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

TON

M A Y 29 2014

RECEIVED

CITY CLERK'S OFFICE

BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR T H E CITY OF RENTON

RE: Mindy's Place

Preliminary Plat LUA14-000093

FINAL DECISION

SUMMARY

The applicant requests preliminary plat approval and street modification for an 8- lot residential subdivision. The preliminary plat and street modification are approved with conditions.

TESTIMONY

Ms. Rocale Timmons, Department of Community and Economic Development, stated that site is approx. four acres in size and is zoned R4. There is a category two wetland on the site as well as a class four stream. Topographically, the site is flat, although there is a slope with 14ft relief. The site is rectangular in shape, is vacant, and is surrounded by single-family residences that are zoned R4. Recent approvals on nearby sites include two preliminary plats. She submitted Exhibits 1-17 to the record. The applicant requests preliminary plat review as well as a street modification for the subdivision of the site into eight single-family lots and two tracks. The application was accepted for review in June, 2013, but the project was placed on hold pending receipt of supplemental materials; the project has been taken off hold, and a new comment period began on March 6, 2014. Staff received three comment letters. Most questions in the letters were concerned with pedestrian access along 162nd Ave SE and drainage concerns within the vicinity of the project. On March 24, 2014, the Environmental Review Committee for the city issued a determination of non-significance mitigated. That included two mitigation measures primarily related to drainage improvements on site. The applicant is required to place on the face of the preliminary plat a

P L A T -1

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

limit on the impervious surface for each less i f it is less than allowed by code. Additionally, the applicant is required to submit a secondary review during final engineering design that includes hydro-geotechnical evaluations for the detention pond that is proposed on the site.

Ms. Timmons stated that the preliminary plat proposes eight single-family lots with two tracks; one track is for critical areas, the other is for the drainage detention pond. The net density that the applicant proposes is approx. two and a half dwelling units per acre. The average lot sizes range from 7200sqft to 7700sqft. Access is proposed via 160th Ave SE, and internal access is proposed via a new road that is Road A depicted in the plan. This road terminates in a hammerhead turn around.

Ms. Timmons stated that Staff believes the proposal complies with the City's comprehensive plan, objectives, and policies i f all conditions of approval are met. Specifically, staff looked at policy T9, which stipulates that pedestrian pathways in residential neighborhoods be arranged as an interconnected network, and staff recommends that a connection from the developed lots through the site to a current pedestrian corridor needs to be built as a condition of approval. Also, the proposal complies with most of the development standards of the R4 zoning classification; i f all the recommended conditions of approval are complied with, the proposal will meet all of the development standards. Ms. Timmons stated that an administrative interpretation, CI45, which is Exhibit 17, eliminated a footnote that allowed for reductions in lot sizes and dimensions for the R4 zone, which is RMC4-2-110D11. That elimination became effective on January 23, 2014, but, since the application was submitted originally in June, 2013, Staff believes this application should be able to utilize the footnote. The Staff Report mentions a lot width standard of 70ft, but it is actually 60ft in this case since this proposal is able to utilize the footnote. Also, the conceptual landscape plan does not comply with the 10ft, on-site landscape requirement, thus Staff has recommended as a condition of approval a revised landscape plan.

Ms. Timmons stated that the proposal complies with most of the critical area regulations i f all the recommended conditions of approval are met. There is a category two wetland as well as a class four stream on the site. The applicant does not currently propose any impacts to the site, but there is a tight-line from the detention pond that would cross through the critical areas, and Staff has recommended a pedestrian pathway that would cross through the critical areas. For this reason, Staff recommends that the applicant submit a revised mitigation plan, and regulations allow for a soft surface trail in critical areas without a variance when there is a mitigation plan. Also, the proposal complies with community asset regulations, and it complies with the review criteria for subdivisions if all the recommended conditions of approval are met. Specifically, RMC4-7-150E2, which Staff has already mentioned, requires that linkages, including pedestrian paths, be provided in neighborhoods when they are able to create interconnected networks, thus Staff has recommended as a condition of approval that a pedestrian path be built. Further, Ms. Timmons stated that the requested street modification in the proposal meets the objectives and the safety of the code requirements if the required pedestrian path is built.

Ms. Timmons stated that in their analysis Staff looked at the availability of public services, and the parks, police, fire prevention, and school district staff have indicated that there are sufficient resources to furnish services to the proposed development. To address the requirements for safe walking conditions for students per RCW5 8-17-110-2, Staff recommends that the applicant demonstrate a safe walking condition for students from the subject site to the nearby bus stop. Also, the applicant is required to submit a certificate of water availability from water district 90, In regards to sewage, the applicant is

P R E L I M I N A R Y P L A T - 2

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

providing gravity service for lots 1, 2, 3, and 6, but lots 4, 5, 7, and 8 will require pumps for sewer. Ms. Timmons stated that the applicant submitted a preliminary drainage plan report. The applicant plans to surround the detention pond with a fence, thus it is not necessary to have a 15ft vegetation buffer around the pond, and Staff supports a reduction in the recommend landscape buffer for the detention pond. In summary, Ms. Timmons stated that Staff recommends approval for the Mindy's Place preliminary plat subject to seven recommended conditions of approval. She noted that fencing along the detention pond is proposed on the side where the neighbors with concerns are located. Ms. Timmons said there was a pedestrian corridor on 162nd Ave, and it was paved to the north of the site. There is not a pedestrian corridor on 160th Ave, but it is paved.

Applicant Testimony

Mr. Wayne Jones, Lakeridge Development, the applicant, stated that the stream on the site only runs with water when there is a large rain event. He stated that his concern with building a trail for pedestrians on the site was the impact that it would have on the critical areas, which to mitigate would extend the duration of the project a great deal. Mr. Jones stated that they will replace a roughly 250ft water main on 160th Ave, which would provide water for the site as well as for some houses to the west.

Mr. Hans Korve, Lakeridge Development, stated that the code says the 15ft vegetation buffer on a retention pond can be reduced or eliminated. They considered what it would look like to have a 15ft vegetation buffer in addition to the planned 6ft cedar fence, and they found it would pose maintenance issues without serving a purpose as far as obscuring the pond from view, thus they proposed to staff that they eliminate the buffer. They will put in a 6ft cedar fence, however. Mr. Korve submitted documents titled Preliminary Plat Mindy's Place Lot Width/Setbacks to the record, and they were admitted as Exhibit 18.

Public Testimony

Mr. Jerry Smith stated that he owns the property directly south of the site, and he wants a fence that separates the project from his property; this would mean fencing along lot 5 in the project. He stated that he has nothing against the development, and he does not have a problem with it. His problem is with the storm water, and he wrote letters that expressed that concern. Primarily, he is concerned that they will dump the water from the pond into what they call a class four stream, which means essentially that they will dump water onto his property via the ditch on 160th Ave. He stated that multiple ponds on 160th Ave dump water onto his property already, and now this proposal plans to dump water onto his property too according to page 3 in the Staff Report. Mr. Smith stated that he did not see why they could not run the water out to 162nd Ave where there is a pond rather than onto 160th Ave where it ends up on his property. He pays taxes for his property, but he cannot sell it; developers tell him there is too much water running onto it. Mr . Smith submitted to the record two photographs of the flood on his property to the record, and they were admitted to the record as Exhibit 19.

Staff Rebuttal

Ms. Timmons submitted to the record a King County drainage investigation report from March, 2006, and it was admitted to the record as Exhibit 20. Ms. Timmons stated that class four streams are

P L A T - 3

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

intermittent streams, which means they do not necessarily have to have water in them throughout the year to be classified as a stream. Exhibit 5 classifies the stream on site as a class four stream. Ms. Timmons stated that, to clarify for the record, Mr. Smith's letter is Exhibit 11.

Mr . Steve Lee, Development Engineering Manager, stated that the submitted information for a preliminary plat complies with RMC4-6-030, which is the drainage manual for the city. The drainage for the site flows to the pond before it is discharged towards 162nd Ave. This project proposes walls within the drainage pond, and a secondary review will be conducted for that since it will play into the overall design of the pond. Mr. Lee stated that the pond is designed to mimic the forested conditions at the site before development, thus the flow rate on the site will not increase with development. The Hearing Examiner asked there could not be an increase in the overflow from the pond due to the impervious surfaces that would come with development. The change between the two conditions is the attenuation. Attenuation is the rate at which it perks into the ground. The pond does store the volume of release from the site. There is no infiltration at this point. After this development is finished, the amount of water flowing across the property will be the same. The one change wil l be the rate at which the water enters the wetlands. This requires a review. In regard to 160th Ave, the water flows north to south, enters into a ditch, and eventually reaches Mr. Smith's property. It is an existing conditions problem, and, the topography causes the water to flow into Mr. Smith's property. It is a potential Public Works issue. This condition will not be exacerbated by the new development. The frontage improvements to 160th wil l result in the water maintaining its present course. As part of the requirements for the pond, for any volume increase from areas the applicant cannot detain into the pond, the pond will be upsized to accommodate the runoff that would normally occur. Some of the runoff from the 160th Ave improvements will go into the pond. The street and subdivision improvements will not cause an increase in water.

Under questioning by Mr. Smith, Mr. Lee stated that water will run continuously longer, but at a controlled rate of discharge. The new drainage manual attempts to mimic discharges for peaks and volumes which is termed a durational analysis. Ponds are larger and orifices are smaller under the new guidelines.

Under questioning by the Hearing Examiner, Mr. Lee testified that, on the forested area at the western portion of the property, the water that is infiltrated will ultimately go to the wetland on the eastern portion. The water goes through the soils and acts as interflow, but eventually reaches the eastern wetland. The other developments such as Liberty Garden also discharge to the wetland at its existing conditions prior to development.

Ms. Timmons noted that the previous new developments are on the other side of 160th SE. As part of those developments, drainage improvements were required. These improvements are on the western side of the un-improved 162nd Ave SE. Page 10 of Exhibit 8 notes these downstream improvements which have been completed specifically at the circle point on 144th and 162nd Ave SE. Both those preliminary plats (Cavalla and Liberty Gardens) comply with King County Surface Water Manuals. Staff cannot comment on all of the new developments because this area was recently annexed from King County. Under questioning by the Hearing Examiner, Mr. Lee postulated that the reason stormwater has increased on Mr. Smith's property could be changes in groundwater conditions. He does not believe it is

P R E L I M I N A R Y P L A T - 4

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

the new developments causing the problems because these developments are on the east side of 162nd Ave SE.

Ms. Timmons stated that the City recommends broadening the scope of the independent secondary review of the off-site drainage i f the applicant would be willing to do so. Additionally, in regard to the critical area and pedestrian crossing, staff had previously stated a variance would not be necessary, but, upon further review, the applicant will need to submit a variance request. Staff would be supportive of such a variance upon Hearing Examiner approval.

Vanessa Dolbee, planner, stated that there is a new exception in the code that allows new trails through wetland provided the trail is in compliance with trail construction under the SMP regulations. Staff would not object to requiring Army Corps approval for the trail.

Applicant Rebuttal

Mr. Jones testified that the water from 160th is the biggest problem with this application. From the 160th side, all of the water will be directed into the drainage pond. The outfall for the pond is the wetland area. The wetlands area in the SE extends onto Mr. Smith's property, but this area has been a wetlands for a long period. The project does not add water to 160th.

Mr. Korve stated that the water from the wetlands did affect the Liberty Gardens project. The water crosses 162nd Ave and travels onto the Liberty Gardens property. None of the water from Liberty Gardens could flow to Mr. Smith's property. The water should freely move beyond Mr. Smith's property. In regard to Mr. Smith's request for a fence and buffer, the applicant is happy to construct a cedar fence all the way around the property. He provided an elevation drawing depicting a fence (Exhibit 21). However, with the landscaping requirement beyond the chain-link fence, this creates a No Man's Land between the two fences, and a difficult situation in regard to maintenance. The applicant believes the landscaping is repetitive. The cedar fencing would extend along the length of lot 5.

Public Testimony

Mr. Smith noted that he has no problem with no landscaping between the two fences. He reiterated his concerns that the water will go from the detention pond and onto his property.

EXHIBITS

Exhibits 1-17 listed on page 2 of the May 13, 2014 Staff Report, in addition to the Staff Report itself (Ex. 1), were admitted into evidence during the public hearing. Additional exhibits admitted during the hearing are the following:

Exhibit 18 Preliminary Plat Mindy' s Place Lot Width/Setbacks

Exhibit 19 photographs of the flooding on Mr. Smith's property

P R E L I M I N A R Y P L A T - 5

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

Exhibit 20 King County drainage investigation report from 2006

Exhibit 21 depiction of site with cedar fence

FINDINGS OF FACT

Procedural:

1. Applicant. See Exhibit 7 - List of Owners.

2. Hearing. The Examiner held a hearing on the subject application on May 13, 2014 in the City

of Renton Council City Chambers.

3. Project Description. The applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval for the subdivision of

the 4.14 acre parcel into 8 lots for the future construction of single family residences and two tracts for

critical areas and drainage. The site is currently vacant. The project site is located within the

Residential - 4 (R-4) dwelling units per acre zoning classification. The proposed lots would have a lot

size ranging from 7,200 square feet to 7,733 square feet. Access to all lots would be provided via

private driveways from a new proposed public road (Road ' A ' ) extended from 160th Ave SE which

terminates in a hammerhead turn-around. The applicant is requesting a street modification, from R M C

4-4-060, in order reduce the width of the hammerhead turnaround to 20 feet and eliminate frontage

improvements along 162nd Ave SE. The site contains a Category 2 wetland and Class 4 stream.

4. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate

infrastructure and public services as follows:

A . Water and Sewer Service. This site is located in the Water District 90 water service

boundaiy. Sewer service wil l be provided by the City of Renton. A water availability

certificate is required from Water District 90. There are existing sewer mains on both 160 t h

Ave SE and 162 n d Ave SE.

B . Police and Fire Protection. Police and Fire Prevention staff indicate that sufficient resources

exist to furnish services to the proposed development; subject to the provision of Code

required improvements and fees. A fire impact fee, based on new single family lots, will be

required in order to mitigate the proposal's potential impacts to City emergency services.

The fee is payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code. Currently the fee

is assessed at $488.00 per single family residence.

P R E L I M I N A R Y P L A T - 6

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

C. Drainage. The proposal provides for adequate stormwater drainage facilities. The site is

located within the Lower Cedar River Basin of the Cedar River. The site slopes to east to a

low point near the center of the property where it generally drains to the south/southeast.

The site received surface water runoff from approximately 10 acres of off-site property to the

north. Stormwater enters the site via sheet flow along the northern property line and

presently discharges as an intennittent Class 4 stream near the southeast of the property.

The stream then travels across the 162nd Ave SE right-of-way onto the Liberty Gardens plat

(LUA08-093). The water then continues to flow south and then enters back into the 162nd

Ave SE right-of-way where it is collected in an 18-inch pipe. The pipe is conveyed under the

newly constructed sewer access road in 162nd Ave SE and then empties into a stormwater

pond at the intersection of 162nd Ave SE and SE 144th St.

The applicant submitted a Preliminary Drainage Report prepared by Daley-Morrow-Poblete,

Inc., dated March 25, 2013 (Exhibit 8). The report states that the runoff from the proposed

project would be collected and conveyed by a catch basin/pipe network to a detention pond

on the southern edge of the developed area. The proposed facility would then discharge into

the onsite stream. The storm pond is designed per the 2009 King County Surface Water

Design Manual as amended by the City of Renton.

The report states that the project should not pose significant negative impacts to the

downstream drainage course and all core and six special requirements are contained in the

report. However, staff received comments, from surrounding property owners, with respect

to drainage concerns for the proposal and the surrounding areas (Exhibits 9, 10, 11). There

have also been identified existing drainage problems in the area and the potential for the

proposal to aggravate existing or create new drainage problems. The applicant is proposing

to include a pond wall of approximately 4-feet in height with flow control staging against the

wall. However, due to potential seepage in and out of the pond, additional secondary review

is required per the Determination of Non-Significance- Mitigated (DNS-M) during final

engineering design that includes hydro-geotechnical evaluations for buoyancy and lining,

structural review and wall drainage relief against potential hydrostatic pressures (Exhibit

13). The secondary review will be required to be conducted by an independent reviewer

selected by the City at the applicant's expense and shall be approved by the City's Plan

Reviewer prior to engineering plan approval. Additionally, the applicant would be required

to be provide due diligence in the grading and collection of drainage design during the

construction phase so that runoff and erosion does not impact the neighboring properties.

The applicant should take note that the drainage report states that the permeability of the site

soils will not meet the standards for infiltration and as a result the drainage report

recommends limiting the impervious surface to 49.5% of the site in order to receive the

P R E L I M I N A R Y P L A T - 7

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

Reduced Impervious Surface Credit. Therefore the Determination of Significance -

Mitigated (DNS-M) included a mitigation measure requiring the applicant to record on the

face of the Preliminary Plat the maximum amount of square footage of impervious surface

allowed for each new lot i f less than allowed by code i f the applicant intends to utilize the

Reduced Impervious Surface Credit (Exhibit 13).

Finally, an existing administrative interpretation requires all drainage facilities be required

to maintain up to a 15-foot vegetated buffer around drainage pond facilities (Exhibit 12).

Therefore, staff recommends as a condition of approval the applicant be required to submit a

revised landscape plan, depicting up to a 15-foot landscape buffer around the proposed

drainage facility. The revised landscape plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the

Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval.

Some compelling testimony was provided by Gerald Smith on concerns that the proposal

wil l drain onto his property. Mr. Smith submitted several photographs, Ex. 19, showing

extensive flooding on his property. Mr. Smith testified that this flooding has been

exacerbated since the approval of the Liberty Gardens and Cavella developments. However,

Mi*. Lee, an engineer from the Public Works Department, testified that the proposal will not

increase any stormwater runoff from the project site. Currently, all stormwater at the site

runs or infiltrates to the on-site pond. The stormwater system required of the applicant wil l

continue to direct all stormwater to the wetland. Waters will be retained in a detention pond

that is designed to release water at the same rate as pre-development (actually forested)

conditions. The staff report and applicant testimony also establish that stormwater flows

from Liberty Gardens and Cavella don't cross the Smith property, but rather flow to the east

and south of his property to a stormwater pond at the intersection of 162nd Ave SE and SE

144th St. For these reasons, it is determined that the proposal wil l not add to the flooding

problem on the Smith property.

D. Parks/Open Space. City ordinances require the payment of park impact fees prior to

building permit issuance. R M C 4-2-115, which governs open space requirements for

residential development, does not have any specific requirements for open space for

residential development in the R-4 district. The impact fees provide for adequate parks and

open space.

E. Streets. The proposal provides for adequate streets. Access to the plat is proposed via

160th Ave SE via a new curb cut, proposed to be improved as part of the plat improvements.

Internal access is proposed via a new limited residential access road (Road A) which

terminates in a hammerhead turnaround. The City's public works staff has reviewed the

proposed street improvements and traffic impacts and found that with staff recommended

P L A T - 8

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

conditions of approval that the proposal provides for adequate streets and is consistent with

all City requirements, excluding the street modification approved by this decision. There is

no evidence to the contrary.

F. Parking. 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. It is anticipated that the Issaquah School District can accommodate any additional

students generated by this proposal at the following schools: Briarwood Elementary (1.51

miles from the subject site), Maywood Middle School (0.75 miles from the subject site) and

Liberty High School (1.49 miles from the subject site). R C W 58.17.110(2) provides that no

subdivision be approved without making a written finding of adequate provision made for

safe walking conditions for students who walk to and from school. While the designated

schools are located within a close proximity of the subject site future students are designated

to be transported to school via bus. The bus stop for all three schools would be located at

160th Ave SE at SE 137th Place (Exhibit 15). It appears there are not designated walkways

for portions of 160th Ave SE between the subject site and the designated bus stop.

Therefore, staff recommends as a condition of approval the applicant be required to

demonstrate safe walking conditions for students from the subject plat to the designated bus

stop at 160th Ave SE at SE 137th Place prior to construction permit approval. This may

include a dedicated shoulder, curb, or some other alternative as determined by the Current

Planning Division.

Additionally, staff has recommended the applicant be required to provide a pedestrian

connection across the critical area to connect the development to the existing pedestrian

corridor in 162nd Ave SE as a means of pedestrian connectivity between neighborhoods (see

discussion above under Compliance with Subdivision Regulations). This pedestrian

connection would also potentially serve to further comply with the safe routes to school

program by providing walking alternatives to schools within the vicinity of the subject site.

A School Impact Fee, based on new single family lots, wil l also be required in order to

mitigate the proposal's potential impacts to Issaquah School District. The fee is payable to

the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code. Currently the fee is assessed at

$5,730.00 per single family residence.

5. Adverse Impacts. There are no adverse impacts associated with the proposal. Adequate public facilities and drainage control are provided as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. The proposal involves single-family housing at a density that is only 2.5 dwelling units per acre, which is a lower density than that allowed for surrounding development. The applicant also proposes to place a cedar fence along the western side of the property. Consequently, there are no issues of compatibility with

P R E L I M I N A R Y P L A T - 9

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

surrounding development. Tree retention will also help maintain compatibility. The proposal is designed to comply with the City's tree retention requirements. The eastern portion of the site is covered with dense trees and shrubs. The west is more sparsely vegetated and includes a cleared area where a home once stood. There are a total of 354 trees located on site of which 45 trees are proposed to be retained outside of the critical area and its buffer (Exhibit 3). The applicant is required to retain 30 percent of the trees located on site that are not located within critical areas, proposed rights-of-way and access easements. O f the 354 trees located on site 207 trees would be excluded from the tree retention requirements. Therefore, the applicant would be required to retain at least 41 trees on site. The applicant has proposed to retain 45 trees outside of the critical areas and their buffers and therefore complies with the code (Exhibit 3).

Other than public infrastructure and compatibility, the only remaining adverse impact potentially associated with the project is critical areas. The proposal will not adversely affect any critical areas. The applicant submitted a Critical Areas Report, prepared by Sewell Wetland Consulting, Inc. (dated February 18, 2013), identifying a portion of a Category 2 wetland located on the subject site (Exhibit 5). Additionally, a Class 4 stream enters the wetland from the north. The stream and wetland are the only critical areas located at the project site. The stream passes in a culvert through approximately half of the site flowing south and exits the site at the southeast. Category 2 wetlands are required to have a 50-foot buffer measured from the wetland edge. The Class 4 stream is required to maintain a 3 5-foot buffer which is fully encompassed by the wetland buffer. The report states there are no impacts to the critical areas proposed on site.

No portion of the proposal will encroach into the stream or wetland buffers except for drainage discharge from the project's storwater system and a pedestrian trail connection recommended by staff. Trails are permitted in the outer edge of the buffer pursuant to RMC4-3-050M. Critical area impacts are likely as part of proposed tight lining of the drainage on site and to provide recommended pedestrian connectivity to the 162nd Ave SE corridor. The applicant will be required to comply with R M C 4-3-050 Critical Areas regulations to mitigate for any impacts permitted to the wetland buffer. As a condition of approval, the applicant shall submit a final mitigation plan for impacts (tight-lining of drainage system and pedestrian connections) to the critical areas on site or their buffers. The final mitigation plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to utility construction permit approval.

Conclusions of Law

1. Authority. R M C 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 Residential 4 dwelling

units per net acre (R-4). The comprehensive plan map land use designation is Residential Low Density

(RLD).

P R E L I M I N A R Y P L A T -10

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

3. Review Criteria. Chapter 4-7 R M C governs the criteria for subdivision review. Applicable

standards are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law.

R M C 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 offlood, 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, Finding 19(2) of the staff report is adopted by reference

as i f set forth in full, except for any conclusions implied or express that staff may amend the Zoning

Code by administrative interpretation. As depicted in the plat map, Ex. 2, each proposed lot will directly

access a public Road, Road A . 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 determined in

Finding of Fact No. 4, the proposal provides for adequate public facilities.

5. R M C 4-7-080(I)(l): ...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 19(2) of the staff report, which is incorporated by this reference as i f set forth in full.

R M C 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.

1. Road A will connect to 160 t h Ave SE

R M C 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. However, the only other street connection possible for the proposal would be to

162 Ave SE, which would require the construction of a road through a Category 2 wetland and/or its

buffer. The criterion quoted above must be construed as met since the proposal conforms to the City's

street plan to the extent possible without violating the City's critical area standards.

P R E L I M I N A R Y P L A T -11

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

R M C 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 only trail in the area that could potentially qualify as a "designated" trail is on the adjoining

Cavalla plat. The conditions of approval require a trail linkage to this trail. The criterion is met.

R M C 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 woidd residt in the creation of a

lot or lots that primarily have slopes forty percent (40%) or greater as measured per RMC 4-3-

OSOJla, 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 preseive 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. Cidverting: The piping or tunneling of water shall be discouraged and allowed only when going

under streets.

P L A T -12

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

d. Clean Water: Every effort shall be made to keep all streams and bodies of water clear of debris

and pollutants.

10. The land is suitable for a subdivision as the stormwater design assures that it wi l l not contribute

to flooding and development will not encroach into critical areas except as authorized by the City's

critical area regulations. No piping or tunneling of streams is proposed. Trees wil l be retained as

required by R M C 4-4-130 as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5. The on-site stream wil l be protected

by the critical area buffer that applies to it. The City's stormwater regulations provide for adequate

protection of water quality for the on-site stream and wetlands.

R M C 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.

R M C 4-7-150(A): The proposed street system shall extend and create connections between existing

streets unless othenvise 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 internal road, Road A , does not connect to 162 Ave. This is justified in subsection E3 in

order to avoid encroachment into the wetlands and stream of the site.

R M C 4-7-150(B): All proposed street names shall be approved by the City.

13. As conditioned.

R M C 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.

R M C 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.

P L A T -13

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

15. 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. .

R M C 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-Mand 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-l, 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.

16. As previously discussed, a through connection by Road A to 162 Ave is not feasible due to the

presence of a wetland and stream on-site. Consequently, the proposed hammerhead intersection is

justified due to environmental constraints as authorized by subsection E(3) above. With the trail

linkage to the Cavella trail required by the conditions of approval, the proposal provides for adequate

P R E L I M I N A R Y P L A T -14

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

linkage of all pedestrian and vehicular facilities as required by the criteria above. Alley access is not

required because the property is Residential Low Density. The criterion above is met.

R M C 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 except for the street modification approved by this decision.

R M C 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. There are no further street extensions possible for the proposed subdivision due to the presence

of critical areas.

R M C 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. 2, the side lines are in conformance with the requirement quoted above.

R M C 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.

R M C 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.

21. As previously determined, the proposed lots comply with the zoning standards of the R-4 zone,

which includes area, width and density.

R M C 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).

P R E L I M I N A R Y P L A T -15

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

22. As shown in Ex. 2, the requirement is satisfied.

R M C 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.

R M C 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. The on-site wetland and stream is set-aside from the developed portion of the subdivision. The

criteria above is met.

R M C 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.

R M C 4-7-200(8): 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. Tlie 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. 4. 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.

R M C 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. As conditioned.

P R E L I M I N A R Y P L A T -16

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

R M C 4-7-200(1)): 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.

R M C 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.

R M C 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.

30. As conditioned.

Street Modification

P L A T -17

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

The existing unimproved right of way width in 162nd Ave SE is 60 feet. City code requires street improvements along all frontages. Due to existing critical areas which encumber the right-of-way the applicant has requested a street modification to eliminate the required landscape planter and sidewalk behind the curb. Additionally, the modification includes a request to not extend frontage improvements past the proposed access street (SE 140th St) of the Liberty Gardens Plat (LUA08-093) across 162 n d Ave SE.

Section 4-4-080.F.lO.d allows modifications from the street standards for individual cases, provided the modification meets the following criteria (pursuant to RMC 4-9-250.D.2):

a. Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon sound engineering judgment; and

b. Will not be injurious to other property(ies) in the vicinity; and

c. Conform to the intent and purpose of the Code; and

d. Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended; and

e. Will not create adverse impacts to other property{ies) in the vicinity.

The applicant contends that the presence and protection of critical areas located within the 162 n d Ave SE right of way would be better served if the proposal does not include full street improvements along the frontage of the site. Staff concurs the requested modification meets the objective and safety of the code requirements if the required pedestrian path, across the critical area is provided to connect the development to the existing pedestrian corridor in 162nd Ave SE (see discussion below). The absence of street improvements would not be injurious to the surrounding property owners and can be shown to be justified for the situation intended. Therefore, staff is in support of the requested modification. The staff's factual determinations on this issue are supported by the record and are uncontested. Further, there are no sidewalks that the proposal could connect to on 162 n d Ave SE and no connections are reasonably anticipated in the future. For these reasons, the requested modification is approved.

DECISION

The proposed preliminary plat and street modification as depicted in Ex. 2 and described in this decision

is approved, subject to the following conditions:

1. The applicant shall comply with mitigation measures issued as part of the Mitigated

Determination of Non-Significance for the proposal.

2. A l l proposed street names shall be approved by the City.

3. A l l lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys, shall have

minimum radius of fifteen feet (15').

4. Side sewer lines shall be installed eight feet (8') into each lot i f sanitary sewer mains are

available, or provided with the subdivision development.

P L A T -18

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

5. A l l 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.

6. Any cable T V 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 T V company shall provide maps and

specifications to the applicant and shall inspect the conduit and certify to the City that it is

properly installed.

7. The applicant shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision prior to final plat

approval.

60 '

8. The applicant shall be required to demonstrate compliance with the lot width requirement of 70

for proposed Lots 4 and 6 utilizing the lot width definition pursuant to R M C 4-11-120. The

average distance between the side lines connecting front and rear lot lines shall be submitted to

the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval.

9. The applicant shall be required to submit a revised landscape plan, depicting a 10-foot wide on-

site landscape strip for all lots. The final detailed landscape shall be submitted to and approved

by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to Final Plat recording. Such landscaping shall

include a mixture of trees, shrubs, and groundcover as approved by the Department of

Community and Economic Development.

10. The applicant shall submit a Final Mitigation Plan for impacts (tight-lining of drainage system

and pedestrian connections) to the critical areas on site or their buffers. The Final Mitigation

Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to utility

construction permit approval. The applicant shall also establish a Native Growth Protection

Easement over that part of the site encompassing the stream/wetland and buffer area and place

fencing and signage along the buffer.

P L A T - 1 9

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

11. The applicant shall be required to provide a pedestrian connection across the critical area to

connect the development to the existing pedestrian corridor in 162 nd Ave SE as a means of

pedestrian connectivity between neighborhoods. The revised plat plan shall be submitted to, and

approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval.

Completion of the trail may be deferred to after final plat approval for the purpose of acquiring

Army Corps approval i f bonded and for time periods authorized by City staff.

12. The applicant shall be required to demonstrate safe walking conditions for students from the

subject plat to the designated bus stop at 160th Ave SE at SE 137th Place prior to construction

permit approval.

13. The applicant shall be required to submit a revised landscape plan, depicting up to a 15-foot

landscape buffer around the proposed drainage facility. The revised landscape plan shall be

submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction

permit approval.

14. A six foot tall cedar fence shall be installed along the southern property line.

15. 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.

D A T E D this 28th day of May, 2014.

l'hi^V nihtvuhis

City of Renton Hearing Examiner

Appeal Right and Valuation Notices

R M C 4-8-110(E)(9) provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. R M C 4-8-110(E)(9) requires appeals of the hearing examiner's decision to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner's decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing e examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal period as identified in R M C 4-8-110(E)(8) and R M C 4-8-100(G)(4). 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 - 7 t h floor, (425) 430-6510.

P L A T - 20

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

Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation.

P R E L I M I N A R Y P L A T - 21