HomeMy WebLinkAboutRenton 14 Preliminary Plat, Preliminary Plat1
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
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 1
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
RE: Renton 14 Preliminary Plat
Preliminary Plat
LUA16-000078
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
FINAL DECISION
SUMMARY
The applicant requests preliminary plat approval for a 15-lot residential subdivision located at 6201
and 6207 NE 4th Street. The preliminary plat is approved with conditions.
TESTIMONY
Jill Ding, Senior Planner, summarized the staff report. Ms. Ding noted that the public comment
letters were concerned about transportation. The letters asserted that additional trips by the
proposed project would back up into the Rosario/NE 4th intersection. The applicant prepared a
traffic study that showed that the traffic generated by the proposal would not change the level of
service at the intersection. There was also a concern that road stubs weren’t included in the
proposal for future connections and as a result the applicant added a road stub for further
connectivity. Ms. Ding noted that the project site is currently composed of two lots.
Kevin Murray, applicant, noted that the monopole was a nonconforming use that the applicant had
designed around. The monopole was not modified as a result of the proposal.
Darrell Offe, Offe Engineers, noted that the project currently has three existing houses and the
monopole. Tract C was built around the monopole. Page 6 of the staff report notes that the width
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
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 2
of Lot 9 is 64.07 feet. The actual width is 70 feet. Page 7 of the staff report imposes a condition for
monopole setbacks. King County issued a building permit for the monopole in 2004. The property
was subsequently annexed into the City of Renton. Staff asserts that RMC 4-4-140 applies to the
monopole. But RMC 4-4-140(C) provides that the setbacks apply to the placement of a tower and
the applicant is not placing the tower. Conditions 3 and 5(b) recommended in the staff report
should not be adopted.
Randy Paul, neighbor, noted that the minimum lot size is 9,000 square feet and he wanted to know
why two lots were smaller. Ms. Ding noted that the code only requires that the lots average 9,000
square feet. Mr. Paul also felt that study of potential road connections was insufficient and
constituted incremental environmental review.
Janice Faris, neighbor, president of the Amberwood HOA, expressed concern over traffic impacts to
NE 3rd Court and Rosario. There are five lanes of traffic on NE 4th with fast traffic because traffic
lights are a mile apart. Crossing 4th to get to a bus stop is dangerous. There should be a traffic light
at 4th and Rosario. Ms. Faris also felt that sewer caps should have a GPS marker so that they can be
more easily found. People have come out twice to the project site looking for the sewer cap.
In rebuttal, Ms. Ding noted that the road stub abutting the east property line of the project addresses
the incremental review concerns of Mr. Paul, as this road stub will be used to address connectivity
needs to the east.
Vanessa Dolbee, planning manager, agreed that the monopole is an existing nonconforming use, but
the addition of new property lines and development to the site triggers new code requirements. The
conditions of approval will help the City ensure that the new distances between the monopole and
residential structures are safe. The City has plans to add a signal at Rosario and NE 4th but that is
not required of the applicant. Ms. Ding noted that the traffic study found nominal impacts to
Rosario and 4th and Public Works determined that payment of traffic impact fees would be
sufficient to address traffic impacts.
Mr. Offe noted that the survey of the property as it stands currently shows the monopole as 22 feet
from the west property line. The residences of the plat will be required to have 30-foot front yard
setbacks, so the minimum distance between homes and the tower will be 30 feet. The tower is 70
feet tall. A 70-foot circle around the tower would result in the loss of three lots. The 30 foot front
yard setback in conjunction with the 22 feet separation to the west property line would result in a
minimum separation of 52 feet. The traffic report found an LOS E at 4th and Rosario. There’s no
warrant for a signal based on traffic volume at that intersection. The City’s standards have been
improved to make sewer caps more readily visible since the one at the project site was installed.
EXHIBITS
Exhibits 1-17 listed on page 2 of the June 14, 2016 Staff Report were admitted into evidence during
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
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 3
the public hearing. The City staff power point presentation was admitted as Exhibit 18 and the
City’s GIS core maps, available on the City’s website, were admitted as Exhibit 19. A 2004 building
permit for the on-site monopole was admitted as Exhibit 20. A current property survey of the project
site was admitted as Exhibit 21.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural:
1. Applicant. Kevin Murray on behalf of Kendall Homes.
2. Hearing. The hearing for the application was held on June 14, 2016 at 11:00 am in the
City of Renton Council City Chambers.
Substantive:
3. Project Description. The applicant requests preliminary plat approval for a 15-lot
residential subdivision located at 6201 and 6207 NE 4th Street. The
project
site
is
currently
divided
into
two
lots
with
a
total
area
of
210,594
square
feet
(4.83
acre).
In
addition
to
15
lots,
the
applicant
proposes
three
tracts:
Tract
A
is
a
stormwater
detention
tract,
Tract
B
is
a
secondary
emergency
access
tract
and
Tract
C
contains
a
cellular
tower
and
associated
facilities.
The
proposed
lots
range
in
area
from
8,228
square
feet
to
15,286
square
feet.
There
are
3
existing
single-‐family
residences
on
the
project
site,
two
are
proposed
for
removal,
one
is
proposed
to
remain
on
Lot
2.
Access
to
the
proposed
lots
is
proposed
via
a
new
public
street
extension
off
of
NE
3rd
Court,
which
terminates
in
a
hammerhead
turnaround.
A
secondary
emergency
access
road
(Tract
B)
would
provide
secondary
access
to
NE
4th
Street
in
the
event
of
an
emergency.
Road
stubs
are
proposed
at
the
hammerhead
along
the
east
and
south
property
lines
in
order
to
provide
future
connections
to
vacant
land
adjoining
to
the
south
and
north.
No
critical
areas
are
mapped
on
the
project
site.
4. Surrounding Uses. Properties to the north, east and west are zoned R-4 and property to the
south is zoned Open Space and R-4. The property to the south and east is vacant and property to
the north and west is developed with single-family homes.
5. Adverse Impacts. There are no significant adverse impacts associated with the proposal.
Pertinent impacts are addressed as follows:
A. Compatibility. The applicant proposes single-family development in an area that is
surrounded by single-family development at a density that is similar to existing
development when a comparison of the proposed number of lots is made to the number of
lots located in adjoining development. There are no compatibility problems associated
with the proposal.
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
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 4
B. Critical Areas and Vegetation Removal. There are no critical areas on site. In the
absence of any critical areas on site, the only wildlife and habitat protections required by
the Renton Municipal Code is the City’s tree retention ordinance. As outlined in the staff
report, staff determined that the proposal complies with the City’s tree retention
standards. As required by the City’s tree retention standards, the
applicant
submitted
a
Tree
Retention
Worksheet
(Exhibit
13),
Arborist
Report
(Exhibit
14)
and
a
Tree
Retention
Plan
(Exhibit
15)
with
the
project
application.
According
to
the
Tree
Retention
Plan
(Exhibit
15),
a
total
of
36
significant
trees
are
located
on
the
project
site,
of
those
12
are
identified
as
hazard
trees,
10
are
within
the
proposed
right-‐of-‐way
construction
area,
and
1
tree
is
located
within
the
private
access
tract
require
for
emergency
access.
Of
the
remaining
13
significant
trees,
the
applicant
is
required
to
retain
30
percent
or
4
trees.
The
applicant
is
not
proposing
to
retain
any
trees
and
instead
proposed
to
replant
18
2
inch
caliper
replacement
trees.
Staff
determined
that
two
trees
can
actually
be
retained
wihtout
interfering
with
the
applicant’s
development
plans.
The
applicant’s
proposed
Tree
Retention
Plan,
as
modified
by
staff’s
recommended
conditions
of
approval,
is
authorized
by
this
decision.
C. Reduction in Monopole Lot. Currently, the monopole at the project site is located on
what appears to be on a parcel that is over 2.5 acres in size and the applicant proposes to
reduce that area to Tract C, which is only 1,078 square feet in area. The reduction in
parcel size significantly reduces the separation between the monopole and residential
uses that can be constructed on adjoining lots. As noted in the staff report, the monopole
in Tract C only has a 2-foot setback from the west property line, a 5-foot setback from the
north property line, a-16 foot setback from the east property line and a 40-foot setback
from the south property line. The staff report addresses this issue by requiring the
applicant to demonstrate that Tract C complies with the setback requirements for new
monopole construction, specifically RMC 4-4-140(F)(4). RMC 4-4-140(F)(4) requires
monopoles to be setback from property lines a minimum of the monopole height (70 feet
in this case), unless an engineering analysis is provided that concludes that a reduced
setback would be safe for adjoining properties. RMC 4-4-140(F)(4) is a legislative
determination that monopoles can serve as a safety hazard to abutting properties when
built too close to the property lines. There is no evidence in the administrative record
that rebuts this legislative determination. In the absence of countervailing evidence it
must be concluded that monopoles can serve as a safety hazard to adjoining properties
without the setbacks required by RMC 4-4-140(F)(4). The staff recommended conditions
of approval, requiring compliance with RMC 4-4-140(F)(4), adequately mitigate any
safety hazards created by the reduced setbacks proposed by the applicant.
6. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. As conditioned, the project will be served by
adequate/appropriate infrastructure and public services as follows:
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
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 5
A. Water and Sewer Service. The site is served by King County Water District 90 for water
and the City of Renton for sewer. Water District 90 has provided a certificate of water
availability for the proposal to the City of Renton.
B. Police and Fire Protection. Police and fire service would be provided by the City of
Renton. Police and fire service staff have concluded they have sufficient resources to
serve the proposal. Fire impact fees will be collected during building permit review to
pay for proportionate share fire system improvements.
C. Drainage. Preliminary drainage design conforms to the City’s stormwater standards as
determined by Public Works staff. The applicant submitted a drainage report and
drainage plan dated January 25, 2016, Ex. 3. The City’s stormwater standards, primarily
adopted as the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual and City amendments
thereto, assures that there will be no increase in off-site stormwater volumes or velocities
created by the proposed development.
D. Parks/Open Space. It is anticipated that the proposed development would generate future
demand on existing City parks and recreational facilities and programs. A Parks Impact
Fee, based on new single family lots, will be required in order to mitigate the proposal’s
potential impacts to City parks and recreational facilities and programs. Payment of the
park impact fee will provide for adequate/appropriate park facilities. Beyond the park
impact fee, the City does not require any specific open space for R-4 subdivisions. RMC
4-2-115 does require open space for developments zoned R-10 and R-14, but these
requirements don’t extend to R-4 developments.
E. Streets. The proposal provides for adequate/appropriate streets. City engineering staff
have reviewed the proposal for conformance to City street standards and have found
them to be satisfied. As outlined at page 14 of the staff report, a number of street
frontage improvements along the project’s street frontage on NE 4th Street is required to
comply with the cross-section requirements of the City’s NE 3rd-4th Street corridor plan.
As noted in Finding of Fact No. 3, direct access will not be of off NE 4th but rather will
be accomplished through an extension of NE 3rd Court. An emergency access tract
(Tract B) connects the interior road system to NE 4th, but this tract will not otherwise
provide vehicular access to NE 4th from the interior of the proposal. Partially in
response to public comment, the applicant has also been required to integrate stub roads
into the east and south property lines in order to provide future connections to
surrounding development.
A major concern of at least one neighbor was traffic at the intersection of Rosario and
NE 4th Street. The trips generated by the proposal would primarily use this intersection
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
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 6
when exiting the project site. As testified during the hearing, the concerns over Rosario
include safety issues, because NE 4th is five lanes wide and people don’t have any
nearby signalized intersection to use to get to bus stops along NE 4th. In response to
these concerns the City had the applicant prepare a traffic study, Ex. 4. The traffic study
found that the proposal would generate 9 new PM peak hour trips and these trips would
not lower the level of service to any affected intersections, including the Rosario/NE 4th
intersection. The traffic study concluded that the PM peak hour trips generated by the
proposal would only increase intersection delay by 4 seconds. Based upon the findings
of the traffic study, City engineering staff determined that the marginal impacts of the
proposal would be adequately mitigated by payment of the City’s transportation impact
fees. Given the lack of any evidence in the record that the proposal will exacerbate
safety or congestion issues at the Rosario/NE 4th intersection, no additional mitigation
can be required of the applicant.
F. Parking. As determined by staff, sufficient area exists, on each lot, to accommodate
required off street parking for a minimum of two vehicles per dwelling unit as required
by City code.
G. Schools. Adequate/appropriate provision is made for schools. It is anticipated that the
Issaquah School District can accommodate any additional students generated by this
proposal at the following schools: Briarwood Elementary, Maywood Middle School and
Liberty High School. Any new students from the proposed development would be bussed
to their schools. The current stop is located on NE 4th Street abutting the portion of the
project site currently addressed as 6210 NE 4th Street. The proposed project includes the
installation of frontage improvements along the NE 4th Street frontage, abutting the
project site, which would provide a safe walking condition to the bus stop.
A School Impact Fee, based on new single-family lots, will be required in order to
mitigate the proposal’s potential impacts to the Issaquah School District. The fee is
payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code. Currently the fee is
assessed at $4,635.00 per single-family residence.
Conclusions of Law
1. Authority. RMC 4-7-020(C) and 4-7-050(D)(5) provide that the Hearing Examiner shall
hold a hearing and issue a final decision on preliminary plat applications.
2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The subject property is zoned R-4 and has a
comprehensive plan land use designation of Residential Low Density.
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
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 7
3. Review Criteria. Chapter 4-7 RMC governs the criteria for subdivision review. Applicable
standards are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law.
RMC 4-7-080(B): 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.
4. As to compliance with the Zoning Code, Findings 15 and 16 of staff report are adopted by
reference as if set forth in full. As depicted in the plat map, Ex. 5, each proposed lot will access a
public road. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, there are no critical areas on site, which would
encompass any flood, inundation or wetland conditions that would make the site unsuitable for
development. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 6, the proposal provides for adequate public
facilities.
The staff report employs its analysis of setback requirements under the criterion above to impose the
monopole setback requirements identified in Finding of Fact No. 5(C) of this decision. The
applicant argues that the monopole setback requirements of RMC 4-4-140 only applies to new
monopole construction or modification, because RMC 4-4-140(C) provides that “no person shall
place, construct, reconstruct or modify a wireless communication facility within the City without an
Administrator issued permit…” Staff is not requiring the applicant to get a wireless permit. Staff is
only recommending that the monopole tract resulting from the proposed subdivision comply with the
setback requirements of RMC 4-4-140(F)(4). This is a reasonable interpretation of the criterion
quoted above, which requires that the lots created by a subdivision comply with all requirements of
the Zoning Code, which should be construed as including the setback requirements of RMC 4-4-
140(F)(4). Under the applicant’s interpretation, a developer could easily circumvent those setback
requirements by securing approval of a monopole facility that complies with the setback
requirements one day, and then reduce them to noncompliance the next day with a lot line
adjustment or subdivision. Such an interpretation would be absurd and render the setback
requirements virtually meaningless.
The applicant also argues that imposing RMC 4-4-140(F)(4) violates its nonconforming use rights.
Pursuant to RMC 4-10-050, as a legally established nonconforming structure, the monopole is
allowed to remain despite any current noncompliance with RMC 4-4-140(F)(4) setbacks. However,
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
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 8
the City’s recommended setback conditions don’t address the current setbacks, but rather the new
setbacks proposed for Tract C. These setbacks were not legally established prior to the adoption of
the RMC 4-4-140(F)(4) setbacks, hence they enjoy no nonconforming use or structure rights and
must comply with current zoning standards. It is recognized that some of the currently existing
setbacks may not comply with RMC 4-4-140(F)(4) and that the existing degree of noncompliance is
protected within the nonconforming structure rights that attach to the monopole. The staff
recommended conditions of approval will be modified to provide that the existing degree of
nonconformity can continue to be maintained and that only further reduction of the setback from
required standards will be subject to the recommended conditions.
The applicant also noted during the hearing that the width for Lot 9 is inaccurately depicted in the
staff report. Staff did not respond to this assertion during the hearing. Given that staff still found
compliance with applicable lot width requirements, the accuracy of the staff report on that issue is
not addressed in this decision.
5. RMC 4-7-080(I)(1): …The Hearing Examiner shall assure conformance with the general
purposes of the Comprehensive Plan and adopted standards…
6. The proposed preliminary play is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan as outlined
in Finding 14 of the staff report, which is incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full.
RMC 4-7-120(A): No plan for the replatting, subdivision, or dedication of any areas shall be
approved by the Hearing Examiner unless the streets shown therein are connected by surfaced road
or street (according to City specifications) to an existing street or highway.
7. All of the internal roads of the proposed subdivision will be surfaced as required by City
standards and ultimately connect to NE 3rd Ct, an existing road.
RMC 4-7-120(B): The location of all streets shall conform to any adopted plans for streets in the
City.
8. The City’s adopted street plans are not addressed in the staff report or anywhere else in the
administrative record in terms of location (although the frontage requirements arising from the 3rd/4th
street corridor plan area addressed at length). However, the proposal does appear to provide for
actual or future connections (via the two road stubs) to all possible locations for street connections,
so it is determined the standard is met.
RMC 4-7-120(C): If a subdivision is located in the area of an officially designed [sic] trail,
provisions shall be made for reservation of the right-of-way or for easements to the City for trail
purposes.
9. The subdivision is not located in the area of an officially designated trail.
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
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 9
RMC 4-7-130(C): A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication shall be prepared in conformance
with the following provisions:
1. Land Unsuitable for Subdivision: Land which is found to be unsuitable for subdivision includes
land with features likely to be harmful to the safety and general health of the future residents (such
as lands adversely affected by flooding, steep slopes, or rock formations). Land which the
Department or the Hearing Examiner considers inappropriate for subdivision shall not be
subdivided unless adequate safeguards are provided against these adverse conditions.
a. Flooding/Inundation: If any portion of the land within the boundary of a preliminary plat is
subject to flooding or inundation, that portion of the subdivision must have the approval of the State
according to chapter 86.16 RCW before the Department and the Hearing Examiner shall consider
such subdivision.
b. Steep Slopes: A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication which would result in the creation of a
lot or lots that primarily have slopes forty percent (40%) or greater as measured per RMC 4-3-
050J1a, without adequate area at lesser slopes upon which development may occur, shall not be
approved.
…
3. Land Clearing and Tree Retention: Shall comply with RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land
Clearing Regulations.
4. Streams:
a. Preservation: Every reasonable effort shall be made to preserve existing streams, bodies of water,
and wetland areas.
b. Method: If a stream passes through any of the subject property, a plan shall be presented which
indicates how the stream will be preserved. The methodologies used should include an overflow
area, and an attempt to minimize the disturbance of the natural channel and stream bed.
c. Culverting: The piping or tunneling of water shall be discouraged and allowed only when going
under streets.
d. Clean Water: Every effort shall be made to keep all streams and bodies of water clear of debris
and pollutants.
10. The criterion is met. The land is suitable for a subdivision as the stormwater design assures
that it will not contribute to flooding and that water quality will not be adversely affected.
Development will not encroach into any critical areas. No piping or tunneling of streams is
proposed. Trees will be retained as required by RMC 4-4-130 as determined in the staff report.
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
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 10
The suitability of the land for subdivision is also assured due to the conditions requiring compliance
with monopole setback requirements. For the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 5(C), the
land surrounding the monopole may not be suitable for subdivision because of the safety hazards1
potentially created by the monopole. The setback condition recommended by staff provides for
adequate safeguards to protect against the hazards created by the monopole.
RMC 4-7-140: Approval of all subdivisions located in either single family residential or multi-
family residential zones as defined in the Zoning Code shall be contingent upon the subdivider’s
dedication of land or providing fees in lieu of dedication to the City, all as necessary to mitigate the
adverse effects of development upon the existing park and recreation service levels. The
requirements and procedures for this mitigation shall be per the City of Renton Parks Mitigation
Resolution.
11. City ordinances require the payment of park impact fees prior to building permit issuance.
As discussed in Finding of Fact No. 6 of this decision, no other open space or park requirements
apply to the proposal.
RMC 4-7-150(A): The proposed street system shall extend and create connections between existing
streets unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. Prior to approving a street
system that does not extend or connect, the Reviewing Official shall find that such exception shall
meet the requirements of subsection E3 of this Section. The roadway classifications shall be as
defined and designated by the Department.
12. The proposed street system connects to existing streets and provides for future connections to
all properties that have the potential for future connections.
RMC 4-7-150(B): All proposed street names shall be approved by the City.
13. As conditioned.
1 It is recognized that caution must be exercised when addressing the safety impacts of monopoles in subdivision
review. The legislative history of the City Council’s setback requirements was not readily available so it is unclear
what safety impacts the Council had in mind. Given the Council’s reliance upon engineering studies to allow for a
reduction in setbacks, it appears that the Council’s concern is based upon structural integrity, which would be a
legally defensible factor to consider if founded on valid engineering concerns. However, if the concern is based
upon the health hazards of cell tower radiation, that would not serve as a legitimate basis for imposing conditions
because such considerations are expressly prohibited by the federal Telecommunications Act, see 47 USC
332(c)(7)(B)(iv). In any event, if suitability of the land for subdivision criterion does not serve as a valid basis for
the setback condition, the requirement for creating lots in conformance with the Zoning Code is enough by itself to
warrant the condition. Even if the Council’s adopted setback requirements are invalidly based upon radiation
concerns, the examiner has no authority to invalidate or ignore Council setback requirements and must apply them
as required by City code standards.
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
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 11
RMC 4-7-150(C): Streets intersecting with existing or proposed public highways, major or
secondary arterials shall be held to a minimum.
14. There is no intersection with a public highway or major or secondary arterial.
RMC 4-7-150(D): The alignment of all streets shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works
Department. The street standards set by RMC 4-6-060 shall apply unless otherwise approved. Street
alignment offsets of less than one hundred twenty five feet (125') are not desirable, but may be
approved by the Department upon a showing of need but only after provision of all necessary safety
measures.
15. As determined in Finding of Fact 6, the Public Works Department has reviewed and
approved the adequacy of streets, which includes compliance with applicable street standards.
RMC 4-7-150(E):
1. Grid: A grid street pattern shall be used to connect existing and new development and shall be the
predominant street pattern in any subdivision permitted by this Section.
2. Linkages: Linkages, including streets, sidewalks, pedestrian or bike paths, shall be provided
within and between neighborhoods when they can create a continuous and interconnected network
of roads and pathways. Implementation of this requirement shall comply with Comprehensive Plan
Transportation Element Objective T-A and Policies T-9 through T-16 and Community Design
Element, Objective CD-M and Policies CD-50 and CD-60.
3. Exceptions:
a. The grid pattern may be adjusted to a “flexible grid” by reducing the number of linkages or the
alignment between roads, where the following factors are present on site:
i. Infeasible due to topographical/environmental constraints; and/or
ii. Substantial improvements are existing.
4. Connections: Prior to adoption of a complete grid street plan, reasonable connections that link
existing portions of the grid system shall be made. At a minimum, stub streets shall be required
within subdivisions to allow future connectivity.
5. Alley Access: Alley access is the preferred street pattern except for properties in the Residential
Low Density land use designation. The Residential Low Density land use designation includes the
RC, R-1, and R-4 zones. Prior to approval of a plat without alley access, the Reviewing Official shall
evaluate an alley layout and determine that the use of alley(s) is not feasible…
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
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 12
6. Alternative Configurations: Offset or loop roads are the preferred alternative configurations.
7. Cul-de-Sac Streets: Cul-de-sac streets may only be permitted by the Reviewing Official where due
to demonstrable physical constraints no future connection to a larger street pattern is physically
possible.
16. The proposed and required connections are the maximum that can be included given
surrounding development. Alley access is not required because the proposal is in the Residential
Low Density land use designation. Extension of the stub roads to the streets of future development
will render the hammerhead turn around unnecessary. The criterion above is met.
RMC 4-7-150(F): All adjacent rights-of-way and new rights-of-way dedicated as part of the plat,
including streets, roads, and alleys, shall be graded to their full width and the pavement and
sidewalks shall be constructed as specified in the street standards or deferred by the
Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee.
17. As proposed.
RMC 4-7-150(G): Streets that may be extended in the event of future adjacent platting shall be
required to be dedicated to the plat boundary line. Extensions of greater depth than an average lot
shall be improved with temporary turnarounds. Dedication of a full-width boundary street shall be
required in certain instances to facilitate future development.
18. Streets that may be extended in the event of future adjacent platting have been extended to
the plat boundary line as required by the criterion quoted above.
RMC 4-7-170(A): Insofar as practical, side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines or radial
to curved street lines.
19. As depicted in Ex. 5, the sidelines are in conformance with the requirement quoted above.
RMC 4-7-170(B): 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 standards.
20. As previously determined, each lot has access to a public street.
RMC 4-7-170(C): 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. Further subdivision of lots within a plat approved through the
provisions of this Chapter must be consistent with the then-current applicable maximum density
requirement as measured within the plat as a whole.
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
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 13
21. As previously determined, the proposed lots comply with the zoning standards of the R-4
zone, which includes area, width and density.
RMC 4-7-170(D): Width between side lot lines at their foremost points (i.e., the points where the
side lot lines intersect with the street right-of-way line) shall not be less than eighty percent (80%) of
the required lot width except in the cases of (1) pipestem lots, which shall have a minimum width of
twenty feet (20') and (2) lots on a street curve or the turning circle of cul-de-sac (radial lots), which
shall be a minimum of thirty five feet (35').
22. As shown in Ex. 5, the requirement is satisfied.
RMC 4-7-170(E): All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys,
shall have minimum radius of fifteen feet (15').
23. As conditioned.
RMC 4-7-190(A): Due regard shall be shown to all natural features such as large trees,
watercourses, and similar community assets. Such natural features should be preserved, thereby
adding attractiveness and value to the property.
24. Staff recommendations for the preservation of a couple significant trees has been made a
condition of approval to meet the requirement of the criterion above.
RMC 4-7-200(A): Unless septic tanks are specifically approved by the Public Works Department
and the King County Health Department, sanitary sewers shall be provided by the developer at no
cost to the City and designed in accordance with City standards. Side sewer lines shall be installed
eight feet (8') into each lot if sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision
development.
25. As conditioned.
RMC 4-7-200(B): An adequate drainage system shall be provided for the proper drainage of all
surface water. Cross drains shall be provided to accommodate all natural water flow and shall be of
sufficient length to permit full-width roadway and required slopes. The drainage system shall be
designed per the requirements of RMC 4-6-030, Drainage (Surface Water) Standards. The drainage
system shall include detention capacity for the new street areas. Residential plats shall also include
detention capacity for future development of the lots. Water quality features shall also be designed to
provide capacity for the new street paving for the plat.
26. The proposal provides for adequate drainage that is in conformance with applicable City
drainage standards as determined in Finding of Fact No. 6. The City’s stormwater standards, which
are incorporated into the technical information report and will be further implemented during civil
plan review, ensure compliance with all of the standards in the criterion quoted above.
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
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 14
RMC 4-7-200(C): The water distribution system including the locations of fire hydrants shall be
designed and installed in accordance with City standards as defined by the Department and Fire
Department requirements.
27. The details of the water distribution system and location of fire hydrants will be subject to
City engineering civil review as part of final plat review.
RMC 4-7-200(D): All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any
utilities installed in the parking strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the
planting of trees. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, including all
service connections, as approved by the Department. Such installation shall be completed and
approved prior to the application of any surface material. Easements may be required for the
maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department.
28. As conditioned.
RMC 4-7-200(E): Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic
utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line
by subdivider as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or alley
improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. The cost of
trenching, conduit, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore required to
bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or land owner. The subdivider
shall be responsible only for conduit to serve his development. Conduit ends shall be elbowed to
final ground elevation and capped. The cable TV company shall provide maps and specifications to
the subdivider and shall inspect the conduit and certify to the City that it is properly installed.
29. As conditioned.
RMC 4-7-210:
A. MONUMENTS:
Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at each and every controlling corner of
the subdivision. Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the Department. All surveys
shall be per the City of Renton surveying standards.
B. SURVEY:
All other lot corners shall be marked per the City surveying standards.
C. STREET SIGNS:
The subdivider shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision.
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
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 15
30. As conditioned.
DECISION
The proposed preliminary plat meet all applicable subdivision standards for the reasons identified in
the conclusion of law of this decision and is approved, subject to the following conditions:
1. All proposed street names shall be approved by the City.
2. All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys, shall have
minimum radius of fifteen feet (15').
3. Side sewer lines shall be installed eight feet (8') into each lot if sanitary sewer mains are
available, or provided with the subdivision development.
4. All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any utilities
installed in the parking strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the
planting of trees. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed,
including all service connections, as approved by the Department of Public Works. Such
installation shall be completed and approved prior to the application of any surface material.
Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the
Department of Public Works.
5. Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic utilities are
installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line by
Applicant as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or
alley improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. The
cost of trenching, conduit, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore
required to bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or land
owner. The applicant shall be responsible only for conduit to serve his development. Conduit
ends shall be elbowed to final ground elevation and capped. The cable TV company shall
provide maps and specifications to the applicant and shall inspect the conduit and certify to
the City that it is properly installed.
6. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures issued as part of the
Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated, dated May 2, 2016.
7. Demolition
permits
shall
be
obtained
and
all
inspections
shall
be
completed
for
the
residences
to
be
removed
prior
to
final
plat
approval.
8. The
Monopole
II
within
Tract
C
shall
maintain
a
minimum
setback
equal
to
the
height
of
the
tower
from
each
property
line
or
an
engineering
analysis
shall
be
submitted
at
the
time
of
Utility
Construction
Permit
Review
stating
that
a
reduced
setback
is
safe
for
abutting
properties.
This
condition
shall
only
apply
to
the
extent
that
Tract
C
setbacks
increase
the
degree
of
currently
existing
nonconformity
to
currently
applicable
setbacks.
9. The applicant shall be required to create a homeowner’s association of maintenance
agreement for the shared utilities, stormwater facilities, and maintenance and
responsibilities for all shared improvements of this development. A draft of the
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
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 16
document(s) shall be submitted to Current Planning Project Manager for the review and
approval by the City Attorney and Property Services section prior to the recording of the
final plat.
10. A
detailed
landscape
plan
be
submitted
at
the
time
of
Utility
Construction
Permit
review,
showing:
a. additional
shrubs
within
the
10-‐foot
landscape
strip
along
the
new
interior
residential
access
street
to
ensure
that
a
mix
of
trees,
shrubs,
and
ground
cover
are
provided;
and
b. a
15-‐foot
wide
sight-‐obscuring
landscape
buffer
be
provided
around
the
wireless
communication
facility
equipment
shelter
such
landscaping
shall
be
contained
within
Tract
C.
The
detailed
landscape
plan
shall
be
submitted
to
the
Current
Planning
Project
Manager
for
review
and
approval
at
the
time
of
Utility
Construction
Permit
Review.
11. A
final
tree
retention
plan
shall
be
submitted
at
the
time
of
Utility
Construction
Permit
review.
The
final
tree
retention
plan
shall
include
the
retention
of
the
western
red
cedar
(T-‐12)
and
big
leaf
maple
(T-‐16)
and
the
planting
of
eight
2-‐inch
caliper
replacement
trees.
The
final
tree
retention
plan
shall
be
submitted
to
the
Current
Planning
Project
Manager
for
review
and
approval.
The
replacement
trees
shall
be
installed
prior
to
final
plat
approval.
12. The width of Lot 12 at the street frontage shall be increased to comply with the minimum
width required for lots on a street curve of 35 feet. A revised lot layout shall be submitted
to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval at the time of Utility
Construction Permit Review.
13. A
note
shall
be
recorded
on
the
face
of
the
final
plat
stating
that
averaging
of
lot
area,
width,
and
depths
as
permitted
in
RMC
4-‐2-‐110D.31
was
utilized
to
comply
with
the
minimum
lot
size,
width,
and
depth
requirements
of
the
R-‐4
zone.
DATED this 29th day of June, 2016.
City of Renton Hearing Examiner
Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
RMC 4-8-080 provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is subject to appeal to the
Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(14) requires appeals of the hearing examiner’s decision
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
PRELIMINARY PLAT - 17
to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner’s
decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed within this 14
day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(13) and RMC 4-8-100(G)(9). A new
fourteen (14) day appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the
reconsideration. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the
City Clerk’s Office, Renton City Hall – 7th floor, (425) 430-6510.
Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
notwithstanding any program of revaluation.