Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
LUA-04-131
o -' -' z: :5 D.. • w z>-D.. 0", """ tig ~ ::>u £:) '" z: tn~ :5 5GS ....J u" """ UlQ ~ 0'" D.. '~ w '/;j ~ Z 0 ;; U ~ ""Z _ 00 , >-~ i f-<~ de tic::: f ~l " il~ ---.--- '1 ~i:l· 11, >.j NOTE: • STAKE TREES OVER 5' HEIGHT. • PLANT SO THAT TOP OF ROOT BALL IS EVEN WITH THE FINISHEO GRADE 'SCARIFY SIDES OF PlANTING PITS PRIOR TO BACKFILLING, 2STRANOlWlsrEO 12GAUGE~ GAL WIRE ENCASeD IN 1" OIA. ,... . RUBBER HOSE v 8'-0" Bve TM' TREATED PINE ----STAKES DRIVEN TO REFUSAl INTO - UNDISTURBED SUBSOIL MIN. 204' DEPTH STAKE ABOVE FIRST BRANCHES OR AS NECESSARY FOR FIRM SUPPORT SPECIFIED PlANTING MIX WATER AND TAMP TO REMOVE AIR POCKETS rA\ TREE PLANTING OSCALE:NTS !:mE.:.. • MULCH COMPLETELY BETWEEN ALL PlANTS eXCEPT IN SEEOEO AND MARSH AREAS. 'PLANT SO THAT TOP OF ROOT BAll IS eVEN WITH THE FINISHED GRADE. 3" MULCH. KEep MULCH AWAY FROM TRUNK FINISH GRADE------, EXISTING ! .I(I,I~J(I! SCARIFY SIDES OF PlANTING PITS PRIOR TO BACKFILLING ~2 X CIA. Of ROOTBALL-+ IIIIII ~ I 8 SHRUB PLANTING 15 ~ --SCALE: NTS i. bren!!!\!1~ : .... American En5lIn .. rs. Planners • Surveyors Engineering Corporation I I I I I I I p~ONE(m) 881-7430 F~. (425) RECOMMENDED FOR APPROYAL _______ M GENERAL NOTES ALL WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED BY PERSONS FAMILIAR WITH THIS KINO OF WORK AND UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF A QUALIFIED FORMAN PLANT LOCATIONS ON PLAN ARE DIAGRAMMATIC AND MAY BE SUBJECT TO ADJUSTMENT IN THE FIELD BY LANOSCAPE CONTRACTOR. PLANT TREES AND SHRUBS UPRIGHT AND FACE TO GIVE THE BEST APPEARANCE OR RELATIONSHIP TO ADJACENT STRUCTURES. BACKFILL SOIL MIXTURE TO BE A SANOY TOPSOIL INCLUDING SANOY SOIL AND HIGHLY ORGANIC COMPOST. USE CEOAR GROVE 2·WAY TOPSOIL PLACE 4" OF TOPSOIL OVER ALL PLANTING BEDS AND TILL TO A DEPTH OF 8' PLANT TREES AND STAKE AS SHOWN IN DETAIL. RAKE SOIL SURFACE SMOOTH AND FREE FROM ALL ROCKS, SOIL LUMPS, STICKS, AND OTHER DELETERIOUS MATERIALS. AFTER PLANTING, COVER ALL AREAS WITH THREE (3) INCHES OF FINE BARK MULCH. GUARANTEE ALL PLANT MATERIAL FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER ACCEPTANCE BY OWNER. EACH UNIT TO BE DEVELOPED WITH A MINIMUM OF 250 SUARE FEET OF LANDSCAPING OR PRIVATE YARD ABUTTING EACH UNIT. CREATE LAWN PANELS WITH UNDULATING FLOWING LINES IRRIGATION SYSTEM WILL BE REQUIRED. SYSTEM LAYOUT TO BE INCLUDED IN THE ENGINNERING DESIGN PHASE. SPACES'·30'O.C. 0lY. o LNlGEDEtIDUOUSMEII 0lY. SP.tCES'·30'O.C. OTV. @J " sw.u.SHRUBS 0lY. ~ ®"- @'" -., """'" 0lY. ~ .. :' ~ ACERRUBRUM CORNUS KOOSA SPACEI5'·8'O.C. BOTANICALMAME CORNUS8EA1CEA NANOIHAOOMESTlCA PRUNUS LAUROCERASUS 'orro lU't'I<EN' HEMEROCAWS SPP . 2-4,000 SQ. FT. HYDROSEED LAWN OED ........ 21/2'CAL ..,...."""""'" 21/2"CA!.. 21/2'CAL SO< OEDlWIG"""""'" orrolU't'l<ENLAURa .... S6S/CONT. S6S/CONT. S4S/COHT. """.'" ',,,,,,,, f ',~ ~;Jr'·" "I T' , ·~,_L· ., SECTION 15;TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH RANGE 5 EAST W.M. , , ~':'-. j'.: I -I~ GIW'IIlC SCALI )(=1 -, LOT ~ T ...... ----~~ , &VIa .. -.~ Jl:;m ~. SECTION 16 TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH RANGE 6 EAST W.M. ~k~I ~, ~I I I Tt. TL 00:19 Ti. 0:1:; i / I -'-- TL 0031 UTILITY EASE~ENT RECOMMENPED FOR APPROVAL BY: DATE' BY: DATE: BY: DATE: BY: OAT[' Revisions Date Date I By I 9-29-04 Scale No. AS SHD'MII Drown NB Designed RS ~ BO TL 1H:, P:\2003\0312\Engineering\Dwg\e0312pel,cJwg 10/13/2004 10:51:54 AM PDT Ti. H,2 I I ~LJ STORM WA1!R TL 00S1 DElENllON I I TL 0051 ~I-- GRAPIUC SCALI! t. J f i i 1 DICB -.ao ft. 0/28/04 OWNER/DEVELOPER: RIDGEV1EW COURT LLC CONTACT: CUFF \\lWAMS P.O. BOX 2401 KIRKLAND, WA 98083-2401 PHONE: (206) 714-7161 REGISTERED ENGINEER: AMERICAN ENGINEERING CORPORA nON CONTACT: CHERYL GIRARD 4032 148TH AVE. NE REDMOND, WA 98052 PHONE: (425) 881-7430 LAND SURVEYOR AMERICAN ENGINEERING CORPORA nON CONTACT: GARY CHRISTENSEN 4032 148TH AVE. NE REDMOND, WA 98052 PHONE: (425) 881-7430 LEGAL DESCRIPTION PER PACIFIC NORTHWEST llTLE REPORT, ORDER NO 506681 DA ITO FEB 13, 2003. THE SOUTH HALF OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SEC1l0N 15, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT ALL COAL AND MINERAL RIGHTS CONTAINED IN RESERVATION OF RECORD, AND KNOWN AS A POR1l0N OF TRACT 4, OF MARllN'S ACRE TRACTS, AN UNRECORDED PLAT; EXCEPT THE EAST 7.5 FEET OF SAID TRACT. BENCH MARK TOP OF CONC MON DOWN 0.7' IN CASE AT THE CONSTRUCTED INTX OF NE 4TH ST (S.E. 128TH ST) AND 140TH AVE S.E. (N.W. COR SEC 15). ELEVATION: 401.02' ELEV. FROM CITY OF RENTON CONTROL SHEETS, POINT 1503 VERTICAL DATUM NAVO 88 HORIZONTAL DATUM WASHINGTON STATE PLANE, NORTH ZONE. NAD 83/91 VICINITY MAP N.T.S. PROJECT DATA: TOTAL AREA (SF): TOTAL AREA (ACRES): 104,373 2.40 NO. OF PROPOSED LOTS: 20 EXISllNG ZONING: LOT SIZE TABLE: SQUARE FOOTAGE OF LAND IN SENSITIVE AREAS: SQUARE FOOTAGE OF LAND IN PUBLIC STREETS/ROW SQUARE FOOTAGE OF LAND IN PRIVAIT ACCESS EASEMENTS DENSITY PROPOSED CENITR SUBURBAN (CS) LOT 1 LOT 2 LOT 3 LOT 4 LOT 5 LOT 6 LOT 7 LOT 8 LOT 9 LOT 10 LOT 11 LOT 12 LOT 13 LOT 14 LOT 15 LOT 16 LOT 17 LOT 18 LOT 19 LOT 20 TRACT "A" o S.F. 14,012 S.F. 4446 SF 3600 SF 4893 SF 3371 SF 3344 SF 2849 SF 3187 SF ,';831 SF 3928 SF 4120 SF 4342 SF 4340 SF 4065 SF 3117 SF 2725 SF 2779 SF 3683 SF 4835 SF 3600 SF 4105 SF 8609 SF 20,245 S.F. 12.42 D.U'/AC=(12 D.U./A.C.) ~~s ~~~~y ALLOWED =10 D.U./AC r,,~; ~g~f'!)Y ALLOWED =20 DU/AC u"'f, ~,,=-~~="""_"" VINEYARDS CONSTRUCTION, L.L.C. American Engineers. Planners Engineering Corporation RIDGEVIEW COURT PRELIMINARY PLAT PLAN Date Plotted 9-29-04 0312 OF ~ D rvv-v.-..-. ~~~ @Jtfl 0 B.~ ~ ~ ~ II) c W 10 l!l z c a:: % ~ a:: o z ..., N Ii. : II) z ~ ~ :!! z o i= o w II) ~;!s~ !:' 'I 'II! ; " :t t I' . : I~ I. I Itt' I il .. l! I I "z I ! I I ~ I : I II I I .1 I I I I I I I I I I J I l / I "- "'/ I --I lS(fltlN ---------~ --ss-l-o-- - --- ---------L __ ~ ___ ~ --z --z_ dV~ AHdV~~OdOl/A~VaNn08 . .. ,Hmo:) M31A3!lOl!f :J 11 NOI1:JmJlSNO:J Sa~\lA3NIA NOJ,N3t1 ~ ..10 An:) erv ,01>=. ~ ... > ~nJ --~dd'r/' :31va ).8 CllA*»iIl .I@Q ~ z :'5 d a... q 0 j-l Z r' ~ Uo u ~U 0:: Cl lii~ z ~~ -< U" '-" VlS! Z do:: i= .~ :::J U ,Z w ,5 w 0:: I- " ~ ~z ~ 00 0 E-• ~tH Go:: 'g; ~ ~1 < d@ Ii ~ II 0 ~ ~ i5 <OJ ~ g SECTION 115 TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH RANQE 15 EAST W.M. ... :~'., .<.' ,:":" /1 ( -~ ~ /' ( i I ~ ------- , / , , , , ///i,::;...cmt ,::.' 136TH AVE. S. E. Amerloan Engineering Corporation Engineers. Planners. Surveyars 4OJ21+8th,l,"".N.E. Redmond, WA 98052 F'HIlNE (~2~) 811'_7430 Fa. (~2~) rUe IX'th k. Name P'\2003\0312\[nlllnee~lnll\D.~\~0312tp1.a.~ 10/13/2004 ! I ': /' I I I I ,: .. ' -'--UIIITSOF"a..£NaNO/DISlURBANCE (m>.' ,::-' / '[ I I ! I , ~ ~ '~~ ~~±l11 ~~ .... ~;; /11 \ \ ~ .. ~\\:t~lY; - - - - --- - - - - - - -____________ !...T"I!:) ____ _ ! I ... i~ ~-------1."~ " ;z / . . ,-~ , RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL / I I '~~~~\~\\ I-'i I \\\\\\\\/' I \\,\\.\,\ .<:- NOTE: 1. AU.lREESONSl1£TOBERDlO'wtD 2. AU. APPlRTEN~CES 0NSI1E TO BE RDlCMD I.IMl.ESS ono'fllSE NOTED. -1- GlW"HlC seAU!: T r f 40 1 DCB .. _ ••. SECTION 15 TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH RANGE 5 EAST W.M. iU i-l ...J £t-0", z F:::> ::i Uo !~U "- It;;~ t:) z 5~ D U" ..: "" UlQ t:) 0'" II ",', ,:,.,' " ~' .• ' I I', l ", : I ,I '-- - - -_Inc:.:t"",,,,,, II/r.'~-=-__ ==(nP) __ ,::,- '" "" i:i z :> n --"-"" -, , ' , "BREMERTON AJg,:~E. ~M '-. -.. " ;:': 136TH AVE. S, E. t---IfUOWSr>I11'r ,,,J A '''A/Pt ~ g ,. ~ , ... " ~ '"-Z 00 >-~ ~ E-'-"I ~ U~ ~ :§ ~i d Il~ ~II .~ l!: -'·1 o ~ American Engineering Corporation Engineers· Planners· SUl'\leyor! 4032 Ul!lh love N.£. RodmotOd. 'itA 98052 IIIIII I PHONE (.m) 881-7430 Fa.(m) rHo PQt~ &-NQm~ P'\2003\03!2\E"'QI ... eerln!l\D.Q'e0312~pl,<i.1I 10/1./2004 I ~----T.~ , 1 ~r I , ~, i I z, I' , ,I , ! 1 , ! I ! , , ~------- .<-. ,,::.' ,::-' -'> ,::- RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL -z- GlW'HlC SCAlA L T 40 AREA OF PROPERTY: 104,37JSf AREA OF WORK: 104,37JSF CUT & FILL: CUT=2,441 YARDS FlLL_7.222 YARDS NET .. 4,781YARDSfllL NOTE: LOCA nON Of flU ORGiN TO BE OETERf.lINED i<.5 ,-.l :z -.l I~~ ::; CL g6 (/) w "'u E :n~ -' i= 6[5 => u" -' « Vl9 0::: 0", W I~ :z w '-' z 5 ~z ~ 00 " E-• ;>-<z ' E-'-"I ~ U~ ~ ii ~l " i h ~ Fj@ II ~ ~ ~!I "-'.j ~ is ~ g American Engineering Corporation PHONE (42~) 81!11-74JO fq. (42~) .... ,- ?'\201l3\0312\Engl"..~rlng\o.lI\~J12upld." IO/IV2{l(l4 / ~ ~( :/ / I I / / / SECTION 15 TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH RANGE 5 EAST W.M. ;:',' I::" "''''''''''''''''' .------ -- ,-------~~:-'~!\l'~--'~:g~:~:F~rJ~~r ~~ I" . UlfIY[)(OClMI \' ,~..> J:-" .S.E. ,<:-' -I~ GRAPHIC SCALI T 11 ... 40 ... LEGEND o II! WAtER~ ...... """"" I!!I CATCH BASIl, 1"n'E' =-=-". STtIRY DRAIN pp£ - - - - -a.DINO EIBAOC IJC[ (B!iBLl --IW,lUORIJ'I1:H --..,..-..... --...... .... ------..... 1Dt PIlI: ~o,...~. '''' ..• ~ o ~. &> o ":; ot,. mD@lJii "- ~~~~~_ ~;:":~:-'F~&OMP ~HING>LE5 METAL GUTTER ON __________ .~~=~:::j~:~.ARP ~ v-l .... ERE S>HOVlN ~ IX3/4 CORNER dl I"IN. I"LR. IJ~R -jI-l= - -~'6_ ~~~~~~;;;111 = --= ==-'"~l ~:tii~&~i;,EF"N""R J Ff'O!.ONT EI-EVATION NOTE, I. FINISH FLOOR OF EVERY HOME TO BE AT oSRADE PER GRADIN0 PLAN 2. ROOFS TO BE ,,12 OR LOV'lER 3 NO HEGHANIGAL EQUIPHENT OR OTHER STRUe. TURES TO BE ON THE ROOF 4. ROOF C.OLOR TO BE LI0HT TO MEDIUM GREY GOMPOSTION SHINGoLES 5. HOUSE GOLOR~ IA/HITE OR OFF-ViHITE TRIM HITH BEIGE. GREY. ALMOND. OR SA0E BODY f'O!.EAf'O!. EI-EVATION __ "<N FLR _M~,"j SQUARE FOOTAGoE5 MAIN UPPER TOTAL ISARAcSoE ,44 "I'"'' 1192 420 L ~ THIS PI-AN TO ~O ON I-OTS 5,6,15$ 16 I-EFT EI-EVATION ~ ~I __ ~I 01-JDI ]~ j~~ f'O!.l~HT EI-EVATION D ~7110 "'""LR,-J = ~AIN I"~~~l-. ~~~~ i~~N~ 1 ~1:~. ~.8t ~~~~ ~~S~ii ~'.l.:!. 0: ~ b ~ ii -.!:'~,?,.. ; ~~=~1 ",""LR.~l ~~] I-~ Zw ::l W Ii) () N Q « U Ul L-Il' 7't-<,)« 30. -<,) Ii) ~Z Il'Il' > « Q« W -' ~ \l ~ II.. If) N i dot., ~~~~~ ~~:~Q.~'~, MHJ AI A2 D 0, rF-fl _ -.!"'N. I"'LI't. ':!.A!!:I F~ONT ELEVATION 51!!:!!!! 6ENeIU>.L. NOTeS e.c.'""'-LE, 1/ .... • • 1'-0" L-~J-~~~~~~N",ED VENEER I. FINISH FLOOR OF EVERY HOME TO BE' AT GRADE' PER GRADING PLAN 2 ROOFS TO BE -r,12 OR LOY'lER 3. NO MECHANICAL EGlUIPMENT OR OTHER STRUC 1lJRES TO BE ON THE ROOF 4. ROOF GOLOR TO BE LIGHT TO MEDIUM GREY COMP05TIQN SHINGLES 5 HOUSE GOLOR-Y'lHITE OR OFF-lAIHITE TRIN lAIlTH BEIGE, GRE']-, ALNOND, OR SAGF;: BOD""" ~EA~ ELEVATION i SPECIFICATIONS "'0LES . 12// [=~[ I~ ~ [~:c -~ .~ SGUARE FOOTA6ES MAIN 812 UPPER <::164 TOTAL G.A.RA6E [._ .. ~ "'" "C~ [~: .. 9 tr I"'IN I"'LIIIt_ M.!" N . - 1I,t;. 420 Irrl D ~ D l§ ~IGHT ELEVATION 7 LEFT ELEVATION THIS PLAN TO GO ON LOTS ::2 10 ::20 - Irril ~ - .~ ... 0/ /. D o ~ ~~.~ §~'/'i! ~dll :fl,l !. ~ ~ ~ r; r~~N~ ~~~$ ~iJ~~ :l W () III I III \l \\) a <{ I I a I)' w!:: I)' ~ _ C\ > z WI)' w « ill <{ II) --1 il)U nil N i dat., 10-00-0-4 p".-mlt, ~'::~~ ~~:;Q.,' b.,.. M~.J AI.I A2 D ..,-.'8 .a~ ~ -'£ --;~ ;;~ :r . !? -;r ;:~:~ . ;' -:t ./ '~, .' . '---:/~ .. ~. .;, ~/' . A5PHAL T GOMP SHINGLES ~~~~ __ ON 15-FELT ------,1f1;;r -----~ ~ METAL GUTTER N Ix!'> FASGIA EIO RD '"~="i =b ------~. ----E . ;:::,""~-:: 1~~1l:rf -~~? -'~~~;~';;:;;:;:'~D'l" -_ _ -IX3/4 GaRNER ? o F~ONT ELEVATION I. FINISH FLOOR OF EVERj HOME TO BE AT GRADE PER GRADING PLAN 2. ROOFS TO BE ,,12 OR LOHER B. NO MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT OR OTHER 51 RUG TURl::S TO Bl:: ON THE ROOt= 4. ROOF C.OLOR TO BE LIGHT TO MEDIUN GREj COMPOSTION SHINGLES 5. HOUSE C.OLOR-HHITE OR OFF-HHITE TRIM WITH BEIGE, GREY, ALMOND, OR. SAGE BODY 00000000 00000000 PDDDODOO 10 OOODDDO I ~EA~ ELEVATION r , "'IN I"LI'l. MAIN -------- ~·,~:l [ '-'P",,",--=--- - ~ "'" "LR_ 'c:""~ [~"c ~. saUARE FOOTA5ES MAIN UPPER TOTA.L GARAGE ~IO one IBBe 420 ~lcSHT ELEVATION ~ 'D~dti~h [] EI LEFT ELEVATION THIS PLAN TO CSO ON LOTS 9, "'I, ~ I~ ------"""""'~LJ ----'='" ~L" '~R ~ 'i"f -~'~r=~JR"~ i "'" "LR ~A'" ~ D o I ~ ~~=l r~~ ~ §6'%~ ~f8t ~dll ~~§'il I~:! ~ ~ ~ -, G Q) m w \ld)a.~ I II.) LIl' W II.) 0« -(1)) )Z Il'Il' W « ~ « 1D-1[()v nil.. !fI N i dot., ~:~I::!'''. , 00-00-00 ~h:;~Q.~'by, MKJ AI.I A:2 D rtGr! o,~ ~~ '1, "";11 " ","'1 ~', 'i 1 1 ' u u .CI:!DAR SHINGoLE 5IDINcS> I"HER.E SHOf"lN FRONT eLeVATION NOTE, I. FINISH FLOOR OF EVERY HOME TO BE AT 60RADE PER 6oRADIN60 PLAN 2. ROOFS TO BE ,,12 OR LOWER 3. NO HEGHANIC,AL EQIJIPMENT OR OTHER STRLJ<:, TURES TO BE ON THE ROOF 4. ROOF GOLOR TO BE LI6HT TO MEDIUM <SoREY GOMF"OSTION SHIN6LES 5. HOUSE GOLOR-IAlHITE OR OFF-IAlHITE TRIM WITH BEI6E. <SoREY, ALMOND, OR SA6E BODY llU cr]I-~~J -:,',~] ReAR eLeVATION SQUARE FOOTAG-ES tv1AIN UPPER TOTAL 6ARAcSE 600 ""4 1534 420 L L THIS FLAN TO GoO ON LOT IS RIGoHT eLeVATION lEal lEa! LeFT eLeVATION '~1 ~J ] J~] =~] L '0 • ~~.~ §g§< ~tu-~ f:! I- ~ ~ r~~"~ ~fi'~l ~~$tr~ 5 rt Z III ::l III •• () 't Cl{ VUlI'1i' 711\ Q{ ~-QI'l !!!z Ii'Ii' > « Cq w -1 ~ \l 8 Il If! ('j i dot.. lo-oe-o'" "' .... mlt, ,..evI61c:m.t 00-00-00 ~~::;:Q.~'b!:l' HH-I OF AI A:2 D ."" . - ' ... I" ;:'~" .:...~! ~ _____ ;~~~:~~C_?MP. 5 __ MEOT AL 6UTTlOR ON I",eo FAS<:.IA BOARD 7 ;;~~:: ~~~l..E SIDIN6 ['~ FRONT eLeVATION I. :=INISH FLOOR OF EVERY HONE "-0 BE AT GRADE PER GRADING PLAN 2. ROOFS TO BE ,,12 OR LOI"IER 3. NO MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT OR OTHER 5TR.UC TURES TO BE ON THE ROOF 4 ROOF COLOR TO BE LIGHT TO MEOIUM 6REY GOMP05TION SHIN6LES 5. HOUSE COLQR-IAlHITE OR OFF-IAlHITE TRIM rllTH BEIGE. <sREY, ALMOND, OR SA<SE BOOY CULTURED 5TONE! VENE!ER INSTALL PER MFD. 5P(oCIF ICATI0i'6 [:~' . -- ~ I'"IN I'"I-R_ M.!'IN SQUARE FOQTAG-E5 tvlAIN UPPER TOTAL GARAGE el2 "164 li,6 420 RlcSHT eLeVATION /' ____ --;7' -p--'try :ts -===-_Jl"=uJ-QP"jP .[" .. o-"~_ -----------------rFfl Ii NHr=ri""-1!! F1f ~I il if--------1--=r==' ~ . , . II. "'IN 1'"1--------1 I I~~I, J UUUU U LlLlI~~LLI~1 "' ~ ,J 1, _"' '",. ReAR eLeVATION THIS PLAN TO <$>0 ON LOTS 10 .. Ie LeFT eLeVATION 1 D (~) : b c ·~.1 h"1j ~~~~ i~ !. Ii r~~N~ rJ;'8:: ~jJ~i ~ o 0; ::) III 0« I Ii) \} \\) a « I'-ali !!!!:: ~ ~ > z III Ii W « Ill« II) .J (j) \) nIL N it O<:lte, ~:~Ir::~n ... 00-00-00 ~h~~Q.~'by, M~.J AI A::2 D .',OQ ~~ C.EDAR SHIN<SoLE SIDIN<So .... HERE 5HOf"'lN .... SPH .... !.-T COMPo SHIN&!.-ES ~ _____ ON IS" Fel-T MeT .... 1-&uTTER ON I"e F .... SCIA BOARD -~~~~:N~~A "D'N~ c[~R "-'-""'''~'--- V'iHERE SHOV'iN ~ r-:. ~::4:::E ~IN. n ------ • • ----.-------O--MA'""LO:--",1· L . ~ ~ ~IN ~!.."" MAIN ------ F~ONT E=1..E=VATION I. FINISH FLOOR OF EVERY HOME TO BE AT E>RADE PER GRADINE> PLAN :2. ROOFS TO BE 7.12 OR LOi-"'{ER B. NO MEGHANI GAL EQUIPMENT OR OTHER STRUC-l1JRES TO BE ON THE ROOF 4. ROOF GOLOR TO BE LiGHT TO MEDIUM GREY GOMPOSTION SHINGLES =>. HOU5E GOLOR-i-"'{HITE OR OFF-i-"'{HITE TRIM i-"'{ITH BEIG-E, GREy. ALMOND, OR SAGE BODY ~E=A~ E=1..E=VATION C.UI-TURED 5TONE VENEER ~~J6'I~~&ET~~~D SQUARE FOOTA60ES MAIN UPPER TOTAL 6oARA,60E J "''''0 "''''''' 1566 420 THLS PI-AN TO GO ON I-OTS 4,I,e,14, ¢ II ~lcSoHT E=1..E=VATION ] ~I I..E=FT E=1..E=VATION D C) 1 r-\II ~ ~~~l 8~~N~ hm2 r;~~! ~t~~ ~J!$ ~ ~~:!. § ~ "tJ III fui e ~ J IU () <{ I I') \h\) o{ I~ Oil' !!! ~ ~ ~ >z lUll' W <{ III { 0-' Ifl \) nIL N i dote, pe.-mlt, .-.,vle-Iono, 00-00-00 ~~~~~~'by, MH-J AI A2 [lJ',}' ;c ~.: ... ,1"' ... . r,:' , ... "'. ·.,r " 'W .4>~ . • I .. t "~. hI ~, , ~C.EDAR5HIN6-L-E5'OINcS ~HERE 5HonN ~ _____ ~;:;",;~::--~~ETOMP 5HIN&LE5 C.Ul.. 1'lJRED STONE VENEER INSTALL PER MFO SPECIFIC.ATIONS FRONT El...EVATION ~ALe, 1/ .... " • "-0" I. FiNISH FLOOR. OF EVERY HONE TO BE AT GRADE PER GRAOING PLAN 2. ROOFS TO BE ,,12 OR LOHER ::;I NO HECHANICAL EClUIPME:NT OR OTHER STRUCTURES TO BE ON THE ROOF 4. ROOF 60LOR TO BE LIGHT TO MEDIUM GREY GOHP05TION SHINGLES 5. HOUSE GOLOR.-V"HITE OR OFF-HHITE TRIM V'lITH BEIGE, GREY, ALMOND, OR SAGE BODY ~ ~ ~~ ~~Il~[ .1/ IL'~ DDDDDDDD ~D 1= == c:L DDDDDDDD == 1= == 1= RDDDDDDD = = 1= lJDDDDlJn = ~ REAR El...EVATION METAl.-GolJTTER ON ,,<eo FAsGlA BOARD -1 ::..-=' .--.. J [.-~ - ","""~ __ R ~ [~.~ i SGUARE FOQTAcS>-ES MAIN UPPER TOTAL <5ARAGoE ~ ~i- - - ~IO ~"e 1888 420 JE - THIS PLAN TO c:s.o ON LOTS I,ll ~ 1"'1 ~ -m Irn~ITlI i~D =-:--1 - I FLO RIc:s.HT El...EVATION ~ -----~ ~tdl I~ 1m 63 l...EFT El...EVATION "- -~ ~ -"] ~I :::=' j .. ~J D 'C) i ~~=~ §~l ~~~~ i~~g ~ r~~N~ ~'81 ~~~~~ ~ ~ z I.) « UJUJ \ldlD.~ I III I I/' W ill a{ _ ali) 5 z 1/'1/' W « ~( II) -till \.l nil «1 N it pe .... mlt. ~~~~~~ ~~:~Q.~'b!:j, M .... -.I AI OF A2 D -.., .,gQ ~ 10 ...J ...J ;if-00: g§ ~ !I~ ~ ~ 8~ Oi VlQ 00: i~ Iz :> ""'Z 00 l ><~ ~ E-<~ ~ uO! 1 ~1 " d~ .. ~ Ii ~ ~ ~i:I' ,i, -·1 1.lli~ll~ JI~II § OWNER/OEVELOPER: RIDGEVIEW COURT l1e CONTACT: ruff'MWAU$ P.O. BOX 2401 KlRI<lJ,NO, VIA 98OSJ-2401 PHC»lE:{206)714--7161 REGISTERED ENGINEER: ANERlCANENGlNEER\HCCORPOF!ATlON CONTACT: CHERYLGlRARO 40321..aT1-l,t..VE.NE REDIoIOND. WA 98052 PHONE: (425)881-14,lO LAND SURVEYOR AIoI[RICANENClNEERlNGOORPORATlOO CQHT"CT; GARYQiRlSTENS£N 4032148T1-1 AVE. NE REDUONO, WA 98052 PHONE. (425)881-7430 LEGAL DESCRIPTION PER PACifiC NORTHWEST TITLE REPORT, ORDER NO 506681DATEDrEB1J,200J. THE SOUTH HAlf Of THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER Of THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 15, TQ'NNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.U .. IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT ALL COAL AND MINERAL RIGHTS CONTAINED IN RESERVATiON or RECORD, AND KNO'NN AS A PORTION OF TRACT •• or U..o.RTlN'S ACRE TRACTS, AN UNRECORDED PLAT: EXCEPT THE EAST 7.5 FEET Of SAID TRACT BENCH MARK TOP OF CONC ~ON DOWN 0.7' IN CASE AT THE CONSTRUCTED INTX OF NE 4TH ST (SE. lZ8TH ST) AND 140TH AVE S.E. (N.W. COR SEC 15). ELEVATlON: 401.02' (LEV. FROM CITY OF RENTON CONTROL SHEETS, POINT 150J VERTICAL DATUM NAVO 00 HORIZONTAL DATUM WASHINGTON STATE PLANE. NORTH ZONE. NAD 8J/91 -1- QIW"BIC SCALa Ie 0.1_"'+ .. BUILDING / LANDSCAPE TABLE LOT II I LO[SWE eUILDING "eU1LDING SIZE(Sr) COVERAGE 44~6 SF J600 SF 1210 ". 489JSF 1210 ,,. 3J71 SF 1210 JJuSF 1168 '" ". ". ~J42 SF " 1 ~340 SF ,,. " 4065 SF 1049 '" ... 27795F ". J58JSF '3X ~SJ5 SF 1210 NOTE: REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLANS BY OTHERS FOR DETAILED LANDSC"P1NG CESIGN/L"YOOT. "'" " LAWN AREA (SF) AREA 1886 SF ." lJ2~ SF ". 219951" ." 119751" '" 98JSF ". 121JSf' moo SF 3026 SF '" 1356SF '" 1541 SF 1621 SF 1620 Sf' '" 22165F '" 991 SF 1036 SF lJBJSF ,ax 2107 Sf' ... 1257 SF J5. Amerloan Engineering Corporation Englnll",' Plonn,",' Surveyors 4OJ21~\hA ... N.E. RECOMMENDER fOR APPROVAL Redm ... d, WA 950~2 P!lONE (42~) l1li1-7430 ro. (42:5) 881-77Jl fliiipoth .. N ..... ..,....,\l)wg\~31Z""!"'.g !QII~/~ D7<57{14 ..... PDT Ti. 00/.1 Ti. 0039 SECTION 16 TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH RANGE 15 EAST W.M. C~~VE~~WENT Tl. 0031 ~ Tl 0051 Tl. OOS1 ~LANDSCAPEDESlGNr()R ~ ~~~~~fg::!;ci.ANS roo I TlIACTABYOTf<ERS REFER i i ---~ I " LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AGREEMENT OF RIDGEVIEW COURT LLC This Operating Agreement of Ridgeview Court LLC, a limited liability company organized pursuant to the Act, is entered into and shall be effective as of the Effective Date, by and among the Company, RPW Holdings, Inc., its sole member, and RPW Holdings, Inc., its Manager. ARTICLE 1-FORMATION 1.1 Organization. The Member has organized the Company as a Washington limited liability company pursuant to the provisions of the Act. The Member hereby confinns that it has appointed RPW Holdings, Inc. as Manager of the Company. 1.2 Agreement, Effect of Inconsistencies with Act For and in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Member, the Manager and the Company hereby agree to the terms and conditions of this Operating Agreement, as it may from time to time be amended according to its tenns. The Member and Manager shall be entitled to rely on the provisions of this Operating Agreement, and the Member and Manager shall not be liable to the Company for any action or refusal to act taken in good faith reliance on the terms of this Operating Agreement. The Member and the Company hereby agree that the duties and obligations imposed on the Member as such shall be those set forth in this Operating Agreement, which is intended to govern the rehitionshipbetween the Company, the Manager, and the Member, notwithstanding arty provision of the Act or common law to the contrary. 1.3 Name. The name of the Company is Ridgeview Court LLC, and all business of the Company shall be conducted under that name or under any other name, but in any case, only to the extent permitted by applicable law. 1.4 Effective Date. This Operating Agreement shall become effective upon the filing of the Certificate of Formation with the Secretary of State of Washington. 1.5 Term. The term of the Company shall be perpetual until dissolved and its affairs wound up in accordance with the Act or this Operating Agreement. 1.6 Registered Agent and Office. The registered agent for the service of process and the registered office shall be SC&B Services, Inc., 999 Third Avenue, Suite 3000, Seattle, Washington 98104-4088. The Managermay,from time to time, change 516919.11014189.00001 the registered agent or office through appropriate filings with the Secretary of State. In the event the registered agent ceases to act as such for any reason or the registered office shall change, the Manager shall promptly designate a replacement registered agent or file a notice of change of address as the case may be. If the Manager shall fail to designate a replacement registered agent or change of address of the registered office, any Member may designate a replacement registered agent or file a notice of change of address. 1.7 Principal Office. The principal office of the Company shall be located at P.O. Box 2401, Kirkland, Washington 98083-2401. The Manager may, from time to time, change the principal office and make appropriate filings with the Secretary of State to reflect that fact. ARTICLE II -DEFINITIONS For purposes of this Operating Agreement, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the following terms shall have the following meanings: 2.1 Act. The Washington Limited Liability Company Act and all amendments to the Act. 2.2 Additional Member. A Member other than the initial Member who has acquired a Membership Interest from the Company. 2.3 Admission (Admit). The act of becoming a Member and obtaining the rights appurtenant to a Membership Interest. 2.4' Capital Contribution. Any Contribution or contribution of serVices made by or on behalf of a Member as consideration for a Membership Interest. 2.5 Certificate. The Certificate of Formation of the Company as properly adopted and amended from time to time by the Member and filed with the Secretary of State of Washington. 2.6 Code. The Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as amended from time to time. 2.7 Company. Ridgeview Court LLC, a limited liability company formed under the laws of Washington, and any successor limited liability company. 2.8 Company Property. Any Property owned by the Company. 2.9 Contribution. Any contribution of Property made by or on behalf of a Member as consideration for a Membership Interest or as a contribution to the capital of the Company. 2 516919.1/014189.00001 2.10 Distribution. A transfer of Company Property to a Member on account of a Membership Interest regardless of whether the transfer occurs on the liquidation of the Company, in exchange for the Member's interest, or otherwise. 2.11 Disposition (Dispose). Any sale, assignment, transfer, exchange, mortgage, pledge, grant, hypothecation, or other transfer, absolute or as security or encumbrance (including dispositions by operation of law). 2.12 Manager. One or managers of the Company. Specifically, Manager shall inean RPW Holdings, Inc. or any Person or Persons who succeed it in that capacity. References to the Manager in the singular or as him, her, it, itself, or other like references shall also, where the context so requires, be deemed to include the plural or the masculine or feminine reference, as the case may be. In the· event there is more than one Manager .. any action to be taken by the Manager under this Operating Agreement may be taken with the consent of a majority of the Managers. . 2.13 Member. The member executing this Operating Agreement, any transferee of a Member or any Additional Member. At any time there is more than one Member, the term "Member" shall mean all Members, and any action that may be taken under this Operating Agreement by the Member may be taken by any Member, provided that any dispute with respect to any action shall be decided by a majority of the Members. 2.14 Membership Interest. A Member's entire interest in the Company including such Member's rights in the Companys profits, losses fu"ld Distributions pursuant to this Operating Agreement and the Act and such other rights and privileges that the Member may enjoy by being a Member. 2.15 Operating Agreement. This operating agreement including all amendments adopted in accordance with this Operating Agreement and the Act 2.16 . Person. An individual, trust, estate, or any incorporated or unincorporated organization permitted to be a member of a limited liability company under the laws of Washington. . 2.17 Proceeding .. Any judicial or administrative trial, hearing or other activity, civil criminal or investigative, the result of which may be that a court, arbitrator, or governmental agency may enter a judgment, order,· decree, or other determination which, if not appealed and reversed, would be binding upon the Company, a Member or other Person subject to the jurisdiction of such court, arbitrator, or governmental agency. 2.18 Property. Any property real or personal, tangible or intangible (including goodwill), including money and any legal or equitable interest in such property, but 3 516919.1/014189.00001 excluding services and promises to perfonn services in the future. 2~19 Taxing Jurisdiction. Any state, focal, or foreign government that collects tax, interest or penalties, however designated, ort any Member's share of the income or gain attributable to the Company. ARTICLE III ...,. NATURE OF BUSINESS The business of the Company is to invest in real property. The Company shall have the authority to do all things necessary or convenient to the accomplish its purpose. The Company exists only for the purpose specified in this Article ill, and may not conduct any other business without the consent of the Member. ARTICLE IV -ACCOUNTING AND RECORDS 4.1 Records to be Maintained. The Manager shall maintain the following records at the principal office of the Company: 4.1.1 The full name and business address of the Member; 4.1.2 A copy of the Certificate of Formation and all amendments thereto; 4.1.3 Copies of the Company's federal, foreign, state and local income tax returns and reports (or the portions of the returns of others showing the· taxable income deductions, gain, loss, and credits of the Company), if any, for the three most recent years; 4.1.4 Copies of this Operating Agreement including all amendments thereto; 4.1.5 Any fmancial statements of the Company for the three most recent years; and . .. 4.1.6 The amount of cash and a description and statement of the agreed value of the other property or services contributed by the Member and which the Member has agreed to contribute. ARTICLE V -NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF MEMBERS The name and address of the Member is RPW Holdings, Inc., P.O. Box 2401, Kirkland, Washington 98083~2401. 4 516919.1/014189.0000 1 ARTICLE VI -MANAGEMENT Management Rights. Subject to Section 6.2 of this Article VI, the business of the Company shall be conducted by the Manager and all management of the Company shall be vested in the Manager. The Manager shall have power and authority to take the following actions on behalf of the Company: 6.1.1 The location or relocation of a place of business for the Company; 6.1.2 The execution, or appointment of officers and agents with such designation as the Manager may detennine to execute, on behalf of the Company, all instruments and documents, including, without limitation, checks, drafts, notes and other negotiable instruments; mortgages or deeds of trust; security agreements; financing statements; documents providing for the acquisition, mortgage, investri1entor disposition of property, including the licensing of intellectual property; 6.1.3 The appointment and fixing of compensation for officers and other agents for the Company; 6.1.4 The determination of the amount of, and the making of, Distributions; 6.1.5 The acquisition of property from any Person as the Manager may determine. The fact that the Manager or Member is directly or indirectly affiliated or connected with any such Person shall not prohibit the Manager from dealing with that Person subject to other provisions of this Operating Agreement; 6; 1.6 The borm\\·ing of money for the Company from banks or other lending institutions; 6.1.7 The purchase of liability and other insurance to protect the Company's property and business; .. 6.1.8 The investment of any Company funds (by way of example but not limitation) in time deposits, short-term governmental obligations, commercial paper or other investments; 6.1.9 The confession of a judgment against the Company; 6.1.10 The making of any capital expenditure; 6.1.11 The employment of accountants, legal counsel, managing agents or other experts to perform services for the Company and to compensate them from 5 516919.1/014189.00001 Company funds; and 6.1.12 The doing and perfonnance of all other acts as may· be necessary or appropriate to carry out the Company's business purpose. 6.2 Certain Powers of Managers and Restrictions on Authority of the Managers. Notwithstanding Section 6.1 of this Article VI, only the Member may take the following actions or may direct the Manager to take the following actions: 6.2.1 The Admission of an Additional Member; 6.2.2 The initiation or a proceeding for the bankruptcy of the Company; 6.2.3 A change in the purpose of the Company; 6.2.4 The approval of a merger, conversion or the application of any statute (the application of which is elective) to the Company; 6.2.5 The taking of any act which would make it impossible to fulfill the purpose of the Company; . 6.2.6 The amendment of this Operating Agreement or the taking of any action in violation of this Agreement; 6.2.7 The causing of the Company to voluntarily initiate a proceeding under which the Company would become a debtor under the United States Bankruptcy Code; or 6.2.8 The sale, exchange or other Disposition of all, or substantially all, of the Company Property other than in the ordinary course· of the Companis business. 6.3 Liability of Member and Manager. Neither the Member nor the Manager shall be liable as Member or Manager for the liabilities of the Company. The failure of the Company to observe any fonnalities or requirements relating to the exercise of its powers or management of its business or affairs under this Operating Agreement or the Act shall not be grounds for imposing persona11iability on the Member or Manager for liabilities of the Company. 6.4 Indemnification. The Company shall indemnify the Member and the Manager for all costs, losses, liabilities, and damages paid or accrued by the Member (either as Member or as agent) or Manager in connection with the business of the Company or because such Person is a Member or Manager, to the fullest extent provided or allowed by Washington law. In addition, the Manager shall cause the Company to 6 516919.11014189.00001 advance costs of participation in any Proceeding to the Manager or Member. The Manager may, with the consent of the Member, indemnify all other employees and agents· of the Company for all costs, losses, liabilities, and damages paid or accrued by the agent or employee in connection with the business of the Company or because such Person is an agent or employee, to the fullest extent provided or allowed by Washington law. 6.5 Conflicts of Interest. 6.5.1 The Member or Manager shall be entitled to enter into transactions that may be considered to be competitive with, or a business opportunity that may be beneficial to, the Company, it being expressly understood that the Member or Manager may enter into transactions that are similar to the transactions into which the Company may enter. 6.5.2 A Member or Manager does not violate a duty or obligation to the Company merely because the Member's conduct furthers the Member's own interest A Member or Manager may lend money to and transact other business with the Company. The rights and obligations of a Member or Manager who lends money to or transacts business with the Company are the same as those of a Person who is not a Member, subject to other applicable law. No transaction with the Company shall be voidable solely because a Member or Manager has a direct or indirect interest in the transaction if either the transaction is fair to the Company or the Member (in the case of a transaction in which the Manager but not the Member is personally interested) or the Manager (in the case of a transaction in which the Member but not the Manager is personally interested) with lrnowledge of the interest of the Member or Manager as the case may be. 6.6 Compensation of Member and Manager. The Member and Manager shall be reimbursed for all reasonable expenses incurred on behalf of the Company and shall be entitled to reasonable compensation, in an amount to be determined from time to time by the Member .. 6.7 Standard of Care of Member and Manager. The Member's duty of care in the discharge of the Member's duties toth.e Company is limited to refraining from engaging iii grossly negligent or reckless conduct, intentional misconduct, or a knowing violation oflaw. In discharging its duties, the Member shall be fully protected in relying in good faith upon the records required to be maintained under Article IV and upon such information, opinions, reports or statements by any of its agents, or by any other Person, as to matters the Member reasonably believes are within such other Person's professional or expert competence and who has been selected with reasonable care by or on behalf of the Company, including information, opinions, reports or statements as to the value and amount of the assets, liabilities, profits or losses of the Company or any other facts pertinent to the existence and amount of assets from which distributions to the Member might properly be paid. 7 516919.1/014189.00001 ARTICLE VII --CONTRIBUTIONS 7.1 Initial Contributions. The Member shall make the Contribution described for that Member on Exlubit A at the time and on the terms specified on Exhibit A. If no time for the Contribution is specified, the Contributions shall be ·made upon execution of this Operating Agreement. The value of the Contributions shall be as set forth on Exhibit A. No interest shall accrue on any Contribution, and the Member shall not have the right to withdraw or be repaid any Contnoution except as provided in this Operating Agreement 7.2 Additional Contributions. In addition to the initial Contribution, the Member may make additional contributions. The Member shall not be obligated to make any additional contributions~ ARTICLE VIII -DISTRIBUTIONS 8.1 Distributions. Except as provided in Section 8.2 and in the Act, the Company may make Distributions as determined by the Manager from time to time.in accordance with this Operating .~greement. 8.2 Limitations on Distributions. No Distribution shall be declared and paid unless, after the distribution is made, the assets of the Company are in excess of aU liabilities of the Company. ARTICLE IX -TAXES 9.1 Elections. The Manager may make any tax elections for the Company allowed under the Code or the tax laws of any state or other jurisdiction having taxing jurisdiction over the Company. 9.2 Taxes of Taxing Jurisdictions. To the extent the laws of any Taxing Jurisdiction require, the Manager will prepare and the Member will execute and submit an agreement indicating" that the Member will make timely income tax payments to the Taxing Jurisdiction and that the Member accepts personal jurisdiction ofthe Taxing Jurisdiction with regard to the collection of income taxes attributable to the Member1s income, and interest, and penalties assessed on such income, if such agreement is required by the Taxing Jurisdiction. If the Member fails to provide such agreement, the Company may withhold and pay over to such Taxing Jurisdiction the amount of tax, penalty and interest determined under the laws of the Taxing Jurisdiction with respect to such income. Any such paymerits with respect to the income of a Member shall be treated as a distribution for purposes of Article IX. 8 516919.11014189.00001 9 .. 3 Method of Accounting. The records of the Company shall be maintained on the same method of accounting. as that of the Member. ARTICLE X -DISPOSITION OF MEMBERSHIP INTEREST AND ADMISSION OF ASSIGNEES AND AD:QITIONAL MEMBERS 10.1 Disposition. The Member's Membership Interest is transferable either voluntarily or by operation oflaw. The Member may Dispose of all or a portion of the Member's Membership Interest. Notwithstanding any provision of the Act to the contrary, upon the Disposition of the Member's Membership Interest, the transferee shall be admitted upon the completion of the transfer without further action. Upon the transfer of the Member's entire Membership Interest (other than a temporary transfer or transfer as a pledge or security interest), the Member shall cease to be a Member and shall have no further rights or obligations under this Operating Agreement, except that the Member shall have the right to such information as may be necessary for the computation of the Member's tax liability. 10.2 Admission of Additional Members. The Member may Admit Additional Members and determine the Capital Contributions of such additional Members. ARTICLE XI -DISSOLUTION AND WINDING UP ILl Dissolution. The Company shall be dissolved and its affairs wound up, upon the will of the Member. Notwithstanding any provision of the Act to the contrary, the Company shall continue and not dissolve as a result of the death, retirement, resignation, expulsion, bankruptcy, or dissolution of any Member or any other event that . terminates the continued membership of the Member. 11.2 Effect of Dissolution. Upon dissolution, the Company shall cease carrying on as distinguished from the winding up of the Company business, but the Company is not terIhinated, but continues until the winding up of the affairs of the Company is' completed and the Certificate of Cancellation has been issued by the Secretary of State of Washington. 11.3 Distribution of Assets on Dissolution. Uponthe winding up of the Company, the Company Property shall be distributed: 11.3.1 To creditors, including the Member if it is a creditor, to the extent permitted by law, in satisfaction of Company liabilities; and then 11.3.2· To the Member. Such distributions shall be in cash, Property other than cash, or partly in both, as determined by the Manager. 9 516919.1/014189.00001 11.4 Winding Up and Certificate of Cancellation. The winding up of a limited liability company shall be completed when all debts, liabilities,. and obligations of the limited liability company have been paid and discharged or reasonably adequate provisibn therefor has been made, and all of the remaining property and assets of the . limited liability company have been distributed to the Member. Upon the completion of winding up of the Company, a Certificate of Cancellation shall be delivered by the Manager to the Secretary of State of Washington for filing. The Certificate of Cancellation shall set forth the information required by the Act. ARTICLE XII --AMENDMENT This Operating Agreement may be modified or amended from time to time only by a written instrument adopted by the Member and the Company and executed by the Member and the Company. ARTICLE XIII --MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 13.1 Entire Agreement. This Operating Agreement represents the entire agreement between the Member and the Company. 132 Rights of Creditors and Third Parties under Operating Agreement. This Operating Agreement is entered into between the Company and the Member for the exclusive benefit of the Company, its Member, and their-successors and assignees. This Operating Agreement is expressly not intended for the benefit of any creditor of the Company or any other Person. Except and only to the extent provided by applicable statute, no such creditor or third party shall have any rights under this Operating Agreement or any agreement between the Company and the Member with respect to any Capital Contribution or otherwise. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hand and seals on the date set forth beside our names. Date: ---- 516919.1/014189.00001 COMPANY: RIDGEVIEW COURT LLC, a Washington limited liability company, By its Manager: , RPW Holdings, Inc., 51/ By: 10 MANAGER: RPW HOLDINGS( By: MEMBER: RPW HOLDINGS, ./ By: 11 516919.1/014189.00001 EXHIBIT A Member Initial Capital Contribution RPW Holdings, Inc. a Washington corporation $1,000 12 516919.1/014189.00001 CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board .. Staff Contact ..... . Subject: Planning/Building/Public Works Development Services Division Carrie K. Olson x7235 Acceptance of additional right-of-way for the Ridgeview Court PlatLUA-04-131. Exhibits: Deed of Dedication Exhibit Map Vicinity Map Hearing Examiher's Report Recommended Action: Council concur Fiscal Impact: N/ A I AI#: For Agenda of: October 10,2005 Agenda Status Consent. ............ . Public Hearing .. Correspondence .. Ordinance ............ . Resolution ........... . Old Business ....... . New Business ...... . Study Sessions ..... . Information ........ . Approvals: Legal Dept.. ...... . Finance Dept. .... . Other .............. . Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment. ..... . Amount Budgeted....... Revenue Generated ........ . Total Project Budget City Share Total Project. SUMMARY OF ACTION: x x X Accept dedication of an additional 17.5 feet of right-of-way for the widening of Bremerton Avenue NE located on the eastern boundary of the Ridgeview Court Plat, LUA04-131, property. This dedication is a condition of the plat, which was approved by City Council on May 9, 2005. The dedication of this right-of-way fronting Ridgeview Court is also a condition for the recording of the Elmhurst Final Plat, LUA04-162, which abuts the Ridgeview Court property to the south. In an effort to coordinate the construction of these developments and to meet the conditions of these two final plats, Council acceptance of said right-of-way is requested. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Deed of Dedication. I:\PlanReview\COLSON\Shortplats 2005\Ridgeview Court Plat 03m AGNBILL.doc Return Address: City Clerk's Office City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 DEED OF DEDICATION Project File #: Property Tax Parcel Number: 518210-0042 Street Intersection: Reference Number(s) of Documents assigned or released: Additional reference numbers are on page __ . Grantor(s): Grantee(s): I. Rid eview Court L.L.c. I. Cit of Renton, a Munici al Co oration LEGAL DESCRIPTION: (Abbreviated or full!ega! must go here. Additional legal on page ) The East 17.50 feet of the following parcel. The south half of the east half of the northeastquarter of the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington; EXCEPT all coal and mineral rights as contained in reservation of record, and known as a portion of Tract 4, of Martin's Acre Tracts, EXCEPT the east 7.5 feet of the said tract. The Grantor, for and in consideration of mutual benefits conveys, quit claims, dedicates and donates to the Grantee(s) as ,named above, the above described real estate situated in the County of King, State of Washington. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal the day and year as written below. CORPORATE FORM OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT Notary Seal must be within box Grantee(s): City of Renton STATE OF COUNTY OF Mayor City Clerk ) )SS ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Bc.ter± t=:>. ~'V2E?L\ is the person who appeared before me and said person acknowledged that he... signed this instrument, on oath stated that nR was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the Met N% e»r of . . e.. u \ e c:.+- "'jet -, to be the free and voluntary and purposes mentioned in the instrument. (Signature) ~ Print Notary Name: m\~ Residing at:tl[\jY"\~ t\ L C..\c.C\L -wf\- My appointment expires: __ ~ __ ' _d-=---'-,--.---=O==--~-=-___ _ Exhibit A Legal Description THE EAST 17.50 FEET OF THE FOLLOWING PARCEL. THE SOUTH HALF OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASIDNGTON~ EXCEPT ALL COAL AND MINERAL RIGHTS AS CONTAINED IN RESERVATION OF RECORD, AND KNOWN AS A PORTION OF TRACT 4, OF MARTIN'S ACRE TRACTS, AN UNRECORDED PLAT; EXCEPT THE EAST 7.5 FEET OF THE SAID TRACT. .~. EXHIBIT MAP . N88'06'17"W 316.02' 30' 30' 1 ~ , 17.50' DEDICA TlON-------r ~ 0 JO 110 I I I 1 1N0Ii -110 « z 0 E-t i0 I 0 m 0 10 10 I 'w I ~ 110 ,~ 18 z I , .-I.. ____________ 3_16_._33_'_~~-----_r" ....... Ld N88*09'35"W 30' I Ridgeview Court PreliminClry /'Ial File No.: LUA-04-13 I, PP, SA-H, ECF January 25, 2005 Page 6 15. Administrative approval was granted to allow the cul-de-sac street's width to be reduced to 42 feet and the radius of the cul-de-sac to be reduced to 50 feet. Staff noted that the applicant would have to, [ dedicate 17.5 feet to the widening of Bremerton which currently does not nieet City standards. --1 ) 6. The three private easements will extend north and south from the new cul-de-sac street. llle proposed lots along Bremerton, Proposed Lots 1-3 and 18-20 would take their access off the first of these easements rather than Bremerton. These lots would be rear-loaded from this alley. Proposed Lots 4-7 and 14-17 would use the second of the easements. Lots would face each other across this easement roadway (see attached maps). Finally, a new private street, labeled Anacortes Avenue NE, would provide access to Proposed Lot 8 and the storm drainage tract on the south and Proposed Lots 9-) 3 on the north. Staff has recommended thatthe 24-foot private street paralleling the rear of homes that front Bremerton be reduced to a 16-foot alley width with) 4 feet of paving and 24-feet of back out space to decrease imperviolls sllrface and create a private street appearance. 17. The density for the plat would be 12.42 dwelling units per acre after subtracting roadway areas. ) 8. The homes would be two-stories. The dwelling or building groupings would vary from those along Bremerton being traditional facing a street, to the interior groupings facing a kind of courtyard private street, to those in the rear facing an interior street. Sidewalks could connect all of the units to one another and through the private easements to the public street. 19. The CS zone permits a lot coverage of 65% whereas a lot coverage of not more than 44% is proposed for this complex. A front yard setback of between 10 and 15 feet is required. Staff has granted a modification that allows a setback for Proposed Lots 8 to 13 to have a greater setback to allow pedestrian access and rear access garages on a 26-foot wide private street. A minimum side yard of3 feet with no projections is required unless there is abutting residential zoning. The R-10 district south of the subject site will require a I 5-foot setback on Proposed Lots I, 5, 6 and 8. 20. The District B overlay guidelines require building forms to contain both vertical and horizontal modulations at a min.imuin width of2 feet at intervals of 40 feet as well as individual private entry features. It appears that the buildings will comply with these requirements. Two enclosed parking spaces that open onto a non-front facade and away from arterial streets will be provided as required. 2 I. The applicant will be providing the required 250 feet of landscaped area on each lot. Landscaping will ;> consist of lawn, and a mix of conifer and deciduous trees and shrubs. 22. The subject site is located within the Renton School District. The project is expected to generate approximately 8 school age children. These students would be spread across the grades and would be assigned on a space available basis. 23. The development will increase traffic approximately 200 vehicle trips per day and add approximately 20 trips to each peak hour travel period. 24. Stormwater would be contained in the southwest comer of the subject site in Tract A. The plat would comply with the ]998 King County Surface Water Design Manual, Level 2 flow requirements. 25. Sewer and water would be provided by the City. Appropriate extensions of the water and scy .. er mains would be required. Elmhurst Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-162, PP, ECF March 29, 2005 Page 11 remain and might have be permitted to allow appropriate sewer service. The applicant wili have to demonstrate that the materials are suitable for foundation support. 5. The applicant will have to satisfy the City's needs for access to and along Bremerton to NE 4th Street. 6. In conclusion, the proposed plat should be approved by the City Council. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should approve the 64-lot Preliminary Plat subject to the following conditions: I. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. The applicant shall comply with the conditions imposed by the ERe. The applicant shall have to demonstrate that the on-site fill materials are suitable for foundation support. The applicant shall obtain a demolition permit and complete all inspections and approvals for all buildings located on the property prior to the recording of the final plat. The satisfaction of this requirement is subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Project Manager. All lots within the plat shall be required to have a minimum of one new approved tree, with a minimum caliper of 1-112 inches (deciduous) or 6-8 feet in height (conifer), and shrubs (or equivalent) planted within the front yard. The applicant shall be required to set forth a restriction on the final plat stating this requirement. Each application for a single family building permit shall include a plan noting the location and type of plant materials within the front yard. All front yard landscaping shall be planted prior to final building permit inspection. The satisfaction of this condition is subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division Project Manager. ~he right-of-way for Bremerton Ave. NE along Parcel #518210-0042 (327 Bremerton Ave. NE) shall bj dedicated prior to the recording of the Elmhurst Final Plat. The satisfaction of this requirement is subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Project Manager prior to recording of the final plat. A homeowner's association or maintenance agreement shall be created concurrently with the recording of tile final plat in order to establish maintenance responsibilities for all shared improvements. A draft of the documents(s), if necessary, shall be submitted to the City 6fRenton Development Services Division for review and approval by the City Attorney and Property Services section prior to recording of the final plat. Tract A shall be fenced, landscaped, and irrigated (unless drought tolerant plants are used). The property lines of Tract A fronting Road A, Lot 22 and 23 shall include a landscaped visual barrier so as to not interfere with sight distance triangles including plant materials which would provide a year-round dense screen within three (3) years from the time of planting. Also, the property lines along 1.ots 22 and 23 shall be fenced with a six-foot high solid wood fence, or other approved material (no chain link). Tract A fronting Road A shall be fenced with either a wrought iron, or chain link with vinyl covering, or other decorative wood fence. The applicant shall submit a landscape plan and fence design identifying construction and plant materials for the review and approval of the Development Services Project Manager prior to installation. Fences and landscaping shall be installed prior to recording of the final plat. R ~ Jj ~ v \ evJ GlA& ~-----------------10 T23N R5E W 112 N ....... ..-4 JIl ~ ~ Z Cof') N ~ \0 ..-4 U) J%.t NE 4th SL. CA CA CA CA R-IOCP) R·-10~ .. " .. --. CA f.;i:I ....... --.-.....--. :.m· -~L ... -_·_~:_).-.-R-.=-1-ID.--.-.o> .. ~ .. ' 0>_ f CA cA R-]O R-IO R-8 .. ~'-',: .. -;"., ~ R-_8_._,... l~ I. [ . .' ...c:.......... ~---'--::--------t ;=.::'.= ... =_. ~::J~--,-__ -J_~ : -.~-i=-=-=-=-=-=1li==~=l R~B ~ ---.-~ " .- RMH RC(P) .. ". ~ ....... _ .. -.- CP) G6 ' 22 TI3N R5E W 112 F6 1:4&00 ZONING I'/BIJ'W TECJlN)CAL Sl!RVlCES 15 T23N R5E W l/~.~ • t ® ~ U 4: a .., N 0== 4: 0 '" " N 1/ 1/ " " ~ " "~ ,'- " " ,f n."t1I , , ; r Kathy Keolker·Wheeler, Mayor May ]0,2005 Cliff Wi Ili ams Ridgeview Court, LLC POBox 2401 Kirkland, W A 98033 CIT,\: OF RENTON City Clerk Bonnie I. Walton Re: Appeal of Hearing Examiner'~decjsion dated 1125/2005, regardingthe Ridgeview Court PreliminaryPlat; File No. LUA-04-113, PP, SA-H, ECE Dear Appellant: At the regular Council meeting of May 9, 2005~ the Renton City Council approved the recommendation of the Planning and Development Coinmittee regarding the referenced preliminary plat and appeal, apprdvingthe preliminary plat and site plan with certain conditions and modifications. A, copy of the Planning and Development COIinnittee report is enclosed. Unless the appropriate land use appeal fiomthe decision of the City Council is filed with King County Superior Court as indicatedinRenton Municipal Code· (copy ofRMC 4-8-11 O.G enclosed), the decision of the City Council will be final. . For information regardingCohtinu~don of the land use application process, call the Development Services Division at 425-4jo~7200. Pursuant to RCW, a final plat meeting all requirements of State lawan4 Renton Municipal COde shall by submitted to the City for approval within five years of the date of preliminary plat approval. . . . Please feel free to contact me if I can provide further infonnation or assistance . . Sincerely, Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk Enclosures cc: Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Council President Terri Briere Jennifer Henning, Principal Planner Sean K. Howe, Cairncross & HempelmaIin, P.S., 524 Second Ave., Ste 500, Seattle, WA 98]04 ~ -IO::-:5:-:5C-::S:-o-ut-;-h--::G:-r-ad:-y-::W.:-:Ca-y--~R-en-to-n-,~W::-:as-:h-;-in-g-to-n--;9~8-::-05=-:5:---"'(4-:-:2:-::5):-4:-=3-::-0--"'6-::-5]:-:O-:/=-FAX:-::-:-(-:-:4-::-25=-)-"'4::-:30:--6-=-=5'-1-=-6-R E N TON fPt. T"'_ • __ ... .. May 9, 2005 Monday, 7:30 p.rn. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL OF COUNCILMEMBERS CITY STAFF IN ATTENDANCE SPECIAL PRESENTATION .Community Services: Teen Programs APPEAL Planning & Development Committee Appeal: Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat, Cliff Williams, PP-04-131 . RENTON CITY COUNClL Regular Meeting MINUTES Council Chambers Renton City Hall Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler called the meeting of the Renton City Council to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. TERRI BRIERE, Council President; MARCIE PALMER; DON PERSSON; RANDY CORMAN; TONI NELSON; DAN CLAWSON; DENIS LAW. KATHY KEOLKER-WHEELER, Mayor; JAY COVINGTON, Chief Administrative Officer; ZANETT A FONTES, Assistant City Attorney; BONNIE WALTON, City Clerk; GREGG ZIMMERMAN, Planning/BuildinglPublic Works Administrator; SYLVIA ALLEN, Recreation Director; TOM PUTHOFF, Recreation Specialist II; DEREK TODD, Assistant to the CAO; COMMANDER FLOYD ELDRIDGE, Police Department. Tom Puthoff, Recreation Specialist n, reviewed the events and activities that comprise the Recreation Division's teen programs. He reported that the Renton neighborhood centers offer drop-in activities for teens, attracting between 70 to 160 participants each day. Mr. Puthoff highlighted activities such as the Hip Hop Dance program, horseback riding, ski trips, rock climbing, overnight campouts, and the Great Escapes Teen Camp. Continuing, Mr. Puthoff explained that the Renton Youth Council program is comprised of approximately 100 members, and a large part of the program is volunteerism. The Renton Youth Council participates in community awareness projects, and organizes activities such as the flashlight egg hunt and citywide dances. Additionally, the Renton Youth Council is involved with the Renton Youth_Enrichment and Support Fund project, which awards grants to local area youth groups, and with the Eastside Youth Hall of Fame, which is a joint project with various cities that recognizes outstanding teens. Planning and Development Committee Chair Clawson presented a report regarding the appeal filed by Cliff Williams, Ridgeview Court, LLC; on the Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat (PP-04-131). The Committee ~eard this appeal on 5/5/2005. After reviewing the record, the written appe~1 and hearing oral argument, and having heard about the background of this project from staff and receiving staffs recommendation, the Committee recommended that the Council find that the evidence submitted by the appellant justifies reversing the Hearing Examiner's recommendation concerning the plat, approving the plat, and approving the site plan. The Committee therefore reCommended that the Council change the Hearing Examiner's recommendation, approve the preliminary plat, and approve the site plan with the following changes to the Hearing Examiner's report, recommendation and decision: 1. There should be added Finding 28 to read: "The Comprehensive Plan and zoning provided for a mixed-use area, which permitted residential development. Providing homeownership opportunities in all neighborhoods is a policy under the Comprehensive Plan. While it might be preferable to have a buffering use between the post office and the residential development, because of the separation from NE 4th St., there does not appear to be a viable current market for a buffering non-residential. use. Since a residential use is permitted, and the plat has been designed to , May 9, 2005 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Renton City Council Minutes Page ]66 provide an elevation change between the post office and the residential properties, as well as additional setbacks, a fence and landscaping, the use is not only permitted, but is perhaps the only use that can currently be made of the property. Those persons that are sensitive to noise should be able to determine that the house they are considering buying backs up on a post office and that there will be some noise from the post office, and avoid making such a purchase." The Hearing Examiner's conclusions should be modified as follows: 1. Conclusion No.1 is amended by striking the last two sentences. 2. Conclusion No.2 is stricken in its entirety. 3. Conclusion No.4 should be modified by striking the first three sentences thereof. 4. Conclusion No.5 is modified by striking the last sentence thereof. 5. Conclusion No.6 is modified by striking the last sentence thereof and substituting in its place "On balance, the public use and interest is served by this proposal." 6. Conclusion No.7 is stricken in its entirety. 7. Conclusion No.9, wherein the Hearing Examiner recommends that the Council deny the residential plat is reversed. 8. Conclusion No.1 0 wherein the site plan is denied because of the denial of the plat is reversed and the Council instead accepts the Hearing Examiner's alternative decision on the site plan. 9. Conclusion No. 17 recommending denial of the proposed plat and site plan is reversed. 10. The Hearing Examiner's recommendation that the City Council should deny the" proposed plat is reversed. 11. The Hearing Examiner's decision that the site plan is denied because-of the recommended denial of the plat is reversed and the Hearing Examiner's alternative recommendation and decision is adopted. However, the Committee recommended that the masonry wall imposed as noise mitigation by the Hearing Examiner be eliminated and, in its glace, there be installed a cedar fence, triple pane windows, and double insulation. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington reviewed a written administrative report summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of its business plan for 2005 and beyond. Items noted included: .. The City has hired two companies that will work together to treat the rapidly spreading Eurasian milfoil in Lake Washington that threatens the safety of swimmers, boaters, and float planes. While there will be no restrictions for fishing and swimming during this treatment, the boat launch will be closed May 16th at 6:00 a.m. through May 19th at 10:00 a.m. to allow the contractor to work within the harbor area. . ' PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT May 9, 2005 APPROVED BY CiYV COUNCIL Appeal by Cliff Williams ,and Ridg~viewCourtLLC r~garding . tbe.Rj."g¢vieW COtlrtPr¢lipii'ilary Plat EiIetlJA~044Jl' pp SA·H ECE ,,~ .. -. ,'. ", ", . ", ,. ,. . " , ..: .·· .. J3;~f'e.tf~dMatch21, 2a05 The Planning and Development Committee heard this appeal on May 5, 2005. After reviewing the record, the written appeal and hearing oral argument, and having heard about the background of this project from staffaild receiving staff's recommendation, the Conimittee recommends that the Council find that the evidence submitted by the appellant justifies reversing the Hearing Examiner's recommendatioll concerning the plat, approving the plat and approving th~¥~;.plan'i';Tb.5(,fommittee therefore recommends that the Council change the Exawin~i',srec,()mmendat1(jll>.>approvethe preliminary plat and apptove the site plan wit.1ythe folt9wing}changestoth(ddearing Examiner's report, reconimendation and deci~i6n:" . I. ' There should be ~ddt!.9 Find~~ 28<jR:r.~fl,d: . "The Compre~ensive Plan and Zoning Iprovided for a mixed-:-u§e area,whi~h:peIliiItl~d'f~siltential development Providing homeoWnership opport(mit~~s iiI al,e ""'" T,;; 'h6~4§)~apoi~cy !lnd~r the Comprehensive :,-' ," •. ~.-. -!, . "»".1' r .• :.:,.':?::.'0'~ . '-, 7'.; . Plan. While it might ~ pre'ferabhnO .,_ erihg use ~etW'een)lthe' post office and the residential development,becauseofthe . a:ti9J.l,Jrom NE 4th, th,re,does not appear to be a viable current mark~t for,~,buffetih 'fion-reS'ili~iltialuse. Si~6e a residential use is pemiitted, and the plat hil$ WeI!,ges_~gned to provide av,·e1evAtloy'lchange between the . , <'" . ,,~ .. ,. • < . . • .~.' post office and the residenti~lprQ¢rt'ies,,,.@S well,asaddi#pfial :$~tbacks, aJence and landscaping, the use is not oIilypermitte-d~bu(is perh.,!psih,~,gcly use that can currently be made of the property.Tho~'~fso~'th~l are ~nsit~¥ti'to noise should be able to . determine that the house they are cO~id~gbuy.inggacks tiP. on a post office and that .. there willbe some noisefroin the post office, and avoid making such a purchase:; . The Hearing Examine!"' s conclusions should be modified as follows: 1. . Conclusion No. 1 is amended by striking the last two sentences. 2. Conclusion No.2 is stricken in its entirety. 3. Conclusion No; 4 should be modified by striking the first three s'entences thereof. 4. Conclusion No.5 is modified by striking the last sentence thereof. 5. Conclusion No.6 is modified by striking the last sentence thereof and substituting in Its place "On balance, the public use and interest is served by this proposal." Planning and Development L",nmittee Report Page 2 6. Conclusion No.7 is stricken in its entirety: ::>"":-' 7. Conclusion No.9, wherein the Examiner recommends that the Council deny the residential plat is reversed. 8. Conclusion No. 10 wherein the site plan is denied because of the denial of the plat is reversed and the Council instead accepts the Examiner's alternative decision on the site plan. 9. Conclusion No. 17 recommending denial of the proposed plat and site plan is reversed. '10. The Examiner's recommendation that the City Council should deny the proposed plat is reversed. 11. The Examiner's decision that the site plan is denied because of the recommended denial of the plat is reversed ~~~~~/Ex,mP,.ie:~r's alternative recommendation and ' decision is adopted. Howe.y.er:-t.he{::ommitte(!"feS9mmeilds that the masonry wall imposed as noise miti~atlrin'bi theE~aininer bt;,;~ilhinated and, in its place, there be installed a cedar (ence."triple'panewindQws;' an4id'6'uble insulation ";, ~ . .",,"'" "2, ~'~ . . '.' . . ... , . : .' . . '. . . .:.... ~~ ...... > ~'.'., .\ .. ;/._ .... , , Denis Law, Vice Chair ". ~ Marcie PcUmer, Member ' c: Neil WattS Jennifer Henn ing NancyWeil /~. . ~. ,' .. . ;~. Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor April 26, 2005 Liberty Ridge LLC Attn: Mike Merlino 9125 10th Ave. S. Seattle, W A 98108 Re: Elmhurst Preliminary Plat; LUA-04-162, PP Dear Mr. Merlino: CITY =>F RENTON City Clerk Bonnie I. Walton At the regular Council meeting of April 25, 2005, the Renton City Council adopted the recommendation of the hearing examiner to approve the referenced preliminary plat, subject to conditions to be met at later stages of the platting process. ' Pursuant to RCW, a final plat meetillgall requirements of State law and Renton Municipal Code shall be submitted to the City for approval wi'thinfive years of the date of preliminary plat approval. Ifl can provide additional information or assistance, please'feel free to call. Sincerely, Bonnie 1. Walton City Clerk cc: Mayor KathyKeolker-Wheeler Council President Terri Briere Susan Fiala, Senior Planner David Halinen, Halinen Law Offices, 10S00 NE Slh St, Ste_ 1900, Bellevue, W A 9S004 -1 O-S-S-s-o-ut-h-G-ra-d-y-W-a-y---R-en-to-n-,-W-as-h-in-g-to-n-9-S-0-SS---(-42-S-) 4-3-0--6-S-JO-/~FAX--(4-2-S)-4-3-0--6S-1-6-~ * This paper contains 50% recyded material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE I ... April 25,2005 Boa·~1/Commission: Organization & Process Modifications Latecomer Agreement: Wharton, Sewer Extension (SE 122nd St), LA-04-001 EDNSP: Multi-Family Housing Property Tax Exemption, Merrill Gardens and Parks ide Finance: Bad Debt Write Off Plat: Elmhurst, Bremerton Ave NE, PP-04-162 CORRESPONDENCE Citizen Comment: Knickerbocker et al -Garden Ave N Street Name Change UNFINISHED BUSINESS Utilities Committee Utility: Clean Sweep Renton Program Renton City Council Minutes Page 148 Administrative, Judicial and Legal Services Department recommended approval of modifications to the organization and process of City boards, commissions, and committees. Refer to Conunittee of the Whole. Development Services Division reported completion of construction and submission of final costs for the Glenn Wharton latecomer agreement for sewer extension to serve propertY,at 14035 SE 122nd St., and requested final approval of the agreement and authorization for the City Clerk to notify affected property owners and commence 20-day appeal period. Refer to Utilities Committee. Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department recommended approval of the multi-family housing property tax exemption agreements with Merrill Gardens at Renton Centre, 104 Burnett Ave. S., and with Parks ide at 95 Burnett, 77 and 95 Burnett Ave. S. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. Finance and Information Services Department requested approval to write off bad debt in the total amount of $52,524.22. Refer to Finance Committee. Hearing Examiner recommended approval, with conditions, of the Elmhurst Preliminary Plat; 64 lots on 9.6 acres located at 201,251, and 257 Bremerton Ave. NE (PP-04-162). Council concur. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRJED. Letter and informal petition signed by 27 residents received from Jennifer Knickerbocker, 318 Garden Ave. N., Renton, 98055, requesting that the street name of Garden Ave. N. be changed on the north side of N. 8th St. The letter stated that the name change will alleviate traffic problems and confusion as the area is further developed. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL REFER THIS CORRESPONDENCE TO THE TRANSPORT A TION (A VIA nON) COMMITTEE. * Pointing out that the street runs through an area that is the subject of a potential development, Councilman Corman requested that the Administration ask for the developer's opinion on the requested street name change. *MOTION CARRJED. Utilities Committee Chair Corman presented a report recommending concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve the implementation of a portion of the Clean Sweep Renton program. The Committee recommended appropriating funds from the Solid Waste Utility fund balance in 2005, for the implementation of the Reuse It! Renton event, projected to cost $6,325, and for the Neighborhood Association Clean,up event, projected to cost $39,450. The Committee further recommended that the one-time Neighbor-to-Neighbor Curbside Cleanup event, projected to cost $299,225, and the associated public education and outreach campaign, projected to cost $55,000, be referred to the Committee of the Whole. * Councilman Corman indicated that the Committee desires to have further discussion regarding the curbside cleanup event costs with the Committee of the Whole, but does not want to stop the other Clean Sweep Renton events from moving forward. January 25, 2005 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON Minutes APPLICANT: LOCATION: SUMMARY OF REQUEST: SUMMARY OF ACTION: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: PUBLIC HEARING: Cliff Williams, PE PO Box 2401 Kirkland, W A 98083 Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA 04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF 327 Bremerton Avenue NE Approval for Site Plan, Preliminary Plat and Code Modi-fication for subdividing a 2A-acre site into 20 Jots for development of single-family dwellings. Development Services Recommendation: Approve subject to conditions The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on December 28, 2004. After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining available information on file with the application, field checking the property and surrounding area; the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the January 4, 2005 hearing. The legal record is recorded' on CD. The hearing opened· on Tuesday, January 4, 2005, at approximately 9:00 a;m. in the Council Chambirs on the seventh floor of the Renton City Han. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No.1: Yellow file containing the original application, proof of posting, proof of publication and Exhibit No.2: . Neighborhood Detail Map other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit No.3: Preliminary Plat Plan Exhibit No.4: Preliminary Site Plan Exhibit No.5: Revised Site Plan showing 26' Private Exhibit No.6: Topography Map Access and Utility Easement Exhibit No.7: Tree Cutting/Clearing Plan Exhibit No.8: Landscaping Plan " Ridgeview' Court Preliminary jJlal File No.: LUA-04-J31, PP, SA-H, EeF January 25, 2005 Page 2 Exhibit No.9: Grading Plan Exhibit No. 11: Elevation Plan for Lots 5, 6, 15 & ] 6 Exhibit No. 13: Elevation Plan for Lots 3, 9 & 12 Exhibit No. 15: Elevation Plan for Lots 10 & 18 Exhibit No. 17: Elevation Plan for Lots I, I I & 19 Exhibit No. 10: Utility Plan Exhibit No. 12: Elevation Plan for Lots 2 & 20 Exhibit No. 14: Elevation Plan for Lot 13 Exhibit No. 16: Elevation Plan for Lots 4, 7,8, 14 & ·17 Exhibit No. 18: Zoning Map The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Nancy Weil. Senior Planner, Development Services, City of Renton, lOSS S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055. The site is located south ofNE 4th Street and to the west of Bremerton Avenue NE. Approval for site plan, preliminary plat for 20 lots on a 2.4- acre site for the eventual development of single-family dwellings. Access to this site off of Bremel1on, which will require improvements, is proposed by a public street (NE 3rd Lane) to end in a cul-de-sac plus additional easements that will radiate from that cul-de-sac. There are no protected critical areas and it is vested to the development regulations for the Center Suburban (CS) zoning and is located in the Centers Residential Bonus District B. The zoning did change in November of 2004, however the filing for this preliminary plat was before the changes and so is vested to the CS zone. The currenfzoning is CN. Two street modifications were requested and approved, one a reduced right-of-way width of 42 feet and second a reduced'radius on the cul-de-sac of SO feet. Three private access easements will extend off ofNE 3rd Lane to serve access to all 20 lots. Lots 9 -] 3 will have rear entry garages wit~ front of each lot facing ea:,1 with an ] 8- foot pedestrian access to the front of those lots. The site is relatively flat with a berm located near the southeast comer of the site. There is some loose fill but has been deemed suitable forthe proposed development. Thesite is vegetated with blackberry bushes, small deciduous and coniferous trees which are to be removed as part of the site preparation .. An additional modification from the Suburban Centers Residential Bonus District B would allow greater front yard setbacks for Jots 8 through 13 rather than the maximum 15 feet permitted in the CS zone. -1 The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M) with seven mitigation measures. No appeals were filed. The preliminary plat criteria for the Comprehensive Plan Designation was in compliance for this development. /' The minimum yard area provided would comply with the land area per dwelling unit. There are no minimum requirements for lot width or depth within the CS zone. All lots meet the maximum lot coverage of 65%. The proposal meets all the setback requirements. The net density of ] 2.42 dwelling units per acre is within the allowed density range of the CS zone. Based on the building elevations provided by the applicant, the proposed residential structures would comply with, or possibly exceed the requirements of Bonus District B of the Centers Residential Overlay. There are seven elevations for this site, all are two-story with rear or side entrance garages. Landscaping, access and parking meet or exceed the requirements of the Bonus District B and are in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat FileNo.: LUA-04-131, PP, SA-H,ECF January 25, 2005 Page 3 The lot arrangements as well as size, shape and orientations are all in compliance, meeting the minimum width and area requirements. The lots are at 90-degree angles, some of the structures will be facing a different direction, they seem to flow well. There will be no direct vehicular access onto Bremerton from any of the proposed lots. The applicant is required to dedicate right-of-way for the improvement for Bremerton Avenue. Twenty-four feet is currently shown for the private access easement, staff has discussed this with the applicant and they are in agreement that this could be reduced to function more as a private alleyway, which alIows a minimum of 16 feet in width with 14 feet of pavement. As long as 24-feet of back out area is provided for each garage, the staff feels that the reduced width of the street will lend itself to an alleyway residential look rather than 3plitting up the tier of lots. This also gives a larger yard area to those lots. Staff recommends the establishment of a homeowner's association or maintenance agreement for·the landscaped right-of-way improvements, as well as for any shared private utilities/drainage facilities or private access and utility easements and to include the private pedestrian access easement. The surrounding properties to the west, north and east are zoned CS. To the south is a proposed single-family residential development with existing single-family to the southeast in R-8 zoning. Anacortes Avenue NE wiII act as a buffer between the proposed single-family homes along the western property line and the existing commercial use (Post Office site) on the abutting property. Traffic, Fire and Park mitigation feeS'were imposed by the ERe. The subject site is located within the Renton School District and they have indicated that they can handle the proposed 8 new students from the new deVelopment. The site is located within the Cedar River Basin. The applicant has submitted a: Drainage Report that indicates that on-site surface water would be directed to a stormwater detention facility located in the southwest comer of the site. The drainage analysis and design of the storm water system appears to be in accordance with the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manua] Leve] 2 flow control requirements. The project will require the insta])ation of new water mains, fire hydrants, fire control systems, and meters, a]) to be placed within City held easements. The project would require a new sewer main along the site frontage and new sewer mains as required to serve the new sing]e-family Jots. jJ ? In regards to the Site Plan Criteria, the project is in compliance with the policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Land use regulations with modifications are in compliance as we]). The seven house plans for the 20 lots are sufficient to lend variation to the project. This site will also blend with the commercial, mixed use and transition well into the residential uses to the south. This development should not have any negative impacts to the surrounding property owners. The site does requirec1earing and all existing structures to be removed. Staff recommends approval of the Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat subject to conditions. Cliff Williams, 5326 SW Manning Street, Seattle, WA 98116 stated that he is an employee of the developer and they are satisfied with the recommendations that the City has provided. Kevin Chamberlin, 18930 451h Place NE, Lake Forest Park, W A 98] 55, manager of the Renton Highlands Station of the US Postal Service that will be adjacent to Lots 9, 10, 1 I, 12, and 13. This use for that property Ridgeview Court Preliminary PIal File No.: LUA-04-13 I, PP, SA-H, EeF January 25, 2005 Page 4 will be a great improvement for the neighborhood, however, the Post Office will have an impact on them. There are semi-tractor trailer rigs that come into the property at all hours of the day and night. They all enter and leave through a driveway that will take them next the above-mentioned lots. It is most likely that these people will feel an impact from this traffic. Some of the trailers come in as early as 1 :00 am in December and at 3: 15 am the rest of the year. They continue at intervals throughout the day along with a lot of other truck traffic. There is a gravity operated dock plate system (used to unload the trucks) that makes quite a bit of noise and it cannot be modified in any way. There also are 39 delivery vehicles that are required to be inspected each morning between 6:30 and 7:30 am. Part of the vehicle inspection is a short sounding of the hom. (Mr. Chamberlin drew the location of the delivery trucks on the vicinity map) Bob Wenzl, 636 Lake Sammamish Lane NE, Bellevue, WA 98008 stated that he is the owner of Ridgeview Court LLC. He is completely aware of the post office site there, he knows where most of the vehicles and work that will be going on in that neighborhood. It is anticipated that the property to the north will be a commercial type of zone. They are confident that the post office and the new residents will make good neighbors. Juliana Fries, Development Services the report given is accurate and the Level 2 Storm Water detention is adequate. The Examiner stated that it would be necessary to l;Iddress the post office concerns, the developer may be comfortable with the situation,but the future buyers of these homes may not. What enhancements cal' be provided? Ms. Weil pointed out besides the difference in the grade and the 26-foot easement the structures to first be impacted will be the garages. Bedrooms will be upstairs, looking over the garages and subject to the noises that could be generated at ] :00 am and 3:00 am. Once property owners take possession of the property, they may wish to enhance that back area, no additional requirements have been made for landscaping. No additional fencing has been required along this property line, but certainly it could be done. Mr. Wenzl stated that they had no concerns about providing a fence or some kind of hedge screening if the space is available. A 6-foot fence would be appropriate. Again there is the elevation change from the parking lot approximately a 6 to 10-foot drop from their parking structures to the large rockery along that easterly property line. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishiQg to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at approximately 9:48a.m. > FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Exaininer now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: J. The applicant, Ridgeview Court, LLC, filed a request for a Site Plan Review approval and a 20-lot Preliminary Plat. There was also a request to modify the front yard setback for homes in the project. 2. The ye))ow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit #1. 3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City'S responsible official issued a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M). • f • Ridgeview COllrt Preliminary Plat File No: LUA-04-131. PP, SA-H, ECF January 25, 2005 Page 5 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject site is located at 327 Bremerton A venue NE. The subject site is located on the west side of Bremerton A venue a half-block south ofNE 4th Street. Union A venue NE is located west of the subject site. 6. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan was changed in November 2004. The area in which the subject site is located was designated for the development of Commercial Center uses but is now designated for Commercial Corridor. 7. Policy H-90 states: "Identify sites within mixed-use areas, which are appropriate for residential developments. tI Policy H-85 states: "Provide homeownership opportunities in all neighborhoods." 8. The subject site is currently zoned CN (Center Neighborhood) but was zoned CS (Center Suburban) when the application was submitted. The applicant is vested under the prior regulations which allow a density of I 0 to 20 units per acre for residential development. The minimum Jot area for single family uses in the prior CS zone were 1,200 square feet of which 250 square feet must be landscaped yard. The subject site was also located in the ~rea B Suburban Centers Residential Demonstration District and is governed by additional Site Plan Review criteria. 9. The subject site was annexed tothe City with the adoption of Ordinance 1480 enacted in April J 954. 10. The subject site is approximately 2.4 acres or ] 04,373 square feet. It is almost square and is approximately 330 feet wide (north to south) along Bremerton and 316 feet deep. 11. The subject site is relatively level with a berm in the southeast comer where slopes rangeJrom ] 5 to 24 percent. The berm appears to be a result of grading on the adjacent parcel of land. The site;>h; also approximately eight (8) feet higher than the adjacent parcel to the west. ;> 12. The area contains a mix of uses and undeveloped property. The relatively new Post Office is located directly west of the north half ofthe subject site. 13. The applicant proposes removing all vegetation, blackberry, and deciduous and conifer trees from the subject site to aIJow development of the building pads, roads and driveways. The applicant may import approximately 4,800 cubic yards of fill material to grade the site and roads. 14. The applicant proposes dividing the subject site into 20 single-family lots that will contain detached single-family homes. The lots will be arranged around a series of private roads, aIJey-like roads and easements that originate from a new roadway that terminates in a cul-de-sac. Basically, a series of dead end roads will be created off of a dead end cul-de-sac. Ridgeview Court PreliminClry t'Jal File No: LUA-04-1J I, PP, SA-H, ECF January 25,2005 Page 6 15. Administrative approval was granted to allow the cul-de-sac street's width to be reduced to 42 feet and the radius of the cul-de-sac to be reduced to 50 feel. Staff noted that the applicant would have tOJ [ dedicate 17.5 feet to the widening of Bremerton which currently does not nieet City standards. 16. The three private easements will extend north and south from the new cul-de-sac street nle proposed lots along Bremerton, Proposed Lots 1-3 and 18-20 would take their access off the first of these easements rather than Bremerton. These lots would be rear-loaded from this alley. Proposed Lots 4-7 and 14-I 7 would use the second of the easements. Lots would face each other across this easement roadWay (see attached maps). Finally, a new private street, labeled Anacortes Avenue NE, would provide access to Proposed Lot 8 and the storm drainage tract on the south and Proposed Lots 9-13 on the north. Staff has recommended that the 24-foot private street paralleling the rear of homes that front Bremerton be reduced to a 16-foot alley width with 14 feet of paving and 24-feet of backout space to decrease impervious surface and create a private street appearance. 17. The density for the plat would be 12.42 dwelling units per acre after subtracting roadway areas. 18. The homes would be two-stories. The dwelling or building groupings would vary from those along Bremerton being traditional facing a street, to the interior groupings facing a kind of courtyard private street, to those in the rear facing an interior street. Sidewalks could connect all of the units to one another and through the private easements to the public street. ] 9. The CS zone permits a lot coverage of 65% whereas a lot coverage of not more than 44% is proposed for this complex. A front yard setback of between 10 and ]5 feet is required. Staff has granted a modification that allows a setback for Proposed Lots 8 to ] 3 to have a greater setback to allow pedestrian access and rear access garages ona 26-foot wide private street. 1\ minimum side yard of3 feet with no projections is required unless there is abutting residential zoning. The R-I 0 district south of the subject site will require a ] 5-foot setback on Proposed Lots], 5, 6 and 8. 20. The District B overlay guidelines require building forms to contain both vertical and horizontal modulations at a minjmufn width of2 feet at intervals of 40 feet as well as individual private entry features. It appears that the buildings will comply with these requirements. Two enclosed parking spaces that open onto a non-front facade and away from arterial streets wiIJ be provided as required. 2] . The applicant will be providing the required 250 feet of landscaped area on each Jot. lSandscaping wilJ » consist of lawn, and a mix of conifer and deciduous trees and shrubs. 22. The subject site is located within the Renton School District. The project is expected to generate approximately 8 school age children. These students would be spread across the grades and would be assigned on a space available basis. 23. The development will increase traffic approximately 200 vehicle trips per day and add approximately 20 trips to each peak hour travel period. . 24. Stormwater would be contained in the sOuthwest comer of the subject site in Tract A. The plat woul~ comply with the] 998 King County Surface Water Design Manual, Level 2 flow requirements. 25. Sewer and water would be provided by the City. Appropriate extensions ofthe water and sewer mains wou Id be requ ired. Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-J3 J, PP, SA-H, ECr January 25. 2005 Page 7 26. The Manager of the adjacent Post Office testified that the post office has 39 delivery vehicles. Postal employees start-lip each of the 39 vehicles and test their horns between 6:30 A.M. and 7:30 A.M. He ~Iso testified that large tractor trailer rigs arrive at the post office site at I :00 A.M. during the month of December and 3: 15 A.M. the rest of the year, as well as other hours during a 24-hour day. They arriv~ near the rear of the post office site which would place them along the western or rear edge of the subject property. They can make quite a lot of noise as they park and then depart as well as during their loading or unloading operations in which gravity activated dock plates are used (while this was not spelled out, it appears that rather than use some potentially quiet hydraulic system, the large plates merely fall and clang into place). Large trucks also may have backup beepers as safety equipment. During busier seasons sllch as Christmas there can be quite a lot of nighttime traffic at the site. He expressed his concerns that residents of the subject site's new dwellings would be disturbed by the noise, especially during what would normally be sleep hOllfs. He does not want to have to deal with complaints that he is sure will be generated by the normal post office operations if residential housing is constructed so close to the post office. He did support a change to the neighborhood from development but was concerned about the impacts noise would have on the proposed single-family homes. 27. The applicant indicated that they were aware of the noise issue and that they believe distance, approximately 40 to 50 feet between the roadway and setbacks, as well as a grade separation ::oupled with a fence and landscaping will minimize any problems with noise disturbing residents. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary Plat 1. First, this proposal includes two components. The first one is a Preliminary Plat on which this office makes a recommendation to the City Council. The second component is a Site Plan review since the proposed plat wiJI be used for single-family detached homes and is, therefore, governed by the Centers Residential Bonus District B. This office finds itself in a difficult role in making a recommendation to the City Council on this project. The proposed plat that wi)) aJlowsingle family uses on the subject site does not appear to serve the public use and interest. Under those circumstances, the proposed plat should be denied by the City Council. . 2. The compelling issue in this case is one of-untoward noise or noises ata time or actually, times of day, when they are or can be exceptionally disturbing. The representative of the Post Office has iJldicated ~ 3. that uses on the post office site are almost completely incompatible with a residential quality· of life. Tractor trailer rigs and other large trucks and vans will be coming and going from the post office site during all hours of the day and night. The trucks are loud. Backup beepers may be employed. Truck and post Office doors will be opening and closing during various operations. These aspects of the neighboring uses make use of the subject site for single family or any residential use problem~.tic. At the same time, free-market concepts suggest that a property owner should be able to do what they want with their property. But in this case the current owner would develop homes and sell those homes to third parties who may not be in a position to know about the potential impacts created by the adjacent post office. The City has an obligation to make sure that it does not allow incompatible uses to be developed adjacent to one another. That is one of the primary purposes of Zoning and Land Use regulations. It does not necessarily matter if the parties may agree to such uses. There is an overriding public policy that governs sllch matters. ]n this case, the current developer may be well-aware, as he states, of the nature of the adjacent uses but that does not mean some innocent purchaser who views the properties during daylight, or even during the evening will be made aware of traffic and noises that erupt in the dead of night, between] :00 A.M. to 3:00 A.M. Not everyone visits their potential \ Ridgeview Court Prel iminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF January 25,2005 Page 8 neighborhood at slIch hours or even perhaps at 6:30 A.M. when postal delivery trucks are started, tested and horns sounded. 4. This is certainly one of those situations that calls for a transition from more intense, in this case 24-hour uses, to less intense uses. The subject site might be more suitable for a commercial or office lise. It does not appear suitable for a single-family use. A mere fence or wall and landscaping even coupled with some distance will not provide sufficient buffering to make it easy to sleep during periods of heavy activity at the adjacent site. Noise that might fade into the ambient noises of a vibrant neighborhood during the day can be extremely disturbing or disruptive when those noises occur during very quiet times. The City certainly does not want its future residential homes to be blighted by the adji\cent uses. Usually, the question is the opposite -that the development will not create blight and will r~ctify blight. But the impacts from next door cannot be ignored. They cannot but have a negative impact on the quality of life for anybody living adjacent to the post office. 5. The Comprehensive Plan contains Policy H-90. That policy requires the City to: 6. "Identify sites within mixed-use areas, which are appropriate for residential developments. " While Policy H-85 states: "Provide homeownership opportunities in all neighborhoods." These policies are not necessarily conflicting and H-85 should not be read to say that residential uses have to be provided everywhere in all neighborhoods. Context is still important. The overr~ding concern should be to identify appropriate sites where residential development is appropriate. Should an undesirable housing situation be created where sleep patterns would be disturbed by the arrival of larger tractor trailer rigs in the middle of the night or twice during the night? Should residents automatically be awakened whether they want to be or not by postal employees starting up 39 vehicles and testing their horns between 6:30 A.M. and 7:30 A.M. six days a week? ]f populations in the area increase, wiIJ there be a commensurate increase in delivery trucks being tested at that time of the morning? WiIJ residents be able to sleep through the noises, said to be quite loud, of gravity operated dock plate systems at 1 :00 A.M. or 3:00 A.M. when deliveries oCcur? )t seems that the proposed 10c?lion is not one of those "mixed-use areas, which are appropriate for residential developments." S Of course, one cou Id cynically conclude that the deleterious nature of the post office's use wou Id result in the single-family homes being priced more modestly, thereby creating a new stock of more affordable homes. There is also an issue which this office cannot truly address of whether the post office's use might in fact constitute a nuisance that adversely affects the applicant's use of their property. The nature ofthe City Zoning Code though plays a part when it allows potentially disparate uses adjacent to one another. But that is where the City's discretion· in regulating, limiting or conditioning uses comes into play. While the Zoning under which the applicant seeks approval permits single family uses in this mixed-use area, it does not mandate they be permitted. It would allow such use only after considering the site and its surroundings. Analysis needs to be done. The Code does not mandate that these uses be crafted abutting each other. First, one has to consider whether the plat and site plan are in the public use and interest. This office has to conclude that, as now proposed, the public use and interest is not served by the proposal. 7. Based on the above analysis, the recommendation, hard as it is to reach, is that the City Council should deny the proposed Preliminary Plat. Ridgeview COllrl Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-13 ), PP, SA-H, ECF January 25, 2005 Page 9 8. If on the other hand, the City Council concludes that the plat serves the public use and iJlterc~t it might seek to impose some conditions that could help the potential purchasers form a knowledgeable decision. One solution might be to include a set of covenants that require that aIJ sales literature and the face of the plat include information that the post office operations may create loud noises during the course of a day and that such noise might interfere with sleep in units located on the subject site. That will avoid the situation of potential purchasers seeing the subject site and its homes during the day and not have any realization that the post office operations occur during the night and such operations might make sleep difficult or disturbed. Obviously, this still allows units that may be severely affected by the noise to be built as opposed to finding a better use for the site that would not be affected by nocturnal noise, such as another commercial use. 9. This office therefore, would again recommend that the City COllncil deny a residential plat on the subject site but that if it chooses to approve this proposed plat, that it adopt some strict disclosure requirements. As the Post Office Manager noted, he really is not going to be happy fielding questions and complaints about the operations from future residents that this applicant acknowledges but that innocent purchasers will not be as knowledgeable about. Site Plan 10. The Site Plan is denied as the property should not be platted as proposed and the site plan is therefore, inappropriate. This office will provide an alternative decision on the Site Plan in order to allow the proposal to proceed if the City Council decides to approve the proposed Preliminary Plat. 1]. ]n the event that the City Council determines that the Preliminary Plat should be approved, this office wiJ) review the proposed Site Plan. The site plan review will treat this analysis as if the plat were approved for 20 lots as proposed by the applicant. As noted above, if the plat and site plan are approved, there should be disclosures regarding the nature of the noise that might be generated on the adjacent post office site as well as the timing of those noises. In addition, clearly, buffering this site from those noises should· be considered an important matter to assure some qual ity of residential living. ) .~ 12. Residential uses are permitted in this general area by the Comprehensive Plan. Integration of single family uses then depends on mitigating the impacts of adjacent uses on the site so that it possesses residential amenities. The Comprehensive Plan suggests buffering incompatible uses from one another, particularly; if transitional uses cannot be used to separate the disparate uses. 13. The twenty proposed homes meet the Zoning Code's former R-5 Zoning District's density requirements. The applicant is proposing appropriate setbacks from streets and adjacent propeTties including the larger buffer required between this site and its southerly, R-] 0 neighbor. A requested deviation from the maximum front yard setback of] 5 feet to one of 28-feet aJ)ows for pedestrian and vehicular access and appears reasonable with the proposed courtyard layout and streetscape. The lots each provide their allotment of landscaped open space. 14. The development of the subject site will create construction related impacts but those will disappear once the project is complete. There will be some additional traffic generated by the development but that should not create any substantial impacts on the transportation corridors. In addition, a traffic mitigation fee will help offset any impacts. As noted in the earlier plat discussion, there could be Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-/ J /, PP, SA-H, ECF January 25,2005 Page 10 impacts on the operations of the adjacent post office in the way of complaints about noise. In order to lessen some of the impacts, a sound barrier masonry wall should be erected along the north and west propertylines of the subject site. Such wall should be designed by acoustical engineers to provide noise attenuation. In addition, landscaping should be installed to further assist in noise reduction and limiting the visual cues which playa part in noise perception. The two-story homes and grade difference will make it hard to limit noise penetration to the subject site. 15. The site plan appears to make reasonable use of the subject site. The buildings provide a reasonable amount of separation from one another. The buildings contain the necessary Demonstration District modulation and articulation as well as side or rear loading garages. 16. There are urban services such as sewer and water available to serve the 20 new homes. Mitigation fees, to offset impacts to parks, have been imposed. 17. )n conclusion~ this office recommends that the City Council deny the proposed plat and site plan as incompatible with the adjoining post office operation and an inappropriate use of property 1hat even though zoned CS is not well-located to afford the residentiaJamenities that should be guaranteed by traditional zoning demarcations and land use development criteria. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should deny the proposed plat. DECISION: The Site Plan is denied as the property should not be platted as proposed and the site plan is therefore, inappropriate. Alternative Recommendation and Decision If the City Council approves the Preliminary Plat then the Site Plan should be approved subject to the following conditions: . 1. The applicant shaH comply with the conditions imposed by the ERC. 2. The"applicant shall execute restrictive covenants that require all sales literature and sales listings initially and subsequently to note the location ofthe post office and that the post office operations may create loud noises during the course of a night and very early morning hours six (6) days a week and that such noise might interfere with sleep in units located on the subject site. 3. Corresponding language about the post office noise shall be included on the face of the plat. 4. The applicant shall construct a sound barrier masonry wall along the north and west property lines of the subject site. Such wall should be designed by acoustical engineers to provide noise attenuation. In addition, landscaping shall be installed to further assist in noise reduction and is designed to limit the visual cues which playa part is noise perception. 5. The applicant shal/ revise the plat to reflect the easement along the rear of lots I through 3 and 18 through 20 to be an alley right-of-way with a width of 16 feet with a minimum of 14 feet of pavement. Ridgeview COUJi Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-13 J, PP, SA-H, ECF January 25,2005 Page 11 The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division prior to the recording of the final plat. 6. The applicant shall be required to post the 26-foot private access easement (Anacortes Avenue NE) with "No Parking" signage on each side. Staff recommends the applicant shall comply with this requirement to the satisfaction of the Development Services Division prior to the recording of the final plat. 7. A homeowner's association or maintenance agreement shall be created concurrently with the recording of the final plat in order to establish maintenance responsibilities for landscaped right-of-w3Y improvements, as well as for any shared private utilities/drainage facilities or private acce~s and utility easements to include the private pedestrian access easement. The satisfaction of this requirementshall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division prior to the recording of the final plat. 8. The applicant shall obtain a demolition permit and complete all inspections and approvals for all buildings located on the property prior to the recording of the final plat. The satisfaction of this requirement is subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Project Manager. ORDERED THIS 25day of January 2005. TRANSMITTED TIllS 251h day of January2005 to the parties of record: NancyWeil ] 055 S Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 Juliana Fries ] 055 S Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 Cliff Wi l1iams 5326 SW Manning Street Seattle, WA 98116 Kevin Chamberlin 18930 45th Place NE Lake Forest Park, WA 98] 55 TRANSMITTED THIS 25th day of January 2005 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler ,Stan Engler, Fire Bob Wenzl 636 Lake Sammamish Lane NE Bellevue, W A 98008 .' Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer . Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Larry Warren, City Attorney Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transportation Division .Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services Utilities Division Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services King County Journal Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF January 25, 2005 Page 12 Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100Gofthe City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or .before 5:00 p.m., February 8, 2005. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., February 8, 2005. If the Ex.aminer's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the ex.ecuted Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing ofthe file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. . The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use .decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not commtrnicate in private with any decision:maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use proces~ inc/ude both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in pUblic. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. 1 i-,'--, ~. ·.f ;1 Ii, Po ii n ., . • a; ~ CA CA ------,:":-' y-~-{-~ -NE -3ru~-C _ r-'; ... :: .. 10 T23N R5E W 112 NE 4th SL CA CA LA_ --CA ~ ----:-LQ- f'i . ___ : ___ ° __ :0-1 0 _____ -'Q)' CA CA ! . CA -R-IO R-8 R-IQ:(P) R--j-O~ . -0 ----------_, f'<..' --±--\y -Q) - --- .'.· ... '.,;i .. . ... ~R~~] L:~r[_ ~ r=======~1------~ R-'8--- -----~ -R=8· ~ ~ --, ------,--'1""4 RMH RC(P) (P) G6 ' 22 T23N R5E W 112 ~ ZONING H~re H I'/BIJ'W TECHNJCAl. S1!RVJcrS 1:4800 1~ T1.lN R'iF: W 1/2 u j ~ ~~ .-J g~ ~ l~~ i ~ s :> l ~~ ~ \:g t w~ ~ ~'l ~f@ I, ~ 1\ ~lql ,: \ 'l!1 1 IYI?lnl t .~ ~ ,~\ G ~ ~\ ! 8!OTION 111 TOWN'HI!" 24 NO~TH MNOI 4 lAST W ..... "\= l I { Z / / (!. ~ 7" \( VZG. /f ' , ... "T~II \;J I -------0: A" I r ... u; :...:-r-.""",.....,----...--I---.,--T""T-~ b2 'II"", I I ill 0 UJ W [ ~ looa ~1U1 ( 518210 '::E Z20~IO ,.2,0 1016 ~la210.0010 11 518210 'Will tZt. 0020 IIiSI [ ~~/;t~ IS'A:/ a &162\0·0013 111210.0011 518210 0031 ,IQ03; 0041 UJ UJ. I 0t ~ ~[ ! 1'M! ."'1 ' I ••• P lj • SITE w C/') lWOI G031 ..... ""1 152305-9034 . I~""'" 152305-90311 /0."""'1 w CI) 152305 9032 (:I.alAo.) 152305 9002 (1.33,1.0.) 11&210 0080 r~~~gO w 152305 1/52305-11212 jD,UHa 152305 907S (0 .. 1 At.) 1&2:105 920e ,"11""'1 r I ~ ____ --'-__ _ 1~2301i.921r:=_ ~ 152305 111210 ooaQ a18210 ~oes NE 2 d PL 1M", • I .111 "'1'1 ... -.-. n ....... _ .. _ .. _--4 oz. I, "Ci i riEM 518210 0051 ~--------------~--~--~:::1 eecoMycNDED EQR ,eeBQYAL ,,,.I,, .. ,.·' .... ·,.·lw"'.J'''' III ...... _ ~:.::"'.t': .. M.t ............... .... ''''''' __ 9030 (~ .... , r· ~~!~ .. ~ .c (2.14 Ac.) ..... <.0 ~ "I'"' 152305 9213 (1.12 AC.) llUOI Q21~ ....""1 ~ 9205 __ , I .. "j •• .,. "I'"' (1.~f',l;Gr \ \152~~044 1/5230s.;921 Ii (IU'M) I \ .. " .... \ 1 (5~05-9038 \..... ...... 162305·9082 I Y (1.04 M.) I~"""'I \1.10 ..... ' ""'''''' 152305 9015 (~.18 AC.) rl -_····· \ 9018 I \ (3.78 AO.) ~ C I \ , G'"l.~~"" I au.l" R. ~ U NCIOHDCI MAP, 1 C . Ace ~O~ _'PI 1-1-..... -1-1-1 , .. toIt (II') M'.'toN ,..tu.) WI.nll '" tAftI_ •• " 0 ... 111_ Amerlo .. n E.nClln •• rlno Corpo,.,lon •. -tU)_,",t\r ... " ..... "." .. "UU .... IoI" "/'I'U" 1I~"1t ~I! ,,, , \,: ••••• ~~ ••• _ .. _ .......... II ... ""' ....... "" .......... ~_;. ... A .,_~~ ..... __ .. "'~ __ .... _ ...... f, ••• '...-_r ...... ,' ... WI ••• '.'t •.. u ..) ~~ ~ r= ~ Co. g ~ '-'l:l Vl ~" 'e z 5 u..z 00 f->-z f-", W" 1 ~J I\~ I, ~ II • kl 1!!1 1 ,11,:1/ jl~11 i ! OWNEB/OeVELOPER: ~IOC''''' .. 'CU~I I.L~ to-h.ell tI.1T *W~"I '010,1101 ~"'.( .... O. 10 .. U041_1l41 '.('.»j! 1101111 .. 1111 REGISTeRED ENGINEeR: ... u,c .... j .. c,.,cu ... , (O.I.,tIA.no. CO~I.c! , .. u", C.c .. lO 04)) 101'" .'o{.IIC .(O .. I><Q,WlIlHI hc...(: "lIl HI-,.lt \.ANP $URVgxOR .lIttlCUI tHOlNttll1llG Ca.'O'~J\CJi '0 .. 10",. ,AI, OWlll)d(1I .01/1 ...... 1( II( HOIlOoW.'" uo,) ,~"t· \.nl"L·h~o LEGAL OESCRIPTION I'll '''''''Ie Ho.n....ctl lIl\.e "(lOllI, 0A6CI1 NO ~ou" OAteO'(6 Il. 1001. 1,,( SOU", 1U.1J Of '"c CA.,' "A~ 0' lK' NOAII1C ... U 01 fMC HOoAT'Mwt" GUM". 01 ",c joj~""WU' OV.t.lllU 01 UClIOH I~, fO_~" lJ "'Oll~ .• .0."'0( • CAli, W,iII" IH .,100 tOl"O"T"r, wd_OlO,..; (.eel' ... ~~ 'OA~ .0.",0 WUotc .... ~ ll~U CWoitAWCO ... ~(It ... v ... ,IO .. 01 ueQAo . .-.Hi) IlHO ..... 4S A '011"0" 01 I ... CI., or i00i,,",,,,11"' At.t , ... CIt ..... u .. .II(COIIOCO 'lA1: . C,CC"I"C C,1f U rcOOI S.>JO flI.I,CI. BENCH MARK 10' 01 C:O..,C: 1010,. 00 ..... 0." ~ cur A' ,"C GO .. "'IIIoO'tC(> lOIn.: or,.e ., ... Sf (1,.(. un ... ")"""0 1401'W A"'; U. ~,.,.w. eOA Ie' ,,). '~CvAI!OH! 401.01' (ltv rlOl.o CI'" 01 1(10110/01 eo,.'I.0~ 'M"tl, 'O''''I\OJ VCR TICAL DATUM .. AVO .. HORIZONTAL DATUM lut"INCIOtoI SI .... ,( '1"""'(, ,.OA'" 10..,( ...... oal/II --:.I~ ! G:lDCtfAU BUILDING / LANDSCAPE TABLE ~o I , ~Ol SlH a~.,..(l ... VI\J)IOI(l !Ir) IIle Uf) (0\( ..... 0( ."61 SI "'0 '" , HO/lsr 1110 , .. , ,Ul" 1110 ,II 1JII Sf 1'10 '" · 33"" "" >II · au 'Sf lilt ,u , .lUI II 1111 ,U · H~\ " '" " · Hit " 1210 , .. " ''0" ItlO .. " .)'1" "'0 '" " I~'O " 1110 "' " .ou " \(> •• "' " )11'" IIHI '" " "U Sf IIU .. , " 1"'" "" HI " )Ullf "10 '" " ,a,u" 1110 ,u " 3100" '11(> , .. 10 IIO~ 11 'lla )0' !iQ!S.; ~[fCA 10 ~ .. ,.o'C .... ,( '~A"'l " 01 .. [1.1 r~ on .. l\.Lo ~,o."O"""""G OCllO"/I. ... 'C),J, "", II ~ .... _ A.' .... 1"1 ... ,"" 1611" '" Il24 It '" lIn sr ... "" v ". , tU iF '" I I' V .11 1000" '" nil If U' IJU" 'u ,_," ,n 'U' Sf '" IUO" '" m'Sr til U,.' , . 10l.II .J" 10.)1" '" Ill) It .. 110'" ... \1" Sf >II 11))1f tOI. rQB APPROVAL RecoMMcNCeD U1IJ __ Am.,Io.n (lIflll .. ,., 'I'AIIHI , "',..,.,. 5001°""°0 ." " ••.•. "'6 Carpar.Uon ... _ ....... ,.... I .... Az gtqe fl1£l= ,,,0"" \UJ, ... ·,. .. ,,, Idl) ul.nn .... _- TL 004' 11. OU)U BlOTION 11 TOWNIHIP' II NOIITH !lANQI I IAIT W.Id. -.J , -------1 .... ~ •• +~u .... :'1' ............ , "'. TI.IHllil ~ ~'!tt·rl,·!t't"":'·auu I 10 ~.0fI)1~'; '\OHt 101 J .. OII\L.,., ...... 'eoo. • . . . I . ," - --"1 . "~,,I'~ . .1' ......... , .. tL ooa, :' \~ [=J C) "]st.' ® I -ri 0 3"9"V'CfV9 i!:IY? <:: I ~,~~c,. .~_ N~c:J °HOOCfO@9 <= f ~ ,{ <( '';""~~' I ~ar-w~ Z:SLI NVid " . .l~? M~IA39ClI~ n .. . ......... ~ .. ~: ) l _,...,.~';J"",_ ..,.,-fo_ .. •• 0 0 ~ .U ~ .lJ ~ 1111', " .. _.' I !, ~ tit' :. ~ !." I· ~ ~m ~l ; @ ~l I. , , . i ,1, '. I. .,1, " .. 1/ moo moo mooD moo moo moog moo ~i moo i= -( > .Jr : l-I L. II' -.Ii .0 <It , , " .. : ;.~ I) /I .-li " t r: ? " .. J \) III \) ~ l- • .& II 2 l' J 0 i of J : qt ~~ !~ ... ~ :; .. 1 -' o· I! 1'l' •• c. Hl~: j ~i z .~ i 1. ·'i' t: t: ~I fill 0 I; it «0 .! , 0 . , , , , , , , , , , , ~ , , II I 0 ,., l- Z « -' L III j l- '0 i i ~~ .Q I'I~ .... l:Iii;I,.,.;a r ...... ''''',f,t::'::: ~.C:'.~:::..':': ,\I_ .. ~d • .. ,01' ~ hJ 11 CJ (\ I,JJ r q, » OJ » m fJ rn Z < GI CJ -~ ~u~ -1 1;)1 \!j ! . ! W ~~)~ el! ~ -~l~ n'!! hl~ . t' 1 o .0 .i-' .... -'i' ., .-. ....... '"PftdNII .... No I~""" A;;a"iiiI-~"=" rn - OZ: , z: tOJ.Oi NO 04> OJ. N ..... i. tOl",..\. .".,~ . 01...--., • f." .,.,.., .a.a.OM "W\I'H' •••• NOIJ. ¥ A=-t:; --w¥;:;-w --~.;.~ . .;- ~ --;;;---~ -- ~\Ill -. T" 1" .,' " 2 '7 ~,'",. ] 1_,l._~Ii--_L5l_J, NOIJ...'Ii'A;;;-';; .J."'¢I~ 1=1 ~D r-11 lm! -------~.---- QI:., ..2W.J... ... ~ 1:,0 :;a~V~"'4> ~"'..I..o ... .., ... .an NI~"" 9:r ..... J..OO_ .. II~ .... "O. 4Goe ..... ..." 'OH~ .......... ' •• , •• ",,-,1004 .... 1-.. .... , ...... uCJ "Cl ...., ..... ·1111~ .MI:)" ' • •• ~I".~""~~ ~ • ..no ..... 0.&. ... ~I., •• 0 ... t.lo-\~ .. OO~ 'p .00'lIl ....... NO •• 0... "'.~..,........ lII"I1.4Q .0 ... ~lnD • .,"OIH .. "'''> .... 0,., '. ... -...01111&0 el'" •• o •• ..00 ... 'I: .... .,. ~Ia..,.... ...,.., .0 ....... "' ... 80 o • I ..... OM ...... A;\I& .0 _oet., .. "_'N,III '. '1 .. 0,.. .... ...,:~~~~I -O"!'N8i~"""Aiiil9;-:;;;:'::; , " ,-, .' ... , D I~\ UoO-. I fi 0 ~~.:, © ;)~'v'9 CI'V"? l: , N3CJ 'HOO~;l9 ~ ;. - I~) ..-.. (..:.:J..,""<;OC"'O ... ~!ItO'. -' ~« <{ t.~otSt'" ON~ "l4S">1I V6SINV,d .~ ~! :; .~~.-, ...L~no? M31-""39ClI'd .I.!O ,. I ~ I ) • .. 1 I ....... ....-;. -. ...... ';1 .. .......-9"'> Ill •• 0 " "-(,,,.-1 Oll~tl .. • \) §, • § .._ 0 ' f ,I d: . t ," ., ~ , .Iot ., ~1iI :1 .. .----' . . . ~::: .' i '-, ilil ~I · , . . · J . I · I I , z ~ z = ~ I I If . t-:.J « 0 > ~ IJ -t. « IJr 0 > I-! IJ. ~i IJJ ~! -. I-~ t: L! IJ· -ti I I I I I II 1\; ; I i ! 1 ~' I . , I c:::= IlInr IfI I-0 -t Z Q --:-Q t Q I- .1 z « 1· -t ~. "l L ~I > It ; ~ I- .' ~ J" .. f'~ ~'-'..& __ ._4:,<F~~i'":" March 29, 2005 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON Minutes APPLICANT: CONTACT: LOCATION: SUMMARY OF REQUEST: SUMMARY OF ACTION: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: PUBLIC HEARING: Liberty Ridge LLC Attn: Mike Merlino 9125 10lh Ave S Seattle, WA 98108 David L. Halinen Halinen Law Offices, P.S. 10500 NE 81h Street, Ste. 1900 Bellevue, W A 98004 Elmhurst Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA 04-162, PP, ECF 20 I, 251, & 257 Bremerton Avenue NE Approval for a 64-lot subdivision of a multiple parcel, 9.6-acre, site intended for detached units. Development Services Recommendation: Approve subject to conditions The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on March 8, 2005. After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining available information on file with the application, field checking the property and surrounding area; the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the March 15, 2005 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, March 15; 2005, at 9:3 I a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No.1: Yellow file containing the original Exhibit No.2: Neighborhood Detail Map application, proof of posting, proof of publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit No.3: Preliminary Plat Plan Exhibit No.4: Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan EI;1lhurst Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-162, PP, ECF March 29, 2005 Page 2 Exhibit No.5: Grading and Drainage Plan Exhibit No.7: Zoning Map Exhibit No.9: Katie Walter, Professional Resume Exhibit No. 11: Vacation Petition to City dated 12/27/2004 Exhibit No. 13: Renton City Council minutes dated 2/28/2005 Exhibit No. 15: Deed to the Foster property Exhibit No. 17: Access Easement Agreement dated March 9, 2004 Exhibit No. 19: Lawsuit, Snohomish Case Law Exhibit No.6: Existing Conditions Exhibit No.8: ERC Mitigation Measures ExhibitNo.10: Sheet I of Preliminary Plat drawing set showing vacation of 15.5 foot right-of-way along Bremerton A venue Exhibit No. 12: Letter from Bonnie Walton dated 311/2005 Exhibit No. 14: Noise Report by Mr. Jerry Lilly Exhibit No. 16: Lot Line Adjustment Exhibit No. 18: Lawsuit, Kitsap Case Law -. Exhibit No. 20: Second Grading Sheet The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Susan Fiala, Senior Planner, Development Services, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055. The site is located in the east portion of the City of Renton just south of the NE 4th corridor and to the west of Bremerton Avenue NE. The site is zoned Residential-I O. On the site there is a Category 3 unregulated wetland located in the southwest portion of the site, which is proposed to be filled. There are two tracts proposed, Tract A in the southwest corner of the site for the storm drainage facility and Tract B which continues along the entire southwest and western edge of the property which would be a Native Growth Protection area. Maplewood Creek runs along this area and continues northward. There would be a 25-foot enhanced buffer on each side ofthe creek. Due to any wetland that would be potentially located within 100 feet of the site, the applicant did an assessment of this wetland in the northwest corner of the site and that is unregulated Category 3 therefore, this proposal would not be affected with that wetland. A Development Agreement was made on this site, it was approved in August of2004 with several stipulations. One, this site would be zoned R-I 0 as well as the Comprehensive Plan Use designation of Residential-Options (RO). There are also some site-specific restrictions that state that all residential buildings must be single-family, all lots abutting the south boundary line must be 50 feet in width (Lots 23 through 29), and lastly the net density cannot exceed 10 dulac. TIle proposed density for this plat is 8.3 dulac. The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated for the project, which included fourteen mitigation measures. No appeals of the determination were filed. The purpose of the Residential Options designation is to create new, lower-density neighborhoods in a traditional development style while at the same time support infill development. This proposal is consistent with the Residential Options land use development and the environmental element. Elnlhurst Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-162, PP, ECF Marth 29, 2005 Page 3 A net density of the development would be 8.3 dwelling units per acre, which is within the allowed range. This proposal is all detached single-family units and complies with the density and unit mix requirements for R-J 0 zoning. All lots comply with the lot dimension requirements as well as meeting the required setbacks. The proposal's compliance with these building standards would be verified prior to the issuance of individual building permits. Several buildings and outbuildings currently exist on the site, the applicant must obtain a demolition permit and complete all inspections and approvals for all buildings prior to the recording of the final plat. The R-I 0 zone requires setback areas to be landscaped including the addition of trees and shrubs to be planted within the front yard area of all lots within the plat. The satisfaction of this condition is subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division Project Manager. The side lot line of the proposed lots are at right angles to the street line. All lots would gain acce!)s to public roadways either directly, or via private driveway access easements. As proposed, lots comply with arrangement and access requirements of the Subdivision Regulations. Each of the lots satisfies the minimum lot area and dimension requirements of the R-l 0 zone. All lots located at the intersection of public rights-of-way would meet code, all would have a radius equal to or greater than 15 feet. Access is proposed via the Bremerton Avenue NE coming from the south through the Laurelhurst Plat. This proposed plat required two means of access, depending on the outcome of the Ridgeview Plat, north of the site along Bremerton Avenue NE, it is a requirement by code that a minimum of 20 feet width of pavement and a pedestrian walkway be required along Bremerton Avenue NE from the northern property line up to NE 41h Street. [fthe right-of-way required to be dedicated by the Ridgeview Court Plat is not in place prior to the recording of the Elmhurst Plat, the applicant of this plat would be required to dedicate the public right-of-way along that parcel. There also is a requirement for a dedication of a minimum of25 feet from the centerline of Bremerton Avenue N E for th is subject plat. A homeowner's asso,ciation or maintenance agreement is suggested for the development, which would be responsible for any common improvements and/or tracts within the plat. Traffic, Park and Fire Mitigations fees were imposed by the ERC The subject site is located within the Renton School District boundaries and they have indicated that they can accommodate the approximately 28 new students. The storm drainage/surface water would be located in Tract A in the southwest corner of the property between Lots 22 and 23. [n order to enhance the storm drainage tract it is to be fenced, landscaped and irrigated unless drought tolerant plants are used. The property lines of Tract A fronting Road A, Lot 22 and 23 should include a landscape visual barrier and fencing. The property lines along Lot 22 and 23 should include a six foot high solid wood fence or other approved material (no chain link), the portion to the southwest of Tract A required only the split rail fence. Staff recommends approval of the Elmhurst Preliminary Plat subject to five conditions. David Halinen, 10500 NE 81h Street, Suite 1900, Bellevue, W A 98004 stated that he represents the owner/applicant Liberty Ridge LLC There were a couple of questions that arose during Ms. Fiala's testimony, . Elmhurst Preliminary Plat . File No.: LUA-04-162, PP, ECF March 29,2005 Page 4 in terms of the question of shared driveways, the applicant is planning to have individual driveways, the purchaser of the project has requested that and that is the appl icant' s intention to provide those driveways. Secondly, regarding the small segment of Tract A that abuts the south line of the property, they are willing to fence that in any way that the City staff would like to have it done. The applicant has reviewed the proposed conditions for approval and finds them acceptable. There was a question regarding the unregulated wetland in Tract A, Katie Walter, a wetland scientist, biologist and botanist is present today and can address that question. Katie Walter, Shannon and Wilson, 400 N 34th Street, Suite 100, Seattle, W A 98103 stated that she performed the wetland delineation both on this site and the site to the north back in 1998. The wetland to the north is just offsite nOl1h along the west property boundary. It is a small wetland, just over 2,000 square feet in size. It was designated a Category 3 wetland under the City's regulations and the question was with respect to its closeness to Maplewood Creek. That creek has been channelized in the past, the area was developed early in the 1950's, and at different periods of time the creek has been channelized and moved and it appears that long before now that wetland has become isolated from the creek. There is a dirt berm that,exists between the creek and that wetland. The isolated wetland on site is slightly different in that it appears to have formed on fill as a result ofa stormwater pipe that outlets near the east side of the wetland and it appears that that wetland is isolated, most of the water that get~ to that wetland either infiltrates or evaporates and probably during very large storm events it may have some overland flow. The creek on site, which runs along the western property boundary has been heavily channelized, it's about four feet lower on the northern side than the site boundary depending on the amount of fill in different places on that site. On the southern portion it is six to eight feet lower than the actual site. On the northern two-thirds of that site it's been channelized along the property boundary, it's an ephemeral stream, it wasn't flowing, in fact it was completely dry in June of2004, and in December of 2004 it wasn't flowing, but there were some puddles of water. It was flowing in 1998 when she was at the site. II.does flow occasionally, but mostly during storm events in the area. The buffer along the creek is heavily vegetated with blackberries with almost no native vegetation. On the southern end there are a few more trees and some native vegetation. Mr. Halinen stated that for the record, the Bremerton Avenue right-of-way abutting the site, there were three small strips of land along the west edge of Bremerton Avenue designated as a 15.5 foot ROW to be vacated that is within proposed Lot I. The second strip has a note that also shows 15.5 foot ROW to be vacated from Lot 46 north to Lot 42 up to proposed Road A, and finally the very south end ofthe site there is a note that says 7.5 foot existing ROW to be vacated, along the east edge of Lot 29. The applicant filed a petition with the City on December 27,2004. This is a contiguous strip that ROlid A will cross and does not need to be vacated. This matter went before the City Council on February 28 and the Council voted to approve the requested street vacation with two conditions; area of vacation for the two northerly portions of the original request be set to a maximum vacation width of 12.5 feet and secondly, the petitioner shall provide satisfactory proof that outside utilities have received and are satisfied with any easements which are necessary to protect their facilities in the requested vacation area. Going forward with construction plans, the three-foot adjustment will be made within the lots and make everything fit. The reason that a Noise Analysis was done was in view of the Ridgeview Colirt project to the north, there was testimony by the manager of the abutting postal facility concerning truck and delivery noises that he wanted to make the City aware of. In that particular case, the Examiner indicated a recommendation for denial of that project, or in the alternative some special conditions of approval were suggested. That matter is now on appeal to the City Council by the applicant. While the Elmhurst site is further from the postal site than the Ridgeview Elmhurst Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-162, PP, ECF March 29, 2005 Page 5 Court, it seemed prudent to have some field noise measurements taken over an extended period of time, 64 hours, so that some hard data would be available. That work was done by Jerry Lilly, who could not be here today, one of his colleagues, Michael Yantis is here today to provide an overview of the testing. Michael Yantis, Yantis Acoustical Design, 720 Olive Way, Suite 1400, Seattle, W A 98101 stated that he was here today on behalf of Jerry Lilly. He visited the project site on Sunday, March 6 with Mr. Lilly. The noise monitoring stations were sei and they were able to review both the location of the stations and the equipment that was used. Two noise-monitoring locations were set up on site, one on the north boundary of Elmhurst property and a second approximately mid point on that north boundary line. Mr. Lilly took data for approximately 64 hours between March 6 and March 9 at these two locations. Position two took hourly data and position one was continuous recording of data every 2 seconds. Primary noise sources were traffic on NE 4th Street, aircraft flyovers, and although the Post Office has been indicated as a noise source in the vicinity, the study indicated that it was not a primary noise source in the area. Mr. Yantis continued with an overview of the report. Noise codes do not specifically apply to public roadways and aircraft because these noises are exempt from the noise codes, developmental regulations help provide guidelines for jurisdictions and developers and how they might build their developments to make sure that the residents don't have noise levels that are excessive. Both Bellevue and Snohomish guidelines are based on the HUD guidelines that provide noise guidelines that are suitable for residential developments. Noise levels above 65 LON are in the less acceptable category, noise levels under 65 are generally acceptable. The Cty of Renton also has a noise ordinance that regulates noise levels between adjacent properties. The results of the measurements that Mr. Lilly recorded show that the Ldn (day-night average) varied from 56.3 at position 2 to a high of 57.8 at position I. They are all very close in noise level. In addition to the long-term noise levels that were measured, Mr. Lilly paid particular attention to noise levels that might be occurring from the Post Office. While he was on site, there were two events that happened, that were truck events. One event happened at 4:45 pm when a truck left the facility and beeped its horn and the other event was the arrival of a semi-truck trailer rig that traveled onto the property, dropped its tailgate and unloaded material. Both of these evellts, although the noise levels are identifiable, they are a little bit higher than the typical activity happening on the site during that time. Using Figures from the report, he showed how Mr. Lilly was able to assess what might be an aircraft event versus some unknown event. In summary the noise levels that Mr. Lilly measured and reported in his report are suitable for residential use. There are within the HUD guidelines, maximum noise levels are primarily due to aircraft flyovers and they are consistent with other residential areas in the vicinity. Rose Woodall, 248 Union Ave NE, Renton, WA 98059 stated that her property abuts this proposed plat at the northwest corner out to Union Avenue. She has lived there 33 years and lots of changes have taken place. Her concern is that her back lot is like a park, if there is a split rail fence, it seems that children could just climb over. The City of Renton is going to build a park on the west side ofUl)ion Avenue directly across from her property, it seems that the children could cut across from this development, through her property and to the park. She would like to have a fence that kids are not going to be able to crawl over. She is concerned about her liability if the children jUlllped in the creek and wade across. The Examiner explained that the City does not usually require fencing between simi lar types of uses, in other words single family and single family. Perhaps you and the applicant can work something out, although a fence of some type is required to protect the stream buffer. Elmhurst Preliminary Plat . File No.: LUA-04-162, pp, ECF March 29, 2005 Page 6 Cliff Williams, 5326 SW Manning, Seattle, W A 98116 stated he was here representing the property owner of the development bordering to the northeast, known as Ridgeview Court. They are in support of this development. It represents a well planned and logical development and transition from the R-8 developments to the R-I 0 and then up into Ridgeview Court which has been zoned R-20. They have worked together in coordinating the site developments, the key things addressed are the road profile for Bremerton A venue, the sewer service for Ridgeview Court, and also the gradiilg between the property lines on the north side. They would like to complement the dev~loper on the initiative to undertake this noise study. They find the study results very encouraging for all parties concerned. Thomas Foster, Langley Fourth Avenue Associates LLC, 5460 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 106, Seattle, WA 98188 stated that they own the property to the northwest and adjacent to the Post Office. He submitted a letter to the City staff yesterday only to encourage the staff to look at the overall development of the area when you have Ridgeview Court to the east and Elmhurst to the south. They have a small piece of property to the south of the Post Office that potentially could be landlocked based on the new zoning of CA that happened in November. The southwest corner of the property is the end of the wetlands on the property and also the site of their stonn detention pond. Some of the area has been cleared and they are currently under construction development permit with the City of Renton to complete the requirements for a Short Plat. He was encouraging the staff to look at the overall development potential of the site and area for pedestrian friendly access and also to provide for secondary fire access to not only their property but to the other properties as well. If Bremerton was ever to become blocked a secondary access from their property onto either one of these sites could add additional fire control possibilities and also would enhance pedestrian access to NE 41h and would help the development of their property as well. Terrance Flaig, President of Fernwood North Homeowner's Association, PO Box 3 106, Renton, W A 98056 stated that he had a question regarding the grading of the site. Specifically the homeowners that abut the southern end of Elmhurst are concerned about grading that has been done to this site prior to the beginning of Elmhurst. When he and his wife moved here, this was zoned residential but there was a business operated here, McCann Trucking owned this land they were a trucking and excavating business. When the property was sold to Tydico and as soon as that happened they began to bring in large truckloads of earth and fill without applying for or receiving any permits. They raised the level of this land considerably, particularly in the area that abuts Fernwood North to the south of their land. Since this was not done with pennits from the City of Renton, they wonder if this is going to be allowed to exist the way it is or if some effort is going to be made to return this level of the land to what it was before the illegal grading was done. They are concerned because it is quite a bit higher now than the lots in Fernwood North. The homes that will be built will be towering above them and provide an unsightly view to the north. The Examiner stated that they were talking about Lots 32, 33,34, and 35 in Fernwood North and suggested that perhaps staff may have some comments about this issue. Kayren Kittrick, Development Services stated that Elmhurst can be held to dedicate the rights-of~way off Bremerton when they don't own the property. A secondary access is required by Fire for this site. The preference is to the north, the owners of the property to the north have been in serious talks and trying to make sure that their designs met code. It has always been the intent that Ridgeview would go first, or a little ahead, or at the same time as Elmhurst. When Ridgeview was denied, it was necessary to make sure that that was secured, that is the secondary access, it is the way that they designed for their secondary access. Whether an easement would be sufficient if the timing did not work out, the answer is no, the dedication must be for sure, it is necessary to know that it is going to go through. Split rail fences are basically to allow for the movement of small animals that would go through that area. Planning would most likely have some concerns about blocking off that location entirely, but there could be Elmhurst Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-162, PP, ECF March 29, 2005 Page 7 some discussions on something that might have small openings. Not quite sure how to solve that particular problem. Regarding Mr. Foster and his wish to have secondary access to the north is an issue that they agree on, but there is nothing that is in the code that would allow for this. The Transportation Division would be very interested in something through the Ridgeview Court, some type of connection through there. However, in that instance, the Post Office declined to participate. Ultimately this comes down to some type of agreement between private property owners in this case. Mr. Foster does have access up to NE 4th, primary access, but he doe:.; need a secondary access, just not sure what is going to be developed on his property. . The site has been used out of standards both under King County and City of Renton when they took it over. There is no plan to do any grading or changing of the site height. All grading will be within the site, cut and fill, nothing new being brought in and nothing being taken out. Mr. Halinen stated that regarding Mr. Foster's comments and concerns about wanting a secondary access, Mr. Foster pointed out that the company he represents is a recent purchaser of the property that wraps behind the Post Office. The property was purchased September 2004. In 1999 a Lot Line Adjustment was done and included the Post Office property and the Langley Property (Mr. Foster). Regarding the secondary access, this is a problem of self-creation. An Access Easement Agreement was recorded March 9, 2004 proving that the Post Office did get title. The Lot Line Adjustment was set up to dead end at the back end of the property, they d idn 't need to do that, they could have had a loop easement along the east side of the postal property tei provide for secondary access for emergency vehicles. It was set up deliberately, sold the property in its current condition to someone who would like to have one of the abutters bear the burden of a secondary access. This should have been considered and dealt with prior to selling off the properties. Elmhurst should not have to bear the burden ofthese issues, they should not have to give access through Elmhurst. Lou Larsen, Pacific Engineering and Design LLC, 4 I I 8 Lind Avenue, Renton, WA 98055 stated that there are four existing lots in Fernwood North, Lots 32,33,34 and 35 that abut against the area in question. The pad elevations are set such that they can get access from Bremerton A venue, they are set to provide sewer connections to these lots, and to provide access for lot drainage into the detention pond. All this grading occurs on-site, within the Elmhurst property lines, they do not even come close to the south property line. Jfthe lots were lowered, they would not drain into the detention pond. Lot 27 will be a little bit higher than what it is today, Lots 26, 25, 24, and 23 are being raised anywhere from three to five feet, depending on where you measure it. Those elevations are 25 feet into the property where this will occur. Some of that could be buffered out a little, but not very much. The Examiner stated that it doesn't sound like the City will address what may have happened prior to annexation. Ms. Kittrick stated the City will not explore the site levels, it was like that when it came in for site approvals. They will not require the owner to return to what the property was like years ago. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 1 I :24 a.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: Elmhurst Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-162, PP, ECF March 29, 2005 Page 8 FINDINCS: I. The applicant, Liberty Ridge, LLC, represented by David L. Halinen, filed a request for a 64-lot Preliminary Plat. 2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation ana other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit # I. 3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official issued a Determination of Non Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M). 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject site is located at 201, 251 and 257 Bremerton Avenue N E. The subject site is located on the west side of Bremerton approximately 600 feet south ofNE 4th Street. 6. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of single-family homes, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. 7. The subject site is currently zoned R-IO (Residential Options including detached Single Family uses). 8. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 5092 enacted in 8eptember 2004. 9. The subject site is approximately 9.6 acres or 418,176 square feet. The parcel is rectangular and is approximately 650 feet long along Bremerton (north to south) by approximately 640 feet deep. 10. The site has been used for construction offices and staging and older homes and outbuildings generally served office purposes. II. The subject site slopes generally downward 3 to 5 percent from the north-northwest to the south- southwest where Maplewood Creek crosses the subject site. The site also has bands of steeper terrain that vary between 20 to 40 percent. Fill was placed on the subject site in the past and this material appears to have been placed without benefit of a permit. Neighbors report that it raised the elevation of. the property adjacent to the creek 8 to 10 feet. 12. A Category 3 wetland is located in the northwest corner ofthe subject site and it is unregulated. Another wetland located offsite is also unregulated. As noted, Maplewood Creek crosses the southwest portion of the site. 13. The subject site is mainly cleared of vegetation but small stands or rows of trees are located near the south and west property I ines, near the existing older structures in the northeast corner of the site and near the creek. Most of the trees with the exception of those in the protected creek corridor would be removed to allow development at the R-IO density permitted by the zoning. 14. The subject site is governed by a separate development agreement. There are site-specific restrictions that include that all residential buildings be single family, lots abutting the south boundary of the site (abutting R-8 homes) be not less than 50 feet wide and that the density not exceed 10 units per acre. Elmhurst Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-162, PP, ECF March 29, 2005 Page 9 15. The applicant proposes dividing the subject site into 64 lots. The lots would be arranged around the perimeter of the site and in two interior blocks. Lot sizes will vary from 3,801 square feet to 5,979 square feet. The R-I 0 zone requires lots to be not less than 3,000 square feet, lot width to be 30 feet for interior lots and 40 feet for corner lots and lot depth to be 55 feet. Staff reported that lots would vary between 40 feet to 54 feet wide and from 95 feet to 112 feet deep. The lots along the south property line will comply with the 50-foot width required by the Development Agreement. 16. Two east to west roads will provide access to the interior of the subject site from Bremerton. These two roads will be connected to each other in a loop by a north to south road running through the western third of the site. A second north to south road will run between the east to west roads in the middle of the site creating the blockwise lot arrangement. Bremerton has an inconsistent alignment and width along the frontage of the subject site. The applicant is seeking a vacation and will rededicate property to create a more consistent alignment. 17. Bremerton does narrow north of the site adjacent to where the Ridgeview Plat was proposed. The City Council will be determining the status of that plat during an appeal procedure. Staff has nuted that Bremerton does need to serve this proposed plat. 18. The density for the plat would be 8.25 dwelling units per acre after subtracting sensitive areas (creek corridor) and roadways. 19. The subject site is located within the Renton School District. The project is expected to generate approximately 28 school age childre·n. These students would be spread across the grades and would be assigned on a space available basis. 20. The development wi II increase traffic approximately 10 trips per unit or approximately 640 trips for the 64 single-family homes. Approximately ten percent of the trips, or approximately 64 additional peak hour trips, will be generated in the morning and evening. 21. The appl icant has submitted a Noise Analysis Report for the project to determine if noise from the nearby but non-adjacent Post Office would be a factor for residential development of the subject site. The report was done since the Hearing Examiner recommended that the proposed Ridgeview Plat immediately north of the subject site but also directly abutting the Post Office be rejected due to incompatible noise generated, by the adjacent Post Office. 22. The summary of the report contains the following language: "The ambient noise measurements conducted at the Elmhurst site's north edge demonstrate that the site is suitable for residential development... . While there are routine loading and unloading activities and other activities at the post office that generate occasional environmental noise, this study has clearly shown that the intensity and duration of the noise generated by the post office is insufficient to significantly impact residential use of the Elmhurst site. (Footnote 2) ... Footnote 2: Anticipated future development of the Ridgeview Court site and the vacant parcel immediately to the north of the west half of the Elmhurst site will significantly screen the Elmhurst site from post office-generated noise, further reducing its intensity on the Elmhurst site." Elmhurst Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-162, PP, ECF March 29, 2005 Page 10 23. Stonnwater will be collected in a pond in Tract, A whichwill serve as both a detention and water quality facility. Thepond, which is located in the southwest corner of the site, wi.ll be adjacent to Maplewood Creek. Energy would be dissipated using a "bubble-up" system with the overflow running to the creek. It would meet the 1998 King County standards, Level 2 flow control. 24. Staff has recommended that the pond be screened and landscaped. The screen is to form a visual barrier but one that does not interfere with traffic. Staff recommended the materials to use and to avoid chain link fencing. 25. The subject site will be served by City water and sewer services. Utility line extensions to serve the site will be required and governed by code. 26. Staff has approved a street modification allowing narrower roadways. Since this narrows what would be parking strips or landscape areas, statfhas recommended the addition of trees 27. The owner of the adjacent property north of the subject site was concerned about access to a portion of his property behind the post office. That property fronts along NE 4th Street and access is possible from there. It was noted that the current owner's predecessor in interest created the odd-shaped parcel by segregating offthe post office site leaving the remainder. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The proposed plat appears to serve the public use and interest. Due to a reconimendation by this office that another residential development (Ridgeview Court) adjacent to the post office was inappropriate, the applicant was concerned that post office noise might create issues for developing the subject site. Those noises might be an issue but it appears that the distance between the subject site and the post office site should help attenuate the noise. The subject site can be distinguished from the Ridgeview court parcel by a number of factors. The subject site is zoned for residential purposes and is shielded by the adjacent Ridgeview Court property, which as a transitional property can be used for commercial purposes. In addition, open space that now lies between the subject site and post office could be developed with uses that further attenuate the noise. That is new structures could occupy the intervening open space and block post office noises. The greater distance and the potential for intervening buildings were not factors that could help the other property. The noise studies that were conducted were specifically conducted for the subject site and cannot be relied on for determining impacts on other properties and other properties cannot count on the development of intervening buildings that could eventually buffer this site from the post office. 2. The proposed plat appears to create reasonably rectangular lots. A fairly regular grid roadway and block system rather than a deadend cul-de-sac will also serve the 64-lot plat. The smaller lots of the R- 10 zone will still provide detached single-family housing choices to those who want less yard maintenance and smaller homes. 3. The plat will offset its impacts on fire, parks and transportation services by paying mitigation fees. It will also contribute to the tax base of the City when developed with homes. The additional population and traffic will be fet! in this currently sparsely developed area but those impacts were anticipated when the Zoning was adopted for the area. 4. The applicant will be planting trees on the lots while also preserving the stream course and the current vegetation in buffers surrounding the creek. It appears that filling that occurred on the subject site can , Elmhurst Prel illl inary Plat File No.: LUA-04~ 162, PP, ECF March 29, 2005 Page 11 remain and might have be permitted to allow appropriate sewer service. The applicant \ViIi have to demonstrate that the materials are suitable for foundation support. 5. Th~ applicant will have to satisfy the City's needs for access to and along Bremerton to NE 4th Street. 6. In conclusion, the proposed plat should be approved by the City Council. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should approve the 64-lot Preliminary Plat subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. The applicant shall comply with the conditions imposed by the ERe. The applicant shall have to demonstrate that the on-site fill materials are suitable for foundation support. The applicant shall obtain a demolition permit and complete all inspections and approvals for all buildings located on the property prior to the recording of the final plat. The satisfaction of this requirement is subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Project Manager. All lots within the plat shall be required to have a minimum of one new approved tree, with a minimum caliper of 1-112 inches (deciduous) or 6-8 feet in height (conifer), and shrubs (or equivalent) planted within the front yard. The applicant shall be required to set forth a restriction on the final plat stating this requirement. Each application for a single family building permit shall include a plan noting the location and type of plant materials within the front yard. All front yard landscaping shall be planted prior to final building permit inspection. The satisfaction of this condition is subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division Project Manager. U he right-of-way for Bremerton Ave. NE along Parcel #5 I 8210-0042 (327 Bremerton Ave. NE) shall be dedicated prior to the recording of the Elmhurst Final Plat. The satisfaction of this requirement is subjectto the review and approval ofthe Development Services Project Manager prior to recording of the final plat. A homeowner's association or maintenance agreement shall be created concurrently with the recording of the final plat in order to establish maintenance responsibilities for all shared improvements. A draft of the documents(s), if necessary, shall be submitted to the City of Renton Development Se,rvices Division for review and approval by the City Attorney and Property Services section prior to recording of the final plat. Tract A shall be fenced, landscaped, and irrigated (unless drought tolerant plants are used). The property lines of Tract A fronting Road A, Lot 22 and 23 shall include a landscaped visual barrier so as to not interfere with sight distance triangles including plant materials which would provide a year-round dense screen within three (3) years from the time of planting. Also, the property lines along Lots 22 and 23 shall be fenced with a six-foot high solid wood fence, or other approved material (no chain link). Tract A fronting Road A shall be fenced with either a wrought iron, or chain link with vinyl covering, or other decorative wood fence. The applicant shall submit a landscape plan and fence design identifying construction and plant materials for the review and approval of the Development Services Project Manager prior to installation. Fences and landscaping shall be installed prior to recording of the final plat. Elmhurst Preliminary PIat . File No.: LUA-04-162, PP, ECF March 29,2005 Page 12 ORDERED THIS 291h day of March 2005. u~~ FRE~ J. KAU AN ~ HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 29th day of March 2005 to the parties of record: Susan Fiala 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Liberty Ridge LLC Attn: Mike Merlino 9125 10th Ave S Seattle, W A 98108 Lou Larsen Pacific Engineering and Design LLC 4118 Lind Avenue Renton, W A 98055 Terrance Flaig President of Fernwood North HOA PO Box 3106 Renton, W A 98056 Kayren Kittrick 1055 S Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 Katie Walter Shannon and Wilson 400 N 34th Street, Suite 100 Seattle, W A 98103 C. Thomas Foster Langley Fourth Ave Associates LLC 5460 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 106 Seattle, WA 98188 Cliff Williams 5326 SW Manning Seattle, W A 98116 TRANSMITTED THIS 29th day of March 2005 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Stan Engler, Fire Rose Woodall 248 Union Ave NE Renton, W A 98059 David L Halinen Halinen Law Offices, P.S. 10500 NE 8th St., Ste. 1900 Bellevue, W A 98004 Michael Yantis Yantis Acoustical Design 720 Olive Way, Suite 1400 Seattle, WA 98101 Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Larry Warren, City Attorney Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transportation Division Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services Utilities Division Neil·Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services King County Journal Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section IOOGofthe City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., April 12, 2005. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous Or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This Elmhurst Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-162, PP, ECF March 29,2005 Page 13 request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., April 12, 2005. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Councilor final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents ofthe communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. i I I ',----- / 'y-- ~~u.c ....e..w ..... ....,. 6(<Q:S) no-_ ~(~~.zA Ra<rot<. WA Civil Eogiottriag, Suevcying and fl...rung C<>osW<>n<s CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA04-162, PP, ECF PROJECT NAME: Elmhurst Preliminary Plat APPLICANT: Liberty Ridge LLC, Mike Merlino LOCATION OF PROPOSAl: 201,251, & 257 Bremerton Avenue NE DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and Preliminary Plat approval for a 64-lot subdivision of a multiple parcel, 9.6-acre site. Two tracts for open space and storm drainage are included. The site is zoned Residential -10 dulac and is to abide by a Development Agreement. The lots range in size from 3.801 sq. ft. to 5.870 sq. ft. and intended for detached units. All existing buildings would be demolished. Access is proposed via Bremerton Ave. NE to new internal public streets and private access easements. One non-regulated Category 3 wetland would be filled. Maplewood Creek crosses the southwestern portion of the plat. LEAD AGENCY: MITIGATION MEASURES: The City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section 1. A Geotechnical Engineer shall determine the suitability of the existing on-site fill prior to its use on-site. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be reviewed and approved by Development Services during construction. 2. f\t the time of building permits, additional geotechnical studies addressing the suitability of site soils for use as structural fill shall be prepared and submitted. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be reviewed and approved by Development Services. / 3. The applicant shall comply with the "Geotechnical Engineering Study" prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc., dated August 30, 2004, regarding ·Site Preparation and General Earthwork" and "Utility Support and Backfill: The satisfaction of this requirement shall be reviewed and approved by Development Services during construction, utility work and building construction .. 4. The project shall be required to be designed and comply with the Department of Ecology's (DOE) Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume" of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual. 5. All contractors are to be made aware of the potential presence of environmental contaminants and instructed to notify the property owner immediately if discolored, odiferous, or otherwise suspect soil is encountered during excavation activities. 6. If suspect soil is encountered duling excavation activities, work in these areas is to be stopped until such time as a qualified environmental professional can assess the observed conditions and recommend corrective measures. 7. If the presence of environmental contaminants is confirmed within the suspect soils at concentrations exceeding applicable MTCA cleanup levels, then (a) those soils are to be handled and managed in accordance with MTCA and; (b) the work will be managed and overseen by a qualified environmental professional and properfy documented and reponed to the Department of Ecology (DOE) in accordance with MTCA 8. The project shall comply with the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual to meet both detention (Level 2 flow control) and water quality improvements. 9. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee based on a rate of $488.00 per new single-family 101. Credilto be given for the existing three residences. The fee shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. 10. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Traffic Mitigalion Fee based on $75.00 per each new average daily trip associated with the project. Credil 10 be given for the existing Ihree residences. The fee shall be paid prior 10 the recording of the final pIa\. 11. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Parks Mitigation Fee based on $530-16 per new single-family lot Credit to be given for the existing three residences. The fee shall be paid prior to the recording of the final piaL 12. Evergreen and deciduous trees (Le. Douglas fir, western hemlock, and big leaf maple) shall be planted on 15-foot centers within the 25-foot wide buffer along the east side of the stream. Two-gallon size tree stock shall be used. Planting should occur in the Fall to allow plants to develop roots over the WinteL The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. 13. During site preparation and construction of improvements and residences, the applicant shall install silt fencing with brightly colored construction flags to indicate the boundaries of the stream/creek buffer. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division and be completed prior to the issuance of construction/utility permits. 14. Mer the development of roadway and utility improvements, the applicant shall install permanent fencing (i.e. split-rail fence or other approved barrier) andsignage along the entire edge of the stream/creek buffer. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division prior to the recording of the final plat. LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL A: THE SOUTH 110 FEET OF THE EAST 215 FEET OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: THE NORTH ~ OF THE SOUTHEAST 14 OF THE NORTHWEST Y4 OF THE NORTHWEST Y4 OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M.; , EXCEPT THE EAST 37.5 FEET THEREOF FOR ROAD; (ALSO KNOWN AS THE SOUTH 110 FEET OF THE EAST 215 FEET OF THE NORTH ~ OF TRACT 5, MARTINS ACRE TRACTS, ACCORDING TO THE UNRECORDED PLAT THEREOF); SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASl-llNGTON. PARCELB: THE SOUTH Yz OF THE SOUTHEAST Y4 OF HE NORTHWEST 14 OF THE NORTHWEST Y4 OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M.; EXCEPT THE EASTERLY 7.5 FEET FOR ROAD; (ALSO KNOWN AS THE SOUTHERLY !12 OF TRACTS 5 AND 6, MARTINS ACRE TRACTS, ACCORDING TO THE UNRECORDED PLAT THEREOF); SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. PARCELC: THE NORTH Yz OF THE SOUTHEAST Y4 OF THE NORTHWEST Y4 OF THE NORTHWEST Y4 OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M.; EXCEPT THE EAST 37.5 FEET THEREOF FOR ROAD; AND EXCEPT THE SOUTH i i 0 FEET OF THE EAST 215 FEET OF THE REWtAINDER; (ALSO KNOWN AS THE NORTH !12 OF TRACTS 5 AND 6, MARTINS ACRE TRACTS, ACCORDING TO THE UNRECORDED PLAT THEREOF; EXCEPT THE SOUTH 110 FEET OF THE EAST 215 OF SAID TRACT 5); SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. Q:web/pw/devserv/formslplanninglmasterapp.doc 0 ) "-n ill ~4~ Sj- Hffl{ ® ." ~ __ • I ® 2> ® ~ ~ ® ® ~ ~ ti <t ~ <> .., N CD <> O~ <C <C N = N 0 ',~"'! '" , .. ; V N ":-...... ® ~ R-IO R-8 ...c: -+-> N C> ;S ~ .' .--t ~ 5 z ~ ~ ~ :~ \0 ~ "'"' .... " V) .t-J. ~ RMH RC(P) (P) G6 ' 22 T23N R5E W lI2 ZONING F6 15 T23N R5E W 1/2 . 5315 &,/ Return Address: City Clerk's Office City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 E2173005 12/01/2005 14:13 KING COUNTY, lolA TAX $10.00 SALE $0.00 PAGE001 OF 001 DEED OF DEDICATION Property Tax Parcel Number: 518210-0042 Project File #: Street Intersection: Reference Number(s) of Documents assigned or released: Additional reference numbers are on page __ 0 Grantor(s): Grantee(s): 1. Ridgeview Court L.L.c. 1. City of Renton, a Municipal Corporation LEGAL DESCRIPTION: (Abbreviated or full legal must go here. Additional legal on page ) The East 17.50 feet of the following parcel. The south half of the east half of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in the city of Renton, King County, Washington; EXCEPT the east 7.5 feet of the said tract, EXCEPT all coal and mineral rights as contained in reservation of record, and known as a portion of Tract 4, of Martin's Acre Tracts. The Grantor, for and in consideration of mutual benefits conveys, quit claims, dedicates and donates to the Grantee(s) as named above, the above described real estate situated in the County of King, State of Washington ° IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal the day and year as written below. Grantee(s): City of Renton ~~r~~ ~.vI. W~ Id·;s-~« City Clerk -Bonnie I. Walton r Exhibit A Legal Description THE EAST 17.50 FEET OF THE FOLLOWING PARCEL. THE SOUTH HALF OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THE EAST 7.5 FEET OF THE SAID TRACT, EXCEPT ALL COAL AND MINERAL RIGHTS AS CONTAINED IN RESERVATION OF RECORD, AND KNOWN AS A PORTION OF TRACT 4, OF MARTIN'S ACRE TRACTS, AN UNRECORDED PLAT; AREA OF DEDICATED RIGHT-OF-WAY IS 2,475.23 sq. ft. CORPORATE FORM OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT ,,...l Notary Seal must be within box STATE OF ) )SS COUNTY OF ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Robe r+ WQ.;.,z) is the person who appeared before me and said person acknowledged that b e signed this instrument, on oath stated that he was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the N\f\~er of_ {{~~(."\e'--l a+ LLC-a W Sr.', "'~ N ~ , , to be the free and voluntary act 0 such party for the uses and purposes mentIOned In the instrument Dated: q. d g -06 m~# ce;JJL (Signature) • '\ Print Notary Name: m lCne.. e. L C \Aa. \L Residing at: 1< Q AVV\ cJNcl. v-JA My appointment expires: __ '?;> __ < ~~_.,~_---=O~~-=----__ ,. 0 I I T 50 100 I I 1 INCH =100 ~ ~ v 3= z .... ~ PORTION OF THE S1/2, E 1/2, NE 1/4, NW 1/4, NW 1/4 OF SEC 15, T 23 N, R 5 E, W.M., RENTON, KING CO, WA. N LN SE4, NE4, NW4, NW4 NB8"06'17"W .-316.02' 17.N OElJICA 710N N _ rt) ~ d rt) z rt) ..; w Z .; w (I) z ...J 3= w e 10 V ;.... :t 0 0 Z .-316.33' S LN NE4, NW4, NW4 N88'09'35·W P,\2003\0312\Survey\Dwg\Z0312EX1.dwg 9/30/2005 9100.27 AM PST ·t~. , 30' 30' 'it) 0 ~ g rt) ~ ~ f--! i w = r-rt) t:Q ~ :.p v -, .Oct~ber 10,2005 CONSENT AGENDA -CounciLMeeting Minutes of 10/3/2005 Court Case: Estate of James Frederick Brutsche, CRT -05- 012 Development Services: Deferral of Street Improvements Plat: Cherie Lane, S 35th St & Wells Ave S, FP-05-073 Development Services: Ridgeview Court & Elmhurst Plats, ROW Dedication, Bremerton Ave NE Annexation: Mosier II, 140th Ave SE & SE 136th St Human Resources: Police Officers Guild Commissioned & Local 864 Firefighters Labor Contracts WSDOT: Renton Hill Access Concurrence Letter UNFINISHED BUSINESS Transportation: Bus Rapid Transit ,;t.., Renton City Council Minutes Page 347 Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. Approval of Council meeting minutes of 10/3/2005. Council concur. Court Case filed on behalf of the Estate of James Frederick Brutsche, et al by John R. Muenster, 1111 3rd Ave., Suite 2220, Seattle, 98101, pertaining to a police drug raid on the Brutsche family property located in the City of Kent on 7/10/2003. Refer to City Attorney & Insurance Services. ' Development Services Division recommended approval to replace the option for deferral of street improvements for short plats with participation in fee-in- lieu-of deferred street improvements. Refer to Transportation (Aviation) Committee. Development Services Division recommended approval, with conditions, of the Cherie Lane Final Plat; 16 single-family lots on 4.98 acres located at S. 35thSt. and Wells Ave. S. (FP-05-073). Council concur. (See page 349 for resolution.) Development Services Division recommended acceptance of a deed of dedication for additional right-of-way on Bremerton Ave. NE to fulfill requirements of both the Ridgeview Court Plat (PP-04-131) and the Elmhurst , Final Plat (FP-05-090). Council concur. . Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department recommended a public hearing be set on IO/24/2005 to consider the proposed Mosier II Annexation and future zoning of the site, the boundaries of which were expanded from 31.24 to 65 acres. The site is located between 140th Ave. SE and Lyons Ave. NE, north of SE 136th St. Council concur. Human Resources and Risk Management Department requested approval of the Renton Police Officers' Guild Commissioned Unit and Renton Firefighters Local 864 labor agreements, each for three years (2006 to 2008). Council concur. Transportation Systems Division recommended concurrence with the Washington State Department of Transportation regarding Renton Hill access. Refer to Transportation (Aviation) Committee. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. Councilman Corman reported on the Eastside Transportation Partnership's (ETP) recommendation for Sound Transit Phase 2 (ST2), in particular the issue of 1-405 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). He explained that prior to a recent'ETP meeting, BRT was not an element of ST2, and thanks to the work of City staff and elected officials, ETP was successful in the listing of the BRT stations and capital improvements on the ST2 plan for evaluation by Sound Transit. Councilman Corman gave a, briefing on BRT, highlighting characteristics of the bus, including its low floor design, configuration, capacity, and precision docking capability. He noted BRT's streamlined fare collection system, and the queue jump lanes and transit signal priority, which allows BRT to bypass queues of general-purpose vehicles at intersections and to extend the signal green time or reduce the signal red time at intersections., Mr. Corman displayed conceptual drawings of the park and rides and inline stations, and drawings of the potential alignment of this transit service. \ " ," CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Submitting Data: DeptJDi vlBoard .. Staff Contact.. .... Subject: Planning/B uildinglPublic Works Development Services Division Carrie K. Olson x723S For Agenda of: October 10, 200S Agenda Status Consent. ........... . Public Hearing .. Acceptance of additional right-of-way for the Ridgeview Correspondence .. Ordinance ............ . Court Plat LUA-04-131. Resolution ........... . Exhibits: Deed of Dedication Exhibit Map Vicinity Map Hearing Examiner's Reports Recommended Action: Council concur Fiscal Impact: N/A Expenditure Required .. . Amount Budgeted ...... . Total Project Budget SUMMARY OF ACTION: Old Business ....... . New Business ...... . Study Sessions ..... . Information......... - Approvals: Legal Dept. ...... . Finance Dept.. ... . Other. ............. . Transfer/Amendment.. .... . Revenue Generated ........ . City Share Total Project. x x X Accept dedication of an additional 17.S feet of right-of-way for the widening of Bremerton Avenue NE located on the eastern boundary of the Ridgeview Court Plat, LUA04-131, property. This dedication is a condition of the plat, which was approved by City Council on May 9, 200S. The dedication of this right-of-way fronting Ridgeview Court is also a condition for the recording of the Elmhurst Final Plat, LUAOS-090, which abuts the Ridgeview Court property to the south. In an effort to coordinate the construction of these developments and to meet the conditions of these two final plats, Council acceptance of said right-of-way is requested. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Deed of Dedication. CIDocumen!s and SeuingslmneumannlLocal SeuingslTempIRidgeview Court Pia! 03m AGNBILL.doc I ~ j' It Return Address: City Clerk's Office City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 DEED OF DEDICATION Project File #: Property Tax Parcel Number: 518210-0042 Street Intersection: Reference Number(s) of Documents assigned or released: Additional reference numbers are on page __ . Grantor(s): Grantee(s): 1. Rid eview Court L.L.C. 1. Cit of Renton, a Munici al Co oration LEGAL DESCRIPTION: (Abbreviated or full legal must go here. Additional legal on page ) The East 17.50 feet of the following parcel. The south half of the east half of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington; EXCEPT all coal and mineral rights as contained in reservation of record, and known as a portion of Tract 4, of Martin's Acre Tracts, EXCEPT the east 75 feet of the said tract. The Grantor, for and in consideration of mutual benefits conveys, quit claims, dedicates and donates to the Grantee(s) as named above, the above described real estate situated in the County of King, State of Washington. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal the day and year as written below. CORPORATE FORM OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT Notary Seal must be within box Grantee(s): City of Renton STATE OF COUNTY OF Mayor City Clerk ) )SS ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Pd:x>r+ 'P. \...\..'C?~L\ is the person who appeared before me and said person acknowledged that be.. signed this instrument, on oath stated that nR was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the Met t-)% {"r of . e..u\€ C+ ~="""'.1.!.!..~""""=--"-''''''''''+-<'''''''''''''''-!.....!....3'''''''''--_' to be the free and voluntary and purposes mentioned in the instniment. (Signature) ~ ~ Print Notary Name: C'c\ \(,.< Residing atS3eAro<.:)H. C'\ L C1c.C\L wA- My appointment expires: __ ~ __ ' _d-"----,--'--.--==O~~-=:..... ___ _ Exhibit A Legal Description THE EAST 17.50 FEET OF THE FOLLOWING PARCEL. THE SOUTH HALF OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 15, TOWNSlllP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASIDNGTON; EXCEPT ALL COAL AND MINERAL RIGHTS AS CONTAINED IN RESERVATION OF RECORD, AND KNOWN AS A PORTION OF TRACT 4, OF MARTIN'S ACRE TRACTS, AN UNRECORDED PLAT; EXCEPT THE EAST 7.5 FEET OF THE SAID TRACT. · ' , \ , EXHIBIT MAP . N88~06'17"W 316.02' 1 I i 17.50' DEDICAT10N~ 0 .30 eo I I I t INCIf -eo 30' 30' r ~ Z o .~ . i0 ~ o /Xl ci 1'1): "'I~ ,~ I~ I I I I I 316.33' t~ -L------------------~~~--~~---------r-~.O~, t.· N66'09'35"W ~ 1 January 25, 2005 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON Minutes APPLICANT: LOCATION: SUMMARY OF REQUEST: SUMMARY OF ACTION: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: PUBLIC HEARING: Cliff Williams, PE PO Box 240] Kirkland, W A 98083 Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat File No:: LUA 04-]3], PP, SA-H, ECF 327 Bremerton Avenue NE Approval for Site Plan, Preliminary Plat and Code Modification for subdividing a 2.4-acre site into 20 lots for development of single-family dweJlings. Development Services Recommendation: Approve subject to conditions The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on December 28, 2004. After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining available infonnation on file with the application, field checking the property and surrounding area; the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as foHows: MINUTES The following minutes are a. summary of the January 4, 2005 hearing .. The legal re(:ord is record~d on CD. . The hearing opeJiedon Tuesday, January 4,2005, at approximately 9:00 a,ffi. in the Council Chamblrs on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affinned by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No.1: yellow file containing the original Exhibit No.2:· Neighborhood Detail Map application, proof of posting, proof of publication and other documentation pertinent to this request ... Exhibit No.3: Preliminary Plat Plan Exhibit No.4: Preliminary Site Plan Exhibit No_ 5: Revised Site Plan showing 26' Private· Exhibit No.6: Topography Map Access and Utility Easement Exhibit No.7: Tree Cutting/Clearing Plan Exhibit No. 8: Landsc~l!g Plan fr Ridgeview Court Preliminary I-'I;h File No.: LUA-04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF January 25, 2005 Page 2 Exhibit No.9: Grading Plan Exhibit No. 11: Elevation Plan for Lots 5,6, 15 & 16 Exhibit No. 13: Elevation Plan for Lots 3,9 & 12 Exhibit No. 15: Elevation Plan for Lots 10 & 18 Exhibit No. 17: Elevation Plan for Lots 1, ]] & 19 Exhibit No. 10: Utility Plan Exhibit No. 12: Elevation Plan for Lots 2 & 20 Exhibit No. 14: Elevation Plan for Lot 13 Exhibit No. 16: Elevation Plan for Lots 4, 7, 8, ]4 &- 17 Exhibit No. 18: Zoning Map The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Nancy Wei I, Senior Planner, Development Services, City of Renton, ] 055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055. The site is located south ofNE 4th Street and to the west of Bremerton Avenue NE. Approval for site plan, preliminary plat for 20 lots on a 2.4- acre site for the eventual development of single-family dwellings. Access tothis site off of Bremelton, which will require improvements, is proposed by a public street (NE 3rd Lane) to end in a cul-de-sac plus additional easements that will radiate from that cul-de-sac. There are no protected critical areas and it is vested to the development regulations for the Center Suburban (CS) zoning and is located in the Centers Residential Bonus District B. The zoning did change in November of 2004, however the filing for this preliminary plat was before the changes and so is vested to the CS zone. The currenfzoning is CN. Two street modifications were requested and approved, one a reduced right-of-way width of 42 feet and second a reduced'radius on the cul-de-sac of 50 feet. Three private access easements will extend off ofNE 3rd Lane to serve access to all 20 lots. Lots 9 - ] 3 wiJ) have rear entry garages with front of each lot facing ea~1 with an ] 8- foot pedestrian access to the front ofthose lots. The site is relatively flat with a berm located near the southeast comer of the site. There is some loose fill but has been deemed suitable for the proposed development. The site is vegetated with blackberry bushes, small deciduous and coniferous trees which are to be removed as part ofthe site preparation .. An additional modification from the Suburban Centers Residential Bonus DistrictB would allow greater front yard setbacks for lots 8 through 13 rather than the maximum ] 5 feet permitted in the CS zone. 1 The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M) with seven mitigation measures. No appeals were filed. The preliminary plat criteria for the Comprehensive Plan Designation was in compliance for this development. /-The minimum yard area provided would comply with the land area per dwelling unit. There are no minimum requirements for lot width or depth within the CS zone. All lots meet the maximum lot coverage of 65%. The proposal meets all the setback requirements. The net density of ] 2.42 dwelling units per acre is within the allowed density range of the CS zone. Based on the bujlding elevations provided by the applicant, the proposed residential structures would comply with, or possibly exceed the requirements of Bonus District B of the Centers Residential Overlay. There are seven elevations for this site, all are two-story with rear or side entrance garages. Landscaping, access and parking meet or exceed the requirements of the Bonus District B and are in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-J 31, PP, SA-H, ECF January 25, 2005 Page 3 The lot arrangements as well as size, shape and orientations are all in compliance, meeting the minimum width and area requirements. The lots are at 90-degree angles, some of the structures will be facing a different direction, they seem to flow welL There will be no direct vehicular access onto Bremerton from any of the proposed Jots. The applicant is required to dedicate right-of-way for the improvement for Bremerton Avenue. Twenty-four feet is currently shown for the private access easement, staff has discussed this with the applicant and they are in agreement that this could be reduced to function more as a private alJeyway, which a])ows a minimum of 16 feet in width with 14 feet of pavement. As long as 24-feet of back out area is provided for each garage, the staff feels that the reduced width of the street will lend itselfto an alleyway residential look rather than 3plitting up the tier of lots. This also gives a larger yard area to those lots. Staff recommends the establishment of a homeowner's association or maintenance agreement for the landscaped right-of-way improvements, as well as for any shared private utilities/drainage facilities or private access and utility easements and to include the private pedestrian access easement. The surrounding properties to the west, north and eaSt are zOned CS. To the south is a proposed single-family residential development with existing sil)gle-family to the southeast in R-8 zoning. Anacortes Avenue NE will act .as a buffer between the proposed single-family homes along the western property line and the existing commercial use (Post Office site) on the abutting property. Traffic, Fire and Park mitigation fees·were imposed by the ERC. The subject site is located within the Renton School District and they have indicated that they can handle the proposed 8 new students from the new development . The site is located within the Cedar River Basin. The applicant has submitted a Drainage Report that indicates that on-site surface water would be directed to a storrnwater detention facility located in the southwest comer of the site. The drainage analysis and design of the stormwater system appears to be in accordance with the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual Level 2 flow control requirements. The project will require the installation of new water mains, fire hydrants, fire control systems, and meterS, all to be placed within City held easements. The project would require a new sewer main along the site frontage and new sewer mains as required to serve the new single-family lots. ? In regards to the Site Plan Criteria, the project is in compliance with the policies and objectives ofthe Comprehensive Plan. Land use regulations with mOdifications are in compliance as well. The seven house plans for the 20 lots are sufficient to lend variation to the project. This site will also blend with the commercia], mixed use and transition well into the resideritial uses to the south. This development should not have any negative impacts to the surrounding property owners. The site does require clearing and all existing structures to be removed. Staff recommends approval of the Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat subject to conditions. Cliff Williams, 5326 SW Manning Street, Seattle, WA 98] 16 stated that he is an employee of the developer and they are satisfied with the recommendations that the City has provided. Kevin Chamberlin, 18930 451h Place NE, Lake Forest Park, W A 98155. manager of the Renton Highlands Station of the US Postal Service that will be adjacent to Lots 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13. This use for that property , , Ridgeview Court Preliminary Pial File No.: LUA-04-13I, PP, SA-H, ECF January 25, 2005 Page 4 will be a great improvement for the neighborhood, however, the Post Office will have an impact 011 them. There are semi-tractor trailer rigs that come into the property at all hours of the day and night TIley all enter and leave through a driveway that will take them next the above-mentioned lots. It is most likely that these people will feel an impact from this traffic. Some of the trailers come in as early as 1 :00 am in December and at 3: J 5 am the rest of the year. They continue at intervals throughout the day along with a Jot of other truck traffic. There is a gravity operated dock plate system (used to unload the trucks) that makes quite a bit of noise and it cannot be modified in any way. There also are 39 delivery vehicles that are required to be inspected each morning between 6:30 and 7:30 am. Part of the vehicle inspection is a short sounding of the hom. (Mr. Chamberlin drew the location of the delivery trucks on the vicinity map) Bob Wenzl, 636 Lake Sammamish Lane NE, Bellevue, W A 98008 stated that he is the owner of Ridgeview Court LLC. He is completely aware of the post office site there, he knows where most of the vehicles and work 'that will be going on in that neighborhood. It is anticipated that the property to the north will be a commercial type of zone. Theyare confident that the post office and the new residents will make good neighbors. Juliana Fries, Development Services the report given is accurate and the Level 2 Storm Water detentiori is adequate. The Examiner stated that it would be necessary to address the post office concerns, the developer may be comfortable with the situation, but the future buyers of these homes may not. What enhancements cap. be provided? Ms. Weil pointed out besides the difference in the grade and the 26-foot easement the structures to first be impacted will be the garages. Bedrooms will be upstairs, looking over the garages and subject to the noises that could be generated at 1 :00 am and 3:00 am. Once property owners take possession of the property, they may wish to enhance that back area, no additional requirements have been made for landscaping. No additional· . fencing has been required along this property line, but certainly it could be done. Me. Wenzl stated that they had no concerns about providing a fenee or some kind of hedge screening if the space is available. A 6-foot fence would be appropriate. Again there is the elevation change from the parking lot approximately a 6 to 10-foot drop from their parking structures to the large rockery along that easterly property line. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at approximately 9:48a.m. ;; FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Exaininer now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant, Ridgeview Court, LLC, filed a request for a Site Plan Review approval and a 20-lot Preliminary Plat. There was also a request to modify the front yard setback for homes in the project. 2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit # 1. 3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City'S responsible official issued a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M). ' .. Ridgeview COllrt Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF January 25, 2005 Page 5 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject site is located at 327 Bremerton Avenue NE. The subject site is located on the west side of Bremerton Avenue a half-block south ofNE 4th Street-Union Avenue NE is located west of the subject site. 6. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan was changed in November 2004. The area in which the subject site is located was designated for the development of Commercial Center uses but is now designated for Commercial Corridor. 7. Policy H-90 states: "Identify sites within mixed-use areas, which are appropriate for residential developments ... Policy H-85 states: "Provide homeownership opportunities in all neighborhoods." 8. The subject site is currently zoned CN (Center Neighborhood) but was zoned CS (Center Suburban) when the application was submitted. The applicant is vested under the prior regulations which allow a density of 10 to 20 units per acre for residential development. The minimum lot area for single family uses in the prior CS zone were 1,200 square feet of which 250 square feet must be landscaped yard. The subject site was also located in the ~rea B Suburban Centers Residential Demonstration Djstrict and is governed by additional Site Plan Review criteria. 9. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance ]480 enacted in April 1954. ] O. The subject site is approximately 2.4 acres or ] 04,373 square feet. It is almost square and is approximately 330 feet wide (north to south) along Bremerton and 316 feet deep. 1]. The subject site is relatively level with a berm in thesoutheaSt corner where slopes range from 15 to 24 percent. The berm appears to be a result of grading on the adjacent parcel of land. The site~::: also approximately eight (8) feet higher than the adjacent parcel to the west. . .. . 12. The area contains a mix of uses and undeveloped property. The relatively new Post Office is located directly west of the north half of the subject site. 13. The applicant proposes removing all vegetation, blackberry, and deciduous and conifer trees from the subject site to allow development ofthe building pads, roads and driveways. The applicant may import approximately 4,800 cubic yards of fill material to grade the site and roads. ] 4. The applicant proposes dividing the subject site into 20 single-family lots that will contain detached single-family homes. The lots will be arranged around a series of private roads, alley-like roads and easements that originate from a new roadway that terminates in a cul-de-sac. Basically, a series of dead end roads wi II be created otT of a dead end cul-de-sac. Ridgeview Court Preliminary t'lar File No.: LUA-04-JJ I, PP, SA-H, ECF January 25, 2005 Page 6 15. Administrative approval was granted to allow the cul-de-sac street's width to be reduced to 42 feet and the radius of the cul-de-sac to be reduced to 50 feet. Staff noted that the ·applicant would have to] [ dedicate 17.5 feet to the widening of Bremerton which currently does not meet Cit!, standards. 16. The three private easements will extend north and south from the new cul-de-sac street. l1le proposed lots along Bremerton, Proposed Lots 1-3 and 18-20 would take their access off the first of these easements rather than Bremerton. These lots would be rear-loaded from this alley. Proposed Lots 4-7 and 14-I 7 wou Id use the second of the easements_ Lots wou Id face each other across th is easement roadway (see attached maps). Finally, a new private street, labeled Anacortes Avenue NE, would provide access to Proposed Lot 8 and the storm drainage tract on the south and Proposed Lots 9-J3 on the north. Staff has recommended that the 24~foot private street parallel ing the rear of homes that front Bremerton be reduced to a 16-foot alley width with 14 feet of paving and 24-feet of backout space to decrease impervious surface and create a private street appearance. 17. The density for the plat would be. I 2.42 dwelling units per acre after subtracting roadway areas. 18. The homes would be two-stories_ The dwelling or building groupings would vary from those along Bremerton being traditional facing a street, to the interior groupings facing a kind of courtyard private street, to those in the rear facing an interior street. Sidewalks could connect all of the units to one another and through the private easements to the public street. 19. The CS zone permits a lot coverage of 65% whereas a lot coverage of not more than 44% is proposed for this complex. A front yard setback of between ]0 and 15 feet is required. Staffhas granted a modification that allows a setback for Propos~ Lots 8 to ) 3 to have a greater setback to allow . pedestrian access and rear access garages on a 26-foot wide private street. 1\ minimum side yard of3 feet with no projections is reqUired unless there is abutting residential zoning. The R -10 district south of the subject site will require a ] 5-foot setback on Proposed Lots 1, 5, 6and 8. 20. The District B overlay guidelinesrequire building fonns to contain both vertical and horizontal modulations at a min.imum widthof2 feet at intervals of 40 feet as well as individual private entry features. It appears thatthebuildings will comply with these requirements. Two enclosed parkirig spaces that open onto a non-front facade and away from arterial streets will be provided as required. 2] . The applicant wiJI be providing the required 250 feet of landscaped area on each lot. Candscaping will . .~ consist of lawn, and a mix of conifer arid deciduous trees and shrubs. . 22. The subject site is located within the Renton School District The project is expected to generate approximately 8 school age children. These students would be spread across the grades and would be assigned on a space available basis. 23. The development will increase traffic approximately 200 vehicle trips per day and add approximately 20 trips to each peak hour travel period: 24. Stonnwater would be contained in the southwest corner ofthe subject site in Tract A. The plat would comply with the] 998 King County Surface Water Design Manual, Level 2 flow requirements. 25. Sewer and water would be provided by the City. Appropriate extensions of the water and sewer mains would be required. Ridgeview Court Preliminary PIa! File No.: LUA-04-13), PP, SA-H, ECF January 25, 2005 Page 7 26. The Manager of the adjacent Post Office testified that the post office has 39 delivery vehicles. Postal ,,:mployees start-up each of the 39 vehicles and test their horns between 6:30 A.M. and 7:30 A.M. He also testified that large tractor trailer rigs arrive at the post office site at I :00 A.M. during the month of December and 3: 15 A.M. the rest of the year, as well as other hours during a 24-hour day. They arriv~ near the rear of the post office site which would place them along the western or rear edge of the subject property. They can make quite a lot of noise as they park and then depart as well as during their loading or unloading operations in which gravity activated dock plates are used (while this was not spelled out, it appears that rather than use some potentiallyquiet hydraulic system, the large plates merely fall and clang into place). Large trucks also may have backup beepers as safety equipment. During busier seasons such as Christmas there can be quite a lot of nighttime traffic at the site. He expressed his concerns that residents of the subject site's new dwellings would be disturbed by the noise, especially during what would normally be sleep hours. He does not want to have to deal with complaints that he is sure will be generated by the normal post office operations if residential housing is constructed so close to the post office. He did support a change to the neighborhood from development but was concerned about the impacts noise would have on the proposed single-family homes. 27. The applicant indicated that they were aware ofthe noise issue and that they believe distance, approximately 40 to 50 feet between the roadway and setbacks, as well as a grade separation ;:;oupled with a fence and landscaping will minimize any problems with noise disturbing residents. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary Plat ] . First, this proposal includes two components. The first one is a Preliminary Plat on which this office makes a recommendation to the City Council. The second component is a Site Plan review since the proposed plat will be used for single-family detached homes and is, therefore, governed by the Centers Residential Bonus District B. This office finds itself in a difficult role in making a recommeodation to the City Council on this project. The proposed plat that willaIlowsingle family uses on the subject site does not appear to serve the public use and interest. Under thosecircumstances, the proposed plat should be denied by the City Council. 2. . The compelling issue in this case is one of-untoward noise or noises ata time or actually, times of day, 3. when they are or can be exceptionaUy disturbing. The representative of the Post Office has iJldicated that uses on the post office site are almost completely incompatible with a residential quality» of life. Tractor trailer rigs and other large trucks and vans will be coming and going from the post office site during all hours of the day and night. The trucks are loud. Backup beepers may be employed. Truck and pOst office doors will be opening and closing during various operations. These aspects of the neighboring uses make use of the subject site for single family or any residential use problemE.tic. At the same time, free-market concepts suggest that a property owner should be able to do what they want with their property. But in this case the current owner would develop homes and sell those homes to third parties who may not be in a position to know about the potential impacts created by the adjacent post office. The City has an obligation to make sure that it does not allow incompatible uses to be developed adjacent to one another. That is one of the primary purposes of Zoning and Land Use regulations. It does not necessarily matter if the parties may agree to such uses. There is an overriding public policy that governs such matters. ]n this case, the current developer may be well-aware, as he states, of the nature of the adjacent uses but that does not mean some innocent purchaser who views the properties during daylight, or even during the evening will be made aware of traffic and noises that erupt in the dead of night, between] :00 A.M. to 3:00 A.M. Not everyone visits their potential Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF January 25, 2005 Page 8 neighborhood at such hours or even perhaps at 6:30 A.M. when postal delivery trucks are started, tested and horns sounded. . 4. This is certainly one of those situations that calls for a transition from more intense, in this case 24-hour uses, to less intense uses. The subject site might be more suitable for a commercial or office use. It does not appear suitable for a single-family use. A mere fence or wall and landscaping even coupled with some distance will not provide sufficient buffering to make it easy to sleep during periods of heavy activity at the adjacent site. Noise that might fade into the ambient noises of a vibrant neighborhood during the day can be extremely disturbing or disruptive when those noises occur during very quiet times. The City certainly does not want its future residential homes to be blighted by the adj"cent llses. Usually, the question is the opposite -that the development will not create blight and will r~ctify blight. But the impacts from next door cannot be ignored. They cannot but have a negative impact on the quality of life for anybody living adjacent to the postoffice. 5. The Comprehensive Plan contains Policy H-90. That policy requires the City to: "Identify sites within mixed-use areas, which are appropriate for residential developments." While Policy H-85 states: "Provide homeownership opportunities in all neighborhoods." These policies are not necessarily conflicting and H-85 should not be read to say that residential uses have to be provided everywhere in all neighborhoods. Context is still important. The overriding concern should be to identifY appropriate sites where residential development is appropriate. Should an undesirable housing situation be created where sleep patterns would be disturbed by the arrival of larger tractor trailer rigs in the middle of the night or twice during the night? Should residents automatically be awakened whether they want to be or not by posta'i employees starting up 39 vehicles and testing their horns between 6:30 A.M. and 7:30 A.M. six days a week? If populations in the area increase, wiIJ there be a commensurate increase in delivery trucks being tested at that time of the morning? Will residents be able to sleep through the noises, said to be quite loud, of gravity operated dock plate systems at I :00 A.M. or 3:00 A.M. when deliveries oCcur? It seems that the proposed loc~.tion is not one of those "mixed-use areas, which are appropriate for residential developments. fI ~ } 6. Of course, one could cynically conclude that the deleterious nature ofthe post office's use would result in the single-family homes being priced more modestly, thereby creating a new stock of more affordable homes. There is also an issue which this office cannot truly address of whether the post office's use might in fact constitute a nuisance that adversely affects the applicant's use of their property. The nature of the City Zoning Code though plays a part when it allows potentially disparate uses adjacent to one another. But that is where the City's discretion'in regulating, Jimiting or conditioning uses comes into play. While the Zoning under which the applicant seeks approval permits single family uses in this mixed-use area, it does not mandate they be permitted. It would allow such use only after considering the site and its surroundings. Analysis needs to be done. The Code does not mandate that these uses be crafted abutting each other. First, one has to consider whether the plat and site plan are in the public use and interest. This office has to conclude that, as now proposed, the public use and interest is not served by the proposal. 7. Based on the above analysis, the recommendation, hard as it is to reach, is that the City Council should deny the proposed Preliminary Plat. . Ridgeview COllrt Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF January 25, 2005 Page 9 8. If on the other hand, the City Council concludes that the plat serves the public Lise and interc&t it might seek to impose some conditions that could help the potential purchasers form a knowledgeable decision. One solution might be to include a set of covenants that require that all sales literature and the face of the plat include information that the post office operations may create loud noises during the course of a day and that such noise might interfere with sleep in units located on the subject site. That will avoid the situation of potential purchasers seeing the subject site and its homes during the day and not have any realization that the post office operations occur during the night and such operations might make sleep difficult or disturbed. Obviously, this still allows units that may be severely affected by the noise to be built as opposed to finding a better use for the site that would not be affected by nocturnal noise, such as another commercial use. 9. This office therefore, would again recommend that the City Council deny a residential plat on the subject site butthat if it chooses to approve this proposed plat, that it adopt some strict disclosure requirements. As the Post Office Manager noted, he really is not going to be happy fielding questions and complaints about the operations from future residents that this applicant acknowledges but that innocent purchasers will not be as knowledgeable about. Site Plan 10. The Site Plan is denied as the property should not be platted as proposed and the site plan is therefore, inappropriate. This office will provide an alternative decision on the Site Pian in order to allow the proposal to proceed if the City Council decides to approve the proposed Preliminary Plat. 11. In the eventthat the City Council determines that the Preliminary Plat should be approved, this office , will review th~proposed Site Plan. The site plan review will treat this analysis as ifthe plat were approved for 20 lots as proposed by the appHcant. As noted above, if the plat and site plan are approved, there should be disclosures regarding the nature of the noise that might be generated on the adjacent post office site as well as the timing of those noises. In addition, clearly, buffering this site from those noises should be considered an important matter to assure some quality of residential living . . ~ j 12. Residential uses are permitted in this general area by the Comprehensive Plan. Integration of single family uses then depends on mitigating the impacts of adjacent uses on the site so that it possesses residential amenities. The Comprehensive Plan suggests buffering incompatible uses from one another, particulai-ly; if transitional uses cannot be used to separate the disparate uses. 13. The twenty proposed homes meet the Zoning Code's former R-5 Zoning District's density requirements. The applicant is proposing appropriate setbacks from streets and adjacent properties including the larger buffer required between this site and its southerly, R-] 0 neighbor. A requested deviation from the maximum front yard setback of] 5 feet to one of28-feet aJ)ows for pedestrian and vehicular access and appears reasonable with the proposed courtyard layout and streetscape. The lots each provide their allotment of landscaped open space. 14. The development of the subject site will create construction related impacts but those will disappear once the project is complete. There will be some additional traffic generated by the development but that should not create any substantial impacts on the transportation corridors. In addition, a traffic mitigation fee will help offset any impacts. As noted in the earlier plat discussion, there could be Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-IJI, PP, SA-H, ECF January 25, 2005 Page 10 impacts on the operations of the adjacent post office in the way of complaints about noise. In order to lessen some of the impacts, a sound barrier masonry wall should be erected along the north and west property lines of the subject site. Such wall should be designed by acoustical engineers to provide noise attenuation. In addition, landscaping should be installed to further assist in noise reduction and limiting the visual cues which playa part in noise perception. The two-story homes and grade difference will make it hard to limit noise penetration to the subject site. 15. The site plan appears to make reasonable use of the subject site. The buildings provide a reasonable amount of separation from one another. The buildings contain the necessary Demonstration District modulation and articulation as well as side or rear loading garages. ] 6. There are urban services such as sewer and water available to serve the 20 new homes. Mitigation fees, to offset impacts to parks, have been imposed. ] 7. In conclusion, this office recommends that the City Council deny the proposed plat and site plan as incompatible with the adjoining post office operation and an inappropriate use of property that even though zoned CS is not well-located to afford the residentiaramenities that should be guaranteed by traditional zoning demarcations and land use development criteria. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should deny the proposed plat. DECISION: The Site Plan is denied as the property should not be platted as proposed and the site plan is therefore, inappropriate. 1. Alternative Recommendation and Decision Ifthe City Council approves the Preliminary Plat then the Site Plan should be approved subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall comply with the conditions imposed by the ERC. 2. The-'applicailt shaH execute restrictive covenants that require all sales literature and sales listings initialJyand subsequently to note the location of the post office and that the post office operations may create loud noises during the course of a night and very early morning hours six (6) days a week and that such noise might interfere with sleep in units located on the subject site. 3. Corresponding language about the post office noise shall be included on the face of the plat. 4. The applicant shall construct a sound barrier masonry wall along the north and west property lines of the subject site. Such wall should be designed by acoustical engineers to provide noise attenuation. In addition, landscaping shall be installed to further assist in noise reduction and is designed to limit the visual cues which playa part is noise perception. 5. The applicant shall revise the plat to reflect the easement along the rear of lots 1 through 3 and 18 through 20 to be an alley right-of-way with a width of] 6 feet with a minimum of 14 feet of pavement. Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF January 25,2005 Page II The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division prior to the recording of the final plat. 6. The applicant shall be required to post the 26-foot private access easement (Anacortes Avenue NE) with "No Parking" signage on each side. Staff recommends the applicant shall comply with this requirement to the satisfaction of the Development Services Division prior to the recording of the final plat. 7. A homeowner's association or maintenance agreement shall be created concurrently with the recording of the final plat in order to establish maintenance responsibilities for landscaped right-of-w:Jy improvements, as well as for any shared private utilities/drainage facilities or private acce~s and utility· easements to include the private pedestrian access easement. The satisfaction of this requirementshall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division prior to the recording of the final plat. 8. The applicant shall obtain a demolition permit and complete all inspections and approvals for all buildings located on the property prior to the recording ofthe final plat. The satisfaction of this requirement is subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Project ManageL ORDERED THIS 25day of January 2005. FRED J. KAUF N HEARING EXA INER TRANSMITTED TIllS 251h day of January 2005 to the parties of record: NancyWeil 1055 S Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 Juliana Fries 1055 S Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 Cliff Williams 5326 SW Manning Street Seattle, WA 98116 Kevin Chamberlin 18930 45th Place NE Lake Forest Park, WA 98155 TRANSMITTED TIllS 25th day of January 2005 to the following: -Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler .Stan Engler, Fire Bob Wenzl 636 Lake Sammamish Lane NE Bellevue, W A 98008 Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer . Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Larry Warren, City Attorney Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transportation Division .Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Arex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services Utilities Division Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services King County Journal .' / Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat File N(L LUA-04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF January 25, 2005 Page 12 Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section JOOGofthe City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., February 8, 2005. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, afterreview of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requiresthat such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies ofthis ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., February 8, 2005. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirementfor Restrictive Covenants, the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications mayoccur concerning pending land use .decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not commr,nicate in private with any decision:maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use proces!; include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court~ The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing butto all Requests for Reconsideration as weUas Appeals to the City Counci" ; f d. ., , i 10 T23N R5E W 112 NE 4th Sl. CA CA eA CA CA CA . .R-IO CA. __ . : CA cpJ -R-IO ~-.-----+----~~ r:LI :---. :.fD.-R-IQ:(P) -.-. -..... ---- -~l---:--:~--~:-;; ----R---. --1-ID-~~ .. - RMH RC(P) " .. : t ::_~_ .. _._ CP) G6 ' 27., TI3N R5E W 112 R-8 6-!:t' "yo F 6 1:4&00 . u ::J ~ h :l. ~8 ~ U i ~ B ~ % ! t:;~ i ~~ 1 uli:l ~" t~ Il~ 0Jlil I': 1 t!I I .-, i tl & ~ ~I ! t • , 'i 8!OTION 111 TOWNaHI,. 24 HOPITH PlANci! , lAST W.t.I. ~ l I I ; \( WIG LI ; j ... I { ~~ I ( . ~ ( ,an •• ~ ''It;; "+m..., . r" I ahu ~:~ .~ I '''210 1&210 1018 i 1~'Jl I 518210 % 0020 III~I I At~~ ~ 616210·001) •• 6" .... " \1&2'0 ooao 511210.0011 'S'-<; ~ 518210 0031 '003& 0041 I st·! $ ';:III SITE 1523060;034 _ .... , 15230s-g038 jO,"/OO.l )-~ ~ 152305-0212 jW 152305 9076 152305 9032 (3.11 Ao.) 152:105 920e ,0.7&/1&,) 'S'~8210 w 152305 ,00.aM' en . >. w 1111\0 ~[ 411210 0 « 9030 . ~ ----1--_-1 ! ooeQ ooee ('I ..r:::. (2.14 ,I.e.) 1~230S.g21~ 112301 ...... -, ........ , ;048·:5 ---' NE 2nd PL __ ._. __ . __ ._. __ : ~ ..... Ml ~ '''''/1&,) 518210 0051 Am.rloan "'tl" • .,. • 'WI ... ,. I Iwrw..,.... EQ! Aeeaoy,u ~~~~n:r~:~o" ~~~ .. ~"~~ ~ __ --_ ....... .. .... .. - 'MtNt (UtI Wi·' .... r.. Un) "I."~I .. ....1If~ .. '''''---··\l1I1't)"'t"', ..... ,."I\h"'tllr .... I,'. _ "U~~ M 152305 9213 (1.12,1.0.) unol 8214 ttAl~ 15230s-g216 ' .... M) 15.230s-g038 jO,N/OO.l 152305 9015 (<I.lI1AC.) ~--. ;;:'4-;;' .. , , \,' 152305 9002 (1.33,1.0.) ~ , ., ,C"'l.IOIl~"'" ,Q, ,Jii _iN n. ~ C NCIOHBC HAP, 1 . Ace 110 u .J §~ ~i5 3 ~u e:~ c.. 8 '"" ..,~ c;, ~ .. i u..z 00 f-i:~ I u~ 1 ~I I\~ I, a II OWNE8!~eYELopgR' ~1~Ot'l1CW cou~ \.I.e CONI.CI,f.lJIT1IU.U.U1 '.'. 101 J'~ ~'-(I."'O. 'u l~l.'~1 hOoo'I (J,II/it-Ilil REGISTERED ENGINEER: .. ·'." ... 'IfCIooCC ..... '6II'0A.no. '0,,"(1 t .. cu\ ...... , 0./13)11'1'10.'0( ... ( '(O"~.WlIUU ' .. 601': 11111111.'1)0 \,ANO SURVEXOR "'UIC'O/'N'INCC~"",'ountIH 'Ollh¢!: Ul.fQINIU'NI(,. ~OH '''1M 410(. II( l[~."'uO'1 hl~t: {lUI u, .. hU bEqAL peSCRIPTION ,,1 '.t.CIftC H0A1'It~n 11M lUOAf, WCA NO ~ou., 041(0 (U Il, lOO.!. lHe IOU'H IU.V CI !HI tAlT HMJ' 01 'Wc "'0111"(451 01 I'M, HOAf)oW(1f OVMtClII Of h., foIOAI'MWCH OU."t" or Ue'hON Ii. IO_~ U NOAn.. hHOC • tloSl, w,w., "" (I"" GOVNT"T, W"'''''",4UON) 'JCC" ... ~~ CO.,U 01.11/0 WINC'4\. "loti" COHI .. wl'O ,,, IIUt"Y."'I~ 01 .'COAtl, ANti K"'O ..... s ... 'CAnON 01 '''''''',0' WUlIH', ... CIII, ' .... ca, .Nu ... .lltC~OCD'l4t: . Crcc" ,,,, CU' J.t rcn tJI S.uO ~.lC1. BENCH MARK TO' Of cOOle 1010,., OO~ 0," .. eoUr ,I.' ,,,, GOOlUIIIVCl(O IHrt 01 H' 4IH IT (U, IUTH HI ""'~ 1(0'" ,WI: U, (H,W, tOA ICC .i), , .. CV4'1(»II.OI.0I' M .... 'lew al"r Of a.CMtOH (OH'''O .. IHet1l, I'OIto'I "o~ VEIl.1ICAL DATUM "AVO •• HORIZONT"', DATUM ..... SNI .. "001 Sh'C ' ..... c, OIOAf" Io..t. ' .... Cll/II --'-x- 1 ~l~J'; Jqi 1!!1 BUILDING / LANDSCAPE TABLE I J,il/jl~11 I .~ ~Ol , .. 0'"'' ......... , ....... , (if) .bU(II') co~~ out ., Itl0 ,11 I lIG6sr ItlO '" 1 4'U" 1110 ... ).)1111 U.O '" · lJ'41r II" '" · , .. t" ·nlt II I Jt"CI "" , .. · IoUI I' '" " · StU If 'flO , .. " 410" '" " " .l,ts' IflO .. ., 13iOir UIC. .. " ,ou,r IOd ... .. )"'" IOU '" .. f'''sr .... ... " 11"" "" ... " .HU" ItlO m " i'.u,' I1\D ". .. )100" lilO ,,, " Hoi S' I1Ul , .. !:!.Qli IIt'(~ Ie "oUIo.IC.'( ~"'''1 • ., Of"'.' lOA en ... ",o \ ..... O'ICIo.' ... ' OCItOH/I.IooYOUf. Am.rloan 6nol", •• rlno CorporaUon '",*,(41£1"'-"" ,.,(4UI''''"'"11 1\I"lillih~-",,""'.\IIIlIwl""'IIr'I4JI*U.II'/l"'''I''''WM)1iWIt " ... iii ~ ... _ 4AC.l (U) .. " ,."., .,1 Ill4J, ,,, 1"'" ... u" V , .. U"J, '" .,' ... 10GOst , .. . . .. IU. "' 'H' " 1,ItI ". It'OI m '''I' ... It'" , . 10,)." , JtI 10JII' , .. nil " .. tlG'1f ... ·t.,. ,.. I,U It .0.1. eeCOMMeNCEQ Eoe APpROYAL III IUtb ." ''''''--._----,;-.... _-.... _- flo DOLI fl. 003U nOTION 14 TOWN8HII" U NOftTH ftANQI! I IAIT W.M. t~ OOSI \~. Tt, DOli) I. ___ ~'II'~'f "I" .. , .. I " ... tTOlloU, •• UIl IOt,.wOfc"tl>l., .. ," • "8 11 ... ".,., .... '110. I or I D if\ ~~ c f "f i ,~ t I: o~ t! I; r- ~. 11 <:: u:~·a9/c.x.' ~~~. © ~~9~V-:>Z: P'tIf.~~,o::-t'" ~a>n N3<l ·H~CJ3g E ,-...-«:o,.;;r: .. , g.lOf "MSnI 1:"SLI NV,d Ii !: :....~ .L~? M~IA39al~ .. ,>" ,. ,~ _~_·;r""""'1 , , · . II 1t1 1'1' ~iii • • • • .. I· ~I '. moo moo mOOD mooD mood moo moo moo ~-. J i. 1. ~I . . :;.F I) t r: ? .. I) I) ~ .. ~ It"· (%.(~ :>-r-o( 1)( .1: ... r . t It i n ~ . i u it·:r~ i' t~r!1 ~~ ~ili:~.t!~ ~ ... ~ ··1'< t~i~=~l.t ... ~.1·1 ·~·i o·~ 2.H~S~3'; i ..• 0 .. ~ ! l«,r:~" i= %:0,0 .. 01 x ~~:~~~S:i ,; . . .. ! . !:. ',. ~~~ 0"3 i~ .':ID .,.,rr ... _ ".,0 ! . "",G ~ ~ ~ !. . , I ,UW '~ I I I I I~ . I I==; :bj I ~i ~ • j , i -N D l" ~ -{ « " . .. . ~: J l .. G 0 .t} .0-.... \ III', •• l·t· I· ~m ~l ! ilt, .. .. " . , ~ II I .1·1 J .. t'" ., I, ~i~i ~l • J . , I , " . II ,", D C) I Ii , I , , I , , H I , I I , , I e:i I , I I , " , ~ I i , I , L--t ~ ~ . ! _ ...... 0 ~:~'c-i-€J l"~. ,.;z: .. , s:J..-of len .. =~ _ ..... -.c>Q ............. II , I I 1M f~' fiji . . , . " I ~. D 111111111 -~ I , !I l' 0 .' ~1 :l~9~? z: ~ ..... 00;;0;19 G 0 ~ jg 89LLI NV,d d ~g .l.',!:I()O? M3I.1\~9al',!:l "')0' 0' ,0 "' ~....(<:>....dI 00..0 ,----j , l , ..--I ; , I I 0 ~ ,I \J-~ II ~ ~' I I I , ~ ~ , ;0 , , , ·I!I i·,· ilil flil . . . . II I ~N D 1 ;. .-~{ « ~ .. 1. I! .. I l . , .. e 0 53 11111 0 11 .. , , • 11 !I ~, .' fl -~~ II) 0"" 0 j z o· 0 ~ 0 .... Z » ( J> j L II) I .... ~ ." J • t:: ., t '.1 B ml ~I . , . • I I fA I.. ! . t Z,i -1 ... « > IJ -I. lJi ~I ~i -0 ~! ~ I I I 1\: i i ! I ~. I I I I L---..:.- -' '. _J." ",-~.; 3~V9~"V'?l'; Nd"O ·J.-..lOO~.39 G 17"",51 NY'd _l:~(1O? M3fA=l9ClI~ H "::>.,~-' lIll ~ ~ t ~ , ~ • , . ·1 t' ~d II;' :m , , , , 0 f~ _ N ;;,A'A' , .. II'\..'\ , .. ~:] 1 ••• 0 J ., " :1 Z () !1 ~I f tl 0 ', . i II) -I-() -I Z () () t () I- z « -I ~ L ~ ~ ; I I- March 29, 2005 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON Minutes APPLICANT: CONTACT: LOCATION: SUMMARY OF REQUEST: SUMMARY OF ACTION: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: PUBLIC HEARING: Liberty Ridge LLC Attn: Mike Merlino 9125 10th Ave S Seattle, W A 98108 David L. Halinen Halinen Law Offices, P.S. 10500 NE 8th Street, Ste. 1900 Bellevue, W A 98004 Elmhurst Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA 04-162, PP, ECF 20 I, 251, & 257 Bremerton Avenue NE Approval for a 64-lot subdivision ofa multiple parcel, 9.6-acre, site intended for detached units. Development Services Recommendation: Approve subject to conditions The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on March 8, 2005. After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining available information on file with the.application, field checking the property and surrounding area; the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES Thefollowing minutes are a summary of the March 15, 2005 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, March 15,2005, at 9:3 I a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No.1: Yellow file containing the original Exhibit No.2: Neighborhood Detail Map application, proof of posting, proof of publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit No.3: Preliminary Plat Plan Exhibit No.4: Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan " " ~ Elmhurst Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-162, PP, ECF March 29, 2005 Page 2 Exhibit No.5: Grading and Drainage Plan Exhibit No.7: Zoning Map Exhibit No.9: Katie Walter, Professional Resume Exhibit No. 11: Vacation Petition to City dated 12/2712004 Exhibit No. 13: Renton City Council minutes dated 2/28/2005 Exhibit No. 15: Deed to the Foster property Exhibit No. 17: Access Easement Agreement dated March 9, 2004 Exhibit No. 19: Lawsuit, Snohomish Case Law Exhibit No.6: Existing Conditions Exhibit No.8: ERC Mitigation Measures Exhibit No. 10: Sheet 1 of Preliminary Plat drawing set showing vacation of 15.5 foot right-of-way along Bremerton A venue Exhibit No. 12: Letter from Bonnie Walton dated 3/1/2005 Exhibit No. 14: Noise Report by Mr. Jerry Lilly Exhibit No. 16: Lot Line Adjustment Exhibit No. 18: Lawsuit, Kitsap Case Law _. Exhibit No. 20: Second Grading Sheet The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Susan Fiala, Senior Planner, Development Services, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055. The site is located in the east portion of the City of Renton just south of the NE 4th corridor and to the west of Bremerton Avenue NE. The site is zoned Residential-1 O. On the site there is a Category 3 unregulated wetland located in the southwest portion of the site, which is proposed to be filled. There are two tracts proposed, Tract A in the southwest corner of the site for the storm drainage facility and Tract B which continues along the entire southwest and western edge of the property which would be a Native Growth Protection area. Maplewood Creek runs along this area and continues northward. There would be a 25-foot enhanced buffer on each side of the creek. Due to any wetland that would be potentially located within 100 feet of the site, the applicant did an assessment of this wetland in the northwest corner of the site and that is unregulated Category 3 therefore, this proposal would not be affected with that wetland. A Development Agreement was made on this site, it was approved in August of2004 with several stipulations. One, this site would be wned R-IO as well as the Comprehensive Plan Use designation of Residential-Options (RO). There are also some site-specific restrictions that state that all residential buildings must be single-family, all lots abutting the south boundary line must be 50 feet in width (Lots 23 through 29), and lastly the net density cannot exceed 10 dulac. TIle proposed density for this plat is 8.3 dulac. The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated for the project, which included fourteen mitigation measures. No appeals ofthe determination were filed. The purpose of the Residential Options designation is to create new, lower-density neighborhoods in a traditional development style while at the same time support infill development. This proposal is consistent with the Residential Options land use development and the environmental element. Elmhurst Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-162, PP, ECF Marth 29, 2005 Page 3 A net density of the development would be 8.3 dwelling units per acre, which is within the allowed range. This proposal is all detached single-family units and complies with the density and unit mix requirements for R-l 0 zonmg. All lots comply with the lot dimension requirements as well as meeting the required setbacks. The proposal's compliance with these building standards would be verified prior to the issuance of individual building permits. Several buildings and outbuildings currently exist on the site, the applicant must obtain a demolition permit and complete all inspections and approvals for all buildings prior to the recording of the final plat. The R-l 0 zone requires setback areas to be landscaped including the addition of trees and shrubs to be planted within the front yard area of all lots within the plat. The satisfaction of this condition is subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division Project Manager. The side lot line of the proposed lots are at right angles to the street line. All lots would gain acce~s to public roadways either directly, or via private driveway access easements. As proposed, Ibts comply with arrangement and access requirements of the Subdivision Regulations. Each ofthe lots satisfies the minimum lot area and dimension requirements of the R-lO zone. All lots located at the intersection of public rights-of-way would meet code, all would have a radius equal to or greater than 15 feet. Access is proposed via the Bremerton Avenue NE coming from the south through the Laurelhurst Plat. This proposed plat required two means of access, depending on the outcome of the Ridgeview Plat, north of the site along Bremerton A venue NE, it is a requirement by code that a minimum of 20 feet width of pavement and a pedestrian walkway be required along Bremerton Avenue NE from the northern property line up to NE 4'h Street. If the right-of-way required to be dedicated by the Ridgeview Court Plat is not in place prior to the recording of the Elmhurst Plat, the applicant of this plat would be required to dedicate the public right-of-way along that parcel. There also is a requirement for a dedication of a minimum of25 feet from the centerline of Bremerton Avenue NE for this subject plat. A homeowner's association or maintenance agreement is suggested for the development, which would be responsible for any common improvements and/or tracts within the plat. Traffic, Park and Fire Mitigations fees were imposed by the ERe. The subject site is located within the Renton School District boundaries and they have indicated that they can accommodate the approximately 28 new students. The storm drainage/surface water would be located in Tract A in the southwest corner ofthe property between Lots 22 and 23. In order to enhance the storm drainage tract it is to be fenced, landscaped and irrigated unless drought tolerant plants are used. The property lines of Tract A fronting Road A, Lot 22 and 23 should include a landscape visual barrier and fencing. The property lines along Lot 22 and 23 should include a six foot high solid wood fence or other approved material (no chain link), the portion to the southwest of Tract A required only the split rail fence. Staff recommends approval of the Elmhurst Preliminary Plat subject to five conditions. David Halinen, 10500 NE 8'h Street, Suite 1900, Bellevue, WA 98004 stated that he represents the owner/applicant Liberty Ridge LLC. There were a couple of questions that arose during Ms. Fiala's testimony, · . ~ Elmhurst Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-162, PP, ECF March 29, 2005 Page 4 in terms of the question of shared driveways, the applicant is planning to have individual driveways, the purchaser of the project has requested that and that is the applicant's intention to provide those driveways. Secondly, regarding the small segment of Tract A that abuts the south line of the property, they are willing to fence that in any way that the City staff would like to have it done. The applicant has reviewed the proposed conditions for approval and finds them acceptable. There was a question regarding the unregulated wetland in Tract A, Katie Walter, a wetland scientist, biologist and botanist is present today and can address that question. Katie Walter, Shannon and Wilson, 400 N 34th Street, Suite 100, Seattle, WA 98103 stated that she performed the wetlanddelineation both on this site and the site to the north back in 1998. The wetland to the north isjust offsite north along the west property boundary. It is a small wetland, just over 2,000 square feet in size. It was designated a Category 3 wetland under the City's regulations and the question was with respect to its closeness to Maplewood Creek. That creek has been channelized in the past, the area was developed early in the 1950' s, and at different periods of time the creek has been channelized and moved and it appears that long before now that wetland has become isolated from the creek. There is a dirt berm that exists between the creek and that wetland. The isolated wetland on site is slightly different in that it appears to have formed on fill as a result of a stormwater pipe that outlets near the east side of the wetland and it appears that that wetland is isolated, most of the water that gets to that wetland either infiltrates or evaporates and probably during very large storm events it may have some overland flow. The creek on site, which runs along the western property boundary has been heavily channelized, it's about four feet lower on the northern side than the site boundary depending on the amount of fill in different places on that site. On the southern portion it is six to eight feet lower than the actual site. On the northern two-thirds of that site it's been channelized along the property boundary, it's an ephemeral stream, it wasn't flowing, in fact it was completely dry in June of 2004, and in December of2004 it wasn't flowing, but there were some puddles of water. It was flowing in 1998 when she was at the site. II does flow occasionally, but mostly during storm events in the area. The buffer along the creek is heavily vegetated with blackberries with almost no native vegetation. On the southern end there are a few more trees and some native vegetation. Mr. Halinen stated that for the record, the Bremerton Avenue right-of-way abutting the site, there were three small strips ofland along the west edge of Bremerton Avenue designated as a 15.5 foot ROW to be vacated that is within proposed Lot 1. The second strip has a note that also shows 15.5 foot ROW to be vacated from Lot 46 north to Lot 42 up to proposed Road A, and finally the very south end of the site there is a note that says 7.5 foot existing ROW to be vacated, along the east edge of Lot 29. The applicant filed a petition with the City on December 27, 2004. This is a contiguous strip that Road A will cross and does not need to be vacated. This matter went before the City Council on February 28 and the Council voted to approve the requested street vacation with two conditions; area of vacation for the two northerly portions of the original request be set to a maximum vacation width of 12.5 feet and secondly, the petitioner shall provide satisfactory proof that outside utilities have received and are satisfied with any easements which are necessary to protect their facilities in the requested vacation area. Going forward with construction plans, the three-foot adjustment will be made within the lots and make everything fit. The reason that a Noise Analysis was done was in view of the Ridgeview CoLirt project to the north, there was testimony by the manager of the abutting postal facility concerning truck and delivery noises that he wanted to make the City aware of. In that particular case, the Examiner indicated a recommendation for denial of that project, or in the alternative some special conditions of approval were suggested. That matter is now on appeal to the City Council by the applicant. While the Elmhurst site is further from the postal site than the Ridgeview Elmhurst Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-162, PP, ECF March 29, 2005 Page 5 Court, it seemed prudent to have some field noise measurements taken over an extended period of time, 64 hours, so that some hard data would be available. That work was done by Jerry Lilly, who could not be here today, one of his colleagues, Michael Yantis is here today to provide an overview of the testing. Michael Yantis, Yantis Acoustical Design, 720 Olive Way, Suite 1400, Seattle, W A 9810 I stated that he was here today on behalf of Jerry Lilly. He visited the project site on Sunday, March 6 with Mr. Lilly. The noise monitoring stations were set and they were able to review both the location of the stations and the equipment that was used. Two noise-monitoring locations were set up on site, one on the north boundary of Elmhurst property and a second approximately mid point on that north boundary line. Mr. Lilly took data for approximately 64 hours between March 6 and March 9 at these two locations. Position two took hourly data and position one was continuous recording of data every 2 seconds. Primary noise sources were traffic on NE 4th Street, aircraft flyovers, and although the Post Office has been indicated as a noise source in the vicinity, the study indicated that it was not a primary noise source in the area. Mr. Yantis continued with an overview of the report. Noise codes do not specifically apply to public roadways and aircraft because these noises are exempt from the noise codes, developmental regulations help provide guidelines for jurisdictions and developers and how they might build their developments to make sure that the residents don't have noise levels that are excessive. Both Bellevue and Snohomish guidelines are based on the HUD guidelines that provide noise guidelines that are suitable for residential developments. Noise levels above 65 LON are in the less acceptable category, noise levels under 65 are generally acceptable. The C:ty of Renton also has a noise ordinance that regulates noise levels between adjacent properties. The results of the measurements that Mr. Lilly recorded show that the Ldn (day-night average) varied from 56.3 at position 2 to a high of 57.8 at position 1. They are all very close in noise level. In addition to the long-term noise levels that were measured, Mr. Lilly paid particular attention to noise levels that might be occurring from the Post Office. While he was on site, there were two events that happened, that were truck events. One event happened at 4:45 pm when a truck left the facility and beeped its horn and the other event was the arrival of a semi-truck trailer rig that traveled onto the property, dropped its tailgate and unloaded material. Both of these events, although the noise levels are identifiable, they are a little bit higher than the typical activity happening on the site during that time. Using Figures from the report, he showed how Mr. Lilly was able to assess what might be an aircraft event versus some unknown event. In summary the noise levels that Mr. Lilly measured and reported in his report are suitable for residential use. There are within the HUD guidelines, maximum noise levels are primarily due to aircraft flyovers and they are consistent with other residential areas in the vicinity. Rose Woodall, 248 Union Ave NE, Renton, WA 98059 stated that her property abuts this proposed plat at the northwest corner Ollt to Union Avenue. She has lived there 33 years and lots of changes have taken place. Her concern is that her back lot is like a park, if there is a split rail fence, it seems that children could just climb over. The City of Renton is going to build a park on the west side of Union Avenue directly across from her property, it seems that the children could cut across from this development, through her property and to the park. She would like to have a fence that kids are not going to be able to crawl over. She is concerned about her liability if the children jumped in the creek and wade across. The Examiner explained that the City does not usually require fencing between similar types of uses, in other words single family and single family. Perhaps you and the applicant can work something out, although a fence of some type is required to protect the stream buffer. , Elmhurst Preliminary Plat . File No.: LUA-04-162, PP, ECF March 29, 2005 Page 6 Cliff Williams, 5326 SW Manning, Seattle, WA 981 16 stated he was here representing the property owner of the development bordering to the northeast, known as Ridgeview Court. They are in support of this development. It represents a well planned and logical development and transition from the R-8 developments to the R-I 0 ·and then up into Ridgeview Court which has been zoned R-20. They have worked together in coordinating the site developments, the key things addressed are the road profile for Bremerton Avenue, the sewer service for Ridgeview Court, and also the grading between the property lines on the north side. They would like to complement the developer on the initiative to undertake this noise study. They find the study results very encouraging for all parties concerned. Thomas Foster, Langley Fourth Avenue Associates LLC, 5460 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 106, Seattle, WA 98188 stated that they own the property to the northwest and adjacent to the Post Office. He submitted a letter to the City staff yesterday only to encourage the staff to look at the overall development of the area when you have Ridgeview Court to the east and Elmhurst to the south. They have a small piece of property to the south of the Post Office that potentially could be landlocked based on the new zoning ofCA that happened in November. The southwest corner of the property is the end of the wetlands on the property and also the site of their storm detention pond. Some of the area has been cleared and they are currently under construction development permit with the City of Renton to complete the requirements for a Short Plat. He was encouraging the staff to look at the overall development potential ofthe site and area for pedestrian friendly access and also to provide for secondary fire access to not only their property but to the other properties as well. If Bremerton was ever to become blocked a secondary access from their property onto either one of these sites could add additional fire control possibilities and also would enhance pedestrian access to NE 4th and would help the development of their property as well. Terrance Flaig, President of Fernwood North Homeowner's Association, PO Box 3106, Renton, W A 98056 stated that he had a question regarding the grading of the site. Specifically the homeowners that abut the southern end of Elmhurst are concerned about grading that has been done to this site prior to the beginning of Elmhurst. When he and his wife moved here, this was zoned residential but there was a business operated here, McCann Trucking owned this land they were a trucking and excavating business. When the property was sold to Tydico and as soon as that happened they began to bring in large truckloads of earth and fill without applying for or receiving any permits. They raised the level of this land considerably, particularly in the area that abuts Fernwood North to the south of their land. Since this was not done with permits from the City of Renton, they wonder if this is going to be allowed to exist the way it is or if some effort is going to be made to return this level of the land to what it was before the illegal grading was done. They are concerned because it is quite.a bit higher now tl1an the lots in Fernwood North. The homes that will be built will be towering above them and provide an unsightly view to the north. The Examiner stated that they were talking about Lots 32, 33, 34, and 35 in Fernwood North and suggested that perhaps staff may have some comments about this issue. Kayren Kittrick, Development Services stated that Elmhurst can be held to dedicate the rights-of~way off Bremerton when they don't own the property. A secondary access is required by Fire for this site. The preference is to the north, the owners of the property to the north have been in serious talks and trying to make sure that their designs met code. It has always been the intent that Ridgeview would go first, or a little ahead, or at the same time as Elmhurst. When Ridgeview was denied, it was necessary to make sure that that was secured, that is the secondary access, it is the way that they designed for their secondary access. Whether an easement would be sufficient if the timing did not work out, the answer is no, the dedication must be for sure, it is necessary to know that it is going to go through. Spl it rai I fences are basically to allow for the movement of small animals that would go through that area. Planning would most likely have some concerns about blocking off that location entirely, but there could be Elmhurst Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-162, PP, ECF March 29, 2005 Page 7 some discussions on something that might have small openings. Not quite sure how to solve that particular problem. Regarding Mr. Foster and his wish to have secondary access to the north is an issue that they agree on, but there is nothing that is in the code that would allow for this. The Transportation Division would be very interested in something through the Ridgeview Court, some type of connection through there. However, in that instance, the Post Office declined to participate. Ultimately this comes down to some type of agreement between private property owners in this case. Mr. Foster does have access up to NE 4th, primary access, but he doe:.; need a secondary access, just not sure what is going to be developed on his property. The site has been used out of standards both under King County and City of Renton when they took it over. There is no plan to do any grading or changing of the site height. All grading will be within the site, cut and fill, nothing new being brought in and nothing being taken out. Mr. Halinen stated that regarding Mr. Foster's comments and concerns about wanting a secondary access, Mr. Foster pointed out that the company he represents is a recent purchaser of the property that wraps behind the Post Office. The property was purchased September 2004. In 1999 a Lot Line Adjustment was done and included the Post Office property and the Langley Property (Mr. Foster). Regarding the secondary access, this is a problem of self-creation. An Access Easement Agreement was recorded March 9, 2004 proving that the Post Office did get title. The Lot Line Adjustment was set up to dead end at the back end of the property, they didn't need to do that, they cou Id have had a loop easement along the east side of the postal property to provide for secondary access for emergency vehicles. It was set up deliberately, sold the property in its current condition to someone who would like to have one of the abutters bear the burden ofa secondary access. This should have been considered and dealt with prior to selling off the properties. Elmhurst should not have to bear the burden ofthese issues, they should not have to give access through Elmhurst Lou Larsen, Pacific Engineering and Design LLC, 4118 Lind Avenue, Renton, WA 98055 stated that there are four existing lots in Fernwood North, Lots 32, 33, 34 and 35 that abut against the area in question. The pad elevations are set such that they can get access from Bremerton A venue, they are set to provide sewer connections to these lots, and to provide access for lot drainage into the detention pond. All this grading occurs on-site, within the Elmhurst property lines, they do not even come close to the south property line. If the lots were lowered, they would not drain into the detention pond. Lot 27 will be a little bit higher than what it is today, Lots 26, 25,24, and 23 are being raised anywhere from three to five feet, depending on where you measure it. Those elevations are 25 feet into the property wherethis will occur. Some of that could be buffered out a little, but not very much. The Examiner stated that it doesn't sound like the City will address what may have happened prior to annexation. Ms. Kittrick stated the City will not explore the site levels, it was like that when it came in for site approvals. They will not require the owner to return to what the property was like years ago. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 11 :24 a.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: , Elmhurst Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-162, PP, ECF March 29, 2005 Page 8 FINDINGS: I. The applicant, Liberty Ridge, LLC, represented by David L. Halinen, filed a request for a 64-lot Prel iminary Plat. 2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit # 1. 3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official issued a Determination of Non Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M). 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject site is located at 20 1,251 and 257 Bremerton Avenue NE. The subject site is located on the west side of Bremerton approximately 600 feet south ofNE 4th Street. 6. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as su itable for the development of single-family homes, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. 7. The subject site is currently zoned R-IO (Residential Options including detached Single Family uses). 8. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 5092 enacted in ~eptember 2004. 9. The subject site is approximately 9.6 acres or 418,176 square feet. The parcel is rectangular and is approximately 650 feet long along Bremerton (north to south) by approximately 640 feet deep. 10. The site has been used for construction offices and staging and older homes and outbuildings generally served office purposes. 11. The subject site slopes generally downward 3 to 5 percent from the north-northwest to the south- southwest where Maplewood Creek crosses the subject site. The site also has bands of steeper terrain that vary between 20 to 40 percent. Fill was placed on the subject site in the past and this material appears to have been placed without benefit of a permit. Neighbors report that it raised the elevation of. the property adjacent to the creek 8 to 10 feet. 12. A Category 3 wetland is located in the northwest corner of the subject site and it is unregulated. Another wetland located offsite is also unregulated. As noted, Maplewood Creek crosses the southwest portion of the site. 13. The subject site is mainly cleared of vegetation but small stands or rows of trees are located near the south and west property lines, near the existing older structures in the northeast corner of the site and near the creek. Most of the trees with the exception of those in the protected creek corridor would be removed to allow development at the R-IO density permitted by the zoning. 14. The subject site is governed by a separate development agreement. There are site-specific restrictions that include that all residential buildings be single family, lots abutting the south boundary of the site (abutting R -8 homes) be not less than 50 feet wide and that the density not exceed 10 un its per acre. Elmhurst Prel illl inary Plat File No.: LUA-04-162, PP, ECF March 29, 2005 Page 9 15. The applicant proposes dividing the subject site into 64 lots. The lots would be arranged around the perimeter of the site and in two interior blocks. Lot sizes will vary from 3,80 I square feet to 5,979 square feet. The R-IO zone requires lots to be not less than 3,000 square feet, lot width to be 30 feet for interior lots and 40 feet for corner lots and lot depth to be 55 feet. Staff reported that lots would vary between 40 feet to 54 feet wide and from 95 feet to 112 feet deep. The lots along the south property line will comply with the 50-foot width required by the Development Agreement. 16. Two east to west roads will provide access to the interior of the subject site from Bremerton. These two roads will be connected to each other in a loop by a north to south road running through the western third of the site. A second north to south road will run between the east to west roads in the middle of the site creating the blockwise lot arrangement. Bremerton has an inconsistent alignment and width along the frontage of the subject site. The applicant is seeking a vacation and will rededicate property to create a more consistent alignment. 17. Bremerton does narrow north of the site adjacent to where the Ridgeview Plat was proposed. The City Council will be determining the status of that plat during an appeal procedure. Staff has nuted that Bremerton does need to serve this proposed plat. 18. The density for the plat would be 8.25 dwelling units per acre after subtracting sensitive areas (creek corridor) and roadways. 19. The subject site is located within the Renton School District. The project is expected to gerierate approximately 28 school age childre·n. These students would be spread across the grades and would be assigned on a space available basis. 20. The development wi II increase traffic approximately 10 trips per unit or approximately 640 trips for the 64 single-family homes. Approximately ten percent of the trips, or approximately 64 additional peak hour trips, will be generated in the morning and evening. 21. The applicant has submitted a Noise Analysis Report for the project to determine ifnoise from the nearby but non-adjacent Post Office would be a factor for residential development of the subject site. The report was done since the Hearing Examiner recommended that the proposed Ridgeview Plat immediately north of the subject site but also directly abutting the Post Office be rejected due to incompatible noise generated. by the adjacent Post Office. 22. The summary of the report contains the following language: "The ambient noise measurements conducted at the Elmhurst site's north edge demonstrate that the site is suitable for residential development... While there are routine loading and unloading activities and other activities at the post office that generate occasional environmental noise, this study has clearly shown that the intensity and duration of the noise generated by the post office is insufficient to significantly impact residential use of the Elmhurst site. (Footnote 2) ... Footnote 2: Anticipated future development of the Ridgeview Court site and the vacant parcel immediately to the north of the west half of the Elmhurst site will significantly screen the Elmhurst site from post office-generated noise, further reducing its intensity on the Elmhurst site." '1 ~ Elmhurst Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-162, PP, ECF March 29, 2005 Page 10 23. Stormwater will be collected in a pond in Tract, A which will serve as both a detention and water quality facility. The pond, which is located in the southwest corner of the site, wiH be adjacent to Maplewood Creek. Energy would be dissipated using a "bubble-up" system with the overflow running to the creek. It would meet the 1998 King County standards, Level 2 flow control. 24. Staff has recommended that the pond be screened and landscaped. The screen is to form a visual barrier but one that does not interfere with traffic. Staff recommended the materials to use and to avoid chain link fencing. 25. The subject site will be served by City water and sewer services. Utility line extensions to serve the site will be required and governed by code. 26. Staff has approved a street modification allowing narrower roadways. Since this narrows what would be parking strips or landscape areas, staff has recommended the addition of trees 27. The owner of the adjacent property north of the subject site was concerned about access to a portion of his propel1y behind the post office. That property fronts along NE 4th Street and access is possible from there. It was noted that the current owner's predecessor in interest created the odd-shaped parcel by segregating off the post office site leaving the remainder. CONCLUSIONS: I. The proposed plat appears to serve the public use and interest. Due to a recommendation by this office that another residential development (Ridgeview Court) adjacent to the post office was inappropriate, the applicant was concerned that post office noise might create issues for developing the subject site. Those noises might be an issue but it appears that the distance between the subject site and the post office site should help attenuate the noise. The subject site can be distinguished from the Ridgeview court parcel by a number of factors. The subject site is zoned for residential purposes and is shielded by the adjacent Ridgeview Court property, which as a transitional property can be used for commercial purposes. In addition, open space that now lies between the subject site and post office could be developed with uses that further attenuate the noise. That is new structures could occupy the intervening open space and block post office noises. The greater distance and the potential for intervening buildings were not factors that could help the other property. The noise studies that were conducted were specifically conducted for the subject site and cannot be relied on for determining impacts on other properties and other properties cannot count on the development of intervening buildings that could eventually buffer this site from the post office. 2. The proposed plat appears to create reasonably rectangular lots. A fairly regular grid roadway and block system rather than a deadend cul-de-sac will also serve the 64-lot plat. The smaller lots ofthe R- 10 zone will still provide detached single-family housing choices to those who want less yard maintenance and smaller homes. 3. The plat will offset its impacts on fire, parks and transportation services by paying mitigation fees. It will also contribute to the tax base of the City when developed with homes. The additional population and traffic will be feft in this currently sparsely developed area but those impacts were anticipated when the Zoning was adopted for the a~e(l: .... ". , .•. _ ... ,,, ....... _~,,..,, .... , ......... _ .... __ ...... . ~-~. <' • ~ ... -' ~ . ." -4::--' r-TI;e·~~plicant will be planting trees on the lots while also preserving the stream course and the current vegetation in buffers surrounding the creek. It appears that filling that occurred on the subject site can .~-------.. Elmhurst Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-162, PP, ECF MaI'ch 29, 2005 Page II remain and might have be permitted to allow appropriate sewer service. The applicant wili have to demonstrate that the materials are suitable for foundation support. 5. The applicant will have to satisfy the City's needs for access to and along Bremerton to NE 4th Street. 6. In conclusion, the proposed plat should be approved by the City Council. REC0MMENDATION: The City Council should approve the 64-lot Preliminary Plat subject to the following conditions: I. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. The applicant shall comply with the conditions imposed by the ERC. The applicant shall have to demonstrate that the on-site fill materials are suitable for foundation support. The applicant shall obtain a demolition permit and complete all inspections and approvals for all buildings located on the property prior to the recording of the final plat. The satisfaction of this requirement is subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Project Manager. All lots within the plat shall be required to have a minimum of one new approved tree, with a minimum caliper of 1-1/2 inches (deciduous) or 6-8 feet in height (conifer), and shrubs (or equivalent) planted within the front yard. The applicant shall be required to set forth a restriction on the final plat stating this requirement. Each application for a single family building permit shall include a plan noting the location and type of plant materials within the front yard. All front yard landscaping shall be planted prior to final building permit inspection. The satisfaction of this condition is subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division Project Manager. ~he right-of-way for Bremerton Ave. NE along Parcel #5] 8210-0042 (327 Bremerton Ave. NE) shall be dedicated prior to the recording of the Elmhurst Final Plat. The satisfaction of this requirement is subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Project Manager prior to recording of the fimil plat. . A homeowner's association or maintenance agreement shall be created concurrently with the recording ofthe final plat in order to establish maintenance responsibilities for all shared improvements. A draft of the documents( s), if necessary, shall be submitted to the City of Renton Development Se,rvices Division for review and approval by the City Attorney and Property Services section prior to recording of the final plat. Tract A shall be fenced, landscaped, and irrigated (unless drought tolerant plants are used). The property lines of Tract A fronting Road A, Lot 22 and 23 shall include a landscaped visual barrier so as to not interfere with sight distance triangles including plant materials which would provide a year-round dense screen within three (3) years from the time of planting. Also, the property lines along Lots 22 and 23 shall be fenced with a six-foot high solid wood fence, or other approved material (no chain link). Tract A fronting Road A shall be fenced with either a wrought iron, or chain link with vinyl covering, or other decorative wood fence. The applicant shall submit a landscape plan and fence design identifying construction and plant materials for the review and approval of the Development Services Project Manager prior to installation. Fences and landscaping shall be installed prior to recording of the final plat. \ ... Elmhurst Preliminary Plat . File No.: LUA-04-162, PP, ECF March 29, 2005 Page 12 ORDERED THIS 291h day of March 2005. TRANSMITTED THIS 291h day of March 2005 to the parties of record: Susan Fiala 1055 S Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 Liberty Ridge LLC Attn: Mike Merlino 9125 10lh Ave S Seattle, W A 98108 Lou Larsen Pacific Engineering and Design LLC 4118 Lind Avenue Renton, W A 98055 Terrance Flaig President of Fernwood North HOA PO Box 3106 Renton, W A 98056 Kayren Kittrick 1055 S Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 Katie Walter Shannon and Wilson 400 N 34th Street, Suite 100 Seattle, W A 98103 C. Thomas Foster Langley Fourth Ave Associates LLC 5460 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 106 Seattle, WA 98188 Cliff Williams 5326 SW Manning Seattle, W A 98116 TRANSMITTED THIS 29th day of March 2005 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Stan Engler, Fire Rose Woodall 248 Union Ave NE Renton, W A 98059 David L. Halinen Halinen Law Offices, P.S. 10500 NE 8th St., Ste. 1900 Bellevue, W A 98004 Michael Yantis Yantis Acoustical Design 720 Olive Way, Suite 1400 Seattle, WA 98101 Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Larry Warren, City Attorney Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transportation Division Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services Utilities Division Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services King County Journal Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section I OOGof the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., April 12, 2005. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This Elmhurst Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-162, PP, ECF Marth 29, 2005 Page 13 request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or error~ discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., April 12, 2005. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Councilor final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation ofthe request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. ... i' I •• 1 I f I~S: I' I Ui i .... I (..f J ..., IOC -'" • -, I,.,'" l I I 1:O~ I • I ! 02 I I '-__ :.--.-..!==!Ji1~--=-, i ~ r--i , i I~~ I 1 , • I " I :!1" 'I ; I OX , ;;. , ........ >.-I i " 1 .. ..1 t m :0 • _til 0 I 000.' I J~tTI I ! : ~: 1 ____ L ____ ;~: __ 4 '-----t--==.!.::.::±==.1-::.:t ---; --I ~""""LUO ... ....e,.w ..... _ ':(oCZilUo-OOO f'.IU.,(C2:S)~lA Pacific 41OOLH:> AloE. aw. Engineering ~WA~ Desigv r JLC ~~ 2SH6U (42;S)2SI~ wEB""'" Civil Eogio(:'.:.~. $UlVeying PAc:£N(l.(X')t.( and rl.lll.oJ.ng CoosuIl.mts CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA04-162, PP, ECF PROJECT NAME: Elmhurst Preliminary Plat APPLICANT: liberty Ridge LLC, Mike Merlino LOCATION OF PROPOSAl: 201,251, & 257 Bremerton Avenue NE · .. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAl: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and Preliminary Plat approval for a 64-lot subdivision of a multiple parcel, 9.S-acre site. Two tracts for open space and stonn drainage are included. The site is zoned Residential -10 dulac and is to abide by a Development Agreement. The lots range in size from 3,801 sq. fl. to 5,870 sq. ft. and intended for detached units. All existing buildings would be demolished. Access is proposed via Bremerton Ave. NE to new internal public streets and private access easements. One non-regulated Category 3 wetland would be filled. Maplewood Creek crosses the southwestern portion of the pial. LEAD AGENCY: MITIGATION MEASURES: The City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section 1. A Geotechnical Engineer shall detennine the suitability of the existing on-site fill prior to its use on-site. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be reviewed and approved by Development Services during construction. 2. At the time of building pennits, additional geotechnical studies addressing the suitability of site soils for use as structural fill shall be prepared and submitted. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be reviewed and approved by Development Services. 3. The applicant shall comply with the "Geotechnical Engineering Study" prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc., dated August 30, 2004, regarding "Site Preparation and General Earthwork" and "Utility Support and Backfill." The satisfaction of this requirement shall be reviewed and approved by Development Services during construction, utility work and building construction. 4. The project shall be required to be designed and comply with the Department of Ecology's (DOE) Erosion and Sediment Control ReqUirements, outlined in Volume" of the 2001 Stormwater Managernent Manual. 5. All contractors are to be made aware of the potential presence of environmental contaminants and instructed to notify the property owner immediately if discolored, odiferous, or otherwise suspect soil is encountered during excavation activities. 6. If suspect soil is encountered during excavation activities, work in these areas is to be stopped until such time asa qualified environmental professional can assess the observed conditions and recommend corrective measures. 7. If the presence of environmental contaminants is confirmed within the suspect soils at concentrations exceeding applicable MTCA cleanup levels, then (a) those soils are to be handled and managed in accordance with MTCA and; (b) the work will be managed and overseen by a qualified environmental profeSSional and properly documented and reported to the Department of Ecology (DOE) in accordance with MTCA. 8. The project shall comply with the 1998 King County Surface Water DeSign Manual to meet both detention (Level 2 flow control) and water quality improvements. 9. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee based on a rate of $488.00 per new single·family lot. Credit to be given for the existing three residences. The fee shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. 10. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Traffic Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per each new average daily· trip associated with the project. Credit to be given for the existing three residences. The fee shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. 6X~ B ' •• 'of I' 11. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Parks Mitigation Fee based on $530.76 per new single-family lot Credit to be given for the existing three residences. The fee shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. 12. Evergreen and deciduous trees (Le. Douglas fir, western hemlock, and big leaf maple) shall be planted on 15-foot centers within the 25-foot wide buffer along the east side of the stream. Two-gallon size tree stock shall be used. Planting should occur in the Fall to allow plants to develop roots over the Winter. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. 13. During site preparation and construction of improvements and residences, the applicant shall install silt fencing with brightfy colored construction flags to indicate the boundaries of the stream/creek buffer. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division and be completed prior to the issuance of construction/utility permits. 14. After the development of roadway and utaity improvements, the applicant shall install permanent fencing (i.e. split-rail fence or other approved barrier) andsignage along the entire edge of the stream/creek buffer. The· satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division prior to the recording of the final plat. ~j ... ' " LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL A: THE SOUTH 110 FEET OF THE EAST 215 FEET OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: THE NORTH Yz OF THE SOUTHEAST Y4 OF THE NORTHWEST Y4 OF THE NORTHWEST Y4 OF SECTION ) 5, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M.; EXCEPT THE EAST 37.5 FEET THEREOF FOR ROAD; (ALSO KNOWN AS THE SOUTH 1) 0 FEET OF THE EAST 215 FEET OF THE NORTH Yz OF TRACT 5, MARTINS ACRE TRACTS, ACCORDING TO THE UNRECORDED PLAT THEREOF); SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. PARCELB: THE SOUTH Yz OF THE SOUTHEAST ~ OF HE NORTHWEST Y4 OF THE NORTHWEST ~ OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M.; EXCEPT THE EASTERLY 7.5 FEET FOR ROAD; (ALSO KNOWN AS THE SOUTHERLY Yz OF TRACTS 5 AND 6, MARTINS ACRE TRACTS, ACCORDING TO THE UNRECORDED PLAT THEREOF); SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. PARCELC: THE NORTH Yz OF THE SOUTHEAST 14 OF THE NORTHWEST ~ OF THE NORTHWEST ~ OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M.; EXCEPT THE EAST 37.5 FEET THEREOF FOR ROAD; AND EXCEPT THE SOUTH 110 FEET OF THE EAST 215 FEET OF THE REW.tAINDER; (ALSO KNOWN AS THE NORTH Yz OF TRACTS 5 AND 6, MARTINS ACRE TRACTS, ACCORDING TO THE UNRECORDED PLAT THEREOF; EXCEPT THE SOUTH 110 FEET OF THE EAST 215 OF SAID TRACT 5); SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASIDNGTON. , Q:web/pw/devserv/fonnslplanninglmasterapp.doc 1- ... u.i to i ttOPl{ 0 ~~.,,~ ® " ® ----, ~ f-~ ® -H ® .; < ~O o ) \.. Sj-." ® ® ~ !. ® ~ ~ <> « C> .... N <5 U:: « < 0 '" r-i- ~ --.. R-IO R-9 ...Q -+-> ~ N C> ~ ~ ~; T-i ~ .~ ~ 8 .~. ~ Z z ~ ~ N H :~ 1O ~ .... , .t:t V) .t-). ~ RMH SE 142ild St. RC(P) CP) ZONING G6 ~ 22 T23N R5E W liZ F6 15 T23N R5E W 1/~15 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: • CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGIBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM October 24, 2005 City Clerk's Office Carrie K. Olson, x7235 Development Services, Plan Review RIDGEVIEW COURT PLAT Deed of Dedication Attached is the original Ridgeview Court Plat Deed of Dedication document that was accepted at the Monday, October 10, 2005, council meeting. Please route for signature by the Mayor and City Clerk. Also, have Mayor sign three (I-original, 2-copies) Real Estate Excise Tax Affidavit form. When signatures are obtained please send document to King County for recording. Recording should be charged to account #000000.007.5590.0060.49.000014. cc: Yellow File \\TS_SERVER\SYS2\COMMON\l:\PlanReview\COLSON\Shortplats 200S\Ridgeview Court Plat SHPL 06m RequestMayor- ClerkSignDeed, Then Record.doc (t '. i " Return Address: City Clerk's Office City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 DEED OF DEDICATION Property Tax Parcel Number: 518210-0042 Project File #: Street Intersection: Reference Number{s) of Documents assigned or released: Additional reference numbers are on page __ ' Grantor(s): Grantee(s): 1. Ridgeview Court L.L.C. 1. City of Renton, a Municipal Corporation LEGAL DESCRIPTION: (Abbreviated or full legal must go here. Additional legal on page ) The East 17.50 feet of the following parcel. The south half of the east half of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in the city of Renton, King County, Washington; EXCEPT the east 7.5 feet of the said tract, EXCEPT all coal and mineral rights as contained in reservation of record, and known as a portion of Tract 4, of Martin's Acre Tracts. The Grantor, for and in consideration ofmutuaI benefits conveys, quit claims, dedicates and donates to the Grantee(s) as named above, the above described real estate situated in the County of King, State of Washington. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal the day and year as written below. Grantee(s): City of Renton Mayor City Clerk CORPORA TE FORM OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT Notary Seal must be within box \\\,,," ... 11,,,,,, !I.",~~,s: L ~'llllil ~~~~ ... :.. ~~ ~~.... ~ ..•... ~ -.,"' . .~,-~ . ~' .... :'~" ,. --\ = . . . :: : ..... : 'S \.\t f I .~~~---~~ ..... J~~ £1 ,:r.:~;. ~ A·········tl.,. ... ~~~ fIIlIl1. .II WA$,,\\\\'" /1/1""11111"'\\ l' " STATE OF ) )SS COUNTY OF ) . I certifY that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Robe r+ W(l;.,d is the person who appeared before me and said person acknowledged that b e signed this instrument, on oath stated that he was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the N\f\~er . of_ R.a~~\h'ev.l 0.+ 1...-i .... C: , a W s h i ~~ el ~ , to be the free and voluntary act 0 such party for the uses and purposes mentIoned In the instrument. Dated: q. a g ·05 m~?i? d?;J\1L (Signature) • '\ Print Notary Name: ro \ c.'oe.. e.. L C. \A-a... \L Residing at: ~ QAvy\cJNd \AlA My appointment expires: __ ~ __ ' -=d-,--" __ '_O_~-=-__ Exhibit A Legal Description THE EAST 17.50 FEET OF THE FOLLOWING PARCEL. ! ' THE SOUTH HALF OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THE EAST 7.5 FEET OF THE SAID TRACT, EXCEPT ALL COAL AND MINERAL RIGHTS AS CONTAINED IN RESERVATION OF RECORD, AND KNOWN AS A PORTION OF TRACT 4, OF MARTIN'S ACRE TRACTS, AN UNRECORDED PLAT; ~~~~-~-~ ~ ~,tf,?S,)JsZ·-W-· 0 I I • , 50 100 I I 1 INCH = 100 PORTION OF THE Sl/2. E 1/2. NE 1/4. NW 1/4. NW 1/4 OF SEC 15. T 23 N. R 5 E. W.M •• RENTON. KING CO, WA. N LN SE4, NE4, NW4, NW4 N881>6'17"W '-316.02' ; 17.5IY DEDICATION z N .tt') ; c:i tt') z t') ~ w z ~ w (I) z -l ~ I.&J : II) '<t ;.... :t-0 0 z 316.33' S LN NE4. NW4, NW4 N881>9'3S·W P,'\2003'\0312'\Survey'\Dwg\Z0312EXLdwg 9/30/2005 9100.27 AM PST 30' 30' it) 0 ~ c:i I') I') ~ ~ E-4 I W • ~ ~ ; :.p - I " " PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX AFFIDAVIT This fonn is your receipt when stamped by cashier. CHAPTER 82.45 RCW -CHAPTER 458-61 WAC FOR USEATCOUNTYTREASURER'SCmCE (Use FOIm No. 84-000IB for Reporting Transfers of Controlling [nterestofEntity Ownership to the Department of Revenue) TIllS AFFIDA vrr WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED UNLESS ALL AREAS 1-7 ARE FULLY COMPLETED Name Ridgeview Court LLC Street PO Box 2401 City/State/lip Kirkland WA 98083 ADDRESS TO SEND ALL PROPERTY TAX RELATED CORRESPONDENCE Name ________________________________________ __ Street (same as Grantor information) City/StatelZip Name City of Renton, a Municipal Corporation Street 1055 South Grady Way City/StatelZip Renton, WA 98055 ALL TAX PARCEL NUMBERS 518210-0042 COUNTY TREASURER PLACE ASSESSED VALUE IF TAX EXEMPT ~ , " LEGAL DESCR[PTION OF PROPERTY S[TUATED [N 0 UNlNCORPORATED, _______ COUNTY .ORlNCITYOF Renton Street Address (if property is improved): _________________________________________________________________________ _ A portion of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M. in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. (Please see attachment for complete legal description.) Is this property currently: Classified or designated as forest land? Chapter 84.33 RCW YES NO Classified as current use land (open space, fann g III] and agricultural, or timber)? Chapter 84.34 RCW Exempt from property tax as a nonprofit IDl Ijj organization? Chapter 84.36 RCW Seller's Exempt Reg. No. Receiving special valuation as historic property? Chapter 84.26 RCW Property Type: IIilland only o land with previously used building o timber only Principal Use: 0 Apt. (4+ unit) o timber 0 agricultural III other Road Right-of-Way o land with new building o land with mobile home o building only o residential o commercial/industrial (I) NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE (RCW 84,33 OR RCW 84.34) new owner(s) ofland that is classified or designated as current use or forest land wish to continue the classification or designation of such land, the new owner(s) must sign below, If the new owner(s) do not desire to continue such classification or designation, all compensating or additional tax calculated pursuant to RCW 84.33.120 and 140 or RCW 84.34.108 shall be due and payable by the seller or transferor at the time ofsale. The county assessor must detennine if the land transferred qualifies to continue classification or designation and must so indicate below. Signatures do not necessarily mean the land will remain in classification or designation. If it no longer qualifies, it will be removed and the compensating taxes will be applied, All new owners must sign, This land 0 does 0 does not qualifY for continuance. Date ___________ _ DEPUTY ASSESSOR (2) NOTICE OF COMPL\ANCE (Chapter 84.26 RCW) If the new owner(s) of property with special valuation as historic property wish to continue this special valuation the new owner(s) must sign below. If the new owner(s) do not desire to continue such special valuation, all additional tax calculated pursuant to Chapter 84.26 RCW, shall be due and payable by the seller or transferor at the time of sale, (3) OWNER(S) SIGNATURE Description of personal property included in gross selling price, both tangible (eg; furniture, equipment, etc.) or intangible (eg; goodwill, agreement not to compete, etc.) If exemption claimed, list WAC number and explanation. WAC No. (Sec/Sub) 458-61-420 (1 )(b) Explanation transfer to government as a development requirement Type of Document Deed of Dedication Date of Document_0_9_'_2_8_'2_0_0_5 _____________ _ Gross Selling Price $ ___________ 0_._0 __ 0 Personal Property (deduct) $-------------."./.::..- Taxable Selling Price $-------------::",.L<":.../---- Excise Tax: State $ ______ "?'Z~ ____ _ Delinquent Interest: ~:;~ :====::Z=::,c~··=..-=>============= Local $,--;.<. ... _7 ________ _ Delinquent Penalty $/«._/ __________________ _ Total Due $, _________ --'0::.;."'0"-0 A MINIMUM OF $2.00 [S DUE AS A PROCESSING FEE AND TAX. AFFIDAVIT I CertifY Under Penalty of Perjury Under The Laws of The State of Washington That The Foregoing Is True And Correct (See back of this :~::ureof J. ~~!~ ~cJct~ Grantor/Agent ~l! ~c.~ Name (print) Karen McFarland, Technical Services AGENT Date and Place of Signing: lOP O/2..C()S Renton, WA Signature of Grantee/Agent ________________________________ _ Name (print) Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, MAYOR Date & Place of Signing: Renton, WA Perjury: Perjury is a class C felony'which is punishable by imprisonment in the state correctional institution for a maximum tenn of not more than five years, or by a fine in an amount fixed by the court of not more than five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), or by both imprisonment and fine (RCW 9A,20.020 (\C». REV 84 0001 a (3-18-99)(PD 4-05-00) FOR TREASURER'S USE ONLY DCOUNTY TREASURER []DEPT. OF REVENUE []COUNTY ASSESSOR []TAXPAYER " . ;. '> I/d\ow ~ _J.~~ ~ . • '" CONDITIONS OF DEVELOPMENT (SUMMARY) Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat LUA04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF PROJECT CONDITION SOURCE WHEN IS PARTY NOTES COMPLIANCE RESPONSIBLE REQUIRED Pay Traffic Mitigation Fee ERC Prior to issuance of Applicant building permits Pay Fire Mitigation Fee ERC Prior to issuance of Applicant building permits Pay Parks Mitigation Fee ERC Prior to issuance of Applicant building permits Geotechnical ERC Prior to and during Applicanti The applicant shall comply with the recommendations construction contractor recommendations contained in the Geotechnical report prepared by Geo Group Northwest, Inc. dated October 4, 2004, regarding "Site Preparation and Groundwork." Erosion and Sediment ERC During construction Applicant The project shall be designed and Control Requirements comply with Department of Ecology',s Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements as outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual. Detention and water quality ERC Prior to and during Applicanti The project shall comply with the improvements construction Contractor 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual to meet both detention (Level 2 flow control) and water quality improvements. Temporary Erosion Control ERC Duration of projects Applicanti Temporary Erosion Control measures construction Contractor shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the Department of Ecology Standards to the satisfaction of the representative of the Development Services Division for the duration of the project's construction. Restrictive Covenant on HEX Prior to the Applicant The applicant shall execute sales literature and listings recording of the restrictive covenants that require all final plat sales literature and sales listings initially and subsequently to note the location of the post office and that the post office operations may create loud noises during the course of a night and very early morning hours six (6) days a week and that such noise might interfere with sleep in units located on the subject site. 10/03/05 I' .. ''''1 Sales literature and listings HEX Prior to the Applicant Corresponding language about the restrictions located on face recording of the post office noise shall be included on of plat final plat the face of the plat. Noise mitigation measures City Council Prior to final Applicant The applicant shall install a cedar building inspection fence, triple pane windows, and double insulation. Alley right-of-way HEX Prior to the Applicant The applicant shall revise the plat to recording of the reflect the easement along the rear of final plat lots 1 through 3 and 18 through 20 to be an alley right-of-way with a width of 16 feet with a minimum of 14 feet of pavement. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division "No Parking" signage along HEX Prior to the Applicant The applicant shall be required to Anacortes A venue NE recording of the post the 26-foot private access final plat easement (Anacortes A venue NE) with "No Parking" signage on each side. Staff recommends the applicant shall comply with this requirement to the satisfaction of the Development Services Division. Homeowner's association or HEX Prior to the Applicant A homeowner's association or maintenance agreement recording of the maintenance agreement shall be final plat created concurrently with the recording of the final plat in order to establish maintenance responsibilities for landscaped right-of-way improvements, as well as for any shared private utilities/drainage facilities or private access and utility easements to include the private pedestrian access easement. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. Demolition Permit HEX Prior to the Applicant The applicant shall obtain a recording of the demolition permit and complete all final plat inspections and approvals for all buildings located on the property. The satisfaction of this requirement is subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Project Manager. 2 10/03/05 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGlBillLDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM October 13,2005 Karen McFarland, Technical Services Carrie Olson, Plan Review x-7235 REQUEST FOR EXCISE TAX FORM FOR DEED OF DEDICATION -Ridgeview Court Plat LUA-04-131 Attached is a copy of the Deed of Dedication for the Ridgeview Court Plat. Please provide a completed Excise Tax Form for the Mayor's signature and return to me by Thursday, October 20, 2005, for further processing. According to King County's requirements a copy of the legal description should also be attached to each page of the REETA Form after it is filled out. 1 original and 2 copies. If you have questions regarding this request, please let me know. Thanks. 1:\PlanReview\COLSON\Shortplats 2005\Ridgeview Court Plat 05m ReqExciseTaxForm.doc . . . ...... ":, ... ~-:-~-.+. ' .. . . ..IL' ... . -. ·CITY·l:ilFRENTON PlanDinWSUildinglPub~c Works Departineilt Kathy Keolker" Wbeeler: May~r . Gregg Zimmerman P.~~, Administrator . . ·Septem.be~ 23,2Q05' Mr. Cliff Williams ." Ridge~eW :CQ~rl"LL.C P.O.Bo£2401 " .. KlrldandWA 98933 , .' ': StJBiECT: . . " . QearMr Williams: \ '. RIDGEVIEW couRT PLAT LUA-04-131 Deelf6'fDedicationRCVlew -'. ~ " . .' . ,~-. ," .' . ' . .... ' . . ': ~ . · The r~viewsubrriittalorlthe above-mentiom~ddeed ofdedicatidn document has been completed arid the foilowirigcommentshave been' n::turtied.'Please review these coIrimen~sand makdhe necessary changes. Once changes have been complet~d,piease suhniit a revised signed;' Sci!~ped,. notarized,original deed do.~tiit)enton . .'8_"~x:ll" sizepaper-;·.:~·: e., I. "!,,'. • . ; •.• ~. ", . • l~ The deed has been placedon'cons~rit:~~endaat th~October 10~ 2005, citY6oUncilmeeting. 'Vourp'iesentsis not n~quired. .... .. '. .' .... ... ,,, .... ':,'-,.,", . SiIORTPl.ATREVIEWCOM/vfElvrSJ '. ..".. • • ~ ,'.' -. < i. :;. ,. -.' : -, .' .. ~-','. . . .. (5 L~~:~e!;~b~: ~~~';~(~;;~~;~~O~nd!:::~~m~~~onOfboili legal desfuptions(On .. Q' 2. See th~ attachments 'for a COh"c;:cti6n'neededinth.e legal descri:pti~n~ noted o~ said Page 1 and Exhibit .~. ' . A of said document. ". 0' 3. ~~vft~~ln:f i::g inf"rinatio~ori the ~~pfuhibit to allow for ioealion of the pare,']" within the .. Should you need to discuss any portion ofthis letter please contact me at (425) 430-7235. Sincerely, '. . .' '. ". ...... '. . rp~~fI-,,~~ l,i;.~,. .,".". ,,' . . . . . CarrieK.Olson · Development Services, Plan Review. 425430-7235 .' , cc: ",: Ye1l6wFile' . . -.". ,.,'" rI~{l~(~F~{\)' \ ~ , L " .... St.. p.2 62. 'c .. ' '\ '. 1 .", Ilt(~-,;c.c:.:.;'·:::=:~'c~,o:;~ '!:\PlanReview\COLSON\ShortPlats 2005\Ridgeview Court Plat o4L ChangeRequestSiop.doc .~ ". . ~--'---~--:-'1--:O-=-5-:-:5-=-So-u--:th-G-=-r-"a-:-dy-:W:~ay----:R::-e-"n-to""'n-::; w,=a--:S:::"hl::-' n,.....gt-O-ri--:9-=-80~5::-:5::-"----,--:-:o':-~-' RE N TO N' ~~. AHEAD· OF THE'CURVE " ~ ; ~ '. .' '(, ": J: ~ {-~. ~ , -.'~ . , '!'.t~, I ~ :.-::,' ',. ,<". '::.oJ. ' -". ,. '. ,/".,' ~ ~ ... .. '.,.{ .. ; :' .. ' I~' .... • ~,.., '/',1 ~'( . ~: '.~' ~~' ; ';",~ ~_ A .-:'-.' :.:. . .., " .. :' Kathy Keolker-Wheeler. Mayor CITY , .... JFRENTON· Plamring;BuildinglPublic Works Deparment Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator September23, 2005 Mr. Cliff Williams Ridgev,iewCouii,LLC P.O. Box 2401 . KirklandWA 98033 SUBJECT:. ,DearMr Williams: RIDGEVIEW COURT PL'\TLUA':'04-131 Deed oC,Dedication Review .: .. ine review submittal oil the above-nientiblleddeedofdedic~tioIl' d()cu~ent ha~. be~n completedan4the foilowingcommentshave be~ri retunied.·Pl~~se review these " comrh~l}ts;;tnd, maln~o the necessary, changes. Once changes have been compret~d; please suhnijta~ieVi~edsigned; st~n1Ped,.nQtarized;original deed.. . document on8"xll" siiepap~r;. \' . '. . ". i: . 'r-:, " '. '. The deed has been placedon<?tfis~rif agend~:~t th¢:Odfdber 1O~2005 ,citY~ouncil meeting~ . Yow presents is notrequii"ed, . '" '. . . ",:'c. '. .,: . ,';i, . .' . \~;:;',".--:., .. SHORTPUTREVIEWCOMMEms.; . . ... , : ... : > ; .'" '-" .': .. ~:~ 1: Include the Citvof 'Reriton, (after· "W:M:;'irt'} in;th~ iridexi~KPortion of both legal descriptions (on Page land ExhihitA) in:thc'Qeed()fD.edicatioil ~ocllrneriC '," ,. '. .... ..,". " . 2; , Seethe attachrnentsfor acorrecti~ri needed'~ th.~ legal descripJiO.nsnoted on said Page 1 .. arid Exhibit A of said document.. 3. Providesorne ip.dexing information on theMapE:xhibit t~ ,allow for location of theparcelwithiri the City Limits of Renton. .' . . ShmIld you need to disc~ss arty portion ofthisl~tter please contactmeat(425) 430:'7235. SIncerely, (tv,~~ /L, ,~-Vl Carrie K. Olson . Deveiopment Services, Plan Review 425-430-7235 . cc: Yellow File _I:_\p_lanR_eV_ie_W_\C_O_LS_O_N_~_:_:_:_;_:_:t_O:_5:_r_i:_:e_;_i:_a_:_~_R_P~_:_:o_4:_,c_:_a:_:e_:_i:_:_::_t:_to_:-.::-cS-s-------~ * This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE Return Address: City Clerk's Office City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 DEED OF DEDICATION Project File #: Property Tax Parcel Number: 518210-0042 Street Intersection: Reference Number(s) of Documents assigned or released: Additional reference numbers are on page __ . Grantor(s): Grantee(s): 1. Rid eview Court L.L.C. I. Ci of Renton, a Munici al Co ration LEGAL DESCRIPTION: (Abbreviated or jillIlegal must go here. AdditionaIlegal on page ) The East 17.50 feet of the following parcel. The south half of the east half of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., ~ County, .)"""tl-II= Washingto· XCEPT all coal an mineral rights as contained in reservation of record, and known as a portion of Tract 4, of arlin's Acre racts EXCEPT the east 7.5 feet of the said tract] The Grantor, for and in consideration of mutual benefits conveys, quit claims, dedicates and donates to the Grantee(s) as named above, the above described real estate situated in the County of King, State of Washington. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal the day and year as written below. CORPORATE FORM OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT Notary Seal must be within box Grantee(s): City of Renton STATE OF COUNTY OF Mayor City Clerk ) )SS ) I certiIY that I know or have satisfactory evidence that fd:,er+ P ~ is the person who appeared before me and said person acknowledged that be.. signed this instrument, on oath stated that h R was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the fY\C\N%e'r of . ~UH!·~ "") , to be the free and voluntary and purposes mentioned in the instrument (Signature) • "'" 'u? Print Notary Name: m,( < Residing at: S3eAro~ C'\ L c.\c,cL wPr My appointment expires: __ O::>-=-_·_d..:::-_',--. ..::O=::"-~-"'--___ _ Exhibit A Legal Description THE EAST 17.50 FEET OF THE FOLLOWING PARCEL. THE SOUTH HALF OF THE EAST HALF OF TIm NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTIONI5, l'OWNSfUP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; , t... --n-.E CII'{ OF REI-J'f'CJ.J. ) EXCEPT ALL COAL AND MINERAL RIGHTS AS CONTAINED IN RESERVATION OF RECORD, AND KNOWN AS A PORTION OF TRACT 4, OF MARTIN'S ACRE TRACTS, AN UNRECORDED PLAT; EXCEPT THE EAST 7.5 FEET OF THE SAID TRACT] v DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: " • CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGIBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM September 15,2005 Bob Mac Onie, Technical Services Sonja Fesser, Technical Services Carrie Olson, Plan Review x7235 ~V Ridgeview Court Plat, LUA04-131 DEED OF DEDICATION LEGAL REVIEW Attached for your review is the Deed of Dedication required for the Ridgeview Court Plat. If all review concerns have been addressed, please sign below or return your comments as needed. Thanks. Approva; ~~QS:::L~~d'«fl.J>ate Robert T Ma 6nie, Jr. Sonj ess Cc: Yellow File I:\PlanReview\COLSON\Shortplats 2005\Ridgeview Court Plat 0 I m TS ReviewStart.doc DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM September 22, 2005 Carrie Olson Sonja J. Fesser}"Ys(:) Ridgeview Court Plat, LUA-04-131-SHPL Deed of Dedication Legal Description Review Bob Mac Onie and I have reviewed the above referenced deed of dedication document and have the following comments: Comments for the Applicant: Include the City of Renton (after "W.M., in") in the indexing portion of both legal descriptions (on Page 1 and Exhibit A) in the Deed of Dedication document. See the attachments for a correction needed in the legal descriptions noted on said Page 1 and Exhibit A of said document. Provide some indexing information on the Map Exhibit to allow for location of the parcel within the City Limits of Renton. \H:\File Sys\LND -Land Subdivision & Surveying Records\LND-1Q -Plats\0421\RV050919.doc " ( r CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board .. Staff Contact ..... . Subject: Planning/Building/Public Works Development Services Division Carrie K. Olson x7235 Acceptance of additional right-of-way for the Ridgeview Court Plat LUA-04-131. I AI #: For Agenda of: October 10,2005 Agenda Status Consent. ............ . x Public Hearing .. cor~espondence:;{~;~:;~ T.1 .... ';~~'~~ ... J~~5~.~ Ordmance....... .;;.~. ~;;;:::::::.4I R 1 · • ..~ .M! _71: eso ut1?n ........ "',;, : . ,·'9.'PJc; ~~ Old· Busmess .... ;:n:i;f<. :J'<jftMJX ,Ill /?J,lIful '1(~ I-----------------------i . . ...... ~. ':11' JB;-}/I£W'!I/Zlk&J Exhibits: New Busmess .... ' .. ~. 'P~.:V~ . (£29h!1 Deed of Dedication Study Sessions .... ~:'''' ~".>~.I .,' .. c: . Exhibit Map Vicinity Map Hearing Examiner's Report Recommended Action: Council concur Fiscal Impact: N/ A Information ........ . Approvals: Legal Dept.. ...... . Finance Dept ..... . Other .............. . Expenditure Required... Transfer/ Amendment. ..... . Amount Budgeted....... Revenue Generated ........ . Total Project Budget City Share Total Project. SUMMARY OF ACTION: x X To dedicate 17.5 feet of additional right-of-way for the widening of Bremerton A venue NE located on the eastern boundary of the Ridgeview Court Plat, LUA04-131, property. This dedication is a condition of the plat, which was approved by City Council on May 9, 2005. The dedication of this right-of-way fronting Ridgeview Court is also a condition for the recording of the Elmhurst Final Plat, LUA04-162, which abuts the Ridgeview Court property to the south. In an effort to coordinate the construction of these developments and to meet the conditions of these two final plats, Council acceptance of said right-of-way is requested. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Deed of Dedication. I:\PlanReview\COLSON\Shortplats 200S\Ridgeview Court Plat 03m AGNBILL.doc r CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board .. Staff Contact ..... . Subject: Planning/Building/Public Works Development Services Division Carrie K. Olson x7235 Acceptance of additional right-of-way for the Ridgeview Court Plat LV A -04-131. Exhibits: Deed of Dedication Exhibit Map Vicinity Map Hearing Examiner's Report Recommended Action: Council concur Fiscal Impact: N/ A J AI#: For Agenda of: October 10, 2005 Agenda Status Consent ............. . Public Hearing .. Correspondence .. Ordinance ............ . Resolution ........... . Old Business ....... . New Business ...... . Study Sessions ..... . Information ........ . Approvals: Legal Dept.. ...... . Finance Dept ..... . Other .............. . Expenditure Required.. . Transfer/Amendment ...... . Amount Budgeted....... Revenue Generated ........ . Total Project Budget City Share Total Project. SUMMARY OF ACTION: x x X To dedicate 17.5 feet of additional right-of-way for the widening of Bremerton Avenue NE located on the eastern boundary of the Ridgeview Court Plat, LUA04-131, property. This dedication is a condition of the plat, which was approved by City Council on May 9, 2005. The dedication of this right-of-way fronting Ridgeview Court is also a condition for the recording of the Elmhurst Final Plat, LUA04-162, which abuts the Ridgeview Court property to the south. In an effort to coordinate the construction of these developments and to meet the conditions of these two final plats, Council acceptance of said right-of-way is requested. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Deed of Dedication. I:\PlanReview\COLSON\Shortplats 2005\Ridgeview Court Plat 03m AGNBILL.doc DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: . ' ... " . , CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGIBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM September 20, 2005 Larry Warren, City Attorney Carrie Olson, Plan Review, x-7235 Ridgeview Court Plat Short Plat, LUA04-131 DEED OF DEDICATION REVIEW AS TO FORM Attached for your review is the Deed of Dedication required for the Ridgeview Court Plat. Please review as to legal form. Also, attached is the Hearing Examiner's Report for the short plat. This document is not fully executed, but will be by the time of recording. Our target date for acceptance by Council is October 10, 2005. Please review and return comments to me as soon as possible. Thanks. Cc: Yellow File I:\PlanRevieW\COLSON\Shortplats 2005\Ridgeview Court Plat 02m AttomeyDeedReview.doc September 8, 2005 -£ity Clefk' s Ofitee City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98055-2332 RIDGE VIE W COURT, LLC PO BOX 2401 KIRKLAND,WA 98083 SUBJECT: DEED OF DEDICATION OF ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY RIDGEVIEW COURT PLAT -LUA-04-131 Dear City Clerk: I have enclosed a Deed of Dedication document to be issued to the City of Renton for the dedication of 17.5 feet of additional right-of-way for the widening of Bremerton Avenue located on the eastern boundary ofthe property. This dedication is a condition of Ridgeview Court preliminary plat which was approved by City Council on May 9th 2005. Per the March 29th, 2005 Hearing Examiner's Decision on the Elmhurst Preliminary Plat (LUA-04-162), which abuts the Ridgeview Court property to the south, the dedication of this right-of-way fronting Ridgeview Court is a condition for the recording of the Elmhurst Final Plat (see Recommendation: 5. page 11). In an effort to coordinate the construction of our developments and to meet the Elmhurst Final Plat conditions, we respectfully request that City Council approve this Deed of Dedication and have it recorded by King County by September 30,2005. If you have any questions, please contact me by phone or email. Thank you for your assistance. if VP nager of Engineering 206714-7161 cliff@belmonthomeswa.com f'-.. Return Address: City Clerk's Office City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 DEED OF DEDICATION Project File #: Property Tax Parcel Number: 518210·0042 Street Intersection:. Reference Number(s) of Documents assigned or released: Additional reference numbers are on page __ . Grantor(s): Grantee(s): I. Rid eview Court L.L.C. I. Ci of Renton a Munici al Co oration LEGAL DESCRIPTION: (Abbreviated or foil legal must go here. Additional legal on page ) The East 17.50 feet of the following parcel. The south half of the east half of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington; EXCEPT all coal and mineral rights as contained in reserVation of record, and known as a portion of Tract 4, of Martin's Acre Tracts, EXCEPT the east 7.5 feet of the said tract. The Grantor, for and in consideration of mutual benefits conveys, quit claims, dedicates and donates to the Grantee(s) as named above, the above described real estate situated in the County of King, State of Washington. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal the day and year as written below. CORPORA. TE FORM OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT Notary Seal must be within box Grantee(s): City of Renton STATE OF COUNTY OF Mayor City Clerk ) )SS ) I certii)! that I know or have satisfactory evidence that &h>d: ? ""-~ is the person who appeared before me and said person acknowledged that be... signed this instrument, on oath stated that h R was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the N\Clt-l%f'r of '. ~U\e" +-,8 ') , to be the free and voluntary and purposes mentioned in the instrument. (Signature) -~ Print Notary Name: f'(\ Ie-< Residing at: WC\ro~ C'\ L C,\c:.dL. wf\- My appointment expires: __ ~~_' d---=-_-'-=---._O=-_~",,-___ _ Exhibit A Legal Description THE EAST 17.50 FEET OF THE FOLLOWING PARCEL. THE SOUTH HALF OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 15, TOWNSIllP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT ALL COAL AND MINERAL RIGHTS AS CONTAINED IN RESERVATION OF RECORD, AND KNOWN AS A PORTION OF TRACT 4, OF MARTIN'S ACRE TRACTS, AN UNRECORDED PLAT; EXCEPT THE EAST 7.5 FEET OF THE SAID TRACT. ~ t<') ci I t<'): t<') N88'06'17"W 10 10 I I 1111011-10· I 316.02' I 17.50' DEDICAllON- 30' 30' f: ~ , ~ I, t<') w. · I 10· ~ o ~ I I 316.33' ,~ .-L----------..;;;.;.;.;..;;.;;.N8-8-.0-9"':""3 ... 5~"~W-----,1-3-0..... : , .\- ';, LIIDTED LIABILITY COMPANY AGREEMENT OF RIDGEVIEW COURT LLC This Operating Agreement of Ridgeview Court LLC, a limited liability company organized pursuant to the Act, is entered into and shall be effective as of the Effective Date~ by and among the Company, RPW Holdings, Inc., its sole member, and RPW Holdings, Inc., its Manager. ARTICLE 1-FORMATION 1.1 Organization. The Member has organized the Company as a Washington limited liability company pursuant to the provisions of the Act. The Member hereby confmns that it has appointed RPW Holdings, Inc. as Manager of the Company. 1.2 Agreement, Effect of Inconsistencies with Act. For and in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Member, the Manager and the Company hereby agree to the terms and conditions of this Operating Agreement, as it may from time to time be amended according to its tenns. The Member and Manager shall be entitled to rely on the provisions of this Operating Agreement, and the Member and Manager shall not be liable to the Company for any action or refusal to act taken In good faith reliance on the terms 'of this Operating Agreement. The Member and the Company hereby agree that the duties and obligations imposed on the Member as such shall be those set forth in this Operating Agreement, which is intended to govern the relationship between the Company, the Manager, and the Member, notwithstanding any provision of the Act or common law to the contrary. 1.3 Name. The name of the Company is Ridgeview Court LLC, and all business of the Company shall be conducted under that name or under any other name, but in any case, only to the extent pennitted by applicable law. 1.4 Effective Date. This' Operating Agreement shall become effective upon the filing of the Certificate of Formation with the Secretary of State of Washington. 1.5 Term. The term of the Company shall be perpetual until dissolved and its affairs wound up in accordance with the Act or this Operating Agreement. 1.6 Registered Agent and Office. The registered agent for the service of process and the registered office shall be SC&B Services, Inc., 999 Third Avenue, Suite 3000, Seattle, Washington 98104-4088. The Manager may, from time to time, change 516919.11014189.00001 the registered agent or office through appropriate filings with the Secretary of State. In the event the registered agent ceases to act as such for any reason or the registered office shall change, the Manager shall promptly designate a replacement registered agent or file a notice of change of address as the case may be. If the Manager shall fail to designate a replacement registered agent or change of address of the registered office, any Member may designate a replacement registered agent or file a notice of change of address. 1.7 Principal Office. The principal office of the Company shan be located at P.O. Box 2401, Kirkland, Washington 98083-2401. The Manager may, from time to time, change the principal office and make appropriate filings with the Secretary of State to reflect that fact. ARTICLE II --DEFINITIONS For purposes of this Operating Agreement, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the following tenus shall have the following meanings: " 2.1 Act. The Washington Limited Liability Company Act and all amendments to the Act. 2.2 Additional Member. A Member other than the initial Member who has acquired a Membership Interest from the Company. 2.3 Admission (Admit). The act of becoming a Member and obtaining the rights appurtenant to a Membership Interest. 2.4 Capital Contribution. Any Contribution or contribution of services made by or on behalf of a Member as consideration for a Membership Interest. 2.5 Certificate. The Certificate of Fonnation of the Company as properly adopted and amended from time to time by the Member and filed with the Secretary of State of Washington. 2.6 Code. The Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as amended from time to time. 2.7 Company. Ridgeview Court LLC, a limited liability company formed under the laws of Washington, and any successor limited liability company. 2.8 Company Property. Any Property owned by the Company. 2.9 Contribution. Any contribution of Property made by or on behalf of a Member as consideration for a Membership Interest or as a contribution to the capital of the Company. 2 5169l9.1/014189.00001 2.10 Distribution. A transfer of Company Property to a Member on account of a Membership Interest regardless of whether the transfer occurs on the liquidation of the Company, in exchange for the Member's interest, or otherwise. 2.11 Disposition (Dispose). Any sale, assignment, transfer, exchange, mortgage, pledge, grant, hypothecation, or other transfer, absolute or as security or encumbrance (including dispositions by operation of law). . 2.12 Manager. One or managers of the Company. Specifically, Manager shall mean RPW Holdings, Inc. or any Person or Persons who succeed it in that capacity. References to the Manager in the singular or as him, her, it, itself, or other like references shall also, where the context so requires, be deemed to include the plural or the masculine or feminine reference, as the case may be. In the event there is more than one Manager, any action to be taken by the Manager under this Operating Agreement may be taken with the consent of a majority of the Managers. .. 2.13 Member. The member executing this Operating Agreement, any transferee ./ of a Member or any Additional Member. At any time there is more than one Member, the term "Member" shall mean all Members, and any action that may be taken under this Operating Agreement by the Member may be taken by any Member, provided that any dispute with respect to any action shall be decided by a majority of the Members. 2.14 Membership Interest. A Member's entire interest in the Company including such Member's rights in the Company's profits, losses 8.J."ld Distributions pursuant to this Operating Agreement and the Act and such other rights and privileges that the Member may enjoy by being a Member. 2.15 Operating Agreement. This operating agreement including all amendments adopted in accordance with this Operating Agreement and the Act. 2.16 Person. An individual, trust, estate, or any incorporated or unincorporated organization permitted to be a member of a limited liability company under the laws of Washington. . 2.17 Proceeding. Any judicial or administrative trial, hearing or other activity, civil criminal or investigative, the result of which may be that a court, arbitrator, or governmental agency may enter a judgment, order, decree, or other determination which, if not appealed and reversed, would be binding upon the Company, a Member or other Person subject to the jurisdiction of such court, arbitrator, or governmental agency. 2.18 Property. Any property real or personal, tangible or intangible (including goodwill), including money and any legal or equitable interest in such property, but 3 516919.\1014189.00001 excluding services imd promises to perform services in the future. 2~19 Taxing Jurisdiction. Any state, local, or foreign government that collects tax, interest or penalties, however designated, on any Member's share of the income or gain attributable to the Company. ARTICLE rn~-NATURE OF BUSINESS The business of the Company is to invest in real property. The Company shall have the authority to do all things necessary or convenient to the accomplish its purpose. The Company exists only for the purpose specified in this Article III, and may not conduct any other business without the consent of the Member. ARTICLE IV --ACCOUNTING AND RECORDS 4.1 Records to be Maintained. The Manager shall maintain the following records at the principal office of the Company: 4.1.1 The full name and business address of the Member; 4.1.2 A copy of the Certificate of Formation and all amendments thereto; 4.1.3 Copies of the Companis federal, foreign, state and local income tax returns and reports (or the portions of the returns of others showing the taxable income deductions, gain, loss, and credits of the Comp'any), if any, for the three most recent years; 4.1.4 Copies of this Operating Agreement including all amendments thereto; 4.1.5 Any fmancial statements of the Company for the three most recent years; and 4.1.6 The amount of cash and a description and statement of the agreed value of the other property or services contributed by the Member and which the Member has agreed to contribute. ARTICLE V -NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF MEMBERS The name and address of the Member is RPW Holdings, Inc., P.O. Box 2401, Kirkland, Washington 98083~2401. 4 516919.1/014189.00001 ARTICLE VI -MANAGEMENT Management Rights. Subject to Section 6.2 of this Article VI, the business of the Company shall be conducted by the'Manager and all management of the Company shall be vested in the Manager. The Manager shall have power and authority to take the following actions on behalf of the Company: 6.1.1 The location or relocation of a place of business for the Company; 6.1.2 The execution, or appointment of officers and agents with such designation as the Manager may detennine to execute, on behalf of the Company, all instruments and documents, including, without limitation, checks, drafts, notes and other negotiable instruments; mortgages or deeds of trust; security agreements; fmancing statements; documents providing for the acquisition, mortgage, investriient or disposition of property, including the licensing of intellectual property; 6.1.3 The appointment and fixing of compensation for officers and other agents for the Company; 6.1.4 The determination ofthe amount of, and the making of, Distributions; 6.1.5 The acquisition of property from any Person as the Manager may determine. The fact that the Manager or Member is directly or indirectly affiliated or connected with any such Person shall not prohibit the Manager from dealing with that Person subject to other provisions of this Operating Agreement; 6; 1.6 The borro'wing of money for the Company from banks or other lending institutions; 6.1.7 The purchase ofliability and other insurance to protect the Companis property and business; , 6.1.8 The investment of any Company funds (by way of example but not limitation) in time deposits, short-term governmental obligations, commercial paper or other investments; 6.1.9 The confession of a judgment against the Company; 6.1.10 The making of any capital expenditure; 6.1.11 The employment of accountants, legal counsel, managing agents or other experts to perform services for the Company and to compensate them from 5 516919.11014189.00001 , Company funds; and 6.1.12 The doing and perfonnance of all other acts as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the Company's business purpose. 6.2 Certain Powers of Managers and Restrictions on Authority of the Managers. Notwithstanding Section 6.1 of this Article VI, only the Member may take the following actions or may direct the Manager to take the following actions: 6.2.1 The Admission of an Additional Member; 6.2.2 The initiation or a proceeding for the bankruptcy of the Company; 6.2.3 A change in the purpose of the Company; 6.2.4 The approval of a merger, conversion or the application of any statute (the application of which is elective) to the Company; 6.2.5 The taking of any act which would make it impossible to fulfill the purpose of the Company; 6.2.6 The amendment of this Operating Agreement or the taking of any action in violation of this Agreement; 6.2.7 The causing of the Company to voluntarily initiate a proceeding under which the Company would become a debtor under the United States Banlu-uptcy Code; or 6.2.8 The sale, exchange or other Disposition of all, or substantially all, of the Company Property other than in the ordinary course of the Companis business. 6.3 Liability of Member and Manager. Neither the Member nor the Manager shall be liable as Member or Manager for the liabilities of the Company. The failure of the Company to observe any fonnalities or requirements relating to the exercise of its powers or management of its business or affairs under this Operating Agreement or the Act shall not be grounds for imposing personal liability on the Member or Manager for liabilities of the Company. 6.4 Indemnification. The Company shall inderrmify the Member and the Manager for all costs, losses, liabilities, and damages paid or accrued by the Member (either as Member or as agent) or Manager in connection with the business of the Company or because such Person is a Member or Manager, to the fullest extent provided or allowed by Washington law. In addition, the Manager shall cause the Company to 6 516919.11014189.00001 advance costs of participation in any Proceeding to the Manager or Member. The Manager may, with the consent of the Member, indemnify all other employees and agents of the Company for all costs, losses, liabilities, and damages paid or accrued by the agent or employee in connection with the business of the Company or because such Person is an agent or employee, to the fullest extent provided or allowed by Washington law. 6.5 Conflicts of Interest. 6.5.1 The Member or Manager shall be entitled to enter into transactions that may be considered to be competitive with, or a business opportunity that may be beneficial to, the Company, it being expressly understood that the Member or Manager may enter into transactions that are similar to the transactions into which the Company may enter. 6.5.2 A:. Member or Manager does not violate a duty or obligation to the Company merely because the Member's conduct furthers the Member's o\vn interest. A Member or Manager may lend money to and transact other business with the Company .. The rights and obligations of a Member or Manager who lends money to or transacts business with the Company are the same as those of a Person who is not a Member, subject to other applicable law. No transaction with the Company shall be voidable solely because a Member or Manager has a direct or indirect interest in the transaction if either the transaction is fair to the Company or the Member (in the case of a transaction in which the Manager but not the Member is personally interested) or the Manager (in the case of a transaction in which the Member but not the Manager is personally interested) with lmowledge of the interest of the Member or Manager as the case may be. 6.6 Compensation, of Member and Manager. The Member and Manager shall be reimbursed for all reasonable expenses incurred on behalf of the Company and shall be entitled to reasonable compensation, in an amount to be detennined from time to time by the Member. 6.7 Standard of Care of Member and Manager. The Member's duty of care in the discharge of the Member's duties to the Company is limited to refraining from engaging in grossly negligent or reckless conduct, intentional misconduct, or a lmowing violation of law. In discharging its duties, the Member shall be fully protected in relying in good faith upon the records required to be maintained under Article IV and upon such information, opinions, reports or statements by any of its agents, or by any other Person, as to matters the Member reasonably believes are within such other Person's professional or expert competence and who has been selected with reasonable care by or on behalf of the Company, including information, opinions, reports or statements as to the value and amount of the assets, liabilities, profits or losses of the Company or any other facts pertinent to the existence and amount of assets from which distributions to the Member might properly be paid. 7 ·516919.11014189.00001 ARTICLE VII --CONTRIBUTIONS 7.1 Initial Contributions. The Member shall make the Contribution described for that Member on Exhibit A at the time and on the terms specified on Exhibit A. If no time for the Contribution is specified, the Contributions shall be made upon execution of this Operating Agreement. The value of the Contributions shall be as set forth on Exhibit A. No interest shall accrue on any Contribution, and the Member shall not have the right to withdraw or be repaid any Contribution except as provided in this Operating Agreement. ' 7.2 Additional Contributions. In addition to the initial Contribution, the Member may make additional contributions. The Member shall not be obligated to make any additional contributions, ARTICLE VIII -DISTRIBUTIONS 8.1 Distributions. Except as provided in Section 8.2 and in the Act, the Company may make Distributions as determined by the Manager from time to time in accordance with this Operating .. A..greement. 8.2 Limitations on Distribution.s. No Distribution shall be declared and paid unless, after the distribution is made, the assets of the Company are in excess of all liabilities of the Company. ARTICLE IX ..,. TAXES 9.1 Elections. The Manager may make any tax elections for the Company allowed under the Code or the tax laws of any state or other jurisdiction having taxing jurisdiction over the Company. 9.2 Taxes of Taxing Jurisdictions. To the extent the laws of any Taxing Jurisdiction require, the Manager will prepare and the Member will execute and submit an agreement indicating that the Member will make timely income tax payments to the Taxing Jurisdiction and that the Member accepts personal jurisdiction of the Taxing Jurisdiction with regard to the collection of income taxes attributable to the Member's income, and interest, and penalties assessed on such income, if such agreement is required by the Taxing Jurisdiction. If the Member fails to provide such agreement, the Company may withhold and pay over to such Taxing Jurisdiction the amount of tax, penalty and interest determined under the laws of the Taxing Jurisdiction with respect to such income. Any such payments with respect to the income of a Member shall be treated as a distribution for purposes of Article IX. 8 516919.1I014189.0000J 9 .. 3 Method of Accounting. The records of the Company shall be maintained on the same method of accounting. as that of the Member. ARTICLE X -DISPOSITION OF MEMBERSffiP INTEREST AND ADMISSION OF ASSIGNEES AND ADDITIONAL MEMBERS 10.1 Disposition. The Member's Membership Interest is transferable either voluntarily or by operation oflaw. The Member may Dispose of an or a portion of the Member's Membership Interest. Notwithstanding any provision of the Act to the contrary, upon the Disposition of the :Member's Membership Interest, the transferee shall be admitted upon the completion of the transfer without further action. Upon the transfer of the Member's entire Membership Interest (other than a temporary transfer or transfer as a pledge or security interest), the Member shall cease to be a Member and shall have no further rights or obligations under this Operating Agreement, except that the Member shall have the right to such information as may be necessary for the computation of the Member's tax liability. 10.2 Admission of Additional Members. The Member may Admit Additional Members and determine th~ Capital Contributions of such additional Members. ARTICLE XI -DISSOLUTION AND WINDING UP 11.1 Dissolution. The Company shall be dissolved and its affairs wound up, upon the will of the Member. Notwithstanding any provision of the Act to the contrary, the Company shall continue and not dissolve as a result of the death, retirement, resignation, expulsion, bankruptcy, or dlssolution of any Member or any other event that terminates the continued membership of the Member. . 11.2 Effect of Dissolution. Upon dissolution, the Company shall cease carrying on as distinguished from the winding up of the Company business, but the Company is not terminated, but continues until the winding up of the affairs of the Company is completed and the Certificate of Cancellation has been issued by the Secretary of State of Washington. 11.3 Distribution of Assets on Dissolution. Upon the winding up ofthe Company, the Company Property shall be distributed: 11.3.1 To creditors, inc1udingthe Member if it is a creditor, to the extent permitted by law, in satisfaction of Company liabilities; and then 11.3.2· To the Member. Such distributions shall be in cash, Property other than cash, or partly in both, as determined by the Manager. 9 516919.1/014189.00001 11.4 Winding Up and Certificate of Cancellation. The winding up of a limited liability company shall be completed when all debts, liabilities, and obligations of the limited liability company have been paid and discharged or reasonably adequate provision therefor has been made, and all ofthe remaining property and assets of the ,limited liability company have been distributed to the Member. Upon the completion of winding up of the Company, a Certificate of Cancellation shall be delivered by the Manager to the Secretary of State of Washington for filing. The Certificate of Cancellation shall set forth the information required by the Act. ARTICLE XII --AMENDMENT This Operating Agreement may be moClified or amended from time to time only by a written instrument adopted by the Member and the Company and executed by the Member and the Company. ARTICLE XIII --MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 13.1 Entire Agreement. This Operating Agreement represents the entire agreement between the Member and the Company. 13.2 Rights of Creditors and Third Parties under Operating Agreement. This Operating Agreement is entered into between the Company and the Member for the exclusive benefit of the Company, its Member, and their'successors and assignees. This Operating Agreement is expressly not intended for the benefit of any creditor of the Company or any other Person. Except and only to the extent provided by applicable statute, no such creditor or third party shall have anyrights under this Operating Agreement or any agreement between the Company and the Member with respect to any Capital Contribution or otherwise. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hand and seals on the date set forth beside our names. COMPANY: RIDGEVIEW COURT LLC, a Washington limited liability company, Date: ----- 5169 I 9. I/O I 41 89,00001 MANAGER: /f RPW HOLDINGS" C. By: MEMBER: RPW HOLDINGS:/ ( By: ) 11 516919.11014189.00001 .1 " EXHIBIT A Member Initial Capital Contribution RPW Holdings, Inc. a Washington corporation $1,000 \ 12 516919.1/014189.00001 \ .. ' Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor May 10, 2005 Cliff Williams Ridgeview Court, LLC PO Box 2401 Kirkland, W A 98033 CIT~~410F RENTON City Clerk Bonnie I. Walton Re: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 112512005, regarding the Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat; File No. LUA-04-J..l-'3': PP, SA-H, ECF. I?J f Dear Appellant: At the regular Council meeting of May 9,2005, the Renton City Council approved the recommendation ofthePlaiming and Development Committee regarding the referenced preliminary plat and appeal,approving the preliminary plat and site plan with certain conditions and modifications~ , A copy of the Planning and Development Committee report is enclosed. Unless the appropria.te land use appeal from the decision of the City Council is filed with King County Superior Court as indicated in Renton Municipal Code (copy ofRMC 4-8-110.0 enclosed), the dt':cisionofthe City Council will be final. For information regardingcontinuati'on b{the land use applicalionprocess, call the Development Services Divisionat 425~43q~ 7200. Pursuant to RCW, a final plat meeting all requirements of State law and Renton Municipal Code shall be submitted to the City for approval within five yearsbfthedate of preliminary plat a.pproval. Please feel free to contact me if I 'canprovide further information or assistance. , Sincerely, Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk Enclosures cc: Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Council President Terri Briere Jennifer Henning, Principal Planner Sean K. Howe, Cairncross & HempelmaIin, P.S., 524 Second Ave., Ste 500, Seattle, W A 9S104 -10-5--5-S-ou-t-h -=-G-ra""'dy-W-ay---=R-e-nt-o-n,--W-=-a-'shC-:-in-g-to-n-9-S-0-55---(-42:-5-) 4-3-0--6-51-0-1 F-AX-(-4-25-)-43-0--6-5-16-~ ® This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE May 9, 2005 Monday, 7:30 p.rn. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL OF COUNCILMEMBERS CITY STAFF IN ATTENDANCE SPECIAL PRESENTATION Community Services: Teen Programs APPEAL Planning & Development Committee Appeal: Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat, Cliff Williams, PP-04-131 .- RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting MINUTES ... Council Chambers Renton City Hall Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler called the meeting of the Renton City Council to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. TERRI BRIERE, Council President; MARCIE PALMER; DON PERSSON; RANDY CORMAN; TONI NELSON; DAN CLAWSON; DENIS LAW. KATHY KEOLKER-WHEELER, Mayor; JAY COVINGTON, Chief Administrative Officer; ZANETTA FONTES, Assistant City Attorney; BONNIE WALTON, City Clerk; GREGG ZIMMERMAN, PlanninglBuilding/Public Works Administrator; SYLVIA ALLEN, Recreation Director; TOM PUTHOFF, Recreation Specialist II; DEREK TODD, Assistant to the CAO; COMMANDER FLOYD ELDRIDGE, Police Department. Tom Puthoff, Recreation Specialist II, reviewed the events and activities that comprise the Recreation Division's teen programs. He reported that the Renton neighborhood centers offer drop-in activities for teens, attracting between 70 to 160 participants each day. Mr. Puthoff highlighted activities such as the Hip Hop Dance program, horseback riding, ski trips, rock climbing, overnight campouts, and the Great Escapes Teen Camp. Continuing, Mr. Puthoff explained that the Renton Youth Council program is comprised of approximately 100 members, and a large part of the program is volunteerism. The Renton Youth Council participates in community awareness projects, and organizes activities such as the flashlight egg hunt and citywide dances. Additionally, the Renton Youth Council is involved with the Renton Youth Enrichment and Support Fund project, which awards grants to local area youth groups, and with the Eastside Youth Hall of Fame, which is a joint project with various cities that recognizes outstanding teens. Planning and Development Committee Chair Clawson presented a report regarding the appeal filed by Cliff Williams, Ridgeview Court, LLC, on the Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat (PP-04-13l). The Committee heard this appeal on 5/5/2005. After reviewing the record, the written appeal and hearing oral argument, and having heard about the background of this project from staff and receiving staffs recommendation, the Committee recommended that the Council find that the evidence submitted by the appellant justifies reversing the Hearing Examiner's recommendation concerning the plat, approving the plat, and approving the site plan. The Committee therefore recommended that the Council change the Hearing Examiner's recommendation, approve the preliminary plat, and approve the site plan with the following changes to the Hearing Examiner's report, recommendation and decision: 1. There should be added Finding 28 to read: "The Comprehensive Plan and zoning provided for a mixed-use area, which permitted residential development. Providing homeowners hip opportunities in all neighborhoods is a policy under the Comprehensive Plan. While it might be preferable to have a buffering use between the post office and the residential development, because of the separation from NE 4th St., there does not appear to be a viable current market for a buffering non-residential use. Since a residential use is permitted, and the plat has been designed to ·' May 9,2005 ADMINISTRA TIVE REPORT Renton City Council Minutes Page 166 provide an elevation change between the post office and the residential properties, as well as additional setbacks, a fence and landscaping, the use is not only permitted, but is perhaps the only use that can currently be made of the property. Those persons that are sensitive to noise should be able to determine that the house they are considering buying backs up on a post office and that there will be some noise from the post office, and avoid making such a purchase." The Hearing Examiner's conclusions should be modified as follows: 1. Conclusion No. 1 is amended by striking theJast two sentences. 2. Conclusion No.2 is stricken in its entirety. 3. Conclusion No.4 should be modified by striking the first three sentences thereof. 4. Conclusion No.5 is modified by striking the last sentence thereof. 5. Conclusion No.6 is modified by striking the last sentence thereof and substituting in its place "On balance, the public use and interest is served by this proposal." 6. Conclusion No.7 is stricken in its entirety. 7. Conclusion No.9, wherein the Hearing Examiner recommends that the Council deny the residential plat is reversed. 8. Conclusion No. 10 wherein the site plan is denied because of the denial of the plat is reversed and the Council instead accepts the Hearing Examiner's alternative decision on the site plan. 9. Conclusion No. 17 recommending denial of the proposed plat and site plan is reversed. 10. The Hearing Examiner's recommendation that the City Council should deny the proposed plat is reversed. 11. The Hearing Examiner's decision that the site plan is denied because of the recommended denial of the plat is reversed and the Hearing Examiner's alternative recommendation and decision is adopted. However, the Committee recommended that the masonry wall imposed as noise mitigation by the Hearing Examiner be eliminated and, in its place, there be installed a cedar fence, triple pane windows, and double insulati'on. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington reviewed a written administrative report summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of its business plan for 2005 and beyond. Items noted included: • The City has hired two companies that will work together to treat the rapidly spreading Eurasian milfoil in Lake Washington that threatens the safety of swimmers, boaters, and float planes. While there will be no restrictions for fishing and swimming during this treatment, the boat launch will be closed May 16th at 6:00 a.m. through May 19th at 10:00 a.m. to allow the contractor to work within the harbor area. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT May 9, 2005 APPROVED BY-l c~nr COUNCIL I Date S",9~~ooS" 'i , Appeal byGliffWi.I~i,aDls,:alld.'Ri4geyie,-,,~,Cour,(ttCr~garding , " ~he:Wd.i~¢Yie'Y'Gour:tPreliDlitlary,Plat ',',' '.', ' " Filb<iPWA-b4,7Ji3.i,~iPP,sA"'H;ECF' , ::\·:.~~ferrea:March21, 2005 " " ;; The Planning and Development Committee heard this appeal on May 5, 2005. After reviewing the record, the written appeal and hearing oral argument, and having heard about the background of this project from staffandreceiving staff's recommendation, the Committee recommends that the Council find that the evidence submitted by the appellant justifies reversing the Hearing Examiner's recommendationconcemingthe plat, approving the plat and approving the .sj~e;plani·Tll~.~ommittee therefore recommends that the Council change the Ex~irier"s rec;<?rtimendation,approve the preliminary plat and approve the site plan witllithe foiiowing)Ghangestpthe;1::learing Examiner's report, reconimendation and decision:',. ' '" . "" 1. There should be ~ddeq finding 2~JQ,r~ad:" "The Comprehensive Plan and Zoning ~.,~. " ~.'y ~·}%:''':''h.'''; .,_,¥,:. . .,~ . provided for a mixed~use area, which:pet;l#.ftted);esi<i~ntial development. Providing homeoWnership opport~niti,~s i,p all,;IJ,~~g~~Qrll0()q~;J~!apoljcy~d~r the Compr, ehensive '. . ,,'I "":" "".~' .~.<~<. ~., '·}:«w1\;:.J.,· .. ,'r'\:·'·~-'·':~·4;·~%','· .", \" <'~. PI~. ~le it might b~ prefer~blelO'llat~~a';\)Hf~enhg use pewee~lthe post office and the reSIdentIal development, becaus~oKthe s.~paratlonfrom NE 4 ,th~redoesnot appear to be a viable current mark~t fo~.~;b:ufferihg:i1on-reslttentialuse. Sin,.~e a residential use is pemiitted, and the platha~ beep,~fles\~ned to provide ane1evatio~jchange between the 'post office and the residential::.properties",!s wellas,additipnalsetbacks, a fence and' landscaping, the use is not on1ypennitt~d"but'ispei:hllPs i~~-6nly use that can currently be made of the property. Thos(5'Mrson~tlia~ are sensittyecto noise should be able to ' deterrninethat the house they ate cOhsideripg buying backs up on a post office and that there will be some noise from the post office, and avoid making such a purchase." The Hearing Examiner's conclusions should be modified as follows: 1. Conclusion No. lis amended by striking the last two sentences. 2. Conclusion No.2 is stricken in its entirety. 3. Conclusion No. 4 should be modified by striking the first three senterices thereof.' 4. Conclusion No.5 is modified by striking the last sentence thereof. 5. Conclusion No.6 is modified by striking the last sentence thereof and substituting in its place "On balance, the public use and interest is served by this proposal." Planning and Development L _.llmittee Report Page 2 6. Conclusion No.7 is stricken in its entirety: 7. Conclusion No.9, wherein the Examiner recommends that the Council deny the residential plat is reversed. 8. Conclusion No. 10 wherein the site plan is denied because of the denial of the plat is reversed and the Council instead accepts the Examiner's alternative decision on the site plan. 9. Conclusion No. 17 recommending denial of the proposed plat and site plan is reversed., 10. The Examiner's recommendation that the, City Council should deny the proposed plat is reversed. 11. The Examiner's decision that the, site plan is denied because of the recommended denial of the plat is reversed and.th~E4I;lIDiner's alternative recommendation and' , decision.is adopted. fiowever:\he:Corirmitt&~·;re9.pmmeildsthat the masonry wall imposed as noise mitigation by the Examiner be,efifiWIated and, in its place, there, be installed a cedar fence" triple .pane'windows;"an4 dotlple insulation ,":' , ,-, ;: .,~: .... "~, .~ ;'." ~.<' ~: .' , , Denis Law, Vice Charr ~1.:: ' ~ ... :fct~ , Marcie Palmer, Member c: Neil Watts , Jennifer Henning NancyWeil , .:-~. -:,." ," . -.~ -" '\ ," . January 25, 2005 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON Minutes APPLICANT: LOCATION: SUMMARY OF REQUEST: SUMMARY OF ACTION: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: PUBLIC HEARING: Cliff Williams, PE PO Box 240] Kirkland, W A 98083 Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat File No:: LUA 04-13], PP, SA-H, ECF 327 Bremerton Avenue NE Approval for Site Plan, Preliminary Plat and Code Modification for subdividing a 2.4-acre site into 20 lots for development of single-family dwellings. Development Services Recommendation: Approve subject to conditions The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on December 28,2004. After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining available information on file with the application, field checking the property and surrounding area; the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The/ollowing minutes are a summary o/the January 4,2005 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, January 4, 2005, at approximately 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No.1: Yellow file containing the original Exhibit No.2: Neighborhood Detail Map application, proof of posting, proof of publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit No.3: Preliminary Plat Plan Exhibit No.4: Preliminary Site Plan Exhibit No.5: Revised Site Plan showing 26' Private Exhibit No.6: Topography Map Access and Utility Easement Exhibit No.7: Tree Cutting/Clearing Plan Exhibit No. 8: Landsc~nK Plan -, Ridgeview Court Preliminary Pial File No.: LUA-04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF January 25, 2005 Page 2 Exhibit No.9: Grading Plan Exhibit No. 11: Elevation Plan for Lots 5, 6, 15 & ] 6 Exhibit No. 13: Elevation Plan for Lots 3, 9 & 12 Exhibit No. 15: Elevation Plan for Lots 10 & 18 Exhibit No. 17: Elevation Plan for Lots 1, 11 & ] 9 Exhibit No. 10: Utility Plan Exhibit No. 12: Elevation Plan for Lots 2 & 20 Exhibit No. 14: Elevation Plan for Lot 13 Exhibit No. 16: Elevation Plan for Lots 4, 7, 8, 14 & ]7 Exhibit No. 18: Zoning Map TIle hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Nancy Weil, Senior Planner, Development Services, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055. The site is located south ofNE 4th Street and to the west of Bremerton Avenue NE. Approval for site plan, preliminary plat for 20 lots on a 2.4- acre site for the eventual development of single-family dwellings. Access to this site off of Bremerton, which will require improvements, is proposed by a public street (NE 3rd Lane) to end in a cul-de-sac plus additional easements that will radiate from that cul-de-sac. There are no protected critical areas and it is vested to the development regulations for the Center Suburban (CS) zoning and is located in the Centers Residential Bonus District B. The zoning did change in November of 2004, however the filing for this preliminary plat was before the changes and so is vested to the CS zone. The currenfzoning is CN. Two street modifications were requested and approved, one a reduced right-of-way width of 42 feet and second a reduced'radius on the cul-de-sac of 50 feet. Three private access easements will extend off ofNE 3rd Lane to serve access to all 20 lots. Lots 9 -13 wi II have rear entry garages with front of each lot facing east with an 18- foot pedestrian access to the front of those lots. The site is relatively flat with a berm located near the southeast comer ofthe site. There is some loose fill but has been deemed suitable for the proposed development. The site is vegetated with blackberry bushes, small deciduous and coniferous trees which are to be removed as part ofthe site preparation. An additional modification from the Suburban Centers Residential Bonus District B would allow greater front yard setbacks for lots 8 through 13 rather than the maximum 15 feet permitted in the CS wne. The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DN,s-M) with seven mitigation measures. No appeals were filed. The preliminary plat criteria for the Comprehensive Plan Designation was in compliance for this development. The minimum yard area provided would comply with the land area per dwelling unit. There are no minimum requirements for lot width or depth within the CS zone. All lots meet the maximum lot coverage of 65%. The proposal meets all the setback requirements. The net density of 12.42 dwe11ing units per acre is within the allowed density range ofthe CS zone. Based on the building elevations provided by the applicant, the proposed residential structures would comply with, or possibly exceed the requirements of Bonus District B of the Centers Residential Overlay. There are seven elevations for this site, all are two-story with rear or side entrance garages. Landscaping, access and parking meet or exceed the requirements ofthe Bonus District B and are in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-13\, PP, SA-H, ECF January 25, 2005 Page 3 The lot arrangements as well as size, shape and orientations are all in compliance, meeting the minimum width and area requirements. The lots are at 90-degree angles, some of the structures will be facing a different direction, they seem to flow well. There will be no direct vehicular access onto Bremerton from any of the proposed lots. The applicant is required to dedicate right-of-way for the improvement for Bremerton Avenue. Twenty-four feet is currently shown for the private access easement, staff has discussed this with the applicant and they are in agreement that this could be reduced to function more as a private alleyway, which allows a minimum of 16 feet in width with 14 feet of pavement. As long as 24-feet of back out area is provided for each garage, the staff feels that the reduced width of the street will lend itself to an alleyway residential look rather than 3plitting up the tier of lots. This also gives a larger yard area to those lots. Staff recommends the establishment of a homeowner's association or maintenance agreement for the landscaped right-of-way improvements, as well as for any shared private utilities/drainage facilities or private access and utility easements and to include the private pedestrian access easement. The surrounding properties to the west, north and east are zoned CS. To the south is a proposed single-family residential development with existing single-family to the southeast in R-8 zoning. Anacortes Avenue NE will act as a buffer between the proposed single-family homes along the western property line and the existing commercial use (Post Office site) on the abutting property. Traffic, Fire and Park mitigation fees·were imposed by the ERC. The subject site is located within the Renton School District and they have indicated that they can handle the proposed 8 new students from the new development. The site is located within the Cedar River Basin. The applicant has submitted a Drainage Report that indicates that on-site surface water would be directed to a stormwater detention facility located in the southwest comer of the site. The drainage analysis and design of the stormwater system appears to be in accordance with the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual Level 2 flow control requirements. The project will require the installation of new water mains, fire hydrants, fire control systems, and meters, all to be placed within City held easements. The project would require a new sewer main along the site frontage and new sewer mains as required to serve the new single-family lots. In regards to the Site Plan Criteria, the project is in compliance with the policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Land use regulations with modifications are in compliance as well. The seven house plans for the 20 lots are sufficient to lend variation to the project. This site will also blend with the commercial, mixed use and transition well into the residential uses to the south. This development should not have any negative impacts to the surrounding property owners. The site does require clearing and all existing structures to be removed. Staff recommends approval of the Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat subject to conditions. CliffWilliams, 5326 SW Manning Street, Seattle, WA 98116 stated that he is an employee of the developer and they are satisfied with the recommendations that the City has provided. Kevin Chamberlin, 18930 45th Place NE, Lake Forest Park, WA 98155, manager of the Renton Highlands Station of the US Postal Service that will be adjacent to Lots 9, 10, I I, 12, and \3. This use for that property Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-13 I, PP, SA-H, ECF January 25, 2005 Page 4 / will be a great improvement for the neighborhood, however, the Post Office will have an impact on them. There are semi-tractor trailer rigs that come into the property at all hours of the day and night They all enter and leave through a driveway that will take them next the above-mentioned lots. It is most likely that these people will feel an impact from this traffic. Some of the trailers come in as early as I :00 am in December and at 3: 15 am the rest of the year. They continue at intervals throughout the day along with a lot of other truck traffic. There is a gravity operated dock plate system (used to unload the trucks) that makes quite a bit of noise and it cannot be modified in any way. There also are 39 delivery vehicles that are required to be inspected each morning between 6:30 and 7:30 am. Part of the vehicle inspection is a short sounding of the horn. (Mr. Chamberlin drew the location of the delivery trucks on the vicinity map) Bob Wenzl, 636 Lake Sammamish Lane NE, Bellevue, WA 98008 stated that he is the owner of Ridgeview Court LLC. He is completely aware of the post office site there, he knows where most of the vehicles and work that will be going on in that neighborhood. It is anticipated that the property to the north will be a commercial type of zone. They are confident that the post office and the new residents will make good neighbors. Juliana Fries, Development Services the report given is accurate and the Level 2 Storm Water detention is adequate. The Examiner stated that it would be necessary to address the post office concerns, the developer may be comfortable with the situation, but the future buyers of these homes may not What enhancements cal"' be provided? Ms. Weil pointed out besides the difference in the grade and the 26-foot easement the structures to first be impacted will be the garages. Bedrooms will be upstairs, looking over the garages and subject to the noises that could be generated at 1 :00 am and 3:00 am. Once property owners take possession of the property, they may wish to enhance that back area, no additional requirements have been made for landscaping. No additional fencing has been required along this property line, but certainly it could be done. Mr. Wenzl stated that they had no concerns about providing a fence or some kind of hedge screening if the space is available. A 6-foot fence would be appropriate. Again there is the elevation change from the parking lot approximately a 6 to 10-foot drop from their parking structures to the large rockery along that easterly property line. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff The hearing closed at approximately 9:48 a.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: I. The applicant, Ridgeview Court, LLC, filed a request for a Site Plan Review approval and a 20-lot Preliminary Plat. There was also a request to modify the front yard setback for homes in the project 2. The yeJ]ow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit # I. 3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official issued a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M). ' .. Ridgeview COllrt Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF January 25, 2005 Page 5 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject site is located at 327 Bremerton Avenue NE. The subject site is located on the west side of Bremerton Avenue a half-block south ofNE 4th Street. Union Avenue NE is located.west of the subject site. 6. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan was changed in November 2004. The area in which the subject site is located was designated for the development of Commercial Center uses but is now designated for Commercial Corridor. 7. Policy H-90 states: "Identify sites within mixed-use areas, which are appropriate for residential developments. " Policy H-85 states: "Provide homeownership opportunities in all neighborhoods." 8. The subject site is currently zoned CN (Center Neighborhood) but was zoned CS (Center Suburban) when the application was submitted. The applicant is vested under the prior regulations which allow a density of 10 to 20 units per acre for residential development. The minimum lot area for single family uses in the prior CS zone were 1,200 square feet of which 250 square feet must be landscaped yard. The subject site was also located in the -Area B Suburban Centers Residential Demonstration District and is governed by additional Site Plan Revie~ criteria. 9. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 1480 enacted in April 1954. 10. The subject site is approximately 2.4 acres or 104,373 square feet. It is almost square and is approximately 330 feet wide (north to south) along Bremerton and 316 feet deep. II. The subject site is relatively level with a berm in the southeast comer where slopes range from IS to 24 percent. The berm appears to be a result of grading on the adjacent parcel of land. The sitei::: also approximately eight (8) feet higher than the adjacent parcel to the west. 12. The area contains a mix of uses and undeveloped property. The relatively new Post Office is located directly west of the north half of the subject site. 13. The applicant proposes removing all vegetation, blackberry, and deciduous and conifer trees from the subject site to allow development of the building pads, roads and driveways. The applicant may import approximately 4,800 cubic yards of fill material to grade the site and roads. 14. The applicant proposes dividing the subject site into 20 single-family lots that will contain detached single-family homes. The lots will be arranged around a series of private roads, alley-like roads and easements that originate from a new roadway that terminates in a cul-de-sac. Basically, a series of dead end roads will be created ofT of a dead end cul-de-sac. Ridgeview Court Preliminary t'lat File No.: LUA-04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF January 25, 2005 Page 6 15. Administrative approval was granted to allow the cul-de-sac street's width to be reduced to 42 feet and the radius ofthe cul-de-sac to be reduced to 50 feet. Staff noted that the applicant would have to dedicate 17.5 feet to the widening of Bremerton which currently does not meet City standards. 16_ The three private easements will extend north and south from the new cul-de-sac street. nle proposed lots along Bremerton, Proposed Lots 1-3 and 18-20 would take their access off the first of these easements rather than Bremerton. These lots would be rear-loaded from this alley_ Proposed Lots 4-7 and 14-17 would use the second of the easements. Lots would face each other across this easement roadway (see attached maps). Finally, a new private street, labeled Anacortes Avenue NE, would provide access to Proposed Lot 8 and the storm drainage tract on the south and Proposed Lots 9-13 on the north. Staff has recommended that the 24-foot private street paralleling the rear of homes that front Bremerton be reduced to a 16-foot alley width with 14 feet of paving and 24-feet of backout space to decrease impervious surface and create a private street appearance. 17. The density for the plat would be 12.42 dwelling units per acre after subtracting roadway areas. 18. The homes would be two-stories. The dwelling or building groupings would vary from those along Bremerton being traditional facing a street, to the interior groupings facing a kind of courtyard private street, to those in the rear facing an interior street. Sidewalks could connect all of the units to one another and through the private easements to the public street. 19. The CS zone permits a lot coverage of 65% whereas a lot coverage of not more than 44% is proposed for this complex. A front yard setback of between 10 and 15 feet is required. Staff has granted a modification that allows a setback for Proposed Lots 8 to 13 to have a greater setback to allow pedestrian access and rear access garages on a 26-foot wide private street. A minimum side yard of3 feet with no projections is required unless there is abutting residential zoning. The R-l 0 district south of the subject site will require a IS-foot setback on Proposed Lots 1,5,6 and 8. 20. The District B overlay guidelines require building forms to contain both vertical and horizontal modulations at a minimum width of 2 feet at intervals of 40 feet as well as individual private entry features. It appears that the buildings will comply with these requirements. Two enclosed parking spaces that open onto a non-front facade and away from arterial streets will be provided as required. 21. The applicant will be providing the required 250 feet of landscaped area on each lot. Landscaping will consist of lawn, and a mix of conifer and deciduous trees and shrubs. 22. The subject site is located within the Renton School District. The project is expected to generate approximately 8 school age children. These students would be spread across the grades and would be assigned on a space available basis. 23. The development will increase traffic approximately 200 vehicle trips per day and add approximately 20 trips to each peak hour travel period. 24. Stormwater would be contained in the southwest comer ofthe subject site in Tract A. The plat would comply with the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual, Level 2 flow requirements. 25. Sewer and water would be provided by the City. Appropriate extensions of the water and sewer mains would be required. Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF January 25, 2005 Page 7 i· 26. The Manager of the adjacent Post Office testified that the post office has 39 delivery vehicles. Postal employees start-up each of the 39 vehicles and test their horns between 6:30 A.M. and 7:30 A.M. He also testified that large tractor trailer rigs arrive at the post office site at I :00 A.M. during the month of December and 3: 15 A.M. the rest of the year, as well as other hours during a 24-hour day. They arrive near the rear of the post office site which would place them along the western or rear edge of the subject property. They can make quite a lot of noise as they park and then depart as well as during their loading or unloading operations in which gravity activated dock plates are used (while this was not spelled out, it appears that rather than use some potentially quiet hydraulic system, the large plates merely fall and clang into place). Large trucks also may have backup beepers as safety equipment. During busier seasons such as Christmas there can be quite a lot of nighttime traffic at the site. He expressed his concerns that residents of the subject site's new dwellings would be disturbed by the noise, especially during what would normally be sleep hours. He does not want to have to deal with complaints that he is sure will be generated by the normal post office operations if residential housing is constructed so close to the post office. He did support a change to the neighborhood from development but was concerned about the impacts noise would have on the proposed single-family homes. 27. The applicant indicated that they were aware of the noise issue and that they believe distance, approximately 40 to 50 feet between the roadway and setbacks, as well as a grade separation ::oupled with a fence and landscaping will minimize any problems with noise disturbing residents. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary Plat 1. First, this proposal includes two components. The first one is a Preliminary Plat on which this office makes a recommendation to the City Council. The second component is a Site Plan review since the proposed plat will be used for single-family detached homes and is, therefore, governed by the Centers Residential Bonus District B. This office finds itself in a difficult role in making a recommendation to the City Council on this project. The proposed plat that will allow single family uses on the subject site does not appear to serve the public use and interest. Under those circumstances, the proposed plat should be denied by the City Council. 2. The compelling issue in this case is one of untoward noise or noises at a time or actually, times of day, when they are or can be exceptionally disturbing. The representative of the Post Office has indicated that uses on the post office site are almost completely incompatible with a residential quality of life. Tractor trailer rigs and other large trucks and vans will be coming and going from the post office site during all hours of the day and night. The trucks are loud. Backup beepers may be employed. Truck and post office doors will be opening and closing during various operations. These aspects of the neighboring uses make use of the subject site for single family or any residential use problemftic. 3. At the same time, free-market concepts suggest that a property owner should be able to do what they want with their property. But in this case the current owner would develop homes and sell those homes to third parties who may not be in a position to know about the potential impacts created by the adjacent post office. The City has an obligation to make sure that it does not allow incompatible uses to be developed adjacent to one another. That is one ofthe primary purposes of Zoning and Land Use regulations. It does not necessarily matter ifthe parties may agree to such uses. There is an overriding public policy that governs such matters. In this case, the current developer may be well-aware, as he states, of the nature of the adjacent uses but that does not mean some innocent purchaser who views the properties during daylight, or even during the evening will be made aware of traffic and noises that erupt in the dead of night, between 1 :00 A.M. to 3:00 A.M. Not everyone visits their potential Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF January 25, 2005 Page 8 neighborhood at such hours or even perhaps at 6:30 AM. when postal delivery trucks are started, tested and horns sounded. 4. This is certainly one of those situations that calls for a transition from more intense, in this case 24-hour uses, to less intense uses. The subject site might be more suitable for a commercial or office use. It does not appear suitable for a single-family use. A mere fence or wall and landscaping even coupled with some distance will not provide sufficient buffering to make it easy to sleep during periods of heavy activity at the adjacent site. Noise that might fade into the ambient noises of a vibrant neighborhood during the day can be extremely disturbing or disruptive when those noises occur during very quiet times. The City certainly does not want its future residential homes to be blighted by the adj(lJ.::ent lIses. Usually, the question is the opposite -that the development will not create blight and will rectify blight. But the impacts from next door cannot be ignored. They cannot but have a negative impact on the quality of life for anybody living adjacent to the post office. 5. The Comprehensive Plan contains Policy H-90. That policy requires the City to: "Identify sites within mixed-use areas, which are appropriate for residential developments. " While Policy H-85 states: "Provide homeownership opportunities in all neighborhoods." These policies are not necessarily conflicting and H-85 should not be read to say that residential uses have to be provided everywhere in all neighborhoods. Context is still important. The overr~ding concern should be to identify appropriate sites where residential development is appropriate. Should an undesirable housing situation be created where sleep patterns would be disturbed by the arrival of larger tractor trailer rigs in the middle of the night or twice during the night? Should residents automatically be awakened whether they want to be or not by postal employees starting up 39 vehicles and testing their horns between 6:30 A.M. and 7:30 A.M. six days a week? If populations in the area increase, wiJ) there be a commensurate increase in delivery trucks being tested at that time of the morning? Wi)) residents be able to sleep through the noises, said to be quite loud, of gravity operated dock piate systems at 1 :00 AM. or 3:00 A.M. when deliveries occur? It seems that the proposed 10cC'tion is not one ofthose "mixed-use areas, which are appropriate for residential developments." 6. Of course, one cou Id cynically conclude that the deleterious nature of the post office's use would result in the single-family homes being priced more modestly, thereby creating a new stock of more affordable homes. There is also an issue which this office cannot truly address of whether the post office's use might in fact constitute a nuisance that adversely affects the applicant's use of their property. The nature of the City Zoning Code though plays a part when it allows potentially disparate uses adjacent to one another. But that is where the City's discretion in regulating, limiting or conditioning uses comes into play. While the Zoning under which the applicant seeks approval permits single family uses in this mixed-use area, it does not mandate they be permitted. It would allow such use only after considering the site and its surroundings. Analysis needs to be done. The Code does not mandate that these uses be crafted abutting each other. First, one has to consider whether the plat and site plan are in the public use and interest. This office has to conclude that, as now proposed, the public lise and interest is not served by the proposal. 7. Based on the above analysis, the recommendation, hard as it is to reach, is that the City Council should deny the proposed Preliminary Plat. Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-13J, PP, SA-H, ECF January 25, 2005 Page 9 8. If on the other hand, the City Council concludes that the plat serves the public use and illterc~t it might seek to impose some conditions that could help the potential purchasers form a knowledgeable decision. One solution might be to include a set of covenants that require that all sales literature and the face of the plat include information that the post office operations may create loud noises during the course of a day and that such noise might interfere with sleep in units located on the subject site. That will avoid the situation of potential purchasers seeing the subject site and its homes during the day and not have any realization that the post office operations occur during the night and such operations might make sleep difficult or disturbed. Obviously, this still allows units that may be severely affected by the noise to be built as opposed to finding a better use for the site that would not be affected by nocturnal noise, such as another commercial use. 9. This office therefore, would again recommend that the City Council deny a residential plat on the subject site but that if it chooses to approve this proposed plat, that it adopt some strict disclosure requirements. As the Post Office Manager noted, he really is not going to be happy fielding questions and complaints about the operations from future residents that this applicant acknowledges but that innocent purchasers will not be as knowledgeable about. Site Plan 10. The Site Plan is denied as the property should not be platted as proposed and the site plan is therefore, inappropriate. This office will provide an alternative decision on the Site Plan in order to allow the proposal to proceed if the City Council decides to approve the proposed Preliminary Plat. 11. In the event that the City Council determines that the Preliminary Plat should be approved, this office will review the proposed Site Plan. The site plan review will treat this analysis as if the plat were approved for 20 lots as proposed by the applicant. As noted above, if the plat and site plan are approved, there should be disclosures regarding the nature of the noise that might be generated on the adjacent post office site as well as the timing ofthose noises. In addition, clearly, buffering this site from those noises should be considered an important matter to assure some qual ity of residential living. 12. Residential uses are permitted in this general area by the Comprehensive Plan. Integration of single family uses then depends on mitigating the impacts of adjacent uses on the site so that it possesses residential amenities. The Comprehensive Plan suggests buffering incompatible uses from one another, particularly, if transitional uses cannot be used to separate the disparate uses. 13. The twenty proposed homes meet the Zoning Code's former R-5 Zoning District's density requirements. The applicant is proposing appropriate setbacks from streets and adjacent properties including the larger buffer required between this site and its southerly, R-J 0 neighbor. A requested deviation from the maximum front yard setback of 15 feet to one of 28-feet allows for pedestrian and vehicular access and appears reasonable with the proposed courtyard layout and streetscape. The lots each provide their allotment of landscaped open space. 14. The development of the subject site will create construction related impacts but those will disappear once the project is complete. There will be some additional traffic generated by the development but that should not create any substantial impacts on the transportation corridors. In addition, a traffic mitigation fee will help offset any impacts. As noted in the earlier plat discussion, there could be Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF January 25, 2005 Page 10 impacts on the operations of the adjacent post office in the way of complaints about noise. In order to lessen some ofthe impacts, a sound barrier masonry wall should be erected along the north and west property lines ofthe subject site. Such wall should be designed by acoustical engineers to provide noise attenuation. In addition, landscaping should be installed to further assist in noise reduction and limiting the visual cues which playa part in noise perception. The two-story homes and grade difference will make it hard to limit noise penetration to the subject site. IS. The site plan appears to make reasonable use of the subject site. The buildings provide a reasonable amount of separation from one another. The buildings contain the necessary Demonstration District modulation and articulation as well as side or rear loading garages. 16. There are urban services such as sewer and water available to serve the 20 new homes. Mitigation fees, to offset impacts to parks, have been imposed. 17. In conclusion~ this office recommends that the City Council deny the proposed plat and site plan as incompatible with the adjoining post office operation and an inappropriate use of property 1hat even though zoned CS is not well-located to afford the residential amenities that should be guaranteed by traditional zoning demarcations and land use development criteria. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should deny the proposed plat. DECISION: The Site Plan is denied as the property should not be platted as proposed and the site plan is therefore, inappropriate. Alternative Recommendation and Decision If the City Council approves the Preliminary Plat then the Site Plan should be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant sha1l comply with the conditions imposed by the ERe. 2. The'applicant shall execute restrictive covenants that require all sales literature and sales listings initially and subsequently to note the location of the post office and that the post office operations may create loud noises during the course of a night and very early morning hours six (6) days a week and that such noise might interfere with sleep in units located on the subject site. 3. Corresponding language about the post office noise shall be included on the face of the plat. 4. The applicant shall construct a sound barrier masonry wall along the north and west property lines of the subject site. Such wall should be designed by acoustical engineers to provide noise attenuation. In addition, landscaping shall be installed to further assist in noise reduction and is designed to limit the visual cues which playa part is noise perception. 5. The applicant shall revise the plat to reflect the easement along the rear of lots 1 through 3 and 18 through 20 to be an alley right-of-way with a width of 16 feet with a minimum of 14 feet of pavement. Ridgeview COUJ1 Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF January 25, 2005 Page 11 The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division prior to the recording of the final plat. 6. The applicant shall be required to post the 26-foot private access easement (Anacortes A venue NE) with "No Parking" signage on each side. Staff recommends the applicant shall comply with this requirement to the satisfaction of the Development Services Division prior to the recording of the final plat. 7. A homeowner's association or maintenance agreement shall be created concurrently with the recording of the final plat in order to establish maintenance responsibilities for landscaped right-of-w:JY improvements, as well as for any shared private utilities/drainage facilities or private acce~s and utility easements to include the private pedestrian access easement. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division prior to the recording of the final plat. 8. The applicant shall obtain a demolition permit and complete all inspections and approvals for all buildings located on the property prior to the recording of the final plat. The satisfaction of this requirement is subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Project Manager. ORDERED THIS 25day of January 2005. FREDJ. KAUF HEARING EXA TRANSMITTED THIS 25th day of January 2005 to the parties of record: Nancy Weil 1055 S Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 Juliana Fries 1055 S Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 Cliff WiI1iams 5326 SW Manning Street Seattle, W A 98116 Kevin Chamberlin 18930 45th Place NE Lake Forest Park, WA 98155 TRANSMIITED THIS 25th day of January 2005 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler ,Stan Engler, Fire Bob Wenzl 636 Lake Sammamish Lane NE Bellevue, W A 98008 . Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Larry Warren, City Attorney Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transportation Division .Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services Utilities Division Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services King County Journal Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat FileNo.: LUA-04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF January 25, 2005 Page 12 Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100Gofthe City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., February 8, 2005. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision ofthe Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, afterreview of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., February 8,2005. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Councilor final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use .decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not commtlnicate in private with any decision:maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use proces~ include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation ofthis doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as we)) as Appeals to the City Council. u ~ oJ oJ i~ -J .~~ ~ 'n ~ ~ :I: ~ 15 z Z :> ! ~~ i 8~ \ ~J \ \ \ n~ II~ 8 Jpl ~ '.r!1 ~, 5 8I!OTION 115 TOWN8HIP 13 NORTH RANO! a I!A8T W.M. , '\1= ~ I --''4(;; "tlll \;) I ( Z _~::;7:;::~=7;:1==/~'1 ~~;;. ==~;~::;::~v~=~-~~~=:::-'iP", hULl i4Ai 0 ": -~ . - -~ ::: , I WI. I"'" I ':. ~ "DI t' --, I ( u _ i A ,nl0 )008 II 811210 0009 U210 )01S "-~18210.00l0 IItIft 618210'()013 118210 0080 411110 0069 51821 ()'()081 118210 0068 518210 00~1 ~1I21~[ 516210 1'003911 0041 ~ W w 1 ~ ::E Z 2O~10 WW. °t ~ >( lSl'I '" ,CC<: I I,' , , • 518210 0051 152305 9213 (1,12AC.) 162308 9031 ..... Ml 152305-9212 (0.12 .... > 152305.9215 l1H06 9214 .""'1 152305 9015 (4,18 Ac.) t~ .. AA.) 152305 9075 (0.1' Aa.) 152305 9032 (3.88 Ao,) 11523015 9200 lo"lAa.) 152305 9002 (1,33;"0.) 152305·;082 I'··· ..... > ~ ~ \\ ' \-A-m-.-r~'o-.. -n---'~"-'.-"-"-' -,-.. -..... --.-.... -.,-... .., ~!CQuYtNOEQ roB !1ZIPRQYAL ~~~~:r·::rogn =::: •• t:.M~ 1ft •• ~== ""'--- ,.\tt~'\"II,c ... _.r".'h., \ \ \ \ \ \ J '''OM'!,'')'''·'. , .. , .. ,,_1-".' , ." 04'" -\1\ iI .. • .. A~. -- ~ , .. , Q~)IJC~"'" I JiI.IA A. ... _~" ..• , ..... _..-~'"MII...., ........... _~'CjUI.J) -,,--............. -........... --.. ~ ....... -.... -....... '~-"' • .,.I'-,..." ............. . ~~ ~,~ ~ Cf! CA ·CA RMH R-8' ./ CP) .... RC(P) . ". ". t ;: ........ _" .. ZONING P/BIPW TECHNICAL Sl!llVlCES U/l8I04 10 T23N R5E W 112 ( NE 4th St. CA CA CA CA ·.:R-IO -*" •••••• -. -. -". -.----.-..:. •• ; ;-CA cAl R-10 ~--~~~----~ R-8 I l S; 132~ ----- --.-~. (I) -R-=8-~ :> ~ r------~ ~ -+-' 0 r 0\ ~ ,........ I~ .-I n II I.n l-i ! I 'i . I ~ I " ) LJ L \.» z \\!I ~ \ \../"'-1 \ ~ \ r----' ~ \\ td .-J( ........ ~ 1\ L --. , '\ G6 ' 22 T23N R5E W 112 - - - -J!e"tD" City Umits t:48oo F6 15 T23N R5E W 112 5315 U .J 5 Q. "" t:: Vl ! u..z • o~ I ~~ i uCl:: ~I I\@ I, ! 'I --,- pH "!I 111~a l ~ OWNER/DEVELOPER: AIO~N[. COU~I u.c e~'.C1: CL1T "WAYS ~,O. lOr '.01 dl~l"'lOO. W.lUOU_Htl! ' .. ON(· nOlI lu·,.U REGISTERED ENGINEER: I"('''~H ,HCIot(U,.c (OI'O,lLI.1lClt eo", ... ", CK('1\c.-4AO o.Oll •• Il'MA'w{.Nt t{o...ONO.'OUQ\l , .. ON(, IIU, "'-71)0 LAND SURVEYOR &,Ij'tlt1HlH~"JlIIICCOA'~.ltIaN eON1~1: W10lA:l11CMstN ,OlJ .... IN.l;(.IC _cow.:wo,.'" .6411 .14QICt: \4nl"I-'4~ LEGAL DESCRIPTION "II '401',(. HOAtIoIVlCst "1\.( ~UOIU. ~ 140 ~O"" OAtto'" 1).1~. 'HI' SOUTl1 HAJJ or TH[ hn HALl' 01 'fMC NOAIMed' or fH' HMn.wUf OUMTCII 01 ''''I: HOII:""wt,f OU",'Htlll 01 $CellON 11, fO.....,..~' 23 No.TI1. !'."woc: , tdt, .,111" IH _IHO eOUftln, wd~OfOH: ()!CCPt 4\.1. C:04~ AND /.j~U"", .l:l4Hf' COHtAwro .,.. "Utllv",f,C)H 01 II[COAO, ""'0 )(HO'Moi AS .l 'OIlTiON or TII ... (1 4, or wMlflH', ... ~[ Then:. AN VN.IIECQIIIOCD 'LA': [ICC" THI: [41f U ,e(rot SAID ",ACT. BENCH MARK TO' or CONe WOH 00 ...... 0, ,. IH tAU AT tHI: CONSl".vetCo ~n 0' H( .. ,~ If (I.(, 121119 If).utO 140'" ot.'-1: S.C, (N.W, CO"' ICC '6), [~CVA.TrOHI .0'.Ol' [I.ey, now CIT'\' 0' ~CMtOH COHlItO~ 'Hens, 'CtHTI$Ol VERJICAL RATUM H ... W .. HORIZONTAL DATUM llIl nm~C lOtI S T ... IC ,~ "''''C, HOI': I" ZOH[. ..... 0 U/'1 ---:.x~ ! OUf.IUC); .... BUILDING / LANDSCAPE TABLE \.01, \.ot SlZ( -, . """'" (IF) SlU(.,) eo ... ," ~u. SI' 1'10 In , )lOOST '110 'os , • .,3sr Ilia ". lUI SF ,'10 '" , ))44'" "" ,U · 2 .. 1 .. ' 1\\1 '" , )1t7Sf I .. , lU · ","1' 1111 , .. · lIUSt '2'0 ,.. .. •• 0" 1'10 ... " .).,sr \210 ... ., .)40 Sf 1210 ". " .01'''' , ... ". " )117" Iota '" .. "USf "" ... " 211." 117& '" " )la) Sf 1'10 lIS " .U." 1110 ... " )100" 12'0 'os " 'IO!oV 1210 ". NOTe: ~\'A.HDSCA.'[Pl.A.HS"'OT"[JlS"OJI 0['''''',,",0 \.,l.HOIC ... ' .... C O(SlO,.~A.TOUt. ..... III\A.~ .uCA (Sf) ... " .... ,,. .,. 'HolSt ". 11"sr ... I"'ST ". .. ,S, It. 111)S' .11 '000 Sf '" )OU ., U' \Just ,.. 'UI" ". 'U' " ". IUO" no nu" ... 1111' '" 'Ol." . 311 lOll Sf ,,. ,).,Sf )I' 2107., .os I,n" '" 1')) V .,. Am.rlo"n [n' ...... ". "t" ... ,. . '"''''r''' RECOMMENDED fOR APPROYAL Engln •• rlng .ou 1.4'" 4.""L ilk ;orporauon "i; .. · ... g4 -----_ .... _-, ______ 0.0.'11, __ '1«JtI({4U' ... ·,., .. , .. \ ... , .. ,."., , ... _- 1\lIIGI"U~\IIIot""'ll1fl"""'I.., ... ."IIII,,,,,,"'ICICMI)1lMI TL 00/.1 TI. 003U &lOTION 15 TOWNIHII' aa NORTH RANO!! 5 IAIT W.M. --l tL aO!1 n.om;l ~\.AIIOtc.u'COC"O"toa ft~1 A n OlloitU. ~uu I 10 ~AIIOICA~t ""'HI 'Ot ~ 1I000t ""'6II .... ftOOO. , ---~ I L_L __ _ _ L ~ ~~~[!t~~ ~~ ~l~ O !EI!EI 08 .. D DOll UI C.VIo.~.D .,.., ... VIi ....... ';:;ZI';.~c.':.\~o;;;O. I""I'ItON'T'_l!I-!!Y,A."I"ION ......... """"" ...... ........ ",.· .. 1.;.00· fo4QTCI, I. .IHI .... ~oo ... Of" II ..... ....,. ""OM. TO elll AT • .u.OIl ~"~I~ fIl'L..AN :I ..... O~"O.,. "711~ ""~,., D. NO M8C.w ..... l~ .00000......,NT 0" OTWI!~ 6TI'WCoTUllltt8 TO ell eN TH5!'ROOfiI .. , IItOOf" c.o\"O'" TO ell L.16WT TO ..... DI\.IM ....... CrOM.-o611ON eMINcI1. •• D, "'CVIoIJ c,ol.Qtt. ........ T'II 0tIl OfII" ......... ITI!I TfIlIM Io"4ITM elll.e, ~, ~MOHO, en •• .-.e eoerr' ~eAR !!I-!!VA"ION ..... NI~ ......... ~'----.-I;;cr "' __ """"'I'O~. , ON 'I. "'''''f "'''A\.ctUT'11r~''''' , ...... N' .. .0 ........ " --~ .,---:;...~:::.."""-.t~'Na>1 I,..I .. ~""" ~ --~J ~ -- -- --~ I~~ -; ~FR-~--] I 1 : : _ _ _ -_ _ _ _ _ _ 1: ?::."::;.;~:. EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE 1 00000000 ! B8B8BB8B ~ _ ='" ••• ~.'~ I-!!I""" !!I-!!VA"ION .Gu .... "is-,.OOT ..... ee. .. .. ~...., ..... ~'""'.·I'.C'· M""N "I •• u~..... "e& ...., ...... 1. ""1"'!'r.I" do ......... dol!l "';3., L I§b:jl H _I -~~~7 -----1 ~ RI~H" !!1-l:VA,.ION I •• ..,.. ...... '" MCJ,... .~--.---v"·.I'·O· ,.HIS P-I-AN ,.0 ($,0 ON I-O,.S 5,6,1!!U 16 0 1 ~_ i1'~ ~.~ ~ !!i~ ~f~! z ~ •• ~ 1 -~ - @ P I-~ Z'w ('j ~ I'J \)(1)r"~ i I!:O~ , !!! z ~ ~ ?i « a 0{ I/) ,J ~ Il IL N ' i ~ If) ~Ii l oil ... ,.. 'rJoOOoO" ~::;::~' ... , 00"00·00 :~::;."'J'Dy' -..I t!Iolooll!U,T AI c" A.:::2 C ...... _-_ ... D C) .lC~~. " ~""_,l ...I'-'L ~ &~,:~ ~ -[ .oq ... :) Lt~~ ... , S3Mt1t'")('kSTIII _:~-.. ---z....J"" .. Ii II I , , II , , , , I , I , 8 , , , II , , , , ;;:;; , , 00 I \ , D , , , N IDl ~ llli~' I c:::=:::J , ~ , , , f!~! J D it " ~,iil ", * ! ~l i -~.g ~ .. t {.J 2 ,. ,', {I ., ,I, ~, ~I~I 2 ~I i. ?r ... 1, ., " , , , , , II 39V'">JV9 ">JV? <: ..... OOCI039 S -. a9LLI NV,d l. _~ !o .L~ M31"'~9ClI~ ,( !O .. l >. 9. ,0 • .. :>cof.,......:t tltl\ 0 .---1 , I , r--I i , I I;: l\: , 1\1 1 II ! -~N .i ~ <{ <{ ;. d ., • .. .. I •• e 63 l 0 z () i= -( > II ..1* II~ I-~ L· II; ..15 \1 ~' . , I , ~ ~ ~ ..... 0 ~ " i , , , , , tl~1 .I ~t ~, ~Jij ,,' ~l _o-.~ , It.S _Ill ., l," ~, ~I!I ~I [,I • " , , , , :1~D~o~o:!:gIJD II DODO :: DODO II DODO " DODO 1U!!illrmmm'm'l DODO 0000 , , , , II DODD -. t z. ()~ i=* -( > II ..I. II~ t.~ -(r II: It ! D 0 N '" N \I) I-0 ..I Z o· 0 ~ 0 I- Z -( ..I L \I) I I- DO . • t!: ~ ~Iil , , , , , , I ); , I II I 1 , I I , I , I , " II p; , , , ~ I 00 , , 1 t;j , I 1 1 1\ I I , i I IIIIII~ , I "-':':-0;- ~'-'-..& .~ ... --. ----'- , " I, ~I 1 1 z () i= -( > IJ t -I. lJi ~I -. Iii I ! c:=:::::J ;39V";SV9 ~V? z: N;3Q 'HOO;,,<Q;39 .;; V":;S I NV'd " ..L~? MaI.l".a9QI~ H ,,., ..... c~ 'aD. f .1-. ~ J " '.1 ~I , " , r-111\r;:;:;;:;:;:r;:;:r;:;M' I~' ;::;:;:;::m:;:;:;:rrnml1' , , I , , ·ICE I m ~~1 ! . !:!' I . ~iii , , , , I 0 Il:;;:;:;=~ z () i= -( > u ...I' ad J-~ ~I ...Ii ! . , ." I D '· , .; If) -J-() -I Z () () ~ ~ z «. -I I. If) I J- " ~- RECEIVED PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORK~AY 04 2005 DEPARTMENT Renton City Council M E M o R A N D U M .0; bwd"pllt£4J: 5/5/zvo5 DATE: May 4, 2005 TO: Planning and Development Committee FROM: Nancy Weil, Senior Planner, Development Services Division SUBJECT: Appeal of Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat ISSUE Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated January 25, 2005'regarding subdivision ofa 2.4-acre site located at 327 Bremerton Avenue NE into 20 lots, known as the Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat. (File No. LUA-04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF) RECOMMENDATION TO HEARING EXAMINER Staff recommended approval of the Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat and Site Plan for project file no. LUA-04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall revise the plat to reflect the easement along the rear of lots 1 through 3 and 18 through 20 to be an alley right-of-way with a width of 16 feet with a minimum of 14 feet of pavement. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division prior to the recording of the final plat. 2. The applicant shall be required to post the 26-foot private access easement (Anacortes Avenue NE) with "No Parking" signage on each side. Staff recommends the applicant shall comply with this requirement to the satisfaction of the Development Services Division prior to the recording of the final plat. 3. A homeowner's association or maintenance agreement shall be created concurrently with the recording of the final plat in order to establish maintenance responsibilities for landscaped right- of-way improvements, as well as for any shared private utilities/drainage facilities or private access and utility easements to include the private pedestrian access easement. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division prior to the recording of the final plat. 4. The applicant shall obtain a demolition permit and complete all inspections and approvals for all buildings located on the property prior to the recording of the final plat. The satisfaction of this requirement is subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Project Manager. C:\OOCUME-J \/MEDZE-J \LOCALS-J \Temp\Ridgeview Court issue paper,doc\cor BACKGROUND New Comprehensive Designations and Zoning Regulations were adopted November 2004 thereby designating this subject site as Commercial Corridor (CC) on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Commercial Arterial (CA) zone and Area B of the Suburban Centers Residential Demonstration District. However the proposed Land Use application is vested to the prior Commercial Suburban (CS) Development Regulations. The CS zone permitted detached residential dwellings with densities that range from a minimum of 10.0 dulac to a maximum of 20.0 dulac. The proposed plat would arrive at a net density of 12.42 dulac after the deduction of the public roads and private access easements from the gross acreage of the site. The proposed project was reviewed for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations including Development Standards, Subdivision and Site Plan regulations of the City of Renton Municipal Code. Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEP A (RCW 43.21 C, 1971 as amended) on December 7,2004, the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M) for the Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat. The DNS-M included 7 mitigation measures. A 14-day appeal period commenced on December 7, 2004 and ended on December 27,2004. No appeals of the threshold determination were filed. Staff presented the proposed Land Use Application to the Hearing Examiner at the Public Hearing on January 4,2005. A representative of the adjoining post office (addressed 4301 NE 4th St) raised concerns over noise generated by post office activity, which may impact the proposed residential site. The Hearing Examiner issued his decision on January 26, 2005 recommending that City Council deny the Preliminary Plat and Site Plan "as incompatible with the adjoining post office operation and an inappropriate use of property that is not well located to afford the residential amenities that should be guaranteed by traditional zoning deinarcations and land use development criteria." The applicant, Cliff Williams/ Ridgeview Court, LLC filed a Request for Reconsideration on February 8, 2005. The Hearing Examiner maintained his original decision and the applicant filed an appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision on March 7,2005. RECOMMENDATION REGARDING APPEAL Staff recommends approval of the Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat and Site Plan for project file no. LUA-04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF subject to the conditions listed in the Hearing Examiner's Decision as Alter~ative Recommendation and Decision as follows: 1. The applicant shall comply with the conditions imposed by the ERC. 2. The applicant shall execute restrictive covenants that require all sales literature and sales listings initially and subsequently to note the location of the post office and that the post office operations may create loud noises during the course of a night and very early morning hours six (6) days a week and that such noise might interfere with sleep in units located on the subject site. 3. Corresponding language about the post office noise shall be included on the face of the plat. 4. The applicant shall construct a sound barrier masonry wall along the north and west property lines of the subject site. Such wall should be designed by acoustical engineers to provide noise attenuation. In addition, landscaping shall be installed to further assist in noise reduction and I is designed to limit the visual cues which playa part in noise perception. 5. The applicant shall revise the plat to reflect the easement along the rear of lots 1 through 3 and 18 through 20 to be an alley right-of-way with a width of 16 feet with a minimum of 14 feet of C:\DOCUME-l \JMEDZE-l \LOCALS-l \Temp\Ridgeview Court issue paper.doc\cor \, .. "-"a. pavement. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division prior to the recording of the final plat. 6. The applicant shall be required to post the 26-foot private access easement (Anacortes Avenue NE) with "No Parking" signage on each side. Staff recommends the applicant shall comply with this requirement to the satisfaction of the Development Services Division prior to the recording of the final plat. 7. A homeowner's association or maintenance agreement shall be created concurrently with the recording of the final plat in order to establish maintenance responsibilities for landscaped right- of-way improvements, as well as for any shared private utilities/drainage facilities or private access and utility easements to include the private pedestrian access easement. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division prior to the recording of the final plat. 8. The applicant shall obtain a demolition permit and complete all inspections and approvals for all buildings located on the property prior to the recording of the final plat. The satisfaction of this requirement is subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Project Manager. cc: City Attorney Neil Watts Jennifer Henning C:\DOCUME-I \/MEDZE-I \LOCALS-I \Temp\Ridgeview Court issue paper.doc\cor 05/'0·3/20,\5 13: 35 FAX 206 587 2308 CAIRNCROSS & HEMPELMANN I4J 001 " . To: From: ... ... ~ •.. ,. Cairn cross & Hem1!.eimann, P.S, CITY OF RENTON MAY 0 3 2005 RECEiVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE CONFIDENTIAL FACSIMILE ee', PlaY\.na't1lj ~ 'De v e.lof W1e11.1 ~ommHf~(!.. May 3, 2005 Council Liaison Attn: Julia Facsimile: Telephone: Sean Howe (425) 430-6523 (425) 430-6501 Number of pages, including this cover: 4 Please call Rose DeMarre at (206) 254-4406 if you do not receive all pages. Re: File No.: Remarks: Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat, File No. LUA04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF 4842-000 Please see the attached Rationale for Admissibility of Letter from Post Office Manager regarding the above-referenced matter. Confidentiality Notice: This facsimile communication is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader ofthis cover page is not the addressee, or the employee or agent of the addressee, please be advised that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is stlictly prohibited. If you receive this facsimile in error, please notify us immediately by telephone, and mail this facsimile to us at the address below. Thank you. {OOJ04 76J.DOC; I} Law Offices 524 Second Avenue, Suite 500 • Seattle, Washington 98104-2323 Phone: 206-587-0700 • Fax: 206-587-2308 r 05/'O3/20~ 13: 36 FAX 206 587 2308 CAIRNCROSS & HEMPELMANN ~002 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 In re: BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL FOR RENTON, WASHINGTON CITY OF RENTON MAY 0 3 2005 RECEIVED CITY ClERI:('S OFFICE ~~~ Plaflrll'1\'1 r- -:t:kvelofm en t ~OWlI11 Nte<!.. No. ____________________ ___ Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat, File No. LUA04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF RATIONALE FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF LETTER FROM POST OFFICE MANAGER I. INTRODUCTION Counsel for Ridgeview Court, LLC, the applicant and appellant herein, has been informed that there may be a question regarding whether the Council may consider letters submitted by other parties in support of Ridgeview Court. Ridgeview Court respectfully submits the following legal argument for use by the Council and the Council's counsel in their consideration of this issue. II. FACTS Two letters expressing support of Ridgeview Court were filed after submission of Ridgeview Court's appeal: a letter fi:om Mr. David Halinen, representing the residential subdivision that will be constructed immediately south of Ridgeview Court, and a letter from Mr. Kevin Chamberlin, the U.S. Post Office manager whose testimony was the sole factual grounds for the Hearing Examiner's denial. Both letters were stamped "Received" by the City Clerk's office on March 21, 2005. Handwritten on the letters is a note that they were received within the deadline for Consent Agenda Item 8b. This memorandum addresses the Chamberlin letter. RATIONALE FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF LETTER FROM POST OFFICE MANAGER-1 Cairncross & Hempelmann. P. S. LllwOfJices 524 Seco/ld Avenue, Suite 500 Seall/e. Wa.rlrillglo1l98104-2323 Pirone: 206-587·0700 • Fax: 206-587-2308 05/03/200V 13:36 FAX 206 587 2308 CAIRNCROSS & HEMPELMANN 141 003 1 III. lJAW 2 RMC 4-8-110F(2) states that "Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the 3 City Clerk shall notify all parties ofrecord of the receipt of appeal." (Emphasis added.) 4 RMC 4-8-11 OF(3) states: "Opportunity to Provide Comments: Other parties of record 5 may submit letters in support of their positions within ten (10) days of mailing of the notification 6 of the filing of the notice of appeal." (Emphasis added.) 7 RMC 4-B-II0F(6) states that the Council shall consider "the record, the Hearing 8 Examiner's report, the notice of appeal, and additional submissions by parties." (Emphasis 9 added.) 1 0 These provisions are echoed by the notifications sent by the City and received by the 11 appellant. 12 IV. ANALYSIS J 3 Mr. Chamberlin's letter meets all criteria in Renton Municipal Code and therefore should 14 be considered by the Council. J 5 Mr. Chamberlin's letter was timely submitted by the deadline of March 21,2005. It was J 6 submitted by a "party of record" to this action. Mr. Chamberlin is listed as a "party of record" J 7 on the Hearing Examiner decision (and not among the much larger list of interested individuals J 8 to which the decision was transmitted). Also, RMC 4-8-11 OF (2) requires the City Clerk to 19 notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. The City Clerk provided such written 20 notification to Mr. Chamberlin as a party of record. The City Clerk also maintains a list, 21 included within the City's file, of the parties of record. That list includes Mr. Chamberlin. (See 22 City of Renton Appeal File for LUA 04-131). 23 Finally, Mr. Chamberlin's letter is not "new evidence." It generally expresses his lack of 24 opposition to Ridgeview COillt. A single sentence in his letter seeks to con'eet an error in his 25 testimony. Excluding his letter based on that cOlTection would not only be a hypertechnical 26 interpretation of what constitutes "new" evidence, but would also be a regrettable waste of the RATIONALE FOR ADMISSIDILITY OF LETTER Cairncross & Hempelmann, P.S. FROM POST OFFICE MANAGER-2 Law Of/lces {00304657.00C;1} 524 Second AvenI/e. Suite 500 Seattle. Washingtoll 98/04-2323 Phone: 206-587-0700 • Fax: 206-587-230/1 05/{)3/200'~ 13: 36 FAX 206 587 2308 CAIRNCROSS & HEMPELMANN [4J 004 I~' • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 time expended by Mr. Chamberlin in order to ensure he was accurately understood by the Council. V. CONCLUSION Mr. Chamberlin's letter was timely and properly submitted. Mr. Chamberlin is a party of record. His letter is not new evidence. Mr. Chamberlin's letter should be considered by the Council. Dated this 2nd day of May, 2005. CAIRNCROSS & HEMPELMANN, P.S. d-~~~--Sean K. Howe, WSBA No. 23329 Attorneys for Ridgeview Court, LLC RATIONALE FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF LETTER FROM POST OFFICE MANAGER-3 Cairncross & Rempe/mann, P.s. Law OffiWl {00304657.DOC;11 524 Second A veil ue, Suite 500 Seattlc. WashingtOIl 98104·2323. Phone: 206·587·0700 • Fax: 206·587·2308 Ii CITY ::>F RENTON Renton City Council Kathy Keolker-Wheeler. Mayor March 24, 2005 APR 0 5 2005 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE APPEAL FILED BY: Cliff WilliamslRidgeview Court. L.L.c.,represented by Sean K. Howe, Attorney RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision dated 112512005 regarding subdivision of a 2.4 acre site located at 327 Bremerton Avenue NE into 20 sinigle-family lots, known as the Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat. (File No. LUA-04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF) To Interested Parties: The Renton City Council;s Planning & Development Committee will meetto deliberate the above-referenced item on the following date: Thursday, May 5, 2005 2:00p~m. 7th Fl~or/Council Chambers . .. City of ~enton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington This Council Committee meeting is open to the public, but it is pota public hearing. It is a working session of the Planning & Development Committee. No new testimony or evidence will be taken. However, the parties are expected to.attend and be prepared to explain why the Council Committee should uphold or overturn the decision of the Hearing Examiner. If you have questions regarding these meetings, please phone Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison, at 425-430-6555. . Sincerely, It\~~ ~lawson, Chair Planning & Development Committee Renton City Council ----I 0-5-5-=S-ou-t:-"h -=G-ra-=d-y ""'-W:-"ay---R-e-n-to-n,-=W=-=a-s7-:hi:-ng-t-on---=-9S=-=O:-::5-=-S --(:-:4-=-25:::-)~43:-:0:--:-6::-::S-=-OI;-----~ * This paper contains 50% recyded material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE , .~. .' ...... ,. - Cliff Williams 5326 SW Manning St Seattle, WA 98116 Kevin Chamberlin 18930 45th Place NE Lake Forest Park, W A 98155 Bob Wenzl 636 Lake Sammamish Lane NE Bellevue, W A 98008 Thomas Foster Langley Fourth Ave Assoc. LLC 6450 Southcenter Blvd, Ste 106 Seattle, W A 98188 Ridgeview Court, L.L.C. c/o Cliff Williams P.O. Box 2401 Kirkland, W A 98033 SeanK. Howe 524 Second Avenue, Ste 500 Seattle, W A 98104 NancyWeil PIBIPW Dev Svcs City of Renton Juliana Fries PIBIPW Dev Svcs City of Renton ~. " " .~ .... Ma~ch 21, 2005 , , ...... CORRESPONDENCE Citizen Comment: Chamberlin & Halinen -Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat Appeal, Cliff Williams, PP-04-131 UNFINISHED BUSINESS Transportation (Aviation) Committee Development Services: Trench Restoration & Street Overlay Requirements Transportation: SR-169 Corridor Improvements, Supporting Legislative Funding Streets: Sunset Blvd N, NE Sunset Blvd & Houser Way Tunnel Temporary Closures Renton City Council Minutes Page 98 City Attorney Warren advised that the following letters regarding the appeal of the Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat (PP-04-13l) may contain information that is outside the record that was before the Hearing Examiner. The correspondence may be referred; however, it mayor may not be able to be considered when it comes before the Planning and Development Committee and the full Council. Letters were entered from Kevin Chamberlin, Highlands Post Office Station Manager, 17200 116th Ave. SE, Renton, 98059, and from David L. Halinen, Halinen Law Offices, P.S., 10500 NE 8th St., Suite 1900, Bellevue, 98004. With the understanding that the·Planning and Development Committee mayor may not be able to consider them, it was MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL REFER THE TWO ITEMS OF CORRESPONDENCE TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Transportation (Aviation) Committee Chair Palmer presented a report recommending concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve amending City Code 9-10-11, Trench Restoration and Street Overlay Requirements and standard details. The amendments will establish guidelines for the restoration' of City streets disturbed by installation of utilities and other construction activities, and will apply to any public or private utilities, general contractors, or others permitted to work in the public rights-of-way. The Committee further recommended that the ordinance regarding this matter be presented for first reading. MOVED BY PALMER, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See page 100 for ordinance.) Transportation (Aviation) Committee Chair Palmer presented a report recommending concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve a resolution for the purpose of supporting the SR-169 Improvement Consortium's efforts to obtain State legislative funding as part of the SR -169 Corridor improvements in the amount of $4 million to be completed as funding becomes available. The Committee further recommended that the resolution regarding this matter be presented for reading and adoption. MOVED BY PALMER, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See page 100 for resolution.) Transportation (Aviation) Committee Chair Palmer presented a report recommending concurrence in the staff recommendation for the temporary lane closures of Sunset Blvd. N. and NE Sunset Blvd. and the temporary full closure of the Houser Way Tunnel and Sunset Blvd. NE. The Committee further recommended that: • "Notice of Traffic Revision/Construction" signs be erected at key intersections at least two weeks prior to construction to give motorists advanced notice of potential delays and alternate routes. • Modify traffic signal timing to minimize traffic delays. • Work with the Renton Police Department to provide increased patrol car visibility surrounding the construction area and along its posted detour routes. ... HIGHLANDS STATION MANAGER iii!!J!!f UNITED STIJTES I!if POSTIJL SERVICE March 18, 2005 Renton City Council CIO City Clerk 1055 South Grady WY Renton, \IVA 98055 CITY OF RENTON MAR 2 1 2005 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE ~~ l.~;tl~ ~' fl&.) RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's recommendation dated 01/25/2005 regarding subdivision of a 2.4 acre site located at 327 Bremerton Avenue NE into 20 single- family lots, known as the Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat. (File No. LUA-04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF) To Whom It May Concern: During my initial testimony I indicated, that the loading dock at the Renton Highlands Station has a gravity operated dock plate that makes quite a bit of noise. I have recently been informed that the dock plate is in fact operated by a hydraulic lift system, and that it may be possible to modify its operation to reduce the amount of noise it creates. Please note, that the Renton Post Office does not oppose the development of this property into single-family lots. Our primary concern is and was our impact on the individuals that would reside in those homes adjacent to our property. Sincerelv. /~C:LLL, Kevin Chamberlin Highlands Station Manager Renton, WA 98059-9998 (425) 227-6340 17200116'· AVE SE RENTON. WA 98059-9998 425-255-6389 .i I' ~ tUdtti~ ,g~tfl/-~MS- ~~9.. HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. .t:; fJ.,/A ___ ~AlA,v ============================~A~P~r~ofi~e~ss~io~n~a~l~S~e~~ic~e~C~o~rp~o~r~a~tio~n~======~~~~~~~~~~~'~~~ . David L Halinen. P.E. davidhalinell@halinenlaw.com VIA FAX AND E-MAIL Renton City Council c/o Renton City Clerk Bellevue Place I Bank of America Bldg. 10500 NE 8'\ Suite 1900 Bellevue. Washington 98004 1055 S. Grady Way, Seventh Floor Renton, Washington 98055 (425) 454-8272 Fax (425) 646-3467 CITY OF Rf:NTON MAR 2 1 2005 ""_ RECElVED ~ TV CLERK'S OFFICE (1(eceiv~d Wlfll/II aettdl/ne, Ii>, &n~lIt I/r;}~a -:I:klll ~,h.) Re: The Proposed "Ridgeview Court" Residential Subdivision (LUA04-131, PP, SA- H, ECF) on Appeal to the City Council Abutting Property Owner Liberty Ridge L.L.c. 's Comments on the Appeal Dear Council Members: I am writing on behalf of Liberty Ridge L.L.C., the owner of an approximately 9.4-acre parcel of land lying immediately south and southwest of the Ridgeview Court site (about 150 feet to the south of the Renton Highlands Post Office), to request that you grant the appeal that the Ridgeview Court applicant filed. My client supports the Ridgeview Court application and was shocked when the Hearing Examiner issued a recommendation· of denial based upon the last-minute oral testimony of a postal employee who asserted that some of the post office operations were noisy. My client has its own subdivision application pending for a single-family residential project on its property, a project called "Elmhurst". Because of concern over the Hearing Examiner's ElmhurSt recommendation of denial concerning Ridgeview Court, my client hired an acoustical engineer (Jerry Lilly of JGL Acoustics) to conduct nighttime noise measurements along the north boundary of my client's property. One of the noise monitoring stations was essentially at the Ridgeview Court site's southeast comer. To make a long story short, Mr. Lilly's report documents that the measured noise levels were substantially below the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's exterior noise standard that ordinarily must be met by all residential development projects that involve HUD financial support (see Title 24, Part 51, Subpart B, Section 51.103 of the Code of Federal Regulations). Mr. Lilly's measurements proved that the noise environment in the vicinity of both the Elmhurst site and the Ridgeview Court site are well within recognized standards for residential development. Renton City Council c/o Renton City Clerk March 21, 2005 Page 2 In conclusion, Liberty Ridge L.L.C. urges you to promptly grant the Ridgeview Court applicant's appeal and approve the Ridgeview Court subdivision. cc: Liberty Ridge L.L.C. Attn: Michael Merlino Attn: Don Merlino Ridgeview Court, LLC Attn: Cliff Williams Sincerely, HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. From: To: Date: Subject: "David Halinen" <davidhalinen@halinenlaw.com> "Bonnie Walton" <Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us> 3/21/20054:52:50 PM Letter concerning the Ridgeview Court Appeal Please print and recognize the attached letter. Dave Halinen HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. 2115 North 30th Street, Suite 203 Tacoma, WA 98403-3397 (206) 443-4684 Seattle (253) 627-6680 Tacoma (253) 272-9876 FAX davidhalinen@halinenlaw.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this email, along with any attachments hereto, may contain privileged and confidential material and is intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or forwarding of the communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received the communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by return e-mail, or by calling (206) 443-4686 (Seattle) or (253) 627-6680 (Tacoma), and delete the original message and its attachments from any computer. Thank you. Council Meeting Minutes of March 14,2005 Appeal: Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat, Cliff Williams, PP-04-131 __ Vacation: Walkway, NW 6th St & Rainier Ave N, VAC-05- 002 Community Services: Henry Moses Aquatic Center Fees Community Services: Heather Downs Park Development Architectural Services, JA Brennan Associates Lease: Eoscene, 200 Mill Building (4th & 6th Floors), LAG-02-003 Plat: Laurelhurst Phase 1, Duvall Ave NE, FP-04-160 Planning: 2004 Countywide Planning Policies Amendments Annexation: Maplewood Addition, Maple Valley Hwy Plat: Barbee Mill, Lake Washington Blvd N, PP-02- 040 Solid Waste: Garbage Ordinance Revisions Renton City Council Minutes Page 97 Approval of Council meeting minutes of March 14,2005. Council concur. City Clerk reported appeal of Hearing Examiner's recommendation on the Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat (PP-04-131); appeal filed by Sean K. Howe, 524 2nd Ave., Suite 500, Seattle, 98104, representing Cliff Williams of Ridgeview Court, LLC on 317/2005, accompanied by required fee. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. City Clerk submitted petition for vacation of portion of unimproved road (walkway) between NW 6th St. and Rainier Ave. N.; petitioner Jack D. Alhadeff, 95 S. Tobin St., #201, Renton, 98055 (VAC-05-002). Refer to Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator; set public hearing on 4/1812005 to consider the petition. (See page 99 for resolution setting public hearing.) Community Services Department recommended approval of an ordinance setting new fees and increasing fees at the Henry Moses Aquatic Center. Council concur. (See page 100 for ordinance.) Community Services Department recommended approval of a contract in the amount of $167,148 with J.A. Brennan Associates, PLLC for Heather Downs Park development architectural design services. Council concur. Community Services Department recommended approval of an amendment to the lease with Eoscene Corporation (LAG-02-003) for space of the 4th and 6th floor of the 200 Mill Building for additional space and a lease term extension through 6/30/2010. Refer to Finance Committee. Development Services Division recommended approval, with conditions, of the Laurelhurst Phase 1 Final Plat; 69 single-family lots on 15.7 acres located on the west side of Duvall Ave. NE at NE 2nd St. (FP-04-160). Council concur. (See page 99 for resolution.) Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department recommended adoption of a resolution ratifying the 2004 amendments to the Growth Management Planning Council's Countywide Planning Policies. Council concur. (See page 99 for resolution.) Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department submitted 60% Notice of Intent to annex petition for the proposed Maplewood Addition Annexation, and recommended a public hearing be set on 4/412005 to consider the petition and R-8 zoning; 60.5 acres bounded by Maple Valley Hwy. and the Cedar River. Council concur. Hearing Examiner recommended approval, with conditions, of the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat; 115-lot subdivision on 23 acres intended for townhouse units located at 4201 Lake Washington Blvd. N. (PP-02-040). Council concur. Legal Division recommended approval of revisions to the garbage ordinance to clarify and add definitions, to make garbage collection mandatory with certain limited exceptions, to add and clarify violations, and to criminalize violations. Refer to Utilities Committee. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. Cl ~ • OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA_ALL Submitting Data: DeptlDiv IBoard .. Staff Contact. ..... AJLS/City Clerk Bonnie Walton, x6502 I AI#: fA Is" For Agenda of: 312112005 Agenda Status Consent ............. . r---------------------------------------~ Subject: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's recommendation dated 1/2512005 regarding the Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat (File No. LUA-04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF) Public Hearing .. Correspondence .. Ordinance ............ . Resolution ........... . I-______________________________________ ~ Old Business ....... . Exhibits: A. City Clerk's letter (3/1112005) B. Appeal-CliffWilliamslRidgeview Court LLC (3/7/2005) C. Requests for Reconsideration (218/2005) & Hearing Examiner's Response (2/22/2005) D. Hearing Examiner's Report & Recommendation (112512005) Recommended Action: Refer to Planning and Development Committee Fiscal Impact: NIA New Business ...... . Study Sessions ..... . Information ........ . Approvals: Legal Dept.. ...... . Finance Dept. .... . Other .............. . Expenditure Required .. . Transferl Amendment. ..... . Amount Budgeted ...... . Revenue Generated ........ . Total Project Budget City Share Total project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's recommendation on the Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat was filed on March 7, 2005 by Sean K. Howe, Attorney, representative for Ridgeview Court, L.L.c., accompanied by the required $75 fee. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Council Action on the Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat and appeal. cc: Jennifer Henning Larry Warren x ,\, \. "." , Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor March 11, 2005 CITY ~F RENTON City Clerk Bonnie I. Walton APPEAL FILED BY: CliffWilliamslRidgeview Court, L.L.C., represented by Sean K. Howe, Attorney RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's recoriunendation dated 1125/2005 regarding subdivision of a 2.4 acre site located at 327 Bremerton Avenue NE into 20 single-family lots, known as the Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat. (File No. LUA-:04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF) To Parties of Record: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the hearing examiner's recommendation on the Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat application has been filed with the City Clerk. In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8., llOF, within five days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of recOrdqf the receipt of the appeal. Other parties of record may submit letters limited to support of their positions regarding the appeal within ten (10) days of the date of mailing of the notification of the filing of the appeal. The deadline for submission ofaddjtionalletters is March 21 ~ 2005." NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVENthatthe written appeal and other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council's Planning and DevelopmentCommittee. 'The Council Liaison will riotify ~ll parties ofrecotd of the date and tini~'ofthePlaniling and Development Committee meeting. If you are not listed in local telephone directories arid wish to attend the meeting, please call the Council Liaison at 425-430-6501 for information;, The reconimendation of the Committee will be presented for consideration by the full COlIncil at a subsequent Council meeting. Copy of the appeal and the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeals of Hearing Examiner decisions or recommendations are attached: Please note that the City Council will be considering the merits ·of the appeal based upon the written record previously established. Unless a showing can be made that additional evidence could not reasonably have been available at the prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner, no further evidence or testimony on this matter will be accepted by the City Council. . For additional information or assistance, please feel free to call me at 425-430-6502. Sincerely, Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk Attachments -I O-S-S-S-ou-th-G-r-a-dy-W""'-ay---:::CR-e-nt-on-,-W-a-sh-in-g-to-n-9-8-0S-S---(4-2-S)-4-30--6-S-I-O-/F-'A)(-(-42-S-) 4-3-0--6-S1-6-~ * This paper contains 50% recyded material. 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE r City of Renton Municipal C,-J; Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110 -Appea. 4-8-110C4 The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 4-1-170, the fee schedule of the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-110F: Appeals to City Council -Procedures 1. Time for Appeal: Unless a specific section or State law providing for review of decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court or any other body, any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the City Council, upon a form furnished by the City Clerk, within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. 2. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. 3. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. 4. Transmittal of Record to Council: Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the City Council all of the pertinent documents, including the written decision or recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report, the notice of appeal, and additional letters submitted by the parties. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-1982) 5. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required, the Council shall remand the matter to the Examiner. for reconsideration and receipt of additional evidence. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the applicant. In the absence of an entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, and a remand to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 4389, 1-25-1993) 6. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties. 7. Findings and Conclusions Required: If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-050F 1, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may remand the proceeding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly. 8. Council Action: If, upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-050F2 and F3, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, or that a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified, the City Council may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the application. 9. Decision Documentation: In any event, the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord 3658, 9-13-1982) 10. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving, modifying or rejecting a decision of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames established under subsection G5 ofthis Section. (Ord. 4660, 3-17-1997) CITY OF RENTON MAR ,. I. , 7 2005 APPEAL -HEARING EXAMINER RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISIONIRECOMMENDATION TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL. FILE NO. LUA 04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF APPLICATIONNAME:_--<o.Ri=·d:::..:g"""eC!..;vi=e..:..:,w-'C=o::..=u=rt=---______________ _ The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated January 25,2005. 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT: Name: CliffWilliamslRidgeview Court, LLC Address: PO Box 2401 Kirkland, W A 98033 Telephone No. (206) 933-1049 REPRESENTATIVE (IF ANY) Name: Sean K. Howe Address: 524 Second Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, W A 98104 Telephone No. (206) 587-0700 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach addition sheets, ifnecessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: FINDING OF FACT: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's report) No. Error: Please see attached document. Correction: Please see attached document. . CONCLUSIONS: No. Error: ___ ..:.P..:.;le=as=e=..=se:;.;:eo...;:a=tt=a=ch=ed,,-=-,d=o::.;:c;..::::u=m=e=nt=. ______________ _ . ·-COrrection: Please see attached document. OTHER: No. Error: ___ ..:.P..:.:le:.::as::::.;e::o..=se::..=e:...,::a:.:;tt::::a=ch=e=d:...,:d=o::..=c=um=en=t:.:..,. ______________ _ Correction: Please see attached document. 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (attach explanation, if desired) SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: Other: /~~ AppellantiRepresentative Signature CC: C£f-'1. ,4-/ftsa' ~ ,Ne 1t tJa-t+s. I~<J Sv0 HE /-{FJ./iV b l=x ~ ;.~·lI ...... ..--(00288943.DOC;I} March 7, 2005 Date ORIGINAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Inre: BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL FOR RENTON, WASHINGTON No. ____________________ __ Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat, File No. LUA04-13I, PP, SA-H, ECF WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION, RECOMMENDATION, AND DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Ridgeview Court, LLC, applicant for approval of a. preliminary plat. and site plan for Ridgeview Court, File # LUA 04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF, appeals the actions ofthe Hearing Examiner denying this project. Specifically, the applicant appeals the Hearing Examiner's recommendation to deny the preliminary plat, his decision to deny the site plan, and his imposition of alternative conditions, all dated January 25, 2005 (hereinafter~'Decision"); and the Examiner's rejection of the applicant's request for reconsideration, dated February 22,2005 (hereinafter "Response"); which two documents together will be referred to as "the denial." Ie SUMMARY Ridgeview Court is a proposal to place 20 units of residential housing onto 2.4 acres, just south ofNE 4th Street. It is a thoughtfully planned and fully mitigated project, supported by City staff, supportive of the goals of the Growth Management Act with its high density and proximity to a major transportation corridor, and located where the City Council, as expressed by its adopted development regulations, intended projects of its type to be. WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION, RECOMMENDATION, AND DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION-1 {OO289695.DOC;\ } OR\G1NAL Cairn cross & Hempelmann, P.S. La", Offices 524 Second Avenue. Suite 500 Seattle. Washington 98104-2323 Phone: 206-587-0700 • Fax: 206-587-2308 • & 1 The Hearing Examiner's denial is based upon a single concern: the impact of noise upon 2 the project by an adjacent post office. The denial is a substantial error of both law and fact. 3 Both of the authorities proffered for legal support of the denial are erroneous. First, the denial 4 incorrectly relies on a comprehensive plan policy to override valid and specific development 5 regulations. Those development regulations, in the form of zoning and an overlay, specify a 6 transition between intensive commercial uses along NE 4th Street, and existing single-family 7 residential areas to the north and south. The development regulations authorize residential use in 8 the transition area. Despite these applicable development regulations, and despite Ridgeview 9 Court's meeting all applicable requirements, the Examiner has decided that no residential use is 10 appropriate for this property. Instead, as is made clear in the Response, he uses his "discretion" 11 to deny residential use. This is the second error oflaw, as the zoning use table does not provide 12 him such discretion in this instance. The denial is an error of fact. Noise from the post office . 13 was properly considered during the SEP A process. That factual analysis, and the ensuing DNS- 14 M and its conditions, were not appealed. They were not overcome by the oral testimony ofthe 15 post office manager. Also, there was no showing that the several aspects of Ridgeview Court 16 that mitigate against incoming noise (including site layout, unusually large setbacks, fencing, 17 elevation differential, and landscaping) are insufficient. Finally, the effect of this denial, ifleft 18 unremedied, will be to push commercial uses and their impacts closer to existing low-density 19 single-family residences to the north and south ofNE 4th Street. 20 II. ACTION REQUESTED 21 The applicant respectfully requests that the City Council: 22 1) Reverse the Decision by approving the site plan and preliminary plat; or 23 2) Modify the Decision by approving the preliminary plat and the alternative decision on 24 the site plan, with removal of alternative conditions 2, 3, and 4. 25 26 WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION, RECOMMENDATION, AND DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION-2 (00289695.DOC;I} Cairncross & Rempe/mann, P.s. Law Offices 524 Second Avenue. Suite 500 Seal/Ie. Washington 98104-2323 Phone: 206-587-0700 • Fax: 206-587-2308 1 III. FACTS 2 The applicant proposes to build 20 residential units on 2.4 acres, near a transportation 3 arterial (NE 4th Street), at 327 Bremerton Avenue. The lot sizes will range from 2,725 square feet 4 to 5,800 square feet. The property is less than one block from NE 4th Street. 5 Ridgeview Court's application vested to the standards ofCS (Center Suburban) zoning, 6 which allows residential development. RMC 4-2-10, 4-2-60, 4-2-070J, 4-2-070K. The sole 7 conditions listed in the use table for the CS zone are density limitations and a zoning overlay. 8 RMC 4-2-80. The project meets or exceeds these requirements. 9 The applicable zoning overlay is Area B of Renton's Suburban and Neighborhood 10 Centers Residential Demonstration District. The overlay's intent is to "ensure high quality 11 residential developments within the Center Suburban and Center Neighborhood Zoning 12 Districts" and "to require superior residential projects which complement commercial uses, 13 provide first floor coriunercial activity along arterials, and provide a tran'sition between intensive 14 commercial areas and surrounding single family neighborhoods." RMC 4-3-095 (A) (emphasis 15 added). The overlay specifically contemplates the proximity of "intensive" commercial uses to 16 the residences in this district. It specifically allows residential development and detached 17 dwellings. RMC 4-3-095 (C). This project meets or exceeds all requirements ofthe overlay. 18 After thorough review, city staff recommended approval ofthe project, subject to 19 conditions which the applicant is willing to and able to meet. Environmental review was 20 conducted, and staff issued a DNS-M (Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated), 21 including conditions. There are no critical areas on the site. The Hearing Examiner found that 22 the site will "blend with the commercial, mixed use and transition well into the residential uses 23 to the south." Decision at pg. 3. There were no letters filed in opposition. The manager of the 24 neighboring post office testified that the use would be a great improvement for the 25 neighborhood. Decision at 3-4. In sum, Ridgeview Court is remarkable only in its 26 unremarkableness. WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION, RECOMMENDATION, AND DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION-3 (00289695.DOC;I} Cairn cross & Hempeimann, P.s. LawOfJices 524 Second Avenue. Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98104-2323 Phone: 206-587-0700 • Fax: 206-587-2308 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Nevertheless, at the public hearing, the post office manager expressed concern about the effect of noise that late-night and early-morning activities from his facility might have upon future homeowners. Yet the issue of noise from the post office had already been discussed in the SEPA process, and the post office manager had not appealed the DNS-M or its conditions. Based solely upon the post office manager's statements, the Hearing Examiner deemed the site "inappropriate" for residential use, denied the site plan, and recommended denial of the plat application. The Decision recommended finding a "better use" for the site "such as another commercial use." In his Response to the applicant's request for reconsideration, the Hearing Examiner declined to modify his decision. IV. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS The Hearing Examiner's denial of Ridgeview Court is a substantial error of both fact and law. The denial is an ·error oflaw, as it uses a single Comprehensive Plan Potiey, taken out of context, to override specific implementing development regulations, deciding instead that residential use is inappropriate for this property. Its second argument, that the Examiner has "discretion" to deny residential use on this parcel, is also legal error, as the zoning use table does not provide such discretion for this use in this zone, but instead permits residential use outright, subject to a single condition which is met by this application. The denial is also an error of fact, in that it finds last-minute oral testimony to outweigh the considered earlier SEPA analysis and recommendation of staff. The denial of all residential use will serve only to push the impacts of such transition toward the existing single-family residences to the south. 1. The Decision Errs by Using a Comprehensive Plan Policy to Override Specific Development Regulations. The only specific authority cited by the Decision to deny Ridgeview Court is Comprehensive Plan Policy (CPP) H-90, requiring identification of "sites within mixed-use areas, which are appropriate for residential developments." The Decision finds that this site is WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION, RECOMMENDATION, AND DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION-4 (00289695.DOC;I) Cairncross & Hempeimann, P.s. Law Offices 524 Second Avenue. Suite 500 Seal/le. Washington 98104-2323 Phone: 206-587-0700 • Fax: 206--587-2308 J not appropriate for residential use. The Response, while expressing the Examiner's 2 philosophical views on zoning, provides no additional legal authority, other than the Examiner's 3 "discretion" to protect the public interest. Both are mistaken. 4 The City Council, as_required by the Growth Management Act, implemented the goals 5 and policies of the Comprehensive Plan by adopting the CS zoning, and the zoning district 6 overlay. SeeRCW 36.70A.040(3). The plain text of those development regulations, and their 7 expressed intent, prove that the City Council has alieady weighed precisely the type of concerns 8 cited by the Hearing Examiner. The Council decided that the CN and CS zones would be 9 transition areas between commercial and residential uses, and the overlay would further govern 10 those areas between "intensive" commercial uses and residential areas. The Council decided that 1 J residential use would be permitted in this zone. 12 The Council's adopted development regulations, and this project, support numerous other 13 Comprehensive Plan goals and policies, that are equally applicable, and arguably more specific 14 to this property as the one used by the Examiner to deny the project. Ridgeview Court's small 15 lots provide affordable housing, in a central and urbanized location rather than at the 16 suburban/rural fringe, will be built a stone's throw from a major transportation and economic 17 corridor, put a blackberry-ridden lot to productive use, and do not threaten critical areas. As 18 such, Ridgeview Court supports the goals and policies of the Land Use, Housing, Transportation, 19 Environmental, and Economic Development elements ofthe City's Comprehensive Plan. 20 The Response criticizes the applicant's citation to the applicable development 21 regulations, mistakenly characterizing the applicable zoning map and overlay as "a bit more 22 global than a site-specific rezone." Pg. 1. An examination of the zoning map, and the 23 Residential Bonus District B overlay, show that these development regulations were certainly 24 drawn deliberately and with specificity. The applicable transition zoning extends south from NE 25 4th Street only to NE 3rd Street, and north only to NE 5th Street, before meeting purely residential 26 zoning. In most places, the CS/CN zoning is only one or two parcels deep in its separation of the WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S Cairncross & Hempelmann, P.s. DECISION, RECOMMENDATION, AND DENIAL lAw Offices OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERA TION-5 524 Second Avenue. Suite 500 Seattle. Washington 98104-2323 Phone: 206-587-0700 • Fax: 206-587-2308 (00289695.DOC;1) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ]3' 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NE 4th Street corridor from the residential zoning to the south. This zoning is highly specific. The applicable overlay is similarly narrow. 2. The Zoning Use Table Does Not Provide the Examiner Discretion In This Instance. The other argument proffered to deny this project is also incorrect. The denial, and in particular the Response, rely upon the Examiner's "discretion" in protecting the "public interest." An examination ofthe City's zoning use table (RMC 4-2-060) shows that such reliance is plain legal error. Under the use table, some uses are permitted outright ("P"); some are permitted if a certain condition is met ("P#"); and some indeed "may be permitted subject to review by the Hearing Examiner to establish conditions to protect public health, safety and welfare." RMC 4- 2-050(A). These are demarcated by an "H." For this partiCUlar use (residential detached dwellings), in this particular zone, (Center Suburban), the table does not state "H," but rather I "P20": permitted outright ifthe application satisfies condition number 20 (density limitations). Ridgeview Court satisfies this condition. Thus, the Hearing Examiner's "discretion" to protect the public interest may not be used to deny this particular use in this particular zone, and reliance upon such discretion is legal error. 3. In Case of Inconsistency, Development Regulations Control. The zoning regulations and overlay which govern this property, and that contemplate residential uses, are not inconsistent with CPP H-90. However, even ifthe zoning and overlay were somehow inconsistent with CPP H-90, the law in such cases is that, in the event of inconsistency, comprehensive plan policies do not control individual private project applications, development regulations do. Citizens of Mount Vernon v. City of Mount Vernon, 133 Wn.2d 861,947 P.2d 1209 (1997). Citizens is the post-GMA reiteration ofthe rule that, in case of an inconsistency, development regulations take precedence over plan policies. "A specific zoning ordinance will prevail over an inconsistent comprehensive plan." Citizens at 873 (citing Cougar Mountain Associates v. King County, III Wn.2d 742, 757, 765 P.2d 264 (1988». The Citizens WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION, RECOMMENDATION, AND DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION-6 (00289695.DOC;1) Cairncross & Rempe/mann, P.S. LawOJJices 524 Second Avenue. Suite 500 Seallle. Washington 98/04-2323 Phone: 206-587-0700 • Fax: 206-587-2308 1 court held that, for a rezone, the development regulations trumped the plan policies despite the 2 regulations' ambiguity, and despite issues regarding the timing of their enactment. 3 The situation here is far simpler than in Citizens. There is no inconsistency and there is 4 no rezone. The development regulations are unambiguous. There is no issue regarding the 5 sequence or validity ofthe applicable regulations. Ifthe development regulations prevailed over 6 the plan policies in Citizens, they must certainly do so in this case. The Response is silent on 7 this crucial point. 8 The CS zone, to which standards this project is vested, allows residential detached 9 dwellings. Further, the overlay states that this area is designed to serve as the transition between 10 commercial and residential m;es. In fact, the overlay's intent is not merely to buffer residential 11 areas from any commercial use, or average commercial use, but rather to serve as a transition 12 between "intensive commercial uses and surrounding neighborhoods." (Emphasis added.) A 13 post office with occasional late-night and regular 6:30-7:30 am truck ·activity is just the sort of 14 use for which this zoning, and this particular overlay, were designed. In fact, given other 15 possible uses and impacts along this corridor, one could argue that it does not even qualify as 16 "intensive." Such sounds may not be consistent with the Examiner's nostalgic ideals of the 17 amount of sound that can be heard through an open window on a summer night in a low-density 18 residential neighborhood. However, this project is completely in keeping with the intent of the 19 GMA, Comprehensive Plan, and development regulations: centrally-located housing, in the 20 urban growth area, at a density and location supportive of transit and affordability, rather than 21 perpetuating the low-density, land-consuming development stereotypes that have contributed to 22 suburban sprawl. 23 In sum, the City Council has already determined that residential uses are appropriate in 24 this area, even when adjacent to "intensive" commercial uses. The denial's citation to a single 25 Comprehensive Plan Policy, and broad notions of discretion, to overrule a cohesive set of 26 specific development regulations are errors oflaw. WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION, RECOMMENDATION, AND DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION-7 {00289695.DOC;I} Cairncross & Hempelmann, P.s. LawOjJices 524 Second Avenue. Suite 500 Seatlle. Washington 98104-2323 Phone: 206-587-0700 • Fax: 206-587-2308 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 4. By Precluding Residential Uses, the Decision Effectively Rezones the Property to a Purely Commercial Zone Rather than the Zone the Council Intended and Adopted. In deeming all residential use inappropriate for this property, despite the project's well- planned nature and its location in a designated commercial/residential transition area, the Hearing Examiner effectively removes the residential use from the applicable development regulations and use tables. The removal is in direct opposition to the intent and authority of the Council, the intent and text of the development regulations, and is error. The denial cites the Examiner's "discretion" and notions of "benevolent paternalism," yet the effect of such is to substitute the Hearing Examiner's discretion for that of the Council. Yet this is exactly the discretion that the Council exercised in enacting the applicable zoning and the applicable overlay. Ifthis denial's logic is allowed to stand and applied to other residential projects in . . transition zones, then the same result would be reached: denying residential use in zones that permit that use, and mandating that the impacts of commercial use move closer to existing single family neighborhoods. 5. Those Conditions in the Alternative Recommendation and Decision that Are 17 Prompted by the Erroneous Denial of the Plat Are Also Erroneous. 18 For the same reasons as stated above, Conditions 2, 3, and 4 in the Alternative 19 Recommendation and Decision are also legally unsupportable, as they are grounded in the same 20 incorrect use of a general policy to overcome specific development regulations that are not 21 inconsistent with that policy . . 22 6. The Denial is Substantial Error of Fact. 23 The Examiner's claim that residential development on this property is "inappropriate"- 24 despite the zoning and overlay to the contrary -is based solely on the post office manager's 25 statement about the noise his facility generates, and more specifically about the potential that the 26 manager may have to respond to noise complaints. See Paragraph 9 of the Decision's WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S Cairncross & Hempelmann. P.s. DECISION, RECOMMENDATION, AND DENIAL UzwOfJices OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERA TION-8 524 Second Avenue. Suite 500 Seattle. Washington 98/04-2313 Phone: 206-587-0700 • Fax: 206-587-2308 {00289695.DOC;I} 1 Conclusions. Such a concern is not adequate to deny this otherwise valid project, as there was 2 no showing that Ridgeview Court's site layout, its greater-than-usual setbacks along its western 3 boundary, its fencing, its landscaping, and other design aspects would be insufficient. 4 For example, even the Decision finds that "Anacortes Avenue NE will act as a buffer 5 between the proposed single-family homes along the western property line and the existing 6 commercial use (post Office site) on the abutting property." Pg. 3. Even the Decision finds that 7 "The site is also approximately eight feet higher" than the adjoining post office property. Pg. 5. 8 Even the Decision finds that "Staff has granted a modification that allows a setback for Proposed 9 Lots 8 to 13 to have a greater setback. .. " Pg.6. All of these findings, and the SEPA analysis, are 10 thrown out based solely on the post office manager's testimony at public hearing. 11 The denial commits factual error when it overcomes considered SEP A analysis with the 12 statement ofthe post office manager. Incoming noise is a topic specifically addressed by 13 paragraph 7b of the City's SEP A cliecklist and was part of this application's environmental" 14 review. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) issued the DNS-M, including conditions, 15 provided public notice, and allowed time for appeal. If someone felt such environmental review 16 -which specifically addressed the issue of noise from the post office -or the conditions imposed 17 thereby were inadequate~ they should have appealed the DNS-M, as allowed by the law. 18 The Response is dismissive of the SEPA process, and incorrectly claims that the ERC's 19 authority is limited to the determination of a project's impacts and whether an EIS must be 20 prepared. Pg. 2. This ignores the conditions which the SEP A process generated, which were 21 appealable to the Hearing Examiner, and which are noted in the Decision at Page 2. 22 The Response implies that it is never too late to raise any environmental issue. If that 23 were so, then there would-be no use for the SEPA process, as all environmental issues could 24 simply wait until the public hearing on the plat application. Moreover, the point of an earlier 25 SEPA analysis is not merely the orderly sequence by which issues of different types should be 26 examined. The additional point is that a factual examination had already been completed -as WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S Cairncross & Hempelmann, P.S. DECISION, RECOMMENDATION, AND DENIAL Law Offices OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERA TION-9 524 Second Avenue. Suite 500 Seattle. Washington 98104-2323 Phone: 206-587-0700 .. Feu: 206-587-2308 (00289695.00C;\ } 1 noted at other points throughout the Decision -which was not overcome by the post office 2 manager's last-minute oral concerns. 3 Finally, the Response is an error of fact when it incorrectly makes no distinction between 4 the dense, small-lot residential housing this Project proposes, and the existing single-family 5 residences farther to the south. It is an error of fact when it uses the Examiner's notions of what 6 residential noises should be present at night, to deny a project which meets all local requirements 7 and furthers the goals of the GMA and the City's Comprehensive Plan. 8 7. The Denial Will Have Adverse Consequences Beyond this Application. 9 The Hearing Examiner finds that, because ofthe noise from the post office, that a "better 10 use" for this property would be "another commercial use." Decision at 9. Acceptance of this 11 finding, and applying its rationale to similar cases, will result in converting CS and CN zones - 12 which the Council designated as urban transition zones -to purely commercial zones. Aside 13 . from being illegal as described above, such would nave adverse practidal effects, pushing 14 commercial noise and other impacts ever closer to existing single-family residences. 15 If this denial is not remedied, and a commercial use replaces this project, the Council 16 should consider the impact that an unspecified commercial use could have upon the proposed 17 homes for that project, and then upon the existing single-family homes to the south ofthat 18 project. Those homeowners have the right to expect that the transition areas to their north, as 19 designated by zoning maps and overlays which are the result of careful planning, public 20 comment, and legislative balancing, will remain, and not be replaced on an ad hoc basis by 21 commercial uses. They have the right to at least the possibility of a neighbor such as Ridgeview 22 Court, which project the Examiner found "should not have any negative impacts to the 23 surrounding property owners." Decision at 3. 24 V. CONCLUSION 25 Ridgeview Court is a good project, and the applicant simply requests that the Council 26 consider it fairly and on its merits. Ridgeview Court is supported by staff, places dense housing WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S Cairn cross & Hempelmann, P.s. DECISION, RECOMMENDATION, AND DENIAL Law Offices OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION-10 524 Second Avenue. Suite 500 Seattle. Washington 98104-2323 Phone: 206-587-0700 • Fax: 206-587-2308 {00289695.DOC;I} 1 near a major transportation corridor rather than sprawling into outlying areas, does not contain 2 critical areas, and has no neighborhood opposition. It happens to be adjacent to a post office 3 which generates noise at night. The only justifications proffered for the denial are a 4 Comprehensive Plan Policy and the Examiner's discretion. The denial's reliance on these 5 justifications is substantial legal error. CPP H-90 is not inconsistent with the development 6 regulations, but even if it were inconsistent, the law is clear that the Council's adopted 7 development regulations take priority. The development regulations are the lawful expressed 8 intent of the City Council. Those regulations permit residential use on this property outright, 9 subject to a single condition. The Council exercised its discretion in demarcating this area as a 10 trarIsition between intensive commercial uses arId single-family homes. A well-designed and 11 staff-supported project application that meets all the criteria of the Council's adopted 12 development regulations should be allowed to go forward. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Dated this 7th day of March, 2005. CAIRNCROSS & HEMPELMANN, P.S. SearI K. Howe, WSBA No. 23329 Attorneys for Ridgeview Court, LLC WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION, RECOMMENDATION, AND DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERA TION-11 {00289695.DOC;I} Cairncross & Hempelmann, P.s. Law Offices 524 Second Avenue. Suite 500 Seattle. Washington 98104-2323 Phone: 106-587-0700 "Fax: 106-587-1308 Cairncross & Hempelmann, P. S. February 8, 2005 VIA FACSIMILE (425) 430-6523 AND U.S. MAIL Fred J. Kaufman Renton City Hearing Examiner's Office City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Re: Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat Request for Reconsideration File No. LUA 04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF Dear Mr. Kaufman: This request for reconsideration is respectfully submitted pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100 (G) of Renton's Municipal Co.de, by Ridgeview Court, LLC, applicant for approval ofa preliminary plat and site plan for Ridgeview Court, File # LUA 04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF. The law firm of Cairncross and Hempelmann, which includes the undersigned, represents applicant in this matter. RELIEF REQUESTED The applicant requests the Hearing Examiner reconsider his January 25,2005 recommendation to deny this preliminary plat and decision to deny the project's site plan ("Decision"), and issue a new decision approving the site plan and recommending approval of the preliminary plat. Since the denial of the site plan was driven by the recommendation on the plat, the term "Decision" will be used to describe both actions. The applicant also requests removal of conditions 2, 3, and 4 in the "Alternative Recommendation and Decision." SUMMARY This project application enjoyed the support of those who reviewed it, until the final hour, when the manager of a neighboring post office, while expressing his opinion that the project would be a great improvement of the neighborhood, voiced concern that noise from his facility would generate complaints from the project's future homeowners. Based solely on this qualified concern, the Decision denies the site plan and recommends denial of the preliminary plat. Also, the Decision is an error oflaw, as it relies on a comprehensive plan policy to overrule specific development regulations adopted by the City Council. These development regulations contemplate this parcel as part of a transition between intensive commercial uses and existing single-family residential areas, and authorize residential use. The Decision is an error of law, as Law Vffices 524 Second Averwe, Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98104-2323 Phone: 206-587-0700. Fax: 206-587-2308 www.cairncross.com ;0(2)(27S1.1)0(';) ; :~hJn~T~L(Hi.UU.:?:Q.~~:~~: .. O~:i~{ dirt:'Cf: [1(6) 254-~!4/_'~ February 8, 2005 Page 2 the issue of post office noise was part of the application's SEPA analysis, and the DNS-M was not appealed. The Decision is an error oflaw and fact, as several other avenues more properly address the issue of noise, including this project's SEPA analysis, the post office's SEPA analysis, and Renton's noise ordinances. The Decision is an error of fact, as there was no showing that the setbacks, fencing, elevation differential, and other design parameters are inadequate, and there is no showing that the SEPA analysis was flawed. Finally, the Decision, if left unmodified, will have adverse consequences that reach beyond the four comers of this project. Ridgeview Court is a thoughtfully planned and fully mitigated project that is supported by City staff, located exactly where the City Council intended projects of its type to be, and should be allowed to proceed. FACTS The project site is located at 327 Bremerton Avenue. The project application vested to the standards of CS (Center Suburban) zoning, though the site was later rezoned CN (Center Neighborhood). Both zones allow residential development. RMC 4-2-10, 4-2-60, 4-2-070J, 4-2- 070K. The sole conditions listed in the use tables for these zones are the density limitations and a zoning overlay. RMC 4-2-80. The project meets or exceeds these requirements . . The overlay for this parcel is Area B of Renton's SubUrban Centers Residential Demonstration District. The overlay's intent is to "ensure high quality residential developments within the Center Suburban and Center Neighborhood Zoning Districts" and "to require superior residential projects which complement commercial uses, provide first floor commercial activity along arterials, and provide a transition between intensive commercial areas and surrounding single family neighborhoods." RMC 4-3-095 (A) (emphasis added). This overlay specifically contemplates the proximity of "intensive" commercial uses to the residences in this district. It specifically allows residential development and detached dwellings. RMC 4-3-095 (C). This project meets or exceeds all requirements ofthe overlay. After thorough review, City Staff recommended approval, subject to conditions which the applicant is willing to and able to meet. Environmental review was conducted, and Staff issued a DNS-M (Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated), which was not appealed. There are no critical areas on site. The Hearing Examiner found that the site will "blend with the commercial, mixed use and transition well into the residential uses to the south." Decision at 3. There were apparently no letters filed in opposition. The manager of a neighboring post office testified that the project would be a great improvement for the neighborhood. Decision at 3-4. In sum, the project is remarkable only in its unremarkableness. Nevertheless, at the public hearing, the post office manager expressed concern about the effect of noise that late-night and early-morning activities from his facility might have upon from future homeowners. It appears he was particularly concerned about having to answer to noise complaints. However; the issue of noise had already been addressed in the SEPA process, and the DNS-M was not appealed. February 8, 2005 Page 3 Based solely upon this concern, the Hearing Examiner deemed the site "inappropriate" for residential developments, denied the site plan, and recommended denial of the plat application. The Decision concludes that "any residential use" ofthe site is "problematic." Decision at 7. The Decision recommends finding a "better use" for the site, "such as another commercial use." ARGUMENT This parcel is part of an area the City Council intended to constitute a transition between existing residential and intensive commercial uses. The Decision is an error oflaw, as it uses a Comprehensive Plan Policy to override specific implementing development regulations and constitutes an inappropriate rezone. The Decision's rationale, if adopted in other cases, will act to push the burden of commercial-residential transition toward the existing single-family residences, rather than in the means and location the City Council intended. 1. The Decision Errs by Using a Comprehensive Plan Policy to Override Specific Development Regulations. a. The Development Regulations and CPP H-90 Are Not Inconsistent. The only authority cited for denial ofthis project is Comprehensive Plan Policy (CPP) H- 90, requiring identification of "sites within mixed-use areas, which are appropriate for residential developments." The Decision finds that this site is not appropriate for residential developments. However, the zoning regulations and overlay which authorize residential uses on this parcel are not inconsisteIit with CPP H-90. As required by the Growth Management Act, the City Council implemented the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan by adopting this zoning, and this overlay, for this particular property. See RCW36.70A.040(3). The plain text of those development regulations, and their expressed intent, prove that the City Council has already weighed precisely the type of concerns cited by the Hearing Examiner. The Council decided that the CN and CS zones would be residential-commercial transition areas, and the overlay would govern areas between intensive commercial uses and residential areas. b. In Case of Inconsistency, Development Regulations Control. Even if the development regulations were, in fact, inconsistent with CPP H-90, the law in such cases is that, in the event of inconsistency, comprehensive plan policies do not control individual private project applications, development regulations do. Citizens of Mount Vernon v. City of Mount Vernon, 133 Wn.2d 861, 947 P.2d 1209 (1997). Citizens is the post-GMA reiteration ofthe rule that, in case of an inconsistency, development regulations take precedence over plan policies. "A specific zoning ordinance will prevail over an inconsistent comprehensive plan." Citizens at 873 (citing Cougar Mountain Associates v. King County, 111 Wn.2d 742, February 8, 2005 Page 4 757, 765 P.2d 264 (1988)). The Citizens court held that, for a rezone, the development regulations trumped the plan policies despite the regulations' ambiguity and despite issues regarding the timing oftheir enactment. The situation here is far simpler than in Citizens. There is no rezone. The development regulations are unambiguous. There is no issue regarding the sequence or validity of the applicable regulations. If the development regulations prevailed over the plan policies in Citizens, they must certainly do so in this case. Both the CS zone, to which standards this project is vested, and the CN zone, the area's current zoning, allow residential detached dwellings. The overlay states that this area is designed to serve as the transition between commercial and residential uses. In fact, the overlay's intent is not merely to buffer residential areas from any commercial use, or average commercial use, but rather to serve as a transition between "intensive commercial uses and surrounding neighborhoods." (Emphasis added.) A post office with truck activity is just the sort of use for which this zoning, and this particular overlay, were designed. In fact, one could argue that it does not even qualify as "intensive." In any event, the City Council has already determined that residential uses are appropriate on this parcel, even when adjacent to intensive commercial uses. The Decision's use of a broadly written plan policy to overcome a cohesive set of highly specific development regulations is an error of law. 2. By Precluding Residential Uses, the Decision Constitutes a Rezone of the Property to a Purely Commercial Zone Rather than the Zone the Council Intended and Adopted. In finding that residential use on this parcel is "inappropriate" under a plan policy, the Decision effectively rezones the property to a zone of purely commercial nature. In fact, in denying the residential use of this parcel, despite its well-planned nature, and despite its location in a designated commercial/residential transition area, based upon truck noise from an adj acent commercial use, the Decision effectively determines that there will be never be residential use on this parcel. Such a rezone is in direct opposition to the intent of the Council and the intent and text of the development regulations, and is error. If the Examiner applies similar reasoning to future project applications in transitional zones, then the same result will be reached and residential uses will be prohibited in all such transitional zones, unless the project happens to be fortunate enough to be located next to that rare commercial endeavor which does not require truck delivery of its merchandise, or any other impact-generating activity, to conduct its business. February 8, 2005 Page 5 3. ,Multiple Remedies Other than Application Denial Exist to Address Noise Concerns. While the intent of guaranteeing notice to future purchasers is perhaps laudable, it is not the position or authority of the Hearing Examiner to guard against every potential negative, nor, as prescribed in the alternative decision, to require that each be inscribed on the face ofthe plat. There is authority in RCW 58.17 to require this kind of inscription. Moreover, the law already provides multiple other remedies that more properly address the Examiner's concern. a. Post Office Noise Was Already Part of the SEP A Review. Incoming noise upon a proposed project is a topic specifically addressed by paragraph 7b of City of Renton's SEPA checklist and was part of this application's environmental review. The ERC issued the DNS-M, provided public notice, and allowed time for appeal. If someone felt the environmental review -which specifically addressed the issue of noise from the post office - was inadequate, they should have appealed the DNS-M, as allowed by the law. There was no appeal, and it is untimely and unfair to raise this issue now. Additionally, the creation of noise by the post office is an'issue that would have been even more properly addressed by the SEP A analysis for the post office, not a plat application submitted by one of its neighbors. b. Noise Ordinances Protect Renton Neighbors. The first is the City of Renton's noise ordinances at RMC Title 8, Chapter 7. These ordinances are applicable to residential, commercial, and industrial zones, and incorporate most of the state's regulations at RCW 173-60. Their standards are derived from the categorization of the noise's source and recipient. While Renton Municipal Code does not make clear whether its CS and CN "receiving" zones would be considered Class A (residential) or Class B (commercial) EDNA, even if they were deemed to be Class B, fairly stringent standards from RCW 173-60 apply to their noise-generating neighbors. If the noise ordinances allow the level of noise generated by the post office, such ordinances will provide an efficient answer to the phone calls the manager is concerned about. Should the post office violate those noise ordinances, the remedy will be through code enforcement, not denial oftheir neighbors' development applications. c. Rezoning to Remove Residential Use Is the Purview of the City Council. Center Suburban and Center Neighborhood zones are transition zones. Renton Municipal Code allows a variety of activities in a commercial zone, any number of which could create more impact than the noise described by the post office manager. Ifthe Examiner considers this level February 8,2005 Page 6 of noise to be an untenable risk to future residents of the transition area, the remedy is to petition for legislative change, not deny legal plat applications. 4. Those Conditions in the Alternative Recommendation and Decision that Are Prompted by the Erroneous Denial of the Plat Are Also Erroneous. For the same reasons as stated above, Conditions 2, 3, and 4 are also legally unsupportable, as they are grounded in the same incorrect use of a general policy to overcome specific development regulations that are not inconsistent with that policy. 5. The Decision is Also Not Well-Grounded in Fact. The Decision is also not adequately supported by fact. The sole reason for finding that residential development on this site was "inappropriate" was the post office manager's concern about the possibility of receiving noise complaints. Such a concern is not adequate to deny this otherwise valid project, without exploration of whether noise being generated by the Post Office complies with applicable noise ordinances, the precise location of the trucks on the site, etc. However, again, a more appropriate venue to address and mitigate any such noise concerns would have been the SEP A process for the post office, and its findings were not appealed. The Decision is also factually insufficient, as it contains no showing that the project's proposed setbacks, fencing, landscaping, windows, and significant advantage in height over the post office, would be insufficient to mitigate incoming noise. 6. The Decision Will Have Adverse Consequences Beyond this Application. The Decision finds that, because ofthe noise from the post office, that a "better use" for this particular parcel would be "another commercial use." Decision at 9. Acceptance of this finding, and applying its rationale to similar cases, will result in converting CS and CN zones - intended as urban transition zones -to purely commercial zones. Aside from an illegal rezone as described above, such would have adverse practical effects, pushing commercial noise and other impacts ever closer to existing single-family residences. For example, the parcel to the project's south is also under proposal for development. If the Decision is not reconsidered, and a commercial use replaces this project, will future applications for residential use on that neighboring parcel be denied as well? What of the homeowners in the existing single-family residences to the south, who reasonably expected that the areas to their north would be transition areas, as shown on the zoning maps and overlays, but are now likely to see commercial uses creep closer, rather than well-planned residential projects? The Examiner found that this project "should not have any negative impacts to the surrounding property owners." Decision at 3. It seems unlikely that the commercial use recommended by February 8,2005 Page 7 this Decision would be as effective at "transition(ing) ... into the residential uses tothe south." Decision at 3. CONCLUSION The Decision as currently written, recommending denial of the preliminary plat, and denying the site plan, was clearly based upon genuine concern for future homeowners. However, there is no factual showing that the existing application will be inadequate to address those concerns. There is no factual showing that the applicable noise ordinances, and other remedies, are insufficient. This issue was raised during the SEP A process, and the DNS-M was not appealed. The cited support for denial of the application was a comprehensive plan policy that is not inconsistent with the development regulations, but even if it were inconsistent, the law is clear that the development regulations take priority. The development regulations are the lawful expressed intent of the legislative body regarding this particular parcel. The City Council intended this area to be a transitional zone between intensive commercial uses and single-family homes. A well-designed and staff-supported project application that meets the criteria ofthe Council's adopted development regulations should be allowed to go forward. SKH:mcd cc: Parties of record: NancyWeil Juliana Fries Cliff Williams Bob Wenzl Kevin Chamberlin Very truly yours, ~~~ Sean Howe 02/J7/2005 11:34 FAX 1 206 587 2308 CAIRNCROSS 141002 Cairncross & Hempelmann, P.,;. February 17,2005 VIA FACSIMILE (425) 430-6523 AND U.S. MAIL Fred J. Kaufman Renton City Hearing Examiner's Office City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Re: Corrected: Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat Request for Reconsideration File No. LUA 04-13l, PP, SA-H, ECF Dear Mr. Kaufman: It has been brought to our attention that our February 8, 2005 request for reconsiderat on contains a typographical error. Under subheading 3, the second sentence should read "There is no authority in RCW 58.17 to require this kind of inscription." I apologize for this error and have included a corrected copy. If you have any questio 15, please contact me at (206) 254-4475. Thank you. SKH:mcd Enclosure cc: Parties of record: NancyWeil Juliana Fries CliffWi1liams Bob Wenzl Kevin Chamberlin LawOffius 524 Second Avenuc, Suite 500 S(lllIle, WIl.<hillgtnn 98104·2323 Phon,,; 206-587-0700 -fax: 2U6-587-230S www.rairncr()ss.t.um Very truly yours, d~ Sean Howe W(J~)(:ldr4.r )(J i J!Y.rc,!~~£!iiri1.-flJ i~:' . .r&lli dir-t:c/.' (:06) }.~ 1-·14:"5 Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor February 22, 2005 Sean Howe Cairncross & Hempelmann, P.S. 524 Second A venue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98104 CIT'~ OF RENTON Hearing Examiner Fred J. Kaufman Re: Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat, LUA 04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF. Dear Mr. Howe: This office has reviewed the Request for Reconsideration submitted by the applicant. The following comments address the request. The applicant appears to insist that the City Council already decided that this site was found appropriate for the proposed use. They make it sound as if this specific site had been reviewed when adopting the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning. Nothing of that sort occurred. The rezoning and review was a bit more global than a site-specific rezone of this site. There certainly was no determination that this site would be appropriate for residential uses and not one of the other uses permitted in the CS (CN) zone such as commercial uses. The applicant also argues that the proposed use is an almost perfect transitional use between the intense -commercial uses found in the area:;-thefp6slOffice use~ih'particula:r arid the-resideriWil uses south of here. Where this misses the point is that the proposed use provides no transition from the detached single family uses south ofthe subject site and the commercial uses, since the proposed project itself is solely, a detached single-family development that would not be bEffered or protected from the intense commercial use. Yes, it is a more dense residential use but it is sti II unabashedly single family and unabashedly detached. Where is the transition? What transitional use protects the applicant's proposed homes and its future residents from the intense commercial uses? Where is this vaunted transition? Both the Site Plan Ordinance and the Platting provisions provide a measure of discretion in determining whether a site is appropriate for a proposed use. Is the applicant suggesting that anytime a plat or site plan is rejected as inappropriate for a specific site, it results in a rezone of that site? If so, then the applicant appears to have ruled out any discretion in reviewing a proposed use of property. A plat for a specific purpose must serve the public use and interest. If it appears that it will fail to serve the public use and interest it may be denied. At one time land use codes allowed what was termed "pyramidal" uses. Lower intensity uses were permitted and each permitted the next lower intensity use. The result was that single-family uses could be developed adjacent to a factory. The City generally eliminated pyramidal zoning but did allow some districts to have a mix of uses but it did not just adopt a code that outright permitted residential next to commercial in all cases. It provided a variety of reviews such as Conditional Use Permits, Site Plan Review and Platting. In all of these reviews the specifics of the proposal are to be reviewed in not a vacuum but in conjunction with the subject site's characteristics, its neighborhood and the impacts. In other words, there is discretion. Not all proposals are appropriate. ----1 0-5-5-S-ou-t-h-G-ra-d-y-W-a-y---R-en-to-n-,-W-a-sh-j-ng-t-on-98-0-5-5---(4-2-5)-4-3-0--6-5-15----~ ~ AHFAn OF THE CURVE February 22, 2005 Mr. Sean Howe Page 2 The applicant either wholly dismisses or wholly ignores the nature of the post office deliveries when it states: "unless the project happens to be fortunate enough to be located next to that rare commercial endeavor which does not require truck delivery of its merchandise, or any other impact-generating activity, to conduct its business." (Page 4, Last Paragraph) While there may be other uses where deliveries occur in the middle of the night such as grocery stores, perhaps, but the post office is assured that its deliveries will occur in the middle of the night. This office will also hazard a guess that most commercial uses also do not test their 39 delivery vans' horns at 6:30 am or thereabouts six days a week. Once again, an appl icant argues that if something was not addressed or conditioned in a SEPA determination, then this office is precluded from looking at it in terms of the actual development- proposal. Just because SEPA did not find noise so significant as to require the preparation of an EIS does not mean that the noise emanating from the post office site does not have profound impacts on a housing use. Can the applicant seriously be suggesting that noises of gravity- propelled doors clanging in the middle of the night are mere ambient disturbances? Does the applicant claim that thirty-nine delivery trucks testing their horns at 6:30am isjust your routine neighborly sounds? The applicant then suggests that if noise were a significant issue that it should have been addressed during review of the post office. That may have been something that should have been -. done--butif-it'weren(')t done appropriately~-does that-meanconipounding the errcir andjiBfSifiiply~'-" ignoring it now? In reviewing land useapplications, one would hope that one is not bound by an earlier error, have to repeat it or not be permitted to rectify it. In addition, while it may be more complex for the applicant, two separate reviews occur -an environmental review and then a publ ic hearing, land use review. This office's jurisdiction to review permits is separate from the jurisdiction of the ERC. This office looks at a different set of ISsues and different aspects of a request and may appropriately deny or condition a proposal. The ERC on the other hand has no authority to deny a request but merely determine its enviroj)m~ntal impacts and possibly require the preparation of an EIS. It was during a public hearing onth-is request that testimony raised the noise issue, described the times and types of noise and suggested that complaints were expectl~d because of the noise of the postal op~rations. The applicant suggests that upon hearing that testimony that it is now too late to address those issues? That is ludicrous and wrong. The ultimate decision should not be read to be depriving the applicant of reasonable use of its property. Zoning is a police power and already has the ability to limit the free use of property. The Zoning Code, Land Use Provisions and Platting Ordinance provide for additional review of proposals under the Zoning Code and permit limitations on uses that do not serve the public use and interest. The applicant can development other uses. It is not as ifthe decision, actually recommendation, would deny the applicant of all beneficial use of its property. The property is not zoned to allow only residential uses. The property generally may be used for medical and dental offices, general offices, daycare, adult care, veterinary offices, retail sales, eating and drinking establishments and other uses. Residential use isjust one ofa panoply of uses permitted in the zone and on the subject site. The applicant then goes on to suggest that providing potential purchasers of information about the noise is unacceptable. Clearly, where is the public benefit in hiding that information? It is not an February 22, 2005 Mr. Sean Howe Page 3 aspect of the property that one would inherently realize when viewing the property during the day or even during evenings. It would only be discovered when a purchaser wakes up at I a.m. in the morning to discover that noises from delivery trucks occur. This-office would imagine that the applicant anticipates the potential purchasers will enter the post office, get on line to buy stamps and inquire about what time the large delivery trucks arrive, what kind of mechanisms are used to open and close doors and do you test your trucks horns at 6:30 am six days a week? The entire act of zon ing property, setting aside districts for certain uses and screen ing out incompatible uses, is one of benevolent paternalism. The government took on that role to assure that their residents were protected from certain incompatibilities inherent in different land uses. It is the role governments have chosen. In this case the choices are limited. Either the request to allow detached single-family homes should be denied or the City can do its best to make sure potential residents know about the hidden defects of this property. The issue of noise regulation is one that was not explored at the hearing. The post office may not be subject to all of Renton's regulations as the building itself was not subject to all of the City's own regulations. It is not clear that the Post Office, a division of the Federal government is subject to all of the controls available under the City's Zoning Codes or Noise Ordinances. The City has an obligation to make sure that any plat serves the public use and interest. As proposed, this project does not serve those interests; And nothing in the Zoning Code "requires" Jh,.ttJn!!1~jtiQ!Jat usesb.ytwe~1l comm~rciat uS~.M}c~h;t!?Jb~_rq~t9ffi(;e andJh_esingl~familyuses so~th oftlie site be solelyre~identialusessuch as proposed. Nothing suggests that transitional uses cannot be some other form of less intrusive commercial or office use that would serve as a . . buffer between the post office noise and the·single-family homes south of the subject site. Commercial uses less intrusive than the post office are certainly a viable possibility that can be considered. Finally, the applicant has indicated that acoustic measures could probably be employed to solve or minimize the potential noise problems. As the applicant has argued in its request for reconsideration, the applicant and City knew about the noise issues. Therefore, the information on noise was available and the applicant should have had responses at the public hearing. The information was or should have been available so that it is now inappropriate to introduce that information. But if the City Council determines that such information should be utilized before making a final decision in this case, then an acoustic engineer of the City's choosing but financed by the applicant should be employed to measure the noises that are generated by the post office and suggest measures that can reduce the impacts to single family homes. Measurements should take into consideration real world situations and not require that all windows be sealed to reduce noise to a reasonable level. All measures should be aimed at rediJcing noise when summer conditions or other similar conditions exist where normal residents might wish to have open windows in the middle of the night and early morning. Therefore, any review should consider fencing, landscaping, topography and wall-type and glazing that can reduce the noise but with a frank discussion of the practical outcome of such measures on sleep. In conclusion, this office sees no reason at this juncture to change its primary recommendation that the City Council deny the Preliminary Plat since it does not serve the public use and interest. February 22, 2005 Mr. Sean Howe Page 4 If this office can provide any further assistance, please feel free to write. This decision may be appealed to the City Council by March 8, 2005. Sincerely, rlt~r~----'1 , -+u.._.} v Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton FK/nt cc: Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Neil Watts, Development Services Jennifer Henning, Development Services Nancy Weil, Development Services Juliana Fries, Development Services CJifLWiliiams. Bob Wenzl Kevin Chamberlin " , •. r~-' , • " ' .. ;.:.;. .> f ""., -., ,', "\:' ~ '. ; .. : ~ . ' ' ...... :t. :. , -. (.' \. ... ~' : " { ! . ;; . \ :. . ,-' ':~ . . ! . :,: .. :' -'. . ~.: \ .. ' ..... " ~, ... , '.: "','" . ..... -... " ' .l. " ' ... .-, . ~\ .. : ' t .• . . ~ .. ',-' ....... f· ' .. " " •. " ,. , " , " 'w" •• '· ••.. " . .;-.1. .-~.' ,~~-.' ' . , ::-f' ( -;. -..... .. " • .' .; ~ 1 ... _ .' . ,. ./.: .-. '. ' .. ".,' ... , " , . " ::: :':. ... ' ~' ,~. , r .' . ,"" '. ','. ,'. ,\.::.,. f' .', ., .... , . ~.: ' '. -: .. ":, ,.'~.' l. :, ' ""::', .' " , . "', .' ,t. ~." . . ,.,,' '-"',', ".;, '.: '" ,';:'" '-, " . ~ ,'+-'" ,.': .-.. / ". '-:-, . \ ; . ..' ,: ": ... 'A ,~~'. \. .',. . , ", .'. " '~, . ,'" ', . .', , ",', !,! ,'." .':'., '.- ,,-; . . ',' " '~" .: " ') ~-.. .f.,: . ~. ", ""," ,::" . ~.. . .... '~ . " '."' . ....." . .... :.-' .'--.-r~"':""". ' ':.1"', .,', '. .: <:.t. '. ), :;,' < ~ •••• ":'-:' ..~ .... , " . .. , .. : .. ' -, ' .• , '.-.. :., .' .'-, . I.'" " ~ .• • P'., : ~ .. . .. ' . \ ... ' ",: .. ,.' .. " _ • .'':'. _ t,:" ~.. ' ' , .~. '.' '. . .', .... Cliff Williams 5326 SW Manning St Seattle, W A 98116 Kevin Chamberlin 18930 45th Place NE Lake Forest Park, W A 98155 Bob Wenzl 636 Lake Sammamish Lane NE Bellevue, W A 98008 Thomas Foster Langley Fourth Ave Assoc. LLC 6450 Southcenter Blvd, Ste 106 Seattle, W A 98188 Ridgeview Court, L.L.C. c/o Cliff Williams P.O. Box 2401 Kirkland, W A 98033 Sean K. Howe 524 Second Avenue, Ste 500 Seattle, W A 98104 Nancy Weil P/B/PW Dev Svcs City of Renton Juliana Fries P/B/PW Dev Svcs City of Renton • March 11, 2005 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON) ) ss. COUNTY OF KING ) BONNIE 1. W ALTON, City Clerk for the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that she is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 21 and not a party to nor interested in this matter. That on the 11th day of March, 2005, at the hour of5:00 p.m your affiant duly mailed and placed in the United States Post Office at Renton, King County, Washington, by first class mail to all parties of record, notice of appeal filed by Cliff Williams/Ridgeview Court, L.L.C. of the Hearing Examiner's recommendation on the Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat. (File No. LUA- 04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF). Bonnie 1. Walton, City Clerk SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 11th day of March, 2005. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing in ReRteR '1>~ -. , ' ........ ',-"- CITY Of RENTON MAR 7 2005 APPEAL -HEARING EXAMINER RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISIONIRECOMMENDATION TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL. FILE NO. LUA 04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF APPLICA TION NAME:_~Ri=' d=.cg~e~vi~e.:..:.w.....oC=o=u=rt=---______________ _ The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated January 25,2005. 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT: Name: Cliff WilliamslRidgeview Court, LLC Address: PO Box 2401 Kirkland, W A 98033 Telephone No. (206) 933-1049 REPRESENTATIVE (IF ANY) Name: Sean K. Howe Address: 524 Second Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, W A 98104 Telephone No. (206) 587-0700 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach addition sheets, if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: FINDING OF FACT: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's report) No. Error: Please see attached document. Correction: Please see attached document. . CONCLUSIONS: No. Error: ___ ~P..!..:le~a~se!::...!::,;se~e::....:a~tt~a~ch~e~d~d~o~c~u~m.!c!:e~n,-,!t. ______________ _ . COrrection: Please see attached document. OTHER: No. Error: ___ ~P~le=as=e:::....::.;se=e,--,a=tt=a=ch=e=d::...;d=o=c=u=m=e=n=t. ______________ _ Correction: Please see attached document. 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (attach explanation, if desired) SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: Other: March 7, 2005 AppellantiRepresentative Signature Date {00288943.DOC;! } cc~ C£t-'1. ,4~':'o/ A/eil tJQ~. J~cJ Svc;; HEtiJi2-lvb t=.X~i-f>(I4-"" ,.--ORIGINAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ·17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 In re: BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL FOR RENTON, WASHINGTON No. ____________________ ___ Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat, File No. LUA04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION, RECOMMENDATION, AND DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Ridgeview Court, LLC, applicant for approval of a preliminary plat and site plan for Ridgeview Court, File # LUA 04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF, appeals the actions ofthe Hearing Examiner denying this project. Specifically, the applicant appeals the Hearing Examiner's recommendation to deny the preliminary plat, his decision to deny the site plan, and his imposition of alternative conditions, all dated January 25,2005 (hereinafter '.'Decision"); and the Examiner's rejection of the applicant's request for reconsideration, dated February 22,2005 (hereinafter "Response"); which two documents together will be referred to as "the denial." I. SUMMARY Ridgeview Court is a proposal to place 20 units of residential housing onto 2.4 acres, just south ofNE 4th Street. It is a thoughtfully planned and fully mitigated project, supported by City staff, supportive of the goals of the Growth Management Act with its high density and proximity to a major transportation corridor, and located where the City Council, as expressed by its adopted development regulations, intended projects of its type to be. WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION, RECOMMENDATION, AND DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION-1 {00289695.DOC;! } ORIGINAL Cairn cross & Hempelmann, P.s. Law Offices 524 Second Avenue. Suite 500 Seattle. Washington 98104-2323 Phone: 206-587-0700 -Fax: 206-587-2308 '" . 1 The Hearing Examiner's denial is based upon a single concern: the impact of noise upon 2 the project by an adjacent post office. The denial is a substantial error of both law and fact. 3 Both of the authorities proffered for legal support ofthe denial are erroneous. First, the denial 4 incorrectly relies on a comprehensive plan policy to override valid and specific development 5 regulations. Those development regulations, in the form of zoning and an overlay, specify a 6 transition between intensive commercial uses along NE 4th Street, and existing single-family 7 residential areas to the north and south. The development regulations authorize residential use in 8 the transition area. Despite these applicable development regulations, and despite Ridgeview 9 Court's meeting all applicable requirements, the Examiner has decided that no residential use is 10 appropriate for this property. Instead, as is made clear in the Response, he uses his "discretion" 11 to deny residential use. This is the second error oflaw, as the zoning use table does not provide 12 him such discretion in this instance. The denial is an error of fact. Noise from the post office . 13 was properly considered during the SEP A process. That factual analysis, and the ensuing DNS- 14 M andits conditions, were not appealed. They were not overcome by the oral testimony ofthe 15 post office manager. Also, there waS no showing that the several aspects of Ridgeview Court 16 that mitigate against incoming noise (including site layout, unusually large setbacks, fencing, 17 elevation differential, and landscaping) are insufficient. Finally, the effect of this denial, ifleft 18 unremedied, will be to push commercial uses and their impacts closer to existing low-density 19 single-family residences to the north and south ofNE 4th Street. 20 II. ACTION REQUESTED 21 The applicant respectfully requests that the City Council: 22 1) Reverse the Decision by approving the site plan and preliminary plat; or 23 2) Modify the Decision by approving the preliminary plat and the alternative decision on 24 the site plan, with removal of alternative conditions 2, 3, and 4. 25 26 WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION, RECOMMENDATION, AND DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERA TION-2 {00289695.DOC;! } Cairncross & Hempelmann, P.S. LawOfJices 524 Second Avenue. Suite 500 Seattle. Washington 98104-2323 Phone: 206-587-0700 • Fax: 206-587-2308 1 III. FACTS 2 The applicant proposes to build 20 residential units on 2.4 acres, near a transportation 3 arterial (NE 4th Street), at 327 Bremerton Avenue. The lot sizes will range from 2,725 square feet 4 to 5,800 square feet. The property is less than one block from NE 4th Street. 5 Ridgeview Court's application vested to the standards ofCS (Center Suburban) zoning, 6 which allows residential development. RMC 4-2-10,4-2-60, 4-2-070J, 4-2-070K. The sole 7 conditions listed in the use table for the CS zone are density limitations and a zoning overlay. 8 RMC 4-2-80. The project meets or exceeds these requirements. 9 The applicable zoning overlay is Area B of Renton's Suburban and Neighborhood 10 Centers Residential Demonstration District. The overlay's intent is to "ensure high quality 11 residential developments within the Center Suburban and Center Neighborhood Zoning 12 Districts" and "to require superior residential proj ects which complement commercial uses, 13 provide first floor cOrllmercial activity along arterials, and provide a transition between intensive 14 commercial areas and surrounding single family neighborhoods." RMC 4-3-095 (A) (emphasis 15 added). The overlay specifically contemplates the proximity of "intensive" commercial uses to 16 the residences in this district. It specifically allows residential development and detached 17 dwellings. RMC 4-3-095 (C). This project meets or exceeds all requirements of the overlay. 18 After thorough review, city staff recommended approval ofthe project, subject to 19 conditions which the ·applicant is willing to and able to meet. Environmental review was 20 conducted, and staff issued a DNS-M (Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated), 21 including conditions. There are no critical areas on the site. The Hearing Examiner found that 22 the site will "blend with the commercial, mixed use and transition well into the residential uses 23 to the south." Decision at pg. 3. There were no letters filed in opposition. The manager ofthe 24 neighboring post office testified that the use would be a great improvement for the 25 neighborhood. Decision at 3-4. In sum, Ridgeview Court is remarkable only in its 26 unremarkableness. WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION, RECOMMENDATION, AND DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION-3 {00289695.DOC;1 } Cairn cross & Hempelmann, P.s. LawOjJices 524 Second Avenue. Suite 500 Seattle. Washington 98104-2323 Phone: 206-587-0700 .Fax: 206-587-2308 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Nevertheless, at the public hearing, the post office manager expressed concern about the effect of noise that late-night and early-morning activities from his facility might have upon future homeowners. Yet the issue of noise from the post office had already been discussed in the SEP A process, and the post office manager had not appealed the DNS-M or its conditions. Based solely upon the post office manager's statements, the Hearing Examiner deemed the site "inappropriate" for residential use, denied the site plan, and recommended denial of the phit application. The Decision recommended finding a "better use" for the site "such as another commercial use." In his Response to the applicant's request for reconsideration, the Hearing Examiner declined to modify his decision. IV. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS The Hearing Examiner's denial of Ridgeview Court is a substantial error of both fact and law. The denial is an error oflaw, as it uses a single Comprehensive Plan Policy, taken out of context, to override specific implementing development regulations, deciding instead that residential use is inappropriate for this property. Its second argument, that the Examiner has "discretion" to deny residential use on this parcel, is also legal error, as the zoning use table does not provide such discretion for this use in this zone, but instead permits residential use outright, subject to a single condition which is met by this application. The denial is also an error of fact, in that it finds last-minute oral testimony to outweigh the considered earlier SEP A analysis and recommendation of staff. The denial of all residential use will serve only to push the impacts of such transition toward the existing single-family residences to the south. 1. The Decision Errs by Using a Comprehensive Plan Policy to Override Specific Development Regulations. The only specific authority cited by the Decision to deny Ridgeview Court is Comprehensive Plan Policy (CPP) H-90, requiring identification of "sites within mixed-use areas, which are appropriate for residential developments." The Decision finds that this site is WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION, RECOMMENDATION, AND DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION-4 {00289695.00C;! } Cairncross & Hempeimann, P.s. Law Offices 524 Second Avenue. Suite 500 Seal/Ie. Washington 98104-2323 Phone: 206-587-0700 -Fax: 206-587-2308 1 not appropriate for residential use. The Response, while expressing the Examiner's 2 philosophical views on zoning, provides no additional legal authority, other than the Examiner's 3 "discretion" to protect the public interest. Both are mistaken. 4 The City Council, as required by the Growth Management Act, implemented the goals 5 and policies of the Comprehensive Plan by adopting the CS zoning, and the zoning district 6 overlay. See RCW 36.70A.040(3). The plain text of those development regulations, and their 7 expressed intent, prove that the City Council has already weighed precisely the type of concerns 8 cited by the Hearing Examiner. The Council decided that the CN and CS zones would be 9 transition areas between commercial and residential uses, and the overlay would further govern 10 those areas between "intensive" commercial uses and residential areas. The Council decided that 11 residential use would be permitted in this zone. 12 The Council's adopted development regulations, and this project, support numerous other 13 Comprehensive Plan goals and policies, that are equally applicable, and arguably more specific 14 to this property as the one used by the Examiner to deny the project. Ridgeview Court's small 15 lots provide affordable housing, in a central and urbanized location rather than at the 16 suburban/rural fringe, will be built a stone's throw from a major transportation and economic 17 corridor, put a blackberry-ridden lot to productive use, and do not threaten critical areas. As 18 such, Ridgeview Court supports the goals and policies ofthe Land Use, Housing, Transportation, 19 Environmental, and Economic Development elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan. 20 The Response criticizes the applicant's citation to the applicable development 21 regulations, mistakenly characterizing the applicable zoning map and overlay as "a bit more 22 global than a site-specific rezone." Pg. 1. An examination bfthe zoning map, and the 23 Residential Bonus District B overlay, show that these development regulations were certainly 24 drawn deliberately and with specificity. The applicable transition zoning extends south from NE 25 4th Street only to NE 3rd Street, and north only to NE 5th Street, before meeting purely residential 26 zoning. In most places, the CS/CN zoning is only one or two parcels deep in its separation ofthe WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S Cairncross & Hempelmann, P.s. DECISION, RECOMMENDATION, AND DENIAL LawOjJices OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERA TION-5 524 Second Avenue. Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98104-2323 Phone: 206-587-0700 • Fax: 206-587-2308 {00289695.DOC; I} 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13' 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NE 4th Street corridor from the residential zoning to the south. This zoning is highly specific. The applicable overlay is similarly narrow. 2. The Zoning Use Table Does Not Provide the Examiner Discretion In This Instance. The other argument proffered to deny this project is also incorrect. The denial, and in particular the Response, rely upon the Examiner's "discretion" in prot.ecting the "public interest." An examination of the City's zoning use table (RMC 4-2-060) shows that such reliance is plain legal error. Under the use table, some uses are permitted outright ("P"); some are permitted if a certain condition is met ("P#"); and some indeed "may be permitted subject to review by the Hearing Examiner to establish conditions to protect public health, safety and welfare." RMC 4- 2-050(A). These are demarcated by an "H." For this particular use (residential detached dwellings), in this particular zone, (Center Suburban), the table does not state "H," but rather "P20": permitted outright if the application satisfies condition number 20 (density limitations). Ridgeview Court satisfies this condition. Thus, the Hearing Examiner's "discretion" to protect the public interest may not be used to deny this particular use in this particular Zone, and reliance upon such discretion is legal error. 3. In Case of Inconsistency, Development Regulations Control. The zoning regulations and overlay which govern this property, and that contemplate residential uses, are not inconsistent with CPP H-90. However, even if the zoning and overlay were somehow inconsistent with CPP H-90, the law in such cases is that, in the event of inconsistency, comprehensive plan policies do not control individual private project applications, development regulations do. Citizens of Mount Vernon v. City of Mount Vernon, 133 Wn.2d 861, 947 P .2d 1209 (1997). Citizens is the post-GMA reiteration ofthe rule that, in case of an inconsistency, development regulations take precedence over plan policies. "A specific zoning ordinance will prevail over an inconsistent comprehensive plan." Citizens at 873 (citing Cougar Mountain Associates v. King County, 111 Wn.2d 742, 757, 765 P.2d 264 (1988». The Citizens WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION, RECOMMENDATION, AND DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION-6 {00289695.DOC;! } Cairncross & Hempeimann, P.s. LawOjJices 524 Second Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle. Washington 98104-2323 Phone: 206-587-0700 • Fax: 206-587-2308 1 court held that, for a rezone, the development regulations trumped the plan policies despite the 2 regulations' ambiguity, and despite issues regarding the timing of their enactment. 3 The situation here is far simpler than in Citizens. There is no inconsistency and there is 4 no rezone. The development regulations are unambiguous. There is no issue regarding the 5 sequence or validity ofthe applicable regulations. If the development regulations prevailed over 6 the plan policies in Citizens, they must certainly do so in this case. The Response is silent on 7 this crucial point. 8 The CS zone, to which standards this project is vested, allows residential detached 9 dwellings. Further, the overlay states that this area is designed to serve as the transition between 10 commercial and residential U1?es. In fact, the overlay's intent is not merely to buffer residential 11 areas from any commercial use, or average commercial use, but rather to serve as a transition 12 between "intensive commercial uses and surrounding neighborhoods." (Emphasis added.) A 13 post office with occasional late-night and regular 6:30-7 :30 am truck activity is just the sort of 14 use for which this zoning, and this particular overlay, were designed. In fact, given other, 15 possible uses and impacts along this corridor, one could argue that it does not even qualify as 16 "intensive." Such sounds may not be consistent with the Examiner's nostalgic ideals of the 17 amount of sound that can be heard through an open window on a summer night in a low-density 18 residential neighborhood. However, this project is completely in keeping with the intent of the 19 GMA, Comprehensive Plan, and development regulations: centrally-located housing, in the 20 urban growth area, at a density and location supportive of transit and affordability, rather than 21 perpetuating the low-density, land-consuming development stereotypes that have contributed to 22 suburban sprawl. 23 In sum, the City Council has already determined that residential uses are appropriate in 24 this area, even when adjacent to "intensive" commercial uses. The denial's citation to a single 25 Comprehensive Plan Policy, and broad notions of discretion, to overrule a cohesive set of 26 specific development regulations are errors of law. WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION, RECOMMENDATION, AND DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION-7 {00289695.DOC;1 } Cairncross & Rempelmann, P.s. Law Offices 524 Second Avenue. Suite 500 Seattle. Washington 98/04-2323 Phone: 206-587-0700 • Fax: 206-587-2308 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 4. By Precluding Residential Uses, the Decision Effectively Rezones the Property to a Purely Commercial Zone Rather than the Zone the Council Intended and Adopted. In deeming all residential use inappropriate for this property, despite the project's well- planned nature and its location in a designated commercial/residential transition area, the Hearing Examiner effectively removes the residential use from the applicable development regulations and use tables. The removal is in direct opposition to the intent and authority of the Council, the intent and text of the development regulations, and is error. The denial cites the Examiner's "discretion" and notions of "benevolent paternalism," yet the effect of such is to substitute the Hearing Examiner's discretion for that of the Council. Yet this is exactly the discretion that the Council exercised in enacting the applicable zoning and the applicable overlay. If this denial's logic is allowed to stand and applied to other residential projects in transition zones, then the same result would be reached: denying residential use in zones that permit that use, and mandating that the impacts of commercial use move closer to existing single family neighborhoods. S. Those Conditions in the Alternative Recommendation and Decision that Are 17 Prompted by the Erroneous Denial of the Plat Are Also Erroneous. 18 For the same reasons as stated above, Conditions 2, 3, and 4 in the Alternative 19 Recommendation and Decision are also legally unsupportable, as they are grounded in the same 20 incorrect use of a general policy to overcome specific development regulations that are not 21 inconsistent with that policy. 22 6. The Denial is Substantial Error of Fact. 23 The Examiner's claim that residential development on this property is "inappropriate"- 24 despite the zoning and overlay to the contrary -is based solely on the post office manager's 25 statement about the noise his facility generates, and more specifically about the potential that the 26 manager may have to respond to noise complaints. See Paragraph 9 ofthe Decision's WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S Cairncross & Hempeimann, P.S. DECISION, RECOMMENDATION, AND DENIAL Law Offices OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERA TION-8 524 Second Avenue, Suite 500 . Seattie, Washington 98104-2323 Phone: 206-587-0700 -Fax: 206-587-2308 {00289695.DOC;I} -< 1 Conclusions. Such a concern is not adequate to deny this otherwise valid project, as there was 2 no showing that Ridgeview Court's site layout, its greater-than-usual setbacks along its western 3 boundary, its fencing, its landscaping, and other design aspects would be insufficient. 4 For example, even the Decision finds that "Anacortes Avenue NE will act as a buffer 5 between the proposed single-family homes along the western property line and the existing 6 commercial use (post Office site) on the abutting property." Pg. 3. Even the Decision finds that 7 "The site is also approximately eight feet higher" than the adjoining post office property. Pg. 5. 8 Even the Decision finds that "Staff has granted a modification that allows a setback for Proposed 9 Lots 8 to 13 to have a greater setback. .. " Pg. 6. All of these findings, and the SEP A analysis, are 10 thrown out based solely on the post office manager's testimony at public hearing. 11 The denial commits factual error when it overcomes considered SEP A analysis with the 12 statement ofthe post office manager. Incoming noise is a topic specifically addressed by 13 paragraph 7b ofthe City's SEPA cIiecklist and was part of this application's environmentar 14 review. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) issued the DNS-M, including conditions, 15 provided public notice, and allowed time for appeal. If someone felt such environmental review 16 -which specifically addressed the issue of noise from the post office -or the conditions imposed 17 thereby were inadequate, they should have appealed the DNS-M, as allowed by the law. 18 The Response is dismissive of the SEPA process, and incorrectly claims that the ERC's 19 authority is limited to the determination of a project's impacts and whether an EIS must be 20 prepared. Pg. 2. This ignores the conditions which the SEP A process generated, which were 21 appealable to the Hearing Examiner, and which are noted in the Decision at Page 2. 22 The Response implies that it is never too late to raise any environmental issue. If that 23 were so, then there would be no use for the SEPA process, as all environmental issues could 24 simply wait until the public hearing on the plat application. Moreover, the point of an earlier 25 SEPA analysis is not merely the orderly sequence by which issues of different types should be 26 examined. The additional point is that a factual examination had already been completed -as WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S Cairn cross & Hempelmann, P.S. DECISION, RECOMMENDATION, AND DENIAL Law Offices OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERA TION-9 524 Second Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98104-2323 Phone: 206-587-0700 -Fax: 206-587-2308 {00289695.DOC;1 } " · , 1 noted at other points throughout the Decision -which was not overcome by the post office 2 manager's last-minute oral concerns. 3 Finally, the Response is an error of fact when it incorrectly makes no distinction between 4 the dense, small-lot residential housing this Project proposes, and the existing single-family 5 residences farther to the south. It is an error of fact when it uses the Examiner's notions of what 6 'residential noises should be present at night, to deny a project which meets all local requirements 7 and furthers the goals of the GMA and the City's Comprehensive Plan. 8 7. The Denial Will Have Adverse Consequences Beyond this Application. 9 The Hearing Examiner finds that, because of the noise from the post office, that a "better 10 use" for this property would be "another commercial use." Decision at 9. Acceptance of this 11 finding, and applying its rationale to similar cases, will result in converting CS and CN zones - 12 which the Council designated as urban transition zones -to purely commercial zones. Aside 13' from being illegal as described above, such would nave adverse practical effects, pushing 14 commercial noise and other impacts ever closer to existing single-family residences. 15 Ifthis denial is not remedied, and a commercial use replaces this project, the Council 16 should consider the impact that an unspecified commercial use could have upon the proposed 17 homes for that project, and then upon the existing single-family homes to the south of that 18 project. Those homeowners have the right to expect that the transition areas to their north, as 19 designated by zoning maps and overlays which are the result of careful planning, public 20 comment, and legislative balancing, will remain, and not be replaced on an ad hocbasis by 21 commercial uses. They have the right to at least the possibility of a neighbor such as Ridgeview 22 Court, which project the Examiner found "should not have any negative impacts to the 23 surrounding property owners," Decision at 3. 24 V. CONCLUSION 25 Ridgeview Court is a good project, and the applicant simply requests that the Council 26 consider it fairly and on its merits. Ridgeview Court is supported by staff, places dense housing WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S Cairncross & Hempelmann, P.S. DECISION, RECOMMENDATION, AND DENIAL LawOjJices OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION-10 524 Second Avenue. Suite 500 Seattle. Washington 98104-2323 Phone: 206-587-0700 -Fax: 206-587-2308 {00289695.00C;I} 1 near a major transportation corridor rather than sprawling into outlying areas, does not contain 2 critical areas, and has no neighborhood opposition. It happens to be adjacent to a post office 3 which generates noise at night. The only justifications proffered for the denial are a 4 Comprehensive Plan Policy and the Examiner's discretion. The denial's reliance on these 5 justifications is substantial legal error. CPP H-90 is not inconsistent with the development 6 regulations, but even if it were inconsistent, the law is clear that the Council's adopted 7 development regulations take priority. The development regulations are the lawful expressed 8 intent ofthe City Council. Those regulations permit residential use on this property outright, 9 subject to a single condition. The Council exercised its discretion in demarcating this area as a 10 transition between intensive commercial uses and single-family homes. A well-designed and 11 staff-supported project application that meets all the criteria ofthe Council's adopted 12 development regulations should be allowed to go forward. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Dated this 7th day of March, 2005. CAIRNCROSS & HEMPELMANN, P.S. Sean K. Howe, WSBA No. 23329 Attorneys for Ridgeview Court, LLC WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION, RECOMMENDATION, AND DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION-11 {OO~89695.DOC;1 } Cairncross & Hempelmann, P.s. Law Offices 524 Second Avenue. Suite 500 Seattle. Washington 98104-2323 Phone: 206-587-0700 • Fax: 206-587-2308 , .. " ·< . 'K • January 25,2005 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON Minutes APPLICANT: LOCATION: SUMMARY OF REQUEST: SUMMARY OF ACTION: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: PUBLIC HEARING: Cliff Williams, PE PO Box 2401 Kirkland, W A 98083 Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA 04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF 327 Bremerton Avenue NE Approval for Site Plan, Preliminary Plat and Code Modification for subdividing a 2.4-acre site into 20 lots for development of single-family dwellings. Development Services Recommendation: Approve subject to conditions The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on December 28,2004. After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining available information on file with the application, field checking the property and surrounding area; the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES Thefollowing minutes are a summary of the January 4,2005 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, January 4, 2005, at approximately 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No.1: Yellow file containing the original Exhibit No.2: Neighborhood Detail Map application, proof of posting, proof of publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit No.3: Preliminary Plat Plan Exhibit No.4: Preliminary Site Plan Exhibit No.5: Revised Site Plan showing 26' Private Exhibit No.6: Topography Map Access and Utility Easement Exhibit No.7: Tree Cutting/Clearing Plan Exhibit No.8: Landscaping Plan Ridgeview' Court PreliminaryJtlal File No.: LUA-04-J3J, PP, SA-H, ECF January 25, 2005 Page 2 Exhibit No.9: Grading Plan Exhibit No. 11: Elevation Plan for Lots 5, 6, 15 & 16 Exhibit No. 13: Elevation Plan for Lots 3, 9 & 12 Exhibit No. IS: Elevation Plan for Lots 10& 18 Exhibit No. 17: Elevation Plan for Lots 1, 11 & 19 Exhibit No. 10: Utility Plan Exhibit No. 12: Elevation Plan for Lots 2 & 20 Exhibit No. 14: Elevation Plan for Lot 13 Exhibit No. 16: Elevation Plan for Lots 4, 7, 8, 14 & 17 Exhibit No. 18: Zoning Map The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Nancy Weil, Senior Planner, Development Services, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055. The site is located south ofNE 4th Street and to the west of Bremerton Avenue NE. Approval for site plan, preliminary plat for 20 lots on a 2.4- acre site for the eventual development of single-family dwellings. Access to this site off of Bremerton, which will require improvements, is proposed by a public street (NE 3rd Lane) to end in a cul-de-sac plus additional easements that will radiate from that cul-de-sac. There are no protected critical areas and it is vested to the development regulations for the Center Suburban (CS) zoning and is located in the Centers Residential Bonus District B. The zoning did change in November of 2004, however the filing for this preliminary plat was before the changes and so is vested to the CS zone. The current zoning is CN. Two street modifications were requested and approved, one a reduced right-of-way width of 42 feet and second a reduced'radius on the cul-de-sac of 50 feet. Three private access easements will extend off ofNE 3rd Lane to serve access to all 20 lots. Lots 9 -13 will have rear entry garages with front of each lot facing east with an 18- foot pedestrian access to the front of those lots. The site is relatively flat with a berm located near the southeast corner of the site. There is some loose fill but has been deemed suitable forthe proposed development. The site is vegetated with blackberry bushes, small deciduous and coniferous trees which are to be removed as part of the site preparation. An additional modification from the Suburban Centers Residential Bonus District B would allow greater front yard setbacks for lots 8 through 13 rather than the maximum 15 feet permitted in the CS zone. The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M) with seven mitigation mea.sures. No appeals were filed. The preliminary plat criteria for the Comprehensive Plan Designation was in compliance for this development. The minimum yard area provided would comply with the land area per dwelling unit. There are no minimum requirements for lot width or depth within the CS zone. All lots meet the maximum lot coverage of 65%. The proposal meets all the setback requirements. The net density of 12.42 dwelling units per acre is within the allowed density range of the CS zone. Based on the building elevations provided by the applicant, the proposed residential structures would comply with, or possibly exceed the requirements of Bonus District B of the Centers Residential Overlay. There are seven elevations for this site, all are two-story with rear or side entrance garages. Landscaping, access and parking meet or exceed the requirements of the Bonus District B and are in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. · , Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF January 25, 2005 Page 3 The lot arrangements as well as size, shape and orientations are all in compliance, meeting the minimum width and area requirements. The lots are at 90-degree angles, some of the structures will be facing a different direction, they seem to flow well. There will be no direct vehicular access onto Bremerton from any of the proposed lots. The applicant is required to dedicate right-of-way for the improvement for Bremerton Avenue. Twenty-four feet is currently shown for the private access easement, staff has discussed this with the applicant and they are in agreement that this could be reduced to function more as a private alleyway, which allows a minimum of 16 feet in width with 14 feet of pavement. As long as 24-feet of back out area is provided for each garage, the staff feels that the reduced width of the street will lend itself to an alleyway residential look rather than 3plitting up the tier of lots. This also gives a larger yard area to those lots. Staff recommends the establishment of a homeowner's association or maintenance agreement for the landscaped right-of-way improvements, as well as for any shared private utilities/drainage facilities or private access and utility easements and to include the private pedestrian access easement. The surrounding properties to the west, north and east are zoned CS. To the south is a proposed single-family residential development with existing single-family to the southeast in R-8 zoning. Anacortes Avenue NE will act as a buffer between the proposed single-family homes along the western property line and the existing commercial use (Post Office site) on the abutting property. Traffic, Fire and Park mitigation fees were imposed by the ERe. The subject site is located within the Renton School District and they have indicated that they can handle the proposed 8 new students from the new development. r The site is located within the Cedar River Basin. The applicant has submitted a Drainage Report that indicates that on-site surface water would be directed to a stormwater detention facility located in the southwest comer of the site. The drainage analysis and design of the storm water system appears to be in accordance with the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual Level 2 flow control requirements. The project will require the installation of new water mains, fire hydrants, fire control systems, and meters, all to be placed within City held easements. The project would require a new sewer main along the site frontage and new sewer mains as required to serve the new single-family lots. In regards to the Site Plan Criteria, the project is in compliance with the policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Land use regulations with modifications are in compliance as well. The seven house plans for the 20 lots are sufficient to lend variation to the project. This site will also blend with the commercial, mixed use and transition well into the residential uses to the south. This development should not have any negative impacts to the surrounding property owners. The site does require clearing and all existing structures to be removed. Staff recommends approval of the Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat subject to conditions. Cliff Wi lIiams, 5326 SW Manning Street, Seattle, W A 98 I 16 stated that he is an employee of the developer and they are satisfied with the recommendations that the City has provided. Kevin Chamberlin, 18930 45th Place NE, Lake Forest Park, WA 98155, manager of the Renton Highlands Station of the US Postal Service that will be adjacent to Lots 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13. This use for that property Ridgeview Court Preliminary rial File No.: LUA-04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF January 25, 2005 Page 4 will be a great improvement for the neighborhood, however, the Post Office will have an impact Oil them. There are semi-tractor trailer rigs that come into the property at all hours of the day and night. They all enter and leave through a driveway that will take them next the above-mentioned lots. It is most likely that these people will feel an impact from this traffic. Some of the trailers come in as early as 1 :00 am in December and at 3: 15 am the rest of the year. They continue at intervals throughout the day along with a lot of other truck traffic. There is a gravity operated dock plate system (used to unload the trucks) that makes quite a bit of noise and it cannot be modified in any way. There also are 39 delivery vehicles that are required to be inspected each morning between 6:30 and 7:30 am. Part ofthe vehicle inspection is a short sounding ofthe horn. (Mr. Chamberlin drew the location of the delivery trucks on the vicinity map) Bob Wenzl, 636 Lake Sammamish Lane NE, Bellevue, WA 98008 stated that he is the owner of Ridgeview Court LLC. He is completely aware of the post office site there, he knows where most of the vehicles and work that will be going on in that neighborhood. It is anticipated that the property to the north will be a commercial type of zone. They are confident that the post office and the new residents will make good neighbors. Juliana Fries, Development Services the report given is accurate and the Level 2 Storm Water detention is adequate. The Examiner stated that it would be necessary to address the post office concerns, the developer may be comfortable with the situation, but the future buyers of these homes may not. What enhancements cap. be provided? Ms. Weil pointed out besides the difference in the grade and the 26-foot easement the structures to first be impacted will be the garages. Bedrooms will be upstairs, looking over the garages and subject to the noises that could be generated at 1 :00 am and 3:00 am. Once property owners take possession of the property, they may wish to enhance that back area, no additional requirements have been made for landscaping. No additional fencing has been required along this property line, but certainly it could be done. Mr. Wenzl stated that they had no concerns about providing a fence or some kind of hedge screening if the space is available. A 6-foot fence would be appropriate. Again there is the elevation change from the parking lot approximately a 6 to 10-foot drop from their parking structures to the large rockery along that easterly property line. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at approximately 9:48 a.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Exaininer now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant, Ridgeview Court, LLC, filed a request for a Site Plan Review approval and a 20-lot Preliminary Plat. There was also a request to modify the front yard setback for homes in the project. 2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit # I. 3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City'S responsible official issued a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M). • • Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-J31, PP, SA-H, ECF January 25, 2005 Page 5 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject site is located at 327 Bremerton Avenue NE. The subject site is located on the west side of Bremerton Avenue a half-block south ofNE 4th Street. Union Avenue NE is located west of the subject site. 6. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan was changed in November 2004. The area in which the subject site is located was designated for the development of Commercial Center uses but is now designated for Commercial Corridor. 7. Policy H-90 states: "Identify sites within mixed-use areas, which are appropriate for residential developments." Policy H-85 states: "Provide homeownership opportunities in all neighborhoods." 8. The subject site is currently zoned CN (Center Neighborhood) but was zoned CS (Center Suburban) when the application was submitted. The applicant is vested under the prior regulations which allow a density of ] 0 to 20 units per acre for residential development. The minimum lot area for single family uses in the prior CS zone were J ,200 square feet of which 250 square feet must be landscaped yard. The subject site was also located in the -Area B-Suburban Centers Residential Demonstration District and is governed by additional Site Plan Review criteria. 9. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance ]480 enacted in April 1954. ]0. The subject site is approximately 2.4 acres or 104,373 square feet. It is almost square and is approximately 330 feet wide (north to south) along Bremerton and 3] 6 feet deep. ] ] . The subject site is relatively level with a berm in the southeast comer where slopes range from 15 to 24 percent. The berm appears to be a result of grading on the adjacent parcel of land. The sitei::: also approximately eight (8) feet higher than the adjacent parcel to the west. ] 2. The area contains a mix of uses and undeveloped property. The relatively new Post Office is located directly west ofthe north half of the subject site. ] 3. The applicant proposes removing all vegetation, blackberry, and deciduous and conifer trees from the subject site to allow development of the building pads, roads and driveways. The applicant may import approximately 4,800 cubic yards of fill material to grade the site and roads. ] 4. The applicant proposes dividing the subject site into 20 single-family lots that will contain detached single-fami]y homes. The lots will be arranged around a series of private roads, alley-like roads and easements that originate from a new roadway that terminates in a cul-de-sac. Basically, a series of dead end roads will be created off of a dead end cul-de-sac. Ridgeview Court Preliminary rial File No.: LUA-04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF January 25,2005 Page 6 15. Administrative approval was granted to allow the cul-de-sac street's width to be reduced to 42 feet and the radius of the cul-de-sac to be reduced to 50 feet. Staff noted that the applicant would have to dedicate 17.5 feet to the widening of Bremerton which currently does not meet City standards. 16. The three private easements will extend north and south from the new cul-de-sac street. The proposed lots along Bremerton, Proposed Lots 1-3 and 18-20 would take their access off the first of these easements rather than Bremerton. These lots would be rear-loaded from this alley. Proposed Lots 4-7 and 14-17 would use the second of the easements. Lots would face each other across this easement roadway (see attached maps). Finally, a new private street, labeled Anacortes Avenue NE, would provide access to Proposed Lot 8 and the storm drainage tract on the south and Proposed Lots 9-13 on the north. Staff has recommended that the 24-foot private street paralleling the rear of homes that front Bremerton be reduced to a 16-foot alley width with 14 feet of paving and 24-feet of backout space to decrease impervious surface and create a private street appearance. 17. The density for the plat would be 12.42 dwelling units per acre after subtracting roadway areas. 18. The homes would be two-stories. The dwelling or building groupings would vary from those along Bremerton being traditional facing a street, to the interior groupings facing a kind of courtyard private street, to those in the rear facing an interior street. Sidewalks could connect all of the units to one another and through the private easements to the public street. 19. The CS zone permits a lot coverage of65% whereas a lot coverage of not more than 44% is proposed for this complex. A front yard setback of between 10 and 15 feet is required. Staff has granted a modification that allows a setback for Proposed Lots 8 to 13 to have a greater setback to allow pedestrian access and rear access garages on a 26-foot wide private street. A minimum side yard of 3 feet with no projections is required unless there is abutting residential zoning. The R-l 0 district south of the subject site will require a IS-foot setback on Propos~d Lots 1, 5, 6 and 8. 20. The District B overlay guidelines require building forms to contain both vertical and horizontal modulations at a minimum width of2 feet at intervals of 40 feet as well as individual private entry features. It appears that the buildings will comply with these requirements. Two enclosed parking spaces that open onto a non-front facade and away from arterial streets will be provided as required. 21. The applicant will be providing the required 250 feet of landscaped area on each lot. Landscaping will consist of lawn, and a mix of conifer and deciduous trees and shrubs. 22. The subject site is located within the Renton School District. The project is expected to generate approximately 8 school age children. These students would be spread across the grades and would be assigned on a space available basis. 23. The development will increase traffic approximately 200 vehicle trips per day and add approximately 20 trips to each peak hour travel period. 24. Stormwater would be contained in the southwest corner of the subject site in Tract A. The plat would comply with the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual, Level 2 flow requirements. 25. Sewer and water would be provided by the City. Appropriate extensions of the water and sewer mains would be required. , , Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF January 25, 2005 Page 7 26. The Manager of the adjacent Post Office testified that the post office has 39 delivery vehicles. Postal employees start-up each of the 39 vehicles and test their horns between 6:30 A.M. and 7:30 A.M. He also testified that large tractor trailer rigs arrive at the post office site at 1 :00 A.M. during the month of December and 3: 15 A.M. the rest of the year, as well as other hours during a 24-hour day. They arrive near the rear of the post office site which would place them along the western or rear edge of the subject property. They can make quite a lot of noise as they park and then depart as well as during their loading or unloading operations in which gravity activated dock plates are used (while this was not spelled out, it appears that rather than use some potentially quiet hydraulic system, the large plates merely fall and clang into place). Large trucks also may have backup beepers as safety equipment. During busier seasons such as Christmas there can be quite a lot of nighttime traffic at the site. He expressed his concerns that residents of the subject site's new dwellings would be disturbed by the noise, especially during what would normally be sleep hours. He does not want to have to deal with complaints that he is sure wi II be generated by the normal post office operations if residential housing is constructed so close to the post office. He did suppOJ1 a change to the neighborhood from development but was concerned about the impacts noise would have on the proposed single-family homes. 27. The applicant indicated that they were aware of the noise issue and that they believe distance, approximately 40 to 50 feet between the roadway and setbacks, as well as a grade separation ;:;oupled with a fence and landscaping will minimize any problems with noise disturbing residents. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary Plat 1. First, this proposal includes two components. The first one is a Preliminary Plat on which this office makes a recommendation to the City Council. The second component is a Site Plan review since the proposed plat will be used for single-family detached homes and is, therefore, governed by the Centers Residential Bonus District B. This office finds itself in a difficult role in making a recommendation to the City Council on this project. The proposed plat that will allow single family uses on the subject site does not appear to serve the public use and interest. Under those circumstances, the proposed plat should be denied by the City Council. 2. The compelling issue in this case is one of untoward noise or noises at a time or actually, times of day, when they are or can be exceptionally disturbing. The representative of the Post Office has indicated that uses on the post office site are almost completely incompatible with a residential quality of life. Tractor trailer rigs and other large trucks and vans will be coming and going from the post office site during all hours of the day and night. The trucks are loud. Backup beepers may be employed. Truck and post office doors will be opening and closing during various operations. These aspects of the neighboring uses make use of the subject site for single family or any residential use problemc.tic. 3. At the same time, free-market concepts suggest that a property owner should be able to do what they want with their property. But in this case the current owner would develop homes and sell those homes to third parties who may not be in a position to know about the potential impacts created by the adjacent post office. The City has an obligation to make sure that it does not allow incompatible uses to be developed adjacent to one another. That is one of the primary purposes of Zoning and Land Use regulations. It does not necessarily matter if the parties may agree to such uses. There is an overriding public policy that governs such matters. In this case, the current developer may be well-aware, as he states, of the nature of the adjacent uses but that does not mean some innocent purchaser who views the properties during daylight, or even during the evening will be made aware of traffic and noises that erupt in the dead of night, between 1 :00 A.M. to 3:00 A.M. Not everyone visits their potential Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-13 I, PP, SA-H, ECF January 25, 2005 Page 8 neighborhood at such hours or even perhaps at 6:30 A.M. when postal delivery trucks are started, tested and horns sounded. 4. This is certainly one of those situations that calls for a transition from more intense, in this case 24-hour uses, to less intense uses. The subject site might be more suitable for a commercial or office use. It does not appear suitable for a single-family use. A mere fence or wall and landscaping even coupled with some distance will not provide sufficient buffering to make it easy to sleep during periods of heavy activity at the adjacent site. Noise that might fade into the ambient noises of a vibrant neighborhood during the day can be extremely disturbing or disruptive when those noises occur during very quiet times. The City certainly does not want its future residential homes to be blighted by the adj(lcent uses. Usually, the question is the opposite -that the development will not create blight and will rectify blight. But the impacts from next door cannot be ignored. They cannot but have a negative impact on the quality of life for anybody living adjacent to the post office. 5. The Comprehensive Plan contains Policy H-90. That policy requires the City to: "Identify sites within mixed-use areas, which are appropriate for residential developments. " While Policy H-85 states: "Provide homeownership opportunities in all neighborhoods." These policies are not necessarily conflicting and H-85 should not be read to say that residential uses have to be provided everywhere in all neighborhoods. Context is still important. The overriding concern should be to identifY appropriate sites where residential development is appropriate. Should an undesirable housing situation be created where sleep patterns would be disturbed by the arrival of larger tractor trailer rigs in the middle of the night or twice during the night? Should residents automatically be awakened whether they want to be or not by postal employees starting up 39 vehicles and testing their horns between 6:30 A.M. and 7:30 A.M. six days a week? If populations in the area increase, will there be a commensurate increase in delivery trucks being tested at that time of the morning? Will residents be able to sleep through the noises, said to be quite loud, of gravity operated dock piate systems at 1 :00 A.M. or 3:00 A.M. when deliveries occur? It seems that the proposed locPlion is not one of those "mixed-use areas, which are appropriate for residential developments." 6. Of course, one could cynically conclude that the deleterious nature of the post office's use would result in the single-family homes being priced more modestly, thereby creating a new stock of more affordable homes. There is also an issue which this office cannot truly address of whether the post office's use might in fact constitute a nuisance that adversely affects the applicant's use oftheir property. The nature of the City Zoning Code though plays a part when it allows potentially disparate uses adjacent to one another. But that is where the City's discretion in regulating, limiting or conditioning uses comes into play. While the Zoning under which the applicant seeks approval permits single family uses in this mixed-use area, it does not mandate they be permitted. It would allow such use only after considering the site and its surroundings. Analysis needs to be done. The Code does not mandate that these uses be crafted abutting each other. First, one has to consider whether the plat and site plan are in the public use and interest. This office has to conclude that, as now proposed, the public use and interest is not served by the proposal. 7. Based on the above analysis, the recommendation, hard as it is to reach, is that the City Council should deny the proposed Preliminary Plat. Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF January 25, 2005 Page 9 8. If on the other hand, the City Council concludes that the plat serves the public use and interest it might seek to impose some conditions that could help the potential purchasers form a knowledgeable decision. One solution might be to include a set of covenants that require that all sales literature and the face of the plat include information that the post office operations may create loud noises during the course of a day and that such noise might interfere with sleep in units located on the subject site. That will avoid the situation of potential purchasers seeing the subject site and its homes during the day and not have any realization that the post office operations occur during the night and such operations might make sleep difficult or disturbed. Obviously, this still allows units that may be severely affected by the noise to be built as opposed to finding a better use for the site that would not be affected by nocturnal noise, such as another commercial use. 9. This office therefore, would again recommend that the City Council deny a residential plat on the subject site but that if it chooses to approve this proposed plat, that it adopt some strict disclosure requirements. As the Post Office Manager noted, he really is not going to be happy fielding questions and complaints about the operations from future residents that this applicant acknowledges but that innocent purchasers will not be as knowledgeable about. Site Plan 10. The Site Plan is denied as the property should not be platted as proposed and the site plan is therefore, inappropriate. This office will provide an alternative decision on the Site Plan in order to allow the proposal to proceed if the City Council decides to approve the proposed Preliminary Plat. 11. In the event that the City Council determines that the Preliminary Plat should be approved, this office will review the proposed Site Plan. The site plan review will treat this analysis as if the plat were approved for 20 lots as proposed by the applicant. As noted above, ifthe plat and site plan are approved, there should be disclosures regarding the nature of the noise that might be generated on the adjacent post office site as well as the timing of those noises. In addition, clearly, buffering this site from those noises should be considered an important matter to assure some quality of residential living. 12. Residential uses are permitted in this general area by the Comprehensive Plan. Integration of single family uses then depends on mitigating the impacts of adjacent uses on the site so that it possesses residential amenities. The Comprehensive Plan suggests buffering incompatible uses from one another, particularly, if transitional uses cannot be used to separate the disparate uses. 13. The twenty proposed homes meet the Zoning Code's former R-5 Zoning District's density requirements. The applicant is proposing appropriate setbacks from streets and adjacent properties including the larger buffer required between this site and its southerly, R-l 0 neighbor. A requested deviation from the maximum front yard setback of 15 feet to one of 28-feet allows for pedestrian and vehicular access and appears reasonable with the proposed courtyard layout and streetscape. The lots each provide their allotment of landscaped open space. 14. The development of the subject site wi II create construction related impacts but those wi II disappear once the project is complete. There will be some additional traffic generated by the development but that should not create any substantial impacts on the transportation corridors. In addition, a traffic mitigation fee will help offset any impacts. As noted in the earlier plat discussion, there could be Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-131, PP, SA-H. ECF January 25, 2005 Page 10 impacts on the operations of the adjacent post office in the way of complaints about noise. In order to lessen some of the impacts, a sound barrier masonry wall should be erected along the north and west property lines of the subject site. Such wall should be designed by acoustical engineers to provide noise attenuation. In addition, landscaping should be installed to further assist in noise reduction and limiting the visual cues which playa part in noise perception. The two-story homes and grade difference will make it hard to limit noise penetration to the subject site. 15. The site plan appears to make reasonable use of the subject site. The buildings provide a reasonable amount of separation from one another. The buildings contain the necessary Demonstration District modulation and articulation as well as side or rear loading garages. 16. There are urban services such as sewer and water avai lable to serve the 20 new homes. Mitigation fees, to offset impacts to parks, have been imposed. 17. In conC\usion~ this office recommends that the City Council deny the proposed plat and site plan as incompatible with the adjoining post office operation and an inappropriate use of property that even though zoned CS is not well-located to afford the residential amenities that should be guaranteed by traditional zoning demarcations and land use development criteria. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should deny the proposed plat. DECISION: The Site Plan is denied as the property should not be platted as proposed and the site plan is therefore, inappropriate. Alternative Recommendation and Decision If the City Council approves the Preliminary Plat then the Site Plan should be approved subject to the following conditions: ]. The applicant shall comply with the conditions imposed by the ERe. 2. The applicant shall execute restrictive covenants that require all sales literature and sales listings initially and subsequently to note the location of the post office and that the post office operations may create loud noises during the course of a night and very early morning hours six (6) days a week and that such noise might interfere with sleep in units located on the subject site. 3. Corresponding language about the post office noise shall be included on the face of the plat. 4. The applicant shall construct a sound barrier masonry wall along the north and west property lines of the subject site. Such wall should be designed by acoustical engineers to provide noise attenuation. In addition, landscaping shall be installed to further assist in noise reduction and is designed to limit the visual cues which playa part is noise perception. 5. The applicant shall revise the plat to reflect the easement along the rear oflots 1 through 3 and 18 through 20 to be an alley right-of-way with a width of 16 feet with a minimum of 14 feet of pavement. Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF January 25, 2005 Page 11 The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division prior to the recording of the final plat. 6. The applicant shall be required to post the 26-foot private access easement (Anacortes A venue NE) with "No Parking" signage on each side. Staff recommends the applicant shall comply with this requirement to the satisfaction of the Development Services Division prior to the recording of the final plat. 7. A homeowner's association or maintenance agreement shall be created concurrently with the recording of the final plat in order to establish maintenance responsibilities for landscaped right-of-\V~y improvements, as well as for any shared private utilities/drainage facilities or private acce~s and utility easements to include the private pedestrian access easement. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of (he Development Services Division prior to the recording of the final plat. 8. The applicant shall obtain a demolition permit and complete all inspections and approvals for all buildings located on the property prior to the recording of the final plat. The satisfaction of this requirement is subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Project Manager. ORDERED THIS 25day of January 2005. TRANSMITTED THIS 25th day of January 2005 to the parties of record: Nancy Weil 1055 S Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 Juliana Fries 1055 S Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 Cliff Williams 5326 SW Manning Street Seattle, WA 98116 Kevin Chamberlin 18930 45th Place NE Lake Forest Park, W A 98155 TRANSMITTED THIS 25th day of January 2005 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler l Stan Engler, Fire Bob Wenzl 636 Lake Sammamish Lane NE Bellevue, WA 98008 . Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Larry Warren, City Attorney Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transportation Division ,Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services Utilities Division Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services King County Journal Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF January 25, 2005 Page 12 Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100Gofthe City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., February 8, 2005. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., February 8, 2005. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not commtlnicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use proces~ include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. U .J ~ .J ,'Z I--oJ ~~ E3 g 0 ~~ 8 8 ~ Vl_ g ~o: :r 1;; 1:3 z :z :;: l t<.z < 00 I €i I ~, j n~ II~ ~T\lI . ~ I ~!I I ~ .~I s 8ECTION 111 TOWN8HIP 23 NORTH RANOE II EAST W.M. ,I 'vI! ~~7~~~~~==/==~/==~~~~I~iG~ ------·,-----Z--. I ..... ..,.",11 V I 0 r-.~..,......--r-I_;_---.., ;; L:.l -··n li~ IJ. I .. 210 )016 518210 0041 w w" °1° 5162,0·00,0 i lItlR I 518210 518210 0031 ~ ~I , S'M! i ft' ! • tZt. 0020 IH~ I "<1~~ ~ 518210.0013 ., .. , .... " 118210 0080 51821().()081 ~-<1 Q 516210 ll~ 515210 0069 ~[ 006e )-"\><S' q;~~~o '~0 SITE L ."., I .. ID 0"" -'--NE 2nd P --.-----.---{ "". ;CUi t «UK 518210 0051 w Cf) w 152305 ~ 9030 .c: (2.14 Ac.) ..... (0 C") T"" 152305 9213 152308 9214 o"A&) (1.12AC.) ,51305 9031 .... .., 152305-9034 , ........ ) 152305-9036 , ........ ) 152305-9212 (0,12 .... ) 1\52305-9211' 182305 (GAl .... ) 9046 ......, l!"tITI'T 152305-9215 (0.""'" 15Z305-9036 ........ ) 9057 182305 ,-I ...... 9112 9145 ...... I ...... (0.""'" DO&4 , ..... 1BHoa \ ...... 9178 D012 ,....., , I , , I 152305 , , 9032 I I \ (3.88 Ao.) I W 182305 11523015 Cf) 9075 9206 W (O.I1Ao.) ( .. 76 .... ) .> « = CO C") T"" .... - \ " .. c. \: I 152305 9002 (1.33 Ac.) 152305-9082 (1.10 ..... ) ;;7::~ L "t'" L lid:;\: "alA '\~ J 1 I, L , --- 9015 I rl (4.18 Ac.) I 9018 .. , .... , I .. ~.. I ! ! ~ ! ,,,,,,,,"DE' FP' ",BOVAL ~~~'::~no 'ft'::~"'; .,:'-:;:" . IIf"")"" ." 04'1la_ __ ~\ .. \ _ ,,,..., .,,' L ___ I. _ ..... _.... ' (3.78 Ao.) Oorporatlon .-....... tlOU III urt,_ ITI OA'TtI ~"""I-I-4--',,0I'fC, (UI' "I-rot , .. (u.) 'fI .. "~1 ------.. "'- ~ I ...... '~~' .. ,0""*1'" 'I' l iH.l R, \: ~. ~ [ Cl~IlU" ................. _~on~·_"\...;,.;..;.... ... ~D .. ~N~~ ....... -"" ~...",. ............ --......... ,,-....... ~.--...... -~.~ ...... -.. -,.. , .... ~ , ..... , .......... . .~ .1 1 10 T23N R5E W 112 '--NE4th St. CA CACA CA c..A .- CA Q) -._p. -;:r:: ,R o RMH ~ R-"-S; RMH R-8! (P) : ; ... , .-; ii, .. '\ ... \. ....... - RC(P) ..... _.1 .';. ZONING P!BIPW TJ!CHNJCAL SJ!llVlCES l1Jl8I04 G6 .. 22 T23N R5E W 1/2 - ---ReDton City Umi'" CA CA :;R-lO -.~. ..... --.. . ... -.---'.-.:. ... ; CAi R-IO R-8 BE 142nd St. 15 T23N R5E W 1/2 5315 om 0" ... ~~ .--:. g~ , ... .0. -CI.c. ~;;;;::;;;:;;':~::O",·""'·"'·I#"'- HI ~~O ~f.~ ~I' t': ~~ .r ~o ~~ zC ~~ ~ ~ c c ~ CITY OF' ~ RENTON '; i~~;';i~ ~ ~~z~ ~m ~i~§ .. ~=,n~ ig Z :0 g'~!i~~n 0 ~~~~ ,. I#!~~~S~ ~ C 'n r ~~~~~~ ~ ~5:: 0 -t :1 ~~i A l~n ;:: ~ "0 !,"! y '. ~~. ~ =n :~~ ~~ ~ a!~ R ;: i~ ~~ ·8 VINEYARDS CONSTRUCTION. L.LC. RIDGEVIEW COURT SITE PIAN giA~~ I!~ ~~mr; I~mil: ~~~~i! . ~i~~ 6 .. ~~~~ ~ -. ,. o~r &~ ~~2 (I) •• :l ... (/) .:Jt:r:; ~/i 0 -_~.~ c ;;:~H;;l ~£~~~ ~i~ ~hi'~ ~~~~i ~ i1~~'l ~'io ~ .~m ~ ~i ~ iig~~ ~a:!! " 2~-< . -." ",.0 ~t5 ··f;I'l1;! J~g z;: ;0 ~ §z p A~ .z g1!~~ m ~ m ;'~~'l ?' ~~~i! ~ • ~" !i ~ ,. I N , ;r! CD m o ::! o z N .. z (~ ~ I ::D > z I 13 III .. I III > CD I -t ~ I ~ I I L_ I I I I I I I -.1_. IIm~:;;::;:;:;::;:;nIIIll , , , , II , , , , , , II moDo moDo moDo moDo moDO mBBB ~i moDo i= { J ., I, ~I , , /"7_ /A > II • .Jr Ui .... ~ L! IJ' ...Ii 39~9 ~"V? c: 6 N~CI '~o~a;:Jg E 8 Z;SL-I N'9',d ~ . i; .l.':!:U'lO? MaIAa9QI'0!5 i,:;& ':J?-ro..d i & ~8 t ..... G .. » ~ , I I I ill! , , I , , I -- 1 I mrm § II ~ , D aU .o-.~ t \', !' tl~1 ~, ~Iil ~I i,II L, , , II , \ ~ ~~III >D <$ If) II I .-9 .n \I) 1M J ll •. (' .• g. I, ~Iil ~I \ , I I-() ..J Z () () \ I , ~ II , I () I- Z ( ..J D- \I) ; :t l-. ! ~i .... { > II ~I ~I u' ti D 0 U::HJ-C'I ,.,'~"~ ~6~~1OtO HosmlJll'f UI~q(!;Z", f31f01"'Hs'rJl n..- ""-.-...." ~'IIOO'~~ ;1 II I , , I , , I I I I I rn I I I I il~ , , I I I F " '= I I " D " " I I \ " il~!! I j 111111111111111 I I I , ~ ! . ~ i ...... 0 , I ~I:I ~'8' ~iii , I " II c::==:::J1I1!II!II , .1 l' " ~ .. ~! 39V~V9 ~V? z: HOO~Cl39 E 99LLI N'v"d i8 iI ~g .l. 'l!!I(lO? Ma 1.I\:=J9CI I~ gt~g ,~,...r""...od ....-----l 1 ~ ~ I l\ I J 1j ! j' P, H ~: .. I 63 oN ~« « II I l • 0 z () i= « > u ..1. ul il u· .J! \J 1111 I~: ~ , ~ ! \ , , I ·I~I II~I ~lil , , .1 l' " ~l " 11 ~I '1 I I ::ni!D~Dtttt!o~O II DODO II DODO II DODO 110000 f;11~~I~'1 DODO " I, II DODO DODO l : ~i J-« > u d; ~I u. It ! D () N .., N ID J-() ..1 Z () () ~ () J- Z « ..1 D- ID I J- D 0 "' ... . l -N D ,.J~, €J =a~V9~? z: ? , . .~ ~ ~ ~ NOSn/lNf N::JO 'HOO~::J9 ~ 6 .8 j' ~« « U~"&'r' SblOI"~ . vG~1 N'v',d ~~~6 !) II~~ ..L~? ~1A;J9al~ If ~O H u .... ..........,. _L ). I .... ...., 'POO~",...,.qn 01.0 H 1 ,;::>..r-=---.:I lID.t.O 0 \) § ...• ~M .~. J § ...... 0 ~M ;j ~ .'11 " ~, I '.1 0 ~Iil ~I I " , I I I I ~ ~:I: l' ., ~Iil ~I , " I , j: , I , , , I " I " , I I I II , I , , , I /I I , I " I /I , ;;;;;:= I I I I I 1 ·11 II i rn~ , , , , /I o :L-.. ' I , , I I , " I I ' , 1\] II !!I i " i , IIIIIII~ rllllHrllHlI1 , I =11100 --'- City of Renton Municipal Code; Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110 -Appeals 4-8-110C4 The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 4-1-170, the fee schedule of the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-110F: Appeals to City Council-Procedures 1. Time for Appeal: Unless a specific section or State law providing for review of decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court or any other body, any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the City Council, upon a form furnished by the City Clerk, within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. 2. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. 3. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. 4. Transmittal of Record to Council: Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the City Council all of the pertinent documents, including the written decision or recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report, the notice of appeal, and additional letters submitted by the parties. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-1982) 5. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required, the Council shall remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of additional evidence. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the applicant. In the absence of an entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, and a remand to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 4389, 1-25-1993) 6. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties. 7. Findings and Conclusions Required: If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-050F1, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may remand the proceeding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the decision ofthe Examiner accordingly. 8. Council Action: If, upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-050F2 and F3, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, or that a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified, the City Council may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the application. 9. Decision Documentation: In any event, the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord 3658, 9-13-1982) 10. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving, modifying or rejecting a decision of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames established under subsection G5 of this Section. (Ord. 4660, 3-17-1997) \ \ J . . " CITY OF RENTON MAR 7 2005 APPEAL -HEARING EXAMINER RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISIONIRECOMMENDATION TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL. FILE NO. LUA 04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF APPLICATION NAME:_----"-R=id=g=e:...:..v=ie:...:..w'-C=ou=rt'-"--_______________ _ The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated January 25,2005. 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT: Name: CliffWilliamslRidgeview Court, LLC REPRESENTATIVE (IF ANY) Name: Sean K. Howe Address: PO Box 2401 Kirkland, W A 98033 Address: 524 Second Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, W A 98104 Telephone No. (206) 933-1049 Telephone No. (206) 587-0700 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach addition sheets, ifnecessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: FINDING OF FACT: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's report) No. Error: Please see attached document. Correction: Please see attached document. CONCLUSIONS: No. Error: Please see attached document. ------~==~~====~~=====------------------------------- .. ··e6rrection: Please see attached document. OTHER: No. Error: ______ ~P~le:.=a""'se"'--"-'se"""e'-'a""'tt""'a""'ch~e~d:...;d:::.:o~c'_"u~m=e~n""'t. ____________________________ _ Correction: Please see attached document. 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (attach explanation, if desired) SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: Other: AppellantiRepresentative Signature cc: (J,Lf-,/ ~~ ,AJettl tJa-rk. beu Si/0 HEMtltJ6 l=.K.~t-Ut--'''''-{00288943.DOC;! } March 7, 2005 Date ORIG!NAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ·17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 In re: BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL FOR RENTON, WASHINGTON No. ______________________ _ Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat, File No. LUA04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION, RECOMMENDATION, AND DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Ridgeview Court, LLC, applicant for approval of a preliminary plat and site plan for Ridgeview Court, File # LUA 04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF, appeals the actions ofthe Hearing Examiner denying this project. Specifically, the applicant appeals the Hearing Examiner's recommendation to deny the preliminary plat, his decision to deny the site plan, and his imposition of alternative conditions, all dated January 25, 2005 (hereinafter "Decision"); and the Examiner's rejection ofthe applicant's request for reconsideration, dated February 22,2005 (hereinafter "Response"); which two documents together will be referred to as "the denial." I. SUMMARY Ridgeview Court is a proposal to place 20 units of residential housing onto 2.4 acres, just south ofNE 4th Street. It is a thoughtfully planned and fully mitigated project, supported by City staff, supportive of the goals of the Growth Management Act with its high density and proximity to a major transportation corridor, and located where the City Council, as expressed by its adopted development regulations, intended projects of its type to be. WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION, RECOMMENDATION, AND DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION-1 {00289695.DOC;1 } OR~G~NAL Cairncross & Hempeimann, P.s. Law Offices 524 Second Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98104-2323 Phone: 206-587-0700 • Fax: 206-587-2308 1 The Hearing Examiner's denial is based upon a single concern: the impact of noise upon 2 the project by an adjacent post office. The denial is a substantial error of both law and fact. 3 Both of the authorities proffered for legal support of the denial are erroneous. First, the denial 4 incorrectly relies on a comprehensive plan policy to override valid and specific development 5 regulations. Those development regulations, in the form of zoning and an overlay, specify a 6 transition between intensive commercial uses along NE 4th Street, and existing single-family 7 residential areas to the north and south. The development regulations authorize residential use in 8 the transition area. Despite these applicable development regulations, and despite Ridgeview 9 Court's meeting all applicable requirements, the Examiner has decided that no residential use is 10 appropriate for this property. Instead, as is made clear in the Response, he uses his "discretion" 11 to deny residential use. This is the second error oflaw, as the zoning use table does not provide 12 him such discretion in this instance. The denial is an error of fact. Noise from the post office 13 was properly considered during the SEP A process. That factual analysis, and the ensuing DNS- 14 M and its conditions, were not appealed. They were not overcome by the oral testimony of the 15 post office manager. Also, there was no showing that the several aspects of Ridgeview Court 16 that mitigate against incoming noise (including site layout, unusually large setbacks, fencing, 17 elevation differential, and landscaping) are insufficient. Finally, the effect of this denial, ifleft 18 unremedied, will be to push commercial uses and their impacts closer to existing low-density 19 single-family residences to the north and south ofNE 4th Street. 20 II. ACTION REQUESTED 21 The applicant respectfully requests that the City Council: 22 1) Reverse the Decision by approving the site plan and preliminary plat; or 23 2) Modify the Decision by approving the preliminary plat and the alternative decision on 24 the site plan, with removal of alternative conditions 2, 3, and 4. 25 26 WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION, RECOMMENDATION, AND DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION-2 {00289695.DOC;! } Cairncross & Hempeimann, P.s. Law Offices 524 Second Avenue. Suite 500 Seal/le, Washing/on 98104-2323 Phone: 206-587-0700 • Fax: 206-587-2308 1 III. FACTS 2 The applicant proposes to build 20 residential units on 2.4 acres, near a transportation 3 arterial (NE 4th Street), at 327 Bremerton Avenue. The lot sizes will range from 2,725 square feet 4 to 5,800 square feet. The property is less than one block from NE 4th Street. 5 Ridgeview Court's application vested to the standards ofCS (Center Suburban) zoning, 6 which allows residential development. RMC 4-2-10, 4-2-60, 4-2-070J, 4-2-070K. The sole 7 conditions listed in the use table for the CS zone are density limitations and a zoning overlay. 8 RMC 4-2-80. The project meets or exceeds these requirements. 9 The applicable zoning overlay is Area B of Renton's Suburban and Neighborhood 10 Centers Residential Demonstration District. The overlay's intent is to "ensure high quality 11 residential developments within the Center Suburban and Center Neighborhood Zoning 12 Districts" and "to require superior residential projects which complement commercial uses, 13 provide first floor commercial activity along arterials, and provide a transition between intensive 14 commercial areas and surrounding single family neighborhoods." RMC 4-3-095 (A) (emphasis 15 added). The overlay specifically contemplates the proximity of "intensive" commercial uses to 16 the residences in this district. It specifically allows residential development and detached 17 dwellings. RMC 4-3-095 (C). This project meets or exceeds all requirements of the overlay. 18 After thorough review, city staff recommended approval of the project, subject to 19 conditions which the applicant is willing to and able to meet. Environmental review was 20 conducted, and staff issued a DNS-M (Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated), 21 including conditions. There are no critical areas on the site. The Hearing Examiner found that 22 the site will "blend with the commercial, mixed use and transition well into the residential uses 23 to the south." Decision at pg. 3. There were no letters filed in opposition. The manager ofthe 24 neighboring post office testified that the use would be a great improvement for the 25 neighborhood. Decision at 3-4. In sum, Ridgeview Court is remarkable only in its 26 unremarkableness. WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION, RECOMMENDATION, AND DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION-3 {00289695.DOC;l} Cairncross & Hempelmann, P.s. Law Offices 524 Second Avenue. Suite 500 Seattle. Washington 98104-2323 Phone: 206-587-0700 • Fax: 206-587-2308 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Nevertheless, at the public hearing, the post office manager expressed concern about the effect of noise that late-night and early-morning activities from his facility might have upon future homeowners. Yet the issue of noise from the post office had already been discussed in the SEPA process, and the post office manager had not appealed the DNS-M or its conditions. Based solely upon the post office manager's statements, the Hearing Examiner deemed the site "inappropriate" for residential use, denied the site plan, and recommended denial ofthe plat application. The Decision recommended finding a "better use" for the site "such as another commercial use." In his Response to the applicant's request for reconsideration, the Hearing Examiner declined to modify his decision. IV. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS The Hearing Examiner's denial of Ridgeview Court is a substantial error of both fact and law. The denial is an error of law, as it uses a single Comprehensive Plan Policy, taken out of context, to override specific implementing development regulations, deciding instead that residential use is inappropriate for this property. Its second argument, that the Examiner has "discretion" to deny residential use on this parcel, is also legal error, as the zoning use table does not provide such discretion for this use in this zone, but instead permits residential use outright, subject to a single condition which is met by this application. The denial is also an error of fact, in that it finds last-minute oral testimony to outweigh the considered earlier SEP A analysis and recommendation of staff. The denial of all residential use will serve only to push the impacts of such transition toward the existing single-family residences to the south. 1. The Decision Errs by Using a Comprehensive Plan Policy to Override Specific Development Regulations. The only specific authority cited by the Decision to deny Ridgeview Court is Comprehensive Plan Policy (CPP) H-90, requiring identification of "sites within mixed-use areas, which are appropriate for residential developments." The Decision finds that this site is WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION, RECOMMENDATION, AND DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION-4 {00289695.DOC;! } Cairncross & Hempelmann, P.s. Law Offices 524 Second Avenue. Suite 500 Seattle. Washington 98104-2323 Phone: 206-587-0700 • Fax: 206-587-2308 1 not appropriate for residential use. The Response, while expressing the Examiner's 2 philosophical views on zoning, provides no additional legal authority, other than the Examiner's 3 "discretion" to protect the public interest. Both are mistaken. 4 The City Council, as required by the Growth Management Act, implemented the goals 5 and policies of the Comprehensive Plan by adopting the CS zoning, and the zoning district 6 overlay. See RCW 36.70A.040(3). The plain text of those development regulations, and their 7 expressed intent, prove that the City Council has already weighed precisely the type of concerns 8 cited by the Hearing Examiner. The Council decided that the CN and CS zones would be 9 transition areas between commercial and residential uses, and the overlay would further govern 10 those areas between "intensive" commercial uses and residential areas. The Council decided that 11 residential use would be permitted in this zone. 12 The Council's adopted development regulations, and this project, support numerous other 13 Comprehensive Plan goals and policies, that are equally applicable, and arguably more specific 14 to this property as the one used by the Examiner to deny the project. Ridgeview Court's small 15 lots provide affordable housing, in a central and urbanized location rather than at the 16 suburban/rural fringe, will be built a stone's throw from a major transportation and economic 17 corridor, put a blackberry-ridden lot to productive use, and do not threaten critical areas. As 18 such, Ridgeview Court supports the goals and policies of the Land Use, Housing, Transportation, 19 Environmental, and Economic Development elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan. 20 The Response criticizes the applicant's citation to the applicable development 21 regulations, mistakenly characterizing the applicable zoning map and overlay as "a bit more 22 global than a site-specific rezone." Pg. 1. An examination of the zoning map, and the 23 Residential Bonus District B overlay, show that these development regulations were certainly 24 drawn deliberately and with specificity. The applicable transition zoning extends south from NE 25 4th Street only to NE 3rd Street, and north only to NE 5th Street, before meeting purely residential 26 zoning. In most places, the CS/CN zoning is only one or two parcels deep in its separation of the WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S Cairncross & Hempelmann, P.s. DECISION, RECOMMENDATION, AND DENIAL Law Offices OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERA TION-5 524 Second Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98104-2323 Phone: 206-587-0700 -Fax: 206-587-2308 {00289695.DOC;! } 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NE 4th Street corridor from the residential zoning to the south. This zoning is highly specific. The applicable overlay is similarly narrow. 2. The Zoning Use Table Does Not Provide the Examiner Discretion In This Instance. The other argument proffered to deny this project is also incorrect. The denial, and in particular the Response, rely upon the Examiner's "discretion" in protecting the "public interest." An examination of the City's zoning use table (RMC 4-2-060) shows that such reliance is plain legal error. Under the use table, some uses are permitted outright ("P"); some are permitted if a certain condition is met ("P#"); and some indeed "may be permitted subject to review by the Hearing Examiner to establish conditions to protect public health, safety and welfare." RMC 4- 2-050(A). These are demarcated by an "H." For this particular use (residential detached dwellings), in this particular zone, (Center Suburban), the table does not state "H," but rather "P20": permitted outright if the application satisfies condition number 20 (density limitations). Ridgeview Court satisfies this condition. Thus, the Hearing Examiner's "discretion" to protect the public interest may not be used to deny this particular use in this particular zone, and reliance upon such discretion is legal error. 3. In Case of Inconsistency, Development Regulations Control. The zoning regulations and overlay which govern this property, and that contemplate residential uses, are not inconsistent with CPP H-90. However, even if the zoning and overlay were somehow inconsistent with CPP H-90, the law in such cases is that, in the event of inconsistency, comprehensive plan policies do not control individual private project applications, development regulations do. Citizens of Mount Vernon v. City of Mount Vernon, 133 Wn.2d 861,947 P.2d 1209 (1997). Citizens is the post-GMA reiteration of the rule that, in case of an inconsistency, development regulations take precedence over plan policies. "A specific zoning ordinance will prevail over an inconsistent comprehensive plan." Citizens at 873 (citing Cougar Mountain Associates v. King County, 111 Wn.2d 742, 757, 765 P.2d 264 (1988». The Citizens WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION, RECOMMENDATION, AND DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION-6 {00289695.DOC;! } Cairncross & Hempelmann, P.s. Law Offices 524 Second Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98104-2323 Phone: 206-587-0700 • Fax: 206-587-2308 1 court held that, for a rezone, the development regulations trumped the plan policies despite the 2 regulations' ambiguity, and despite issues regarding the timing oftheir enactment. 3 The situation here is far simpler than in Citizens. There is no inconsistency and there is 4 no rezone. The development regulations are unambiguous. There is no issue regarding the 5 sequence or validity of the applicable regulations. If the development regulations prevailed over 6 the plan policies in Citizens, they must certainly do so in this case. The Response is silent on 7 this crucial point. 8 The CS zone, to which standards this project is vested, allows residential detached 9 dwellings. Further, the overlay states that this area is designed to serve as the transition between 10 commercial and residential u!?es. In fact, the overlay's intent is not merely to buffer residential 11 areas from any commercial use, or average commercial use, but rather to serve as a transition 12 between "intensive commercial uses and surrounding neighborhoods." (Emphasis added.) A 13 post office with occasional late-night and regular 6:30-7:30 am truck activity is just the sort of 14 use for which this zoning, and this particular overlay, were designed. In fact, given other 15 possible uses and impacts along this corridor, one could argue that it does not even qualify as 16 "intensive." Such sounds may not be consistent with the Examiner's nostalgic ideals of the 17 amount of sound that can be heard through an open window on a summer night in a low-density 18 residential neighborhood. However, this project is completely in keeping with the intent of the 19 GMA, Comprehensive Plan, and development regulations: centrally-located housing, in the 20 urban growth area, at a density and location supportive of transit and affordability, rather than 21 perpetuating the low-density, land-consuming development stereotypes that have contributed to 22 suburban sprawl. 23 In sum, the City Council has already determined that residential uses are appropriate in 24 this area, even when adjacent to "intensive" commercial uses. The denial's citation to a single 25 Comprehensive Plan Policy, and broad notions of discretion, to overrule a cohesive set of 26 specific development regulations are errors oflaw. WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION, RECOMMENDATION, AND DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION-7 {00289695.DOC;! } Cairncross & Hempelmann, P.s. Law Offices 524 Second Avenue. Suite 500 Seattle. Washington 98104-2323 Phone: 206--587-0700 • Fax: 206-587-2308 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 4. By Precluding Residential Uses, the Decision Effectively Rezones the Property to a Purely Commercial Zone Rather than the Zone the Council Intended and Adopted. In deeming all residential use inappropriate for this property, despite the project's well- planned nature and its location in a designated commerciaVresidential transition area, the Hearing Examiner effectively removes the residential use from the applicable development regulations and use tables. The removal is in direct opposition to the intent and authority ofthe Council, the intent and text of the development regulations, and is error. The denial cites the Examiner's "discretion" and notions of "benevolent paternalism," yet the effect of such is to substitute the Hearing Examiner's discretion for that of the Council. Yet this is exactly the discretion that the Council exercised in enacting the applicable zoning and the applicable overlay. If this denial's logic is allowed to stand and applied to other residential projects in transition zones, then the same result would be reached: denying residential use in zones that permit that use, and mandating that the impacts of commercial use move closer to existing single family neighborhoods. 5. Those Conditions in the Alternative Recommendation and Decision that Are 17 Prompted by the Erroneous Denial of the Plat Are Also Erroneous. 18 For the same reasons as stated above, Conditions 2, 3, and 4 in the Alternative 19 Recommendation and Decision are also legally unsupportable, as they are grounded in the same 20 incorrect use of a general policy to overcome specific development regulations that are not 21 inconsistent with that policy. 22 6. The Denial is Substantial Error of Fact. 23 The Examiner's claim that residential development on this property is "inappropriate"- 24 despite the zoning and overlay to the contrary -is based solely on the post office manager's 25 statement about the noise his facility generates, and more specifically about the potential that the 26 manager may have to respond to noise complaints. See Paragraph 9 of the Decision's WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S Cairncross & Hempelmann, P.S. DECISION, RECOMMENDATION, AND DENIAL Law Offices OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION 8 524 Second Avenue. Suite 500 -Seattle. Washington 98104-2323 Phone: 206-587-0700 -Fax: 206-587-2308 {00289695.DOC;! } 1 Conclusions. Such a concern is not adequate to deny this otherwise valid project, as there was 2 no showing that Ridgeview Court's site layout, its greater-than-usual setbacks along its western 3 boundary, its fencing, its landscaping, and other design aspects would be insufficient. 4 For example, even the Decision finds that "Anacortes Avenue NE will act as a buffer 5 between the proposed single-family homes along the western property line and the existing 6 commercial use (Post Office site) on the abutting property." Pg. 3. Even the Decision finds that 7 "The site is also approximately eight feet higher" than the adjoining post office property. Pg. 5. 8 Even the Decision finds that "Staff has granted a modification that allows a setback for Proposed 9 Lots 8 to 13 to have a greater setback. .. " Pg. 6. All of these findings, and the SEP A analysis, are 10 thrown out based solely on the post office manager's testimony at public hearing. 11 The denial commits factual error when it overcomes considered SEP A analysis with the 12 statement of the post office manager. Incoming noise is a topic specifically addressed by 13 paragraph 7b of the City's SEP A checklist and was part of this application's environmental 14 review. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) issued the DNS-M, including conditions, 15 provided public notice, and allowed time for appeal. If someone felt such environmental review 16 -which specifically addressed the issue of noise from the post office -or the conditions imposed 17 thereby were inadequate, they should have appealed the DNS-M, as allowed by the law. 18 The Response is dismissive ofthe SEPA process, and incorrectly claims that the ERC's 19 authority is limited to the determination of a project's impacts and whether an EIS must be 20 prepared. Pg. 2. This ignores the conditions which the SEP A process generated, which were 21 appealable to the Hearing Examiner, and which are noted in the Decision at Page 2. 22 The Response implies that it is never too late to raise any environmental issue. Ifthat 23 were so, then there would be no use for the SEPA process, as all environmental issues could 24 simply wait until the public hearing on the plat application. Moreover, the point of an earlier 25 SEPA analysis is not merely the orderly sequence by which issues of different types should be 26 examined. The additional point is that a factual examination had already been completed -as WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S Cairncross & Hempelmann, P.s. DECISION, RECOMMENDATION, AND DENIAL Law Offices OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERA TION-9 524 Second Avenue. Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98104-2323 Phone: 206-587-0700 • Fax: 206-587-2308 {00289695.DOC;! } 1 noted at other points throughout the Decision -which was not overcome by the post office 2 manager's last-minute oral concerns. 3 Finally, the Response is an error of fact when it incorrectly makes no distinction between 4 the dense, small-lot residential housing this Project proposes, and the existing single-family 5 residences farther to the south. It is an error of fact when it uses the Examiner's notions of what 6 residential noises should be present at night, to deny a project which meets all local requirements 7 and furthers the goals of the GMA and the City's Comprehensive Plan. 8 7. The Denial Will Have Adverse Consequences Beyond this Application. 9 The Hearing Examiner finds that, because of the noise from the post office, that a "better 10 use" for this property would be "another commercial use." Decision at 9. Acceptance of this 11 finding, and applying its rationale to similar cases, will result in converting CS and CN zones- 12 which the Council designated as urban transition zones -to purely commercial zones. Aside 13 from being illegal as described above, such would have adverse practical effects, pushing 14 commercial noise and other impacts ever closer to existing single-family residences. 15 If this denial is not remedied, and a commercial use replaces this project, the Council 16 should consider the impact that an unspecified commercial use could have upon the proposed 17 homes for that project, and then upon the existing single-family homes to the south of that 18 project. Those homeowners have the right to expect that the transition areas to their north, as 19 designated by zoning maps and overlays which are the result of careful planning, public 20 comment, and legislative balancing, will remain, and not be replaced on an ad hoc basis by 21 commercial uses. They have the right to at least the possibility of a neighbor such as Ridgeview 22 Court, which project the Examiner found "should not have any negative impacts to the 23 surrounding property owners." Decision at 3. 24 v. CONCLUSION 25 Ridgeview Court is a good project, and the applicant simply requests that the Council 26 consider it fairly and on its merits. Ridgeview Court is supported by staff, places dense housing WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S Cairn cross & Hempelmann, P.s. DECISION, RECOMMENDATION, AND DENIAL LawOfjices OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERA TION-10 524 Second A venue, Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98104-2323 Phone: 206-587-0700 • Fax: 206-587-2308 {00289695.DOC;! } 1 near a major transportation corridor rather than sprawling into outlying areas, does not contain 2 critical areas, and has no neighborhood opposition. It happens to be adjacent to a post office 3 which generates noise at night. The only justifications proffered for the denial are a 4 Comprehensive Plan Policy and the Examiner's discretion. The denial's reliance on these 5 justifications is substantial legal error. CPP H-90 is not inconsistent with the development 6 regulations, but even ifit were inconsistent, the law is clear that the Council's adopted 7 development regulations take priority. The development regulations are the lawful expressed 8 intent of the City Council. Those regulations permit residential use on this property outright, 9 subject to a single condition. The Council exercised its discretion in demarcating this area as a 10 transition between intensive commercial uses and single-family homes. A well-designed and 11 staff-supported project application that meets all the criteria ofthe Council's adopted 12 development regulations should be allowed to go forward. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Dated this 7th day of March, 2005. CAIRNCROSS & HEMPELMANN, P.S. Sean K. Howe, WSBA No. 23329 Attorneys for Ridgeview Court, LLC WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION, RECOMMENDATION, AND DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERA TION-11 {00289695.DOC;l} Cairncross & Hempelmann, P.s. Law Offices 524 Second Avenue. Suite 500 Seattle. Washington 98104-2323 Phone: 206-587-0700 • Fax: 206-587-2308 D Cash CITY OF RENTON City Clerk Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 425·430·6510 o Check No. _____ _ DC~Fee ·~ppealFee Description: f It / 1/1 f? '" j (l/'Jkl" .f- Receipt N~ 267 Date 0/1/t;5 7 o Notary Service 0 __________ _ I ..... Q ~ ,,~~ _______ u._~ . 14121/'0/ ~f· II/o/,In,.-. £t:41vlIUM' L~/..slrf¥'"l -..---, .. ,.. .... .......... , , U-JjAmount $. 7~ dO I Funds Received From: Name . Address City/Zip ell I I'll eYe 5£ .'6 ~tlt11t:Yr1 . ~~;!;i~ s::r fit? . . ... ~~ '; , ..... -;:,~~ .. ,:,i': '. '.~;'.',' :j'r.! ',' .• , I . ':i".;;~·: t'e):· . ·-f:~·;~ .... :ii~~~~-,8;~~~'i·:'>·';'·~-···.,~~ .. )~; .. ··,·,,·\l~ .'.<.:;:~\';;;,;~;(~.~ .. :., ~ :;'.:~~;.;;...~ .. :~;.~ ... ,. ~"':'i;~~'::'}: -·~1~~..::.;: i', ··.i··if-,:;:~,"i 4 ".;;:'jt:·\;;<:",;· ',." ;~':';li{:li},"· :.~-/}:,;., ~.~ .. :. ,:; :;'l~''::!~ ·~".X~::: \'~'~:'(~~ ,': ~~. o • • I I I I I 7 ~ 'f,.. I 5 I I I City Clerk's Office Distribution List Appeal, Ridgeview Court LUA-04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF, MOD March 7, 2005 King County Journal City Attorney Larry Warren V' City Council * Julia Medzegian v- EDNSP/Economic Development Alex Pietsch v' Fire Dept/Fire Prevention Stan Engler ,./ Planning Commission Judy Wright v Parties of Record * * PBPW I Administration Gregg ZimmermanV' PBPW IDevelopment Se~ices Neil \Vatls v Jennifer Henning V- Larry Meckling ./ Jan Conklin v' Stacy Tucker V- PBPW ITransportation Services Sandra Meyer ", PBPW /Utilities & Tech Services Lys Hornsby'/ LUA-04-I3t *Memo & POR List only *PRarties ~fRecord numbebr may change; review Hearing Examiner's ~'_.I eport lor accurate num er - ~-hec::, a-~.-eec-o~ ~'-----------~ ------ Kevin Chamberlin 18930 45th Place NE Lake Forest Park, WA 98155 Bob Wenzl 636 Lake Sammamish Lane NE Bellevue, W A 98008 Cliff Williams 5326 SW Manning Street Seattle, W A 98116 Thomas Foster Langley Fourth Ave Assoc. LLC 6450 Southcenter Blvd., Ste. 106 Seattle, W A 98188 CIT·~. OF RENTON Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor February 22,2005 Sean Howe Cairncross & Hempelmann, P5. 524 Second A venue, Suite 500 Seattle, W A 98104 Re: Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat, LUA 04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF Dear Mr. Howe: ... Hearing Examiner Fred J. Kaufman This office has reviewed the Request for Reconsideration submitted by the applicant. The following comments address the request. The applicant appears to insist that the City Council already decided that this site was found appropriate for the proposed use. They make it sound as if this specific site had beel1 reviewed when adopting the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning. Nothing ofthat sort occurred. The rezoning and review was a bit more global than a site-specific rezone of this site. There certainly was no determination that this site would be appropriate for residential uses and not one of the other uses permitted in the CS (CN) zone such as commercial uses. The applicant also argues that the proposed use is an almost perfect transitional use between the intense commercial uses found in the area, the post office use in particular and the residential uses south of here. Where this misses the point is that the proposed use provides no transition from the detached single family uses south of the subject site and the commercial uses, since the proposed project itself is solely, a detached single-family development that would not be bEffered or protected from the intense commercial use. Yes, it is a more dense residential use but it is sti II unabashedly single family and unabashedly detached. Where is the transition? What transitional use protects the applicant's proposed homes and its future residents from the intense commercial uses? Where is this vaunted transition? Both the Site Plan Ordinance and the Platting provisions provide a measure of discretion in determining whether a site is appropriate for a proposed use. Is the applicant suggesting that anytime a plat or site plan is rejected as inappropriate for a specific site, it results in a rezone of that site? If so, then the applicant appears to have ruled out any discretion in reviewing a proposed use of property. A plat for a specific purpose must serve the public use and interest. If it appears that it will fail to serve the public use and interest it may be denied. At one time land use codes allowed what was termed "pyramidal" uses. Lower intensity uses were permitted and each permitted the next lower intensity use. The result was that single-family uses could be developed adjacent to a factory. The City generally eliminated pyramidal zoning but did allow some districts to have a mix of uses but it did not just adopt a code that outright permitted residential next to commercial in all cases. It provided a variety of reviews such as Conditional Use Penn its, Site Plan Review and Platting. In all of these reviews the specifics ofthe proposal are to be reviewed in not a vacuum but in conjunction with the subject site's characteristics, its neighborhood and the impacts. In other words, there is discretion. Not all proposals are appropriate. ----1-0-5-5 -So-u-th-G-r-a-dy-W-ay---R-e-nt-o-n,-W-a-s-hi-ng-t-on-9-80-5-5---(4-2-5)-4-3-0--6-51-5----~ * This paper contains 50% recycled mat~rial. 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE 1\ February 22, 2005 Mr. Sean Howe Page 2 The applicant either wholly dismisses or wholly ignores the nature ofthe post office deliveries when it states: "unless the project happens to be fortunate enough to be located next to that rare commercial endeavor which does not require truck delivery of its merchandise, or any other impact-generating activity, to conduct its business." (Page 4, Last Paragraph) While there may be other uses where deliveries occur in the middle of the night such as grocery stores, perhaps, but the post office is assured that its deliveries will occur in the middle of the night. This office will also hazard a guess that most commercial uses also do not test their 39 delivery vans' horns at 6:30 am or thereabouts six days a week. Once again, an appl icant argues that if something was not addressed or conditioned in a SEPA determination, then this office is precluded from looking at it in terms of the actual development proposal. .lust because SEPA did not find noise so significant as to require the preparation of an EIS does not mean that the noise emanating from the post office site does not have profound impacts on a housing use. Can the applicant seriously be suggesting that noises of gravity- propelled doors clanging in the middle of the night are mere ambient disturbances? Does the applicant claim that thirty-nine delivery truckstestingtheir horns at 6:30am is just your routine neighborly sounds? The applicant then suggests that if noise were a significant issue that it should have been addressed during review of the post office. That may have been something that should have been done but if it were not done appropriately,doesthat mean compounding the error and just simply ignoring it now? In reviewing land u~e applications,one would hope that one is not bound by an earlier error, have to repeat it or not be permitted to rectify it. In addition, while it may be more complex for the appl icant, two separate review's occur -an environmental review and then a public hearing, land use review. This office's jurisdiction to review'permits is separate from the jurisdiction of the ERe. This office looks at a different set of issues and different aspects of a request and may appropriately deny orconditi6i1 aproposal. The ERC on the other hand has no authority to deny a request but merely determine its environmental impacts and possibly require the preparation of an EIS. It was during apublic hearing 011 this request that testimony raised the noise issue, described the times and types of noise and suggested that complaints were expeckd because of the noise of the postal operations. The applicant suggests that upon hearing that testimony that it is now too late to address those issues? That is ludicrous and wrong. The ultimate decision should not be read to be depriving the applicant of reasonable use of its property. Zoning is a police power and already has the ability to limit the free use of property. The Zoning Code, Land Use Provisions and Platting Ordinance provide for additional review of proposals under the Zoning Code and permit limitations on uses that do not serve the public use and interest. The applicant can development other uses. It is not as if the decision, actually recommendation, would deny the applicant of all beneficial use of its property. The property is not zoned to allow only residential uses. The property generally may be used for medical and dental offices, general offices, daycare, adult care, veterinary offices, retail sales, eating and drinking establishments and other uses. Residential use is just one of a panoply of uses permitted in the zone and on the subject site. The applicant then goes on to suggest that providing potential purchasers of information about the noise is unacceptable. Clearly, where is the public benefit in hiding that information? It is not an 'I' February 22, 2005 Mr. Sean Howe Page 3 aspect of the property that one would inherently realize when viewing the property during the day or even during evenings. It would only be discovered when a purchaser wakes up at I a.m. in the morning to discover that noises from delivery trucks occur. This office would imagine that the applicant anticipates the potential purchasers will enter the post office, get on line to buy stamps and inquire about what time the large delivery trucks arrive, what kind of mechanisms are used to open and close doors and do you test your trucks horns at 6:30 am six days a week? The entire act of zoning property, setting aside districts for certain uses and screening out incompatible uses, is one of benevolent paternalism. The government took on that role to assure that their residents were protected from certain incompatibilities inherent in different land uses. It is the role governments have chosen. In this case the choices are limited. Either the request to allow detached single-family homes should be denied or the City can do its best to make sure potential residents know about the hidden defects ofthis property. The issue of noise regulation is one that was not exploredatthe hearing. The post office may not be subject to all of Renton's regulations as the building itself was not subject to all of the City'S own regulations. It is not clear that the Post Office, a division of the Federal government is subject to all of the controls avai lable under the City'S Zoning Codes'or Noise Ordinances. The City has an obligation to make sure thatanyplat serves the public llse and interest. As proposed, this project does not serve those interests. And nothing in the Zoning Code "requires" that transitional uses between commerciaI~sessuchas the Post Office and the single family uses south of the site be solely residential uses such as proposed. Nothing suggests that transitional uses cannot be some other form of less intrusive commercial or office use that would serve as a buffer between the post office noiseand the'single-family homes south of the subject site. Commercial uses less intrusive than the post office are certainly a viable possibility that can be considered. Finally, the applicant has indicated that acoustic measures could probably be employed to solve or minimize the potential noise problems. As the applicant has argued in its request for reconsideration, the appl icant and City knew about the noise issues. Therefore, the information on noise was available and the applicant should have had responses at the public hearing. The information was or should have been available so that it is now inappropriate to introduce that information. But if the City Council determines that such information should be utilized before making a final decision in this case, then an acoustic engineer of the City's choosing but financed by the applicant should be employed to measure the noises that are generated by the post office and suggest measures that can reduce the impacts to single family homes. Measurements should take into consideration real world situations and not require that all windows be sealed to reduce noise to a reasonable level. All measures should be aimed at redllcing noise when summer conditions or other similar conditions exist where normal residents might wish to have open windows in the middle of the night and early morning. Therefore, any review should consider fencing, landscaping, topography and wall-type and glazing that can reduce the noise but with a frank discussion of the practical outcome of such measures on sleep. In conclusion, this office sees no reason at this juncture to change its primary recommendation that the City Council deny the Preliminary Plat since it does not serve the public use and interest. ·. February 22, 2005 Mr. Sean Howe Page 4 If this office can provide any further assistance, please feel free to write. This decision may be appealed to the City Council by March 8,2005. Sincerely, -'-r \ t-:;~~ r,I'1~"-v----' ·-T'I. .. c-; (I~! . I V Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton FK/nt cc: Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Neil Watts, Development Services Jennifer Henning, Development Services Nancy Weil, Development Services Juliana Fries, Development Services C I iff Will iams Bob Wenzl Kevin Chamberlin · . Cairncross & Hempelmann, P. S. February 17,2005 VIA FACSIMILE (425) 430-6523 AND U.S. MAIL Fred 1. Kaufman Renton City Hearing Examiner's Office City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 Re: Corrected: Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat Request for Reconsideration File No. LUA 04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF Dear Mr. Kaufman: It has been brought to our attention that our February 8, 2005 request for reconsideration contains a typographical error. Under subheading 3, the second sentence should read "There is no authority in RCW 58.17 to require this kind of inscription." I apologize for this error and have included a corrected copy. If you have any questions, please contact me at (206) 254-4475. Thank you. SKH:mcd Enclosure cc: Parties of record: Nancy Wei I Juliana Fries Cliff Williams Bob Wenzl Kevin Chamberlin Law Offices 524 Second Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98104-2323 Phone: 206-587-0700. Fax: 206-587-2308 www.cairncross.cOnI Very truly yours, d~ Sean Howe ;O(L~?54(;4noc: : ~?:b.Q:~.!,:(:'.L~.L~:gif.'U.(;.r.Q:f..,LQ!"U.f direcf: (206) 254-,/475 I ' , , Cairncross & Hempelmann, P. S. February 8, 2005 VIA FACSIMILE (425) 430-6523 AND U.S. MAIL Fred J. Kaufman Renton City Hearing Examiner's Office City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Re: Corrected: Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat Request for Reconsideration File No. LUA 04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF Dear Mr, Kaufman: This request for reconsideration is respectfully submitted pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100 (G) of Renton's Municipal Code, by Ridgeview Court, LLC, applicant for approval ofa preliminary plat and site plan for Ridgeview Court, File # LUA 04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF. The law firm of Cairncross and Hempelmann, which includes the undersigned, represents the applicant in this matter. RELIEF REQUESTED The applicant requests the Hearing Examiner reconsider his January 25,2005 recommendation to deny this preliminary plat and decision to deny the project's site plan ("Decision"), and issue a new decision approving the site plan and recommending approval of the preliminary plat. Since the denial of the site plan was driven by the recommendation on the plat, the term "Decision" will be used to describe both actions, The applicant also requests removal of conditions 2, 3, and 4 in the "Alternative Recommendation and Decision," SUMMARY This project application enjoyed the support of those who reviewed it, until the final hour, when the manager of a neighboring post office, while expressing his opinion that the project would be a great improvement of the neighborhood, voiced concern that noise from his facility would generate complaints from the project's future homeowners. Based solely on this qualified concern, the Decision denies the site plan and recommends denial of the preliminary plat. Also, the Decision is an error of law, as it relies on a comprehensive plan policy to overrule specific development regulations adopted by the City Council. These development regulations contemplate this parcel as part of a transition between intensive commercial uses and existing single-family residential areas, and authorize residential use, The Decision is an error oflaw, as Law Offices 524 Second Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98104·2323 Phone: 206-587-0700 -Fax: 206-587-2308 www.cairncross.COnl : ()(;.cX27f;! .l )0(' ::,: ,?JU2.~;.:f.~ij:{r//.:tJ.c.rQ .. ~::~:.fQ.i;i direct: (206) 254-44/5 February 8, 2005 Page 2 ( Corrected) the issue of post office noise was part of the application's SEPA analysis, and the DNS-M was not appealed. The Decision is an error of law and fact, as several other avenues more properly address the issue of noise, including this project's SEPA analysis, the post office's SEPA analysis, and Renton's noise ordinances. The Decision is an error of fact, as there was no showing that the setbacks, fencing, elevation differential, and other design parameters are inadequate, and there is no showing that the SEP A analysis was flawed. Finally, the Decision, if left unmodified, will have adverse consequences that reach beyond the four comers of this project. Ridgeview Court is a thoughtfully planned and fully mitigated project that is supported by City staff, located exactly where the City Council intended projects of its type to be, and should be allowed to proceed. FACTS The project site is located at 327 Bremerton Avenue. The project application vested to the standards ofCS (Center Suburban) zoning, though the site was later rezoned CN (Center Neighborhood). Both zones allow residential development. RMC 4-2-10, 4-2-60, 4-2-070J, 4-2- 070K. The sole conditions listed in the use tables for these zones are the density limitations and a zoning overlay. RMC 4-2-80. The project meets or exceeds these requirements. The overlay for this parcel is Area B of Renton's Suburban Centers Residential Demonstration District. The overlay's intent is to "ensure high quality residential developments within the Center Suburban and Center Neighborhood Zoning Districts" and "to require superior residential projects which complement commercial uses, provide first floor commercial activity along arterials, and provide a transition between intensive commercial areas and surrounding single family neighborhoods." RMC 4-3-095 (A) (emphasis added). This overlay specifically contemplates the proximity of "intensive" commercial uses to the residences in this district. It specifically allows residential development and detached dwellings. RMC 4-3-095 (C). This project meets or exceeds all requirements of the overlay. After thorough review, City Staff recommended approval, subject to conditions which the applicant is willing to and able to meet. Environmental review was conducted, and Staff issued a DNS-M (Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated), which was not appealed. There are no critical areas on site. The Hearing Examiner found that the site will "blend with the commercial, mixed use and transition well into the residential uses to the south." Decision at 3. There were apparently no letters filed in opposition. The manager of a neighboring post office testified that the project would be a great improvement for the neighborhood. Decision at 3-4. In sum, the project is remarkable only in its unremarkableness. Nevertheless, at the public hearing, the post office manager expressed concern about the effect of noise that late-night and early-morning activities from his facility might have upon from future homeowners. It appears he was particularly concerned about having to answer to noise complaints. However, the issue of noise had already been addressed in the SEP A process, and the DNS-M was not appealed. {00282781.DOC;2} February 8, 2005 Page 3 (Corrected) Based solely upon this concern, the Hearing Examiner deemed the site "inappropriate" for residential developments, denied the site plan, and recommended denial of the plat application. The Decision concludes that "any residential use" of the site is "problematic." Decision at 7. The Decision recommends finding a "better use" for the site, "such as another commercial use." ARGUMENT This parcel is part of an area the City Council intended to constitute a transition between existing residential and intensive commercial uses. The Decision is an error oflaw, as it uses a Comprehensive Plan Policy to override specific implementing development regulations and constitutes an inappropriate rezone. The Decision's rationale, if adopted in other cases, will act to push the burden of commercial-residential transition toward the existing single-family residences, rather than in the means and location the City Council intended. 1. The Decision Errs by Using a Comprehensive Plan Policy to Override Specific Development Regulations. a. The Development Regulations and CPP H-90 Are Not Inconsistent. The only authority cited for denial of this project is Comprehensive Plan Policy (CPP) H- 90, requiring identification of "sites within mixed-use areas, which are appropriate for residential developments." The Decision finds that this site is not appropriate for residential developments. However, the zoning regulations and overlay which authorize residential uses on this parcel are not inconsistent with CPP H-90. As required by the Growth Management Act, the City Council implemented the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan by adopting this zoning, and this overlay, for this particular property. See RCW 36.70A.040(3). The plain text of those development regulations, and their expressed intent, prove that the City Council has already weighed precisely the type of concerns cited by the Hearing Examiner. The Council decided that the CN and CS zones would be residential-commercial transition areas, and the overlay would govern areas between intensive commercial uses and residential areas. b. In Case of Inconsistency, Development Regulations Control. Even if the development regulations were, in fact, inconsistent with CPP H-90, the law in such cases is that, in the event of inconsistency, comprehensive plan policies do not control individual private project applications, development regulations do. Citizens of Mount Vernon v. City of Mount Vernon, 133 Wn.2d 861, 947 P.2d 1209 (1997). Citizens is the post-GMA reiteration of the rule that, in case of an inconsistency, development regulations take precedence over plan policies. "A specific zoning ordinance will prevail over an inconsistent comprehensive plan." Citizens at 873 (citing Cougar Mountain Associates v. King County, 111 Wn.2d 742, {00282781.DOC;2 } February 8,2005 Page 4 (Corrected) 757, 765 P.2d 264 (1988)). The Citizens court held that, for a rezone, the development regulations trumped the plan policies despite the regulations' ambiguity and despite issues regarding the timing of their enactment. The situation here is far simpler than in Citizens. There is no rezone. The development regulations are unambiguous. There is no issue regarding the sequence or validity of the applicable regulations. If the development regulations prevailed over the plan policies in Citizens, they must certainly do so in this case. Both the CS zone, to which standards this project is vested, and the CN zone, the area's current zoning, allow residential detached dwellings. The overlay states that this area is designed to serve as the transition between commercial and residential uses. In fact, the overlay's intent is not merely to buffer residential areas from any commercial use, or average commercial use, but rather to serve as a transition between "intensive commercial uses and surrounding neighborhoods." (Emphasis added.) A post office with truck activity is just the sort of use for which this zoning, and this particular overlay, were designed. In fact, one could argue that it does not even qualify as "intensive." In any event, the City Council has already determined that residential uses are appropriate on this parcel, even when adjacent to intensive commercial uses. The Decision's use of a broadly written plan policy to overcome a cohesive set of highly specific development regulations is an error of law. 2. By Precluding Residential Uses, the Decision Constitutes a Rezone of the Property to a Purely Commercial Zone Rather than the Zone the Council Intended and Adopted. In finding that residential use on this parcel is "inappropriate" under a plan policy, the Decision effectively rezones the property to a zone of purely commercial nature. In fact, in denying the residential use of this parcel, despite its well-planned nature, and despite its location in a designated commercial/residential transition area, based upon truck noise from an adjacent commercial use, the Decision effectively determines that there will never be residential use on this parcel. Such a rezone is in direct opposition to the intent of the Council and the intent and text of the development regulations, and is error. If the Examiner applies similar reasoning to future project applications in transitional zones, then the same result will be reached and residential uses will be prohibited in all such transitional zones, unless the project happens to be fortunate enough to be located next to that rare commercial endeavor which does not require truck delivery of its merchandise, or any other impact-generating activity, to conduct its business. {0028278I.DOC;2} February 8, 2005 Page 5 (Corrected) 3. Multiple Remedies Other than Application Denial Exist to Address Noise Concerns. While the intent of guaranteeing notice to future purchasers is perhaps laudable, it is not the position or authority of the Hearing Examiner to guard against every potential negative, nor, as prescribed in the alternative decision, to require that each be inscribed on the face of the plat. There is no authority in RCW 58.17 to require this kind of inscription. Moreover, the law already provides multiple other remedies that more properly address the Examiner's concern. a. Post Office Noise Was Already Part of the SEPA Review. Incoming noise upon a proposed project is a topic specifically addressed by paragraph 7b of City of Renton's SEPA checklist and was part of this application's environmental review. The ERC issued the DNS-M, provided public notice, and allowed time for appeal. If someone felt the environmental review -which specifically addressed the issue of noise from the post office - was inadequate, they should have appealed the DNS-M, as allowed by the law. There was no appeal, and it is untimely and unfair to raise this issue now. Additionally, the creation of noise by the post office is an issue that would have been even more properly addressed by the SEP A analysis for the post office, not a plat application submitted by one of its neighbors. b. Noise Ordinances Protect Renton Neighbors. The first is the City of Renton's noise ordinances at RMC Title 8, Chapter 7. These ordinances are applicable to residential, commercial, and industrial zones, and incorporate most of the state's regulations at RCW 173-60. Their standards are derived from the categorization of the noise's source and recipient. While Renton Municipal Code does not make clear whether its CS and CN "receiving" zones would be considered Class A (residential) or Class B (commercial) EDNA, even if they were deemed to be Class B, fairly stringent standards from RCW 173-60 apply to their noise-generating neighbors. If the noise ordinances allow the level of noise generated by the post office, such ordinances will provide an efficient answer to the phone calls the manager is concerned about. Should the post office violate those noise ordinances, the remedy will be through code enforcement, not denial of their neighbors' development applications. c. Rezoning to Remove Residential Use Is the Purview of the City Council. Center Suburban and Center Neighborhood zones are transition zones. Renton Municipal Code allows a variety of activities in a commercial zone, any number of which could create more impact than the noise described by the post office manager. If the Examiner considers this level {0028278I.DOC;2} I .... February 8, 2005 Page 6 (Corrected) of noise to be an untenable risk to future residents of the transition area, the remedy is to petition for legislative change, not deny legal plat applications. 4. Those Conditions in the Alternative Recommendation and Decision that Are Prompted by the Erroneous Denial of the Plat Are Also Erroneous. For the same reasons as stated above, Conditions 2, 3, and 4 are also legally unsupportable, as they are grounded in the same incorrect use of a general policy to overcome specific development regulations that are not inconsistent with that policy. 5. The Decision is Also Not Well-Grounded in Fact. The Decision is also not adequately supported by fact. The sole reason for finding that residential development on this site was "inappropriate" was the post office manager's concern about the possibility of receiving noise complaints. Such a concern is not adequate to deny this otherwise valid project, without exploration of whether noise being generated by the Post Office complies with applicable noise ordinances, the precise location of the trucks on the site, etc. However, again, a more appropriate venue to address and mitigate any such noise concerns would have been the SEP A process for the post office, and its findings were not appealed. The Decision is also factually insufficient, as it contains no showing that the project's proposed setbacks, fencing, landscaping, windows, and significant advantage in height over the post office, would be insufficient to mitigate incoming noise. 6. The Decision Will Have Adverse Consequences Beyond this Application. The Decision finds that, because of the noise from the post office, that a "better use" for this particular parcel would be "another commercial use." Decision at 9. Acceptance of this finding, and applying its rationale to similar cases, will result in converting CS and CN zones - intended as urban transition zones -to purely commercial zones. Aside from an illegal rezone as described above, such would have adverse practical effects, pushing commercial noise and other impacts ever closer to existing single-family residences. For example, the parcel to the project's south is also under proposal for development. If the Decision is not reconsidered, and a commercial use replaces this project, will future applications for residential use on that neighboring parcel be denied as well? What of the homeowners in the existing single-family residences to the south, who reasonably expected that the areas to their north would be transition areas, as shown on the zoning maps and overlays, but are now likely to see commercial uses creep closer, rather than well-planned residential projects? The Examiner found that this project "should not have any negative impacts to the surrounding property owners." Decision at 3. It seems unlikely that the commercial use recommended by {0028278 I.OOC;2} February 8, 2005 Page 7 (Corrected) this Decision would be as effective at "transition(ing) ... into the residential uses to the south." Decision at 3. CONCLUSION The Decision as currently written, recommending denial of the preliminary plat, and denying the site plan, was clearly based upon genuine concern for future homeowners. However, there is no factual showing that the existing application will be inadequate to address those concerns. There is no factual showing that the applicable noise ordinances, and other remedies, are insufficient. This issue was raised during the SEP A process, and the DNS-M was not appealed. The cited support for denial of the application was a comprehensive plan policy that is not inconsistent with the development regulations, but even if it were inconsistent, the law is clear that the development regulations take priority. The development regulations are the lawful expressed intent ofthe legislative body regarding this particular parcel. The City Council intended this area to be a transitional zone between intensive commercial uses and single-family homes. A well-designed and staff-supported project application that meets the criteria of the Council's adopted development regulations should be allowed to go forward. SKH:mcd cc: Parties of record: Nancy Wei I Juliana Fries Cliff Williams Bob Wenzl Kevin Chamberlin {0028278I.DOC;2} Very truly yours, Sean Howe /~ff~br CAIRN CROSS ~002 Cairn cross & Hempelmann, P.,;. February 17,2005 VIA FACSIMILE (425) 430-6523 AND U.S. MAIL Fred J. Kaufman Renton City Hearing Examiner's Office City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Re: Corrected: Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat Request for Reconsideration File No. LUA 04-131, PP, SA·H, ECF Dear Mr. Kaufman: It has been brought to our attention that our February 8, 2005 request for reconsiderat on contains a typographical error. Under subheading 3, the second sentence should read "There lS !1Q authority in RCW 58.17 to require this kind of inscription." I apologize for this error and have included a corrected copy. If you have any questio lS, please contact me at (206) 254-4475. Thank you. SKH:mcd Enclosure cc: Parties of record: Nancy Weil Juliana Fries Cliff Williams Bob Wenzl Kevin Chamberlin Law Offices 524 Second AI'enue, Suite 500 S~llrrle. WMhingtnn 9R I 04·2323 Phunc: 206·SS7-0701l. fax' 2U6·5117·130S www.r.airncrnss.,;onl Very truly yours, d~ Sean Howe lOl.I2)(:i4(1~.1 X'; t ; 5bpll~;t~'£{jiIlIfr.1 ;.~\J~Q.l1i dlrt:c{.' (ZOO) !.~ 1-4,:;'5 02/17/2005 11:34 FAX 1 206 587 2308 CAIRNCROSS I4J 003 " < • Cairncross & Hempelmann, Po. ~. February 8, 2005 VIA FACSIMILE (425) 430-6523 AND U.S. MAIL Fred J. Kaufman Renton City Hearing Examiner's Office City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Re: Corrected: Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat Request for Reconsideration File No. LUA 04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF Dear Mr. Kaufman: This request for reconsideration is respectfully submitted pursuant to Title IV, Chapte' 8, Section 100 (G) of Renton's Municipal Code, by Ridgeview Court, LLC, applicant for appro'al of a preliminary plat and site plan for Ridgeview Court, File # LUA 04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF. The law finn of Caimcross and Hempelmann. which includes the undersigned, represents the applicant in this matter. RELJEF REQUESTED The applicant requests th.e Hearing Examiner reconsider his January 25,2005 recommendation to deny this preliminary plat and decision to deny the project's site plan ("Decision"). and issue a new decision approving the site plan and recommending approval 0 : thc preliminary plat. Since the denial of the site plan was driven by the recommendation on t \e plat, the tenn "Decision" will be used to descJribe both actions. The applicant also requests removal of conditions 2, 3, and 4 in the "Altemative Recommendation and Deoision." SUMMARY This project application enjoyed the support of those who reviewed it, until the final t ~ur, when the manager of a neighboring post office, while expressing his opinion that the project would be a great improvement of the neighborhood, voiced concern that noise from his facili y would generate complaints from the project's future homeowners. Based solely on this quali ied concern, the Decision denies the site plan and recommends denial of the preliminary plat. A so, the Decision is an error oflaw, as it relies on a comprehensive plan policy to overrule specifi, : development regulations adopted by the City Council. These development regulations contemplate this parcel as part of a transition between intensive commercial uses and existin~ single-family residential areas, and authorize residential use. The Decision is an error oflaw as Law ~ffiCl!S 524 Second Av,nue, Suile SOO Seatrlt, Washington 98104·2323 Phone: 206·587·0700 • Fa;'C: 20(,·587·2308 WlVW. ca ir IIcrO$$. com : (1l)18278II: >C? ~ jih!QJ!:c:,,~lC~.!bj"!E.r.l; :~~,!Ji.W. dirt.'ct: (206) 25 ·411~5 . , 0211,7/2005 11: 35 FAX 1 206 587 2308 February 8,2005 Page 2 (Corrected) CAIRNCROSS 14]004 the issue of post office noise was part of the application's SEPA analysis, and the DNS-M W! 5 not appealed. The Decision is an error oflaw and fact, as several other avenues more proper] y address the issue of noise, including this project's SEPA analysis, the post office's SEPA analysis, and Renton's noise ordinances. The Decision is an error of fact, as there was no showing that the setbacks, fencing, elevation differential, and other design parameters are inadequate, and there is no showing that the SEP A analysis was flawed. Finally, the DecisiOl, if left urunodified, will have adverse consequences that reach beyond the four comers of this project. Ridgeview Court is a thoughtfully planned and fully mitigated project that is SUPPOI1!d. by City staff, located exactly where the City Council intended projects of its type to be, and should be allowed to proceed. FACTS The project site is located at 327 Bremerton Avenue. The project application vested t I the standards of CS (Center Suburban) zoning, though the site was later rezoned CN (Center Neighborhood). Both zones allow residential development. RMC 4-2-10, 4-2-60, 4-2-0701, ~-2- 070K. The sole conditions listed in the use tables for these zones are the density limitations G ld a zoning overlay. RMC 4-2-80. The project meets or exceeds these requirements. The overlay for this parcel is Area B of Renton's Suburban Centers Residential Demonstration District. The overlay's intent is to "ensure high quality residential developme 1ts within the Center Suburban and Center Neighborhood Zoning Districts" and "to require supe: ior residential projects which complement commercial uses, provide first floor commercial activ. ty along arterials, and provide a transition between intensive commercial areas and surrounding single family neighborhoods." RMC 4-3-095 (A) (emphasis added). This overlay speci~call~ contemplates the proximity of "intensive" commercial uses to the residences in this district. J: specifically allows residential development and detached dwellings. RMC 4-3-095 (C). Thi5 project meets or exceeds all requirements of the overlay. After thorough review, City Staffreconunended approval, subject to conditions whicl the applicant is willing to and able to meet. Environmental review was conducted, and Staff issu :d a DNS-M (Determination of Non-Significance .-Mitigated), which was J?ot appealed. There ar ! no critical areas on site. The Hearing Examiner found that the site will "blend with the commercial, mixed use and transition well into the residential uses to the south." Decision at I. There were apparently no letters filed in opposition. The manager of a neighboring post offie ! testified that the project would be a great improvement for the neighborhood. Decision at 3-LI . In sum, the project is remarkable only in its unremarkableness. Nevertheless, at the public hearing, the post office manager expressed concern. about 1 le effect of noise that late-night and early-morning activities from his facility might have upon f 'om future homeowners. It appears he was particularly concerned about having to answer to noiSl complaints. However, the issue of noise had already been addressed in the SEPA process, an 1 the DNS-M was not appealed. I002S2781.DOC;2} 02/l~/2005 11:35 FAX 1 206 587 2308 February 8, 2005 Page 3 (Corrected) CAIRNCROSS ~005 Based solely upon this concern, the Hearing Examiner deemed the site ''inappropriate' for residential developments, denied the site plan, and recommended denial of the plat application. The Decision concludes that "any residential use" of the site is ''problematic.'' Decislon at 7. The Decislon recommends finding a "better use" for the site, "such as another commercial use." ~\RGUMENT This parcel is part of an area the City Council intended to constitute a transition belwf ell existing residential and intensive commercial uses. The Decision is an error of law, as it useE a Comprehensive Plan Policy to override specific implementing development regulations and constitutes an inappropriate rezone. The Decision's rationale, if adopted in other cases, will: ct to push the burden of commercial-residential transition toward the existing single-family residences, rather than in the means and location the City Council intended. 1. The Decision Errs by Using a Comprehensive Plan Policy to Override Specific Development Regulations. a. The Development Regulations and CPP H-90 Are Not Inconsistent. The only authority cited for denial of this project is Comprehensive Plan Policy (CPP H- 90, requiring identification of "sites within mixed-use areas, which are appropriate for reside] tial developments." The Decision finds that this site is not appropriate for residential developmeD :s. However, the zoning regulations and (lverlay which authorize residential uses on this parcel are not inconsistent with CPP H-90. As required by the Growth Management Act, the City Council implemented the goals and polic.ies of the Comprehensive Plan by adopting this zoning, and this overlay, for this particular property. See RCW 36.70A.040(3). The plain te) t of those development regulations, and their expressed intent, prove that the City COLUlcil has already weighed precisely the type of concems cited by the Hearing Examlner. The Council decided that the CN and CS zones would be residential-commercial transition areas, and the , overlay would govern areas between intensive commercial uses and residential areas. b. In Case of Inconsistency, Development Regulations Control. Even if the development regulations were, in fact, inconsistent with CPP H-90, the la' , in SLlch cases is that, in the event of inconsistency, comprehensive plan policies do not control individual private project applications, development regulations do. Citizens of Mount Vem( n v. City of Mount Vernon, 133 Wn.2d 861,947 P.2d 1209 (1997). Citizens is the post-GMA reiteration of the rule that, in case of an inconsistency, development regulations take precede) ce over plan policies. "A specific zoning ordinance will prevail over an inconsistent comprehen dve plan." Citizens at 873 (citing Cougar Mountain Associates v. King County. 111 Wn.2d 742, {002S278 LDOC;2} 02117/2005 11: 36 FAX 1 206 587 2308 February 8, 2005 Page 4 (Corrected) CAIRN CROSS 757, 765 P.2d 264 (1988)). The Citizens cow:t held that, for a rezone, the development regulations trumped the plan policies despite the regulations' ambiguity and despite issues regarding the timing of their enactment. I4l 006 The situation here is far simpler than in Citizens. There is no rezone. The developme 1t regulations are unambiguous. There is no issue regarding the sequence or validity of the applicable regulations. If the development regulations prevailed over the plan policies in Citizens, they must certainly do so in this case. Both the CS zone, to which standards this proj ect is vested, and the CN zone, the area s current zoning, allow residential detached dwellings. The overlay states that this area is desil ned to serve as the transition between commercial and residential uses. In fact, the overlay's inte] t is not merely to buffer residential areas from any commercial use, or average commercial use, 1: It rather to serve as a transition between "intensive commercial uses and surrounding neighborhoods." (Emphasis added.) A post office with truck activity is just the sort of use fo: which this zoning, and this particular overlay, were designed. In fact, one could argue that it does not even qualify as ''intensive.'' In any event, the City Council has already determined t tat residential uses are appropriate on this parcel, even when adjacent to intensive commercial us !s. The Decision's use of a broadly written plan policy to overcome a cohesive set of highly spec ific development regulations is an error oflaw. 2. By Precluding Residential Uses, the Decision Constitutes a Rezone of the Property to a Purely Commercial Zone Ralther than the Zone the Council Intended and Adopted. In finding that residential use on this parcel is "inappropriate" under a plan policy, the Decision effectively rezones the property to a zone of purely commercial nature. In fact, in denying the residential use of this parcel, despite its well-planned nature, and despite its Iocat on in a designated commercial/residential transition area, based upon truck noise fTom an adjace: It commercial use, the Decision effectively determines that there will never be residential use 01 l this parcel. Such a rezone is in direct opposition to the intent of the Council and the intent an 1 text of the development regulations, and is enor. If the Examiner applies similar reasoning to future project applications in transitional zones, then the same result will be reached and residential uses will be prohibited in all such transitional zones, unless the project happens to be fomll1ate enough to be located next to thal rare commercial endeavor which does not require truck delivery of its merchandise, or any ot ler impact-generating activity, to conduct its business. {OD2S27SI.OOC;2} , . 02117/2005 11:36 FAX 1 206 587 2308 CAIRNCROSS ~007 , . February 8, 2005 Page 5 (Corrected) 3. Multiple Remedies Other than Application Denial Exist to Address Noise Concerns. While the intent of guaranteeing notice to future purchasers is perhaps laudable, it is r )t the position or authority of the Hearing Examiner to guard against every potential negative, n )r, as prescribed in the alternative decision, to require that each be inscribed on the face of the pI Lt. There is no authority in RCW 58,17 to require this kind ofinscription. Moreover, the law already provides multiple other remedies that more properly address the Examiner's concem. a. Post Office Noise Was Already Part of the SEP A Review. Incoming noise upon a proposed project is a topic specifically addressed by paragrapr 7b of City of Renton's SEPA checklist and was part of this application's environmental review ... ~he ERC issued the DNS-M, provided public notice, and allowed time for appeal. If someone fel the environmental review -which specifically addressed the issue of noise from the post offil e- was inadequate, they should have appealed the DNS-M, as allowed by the law. There was no appeal, and it is untimely and unfair to raise this issue now. Additionally, the creation of noise by the post office is an issue that would have been even more properly addressed by the SEPA analysis for the post office, not a plat application submitted by one of its neighbors. b. Noise Ordinances Protect Renton Neighbors. The first is the City of Renton's noise ordinances at RMC Title 8, Chapter 7. These ordinances are applicable to residential, commercial, and industrial zones, and incorporate me st of the state's regulations at RCW 173-60. Their standards are derived from the categorizatioJ of the noise's source and recipient. While Renton Municipal Code does not make clear whether its CS and CN ''receiving'' zones would be considered Class A (residential) or Class B (commen ial) EDNA, even if they were deemed to be Class B, fairly stringent standards from RCW 173-60 apply to their noise-generating neighbors. If the noise ordinances allow the level of noise generated by the post office, such ordinances will provide an efficient answer to the phone ca Is the manager is concerned about. Should the post office violate those noise ordinances, the remedy will be through code enforcement, not denial of their neighbors' development applications. c. Rezoning to Remove Residential Use Is the Purview of the City Council. Center Suburban and Center Neighborhood zones are transition zones. Renton Municpal Code allows a variety of activities in a commercial zone, any number of which could create n ore impact than the noise described by the post office manager. If the Examiner considers this Ie\. el {002S27Sl.DOC;21 02/1;/2005 11:36 FAX 1 206 587 2308 CAIRNCROSS ~008 . . . . February 8, 2005 Page 6 (Corrected) of noise to be an untenable risk to future residents of the transition area, the remedy is to peti1.on for legislative change, not deny legal plat applications. 4. Those Conditions in the Alternative Recommendation and Decision that Are Prompted by the Erroneous Denial of the I'lat Are Also Erroneous. For the same reasons as stated above, Conditions 2, 3, and 4 are also legally unsupportable, as they are grounded in the same incorrect use of a general policy to overcoml specific development regulations that are not :inconsistent with that policy. 5. The Decision is Also Not Well-Grounded in Fact. The Decision is also not adequately supported by fact. The sole reason for finding th, t resjdential development on this site was "inappropriate" was the post office manager's conCel n about the possibility of receiving noise complaints. Such a concern is not adequate to deny fr is otherwise valid project, without exploration of whether noise being generated by the Post Of1 ce complies with applicable noise ordinances, th1e precise location of the trucks on the site, etc. However, again, a more appropriate venue to address and mitigate any such noise concerns would have been the SEPA process for the post office, and its findings were not appealed. The Decision is also factually insufficient, as it contains no showing that the project's proposed setbacks, fencing, landscaping, windows, and significant advantage in height over t: Le post office, would be insufficientto mitigate incoming noise. 6. The Decision Will Have Adverse Consequences Beyond this Application. The Decision finds that,because of the noise from the post office, that a "better use"j }r this particular parcel would be "another commercial use." Decision at 9. Acceptance of this finding, and applying its rationale to similar cases, will result in converting CS and eN zones - intended as urban transition zones -to purely conunercial zones. Aside from an illegal rezonl as described above, such would have adverse practical effects, pushing commercial noise and ot ler impacts ever closer to existing single-family residences. For example, the parcel to the project's south is also under proposal for development. If the Decision is not reconsidered, and a commercial use replaces this proj ect, will future applications for residential use on that neighboring parcel be denied as well? What of the homeowners in the existing single-family residences to the south, who reasonably expected tl at the areas to their north would be transition areas, as shown on the zoning maps and overlays, mt are now likely to see commercial uses creep closer, rather than well-planned residential proje 1s? The Examiner fOWld that this project "should not have any negative impacts to the surroundiI g property owners." Decision at 3. It seems unlikely that the commercial use recommended b) 10028278I.DOC;2) 02/~~/2005 11:37 FAX 1 206 587 2308 CAIRNCROSS ~009 '~ ... ' , . ... February 8, 2005 Page 7 (Corrected) this Decision would be as effective at "tr'allsition(ing) ... into the residential uses to the south.: Decision at 3. CONCLUSION The Decision as currently written, recommendin.g denial of the preliminary plat, and denying the site plan, was clearly based upon genuine concern for future homeowners. However, there 15 no factual showing that the existing application will be inadequate to addre .s those concerns. There is no factual showing that the applicable noise ordinances, and other remedies, are insufficient. This issue was raised during the SEPA process, and the DNS-M \\ 15 not appealed. The cited support for denial ofthe application was a comprehensive plan polic: . that is not inconsistent with the development regulations, but even if it were inconsistent, the aw is clear that the development regulations take priority. The development regulations are the lawful expressed intent of the legislative body regarding this particular parcel. The City Cow .cil intended this area to be a transitional zone between intensive commercial uses and single-fam.ly homes. A well-designed and staff-supported project application that meets the criteria of the Council's adopted development regulations should be allowed to go forward. SKH:mcd cc: Parties of record: NancyWeil Juliana Fries Cliff Williams Bob Wenzl Kevin Chamberlin {00282781.DOC;2} Very truly yours, Sean Howe ;/(J fftf {; r Cairncross & Hempelmann, P. S. February 8, 2005 VIA FACSIMILE (425) 430-6523 AND U.S. MAIL Fred 1. Kaufman Renton City Hearing Examiner's Office City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 Re: Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat Request for Reconsideration File No. LUA 04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF Dear Mr. Kaufinan: This request for reconsideration is respectfully submitted pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100 (G) of Renton's Municipal Code, by Ridgeview Court, LLC, applicant for approval of a preliminary plat and site plan for Ridgeview Court, File # LUA 04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF. The law firm of Cairncross and Hempelmann, which includes the undersigned, represents applicant in this matter. RELIEF REQUESTED The applicant requests the Hearing Examiner reconsider his January 25,2005 recommendation to deny this preliminary plat and decision to deny the project's site plan ("Decision"), and issue a new decision approving the site plan and recommending approval of the preliminary plat. Since the denial of the site plan was driven by the recommendation on the plat, the term "Decision" will be used to describe both actions. The applicant also requests removal of conditions 2, 3, and 4 in the "Alternative Recommendation and Decision." SUMMARY This project application enjoyed the support of those who reviewed it, until the final hour, when the manager of a neighboring post office, while expressing his opinion that the project would be a great improvement of the neighborhood, voiced concern that noise from his facility would generate complaints from the project's future homeowners. Based solely on this qualified concern, the Decision denies the site plan and recommends denial of the preliminary plat. Also, the Decision is an error oflaw, as it relies on a comprehensive plan policy to overrule specific development regulations adopted by the City Council. These development regulations contemplate this parcel as part of a transition between intensive commercial uses and existing single-family residential areas, and authorize residential use. The Decision is an error oflaw, as LawVffices 524 Second Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98104-2323 Phone: 206-587-0700 -Fax: 206-587-2308 www.cairncross.com :O(l25{27S!.DOC:l i .~h.~i..~.\.:.(!~~.~.:({.~.f.~.:n..q:P§'.~~:.~~(!.!~i dirt?ct: r206j 2j4-44/5 February 8, 2005 Page 2 the issue of post office noise was part of the application's SEPA analysis, and the DNS-M was not appealed. The Decision is an error of law and fact, as several other avenues more properly address the issue of noise, including this project's SEPA analysis, the post office's SEPA analysis, and Renton's noise ordinances. The Decision is an error of fact, as there was no showing that the setbacks, fencing, elevation differential, and other design parameters are inadequate, and there is no showing that the SEP A analysis was flawed. Finally, the Decision, if left unmodified, will have adverse consequences that reach beyond the four comers of this project. Ridgeview Court is a thoughtfully planned and fully mitigated project that is supported by City staff, located exactly where the City Council intended projects of its type to be, and should be allowed to proceed. FACTS The project site is located at 327 Bremerton Avenue. The project application vested to the standards of CS (Center Suburban) zoning, though the site was later rezoned CN (Center Neighborhood). Both zones allow residential development. RMC 4-2-10, 4-2-60, 4-2-070J, 4-2- 070K. The sole conditions listed in the use tables for these zones are the density limitations and a zoning overlay. RMC 4-2-80. The project meets or exceeds these requirements. The overlay for this parcel is Area B of Renton's Suburban Centers Residential Demonstration District. The overlay's intent is to "ensure high quality residential developments within the Center Suburban and Center Neighborhood Zoning Districts" and "to require superior residential projects which complement commercial uses, provide first floor commercial activity along arterials, and provide a transition between intensive commercial areas and surrounding single family neighborhoods." RMC 4-3-095 (A) (emphasis added). This overlay specifically contemplates the proximity of "intensive" commercial uses to the residences in this district. It specifically allows residential development and detached dwellings. RMC 4-3-095 (C). This project meets or exceeds all requirements of the overlay. After thorough review, City Staff recommended approval, subject to conditions which the applicant is willing to and able to meet. Environmental review was conducted, and Staff issued a DNS-M (Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated), which was not appealed. There are no critical areas on site. The Hearing Examiner found that the site will "blend with the commercial, mixed use and transition well into the residential uses to the south." Decision at 3. There were apparently no letters filed in opposition. The manager of a neighboring post office testified that the project would be a great improvement for the neighborhood. Decision at 3-4. In sum, the project is remarkable only in its unremarkableness. Nevertheless, at the public hearing, the post office manager expressed concern about the effect of noise that late-night and early-morning activities from his facility might have upon from future homeowners. It appears he was particularly concerned about having to answer to noise complaints. However, the issue of noise had already been addressed in the SEP A process, and the DNS-M was not appealed. February 8, 2005 Page 3 Based solely upon this concern, the Hearing Examiner deemed the site "inappropriate" for residential developments, denied the site plan, and recommended denial of the plat application. The Decision concludes that "any residential use" of the site is "problematic." Decision at 7. The Decision recommends finding a "better use" for the site, "such as another commercial use." ARGUMENT This parcel is part of an area the City Council intended to constitute a transition between existing residential and intensive commercial uses. The Decision is an error oflaw, as it uses a Comprehensive Plan Policy to override specific implementing development regulations and constitutes an inappropriate rezone. The Decision's rationale, if adopted in other cases, will act to push the burden of commercial-residential transition toward the existing single-family residences, rather than in the means and location the City Council intended. 1. The Decision Errs by Using a Comprehensive Plan Policy to Override Specific Development Regulations. a. The Development Regulations and CPP H-90 Are Not Inconsistent. The only authority cited for denial of this project is Comprehensive Plan Policy (CPP) H- 90, requiring identification of "sites within mixed-use areas, which are appropriate for residential developments." The Decision finds that this site is not appropriate for residential developments. However, the zoning regulations and overlay which authorize residential uses on this parcel are not inconsistent with CPP H-90. As required by the Growth Management Act, the City Council implemented the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan by adopting this zoning, and this overlay, for this particular property. See RCW 36.70A.040(3). The plain text of those development regulations, and their expressed intent, prove that the City Council has already weighed precisely the type of concerns cited by the Hearing Examiner. The Council decided that the CN and CS zones would be residential-commercial transition areas, and the overlay would govern areas between intensive commercial uses and residential areas. b. In Case of Inconsistency, Development Regulations Control. Even if the development regulations were, in fact, inconsistent with CPP H-90, the law in such cases is that, in the event of inconsistency, comprehensive plan policies do not control individual private project applications, development regulations do. Citizens of Mount Vernon v. City of Mount Vernon, 133 Wn.2d 861, 947 P.2d 1209 (1997). Citizens is the post-GMA reiteration of the rule that, in case of an inconsistency, development regulations take precedence over plan policies. "A specific zoning ordinance will prevail over an inconsistent comprehensive plan." Citizens at 873 (citing Cougar Mountain Associates v. King County, 111 Wn.2d 742, February 8, 2005 Page 4 757, 765 P.2d 264 (1988)). The Citizens court held that, for a rezone, the development regulations trumped the plan policies despite the regulations' ambiguity and despite issues regarding the timing of their enactment. The situation here is far simpler than in Citizens. There is no rezone. The development regulations are unambiguous. There is no issue regarding the sequence or validity of the applicable regulations. If the development regulations prevailed over the plan policies in Citizens, they must certainly do so in this case. Both the CS zone, to which standards this project is vested, and the CN zone, the area's current zoning, allow residential detached dwellings. The overlay states that this area is designed to serve as the transition between commercial and residential uses. In fact, the overlay's intent is not merely to buffer residential areas from any commercial use, or average commercial use, but rather to serve as a transition between "intensive commercial uses and surrounding neighborhoods." (Emphasis added.) A post office with truck activity is just the sort of use for which this zoning, and this particular overlay, were designed. In fact, one could argue that it does not even qualify as "intensive." In any event, the City Council has already determined that residential uses are appropriate on this parcel, even when adjacent to intensive commercial uses. The Decision's use of a broadly written plan policy to overcome a cohesive set of highly specific development regulations is an error of law. 2. By Precluding Residential Uses, the Decision Constitutes a Rezone of the Property to a Purely Commercial Zone Rather than the Zone the Council Intended and Adopted. In finding that residential use on this parcel is "inappropriate" under a plan policy, the Decision effectively rezones the property to a zone of purely commercial nature. In fact, in denying the residential use of this parcel, despite its well-planned nature, and despite its location in a designated commercial/residential transition area, based upon truck noise from an adjacent commercial use, the Decision effectively determines that there will be never be residential use on this parcel. Such a rezone is in direct opposition to the intent of the Council and the intent and text of the development regulations, and is error. If the Examiner applies similar reasoning to future project applications in transitional zones, then the same result will be reached and residential uses will be prohibited in all such transitional zones, unless the project happens to be fortunate enough to be located next to that rare commercial endeavor which does not require truck delivery of its merchandise, or any other impact-generating activity, to conduct its business. February 8, 2005 Page 5 3. Multiple Remedies Other than Application Denial Exist to Address Noise Concerns. While the intent of guaranteeing notice to future purchasers is perhaps laudable, it is not the position or authority of the Hearing Examiner to guard against every potential negative, nor, as prescribed in the alternative decision, to require that each be inscribed on the face of the plat. There is authority in RCW 58.17 to require this kind of inscription. Moreover, the law already provides multiple other remedies that more properly address the Examiner's concern. a. Post Office Noise Was Already Part of the SEPA Review. Incoming noise upon a proposed project is a topic specifically addressed by paragraph 7b of City of Renton's SEPA checklist and was part of this application's environmental review. The ERC issued the DNS-M, provided public notice, and allowed time for appeal. If someone felt the environmental review -which specifically addressed the issue of noise from the post office - was inadequate, they should have appealed the DNS-M, as allowed by the law. There was no appeal, and it is untimely and unfair to raise this issue now. Additionally, the creation of noise by the post office is an issue that would have been even more properly addressed by the SEP A analysis for the post office, not a plat application submitted by one of its neighbors. b. Noise Ordinances Protect Renton Neighbors. The first is the City of Renton's noise ordinances at RMC Title 8, Chapter 7. These ordinances are applicable to residential, commercial, and industrial zones, and incorporate most of the state's regulations at RCW 173-60. Their standards are derived from the categorization of the noise's source and recipient. While Renton Municipal Code does not make clear whether its CS and CN "receiving" zones would be considered Class A (residential) or Class B (commercial) EDNA, even ifthey were deemed to be Class B, fairly stringent standards from RCW 173-60 apply to their noise-generating neighbors. If the noise ordinances allow the level of noise generated by the post office, such ordinances will provide an efficient answer to the phone calls the manager is concerned about. Should the post office violate those noise ordinances, the remedy will be through code enforcement, not denial of their neighbors' development app Ii cati ons. c. Rezoning to Remove Residential Use Is the Purview of the City Council. Center Suburban and Center Neighborhood zones are transition zones. Renton Municipal Code allows a variety of activities in a commercial zone, any number of which could create more impact than the noise described by the post office manager. If the Examiner considers this level February 8, 2005 Page 6 of noise to be an untenable risk to future residents of the transition area, the remedy is to petition for legislative change, not deny legal plat applications. 4. Those Conditions in the Alternative Recommendation and Decision that Are Prompted by the Erroneous Denial of the Plat Are Also Erroneous. For the same reasons as stated above, Conditions 2, 3, and 4 are also legally unsupportable, as they are grounded in the same incorrect use of a general policy to overcome specific development regulations that are not inconsistent with that policy. 5. The Decision is Also Not Well-Grounded in Fact. The Decision is also not adequately supported by fact. The sole reason for finding that residential development on this site was "inappropriate" was the post office manager's concern about the possibility of receiving noise complaints. Such a concern is not adequate to deny this otherwise valid project, without exploration of whether noise being generated by the Post Office complies with applicable noise ordinances, the precise location of the trucks on the site, etc. However, again, a more appropriate venue to address and mitigate any such noise concerns would have been the SEP A process for the post office, and its findings were not appealed. The Decision is also factually insufficient, as it contains no showing that the project's proposed setbacks, fencing, landscaping, windows, and significant advantage in height over the post office, would be insufficient to mitigate incoming noise. 6. The Decision Will Have Adverse Consequences Beyond this Application. The Decision finds that, because of the noise from the post office, that a "better use" for this particular parcel would be "another commercial use." Decision at 9. Acceptance of this finding, and applying its rationale to similar cases, will result in converting CS and eN zones - intended as urban transition zones -to purely commercial zones. Aside from an illegal rezone as described above, such would have adverse practical effects, pushing commercial noise and other impacts ever closer to existing single-famil y residences. For example, the parcel to the project's south is also under proposal for development. If the Decision is not reconsidered, and a commercial use replaces this project, will future applications for residential use on that neighboring parcel be denied as well? What of the homeowners in the existing single-family residences to the south, who reasonably expected that the areas to their north would be transition areas, as shown on the zoning maps and overlays, but are now likely to see commercial uses creep closer, rather than well-planned residential projects? The Examiner found that this project "should not have any negative impacts to the surrounding property owners." Decision at 3. It seems unlikely that the commercial use recommended by February 8, 2005 Page 7 this Decision would be as effective at "transition(ing) ... into the residential uses to the south." Decision at 3. CONCLUSION The Decision as currently written, recommending denial of the preliminary plat, and denying the site plan, was clearly based upon genuine concern for future homeowners. However, there is no factual showing that the existing application will be inadequate to address those concerns. There is no factual showing that the applicable noise ordinances, and other remedies, are insufficient. This issue was raised during the SEPA process, and the DNS-M was not appealed. The cited support for denial of the application was a comprehensive plan policy that is not inconsistent with the development regulations, but even if it were inconsistent, the law is clear that the development regulations take priority. The development regulations are the lawful expressed intent of the legislative body regarding this particular parcel. The City Council intended this area to be a transitional zone between intensive commercial uses and single-family homes. A well-designed and staff-supported project application that meets the criteria of the Council's adopted development regulations should be allowed to go forward. SKH:mcd cc: Parties of record: Nancy Wei I Juliana Fries Cliff Williams Bob Wenzl Kevin Chamberlin Very truly yours, ~~~ Sean Howe , AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON) ) ss. County of King ) Nancy Thompson being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and states: That on the 25th day of January 2005, affiant deposited via the United States Mail a sealed envelope(s) containing a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below entitled application or petition. Signature: SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ;<s#'day of_J;.------'Q.J1~IA..JL __ rT_'1_-, 2005. II"""'''~ / ,1 t"lo..... ' ... ,I' O~'" l .L"o---_ ,,':If: " . .... '" "" -:. ... ' "'~$stO,. ~'" .., ___ ~ ,'I: .'~ +. '._~ ~ ~ :".9 ~T""" \\(1) ~ s : -~r",~ '" ~ ~ .. ,~ CIt: ~ ~ '" 'S ~ ." \ "U8L'C ! ~ ~..4'. " ,,~~ ":. '7}\ '. )''',ft ._ ,,' 0 " -~.. w-•• ~ , ~ 0 .......... t\~ t,t --_ .... 'F' lit AS~' "" .... ", .""",,1' Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Residing at ~ , therein. Application, Petition or Case No.: Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA 04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record. January 25, 2005 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON Minutes APPLICANT: LOCATION: SUMMARY OF REQUEST: SUMMARY OF ACTION: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: PUBLIC HEARING: Cliff Williams, PE PO Box 240] Kirkland, W A 98083 Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA 04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF 327 Bremerton Avenue NE Approval for Site Plan, Preliminary Plat and Code Modification for subdividing a 2.4-acre site into 20 lots for development of single-family dwellings. Development Services Recommendation: Approve subject to condition's The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on December 28,2004. After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining available information on file with the application, field checking the property and surrounding area; the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES Thefollowing minutes are a summary of the January 4,2005 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, January 4,2005, at approximately 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor ofthe Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The folIowing exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No.1: Yellow file containing the original Exhibit No.2: Neighborhood Detail Map application, proof of posting, proof of publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit No.3: Preliminary Plat Plan Exhibit No.4: Preliminary Site Plan Exhibit No.5: Revised Site Plan showing 26' Private Exhibit No.6: Topography Map Access and Utility Easement Exhibit No.7: Tree Cutting/Clearing Plan Exhibit No.8: Landscaping Plan Ridgeview Court Preliminary Pial File No.: LUA-04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF January 25, 2005 Page 2 Exhibit No.9: Grading Plan Exhibit No. 11: Elevation Plan for Lots 5, 6, 15 & 16 Exhibit No. 13: Elevation Plan for Lots 3, 9 & 12 Exhibit No. 15: Elevation Plan for Lots 10 & 18 Exhibit No. 17: Elevation Plan for Lots 1, 11 & 19 Exhibit No. 10: Utility Plan Exhibit No. 12: Elevation Plan for Lots 2 & 20 Exhibit No. 14: Elevation Plan for Lot 13 Exhibit No. 16: Elevation Plan for Lots 4, 7,8, 14 & 17 Exhibit No. 18: Zoning Map The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Nancy Weil, Senior Planner, Development Services, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055. The site is located south ofNE 41h Street and to the west of Bremerton A venue NE. Approval for site plan, preliminary plat for 20 lots on a 2.4- acre site for the eventual development of single-fami Iy dwell ings. Access to this site off of Bremerton, which will require improvements, is proposed by a public street (NE 3rd Lane) to end in a cul-de-sac plus additional easements that will radiate from that cul-de-sac. There are no protected critical areas and it is vested to the development regulations for the Center Suburban (CS) zoning and is located in the Centers Residential Bonus District B. The zoning did change in November of 2004, however the filing for this preliminary plat was before the changes and so is vested to the CS zone. The current zoning is CN. Two street modifications were requested and approved, one a reduced right-of-way width of 42 feet and second a reduced radius on the cul-de-sac of 50 feet. Three private access easements will extend off ofNE 3rd Lane to serve access to all 20 lots. Lots 9 -13 will have rear entry garages with front of each lot facing east with an 18- foot pedestrian access to the front of those lots. The site is relatively flat with a berm located near the southeast corner ofthe site. There is some loose fill but has been deemed suitable for the proposed development. The site is vegetated with blackberry bushes, small deciduous and coniferous trees which are to be removed as part of the site preparation. An additional modification from the Suburban Centers Residential Bonus District B would allow greater front yard setbacks for lots 8 through 13 rather than the maximum 15 feet permitted in the CS zone. The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M) with seven mitigation measures. No appeals were filed. The preliminary plat criteria for the Comprehensive Plan Designation was in compliance for this development. The minimum yard area provided would comply with the land area per dwelling unit. There are no minimum requirements for lot width or depth within the CS zone. All lots meet the maximum lot coverage of 65%. The proposal meets all the setback requirements. The net density of 12.42 dwelling units per acre is within the allowed density range of the CS zone. Based on the building elevations provided by the applicant, the proposed residential structures would comply with, or possibly exceed the requirements of Bonus District B of the Centers Residential Overlay. There are seven elevations for this site, all are two-story with rear or side entrance garages. Landscaping, access and parking meet or exceed the requirements of the Bonus District B and are in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF January 25, 2005 Page 3 The lot arrangements as well as size, shape and orientations are all iii compliance, meeting the minimum width and area requirements. The lots are at 90-degree angles, some of the structures will be facing a different direction, they seem to flow well. There will be no direct vehicular access onto Bremerton from any of the proposed lots. The applicant is required to dedicate right-of-way for the improvement for Bremerton Avenue. Twenty-four feet is currently shown for the private access easement, staff has discussed this with the applicant and they are in agreement that this could be reduced to function more as a private alleyway, which allows a minimum of 16 feet in width with 14 feet of pavement. As long as 24-feet of back out area is provided for each garage, the staff feels that the reduced width of the street will lend itself to an alleyway residential look rather than 3plitting up the tier of lots. This also gives a larger yard area to those lots. Staff recommends the establishment of a homeowner's association or maintenance agreement for the landscaped right-of-way improvements, as well as for any shared private utilities/drainage facilities or private access and util ity easements and to inc1 ude the private pedestrian access easement. The surrounding properties to the west, north and east are zoned CS. To the south is a proposed single-family residential development with existing single-family to the southeast in R-8 zoning. Anacortes Avenue NE will act as a buffer between the proposed single-family homes along the western property line and the existing commercial use (Post Office site) on the abutting property. Traffic, Fire and Park mitigation fees were imposed by the ERe. The subject site is located within the Renton School District and they have indicated that they can handle the proposed 8 new students from the new development. The site is located within the Cedar River Basin. The applicant has submitted a Drainage Report that indicates that on-site surface water would be directed to a stormwater detention facility located in the southwest comer of the site. The drainage analysis and design of the storm water system appears to be in accordance with the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual Level 2 flow control requirements. The project will require the installation of new water mains, fire hydrants, fire control systems, and meters, all to be placed within City held easements. The project would require a new sewer main along the site frontage and new sewer mains as required to serve the new single-family lots. In regards to the Site Plan Criteria, the project is in compliance with the policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Land use regulations with modifications are in compliance as well. The seven house plans for the 20 lots are sufficient to lend variation to the project. This site will also blend with the commercial, mixed use and transition well into the residential uses to the south. This development should not have any negative impacts to the surrounding property owners. The site does require clearing and all existing structures to be removed. Staff recommends approval of the Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat subject to conditions. Cliff Williams, 5326 SW Manning Street, Seattle, WA 98116 stated that he is an employee of the developer and they are satisfied with the recommendations that the City has provided. Kevin Chamberlin, 18930 45th Place NE, Lake Forest Park, WA 98155, manager of the Renton Highlands Station of the US Postal Service that will be adjacent to Lots 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13. This use for that property Ridgeview Court Preliminary Pliu File No.: LUA-04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF January 25, 2005 Page 4 will be a great improvement for the neighborhood, ho\vever, the Post Office will have an impact 011 them. There are semi-tractor trailer rigs that come into the property at all hours of the day and night. They all enter and leave through a driveway that will take them next the above-mentioned lots. It is most likely that these people will feel an impact from this traffic. Some of the trailers come in as early as 1 :00 am in December and at 3: 15 am the rest ofthe year. They continue at intervals throughout the day along with a lot of other truck traffic. There is a gravity operated dock plate system (used to unload the trucks) that makes quite a bit of noise and it cannot be modified in any way. There also are 39 delivery vehicles that are required to be inspected each morning between 6:30 and 7:30 am. Part of the vehicle inspection is a short sounding of the horn. (Mr. Chamberlin drew the location of the delivery trucks on the vicinity map) Bob Wenzl, 636 Lake Sammamish Lane NE, Bellevue, W A 98008 stated that he is the owner of Ridgeview Court LLC. He is completely aware of the post office site there, he knows where most of the vehicles and work that will be going on in that neighborhood. It is anticipated that the property to the north will be a commercial type of zone. They are confident that the post office and the new residents will make good neighbors. Juliana Fries, Development Services the report given is accurate and the Level 2 Storm Water detention is adequate. The Examiner stated that it would be necessary to address the post office concerns, the developer may be comfortable with the situation, but the future buyers of these homes may not. What enhancements cap. be provided? Ms. Weil pointed out besides the difference in the grade and the 26-foot easement the structures to first be impacted will be the garages. Bedrooms will be upstairs, looking over the garages and subject to the noises that could be generated at 1 :00 am and 3 :00 am. Once property owners take possession of the property, they may wish to enhance that back area, no additional requirements have been made for landscaping. No additional fencing has been required along this property line, but certainly it could be done. Mr. Wenzl stated that they had no concerns about providing a fence or some kind of hedge screening if the space is available. A 6-foot fence would be appropriate. Again there is the elevation change from the parking lot approximately a 6 to 10-foot drop from their parking structures to the large rockery along that easterly property line. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at approximately 9:48 a.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant, Ridgeview Court, LLC, filed a request for a Site Plan Review approval and a 20-lot Preliminary Plat. There was also a request to modify the front yard setback for homes in the project. 2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit #1. 3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official issued a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M). , . Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF January 25, 2005 Page 5 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject site is located at 327 Bremerton Avenue NE. The subject site is located on the west side of Bremerton Avenue a half-block south ofNE 4th Street. Union Avenue NE is located west of the subject site. 6. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan was changed in November 2004. The area in which the subject site is located was designated for the development of Commercial Center uses but is now designated for Commercial Corridor. 7. Policy H-90 states: "Identify sites within mixed-use areas, which are appropriate for residential deve lopments." Policy H-85 states: "Provide homeownership opportunities in all neighborhoods." 8. The subject site is currently zoned CN (Center Neighborhood) but was zoned CS (Center Suburban) when the application was submitted. The applicant is vested under the prior regulations which allow a density of 10 to 20 units per acre for residential development. The minimum lot area for single family uses in the prior CS zone were 1,200 square feet of which 250 square feet must be landscaped yard. The subject site was also located in the Area B Suburban Centers Residential Demonstration District and is governed by additional Site Plan Review criteria. 9. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 1480 enacted in April 1954. 10. The subject site is approximately 2.4 acres or 104,373 square feet. It is almost square and is approximately 330 feet wide (north to south) along Bremerton and 316 feet deep. II. The subject site is relatively level with a berm in the southeast corner where slopes range from 15 to 24 percent. The berm appears to be a result of grading on the adjacent parcel of land. The site i::; also approximately eight (8) feet higher than the adjacent parcel to the west. 12. The area contains a mix of uses and undeveloped property. The relatively new Post Office is located directly west of the north half of the subject site. 13. The applicant proposes removing all vegetation, blackberry, and deciduous and conifer trees from the subject site to allow development of the building pads, roads and driveways. The applicant may import approximately 4,800 cubic yards of fill material to grade the site and roads. 14. The applicant proposes dividing the subject site into 20 single-family lots that will contain detached single-family homes. The lots will be arranged around a series of private roads, alley-like roads and easements that originate from a new roadway that terminates in a cul-de-sac. Basically, a series of dead end roads wi II be created off of a dead end cu J-de-sac. Ridgeview Court Preliminary PI~1l File No.: LUA-04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF January 25, 2005 Page 6 15. Administrative approval was granted to allow the cul-de-sac street's width to be reduced to 42 feet and the radius of the cul-de-sac to be reduced to 50 feet. Staff noted that the applicant would have to dedicate 17.5 feet to the widening of Bremerton which currently does not meet City standards. 16. The three private easements will extend north and south from the new cul-de-sac street. The proposed lots along Bremerton, Proposed Lots 1-3 and 18-20 would take their access off the first of these easements rather than Bremerton. These lots would be rear-loaded from this alley. Proposed Lots 4-7 and 14-17 would use the second of the easements. Lots would face each other across this easement roadway (see attached maps). Finally, a new private street, labeled Anacortes Avenue NE, would provide access to Proposed Lot 8 and the storm drainage tract on the south and Proposed Lots 9-13 on the north. Staff has recommended that the 24-foot private street paralleling the rear of homes that front Bremerton be reduced to a 16-foot alley width with 14 feet of paving and 24-feet of backout space to decrease impervious surface and create a private street appearance. 17. The density for the plat would be 12.42 dwelling units per acre after subtracting roadway areas. 18. The homes would be two-stories. The dwelling or building groupings would vary from those along Bremerton being traditional facing a street, to the interior groupings facing a kind of courtyard private street, to those in the rear facing an interior street. Sidewalks could connect all of the units to one another and through the private easements to the public street. 19. The CS zone permits a lot coverage of 65% whereas a lot coverage of not more than 44% is proposed for this complex. A front yard setback of between 10 and 15 feet is required. Staff has granted a modification that allows a setback for Proposed Lots 8 to 13 to have a greater setback to allow pedestrian access and rear access garages on a 26-foot wide private street. A minimum side yard of 3 feet with no projections is required unless there is abutting residential zoning. The R-1 0 district south of the subject site will require a 15-foot setback on Proposed Lots I, 5,6 and 8. 20. The District B overlay guidelines require building forms to contain both vertical and horizontal modulations at a minimum width of2 feet at intervals of 40 feet as well as individual private entry features. It appears that the buildings will comply with these requirements. Two enclosed parking spaces that open onto a non-front facade and away from arterial streets will be provided as required. 21. The applicant will be providing the required 250 feet of landscaped area on each lot. Landscaping will consist of lawn, and a mix of conifer and deciduous trees and shrubs. 22. The subject site is located within the Renton School District. The project is expected to generate approximately 8 school age children. These students would be spread across the grades and would be assigned on a space available basis. 23. The development will increase traffic approximately 200 vehicle trips per day and add approximately 20 trips to each peak hour travel period. 24. Storm water would be contained in the southwest corner of the subject site in Tract A. The plat would comply with the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual, Level 2 flow requirements. 25. Sewer and water would be provided by the City. Appropriate extensions of the water and seVier mains would be required. Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF January 25, 2005 Page 7 26. The Manager of the adjacent Post Office testified that the post office has 39 delivery vehicles. Postal employees start-up each of the 39 vehicles and test their horns between 6:30 A.M. and 7:30 A.M. He also testified that large tractor trailer rigs arrive at the post office site at I :00 A.M. during the month of December and 3: 15 A.M. the rest of the year, as well as other hours during a 24-hour day. They arrive near the rear of the post office site which would place them along the western or rear edge of the subject property. They can make quite a lot of noise as they park and then depart as well as during their loading or unloading operations in which gravity activated dock plates are used (while this was not spelled out, it appears that rather than use some potentially quiet hydraulic system, the large plates merely fall and clang into place). Large trucks also may have backup beepers as safety equipment. During busier seasons such as Christmas there can be quite a lot of nighttime traffic at the site. He expressed his concerns that residents of the subject site's new dwell ings would be disturbed by the noise, especially during what would normally be sleep hours. He does not want to have to deal with complaints that he is sure will be generated by the normal post office operations if residential housing is constructed so close to the post office. He did SUppOlt a change to the neighborhood from development but was concerned about the impacts noise would have on the proposed single-family homes. 27. The applicant indicated that they were aware of the noise issue and that they believe distance, approximately 40 to 50 feet between the roadway and setbacks, as well as a grade separation ;;oupled with a fence and landscaping will minimize any problems with noise disturbing residents. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary Plat I. First, this proposal includes two components. The first one is a Preliminary Plat on which this office makes a recommendation to the City Council. The second component is a Site Plan review since the proposed plat will be used for single-family detached homes and is, therefore, governed by the Centers Residential Bonus District B. This office finds itself in a difficult role in making a recommendation to the City Council on this project. The proposed plat that will allow single family uses on the subject site does not appear to serve the public use and interest. Under those circumstances, the proposed plat should be denied by the City Council. 2. The compelling issue in this case is one of untoward noise or noises at a time or actually, times of day, when they are or can be exceptionally disturbing. The representative of the Post Office has indicated that uses on the post office site are almost completely incompatible with a residential quality of life. Tractor trailer rigs and other large trucks and vans will be coming and going from the post office site during all hours of the day and night. The trucks are loud. Backup beepers may be employed. Truck and post office doors will be opening and closing during various operations. These aspects of the neighboring uses make use of the subject site for single family or any residential use problemctic. 3. At the same time, free-market concepts suggest that a property owner should be able to do what they want with their property. But in this case the current owner would develop homes and sell those homes to third parties who may not be in a position to know about the potential impacts created by the adjacent post office. The City has an obligation to make sure that it does not allow incompatible uses to be developed adjacent to one another. That is one ofthe primary purposes of Zoning and Land Use regulations. It does not necessarily matter if the parties may agree to such uses. There is an overriding public policy that governs such matters. In this case, the current developer may be well-aware, as he states, of the nature of the adjacent uses but that does not mean some innocent purchaser who views the properties during daylight, or even during the evening will be made aware of traffic and noises that erupt in the dead of night, between I :00 A.M. to 3:00 A.M. Not everyone visits their potential Ridgeview Court Preliminary Pl'at File No.: LUA-04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF January 25, 2005 Page 8 neighborhood at such hours or even perhaps at 6:30 A.M. when postal delivery trucks are started, tested and horns sounded. 4. This is certainly one of those situations that calls for a transition from more intense, in this case 24-hour uses, to less intense uses. The subject site might be more suitable for a commercial or office use. It does not appear suitable for a single-family use. A mere fence or wall and landscaping even coupled with some distance will not provide sufficient buffering to make it easy to sleep during periods of heavy activity at the adjacent site. Noise that might fade into the ambient noises of a vibrant neighborhood during the day can be extremely disturbing or disruptive when those noises occur during very quiet times. The City certainly does not want its future residential homes to be blighted by the adj11cent uses. Usually, the question is the opposite -that the development will not create blight and will rectify blight. But the impacts from next door cannot be ignored. They cannot but have a negative impact on the quality of life for anybody living adjacent to the post office. 5. The Comprehensive Plan contains Policy H-90. That policy requires the City to: "Identify sites within mixed-use areas, which are appropriate for residential developments. " While Policy H-85 states: "Provide homeownership opportunities in all neighborhoods." These policies are not necessarily conflicting and H-85 should not be read to say that residential uses have to be provided everywhere in all neighborhoods. Context is still important. The overriding concern should be to identify appropriate sites where residential development is appropriate. Should an undesirable housing situation be created where sleep patterns would be disturbed by the arrival of larger tractor trailer rigs in the middle of the night or twice during the night? Should residents automatically be awakened whether they want to be or not by postal employees starting up 39 vehicles and testing their horns between 6:30 A.M. and 7:30 A.M. six days a week? Ifpopulations in the area increase, will there be a commensurate increase in delivery trucks being tested at that time of the morning? Will residents be able to sleep through the noises, said to be quite loud, of gravity operated dock piate systems at I :00 A.M. or 3:00 A.M. when deliveries occur? It seems that the proposed 10cC'tion is not one ofthose "mixed-use areas, which are appropriate for residential developments." 6. Of course, one could cynically conclude that the deleterious nature of the post office's use would result in the single-family homes being priced more modestly, thereby creating a new stock of more affordable homes. There is also an issue which this office cannot truly address of whether the post office's use might in fact constitute a nuisance that adversely affects the applicant's use of their property. The nature of the City Zoning Code though plays a part when it allows potentially disparate uses adjacent to one another. But that is where the City's discretion· in regulating, limiting or conditioning uses comes into play. While the Zoning under which the applicant seeks approval permits single family uses in this mixed-use area, it does not mandate they be permitted. It would allow such use only after considering the site and its surroundings. Analysis needs to be done. The Code does not mandate that these uses be crafted abutting each other. First, one has to consider whether the plat and site plan are in the public use and interest. This office has to conclude that, as now proposed, the public use and interest is not served by the proposal. 7. Based on the above analysis, the recommendation, hard as it is to reach, is that the City Council should deny the proposed Preliminary Plat. Ridgeview Coul1 Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF January 25, 2005 Page 9 8. I f on the other hand, the City Counc i I concludes that the plat serves the pub I ic use and i nteres t it might seek to impose some conditions that could help the potential purchasers form a knowledgeL~ble decision. One solution might be to include a set of covenants that require that all sales literature and the face of the plat include information that the post office operations may create loud noises during the course of a day and that such noise might interfere with sleep in units located on the subject site. That will avoid the situation of potential purchasers seeing the subject site and its homes during the day and not have any realization that the post office operations occur during the night and such operations might make sleep difficult or disturbed. Obviously, this still allows units that may be severely affected by the noise to be built as opposed to finding a better use for the site that would not be affected by nocturnal noise, such as another commercial use. 9. This office therefore, would again recommend that the City Council deny a residential plat on the subject site but that if it chooses to approve this proposed plat, that it adopt some strict disclosure requirements. As the Post Office Manager noted, he really is not going to be happy fielding questions and complaints about the operations from future residents that this applicant acknowledges but that innocent purchasers will not be as knowledgeable about. Site Plan 10. The Site Plan is denied as the property should not be platted as proposed and the site plan is therefore, inappropriate. This office will provide an alternative decision on the Site Plan in order to allow the proposal to proceed ifthe City Council decides to approve the proposed Preliminary Plat. II. In the event that the City Council determines that the Preliminary Plat should be approved, this office will review the proposed Site Plan. The site plan review will treat this analysis as if the plat were approved for 20 lots as proposed by the applicant. As noted above, if the plat and site plan are approved, there should be disclosures regarding the nature of the noise that might be generated on the adjacent post office site as well as the timing ofthose noises. In addition, clearly, buffering this site from those noises should be considered an important matter to assure some quality of residential living. 12. Residential uses are permitted in this general area by the Comprehensive Plan. Integration of single family lIses then depends on mitigating the impacts of adjacent uses on the site so that it possesses residential amenities. The Comprehensive Plan suggests buffering incompatible uses from one another, particularly, if transitional uses cannot be used to separate the disparate uses. 13. The twenty proposed homes meet the Zoning Code's former R-5 Zoning District's density requirements. The applicant is proposing appropriate setbacks from streetsand adjacent properties including the larger buffer required between this site and its southerly, R-I 0 neighbor. A requested deviation from the maximum front yard setback of 15 feet to one of 28-feet allows for pedestrian and vehicular access and appears reasonable with the proposed courtyard layout and streetscape. The lots each provide their allotment of landscaped open space. 14. The development of the subject site will create construction related impacts but those will disappear once the project is complete. There will be some additional traffic generated by the development but that should not create any substantial impacts on the transportation corridors. In addition, a traffic mitigation fee will help offset any impacts. As noted in the earlier plat discussion, there could be Ridgeview Court Preliminary PIal File No.: LUA-04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF January 25, 2005 Page 10 impacts on the operations of the adjacent post office in the way of complaints about noise. In order to lessen some of the impacts, a sound barrier masonry wall should be erected along the north and west property lines of the subject site. Such wall should be designed by acoustical engineers to provide noise attenuation. In addition, landscaping should be installed to further assist in noise reduction and limiting the visual cues which playa part in noise perception. The two-story homes and grade difference will make it hard to limit noise penetration to the subject site. 15. The site plan appears to make reasonable use of the subject site. The buildings provide a reasonable amount of separation from one another. The buildings contain the necessary Demonstration District modulation and articulation as well as side or rear loading garages. 16. There are urban services such as sewer and water available to serve the 20 new homes. Mitigation fees, to offset impacts to parks, have been imposed. 17. ]n conclusion, this office recommends that the City Council deny the proposed plat and site plan as incompatible with the adjoining post office operation and an inappropriate use of property 1hat even though zoned CS is not well-located to afford the residential amenities that should be guaranteed by traditional zoning demarcations and land use development criteria. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should deny the proposed plat. DECISION: The Site Plan is denied as the property should not be platted as proposed and the site plan is therefore, inappropriate. Alternative Recommendation and Decision Ifthe City Council approves the Preliminary Plat then the Site Plan should be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the conditions imposed by the ERC. 2. The·applicant shall execute restrictive covenants that require all sales literature and sales listings initially and subsequently to note the location of the post office and that the post office operations may create loud noises during the course of a night and very early morning hours six (6) days a week and that such noise might interfere with sleep in units located on the subject site. 3. Corresponding language about the post office noise shall be included on the face of the plat. 4. The applicant shall construct a sound barrier masonry wall along the north and west property lines of the subject site. Such wall should be designed by acoustical engineers to provide noise attenuation. In addition, landscaping shall be installed to further assist in noise reduction and is designed to limit the visual cues which playa part is noise perception. 5. The applicant shall revise the plat to reflect the easement along the rear of lots 1 through 3 and 18 through 20 to be an alley right-of-way with a width of 16 feet with a minimum of 14 feet of pavement. Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF January 25,2005 Page 11 The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division prior to the recording of the final plat. 6. The applicant shall be required to post the 26-foot private access easement (Anacortes A venue NE) with "No Parking" signage on each side. Staff recommends the applicant shall comply with this requirement to the satisfaction of the Development Services Division prior to the recording of the final plat. 7. A homeowner's association or maintenance agreement shall be created concurrently with the recording ofthe final plat in order to establish maintenance responsibilities for landscaped right-of-w::!}' improvements, as well as for any shared private utilities/drainage facilities or private acce~s and utility easements to include the private pedestrian access easement. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division prior to the recording of the final plat. 8. The applicant shall obtain a demolition permit and complete all inspections and approvals for all buildings located on the property prior to the recording of the final plat. The satisfaction of this requirement is subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Project Manager. ORDERED THIS 25day of January 2005. FRED J. KAUF N HEARING EXA INER TRANSMITTED THIS 25 th day of January 2005 to the parties of record: Nancy Weil 1055 S Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 Juliana Fries 1055 S Grady Way 'Renton, WA 98055 Cliff Williams 5326 SW Manning Street Seattle, W A 98116 Kevin Chamberlin 18930 45th Place NE Lake Forest Park, WA 98155 TRANSMITTED THIS 25th day of January 2005 to the following: -Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler LStan Engler, Fire Bob Wenzl 636 Lake Sammamish Lane NE Bellevue, W A 98008 -Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer ;Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison ~l:;arry Warren, City Attorney I.Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transportation Division IGregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator ,Atex Pietsch, Economic Development Uennifer Henning, Development Services , Stacy Tucker, Development Services Utilities Division Ni~il Watts, Development Services , ]~net Conklin, Development Services King County Journal Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF January 25, 2005 Page 12 Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100Gofthe City'S Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., February 8, 2005. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review ofthe record, take further action as he deems proper. o An appeal to the City Counci I is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., February 8,2005. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the executed Covenants wiII be required prior to approval by City Councilor final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not commt,nicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use proces~ include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in pUblic. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation ofthis doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. <..i .J ~ .J z .... -' g~ es ~8 '" ~~ 0 z(5 8 88 z a:: Vl_ as 0'" ~ z 15 'z :z: 5 l C<.z ~ 00 , ~~ I u": r ~l ~~ II~ :~ I]!! .. ~ g ~I , ~ seOTION 111 TOWN8HIP 23 NORTH RANOE 15 EA8T W.M. Ii I { Z ( / / '~ ~ \./ L / '!I1nII'-r--1III17!"--; __ --...",..... __ ~'-'-.... -.,._.~I ... I-V_I_ 0 haw' --I r=; ; , WG &210 J ~ I I t2 I I I I 18230:11 mon" 008 ~lI &13210 UJ i ill 9124 I :~ UJ l~ _ ~182.~9 ~ 518210 . ~ Z 20160 1&230& 1&230& ... I 1'0039 I 0041 0 0 9071 9094 olc); 18210 '018 152305 9002 518210·0010 518210 00'3-1 UJ UJ] •. I!"-> .... ..., r' 16230& I 0::: > f 9031 I j j CO « . OM..., I (1.33 Ao.) V I -I!.IO. I I --I / / I 518210 I I , , ilIlR I I ~ 4,-1 0020 ~ 152305 152~~5..:.~034 ! M8210·0013 IH~1 I ~~J' -Al!IO. SITE ~~: 9035 I "1! "'>oj J1.34 Ac.) I ",''''''' 152305 9032 118210 OOSO i,$I ..<1 1&230& 1 152305·9036 I . 7,..... 9192 'D ....... ) I -..... A , .... '..., I \ I I .-II~", JJ i " r ,~ (3.88 AO.) ~ UJ 518210 0089 81821()'()081 516210 0066 &~~o . ('I C/) UJ 152305 ~ 9030 ..c (2.14 Ac.) !I ~1821()'()049 CO C"') ~ NE d L 9ft" I oem ,,'''I -_.-2n P -;;._-_._.--J ""'" . Iii j "CUj 518210 ~ 152305 ,_ 0051 9213 I I~~~ (1.12Ac.) C/) 152305-9212 (a.I2M) 152305 9075 162305 9206 1-____ ... 1 UJ r---' ~ ----'-----l ,0.7&"') (0 •• 1 ... , 152305-9215 (O,MMI 152305-9038 iG.MAo.) 152305 9223 ,0.""', ~ , ~,; .. t 0"1ollltJ iAI.I 't' a iH .1 If. \ II ! """,,'" '" OF"OVt>\ ~:;'o~~~:~no '''.::~~ !':~'" . .w,."y,,. OA~ __ _ cfi j O'''UIII. Corporation A ............ IOIJ _, '4111 __ _ -------""'----, Ii -------""'--- 'v -....... -.~ ......... ~ ... ""'~"...., • .'"! .... _.""" .. o'\"'\~ .... ~ ... ~~ .. _._.,,. .. ~~ ... ,,.. ......... _ ••••. _ ......... "_ .... ~" ••• _ ........ _~ ........ ~_ ..... _.,.,~, .. _~ ... " ........ .. .---------------;-1 10 T23N R5E W 112 '.' J' CA-··· .CA ..... ----:-. ,': '_'_"{' ~ NE :3rdC_. R-10(P) R-10:-.. RMH R-B\ -NE':4th St. CA CA , ; • i . RC(P) --" .. -- CA CA CA "R-l0 CAi R-10 R-8 . \ U 15 T23N R5E W 112 5315 \ u -' -' ~:i 'g§ ~ .~~ ~ iSiS t= U g Vl ~i< .~ z ;; "-:z:. • O~ I ;><:z:. ~ E-W ( Gil: { ~I t\~ I, ! II ~ ~ Ji:j 1!!1 .1.s1~1}1. Wh I ! OWNER/DEVELOPER: .l:lOQrYlCWeOUlifuC COf<jTAC1:tJ.IT'IIlWAIotS P.O. 801 HOI IC\RlCtANO."""&04J-2'OI '"ON[-. (201) 114-'161 REGISTERED ENGINEER: ..... (IIICANtHQW((IIINCCOII'OItAIIO'l CONhCT: CH(1In. CVUJIO 6OJ21'8n.A\{.N( FI(DYONO.VlJ.U052 'liON(: (US) UI-'~30 LAND SURVEYOR .oJ.IEIIIC.t..., EHCM:[fI1Nt COIII'OIt"nOH CONT.Io(;l; CAlI, OdtiSTOIS(H 40n I~TM AI'[, NE ArololCWO, w,\, taOH pHOt\(: (42SjUI-7430 LEGAL DESCRIPTION PER ""elfIC NOIIT>tKST nn.t I{(f'ORT, OJt.D[A NO soeeat OU(O f'[9 13, 2.003. THt SOUTH HALf Of ~[ UST HAlF 01 'niE NORTH[ ... ST Of Tl1( NOATl1\11[ST QUARTER OF THE NOA.1'H"M;:ST OUARTtR or 5(CllOH U, TO'lltolSHIP 23 NOATH, RAHat ~ [AST, w.W., IH j(LNG COUNTY, wASHINGTON; [Ke(PT AJ.L COAl.. AND W~[RA~ RJOHTS cONtAINEO IN RtStRVA liON OF fI:[CORD, AND i(NO'M'I AS .. PORnON or TII"ct 4, 0' 101M TIN'," ... Cl'IC TRACTS, AN UNReCOROED Pl"T; exccPT THt [AST U rcn 01 SAID TRAcr. BENCH MARK TOP or CONC ~ON DO"",,", 0.1' IN CASE AT TH[ CONSTRucn:o INT): or Nt 4TH ST (5.[. 121TW ST) ...... OI40TkAvtS.t. (N.W. COR sec ,~). ELeVATION: 401.02' [L(V. rROIoA CITY Of RENTON COHMOL ~E[tS. POINT '~O' VERTICAL DATUM HORIZONTAL DATUM W4$ttINCTON 514ft PL ...... [, NORTH lONe NAD illig, ~.~ ~a~F ____ 4;O BUILDING / LANDSCAPE TABLE LOT, LOT SlZ[ eUllOlNC " eun.DING (SF) SllC(S') COvtR4C( , u.Isr 1210 '" , liDO V '210 ". , .ailSF 1210 ". . lJ"Sf' 1210 ". , lJ"Sf 1118 '" 0 U·.sr 111' , .. , J117S' 1111 , .. . ~IIJ' S, 1211 , .. , J92'sr 1210 '". " • 120S' CliO " . " 4)42sr 1210 ". " 'J40Sr 1210 ". " 4D6SSf 'I, •• ". " lI1'S" 10.2 '" " 272SSf tl86 ... " 27185' 1116 '" " JeaJS' 12.0 ,,. " 48JS5' 1210 '" " leOOS' 1210 , .. 20 4'OSsr 1210 '" NOTE: ~ LANOSCAPE PLANS liT OTH£!l.S rOIl; OE'T4ILEO l.o.NOSCAPING O[$I0N/lAVOUT. "'" ,; ~A....w .f..R[A(Sf) ARCA, 'IIISf' '" IJ24 SF ". 21'.51' ... I1nS/' , .. gaJS' zo. 121lsr .n 100051' ". 3026S( '" Il~Sf ". 15415; ,,. 11215,. '" IUOS" '" 22!SSF' ". '''5' '" 10JeSl' >0' 10JISI' '" I3IJSF' ". 210'5; ... IZUSf' '" !ellS( ". Amerloan [1I"nnr.' "'IIM.r •• SIII'Y.yor, RECOMMENoe:O fOR APpROYAL , _______ 01,1'1:; Engln •• rlng ..oU , .... ,.. .... ilL ftp Corporation "m"'toU it 4 ------,.,,,--------,.,,, ,,"ON( {US) .. \~7I1JO ". (4nl,"-n~1 ______ OATt: __ ,'h.a'''~'''''l-I 1'/1"'" .,~, •• "" H1 t'J.OOI\lllll~\IIIlI~''''I''I''~'',U'14''''""I«~ SECTION 18 TOWNSHIP 28 NORTH RANOE 8 EAST W.M. -_/ TL II 00/,1 ~ j~~~ / , / / .14' / • TL OOJU TI. 00,1 1le", ~ -;:).(p' I -1 --------j --1::=--__ _ .t9 I~ ___ _ T" n091 .:,1. .•. ::..,., n. {JUrll ~WlOI¢AP'Ot"'"~ TIIi..e1,..ITO'IIIUI$. IIUU I 10 L,.t.lOOlCUt ~l~loIt '0. il 1I000001llf0lllolAliON I ---~ .I ~~~:~~tTO-. ./ ~T:!;;.~2~ ------ ~ 1)(""" c:.OA ... !e'.... () "I ..... "Lolli. VI"'''.III - - - -It: ==: : ...... I .... ~~~ .... L.. ~"= .. J ps~ON'T" eL.eVA'T"ION ~~TT;'~C~:';C:;:·;.I~~b~N!e'!e'1I; SQUARe ,.OOT ...... C!o!!& ~.,~ ...• '''''''. tIo .. t1GI"Ic,,,,,Tro .... e MAIN , .. .. uppeR. ~ .. .. .... OTe ... ,.' .... '61-4 ~I..oo~ 0" I!ve-=tv HOMe TOT ...... L,. I'!l!2 TO ee .... T (!IoR.oA.DI!! pe~ cIoRADIN$ PLAN 4. ~O""SO "'0 ee "701.:2 or::r. L.O~R. :So NO MI!C,H .... NIGAL,. eQUIPMeNT OR. OTHeR. &TR.UG TVRe~ TO ee ON nqf ROO" •. ROO" COL-OR TO el!! L-IISrHT TO MeDIUM cIoRI!Y GOMI='O&TION !!IHINdrL.I!!So ~, H0V61! GOL.OR-..... IT!!! OR OP".~IT8 TRIM If'4ITH eel6e, cloRe..,.., JIIroLMONO. OR 8Ado1! 800..,.. ~eA~ eL.eVA'T"ION cr, ...... P;, ...... cSJe: ""'0 ~t:dl ••• ~NQ11Ieo ~.V.·.I'-O" TI-IIS I""1...AN TO cs;.o ON 1...0TS 5,6,15$ 16 ,.- D -~~"""] _!:,~v.':"'=l :~"~~~1 L.ePS'T" eL.eVA'T"ION 0 1 ~" l!~=~ ~ ~ ~ §Ii~ ~* ~ ~ ~ ! l i '-~ e ~.~ p ) I- II IE .,"-J - - ~ mill () N Cl ~ \) (1) • ~ I r-r. « -() ~ !!;! z ~ rt > « D « Ill...) ill \) .,t)1L1!l ;; Q III N ~oc ~ clot.. 'O-O~-O" ~:';:::~"'., OQ-QQ-Oc;:r l== .~"=] 1~1 ~ F=== i-- I ~~::=,~'bo,j' ~"",J e .... eBT AI RI~I-IT e1...eVATION .n~I'IQ"'" .~.,I/""·.I''''''· "' .. A:2 I J C 00 ;1 II I , , II , , , , , , I n I , , , , , , I II :[E , , , , I II , , , , , , I IIr , , , , , , I II ff 1\ , , , , iiD I , , , , , , N IDI~ !! ~j illli~i I 11111111 I c::==:J , -----' ' , , ~ .I~I ,I [I~I ~ ~I ;!. ~lil " . ~ ~l u ! _1-.... " 'I _o-.~ .: I 3j .. .tJ t "' a l~ fit., ~f " '0 ~'!' g¥ I, ~I ~I~I '. ~ . i,I I • t " , , , , , , h ii " r. <, 2¥ 0< , .. -0 99LLI N'v',d _";6 .l:~no? M3'A39a,~ iW ,,?~rQ...od '0 Q. L 0 .-l , , I Il ~ I i , , I z () ~ ~ 63 , , , { > III rlr ~ I o,!) • -. Ii ; ~ ':!. ~ \l 0& 0<>,..11 -( ~ . ~ \l \l L N-= , Nbj I ~: \j i , , OJ ~ II'.J~ (z .. -(~ ~ :( L ~ -( ~I~~e , ; , , ~ II~I .I D ~I~I I' ~ ~m .' ~ l[ ~ .. , ~ ! ~f, ~!~ 2~~ ~t~ ~n $ 111".3 I ['''I " ~ili I, ~I i,I I " " , > a It • e ~2 B z ~n I'a . < d z~ r. ..' ()-rp ~~ i~ d 2-f ~~ . on °0 ~~ ~ De ~z { D~ I'~ ~=~ ~Z > ~r!) ·0 I~ III 0 .. " ~~ .t -I .0 II " &~ ~ ~~ Ot III e ~e , 3; l-¥ 'HI z< L ". ~; ~i ~; ~ ~& ~. z~ '0 . .1 ~ . ..: ... 1"4 O. j) D.. i ~ , 0 2 " 0008 11000 0000 II 00 DB "DOD 0008 000 0000 , , , , II z () ~ { > III -I' 1lI~ l-~ L I Ill--IE ~ ! Qi l-{ > III -I, Illi t.~ {, lit: ~ i o () rt rt .\1) l-() -I Z () () o,!) g Z { -I D- \I) ~ '1_, \ ~j/ i -:tl \' .. ,I ·".i .-HOJOlIZC>O-/T .... L ......... 11 6WOto+I __ ~L.~~ ~ -:~"=] I'"'~ONT eLeVATION .... ~~. ~.I~·.lo..o· NOTe. L FINI6~ "LOOR 0" evsR .... HOMe TO ee AT 4oRAOl!! peR OFlJlrroOINdo PLAN ~, ROO'"& TO ee "f,I:l OR. LOl"'leR !t. NO Mec:.W .... NtGtAL eGlUlPMSNT OR: OTHeR &TRUGo'T\lFt.l!& TO DB ON THe FlOOP •• FI.OQ," c.o~" TO ae' LIOHT TO I'"1I:OIUM $Re:Y C.OMPO&TIOH &H1N6L,e& 5. HOV&I!! GOL.O"'. I.·.,UTI! O. O .... • ....... ,TI!II TR.IM """'TH 511:1611: •• ReV, """-MOHO, OR. &~e eo!:)"" lu II -l-f T--_:~,,] --:~.=] ~eA~ eLeVATION ----~.II4·.I'woQ>· 1 ___ 7 §~-- Ej r ecwu .... ~e "OOT""'c30es .t--i .... IN UPPI'e;1=l TOTAL. (!i, .... R ... "'e bOO ~"4 ~ 4:20 L A THIS ,..LAN TO 1So0 ON LOT 16 :01 5] 0 .. , ....... L,. .... "' .... e ... -:::~] •• II.~NO'nno ~IISoHT eLeVATION 1 ' ~ ,~~ !; §~n p.~"~ ~h~ ~d~~ ~ ~ ~ , @ ~ .~ P J J--"l l-tt z ~ IU IU t D I') \) m r~ I!!:! 0< III 0 I!) - z ~ ti ~ <{ 11J< ID .J 10 \l .nILIl)N ~ii t -I :::~:~J]'i ------ GO'.' 10-0&-0" p ...... ,t • ... vl.,opPI •• OQ·oo-oo ~:::=.~'~. ~~ & .... ee.,- AI H.~NOTI:. Lel'"'T eLeVATION -.;G. ... UI'.-'I4··-f·.;:Q' 0" A::2 D ~' . STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING } AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC NOTICE Lori Tedder, being first duly sworn on oath that she is a Legal Advertising Representative of the King County Journal a daily newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of general circulation and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continuously as a daily newspaper in King County, Washington. The King County Journal has been approved as a Legal Newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County. The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues of the King County Journal (and not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a Public Notice was published on Monday, 12113/04 The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of $122.25 at the rate of$15.50 per inch for the first publication and NIA per inch for .each subsequent insertion. Legal Advertising Representative, King County Journal Subscribed and sworn to me this 14th day of December, 2004. ~~ Tom A. Meagher Notary Public for the State of Washington, Residing in Redmond, Washington Ad Number: 847762 P.O. Number: Cost of publishing this notice includes an affidavit surcharge. NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE & PUBLIC HEARING RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee has issued a Determination of Non-Significance- Mitigated for the following project under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat LUA04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF Location: 327 Bremerton Avenue NE. The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review, Hearing Examiner Site Plan ,and Preliminary Plat approvals and a code modification for cul-de-sac radius to be reduced from the required 55-foot to a 50-foot radius. The proposal is to sub- divide the 2.4-acre site into 20 lots for the eventual development of single-family dwellings. The lots range in size from 2,725 sq. ft. to 5,831 sq. ft. Access is proposed via improved Bremerton Avenue NE to a new public street terminating in a cul-de-sac. Further access will be provided by private easements. The site has been shown not to \\\\\\11 \I" II It, ~,,\\ tJ,EAG 1111// ~ _~ ~. ........ 1tL'-",z ~ 0:<;" •••• !;\on E···· ".,(\ 'l .:::-••• Loo\'O ..f,l) .••• ~ r ~ .::: J...:. .. ~" Ir eo. ~ _ • 0 r\ -r A R Y "", • -' ~ [CJ~\J\/'I \ ~ ::: : __ $-: Z -~ IJl \, PU\3\..\10 f 0 § ~/-'" ,\:'''::: 'l '1~··.~A.Y 2 'I-<::J~"·.::,.0 ~ ~ <$" ....... ;., •• \"\' .~ "II/ OF V,,,S'I ":\~ 11// v I'"' \\\ 111/1111\\\\\\\\ contain any protected Critical Areas. The site is zoned Center Suburban (CS) and is located in . the Centers Residential Bonus.' District B. ' Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writ- ing on or before 5:00 PM on December 27, 2004. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers, City Hall, on January 4, 2004 at 9:00 AM to con- sider the Preliminary Plat. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard 8f Y part of this public hearing. Intereste~ parties are invited to attend the pub- lic hearing. Published in the King County Journal December 13,2004.#847762 -L Kathy kooIker-Wheeler. Mayor .. JanuarY 6, 2005 ·Cliff Williams, PE Ridgeview Court, LLC· PO Box 2401 . Kirkland, WA 98116 SUBJECT: Ridgeview Court Preljmina~ Plat '. LUA-04-131, pp, SA-H,ECF . Dear Mr. Wiiliams: CITYY ')F .RENTON -. . .' .. ." ..-:-.:, . '"'. . PIanning/Builditig/PublicWorks Departnient Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator This letter is to inform you that the appeaLperiod' has ended for the Environmental Review Committee's (ERG) Determination of Non-:Signiflcarice -Mitigated for the above-referenced project., "> "., " .. :'~ . No appeals were filed on the ,ERG deteiminatk>n. This decision is final and application·'foi"theapptopriateIY required permits may proceed. The' applicant"must comply withaliERC MitigatioiiMea~uresandSite'Plan Conditions of Approval. If you have anyquestions,please fe~rfr~etoc~htact me ar(42S) 430~7270 . . . For the Environm~ntal Review Committee, ~~forlJ~UJe11 Naricy Weil . Senior, Planner . .At ........ . . . ". I . ". ... I/lj~~ r -------:}-=-0-::-5S=-. S=-o-u-::th-G=-r-:-ad7y-::W=-a-y---=R-e-nt~o-n,-=W::::-a--:sh:-:-in-g-to-n-9=-8=-=0-::-55-:--:-------~ * This paperoontains 50% reCycled material, 30% post o:>nsUmer AHEAD OF THE CURVE CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING January 04, 2005 AGENDA . COMMENCING AT 9:00 AM, -. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7TH FLOOR, RENTON CITY HALL -"" \ The application(s) listed are in order of application number only and not necessarily the order in which they will be heard. Items will be called for hearing at the discretion of the Hearing Examiner. PROJECT NAME: Stoneridge II Short Plat PROJECT NUMBER: . LUA04-124, SHPL-H, ECF PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Short Plat approval for a nine lot subdivision of a 3.6 acre site. The proposal is located within the Residential - 5 (R-5) zoning designation. The lots are intended for the eventual development of detached single family homes- lots ranging in size from 8,903 sq. ft. to 18,565 sq. ft. Access to the site is proposed via Mt. Baker Ave. NE and Nile Ave. NE. Street dedications are required. Two streams (one regulated) and two wetlands (one regulated Category 3) are located within the site and each would have the required 25 ft. buffer. Wildlife (black-tailed deer) and habitat areas are also noted. PROJECT NAME: Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan and Preliminary Plat approvals and a code modification for cul-de-sac radius to be reduced from the required 55-foot to a 50-foot radius. The proposal is to subdivide the 2.4-acre site into 20 lots for the eventual development of single-family dwellings. The lots range in size from 2,725 sq. ft. to 5,831 sq. ft. Access is proposed via improved Bremerton Avenue NE to a new public street terminating in a cul- de-sac. Further access will be provided by private easements. The site has been shown not to contain any protected Critical Areas. The site is vested to Development Regulations of the Center Suburban (CS) and is located in the Centers Residential Bonus District B. HEX Agenda 01·04·05.doc PUBLIC HEARING City of Renton Department of Planning / Building / Public Works PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST: Public Hearing Date: Project Name: Owner/Applicant! Contact Address: File Number: Project Description: Project Location: January 4, 2005 Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat Ridgeview Court, LLC Cliff Williams, PE P.O. Box 2401 Kirkland, WA 98083 LUA-04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF Project Manager: Nancy Wei I The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan and Preliminary Plat approvals and a code modification for cul-de-sac radius to be reduced from the required 55-foot to a 50-foot radius. The proposal is to subdivide the 2.4-acre site into 20 lots for the eventual development of single-family dwellings. The lots range in size from 2,725 sq. ft. to 5,831 sq. ft. Access is proposed via improved Bremerton Avenue NE to a new public street terminating in a cul-de-sac. Further access will be provided by private easements. The site has been shown not to contain any protected Critical Areas. The site is vested to Development Regulations of the Center Suburban (CS) and is located in the Centers Residential Bonus District B. 327 Bremerton Avenue NE f7'--, -, ~L._ --'--------'rrL----'-------'-'-----'--..Jn~_E -,---!4t-Lh: _st.---..JJ\"--'o.1 __'_' ---'-r-->---r·-----'-=Jl~==· r- o / ! ,~ cS ; ; , j-_ ... _ •.•. cs [-aid-ee- I City of Renton P/B/PW Department RIDGEVIEW COURT PRELIMINARy'PLA T AND SITE PLAN Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA-04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: JANUARY 4, 2005 B. GENERAL INFORM A T/ON: 1. 2. 3. 4. Owner of Record: Zoning Designation: Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: Existing Site Use: 5. Neighborhood Characteristics: Ridgeview Court, LLC P.O. Box 2401 Kirkland, WA 98083 Center Suburban (CS) Commercial Center (CC) Single-Family residence and two accessory structures. North: Undeveloped; Center Suburban (CS) zoning 6. 7. 8. Access: Site Area: East: Commercial/Residential; Center Suburban (CS) zoning South: Undeveloped; Residential 10 (R-10) zoning West: Commercial; Center Suburban (CS) zoning Proposed right-of-way off of Bremerton Avenue NE 2.4-acres (104,373 square feet) Project Data: Comments To be removed Existing Building Area:' New Building Area: Total Building Area: 1 single-family, 2 accessory structures N/A N/A N/A N/A C. HISTORICAUBACKGROUND: Page 2 of 12 Action Annexation Comprehensive Plan Zoning Land Use File No. N/A N/A N/A Ordinance No. 1480 4498 4404 Date 04/20/1954 02/20/1995 06/07/1993 D. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE: 1. Chapter 2 land Use Districts Section 4-2-020: Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts Section 4-2-070: Zoning Use Table Section 4-2-110: Commercial Development Standards 2. Chapter 3 Environmental Regulations and Special Districts Section 4-3-050: Critical Areas Regulations Section 4-3-120: Suburban Centers Residential Demonstration District Regulations 3. Chapter 4 Property Development Standards Section 4-4-030: Development Guidelines and Regulations Section 4-4-060: Grading, Excavation and Mining Regulations Section 4-4-080: Parking, Loading and Driveway Regulations Section 4-4-130: Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Regulations 4. Chapter 6 Streets and Utility Standards Section 4-6-060: Street Standards hexrpt04-131.doc City of Renton PIBIPW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA-04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF RIDGEVIEW COURT PRELIMINARY 'PIA T AND SITE PIAN PUBLIC HEARING DATE: JANUARY 4, 2005 Page 3 of 12 1. Chapter 7 Subdivision Regulations Section 4-7-050: General Outline of Subdivision, Short plat and Lot Line Adjustment Procedures Section 4-7-080: Detailed Procedures for Subdivision Section 4-7-120: Compatibility with Existing Land Use and Plan-General Requirements and Minimum Standards Section 4-7-150: Streets -General Requirements and Minimum Standards 6. Chapter 9 Procedures and Review Criteria 7. Chapter 11 Definitions E. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: 1. Land Use Element: Center Suburban objectives and policies; Subdivision of Land objectives and policies. 2. Housing Element: Housing Supply objectives and policies; Minimum Density Policies. F. DEPARTMENT ANAL YSIS: 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND hexrpt04-131.doc The applicant has requested Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review and Preliminary Plat Review for a 20-lot development located within the Center Suburban (CS) zoning designation and Area B of the Suburban Centers Residential Demonstration District. The 2.4-acre site is proposed for the eventual development of detached single-family structures with attached two car garages. Access to the site is proposed via a public roadway (NE 3rd Lane) extending from Bremerton Avenue NE. A modification from the City's Street Standards has been granted for the project in order to allow a reduced right-of-way width of 42 feet and a reduced radius on the cul-de-sac of 50 feet. The applicant will be required to dedicate 17.5 feet of right-of way for the widening of Bremerton Avenue NE which currently is not a through street. Development of this project plus the future development of the property to the south of this site would result in connecting Bremerton Avenue NE through. Street improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalk and lighting are required along Bremerton Avenue NE and proposed NE 3rd Lane. Three private access easements will extend off of NE 3rd Lane to serve as vehicular access to all 20 lots. The 26-foot wide private easement along the western property line (Anacortes Avenue NE) will access lots 8 through 13 and the Storm Water Detention Tract A. In the center of the site, a 20-foot wide private driveway easement will extend off the cul-de-sac to the north and south to access lots 14 though 17 and lots 4 though 7 respectively. Lots 1 through 3 and 18 through 20 fronting Bremerton Avenue NE will have an alley along the rear of the lots for access to the rear loading garages. The site is relatively flat with a berm located near the southeast corner of the site. The berm appears to contain loose fill and may have been created from grading on the adjacent site. The berm contains slopes of 15 to 24 percent. The soil type is Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, which is moderately well drained soil. The site is vegetated with blackberry bushes, small deciduous and coniferous trees which are to be removed as part of the site preparation. New Comprehensive Designations and Zoning Regulations were adopted November of this year thereby designating this subject site as Commercial Corridor (CC) on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Commercial Arterial (CA) zone. However the proposed Land Use application is vested to the prior Commercial Suburban (CS) Development Regulations. The CS zone allows residential densities that range from a minimum of 10.0 dulac to a maximum of 20.0 dulac. The proposed plat would arrive at a net density of 12.42 dulac after the deduction of the public roads and private access easements from the gross acreage of the site. The proposal also requires modifications from the Suburban Centers Residential Bonus District B in order to allow for greater front yard setbacks for lots 8 through 13 then the maximum 15 feet permitted in the CS zone. The additional setback allows for a pedestrian access and a portion of City of Renton PISIPW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA-04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF RIDGEVIEW COURT PRELIMINARVPLA T AND SITE PLAN PUBLIC HEARING DA TE: JANUARY 4, 2005 Page 4 of 12 the 26-foot private street for rear access garages. The modifications have been addressed and permitted under a separate decision issued by the Development Services Division. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21 C, 1971 as amended) on December 7, 2004, the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M) for the Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat. The DNS-M included 7 mitigation measures. A 14-day appeal period commenced on December 7, 2004 and ended on December 27,2004. No appeals of the threshold determination were filed. 3. COMPLIANCE WITH ERC MITIGATION MEASURES Based on an analysis of the probable impacts from the proposal, the Environmental Review Committee issued the following mitigation measures with the Determination of Non-Significance- Mitigated: 1. The project shall be designed and comply with Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements as outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Storm water Management Manual. 2. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report prepared by Geo Group Northwest, Inc. dated October 4, 2004, regarding "Site Preparation and Groundwork." 3. The applicant shall design the project to comply with the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual to meet both detention (Level 2 flow control) and water quality improvements. 4. Temporary Erosion Control measures shall be installed maintained in accordance with the Department of Ecology Standards to the satisfaction of the representative of the Development Services Division for the duration of the project's construction. 5. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee based on a rate of $488.00 per new single-family lot. Credit is given for the existing residence. The fee shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. 6. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Traffic Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per each new average daily trip associated with the project. Credit is given for the existing residence. The fee shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. 7. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Parks Mitigation Fee based on $530.76 per new single-family lot. Credit is given for the existing residence. The fee shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. The applicant is required and intends to comply with each of these mitigation measures prior to the recording of the final plat. 4. STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS Representatives from various city departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and address site plan issues from the proposed development. These comments are contained in the official file, and the essence of the comments has been incorporated into the appropriate sections of this report and the Departmental Recommendation at the end of the report. 5. CONSISTENCY WITH PRELIMINARY PLAT CRITERIA: hexrpt04-131.doc Approval of a plat is based upon several factors. The following preliminary plat criteria have been established to assist decision makers in the review of the subdivision: (a) Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan Designation. At the time of this application, the subject site was designated Center Suburban (CS) on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and was zoned Center Suburban (CS) and located in the Centers Residential Bonus District B. The CS designation is intended to develop suburban centers that provide a wide range of City of Renton PIBIPW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA-04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF RIDGEVIEW COURT PRELIMINARY PLA T AND SITE PLAN PUBLIC HEARING DA TE: JANUARY 4, 2005 Page 5 of 12 hexrpI04-131.doc consumer goods and services to an area that includes several neighborhoods, but is smaller than the entire city. The proposed use of the site for residential development would be consistent with the following CS policies: Policy LU-77. Sidewalks or walking paths should be provided along residential streets. Sidewalk or walking path width should be ample to safely and comfortably accommodate pedestrian traffic. The proposed project will install sidewalks along all public right-of-ways abutting the development with connecting sidewalks to each lot. Policy H-8S. Provide homeownership opportunities in al/ neighborhoods The site is located in the Center Suburban zone proposing only single-family lot development affording additional opportunity for homeownership in this mixed commercial residential use area. Policy H-90. Identify sites within mixed-use areas, which are appropriate for residential developments. The 2.4-acre site is somewhat restricted due to its size for development as a higher density mixed-use. The site's proximity to other existing and proposed single-family uses make this site feasible as a single-family residential development. (b) Compliance with the Underlying Zoning Designation. The 2.4-acre site is located within the Center Suburban (CS) zone and is included within the Centers Residential Bonus District B. Residential development for single-family lots is permitted within the CS zone and Residential Demonstration District subject to adopted density limitations and compliance with development standards established by the district. The proposed development would allow for the future construction of 20 new single-family dwelling units as well as associated plat improvements. The proposed plat's compliance with District B of the Suburban Centers Residential Demonstration District and the applicable development standards of the CS zone is discussed below. Site Layout -The proposal must demonstrate the satisfaction of the CS zone standards for yards, land areas, and setbacks, as well as provide access and infrastructure as required by the subdivision regulations. The project's compliance with these requirements will be further addressed below. Minimum Land Area per Dwelling Unit - A minimum of 1,200 square feet must be provided for each unit, of which a minimum of 250 square feet must be developed as landscaped yard abutting each unit. The proposed 20-lot subdivision has a lot size range of 2,725 square feet in area to 5,831 square feet in area, which complies with this requirement. The minimum yard area provided (Lot 14 -991 square feet for a 1,082 square foot lot) would comply with this requirement. Lot Dimensions -There are no minimum requirements for lot width or depth within the CS zone or the Residential Centers District. Lot Coverage -The maximum area permitted for building lot coverage is 65% of the lot area. The proposed development maximum for lot coverage is 44 %. The following chart provides a break down of proposed square footage of lot size, building size and lawn area as well as percentage of building coverage and lawn area for the proposed 20 lots. City of Renton P/B/PW Department / RIDGEVIEW COURT PRELIMINARY p[A T AND SITE PLAN Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA-04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: JANUARY 4, 2005 Page 6 of 12 hexrpt04-131.doc BUILDING / LANDSCAPE TABLE LOT # LOT SIZE BUILDING % BUILDING LAWN % LAWN (SF) SIZE (SF) COVERAGE AREA (SF) AREA 1 4446 SF 1210 27% 1888 SF 42% 2 3600 SF 1210 34% 1324 SF 37% 3 4893 SF 1210 25% 2199 SF 45% 4 3371 SF 1210 36% 1197 SF 36% 5 3344 SF 1168 35% 983 SF 29% 6 2849 SF 1119 39% 1213 SF 43% 7 3187 SF 1118 35% 1000 SF 31% 8 5831 SF 1211 21% 3026 SF 52% 9 3928 SF 1210 30% 1356 SF 35% 10 4120 SF 1210 29% 1541 SF 37% 11 4342 SF 1210 28% 1621 SF 37% 12 4340 SF 1210 28% 1620 SF 37% 13 4065 SF 1049 26% 2216 SF 55% 14 3117 SF 1082 35% 991 SF 32% 15 2725 SF 1186 44% 1036 SF 38% 16 2779 SF 1176 42% 1031 SF 37% 17 3683 SF 121(j 33% 1383 SF 38% 18 4835 SF 1210 25% 2107 SF 44% 19 3600 SF 1210 34% 1267 SF 35% 20 -4105 SF 1210 30% 1633 SF 40% Setbacks -The CS zone requires a minimum front yard setback of 10 feet and a maximum front yard setback of 15 feet. A rear yard setback is not required unless the property abuts a residentially zoned property, in which case a minimum setback of 15 feet is required. A side yard setback of 3 feet, with no projections permitted, is required for development in District B. Setback Modification requested to allow for greater front yard setbacks for lots 8 through 13 then the maximum 15 feet permitted in the CS zone. The modification was granted to allow additional setback for a pedestrian access and a portion of the 26-foot private street to allow rear access garages. As required, lots 1, 5, 6 and 8, which abut property designated R-10 to the south, include a rear yard setback of 15 feet. Density -The allowed density range in the CS zone is a minimum of 10 to a maximum of 20 dwelling units per acre (dulac). For proposals located within the Centers Residential Demonstration District B, a density bonus of up to 36 dulac is permitted when architectural innovation has been demonstrated. Net density is calculated after critical areas and public rights- of-way are deducted from the gross acreage of the site. After the deduction of the roadways from the 104,373 gross square foot site (104,373 gross square feet -34,257 total deducted area = 70,116 net square feet I 1.6 net acres), -the proposal would arrive at a net density of 12.42 dwelling units per acre (20 units/1.6 acres = 12.42 dulac), which is within the allowed density range of the CS zone. Building Limitations -The building design standards of District B of the Centers Residential Overlay require variation or modulation of vertical and horizontal facades at a minimum width of 2 feet at intervals of 40 feet for each building face. Based on building elevations provided by the applicant, the proposed residential structures would comply with, or possibly exceed, this requirement. In addition, private residential entry features, which are designed to provide individual ground floor connection to the outside, are required. All front entries appear to have some form of covered entry and are located on a different fa(fade of the structure than the entrance of the attached garage. City of Renton P/B/PW Department ... Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA-04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF RIDGEVIEW COURT PRELIMINARY PLA T AND SITE PLAN PUBLIC HEARING DA TE: JANUARY 4, 2005 Page 70f12 hexrpt04-131.doc Buildings are also required to be located such that the relationship of the dwelling, parking and street shall create the appearance of a single-family neighborhood. All residential units within a development shall be connected to any associated commercial development pedestrian linkages. The front facades of the structures shall address the public street, private street or court by providing landscaped pedestrian connections, and an entry feature facing the front yard. The proposed development orients all the lots to front either the street with sidewalks or pedestrian easement, all of which interconnect. Landscaping -As discussed above, the proposal would comply with the provision of a minimum of 250 square feet developed as landscaped yard within each lot. Landscaping would also be provided along street frontages, between structures, and within common open space areas. The project includes the use of deciduous and evergreen trees, large and low shrubs, and ground covers throughout the perimeter and interior of the plat. An irrigation system will be required. Pedestrian Access -The CS zone requires a pedestrian connection from the street to the entrances of the buildings. The project would provide 5-foot sidewalks along both sides of the street throughout the development, as well as connections to each of the lots. The proposed sidewalk width and locations would provide adequate pedestrian linkages from Bremerton Avenue NE along the proposed NE 3rd Lane and the private easements. Parking -The City's Parking Regulations require a minimum of 2 parking spaces per single- family unit. The Residential Demonstration District requires parking to be provided within an enclosed structure that faces a different faC{ade than the main entry of the building. The project would include 2 spaces within the attached garage of each unit. The attached garages will be either rear or side loading not on the entrance facade. None of the garages will open directly onto a prinCipal or minor arterial street as required by the District B development standards. The spaces located within the right-of-way cannot be counted however there will be on-street parking along NE 3rd Lane and expanded Bremerton Avenue NE. (c) Compliance with Subdivision Regulations. Lot Arrangement: Side lot lines are to be at right angles to street lines, and each lot must have access to a public street or road. Access may be by private access easement street per the requirements of the Street Improvement Ordinance. The side lot lines of the proposed lots are at right angles to street lines. Each of the proposed lots would have direct frontage to a public roadway or private easement. All lots comply with arrangement and access requirements of the Subdivision Regulations. Lots: The size, shape and orientation of lots shall meet the minimum area and width requirements of the applicable zoning classification and shall be appropriate for the type of development and use contemplated. Each of the proposed lots satisfies the minimum lot area requirements of the CSzone and Residential Bonus District. The proposed lots would range in size from 2,725 square feet to 5,831 square feet. There are no minimum lot width or depths required in the CS or Bonus District B. When considering the required setbacks, as well as access pOints for each lot, the proposed lots appear to have sufficient building area for suitable detached single-family development. Property Corners at Intersections: All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-of- way, except alleys, shall have minimum radius of 15 feet. The proposed subdivision would create 2 lots at intersections of public rights-of-way (lots 3 and 18). The preliminary grading plans for the proposal appears to include the required corner radii. (d) Reasonableness of Proposed Boundaries Access and Street Improvements: Access to the site is proposed via a public roadway (NE 3rd Lane) extending from Bremerton Avenue NE. Applicant proposes construction of the 330-foot extension of Bremerton Avenue NE with 32-foot width pavement, curb and gutter with 5-foot wide sidewalk along the west side of the right of way. A modification from the City's Street Standards has been granted for the project in order to allow a reduced right-of-way width of 42 feet (Code City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner ---LUA-04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF RIDGEVIEW COURT PRELIMINARY PLA T AND SITE PLAN PUBLIC HEARING DA TE: JANUARY 4, 2005 Page 8 of 12 hexrpt04-131.doc requires 50 feet) and a reduced radius on the cul-de-sac of 50 feet (Code requires 55 feet). The project will meet code requirement of with 32 feet of pavement for the street and 45 feet of pavement for the cul-de-sac. The applicant will be required to dedicate 17.5 feet of right-of-way for the widening of Bremerton Avenue NE, which currently is not a through street. Development of the property to the south of this site will connect Bremerton Avenue NE through. Street improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalk and lighting are required along Bremerton Avenue NE and the new public street. The proposed NE 3rd Lane extends off of Bremerton Avenue NE approximately 220 feet. Three private access easements will extend off of NE 3rd Lane to serve as vehicular access to all 20 lots. The 26-foot wide private easement along the western property line (Anacortes Avenue NE) will access lots 8 through 13 and the Storm Water Detention Tract A. In the center of the site, a 20-foot wide private driveway easement will extend off the cul-de-sac to the north and south to access lots 14 though 17 and lots 4 though 7 respectively. Lots 1 through 3 and 18 through 20 fronting Bremerton Avenue NE will have an alley along the rear of the lots for access to the rear loading garages. The applicant has agreed to staff's suggestion to reduce the width of the proposed 24-foot private access and utility easement along the rear of lots 1 through 3 and 18 through 20. As these lots front on Bremerton Avenue NE which emergency services will gain access, the private easement functions more as an alley which City code permits to be a minimum of 16 feet wide. By reducing the easement and pavement width, it will give a greater appearance as a private rear entrance alley as well as decrease impervious area coverage of the site. Code does require a minimum of 24 foot back out distance. Therefore, staff recommends that the applicant revise the plat to reflect an alley right-of-way width of 16 feet with a minimum of 14 feet of pavement. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division prior to the recording of the final plat. Because Anacortes Avenue NE, the proposed 26-foot private access easement, provides emergency services access to three lots as well as the required turn around, it is necessary that this easement is unobstructed. Therefore, to prohibit parking in the right-of-way and any portions of the road, which are limited to 20 feet in width of pavement applicant shall be required to post the easement with "No Parking" signage on each side. Staff recommends the applicant shall comply with this requirement to the satisfaction of the Development Services Division prior to the recording of the final plat. As described, the proposed development involves several private easements (pedestrian, vehicular, utility) as well as a Storm Water Detention Tract and required landscaping to be maintained. Therefore, staff recommends the applicant create a homeowner's association or maintenance agreement concurrently with the recording of the final plat in order to establish maintenance responsibilities for landscaped right-of-way improvements, as well as for any shared private utilities/drainage facilities or private access and utility easements to include the private pedestrian access easement. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division prior to the recording of the final plat. o The proposal would result in an increase in traffic trips to the City's street system; therefore, a Traffic Mitigation Fee has been imposed by the Environmental Review Committee The Traffic Mitigation Fee is based on $75.00 per additional generated trip per single-family lot at a rate of 9.57 trips per lot. Credit for 9.57 trips has been given for the existing single-family residence. For the proposal, the fee has been estimated at $13,637.25 ($75.00 x 181.83 net new daily trips = $28,289.25). The fee is payable prior to the recording of the final plat. Topography: The site is relatively flat with a gentle south-facing slope on the northern half. On the southern half is a berm, which parallels the southern property line. There is a drop off from the level area along the western edge of the site of approximately 8 feet to the lower adjacent property. The property is vegetated with a mixture of deciduous and coniferous tress, shrubs and underbrush. The site is currently developed with a single-family residence and shed with vehicle and equipment storage and other debris throughout the property. With the land use application, the applicant submitted a Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Geo Group Northwest, Inc. dated October 4, 2004. Soil conditions were evaluated City of Renton P/BIPW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA-04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF RIDGEVIEW COURT PRELIMINARY PLA T AND SITE PLAN PUBLIC HEARING DATE: JANUARY 4, 2005 Page 9 of 12 hexrpt04-131.doc by reviewing test pits, which classified the soil as Alderwood gravelly sandy loam with medium dense cobbly and gravelly silty sand fills with occasional debris was found on the southern half of the site and loose to medium dense fine sand and gravelly/cobbly fine sand overlying dense gravelly silty sand (till). The overlying loose to medium dense site soils and fills is not considered suitable for use in support of foundations or for use as or for mixing with other materials for structural fill. The geotechnical engineering report made two recommendations: 1) the fill soils be over-excavated or 2) the buildings be supported on pile foundations. The first recommendation is considered by Geo Group Northwest as the preferred option The report concludes that the site is suitable for the proposed development provided that the geotechnical recommendations included in the report are incorporated into the site preparation and groundwork which Environmental Review Committee has imposed a requirement that the applicant shall comply with all recommendations contained within the Geotechnical Report submitted with the application with regard to site preparation and groundwork. As proposed, all vegetation on the property would be removed due to grading and site preparation. It is estimated approximately 4,800 cubic yards of fill would be imported for construction of the road base and general site fill. Relationship to Existing Uses: The subject site is currently developed with a single-family structure. The surrounding properties to the west, north and east are zoned CS. To the south is proposed a single-family residential development with existing single-family to the southeast in R- 8 zoning. The proposal provides a 15-foot rear yard setback from the south property lines, which abuts the R-10 development as required. The proposed Anacortes Avenue NE private street will act as a buffer between the proposed single-family homes along the western property line and the existing commercial use (Post Office site) on the abutting property. The project is consistent with the intent of the both the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code and would not be out of character with the existing development in the area. (e) Availability and Impact on Public Services (Timeliness) Police and Fire: Police and Fire Prevention staff indicate that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development, subject to the condition that the applicant provide Code required improvements and fees. The Environmental Review Committee has imposed a Fire Mitigation Fee based on $488.00 per new single-family lot in order to mitigate the proposal's potential impacts to emergency services. The fee is estimated at $9,272.00 ($488.00 x 19 new lots = $9,272.00) with credit given for the existing residence and is payable prior to the recording of the final plat. Recreation: The proposal does not provide on-site recreation areas for future residents of the proposed plat. There are existing recreational facilities in the area of the subject property and it is anticipated that the proposed development would generate future residents that would utilize existing City park and recreational facilities and programs. Therefore, a Parks Mitigation Fee based on $530.76 per each new single-family lot has been required by the Environmental Review Committee). The fee is estimated at $10,084.44 ($530.76 x 19 new lots = $10,084.44) with credit given for the existing residence and is payable prior to the recording of the final plat. Schools: The subject site is located within the Renton School District boundaries. According to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the City of Renton Land Use Element (January 16, 1992), the City of Renton has a student generation factor of 0.44 students per single-family residential dwelling. Therefore, it is anticipated that the proposed preliminary plat would result in 8 (0.44 X 19 new single-family homes = 8.4) new children to the local schools (Honeydew Elementary School, McKnight Middle School and Hazen High School). Storm water: The subject site is located within the Cedar River Basin. The applicant has submitted a Drainage Report prepared by American Engineering Corporation dated September 30, 2004 with the land use application. The report indicates that on-site surface water would be directed to a stormwater detention facility located in the southwest corner of the site. The site is located within the Aquifer Protection Area, Zone 2. The drainage analysis and design of the storm water system appears to be in accordance with the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual Level 2 flow control requirements. City of Renton PIB/PW Department ' Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA-04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF RIDGEVIEW COURT PRELIMINARY PLA T AND SITE PLAN PUBLIC HEARING DA TE: JANUARY 4, 2005 Page 10 of 12 Water and Sanitary Sewer Utilities: The project will require the installation of new water mains, fire hydrants, fire control systems, and meters -all of which are to be placed within City held easements. Water System Development Charges, based on a rate of $1,525.00 per new single- family lot will required prior to the issuance of construction permits for the project. Credit will be given for the existing single-family lot. The project would require a new sewer main along the site frontage. Additionally, new sewer mains as required to serve the new single-family lots. Wastewater System Development Charges, based on $900.00 per new single-family lot, will be required prior to the issuance of construction permits for the project. Credit will be given for the existing single-family lot. The site is located in the East Renton Interceptor Special Assessment District and the fees are $224.52 per lot plus interest. 6. CONSISTENCY WITH SITE PLAN CRITERIA: hexrpt04-131.doc Pursuant to RMC 4-9-200.E, "The Reviewing Official shall review and act upon site plans based upon comprehensive planning considerations and the following criteria. These criteria are objectives of good site plan to be aimed for in development within the City of Renton. However, strict compliance with anyone or more particular criterion may not be necessary or reasonable. These criteria also provide a frame of reference for the applicant in developing a site, but are not intended to be inflexible standards or to discourage creativity and innovation. The site plan review criteria include, but are not limited to, the following": (a) Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, its elements & policies. As discussed above under the Preliminary Plat portion of this report, the proposal is incompliance with the elements and policies established by the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Objective LU-P. Ensure structures build in residential areas are compatible with the existing or desired character of established neighborhoods and the desired character of new neighborhoods. Existing single-family houses are located in the surrounding area. The proposed structures are subject to the design criteria of the Residential Bonus District B. (b) Conformance with Land Use Regulations. The project's compliance with the development standards of the CS zone and the Centers Residential Demonstration District B have been discussed in detail under the analysis of the preliminary plat's compliance with the underlying zoning designation. Further analysis of the pertinent standards related to the review of the proposed site plan is discussed below. Setbacks -The applicant has requested a modification from the development standards for which exceeding the maximum front yard setback may be approved under the site plan review process. The CS zone allows a maximum front yard setback of 15 feet. The applicant proposes 28-foot front yard for lots 10 through 13, which consists of an 18-foot Private Pedestrian Access and Utility Easement and a 10-foot setback from the easement to the structure. On Lot 8, a 40-foot front yard is proposed to accommodate a portion of the 26-foot access easement. Staff is supportive of this increase based on the proposed lot layout, as it would allow for adequate pedestrian connection and, which have been determined to comply with the intent of the Centers Residential Bonus District B design standards. Residential Bonus District -The proposed site plan exceeds the 250 square feet required per lot of landscaping/ lawn area. The lots range from 983 to 3,026 square feet of lawn area. The proposed conceptual landscaping plan submitted provides a viable mixture of trees and shrubs to compensate for the loss of vegetation and indeed enhance the site. The applicant is proposing seven different single-family house designs, all with rear or side loading garages. The articulation and entrances of the structures comply with Development Standards. Pedestrian access is well connected between each structure and the development. (c) Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and uses. Potential short-term noise and traffic impacts would result from the initial construction of the project to adjacent properties. The applicant would be required to comply with existing code provisions that establish the allowed hours of construction activities for projects within 300 feet of residential uses to weekdays City of Renton PIB/PW Department ' Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA-04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF RIDGEVIEW COURT PRELIMINARY PLA T AND SITE PLAN PUBLIC HEARING DATE: JANUARY 4, 2005 Page 11 of12 hexrpt04-131.doc between the hours of 7:00 am and 8:00 pm. Construction activities are not permitted prior to 9:00 am on Saturdays and no work is permitted on Sundays. After the completion of the project, impacts to adjacent properties from typical residential activities on the site are anticipated to be minimal. As required by the CS zone development standards, the project would maintain a 15-foot rear yard setback from the abutting proposed residential property on the south and west sides of the site. The proposed landscaping plan provides substantial buffering along the north, east and south property lines and appears quite adequate to meet all landscaping code requires for each lot and the internal streets. (d) Mitigation of impacts of the proposed site plan to the site. The proposal is not expected to adversely impact the site. There are no significant natural or sensitive features on the property that would be impacted by the proposal. The development of 20 new single-family home and landscaping is expected to enhance the quality of the site by replacing an existing dwelling, accessory structures and un-kept site. The existing structures are proposed to be removed, therefore staff recommends the applicant shall obtain a demolition permit and complete all inspections and approvals for all buildings located on the property prior to the recording of the final plat. The satisfaction of this requirement is subject to the review and approval of the development services project manager. Construction activities related to the initial development of the project would be required to utilize best management practices through code requirements for an approved temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan (TESCP). (e) Conservation of area-wide property values. The project would develop and improve a currently underutilized site. The proposed 2-story homes with attached garages are anticipated to increase the amount of property ownership in the area and therefore, anticipated to conserve or enhance area-wide property values. (f) Safety and efficiency of vehicle and pedestrian circulation. A reduced right-of-way width of 42 feet has been approved for the project under an administrative modification. The right-of- way would include 32 feet of paving with 4.5-feet of sidewalk with 0.5-foot of curb. An administrative modification was also approved to reduce the cul-de-sac radius to 50 feet with 45 foot paved radius. The proposed right-of-way has been determined to comply with the objectives of safety, function, environmental protection and maintainability intended by the requirements of the street standards and would not be injurious to other property{s} in the vicinity. Right of way dedication along the frontage of the property is required to accommodate the widening of Bremerton Avenue NE to 50 feet. Pedestrian sidewalks are to be installed along the public streets and the pedestrian easements. (g) Provision of adequate light and air. The proposed residential buildings would be sufficiently setback from property lines to provide adequate natural light and air circulation to the buildings and the site. The applicant will be required to install adequate street lighting as required by the City's street standards. (h) Mitigation of noise, odors and other harmful or unhealthy conditions. It is anticipated that minimal noise and odor impacts would result from the initial construction of the site. These short- term impacts would be mitigated by the applicant's construction mitigation plan. The proposed development would not generate any harmful or unhealthy conditions. Noise impacts associated with increased traffic and activities resulting from the completed project would not increase significantly above existing conditions. (i) Availability of public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use. Fire Department and Police staff has indicated existing facilities are adequate to accommodate the subject proposal, subject to the applicant's payment of the necessary impact fees. As imposed by the Environmental Review Committee, the applicant will be required to pay Fire and Traffic mitigation fees prior to the recording of the plat. Sanitary sewer, water service and other utilities will be installed and extended per city code by the applicant. City of Renton PIB/PW Department \, RIDGEVIEW COURT PRELIMINARY PLA T AND SITE PLAN PUBLIC HEARING DA TE: JANUARY 4, 2005 . Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA-04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF Page 120f12 (j) Prevention of neighborhood deterioration and blight. The proposal would develop a underutilized property. The development of the site is anticipated to increase the overall appearance surrounding the area; thereby preventing neighborhood deterioration and blight. G. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat, Site Plan Project File No. LUA-04- 131, PP, SA-H, ECF subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall revise the plat to reflect the easement along the rear of lots 1 through 3 and 18 through 20 to be an alley right-of-way with a width of 16 feet with a minimum of 14 feet of pavement. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division prior to the recording of the final plat. 2. The applicant shall be required to post the 26-foot private access easement (Anacortes Avenue NE) with "No Parking" signage on each side. Staff recommends the applicant shall comply with this requirement to the satisfaction of the Development Services Division prior to the recording of the final plat. 3. A homeowner's association or maintenance agreement shall be created concurrently with the recording of the final plat in order to establish maintenance responsibilities for landscaped right-of-way improvements, as well as for any shared private utilities/drainage facilities or private access and utility easements to include the private pedestrian access easement. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division prior to the recording of the final plat. 4. The applicant shall obtain a demolition permit and complete all inspections and approvals for all buildings located on the property prior to the recording of the final plat. The satisfaction of this requirement is subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Project Manager EXPIRATION PERIODS: Preliminary Plats (PP): Preliminary plat approval shall lapse unless a final plat based on the preliminary plat, or any phase thereof, is submitted within five (5) years from the date of preliminary plat approval. Site Plan: Site Plan approval shall expire within two (2) years from the date of approval. hexrpt04-131.doc .J . -' '6~ < ia ~ t) 0 Izi § 10 :r: ,t) 0:: 'I~~ ~ :~ 15 IZ :z i5 ! ~~ i l:~ ~ -~ "r u ~. ~1 ~~ II~ .~ 1 Jill ~ ~!I ., ~ ,~I & 8ECTION 15 TOWN8HIP 23 NORTH RANClE a EA8T W.M. I /11= I> !iIi lili 1 ! I ( Z ~ ; ; 4 kG: 152305 9145 (O.84AG.) 1152305 9112 .... ..., 152305 9002 18210 . ___ • 518210 ':i!: Z 2OTO 9071 9094 pl.'!: I tjT__ \ 152305 \ )008 ~ 518210 ~-041 W Woo .Al"" ...... 152305 I 9178 · "" 0.,..,., ,_ F~ a::: >1 ... ..., I ~ I 7 CO ~I I"'''' ~ ~ II I -I 152305-9034 ! [ 518210 ~152305 (0. ...... ) I 18210 )016 (1.33Ac.) 518210 0031 51s21()"0010 ~% 0020 :::: 9035 ! 51821Q.()013 ~~ \ SiTE...... (1.34Ac.) I • 1"" '),. I 152305-9036 I ' M. '....~"': \ \ r / • VIS' 1).~ II , " 152305 9032 "1210«112 518210 0080 : I ~01::l. I W I . ____ ~ __ .~ I ~ 152305 " I "'" 907' )'-~ W en 518210-0081 152305-9212 (0 ...... ) W 152305 (3.88 Ac.) ---, W (O.ll AG.) ~ __ --J.. __ I 1152305-921r 152305 .c: \\'~~o ~ 9030 (2.14 Ac.) 518210 0069 518210 0068 0 518210 0051 (0 ....... ) 9046 _ "A'M) CO __ -,-__ -t_-!!s • .l!13fI!!ST.!.!ST __ ~ ..,~ .c: -CO ('I") T"" ~152305 92131 ~1E (1.12AC.) 152305-9215 (O,81Ac.. 152305-9036 152305 9015 (4.16 Ac.) . (O,IIM.) 152305-9082 (UOAc.) ~ , ~ t1 07.t~ 290 1 .Un: \: ~ (! ! O'lROot-O,J ji'l ~ I~ ~ ~ Am.rloa" , .. RECOMMENPe:o fOR APPROVAL " n"" • Pl4nrMrs • surv.,. .... Englne.rlng 403114tt11 A. .... H.t. ."" ''fI 0A1II __ _ Corporation .... WA IIOU c4 IYI DATlI __ _ In'I DA'ItI __ _ ---------~~-----•• !Z • "'IOC3\03tl\' ._ •. _ .•.. _._,~~.~ .... ~'1.~.~"' ........... ~,.;.;.~~:;.,_~ ..... ""'~ ...... -~ .• -..".-.~K--•• ~-~.-.~~,.~~, ........ ~ •••• "-,.-.,.---.,. ... ...., ........... "' ..... , ......... , ....... ".. • ..... --••• -•• ~~ •• SECTION 16 TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH RANGE 6 EAST W.M. / ~r-~ v/ ~I I I I 0039 I I 3.' it. 035 / / / / -'-- TL 0031 l\eI\~ ~I RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL B'I'~ DATE: BY: OA,TE: BY; DATE: By: DATE: Revisions No. I Date OGte By I Scale 0-20-04 AS SHO~ ""wn NB D •• lgned RS ~ Bo TL 193 p, \ POO.1\ 011 P\ r nninpprinn \ Dwo \e0312oe I.awo 10/13/2004 10,51,54 AM PDT iL Hl2 I I TRACT .1 STORN WATER DEmlllON I TL 0051 I TL 0051 ~I-- GIW'IIIC SCAIB ~ J f'" , 1 DICII _OtO ft 0/28/04 OWNER/DEVELOPER: RIOGEI1EW COURT LLC CONTACT: CUFF \\1WAWS P.O. BOX 2401 KIRKLAND, WA 98083-2401 PHONE: (206) 714-7161 REGISTERED ENGINEER: AMERICAN ENGINEERING CORPORA TlON CONTACT: CHERYl GIRARD 4032 148TH AVE. NE REDMOND, WA 98052 PHONE: (425) 881-7430 LAND SURVEYOR AMERICAN ENGINEERING CORPORA TlON CONTACT: GARY CHRISTENSEN 4032 148TH AVE. NE REDMOND. WA 98052 PHONE: (425) 881-7430 LEGAL DESCRIPTION PER PACIFIC NORTHWEST TlTLE REPORT, ORDER NO 506681 DA TlED FEB 13, 2003. THE SOUTH HALF OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTlER OF SECTlON 15, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH. RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON: EXCEPT ALL COAL AND MINERAL RIGHTS CONTAINED IN RESERVATION OF RECORD, AND KNOWN AS A PORTION OF' TlRACT 4, OF MARTIN'S ACRE TlRACTS, AN UNRECORDED PLAT: EXCEPT THE EAST 7.5 FEET OF' SAID TlRACT. BENCH MARK TOP OF CONC MON DOWN 0.7' IN CASE AT THE CONSTlRUCTlED INTX OF NE 4TH ST (S.E. 128TH ST) AND 140TH AVE S.E. (N.W. COR SEC 15). ELEVATION: 401.02' ELEV. FROM CITY OF RENTON CONTlROL SHEETS, POINT 1503 VERTICAL DATUM NAVD 88 HORIZONTAL DATUM WASHINGTON STATlE PLANE, NORTH ZONE. NAD 83/91 VICINITY MAP N.T.S. PROJECT DATA: TOTAL AREA (SF): 104,373 TOTAL AREA (ACRES): 2.40 ,r NO. OF PROPOSED LOTS: 20 EXISTING ZONING: CENTlER SUBURBAN (CS) LOT SIZE TABLE: LOT 1 4446 SF LOT 2 3600 SF LOT 3 4893 SF LOT 4 3371 SF' LOT 5 3344 SF LOT 6 2849 SF LOT 7 3187 SF LOT 8 5831 SF LOT 9 3928 SF LOT 10 4120 SF LOT 11 4342 SF LOT 12 4340 SF LOT 13 4065 SF LOT 14 3117 SF LOT 15 2725 SF LOT 16 2779 SF LOT 17 3683 SF LOT. 18 4835 SF LOT 19 3600 SF LOT 20 4105 SF TlRACT "A" 8609 SF SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 0 S.F. LAND IN SENSITIVE AREAS: SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 14,012 S.F. LAND IN PUBLIC STlREETS/ROW SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 20,245 S.F. y LAND IN PRIVATlE ACCESS EASEMENTS DENSITY PROPOSED 12.42 D.U'/AC=(12 D.U./A.C.) MIN. DENSITY ALLOWED -10 D.U./AC ("CS ZONE") r-~~' ~&~~.rr ALLOWED =20 D.U./AC Ji1I''''1'l,,''i'J.''' _______ ~ __ ~. !'="'_ "_"""" VINEYARDS CONSTRUCTION, L.L.C. Amerloan Englne.rs • plonners Engineering Corporation RIDGEVIEW COURT PRELIMINARY PLAT PLAN Dot. PloUed 9-29-04 0312 OF '-? 1-1 ...J :il;: I~§ ~ .~ D-'IZO~ ~ ut; V) ",g 00: ~ Z 5' 1 rz..z '~ o~ I ~~ t Ge>: r ~~ i 4'1 ~ ~~ jl~ ~ I ~:I j!!i ~ OWNER/DEVELOPER: RroC£'I1E' COURT LLC CQNTACT:CLFF'MWAWS P.OBOX2401 I(IRKI.AHD • ."A9eo4J-24Ot PHai(:(20fi)714-7161 REGISTERED ENGINEER: AIoIERlCAHEHCtIEERlHGCORf'ORA1'lI»I COOl""CT: CtiER'ltGlRARO .oJ214elllA'o{.N( REOUC»IO, W ... 88052 P+iC»lE: (42~) 861-1430 LAND SURVEYOR AW[RlCAHENGINEERIMCCORf>CiRAl\()I CONTACT: GAltY0lRl5~SEH 4OJ2148'1HAVE.NE RU».I()IO. WI. 8sa52 f>tlONE: (425)Ul-7430 LEGAL DESCRIPTION PER PACIFIC NOR'THV£ST TlTU: REPORT, ORDER NO ~681 0'" TED fEB 13, 2003. THE SOUTH HALf OF' THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST OF THE NORTliV!£ST QUArHER OF THE NORlH'fttST QUARTER OF stCn~ 15, TOWNSHIP 2J NORTH. RANGE 5 [loST, W,W., IN KING COUNTY, WASHiNGTON; EXCEPT .'.LL COAL AND IoIIN[RAL RIGHTS CONTAINED IN RESERV'" nON OF R[CORO. AND KNO~ AS A PORTION Of TRACT 4, or IoIARnN'S .-.CRE ,"v.ers. AN UNRECORDED PL"l; EXCEPT THE EAST 7.:; f'(ET OF SAID TRACT. BENCH MARK TOP Of CONe WON DOv.t.l 0.7' IN CASE AT THE CONSTRUCT£!) INT)[ OF HE "TH S1 (s.[. 128TH ST)AH0140THAVES.E. (N.W. COR S[C 1~). ELEVA nON: 401.02' ELEV. FlWt.4 CITY OF' RENTON CONTROL SHEETS. PCWNT 1503 VERTICAL DATUM NAW .... HORIZONTAL DATUM WASHINGTON STATE PLANE, NORTH ZONE NAO 83/91 -I~ CWPIIIC 'IF' 1, ! I il __ 4i BUILDING / LANDSCAPE TABLE LOT, LOT SIZE BUILDING " BUILDING (sr) SIZE (Sf') COVERAGE 4446 SF 1210 ". "'" " 1210 ,... 4893SF' 1210 ". 3371 SF 1210 ,.. 3344 SF 1168 ". 2849 SF' 1119 ". 3187 SF '118 ". 51131 SF 1211 ". 3928 SF 1210 ,CO 4120 SF 1210 ZO. 4342 Sf 1210 ". " 4140Sf 1210 ". ~ 40&5 51' 1049 ". " 3117 Sf' "" ". ;; 2725 Sf' 1186 ... 2779SF' 1176 ... 3!183 Sf 1210 ". 483!i SF 1210 ". .!.!. 3600 Sf 1210 ,.. 20 1210 ,OX NOTE: R'UERTo LANDSCAPE PLANS BY OTHERS fOR D[lAIL£Q LANDSCAPiNG DES!GHt\.AYOUT. LA,," "LA~ AREA (SF) AREA 1888 Sf' .,. 132451'" ". 2199 SF .,. 1197 SF' ". 983 Sf ". 1213 SF .,. 1000 SF ". 3026 SF' ,,. 1l56Sf ". I~I SF 1621 Sf 1620 Sf' ,,. 221SSf '50 91l1SF ". 1016Sf ". lOll Sf ". 1383SF ". 2107 Sf ... 1287 Sf ". !!l33 SF .,. Amerloan Englne.rlng Corporation Engln ..... • Plann .... • Su .... .ya ... RECOMMENPEP FOR APpROVAL '032I .. ItI ...... IU. IltOnorwt. W ... tIO!2 ______ D ... 1[: PHOIC(4U)88I-?4lO , ... "'~iNiiiM lO/l412Q).1 DY,,?.0004 11M I'DT ~1~1_'''''''Ifl/I'''''''0It21:l4AM,1fI15CIC~ SECTION 15 TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH RANGE 5 EAST W.M. TL II 0041 ~ e ilEL..J:.:::tfitf :jl r,/' v."::..J 13 kk1 12 TL 0039 ------------ TL 0051 ~1.ANDSC.U'(D£SJGNrc. ~ l1(li( M'OR\U.1l()I. I lIIACTA IYOlMEllS. IIUtII TOlANDSCAP[l'lANsrOA I ---~ TL 0051 .I "~~ 13 '" <l K L:>.'t:> , I' <I ".'-..:.. 't("" ",' ~ ;.~~~ , I' ,"-.. '" " /39/ / /" " ,,~, \ '> ;; , ~.~ .. ,'~ 26' PRIVATE ACCESS AND' UTILITY EASEMENT .,... ... .... ,"'" It • I I t I •• I .... " , .. t "' ... 9 3' BSBL (TYP) NOO"47' 45"E 330~32' ~e'\l\~e~\ \ \ \ ~\ \&\ 4t-- I I I I I I I I -- ~ ~ ~ ... '" -< W 10 W c:J ~ II: ~ II: o Z .,., (II IL :i: '" z ~ o ... :2 z o j: o w '" ,:'t.~. .: .... -,: ... c--t.: "./ .. ..( ,:~. d~ AH~~odol/~vaNno8 "-----------u_u ------- NO.LN3~ ~ dO ill J QiI'i ':·$:::;i:: -:.:' III I ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ ] • ~ ~i a::t. . § !j i~ !~. ,,~ J .,c cO c-;: ~:~ ~c .. ~:g.o -cwo NOIS~ -ON ::i ~ ..... GIl < W 10 W C!J Z < a: :a:: ..... a: o z .., (II IL :c GIl Z ~ o ..... ~ Z o ~ u W GIl I .. - ---- ( : ~r : l!Ii I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ------#_----=------- I > I I I I I I -L -~·F -----------I ----------------- NVld ~NI~:J ONVl/~Nlllm ]3Ml. 'Id;oo ''IJQ/II :l!I<Ind!6u!p!!nB/6v!uuO!d ~ I -::::::.' I ':I"':l~ _umoo M31A3001<l NO.LN311 ¥ YM":l _ 'o-Tl 'NouomllSNOo SOCIVA3NIfI ;10 A.LIJ ' ....... ..,-=-.Ot"8~ nnl __ ':..:,' "d'" 11>'0 JJl NOrSt.".31:1 'ON :~ ~ ...J ..I "- ~~ ~ F==> '-' Uo '" =>u 0 ~~ ~ 6Gj ::;i ,u g ::> :~a:: b: I~ ~ 'z 8 1 5 1 ~~ i >-E-g t:~ ~ uCI:: f , ~~ .. 11! < d~ Ii ~ ~ - ~ i NOTE, ,STN<E TREeS OVER I' HEIGHT. 'PlANT 80 THATTOP OF ROOT BAIJ. 18 EVEN WITH THE FINISHED ORADE 'SCARIFY SlOES OF PLANTING PITS PRIOR TO 8ACI(FIUING. SPECIFIED Pl.ANTINO MIX WATER AND TAMP TO REMOVE AIR POCKETS fA\ TREE PLANTING \3 SCALE: NTS = 'MULCH COMPLETELY BETWE£N AU. PLANTS EXCEPT IN SEEDED AND MARSH AREAS. • PLANT 80 THAT TOP OF ROOT BAU..1S EVEN WITH THE FINISHED GRADE. 3" MULCH. KEEP MUlCH AWAY FROM TRUNK. FORM SAUCER WITH 3" CONTINUOUS RIM SCARIFY SlOES OF PlANTING PITS PRIOR TOEIACKFILUNG. ~2 X OIA.. OF ROO1'9AU.-J. (8\ SHRUB PLANTING 'd SCALE: NTS j a br;.!!g§!!~ Amerloan Englne.rlng Corporation tnglnttu • Plonntu • Survtyono 4Ol214ltllAvt.N.t. It..smond. WI. 18052 PHONC(421)AI-74lO , .. (42S) no"" P,\.tO!!3\Q312\[ng ....... I'>Q\D .. C\I031lOJplc1., RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL , _______ 01.'1[: __ GENERAL NOTES ALl WORK 8HAU BE PERFORMED BY PERSONS FAMIlIAR WITH THIS KIND OF WORK AND UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF A QUALIFIED FORMAN. PLANT LOCA. TIONS ON PLAN ARE DIAGRAMMATIC AND MAY BE SUBJECT TO ADJUSTMENT IN THE FIELD BY LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR. PLANT TREES AND SHRUBS UPRIGHT AND FACE TO GIVE THE SEST APPEAAANCE OR RELA TIONBHlP TO ADJACfNT STRUCTURES. BACKFIU SOIL MIXTURE TO BE It SANDY TOPSOIL INCLUDING BANDY SOIL AND HIGHLY ORGANIC COMPOST. USE CEDAR GROVE 2·WAY TOPSOIL PlACE 4" OF TOPSOIL OVER AU. PLANTINO BEDS AND nLL TO It D£PTH OF r PlANT TREES AND STAKE AS SHO'NN IN DETAIL RAKE SOIL SURFACE 8MOOTH AND FREE FROM AU. ROCKS, SOIL LUMPS, STICI<8, AND OTHER DELETERIOUS MATERlAL8. AFTER PL.AN11NG. COVER ALL AREAS WITH THRSE (3) INCHES OF FINE BARK MULCH. GUAAANTEE ALL PLANT MATERIAl FOR A P£RJOD OF ONE YeAR AFTER ACCEPTANCE BY OWNER. EACH UNIT TO BE DEVELOPeD WITH A MINIMUM OF 2150 SUARE FEET OF LANDSCAPING OR PRIVATE YARD ABVTTlNG EACH UNIT. CREATE LAWN PANELB WITH UNDULATING FLOWINGUNEB. IRRIGATION SYST9I WILL BE REQUIRED. SYSTEM LAYOUT TO BE INCLUDED IN THE ENGINNERlNG DESIGN PHASE. ...... """""""'''''' IIPIIICI .. • ICY o.c. ..-. q?\' • ICT ............. --0 ,. _ ....... ...... ..... """" ... ............... TIIED 1IPIIICI.··ICYO.c, C11Y. IOT ....... _ --lIZ! 12 _ ........ "" ....... 21/2°cw, 21/2·~ _ ..... ''''' ... ............ 11f1AC115'·"o.c. mIIOI. q?\'. "" .......... --... @l .. "'_1fIIICfA ....... - """ ....... ~1'·4·0.c. ....... q?\'. ... ....... ---@'" --HrAY!M.YIAMIIOO ®PI. JIIIUNJI LN.R:URAIUI 'OT1'O LUn<IN' DT1O .............. .... @'" .. -, ... """"""'" .....,. q?\' • "'"""'-... -" """""""'-. .... """"""" .-.-q?\' • lliZl 24,000 IQ. n. H'rrMOIUD LAWN SECTION 15.TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH RANGE 5 EAST W.M. ;f """""'" U. """"""" 'II,ICONI'. r': '11I,fOOH1'. '''I,ICOHI'. - COHT_ """""'" -I~ COHT .... IQl:r """' ..... If .. laa-iO " ') "''''''''" ""' ...... ....=.. ~ -"," ~ ,~ j .J .J ~l;: .; 35 ~ ::>u "-!:'& C,!) ~GJ ~ 3~ ~ ~Q (!) "cr , i \ SECTION 18 TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH RANGE 8 EAST W.M. .:-:::., 1/: ,::" . .;:. I ,::~,~. : .. ::-' , ~=(n$I) ~ >---' --, -~' ~---- ~ ~ c..z • 00 l >-~ ~ t:s:: ~ u .... ~ ~ ~1 < ~~ II'W' ; I ~H l!i ~ ~ i Amerloa" Engineering Corporation ("",[nltn • Plann'l"I • SurveyQI"I 4C3214IStIIA ... N.[. "-*'-d,WA811052 111111 ·1 ,"ON,(m' .. '-"~ ,g(m, ~ n. poltl.H ...... Po\2003'0312\r" .......... r.l>\D.c\.031211~1.d.1I 10/14/2004 • 1,:;r.,.i~,ibr+?t'F7$0£J -: _ : , ------+_ ~~o_"il.~ ! I ~f II =: 'I I I. I " I I , I ! I ,::., I 1~1l; j~ ";e-~.jJJ.. r-------~£±tQji¥i@K{~~ J::'- .... {<. <-." .. ::." RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL _______ D ... ~ '.':' 136TH AVE. S. E. 1::'- ~I~ GlW"BJC 8CAU1 T ! f. i ___ 40 n. AREA OF PROPERTY: IIU,J7JSF AREA OF WORK: 104,J7JSF" CUT & FILL: cur_2,441 YARDS ru-7.212 YAROS NET-.,'B! YARDS FlU. NOTE: ~Fa..LORQNTOBE DrnRWIEO ~ ~ ... c.. '" ::J tG 8 E ~ d ~ 5 ~ ~ '" LU :z w <.!l " ~ rz..z • 00 ~ E-< • "'z ~ t:~ ~ U I t,il ~@ Ii ~ ~ll ~ ... ~ is ! Amerloan Englne.rlng Corporation Engln"'" • Plann.,.. • Sl,Irv.yon 4031148th ...... NL R-.:tmon ... W ... ~2 IIIIII I ftHONI:(41$) &e1-74JO r",,(42$) g I Fh,.,U.. N ..... PI'2m\n312\(na..".~frlc\Dwa\.OlI2ucol.d.c 1~/14/iit1lO. , I , I i , I , I , I l ~( :5 ~I I I I I I I .. 10...-..... ~ SECTION 15 TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH RANGE 5 EAST W.M. :." .. .:'~ ,(-:.: ,::," ,::," ,(-." 1-------~~%'?\l!!':{7rZS1 /" tx1UO a.jL , ':., ':', ~ ',.' I::' RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL .:::':" ,,::.- J::'" -I~ .. !T~ • __ 40 ft ~ A . LEGEND ............ .. "" ...... -""' ...... 00\106 UDl.1'Ift1 ~II'RIIMDIIAIM," -----MamG~I.K~ --nALIGl.III1Qt -----....... -----WAD"': A~PHAI.. T c.aM .... r------ON I~ I'"I!LT MeTAl.. c$UTTl!R ON hee I"A~IA eoAc=tO _~Ii --------------~ -L - ~WEB [ID 000110 GlA..TV~I!O ~TONI!! VI!,NI!I!R. INSTALL PeR 1-11"0. ~Pf!C.I"Ic.ATla_ I! I"'RONT E:I...E:VATION eee~ __ ._ NOTe, I. FINISH FLOOR OF" eVERY HOMe' TO ee AT <SoRA-DE FER <SoRADIN<So PLAN 2. ROOFS TO BE ,.12 OR LO~R 3. NO MEC.HANIC.AL EQUIPMeNT OR OTHER STR.UC-TURES TO BE ON THE' ROOF <4. ROOF C-OLOR TO BE LI<SoHT TO MEDIUM ~REY c.OMPOSTION SHIN<SoLE5 5. HOIJSE C.OLOR-""HITE OR OFP-~HITE TRIM \"11TH BEI6E, 6REY, ALMOND, OR 5A6e eoDY .--------- ~~illl.lI~ 1m RE:AR E:I...E:VATION to" I-'C'RIZONT .... L ~IOIN61 I'it-I~RI! !,!oH01"IN "IN."LI't.~1t. -------::~=] -- 5G1UARE FOOTAcS>E5 MAIN ,44 UPPER <=tee TOTAL cS>ARAcS>e 1"'79:2 4:20 -- - ==::! -:::111 THIS PI...AN TO CSOO ON I...OTS S,E>,15$ IE> /" ~~Ji:HE m ~lli-E ~1 1 h • --_ ---l-·,·· ....... "'""=" - B3B3B3B3B3B3B3B3 ~ -"""""'1 00000000 ~ g8888g88 ~'.""" ~A'. I...E:FT E:I...E:VATION D 0 J~=~ h~ ~ § ·i i8~ ih ~p~ ~ fuJ ~.§ p -----~--.... ~1 Ir~ II I~ ) _ ., •.• c ... ~ .. • 1= -~=] I~ r-~ ~ mUJ I.) N D ~ Um .~ 1: r-L 4: -()~ W () -Z Ii Ii fu « D 4: II) .J ~ \l .CllLro N ~it t. dot.. IO--ot>-o<4 p.r-mlt, ~~~~ l ~::"~~'I:>y' ~ eHeeT AI RlcSoHT E:I...E:VATION OF A.2 D L I] ["''''N~~_ 91 9 , , _ !"~ '::!"~......L ,.IN, ""'-fll...:.t?'_" __ - - - - ------- d " ..,.......... - - --- - -- --- II ID/ I~I Ff'i!.ONT eLeVATION f'i!.lcSoHT eLeVATION eeJ!! ae~ NOTI!6 tlGAU!, 1/ ... • • 1'-0" '--~T~~,:~c>:-,eNe'eR saUARE FOOTAGoE5 NOTE. I. FINISH FLOOR OP EVERY HOME TO BE AT GRADE PER. 6R ...... DIN5 PLAN :OZ. ROOFS TO Be ,,1:0/ OR. LOV<fE!R. ~. NO Mec.HANlc ...... L EQUIPMENT OR OTHER. STI=WG TUt<E5 TO BE ON THE ROOF 4. 1<00,," GOLOR. TO ~I!!' LI':;;'I1T TO MEOIUM C$oRI!!!Y C.OMF'05TION SHIN6LES ~. House c..oLOR-WHITE OR OFF-~HITe TI"tII'-1 WiT .... eel.soe, <!loRey, ALMOND. OR. 5A6E! 6OD'r' I ~c:.I~IC.""TIO~ -mF=T~,}Dlrnr~=l ~~-~] f'i!.eAf'i!. eLeVATION 6I!!1!.~~NO~ MAIN uppeR TOTAl- 6oARA6E "'2 "64 1"7"76 420 THIS PLAN TO CSOO ON LOTS ::2 4 ::20 7 LeFT eLeVATION -~ ~ ... 7 /" D '0 l~=~ §I~i ~~~il i ~ ~ F; ~~8~ ~iJ'~ § ~ ::l ill I,) III L III \l ~ () ~ I r-() « !!! !: ~ III '> Z ill It III « t1l{ II)..J !fill ~no.. N ~i ~ dot... 10-00-04 ~:':::~M.' 00-00-00 ~::;:'""-~'\:.'>o:j, MKJ SHeeT AI.I OF A.2 D D ~''\: .. )\~\~\'\' JZI9-Q04(~ roou. ... -.... ~~~\( ~ U~q(£.,) S3Not 1f 'HSYN tu~. ..... .".."".,. 0 ~1fk)Q.-N......,..q1l ~ , , I , :~ ,-, 1 II 1\[ I , , '-----t I , , ~ ~ ~ \ , I , , I , ~ .I-.Q • I I , I , , I , ~ I I , , I """ , , I , , I II , , '\; JIIMIIII , , '--r-r , t!~! J ~I ~,§, ,,' llil ~J. .. 'I .0-.1:> . 39'0'<01'0'9 <oI'o'? z: ~ N3Q 'HOO<olQ~e E Z _? I 61t;3t;3t;31 N'V',d -.. ~ J:~no,::> Moal.Aoao$)al'~ IE !~ it~8 '1?oro..od I t "N I j' ~{ { !] , ~1 m I .. ~ .0-,1:> 1" ., ~, ~I " , II I L 0 illlliTrnrTiTiTi~j Ijlmlillmilim 1IIIImllinT II I lint! ; 'I:II~~~ 1:1 111"" 1 !o , !tJ jl itJ:: , lTTTTTTI 11II1111111111111 ~ , I OOO~ , oooq I oooq , oooq , oooq oooq , oooq i OOOl , , II i= « > w -I. w~ ~i w; Iii D If- IIi ~ () -I Z () () I/) ~ z « -I Il III I I- , 'J., J 1 ", .;} -:II \ 1', .~~g:e~ :.b~I..E! ~IDI~ r L.LJ §' L.LJ nr=~~"';:;:'~L -~ r=RONT el...eVATION NOTE, I. FINISH FLOOR. OF' eveRY HOMe! TO BE AT GRADE PER (5oRADING PLAN 2. ROOFS TO 6E ,,1;2 OR. Lo~eR ~. NO MECHANIC-At.. EQUIPMENT OR ~I::~·~J OTHER STRUGTURES TO Be ON THe ROOF -4. ROO'" COLOR TO 6E LI(5tHT TO Me:DIUt-1 <SoREY C.OMP05TION SHINc;.1..ES 5. HOUSE GOL.OR-I<"II .. UTE OR. OFF-WHITE TRIM ~ITH BEIGE, o:So~y. AL.t-1OND, OR SAISE BODY 1E I[{ III -]r::~~] -~~~~J ReAR el...eVATION SQUARe;: FOOTAcSoes MAIN 600 UPPER TOTAL 60ARAeE "94 1594 4:20 / ~ft=== THIS FI...AN TO ($.0 ON I...OT IS RIcS>HT el...eVATION HI! =--=-=-= '---I l...er=T el...eVATION J ] J-~.], . .............. ---:: .. ""~ ']~~ ~""_M~IN D 0 1 a ~ "=t '" G §~ii ~~!l~ ~l il ~iJ~~ i ~ 0 ~.B ij P ~ :l Z III () t ~ 'i) Om . ~ {Ifl L{ -()'i) w () -z It It ~ « Cl{ II) .J ~ \l no.. roN it dClt., 10-00-0.4 p.r-mlt, ~~~ I :;=~~'~, M~ SHeeT AI "'P'A2 D · .~ '. "~ '~~\ ~:: ~~LI! SIDINt!> ,.,; /r-----~~~~i.~E'''OMP. 5+-1 MeTAl.. 6VTTE!R ON I"t> ~""eGl"" 80""~ ~I!RI! ~HOWN -~"~~A "0'''' :~ 1.><!'/4 CORN!! ~'i~R~Um±E§~R~~mfttffi~-mEB~-~~~ ~-~--~n ~~:] F~ONT El..EVATION I. FINISH FLOOR OF" eVERY HOME TO BE AT GRADE PER. GRADING PLAN :2. ~OF"S TO eE! -',1:2 OR LOrleR. 3. NO MECHANICAL eaUIF'ME!!NT OR OTHER STRIJCTVRI!!:S TO 6E ON THe ROOF 4. ROOF" COL01=2. TO ~I!! LI6HT TO l'-1eDIUI'-1 6ReY COI'-1POSTION SHIN(SoLe:S 5. House COLOI=2.-rlHITe 01=2. OF"F"_WHITe! T'R11'-1 WITH BEI6E!, 6REY, ALMOND, OR 5A61!! 8ODT' ~EA~ El..EVATION c.ut. ~o ~TO~ veNl!l!R I~T""LL peR Ml"'D. ~P't!CII"IC""TION~ 7 ~I($oHT El..EVATION SQUARe FOOTAGeS MAIN UPPER. TOTAL- cStARAcStE 81:2 .,.,'" ~ "':20 /" [~~ ---------. [ _'N""=", __ =-_C= j=:.--------=--s'- ~ _'_~~_N __ l..EFT El..EVATION ~I:rll -.=..,: rn THIS F'l..AN TO ($00 ON l..OTS 10 $ Ie _J D '0' 1 c ~ • ~h r~~ ~ §K~~ ~'8~ i~~i ~U~~ ~ :l W ()«r~ \) ..0 () ~ I ~ ~{ !!! -D ~ > z wit W«Ul{ II) ...J iO \l nIL N i dCilt., p .... mlt., .... vl.IOt"t •• 00-00-00 ~="k..-~'bo:i't-H.J SHeeT AI 01"' A:2 D ~_~L" GOr-1P. eoHl~LI!!!io ~ _____ ON 15-l"'eLT :;;;;!I!il!!!II::iI!!!I'[~;;!lII~~l!!i~!iilll~~ MeT~L~~RON I><e "~5CI~ eo,..RP ceDAR 'H'N~," "D'N~ -~ •• HO. R"O"~~~A .'D'''' .["-'""""'-"" - - .....eRe ~HO""N H1-11!!1=t!! 9HOI"IN ~ r-:.:::= I"'IN.I"'L --------------- ~ FRONT eJ..eVATION CUL."1"\.IR.eO ~T~ veN!!!!R INS-TALL Pl!R 1'11"0. !W"'I!GII"'IG~TION!lo eaUARE FOOTAcSoE:S NOTE, I. FINISH PLOOR: OF' EVERY HOME TO Be ..... T ~R""'De PER GoF<.ADIN6 PL ..... N 2. R.OOF'S TO BE ""T,12 OR LO~R ~. NO Mec.H ..... NIc. ..... L eGtUIPMeNT OR OTHER STR.uc.:nJ~S TO ee ON THe t=!.OOP 4. ROOF C.OLOR TO 6E LIG>HT TO MEDIUM <SoR.EY C.OMPOSTION SHING>LES ~. HOUSE C.OLOR.-V'lHITE OR OF'P-V'lHITE TR.IM V'lITH eeiGoE. (5tR..EY ...... LMOND. OR.. SAG>E BODY ReAR eJ..eVATION MAIN UF='F='ER TOTAL 6ARAc:5rE _M~~_~]"" [MA'" " .. ~ ~""--_ , ~ 9 _ "~._M~'" ; ; "'H. ""R.~~" "''''0 "''''''' 1566 .. :20 THI.S PI ... :AN TO c500 ON J..OTS 4,;,e,14, 4 Ii RIc50HT eJ..eVATION 1 J..eFT eJ..eVATION : .. D '0 i. c ~ t ~~='i r~~ u §~. t?"~ ~h~ ~d~: i :!. § l! ~.~ fuJ-p ~ :::l UJ () -( I I'l \) \\) Q ~ I\\) Q{ !!! ~ ~ I'l '> z UJ It IU .... IO { ~:J Ifl \) .. nil N ~ii ~ CIIot.. lo-oe-0-4 p.O'"mlt. = ~:~~'bIJ' MH.J ~Hee:T 01" AI A:2 [1J~'1(::: ']:' ';'i~ " .. ,~ .. '.," .. "." ..... ,I " , . .... ;r. , . ", .. '- "} . :--,1 "", ,,,\,, " _________ G~C>AR ~IN6I..e !!>IDIN6 " ~HI-lt!F1J!!!~~ ~ _____ ~~!'L;.~&'''''':'' !>HIN<!oL.t!!!o C.UL. TlJ'I'leD e.TONe VeN!!!:!"," '~T,",\...L.F'I!IOt.M"C>. !'>PeCI"'IC.ATIO~ FRONT eLeVATION ~ NOTE', I. FINISH FLOOR OF EVER..,.. HOME TO 6E AT GrRADE PER <StRADINGo PL.AN 2. ROOFS TO ae "1112 OR Lo~eR 9. NO Hec.HANIc.AL EQUIPMENT OR OTHER. STRUCTUReS TO ee ON THE ~o,. 4. ROOF GOLOR TO ee LI$HT. TO MEDIUM GoRe,.- COHPOSTION SHIN6LES 5. HOLJ5E c:;:.OLOR.-""HlTE OR OFF"-I"IHITE TRIM It'tITH eEI<S>E, cSoRE'T'", ALMOND, OR. SA6E BOD"'" 00000000 00000000 00000000 1 IDDDDDDDD .8]1 ReAR eLeVATION !M!!I!I oM!NI!I'lAL HOTel!!> e.c;:..-.....e.I/""· .. I'OOO· Ml!T .... 1. 61.1T'TeR ON I><b "' .... !!iCI ... !!O .... RD :~·.=1 [~ -~ ~~ ~ ~ 11~1 ~ M"'" "coo .. "~, ~ = _ -_ _ _ -= = [Cc 0 I 9 • <21=11 ""N. ,.1.1'1...;.. MAIN i SQUAR.e! FOOTAc5>ES MAIN q,O RlcSHT eLeVATION UPPER ~"'Te TOTA~ Ieee tSoARAc!7E 4;;20 ~ ~ lo@BIIBI ~ ~ ~ 1m --= ==±-= ----- I[]I I EaT LeFT eLeVATION THIS FLAN TO CSO ON LOTS I,ll $ 1"1 D -~ 0 ------- 1 c ~ ~ !:~.~ P'~N~ § 'j_ t8 ~~ il ~H'~ ~ ~ § Q.~ ij P ~~-J~ ~-J -~,~ .. ~~: -~J l- Ii z :;) « UJ UJ o Ii) Cl ~ U Ii) tit I Ii) 0 « w-QI'l ~ Z ~~ 'b~~1) nil... (\)N it dat., 10-0&-0<4 p .... mlt, ... vl.t"' .... ' 00-00-00 I ::::=-~'~, M\o'W SHeeT I AI 0'" A::2 D E6 .. 10 T23N R5E W 112 CS L_. ___ .... R-IO/CP) i ~ ~------- H ! ! ! / , ,_._. __ ._-_._--_ .... _-_._--_._- RCCP) -.-i !L.------i C~L---r ----R-='tff- I '----1~Zl-----------------T-----~-~:::.:~~ I CP) ZONING PIBIFW TBCHNICAL SBR.V1C1S llIOfI03 G6 .. 22 T23N R5E W 112 - - - -Renton dit;r Uml~ 15 T23N R5E W 1/2 5315 .................. "'\,\, ......... ..IN """ 'I, ~-\..."' .V"\A .. " _-~ ........ 'VfC,,{!', :_ 't..~ •• ~\ss'O'\':i:·· . ~ " : ~ •• 'o}f '-1;0'. '\~ 'I, ; :'f] \,\OTA~r~'" -t\ ~ ~ : rn~ ~ , : Gb.~ 00: ~ '-, ,e , , . ~. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION & PUBLIC HEARING ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE -MITIG~ATED (DNS-M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat PROJECT NUMBER: lUA04-131, PP, SA·H, ECF LOCATION: 327 Bremerton Avenue NE DESCRIPTION: The applicant I. requesting Environmental (SEPA) RevIew, Hearing Examiner Site Plan and Preliminary Plat approvals and a code modlttcation for cul..cfe-Iac radius to be reduced from the required 55- 100t to a 50-foot radius. The proposal Is to subdivide the 2.wcre .Ite Into 20 Iota 10r the eVlilntual development of alngle-famlly dwellings. The lots range In size from 2,725 sq. fl to 5,831 8q. ft. Access Is proposed via Improved Bremerton Avenue NE to a new public street terminating In a cul-dB-SBC. Further access will be provided by private eaaements. The alte haa been shown not to contain any protected Crttlcal Areas. The slte 'S zoned Center Suburban (CS) and Is located In the Centers Resldenllal Bonus District B. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental determination must be flied In writing on or before 5:00 PM on December 27, 2004. Appeals must be flied In writing together with the required $75.00 application fee wIth: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeala to the Examiner are governed by City ot Renton Municipal Code Section 4-3-110.B. Addilionalinformation regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk'S Office, (425) 4311-6510. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE 7TH FLOOR OF CITY HALL, 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON JANUARY 4, 2005 AT 9:00 AM TO CONSIDER THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. f· li?¥ 14thl SL I~ II rn l ~ [. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT (425) 430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Please Include the project NUMBER-when calling for proper file Identification . CERTIFICATION ~ (/) ~, UBI Ie : : I." ...-\ • -''* ~ 'if " .. ~ '* --.rk/?,-·· . \:~ '"~:?~,_,~~",,~,,Ojf ekl~ (~ , hereby certIfy that. ~ copIes of the IIII~: WASr\\~"'''''''--above doQlent were posted by me in 3 conspICUOUS places on or nearby I\\\." '-............ ~W)I_"lA/ I?. ., 1Jv-..~ J ..... the described property on kQS-AIIb¥'l~ =1 ~ . ~~ 7f-~/)jJ Si~e~:~~~:.:.- ATTEST: SUbscrifrd~om1zefore m~a~J,tary Pubhc, m and £ r Washington residing-iu rr"'~ , on the I~ day 0 .,L-J::!.':::.L..L---"'---- MARILYN KAMCHEFF M'{ APPOINTMENT EXPiRES 6-29-07 KeclUCelr-W.Deeller Mayor December 9; 2004 Cliff Williams, PE Ridgeview Court, LLC PO Box2401. . Kirkland, WA98116 SUBJECT: . . Ridgeview' CourtPrelim inary. Plat LUA04-131, PP, SA~H, ECF , Dear Mr; Williams: ' CITY.F :RENTON. PlanningtBuildinglPublic Works Department Gregg ZimmermanP;E.,Administrator This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERG) and is t~ advise you that they have corhpletedtheir review of the subject project. TheERCissuedathreshold Determination of Non~Significance-Mitigated with Mitigation Measur'~s. Piease refer to the enclosed Mitigation Measures document. . " ' , .' . . . .' Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in wriling on or before 5:00 PM on December 27,2004. Appeals must be,filed in writing together With:the:;requirep $75:00 application fee with:, Hearing Examiner,City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way' Rentoh, WA98055, 'Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of'Renton Municipal Code Section 4.-8"1:1 O.R Additional information regarding the appecil process may be obtained fr9m the Henton . City Clerk.'s· Office,' (425) 430-651 O. , A Public Hearing will be heldby the R~nton "Hearing Examiner in theCouricil Chambers on the seventh floor of City Hall on Jailuary4; 2005 at 9:00 AM to consider the Preliminary Plat. The applicant or representative(s} of the. applicant is re,quired to be present althe publicheafing. A copy of the staff report' will be mailed to you orieweekpefor~ the hearing. If. the EnvironmentaJDeteimination is, appealed, the appeal will he heard as part ofthispubiic bearing. . ,., . . . The preceding information will assist you in planning for implementation of your project and enable you to exercise your appeal rights more fully, if Y91,lchoose to do so. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above,'please call me at(42tl)'430-7270. '. . , For the EnvironmehtalReview Committee, NancyWeil Senior Planner Enclosure ~ -------lO-S-S-So-u-th-G-r-a-dy-W-ay---R-e-nt-o-n,-W-a-s:-"hi-ng-t'-on-9-80-S-S'-'-------R E N TON , .® This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE Kathy. Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor December 9,2004 Washington State Department of Ecology . Environmental Review Section PO Box '47703 " Olympi(i, WA. 98504-1'703 CITY c)F RENTON PlanningIBuildingipublic Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator ,Subject: Environmental Determinations , Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERG) on December 7; 2004: . . .' , DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: LOCATION: Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat LUA04.,.131 ,PP,sA;.H,ECF, '327· Bremerton"AvEmue 'NE DESCRIPTION: The'~pplicantis' requesting Envir,onmental (SEPA) Review; Hearing Examiner Site Plan and Preliminary PlatilPprovals and a code modification for cul-de~sac 'radius to be reduced froin the required 55~foot to a 50-foot radius. The proposal is t9 subdivic;te the 2.4~acre site into 20 lots,for the, e"entu,a,ldev,elopmentof -sirigle-fami~y dwellings. The lots range in size from 2,725; sq. ftto 5,831 sq. ft. Access ,is proposed via improvedB ... emehon 'Avenue NEtoa' new:public street terminating ina cul-de-sac~Furtheraccfi~swili be provic;tedby private easements. The site- has been shown nott() contain any protected CriiicalAreas. The site is .' zoned Center Suburbarj,(CS) and is located in the Centers Residential Bonus DistrictB. . '. '", Appeals of the el'lvironmentard~terminationmust befiledi~vi;riting on or·before 5:0Q PM on December ?7, 2004. Appeals must be ,filed in writing together with the required $75.00 applicatio,n fee , with: Hearing Examiner, City of R~nton,1055 SOLJth Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4"8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtaihedfrom tlie Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. If you have questions, please call me,at (425) 430~7270. For the Environmental Review Committee, Q"""o-L)~ NancyWeil Senior Planner cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division WDFW, Stewart Reinbold' David F. Dietzman, Department of Natural Resources WSOCH, Northwest Region Duwamish Tribal Office . Rod Malcom, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (Ordinance) Melissa Calvert, Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program US Army Corp. of Engineers Stephanie Kramer, Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation ~ 4E=t9Aetelees9rtHur'e-e-------'--------------,-----~ R'E NT' 0 N' . 1055 South GradyWay -Renton, Washington 98055 * This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE "-I CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-04-131, ECF, PP, SA-H, APPLICANT: Cliff Williams, PE PROJECT NAME: Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review, Hearing Examiner Site Plan and Preliminary Plat approvals and a code modification for cul-de-sac radius. The proposal is to subdivide the 2.4-acre site into 20 lots for the eventual development of single-family dwellings. The lots range in size from 2,725 sq. ft. to 5,831 sq. ft. Access is proposed via improved Bremerton Avenue NE to a new public street terminating in a cul-de-sac. Further access will be provided by private easements. The site has been shown not to contain any protected Critical Areas. The site is zoned Center Suburban (CS) and is located in the Centers Residential Bonus District B. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: 327 Bremerton Avenue NE The City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c) . . Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-6-6 Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on December 27, 2004. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 O.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: DECEMBER 13, 2004 DATE OF DECISION: DECEMBER 7, 2004 SIGNATURES: re g Zi r n, AClmlnlstrator DATE ' I Department of Planning/Building/Public Works DATE -I DATE CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF PROJECT NAME: Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat APPLICANT: Cliff Williams, PE LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 327 Bremerton Avenue NE DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review, Hearing Examiner Site Plan and Preliminary Plat approvals and a code modification for cul-de-sac radius to be reduced from the required 55-foot to a 50-foot radius. The proposal is to subdivide the 2.4-acre site into 20 lots for the eventual development of single-family dwellings. The lots range in size from 2,725 sq. ft. to 5,831 sq. ft. Access is proposed via improved Bremerton Avenue NE to a new public street terminating in a cul-de-sac. Further access will be provided by private easements. The site has been shown not to contain any protected Critical Areas. The site is zoned Center Suburban (CS) and is located in the Centers Residential Bonus District B. LEAD AGENCY: MITIGATION MEASURES: The City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section 1. The project shall be designed and comply with Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements as outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual. 2. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report prepared by Geo Group Northwest, Inc. dated October 4, 2004, regarding "Site Preparation and Groundwork." 3. The applicant shall design the project to comply with the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual to meet both detention (Level 2 flow control) and water quality improvements. 4. Temporary Erosion Control measures shall be installed maintained in accordance with the Department of Ecology Standards to the satisfaction of the representative of the Development Services Division for the duration of the project's construction. 5. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee based on a rate of $488.00 per new single-family lot. Credit is given for the existing residence. The fee shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. 6. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Traffic Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per each new average daily trip associated with the project. Credit is given for the existing residence. The fee shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. 7. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Parks Mitigation Fee based on $530.76 per new single-family lot. Credit is given for the existing residence. The fee shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF PROJECT NAME: Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat APPLICANT: Cliff Williams, PE LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 327 Bremerton Avenue NE DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review, Hearing Examiner Site Plan and Preliminary Plat approvals and a code modification for cul-de-sac radius to be reduced from the required 55-foot to a 50-foot radius. The proposal is to subdivide the 2.4-acre site into 20 lots for the eventual development of single-family dwellings. The lots range in size from 2,725 sq. ft. to 5,831 sq. ft. Access is proposed via improved Bremerton Avenue NE to a new public street terminating in a cul-de-sac. Further access will be provided by private easements. The site has been shown not to contain any protected Critical Areas. The site is zoned Center Suburban (CS) and is located in the Centers Residential Bonus District B. LEAD AGENCY: The City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. Planning 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. The Development Services Division reserves the right to rescind the approved extended haul hours at any time if complaints are received. Fire 1. A fire hydrant with 1,000 GPM is required within 300 ft. of all new single-family structures. If the building square footage exceeds 3,600 sq. ft. in area, the minimum fire flow increases to 1,500 GPM and requires two hydrants within 300 feet of the structures. 2. Cul-de-sac streets 500 feet or greater in length require fire sprinkler system for proposed houses. 3. Fire Department access roads are required to be paved, 20 ft. wide. Dead end roadways over 150 ft. in length are required to have an approved turnaround. 4. Street addresses shall be visible from a public street. Building 1. Demolition permits are required. Plan Review -Surface Water/Storm Drainage 1. The Surface Water System Development Charges (SOC) is $715 per building lot. This fee is payable at the time the utility construction permit is issued. 2. The drainage analysis and design submitted with the Land Use application appears to meet the required City of Renton analysis criteria; 1998 King County Surface Water design manual Level 2 flow control, and basic water quality improvements. However, temporary erosion control is further conditioned to meet Department of Ecology Standards. Plan Review -Water ,~ L ,"-. 1. A new 8-inch water main (extended to the extreme boundaries; stubbed for future connection -East from Bremerton Ave NE to westerly property boundary, and stubbed for future connection south along Bremerton Ave to south to south property boundary) with associated fire-hydrant(s), will be required to serve the new development with fire-flow and domestic water service. Any existing hydrants, that are counted toward meeting the fire flow requirements, will be required to have a quick connect Storz fitting. 2. The new water service "setters" will be required to be installed prior to recording the plat. 3. CUl-de-sac streets 500 feet or greater in length require fire sprinkler system for proposed houses. 4. The Water System Development Charge (SOC) is $1,525 per new single-family per building lot. This fee is payable at the time the utility construction permit is issued. Plan Review - Sanitary Sewer 1. A new sewer main will be required along the full frontage of the property along Bremerton Ave NE, with connection to the existing mainline in either NE 4th Street, or the line to the west will be required. New sewer main as required to serve the new single-family dwellings. 2. Any existing septic systems shall be abandoned, in accordance with the King County Health Department requirements, prior to recording the plat. 3. Separate side sewers (and any necessary easements) to each new building lot are required prior to recording of the plat. 4. This parcel is within the East Renton Interceptor Special Assessment District. The fees are $224.52/unit plus interest. Final fee will be determined, and is payable at the time the utility construction permit is issued. 5. The Sanitary Sewer System Development Charges (SOC) is $900 per building lot. This fee is payable at the time the utility construction permit is issued. Plan Review -Street Improvements 1. Street improvements including, but not limited to half pavement width, sidewalks, curb and gutter, storm drain, landscape, street lighting and street signs will be required along the proposed new street. 2. Dedication of additional right-of-way is required to meet the minimum street width of 50 feet. The dedication' shall be accomplished to provide a ROW line 25 feet west of the section line (it appears that 7 feet were previously dedicated, but this is subject to verification). 3. Sidewalk improvements and locations of new driveways shall be subject to review and approval of the Transportation division. Plan Review -General 1. All wire utilities shall be installed underground per the City of Renton Undergrounding Ordinance. Property Services 1. Please refer to comments in attached memo dated November 29, 2004. ' .. , .... , . .- '·'·'.;.·:':: •• :::~·~·~IR'~N""';·· ···":':'·~~~lli'::~'EMI.EW·:Q:QM.M'I"tFE'E. '" ,,' ... ·~'~·,..INcr'NOTlcE ""'"""""" , " '" ":"""·::':1).~gel'n,~(3 r7,:'2'Q.()~t· To: Gregg Zimmerman, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator Dennis Culp, Community Services Administrator Lee Wheeler, Fire Chief From: Jennifer Henning, Development Planning ~·M~~ttmg:~~t~::::jj:T9:·'.~O'::e.,.·o·.:.:s.· ... ·.:.,·, ...•... /A'.d.·.,·,·.'.:·:a,·M·.·.·.·,··.'.y.'.·.·,."' ... ;'.'.·.·\.'.r.D ... ·, •.•.... ' •. ': .. ,.H .•• ' ••. : .... ' •.. ,c .. ::,.,:.,'e.' .•.. :.·.·',mf>~·r:?j,f;?QQ4·[:· .. ::·,; ·.,Tim~::,.: .• ·: .. ';;,." .. ,...' ... ',', ........ ' .... ,., .. Agenda listed below. Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat (Wei/) LUA04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review, Hearing Examiner Site Plan and Preliminary Plat approvals and a code modification for cul-de-sac radius. The proposal is to subdivide the 2.4-acre site into 20 lots for the eventual development of single-family dwellings. The lots range in size from 2,725 sq. ft. to 5,831 sq. ft. Access is proposed via improved Bremerton Avenue NE to a new public street terminating in a cul-de-sac. Further access will be provided by private easements. The site has been shown not to contain any protected Critical Areas. The site is zoned Center Suburban (CS) and is located in the Centers Residential Bonus District B. Parkside at 95 Burnett (Fiala) LUA04-133, SA-H, CU-H, ECF The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review, Hearing Examiner Site Plan and Hearing Examiner Conditional Use approval for a 147,430 sq. ft. multi family residential development. The site is 0.83 acres in size and is relatively flat with no known critical areas. The project would include 106 dwelling units, indoor exercise room, common areas and service areas within six building levels including four residential, and two levels of structured parking of which one level would be below grade. Ten of the multi family units would be townhouse style and front directly onto Burnett Ave. So. The remaining multi family units would be setback from the street. The structured parking garage would include 181 parking stalls of which 46 would be tandem. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit in order to increase the density above the maximum of the CD zone. The subject property is located within the Center Downtown (CD) zoning designation, Downtown Core and Urban Center Design Overlay District A. Sixth Street Short Plat (Fiala) LUA04-139, SHPL-H, V-H, LLA, ECF The applicant is requesting a Lot Line Adjustment, Environmental Review, Hearing Examiner Short Plat and Hearing Examiner Variances for a seven lot subdivision of a 1.84 acre site (after lot line adjustment). Additional requests include: modifications of street standards to allow a dead-end street greater than 700 ft and to allow a private street to serve more than six lots. The variances would be from the R-8 required 20 ft. front yard setback for Lots 3, 4, 5 and 6. A separate request for vacating a portion of a public walkway would also be made by the applicant. The lot sizes range from 4,552 sq. ft. to 24,815 sq. ft. (gross area). The site is located at the end of a sub-standard dead-end street of which the cul-de- sac would be enlarged to meet code. A 30 ft. wide private access easement would extend to the east and south of the re- constructed cul-de-sac to access the lots. Partial relocation of existing city utilities and new underground utilities are included. Steep slopes (classified as protected slopes of 40 percent or greater in grade) exist as well as a portion of a Category 3 wetland and associated buffer. Approximately 2,000 cubic yards of topsoil would be removed for re-use and 5,000 cyof imported fill is proposed. cc: K. Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor J. Covington, Chief Administrative Officer A. Pietsch, EDNSP Administrator ® B. Wolters, EDNSP Director ® J. Gray, Fire Prevention N. Watts, PIB/PW Development Services Director ® F. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner S. Engler, Rre Prevention ® J. Medzegian, Council S. Meyer, PIB/PW Transportation Systems Director R. Lind, Economic Development L. Warren, City Attorney ® STAFF REPORT City of Renton Department of Planning / Building / Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE A. BACKGROUND ERe MEETING DATE Project Name: Owner: Applicant/Contact: File Number: Project Description: Project Location: Exist. Bldg. Area gsf: Site Area: RECOMMENDATION: Project Location Map December 7,2004 Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat Ridgeview Court, LLC, P.O. Box 2401, Kirkland, WA 98116 Cliff Williams, PE, Davis Ridgeview Court, LLC, P.O. Box 2401, Kirkland, WA 98116 LUA-04-131, ECF, PP, SA-H Project Manager: Nancy Weil The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review, Hearing Examiner Site Plan and Preliminary Plat approvals and a code modification for cul-de-sac radius to be reduced from the required 55-foot to a 50-foot radius. The proposal is to subdivide the 2.4-acre site into 20 lots for the eventual development of single-family dwellings. The lots range in size from 2,725 sq. ft. to 5,831 sq. ft. Access is proposed via improved Bremerton Avenue NE to a new public street terminating in a cul-de-sac. Further access will be provided by private easements. The site has been shown not to contain any protected Critical Areas. The site is zoned Center Suburban (CS) and is located in the Centers Residential Bonus District B. 327 Bremerton Avenue NE. All bldgs to be removed. 3.4 acres (gross area) Proposed New Bldg. Area: N/A Total Building Area gsf: N/A Staff recommends that the Environmental Review Committee Issue a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M). t. [, ... __ ....... \ L-'-----'I-'--r·~__'__{-N'___E...'___! 4 t---L..hi _St ---.Jj L!!.: --'----'-~[ ---,1 l ____ l...·· ---'-1········· .. ,1 ,!.,_.- _ _ l~ i 1 ! 1 • . "__ ___ . . __ ---'r---:!~i ----: j I ~-I : ~_ . ...L .. __ . -lOICP) f i _._--1 t-'-"i _---l CS i r:.::I r:.::I CIJ CIJ R-B (l) Q) ~ ~ ~ -+-> co C"J T--i ~ ERCrpt City of Renton PIBIPW Department RIDGEVIEW COURT PRELIMINARY" r REPORT OF DECEMBER 7, 2004 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: En vi' '1ental Review Committee Staff Report LUA-04-131, ECF, PP, SA-H Page 20(6 The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review, Hearing Examiner Site Plan and Preliminary Plat approvals and a code modification for cul-de-sac radius. The proposal is to subdivide the 2.4-acre site into 20 lots for the eventual development of single-family dwellings. The lots range in size from 2,725 sq. ft. to 5,800 sq. ft. Access is proposed via improved Bremerton Avenue NE to a new public street terminating in a cul-de-sac. Further access will be provided by private easements. The site has been shown not to contain any protected Critical areas. The site is zoned Center Suburban (CS) and is located in the Centers Residential Bonus District B. The site currently contains single- family home, a 5.5-foot high rockery and accessory structures, which are proposed to be demolished to accommodate site development. The site is located within the Suburban Centers Residential Bonus Districts B and would be developed as residential per the development standards of the Bonus District B. The single-family homes proposed are twp story structures ranging in building size from 1,082 to 1,211 square feet. The applicant is requesting three modification for this project; 1) Street Modification to reduce the road width to 42-feet. 2) Cul-de-sac radius reduced to 50-feet. 3) To exceed the maximum Front Yard Setback of 15-feet. The site does not contain any Critical Areas. A wetland evaluation stUdy was conducted by Alder NW and concluded in a letter dated March 13, 2003 that no wetland areas or streams are on this site. A geotechnical report was also conducted on the site by Geo Group Northwest, Inc, dated October 4, 2004. The site is relatively flat with a berm located near the southeast corner of the site. The berm appears to contain loose fill and may have been created from grading on the adjacent site. The berm contains slopes of 15 to 24 percent. The soil type is Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, which is moderately well drained soil. The site is vegetated with blackberry bushes, small deciduous and coniferous trees which are to be removed as part of the site preparation. Street improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalk and lighting are required along Bremerton Avenue NE and the new public street. The site is designated Commercial Corridor (CC) to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and is zoned Commercial Arterial (CA) however is vested to the prior Commercial Suburban (CS) zoning. The CS zone allows residential densities that range from a minimum of 10.0 dulac to a maximum of 20.0 dulac. The proposed plat would arrive at a net density of 12.42 dulac after the deduction of the public roads and private access easements from the gross acreage of the site. B. RECOMMENDATION Based on analysiS of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials make the following Environmental Determination: DETERMINA TION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE Issue DNS with 14 da A eal Period. Issue DNS with 15 day Comment Period with Concurrent 14 day Appeal Period. C. MITIGA TION MEASURES DETERMINATION OF XX NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGA TED. XX Issue DNS-M with 14 da A eal Period. Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period with Concurrent 14 day Appeal Period. 1. The project shall be designed and comply with Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements as outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual. 2. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report prepared by Geo Group Northwest, Inc. dated October 4, 2004, regarding "Site Preparation and Groundwork." 3. The applicant shall design the project to comply with the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual to meet both detention (Level 2 flow control) and water quality improvements. ERCrpt City of Renton PIBIPW Department RIDGEVIEW COURT PRELIMINARY f , r Envi' YJental Review Committee Staff Report LUA-04-131, ECF, PP, SA-H REPORT OF DECEMBER 7, 2004 Page 30(6 4. Temporary Erosion Control measures shall be installed maintained in accordance with the Department of Ecology Standards to the satisfaction of the representative of the Development Services Division for the duration of the project's construction. 5. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee based on a rate of $488.00 per new single-family lot. Credit is given for the existing residence. The fee shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. 6. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Traffic Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per each new average daily trip associated with the project. Credit is given for the existing residence. The fee shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. 7. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Parks Mitigation Fee based on $530.76 per new single-family lot. Credit is given for the existing residence. The fee shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. Planning .. 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. The Development Services Division reserves the right to rescind the approved extended haul hours at any time if complaints are received. Fire 1. A fire hydrant with 1,000 GPM is required within 300 ft. of all new single-family structures. If the building square footage exceeds 3,600 sq. ft. in area, the minimum fire flow increases to 1,500 GPM and requires two hydrants within 300 feet of the structures. 2. Cul-de-sac streets 500 feet or greater in length require fire sprinkler system for proposed houses. 3. Fire Department access roads are required to be paved, 20 ft. wide. Dead end roadways over 150 ft. in length are required to have an approved turnaround. 4. Street addresses shall be visible from a public street. Building 1. Demolition permits are required. Plan Review -Surface Water/Storm Drainage 1. The Surface Water System Development Charges (SDC) is $715 per building lot. This fee is payable at the time the utility construction permit is issued. 2. The drainage analysis and design submitted with the Land Use application appears to meet the required City of Renton analysis criteria; 1998 King County Surface Water design manual Level 2 flow control, and basic water quality improvements. However, temporary erosion control is further conditioned to meet Department of Ecology Standards. Plan Review -Water 1. A new 8-inch water main (extended to the extreme boundaries; stubbed for future connection -East from Bremerton Ave NE to westerly property boundary, and stubbed for future connection south along Bremerton Ave to south to south property boundary) with associated fire-hydrant(s), will be required to serve the new development with fire-flow and domestic water service. Any existing hydrants, that are counted toward meeting the fire flow requirements, will be required to have a quick connect Storz fitting. 2. The new water service "setters" will be required to be installed prior to recording the plat. 3. Cul-de-sac streets 500 feet or greater in length require fire sprinkler system for proposed houses. 4. The Water System Development Charge (SDC) is $1,525 per new single-family per building lot. This fee is payable at the time the utility construction permit is issued. Plan Review - Sanitary Sewer 1. A new sewer main will be required along the full frontage of the property along Bremerton Ave NE, with connection to the existing mainline in either NE 4th Street, or the line to the west will be required. New sewer main as required to serve the new single-family dwellings. 2. Any existing septic systems shall be abandoned, in accordance with the King County Health Department requirements, prior to recording the plat. 3. Separate side sewers (and any necessary easements) to each new building lot are required prior to recording of the plat. 4. This parcel is within the East Renton Interceptor Special Assessment District. The fees are $224.52/unit plus interest. Final fee will be determined, and is a able at the time the uti lit construction ermit is issued. ERCrpt City of Renton PIBIPW Department RIDGEVIEW COURT PRELIMINARY f. REPORT OF DECEMBER 7, 2004 Envir -1ental Review Committee Staff Report LUA-04-131, ECF, PP, SA-H Page 4 0'6 5. The Sanitary Sewer System Development Charges (SOC) is $900 per building lot. This fee is payable at the time the utility construction permit is issued. Plan Review -Street Improvements 1. Street improvements including, but not limited to half pavement width, sidewalks, curb and gutter, storm drain, landscape, street lighting and street signs will be required along the proposed new street. 2. Dedication of additional right-of-way is required to meet the minimum street width of 50 feet. The dedication shall be accomplished to provide a ROW line 25 feet west of the section line (it appears that 7 feet were previously dedicated, but this is subject to verification). 3. Sidewalk improvements and locations of new driveways shall be subject to review and approval of the Transportation division. Plan Review -General 1. All wire utilities shall be installed underground per the City of Renton Undergrounding Ordinance. Property Services 1. Please refer to comments in attached memo dated November 29, 2004. D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS In compliance with RCW 43.21 C. 240, the following project environmental review addresses only· those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. 1. Earth Impacts: The applicant has submitted a geotechnical engineering report prepared by Geo Group Northwest, Inc; dated October 4,2004. The site is relatively flat with a gentle south-facing slope on the northern half. On the southern half is a berm, which parallels the southern property line. There is a drop off from the level area along the western edge of the site of approximately 8 feet to the lower adjacent property. Eight test pits were excavated to depths ranging between 4 and 10.5 feet below ground surface. The soil was classified as Alderwood gravelly sandy loam. Medium dense cobbly and gravelly silty sand fills with occasional debris was found on the southern half of the site. The fills ranged from 1.5 to 10 feet depth. Under this soil is dense to very dense fine sand or gravelly silty sand (till). Along the north, northwest property line the soil consisted of loose to medium dense fine sand and gravelly/cobbly fine sand overlying dense gravelly silty sand (till) at depth of 1 to 3 feet below ground surface. No groundwater seepage was encountered in the test pits. The geotechnical engineering report prepared by Geo Group Northwest, Inc concluded the overlying loose to medium dense site soils and fills are not suitable to support foundations. They made two recommendations: 1) the fill soils be over-excavated or 2) the buildings be supported on pile foundations. The first recommendation is considered by Geo Group Northwest as the preferred option. The tree cutting and land-clearing plan submitted with the application identifies the location of several deciduous and coniferous trees and the clearing area where development of the lots and street would take place. All vegetation is proposed to be removed for site preparation and grading. Geo Group recommended that during site preparation; silt fences should be installed around areas disturbed by construction activity to prevent sediment-laden surface runoff from being discharged off-site. Exposed soils that are subject to erosion should be compacted and covered with plastic sheeting. Staff recommends as a mitigation measure the applicant follow the Geo Group Northwest, Inc. dated October 4, 2004, regarding "Site Preparation and Groundwork". The environmental checklist states that approximately 4,800 cubic yards of fill would be imported for construction of the road base and general site fill. Grading will remove the berm along the south property line and use any suitable material as fill on the site. The site is located within the Aquifer Protection Area Zone 2; thus requiring a Fill Source Statement. In order to reduce the potential for erosion and control sedimentation to the site and to adjacent properties, staff recommends additional mitigation including that the project be designed and comply with the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements as outlined in Volume" of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual. ERCrpt City of Renton PIBIPW Deparlment RIDGEVIEW COURT PRELIMINARY J. , r REPORT OF DECEMBER 7, 2004 Mitigation Measures: Envi T/enta/ Review Committee Staff Reporl LUA-04-131, ECF, PP, SA-H Page 50(6 • The project shall be designed and comply with Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements as outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual. • The applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Report prepared by Geo Group Northwest, Inc. dated October 4,2004, regarding "Site Preparation and Groundwork". Policy Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations 2. Surface Water The proposal for the 20-lot subdivision will include a storm water detention facility to handle discharge from the development on site. The facility will be located on proposed Tract A in the southwest corner of the site. The site is located within the Aquifer Protection Area Zone 2 and will drain into Maplewood Creek within the Cedar River drainage basin .. Staff is recommending a SEPA condition requiring this project to comply with the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual to meet both detention (Level 2 flow control) and water quality improvements. To ensure that potential erosion impacts that could occur during project construction be adequately mitigated, staff recommends mitigation as a measure that a Temporary Erosion Control measures shall be installed and maintained pursuant to the standards of the Department of Ecology. Mitigation Measures: • The applicant shall design the project to comply with the 1998 King County Surface Water DeSign Manual to meet both detention (Level 2 flow control) and water quality improvements. • Temporary Erosion Control measures shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the Department of Ecology Standards to the satisfaction of the representative of the Development Services Division for the duration of the project's construction. Policy Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations 3. Parks & Recreation Impacts: The proposal does not .provide on-site recreation areas for future residents of the proposed plat. .It is anticipated that the proposed development would generate new residents that would utilize the City's parks, recreational facilities and programs. Therefore, a Parks Mitigation Fee based on $530.76 per each new single-family lot would be required for the proposal. The fee is estimated at $10,084.44 (19 new lots x $530.76 = $10,084.44) with credit given for the existing residence and is payable prior to the recording of .the final plat. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall pay the appropriate Parks Mitigation Fee based on $530.76 per new single- family lot. Credit is given for one existing residence. The fee shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. Policy Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations; Parks Mitigation Fee Resolution No. 3082, Ordinance 4527. 4. Access/Transportation Impacts: A Trip Generation & Access Analysis was not required for this project. Access is proposed from Bremerton Avenue NE, south of NE 4th Street. The site would be accessed via a new public right-of-way extending west off of Bremerton Avenue NE and terminating in a cul-de-sac. A modification to the road width has been requested to be at a reduced right-of-way of 42 feet from the standard 50 feet for residential streets. Additionally, applicant is requesting modification to the cul-de-sac design requirements to reduce the radius to 50 feet from the standard 55 feet for residential streets. Several private streets and driveways would come off of the new public road to be known as NE 3rd Lane. It appears that each 10Udweiling would provide space for two parking spaces within interior attached garages. Driveways on most of the proposed lots appear to insufficient length to provide any additional parking space. The private 26-foot wide easement proposed along the west property line is to provide access for Lots 8 through 13 and the storm water detention tract. The easement appears to meet requirements providing a turn around hammerhead is proposed and the four lots permitted access off a private street as Lots 9 and 10 fronts the public street. Two private drives shown as 20-foot wide easements for access to Lots 4 though 7 and Lots 14 through 17 are proposed. While Lots 1 through 3 and Lots 18 through 20 front Bremerton Avenue NE they will gain vehicular access via 24-foot easement along the rear of the lots. ERCrpt City of Renton PIBIPW Deparlment RIDGEVIEW COURT PRELIMINARY f Erivir -'1ental Review Committee Staff Reporl LUA-04-131, ECF, PP, SA-H REPORT OF DECEMBER 7, 2004 Page 60(6 The proposal would result in an increase in traffic trips to the City's street system; therefore, the appropriate Traffic Mitigation Fee will be imposed. The Traffic Mitigation Fee is calculated at a rate of $75.00 per additional generated trip per new single-family lot at a rate of 9.57 trips per lot home. For the proposal, the Traffic Mitigation Fee is estimated at $13,637.25 (19 new lots x 9.57 trips x $75 per trip = $13,637.25) with credit given for the existing residence. The fee is payable prior to the recording of the final plat. The trip generation for the one commercial lot would be determined when developed. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall pay the appropriate Traffic Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per each new average daily trip associated with the project. Credit is given for one existing residence. The fee shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. Fees for the commercial development will be payable prior to the issuance of a building permit. Policy Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations; Transportation Mitigation Fee Resolution No. 3100, Ordinance 4527. 5. Public I Emergency Services Impacts: Fire Prevention staff indicates that the applicant provide required improvements and fees to offset the impacts associated with the new development. The proposal to add 20 new residential lots to the City would impact the City's Fire Emergency Services. Therefore, a Fire Mitigation Fee of $488.00 per new single-family lot with credit given for the existing residence is required. The fee is estimated at $9,272.00 (19 new lots x $488.00 = $9,272.00) and is required prior to the recording of the final plat. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee based on a rate of $488.00 per new single-family lot and $0.52 per gross sq. ft. of new commercial area. Credit is given for the existing residence. The fee shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. Policy Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations; Fire Mitigation Fee Resolution No. 2913, Ordinance 4527. E. COMMENTS OF REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS The proposal has been circulated to City Departmental/Divisional Reviewers for their review. Where applicable, these comments have been incorporated into the text of this report as Mitigation Measures and/or Notes to Applicant. ~ Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File. Copies of all Review Comments are attached to this report. Environmental Determination Appeal Process Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM December 27, 2004. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.pO application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 O.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. ERCrpt UIiAo.) (O.70Ac.) '0 SECTION 15 TOWNSHIP 28 NORTH RANGE 5 EAST W.M. i; !~ li'i i I i I ~ I~ --' :::E • ...J IZ~ _ IQ~ E3 gS c> 1~15 :5 ~:::::;::=:::'=-r' ~.::...'" ~"TL;.,;,II \.;J..:..,:liT-{ I ~ I Ii:: ( \, r.::; ; x: LiL C::W 18210 210 W Z )008 ~ 518210. iS1 1821 f 518 . ~ ,,,,,305 t5i5 ~ u g "" IUl-0 oCt: ~ ~ 8 z z 5 • 00'" _. 0041 w w 1 1 152305 0::: > r~ 8 ~~~ CO «. ! cp .. an ! d • I 18210 )016 ~ 205080 OOilo 8 152305 9071 (IU7Ac.) 518210 0031 '-S1S210-0010 Ii Sllll I 518210 9124 P ........ II.) ~ r...Z ~ 00 ~ >-~ " t:~ ~ u ~ ~1 < ij~ ~u ~ • ·!a Ia 518210-0013 ~ 0020 Gl!1 I I?~ ~ 518210 0080 518210 0069 518210-0081 ~.-<J C 518210 0068 ~ "i>&~gO 518210 0051 SITE 152305-9034 (O.9lIAc.) 152305-9036 (O.9lIAc.) W 152305-9212 I~ en (O.82Ac.) w 152305 > 9030 > « 2305-921~ « (2.14 Ae.) (0.03 ".) 9046 :5 (O.4tAc.) ex) ~ SE 13fSTST ("I) ~ I ; 152305-9215 152305 (O.98Ac.) 152305 9213 9214 (1.02Ac.) (1.12 Ac.) 152305-9038 i N 0 ;t! ~'t Lii" 'h""'~ ::'7\.. " .... '''7 --. m If '~r\:",," 1 "'" I F.., I (O.VI5Ac.) ~ ~ .~ ~ B 0; II Z ~ I Am.rloan Engineering Corporation -. g I'WOIC (425) 8111-1430 rO>t(4r.1) n. pGIh .. Nom, .\O'D\.o312 ...... I,n.g IGIt3f2004 RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL 152305 9015 (4.16 Ae.) 152305 9075 (0.81 "c.) 152305 9145 (0."",,) 152305 9112 (II.3OM.) 182308 9178 ~.J1", 152305 9032 (3.88 Ac.) 152305 9206 (O.75Ac.) 152305 9002 (1.33 Ae.) 152305 9223 (O.13Ac.) 152305-9082 (1.30Ac.) (1.04 Ac.) ~ , QRAPHIC BC~ 00 0 eo 100 T 1 DICS_IDO ft 03A1303t1 IrOOZ8 , 130 NOlN38 ;10 AlIO E>NINNYld lN3Wd013A3Q SECTION 16 TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH RANGE 6 EAST W.M. ~r "'", ~I I I I 0039 I I TL 035 RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL BY: DATE: BY: DATE: BY: DATE: BY: DATE; R.vI.lon. Ho. Dote / / / / ....c:...- Dot, I By I Scol. TL 193 Q-20-004 ___ A_S SHO""" ""'-HB O .. 19ned RS ~ BO P,\2003\0312\Engineering\Dwg\e0312p.,1.dwg 10/13/2004 10,51,54 AM PDT TL 192 I I TRACT A 1 S'TORM WA lER TL 0051 DETENllON I I --1--- 01W'lllC 8C.WI t,Jf4O i llRCB-__ _ 8/11/04 OWNER/DEVELOPER: RIDGE'<1EW COURT LLC CONTACT: CUFF \\1WAMS P.O. BOX 2401 KIRKLAND, WA 9BD8J-2401 PHONE: (206) 714-7161 REGISTERED ENGINEER: AMERICAN ENGlNEERING CORPORATION CONTACT: CHERYL GlRARD 4032 148TH A'If.. NE REDMOND, WA 98052 PHONE: (425) 881-7430 LAND SURVEYOR AMERICAN ENGINEERING CORPORA nON CONTACT: GARY CHRISTENSEN 4032 148TH A'If.. NE REDMOND, WA 98052 PHONE: (425) 881-7430 LEGAL DESCRIPTION PER PACIFIC NORTIHWEST TITLE REPORT, ORDER NO 506681 DATED FEB 13, 2003. TIHE SOUTIH HALF OF TIHE EAST HALF OF TIHE NORTIHEAST OF THE NORTIHWEST QUARTER OF TIHE NORTIHWEST QUARTER OF SEcnON 15, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTIH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M .. IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT ALL COAL AND MINERAL RIGHTS CONTAINED IN RESERVATlON OF RECORD. AND KNOWN AS A PORTlON OF TRACT 4. OF MARTlN'S ACRE TRACTS, AN UNRECORDED PLAT; EXCEPT TIHE EAST 7.5 FEET OF SAID TRACT. BENCH MARK TOP OF CONC MON DOWN 0.7' IN CASE AT TIHE CONSTRUCTED INTX OF NE 4TIH ST (S.E. 128TIH ST) AND 140TIH AVE S.E. (N.W. COR SEC 15). ELEVATION: 401.02' ELEV. FROM CITY OF RENTON CONTROL SHEETS, POINT 1503 VERTICAL DATUM NAVO 88 HORIZONTAL DATUM WASHINGTON STATE PLANE. NORTIH ZONE. NAD 83/91 VINEYARDS CONSTRUCTION, L.L.C. RIDGEVIEW COURT PRELIMINARY PLAT PLAN VICINITY MAP N.T.S. PROJECT DATA: TOTAL AREA (SF): TOTAL AREA (~CRES): 104.373 2.40 NO. OF PROPOSED LOTS: 20 EX1STING ZONING: CENTER SUBURBAN (CS) LOT SIZE TABLE: LOT 1 LOT 2 LOT 3 LOT 4 LOT 5 LOT 6 LOT 7 LOT 8 LOT 9 LOT 10 LOT 11 LOT 12 LOT 13 LOT 14 LOT 15 LOT 16 LOT 17 LOT lB LOT 19 LOT 20 TRACT "A" SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 0 S.F. LAND IN SENSITIVE AREAS: 4446 SF 3600 SF 4893 SF 3371 SF 3344 SF 2849 SF 3187 SF 5831 SF 3928 SF 4120 SF 4342 SF 4340 SF 4065 SF 3117 SF 2725 SF 2779 SF 3683 SF 4835 SF 3600 SF 4105 SF 8609 SF SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 14,012 S.F. LAND IN PUBLIC STREETS/ROW SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 20.245 S.F. LAND IN PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMEN TS DENSITY PROPOSED 12.42 D.U./AC~(12 D.U./A.C.) r.!~s ~~~~JJ ALLOWED ~10 D.U./AC MAX. DENSITY ALLOWED =20 D.U./AC rCS ZONE") 0312 OF 1 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON OCT 1 8 200~ . REceIVED ! ~~ i >-'"' ~ '"'z , ti~ ~ • ·5 ~f . ~ OWNERIDEVELOPER: RlDG[VlEWCOURT L1.C COHYACT:<l..fT'I&JJ.u.tS P.O. BOX 2401 I(IftI(LANO, 'II" 9808J-2401 PHONE: (206).m-7161 REGISTERED ENGINEER: AWEFIICAH ENGIN£ERIHC COAPQR.I.T1ON CONlACT: OIOO\.QAARI,) 4OJ2148n1AIJ[.H( R[[IU()OO, WI. i80~2 PttCJ£: (4'25) UI-HJO LAND SURVEYOR AlotERICAN [HGtI[ERING CORPORATION ~TACT: GWfCHRIST£HS[M 4OJ2148lHAI,(.N[ 1IEDIoIONO. 'itA gl1052 PH(JI(; (425)M'-74JO LEGAL DESCRIPTION PEA PAone NORlH'A(ST ml£ REPORT, ORO[R NO ~fl81 DAttO FEB 13, 2003. TtfE SOUTH HALF OF THE [AST HALF OF 1l1t NORTHEAST Of THE NORTtfl'l£ST QUARTER OF THE NORll-tKST QU"RTER OF SECTION 15, TO~SHIP 2J NORTH, RANGE: 5 EAST, 'II ...... IN I(ING COUNT'!'. WASHINGTON; EXCEPT ALL COAL AND ""NER~ RIGHTS CONTAINED IN RESERVATION OF' RECORD, AND KNOWN AS A PORTIOH OF TRACT of. Of LlAATlN'S ACRE TRACTS, AN UNREcORDED PLAT; EXCEPT THE EAST 7.~ f'EET or SAID TRACT. BENCH MARK TOP OF CONe "ON DOWN D.T IN CASE AT lHE CONSTRUCTED INTX OF HE 4TH 5T (5.[, 12STH sT) AND '40TH AVE s.t. (N.W. COR SEC 15), D.[VATlON: 401.02' mv. rROU CITY OF' RENTON CONTROL 5H(ETS, POINT 1!10) VERTICAL DATUM HAVO QG HORIZONTAL DATUM WASHINGTON ST"lE PLANE. NOATH ZONE. NAt) 83/91 -z- GIW'IIIC""'" If 0 .l ... !;;: j BUILDING / LANDSCAPE TABLE I LOT, LOT SIZE BUILDING " BUILDING (5'1 SIZE (SF) COYEAAG[ , 444SSf' 1210 ". , 31500 SF" 1210 ,.. , 489J Sf 1210 ,,. · 3J71SF 1210 ". , JJ44 SF" lUI8 ,,. · 284QSF" 1119 , .. 7 JI87 SF" "'8 ". · ~J\ Sf 1211 , .. , J928S1'" 1210 ,OX " 4120$F" 1210 ". " 4J42 Sf 1210 ,.. " 4340 SF' 1210 ". " 406'5F" 1049 ". .. llt7SF "" ,.. " 272S SF' " .. ... " 2779 Sf' "715 ". " J158J SF 1210 ,,. " '"'SF 1210 ". " "00 " 1210 ,.. 20 410'Sf 121O ,OX NOTE: ~ LANDSCAPE PLANS BY OTHERS FOR OET.tJl[O Lo\NOSC"PING OESlGNj\.AYOUT. " .. "A~~~ I AAEA(SF') 1888 SF ". 1324 Sf' ". 2199 SF ... 1197 SF ,.. .. ,,' " . 121JSF" .,. "'00 " , .. 3028 Sf ,,. tJ~SF ,,. 1!41Y ". 1621s,: ,,. IS20Y ,,. "ISSf ,,. 9SlSF' ". "" " ". lOllSF' ". ,,., " ,.. 2107 SF ... 1267 Sf ". 18JJSF" ". I . RECOMMENDED FOR APPROYAL • ______ DA"It: __ ~1~1Z.I"lWI4(lDIM",U:l4"""1f'1SOC:~ TL 0041 TL 0039 SECTION 111 TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH RANGE II EAST W.M. TL 0051 TL 0051 I r---'-LANDSCAPE O[SIQN f"OII \1 1latt1Hf000,t.tION I ",,,,crA IVOJHEAS. MPU lOlAl«lSC/oPtP\..t.NSrnIt I I ---~ I 03A1303t1 . ~OOZ '8 ,l 130 N01N3H .:JO AlJO 9NINNV1d lN3Wd013A30 13 ;0.. 26' PRIVATE ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT 11 5' BSBL (rY?) -r" I , ... , ... ,'" 1ft I I I II I <C I I L._ ", '\'" ",,, I l "'. 4,j", 3' BSBL (TYP) NOO"47'4S"E 330.32' ~e\l\se6. \\\~\\O~ , -- ~ : ( U ...J ~ S is!;: 0.. 5::> Vl ::>8 ~ ~~ = z_ 5 8~ :::l tf)g ~ Of>: ...., ~ W z 5 ! 1:i~ ~ E-< • >-z ~ t:~ ~ U'" F 1 ~r I ~~ I ~~ I ~ ~H /' :. ~!I , I ~ Ii; ! ~( :, , , , , , I .. "'-- .---- 8ECTION 111 TOWN8HIP 23 NORTH RANGE II EA8T W.M. /~::' ,::,- . ..:;.' ,::-' , , , , )~:., "'" ~-------~"!;trg~:m ':-, .:~? . .,::," Amerlo." Englne.rlng Corporation E"9In.,,.. • prO""'''' • SUI"'feyOI1I RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL 4OJ2 148Uo ...... H.1t. fI--.WANO!)2 IIII '~ON!(ofZi5)NI.mo '.,,(416) g I fa ........... ,:~~:,. J::J S. E. ~I~ OIW'mC 8CoWI f • f 1 T I DICK _40 n. LEGEND o ............. II WA1lJt M[1d .. """"""" • CATatBAlll'l,TftI ~ITOMIDItNN~ --- - --.aHO IE1UCI( I.K (Jal --IW,IU(lRQI'I'QoI --......... ..... --.... "" /:: -----_ ... '111:....: 1.":-' DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON OCT 1 8.2004 . RECEIVED : c c..i .J .J "Z.I- ~ CL r.!l :z C5 ~ r.!l ..,0:; ~ !~ I r------: " ~ ~Z ~ 00 ~ ~~ ~ ufl:l ~ ~ ~t ~ ~~ II i ~ -~ i Amerloan Engln •• rlng Corporation 111111 1"" .. ,.",,,,-,.., ,- g SECTION 15 TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH RANC3E 5 EAST W.M. I § B, / l ':. ,. i-. .;-~< 1::-' ~ -' ~ "BREMERTON A~'":'·~E ... -~ 136TH AVE. S. E. ~r ______ -=--,,;;......_.. ___ ~_-.!!!' __ ~ --~~~~~ I (--- ---:.= -~,~~-~h /1 ~ ._-" ! I ~: -~Ja!i15¥Ell }~~m I' I r I I I~: /1 I / I / I I 1-------~~~]~""0 .. ~\~<t':i::t¥; I . ._.1) I I "_M~ I fl.""~ ~1I~ ,::.' ,',-, <:',' <:,- RECOMMENDED fOR APPROVAL _______ D-'1[: __ _ ,::," I I I I I I I I JIItCPOIEDCIIUM('m") ,::,- -I~ aR1PHlC SCALI TOT 40 T llHCH _40 ft. AREA OF PROPERTY: to.,J7JSf AREA OF WORK: 104,J7JSf CUT & FILL: CUT_2,441 YARDS Flt.L-7,222 YARDS HET_4,7S! YAROS AlL NOTE: LOCATION or FlLL ORCOIN TO BE orn"'NED DEVELOPMENT pLANNING CITY OF RENTON OCT 182004· RECEIVED y III ,J ~ j ~ J J Z-li: ~ ~=> ~ ~8 8 -~ 0-g~ @. j", 1>:: f)g « ~'" ~ ~ => ... 0 Z co ;: " ~ r...z • 00 i >-~ ~ '"'~ , G~ } ~ ~~ ... 11 "l < ~~ II !iju ~ 'II!. 'I!' ~ ~ ! Amerloan Engineering Corporation ~ ,;: , 111111 .I,"-,m".,.,.,. 'a'"'' ~ . no Dath .. Nama .: .... • Surv_V°rl 8ECTION 111 TOWN8HIP 23 NORTH RANGE II EA8T W.M. //1 if, k' " ".=~-:::= I /" i .... 'l.";;· ~ ~-,~ '. / ,... ; , I ' -~ ------;.;-:: -.';:;;'i..~-' ~.~, .. ~---_//~: - -I ,;;. ~ -;;;:;;= _ __,= ~-C-------/'::... ..i''. --j ---f--~~ N. s.""--__ ' " ~---~ .-;;;;;.-;;;;;"-----,,.::::::---J - - - - - -! _ _ _ . ';">' __ ' \ NOO· .. ·., I / ------,~.;·1" ", \. .. --.. ----•. ---.~-_-.JJO.'oJ -, .. ,. .... S. I. • r ---. • ....... '.' --- /1 ~ 1 ~ 1 =1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 ~ J::" J::'" I ". -/ i' ~ ~' I ~"-.,,,,,--::::::.~-,, ~ , r ~'Jt3'!&k;4 t :--%Jh( \3.a,32""-, /<~~~\\ ,.' I fr ~ co: IL.~ .. ! \ \,'~ " ',\~ '.\\ I, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL ______ 0 ... • _______ DAl£: ,:~~:.:. ','\ -:.~'. ~ ',J ,:;-' ~:., ... i:- J:;" -I~ alUPRx:: SC"-l T T ,MJTft T , .... ' C3A1303t:1 ~OOZ '8 l 130 NO.lN3l::1 ::iO AlIO E>NINNVld LN3~d013J\3a " r r -------------=± ----~--------D_-_:_-~ ---- ,--~~-- ---r I I I I I I I I I I I r r r r r I I I r r r r I I I I I :--. I r I r r r1~8 11: I \ ", '" ... _ .... I I, ~ .. ~ NI!:,U. ST ---.... ( .~ :.\;. ~ .. ~ I N , 'tl. OJ m o ... i ~ ... o :e z OJ :J: 'ii II) '" z o ::II ... :J: ::II > Z CO) m 01 m > OJ ... :e ~ 03A1303~ . ~OOZ8.l 130 NOlN3~ :10 All:) E>NINNVld lN3V'4d013A3Q cJ 5 I::J Cl. . w I~~ ~ (Jo V> =>u 0 .~~ 5 18~ <i! cn~ ~ 00: Cl. ~ ~ z :> ! ~z • 00 , E-• >-z ~ E-~ , ull:: ~ ~ ~j I ~~ II a ~:I • ~ J !!B t ~ ~ ! • _i' NCni: .STAK!TRfES OYER ~ ~ElGHT. ·Pl.ANTBOTHATTOPOF ROOT BALL IS EVEN WITH ntE FINISHED ORAD!· • SCARIFY SIDES Of PLANTING PlTSPRIOR . T08ACKFQ..LJNO •• SPECIFIED PlANTlNG MIX WATER AND TAfoIP TO REMOVE AlR POCKETS rA\ TREE PLANTING QSCALE:NTS .~ COMPLETELY BETWEEN AU. PLANTS EXCEPT IN SEEDED AND MARSH AREAS. 'PI.ANT BO THAT TOP OF ROOT BALI. IS EVEN wm-t TliE ANISHED GRADE. FINISH GRADE SCARIFY SIDES OF PLANTING PITS PRIOR TO BACKFIWNG. (8\ SHRUB PLANTING '\::::3 SCALE: NTS ja brr.mlllDt Amerlaan Engln •• rlng Corporation Engln •• ,.. • Plann.,.. • S"rnyon 40» 1 ......... N.L 11-*-'1, W.I. N052 I I I I I I I PHONE (4U)..,-7430 r .. (425) g I ,...,....."- , ...... C'hO'fUI~l ... 11 LllI(l7Ilf)f4 RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL GENERAL Norn AU. WORK 8HAU. BE PERFORMfD BY PERSONS FAMILIAR WITH THIS KIND Of 'NORK AND UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF A QUALIFIED FORMAN. PlANT LOCATIONS ON PLAN ARE DIAGRAMMATIC AND MAY BE SUBJeCT TO ADJUSTMENT IN THE FIELD BY LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR. PlANT TREES AND SHRUBS UPRIQHT AND FAce TO GM: THE BEST APPEARANCE OR RELATIONSHIP TO ADJACeNT STRUCTURES. BACKFILL SOIL MIXTURE TO BE A SANDY TOPSOIL INCLUDING SANDY BOIL AND HIGHLY ORGANIC COMPOST. USE CEDAR GROVE 2·WAY TOPSOIL Pl.ACE 4· OF TOPSOIL OVER AU. P\.ANTING BEDS AND TILL TO It. DEPTH OF ISO PLANT TREEB AND BTAKE liB SHOWN IN DETAIL RAKE BOIL SURFACE SMOOTH AND FREE FROM ALL ROCKS, BOIL LUMPS, STICKS, AND OTHER DEl..ETERlOUS MATERlAL8. AFTER P\AN11NG, COVER AU. AREAS WITH THREE (3) INCHES OF FINE BARK MULCH. GUARANTEE ALL PLANT MATERIAL FOR A PERIOD Of ONE YEAR AFTER ACCEPTANCE BY OWNER. EACH UNIT TO BE DEVELOPED WITH A MINIMUM OF 2150 aUARE FEET OF LANDSCAPING OR PRIVATE YARD AallTTlNG EACH UNIT. CREATE LAWN PANaS WITH UNDULATING FLOWIHG LINES. IRRIGATION SYSTEM WILL BE REQUIRED. SYSTEM LAYOUT TO BE INCLUDED IN THE ENGINNERINQ DESIGN PHASE. .--.. ..... II'IIICI 1'.10' o.c. .-"". "" ............ ... 0 _ ....... ........... -... ...... """"""' .... .-"". """"" ..... ........ -... " ........... ... ...... . ......... • """"' ..... """"-...... '" ..... """"-_ ..... . ..,.. ... J7 ............ II'IIICII! 8'." O.c. "". @ ........ """""" ---...... 1NCI1'·4'O.c. "". @'" " """""""""""' HlAVU«.Y IAMIOO .... ® ... ... JIfIUNJII.AUJIOCI:JU.IU'OT'TOUIt'IC!H' 0T1II""""' ........ . ... @'" _ .. -, ... --""'" "". ............... ........... ... Bj .. """""""' ... "VUI.' ~ "". G2ZJ M,.OOOIQ.Fr.~lAWN SECTION 15,TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH RANGE 5 EAST W.M. ''''L.L,",-~~L· ., . ."~~~~ -. . . -7~ . ~ ~ III . :J:lrT FIJI :-:II~:r: J:U .I!l\ \ \ \1tf,'~j I:F.;:;~I f·; """""'" . .. - .al/CONT, :"': 'allJCONl" . .al,lCOHT • _ .... -I~ _ .... GIU.PHIC ICQ _ ..... T ~ ri 40 ._0,0 CONT ..... l.'" n . -_ ..... ----~ 031\13031:1 ~OOZ8 l 130 NOlN3~ .:10 AJJO E>NINMfld lN3Wd013J\30 E6 .. 10 T23N R5E W V2 . (-ME 14th· St i: : : • CS i ~.-. ---:1 cf_1 iIR-l~ i C~LL-_-~l~-Cl~L---r ----~=!td- L--._._ ... __ .... , . ~.-~.--------.;..---.-- j ! ~ f-4. \C) _ .... -.-._ .. _ ... -.-...c H (P) RC(P) ZONING PIBIPW TBCllNlCAL Sl!B.VICJ!S lZI04I03 G6 .. 22 T23N R5E W V2 ----Renton di~ Uml~ SE 142nd St. h 200 T 1>4800 F6 15 T23N R5E W 1/2 5315 , DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM November 29, 2004 Nancy Weil Sonja). FesserJP Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat, LUA-04-131, PP Format and Legal Description Review Bob Mac Onie and I have reviewed the above referenced preliminary plat submittal and have the following comments: Comments for the Applicant: The indexing information noted at the top of the preliminary plat drawing should include the pertinent quarter-section (NW 1,4). Information needed for final plat approval includes the following: Note the City of Renton land use action number and land record number, LUA-OX-XXX-FP and LND-1O-0421, respectively, on the plat drawing, preferably in the upper right-hand corner. The type size used for the land record number should be smaller than that used for the land use action number. Please note that the land use action number for the final plat will be different from the preliminary plat and is unknown as of this date. Tie to the City of Renton Survey Control Network. The geometry will be checked by the city when the ties are provided. Provide plat and lot closure calculations. Note the date the existing monuments were visited, per W AC-130-1S0, and what was found. \H:\File Sys\LND • Land Subdivision & Surveying Records\LND-l 0 -Plats\0421 \RV041120.doc November 29, 2004 Page 2 Complete City of Renton Monument Cards, with reference points of all new right-of-way monuments set as part of the plat. Required City of Renton signatures, for plat approval, include the Administrator of Planning/Building/Public Works, the Mayor and the City Clerk. An approval block for the city's Finance Director is also required. Appropriate King County approval blocks need to be noted on the plat drawing. All vested owners of the plat property need to sign the final plat document. Include notary blocks as needed. Include a dedication/certification block on the drawing. Indicate what has been, or is to be, set at the comers of the proposed lots. On the final plat submittal, remove items not directly impacting the subdivision (keystone walls, etc.). Note encroachments, if any. Note all easements, agreements and covenants of record on the drawing. Note discrepancies between bearings and distances of record and those measured or calculated, if any. The city will provide addresses for the proposed lots after the preliminary plat is approved. The addresses need to be noted on the drawing. Note whether the adjoining properties are platted (give plat name and lot number) or "UNPLA TIED". Remove references to zoning and density information on the final plat drawing. Reference the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions document on the final plat drawing and provide a space for the recording number thereof. Note that if there are restrictive covenants, easements or agreements to others (neighboring properties, etc.) as part of this subdivision, they can be recorded concurrently with the plat. The plat drawings and the associated document(s) are to be given to the Project Manager as a package. The plat document will be recorded first (with King County). The recording number(s) for the associated document(s) (said documents recorded concurrently with, but following the plat) need to be referenced on the plat drawings. If there is to be a Homeowners' Association (HOA) for this plat, the following language concerning ownership of "Tract A" (the storm water detention area) applies to this plat and should be noted on the final plat drawing as follows: H:\File Sys\LND -Land Subdivision & Surveying Records\LND-IO -Plats\042I\RV041120.doc\cor November 29, 2004 Page 3 Upon the recording of this plat, Tract A is hereby granted and conveyed to the Plat of Ridgeview Court Homeowners' Association (HOA) for a storm water detention facility. All necessary maintenance activities for said Tract will be the responsibility of the HOA. In the event that the HOA is dissolved or otherwise fails to meet its property tax obligations, as evidenced by non-payment of property taxes for a period of eighteen (18) months, then each lot in this plat shall assume and have an equal and undivided ownership interest in the Tract previously owned by the HOA and have the attendant financial and maintenance responsibilities. Otherwise, use the following language on the final plat drawing: Lots 1 through 20, inclusive, shall have an equal and undivided ownership interest in "TRACT A". The foregoing statement is to be accompanied by language defining the maintenance responsibilities for any infrastructure located on the "Tract" serving the plat, or reference a separate recording instrument detailing the same. An updated Plat Certificate will be required (to be dated within 45 days prior to Council action of the plat approval). The new private access/utilities easements, noted on the plat drawing, are for the benefit of future owners of the lots so affected. Since the new lots created via this plat are under common ownership at the time of plat recording, there can be no new easements created until ownership of the lots is conveyed to others, together with and/or subject to specific easement rights. Add the following Declaration of Covenant language on the face of the subject plat drawing, it the previous paragraph applies: DECLARATION OF COVENANT: The owner of the land embraced within this plat, in returnfor the benefit to accrue from this subdivision, by signing hereon covenants and agrees to convey the beneficial interest in the new easements shown on this plat to any and allfuture purchasers of the lots, or of any subdivisions thereof This covenant shall run with the land as shown on this plat. The new private access/utilities easement requires a "NEW PRIV ATE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS & UTILITIES MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT" statement noted on the plat drawing. See the attachment. The final Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions of Ridgeview Court document needs to have the legal description of the plat noted under Exhibit A thereof. H:\File Sys\LND -Land Subdivision & Surveying Records\LND-l 0 -Plats\042I \RV041120.doc\cor Title for both ofthe following paragraphs: NEW PRIVATE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS & UTILITIES MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT Use the/ollowing paragraph if there are two or more lots participating in the agreement: NOTE: NEW PRIVATE EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITIES IS TO BE CREATED UPON THE SALE OF LOTS SHOWN ON THIS PLAT. THE OWNERS OF LOTS SHALL HAVE AN EQUAL AND UNDIVIDED INTEREST IN THE OWNERSHIP AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENT APPURTENANCES. THESE APPURTENANCES AND MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES INCLUDE THE REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE OF THE PRIVATE ACCESS ROAD, DRAINAGE PIPES, AND STORM WATER QUALITY AND/OR DETENTION FACILITIES WITHIN THIS EASEMENT, PRIV ATE SIGNAGE, AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE NOT OWNED BY THE CITY OF RENTON OR OTHER UTILITY PROVIDERS. MAINTENANCE COSTS SHALL BE SHARED EQUALLY. PARKING ON THE PAVING IN THE ACCESS EASEMENT IS PROHIBITED, UNLESS PAVEMENT WIDTH IS GREATER THAN 20 FEET. Use the/ollowing paragraph if there is one lot subject to the agreement: NOTE: NEW PRIV ATE EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITIES IS TO BE CREATED UPON THE SALE OF LOTS SHOWN ON THIS PLAT. THE OWNER OF LOT SHALL HAVE OWNERSHIP AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENT APPURTENANCES. THESE APPURTENANCES AND MAINTENANCE RESPONSmILITIES INCLUDE THE REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE OF THE PRIVATE ACCESS ROAD, DRAINAGE PIPES, AND STORM WATER QUALITY AND/OR DETENTION FACILITIES WITHIN THIS EASEMENT, PRIVATE SIGNAGE, AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE NOT OWNED BY THE CITY OF RENTON OR OTHER UTILITY PROVIDERS. MAINTENANCE COSTS SHALL BE SHARED EQUALLY. PARKING ON THE PAVING IN THE ACCESS EASEMENT IS PROHIBITED, UNLESS PA VEMENT WIDTH IS GREATER THAN 20 FEET. PROPERTY SERV""~ES FEE REVIEW FOR SUBDIVISIONS ...... 2904 -_<4_z.,~ __ APPLICANT; -a1tx;gVlt=:\N COl 'AT lie t<ECEIVED FROM ___ --:-::-~_ (date) JOB ADDRESS: ae7 13t=n=:MEA=tnW AyE. L.JE::. WO#_7L-7L.-..3!.;:-3;c:4:::r-____ _ NATURE OF WORK: 20-1 or: J Ob.JGi t2J,.,.6;J:(aIDC-.ENIF:vJ CQUEff PI AT) LND #---Ll..10..L---->042-=t:11 .... JI--___ _ X PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF'SUBD~I6NBf WNG pLAT, NEEDifORE iNfORMATION: -LEGAL DESCRIPTION SHORT PLAT, BINDING SITE PLAN, ETC. PID #'s -VICINITY MAP -FINAL REVIEW OF SUBDIVISION, THIS REVIEW REPLACES SQUARE FOOTAGE -OTHER PRELIMINARY FEE REVIEW DATED FRONT FOOTAGE SUBJECT PROPERTY PARENT PIDU 51gelO -004p >< NEW KING CO. TAX ACCT.#(s) are required when assigned by King County. It is the intent of this development fee analysis to put the. developer/owner on notice, that the fees quoted below may be applicable to the subjeCt site upon development of the property. AU quoted fees are potential charges that may be due and payable at the time the construction permit is issued to install the on-site and off-site improvements (i.e. underground utilities, street improvements, etc.) Triggering mechanisms for the SDC fees will be based on current City ordinances and determined by the applicable Utility Section. Please note that these fees are subject to change without notice. Final fees will be based on rates in effect at time of Building Permit/Construction Permit application. The existing house on SP Lot # , addressed as has not previously paid ____ SDC fees, due to connection to City utilities prior to existance of SDC fee Ord. SP LoW will be subject to future SDC fees if triggering mechanisms are touched within current City Ordinances. We understand that this subdivision is in the preliminary stage and that we will have the opportunity to review it again before recordation, OT' I ti'd /. ti th f The following quoted fees do N me ude mspection ees, SI e sewer pemuts, r w permit ees or e cost 0 water meters. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT PARCEL METHOD OF ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS NO. NO. ASSESSMENT UNITS OR FEE Latecomer ~reement (pvt) WATER -0- Latecomer Agreement (pvt) W ASTEWA TER -0- Latecomer Agreement (pvt) OTHER -0- / Special Assessment DistrictIW A TER /-0- ~T FE"~ I~~ 5A::b 000c.. I tPc.a4.52 X. tJUIT5 &::> 'TEt:> Special Assessment DistnctlW AST ATER +1""'"".1 Joint Use Agreement (METRO) - Local Improvement District '" - Traffic Benefit Zones $75.00 PER TRIP, CALCULATED BY TRANSPORTATION - FUTURE OBLIGATIONS I - SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE -WATER .. Estimated # OF UNITS/ SDCFEE -Pd Prevo .. Partially Pd (Ltd Exemption) -Never Pd SQ. FTG. Sin~le family residential $1,525/unit x ,q $za,Q75.OC Mobile home dwelling unit $1220/unit in park Apartment, Condo $915/unit not in CD or COR zones x Commercial/Industrial, $0.213/sq. ft. of property (not less than $1,525.00) x Boeing, by Special Agreement/Footprint of Bldg plus 15 ft perimeter (2,800 GPM threshold) SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE -WASTEWATER -Estimated -Pd Prevo -Partially Pd (Ltd Exemption) -Never Pd Sin~le family residential $900/unit x 20 -$18.000.00 Mobile home dwelling unit $720/unit x Apartment, Condo $S40/unit not in CD or COR zones x Commercial/Industrial $0.126/sq. ft; of property x(not less than $900,00) SYSTEM DEVEWPMENT CHARGE -SURFACEWATER -Estimated -Pd Prevo -Partially Pd (Ltd Exemption) -Never Pd Single family residential and mobile home dwelling unit $715/unit x t<=i $13565.Q: All other properties $0.249/sq ft of new impervious area of property x (not less than $715.00) I PRELIMINARY TOTAL $ ~) fp,.J,fCQfh) '< I\) II !4Jo+ CD 0 III 0 t1 ..,. r DATE Signatu f Rev 109 Authonty I t1 ~ . , "'If subject property is within an LID, it is developers responsibility to check with the Finance Dept. for paid/un-paid status . CD < .... " Square footage figures are taken from the King County Assessor's map and are subject to change. CD .: ., Current City SDC fee charges apply to ::I 0 EFFECTIVE January 1, 2004 CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 30th day of December, 2004, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing 2 documents. This information was sent to: Cliff Williams Owner / Contact (Signature of Sender)..:....: A~---.::.~~.,......:...~~~~a~~=--___ --~~~t:IllV! '" •••••.•• il?,..."I, _ ,,·~\ss'otV"""'~ '" f :"o~ ~OTA ~+;;"'~'~ : : (j ,.,~J.. :P~ 1\ ~ '" : _ m: ~ ~. '_ (J)' '" ",CJ): I:> :: ~ -' '. Us II C .. ' , 'Y '. .. ~ I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Derek Jordan \ ~ "'~:29-07 ...... o~.f signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and vOlunt~'M~ijRsm~(ja~ and purposes mentioned in the instrument. .""\\\.\.\.",,, ........ STATE OF WASHINGTON SS COUNTY OF KING . Date~ / '5) ~Z; -~-~~~~--L.~~::1:::::::::!::~---:-:---- Notary (Print): MARILYN KAMCHEFF My appointment expires: IViyAPPOINIMENJ ExpiRES 6-29-07 Ridgview Court Preliminary Plat LUA04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION & PUBLIC HEARING "'" ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS-M) ,. POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat PROJECT NUMBER: LUA04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF LOCATION: 327 Bremerton Avenue NE DESCRIPTION: The applicant Is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review, Hearing Examiner Site Plan and Preliminary Plat approvals and a code modification for cul-de-sac radius to be reduced from the required 55- foot to a 50-foot radius. The proposal Is to subdivide the 2.4-acre site Into 20 lots for the eventual development of single-family dwellings. The lots range In size from 2,725 sq. ft. to 5,831 sq. ft. Access is proposed via improved Bremerton Avenue NE to a new public street terminating In a cul-de-sac. Further access will be provided by private easements. The site has been shown not to contain any protected Critical Areas. The site is zoned Center Suburban (CS) and is located in the Centers Residential Bonus District B. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental determination must be flied In writing on or before 5:00 PM on December 27, 2004. Appeals must be flied In writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional Information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE 7TH FLOOR OF CITY HALL, 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON JANUARY 4, 2005 AT 9:00 AM TO CONSIDER THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. Ii, I ---i! ,-~--i c-- 1 -' I .. _--;-_ .. ---/ i j3rocr:y l----J ,~101(p) -)_, I I ~ R-8 rn Q) ~ ~ -+-> ~--co C'? c::5.-- . ~, ,.. ... " FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT (425) 430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Agencies See Attached Cliff Williams -Ridgeview Court, LLC Owner/Applicant/Contact ................ , ...... """" _-"',);!N KAA~ "" -h..~ ••••••• 'ViC " :-~l •••• ;t-\SSIO..v~ ... ~", ~ .. o~ ""~ .. '~ ~ : :' () ~OT 4-9).-:il'" '"1\ ~ ~ :. m:" '-: -._ C/): ~ ~(/)·,I:}IJ • .-~...-\\ BuG .: ; COUNTY OF KING ',17.,.>."' .. ~ .. I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy Tucker \t ~·~:?~,-.9~.·""~O .f signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary aG(fOl!t~-\~~s--and purposes mentioned in the instrument. 111\).""" ... " .......... Date~ /3, 20?5 ashington Notary (Print): _____ wM:..uAR ..... IL .... YN ......... KQlAMjWr. .... H .... FE .... 1= ____________ _ My appointment expires: /If{ APPOINTMENT EXPIRES 6-29-07 Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat LUA04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF template -affidavit of service by mailing Dept. of Ecology· Environmental Review Section PO Box 47.703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 WSDOT Northwest Region· Attn: Ramin Pazooki King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240 PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers· Seattle District Office Attn: SEPA Reviewer PO Box C-3755 Seattle, WA 98124 Jamey Taylor· Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 OlymQia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Servo Attn: SEPA Section 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 Metro Transit Senior Environmental Planner Gary Kriedt AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERe DETERMINATIONS) WDFW -Stewart Reinbold· Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. c/o Department of Ecology . 3190 160th Ave SE Attn. SEPA Reviewer Bellevue, WA 98008 39015 -172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 Duwamish Tribal Office· Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program 4717 W Marginal Way SW . Seattle, WA 98106-1514 Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert 39015 172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092-9763 KC Wastewater Treatment Division· Office of Archaeology & Historic Environmental Planning Supervisor Preservation· Ms. Shirley Marroquin Attn: Stephanie Kramer 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 PO Box 48343 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Olympia, W A 98504-8343 City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: Mr. Micheal E. Nicholson Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director 13020 SE 72nd Place 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Municipal Liason Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Joe Jainga 6300 Southcenter Blvd. 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-01W Tukwila, WA 98188 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 Seattle Public Utilities Real Estate Services Title Examiner 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the checklist, PMT's, and the notice of application .• Also note, do not mail Jamey Taylor any of the notices she gets hers from the web. Only send her the ERC Determination paperwork. /" template· affidavit of service by mailing I DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM November 29,2004 NancyWeil Sonja). Fesser.JP Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat, LUA-04-131, PP Format and Legal Description Review Bob Mac Onie and I have reviewed the above referenced preliminary plat submittal and have the following comments: Comments for the Applicant: The indexing information noted at the top of the preliminary plat drawing should include the pertinent quarter-section (NW 1;4). Information needed for final plat approval includes the following: Note the City of Renton land use action number and land record number, LUA-OX-XXX-FP and LND-1O-0421, respectively, on the plat drawing, preferably in the upper right-hand corner. The type size used for the land record number should be smaller than that used for the land use action number. Please note that the land use action number for the final plat will be different from the preliminary plat and is unknown as of this date. Tie to the City of Renton Survey Control Network. The geometry will be checked by the city when the ties are provided. Provide plat and lot closure calculations. Note the date the existing monuments were visited, per W AC-130-IS0, and what was found. \H:\File Sys\LND -Land Subdivision & Surveying Records\LND-IO -Plats\0421\RY041120.doc November 29, 2004 Page 2 Complete City of Renton Monument Cards, with reference points of all new right-of-way monuments set as part of the plat. Required City of Renton signatures, for plat approval, include the Administrator of Planning/Building/Public Works, the Mayor and the City Clerk. An approval block for the city's Finance Director is also required. Appropriate King County approval blocks need to be noted on the plat drawing. All vested owners of the plat property need to sign the final plat document. Include notary blocks as needed. Include a dedication/certification block on the drawing. Indicate what has been, or is to be, set at the corners of the proposed lots. On the final plat submittal, remove items not directly impacting the subdivision (keystone walls, etc.). Note encroachments, if any. Note all easements, agreements and covenants of record on the drawing. Note discrepancies between bearings and distances of record and those measured or calculated, if any. The city will provide addresses for the proposed lots after the preliminary plat is approved. The addresses need to be noted on the drawing. Note whether the adjoining properties are platted (give plat name and lot number) or "UNPLA TIED". Remove references to zoning and density information on the final plat drawing. Reference the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions document on the final plat drawing and provide a space for the recording number thereof. Note that if there are restrictive covenants, easements or agreements to others (neighboring properties, etc.) as part of this subdivision, they can be recorded concurrently with the plat. The plat drawings and the associated document(s) are to be given to the Project Manager as a package. The plat document will be recorded first (with King County). The recording number(s) for the associated document(s) (said documents recorded concurrently with, but following the plat) need to be referenced on the plat drawings. If there is to be a Homeowners' Association (HOA) for this plat, the following language concerning ownership of "Tract A" (the storm water detention area) applies to this plat and should be noted on the final plat drawing as follows: H:\File Sys\LND -Land Subdivision & Surveying Records\LND-1 0 -Plats\042I \RV041120.doc\cor November 29, 2004 Page 3 Upon the recording of this plat, Tract A is hereby granted and conveyed to the Plat of Ridgeview Court Homeowners' Association (HOA) for a storm water detention facility. All necessary maintenance activities for said Tract will be the responsibility of the HOA. In the event that the HOA is dissolved or otherwise fails to meet its property tax obligations, as evidenced by non-payment of property taxes for a period of eighteen (18) months, then each lot in this plat shall assume and have an equal and undivided ownership interest in the Tract previously owned by the HOA and have the attendant financial and maintenance responsibilities. Otherwise, use the following language on the final plat drawing: Lots I through 20, inclusive, shall have an equal and undivided ownership interest in "TRACT A". The foregoing statement is to be accompanied by language defining the maintenance responsibilities for any infrastructure located on the "Tract" serving the plat, or reference a separate recording instrument detailing the same. An updated Plat Certificate will be required (to be dated within 45 days prior to Council action of the plat approval). The new private access/utilities easements, noted on the plat drawing, are for the benefit of-future owners of the lots so affected. Since the new lots created via this plat are under common ownership at the time of plat recording, there can be no new easements created until ownership of the lots is conveyed to others, together with and/or subject to specific easement rights. Add the following Declaration of Covenant language on the face of the subject plat drawing, if. the previous paragraph applies: DECLARATION OF COVENANT: The owner of the land embraced within this plat, in return for the benefit to accrue from this subdivision, by signing hereon covenants and agrees to convey the beneficial interest in the new easements shown on this plat to any and allfuture purchasers of the lots, or of any subdivisions thereof This covenant shall run with the land as shown on this plat. The new private access/utilities easement requires a "NEW PRIVATE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS & UTILITIES MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT" statement noted on the plat drawing. See the attachment. The final Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions of Ridgeview Court document needs to have the legal description of the plat noted under Exhibit A thereof. H:\File Sys\LND -Land Subdivision & Surveying Records\LND-1 0 -Plals\042I\RV041120.doc\cor Title for both ofthe following paragraphs: NEW PRIVATE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS & UTILITIES MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT Use the following paragraph if there are two or more lots participating in the agreement: NOTE: NEW PRIVATE EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITIES IS TO BE CREATED UPON THE SALE OF LOTS SHOWN ON THIS PLAT. THE OWNERS OF LOTS SHALL HAVE AN EQUAL AND UNDIVIDED INTEREST IN THE OWNERSHIP AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENT APPURTENANCES. THESE APPURTENANCES AND MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES INCLUDE THE REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE OF THE PRIVATE ACCESS ROAD, DRAINAGE PIPES, AND STORM WATER QUALITY AND/OR DETENTION FACILITIES WITHIN THIS EASEMENT, PRIVATE SIGNAGE, AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE NOT OWNED BY THE CITY OF RENTON OR OTHER UTILITY PROVIDERS. MAINTENANCE COSTS SHALL BE SHARED EQUALLY. PARKING ON THE PAVING IN THE ACCESS EASEMENT IS PROHIBITED, UNLESS PAVEMENT WIDTH IS GREATER THAN 20 FEET. Use the/ollowing paragraph if there is one lot subject to the agreement: NOTE: NEW PRIVATE EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITIES IS TO BE CREATED UPON THE SALE OF LOTS SHOWN ON THIS PLAT. THE OWNER OF LOT SHALL HAVE OWNERSHIP AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE PRIV ATE ACCESS EASEMENT APPURTENANCES. THESE APPURTENANCES AND MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES INCLUDE THE REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE OF THE PRIVATE ACCESS ROAD, DRAINAGE PIPES, AND STORM WATER QUALITY AND/OR DETENTION FACILITIES WITHIN THIS EASEMENT, PRIV ATE SIGNAGE, AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE NOT OWNED BY THE CITY OF RENTON OR OTHER UTILITY PROVIDERS. MAINTENANCE COSTS SHALL BE SHARED EQUALLY. PARKING ON THE PAVING IN THE ACCESS EASEMENT IS PROHIBITED, UNLESS PAVEMENT WIDTH IS GREATER THAN 20 FEET. PROPERlY SER",.. ..... ES FEE REVIEW FOR SUBDIVISIONS --. 2004 --.;<0_2.0<......-__ APPLICANT: "R1t:'>qEYIEW COl Jar I Ie RECEIVED FROM ___ ---;:-;-:-:-_ (date) JOB ADDRESS: ae7 13Be:MES=tnLl AyE, UI=: . WO#_7-L7--<----?>_-3...<=4f--____ _ NATURE OF WORK: GO-J at: J O~ :QJ.....Q:(SIDC=tEY'u=:,:W coua:c 1:?1.A:r) LND # 10-042.1 X PRELIMINARY REVIEW ()FFsUBnlvnhONBf LONG plAT, NEEi»fORE INfORMATIO---'-N ..... :L-....>"'""""'--=-L ..... E-G-A-L-D-ES-C-RI-PT-ION SHORT PLAT, BINDING SITE PLAN, ETC,PID D's -VICINITY MAP -FINAL REVIEW OF SUBDIVISION, TmS REVIEW REPLACES SQUARE FOOTAGE -OTHER PRELIMINARY FEE REVIEW DATED FRONT FOOTAGE SUBJECT PROPERTY PARENT PIDU 51gelo -004P >< NEW KING CO. TAX ACCT.#(s) are required when assigned by King County. It is the intent of this development fee analysis to put the. developer/owner on notice, that the fees quoted below may be applicable to the subject site upon development of the property. AU quoted fees are potential charges that may be due and payable at the time the construction permit is issued to install the on-site and off-site improvements (i.e. underground utilities, street improvements, etc.) Triggering mechanisms for the SDC fees will be based on current City ordinances and determined by the applicable Utility Section. Please note that these fees are subject to change without notice. Final fees will be based on rates in effect at time of Building Permit/Construction Permit application. The existing house on SP Lot # , addressed as has not previously paid ____ SDC fees, due to connection to City utilities prior to existance of SDC fee Ord. SP LotH will be subject to future SDC fees if triggering mechanisms are touched within current City Ordinances. We understand that this subdivision is in the preliminary stage and that we will have the opportunity to review it again before recordation. Th ti II d ti d NOT' I d . fi'd /. fi th f e 0 owmg Quote ees 0 mc u e InspectIOn ees, SI e sewer permIts, r w permIt ees or e cost 0 water meters. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT PARCEL METHOD OF ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS NO. NO. ASSESSMENT UNITS OR FEE Latecomer Agreement (pvt) WATER -0- Latecomer Agreement (pvt) W ASTEW A TER -0- Latecomer Agreement (pvt) OTHER -0- / Special Assessment District/W ATER /-0- ~T 'Re'WfZ::>1...I I~~ 5A;,b Oex::>E-$C£>A.,52. X.LJUI~ 2L::) -rSD + lI. .... lT Special Assessment Distnct/W AST ATER Joint Use Agreement (METRO) - Local Improvement District * - Traffic Benefit Zones $75.00 PER TRIP, CALCULATED BY TRANSPORTATION - FUTURE OBLIGATIONS - SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE -WATER .. Estimated #OFUNITS/ SDCFEE -Pd Prevo .. Partially Pd (Ltd Exemption) -Never Pd SQ. FTG. Single family residential $1,525/unit x ,q $z.e Q75.OC Mobile home dwelling unit $1220/unit in park Apartment, Condo $915/unit not in CD or COR zones x Commercial/Industrial, $0.213/sq. ft. of property (not less than $1,525.00) x Boeing, by Special Agreement/Footprint of BIdgplus 15 ft perimeler (2,800 GPM threshold) SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE -WASTEWATER·· Estimated -Pd Prevo -Partially Pd (Ltd Exemption) -Never Pd Single family residential $900/unit x 20 ~18POQ.OO Mobile home dwelling unit $720/unit x Apartment, Condo $540/unit not in CD or COR zones x Commercial/Industrial $0.126/sq. ft~ of prop_erty x(not less than $900,00) SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE -SURFACEWATER .. Estimated -Pd Prevo ., Partially Pd (Ltd ExelI!Ption) .. Never Pd Single family_ residential and mobile home dwelling unit $715/unit x ICf ~ 13 565.oc All other properties $0.249/sq ft of new impervious area of property x (not less than $715.00) I PRELIMINARY TOTAL $ . Signatu f Rev mg Authonty '< I\) ID 0 \lI 0 11 "'" 11 .. *If subject property is within an LID, it is developers responsibility to check with the Finance Dept. for paid/un-paid status. ID 6\ <: .... ID .: Square footage figures are taken from the King County Assessor's map and are subject to change. :1 0 Current City SDC fee charges apply to __________________ _ EFFECTIVE January 1, 2004 City oiRenton Department of Planning / Building / Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET COMMENTS DUE: NOVEMBER 17, 2004 APPLICATION NO: LUA04-131, PP, SA-A, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: NOVEMBER 2,200 APPLICANT: Cliff Williams PROJECT MANAGER: Nanc PROJECT TITLE: Rid eview Court Prelimina Plat PLAN REVIEW: Mike Dotson SITE AREA: 2.4 acres BUILDING AREA ross: nla LOCATION: 327 Bremerton Ave NE I WORK ORDER NO: 77334 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review, Hearing Examiner Site Plan, and Preliminary Plat approvals and a code modification for cul-de-sac radius. The 2.4-acre site is proposed to be subdivided into 20 single-family residential lots (ranging from 2,725 sq. ft. to 5,800 sq. ft.). Access is proposed via improved Bremerton Avenue NE to a new public street terminating in a cul-de-sac. Further access will be provided by private easements. The site has been shown not to contain any protected Critical areas. The site is zoned Center Suburban (CS) and is located in the Centers Residential Bonus District B. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation LandlShoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM Date: November 19, 2004 To: NancyWeil From: Mike DOlsonp Subject: Ridgeview Court Plat, LUA -04-131, PP, SA-A, ECF 327 Bremerton Ave NE The following Utility and Transportation comments concern the Environmental (SEPA) review for the subject 20-lot subdivision. EXISTING CONDITIONS WATER -There is an 8-inch water main in Bremerton Ave NE, fronting the site. The site is within Zone 2 of the Aquifer Protection Area. SEWER -There are existing 24-inch and 16-inch sewer mains adjacent (300 feet to the North . and 300 feet to the West, respectively) to this site. SURFACE WATER -The site drains to Maplewood Creek within the Cedar River drainage basin. STREETS -The existing right of way along Bremerton Ave NE is unimproved (no existing curb, gutter, street lights or sidewalk). CODE REQUIREMENTS WATER 1. A new 8-inch water main (extended to the extreme boundaries; stubbed for future connection -East from Bremerton Ave NE to Westerly property boundary, and stubbed for future connection South along Bremerton Ave to south property line) with associated fire-hydrant(s), will be required to serve the new development with fire-flow and domestic water service. Any existing hydrants, that are counted toward meeting the fire flow requirements, will be required to have a quick connect Storz fitting. 2. New water service "setters" will be required to be installed prior to recording the plat. 3. The System Development Charge is $1,525 for each new single-family building lot (19x$1,525=$28,975.00). This fee is payable with the construction permit. SANITARY SEWER 1. A new sewer main will be required along the full frontage of the property along Bremerton Ave NE, with connection to the existing mainline in either NE 4th Street, or the line to the West will be required. New sewer main as required to serve the new single family dwelling units. H:IOivision.sIOevelop.serlOev&plan.ingIPROJECTSI04·131.NancylRidgeview Court Plat GF.doc 2. Any existing septic systems shall be abandoned, in accordance with the King County Health Department requirements, prior to recording the plat. 3. The System Development Charge is $900 for each new single-family building lot being served with a new sewer service. This fee is payable with the construction permit. 4. Separate side sewers (and any necessary easements) to each new building lot are required prior to recording of the plat. 5. This parcel is within the East Renton Interceptor Special Assessment District. The fees are $224.521 unit + interest. Final fees will be determined, and are due with the construction permit. SURFACE WATER 1. The System Development Charge is $715 per new single-family building lot. This fee is payable with the construction permit. 2. The drainage analysis and design submitted with the Land Use application appears to meet the required City of Renton analysis criteria; 1998 King County Surface Water design manual Level 2 flow control, and basic water quality improvements. However, temporary erosion control is further conditioned (see below) to meet Department of Ecology Standards. - TRANSPORTATION 1. This project is required by City Code to install frontage improvements. Improvements include half pavement width, curb, gutter, streetlights and sidewalks along the existing right of ways that are frontage to the site. 2. This project will be required to dedicate additional right-of-way to meet the minimum street width of 50 feet. The dedication shall be accomplished to provide a ROW line 25 feet west of the section line (it appears that 7 feet were previously dedicated, but this is subject to verification). 3. Sidewalk improvements and locations of new driveways shall be subject to review and approval of the Transportation division. CONDITIONS 1. Due to significant adverse downstream conditions, as identified in the Cedar River Basin Report, projects within the Cedar River basin are conditioned with providing Surface Water drainage analysis and facility design in accordance with the King County 1998 Surface Water Design Manual criteria. 2. Temporary Erosion Control shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the Department of Ecology Standards, and staff review. 3. A Traffic Mitigation Fee of $75.00 per additional Average Daily Trip shall be assessed. The fee for 19 new lots is $13,637.25. H:IDivision.sIDevelop.serlDev&plan.ingIPROJECTSI04-131.NancylRidgeview Court Plat GF_doc City of Renton Department of Planning / Building / Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: 'Pi ~ ~,l...,J APPLICATION NO: LUA04-131, PP, SA-A, ECF APPLICANT: Cliff Williams PROJECT TITLE: Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat SITE AREA: 2.4 acres LOCATION: 327 Bremerton Ave NE COMMENTS DUE: NOVEMBER 17, 2004 DATE CIRCULATED: NOVEMBER ?'l~'.2LlM nnur-.. , .............. n ....... s ......... "'''''' v.", ... PROJECT MANAGER: Nancy Weil CIlY OF RENTON PLAN REVIEW: Mike Dotson Mn \I {\ t::. ?nnJ. I1lV" V v _ .... BUILDING AREA (gross): n/a I WORK ORDER NO: 77334 AECEIVED SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review, Hearing Examiner Site Plan, and Preliminary Plat approvals and a code modification for cul-de-sac radius. The 2.4-acre site is proposed to be subdivided into 20 single-family residential lots (ranging from 2,725 sq. ft. to 5,800 sq. ft.). Access is proposed via improved Bremerton Avenue NE to a new public street terminating in a cul-de-sac .. Further access will be provided by private easements. The site has been shown not to contain any protected Critical areas. The site is zoned Center Suburban (CS) and is located in the Centers Residential Bonus District B. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housinq Air Aesthetics Water UghtlG/are Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where addition' tion is needed to properly assess this proposal. Oat City of Renton Department of Planning / Building / Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: ~t04k~J'))~oJW~oJ COMMENTS DUE: NOVEMBER 17, 2004 APPLICATION NO: LUA04-131, PP, SA-A, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: NOVEMBER 2, 2004 APPLICANT: Cliff Williams PROJECT MANAGER: Nancy Weil PROJECT TITLE: Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat PLAN REVIEW: Mike Dotson SITE AREA: 2.4 acres BUILDING AREA (gross): nla LOCATION: 327 Bremerton Ave NE I WORK ORDER NO: 77334 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review, Hearing Examiner Site Plan, and Preliminary Plat approvals and a code modification for cul-de-sac radius. The 2.4-acre site is proposed to be subdivided into 20 single-family residential lots (ranging from 2,725 sq. ft. to 5,800 sq. ft.). Access is proposed via improved Bremerton Avenue NE to a new public street terminating in a cul-de-sac. Further access will be provided by private easements. The site has been shown not to contain any protected Critical areas. The site is zoned Center Suburban (CS) and is located in the Centers Residential Bonus District B. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation LandlShoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energyl Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment to,OOOFeet 14,000 Feet R fe/Tel' OF RENTON EIVED NOV (fJ 3 200~ BUILDING DIVISION B. POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional in" tion is needed to properly assess this proposal. Project Name: Project Address: Contact Person: Permit Number: 3';)..7 h"lV\~Y\ou ~ WG C.Lt~f LUtU ... 1AM2 LvA 04-13 \ 5q7 s# __ ----'-___ _ Project Description: 1.0 loT SfJ'L fLV}T WI'S}, Q0E bX.1S.1J'~ ~S; lD ~~ R8~~D Land Us, Type: [j!' Residential Method of Calculation: [W'ITE Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition o Retail o Traffic Study ( '2..\ 0) ~F e.... o Non-retail o Other q . 5 ( Tf2.t.r-l L.o"\ Calculation: 2.0 -\::: \q )( Q.ro7 =-\£>\. ~~ ~~AtL \~\fS \ ~\ ,~ y.. ~ IS:: ". \ ~ lo ~ 1. lS Transportation Mitigation Fee: J, \~) ~ 3 -,. 'Z'::; Calculated by: ....... K..............,\(=ctm~:..;;..~-=-· _______ _ Date: \, liD I ?OPL{ Date of Payment: _______________ _ City of Reluon Department of Planning / Building / Public VV ..... KS ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET COMMENTS DUE: NOVEMBER 17, 2004 APPLICATION NO: LUA04-131, PP, SA-A, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: NOVEMBER 2, 200!. ~T~O~R~~1°~ ..- APPLICANT: Cliff Williams PROJECT MANAGER: Nancy Weil n '" U - PROJECT TITLE: Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat PLAN REVIEW: Mike Dotson SITE AREA: 2.4 acres BUILDING AREA (gross): n/a DIIII nlNG DIVISION LOCATION: 327 Bremerton Ave NE I WORK ORDER NO: 77334 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review, Hearing Examiner Site Plan, and Preliminary Plat approvals and a code modification for cul-de-sac radius. The 2.4-acre site is proposed to be subdivided into 20 single-family residential lots (ranging from 2,725 sq. ft. to 5,800 sq. ft.). Access is proposed via improved Bremerton Avenue NE to a new public street terminating in a cul-de-sac. Further access will be provided by private easements. The site has been shown not to contain any protected Critical areas. The site is zoned Center Suburban (CS) and is located in the Centers Residential Bonus District B. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earlh Air Water Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS Element of the Environment Housing Aesthetics Light/Glare Recreation Utilities Transporlation Public Services Historic/Cultural Preservation Airporl Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet Probable Minor Impacts Probable More Major Information Impacts Necessary ,eoC .. T hN RECE'VED NOV 03200\ BUILDING DIVISION .~~~~~!~2007' \ . -\ We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additiona . ation is needed to properly assesslhis proposal. Date CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: STAFF CONTACT: SUBJECT: November 16, 2004 N!Jl6lJil Ifebecca Lind Don Erickson Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat, 327 Bremerton Ave NE; LUA-04-131, PP, SA-A, ECF Summary: The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 2.4-acre site into 20 lots ranging in size from 2,725 square feet to 5,800 square feet. The site is designated Commercial Corridor (CC) on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and is zoned CA but is vested to the prior CS zoning. It is also located in the Centers Residential Bonus District and is vested to the prior bonus district standards and review criteria. Staff reviewed and commented on this proposed subdivision on June 17, 2004 (see attachment) and at that time supported the preliminary plat in concept only while noting that changes were necessary before it could be considered in compliance with relevant Comprehensive Plan land use policies and the overlay Centers Residential Bonus District. The applicant did not respond to these comments and still needs to meet standards of the bonus district. Staff previously noted that parking location was a problem since the preliminary plat showed off-street parking being provided at the front rather than the rear of the primary structure or in a "detached garage.' Similarly, policies related to providing connections between residential uses and other uses in the Center were not met. Conclusion: This application doesn't meet the intent of the underlying Center Suburban land use policies and clearly does meet the intent of a number of the specified bonus standards: Policy LU-Ill. Connect residential uses to other uses in the Center through design features such as pedestrian access, shared parking areas, and common open spaces. 1. There is no pedestrian connection between the proposed residential units and other uses within the center, particularly commercial uses along NE 4th S~eet. An easement is shown connecting to the north to Lot PID 518210 041 but no improvements are shown extending beyond the entry walkway to Lot 13. Policy LU-76. To Visually improve the public streetscape and the safety of perimeter sidewalks and facilitate off-street parking, construction of alleys providing rear access to service entries and garages should be encouraged. Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat, 327 Bremerton Ave NE 11/16/2004 2 2. Whereas six units have rear access off a 20' wide alley, the other 14 units access off private access easements feeding of a cul-de-sac, which are also discouraged. Fourteen units out of a proposed 20 units in this development access off private access easements rather than a traditional street and alley system. The result is a "stand alone" plat with little or no connectivity to surrounding development, be it residential or commercial. Building Location Standards: The relationship of the dwelling, parking and the street shall create the appearance of a single-family neighborhood. Front fa~ades of structures shall address the public street, private street or court by providing: a landscaped pedestrian connection, and an entry feature facing the front yard. 3. The proposed plat also does not comply with many of the provisions for District B of the Residential Bonus District. In particular, the proposed development with its multiple private access easements, in some cases along both the front and rear of future structures (Lots 4, 5, 16 and 17) conveys anything but the appearance of a traditional single-family neighborhood. Staff have provided an alternative drawing showing that private pedestrian courts could be created relatively easily. These would serve Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, 14, .15, 16, and 17. In addition, no elevations were provided to verify whether modulation provisions were met. 4. Front facades of Lots 5,6, 11, 12, 13, 15 and 16 do not front or "address a public street. Policy LU-76. To visually improve the public streetscape and the safety of perimeter sidewalks and facilitate off-street parking, construction of alleys providing rear access to service entries and garages should be encouraged. 5. Over 1/3 of the site is devoted to streets and paved access easements which increase surface water drainage impacts. A large cul-de-sac consumes a high percentage of these impervious surfaces. Staff believe that a preferred layout would incorporate a through street to the vacant Tydico Site, immediately to the south with the elimination of the cul- de-sac. Residential development policies discourage the use of cul-de-sacs. By eliminating the cul-de-sac staff estimate that an additional three or four lots could be accommodated on the site without exceeding the bonus density. The subject proposal does not achieve high quality design nor does it result in a "superior residential project which complements commercial uses" (CS Purpose statement). Recommendation: Do not support this preliminary plat as currently proposed since it fails to comply with a number of relevant centers policies or provisions for District B of the Centers Residential Bonus District. Instead, the applicant should be required to redesign the plat based upon EDNSP's June 2004 comments at the pre-application stage (see attachment). H:\EDNSP\Interdepartmentai\Deveiopment Review\Green Fiie\Comments\Ridgeview Court.doc\cor ----- o o --..... "" - $iP \, , I " I I I \ / IIA'I 'II' / / , I /1 i /' .' .. , ' /" SDCO (TYPj \. I PRIVA1E STORJ DR~NAGE' EASEMD.T . . . ". I . I I· City of Renton Department of Planning / Building / Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: ~i ('c.,., COMMENTS DUE: NOVEMEU;:.,R/!l:rffZOP.# n i' n ~ J'/I ~,~ U; U Vi ~ In APPLICATION NO: LUA04-131, PP, SA-A, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: NOVEMBE~ ,£VV APPLICANT: Cliff Williams ' j: I II PROJECT MANAGER: Nanc W~i {If I PROJECT TITLE: Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat PLAN REVIEW: Mike Dotson U U IWV -3 2004 fL~j SITE AREA: 2.4 acres BUILDING AREA (gross): n/a ""' . .,..~ -I V" '.'!.r' MtN/UN LOCATION: 327 Bremerton Ave NE WORK ORDER NO: 77334 FIRE OEPARflvjF'\:T ~" SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review, Hearing Examiner Site Plan, and Preliminary Plat approvals and a code modification for cul-de-sac radius. The 2.4-acre site is proposed to be subdivided into 20 single-family residential lots (rangiflg from 2,725 sq. ft. to 5,800 sq. ft.). Access is proposed via improved Bremerton Avenue NE to a new public street terminating in a cul-de-sac. Further access will be provided by private easements. The site has been shown not to contain any protected Critical areas. The site is zoned Center Suburban (CS) and is located in the Centers Residential Bonus District B. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet r :1~ ,(){j ~/ " -S B. POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application wit articular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have i entified areas of probable impact or areas where additi nal information is e ed to proper( assess this proposal. Date DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF RENTON FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU MEMORANDUM November 3,2004 Nancy Weil, Planner Jim Gray, Assistant Fire Marshal tI' ~ Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat, 327 Bremerton Ave. NE MITIGATION ITEMS; 1. A fire mitigation fee of $488.00 is required for all new single-family structures. FIRE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. A fire hydrant with 1000 GPM fire flow is required within 300 feet of all new single-family structures. If the building square footage exceeds 3600 square feet in area, the minimum fire flow increases to 1500 GPM and requires two hydrants within 300 feet of the structures. 2. Fire Department access roads are required to be paved, 20 wide. 3. Street addresses shall be visible from a public street. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. City of Renton Department of Planning / Building / Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: fa,("~ COMMENTS DUE: NOVEMBER 17, 2004 APPLICATION NO: LUA04-131, PP, SA-A, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: NOVEMBER 2,2004 APPLICANT: Cliff Williams PROJECT MANAGER: Nancy Weil PROJECT TITLE: Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat PLAN REVIEW: Mike Dotson SITE AREA: 2.4 acres BUILDING AREA (gross): n/a LOCATION: 327 Bremerton Ave NE WORK ORDER NO: 77334 1.'OJ1,f,i;~?! 11~/li- SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review, Hearing Examiner Site Plan, and SI:I1~:5/2', Preliminary Plat approvals and a code modification for cul-de-sac radius. The 2.4-acre site is proposed to be subdivided into 20 S single-family residential lots (ranging from 2,725 sq. ft. to 5,800 sq. ft.). Access is proposed via improved Bremerton Avenue NE to a new public street terminating in a cul-de-sac. Further access will be provided by private easements. The site has been shown not to contain any protected Critical areas. The site is zoned Center Suburban (CS) and is located in the Centers Residential Bonus District B. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energyl Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where add' 'onal infonnation is eded to properly assess this proposal. Date I City of Renton Department of Planning / Building / Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: NOVEMBER 17, 2004 APPLICATION NO: LUA04-131, PP, SA-A, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: N APPLICANT: Cliff Williams PROJECT MANAGE : PROJECT TITLE: Rid eview Court Prelimina Plat SITE AREA: 2.4 acres BUILDING AREA ross: nfa LOCATION: 327 Bremerton Ave NE I WORK ORDER NO: 77334 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review, Hearing Examiner Site Plan, and Preliminary Plat approvals and a code modification for CUl-de-sac radius. The 2.4-acre site is proposed to be subdivided into 20 single-family residential lots (ranging from 2,725 sq. ft. to 5,800 sq. ft.). Access is proposed via improved Bremerton Avenue NE to a new public street terminating in a cul-de-sac. Further access will be provided by private easements. The site has been shown not to contain any protected Critical areas. The site is zoned Center Suburban (CS) and is located in the Centers Residential Bonus District B. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water UghVGlare Plants Recreation LandlShoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where addition 'nformation is needed to properly assess this proposal. rfI Vl-tW/-OY Date City of Rl ~n Department of Planning / Building / Public ltturks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: l..Dn~~ '-01"\ ~"'~S. COMMENTS DUE: NOVEMBER 17, 2004 APPLICATION NO: LUA04-131, PP, SA-A, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: NOVEMBER 2, 2004 APPLICANT: Cliff Williams PROJECT MANAGER: Nancy Wei! PROJECT TITLE: Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat PLAN REVIEW: Mike Dotson SITE AREA: 2.4 acres BUILDING AREA (gross): n/a Nnv . n '\ ,)flM LOCATION: 327 Bremerton Ave NE WORK ORDER NO: 77334 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review, Hearing Exa~~~~~~eq:,glrl':'§~gN Preliminary Plat approvals and a code modification for cul-de-sac radius. The 2.4-acre site is proposed to be subdivided into 20 single-family residential lots (ranging from 2,725 sq. ft. to 5,BOO sq. ft.). Access is proposed via improved Bremerton Avenue NE to a new public street terminating in a cul-de-sac. Further access will be provided by private easements. The site has been shown not to . contain any protected Critical areas. The site is zoned Center Suburban (CS) and is located in the Centers Residential Bonus District B. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water LifJfltlG/are Plants Recreation LandlShoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS NDIVC C. CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas whet' additional information is need~d to properly assess this proposal. Proposed Mitigation Measures: TI lowing mitigation measures will likely be imposed on ,Jroposed project. Oth .. , mitigation may be required following further review of the project proposal. These recommended mitigation measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above: 1) The applicant will be required to pay the appropriate Transportation Mitigation Fee. 2) The applicant will be required to pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee. 3) The applicant will be required to pay the appropriate Parks Mitigation Fee. 4) Applicant shall follow the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report. Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Nancy Weil, Senior Planner, Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on November 17, 2004. This matter is also scheduled for a public hearing on January 4, 2005 at 9:00 AM, Council Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. If you are interested in attending the hearing, please contact the Development Services Division, (425) 430-7282, to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled. If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above, you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments on the proposal before the Hearing Examiner. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to ·be made a party ·of record and receive additional information by mail, please contact the project manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: Nancy Weil, tel: (425) 430-7289, email: nweil@ci.renton.wa.us I PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION I ."". JODI • It RIO 0009 '"". .,,& 518210 .... ,..,.,. 0031 518210 1f.,-<{,0020 =::-=£j>---j J?I'>~ is' -10 -If''''' !2~ SITE en w 152305 ~ 9030 '--~---1 (2.1.""-) ...,.. ..- !!~ :!SJ, 152305 ...... ,."., 9145 !!~ 152305 1~ ~ , ... -00."'''''1 """" ~ ·9002 9 ~2 • ..... ,..,.. (1.33Ac.) I' 0IIl2 :!~ .~ 152J05.9034 -~. / ~ .. "" i: 152305 / 1~~oo~l:1 9032 0.011::1 • (3.88 Ac.) . j / 152305-9212 !w .cO<> ~en '5ZlO5 152305 ., ·w 9075 9206 1523Q5 > 9222 /" « (1.20Ac.) :5 152305 co M 9205 ';-1152305-00!:rC )·· 152305 152JOS.11215 9223 tIl_") ~ I ,:; ........ ! 152305-9038 152306-9082 L Tlr:;~r;:A-.=~~~r~-J-.-L_~-""-'-1'rl SE 132nd ST -" ..... -, '~;~5 : 152305 I /f.~._. ,4.16Ac.) 9018 , (378"") If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City of Renton, Development Planning. 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. File No.lName: LUA04-131. PP, SA-H, ECF NAME: ______________________________________________ ___ ADDRESS: ____________________________________________ ___ TELEPHONE NO.: ________________ __ NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-M) DATE: November 2, 2004 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF PROJECT NAME: Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant Is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review, Hearing Examiner Site Plan, and Preliminary Plat approvals and a code modification for cul-de-sac radius. The 2.4-acre site Is proposed to be subdivided Into 20 single-family residential lots (ranging from 2,725 sq. ft. to 5,800 sq. ft.). Access Is proposed via improved Bremerton Avenue NE to a new public street terminating In a cul-de-sac. Further access will be provided by private easements. The site has been shown not to contain any protected Critical areas. The site Is zoned Center Suburban (CS) and is located In the Centers Residential Bonus District B. PROJECT LOCATION: 327 Bremerton Ave. NE OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-5IGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED (DNS-M): As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110, the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS-M) process to give notice that a DNS- M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated Into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance- Mitigated (DN8-M). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: October 18, 2004 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: November 2, 2004 APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Cliff Williams, tel: 206-714-7161, email: cliff@belmonthomeswa.com Permits/Review Requested: Environmental (SEPA) Review, Hearing examiner Site Plan and Preliminary Plat Approval Other Permits which may be required: Requested Studies: Location where application may be reviewed: PUBLIC HEARING: CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: ZonlnglLand Use: Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: Planning/Building/Public Works Department, Development Services Division, Sixth Floor Renton City Hall,1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 Public hearing scheduled for January 4, 2005 before the Renton Hearing Examiner in Renton Council Chambers. Hearings begin at 9:00 AM on the 7th floor of the. new Renton City Hall located at1 055 South Grady Way. The subject site is designated Center Suburban on the City of Renton Comprehensive Land Use Map and Center Suburban (CS) on the City's Zoning Map. Located in the Suburban Centers Residential Demonstration District -Area B. These designations permit single-family residential development at a net density range of 10.0 to 20.0 dulac. The proposal for 20 residential lots would result in a net density of 12.42 dulac after the deduction of lands for public and private streets. Environmental (SEPA) Checklist Renton Municipal Code, King County Surface Water Design Manual Requirements, State Environmental Policy Act Kathy Keolker~Wheeler, Mayor November 2, 2004 . Superintendent's Office Renton School District #403 30b'Sw 7'h Street Renton, WA98055-2307 . . CITY.F RENTON PlanDing/BuildinglP,ublic Works Department Gregg Zilnmerman P.E.,Administrator . Subject: Ridgevievvc;ourt Preliminary Plat LUA~04-131, PP, SA-H, ECF The City of Renton Development Services Division has rec:;eived an application for a 20-Lot Preliminary Plat located at 327. Bremerton Ave' NE. Please see the. enclosed Notice 'of . Application for further details. . . In order to.process this application, the·[)evelopment $ervices Division needs to know vvhich . Renton schools would be attended by children living in residences atthelocationindicated . . . above. Please fill in the appropriate .schools on the list·b~JoW.ahd return this"letter to my . attention, Development Services Division, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055 by' November 17, 21;)04. -.. '. ' .. ,< Elementary School: --'--,-~ __ ",,--__ --,,----,-,-_._. ",.' ....:.. --"--___ ~_..".-__ ,___'_'-------- Middle School: _----, __ -'-'--__ -'------'-'c"_''-''-__ .,----'--,-~~ __ -'--"-'--____ __'__,__ H ig h School: ~_.;,.....-'-_.:....:...,.--'-'-:-_-~...:....---'--_,___'c"-'--,---'-",------'---.'---'---,-----'-:-----'-__.,__,__-'--- . . Will 'the 'schools you have indicatedb~ableto tla~(lIeth~impad of the additional students estimated to come from the proposed deVelopment? . Yes No __ ~ Any Co'mments: .,.....-_---'--'---~--'--',---_-----:...,.....;~-----':...,.....;--'-:---'---'--:...,.....;--'- . Thank you.for providing this important information. If you have any questions regarding this project, pleasecontact meat (425) 430-7270. Sincerely, . NancyWeil Associate Planner Encl. ~ -------10-5-5-S-ou-th:--G-ra--:-dy~W-ay---R-e-~-to-n-, W-a-s-hl-'n-gt-on"'-' -9-80-5-5------R E N T ON * This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor November 2, 2004 . Cliff Wiliiams,PE · Ridgeview Court, LLC POBox 2401 . . Kirkland,WA 98116 .. Subject: Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat LUA-04-131,PP, SA-H, ECF · Dear Mr: Williams: CITV"F RENTON PlanningIBuildinglPublic Works Department G..eggZiminerman P.E., Administrator . . · The Development Planning. Section of the City of Renton has determined that the subject appliGation is . cpmplete according to submittal requirements and, therefore, is accepted for review. However; the following information is required as part of the projectreview: • Revised site plan to show· yard setbacks for all,proposed Ibts. • Letter requesting and justifying site pianmodificatien for lets t6'exc:eed maximurrHrontsetback of 15 feet,'i.e. lots 10 through 13:(referenceenclosea ct"iteric;l): .. ', . . • In project narrative, applicant needs to discuss the reductiolJofJroht yard setback from the required " 10 feet minimum, which'may be,.reduceto Of7,etthro~~h the site development plan review; for lots 5,6,15 and 16. " •. ' ";,' ," .• " ...... '. . .' The propos'ed 24-foot private' ~ccess e~~eflle:nt ,se,rylng.lots' B thr9ugh '13 extends more than 150 ' feet therefore a turn around isr:equired > .' '~: ,,:,,~~, . ' .,' .'. ' , .'. ' • Code requires private streetsforaGcess to 6qrlessJ()ts, With no niorethcin 4 of the lots not abutting a public right-of-way to be ~ ... lTiihili1um of 26:'(00t wideeasementwith:20 feet ofpavemenL • For lots along the ,south property'(lotst, 5, 6 and B) Iil1eabuttingthe residential' zoned parcel in King , County; 15,.footsetback is required\'vith 15-footwldelandsqJpebarrier, a'10~f06tsight-obscuring , landscape strip. . .' , . . , , , Please forward 5 copies of the' req uested 'information by N~ve~b~r 1 Othin order to ensure project is not put on hold. Additional, inform<;ltion may be requested as the review process proceeds. , ' . , This project is tentatively scheduled forconsideration by the Environmental Review Committee on Devembe'f 7;2004. Prior-to that revie'w, you will be notified if any additional information is 'required to conJinueprocessing yo'ur application. This matter is also scheduled for a public hearing on January4, .20D5 at 9:00 AM,Council Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Please contact me at (425)430·7270 if you have any questions. Sincerely, (\..~~~ NancyWeil Associate Planner ------1-0-5-5 -so-u-:th"--G-=-r-a"--dy-W,-ay---R-e-n-to-n,-W,~a-s-:hi"--n-gt-on-. -9-80-5-5--:'-----~. * This paper contains 50% recyded matenal, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE f)?Lf~011 WA.oq-L .. City of Renton DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON LAND USE PERMIT OCT f8 2004 . RECEIVED MASTER APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNER(S) PROJECT INFORMATION NAME: Ridgeview Court, LLC PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: Ridgevi~w Court J)reii(Ylt"eV"~ bid i slk., plo..n r·6/reu) , --;::7' ADDRESS: P.O. Box 2401 PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE: 12905 136th Ave SE (Bremerton Ave), Renton WA CITY: Kirkland ZIP: 98116 98059 TELEPHONE NUMBER: 206 714-6707 KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): 518210-0042 APPLICANT (if other than owner) EXISTING LAND USE(S): Single Family and vehicle and equipment storage NAME: PROPOSED LAND USE(S): Single family, Detached COMPANY (if applicable): EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: Center Suburban (CS) Centers Residential Demonstration ADDRESS: District B PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION CITY: ZIP: (if applicable): Nit TELEPHONE NUMBER EXISTING ZONING: CS CONTACT PERSON PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): NA NAME: Cliff Williams, PE SITE AREA (in square feet): 104,373 SQUARE FOOTAGE OF ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED COMPANY (if applicable): Ridgeview Court, LLC FOR SUBDIVISIONS OR PRIVATE STREETS SERVING THREE LOTS OR MORE (if applicable)~ .:3 't. 2S-:t- ADDRESS: P.O. Box 2401 PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET ACRE (if applicable)~ \2.L{-2.. CITY: Kirkland ZIP: 98116 NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable): 20 TELEPHONE NUMBER AND E-MAIL ADDRESS: NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): 20 206714-7161 cliff@belmonthomeswa.com Q:web/pw/devserv/fonns/planning/masterapp.doc 10/07/04 PRe 2CT INFORMATION (continL J) .-----~--------~----------------------~ NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): 1 PROJECT VALUE: $'''I.$~ o~o , SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALL Y CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): 0 AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA ONE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL 0 AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA TWO BUILDINGS (if applicable): 0 FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq. ft. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): 0 GEOLOGIC HAZARD sq. ft. NET FLOOR AREA OF NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if 0 HABITAT CONSERVATION sq. ft. applicable ): 0 SHORELINE STREAMS AND LAKES sq. ft. NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable): 0 WETLANDS sq. ft. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (Attach legal description on separate sheet with the following information included) SITUATE IN THE NW QUARTER OF SECTION 1.§., TOWNSHIP 23, RANGE 5E, IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES List all land use applications being applied for: 1. Preliminarv Plat '2«X) 3. 2. SI-fe.. ~faA lOCO 4. Btvt t1!#ICW StXJ Staff will calculate applicable fees and postage: $ AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP ;;--.,---~~J:..lcw..~ __ ....,-;-_;)~at'e'.,at I am (please check one) _ the current owner of the property involved in this application a corp tion (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers (Signature of (Signature of Owner/Representative) Q:web/pw/devserv/fonns/planninglmasterapp.doc espects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that ~-+-Y Wt.~~\ signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington My appointment expires: "6 -a, -aCx::Yi 10107/04 PLAT CERTIFICATE SCHEDULE A Page 2 Order No. 578411 In the matter of the plat submitted for your approval, this Company has examined the records of the County Auditor and County Clerk of King County, Washington, and the records of the Clerk of the United States Courts holding terms in said County, and from such examination hereby certifies that according to said records the title to the following described land: The south half of the east half of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington, being a portion of Tract 4, of Martin's Acre Tracts, an unrecorded plat; EXCEPT the east 7.5 feet of said tract. END OF SCHEDULE A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AGREEMENT OF RIDGEVIEW COURT LLC This Operating Agreement of Ridgeview Court LLC, a limited liability company organized pursuant to the Act, is entered into and shall be effective as of the Effective Date, by and among the Company, RPW Holdings, Inc., its sole member, and RPW Holdings, Inc.,its Manager. ARTICLE 1-FORMATION 1.1 Organization. The Member has organized the Company as a Washington limited liability company pursuant to the provisions of the Act. The Member hereby confirms that it has appointed RPW Holdings, Inc. as Ma~ager of the Company. 1.2 Agreement, Effect of Inconsistencies with Act. For and LTl consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby aCYJ1owledged, the Member, the Manager and the Company hereby agree to the terms and conditions of this Operating Agreement, as it may from time to time be amended according to its terms. The Member and Manager shall be entitled to rely on the provisions of this Operating Agreement, and the Member and Manager shall not be liable to the Company for any action or refusal to act taken in good faith reliance on the terms of this Operating Agreement. The Member and the Company hereby agree that the duties and obligations imposed on the Member as such shall be those set forth in this Operating Agreement, which is intended to govern the relationship between the Company, the Manager, and the Member, notwitnstandingany provision of the Act or common law to t.~e contrary. 1.3 Name. The name of the Company is Ridgeview Court LLC, and all business of the Company shall be conducted under that name or under any other name, but in any case, only to the extent pennitted by applicable law. 1.4 Effective Date. This Operating Agreement shall become effective upon the filing of the Certificate ofFonnation with the Secretary of State of \Vashington. 1.5 Term. The term of the Company shall be perpetual until dissolved and its affairs wound up in accordance with the Act or this Operating Agreement. 1.6 Registered Agent and Office. The registered agent for the service of process and the registered office shall be SC&B Services, Inc., 999 Third Avenue, Suite 3000, Seattle, Washington 98104-4088. The Manager may, from time to time, change 516919.1/014189.0000 I the registered agent or office through appropriate filings with the Secretary of State. In the event the registered agent ceases to act as such for any reason or the registered office shall change, the Manager shan promptly designate a replacement registered agent or file a notice of change of address as the case may be. If the Manager shall fail to designate a replacement registered agent or change of address of the registered office, any Member may designate a replacement registered agent or file a notice of change of address. 1.7 Principal Office. The principal office of the Company shall be located at P.O. Box 2401, Kirkland, \Vashington 98083-2401. The Iv1anager may, from time to time, change the principal office and make appropriate filings with the Secretary of State to reflect that fact. .t\RTICLE IT --DEFIl'I1TIONS For purposes of this Operating Agreement, unless the context clearly indicates othef'Nise, the following terms shall have the following meanings: 2.1 Act. The Washington Limited Liability Company Act and all amendments to the Act. 2.2 Additional Member. A Member other than the initiallvfember who has acquired a Ivlembership Interest from the Company. 2.3 Admission (Admit). The act of becoming a Member and obtaining the rights appurtenfu"1t to a Membersbip Interest. 2.4 Capital Contribution. Any Contribution or contribution of services made by or on behalf of a Member as consideration for a Membership Interest. 2.5 Certificate. The Certificate of Formation of the Company as properly adopted and amended from time to time by the Member and filed with the Secretary of State of Washington. Code. The Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as amended from time to time. 2.7 Company. Ridgeview Court LLC, a limited liability company formed under the laws of Washington, and any successor limited liability company. 2.8 Company Property. Any Property owned by the Company. 2.9 Contribution. Any contribution of Property made by or on behalf of a Member as consideration for a Membership Interest or as a contribution to the capital of the Company. 2 516919.1/01 L189.00001 2.10 Distribution. A transfer of Company Property to a Member on account of a Membership Interest regardless of whether the transfer occurs on the liquidation of the Company, in exchange for t.1.e Member's interest, or otherwise. 2.11 Disposition (Dispose) .. Any sale, assignment, transfer, exchange, mortgage, pledge, grant, hypothecation, or other transfer, absolute or as security or encumbrance (including dispositions by operation of law). 2.12 Manager. One or managers of the Company. Specifically, Manager shall mean RPW Holdings, Inc. or any Person or Persons who succeed it in that capacity. References to the Manager in the singular or as hini, her, it, itself, or other like references shall also, where the context so requires, be deemed to include the plural or the masculine or feminine reference, as the case may be. In the event there is more than one Manager, any action to be taken by the Manager under this Operating Agreement may be taken with the consent of a majority of the Managers. 2.13 Member. The member executing this Operating Agreement, any transferee of a Member or any Additional Member. At any time there is more than one Member, the term "Member" shall mean all Members, and lli'l.y action that may be taken under t.1Us Operating Agreement by the Member may be taken by any Member, provided that any dispute v;,rith respect to any action shall be decided by a majority of the Members. 2.14 .Membership Interest. A Member's entire interest in the Company including such Member's rights in the Company's profits, losses and Distributions pursuant to this Operating Agreement and the Act and such other rights and privileges that the Member may enjoy by being a Member. 2.15 Operating Agreement. This operating agreement including all amendments adopted in accordance with this Operating Agreement and the Act. 2.16 Person. An individual, trust, estate, or. any incorporated or unincorporated organization permitted to be a member of a liwited liability company under the la'ws of Washington. 2.17 Proceeding. Any judicial or administrative trial, hearing or other activity, civil criminal or investigative, the result of which may be that a court, arbitrator, or governmental agency may enter a judgment, order, decree, or other determination which, if not appealed and reversed, would be binding upon the Company, a Member or other Person subject to the jurisdiction of such court, arbitrator, or governmental agency. 2.18 Property. Any property real or personal, tangible or intangible (including goodwill), including money and any legal or equitable interest in such property, but 3 5169 J 9.1/0 J 4 J 89.00001 excluding services and promises to perform services in the future. 2.19 Taxing Jurisdiction. }\11Y state, local, or foreign government that collects tax, interest or penalties, however designated, on any Member's share of the income or gain attributable to the Company. _A.RTICLE ill --NATlJRE OF BUSI~TESS The business of the Company is to invest in real property. The Company shall have the authority to do all things necessary or convenient to the accomplish its purpose. The Company exists only for the purpose specified in this Article III, and may not conduct any other business without the consent of the Member. _ij{TICLE IV --ACCO(JNTLNG iti\'D RECORDS 4.1 Records to be Maintained. The Manager shaH maintain the following records at the principal office of the Company: 4.1.1 The full name and business address of the Iviember; 4.1.2 A copy of the Certificate of Formation a:L1d all amendments thereto; 4.1.3 Copies of the Company's federal, foreign, state and local income tax returns and reports (or the POrtiOIlS of the returns of others showing the taxable income· deductions, gain, loss, and credits of the Company), if any, for t.~e tD..ree most recent years; 4.1.4 Copies oft."iis Operating Agreement including all amendments thereto; 4.1.5 Any financial statements of the Company for the three most recent years; and 4.1.6 The amount of cash and a description and statement of the agreed value of the other property or services contributed by the Member and which the Member has agreed to contribute. ARTICLE V --NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF MEMBERS The name and address of the Member is RP\V Holdings, Inc., P.O. Box 2401, Kirkland, Washington 98083-2401. 4 51 G919.1/0 14189 .0000 1 ARTICLE VI --I\1ANAGEMENT Management Rights. Subject to Section 6.2 oftbis Article VI, the business of the Company shall be conducted by the Manager and all management of the Company shall be vested in the Manager. The Manager shall have power and authority to take the following actions on behalf of the Company: 6.1.1 The location or relocation of a place of business for the Company; 6.1.2 The execution, or appointment of officers and agents wit.~ such designation as the Manager may determine to execute, on behalf of the Company, all instruments and documents, including, \vithout limitation, checks, drafts, notes and other negotiable instruments; mortgages or deeds of trust; security agreements; fInancing statements; documents providing for the acquisition, mortgage, investment or disposition of property, including the licensing of intellectual property; 6.1.3 The appointment and fIxing of compensation for offIcers and other agents for the Company; 6.1.4 The determination of the amount of, and the making of, Distributi ons; 6.1.5 The acquisition of property from any Person as the Manager may determine. The fact that the Manager or Member is directly or indirectly affiliated or cOfu'1ected with at,-)' such Person shall not prohibit the Manager from dealing with that Person subject to other provisions of this Operating Agreement; 6.1.6 The borrov.ing of money for the Company from banks Oi" other lending institutions; 6.1.7 The purchase ofliability and other insurance to protect the Company's property and business; 6.1.8 The investment of any Company funds (by viay of example but not limitation) in time deposits, short-term governmental obligations, commercial paper or other investments; 6.1.9 The confession of a judgment against the Company; 6.1.10 The making of any capital expenditure; 6.1.11 The employment of accountants, legal counsel, managing agents or other experts to perform services for the Company and to compensate them from 5 5 J 6919.1/0 14189.0000 1 Company funds; and 6.1.12 The doing and perfonnance of all other acts as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the Company's business purpose. 6.2 Certain Powers of Managers and Restrictions on Authodty of the Managers. Notwithstanding Section 6.1 of this iliticle V1, only the Member may take the following actions or may direct the Manager to take the follo\ving actions: 6.2.1 The Admission of an Additional Member; 6.2.2 The initiation or a proceeding for the banY.I1lptcy of the Company; 6.2.3 A change in the purpose of the Company; 6.2.4 The approval of a merger, conversion or the application of any statute (the application of which is elective) to the Company; 6.2.5 The taking of any act which would make it impossible to fulfill the purpose of the Company; 6.2.6 The amendment oftrus Operating Agreement or the taking of any action in violation of this Agreement; 6.2.7 The causing of the Company to voluntarily initiate a proceeding under which the Company would become a debtor under the United States Ban1c..ruptcy Code; or 6.2.8 The sale, exchange or other Disposition of all, or substantially all, of the Company Property other than in the ordinary course of the Company's business. 6.3 Liability of Member and Manager. Neither the Member nor the Manager shall be liable as Member or Ivfanager for the liabilities of the Company. The failure of the Company to observe any formalities or requirements relating to the exercise of its powers or management of its business or affairs under this Operating Agreement or the Act shall not be grounds for imposing personal liability on the Member or Manager for liabilities of the Company. 6.4 Indemnification. The Company shall indemnify the Member and the Manager for all costs, losses, liabilities, and damages paid or accrued by the Member (either as Member or as agent) or Manager in connection with the business of the Company or because such Person is a Member or Manager, to the fullest extent provided or allowed by Washington law. In addition, the Manager shall cause the Company to 6 5 i 6919. I/O 14189.0000 1 advance costs of participation in any Proceeding to the Manager or Member. The Manager may, with the consent of the Member, indemnify all other employees and agents of the Company for all costs, losses, liabilities, and damages paid or accrued by the agent or employee in cOlli"lection with the business of the Company or because such Person is an agent or employee, to the fUllest e}..ient provided or allowed by ,Vashington law. 6.5 Conflicts of Interest. 6.5.1 The Member or Manager shall be entitled to enter into transactions that may be considered to be competitive with, or a business opportunity that may be beneficial to, the Company, it being expressly understood that the Member or Manager may enter into transactions that are similar to the transactions into which the Company may enter. 6.5.2 A Member or Manager does not violate a duty or obligation to the Company merely because the Member's conduct furthers theMember's OIvn interest. A Member or Manager may lend money to and transact ot.1er business with the Company. The rights and obligations of a Member or Manager who lends money to or transacts business with the Company are the same as those of a Person who is not a Member, subject to other applicable law. No transaction '..vith the Company shall be voidable solely because a Member or Manager has a direct or indirect interest in the transaction if either the transaction is fair to the Company or the Member (in the case of a transaction in which the Manager but not the Member is personally interested) or the Manager (in the case of a tra.:.'1saction in which the Member but not the Manager is personally interested) with knowledge of the interest of the Member or Manager as the case may be. 6.6 Compensation of Mernber and Manager. The Member and lvfanager shall be reimbursed for all reasonable expenses incurred on behalf of the Company and shan be entitled to reasonable compensation, in an amount to be determined from time to time by the Member. 6.7 Standard of Care of l\1ember and Ivfanager. The Member's duty of care in the 'discharge of the Member's duties to the Company is limited to refraining from engaging in grossly negligent or reckless conduct, intentional misconduct, or a knowing violation oflaw. In discharging its duties, the Member shall be f1..111y protected in relying in good faith upon the records required to be maintained under .A..rticle IV and upon such information, opinions, reports or statements by any of its agents, or by any other Person, as to matters the Member reasonably believes are within such other Person's professional or expert competence and who has been selected with reasonable care by or on behalf of the Company, including information, opinions, reports or statements as to the value and amount of the assets, liabilities, profits or losses of the Company or any other facts pertinent to the existence and amounLof assets from which distributions to the Member might properly be paid. 7 5 i 6919.1/014189.00001 ARTICLE VII --CONTRIBUTIONS 7.1 Initial Contributions. The Member shall make the Contribution described for that Member on Exhibit A at the time and on the tenns specified on Exhibit A. If no time for the Contribution is specified, the Contributions shall be made upon execution of this Operating Agreement. The value of the Contributions shall be as setforth on Exhibit A. No interest shall accrue on any Contribution, and the Member shall not have the right to withdraw or be repaid any Contribution except as provided in this Operating Agreement. 7.2 Additional Contribu.tions. In addition to the initial Contribution, the Member may make additional contributions. The Member shall not be obligated to make any additional contributions. ARTICLE '\tID --DISTRIBUTIONS 8.1 Distributions. Except as provided in Section 8.2 a.1"J.d in the Act, the Company may make Distributions as determined by the Manager from time to time in accordance \,i'ith trLis Operating Agreement. 8.2 Limitations on Distributions. No Distribution shall be declared and paid unless, after the distribution is made, the assets of the Company are in excess of all liabilities of the Company. ARTICLE IX --TAXES 9.1 Elections. The Manager may make any tax elections for the CompfuiY allowed under the Code or the tax la\vs of any state or other jurisdiction having taxing jurisdiction over the Company. 9.2 Taxes of Taxing Jurisdictions. To the extent the la\:\fs of any Taxing Jurisdiction require, the Manager will prepare and the Member will execute and submit an agreement indicating that the Member will make timely income tax payments to the Taxing Jurisdiction and that the Member accepts personal jurisdiction of the Taxing Jurisdiction with regard to the collection of income taxes attributable to the Member's income, and interest, and penalties assessed on such income, if such agreement is required by the Taxing Jurisdiction. If the Member fails to provide such agreement, the Company may withhold and pay over to such Taxing Jurisdiction the amount of tax, penalty and interest detennined under the laws of the Taxing Jurisdiction with respect to such income. Any such payments with respect to the income of a Member shall be treated as a distribution for purposes of Article IX. 8 5 J 6919.110 I 41 89.0000 J 9.,3 Method of Accounting. The records of the Company shall be maintained on the same method of accounting as that of the Member. ARTICLE X --DISPOSITION OF MEMBERSHIP INTEREST ANL> ADMISSION OF ASSIGl\TEES A.ND ADDITIONAL MEMBERS 10.1 Disposition. The Member's Membership Interest is transferable either voluntru.-ily or by operation of law. The Member may Dispose of all or a portion of the Member's Membership Interest. Notwithstanding any provision of the Act to the contrary, upon the Disposition of the Member's Membership Interest, the transferee shall be acL.-nitted upon the completion of the transfer without further action. Upon the transfer of the Member's entire Membership Interest (other than a temporary transfer or transfer as a pledge or security interest), the Member shall cease to be a Member and shall have no further rights or obligations under this Operating Agreement, except that the Member shall have the right to such information as may be necessary for the computation of the Member's tax liability. 10.2 .Admission of Additional Members. The Member may Admit Additional Members and determine the Capital Contributions of such additional Members. ARTICLE XI --DISSOLUTION A .. N"D 'WINDING UP 11.1 Dissolution. The Company shall be dissolved and its affairs wound up, upon the will of the Member. Notwithstanding any provision of the Act to the contrary, the Company shall continue and not dissolve as a result of the death, retirement, resignation, expulsion, bankruptcy, or dissolution of any lYIember or any other event that terminates the continued membership of the Member. 11.2 Effect of Dissolution. Upon dissolution, the COillpany shall cease carrying on as distinguished from the winding up of the Company business, but the Company is not terminated, but continues until the winding up of the affairs of the Company is completed and the Certificate of Cancellation has been issued by the Secretary of State of Vl ashington. 11.3 Distribution of Assets on Dissolution. Upon the winding up of the Company, the Company Property shall be distributed: 11.3.1 To creditors, including the Member if it is a creditor, to the extent permitted by law, in satisfaction of Company liabilities; and then 11.3.2 To the :Member. Such distributions shall be in cash, Property other than cash, or partly in both, as determined by the Manager. 9 516919.1/0]4189.00001 11.4 Winding Up and Certificate of Cance!lation. The winding up of a limited liability company shall be completed when all debts, liabilities, ai1d obligations of the limited liability company have been paid and discharged or reasonably adequate provisibn therefor has been made, and all of the remaining property and assets of the limited liability company have been distributed to the Member. Upon the completion of winding up of the Company, a Certificate of Cancellation shall be delivered by the Manager to the Secretary of State of V'" ashington for filing. The Certificate of Cancellation shall set forth the information required by the Act. ARTICLE XII --AMENDl\fENT This Operating Agreement may be modified or amended from time to time only by a ""Titten instrument adopted by the Member and the Company 3.J.'1d executed by the Member and the Company . .fo.RTICLE XIII --lVllSCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS l3.1 Entire Agreement. This Operating Agreement represents the entire agreement between the Ivfember and the Company. 13.2 Rights ofCredttors 2nd Third Parties under Operating Agreement. This Operating Agreement is entered into between the Company lli'1d the Member for the eX.elusive benefit oftne Company, its Member, and theirsuccess0rs and assignees. This Operating Agreement is expressly not intended for the benefit of any creditor of the Company or any other Person. Except and only to the extent provided by applicable statute, no such creditor or third party shall have any rights under this OperatL"l.g Agreement or any agreement betlveen the Company and the Member ~with respect to any Capital Contribution or ot.~erwise. IN VVITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hand and seals on L.~e date set forth beside our names. COMPANY: RIDGEVIEW COURT LLC, a \Vashington limited liability company, Date: 516919.1(014189.0000 I Rob IP."Wenz;tPresident /' . ,/1 1/ I MEMBER: 11 516919.11014189.00001 EK..."E[[BIT A Member Initial Capital Contribution RPW Holdings, Inc. a Washington corporation £1,000 12 51 G919.l/014 189.00001 AFFIDAVIT OF INSTALLATION OF PUBLIC INFORMATION SIGN City of Renton Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-723bE:V~ c;LOPME:NT CITY OF AEfMNNING lv/ON STATE OF WASHINGTON ) OCT 18 200~ . COUNTY OF KING ) ) RECEIVED "" c H D.eD . ( ,;;; (6N rec,S ( ( ~)eing first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says: 1. On the q day of DC-V\::) 6~~ ,20 0 ~ I installed I public information sign(s) and plastic flyer box on the property located at 3>~" 6tUEtVI €/lfO r-P A~{C. rJ~ for the following project: .:2l0f.~O:~ (oue~'- Project name e, 1/ ~ f-'-.( I -K.vJ C(':) uq( t-L c.. Owner Name 2. I haveatlached a copy of the neighborhood detail map marked with an "X" to indicate the location of the installed sign. 3. This/these public information sign(s) was/were constructed and installed in locations in conformance with the requirements ter 7 Title 4 of Renton Municipal Code. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this S--day of t1~ ,20 I/;/'. \\, .. , &crt:?:~ ~,\\' ~1 A A ".,~. if / .;§ ~'i;:."""··;'~()Al 7.;: . ~~O""~~OI11t,'" ~~. -! /~~ t~ ... ~ \.. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for th State of Washington, := ! ~ \\aYJinr c:. ': ~ residing at .J..!:..::..~~:a...L2~~=r-=: ~ • = ~ 4~\ PlIBl\t J; ~ W'1\CClc .. .!b...~ ,. r:. • ~ II • ri$!.;;: ~"f~';: ... "'-8, zo? .... ~~ .. ~ ~'-~ 0 .......... ~\;;g ~, "/"'i: . 'F W~~~,~,\,,, III,r,,,. 'I 111\"\'\\" My commission expires on ---.'~~--ir"'""7"---- C:\Documents and Settings\DickBarrere.8IGNPROS\Local Settings\Temporary Intemet Files\OLK9\pubsign.doc 10/07/04 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST City of Renton Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 DEVELOPMENT P CITY OF AENT~%NING OCT 1 8200+ . PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: Rec EIVED The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NONPROJECT PROPOSALS: Complete this checklist for non project proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions (actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs), the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. C:\Documents and Settings\Cliff Williams\My DocumentsWineyards Const\Ridge View Court\041 0- SEP AChecklist.doc 1 0/07/04 A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Ridgeview Court 2. Name of applicant: Ridgeview Court, LLC 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Applicant: Ridgeview Court, LLC, P.O. Box 2401, Kirkland, WA 98083-2401 (425) 893-8478 Contact Person: Cliff. Williams, PE, P.O. Box 2401, Kirkland, WA 98083-2401 (206) 714-7161 4. Date checklist prepared: October 7, 2004 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): January 2005 April 2005 May 2005 September 2005 November 2005 January 2006 Preliminary Approval Final Engineering Approval Begin Construction Complete Plat Infrastructure Construction As-Built Mylars Final Plat Approval & Recording 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. There are no plans for future additions, expansion, or further related activity connected with this proposal with the exception of construction of required plat improvements and construction of detached single-family residences following final plat recording. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Wetland Evaluation: Site Observations, Property at 129 -13e/h Avenue SE, Renton, Washington, Tax Parcel No. 5182100042, March 13, 2003, Prepared byAlderNW Traffic Study: Not Required Geotechnical Report: Geotechnical Engineering Study Proposed Residential Development 12905 13e/h Avenue SE Renton, WA, Prepared by Geo Group Northwest, Inc. dated October 4, 2004 Drainage Report: Preliminary Technical Information Report "Ridgeview Court", Prepared by American Engineering Corporation dated September 30,2004 C:\Documents and Settings\CliffWilliams\My DocumentsWineyards Const\Ridge View Court\0410- SEP AChecklist.doc 2 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. None that we are aware of. 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Clearing and Grading Permit -City of Renton Right-of-Way Use Permit -City of Renton Modification Request for Cul-de-Sac Right-of-Way reduction -City of Renton 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. Ridgeview Court, LLC proposes to subdivide the property into 20-lots to be developed with detached single-family residences. The proposed lot sizes will range from 2,725 SF to approximately 5,800 SF. Site development requirements for this project will include construction of the 330-foot extension of Bremerton Ave. NE constructed 32-foot width asphalt, cement concrete curb and gutter with 5 foot wide cement concrete sidewalk on the west side of the roadway. 25 feet of right-of-way will be dedicated to the City of Renton for the Bremerton Ave. NE extension. Access to the internal portion of the project is proposed as 42 feet of public roadway right-of-way with 28-foot width asphalt, cement concrete curb and gutter with 5- foot wide cement concrete sidewalks on each side of the roadway. Grading will likely involve a 4-foot retaining wall along the north property line and the removal of the existing 6-foot berm at the south property line to be utilized on site and the additional import of approximately 4,800 cubic yards of fill material to raise the site to the approximate elevation of 404. An 8" 01 water main is proposed to extend from the existing main in Bremerton Ave. NE through the project to the end of the private road at the SW corner. Individual 1" water service lines and meters are also proposed. An 8" sanitary sewer with 6" side sewer connections will be constructed through the plat. There are two options under consideration for connection to the City of Renton sewer main. The first, is to the north to an existing sewer in NE 4th Street. The second is to the south to an approved new sewer to be constructed in Bremerton Ave NE by Laurelhurst development. Storm drainage collection and conveyance system will be constructed to serve all new portion roadways and residences. Water Quality and Quantity control is proposed in a below grade storm water vault to be located in a storm water Tract A located in the SW corner of the site. The downstream analysis/report is included in the Preliminary Technical Information Report. Proposed single-family residences will be two story wood frame structures, ranging in size from 1600 to 2200 square feet. The estimated lot coverage will likely approach 60%. All parking will be off street in 2 car garages to be accessed from private driveway easements. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not C: \Documents and Settings \Cliff W illiams\M y Documents \ Vineyards Const\Ridge View Court\041 0- SEP AChecklist.doc 3 required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. NW 1f.s, Section 15, Township 23N, Range 5E West of Bremerton Avenue NE(136th Ave SE), South of NE 4th Street(SE 12Sth Street) Address: 327 Bremerton Avenue NE (12905 _136th Avenue SE) B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one); ~, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other _____ _ b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope?) The site is relatively flat with the exception of a 6 to S foot tall, oblong knoll containing slopes of 15 to 24 % located near the southeast corner of the site. It appears that the knoll was man-made when grading on the adjacent property to the south occurred. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, mUCk)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. The soil type on-site is Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, as identified in the Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington, U.S. Soil Conservation Service, 1973 maps. It is a moderately well drained soil. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Based on review of King County Sensitive Areas Map Folio, Dec. 1990, no sensitive/hazard areas were identified on site. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Grading will likely involve the removal of the existing 6-foot berm at the south property line to be utilized on site and the additional import of apprOXimately 4,SOO cubic yards of fill material to raise the site to the approximate elevation of 404. Per the Geotechnical Engineering Report, the southern portion of the site contains 1.5 feet to 10 feet of loose fill. The options under consideration for addressing the loose fiJI zone are over-excavation and replacement with structural fills (possibly recovered from the site) or the use of pin piles to support the individual houses. The selection of the appropriate option will be made during the engineering design phase. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Some erosion could occur as a result of clearing and grading activities for construction of on and off-site plat improvements, as well as in the future during construction of homes. There is no erosion expected as a result of "use" once C:\Documents and Settings\Cliff Williarns\My DocumentsWineyards Const\Ridge View Court\041 0-4 SEP AChecklist.doc roadways are installed and construction plat improvements are complete. Any erosion of temporarily exposed soils will most likely be as a result of precipitation orwind. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Approximately 60% including the proposed frontage improvements, Per Preliminary Technical Information Report prepared by American Engineering Corporation h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: 2. AIR Temporary erosion control and Best Management Practices (BMP's) should be followed by contractors during clearing and grading, and "construction" as set forth by the City of Renton. For example: Soils exposed for extended periods will be covered by straw mulch or similar material to prevent erosion as a result of precipitation. Dry soils exposed during clearing and grading and construction will be watered to eliminate dust and wind erosion. a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, and industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. The project will most likely emit some dust and exhaust from construction machinery into the air. There will be automobile exhaust emissions as a result of the completed project. b. Are there any off-site sources of emission or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. NE 4th Street could be considered a possible source of off-site emissions, as it is an arterial. Neighboring roads, as well as commercial uses to the south, west and northeast of the project site could be potential sources of off-site emissions. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Temporary measures to reduce and control emissions are proposed during construction, however, none are proposed once the project is complete. BMP's will be practiced during construction; for example watering during clearing and grading to reduce dust emissions. Machinery exhaust will only be temporary and no measures are proposed. No measures are proposed for reduction of automotive exhaust emissions produced by residents of the completed project. 3. WATER a. Surface Water: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year- round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. C:\Documents and Settings\Cliff Williams\My Documents\ Vineyards Const\Ridge View Court\041 0- SEPAChecklist.doc 5 The site eventually drains to Maplewood Creek to the west. There are wetlands located approximately 400 to 500 feet west of the southwest corner of the site associated with Maplewood Creek. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. No. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No 5) Does the proposal lie within a 1 DO-year flood plain? If so, note location on the site plan. No 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. There are no proposed discharges of waste materials to surface waters. Some automotive wastes may accumulate on road surfaces and enter storm water run-off during periods of precipitation. Stormwater quality treatment and detention with controlled release is proposed for roads and the residential development associated with this plat in order to limit/avoid any discharge of waste materials from run-off into surface waters. b. Ground Water: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No groundwater will be withdrawn. The project will be served by City of Renton public utilities. There is no proposed discharge of water into the ground. Some stormwater runoff that seeps into the ground may become ground water that occurs as part of natural process. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals ... ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. The project will be served by City of Renton public utilities. No septic systems are proposed. In addition, no waste materials are proposed to be intentionally discharged into the ground. c. Water Runoff (including storm water): . C:\Documents and Settings\Cliff Williams\My Documents\ Vineyards Const\Ridge View Court\041 0- SEPAChecklist.doc 6 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters, If so, describe. The primary source of runoff will be the result of precipitation. Stormwater from the development will be collected in the project's proposed stormwater collection system. The stormwater will be conveyed to a detention facility for controlled release. 2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Some machinery fluid drips may join with surface run-off during clearing, grading, and construction. Automotive fluids and byproducts may be deposited on roads and other paved surfaces in connection with the completed project. These relatively small amounts of automotive fluids and byproducts will be collected in the proposed storm drainage system and treated for water quality in the proposed drainage system. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: BMP's will be used during clearing, grading, and construction activities to keep surface, ground and run-off water impacts minimal. Water quality treatment and detention are proposed as permanent measures to control/limit surface, ground and run-off water impacts. 4. PLANTS a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: .lL deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other .lL..evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other .lL.. shrubs .lL.. grass __ pasture __ crop or grain __ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other __ water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other .lL.. other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? The majority of vegetation on the site will be removed with the potential exception of a few select trees and deSignated in the Tree Cutting/Land Clearing Plan submitted with the preliminary plat application c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. There are no endangered or threatened plant species known to be on the site. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: No measures proposed other than required landscaping for yards of homes to be constructed following final plat recording. C: \Documents and Settings \Cliff Williams \M y Documents \Vineyards Const\Ridge View Court\041 0- SEP AChecklist.doc 7 5. ANIMALS a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other ________ _ Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other _________ _ Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other ______ _ b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None that we are aware of. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain The Puget Sound is part of the Pacific Flyway. Birds that inhabit the area vary seasonally due to migrations, however, the site is not part of or contiguous with a larger, permanently preserved migratory bird habitat area. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: No measures proposed. 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Homes to be constructed on the lots created as a result of the final plat recording will use electricity as the primary energy source for the project with natural gas potentially being used for heating. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. Not that we are aware of. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: There are no energy conservation features included. for the for the site development plans. However, it will include construction of energy efficient homes on the resultant lots following final plat recording. 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. None that we are aware of C:\Documents and Settings\CliffWilliams\My DocumentsWineyards Const\Ridge View Court\041O-8 SEP AChecklist.doc . 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. No special emergency services are expected to be required other than typical neighborhood emergency services such as fire, police, and medical. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None proposed. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Noise from traffic on neighboring roads, noise from the commercial site located south of the project site, and noise from the U.S. Postal Service facility located off of the northwest corner of the site. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Short-term sources of noise will be from machinery and noises associated with construction, as well as, vehicular traffic entering and exiting the project site during construction. Long-term sources of noise will result from daily automobile traffic accessing and leaving the completed project. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Construction of plat infrastructure will take place during allowed construction hours per City of Renton regulations. No other measures are proposed to control short term impacts. There are no measures proposed to control or reduce long- term noise impacts associated with the residential development of the site following final plat recording. 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? There is an existing home, shop, and shed occupying the site. In addition, there are multiple vehicles and other used equipment being stored on the property. The SE 1/3 of the property contains blackberries and the remaining property is unkempt grass with vehicle and equipment storage. The adjacent property to the south is occupied by a construction company and is in use as an equipment and material storage yard. Adjacent properties to the north and east are occupied by single-family residences. The property adjacent to the northwest corner of the site is a U.S. Postal Service facility and the property adjacent to the southwest corner is undeveloped. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe .. Not that we are aware of. c. Describe any structures on the site. C:\Documents and Settings\CliffWilliams\My DocumentsWineyards Const\Ridge View Court\041 0- SEP AChecklist.doc 9 There is an existing home, shop, and shed occupying the site. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Yes. All of the structures on site will be demolished. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? CS -Center Suburban, as well as, Suburban Centers Residential Demonstration District --Area B f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Center Suburban, as well as, Suburban Centers Residential Demonstration District -Area B g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? N/A h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. No. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Approximately 2.5 persons per residence in 20-single-family residences = 50 people j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? The existing residence is vacant. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None Proposed. I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Development according to existing City of Renton codes, zoning, and comprehensive plan designations. 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. 20 single-family residences will be provided. Lower-middle income. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. 1 existing low income single-family residence will be eliminated. C:\Documents and Setlings\Cliff Williams\My DocumentsWineyards Const\Ridge View Court\041O- SEP AChecklist.doc 10 c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: No measures proposed. 10. AESTHETICS a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed. Heights of proposed structures are not yet available but will not exceed the height allowed by the City of Renton Development Standards and Zoning Designations. Building materials for single-family residences to be constructed following final plat recording will likely include wood, and masonry. Materials will be of good or better quality, aesthetically pleasing and will conform to City of Renton standards. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? There are no views in the immediate vicinity. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Homes will be aesthetically pleasing and built to code. Garages will be located at the back or side of the lots to restrict their view from the public access road. Lots and common spaces will be landscaped with the completion of homes. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? No significant light or glare is expected to be produced as a result of this project. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? The light or glare produced from the finished project is not expected to cause any safety hazards. There are no views to be interfered with. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Off-site light or glare that may affect the project may include the U.S. Postal Service facility to the northwest of the site and the construction company equipment and material storage yard south of the site. . d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: No measures are proposed to reduce or control light or glare impacts. 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Maplewood Park & Maplewood Golf Course and the Castle Ice Arena. C:\Documents and Settings\CliffWilliams\My Documents\vineyards Const\Ridge View Court\041O- SEPAChecklist.doc 11 b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None proposed other than payment of park mitigation fees, if assessed. 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. None that we are aware of. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None known. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None proposed. 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Bremerton Avenue NE provides current access to the site along its easterl~ boundary, via NE 4th Street located north of the site. Continuing west on NE 4t Street (transitions to NE 3fd Street) provides access to 1-405 approximately 4.5 miles west of the site. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? King County Metro provides bus service at the following locations: NE 4th Street & Duvall Ave NE -Route 111 & Route 908 NE 4th Street & Union Ave NE -Route 105 & Route 114 c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? Two (2) off-street spaces per residence are required per City of Renton Code based on current zoning. There will be 20 residences for a total of 40-parking spaces. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private? C: \Documents and Settings\Cliff Williams \M y Documents \ Vineyards Const\Ridge View Court\041 0- SEP AChecklist.doc 12 Frontage improvements along Bremerton Avenue NE, along the east side of the site as well as the internal access road serving the site. Additional right-of-way will be dedicated along the east frontage of Bremerton Avenue NE. Right-of-way will be dedicated for the internal road. Private alley way easements will be used to access the majority of the off-street parking for the proposed lots. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. Based on approximate 10 trips per household per day, approximately 200 trips per day will be generated per day. Of those 200 approximately 10 will be credited based on the existing residence on site. The result is that, of the 200 estimated trips, approximately 190 ~ vehicular trips per day will be generated. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: None proposed. Possible traffic mitigation fees 15. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. There will most likely be some increased need for public services as a result of the proposed project. These include fire protection, police protection, emergency medical, health care, and public schools. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. The roads will be designed to permit emergency access and turn-around. No other measures are proposed to reduce or control impacts. There may be project mitigation for both public roads and public services. Extra taxes may be assessed as well. 16. UTILITIES a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: telectricit\A.natural gas,~, lrefuse service!. Helephonel. sanitary sewer, lseptic systeml, other. . b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Type: Provider: Phone Verizon Electricity Puget Sound Energy Gas: Puget Sound Energy Sewer: City of Renton Water: City of Renton C:\Documents and Settings\CliffWilliams\My DocumentsWineyards Const\Ridge View Court\041O- SEPAChecklist.doc 13 Refuse: Waste Management NW Sanitary sewer connection proposed at either NE 4th Street or south to a proposed sewer extension on Bremerton Ave NE Water Main extension from Bremerton Ave NE C. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non-Significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or ::::::::tOffUII~~le Name Printed: Cliff Williams, PE Date: October 7,2004 C:\Documents and Settings\Cliff Williams\My DocumentsWineyards Const\Ridge View Court\041 0- SEP AChecklist.doc 14 RIDGE DENSITY IE COURT ORKSHEET City of Renton Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, WA 98055 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 1. Gross area of property: 1. 2. Certain areas are excluded from density calculations. These include public roadways, private access easements serving 3 or more dwelling units, and critical areas.* Total excluded area:** 2. 3. Subtract line 2 from line 1 for net area: 3. 4. Divide line 3 by 43,560 for net acreage: 4. 5. Number of dwelling units or lots planned: 5. 6. Divide line 5 by line 4 for net density: 6. _1-,-,0,-4,-,-,3::....;7-03,--_ sq u are feet _-:3:.....;4'-l.:,2=5=-,-7 __ square feet _-=7-=0,-,-, 1-,-1~6=--_ sq uare feet _---'-1 :....::.6'-'1....::;0 __ acres 20 units/lots ---=-=----- __ 1.:....=2:..:...4..:...:2=-_ d.u .Iacre ____ lots or units wouldresult in a net density of ____ dwelling units per acre. *Critical Areas are defined as "Areas determined by the City to be not suitable for development and which are subject to the City's Critical Areas Regulations including very high landslide areas, protected slopes, wetlands or floodways." Critical areas buffers are not deducted/excluded. ** Alleys (public or private) do not have to be excluded. D:\Projects\Ridge View Court\user\Permit Applications\Density Wksht.doc DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY Of RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works MEMORANDUM June 17, 2004 pre-APPlica~o. 04-070 Jason Jorda7~or Planner, x7219 Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat Genera': We have completed a preliminary review of the pre-application for the above-referenced development proposal. The following comments on development and permitting issues are based on the pre-application submittals made to the City of Renton by the applicant and the codes in effect on the date of review. The applicant is cautioned that information contained in this summary may be subject to modification andlor concurrence by official decision-makers (e.g., Hearing Examiner, Zoning Administrator, Board of Adjustment, Board of Public Works, and City Council). Review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes required by City staff or made by the applicant. The applicant is encouraged to review all applicable sections of the Renton Municipal Code. The Development Regulations are available for purchase for $50.00, plus tax, from the Finance Division on the first floor of City Hall. Project Proposal: The subject site is located on the west side of Bremerton Avenue NE (aka 136th Avenue SE) approximately 290 feet south of the NE 4th Street and Bremerton Avenue NE intersection. The property is approximately 106,590 square feet (2.4-acres) in size and is presently developed with a residence and two outbuildings, which would be removed, along with vehicles and other equipment, as part of site preparation activities. The residential development proposes to subdivide the property into 22 lots intended for the eventual development of detached single-family homes. The proposed lots would range from approximately 3,200 square feet to 5,000 square feet in size. The single-family residential structures proposed would be two-stories ranging in size from 1,600 square feet to 3,200 square feet. Access to the interior of the plat would be provided via a new public roadway proposed at a reduced width of 42 feet with 28 feet of asphalt width, along with curb, gutter and 5-foot sidewalks on both sides. The project would also include the installation of necessary utility extensions, dedication of property and required street improvements along Bremerton Avenue NE. Zoning: The subject property is located within the Center Suburban (CS) zoning designation, as well as the Suburban Centers Residential Demonstration District -Area B. Residential detached dwellings are considered primary permitted uses within this zone and district. Density Requirements: The allowed density range of the CS zone is a minimum of 10 dwelling units per acre (dulac) to a maximum of 20 dulac. The Centers Demonstration District permits a density bonus of up to 36 dulac when architectural innovation is demonstrated in the design of the project. In order to calculate net density, areas intended for dedication to public right-of-way, as well as critical areas, must be deducted from the gross area of the property. In addition to the public roadway that would be required to serve the created lots, an additional 20 feet of the site's Bremerton Avenue frontage must be dedicated. After the deduction of the right-at-way areas to be dedicated (approximately 21,720 square teet), the proposal for 22 units on the 1.9 net acre site would arrive at a net density of 10.5 dulac -which falls within the specified density range of the zone. Upon formal land use application submittal, the plat plan will need to specify the calculated area of dedicated roadway in order to accurately calculate the net density of the project. Ridgeview Court Pre-Application Me. J File No. 04-070 June 17. 2004 Page 2 of 2 Development Standards: The development of the site would require compliance with Area B of the Suburban Centers Residential Demonstration District and the applicable development standards of the CSzone as discussed below. Minimum Land Area per Dwelling Unit - A minimum of 1,200 square feet must be provided for each unit, of which a minimum of 250 square feet must be developed as landscaping or private yard area abutting each unit. The proposal would create lots ranging in size from 3,200 square feet to 5,000 square feet, which is welf above the minimum lot area required for each unit. However, the plan provided does not depict the location of the required yard areas. Therefore, the plat plan submitted with formal land use application will need to demonstrate the satisfaction of the landscaping and/or private yard requirements for each unit. Lot Dimensions -There are no minimum requirements for lot width or depth within the CS zone or the Residential Centers District. Lot Coverage/Setbacks -The maximum area permitted for building lot coverage is 65% of the lot area. Verification of compliance with this standard will be necessary with the preliminary plat/site plan application. The property abuts property designated with residential zoning; therefore, a 15-foot sight- obscuring rear yard setback will be required along the southern property boundary. The front yard setbacks must be between a minimum of 10 feet to a maximum of 15 feet. Interior side yard setbacks of 3 feet, with no prOjections permitted, are required. In addition, detached accessory garages must have a 20-foot setback from all public streets and must provided a minimum back out distance of 24 feet. The project appeals to be in compliance with the above-mentioned standards. However, with· the formal review of the application, the site plan will need to depict the proposed building pads and setbacks for each lot, as well as indicate the percentage of lot coverage by structures for each lot. Building Limitations -The building design standards of District B of the Centers Residential Overlay require variation or modulation of vertical and horizontal facades at a minimum width of 2 feet at intervals of 40 feet for each building face. Private entry features must also be included such that individual ground floor connections to the outside are provided. In addition, building length is limited to a maximum of 100 feet with no more than 4 residential units per building. As the plat would construct detached dwelfings, individual entries would be provided tor each home and no structure would exceed 100 feet in length or include additional units, In addition, buildings are required to be located such that the relationship of the dwelling, parking and the street create the appearance ot a single-family neighborhood. The front facades of the structures must address the public street and provide landscaped pedestrian connections to the right-ot-way. Again, as the proposed lots are intended for single-famify structures, the project would comply with requirements for the appearances and orientation. Building elevations and .~ I.!ndscape plans depicting the satisfaction of these design requirements must be· provided 1" ~ at the time 0lTail'a use application submittal. Height - A maximum building height of 35 feet is permitted. The project would include 2-story structures that would be required to remain within the 35-foot limitation. Landscaping -As discussed above, the proposal must provide a minimum of 250 square feet of area abutting each dwelling developed with landscaping or as a private yard. Landscaping would also be required along both street frontages, between structures, within common open space areas, and along the southern property boundary (abutting residentially zoned property). All landscape areas must include an ·irrigation system. Pre04-070 (CS 22 single family IOIS).doc\ Ridgeview Court Pre-Application No .19 File No. 04-070 June 17,2004 Page30f3 Pedestrian Access -The CS zone requires a pedestrian connection from the street to the entrances of the buildings. The project would provide 5-foot sidewalks along both side of the roadway 'servingtheinterior of the plat. Street improvements must also be provided along the site's frontage on Bremerton Avenue if not already in ·place. Parking -The City's Parking Regulations require a minimum of 2 off-street parking spaces be .providedfor each detached dwelling unit within an enclosed structure. The formal application package will also need to include floor plans for each unit type depicting garages that are ·capableof providing space for a minimum of 2 vehicles. In addition, the Residential Demonstration District requires parking to be provided within an enclosed structure that faces a different .fac;ade than the main entry of the building and be located to the rear of the primary structure. Based on the Jot configuration presented, vehicular access to each unit would be provided off of the new public roadway via a private drive, with garage entries oriented on a different facade than the porch (front door entrance). As depicted in the site plan, the front facade (primary entrance) of each unit faces a public roadway. In addition, garage entries .faceadifferentdirection than the front 'oftheunit and do not face a principle or minor arterial; however some of the proposed residences do not have parking toward the rear of the primary structure. Modification Procedures: In order to consider modifications ·requested in conjunction with projects located within the Suburban Centers Residential Demonstration District, a project must first demonstrate superior design as well as compliance with modification criteria established specifically for the demonstration district (see attached). -Requests for modification must -be submitted in writing and are encouraged to be submitted prior to formal land use application to avoid complications with the review of the formal land use application. The specific standard and reason for the requested n;odification must be provided. It must also be demonstrated that the proposed modification would conform to the intent and purpose of the demonstration district, as well as satisfy each of the superior design criteria. Sensitive Areas: The site is deSignated on the City's Sensitive Areas Maps as containing potential sensitive slopes (between 25% to 40% with less than 15 feet of vertical rise), as well as stream and wetland areas. The site is not located within the Aquifer Protection Area. The City's Critical Areas Regulations allow for the disturbance of sensitive slope areas. However, further verification afthe presence or absence of wetlands on-site will be necessary. As referenced in the narrative provided, a wetland biologist has visited the site and determined that no wetlands are present. However, a complete wetland report that describes the presence or lack of wetlands pursuant to the City's Wetland Regulations, including the identification of delineated areas, must be submitted with the land use application. Permit Requirements: The proposal would require Hearing Examiner Preliminary Plat, Site Plan Review and Environmental (SEPA) Review. All permits would be reviewed concurrently in an estimated timeframeof 12 to 16 weeks and would require a public hearing. After the required notification period, the Environmental Review Committee would issue a SEPA Threshold Determination for the project. When the required two-week appeal period is complete, the project would be presented to the Hearing Exarriinerfor consideration. The Hearing Examiner would issue a decision on the Site Plan Review portion of the project and a recommendation to the City Council on the Preliminary Plat within approximately 2 weeks of the public hearing. The Hearing Examiner's recommendation would be subject to a two-week appeal period before moving on to the Council for a decision, which would also be subject to a two-week appeal period. Once Site Plan Review and Preliminary Plat approval is obtained, the applicant must complete the required improvements and dedications,as well as satisfy any conditions of the site plan review and preliminary plat approval before submitting for Final Plat review. The Final Plat process also requires City Council approval. Once final approval is received, the plat maybe recorded. The newly created lots may only be sold after the plat has been recorded. Pre04-070 (es 22 single family IOls).doc\ Ridg~view Court Pre-Application Ml J File No. 04-070 June 17, 2004 Page 4 of 4 Fees: The application fee for joint land use applications is full price for the most expensive permit (Preliminary Plat at $2.000) and half off any subsequent permits ($1.000 for the'Site Plan Review -and $500 for the Environmental Review). In addition. $0~37 per mailing label would be required for notification to surrounding property owners. The applicant will a/so be required to install a public -information sign on the property. Detailed information regarding the land use application submittal requirements is provided in the attached handouts. In addition to the required land use permits. separate building/demolition and construction permits would be required. The reviewaf these permits may occur concurrently with the review of the land use permits. but cannot be issued prior to the completion of any required appeal periods. Payment of the following mitigation fees will be necessary prior to the recording of the plat: It· A Transportation Mitigation Fee based on $75 per each new average daily trip attributable to the project; • A Parks Mitigation Fee based on $530.76 per ~ single family dwelling unit; and • ., A Fire Mitigation Fee based on $488.00 per ~ single family dwelling unit. A handout listing all of the City's Development related fees is attached for your review. cc: Jennifer Henning Pre04-070 (CS 22 single family lots).doc\ CITY OF RENTON . FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU MEMORANDUM DATE: June 4,2004 TO: Jason Jordan, Senior Planner FROM: Jim Gray, Assistant Fire Marshal SUBJECT: Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat, 327 Bremerton Av NE Fire Department Comments: 1. A fire hydrant with 1000 GPMfire flow is required within 300 feet of all new single-family structures. If the building square footage exceeds 3600 square feet in area, the minimum fire flow increases to 1500 GPM and requires two hydrants within 300 feet of the structure. 2. A fire mitigation fee of $488.00 is required for all new single-family structures. 3. Fire Department access roadways require a minimum 20 Foot paved roadway. . 4. All bullding addresses shall be visible from the public street Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. To: From: Date: Subject: Jason Jordan Juliana Fries CITY OF RENTON MEMO PUBLIC \-VORKS June 17,2004 PreAppIication Review Comments PREAPP No. 04-070 Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat NOTE ON PRELIMINARY REVIEW COMMENTS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT: The following comments on development and permitting issues are based on the pre-application submittals made to the City of Renton by the applicant. The applicant is cautioned that information contained in this summary may be subject to modification and/or concurrence by official decision makers (e.g. Hearing Examiner, Boards of Adjustment, Board of Public Works and City Council). Review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes required by the City or made by the applicant. I have reviewed the preliminary application for this 22-1otplat,located at 327 Bremerton Ave NE and have the following comments: WATER L The proposed development is within the City -of Renton's water service area. There is an existing 8-inch water main in Bremerton Ave NE(dwg W-0626), fronting the site. A water main extension will be required for this project. 2. A water mainextensionof8-inch pipe from the existing 8-inch line in Bremerton Ave NE will be required for this project to provide water service for fire protection and for domestic use. 3. Per Renton Fire code, aU new single-family construction, not exceeding 3,600 square-feet of gross building area, must have a fire hydrant capable of delivering a minimum of 1,000 gpm and the hydrant must be located within 300 feet of the structures. Additional fire hydrants are required for this project. Existing hydrants will require a quick disconnect Storz fitting. 4. The derated fire flow in the vicinity is modeled at 1,200 gpm with a static pressure of 65 psi. S. The proposed project is located in the 565-water pressure zone and is within Aquifer Protection Zone 2. 6. New water service stubs to each lot must be installed in conjunction with the above water main extension prior to recording of the plat. 7. The Water System Development Charge (SDC) would be triggered at the single-family rate of $1,525 per new building lot. These are payable at the time the utility construction is issued. Ridgeview Court Preliminar} _ ,at 06117/2004 Page 2 SANITARY SEWER 1. There is an existing 24" sewer main on NE 4th Stre~t (Dwg S-0503). There is also a 16" sewer main running north south along the parcel to the west of this site (Dwg 1488). 2. A 8-inch (maybe lO-inch) sewer main extension, along Bremerton Ave NE, to the south property line will be required. The elevation (depth at the end).will be detennined at later date. 3. Existing septic systems shall be abandoned in accordance with King County Health prior to recording of the plat. 4. This parcel is subject to the East Renton Interceptor Special Assessment District (SAD). Fees are collected at the time the utility construction pennit is issued. ':!::.Poc!J.bv. .. 5. The Sanitary Sewer System Development Charges (SDC) is $900 per lot. These-are payable at the time the utility construction pennit is issued. SURFACE WATER 1. The site drains to Maplewood Creek. Due to downsfream flooding and erosion problems, staff will recommend as a SEPA condition this project to comply with the 1998 King County Surface Water Design -Manual to meet both detention (Level 2 flow -control) and water quality (basic) improvements. 2. According to Cityo[ Renton records,appears that a drainage course crosses the site. The drainage report should address the drainage course, with an analysis of the upstream tributary area and flow that currently drains through the proposed project. Stonn systems should be sized to accommodate the future land use condition flows. 3. The drainage report should also address the ordinary high water mark of the stream to establish setbacks and building elevation. 4. City of Renton does not aHowdrainage facilities (detention/water quality) be . installed within Right-of-Way. 5. The Surface Water System Development Charges (SDC) are $715 per building lot. These are payable at the time the utility construction pennit is issued. TRANSPORTATION 1. Street improvements including,but not limited to paving, sidewalks, curb andgutter,stonn drain, landscape, street lighting and street signs will be required along Bremerton Ave NE and the new proposed street interior to the plat. 2. This project will be required to dedicate additional right-of-way along Bremerton Ave NE to the City to meet standard right-of-way width of 50 feet. The dedication shall be such that new ROW line be located 25 feet west of section line (it appears that 7 feet were dedicated in the past). 3. Pavement section for Bremerton Ave NE is 32 feet of pavement, centered at the section line (centered with Right-of-WaY)!2 8 ' ~~ oe .. 4. All wire utilities shall be installed underground per the City of R.enton Undergrounding Ordinance. If three or more poles necessitate to be moved by the development design, all existing overhead utilities shall be placed underground. Ridgeview Court Preliminm: . jat 06/1712004 Page 3 GENERAL COMMENTS 1. All -plans shall be prepared according to City of Renton drafting standards bya -licensed Civil Engineer. 2. Pennit application must include an itemized cost of construction estimate for these improvements . . The fee for review and inspection of these improvements is 5%of the first $100,000 of the estimated construction costs; 4% of anything over $100,000 but less than $200,000, and 3% of anything over $200,000. Half the fee must be paid upon application. 3. If you have any questions, call me at 425-430-7278 CC: Kayren Kittrick CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: STAFF CONTACT: SUBJECT: June 17,2004 Jason Jordan, / Rebecc~i( Don Erickson ·Ridgeview Court Preliminary Plat, 327 Bremerton Ave NE; PRE 04-070 The subject 2A5-acre site is located immediately north of the Tydico Annexation site and fronts on Bremerton Avenue NE. The site is located with Area "B" of the Centers Residential Bonus District. As a result, single-family developments in this zone are required to comply with the provisions of RMC 4-3-095C and D. The applicant is proposing to develop a 22 lot single-family development on the CS zoned site. Access for the twenty-two residences would be via a 330-foot long cul-de-sac from Bremerton A venue NE. Six of the proposed units would front on a widened Bremerton Avenue NE and have -their garage access from a rear 20' wide private access easement. The remaining 16 lots access off shared 20' wide shared access easements. Stormwater runoff would be controlled through an underground vault below the street. Relevant Comprehensive Plan Land Use Policies are attached as well as relevant development standards for Area "B". Analysis: The policies for Centers do allow for stand alone residential development "of various lypes and urban densities in portions of Centers not conducive to commercial transition" (Policy LU-98). Since the subject proposal is 100% single-family detached it would appear to comply with the intent of Policy LU-118.8 regarding prohibiting new garden style multi-family developments. Although not townhouse development, all units will have garages for parking within structures. Staff believes that a better development would result if the four units abutting the first 20' access easement had their garage access from this easement as well (Policy LU-76). This would allow what would otherwise be driveway space to become 300 square feet of front yard for each of these units. Similarly, if the 20' wide private access easements in the other pods were reduced to 10', 20' wide private access easements could be provided behind Lots 6, 7,8 and 9 and Lots 14, 15, 16 and 17. This would create more attractive landscaped courtyards for the 16 units in each of these four pods. This will require modifying the widths of Units 5, 6, 9,10, l3, 14,17 and 18. Such a change also would help this proposed development comply with the Parking Location requirements set forth in Section4-3-095E for District B. In particular, the subject proposal does not comply with the provision requiring parking to be located "to the rear of the primary structure orin a detached garage with rear access." The applicant should be commended for orienting six of the twenty-two units to Bremerton A venue NE and creating a traditional single-family streetscape here. No provision has been made for this development to connect to the vacant site to the west behind the US Post Office. Staff believe that a tract or easement should be -provided along the southern half of the terminal part of the cul-de-sac that would allow for a future connection to the west for Ridgeview Court Prelimin 06/1712004 Plat, 327 Bremerton Ave NE 2 access to this site,providingpedestrians access to shopping. the post office, adjacent residential, etcetera, as well as potential emergency secondary access (Policy LU-III). . Recommendation: Support this proposed 22-lotplat with the modifications suggested above and compliance with all relevant development standards for District B of the Centers Residential Bonus District. Attachment CC: -. Don Erickson H:\EDNSP\lntcrdcpartmentaI\Devclopmcnt Rc:vicw\Preapps\Commcnts\CS\Ridgevicw Courl.doc\cor Ridgeview CourtPrelirriinu_ .'>lat, 327 -Bremerton Ave NE 06/17/2004 Relevant Comprehensive Plan Center Suburban Land Use Policies 3 Objective LU-T: Create Center Suburban Designation including commercial, and residential uses with site planning oriented to automobile access and circulation. Policy LU-98. Allow stand-alone residential development of various types and urban densities in portions of Centers not conducive to commercial transition to and protection for surrounding land USes. Policy LU-99. Allow residential uses throughout Centers as part of mixed-use developments. Consider bonus incentives for housing types compatible with commercial uses or lower density residential. Policy LU-Ill. Connect residential uses to other uses in the Center through design features such as pedestrian access, shared parking areas, and common open spaces. Policy LU-118.8. Prohibit new garden style multi-family development with surface parking. Townhouse development, which includes parking within structures, is the preferred form of multi- family development. Relevant Comprehensive Plan Design and Improvement Standards in Residential Areas -Policy LU-73. Residential streets should be constructed to the narrowest widths feasible without impeding emergency vehicle access. Policy LU-76. To visually -improve the public streetscape and the safety of perimeter sidewalks and facilitate off-street parking, construction of alleys providing rear access to service entries and garages should be encouraged. Relevant Development Standards for District B Site Layout: Provide access and infrastructure to serve the development equivalent to those requirements established in the subdivision regulations. Minimum Land Area per Dwelling Unit: 1,200 sq. ft. including building footprint. Within this square footage 250 sq. ft. must be developed in landscaping or private yard. Setbacks, General: A 3 ft. minimum side setback is required and no projections are allowed. Special Setbacks: Not subject to maximum setback. Not permitted within 20 ft. of a public street. Garages must provide a minimum 24 ft. of back out space. Building Design Standards: 1) Variation or modulation of verticalandhorizontalfa~ades is required at a minimum of 2 feet at an interval of a minimum of 40 feet on a building face; 2) Private residential entry features which are designed to provide individual ground floor connection to the outside are required. Maximum Building Length: 100 f1. except for retirement residences. BuildingLoc~ltion Standards: The relationship of the dwelling, parking and the street shall create the appearance of a single-family neighborhood. Front fa~ades of structures shall address the public street, private street or court by providing: a landscaped pedestrian connection, and an entry feature facing the front yard. I-1:\EDNSP\lntcn1epartlllclltal\Devel0pl1l<:nt R"vicw\Prcapps\Commell!s\CS\Ridgcview Court.uoc\cor Ridgeview Court Preliminai J ~'Iat, 327 Bremerton Ave NE 06117/2004 4 Parking Location: Must be within an enclosed structure (detached or attached garage).Oarage must be located on a different fa<;ade than the main entry of the building. Surface parking not allowed within first 30 feet on any street frontage. Parking must be located to the rear of the primary structure on in a detached garage with rear access. H:\EDNSP\lntcrdepartmcnta!\Devc!opment Rcvicw\Preapps\Commcnts\CS\Ridgeview Court.doc\cor Renton City Limits Parcels .C&j Renton Aerial f""i F#'3 F"""1 200 0 SCALE 1 : 2,740 200 FEET >://rentonnet.ora/MaoGuide/maos/Prlrr.p.i mwf Renton N 400 600 A \" I .............. -. ... -I _.. I. _._ _ ... ,... ,",1"\1"'\ A A A • ('\1"\ r-.. ... MEMORANDUM Mi. 5 DATE: r 7 TO: Construction Services, Fire Prevention, Plan Review, EDNSP, FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: Project Planner . Neil Watts, Development Services Division Director New Preliminary Application: Rtr:f;';lef/!evJ CtJ{/rt P7e-t ;blc-,f j 3;2 7 r3tCmOL-~ Art: He- PREAPPNO. ~g~~~-~o~~_-~O~·Z~O~ ________________________ ___ AmQiingWith the applicant has been scheduled for ';)·'c;rJ .PI-1 , Thursday, , lU1-€-. 17P--, in'one of the 6th floor conference rooms (new City Hall). If this meeting is scheduled at 10:00 AM, the MEETING MUST BE CONCLUDED PRIOR TO 11 :00 AM to allow time to prepare for the 11 :00 AM meeting. Please review the attached project plans prior to the scheduled meeting with the appliCant. You will not need to do a thorough "permit level" review at this time. Note only major issues that must be resolved priorto formal land use and/or building permit application submittal. . Plan RevieWer assigned is ~CV{\ o..-J Please submit your written c~mments to _Sl_·ra.;;...· _~-_M--'-_____ (Planner) at least two (2) days before the meeting. Thank you. H:\Division.s\Develop.ser\Dev & Plan.ing\Template\Preapp2 Revised 9100 . .. Name: Size: Location: Address: Tax Parcel: City of Renton Grid: Zoning: Current Use: RIDGEVIEW COURT PRELIMINARY PLAT PROJECT NARRATIVE CITY OF RENTON Ridgeview Court 2.40 acres NW Y4 Sec. 15 Twp. 23 N. Rge. 5E OEVELOPME Clry OF ~kr'1>~N/NG OCT 1 8 20a~ ReCEIVED West of Bremerton Avenue NE (136 Ave. SE), south ofNE 4th Street 327 Bremerton Ave NE (12905 -136th Avenue SE) 518210-0042 F6 CS Adjacent properties: CS, R-4 There is an existing home, shop and shed occupying the project site. In addition, there are multiple vehicles and other used equipment being stored on the property. The SE 113 ofthe property contains blackberries and the remaining property is unkempt grass with vehicle and equipment storage. There are 23 coniferous and 2 deciduous trees on the property ranging from 10" to 36" in diameter. The site topography ranges from elevation 414 at the south line, 400 at the east line, 416 at the north line and 400 at the west line. There is a small low spot at the SW comer that appears to have been created when the property to the south was graded. Special Site Features: There are no significant special site features with the exception of the 6 to 8 foot tall oblong knoll containing slopes of 15 to 24% located near the SE comer of the site. It appears that this knoll together with the low area mentioned in the Current Site Use section were man made when grading on the adjacent property to the south occurred. The applicant hired a biologist to investigate the existence of wetlands on the property. The biologist found no wetlands on the property. The biologist report will accompany the preliminary plat submittal. Based on site visits and review of other City of Renton sensitive area maps as well as King County Sensitive Areas Map Folio, Dec. 1990, no other sensitivelhazard areas or special features were identified on site. Ridgeview Court, LLC Plat of RidgeView Court 06117/04 Pre-Application Soil Type and Drainage Conditions: The soil type is Alderwood gravelly sandy loam as identified in the Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington, Us. Soil Conservation Service, 1973 maps. It is a moderately well drained soil. Refer to the Geotechnical Engineering Study by Geo Group Northwest, Inc. dated October 4, 2004. Utility Services: There is an existing City of Renton 8" DI water main in Bremerton Avenue NE along the entire eastern property line. The nearest fire hydrant is located approximately 50 feet NE ofthe NE comer of the property on the east side of Bremerton Ave NE. There are 3 potential locations for this site to be served by sanitary sewer. Approximately 350 feet to the north via Bremerton Ave: NE there is an existing City of Renton sanitary sewer system located in NE 4th Street. This route would require no easements. A second potential connection to City of Renton sanitary sewer system is located approximately 350 feet west of the SW property comer. This connection route would require easement across private property. A third potential connection would be located approximately 350 feet to the south connecting to an approved new sewer to be constructed in an '. extension of Bremerton Ave NE at the new Laurelhurst project site. The utilities plan show connection to the existing sewer in NE 4th Street. This option will be reevaluated prior to construction as connection to the sewer to be constructed by the Laurelhurst development is preferred. There is electrical power existing at the site and possibly cable television. There is no obvious indication of natUral gas serving the existing site although service opportunity may be nearby. There is an existing storm drainage system in Bremerton Ave. NE at a fairly shallow depth of invert elevation 406. The existing site topography directs surface water flow to the west. There is evidence of . historic grading that may have altered the natural surface water flow path. There is a low area on the west side of the project site at elevation 400. There is also a low elevation of 396 at the SW comer of the property. Proposed Use and Scope of Development (Project Description): Ridgeview Court, LLC proposes to subdivide the property into 20 lots to be developed with single- family residences. The proposed lot size will range from 2,725 SF to approximately 5,800 SF. Site development requirements for this project will include construction of the 330-foot extension of Bremerton Ave. NE with a 32-foot width asphalt, cement concrete curb and gutter with 5-foot wide cement concrete sidewalk on the west side of the roadway. 17.5 feet of new right-of-way will be dedicated to the City of Renton for the Bremerton Ave. NE extension. Access to the internal portion of Ridgeview Court, LLC Plat of Ridgeview Court 06117/04 Pre-Application " the project is proposed as 42 feet of public roadway right-of-way to be dedicated to the City. The street section will consist of 32-foot width asphalt, cement concrete curb and gutter and a 5-foot wide cement concrete sidewalks on both sides of the roadway. Grading will likely involve the removal ofthe existing 6-foot berm at the south property line to be utilized on site and the additional import of approximately 4,800 cubic yards of fill material to raise the site to the approximate elevation of 404. One street design modification has been requested. A cuI-de sac is proposed for the central part ofthe site. A request has been submitted to reduce the ROW radius from 55 feet to 50 feet. The paved portion will remain at 45 feet and the proposed ROW will be located at the back of the 5-foot sidewalk. An 8" DI water main is proposed to extend from the existing main in Bremerton Ave. NE through the project site to the end ofthe Cul-de-sac. Individual I " water service lines and meters are also proposed. An 8" sanitary sewer with 6" side sewer connections will be constructed through the plat. The sewer flow will go from west to east across the site then either north to NE 4th Street or south to the proposed sewer main extension planned by the Laurelhurst development. Storm drainage collection and conveyance system will be constructed to serve all new portion roadways and residences. Water Quality and Quantity control is proposed in a below grade storm water vault to be located in a storm water Tract. The downstream analysis/report is submitted as part of the preliminary plat documents and is included in the Preliminary Technical Information Report, by American Engineering Corporation date September 30,2004. The preliminary site plan shows the storm water Tract located in the SW comer of the site. The estimated fair market value ofthe property is $530,000 and the estimated construction cost for the site improvements is $435,000. Proposed single-family residences will be two story wood frame structures, ranging in size from 1,500 to 1,800 square feet. The estimated lot coverage ranges from 21 % to 44%. All parking will be off street in 2 car garages to be accessed from private driveways. At least one house will be utilized as a model home for viewing and as an office for the real estate agent. Number and Type of Trees to be Removed: Due to the topographic constraints and grading required to serve this property with utilities, all of the existing trees will be removed to accommodate development of this site. There will be 22 Fir trees removed ranging in size from 10 inches to 38 inches in diameter with the majority of the trees over 20 inches. There are also 2 maple trees to be removed, 12 and 18 inches in diameter Ridgeview Court, LLC Plat of Ridgeview Court 06/17/04 Pre-Application RIDGEVIEW COURT PRELIMINARY PLAT CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION DESCRIPTION CITY OF RENTON PRE04-070 The applicant proposes to begin construction in May 2005 and complete roadway and infrastructure construction in September 2005. The hours of operation will likely be from 7:30 AM to 8:00 PM Monday to Friday and 9AM to 7PM Saturday or as allowed by the City of Renton Code. There are no specialty hours of operation proposed by this project. Construction access to the site will be via Bremerton Avenue NE (136th Ave SE) from NE 4th Street located approximately 280 feet north of the site. Erosion and Sedimentation Control measures including filter fabric fence, rocked construction entrance, water for dust control and street sweeping will be utilized to minimize dust and control erosion and sedimentation. Mitigation for construction related traffic impacts will include utilizing flag persons to control traffic. Minimal disruption to traffic is anticipated as a result of construction of this project. Due to the anticipated minimal impact to traffic as a result of construction, a preliminary traffic plan is not warranted. If conditions arise that indicate requirement for a traffic control plan, one will be designed and submitted to the city for review. Ridgeview Court, LLC AECNo.0312 Ridgeview Court 1 Preliminary Plat Application PRE04-070 OEVELOPMENT P . CITY OF RENT~~NING PACIFIC NORTHWEST TITLE COMPANY OF WASHINGTON, INC. 215 Columbia Street Seattle, Washington 98104-1511 Senior Title Offiyer, Dave Maddux (davemaddux@pnwt.com) Senior Title Officer, Pete Harper (peteharper@pnwt.com) Assistant Title Officer, Rose Sargent (rosesargent@pnwt.com) Title Assistant, Michelle Brown (michellebrown@pnwt.com) Unit No. 4 FAX No. (206) 343-8402 Telephone Number (206)343-1353 OCT 1 8.2004 RE~E'VED Belmont Homes, Inc. P.O. Box 2401 Title Order No. 578411 CERTIFICATE FOR Kirkland, Washington 98083 Attention: Cliff Williams FILING PROPOSED PLAT Your Ref.: Ridgeview Court LLC .GENTLEMEN: PLAT CERTIFICATE SCHEDULE A In the matter of the plat submitted for your approval, this Company has examined the records of the County Auditor and County Clerk of King County, Washington, and the records of the Clerk of the United States Courts holding terms in said County, and from such examination hereby certifies that according to said records the title to the following described land: As on Schedule A, page 2, attached. IS VESTED IN: RIDGEVIEWCOURT LLC, a Washington Limited Liability Company SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTIONS: As on Schedule B, attached hereto. CHARGE: TAX: $200.00 $ 17.60 TOTAL CHARGE: $217.60 RECORDS EXAMINED TO: October 1, 2004 at 8:00 a.m. PACIFIC NORTHWEST TITLE COMPANY OF . WASHINGTON, INC. Dave Maddux , Senior Title Officer Unit No. 4 PLAT CERTIFICATE SCHEDULE A Page 2 Order No. 578411 In the matter of the plat submitted for your approval, this Company has examined the records of the County Auditor and County Clerk of King County, Washington, and the records of the Clerk of the United States Courts holding terms in said County, and from such examination hereby certifies that according to said records the title to the following described land: The south half of the east half of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington, being a portion of Tract 4, of Martin's Acre Tracts, an unrecorded plat; EXCEPT the east 7.5 feet of said tract. END OF SCHEDULE A GENERAL EXCEPTIONS: PLAT CERTIFICATE Schedule B Order No. 578411 1. Rights of claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records. 2. Public or private easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public record. 3. Encroachments, overlaps, boundary line disputes, or other matters which would be disclosed by an accurate surveyor inspection of the premises. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records, or Liens under the Workmen's Compensation Act not shown by the public records. 5. Any title or rights asserted by anyone including but not limited to persons, corporations, governments or other entities, to tide lands, or lands comprising the shores or bottoms of navigable rivers, lakes, bays, ocean or sound, or lands beyond the line of the harbor lines as established or changed by the United States Government. 6. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title to water. 7. Any service, installation, connection, maintenance, capacity, or construction charges for sewer, water, electricity or garbage removal. 8. General taxes not now payable or matters relating to special assessments and special levies, if any, preceding the same becoming a lien. 9. Indian tribal codes or regulations, Indian treaty or aboriginal rights, including, but not limited to, easements or equitable servitudes. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: PLAT CERTIFICATE SCHEDULE B Page 2 Order No. 578411 1. Reservation of all rights to coal and iron, and rights to the use of surface ground for mining operations, and right of access to the same contained in deed from Northern Pacific Railway Company. RECORDED: RECORDING NUMBER: June 20, 1900 192430 NOTE: No examination has been made to determine the present record owner of the above minerals, or mineral lands and appurtenant rights thereto, or to determine matters which may affect the lands or rights so reserved. 2. NOTICE OF SEWER AND/OR WATER CONNECTION CHARGE: GIVEN BY: RECORDED: RECORDING NUMBER: City of Renton June 21, 1996 9606210966 3. DEED OF TRUST AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTOR: TRUSTEE: BENEFICIARY: AMOUNT: DATED: RECORDED: RECORDING NUMBER: Ridgeview Court LLC UPF Incorporation, a Washington corporation Northwest Business Bank .$530,000.00 September 21, 2004 September 29, 2004 20040929002366 The amount now secured by said Deed of Trust and the terms upon which the same can be discharged or assumed should be ascertained from the holder of the indebtedness secured. 4. HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES CERTIFICATE AND INDEMNITY AGREEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: RECORDED: RECORD~NG NUMBER: September 29, 2004 20040929002367 (continued) PLAT CERTIFICATE SCHEDULE B Page 3 Order No. 578411 NOTE 1: GENERAL AND SPECIAL TAXES AND CHARGES, PAID IN FULL: YEAR: TAX ACCOUNT NUMBER: LEVY CODE 2004 518210-0042-07 2100 CURRENT ASSESSED VALUE: Land: $110,000.00 GENERAL TAXES: SPECIAL DISTRICT: TOTAL BILLED: Improvements:$91,OOO.00 $2,311.63 $1. 68 $5.00 $2,318.31 PAID: $2; 318.31 END OF SCHEDULE B ) Title to this property was examined by: Jon Cross Any inquiries should be directed to one of the title officers set forth in Schedule A. JXB/20040929002365 Martin's Acre Tracts Unrecorded ~ ":' L t:: ,oJ) ~ \q '4 ~ 1/-. -¢. ~ -po~. IAll·p . :p. I' . aO~ PACIFIC NORTH\VEST TITLE Order No. 578411 Company of'\Vashington, Inc. IMPORTANT: This is not a Plat of Survey, It is furnished as a convenience to locate the land indicated hereon with reference to streets and other land. No liability is assumed by reason of reliance hereon. N t ;, OEVELOPME CITY OF~~~~NING OCT 18 200~ . RECEIVED Description ofR~ad Right of Way Modification Request & Justification Ridgeview Court 327 Bremerton Ave NE City of Renton File No. __ September 30, 2004 Description of Modification Request: Reduce the minimum required Right of Way (ROW) from 55 feet to 50 feet for the cul- de-sac in Road A (NE 3rd Street?), Applicable Section of Standards: City of Renton Development Regulations Title 4 Section 6. Street and Utility Standards Para 060G4. Dead End Streets 4. Cul-de-Sac Design: CUl-de-sacs shall have a minimum paved radius of forty five feet (45') with a right-of-way radius of fifty five feet (55') for the turnaround, The cul-de-sac turnaround shall have a design approved by the Administrator and the Bureau of Fire Prevention. (refer to the attached excerpt) Modification Justification: Ridgeview Court is a proposed 20-10t plat located in the City of Renton in a Center Suburban (CS) zoning designation as well as the Suburban Centers Residential Demonstration District -Area B Zone. The site is located south ofNE 4th Street. It is bounded on the east by Bremerton Avenue NE and on the south and north by undeveloped land and on the west by the US Post Office parking lot. Bremerton Avenue NE is classified as a local street per the 2004 City of Renton Arterial Street Map, One on-site street is proposed for this plat, Road "A", Road "A" entry drive provides access from Bremerton Avenue NE and serves all lots on the Plat. The street is between 150' and 300' in length thus requiring a hammerhead turnaround or cul-de-sac. We have chosen to propose a cul-de-sac (refer to the attached sketches). While the horizontal layout allows access to all lots and tracts, provides the minimum paved radius, meets fire department access objectives, and is maintainable, the proposed road right-of-way as described below does not meet the current City of Renton Development Regulations: Per the City of Renton Development Regulations a minimum paved radius of 45 feet and right-of-way radius of 55 feetis required for a cul-de-sac. We are proposing to maintain the required minimum paved radius but are requesting a design modification to permit a right-of-way radius of 50 feet. As shown on the attached sketches, this would put the right-of-way line at the back of the sidewalk. It is believed that reducing the right-of-way radius by 5 feet will not impact the operation of the cul-de- sac nor impede maneuvering of fire trucks. The minimum paved radius will be constructed and the proposed 5 foot sidewalk located back of the paved street will provide pedestrian safety. The placingof the cul-de-sac right-of-way line to back of walk will conform to the right-of-way line for the rest of the roadway. For the required access road 42-foot right-of-way, the 28-foot width of asphalt pavement, curb and gutter and sidewalks both sides results in a property line located at the back of walk (see attached sketches). The reduction of the right-of7way radius by 5 feet will be of benefit to proposed lots 4, 7, 14 and 17. This . will permit the BSBL to be located 10 feet from the back of the sidewalk rather than 15 feet per the standard right-of-way radius. This will permit the construction oflarger homes on these lots which will benefit the total project. This is especially of note since the homes around the cul-de-sac become a major feature of the neighborhood because of their visibility to the street. This adds to the attractiveness of the neighborhood. Conclusion: The proposed design meets the safety objectives, fire protection, appearance, maintainability, and most importantly, a superior design for the homes on the affected lots. Therefore, we are requesting a modification to allow for a reduction of the cul-de-sac radius from 55 feet to 50 feet. It is our opinion that granting the above modification should have no adverse impacts on safety, maintenance, function, appearance, and/or fire protection. Should you have any questions or concerns feel free to contact me at (206) 714-7161 at anytime. Thanks for your help in expediting the road modification approval process. Yours truly, Vineyards <lons7,/uction, LLC gtr;j~A ,. Cliff Williams, PE . V.P., Manager of Engineering G. DEAD END STREETS: 1. When Permitted: Dead end streets are permitted where through streets are determined by the Department not to be feasible. For other circumstances, dead end streets may be approved by the Department or Hearing Examiner as part of the plat approval of site plan approval for a proposed development. 2. Cul-de-Sacs and Turnarounds -Minimum Requirements: Minimum standards for dead end streets, wheri approved by the Department, are as follows: LENGTH OF STREET TYPE OF TURNAROUND For up to 150' in length No turnaround required. From 150' to 300'in Dedicated hammerhead turnaround or cul-de-sac required. length From 300' to 500' in Cul-de-sac required. length From 500' to 700' in Cul-de-sac required. length Fire sprinkler system required for houses. Longer than 700' in Two means of access and fire sprinklers required for all houses beyond length 500'. 3. Turnaround Design: The hammerhead turnaround shall have a design approved by the Administrator and the Bureau of Fire Prevention. 4. CUl-de-Sac Design: CUl-de-sacs shall have a minimum paved radius of forty five feet (45') with a right-of-way radius of fifty five feet (55') for the turnaround. The cul-de-sac turnaround shall have a design approved by the Administrator and the Bureau of Fire Prevention. 5. Secondary Access: Secondary access for emergency equipment is required when a development of three (3) or more buildings is located more than two hundred feet (200') from a public street. 6. Waiver of Turnaround: The requirement for a turnaround or cul-de-sac may be waived by the Administrator with approval of the Bureau of Fire Prevention when the development proposal will not create an increased need for emergency operations pursuant to RMC 4-9- 250C, Waiver Procedures. I, ~~ ______ ~Rt~/n~~~£~~~£~W~'~~~o~u£r~ ______ ~~ ',4 '.' -r -__ , ...,~~.c-, ,-.;' .--:--,' AC, ,-:--', ~.~.~_ ,-,-, :~::-:-c, ,.,-.~,.-, ,!-,-:-.-,,-. ~-.r-. -~--;,. ,-- ----41-- -'-'-c, -'.' .. " '. :~. .,. . " ,,: '. ~ "-,. ,.', A, <---'i II---I r -'" • ~ I .... .. f/ ---,---L~' -II '--I II~ I I I \, \:) -~~' 20 II I 19 I I 18 ~ (y~ ~ ,I 3 I 2 I I 1 II II I :. ~ I I II ~--'----ll I '----r----II I I , , ' , I I I 1'--,----1 I : I : I " 11Z I ~c I I I I ---'-"==:=L-+1-..~--1J-p==~-~' A R~W: L - -.!==~=".,.I ~_ ~ I_-'=-----' ~=~=:-l ~-----,-, -----= ~'~r .·.r;--l;~~,\-====:-:==:=-~--- I /j /, _ '.\ \. \ '~ i: 17 ,/{J;/' 1~4 ( ~;~~ / ,,~I ~~\-\~ __ ,\-=-\-\-=--=--=--=---'_::-=--_-=-: __ _ '-----r+.------r--~~ J • R~4J ~,4) ~,v; " r : : ' T ..... ,J\qq'IL{$~' ~'·ri-+~:---' 15 I 14~ \~~'\"' .. ~ ~hn: ~ 7 I . \ . l V ,,1/ . "----'-_--1,1 L----1. ___ ~\ \' ".t 0 ~7'¢ W _Ij j,-'-----'----' '-----'----' .~:: .' .... ~ ... .; ~", :"';,: ~"~,<~~~,: '. ~:v".~.~,J~---r--~_-_ -_ -...,-...L_-_~-_--'-I- I~ '.. ··-l~~v bl 8 I , 1/' ~ ' __ r-,J:... /i\ I I '---.-1 I L---n If-;r I L---I I--I 1 1 I 1/ 1 I ~====--__ I- 1 3 I I 1 2 1 1 11 I 1 1 0 1 1 9 f-t-:;;;;:=-t----------- 1----11 I L---...----II 1 1/ 1 I I I 1 I I I I 11-----,---11 ,- I 1 I 1 1 I 1 III-TRACT; 'L----li I I I I I I 1 1/ / STORM WATER _, ___ '-_ I/'/ DETENTION 33 32./ / ------4 -, ---'1c---+----+-----+-+----__ l,/ taL-!/£-5Ae IP1rt'IIFOJC-uJil( e,t/5//Nr J/£kUJPmt!JlT .:5TDS · ~ ~. . ---' -It---- 14 I 15 16 ---1-1 ----I ----f--_ " ...... .. ~ " :~. ,: '~: ... , ... ~." " . 3 I l-II~ I 2 I I 1 I I I I I I''---r--...J I I I ~_ ~ I_--=----' ~ 6 ~~ L-I;r--I I L-"\ • ~ ~ .. ;. /---~ 20 II I 19 I I 18 I ( I I I I I ~ .</ ~I I t--~--.J I I '---T---J I I I '. I{ 1rJ W I I I I I' '. I I I I I . I ----"===L-<-f-L-..~--l~=~-. ~ '. I L - --==-=-=' --+-----" ., --~ ~J ' .. 1----. --4-------1---- - 1 ,....---.,-------/ r , // . \ ! 16 [.+--i '--I ----<.. 17 /;11" I .~\-.' .. ...,....,.;-c--•. +-'\ _4 __ ...l...l1...Ll_ n 5 ~. 56' ~\ ~-~ [ '----ITI,l"-I, --r-----rl-r---l· JIfClA.l .fa.1/1I~ 'tlVd rtJ!/,'J}·t-r-;-,-_-., ,/r----' '1 J "h 1 5 . ~ .14 I I." '. lVI 6S8k ~ H 7 1------< 1---+-1 6 "----1-__ , '------1. __ ... _ ~ '> .• A " /1 7 -~~~=:=d=~=;=:===r=:====~' A ~ ~--'-----' ,---~---J ~" : I~~ ~":""~~I~~:-" ~c----"'\;;;:--t1----'--8--.J11--"-_--1-;-'--- 1 3 " 1 2 I I 11 " 1 0 'I 9 /h;;:;d-------'------=== 1-------11 , , , . , , , I 0, , , /I /I , II---~-.J I , /I /I , I ' r--~- 1 ' II J TR ACT A _'-_-.1...1--__ ._ --1----../ RM WATER ,'L.....------II I· 1 1 1 1 , I, ) STO V DETENTION __ --+ ~? _ -1---4--__ 3t-2 +----------/ _---V tJtI/~-j)£-5/l e /?Io//IT-O~--t-J1l-f ?/(O?t!J5£.b 1/10/)/r/6/fTIOA! Mr .. RobertWenzl P. O. Box 2401 Kirkland, Washington 98083~240 1 Subject: Site Observations Property at 12905 136th Avenue SE Renton, Washington. Tax Parcel No. 5182100042 Dear Mr, .W~: . OCT 1 82004 RECElVED. AlderNW' '. March 13, 2003 Project No. i1803 As requested we have cOnducted a wetland evaluation study for the property located at 12905 136th Avenue SE, in the City ofRent:ori; Washington; The purpose of this work was to complete a'site evaluation to make a determination if wetland' conditions are present on or immediately adjacent to the property. Out scOpe of work included a: site visit on February 19,2003, at which time we completed our siteeVaIuation. In Conducting' our site evaluation, we followed the general procedures for the routine on-site methodology as outijned in the March 1997 Washington State W(?tlandsldentification and Delineation Manual. This procedure involves analysis of vegetation patterns, soil conditions, and ·near-surface hydrology in making a determination of wetland.cOnditions. PROCEDURES . For the purpose of this study, we used the wetland definition adopted by the EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) artd the Anny Corps of Engineers (COE). for adrilinistering Section 404 or the Clean Water Act .. According to this definition, wetlands are: "Those areaS that are. inundated or sattrrated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient. to support, and -that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence 'of vegetation typi~y adapted for life in saturated soil cOnditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas."(33 CFR 323) hi Washington State, the Shoreline Management Act and' Growth Management Act have amended' this definition to exclude some wetland situations by adding the following sentences to the wetland definition: 518 North 59th Street, Seattle, Washington '.98103-Phone (206)783-1036 email aldernw@aol.com . . Mr. Robert Wenzl , MarCh 13 2003 , ", ,.---. Wetlands. do not mclude those' artificial·.wetlands intentlonally created.,from non-:wetland sites, including but not limited to,. irrigation and drairiage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created.atl.er July 1, 1990, that were intentioIially created as a result of the construction of a road, street or Highway. Wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non- ,wetland'areas to niitigate,the conversion of wetlands. ~, . .' . Delineation procedures are based on diagnostic environmental indicators of wetland vegetation, wetland soils, and wetland hydrology. 'These procedures, outlined in the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation. Manual (March 1997) are commonly known as a Triple Parameter Method. By definition, an area is designated as wetland when there are positive indicators for all three Parameters. A listing of plant species bas been developed for use in the methodology for delineating wetland areas. This listing aSsigns plant species to one of five indicator status ca:tegoriesianging from Obligate wetland sPecies, which almost always occur in' wetlands, to, Upland species, which rarely occur in wetlands. Under normal conditions, hydrophytic vegetation is determined to be present if more than 50 percent of the dominant species are in the Obligate (OBL), F~uIiative Wetland (F ACW), or Facultative (F AC) indicator categories. Diagnostic indicators of hydric sOils arere1ated to soil saturation, which leads to anaerobic conditions in the soil. Under. these conditioI1$, decomposition of organic material is inhibited and. soil minerals are reduced, creatiitg chqracteristicsoil colors that can be quantified by comparison with Munsell Soil Color Charts. A chroma of one or . less in unmottled soils or a chroma of two or less in mottled soils generally indicates a hydric soil. In addition, soils that are saturated during the growing season satisfy a criterion fothydric soils. We used a hand auger to excavate shallow test pits to observe soil conditions to depths of 24 to 28 inches. , Wetland. hydrology is defined as mun&ted or saturated soil conditions for at least 14 consecutive days during the growing season> Ifno water ispresent atthe time of evaluation, other indIcators may inclu~e topographic low points or channels, flood debris,. complete absence of vegetation, or presence of hydric soils. . . ., Staridardized data fonns are available to record observations on each wetland parameter. For this project, we completed dataforms f(,)rthe Routine On-Site Determination Method at two representative locations on the site. Copies of these data forms are nic1uded with this repoit. The format of the data forms is based on the forms for .the . Routine Wetland Determination from the Washington'State Wetland Delineation Manual and the 1987 Corps W~and Delineation Manual. Additipnal observations of soils, vegetation and hydrology, beyond thoserepoited on the data forms were used in completing the site evaluation.' SITE CONDITIONS The subject property is a rectangular shaped property of approximately 2.3 acres. It is located at 12905 -136th. Avenue SE in the City of Renton. There is an existing single family residence on the property along with several outbuildings. Project No. 21803 Page No. 2 Mr. Robert Wenzl . March 13, 2003 '--. The adjacent property to the south is occupied by a conStruction company and, is in use as equipment and material storage yard. Adjacent properties to th~ north and east are~upied by single-fumily residences. The pr~perty off the northwest corner is operated as a U.S. Postal Sernce'facility and the pJ;'operty off the southwest property corner '. is undeveloped. . . Soils on the property and over much of .thesurrounding area are mapped as AlderwOOd gravelly sandy loam on the (Soil Survey of King County, Washington, U.S. Soil Conservation Service, 1973). Alderwood soil types are . included on the National Technical Committee on Hydric Soils listing of hydric. soils. Our observations of soil ' conditionS across undisturbed sections of the property are generally consistent with the descIiptions of the Alderwood soil types. There has been grading and filling on the southern portion of the property and on the area surrounding the . . existing residence. Based on the gro~ of trees on the property it appea;s that the fill on the property was placed more than 15 ;ea:rs ago: . '. . ' . . Topographically, the property is genercilly slopes down from the south and north to a broad swale crossing the middle Section of the site. Vegetation on the site reflects the' use of the property. The . southern IUuf of the property is grown up in a stand of black cottonwood (Populus balsamifora)' trees with an understory of Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), hardhack spirea (Spiraea douglasii); with scattered Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), and western red cedar (ThUj'a pUcata) trees present. The central low section of the property is occupied by dense Himalayan Blackberry: A system of graded driveways presently vegetated in short grasses loop around the property. There are scattered , standing Douglas fir, big leafmaple (Acermacrophyllum) on the site. The attaChed Data Fonns identifY conditions on the southern section of the 'site. These Jocations were selected as low areas 011 the site where vegetation ~ indicative of som~what wetter conditions. As 'noted on the data forms soil conditions were not indicative oflong term saturation and there was no water table within the upper 18". Conditions noted on the data forms are representative of other areas across the southemand loWer sections of the property. r_ • • _ Based on our site observations and the application of the wetland determination ~efu~ology, it is our interpretation ... that there are no wetland areas or streams oil the site or in the immediate vicinity. We trust the infonruition presented is sufficient for your current needs. If you have any questions or require additio~ infonnation, Illease call. Sincerely yours, . ALDER NW };c-J\Q~o , Garet P. Munger . ", ,~ Project Scientist EncI.: Vicinity Map· Data Forms (3) Project No. 21803 Page No. 3 .~'.-'., .0·, ·D1\.TAFORM ROUTINE ON-SITE WETLAND DETERMINATION Describe General Site' Property has been graded in the past and is . Data Point No;: DP-l Conditions: grown up in blackberry. and young alder and . cottonwood. '. . Site DiSturbance? Location:'.' "Southern section· of ~'. property in low'area VEGETATION 0 S 0 S .... tf.l 1iS2 Dominant Plant Species ~.a .2 Dominant Plant Species .2 ·'·~S u . . "'0 § ':.s s § c:"-l tIJ c:"-l t;f.). --1 Spiraea douglasii . FacW S 8 2 Phalaris arundinacea FacW H 9' 3 Graminae H iO' 4 Populus balsamifera '. Fac 1 11 ... 5 12 6 13 7.. 14 PerCent of dominant species that are OBL, F ACW,and/or F AC: 100 Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes Rationale: More than 50% species hydrophytic SOIL Soil Type:, . Alderwood (oldji/l?) Hydric Soils List: No Histic Epipedon? no Mottles? No Gleyed? No Matrix Color: 10YR414 Mottle Colors: -Depth: 1]" Other hydric soil indicators: No '. Is the hydric soil criterion met? No RationaIe: Chroma greater than 2 HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated? . no Surface water depth: - . Is the soil saturated? No Depth to free-standing water in probe hole: No Other field evidence hydrology: No Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? no Rationale: Non hydric soils WETLAND DETERMINATION ., Are wetland criteria met? no Rationale for wetland decision: Non hydriC soils; no evidence of long term soil saturation on disturbed site Project Name: Wenzl Renton Property AIderNW Field Investigator(s): G.Munger 518 North 59th Street Project No.: 021703 Date: 2119103 Seattle, Washington 98103 DATA FORM I ROUTINE ON~SIT:E WETLAND DETERMINATION , -- Describe General Site . , Property has beengrade4 in the past and is Data Point No.: DP-2 Conditions: grown up in blackberry and young alder and cottonwood. Site~ Disturbance? . 'Location: ,..-, VEGETATION (5 . E 0 S ..... v.l ..... v.l Dominant Plant Sp~~ies, ~E E Dominant Plant Species roB E ...... ro ~ .8. ro ,CIS' "'0 ..... "'0(;5 .!: s::: ,tZl rn S:::' ' rn --. 1 Populus balsamifera Fac T 8' , 2 . Phalaris balsamifera FacW H 9 3 io 4 11 ". 5 12 6. , 13 7 ... 14 PerCent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or F AC: 100 Is the hydropbytic vegetation criterion met? yes Rationale: " Greater than 500/6 species hydrophytic " .- SOIL Soil Type: Alderwood (oldjill?)' Hydric Soils List: no HisticEpipedon? no Mottles? No . Gleyed? No Matrix Color: 10YR413 Mottle Colors: -Depth: Other hydric soil indicators: No soil is disturbed with some fill placed. Is the' hydric soil criterion met? No Rationale: Chroma greater than 2 .. : HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated? no Surface water depth: - Is the soil saturated., No Depth to free-:standing Water in probe hole: Notinupper 18" Other field evidence hydrology: No , ... Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? no Rationale: No water in upper 12 ", no evidence of saturation WETLAND DETERMINATION Are wetland criteria met? No Rationale for wetland decision: Non hydric soils; no evidence of long term soil saturation on disturbed site Project Name: Wenzl Renton Property AlderNW Field Investigator(s): G.Munger 518 North 59th Street Project No\: ,021703 Date: 2119103 Seattle,Washington 98103 ' .. \ .. , " DATA FORM ROUTINE ON~SITE WETLAND DETERMINATION Describe General Site . Prosperity luis been graded .in the past and 'is . , Data PointNo.: DP-3 Conditions: grown. up in blackberry and young alder and . cottonwood . .. Site. Disturbance? . Location: Low point of 'swale. """-'. ' along eastside ojprop. ~ . VEGETATION 0 . ':: .-..... m '8 -Sm 8 . DominantPlaJ?t Species . roB B Dominant Plant Species ro'.a B '.8$3 U.s Ii ;0.' ii· ]~ en c:~ tf.) -'-. 1 Rubus discolor Upl S 8 2 9 .. .3 10 4 11 5 12 6 13 . 7 .' 14 Percent of dominant speciestbat are OBL,' F ACW, and/or F AC: ,. Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Rationale: ) SOIL Soil TyPe: Alderwood (old jill) Hydric Soils List: no Histic Epipedon? no Mottles? No . Gleyed? No Matrix Color: lOYR413 . Mottle Colors: -Depth: Other hydric ,soil indicators: No Isthe hydric soil criterion met? No Rationale: Chroma greater than 2 .. HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated? . no ' Surface water depth,: - IS,the soil saturated? ' No Depth to free,.standing water in probe hole: NoUn upper 18" Other field evidence hydrology: no Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? . no . Rationale: No water table preseniin upper 12" WETLAND DETERMINATION Are wetland criteria met? no Rationale for wetland decision: Non hydric soils; no evidence of long term soil saturation on disturbed site Project Name: Wenzl Renton Property AlderNW Field Investigator(s): G.Munger 518 North 59th Street Project No.: 021703 Date: 2119103 Seattle, Washington 98103 " r-----------------~----------~,---------------------------------- ALDERNW VICINITY MAP Wenzl-Renton Property Renton. Washington Project No.011703 Dote Feb. 2003 Figure r'-,., l'f!).-J ."" ;---1 __ [ i .. ! 1 AlderNW DEVELOPMENTP October 15, 2004 CITY OF RENT~~NIfVJ:q-oject No. 21803 OCT 1 8 200~ RECEIVED Mr. Cliff Williams Belmont Homes P. O. Box 2401 Kirkland, Washington 98083-2401 Subject: Site Observations Ridgeview Court 12905 l36th Avenue SE Renton, Washington Tax Parcel No. 5182100042 Dear Mr. Williams: As requested we have reviewed conditions on and in the immediate vicinity of the property identified as Tax Parcel No. 5182100042 in the City of Renton. The purpose of this work was to determine if there are critical habitat areas as defined by City of Renton Code 4-3-05-0B5b present in the vicinity of the subject property. We had previously visited the site in February 19, 2003 to make a determination if there are wetlands on or immediately adjacent to the subject property. At that time we concluded in our letter dated March l3, 2003, that there are no wetlands present or in the immediate vicinity of the property. As defined in the City of Renton Code, habitat conservation regulations apply to development activities on sites containing or abutting critical habitat where Critical Habitat is defined as: 4-3-0S0BSb Critical Habitat: Critical habitats are those habitat areas which meet any of the following criteria: i. The documented presence of species proposed or listed by the federal government or State of Washington as endangered, threatened, sensitive, monitor, or priority; and/or ii. The presence of heron rookeries or raptor nesting areas; and/or iii. Category 1 wetlands (refer to subsection B7b(i) of this Section for classification criteria); and/or 518 North 59th Street, Seattle, Washington 98103· Phone (206)783-1036 email aldernw@comcast.net II '4 M'T. ClifrWilliams October 15, 2004 iv. Portions of streams and their shorelines designated in the Renton Shoreline Master Program, RMC 4-3-090, as Conservancy or Natural (refer to the Renton Shoreline Master Program). The property is situated within an area of increasing urban development. The adjacent property to the south is in use as an equipment and materials storage yard for a construction company and the property to the northwest is operated as a U.S. Postal Service facility. There has been some grading and filling and a system of graded driveways loop around the property with abandoned vehicles and equipment stored on the graded driveways. There is no . evidence that there are any species present which are included on state or federal listings of endangered, threatened, sensitive, monitor, or priority listings. The disturbed and urban habitats on and in the . vicinity of the property are not likely to support any listed species. There are no raptor nest trees or heron rookeries identified within the near vicinity of the property. There are no wetlands or streams in the near vicinity of the property. It is our conclusion that there are no critical habitat areas as defmed by Renton City Code on or in the near vicinity of the subject property. We trust the information presented is sufficient for your current needs. If you have any questions or require additional information, please call. Sincerely yours, Al.DFRNW n.c.J.Q~e ~ret P:Munger-r . Project Scientist Project No. 21803 Page No.2 \ f \ /' I ' 9 ,'Y 426861 1/01322300012 DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS OF KiD(jc-Jl'i~W ~Nr RENTON,WASHINGTON 20030305001688.002 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON OCT 1 82004 RECEIVED TABLE OF CONTENTS DESCRIPTION OF TIIE LAND .... ARTICLE 1 ~TERPRETATION ... , 1 1 . Liberal Construction 1 2 Covenant Running with Land. I 3 Declarant is Ongmal Owner. .. 1 4 CaptIons. ... 1 5 DefimtIons 1 5 15 "Plat Map" ... 1 6 Percentage of Mortgagees ' ...... .. 1 7 Percentage of Owners.. ........ . ARTICLE 2 OWNERSHIP OF COMMON AREA. 2 1 Ownership of Common Area ...... ARTICLE 3 OWNER'S PROPERTY RIGmS 3 1 Owner's Rights of EnJoyment 32 Delegation of Use ......... ARTICLE 4 OWNERS' ASSOCIATION. 4.1 Establishment... ..... . 4 2 Form of ASSOCiatIOn 4.3 Membership....... ... .. 4 3 2 Transfer of MembershIp 4.4 Voting..... . ..................... .. 44.1 Classes ofVotmg Membership .. 442 Number of Votes 4 5 Bylaws of Association ARTICLE 5 MANAGEMENT OF THE ASSOCIATION 5 1 AdmInIstratIOn of the Development. .. 5 2 Management by Declarant ... 5 3 Management by Elected Board of DIrectors 54 Authonty and Duties of the Board. .. ..... 5 4 1 Assessments 542 Services ..... ;.......... .. ................... . 5 4 3 UtilIties 5 4 4 Insurance... 5 4 5 Maintenance and RepaIr of Common Areas .... 5.4.6 Maintenance of Rights of Way, etc .... 5 4 7 Fences, Landscapmg, etc .. 5 4 8 Enforce Declaration 5.4.9 Contractmg and Payment for MaterIals, ServIces, etc. 426861 11013223 00012 1 20030305001688.003 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 .. ... 3 3 3 . ..... 3 4 ......... .......... 4 .5 5 ....... 5 5 .. .... 5 .... 5 .. 5 5 .... 6 6 .6 6 ..6 6 .. ... 6 6 . ... 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 . .... 7 " 5.4.10 Attomey~in~Fact......... . ............. ' .. 5411 Borrowing of Funds ...... 5.4.12 Adoption of Rules and Regulations, Fmes 5 4 13 Additional Powers of Association ARTICLE 6 ARCIllTECTURAL CONTROL .. 6 1 Construction and Exterior AlteratIon or RepaIr 6.2 Sales FacliltJes of Declarant ............... .. 20030305001688.004 8 8 ........ 8 8 6 3 Vanances.................... . ............................... .. ........................ .. 8 8 ..10 10 .. .11 64 Appeals. ARTICLE 7 USE AND MAINTENANCE OBLIGATION OF OWNERS .. .. .................. 11 7.1 MaIntenance of Lots .... . . .. .. .............. . 72 Residential Use 7 3 Restriction on Further SubdIVision 7 4 Rental Lots . ................ .. .................. . 11 11 .11 .............. . . ................. 11 7.5 Zorung Regulations. .. ...... .. .. .. ................... . .. . .................... 12 7 6 Busmess Use .... ...... . .......... .. 7 7 Bwldmg Setback Requlfements . . .... .. .. 7 8 Oil and Mimng Operations .. ............... .. 7.9 Catch Basin. .... . ..... ....... ...................... . 710 Lot Size 711 Garages 7.12 Square Footage ............................. . 7 13 MobIle or Manufactured Housmg .. . ............. . 7 14 Dnveway Standards. .. ..... 12 12 . .......... 12 .. ...... 12 12 12 .. .. 12 . ........... 12 13 7 15 Parking .......... '................. . . . ... ............ . ...... ... . .......... 13 7.16 Roof.......... ... . .......... ..... .. .... ; .... . ......... ... 13 7.17 Exterior FInish. .......... ......... ... ..... .. ............... .. ..... ...... .. . ........ :.13 7 18 Utilities ... ........ .......... .. ......... . 7.19 Antenna ...... ............ .. ... . . ............... ................ . 720 FenCing. .............................. .. . . . ....................................... . 721 Fireplace Chimneys. .. ..... ........ . ...... .... .. ...... .. . 7 22 Garbage and Refuse 7.23 Games and Play Structures ................ .. 724 Construction ofSlgmficant RecreatIOn Facilitles. 7 25 Livestock and Poultry 7 26 Landscaping. . ..... ...... .. . ................ . 727 Signs 728 Temporary Structures ......... .. 7 29 CompletIon of Construction 7.30 Easements ....... ; .... 7 31 Use Dunng Construction 732 Excavations .......... .. 7 33 NUisances .......... . 7.34 Clothes Lines, Other Structures. .. ........... .. 7 35 Common Drives 426861 1101122100012 ii ... 13 13 . ........... 14 .14 14 14 .. .......... 14 14 .. .14 IS IS 15 . ...... 15 15 .. . 15 15 . 16 16 " 736 Bullding Height ....... .. .. 7 37 Storm Runoff .. 7.38 STORM DETENTION OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE 20030305001688.005 16 16 ................ 16 ARTICLE 8 COMMON EXPENSES AND ASSESSMENTS .. , ....... 16 81 Creation of the LIen and Personal Obligation of Assessments... .. ................. 16 82 Uniform Rate .. ." . .............. ... ..... .. . ....... ... .. . .. 17 8.3 Imtlal Assessment Amount...... ... ............ ... .......... . .. ............ 17 8 4 LimItatIon on Annual Assessment Amount .. 17 84 1 Board Authonty. . .............. .. .......... . .. .. " .. "... .. ............ 17 8 4 2 Annual Increase In Dollar LimIt. .. , . ..... .. . 17 8.4.3 Owner Approval Required... ., ............. .. .......... ... .."....... .... 17 8 5 Manner and Time of Payment 17 8.6 Accounts. ....................... ................. . ............ . .. ............... . ...... 18 .8 7 LIen.......... .. ... . ....... , ....... "... .. . .............. 18 88 Waiver of Homestead.. ... . .. 18 8.9 Contmumg Liability for Assessments ........... . 18 8.10 Records, FinanCIal Statements.. .. ............. , ............. ......... .. 18 8 11 Certificate of Assessment .............. ....... . ...... . ............. . .. " ..... 18 8 12 Foreclosure of Assessment Lien, Attorneys' Fees and Costs, 19 813 Curmg of Default. . . ...... ... . . ......... . ............ ... . .19 8 14 Onusslon of Assessment. ................. .. . ................. . ............ ... .. ........ 19 8 15 Assessment DepOSit . ... ... 19 8 16 Exempt Property .. 20 8 17 Effect of Legal Proceedmgs. ... .. ..................... .. ............... .. 20 ARTICLE 9 COMPLIANCE WITH DECLARATION ....... 9 1 Enforcement 9 1 1 Compliance of Owner. ....... . 9.1.2 Comphance of Lessee ................. . 91 3 Attorneys' Fees 9.2 No Waiver of Strict Performance 93 Right of Entry ... 9 4 RemedIes CumulatIve ARTICLE 10 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY ..... 10 1 No Personal Liability .. ..... . 10.2 Indemruficatlon of Board Members .. ARTICLE 11 MORTGAGEE PROTECTION. .. ... 11 1 Priority of Mortgagee .. 112 Effect of Declaration Amendments .......... . 11 3 Right of Lien Holder .............. . ....... . 20 20 20 . ...... 20 20 ... 21 21 21 .21 21 .21 ..22 . .. 22 .... 22 11 4 Change In Manner of Architectural ReVIew and Mamtenance WIthIn Project .. .. 22 22 23 23 11 5 Copies of Notices 11 6 Furnlshmg of Documents ................. . 426861 1101322300012 ill ARTICLE 12 EASE1\ffiNTS.. . .. ............ ............ ......... ........... . ........ . 12 1 AssoClatlOn FunctIons 12 2 Easements Over Common Areas .. 12.3 Access to Public Streets ............ .. 12.4 UnlIty Easements... . .......... . ARTICLE 13 TERM OF DECLARATION ....... .. ......... . 13 1 Duration of Covenants .......... . 13.2 Abandonment of Subdivision Status ........ ARTICLE 14 AMENDMENT OF DECLARATION, PLAT MAP ...... 14 1 Declaration Amendment. ...... . 14.2 Plat Map.... ........... . 143 Amendments to Conform to ConstructIon ..... 14 4 Amendments to Conform to Lending Institution Guidelmes. . . 14 5 Article 16 Amendments ......... ARTICLE 15 INSURANCE IS.l Insurance .... 20030305001688.006 23 23 .. ...... 23 23 ............ 23 23 .. .... 23 .. .... 24 .. ........... 24 . ... 24 24 .. ...... 25 25 . ..... 25 .25 25 ARTICLE 16 ANNEXATION AND WITHDRAWAL OF ADDITIONAL PROPERTIES 26 16 1 Annexation and WIthdrawal by Declarant ....... . ...... 26 16.2 Non-Declarant Annexations ......... ......... ................... .. ........ . ......... 26 16.3 Common Areas Wlthm Additional Lands... .. ....... .. . .......... .......... ...26 ARTICLE 17 MISCELLANEOUS...... .. ...... 17 1 Nonces ............ . 17 2 Conveyances, Notice ReqUired .... 17 3 Successor and Assigns ........ :. . ............ ......... ......... ......... .. ...... . 17.4 Joint and Several LiabilIty.. ...... ... ....... .. .... ....... . 17 5 Mortgagee's Acceptance ........ " ............ , .... . 175.1 Pnority of Mortgage .... .. 17 5 2 Acceptance Upon FIrst Conveyance ....... . 17 6 SeverabilIty........... ....... .. 17 7 Effective Date ............ . 17 8 Government RIght of Access~ 426861 1101322300012 IV 26 26 27 .. .. 27 . ... 27 27 . 27 27 .. .. 27 28 ... 28 DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDmONS AND RESTRICflONS OF RIPtje. VlGt() eOtJ~r RENTON, WASHINGTON 20030305001688.007 TInS D~~~~rlS (a~ 'e,--' ) .... : -';';';---.;.0.---------------------:--';~by the undersigned .R'7 eYiew DESCRIPTION OF THE LAND A. . __ owns certain real property located withm the State of Washington, which property and improvements are commonly known as the plat of Ri{;rj6. Y)EJc) (J,ou If'r located m the City of Renton, Kmg County, WashIngton, and legally descnbed m attached Exhibit A (the "Projectl!) All Common Areas of the Project are shown on the Plat Maps recorded m conjunction With this Declaratton. B. For the benefit and protectton of the ProJect. to enhance its value and attracttveness, and as lin inducement to lenders and mvestors to make and purchase loans secured by Lots withtn the ProJect, RV'c... agrees to provide herem for a method of use and architectural control Within the Project NOW, THEREFORE, ~VC hereby declares that the Lots descnbed herein shall be held, conveyed, encumbered, leased, rented, used, OCCUPied and improved subject to the following uniform covenants, conditions, restrictiOns, reservattons, grants of easement, rights, Tlghts-of-way, liens, charges and equitable servitudes. Any conveyance, transfer, sale, assignment, lease or sublease of a Lot In the Project, shall and hereby IS deemed to incorporate by reference all provisiOns of this Declaration TheproVlslons of this Declaration shall be enforceable by Declarant, any Lot Owner, the Associatton. and any first mortgagee of any Lot. ARTICLEl INTERPRETATION 1.1 Liberal Construction. The prOVISions oftrus DeclaratIon shall be hberally construed to effectuate its purpose of creatmg a uniform plan for the operation and maintenance of the Project I 2 Covenant Running with Land. It is intended that thIS Declaration shall be operatIve as a set of covenants running WIth the land, or eqUitable servitudes. binding on Rv c, ,their respective successors and asSignS, all subsequent Owners of the Project or any Lots, together With therr grantees, successors, heirs, executors, administrators. deVIsees or asSignS 42686111013223 00012 1 20030305001688.00: I 3 Declarant is Oril!inal Owner. R.¥ c.... is the onginal Owner of all Lots and Project and wdl continue to be deemed the Owner thereof except as conveyances or documents changIng such OwnershIp regardIng specifically described Lots or portions of the Project are filed of record 1 4 Captions. CaptIons given to the vanous articles and sections herem are for convenience only and are not intended to modify or affect the meanmg of any of the substantIve proVisions hereof. 1. 5 Definitions. 1 5.1 "ACC" shall mean the ArchltecturaJ Control Committee proVided for In Article 6 1 52 "Association" shall mean the Owners' Association provided for In Article 4 and Its successors and assigns. 1.5 3 "Board" shall mean the Board of Directors of the Association provIded for in ArtIcle 5 1 54 "Bylaws" shall mean the duly adopted bylaws of the ASSOCiation. 1 5 5 "Common Area" shall mean all real property (includmg the improvements thereto) owned by the Association for the common use and enjoyment of the Owners and shaJI mclude (unless/untIl dedicated to a governmental entity) all Common Areas descnbed. on the Plat Map; Project entry sJgn(s) and landscap1Og, planter Islands and planted medIans on roads or cul~de~ sacs, and mlUlbox stands servmg more than one Lot 1.5.6 "Declarant" shall mean . I( Y' C _. (being the Owner of the real property described 10 Exlnbtt A hereof) and Its successors and assigns If such successors or asSIgns should acquire more than one undeveloped Lot from the Declarant for the pwpose of development and by written instrument In recordable form be specifically assigned the rights and duties of Declarant 1 5 7 "Declaration" shall mean this declaration and any amendments thereto 1 5 8 "Home" shall mean and refer to any structure, or portion of a structIlre, located on a Lot. which structure IS designed and JDtended for use and occupancy as a residence by a single fanuly or which is intended for use in connection with such residence. 1 5 9 "I&t" shall meari and refer to any plot of land shown upon any recorded Plat Map of the Project excludIng Common Areas. Lot shall not mclude any land now or hereafter owned by the Assocumon or by all of the Lot Owners as tenants in common, nor include any land shown on a Plat Map but dedicated to the pubhc or to a governmental entity. 426861 I10I3223 00012 2 20030305001688.009 1 5 10 "Mortgage" shall mean a recorded mortgage or deed of trust that creates a lien agaInSt a Lot and shall also mean a real estate contract for the sale of a Lot 1 5 11 "Mortgagee" shall mean the beneficial Owner, or the designee of the beneficial Owner, of an encumbrance on a Lot created by mortgage or deed of trust and shall also mean the vendor, or the designee of a vendor, of a real-estate contract for the sale of a Lot . 1 5 12 "Owner" shall mean and refer to the record Owner, whether one or more persons or entities, of a fee simple tItle to any Lot which IS a part of the Project, and, except as may be otherwise expressly provided herein, shall, in the case of a Lot which has been sold pursuant to a real estate contract, mclude any person of record holdmg a vendee's mierest under such real estate contract, to the exclusion of the vendor thereunder. Any person or entity having such an mterest merely as secunty for the performance of an obligation shall not be considered an Owner. 1.5.13 "Person" shall mclude natural persons, partnerships, lImited liabilIty comparues, corporations, associations and personal representatives 1.5.14 ''Projectl! shall mean the real estate described In ExhIbit A and all Improvements and structures thereon, mcludlng such additions thereto as may hereafter be brought within the Jurisdiction of the Association. 1 5 15 ''Plat Map" shall mean any Plat Map(s) approved by the appropriate governmental entity and recorded In conjunction with or subsequent to this Declaration, which Plat Maps depict the layout of the Lots on the Project Coq~r 1 5.16 ''Plat'' shall mean and refer to the plat of Rt oq&Y1£ItJ.us recorded in' Volume 212 of Plats, Pages 77 through 81, Records of king County, State of Washington, under Recording No. 20030305000057. 1.6 Percentage of Mortgagees. For purposes of determlnmg the percentage of first mortgagees approVIng a proposed deCISion or course of action, a mortgagee shall be deemed a separate mortgagee for each Lot on whIch it holds a mortgage that constItutes a first hen on SaId Lot 1.7 Percentage of Owners. For purposes of detenrumng the percentage of Owners approVIng a proposed decision or course of action. an Owner shall be deemed a separate Owner for each Lot owned ARTICLE 2 OWNERSHIP OF COMMON AREA 2.1 Ownership of Common Area. All Common Areas shall be owned by the Association. The Common Area shall exclude those portions of common areas (and improvements thereto) whlch have been or may hereafter be, dedicated to and owned by the publIc or a governmental entIty The Common Area shall for all purposes be under the control, management and admlmstration of the Declarant until all Class B membership (as defined in ArtIcle 4) termInates, and under the control, management and admInIstratIon of the AsSOCIation thereafter The ASSOCIatIon 426861 1/01322.100012 3 40030305001688.010 (and the Owners who are members thereof) have the responslblhty and obhgabon to mamtsm, repmr and adrmmster the Common Area In a clean, attractIve, sanitary and safe conditIon and In fun complIance WJth applIcable: governmental laws, rules and regulatiOns and the proVlSlOns oftlus Declaranon ARTICLE 3 OWNER'S PROPERTY RIGHTS 3.1 Owner's Rights of Enjoyment. Every Owner shall have a non-exclusIve nght, In common WIth all Owners, of enjoyment In and to the Common Area that shall be appurtenant to and shall pass WIth the title to every Lot, subject to the follOWIng proVlSlons 3 lIThe nght of the Assocurtlon to hmlt access to those portIons of the Common Areas, which In the oplmon of the Board are dangerous 3 1 2 The nght of the Assocurtlon to charge reasonable ad11llSS10n and other fees for the use of any recreational faclhty Situated upon any Common Area 3 1 3 The nght oftbe Assoclation to suspend the voting nghts and right to use of the Common Areas by an Owner for any penod dunng which any assessment agamst such Owner's Lot remams unpatd; and for a penod not to exceed Sixty (60) days for any InfractIon of Its publIshed rules and regulatiOns Until all Class B membership termmates, the AssOCiation shall be reqUIred to exercise Its nght to suspend the voting nghts ot: and the nght to the use of the recreatIonal faCIhtIes by, a member for non-payment of an assessment, upon the request of the Declarant. 3 1 4 The rIghts of the AssociatIon to dedicate or transfer all or any part of the Common Area, Including easements across sald properties, to any public agency, authonty, or ubhty for such purposes and subject to such conditions as may be agreed to by the members of the ASSOCiation 3 15 The right of the Associatton to hmlt the number of guests of members 3 1 6 The nght of the AsSOCiation, In accordance WIth thts Declaration and Its Arttcles of Incorporation and Bylaws, to borrow money for the purpose of ImprOVIng the Common Area and faCIlIties and In IUd thereof to mortgage slUd property. but the nghts of such mortgagee m s31d property shall be subordinate to the nghts of the Owners hereunder and subject to the proVlslons of Section 11 5 3 1.7 The fight oftha AsSOCIation to take such steps as are reasonably necessary to protect any property mortgaged In accordance WIth SectJon 3 1.5 agamst foreclosure, tncludmg, but not lImIted to. the nght to charge adrmsslOn and other fees as a condttIon to contInued enjoyment by the Owners and, Ifnecessary. to open the enjoyment of such propertIes to the public ~ 1 8 Unnl aU Class B membershIp termmates, the exercise of all of the nghts and powers set forth In subsectIons 3 1 2, 3 1 3, 3 1 4. 3 1 5 and 3 1 6 shall reqUIre the pnor wntten approval of Declarant 426861 1/013223 00012 4 ·20030305001688.011 3 2 Delegation of Use. Any Owner may delegate (m accordance With the Bylaws), hislher nght of enjoyment to the Common Area and facilItIes to the members ofhis/her famtly, or hislher tenants or contract purchasers who reside on the Owner's Lot and (subject to regulation by the AsSOCIatIon) to lnslher temporary guests. ARTICLE 4 OWNERS' ASSOCIATION 4.1 Establishment. There IS hereby created an association to be called Ri Dt1£ J/lJe/IJ COU~r HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION (referred to hereinafter as the" Association") 4 2 Form of Association. The ASSOCIatIon shall be a nonprofit corporation formed and operated pursuant to TItle 24 and Chapter 64.38, ReVISed Code of Wash mgt on. In the event of any conflict between thts Declaration and the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws for such nonprofit corporation, the proVlSlons ofttus Declaration shall prevaIl 4 3 Membership. 4 3.1 Oualification. Each Owner of a Lot in the Project (including Declarant) shall be a member of the Association and shall be entitled to one membership for each Lot so owned Ownership of a Lot shall be the sole quahficanon for memberslnp m the AsSOCIatIOn 43.2 Transfer of Membership. The Association memberslnp of each Owner (Includmg Declarant) shall be appurtenant to the Lot gIVIng rise to such membership, and shall not be assigned, conveyed, pledged or alienated in any way except upon the transfer of title to said Lot and then only to the transferee of title to such Lot. Any attempt to make a prohibited transfer of memberslnp shall be VOId. Any transfer of title to a Lot shall operate automatically to transfer the membershIp In the Association appurtenant thereto to the new Owner thereof 44 Voting. 441 Classes of Voting Membership. The AsSOCIatIon shall have two classes of votmg membership: (a) Class A members shall be all Owners except the Declarant Class A members shall be entitled to one vote for each Lot owned; (b) The Class B members shall be the Declarant, whIch shall be entrtled to ten (10) votes for each Lot 6wned. The Class B membership shall cease and be converted to Class A membership on the happening of the first of the following events: (a) when the total votes outstanding in the Class A membership equal the total votes outstandmg tn the Class B membershIp, or (b) the date when Declarant's management powers tenrunate, as provided in Section 5.2 In determirung whether any given proposItion shall have been approved by the membership, the total number of Class A and Class B votes shall be combIned and the appropriate percentage apphed agamst that combined number. If Declarant elects to annex AddItional Lands pursuant to Section 16.1, the total number of votes shall be mcreased by the apphcable number for the Lots m such annexed AddItional Lands 426861 11013223 00012 5 20030305001688.012 442 Number of Votes. Except as prOVIded m Section 441 above. the total voting power of all Owners shall equal the number of Lots at any gIven tune and the total number of Votes avaIlable to Owners of anyone Lot shall be one (1) vote 4 5 Bylaws of Association. Bylaws for the admmlstratIon of the ASSOCIation and the Project and to further the mtent ofthlS DeclaratIon, may be adopted or amended by the Owners at a regular or Special meetmg. prOVided, that the Imttal Bylaws shall be adopted by Declarant In the event of any conflict between tlus Declaration and any Bylaws. the provisIons of thIS Declaration shall preVail ARTICLES MANAGEMENT OF THE ASSOCIATION 5 1 Administration of the Development. The Owners covenant and agree that the adnumstratton of the Project shall be In accordance Wlth the prOVISions of thIS Declaration and the Bylaws of the AssOCIation 52 Management by Declarant The PrOject shall be managed on behalf of the AsSOCiatIon by the Declarant untd the earher of. (a) one hundred twenty (120) days after all Class B membershIp terrmnates. or (b) the date on whIch Declarant elects to permanently relinquish all of Its authonty under thiS Section 5 2 by wntten notIce to all Owners So long as Declarant IS managing the ProJect. Declarant or a managing agent selected by Declarant shall have the exclUSive power and authonty to exerCIse all the nghts, dunes and functtons of the Board and the ASSOCIatiOn set forth or necessarily Imphed In thIS Declaration, proVIded. however. that the AssoclatIon may not be bound dIrectly or indIrectly to any contracts or leases Without the nght oftermmatIon exercIsable WithoUt cause and Without penalty at any tune after transfer of control to the Board elected pursuant to SectIon 5 3, upon not more than mnety (90) days' notIce to the other party to the contract 53 Managem@Dlby Elected Board ofDiredors. At the exprratlon of Declarant's management authonty under Section 5 2. power and authonty shall vest In the Board of DIrectors elected from among the Lot Owners The number of directors shall be speCIfied in the Bylaws and shall be suffiCient to adequately handle the affairs of the Assoclanon The Board may delegate all or any portion of Its management duties to a managmg agent or officer oftha Association as prOVided for 10 the Bylaws All Board offices shall be open for electIOn at an organIZational meettng The Board shall elect from among Its members a presIdent who shall preside over meetIngs of the Board and the meetmgs of the Assocultlon 5 4 Authority and DUties of the Board. On behalf of and actIng for the AsSOCIatiOn, the Board (or the Declarant or Declarant's managIng agent as prOVIded m Section 5 2 hereot), for the benefit of the Project and the Owners. shall have all powers and authonty permitted to the Board under tlus Declaration and any appltcable law. including but not Illruted to the follOWing 54 1 Assessments. EstablIsh and collect regular assessments (and to the extent necessary and penrutted hereunder. specIal assessments) to defray expenses attributable to carrymg out Its dutIes hereunder and maIntaIn an adequate reserve fund for the mamtenance. replUI', Improvement and replacement of those porttons of the Common Area or facIlitIes WhICh must be 426861 1/013123 00012 6 20030305001688.013 maintaJ.ned, rep81red or replaced on a pen odic basis, whIch reserve shall be funded by the above assessments. The AssocIatIon may impose and collect charges for late payments of assessments 542 Services. Obtam the sernces of persons or finns as reqwred to properly manage the aff8.1rs of the Project to the extent deemed adVIsable by the Board includmg legal and accountIng serVlces, property management services as well as such other personnel as the Board shall determme are necessary or proper for the operatIon of the Common Area. whether such personnel are employed dtrectly by the Board or are furnished by the manager or management firm or agent 5 4 3 Utilities~ Obtam water, sewer, garbage collectIon, electncal, telephone, gas and any other necessary utIhty serVlce. mcludmg utIhty easements and street hghtmg, as reqUlred for the Common Area. 5 4 4 Insurance. Obtain and pay for pohCles of msurance or bonds proVIdmg Common Area casualty and hablhty coverage, and for fidehty of AssoclatlOn officers and other employees. the reqUlrements of which are more fully set forth In ArtIcle 15 5 4 5 Maintenance and Repair of Common Areas. Pay for the costs of palOtmg, mamtenance, repair and alilandscapmg and gardemng work for all Common Area, and Improvements located thereon, so as to keep the Project In a good, clean, attractIve, sanItary and safe condttlon and m full compbance with applicable governmental Jaws, rules and regulations and the prOVISIOns of thIS Declaratton The foregomg shall Include the cost of mamtamlOg. repamng and replacmg m8.1lbox stands that serve more than one (l) Lot, and such replacmg and repainng of furmshmgs and eqwpment, If any. for the <;:ommon Area as the Board shall determme are necessary and proper 546 Maintenagce of Rights of Way. ek-Pay for the costs ofmatntammg and landscapmg nghts of way, traffic Islands and medians, or other smular areas whIch are not part of the Lots or Common Area but whIch are Wlthin or adjacent to the Project boundaries, and whIch are owned by or dedicated to a governmental entIty, If said governmental entity fads to do so; prOVIded, the Lot Owner at the Owner's expense (rather than the AssoClatlon) shall mamtam and landscape such areas as are adjacent to such Owner's Lot 5.4 7 Fences. Landscaping. etc. To the extent deemed adVIsable by the Board, pay for the cost of constructIng, mamtammg. repamng and replaClng penmeter and mtenor fences, If any, and Jandscapmg and improvements on easements. If any. whIch are located on or across Lots, prOVided, the Board at its optIon may require a Lot Owner at the Owner's expense to mamtam, repair and replace such fences, landscapmg and Improvements as are adjacent to such Owner's Lot 54 g Enforce Declaration. Enforce the apphcable prOVISIOns of the Declaration for the management and control of the Project 5 4 9 Contracting and Payment for Materials, Services. etc. Contract and pay for any matenals, supphes, labor or servtces which the Board should determme are necessary or proper for the enforcement of tlus Declaratton, mclucbng legal, accountIng, management or other seTVlces, prOVIded that If for any reason any matenals, supphes,labor or serVICes are prOVIded for 42686] 1/013223 000]2 7 20030305001688.014 . particular Lots or theiT Owners, the cost thereof shall be specially charged to the Owners of such Lots 54 10 Attorney-in-Fact. Each Owner, by the mere act ofbecommg an Owner, shall Irrevocably appoint the ASSOCIation as hls/her attorney-tn-fact, Wlth full power of substItution, to take such action as reasonably necessary to promptly perform the duties of the ASSOCiation and Board hereunder, mcludmg but not hmlted to the dutIes to mamtam. repatr and Improve the ProJect, to deal With the Project upon damage or destruction, to grant easements and hcenses over Common Areas, and to secure insurance proceeds 5.4 11 Borrowing of Funds. In the discharge of Its duties and the exercise of Its powers as set forth herem, but subject to the limitations set forth herem, the Board may borrow funds on behalf of the AsSOCiatIon 5 4 12 Adoption of Rules and Regulations; Fines. When and to the extent deemed adVlsable by the Board, to adopt reasonable rules and regulatiOns governmg the mamtenance and use of the Project and other matters of mutual concern to the Lot Owners, which rules and regulatiOns are not mconsIStent Wlth this Declaranon and the Bylaws and which treat all Owners faIrly and on a non- dIscnmmatory basiS The Board may Impose and collect charges for late payments of assessments and, after notice and an opportuntty to be heard by the Board or by a representatIve desIgnated by the Board in accordance with procedures as prOVIded m the Bylaws or rules and regulatiOns adopted by the Board, levy reasonable fines m accordance WIth a preViously estabhshed schedule adopted by the Board and furnIShed to the Owners for ViolatIon of the Bylaws, rules and regulations of the Association 5 4 13 Additional Powers of Association. In addition to the duties and powers of the ASSOCIatIon as speclfied In this Declaration, but subject to the prOVISIOns of this DeclaratIon, the ASSOCIatIon, actIng through Its Board, shall have the power to do all other thmgs that It may deem reasonably necessary to carry out its duties and the purposes of thiS Declaration ARTICLE 6 ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL 6 1 Constmction and Exterior Alteration or Repair. 6 1 1 AIl bwldings and structures (mcludmg, Without hmltatton, concrete or masonry walls, rockenes, fences, sheds, sWlmmmg pools, If any, or other structures) to be constructed Wltlun the ProJect, and all extenor alteratIons and repaIrs (mcludIng, but not lunlted to, reroofing or repainttng) of any bUIldmgs or structures on the PrOject and VISible from any public street, Common Area or other Lot must be approved ln writing by the Board, or by an Architectural Control Commtttee f'ACC") composed of three (3) or more representatives appomted by the Board, at least two (2) of whom shall be Board members; proVlded, that so long as Declarant owns any Lots Wlthm the Project, Declarant at Its opnon may exerCIse all of the nghts and powers of the Board Wlder Sectlon 6 1 mcludmg without IInutatIon the appomtment of members of the ACe References in thIS ArtJcle 6 to the ACC shall be deemed to Include the ACC. the Board, or the Declarant, as ClfCurnstanCes may dIctate Complete plans and specificatIOns, Includmg colors, of an such proposed 426861 11013223 00012 8 20030305001688.015 bwldmgs, structures, and extenor alteratIons and repatrs, together with detaded plans shOWIng the proposed locatIOn of the same on the partIcular buddtng site and other data requested by the ACC, shall be subnutted to the ACC along WIth a wntten request for approval signed by the OVll11er Any extenor modtficatlons an accordance WIth plans and speCIfications developed by the Declarant and filed Wlth the Board at the tIme of transfer (pursuant to Article 5 3) shall be deemed approved extenor modificatIons 6 1 2 The ACC wIll reVlewall requests for approval of construction, alteration or repair for qualIty of workmanship and matenals planned and for conformity and harmony of the external des1gn Wlth proposed or eXisting structures on nelghborhood resldenttal Lots or building Sites, and for location of the buddmg WIth respect to topography, finish grade elevation ~d buddmg setback restriCtIons 6 1 3 In the event the ACe fails to approve or dlsapprove such request WIthin thtrty (30) days after all requned plans and speCifications have been submitted to It, such approval shall be deemed gIven by the ACC 6 1 4 All plans and specificatiOns for approval by the ACC must be subnutted in duplicate, at least thirty (30) days pnor to the proposed construction or exterior alteration or rep81r startmg date Construction, alteration or reprur shall not be started until wntten approval thereof IS gIven by the ACe. 6 1 5 The ACC may reqwre that smd plans or specificatIons be prepared by an architect or a competent house designer, approved by the ACe One complete set of said plans and specifications shall 10 each case be delivered to and permanently retaIned by the Ace All bUlldmgs or structures (Includ1Og but not hmrted to garden sheds) shall be erected or constructed, and all exter'-tor alterations or rep81rs made, by a contractor, house budder or other person or entIty approved by the ACC The Ace shall have the nght to refuse to approve any design. plan or color for such improvements, construction, or extenor alteration or reprur visible from a public street, Common Area or other Lot which IS not suitable or desIrable, m the ACe's reasonable OpinIOn, aesthetic or othefWlse 6 1 6 In so passing upon such design, the ACC shall have the nght to take Into conSideration the swtabihty of the proposed buddmg or other structure, and the matenal of WhICh It IS to be buIlt, and the extenor color scheme, to the site upon whtch It IS proposed to be erected, the harmony thereof WIth the surroundmgs, and the effect or Impru.rrnent that SaId structure WIll have on the View or outlook of surroundmg buddtng sites, and any and all factors, wluch. m the ACC's OpinIOn, could affect the deSIrabilIty or sUltablhty of such proposed structure, Improvements, or exterior alteration or repaIr 6 1 7 The ACC shall have the nght to dtsapprove the design or Installation of a swunmmg pool or any other recreational structure or eqwpment, m the ACe's reasonable OpIniOn, aesthetic or othefWlse In so passmg upon such design or proposed Installation, the ACC shall have . the nght to take mto conslderatlon the Vlsuallmpact of the structure and the nOise Impact of the related actiVities upon all of the properties located m close proximity Any enclosure or cover used In connection WIth such a recreational structure or equlpment, whether temporary, collapSible. 426861 1/011223 00012 9 20030305001688.016 seasonal, or whatever. shall be treated as a permanent structure for the purposes of these covenants, and shall be subject to all the conditions, restrlctions. and requirements as set forth herem for all bwldmgs and structures 6 1 8 The ACC shall have the nght to r~qUlI'e, at a Lot Owner's expense, the tnmmmg or topping (or. If deemed necessary by the ACe, removal) of any tree, hedge or shrub on a Lot whtch the ACe determmes IS unreasonably blockmg or IDterfenng WIth the VIew or access to sunhght of another Lot ,6 1 9 The ACC shall have the nght to specify preCisely the size. color and style of madboxes, and of the post or support on whICh such mBllboxes are affIXed, and theIr location Wlthm the ProJect, whether or not such matlbox stand IS a Common Area, all Wlth the approval of the Postmaster (lfrequired) 6 I 10 Approval by the ACC IS mdependent of, m addItion to, and not to be construed as a representation as to comphance wrth, any reqUlrements for a permlt, hcense or other approval by the CIty of Renton or other apphcable governmental or quasi-governmental entIty The Lot Owner IS responsible for obtaimng any such governmental approvals 6 1 11 Declarant (includmg any successor In mterest to Declarant's status as Declarant) shall not be subject to the restnct10ns of thIs Sectton 6 1 as to arty Lot owned by Declarant. whether or not any Class B memberslup eXIsts and whether or not management of the Assocuwon has been rehnqwshed by Declarant pursuant to Seetlon 5 2 hereof 6 2 Sales Facilities of Declarant. NotwIthstandIng any prOVISIon In thIs Declaration to the contrary, Declarant (and its agents, employees and contractors) shall be perm1tted to mamtam dunng the penod of sale of Lots and/or Homes upon such portlon of the PrOject (other than Lots sold by Declarant) as Declarant may choose, such facditIes as In the soJe op1Illon of the Declarant may be reasonably reqwred, conventent or Incidental to the construction, sale or rental of Lots artd Homes, Includmg but not hmIted to, a business office, storage area, Signs, model Units, sales office, construction office, and parkIng areas for all prospectIve tenants or purchasers of Declarant 63 Varianc~. So long as Declarant owns any Lot. the Board may In Its reasonable discretion, upon wntten request oftha Declarant, grant a vanance from the reqUIrements of Article 7, thereafter, the Board may, upon wntten request of an Owner, grant a vanance from the reqUIrements of ArtIcle 7 only In cases where. because of the phYSIcal charactenstlcs of the Lot, strIct enforcement would result In an unnecessary hardslup The Board may only grant a vanance from the proVISIOns of SectIons 711 tluough 7 17, 719 through 7 21,723, 1.29, or 136 The Board's authorIty to grant such a variance shall not be delegated to the Ace Pnor to grantlng such a vanance, the Board shall hold an open hearmg at whIch other Owners may comment At least fifteen (15) days pnor to such heanng. the Board shall gIve written notIce of the nature of the requested varIance to the Owner of each Lot lmlllemately adjacent to the Lot for which the VarIance IS requested. to other Owners that would reasonably be affected by the variance, and by requlrmg the Owner requesting the vanance to post a notIce on such Owner's Lot m a form reasonably satIsfactory to the Board. 426861 1/013223 00012 10 20030305001688.017 64 Appeals.· Any aggneved Owner may appeal a decIsion oftha ACC to the Board by wntten notIce WIthm SIxty (60) days after the ACC's wntten decision The Board WIll reVIew the ACC decIsion at the Board's next regularly scheduled meeting (but In any event not later than thIrty (30) days after receIpt of the notIce of appeal) The Board shall gIve wntten notlce to the appealing Owner of the time and place of such meeting at least five (5) days In advance ARTICLE 7 USE AND MAINTENANCE OBLIGATION OF OWNERS 7 1 Maintenance of Lots. Each Owner, at S8ld Owner's sole cost and expense, shall promptly and continuously mamtam, repaIr and restore sllld Owner's Lot (including the yard and landscaping) and Horne and other improvements located thereon, and also·such other areas as may be reqwred pursuant to Secnons 5 4 6, 5 4 7, and 124, In a good, clean, attractIve, safe and san1tary conditIon and In full comphance Wlth all applicable governmental laws, rules and regulations and the proVls1Ons of this DeclaratIon and the rules and regulattons of the AsSOClatIon 72 Residential Use. Except as provided m Sectlon 7 6, all Lots and Improvements located thereon shall be used, unproved and devoted excluslvely to resldentIal use Nothmg herem shall be deemed to prevent the Owner from leasmg a Lot and Improvements subject to all of the prOVISIOns of the DeclaratIon 7 3 Restriction on Further Subdivision. No Lot OT portIon of a Lot shall be diVIded and sold or resold, nor ownership changed or transferred whereby the ownershIp of any portIon of this Project shall be less than the area required for the use chstrict In whIch located, prOVIded, the foregOing shall not prolublt deeds of correctIon, deeds to resolve boundary dIsputes and s1mllar correctIve Instruments Lots may be joined and Jomed Lots may subsequently be subdiVIded only mto the Lots ongmally Jomed 7 4 Rental Lots. 74 1 WIth respect to the leasmg, rentmg. or creatIng of any kmd of tenancy of a Lot and Improvements thereon by Its Owners, such Owner shall be prohlblted from leasmg or rentIng less than the entlre Lot or improvements thereon, or (WIth the exception of a lender In possesSlon of a Lot and improvements thereon follOWIng a default In a first mortgage, a foreclosure proceedmg or any deed of trust sale or other arrangement In heu of a foreclosure) for a term of less than SIX (6) months, and alileasmg or rental agreements shall be in wntmg, and shall be subject to the DeclaratIon and Bylaws (with a default of the tenant m complymg Wlth the DeclaratIon and Bylaws constItutIng a defimh under the lease or rental agreement), 7 4 2 If a Lot or Home is rented by lts Owner, the Board on behalf of the Associatlon may collect, and the tenant or lessee shall pay over to the Board, so much of the rent for such Lot or Home as IS reqwred to pay any amounts due the Assoclatlon hereunder, plus mterest and costs, If the same are In default over tlnrty (30) days The renter or lessee shall not have the nght to • challenge payment over to the Board, and such payment wtll dlscharge the lessee's or renter's duty of payment to the Owner for rent. to the extent such rent is p81d to the AssOClatlon, but wtll not dtscharge the lIablhty of the Owner or the Lot under thIS Declaration for assessments and charges, or 426861 1/011223 00012 11 20030305001688.018 operate as an approval oftha lease The Board shall not exercise thIS power where a receIVer has been appomted WIth respect to the Lot or Its Owner, nor In derogatIon of any nghts that a mortgagee of such Lot may have WIth respect to such rents Other than as stated In tIns Arucle 7 there are no restnctIons on the nght of any Owner to lease or otheIWlse rent such Owner's Lot or Home 7 5 Zoning Regulation.. Zoning regulatIons, bwlding regulatIons, enVironmental regulatIons and other simllar governmental regulations apphcable to the Project shall be observed In the event of any confhct between any proVIsion of such governmental regulations and the restnctions of thIs Declaration, the more restrictive proVisIon shall apply 7 6 Business Use. No busmess of any kmd shall be conducted on any Lot WIth the exceptIOn of (a) the busmess of Declarant m developmg and selhng all of the Lots, and (b) such home occupatIOn as may be pernutted by the appropnate local government and whIch 18 not otherwise m VIolatIOn of the provisions of this Declaration 7 7 Building Setback Requirements. All buJldmgs and other Lot Improvements shall comply with all applIcable governmental reqwrements, includIng WIthout hmltatIon mmlmum setback requirements No buildmg or other structure shall be located WIthin any buddmg setback hne shown on the Plat Map 7 8 Oil and Mining Operations. No od dnlling, 011 development operations, od refinmg, quarryIng or mmmg operations of any kind shall be permitted upon or in any Lot, nor shall od wells, tanks, tunnels, mtneral excavatIons or shafts be permitted upon or In any Lot No demck or other structure desIgned for use In bormg for ot! or natural gas shall be erected. maIntamed or permItted upon any Lot 7 9 Catch Basin. The Owner of each Lot shall ensure the cleamng of all catch baslns, If any, located on such Lot at least once pnor to September 15 of each calendar year 7 10 Lot Size. No residential structure shall be erected or placed on any Lot which has a Lot area of less than that reqUIred by the government entity haVIng appropnate JunsdlctJon over the Project . 7 11 Garagel_ Every Home must have a garage capable of holdtng at least two full-SiZe cars, but no more than three full-siZe vehIcles (any car, boat, recreatlonal velucle, etc. shall be deemed one car for purposes of this lImitation) All vehicles must be stored m garages or In a manner that the Board reasonably determines 15 not offensIve when Viewed from the street or from the ground level of adjacent Lots or Common Areas 7 12 Square FOOtaKe-Each smgle-famlly resldence must mclude a mimmum of 1,400 square feet for smgle story Homes and 1,600 square feet for two-story Homes, excludmg garage, porches and decks 7 13 Mobile or Manufactured Housing. Custom designs by licensed archItects shall be strongly encouraged and any use ofrepetttIve design shall be strongly dtscouraged and/or prohlbtted at the discretion of the ACC The ACe may refuse to approve a plan based on desIgn or repetiTIVe 426861 1/013223 00012 12 20030305001688.019 use of a plan, or for failure to meet the approved crIterIa as set forth There shall be no mobile or manufactured housing 7 14 DriYeway Standards. All dnveways shall be conStructed of concrete Wlth a rrurumum of aggregate fimsh or other matenal approved by ACC 7 15 Parking. Unless substanttally screened from VIew from the street or from the ground leveI of adjacent Lots and Common Area In a manner reasonably approved by the ACC, no recreatlonal vehicles. commercIal vehIcles, construction or hke equIpment, motorcycles, or trmlers (uttHty. boat, campmg, horse, or otherwise), shall be allowed to be parked or stored on any Lot or street for a cumulative penod In excess of fourteen (14) days In anyone (1) calendar year No motor vehIcles of any kmd shall be parked overnIght on any street adjOIning any Lot or Common Area. prOVIded that, such vehicles belongIng to guests of a Lot Owner may occasionally be so parked so long as such parking wIll not violate any other provision of thIS Section 7 15 No motor vehIcle of any kmd that IS inoperatIve by reason of mechanIcal fwiure shall be parked or stored on any Lot or In any nght-of~way or street adJoinmg any Lot or Common Area for more than seventy-two (72) hours The Board shall have full authority to detenrune, 10 Its sole ruscrenon, If any vehIcle IS obnoxIOUS or undesirable to other Lot Owners and to enforce thiS covenant Pursuant to Arocle 9 of thlS DeclaratIon, the AsSOCIation may levy fines or have vehlcles that are parked 10 Violation of tlus Sectlon towed and Impounded at the Owner's expense 7 16 Roof. The exterior of all roofs shall be composed of materIals approved by ACe All roofs must have a pItch of at least 4/12 (four on twelve). unless approved by the Ace based on consIderatIons regardIng a specIfic Lot. Under no CIrcumstances are flat roofs allowed Roof matenal shall be at least twentywfive (25) yearl compOSItion asphalt shIngle, color approved by ACe, and by a manufacturer approved and accepted by ACC. 7 17 Exterior Finisb. The extenor of each Home shall be desIgned, bwlt and ma10tmned m such a manner as to blend 10 Wlth the natural surroundmgs, eXIstIng structures and landscapmg of the Project All extenor materIals and all exterIor colors must be approved by the ACC In accordance Wlth the prOVISIons of thIS DeclaratIon Exterior tnm. fences, doors, rallmg, decks, eaves, gutters and the extenor finish·ofgarages and other accessory buildmgs (Including garden sheds) shall be designed, budt and mamtamed to be compatible With the extenor of the structures they adjOIn Homes and other structures may be fimshed In VInyl Sldmg If approved by the ACC 7 18 Utilities. All utlhttes shall be Installed underground No storage tanks or barrels of any land shall be maintained above ground unless properly screened In a manner acceptable to the Ace All Lots shall be served by pubbc water and sewer No wells or septIc systems shall be constructed or mamtamed on any Lot 7 19 Antenna. No antenna, satellite dish or other SImIlar type of extenor equipment shall be allowed on any Lot unless approved m wntlng by the ACC As a condItIon of approval the ACe may requITe reasonable shielding of such antenna, satellIte dIsh or equipment from VIew from the street and the ground level of adjacent Lots or Common Areas In no event shall any satelhte dish or SImIlar antenna greater than one (1) meter In dIameter be penmtted 42686111013223 00012 13 20030305001688.020 720 Fencing. Fences may only be placed along the rear property lme (except any area Wltlun a Natural Greenbelt Protective Easement), along the front building lIne, and from the front bwldmg lme to the rear Lot lme (except any area Wlthm a Natural Greenbelt ProtectIve Easement), cannot exceed SIX (6) feet 10 heIght above the ground, under no circumstances may obstruct VIew from any other Lot, must be constructed of wood approved by the ACC Hedges or other solId screen plantlllg may be used as Lot hne barrIers subject to the same heIght restrictIOns as fences. No chain~ lInk fences shall be penmtted on a Lot No fence, wall or hedge shall be permItted on a Lot any nearer to any street than a budding IS permItted under SectIon 7 7, except that nothIng shall prevent the erectIon ofa necessary retrunmg wall, the top of which does not extend more than three (3) feet above the firushed grade at the back of said retaming wall 721 Fireplace Chimneys. Fireplace chimneys must be constructed WIth matenal approved by the ACC and as otheIWlse requtred by thIS DeclaratIon. 7 22 Garbage and Refuse. No garbage, refuse, rubbISh, cutttngs. or debns of any kmd shall be deposIted on or left upon any Lot unless placed 10 an attractive container swtably located and screened from VIew from the street and from the groWld level of adjacent Lots and Common Area Such contamers shan be returned to the screened locanon by the end of each scheduled pIck~up day All eqUIpment for the storage or dISpOSal of such matenals shall be kept 10 a clean and sanitary condlnon No bUlldmg matenal of any kind shall be placed or stored on any property Wlthm the Project untJl the Lot Owner is ready to commence construction, and then such materIals shall be placed witlun the boundary hnes of the Lot upon which Its use IS intended Garbage cans may only be placed In pubhc VIew on the day of garbage pIck-up All woodplles and storage areas must be placed so that they do not obstruct or hamper any other Lot Owner's VIew and must be SUitably screened from VJew from the street and from the ground level of adjacent Lots and Common Area 7 23 Games and Play Stmctures. No deck. platform, dog house, playhouse or structure of a SImIlar kmd or nature shall be constructed on any part of a Lot located 10 front of the rear hne of the Tesidence constructed thereon, and any such structure must have pnor approval of the Ace No basketball goals or SImIlar moveable structures shall be kept or placed on any pubbc SIdewalk or street 7 24 Construction of Significant Remmtion Facilities. The construction of any Significant recreanonal faclhtIes on any Lot includIng, but not hmlted to, such Items as sWlmming pools and tennIs, badzmnton or pIckle ball courts shall reqUITe the approval of the Ace and shall be subject to the reqwrements adopted by the ACC 7 25 Livest9(Ck and PoulSa. No anImals or reptiles of any kmd shall be kept on the ProJect, except that dogs, cats, and other mdoor household pets may be kept proVlded that they are not kept, bred, or mamtamed for any commercIal purpose No incbVldual Lot Owner shall keep more than two (2) dogs 7 26 Landscaping. All cleared areas between the front budding hne and the street shall be fully landscaped Wlthm tlurty (30) days, depending on weather conditions, of the tIme when Home 15 ready for occupancy Owner shallmstall or have lDstalled fully landscaped rear and side yards WIthm nme (9) months of occupancy unless a longer tIme IS approved by the ACC 426861 11013223 00012 14 20030305001688.021 7 27 Signs. No Signs of any kInd. nor for any uses, shall be erected, posted, painted or displayed on any Lot or Common Area whatsoever, except for pubhc notices by pohucal dlVlslOns of the State or County or as required by law Any budder or the budder's agent may erect and display sIgns dunng the penod the bwlder IS buddIng and sellIng property In the Project only With pnor approval from ACC Any Lot Owner or the Lot Owner's agent wishmg to sell that Owner's Lot may place one (1) "For Sale" SIgn on the Lot. proVIded such SIgn complies With any rules publIShed by the ACC. - 7 28 Temporary Structures. No trailer, basement, tent, shack, garage, bam or other outbuildIngs or any structure of a temporary character erected or placed on the Project shall at any time be used as a residence, even temporanly No bUIldmg or structure shall be moved on to the Project from any land outside the Project A trailer may be placed and occupied by the designated subdIVlslon sales agent With the pnor wntten approval of the ACC A constructlon shack may be used by an Owner's construction contractor during the construction penod 7 29 Completion of Constnlction. Any dwellmg or structure erected or placed on any Lot shall be completed as to external appearance, mcludmg fimsh palntmg or stammg. and shall be connected to sewers WithIn eight (8) months from the date of commencement of construction, unless some longerpenod ofume IS approved In wntmg by the ACe 7 30 Easements. Easements for the mstallatlon and mamtenance of utlhties. dramage and irngatlon faclhtles are reserved as shown on the Plat Map and as described m Article 12. Witlun these easements no structure, plantmg or other materIals shall be placed or permItted to remain which may damage or mterfere With the mstallatJon andlor maIntenance of such uuhnes, or which may change the dIrections of flow of water through a drainage channel In the easement, or which may. obstruct or retard the flow of water through drainage channels m the easement Except as otherwIse prOVided m Sectton 124, any easement or portIon thereof located on any Lot and all Improvements thereon shall be mamtatned continuously by the Lot Owner 7 31 Use During Construction. Except With the approval of the ACC, no person shall reSIde In any structllre on any Lot untd such tIme as the Improvements to be erected thereon m accordance With the plans and specificatIons approved by the ACC have been completed Completton shall be considered receIpt of a final Inspection of the dwellmg unit by the City of Kirkland Buddmg Department or other apphcable government offiCial 732 Excavations. Except with the permiSSion of the ACC, or except as may be necessary m connection With the constructIon of any approved Improvement, no excavation shall be made nor shall any dirt be removed from or added to any Lot. Except With permISSIOn of ACe. no retammg wall of more than four feet (4) in height (exposed heIght) may be constructed on any Lot 7 33 Nuisances. No noxIous or undesirable tiung, or noxIOUS or undesrrable use shall be permitted or maintaIned upon any Lot or upon any other portIOn of the PrOject If the Board determmes that a thmg or use IS undesIrabJe or noXIOUS, that determinatIon shall be conclUSIve 426861 11013223 00012 15 20030305001688.02: 7 34 Clothes Lines. Other Strnctures. No clotheslInes or other structures of a similar nature shall be VIsIble from any street or the ground level of any adjacent Lot or Common Area 7.35 Common Driyes. Common drives, walks (IT any) and paths (If any) shall be used exclusively for normal transIt and no obstructions shall be placed thereon or theretn except by express written consent of the Board. 7.36 Building Height. Except With the permiSSion of the ACC, no building height shall exceed thirty (30) feet, as measured from the lowest floor elevation of the house (eIther garage floor or living area floor) to the maximum pomt on the roof. 7.37 Storm Runoff. Each Lot Owner shall ensure that all roof down spout drains are properly cleaned and mamtamed, and that the Tight Lme Drainage lmes or Storm Infiltratton System on each Lot are clean and free of any debris. Due diligence shall be exercised by each Lot Owner to prevent adverse Impact of storm runoff onto down stream Lots. 738 Storm Detention Operations and Maintenance It is the responsibility ofI?JD'i~Y/cJV C()i.I~"'-Home Owners Assoclatton to mamtam the detentIon and water quality system and emergency access roads, If any, until such tIme that those Improvements are deeded or sold to a government agency, whtch wdl assume maintenance and responslblhty of such improvements These covenants may not be amended to elimmate the requirements to maintain the common areas, including storm water facIlloes, pnvate roadways and other common areas, or pernuttmg conveyance of those features to a third party WIthout the written permISSIon of the CIty of Renton. See EXIDBIT "B", for mamtenance schedules. ARTICLE 8 COMMON EXPENSES AND ASSESSMENTS 8.1 Creation of the Lien and Personal Obligation of Assessments. The Declarant, for each Lot owned WIthm the Project. hereby covenants, and each Owner of any Lot by acceptance of a deed therefor, whether or not It shall be so expressed in such deed, IS deemed to covenant and agree to pay to the AsSOCiatIon any assessment duly levied by the AsSOCiation as proVIded herem Such assessments. together WIth mterest, costs, late charges and reasonable attorneys' fees, shall be a charge on the land and shall be a continwng hen upon the property agaInSt which each such assessment is made. Each such assessment, together wrth interest, costs, late charges and reasonable attorneys' fees, shall also be the personal obligation of the person who was the Owner of such property at the tIme when the assessment fell due. The personal obhgatIon for delInquent assessments shall not pass to successors in title unless the hen for such delinquent assessments had been properly recorded prior to title transfer or unless expressly assumed by them. PrOVIded, however, that in the case of a sale of any Lot wInch IS charged WIth the payment of an assessment or assessments payable in installments. the person or entIty who is the Owner ImmedIately pnor to the date of any such sale shall be personally liable only for the amount of the installments due prIor to SaId date. The new Owner shall be personally hable for installments that become due ~n and after satd date 42686111013223 00012 16 20030305001688.023 8 2 Uniform Rate. Any assessments wluch may be levIed from time to tIme pursuant to the authority of the Board as set forth in SectIon 5 4 1. shall be fixed at a umform rate for each Lot. except for assessments leVled against an Owner for the purpose of relmbursmg the AssOCIation for costs ancurred an bnngmg the Owner or hIslher Home and/or Lot mto comphance WIth the proViSIOns of thIS DeclaratIon Declarant shall not be obhgated to pay any assessment leVied agaInst any Lots owned by it . An assessment against a Lot shall be the Jomt and several personal obligation of all Owners of that Lot 8 3 Initial Assessment Amount. Upon the sale of each Lot by the Declarant (whether to abUllder or otherwIse). each Lot Owner, at the tIme ofhlslher purchase of the Lot, shall pay an InItIal start-up assessment to the ASSOCIatIon m the amount of $15000 Such 1Illual assessment shall be 10 addltIon to any annual assessment proVlded for In thIS Article 8 and shall be for the purpose of reimbursmg the Declarant and/or AsSOCIation for maintenance and operating expenses of and for the Common Areas dunng the lnltIal development and house sales period NotwIthstanding the proVIsIOns set forth above, the Declarant shall not be hable for any mItlal assessments assessed or due so long as Declarant owns any Lot 8 4 Limitation on Annual Assessment Amount. 8.4 1 Board Authority. At any time after the sale of the first Lot by the Declarant (whether to a bwlder or otherWISe), the Board shall have the authonty. Wlthout obtammg prIor approval of the Owners, to levy assessments in a glven calendar year totahng not more than $250 00 per Lot Assessments Included in the foregomg calculation shall not Include any assessments whIch are leVIed agamst an Owner for relmbursmg the AsSOCiatIon for costs mcurred In bnngmg the Owner or htslher Home and/or Lot Into compbance WIth the proviSions of thIs DeclaratIon nor any InitIal assessments prOVIded for In Sect10n 8 3 Notwtthstandmg the prOVISions set forth above, the Declarant shall not be lIable for any fees or assessments assessed or due so long as Declarant owns any Lot 8 4 2 Annual Increase in Dollar Limit. The maximum dollar amount speCIfied In SectIon 841 shall not be Increased by more than fifteen percent (15%) WIthout the approval ofa maJonty of the Lot Owners voting at a meetmg duly called for such purpose ' 8 4 3 Owner Approval Required. Any assessment to be leVIed In a gtven calendar year winch would cause the total of all assessments for the year to exceed the sum per Lot permItted by Sect10ns 8 4 1 and 8 4 2 shall reqwre the callIng of a meetmg of the AssoCiatIOn upon notIce sent to all members not less than thirty (30) nor more than sIXty (60) days m advance of the meetmg, and the approval at such meetmg of the levy of such assessment by a maJonty of the Lots represented at such meetIng, prOVIded a quorum IS present as defined In the Bylaws 8 5 Manner and Time of Payment. Assessments shall be payable by each Owner In such reasonable manner as the Board shall deSIgnate Any assessment or Installment thereofwhlch remaIns unpatd for at least fifteen (15) days after the due date thereof shall bear mterest at an annual rate equal to fifteen percent (15%). and the Board may also assess a late charge In an amount not exceechng twenty-five (25%) of any unpaId assessment which has been delInquent for more than fifteen (15) days . 426861 1I0B223 00012 17 20030305001688.024 8 6 Accounts. Any assessments collected by the Assoclation shall be deposlted in one or more Insured instItutional deposItory accounts established by the Board The Board shall have "exclUSIve control of such accounts and shall mamtam accurate records thereot provided, however. that the Board may exerCIse such control through a. property manager retaIned pursuant to SectIon 5 4 2 No WIthdrawal shall be made from s81d accounts except to pay for charges and expenses authonzed by this Declaration 8.7 Lien. In the event any assessment or 10stallment thereof rematns delInquent for more than thIrty (30) days, the Board may, upon fifteen (15) days pnor wntten notice to the Owner of such Lot of the exIstence of the default, accelerate and demand ImmedIate payment of the entIre assessment The amount of any assessment assessed or charged to any Lot plus mterest. costs, late charges and reasonable attorneys' fees, shall be a lien upon such Lot A claIm of hen may be recorded In the office where real estate conveyances are recorded for the county 10 whtch thIS PrOject is located Such claim of ben may be filed at any tIme at least fifteen (15) days followmg delIvery of the notlce of default referred to above The hen for payment of such assessments and charges shall have pnonty over all other liens and encumbrances, recorded or unrecorded, limIted as proVIded 10 SectIon 11 1 Suit to recover a money judgment for tmpatd assessments or charges shall be maintamable WIth or without foreclosure or waiver of the hen secunng the same 8 8 W liver of Homestead. Each Owner hereby Watves, to the extent of any hens created pursuant to tlus ArtIcle, the benefit of any homestead or exemptIon law 10 effect at the ttrne any assessment or 10stallment thereof becomes dehnquent or any hen is imposed pursuant to the terms hereof 8 9 Continuing Liability for Assessments. No Owner may exempt hnnselflherself from hablbty for hlslher Assessments by abandonment ofhIslher Lot 8 10 Records, Financial Statements. The Board shall prepare or cause to be prepared, for any calendar year m which the Association levies or collects any assessments, and shall distnbute to all Owners, a balance sheet and an operatmg (rncomelexpense) statement for the Association, whIch shall mclude a schedule of assessments receIVed and receIvable, IdentIfied by the number of the Lot and the name of the Owner so assessed The Board shall cause detatled and accurate records of the receIpts and expendltures of the AsSOCIation to be kept specIi)flng and ItemIzmg the mamtenance, operatIng, and any other expenses mcurred. Such records, COPIes of thiS Declaration, the Arttcles and the Bylaws, and any resolutIons authorlzmg expendItures of AsSOCIatIon funds shall be aV81lable for exam1OatIon by any Owner at reasonably convement hours 8 11 Certificate of Msnsment. A certIficate executed and acknowledged by the treasurer or the presIdent of the Board, or an authonzed agent thereof If neIther the presIdent nor treasurer IS aV811able. stattng the 10debtedness for assessments and charges or lack thereof secured by the assessment hen upon any Lot shall be conclUSive upon the Associatton as to the amount of such mdebtedness on the date of the certIficate, 10 favor of all persons who rely thereon In good falth Such a certIficate shall be furnished to any Owner or any encumbrancer of a Lot WIthIn a reasonable tune after request, In recordable form, at a reasonable fee Unless otherwIse prohibited by law, any encumbrancer holdmg a hen on a Lot may pay any unprud assessments or charges WIth respect to 426861 1/013223 00012 18 20030305001688.025 such Lot. an~ upon such payment. shall have a hen on such Lot for the amounts prud of the same rank as the hen ofhlslher encumbrance 8 12 Fores;tospre gf Assessment Lien. Attomeys' Fees and Costs. The Declarant or Board. on behalf of the ASSOCiatIon, may initiate actIon to foreclose the hen of, or collect:. any assessment In any action to foreclose the hen of, or otherwIse collect, dehnquent assessments or charges, any Judgment rendered 10 favor of the AsSOCIatIon shall tnclude a reasonable sum for attorneys' fees and all costs and expenses reasonably tncurred In preparation for or in the prosecutIOn of SaId acnon (mcluding in any arbltratJon. on appeal. and in any bankruptcy proceed1Og), In additIon to taxable costs pemlltted by law 8 13 Curing of Default. The Board shall prepare and record a satisfaction and release of the hen for whIch a claIm of lien has been filed and recorded m accordance With tlus Arttcle upon timely payment or other sattsfactIon of all delmquent assessments set forth 10 the Notlce, and all other assessments which have become due and payable follOWing the date of such recordation With respect to the Lot as to which such chum of hen was recorded. together With all costs, late charges and mterest wluch have accrued thereon An addttJonal admmlStratIve fee of twenty·five dollars ($2500) covenng the cost of preparation and recordation shall be pald to the Assoclatlon pnor to such acnon The satlsfacnon of the lien created by the clatm of hen shall be executed by the presIdent or treasurer of the AsSOCiation or by any authonzed representatIve of the Board For the purposes of thiS paragraph, the term "costs!' shall include costs and expenses actually 10curred or expended by the ASSOCIation in connection With the cost ofpreparanon and recordation of the clatm of hen and In efforts to collect the dehnquent assessments secured by the hen and a reasonable sum for attorneys' fees 8.l4 Omission of Assessment. The omission by the Board or the Association to fix the estimate for assessments and charges hereunder for the next year before the expiration of any current year shall not be deemed a wruver or modification in any respect of the provisions of this DeclaratIon. or a release of the Owner from the oblIgatIon to pay the assessments and charges, or any Installment thereof for that or any subsequent year The assessment and charge fixed for the precedmg year shall continue untIl a new assessment or charge IS fixed 8 IS Assessment Deposit. A Lot Owner may be reqUired. by the Board or by the managmg agent, from time to tIme. to make and mamtatn a depOSit of not more than the total of one (1) annual assessment, plus eIther one (1) special assessment If speCIal assessments are payable on an annual basts, or three (3) speclal assessment mstallments If special assessments are payable on a monthly or other penodlc basts Such deposit may be collected as are other assessments and charges Such deposlt shall be held 10 a separate fund, be credited to such Owner, and be for the purpose of establlSrung a workmg capital fund for the Imtlal Project operations and a reserve for delmquent assessments Resort may be had thereto at any nme when such Owner IS ten (10) days or more delmquent In paymg hts/her assessments and charges, to meet unforeseen expenditures. to acqUIre addItional equIpment or seMces deemed necessary or desIrable by the Board, or as a credIt agatnst any annual or special assessments to become due from such Owner SaId depOSIts shall not be conSidered as advance payments of annual assessments All or any portton of such depOSit may at any time be refunded to the Owner by the Associatton 10 the dIscretion of the Board, such refund 426861 11013223 00012 19 bemg made as a cash refund or a credit agaInSt assessmeiits subsequently to become due or a combmatlon thereof 8 16 Exempt Property. The follOWIng property subject to thiS DeclaratIon shall be exempt from the assessments created herem 8161 All properues dedicated to and accepted by ago~ernmental entIty, 8 16 2 All Common Areas, and 8.16 3 All properues owned by a chantable or nonprofit orgaruzatlon or an orgamzatIon exempt from taxation by the laws of the state of Wash mgt on 20030305001688.026 However, the land or Improvements, which are referred to m Sections 8 16 1, 8 162 and 8 16.3 and which are devoted to dwelbng use, shall not be exempt from s8.1d assessments. 8 17 Effect of Legal Proceedings. In any legal proceedmg commenced pursuant to Section 9 1 1, and notwIthstanding the assessment limitations proVlded for In thIS DeclaratIon, the court haVIng JunsdlctIon over such proceedmg shall also have Junschcoon and power to cause assessments to be leVled and collected on an equal per Lot basIS m such amounts as IS reasonably necessary to cause the Project to be properly admmlstered In accordance WIth the prOVISIOns of thIS DeclaratIon and the Bylaws, or to cause the prOVisions ofthts DeclaratIon and the Bylaws to be properly appbed and enforced ARTICLE 9 COMPLIANCE WITH DECLARATION 9 I Enfortement. 9 1 1 Compliance of Owner. Each Owner, Board member and the AsSOclatton shall comply stnctly WIth the proVlslons of thIs Declaratlon and WIth the Bylaws and admlntstratIve rules and regulatlons adopted by the Assoclation (as the same may be lawfully amended from tIme to time) Failure to comply shall be grounds for an action to recover sums due for damages, or injunctIve rehe£: or both, mamtamable by the Board (actmg through Its officers on behalf of the AsSOClanon and the Owners), or by the aggneved Owner on hls/her own agaInst the party (Includtng an Owner or the AsSOCllltlon) fatling to comply In adchtlon, the AssOCIatIon may Impose and collect fines as prOVided In Sechon 54.12 oftlus DeclaratIOn 9 1 2 Compliance of Lessee. Each Owner who shall rent or lease hlslher Lot shall Insure that the lease or rental agreement IS 10 wntmg and subject to the terms of thIS DeclaratIon, Artlcles ofIncorporanon, and Bylaws Said agreement shall further prOVide that fmlure of any lessee to comply WIth the prOVISions of sard documents shall be a default under the lease 9.1.3 Attomeys' Fees. In any actlon to enforce the proVIslons of this Declaration, the Articles ofIncorporaoon or the Bylaws, the prevadmg party in such legal actton shall be entItled to an award for reasonable attorneys' fees and all costs and expenses reasonably Incurred In 426&61 11013223 00012 20 preparation for or prosecution of said actIon (including m any arbitration, on appeal, or In any bankruptcy proceedmg), In adchtion to taxable costs penmtted by law 9 2 No Waiyer of Strict Performance. The fallure of the Board, or Declarant or 20030305001688.027 Declarant's managing agent, as applicable, In anyone or more Instances to Insist upon or enforce the stnct performance of any of the tenns, covenants, conditIons or restrictions of thiS Declaration, or of any Bylaws or acinumstratlve rules or regulations, shall not be construed as a waiver or a relInqUishment for the future of such term, covenant, condition or restriction, but such term. covenant, condition or restrictIon shall remam In full force and effect No Walver by the Board of any provision hereof shall be deemed to have been made unless expressed m wntlng and Signed by the Board 9 3 . Right of Entry. Violation of any of the prOVISIons hereof shall gIve to Declarant, Its successors, or the AssOCIation, the rIght to enter upon the Lot as to wIDch such Vlolatton eXiSts and to abate, correct and remove, at the expense of the Owner thereof, any erection, thmg or conditIon that may be or exists thereon contrary to the prOVISiOns hereof Such entry shall be made only after three (3) days notice to SaId Owner and WIth as lIttle Inconvemence to the Owner as poSSIble, and any damage caused thereby shall be replUl"ed by the AsSOCIatIon. Declarant, Its successors, or the ASSOCIation shall not be deemed gwlty of any manner of trespass by such entry, abatement or removal 9 4 Remedies Cumulatiye. The remedies provided are cumulative, and the Board may pursue them concurrently, as well as any other remeches that may be aVaIlable under law although not expressed herem ARTICLE 10 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY 10 1 No Personal Liability. So long as a Board member, AsSOClanon commtttee member, AssocIatIon officer, AsSOCIatIon agent, or Declarant exerclsmg the powers of the Board, has acted In good f81th, WIthOut WIllful or IntentJonal mIsconduct, upon the basIS of such mformatlon as may be possessed by such person, no such person shall be personally liable to any Owner, or other party, mcludlng the Assocumon. for any damage, loss or prejudice suffered or clalmed on account of any act, omISsion, error, neghgence (except gross neglIgence), any dlScrenonary deciSIon, or faIlure to make a dlscrenonary deCISIOn, by such person m such person's offiCial Capacity, PROVIDED, that this sectIon shall not apply where the consequences of such act, omiSSion, error or negligence are covered by Insurance or bonds obtained by the Board pursuant to tlus DeclaratIon 10 2 Indemnification of Board Members. Each Board member or Assoclatlon committee member, or AssoCIatIon officer, ASSOCIation agent, or Declarant exerciSing the powers of the Board, and thelf respectlve heIrs and successors, shall be mdemmfied by the AsSOCiatIon agamst all expenses and hablhtles, mcludmg attorneys' fees, reasonably Incurred by or Imposed 10 connection With any proceeding to winch he/she may be a party, orID winch he/she may become Involved. by reason ofbemg or haVIng held such posItion at the time such expenses or liabdttles are mcurred. except m such CBSes wherem such person IS adjudged gOOty of mtentlonal nusconduct or gross negligence or a knOWIng Vlolanon oflaw m the perfonnance ofhlslher dutIes, and except In 4261!61 11013223 00012 21 20030305001688.028 such cases where such person has parttClpated In a transaction from whtch s8Jd person will personally receIve a benefit In money. property. or servtces to WhIch saId person IS not legally entitled, PROVIDED, that, In the event of a settlement, the mdenuuficanon shall apply only when the Board approves such settlement and reimbursement as bemg m the best mterest of the Assocumon NothIng cont8Jned in thlS Section 10 2 shall, however, be deemed to obligate the Associanon to indemnify any Member or Owner of a Lot who IS or has been It Board member or officer of the ASSOCIation WIth respect to any dunes or oblIgatIons assumed or lIabIlities Incurred by him under and by VIrtue of the Declaranon as a Member or Owner of a Lot covered thereby and not as a Board member or officer of the AssocultIon ARTICLE 11 MORTGAGEE PROTECI'ION 11 1 Priority of Mortga&ee. NotwithstandIng all other proVlsions hereof, the hens created under thts Declaration upon any Lot for assessments shall be subject to tax hens on the Lot m favor of any assessmg umt and/or speclal dIstrict and be subject to the nghts of the secured party In the case of any mdebtedness secured by first hen Mortgages wmch were made m good faIth and for value upon the Lot Where the Mortgagee of a Lot, or other purchaser of a Lot, obtams possesslon of a Lot as a result of Mortgage JUdiCIal or nonjudICial foreclosure or deed m heu thereof, such possessor and its successors and asSIgns shall not be bable for the share of any assessment by the Association chargeable to such Lot which becomes due pnor to such POSSesSIOn, but wdl be liable for any assessment accrumg after such possession Such unpatd share of common expenses or assessments shall be deemed to be common expenses collectible from all of the Lot Owners includIng such possessor. Its successor and assigns 11 2 Effect of Dec:laration Amendments. No amendment to thIS Declaratton shall be effective to modify, change, hmlt or alter the rights expressly conferred upon Mortgagees in thIS Instrument Wlth respect to any unsansfied Mortgage duly recorded unless the amendment shall be consented to m WIltmg by the holder of such Mortgage. Any prOVlSlon of this Arttcle concernmg rIghts of Mortgagees that IS Inconsistent With any other proVlslon of tins Declaration shall control over such other InConsIstent prOVIsIOns 11 3 Right of Lien Holder. A breach of any of the proviSIOns, conrutlOns, restnctlons, covenants, easements or reservations herem contamed shall not affect or ImpaIr the hen or charge of any bona fide Mortgage made in good fruth and for value on any Lots, provided. however, that any subsequent Owner of the Lot shall be bound by these proVlslons whether such Owner's title was acqUired by foreclosure or trustee's sale or otherwIse 11 4 Change in Manner of Architectural Reyiew and Maintenance Within Proiect. The ASSOCiation shall not. WIthout prior wntten approval of seventy-five percent (75%) of all first Mortgagees (based upon one (I) vote for each first Mortgage owned) and seventy-five percent (75%) of all Owners (other than Declarant) of record by act or omission change, watve or abandon any scheme of regulahons, or enforcement thereof, pertaIning to the architectural deslgn or the extenor appearance of Homes, the extenor maIntenance of Homes, maIntenance of walkways, fences and dnveways, or the upkeep of lawns and plantmgs m the development, mcludtng the prOVISIOns of Articles 4 and 5 hereof 426861 110 13223 00012 22 20030305001688.029 11 5 Copies of Notices. If the first Mortgagee of any Lot so requests the AssocIatIon In wntlng, the AsSOClaDOn shall gIve written notIce to such first Mortgagee of an OwnerlMortgagor of a Lot has for more than SIxty (60) days fwed to meet any obhgatlon under tlus Declaranon 11 6 Furnishing of Documents. The AsSocIation shall make aYallable to prospective purchasers, Mortgagees, insurers, and guarantors, at theIr request, current COpies of the Declaration, Bylaws, and other rules governmg the ProJect, and the most recent balance sheet and Income/expense statement for the AssocIatIon, If any has been prepared ARTICLE 12 EASEMENTS 12 1 Association Functions. There 15 hereby reserved to Declarant and the Assocuwon, or their duly authonzed agents and representatIves, such easements as are necessary to perform the duties and obhgatIons of the AsSOCIatIon as are set forth In the DeclaratIon, or In the Bylaws, and rules and regulatIons adopted by the AsSOCIatIon. 12 2 Easements Over Common Areas. The Board. on behalf of the AsSOCIatIon and all members thereof, and as an attorneY-in-fact for all Lot Owners Wlth an mevocable power coupled WIth an Interest, shall have authonty to grant (In accordance Wlth apphcable governmental laws and regulatIons) uttlIty, road and Similar easements, licenses and permits, under, through or over the Common Area, whtch easements the Board determmes are reasonably necessary to the ongomg development and operatIon of the ProJect, prOVIded, however, that no easement shall be granted WIthin any Nattve Growth ProtectIon Area or Native Growth Protectton Easement 12.3 Access to Public Streets. Each Owner and hlslher guests and invitees shall have a perpetual, non-exclUSIVe easement across all roadways constructed W1thm the ProJect, thereby prOVIding access throughout the Project and to pubhc streets 12 4 Utility Easements. On each Lot, easements are reserved as prOVIded by the Plat Map and apphcable laws. ordInances and other governmental rules and regulatIons for utIhty mstallatIon and maintenance, mcludmg but not lUluted to. underground electnc power, telephone, water, sewer, drainage, and accessory equipment, together with the nght to enter upon the Lots at all tunes for SaId purposes ARTICLE 13 TERM OF DECLARATION 13 I Duration of Covenants. The covenants contamed herein shall run Wlth and bmd the land for a term oftlurty (30) years from the date this DeclaratIon IS recorded. after whtch bme the covenants shall be automatically extended for succesSIve penods often (10) years each, unless an Instrument executed 10 accordance WlthSectIon 14 I below shall be recorded. abandomng or termmattng thiS Declaration 426&61 11013223 00012 23 20030305001688.030 13 2 Abandonment of Subdivision Status. The Association shall not, without the prior written approval of the governmental entIty haVIng JunsdlctIon over the Project and WIthout pnor written approval of one hundred percent (100%) of all first Mortgagees (based upon one (1) vote for each flrst Mortgage owned) and one hundred percent (100%) of all Owners (other than Declarant) of record. seek by act or omISSIon to abandon or ternllnate the subdIvisIon status of the PrOject as approved by the governmental entity haVIng appropriate JUrIsdIctIon over the ProJect. ARTICLE 14 AMENDMENT OF DECLARATION, PLAT MAP 14 1 Declaration Amendment. Amendments to the DeclaratlOn shall be made by an Instrument 10 wrttIng enotled "Amendment to Declaration" WhiCh sets forth the enure amendment Except as otherwise specifically provided for in this Declaration, any proposed amendment must be approved by a maJonty of the Board pnor to Its adoptIon by the Owners Amendments may be adopted at a meeong of the Owners If seventy-five percent (75%) of the Owners vote for such amendment. or WIthout any meetIng If all Owners have been duly notified and seventy-five percent (75%) or all the Owners consent in writing to such amendment NOtwlthstanchng the foregomg, any amendment to a prOVISIon of the DeclaratIon estabbshmg, proVlrung for, govermng or regulatmg the followmg shall reqwre the consent of seventy-five percent (75%) of all the Owners and seventy-five percent (75%) of all the Mortgagees and the consent of the Declarant (so long as Declarant owns any Lots): votIng, assessments, assessment hens or subordInatIon of such hens, reserves for mamtenance, repair and replacements of Common Areas, lnsurance or bonds; use of Common Areas, responsibilIty for mamtenance or reprurs, expansion or constructIon of the Project or the additIon, annexatIon or WIthdrawal of property to or from the ProJect, boundarIes of Lots, convertmg of Lots mto Common Areas or VIce versa; dedtcatmg or transfemng all or any part of the Common Area to any pubhc agency, authonty or uuhty,leasmg of Lots; proviSIOns for the benefit of the Declarant, prOVISIons for benefit offirst Mortgagees, or holders, msures or guarantors offirst Mortgages, the Interests In Common Areas; or lmposItlon of any nght of first refusal or SImIlar restnctIons on the right of an Owner to sell, transfer or othefWlse convey a Lot, proVIded, that a Mortgagee who fads to respond 10 wntmg Wlthm thIrty (30) days ofa wntten request to approve an amendment shall be deemed to have approved the request In all events, the amendment when adopted shall bear the sIgnature of the presIdent of the AsSOCIatIon and shall be attested by the secretary, who shall state whether the amendment was properly adopted, and shall be acknowledged by them as officers of the ASSOCIatIon. Amendments once properly adopted shall be effecuve upon recordmg In the appropnate governmental offices where real estate conveyances are recorded for the county In which the Project IS located It IS speCIfically covenanted and understood that any amendment to thIS DeclaratIon properly adopted WIll be completely effective to amend any or all of the covenants, conditIons and restrJctlons contruned herem that may be affected and any or all clauses of thiS DeclaratIon unless othefWlse specifically prOVIded m the section bemg amended or the amendment Itself 14 2 Plat Map. Except as otheTWIse prOVIded herem. to effect an amendment to the Declaratlon adopted as prOVIded for m Sechon 14 1, the Plat Map. may be amended by reVISed versiOns or reVISed portIons thereot: prOVIded that the revised version or reVIsed portIons reference the adopted amendment to thts Declaration COPies of any such proposed amendment to the Plat Map shall be made avatlable for the exammatlon of every Owner Such amendment to the Plat Map 426861 1101312.~ 00012 24 20030305001688.031 shall be effective, once properly adopted, upon haVIng received any governmental approval required by law and recordation m conjunction with the DeclaratIon amendment in the appropriate governmental office where real estate conveyances are recorded for the county In wh1ch the Project 15 located 14 3 Amendments to Conform to Constl)lction. Declarant. upon Declarant1s sole Signature, and as an attorney-m-fact for all Lot Owners With an Irrevocable power coupled WIth an mterest, may at any tIme, unttl all Lots have been sold by Declarant, file an amendment to the DeclaratIon and to the Plat Map to confonn data depicted therem to Improvements as actually constructed and to establish, vacate and relocate uttlIty easements and access road easements 14 4 Amendments to Conform to Lending Institution Guidelines. So long as Declarant contmues to own one or more Lots, Declarant, upon Declarant's sole SIgnature, and as an attorneY-ln- fact for all Lot Owners With an Irrevocable power coupled with an interest, may at any tIme, untIl all Lots have been sold by Declarant, file such amendments to the Declaration and Plat Map as are necessary to meet the then reqUIrements of Federal NatlOnal Mortgage ASSOCiation, Veterans AdmimstratIon, Federal Home Loan Mortgage CorporatIon, or other agencies, mstitutions or lenders financmg andlor tItle Insunng the purchase of a Lot from the Declarant 14 5 Article 16 Amendments. Declarant, upon Declarant's sole slgn!lture. and as an attorney-m-fact for all Lot Owners With an Irrevocable power coupled With an Interest, may at any time, untIl all Lots have been sold by Declarant, file such amendments to the Declaration and Plat Map as are necessary In the exercIse of Declarant's powers under ArtIcle 16 Annexations prOVIded for In Artlcle 16 shall be approved and recorded as an amendment to thlS DeclaratIOn as prOVIded In thiS ArtIcle 14 ARTICLE 15 INSURANCE 15 1 InSUrance. The Board shall have authonty In the exercIse of Its dJscretIon to obtam and mamtaln at all tImes as a common expense a pohcy or pohcles and bonds of hablltty Insurance and property Insurance covenng the ownership. use and operatIon of all of the Common Area (and Common Area improvements), Ifany. mcluding common personal property and supplies belongmg to the AsSOCiation; fidel1ty coverage for AssocJatIon Board members (mcluding Declarant). officers. employees or agents. and such other Insurance as the Board may deem adVIsable or as may be reqUIred by the Federal NatIonal Mortgage AsSOCIation, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Assoclatton, Veterans AdnurustratIon or slIDtlar agencIes or lendIng institutIons In the event of damage to or destructIon of any part of the Common Area improvements, the AssOCIatIon shall reparr or replace the same from the Insurance proceeds avatlable If such Insurance proceeds are InsuffiCIent to cover the costs ofrep81r or replacement of the property damaged or destroyed, the AsSOCIatIon may make a reconstructton assessment agamst all Lot Owners to cover the addItIonal cost of repatr or replacement not covered by the Insurance proceeds, m addItIon to any other common assessments made agamst such Lot Owners 426861 1/013223 00012 25 20030305001688.032 ARTICLE 16 , ANNEXATION AND WITHDRAWAL OF ADDITIONAL PROPERTIES 161· Annexation and Witbdrawal by Declarant. Although not obhgated to do so, Declarant reserves the nght to develop as single fanuly resldenttal subchVlsIOns adchtIonai lands that would be In addItIon to and are nearby the land descnbed 10 ExhIbIt A ("AddItIOnal Lands") Declarant may cause all or any portton of such AdditIonal Lands to be annexed to the existing Project WIthout the assent of the members of the Assoclatlon, PROVIDED, however, that the annexation of AddItional Lands descnbed m thIS Artlele shall be adjacent to the then eXlstmg Project Such Additional Lands shall be deemed "adjacent" to the eXlstmg ProJecteven If separated therefrom by land whIch (i) IS owned by Declarant, the Assoclatton or the Lot Owners as tenants In common, or (it) IS owned by or dedIcated to the pubhc or a governmental agency or mstrumentahty, or (111) IS aV811able for the use or benefit of the ASSOCiatIon or Lot Owners by easement or otherwIse, or (IV) IS a publIc or pnvate street, Path. bIcycle path. raIlroad track or other Improvement or easement for pubhc transportatIon or utIhty Servtce Although not obhgated to do so, Declarant reserves the nght to dIscontInue development of and WIthdraw from the Project any unplatted land Wlthm the ProJect. lDcludmg any Addttlonal Lands prEMously annexed, WIthout the assent of the members of the Association 16 2 Non-Declarant Annexations. AnnexatIon of AddItIonal Lands other than Declarant annexations prOVIded for.In Sectlon 16 1 hereof shall reqwre the assent of the Owners, Mortgagees and Declarant as proVided m SectIon 14 1 16.3 Common Areas Within Additional Lands. Common Areas Wlthm any AddItional Lands subsequently annexed to the exlstJng Project shall be aV811able for the common use of aU Owners ofL01s WIthm the eXIsting Project as well as WIthIn such subsequently annexed Additional Lands LlkeWlse, Common Areas within the eXIStIng Project shall be avallable for the common use of all Owners of Lots Wlthm such subsequently annexed Additional Lands as well as withIn the eXIstmg Project ARTICLE 17 MISCELLANEOUS 17 1 Notices. Any wrItten nonce, or other document as reqwred by thIS DeclaratIon, may be delIvered personally or by matI If by matI, such notIce, unless expressly prOVIded for hereIn to the contrary Wlth regard to the type of notice bemg given. shall be deemed to have been delIvered and receIved forty-eight (48) hours after a copy thereof has been deposited In the Umted States first- class maIl, postage prepatd, properly addressed as follows (a) If to an Owner, other than Declarant, to the regtstered address of such Owner, as filed In wntIng WIth the Board pursuant to the reqwrements of the Bylaws, or If no such address IS filed, then to the address of the Owner's Lot (b) !fto Declarant, whether in Its CapacIty as an Owner, or m any other capacity, to the address winch Declarant shall have adVIsed the Board 10 wnting 426861 11013223 00012 26 20030305001688.033 ( c) Prior to the expiration of the Declarant's management authonty pursuant to Section 5 2. notIces to the Board shall be addressed to the address set forth m (b) above Thereafter, nonces to the Board shall be addressed eIther to an address to be posted by the Board at all times m a COnspICUOUS place or to the regIstered office of the ASSOClatlon In additIon, from and after the expIrahOn oftha Declarant's management authonty. nonce of the address of the ASSOCiatIon shall be given by the Board to each Owner. Wlthm a reasonable ttme after the Board has received actual notlce of such Owner's purchase of a Lot 172 Conveyances, Nod" Required. The nght of an Owner to sell, transfer. or otheIWlse convey hlsther Lot shall not be subject to any right of approval. dIsapproval. first refusal, or similar restnctlon by the ASSOCIation or the Board or anyone actmg on theIr behalf An Owner Intendmg to sell a Lot shall dehver a wntten notice to the Board at least two (2) weeks before closmg. speclfymg the Lot hemg sold; the name and address of the purchaser. of the clOSing agent, and of the title insurance company lIlsunng the purchaser's mterest, and the estimated clOSing date The fadure of an Owner to properly give such notIce to the Board shall not invahdate the sale The Board shall have the nght to notIfy the purchaser, the title Insurance company. and the clOSing agent of the amount of unp81d assessments and charges outstandIng agamst the Lot, whether or not such Information IS requested . 17 3 Successor and Assigns. This Declaranon shall be bmdmg upon and shall mure to the benefit of the heirs, personal representatIves, successors and asSIgns of Declarant. and the herrs, personal representatives, grantees, lessees, subleases and assignees of the Owners 17 4 Joint and Seyeral Liability. In the case of Jomt ownershIp of a Lot, the hablhty of each of the Owners thereof In connectJon WIth the lIabIlItIes and obhgatlons of Owners set forth m or Imposed by thiS DeclaratlOn shall be Jomt and severa) . 17 5 Mortgagee's Acceptance. 17 5 I Priority of Mortgage. This Declaration shall not InItially be bmdlng upon any Mortgagee of record at the tIme of recordmg of thIS DeclaratIon but rather shall be subject and subordmate to slUd Mortgage 17 S 2 A'l'leptance Upon First Conveyance. Declarant shall not consummate the conveyance of title to any Lot untJl each Mortgagee of record at the time of recordmg of this Declaration shall have accepted the proVlsl0ns ofttus Declaratton and made appropriate arrangements for partial release of Lots from the hen of srud Mortgage The ISSuance and recordmg of the first such partIal release by sSld Mortgagee shall consbtute Its acceptance of the prOVISIOns of thIs DecIaratton and acknowledgment that trus DeclaratIon is bmdmg upon all of the Lots remaIning subJect to its Mortgage, proVlded, that, except as to Lots so released, wd Mortgage shall remam In full effect 17 6 Severability. The prOVISIOns hereof shall be deemed Independent and severable, and the invalidity or partJ.~ invalIdtty or unenforceabihty of anyone proVlslon or portion thereof shall not affect the vahdlty or enforceablltty of any other prOVlSlon hereof 426861 11013223 00012 27 . , . . 20030305001688.034 17.7 Effective Date. The DeclaratIon shall take effect upon recording 17 8 Government Right of Access. Governmental entities shall have rIghts of access and mspectIon for the open space area and any drainage faclhtles contamed therem. IN WITNESS WHEREOF: first hereinabove wntten /f'IJXje V)t-W fJl>u.A r; /..J...C a Washmgton hIDlted habdlty company STATE OF WASHlNGTON ) ) ss: COUNTY OF KING ) . -have executed tIllS DeclaratIon the day and year I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that LARRY DARNELL IS the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he sIgned this instrument, . on oath stated that he was authonzed to execute thlS Instrument and acknowledged It as the MANAGER of Darnell, LLC, to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned 10 this Instrument DATED· __________ ~ My Appo1Otment expire~. 426861 11013223 00012 ~;~~imLIc 10 ana-tor the S~te of Washmgton, residiDg at : 28 20030305001688.03! · . ~ '" ~- EXHmITA Legal Description of the Project 426861 1/013223 00012 29 .. . ~. " "EXHIBIT B" PLAT OF RiD(jJ!!.v16 i<J ~DUJer STORM DETENTION OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT Prepared by Amencan Engmeenng CorporatIOn 20030305001688.031 . 'J i'""EVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION .. WAIVER \JF SUBMITTAL REQUIReliENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS O€'lI€ CfptM€'fth-Of:ri' PI A ·-t€'A/r."-'1NN'ft, Ocr 1 ON 'vG 11~ 82004 ' ....... ............... ... .. ... . . . . ................ .. . ...... , 'CI:III .. Calculations 1 ~~i~r.~~:~p.~:i()r::~isp~y::~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Construction Mitigation Description 2 AND 4 :t¥.~~io/.:W#~s~~~t:~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: iii:::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Drainage Control Plan 2 :~ih~9~:~~P'~:~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::iii:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Elevations, Architectural 3 AND 4 :~~Y.~ii:iB~t~i:¢~~~~ii~t:~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::iii::::::::::::::::::::::::: iii:::::::::::::::::::::::::::: iii:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: iii:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Existing Covenants (Recorded Copy) 4 :E~i~!~9:~~~~~~:fu~g;.f~~d:¢8P.Y.):f:::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::\:::::::::::: iii:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Flood Hazard Data 4 0N . :F.io~r:p~n~:~:k.~~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::1(:::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Geotechnical Report 2 AND 3 :G.(~~ing:~j~~;::¢otj~~ptu~t:~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Grading Plan, Detailed 2 :~~~~~iP~ta::f.{#.9K1::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: King County Assessor's Map Indicating Site 4 :4i~~~#'p'i~~:f?i~~i:~h¥.~~~i:~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::iii:::::::::::::: iii:::::::::::::::::::::::::::: iii:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Legal Description 4 :W~i:~f::$~t~~#'~iji~::~~~~:~~~r.#.~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: iii:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Mailing Labels for Property Owners 4 ................................................................................................................................ M~p:Qf::~i#.n~::$I~:~~j~IO~:{::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Master Application Form 4 ....................................................................................................................... :~~~~ro.~~t~:at:~s:(o~:pef:ij)~~~~~@:~::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Neighborhood Detail Map 4 This requirement may be waived by: 1. Property Services Section 2. Public Works Plan Review Section 3. Building Section 4. Development Planning Section Q:\WEB\Pw\DEVSERv\Forms\Planning\waiver.xls PROJECT NAME: RrpM ()nv)--r4 rbl- DATE: /6/7/ Of '1 01106/2004 -I: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISIO WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUI MENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS ::::).:.~.).Hm~~:~i.£1WM~~~:.~rrt~U:~:·:H::~.I.~.:mwt3nH.rA~~tj~{::~:~·~:U:H:H:.:':::~fi~~Jj~:·:H::/2U.U~~:~> Parking, Lot Coverage & Landscaping Analysis 4 p:1~~)~@~~~:(~1s}.~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Postage 4 r~~p'p!i~tj~f:(M~~i@:~®1~&':~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Public Works Approval Letter2 ~~~#~iit~~~9:~:Ri.#~:f:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Screening Detail 4 ~~te::pl~~:~:~~~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Street Profiles 2 t.~i~:~~P'8~:#::e!~~:9~if.#'~~:~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Topography Map3 Tree Cutting/Land Clearing Plan 4 ............ , ........................................................................... ,' ................................................ . lj~::¢~i~~:t?~19~:~~~YP~~9~:~~ij~::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Utilities Plan, Generalized 2 w~li~~:Mi~ti~~:p~i:F.i~l:4::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Wetlands Mitigation Plan, Preliminary 4 w.~~!~~:t~~p.~W:O~I~~~~~~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Wireless: Applicant Agreement Statement 2 AND 3 Inventory of Existing Sites 2AND3 Lease Agreement, Draft 2 AND 3 Map of Existing Site Conditions 2 AND 3 Map of View Area 2 AND 3 Photosimulations 2 AND 3 This requirement may be waived by: 1. Property Services Section 2. Public Works Plan Review Section 3. Building Section 4. Development Planning Section PROJECT NAME: BdC'f:.+2a<J (pJre rf'1el job)-v DATE: lo.l7/df Q:\WEB\Pw\DEVSERV\Fonns\Planning\waiver.xls 0110612004 ; .~~~~:~~?N ,,,, j ______________ R_en_to_n_,w_~ __ 98_0_55 ____________ ~o~~~~,~\~ Printed: 10-18-2004 Payment Made: Land Use Actions RECEIPT Permit#: LUA04-131 10/18/2004 04:22 PM Receipt Number: OCT 18- RECEIVED R0405616 Total Payment: 3,500.00 Payee: AURIA WOODS LLC Current Payment Made to the Following Items: Trans Account Code Description 5010 000.345.81.00.0007 Environmental Review 5011 000.345.81.00.0008 Prelim/Tentative Plat 5020 000.345.81.00.0017 Site Plan Approval Payments made for this receipt Trans Method Description Amount Payment Check #1116 3,500.00 Account Balances Amount 500.00 2,000.00 1,000.00 Trans Account Code Description Balance Due 3021 303.000.00.345.85 5006 000.345.81.00.0002 5007 000.345.81.00.0003 5008 000.345.81.00.0004 5009 000.345.81.00.0006 5010 000.345.81.00.0007 5011 000.345.81.00.0008 5012 000.345.81.00.0009 5013 000.345.81.00.0010 5014 000.345.81.00.0011 5015 000.345.81.00.0012 5016 000.345.81.00.0013 5017 000.345.81.00.0014 5018 000.345.81.00.0015 5019 000.345.81.00.0016 5020 000.345.81.00.0017 5021 000.345.81.00.0018 5022 000.345.81.00.0019 5024 000.345.81.00.0024 5036 000.345.81.00.0005 5909 000.341.60.00.0024 5941 000.341.50.00.0000 5954 604.237.00.00.0000 5955 000.05.519.90.42.1 5998 000.231.70.00.0000 Park Mitigation Fee Annexation Fees Appeals/Waivers Binding Site/Short Plat Conditional Use Fees Environmental Review Prelim/Tentative Plat Final Plat PUD Grading & Filling Fees Lot Line Adjustment Mobile Home Parks Rezone Routine Vegetation Mgmt Shoreline Subst Dev Site Plan Approval Temp Use or Fence Review Variance Fees Conditional Approval Fee Comprehensive Plan Amend Booklets/EIS/Copies Maps (Taxable) Special Deposits Postage Tax Remaining Balance Due: $0.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .. ~ I I, I I I I I I I I I 'I I II I I I I I American Engineering Corporation 'Tecb.nical Information Report .Consulting Engineers Creative Solutions ... Superior Service "Ridgeview Court". qity of Renton . Project Site Location: ' 327. Bremerton Avenue'NE Renton,WA May 12,2005 Prepared For: Ridgeview Co~rt LLC c/o: ciiffWilliams P.O. Box 2401 Kirkland, Wa. 98083-2401 AEC Job #03l2 , i. ... I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I AEC Job No. 0312 I Ridgeview Court· Technical Information Report City of Renton Project Site Location: 327 Bremerton Avenue NE Renton,WA Prepared For: Ridgeview Court LLC c/o: Cliff Williams P.O. Box 2401 Kirkland, Wa. 98083-2401 Prepared By: American Engineering Corporation Rob Stewart, E.LT. / Cheryl Girard, P.E. May 12, 2005 EXPIRES 04-05-2006 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I King County Department of Development and Environmental Services DRAFT TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 1 PROJECT OWNER AND PROJECT ENGINEER Project Owner: Ridgeview Court LLC Address: c/o: Cliff Williams P.O. Box 2401 Kirkland. Wa. 98083-2401 Phone: (206) 933 -1049 Project Engineer: Einar Gundersen Company: American Engineering Corp. Phone/Address: (425) 881-7430 4032 148th Avenue NE Redmond. Wa. 98052 Part 3 TYPEOF PERMIT APPLICATION 0 Subdivision ~ Short Subdivision 0 . Grading 0 Commercial 0 Other: Part 2 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION Project Name: Ridgeview Court Location: Renton. Wa. (King County) Township: 23 North Range: 5 East NW'/.. Section: 1.§ .;;:.. , Part 4 OTHER REVIEWS. AND PERMITS o DFW HPA o Shoreline Management o COE404 ~ Rockery 0 DOE Dam Safety ~ Structural Vaults 0 FEMA Floodplain 0 Other 0 COEWetiands Part 5 SITE COMMUNITY AND DRAINAGE BASIN . Community: Newcastle Community Planning Area Drainage Basin: Cedar River Basin and Lower Cedar River Sub Basin Part 6 SITE CHARACTERISTICS 0 River 0 Floodplain 0 Stream 0 Wetlands 0 Critical Stream Reach 0 Seeps/Springs 0 Depressions/Swales 0 High Groundwater Table 0 Lake 0 Groundwater Recharge 0 Steep Slopes ~ Other THIS SECTION N/A I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Part 7 SOILS Soil Type AgC o Additional Sheets Attached Slopes 6%-15% Part 8 DEVELOPMENT LIMITATIONS REFERENCE cgJ Level One Downstream Analysis D See Section 3 for more details D __________________ __ D ____________________ _ D __________________ __ D Additional Sheets Attached . - Part9:E$C REQUIREMENTS . , MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION cgJ Sedimentation Facilities cgJ Stabilized Construction Entrance cgJ Perimeter Runoff Control cgJ Clearing and Grading Restrictions cgJ Cover Practices cgJ Construction Sequence D Other-_______ _ Erosion Potential slight to moderate Erosive Velocities medium LIMITATION/SITE CONSTRAINT MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS AFTER CONSTRUCTION cgJ Stabilize Exposed Surface cgJ Remove and Restore Temporary ESC Facilities cgJ Clean and Remove All Silt and Debris cgJ Ensure Operation of Permanent Facilities D Flag Limits of SAO and open space preservation areas D Other I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Part 10 SURFACE WATER SYSTEM 0 Grass Lined o Tank 0 Infiltration Method of Analysis Channel [gI Vault 0 Depression 1998 KCSWDM [gI Pipe System o Energy Dissipator [gI Flow Dispersal D Open Channel o Wetland 0 Waiver 0 Dry Pond o Stream 0 Regional 0 Wet Pond Detention Brief Description of System Operation: Runoff from the road way improvements. roof areas. and yard areas will be collected and conveyed to the detention facility. and released at predeveloped release rates per the City of Renton requirements. Water quality treatment will be provided in the form of dead storage located below the live storage within the detention vault. Facility Related Site Limitations Reference Facility Limitation Part 11 STRUCTURA.LANALYSIS Part 12 EASEMENTSfTRACTS : [gI Cast in Place Vault [gI Drainage Easement 0 Retaining Wall [gI Access Easement [gI Rockery > 4' High 0 Native Growth Protection Easement 0 Structural on Steep Slope [gI Tract -Storm Drainage 0 Other [gI Other-Sewer Easement ',', ".,-;":,.: ',' .". Part.13 SIGNATURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER I or a civil engineer under my supervision my supervision have visited the site. Actual site conditions as observed were incorporated into this worksheet and the attachments. To the best of my knowledge the· rmation provid ere is accurate. I I I I I I '1 I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1 PROJECT OVERVIEW ................................................................................................... 1 Figure 1: Vicinity Map ............................................................................................................................................ 2 Figure 2: Site Map ................................................................................................................................................... 3 SECTION 2 CONDITIONS & REQUIREMENTS SUMMARy ...................................................... .4 SECTION 3 OFF-SITE ANAL YSIS ..................................................................................................... 7 Figure 3: Existing Conditions Map ......................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 4: Upstream Contributing Area Map ........................................................................................................... 9 Figure 5: SCS Soils Map ....................................................................................................................................... 12 Figure 6: Downstream Flow Map ......................................................................................................................... 14 Figure 7: Downstream System Table ..................................................................................................................... 15 SECTION 4 FLOW CONTROL & WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN .................. 16 Figure 8: Developed Conditions Map ................................................................................................................... 17 SECTION 5 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN .............................................. 25 SECTION 7 OTHER PERMITS ......................................................................................................... 28 SECTION 8 ESC ANALYSIS AND DESIGN .................................................................................... 29 SECTION 9 BONDS, SUMMARIES AND COVENANTS ............................................................... 31 SECTION 10 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL ................................................ 32 American Engineering Corporation Page i ·1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX A King County Community Planning Area Map King County Drainage Basin Map Table 3.2.2. -Soil Types Drainage Complaint List APPENDIXB Wetland Study by Alder NW dated March l3, 2003 APPENDIXC Geotech Report by GeoGroup Northwest dated October 4, 2004 APPENDIXD Rainfall Regions and Regional Scale Factor Figure 5.3.4H from KCSWDM, riser inflow curves King County Back Water Excel Spread Sheet King County Back Water Outputs (Systems 1 to 8) APPENDIXE Operation and Maintenance Manual American Engineering Corporation Page ii I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Technical Information Report for Ridgeview Court May 12, 2005 SECTION 1 PROJECT OVERVIEW Project: Ridgeview Court ABC Job No. 0312 Site Information: The proposed project is to subdivide approximately 2.4 acres into 20 single-family residences. The rectangular site is located within the City of Renton at 327 Bremerton Avenue NE (KC Parcel No. 5182100042), see Figure 1: Vicinity Map. More generally, the site is located within the Northwest Quarter of Se~tion 15 of Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M. The site is bordered by undeveloped parcels containing single family residences to the north, south, and west, Bremerton Avenue NE to the east, and the Post Office to the northwest. Pre-developed Site Conditions: The site contains a single-family residence, two detached buildings, and a gravel drive. The single-family residence and detached buildings will be demolished as part of this project. Runoff patterns for the site are generally from northeast to southwest with slopes ranging from 2% to 25%. Ground cover on-site consists of pasture on the southern portion of the site and forest on the northern portion on the site. Post-developed Site Conditions: The proposed development consists of 20 single-family lots with associated roads and utilities and a separate tract for the stormwater detention facility, see Figure 2: Site Map. Runoff from the roofs, driveways, upstream areas and frontage improvements will be collected and conveyed to the stormwater detention facility and released at predeveloped rates per the City of Renton requirements. American Engineering Corporation Page 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I '~:' "". ~. , '. _ .. ~E. GRfEMiOOO ,.. <. MOORIAL 2~D i=.1....; PARK <Xl ,V) ~: . .... 5T eTH LflSURf [STAffS IfIP SUNNYCMtt .' IfIP .NE VICINITY MAP (NOT TO SCALE) American Engineers Planners Surveyors RIDGEVIEW COURT Engineering 4032 148th Ave. N.E. ' .. Corpora tion Redmond, WA 98052 . "\.' '-.. '.~ :".'-. '. -." .. ~. -.. : "~~' ::,.<.! VICINITY MAP PHONE (425) 881 7430 Fox (425) 881 7731 ~P~R~O~J~EC~T~N-U-M-B-E~R-------'-D~A-T~E-----------------r~SC~A-L~E~--------------~FI-G-U~R~E---------------1 P:\2003\0312\Engineedng\Owg\E0312FGl.dwg 10/01/2004 09:43:31 AM POT 0312 07-20-04 AS NOTED 'I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I / / / I I I ~ j ,I" 20" ::~~,~ 18 ... ~';. ,:.'... 3" 2 r: '''''~ ,,/ I UTILITY EASEMENT ~_-I ACCESS AND I ~, -'-1 UTILITY EASEMENT J . f-~L4~6'~~~40~' ~~~~~~~'6'~~ O~ <7'~! ,1 ] N 55' 87' ~ NY 0:: ~S"'. 79' 67' ~ 1--5' PRIVATE " ~I. 17 (}(}!.: >15l 16 ~ r20' PRIVATE .,0, #~ ;> ACCESS AND ~ 56.12-~T~~NT 7' ~ 54' E 6.1'::: '1 \.~ 4 " 5 r~:a ""'U """'" , 'i-.r r-1 1166' 'q-' ~ ~ -t-L __ .~~ ~2' -~ -=j ~ ~~------.-~'n~\ I' ~ ~ 20' PRIVATE I'!"l I-o I'" ,--20 PRIVATE • 'n 7 '" UTILITY EASEMEN ICo ' '. ACCESS AND . • '\ 6 ~ U' U' •• a 15 '" , 14 JL;;"" ACCESS AND 5l1~ 55' 74' UTILITY EASEMEN • ~ ~ ~ _ F-;r-~,"~>---W-t-,:~--';,,--";oK\":"',:; ~\"~' "~'-'1:;~'~f='" . '" L 13" 12" 11" 10", 9 ~ _II II \ "1 I ........ I'" 0> 0> 0> 0> -" V \ ~~CJ.l1:~ 22' PRIVATE I FI--===~~I--~~~' -::::jt-~===:t===::~::------DElENTIot ACCEfS EASEMENT PRIVATE ~t -I---' -=-i'" _ -:::--f ..... ..l.~~!g:..' .-x.JI-c-~~'4~0;ii' ~~iACi~42,;0'iiiiiiit~j~;~4-0i.' ;;;:x.-;ii;-;~~-4D=--x-~~· -.... 132~.... _-~Tx--x '" _ ~ ~---___ l. ~"'::t=======±====~bI~O!QO~'4>17~' 4!:;;5bl"E~ 330.f 1 I L-26' PRIVATE .ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT i "-...... , I .', --1- GRAPIUC SCALE 15 0 15 JO ~ .... 1 INCH -30 FT. 60 I . o " 0 z .. 0 I 0 N I ,... 0 . g ~ 0 :I: U1 CD U1 U1 w 30 .. Z '" ~ . j ~ c !' .!5 " .~ IIII ~ .~j; G;I ,,«1'n ~ p,. .• ~ J .!'~} • . ,,·<il~ t! ~~; ~ ~~ ~; o z" c: ~~ ~i « ~ :~; ; , :i .. -0 :.t; ~ S~ :: ~""Ir ~ .5 ~ 011: 0 ~ cO .. ~ C-; ~ QI'"ca 0"'" _"0 on ,"Cc, N "c,," .. Eco ~ <W()~ :I: "'- c,~ ••••••• ~<I:j ~.+~"O!4 -0. \flo '" w ~ ~ Q " "'- '" "'-.. .. ~ :;i ~ .-~~ z ~l1' ~" -ru 0" o.~ ~E ~ ~ { ~ ~ ~ .;: ~ HO~ ~::.-~~,;..~ i:: :~:j u. I-: 0 _O..,J ~ ~$/l -t°o.""J.1i: ••• ~ ... ol);" •••••••• ~c, PRof JOEl NO. 0312 SHEET FIG 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Technical Information Report for Ridgeview Court May 12, 2005 SECTION 2 CONDITIONS & REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY The 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual Core and Special Requirements and Hearing Examiner's Conditions are being met in the following manner: King County Surface Water Design Manual Core Requirements: 1. Discharge at the Natural Location Runoff produced by the developed site will discharge at its natural location. 2. ' Off-site Analysis· 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. See Section 3 of this TIR. Flow Control Calculations provided in Section 4 of this TIR conform to the requirements set forth in the 1998 KCSWDM per City of Renton requirements. Conveyance System All conveyance systems proposed conform to the 1998 KCSWDM per City of Renton requirements, see Section 5 of this TIR for additional information. Temporary Erosion & Sediment Control All TESC measures proposed conform to the 1998 KCSWDM per City of Renton requirements, see Section 9 of this TIR for additional information. Maintenance & Operations A maintenance and operations manual will be provided after first review of the construction I final engineering drawings. Refer to Section 10 of this TIR for more information. Financial Guarantees & Liability A bond quantity worksheet will be provided after first review of the construction I final engineering drawings. The project owner will provide bonding as necessary. Water Quality Water quality calculations provided in Section 4 of this TIR conform to the 1998 KCSWDM per City of Renton requirements, see Section 4 of this TIR for additional information. American Engineering Corporation Page 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Technical Information Report for Ridgeview Court May 12. 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual Special Requirements: 1. Other Adopted Area-Specific Requirements 2. 3. 4. 5. There are no area-specific requirements for this project site. FloodplainIFloodway Delineation There are no King County classified streams or wetlands on-site (per the 1990 KC Sensitive Area Map Folio). Flood Protection Facilities There are no flood protection facilities located on or directly adjacent to the site. Source Control . This site does not meet the threshold for source control requirements. Oil Control This site does not meet the threshold for oil control requirements. American Engineering Corporation Page 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Technical Information Report for Ridgeview Court May 12, 2005 SECTION 3 OFF-SITE ANALYSIS TASK 1 -STUDY AREA DEFINITIONS AND MAPS Overview This section of the TlR is a Level 1 Downstream Analysis per the King County Surface Water Design Manual Section 1.2.2.1-and 2.3.1.1 as required by the City of Renton. The proposed project (Ridgeview Court) is the subdivision of2.5 acres into 20 new single family residences. the site is located in the City of Renton at 327 Bremerton Avenue NE (KC Parcel No. 5182100042), see Figure 1: Vicinity Map. More generally, the site is located within the Northwest Quarter of Section 15 of Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M. Topography of the site area generally slopes from northeast to southwest, see Figure 3: Existing Conditions Map. There is one point of surface water outfall from the site. Therefore, the site consists of a single basin. Please refer to Task 4 for more detailed information regarding runoff downstream of the site. Upstream Drainage Analysis / Upstream Contributing Area Per the surveyed topography there are approximately 0.26 acres of upstream area tributary to the site. The field investigation also confinned the upstream contributing area, see Figure 4: Upstream Contributing Area Map. American Engineering Corporation Page 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! ~ '/" \ \ \ i , " i , '" a i <D ;;; I I , f / , , ; i ~ / " / .,' " , .,'lo r ___ ,0 • !' .... ~ ._---------------------------------p ~ z I I I (,,") ....... .-, --1- GRAPIUC SCALE 1~ J 'i i 1 1IICB -30 n. 136TH AVE. S. E. ---t- g TOTAL', AREA= ONSITE + OFFSITE = 2.91 AC IMPERVIOUS: 60 ! ONSITE ROADS/STRUCTURES=1.54 AC OFFSITE ROADS (BREMERTON)=O.21 AC TOTAL=1.75 AC PERVIOUS: ONSITE LAWN=O.86 AC OFFSITE PASTURE=O.10 AC OFFISTE FOREST=O.20 AC TOTAL=1.16 AC '" ., ,; z '" 0 ...... N ...... '" 0 0 0 ~ 0 I Ul Ul (IJ Ul W ;. 00( Z '" i I ~ I1II ~ ~ ~ In ~ c c 0 a: ~ ~ 1 I ii i 0 .... c E ~ ~ OIc g cO ;!: i-':~ ~ o~ .. -~O ! .. co. ~Q" Eco ~ <wo i:: JOB NO. 0312 SHEET FIG 8 '" w "II ~ 6 Q a. " a. '" <U " ~ on ~ 0° ~~ :z: "'11' ..,,, -m 0" ..... E§ ~ { ~ ~ ~ ~ <i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~"CAL CURB FACE" CLUSTER ~.~.,. TE" .. Lt. ClUS. EX T"IP£ I C8 9\ I R:) '1;.~~::'~\ f!~z. ~ , TD.£ BOX (TYP) nRc HrD \ ~ '\ '''0., . .-----~~ \0 'r'~'~ pp w(!!C p>tfl I '1' ". ". ":-'].>1... OHP j PP.(rtPJ."11:.~. ..•. S/. WALK-. ''/ _ _ . GRAVEL DRIVE MODELED AS LAWN 0.07 AC , ....... '- '-. .... io -----------------------------------~ a: I " " ~ \ " 9::1 X , ~ __ , ..... : --- -------------- 400.6 co z '" I \ --, ~ ,"\.') ~ \ \ '/ \ / 1"00;9" JX '..: 1 .. '1 ----"f/ g " ":~:r ..,-"x' I I I I I I I I I I I I I , 15 JoJ 136TH AVE. S. E. -I~ GRAPIUC SCALE o 15 JO ... . 1 INCH _30 n. so , TOTAL AREA= ONSITE + OFFSITE = 2.91 AC IMPERVIOUS: PERVIOUS: ONSITE=0.08 AC OFFSITE=0.06 AC TOTAL=O.14 AC ONSITE PASTURE=1.21 AC ONSITE FOREST=0.94 AC ONSITE LAWN=0.17 AC OFFSITE FOREST=0.20 AC OFFSITE PASTURE=0.25 AC TOTAL=2.77 AC .; z z ,. '" 0 0 I ...... U1 U1 N <Il ...... U1 W ,. <> '" .. z '" w . . I '0 ;g oX <5 M ~ ~ ~ ~ Vl ~ .0 ~~ S z .. ~ I ~-, -n ~ 8.~ ~~ ~l ~ ~ I i ~ '" ~ ~ ~ a: JOB NO. 0312 SHEET FIG 3 I I I I I VERnCAL CURB FACE UPSTREAM CONTRIBUTING AREA (TYP) , ...... : '" I I I I \ \ \ ! I / I / I I , I \ \ OFFSITE \ \ FOREST AREA 0.20 AC\ \ ''-, "-"- / "-) / / I \ ~ I I I I \ I I Go \ \ \ 'Or \ -,,_/ / / \ \ I I / / ...... -' / ./ I ...... ) / / / / / ~ \ \ \ \ ( \ \, , ~ .. ,: ". 136TH AVE. S. E. --1- GRAPIUC SCALE 1~ J ? i 1 INCH _30 PT. 60 ! . o <> ci z ... 0 ! 0 N ! ,... 0 .! g ~ 0 :c Ul Ul .. . .. oX e ~ ~ , Vl ~ C C a c: . ~ c 0. .5 JOB NO. SHEET CD U1 W ;0 z a: ~ i ~ ~ <> .!: WN 28 ~~ « ~ ~., ~t , ~ NE .., .. i ~: ::. ~ ~ ~ 0312 FIG 4 '-' w il ~ Q Q .. X .. :q !3 :;: ~ ;, .-5~ z .. ~ ~ .. -.. 0", 0." ~§ ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Technical Information Report for Ridgeview Court May 12, 2005 TASK 2 -RESOURCE REVIEW Adopted Basin Plan The site is located in the Lower Cedar River Sub-basin and Cedar River Basin (see King County Drainage Basin Map in Appendix "A"). . Community Plan The site is located in the Newcastle Community Planning Area (se~ Community Planning Area Map in Appendix" A"). Basin Reconnaissance Summary Report A basin reconnaissance summary report could not be obtained for the Lower Cedar River Sub- basin. Critical Drainage Area The site is not located in a Critical Drainage Area as defined by the 1998 KCSWDM. Sensitive Area Map Folio (F~MA Maps) The King County Sensitive Area Maps from the internet did not show that the site contained any wetlands, 100-year floodplains or seismic hazard areas, coal mine hazard areas, erosion hazard, landslide hazard, and landslide hazard drainage area. Therefore, no mapped sensitive ~eas are on or adjacent to the site. The City of Renton maps show a small stream meandering down the center of the site. However, . field reconnaissance did not show any streams, channels, standing water or flowing water at the time of the site visit. Therefore, no streams are present on the site. Furthermore the wetlands report by Alder NW dated March 13, 2003, concluded that no wetlands or streams are present on or adjacent to the site. American Engineering Corporation Page 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Technical Information Report for Ridgeview Court May 12, 2005 SCS Soils Survey The SCS Soils Map of King County shows the soil on-site to be Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam (AgC), see Figure 4: SCS Soils Map. This soil type is classified as till per Table 3.2.2.B in the 1998 KCSWDM, see Appendix A for Table 3.2.2.B.The Soils report by Geogroup Northwest dated October 4, 2004 generally agrees with the above mentioned soils description, see Appendix C for more information. Wetland Inventory There are no wetlands on or near the site. This is also confirmed by the wetland analysis by Alder NW dated March 13,2003, see copy of Wetland Study in Appendix B for more information. Drainage Complaints Cindy Torkelson at WLR Stormwater Services Section was contacted regarding drainage complaints within the downstream area. These findings are described in further detail below. WLR Stormwater Services Section found several complaints within the area. However, none of these complaints were located on or near the downstream flow path from the proposed discharge of the site. Therefore, the developed runoff from this project should not create adverse downstream effects. Please refer to Appendix A for the complaint list. American Engineering Corporation Page 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SOIL LEGEND The fjrs: :ooiral ietr~r is the Initiol ~ne.of the soil "a:;.e. A second capital letter, A, S, :, v: ::, or ~, indicates the -=ioss of slope. SYr:"Iools ..... ithout a sloDe letter ore those or neerly levei soi.l •. SYMBOL Ag3 AgC Age Aki= Am3 Ame An BeC BeD NAME .1.lcel"Wocd ;rovelly 5cndy loam, 0 to 5 ::;.er=ent slopes A iderwood grove Ily sendy 100m, :, to 15 :>ercent 5 lopes Alderwood ;rovelly sandy loam, 15 to JQ ::.ercenr slopes Alderwood end Kitsoo s:>ils, ver', steep Arenrs, Alderwood :roT'!riai, 0 to 6 percent slopes" Arenrs, Aldet"W'ood marerioi, 6 to 15 percent slopes" Arents, Everett materiel .. Beaus; te grove Ily SO:1cy loam, 6 to 15 percent 5 lopes 3eousite gravelly sendy loam, 15 to 30 oerce!"'\t slopes 2~=·..:zi~e ;:-c· .. =!!. =~.-:~, 3ellinghom silt loom 3riscor 5 i1t loom Buckley si It loam .' RIDGEVIEW COURT American Engineers. Planners Surveyors L----------------------------------------1 ;HONE (425) 881-7430 Fe, (425) 881-7731 L----------r~DA~TE~---------r~S;C:A~LC~-------~F~IG~UJiR~E:_-------. PROJ~CT NUMBER SCS SOILS MAP 07-20-04 AS NOTED 5 0312 p. \2003\0312\Engir'lE'€'r'ir'lg\Dwg\E0312FG5.d ... g 07/20/20D4 1l;23·i)6 AM PDT I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Technical Information Report for Ridgeview Court May 12, 2005 TASK 3 -FIELD INSPECTION A site visit was made on July 8,2004, during a partly sunny day with temperatures around 65 degrees. There had not been much rain in the previous few days. The site is currently undeveloped and consists primarily of sparse forest on the northern portion of the site and pasture type of vegetation on the southern portion of the site. The site can be accessed from 136th Avenue SE. The topography ofthe site generally slopes in the southwesterly direction into a low point. There were no visible drainage problems or recent unstable ground activities observed on-site at the time of the field investigation. TASK 4 -DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS DESCRIPTION Drainage System Description Runoff from the site sheet flows southwesterly into the low point of the site (Point A). Runoff continues in the westerly direction in a very broad ditch (Point B) until entering a wetland (point C). Runoff leaves the wetland in the southwest direction and enters into a drainage channel (Point D). The drainage channel originates in a larger wetland westerly of Point C. This larger wetland is denoted as Point E on the map and is located near the intersection of the Union Avenue NE and NE 4th Street. However, once runoff from the site leaves the wetland downstream of the project (Point C) and enters in the drainage channel (Point D), runoff flows in the southerly direction. Runoff continues flowing southerly in this drainage channel (point D) until reaching a culvert (Point F). Runoffis directed into a 60-inch diameter structure (Point G) and then under Bremerton Place NE to the east via a CMP culvert (Point H). This is where the downstream analysis was terminated. However, runoff discharges on the southeast side of Bremerton Place NE (Point I), entering Maplewood Creek (Point J), and appeared to continue flowing in the southerly direction. Please reference Figure 6: Downstream Flow Map and Figure 7: Downstream System Table more details on the downstream field investigation. No downstream problems were observed at the time of the field investigation. American Engineering Corporation Page 13 ~] lad ~ !;.'.-Z'll POlil:l'l() "002/021l0 e." 99.;121(0)\ e-O,Ov!.,.Iaavt6u]\ZlEO\C002\'d .woN li' 'flod 0llj C\211:O .-i . - .(8 I 0100 dVW M01~ WV~H1SNMOa lHi10J M~IA~~aIH 251° : i~ - cUOIIi",a~ I"-~l .. :It-~. ',,I,,' _."' ... I ~ ,,-f.Ur '. All; ,. ·~Ir . __ " .. ' I ::ill I' I' r-'~'" . .;..~". 1 : 1" I 8 1 N 0 I N G !S 1 T E , :11 n,~~~; 2 ~Ii i :> 'J " ·"'1 . I .-' 31 I . . ,,,.. L.· -'''''' Pi & ArN' -" ~L ; , I "I--,Ttf~-"--- I~; I . ~. I II ,I I _ Ii: 4 ! u 2.B4 Ac. @ -. ~'--I'~--- U.5l AG. 100 @ J.E-:-2~.,;,:~;:'4TH::~;~.~=S17i:-;:==I·~:-::.;.:::;:~C:::;~~~~~;';':~:':~2;,;,~; 128l (3) . rJ 9 'If" ~ cO ... o M en -n Q on ,;; <D '.11 I (,0 3 UNREC o r ~~ r.. '~f'l~ .---.1------.-.1U-.. ------ "' ~ .-~'.I. -~ '!.'. -~ [.,. -! '.' --eEill-- ~-"~'''-'--............. --.. -.. -......... ···· .. --1 , ~ )r~, 7~' " , lA '.!?. . v ''f "\, r:, )., ',,~ \<·1 ~ 5 \\ II/ -~- 2' I 22 "! ~; ~A 1 32 ~I 33 . el~. E· ..... 0 - 19 18 ------ (2) '. J9 ; S.P. 1079069 '4/ ' / ~~,~ ..... '" " --.... ·:.'~H~ T~ , 42 '. \" . ~'~" I '<:.:: __ _ ~l-.JV.J~.O::./:..."'-____ _ o ~ '" ~ 678160 "~I ·f (3) ~ ,'., ,,"4_'" ~i7 ~lilLi1 ... _.g.12.. .,;/ :"0 ~~2~r . 'J!' 1 0 ~ =-"ftL- -ro.11m ~1!j 1I .... ..-:.-=: ~<l , -~ ;:\ .} '" N .., "U' ~ C 50~3-1 \,() :: :: :: :.: f:: ~ :"~-;. .. ;_-~ '50' l ,0· 0 -.-~ !.Ll-ts-----112al~:.:..:.~-· . _~,,~1 ---... " - - ?.rA I\c ® 7..39 ,,\C. ~I~I;;; / f,;\ . \(,J.J : 1/'--- I ( ,1 ~: IiE}J9 " ,'------_._-- ./ :r:.-_~-_=: '0 ,,, .,f ol) ,1--, _ oj) r' '" ,<, .... r\. "JrJ.fl 0 I ~o I"" .. i .... 1" Xl' I '50 I ~O '!.~ ..., --------- ------------------- Basin: Cedar River --_ .. _---- Symbol Drainage Component Type, Name, and Size see map Type: sheet flow, swale, stream, channel, pipe, pond; Size:; diameter,. surface area A Discharge Point from Site B Drainage Channel C Wetland I D Drainage Channel E Wetland (not in flow path) F Culvert G Structure H Culvert I Outfall J Creek (Maplewood) DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS DRAINAGE SYSTEM TABLE RIDGEVIEW COURT -CITY OF RENTON Subbasin Name: Lower Cedar River Subbasin Number: nla ----------- Drainage Slope Distance Existing Potential Observations of field Component from site Problems Problems inspector, resource Description discharge reviewer, or resident drainage basin, vegetation, % Y. ml = 1,320 ft. constrictions, under capacity, ponding, tributary area, likelihood of problem, cover, depth, type of overtopping, flOQ(jing, habitat or organism overflow pathways, pote-ntial impacts sensitive area, volume . ~ destruction, .scouring, bank sloughing, .sedimentallon, Incision, other erosion Runoff from site 2-25 0 none none No erosion problems 4-6 ft Wide at top, +1-2% 0-250 none none No erosion problems 2.5 ft Deep, 2: 1 SS +1-100 ft x 100 ft n/a 250-350 none none No erosion problems 4-6 ft Wide at top, +1-2% 350 -1650 none none No erosion problems 2.5 ft Deep, 2:1 SS 5 - 6 Feet Wide, 4 n/a nla none none No erosion problems Feet Deep, 1: 1 SS 12" Diameter (pipe +1-2% 1650 -1675 none none No erosion problems type was not noted) 60-Inch Diameter n/a 1675 none none No erosion problems (2 -12" pipes in from channel) 36-Inch CMP +/-2% 1675 -1750 none none No erosion problems 36-Inch CMP nla 1750 none none No erosion problems 24" diameter conc. ??? +1750 none none No erosion problems Figure 7: Downstream System Table I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Technical Information Report for Ridgeview Court SECTION 4 FLOW CONTROL & ANALYSIS AND DESIGN May 12, 2005 WATER QUALITY The calculations are based on the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) requirements, as adopted by the City of Renton. The site is located in the Cedar River Basin, which requires a minimum of a Level 2 Flow Control analysis. Water quality features for the site will be designed from the basic water quality menu. Existing Site Hydrology The site slopes to the southwest ranging from 2% to 25%, and becomes steeper along the southern portion of the site. Veget(,1tion on the site consists of sparse trees and underbrush in the northern portion of the site and shrubs and grasses in the southern portion of,the site, see Figure 3: Existing Conditions Map. The soil on the site is AgC, Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam and is classified as till soils by Table 3.2.2.B in the 1998 KCSWDM, see Figure 5: SCS Soils Map. Developed Site Hydrology The proposed development will consist of 20 single family lots, an access tract with associated roads and utilities, and also a separate storm drainage tract for the detention facility. The Public Access Tract (Road A) will provide access to all of the lots from Bremerton Avenue NE. Runoff from the roadways and lots wi.lJ be conveyed to the detention vault located on the southwesterly comer of the site. The detention vault will also include dead storage, which will provide water quality treatment for the project, see Figure 8: Developed Conditions Map. A runofftime series was created using the reduced 8-year data. The hourly series was used to size the detention facility. The site is located within the Sea-Tac Region and has a scale factor of 1.0, refer to the Rainfall Regions and Scale Factor Map in Appendix D. The soils on site are Alderwood, therefore, a soil cover type of till was used. American Engineering Corporation Page 16 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Technical Information Report jor Ridgeview Court May 12,2005 Facility Design Methodology The detention facility was sized by trial and error in accordance with the KCRTS detailed routing method, see Tables and KCRTS flow outputs below. The design intent for the detention facility is to match the predeveloped peak durations for the 2-year, 10-year, and 50-year return periods to half of the developed 2-year, 10-year, and 50-year respectively (Level 2 Flow Control Standard). Existing Conditions: Total Area to be detained = 2.91 Acres Offsite Area (Bremerton) = 0.31 Acres Offsite Area (Contributing) = 0.20 ac On~site Area = 2.40 Acres Impervious Surface: On-site Impervious (structures) = 0.08 acres Off-site Impervious (frontage) = 0.06 acres Total Impervious = 0.14 acres Pervious Surface: On-site Till Grass = 0.17 acres On-site Till Pasture = 1.21 acres On-site Till Forest 0.94 acres Off-site Pasture (Bremerton) 0.25 acres Off-site Forest (Contributing) = 0.20 acres Total Pervious 2.77 acres Predeveloped KCRTS Output . , Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:predev.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--------Flow. Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 0.211 2 2/09/01 15:00 0.094 7 1/05/02 16:00 0.200 3 2/28/03 3:00 0.044 8 8/26/04 2:00 0.115 6 1/05/05 8:00 0.190 4 1/18/06 16:00 0.177 5 11/24/06 4:00 0.360 1 1/09/08 6:00 Computed Peaks American Engineering Corporation - -Peaks Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period 0.360 1 100.00 0.211 2 25.00 0.200 0.190 0.177 0.115 0.094 0.044 0.310 3 4 5 6 7 8 10.00 5.00 3.00 2.00 1.30 1.10 50.00 0.990 0.960 0.900 0.800 0.667 0.500 0.231 0.091 0.980 Pagel8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Technical Information Reportfor Ridgeview Court Developed Conditions: Total Area to be detained = 2.91 Acres Offsite Area (Bremerton) = 0.31 Acres Offsite Area (Contributing) = 0.20 ac On-site Area;::: 2.40 Acres Impervious Surface: On-site Roads/StructureslDriveway 1.54 acres Pervious Surface: Off-site Roads = 0.21 acres Total Impervious = l. 75 acres On-site Till Grass = 0.86 acres Off-site Pasture = 0.10 acres Offsite Forest (Contributing) = 0.20 acres Total Pervious = l.16 acres Developed Area Output for site Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:dev.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac May 12. 2005 ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--------Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak - -Pea~s (CFS) (CFS) 0.515 6 2/09/01 2:00 1. 04 0.419 8 1/05/02 16:00 0.658 0.616 3 2/27/03 7:00 0.616 0.452 7 8/26/04 2:00 0.547 0.544 5 10/28/04 16:00 0.544 0.547 4 1/18/06 16:00 0.515 0.658 2 10/26/06 0:00 0.452 1.04 1 1/09/08 6:00 0.419 Computed Peaks 0.910 Retention/Detention Facility Type of Facility: Detention Vault Facility Length: Facility Width: Facility Area: Effective Storage Depth: Stage 0 Elevation: Storage Volume: Riser Head: Riser Number of Orifice # 1 2 Diameter: orifices: Height (ft) 0.00 2.75 110.00 48.00 5280. 6.25 396.00 33000. 6.25 12.00 2 Diameter (in) 1.10 1.10 Top Notch Weir: None Outflow Rating Curve: None American Engineering Corporation ft ft sq. ft ft ft cu. ft ft inches Full Head Discharge (CFS) 0.082 0.061 Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Pipe Diameter (in) 4.0 Return Prob Period 100.00 0.990 25.00 0.960 10.00 0.900 5.00 0.800 3.00 0.667 2.00 0.500 1. 30 0.231 1.10 0.091 50.00 0.980 Page 19 I I I ] I Technical Information Report for Ridgeview Court Stage (ft) 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.20 0.30 0.41 0.52 0.62 0.73 0.83 0.94 1. 05 1.15 1. 26 1. 36 1. 47 1. 57 1. 68 1. 79 1. 89 2.00 2.10 2.21 2.32 2.42 2.53 .2.63 2.74 2.75 2.76 2.77 2.78 2.80 2.81 2.82 2.83 2.84 2.95 3.05 3.16 3.27 3.37 3.48 3.58 3.69 3.80 3.90 4.01 4.11 4.22 4.32 Elevation (ft) 396.00 396.01 396.02 396.03 396.05 396.06 396.07 396.08 396.09 396.20 396.30 396.41 396.52 396.62 396.73 396.83 396.94 397.05 397.15 397.26 397.36 397.47 397.57 397.68 397.79 397.89 398.00 398.10 398.21 398.32 398.42 398.53 398.63 398.74 398.75 398.76 398.77 398.78 398.80 398.81 398.82 398.83 398.84 398.95 399.05 399.16 399.27 399.37 399.48 399.58 399.69 399.80 399.90 400.01 400.11 400.22 400.32 American Engineering Corporation Storage (cu. ft) (ac-ft) Discharge (cfs) 0.000 o. 0.000 53. 106. 158. 264. 317. 370. 422. 475. 1056. 1584. 2165. 2746. 3274. 3854. 4382. 4963. 5544. 6072 . 6653. 7181. 7762. 8290. 8870. 9451. 9979. 10560. 11088. 11669. 12250. 12778. 13358. 13886. 14467. 14520. 14573. 14626. 14678. 14784. 14837. 14890. 14942. 14995. 15576. 16104. 16685. 17266. 17794. 18374. 18902. 19483. 20064. 20592. 21173. 2170l. 22282. 22810. 0.001 0.004 0.002 0.005 0.004 0.006 0.006 0.007 0.007 0.008 0.008 0.009 0.010 0.009 0.011 0.010 0.024 0.015 0.036 0.018 0.050 0;021 0.063 0.024 0.075 0.026 0.088 0.028 0.101 0.030 0.114 0.032 0.127 0.034 0.139 0.035 0.153 0.037 0.165 0.038 0.178 0.040 0.190 0.041 0.204 0.043 0.217 0.044 0.229 0.045 0.242 0.046 0.255 0.048 0.268 0.049 0.281 0.050 0.293 0.051 0.307 0.052 0.319 0.053 0.332 0.054 0.333 0.054 0.335 0.055 0.336 0.056 0.337 0.057 0.339 0.059 0.341 0.061 0.342 0.064 0.343 0.065 0.344 0.065 0.358 0.071 0.370 0.075 0.383 0.079 0.396 0.083 0.408 0.086 0.422 0.089 0.434 0.092 0.447 0.095 0.461 0.097 0.473 0.100 0.486 0.102 0.498 0.105 0.512 0.107 0.524 0.109 Percolation (cfs) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 \ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 May 12, 2005 Page 20 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Technical Information Report for Ridgeview Court 4.43 400.43 23390. 0.537 4.54 400.54 23971. 0.550 4.64 400.64 24499. 0.562 4.75 400.75 25080. 0.576 4.85 400.85 25608. 0.588 4.96 400.96 26189. 0.601 5.07 401.07 26770. 0.615 5.17 401.17 27298. 0.627 5.28 401.28 27878. 0.640 5.38 401.38 . 28406. 0.652 5.49 401.49 28987. 0.665 5.60 401.60 29568. 0.679 5.70 401.70 30096. 0.691 5.81 401.81 30677. 0.704 5.9l 401.91 31205. 0.716 6.02 402.02 31786. 0.730 6.13 402.13 32366. 0.743 6.23 402.23 32894. 0.755 6.25 402.25 33000. 0.758 6.35 402.35 33528. 0.770 6.45 402.45 34056. 0.782 6.55 402.55 34584. 0.794 6.65 402.65 35112. 0.806 6.75 402.75 35640. 0.818 Hyd Inflow Outflow Peak Target Calc Stage Elev 1 1. 04 0.35 0.14 6.18 402.18 2 0.66 ******* 0.07 2.92 398.92 3 0.62 ******* 0.10 4.05 400.05 4 0.54 ******* 0.04 1. 55 397.55 5 0.55 ******* 0.10 4.03 400.03 6 0.51 ******* 0.13 5.56 401.56 7 0.45 ******* 0.05 1. 90 397.90 8 0.42 ******* 0.05 2.41 398.41 ---------------------------------- Route Time Series through Facility Inflow Time Series File:dev.tsf Outflow Time Series File:rdout Inflow/Outflow Analysis Peak Inflow Discharge: 1. 04 Peak Outflow Discharge: 0.143 Peak Reservoir Stage: 6.18 Peak Reservoir Elev: 402.18 Peak Reservoir Storage: 32645. 0.749 American Engineering Corporation CFS at CFS at Ft Ft Cu-Ft Ac-Ft May 12, 2005 0.112 0.00 0.114 0.00 0.116 0.00 0.118 0.00 0.120 0.00 0.122 0.00 0.124 0.00 0.126 0.00 0.128 0.00 0.129 0.00 0.131 0.00 0.133 0.00 0.135 0.00 0.136 0.00 0.138 0.00 0.140 0.00 0.142 0.00 0.143 0.00 0.143 0.00 0.453 0.00 1.020 0.00 1.750 0.00 2.540 0.00 2.830 0.00 Storage (Cu-Ft) (Ac-Ft) 32645. 0.749 15432. 0.354 21374. o .49l 8196. 0.188 21289. 0.489 29383. 0.675 10045. 0.231 12728. 0.292 6:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 16:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Page 21 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Technical Information Report for Ridgeview Court Flow Duration from Time Series File:rdout.tsf Cutoff Count Frequency CDF Exceedence_Probability CFS % % % 0.002 36511 59.542 59.542 40.458 0.405E+00 0.006 2657 4.333 63.875 36.125 0.361E+00 0.009 0.013 0.017 0.020 0.024 0.028 0.031 0.035 0.039 0.043 0.046 0.050 0.054 0.057 0.061 0.065 0.068 0.072 0.076 0.080 0.083 0.087 0.091 0.094 0.098 0.102 0.105 0.109 0.113 0.117 0.i20 0.124 0.128 0.131 3745 3058 2867 2599 2129 2075 1376 1165 766 575 588 "366 315 87 19 14 64 49 36 21 17 22 17 21 34 36 17 11 10 14 5 10 11 9 6.107 4.987 4.675 4.238 3.472 3.384 2.244 1.900 1.249 0.938 0.959 0.597 0.514 0.142 0.031 0.023 0.104 0.080 0.059 0.034 0.028 0.036 0.028 0.034 0.055 0.059 0.028 0.018 0.016 0.023 0.008 0.016 0.018 0.015 Duration Comparison Anaylsis Base File: predev.tsf New File: rdout.tsf 69.982 74.969 79.644 83.883 87.355 90.739 92.983 94.883 96.132 97.069 98.028 98.625 99.139 99.281 99.312 99.335 99.439 99.519 99.578 99.612 99.640 99:675 99.703 99.737 99.793 99.852 99.879 99.897" 99.914 99.936 99.945 99.961 99.979 99.993 Cutoff Units: Discharge in CFS 30.018 25.031 20.356 16.117 12.645 9.261" 7.017 5.117 3.868 2.931 l. 972 l. 375 0.861 0.719 0.688 0.665 0.561 0.481 0.422 0.388 0.360 0.325 0.297 0.263 0.207 0.148 0.121 0.103 0.086 0.064 0.055 0.039 0.021 0.007 0.300E+00 0.250E+00 0.204E+00 0.161E+00 0.126E+00 0.926E-01 0.702E-01 0.5l2E-01 0.387E-01 q.293E-01 0.197E-01 o .137E-01 0.861E-02 0.719E-02 0.688E-02 0.665E-02 0.561E-02 0.481E-02 0.422E-02 0.388E-02 0.360E-02 0.325E-02 0.297E-02 0.263E-02 0.207E-02 0.148E-02 0.121E-02 0.103E-02 0.864E-03 0.636E-03 0.554E-03 0.391E-03 0.212E-03 0.652E-04 May 12, 2005 Cutoff 0.058 0.070 0.082 0.093 0.105 0.117 0.129 0.141 0.152 0.164 0.176 0.188 0.199 -----Fraction of Time----- Base New %Change 0.71E-02 0.71E-02 -0.2 0.53E-02 0.53E-02 -1.5 ---------Check of Tolerance------- Probability Base New %Change 0.41E-02 0.30E-02 0.23E-02 0.16E-02 0.12E-02 0.86E-03 0.62E-03 0.46E-03 0.23E-03 0.15E-03 0.37E-02-10.2 0.27E-02 -10.3 0.12E-02 -46.4 0.62E-03 -62.0 0.15E-03 -87.3 O.OOE+OO -100.0 O.OOE+OO -100.0 O.OOE+OO -100.0 O.OOE+OO -100.0 O.OOE+OO -100.0 0.65E-04 O.OO?+OO -100.0 American Engineering Corporation 0.71E-02 0.058 0.058 -0.2 0.53E-02 0.070 0.070 -0.4 0.41E-02 0.30E-02 0.23E-02 0.16E-02 0.12E-02 0.86E-03 0.62E-03 0.46E-03 0.23E-03 0.15E-03 0.65E-04 0.082 0.093 0.105 0.117 0.129 0.141 0.152 0.164 0.176 0.188 0.199 0.077 0.090 0.097 0.101 0.107 0.113 0.117 0.122 0.127 0.129 0.132 -5.9 -3.8 -8.0 -13.7 -17.3 -19.6 -23.2 -25.4 -28.0 -3l. 2 -33.9 Page 22 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Technical Information Report for Ridgeview Court Maximum positive excursion = 0.004 cfs ( 7.0%) occuring at 0.060 cfs on the Base Data:predev.tsf and at 0.065 cfs on the New Data:rdout.tsf Maximum negative excursion = 0.078 cfs (-37.0%) occuring at 0.210 cfs on the Base Data:predev.tsf and at 0.132 cfs on the New Data:rdout.tsf May 12, 2005 See below for image rdout and target. Note that rdout is within the 10% allowance per the target. Therefore, the release rate out of the detention vault is per requirements set forth in the 1998 KCSWDM per City of Renton Standards. ..- (f) u.. U --Q) 0) Ir.... Ol .r:. 0 (J) 0 ~ C'\I C) CD ~ C) w ~ C) N ~ C) 0) C) C) w C) C) (") C) C) '-' R _____ _ 00 ____ _ rdout. dur () target. dur • C)1~~-.-."rn~---.-.-r~MTr--'-'''''Tn.---r-"rrno~--.-,r~,,~ 1 0 -5 1 0 -4 1 0 -3 Probabi lity Exceedence American Engineering Corporation Page 23 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Technical Information Report for Ridgeview Court May 12,2005 Wetpool Sizing: Vr=[0.9Aj+0.25Atg+0.25Ap+0.01Ao](R) Where: = [0.9(76,230) + 0.25(37,462) + Vr = Runoff Volume from Mean Annual Stonn 0.25(4,356)] (0.039) (d) = 3,083 cf = 3,0 (3,083) = 9.249 cubic feet required Ai = Area of Impervious Surface (sf) Atg = Area of Till Grass (sf) Ap =.Area of Till Pasture (sf) Ao = Area of Outwash Soils (sf) ~ Vb = Required Wetpool Volume (cf) f = Volume Factor (3.0 for basic ponds) R = Rainfall from Mean 4nnual Stonn (ft) (from KCSWDM Figure 6.4.1.A) = 0.039 Total Volume Provided in the Wet-Vault = 15,840 CF ( 110' x 48' x 3' ) American Engineering Corporation Page 24 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Technical Information Report for Ridgeview Court SECTION 5 CONVEYANCE DESIGN Detention Vault Outlet Riser May 12,2005 SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND The outlet riser for the combined detention / wet -vault facility has been sized per Section 5.3.4 of the 1998 KCSWDM. A 12-inch diameter riser, with 0.50 feet of head can convey 2.67 CFS. The lOO-Year Developed peak flow is 1.02 CFS, therefore a l2-inch riser will be adequate. QORIFICE = 3. 782( D2 )(H y,) Where D = diameter (ft) -1.00' H = head (ft) -0.50' QORIFICE = 3.782(1.002)(0.50112) = 2.67 CFS See Figure 5.3.4H Riser Inflow Curves in Appendix D. On Site Conveyance Calculations The flows on site were found by using the rational method for checking the backwater of the conveyance system, an acceptable method per the 1998 KCSWDM. Once the flows were obtained, the King County Back Water Program was used to run the backwater analysis and the pipes were sized to ensure no overtopping would occur. The storm drainage conveyance system was sized to ensure that during the 25-Year 24-Hour storm event the conveyance system is able to convey the flows without overtopping occurring. Furthermore, the conveyance system was also checked to ensure that during the 100-Year 24-Hour storm events the system would function adequately and no overtopping would occur at any of the structures. It was found that the system does indeed function per the requirements set forth in 1.2.4 ofthe 1998 KCSWDM standards. Refer to Table VI.A -HGL vs. Rim and also inputs and outputs in Appendix D. American Engineering Corporation Page 25 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Technical Information Report for Ridgeview Court Rim Elev vs. HGL ElevTable Table VI.A -HGL vs. Rim System eBNO. RIMELEV. 100-YR HGL ELEV No. 1 2 402.85 402.40 1 3 403.27 402.76 1 4 404.51 403.45 1 5 406.46 403.65 1 6 408.59 403.73 1 7 408.83 403.76 1 8 404.89 403.84 1 9 404.89 403.84 2 1 404.l8 402.24 3 14 403.64 402.77 4 13 403.69 402.78 5 17 405.25 403.46 6 15 404.51 403.58 6 16 405.25 403.59 7 10 409.50 405.40 7 11 409.76 405.48 8 12 402.45 402.41 American Engineering Corporation May 12, 2005 FREEBOARD (FT) 0.45 0.51 1.06 2.81 4.86 5.07 \ 1.05 1.05 1.94 0.87 0.91 1.79 0.93 1.66 4.10 4.28 0.04 Page 26 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Technical Information Reportfor Ridgeview Court May 12.2005 SECTION 6 SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES A wetlands study has been prepared by Alder NW dated March 13,2003. Also, a geotechnical report has been completed by GeoGroup Northwest dated October 4, 2004. No other reports or studies pertaining to this project are known at this time. American Engineering Corporation Page 27 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Technical Information Report for Ridgeview Court May 12, 2005 SECTION 7 OTHER PERMITS A separate building pennit will be required for the detention vault and rockeries greater than 4 feet. Furthennore, a demolition pennit will be required for removal of all existing buildings on site. No other pennits are anticipated as part of this project at this time. American Engineering Corporation Page 28 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Technical Information Report for Ridgeview Court May 12.2005 SECTION 8 ESC ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Several standard erosion control procedures will be utilized by the contractor to minimize the amount of erosion and sedimentation perpetuated by the construction of the site. Some of the measures include a rock-lined construction entrance, filter fabric fence, a temporary sediment trap and standard ground cover practices. A construction sequence will also be used to minimize the impacts of erosion due to construction. These items will be discussed in further detail when the construction / final engineering plans and final TIR are submitted to the City of Renton . for reVIew. Clearing Limits: T he clearing limits have been clearly marked and will s how the contractor where site disturbances should occur. Construction Entrance: A rock lined construction entrance will reduce the amount of sediment \ transported off the site by construction vehicles. Detain Flows: The permanent vault and or temporary sediment pond will be used to remove sediment from the runoff generated by the disturbed areas during construction. The vault has been sized per 1998 KCSWDM requirements. Refer to Section IV for more information. Sediment Controls: Filter fabric fence will be used as perimeter protection to reduce the amount of sediment transported off the site. Soil Stabilization: Notes have been added to the engineering plans, describing how denuded areas will be treated if left un-worked for longer than 7 days. Slope Protection: Slopes will be protected once final grade has been achieved or left un-worked for longer than 7 days. .' Drain Inlet Protection: Catch Basin Inserts will be installed once the final storm system is installed. Furthermore, inserts will be installed on all catch basins adjacent to the site on Forbes Creek Drive as shown on the Engineering Plans. Stabilized Channel Inlets and Outlets: If necessary, temporary and permanent BMP's may be required for pipe outlets and inlets. These BMP's may include but are not limited to filter fabric fence, straw bales, or filter bags at pipe ends. Pollutant Control: With the BMP's mentioned above, the pollutants should be kept to a minimum during the construction process. De-Watering Control: A temporary riser in the sediment pond or the permanent riser in the vault will be used for the de-watering control. Refer to "Detain Flows" above for more information. American Engineering Corporation Page 29 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Technical Information Report for Ridgeview Court May f2, 2005 BMP's Maintenance: Temporary and pennanent BMP's shall be maintained per the proper maintenance standards. Construction Sequence: A construction sequence has been shown on the final construction plans to aid the contractor in applying the different erosion control measures at the appropriate stages during construction. Sediment Trap Sizing: SA = 2 X QIO.year / 0.00096 where SA = required surface area at top of riser QIO-year = 0.607 cfs SA = (2 x 0.607) /0.00096 = 1,265 sf As proposed the temporary sediment trap contains 1,655 SF at the maximum water surface (@ elev.403). Therefore, sufficient surface area has been provided. Emergency Overflow Spillway Sizing: L = [Q(100YR) / ( (3.21)(H3/2) )] -(2.4) (H) L = Length of spillway (6 foot min. allowed) -see below Q(100YR) = 100 year developed flow -1.02 cfs H = Height above head -0.2 ft L = [1.02 / ( (3.21)(0.23/2) ) ] ~. (2.4) (0.2) = 3.1 feet Since the developed site produces such small flows, the required length of the spillway structure is below the minimum length (6-feet). Therefore the proposed spillway as designed has a length of6 feet. American Engineering Corporation Page 30 Technical Information Report for Ridgeview Court May 12. 2005 SECTION 9 BONDS, SUMMARIES AND COVENANTS A bond quantity worksheet, and facility summary information will be provided to the City of Renton after first review of the construction / final engineering plans. American Engineering Corporation Page 31 I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX A I I I I I I I I I I I '-'-'---'---'7'~'----------------_._------ I 0' ,/ \~ \~~.~- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - I I -------.~---.----- ~'! . .----, / ( "----"',-/-::,-:-':\':':1" / ( \ ') ~/ \ Figure 1 KING COUNTY COMMUNITY PLANNING AREAS King CountY 1985 01 2 34 5 Ii 7 aMi .. 1: 300,000 1190 'I I I I I I I I I I I = I I -.. ' ::-~; . ' , ", -: Bellry ....• ~ ':.:-f. ---...... -----~ .... ::-- //_.-............ ..... ,,/~ ...... <.!.#~,/ MI E·~~-:-z"'-'~,,' "._ '-~~ = ,. Nann Font .,.-...... ,/~~ASIN <,' ~ . .,.:.-;--, .--* ... ~ .. ~~~:1. ", ..... r I'" ... t "'. ,~".;.,. _. ,. '" \ .... E:.'~'"\ i. CIT'T ~ Sf:.Tii~~TE"S"ED ...... -A_-'" i 0.-. (. \ '\; \. ,..... " ,,} --}'-;. ~.",.-. -~, ....... ...-.!"~~ '::"' .... " " 1"" 0 Q L' A ~ "4~ .·RIVER-.. ' . . . ........ -'" .. .It, T I (}.;. /4, l r 0"" ~ !:I T ... • "' ..... ! .-•... ..,.t ,- .=1 __ .... I, 'r-- -: . ...... .::~-~ \ '";.;.~,. ---- '" .. ~~.·i " .. \ . ... "-. + ." Figure 2 .-. DRAINAGE BASINS King County 1985 Major Basin Boundary Sub-Basin Boundary Source: King County Sensitive Areas Map Folio, Wetlands Supplement !!0,=",1=_2~=,3;._4e~5=~6,=,;7:...;8 Miles 1: 300,000 lf9() I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I > • I " ,~ 3.2.2 KCRTSIRUNOFFFILES METHOD-GENERATING TIME SERIES TABLE 3.2.2.B EQUIVALENCE BETWEEN SCS SOIL TYPES AND KCRTS SOIL TYPES I SCS Soil Type SCS KCRTS Soil Notes I Hydrologic Group Soil Group Alderwood (AgB, AgC, AgO) C Till ..... Arents. Alderwood Material (AmB. AmC) C Till Arents, Everett Material (An) B Outwash 1 Beausite (BeC, BeD, BeF) C Till 2 Bellingham (Bh) D Till 3 Briscot (Br) D Till 3 Buckley (Bu) D Till 4 Earlmont (Ea) D Till 3 Edgewick (Ed) C Till 3 Everett (EvB, EvC, EvD, EwC) I AlB Outwash 1 Indianola (InC, InA, InD) A Outwash 1 Kitsap (KpB, KpC, KpD) C Till Klaus (KsC) C Outwash 1 Neilton (NeC) A Outwash 1 Newberg (Ng) B I Till 3 Nooksack (Nk) C Till 3 Norma (No) D Till 3 Orcas (Or) D Wetland Oridia (as) D Till 3 avail (OvC, OvD, OvF) C Till 2 Pilchuck (Pc) C Till 3 Puget (Pu) D Till 3 Puyallup (Py) B Till 3 Ragnar (RaC, RaD, RaC, RaE) B Outwash 1 Renton (Re) D Till 3 Salal (Sa) C Till 3 Sammamish (Sh) D Till 3 Seattle (Sk) D Wetland Shalcar (Sm) D I Till 3 Si (Sn) C Till 3 Snohomish (So, Sr) D Till 3 Sultan (Su) C Till 3 Tukwila (Tu) D Till 3 Woodinville (Wo) D Till 3 Notes: 1. Where outwash soils are saturated or underlain at shallow depth «5 feet) by glacial till. they should be treated as till soils. 2. These are bedrock soils, but calibration of HSPF by King County DNR shows bedrock soils to have similar hydrologic response to till soils. 3. These are alluvial soils, some of which are underlain by glacial till or have a seasonally high water table. In the absence of detailed study. these soils should be treated as till soils. 4. Buckley soils are formed on the low-permeability Osceola mudflow. Hydrologic response is assumed to be similar to that of till soils. 1998 Surface Water Design Manual 9/1/98 3-25 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I JUL. 21 . 2004 '4: 2'5PM KC WLRD NC'. '341 P.l/4 King County Water and Land Resources (\VLR) Division 201 S Jackson St, Suite 600 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 FAX V Date: #'1 Nwnber of pages including cover sheet: From: Cindy Torkelson WLR Stonnwater Services Section Phone: 206-296-1900 Fax Number: 206-296-0192 IMPORTANT LEVEL 1 ANALYSIS NOTE: \Ve do not send copies of certain complaint types that are not relevant such as BC\V, FI, FIR, FIR and WQA, and we do not send CL and LS types. See key below. Type S 1, S2 and S3 will not be faxed'due to size constraints. The following is a list of complaint types received by the Water and Land Resources Division Drainage Services Section. Complaint numbers beginning prior to 1990-XXXX have been archived and are no longer in our possession. They can still be retrieved, if necessary, but will take additional time and may not be beneficial to your research due to their age, development which has occurred, etc. If you are interested in reviewing the actual complaints, they can be pulled (time permitting) for your review. Copies can be obtained for $ .15 per page, and $2.00 per page for plans. Keys: TJ'R£ of Inv¢stig!ltign C Action R~ueu BCW Susiness' for Cleon Water CCF R..-sponse to Tnqu\ry ·eL CI~irn EH Enforcem<:n£ on Hold ER Enforeerncnt Review FCC,FCR.FCS Facility UlITlJllllints F[ SWM Fee Inquiry FI'R SWM fee Review fIH SWM Fc~ or. Holo ·LS RR NDA WQC WQE WQR WQA WQO Sl,S2,S'NJ La .... 'Suit Facility En;ineerin; Review Neishborhood Droinasc A.ssiUanc~ W~ter Quality COm;>laint \Va~ Quality Enfarc<:ment WaleT Qu.1ity Engir,eerini IW.·icv.' W,ter Quality Audit \Voter Qllaliry -Olh~r E:\ginee:ins Srudics Tvpe of Problem DCA DDM DES DLE DTA !NQ MMA MMF MMG MMY. MNM MNW SiIr'F WQS WQO wQr REM NWD ORT Oc:vel~tlConstruction ~inasc • Miscellaneous DrainaGe -Ero.i:mlScdime:lmtion Drainage -Landslide!Earth Movement Drainage Teehr.ical Assistance ~inase -~eTal [nquiry Mainr<:mnce • Aesthetics Maintenonce • Flooding Maintenance· General Maintenance. MowinS Maintenance -Needs Maintenance Maintcnance-Noxious Wecds SWM Fee Ques:ions Water Quality -Best Managemc=nt i"'rn;tic:es Woter Qyality-Dllmpino; Water Qt;ality -Illicit C~J',ection S\VM fe~ ·Rerncasurernmt S\'iM F~e-Gr-Jnt SW1Y! fee·New Discount ~Subject to Pllblic Disc:osyrt requirements 1. Ree:ipt ofwritkn r:qlJesl ior dccuments 2, Review and nppro\'al by Pro.e.;:utinS Attorney's office KC WLRD NO.'341 P.2/4 JUL. 21. 21211214 4:25PM I I KfnU County W8t8r and Land RU8DUrc08 DIVIsion· DralnsDB Servlc8s SectIon ComplaInt Search Printed: 7/21/20042:30:44 PM I Complaint TyP8 lYlIJ of Problem AddrB88 of PrOOlBID Commmts llJr08 Pava Numbtlr Colfo • QS76 9135 C FLDG 13921 SE 136TH PL SWAMP/SE 136TH PL/HIDEVVAY HTS 656J2 I J98:l·0HlZ C DRNG 13832 SE 131ST 5T 8lKED 656J2 ~Qa~ O~4~ e FLDG 14005 SE 133RD ST 656J2 I • ~ga2 eaS6 6 DRNG 12808 138TH AVE SE & FLDG 656J2 -1Qa~ Q491 C FLDG 14009 SE 128TH ST MAPLEWOOD HTS 656J2 19B2·0525 C-DVR 16935 116TH AVE SE @ SE 132ND/144TH AVE S~ 656J2 I ~9aa eS55 e FLOG 13224 144THAVESE" ';' G56J2 ~e4-e2~1 e ' DVR 140XX .' "~" ,:;. " " FLDG SE 132ND/ST.\ :.,"' •. , ... 656J2 1..M5·jOlO C DRNG 14100 SE 132ND ST :, SEE 84·1 005fTO ROADS 656J2 I \ 19B691SS C-DRNG 14011 SE 132ND 51 ... ..... --SURFACE WATER 656J2 " 1~6·Q216 ..c. 656J2 Hl8~ 0256 t 655J2 I "," ~. 1-9Be o~;e 51 COMMITTED DATE:1ST QTR 1989, 656J2 19860BA. e-. DRNG 13STH AVE , SE SYSTEM SIL TEO 655J2 I t~1j O:J6l.04 E PROS CRTD. 656J2 1~6·6;Za9 C FLOG 13323 14.1lTH AVE SE WATER FROM SCHOOL 656J2 1il6'7'·0255 C FLDG 14639 5E 132ND 5T STANDING WATER & MUD 656J2 I 1987 ea~e ~ DRNG 13323 146TH AVE: 51: CO DIVERTED DRNG ONTO PROPERTY 656J2 1987·0~e5 e FLOG 13025 138TH AVE' SE SEE 87-0463 OVER STREET 656J2 1987-0445 C FLOG 13837 SE 128TH ST I " • FILLING OF LOT 656J2 I .1987·0445 ER FLOG 13837 5E 128TI-1 ST SEE 86·03A4 PENTON, 87·0707 656J2 40976493 X FLDG 13025 138T.H AVE SE ON 138TH AVE SE 656J2 4QliS O~~G G DRNG 14106 st 135TH ST STRORM DRAIN FAILURE 656J2 I 1~8~·eI93e C OEBRIS 14003 SE 132ND ST DE8RI ON RD TO DET POND 656J2 -Ul!l9 g~~a .C DRNG 13852 SE 128TH AVe DRAINAGE OF NEIGH80RS FILUROAO CO. 656J2 1S89 ElIlEle -e-SETTLING 13120 138TH AVE SE SINK HOLE IN YARD 656J2 I -498Q O046l sz FLDG/DVR 14011 SE 132NO ST SEE:86·0256 YAHN PH I 656J2 19B9·0zfr: ~ . INQUIRY 14105 SE 133RD ST.· STATUS OF STUDY(yAHN STUDy) 656J2 I ·~a9·ee~o X' DRNG 14103 SE 132ND ST YAHN STUDY COM?LAINTS 656J2 -'990-0209 C' FLOG 14639 SI: 132NO ST' DITCH OVERFLOW/STORMEvENT 656J2 19~e-038S C DRNG 14105 SE 133RD ST FLOODING IN NBRHD 65SJ2 I 1990-0512 C DRNG 13600 138THAVE SE CROSS PIPE ERODING RAVINE 656J2 lS9Q 9S66 e D~NG 13323 146TH AVE SE DITCH ENDS/DIVERTED \!VATER 656J2 ~ 999·9550-ER DRNG 13323 146TH AVE SE XPIPE AND POND/DITCH ENOS 656J2 I 1SQO 08Q4 x-FLOG 14105 SE 133RD ST COMPLETION OF STUDY 656J2 1'990-I 5' , ,; --FLOG 14105 SE 133RD ST CAPACITY OF PLAT DRNG 656J2 1SS1 see 1 SFr" DRNG 14105 S 133RD ST PUGET COLONY HOMES 656J2 I Page 1 of 3 I I KC WLRD f'IO.941 P.3/4 JUL.21.2004 4:26PM I I Complaint :~ Typo 01 ProblBm AddroB8 a1' PrriJlBm Comml1ts Tbros Paua NumbHr 199~ OOIP X DRNG 14105 S 133RD ST CCF#191-32NAHN STUDY/FLOODED YAR 656J2 I HJ91-6696 SR DRNG 14105 Sf: 133RO ST CCF#SWM0124 PUGET COLONY HOMES 656J2 ~991 90S6-X DRNG 14105 SE 133RO ST CCF#SWM0124/DEVELOPEMENT 656J2 ~99~ 9246 , DRNG 14013 SE 133RD ST PLUGGED 656J2 I 1S~1-ez"6 SR ORNG 14013 SE 133RD ST PLUGGED PUGET COLONY HOMES 656J2 1991·631:; e FLDG 14011 SE 132ND OIVE~SION/CULVERT OVERFLOW 656J2 I 1991-0619 NDA DRAINAG:; 10403 1471H AVE SE STORM EVENT -Drw FLOODING 656J2 "981-6656 NOA FLDG 14105 SE 133RD ST CCF#491·32 NOT NDA PUGET COLONY H 656J2 1881·8696 X FLDG 14105 SE 133RD ST CCF#491·32/PLAT DRAINAGE 656J2 I "'199~ eess ~JIilA DRNG 14105 SE 133RD sr . CCF#591·2 NOT NDA PUGET COLONY HO 656J2 1991.8S:l0 X DRNG 14105 SE 133R,D 5T CCF#591·2 SAME OLD PROS 656J2 1991·e6e~ et FLDG 14105 SE 13313.D.S:r.:_ "_., _"'_'_"_ '.0 _CQF# 591·2 DUE JULY 656J2 I ~91·e;Z:H! ~JDl\ DRNG 14103 SE 132ND ST CCF# SWM 0520 NOT NDA PUSET COLON 656J2 1991 9;t1d ;I( DRNG 14103 SE 132ND ST CCF# SWM 0520 MANY COMP 656J2 ·1S91·eT1~ c DRAINAGE 14105 SE 133RD 5T NEIGHBORHOOD FLOODING 656J2 I 1'991.0715 5R DRAINAGE 14105 SE 133RD 5T PUGET COLONY HOMeS 656J2 19a~ 0:Z23 sg DRAINAGE 14105 Sf: 133RD ST CCF# 591-37 PUGET COLoNY HOMES 656J2 1:991-e'i'~9 oX DRAINAGE 14105 SE 133RD ST CCF# 591-37 656J2 I 199197a2=£ DRAINAGI: 14024 5E 133RD ST fLAMS (CLA.lM) 656J2 1099~ OZ3.2.. S R DRAINAGE 14024 SE 133RD ST lLAMB (CLAIM) NOT NDAP 656J2 I 1 glil~ O:Z39 SR DRNG/FLD 14103 SE 132ND ST CCF# SIfVM·0610 NOT NDAP 656J2 1e9~ 0:;1::;:7 ~JSA FLOODING 14103 SE 132ND ST CCF# 591-39 NOT NDA PUGET COLONY 656J2 169~ 9+++ X FLOODING 14103 SE 132ND ST CCF# 591-39 656J2 I 199~ 9812 C DRAINAGE 14639 SE 132ND 5T 656J2 1991 e666 SR DRAINAGE 14010 SE 134TH ST CCF# SlfVM0279 NOT NDAP 656J2 1~SI-e~M x DRAINAGE 14010 SE 134TI:I ST CCF# SWM0279/PUGET COLONY 656J2 I "'ree1.eee~ "'X FLOODING 13405 142NPAVE SE CCF# SIfVM-0854/DRAINAGE IMPROVEME 656J2 . '991-0~88 SR FLOODiNG 13800 SE 128TH ST CCF#SWM·0852·NOT NDA·PUGET COLON 6S6J2 "1~1·0888 x--FLOODING 13800 SE 126TH ST CCF#.SWM-0852WETLAND PR08LEMS 656J2 I H391.9946 X DRAINAGE 14105 SE 133RD ST CCF#: 91-0822/GRANTING EASEMENTS 656J2 1-a9~ ~c~4.X DRAINAGE 14105 Sf: 133RD CCF# SWM 1217/PROJECT SCHEDULE 656J2 ffi93·El1i9 C DIVERSON 137)0: 144THAVE SE POSS CLEARING VIOLATION 656J2 I 'l"993·0224 C PONDING 12217 14STH AV SE POSSIBLE SAO VIOLATION/DITCH ENCRO 656J1 +9920239 X INQUIRY 14105 S1: 133RD 5T INFO ONLY 656H2 1~9a ~ Qi4 C FLDG 14400 SE 136TH ST GROUND WATER UNDER ROADWAY 656J2 I 1993·1 ee~ e ORNG 146CO SE 132ND ST CHKSTATBYCMDi 656J2 ~ 99S·~ 9Se ER DRNG 14600 5E 132ND 5T 656J2 I 1~ 9;S8 e-VACATION 14010 SE 134TH ST DRAINAGE IMPACT FROM VACATION REQ 656H2 ~ 995 9;88 --c-DISCHARG 14328 SI: 128TH 5T COMPLAINT REQU NO INV@ THIS TIME 656J1 199!i 9901 -WQC DUMPING 12516 142ND AVE SE APPARENT PROPERTY DISPUTE 656J1 I Page 2 of 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I JUL.21.2004 4:27PM Complaint : Typo of ProDlam Number 'l"Sse·ssso WQC EROSION ~996g1ze9 c CIP .J~1l6 1291 C MPLWDTRB ~9QG~4e1 C FLOG A 19S'i'-ee08 c FLOG j99Z-005S-NDA FLOG ~091·ee~5 R FLDG 1~QZICZ:l~ FQB RID FENC 18S'r·1378 C DRAINAGE ..-1987'-I ~'re f!t DRAINAGE 1997-1380 t DRAINAGE 1Qg711~ DRAINAGE 1j9Z·jS25 WQA SMF'S ... 19lZ6-03i9 C DRAINAGE 1 ~~S-053'1 WOC INASHWAT T'SM-osJ4"'VVQR wal ~e~9-QQHi-R DRAINAGE ~gw~ 0202 CL DRAINAGE mg 0~Q9 e--CONSTRUC '"1'!99 9626 e STND H2O JQQo.OSQ+ C DCA ~gee-e""el3> FCR MNM 2QQj·oSQ:;Z .;:; DDM ~02 9126 CL INa ~O~ 044+ I DTA 2~ DDM KC WLRD 1'10.941 P.4/4 Adlfr88s of PrOOIom Comntlllts 'RIros PSIJ9 14328 SE 128TH ST 656J1 140TH SE 132ND -135TH SE REQUEST TO DO ASSESSMENT OF CONV 656H2 128TH SE & 149TH AVE SE DOWNSTREAM IMPACT TO F<OAD CROSS 656H1 SI: 128TH & 142ND A SE MAINTENANCE OF EXISTING CHANNNEL 656J1 14105 SE 133RD ST PUGH COLONY HOMES 656J2 14105 SE 133RD ST PUGETCOLONYHOMES 656J2 14105 SE 133RD ST PUGET COl.ONY HOMES 656J2 13845 SE 131ST ST TREE DAMAGED FENCE RO.~DS FACILITY 656H2 14004 SE 133RD ST LOCALIZED DEPRESSION PUGET COLON 656H2 14004 SE 133RD ST LOCALIZED DEPRESSION PUGET COLON 656H2 14005 S= 133RD ST LOCALIZED DEPRESSION PUGET COLON 656H2 132XX 140TH AVE ._ ...... __ $.E. OFFSITE CONVEYANCE DRAIN QUEST CH 656H2 14413 SE 128TH ST 656J1 14454 SE 132ND ST APPEARS PRE GRADING ACTIVITY NO PE 656J2 13224 144TH AVE SE APPARENT GREY WATER DISCHARGE 656J2 13224 144TH AVE SE APPARENT GREY WATER DISCHARGE 656J2 14013 SE 133RD ST 656H2 14004 SE 133RD ST RECORD OF INQUIRY ONLY· NO CLAIM 656H2 14606 SE 136TH ST CONCERNS RE NEW DEVELP CITY OF RE 656J2 13741 148TH PL SE SOGGY BACKYARD SOURCE OF WATER 656J2 14100 SE 132ND Sf" NO FIELD INV NECESSARY. REF'D TO SW 656H2 14004 c:-... c 133RD ST DAMAGED FENC: GATE AT UNOPENED RI 656HZ 13309 146TH AVE SE 656J2 14012 SE 133RD ST FENCE DAMAGED BY TREE FALL. TREE G 656H2 140THA & SE 132ND ST 656J2 14012 Sf 133RD ST . 656HZ . Page 3 of 3 I I I I I I I I APPENDIXB I I I I I I I I I I I I· I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I '\!.-.:" " .. •.• '-,j,. AlderNW Mr. Robert Wenzl P. O. Box 2401 Kirkland, Washington 98083-2401 Subject: Site Observations Property at 12905 136th Avenue SE Remon, Washington Tax Parcel No. 5182100042 Dear Mr. Wenzl: March 13, 2003 Project No. 21803 As requested we have conducted a wetland evaluation study for the property located at 12905 136th Avenue SE, in the City of Renton, Washington. The purpose of this work was to complete a site evaluation to make a determination ifwetland conditions are present on or immediately adjacent to the property. Our scope of work included a site visit on ~ebruary 19,2003, at which time we completed our site evaluation. In conducting our site evaluation, we followed the general procedures for the routine on-site methodology as outlined in the March 1997 Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. This procedure involves analysis of vegetation patterns, soil conditions, and near-surface hydrology in making a detennination of wetland conditions. PROCEDURES For the purpose of this study, we used the wetland definition adopted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Anny Corps of Engineers (COE) for administering Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. According to this definition, wetlands are: "Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under nonna! circtnnstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas." (33 CFR 323) In Washington State, the Shoreline Management Act and Growth Management Act have amended this definition to exclude some wetland situations by adding the following sentences to the wetland definition: 518 North 59th Street, Seattle, Washington 98103· Phone (206)783-1036 email aldernw@aol.com I· I I I I I I I I 1 I I. I I I I I I I Mr. Robert Wenzl March 13,2003 Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non-wetland sites, including but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention facilities, \\o'astewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were intentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street or Highway. Wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non- wetland areas to mitigate the conversion of wetlands. Delineation procedures are based on diagnostic environmental indicators of wetland vegetation, wetland soils, and wetland hydrology. These procedures, outlined in the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Ma!'.ch 1997) are commonly kno\'.'Il as a Triple Parameter Method. By definition, an area is designated as wetland when there are poSitive indicators for all three parameters. A listing of plant species bas been developed for use in the methodology for delineating wetland areas. This listing assigns plant species to one of five indicator status categories ranging from Obligate wetland species, which almost always occur in wetlands, to Upland species, which rarely occur in wetlands. Under normal conditions, hydrophytic vegetation is detennined to be present if more than 50 percent of the dominant species are in the Obligate (OBL), Facultative Wetland (F ACW), or Facultative (F AC) indicator categories. Diagnostic indicators of hydric soils are related to soil saturation, which leads to anaerobic conditions in the soil. Under these conditions, decomposition of organic material is inhibited and sOil minerals are reduced, creating characteristic soil colors that can be quantified by comparison with Munsell Soil Color Charts. A chroma of one or less in unmottled soils or a chroma of two or less in mottled soils generaIly indicates a hydric soil. In addition, soils that are saturated during the growing season satisfy a criterion for hydric soils. We used a hand auger to excavate shallow teSt pits to observe soil conditions to depths of 24 to 28 inches. Wetland hydrology is defined as· inunOated or saturated soil conditions for at least 14 consecutive days during the growing season. If no water is present at the time of evaluation, other indicators may include topographic low points or channels, flood debris, complete absence of vegetation, or presence of hydric soils. Standardized data forms are available to record observations on each wetland parameter. For this project, we completed data forms for the Routine On-Site Determination Method at two representative locations on the site. Copies of these data forms are included with this report. The format of the data forms is based on the forms for the Routine WetIand Determination from the Washlngton State Wetland Delineation Manual and the 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual. Additional observations of soils, vegetation and hydrology, beyond those reported on the data fonns were used in completing the site evaluation.' SITE CONDITIONS The subject property is a rectangular shaped property of approximately 2.3 acres. It is located at 12905 -136th Avenue SE in the City of Renton. There is an existing single fumily residence on the property along with several outbuildings. Project No. 21803 Page No. 2 I· I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Mr. Robert Wenzl March 13,2003 The adjacent property to the south is occupied by a construction company and is in use as equipment and material storage yard. Adjacent properties to the north and east are occupied by single-family residences. The property. off the northwest comer is operated as a U.S. Postal Service facility and the property off the southwest property comer is undeveloped. Soils on the property and over much of the surrounding area are mapped as AlderwoOO gravelly sandy loam on the (Soil Survey of King County, Washington, U.S. Soil Conservation Service, 1973). Alderwood soil types are included on the National Technical Committee on Hydric Soils listing of hydric soils. Our observations of soil conditions across undisturbed sections of the property are generally consistent with the descriptions of the Alderwood soil types. There has been grading and filling on the southern portion of the property and on the area surrounding the existing residence. Based on the growth of trees on the property it appears that the fill on the property was placed more than 15 years ago. Topographically, the property is generally slopes down from the south and north to a br~ swale crossing the middle section of the site. Vegetation on the site reflects the use of the property. The southern half of the property is grown up in a stand of black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera) trees with an understory of Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), hardhack spirea (Spiraea douglasii), with scattered Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), and western red cedar (Thuja plicara) trees present. The central low section of the property is occupied by dense Hiinalayan Blackberry. A system of graded driveways presently vegetated in short grasses loop around the property. There are scattered standing Douglas fir, big leafmaple (Acer rr.acrophyllum) on the site. The attached Data Forms identify conditions on the southern section of the site. These locations were selected as low areas on the site where vegetation ~ indicative of somewhat wetter conditions. As noted on the data forms soil conditions were not indicative of long term saturation and there was no water table within the upper 18". Conditions noted .on the data forms are representative of other areas across the southern and lower sections of the property. Based on our site observations and the application of the wetland determination methodology, it is our interpretation that there are no wetland areas or streams on the site or in the immediate vicinity. ' We trust the information presented is sufficient for your current needs. If you have any questions or require additional information, please call. Sincerely yours, ALDERNW )J~Q~o Garet P. Munger·" r ' Project Scientist Ene!.: Vicinity Map Data Forms (3) Project No. 21803 Page No. 3 I· I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-SITE WETLAND DETERMINATION Describe General Site Property has been graded in the past and is Data Point No.: DP-l Conditions: grown up in blackberry and young alder and cottonwood. Site Disturbance? Location: Southern section of /--., properJ1' in low area VEGETATION (5 E 0 E ... v.J ..... v.J Dominant Plant Species ... ro::l :::l Dominant Plant Species ro ::I .3 0 ..... .... 0 ..... . -.5 e ._ ro e -g~ "'0-.... c::~ .... -en -Vol 1 Spiraea douglasii FacW S 8 2 Pha/oris arundinacea FacW H 9 3 Graminae H 10 , 4 Populus ba/samifora _ Fac .. T 11 5 12 6 13 7 14 Percent of dominant species that are OBL, F ACW, andlor F AC: 100 Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes Rationale: More than 50% species hydrophytic SOIL Soil Type: Alderwood (oldjill?) Hydric Soils List: No Histic Epipedon? no Mottles? . No Gleyed? No Matrix Color: 10YR414 Mottle Colors: -Depth: 12" Other hydric soil indicators: No . , Is the hydric soil criterion met? No Rationale: Chroma greater than 2 --HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated? no Surface water depth: - Is the soil saturated? No Depth to free-standing water in probe hole: -No Other field evidence hydrology: No Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? no Rationale: Non hydriC soils WETLAND DETERMINATION Are wetland criteria met? no Rationale for wetland decision: Non hydric soils; no evidence of long term soil saturation on disturbed ~te Project Name: Wenzl Renton Property AlderNW Field Investigator(s): G.Munger 518 North 59th Street Project No.: 021703 Date: 2119103 Seattle, Washington 98103 I- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-SITE WETLAND DETERMINATION Describe General Site Property has been graded in the past and is Data Point No.: DP-2 Conditions: grown up in blackberry and young alder and cottonwood Site Disturbance? Location: /~-. VEGETATION 0 8 0 a ...... tr.I ...... tr.I Dominant Plant Species ~ ~ ;::I Dominant Plant Species ~~ a .... ~ 79 "§ 0"-._ c:<:S ~ "g"-l -0 ..... ..... c::"-l .... -en -en 1 Populus balsamifera Fac T 8 2 Phalaris balsamifera FacW H 9 3 10 , 4 11 ... 5 12 6 13 7 14 Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100 Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes Rationale: Greater than 500A species hydrophytic SOIL Soil Type: Alderwood (old jill?) Hydric Soils List: no Histic Epipedon? no Mottles? No Gleyed? No Matrix Color: lOYR413 Mottle Colors: -Depth: Other hydric soil indicators: No sc;>i1 is disturbed with some fill placed. Is the hydric soil criterion met? No Rationale: Chroma greater than 2 HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated? no Surface water depth: - Is the soil saturated? No Depth to free-standing water in probe hole: Not in upper 18" Other field evidence hydrology: No Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? no Rationale: No water in upper 12", no evidence of saturation WETLAND DETERMINATION Are wetland criteria met? No Rationale for wetland decision: Non hydric soils; no evidence of long term soil saturation on disturbed site Project Name: Wenzl Renton Property AlderNW Field Investigator(s): G.Munger 518 North 59th Street Project No.: 021703 Date: 2119103 Seattle, Washington 98103 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-SITE WETLAND DETERMINATION Describe General Site Prosperity has been graded in the past and is Data Point No.: DP-3 Conditions: grown up in blackberry and young alder and cottonwood. Site Disturbance? Location: Low point of swale / along east side of prop. VEGETATION 0 a 0 a .... tIl .... tIl Dominant Plant Species CIS ::3 ::3 Dominant Plant Species CIS ::3 ::3 u .... ~. u .... .... ._ CIS ._ CIS .§ --0 .... .... --0 .... s::!Zl ..... s::!Zl -~ -~ 1 Rubus discolor Up/ S 8 2 9 3 10 \ 4 11 ... 5 12 6 13 7 14 Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Rationale: SOIL Soil Type: A/derwood (old fill) Hydric Soils List: no Histic Epipedon? no Mottles? No Gleyed? No Matrix Color: 10YR413 Mottle Colors: -Depth: Other hydric soil indicators: No . , Is the hydric soil criterion met? No . Rationale: Chroma greater than 2 HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated? no Surface water depth: - Is the soil saturated? No Depth to free-standing water in probe hole: Not in upper 18" Other field evidence hydrology: no Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? no Rationale: No water table present in upper 12" WETLAND DETERMINA nON Are wetland criteria met? no Rationale for wetland decision: Non hydric soils; no evidence of long term soil saturation on disturbed site Project Name: Wenzl Renton Property AlderNW Field Investigator(s): G.Munger 518 North 59th Street Project No.: 021703 Date: 2/19103 Seattle, Washington 98103 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1"""'""",:r..;.,.":'I::l'!~ '=665 IJ:.ZS ow.,~ Q6&, d515 ()!) ~~S~~·, 9ZU....8 ~ .... ~ .. , ~~i1 __ " '~Z31 ';;2<~.e -'~~~ "-1. ,==~--~~~~~--~u.~'~~~~-~-~'~"~'~.~~~~-J -. 1~, .... --./"=~ 001' '~rn~' .. ,':~:-,--~t~~:~f_~:,·,' ~~~JcH'~S~~' S:;;:~H~,ST!;~;, """" . _. '. -.1 ' 9'23 !Jo~8.5929a: 9186 ~ £.SI!:!..!L >:; '. ~ . '.: i) -92&t li., ~~~:;: ~~ ~:: _ " .:J\ ~/Q, -so :~ . '-::', -. .~:: ti/,\i, ":36 9;';' , -~ _ .. z·-.... ~~. -·-9~n.:). rn", ~EL ~-,-" --:~~<>-:;~:~H9~f~' rn '-{">~:>' ("., . .:. 0·6 935J-' . g.:-47~~>,·~~i:~\:,~~:~~.li ,:;j~~7_"_.,::~?,:, ~10~. NE_4~H_:~4: " .... ,' ~~ ,OO<JO ~ -, --~~:1~' _ ... ~.,,::.f,, •. ,.;{ ..•• '~,.'L.,.,·~~ .• ~,".:;_.;~,:,,J.~_.,:~'.~,._-'i]: :.~: ~!, . ;----.. --.. _. -"" __ -D'" ;;;;.=~-~~:: .. =,-~ .. -~,::--=-~,=::--~. =====~7l~~~~S~-b~===:::::::fi:· ~.~~~E;~':?'~::J~J :-... ~ L.-..(b .-.-----.-~.--'.'--.•.. _" 9aZ5'---' -~-9G69,:._~~ '.;;;_~C~~. 0031 OO.·.3 .. 2 .. C<>4_t..,;,l' .• _~L,. ~"'!i~'~i2.~~::~ "'" oofO 9O!?a 9021 9212 - :g2.'t ~ \ " !!C63 '~~~~~1 ~,9074 ' information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. 9 County makes no represenlations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such formation. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including, but not limited to, st revenues or lost profits resulting from,the use.Qr rnisUSe of the information conlained on this map. Arry sale of this map or information on is ma is ohibited exce written rmission of Ki Coun ALDERNW VICINITY MAP Wenzl-Renton Property Renton, Washington Project No.011703 Dote Feb, 2003 Figure I I I I I I I I APPENDIXC I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT· 12905 136TH AVENUE SE RENTON, WASHINGTON G-1846 Prepared for Mr. Robert Wenzl Vineyards Construction, LLC P.O. Box 2401 Kirkland, W A 98083-2401 October 4, 2004 GEO GROUP NORTHWEST, INC. 13240 NE20th Street, Suite 10 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Phone: (425) 649-8757 Email: info@geogroupnw.com I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Group Northwest, Inc. October 4,2004 Mr. Robert Wenzl Vineyards Construction, LLC P.O. Box 2401 Kirkland, WA 98083-2401 SUBJECT: GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 12905 136TH AVENUE SE RENTON, WASHINGTON Dear Mr. Wenzl: Geotechnical Engineers, Geologists & Environmental Scientists G-1846 Geo Group Northwest, Inc. has completed an investigation of subsurface soils at the above referenced site in Renton, Washington. This work was performed in accordance with our proposal to you dated June 22, 2004. Geo Group Northwest, Inc., explored subsurface soil conditions at the site by excavating eight exploratory test pits on July 7, 2004. Soils encountered in the test pits on the southern half of the site and near the existing residence consisted of loose to medium dense cobbly and gravelly silty SAND fills with occasional debris overlying dense to very dense fine SAND or gravelly silty SAND (till). The fills had thicknesses ranging from 1.5 feet to 10 feet at the test pit locations. Soils encountered in the test pits located near the north property line and at the northwest comer of the site consisted ofloose to medium dense fine SAND and gravelly/cobbly fine SAND overlying dense gravelly silty SAND (till) at a depth of between one and three feet below the ground surface. Based on the results of our study, it is our professional opinion that the site is geotechnically suitable for the proposed development. The proposed buildings can be supported on conventional spread footings bearing on the dense native site soils or on compacted structural fill placed on top of the dense native soils. The loose site soils and fills are not suitable to support foundations due to their loose and variable condition. Based on the findings from our soil investigation at the site, we anticipate that the dense soil under the building areas is present between 1.5 feet and 10 feet below ground surface (bgs). For the proposed residential development we recommend that the site be developed in accordance with one of the following options: 13240 NE 20th Street, Suite 12 • Bellevue, Washington 98005 Phone 425/649-8757 •. FAX 425/649-8758 I I I .1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I October 4, 2004 Proposed Residential Development -12905 136th Ave. SE, Renton, Washington G-1846 Page ii 1. 2. The fills and loose site soils on the southern portion of the site and near the existing house should be over-excavated and replaced with compacted structural fills. The proposed homes may be constructed to bear on compacted structural fill placed on top of the dense site soils. This option would require a large amount of excavation and fill placement across the entire southern and northeastern portions of the site. Because of the high-density of the proposed buildings and the predictable behavior of structural fill it is our opinion that this option, over-excavation and structural fill replacement, is the preferable option. Alternatively, all homes located in the southern and northeastern fill areas may be supported by small diameter pipe piles driven into the dense site soils. Both the building foundations and the proposed concrete floors should be structurally supported on pipe piles for the buildings located in the anticipated fill area. The homes to be located outside of the anticipated fill areas, at the north and northwestern portions of the site, may be constructed to bear on the dense native site soils or on compacted structural fill placed on top of the native dense site soils. We anticipate that the dense soils are present at depths ranging from 1 to 3 feet below the ground surface. Please refer to the text of the report for more specific recommendations regarding the site development. We appreciate this opportunity to have been of service to you on this project. We look forward to working with you as this project progresses. Should you have any questions regarding this report or need additional consultation, please feel free to call us. Sincerely, Geo Group Northwest, Inc. 8~~ William Chang, P .E. Principal Geo Group Northwest, Inc. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1.0 TABLE OF CONTENTS JOB NO. G-I846 Page INTRODUCTION ...................................................... 1 1.1 Project Description ................................................ 1 1.2 Scope of Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 2.0 SITE CONDITIONS ....................•............................... 2 3.0 2.1 Site Description .................................................. 2 2.2 Geologic Overview ........ :...................................... 3 2.3 Field Investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 2.4 Soil Conditions .................................. '. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 3 2.5 Groundwater Conditions ........................................... 4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....•.......•.......... ' ...... 4 3.1 General. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 Site Preparation and General Earthwork .............................. 5 3.2.1 Temporary Excavation and Slopes .............................. 6 3.2.2 Structural Fill ............................................... 6 Spread Footing Foundations ......................................... 8 Pipe Pile Foundations ............................................. 9 Slab-on-Grade Floors ............................................ 10 Footing Drains ................................................. 11 Pavements .. : ...................... '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.0 LIMITATIONS ...................................................... 12 5.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13 ILLUSTRA TIONS Plate 1 Plate 2 Plate 3 Plate 4 APPENDIX A: -Site Vicinity -Existing Site Plan -Proposed Site Plan -Typical Footing Drain TEST PIT LOGS Geo Group Northwest, Inc. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1.0 1.1 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 12905 136TH AVENUE SE RENTON, WASHINGTON G-1846 INTRODUCTION Project Description The project site is located at 12905 136th Avenue SE in Renton, Washington, as shown on Plate 1 -Vicinity Map. 136th Avenue SE is also referred to as Bremerton Avenue NE. The project parcel consists of an approximately 2.4 acre lot located on the western side of 136th Avenue SE. We understand that the proposed development will be c~lled Ridgeview Court. We have been provided with a preliminary site plan for the proposed site development by Nash, Jones, Anderson Architects. According to the site plan the development will consist of 20 new single family residences, as shown on Plate 3 -Proposed Site Plan. We understand that the existing residence and outbuildings at the site will be demolished. An access road and cul-de-sac turnaround is planned for the center of the lot. Finish floor elevations for the new buildings were not provided. Based upon our discussions with Mr. Mike Johnson of Nash Jones Anderson we understand that structural fills may be placed over the southern portion of the site to create a more level site. Consequeniiy, we understand that the main floors for the proposed buildings are planned to be at or above the present grade. We understand that a stormwater facility such as a detention vault is planned for the western side of the site with excavations on the order of eight feet below existing grade. 1.2 Scope of Services The tasks we completed for this study were conducted in general accordance with the scope of work presented in our proposal dated June 22,2004. The scope of work included the following: 1. Field exploration with six to eight test pits; 2. Preparation of test pit logs containing subsurface soil and groundwater observations; 3. Preparation of a written geotechnical report with the following recommendations: Geo Group Northwest, Inc. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I October 4,2004 Proposed Residential Development -12905 136th Ave. SE, Renton, Washington • • • • • Allowable soil bearing capacity and foundation design criteria; Slab-on-grade floors and capillary break; Excavations, including temporary cut slope recommendations; Grading and earthwork; Drainage recommendations. G-1846 Page 2 The results of our subsurface investigation and our recommendations regarding the proposed development are summarized in the following report. 2.0 SITE CONDITIONS 2.1 Site Description We have been provided with a topographic survey for the project site by American Engineering, Inc .. According to the survey, a single story residence is located near the northeast corner of the site, as shown on Plate 2 -Existing Site Plan. Based upon our discussions with the current resident at the site, we understand that the residence has a basement, although it is not apparent from the exterior of the house. A concrete rubble rockery is located just east of the existing residence. According to the topographic plan the rockery has a maximum height of 5.5 feet. A shed and shop building are located near the western property line. A gravel and dirt driveway runs roughly parallel and in close proximity to the north property line. The remainder of the site is undeveloped and highly vegetated by blackberry bushes and small deciduous trees. Some larger evergreen trees are located on the northern portion ofthe property. The site has a vertical relief of approximately 20 feet with an elevation of 416 at the north property line and 396 near the southwest corner of the site. In general the topography on the northern half of the site consists of a flat to gentle south-facing slope. A nearly level area is located at the base of the gentle slopes and extends over the majority of the southern portion of the site. The level area is bordered on the east by a small west-facing slope, the embankment for 136th Avenue SE. On the south the level area is bordered by a berm which parallels the southern property line. At the western edge of the property the level area drops off to another level area on the adjacent western property, approximately eight feet lower. Geo Group Northwest, Inc. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I October 4, 2004 Proposed Residential Development -12905 l361h Ave. SE, Renton, Washington G-1846 Page 3 Based upon discussions with the current site resident and Mr Cliff Williams of Vineyards Construction, LLC we understand that fills are known to have been placed at the southern berm location and just to the east of the existing house, behind the existing rockery. 2.2 Geologic Overview According to the Geologic Map of the Renton Quadrangle,·King County, Washington, by Mullineaux, dated 1965, the surficial geology in the site vicinity is mapped as Ground Moraine Deposits (Qgt). The ground moraine deposits consist of glacial till soils which are generally described as an over-consolidated mixture of sand, silt and gravel which was deposited during the Pleistocene Fraser Glaciation period about 14,000 years ago. 2.3 Field Inv,:stigation Geo Group Northwest, Inc., explored subsurface soil conditions at the site by excavating and logging eight exploratory test pits TP-l through TP-8 on July 7,2004. The test pits were spaced relatively equidistant across the site, as shown on Plate 2 -Site Plan. The test pits were excavated to depths ranging between 4 and 10.5 feet below ground surface (bgs). Soil samples at varying depths were collected, classified and returned to our laboratory for moisture testing. The tesipits were then backfilled with the excavated site soils and tamped into place by the backhoe bucket. 2.4 Soil Conditions Soils encountered in the test pits on the southern half ofthe site and near the existing residence consisted of loose to medium dense cobbly and gravelly silty SAND fills with occasional debris overlying dense to very dense fine SAND or gravelly silty SAND (till). The fills had thicknesses ranging from 1.5 feet to 10 feet at the test pit locations. Soils encountered in the test pits located near the north property line and at the northwest comer of the site consisted of loose to medium dense fine SAND and gravelly/cobbly fine SAND overlying dense gravelly silty SAND (till) at a depth of between one and three feet below the ground surface. We interpret the gravelly silty SAND soils to be the glacial till soils discussed in the geologic literature. The following table summarizes the depth to dense site soils at each test pit location: Geo Group Northwest, Inc. I I I I I I I I I I I I I· I I I I I I October 4, 2004 Proposed Residential Development -12905 136th Ave. SE, Renton, Washington' G-1846 Page 4 Test Pit Number Project Area Depth to dense native soil (ft) TP-1 Southeast 8 TP-2 East 3.5 TP-3 South 7 TP-4 Southwest 10 \ TP-5 . West 4 TP-6 Northwest 3 TP-7 North 1 TP-8 Northeast 7 Copies of the Test Pit Logs are presented in Appendix A: Test Pit Logs. 2.5 Groundwater Conditions No groundwater seepage was encountered in the test pits. It should be noted that groundwater .' conditions may fluctuate seasonally, depending on rainfall, surface runoff and other factors. 3.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 General Based upon the results of our study, it is our professional opinion that the site is geotechnically suitable for the proposed development. The proposed buildings may be supported on conventional spread footings bearing on the dense native site soils or on compacted structural fill placed on top of the dense native site soils. The overlying loose to medium dense site soils and fills are not suitable to support foundations. Because the existing fills are non-uniform in density and consistency their settlement cannot be accurately predicted. For this reason we recommend that either the fill soils be over-excavated or the buildings be supported on pile foundations. The anticipated extent of the existing fills consists of the entire southern half and a portion of the Geo Group Northwest, Inc. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I October 4,2004 Proposed Residential,Development -12905 136th Ave. SE, Renton, Washington G-1846 Page 5 northeastern comer of the property as shown on Plate 2 -Site Plan. Based upon our subsurface exploration the fills and loose soils in the southern and northeastern portion of the site overlie the dense site soils at depths ranging from 1.5 to 10 feet below the ground surface. For the proposed residential development we recommend that the site be developed in accordance with one of the following options: 1. The fills and loose site soils on the southern portion of the site and near the existing house should be over-excavated and replaced with compacted structural fills. The proposed homes may be constructed to bear on compacted structural fill placed on top of the dense site soils. This option would require a large amount of excavation and fill placement across the entire southern and northeastern portions of the site. Because of the high-density of the proposed buildings and the predictable behavior of structural fill it is our opinion that this option, over-excavation and structural fill replacement, is the preferable option. 2. Alternatively, all homes located in the southern and northeastern fill areas may be supported by small diameter pipe piles driven into the dense site soils. Both the building foundations and the proposed concrete floors should be structurally supported on pipe piles for the buildings located in the anticipated fill area. The homes to be located outside ofthe anticipated fill areas, at the north and northwestern portions of the site, may be constructed to bear on the dense native site soils or on compacted structural fill placed on top of the native dense site soils. We anticipate that the dense soils are present at depths ranging from 1 to 3 feet below the ground surface. 3.2 Site Preparation and General Earthwork The building pad areas should be stripped and cleared of surface vegetation and forest duff soils. Silt fences should be installed around areas disturbed by construction activity to prevent sediment-laden surface runoff from being discharged off-site. Exposed soils that are subject to erosion should be compacted and covered with plastic sheeting. Under option #1, the entire southern half of the site and a portion of the northeastern comer of the site should be over-excavated to the dense native site soils. The overlying loose fills may be Geo Group Northwest, Inc. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I October 4, 2004 Proposed Residential Development -12905 136th Ave. SE, Renton, Washington G-1846 Page 6 stockpiled at the site for use as structural fill provided that the anticipated debris is removed. We recommend that Geo Group Northwest, Inc. be retained to verify that the over-excavation has extended to the appropriate depth to remove all loose soils and fills. Under option #2, the building pads would be excavated to the design elevations in preparation for pipe pile installation. 3.2.1 Temporary Excavation and Slopes Under no circumstances should temporary excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified in local, state and national government safety regulations. Temporary cuts greater than four feet in height should be sloped at an inclination no steeper than 1H:IV (Horizontal:Vertical) in the ,loose site soils. Temporary cuts in the dense site soils may be excavated no steeper than IH:2V provided that no seepage is encountered. Permanent cut and fill slopes at the site should be inclined no steeper than 2H: 1 V. Surface runoff should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of slopes into the excavated area. During wet weather exposed cut slopes should be covered with plastic sheeting during construction to minimize erosion. If groundwater seepage is encountered during construction, excavation of cut slopes should be halted and the cut slopes should be re-evaluated by Geo Group Northwest, Ine. 3.2.2 Structural Fill All fill material used to achieve design site elevations below the building areas and below non- structurally supported slabs, parking lots, sidewalks, driveways, and patios, should meet the requirements for structural fill. During wet weather conditions, material to be used as structural fill should have the following specifications: 1. Be free draining, granular material containing no more than five (5) percent fines (silt and clay-size particles passing the No. 200 mesh sieve); 2. Be free of organic material and other deleterious substances, such as construction debris and garbage; 3. Have a maximum size of three (3) inches in diameter. Geo Group Northwest, Inc. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I October 4, 2004 Proposed Residential Development -12905 136th Ave. SE, Renton, Washington G-1846 Page 7 All fill material should be placed at or near the optimum moisture content. The optimum moisture content is the water content in soil that enables the soil to be compacted to the highest dry density for a given compaction effort. The majority of the surficial site soils will be moisture-sensitive because they consist of fine SAND with some silt soils. The site soils should be suitable for use as structural fill as long as they are placed near their optimum moisture content. If these soils are too wet they will be very difficult to compact because of their silt content. Alternatively, an imported granular fill material may provide more uniformity and be easier to compact to the required structural fill specification. If the on-site soils are to be used as engineered structural fill, it will be necessary to segregate the topsoil and any other organic-or debris-containing soil, because such soils would be unsuitable for use as structural fill. Excavated on-site material that is stockpiled for later use as structural fill should be protected from rainfall or contamination with unsuitable materials by covering it with plastic sheeting until it is used. Structural fill should be placed in thin horizontal lifts not exceeding ten inches in loose thickness. Structural fill under building areas (including foundation and slab areas), should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM Test Designation D-1557-91 (Modified Proctor). Structural fill under parking lots and sidewalks should be compacted to at least 90 percent maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM Test Designation D-1557-91 (Modified Proctor). Fill placed within 12-inches of finish grade should meet the 95% requirement. We recommend that Geo Group Northwest, Inc., be retained to evaluate the suitability of structural fill material and to monitor the compaction work during construction for quality assurance of the earthwork. 3.3 Spread Footing Foundations Geo Group Northwest, Inc. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I October 4, 2004 ' Proposed Residential Development -12905 l36th Ave. SE, Renton, Washington G-1846 Page 8 The proposed buildings can be supported on conventional spread footings bearing on the dense native site soils or on compacted structural fill placed on top of the dense native site soils. Base.d on the findings from our soil investigation at the site, we anticipate that the dense soils are present between 1.5 feet and 10 feet below ground surface at the building locations. We recommend that over-excavation and re-placement with structural fill occur at the southern half of the site and northeastern corner ofthe site, as discussed in the site preparation section of this report. Individual spread footings may be used for supporting columns and strip footings for bearing walls. Our recommended minimum design criteria for foundations bearing on the dense site soils or on compacted structural fill are as follows: -Allowable bearing pressure, Dense native soil Compacted structural fill including all dead and live loads = 2,500 psf = 2,500 psf -Minimum depth to bottom of perimeter footing below adjacent final exterior grade = 18 inches -Minimum depth to bottom of interior footings below top of floor slab = 18 inches -Minimum width of wall footings = 16 inches -Minimum lateral dimension of column footings = 24 inches -Estimated post-construction settlement = 114 inch -Estimated post-construction differential settlement; across building width = 1/4 inch A one-third increase in the above allowable bearing pressures can be used when considering short-term transitory wind or seismic loads. Lateral loads can also be resisted by friction between the foundation and the supporting compacted fill sub grade or by passive eartn pressure acting on the buried portions of the foundations. For the latter, the foundations must be poured "neat" against the existing Geo Group Northwest, Inc. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I October 4, 2004 Proposed Residential Development -12905 136th Ave. SE, Renton, Washington G-1846 Page 9 undisturbed soil or be backfilled with a compacted fill meeting the requirements for structural fill. Our recommended parameters are as follows: -Passive Pressure (Lateral Resistance) • 350 pcf equivalent fluid weight for compacted structural fill • 350 pcf equivalent fluid weight for native dense soil. -Coefficient of Friction (Friction Factor) • 0.35 for compacted structural fill • 0.35 for native dense soil We recommend that footing drains be placed around all perimeter footings. More specific 'details of perimeter foundation drains are provided below in Section 3.6 -Footing Drains. 3.4 . Pipe Pile Foundations As an alternative to the mass over-excavation and structural fill scheme, each of the new homes may be supported on small diameter pipe piles, cOIIlID,only referred to as pin piles. The pipe piles should be used to support the new buildings as well as all building slabs, such as those for the garage floors. Small-diameter pipe, piles typically consist of 2 to 6 inch diameter steel pipe driven to the appropriate refusal criteria into the dense site soils. We estimate that dense, native soils may be present at 3.5 to 10 feet below the existing grade in the anticipated fill areas. Pin piles can consist of two-inch diameter, Schedule 80 steel pipe. The allowable capacity of these piles is three tons per pile when the piles are driven to refusal by using a 90-pound jackhammer. The refusal criterion is defined to be less than one inch of pile penetration per minute of continuous driving for a period of three consecutive minutes. Alternatively, 3-inch or 4-inch diameter, Schedule 40, galvanized steel pipe can be used for supporting the proposed structure. The refusal criteria for these larger pile sizes are substantially different from that for 2-inch piles. Also, the equipment needed to drive these larger piles is more powerful, as these piles require more effort to drive and can attain higher bearing capacities. Table 1 below presents a selection of available pile hammers, pipe sizes, allowable bearing capacities, and instaliation refusal criteria recommended for supporting the residence foundations. Table 1 -Pipe Pile Design Criteria Geo Group Northwest, Inc. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I October 4,2004 Proposed Residential Development-12905 136th Ave. SE, Renton, Washington Pipe Pipe Hammer Hammer Refusal Diameter Specification Weight Type Criterion 2 inch Schedule 80 90 pound Jackhammer 60 sec/inch 2 inch Schedule 80 135 pound TBI00* 40 sec/inch 3 inch Schedule 40 650 pound TB225* 16 sec/inch 4 inch Schedule 40 850 pound TB325* 16 sec/inch \ 6 inch Schedule 40 1500 pound TB625* 16 sec/inch G-1846 Page 10 Allowable Capacity 3 tons 3 tons 6 tons 9 tons 12 tons * = TeledyneTM pneumatic hammer model number; criterion can be used for other equivalent strength hammer The pipe piles are usually tied into the foundation by one of the following configurations: A. Installing a steel plate on top of the pile which is located within the continuous or column footings. B. Placing bent rebar into end of piles and tying to the continuous reinforcement in the continuous or column footings. Our recommended parameters for passive pressure and coefficient of friction are the same as those noted in Section 3.3 -Spread Footing Foundations. 3.5 Slab-on-Grade Floors Loose forest duff should be excavated from all slab sub grade areas. Slab-on-grade floors may be constructed on top of the medium dense to dense native site soils or on top of compacted structural fill placed on top of the competent site soils. The slab-on-grade floors should not be constructed on top of the loose fills at the site. If the loose site soils and fills are not over- excavated as discussed in scheme #1, then we recommend that the building concrete floors be structurally supported by pipe piles. To avoid moisture build-up on the subgrade, slab-on-grade floors should be placed on a capillary break, which is in turn placed on the prepared sub grade. The capillary break should consist of a Geo Group Northwest, Inc. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I October 4, 2004 Proposed Residential Development -12905 136th Ave. SE, Renton, Washington G-1846 Page 11 minimum of a six (6) inch thick layer of free-draining crushed rock or gravel containing no more than five (5) percent finer than the NO.4 sieve. A vapor barrier, such as a 6-mil plastic membrane, is recommended to be placed over the capillary break beneath the slab to reduce water vapor transmission through the slab. Two to four inches of sand may be placed over the barrier membrane for protection during construction. 3.6 _ Footing Drains We recommend that drains be installed around the perimeter of the foundation footings. The drains should consist ofa four (4) inch minimum diameter, perforated or slotted, rigid drain pipe laid at or near the bottom of the footing with a gradient sufficient to generate flow, as schematically iIlustrated in Plate 4 -Typical Footing Drain Detail. The drain line should be bedded on, surrounded by, and covered with a free-draining rock, pea gravel, or other free- draining granular material. The drain rock and drain line should be completely surrounded by a geotextile filter fabric, Mirafi 140N or equivalent. Once the drains are installed, the excavation should be backfilled with a compacted fill material. The footing drains should be tightlined to discharge into the storm water collection system. Under no circumstances should roof downspout drain lines be connected to the footing drainage system. All roof downspouts must be separately tightlined to discharge into the storm water collection system. We recommend that sufficient cleanouts be installed at strategic locations to allow for periodic maintenance of the footing drains and downspout tightline systems. 3:7 Pavements The adequacy of pavements is strictly related to the condition of the underlying subgrade. We recommend that all pavement sub grades be compacted by several passes of a large vibratory drum roller prior to placement of the crushed rock base. Before paving, we recommend that the sub grade be proof-rolled under the supervision of the geotechnical engineer to verify that the subgrade is firm and unyielding at the time of paving. The proof-roll may be performed by driving a fully loaded dump truck over the sub grade areas. If loose or yielding soils are encountered it may be necessary to over-excavate and replace with compacted structural fill in some areas. For firm and unyielding native sub grade soils we recommend the following minimum pavement sections for driveways: Ceo Group Northwest, Inc. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I October 4, 2004 Proposed Residential Development -12905 136th Ave. SE, Renton, Washington Class "B" Asphalt Concrete (AC) Crushed Rock Base (314-inch minus) Or Concrete Pavement Crushed Rock Base (3/4-inch minus) 3 inches 6 inches 6 inches 4 inches G-1846 Page 12 In accordance with the Washington State Department of Transportation Construction Manual, transverse cracks will develop in concrete slabs at about 15 foot intervals along the length of slabs and a slab wider than 15 feet may crack longitudinally. To control cracking of the concrete, contraction joints should be installed. Contraction joints are weakened planes which collect the cracking into a controlled joint, creating a maintainable joint in the slab, and preventing random ragged cracks which spread and require expensive maintenance. We recommend that contraction and construction joints be connected with #5 dowel bars, 30 inches long, 18 inches on center. The contraction joints should be placed at maximum 14 foot intervals. 4.0 LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared for the specific application to this site for the exclusive use of Mr. Robert Wenzl of Vineyards Construction, LLC and his authorized representatives. We recommend that this report be included in its entirety in the project contract documents for use by the contractor. Our findings and recommendations stated herein are based on field observations, our experience and judgement. The recommendations are our professional opinion derived in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area and within the budget constraint. No warranty is expressed or implied. In the event the soil conditions are found to vary during site excavation, Geo Group Northwest, Inc. should be notified and the above recommendation should be re-evaluated. 5.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES Geo Group Northwest, Inc. I I I- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I October 4, 2004 Proposed Residential Development -12905 136th Ave. SE, Renton, Washington G-1846 Page 13 We recommend that Geo Group Northwest Inc. be retained to perform a general review ofthe final design and specifications of the proposed development to verify that the earthwork and foundation recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented in the design and in the construction documents. We also recommend that Geo Group Northwest Inc. be retained to provide monitoring and testing services for geotechnically-related work during construction. -This is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications or recommendations and to allow design changes in the event substance conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. We anticipate the following construction monitoring inspections may be necessary: 1. Site clearing and grubbing; 2. Over-excavation and structural fill placement in the southern half and northeastern corner of the site; . 3. Verification of bearing soil conditions for foundations; 4. Structural fill placement and compaction; 5. Slab-on-grade preparation; 6. Pipe pile installation (if required); 7. Subsurface drainage installation; 8. Proof-rolling of pavement sub grade areas. We appreciate this opportunity to have been of service to you on this project. We look forward to working with you as this project progresses. Sh~)Uld you have any questions regarding this report or need additional consultation, please feel free to call us. Geo Group Northwest, Inc. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I October 4,2004 Proposed Residential Development -12905 136th Ave. SE, Renton, Washington Sincerely, Geo Group Northwest, Inc. Adam Gaston Staff Engineer '~~ William Chang, P .E. Principal Geo Group Northwest, Inc. G-1846 Page 14 I I I I· I ILLUSTRATIONS I 0-1846 I I I I I I I I I I I I Geo Group Northwest, Inc. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SCALE: Group Northwest, Inc. NTS Geotechnical Engneers. Geobgists. & Environmental Scientists DATE: 7/14/04 MADE: AG CHKD: . VICINITY MAP PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 12905 136TH A VENUE SE RENTON, W ASIllNGTON we JOB NO: G-1846 PLATE 1 I I I· I I I I I I I I I I I I I ..... , . , , '-,., '-' ,-. '-' -, ,_'P ;: ~ , . , , '- ~ TP-7 a'rf. " IIII--~ 136th Avenue SE LEGEND o z ~ w w z ~ z w z « C) a: w ::!! « >-m z :5 a. C) :c a. ~ C> o a. o I- ::!! o a:: u. o W I-a. C§ « ~ z ~ ll. W I-00 W I-o Z N ~ ~ < ... Eo--;:t.,. Z liI;l ~I ~ ~ 0 ~ ~liI;lZ QO -~t"IlO I z>~~ C!J <~~~ 0 ~~liI;l-<>= z ~ ~~<~ 0 ~z=::: .... ~~~ a _!"'lZ ~t"Il~O CI)~g~ ~ QM~ liI;l~~ C"I.l 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ ... ~ 0 ~ C!J <: ~ ~ < )l • C.J = '" ~ ... :i ...,. ..... ..II <:;) ~!! -... rlI.:I ...,. ~ ~~ ..... Cl ii -... ~ !~ t-- -= 0-o .. ... oSc .. "'g ~ tli t:: ~ 0 j~ < Z .a.fi ~ 0 .!l 0 .. = Cl 0 a ...,. J. II ~ ..... • ~ ... < c.; QQ I -lib. TFSr PIT NUMBER AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION ~--~~ ~\<~ ~rx-. .. fENcE 'i"TP.l I ______________________________________________ . ____ ~ __ ~_~_~ __ ~-.~------__ --_____ -______ ~~g~J __________ --__________________ ~ __________ ~ ______ ~ ______ ~_.~_-_~_.-! ____ AP_P_R_O_~ ____ TE __ ANT __ I_aP __ A_T_E_D_~_X_T_ENT ___ O_F_~ __ L_S ____ ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t( , -i I I • I I c: \ ,-. I ,.: .... .I I I I I I I L ,~ , "0\ 1Ij~ -;0.. 'fl~........ .,,:;' ~ ______ ./,."" :.~ ... ( ".," .. N.88\l~·17·W--... 323.52' ~~-~--- ,-, ,,. / -i NOTE: SITE PLAN IS ADAPTED FROM PLAN PROVIDED BY AMERICAN ENGINEERING. INC. 10/1/04. SCALE: Group Northwest, Inc. Geotechnical Engineers. Geologists. & Environrrental Scientists 1" = 60' DATE: 1 0/4/04 MADE: AO CHKD: PROPOSED SITE PLAN PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 129.05 136TH AVENUE SE RENTON, WASHINGTON we JOB NO: 0-1846 PLATE 3 I.-------------------------------~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I BACKBLL~COMPACTED NATIVE. RELATIVELY IMPERMEABLE SOIL GEOTEXTll..E FILTER FABRIC, MIRAFI I40N OR EQUlV ALENT FREE DRAINING BACKFILL CONSISTING OF WASHED . ROCK OR CRUSHED ROCK MINIMUM 4 INCH DIAMETER PERFORATED PVC PIPE WITH POSmvE GRADIENT TO DISCHARGE NOTES: t 6" to 12" 1 NOT TO SCALE 1.) Do not replace rigid PVC pipe with flexible corrugated plastic pipe. 2.) Perforated or slotted PVC pipe should be tight jointed and laid with perforations or slots down, with positive gradient to discharge. 3.) Do not connect roof downspout drains into the footing drain lines. III I~--------~----------~ TYPICAL FOOTING DRAIN DETAll- . Group Northwest, Inc. PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Geotechnical E:ngneers, Geologists, & 12905 136TH AVENUE SE I 1~----------~----~-y-~o-n~-n-m-I&-iM-~T·ts----------~--------------RE._NT--O-N_,_~ __ A_S_Fn __ N_G_T_0r_N------------~ SCALE NONE DATE 7/26/04 MADE_..:.:..A..:.:..G_ CHKD_..:.:..W....:.C_ JOB NO. G·1846 PLATE 4 I I I I· I APPENDIX A: I TEST PIT LOGS I G-1846 I I I I I I I I I I I Geo Group Northwest, Inc. I I LEGEND OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND PENTRATION TEST I UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (USCS) MAJOR DIVISION GROUP TYPICAL DESCRIPTION LABORATORY CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA SYMBOL GW WELL GRADED GRAVELS. GRAVEL-SAND ! Cu = (DeO I D10) greatertllan 4 CLEAN MIXTURE, UnLE OR NO FINES I DETERMINE Cc= (D302) I (Dl0 • D6O) between 1 and 3 GRAVELS , PERCENTAGES OF GRAVELS Qittleor no GP POORLY GRADED GRAVELS. AND GRAVEL-GRAVEL AND SAND NOT MEETING ABOVE REQUIREMENTS (More Than Halt fines) SAND MlxnJRES UTILE OR NO FINES FROM GRAIN SIZE COARSE-Coarse Grains DISTRIBUTION GRAINED SOilS larger Than No. 4 CURVE ATTERBERG UMITS BELOW Sieve) DIRTY GM SilTY GRAVELS. GRAVEL-SAN[).5ll T MIXTURES! "A" UNE. GRAVELS CONTENT or P.I. LESS THAN 4 OF FINES (with some CLAYEY GRAVELS. GRAVEl-SAND-CLAY EXCEEDS 12% ATTERBERG LIMITS ABOVE flnes) GC MIXTURES COARSE GRAINED "A" UNE. SOILS ARE or P.I. MORE THAN 7 I I I CLASSIFIED AS SANDS CLEAN SW WELL GRADED SANDS. GRAVELLY SANDS. FOLLOWS: Cu = (060 I 010) greater than 6 SANDS UITlE OR NO FINES Cc = (030') I (O10 • 060) between 1 and 3 I (More Than Halt Oittle or no POORLY GRADED SANDS. GRAVElLY SANDS. < 5% Fine Grained: More Than Half !lY Coarse Grains SP NOT MEETING ABOVE REQUIREMENTS Smaller Than No. fines) LITTLE OR NO FINES GW. GP. SW. SP Weight larger Than No. 200 4 Sieve) ATTERBERG UMITS BELOW Si ..... DJlUV SM SILTY SANDS. SAN[).5llT MIXTURES > 12% Fine Grained: "A"UNE SANDS GM. GC. SM. SC CONTENT OF with P.I. LESS THAN 4 FINES I (with some 5 to 12% Fine EXCEEDS 12% ATTERBERG LIMITS ABOVE fines) SC ClAYEY SANDS. SAND-CLAY MIXTURES Grained: use dual "A"UNE symbols with P.I. MORE THAN 7 I SILTS Liquid Limit ML INORGANIC SilTS. ROCK flOUR. SANDY SILTS (Below A-Line on < 50'l6 OF SLIGHT PLASTICITY 60 Plasticity Chart. PLASTICITY CHART i1 Ate r-, t/ FlNE·GRAINED Negligible Liquid Limit INORGANIC SILTS. MICACEOUS OR FOR SOIL PASSING Organic) MH '" NO. 40 SIEVE I I V SOILS > SO'l6 DIATOMACEOUS. FINE SANDY OR SILTY SOil l 7 CH orOH.I INORGANIC CLAYS OF lOW PLASTICITY. X 40 CLAYS Liquid Limit UJ ,V /'1' CL GRAVELLY. SANDY. OR SILTY CLAYS. ClEAN C (Above A-Line on < 3O'l6 ClAYS ~ Placticity Chart. ~ 30 I CLcrOL V Negligible Liquid Limit CH INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY. FAT U Organic) >50% CLAYS ~ ~ 20 7 7 More Than Half by Weight Smaller liquid limit OL ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC stLTY CLAYS OF G. / MHorOH Than No. 200 ORGANIC SILTS & <50% LOW PLASTICITY 10 , , ,-- Sieve CLAYS ., 7 7 rt_ Ole Ml (Below A-Line on Liquid Limit ~ Placticity Chart) OH ORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY >SO% 0 10 20 30 40 60 70 80 90 100 110 UQUID LIMIT (%) I I I I HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS Pt PEAT AND OTHER HIGHLY ORGANIC SOilS SOIL PARTICLE SIZE GENERAL GUIDANCE OF SOIL ENGINEERING PROPERTIES FROM STANDARO PENETRATION TEST (SPT) I U_S. STANDARD SIEVE FRACTION Passing Retained SANDY SOILS SILTY & CLAYEY SOILS Sieve Size Sieve Size Unconfined Blow Relative Friction Blow (mm) (mm) Counts Density Angle Description Counts Strength Description I SILT/CLAY #200 0.075 N 'l6 4>. degree N quo tsf ~ 0-4 0-15 Very loose <2 < 0.25 Very soft I FINE #40 0.425 #200 0.075 4 -10 15-35 28-30 loose 2-4 0.25-O.SO Soft MEDIUM #10 2 #40 0.425 10-30 35 -65 28-35 Medium Dense 4-8 O'SO -1.00 Medium Stiff COARSE #4 4.75 #10 2 30-50 65 -85 35-42 Dense 8 -15 1.00-2.00 Stiff I ~ >50 85-100 36-46 Very Dense 15-30 2.00-4.00 Very Stiff FINE 19 #4 4.75 >30 > 4.00 Hard COARSE 78 19 I COBBLES 76 mm to 203 mm Group Northwest, Inc. > 203 mm BOULDERS Geotechnical Engineers. Geologists. & I I ROCK Environmental Scientists >76mm FRAGMENTS 13240 NE 20th Street. Suite 12 Bellevue. WA 96005 ROCK >0.76 cubic meter in volume Phone (425) 649-8757 Fax (425) 649-8756 PLATE A1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TEST PIT NO. TP-l LOGGED BY AG TEST PIT DATE: 717104 GROUND ELEV. 404 (+/-) DEPTH SAMPLE Water OTHER TESTSI ft. USCS SOIL DESCRIPTION No. % COMMENTS -~"" 8M Forest Duff and moss (6-inches) I 81 7.4 ---------------------------------------------------SM Brown gravelly/cobbly silty SAND, dry, medium dense (FilL) - est 10% cobbles I S2 7.8 - -plastic sheeting and aluminum cans debris I S3 7.6 FILL 5 SM dark brown, moist - -I S4 9.7 -plastic sheeting debris -------------------------------------------------------------- SP Tan fine SAND with some silt, moist, dense I S5 8.9 .., NATIVE 10 grades to some medium grained SAND wi gravel, very dense 9' bgs S6 8.2 -Total depth of test pit = 10 feet -No groundwater seepage - - 15 - TEST PIT NO. TP-2 LOGGED BY AG LOG DATE: 7n104 GROUND ELEV. 400 (+/-) DEPTH SAMPLE Water OTHER TESTSI ft. USCS SOIL DESCRIPTION No. % COMMENTS ~,~ Forest Duff (8-inches) ----------------------------------------------------------. 81 12.1 SP Brown fme SAND with some silt, moist, loose Probe 12-16" - -• S2 8.2 -------------------------------------------------------------8P Gray fine SAND with some silt, moist, dense at 3.5 feet bgs 5 _ Probe 1-2" -SP moist to wet .. 83 23.1 -Total depth oftest pit = 7 feet -No groundwater seepage 10 _ -- - - 15 - TEST PIT LOGS PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Grone Northwest, Inc. 12905 136TH AVENUE SE Geotechnical Engineers, Geologists, & RENTON, WASHINGTON Env ironmental Scientists JOB NO. G-1846 1 DATE 7/7/04 .1 PLATE A1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TEST PIT NO. TP-3 LOGGED BY AG TEST PIT DATE: 717/04 GROUND ELEV. 400 (+1-) DEPTH SAMPLE Water OTHER TESTSI ft. USCS SOIL DESCRIPTION No. 'AI COMMENTS SM Brown gravelly/cobbly silty SAND with debris, moist. medium -dense (FILL) • S1 9.8 -brick debris - -buried log -24" diameter and brick debris • S2 14.0 FILL 5 - -SM Dark gray silty SAND with some gravel, moist to wet. medium dense • S3 15.3 -------------------------------------------------------------. S4 14.7 ~ SP Brown fine SAND with some gravels, moist. dense NATIVE - -Total depth of test pit = 7.5 feet 10 No groundwater seepage .- -\ - - - - 15 - TEST PIT NO. TP-4 LOGGED BY AG LOG DATE: 7/7/04 GROUND ELEV. 400 (+1-) DEPTH SAMPLE Water OTHER TESTS! ft. USCS SOIL DESCRIPTION No. 'AI COMMENTS -SM Brown gravelly/cobbly silty SAND with plastic debris, moist. • S1 8.2 medium dense (FILL) -with re-bar debris • -S2 11.0 with a boulder at 3' bgs -FILL Ii - - -SM with pipe debris I S3 12.8 -with significant amount plastic, asphalt, bicycle and tire debris - 10 ",----------------------------------------------------------SP Brown fine SAND with some silt, moist, dense '. NATIVE - r-S4 6.8 -Total depth attest pit = 10.5 feet -No groundwater seepage - - 15 _ TEST PIT LOGS PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Group Northwest, Inc. 12905 136TH AVENUE SE Geotechnical Engineers, Geologists, & RENTON,WASHINGTON Env ironmental Scientists JOB NO. G-1846·1 DATE 7/9/04 .1 PLATE A3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DEPTH ft. - - - - 5 - - - - 10 - - - - - 15 - DEPTH ft. - - - -5 _ - - - -10 - - - - -15 _ TEST PIT NO. TP-5 LOGGED BY AG TEST PIT DATE: 7/7/04 GROUND ELEV. 402 (+/-) SAMPLE Water OTHER TESTSI USCS SOIL DESCRIPTION No. % COMMENTS SM Brown silty SAND with some cobbles and gravel, dry, med. dense FILL ------------------------------------------------------------SP Brown gravelly fine SAND, dry, med. dense to dense • SI 4.3 NATIVE dense • S2 4.6 SP Brown medium grained gravelly SAND, dry, very dense • S3 3.3 Total depth of test pit = 7 feet No groundwater seepage \ TEST PIT NO. TP-6 LOGGED BY AG LOG DATE: 7/7/04 GROUND ELEV. 407 (+/-) SAMPLE Water OTHER TESTSI USCS SOIL DESCRIPTION No. % COMMENTS SP/ Brown fme SAND with some silt and gravel, loose to medium dense • SM SI 12.9 ----------------------------------------------------------~-. S2 10.2 SM Tan gravelly silty SAND, moist, dense (TILL), some cementation Total depth of test pit = 4.5 feet No groundwater seepage TEST PIT LOGS PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Group Northwest, Inc. 12905 136m AVENUE SE Geotechnical Engineers, Geologists, & RENTON, WASHINGTON Environmental Sci"ntists JOB NO. G-18461 DATE 7/9/04 .\ PLATE A4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TEST PIT NO. TP-7 LOGGED BY AG TEST PIT DATE: 7/7/04 GROUND ELEV. 410 (+/-) DEPTH SAMPLE Water OTHER TESTSI ft. USCS SOIL DESCRIPTION No. % COMMENTS SPI Brown gravelly/cobbly fine SAND with some silt; dry, dense at I' • SI 3.9 -SM bgs. - --------------------------------------~----------------------SM Tan gravelly silty SAND, moist, cemented, very dense (TILL) • S2 7.6 5 Total depth oftest pit = 4 feet - -No groundwater seepage - - - 10 -\ - - - - 15 - TEST PIT NO. TP-8 LOGGED BY AG LOG DATE: 7/7/04 GROUND ELEV. 408 (+/-) DEPTIi SAMPLE Water OTHER TESTSI ft. USCS \ SOIL DESCRIPTION No. % COMMENTS SPI Brown gravelly fine SAND with some silt, dry, loose I -SM SI 3.9 probe 2' -with glass and tire debris, caving, very loose FILL - -5 - ----------G~:~ii;~iit;s~~oi;Zd~~~-~-;b;;--------------------~ -SM S2 7.6 NATIVE -Total depth of test pit = 8 feet 10 No groundwater seepage -House occupant indicates fills placed here in 1960 - - - -15 _ TEST PIT LOGS PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Grou~ Northwest, Inc. 12905 136TH AVENUE SE Geotechnical Engineers, Geologists, & RENTO~WASHINGTON Environmental Scientists JOBNe. G-1846·1 DATE 7/9/04 1 PLATE A5 , I I I I I I I I APPENDIXD I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 5T 1.1 5T 1.0 5T 1.1 5T 1.0 Rainfall Regions and Regional Scale Factors ,~~~~~=1 Incorporated Area .....c:::::> River/Lake Major Road 5T 1.0/ LAO.S LA 1.0 LA 0.9 LA 1.0 LA 1.2 SNOkO ..... ISH COUNTY KING COUNTY I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SECTION 5.3 DETENTION FACILITIES ':0-c: 0 (,) Q) en ~ Q) c. a; Q) -(,) :c ::J ~ 0 911198 Riser Overflow The nomograph in Figure 5.3.4.H can be used to determine the head (in feet) above a riser of given diameter and for a given flow (usually (he lOO-year peak flow for developed conditions). FIGURE 5.3A.H RISER INFLOW CURVES 100 ...,-------.....,....-------,--:--;--.-.-----.-------.-;----:::7-:--.....,....:--:-.---; 10 I I I I I I I I I I i, I 1 measured from crest of riser) O H 3/2 o w.,,=9.7 3 9 °O"IIO.=3.7820 2 H 1/2 a in cIs, 0 and H in feet Slope change occurs at weir-orifice transition i I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II , I I "I I i I I ! '.1 1 I i i I I I I I i 10 1998 Surface Water Design Manual 5-50 I I PIPE SIZING CHART, 100-YEAR CONVEYANCE DESIGN, FORBES CREEK 11, CHAFFEY HOMES I PERV TRIB Te ACTUAL PEAK a a AREA PIPE SYSTEM DWNSTRM UPSTRM AREA IMP AREA TO PERV IMPERV AVG RAINFALL DESIGN OF V DWNSTR UPSTRM NO. CB CB TOCB AREA TO CS "C" "C" "C" WI Te Ar,oo 8r,oo P,oo ir,oo INTENSITY DESIGN AT SYSTEM PIPE DESIGN CB CB NO. PER (AC) CB (AG) (AG) TOCB TOCB TOCS VFULl USED "Ir" STRUCTURE (CFS) (SF) (FPS) KCSW I 1 VAULT CS2 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.25 0.90 0.90 8.6 8.6 2.61 0.63 3.82 0.67 2.58 0.14 4.98 1.77 2.82 VAULT CB2 N1 1 CB2 CB3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.90 #OIVIOI 8.5 8.5 2.61 0.63 3.82 0.68 2.60 0.00 4.27 1.77 2.42 CB2 CB3 N2 1 CS3 CB4 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.25 0.90 0.90 8.3 8:3 2.61 0.63 3.82 0.69 2.63 0.07 3.10 0.79 3.95 CB3 CB4 N3 1 CB4 CB5 0.13 0.13 0.26 0.25 0.90 0.58 8.1 8.1 2.61 0.63 3.82 0.70 2.68 0.40 1.45 0.79 1.85 CB4 CB5 N4 I 1 CB5 CB6 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.25 0.90 0.74 7.8 7.8 2.61 0.63 3.82 0.71 2.73 0.08 1.05 0.79 1.34 CB5 CBS N5 1 CB6 CB7 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.25 0.90. 0.68 7.5 7.5 2.61 0.63 3.82 0.73 2.80 0.06 0.81 0.79 1.03 CBS CB7 N6 1 CB7 CB8 0.04 0.09 0.13 0.25 0.90 0.70 7.2 7.2 2.61 0.63 3.82 0.75 2.86 0.26 0.75 0.79 0.96 CB7 CBS N7 1 CB8 CB9 0.09 0.15 0.24 0.25 0.90. 0.66 6.3 6.3 2.61 0.63 3.82 0.82 3.13 0.49 0.49 0.79 0.63 CB8 CB9 N8 I 2 VAULT CBl 0.26 0.27 0.53 0.25 0.90 0.58 6.3 6.3 2.61 0.63 3.82 0.82 3.13 0.97 0.97 0.79 1.24 VAULT CB1 N1 3 CB3 CB14 0.14 0.17 0.31 0.25 0.90. 0.61 6.3 6.3 2.61 0.63 3.82 0.82 3.13 0.59 . 0.59 0.79 0.75 .. CB3 . CB14 . N1 4 CB3 CB13 0.14 0.17 0.31 0.25 0.90 0.61 6.3 6.3 2.61 0.63 3.82 0.82 3.13 0.59 ·0.59 0.79 . 0.75 CB3 CB13 N1 I , . . 6 CB4 CB15 0.00 0.43 0.43 0.25 0.90 0.90 6.5 6.5 2.61 0.63 3.82 0.80 3.07 1.19 1.46 0.79 1.86 CB4 CB15 N1 6 CB15 CB16 0.06 0.08 0.14 0.25 0.90 0.62 6.3 6.3 2.61 0.63 3.82 0.82 3.13 0.27 0.27 0.79 0.35 CB15 CB16 N2 I 7 CB6 CB10 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.25 0.90 0.90 6.8 6.6 2.61 0.63 3.82 0.78 2.99 0,11 0.16 0.79 0.21 CBS CB10 . N1 >7 ··CB10 CB11 0.00 ' -0.02 "0.02 . 0.25 0.90 . 0.90 6.3 .·6.3 2.61 0.63 3.82 :0.82 .. 3.13.·· .. • .. ·0.06 .. ··:.·· • ·, .. 0.06 0.79 .·.:0.07 CB10 • . CB11 ,. :.N2 I 8 -.> . : CB2 "'CB12 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.25 0.90 0.90 . 6.3 6.3 2.61 0.63 3.82 0.82 3.13." .',; 0.56. 0.56 ·0.79. '.0.72 ':.CB2 " •. CB12. ':N1 . Perv Imp Total 0.88 1.73 0.88 1.73 2.61 I ITotal Area = 2.61 1 I I I I I I I I I AEC #0448, 4-8-05 BY'RWS DWNSTR DWNSTR UPSTRM INVERT UPSTRM INVERT RIM ELEV ELEV RIM ELEV ELEV (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) 402.20 394.50 402.85 397.42 402.85 397.42 403.27 398.50 403.27 399.00 404.51 400.20 404.51 400.20 406.46 401.66 406.46 401.66 408.59 401.84 408.59 401.84 408.83 402.01 408.83 402.01 404.89 402.59 404.89 402.59 404.89 402.89 403.25 395.00 404.18 399.28 403.27 399.00 403.64 399.64 403.27 399.00 403.69 399.69 404.51 400.20 404.51 400.51 404.51 400.51 405.25 401.25 408,59 401,84 409.50 405.19 409.50 405.19 409.76 405.37 402.20 395.00 404.18 399.28 PIPE: PIPE PIPE LENGTH SLOPE SIZE (FT) . (FT/FT) (IN) 51 0.0573 18.00 51 I 0.0212 18.00 54 0.0222 12.00 65 0.0225 12.00 36 0.0050 12.00 34 0.0050 12.00 116 0.0050 12.00 31 I 0.0097 12.00 29 0.1476 12.00 39 0.0164 12.00 69 0.0100 12.00 31 0.0100 12.00 11 0.0673 12.00 130 0.0258 12.00 . 18 0.0100 12.00 .29 0.1476 12.00 Q..E.!.!lJ,. HYDRAULIC a-FULL V a "N" RADIUS "R" (CFS) FULL a RATIO (FT) DESIGN 0.014 0.375 14.0 7.9 2.8 0.16 0.014 0.375 8.5 4.8 2.0 0.38 0.014 0.250 3.4 4.3 1.1 1.13 0.014 0.250 3.4 4.3 2.3 0.38 0.014 0.250 1.6 2.0 1.5 0.30 0.014 0.250 1.6 2.0 2.0 0.08 0.014 0.250 1.6 2.0 2.1 0.53 0.014 0.250 2.2 2.8 4.5 0.00 0.014 0.250 8.7 11.1 9.0 0.00 0.014 '0.250 .. , 2.9 " 3.7" '·k4.9'il~ <0.00 0.014 0.250 2.3 2.9 "'3.9':' :'0.00 0.014 0.250 2.3 2.9 1.6 4.37 0.014 0.250 5.9 7.5 21.6 0.00 0.014 . 0.250 3.6 4.6 122.2' 1.91 0.014 ·0.250 ,-'2.3 . 2.9. .:.::40.2~'" ·,0.00 0.014 ··,·;00.250 .... ; ·,8.7 -; 11.1' '",,,15.5"';; .,,0.00.: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SYS.ItM "'I BACKWATER COMPUTER PROGRAM FOR PIPES pipe data from file:sys1.bwp Surcharge condition at intermediate junctions Tailwater Elevation:402.2 feet e.€ '2.. Discharge Range:4.96 to 4.98 Step of 0.01 [cfsl Overflow Elevation:404.89 feet Weir:NONE Upstream Velocity:1. feet/sec PIPE NO.1: 51 LF -18"CP @ 5.73% OVERFLOW-EL: 402.85 BEND: OUTLET: 394.50 INLET: 397.42 INTYP: 5 JUNC NO.1: o DEG DIA/WIDTH: 2.0 Q-RATIO: 0.16 Q (CFS) HW{FT) HW ELEV. * N-FAC DC DN TW DO DE HWO HWI ******************************************************************************* 4.96 4.97 4.98 Cg1 PIPE NO.2: JUNC NO.2: 4.99 4.98 4.98 402.41 * 0.012 0.86 0.44 7.70 7.70 4.88 \ 402.40 * 0.012 0.86 .0.44 7.70 7.70 4.88 402.40 * 0.012 0.86 0.44 7.70 7.70 4.88 4.99 4.98 4.98 1.16 1.17 1.17 51 LF -18"CP @ OVERFLOW-EL: 403.27 2.12% OUTLET: 397.42 INLET: 398.50 INTYP: 5 BEND: 90 DEG DIA/WIDTH: 2.0 Q-RATIO: 0.38 Q (CFS) HW{FT) HW ELEV. * N-FAC DC DN TW DO DE HWO HWI ******************************************************************************* 4.28 4.28 4.29 e.g, '{ PIPE NO.3: JUNC NO.3: 4.26 4.26 4.26 402.76 * 0.012 0.80 0.52 4.99 4.99 3.98 402.76 * 0.012 0.80 0.53 4.98 4.98 3.98 402.76 * 0.012 0.80 0.53 4.98 4.98 3.98 4.26 4.26 4.26 1.29 1. 30 1. 30 54 LF -12"CP @ 2.22% OVERFLOW-EL: 404.51 BEND: OUTLET: 399.00 INLET: 400.20 INTYP: 5 .. o DEG D~A/WIDTH: 2.0 Q-RATIO: 1.13 Q (CFS) HW{FT) HW ELEV. * N-FAC DC DN TW DO DE HWO HWI ******************************************************************************* 3.10 3.10 3.11 Cg~ PIPE NO.4: JUNC NO.4: 3.25 3.25 3.25 403.45 * 0.012 0.76 0.53 3.76 3.76 2.91 403.45 403.45 * 0.012 0.76 0.53 3.76 3.76 2.91 * 0.012 0.76 0.53 3.76 3.76 2.91 3.25 3.25 3.25 1.25 1.25 1.26 65 LF -12"CP @ OVERFLOW-EL: 406.46 2.25% OUTLET: 400.20 INLET: 401.66 INTYP: 5 BEND: 90 DEG DIA/WIDTH: 4.0 Q-RATIO: 0.38 Q (CFS) HW{FT) HW ELEV. * N-FAC DC DN TW DO DE HWO HWI ******************************************************************************* 1.45 1.46 1.46 1. 99 1. 98 1. 98 403.65 * 0.012 0.52 0.35 3.25 3.25 1.89 403.64 * 0.012 0.52 0.35 3.25 3.25 1.88 403.64 * 0.012 0.52 0.35 3.25 3.25 1.89 1. 99 1. 98 1. 98 0.75 0.75 0.75 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PIPE NO.5: 36 LF -12"CP @ OVERFLOW-EL: 408.59 0.50% OUTLET: 401.66 INLET: 401.84 INTYP: 5 JUNC NO.5: BEND: 90 DEG DIA/WIDTH: 4.0 Q-RATIO: 0.30 (..g~ Q(CFS) HW(FT) HW ELEV. * N-FAC DC DN TW DO DE HWO HWI ******************************************************************************* 1. 05 1. 89 403.73 * 0.012 0.44 0.44 1. 99 1. 99 1. 84 1. 89 0.62 1. 06 1. 88 403.72 * 0.012 0.44 0.44 1. 98 1. 98 1. 83 1. 88 0.62 1.06 1. 88 403.72 * 0.012 0.44 0.44 1. 98 1. 98 1. 83 1. 88 0.62 c., 7 PIPE NO. 6: 34 LF -12"CP @ 0.50% OUTLET: 401.84 INLET: 402.01 INTYP: 5 JUNC·NO. 6 : OVERFLOW-EL: 408.83 BEND: 0 DEG DIA/WIDTH: 4.0 Q-RATIO: 0.08 Q(CFS) . HW (FT) HW ELEV. * N-FAC DC DN TW DO DE HWO HWI ******************************************************************************* 0.81 1. 75 403.76 * 0.012 0.38 0.38 1. 89 1. 89 1. 74 1. 75 0.51 0.81 1. 73 403.74 * 0.012 0.38 0.38 1. 88 1. 88 1.72 1. 73 0.51 \ 0.81 1. 74 403.75 * 0.012 0.38 0.38 1. 88 1. 88 1. 73 1. 74 0.51 (8 8 PIPE NO. 7 : 116 LF -12"CP @ 0.50% OUTLET: 402.01 INLET: 402.59 INTYP: 5 JUNC NO. 7 : OVERFLOW-EL: 404.89 BEND: 90 DEG DIA/WIDTH: 2.0 Q-RATIO: 0.53 Q(CFS) HW (FT) HW ELEV. * N-FAC DC DN TW DO DE HWO HWI ******************************************************************************* 0.75 1.25 403.84 * 0.012 0.37 0.36 1. 75 1. 75 1.22 1.25 0.51 0.75 1.22 403.81 * 0.012 ·0.37 0.36 1. 73 1. 73 1.20 1. 22 0.51 0.75 1. 23 403.82 * 0.012 0.37 0.36 1. 74 1.74 1.20 1.23 0.51 c..e 'I PIPE NO. 8 : 31 LF -12"CP @ 0.97% OUTLET: 402.59 INLET: 402.89 INTYP:· 5 Q(CFS) HW(FT) HW ELEV. * N-FAC DC DN TW DO DE HWO HWI *************************.*****************~************************************ 0.49 0.95 403.84 * 0.012 0.30 0.25 1.·25 1.25 0.95 0.94 0.38 0.49 0.93 403.82 * 0.012 0.30 0.25 1. 22 1.22 0.93 0.92 0.38 0.49 0.94 403.83 * 0.012 0.30 0.25 1.23 1.23 0.94 0.93 0.38 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I BACKWATER COMPUTER PROGRAM FOR PIPES Pipe data from file:sys2.bwp ~ Surcharge condition at intermediate junctions Tailwater Elevation:402.2 feet Discharge Range:0.95 to 0.97 Step of 0.01 [cfs] Overflow Elevation:404.18 feet Weir:NONE Upstream Velocity:1. feet/sec PIPE NO.1: 29 LF -12"CP @ 14.76% OUTLET: 395.00 INLET: 399.28 INTYP: 5 Q (CFS) HW (FT) HW ELEV. * N-FAC DC DN TW DO DE HWO HWI ******************************************************************************* 0.95 0.96 0.97· 0.98 2.96 2.96 2.96 2.96 402.24 * 0.012 0.41 0.18 7.20 402.24 * 0.012 0.42 0.18 7.20 402.24 * 0.012 0.42 0.18 7.20 402.24. * 0.012 0.42 0.18 7.20 7.20 2.94 7.20 2.94 \ 7.20 2.94 7.20 2.94 2.96 2.96 2.96 2.96 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.50 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~'t s rtM '!f3 BACKWATER COMPUTER PROGRAM FOR PIPES Pipe data from file:sys3.bwp Surcharge condition at intermediate junctions Taiiwater Elevation:402.76 feet c.JJ 1'1 Discharge Range:0.57 to 0.59 Step of 0.01 [cfs] Overflow Elevation:403.64 feet Weir:NONE Upstream Velocity:1. feet/sec PIPE NO.1: 39 LF -12"CP @ 1.64% OUTLET: 399.00 INLET: 399.64 INTYP: 5 Q(CFS) HW (FT) HW ELEV. * N-FAC DC DN TW DO DE HWO HWI ********************~********************************************************** 0.57 0.58 0.59· 3.13 3.13 3.13 402.77 402.77 402.77 * 0.012 * 0.012 * 0.012 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.23 0.24 0.24 3.76 3.76 3.76 3.76 3.76 3.76 3.13 3.13 3'.13 3.13 3.13 3.13 0.41 0.41 0.42 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I BACKWATER COMPUTER PROGRAM FOR PIPES Pipe data from file:sys4.bwp Surcharge condition at intermediate junctions Tailwater Elevation:402.76 feet CBI3 Discharge Range:0.57 to 0.59 Step of 0.01 [cfs] Overflow Elevation:403.69 feet Weir:NONE upstream Velocity:1. feet/sec PIPE NO.1: 69 LF -12"CP @ 1.00% OUTLET: 399.00 INLET: 399.69 INTYP: 5 Q(CFS) HW(FT) HW ELEV. * N-FAC DC DN TW DO DE HWO HWI ******************************************************************************* 0.57 0.58 0.59. 3.09 3.09 3.09 402.78 402.78 402.78 * 0.012 * 0.012 * 0.012 0.32 0.26 3.76 3.76 0.32 0.27 3.76 3.76 0.32 0.27 3.76 3.76 3.09 3.09 3\.09 3.09 3.08 3.08 0.41 0.42 0.42 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I <;VSTfrA*~ BACKWATER COMPUTER PROGRAM FOR PIPES Pipe data from file:sys5.bwp Surcharge condition at intermediate junctions Tailwater Elevation:403.45 feet C(f n Discharge Range:0.1 to 0.11 Step of 0.01 [cfs] Overflow Elevation:405.25 feet Weir:NONE upstream Velocity:1. feet/sec PIPE NO.1: 11 LF -12"CP @ 9.55% OUTLET: 400.20 INLET: 401.25 INTYP: 5 Q(CFS) HW(FT) HW ELEV. * N-FAC DC DN TW DO DE HWO HWI ******************************************************************************* 0.10 0.11 2.21 2.20 403.46 * 0.012 403.45 * 0.012 0.13 0.07 3.25 3.25 2.21 0.14 0 .. 07 3.25 3.25 2.20 \ 2.19 2.19 0.11 0.12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I BACKWATER COMPUTER PROGRAM FOR PIPES Pipe data from file:sys6.bwp Surcharge condition at intermediate junctions Tailwater Elevation:403.45 feet C6 Ir- Discharge Range:1.44 to 1.46 Step of 0.01 [cfs] Overflow Elevation:405.25 feet Weir:NONE Upstream Velocity:1. feet/sec PIPE NO.1: 31 LF -12"CP @ OVERFLOW-EL: 404.51 1.00% OUTLET: 400.20 INLET: 400.51 INTYP: 5 JUNC NO.1: BEND: 90 DEG DIA/WIDTH: 2.0 Q-RATIO: 4.37 Q(CFS) HW(FT) HW ELEV. * N-FAC DC ON TW DO DE HWO HWI ******************************************************************************* 1.44 3.07 403.58 * 0.012 0.51 0.43 3.25 3.25 2.99 3.07 0.74 \ 1.45 3.07 403.58 * 0.012 0.52 0.43 3.25 3.25 2.98 3.07 0.74 1.46 3.07 403.58, * 0.012 0.52 0.43 3.25 3.25 2.98 3.07 0.75 <-B t' PIPE NO. 2 : 11 LF -12"CP @ 6.73% OUTLET: 400.51 INLET: 401.25 INTYP: 5 Q(CFS) HW (FT) HW ELEV. * N-FAC DC ON TW DO DE HWO HWI *************~***************************************************************** 0.27 2.34 403.59 * 0.012 0.22 0.12 3.07 3.07 2.34 2.33 0.24 0.27 2.33 403.58 * 0.012 0.22 0.12 3.07 3.07 2.33 2.31 0.24 0.27 2.33 403.58 * 0.012 0.22 0.12 3.07 3.07 2.33 2.32 0.24 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I <) 't'S fl3 /11 ." 7 BACKWATER COMPUTER PROGRAM FOR PIPES Pipe data from file:sys7.bwp Surcharge condition at intermediate junctions Tailwater Elevation:403.73 feet (I /0 Discharge Range:0.14 to 0.16 Step of 0.01 [cfs] Overflow Elevation:409.76 feet Weir:NONE Upstream Velocity:1. feet/sec PIPE NO.1: 130 LF -12"CP @ OVERFLOW-EL: 408.59 2.58% OUTLET: 401.84 INLET: 405.19 INTYP: 5 JUNC NO.1: BEND: 90 DEG DIA/WIDTH: 2.0 Q-RATIO: 1.91 Q(CFS) HW(FT) HW ELEV. * N-FAC DC DN TW DO DE HWO HWI ************************.****************************************************** 0.14 0.19 405.38 * 0.012 0.16 0.11 1. 89 1. 89 0.16 ***** 0.19 \ 0.15 0.20 405.39 * 0.012 0.16 0.11 1. 89 1. 89 0.16 ***** 0.20 0.16 0.21 405.40 * 0.012 0.17 0.12 1. 89 1. 89 0.17 ***** 0.21 Cd II PIPE NO. 2 : 18 LF -12"CP @ 1. 00% OUTLET: 405.19 INLET: 405.37 INTYP: 5 Q(CFS) HW(FT) HW ELEV. * <N-FAC DC DN TW DO DE HWO HWI ******************************************************************************* 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.11 405.47 405.47 405.48 * 0.012 * 0.012 * 0.012 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.19 0.20 0.21 0.19 0.20 0.21 0.09 0.10 0.10 ***** ***** ***** 0.10 0.10 0.11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I BACKWATER COMPUTER PROGRAM FOR PIPES Pipe data from file:sys8.bwp Surcharge condition at intermediate junctions Tailwater Elevation:402.4 feet Discharge Range:0.54 to 0.56 Step of 0.01 [cfs] Overflow Elevation:402.45 feet Weir:NONE Upstream Velocity:1. feet/sec cg 1<- PIPE NO.1: 24 LF -12"CP @ 2.00% OUTLET: 397.92 INLET: 398. 40 Q(CFS) HW (FT) HW ELEV. * N-FAC DC DN TW DO DE HWO INTYP: 5 HWI ******************************************************************************* 0.54 0.55 0.56 4.01 4.00 4.01 402.41 * 0.012 402.40 * 0.012 402.41 * 0.012 0.31 0.22 4.48 4.48 4.01 0.31 0.22 4.48 4.48 4.00 0.32 0.22 4.48 4.48 4~01 4.01 4.00 4.00 0.39 0.40 0.40 I I I I I I I I APPENDIXE I I I I I I I I I I I "~. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPEt'IDIX A YlAINTENANCE STANDARDS FOR PRIVATELY MAINTAINED DRAINAGE FACILITIES NO.3 -CLOSED DETENTION SYSTEMS (PIPESITANKS) Maintenance Component Storage Area Manhole Catch Basins Defect Plugged Air Vents Debris and Sediment Joints Between Tank/Pipe Section Tank Pipe Bent OutoT Shape Cover Not in Place Locking. Mechanism Not Working Cover Difficult to Remove Ladder Rungs Unsafe 1998 Surface Water Design Manual Conditions When Maintenance is Needed One-half of the cross section of a vent is blocked at any point with debris and sediment Accumulated sediment depth exceeds 10% of the diameter of the storage area for 16 length of storage vault or any point depth exceeds 15% of diameter. Example: 72-inch storage tank would require cleaning when sediment reaches depth of 7 inches for more than 16 length of tank. Any crack allowing material to be transported into facility Any part of tank/pipe is bent out of shape more than 10% of it's design shape Cover is missing or only partially in place. Any open manhole requires maintenance. Mechanism cannot be opened by one maintenance person with proper tools. Bolts into frame have less than 16 inch of thread (may not apply to self-locking lids.) One maintenance person cannot remove lid after applying BOlbs of lift. Intent is to keep cover from sealing off access to maintenance .. King County Safety Office and/or maintenance person judges that ladder is unsafe due to missing rungs, misalignment, rust, or cracks. See "Catch Basins' Standards NO.5 A-3 Results Expected When Maintenance is Performed Vents free of debris and sediment All sediment and debris removed from storage area. All joint between tank Ipipe sections are sealed Tank! pipe repaired or replaced to design. Manhole is closed. Mechanism opens with proper tools. Cover can be removed and reinstalled by one maintenance person. Ladder meets design standards allows maintenance person safe access. See "Catch Basins' Standards No.5 911198 I APPEN"DIX A MAINTE.l\fAL'\fCE ST A..'IDARDS FOR PRIV A TEL Y MAINTAINED DRAINAGE FACILITIES I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I NO.4 -CONTROL STRUCTUREIFLOW RESTRICTOR . Maintenance Component General Cleanout Gate Orifice Plale Overflow Pipe . Manhole Catch Basin 9/1198 Defect Trash and Debris (Includes Sediment) Structural Damage Damaged or Missing Damaged or Missing Obstructions .. -.... Obstructions Condition When Maintenance is Needed Distance between debris build-up and bottom of orifice plate is less than 1-1/2 feet Structure is not securely attached to manhole wall and outlet pipe structure should support at least 1,000 Ibs of up or down pressure. Structure is not in upright pOSition (allow up to 10% from plumb). Connections to outlet pipe are not watertight and show signs of rust. Any holes-other than designed holes-in the structure. Cleanout gate is not watertight or is missing. Gate cannot be moved up and down by one maintenance person. Chain leading to gate is missing or damaged. Gate is rusted over 50% of its surface area. Control device is not working properly due to missing, out of place, or bent orifice plate. Any trash, debris, sediment, or vegetation blocking the plate . Any trash or debris blocking (or having the potential of blocking) the overflow pipe. Results Expected When Maintenance is Performed All trash and debris removed. Structure securely attached to wall and outlet pipe. Structure in correct position. Connections to outlet pipe are water tight, structure repaired or replaced and works as designed. Structure has no holes other than designed holes. Gate is watertight and works as designed. Gate moves up and down easily and is watertight. Chain is in place and works as designed. Gate is repaired or replaced to meet design standards .. Plate is in place and works as designed. Plate is free of all obstructions and works as designed. Pipe is free of all obstructions and works as designed. See ·Closed Detention Systems' Standards No.3 See "Closed Detention Systems' Standards No.3 See ·Catch Basins' Standards No.5 See 'Catch Basins' Standards NO.5 1998 Surface Water Design Manual A-4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE STA.l"lDARDS FOR PRIVATELY MAINTAINED DRAINAGE FACILmES NO.5 -CATCH BASINS Maintenance Component General Defect Trash & Debris (Includes Sediment) Structure Damage to Frame andlor Top Slab Cracks in Basin Wallsl Bottom Sediment! Misalignment 1998 Surface Water Design Manual Conditions When Maintenance is Needed Trash or debris of more than 1/2 cubic foot which is located immediately in front of the catch basin opening or is blocking capacity of the basin by more than 10% Trash or debris (in the basin) that exceeds 1/3 the depth from the bottom of basin to invert the lowest pipe into or out of the basin. Trash or debris in any inlet or outlet pipe blocking more than 113 of its height. Dead animals or vegetation that could generate odors that could cause complaints or dangerous gases (e.g., methane). Deposits of garbage exceeding 1 cubic foot in volume Comer of frame extends more than 3/4 inch past curb face into the street (If applicable). Top slab has holes larger than 2 square inches or cracks wider than 1/4 inch (intent is to make sure all material is running into basin). Frame not sitting flush on top slab, Le., separation of more than 3/4 inch of the frame from the top slab. Cracks wider than 1/2 inch and longer than 3 feet, any evidence of soil particles entering catch basin through cracks, or maintenance person judges that structure is unsound. Cracks wider than 1/2 inch and longer than 1 foot at the joint of any inlet! outlet pipe or any evidence of soil particles entering catch basin through cracks. Basin has settled more than 1 inch or has rotated more than 2 inches out of alignment. A-5 Results Expected When Maintenance is performed No Trash or debris located immediately in front of catch basin opening. No trash or debris in the catch basin. Inlet and outlet pipes free of trash or debris. No dead animals or vegetation present within the catch basin. No condition present which would attract or support the breeding of insects or rodents. Frame is even with curb. Top slab is free of holes and cracks. Frame is sitting flush on top slab. Basin replaced or repaired to design standards. No cracks more than 1/4 inch wide at the joint of inlet!outlet pipe. Basin replaced or repaired to design standards. 911198 I APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE STANDARDS FOR PRIVATELY MAINTAINED DRAINAGE FAOLITIES I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I NO.5 -CATCH BASINS (CONTINUElJ) Maintenance Component Catch Basin Cover Ladder Metal Grates (If Applicable) Defect Fire Hazard Vegetation Pollution Cover Not in Place' Locking Mechanism Not Working Cover Difficult to Remove Ladder Rungs Unsafe Trash and Debris Damaged or Missing. . ..... Conditions When Maintenance is Needed Presence of chemicals such as natural gas. oil and gasoline. Vegetation growing across and blocking more than 10% of the basin opening. Vegetation growing in inlet/outlet pipe joints that is more than six inches tall and less than six inches apart. Nonflammable chemicals of more than 1/2 cubic foot per three feet of basin length. Cover is missing or only partially in place. Any open catch basin requires maintenance. Mechanism cannot be opened by on maintenance person with proper tools. Bolts into frame have less than 1/2 inch of thread. One maintenance person cannot remove lid after applying 80 Ibs. of lift; intent is keep cover from sealing off access to maintenance. Ladder is unsafe due to missing rungs. misalignment. rust. cracks. or sharp edges. Grate with opening wider than 7/8 inch. Trash and debris that is blocking more than 20% of grate surface. . Grate missing or broken member(s} of the grate. NO.6 DEBRIS BARRIERS (E.G., TRASH RACKS) Maintenance Components General Metal 911/98 Defect Trash and Debris Damaged! Missing Bars. Condition When Maintenance is Needed Trash or debris that is plugging more than 20% of the openings in the barrier. Bars are bent out of shape more than 3 inches. Bars are missing or entire barrier missing. Bars are loose and rust is causing 50% deterioration to any part of barrier. A-6 Results Expected When Maintenance is performed No flammable chemicals present. No vegetation blocking opening to basin. No vegetation or root growth present. No pollution present other than surface film. Catch basin cover is closed Mechanism opens with proper tools. Cover can be removed by one maintenance person. Ladder meets design standards and allows maintenance person safe access. Grate opening meets design standards. Grate free of trash and debris. Grate is in place and meets design standards. Results Expected When Maintenance is Performed. Barrier clear to receive capacity flow. Bars in place with no bends more than 3/4 inch. . Bars in place according to desian. . Rep8.ir or replace barrier to design standards. 1998 Surface Water Design ManuaI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX A, MAINTENANCE STANDARDS FOR PRIV A TEL Y MAINTAINED DRAINAGE FACILITIES NO.7 -ENERGY DISSIPATERS Maintenance Components Extemal: Rock Pad Dispersion Trench Intemal: Manholel Chamber Defect Missing or Moved Rock Pipe Plugged with Sediment Not Discharging Water Properly Perforations Plugged. Water Flows Out Top of "Distributor" Catch Basin. Receiving Area Over-Saturated Wom or Damaged Post. Baffles, Side of Chamber Other Defects 1998 Surface Water Design Manual '.'. Conditions When Maintenance is Needed Only one layer of rock exists above native soil in area five square feet or larger, or any exposure of native soil. Accumulated sediment that exceeds 20% of the design depth. Visual evidence of water discharging at concentrated points along trench (normal condition is a ·sheet flow" of water along trench). Intent is to prevent erosion damage. Over 1/2 of perforations in pipe are plugged with debris and sediment. Maintenance person observes water flowing out during any storm less than the design storm or its causing or appears likely to Cause damage. Water in receiving area is causing or has potential of causing landslide problems. Structure dissipating flow deteriorates to 1/2 or Original size or any concentrated wom spot exceeding one square foot which would make structure unsound. See "Catch Basins" Standard No. S A-7 Results Expected When Maintenance is Performed. Replace rocks to design standards. Pipe cleaned/ flushed so that it matches design. Trench must be redesigned or rebuilt to standards. Clean or replace perforated pipe. Facility must be rebuilt or red~signed to standards. No danger of landslides. Replace structure to deSign standards. See "Catch Basins" Standard No. S 9/1/98 I APPENDIX A MAlN1ENAi'lCE STANDARDS FOR PRN ATELY ~AlNTAINED DRAINAGE FACILITIES I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I NO.8 -FENCING Maintenance Components General Wire Fences Defect Missing or Broken Parts Erosion Damaged Parts Deteriorated Paint or Protective Coating Openings in Fabric NO. 9~GATES Maintenance Component General 9/1/98 Defect Damaged or Missing Members Openings in Fabric Conditions When Maintenance is Needed Any defect in the fence that permits easy entry to a facility. Erosion more than 4 inches high and 12-18 inches wide permitting an opening under a fence. . Post out of plumb more than 6 inches. Top rails bent more than 6 inches. Any part of fence (including post, top rails, and fabric) more than 1 foot out of design alignment. Missing or loose tension wire. Missing or loose barbed wire that is sagging more than 2-1/2 inches between posts. Extension arm missing, broken, or bent out of shape more than 1 1/2 inches. Part or parts that have a rusting or scaling condition that has affected structural adequacy. Openings in fabric are such that an a-inch- diameter ball could fit through. Conditions When Maintenance is Needed Missing gate or locking devices. Broken or missing hinges such that gate cannot be easily opened and closed by a maintenance person. Gate is out of plumb more than 6 inches and more than 1 foot out of design alignment. Missing stretcher bar, stretcher bands, and ties. See "Fencing" Standard No. a A-8 Results Expected When Maintenance is Performed Parts in place to provide adequate security. No opening under the fence that exceeds 4 inches in height. Post plumb to within 1-1/2 inches. Top rail free of bends greater than 1 inch. Fence is aligned and meets design standards. Tension wire in place and holding fabric. Bamed wire in place with less than 3/4 inch sag between post. Extension arm in place with no bends larger than 3/4 inch. Structurally adequate posts or parts with a uniform protective coating. No openings in fabric. Results Expected When Maintenance is Performed Gates and Locking devices in place. Hinges intact and lubed. Gate is working freely. Gate is aligned and vertical. Stretcher bar, bands and ties in place. See "Fencing" Standard No.8 1998 Surface WarerDesign Manual I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE STA1'lDARDS FOR PRIV ATEL Y MAINTAINED DRAlNAGE FACll.ITIES NO. 10 -CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS (PIPES & DITCHES) Maintenance Component Pipes Open Ditches Catch Basins Debris Barriers (e.g., Trash Rack) Defect Sediment & Debris Vegetation Damaged Trash & Debris Sediment Vegetation Erosion Damage to Slopes Rock Lining Out of Place or Missing (If Applicable). Conditions When Maintenance is Needed Accumulated sediment that exceeds 20% of the diameter of the pipe. Vegetation that reduces free movement of water through pipes. Protective coating is damaged; rust is causing more than 50% deterioration to any part of pipe. Results Expected When Maintenance is Performed Pipe cleaned of all sediment and debris. All vegetation removed so water flows freely through pipes. Pipe repaired or replaced. Any dent that decreases the cross section area of . Pipe repaired or replaced. pipe by more than 20%. Trash and debris exceeds l cubic foot per 1,000 square feet of ditch and slopes. Accumulated sediment that exceeds 20 % of the design depth. Vegetation that reduces free movement of water through ditches. See "Ponds' Standard No.1 Maintenance person can see native soil beneath the rock lining. See "Catch Basins: Standard No.5 See "Debris Barriers' Standard No.6 Trash and debris cleared from ditches. Ditch cleaned! flushed of all sediment and debris so that it I!'atches design. Water flows freely through ditches. See "Ponds' Standard No.1 Replace rocks to design standards. See "Catch Basins' Standard No.5 See "Debris Barriers' Standard No.6 NO. 11 -GROUNDS (LANDSCAPING) Maintenance Component General Trees and Shrubs Defect Weeds (Nonpoisonous) Safety Hazard Trash or Litter Damaged 1998 Surface Water Design Manual Conditions When Maintenance is Needed Weeds growing in more than 20% of the landscaped area (trees and shrubs only). Any presence of poison ivy or other poisonous vegetation. Paper, cans, bottles, totaling more than 1 cubic foot within a landscaped area (trees and shrubs only) of 1 ,000 square feet. Limbs or parts of trees or shrubs that are split or broken which affect more than 25% of the total foliage of the tree or shrub. Trees or shrubs that have been blown down or knocked over. Trees or shrubs which are not adequately supported or are leaning over, causing exposure of the roots. A·9 Results Expected When Maintenance is Performed Weeds present in less than 5% of the landscaped area. No poisonous:vegetation present in landscaped area. Area clear of litter. Trees and shrubs with less than 5% of total foliage with split or broken limbs. Tree or shrub in place free of injury. Tree or shrub in place and adequately supported; remove any dead or diseased trees. 911/98 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX A MAlNTENAl'4CE STA.NDARDS FOR PRrV A TEL Y MAINTAINED DRAINAGE FACT~ITIES NO. 12 -ACCESS ROADSI EASEMENTS Maintenance Component General Road Surface Shoulders and Ditches 9/1/98 Detect Trash and Debris Blocked Roadway Settlement, Potholes, Mush Spots, Ruts Vegetation in Road Surface Modular Grid Pavement Erosion Damage Weeds and Brush Condition When Maintenance is Needed Trash and debris exceeds 1 cubic ioot per 1,000 square feet Le., trash and debris would fill up one standards size garbage can. Debris which could damage vehicle tires (glass or metal). Any obstruction which reduces clearance above road surface to less than 14 feet Any obstruction restricting the access to a 10 to 12 foot width for a distance of more than 12 feet or any point restricting access to less than a 1 0 foot width. When any surface defect exceeds 6 inches in depth and 6 square feet in area. In general, any surface defect which hinders or prevents maintenance access. Weeds growing in the road surface that are more than 6 inches tall and less than 6 inches tall and less than 6 inches apart within a 400- square foot area. Build-up of sediment mildly contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons. Erosion within 1 foot of the roadway more than 8 inches wide and 6 inches deep. Weeds and brush exceed 18 inches in height or hinder maintenance access. A-IO Results Expected When Maintenance is Performed Roadway free of debris which could damage tires. Roadway free of debris which could damage tires. Roadway overhead clear to 14 feet high. Obstruction removed to allow at least a 12 foot access. Road surface uniformly smooth with no evidence ot settlement. potpoles, mush spots, or ruts. Road surface free of weeds taller than 2 inches. Removal ot sediment and disposal in keeping with Health Department recommendations for mildly contaminated soils or catch basin sediments. Shoulder free of erosion and matching the surrounding road. Weeds and brush cut to 2 inches in height or cleared in such a way as to allow maintenance access. 1998 Surface Water Design Manual I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX A MAINTENAN"CE STANDARDS FOR PRIVATELY MAINTAINED DRAINAGE FACll..ITIES NO. 13 -WATER QUALITY FACILmES (CONTINUED) D.) Wetvaults Maintenance Component Wetvaull Defect Condition When Maintenance is Needed Trash! Debris Trash and debris accumulated in vault, pipe or Accumulation inlet! ouUet, (includes f10atables and non- floatables). Sediment Accumulation Sediment accumulation in vault bottom that in Vault exceeds the depth of the sediment zone plus 6- inches. Damaged Pipes Access Cover Damaged/ Not Working Vault Structure Damaged Baffles Access Ladder Damage .:-.... Inlet! outlet piping damaged or broken and in need of repair. Cover cannot be opened or removed, especially by one person. Vault Cracks wider than 1/2-inch and any evidence of soil particles entering the structure through the cracks, or maintenance! inspection personnel determines that the vault is not structurally sound. Baffles corroding, cracking, warping and! or showing signs of failure as determined by maintenance! inspection staff .. Ladder is corroded or deteriorated, not functioning properly, missing rungs, has cracks and! or misaligned. 1998 Surface Water Design Manual A-13 Results Expected When Maintenance is Performed Trash and debris removed from vault Removal of sediment from vault. Pipe repaired and! or replaced. Pipe repaired or replaced to proper working specifications. No cracks wider than lI4-inch at the joint of the inlet! ouUet pipe. Vault is determined to be structurally sound. Repair or replace baffles to specifications. Ladder replaced or repaired to specifications, and is safe to use as determined by inspection personnel. 9/1/98