HomeMy WebLinkAboutThe Enclave at Bridle Ridge Preliminary Plat, Preliminary Plat and SEPA Appeal - Planning & Development Committee-The Planning -and Development Committee recommends that the City Council AFFIRM. the Hearing
Examiner's Fina.l Decision on Reconsideration (Final Decision) on August 13,2014, subject to the suggested
modifications= made -below.
Facts:
On October 23,'2014, the Planning.and Development Committee (PDC), with a quorum, heard the closed
hearing arguments of.the Appellants, Rogerand Jason Paul.sen,,and the applicant's/developer's
representative; attorney Brent Carson. -Staff, represented by Jill. Ding, provided a basic overview of the
project with a PowerPoint presentation which'was followed by Appellant's argument.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:
The PDC reviewed the materials before the closed hearing, and the'P.arties stayed within the record. After
careful .consideration of the arguments- the hundreds of pages of documents, including the Final Decision,
the PDC does' not find.any substantial errorthat warrants reversal of the Hearing Exa m i ner's* Final Decision.'
Asa result, the PDC adopts the. Hearing'Ex*arhiner's Final Decision,,in.its entirety, subject to the
:m odifications noted below.
Concerning the positions of the parties, the PDC understands that one of Appellants' concerns.relates to
the volume -of traffc.that utilizes 156th Avenue SE. It appears that this volume maybe theresult of people
seeking to.avoid or bypass 1-405 and other passageways i.n the vicinity. Appellants"concern is real, -and it is
_a concern'that the City Council shares in some form or enoth;er: Traffic_ operating at tOSjF (the worst
possible level), isnot desirable.an.d`needs to:be corrected. Furthermore,-the.PDCunderstands that traffic
along_156th-Avenue•SE is a= problem"now, will continue to, be a problem in the future, even without this
deve.lopmerit, _and that the addition of.up to 9 more. -trips during rush hour will not make it better.
Notwithstanding this factand the anticipated continued poor access, the PDC .doesnot believe that the
solution :to the existing problem. and theanticipated problem -is to prevent the development of Enclave at.
Bridle.Ridge: An.6ff6ctive solution must address the flow and/or amount of traffic along 156th Avenue SE.
,Asa result, the PDC recommends the following:
That the City. Council require city staff to reprioritize the 156th Avenue, SE/SE 142"d Place
intersection for installation as soon as possible, and no less than 3 years after the completion of:
the project:
The Hearing -Examiner noted that the concurrency determination that the proposal will not'vio'late Renton's .
transportation LOS.is.Undisputed and therefore, .must be accepted as a verity. Final Decision, page 18; lines -
.4-9: This means that any additional congestion caused by the Enclave proposal"would n.ot be considered a
significant adverse :environmental impact:"•Fina/ Decision, page 18,.lines 8-9. In sum, the PDC findsthat the
Hearing Exarniner did not err inapproving the proposed development with the stated mitigation measures
as it relates to traffic.
Contrary to the Appellant's claim, the PDC.also finds that the Hearing Examiner made sufficient written
findings and found that this project was in the public interest by references to frontage improvements and
a, right-of-way dedication. However, to: address this alleged deficiency, the -Hearing Examiner's Final
Decision shall be modified to include the following language for. clarity: .
Renton's.Cornpre'hensive Plan's primary purpose -"is to define and establish the policy relating
to the development:of the community as a whole." -.RMC 4-1-060:A.1. One -aspect of that pol-icy
is that Renton's traffic requirements.also consider.the impact to.the entire city's transportation
system and 'not merely a specific intersection: Another aspect of that policy is that the -Enclave
at Bridle Ridge subdivision will serve the public use and interest by providing housing that is ..
consistent with the site's designation of Residential Low Density on the Renton Comprehensive
Plan Land.UseMap and the property's R-4 zoning designation. The.Enclave at Bridle Ridge'
subdivision project: is consistent with, Renton's Comprehensive Plan as -it insures .acceptable
levels of access, public services and it, promotes the public interest in satisfaction of RMC 4-1-
060.A.5..6 and c.
Additionally, there appeared; to be a couple of Scrivener's errors in the Hearing Examiner's decision that
need -to be corrected. These errors are. amended as follows:..
Page 21, line.21 should be amended to change the word""County" to'.'.Renton". The sentence
will then read as "The' primary relevant inquiry for purposes of assess ing,whether Renton staff
correctly.issued an 'MDNS is whether the project as proposed has a probable significant:
environmental impact:"
Page 24, line3 the word "not" shall be removed.. The sentence will then read- as follows: "In this,*,
case the. City clearly made a prima facie showing that it did an adequate review of teat is
impacts prior.to issuance of the MDNS`."
ln�sum, the Ap"pellants have:failed to, establish pursuant to RMC 4-8-110.F.7 that any "substantial error in
factor lave exists, in the, record" justifying a reversal of the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision. The errors or .
areas that.require clarification or correction have been modified for the consideration of the City Council:
-The PDC recommends that the City Council affirm the Hearing Examiner's decision subject.to the
modifications. outlined above.
-Ed Prince, Chair:
Not in. Attendance .
Terri Briere, Vice Chair
Marcie Palmer, Member.
cc: Larry Warren
6armon Newsom 11 '
C.E..Ch.ip Vincent
Jill Ding
Enclave at Bridle Ridge Decision—AFFIRM 2