HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-23-2021 - Cypress Lane - LUA-21-0002871
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: Cypress Lane Preliminary Plat
Preliminary Plat and Street
Modification
LUA21-000287, PP, MOD
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSINS OF
LAW AND FINAL DECISION
SUMMARY
The Applicant requests approval for a 15-lot residential preliminary plat and a street modification for a
project site located at 5116 NE 4th Pl and 510 Nile Ave NE. The applications are approved subject to
conditions.
At the hearing the only point of disagreement between staff and Applicant was over a staff
recommended condition requiring the creation of tree retention easements on individual lots with the
duty of maintenance placed upon a homeowner’s association (HOA). The Applicant argued at hearing
that the lot owners, not the HOA, should be responsible for maintenance of the easements. Based
upon his understanding of the track record of HOA performance in the City, the Applicant doesn’t
believe that HOAs will follow through on that responsibility. The City has recommended that the
HOA maintain responsibility for the easements so that the easements are treated the same as the tree
retention tracts for the project held in HOA ownership. To accommodate the interests of both parties,
the easement condition has been revised to provide that covenants shall make it clear that servient
owners are responsible for tree maintenance in the tree easements on their property, but that the HOA
will have access rights if the owners fail to maintain. The CC&Rs will authorize the City to have
enforcement authority against both the owners and HOA for failure to maintain the easements.
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
There has also been a request for a gate to be installed at one of the access points to the plat. No gate
is found necessary at this time. During the hearing, Glen O’Connor requested a gate be placed at the
connection of Pasco Avenue right of way to the plat. Pasco Avenue is currently located to the north of
the project. Staff have recommended that an on-site alley connect to this right of way. Mr. Connor
lives on Pasco Avenue and doesn’t believe the road is sufficiently developed to serve as an access road
for the proposal. From the testimony of both staff and Bob Wenzl, Applicant, the improved portion of
Pasco Avenue does not extend all the way down to the project site and is separated by the project site
by two undeveloped lots. In short, the alley at its northern terminus on the project site will remain a
stub road until the two undeveloped parcels are developed. Consequently, there is no need for a gate
at this time. When a road is built across the undeveloped parcels, City staff at that point can assess
whether a gate would be necessary.
TESTIMONY
A computer-generated transcript of the hearing has been prepared to provide an overview of the
hearing testimony. The transcript is provided for informational purposes only as Appendix A.
EXHIBITS
Exhibits 1-13 listed on page 2 of the November 23, 2021 Staff Report were admitted into evidence
during the public hearing. Additional exhibits admitted during the hearing are as follows:
Exhibit 14 – Staff Power Point Presentation
Exhibit 15 – City of Renton COR maps
Exhibit 16 – Google Earth Aerial Photos of Project Vicinity
FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural:
1. Applicant. Robert P. Wenzl, Tuscany Construction, LLC, PO Box 2170 Renton, WA
98059.
2. Hearing. A virtual hearing on the application was held at 11 am on November 22, 2021,
Zoom Meeting ID: 999 8292 9662.
3. Project Description. The Applicant requests approval for a 15-lot residential preliminary plat
and a street modification for a project site located at 5116 NE 4th Pl and 510 Nile Ave NE. Two (2)
existing single-family residences and associated detached accessory structures are proposed for
removal. The proposed lots would range in size from 9,006 sq. ft. to 12,486 sq. ft. Access to the
proposed lots would be provided via a new public street extension from Orcas Ave NE to the north
to NE 4th Pl to the south. Access to Lots 11 and 12 would be provided off of Nile Ave NE via a
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
shared driveway easement. In addition, a new public alley extension is proposed to connect the south
end of Pasco Ave NE to the new extension of Orcas Ave NE. A modification to the adopted street
standards is requested to reduce the required right-of-way width and pavement width along the
project's Nile Ave NE frontage. Of the existing 304 significant trees, the Applicant is proposing to
retain 65 trees. There are no critical areas mapped on the project site.
The Applicant is requesting a modification from RMC 4-6-060 to utilize the modified street section
adopted by the Renton Trails and Bicycle Master Plan for Nile Avenue. The proposed project fronts
Nile Ave NE along the west property line. Nile Ave NE is classified as a collector arterial street with
an existing ROW of approximately 60 feet per the King County Assessor Map. Per RMC 4-6-060,
the minimum right-of-way width for a Collector Arterial street with 2 lanes is 83 feet that includes a
46 foot paved road (23 feet from centerline), a 0.5 foot curb, an 8 foot planting strip, an 8 foot
sidewalk, street trees and storm drainage improvements. The street section adopted by the Trails
plan reduces the pavement width to 44 feet (22 feet from centerline) which includes one 11-foot
travel lane in each direction, one 12-foot two-way turn lane, one 5 foot bike lane in each direction
and no on-street parking. The modified street standard requires a minimum ROW of 73 feet. Half
street improvements would include a pavement width of 22 feet, a 0.5 foot curb, an 8 foot planting
strip a 5 foot sidewalk, a 1-foot clear space at back of walk, street trees and storm drainage
improvements. Dedication of approximately 6.5 feet would be required pending the final survey.
4. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate and
appropriate infrastructure and public services. The City’s Public Works department has reviewed
the proposal for preliminary compliance with all City infrastructure and utility standards and has
found that the preliminary design to meet those standards. Infrastructure/Services are more
specifically addressed as follows:
A. Water and Sewer Service. Water will be provided by King County Water District 96.
Sewer service will be provided by the City of Renton.
There is an existing 8-inch gravity wastewater main located in NE 4th Pl, located south of
the project site, an existing 8-inch gravity wastewater main located in an easement (KC
recording number 20031022001986) on parcel 112305914, and an existing 8-inch gravity
wastewater main located in Nile Ave NE to the north of the project site and to the south
of the project site. The existing homes are not connected to the City sewer system.
A minimum 8-inch sewer main extension is required to extend to the northernmost
property line at Orcas Ave NE and Pascoe Ave NE from either NE 4th Pl or a
combination of NE 4th Pl and the sewer on parcel 112305914. Sewer main extensions
shall be in accordance with RMC 4-6-060. Additional extension of the sewer main may
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
be required depending on final configuration of public roads. Any sewer main on private
property will require a 15 ft wide public utility easement. A minimum 8-inch sewer main
extension will be required along the full property frontage along Nile Ave NE. The
submitted preliminary utility plans (Exhibit 8) submitted with the application materials
do not include a sewer main extension along the full property frontage, however the
proposed layout is acceptable as all adjacent properties along the frontage have or would
have access to sewer service.
Individual sewer stubs from the new sewer main and individual side sewers are required
for each lot. All new sewer stubs shall conform to the standards in RMC 4-6-060 and
City of Renton Standard Details.
The proposed layout indicates a joint use sewer for lots 9/12 and lots 10/11 which is not
permitted. Individual sewer stubs are required and may be placed in a joint trench. A
private sewer easement is required for side sewers passing through lots other than the lot
being serviced.
The project site is currently served by a private on-site-septic system. The septic system
shall be abandoned in accordance with King County Department of Health regulations
and the Renton Municipal Code.
The proposed development is subject to a wastewater system development charge (SDC)
fee. SDC fee for sewer is based on the size of the new domestic water to serve the
project. Fees will be charged based on the rate at the time of construction permit
issuance. The current sewer SDC fee is $3,450.00 per 1-inch meter.
B. Police and Fire Protection. Police and Fire Prevention staff indicate that sufficient
resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development.
C. Drainage. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate stormwater drainage
facilities. The proposal is subject to the 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design
Manual, which requires that the project not generate off-site stormwater flows that
exceed predevelopment, forested conditions. City staff have reviewed the Applicant’s
preliminary stormwater design and found it consistent with the requirements of the
Design Manual.
The Applicant has submitted a Preliminary Drainage Plan (Exhibit 8) and Technical
Information Report (TIR) (Exhibit 4) prepared by Core Design, dated June 28, 2021.
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
Based on the City of Renton’s flow control map, the site falls within the Flow Control
Duration Standard- Matching Forested and is within the Lower Cedar River Drainage
Basin. The topography of the project site generally slopes from the northeast to the
southwest. There is an existing stormwater outfall at the north property line abutting
Orcas Ave NE. There is an existing 12-inch public stormwater main on the south side of
NE 4th Pl and an existing 18-inch public stormwater main on the east side of Nile Ave
NE. There is no existing onsite stormwater conveyance system.
A geotechnical report (Exhibit 3) dated February 2, 2021, completed by Cobalt
Geosciences, was also submitted with the Land Use Application material. The report
discusses the soil and groundwater characteristics of the site and provides
recommendations for project design and construction. Geotechnical recommendations
presented in this report do not support the use of infiltration on the project site.
The project has two (2) natural discharge locations. Both are to the City’s conveyance
system. The north discharge location is along Nile Avenue NE and the south discharge
location is on NE 4th Place.
The project is required to provide a flow control and water quality facility as the
proposed development would include more than 5,000 sq. ft. of new plus replaced
pollution generating impervious surface. Two (2) stormwater detention wet vaults are
proposed to mitigate flow control and water quality impacts, one (1) wet vault would be
located within Tract A located on the southern portion of the project site and the other
wet vault would be located within Tract D located on the western portion of the project
site.
Surface water runoff improvements would be required to comply with the 2017 City of
Renton Surface Water Design Manual (RSWM).
There is a 2021 system Development Charge of $2,100 per new single-family residence.
SDC fees are payable at construction permit issuance. A credit will be applied for the
existing residences proposed for removal.
D. Parks/Open Space. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate parks and
open space.
City ordinances require the payment of park impact fees prior to building permit
issuance. City regulations do not require any specific set-aside for open space for
residential development in the R-4 zone. In the absence of any specific open space
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
requirements or any demonstrated need for open space, the Applicant cannot be legally
required to set aside any open space and it must be determined that the proposal provides
for adequate parks and open space through the payment of park impact fees.
E. Streets. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate streets. The proposal has
been designed and staff has recommended several conditions adopted by this decision
that provide for safe and efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation by incorporating a
well linked and defined pedestrian and vehiculation system on-site that is integrated into
adjoining streets and sidewalks.
The project site fronts Nile Ave NE along the west property line, NE 4th Pl along the
south property line, Pasco Ave NE along a portion of the north property line, and Orcas
Ave NE along a portion of the north property line.
NE 4th Pl is classified as a Residential Access Street with an existing right-of-way
(ROW) of approximately 28.51-feet per the King County Assessors Map, however the
centerline is offset and approximately 12 feet of ROW fronts the property. Per RMC 4-6-
060, the minimum ROW width for a Residential Access street is 53 feet that includes a
26-foot paved road (13 feet from centerline), a 0.5-foot curb, an 8-foot planting strip, a 5-
foot sidewalk, street trees and storm drainage improvements. Approximately 14.5 feet of
dedication would be required pending final survey.
Nile Ave NE is classified as a collector arterial street with an existing ROW of
approximately 60 feet per the King County Assessor Map. Per RMC 4-6-060, the
minimum right-of-way width for a Collector Arterial Street with 2 lanes is 83 feet that
includes a 46-foot paved road (23 feet from centerline), a 0.5-foot curb, an 8-foot
planting strip, an 8-foot sidewalk, street trees and storm drainage improvements. A
modification was requested and recommended for approval to the frontage improvements
required along Nile Ave NE, see FOF 19.
Pasco Ave NE is a residential access street with an existing ROW of approximately 30
feet. Pasco Ave NE shall be extended such that it connects to Orcas Ave NE with
improvements as per code. The proposal includes a twenty (20)-foot alley connection
between Pasco Ave NE and Orcas Ave NE, which is acceptable provided that the alley
meets minimum fire access requirements for loading and turning. Therefore, a condition
of approval requires that the alley is constructed with pavement that can support a 30-ton
firetruck with 75 PSI point load and that minimum inside an outside turning radii shall be
25 feet and 45 feet, respectively. A neighboring property owner has requested that 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 - 7
alley way be gated. For the reasons identified in the Summary section of this Decision, a
gate is not found necessary at this time.
The extension of Pasco Avenue to the southern boundary of the project site is not feasible
due to substantial existing improvements on the east side of the property. Staff testified
that the existing Pasco Avenue is only partially developed within 30 foot right of way,
which doesn’t even the 35 feet required for half street improvements. Existing
development on both sides of Pasco would preclude the widening of the right of way.
Given this limitation, staff found an alley connection to be the best that could be done to
meet the City’s street connectivity standards.
System-wide transportation impacts are mitigated by the payment of transportation
impact fees, due during building permit review.
F. Parking. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate parking. Parking regulations
require that a minimum of two (2) parking spaces be provided for each detached
dwelling. Sufficient area exists, on each lot, to accommodate off-street parking for a
minimum of two (2) vehicles. This is typically achieved by providing a two (2) car
garage for each single-family home.
G. Schools. The proposal will be served by adequate and appropriate schools and walking
conditions to and from school. According to the staff report, it is anticipated that the
Issaquah School District can accommodate any additional students generated by this
proposal at the following schools: Apollo Elementary, Maywood Middle School and
Liberty High School. Any new students from the proposed development would be bussed
to their schools. The stop is located approximately 0.11 miles from the south end of the
project site, at 451 Nile Ave NE. The proposed project includes the installation of
frontage improvements along the Orcas Ave NE, Nile Ave NE, and NE 4th Pl frontages,
including sidewalks. Students would walk south along Orcas Ave NE to NE 4th Pl, where
they would walk to the west to Nile Ave NE and then walk to the north to the bus stop at
451 Nile Ave NE.
To mitigate against the additional school demand created by the proposal, a school
impact fee will have to be paid during building permit review.
5. Adverse Impacts. As conditioned, there are no significant adverse impacts associated with
the proposal. A State Environmental Policy Act Determination of Non-significance was issud on
September 13, 2021. Adequate public facilities and drainage control are provided as determined in
Finding of Fact No. 4. Pertinent impacts are more specifically addressed 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 - 8
A. Compatibility. The proposal is compatible with surrounding development. The subject
property is bordered by single-family development on all sides with the same R-4 zoning.
B. Tree Retention. The proposal complies with the City’s tree retention standards, thus
ensuring that in conjunction with the City’s landscaping requirements that impacts to
wildlife habitat and aesthetics are adequately mitigated.
The Applicant has submitted a conceptual tree retention plan (Exhibit 8), arborist report
(Exhibit 9), and tree retention worksheet (Exhibit 10). These materials establish that there
are 329 trees identified on the project site. Of those trees, 25 have been identified as
dangerous trees, 60 trees are located within areas of right-of-way dedication, and 27 trees
are located within the alley/joint use driveway easements, which results in a total of 217
trees available for retention. Based on the requirement to retain thirty percent (30%) of
existing onsite trees, the Applicant would be required to retain 65 trees onsite. The
Applicant is proposing to retain 65 trees, which would comply with the tree retention
requirements.
Staff have recommended a condition requiring an HOA be responsible for maintenance
of retained trees located on the proposed private lots. This condition has been modified
as discussed in the Summary section of this Decision.
C. Critical Areas. There are no critical areas on the project site.
Conclusions of Law
1. Authority. RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies preliminary plat applications as Type III permits.
The modification request is classified by RMC 4-8-080(G) as a Type I review. RMC 4-8-080(C)(2)
requires consolidated permits to each be processed under “the highest-number procedure”. The
Type III plat review is the “highest-number procedure” and therefore must be employed for both
permit applications. As outlined in RMC 4-8-080(G), the Hearing Examiner is authorized to hold
hearings and issue final decisions on Type III applications subject to closed record appeal to the
Renton City Council.
2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The subject property is zoned R4. The
comprehensive plan map land use designation is Residential Low Density.
3. Review Criteria/Street/Adoption of Staff Findings and Conclusions on Modification Request.
Chapter 4-7 RMC governs the criteria for subdivision review. Applicable subdivision standards are
quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. All applicable
criterion quoted below are met for the reasons identified in the corresponding conclusions of law.
The modification request identified in Finding of Fact No. 3 is governed by RMC 4-9-250.D. The
findings and conclusions of Finding No. 19 of the staff report are adopted to conclude that the
proposal meets the RMC 4-9-250.D criteria for the requested street standard modification.
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 4-7-080(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. The criterion is met. As to compliance with the Zoning Code, Finding 17 of the staff report
is adopted by reference as if set forth in full. Each proposed lot will access a public road as depicted
in the preliminary plat map, Ex. 2. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4 and 5, the project is
adequately designed to prevent any impacts to critical areas and will not cause flooding problems as
it is not located in a floodplain critical area and will be served by adequate and appropriate drainage
facilities. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the proposal provides for adequate public
facilities.
RMC 4-7-080(I)(1): …The Hearing Examiner shall assure conformance with the general purposes
of the Comprehensive Plan and adopted standards…
5. The criterion is met. The proposed preliminary play is consistent with the Renton
Comprehensive Plan as outlined in Finding 16 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.
6. The criterion is met. The single internal road connects to Orcas Avenue NE on both of its
access points to the proposal.
RMC 4-7-120(B): The location of all streets shall conform to any adopted plans for streets in the
City.
7. The criterion is met. City public works staff have reviewed the proposal for consistency
with City road plans and found the proposed roads to be consistent.
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
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.
8. The criterion is met. The Applicant’s request for a street modification incorporates a
dedication and improvements to install a bicycle lane as contemplated in the Renton Trails and
Bicycle Master Plan. The proposal is not subject to any other trail plans adopted by the City.
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 gen eral 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.
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
d. Clean Water: Every effort shall be made to keep all streams and bodies of water clear of debris
and pollutants.
9. The criterion is met. The land is suitable for a subdivision as the stormwater design assures
that it will not contribute to flooding and there are no critical areas on-site. No piping or tunneling
of streams is proposed. Trees will be retained as required by RMC 4-4-130 as determined in Finding
of Fact No. 5. No lots primarily composed of steep slopes will be created by the subdivision as
shown in the topographic lines of the preliminary plat plans, Ex. 2, and identified in the Applicant’s
geotechnical report, Ex. 3.
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.
10. The criterion is met. City ordinances require the payment of park impact fees prior to
building permit issuance. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the payment of impact fees and
the proposed tree retention tract provide for all the open space and park space that can be required by
City ordinances.
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.
11. The criterion is met. All possible street connections have been accommodated as determined
in Finding of Fact No. 4E.
RMC 4-7-150(B): All proposed street names shall be approved by the City.
12. As conditioned.
RMC 4-7-150(C): Streets intersecting with existing or proposed public highways, major or
secondary arterials shall be held to a minimum.
13. There is no intersection with a public highway or major or secondary arterial. Union Avenue,
the only currently proposed connection to an existing street, is a minor 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
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
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.
14. As determined in Finding of Fact 4, the Public Works Department has reviewed and
approved the adequacy of streets, which includes compliance with applicable street standards and
acceptable street alignment. .
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…
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.
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
15. The criterion is met. The project does not include any cul-de-sacs. The only missing
potential street connection would be for Pasco Avenue extending all the way to the southern
property line of the project site. As determined in FOF No. 4, that extension is not possible due to
substantial existing improvements.
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.
16. As proposed except for the street modification approved by this decision.
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.
17. The criterion is met. As noted in FOF No. 4E, all potential street connections have been
made and there is no potential use for a stub road. Pasco Avenue is only extended as an alleyway,
but as noted in FOF No. 4E, the existing Pasco Avenue is only partially developed in 30 feet right of
way and cannot be widened dude to existing development.
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.
18. The criterion is met. As depicted in the plat maps, the side lines are generally 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.
19. The criterion is met. 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.
20. The criterion is met. As previously determined, as conditioned, the proposed lots comply
with the zoning standards of the R4 zone, which includes area, width and density. A condition of
approval requires Lot 1 to be merged with an adjoining open space tract to meet minimum width
requirements.
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 4-7-170(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').
21. The criterion is met. As shown in the Ex. 2 plat maps, 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').
22. 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.
23. There are no significant on-site natural features.
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.
24. 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.
25. The criterion is met. The proposal provides for adequate drainage that is in conformance with
applicable City drainage standards as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. The City’s stormwater
standards, which are addressed in the Applicant’s 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 - 15
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.
26. These requirements will be imposed during engineering review for final plat approval.
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.
27. 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. T he 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.
28. 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 - 16
29. As conditioned.
DECISION
The proposed preliminary plat and street standard modifications as identified in Finding of Fact No.
3 comply with all the development standards quoted above for the reasons identified in the
conclusions of law and are therefore approved subject to the following conditions of approval:
1. Tract I shall be removed from the preliminary plat and consolidated with Lot 1 and that
the width of Lot 1 be increased to comply with the 80-foot minimum width required for
corner lots.
2. A Homeowner’s Association shall be created prior to the recording of the final plat for
the ownership and maintenance of all common improvements within the subdivision.
3. Demolition permits shall be obtained and all required inspections be completed for the
removal of the existing residences and detached accessory structures, prior to final plat
approval.
4. A detailed landscape plan shall be provided at the time of Construction Permit
application that includes street tree species from the City’s approved Street Tree list, the
extension of the street frontage landscaping along the west and south property lines of
Lot 1, the addition of trees within the street frontage landscape strip abutting all lots, and
a minimum of 15 feet of landscaping around the perimeter of the proposed stormwater
tracts. Tree species selected for planting within the stormwater tracts shall be large size
maturing trees such as western red cedar, douglas fir, and western hemlock where not
conflicting with stormwater infrastructure to mitigate loss of mature trees on the subject
property. The detailed landscape plan shall be provided for review and approval to the
Current Planning Project Manager.
5. A final tree retention plan shall be provided at the time of Construction Permit review.
The final tree retention plan shall include larger tree species to mitigate for the removal
of the existing mature trees from the project site. The proposed protected trees within
Lots 1-4, 6, 13-15, and Tracts B, C, E, F, G, and H be protected within Tree Protection
Easements. The Tree Protection Easements should encompass all protected trees within
these lots and extend to a public right-of-way. The boundary of the Tree Protection
Easements should be fenced and signed in accordance with RMC 4-4-130H.2.d. Fence
construction shall be monitored onsite by the applicant’s certified arborist to avoid root
damage to the protected trees. A fencing and signage detail shall be submitted for review
and approval of the Current Planning Project Manager at the time of Construction Permit
review.
The Tree Protection Easements shall be recorded along with a covenant that clearly
provide that it is the responsibility of the servient property owner to maintain the trees of
the easement. The Homeowner’s Association shall be given access rights to 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 - 17
easements to maintain the trees if the servient owner fails to properly maintain the trees.
The CC&Rs may specify additional access and enforcement rights for the HOA as found
necessary by the Applicant. The CC&R’s shall further provide that the City shall have
enforcement authority against both the servient property owner and the Homeowner’s
Association if the trees are not properly maintained.
The Tree Protection Easements and covenants required by this condition should be
reflected on the face of the final plat map, subject to review and approval of the Current
Planning Project Manager and City Attorney.
6. The applicant shall submit a revised grading plan with the civil construction permit that
reduces the retaining wall proposed on Lot 13 to a maximum of forty-eight inches (48")
and that the location of the wall be revised to provide the required three-foot (3')
landscaped setback from the public right-of-way. The wall extending on to Tract D shall
also be setback the required three (3) feet from the right-of-way and comply with the
maximum height requirements. The revised grading plan shall also provide cross-sections
of the proposed retaining wall(s) and detail sheets of material composition. The revised
grading plan, cross-sections, and details sheets shall be reviewed and approved by the
Current Planning Project Manager prior to permit issuance.
7. Access to Lots 4-6 shall be provided via the public alley and the driveways shown on the
preliminary plat along their respective street frontages be removed, and access to Lots 7
and 8 and 11 and 12 shall be provided via a joint-use driveway. A note to this effect shall
be recorded on the face of the Final Plat.
8. The front yard and primary building entrances for the homes constructed on Lots 4-6
shall be required to face to the west towards Orcas Ave NE. A note to this effect shall
recorded on the face of the final short plat map.
9. The alley shall provide pavement that can support a 30-ton firetruck with 75 PSI point
load and that minimum inside an outside turning radii shall be 25 feet and 45 feet,
respectively.
10. All road names shall be approved by the City.
11. 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.
12. 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. All other lot
corners shall be marked per the City surveying standards. The subdivider shall install all
street name signs necessary in the subdivision.
13. 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 Public Works Department. Such
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 - 18
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
Public Works Department.
14. 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.
15. All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys, shall have
minimum radius of fifteen feet (15').
DATED this 23rd day of November, 2021.
City of Renton Hearing Examiner
Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies the application(s) subject to this decision as Type III applications
subject to closed record appeal to the City of Renton City Council. Appeals of the hearing
examiner’s decision must be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the decision.
A request for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed within this 14-day appeal
period.
Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
cypress plat (Completed 11/26/21)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 1 of 16
Appendix A
November 23, 2021 Hearing Transcript
Cypress Lane Preliminary Plat -- LUA21-000287, PP, MOD
Note: This is a computer generated transcript provided for informational purposes only. The reader should
not take this document as 100% accurate or take offense at errors created by the limitations of the
programming in transcribing speech. A recording of the hearing is available from the City should anyone
need an accurate rendition of the hearing testimony.
Phil Olbrechts:
For the record, it's November 23rd, 2021. I'm Phil Olbrechts, hearing examiner for the city of Renton.
Today we have a preliminary plat application, file number LUA21-000287 for the Cypress Lane,
preliminary plat for 15 lots subdivision. The hearing format will be, I have Jill Ding, senior planner for the
city, give us an overview of the project. Once she's done, we'll move on to the applicants. They don't
have to say anything if they don't want to, but that's their opportunity. Once we're done with applicant
comments, we'll move on to public comments, if we have any members of the public with us today, and
we'll explain how they can participate when we get to that part. After that, we'll go back to a staff
rebuttal, Ms. Ding will answer any questions and provide any necessary rebuttal evidence. Then
applicant, as a matter of constitutional due process, gets the final word.
Phil Olbrechts:
After the hearing is closed, which will probably be today, I'll have 10 business days to issue a final
decision, which is usually a couple weeks, this time around what we'll be adding a couple days for the
holidays as well. So now by state law, I'm only allowed to consider evidence that everyone has access to,
that means only evidence that's admitted as exhibits and then the testimony that's provided in the
hearing. And Ms. Cisneros, you usually have an exhibit list ready for us, if you want to post that at this
point.
Ms. Cisneros:
Yes, I do.
Phil Olbrechts:
All right.
Ms. Cisneros:
Can everybody see that?
Jill Ding:
Yes.
Phil Olbrechts:
cypress plat (Completed 11/26/21)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 2 of 16
Yes. Okay.
Ms. Cisneros:
So here's the exhibit list for the hearing, [inaudible 00:01:39] report and the [inaudible 00:01:40] report.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. So you'll see there. Those are the exhibits staff has given to me in advance of the hearing, it's also
available at the city's website. If anybody needs to see any of those documents, haven't had a chance to
see them yet, go ahead and raise the virtual hand, click on the hand, it's at the bottom of your screen, or
if you're not muted, just say, "I need to see a copy." I don't see any requests to see them. And Ms.
Cisneros, did you have the core reports and Google earth put on the list there as well?
Ms. Cisneros:
I do.
Phil Olbrechts:
There it is. Okay. Right there. So we have exhibits one through 16 in total. Does anyone have any
objections to entry of those documents into the record? Those objections be based on relevancy
essentially, or authenticity, that it's a fake deed or something of that nature. If you have any objections,
go ahead, raise your virtual hand again or say, "I object," if you're not muted. Seeing and hearing no
objections, then I'll admit exhibits one through 16. And with that, let's move on to Ms. Ding. Ms. Ding,
let me swear you in, just raise your right hand. Do you swear, affirm to tell the truth, nothing but the
truth in this proceeding.
Jill Ding:
I do.
Phil Olbrechts:
All right, go ahead.
Jill Ding:
Thank you, Mr. Examiner. We are here for the public hearing for the Cypress Lane preliminary plat. As
you said, my name is Jill Ding, I am a senior planner here with the City of Renton, and I'm here to
present the staff recommendation. Just to give a brief overview of the proposal, we are here for a
preliminary plat application, as well as a street modification for the subdivision of an existing almost five
acre site, into five lots and nine tracts. The project site is zoned R4, and there are two single family
residences, as well as some associated detached accessory structures that would be removed as a part
of the project.
Jill Ding:
The proposed lots would range in size from 9,006 square feet, up to 12,486 square feet. Staff is
recommending as a condition of approval, that access to lots one through three, seven through 10 and
13 through 15, be provided via the new Orcas Avenue public street extension, and access to lots four
through six, be provided via the new public alley, which would be an extension of Pasco over here, on
cypress plat (Completed 11/26/21)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 3 of 16
the, I guess, northeast corner of the project site, and access to lots 11 and 12 would be provided off of
Nile Avenue northeast, via this joint use driveway that is shown here.
Jill Ding:
The applicant is proposing to retain 65 significant trees on the project site. You can see those on the site
plan. The vast majority are here along the west portion of lots 13 through 15, and the east portion of
lots two through four. A modification from the city street standards was requested in order to utilize the
modified street section that was referenced in the Renton trails and bicycle master plan along Nile
Avenue Northeast, so over here. Frontage improvements, including right of way dedication, curb and
gutter, planter strip with street trees and a sidewalk are proposed along all street frontages. So that
includes Nile Avenue Northeast, the Orcas Avenue extension here, and then 4th Place, down here. So
those are all the streets that would have public street frontage improvements constructed along them.
Jill Ding:
Two neighborhood meetings were held, the first was on June 29th and the second on July 13th of this
year. A 14 day public comment period ran from August 9th to August 23rd. We did receive one public
comment regarding the extension of Pasco Avenue Northeast, as a public alley onto the project site.
That was the only comment received. A SEPA determination of non significance was issued on
September 13th. No appeals were filed. And the project was placed on hold on September 15th through
October 6th. The proposal would be consistent with the relevant comprehensive plan land use policies.
The proposal would be compliant with all relevant zoning regulations, if all conditions of approval are
complied with. The proposal would be compliant with the street modification criteria, and there are safe
walking routes to the school bus stop.
Jill Ding:
So there are some conditions that we are recommending. One is with regards to the trees that are
proposed to be protected on the backs of these lots. This is two through four, there's a couple on one,
and then this is tract A and 13 through 15, and then lots six. There are some tree protection tracts that
are proposed to protect some of these trees within all of these lots, as well as there's a small one here
on lot six. Staff is recommending that of these trees be protected within a tree protection easement,
that would then extend to the public right of way for access and maintenance purposes. We are also
recommending that that easement be fenced and signed appropriately to protect those corridors of
trees.
Jill Ding:
Let's see. So we did route the application to other city departments, police and fire prevention staff
indicate that they have sufficient resources to furnish services to the development. The Issaquah school
district can accommodate the additional students. Water service would be provided by King County
water district 90, and sewer would be provided by the city of Renton. The applicant submitted a
technical information report or drainage report with the application materials. The project site has two
natural discharge locations for drainage, one to the north and one to the south. There are two detention
wet vaults proposed within tracts A and D, for water quality treatment, as well as detention. And the
project would be required to comply with the 2017 City of Renton surface water design manual. So in
conclusion, staff is recommending approval of the Cypress Lane preliminary plat with nine conditions of
approval. That concludes my presentation unless you have questions.
cypress plat (Completed 11/26/21)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 4 of 16
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. Yeah, just a few. Now for the street modification I saw, will include some bicycle lanes. Without
the modification would bicycle lanes be required there or does this actually result in something that
wasn't there before?
Jill Ding:
So I have Nate Janders here, he is the engineer who reviewed this project. Nate, can you answer that
question?
Phil Olbrechts:
And Nate you'll have to unmute yourself and I'll have to swear you in too. Let me swear you in real
quick. Do you swear, affirm to tell the truth, nothing but the truth in this proceeding?
Nate Janders:
I do.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. Yeah, go ahead.
Nate Janders:
So Mr. Examiner, those facilities are not currently existing, and what is proposed is compliant with our
overall plan. The Nile is a collector arterial street and arterial streets are required per the street
standards, to install bicycle facilities. So whether it's the modification or not a modification, bike
facilities will be required. The modification is to provide a street section that is a little less than what the
collector arterial does require, which is more consistent, not only with our overall plan for that corridor,
but is a better look and feel of a street for Nile Avenue.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. Yeah. And then subdivision standards require conform install trail plans. Are there any other trail
plans that apply to the project or was this the only one that did? I can't remember what the name of it
was.
Nate Janders:
That is the only one.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. All right. Also, there was a comment in the staff report saying that it didn't appear that if Pasco
would be required to go all the way through the project, that it would ever be fully developed. I mean,
can you explain why? It seems like it would be awfully close to the Orcas Avenue. Is that the reason why,
or is there some other reason why it wouldn't be fully developed?
Nate Janders:
On which end are you talking about? I'm sorry, can you clarify?
cypress plat (Completed 11/26/21)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 5 of 16
Phil Olbrechts:
Oh, well, I guess there was a neighbor that was concerned about Pasco going all the way through the
project, creating a new connection, and the response was, we'll just do an alleyway here that goes
partially through the project, because it doesn't appear that Pasco would ever be fully developed in the
future. I think that was the response, if I remember it correctly.
Nate Janders:
Yes. Jill, do you want to take that one first?
Jill Ding:
Yeah. So typically our code requires public through street extensions, we want through streets and
connections. So per our code, we are required to extend Pasco Avenue in some manner. Since Pasco is
already a substandard street, it is only 30 feet wide, so it is not even compliant with our half street
standards, which would be 35 feet. And on the other side, it was fully developed with single family
residences. We didn't think there was any way we would ever get the rest of that street. So in lieu of
requiring a full public street extension of Pasco Avenue through the subdivision, we instead are
recommending an alley extension, which would allow the extension of that street for fire access. There
are two lots at the south end of that street that haven't yet been developed, so that will facilitate fire
access, as well as our standards for through public street extensions.
Phil Olbrechts:
Isn't 4th Avenue on the other side, wouldn't it connect to 4th Avenue if it went all the way through, or is
that undeveloped right away or something? I mean, you said you couldn't punch Pasco all the way down
to the southern end, but isn't that 4th Avenue-
Jill Ding:
Well, you could, I mean, let me pull up the slide with core maps. I think this one shows it. So Pasco is
right here, it terminates at the northeast corner. So we were required to do some extension per our
code, we don't want dead end streets. And also, I believe that this is in excess of the fire department's
requirements. So there are two lots here you can see, that have yet to be developed, and so that would
require some sort of a secondary access or turnaround. And so we are facilitating emergency access to
these lots through the extension of Pasco, through the subdivision. So we looked at various alternatives,
one we looked at was just going straight down to Northeast 4th Place. It didn't seem to make sense,
again, as I said, you've got all of these homes here, this is only 30 foot right of way, it was never going to
be a full street, plus there's all those trees that we wanted to retain on this side. So that was where our
compromise of the alley came into play.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. That makes sense then. Yeah.
Jill Ding:
Does that answer your question?
Phil Olbrechts:
cypress plat (Completed 11/26/21)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 6 of 16
Yeah, yeah, yeah. And Mr. Janders, still just a few more quick ones. Also, I noticed there was no traffic
report done for this. Are the city's public work standards, is it 20 PM trips that's the threshold, and this
only has 15, was that the rationale there?
Nate Janders:
That is correct.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. And let's see, do you deal with the sewer issues too, is that in your area?
Nate Janders:
Yes, it is.
Phil Olbrechts:
Oh, okay. Yeah, I wasn't quite sure. There was a comment made, I'm going to see if I can find it here in
the staff report, that said that the preliminary plans don't show the sewer going across the entire
frontage. Oh, here it is. Yeah. It says, this is just quoting from the staff report, the submitted preliminary
utility plans submitted with the application, do not include a sewer main extension along with full
property frontage. However, the proposed layout is acceptable as all adjacent properties along the
frontage have or would have access to sewer service. So I mean, does that mean that they don't have to
extend it all the way across the front, because usually, wouldn't that be required for future development
on the other side, or what's going on there?
Nate Janders:
Yes. So that is correct. Code requires an extension along the full property frontage, unless we determine
that it is not required because service can be met or there's no need for service. And so this comment
was in particular to Nile Avenue, the preliminary plans have the sewer main terminating roughly at the
north end of lot 11. Whereas, the full extension would be to the south end of lot 11. However, in review
of the sewer main system, within the existing sewer main system, which parcels are connected and
where parcels are able to connect, having that sewer main extend from what is manhole seven at the
north end of lot 11, all the way to the south end, was not necessary in order to provide sewer service for
all properties along Nile Avenue.
Phil Olbrechts:
Oh, okay. Okay. That took into account future development of other lots, it just wasn't necessary for
that way.
Nate Janders:
Correct.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay, got it. And then also, the staff report mentioned that a certificate of water availability would be
required from King County water district. Usually those are provided at least at the time of hearing. Has
that come in yet at all, do you know, or not?
cypress plat (Completed 11/26/21)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 7 of 16
Nate Janders:
I have not seen that yet.
Phil Olbrechts:
Oh, okay. All right. And then just a quick final question. I mean, I think the answer's obvious, but just
want to get it in the record. Simply, the public works department has reviewed all utility infrastructure
to the extent regulated for city regulations. And has the department found that for the preliminary plat
design, all regulations are met?
Nate Janders:
Yes.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay, perfect. Thank you, Mr. Janders, appreciate your comments. All right, let's move on to applicant at
this point. Applicants, this is your chance to speak if you want to, you don't have to, but this is the time
to do it if you have anything you'd like to add.
Bob Wenzl:
Good morning, Mr. Hearing Examiner. This is Bob Wenzl, the applicant-
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. And Mr. Wenzl, how do you spell your last name for the record?
Bob Wenzl:
W-E-N-Z-L.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. And [crosstalk 00:18:28] just raise your right hand-
Bob Wenzl:
I'm raising my hand.
Phil Olbrechts:
Oh, perfect. All right. You swear, affirm to tell the truth, nothing but the truth in this proceeding?
Bob Wenzl:
I do.
Phil Olbrechts:
All right, go ahead.
Bob Wenzl:
cypress plat (Completed 11/26/21)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 8 of 16
So I am the applicant, of course, my team members are here, and we of course support the City of
Renton's findings. I've been involved with this project continuously from the beginning. I also am a
property owner on Pasco Avenue and have had discussions with the neighbors regarding the Pasco alley
connection. Of course, the gentleman who doesn't have a developed alley, he likes that, but of course
the other person at the other end doesn't necessarily want the road to go through. So at this point in
time, we will be providing access to our north edge for the Pasco alley. And we appreciate this
opportunity to present our project to the city. We do have one major concern, or at least objection to
the city's findings and conditions. And that would be in regards to the trees.
Bob Wenzl:
I have had a discussion, I was planning on submitting a very large presentation to the Hearing Examiner
and for this committee or meeting last week. But after talking to the city, I believe we had an
understanding of what we were going to do with the trees, but as of yesterday morning or this morning,
I see that we don't. So unfortunately I'm going to express as much as I can, and if necessary, will leave
the record open for me to turn in the information that I was going to turn in, but didn't think it was
necessary.
Bob Wenzl:
So this is regards to the tract or covenants on the trees on the project. I have only done about 20 or 30
plats, short plats and formal plats in the City of Renton, over 200 lots. And to give control of these trees
to an HOA that will not be functional, is completely inappropriate in my opinion. I think it's important
that the homeowners or the landowners that own the properties, have control of the trees. Those are
the best way the trees are going to be maintained and kept in the future. The concept of the city, having
what they're calling or attempting to say as a corridor to be maintained, only invites A, people to think
that they have the ability to walk through someone's backyard or through the canopy of the trees, and
it's not practical to have some connectivity to a public right of away. These trees are not going to be
maintained by the HOA. I was going to provide the city with not any less than 10 subdivisions in the city
or short plats, that are less than 15 or 20 houses, that the HOA does not function at all.
Bob Wenzl:
And I had a presentation of at least 10 with pictures showing all of the so-called tract areas, frontage
improvements, planter strips that each property owner in the HOA is supposed to maintain, and they
just don't. So that's more of a layman thing, the city doesn't have any enforcement mechanism that they
actually use to enforce these issues. So I believed we had a general agreement or understanding that for
the trees, I support either a tract area or a covenant. And if you take a look at some of the other major
infrastructure issues with the city of Renton, for instance on drainage, which is very important, the city
uses covenants to protect or make sure that the property owners take care of their storm system. So
covenants seem to work fine in that jurisdiction, I don't see why it wouldn't work fine in trees.
Bob Wenzl:
As far as having an HOA do something to maintain these trees, as our arborist has eloquently said, not of
course here, because I didn't have the opportunity to turn it in, but trees are a living thing, they're going
to come and go, they're going to fall over, they're going to get blown over. If we leave that maintenance
to a small 15 person, or 15 lot Homeowners Association, it's going to be left in the dust. Whereas, if we
have a tract or a covenant that each individual property owner owns and maintains, with either a split
rail fence or a six foot cedar fence, they're going to have the best opportunity over the life of the trees
cypress plat (Completed 11/26/21)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 9 of 16
to be maintained. So our position is have a covenant, have a tract, have it fenced, but no so-called public
corridor, nothing that invites, even infers that the public or even the general neighborhood have access
to it, will end up with homeless encampment parks back there and all kinds of things that we don't
need. So that's my main issue with this whole project.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. Thank you, sir. And of course I'll give a Ms. Ding an opportunity to respond to that when we go it
back to staff comments. Mr. Wenzl, was there anything else you wanted to address at this point before
we go to public comment?
Bob Wenzl:
No, I think that's fine for the time being.
Phil Olbrechts:
All right. Let's move on to public comments and it looks like we might actually have a person or two who
wants to speak at this point. I'll allow Ms. Cisneros to explain how they can make their comments heard
today.
Ms. Cisneros:
Yes. If you see on the screen, there are some instructions on raising your hand, and if you are a public
and would like to comment, please raise your hand and we will call on you. And also, if you'd like to be
notified of the decision, please either email me or state your email when commenting.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. And in case anyone's having any problems connecting, Ms. Cisneros, can you give us your phone
number and email address?
Ms. Cisneros:
Yes, of course I will.
Phil Olbrechts:
Great
Ms. Cisneros:
Put that on the screen in just a second here.
Phil Olbrechts:
There it is. All right. So if you're having trouble connecting today, go ahead and give Ms. Cisneros a call,
(425) 430-6583 or email her at jcisneros@rentonwa.gov. Also, I'll leave the record open until 5:00 PM
tomorrow. In case for technical reasons and technical reasons only, you're unable to attend today, go
ahead and email your comments and I'll give staff in the applicant a chance to respond. Just make sure
those get to Ms. Cisneros by 5:00 PM tomorrow. So far I see we've got one taker, Mr. O'Connor, and oh,
Ms. Cisneros, I see he was just muted maybe. Is that up to him to unmute at this point?
Ms. Cisneros:
cypress plat (Completed 11/26/21)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 10 of 16
I'm asking him to unmute right now.
Phil Olbrechts:
Oh, okay. There we go. All right, Mr. O'Connor, let me swear you in first, just raise your right hand. You
swear, affirm to tell the truth, nothing but the truth, in this proceeding?
Mr O'Connor:
I do.
Phil Olbrechts:
All right, go ahead.
Mr O'Connor:
Okay. Thanks for the opportunity to speak. I think I know the answer to my question, I submitted a
comment. I live off of Pasco Avenue Northeast. I'm the last developed property before the two
undeveloped properties that Jill mentioned. Oh, Jenny, I think you have my email, if you could give me ...
I think that was the first question.
Ms. Cisneros:
Yes.
Mr O'Connor:
Great. Thank you. So I just wanted to reiterate that the road is not wide enough, it is, in my opinion, just
a driveway. When I put in the road 15 years ago, it was owned by King County and they had told me that
they would never maintain it. At that time, I don't know what the City of Renton's opinion is since we've
been annexed. But two cars can't pass on the road as it's currently paved. I also wanted to point out
there's a ditch, a water ditch in front of the two undeveloped properties, and the two other houses on
this road, their downspouts drain into that ditch. Just more obstacles to making that road wide enough
for two cars, for example. And so the homeowners are currently maintaining the street. And my only
suggestion request, and I think I already know the answer, is to put in a fire gate at the end of the street
where it connects to the new development, so that no additional traffic comes on the street. And again,
the homeowners are maintaining the street, it's not wide enough for two cars, and that's my only
request.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. So Mr. O'Connor, what you're saying is north of the project site, that Pasco is just maintained by
the homeowners at this point, but it's in a public easement though, is that correct?
Mr O'Connor:
Correct. It is public.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. All right. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate your comments. And I will let Ms. Ding answer
your questions once it's her turn to speak again. Did anyone else want to say anything at this point? It
looks like I have two, maybe two potential other members of the public there. If you do, just raise your
cypress plat (Completed 11/26/21)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 11 of 16
virtual hand. I'm not seeing any takers. So again, obviously you're not compelled to say anything. Again,
if you want to get a copy of the decision, make sure you email Ms. Cisneros and let her know how you
want to get that decision, and we'll get that to you. So not hearing any more takers for public comment,
Ms. Ding, I guess a few things to respond to, first would be Pasco, whether it can be gated just for fire
access. And then of course, there's the whole issue about the tree retention, HOA maintenance issue.
Jill Ding:
Sure. Yeah. So the city does not, the city's policy ...
Phil Olbrechts:
Oh, you're muted Ms. Ding, for some reason.
Jill Ding:
I got muted. So the city's policies encourage through public streets, and so we typically only require
gated access when we don't want a street to go through, but we need some sort of emergency access.
So for example, like on a principle arterial where we don't necessarily want another public access
connection, but fire needs it for emergency access, then we would recommend a gate. In this instance,
there doesn't seem to be any life safety issue where we would not want that access to go through. And
so in accordance with our policies, we would not recommend a gate, we would want to see that access
us go through.
Phil Olbrechts:
Is that road in King County? Is that incorporated King County on the-
Jill Ding:
No, it's city right of way. It's a public city street. So I'm not sure what the maintenance, I mean, it is a
public right of way, so it should be owned and maintained by the City of Renton.
Phil Olbrechts:
Oh, okay. And right now, how's it developed right now? I don't recall Mr. O'Connor said. I mean, I take it
it's paved and everything or not?
Jill Ding:
I believe it's paved partially.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. Mr. O'Connor, I'd like to go you at this point. Yeah, go ahead.
Bob Wenzl:
No, this is the applicant Bob-
Phil Olbrechts:
Oh, sure. Okay. Yeah. Mr. Wenzl. Mr. Wenzl, you'll have final word, I'll let you respond.
cypress plat (Completed 11/26/21)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 12 of 16
Bob Wenzl:
I was going to mention about Pasco because I live there.
Phil Olbrechts:
All right. Go ahead.
Bob Wenzl:
So I live, I own property on Pasco Avenue also, the current Pasco Avenue that is paved. So there will be
approximately 160 feet of undeveloped land between the end of our new north Pasco alley and the
current Pasco Avenue. So there'll be an 160 feet of undeveloped land, so neither one of those Pasco
Avenues will connect until that property gets developed. So at this point, I don't see a need for any fire
gate or anything because neither one of them are going to connect.
Phil Olbrechts:
Oh, okay.
Bob Wenzl:
And so the end of Mr O'Connor's property is where that 160 undeveloped property starts. And then of
course, at the south end of that 160, is where we're going to terminate our new Pasco alley. Does that
make sense?
Phil Olbrechts:
Yeah. So right now it's basically a stub road is what you're saying, on the project site?
Bob Wenzl:
On northeast 6th, my property, Mr. O'Connor's gets access from northeast 6th on this public right of
way of Pasco Avenue. It's approximately 20 feet of asphalt with a little planter strip on the east side, and
it basically serves our two properties. And then to the south of that, is this two vacant lots for our
neighbor next door, and then it goes to the Cypress Lane project. So our Pasco alley that the city is
requiring us to do, is going to terminate at that undeveloped land, and so until he develops in the future,
it's not going to connect anywhere.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. And so you're saying that a gate isn't necessary, because it sounds like you basically have a
private, almost just a privately maintained road that people would be using if it's not gated.
Bob Wenzl:
Well, it's not going to go through, there'll be no access to-
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. So it's still not going through. Okay. Okay.
Bob Wenzl:
It's still not going through.
cypress plat (Completed 11/26/21)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 13 of 16
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. Gotcha. All right. Good. Great. Okay. Sorry, Ms. Ding, go ahead.
Bob Wenzl:
Go ahead.
Jill Ding:
Sure. So do you have any further questions on the gate?
Phil Olbrechts:
No, I think I have the information I need for that. Yeah.
Jill Ding:
Okay. So regarding the trees, let me see, I will again, share my screen. Let's see here. I don't know why
it's not. Here we go. Okay. So regarding the trees, what we are recommending is a combination of
easements and tracts, or actually the easement would go over the lots and the tracts to protect all of
the trees and to provide the same level of protection for all of the trees. Otherwise, our concern is, is
that the trees that are within the tracts would receive more protection than the trees that are left on
the individual lots. So that is the thinking, is to provide the same level of protection for all of those trees
along the full length of the property. The fencing and signage would go around the full length of that
easement area, so there would be no public access. And again, we are recommending that it be owned
and maintained by the Homeowners Association. However, the individual lot owners, as being members
of the Homeowners Association, would certainly be free to go in there and maintain it as they would
otherwise. So that is the reason behind the city's recommendation.
Phil Olbrechts:
I mean, could we, I guess, call it a compromise, the HOA covenants could say that it's primarily the
individual property owner's responsibility, but if they fail, then it's the HOAs responsibility, and that
would leave the enforcement authority to the city to go after the HOA if it's not taken care of?
Jill Ding:
Yeah. That certainly could be.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. And also would an HOA be required, if there weren't these trees that needed to be maintained,
are they necessary for drainage system maintenance or something like that, or not in this case?
Jill Ding:
Not in this case, no. Just compliance with tree retention.
Phil Olbrechts:
Oh, okay. So that's the only reason for the HOA. Okay. Understand. Great. Thank you. All right. Well any
other comments from staff, Ms. Ding?
cypress plat (Completed 11/26/21)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 14 of 16
Jill Ding:
Not from me, no.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. All right. Let's take it back to the applicant, Mr. Wenzl, any final comments?
Bob Wenzl:
Again, I guess, this is more of a global issue, is with the HOA and what they do. I don't know, Mr.
Examiner, how long you've been here, but I've been here long time. And if you look back several years
ago, the city had the grand idea of requiring or having the HOAs maintain these storm retention vaults in
the storm systems in plats. And they found out very quickly that HOAs are inept in doing almost
anything. So if you've been involved in this at all over the years, the city has now, in several of my
subdivisions where the HOAs, especially even long ones, have not done that, and so now the city is
taking back these retention vaults that they did give the power so-called to the HOAs to maintain,
because they found out they're just not doing anything.
Bob Wenzl:
And I can, again, cite several HOAs and subdivisions that have tracts that have allowed the taxes to go to
foreclosure. And now these tracts that are owned by the HOA, are being gobbled up by these so-called
investors that are buying these tracts, whether they're park tracts or not. And they're going back to
cities and trying to get these results taken away, which some jurisdictions are doing, to say, make it a
park, and they're taking those away because the homeowners don't want to take care of it.
Bob Wenzl:
So in my experience in the City of Renton, not saying this is good or bad, but they don't have an
enforcement mechanism to make the HOA do anything. And so if we give the power to maintain these
trees to an HOA, even if we say, the HOA says specifically, the homeowners need to maintain the trees,
and if they don't, the HOA will, the homeowners are going to defer or at least say the HOA is
responsible. And again, I don't want to beat this horse to death, but the HOAs just are not effective, and
until the city decides they want to police that better, HOAs, especially with two or five or 10 or 15, do
not do anything.
Bob Wenzl:
So if we allow these to be a tract, I think the HOA, it's going to be detrimental to the trees in the long
run. That's all. If the city wants a tract, that's great, but I can just give you an enormous of amount of
information that says HOAs are not effective in maintaining tracts or trees and that they will be left to
whoever decides they want to take care of them. And I just think from a strictly layman standpoint, if I'm
a homeowner and the trees are on my property and it's either a covenant or a tract, if it's a tract, people
are going to think they're not responsible for it. And if the HOA isn't going to take care of it, then nobody
will. If I have a fence, even if it's a split rail fence and I show to my ... now I'm the builder developing the
houses, building the houses and selling to the customer, and of course, we need to think about this in
the long term.
Bob Wenzl:
cypress plat (Completed 11/26/21)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 15 of 16
But if I'm a homeowner and I say that, okay, the HOA is supposed to take care of those trees and there's
no HOA present, then no one's going to care about those trees. If I'm a homeowner and I said, those are
my trees. Yes, there's a covenant that I can't cut them down, but at least I can maintain them and I can
keep people out of there, general public, city and everybody, those are the best long term solution for
maintaining the trees. And all I'm trying to do, listening to my arborist to say, what's in the best interest
of the trees, not what's in the best interest of the city, do they want to make tracts or covenants? I'm
not sure a tract or covenant is ... I don't care one way or the other.
Bob Wenzl:
To me, a covenant, at my experience, in a covenant, and I've used this where the city seems to be
getting a lot of their new regulations, my opinion is that they're getting these new regulations from
jurisdictions to the north of us, City of Kirkland, City of Redmond. And I've developed in those cities also.
And covenants seem to work as good or better than tracts, because covenants, just like that storm
covenant, the covenant basically says the property owner owns these trees, they are required to
maintain them and they are required to keep them. Now, of course, we know that people do don't do
always what they're supposed to do, but 90%, I think, of the people, if they have a covenant on their
land, they're going to do what the covenant says. If it's a tract, they're going to feel like they have either
less to take care of, or they're going to push that requirement to maintain and take care of it off to
someone else.
Bob Wenzl:
And again, I can show you and the city of Renton, more than 10 subdivisions that I've done, where the
HOAs are doing nothing. I built 20, $30,000 worth of magnificent landscaping, especially on major
thoroughfares, and it's gone to, I won't use the word, sir, it's just gone to put because no one maintains
it and the city doesn't enforce it. I'm looking for a long term solution that protects the property, protects
the trees and it actually physically works. I'll leave it there.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. Oh, interesting issue. Yeah. I'll have to think about that. I mean, in one sense, it seems a little
counterintuitive, you're basically saying that it's easier to enforce against 10 separate property owners
over time, I'm just throwing out that you have these trees, as opposed to one homeowners entity. I
mean, because ultimately, the way you do enforcement against the homeowners is if they fail to follow
through and you need to get some monetary judgment against them, it would be spread out evenly
amongst all the members of the Homeowners Association, and you ultimately, you can get a judgment
lien against their property if they don't pay. So I mean, it's not as complicated for individual property
owners, admittedly, but the result is the same, so I don't know. Yeah, I'll have to consider that.
Bob Wenzl:
It's very interesting because I mean, I can give you an example of, which is amazing to me, a 51 lot
subdivision that I've developed personally in the City of Renton, and currently, I've tried for five years to
turn that HOA over to the homeowners and it is now defunct. And of course the city's sending them
enforcement letters to maintain tracts and to mow the grass in those tracts, and they just ignore the city
and so nothing gets done, the taxes are going to foreclosure on those properties. I have again, 10
subdivisions in the city of Renton that I could show, that no one in the city or the HOA is enforcing
anything. And so I just look at this project and I say, same thing's going to happen, unfortunately.
cypress plat (Completed 11/26/21)
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 16 of 16
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. Yeah. Very interesting. Ms. Ding, is there anything in the code that requires it to be HOA
maintained as opposed to individual property owners?
Jill Ding:
The code does talk about for tree retention and tracts, it talks about there are several entities that have
options. One of them is a homeowner, individual homeowner, one is the Homeowners Association,
which I would assume that the distinction is, is that you would do it for an individual homeowner when
it's a small subdivision and there is no Homeowners Association. So I assume that's why we have that
option in our code. But since we do have a Homeowners Association that's going to be maintaining
common improvements within this subdivision, that's why I recommended the maintenance of these
tree easements and tracts to be of the Homeowners Association. And again, these are going to be like
native growth protection areas. There's not going to be a lot of maintenance, there's no mowing, there's
no facilities within them that's going to need to be maintained. Essentially the intent is for them to be a
left alone, but if there is something that comes up, if there is some pruning that's needed, or if the tree
is diseased or dying, then it will be the responsibility of the Homeowners Association.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. And Mr. Wenzl, what about the fact that there are common areas and that even if we do require
individual responsibility on individual lots, wouldn't we still need an HOA to handle the common areas,
and so we still have that enforcement issue for that particular area of the plat.
Bob Wenzl:
I agree 100%, and I am bound by the city and every other city, to make HOAs and to form that
corporation. I think the thing that I'm seeing in the last 10 or 15 years, and unfortunately, more so in the
city of Renton than my other jurisdictions, is yes, we have the entity and the entity, I mean, if you were
to Google my name, I'm the declarant in 20 subdivisions around the Puget Sound, and none of them
have been taken care of. But that being said, yes, because we will have tracts for the storm retention
vault area that will need to be maintained by the HOA. And I agree that HOAs are there, I just know from
a layman standpoint that they do not get maintained.
Bob Wenzl:
I have a project that's a hundred yards for me and the grass is two feet tall and the planter strips are not
maintained, and unfortunately no one cares. And the city is a complaint driven process, where someone
has to complain about the issue before the city takes any actions. They're not just going to drive by and
say, "Okay, I see four feet of weeds. We need to take care of that." A neighbor or someone needs to
complain before they do anything. And that's most jurisdictions, I think, so I'm not by any means
blaming the city. In the tracts, I just see a covenant is going to be as effective or more than a separate
tract area that someone gets to say someone else is responsible for. That's my own concern.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. Okay. Understood. All right. Very interesting issue. Okay. I'll be looking at that really closely. I'll go
ahead and close the record. As I mentioned, we'll get that decision out in 10 business days. I mean the-