C 4-8-1 101-' for additional in[on-n-lihon aired requirements regarding appeals to the
City Council.
The following statement is provided pursuant to RCW 36.7013.130: `Affected propertyowaiers may requ
a chanbe in valuation for property tax purposes notwiIli AandUl(I piny pP LM-Iin of revaluation_"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Dlympais villa
LUA10-090, ECF, PP
This Preliminary Subdivision is subject to compliance with all applicable provisions, requirements, and
standards of the Renton Municipal Code, standards adopted pursuant thereto, and the following special
conditions:
I . Exhibit") is the approved preliminary plat. Revisions to approved preliminary subdivisions/plats are
regulated by RNIC 4-7-080h�1.
2. The plattor shall comply with the three mlti,,;ation measures issued as part ol-the Detennination of
Nonsignificance -Mitigated, dated Fcbruary 4, 2011. (Exhibits 8 and 16)
3. The plattor shall be required to place additional area within Tract A in order to comply with the')O%
permanent open space requirement for clustering. The permanent open space casement shall be
recorded prior to or concurrently with the Final Plat.
4. The plattor shall place on the face of the plat a covenant noting the setbacks of the R-8 zoning
designation apply on the clustered lots (Proposed lots 1-7) only. The covenant shall be recorded
concurrently with the Final Plat.
5. A note shall be placed on the face of the plat requiring Proposed Tots 2-5 to take vehicular access
from NF 7"' Place and requiring Proposed Lots 2 & 3 to share a common curb cut and Proposed Lots
4 & 5 to share a common curb cut unless compelling evidence is presented prior to construction
cldocuments and Scttmpvcmpmmy inturnrt fileslcuntenLnullook'x?dnuntiVua 10-090 joc
3
!.P` k1Z1\G 1=XAA INN -_'l Pro 'T mprx-c
hl:: L,IJ!�1O-0'�0; IAC"i�. PI'(llly�r��nr.�Fi(l�ri
J-il ?01 1
permit approval to show that ~hared crab cats are not IcasibIc- 111ic note shall be recorded
concurrently with the Final Plat -
Hie plattor shall be required to rcvisc the drainage report (Exhibit 6) to include conceptual siring,
calculations for the detention pond and address the individual lot treatments. The revised plan shall
be submitted to and approved by the Enginccring) Ilan Revietiv°er prior to construction permit
approval.
7. ` lie plattor shall establish and record a ponnanelit and €rre�-ocabj(, easenicni orf the property title of
the tract containing the critical area and its buffer prior it) Final Plat recording. The protective
case.nicnt shall bo held by current and lfu[ure property owners, SIM11 rurr with the ]and, and shall
prohibit development, alteration, and disturbance within the cascn,cnt cxccpt for purposes rii"habitat
enhancement as part of an enhanccnrent project. The enhancement project shall receive prior written
approval from the Cit;, and fron-i any other agency with jurisdictio:il over such activity.
A covenant shall be placed on the omen space tracts restricting 111c.ir separate sal(- prior to final 111:,t
rccordir:.. Each abuttiztt; lot o•.Vrrer- within the plat, shall have �m undivided interest in the Tracts or
th tracts shall be conveyed to the homeowner's association for t1lic project.
��. the c«rnmon boundary between the native growth protection tract and the abutting land must be
pc.rn-iancntly identified_ This identification shall include a per-.manent wood split rail fence acid metal
suns on treated or metal posts. The permanent wood split fail fence and signs shall be installedprior
to final Plat recording.
1(.1. the followvin,u mote shall appear cin the face ofthe. 1�inal flat and shall also he recorded as a covenant
rimning with the land on the title of record for all affected lots on the title: "MAINTENANCE
RESPON SIBIl,I'1'Y: All owners of lots created or benefiting from this City action abutting or
including a native gro-mh protection tract are responsible for maintenance arrd protection of the tract.
ML iintenance includes ensuring that no alterations occur within the tract and that all vegetation
remains undisturbed unless the express written authorization of the City has been received."
1. A note shall be placed on the face of the final plat requiring that the front yard for Lots 1-5 face
toward extended Pasco Place NE. The note shall be recorded concurrently with the final Plat.
dorLmwWs acid setiingg,iemporan� intcmct files'zontentnutlookls; dnuna!lua 10-090 doc
13EFORE the UEARINC EXAMINER Pro Tempore for the
CITY of RE NTON
DECISION
1 11.F N11,MBI 11 LLTA10-090, FC;F, PP
APPLICANT: l'inkbeiiier Develt,pmernt
A -1'1'i : Bill Fi nkbeiner
' 2'011 Bel -Red Road, Suite 206
l3cllevt.:e, WA 9 005
OWNERS: kobcrl Anderson (.V� Gale Minet
1'3607 461" Avenue SI_,
North Bend, WA 98045
TY PE OF CA
STAFF P-E'COM MI:�NDATION:
SUMMARY OI; DECISION:
DATI-, OF DI;C.:ISION:
Prelirrtinary subdivision (0lyrrrp-vs Vlllo)
.Approve subject to conditions
C RNN""7' subject to conditions, (rcvis,,,c1)
April 2.2, 2011
INTRODUCTION t
Finkbeincr Development (Finkbeiner) seeks prelim nary approval of olympus 1,77,11,1,ml 11 lot single family
residential subdivision of a 6.72 acre site zoned R-4.
Finkbeiner filed the preliminary subdivision rpplic�mon on December- 22, 2010_ ff,'Nhibit 1.1 `) The Renton
Department of Community and Economic Development, Planning Division (Planninu) deemed the
application to be complete on January 7, 2011. (Testimony)
Any statement in this section deemed to be either a Finding of Fact or a Conclusiou of t: av,- is hereby adopted as such.
Exhibit citations are provided for the reader's benefit and indicate: 1) 'Che source of a quotc or specific fact; and/or 2)
Fhe major document(s) upon whl ch a stated fact is based. While the rxamincr considers alt relevant docomertts in the
record, ty-pical ly only major documents are cited. the Examiners ]_)ecision is based irpori all documents in the record_
c_ldxnments and settin2svbwa1ton',1ocil settinusltempurar}iTlImict file�lcontcnt.nuSrooku7d imailuaFO U9p.dne
tlt:r1t�:A�; I�Xr1'�1INERT'roTewoorr:>t PCJSION
RI I.�_`'M 0-0911, FCI', IT (Oh.n"pus Villa)
The subject property is located at 12XXX Nile A.venuc N. L, (aka 148'4 Avenue SE), approximately 800 feet
north ofNI' 6th Street (,�k.a Sl 12411' Street) -
The Renton 1 -/caring Examiner 1'ro Ternpore (Examiner) viewed the subject property on April 19, 2011,
The Pxaininer held an open record hearinO on April 19, 2011. Planning gave notice ofthe hearing as
required by [lie Renton Municipal Code (RMC)- (PAhibit 14)
The following exhibits were entered iato the hearing record during the hearing:
l xhibus 1. - 1.2: As enumerated in P'.xhihit I_ the Staff Report
i:xhibit I is Applicant -requested condition changes
k.xhibit 14: Hearing notice docurncritati011
1'he l:.x��n�iner held the hearing record open iter up to two days atthe request of lTinkbeiner and Planning for
receipt of a wateravailability letter and forcntry ofthe Environmental ReVieW Committee (FITC) Report.
The irollowinvy documents were entered pursuant to that authority:
exhibit 15: Water District 90 water availability letter
l'.xhibit 16: Environmental Review Committee Report
The record closed on April 20, 2011, w;th receipt of f� xhibit 1-5.
The action taken herein and the requirements, Iii -nitrations and/or conditions imposed by this decision are_ to
the best of the Pxaminer's knovvIedgc or belief, only such as are lalvTul and within the authority of the
Examiner to tape pursuant to applicable law and policy.
ISSUES
Does the application meet the criteria fM—prelirninary subdivision approval as established vv lfhin the RMC?
Should the subdivision's internal street system inclode a northerly extension of Pasco Place NE?
FINDINGS OF TACT
The subject property is essentially a "flag" lot which has 54.42 f"et of f-ontage on the cast side of
Nile Avenue NF and which extends some 1,290 feet to the cast, eventually widening to
approxiniatcly 315 fect_ (Exhibit 3) The property is presently vacant; although the remains of a
building„ presumed to be a former residence which was demolished at an unknown tine in the past,
are located on the western portion of the Site. (Exhibit 5 and testimony)
cAdocurnenis and scctiiiLsltrmparary internee fiicslcontent.eutlnok`a7dryuna`,1ua10-090 doe
11I=.ARIN(i::Xi`,N!I?�' ;2_�':,_ ,.,:,j?o+r�1?17CISti)�
AmII :?' ?01 t
T'l�<<e3 cft7
2. A variety of land, ai}rrt t[re sabicct property.
A. The "notch-' on the south side of the subjcct property created, by he 157 foot
southerly- "jog, iu the South property line is occupied by an approxiniatc: 2.1 acre` parcc[ (the
Shenk parcel). The Shenk parcel contains a single --family residence blear -11s-Ni I CAvenueNE
frontage. (Px'1ibi5 1, 5, arid 12C and testimony)
11_ The east [fall-ol'rhe south property line abuts the north edge of the dcvelt:pcd H%inclwood
sin"'le-family residential subdivision. C�rrc of the streets in ��intti°vo�.i', Pasco !'lace NE,
terminates aaaWst the common property line voth tlrc subject property. Pasco Places. NEextends s�utlFerly tb�out h YG'1r7r;1zt oder:1 to cv-entrra[ly provide a connection to N'1 '' Street (al -a
SE 128°i Street). Windivood is a clevelnhznent of Some 100-= homes. (1�xIII ")iILS 27 7, and 5)
T ineiw god .vas developed under King County rcg, ilatiolls. (Testimony)
C. The cast property line abuts the re�11 lot line nl'six lots in ] fazir ren f:1it,�rT[:rrtrl�, :inofllcr l 00 ±
lot single-fainily residential subdivision developed tinder Kin(x Conr)ty regulations.
J- indtivood and Maureen f ,,,hXurlds are intcr-c:onnected via NL? 61i' Street which extends
westerly to Nile Avenue NF.. (Exhibits ?, 3. and 5 lnd testi3.7nolly)
D. The north property line abuts all or aportion ol'seven acreage lots, most of which access SE
120t1' Street a short distance to the north. One ofthose lots (the Newrnan property) is larger
than the rest and is undeveloped; the rest appear to each contain a single-family residence.
(Exhibits 2 and 5 grid testlinony)
The subiect property is essentially flat with a very gentle dotiv°award slope from cast to west. ( xhihit
3)Two regulated wetlands arc found on the property: A small Category 3, disturbed wctltu3d near the
west end ofthe site, and a significantly larger, 10rCACC1, Category 2 wetland located just cast of the
Pasco Place \rl-, right -oto -way alignment (extended). (Exhibits 3 and 7) Vegetation consists of a mix
of shrubs, groundeover, and 95 trees_ (Exhibits l and 5) The subject property is not located irr the
Aquifer PT0tectI0n Zone. (Exhibit 1, p_ 3)
4. Finlcbeiner proposes to subdivide the subject property into 11 lots for single-family residential
development, two open space tracts (Tracts A and C) totaling 87,966 square feet (SF), a 15,837 SF
stormwater control tract (Tract 13), and a 62,705 SF tract for i'uCure development (Tract D). (l;xlribit
3) Finkbeiner has no plans to develop Tract 1). (Testimony) Tract D is ef�eetively isolated by the
Category 2 wetland on. Tract A from the rest of the subject property and can realistically be accessed
only from the north_ For all intents and purposes, Tract D most likely cannot be developed until the
acreage lot to its north is further developed_
The proposed lots will be served by two public streets: An east -west street (proposed NE 7'r` Place)
extending from Nile Avenue NE to an extension of Pasco Place NE through the property. Proposed
c:%documents and setnn.zs%hwalmn\1oca1 set ingsltemporan° internee f les'.eon;ent.onilt>nk`x?dz}'nnalli aro C14t1.doc
1IF.A1 NG Ex?.,NAIN K Pro 1 cm nor(! U1 C1510N
RFI: 1.]1110-090, FC1', PP (Olympus VW(j)
Apri] 22, <?01I
llugc 4 of 15
NEV" Place will be developed as a ` half=street' section; aIIowinL, Cor future wide ring to a Lull -width
section at such time as the Shenk property develops. (Exhibit 3)
Finkbeiner proposes to use the "clustering' provisions of ific R -MC for some of the proposed Iots. As
depicted on Exhibit 3, Proposed Lots 1 - 5 take advanta,e of'those provisions. Finl<beiner asked at
Bearing to be allowed to include Proposed Lots 6 and 7 in the clustering cnIculations. (Exhibits 1 and
3 and testiniony)
The density of 01vtnpus Villa as proposed will be 2.6 dwelling units per net acne. (Exhibit 1)
The subdivision design andL11 of the proposed lots comply with R -NIC zoning, street, streetnetwork,
parks, blocks, ajid lot configuration rcquircnrients. All of -the proposed single-family residential lots
access a public street. (Exhibits 1 and 3)
6. The record contains evidence that appropriate provisions have been made or can be made for:
A. Open space. Small lot clusters of up to a maximum of f fifty lots are allowed within the R-4
zone when at least 30 % of the site is permancritly set aside as "significant open space." Such.
open space mus1_ be situ..uted to act as a visual buffer between sm, l lot clusters and other
development in the zone_ The area of Tract A comes up a little shy of the 30'% set aside
requirement (87,618 SF/ 293,152 SF 29.48°„). While Tract D Will =sat be immediately
developed, it is not proposed to be set aside as permanent open space and, therefore, cannot
count towards the open space requirement. Tract C (348 SF) is also to be dedicated as open
space. However, Tract C is not located in an area w=hich would serve as a visual buffer
between the small lot cluster and other developMent iJ1 the area. (Exhibit 1)
Finkbeiner testi fitd that lie could easily adtust the common houndary between 'Tracts A and
D to provide the necessary incrersc in the area of "Tract A. (Testimony)
B. Drainage ways. All storrnw-ater runoffexcept that from Proposed Lot 1 will be collected and
transported to a detention pond onTract 131i-om which it w°i]I flow into the drainage system
along Nile Avenue; NE. (Exhibit 6) The pond will replace the Nvetland now located there.
Mitioation for the loss of that wetland is proposed in the area of the wetland in Tract A.
(Exhibit 7)
Stoa7nwater runoff from Proposed Lot 1 will be dispersed into [lie wetland to its north and
east. (Exhibit 6)
C. Streets and roads. T'hc proposed streets and street system meet City standards_ (Exhibit 1)
cAdocuicas and settintrslhwahan'Jocal set1in2s11crnporary [ntanc( fileslcontent.outlaek`x7dr}una11ua10-Q90.doc
hl?.'kltft16, (:X:^.MINF! k he,
J of i:?
;.�.
Alleys. Pi i .n!s 3 aruf 4 �.�i'1 be >�.r1 c�1 by t�« l;riv�lie c��scrlrcnts which �-vi1.1
function its Mlle s, v'.11t,wi;t�a _cc.ess to tlro.sc lots I_-otrt thu rear of fhe lots. (F'xhibit 3 ami
testimony)
l;. Other ,public ways. No !i�_,cd for oiler public ways within the suhdivisiorl exists. (Exhibits 1
and 3)
Potable water supply_ The subject property lies within Water District 90 which.bas confirr reci
the availability of an atdcyuate supply o.f potable water. {F.xhibit 15)
G. San.itary wastes_ An 8„ rani tary scv,�cr Twain exists tircneath Pasco Place NE (Exhibit I)
11_ Parks and recreation. "i he project bas been reclrrireil Iiil ough the State Environmental Policy
Act (51;PA) thr-eshe�lel rlctc?n�irration process (See hir,,dir1�� of Pact 7, below.) to make a park
impact rrriti}anon p,t} Inert. (1;xlzihit 16)
7. Re.nton-s SEPA ResponsibJc 0I iciI aL tfrc RC, issued a Det ern.inat1ori of Nonsiignificance-i1�'fitiated
(DNS -M) ort January 31, ;'OI 1.. (1,xhibit 8)1"he DNS -M was not appealecl_ (I'Milbit 1) "Ihe INNS -M
is based on three rniti gaticm Inc:.rsru-es: Payment of a parks and recacation irrrpact (ee, a transportation
impact fee_ and a fire impact iee_ (Exhibit l6) 1he three maigatiorn measures have been carried
forward by Planning as a recornrncnded condition ofapprov;d. (;xhib.it 1, p. 11, Recommended
Condition 1)
8. Most residents of 1Yindil ,00xl have no objection to subdivision of the land to their Horth rror to the
proposed design with but one important exception: Whey are strongly opposed to the extension of and
use of Pasco Place NE. T,-VhYdit, od re:siclenis bane experienced many problems with speeding drivers_
especially since the development of Maureen Highlandv which resulted in the opening up of 6"'
Street NE through the n.eigliborhood. Stop signs have beery instailed, but some motorists ignore: thcm.
The Windwood residents believe that the extension of Pasco Place NE will only make the sitrratitttl
worse_ 'Ihc}� see no reason ��hy their neighborhood needs to be connected to the (?lyrr-rfus Villa
neighborhood. (Exhibits 12A and 121) and testimony)
The RMC requires that all new development establish and further an interconnecting grid system.
The code allows for exceptions to the grid street requirement in only two situations: Where
interconnection is infeasible due to topography; or where interconnection is infeasible due to existing
substantial improvements. IR_MC 4-7-150, exceptions listed in 4-7-1 50F,3] neither condition that
would justify an exception is present in dais case: No topographical problern.s exist and no
improvements would block the extension_ (Exhibit 3)
9. One of the abutting mvners ir) ,,Vfaureen Highlands "vants the easterly 60 feet of Tract ll set aside as
open space to protect three deer and a [awn who reportedly line in the area. (Exhibit 12B) Another
c.'\documents and settines',hNailonlloc.al selunp',temperairy finernet f1e3lcg11te11s outlook�\WZYIMA'JLUA 10-09Cdac
I lHAR1NG FXAMINFR Prr� l �ur;�prr I)1-(TSj0N
I,ZF.: 1. UTA10-090, t?C}.=, Pt' Fill,.)
April 22. 201 l
Page t(if 15
'Waureen fliuhlawls resident is concerned that the dcvclopmcrit not increase stormGx,�taer flows
towards the east and would prefer fewer, larger lots. (hxhibit 12E)
10_ Newman, the o%� ner of -one of -the lots to IIIc north, would like to see. the Pasco Place NI extension
curve more to the cast than is proposed. Ile notes that, as design ed_ the right-of-way wi i 1 stub out jrist
to the west of the coriurion boundary betwcen his pxoperty and She property of his neighbor to the
east. I le would like the right-of-w,N ay stub to be centered on their common borMdary, so that further
exterisiork to the north through their properties would encumber eacl. equally'. (Testimony)
The alignment of the Pasco Place NE extension. right--of-way cannot shift me ,,isurably to the east
within the subject property due to Ific location of the Category 2 v,,ctland and its required buffer.
{E�xhibit 3 and tcstinrony) In order to make the adjustment Newman seeks, a reverse curve would
have to occur _just to tllC north of the SLihjec.t prop(frty.
Street aligsrment with -in subdivisions must comply with standards sct by RMC 4-6-000. f .E MC 4 -7 --
]SOD] A deflection angle of 1 W or more; mast occur- thr ough a horizontal "curve of reasonabl v long
radius". Further', wvlrcrcvcr a reverse curve is to occur (an -S" curve or a chicane), there must be a
"tangent section" (a straight segment between the curves) of not less than 100 feet f()r residential
access streets. J RM C 4-6-0601`7a and F 7c I Given that Newman's parcel h� s a north -south dimension
of approximately 250 feet (measured .from Exhibit 2), the required curves and tangent section would
take most of the depth of lris parcel to complete.
11. Shenk submil-ted a comment letter and testified at the hearing. The letter lists anumber of concerns
resulting from mi sundessta...ding some of the notations on the proposed preliminary plat. (Exhibit
12C) Shenk did riot mention those concerns in his testimony_
Shenk ,vonders why Finkbeiner will not be rcgti[red to install sewer stab -ours towards the south
when he installs the sever beneath future NE 7th Place. Ile suggests that installing; then. when the
sewer main is initially laid would eliminate the need to tear up the street later when his property
develops. (Testimony)
Staff respor..de.d th rt a major problem with such an idea is that no one can know where the stub -outs
might be needed on his side of the street until a development proposal for his property is put forth.
(Testimony)
12. Planning performed a comprehensive, detailed, thorough analysis of -the proposal's conformance
with applicable requirements o Fthe RMC. Planning concludes that the proposal complies, or can be
conditioned to comply. with all applicable requirements. (Exhibit 1)
13. Planning recorninernds approval of the proposed subdivision subject to 10 conditions. (E'xhibit I , pp.
1 I and 12)1Finkbeiner asks for revision to four of the recomrncnded conditions:
c",documenis and settins'vempora;y m1crnctfilesicontent.nurlaik'tt7d�}vna11ua10-OGO.<;i�c
RI': L j 10 U��O, t.:(. I-,, IT {Oh:urf�us
RccoiIInrcmlcd Corulib_,113: liiial;i ojner w,ipt..s 'o he � I L Io incItldc 1' oposcd 1,ols 6 «rad izt
tltc. clustering process_ 1'inl ),.iner w:IWs to (Taro inccsibility ,so Lilac Proposed L.ots:l
arid 5 aught be slightly cnkirged- (LNhib1t1 �) Plan:�It1'7 supports that requested(Test i In oily)
l3. Recommended Condition 4: While Firzkbciner agrees that Proposed Lots 2 5 should access
from Nl: 7`' Place; he does not like the language vN-Bich would limit that access to the
casements as depicted on Exhibit _x- Ile wants the fle.xTbility to allei-their al igninent. (Exhibit
13) 1'lanninghas no objection to providing sonle flCsibility, butwants 10 liIll itIhe; nurnz.berof
curb cuts �rz3d prohibit direct access onto Pasco Place NF'_ (fcstirnony) The RAMC el fecl_ively
requires alley access in residential cluster designs. I RMIC 4--7-150E'5c1
C. Recornnzcrldk:d CoTidl*tloii 6: 'l'fiis condition regtiires I- watec inneters to serve Proposed Lots
6 11. That condition is hased on the fact lh�rt, as hres ntly designed, hc>nses built on those
lots would have to be equ.1pped wlIh f irc suppression sprinkler systeans (because of the l� iclth
orthe half. -=street section) which in turn require a ltrrger-than-norrrral water meter. 1=inkbeiner
wants the flexibility to adjust the Flat (slightly widcning the half -street riglit-of way) such
that those lots would not need to be sprinklered. (Exhibit 13 and testimony) Staff testified
that the Fire Marshal detci-mines which lots inusthe spi-inklered jt.ist befoz'e final corrstrrrction
plans are approved. Staff Jz olv believes that Reco mrnended Condition 6 Should have been
provided a5 an advisory note rather than as a recommended condition of approval.
(l."estimorny)
D. Recommended Condition 8: Finkbeiner would .like the flexibility to have the open space
tracts owned in common by a homeowners association instead of owned in cornrnon by the
lot ow-ziers abutting the tracts- (F:xl3ibit 1 3) Planning supports that requested change.
(�1 estz1T7r711y)
1,?. Any Conclusion of Law deerned to be a hindinIg of Fact is .h.erehy adopted as such.
LF,GAT. FRAIV MORK 3
The Examiner is legally required to decide this case within the ]ramework created by the following
principles:
A othority
:1 preliminary subdivision is a Ttipe III application which is subject to an open rec(rd hcarizag before the
Examiner- The Examiner makes a final decision on the application which is subject to the right of
reconsideration and appeal to the City Council, [RMC 4-08-01011] j, 4-8-084G, and 4-8-100(i4 J
Any stateinent in this section deemed to be either a Finding of Fact or a ConcluAoii of Law is hereby adopted as such.
,:'Ancunzctzfs and scWn1oslbANalton1Joca1 settinastempnrary internet h1c.sNcnnient dnc
11IFA R1XG T=,XA%11NT;R ho 7'er�tporc- I:E_C'151O
April2?,'201 1
h',e8of15
I'lle Elxaminer may
grain or decry the application, orthe Examiner may require of the applicant such c-anditions,
modifications and restricuons as the Fxamincr finds necessary to make the application
eampatible with its environment and cavy out the objectives and goals of the Cotoprchensive
Plan, the z011ina regulations, the subdivision regulations, the codes and ordinances of the
City of Renton . _ .. Conditions, modifications and. restrictions which inay be imposed are,.but
erre not limited to, additional setbacks, screenings in the form of laridscapiny and fencing
covenants, easements and dedications of additional road rights-of-way. Performance bonds
may be required to insure compliance with the conditions, modifications and restrictions.
(RMC 4-8-100U31
Review Criteria
The review criteria [or preliminary suhdivisinns are set forth at P.MC: 4-7-0808:
B. PRINCIPLES OF ACCEPTABILITY:
A subdivision shall be consistent with the following principles of aeceptability:
1. Legal Lets: Create legal building sites which comply with all provisions of the City
Zoning Code.
2. Access: Establish access to a public road for each segregated Marcel.
3. Physical Characteristics: Have suitable physical characteristics_ A proposed plat array
be denied because of flood, inundation, or wetland conditions. Construction of protective
improvements may be required as a condition of approval, and such improvements shall be
rioted on the final plat -
4. Draina-e: Make adequate provision for drainage ways, streets, alleys. other public
ways, water supplies and sanitary wastes.
(Bold headings in original) Reguireine~nts and standards for street and trail networks, parks and open space,
streets, residential blocks, and lot configuration are set, forth in R.JMC 4-7-1.20 and -140 170.
The Local Project Review Act [Chapter 36.7013 RCW I establishes a mandatory "consistency" review for
"project pennits", a term defined by the Act to include "building permits, subdivisions, binding site: plans,
planned unit developments, conditional uses, shoreline substantial development permits, site plan review,
permits or approvals required by critical area ordinances, site-specific rezones authorized by a
comprehensive plan or subarea plan'. [RCW 36.700.020(4)1
(1 } Fundamental land use planning choices made in adopted comprehensive plans and
development regulations shall serve as the foundation for project review. The review° o1 -a
proposed project's consistency with applicable development regulations or., in the absence of
applicable regulations the adopted comprehensive plan, under RCW 36.70B.040 shall
incorporate the determinations under this section.
c_ldocumems and settinaslhwaltondocal settingsVemporary Internet fileslcnzttent outlook`tix7dzylma`JIia10-090.doc
!.-�_,A 0_i (111J. I "CP, PP (DI}'rn�u;rs 1";
i!r)
{2� 17itring pro'cct review, a local government or any stlbse(p.aalt rcvicwIng, hotly shall
dctcrnlirlc whether the items listed in this subsection are dcfincd in tlle. development
rc(,ulations applicable to the proposed prQJed or,) ii. (lie absence of'appilcable rc.gulaLions 1110
adopted comprehensive plan. At a miniMUM, such applicable regulations or plans shall be
dC(Crintnative of the:
(a) "hype of land use permitted at the site; including uses that may be alloy=ed
under certain circumstances, such as planned unitdevelopincnts and conditional and
special uses, if the criteria :for their. approval have been satisfied;
(b) Density of residential development in in -ban grm,(h areas; and
(c) Availability and adequacy of publicfacilities idcrtt:ficd izlthecornpreheltsive
plan; if the plan or development regulations provide for funding ofthese facilities as
required by [the Groxx-th Management Act].
IRC':1V 3C.'10,1_?,.0.i01
VestedRi{dhts
Renton has not enacted a general vested rights provision. Therefore, applicable provisions of state law
govertt:
Subdivision and short subdivision applications are governed by a statutory vesting rule: such
applications "shall be considered under the subdivision or short subdivision ordinance, and
Toning or other land use control ordinances; in cffcct on the land at the time a Gully
completed application ... has been submitted
[R.CW 58.17.033; see also SMC 16.28.480] Thcrefbre, this preliminary suhdivision application is vested to
the regulations as they existed on January 7, 2011.
Standat'd of Review•
The standard o€" review is preponderance of the evidence_ The applicant bas the burden of proof.
Scope of. Consideration
.Che Examiner has considered: all of the evidence and testilrrony; applicable adop(,_�d laws, ordinances, plans,
and policies; and the pleadings, positions, and arguments of the parties of record.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates compliance with the preliminary subdivision
approval criteria in RMC 4-7-OSOR 1: All of the proposed lots -vzwill comply with zoning regulations.
c:ldocuments and sctnnes'demporArr in temct>tleslcontent.outlook,x7dz}runs,i6uaI0-090_doc
ltl. ARJ[NC;-IXAii[f\lI:IZPi-o L',-rriprJre DEC;IS[ON
{fit:. UJAM-090, I=,CF, TT (fNyrnpus Vine)
April 2�, 201 i
Pae 10 of 15
2- The pr•eponderancc of the evidence dernonsli-ates compliance with the prclirni.nary subdivision
approval criteria in RMC 4-7-080132: Fach lot will have access to a public street_
3. The prepor.rderance of the evidence demonstrates compliance with the preliminary subdivision
approval criteria in RMC 4-7-050133: The major on-site critical area is to be protected; mitigation in
conformance with adopted standards is proposed for the loss of the lesser critical area.
4. The preponderance of the evidence dernonsfrates compliance with the preliminary subdivision
approval criteria in }SMC 4-7-080134: The streets and drainage systems have been designed to
comply with City codes and standards. A minor shord'alI in open space cur be easily laxed by an
appropriate condition. Adequate utility services are available.
5.
The preceding four Conclusions oaf 7,aw show that Olympus Villa complies with all established
criteria for approval. However, they likely don't answer some of the neighbors' concerns_ fhe next
Conclusions of Lave will address their concerns.
6. ']'lie Windwood design obviously conterrrplated the eventual extension of Pasco Place NE to serve
subdivision of the acreage parcels to the north, of which the subject property is one.. Whether the
home purchasers clearly understood that or not, that is the reality presented by a street which stubs
out to an adjoining undeveloped parcel. Olympus Villa '.s design is simply bringing that expectation to
fruition_
Renton has strong requirements for interconnection of streets between and among adjoining
developments. Just because King County did not have interconnection requirer rents is no reason to
not in7plement and enforce the City's requirements. The intercorlizection of Pasco :Place NE xith
proposed N1- 7tl' Place will provide a second access into not only Olympus Villa, but also the north
end of Y-Vindrr,00d: If an accident were to block the Pasco Place NE NE 6'11 Street intersection now,
emergency vehicles could not reach any of the hones on Pasco Place NF north of NL 6t" Street. The
interconnection will provide an alternate access. And as one of the witnesses acknowledged, marry if
not most of the speeders arc neighborhood residents, not outsiders cutting through the neighborhood.
The neighbors and the City have a range of actions that can be taken to solve the speeding problem
short of ignoring adoptedd requirements for interconnection of streets.
7. The RNIC provides no basis upon which one could require that the eastern 60 feet of Tract D be set
aside permanently as open space. Wildlife presently living on the portions of the site which will be
converted into streets and house lots will, most likely, be lost. That loss is a direct result of the
legislative decision to urbanize this area- Urbanization is, generally speaking, incompatible with
inost wildlife species habitat; especially for animals such as deer, bear, coyote, etc_ The legislative
decision to designate and zone the area for urbanization amounts to a conscious choice oi" human
habitat over wildlife habitat. That legislative choice is not debatable in the context of this (or any
other quasi-judicial) application'_
cAdocunicnts and settinuslb alionllocxl set in!7s\temporary internet frlec+,e �ntrni.oui'looklx7dry� rzaVuarO-(}90.doc
1!EARING 1AAiM N1—' t
A t,r i i T,, , '.101 1
.'Albs 11 of 15
As to the drainage Concem of the other :1.1avreca Ili,,)hlunds• resident, the cv1dclncc indicates that the
Fast nt�rjority of the storn water runoff will he di:ecied toNvards the west and Nile AVerrr c. NE, not
towards A,faureen Highlands on the cast. There would seem to be virtually no chance that the small
' count, of runoff from the residence on Pi-oposed L oL I could everaffect ;19uurc�e» .Hz �hlajlds ,IVCjl
the size of Tract A. with its wetland and interveni�rg "t'ract. D. Control of stormwater runoff from any
fixture development ofTract D wlII have to be addressed at the time a proposal for suchde.velopme.nL
is put forward_
�. Were it not for the existence of the substantial Cafc`roi-y 2 wetland just to the east of the Pasco Place
N1� right-of=way (extended}, i`retivman's request sr�ould likely have garnered the support of both
1:inkbeiner rind staff. But the wetlatnd's location is a physical reality w-itlt which we all must live_ City
policy need regulation stron,,Iy support protection o t such wetiartds_ 'rlie street must avoid the wctland
to the <Yreatest extent possible.
The unfortunate T_G 110 i5 that most of any rigIII -rat=�v'.v alignment ad'ustrnent will have to occur on
the propeit�-•(ies) to the north. It Inay be possible. Lc) heg i rr a slight horizontal curve to the east near the
notilt property line without irnpingiing oil the wctland or its required hr.rf"fer. (Minor revisions to
approved prclirninpry plats are allowed_ [RNIC 4 T-0 OM]) Ncwman and his neighbor may want to
discuss the pros and cony of such an alignment shift with Finkbeiner and City staff before
construction plants are prepared.
Phis situation sloes not warrant a delay in approv,,d or redesign of the proposed prelirmnary flat.
9. Requiring sewer stabs to both sides of a ncvv strect males sense, but only if -both sides of -the street
are beth, developed at the same time. No one can say when, if ever, the Shenk property may
develop. No one can say what the land development reguiremernts pray be when the Shenk property
is proposed l' )r de%,cIopment- Therefore. no one can say with any certainty exactly where: sewer stubs
would be required. Installing; seg er stubs based orr a liyl)othetical developnienL would iiiakc no selise
- even if it were legally defensible, Nvhich it likely isn't.
10. Olympus Villa passes the "consistency- test_ Single-family residential is the primary use in the R-4
zone-, the proposed density is within the range allowed by applicable onin- and adequate utility
services are available to the site.
11. The recommended conditions of approval as set forth in Exhibit I are reasonable, supported by the
evidence, and capable of accomplislrrncnt Avith the followitIg changes:
A. A preliminary subdivision embodies the concept of approval. of a specific development
proposal. A preliminary subdivision evaluation is based upon the specific preliminary plat
submitted by the applicant. Itis appropriate. there fere, that the conditions of approval clearly
identify the plat which is being approved_ The Planning recon mendation as drafted does not
do so. Exhibit 3 constitutes the plat proposal wrhich has been reviewed h) this hearing process
u:ldocurnents and scttinp'dniiporary imulr l fii&,contcnt c,utlnnkL�7�r uoalluai0-69C1.dnc
1Ih,ARIN(I r,'LhMIN, R Pro Tempore )] [Al SION
III": I-UA10-090, h.CF=, 1'P (0,7,vmpus Villa)
Apri12 , )011
11 age 12 of 15
and which sbould be approved. The Fxam.iner will add a condition to speci y that 1=a.xhibit 3 is
the approved preliminary plat; num her) ng of the subsequent conditions will be incremented
accordingly_
B. Reconnnended. Conditions 3 and 8: The Examincr will revise those two conditions as
requested by Pinkbenicr and as supported by Planning.
C. Recommended C.oiidition 4: Both Finkbeiner and Planning made good points regarding the
wording of- this condition. The Examiner will incorporate both points of view in revised
wording for this condition.
Recommended Condition 6: The: LNamiticr will eliminate this condition_ The preliminary
subdivision approval stage is'vay too early in the process to be specifying for all tithe the
size of water meters for specific lots. Authority exists under the hiternatIonal hire- Code to
address the concern that led to this condition_
1?- Planning stated in the Staff Report That it was going to recommend placement of a note ou
the face of the final plat requiring that the houses on Proposed F,ots 1 — 5 must he oriented
towards Pasco place N11. (Exhibit 1 l3. 9) That condition never made it into the list of
recommended crmditious. (,exhibit 1, pp. I l and 12) Finkbeiner objects to such a limitation
as pertains to Proposed Lots 3 ar)d 4. (Testimony)
MinimLLm comer lot width and depth requirements for R-4 zoned land in a small lot cluster
development are 60 feet and 65 iec1, respectively. [R.N4(--' 4-2-1 I OA] Proposed Lot i can meet
those requirements for either orientation, but Proposed Lot 4 works only i( -its Pasco Place
XF frontage is considered its front lot line. Proposed Lots 1, 2, 4, and 5 must front ori Pasco
Place NE. A desirable streetscapc requires that Proposed Lot 3 do likewise. The FxamMer
will impose Planning's suggest ,,d condition.
F. `-lie Examiner prefers to not use the'vord "applicant" in conditions. Land use entitlement
approvals; of which a preliminary subdivision approval is one type, `'run with the laud."
Simply put, that means the permit is still valid no matter hog'- many times ownership cif the:.
property may change_ While it may be hyper -technical, some might argue that only the party
which sought preliminary subdivision approval was the "applicant," that any successor ill
interest was sonietllirt j other than the "appli cant," and that, therefore, any such successor'vas
not obligated to comply with conditions addressed to the "applicant." To avoid any such
argument in the future, the Examiner prefers to use the word "plattor," meaning the party
subdividing (platting) the property_ 7 he Examincr will make that substitution throughout the
conditions.
c'ldoeumenrs and set fin gslbwa1LO TndocaI setLmgsltempmrary inicrnct dies`,ccmie:fLou;I<wk�x7dzqunallualt)-(?9Qdoc
,1�1` I�I� Pi -o
:' '.ii'•J!� (i4(}, i': (_a . I'}' (DII°r,��rtrs Ne)
A lCVv imuor, non-5ub,,,tantiVC _s FUC'UIFC. 4?r<,i7l ilai'- �iid,'( r )UIIC•t[MtIOrt rCPIS"',m)" !o
1Zccon�me ld�:cl {.`C,1IJ0io.!]s 1, aitd 8 vvIll H7Tf we ConSI-,U0iorl, clar'ty. and flo;�
within the Conditions, Stich chatl2cs wIJI tic: mads.
��rt�, hindinw cif T'aci decnrcd to be a Crc�rlcic iun of l,a�-E�° is _Itcrcl�y cttloptcd as such.
DECISION
R ;ed upon the prece.din'u }+indings ofl."act and C:OnCIUMorls offmv- tlx: 'cstunony and evidence submittod at
il;c open record hearino, 4,uid the FXanilnen's site view, the F?xanr;ric•t- GRAN,rs preliminary subdivision
-vproval for Olyrnims Villa Sd,-13,11J:CT TO THE, ATTACIIED CON I)IrrIONS_
i )�.t isiorz issued April 22, 20111.
ls\ John t-.-_ (.halt original in orflzcial bile.)
John E. Galt
blearing ENaminer Pro feinj)ore
11E.A.R.ING PARTICIPANTS 4
Rocale Timmons 13111 Finkbeinor
Kevin Van I'landeren John NCwi-nan
int:vid Shenk Ken Bouvier
K.ayren K I Itri ck
NOTICE of RIGHT of RE'CONSID .RATION
"Any interested person fcclim, that the decision of the Examiner is based on an erroncous procedure, errors
of lave° or fact. error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available
at the prior hearing may" file a redue a/motion lOr reconsideration Nvith "the Examiner within. :fourteen (14)
days after the written decision of the Examiner has been rendered. The [-request/motion for reconsideration]
shall set forth the specific errors relied upon." [RMC 4--8-10004] Any request/motion for reconsideration
shall be addressed to The Renton FTearing Examiner and filed with the City Clerk. See RMC 4-8-10064 and
RMC 4-8-110F8 [or additional inlorn-iation and requirements regarding reconsideration -
4 The ot:f Cial Parties of Record register is rrraintailred by the City's H4aring Clerk.
C.L%e.ocurrcnt5 and settfngs',hwaltonlloc�l scltinsltemporary ;trtcrnel Cles cunter�t.uutlau� x7dr.� unalkial tl-0?O dnc
I IFNR, EXANMi,,111��_i: Pro 7�err;�a;r� DEC!' IC's
I.1: 1AJA 10 090, F( -I F. I'll (0111W pees 1'°i1luJ
April 22, 20l 1
lel of 15
NOTICE of RTG1JT of APP1!i AL
This Decision becomes final and conclusive w of the iitteenth calendar day after the date of issuance of the
Decision unless reconsidMition is timely requested. If reconsideration is timely requested, the E'xaminer's
order granting or denying reconsideration becomes hie, rival and conclusive decision for the City. The.
Fxan.7iner's final decision is subject to the right of the applicant City, ora parry of -record with standinu, Lis
provided in RMC 4-8-1 1 DFI, to file an appeal with the City Council in accordance with the procedures of
RMC: 4-8-1 ] OF. Any appeal must be filed within 14 day's following the issuance of the final decision. See
RMC; 4-8-11 OF,9 and RNIC 4-8-1101, for additiomil info>-rnation and requirements regarding appeals to the
City Council-
I'1>e fl�llouling st ltcnlent iti provided pltrsuant to 1�C'�v' {. ' "
!1Nccted property may request
a Chang iti v<lluzltion far propeily ta.L pure{lyes iiotwithstaiiding any program of revaluation-"
CONDY.F.IONS Off' APPROVAL
04y1lrpits Vilkl
LUA10-090, ECF, PP
This Preliminary Subdivision Is subject to compliance witch all applicable provisions, requirements, and
standards of [lie Renton Municipal Code, standards adopted pursuant thereto, and the f«llow°ing special
conditions:
1. Exhibit 3 is the approved preliTinnary plat. Revisions to approved preliminary subdivisions/plats are
regulated by R.MC 4-7-080NM,
2.rhe plattor shall Comply with the three mitigation measures issued as part o the Determination ca(
Nonsignificance-Mitigal-ed. dated February 4, %011 _ (Exhibits 8 and 16)
3. The plattor shall be required to place additional area within Tract A in order to comply with the 30%
permanent open space requirement for clustering. The permanent open space casement shall. be
recorded prior to or concurrently with the Final. Plat.
4. The plattor shall place on the face of the plat a covenant noting the setbacks of the R-8 zoning
designation apply on the clustered lots (Proposed hofs 1-7) only_ The covenant shall be recorded
concurrently with the Final Plat.
5. A note Shall be placed on the face of the plat requiring Proposed Lots 2-5 to take vehicular access
from NF, '7i1' Place and requiring Proposed Lots 2 & 3 to share a common curb cut and Proposed Lots
4 & 5 to share a common curb cut unless compelling evidence is presented prior to construction
c.ldocument� and settin1501cmpoiary interne fileslcnntent.outlookl�7d yuna,Ii aJG-G9[)-dpc
Apq 2Z W 1
An i5 OF I.
permit approval to show tliat sliarrca curb cuts arc not Tkx� mote shall be w -corded
concriFrei itty with the Final flat.
b. The phttor shall be required to revise the drainage report (l Xhibit h) to include Conceptual sizing
calculations lin- the detention pond and address the individual W tres urienm The revised flan shall
he submitted to and approved by the Engineering flan Reviewer prior to construction permit
approval.
7. The plaitor shall establish and record a permanent and irrcvocabie casement lin the property title of
tyre tract containing, the critical area and its buRbr prior to flm 1. Nal recording. the pry}tectivc
easement shall be held by ctirrerit said futrare properl owners, shall arra with the land, and shall
tare:>hibi.t development, alteration, and disturbance within the casco-nent except tar purposes ofhabitat
enhancement as part of an enhancement project. 'riie enhancement project s1isL11 receive prior WlittclI
approval from the City, and from any ether agency with jurisdiction over such activity.
9. A cove.nani_ Shall be placed on the opera space tracts restricting, their- separate sale prior to Final Plat
T reiin�r. Fach nhutting lot owner, within the prat, shall have an undivided interest in the tracts yr
�hc. 1rtrcts shall he conveyed to the horaIeow-ner's �associatioll itrr '[.he project.
A 20 common boundary between the native t;roWLh protection #Tact and the abutting land must be
permanently identified. This identification shall include apci-immentwood split rail fence and metal
signs on tresated or metal posts. The permanent. wood split rail I encs and signs shall be installed prior
to Final flat recording.
17. The 1olio"6ng note shall appear on the lace of the f=inal flat and shall also be recorded as a covenant
rrinnin�), with the land on the title o1' record for all aflccted lots on the tide: "MAINTEN1 AN(-E.l,
1ZL;SP0NS1Bl1_,vr,(: All owners of lots created or heneiiting from this City action abutting or
i.aciiadirxg a nsative growth protcc.#ion tract are responsible (:err maintenance and protection of the tract.
Maintenance includes ensuring, that no alterations occur within the tract and that all ti?egetatiora
remains undisturbed unless the express written authorization of the Cite has been ree6vedY
11. A mote shall be placed on the Face of the final plat requiring that theftont yard for Lots 1-5 mice
lm,v r rd c:xtencled Pasco Place Ni:. The dote shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Plat.
,.',docirncnra ani scrinss'.bualrnnVocal scuim s\ttmpolaly imernct fi1cslc0n1cntnntlpnk'a7dn�una�l��a1p
BEFORE ilze HEARING lCX- N INT R .Pro Tempore for the
CITY at' IFNTON
1) F,C.1S10N
I. 1I.,.1::NUl'113tIts: LUA10-090. ECF_ PP
APPLICANT- 1�inkbeiner Developnneni
A`1 J'N: Bill liinkbeiner
1201 1 13L1-Rcd Road, Sui(e 2()0
I3cllcvuC WA 98005
01VNER4: Robert Anderson & Gale Miner
1-607461" Avcjiue SE
North Bend, WA 9$045
TYPE OF CASII:
S'FAFI R.I COM'j'v,IENDA.TIOh`
SUIr'lMARY OF INN ISION:
DA"l E OF Df;'CISION:
Prellininary subdivision (Oiwipi.is Villa)
Approve sttbjecl to conciJIot3s
GRANT subject to conditions (rcvised)
April 22, 2011
INTRODUCTION 1
finkbeiner.Development (FitA-beiner) seeks Ipreliminaty approval ofOlynipus Viilix, an I 1 lot single family
residential subdivision of a 6.72 -acre site zoned R-4-
Firikbeincr filed the preliminary subdivision application on December 22, 2O l 0. (Exhibit 11 `) The Renton
Department of Community and Economic De��elopment, Planning Div inion (Planning) deemed the
application to be complete on January 7, 201.1. (Testimony)
Any statement in this section deemed to be either a Finding, of Fact or a Conclusion of ],�iw is hereby adopted as such.
Exhibit citations are provided for the reader's benefit and indicate- l) 'Ube snitiee of a quote or specific fact; and. -or 2)
The m oor docufnent(s) upon which a stated fact is based. While the Examiner considers aII rcicvant documents in the
record, typically only major docuinenls arc cited. The Examiner's Decision is has,:d upon al l dneumernts in the record.
c.ldoc;uments and settings\bwalwn'lo al settings'dempurary iraernei Gies'cnr.tentoutlor,k`x7dniina'.I iai0-1190.dn
III 'AMNO 1'_NAMtNtr.R ProTrinp>rc DL"Ctst0N
K'': I IYA 111-0007 ECF€'t' (()(,arapus Vd."a)
Agri; ".2011
Page z, of 1
flee strnject property is located at 12X.XX .Nile Avenue NE (-aka 148''' Avenue SE), approximately 800 feet
norifll oNE 6th Street (aka SE 124"' Street).
The Renton hearing Examiner Pro Tempore (Examiner) viewed the subject property on April 19, 2011.
`fhc 1�„ aminor- held an open record hearing on April 19, 201.1. .Planning "aVc notice of the hearing as
required by the Renton. Municipal Code (RMC). (Exhibit 14)
l�he Following exhibits were entered into the hearing record during the he,aing:
Exhibits .I - 12: As enumerated in C~xhibit 1., the Staff Report
Exhibit 13: Applicant -requested condition clianoes
Exhibit 14: Hearing notice documcritation
The Examiner held the hearing; record open for tip to two days at the rcgl jc.,t oCJ."Inkbeitier and Planni.oc, for
receipt of a )v-ater availability letter and for entry ofthe Environmental RcvicNv Committee (ERC) Report.
Hhe following documents were entered pursuant to that authorit}-:
Exhibit 15: Water District 90 water availability letter
lixhibit 16: Enviromnental Review (' ommittee Report
The record closed on April 20, 2011, with receipt of Exhibit 15.
The actiontaken herein and the requirements. limitations and/or conditions imposed by this decision are, to
the best of the Examiner's knowledge or belief: only such as are ]awful and within the aUtho.rit�_r o1- the
1�xaminer to take pursuant to applicable law and policy.
ISSUES
Docs the application meet the criteria fOJ-preliminary subdivision approval as established within the .RMC?
Should the subdivision's intemal street system include a northerly= extension of l'asco Place NL'?
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. The subject property is essentially a "llag" lot which has 54.42 feet of frontage on the east side of
Nile Avenue NE and which extends some 17290 feet to the east, eventually widening to
approximately 315 feet. (Exhibit 3) The property is presently vacant, although the remains of a
building, presumed to be a former residence w=hich was demolished at an unknown time in the past,
are located on the western portion of the site. (Exhibi.t 5 and testirnoin)
caducuments and seitinvsbwaltonWcal setrin.Lsltemporary interne files'icondent.artlookLaicEr�nina'tluaLO-040_doc
A variety of l.,rnd uses abr.;t_ the; lc.ct 1_'ropri-Ly-
A. 'the. vvcsicn) "notch" on the south side of the subject property created by the 157 foot
souther iy `job;" in the south property litre is occupied by art approximate 2.3 acre parcel (the
Shenk- parcel). The Shenk Marcel contains a sInlglc-.family residence near its Nile AvenucNF
li-ontage. (Exhibits 1, S, and 12C and testimony)
13- I"he c<Ist h�af of She South property line abuts the 1101111 ed"C of the dcveJoped J -Yb -161"'00d
sincrle- . In' IV residential subdivision. One of the streets in Jhirzdr�'ood, Pisco Place NE
,
tcrl linat4s a�aiust the common property lino With th"- subject prof>crty. Pasco Place NE
ex tends southerly through If"indlrood ao cventuaily pro�'ide a ce}nnectier7� tri N.Ei q �t' Strect (A,)
SI' 12,4;, Street). Windri,00�l is a devi lopr7�ent osorre 1(70homes- (i;xhibits 2, 3 nti 5)
N"i17dIV 0d was developed under Kim-, County rctiIulations- (Tcstirnony)
C. 'Che° east property line abuts the rcm- lot line ofsix lots in kk,,uf cen 17iti,irl,r»��s, another 100
lot single-family residential subdi�%inion developed under King, County re<gtaalions-
H,irchvoo(i and Alaureen Highlamds are interconncctcd via NI 6th Street which extends
wcstcrly to Nile Avenue NE- (Exh.ibits 2, 3 and 5 and tcst'inony)
U. The north property line abuts all or a portion ohscvcn acreage lots, most olwhich access S1:
120" Street a short distance to the north. One of those lots (the Ne«man property) is Iart}er
than the rest and is undeveloped; the rest appear to each contain a Single-family residence.
(L'xhibits 2 and 5 and testimony)
3. The subject property is essentially flat with a very gentle down-,, and slope from east to west. (LJxhibit
3) Two regulated u-ctlands are found on the property: A small Category 3, disturbed wetland near the
west end of the site, and a significantly larger, forested, Category 2 wc land located just east of the
Pasco Place NE right-of-way alignment (extended). (Exhibits 3 and 7) Vepetat'oil consists ol'a mix
Of shrubs, 1,roundcover, rind 95 trees- (Exhibits l and 5) The subject property is not located in tl-re
Aquifer Protection lone- (Exhibit. 1, p- 3)
4. Finkbeiner proposes to subdivide the subject property into I I lots ]ter single-farnily residential
development, two open space tracts ('Tracts A and C) totaling 87,966 square feet (SF),, a 15.837 SF
storm water control tract ('Tract B), and a 62,705 SF tract .for future. development (.Cract D). (Exhibit
3) Finkbeiner has no plazas to develop Tract D. (Testimony) Tract D is effectively isolated by the
Cate` ory 2 wetland on Tract A from the rest of the subject property and can realistically be accessed
only from the north. For all intents and purposes, Tract D most likely cannot be developed until the
acreage lot to its north is further developed.
The proposed lots will be served by two public streets: An east --west street (proposed Nl- 7th Place)
extending Crom Nile Avenue NE to an extension of Pasco Place NIE tl-uough the property. Proposed
c:ldocunnents and sctrincs\hwaltonllocal sett�*tgslrcmporary interne[ files'icontent.oudool'u 7dz} 3rta11ualQ 09Q.doc
HFIARINU EXAMINER Pro T<�?ny)orc UlI,'M[(7]
REI: LUA 10 -090 l -Cl , IT (Olvmpius Villa)
April: -2,201 1
Pap
,e4
NE 7"' Place will bed eve] oped as a `-hal -street" section, al Iowl fig for future wideniii(-, to a i girl l-wicith
section at such time as the Sheirk property develops- (Exhibit 3)
Finkbeiner proposes to use the "clustering" provisions oft lie RMC lin- Solve oftlic proposed lots_ As
depicted on Exhibit 3, Proposed Lots 1 5 take advantage of those provisions. Finkbeiner asked at
hearing to be allowed to include Proposed Lots 6 and 7 in the clustering calculations_ (Fx.hlbits l and
3 and testil-riony}
The density of Olymynts 1711a as proposed will be 2.6 dwelling units per net acre. (l-`xhibit l )
The subdivision design and all of the proposed lots comply with RMC zoning, street, streetnetwork,
parks, blocks, and lot configuration requirements. All ofthe proposed single -.Calmly residential lots
access a public street. (Exhibits 1 and 3)
6_ The record contains evidence that appropriate provisions have been n,ade or can be made for:
A. Open space. Smail lot clusters of up to a naauXJMIlm of fifty lots are allowed within the R-4
Zane NVhen at least 30 °„ oFthe site is permanently set aside as "siggificant open space." Such.
open Space must be situated to act as a visual buffer between small lot clusters and other
developil3ent 1.11 the Zoite. The area of t rad A cotyles tip a little shy of the 30% set aside
requirement (87,618 SF / 293,152 SF �-- 29.88%). While 'Tract n will not be imiriediately
developed, it is not proposed to be set aside as permanent open space and. therefore, cannot
count towards the open space requirement. Tract C (348 SF) is also to be dedicated as open
space. However, Tract C is not located in an area which would serve as a visual buffer
between the small lot cluster and other development in the area. (Exhibit 1)
Finkbeiner testified that he could easily adjust the common boundary between Tracts A and
1) to provide the necessai-y increase in the area of "Tract A_ (Testimony)
B. Drainage ways. All stormwater runoff except that fi-orn Proposed Lot 1 wiil be collected and
transported to a detention pond 1x1 "Tract l3 from which it will flow into the drainage system
along Nile Avenue NE. (Exhibit 6) The pond will replace the wetland now located there_
Mitigation for the loss of that wetland is proposed in the area of the wetland in Tract A.
(Exhibit 7)
Stormwater runoff ti-oin Proposed Lot 1 will be dispersed into the wetland to its north and
east. (Exhibit 6)
C. Streets and roads. The proposed streets and street systein meet City standards. (Exhibit 1)
c:I,document; and scmwi slb»a}tonlloual intenpcl fileslccmwnt.,uudaek'�?d yuna11ua10-090.dac
�,_._1RIING, i�.`.A% l:vLK f'!',J Ir+Ilr'.li� . �71 i Vii); N
-Rl-': H, A 10-(i�)U, I_C F, I'll (0irr�r111s i ,L'rri
Agri] 2011
l'.._t2 (A' l j
D. Alleys. Propose, I_,nts ��L :� :Incl 4 r 5 �vlll be served l)y two private X,�,hich v,�i11
Cunction as alleys, allO%vJ7nw access Lo [hose lots 11-om isle rear of" the: lots. ""XII '0't ? a,lci
tesLirnotly)
E. Other public ways. No geed for other public ways wilhin the subdivision exists. (Exhibits 1
and 3 )
F- Potable water supply- ' 1 he sur ject property lies within Water District 90 which has coati: coed
the availability 01'a1L adequate supply of potable water- (Exhibit 15)
G. Sanitary wastes. Au 8" sewer main exists hen€ adl Pasco Place. NE- (Exhibit 1)
1i Parks and recreation. T]ic project has been rccluired throunh the State Environmental Polh<yr
Act (SEPA) threshold d0ci-mi.nai-ion process (See Flndin of Fact 7, below'.) to make a ptli-k
impact nai.tigation paynicr,t. ()-,\Mbit 16)
;'.
Rent( 'sSFPAResponsibleOfficial,theE.KC,issuedaDeterin nation of Nonsignificance-Miti!';ttEd
(1)N'S-M) on January 31.2011. (FAhibit 8) `lhe DNS -M was not appealed- (I'1"xhibit 1) The DNS -M.
is based on three mitigation measures: Payment of a parks and recreati on impact fee, a transportation
impact fee, and a lire impact fie, (hxl)ibit 16) The three mitigation mea.5nres have been carried
forward by Planning as a recommended condition of approval- (Exhibit 1, p- 11. R.ecom.m end ed
Condition 1)
8. Most residents of 11 indivood have no objection to subdivision of Lhe land to their north rror to the
proposed design with but one important exception: '1 hey are strongly opposed to the extension ofand
use. of Ptisco PlaceNE". WhnIwoocl residents have experienced many problems with speeding drivers,
especially since the development of YV(nireen Highlands which resulted in the opening up of 61"
Street NIS through the neighborhood. Stop signs have been installed but sone motorists ignore thorn.
The 1Vinrlii,,00d residents believe that the extension of -Pasco Place NE will only make the situmMil
worse. `They see no reason why their neighborhood needs to be connected to the 01ynijms
neighborhood. (Exhibits 12A and 12D and testimony)
The RMC requires that all new development establish and further an interconnecting grid systern.
The code allows for exceptions to the grid street requirement in only two situations: Where
interconnection is infeasible due to topography; or where i tercorulection is infeasible clue to existing
substantial improvements. [RMC 4-7-150, exceptions listed in 4-7-150M] Neither condition that
would justify an exception is present in this case: No topographical problems exist and no
improvements would block the extension. (Exhibit 3)
9. One of the abutting ow-ner's in ,Vmiureen Highlands wants the easterly 60 feet of -Tract D set aside as
open space to protect three deer and a I -awn who reportedly live in the area. (Exhibit 1213) Anorher
c Adocuments and scffingslbwakon'Jocal settingsltempmiry intcriiet rl�slcontent outlook'x7d�yur�a11�a10-090.doc
I1FARING 1?NAN9t�F:R Pro f CISION
R F: LLJA 10-()90, lxr, l'1' (OIYna us I'tllul
April ??, 2011
Ta -,c 6 of 15
Maureen 1hgh1ar7c1y resident is concerned that the dc�,elopnncnt not increase stormNNrater flows
towards the cast and would prefer hewer, larger lots- (Exhibit 12E)
10. Newman, the owner of one of the lots to the north, would like to see the Pasco Place hN h, extension
curve more to the cast than is proposed. He notes that, as designed, the right-of-way will stub out just
to the west ofthe com.mon boundaiy between his property and the property of his neighbor to the
cast. I -le would like the right-of-way stub to be centered on their common boundary, so that further
extension to the north through their properties would encumber cacti equally. (1"estilnony)
The alignment of the Pasco Place NE extension right -of -Way cannot Shift measurably to the east
within the subject property due to the location of the Category 2 wetland ani its required buffer,
(I-xhibit 3 and testimony) In order to make the adjustment Newman seeks, a reverse curve would
have to occur just to the north of the subject property_
Street aligni-nezit within subdivisions must comply with standards set by IMIC 4-6-060. IRNIC..1-7-
1 SOD] A deflection angle of I W or more must occur through a horizontal "curve of reasonably long
radius". Further, wherever a reverse curve is to occur (an "S" curve or a chicaric), there must be a
"tangent section" (a straight segment between the curves) of not less than 100 feet for residential
access streets. [[NIC 4-6.0601`7a and F7c] Given that NeNvoialt's parcel has a north-soiah di€7iension
of approximately 250 feet (measured from Exhibit 2), the required cl€rves and t mr-lent section would
take most of the depth oi"his parcel to complete.
I I. Shenk subzni.1ted a comment letter and testified at the hearing, The letter lists a number of concerns
resulting from nnisunderstanding some of the notations on the proposed preliminary plat. (Exhibit
12C) Shenk did not mention those concerns in his testimony.
Shenk wonders why Finkbciner will not be required to install sewer stub -outs towards the south
when lie installs the sewer beneath future NE 7`€` Place. He suggests that Installing them when the
sewer main is initially laid would eliminate the need to tear up the street later when his property
develops. (1'estirnony)
Staff responded tliat a major problem with such an idea is that no one can know where the slub-outs
might be needed on his side of the street until a development proposal for his property is put firth.
(Testimony)
12. Planning performed a comprehensive, detailed, thorough analysis of the proposal's conformance
with applicable requirements ofthe 1iMC. Planning concludes that the proposal complies, or can be
conditioned to comply, with all applicable requirements. (Exhibit 1)
1.3_ Planning recom needs approval of the proposed subdivision subject to 10 conditions_ (Exhibit 1, pp.
1 1 and 12) Finkheiner asks for revision to four of the recomrnended conditions:
c:lducumenLs and settins'dempnrary uttered filc,Acongerit.oul.9ook'x7ci y, n11ua1U-496 dnc
1-I'l-'.:%:1N(; I-A IMI?vER Pro T m��rrr' I)i G1s1.Ci
Ll 1A 104,190, F4 1 IT (01.1"mi s
A i-;I -,? 2 0 i I
Pa, V of I`
A. Recominezided Clslillition 3: hirilcbciricr wants to tl) include Proposed Lots 6 t,nd 7 iii
the clustering process. FinkbcinerNvants to gain ir��',re,�secl #lexib.ilitz' so Haat 1'roposcel Lots 4
,rnd5 might he sliglitly enlargers. (Iixhtbit l3 } Planainl; srtpplil is iltat requested change.
(Testimony)
R- Rccommended Condition 4: While Finkheiricr agrecs that Proposed Lots 2 should access
from NL 7l� Place, be does not like the lan luage which would limit that access to the
easements as depicted on Exhibit 3. He wants the flexibility io alter their allonment. (E�.xhibit
13) Planning has no objection to providinL, some tlta;ibiiity, butwants to limitthenumberof
curb cuts and prohibit direct access onto Pasco Place N 1:- (l-estirnony) The R MC effectively
requires alley access irr residential cluster dcsigiis. I i�NIC 4-7-150E5c.l
C. Recommended Condition 6: 'phis condition requirc-s I" water meters to serve Proposed lots
6 — 11. That condition is based on the fact that, as presently designed, houses built oil those
lots would have to he equipped with fire suppression sprinklc-r systems (becailse ofthe width
of the halF street section) which. in turn rcgltir�: a la.rgcr-thein-normal N�,ater meter. Finkbeinc-r
wants the flexibility to adju:5t the plat (slightly wicic:rlin:, flee halt -street right-of-way) such
that those lots would not need to be. sprinkiere(J. (I"xhibit 1") and testimony) Staff testilicd
that the Fire Marshal determines which lots must lie spr i.l�klered just bef«ie final construction
plans are approved. Staff now believes that kecorrimepded Condition 6 should have bceri
.provided as an advisory note rather than as a reconimcnded condition of' approval -
(Testimony)
D- Recommended Condition 8: Finkbeiner would like the flexibility to have the: opeii space
tracts owned in common by a homeow-hers association instead of -owned in common by the
lot owners abutting the tracts- (Exhibit 13) Planning supports that requested change.
(Testimony)
1.4 Any Conclusion of Lave dt-emed to be- a Finding o1 -.Fact is hereby adopted as such -
LEGAL FRAMEWORK 3
lire Hxaminer is legally required to decide this case within the framo ork created by the following
principles-
Authority
principles:
Authoast}_
1 prcliminary subdivision is a Type IIT application which is subject to an open record hearing before the
Examiner. The I:-xaminer makes a final decision on the application which is subject to the right of
ic:consideration and appeal to the City Council. [RMC 4-08-0701J1j, 4-8-080GI and 4-8-1.00G41
Any statement in this section deemed to be either a Finding, of Fact or a Conclusion of Law is hereby adopted as such.
e:'•.i9ocuments and settingslbwziflorili(x al smingsltemporary intemet fileslenntcnt.outloottlx'?dzyuna%lva] 0-090.60c
] i_1�:.1 R ['�rG TXAMlIv1 �l2 f'ry I'rfirjavre l)1;Ct5TON
RE: LUA10-090. 11,CF', PP (01vMj ws i1ii1q)
APri1 22, 2011
.Pt=fie 8 of 15
The 1,:xaminer may
grant or deny the application, or the Examiner may require of the applicant such conditions.
modifications and restrictions as the Examiner finds necessary to make the applicai%ola
compatible with its environment and carry out the objectives and goals of the Comprehensive
Plan, the zoning regulations, the subdivision regulations, the codes and ordinances of the
City of Renton _ . _ _ Conditions, modifications and restrictions which may be imposed are, but
are not limited to, additional setbacks, screenings in the form of landscaping and fencing,
covenants, casements and dedications of additional road rights-of-way. Performance bonds
may be required to insure compliance with the conditions, modifications and restrictions_
[RN1C 4-8-100G3]
Review Criteria
The review criteria for preliminary subdivisions arc set forth at P -MC 4-7-08OB:
B. PRINCIPLES OF ACCEPTABILITY.
I•Y.
A subdivision shall be consistent with the fallowing principles of acceptability:
1. (legal Lots: Create legal buildings -ICS Which comply with all provisions of 1110 City
Zoning Code.
2. Access: Establish access to a public road for each segregated parcel.
3. Physical Characteristics: Have suitable physical characteristics_ A proposed plat may
be denied because o.f flood, inundation, or wetland conditions. Construction ofprotective
improvements may be required as a condition of approval, and such improvements shall be
noted on the .final plat.
4. Drainage: Make adequate provision for drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public
ways, water supplies and sanitary wastes.
(Bold headings in original) Requirements and standards for street and trail networks, parks and open space,
streets, residential blocks, and lot configuration are set forth in RMC 4-7-120 and -140 170_
The Local Project Review Act [Chapter 36.70B RCW] establishes a mandatory "consistency" review for
"project permits", a term defined by the Act to include "building permits, subdivisions, binding site pians,
planned unit developments, conditional lases, shoreline substantial development permits, site plan review,
permits or approvals required by critical. area ordinances, site-specific rezones authorized by a
comprehensive plan or subarea plan". [RCW 36.7013.020(4))
(1) Fundamental land use planning choices made in adopted comprehensive plans and
development regulations shall serve as the foundation for project review. The review of a
proposed project's consistency With applicable development regulations or, in the absence of
applicable regulations the adopted comprehensive plan, under TCW 36.70B.040 shall
incorporate the deterininations under this section.
eadneumc��is and satiizgslbwfdtonlloea] settiaags',icmgoraay inteMM fInkontent. outlook`x7dzyuriallLiu l0-090.doc
I II:111RI`.iI Is.` -C_ NIINj:R ?'ru Vie;>; ,n1e I_)t,'.:151ON
RF: 1 J.i i 0-i}Stiff, FCF, 111' (UlI:�;rnus !'lilt:)
April �?, 2U I 1
Dul-ing project review, a lociii government or any mibsOji. .Tt reVlewrng body shall
clnte.r7nine whether the items listed in this subsection erre dcfin.cd in the development
regulations applicable to the proposed project or, in the absence (.)fippl]cab]c reputations the
adopted comprehensive plan. At a mininium. such applicable regulations or plan.s shall be
clete.rlllinative of the:
(a) "Type of land use permitted at the site, including uses that may be allowed
undl-r certain circumstarlccs, such as planned Ludt devetopmCrits and conditional and
special uses, if the criteria for their approval have been satisfied;
(b) Density of'residential development in urban growth areas; and
(c) Availability and adcyuac-y of'public facilitiessidenti.ticdinthe comprehensive
plan, if the plan or development regulations provide for funding ottlrese facilities as
repaired by [the Growth Management Act1.
[RCM' 36.70R.0301
Vested Rislhts
Renton has not enacted a general vested rights provision. Therefore, applicable provisions of state lave
govern:
SuhdI isinn and short subdivision applications are governed by It statutoi vc sting vile: such
applications `shall be considered under the subdivision or short subdivision ordinance; and
zoning or other land use control ordinances, in effect on the land at the time a fully
completed application . _ . has been submitted .... "
[RCW 58.17.033; see also SMC 16.24.4801 Therefore, this prelinmiai-y subivisiori application. is vested to
the regulations as they existed on. January 7, 2011.
Standard of }review
The standard of review is preponderance of the evidence. The applicant has the burden of -proof.
Scopc of (- onsidcration
`l.'he Exaininer has considered: all of the, evidence and testirnonN, applicable adopted laws, ordinances, plans,
and policies; and the pleadings, positions, and arguments of the parties of record.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates compliance w' ith the preliminary subdivision
approval criteria in RMC 4-7-080131: All of the proposcci lots will, comply with rolling regulations.
,�:'%(UiTrrmcnts mid ; e111ingn`Ibx4altunjonal inTenxt iklx7dryunallill 10-050.d.+c
H['.'AR1NCi II-XANI NE.R Pro Tcrrrpore DETPSI 1 I
RFI: T,UA 10-090, ],'CF, PP (01)m7prrs ViYa)
April 22, 201 1
pwLG 1.0 fIF j5
Z. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates compliance with the prelirriinary srldivis-
approval criteria in RMC 4-7-08OB'L: Each lot will have access to a public street.
3_ The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates compliance with the preliminary subdivision
approval criteria in RMC 4-7-0808 a: `l:'he n)ajoron- si.te critical area is to beprotecLed ; mitigation in
conforinance with adopted standards is proposed for the loss of the lesser critical area_
4. The preponderance of the evidcnce demonstrates compliance with the preliminary subdivision
approval criteria in RMC 4-7-080134: The streets and drainage systems have been designed to
comply with City codes and standards. A minor shortfall in open space can, be easily fixed by an
appropriate condition_ Adequate utility services are available_
5_ The preceding four Conclusions of Lave show that Olvny-nis Villa complies with all established
criteria four approval. However, they likely don't answer some ofthe neighbors' concerns_ The next
C:onchts101IS of Law will address their concerns.
6. The Wir (Awad deli gn obviously contemplated the eventual extension o f' Pasco Place N R to serve
subdivision oFthe acreage parcels to the north, of which the subject property is one. V4'licther the
home purchasers clearly understood that or not, that is the reality presented by a street which stubs
out to an adjoining undeveloped parcel_ Olympus Villa's design is simply bringingthat expectation to
fruition.
Renton has strong requirements for interconnection of streets between and among adjoining
develoPments..lust because King County did not have interconnection requiremcnts is no reason to
not. Impiement and enforce the City's requirements. The interconnection of Pasco Place NE with
proposeii NF 7"' Place will provide a second access into not only Oly-mjm., Villa, but also the north
end. of Jf'huli ood: if an accident wc.re to block the Pasco PIace NE NE 6L" Street intersection now,
e'mergeticy vehicles could not reach any of the Monies on Masco Place NE north of NE 6''' Street. The
interconnection will provide an alternate access. And as one of the witnesses acknowledged, many if"
not most ol; the speeders are neighborhood residents, not outsiders cutting through the neighborhood.
The neighbors and the City have a range of actions that can be taken to solve the speeding problem
short of ignoring adopted requirements for Interconnection of streets.
7. The RMC provides no basis upon which one could require that the eastern 60 feet of Tract U be set
aside permanently as open space. Wildlife presently living on the portions of the site which will be
converted into streets and house lots will, most likely, be lost_ That loss is a direct result ofthe
leo-islative decision to urbanize this area. Urbanization is, generally speaking. incompatible wid-a
most wildli f:e species habitat, especially for animals such as deer, bear, coyote, etc. The legislative
decision to designate and zone the area for urbanization amounts to a conscious choice of human
Ilei}itat oscr-ildlifc habitat. That legislative choice is not debatable in the context of this (or any
other quasi-judicial) application.
r.:',docnments and scttingslhtmaltonilocal settingsltemporar}intemeL iilns'u;o»lent.outlook`x?dryuna��ua](?-O�JU doc
IT1:ARING E?:ANUN R DF:OMO'v
Rte: 1 [.,-A 10-090- Pt' kiiln)
Apr] 1 22, 201 1
I 1 o1- 15
As to the drainage concent o the odler1firzrl•eeI? Ij`igl2l Tads resident, the evIdcjicc inchcatcs that the
vast rrzajority of the stormwater r runoff will be directed Lowards the west and Nile Avenue N1;, not
towards .h-lcit rcen Highlandtin the east. 'There would seem to be virtually no chance, that the small
an ounl. of runc>11- Fmorn the residence on Proposed Lot I could ever al,feet aIlaureen jlghlund) given
the sire of Tract A with its wetland and intervening Tract D_ Control ofstomiN ater runoff from any
future development of Tract D will have to be <addresseci at the time a proposal for such development
is put for -ward.
S. Were it not fbr the existence of the substantial Category 2 wetland just to the east of the Pasco Place
NG right-of-way (extended), Newman's rcqucst would likely have garnered the support of both
Finkbeiner and staff. But the wetland's location is a physical real ity w•illz which we all must live_ City
policy and re('Ulation strongly support protection of such wetlands. `.Che. street mast avoid the wetland
to the greatest extent possible.
The unfOrtunate reality is that most ofany right -of vvav all piricat adjustment will have io occur on
the prnperty(ics) to the north. It may be possible to hei:rin a slighthorizozatal curve to the cast near the
north property line without impinging on the %vefland or its required buffer_ (Minor revisions to
approved prcliminary flats are allowed. Newman and leis rac ighb{}r .7 ay wantto
discuss the pros and cons of such an ali`Jnmc°,ni shift with Finkbeiner and City staff bel'orr,
construction plazas are prepared.
This situation does not warrant a delay in approval or redesign of the proposed prclirninary plat.
9. Requiring sewer stubs to bolh sides ofanetiv street makes sense, but only ifboth sides of file street
are being developed at the same time_ No one can say when, if ever, the Shenk propczly may
develop..No Dale can say what the land development rcquiromcnts may be when the Shenk property
i.s proposed f«r developnent. "1'licrefore no one can say with any certainty exactly where sewer stubs
would be required. installing sewer stubs based on a hypothetical development would make no sense
—even if it were legally defensible. which it likely isn't.
10. OI} -Hypes Villa passes the `consistency" test: Single -funnily residential is the primary zine in ilae R-4
zone; the proposed density is within the range allowed by applicable zoning: and adequate utility
services are available to the site_
1.1 _ The recommended conditions of approval as set forth in Exhibit 1 are reasonable, supported by the
evidence, and capable of accomplishment with the follOWMg changes:
A_ A preliminan, subdivision embodies the concept of approval of a specific development
proposal. A preliminary subdivision evaluation is based upon the specific preliminary plat
submitted by the applicant. It is appropriate. therefore, that tlae conditions of approval ciciarly
identify the plat which is being approved. The Planning recommendation as drafted does not
do so. Exhibit 3 consLitutes the plat proposal v hich has been reviewed in this hearing process
c:ldocmimits and-emin-s',bwaflonllocal setting 'Acrnporar}, internee Iiles�cuntenLo�rll�rok'a; d -unaiiubl0-090. log
I IFARING EA A -M NL"R Fro Y -c2 rporc DECISION
RL: LUA1O-090 I?(' I'['(C71i�nsprrs filler)
April ?2, 2011
P, -I e 12 01, 15
and which should be approved. 'hhe Examiner will add a condition to speci f:y that Exlilbit 3 is
the approved preliminary plat; numbering of the subsequent conditions wlII be increrriented
accordingly.
R Recommended Conditions 3 and 8: The Fxaminer will revise those two conditions as
requested by Finkbeiner and as supported by Pluming.
C. Recommended Condition 4: both Pinkheiner and Mannino made gnod points regarding the
%vording of this condition. The xamirier will incorporate both points of view in revised
wording For this condition.
T1. Recommended Condition 6: The l�Aarniner wil[ eliminate this condition. The prelullinal-y
subdivision approval stage is way too early in the process to be specifying for all time the
sire of water meters for specific lots. Authority exists under the International hire Cotte €_o
address the concern that led to this condition.
L. Planning stated in the Staff Report that ifwas going to recommend placement of a note on
the face of the final plat requiring that the houses on Proposed Lots I -- 5 must be onented
towards Pasco place NE. (Exhibit 1, p. 9) That condition never rn.ade it into the list of
recommended conditions. (Exbibit 1, pp. 11 and 12) Finkbei.ner objects to such a lirnitatiOn
as pertains to Proposed Lots 3 and 4. (Testirnony)
N— inmium corner lot width and depth requirements fOr f.-4 zoned land in a small lot cluster
development are 60 feet and 65 I eet, respectively. I RMC: 4-2-1 I OAJ Proposed Lot 3 can meet
those rcquirenients for either orientation, but Proposed Lot 4 works only if -its Pasco Place
NI frontaoc is considered its front lot line_ Proposed Lots 1, 27 4, and 5 must front on Pasco
Place NL. A desirable streetscapc reduires that Proposed Lot 3 do likewise. The Examiner
will. impose Planning's suggested condition.
P. The Examiner prefers to not use the. %void "applicant" in conditions_ Land use entitlement
approvals, of which a preliminary subdivision approval is one type, "run with the lend."
Simply put, that means the permit is still valid no matter how many times ownership of the
property may change. While it may be hyper-teclinical, some might argue that only the party
which sought preliminary subdivision approval was the "applicant," that any successor in
interest was something ether than the "applicant," and that, therefore, any such successor was
not obligated to comply with conditions addressed to the `applicant." To avoid any such
argument in the future, the Examiner prefers to use the word "plattor," meaning the party
subdividing (platting) the property. 'Hie Examiner will make that substitution throughout the
conditions.
cadocuments and sct5n2�sihwnllnnllocti satingslicrnporary intent rr]^s'cnnl.a.naitlook'x"ldt}ura`Jual{]-036.doc
I
'i::'�k}'`._( i?.�AMINTR )'ro 7c, -?—p re !!4'[SION
;,: 1,i !A 090, Fj(+, IT ;,iifo)
%0 i. I
f i5
(.i. A fc%v minor, note-srIbslantivc structure turainrnar, and/or pruicivatloll rcvisiolls to
Recornracnded Conditions 1, 3, and Y wid improvc li.rraliel coirstruc(lon, clarity, and flow
within the condii_-Ions. Such charges will be made..
1.%. Any Finding of Tact deemcd to be a Conclusion of Law is hereby adopted as such.
DECISION
Based upon the preceding Findinos of F act and Conclusions of Law, the test]monyr and evidence subrniLied at
tiic open record hearing, and the Examiners site view, the TI-Aaminer GRANTS prelirninary subdivision
:tpproval for Olympus Villa 5UIRIEC'T TO I'M ATI'A(:MA) CON-DITIONS.
l)ecisiori issued April 22, 201 1-
1s\ John E. Galt (Si ped ori7ina? in official file)
3ohrn E. Galt
llc.arim, Examiner Pro Tempore
HE,AMNG PARTICIPANTS 4
Rocale Timmons bill hinkbeiner
r-,ovin Van Handeren John Newman
David Shenk Ken Bouvier
i"ayren Kittrick.
NO'T'ICE of RIGHT of R;rCONSII)FRAT.ION
"Any interested person feeling that the decision of the examiner is based on an erroneous procedure, errors
of lam- or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence G� hich could not be reasonably available
Lit the prior hearing may" Elle a request/motion for reconsideration with "the Examiner within fourteen (14)
days after the: written decision of the Examiner has been rendered. The [request motion for reconsideration]
shall set forth the specific errors relied upon." (RMC 4-5-100(14 Any requesti'rnotion for reconsideration
sdial.l be addressed to [lie Renton hearing Examiner and filed with the City Clerk. See R1,IC. 4-8--10OG4 and
RMC 4-8-11 OT?$ for additional information and requirements regarding reconsideration.
The official Parties of Record reLister is maintained by the. City's Hearing Clerk-,
c',.documemts and scttiagslhwaitmillucal seriimasaemPurary inlerncl Joe
FlFARING EXANIME'R Pro 7'elrlpr)re D1=C'ISInN
RL": LUA10-090, ECF, PP (Olympiir Filla)
April 22, 20 t t
Page 14 of 15
NOTICEC of 1UG11T of APPEAL
This Decision becomes final and conclusive as of the fifteenth calendar day after the date oCissuance of the
Decision unless reconsideration is timely requested. If reconsideration is timely requested, the Examiner's
order granting or denying reconsideration becomes the final and conclusive decision for the. City. The
Examiner's final decision is subject to the right of the applicant, City, or a party of record withstanding. as
provided in RMC 4-8-110H, to file an appeal with the City Council in accordance with the procedures of
RMC 4-8-110F. Any appeal must be filed within 14 days 60llowing the issuancc of the final decision. See
RMC 4-8--110139 and RMC 4-8- i l OF for additional information and requirements regarding appeals to the
City Council.
The following statement is provided pursuant to RC W 36.7013.130: `-Atffected property owners nay rcqtic st
a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwtt:hstainding any program. of revaluation.':
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Olympus Villa
LUA10-090, ECF, PP
This .Preliminary Subdivision is subject to compliance with all applicable provisions, requirements, and
standards of the Renton Municipal Code, standards adopted pursuant thereto, and the following special
conditions:
1 _ Exhibit 3 is the approved preliminary plat. Revisions to approved preliminary subdivisions/plats are
regulated by RMC 4-7-08ON'T.
2. The plattor shall comply Willi the three mitigation measures issued as part of -the Determination oC
Nonsignificancc-Mitigated, dated February 4, 2011. (Exhibits 8 and 16)
The plattor shall be required to place additional area within 'Tract A in order to comply with the 30%
permanent open space requirement for clustering_ The permanent open space easement shall be
recorded prior to or concurrelAly with the Final Plat_
4. The plattor shall place on the {ace of the plat a covenant noting the setbacks of the R-8 zoning
designation apply on the clustered lots (Proposed Lots 1-7) only. The covenant shall be recorded
concurrently with the Final Plat.
A note shall be placed on the face of the plat requiring Proposed Lots 2-5 to take vehicular access
from NF. 7"' Place and requiring Proposed Lots 2 & 3 to share a common curb cut and Proposed Lots
4 & 5 to share a common curb cut unless compelling evidence is presented prior to construction
c'%docuramts and seliin'6hwalion`dgcal s0tingslteniporary iMernet iles%content_ out] ook,C7rnRlualIuaI0-090.do�;
I 1t?ARIN6 FXAMINI:R 1'ru 7c•ur;.r,rc 1.)1;C]�7ION
U.: 1_,LJAJ0-01)0, FCl=, I'1 ((J!Ym!?us !`rllrrl
April ?.?, 201 1
,)can't approti°til to show that shared curb cuts are not feasible. 1 he liotc shall be recorded
concurrently with the Mmal Plat,
G. The plattor shall be required to revise the drainage report (Exhibit 6' to include conceptual sizing
calculations for Ihe. detention pond and address the; individual lot treatments. The revised plain shall
be submitted to and approved by the Engineering plan Reviewer prior to construction peim.it
approval-
The
pproval_
The plat#or shall establish and record a permanent and irrevocable easement on the property title Of
the tract containing the critical area and its buffer prior to Final Plat recordim,. The protective
casement shall be held by current and future property owners. Shall n.rn with the land, and shall
prohibit development, alteration, aupd disturbance within [lie easement csccpt for purposes of habitat
enhancement as part of an enhancement project. The cnhancermcnt project shall receive priorwritten
approval frond the City, and from any other agency with juri diction over such activity.
81. A covcnant Jiali be placed on The open space tmets restricting; their separate sale prior to Final Plat
recording. Fach abutting lot owner, within the plat, shall have an. undi,,ided interest in the tracts or
the tracts shall be conveyed to the homeowner's association Icer the project.
The. common boundary between the native growth protection tract and the abutting, land must be
permanently identi f Icd_ This identi Fication shall include a pennanent woad Split rail fence and metal
signs on treated or metal posts_ The n
pe wood split rail fece and signs shall be installed prior
to Final flat recording.
10. The lt)llowint; note shall appear on the face ofthe Final flat and shall also be recorded as a covenant
running with the land on the title of record for all affected lots on the title: "NTAINTENANCL
RF'SPONSI ILITY: All owners of lots created or benefiting from this City action abutting or
including a native grow-th protection tract are responsible for maintenance and protection of the tract.
Maintenance includes ensuring that no alterations occur within the tract and that all vegetation
remains undisturbed unless the express written authorization. of the City has been received."
11. A note shall be placed on the face of the final plat requiring that the front yard for Lots 1-5 face
toward extended Pasco Place NT?-_ The note shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Plat.
loci_ments and scnin!=slhtivalionlloeal settinas''�temporary intcmel iilcs%content_ outlook',x7d7wnailual0-090.dnc