Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOlympus Villa h:\cityclerk\hearing examiner\2011\land use\decisions\olympus villas prelim plat- lua10-090 (2).doc BEFORE the HEARING EXAMINER Pro Tempore for the CITY of RENTON DECISION FILE NUMBER: LUA10-090, ECF, PP APPLICANT: Finkbeiner Development ATTN: Bill Finkbeiner 12011 Bel-Red Road, Suite 206 Bellevue, WA 98005 OWNERS: Robert Anderson & Gale Miner 13607 461st Avenue SE North Bend, WA 98045 TYPE OF CASE: Preliminary subdivision (Olympus Villa) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve subject to conditions SUMMARY OF DECISION: GRANT subject to conditions (revised) DATE OF DECISION: April 22, 2011 INTRODUCTION 1 Finkbeiner Development (Finkbeiner) seeks preliminary approval of Olympus Villa, an 11 lot single family residential subdivision of a 6.72 acre site zoned R-4. Finkbeiner filed the preliminary subdivision application on December 22, 2010. (Exhibit 11 2) The Renton Department of Community and Economic Development, Planning Division (Planning) deemed the application to be complete on January 7, 2011. (Testimony) 1 Any statement in this section deemed to be either a Finding of Fact or a Conclusion of Law is hereby adopted as such. 2 Exhibit citations are provided for the reader’s benefit and indicate: 1) The source of a quote or specific fact; and/or 2) The major document(s) upon which a stated fact is based. While the Examiner considers all relevant documents in the record, typically only major documents are cited. The Examiner’s Decision is based upon all documents in the record. HEARING EXAMINER Pro Tempore DECISION RE: LUA10-090, ECF, PP (Olympus Villa) April 22, 2011 Page 2 of 15 h:\cityclerk\hearing examiner\2011\land use\decisions\olympus villas prelim plat- lua10-090 (2).doc The subject property is located at 12XXX Nile Avenue NE (aka 148th Avenue SE), approximately 800 feet north of NE 6th Street (aka SE 124th Street). The Renton Hearing Examiner Pro Tempore (Examiner) viewed the subject property on April 19, 2011. The Examiner held an open record hearing on April 19, 2011. Planning gave notice of the hearing as required by the Renton Municipal Code (RMC). (Exhibit 14) The following exhibits were entered into the hearing record during the hearing: Exhibits 1 - 12: As enumerated in Exhibit 1, the Staff Report Exhibit 13: Applicant-requested condition changes Exhibit 14: Hearing notice documentation The Examiner held the hearing record open for up to two days at the request of Finkbeiner and Planning for receipt of a water availability letter and for entry of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) Report. The following documents were entered pursuant to that authority: Exhibit 15: Water District 90 water availability letter Exhibit 16: Environmental Review Committee Report The record closed on April 20, 2011, with receipt of Exhibit 15. The action taken herein and the requirements, limitations and/or conditions imposed by this decision are, to the best of the Examiner’s knowledge or belief, only such as are lawful and within the authority of the Examiner to take pursuant to applicable law and policy. ISSUES Does the application meet the criteria for preliminary subdivision approval as established within the RMC? Should the subdivision’s internal street system include a northerly extension of Pasco Place NE? FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The subject property is essentially a “flag” lot which has 54.42 feet of frontage on the east side of Nile Avenue NE and which extends some 1,290 feet to the east, eventually widening to approximately 315 feet. (Exhibit 3) The property is presently vacant, although the remains of a building, presumed to be a former residence which was demolished at an unknown time in the past, are located on the western portion of the site. (Exhibit 5 and testimony) HEARING EXAMINER Pro Tempore DECISION RE: LUA10-090, ECF, PP (Olympus Villa) April 22, 2011 Page 3 of 15 h:\cityclerk\hearing examiner\2011\land use\decisions\olympus villas prelim plat- lua10-090 (2).doc 2. A variety of land uses abut the subject property. A. The western “notch” on the south side of the subject property created by the 157 foot southerly “jog” in the south property line is occupied by an approximate 2.3 acre parcel (the Shenk parcel). The Shenk parcel contains a single-family residence near its Nile Avenue NE frontage. (Exhibits 1, 5, and 12C and testimony) B. The east half of the south property line abuts the north edge of the developed Windwood single-family residential subdivision. One of the streets in Windwood, Pasco Place NE, terminates against the common property line with the subject property. Pasco Place NE extends southerly through Windwood to eventually provide a connection to NE 4th Street (aka SE 128th Street). Windwood is a development of some 100± homes. (Exhibits 2, 3, and 5) Windwood was developed under King County regulations. (Testimony) C. The east property line abuts the rear lot line of six lots in Maureen Highlands, another 100 ± lot single-family residential subdivision developed under King County regulations. Windwood and Maureen Highlands are interconnected via NE 6th Street which extends westerly to Nile Avenue NE. (Exhibits 2, 3, and 5 and testimony) D. The north property line abuts all or a portion of seven acreage lots, most of which access SE 120th Street a short distance to the north. One of those lots (the Newman property) is larger than the rest and is undeveloped; the rest appear to each contain a single-family residence. (Exhibits 2 and 5 and testimony) 3. The subject property is essentially flat with a very gentle downward slope from east to west. (Exhibit 3) Two regulated wetlands are found on the property: A small Category 3, disturbed wetland near the west end of the site, and a significantly larger, forested, Category 2 wetland located just east of the Pasco Place NE right-of-way alignment (extended). (Exhibits 3 and 7) Vegetation consists of a mix of shrubs, groundcover, and 95 trees. (Exhibits 1 and 5) The subject property is not located in the Aquifer Protection Zone. (Exhibit 1, p. 3) 4. Finkbeiner proposes to subdivide the subject property into 11 lots for single-family residential development, two open space tracts (Tracts A and C) totaling 87,966 square feet (SF), a 15,837 SF stormwater control tract (Tract B), and a 62,705 SF tract for future development (Tract D). (Exhibit 3) Finkbeiner has no plans to develop Tract D. (Testimony) Tract D is effectively isolated by the Category 2 wetland on Tract A from the rest of the subject property and can realistically be accessed only from the north. For all intents and purposes, Tract D most likely cannot be developed until the acreage lot to its north is further developed. The proposed lots will be served by two public streets: An east-west street (proposed NE 7th Place) extending from Nile Avenue NE to an extension of Pasco Place NE through the property. Proposed HEARING EXAMINER Pro Tempore DECISION RE: LUA10-090, ECF, PP (Olympus Villa) April 22, 2011 Page 4 of 15 h:\cityclerk\hearing examiner\2011\land use\decisions\olympus villas prelim plat- lua10-090 (2).doc NE 7th Place will be developed as a “half-street” section, allowing for future widening to a full-width section at such time as the Shenk property develops. (Exhibit 3) Finkbeiner proposes to use the “clustering” provisions of the RMC for some of the proposed lots. As depicted on Exhibit 3, Proposed Lots 1 – 5 take advantage of those provisions. Finkbeiner asked at hearing to be allowed to include Proposed Lots 6 and 7 in the clustering calculations. (Exhibits 1 and 3 and testimony) The density of Olympus Villa as proposed will be 2.6 dwelling units per net acre. (Exhibit 1) 5. The subdivision design and all of the proposed lots comply with RMC zoning, street, street network, parks, blocks, and lot configuration requirements. All of the proposed single-family residential lots access a public street. (Exhibits 1 and 3) 6. The record contains evidence that appropriate provisions have been made or can be made for: A. Open space. Small lot clusters of up to a maximum of fifty lots are allowed within the R-4 zone when at least 30 % of the site is permanently set aside as “significant open space.” Such open space must be situated to act as a visual buffer between small lot clusters and other development in the zone. The area of Tract A comes up a little shy of the 30% set aside requirement (87,618 SF / 293,152 SF = 29.88%). While Tract D will not be immediately developed, it is not proposed to be set aside as permanent open space and, therefore, cannot count towards the open space requirement. Tract C (348 SF) is also to be dedicated as open space. However, Tract C is not located in an area which would serve as a visual buffer between the small lot cluster and other development in the area. (Exhibit 1) Finkbeiner testified that he could easily adjust the common boundary between Tracts A and D to provide the necessary increase in the area of Tract A. (Testimony) B. Drainage ways. All stormwater runoff except that from Proposed Lot 1 will be collected and transported to a detention pond on Tract B from which it will flow into the drainage system along Nile Avenue NE. (Exhibit 6) The pond will replace the wetland now located there. Mitigation for the loss of that wetland is proposed in the area of the wetland in Tract A. (Exhibit 7) Stormwater runoff from Proposed Lot 1 will be dispersed into the wetland to its north and east. (Exhibit 6) C. Streets and roads. The proposed streets and street system meet City standards. (Exhibit 1) HEARING EXAMINER Pro Tempore DECISION RE: LUA10-090, ECF, PP (Olympus Villa) April 22, 2011 Page 5 of 15 h:\cityclerk\hearing examiner\2011\land use\decisions\olympus villas prelim plat- lua10-090 (2).doc D. Alleys. Proposed Lots 2 & 3 and 4 & 5 will be served by two private easements which will function as alleys, allowing access to those lots from the rear of the lots. (Exhibit 3 and testimony) E. Other public ways. No need for other public ways within the subdivision exists. (Exhibits 1 and 3) F. Potable water supply. The subject property lies within Water District 90 which has confirmed the availability of an adequate supply of potable water. (Exhibit 15) G. Sanitary wastes. An 8” sanitary sewer main exists beneath Pasco Place NE. (Exhibit 1) H. Parks and recreation. The project has been required through the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) threshold determination process (See Finding of Fact 7, below.) to make a park impact mitigation payment. (Exhibit 16) 7. Renton‘s SEPA Responsible Official, the ERC, issued a Determination of Nonsignificance-Mitigated (DNS-M) on January 31, 2011. (Exhibit 8) The DNS-M was not appealed. (Exhibit 1) The DNS-M is based on three mitigation measures: Payment of a parks and recreation impact fee, a transportation impact fee, and a fire impact fee. (Exhibit 16) The three mitigation measures have been carried forward by Planning as a recommended condition of approval. (Exhibit 1, p. 11, Recommended Condition 1) 8. Most residents of Windwood have no objection to subdivision of the land to their north nor to the proposed design with but one important exception: They are strongly opposed to the extension of and use of Pasco Place NE. Windwood residents have experienced many problems with speeding drivers, especially since the development of Maureen Highlands which resulted in the opening up of 6th Street NE through the neighborhood. Stop signs have been installed, but some motorists ignore them. The Windwood residents believe that the extension of Pasco Place NE will only make the situation worse. They see no reason why their neighborhood needs to be connected to the Olympus Villa neighborhood. (Exhibits 12A and 12D and testimony) The RMC requires that all new development establish and further an interconnecting grid system. The code allows for exceptions to the grid street requirement in only two situations: Where interconnection is infeasible due to topography; or where interconnection is infeasible due to existing substantial improvements. [RMC 4-7-150, exceptions listed in 4-7-150E3] Neither condition that would justify an exception is present in this case: No topographical problems exist and no improvements would block the extension. (Exhibit 3) 9. One of the abutting owners in Maureen Highlands wants the easterly 60 feet of Tract D set aside as open space to protect three deer and a fawn who reportedly live in the area. (Exhibit 12B) Another HEARING EXAMINER Pro Tempore DECISION RE: LUA10-090, ECF, PP (Olympus Villa) April 22, 2011 Page 6 of 15 h:\cityclerk\hearing examiner\2011\land use\decisions\olympus villas prelim plat- lua10-090 (2).doc Maureen Highlands resident is concerned that the development not increase stormwater flows towards the east and would prefer fewer, larger lots. (Exhibit 12E) 10. Newman, the owner of one of the lots to the north, would like to see the Pasco Place NE extension curve more to the east than is proposed. He notes that, as designed, the right-of-way will stub out just to the west of the common boundary between his property and the property of his neighbor to the east. He would like the right-of-way stub to be centered on their common boundary, so that further extension to the north through their properties would encumber each equally. (Testimony) The alignment of the Pasco Place NE extension right-of-way cannot shift measurably to the east within the subject property due to the location of the Category 2 wetland and its required buffer. (Exhibit 3 and testimony) In order to make the adjustment Newman seeks, a reverse curve would have to occur just to the north of the subject property. Street alignment within subdivisions must comply with standards set by RMC 4-6-060. [RMC 4-7- 150D] A deflection angle of 10º or more must occur through a horizontal “curve of reasonably long radius”. Further, wherever a reverse curve is to occur (an “S” curve or a chicane), there must be a “tangent section” (a straight segment between the curves) of not less than 100 feet for residential access streets. [RMC 4-6-060F7a and F7c] Given that Newman’s parcel has a north-south dimension of approximately 250 feet (measured from Exhibit 2), the required curves and tangent section would take most of the depth of his parcel to complete. 11. Shenk submitted a comment letter and testified at the hearing. The letter lists a number of concerns resulting from misunderstanding some of the notations on the proposed preliminary plat. (Exhibit 12C) Shenk did not mention those concerns in his testimony. Shenk wonders why Finkbeiner will not be required to install sewer stub-outs towards the south when he installs the sewer beneath future NE 7th Place. He suggests that installing them when the sewer main is initially laid would eliminate the need to tear up the street later when his property develops. (Testimony) Staff responded that a major problem with such an idea is that no one can know where the stub-outs might be needed on his side of the street until a development proposal for his property is put forth. (Testimony) 12. Planning performed a comprehensive, detailed, thorough analysis of the proposal’s conformance with applicable requirements of the RMC. Planning concludes that the proposal complies, or can be conditioned to comply, with all applicable requirements. (Exhibit 1) 13. Planning recommends approval of the proposed subdivision subject to 10 conditions. (Exhibit 1, pp. 11 and 12) Finkbeiner asks for revision to four of the recommended conditions: HEARING EXAMINER Pro Tempore DECISION RE: LUA10-090, ECF, PP (Olympus Villa) April 22, 2011 Page 7 of 15 h:\cityclerk\hearing examiner\2011\land use\decisions\olympus villas prelim plat- lua10-090 (2).doc A. Recommended Condition 3: Finkbeiner wants to be able to include Proposed Lots 6 and 7 in the clustering process. Finkbeiner wants to gain increased flexibility so that Proposed Lots 4 and 5 might be slightly enlarged. (Exhibit 13) Planning supports that requested change. (Testimony) B. Recommended Condition 4: While Finkbeiner agrees that Proposed Lots 2 – 5 should access from NE 7th Place, he does not like the language which would limit that access to the easements as depicted on Exhibit 3. He wants the flexibility to alter their alignment. (Exhibit 13) Planning has no objection to providing some flexibility, but wants to limit the number of curb cuts and prohibit direct access onto Pasco Place NE. (Testimony) The RMC effectively requires alley access in residential cluster designs. [RMC 4-7-150E5e] C. Recommended Condition 6: This condition requires 1” water meters to serve Proposed Lots 6 – 11. That condition is based on the fact that, as presently designed, houses built on those lots would have to be equipped with fire suppression sprinkler systems (because of the width of the half-street section) which in turn require a larger-than-normal water meter. Finkbeiner wants the flexibility to adjust the plat (slightly widening the half-street right-of-way) such that those lots would not need to be sprinklered. (Exhibit 13 and testimony) Staff testified that the Fire Marshal determines which lots must be sprinklered just before final construction plans are approved. Staff now believes that Recommended Condition 6 should have been provided as an advisory note rather than as a recommended condition of approval. (Testimony) D. Recommended Condition 8: Finkbeiner would like the flexibility to have the open space tracts owned in common by a homeowners association instead of owned in common by the lot owners abutting the tracts. (Exhibit 13) Planning supports that requested change. (Testimony) 14. Any Conclusion of Law deemed to be a Finding of Fact is hereby adopted as such. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 3 The Examiner is legally required to decide this case within the framework created by the following principles: Authority A preliminary subdivision is a Type III application which is subject to an open record hearing before the Examiner. The Examiner makes a final decision on the application which is subject to the right of reconsideration and appeal to the City Council. [RMC 4-08-070H1j, 4-8-080G, and 4-8-100G4] 3 Any statement in this section deemed to be either a Finding of Fact or a Conclusion of Law is hereby adopted as such. HEARING EXAMINER Pro Tempore DECISION RE: LUA10-090, ECF, PP (Olympus Villa) April 22, 2011 Page 8 of 15 h:\cityclerk\hearing examiner\2011\land use\decisions\olympus villas prelim plat- lua10-090 (2).doc The Examiner may grant or deny the application, or the Examiner may require of the applicant such conditions, modifications and restrictions as the Examiner finds necessary to make the application compatible with its environment and carry out the objectives and goals of the Comprehensive Plan, the zoning regulations, the subdivision regulations, the codes and ordinances of the City of Renton …. Conditions, modifications and restrictions which may be imposed are, but are not limited to, additional setbacks, screenings in the form of landscaping and fencing, covenants, easements and dedications of additional road rights-of-way. Performance bonds may be required to insure compliance with the conditions, modifications and restrictions. [RMC 4-8-100G3] Review Criteria The review criteria for preliminary subdivisions are set forth at RMC 4-7-080B: B. PRINCIPLES OF ACCEPTABILITY: A subdivision shall be consistent with the following principles of acceptability: 1. Legal Lots: Create legal building sites which comply with all provisions of the City Zoning Code. 2. Access: Establish access to a public road for each segregated parcel. 3. Physical Characteristics: Have suitable physical characteristics. A proposed plat may be denied because of flood, inundation, or wetland conditions. Construction of protective improvements may be required as a condition of approval, and such improvements shall be noted on the final plat. 4. Drainage: Make adequate provision for drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies and sanitary wastes. (Bold headings in original) Requirements and standards for street and trail networks, parks and open space, streets, residential blocks, and lot configuration are set forth in RMC 4-7-120 and -140 – 170. The Local Project Review Act [Chapter 36.70B RCW] establishes a mandatory “consistency” review for “project permits”, a term defined by the Act to include “building permits, subdivisions, binding site plans, planned unit developments, conditional uses, shoreline substantial development permits, site plan review, permits or approvals required by critical area ordinances, site-specific rezones authorized by a comprehensive plan or subarea plan”. [RCW 36.70B.020(4)] (1) Fundamental land use planning choices made in adopted comprehensive plans and development regulations shall serve as the foundation for project review. The review of a proposed project’s consistency with applicable development regulations or, in the absence of applicable regulations the adopted comprehensive plan, under RCW 36.70B.040 shall incorporate the determinations under this section. HEARING EXAMINER Pro Tempore DECISION RE: LUA10-090, ECF, PP (Olympus Villa) April 22, 2011 Page 9 of 15 h:\cityclerk\hearing examiner\2011\land use\decisions\olympus villas prelim plat- lua10-090 (2).doc (2) During project review, a local government or any subsequent reviewing body shall determine whether the items listed in this subsection are defined in the development regulations applicable to the proposed project or, in the absence of applicable regulations the adopted comprehensive plan. At a minimum, such applicable regulations or plans shall be determinative of the: (a) Type of land use permitted at the site, including uses that may be allowed under certain circumstances, such as planned unit developments and conditional and special uses, if the criteria for their approval have been satisfied; (b) Density of residential development in urban growth areas; and (c) Availability and adequacy of public facilities identified in the comprehensive plan, if the plan or development regulations provide for funding of these facilities as required by [the Growth Management Act]. [RCW 36.70B.030] Vested Rights Renton has not enacted a general vested rights provision. Therefore, applicable provisions of state law govern: Subdivision and short subdivision applications are governed by a statutory vesting rule: such applications “shall be considered under the subdivision or short subdivision ordinance, and zoning or other land use control ordinances, in effect on the land at the time a fully completed application … has been submitted ….” [RCW 58.17.033; see also SMC 16.28.480] Therefore, this preliminary subdivision application is vested to the regulations as they existed on January 7, 2011. Standard of Review The standard of review is preponderance of the evidence. The applicant has the burden of proof. Scope of Consideration The Examiner has considered: all of the evidence and testimony; applicable adopted laws, ordinances, plans, and policies; and the pleadings, positions, and arguments of the parties of record. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates compliance with the preliminary subdivision approval criteria in RMC 4-7-080B1: All of the proposed lots will comply with zoning regulations. HEARING EXAMINER Pro Tempore DECISION RE: LUA10-090, ECF, PP (Olympus Villa) April 22, 2011 Page 10 of 15 h:\cityclerk\hearing examiner\2011\land use\decisions\olympus villas prelim plat- lua10-090 (2).doc 2. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates compliance with the preliminary subdivision approval criteria in RMC 4-7-080B2: Each lot will have access to a public street. 3. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates compliance with the preliminary subdivision approval criteria in RMC 4-7-080B3: The major on-site critical area is to be protected; mitigation in conformance with adopted standards is proposed for the loss of the lesser critical area. 4. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates compliance with the preliminary subdivision approval criteria in RMC 4-7-080B4: The streets and drainage systems have been designed to comply with City codes and standards. A minor shortfall in open space can be easily fixed by an appropriate condition. Adequate utility services are available. 5. The preceding four Conclusions of Law show that Olympus Villa complies with all established criteria for approval. However, they likely don’t answer some of the neighbors’ concerns. The next Conclusions of Law will address their concerns. 6. The Windwood design obviously contemplated the eventual extension of Pasco Place NE to serve subdivision of the acreage parcels to the north, of which the subject property is one. Whether the home purchasers clearly understood that or not, that is the reality presented by a street which stubs out to an adjoining undeveloped parcel. Olympus Villa’s design is simply bringing that expectation to fruition. Renton has strong requirements for interconnection of streets between and among adjoining developments. Just because King County did not have interconnection requirements is no reason to not implement and enforce the City’s requirements. The interconnection of Pasco Place NE with proposed NE 7th Place will provide a second access into not only Olympus Villa, but also the north end of Windwood: If an accident were to block the Pasco Place NE/NE 6th Street intersection now, emergency vehicles could not reach any of the homes on Pasco Place NE north of NE 6th Street. The interconnection will provide an alternate access. And as one of the witnesses acknowledged, many if not most of the speeders are neighborhood residents, not outsiders cutting through the neighborhood. The neighbors and the City have a range of actions that can be taken to solve the speeding problem short of ignoring adopted requirements for interconnection of streets. 7. The RMC provides no basis upon which one could require that the eastern 60 feet of Tract D be set aside permanently as open space. Wildlife presently living on the portions of the site which will be converted into streets and house lots will, most likely, be lost. That loss is a direct result of the legislative decision to urbanize this area. Urbanization is, generally speaking, incompatible with most wildlife species habitat, especially for animals such as deer, bear, coyote, etc. The legislative decision to designate and zone the area for urbanization amounts to a conscious choice of human habitat over wildlife habitat. That legislative choice is not debatable in the context of this (or any other quasi-judicial) application. HEARING EXAMINER Pro Tempore DECISION RE: LUA10-090, ECF, PP (Olympus Villa) April 22, 2011 Page 11 of 15 h:\cityclerk\hearing examiner\2011\land use\decisions\olympus villas prelim plat- lua10-090 (2).doc As to the drainage concern of the other Maureen Highlands resident, the evidence indicates that the vast majority of the stormwater runoff will be directed towards the west and Nile Avenue NE, not towards Maureen Highlands on the east. There would seem to be virtually no chance that the small amount of runoff from the residence on Proposed Lot 1 could ever affect Maureen Highlands given the size of Tract A with its wetland and intervening Tract D. Control of stormwater runoff from any future development of Tract D will have to be addressed at the time a proposal for such development is put forward. 8. Were it not for the existence of the substantial Category 2 wetland just to the east of the Pasco Place NE right-of-way (extended), Newman’s request would likely have garnered the support of both Finkbeiner and staff. But the wetland’s location is a physical reality with which we all must live. City policy and regulation strongly support protection of such wetlands. The street must avoid the wetland to the greatest extent possible. The unfortunate reality is that most of any right-of-way alignment adjustment will have to occur on the property(ies) to the north. It may be possible to begin a slight horizontal curve to the east near the north property line without impinging on the wetland or its required buffer. (Minor revisions to approved preliminary plats are allowed. [RMC 4-7-080M]) Newman and his neighbor may want to discuss the pros and cons of such an alignment shift with Finkbeiner and City staff before construction plans are prepared. This situation does not warrant a delay in approval or redesign of the proposed preliminary plat. 9. Requiring sewer stubs to both sides of a new street makes sense, but only if both sides of the street are being developed at the same time. No one can say when, if ever, the Shenk property may develop. No one can say what the land development requirements may be when the Shenk property is proposed for development. Therefore, no one can say with any certainty exactly where sewer stubs would be required. Installing sewer stubs based on a hypothetical development would make no sense – even if it were legally defensible, which it likely isn’t. 10. Olympus Villa passes the “consistency” test: Single-family residential is the primary use in the R-4 zone; the proposed density is within the range allowed by applicable zoning; and adequate utility services are available to the site. 11. The recommended conditions of approval as set forth in Exhibit 1 are reasonable, supported by the evidence, and capable of accomplishment with the following changes: A. A preliminary subdivision embodies the concept of approval of a specific development proposal. A preliminary subdivision evaluation is based upon the specific preliminary plat submitted by the applicant. It is appropriate, therefore, that the conditions of approval clearly identify the plat which is being approved. The Planning recommendation as drafted does not do so. Exhibit 3 constitutes the plat proposal which has been reviewed in this hearing process HEARING EXAMINER Pro Tempore DECISION RE: LUA10-090, ECF, PP (Olympus Villa) April 22, 2011 Page 12 of 15 h:\cityclerk\hearing examiner\2011\land use\decisions\olympus villas prelim plat- lua10-090 (2).doc and which should be approved. The Examiner will add a condition to specify that Exhibit 3 is the approved preliminary plat; numbering of the subsequent conditions will be incremented accordingly. B. Recommended Conditions 3 and 8: The Examiner will revise those two conditions as requested by Finkbeiner and as supported by Planning. C. Recommended Condition 4: Both Finkbeiner and Planning made good points regarding the wording of this condition. The Examiner will incorporate both points of view in revised wording for this condition. D. Recommended Condition 6: The Examiner will eliminate this condition. The preliminary subdivision approval stage is way too early in the process to be specifying for all time the size of water meters for specific lots. Authority exists under the International Fire Code to address the concern that led to this condition. E. Planning stated in the Staff Report that it was going to recommend placement of a note on the face of the final plat requiring that the houses on Proposed Lots 1 – 5 must be oriented towards Pasco place NE. (Exhibit 1, p. 9) That condition never made it into the list of recommended conditions. (Exhibit 1, pp. 11 and 12) Finkbeiner objects to such a limitation as pertains to Proposed Lots 3 and 4. (Testimony) Minimum corner lot width and depth requirements for R-4 zoned land in a small lot cluster development are 60 feet and 65 feet, respectively. [RMC 4-2-110A] Proposed Lot 3 can meet those requirements for either orientation, but Proposed Lot 4 works only if its Pasco Place NE frontage is considered its front lot line. Proposed Lots 1, 2, 4, and 5 must front on Pasco Place NE. A desirable streetscape requires that Proposed Lot 3 do likewise. The Examiner will impose Planning’s suggested condition. F. The Examiner prefers to not use the word “applicant” in conditions. Land use entitlement approvals, of which a preliminary subdivision approval is one type, “run with the land.” Simply put, that means the permit is still valid no matter how many times ownership of the property may change. While it may be hyper-technical, some might argue that only the party which sought preliminary subdivision approval was the “applicant,” that any successor in interest was something other than the “applicant,” and that, therefore, any such successor was not obligated to comply with conditions addressed to the “applicant.” To avoid any such argument in the future, the Examiner prefers to use the word “plattor,” meaning the party subdividing (platting) the property. The Examiner will make that substitution throughout the conditions. HEARING EXAMINER Pro Tempore DECISION RE: LUA10-090, ECF, PP (Olympus Villa) April 22, 2011 Page 13 of 15 h:\cityclerk\hearing examiner\2011\land use\decisions\olympus villas prelim plat- lua10-090 (2).doc G. A few minor, non-substantive structure, grammar, and/or punctuation revisions to Recommended Conditions 1, 3, and 8 will improve parallel construction, clarity, and flow within the conditions. Such changes will be made. 12. Any Finding of Fact deemed to be a Conclusion of Law is hereby adopted as such. DECISION Based upon the preceding Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the testimony and evidence submitted at the open record hearing, and the Examiner’s site view, the Examiner GRANTS preliminary subdivision approval for Olympus Villa SUBJECT TO THE ATTACHED CONDITIONS. Decision issued April 22, 2011. \s\ John E. Galt (Signed original in official file) John E. Galt Hearing Examiner Pro Tempore HEARING PARTICIPANTS 4 Rocale Timmons Bill Finkbeiner Kevin Van Flanderen John Newman David Shenk Ken Bouvier Kayren Kittrick NOTICE of RIGHT of RECONSIDERATION “Any interested person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is based on an 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” file a request/motion for reconsideration with “the Examiner within fourteen (14) days after the written decision of the Examiner has been rendered. The [request/motion for reconsideration] shall set forth the specific errors relied upon.” [RMC 4-8-100G4] Any request/motion for reconsideration shall be addressed to the Renton Hearing Examiner and filed with the City Clerk. See RMC 4-8-100G4 and RMC 4-8-110E8 for additional information and requirements regarding reconsideration. 4 The official Parties of Record register is maintained by the City’s Hearing Clerk. HEARING EXAMINER Pro Tempore DECISION RE: LUA10-090, ECF, PP (Olympus Villa) April 22, 2011 Page 14 of 15 h:\cityclerk\hearing examiner\2011\land use\decisions\olympus villas prelim plat- lua10-090 (2).doc NOTICE of RIGHT of APPEAL This Decision becomes final and conclusive as of the fifteenth calendar day after the date of issuance of the Decision unless reconsideration is timely requested. If reconsideration is timely requested, the Examiner’s order granting or denying reconsideration becomes the final and conclusive decision for the City. The Examiner’s final decision is subject to the right of the applicant, City, or a party of record with standing, as provided in RMC 4-8-110F1, to file an appeal with the City Council in accordance with the procedures of RMC 4-8-110F. Any appeal must be filed within 14 days following the issuance of the final decision. See RMC 4-8-110E9 and RMC 4-8-110F for additional information and requirements regarding appeals to the City Council. The following statement is provided pursuant to RCW 36.70B.130: “Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation.” CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Olym pus Villa LUA10-090, ECF, PP This Preliminary Subdivision is subject to compliance with all applicable provisions, requirements, and standards of the Renton Municipal Code, standards adopted pursuant thereto, and the following special conditions: 1. Exhibit 3 is the approved preliminary plat. Revisions to approved preliminary subdivisions/plats are regulated by RMC 4-7-080M. 2. The plattor shall comply with the three mitigation measures issued as part of the Determination of Nonsignificance-Mitigated, dated February 4, 2011. (Exhibits 8 and 16) 3. The plattor shall be required to place additional area within Tract A in order to comply with the 30% permanent open space requirement for clustering. The permanent open space easement shall be recorded prior to or concurrently with the Final Plat. 4. The plattor shall place on the face of the plat a covenant noting the setbacks of the R-8 zoning designation apply on the clustered lots (Proposed Lots 1-7) only. The covenant shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. 5. A note shall be placed on the face of the plat requiring Proposed Lots 2-5 to take vehicular access from NE 7th Place and requiring Proposed Lots 2 & 3 to share a common curb cut and Proposed Lots 4 & 5 to share a common curb cut unless compelling evidence is presented prior to construction HEARING EXAMINER Pro Tempore DECISION RE: LUA10-090, ECF, PP (Olympus Villa) April 22, 2011 Page 15 of 15 h:\cityclerk\hearing examiner\2011\land use\decisions\olympus villas prelim plat- lua10-090 (2).doc permit approval to show that shared curb cuts are not feasible. The note shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Plat. 6. The plattor shall be required to revise the drainage report (Exhibit 6) to include conceptual sizing calculations for the detention pond and address the individual lot treatments. The revised plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Engineering Plan Reviewer prior to construction permit approval. 7. The plattor shall establish and record a permanent and irrevocable easement on the property title of the tract containing the critical area and its buffer prior to Final Plat recording. The protective easement shall be held by current and future property owners, shall run with the land, and shall prohibit development, alteration, and disturbance within the easement except for purposes of habitat enhancement as part of an enhancement project. The enhancement project shall receive prior written approval from the City, and from any other agency with jurisdiction over such activity. 8. A covenant shall be placed on the open space tracts restricting their separate sale prior to Final Plat recording. Each abutting lot owner, within the plat, shall have an undivided interest in the tracts or the tracts shall be conveyed to the homeowner’s association for the project. 9. The common boundary between the native growth protection tract and the abutting land must be permanently identified. This identification shall include a permanent wood split rail fence and metal signs on treated or metal posts. The permanent wood split rail fence and signs shall be installed prior to Final Plat recording. 10. The following note shall appear on the face of the Final Plat and shall also be recorded as a covenant running with the land on the title of record for all affected lots on the title: “MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY: All owners of lots created or benefiting from this City action abutting or including a native growth protection tract are responsible for maintenance and protection of the tract. Maintenance includes ensuring that no alterations occur within the tract and that all vegetation remains undisturbed unless the express written authorization of the City has been received.” 11. A note shall be placed on the face of the final plat requiring that the front yard for Lots 1-5 face toward extended Pasco Place NE. The note shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Plat.