No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReport 2Denis Law Mayor August 2, 2016 Dan Palmer 16638 106th Avenue SE Renton, WA 980SS Re: Avana Ridge Planned Urban Development LUA-15-000894 Dear Mr. Palmer: City Clerk -Jason A. Seth, (M( At the regular Council meeting of August 1, 2016, the Renton City Council adopted the recommendation of the Planning and Development Committee to affirm the decision of the Hearing Examiner. A copy of the approved Committee report is enclosed. If you have any questions, please contact Jason Seth, City Clerk, at 425-430-6502. Sincerely, 1#~Jt!lMC City Clerk Enc: P&D Committee Report cc: Mayor Denis Law Council President Randy Corman Julia Medzegian, City Council Liaison Planning & Development Committee Chair, Ed Prince Hearing Examiner Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner Jennifer Henning, Planning Director Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager Brianne Bannwarth, Development Engineering Manager Craig Burnell, Building Official Sabrina Mirante, Development Services Alex Tuttle, Assistant City Attorney larry Warren, City Attorney Justin lagers, Avana Ridge Contact Parties of Record (2S) 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057. (425) 430-6510 I Fax (425) 430-6516. rentonwa.gov PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT August 1, 2016 APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL Date sf I /}'6\ I., r • Avana Ridge Planned Urban Development (LUA 15-000894) Appeal (Referred on July 11, 2016) The Planning and Development Committee after reading the submissions, considering the record, and hearing testimony and oral arguments from all sides, finds that there was no substantial error in fact or law and recommends that the full Council affirm the decision of the Hearing Examiner. ~--------- cc: Larry Warren, City Attorney Denis Law Mayor August 2, 2016 Dan Palmer 16638 106th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98055 Re: Avana Ridge Planned Urban Development LUA-1S-000894 Dear Mr. Palmer: City Clerk -Jason A. Seth, CMC At the regular Council meeting of August 1, 2016, the Renton City Council adopted the recommendation ofthe Planning and Development Committee to affirm the decision of the Hearing Examiner. A copy of the approved Committee report is enclosed. If you have any questions, please contact Jason Seth, City Clerk, at 425-430-6502. Sincerely, /;gI1!lMC City Clerk Ene: P&D Committee Report cc: Mayor Denis Law Council President Randy Corman Julia Medzegian, City Council Liaison Planning & Development Committee Chair, Ed Prince Hearing Examiner Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner Jennifer Henning, Planning Director Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager Brianne Bannwarth, Development Engineering Manager Craig Burnell, Building Official Sabrina Mirante, Development Services Alex Tuttle, Assistant City Attorney Larry Warren, City Attorney Justin Lagers, Avana Ridge Contact Parties of Record (25) 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • (425) 430-6510 I Fax (425) 430-6516. rentonwa.gov PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT August 1, 2016 APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL Date gj I / }til. (, r. Avana Ridge Planned Urban Development (LUA 15-000894) Appeal (Referred on July 11, 2016) The Planning and Development Committee after reading the submissions, considering the record, and hearing testimony and oral arguments from all sides, finds that there was no substantial error in fact or law and recommends that the full Council affirm the decision of the Hearing Examiner. ~-------- '£LI f (.' \" .. cc: Larry Warren, City Attorney Denis Law Mayor August 2, 2016 Dan Palmer 16638 106'h Avenue SE Renton, WA 98055 Re: Avana Ridge Planned Urban Development LUA-15-000894 Dear Mr. Palmer: City Clerk -Jason A. Seth, CMC At the regular Council meeting of August 1, 2016, the Renton City Council adopted the recommendation of the Planning and Development Committee to affirm the decision of the Hearing Examiner. A copy of the approved Committee report is enclosed. If you have any questions, please contact Jason Seth, City Clerk, at 425-430-6502. Sincerely, /#I11MC City Clerk Ene: P&D Committee Report co: Mayor Denis Law Council President Randy Corman Julia Medzegian, City Council Liaison Planning & Development Committee Chair, Ed Prince Hearing Examiner Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner Jennifer Henning, Planning Director Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager Brianne Bannwarth, Development Engineering Manager Craig Burnell, Building Official Sabrina Mirante, Development Services Alex Tuttle, Assistant City Attorney Larry Warren, City Attorney Justin Lagers, Avana Ridge Contact Parties of Record (25) 1055 South Grady Way. Renton, Washington 98057 • (425) 430-6510 / Fax (425) 430-6516. rentonwa.gov PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT August 1, 2016 APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL Date gI' /~i. t Avana Ridge Planned Urban Development (LUA 15-000894) Appeal (Referred on July 11, 2016) The Planning and Development Committee after reading the submissions, considering the record, and hearing testimony and oral arguments from all sides, finds that there was no substantial error in fact or law and recommends that the full Council affirm the decision of the Hearing Examiner. ~--------~ Afrifci'ii"do Pavone, Member ce: Larry Warren, City Attorney Andrew Grav 3275 Cedar Ave S Renton. WA 980S5 D. Bruce & Nancy Stanley 10825 SE 172nd St. #5B Renton. WA 98055-5969 Daniel Hiranaka 10510 5E 172nd St Renton. WA 98055 Doug Goods 16602 106th Ave SE Renton. WA 98055 ----------- HA Chau 4101150th Ave SE Bellevue. WA 98006 JUSTIN LAGERS Avana Ridge 9675 5E 36th St. Ste. 105 Mercer Island. WA 98040 --------------- Michael Gladstein Avana Ridge LLC 9675 SE 36th St. #105 Mercer Island. WA 98040 Molly Moss 3121 Cedar Ave 5 Renton. WA 98055 Scott Petett. D.C 10622 5E Carr Rd, Suite A Renton, WA 98055 Caryn Cantu 16561106th Ave SE Renton, WA 98055 ----------- Dan Palner 16638 106th Ave 5E Renton, WA 98055 Daniel Ridenour 16836 106th Ave SE Renton. WA 98055 ~------------------- Emilv Brooker 16810 104th Ave SE Renton. WA 98055 ----. --------- Jerry Miller PO Box 686 Renton, WA 98057 Kimmie McMullin 17030 106th Ave SE Renton, WA 98055 Mike & Julie Radtke 17024 106th Ave 5E Renton. WA 98055 ------------------ Philip Reitz 2907 Cedar Ave 5 Renton. WA 98055 ---------------------- Wendy Yadock 17020 104th Ave SE Renton. WA 98055 Corine Kumano 10829 5E 172nd 5t, #6C Renton. WA 980S5 Dan Russell 43755 Louisiana St Palm Desert. CA 92211 Debra Russell 829 S 31st St Renton. WA 98055 ---------------~-- Genevieve Bvrnes 3125 Cedar Ave S Renton. WA 98055 JODY HANAWALT PO Box 4097 Renton, WA 98057 Mark Faas 2915 Cedar Ave 5 Renton. WA 98055 Molly Heine 16829 SE 105th 5t Renton. WA 98055 Rhanda Rae Murphv 17000 104th Ave 5E Renton. WA 98055 DATE: JULY 11, Denis Law Mayor . ~ . ..!. ~. ,j REGULAR COUNCIL SUBJECT/TITLE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Final Decision dated 5/24/2016 regarding RECOMMENDED ACTION: DEPARTMENT: STAFF CONTACT: EXT.: FISCAL IMPACT: Expenditure Required: Amount Budgeted: Total Project Budget: SUMMARY OF ACTION: P R Avana Ridge PUD. (File No. lUA-15-000894) .1-'--j CUVv"-~ $N/A $ N/A $ N/A City Clerk Jason Seth, City Clerk 6502 Transfer Amendment: Revenue Generated: City Share Total Project: $ N/A $ N/A $ N/A Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision on the Avana Ridge PUD (File No. lUA-15-000894) was filed on 6/7/2016 by Dan Palmer, accompanied by the required $250.00 fee. EXHIBITS. A. Response letters (Supporting & Denying) (Dan Russell~ Brent ison) B. City Clerk's letter (6/14/2016) ,/ C. Appeal -Dan Palmer (6/7/2016V D. Exhibit 4 -Elevations"-.', E. Exhibit 3 -landscape Plan F. Exhibit 2 -Site Plan G. HEX's Final Decision (5/24/2016) H. Staff Report (5/10/2016) I. ERC Report (4/11/201.:-!6------- J. SEPA Determination & Mitigation Measures STAFF RECOMMENDATION. 1055 South Grady Way. Renton, Washington 98057 • (425) 430-6510 I Fax (425) 430-Ji516 • rentonwa.gov Jason Seth From: Sent: To: Subject: Dan Russell < dre98055@comcast.net> Thursday, June 23, 2016 9:12 AM Jason Seth Avana CITY OF RENTON JUN 2 . 2016 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE My concerns cover an already troubling problem. The traffic congestion on 108th at the light on New Benson. Back ups are due to the traffic on New Benson that fails to let cars on 108th turn left. I personally have sat through 4 light changes from l72nd trying to turn left. The right turn onto 108th from l72nd is many times difficult as traffic blocks the intersection onto 108th Making a left hand turn during high traffic is extremely dangerous already as there is no visibility because of the mass of cars lined up. Your proposal to change l08th does not not address the intersection at the light. The right hand lane coming from Avana onto 108th will merely cause additional risk and congestion for right turn participants unless there is a right hand turn specific lane. Can't you create a right hand lane out of Avana onto New Benson along with the change of lanes turning left. Thus one dedicated lane turning left, one lane turning left or right and one lane turning right only. I trust you will monitor this situation and measure the already existing problem during peak traffic times prior to making your decision. I am sure failure to do this will result in harm to people who will be using this street regularly. I for one do not care to be responsible for this so I am asking you to do your due diligence. I for one will do all that I can to prepare for the eventuality of this event. Thank you for your consideration. Dan Russell 7023406939 10717 se l72nd Renton, Wa 98055 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 CITY OF RENTON JUN 1 6 2016 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OCFICE VIii-. LuOcJ-\ \ ,. BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: A V ANA RIDGE PUD Preliminary Planned Urban Development LUA-15-000894 APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO DAN PALMER'S APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION ON THE A V ANA RIDGEPUD 14 Pursuant to Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-8-110(F){3), the Applicant for the 15 Avana Ridge PUD, Avana Ridge LLC (the "Applicant"), by and through its legal counsel, 16 Brent Carson of Van Ness Feldman, LLP, files this response to the appeal filed by Dan 17 Palmer ("Mr. Palmer") on June 7, 2016 (the "Appeal") challenging the Hearing 18 Examiner's ("Hearing Examiner" or "Examiner") Final Decision' approving the Avana 19 Ridge Preliminary Planned Urban Development (the "Project"). For the reasons stated 20 below, the Appeal should be summarily dismissed, or ifit is considered on its merits, the 21 Appeal should be denied and the Final Decision should be affirmed. 22 23 24 25 ' Hearing Examiner's Final Decision, LUA 15-000894, PP, PPUD ("Final Decision"). APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO DAN PALMER'S APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION ON THE A V ANA RIDGE PUD -I 69230-7 DORIGINAL I VanNess Feldman UP 71 9 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623·9372 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 IS 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I. The Appeal should be Dismissed Summarily because it Fails to Meet the Standards for Filing An Appeal. The Appeal filed by Mr. Palmer fails to meet the standards established by the City Council for filing a land use appeal under RMC Section 4-S-110. RMC 4-S-llO(C)(3) states: 3. Required Form for and Content of Appeals. Any appeal shall be filed in writing. The written notice of appeal shall tully. clearly and thoroughly specify the substantial error(sl in tact or law which exist in the record of the proceedings from which the appellant seeks relief(emphasis added). This code provision is not a suggestion. It is a procedural requirement of the City Code. As noted in the introductory paragraph of this code section: A. SCOPE AND PURPOSE: This Section provides the basic procedures fOr processing all types ofland use and development-related appeals. Specific requirements are based upon the type/level of appeal and the appeal authority. Procedures for the following types of appeals are included in this Section: RMC 4-S-110(A). Mr. Palmer has failed to comply with this fundamental procedural requirement. His Appeal alleges not one specific error. Mr. Palmer's Appeal cites to no facts in the record to support a claim that the Final Decision contains substantial errors. He presents no claims of legal errors by the Hearing Examiner. His Appeal simply agrees that the Project has a "good design," then expresses various "concerns" about the Project. Not one of these "concerns" points to any factual or legal errors in the Final Decision, let alone "fully, clearly and thoroughly specify the substantial error(s) in fact or law" as required by City Code. There was ample opportunity in both the public comment period for SEP A review and in the public hearing before the Hearing Examiner for members of the public, APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO DAN PALMER'S APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION ON THE AV ANA RIDGE PUD -2 69230-7 I VanNess FeldmanLlP 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623·9372 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 including Mr. Palmer, to raise concerns about the Project. The record for stating concerns has closed. An appeal to the City Council is for the purpose of a party of record to allege, then prove, that the Hearing Examiner made substantial errors in fact or law that would require the City Council to reverse or modify the Final Decision. Here, the Appeal has failed to do anything more than restate concerns. Without meeting the fundamental requirement for a land use appeal to allege specific errors, there is no basis for the City Council to assess whether to grant or deny the Appeal on its merits. Based on Mr. Palmer's failure to allege any substantive errors in fact or law in the Final Decision, the City Council should summarily dismiss the Appeal. II. Even if the City Council Chooses to Consider the Merits of the Appeal, the Appeal should nonetheless be Denied and the Council should Affirm the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision. If the City Council does not summarily dismiss the Appeal for failing to identifY any substantive errors, we ask the City Council to deny the Appeal on its merits. The record before the Hearing Examiner demonstrates that the Final Decision is fully supported by substantial evidence and is consistent with applicable law. None of the "concerns" expressed by Mr. Palmer rise to a reversible error. Each of the paragraphs below address the individual "concerns" expressed by Mr. Palmer in his Appeal and demonstrates why Mr. Palmer has failed to meet his burden to prove substantial errors in fact or law. 2 Concern 1: Increase in traffic to neighborhoods, specifically north of the site The Appeal states a concern that the Project will increase traffic to neighborhoods to the north. However, the Appeal fails to allege any error in this regard. 25 2 The burden of proof rests with the appellant. RMC 4-8-1 1 (F)(5). APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO DAN PALMER'S APPEAL OF 1BE HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION ON 1BE AVANARIDGE PUD - 3 69230-7 I VanNess Feldman W' 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 The record establishes that the Project will add 5 PM peak-hour trips and 4 AM 2 peak-hour trips through the single-family neighborhood to the north. Traffic Impact 3 Analysis (TIA) Prepared by TrafiEx, February 2, 2016 (Exhibit IS). The Hearing 4 Examiner found that this level of traffic was minimal, that the TIA adequately addressed 5 impacts from this traffic and that the mitigation imposed through the SEPA condition to 6 address this increased traffic was sufficient. The Final Decision states: 7 A major concern of the neighbors was traffic impacts to 106 Ave SE, 104 Ave SE and 105 Ave SE. In uncontested testimony, several neighbors testified that 8 these roads are isolated, currently accommodate a minimal amount of traffic ... . Although a review of the surrounding road network shows that persons 9 may very well choose to drive through 10511041106 to avoid the BensonlSR 515 intersection as well as other traffic problems in the area, the applicant's 10 traffic analysis reveals that the project will only add five PM peak hour trips and four AM peak hour trips into the 1051104/106 roads. The applicant's II traffic analysis was verified by peer review. Given the expert traffic analysis prepared by the applicant and the independent expert verification conducted 12 under the peer review, the applicant's traffic analysis is taken as a verity given the absence of any expert testimony to the contrary. With only a 13 maximum offive additional trips per hour generated by the proposal, there is no basis to require more than the speed radar signs required by the SEPA 14 mitigation measures. IS Final Decision, pp. 9-10. 16 The Appeal cites to no error in these findings by the Hearing Examiner. 17 Moreover, as noted by the Hearing Examiner, no expert testimony was presented at the 18 hearing to contradict the expert traffic report prepared for the Applicant by TrafiEx. The 19 Final Decision addresses this concern and should be affirmed. 20 Concern 2: Existing congestion on Benson Road, including a blind curve 21 condition, and Adequacy of l06th and l04th for through traffic 22 The City of Renton ("City") received public comments and the Hearing Examiner 23 heard testimony regarding existing southbound queuing at the intersection of Benson 24 Road South and SR SIS. The Hearing Examiner found that the TIA adequately analyzed 25 the potential impacts at the Benson Road S!515 intersection. Final Decision, p. 10. This APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO DAN PALMER'S APPEAL OF THE HEARlNG EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION ON THE A V ANA RIDGE PUD - 4 69230-7 I VanNess Feldman W' 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (20B) 623-9372 was also addressed by the Examiner in Condition 27, which requires the rechannelization 2 of the left-and right-tum southbound lanes from Benson Road South to SR 515, to one 3 left-turn lane and one combined left-turnlright-tum lane, as well as signal improvements 4 to accommodate the rechannelization. The Examiner found that with these improvements 5 in place, the queue lengths would be reduced to below pre-development conditions. 6 As noted above, regarding Concern 1, the Hearing Examiner found that traffic 7 from the Project filtering north along 105/10411 06 th Avenues was adequately addressed in S the TIA and would be minimal. The TIA was independently peer reviewed by a traffic 9 consultant selected by the City, who concurred with the TIA's analyses. Memorandum 10 from Michael Read, PE, Principal, TENW, March 21, 2016. Exhibit 17. The Appeal cites 11 to no testimony rebutting these findings or establishing errors with the Final Decision on 12 this point. 13 The impacts from the Project, with the mitigation measures in place, will either be 14 better than pre-Project conditions (reduced queues) or de minimis (less than ten (10) total 15 trips in the peak travel hours)). This Appeal issue should be rejected and the Final 16 Decision on this issue should be affirmed. 17 Concern 3: Entry onto Benson Road from the Project entrance IS Mr. Palmer is concerned that the Benson Road entry to the Project is dangerous 19 but cites to no evidence in the record to support this concern or to establish any substantial 20 error by the Hearing Examiner on this point. 21 The Project site entrance as analyzed in the TIA aligns with lOSth Avenue SE and 22 is supported by adequate sight distance. Exhibit 15, p. 4. As noted above, the TIA was 23 peer-reviewed and no expert testimony was introduced in the record to refute this 24 conclusion. The Hearing Examiner properly concluded that sight distance requirements 25 are met at both site entrance driveways. Final Decision, p. 9. No finding of a threat to APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO DAN PALMER'S APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION ON THE A V ANA RIDGE PUD - 5 69230-1 I VanNess Feldman", 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 public safety or traffic safety was found in the SEP A determination or in the Hearing 2 Examiner's record. 3 This Appeal issue should be rejected and the Final Decision on this point should 4 be affirmed. 5 Concern 4: Radar sign age and speed bumps are not adequate mitigation 6 Mr. Palmer is concerned that the SEPA condition requiring radar signage and 7 speed bumps to slow traffic will not affect congestion in the neighborhood north of the 8 Project site. However, as noted above, there is no basis in the record to establish that the 9 Project will create lillY congestion on these streets. 10 The record demonstrates that there is very little existing traffic on these residential II streets and that the Project will add only IS additional PM peak-hour trips and 14 12 additional AM peak-hour trips north on 108th Ave SE and only 5 PM peak-hour and 4 AM 13 peak-hour trips along SE 172nd west of the site. Exhibit IS, Figs. 3 and 4. Mr. Palmer has 14 pointed to no testimony to contradict the Hearing Examiner's findings with regard to 15 congestion and the adequacy of the SEPA condition to help slow traffic along this 16 residential street. 17 This Appeal issue should be rejected and the Final Decision on this point should 18 be affirmed. 19 Concern 5: The need for an on-site traffic study 20 Mr. Palmer states as a concern that an onsite traffic study is required. However, as 21 noted repeatedly in the Final Decision, the Applicant lllred a traffic expert to prepare a 22 detailed Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) which was submitted into the record. 23 Exhibit IS. This TIA was peer reviewed by TENW, a tlllrd-party traffic engineer hired by 24 the City, who agreed with the conclusions reached by TraffEx. Exlllbit 17. Mr. Palmer 25 has failed to show any error on this point. APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO DAN PALMER'S APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION ON THE A V ANA RIDGE PUD - 6 69230-7 I VanNess Feldman", 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623·9372 Concern 6: Air pollution 2 Mr. Palmer aIIeges that air impacts could occur as a result of the Project but fails 3 to show any substantial error in the Final Decision on this issue. 4 Potential environmental impacts were fuIIy disclosed to the City during the SEP A 5 review process. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) considered those impacts 6 and issued a Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated (DNSM) on April I I, 2016. 7 Exhibit 20. No significant adverse impacts to air quality or any other element of the 8 environment were identified. No party filed an appeal of the SEPA determination. By 9 failing to appeal the DNSM, the conclusions reached by the ERe are final and cannot be 10 chaIIenged in this Appeal. I I Moreover, concerns regarding air poIIution are proceduraIIy beyond the scope of 12 the PUD. The criteria for approval of a Planned Urban Development do not include 13 consideration of potential air poIIution from traffic. 14 Nonetheless, the Hearing Examiner did consider concerns expressed about air 15 poIIution from traffic and concluded that the Project would not cause air poIIution. The 16 Final Decision notes that "one neighbor testified that he was concerned that poIIution 17 caused by increased project traffic would exacerbate the respiratory problems of some 18 neighbors living close to the project site." Final Decision, p. 12. The Final Decision also 19 confirms that this neighbor testified that there was currently no vehicle poIIution in this 20 neighborhood. Final Decision, p 4. No expert testimony was ever introduced regarding 21 air poIIution impacts from the Project. Based on this record, the Hearing Examiner 22 correctly found that "[ w ]ithout any scientific evidence to substantiate this assertion 23 [concerning air poIIution from traffic], there is insufficient evidence to reasonably 24 conclude that the relatively modest traffic generated by the proposal would exacerbate 25 respiratory problems." Final Decision, p. 12. APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO DAN PALMER'S APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION ON THE AVANA RIDGE PUD-7 69230-7 I VanNess Feldman", 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623·9372 This concern should be rejected and the Final Decision on this point should be 2 affirmed. 3 Concern 7 Compatibility o/the architecture 4 Mr. Palmer alleges that the north side of the Project is architecturally incompatible 5 with the neighborhood. However, Mr. Palmer has pointed to no substantial errors in the 6 Hearing Examiner's findings on this issue. 7 The Hearing Examiner carefully considered the documents presented by the 8 Applicant's expert architect and by the City's planning staff that reviewed the Project's 9 design (Exhibit 19) and found that it complied with all applicable design standards. Final 10 Decision, p. 12. Specifically, the Hearing Examiner found that the "(t)he project is 11 compatible with surrounding development." !d. The Examiner also describes the 12 measures that the Applicant took to ensure that the Project complies with the Design 13 District B standards that also apply to the Project site. Id. The Examiner found that in the 14 public comment and testimony, "no one has suggested that staff's finding of compliance 15 with these standards was in error." 16 Once again, Mr. Palmer has cited to no testimony rebutting the Examiner's 17 findings or alleging errors in compliance with any specific design review criteria. This 18 concern should be rejected and the Final Decision on this point should be affirmed. 19 III. Conclusion. 20 The City Code requires that every land use appeal must state, with specificity, 21 errors in fact or law in the decision being challenged. The Appeal states concerns but fails 22 to allege any errors. Based on the Appellant's failure to meet this procedural requirement, 23 the Appeal should be summarily dismissed. 24 Even if the Appeal is considered on its merits, it should be denied because 25 Mr. Palmer has failed to meet his burden to prove substantial errors in fact or law in the APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO DAN PALMER'S APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION ON THE AV ANA RIDGE PUD - 8 69230-7 I VanNess Feldman", 719 Second Avenue SUite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 Hearing Examiner's Final Decision. Council's consideration of this Appeal must be based 2 solely on the record, the Hearing Examiner's Report, the notice of appeal and arguments 3 based on the record. There was ample opportunity provided in both the public comment 4 period for SEPA review and during the public hearing before the Hearing Examiner for 5 members of the public to build a record in support of their positions. Based upon the 6 record, the Hearing Examiner reached appropriate findings and conclusions in approving 7 this Project. Mr. Palmer has failed to show, for any of his concerns, that the Hearing 8 Examiner erred. For this reason, the Appeal should be denied. 9 10 Dated this 16th day ofJune, 2016. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 V AN NESS FELDMAN ~---- 719 Second Avenue, Suite 1150 Seattie, W A 98104 Tel: (206) 623-9372 Fax: (206) 623-4986 E-mail: brc@vnf.com Attorney for Avana Ridge LLC APPLICAl'<TS RESPONSE TO DAN PALMER'S APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION ON THE I VanNess Feldman~e A V ANA RIDGE PUD - 9 69230-7 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623·9372 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 I, Jennifer Hicok, declare as follows: 3 That I am over the age of 18 years, not a party to this action, and competent to be a 4 witness herein; 5 That I, as a legal assistant in the office of Van Ness Feldman LLP, caused true and 6 correct copies of the following documents to be delivered as set forth below: 7 I. Applicant's Response to Dan Palmer's Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision on the Avana Ridge PUD; and this; 8 2. Certificate of Service; 9 and that on June 16, 2016, I addressed said documents and deposited them for delivery as 10 follows: II 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ORIGINAL: City of Renton City Clerk's Office 1055 South Grady Way, Seventh Floor Renton, W A 98057 COPY: LawrenceJ. Warren Renton City Attorney City of Renton lOSS South Grady Way Renton, W A 98057 COPY: Rocale Timmons Senior Planner City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98057 COPY: Dan Palmer 16638 106th Street Renton, W A 98059 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE -10 69230·7 D By U.S. Mail I:8J By Legal Messenger D By Email: I:8J By U.S. Mail D By Legal Messenger I:8J By Email: L Warren@Rentonwa.gov I:8J By U.S. Mail D By Legal Messenger I:8J By Email: RTimmons@Rentonwa.gov I:8J By U.S. Mail D By Legal Messenger D By Email: I VanNess Feldman UP 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623·9372 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct. EXECUTED at Seattle, Washington on this 16th day of June, 2016. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE -II 69230·7 I VanNess Feldman", 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 2 3 4 5 6 7 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF RENTON 8 RE: Appeal by Dan Palmer of 9 A V ANA RIDGE PUD 10 Preliminary Planned Urban 11 Development 12 LUA-15-000894 13 14 TO: City Clerk, City of Renton APPLICANT'S NOTICE OF APPEARANCE 15 AND TO: 16 AND TO: 17 AND TO: 18 Lawrence J. Warren, Renton City Attorney Rocale Timmons, City of Renton Senior Planner Dan Palmer 19 YOU WILL PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Brent Carson, Van Ness Feldman 20 LLP, does hereby appear in the above-captioned matter on behalf of the Applicant, A vana 21 Ridge PUD, Avana Ridge LLC. The undersigned attorney requests that all papers and 22 pleadings herein be served at the address stated below: 23 Brent Carson Van Ness Feldman LLP 24 719 Second Avenue, Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 25 APPLICANT'S NOTICE OF APPEARANCE-1 69473-) DOAIGINAL I VanNess Feldman~, 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623·9372 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Dated this 29th day of June, 2016. VAN NESS FELDMAN LLP on, WSBA #16240 9 Second Avenue, Suite 1150 Seattle, W A 98104 Tel: (206) 623-9372 Fax: (206) 623-4986 E-mail: brc@vnf.com Attorney for Avana Ridge LLC APPLICANT'S NOTICE OF APPEARANCE-2 I VanNess Feldman", 69473-1 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-9372 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 I, Jennifer Hicok, declare as follows: 3 That I am over the age of 18 years, not a party to this action, and competent to be a 4 witness herein; 5 That I, as a legal assistant in the office of Van Ness Feldman LLP, caused true and 6 correct copies ofthe following documents to be delivered as set forth below: 7 I. Applicant's Notice of Appearance; and this 2. Certificate of Service; 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and that on June 29, 2016, I addressed said documents and deposited them for delivery as follows: ORIGINAL: Jason A. Seth, CMC City Clerk City of Renton City Clerk's Office 1055 South Grady Way, Seventh Floor Renton, W A 98057 COPY: Lawrence J. Warren Renton City Attorney City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98057 COPY: Rocale Timmons Senior Planner City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98057 COPY: DanPaImer 16638 106th Street Renton, W A 98059 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - 3 69473-1 D By U.S. Mail D~ By Legal Messenger By Email: ~ By U.S. Mail Q By Legal Messenger 161 By Email: L W arren@Rentonwa.gov ~ By U.S. Mail D By Legal Messenger ~ By Email: RTimmons@Rentonwa.gov B ByU.S. Mail By Legal Messenger By Email: I VanNess Feldman". 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623·9372 I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that 2 the foregoing is true and correct. 3 EXECUTED at Seattle, Washington on this 29th day of June, 2016. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - 4 69473-\ I VanNess Feldman,~ 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623·9372 Denis Law Mayor June 14, 2016 APPEAL FILED BY: City Clerk -Jason A. Seth, CMC Dan Palmer RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated May 24, 2016, regarding Avana Ridge PUD. (File No. LUA-15-000894 PP, PPPUD) To Parties of Record: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the hearing examiner's decision on the Avana Ridge PUD has been filed with the City Clerk. In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110F, within five days of receipt of the notice of appeal, or after all appeal periods with the Hearing Examiner have expired, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt ofthe appeal. Other parties of record may submit letters limited to support of their positions regarding the appeal within ten (10) days of the date of mailing of this notification. The deadline for submission of additional letters is by 5:00 p.m., Friday. June 24, 2016. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeal and other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee at 3:00 p.m. on Thursday. July 28,2016. in the Council Chambers. 7th Floor of Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98057. The recommendation of the Committee will be presented for consideration by the full Council at a subsequent Council meeting. Copy of the appeal and the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeal of Hearing Examiner decisions or recommendations is attached. Please note that the City Council will be considering the merits of the appeal based upon the written record previously established. Unless a showing can be made that additional evidence could not reasonably have been available at the prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner, no further evidence or testimony on this matter will be accepted by the City Council. 1055 South Grady Way. Renton, Washington 98057 • (425) 430-6510 I Fax (425) 430-6516 • rentonwa.gov For additional information or assistance, please call Jason Seth, City Clerk, at 425-430-6510. Sincerely, (::£I;.c ~~:k '" Please note that if you signed up to be a Party of Record for this matter you are receiving a copy of this letter as a courtesy. Attachments cc: Hearing Examiner Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner Jennifer Henning, Planning Director Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager Brianne Bannwarth, Development Engineering Manager Craig Burnell, Building Official Sabrina Mirante, Secretary, Planning Division Ed Prince, City Councilmember Julia Medzegian, Oty Council Liaison Justin Lagers, Avana Ridge LLC, Contact • Parties of Record (25) CITY OF RENTON if' JUN 07 2016H"s1t RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE , ~ AppeC\.-/ l'J (UvtV"Gll 1tr l-Ic.o · , 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: Avana Ridge PUD Preliminary Planned Urban Development LUAI5-000894, PP, PPUD FINAL DECISION SUMMARY The applicant proposes a preliminary planned urban development for the construction of two multi- family buildings on a 3.8 acre parcel for a total of 74 dwelling units. The applicant seeks PUD approval in order to vary from a number of zoning code standards, including an increase in allowed building and retaining wall height, a reduction in required roof pitch, a decrease in required parking and a decrease in required private open space. The PUD is approved subject to conditions. TESTIMONY Note: Thefollowing is a summary of testimony providedjor the convenience of the reader only and 21 should not be construed as containing any flndings of jact or conclusions of law. The focus upon or exclusion of any particular testimony or hearing evidence in this summary is not reflective of the 22 priority or probative content of any particular hearing evidence and no assurance is made as to 23 accuracy. 24 Rocale Timmons, senior City of Renton planner, summarized the proposal. She noted that recommended Conditions 14 and 15 of the staff report, requiring dedications for light fixtures, was in 25 error as there is sufficient space proposed for the lights. The two conditions should be stricken. In response to examiner questions, Ms. Timmons noted that property to the east is zoned Residential 8. 26 She also noted that there has been no indication that the proposal would impair any views. Traffic PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - I 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 [4 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 calming features were considered for access roads and in staffs opinion the proposed speed radar signs were sufficient to control speeds. There is no public trail system close by. Sidewalk improvements are required for the intersection of I nnd and Benson Rd. S. in order to assure safe walking conditions to school bus stops and continuous sidewalk connections to the surrounding sidewalk network. Rohini Nair, City of Renton traffic engineer, noted that queuing issues on Benson Road South and Benson Drive South was a major neighborhood concern. The City had the applicant's traffic engineer model queuing and from this it was found that new turning restrictions proposed for the project would reduce current queuing off of Benson Road South. A new condition of approval will be submitted by staff to require the new tum restrictions. Regarding speeding on 104 andl06, it is staff's opinion that the radar speed signs will adequately address the problem. Brian Paldar, project architect, noted that as a result of project modifications necessitated by permit review the applicant needs to request a minor increase in the proposed height from 8' 3" floor to ceiling to an 8' 6" floor to ceiling to accommodate ventilation systems. The east building will still be under the 40 foot limit. The west building will need to be increased in height 1.6 feet for a total of 41.6 feet. No changes are proposed to the roof line. The PUD process enables the applicant to preserve a lot of on-site vegetation and other natural features. There will be no view impacts since existing trees are up to 60 feet high, taller than the proposed buildings. Any existing territorial views would be to the west and would be unaffected by the proposal. [n response to examiner questions, there currently is no on-street parking on SE I nnd St. Mr. Paldar also noted that the "eyes on the street" caused by dwellings overlooking 172 nd , as well as more pedestrians using the proposed pedestrian facilities, would probably serve to reduce crime. Larry Hobbs, applicant's traffic engineer, noted that the channelization changes that would improve queuing from the Benson Road S. access would be composed of a left turn lane and a shared left and right turn lane and a change out in a traffic signal face. With the channelization changes the queue lengths are reduced from 372 feet to 212 feet and will be shorter than pre-development conditions. The channelization changes double vehicle storage space. Doug Goods, neighbor, doesn't support or oppose the project, he just wants to make sure his concerns are addressed. He has seen a significant increase in traffic in the vicinity over the years. Traffic backs up all the way from Puget Drive. He wanted to know why the applicant's proposal to put in a median on 172 nd wasn't recommended by staff. He doesn't believe that the applicant's solution to the queuing problem will be solved by the rechanneling, given the amount of new development in the area. He felt that more traffic calming measures should be implemented for 104 and 106'h avenues, such as speed bumps, however he's not as concerned as much about speed as he is about increased traffic. Molly Moss, neighbor, is against the proposal. She feels that the access to 172nd street will increase traffic on her street (J04'h) as well as lOS'h and 106'h avenues. Currently the neighborhood has a low level of traffic. This will be a safety hazard as the streets are currently used by children. None of the PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 \0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 roads have uninterrupted sidewalks to Nelson Middle School. Jerry Miller, neighbor. noted that the streets impacted by the proposal haven't been adequately described. There's a new development at the northeastern corner of intersection of Benson and 172 nd with several dozen units and this will add to the traffic problem. If the right in/right out 172nd solution proposed by the applicant for 172nd were to be implemented, people would be doing u-turns on their driveway so he and Anna Miller are opposed to that solution. Anna Miller, neighbor, noted that parking from the project will spill onto adjoining streets making traffic circulation difficult. 172nd is very narrow and traffic is already very poor in the area. In the next 5-10 years traffic will be a nightmare. Paul Skulstad, neighbor, felt that access to the proposal should be from SR 515 instead of I 72nd . The surrounding community doesn't have sidewalks for students walking to and from school. Electronic radar signs aren't needed. 172nd has a portion that's like a washboard, which slows down vehicles. The traffic analysis for the project doesn't take into account traffic that will be generated by other projects in the pipeline, including a large apartment complex directly across the street and a medical dental complex. People are having trouble finding parking already in the apartment complex and it hasn't been completed yet. There's also another 21 lot subdivision and another complex on Benson being constructed. The Benson and Benson intersection needs to be redone. The two left turn lane solution was obvious. There should be a third left tum lane. Karen and Polo Cantu, neighbors, noted that the roads of her neighborhood do not have sidewalks or shoulders. Her and her husband purchased their home because of the uncommonly spacious lots and quiet neighborhood. She still feels safe walking the streets. The proposed access onto l72nd St. is too close to the I06th Ave. Residents of the proposed apartments will quickly realize that driving through the neighborhood will be much quicker than driving through the Benson/Benson intersection. A radar speed sign will not reduce the volume of traffic. The traffic study doesn't account for new development or the impact on I06th street and other neighborhood roads. Based upon 1.8 cars per dwelling unit and round up to two cars to account for visitors, the proposed parking is insufficient. The access should be moved from 172 nd to SR 515. lnnd St. is inaccurately classified as a commercial street in the ERC report. It currently primarily serves residential use. Nancy Stanley, neighbor, noted that the 162 unit Trails apartment complex across the street is still under construction and its traffic impacts haven't been fully evaluated. Danny Kumono, neighbor from Kelsey Court condominiums, affirmed that the traffic impacts of the Trails complex hasn't yet been realized as its still under construction. Crime has increased as a result of the Trails. Cars turning right onto Benson from 172nd aren't slowing down. Visibility is poor because of the road curvature, so there are a lot of close calls in making a left turn. In the evening the Benson/Benson intersection is fully congested and it's not possible to make a left turn. A larger area should be considered when doing a traffic analysis. PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 3 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Dan Palmer, neighbor, noted that 104th, 105 th and 106th has been an oasis of a neighborhood with big yards and quiet streets. There·s currently no through traffic. There's no vehicle pollution. There arc people with respiratory problems in the neighborhood who will be adversely affected by the pollution from increased traffic. He noted there are no sidewalks, stormwater systems or lights on the roads. The neighborhood is full of wildlife and trees and is an important watershed area. High impact buildings are not compatible with this environmentally fragile area. Transfer of development rights would work well here. The building design is not compatible with the surrounding 60 year and tum of the century homes. Even the new CVC store is more aesthetically pleasing. In rebuttal, Ms. Timmons noted that the area was annexed into the City from King County in 2008, which is why the streets don't have sidewalks or street lighting. The site was zoned commercial arterial when it was annexed into the city. That zoning designation allowed 60 du per acre. A subsequent rezone reduced the density to the currently applicable 20 du per acre. The site serves as a transition zone from the commercial development to the south to the residential use to the north. 172nd is classified as a commercial use street because of the transportation needs to the south. The proposed development will create many of the improvements necessary to upgrade 172 nd to commercial use. The City currently has no transfer of development rights program. The design of the project is set by the City's design standards. SR 515 would not be a suitable access point because of significant change in grade at the southern portion of the site. Several retaining walls are necessary to stabi lize this portion of the project. SR 515 is a commercial arterial street and the City limits access points. WSDOT would also restrict access from the state road. There are also critical areas that would prevent access from the south. Parking is set by city code based upon the number of bedrooms, which in this case is 96 stalls. The applicant has requested a two stall reduction. The project site has a significant amount of open space to accommodate wildlife. The applicant's request for an additional 1.5 feet in building height has been reviewed by City staff. Given the extensive number of PUD benefits and large amount of open space, staff supports the request for additional height. As to safe routes to schools, it's expected that students will not use 106/104/105 roads to get to Nelson Middle School. They would use Benson Road to walk safely to Nelson. Molly Moss noted that while student from the proposal may use Benson Road, students residing on 106/1041105 would still be walking their neighborhood roads. In response to examiner questions. Ms. Nair noted that the traffic study included traffic from all approved land use applications, including the Trails project across the street. The lane configuration will result in improved queuing lengths even with the traffic of the Trails project taken into consideration. Staff is not opposed to having south bound traffic subject to a radar speed sign as well on 104th and 106th streets. WSDOT may not approve a direct access onto SR 515 because of the availability of other access routes. Larry Hobbs, applicant's traffic engineer. testified that the traffic report was prepared pursuant to City guidelines and trip generation estimates from the latest edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual. The report was subjected to peer review, which concurred with the traffic analysis. The Trails project was included in the background traffic along with a percentage traffic growth rate required by the PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 4 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 City. The traffic analysis concluded that 10% of the AM peak hour traffic would be heading west (using 1061104/105), which is 4 trips and five trips for PM peak hour. This is only one additional vehicle every 12 or 15 minutes on the three streets. The radar speed limit sign isn't necessary. WSDOT would not allow access onto SR 515 since other reasonable access is available. Brent Carson, applicant's attorney, noted that the land use designations of the site could not be questioned at this point. Many of the concerns of the neighbors concern SEPA issues that haven't been appealed. Given the minor number of trips generated on 106/10411 05 and verification from peer review on the applicant's analysis of this issue, the City has no nexus and proportionality to require mitigation such as the radar controlled sign. EXHIBITS The May 10,2016 Staff report in addition to Exhibits 1-23 identified in pages 2 of the Staff Report were admitted into the record at the May 10, 2016 hearing. The staff power point presentation was admitted as Ex. 24. Revised elevations were submitted by the application and admitted as Ex. 25. Ex. 26 was submitted by the applicant and admitted as a color site plan. Ex. 27 were admitted as west building elevations and Ex. 28 as east building elevations. Google maps was admitted as Ex. 29. FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural: I. Applicant. Avana Ridge LLC. 2. Hearing. A hearing on the application was held on May 10,2016. Substantive: 3. Project Description. The applicant proposes a preliminary planned urban development for the construction of two multi-family buildings on a 3.8 acre parcel for a total of 74 dwelling units. The requested modifications are summarized as follows: RMC Code Citation Required Standard Requested Modification RMC 4-2-11OA Roof pitches are required to be equal This proposal includes a roof pitch Development to or greater than 4:12 and may of 2:12 Standards for project an additional six (6) vertical Commercial Zoning feet from the maximum wall plate Designations-Roof height. Pitch PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -5 2 4 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 RMC 4-2-110A A maximum building height of 3 The proposal includes a height of Development stories with a wall plate height of 30 46-feet and 5-inches as measured Standards for feet is permitted. from average grade plane to the Commercial Zoning tallest point of the shed roof Designations-Roof elements. Pitch RMC 4 -6-060F Street Various: See discussion in Table C: Various: See discussion under FOF Standards PUD Criteria -Circulation xx: PUD Criteria -Circulation RMC 4-3-100 Urban Various: See discussion in Table E: Various: See discussion under FOF Design Standards Design District 'D' Standards xx: Design District 'B' Standards RMC 4-4-080F, Based on the proposed use, a The applicant proposed a total of Parking, Loading, and minimum and maximum of 96 parking 94 spaces within surface parking Driveway Regulations spaces would be allowed in order to areas. The proposal does not meet code. comply with the minimum parking stall requirements. RMC 4-4-090, Refuse There shall be at least one deposit The proposal includes a single and Recyclables area/collection point for every thirty refuse/recycle storage location Standards (30) dwelling units. centrally located, between both buildings at the center of the site. RMC 4-4-040, Heights are limited to 48 inches for A section of the keystone-type wall Retaining Wall Height retaining walls located within front located near the monument sign at yard/side yard along-a-street the Benson Road/Benson Drive setbacks, and 72 inches for walls intersection is proposed at a height elsewhere on site. of 5.5 feet. A section of the keystone-type wall located near the monument sign at the Benson Road/Benson Drive intersection is 5 feet and 6-inches tall. RMC 4-9-150.E.2, Each residential unit in a PUD shall The current proposal provides Private Open Space have usable private open space for 4,156 SF of private, attached open the exclusive use of the occupants of space through the use of private that unit in compliance with balconies for some of the units dimensional standards. which does not comply with the dimensional standards. The project site is currently vacant and bisected by a stream. Access to the site is proposed via SE 172nd St, between the east and west buildings, and another ingress/egress point via Benson Rd S. The two access points create a through road for emergency vehicle ingress/egress across the property. 4. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate infrastructure and public services as follows: PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 A. Water and Sewer Service. Water and sanitary sewer service for the development would be provided by the Soos Creek Water and Sewer District. A water and sewer availability certificate from the Soos Creek utility district was submitted to the City with the land use application. Approved water and sewer plans from Soos Creek are required to be provided during utility construction permit approval. B. Fire Protection. Fire protection would be provided by the City of Renton Fire Department. C. Drainage. In conjunction with the City's storm water regulations, the proposal mitigates all significant drainage impacts. New impervious surfaces would result in surface water runoff increases. The Applicants submitted a Technical Information Report ('"Drainage Report") with the project application (Exhibit 9). The storm water detention and water quality treatment would be provided within a combined detention/water quality vault under the parking area located in the western portion of the site. The combined detention/water quality vault would be followed by a media filtration system to accommodate the Enhanced Water Quality Treatment requirements for multi-family development. Further staff review will be conducted for final PUD approval. 14 D. Parks/Open Space. The project provides for adequate parks and open space. For parks 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 impacts, the applicant will be paying a park impact fee, which is currently assessed at $975.50 per multi-family dwelling unit. The proposed development is designed specifically to increase the access and opportunity for open space and in sheer numbers harbors a significant amount of open space as well. The project includes 19,795 square feet of community open space in the southern portion of the site in addition to 49,918 square feet of critical area space. Beyond the space required for critical areas, Renton has no public open space requirements for multi-family developments except for some nonspecific standards in its design regulations. A small fenced off-leash dog run is provided at the east side of the site between a landscape buffer and the parking lot among a grove of existing trees to be preserved. The multiple open spaces throughout the site are well designed and provide a variety of recreational opportunities both passive and active. Due to the presence of a stream along the lower area of the site, a natural border exists. A pedestrian bridge crosses the stream to link the open space and the residential developments. PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT-7 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 A central path and complementing pedestrian bridge crossing will be constructed to create an access point to the southern community open space from the surface parking lot. The large area would be ample usable space for passive recreation and special events such as picnics, parties, weddings, movie night in the park, concerts, etc.; thereby promoting community involvement. Additionally, the space would take advantage of and display the attractive territorial views to the West. Finally, the space would serve to preserve and enhance existing vegetation and natural character through tree preservation, removal of extensive invasive Blackberries, and replacement with native understory vegetation to be maintained through the life of the development. The space features a large, central, gently sloping lawn for casual seating and recreation. The lawn is oriented to slope down towards an open pavilion whose intended use includes performances, and community gatherings. The pavilion is also sited to capture and frame the attractive territorial views to the West. The applicant has indicated that there is an opportunity to include interpretive signagelinformation regarding differentiating elements (trees, landscaping, drainage, architecture, etc.) of the proposed development at strategic place(s) on site. The use of interpretive signage would result in an increase in public benefit for the overall project. Therefore, a condition of approval requires the applicant to provide interpretive signagelinformation regarding differentiating elements (trees, landscaping. drainage, architecture, etc.) of the proposed development at a strategic place(s) on site. A resident amenity lounge located on Level I of the West building takes advantage of outdoor space and integrates an outdoor plaza intended for gathering spaces, barbecues, and lounge areas for a variety of opportunities for the residents. The area opens up the western portion of the site and provides a softer building edge and brings visual interest to what would normally be considered the "side" elevation of the project. E. Pedestrian Circulation. The proposal provides for an appropriate pedestrian circulation system. The applicant has proposed a series of pedestrian connections throughout the site however it is unclear if there is a differentiation of materials across the drive aisles (Exhibit 2). Therefore, as recommended by staff, a condition of approval requires the applicant to revise the site plan to depict a differentiation in materials for all pedestrian connections within parking areas andlor drive aisles on site. F. Off-Site Traffic Improvements. The proposal is served by adequate and appropriate otf- site street infrastructure. PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Based upon the applicant's traffic impact analysis CTlA"), Ex. IS, staff have detennined that the project will comply with the City's level of service standards. It is anticipated that the proposed development would generate approximately 492 average daily trips with 38 AM peak-hour trips and 46 PM peak-hour trips. The TlA assessed traffic impacts on three affected intersections as required by City standards. The T1A concluded that all intersections will operate at an acceptable level of service with the proposed development. Staff have also detennined that the proposal passes City concurrency standards as outlined in Ex. 23. Analysis of future conditions address cumulative impacts of the proposed project and traffic growth in the study area. Traffic signal warranty analysis was also provided at the intersection of SE 172nd St and Benson Rd S. The report states there is no need for a signal at the intersection as a result of the project. The TIA concludes that sight distance requirements are met at the site access driveway onto SE 172nd St and with vegetation trimming, within the right of way, at the site access driveway to Benson Rd S (Exhibit IS). ct. The conclusions of the report were accepted by staff and not disputed by a qualified traffic expert, therefore they are taken as verities. Staff also concluded in the staff report that the proposed circulation system is adequate to accommodate emergency vehicles and there is no evidence in the record to the contrary. Payment of traffic impact fees as required by the Renton Municipal Code will assure that the applicant pays its proportionate share of system-wide traffic improvements. A major concern of the neighbors was traffic impacts to 106 Ave SE, 104 Ave SE and 105 Ave SE. In uncontested testimony, several neighbors testified that these roads are isolated, currently accommodate a minimal amount of traffic and are not developed with sidewalks or shoulders that can be used for pedestrian traffic. By contrast, the project's access to SR SIS, the most likely thoroughfare to be used by project residents, can only be directly accessed by passing through the Benson Road S./SR SIS intersection, which is subject to severe congestion during the AM and PM peak hour. Neighbors are concerned that this congestion will cause vehicles going to and leaving the project site to drive through the 105/10411 06 Ave SE roads. A SEPA mitigation measure requires the installation of speed radar signs for southbound traffic on 104th and 106th to slow down some of this new traffic. Although a review of the surrounding road network shows that persons may very well choose to drive through 105/104/106 to avoid the Benson/SR 515 intersection a well as other traffic problems in the area, the applicant's traffic analysis reveals that the project will only add five PM peak hour trips and four AM peak hour trips into the 10511041106 roads. The applicant's traffic analysis was verified by peer review. Given the expert traffic analysis prepared by the applicant and the independent expert verification conducted under the peer review, the applicant's traffic analysis is taken as a PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 9 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 verity given the absence of any expert testimony to the contrary. With only a maximum of five additional trips per hour generated by the proposal. there is no basis to require more than the speed radar signs required by the SEPA mitigation measures. Neighborhood residents are certainly correct to assert that the cumulative impacts of all projects must be considered when assessing traffic impacts, but there is nothing in the record to suggest that the speed radar sign required of the applicant is less than the applicant's fair share of mitigating these cumulative impacts. Case law is very clear in the State of Washington that the City has the burden of proof in establishing that any required road improvements are proportional and attributable to impacts created by development. See Burton v. Clark County, 91 Wn. App. 505, 516-17 (1998). For this application, there is no evidence to suggest that more than the speed radar signs required by SEPA is necessary to oft~set the traffic impacts caused by the proposal on the 10511 0411 06 roads. Another issue frequently cited by neighbors was the queuing length at the Benson Road S.lSR 515 intersection. Uncontested traffic analysis conducted by the applicant establishes that with re-channelization measures required by this decision, queue lengths will be reduced from 372 feet to 212 feet and will be shorter than pre-development conditions, even when added traffic from recently approved development projects is incorporated into the analysis. Since the proposal will be improving upon existing queuing conditions at the Benson Road S.lSR 515 intersection, no further mitigation can be required. A few neighbors also suggested that project access directly connect to SR 515 instead of SE 172 0d SI. As testified by City staff, direct access onto a limited access thoroughfare such as SR 515 is avoided by both the City and the state (which also regulates SR 515 access) when reasonable alternate project access is available. Further, direct access would be highly challenging given the critical areas (stream and coal mine hazard) and steep grade on the south portion of the project site. Direct access to SR 515 is not warranted or feasible for this project. Several people also testified about walking conditions to and from school. Students may very well be walking to Nelson Middle School, located to the north of the project site. Nelson Middle School can be accessed via Benson Road S. which has sidewalks between the school and the project site. As part of the proposed project, sidewalks would be constructed along the frontage of the site and would connect to the existing sidewalk system. However, the frontage along the daycare center at the southwest corner of the intersection of Benson Road S. and SE 1720d Ave is missing some sidewalk linkage. For this reason, the conditions of approval require improvements to be made along the day PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT- 10 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 care frontage to fill in the missing sidewalk connections. As noted by Ms. Moss. there are still no sidewalks along the 10511 0411 06 streets. As previously discussed, the proposal will add a minor amount of traffic to these roads, and for the reasons previously discussed, the speed radar sign required of the applicant adequately mitigates against the applicant's proportionate share of impacts to these roads. A few neighbors testified that they believed that the applicant's traffic analysis did not include traffic generated by other projects. However, as testified by both staff and the applicant, the applicant's traffic analysis did in fact factor in the traffic of currently approved projects as well as a general background traffic increase factor required by City standards. 5. Adverse Impacts. Since the project provides for adequate infrastructure and public services, the only remaining impacts to be considered are to critical areas. There are two critical areas at the project site - a Type Ns stream bisects the project site and a high coal mine hazard is located in the southern portion of the site. A. High Coal Mine Hazard. As conditioned, the proposal has been adequately mitigated to address any significant adverse impacts to coal mine hazards. High Coal Mine Hazards are considered areas with abandoned and improperly sealed mine openings and areas underlain by mine workings shallower than 200 feet in depth for steeply dipping seams, or shallower than 15 times the thickness of the seam or workings for gently dipping seams. These areas may be affected by collapse or other subsidence. A Coal Mine Hazard Assessment was performed by Icicle Creek Engineers, Inc. on March 22, 2004 and January 20, 2009 (Exhibits 7 and 8). The studies found that the southern portion of the project site overlays a historic coal mine known as the Springbrook Mine, along with the opening to the mine. The study further found that the Springbrook Mine meets the City'S criteria for a high coal mine hazard. Several recommendations to mitigate potential risk of the coal mine hazard/fonner entry were included in the Icicle Creek Engineer report, including the excavation of the fill at the mine entry and backfilling with controlled density fill (Exhibit 8). However, these recommendations were based on a fonner development proposal which included structures in the southern portion of the site. The proposed development is setback approximately 125 feet from the coal mine hazard and would likely not have the same impacts as the fonner development. However, there are some grading activities and smaller recreational improvements in the proximity of the coal mine hazard which may potentially be affected by mining related subsidence. A SEPA mitigation measure was issued requiring an updated Coal Mine Hazard Report demonstrating the proposal would not increase the threat of the geological hazard to PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT- 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 adjacent or abutting properties beyond pre-development conditions and the development can be safely accommodated on the site (Exhibit 20). B. Type Ns Stream. As conditioned, the proposal has been adequately mitigated to address any impacts to the on-site stream. The applicant submitted a Wetland and Supplemental Stream Study, prepared by Ed Sewell Consulting Inc., datcd December 22, 2015 (Exhibit 10). The report identifies an unnamed seasonal stream (Stream A) that bisects the northern and southern portions of the site and runs from east to west. As defined by RMC 4-3- 050.G the stream best meets the criteria of a Type Ns stream due to its intermittent flow and lack of fish use. Class Ns streams have a standard buffer of 50 feet as measured from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) as well as a IS-foot setback from the edge of the buffer to any structure. The applicant is proposing buffer averaging for portions of the stream buffer. Additionally, the applicant is proposing an alteration within the stream and its associated buffer for a pedestrian crossing. With the conditions recommended in the staff report (and adopted by this decision), the proposed buffer averaging and stream alteration conforms to the City's critical areas regulations for the reasons identified at page 14 of the staff report. C. WildlifeNegetation. As noted in the applicant's habitat assessment, there are no state or federally listed species on or near the site and there are no rare or unique plant communities on the site. The only wildlife/vegetation subject to protection at the project site are trees. The City's adopted Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations require the retention of 20 percent of trees in a residential development. As noted at p. 10 of the staff report, the City's tree retention standards specifically require the retention of 42 trees and the applicant is retaining 46 trees. As further noted at p. 10, City tree density requirements require a total of at least 132 trees at the project site. A condition of approval requires that the applicant dcmonstrate compliance with this standard as the application materials are unclear as to the total amount of trees that will be planted at the project site. Beyond trees, since there are no wildlife species specifically protected by City of Renton regulations, there is no basis to regulate or restrict the project based upon wildlife or vegetation impacts. D. Compatibility. The project is compatible with surrounding development as it is within the range of densities authorized by applicable zoning standards and is heavily regulated by the City's "Design District B" design standards. As testified by staff, the intermediate densities authorized for the site are intended to serve as a transition between the commercial uses to the south and the residential uses to the north. The higher densities of the project site, compared to the northern residential uses, is mitigated by the perimeter landscaping and emphasis upon aesthetic design imposed by the City's design standards. On the north perimeter of the project, where compatibility issues would be most pronounced, the adjacent residential dwellings would be screened from the surface parking lot through the use of landscape buffers, building modulation and new proposed street trees. The design may not bear any similarity to the design of the tum of century homes in PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT- 12 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 the vicinity, but the applicant was required to comply with Design District B standards and no one has suggested that staffs finding of compliance with these standards was in error. E. Respiratory Problems. One neighbor testified that he was concerned that pollution caused by increased project traffic would exacerbate the respiratory problems of some neighbors living close to the project site. Without any scientific evidence to substantiate this assertion, there is insufficient evidence to reasonably conclude that the relatively modest traffic generated by the proposal would exacerbate respiratory problems. 6. Superiority in Design. The development of this site as a PUD results in a superior design than what would result by the strict application of the Development Standards for the following reasons: natural features, overall design, and building and site design. The proposed design provides for the retention of the natural grade on site, significant trees and a noteworthy amount of landscaping and re-vegetation. Additionally, the plan provides for both active and passive recreation spaces significantly beyond the standard code requirements. The proposed design can provide for the aforementioned amenities because of the modifications requested for the PUD as outlined in Finding of Fact No.3. The modifications approved by this decision contribute to and enable the superior design proposed for this project by increasing available space for open space and natural site features. 7. Public Benefit. The proposal provides several public benefits as detailed in pages 17-20 of the Staff Report, adopted and incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. CONCL USIONS OF LAW Procedural: 1. Authority. RMC 4-9-150(F)(8) authorizes the Examiner to conduct hearings and make final decisions on planned urban development applications. Substantive: 2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The project site is zoned Residential Multi-Family (RMF) and has a comprehensive plan land use designation of Residential High Density. 3. Review Criteria. A PUD may be pursued by "any applicant" as authorized by RMC 4-9- 150(B), which is interpreted to authorize the application of PUD regulations to multi-family development projects. RMC 4-9-150(0) governs PUD criteria. Those criteria are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. RMC 4-9-1S0(B)(2): Code Provisions That May Be Modified: a. In approving a planned urban development, the City may modify any of the standards of chapter -/- 2 RMC, chapter 4--/ RA1C, RMC 4-6-060 and chapter -/-7 RMC, except as listed in subsection B3 of PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT- 13 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 this Section. All modifications shall be considered simultaneously as part of the planned urban development .. 4. As shown in Finding of Fact No.3, the requested revisions are limited to the regulations identified in the regulation quoted above with the exception of the Private Open Space modification to RMC 4-9-150,E,2, As such, the conditions of approval require that the applicant provide a revised site plan demonstrating compliance with the private open space standards ofRMC 4-9-IS0,E,2. RMC 4-9-1S0(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only i/ it finds that the following requirements are met. 1. Demonstration of Compliance and Superiority Required: Applicants must demonstrate that a proposed development is in compliance with the purposes of this Section and with the Comprehensive Plan, that the proposed development will be superior to that which would result without a planned urban development, and that the development will not be unduly detrimental to surrounding 10 properties. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 5. The criterion is met. The purposes of the PUD regulations, as outlined in RMC 4-9-150(A), are to preserve and protect the natural features of the land and to encourage innovation and creativity in development of residential uses. As outlined in Finding of Fact No.4 and 5 the natural features of the site are protected by open space, buffers and mitigation that significantly exceeds minimum code standards. The proposal involves innovation and creativity via the integration of critical area open space into the recreational open space of the project site. The project is consistent with the comprehensive plan as determined in Finding of Fact No. 22 of the staff report. As determined in Finding of Fact No.6, the proposal is superior in design to what which would occur without a PUD. As determined in Finding of Fact No.4 and 5 the project will not create any significant adverse impacts and so would not be unduly detrimental to surrounding properties. RMC 4-9-1S0(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the following requirements are met. 2. Public Benefit Required: In addition, Applicants shall demonstrate that a proposed development will provide specifically identified benefits that clearly outweigh any adverse impacts or undesirable ejJects of the proposed planned urban development, particularly those adverse and undesirable impacts to surrounding properties, and that the proposed development will provide one or more of the/ollowing benefits than would result from the development of the subject site without the proposed planned urban development: b. Natural Features: Preserves, enhances, or rehabilitates natural features afthe subject property, such as significant woodlands, native vegetation, topographY, or noncritical area wildlife habitats, not otherwise required by other City regulations; ar ... PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT- 14 2 3 e. Overall Design: Provides a planned urban development design that is superior to the design that would result from development of the subject property without a planned urban development. A superior design may include thefollowing: 4 6. The proposal provides for public benefit by providing amenities related to natural features and 5 6 7 8 9 overall design that significantly exceed code standards as detennined in Finding of Fact No.7. These benefits clearly outweigh any adverse impacts since there are no significant adverse impacts associated with the proposal as determined in Finding of Fact No.4 and 5. The integration of the natural features of the site with the recreational/open spaces of the site is particularly well done and will succeed in providing significant aesthetic and recreational benefits to project residents as well as retaining a significant amount of green space and vegetation for the surrounding community. RMC 4-9-1S0(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the 10 following requirements are met. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for consistency with all of the following criteria: a. Building and Site Design: i. Perimeter: Size, scale, mass, character and architectural design along the planned urban development perimeter provide a suitable transition to adjacent or abutting lower density/intensity zones. Materials shall reduce the potential for light and glare. 7. The criterion is met for the reasons identified at page 21 of the staff report. RMC 4-9-1S0(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the 19 following requirements are met. 20 21 3. Additional Review Criteria.' A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for consistency with all of the following criteria: 22 23 24 a. Building and Site Design. ii. Interior Design: Promotes a coordinated site and building design. Buildings in groups should be 25 related by coordinated materials and roof styles, but contrast should be provided throughout a site by the use of varied materials, architectural detailing, building orientation or housing type; e.g., single 26 family, townhouses, fiats, etc. PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT- 15 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 8. The criterion is met for the reasons identified at pages 21-22 of the staff report. RMC 4-9-150(0): The City may approve a planned urban development only if itjinds that the following requirements are met. 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for consistency with all of the following crileria b. Circulation: i. Provides sufficient streets and pedestrian facilities. The planned urban development shall have sufficient pedestrian and vehicle access commensurate with the location, size and density of the proposed development. All public and private streets shall accommodate emergency vehicle access and the traffic demand created by the development as documented in a traffic and circulation report approved by the City. Vehicle access shall not be unduly detrimental to adjacent areas. 9. The proposal provides for adequate streets and pedestrian facilities as determined in Finding of Fact No.4. 14 RMC 4-9-150(0): The City may approve a planned urban development only i/ it jinds that the following requirements are met. 15 16 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for 17 consistency with all o/the following criteria 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 b. Circulation: ii. Promotes safety through suffiCient sight distance, separation of vehicles from pedestrians, limited driveways on busy streets, avoidance of difficult turning patterns, and minimization of steep gradients. 10. The criterion is met for the reasons identitied at p. 22-26 of the statf report. 25 RMC 4-9-150(0): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it find, that the follOWing requirements are met. 26 PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT- 16 2 3 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for consistency with all ofthefallowing criteria 4 b. Circulation: 5 6 7 iii. Provision of a system of wallCl-lIays which tie residential areas to recreational areas, transit, public walkways, schools, and commercial activities. 8 11. 9 The criterion is met for the reasons identified at p. 22-26 of the staff report. 10 RMC 4-9-1S0(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only ifitfinds that the following requirements are met. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for consistency with all of the following criteria b. Circulation: iv. Provides safe, ejjicient access for emergency vehicles. 12. The proposal provides for safe and efficient access for emergency vehicles as determined in Finding of Fact No.4. RMC 4-9-1S0(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only ifitfinds that the following requirements are mel. 23 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for consistency with all of the following criteria 24 25 26 c. Infrastructure and Services: Provides utility services, emergency services, and other improvements, existing and proposed, which are sujjicient to serve the development. PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT- 17 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 13. As determined in Finding of Fact No.4, the proposal is served by sufficient public infrastructure and services to serve the development. RMC 4-9-1S0(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the following requirements are met. 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for consistency with all of the following criteria d Clusters or Building Groups and Open Space: An appearance of openness created by clustering, separation of building groups, and through the use of well-designed open space and landscaping, or a reduction in amount of impervious surfaces not otherwise required. 14. The project's principal PUD characteristic is its integration of clustered buildings strategically located adjacent to combined and well-designed open space and critical areas as outlined in Finding of Fact No. 4(D). RMC 4-9-1S0(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the 14 following requirements are met. 15 16 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urhan development shall also be reviewed for consistency with all of the following criteria 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 e. Privacy and Building Separation: Provides internal privacy between dwelling units, and external privacy for adjacent dwelling units. Each residential or mixed use development shall provide visual and acoustical privacy for dwelling units and surrounding properties. Fences, insulation, walks, barriers, and landscaping are used, as appropriate, for the protection and aesthetic enhancement of the property, the privacy of site occupants and surrounding properties, and for screening of storage, mechanical or other appropriate areas, andfor the reduction of noise . Windows are placed at such a height or location or screened to provide sufficient privacy. Sufficient light and air are provided to each dwelling unit. 24 15. The criterion is met for the reasons outlined at p. 28 of the staff report. 25 RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only ifitfinds that the 26 following requirements are mel. PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT- 18 2 3 4 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for consistency with all of the folloWing criteria f Building Orientation.' Provides buildings oriented to enhance views from within the site by taking 5 advantage oltopography, building location and style. 6 16. The buildings are orientated toward the open spaces or toward the offsite view vistas afforded 7 in the naturally elevated site location. There is minimal orientation toward off site non view areas. 8 RMC 4-9-1S0(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only ifitfinds that the 9 following requirements are met. 10 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for II consistency with all of the following criteria 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 g. Parking Area Design: Provides parking areas that are complemented by landscaping and not designed in long rows. The size of parking areas is minimized in comparison to typical designs, and each area related to the group of buildings served. The design provides for efficient use of parking. and shared parkingfacilities where appropriate. 17. Parking across the site would be handled in way as to not have large surface parking areas. Instead the applicant is proposing the use of parallel parking stalls along the perimeter of the proposed drive aisle. The surface parking design is comprised of 90-degree stalls to make maximum use of parking area and provide clear, safe vehicular circulation that promotes visibility. The use of compact stalls is minimal and is well under the code-required maximums for compact stall counts. 20 RMC 4-9-1S0(D)(4): Each planned urban development shall demonstrate compliance with the 21 development standards contained in subsection E of this Section, the underlying zone, and any overlay districts; unless a modification for a specific development standard has been requested 22 pursuant to subsection B2 of this Section. 23 24 18. As discussed below, the proposal complies with all development standards imposed by RMC 4-9-150(E). The proposal is compliant with the standards of the underlying RMF zone for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 23 of the staff report. As a project located in the RMF zone, 25 the project is in the District B design district as regulated by RMC 4-3-100. For the reasons identified 26 PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT- 19 2 3 4 5 6 7 in Finding of Fact No. 29 of the staff report, the proposal is consistent with all District B design standards. RMC 4-9-150(E)(1): Common Open Space Standard: Open space shall be concentrated in large usable areas and may be designed to provide either active or passive recreation. Requirementsfor residential, mixed use, commercial, and industrial developments are described below. a. Residential: For residential developments open space must equal at least ten percent (10%) of the development site's gross land area. i. Open space may include, but is not limited to, the following' 8 (a) A trail that allows opportunity for passive recreation within a critical area buffer (only the square 9 footage of the trail shall be included in the open space area calculation), or 10 (b) A sidewalk and its associated landscape strip, when abutting the edge of a critical area buffer and when a part of a new public or private road, or \I 12 13 14 15 16 17 (c) A similar proposal as approved by the reviewing official. ii. Additionally, a minimum area equal tofifty (50) square feet per unit of common space or recreation area shall be provided in a concentrated space as illustrated in Figure 1. 19. The 19,795 square feet of community space alone exceeds ten percent of the total 164,827 square feet of the project area. This space, along with other open spaces provided in the project site, also satisfies the requirement of SO square feet per dwelling unit, for a total of 3,700 additional square feet of open space. 18 RMC 4-9-150(E)(2): Private Open Space: Each residential unit in a planned urban development 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 shall have usable private open space (in addition to parking, storage space, lobbies, and corridors) jor the exclusive use of the occupants of that unit. Each ground floor unit, whether attached or detached, shall have private open space which is contiguous to the unit. The private open space shall be well demarcated and at least fifteen feet (15') in every dimension (decks on upper floors can substitute for the required private open space). For dwelling units which are exclUSively upper story units, there shall be deck areas totaling at least sixty (60) square feet in size with no dimension less than five feet (5'). 20. Ground related units do not have their own private open space. A condition of approval requires that the applicant provide a revised site plan demonstrating compliance with the private open space standard of at least IS-feet in every dimension for all ground related units. Not all upper story residential units have private open space dimensioned at 60 feet. A condition of approval requires PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT- 20 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 that the applicant provide revised elevations for upper floor units demonstrating compliance with the private open space standard of at least 60 square feet in size with no dimension less than 5 feet. RMC 4-9-1S0(E)(3): Installation and Maintenance of Common Open Space: a. Installation: All common area and open space shall be landscaped in accordance with the landscaping plan submitted by the Applicants and approved by the City; provided, that common open space containing natural features worthy of preservation may be left unimproved. Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit, the developer shall furnish a security device to the City in an amount equal to the provisions of RMC 4-9-060. Landscaping shall be planted within one year of the date of final approval of the planned urban development, and maintained for a period oj two (2) years thereafter prior to the release of the security device. A security device for providing maintenance of landscaping may be waived if a landscaping maintenance contract with a reputable landscaping firm licensed to do business in the City of Renton is executed and kept active for a two (2) year period. A copy oj such contract shall be kept on file with the Development Services Division b. Maintenance: Landscaping shall be maintained pursuant to requirements of RMC 4-4-070. 21. As Conditioned. RMC 4-9-1S0(E)(4): Installation and Maintenance of Common Facilities: a. Installation: Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits, all common jacilities, including but not limited to utilities, storm drainage, streets, recreation facilities, etc., shall be completed by the developer or, if dejerred by the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee, assured through a security device to the City equal to the provisions of RAIC 4-9-060 ... 22. As Conditioned. RMC 4-9-1S0(E)(4): Installation and Maintenance of Common Facilities: b. Maintenance: All commonfacilities not dedicated to the City shall be permanently maintained by the planned urban development owner, if there is only one owner, or by the property owners' association, or the agent(s) thereof In the event that such facilities are not maintained in a responsible manner, as determined by the City, the City shall have the right to provide jor the maintenance thereof and bill the owner or property owners' association accordingly. Such bill, if unpaid, shall become a lien against each individual property. 23. As conditioned. PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT- 21 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 \I 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 DECISION The proposed preliminary PUD meets all applicable criteria quoted in this decision and for that reason is APPROVED. Requested revisions to development standards identified in Finding of Fact No.3 are all approved except for revisions to RMC 4-9-150.E.2. The applicant's request for an additional 1.5 feet in building height for the west building as proposed in Ex. 27 is also approved. The proposal is subject to the following Conditions of Approval: 1. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures issued as part of the Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated ERC Addendum, dated April 7, 2016. 2. The applicant shall be required to record formal Lot Combination or Binding Site Plan in order to ensure the proposed buildings are not built across property lines. The instrument shall be recorded prior to building permit approval. 3. The applicant shall be required to submit a detailed landscape plan to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval complying with RMC 4- 4-070. 4. The applicant shall be required to submit a detailed landscape plan depicting at least 132, two-inch caliper, trees (or the gross equivalent inches) on site; not including the those trees located within the Native Growth Protection Easement. The detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 5. The applicant shall submit a revised landscaping plan depicting a minimum three-foot landscaped setback from the sidewalk at the base of retaining walls abutting, or within, public rights-of-way. Landscaping shall include a mixture of shrubs and groundcover (trees are optional) in conformance with the standards of RMC 4-4-070H4, Perimeter Parking Lot Landscaping. The revised landscaping plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering permit approval. 6. The applicant shall submit a revised Mitigation plan which addresses the criteria found in RMC 4-3-050.H.2 demonstrating the reduced buffer wouldn't negatively impact the function of the stream. The revised mitigation plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering permit approval. 7. The applicant shall submit a revised Mitigation plan which addresses the criteria found in RMC 4-3-050.H.2 demonstrating the bridged crossing wouldn't negatively impact the function of the stream. The revised mitigation plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering permit approval. 8. The applicant shall establish a Native Growth Protection Easement over that part of the site encompassing the stream and buffer area and place split rail fencing and signage along the outer edge of the buffer. The Final Mitigation plan shall include all specifications for fencing and signage and shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering permit approval. PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT- 22 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 9. The applicant shall be required to provide, to the Current Planning Project Manager, tree retention inspection/monitoring reports after initial clearing, final grading. and annually for two years by a qualified professional forester. The inspection/monitoring reports shall identify any retained trees that develop problems due to changing site conditions and prescribe mitigation. 10. The applicant shall provide interpretive signage/information regarding differentiating elements (trees, landscaping, drainage, architecture, etc.) of the proposed development at a strategic place(s) on site. The site plan depicting the signage shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit/Final Plat approval whichever comes first. 11. A detailed fencing plan shall be provided identifying the location and specifications for all fencing on site. All fencing shall be made of quality materials in keeping with the architectural aesthetic of the proposed structures. The fencing plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 12. The applicant shall provide a lighting plan that adequately provides for public safety without casting excessive glare on adjacent properties; at the time of engineering permit review. Pedestrian scale and down lighting shall be used in all cases to assure safe pedestrian and vehicular movement, unless alternative pedestrian scale lighting has been approved administratively or is specifically listed as exempt from provisions located in RMC 4-4-075 Lighting, Exterior On-Site. 14 13. The applicant shall eliminate the proposed access restrictions along SE 172nd St in order to provide full access along SE 172nd St. A revised site plan shall be submitted to, and 15 approved by, the Plan Reviewer prior to engineering permit approval. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 14. Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits, all common facilities, including but not limited to utilities, storm drainage, streets, recreation facilities, etc., shall be completed by the developer or, if deferred by the PlanninglBuildingiPublic Works Administrator or his/her designee, assured through a security device to the City equal to the provisions of RMC 4-9-060. 15. All common facilities not dedicated to the City shall be permanently maintained by the planned urban development owner. if there is only one owner. or by the property owners' association, or the agent(s) thereof. In the event that such facilities are not maintained in a responsible manner, as determined by the City, the City shall have the right to provide for the maintenance thereof and bill the owner or property owners' association accordingly. Such bill, if unpaid, shall become a lien against each individual property. 16. The applicant shall create a public outreach sign in coordination with City of Renton to communicate with road users, the general public, area residences and businesses, and appropriate public entities about project information; road conditions in the work zone area; and the safety and mobility effects of the work zone. The sign shall be placed on site prior to construction commencement. PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 23 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 17. The applicant shall provide a revised site plan demonstrating compliance with the private open space standard of at least 15-feet in every dimension for all ground related units. The revised site plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval whichever comes first. 18. The applicant shall provide revised elevations demonstrating compliance with the private open space standard of at least 60 square feet in size with no dimension less than 5 feet for all upper story units. The revised elevations shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval whichever comes first. 19. Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit, the developer shall furnish a security device to the City in an amount equal to the provisions of RMC 4-9-060. Landscaping shall be planted within one year of the date of final approval of the planned urban development, and maintained for a period of 2 years thereafter prior to the release of the security device. A security device for providing maintenance of landscaping may be waived if a landscaping maintenance contract with a reputable landscaping firm licensed to do business in the City of Renton is executed and kept active for a 2 year period. A copy of such contract shall be kept on file with the Planning Division. 20. The building entries from a street shall be clearly marked with canopies, architectural elements, ornamental lighting, and/or landscaping and include weather protection at least four and one-half feet (4-112') wide. The revised elevations shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 21. The applicant shall be required to submit a revised site and landscaping plan depicting entrances and pedestrian connections from ground related residential units, along SE 172nd St, to the public sidewalk. The revised landscape and site plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. Staff is aware there may be topographic challenges with entrances along SE l72nd St and the applicant is encouraged to provide stairs to the units or demonstrate separate entrances are not feasible prior to building permit approval. 22. The applicant shall submit revised refuse and recycle enclosure elevations which include a roof. The revised elevations shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 23. The applicant shall revise the site plan to depict a differentiation in materials for all pedestrian connections within parking areas and/or drive aisles on site. The revised site plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building/engineering permit approval. If this condition of approval is met the proposal would satisfy this standard. 24. The applicant shall provide detailed specifications for all site furniture, and art. in order to ensure durable, vandal-and weather-resistant materials are used. The specifications shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior building permit approval. PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT- 24 2 4 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25. The applicant shall submit revised elevations depicting entrance detailing/weather protection for ground related units, fencing, pedestrian connectivity, lighting fixtures, contrasting materials, and/or special detailing along SE J nnd St. The revised elevations shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval whichever comes first. 26. The applicant shall submit a materials board subject to the approval of the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. The board shall include color and materials for the following: guardrails, fa9ade treatments, retaining walls, raised planters, siding, windows/frames, and canopies. Acceptable materials include a combination of brick, integrally colored concrete masonry, pre-finished metal, stone, steel, glass, cast-in-place concrete, or other superior materials approved at the discretion of the Administrator. 27. The current left tum and right turn southbound lanes from Benson Road South to SR SIS shall be rechanneled by the applicant to one left tum lane and one combined left turn/right turn lane and the applicant shall also modify the light signal at the Benson Road South/SR SIS to accommodate the re-channelization. DATED this 24th day of May, 2016. (Phrffi:,t'if-~--· City of Renton Hearing Examiner Appeal Right and Valuation Notices RMC 4-8-080 provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-11 0(E)(14) 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 examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(l3) and RMC 4-8-100(G)(9). A new fourteen (14) day appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall - 7'h floor, (425) 430-6510. Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes 25 notwithstanding any program of revaluation. 26 PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT- 25 DEPARTMENT OF COM .. ,uNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT -------..-It'enton () A. REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER HEARING DATE: Project Name: Owners: Contact: File Number: Project Manager: Project Summary: Site Area: Project Location: May 10, 2016 Avana Ridge PUD Avana Ridge, LLC; 9675 SE 36th St, Ste 105; Mercer Island, WA 98040 Justin Lagers; Avana Ridge, LLC; 9675 SE 36th St, Ste 105; Mercer Island, WA 98040 LUA15-000894, PP, PPUD Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner The applicant is requesting a Preliminary Planned Urban Development and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of a multi-family development containing 74 units. The vacant 3.78 acre site is located within the Residential Multi-Family (RM-F) zoning classification and the Residential High Density (HD) land use designation. The development would be comprised of two separate multi- family residential structures resulting in a density of 20.21 dulac. The subject site is fronted by three public rights-of-way: SE 172nd St, Benson Rd S (108th Ave SE), and Benson Drive S (SR-515). The applicant is proposing one entrance off of SE 172"' St between the proposed buildings, and another entrance off of Benson Rd S. There is an unnamed stream, classified Ns, bisecting the site which runs from east to west. Pursuant to RMC 4-3-050, the applicant is proposing impacts to the stream buffer through buffer averaging. Additionally, the site contains Coal Mine Hazards. The Preliminary PUD would be used to vary street, refuse and recycle, building height, parking, design, private open space, and retaining wall standards. The applicant has proposed to provide buffer enhancement as part of the proposed PUD public benefit, along with the construction of enhanced open space, pedestrian amenities, landscaping, and superior site and building design. 164,828 SF Total Building Area GSF: 92,899 SF 17249 Benson Rd S Project Location Mop HEX Staff Report_Avana Ridge PUD_WA1S-000894 City of Renton Department of Co. unity & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA1S-000894, PPUD, fCF AVANARIDGfPUD Report of May 3, 2016 I B. EXHIBITS: Exhibit 1: Exhibit 2: Exhibit 3: Exhibit 4: Exhibit 5: Exhibit 6: Exhibit 7: Exhibit 8: Exhibit 9: Exhibit 10: Exhibit 11: Exhibit 12: Exhibit 13: Exhibit 14: Exhibit 15: Exhibit 16: Exhibit 17: Exhibit 18: Exhibit 19: Exhibit 20: Exhibit 21: Exhibit 22: Exhibit 23: ERC Report, dated April 11, 2016 Site Plan Landscape Plan Elevations Grading Plan Page 2 of 44 Geotechnical Report, prepared by Earth Solutions NW (dated December 21,2015) Coal Mine Hazard Study, prepared by Icicle Creek Engineers (dated March 22, 2004) Coal Mine Hazard Study, prepared by Icicle Creek Engineers (dated January 20,2009) Drainage Report, prepared by D.R. Strong (dated December 28,2015) Supplemental Stream Study, prepared by Sewell Wetland Consulting (dated December 22,2015) Conceptual Stream Mitigation Plan prepared by Sewell Wetland Consulting (December 28,2015) Habitat Data Report, prepared by Sewell Wetland Consulting (dated December 22, 2015) Arborist Report, prepared by Greenforest Inc. (dated December 16, 2015) Tree Retention Plan Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), prepared by TraffEx (dated February 2, 2016) Public Comment LettersjEmaiis Independent Secondary Review -Traffic Study, prepared by TenW (dated March 21, 2016) Response Memo -Independent Secondary Review, prepared by Traffex (dated March 26,2016) Staff Recommendation to the Hearing Examiner, dated May 3, 2016 SEPA Determination and Mitigation Measures (dated April 11, 2016) CI 73 -Residential Building Height Elevation Perspectives Transportation Concurrency HEX Staff Report_Avana Ridge PUD_WA15-000894 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development AVANA RIDGE PUD Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA15-000894, PPUD, ECF Report of May 3, 2016 II C GENERALINFORMATION: 1. Owner(s) of Record: 2. Zoning Classification: 3. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: 4. Existing Site Use: 5. Neighborhood Characteristics: Avana Ridge, LLC 9675 SE 36th St, Ste 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Residential Multi-Family (RMF) Residential High Density (HD) Vacant a. North: Existing Single Family Residential (R-8 Zone) b. East: Daycare (RMF Zone) c. South: Vacant (RMF Zone) d. West: Multi-Family, Public Storage, and a Dental Office (CA Zone) 6. Site Area: 164,827 SF (3.78 acres) I D. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND: Action Comprehensive Plan Zoning Annexation Springbrook Ridge Apt PUD (Expired) I E. PUBLIC SERVICES: 1. Existing Utilities Land Use File No. N/A N/A N/A LUA09-024 Ordinance No. 5758 5758 5327 N/A a. Water: Water service is provided by So os Creek Water and Sewer District. b. Sewer: Sewer service is provided by Soos Creek Water and Sewer District. Page 3 of 44 Date 06/22/2015 06/22/2015 03/01/2008 09/24/2009 c. Surface/Storm Water: There is partial storm water conveyance systems along Benson Drive S, Benson Rd S, and SE 172,d St. 2. Streets: There are partial street improvements along Benson Drive S, Benson Rd S, and SE 172,d St. 3. Fire Protection: City of Renton Fire Department F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE: 1. Chapter 2 Land Use Districts a. Section 4-2-020: Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts b. Section 4-2-070: Zoning Use Table c. Section 4-2-110: Residential Development Standards 2. Chapter 3 Environmental Regulations HEX Staff ReparCAvana Ridge PUD_LUA15-000894 City of Renton Deportment of Community & Economic Development AVANA RIDGE PUD Report of May 3, 2016 a. Section 4-3-100: Urban Design Regulations 3, Chapter 4 Property Development Standards 4, Chapter 6 Streets and Utility Standards a. Section 4-6-060: Street Standards 5. Chapter 9 Permits -Specific a. Section 4-9-150: Planned Urban Development Regulations 6, Chapter 11 Definitions G. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: 1, Land Use Element ! H. FINDINGS OF FACT (FOF): Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA15-000894, PPUD, ECF Page 4 of 44 1. The applicant is requesting a Preliminary Planned Urban Development (PPUD) and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of a multi-family development containing 74 units, in two four-story structures. 2. The subject site is currently vacant. 3. The development would be comprised of two separate multi·family residential structures resulting in a density of 20.21 dulac. The proposed 74 units would be comprised of (28) 1-bedroom units, (29) 2- bedroom units, and (17) 3-bedroom units. 4. The Planning Division of the City of Renton accepted the above master application for review on December 30, 2015 and determined the application complete on January 13, 2016. On February 15, 2016 the project was placed on hold pending receipt of an Independent Secondary Review of the provided Traffic Study. The applicant submitted all necessary documentation and on March 30, 2016 and the project was taken off hold. The project complies with the 120-day review period. 5. The project site is located on the northwesterly corner of the intersection of Benson Drive S and Benson Rd S. The site is triangularly shaped and consists of two separate tax parcels (Parcel #292305-9009 and #292305-9148), totaling 164,828 square feet in area (3.78 acres). 6. The site is located within the Residential Multi-Family (RM-F) zoning classification, the Residential High Density (HD) Comprehensive Plan land use designation, and Design District 'B'. 7. Surrounding uses include: a daycare facility abutting the property to the east (zoned RM-F); existing single family residences to the north (zoned R-8); southeast of the site, along 108th Ave SE, a vacant parcel (zoned RM-F); and across Benson Drive S, to the west, uses consists of multi-family, public storage, and a dental office (zoned CAl. 8. Access to the site is proposed via SE 172nd St, between the east and west buildings, and another ingress/egress point via Benson Rd S. The two access points create a through road for emergency vehicle ingress/egress across the property. 9. The proposal is served by a surface parking area to the south of the two structures, flanking the main access drive. A total of 94 parking stalls would be provided in the surface parking area. An additional 20-parking stalls would be provided along the street. HEX Staff Report_Avana Ridge PUD_LUA15-000894 City of Renton Deportment of ComfT!unity & Economic Development AVANA RIDGE PUD Report of May 3, 2016 Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA15-000894, PPUD, ECF Page 5 of 44 10. Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21C, 1971 as amended), on April 11, 2016, the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M) for the Avana Ridge PUD project. The DNS-M included three mitigation measures (Exhibit 20). A 14-day appeal period commenced on April 15, 2016, and ended on April 29, 2016. No appeals of the threshold determination were filed. 11. Based on an analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, the Environmental Review Committee (ERe) issued the following mitigation measures with the Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated: a. An updated Coal Mine Hazard Report shall be submitted demonstrating the proposal will not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent or abutting properties beyond pre- development conditions and the development can be safely accommodated on the site. The report shall also discuss any measures employed in the final site/building design which serve to mitigate coal mine subsidence risk. If no measures are employed, the applicant shall provide justification for the exclusion of additional measures. The updated Coal Mine Hazard Report shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering permit approval. b. One (1) Electronic Speed Radar Sign shall be installed in the northbound direction on both 106th Ave SE and 104th Ave SE. The applicant shall install the signs, mounting poles, and associated equipment, at the direction of the City. All improvements shall be included in the engineering permit submittal for review and approval, and shall be constructed prior to temporary occupancy. c. The applicant shall provide an off-site sidewalk, along the south side of SE 172nd 5t and the west side of Benson Rd S, approaching the intersection. The width of the off-site sidewalks shall be consistent with the widths proposed along the frontage of the subject site. ADA ramps shall also be constructed at the southwest corner of the intersection. Finally, a street lighting analysis is required to be conducted by the developer at the southwest corner of the intersection of 5E 172nd St and Benson Rd 5. If necessary, required street lighting shall be provided according to City standards. All improvements shall be included in the engineering permit submittal for review and approval, and shall be constructed prior to temporary occupancy. 12. The tallest point of the structure would be approximately 46 feet and 5-inches from the average grade plane to the highest peak of a shed roof element. The proposed building materials would be a combination of concrete masonry, brick, metal canopy, cast-in place concrete, fiber cement board, and wood elements. All concrete walls are proposed to be treated with texturing and/or reveals. (Exhibit 4). 13. Requested Modifications from RMC through the PUD: When approving a PPUD, the City may modify standards (RMC 4-2,4-4,4-7, and RMC 4-6-D60 Street Standards, except as listed in RMC 4-9-1506.3). All of the following modifications are required to be considered simultaneously as part of the planned urban development· RMC Code Citation Required Standard Requested Modification RMC 4-2-110A Roof pitches are required to be equal This proposal includes a roof pitch Development to or greater than 4:12 and may of 2:12 Standards for project an additional six (6) vertical Commercial Zoning feet from the maximum wall plate Designations-Roof height. Pitch RMC 4-2-110A A maximum building height of 3 The proposal includes a height of Development stories with a wall plate height of 30 46-feet and 5-inches as measured Standards for feet is permitted. from average grade plane to the Commercial Zoning tallest point of the shed roof HEX Staff Report_Avana Ridge PUD_WA15-000894 City of Renton Department of Comrnunity & Economic Development AVANA RIDGE PUD Report of May 3, 2016 Designations-Roof Pitch RMC 4-6-060F Street Various: See discussion in Table C: Standards PUD Criteria -Circulation RMC 4-3-100 Urban Various: See discussion in Table E: Design Standards Design District '0' Standards RMC 4-4-080F, Based on the proposed use, a Parking, Loading, and minimum and maximum of 96 parking Driveway Regulations spaces would be allowed in order to meet code. RMC 4-4-090, Refuse There shall be at least one deposit and Recyclables area/collection point for every thirty Standards (30) dwelling units. RMC 4-4-040, Heights are limited to 48 inches for Retaining Wall Height retainingwalls located within front yard/side yard along-a-street setbacks, and 72 inches for walls else where on site. RMC 4-9-150.E.2, Each residential unit in a PUD shall Private Open Space have usable private open space for the exclusive use of the occupants of that unit in compliance with dimensional standards. Hearing Examiner Recommendation WA15-000894, PPUD, ECF Page 6 of 44 elements. Various: See discussion under FOF xx: PUD Criteria -Circulation Various: See discussion under FOF xx: Design District 'B' Standards The applicant proposed a total of 94 spaces within surface parking areas. The proposal does not comply with the minimum parking stall requirements. The proposal includes a single refuse/recycle storage location centrally located, between both buildings at the center of the site. A section of the keystone-type wall located near the monument sign at the Benson Road/Benson Drive intersection is proposed at a height of 5.5 feet. A section of the keystone-type wall located near the monument sign at the Benson Road/Benson Drive intersection is 5 feet and 6-inches tall. The current proposal provides 4,156 SF of private, attached open space through the use of private balconies for some of the units which does not comply with the dimensional standards. 14_ There are a total of 429 trees on site of which 46 trees are proposed to be retamed outside of the critical area and buffer. 15. An unnamed seasonal stream, characterized as Ns pursuant to RMC 4-3-050, bisects the northern and southern portions of the site and runs east to west. The applicant is proposing buffer averaging and a stream alteration pursuant to RMC 4-3-050. A Wetland and Supplemental Stream Study was performed by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. on December 22,2015 (Exhibit 10). 16. A historic coal mine, known as the Springbrook mine, as well as its associated opening is also located on the site near the south property line. The coal mine is designated as a High Coal Mine Hazard pursuant to RMC 4-3-050. A Coal Mine Hazard Assessment was performed by Icicle Creek Engineers, Inc. on March 22, 2004 and January 20, 2009 (Exhibits 7 and 8). 17. Preliminary earthwork for the proposal includes 11,000 cubic yards of excavation and 3,250 yards of fill. 18. Construction is anticipated to commence in Summer of 2016 with substantial completion scheduled for Summer of 2017. HEX Staff Report_Avana Ridge PUD_WA1S-000894 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development AVANA RIDGE PUD Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA1S-000894, PPUD, ECF Report of May 3, 2016 Page 7 of 44 19. Studies provided by the applicant include a stormwater report, traffic study, habitat assessment, wetland and supplemental stream study, arborist report, geotechnical and a coal mine hazard report (Exhibit 6-13, and 15). 20. Staff received several traffic related comments/concerns. Also included in the comments letters were concerns related to: access, open space, street improvements, drainage, wildlife, density, and quality of life (Exhibit 16). Non-SEPA concerns include, but are not limited to the following: zoning, permitted uses, density, construction mitigation/traffic control, crime, landscaping, access, parking, retaining walls, setbacks, utilities, public services, and home sizes. No agency comments were received. 21. Representatives from various city departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and address issues raised by the proposed development. These comments are contained in the official file, and the essence of the comments has been incorporated into the appropriate sections of this report and the Departmental Recommendation at the end of this report. 22. Comprehensive Plan Compliance: The site is designated Residential High Density (HD) on the City's Comprehensive Plan Map. HD unit types are designed to incorporate features from both single-family and multi-family developments, support cost-efficient housing, facilitate infill development, have close access to transit service, and efficiently use urban services and infrastructure. Lands designated HD is where projects will be compatible with existing uses and where infrastructure is adequate to handle impacts from higher density uses. The proposal is compliant with the following Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies if .ill! conditions of approval are met: Compliance Comprehensive Plan Analysis Policy L-2: Support compact urban development to improve health outcomes, support " transit use, maximize land use efficiency, and maximize public investment in infrastructure and services. Goal L-H: Plan for high-quality residential growth that supports transit by providing " urban densities, promotes efficient land utilization, promotes good health and physical activity, builds social connections, and creates stable neighborhoods by incorporating both built amenities and natural features. " Goal L-BB: Maintain a high quality of life as Renton grows by ensuring that new development is designed to be functional and attractive. " Goal L-FF: Strengthen the visual identity of Renton and its Community Planning Areas and neighborhoods through quality design and development. Policy L-S1: Respond to specific site conditions such as topography, natural features, " and solar access to encourage energy savings and recognize the unique features of the site through the deSign of subdivisions and new buildings. Policy L-52: Include human-scale features such as pedestrian pathways, quality " landscaping, and public spaces that have discernible edges, entries, and borders to create a distinctive sense of place in neighborhoods, commercial areas, and centers. " Policy L-53: Orient buildings in developments toward the street or a common area, rather than toward parking lots. Policy L-S7: Complement the built environment with landscaping using native, " naturalized, and ornamental plantings that are appropriate for the situation and circumstance and which provide for respite, recreation, and sun/shade. HEX Staff ReporCAvana Ridge PUD_LUA15-000894 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development AVANA RIDGE PUD Hearing Examiner Recommendation WA15-000894, PPUD, ECF Report of May 3,2016 Page 8 of 44 23. Zoning Development Standard Compliance: The RMF Zone provides suitable environments for multi- family dwellings. It is further intended to conditionally allow uses that are compatible with and support a multi-family environment. The RMF allows for the development of both infill parcels in existing multi- family districts with compatible projects and other multi-family development. Densities range from ten (10) to twenty (20) du/acre with opportunities for bonuses up to twenty five (25) dwelling units per net acre. The proposal is compliant with the following development standards if all conditions of approval are met: Compliance RMF Zone Develop Standards and Analysis Density: There is no minimum density requirement for townhouse development in the RMF zone. The minimum density required for other attached dwelling units is 10 dwelling units per net acre. The maximum density permitted is 20 dwelling units per net acre. Net density is calculated after the deduction of sensitive areas, areas intended for publiC right·of-way, and private access easements. or Staff Comment: After deducting 1,237 square feet for access easements and 4,015 square feet for critical areas, from the 164,827 gross square footage of the site, the net square footage would be 159,574 square feet (3.66 net acres). The 74 unit proposal would arrive at a net density of 20.21 dwelling units per acre (74 units I 3.66 acres = 20.21 dulac), which falls within the permitted density range for the RMF zoning classification. Lot Dimensions: There is no minimum lot size required in the RMF zone. A minimum lot width of 25 feet is required (30 feet for corner lots) for townhouse development. A or minimum lot depth of 50 feet is required for townhouse development. Statf Comment: The proposal daes not include alterations to lot lines. Lot Coverage: The allowed lot coverage is 35%. A maximum coverage of 45% may be or allowed through the Hearing Examiner site development plan review process. Staff Comment: The lot coverage for the entire development is at approximately 13.8%. Setbacks: The required setbacks attached dwellings in the RMF zone are as follows: front yard is 20 feet, the side yard is 0 feet for the attached sides and 5 feet for the unattached sides (per CI-76), side yard along the street is 20 feet, and rear yard is 10 feet. Staff Comment: The proposed buildings would have a front yard setback of 20 feet and from the front (Sf 1720d St) property line which exceeds the maximum frant yard Complianti! setback. The proposed west-building would have a side yard olong-a-street setback of Conditions o! 24 feet from the Benson DrivelSR 515 which exceeds the maximum side yard along-a- Approval is street setback. The side yard setback, from the eastern property line is 33 feet and 4- Met inches exceeding the 5-foot requirement. There is not a rear yard for the site given street frontages surrounding the site. The project is however praposed to be built across a portion of the common boundary between existing property lines. Therefore, stoff recommends as a condition of approval the applicant be required to record formal Lot Combination or Binding Site Plan in order to ensure the proposed buildings are not built across praperty lines. The instrument shall be recarded prior to building permit approval. Requested to Building Standards: The RMF zone has a maximum impervious surface coverage of be Modified 75%. A Code Interpretation (CI-73) (Exhibit 21) was adopted regarding building height HEX Staff Report_Avono Ridge PUD_LUA1S-000894 City of Renton Deportment of Community & Economic Development AVANA RIDGE PUD Hearing Examiner Recommendation WA1S-000894, PPUD, ECF Report of May 3,2016 Through the PUD Compliant if Conditions of Approval is Met Page 9 of 44 requirements in residential zones. In the RMF zone, a maximum building height of 3 stories with a wall plate height of 30 feet is permitted. Roofs with a pitch equal to or greater than 4:12 may project an additional six (6) vertical feet from the maximum wall plate height; common rooftop features, such as chimneys, may project an additional four (4) vertical feet from the roof surface. Non-exempt vertical projections (e.g., decks, railings, etc.) shall not extend above the maximum wall plate height unless the projection is stepped back one-and-a-half (l.s) horizontal feet from each fa,ade for each one (1) vertical foot above the maximum wall plate height. Reserved. Wall plates supporting a roof with only one (1) sloping plane (e.g., shed roof) may exceed the stated maximum if the average of wall plate heights is equal or less than the maximum wall plate height allowed. An additional ten feet (10') height for a residential dwelling structure may be obtained through the provision of additional amenities such as additional recreation facilities, underground parking, and additional landscaped open space areas; as determined through the site development plan review process and depending on the compatibility of the proposed buildings with adjacent or abutting existing residential development. In no case shall the maximum wall plate height of a residential structure exceed thirty-five feet (35'). Requested to be modified throuqh the PUD Stoff Comment: The overall project has less impervious surface than otherwise would be expected. Based on the provided TlR the site would cantain approximately 40.1% impervious surfaces for the overall site. This would include building areas, aSSOCiated walkways, driveways, parking and drive aisles. The tallest point of the structure would be approximately 46 feet and 5-inches fram average grade to the highest peak of the tallest shed roof element. The PUD seeks to modify the minimum pitch from 4:12 to 2:12 as well as the maximum wall plate height. The requested modification would still give the appearance of pitched shed raaf from the pedestrian perspective (Exhibit 22). The varied combination of parapet and roof slope, combined with cornice details and trellis elements achieve a visually interesting break in the roofline intended to be created with roof pitch requirement. The proposed roof profiles effectively achieve the intent of the code by breaking up the massing and providing visual interest to the building rooflines. Additionally, the proposed height serves to concentrate development in one area of the site preserving opportunities for meaningful open space. Therefore, staff is in support of the requested roof pitch and height modificotion, as part of the PUD, if all conditions of approval are met. Landscaping: The City'S landscape regulatians (RMC 4-4-070) require a lO-foot landscape strip along all public street frontages. Additional minimum planting strip widths between the curb and sidewalk are established according to the street development standards of RMC 4-6-060. Staff Comment: The applicant has proposed landscaping along the frontages of the site (Bensan Drive 5, Benson Rd 5, and SE 172nd St) exceeding the la-foot landscape requirement. The applicant has also thoughtfully incorporoted landscaping throughout the site in arder to create active and passive recreatian opportunities as well as to separate parking and drive aisles into smaller areas. A conceptual landscape plan was submitted with the project application (Exhibit 3). HEX Staff Report_Avana Ridge PUD_WA15-000894 City of Renton Deportment of COfP "1 un ity & Economic Development AVANA RIDGE PUD Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA15-000894, PPUD, fCF Report of May 3, 2016 Compliant if Conditions of Approval is Met Page 10 of 44 The landscape plan includes a planting plan which contains several different tree and shrub species but does not provide specific detail for the number or types of trees and shrubbery. Therefore stoff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant be required to submit a detailed landscape plan to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit appro vol complying with RMC 4-4-070. See additional discussion below in FOF 26: PUD Decision Criteria, Londscaping/Screening. Tree Retention: The City's adopted Tree Retention and land Clearing Regulations require the retention of 20 percent of trees in a residential development. Significant trees shall be retained in the following priority order: Priority One: landmark trees; significant trees that form a continuous canopy; significant trees on slopes greater than twenty percent (20%); Significant trees adjacent to critical areas and their associated buffers; and Significant trees over sixty feet (60') in height or greater than eighteen inches ( 18") caliper. Priority Two: Healthy tree groupings whose associated undergrowth can be preserved; other significant native evergreen or deciduous trees; and Other significant non-native trees. Priority Three: Alders and cottonwoods shall be retained when all other trees have been evaluated for retention and are not able to be retained, unless the alders and/ or cottonwoods are used as part of an approved enhancement project within a critical area or its buffer. For multi-family development, the minimum tree density is four (4) significant trees for every five thousand (5,000) square feet. The tree density may consist of existing trees, replacement trees, trees required pursuant to RMC 4-4-070Fl, Street Frontage landscaping Required, or a combination. Staff Comment: The site is currently forested with mixed canopy dominated by Douglas fir, red cedar, big leaf maple, Scouler's willow, and black cottonwood. The site's understory is dominated by Indian plum, hazelnut, Himilayan blackberry, sword fern, and creeping blackberry. The applicont provided a Tree Protection Plan/Arborist Report, completed by Greenforest Inc., dated December 16, 2015 (Exhibit 13). Based on the provided tree inventory, 429 trees are located on the subject site. There are 114 trees located in critical areas and associated buffers; 67 trees were identified as dead, diseased, or dangerous; and 37 trees would be located within proposed rights- of-way. This results in the exclusion of 218 trees from retention calculations. As such, 211 trees were utilized to calculate retention requirements of 20% of the significant trees located on the site. Therefore, the applicant would be required to retain at leost 42 trees on site. The provided Tree Retention Plan depicts the retention of 46 trees outside of the critical areas and their associated buffers which serves to meet tree retention requirements (Exhibit 13). Additionally, the project site is approximately 165,000 SF square feet. As a result, a total of 132 trees are required to be located on the site in order to meet the tree density requirements of the code (165,000 square feet / 5,000 square feet x 4 trees = 132 trees). The applicant's proposed landscape plan includes the planting of several trees, in addition to the 46 trees proposed for retention, but does not provide specific detail for the number or types of trees. Therefore, stoff recommends as a condition of HEX StaffReport_Avana Ridge PUD_LUA15-000894 City of Renton Deportment of COIT'''1unity & Economic Development AVANA RIDGE PUD Hearing Examiner Recommendation WA15-000894, PPUD, EeF Report of May 3, 2016 Requested to be Modified Through the PUD Requested to be Modified Through the PUD Page 11 of 44 approval, the applicant be required to submit a detailed landscape plan depicting at least 132, two-inch caliper, trees (or the gross equivalent inches) an site; not including the those trees located within the Native Growth Protection Easement. The detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to canstruction permit approval. Parking: The parking regulations, RMC 4-4-080, require a specific number of off- street parking stalls be provided based on number of bedrooms proposed per unit. Requested to be modified throuqh the PUD Staff Comment: The following rotios would be applicable to the site: Use Attached Residential Units # Qf residential units 28 -1 bedrooms 29 - 2 bedrooms 17 - 3 bedrooms Ratio 1.0 spaces/l-bedroom 1.4 spaces /2-bedroom 1.6 spaces /3-bedroom 28 41 27 Based on the proposed uses, a minimum and maximum of 96 parking spaces would be required in order to meet cade. The applicant is proposing a total of 94 spaces within structured and surface parking areas. The proposal does not camply with the minimum requirements by two stalls. The applicant is proposing to modify the minimum parking requirements through the PUD. While the proposal does not meet the minimum number of parking stalls required by cade the requested modification conforms to the intent and purpose of the parking regulations by providing sufficient on-site parking for the amount necessary for the new development. The applicant is requesting a very small reduction, of less than 3%. Additionally, the proposal includes 20 public stalls provided along 5E 1720d 5t which would serve as overflow parking for the proposal. Therefore, staff is in support of the requested modification, as part of the PUD, if all conditions of approval are met. The parking canforms to the minimum requirements for drive aisle, parking stall, dimensions and the provision of ADA accessible parking stalls. Per RMC 4-4-080F.ll the number of bicycle parking spaces shall be one-half (0.5) bicycle parking space per dwelling unit for a total of 37 bicycle parking stalls. The applicant is proposing 21 bicycle parking spaces within a bike room in the West building. An additional 20 bicycle parking spaces would be provided within a bike room in the East building, for a total of 41 spaces. The applicant will be required to demonstrote spaces meet the requirements of RMC 4-4-080F.ll.c as port of building permit applications. Refuse and Recyclables: Per RMC 4-4-090 for multi-family developments a minimum of 1 Y, square feet per dwelling unit is required for recyclable deposit areas and a minimum of 3 square feet per dwelling unit is required for refuse deposit areas. There shall be at least one deposit area/collection point for every thirty (30) dwelling units. Staff Comment: Based on the proposal for a total 74 residential units, 333 square feet of refuse and recycle area us required to be dedicated. The proposal includes a 436 square foot area dedicated to refuse and recycle which complies with the area dedication requirements. Through the PUD the applicant is requesting a modification in order to provide a HEX Staff Report_Avana Ridge PUD_WA1S-000894 City of Renton Deportment of Com"'lunity & Economic Development AVANA RIDGE PUD Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA15-000894, PPUD, EeF Report of May 3,2016 Requested to be MOdified Through the PUD Page 12 of 44 combined refuse/recycle enclosure. The refuse/recycle storage locotion would be centrally located between both buildings at the center of the site, away from public view, To reduce architectural bulk and scale the twa separately-required storage locations have been proposed in one enclosure. A single enclosure would provide ease of access to residents of both buildings in addition to allowing for one, easily- accessible, pickup point for waste monagement services, Therefore, staff is in support of the requested modification, as part of the PUD, if all conditions of appro vol are met. See additional discussion below in FOF 29: Design District Review, Service Element Design and Location, Fences and Retaining Walls: In any residential district, the maximum height of any fence, hedge or retaining wall shall be seventy two inches (72"), Except in the front yard and side yard along a street setback where the fence shall not exceed forty eight inches (48") in height, There shall be a minimum three-foot (3') landscaped setback at the base of retaining walls abutting public rights-of-way, Requested to be modified through the PUD. stoff Comment: The site can best be chorocterized as hilly generally sloping south to word the stream on site and Benson Drive S, Slopes on-site range fram 8 to 15% with a topographic relief of appraximately 35 feet. The steepest slope on the site is approximately 20% in the proximity of the stream on site. The proposal complies with the retaining woll height requirements of the code with the exceptions of two areas on site. A section of the keystone-type wall proposed near the monument sign at the Benson Road/Benson Drive intersection is 5 feet ond 6-inches tall. This wall would face the street. Imposing the 4-foot maximum height would require a 4-foot wide terrace and add 105 linear feet of a 1,0-to 1.5-foot tall wall. The wall would also require removal of three additional trees, Additionally, a section of the keystone-type wall proposed along the east side of the east building reaches 6 feet and 6-inches tall, exceeding the 6-foot maximum, This wall would face the proposed building, The excess height is preferable to a terraced canfiguration because it provides a contiguous landscape buffer, The wall could be limited to 6-feet by steepening the grade of the landscape buffer, However, this wos not pursued in on effort to minimize visual impacts to the adjacent day care faCility through the use of landscaping. The requested modifications to the retaining wall height requirements are minimal in both cases and strict campliance would create impacts such as the removal of existing vegetation or the interruption of landscape buffer, However, given the location of the walls are adjacent to, or in many cases within, rights-of-way the proposal would very much benefit from landscaping between the sidewalk and proposed retaining walls in order to provide visual relief, The cade requires a minimum three-foot landscaped setback at the base of retaining wOlls abutting public rights-of-way_ Therefore staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicont submit a revised landscaping plan depicting a minimum three-foot landscaped setback from the sidewalk at the base of retaining walls abutting, or within, public rights-of-way. Landscaping shall include a mixture of shrubs and groundcover (trees are optional) in conformance with the standards of RMC 4-4-070H4, Perimeter Parking Lot Landscaping, The revised HEX StoJfReport_Avono Ridge PUD_LUA1S-000894 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development AVANA RIDGE PUD Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA15-000894, PPUD, ECF Report of May 3, 2016 Page 13 of 44 landscaping plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering permit appraval. Staff is in support of the requested modification for the retaining wall height, as part af the PUD, if all conditions of approval are complied with including the provision of landscaping between the sidewalk and the retaining wall. 24. Critical Areas: Project sites which contain critical areas are required to comply with the Critical Areas Regulations (RMC 4-3-050). The proposal is consistent with the Critical Areas Regulations, if all conditions of approval are complied with: Compliant if condition of approval is met Geologically Hazardous Areas: Staff Comment; A coal mine was operated historically within the southern portion of the site, along the southwesterly property line. According to the Coal Mine Hazard Study, prepared by Icicle Creek Engineers on January 26, 2009, the coal mine is designated a High Coal Mine Hazard (CH) as defined by RMC 4-3-050 (Exhibit 8). The classificotion was affirmed by Earth Solutions NW in the provided Geotechnical Report (Exhibit 6). High Cool Mine Hazards are considered areas with abandoned and improperly sealed mine openings and areas underlain by mine workings shallower than 200 feet in depth for steeply dipping seams, or shallower than 1S times the thickness of the seam or workings for gently dipping seams. These areas may be affected by collapse or other subsidence. The main entry and airshaft for the Springbrook mine is also located on site. Icicle Creek Engineers encountered approximately 15 feet of fill at what appears to be the mine entry, estimated to be 5 to 8 feet in diameter, and inclined at approximately 55 to 60 degrees to the south (Exhibit 8). Several recommendations to mitigate potential risk of the coal mine hazard/former entry were included in the Icicle Creek Engineer report, including the excavation of the fill at the mine entry and backfilling with controlled density fill (Exhibit 8). However, these recommendations were based on a former development proposal which included structures in the southern portion of the site. The proposed development is setback approximately 125 feet from the coal mine hazard and would likely not have the same impacts as the former development. However, there are some grading activities and smaller recreational improvements in the proximity of the coal mine hazard which may potentially be affected by mining related subsidence. A mitigation measure was issued requiring an updated Coal Mine Hazard Report demonstrating the proposal would not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent or abutting properties beyond pre-development conditions and the development can be safely accommodated on the site (Exhibit 20). Streams: Staff Comment The applicant submitted a Wetland and Supplemental Stream Study, prepared by Ed Sewell Consulting Inc., dated December 22, 2015 (Exhibit 10). The report states there are no wetlands located on site. An unnamed seasonal stream (Stream A) has been identified on the subject site. Stream A bisects the northern and southern portions of the site and runs from east to west. As defined by RMC 4-3- 050.G the stream best meets the criteria of a Type Ns stream due to its intermittent flow and lack of fish use. Class Ns streams have a standard buffer of 50 feet as measured from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) as well as a 15-foot setback HEX Staff Report_Avana Ridge PUD_WA15-000894 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development AVANA RIDGE PUD Hearing Exominer Recommendation WA15-000894, PPUD, EeF Report of May 3, 2016 Page 14 of 44 from the edge of the buffer to ony structure. The applicant is proposing buffer averoging for portions of the stream buffer. Additionally, the applicant is proposing an alteration within the stream and its associated buffer for a pedestrian crossing. It should be noted that the Habitat Biologist for WDFW concluded the on-site stream is not a jurisdictional water, or a "water of the stote". As a result no Hydraulic Permit Approval (HPA) permit is required from Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife. Stream Buffer Averoging Proposal: RMC 4-3-050.1.1 allows for critical area buffers to be reduced to no less than a 25-foot minimum for Type Ns streams. The applicant has proposed buffer averaging, with reductions of the buffer down to 25 feet, for Stream A. Overall the applicant is proposing buffer reductions in the amount of approximately 8,835 square feet to be mitigated with buffer additions in the amount of approximately 9,527 square feet. The applicant is also proposing buffer enhancement for those portions of the buffer which would be reduced. Pursuant to RMC, buffer width averaging may be allowed by the reviewing official only where the applicant demonstrates all of the following; There are existing physical improvements in or near the water body and associated riparian area; and ii. Buffer width averaging will result in no net loss of stream/lake/riparian ecalogical function; and iii. The total area contained within the buffer after averaging is no less than that contained within the required standard buffer width prior to averaging; and iv. The praposed buffer standard is based on cansideratian af the best available science as described in WAC 365-195-905; and v. Where the buffer width is reduced by averaging pursuant to this subsection, buffer enhancement shall be required. The existing stream buffer, which separates the north apartment building area from the southern open space, is mostly existing forest (primarily Alder and Cottonwood) with an understory dominated by invasive Himalayan blackberry. The buffer would be enhanced through the removal of the invasive blackberries and other undesirable vegetation and replaced with native understory vegetation. There are existing road improvements within the buffer on both the east and west sides of the stream. The applicant's Supplemental Stream Study cancluded the buffer reduction, through averaging, would have the physical characteristics that con protect water quality and functions of the stream on site (Exhibit 10). Staff has reviewed the stream buffer averaging praposal for Stream A, and agrees that the proposal meets all requirements found in RMC 4-3-050.1.1. However, the provided stream study does not include a demonstration of compliance with criteria found in RMC 4-3-0S0.H.2. Therefore, stoff was unoble to verify that through the enhoncement of the buffer ond the use of low impact development strategies the reduced buffer will function at a higher level than the standard buffer. While staff believes the proposal for a reduced buffer wouldn't negotively impact the function of the stream, this could not be offirmed. As a result staff is recommending a candition of opproval requiring the applicant submit a revised Mitigation plan which addresses the criteria found in RMC 4-3-050.H.2 demonstrating the reduced buffer wouldn't negatively impact the function of the stream. The revised mitigation plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior ta engineering permit approval. HEX Staff Report_Avana Ridge PUD_WA1S-000894 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development AVANA RIDGE PUD Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA15-000894, PPUD, EeF Report of May 3, 2016 Page 15 of 44 Stream Alteration Proposal: RMC 4-3-050.1.2.0 allows for the construction of non-vehicular transportation crossings. The applicant has proposed a pedestrian bridge trail crossing over Stream A. Pursuant to RMC, crassings may be permitted by the reviewing official only where the applicant demonstrates all of the fallowing: The proposed route is determined to have the least impact on the enviranment, while meeting City Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element requirements and standards in RMC 4-6-060; and ii. The crossing minimizes interruption of downstream movement of wood and gravel; and iii. Transportation facilities in buffer areas shall not run parallel to the water body; and iv. Crossings occur as near to perpendicular with the water body as possible; and v. Crossings are designed according ta the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Fish Water Crossing Design Guidelines, 2013, and the National Marine Fisheries 5ervice Guidelines for Salmonid Passage at Stream Crassings, 2000, as may be updated, or equivalent manuals as determined by the Administrator; and vi. 5easonal work windows are determined and made a condition of approval; and vii. Mitigation criteria of subsection L of this Section are met. The proposed path would connect the north and south sides of the buffer, crossing over Stream A, via a pedestrian bridge. The bridge would also serve to connect the proposed structures to the proposed open space on the southern portion of the site. The bridged trail crossing would be located within a narrow portion of the stream, above the flow path of water, and would be perpendicular to the water body. Staff has reviewed the alteration proposal for the bridge across Stream A, and agrees that the proposal meets all requirements found in RMC 4-3-050.1.2. However, the provided stream study does not include a demonstration of campliance with criteria found in RMC 4-3-050.H.2. While staff believes the praposed bridged crossing wouldn't negatively impact the function of the stream, staff was unable to verify. As a result staff is recommending a condition of appraval requiring the applicant submit a revised Mitigation plan which addresses the criteria found in RMC 4-3-050.H.2 demonstrating the bridged crassing wouldn't negatively impact the function of the stream. The revised mitigation plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering permit approval. Finally, in order to preserve and protect the stream ond its associated buffer staff olso recommends the applicant establish a Native Growth Protection Easement over that part of the site encompassing the stream and buffer area and place split rail fencing and signage along the outer edge of the buffer. The Final Mitigation plan shall include all specifications for fencing and signage and shall be submitted to, and appraved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering permit appraval. 2S. PUD Applicabilitv Standards: Pursuant to RMC 4-9-1S0B, any applicant seeking to permit development which is not limited by the strict application of the City's zoning, parking, street, and subdivision regulations in a comprehensive manner shall be subject to applicability standards. The following table HEX Staff Report_Avana Ridge PUD_LUA15-000894 City of Renton Department of Co",,,,unity & Economic Development AVANA RIDGE PUD Hearing Examiner Recommendation WA1S-000894, PPUD, ECF Report of May 3, 2016 Page 16 of 44 contains project elements intended to comply with applicability standards, as outlined in RMC 4-9- 150B: Compliance PUD Applicability Criteria and Analvsis In approving a planned urban development, the City may modify any of the standards Compliant if of RMC 4-2, RMC 4-3-100, RMC 4-4, RMC 4-6-060, and RMC 4-7. All modifications Conditions of shall be considered simultaneously as part of the planned urban development. Approval Are Staff Comment: All standards requested to be modified are contained within the code Met sections listed above with the exception of the Private Open Space modificotion. See discussion under FOF 28: PUD Development Standards, Private Open Space. An applicant may request additional modifications from the requirements of the Renton Municipal Code. Approval for modifications other than those specifically Compliant if described in subsection RMC 4-9-150B.2.a shall be approved prior to submittal of a Conditions of Approval are preliminary planned urban development plan. Met Staff Comment: All requested modificotions ore outlined above under Finding 13. Stoff is in support of all requested modifications, with the exception of the private open spoce request, if all conditions of approval are complied with. A planned urban development may not authorize uses that are inconsistent with those uses allowed by the underlying zone, or overlay district, or other location ,/" restriction in RMC Title 4, including, but not limited to: RMC 4-2-010 to 4-2-080, 4-3- 010 to 4-3-040, 4-3-090, 4-3-095, and 4-4-010. Staff Comment: Attached residential units are a permitted use in the RMF zone. The number of dwelling units shall not exceed the density allowances of the applicable base or overlay zone or bonus criteria in chapter 4-2 or 4-9 RMC; however, ,/" averaging density across a site with multiple zoning classifications may be allowed if approved by the Community and Economic Development Administrator. Staff Comment: The propasal complies with the density requirements of the zone. See discussion in FOF 23: Zaning Development Standard Compliance. 26. PUD Decision Criteria Analysis: Pursuant to RMC 4-9-1500, each planned urban development shall demonstrate compliance with the Planned Urban Development decision criteria. The following table contains project elements intended to comply with the Planned Urban Development decision criteria, as outlined in RMC 4-9-1500: Compliance PUD Decision Criteria and Analysis Demonstration of Compliance and Superiority Required: Applicants must demonstrate that a proposed development is in compliance with the purposes of this Section and with the Comprehensive Plan, that the proposed development will be superior to that which would result without a planned urban development, and that the development will not be unduly detrimental to surrounding properties. ,/ Staff Comment: If the canditions of approval are met, the applicant will have demonstrated compliance with the PUO regulations and the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant will have demonstroted that the development is superior to that which would result without a PUD and requested modifications will not be detrimental to surrounding properties. The development of this site as a PUD results in a superior design than what would result by the strict application of the Development Standards HEX Staf!Report_Avana Ridge PUD_WA1S-000894 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development AVANA RIDGE PUD Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA15-000894, PPUD, ECF Report of May 3, 2016 Page 17 of 44 for the following reasons: natural features, overall design, and building and site design. The proposed design provides for the retention of the natural grade on site, significant trees and a noteworthy amount of landscaping and re-vegetation. Additionally, the plan provides for both active and passive recreation spaces significantly beyond the standard cade requirements. The proposed design can provide for the aforementioned amenities because of the modifications requested in FOF 13: Requested Modifications from RMC above. The site is designoted Residential High Density (HD) on the Comprehensive Pion Land Use Map. See Comprehensive Plan analysis under FOF 22: Comprehensive Plan Anolysis. Public Benefit Required: Applicants shall demonstrate that a proposed development will provide specifically identified benefits that clearly outweigh any adverse impacts or undesirable effects of the proposed planned urban development, particularly those adverse and undesirable impacts to surrounding properties, and that the proposed development will provide one or more of the following benefits than would result from the development of the subject site without the proposed planned urban development: N/A Complianti! Condition a! Approval is Met N/A N/A a. Critical Areas: Protects critical areas that would not be protected otherwise to the same degree as without a planned urban development. b. Natural Features: Preserves, enhances, or rehabilitates natural features of the subject property, such as significant woodlands, native vegetation, topography, or noncritical area wildlife habitats, not otherwise required by other City regulations. Staff Comment: The primary natural features of the property include retention of 114 existing trees in the critical area, in addition to the 46 trees proposed for retention outside the critical area. The number of trees proposed for retention results in minimal adverse disturbance to existing vegetation, minimize surface water and groundwater runoff, aid in the stabilization of soils, minimize erosion and sedimentation, and minimize the need for additional storm drainage facilities caused by the destabilization of soils. Additionally, the cluster of trees proposed for retention would serve to abate noise, provide wind protection, and reduce air pollution. Finally, the large landscaped community open space provided at the southern portion of the site totaling 19,795 square feet and the 49,918 square feet of critical area and associated buffer would remain in a vegetative/open space state providing a sanctuary for the animals that reside in the area. The trees proposed for retention may be impacted after initial clearing, final grading, due to changing site conditions. Therefore staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant be required to provide, to the Current Planning Project Manager, tree retention inspection/monitoring reports ofter initiol clearing, final grading, and annually for two years by a qualified professional forester. The inspection/monitoring reports shall identify any retained trees that develop problems due to changing site conditions and prescribe mitigation. c. Public Facilities: Provides public facilities that could not be required by the City for development of the subject property without a planned urban development. d. Use of Sustainable Development Techniques: Design which results in a sustainable development; such as LEED certification, energy efficiency, use of alternative energy resources, low impact development techniques, etc. HEX Staff Report_Avono Ridge PUD_LUA15-000894 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development AVANA RIDGE PUD Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA1S-000894, PPUD, ECF Report of May 3, 2016 Compliant if Conditions of Approval are Met Page 18 of 44 e. Overall Design: Provides a planned urban development design that is superior to the design that would result from development of the subject property without a planned urban development A superior design may include the following: i. Open Space/Recreation: (a) Provides increased open space or recreational facilities beyond standard code requirements and considered equivalent to features that would offset park mitigation fees in Resolution 3082; and (b) Provides a quality environment through either passive or active recreation facilities and attractive common areas, including accessibility to buildings from parking areas and public walkways; or Staff Comment: The applicant has provided a variety of recreation opportunities and open spaces throughout the development. Without the use of the proposed PUD the applicant has indicated that the proposal would have likely eliminated the opportunity for a concentrated recreation space. The applicant is proposing the canstruction of a large landscaped community open space at the southern portion of the site. The community open space incarporates active and passive space, with a central cannecting sidewalk linking the space to the public right-of-way. A central path and complementing pedestrian bridge crassing would be constructed to create an access point to the community open space fram the surface parking lot. The large area would be ample usable space for passive recreation and special events such as picnics, parties, weddings, movie night in the park, concerts, etc;, pramoting community involvement. Additionally, the space would take advantage of and display the attractive territorial views to the West. Finally, the space would serve to preserve and enhance existing vegetation and natural character thraugh tree preservation, removal of extensive invasive Blackberries, and replacement with native understory vegetation to be maintained through the life of the development. The space features a large, central, gently sloping lawn for casual seating and recreation. The lawn is oriented to slope down towards on open pavilion whose intended use includes performances, and community gatherings. The pavilion is also sited to copture and frame the attractive territorial views to the West. A small fenced off-leash dog run is provided at the east side of the site between the buffer and the parking lot among a grove of existing trees to be preserved. The dog run would be a pervious wood-chip surface. The applicant has indicated that there is an opportunity to include interpretive sign age/information regarding differentiating elements (trees, landscaping, drainage, architecture, etc.) of the praposed development at a strategic place(s) on site. The use of interpretive signage would result in an increase in public benefit for the overall project. Therefore, staff recammends as a condition of appraval the applicant provide interpretive sign age/information regarding differentiating elements (trees, landscaping, drainage, architecture, etc.) of the proposed development at a strategic place(s) on site. The site plan depicting the signage shall be submitted to, and appraved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit/Final Plat approval whichever comes first. The resident amenity lounge located on Levell of the West building takes advantage of outdoor space and integrates an outdoor plaza intended for gathering spaces, HEX Sto!fReporCAvana Ridge PUD_LUA15-000894 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development AVANA RIDGE PUD Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA15-000894, PPUD, ECF Report of May 3, 2016 Page 19 of 44 barbecues, and lounge areas for a voriety of opportunities for the residents. The areo opens up the western portion of the site and provides a softer building edge and brings visual interest to what would normally be considered the "side" elevation of the project. ii. Circulation/Screening: Provides superior circulation patterns or location or screening of parking facilities; or Staff Comment: The proposal includes through access resulting in a superior circulation pattern to that of two separate entrances into the site which do not connect. In addition to through vehicular access the applicant is propasing to provide street improvements along SE 172nd St, Benson Road 5, and portions of Benson Drive s. The project would provide sufficient vehicle access for the proposed development and the proposed public and private streets could accammodate emergency vehicles and the traffic demand created by the development if all conditions of approval are complied with. All surface parking areas are internal to the project and are pulled away from neighboring properties. Where grodes are steep, landscaping is proposed to screen surface parking as much as possible from pedestrian paths along the perimeter of the development. Internal to the site, pedestrian pathways continue throughout the development olong the internal courtyard and through the open space areas. The site design promotes social interaction and would promote a level of safety achievable through the use of a PUD. If all conditions of approval are complied with, the pedestrian circulation system throughout the development would be well designed, would encaurage walkability throughout the neighborhood, and potentially reduce the vehicular traffiC and impacts on the neighboring community. iii. Landscaping/Screening: Provides superior landscaping, buffering, or screening in or around the proposed planned urban development; or Staff Camment: Conceptually, the praposed landscape plan far the entire site is superiar to what would be required by Rentan's Municipal Code (Exhibit 3). Thematically the proposed landscaping weaves in a cansistent theme throughout the development and ties all prapased open spaces together. The proposed landscape plan includes diverse candidate planting list: vine maple, coral bark Japonese maple, katsura, Autumn brilliance serviceberry, dogwood, Washington hawthorn, flowering crabapple, sargent cherry, Japanese snowbell, Alaska yellow cedar, cypress, pine, fir, Western cedar, and mountain hemlock trees. The proposed shrub planting list includes more than thirty shrub options. The applicant would be required to provide a detailed landscaping plan prior to engineering permit approval with specific plant details. The building and parking lot landscaping has been designed to meet several objectives including: reductions in the overall scale of the building; breaking up of large areas of parking lot pavement with interior and perimeter landscaping; perimeter landscape buffer and screening; help define circulation routes and frame or enhance views; pravide environmental benefits such as shade, improved air quality, natural storm water treatment, and wildlife habitat. Undergraund sprinkler systems are required to be installed and maintoined far all landscaped areas. The sprinkler system is required to provide full water caverage of the planted areas specified on the plan. HEX Staff Report_Avana Ridge PUD_WAlS-000894 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development AVANA RIDGE PUD Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA15-000894, PPUD, fCF Report of May 3,2016 Complianti! Condition a! Approval is Met Page 20 of 44 Details for potential fencing were not provided with the application. Therefore, a detailed fencing plan shall be provided identifying the location and specifications for all fencing on site. All fencing shall be made of quality materials in keeping with the architectural aesthetic of the proposed structures. The fencing plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. iv. Site and Building Design: Provides superior architectural design, placement, relationship or orientation of structures, or use of solar energy; or Staff Comment: The placement of the buildings on site would allow for natural lighting opportunities, and is respectful of the neighboring residential-scaled neighboring properties through the use of modest/y-sloped roof forms and adherence to building setback and landscape requirements. The building placement allaws the majority of the surface parking to be screened from public rights-of-way and works together with the on-site landscaping to keep internal service elements screened. The architectural design of the proposed residential building complements the character of the surrounding community through the use of reSidentially-scaled windows, frequent modulation of the facades, and pedestrian-friendly access points, signage, ond proposed plantings. The placement of the buildings along SE 172nd St allows buffers and additional distance from the other two rights-of-way {Bensan Rd 5 and Benson Drive S} along the perimeters of the development. The buildings also serve to screen the parking fram the residential properties to the North, ond are pulled away from the neighboring day care property ta the East. The applicant has reduced the scale of the development with the use af two structures as opposed to the consolidation of units into one structure. The twa structures also serve to reduce congestion an the site and aI/ow for mUltiple views as well as modulated facades compared to one continuous structure. All visible building materials would follow a cohesive color scheme. A variety of materials and colors are being proposed as port of the color palette for the building design aesthetic. Materials would have a variety of patterns and textures including panel canfiguration, horizontal board configuration and reveal patterns consistent with window placement and proportion. The material palette includes concrete masonry, brick, metal canopy, cost-in place concrete, fiber cement board, and wood elements. All concrete walls will be treated with texturing and/or reveals. Artwork is also proposed thraughout the community open space and ot specific building farade locotions. However, opportunities exist to enhance the building design in order to provide a superior presence along SE 172nd St. As such, staJ! recommends a condition of opproval requiring the provision of additional ground level details {see diSCUSSion under FOF 29: Design District Review, Ground Level Details}. Building and Site Design: i. Perimeter: Size, scale, mass, character and architectural design along the planned urban development perimeter provide a suitable transition to adjacent or abutting lower density/intensity zones. Materials shall reduce the potential for light and glare. HEX Staff Repart_Avana Ridge PUD_WA1S-000894 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development AVANA RIDGE PUD Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA15-000894, PPUD, feF Report of May 3, 2016 Page 21 of 44 Staff Camment: The proposal includes ample buffers between the proposed structures and property lines through the use of additional setbacks from code minimums. Specifically, along the eastern property line the increases in setbacks allaw far natural daylighting opportunities far the daycare. Additianally, landscape buffers would provide a 50ft transition between building and daycare. On the south perimeter, the buildings are set back significantly from all property lines, and allow the park amenity to be unobstructed in its day lighting opportunities. Due to the location of the buildings to the north of the open space, no shadows from the proposed buildings would be cast at any time of year or day. On the West perimeter, the building would have minimal impact to views across the site, as bath buildings are oriented North/South. On the North perimeter, the adjacent residential dwellings would be screened from the surface parking lot through the use of landscape buffers, building modulation and new proposed street trees. The conceptual landscape plan demonstrates the frequency, type and number of the street trees and interior plantings proposed. These techniques would successfullY serve to mitigate the length of the two buildings and reduce impact to existing neighboring properties if all conditions of approval are complied with. Compliance with all recommended conditions of approval would provide 0 suitable transition from the adjacent lower density single family residential uses to the more intense cammerciol and multi-family uses located to the South and West. Landscaping and terracing has been incorporated along Benson Drive S in order ta detract attention from the parking area which may be visible from this point of view. The new development is anticipated to fit into the existing developed fabric of the neighborhood. Staff will be recammending, as a condition of approval, the applicant provide a materials board to the satisfaction of the Current Planning Project Manager (see discussion in FOF 29; Design District Review). The materials board would also be used to canfirm that siding materials are non-reflective which would reduce glare. Each unit would have windows, which cauld slightly reflect light from the building but nat to an extent beyond any typical multi-family development. The applicant has indicated that the proposal would not result in excessive glare onto adjacent properties, in the submitted design district compliance narrative. However, a lighting plan was not submitted with the application package, as such, staff recommends a condition of approval that requires the applicant to provide a lighting plan that adequately provides for public safety without casting excessive glare on adjacent properties; at the time of engineering permit review. Pedestrian scale and down lighting shall be used in all cases to assure safe pedestrian and vehiculor movement, unless alternative pedestrian scale lighting has been approved administrotively or is specifically listed os exempt from provisions located in RMC 4-4- 075 Lighting, Exterior On-Site. ii. Interior Design: Promotes a coordinated site and building design. Buildings in groups should be related by coordinated materials and roof styles, but contrast should be provided throughout a site by the use of varied materials, architectural detailing, building orientation or housing type; e.g., single family, townhouses, flats, etc. Stoff Comment: The proposed buildings appear to have been designed to be built in 0 coordinated fashion, utilizing a cansistent set of materials. Differentiation throughout HEX Staff Report_Avana Ridge PUD_WA1S-000894 City of Renton Department of Co,"",unity & Economic Development AVANA RIDGE PUD Hearing Examiner Recommendation WA1S-000894, PPUD, EeF Report of May 3, 2016 Requested to be MOdified Through the PUD Page 22 of 44 the design is pravided with the use of different materials and colors. The interior design of both buildings hos been integrated with the overall site design. The primary orientation of the units are to the North and South to toke advantage of daylighting opportunities. Where the buildings meet East/West site borders, dwelling units have been ratated to face easterly and westerly. The intent of this interior design technique is to pravide visually pleasing elements on all four sides of the building. Through the use of raofs sloped at 2:12, rather than 4:12, the sloped roof portions of the building reduce the shadow cast on the residential praperties to the north. Building modulation at regular intervals and a vast variety of window sizes and styles also helps to break up the scale of the buildings. As mentioned above staff will be recommending, as a condition of appraval, the applicant provide a materials board to the satisfaction of the Current Planning Praject Manager (see discussion in FOF 29: Design District Review). The materials board would also be used to confirm the use of varied materials and architectural detailing for the praposal. Additionally, staff will be recommending a condition of approval requiring added architectural detailing elements including lighting fixtures, contrasting materials, or special detailing along the facades oriented to a street (see diSCUSSion in FOF 29: Design District Review, Graund Level Details). Circulation: i. Provides sufficient streets and pedestrian facilities. The planned urban development shall have sufficient pedestrian and vehicle access commensurate with the location, size and density of the proposed development. All public and private streets shall accommodate emergency vehicle access and the traffic demand created by the development as documented in a traffic and circulation report approved by the City. Vehicle access shall not be unduly detrimental to adjacent areas. ii. Promotes safety through sufficient sight distance, separation of vehicles from pedestrians, limited driveways on busy streets, avoidance of difficult turning patterns, and minimization of steep gradients. iii. Provision of a system of walkways which tie residential areas to recreational areas, transit, public walkways, schools, and commercial activities. iv. Provides safe, efficient access for emergency vehicles. Requested to be modified throuqh the PUD. Staff Comment: The applicant submitted a TraffiC Impact Analysis prepared by TroffEx, dated February 2, 2016 (Exhibit 15). The provided TlA was found to meet the intent of the TlA guidelines and is generally acceptable for preliminary review. Several traffic related camments letters/em ails have been received by the public. The comments raise concerns regarding the use of the proposed SE 1720d St entrance and potential impacts to the neighboring Single-family residential development to the north as well as additional impacts to queueing delays at Benson Rd 5 and Benson Drive 5 (Exhibit 15). Based on public comments received, staff required an evaluation by an independent qualified professional regarding the applicant's transportation analysis and the effectiveness of any praposed mitigating measures. An Independent Secondary Review of the pravided Traffic Study prepared by TENW, dated March 21, 2016 (Exhibit 17). In general, the secondary review affirmed the overall trip distribution patterns. HEX Staff Report_ Avono Ridge PUD_WA15-000894 City of Renton Department of Comf"lJnity & Economic Development AVANA RIDGE PUD Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA1S-000894, PPUD, EeF Report of May 3, 2016 Page 23 of 44 The report however, recommended revisions be made to the traffic counts to consider the worse-case traffic scenario given the observed intersection queuing at 10S'h Ave Sf and Benson Rd S. The applicont provided a memo, dated March 26, 2016, in response to the recommendations included in the secandary review (fxhibit 18). The memo generally concurred with the recommendations of the peer review with the exception for the removal of the site driveway access restrictions to Sf 172nd Street. The applicant's response memo revised the TlA to reflect recommended changes in trip distribution, balanced traffiC volumes, the analysis of queuing on Benson Rd and left turn lane warrants. After review of the original Traffic Impact Analysis (Exhibit 15), Independent Secondary Review (Exhibit 17), and the applicant's response memo (Exhibit 18) staff provided applicable comments below for each Transportation subject. Access: The applicant is proposing two paints of ingress and egress into the site in order to meet Fire Department requirements for access. The applicant proposes one entrance off of Sf 172nd St between the proposed buildings, and one entrance off of Benson Road South. The two access points converge to form drive-thraugh access through the site. Several publiC comments were received requesting access be eliminated from SE 172"d st, in order to mitigate anticipated cut through troffic on neighboring roads to the north. In addition, concerns were raised regarding the blocking of the proposed access, along Benson Rd S, during PM peak hour traffic. The applicant has proposed a driveway configuration which would attempt to restrict movements to left-in/right -out only as way to mitigate cut through traffiC on residential streets to the north. Access and proposed mitigation, was analyzed as part of the Independent Secondary Review prepared by TENW (fxhibit 17). TENW generally affirmed the trip distribution assumptions made by TraffEx and substantiated the need for two access pOints. With respect to proposed mitigation, Trafffx determined that the proposed Sf 172"d St driveway configuration would be ineffective in limiting impacts to neighboring residential streets to the north. In addition, it is anticipated that restrictions to the sE 172"d driveway would encourage u-turns and associated impacts to existing residential driveways along the north side of Sf 172"d st. Therefore, staff is recommending a condition of Hearing Examiner approval, the elimination of the proposed access restrictions along SE 172"d St in order to pravide full access along Sf 172"d St. A revised site plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Plan Reviewer prior to engineering permit approval. In order to address anticipated impacts on neighboring streets caused by cut-through traffic, a traffic calming SfPA mitigation measure was required in lieu of the foregoing site access restriction (Exhibit 20). Specifically, Electronic Speed Radar Signs are required to be installed in the northbound direction on both 106'h Ave Sf and 104'h Ave Sf. Level of Service: It is anticipated that the proposed development would generate approximately 492 average daily trips with 38 AM peak-hour trips and 46 PM peak- hour trips. The provided report analyzed three intersection locations (Exhibit 15): Intersection 1: Site Access / SE 172"d St Intersection 2: 10S'h Ave Sf/Benson Rd s/SE 172"d St Intersection 3: Site Access/Benson Rd s/108'h Ave Sf HEX Staff Report_ Avono Ridge PUD_LUA1S-000894 City of Renton Department of Comrounity & Economic Development AVANA RIDGE PUD Hearing Examiner Recommendation WA15-000894, PPUD, EeF Report of May 3, 2016 Page 24 of 44 The provided analysis notes that all intersections will operate at an acceptable level of service with the proposed development. Therefore, the proposal would not be required to mitigate at any intersection. Analysis of future conditions address cumulative impacts of the proposed project and traffic growth in the study area. Traffic signal warranty analysis was also provided at the intersection of SE 1720d St and Benson Rd S. The report states there is no need for a signal at the intersection as a result of the project. However, the Transportotion Deportment conducted 0 model to assess any possible solution to oddress the citizen's concerns regarding the backing of queue on Benson Road from the intersection with SR 515 to SE 172,d Street. Unfortunately, staff is unable to provide an update on the model conducted at this time. Increased traffic created by the development would be mitigated by payment of transportation impact fees. The transportation impact fee that is current at the time of building permit applicotian will be levied. The applicant submitted for a building permit in December of 2015. The fee in 2015 was assessed at $2,214.44 per new multi-family unit. The fee is estimated at approximately $164,000. The fee shall be payable to the City at the time of building permit issuance. Site Distance: The provided Traffic Impact Analysis states sight distance requirements are met at the site access driveway onto SE 1720d St and with vegetation trimming, within the right of way, at the site access driveway to Benson Rd 5 (Exhibit 15). Street Improvements: Street Improvements are regulated by RMC 4-6-060 -Street Standards. See below: Benson Drive 5 -Benson Drive 5 (SR 515) is a prinCipal arterial and a state route roadway along the project's west property line. The existing road currently contains curb, gutter, and sidewalk on both sides of the street. There is currently n a planter strip existing along the Benson Drive 5 street frontage. Per cade, frontage improvements including 0.5 feet wide curb and gutter, an 8-foot wide landscaped planter, an 8-foot wide sidewalk, street lighting, and storm water improvements are required on principal arterial streets. The applicant is proposing to maintain the existing right-of-way. Due to critical areas along portions of the frontage, the applicant has requested a modification through the PUD to allow the sidewalk to remain in the current location for those areas where critical areas are located. Staff is in support of the requested modification. By maintaining the existing sidewalk, the need for terraced retaining walls would be eliminated and impacts to the stream buffer along Benson Drive 5 would be minimized. The applicant has also proposed a walking path internal to the site to promote pedestrian connectivity. Staff recommends a condition of approval requiring the applicant to dedicate 1-foot behind the sidewalk in addition to right-of-way dedication for luminaire foundations along Benson Drive S. The dedication shall be required prior to temporary occupancy approval. Benson Rd 5 -Benson Rd 5 is a minor arterial along the project's east property line. Half-street frontage improvements are required to be provided on the side of the street fronting the development. Per cade, the minimum right-of-way width required for a minor arterial is 91 feet. The available right-of-way width on the Benson Rd 5 frontage, per the King County assessor map, is 100 feet and would not necessitate additional right-of-way dedication. The required paved width on this street is 44 feet, which includes three travel lanes and a 5-foot wide bike lane on both sides of the HEX Staff Report_Avana Ridge PUD_LUA15-000894 City of Renton Deportment of Community & Economic Development AVANA RIDGE PUD Hearing Examiner Recommendation WA15-000894, PPUD, EeF Report of May 3, 2016 Page 25 of 44 street. Frontage improvements would include the following: a 0.5 foot wide curb and gutter, on 8-foot wide landscoped planter, on 8-foot wide sidewalk, street lighting, and storm water improvements are required. The applicont is proposing street improvements along Benson Rd 5 which comply with code. Sf 172nd St -Sf 172nd St is a commercial mixed use and industrial access street along the project's north property line. Half-street frontage improvements are required to be provided on the side of the street fronting the development. Per code, the minimum right-of-way width required for a commercial mixed use and industrial access street is 69 feet. The available right-of-way width on the Sf 172nd St frontage, per the King County assessar mop, is 60 feet and would require additional right-of-way dedication. Frontage improvements would include the following: an 8-foot parking lane, a 0.5 foot wide curb and gutter, an 8-foot wide landscoped planter, a 6-foot wide sidewalk, street lighting, and storm water improvements are required. The applicont is proposing street improvements, along Sf 172nd St, which comply with code. The applicant however has requested a modification through the PUD to reduce the required dedication from 4.5 feet to 3 feet. Staff is recommending approval of the requested modification. Staff recommends a condition of approval requiring the applicant to dedicote 1-faot behind the sidewalk in addition to right-of-way dedication for luminaire foundations along Sf 172nd St. The dedication shall be required priar to temporary occupancy approval. Temporary Impacts: Given the concentration of development to occurring in the immediate vicinity of the project site, staff anticipates that the proposed project would contribute to short term impacts to the City's street system. Therefore, staff is recommending a condition of approval requiring the opplicont create a public outreach sign in coordination with City of Renton to communicate with road users, the general public, area residences and businesses, and appropriate public entities about project information; road conditions in the work zone area; and the safety and mobility effects of the work zone. The sign shall be placed on site prior to construction commencement. Pedestrian Improvements: As part of the proposed project, sidewalks would be constructed along the frontage of the site and would cannect to the existing sidewalk system. However, safety concerns have been raised with respect ta pedestrian connectivity off site due to missing sidewalk linkages approaching the intersection of Benson Rd 5 and Sf 172nd St. Given the number of units proposed it is very likely that a large inflUX of people would utilize the public sidewalk system as well as the anticipated school bus stop across Benson Rd S. Providing pedestrian connections to abutting properties is an important aspect of connectivity and encourages pedestrian activity and is required ta be considered when reviewing the subject application. The condition of the existing protruded curb, approaching the intersection of Sf 172nd St and Benson Rd 5, has been largely disturbed and does not provide a safe route for school children and or residents walking to and from the site. As a result, a SfPA mitigation measure was issued requiring the applicant to provide an off-site sidewalk, along the south side of Sf 1720d St and the west side of Benson Rd 5, approaching the intersection (fxhibit 20). A street lighting analysis is also required to be conducted by the developer at the southwest corner of the intersection of Sf 1720d St and Benson Rd S. Concurrency -Stoff recommends a transportation concurrency approval based upon a test of the citywide Transportation Plan, consideration of growth levels included in the LOS-tested Transportation Plan, payment of a Transportation Mitigation Fee, and an HEX Staff Report_Avana Ridge PUD_WA1S-000894 City of Renton Deportment of Community & Economic Development AVANA RIDGE PUD Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA15-000894, PPUD, ECF Report of May 3, 2016 Page 26 of 44 application of site specific mitigation (Exhibit 23). 27_ Infrastructure and Services: Provides utility services, emergency services, and other improvements, existing and proposed, which are sufficient to serve the development The proposal is compliant with the following development standards if all conditions of approval are met Compliance Infrastructure and Services Analysis Police and Fire: Police ond Fire Prevention staff indicated that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development; if the applicant provides Code required improvements and fees. The preliminary fire flaw requirements for this project, as proposed, is 2,250 gpm. A minimum of one fire hydrant is required within 50 feet of all fire department cannection for standpoints and sprinkler systems. A Fire Impact Fee, based an new multi-family units is required in order to mitigate the proposal's potential impacts to City emergency services. The applicant would be required to pay on appropriate Fire Impact Fee. The fee is payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of building permit application. A building permit application was submitted in December of 2015. The 2015 fee was assessed at $463. 66 per multi-family. Parks and Recreation: The proposed development is anticipated to impact the Parks and Recreation system. The applicant would be required to pay an appropriate Parks Impact Fee. The fee would be used to mitigate the proposal's potential impact to ,/ City's Park and Recreation system and is payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of building permit application. A building permit application was submitted in December of 2015. The 2015 fee was assessed at $975.90 per multi-family unit. Complianti! Condition a! Approval is Met Schools: It is anticipated that the Renton School District can accommodate all additional students generated by this proposal at the following schools: Cascade Elementary (1.2 mile from the subject Site), Nelson Middle School (0.8 miles from the subject site) and Lindbergh High School (2.1 miles from the subject site). Future students are designated to be transported to school via bus for Elementary, and High School. Students would be within walking distance to designated middle school. For safe walking canditions, see discussion under FOF 26: PUD Criteria and Analysis, Circulation. A School Impact Fee, based on new multi-family units, will be required in order to mitigate the proposal's potential impacts to Renton School District. The fee is payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of building permit application. A building permit application wos submitted in December of 2015. The 2015 fee was assessed at $1,339.00 per multi-fomily unit with credit given for the existing residence. Storm Water: An adequate drainage system shall be provided for the proper drainage of all surface water. ,/ Staff Comment: The site is located within the Black River droinoge basin and Panther Creek droinage sub-basin. Upstream runoff enters the site in two locations. Portions of SE 17200 St and 106'h Ave SE direct upstream runoff across the northern property line. Upstream runoff from the west side of Benson Rd S flows into a ditch along the east HEX Staff ReporCAvana Ridge PUD_LUA15-000894 City of Renton Department of Co",,,,unity & Economic Development AVANA RIDGEPUD Hearing Examiner Recommendation WA15-000894, PPUD, ECF Report of May 3, 2016 Page 27 of 44 property line. Runnoff currently discharges at the sites western property line, at two locations, and heads north through a conveyance system in Benson Drive S. The flows eventually cross under Benson Drive 5 and conveyed a westerly direction in a series of pipes and catch basis eventually out falling into Panther Creek. This project is required to camply with the 2009 King Caunty Surface Water Manual and the City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapter 1 and 2. Based an the City's flow control map, this site falls within the Flow Control Durotion Standard, Forested Conditions. This project is subject to full droinage review. The applicant submitted a Preliminary Drainage Report prepared by D.R. Strong, dated December 28, 2015 (Exhibit 9). The report also includes a detailed summary of the pre and post developed conditions. The storm water detention and water quality treatment would be provided within a combined detention/water quality vault under the parking area located in the western portion of the site. The combined detention/water quality vault would be followed by a media filtration system to accammodate the Enhanced Water Quality Treatment requirements for multi-family development. For water quality features that are not in the City Amendments or the 2009 KCSWDM, and which have the Generol Use level designation through the state Department of Ecology's Technology Assessment Protocol -Ecology (TAPE) program, an adjustment process request is required. Conditions associated with Preliminary PUD approval will likely include a requirement for the submittal, and approval, of an Adjustment in order to utilize water quality features which are not in the City Amendments or the 2009 KCSWDM. Water and Sanitary Sewer: Staff Comment; Water and sewer service is provided by Soos Creek Water and Sewer " District. A water and sewer availability certificate from the Soos Creek utility district was submitted to the City with the land use application. Approved water and sewer plans from Soos Creek are required to be provided during utility construction permit approval. Clusters or Building Groups and Open Space: An appearance of openness created by clustering, separation of building groups, and through the use of well-designed open space and landscaping, or a reduction in amount of impervious surfaces not otherwise required. Staff Comment; The proposed development is designed specifically to increase the access and opportunity for open space. The multiple open spaces throughout the site are well designed and provide a variety of recreational opportunities both passive and active. The proposed structures are clustered to the interior of the site ollowing for large open spaces. The PUD places the buildings parallel to the neighboring properties to the north. This maximizes the opportunity for surface parking screening and a large, uninterrupted open space ta the south. Due to the presence of a stream along the lower area of the site, a natural border exists. A pedestrian bridge crosses the stream to link the open space and the residential developments. The overall project has less impervious sUrface than otherwise would be expected. Based on the provided TlR the site would contain approximately 40.1% impervious surfaces for the overall site. This would include building areas, associated walkways, driveways, parking and drive aisles. HEX Staff Repart_Avana Ridge PUD_LUA15-000894 City of Renton Deportment of Corr-"unity & Economic Development AVANA RIDGE PUD Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUAlS-000894, PPUD, EeF Report of May 3, 2016 N/A Page 28 of 44 Privacy and Building Separation: Provides internal privacy between dwelling units, and external privacy for adjacent and abutting dwelling units. Each residential or mixed use development shall provide visual and acoustical privacy for dwelling units and surrounding properties. Fences, insulation, walks, barriers, and landscaping are used, as appropriate, for the protection and aesthetic enhancement of the property, the privacy of site occupants and surrounding properties, and for screening of storage, mechanical or other appropriate areas, and for the reduction of noise. Windows are placed at such a height or location or screened to provide sufficient privacy. Sufficient light and air are provided to each dwelling unit. Staff Camment Dwelling units are designed such that no twa outdoor decks are directly adjacent to one another. Decks and building modulation have been designed cohesively to allow screening by the building to decks for resident privacy. Units within each building are oriented to the north ond south, and mimic the residential character of the praperties to the north. The applicant has utilized landscaping and building screening techniques thraughout the development to promote privacy and discourage the use of window screening elements as a privacy-creating element that block opportunities for natural light. Living area windows are large and aim to bring as much natural light into every unit as possible, while bedroom windows are adequately sized for light while still providing ample privacy through the use of raised sill heights. Landscape buffers also exist at ground-level uses to aid in noise reduction from the street. The placement of the buildings, oriented to open space, provides separation and privacy for the residents while maintaining a communal atmosphere. See additional discussion under FOF 29; Design District Review, Ground Level Details. Building Orientation: Provides buildings oriented to enhance views from within the site by taking advantage of topography, building location and style. Staff Comment; The buildings are orientated toward the open spaces or toward the offsite view vistas afforded in the naturally elevated site location. There is minimal orientation toward off site non view areas. Parking Area Design: Provides parking areas that are complemented by landscaping and not designed in long rows. The size of parking areas is minimized in comparison to typical designs, and each area related to the group of buildings served. The design provides for efficient use of parking, and shared parking facilities where appropriate. Staff Comment: Parking across the site would be handled in way as to not have large sUrface parking areas. Instead the opplicont is proposing the use of parallel parking stalls along the perimeter of the proposed drive aisle. The sUrface parking design is comprised of 90-degree stalls to make maximum use of parking area and provide clear, safe vehicular circulation that promotes visibility. The use of compact stalls is minimal and is well under the code-required maximums for compact stall counts. Phasing: Each phase of the proposed development contains the required parking spaces, open space, recreation spaces, landscaping and utilities necessary for creating and sustaining a desirable and stable environment, so that each phase, together with previous phases, can stand alone. HEX Staff ReporCAvana Ridge PUD_LUAlS-OD0894 City of Renton Department of Co'" ",unity & Economic Development AVANA RIDGE PUD Hearing Examiner Recommendation WA15-000894, PPUD, ECF Report of May 3, 2016 Page 29 of 44 28. PUD Development Standards: Pursuant to RMC 4-9-1500.4, each planned urban development shall demonstrate compliance with the development standards for the Planned Urban Development regulations. The following table contains project elements intended to comply with the development standards of the Planned Urban Development regulations, as outlined in RMC 4-9-150E: Compliance PUD Development Standard Analysis 1. COMMON OPEN SPACE STANDARD: Open space shall be concentrated in large usable areas and may be designed to provide either active or passive recreation. Requirements for residential, mixed use, commercial, and industrial developments are described below. Standard: Mixed use residential and attached housing developments of ten (10) or more dwelling units shall provide a minimum area of common space or recreation area equal to fifty (50) square feet per unit. The common space area shall be aggregated to provide usable area(s) for residents. The location, layout, and proposed type of common space or recreation area shall be subject to approval by the Hearing Examiner. The required common open space shall be satisfied with one or more of the elements listed below. The Hearing Examiner may require more than one of the following elements for developments having more than one hundred (100) units. ,/' (a) Courtyards, plazas, or multipurpose open spaces; (b) Upper level common decks, patios, terraces, or roof gardens. Such spaces above the street level must feature views or amenities that are unique to the site and provided as an asset to the development; (c) Pedestrian corridors dedicated to passive recreation and separate from the public street system; (d) Recreation facilities including, but not limited to: tennis/sports courts, swimming pools, exercise areas, game rooms, or other similar facilities; or (e) Children's play spaces. Standard: Required landscaping, driveways, parking, or other vehicular use areas shall ,r not be counted toward the common space requirement or be located in dedicated outdoor recreation or common use areas. Standard: Required yard setback areas shall not count toward outdoor recreation and common space unless such areas are developed as private or semi-private (from ,/' abutting or adjacent properties) courtyards, plazas or passive use areas containing landscaping and fencing sufficient to create a fully usable area accessible to all residents of the development. ,/' Standard: Private decks, balconies, and private ground floor open space shall not count toward the common space/recreation area requirement. Standard: Other required landscaping, and sensitive area buffers without common ,/' access links, such as pedestrian trails, shall not be included toward the required recreation and common space requirement. Standard: All buildings and developments with over thirty thousand (30,000) square feet of nonresidential uses (excludes parking garage floorplate areas) shall provide N/A pedestrian-oriented space according to the following formula: 1% of the lot area + 1% of the building area = Minimum amount of pedestrian- oriented space. HEX Staff Report_Avana Ridge PUD_WA15-000894 City of Renton Department of Co"'''"' unity & Economic Development AVANA RIDGE PUD Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA1S-000894, PPUD, ECF Report of May 3, 2016 Page 30 of 44 .--------Standard: The location of public open space shall be considered in relation to building ,/ orientation, sun and light exposure, and local micro-climatic conditions. Standard: Common space areas in mixed use residential and attached residential ,/ projects should be centrally located so they are near a majority of dwelling units, accessible and usable to residents, and visible from surrounding units. Standard: Common space areas should be located to take advantage of surrounding ,/ features such as building entrances, significant landscaping, unique topography or architecture, and solar exposure. Standard: In mixed use residential and attached residential projects children's play N/A space should be centrally located, visible from the dwellings, and away from hazardous areas like garbage dumpsters, drainage facilities, streets, and parking areas. b. Private Open Space: Each residential unit in a planned urban development shall have usable private open space (in addition to parking, storage space, lobbies, and corridors) for the exclusive use of the occupants of that unit. Each ground floor unit, whether attached or detached, shall have private open space which is contiguous to the unit. Standard: Each ground floor unit, whether attached or detached, shall have private open space which is contiguous to the unit. Staff Comment: It does not appear ground related residential units have designated Compliant if private open space. As such, staff recommends a condition of approval that the Conditions of applicant provide a revised site plan demonstrating compliance with the private open Approval are space standard of at least lS-feet in every dimension for all ground related units. The Met revised site plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval whichever comes first. Additional requirements for ground related private open space can be found below under Ground Level Details. Compliant if Standard: The private open space shall be well demarcated and at least fifteen feet Conditions of (15') in every dimension (decks on upper floors can substitute for the required private Approval are open space). Met Staft Comment: See comment above. Standard: For dwelling units which are exclUSively upper story units, there shall be deck areas totaling at least sixty (60) square feet in size with no dimension less than five feet (5'). Staff Comment: Not all upper story residential units appear to have private open Compliant if space dimensioned at 60 feet. The applicant has requested to vary this standard as Conditions of part of the PUD. However, the City is unable to modify any of the provisions of the Approval are Planned Urban Development Regulations. As such, staft recommends a condition of Met approval that the applicant provide revised elevations demonstrating compliance with the private open space standard of at least 60 square feet in size with no dimension less than 5 feet for all upper story units. The revised elevations shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval whichever comes first. c. Installation and Maintenance of Common Open Space: ,/ Standard: All common facilities not dedicated to the City shall be permanently maintained by the planned urban development owner, if there is only one owner, or HEX Staff Report_Avana Ridge PUD_LUA15-000894 City of Renton Department of COfT"nunity & Economic Development AVANA RIDGE PUD Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA15-000B94, PPUD, ECF Report of May 3, 2016 Page 31 of 44 by the property owners' association, or the agent(s) thereof. In the event that such facilities are not maintained in a responsible manner, as determined by the City, the City shall have the right to provide for the maintenance thereof and bill the owner or property owners' association accordingly. Such bill, if unpaid, shall become a lien against each individual property. Staff Comment: Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit, the developer shall furnish a security device to the City in an amount equal to the provisions of RMC 4-9- 060. Landscaping shall be planted within one year of the date of final approval of the planned urban development, and maintained for a period of 2 years thereafter prior to the release of the security device. A security device for providing maintenance of landscaping may be waived if a landscaping maintenance cantract with a reputable landscaping firm licensed to do business in the City of Renton is executed and kept active for a 2 year period. A copy of such can tract shall be kept on file with the Planning Division. If this candition of approval is met the proposol would satisfy this standard. d_ Installation and Maintenance of Common Facilities: N/A Standard: Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits, all common facilities, including but not limited to utilities, storm drainage, streets, recreation facilities, etc., shall be completed by the developer or, if deferred by the Administrator, assured through a security device to the City equal to the provisions of RMC 4-9-060, except for such common facilities that are intended to serve only future phases of a planned urban development. Any common facilities that are intended to serve both the present and future phases of a planned urban development shall be installed or secured with a security instrument as specified above before occupancy of the earliest phase that will be served. At the time of such security and deferral, the City shall determine what portion of the costs of improvements is attributable to each phase of a planned urban development. Standard: All common facilities not dedicated to the City shall be permanently maintained by the planned urban development owner, if there is only one owner, or by the property owners' association, or the agent(s) thereof. In the event that such facilities are not maintained in a responsible manner, as determined by the City, the City shall have the right to provide for the maintenance thereof and bill the owner or property owners' association accordingly. Such bill, if unpaid, shall become a lien against each individual property. Staff Comment: Based on the praposed application the only area to be dedicated to the City is the required right-of-way and the drainage detention pond. As such all other facilities shall be permanently maintained by the property owner. 29. Design District Review: The project site is located within DeSign District 'B'. The following table contains project elements intended to comply with the standards of the Design District 'B' Standards and guidelines, as outlined in RMC 4-3-100.E: Compliance I Design District Guideline and Standard Analysis 1. SITE DESIGN AND BUILDING LOCATION: Intent: To ensure that buildings are located in relation to streets and other buildings so that the Vision of the City of Renton can be realized for a high-density urban environment; so that businesses enjoy visibility from public rights-of-way; and to encourage pedestrian activity. HEX Staff Report_Avana Ridge PUD_LUA15-000894 City of Renton Deportment of Com~unity & Economic Development AVANA RIDGE PUD Hearing Examiner Recommendation WA15-000894, PPUD, ECF Report of May 3,2016 Page 32 of 44 a. Building Location and Orientation: Intent: To ensure visibility of businesses and to establish active, lively uses along sidewalks and pedestrian pathways. To organize buildings for pedestrian use and so that natural light is available to other structures and open space. To ensure an appropriate transition between buildings, parking areas, and other land uses; and increase privacy for residential uses. Guidelines: Developments shall enhance the mutual relationship of buildings with each other, as well as with the roads, open space, and pedestrian amenities while working to create a pedestrian oriented environment. Lots shall be configured to encourage variety and so that natural light is available to buildings and open space. The privacy of individuals in residential uses shall be provided for. Standard: The availability of natural light (both direct and reflected) and direct sun ", exposure to nearby buildings and open space (except parking areas) shall be considered when siting structures. ", Standard: Buildings shall be oriented to the street with clear connections to the sidewalk. ", Standard: The front entry of a building shall be oriented to the street or a landscaped pedestrian-only courtyard. Standard: Buildings with residential uses located at the street level shall be: a. Set back from the sidewalk a minimum of ten feet (10') and feature substantial landscaping between the sidewalk and the building; or b. Have the ground floor reSidential uses raised above street level for Requested to residents' privacy. be Modified Staff Comment: The applicant is proposing ground related reSidential uses along Through the PUD various facades. Due to the unique site conditions and topogrophic challenges along the applicant is proposing to provide some of the ground floor residential units at or below grade as part of the PUD. Constructing all ground related units above grade would require increases to the height of the structures and significant site disruption. Therefore, staff is in support of the requested modification, through the PUD, if all conditions of approval are met. b. Building Entries: Intent: To make building entrances convenient to locate and easy to access, and ensure that building entries further the pedestrian nature of the fronting sidewalk and the urban character of the district. Guidelines: Primary entries shall face the street, serve as a focal point, and allow space for social interaction. All entries shall include features that make them easily identifiable while reflecting the architectural character of the building. The primary entry shall be the most visually prominent entry. Pedestrian access to the building from the sidewalk, parking lots, and/or other areas shall be provided and shall enhance the overall quality of the pedestrian experience on the site. Standard: A primary entrance of each building shall be located on the facade facing a y' street, shall be prominent, visible from the street, connected by a walkway to the public sidewalk, and include human-scale elements. Compliant if Standard: A primary entrance of each building shall be made visibly prominent by Condition of incorporating architectural features such as a facade overhang, trellis, large entry Approval is Met doors, and/or ornamental lighting. HEX Stoff Report_Avana Ridge PUD_WA1S-000894 City of Renton Deportment of Co'" "1 unity & Economic Development AVANA RIDGE PUD Hearing Examiner Recommendation WA15-000894, PPUD, ECF Report of May 3, 2016 Page 33 of 44 ._- Staft Comment: See Ground Level Details below. Standard Building entries from a street shall be clearly marked with canopies, architectural elements, ornamental lighting, or landscaping and include weather protection at least four and one-half feet (4-1/2') wide. Buildings that are taller than thirty feet (30') in height shall also ensure that the weather protection is proportional to the distance above ground level. Compliant if Staff Comment: The applicant is proposing ground related residential uses along Sf Condition of 172nd st. Staff is recammending a canditian of approval requiring entrances and Approval is pedestrian cannections from proposed patios to the public sidewalk system {see Met discussion below}. As 0 result, staff recommends that building entries from a street be clearly marked with canopies, architectural elements, ornamental lighting, and/or landscaping and include weather protection at least four and one-half feet {4-1/2'} wide. The revised elevations shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. The opplicant is encouraged to mimic the canopy used for the primory entrances in a smaller application for ground related unit entrances. .r Standard: Building entries from a parking lot shall be subordinate to those related to the street. Standard: Features such as entries, lobbies, and display windows shall be oriented to N/A a street or pedestrian-oriented space; otherwise, screening or decorative features should be incorporated. Standard: Multiple buildings on the same site shall direct views to building entries by .r providing a continuous network of pedestrian paths and open spaces that incorporate landscaping. Standard: Ground floor residential units that are directly accessible from the street shall include entries from front yards to provide transition space from the street or entries from an open space such as a courtyard or garden that is accessible from the street. Staft Comment: The applicant is proposing ground related residential uses along the Sf 172nd St. The proposal partially camplies with the standard with the use of patios. Compliant if However, the proposal does not include entrances and pedestrian cannections from Condition of proposed potios to the public sidewalk. Therefore, staff recommends as a condition of Approval is approval the applicant be required to submit a revised site and landscaping plan Met depicting entrances and pedestrian connections from ground related residential units, along Sf 172nd St, to the public sidewalk. The revised landscape and site plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manoger prior to building permit approval. Staff is aware there may be topogrophic challenges with entrances along Sf 172nd St and the applicant is encouraged to provide stairs to the units or demonstrate separate entrances are not feasible prior to building permit approval. If this condition of approval is met the proposal would satisfy this standard. c. Transition to Surrounding Development: Intent: To shape redevelopment projects so that the character and value of Renton's long- established, existing neighborhoods are preserved. Guidelines: Careful siting and design treatment shall be used to achieve a compatible transition where new buildings differ from surrounding development in terms of building height, bulk and scale. HEX Staff ReporcAvana Ridge PUD_WA15-000894 City of Renton Deportment of Co"'" "l') unity & Economic Development AVANA RIDGE PUD Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUAlS-000894, PPUD, ECF Report of May 3, 2016 Page 34 of 44 Standard: At least one of the following design elements shall be used to promote a transition to surrounding uses: 1. Building proportions, including step-backs on upper levels in accordance with the surrounding planned and existing land use forms; or 2. Building articulation to divide a larger architectural element into smaller ,/' increments; or 3. Roof lines, roof pitches, and roof shapes designed to reduce apparent bulk and transition with existing development. Additionally, the Administrator may require increased setbacks at the side or rear of a building in order to reduce the bulk and scale of larger buildings and/or so that sunlight reaches adjacent and/or abutting yards. d. Service Element Location and Design: Intent: To reduce the potential negative impacts of service elements (Le., waste receptacles, loading docks) by locating service and loading areas away from high-volume pedestrian areas, and screening them from view in high visibility areas. Guidelines: Service elements shall be concentrated and located so that impacts to pedestrians and other abutting uses are minimized. The impacts of service elements shall be mitigated with landscaping and an enclosure with fencing that is made of quality materials. Standard: Service elements shall be located and designed to minimize the impacts on v' the pedestrian environment and adjacent uses. Service elements shall be concentrated and located where they are accessible to service vehicles and convenient for tenant use. Standard: In addition to standard enclosure requirements, garbage, recycling collection, and utility areas shall be enclosed on all sides, including the roof and screened around their perimeter by a wall or fence and have self-closing doors. Compliant if Staff Comment: The applicant is proposing a refuse and recycle enclosure at a central Condition of Approval is location on site. The proposed elevations do not depict a roof for the enclosure. Met Therefore, staff recommends a condition of approval requiring the applicant submit revised refuse and recycle enclosure elevations which include a roof The revised elevations shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. v' Standard: Service enclosures shall be made of masonry, ornamental metal or wood, or some combination of the three (3). Standard: If the service area is adjacent to a street, pathway, or pedestrian-oriented N/A space, a landscaped planting strip, minimum 3 feet wide, shall be located on 3 sides of such faCility. 2. PARKING AND VEHICULAR ACCESS: Intent: To provide safe, convenient access to the Urban Center and the Center Village; incorporate various modes of transportation, including public mass transit, in order to reduce traffic volumes and other impacts from vehicles; ensure sufficient parking is provided, while encouraging creativity in redUCing the impacts of parking areas; allow an active pedestrian environment by maintaining contiguous street frontages, without parking lot Siting along sidewalks and building facades; minimize the visual impact of parking lots; and use access streets and parking to maintain an urban edge to the HEX Staff ReporCAvana Ridge PUD_LUA15-000894 City of Renton Deportment of Co~."unity & Economic Development AVANA RIDGE PUD Hearing Examiner Recommendation WA15-000894, PPUD, ECF Report of May 3, 2016 Page 35 of 44 district. a. Surface Parking: Intent: To maintain active pedestrian environments along streets by placing parking lots primarily in back of buildings. Guidelines: Surface parking shall be located and designed so as to reduce the visual impact of the parking area and associated vehicles. Large areas of surface parking shall also be designed to accommodate future infill development. Standard: Parking shall be located so that no surface parking is located between: ./ (a) A building and the front property line; and/or (b) A building and the side property line (when on a corner lot). ./ Standard: Parking shall be located so that it is screened from surrounding streets by buildings, landscaping, and/or gateway features as dictated by location. b. Structured Parking Garages: Intent: To promote more efficient use of land needed for vehicle parking; encourage the use of structured parking; physically and visually integrate parking garages with other uses; and reduce the overall impact of parking garages. Guidelines: Parking garages shall not dominate the streetscape; they shall be designed to be complementary with adjacent and abutting buildings. They shall be sited to complement, not subordinate, pedestrian entries. Similar forms, materials, and/or details to the primary building(s) should be used to enhance garages. Standard: Parking structures shall provide space for ground floor commercial uses N/A along street frontages at a minimum of seventy five percent (75%) of the build'lng frontage width. Standard: The entire facade must feature a pedestrian-oriented facade. The Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development may approve parking structures that do not feature a pedestrian orientation in limited N/A circumstances. If allowed, the structure shall be set back at least six feet (6') from the sidewalk and feature substantial landscaping. This landscaping shall include a combination of evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs, and ground cover. This setback shall be increased to ten feet (10') when abutting a primary arterial and/or minor arterial. N/A Standard: Public facing facades shall be articulated by arches, lintels, masonry trim, or other architectural elements and/or materials. N/A Standard: The entry to the parking garage shall be located away from the primary street, to either the side or rear of the building. Standard: Parking garages at grade shall include screening or be enclosed from view N/A with treatment such as walls, decorative grilles, trellis with landscaping, or a combination of treatments. Standard: The Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee may allow a reduced setback where the applicant can N/A successfully demonstrate that the landscaped area and/or other design treatment meets the intent of these standards and guidelines. Possible treatments to reduce the setback include landscaping components plus one or more of the following integrated HEX Staff Report_Avana Ridge PUD_WA1S-000894 City of Renton Deportment of CO""'lunity & Economic Development AVANA RIDGE PUD Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA15-000894, PPUD, ECF Report of May 3, 2016 Page 36 of 44 with the architectural design of the building: (a) Ornamental grillwork (other than vertical bars); (b) Decorative artwork; (c) Display windows; (d) Brick, tile, or stone; (e) Pre-cast decorative panels; (f) Vine-covered trellis; (g) Raised landscaping beds with decorative materials; or (h)Other treatments that meet the intent of this standard ... c. Vehicular Access: Intent: To maintain a contiguous and uninterrupted sidewalk by minimizing, consolidating, and/or eliminating vehicular access off streets. Guidelines: Vehicular access to parking garages and parking lots shall not impede or interrupt pedestrian mobility. The impacts of curb cuts to pedestrian access on sidewalks shall be minimized. ",-Standard: Access to parking lots and garages shall be from alleys, when available. If not available, access shall occur at side streets. ",-Standard: The number of driveways and curb cuts shall be minimized, so that pedestrian circulation along the sidewalk is minimally impeded. 3. PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT: Intent: To enhance the urban character of development in the Urban Center and the Center Village by creating pedestrian networks and by providing strong links from streets and drives to building entrances; make the pedestrian environment safer and more convenient, comfortable, and pleasant to walk between businesses, on sidewalks, to and from access points, and through parking lots; and promote the use of multi-modal and public transportation systems in order to reduce other vehicular traffic. a. Pedestrian Circulation: Intent: To create a network of linkages for pedestrians to improve safety and convenience and enhance the pedestrian environment. Guidelines: The pedestrian environment shall be given priority and importance in the design of projects. Sidewalks and/or pathways shall be provided and shall provide safe access to buildings from parking areas. Providing pedestrian connections to abutting properties is an important aspect of connectivity and encourages pedestrian activity and shall be considered. Pathways shall be eaSily identifiable to pedestrians and drivers. Standard: A pedestrian circulation system of pathways that are clearly delineated and connect buildings, open space, and parking areas with the sidewalk system and abutting properties shall be provided. ",-(a) Pathways shall be located so that there are clear sight lines, to increase safety. (b) Pathways shall be an all-weather or permeable walking surface, unless the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed surface is appropriate for the anticipated number of users and complementary to the design of the HEX Staff Report_Avona Ridge PUD_WA1S-000894 City of Renton Deportment of Co",."unity & Economic Development AVANA RIDGE PUD Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA1S-000894, PPUD, ECF Report of May 3, 2016 Page 37 of 44 development. Standard: Pathways within parking areas shall be provided and differentiated by material or texture (Le., raised walkway, stamped concrete, or pavers) from abutting paving materials. Permeable materials are encouraged. The pathways shall be perpendicular to the applicable building facade and no greater than one hundred fifty feet (150') apart. Complianti! Staff Comment: The applicont has proposed a series of pedestrian connections Conditions 0/ Approval are throughout the site however it is unclear if there is a differentiation of materials Met across the drive aisles (Exhibit 2). Therefore staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicont revise the site plan to depict a differentiation in materials for all pedestrian connections within parking areas and/or drive aisles on site. The revised site plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building/engineering permit approval. If this condition of approval is met the proposal would satisfy this standard. Standard: Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of buildings shall be of sufficient width to accommodate anticipated numbers of users. Specifically: (a) Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of mixed use and retail buildings 100 or more feet in width (measured along the facade) shall provide sidewalks at least 12 feet in width. The walkway shall include an 8 foot minimum unobstructed ,/ walking surface. (b) Interior pathways shall be provided and shall vary in width to establish a hierarchy. The widths shall be based on the intended number of users; to be no smaller than five feet (5') and no greater than twelve feet (12'). (c) For all other interior pathways, the proposed walkway shall be of sufficient width to accommodate the anticipated number of users. N/A Standard: Mid-block connections between buildings shall be provided. b. Pedestrian Amenities: Intent: To create attractive spaces that unify the building and street environments and are inviting and comfortable for pedestrians; and provide publicly accessible areas that function for a variety of year-round activities, under typical seasonal weather conditions. Guidelines: The pedestrian environment shall be given priority and importance in the design of projects. Amenities that encourage pedestrian use and enhance the pedestrian experience shall be included. Standard: Architectural elements that incorporate plants, particularly at building entrances, in publicly accessible spaces and at facades along streets, shall be Compliant if provided. Condition of Approval is Met Statf Comment: See Building Entries and Ground Level Details discussion below. Standard: Amenities such as outdoor group seating, benches, transit shelters, Compliant 1/ fountains, and public art shall be provided. Condition of (a) Site furniture shall be made of durable, vandal-and weather-resistant Approval ;s Met materials that do not retain rainwater and can be reasonably maintained over an extended period oftime. HEX Sta!fReporCAvana Ridge PUD_LUA15-000894 City of Renton Department of CO"'''lunity & Economic Development AVANA RIDGE PUD Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA1S-000894, PPUD, ECF Report of May 3, 2016 Page 38 of 44 -- (b) Site furniture and amenities shall not impede or block pedestrian access to public spaces or building entrances. Staff Comment: The community open space includes lawn to allow for active recreatian and more intimate lacations featuring picnic tables and benches. Also included is an ornamental pavilion intended to provide views from the site and far public gathering opportunities, ornamental plantings and sculptural facus points. The praposal did not include specifications for proposed pedestrian amenities. Therefore staff was unable to verify the whether site furniture is campliant with the standard. As such, staff recommends a condition of approval requiring the applicant provide detailed specifications for all site furniture, and art, in order to ensure durable, vandal- and weather-resistant materials are used. The specifications shall be submitted ta, and approved by, the Current Planning Praject Manager prior building permit approval. 4. RECREATION AREAS AND COMMON OPEN SPACE: Intent: To ensure that areas for both passive and active recreation are available to residents, workers, and visitors and that these areas are of sufficient size for the intended activity and in convenient locations. To create usable and inviting open space that is accessible to the public; and to promote pedestrian activity on streets particularly at street corners. Guidelines: Developments located at street intersections should provide pedestrian·oriented space at the street corner to emphasize pedestrian activity (illustration below). Recreation and common open space areas are integral aspects of quality development that encourage pedestrians and users. These areas shall be provided in an amount that is adequate to be functional and usable; they shall also be landscaped and located so that they are appealing to users and pedestrians Standard: All attached housing developments shall provide at least one hundred fifty Requested to (150) square feet of private usable space per unit. At least one hundred (100) square be Modified feet of the private space shall abut each unit. Private space may include porches, Through the balconies, yards, and decks. PUD Stott Comment: See discussion above under Private Open Space. 5. BUILDING ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN: Intent: To encourage building design that is unique and urban in character, comfortable on a human scale, and uses appropriate building materials that are suitable for the Pacific Northwest climate. To discourage franchise retail architecture. a. Building Character and Massing: Intent: To ensure that buildings are not bland and visually appear to be at a human scale; and ensure that all sides of a building, that can be seen by the public, are visually interesting. Guidelines: Building facades shall be modulated and/or articulated to reduce the apparent size of buildings, break up long blank walls, add visual interest, and enhance the character of the neighborhood. Articulation, modulation, and their intervals should create a sense of scale important to residential buildings. ,/ Standard: All building facades shall include modulation or articulation at intervals of no more than twenty feet (20'). ,/ Standard: Modulations shall be a minimum of two feet (2') in depth and four feet (4') in width. HEX StaffRepart_Avana Ridge PUD_LUA1S-000894 City of Renton Department of Co",,,, unity & Economic Development AVANA RIDGE PUD Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA1S-000894, PPUD, EeF Report of May 3,2016 Page 39 of 44 Standard: Buildings greater than one hundred sixty feet (160') in length shall provide a variety of modulations and articulations to reduce the apparent bulk and scale of the facade; or provide an additional special feature such as a clock tower, courtyard, fountain, or public gathering area. b. Ground-level Details: Intent: To ensure that buildings are visually interesting and reinforce the intended human-scale character of the pedestrian environment; and ensure that all sides of a building within near or distant public view have visual interest. Guidelines: The use of material variations such as colors, brick, shingles, stucco, and horizontal wood siding is encouraged. The primary building entrance should be made visibly prominent by incorporating architectural features such as a facade overhang, trellis, large entry doors, and/or ornamental lighting (illustration below). Detail features should also be used, to include things such as decorative entry paving, street furniture (benches, etc.), and/or public art. Compliant if Condition of Approval ;s Met Compliant if Condition of Approval is Met Standard: Human-scaled elements such as a lighting fixture, trellis, or other landscape feature shall be provided along the facade's ground floor. Stoff Comment: The applicont has proposed some human scale elements including landscope features, large windows and varied material patterns at the primary entrances. Windaw patterns vary based on interior layout, but all facades feature a variety of windaw types. Wall areas visible from public streets and sidewalks are treated with trellis elements at the upper levels, canopies at pedestrian entries and amenity spaces, and with landscaped vinery walls and plantings. Landscaping and artwork are also proposed to break up pUblic-fronting facades where windows are impracticol due to interior canfigurations. However, the proposal does not comply with the entrance and connectivity standards for graund related units alang Sf 172,d st. The ground floor facades, specifically the graund related units along Sf 172,d St, are in need of additional human scale elements in order to reinforce the pedestrian orientation of the development used to justify the PUD request. Architecturol detailing elements including entronce detailing/weather protection for ground related units, fencing, connectivity, lighting fixtures, contrasting materials, and/or special detailing would bring the proposol into compliance with the intent of this stondard to create human-scale chorocter in the pedestrian enviranment. Therefore, staff recommends as a candition of approval, the applicant submit revised elevations depicting entrance detailing/weather protection for ground related units, fencing, pedestrian connectivity, lighting fixtures, controsting materials, and/or special detailing along Sf 172'd st. The revised elevations shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval whichever comes first. If this condition of appro vol is met the proposal would satisfy this standard. Standard: On any facade visible to the pUblic, transparent windows and/or doors are required to comprise at least 50 percent of the portion of the ground floor facade that is between 4 feet and 8 feet above ground (as measured on the true elevation). Staff Comment: See discussion above. Standard: Upper portions of building facades shall have clear windows with visibility into and out of the building. However, screening may be applied to provide shade and energy efficiency. The minimum amount of light transmittance for windows shall be SO percent. HEx Staff ReporCAvana Ridge PUD_LUA15·000894 City oj Renton Department oj (oft'" 'YIunity & Economic Development AVANA RIDGE PUD Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA1S-000894, PPUD, ECF Report of May 3, 2016 Page 40 of 44 N/A Standard: Display windows shall be designed for frequent change of merchandise, rather than permanent displays. N/A Standard: Where windows or storefronts occur, they must principally contain clear glazing. ,/ Standard: Tinted and dark glass, highly reflective (mirror-type) glass and film are prohibited. Standard: Untreated blank walls visible from public streets, sidewalks, or interior pedestrian pathways are prohibited. A wall (including building facades and retaining walls) is conSidered a blank wall if: (a) It is a ground floor wall or portion of a ground floor wall over 6 feet in N/A height, has a horizontal length greater than 15 feet, and does not include a window, door, building modulation or other architectural detailing; or (b) Any portion of a ground floor wall has a surface area of 400 square feet or greater and does not include a window, door, building modulation or other architectural detailing. Standard: If blank walls are required or unavoidable, blank walls shall be treated with one or more of the following: (a) A planting bed at least five feet in width containing trees, shrubs, evergreen ground cover, or vines adjacent to the blank wall; N/A (b) Trellis or other vine supports with evergreen climbing vines; (c) Architectural detailing such as reveals, contrasting materials, or other special detailing that meets the intent of this standard; (d) Artwork, such as bas-relief sculpture, mural, or similar; or (e) Seating area with special paving and seasonal planting. d. Building Materials: Intent: To ensure high standards of quality and effective maintenance over time; encourage the use of materials that reduce the visual bulk of large buildings; and encourage the use of materials that add visual interest to the neighborhood. Guidelines: Building materials are an important and integral part of the architectural design of a building that is attractive and of high quality. Material variation shall be used to create visual appeal and eliminate monotony of facades. This shall occur on all facades in a consistent manner. High quality materials shall be used. If materials like concrete or block walls are used they shall be enhanced to create variation and enhance their visual appeal. Standard: All sides of buildings vis·lble from a street, pathway, parking area, or open ,/ space shall be finished on all sides with the same building materials, detailing, and color scheme, or if different, with materials of the same quality. ,/ Standard: All buildings shall use material variations such as colors, brick or metal banding, patterns or textural changes. ,/ Standard: Materials, individually or in combination, shall have texture, pattern, and be detailed on all visible facades. Complionti! Standard: Materials shall be durable, high quality, and consistent with more Condition o! traditional urban development, such as brick, integrally colored concrete masonry, HEX Staff Repon_Avana Ridge PUD_LUA15-000894 City of Renton Department of CO(YI'71unity & Economic Development AVANA RIDGE PUD Hearing Examiner Recommendation WA15-000894, PPUD, EeF Report of May 3, 2016 Page 41 of 44 Approval is pre-finished metal, stone, steel, glass and cast-in-place concrete. Met Staff Comment: In order to ensure that quality materials are used staff recommends the applicant submit a materials board subject to the approval of the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. The board shall include color and materials for the following: guardroils, fa~ade treatments, retaining walls, roised planters, siding, windows/frames, and canopies, Acceptable materials include a combination of brick, integrally colored concrete masonry, pre-finished metal, stone, steel, glass, cast-in-place concrete, or ather superior materials approved at the discretion of the Administrator. If this condition of approval is met the proposal would satisfy this standard. N/A Standard: If concrete is used, walls shall be enhanced by techniques such as texturing, reveals, and/or coloring with a concrete coating or admixture. Standard: If concrete block walls are used, they shall be enhanced with integral color, N/A textured blocks and colored mortar, decorative bond pattern and/or shall incorporate other masonry materials. I,. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The subject site is located in the Residential High Density (HD) Comprehensive Plan designation and complies with the goals and policies established with this designation if all conditions of approval are met, see FOF 22. 2. The subject site is located in the Residential Multi-Family (RMF) zoning designation and complies with the zoning and development standards established with this designation provided the applicant complies with City Code and conditions of approval, see FOF 23. 3. The proposal complies with the Critical Area Regulations, Staff is in support of the requested buffer averaging and stream alteration proposal provided the applicant complies with City Code and conditions of approval, see FOF 24. 4. The proposal complies with the Urban Design Regulations provided the applicant complies with City Code and conditions of approval, see FOF 29. 5. The proposal complies with the Planned Urban Development provided the applicant complies with City Code and conditions of approval, with the exception of the private open space requirement, see FOF 25, 26, and 28, 6. There are adequate public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed development, see FOF 27. i J. RECOMMENDA TlON: Staff recommends approval of the Avana Ridge PUD, File No. LUA15-000894, as depicted in Exhibit 2, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures issued as part of the Determination of Non- Significance Mitigated ERC Addendum, dated April 7, 2016, 2. The applicant shall be required to record formal Lot Combination or Binding Site Plan in order to ensure the proposed buildings are not built across property lines. The instrument shall be recorded prior to building permit approval. HEX Staff ReporCAvana Ridge PUD_WA1S-000894 City of Renton Department of Co[t'munity & Economic Development AVANA RIDGE PUD Report of May 3, 2016 Hearing Examiner Recommendation WA15-000894, PPUD, EeF Page 42 of 44 3. The applicant shall be required to submit a detailed landscape plan to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval complying with RMC 4-4-070. 4. The applicant shall be required to submit a detailed landscape plan depicting at least 132, two-inch caliper, trees (or the gross equivalent inches) on site; not including the those trees located within the Native Growth Protection Easement. The detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 5. The applicant shall submit a revised landscaping plan depicting a minimum three-foot landscaped setback from the sidewalk at the base of retaining walls abutting, or within, public rights-of-way. Landscaping shall include a mixture of shrubs and groundcover (trees are optional) in conformance with the standards of RMC 4-4-070H4, Perimeter Parking Lot Landscaping. The revised landscaping plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering permit approval. 6. The applicant shall submit a revised Mitigation plan which addresses the criteria found in RMC 4-3- OSO.H.2 demonstrating the reduced buffer wouldn't negatively impact the function of the stream. The revised mitigation plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering permit approval. 7. The applicant shall submit a revised Mitigation plan which addresses the criteria found in RMC 4-3- OsO.H.2 demonstrating the bridged crossing wouldn't negatively impact the function of the stream. The revised mitigation plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering permit approval. S. The applicant shall establish a Native Growth Protection Easement over that part of the site encompassing the stream and buffer area and place split rail fencing and signage along the outer edge of the buffer. The Final Mitigation plan shall include all specifications for fencing and signage and shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering permit approval. 9. The applicant shall be required to provide, to the Current Planning Project Manager, tree retention inspection/monitoring reports after initial clearing, final grading, and annually for two years by a qualified professional forester. The inspection/monitoring reports shall identify any retained trees that develop problems due to changing site conditions and prescribe mitigation. 10. The applicant shall provide interpretive signage/information regarding differentiating elements (trees, landscaping, drainage, architecture, etc.) of the proposed development at a strategic place(s) on site. The site plan depicting the signage shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit/Final Plat approval whichever comes first. 11. A detailed fencing plan shall be provided identifying the location and specifications for all fencing on site. All fencing shall be made of quality materials in keeping with the architectural aesthetic of the proposed structures. The fencing plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 12. The applicant shall provide a lighting plan that adequately provides for public safety without casting excessive glare on adjacent properties; at the time of engineering permit review. Pedestrian scale and downlighting shall be used in all cases to assure safe pedestrian and vehicular movement, unless alternative pedestrian scale lighting has been approved administratively or is specifically listed as exempt from provisions located in RMC 4-4-075 Lighting, Exterior On-Site. 13. The applicant shall eliminate the proposed access restrictions along SE 172nd St in order to provide full access along SE 172nd St. A revised site plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Plan Reviewer prior to engineering permit approval. HEX Staff Report_Avona Ridge PUD_WA15-000894 City of Renton Department of Co,," '" unity & Economic Development AVANA RIDGE PUD Report of May 3, 2016 Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA15-000894, PPUD, ECF Page 43 of 44 14. The applicant shall dedicate 1-foot behind the sidewalk in addition to right-of-way dedication for luminaire foundations along Benson Drive S. The dedication shall be required prior to temporary occupancy approval. 15. The applicant shall dedicate 1-foot behind the sidewalk in addition to right-of-way dedication for luminaire foundations along SE 172nd St. The dedication shall be required prior to temporary occupancy approval. 16. The applicant shall create a public outreach sign in coordination with City of Renton to communicate with road users, the general public, area residences and businesses, and appropriate public entities about project information; road conditions in the work zone area; and the safety and mobility effects of the work zone. The sign shall be placed on site prior to construction commencement. 17. The applicant shall provide a revised site plan demonstrating compliance with the private open space standard of at least 15-feet in every dimension for all ground related units. The revised site plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval whichever comes first. 18. The applicant shall provide revised elevations demonstrating compliance with the private open space standard of at least 60 square feet in size with no dimension less than 5 feet for all upper story units. The revised elevations shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval whichever comes first. 19. Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit, the developer shall furnish a security device to the City in an amount equal to the provisions of RMC 4-9-060. Landscaping shall be planted within one year of the date of final approval of the planned urban development, and maintained for a period of 2 years thereafter prior to the release of the security device. A security device for providing maintenance of landscaping may be waived if a landscaping maintenance contract with a reputable landscaping firm licensed to do business in the City of Renton is executed and kept active for a 2 year period. A copy of such contract shall be kept on file with the Planning Division. 20. The building entries from a street shall be clearly marked with canopies, architectural elements, ornamental lighting, and/or landscaping and include weather protection at least four and one-half feet (4-1/2') wide. The revised elevations shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 21. The applicant shall be required to submit a revised site and landscaping plan depicting entrances and pedestrian connections from ground related residential units, along SE 172nd St, to the public sidewalk. The revised landscape and site plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. Staff is aware there may be topographic challenges with entrances along SE 172nd St and the applicant is encouraged to provide stairs to the units or demonstrate separate entrances are not feasible prior to building permit approval. 22. The applicant shall submit revised refuse and recycle enclosure elevations which include a roof. The revised elevations shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 23. The applicant shall revise the site plan to depict a differentiation in materials for all pedestrian connections within parking areas and/or drive aisles on site. The revised site plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building/engineering permit approval. If this condition of approval is met the proposal would satisfy this standard. 24. The applicant shall provide detailed specifications for all site furniture, and art, in order to ensure durable, vandal-and weather-resistant materials are used. The specifications shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior building permit approval. HEX Staff ReporCAvono Ridge PUD_LUA15-000894 City of Renton Department of COfl1rrJunity & Economic Development AVANA RIDGE PUD Report of May 3, 2016 Hearing Examiner Recommendation LUA15-000894, PPUD, ECF Page 44 of 44 25. The applicant shall submit revised elevations depicting entrance detailing/weather protection for ground related units, fencing, pedestrian connectivity, lighting fixtures, contrasting materials, and/or special detailing along SE 172nd St. The revised elevations shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval whichever comes first. 26. The applicant shall submit a materials board subject to the approval of the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. The board shall include color and materials for the following: guardrails, fa~ade treatments, retaining walls, raised planters, siding, windows/frames, and canopies. Acceptable materials include a combination of brick, integrally colored concrete masonry, pre-finished metal, stone, steel, glass, cast-in-place concrete, or other superior materials approved at the discretion of the Administrator. HEX Staff Report_Avana Ridge PUD_WA1S-000894 CD .., EXHIBITS Project Name: Project Number: Avana Ridge Preliminary PUD LUA15-000894, ECF, PPUD Date of Hea ring Staff Contact Project Contact/Applicant Project Location 5/10/16 Rocale Timmons Justin lagers 17249 Benson Rd 5 Renton, Senior Planner Avana Ridge, lLC WA 9675 SE 36th St, St. 105; Mercer Island, WA 98040 The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4 Exhibit 5 Exhibit 6 Exhibit 7 Exhibit 8 Exhibit 9 Exhibit 10 Exhibit 11 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 13 Exhibit 14 Exhibit 15 Exhibit 16 Exhibit 17 Exhibit 18 Exhibit 19; Exhibit 20: Exhibit 21: Exhibit 22: Exhibit 23: ERC Report Site Plan Landscape Plan Elevations Grading Plan Geotechnical Report, prepared by Earth Solutions NW (dated December 21, 2015) Coal Mine Hazard Study, prepared by Icicle Creek Engineers (dated March 22, 2004) Coal Mine Hazard Study, prepared by Icicle Creek Engineers (dated January 20, 2009) Drainage Report, prepared by D.R. Strong (dated December 28,2015) Supplemental Stream Study, prepared by Sewell Wetland Consulting (dated December 22, 2015) Conceptual Stream Mitigation Plan prepared by Sewell Wetland Consulting (December 28, 2015) Habitat Data Report, prepared by Sewell Wetland Consulting (dated December 22,2015) Arborist Report, prepared by Greenforest Inc. (dated December 16, 2015) Tree Retention Plan Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), prepared by TraffEx (dated February 2,2016) Public Comment Letters/Emails Independent Secondary Review -Traffic Study, prepared by TenW (dated March 21,2016) Response Memo -Independent Secondary Review, prepared by Traffex (dated March 26, 2016) Staff Recommendation to the Hearing Examiner, dated May 3, 2016 SEPA Determination and Mitigation Measures (dated April 11, 2016) CI 73 -Residential Building Height Elevation Perspectives Transportation Concurrency -,.............~c1tenton 0 DEPARTMENT OF COMMU; •• TV AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ------r+I{enton 0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT ERC MEETING DATE: Project Name: Project Number: Project Manager: Owner: Contact: Project Location: Project Summary: Site Area: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: April 11, 2016 Avana Ridge PUD LUA15-ooo894, PPUD, ECF Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner Avana Ridge, LLC; 9675 SE 36 th St, Ste 105; Mercer Island, WA 98040 Justin Lagers; Avana Ridge, LLC; 9675 SE 36th St, Ste 105; Mercer Island, WA 98040 17249 Benson Rd 5 The applicant is requesting a Preliminary Planned Urban Development and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of a multi-family development containing 74 units in two 4-story structures. The vacant 3.78 acre site is located within the Residential Multi-Family (RM-F) zoning classification and the Residential High Density (RHD) land use designation. The development would be comprised of two separate multi-family residential structures resulting in a density of 20.21 dulac. The subject site is fronted by three public rights-of-way: SE 172nd St, Benson Rd S (108th Ave SE) and Benson Drive 5 (SR-515). The applicant proposes one entrance off of SE 172" St between the proposed buildings, and another entrance off of Benson Road S. There is an unnamed stream, classified Ns, bisecting the site which runs from east to west. Pursuant to RMC 4-3-050, the applicant is proposing impacts to the stream buffer through buffer averaging. Additionally, the site contains critical slopes and Coal Mine Hazards. The Preliminary PUD would be used to vary street, building height, parking, design, open space, and retaining wall standards. The applicant has proposed to provide buffer enhancement as part of the proposed PUD public benefit, along with the construction of enhanced open space, pedestrian amenities, and landscaping. 164,827 SF Total Building Area GSF: 92,899 SF Staff Recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M). EXHIBIT 1 Full Document Available upon Request Project Location Map ERC ReporCAvono Ridge PPUD_15-000B94.pdf I,... 1< ! I O>~~ 0'01' ~_/ b~t:. I L_~.~-._ ~& ./& ~'$ 76' IANf1<>CN][ LfGLND CJ -.-.~~. CJ ~"::::-Mt1 0:'Z:!l=",,:,_ ~=~= --" ... - .. ~ !ti-"'U1'''fUOl ~ .. r "., .. a~"" "'''~ !) '---'-' EXHIBIT 3 \-. ~-~!'! studiouc il ~=-.!: ----~~ 1~ i ~ ..... W QJ ..... ..c u ..... re c :J o ..... D r..: . ~. SJ /~'-<P~ AvANARIOGE, LLC =--- &----. # <0 - ---- CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAI A L--,. " ~=-"I ." ,. ·>(10' -~- .;;------ L1 fun Document Available upon Request {':-,-~ ~ • .J ~?" "A' itA5~ : S', ,/, ' " ,~c )(c-.~.3: (C.~{C.'f(D ~(o.~ -'0, 1IIIil'· ~[] """,,[1 'Ll ..J i... ~. ~:E)(~~:' (f l) .,',~'.~ '~'-'-~~\ '1 r-, ;..;, !JP~,$'~IW.I,,~I.eVATION 'F.6' 1,0., I!\. 7' ,H;H.jlH-i (H fj, rtr1DI~ ... ~'L.~_,_, J--+. - f:·' \.) ,~ I ':1"5: :',J.X~_~X~·~) (~~J(J81~X~~~ ..J i... <.2,~, '~p :::9 r--~ (~, 'lVM') '-/\,;/ ~N;I ,.N~ (0) ~:~.SOUTHEL~ATION '0; (N.S) :N/ (M)<L~ ,'K~( Kj}8'(j-Ii~; i.J~~>.~~(J' '15~ ~'6: '~3'; ,f"! !)(H" Co~: :"6: ~3": '-F~(~,:, f~fDX~~~<r:-6<~-?xf.t(c,': :,B; 'F~' ;:A.'., -fn:~ III::i;"" ::1= ~ ;";~< .. Efr Ccc • .=: --..-'''''' ...... '''.;:,~'i'"";;;;;;;-; .. ,,-;;,--. -----",',,1 '~ EXHIBIT 4 OVERALLalT!·~EL..EYATIOft ___ ~_ .. ~_.~ .. '"jtr:~'(1'- i~ : , 1 ill H .' ;f i ~~ I ~~ +~ I iii i i I ~ I ...... u OJ ...... ..c: u rc Cl :::J Cl '- bJ r..: AVANARIDGE PLANNED URS-'! DEVELOPMENT I 10616SEl72rPd . STREET, RENTON, WA ..., " -'l r -'~f'-' 1,-ILr~ ,-tx - AVANARIDGE, L ;;;. OVERALL PROJECT ! ELEVATIONS A3.01 I~~ I I I I I I I I I I \ I • Geotechnical Engineenng GeoJ0g\" Environmental ScientJ~ts Construction Monitoring EXHIBIT 6 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY AVANARIDGE 10615 SOUTHEAST 172nd STREET RENTON, WASHINGTON ES-4147 '-', t,t- '. ";;/ Report Geological Engineering Services Coal Mine Hazard Assessment Cugini Property -Northwest Parcel Renton (King County), Washington . March 22, 2004 ProjectNo .. 0336·004 Prepared For: Alex Cugini Prepared By: Icicle Creek Engineers, Inc:. Full Document Available upon Request EXHIBIT 7 Report Geotechnical Engineering Services Proposed Property Development Springbrook Ridge King County Tu Parcel Nos. 2923059009 and 2023059148 Renton, Washington January 26, 2009 Project No. 0336-004 Prepared For: Alex Cugini Prepared By: Ic:ic:le Creek Engineers, Inc. Full Document Available upon Request EXHIBIT 8 Full Document Available upon Request Preliminary Technical Information Report (TIR) for AVANA RIDGE PUD 17249 Benson Road Sand 10615 SE 172nd Street Renton, Washington DRS Project No. Renton File No. 15088 PRE15-000611 OwnerlAppUcant Avana Ridge, LLC 9725 SE 36'" Street, Suite 214 Mercer Island, Washington 98040 Report Prepared by -D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers, Inc. 620 7'h Avenue Kirkland WA 98033 (425) 827-3063 1Cl2015 D. R. STRONG Consulling Engineers Inc. Report Issue Date December 28, 2015 EXHIBIT 9 December 22, 2015 Justin Lagers Avana Ridge, LLC 9675 SE 36th Street, Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA Full Document Available upon Request RE: Wetland and Supplemental Stream Study -Avana Ridge PUD City of Renton, Washington SWCJob #15-159 Dear Justin, This report describes our observations of jurisdictional wetlands, streams and buffers on or within 100' of the proposed Avana Ridge PUD project in the City of Renton, Washington (the "site"). Above: Vicinity Map of site EXHIBIT 10 I otrOB6"WM 'put~l.,maVII -lR.QS 'liSE ~S 5l!16 :m 'S9NIOlOH MNd "-----~.'~.,,-~~ ------""'-1 l./(l12U,"IseM-lIt1lllllll and "PfH lUeAV N\ild NOllV!)llll111 V3I1V lVJllll1J , i 'il ~··li : i I I ! ' i ! ! ! !J ;! I ~ : , t-, , , r c, -JI December 22, 2015 Justin Lagers Avana Ridge, LLC 9725 SE 36th Street, Suite 214 Mercer Island, Washington 98040 RE: Habitat Data Report -Avana Ridge City of Renton, Washington SWC Job #15-159 Dear Justin, Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. ro Box B80 Phone: 253-,<!59.Q515 Fall Oty, WA 9lO24 Full Document Available upon Request This report is in reference to the City of Renton's requirements for a Habitat Assessment for the Avana Ridge project. Above: Vicinity Map of site EXHIBIT 12 Greenforestlncorporated December 16, 2015 Justin Lagers Avana Ridge, LLC 9675 SE 36th St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Full Document Available upon Request RE: Tree Inspection; Avana Ridge PPUO, Parcel Nos. 292305-9148, -9009; Renton WA Dear Mr. Lagers: You contacted me and contracted my services as a consulting arborist. My assignment is to inspect and assess the condition of surveyed trees at the above referenced site. I received a topographic survey of the site from DR Strong Consulting Engineers, showing the locations of the surveyed trees. visited the site on 10/15/15 and inspected the trees, which are the subject of this report. Neither parcel is developed. The site has a SW aspect with a stream delineated through the center of the site, east to west. Both parcels are covered in native vegetation, predominately deciduous tree species with moderate to dense lower understory. TREE INSPECTION My inspection is limited to visual observation from the subject parcels and the rights-of-way. Both health and structure were evaluated. A tree's structure is distinct from its health. Structure is the way the tree is put together or constructed, and identifying obvious defects can be helpful in determining if a tree is predisposed to failure. Health addresses disease and insect infestation. No invasive procedures were performed on any trees. The results of this inspection are based on what is visible at the time of the inspection. I identified the species of each tree, confirmed trunk diameter (DBH), estimated average dripline and rated the condition of each tree. Bigleaf maples on this site have a wide age and size range. The largest and oldest maple trees are generally in the poorest condition. A handful of bitter cherry are scattered throughout the site, and all are viable. Black cottonwoods dominate the site in numbers, and there are far more younger cottonwoods than older. The oldest and larger trees are in better condition overall. Many of cottonwoods as edge trees lean excessively away from the stand. Nearly all the smaller cottonwoods are very slender. Although they are healthy and have no visible defects, their trunks are too tall for 4547 South Lucile Street, Seattle, WA 98118 Tel. EXHIBIT 13 'r ~~j,;l, 01, , z ~ Z I ~I <[ ~ ~~ ~. ~ ~i ~ ~ IE ~ l': l '2 i ::..~ i or r ~f ':~ !; I " ::; '!Ii i ~:I 0.; • '·!r ., l'5 >: ~llJ ,II! >:~ ~Q ! I!.ct iii ~~ J 8,", ., -. . xxxx-xxx 3nOl~ 'VNVAV Full Document Available upon Request AVANA RIDGE APARTMENTS REVISED TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY OF RENTON Prepared for Avana Ridge, LLC 9675 SE 36th St Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Prepared by !:!i!tfEx TRAFFIC EXPERTS 11410 N.E. 1241h St., #590 Kirkland, Washington 98034 Telephone: 425.522.4118 February 2,2016 EXHIBIT 15 Full Document Available upon Request ! .. :g ... a Hiranaka Daniel b Radtke Juli and Mike c Moss Molly d Ridenour Daniel e Brooker Emily f Goods Doug g Byrnes Genevieve h Miller Jerry i Va dock Wendy j Heine Molly k Cantu Caryn I Reitz Phillip m Gray Andrew n McMullin Kimmie o Murphy Rhonda Rae p Hanawalt Jody q Skulstad Paul r Faas Mark s Cramton Dawn t Hanawalt Jody u Miller Jerry v Yadock Wendy w Cantu Caryn x y 1/31/2016 E X X X 1/31/2016 E x X XXXX 1/31/2016 E X X X 1/31/2016 E x X X 1/31/2016 E X X 1/31/2016 E X X X X X 2/1/2016 E X X X 2/1/2016 E X X X 2/1/2016 E X X X X 2/1/2016 E X X 2/1/2016 E X X X X X 2/1/2016 E X X x X X 2/1/2016 E X X 2/1/2016 E X X X 2/1/2016 E x X X 2/1/2016 E X X X X 2/2/2016 E x X 1/30/2016 E x X X 1/30/2016 E X X X 2/7/2016 E X 4/4/2016 l X X X 4/5/2016 E X X X 4/6/2016 E X X X X X EXHIBIT 16 Full Document Available upon Re"' ..... est ~TENW Transportation Engineering NorthWest MEMORANDUM DATE: March 21,2016 TO: Rocale Timmons, City of Renton -Current Planning, Senior Planner FROM: Michael Read, PE, Principal. TENW SUBJECT: Avana Ridge Traffic Impact Study -Peer Review TENW Project No. 3462 This memorandum documents my review of the Avana Ridge Apartments Revised Traffic Impact Study, February 2, 2016, prepared by TraffEx, site plan and site access/frontage improvement pions prepared by DRS Consulting Engineers, ond field work conducted in Februory 2016 related to existing site frontage conditions, available sight distance, and a general field conditions to address trip distribution questions outlined by the City of Renton. Avana Ridge TIS Peer Review The follOWing is a general list of assumptions, methods, and conclusions I hove verified or recommend verification ond or modificotion in review of the Avana Ridge Apartments Revised TIS, Februory 2016: The study applies standord trip generotion rates as published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers in the Trip Generation Manual, 9 th Edition, consistent with standard practice. The trip distribution assumptions appear reasonab'e in general, although the overal' total in Figure 4 only indicotes 99%. The toto' number of trips during the p.m. peak hour however, appear to be distributed to the proposed site occess driveways. Given a majority of trips are expected to be distributed to/from the south, the "eqUitable distribution" of estimated trips current~ assumed entering the site from SR 515 seems unlikely given that a majority of parking access will be accessed via the driveway onto Benson Road. A directional split should be identified between these two access points that reflects the "circuitous route" afforded by SE 1 72 nd Street versus the direct site entry onto Benson Road for both entering and exiting traffic Also, the trip distribution figure should be adjusted to beijer indicate the actual location of the entry driveway onto SE 172nd Street limmediately east of 1 06th Avenue SEJ. Related to trip assignment, existing a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic counts between SE 172 nd Street and l08th Avenue SE should be balanced. In general, reported traffic counts at the proposed site access location are directionally higher along Benson Road at lOath Avenue SE. Traffic operational analysis should consider the worse-case scenario and given the intersection Transportation P~annrng I Design I Traffic Impact & Operations PO Box 65254.Seat1le. WA 98155 I Office (206) 361- EXHIBIT 17 Full Document NORTHV._ A "I bl R 1141G NE 1241 val a e upon equest Tra'~ Phone: 425,:; Mr. Justin Lagers Avana Ridge, LLC March 26, 2016 9675 SE 36th St. Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Re: Avana Ridge Apartments -City of Renton Memorandum -Revisions to TIA per Peer Review Dear Mr. Lagers: The purpose of this memo is to provide revisions to the Avana Ridge Traffic Impact Analysis per the recommendations in the March 21. 2016 Peer Review Memo prepared by TENW. The recommendations dealt with: • revising trip distribution and assignment due to a restricted site driveway access to SE 172nd St. and also the shorter trip length using the Benson Rd. driveway for south oriented trips • balancing traffic volumes between intersections • revising level of service calculations due to new trip distribution • evaluating traffic queues on Benson Rd. from the SR 515/Benson Rd. intersection • evaluating left turn lane warrants into the site access driveway from Benson Road. Trip Distribution and Assignment Figures R1 and R2 show the revised trip distribution and assignment of site generated traffic in the AM and PM peak hours, The revisions reflect a restricted access to SE 172nd St. allowing only left turns into the site and right turns out of the site. A careful design of the site access driveway should effectively eliminate most site generated trips to the west on SE 172nd St. and to the north on 106th , 105th and Cedar Ave. Also, site generated trips oriented to the south were assigned to the Benson Rd. driveway since it provides a shorter route to SR 515 than the driveway to SE 17200 Street. Page 1 EXHIBIT 18 Denis Law "~C' f _~M::.aym =---""",..fIIIIII-'¢' r < ~ it Or r r \1': l ..-I" ...., J J-..; ., '!.,,/"_ April 15, 2016 Community & Economic Development Department Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 CE"Chip"Vincent, Administrator Subject: ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPAl THRESHOLD DETERMINATION Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERe) on April 11, 2016: SEPA DETERMINATION: Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated (DNSM) PROJECT NAME: Avana Ridge PUD PROJECT NUMBER: LUA15-000894, PPUD, ECF Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on April 29, 2016, together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, {425} 430-6510. Please refer to the enclosed Notice of Environmental Determination for complete details. If you have questions, please call me at {425} 430-7219. For the Environmental Review Committee, Rocale Timmons Senior Planner Enclosure cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division Boyd Powers, Department of Natural Resources Karen Walter, Fl,heries, Muckle,hoot Indian Tribe Melissa Calvert, Muckle,hoot Cultural Resources Program Gretchen Kaehler, Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation Full Document Available upon Request Ramin Pazooki, W5DOT, NW Region larry Fisher, WDFW Duwamish Tribal Office US Army Corp. of Eni,inetm; EXHIBIT 20 Ith Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa"gov ( ) J I Department of Community and Economic Development Planning Division ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY/CODE INTERPRETATION ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY/CODE INTERPRETATION #: CI-73 -REVISED Full Document Available upon Request MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS: REFERENCE: SUBJECT: BACKGROUND: 4-2-110.A, 4-2-11O.B, 4-2-110.D, 4-2-115, 4-11-020, and 4-11-230 Residential Building Height (RC thru RMF) Erratum Statement: CI-73 implemented changes to the method of height measurement for structures in the RC through RMF zones. This erratum statement affects the two-story limitation for R-14 zoned properties by increasing it to three. Docket #116 advocates for increased height and story limits for select zones, including the RMF zone. The R-14 zone is transitional between the R-10 and RMF, and therefore R-14 standards are intended to offer a compromise between the restrictions of the R-10 and the allowances of the RMF zone. By limiting wall plate height to 24' yet allowing three stories, the R-14 zone would provide an appropriate transition between the R-l0 and RMF zones with respect to building height. By definition, the current method to determine a building's height is to measure the average height of the highest roof surface from the grade plane (i.e., average grade). The maximum height allowed in the RC through R-14 zones is 30 feet (35' in the RMF). The implementation of a "maximum height" (RMC 4-2-110.A) as applied to roofed buildings is inconsistent and contradictory with the intent and purpose statements of Title IV related to residential design (RMC 4-2-115). Further, regulating the height of non-roofed structures is unenforceable by Title IV (except for Building Code). The ambiguity and contradictory aspects of the code exist for two reasons: 1. Height is measured to the midpoint of a roof; and 2. Flat roofs are able to be as tall as buildings with pitched roofs, which increases the building's massing. H;\CED\Planning\Title IV\Docket\Administrative Policy Code Interpretation\CI-73\Code Int EXHIBIT 21 ~ =." III C cr_ CDC c 0 "CIn o c :I 3 ;;Om m :I ,Q"'" C m ~ m >< :3: """ ca ~ N N ......... " ........... ,~01""ft_' ...... -- ~~T QUllD1NG FACINt:;, NORTtfWEST _ ~ __ (!j ~~I !lUllPING FACING SQUTIiWtST_ --fB ~·Le.uILDlHG FACING SOUTliEAST Q) WEST BUILDING FACING NORTHEAST S(:N.[ ----{D ! n ...... ~l u ClJ ~! ...... ~ i; ..c f:: u i~ l- re i D , :::J ~ 0 I-or r..::l AVANARIDGE PLANNED URBAI DEVELOPMENT 10616 SE 172nd STREET, RENTON, WA "'''5 AVAJjARJDGE, II I "'" .... , ...... ZONING CODE COMPLIANCE· WEST BUILDING AO.06 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M 0 RAN 0 U M DATE: January 11, 2016 TO: Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner FROM: SUBJECT: Brianne Bannwarth, Development Engineering Manager ~ Traffic Concurrency Test -Avana Ridge East and West; File No. B15008865 and B15008867 The applicant is requesting Building Permits for two apartment buildings under separate building permits. Avana Ridge East is 40 units (Permit No. B15008865) and Avana Ridge West is 34 units (Permit No. B15008867). The subject site is located at 10619 SE 1725nd Street. The vacant site is located within the Residential Multi-Family zoning classification. The proposed development would generate approximately 572 net new average weekday daily trips. During the weekday AM peak hour, the project would generate approximately 40 net new trips (8 inbound and 32 outbound). During the weekday PM peak hour, the project would generate approximately 58 net new trips (38 inbound and 20 outbound). The proposed project passes the City of Renton Traffic Concurrency Test per RMC 4-6-070.0 as follows: Traffic Concurrency Test Criteria Implementation of citywide Transportation Plan Within allowed growth levels Project subject to transportation mitigation or impact fees Site specific street improvements to be completed by project Traffic Concurrency Test Passes Full Document Available upon Request EXHIBIT 23 Pass Yes Yes Yes Yes ~ ~ CA)@ CB) C§)@ CSI <:'? ~ ;:z; __ J-J- ."f> <iF',A» ;--"1. _____ .r L __ .r- $ ~~I~,~RALL ELEVATlON_ (C)§0f~:S~ ®® fj) @ (G) C3EJ01 ~ ~ ®C:} ~~~C:) (Cs) ~) @l @ 8®' ..I I.. g: R ~ ~ @ G @ GQ;B @@:K)@ (L)® ® ~3(~ -i @@ u®® I.. B!'Y.1~,~TE.SOUTHELEVATION ll: ~~ ~f~'OO® C~80 I.. ~~~,~!E.NORTHELEVATlON cg 1R ~ § ...., Ii U j" I-QJ ~! --..\ .:= l~ ><..c::: 1~ \ I \ ~ !<" \.:-.J ro ~ D. ] ::::l S 0 '- b1l r.J AVANARIDGE PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT 10616SE172od STREElRENTON,WA 90055 --I, AVANA RIDGE, LLC I ==---:: OVERALL PROJECT ELEVATIONS A3.01 (£, 8 1; 0 ~~ ~? ~ © I @) i ..... ~ il ~; iii I n !II i' I ~~ ji 17J5_~al<e8'loouenorth,suote200,S«alIIe,wa96109 !!I! " iii <~ ! 20631l512301_\JU"P"rdJ""", '" ,. ~~ :..... co I '" ~ Q !;2 c ., ~ g a m !, ~ tell l: grouparchitect , II II h ---------- (1X2J!) (') @) ':E~ ® "',oM ... "."""',,,"'", .. ., , .. .,.,."" .... ~ (5) (6) !C,) (~X~) @~ --.;:;'==~Jii~~i: ---~,W~ ___ ''''H,%'';,.. --~"'",'.'J~ -~",",,;!;~ ~':~~"~& ---~~t'~ ~~,~LR~:'I'if!!UlI;VAnON ::rJ @ (L) @ ~~ G}) ~@ CD EXTERkJR MAlERlALS SCHEDULE ~ @ 1 8 8 I ,""'""-'"'''''''''' KEYNOTES 0]1 ~}3 -"""',,.. 0' jjjjjjJ _ --l--.,;,:~ -~"'!,';'~ !..17~~~~,~ -EAST SULDING NORTH fl E\lATIONW H ...... H u j" ClJ ~! ...... . ..c 'Ii u '" >-i; f"IJ i 0- j ::::l l' 0 '- OIl raJ AVANARIDGE PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT 10616 SE 172nd STREET, RENTON, WAil ,",56 -~ AVANA RIDGE, LLC ...-.... --._. _ .. _ 'mal. -I w,"'" I EAST BUILDING ELEVATIONS A3.11·E @C'Xi ) (2) (o)(s) o @ ® (C) @§ ~ (800) ~ --1M'.-H-~~-U:--6l ~ST.l!.':E.l;-S ~~.':;:H;~ -~.~~ ~~ ----~:Zf!~ rtZ~T,:'~~.EASTELEVATlON ~ EXTERIORMATERlALSSCHEIltIL£ ~ ~ @l (~® I§ ® (F) o 8 ® ~~T,~~~2 -SOUTH ElEVATION KFINOTfS --:2.1 ei ..... u it III i~ ..... ~I ..c i_~ u ~;; ..... ~~ I1J r 0. :::J S 0 ..... bI1 raJ AVANARIDGE PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT 10616SE172nd STREET,RENTON,WA 98055 .. -: , , AVANA RIDGE, LLC "--_ .... -' ...... ,............ "" .. , iiiii;rr BUILDING ELEVATIONS A3.20-W (1)~)j) @) rt~ (~ EXTERIOR llATERlALS SCHEDULE (:)(6) ~) CB:X')@ :::f~~ _~R%1~ ~ 8UILDINGEIfllELOPENOTfS·ELEVATlOMS o ® ---~Lfo~ ----~ """\\';~ \M:ST.\~E~·S 0.1:-37"~J.?:~ ""'STL~~i~ ~T,2'f.'; -WEST ELEVATION -BENSON OR .,q ~ -'~ /" ~' ~~ CS't~ ,0 §§ (C) l... ..... "' .. ,,'" """~,,-,,,,,,,,,,,< ... , ...... ~, .......... ",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,~,,,~,,",~,,,,,,, ~''''-'''''''' ... ,~~, ... "",,-",.",...... ® 8 ~) ~"'~','~ ~~~~ -.,~ ~~.~'~':~ ~~R\IG 37"·431'8" ~_~.L~."-f.~ WEST BLDG -NORTH ~]"EVATION _SE 172HO ST sc.oJ.[IIll··'·~· -----~ e! ...... " W , . 1~ QJ %1 ...... .-..c t~ w i; ro i D.. :::J S 0 "- btl r.J AVAHARIDGE PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT l0016SE172nd STREET,RENTON,WA 98055 ._-' AVANA RIDGE, LLC ...----.......-,_. ............. ,_, WEST BUILDING ElEVATIONS A3.21·W O>~~ 0'°11 b~h ~0' ./& c:f\ :J-.. G LANDSCAPEIEGENQ D-'~-'-' ~ :='':'::':',:::;'-", m=~~~~" m='=,~' __ w_,~.~ ~'$76' , ~~~ ILAsIUdiOuO =.~- ....... ~! u it OJ it .~ L N1 .!: \- ---7 . e:,. / ... ~ <P « .... ~ --""-~ <0 G~" ~?l U '!~ . -l- i;, t; ~ 1!1......LJ:::J i 0 " '---btl r.J AVANARIDGE PLANNED UNIT ~ I DEVELOPMENT 1(l6t6 SE 172NDST. RENTON,WA90055 AVANA RIDGE, LLC : CONCEPTIJAL lANDSCAPE PLAN L1 ~-~-~ ___ ~15E 112 , _ """""" _____ ..... =.J -L!, , --'--- ~ ,~883:!!OPJ11J.E i --~+¢:~7;=.~---q " -, ., ' .. , PAAtR~1l'i N ~ \lj ~~"",,~ . /~. 'tIS'", "" .. /~, ~~ , ',,, ~ / ~.t\o ""\;'''... i/~/ ~ t'/J~ -".' _'-'. . / //~ / ~ . , . 0' · , < /. • .0.,. '/ r< / " .P',., ',~, ./' ", , ,,*-, \ -" ~ ~ // ~ • · & '-'. I, ''/ '/~J, ~ "., \ 1"1, .~, ';<, " I-e-, • '///~./ ~ '. "'-'~'/, '/ / • 'Y ":. '-, 1/ /~ , ,. '. ~ -tI ' v 'S'~.~~/ .. ',/ 8 1 --· ns u ~t QJ it x. .~ ~'\lj ..c i~ ~ i~ ~ ~ • ::J ~ 0 l- bn riJ AVANARIDGE PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT 10616 SE 172nd STREHRENTON WA 900" i ;'VANA RIDGE, LLC ........ """"ocm""""'"..."" ............. ,,.,.,.,, SITE PLAN PUD A1 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNI, '( AND ECONOMIC DEVElOPMENT ----~Renton e ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT ERC MEETING DATE: Project Nome: Project Number: Project Manager: Owner: Contact: Project Location: Project Summary: Site Area: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: April 11, 2016 Avana Ridge PUD LUA15-000894, PPUD, ECF Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner Avana Ridge, LLC; 9675 SE 36th St, Ste 105; Mercer Island, WA 98040 Justin Lagers; Avana Ridge, LLC; 9675 SE 36th St, Ste 105; Mercer Island, WA 98040 17249 Benson Rd S The applicant is requesting a Preliminary Planned Urban Development and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of a multi-family development containing 74 units in two 4-story structures. The vacant 3.78 acre site is located within the Residential Multi-Family (RM-F) zoning classification and the Residential High Density (RHD) land use designation. The development would be comprised of two separate multi-family residential structures resulting in a density of 20.21 dulac. The subject site is fronted by three public rights-of-way: SE 172nd St, Benson Rd S (108th Ave SE) and Benson Drive S (SR-515). The applicant proposes one entrance off of SE 172"d St between the proposed buildings, and another entrance off of Benson Road S. There is an unnamed stream, classified Ns, b'lsecting the site which runs from east to west. Pursuant to RMC 4-3-050, the applicant is proposing impacts to the stream buffer through buffer averaging. Additionally, the site contains critical slopes and Coal Mine Hazards. The Preliminary PUD would be used to vary street, building height, parking, design, open space, and retaining wall standards. The applicant has proposed to provide buffer enhancement as part of the proposed PUD public benefit, along with the construction of enhanced open space, pedestrian amenities, and landscaping. 164,827 SF Total Building Area GSF: 92,899 SF Staff Recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M). Project Location Map ERCReport City of Renton Department of Community & f__ ,omic Development AVANA RIDGE PUD Report of April 11, 2016 PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION I BACKGROUND _,1vironmentaf Review Committee Report WA15-000894, PPUD, ECF Page 2 of 13 The applicant is requesting a Preliminary Planned Urban Development (PPUD) and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of a multi-family development containing 74 units, in two 4-story structures. During our review, staff determined additional information was necessary in order to proceed. On February 15, 2016 the project was placed on hold pending receipt of an Independent Secondary Review of the provided Traffic Study. The applicant submitted all necessary documentation and on March 30, 2016 the project was taken off hold. Submittals included an Independent Secondary Review of the provided Traffic Study prepared by TENW, dated March 21, 2016 (Exhibit 17). In addition, the applicant also provided a memo, dated March 26, 2016, in response to the recommendations included in the secondary review (Exhibit 18). The project site is located on the northwesterly corner of the intersection of Benson Drive S and Benson Rd S. The site is triangularly shaped and consists of two separate tax parcels (Parcel #292305-9009 and #292305-9148), totaling 164,828 square feet in area (3.78 acres). The site is located within the Residential Multi-Family (RM-F) zoning classification and the Residential High Density (RHD) Comprehensive Plan land use designation. Surrounding uses include: a daycare facility abutting the property to the east (zoned RM-F); existing single family residences to the north (zoned R-8); southeast of the site, along 108'h Ave SE, a vacant parcel (zoned RM-F); and across Benson Drive S, to the west, uses consists of multi-family, public storage, and a dental office (zoned CAl. The subject site is currently undeveloped with a ground cover of second growth conifer, deciduous trees and brush. The development would be comprised of two separate multi-family residential structures resulting in a density of 20.21 dulac. The proposed 74 units would be comprised of (28) I-bedroom units, (29) 2-bedroom units, and (17) 3- bedroom units. Access to the site is proposed via SE 172,d St, between the east and west buildings, and another ingress/egress point via Benson Rd S. The two access points create a through road for emergency vehicle ingress/egress across the property. The proposal is served by a surface parking area to the south of the two structures, flanking the main access drive. A total of 94 parking stalls would be provided in the surface parking area. An additional 20-parking stalls would be provided along the street. An unnamed seasonal stream, characterized as Ns pursuant to RMC 4-3-050, bisects the northern and southern portions of the site and runs east to west. The applicant is proposing buffer averaging pursuant to RMC 4-3-050. A Wetland and Supplemental Stream Study was performed by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. on December 22, 2015 (Exhibit 10). An historic coal mine, known as the Springbrook mine, as well as its associated opening is also located on the site near the south property line. The coal mine is designated as a High Coal Mine Hazard pursuant to RMC 4- 3-050. A Coal Mine Hazard Assessment was performed by Icicle Creek Engineers, Inc. on March 22, 2004 and January 20,2009 (Exhibits 7 and 8). Additionally, there are critical slopes located on site. The applicant is proposing the construction of a large 19,795 square foot landscaped community open space at the southern portion of the site. The community open space incorporates active and passive space, with a central connecting sidewalk which links the open space to the public right of way. A central path and complementing pedestrian bridge crossing is proposed to be constructed to create an access point to the community open space from the surface parking lot. There are a total of 429 trees on site of which 46 trees are proposed to be retained outside of the critical area and buffer. Preliminary earthwork for the proposal includes 11,000 cubic yards of excavation and 3,250 yards of fill. I I The Preliminary PUD would be used to modify parking, street, open space, retaining wall, building height, and design standards. The applicant has proposed to preserve the stream onsite, provide additional buffer, create a large public amenity space as part of the proposed PUD public benefit, along with enhanced pedestrian and vehicular circulation, pedestrian amenities, and landscaping. Construction of the development is anticipated to begin in May of 2016 and would be completed in July of 2017. ERC Report City of Renton Department of Community & F ~'7omic Development AVANA RIDGf PUD cnvironmental Review Committee Report WA1S-000894, PPUD, fCF Report of April 11, 2016 Page 3 of 13 Staff received several traffic related comments/concerns. Also included in the comments letters were concerns related to: access, open space, street improvements, drainage, wildlife, density, and quality of life (Exhibit 16). Non- Environmental 'SEPA' Review concerns will only be addressed as part of staff's recommendation to the City's Hearing Examiner for the Preliminary PUD and are not included in this report. Non-SEPA concerns include, but are not limited to the following: zoning, permitted uses, density, construction mitigation/traffic control, crime, landscaping, access, parking, retaining walls, setbacks, utilities, public services, and home sizes. Studies provided by the applicant include a stormwater report, traffic study, habitat assessment, wetland and supplemental stream study, arborist report, geotechnical and a coal mine hazard report. ! PART TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In compliance with RCW 43.21C.240, the following environmental (SEPA) review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. A_ Environmental Threshold Recommendation Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials: Issue a DNS-M with a 14-day Appeal Period. B. Mitigation Measures C. 1. An updated Coal Mine Hazard Report shall be submitted demonstrating the proposal will not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent or abutting properties beyond pre-development conditions and the development can be safely accommodated on the site. The report shall also discuss any measures employed in the final site/building design which serve to mitigate coal mine subsidence risk. If no measures are employed, the applicant shall provide justification for the exclusion of additional measures. The updated Coal Mine Hazard Report shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering permit approval. 2. One (1) Electronic Speed Radar Sign shall be installed in the northbound direction on both 106th Ave SE and 104th Ave SE. The applicant shall install the signs, mounting poles, and associated equipment, at the direction of the City. All improvements shall be included in the engineering permit submittal for review and approval, and shall be constructed prior to temporary occupancy. 3. The applicant shall provide an off-site sidewalk, along the south side of SE 172,d 5t and the west side of Benson Rd S, approaching the intersection. The width of the off-site sidewalks shall be consistent with the widths proposed along the frontage of the subject site. ADA ramps shall also be constructed at the southwest corner of the intersection. Finally, a street lighting analysis is required to be conducted by the developer at the southwest corner of the intersection of SE 172,d 5t and Benson Rd S. If necessary, required street lighting shall be provided according to City standards. All improvements shall be included in the engineering permit submittal for review and approval, and shall be constructed prior to temporary occupancy. Exhibits Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4 Exhibit 5 Exhibit 6 Exhibit 7 ERC Report 5ite Plan Landscape Plan Elevations Grading Plan Geotechnical Report, prepared by Earth Solutions NW (dated December 21, 2015) Coal Mine Hazard Study, prepared by Icicle Creek Engineers (dated March 22, 2004) ERCReport City of Renton Department of Community & C'-_ .Iomic Development AVANA RIDGE PUD ~nvironmental Review Committee Report LUA15-000894, PPUD, ECF Report of April 11, 2016 Exhibit 8 Exhibit 9 Exhibit 10 Exhibit 11 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 13 Exhibit 14 Exhibit 15 Exhibit 16 Exhibit 17 Exhibit 18 Page 4 of 13 Coal Mine Hazard Study, prepared by Icicle Creek Engineers (dated January 20,2009) Drainage Report, prepared by D.R. Strong (dated December 28,2015) Supplemental Stream Study, prepared by Sewell Wetland Consulting (dated December 22,2015) Conceptual Stream Mitigation Plan prepared by Sewell Wetland Consulting (December 28,2015) Habitat Data Report, prepared by Sewell Wetland Consulting (dated December 22, 2015) Arborist Report, prepared by Greenforest Inc. (dated December 16, 2015) Tree Retention Plan Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), prepared by TraffEx (dated February 2, 2016) Public Comment letters/Emails Independent Secondary Review -Traffic Study, prepared by TenW (dated March 21, 2016) Response Memo -Independent Secondary Review, prepared by Traffex (dated March 26,2016) D. Environmentallmpacts The Proposal was circulated and reviewed by various City Departments and Divisions to determine whether the applicant has odequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development. Staff reviewers have identified that the proposol is likely to have the following proboble impocts: 1. Earth Impacts: The site can best be characterized as hilly generally sloping south toward the stream on site and Benson Drive S. Slopes on-site range from 8 to 15% with a topographic relief of approximately 35 feet. The steepest slope on the site is approximately 20% in the proximity of the stream on site. The applicant is proposing excavation in the amount of approximately 11,000 cubic yards. Approximately 3,250 cubic yards of fill is proposed, of which 1,000 cubic yards would be imported structured fill. Following construction the applicant is proposing an impervious cover of approximately 53% of the net site area, minus right-of-way dedications and the stream on site. less than 40% impervious cover is proposed when using the gross site area. The applicant submitted a Geotechnical Report prepared by Earth Solutions NW, dated December 21, 2015 (Exhibit 6). The report states that there are no geotechnical conditions on site which would preclude the proposed development and the development would likely be supported by conventional foundations. The soils on site were classified as Vashon till, beginning at approximately 2 to 6 feet below grade. Bedrock was encountered approximately 22 to 43 feet below grade. No groundwater seepage was found by Earth Solutions NW. However, groundwater seepage was encountered by Icicle Creek Engineers during their field visit, for the coal mine hazard analysis, at one to two feet below grade (Exhibit 7). Therefore, perched seepage zones are anticipated during construction depending on the time of year grading activities take place. The geotechnical report includes specific recommendations in order to mitigate potential geotechnical impacts including: site preparation, structural fill, foundations, drainage considerations, hazards including, and project design and monitoring. The applicant will be required to comply with the recommendations included in the provided Geotechnical Engineering Report (Exhibit 6). A coal mine was operated historically within the southern portion of the site, along the southwesterly property line. According to the Coal Mine Hazard Study, prepared by Icicle Creek Engineers on January 26, ERe Report City of Renton Department oj Community & t,-_, lomic Development AVANA RIDGE PUD Report of April 11, 2016 _nvironmental Review Committee Report WA15-000894, PPUD, ECF Page 5 of 13 2009, the coal mine is designated a High Coal Mine Hazard (CH) as defined by RMC 4-3-050 (Exhibit 8). The classification was affirmed by Earth Solutions NW in the provided Geotechnica I Report (Exhibit 6). High Coal Mine Hazards are considered areas with abandoned and improperly sealed mine openings and areas underlain by mine workings shallower than 200 feet in depth for steeply dipping seams, or shallower than 15 times the thickness of the seam or workings for gently dipping seams. These areas may be affected by collapse or other subsidence. The main entry and airshaft for the Springbrook mine is also located on site. Icicle Creek Engineers encountered approximately 15feet of fill at what appears to be the mine entry, estimated to be 5 to 8 feet in diameter, and inclined at approximately 55 to 60 degrees to the south (Exhibit 8). There were several recommendations to mitigate potential risk of the coal mine hazard/former entry as part of the Icicle Creek Engineer report, including the excavation of the fill at the mine entry and backfilling with controlled density fill (Exhibit 8). However, these recommendations were based on a former proposal for a development which included structures in the southern portion of the site. The proposed development is setback approximately 125 feet from the coal mine hazard and would likely not have the same impacts as the former development. However, there are some grading activities and smaller recreational improvements in the proximity of the coal mine hazard which may potentially be affected by mining related subsidence. Therefore, staff recommends a mitigation measure requiring an updated Coal Mine Hazard Report demonstrating the proposal would not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent or abutting properties beyond pre-development conditions and the development can be safely accommodated on the site. The report shall also discuss any measures employed in the final site/building design which serve to mitigate coal mine subsidence risk. If no measures are employed, the applicant shall provide justification for the exclusion of additional measures. The updated Coal Mine Hazard Report shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering permit approval. Removal of the existing vegetated cover during construction would leave soils susceptible to erosion. The applicant will be required to design a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) pursuant to the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements. A number of retaining walls are also proposed to be constructed on site as part of the grading proposal (Exhibit 5) and will be further reviewed as part staffs recommendation to the Hearing Examiner for the Preliminary PUD. Mitigation Measures: An updated Coal Mine Hazard Report shall be submitted demonstrating the proposal will not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent or abutting properties beyond pre- development conditions and the development can be safely accommodated on the site. The report shall also discuss any measures employed in the final site/building design which serve to mitigate coal mine subsidence risk. If no measures are employed, the applicant shall provide justification for the exclusion of additional measures. The updated Coal Mine Hazard Report shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering permit approval. If mitigation measures are includes, they shall be implemented during utility permit construction. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations, RMC 4-3-050 Critical Area Regulations 2. Water a. Wetland, Streams, Lakes Impacts: The applicant submitted a Wetland and Supplemental Stream Study, prepared by Ed Sewell Consulting Inc., dated December 22, 2015 (Exhibit 10). The report states there are no wetlands located on site. An unnamed seasonal stream (Stream A) has been identified on the subject site. Stream A bisects the northern and southern portions of the site and runs from east to west. As defined by RMC 4-3-050.G the stream best meets the criteria of a Type Ns stream due to its intermittent flow and lack offish use. Class Ns streams have a standard buffer of SO feet as measured from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) as well ERC Report City of Renton Department of Community & 1:._ .Iomic Development AVANA RIDGE PUD _nvironmentaf Review Committee Report WA15-000894, PPUD, ECF Report of April 11, 2016 Page 6 of 13 as a is-foot setback from the edge of the buffer to any structure. The applicant is proposing buffer averaging for portions of the stream buffer. Additionally, the applicant is proposing an alteration within the stream and its associated buffer for a pedestrian crossing. It should be noted that the Habitat Biologist for WDFW concluded the on-site stream is not a jurisdictional water, or a "water of the state". As a result no Hydraulic Permit Approval (HPA) permit is required from Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife. Stream Buffer Averaging Proposal: RMC 4-3-050.1.1 allows for critical area buffers to be reduced to no less than a 25-foot minimum for Type Ns streams. The applicant has proposed buffer averaging, with reductions of the buffer down to 25feet, for Stream A. Overall the applicant is proposing buffer reductions in the amount of approximately 8,835 square feet to be mitigated with buffer additions in the amount of approximately 9,527 square feet. The applicant is also proposing buffer enhancement for those portions of the buffer which would be reduced. Pursuant to RMC, buffer width averaging may be allowed by the reviewing official only where the applicant demonstrates all of the following: There are existing physical improvements in or near the water body and associated riparian area; and ii. Buffer width averaging will result in no net loss of stream/lake/riparian ecological function; and iii. The total area contained within the buffer after averaging is no less than that contained within the required standard buffer width prior to averaging; and iv. The proposed buffer standard is based on consideration of the best available science as described in WAC 365-195-905; and v. Where the buffer width is reduced by averaging pursuant to this subsection, buffer enhancement shall be required. The existing stream buffer, which separates the north apartment building area from the southern open space, is mostly existing forest (primarily Alder and Cottonwood) with an understory dominated by invasive Himalayan blackberry. The buffer would be enhanced through the removal of the invasive blackberries and other undesirable vegetation and replaced with native understory vegetation. There are existing road improvements within the buffer on both the east and west sides of the stream. The applicant's Supplemental Stream Study concluded the buffer reduction, through averaging, would have the physical characteristics that can protect water quality and functions of the stream on site (Exhibit 10). Staff has reviewed the stream buffer averaging proposal for Stream A, and agrees that the proposal meets all requirements found in RMC 4-3-050.1.1. However, the provided stream study does not include a demonstration of compliance with criteria found in RMC 4-3-0S0.H.2. Therefore, staff was unable to verify that through the enhancement of the buffer and the use of low impact development strategies the reduced buffer will function at a higher level than the standard buffer. Staff will be recommending a condition of Preliminary PUD approval to address this concern prior to construction permit approval. Stream Alteration Proposal: RMC 4-3-050.J.2.a allows for the construction of non-vehicular transportation crossings. The applicant has proposed a pedestrian bridge trail crossing over Stream A. Pursuant to RMC, crossings may be permitted by the reviewing official only where the applicant demonstrates all of the following: i. The proposed route is determined to have the least impact on the environment, while meeting City Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element requirements and standards in RMC 4-6-060; and ii. The crossing minimizes interruption of downstream movement of wood and gravel; and iii. Transportation facilities in buffer areas shall not run parallel to the water body; and iv. Crossings occur as near to perpendicular with the water body as possible; and ERCReport v. Crossings are designed according to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Fish Water Crossing Design Guidelines, 2013, and the National Marine Fisheries Service Guidelines for Salmonid City of Renton Deportment of Community & t __ Jomie Development AVANA RIDGE PUD Report of April 11, 2016 _nvironmental Review Committee Report WA15-000894, PPUD, ECF Page 7 of 13 Passage at Stream Crossings, 2000, as may be updated, or equivalent manuals as determined by the Administrator; and vi. Seasonal work windows are determined and made a condition of approval; and vii. Mitigation criteria of subsection L of this Section are met. The path would connect the north and south sides of the buffer, crossing over Stream A, via a pedestrian bridge. The bridge would also serve to connect the proposed structures to the proposed open space on the southern portion of the site. The proposed bridged trail crossing is located within a narrow portion of the stream, above the flow path of water, and is perpendicular to the water body. Staff has reviewed the alteration proposal for the bridge across Stream A, and agrees that the proposal meets all requirements found in RMC 4-3-050.J.2. However, the provided stream study does not include a demonstration of compliance with criteria found in RMC 4-3-050.H.2. Therefore, staff was unable to verify that the bridged crossing will not impact the function of the stream. Staff will be recommending a condition of Preliminary PUD approval to address this concern prior to construction permit approval. Additional conditions associated with Preliminary PUD approval will likely include signage and fencing and review and approval of a final stream mitigation plan. In order to preserve and protect the stream and its associated buffer the applicant will be required, to establish a Native Growth Protection Easement over the parts of the site encompassing stream and buffer areas. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation needed Nexus: Not applicable b. Storm Water Impacts: The site is located within the Black River drainage basin and Panther Creek drainage sub-basin. Upstream runoff enters the site in two locations. Portions of SE 172,d St and 106'h Ave SE direct upstream runoff across the northern property line. Upstream runoff from the west side of Benson Rd 5 flows into a ditch along the east property line. Runnoff currently discharges at the sites western property line, at two locations, and heads north through a conveyance system in Benson Drive S. The flows eventually cross under Benson Drive 5 and conveyed a westerly direction in a series of pipes and catch basis eventually outfalling into Panther Creek. This project is required to comply with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and the City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapter 1 and 2. Based on the City's flow control map, this site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard, Forested Conditions. This project is subject to full drainage review. The applicant submitted a Preliminary Drainage Report prepared by D.R. Strong, dated December 28, 2015 (Exhibit 9). The report also includes a detailed summary of the pre and post developed conditions. The stormwater detention and water quality treatment would be provided within a combined detention/water quality vault under the parking area located in the western portion of the site. The combined detention/water quality vault would be followed by a media filtration system to accommodate the Enhanced Water Quality Treatment requirements for multi-family development. For water quality features that are not in the City Amendments or the 2009 KCSWDM, and which have the General Use level designation through the state Department of Ecology's Technology Assessment Protocol-Ecology (TAPE) program, an adjustment process request is required. Conditions associated with Preliminary PUD approval will likely include a requirement for the submittal, and approval, of an Adjustment in order to utilize water quality features which are not in the City Amendments or the 2009 KCSWDM. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation needed Nexus: Not applicable 3. Vegetation ERC Report City of Renton Department of Community & L Jamie Development AVANA RIDGE PUD Report of April 11, 2016 _nvironmental Review Committee Report LUA15-000894, PPUD, ECF Page 8 of 13 Impacts: The site is currently forested with mixed canopy dominated by Douglas fir, red cedar, big leaf maple, Scouler's willow, and black cottonwood. The site's understory is dominated by Indian plum, hazelnut, Himilayan blackberry, sword fern, and creeping blackberry. The applicant provided a Tree Protection Plan/Arborist Report, completed by Greenforest Inc., dated December 16, 2015 (Exhibit 13). Based on the provided tree inventory, 429 trees are located on the subject site. There are 114 trees located in critical areas and associated buffers; 67 trees were identified as dead, diseased, or dangerous; and 37 trees would be located within proposed rights-of-way. This results in the exclusion of 218 trees from retention calculations. As such, 211 trees were utilized to calculate retention requirements of 10% of the significant trees located on the site. Therefore, the applicant would be required to retain at least 42 trees on site. The provided Tree Retention Plan depicts the retention of 46 trees outside of the critical areas and their associated buffers which serves to meet tree retention requirements (Exhibit 13). Additional analysis will be provided as part of staff's recommendation to the Hearing Examiner on the Preliminary Planned Urban Development. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation recommended Nexus: Not applicable 4. Wildlife Impacts: The applicant submitted a Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment, prepared by Sewell Wetland Consulting, Inc., dated December 22, 2015 (Exhibit 12). Several potentially regulated fish and wildlife habitats and priority species are identified in the vicinity of the project according to the list generated by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife' (Priority Habitats and Species list). The provided report identifies two mechanisms as having potential for impacting potentially regulated fish and wildlife species and/or associated habitat: temporary impacts from construction noise and long term effects associated with increased impervious surfaces. This study identified that no state or federally listed species were identified or known to use the site and/or are located on or near the site. Pursuant to the provided report there is no "critical habitat" as defined by Renton Municipal Code located on or near the subject site. Offsite priority aquatic species associated with the Panther Creek in water habitat are not anticipated to be impacted if the proposal complies with stormwater requirements as listed above. While the above conclusions may be true, the site still provides habitat for many non-state or federally listed species. Noted in the projects SEPA check list, and comments from parties of interest, several birds and mammals utilize the site (coyote, mule deer, raccoon, opossum, eastern gray squirrel, barn owl, European starling, common crow, flicker, garter snake, Pacific tree frog, songbirds, and small rodents). The removal of a large portion of the trees would impact existing habitat for common local wildlife. However, the applicant proposes a large, landscaped community open space provided at the southern portion of the site totaling 19,795 square feet and the 49,918 square feet of critical area and associated buffer would remain in a vegetative/open space state providing a sanctuary for the animals that reside in the area. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the subject development would result in a significant adverse impact to wildlife. In order to preserve and protect the stream and associated buffers the applicant will be required, to establish a Native Growth Protection Easement over the parts of the site encompassing the stream and buffer area. Recommended Preliminary PUD conditions will include requirements for permanent fencing of the native growth protection areas which would eliminate human or domesticated animal intrusio~ and would not adversely impact habitat connectivity. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation needed Nexus: Not applicable ERCReport City of Renton Department of Community & t ~,lOmjc Development AVANA RIDGE PUD Report of April 11, 2016 5. Transportation _nvironmental Rev;ew Committee Report WA15-000894, PPUD, EeF Page 9 of 13 Impacts: The applicant submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by TraffEx, dated February 2, 2016 (Exhibit 15). The provided TIA was found to meet the intent of the TIA guidelines and is generally acceptable for preliminary review. Several traffic related comments letters/emails have been received by the public. The comments raise concerns regarding the use of the proposed SE 172 0d 5t entrance and potential impacts to the neighboring single-family residential development to the north as well as additional impacts to queueing delays at Benson Rd S and Benson Drive S (Exhibit 15). Based on public comments received, staff required an evaluation by an independent qualified professional regarding the applicant's transportation analysis and the effectiveness of any proposed mitigating measures. An Independent Secondary Review of the provided Traffic Study prepared by TENW, dated March 21, 2016 (Exhibit 17). In general, the secondary review affirmed the overall trip distribution patterns. The report however, recommended revisions be made to the traffic counts to consider the worse-case traffic scenario given the observed intersection queuing at 108'h Ave SE and Benson Rd S. The applicant provided a memo, dated March 26, 2016, in response to the recommendations included in the secondary review (Exhibit 18). The memo generally concurred with the recommendations of the peer review with the exception for the removal of the site driveway access restrictions to SE 172nd Street. The applicant's response memo revised the TIA to reflect recommended changes in trip distribution, balanced traffic volumes, the analysis of queuing on Benson Rd and left turn lane warrants. After review of the original Traffic Impact Analysis (Exhibit 15), Independent Secondary Review (Exhibit 17), and the applicant's response memo (Exhibit 18) staff provided applicable comments below for each Transportation subject. Access: The applicant is proposing two points of ingress and egress into the site in order to meet Fire Department requirements for access. The applicant proposes one entrance off of SE 172nd St between the proposed buildings, and one entrance off of Benson Road South. The two access points converge to form drive-through access through the site. Several public comments were received requesting access be eliminated from SE 1720d St, in order to mitigate anticipated cut through traffic on neighboring roads to the north. In addition, concerns were raised regarding the blocking of the proposed access, along Benson Rd S, during PM peak hour traffic. The applicant has proposed a driveway configuration which would attempt to restrict movements to left-in/right -out only as way to mitigate cut through traffic on residential streets to the north. Access and proposed mitigation, was analyzed as part of the Independent Secondary Review prepared by TENW (Exhibit 17). TENW generally affirmed the trip distribution assumptions made by TraffEx and substantiated the need for two access points. With respect to proposed mitigation, TraffEx determined that the proposed SE 1720d St driveway configuration would be ineffective in limiting impacts to neighboring residential streets to the north. In addition, it is anticipated that restrictions to the SE 1720d driveway would encourage u-turns and associated impacts to existing residential driveways along the north side of SE 172 0d SI. Therefore, staff will be recommending a condition, of Hearing Examiner approval, the elimination of the proposed access restrictions along SE 172 0d St, and the entrance will be required to provide full access. In order to address anticipated impacts on neighboring streets caused by cut-through traffic, staff recommends traffic calming measures be used in lieu of the foregOing site access restriction. Specifically, Electronic Speed Radar Signage has been shown to be effective in reducing traffic speeds and aggressive driving. Staff recommends, as a mitigation measure, that one (1) Electronic Speed Radar Sign be installed in the northbound direction on both 106'h Ave SE and 104'h Ave SE. The applicant shall install the signs, mounting poles, and associated equipment, at the direction of the City. All improvements shall be included in the engineering permit submittal for review and approval, and shall be constructed prior to temporary occupancy. ERe Report City of Renton Department of Community & fCr.-r1omic Development AVANA RIDGE PUD Report of April 11, 2016 . vironmental Review Committee Report LUA15-000894, PPUD, EeF Page 10 of 13 Level of Service: It is anticipated that the proposed development would generate approximately 492 average daily trips with 38 AM peak-hour trips and 46 PM peak-hour trips. The provided report analyzed three intersection locations (Exhibit 15): Intersection 1: Site Access / SE 172 0d St Intersection 2: 108th Ave SE/Benson Rd S/SE 1720d 5t Intersection 3: Site Access/Benson Rd S/108th Ave SE The provided analysis notes that all intersections will operate at an acceptable level of service with the proposed development. Therefore, the proposal would not be required to mitigate at any intersection. Analysis of future conditions address cumulative impacts of the proposed project and traffic growth in the study area. Traffic signal warranty analysis was also provided at the intersection of SE 1720d St and Benson Rd S. The report states there is no need for a signal at the intersection as a result of the project. However, The Transportation Department is conducting a model to assess any possible solution to address the citizen's concerns regarding the backing of queue on Benson Road from the intersection with SR 515 to SE 172 0d Street. Staff, is hoping to provide an update at the public hearing for the subject project. Increased traffic created by the development would be mitigated by payment of transportation impact fees. The transportation impact fee that is current at the time of building permit application will be levied. The applicant submitted for a building permit in December of 2015. The fee in 2015 was assessed at $2,214.44 per new multi-family unit. The fee is estimated at approximately $164,000. The fee shall be payable to the City at the time of building permit issuance. Site Distance: The provided Traffic Impact Analysis states sight distance requirements are met at the site access driveway onto SE 172 0d St and with vegetation trimming, within the right of way, at the site access driveway to Benson Rd S (Exhibit 15). Street Improvements: Street Improvements are regulated by RMC 4-6-060 -Street Standards. See below: Benson Drive S -Benson Drive 5 (SR 515) is a principal arterial and a state route roadway along the project's west property line. The existing road currently contains curb, gutter, and sidewalk on both sides of the street. There is currently no planter strip existing along the Benson Drive 5 street frontage. Per code, frontage improvements including 0.5 feet wide curb and gutter, an 8-foot wide landscaped planter, an 8- foot wide sidewalk, street lighting, and storm water improvements are required on principal arterial streets. The applicant is proposing to maintain the existing right-of-way. Due to critical areas along portions of the frontage, the applicant has requested a modification to allow the sidewalk to remain in the current location for those areas where critical areas are located. As part of the Preliminary PUD recommendation to the Hearing Examiner staff will likely be recommending approval of the requested modification. The approval would likely include a condition of approval requiring the applicant to dedicate 1-foot behind the sidewalk in addition to right-of-way dedication for luminaire foundations along Benson Drive S. Benson Rd S -Benson Rd 5 is a minor arterial along the project's east property line. Half-street frontage improvements are required to be provided on the side of the street fronting the development. Per code, the minimum right-of-way width required for a minor arterial is 91 feet. The available right-of-way width on the Benson Rd 5 frontage, per the King County assessor map, is 100 feet and would not necessitate additional right-of-way dedication. The required paved width on this street is 44 feet, which includes three travel lanes and a 5-foot wide bike lane on both sides of the street. Frontage improvements would include the following: a 0.5 foot wide curb and gutter, an 8-foot wide landscaped planter, an 8-foot wide sidewalk, street lighting, and stormwater improvements are required.' The applicant is proposing street improvements along Benson Rd 5 which comply with code. SE 172 0d St -SE 1720d St is a commercial mixed use and industrial access street along the project's north property line. Half-street frontage improvements are required to be provided on the side of the street fronting the development. Per code, the minimum right-of-way width required for a commercial mixed use and industrial access street is 69 feet. The available right-of-way width on the SE 1720d St frontage, per the ERe Report City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development AVANA RIDGE PUD Report of April 11, 2016 _,/vironmentaf Review Committee Report LUA15-000894, PPUD, ECF Page 11 of 13 King County assessor map, is 60 feet and would require additional right-of-way dedication. Frontage improvements would include the following: an 8-foot parking lane, a 0.5 foot wide curb and gutter, an 8- foot wide landscaped planter, a 6-foot wide sidewalk, street lighting, and storm water improvements are required. The applicant is proposing street improvements, along SE 172 0d St, which comply with code. The applicant has requested a modification to reduce the required dedication from 4.5 feet to 3 feet. As part of the Preliminary PUD recommendation to the Hearing Examiner staff will likely be recommending approval of the requested modification. The approval would likely include a condition of approval requiring the applicant to dedicate I-foot behind the sidewalk in addition to right-of-way dedication for luminaire foundations along SE 172 0d St. Pedestrian Improvements: As part of the proposed project, sidewalks would be constructed along the frontage of the site and would connect to the existing sidewalk system. However, safety concerns have been raised with respect to pedestrian connectivity off site due to missing sidewalk linkages off site approaching the intersection of Benson Rd 5 and SE 1720d St. Given the number of homes proposed it is very likely that a large influx of people would utilize the public sidewalk system as well as the anticipated school bus stop across Benson Rd S. Providing pedestrian connections to abutting properties is an important aspect of connectivity and encourages pedestrian activity and is required to be considered when reviewing the subject application. Pathways should be easily identifiable to pedestrians and drivers. The condition of the existing protruded curb, approaching the intersection of SE 172 0d St and Benson Rd 5, has been largely disturbed and does not provide a safe route for school children and or residents walking to and from the site. As a result, staff recommends a mitigation measure requiring the applicant provide an off-site sidewalk, along the south side of SE 172 0d St and the west side of Benson Rd 5, approaching the intersection. The width of the off-site sidewalks shall be consistent with the widths proposed along the frontage of the subject site. ADA ramps shall also be constructed at the southwest corner of the intersection. Finally, a street lighting analysis is required to be conducted by the developer at the southwest corner of the intersection of SE 1720d St and Benson Rd S. If necessary, required street lighting shall be provided according to City standards. All improvements shall be included in the engineering permit submittal for review and approval, and shall be constructed prior to temporary occupancy. Concurrency - A concurrency recommendation will be provided in the staff report to Hearing Examiner based upon the test of the citywide Transportation Plan, consideration of growth levels included in the LOS- tested Transportation Plan, payment of a Transportation Mitigation Fee, and an application of site specific mitigation. The development will have to meet the City of Renton concurrency requirements. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation needed Nexus: Not applicable E. Comments of Reviewing Departments The proposal has been circulated to City Department and Division Reviewers. Where applicable, their comments have been incorporated into the text ofthis report and/or "Advisory Notes to Applicant." ,/ Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File and may be attached to this report. The Environmental Determination decision will become final if the decision is not appealed within the 14-day appeal period (RCW 43.21.C.075(3); WAC 197-11-680). Environmental Determination Appeal Process: Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing together with the required fee to: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, on or before 5:00 p.m. on April 29, 2016. RMC 4-8-110 governs appeals to the Hearing Examiner and additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall- i h Floor, (425) 430-6510. ERCReport City of Renton Department of Community -conomic Development AVANA RIDGE PUD Environr ~'1ta' Review Committee Report WA1S-000894, PPUD, ECF Report of April 11, 2016 Page 12 of 13 ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for the land use actions. Planning: 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. 2. Commercial, multi-family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 3. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. 4. A National Permit Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is required when more than one acre is being cleared. 5. The applicant will be required to submit a Final Stream Mitigation Report and Maintenance and Monitoring proposal. In addition, the applicant will be required to comply with all the code requirements of RMC 4-3-050 Critical Areas. This includes, but is not limited to, placing the critical area within a Native Growth Protection Easement, providing fencing and sign age, and providing the City with a site restoration surety device and, later, a maintenance and monitoring surety device. 6. The applicant may not fill, excavate, stack or store any equipment, dispose of any materials, supplies or fluids, operate any equipment, install impervious surfaces, or compact the earth in any way within the area defined by the drip line of any tree to be retained. 7. The applicant shall erect and maintain six-foot (6') high chain link temporary construction fencing around the drip lines of all retained trees, or along the perimeter of a stand of retained trees. Placards shall be placed on fencing every fifty feet (50') indicating the words, "NO TRESPASSING -Protected Trees" or on each side of the fencing if less than fifty feet (50'). Site access to individually protected trees or groups of trees shall be fenced and signed. Individual trees shall be fenced on four (4) sides. In addition, the applicant shall provide supervision whenever equipment or trucks are moving near trees. 8. This permit is shall comply with the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The permitted is responsible for adhering to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (2007) and lor your U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service permit. Water: 1. Water Service is provided by So as Creek Water and Sewer District. 2. A water availability certificate from the Soos Creek utility was submitted to the City with the land use application. 3. Approved water plans from Soos Creek should be provided during utility construction permit review. Sewer: 1. Sewer Service is provided by Soos Creek Water and Sewer District. 2. A sewer availability certificate from the So as Creek utility was submitted to the City with the land use application. 3. Approved sewer plans from Soos Creek should be provided during utility construction permit review. Drainage: 1. A geotechnical report for the site prepared by Earth Solutions Inc. was submitted for the project. The geotechnical report mentions that the soil is till soil and is not suitable for infiltration. All geotechnical recommendations shall be followed. 2. A Construction Storm water General Permit from Department of Ecology is required since grading and clearing of the site exceeds one acre 3. Surface water system development charge fee is $0.594 per square foot of new impervious surface area, but not less than $1,485.00. This fee is subject to change at the rate that is applicable at the time of issuance ofthe utility ERCReport City oj Renton Department oj Community & E lmic Development AVANA RIDGE PUD r-"vironmental Review Committee Report WA1S-000894, PPUD, ECF Report of April 11, 2016 Page 13 of 13 construction permit will be applicable. Transportation: 1. The maximum slope back of sidewalk is 4H: IV for minimum 3 feet back of the sidewalk. 2. The corner curb ramps at all street intersections adjacent to the site should be ADA compliant. ADA also requires matching ADA compliant curb ramps on the other side of the intersection. 3. The site is proposed to be accessed via driveways from Benson Road South and SE 172nd Street. Please refer to RMC 4-4-080 for driveway design standards including location, grade, and width. 4. Street lighting is required to be provided on the frontage streets by the project. 5. The City of Renton Trench restoration and Street overlay requirements will be applicable for any work in the public right of way. Parks: 1. Park Impact Fees per Ordinance 5670 applies. 2. Street trees -Ginkgo on SR 515; Ash on Benson Rd. 5.; Elm on SE 172nd. Space minimum distance of 50 feet apart and not close than 30 feet from street lights (not all lights are shown on plans). Potential for one to two more street trees at NE corner of 5R515 & Benson Rd. Use only Ginko, Elm, and Ash as street trees. 3. Planting Strip: require a continuous planting strip along all streets, then sidewalk; plan does not show this. Dangerous, fast traffic requires that a planting strip buffer pedestrians from roadway. 4. Parking Lot: some islands are too small for trees; use only vine maple or smaller in those areas. General: 1. All construction or service utility permits for drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals. All utility plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. Plans shall be prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer. 2. When utility plans are complete, please submit four (4) copies of the drawings, two (2) copies of the drainage report, permit application, an itemized cost of construction estimate, and application fee at the counter on the sixth floor. ERCReport e EXHIBITS Project Name: Project Number: Avana Ridge Preliminary PUD LUA15-000894, ECF, PPUD Date of Heari ng Staff Contact Project Contact/Applicant Project location (tentatively) 5/10/16 Rocale Timmons Justin lagers 17249 Benson Rd 5 Renton, Senior Planner Avana Ridge, LLC WA 9675 Sf 36th 5t, 5te 105; Mercer Island, WA 98040 The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4 Exhibit 5 Exhibit 6 Exhibit 7 Exhibit 8 Exhibit 9 Exhibit 10 Exhibit 11 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 13 Exhibit 14 Exhibit 15 Exhibit 16 Exhibit 17 Exhibit 18 ERC Report Site Plan Landscape Plan Elevations Grading Plan Geotechnical Report, prepared by Earth Solutions NW (dated December 21, 2015) Coal Mine Hazard Study, prepared by Icicle Creek Engineers (dated March 22, 2004) Coal Mine Hazard Study, prepared by Icicle Creek Engineers (dated January 20, 2009) Drainage Report, prepared by D.R. Strong (dated December 28,2015) Supplemental Stream Study, prepared by Sewell Wetland Consulting (dated December 22, 2015) Conceptual Stream Mitigation Plan prepared by Sewell Wetland Consulting (December 28, 2015) Habitat Data Report, prepared by Sewell Wetland Consulting (dated December 22,2015) Arborist Report, prepared by Greenforest Inc. (dated December 16, 2015) Tree Retention Plan Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), prepared by TraffEx (dated February 2, 2016) Public Comment Letters/Emails Independent Secondary Review -Traffic Study, prepared by TenW (dated March 21,2016) Response Memo -Independent Secondary Review, prepared by Traffex (dated March 26, 2016) (\ ......=-'" '" =. ' '----... --", ''----. 'I ... ".. __ "<>-''-''<' -t : I -" _ \1 I III' '~~:,~;~ ~ sa '<,>,.~ ~ i _, r _ ---'d--, ',~~.~" ',. ~;~ L. -._cJIDl--=-~?:'~~ "' ....... _,"'-","' . ."-,,-',,'"',, -'-;~,,~> " ~·rnm II ' II I I ",;:;,~ . i , i\~ '~Z'~>'».: " , ~ q;~~,.::>c~ ~~ ",>, " -"', A '<> 'Io:.~ v~ '-::>~, ~I'/J -"~<~ y~ 'c,<., , ;; '-,n",~ ". ,..., u-/ '" '" '" -A / r-,.'-I/ • · & '-,,' (/ ,. /, ~J/ ~~ '<'.#, '-;' I I ;/ NORTH 'r. ", " "f:i/. .. '$7"'~\,,,,''',,, _jy~/ v ~" """'OP~>;/ "f; -, -,/ '--. --EXHIBIT 2 -",-/ i ...... ~ u ~ OJ ! ...... ..c u I- m D.. :::J 0 >- OIl r..J AVANARIOGE PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT 10616 SE 172nd STREET. RENTON, WA ,.", AVANA RIDGE, LLC ~""' __ '"'''''''' .-.-. ..... , ''',.~" SITE PLAN PUD A1 I ... ). ) I~~·----.::: ... I ----- I I I I I I 1 I I I I ., s ui I! II ~ .. ..... Cw ~~ --l ~ II 1 ~~ ~ ~ II Ih !ili8s ~U ~I Iii ~~:::l 1m I Fun Document Availab\e upon Request "-£> : ~~P~,~I.ELEV"T10N iJ; ~ _____ J" -L_ ~~ .,;,1 (y ; Cl", FD> : \:1 z; -------L r--' 1 ---l 01 (~) ~A.5: :B~) i~ ~1D-<:.'t, (""\I. . "\,.:;-,r.:: ~ "f,,-;;: " "'~ /~C.:(C.3) Ip.~,p.~tD " .~\ (EA Fj ',r~i ':f~: (ei) (;, i' CH:H.·t(~_~i (H~) CI"I ~.~;, C,'::' ? ~:;):J.€CJ~?) '~.~I(~~~~)(~.~) (L)(M) (N) ~ ::0:: I ~.r~~~ Ida ,Jgyi?:~f (O>'~.5; (N) C,"!)(i: 4; ."»),, .. //v, I.K~,,,, K ,J.8.(,J.~) ~.3).~ ~;\. J /' G~ ~1.5: C'I; :~~~, 'H3' ,'H 1\(H "-:. / '",/, _~n~III-~ :;~ 7 '~'~ rl~f-~ __ ~~ ~ I .--·1-" nJ !Itt ....I ....I I... ~~~i\.~· SOUTH ELEVATION c~; f~1 ([3) (~>~) <r.~~ \D:~(~fo ~~~.~(C-·~~·~)Cc) (B~I C~~~(A) •,,1,.--, . l .. "!.:J ~~ .J "':" ~"r::; ~ = ,~'CJ '1 .', ; "'1 ~ ';- :;;-;-t;t i;il.l ··-'''l' '-~I;;I.I : .... ...=: ....I I... b .... M._',.,.' ,-,.,. EXHIBIT 4 _ ~t!~~~'N~~~LL5'~~:H~~-:+,~i : 4"11 ...... u ClJ ...... ..c u '-.. ro , D. :::J 0 "- Dr raJ AVANARIDGE PLANNED URBA~ DEVELOPMENT 1D616SE172nd STREET, RENTON, WA 98055 I fJi±l(! AVANA RIDGE, Ll ----,---....... ,""'" OVERALL PROJECT ELEVATIONS A3.01 w " o " ;; ;; "" :--" .. -··'-1 <:v, ... _ "' ... _ W', ... __ I''''''') I"'=J «Un,,, ' .. "'" ~"'. n~<_J/" ""''''''"''5 __ .. _....-.........,.~'''''''''- -..-_ ...... ~r,..,..""""-10'''' ..... ,.....,....-_ ~~c.:::..=~':"ID:_N_',-.... ".'''' .. ..- ~E=:F"::~'~~:..~":;';:;....-..... , ~,,,:, _ ',~~!~: It;:; =~ , """"""-IIS,,, .. ,,,,,,/I(,, •• ,O,...,,,"".......,...,_""5I,, , ,""r.nDfD"'-""""~"""IE"""""""-"""""""''''' _..., __ §<.«, ... _.n~< ... a"..-",...,. CI::) ~~, EXHIBIT 5 D.R.STRONG CONSIJLTING ENGINEERS --- w'M. ~ ~ ~ ~ --------{ AVANA RIDGE PUD CONCEPTtJALGRAllflGPlAH DRSPRMCTNO.15088 / I / / / @ / NORTH ".-...:.' "'--" • Geotechnical Engineellng Geologv Environmental Scicnti~t'i Construct jon Monitorinf? EXHIBIT 6 ~ .. f -• ¥ " .• . '.;.':;';:"ii£;;:~l~~~t~;i~ '". :-:::"/i¥';;,.>i;~"""'i~1'jj:.!PIjf.ir;;"i~~r".:l;it l' 'C':·. ;'".'+~;t:~~~Tf~~~ GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY AVANARIDGE 10615 SOUTHEAST 172nd STREET RENTON, WASHINGTON ES-4147 · --I Report Geological Engineering Services Coal Mine Hazard Assessment Cugini Property -Northwest Parcel Renton (King County), Washington March 22, 20M Project No .. 0336~004 Prepared For: Alex Cugini Prepared By: Icicle Creek Engineers, Inc. Full Document Available upon Request EXHIBIT 7 Report Geotechnical Engineering Services Proposed Property Development Springbrook Ridge King County Tax Parcel Nos. 2923059009 and 2023059148 Renton, Washington January 26, 2009 Project No. 0336-004 Prepared For: Alex Cugini Prepared By: Icicle Creek Engineers. Inc. Full Document Available upon Request EXHIBIT 8 Full Document Available upon Request Preliminary Technical Information Report (TIR) for AVANA RIDGE PUD 17249 Benson Road Sand 10615 SE 172"d Street Renton, Washington DRS Project No. Renton File No. 15088 PRE15-000611 Owner/Applicant Avana Ridge, LLC 9725 SE 36th Street, Suite 214 Mercer Island, Washington 98040 Report Prepared by -D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers, Inc. 620 7'h Avenue Kirkland WA 98033 (425) 827-3063 © 2015 o. R. STRONG Consu~ing Engineers Inc. Report Issue Date December 28, 2015 EXHIBIT 9 December 22,2015 Justin Lagers Avana Ridge, LLC 9675 SE 36th Street, Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA Full Document Available upon Request RE: Wetland and Supplemental Stream Study -Avana Ridge PUD City of Renton, Washington SWC Job #15-159 Dear Justin, This report describes our observations of jurisdictional wetlands, streams and buffers on or within 100' of the proposed Avana Ridge PUD project in the City of Renton, Washington (the "site"). " $-(U· ~. .. -u.:.G:.1, '~.jl.2Ub (~«f» . . itt" .... -~...-- Above: Vicinity Map of site EXHIBIT 10 OWB6'tJM'pu~ISIJa"'''VII·I'''UI5YI9£355lS6 m 'S9NI(Jl0t-l MN~ uol8'ulyseM'uolUa~ and aip!!:! Rue,,\!' Nlfld NOll'o'91l11111 '<f311'o'l\fJ1111lJ 101 jl .... .... t:; c:a 1-1 :::t: >< w Sewall Wetland Consulting. Inc. ro Box 880 Fhone: 253-S59-{615 December 22,2015 Justin Lagers Avana Ridge, LLC 9725 SE 36th Street, Suite 214 Mercer Island, Washington 98040 RE: Habitat Data Report -Avana Ridge City of Renton, Washington SWC Job #15-159 Dear Justin, Fall Gty,WAS0024 Full Document Available upon Request This report is in reference to the City of Renton's requirements for a Habitat Assessment for the Avana Ridge project. '" l""riJJ' -... .. -1l;g;" ',~,.1!D ,lr~1>· , . I , !' .... ~ IP--" Above: Vicinity Map of site EXHIBIT 12 Greenforestlncorporated December 16, 2015 Justin Lagers Avana Ridge, LLC 9675 SE 36th St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Full Document Available upon Request RE: Tree Inspection; Avana Ridge PPUD, Parcel Nos. 292305-9148, -9009; Renton WA Dear Mr. Lagers: You contacted me and contracted my services as a consulting arborist. My assignment is to inspect and assess the condition of surveyed trees at the above referenced site. I received a topographic survey of the site from DR Strong Consulting Engineers, showing the locations of the surveyed trees. visited the site on 10/15/15 and inspected the trees, which are the subject of this report. Neither parcel is developed. The site has a SW aspect with a stream delineated through the center of the site, east to west. Both parcels are covered in native vegetation, predominately deciduous tree species with moderate to dense lower understory. TREE INSPECTION My inspection is limited to visual observation from the subject parcels and the rights-of-way. Both health and structure were evaluated. A tree's structure is distinct from its health. Structure is the way the tree is put together or constructed, and identifying obvious defects can be helpful in determining if a tree is predisposed to failure. Health addresses disease and insect infestation. No invasive procedures were performed on any trees. The results of this inspection are based on what is visible at the time of the inspection. I identified the species of each tree, confirmed trunk diameter (DBH), estimated average dripline and rated the condition of each tree. Bigleaf maples on this site have a wide age and size range. The largest and oldest maple trees are generally in the poorest condition. A handful of bitter cherry are scattered throughout the site, and all are viable. Black cottonwoods dominate the site in numbers, and there are far more younger cottonwoods than older. The oldest and larger trees are in better condition overall. Many of cottonwoods as edge trees lean excessively away from the stand. Nearly all the smaller cottonwoods are very slender. Although they are healthy and have no visible defects, their trunks are too tall for 4547 South Lucile Street, Seattle, WA 98118 Tel. EXHIBIT 13 / xxxx-xxx 3~al~ IfNV'AV' Full Document Available upon Request AVANA RIDGE APARTMENTS REVISED TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY OF RENTON Prepared for Avana Ridge, LLC 9675 SE 36th St Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Prepared by C!iitfEx TRAFFIC £XPERTS 11410 N.E. 1241h St., #590 Kirkland, Washington 98034 Telephone: 425.522.4118 February 2,2016 EXHIBIT 15 Full Document Available upon Request a Hiranaka Daniel b Radtke Juli and Mike c Moss Molly d Ridenour Daniel e Brooker Emily f Goods Doug g Byrnes Genevieve h Miller Jerry i Yadock Wendy j Heine Molly k Cantu Caryn I Reitz Phillip m Gray Andrew n McMullin Kimmie o Murphy Rhonda Rae p Hanawalt Jody q Skulstad Paul r Faas Mark s Cramton Dawn t Hanawalt Jody u Miller Jerry v Yadock Wendy w Cantu Caryn y t ) 1/31/2016 E x X X 1/31/2016 E x X XXXX 1/31/2016 E x X X 1/31/2016 E X X x 1/31/2016 E X X 1/31/2016 E X X X X X 2/1/2016 E X X X 2/1/2016 E X X X 2/1/2016 E X X X X 2/1/2016 E X X 2/1/2016 E X X X X X 2/1/2016 E X X X X X 2/1/2016 E X X 2/1/2016 ~. X X X 2/1/2016 E X X X 2/1/2016 E X X X x 2/2/2016 E x x 1/30/2016 E X X X 1/30/2016 E x X X 2/7/2016 t X 4/4/2016 L X X X 4/5/2016 E X X X 4/6/2016 E X X X X X EXHIBIT 16 Full Document Available upon Request ~TENW Transportation Engineering NorthWest MEMORANDUM DATE: March 21, 2016 TO: Rocale Timmons, City of Renton -Current Planning, Senior Planner FROM: Michael Read, PE, Principal, TENW SUBJECT: Avana Ridge Traffic Impact Study -Peer Review TENW Praject No. 3462 This memorandum documents my review of the Avana Ridge Apartments Revised Traffic Impact Study, February 2, 2016, prepared by TraffEx, site plan and site access/frontage improvement plans prepored by DRS Consulting Engineers, and field work conducted in February 2016 related to existing site frontage conditions, available sight distance, and a general field conditions to address trip distribution questions outlined by the City of Renton. Avana Ridge TIS Peer Review The following is a general list of assumptions, methods, and conclusions I have verified or recommend verification and or modification in review of the Avana Ridge Apartments Revised TiS, February 2016: The study opplies standard trip generation rates as published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers in the Trip Generation Manual, 9 th Edition, consistent with standard practice. The trip distribution assumptions appear reasonable in general, although the overall total in Figure 4 only indicates 99%. The total number of trips during the p.m. peak hour however, appear to be distributed to the proposed site access driveways. Given a majority of trips are expected to be distributed to/from the south, the "equitable distribution" of estimated trips currently assumed entering the site from SR 515 seems unlikely given that a majority of parking access will be accessed via the driveway onto Benson Rood. A directional split should be identified between these two access points that reflects the "circuitous route" afforded by SE 1720d Street versus the direct site entry onto Benson Rood for both entering and exiting traffic. Also, the trip distribution figure should be adjusted to better indicate the actual location of the entry driveway onto SE 1720d Street /immediately east of 1 06th Avenue SE). Related to trip assignment, existing a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic counts between SE 1720d Street and lO8th Avenue SE should be balanced. In general, reported traffic counts at the proposed site access location are directionally higher along Benson Rood at 108th Avenue SE. Traffic operational analysis should consider the worse-case scenario and given the intersection Transportation Planning I Design I Traffic Impact & Operations PO Box 65254, Seattle, WA 98155 I Office (206) 361- EXHIBIT 17 Full Document Tra'/'@;x NORTHWE A "I bl R 11410 NE 1241 val a e upon equest Phol1e: 425,5 Mr. Justin Lagers Avana Ridge, LLC March 26, 2016 9675 SE 36th St. Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Re: Avana Ridge Apartments -City of Renton Memorandum -Revisions to TIA per Peer Review Dear Mr. Lagers: The purpose of this memo is to provide revisions to the Avana Ridge Traffic Impact Analysis per the recommendations in the March 21, 2016 Peer Review Memo prepared by TENW. The recommendations dealt with: • revising trip distribution and assignment due to a restricted site driveway access to SE 172nd St. and also the shorter trip length using the Benson Rd. driveway for south oriented trips • balancing traffic volumes between intersections • revising level of service calculations due to new trip distribution • evaluating traffic queues on Benson Rd. from the SR 515/Benson Rd. intersection • evaluating left turn lane warrants into the site access driveway from Benson Road. Trip Distribution and Assignment Figures R1 and R2 show the revised trip distribution and assignment of site generated traffic in the AM and PM peak hours. The revisions reflect a restricted access to SE 172nd St. allowing only left turns into the site and right turns out of the site. A careful design of the site access driveway should effectively eliminate most site generated trips to the west on SE 172nd SI. and to the north on 106th , 105th and Cedar Ave. Also, site generated trips oriented to the south were assigned to the Benson Rd. driveway since it provides a shorter route to SR 515 than the driveway to SE 172nd Street. Page 1 EXHIBIT 18 Denis Law Mayor April 15, 2016 Community & Economic Development Department CE."Ch ip" Vincent, Admi ni5trator Washington State Department of Ecology Environ mental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Subject: ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPAl THRESHOLD DETERMINATION Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERe) on April 11, 2016: SEPA DETERMINATION: PROJECT NAME: Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated (DNSM) Avana Ridge PUD PROJECT NUMBER: LUA15-D00894, PPUD, ECF Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on April 29, 2016, together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, (425)430-6510. Please refer to the enclosed Notice of Environmental Determination for complete details. If you have questions, please call me at (425)430-7219. For the Environmental Review Committee, Rocale Timmons Senior Planner Enclosure cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division Boyd Powers, Department of Natural Resources Karen Walter, FisherieS, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Melissa calvert, Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program Gretchen Kaehler, Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation Ramin Pazooki, W~ Larry Fisher, WDFI Duwamlsh Tribal ( us Army Corp. of I Renton City Hall .. , 055 South Grady Way .. Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS-M) PROJECT NUMBER: APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: LUA15-000894, PPUD, ECF Justin Lagers, Avana Ridge, LLC Avana Ridge PUD PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting a Preliminary Planned Urban Development and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of a multi-family development containing 74 units in two 4-story structures. The vacant 3.78 acre site is located within the Residential Multi-Family (RM-F) zoning classification and the Residential High Density (RHO) land use designation. The development would be comprised of two separate multi-family residential structures resulting in a density of 20.21 dujac. The subject site is fronted by three public rights-of-way: SE 172nd St, Benson Rd S (108th Ave SE) and Benson Drive S (SR- 515). The applicant proposes one entrance off of SE 172"d St between the proposed buildings, and another entrance off of Benson Road S. There is an unnamed stream, classified Ns, bisecting thesite which runs from east to west. Pursuant to RMC 4-3-050, the applicant is proposing impacts to the stream buffer through buffer averaging. Additionally, the site contains critical slopes and Coal Mine Hazards. The Preliminary PUD would be used to vary street, building height, parking, design, open space, and retaining wall standards. The applicant has proposed to provide buffer enhancement as part of the proposed PUD public benefit, along with the construction of enhanced open space, pedestrian amenities, and landscaping. PROJECT LOCATION: 17249 Benson Rd S LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Environmental Review Committee Department of Community & Economic Development The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-9-0700 Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Because other agencies of jurisdiction may be involved, the lead agency will not act on this proposal for fourteen (14) days. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on April 29, 2016. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and more information may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PUBLICATION DATE: DATE OF DECISION: SIGNATURES: Kelly Beymer, Administrator Community Services Department APRIL 15, 2016 APRIL 11,2016 cJ /iJ lib I f Date Date rso ,Administrator Fire & Emergency Services ccc.\/' A C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator Department of Community & Economic Development P;/;c, Date Date DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT --~ ...... Jtenton ® DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNSM) MITIGATION MEASURES AND ADVISORY NOTES PROJECT NUMBER: LUA15-000894, PPUD, ECF APPLICANT: Justin Lagers, Avana Ridge, LLC PROJECT NAME: Avana Ridge PUD PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting a Preliminary Planned Urban Development and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of a multi-family development containing 74 units in two 4-story structures. The vacant 3.78 acre site is located within the Residential Multi-Family (RM-F) zoning classification and the Residential High Density (RHD) land use designation. The development would be comprised of two separate multi- family residential structures resulting in a density of 20.21 dulac. The subject site is fronted by three public rights-of-way: SE 172nd St, Benson Rd 5 (108th Ave SE) and Benson Drive S (SR- 515). The applicant proposes one entrance off of SE 172nd 5t between the proposed buildings, and another entrance off of Benson Road S. There is an unnamed stream, classified Ns, bisecting the site which runs from east to west. Pursuant to RMC 4-3-050, the applicant is proposing impacts to the stream buffer through buffer averaging. Additionally, the site contains critical slopes and Coal Mine Hazards. The Preliminary PUD would be used to vary street, building height, parking, design, open space, and retaining wall standards. The applicant has proposed to provide buffer enhancement as part of the proposed PUD public benefit, along with the construction of enhanced open space, pedestrian amenities, and landscaping. PROJECT LOCATION: LEAD AGENCY: MITIGATION MEASURES: 17249 Benson Rd 5 The City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division 1. An updated Coal Mine Hazard Report shall be submitted demonstrating the proposal will not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent or abutting properties beyond pre-development conditions and the development can be safely accommodated on the site. The report shall also discuss any measures employed In the final site/building design which serve to mitigate coal mine subSidence risk. If no measures are employed, the applicant shall provide justification for the exclusion of additional measures. The updated Coal Mine Hazard Report shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering permit approval. 2. One (1) Electronic Speed Radar Sign shall be installed in the northbound direction on both 106th Ave SE and l04th Ave SE. The applicant shall install the signs, mounting poles, and associated equipment, at the direction of the City. All improvements shall be included in the engineering permit submittal for review and approval, and shall be constructed prior to temporary occupancy. 3. The applicant shall provide an off-site sidewalk, along the south side of 5E 172'd 5t and the west side of Benson Rd 5, approaching the intersection. The width of the off-site sidewalks shall be consistent with the widths proposed along the frontage of the subject site. ADA ramps shall also be constructed at the southwest corner of the intersection. Finally, a street lighting analysis is required to be conducted by the developer at the southwest corner of the intersection of SE 172'd 5t and Benson Rd S. If necessary, required street lighting shall be provided according to City standards. All Improvements shall be included in the engineering permit submittal for review and approval, and shall be constructed prior to temporary occupancy. ADIVISORY NOTES: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action. Because these nates are prOVided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for the land use actions. ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for the land use actions. Planning: 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. 2. Commercial, multi-family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 3. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that Is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year. The OevelopmentServices Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. 4. A National Permit Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is required when more than one acre is being cleared. 5. The applicant will be required to submit a Final Stream Mitigation Report and Maintenance and Monitoring proposal. In addition, the applicant will be required to comply with all the code reqUirements of RMC 4-3-050 Critical Areas. This includes, but is not limited to, placing the critical area within a Native Growth Protection Easement, providing fencing and signage, and providing the City with a site restoration surety device and, later, a maintenance and monitoring surety device. 6. The applicant may not fill, excavate, stack or store any eqUipment, dispose of any materials, supplies or fluids, operate any equipment, Install Impervious surfaces, or compact the earth in any way within the area defined by the drip line of any tree to be retained. 7. The applicant shall erect and maintain six-foot (6') high chain link temporary construction fencing around the drip lines of all retained trees, or along the perimeter of a stand of retained trees. Placards shall be placed on ERe Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page2of3 fenting every fifty feet (50') Indicating the words, "NO TRESPASSING -Protected Trees" or on each side of the fenting if less than fifty feet (SO'). Site access to Individually protected trees or groups of trees shall be fenced and signed. Individual trees shall be fenced on four (4) sides. In addition, the applicant shall provide supervision whenever equipment or trucks are moving near trees. 8. This permit Is shall comply with the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The permitted is responsible for adhering to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (2007) and lor your U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service permit. Water: 1. Water Service is provided by Soos Creek Water and Sewer District. 2. A water availability certificate from the Soos Creek utility was submitted to the City with the land use application. 3. Approved water plans from Soos Creek should be provided during utility construction permit review. Sewer: 1. Sewer Service is provided by Soos Creek Water and Sewer District. 2. A sewer availability certificate from the Soos Creek utility was submitted to the City with the land use application. 3. Approved sewer plans from Soos Creek should be provided during utility construction permit review. Drainage: 1. A geotechnical report for the site prepared by Earth Solutions Inc. was submitted for the project. The geotechnical report mentions that the soli is till soil and Is not suitable for infiltration. All geotechnical recommendations shall be followed. 2. A Construction Storm water General Permit from Department of Ecology is required since grading and clearing of the site exceeds one acre 3. Surface water system development charge fee is $0.594 per square foot of new impervious surface area, but not less than $1,485.00. This fee is subject to change at the rate that Is applicable at the time of issuance of the utility construction permit will be applicable. Transportation: 1. The maximum slope back of sidewalk Is 4H: 1V for minimum 3 feet back of the sidewalk. 2. The corner curb ramps at all street intersections adjacent to the site should be ADA compliant. ADA also requires matching ADA compliant curb ramps on the other side of the intersection. 3. The site is proposed to be accessed via driveways from Benson Road South and SE 172nd Street. Please refer to RMC 4-4-080 for driveway design standards Including location, grade, and width. 4. Street lighting Is required to be provided on the frontage streets by the project. 5. The City of Renton Trench restoration and Street overlay requirements will be applicable for any work in the public right of way. Parks: 1. Park Impact Fees per Ordinance 5670 applies. 2. Street trees -Ginkgo on SR 515; Ash on Benson Rd. 5.; Elm on SE 172nd. Space minimum distance of SO feet apart and not close than 30 feet from street lights (not all lights are shown on plans). Potential for one to two more street trees at NE corner ofSRS1S & Benson Rd. Use only Ginko, Elm, and Ash as street trees. 3. Planting Strip: require a continuous planting strip along all streets, then sidewalk; plan does not show this. Dangerous, fast traffic requires that a planting strip buffer pedestrians from roadway. 4. Parking lot: some islands are too small for trees; use only vine maple or smaller in those areas. General: 1. All construction or service utility permits for drainage and street Improvements will require separate plan submittals. All utlilty plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. Plans shall be prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer. 2. When utility plans are complete, please submit four (4) copies of the drawings, two (2) copies of the drainage report, permit application, an itemized cost of construction estimate, and application fee at the counter on the sixth floor. ERe Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page 3 of 3 -------------Kenton ® NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS·M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: LOCATION: Avana Ridge PUD LUA1S.()(]QS94, PPUD, ECf 17249 Benson Rd 5 Description: The applicant Is requesting a Preliminary Planned Urban De'Jelopment ilnd Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of a multi·family development containing 74 units in two 4-story structures. The vatant 3.78 acre site is located within the ResIdential Multi-Family (RM-F) zoning classification and the Residential High Density (RHO) land use designation. The development would be comprIsed of two separate mutti· family residential structures resulting in a density of 20.21 dulac. The subject site is fronted by three public rights-of- way: SE 172nd St, Benson Rd 5 (lOath Ave SE) and Benson Drive S (SR-S15). The applicant proposes one entrance off of SE 172nd St between the proposed buildings, and another entrance off of Benson Road S. There is an unnamed stream, classified Ns, bisecting the site which runs from east to west. Pursuant to RMC 4-3-050, the applicant is proposing impacts to the stream buffer through buffer averaging. Additionally. the site contains critical slopes and Coal Mine Hazards. The Preliminary PUO would be used to vary street, building height. parking. design, open space, and retaining wall standards. The applicant has proposed to provide buffer enhancement as part of the proposed PUD public benefit. along with the construction of enhanced open space, pedestrian amenities, and landscaping. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION HAS PROBABLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT CAN BE MITIGATED THROUGH MITIGATION MEASURES. Appeals of the environmental determination must be flied in wrltlnB on or before 5:00 p.m. on April 29, 2016, tOBether with the required fee with: Hearlnc Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of RMC 4-8·110 and Information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETlNG IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE ITH FLOOR OF CITY HALL, 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON MAY 10, 2016 AT 11:00 AM TO CONSIDER THE PRELIMINARY PUD. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVElOPMENT AT (425)430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALUNG FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION.