HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda
AGENDA
Planning & Development Committee Regular Meeting
3:00 PM - Thursday, July 28, 2016
Council Conference Room, 7th Floor, City Hall – 1055 S. Grady Way
1. Avana Ridge Appeal
a) AB - 1718 - Consideration of the appeal by the City Council shall be based solely upon
the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal, and additional
submissions by parties (RMC 4-8-110.F.6.).
AB - 1718
City Council Regular Meeting - 11 Jul 2016
SUBJECT/TITLE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Final Decision dated 5/24/2016
regarding the Avana Ridge PUD. (File No. LUA-15-000894)
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Refer to Planning & Development Committee
DEPARTMENT: City Clerk
STAFF CONTACT: Jason Seth, City Clerk
EXT.: 6502
FISCAL IMPACT SUMMARY:
N/A
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
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 Carson)
B. City Clerk’s letter (6/14/2016)
C. Appeal – Dan Palmer (6/7/2016)
D. HEX’s Final Decision (5/24/2016)
E. Staff Report (5/10/2016)
F. Exhibit 4 – Elevations
G. Exhibit 3 – Landscape Plan
H. Exhibit 2 – Site Plan
I. ERC Report (4/11/2016)
J. SEPA Determination & Mitigation Measures
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Take action on the Avana Ridge PUD Appeal.
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
lason Seth t
From: Dan Russell <dre98055@comcast.net> C T``{J 'ENTG1
Sent: Thursday,lune 23, 2016 912 AM
To: lasan Seth
Subject: Avana C 6V C
6;1'Y LERK'S O FtCE
My cancerns cover an already troubling prablem. 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 personaily have sat through 4 light
changes fram 172nd trying to turn left. The right turn onto 108th from 172nd is many times difficuit as traffic biocks the
intersection onta 108th Making a left hand turn during high traffic is extremely dangerous already as there is no
uisibility because of the mass af cars lined up. Your proposa!to change 108th daes not not address the intersection at
the light.
The right hand lane coming from Avana onto 108th will merely cause additional risk and congestion far 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 af lanes turning left. Thus one
dedicated lane turning left,one lane turning left or right and ane lane turning right only.
I trust you wi{I monitar this situation and measure the already existing problem during peak traffic times prior to making
your decision.
I am sure failure ta da 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 sa I am asking you ta da your due diligence. I for one will do all that I can to prepare for the
eventuality af this event.
Thank you far your consideration.
Dan Russell
702 340 6939
10717 se 172nd
Renton, Wa 98055
1
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
CITY OF RENTON
JUN 16 2016 '
RECEIVED
1 CITY CLERK'S OFFIGE
2
w Q. v"``'``,...`,
3
4
5
6
7 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
8
RE: AVANA RIDGE PUD
9 APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO DAN
Preliminary Planned Urban PALMER'S APPEAL OF THE
10 Development HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL
DECISION ON THE AVANA
11 LUA-15-000894 RIDGE PUD
12
13
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 `Bxaminer") 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 if it 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 Van Ness
THE HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION ON THE
AVANA RIDGE PUD- 1 Feldman «P
719 Second Avenue Suite 115059230-
ORIGINAL 206)I623-
g372104
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
1
I. The Appeal should be Dismissed Summarilv because it Fails to Meet the
2 Standards for Filing An Appeal.
3 The Appeal filed by Mr. Palmer fails to meet the standards established by the City
4 Council for filing a land use appeal under RMC Section 4-8-110. RMC 4-8-110(C)(3)
5 states:
6
3. Required Form for and Content ofAppeals. Any appeal shall be filed
in writing. The written notice ofappeal shall fullv. clearlv and thorou hlv
specifv the substantial error(s) in fact or law which exist in the record of
g the proceedings from which the appellant seeks relief(emphasis added).
9 This code provision is not a suggestion. It is a procedural requirement of the City Code.
10 As noted in the introductory paragraph of this code section:
11 A. SCOPE AND PURPOSE:
12 This Section provides the basic procedures for processin,all tvpes ofland
13 use and development-related appeals. Specific reAuirements are based
upon the type/level of appeal and the appeal authority. Procedures for the
14 following types ofappeals are included in this Section:
15 RMC 4-8-110(A).
16 Mr. Palmer has failed to comply with this fundamental procedural requirement.
1 His Appeal alleges not one specific error. Mr. Palmer's Appeal cites to no facts in the
1 g record to support a claim that the Final Decision contains substantial errors. He presents
19 no claims of legal errors by the Hearing Examiner. His Appeal simply agees that the
20 Project has a"good design," then expresses various "concerns" about the Project. Not one
21 of these "concerns" points to any factual or legal errors in the Final Decision, let alone
22 "fully, clearly and thoroughly specify the substantial error(s) in fact or law" as required by
23 City Code.
24 There was ample opportunity in both the public comment period for SEPA review
25 and in the public hearing before the Hearing Examiner for members of the public,
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO DAN PALMER'S APPEAL OF Van Ness
THE HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION ON THE
AVANA RIDGE PUD-2 Feldman «P
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
69230-7 Seattle, WA 98104
206) 623-9372
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
1 including Mr. Palmer, to raise concerns about the Project. The record for stating concerns
2 has closed. An appeal to the City Council is for the purpose of a party of recard to allege,
3 then prove, that the Hearing Examiner made substantial errors in fact or law that would
4 require the City Council to reverse or modify the Final Decision.
5 Here, the Appeal has failed to do anything more than restate concerns. Without
6 meeting the fundamental requirement for a land use appeal to allege specific errors, there
7 is no basis for the City Council to assess whether to grant or deny the Appeal on its merits.
8 Based on Mr. Palmer's failure to allege any substantive errors in fact or law in the
9 Final Decision, the City Council should summarily dismiss the Appeal.
10 II. Even if the Citv Council Chooses to Consider the Merits of the Appeal, the
Aopeal should nonetheless be Denied and the Council should Affirm the Hearin
11 Examiner's Final Decision.
12 If the City Council does not summarily dismiss the Appeal for failing to identify
13 any substantive errors, we ask the City Council to deny the Appeal on its merits. The
14 record before the Hearing Examiner demonstrates that the Final Decision is fully
15 supported by substantial evidence and is consistent with applicable law. None of the
16 "concerns" expressed by Mr. Palmer rise to a reversible error.
17 Each of the paragraphs below address the individual "concerns" expressed by
18 Mr. Palmer in his Appeal and demonstrates why Mr. Palmer has failed to meet his burden
19 to prove substantial errors in fact or law.Z
20 Concern 1: Increase in traffic to neighborhoods, specifically north ofthe site
21 The Appeal states a concern that the Project will increase traffic to neighborhoods
22 to the north. However, the Appeal fails to allege any error in this regard.
23
24
25 z The burden of proof rests with the appellant. RMC 4-8-11(F)(5).
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO DAN PALMER'S APPEAL OF Van Ness
THE HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION ON THE
AVANA RIDGE PUD-3 Feldman LLP
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
69230-7 Seattle, WA 98104
206) 623-9372
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
1 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 TraffEx, February 2, 2016 (Exhibit 15). 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 oftraffic
Although a review of the surrounding road network shows that persons
9 may very well choose to drive through 105/104/106 to avoid the Benson/SR
SI S intersection as well as other traffic problems in the area, the applicant's
10 traffic analysis reveals that the project will only addfive PMpeak hour trips
and four AM peak hour trips into the 105/104/106 roads. The applicant's
11 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.
15 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 TraffEx. The
19 Final Decision addresses this concern and should be affirmed.
20
Concern 2: Existing congesdon on Benson Road, including a blind curve
21 condition, and Adequacy of 106th and 104thfor 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 515. 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 Van Ness
THE HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION ON THE
AVANA RIDGE PUD-4 Feldman LLP
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
69230-7 Seattle, WA 98104
206) 623-9372
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
1 was also addressed by the Examiner in Condition 27, which requires the rechannelization
2 of the left- and right-turn southbound lanes from Benson Road South to SR 515, to one
3 left-turn lane and one combined left-turn/right-turn 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 105/104/106th Avenues was adequately addressed in
8 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 Roadfrom the Project entrance
18 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
lOBth 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 Van Ness
THE HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION ON THE
AVANA RIDGE PUD-5 Feldman LLP
719 Second Avenue Suite 115069230-7 Seattle, WA 98104
206) 623-9372
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
1 public safety or traffic safety was found in the SEPA 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 signage 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 congestion on these streets.
10 The record demonstrates that there is very little existing traffic on these residential
11 streets and that the Project will add only 15 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 172"d west of the site. Exhibit 15, 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 needfor 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 hired a traffic expert to prepare a
22 detailed Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) which was submitted into the record.
23 Exhibit 15. This TIA was peer reviewed by TENW, a third-party traffic engineer hired by
24 the City, who agreed with the conclusions reached by TraffEx. Exhibit 17. Mr. Palmer
25 has failed to show any error on this point.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO DAN PALMER'S APPEAL OF Van Ness
THE HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION ON THE
AVANA RIDGE PUD-6 Feldman «P
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
69230-7 Seattle, WA 98104
206) 623-9372
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
1 Concern 6: Air pollution
2 Mr. Palmer alleges 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 fully disclosed to the City during the SEPA
5 review process. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) considered those impacts
6 and issued a Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated (DNSM) on April 11, 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 ERC are final and cannot be
10 challenged in this Appeal.
11 Moreover, concerns regarding air pollution are procedurally beyond the scope of
12 the PUD. The criteria for approval of a Planned Urban Development do not include
13 consideration of potential air pollution from traffic.
14 Nonetheless, the Hearing Examiner did consider concerns expressed about air
15 pollution from traffic and concluded that the Project would not cause air pollution. The
16 Final Decision notes that "one neighbor testified that he was concerned that pollution
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 pollution in this
20 neighborhood. Final Decision, p 4. No expert testimony was ever introduced regarding
21 air pollution 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 pollution 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 Van Ness
THE HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION ON THE
AVANA RIDGE PUD-7 Feldman «P
69230-7 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
206) 623-9372
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
1 This concern should be rejected and the Final Decision on this point should be
2 affirmed.
3 Concern 7 Compatibility ofthe 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." Id. 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 staf 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 Van Ness
THE HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION ON THE
AVANA RIDGE PUD-8 Feldman «P
69230-7 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
206) 623-9372
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
1 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 of June, 2016.
11
12
VAN NESS FELDMAN
13
14
15 Brent Carson, WSBA#16240
16
719 Second Avenue, Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
1
Tel: (206) 623-9372
Fax: (206) 623-4986
1 g
E-mail: brc(a vnf.com
Attorneyfor Avana Ridge LLC
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO DAN PALMER'S APPEAL OF Van Ness
THE HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION ON THE
AVANA RIDGE PUD-9 Feldman LLP
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
69230-7 Seattle, WA 98104
206) 623-9372
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
1 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 1. 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:
11 ORIGINAL: By U.S. Mail
City of Renton By Legal Messenger
12 City Clerk's Office By Email:
13 1055 South Grady Way, Seventh Floor
Renton, WA 98057
14
COPY: By U.S. Mail
15 Lawrence J. Warren By Legal Messenger
Renton City Attorney By Email:
16 City of Renton LWarren(a Rentonwa.gov
1 1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
18
COPY: By U.S. Mail
19 Rocale Timmons By Legal Messenger
Senior Planner By Email:20 City of Renton Department of Community& RTimmons(a),Rentonwa.ov
21 Economic Development
1055 South Grady Way
22 Renton, WA 98057
23 COPY: By U.S. Mail
Dan Palmer By Legal Messenger2416638106thStreetByEmail:
25 Renton, WA 98059
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE- 10 Van Ness
Feldman «P
69230-7
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
206) 623-9372
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
1 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 16th day of June, 2016.
4
5 i nn r ,Y /(V Cc
Jennifer'Hicok,G eclarant
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE- 11 Van Ness
Feldman LLP
719 Second Avenue Suite 115069230JSeattle, WA 98104
206) 623-9372
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
Cl7Y OF RENTOfV p,y.
r 1'' f
1 JUN 2 9 2016
G"2 RECEIVED ,4
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
3
4
5
6
7 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
8
RE: Appeal by Dan Palmer of
9 APPLICANT'S NOTICE OF
AVANA RIDGE PUD APPEARANCE
10
Preliminary Planned Urban
11 Development
12 LUA-15-000894
13
14 TO: City Clerk, City of Renton
15 AND TO: Lawrence J. Warren, Renton City Attorney
16 AND TO: Rocale Timmons, City of Renton Senior Planner
1 AND TO: Dan Palmer
18
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, Avana
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 Van Ness
Feldman
69a 3-t ORIGINAL 19 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
206) 623-9372
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
1 Dated this 29th day of June, 2016.
2
3 VAN NESS FELDMAN LLP
4
5
B e C son, WSBA#16240
6 7 9 Second Avenue, Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
Tel: (206) 623-9372
Fax: (206) 623-4986
g E-mail: brc(a,vnf.com
9 Attorney for Avana Ridge LLC
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
APPLICANT'S NOTICE OF APPEt RANCE-2 Van Ness
Feldman LLP
69473-1 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
206) 623-9372
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
1 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 1. Applicant's Notice of Appearance; and this
2. Certificate of Service;
8
and that on June 29, 2016, I addressed said documents and deposited them for delivery as
9
follows:
10
ORIGINAL: By U.S. Mail
11 Jason A. Seth, CMC By Legal Messenger
City Clerk By Email:12 City of Renton
13 City Clerk's Office
1055 South Grady Way, Seventh Floor
14 Renton, WA 98057
15 COPY: By U.S. Mail
Lawrence J. Warren By Legal Messenger
16 Renton City Attorney By Email:
City of Renton LWarren(a Rentonwa.ov
17 1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
18
COPY: By U.S. Mail19RocaleTimmonsByLegalMessenger
20 Senior Planner By Email:
City of Renton Department of Community& RTimmons(cr,Rentonwa.ov
21 Economic Development
1055 South Grady Way
22 Renton, WA 98057
23 COPY: By U.S. Mail
Dan Palmer By Legal Messenger
24 16638 106th Street By Email:
Renton, WA 98059
25
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE-3 Van Ness
Feldman uP
59a 3-t 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
206) 623-9372
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
1 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
L/Q5 nn f
Jenni r Hicok, l eclarant
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE-4 Van Ness
Feldman uP
69473-1 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
206) 623-9372
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
Denis Law Clt OfMayory v
AY
pN
City Clerk -Jason A.Seth,CMC
lune 14, 2016
APPEAL FILED BY: 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 of the 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 by5:00 p.m., Fridav.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 Thursdav.Julv
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 testimonv on this matter
will be accepted by the City Council.
1055 South GradyWay• Renton,Washington 98057•(425)430-6510/Fax(425)430-6516•rentonwa.gov
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
For additional information or assistance, please call Jason Seth, City Clerk, at 425-430-6510.
Sincerely,
as n A. Seth, CMC
City Clerk
Please note that ifyou signed up ro be a Party of Recordfor 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 eurnell,Building Official
Sabrina Mirante,Secretary, Planning Division
Ed Prince,City Councilmember
Julia Medzegian,City Council liaison
lustin Lagers,Avana Ridge LLC,Contact
Parties of Record(25)
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
G'°
R N o
t fi
2Q 6
ri
N t
f REG K FFiCE
t C R
K
7
y/
cc..
w r
iv
1 . k
1 l '--!' a t-
t
j p
c-S
G,-1 c
p v`
1% l
p f
1 ' tC' t d
roj _ .
fii..`'' fv'7 f' z
1C' .. f'
ti o1" r'
t 1`
f
L
r',.,
r-`
c d
RS 7Gi° r. " C'-
a i
la Qc
C`a.d
r' f/'' . /' J"
tiJt
w
r f
Y
r--- ,, y'd
r`
C 'J
rz.
t
C
i.o
r.
od
r
t
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
rrll``
4
l aw
a
w
i V f iI 'Pz=
7/ '
j/
1 /
1
f
J r/
O} U'"
V
C
ID
w •
c / C 5f. C.
l../; I'
t
J1 .
5 ar
t' .
t
lf ' j a t . Gi J
tJ
t
4 r p ,
rr
z
Q e
GC`' ` , '` -
c
C
j l c`
G( `
t j'j/
c.l'r` c 1%'
fi
a ra l`
i fj 1
f`, l,
r
w .g G%
f s cc G...
r
t,
S ;.
n
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FUR THE CITY OF RENTON
9
10
RE; Avana Ridge PUD FINAL DECISION
l i Preliminary Planned [Jrban
Development
12
13
U``-QQ 4, PP, PPUD
i4
SUM IARI'
15
16 The appGcant proposes a preliminary pianned urban development far the construction of two multi-
family buildings on a 3.8 acre parcet for a totat of 74 dwetling units. The applicant seeks PUD
17 approval in order to vary from a number of zoning cade standards, incIuding an increase in allowed
building and retaining wall height, a reduction in required roof pitch, a decrease in required parking
18 and a decrease in required private open space. The PUD is approved subject to conditions.
19 TESTIMOI Y
20
Note: The f'ollox ing is a sumnzafy o,f'testimony pravic ec,f'or the con enienee of the reac er only and
3 shorrld not be construed as containitzg anyfindings offact r r conclarsions of law. Thefocus upon ar
exclusion o,f'rr ry=particZrlar testirnony or hearing e lic ence in thrs szcmtnafy is not reflective .f'the
22 priority r r rob ztrve ct nteni of any c rticular hearin evrdc nce nnd no crssarr anee is made czs to
23 uccuracy.
Rocale Timmons, senior City of Renton ptanner, summarized the proposal. She noted that
recommended Conditions 14 and 15 of the staff repart, requiring dedications far (ight fiYtures, was in
25 error as there is sufficient space praposed for the lights. The two conditions shoulct be stricken. In
response to eYaminer questions, Ms. Timmans noted that property to the east is zoned Residerrtial 8.
2' She also noted that there has been no indication that the proposal would impair any views. Traffic
PRELIMINARY PLANNED LIRBAN DEVELOPMENT"- 1
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
4
1 calming features were considered for access roads and in staff s opinion the proposed speed radar
signs were sufficient to contral speeds. There is no public trail system close by. Sidewalk
improvements are required for the intersection of 172°d and Bensan Rd. S. in order to assure safe
walking conditions to school bus stops and continuous sidewalk connections to the surrounding
sidewaik network.
4
Rohini Nair, City of Renton traffic engineer, noted that queuing issues an Bensan Road South and
S Bensan Drive South was a major neighborhood concern. The City had the applicant's traffic engineer
madel queuing and from this it was found that new turning restrictions proposed for the project would
reduce current queuing off of Bensan Road South. A new condition of approval will be submitted by
staff to require the new turn restrictions. Regarding speeding on 104 and106, it is staffs opinian that
the radar speed si ns wiil adequateiy address the problem.
Brian Patdar, project architect, noted that as a resuit of project rnodifications necessitated by permit
review the applicant needs ta request a minor increase in the proposed height from 8' 3" floar ta
p ceiling ta an 8' 6°' floor to ceiling to accornmodate ventilation systems. The east buiiding will stiIt be
under the 40 foot Iimit. The west building will need to be increased in height 1.6 feet for a total of
1 41.6 feet. No changes are proposed to the raof line. The PUD pracess enables the appticant to
2
preserve a lot of an-site vegetation and other natural features. There will be no view impacts since
existing trees are up to 60 feet high, talier than the propased buildings. Any existing territorial views
13 r''ould be ta the west and would be unaffected by the proposai. In response to examiner questions,
there currently is no on-street parking on SE 172°d St. Mr. Paldar a[so noted that the "eyes on the
14 street" caused by dwellings overlooking 172", as weli as mare pedestrians usin the praposed
pedestrian facilities, would probabty serve to reduce crime.
15
6 Larry Hobbs, appticant's traffic engineer, nated that the channelization changes that would improve
queuing from the Benson Road S. access woutd be camposed of a left turn lane and a shared left and
i7 right turn lane and a change out in a traffic signal face. With the channelizatian changes the queue
lengths are reduced from 372 feet to 2 i 2 feet and wiit be sharter than pre-development conditions.
1 g The channetization changes doubte vehicle storage space.
19 Doug Gaods, nei;hbor, doesn't support or oppose the project, he just wants to make sure his concerns
20 are addressed. He has seen a significant increase in traffic in the vicinity over the years. Traffic
backs up all the way fram Puget Drive. He wanted to know why the applicant's proposal to put in a
2 median on t72'wasn`t recommended by staff. He doesn't believe that the appiicant's solution to the
22 queuing probtem will be soived by the rechanneling, given the amount af new development in the
area. He fett that more traffic calming measures should be implemented for 104 and 106 avenues,
23 such as speed bumps, however he's not as concerned as much about speed as he is abaut increased
traffic.
24
Molly Moss, neighbor, is against the proposal. She feels that the access to 172° street will increase
2S traffic on her street (104`'} as we11 as l OSth and 106th avenues. Currentty the neighborhood has a low
2 ]eve] of traffic. This wi11 be a safety hazard as the streets are currently used by children. Nane of the
PREL[MINAR1r PLANNED rRB h` DEVEL4PMENT- 2
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
1 roads have uninterrupted sidewalks to Nelson Middle School.
2
Jerry Miller, neighbor, noted that the streets impacted by the proposal haven't been adequately
3 described. There's a new development at the northeastern corner of intersection of Benson and 172nd
with several dozen units and this will add to the traffic problem. If the right in/right out 172nd
4 solution proposed by the applicant for 172"d
were to be implemented, people would be doing u-turns
on their driveway so he and Anna Miller are opposed to that solution.5
6 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.
g Paul Skulstad, neighbor, felt that access to the proposal should be from SR 515 instead of 172°d. The
9 surrounding community doesn't have sidewalks for students walking to and from school. Electronic
radar signs aren't needed. 172"d has a portion that's like a washboard, which slows down vehicles.
p 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 medical11dentalcomplex. People are having trouble finding parking already in the apartment complex and it
12
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
13 solution was obvious. There should be a third left turn lane.
14 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 andISquietneighborhood. She still feels safe walking the streets. The proposed access onto 172"d St. is too
16 close to the 106th
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
17 radar speed sign wi(I not reduce the volume of traffic. The traffic study doesn't account for new
development or the impact on 106`" street and other neighborhood roads. Based upon 1.8 cars per1gdwellingunitandrounduptotwocarstoaccountforvisitors, the proposed parking is insufficient.
19 The access should be moved from 172nd to SR 515. 172nd St. is inaccurately classified as a
commercial street in the ERC report. It currently primarily serves residential use.
20
Nancy Stanley, neighbor, noted that the 162 unit Trails apartment complex across the street is still21underconstructionanditstrafficimpactshaven't been fully evaluated.
22
Danny Kumono, neighbor from Kelsey Court condominiums, affirmed that the traffic impacts of the
23 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
24 Benson from 172°d aren't slowing down. Visibility is poor because of the road curvature, so there are
25 a lot of close calls in making a left turn. In the evening the BensonBenson intersection is fully
congested and it's not possible to make a left turn. A larger area should be considered when doing a
26 traffic analysis.
PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 3
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
1
Dan Palmer, neighbor, noted that 104`", l O5t" and 106th has been an oasis of a neighborhood with big2
yards and yuiet streets. There's currently no through traffic. There's no vehicle polfution. There are
3 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.
4 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 rights5wouldworkwellhere. The building design is not compatible with the surrounding 60 year and turn
6 of the century homes. Even the new CVC store is more aesthetically pleasing.
7 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 commercialgarteriaiwhenitwasannexedintothecity. That zoning designation allowed 60 du per acre. A
9 subsequent rezone reduced the density to the current(y 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.
10 1 2°a 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"d to11commercialuse. The City currently has no transfer of development rights program. The design of the
12
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
13 stabilize 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 criticai areas that
14 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. The15projectsitehasasignificantamountofopenspacetoaccommodatewildlife. The applicanf s request
16 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
17 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 noted18thatwhilestudentfromtheproposalmayuseBensonRoad, students residing on 106/104/105 would
19 still be walking their neighborhood roads.
20 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 configuration21willresultinimprovedqueuinglengthsevenwiththetrafficoftheTrailsprojecttakeninto
22 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
23 availability of other access routes.
24 Larry Hobbs, applicant's traffic engineer,testified that the traffic report was prepared pursuant to City
25 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
26 was included in the background traffic along with a percentage traffic growth rate required by the
PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -4
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
1 City. The traffic analysis concluded that 10% of the AM peak hour traffic would be heading west
2 (using 106/104/105), 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.
3 WSDOT would not allow access onto SR 515 since other reasonable access is available.
4 Brent Carson, app(icant'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't5beenappealed. Given the minor number of trips generated on 106/104/105 and verification from peer
6 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.
7
g EXHIBITS
9 The May 10, 2016 Staff report in addition to Exhibits 1-23 identified in pages 2 of the Staff
10 Report were admitted into the record at the May ]0, 2016 hearing. The staff power point
presentation was admitted as Ex. 24. Revised elevations were submitted by the application and
11 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
12 maps was admitted as Ex. 29.
13
FINDINGS OF FACT
14
Procedural:
IS
16 Applicant. Avana Ridge LLC.
17
2. Hearin. A hearing on the application was held on May 10, 2016.
18
Substantive:
19
20 3. Proiect 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
21 requested modifications are summarized as follows:
22
RMC Code Citation Required Standard Requested Modification
23 RMC 4-2-110A Roof pitches are required to be equal This proposal includes a roof pitch
24 Development to or greater than 4:12 and may of 2:12
Standards for project an additional six (6) vertical
25 Commercial Zoning feet from the maximum wall plate
Designations- Roof height.
26 Pitch
PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT- 5
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
1 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 measured2Standardsforfeetispermitted. from average grade plane to the
3 Commercial Zoning tallest point of the shed roof
Designations- Roof elements.
4 Pitch
5
RMC 4-6-060F Street Various: See discussion in Table C: Various: See discussion under FOF
Standards PUD Criteria -Circulation xx: PUD Criteria-Circulation
6 RMC 4-3-100 Urban Various: See discussion in Table E: Various: See discussion under FOF
Design Standards Design District'D'Standards I xx: Design District 'B'Standards
RMC 4-4-080F, Based on the proposed use, a The applicant proposed a total of
g 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 not9
meet code. comply with the minimum parking
p stall requirements.
RMC 4-4-090, Refuse There shall be at least one deposit The proposal includes a singlellandRecyclablesarea/collection point for every thirty refuse/recycle storage location
12 Standards 30) dwelling units. centrally located, between both
buildings at the center of the site.
3 RMC 4-4-040, Heights are limited to 48 inches for A section of the keystone-type wall
14 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
15 setbacks, and 72 inches for walls intersection is proposed at a height
elsewhere on site. of 5.5 feet. A section of the
6 keystone-type wall located near the
monument sign at the Benson
Road/Benson Drive intersection is 5
g feet and 6-inches tall.
RMC 4-9-150.E.2, Each residential unit in a PUD shall The current proposal provides
19 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 private20thatunitincompliancewithbalconiesforsomeoftheunits
21 dimensional standards. which does not comply with the
dimensional standards.
22
23
The project site is currently vacant and bisected by a stream. Access to the site is proposed via SE
24 172nd St, between the east and west buildings, and another ingress/egress point via Benson Rd S.
25 The two access points create a through road for emergency vehicle ingress/egress across the property.
26 4. Adeauacv of Infrastructure/Public Services,. The project will be served by adequate
infrastructure and public services as follows:
PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 6
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
1
A. Water and Sewer 5ervice. Water and sanitary sewer service for the development would be
2
provided by the Soos Creek Water and Sewer District. A water and sewer availability
3 certificate from the Soos Creek utility district was submitted to the City with the land use
4
applicatian. Approved water and sewer plar s from Soos Creek are required to bc
provided during utitity canstrucEic n permit approval.
S
B. Fire Protection. Fire protection would be provided by the City of Renton Fire Department.
7 C. Draina e. In conjunction with the City's stormwater regulations, the praposal mitigates
a!1 significant draina e impacts. Ne v imperviaus surfaces vauld result in sucface water
runoff increases. The Applicants submitted a Technical Information Report ("Drainage
Repar"'} with the praject application {Exhi6it 9}. The stormwater detention and water
l0 quality treatrnent would be provided within a cambined detention/water quality vault
under the parking area located in the western portion of the site. The combined
t I detention/water quality vault would be fal(owed by a media filtration system to
2 accammodate the Enhanced Water Quality Z"reatment requirements for multi-family
development. Further staffreview will be canducted for final PUD approval.
13
I4 D. ParksJCJpen Space. The project provides for adequate parks and open space. For parks
impacts, the appiicant will be paying a park impact fee, which is currently assessed at
l 975.50 per multi-family dwelling unit.
16
i The proposed development is designed spccificatly to inerease the access and opportunity
for open space and in sheer numbers harbors a significant arnaunt of open space as well.
t$ The project includes 19,795 square feet of community open space in the southern portion
9 of the site in additian to 49,918 square feet af critical area space. Beyand the space
required for critica! areas, Renton has no public apen space requirements for multi-family
20 deveiopments except for some nonspecific standards in its design regulations. A sma1l
2l fenced aff-leash dog run is provided at the east side af the site between a landscape buffer
2
and the parking lot among a grove of existing trees to be preserved. 1'he multipte open
spaces throughout the site are wetl designed and provide a variety of recreational
23 opportunities both passive and active. Due to the presence of a stream along the lower
2
area of the site, a natural border exists. A pedestrian bridge crosses the stream to link the
open space and the residential developments.
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT- 1
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
r
1 A centra( path and complementing pedestrian bridge crossing will be constructed to create
2 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
3 picnics, parties, weddings, movie night in the park, concerks, etc.; thereby promoting
4 comtnur ity involvement. Additionally, the space would take advantage of and display the
attractive territorial views to the West. Finally, the space wauid serve to preserve and
enhance existing vegetation and naturai character through tree preservatian, removal of
extensive invasive Blackberries, and replacement with native understory vegetation ta be
maintained thraugh the life of the development.
The space features a large, central, gently sloping lawr for casual seating and recreation.
g The lawn is oriented to slope dawn towards an apen pavilian whose intended use includes
perfarmances, and community gatherings. The paviCian is also sited ta capture and frame
the attractive territorial views to the West.
10
The applicant has indicated that there is an oppartunity to include interpretive
i signa e(inforrnatioi regarding differentiating elements (trees, landscaping, drainage,
2 architecture, etc.) of the propased development at strategic place(s) an site. The use af
interpretive signage wauld result in an increase in public benefit for the overall project.
13 Therefare, a conditian of approval requires the applicant to provide interpretive
14 signagelinforrnation regarding differentiating elements (trees, landscaping, drainage,
architecture, etc.) of the proposed develapment at a strategic place(s) an site.
l5
16 A resident amenity lounge located on Leve( 1 of the West buildina takes advantage of
outdaor space and integrates an outdoor plaza intended for gathering spaces, barbecues,
and lounge areas far a variety of oppartunities for the residents. The area opens zp the
3 8 western portion of the site and provides a softer building edge and brings visual interest ta
19 hat would norma(ly be considered the "side" elevation of the project.
20
2 E. Pedestrian Circulation. The proposa] provides for an appropriate pedestrian circulation
system. The applicant has praposed a series of pedestrian connections throughaut the site
22 however it is unclear if there is a differentratian ot materials acrass the drive ais(es
23 Exhibit 2}. Therefore, as recommended by staff, a condition af appraval requires the
applicant to revise the site plan to depict a differentiation in materials for all pedestrian
2` connections within parking areas and/or drive aisles on site.
25
F. 4ff-Site Traffic Improvements. The proposal is served by adequate and appropriate aff-
26 site street infrastructure.
PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEWEL PMENT- 8
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
I
1
Based upon the applicant's traffic impact analysis ("TIA"), Ex_ 15, staff have determined
that the project vil( comply with the City's level of service standards. It is anticipated that
3 the praposed development wauld genecate apprnximately 492 average daily trips with 38
4 AM peak-haur trips and 4b PM peak-hour trips. The TIA assessed traffic impacts on three
affected intersections as required by City standards. The TIA concluded that ail
intersectians will operate at an acceptabie level af service with the propased development.
Staff have also determined 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 ana(ysis 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
9 distance requirements are met at the site access driveway onto SE 172nd St and with
10 vegetation trimtning, within the right of way, at the site access driveway to Benson Rd S
Exhibit 15). ct. The conclusions of the report were accepted by staff and not disputed by
i
a qualitied traffic expert, therefore they are taken as verities. Staff also concluded in the
1 staff report that the proposed circulation system is adequate to accommodate emergency
vehicles and there is no evidertce in the recard ta the cc ntrary. Payment of traffic itnpact
3 fees as required by the Renton Municipal Code witt assure that the applicant pays its
14 proportionate share of system-wide traffic improvements.
A major concern of the neighbors was traftic impacts to ]U6 Ave 5E, 104 Ave SE and ]OS
16 Ave SE. In uncontested testimony, severa! neighbors testified that these raads are
i isolated, currently accommodate a minimal amount of traffic and are not deveioped with
sidew alks or shoulders that can 6e used for pedestrian traffic. By contrast, the project's
18 access to SR 515, the most likely tharoughfare ta be used by project residents, can only be
directly accessed by passing thraugh the Benson Road S./SR 515 intersectian, which is
subject to severe cangestion during the AM and PM peak hour. Neighbors are concerned
24 that this congestion will cause vehicles going to and leaving the project site to drive
1 through the IOSl1Q4/106 Ave SE roads. A SEPA mitigation measure requires the
installation of speed radar signs for southbound iraffic on
144t"
and lOb`" to siow down
2 some of this new trafftc. Although a review of the surrounding raad netwark shaws that
23 persons may very well choose to drive through lOS/104/106 to avoid the Benson/SR 515
intersection a well as other traf c problems in the area, the applicant's traffic analysis
2` reveals that the praject will only add five PM peak hour trips and four AM peak hour trips
25 into the 105/104(106 roads. The applicant's traffic analysis was verified by peer review.
Given the expert traf c analysis prepared by the applicant and the independent expert
26 verification conducted under the peer review, the applicant's traffic anaiy-sis is taken as a
PRELIMINARY PLANNEI3 URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 9
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
1 verity given the absence of any expert testimany 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 si ns required by the SEPA mitigatian measures. Neighborhood
3 resider ts are certainly correct to assert that the cumulative impacts af a11 projects must be
4 cansidered when assessing traffic impacts, but there is nathing in the recard to suggest khat
the speed radar si n required of the appiicant is less than the appticant'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 irnprovements
are proportional and attributable to impacts created by development. See Bzcrt n v. Clcrrk
C"oarnty, 91 Wn. App. 505, 516-17 (1998}. Far this applicatian, there is no evidence to
saggest that more than the speed radar signs required by SEPA is necessary ta off-set the
traffic impacts caused by the praposal on the l OS1104/10b roads.
9
10 Anather issue freq iently cited by neighbors was the queuing length at the Benson Raad
S.l5R 51 S intersection. Uncantested traffic analysis conducted by the applicant
t establishes that with re-channeli7ation measures required by this decision, queue lengths
12 will 6e reduced from 372 feet to 212 feet and wi(1 be shorter than pre-development
canditions, even hen added #raffic from recently approved development projects is
1 incarparated into the analysis. Since the proposal wiil be improving upon existing
14 queuing conditians at the Benson Road S./SR 515 intersection, no further mitigation can
be required.
15
16 A fe v neighbors alsa suggested that praject access direetly eanneet to SR 515 instead of
l
SE 172°d St. As testifed by City staff, direct access anto a limited access thoroughfare
such as SR 515 is avoided by bath the City= and the state (which also regulates SR S 1 S
18 access) when reasonable alternate project access is avaitable. Further, direct access would
Ig be highly challenging given the critical areas (stream and coal mine hazard) and steep
grade on the south portion af the praject site. Direct access to SR 515 is not warranted or
20 feasible for this project.
21
Several people also testified about walking conditians to and from schc ol. Students may
2 very well be walking to Nelson Middle Schoal, lacated to the north of the praject site.
23 Nelson Middle SchooI can be accessed via Benson Raad S. which has sidewalks between
the school and the project site. As part of the proposed project, sidewalks would be
2 constructed along the frontage of the site and would connect to the existing sidewalk
2 system. However, the frontage along the daycare center at the sauthwest corner of the
intersection af Benson Raad S. and SE 172°d Ave is missing some sidewalk linkage. For
26 this reason, the conditions af appraval require improvements to be made along the day
PRELIMINARY PLANNED CTRBAN DEVELOPMENT -
10
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
1 care frontage to fill in the missing sidewalk connections. As noted by Ms. Moss, there are
2 still no sidewalks along the 105/104/106 streets. As previously discussed, the proposal
wi(I add a minor amount of traffic to these roads, and for the reasons previously discussed,
3 the speed radar sign required of the applicant adequately mitigates against the applicant's
4 proportionate share of impacts to these roads.
5 A few neighbors testified that they believed that the applicant's traffic analysis did not
6 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
g standards.
9
p 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
1 I project site — a Type Ns stream bisects the project site and a high coal mine hazard is located in the
12 southern portion of the site.
3 A. Hi h 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
14 considered areas with abandoned and improperly sealed mine openings and areas underlain
by mine workings sha(lower than 200 feet in depth for steeply dipping seams, or shallower15than15timesthethicknessoftheseamorworkingsforgentlydippingseams. These areas
16 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
17 Exhibits 7 and 8). The studies found that the southern portion of the project site overlays
a historic coai mine known as the Springbrook Mine, along with the opening to the mine.1 g The study further found that the Springbrook Mine meets the City's criteria for a high coal
9 mine hazard.
20 Several recommendations to mitigate potential risk of the coal mine hazard/former entry
were included in the lcicle Creek Engineer report, including the excavation of the fiil at the21mineentryandbackfillingwithcontrolleddensityfill (Exhibit 8). However, these
22 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
23 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
24 improvements in the proximity of the coal mine hazard which may potentially be affected
25 by mining related subsidence.
26 A SEPA mitigation measure was issued requiring an updated Coa( Mine Hazard Report
demonstrating the proposal would not increase the threat of the geological hazard to
PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -
11
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
1 adjacent or abutting properties beyond pre-development conditions and the development
can be safely accommodated on the site (Exhibit 20).2
3 B. Tvpe 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
4 Stream Study, prepared by Ed Sewell Consulting Inc., dated December 22, 2015 (Exhibit
10). The report identifies an unnamed seasonal stream (Stream A) that bisects the northern5andsouthernportionsofthesiteandrunsfromeasttowest. As defined by RMC 4-3-
6 OSO.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
7 the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) as well as a 15-foot setback from the edge of the
buffer to any structure. The applicant is proposing buffer averaging for portions of thegstreambuffer. Additionally, the applicant is proposing an alteration within the stream and
9 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
10 alteration conforms to the City s critical areas regulations for the reasons identified at page
14 of the staff report.
11
12
C. Wildlife/Veeetation. 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
13 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
14 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 trees5andtheapplicantisretaining46trees. As further noted at p. 10, City tree density
16 requirements require a total of at least 132 trees at the project site. A condition of approval
requires that the applicant demonstrate compliance with this standard as the application
17 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 RentonIgregulations, there is no basis to regulate or restrict the project based upon wildlife or
19 vegetation impacts.
20 D. Compatibilitv. The project is compatible with surrounding development as it is within the
range of densities authorized by applicable zoning standards and is heavily regulated by21theCity's "Design District B" design standards. As testified by staff, the intermediate
22 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
23 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.24 On the north perimeter of the project, where compatibility issues would be most
25 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
26 trees. The design may not bear any similarity to the design of the turn of century homes in
PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT-
12
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
1 the vicinity, but the applicant was required to compiy with Design District B standards and
no one has suggested that staff"s finding of compliance w'rth these standards was in errar.
2
E. Respiratorv Problems. One neighbor testified that he was cancerned that pollution caused
by increased project traffic would exacerbate the resprratory problems of some neighbors
4 living close to the project site. Without any scientific evidence to substantiate this
assertion, there is insufficient evidence to reasanably conclude that the relatively modest
traffic generated by the proposal would exacerbate respiratory problems.
6
7 6. Superiority in Desi n. The develapment of this site as a PUD results in a superior design than
what would resuIt by the strict application af the Development Standards for the following reasans:
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 far both active and passive recreatian spaces
10 significantly beyond the standard code requirements. The proposed design can provide for the
afarementianed amenities because of the madifications requested for the PUD as autlined in Finding
j of Fact No. 3. The modificatians appraved by this decision cantribute to and enable the superior
l2 design proposed for this praject by increasing available space for open space and natural site features.
13 • 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.
14
1 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Procedurai:
16
I 1. Authoritv. RMC 4-9-150{F){$) authorizes the Examiner to conduct hear'sngs and make final
decisians an ptanned urban development apptications.
18
Substantive:
19
2. Zonin lComarehensive Plan Desi nations. The praject site is zaned Residential Multi-Family
20 (RMF)and has a comprehensive plan land use designation of Residential High Density.
21
3. Review Criteria. A FUD may be pursued by "any applicant" as authorized by RMC 4-9-
22 I50{B), which is interpreted to authorize the applicatian of PUD regulatians to muiti-family
23
development projects. RMC 4-9-1 SO{D} gaverns PUD criteria. Thase criteria are quoted below in
italics and applied through carresponding conclusians of law.
24
RMC 4-9-150(B}(2}: C'orte Provisions That May Be t Udrfzed;
25
26
a. In appraving a planrred urban developme rt, the City n ay mod any tfthe stcrndaYcl.s ofchc pter-t-
2 R11 1C, chapter---RMC, RMC 4-b-ObO and chapter--7 RMC', except as listed in siabsection B3 of
PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEWEL4PMENT -
13
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
1 this Section. All modifications shall be considered simultaneoZrsly as part ofthe planned zrrbandevelopment...
2
3 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 modification4toRMC4-9-150.E2. As such, the conditions of approval require that the applicant provide a revised
5 site plan demonstrating compliance with the private open space standards of RMC 4-9-150.E.2.
6 RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned zrrban development only if it fincls that the
follotiving rec arirements are met.
7
g 1. Demonstration of Compliance anc Szperiority Rec uired: Applicants macst demonstrate that a
proposed development is in compliance with the parrposes of this Section and x ith the Comprehensive
9 Plan, that the proposed development x ill be superior to that which would result N ithout a planned
urban development, and that the clevelopment will not be zrnduly detrimental to szrrrozrnding10pYoperties.
11 5. The criterion is met. The purposes of the PUD regulations, as outlined in RMC 4-9-150(A),
12 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 of13
the site are protected by open space, buffers and mitigation that significantly exceeds minimum code
14 standards. The proposal involves innovation and creativity via the integration of critical area open
I S
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
16 Finding of Fact No. 6, the proposal is superior in design to what which would occur without a PUD.
1 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.
18
RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the19followingrequirementsaremet.
20 2. Pz blic Benefit Reqzrired: In addition, Applicants shall demonstrate that a proposed development
21 will provide specifrcally identifiecl benefrts that clearly ozrtweigh any adverse impacts or zrndesircrble
effects of the proposed plarrned urban development, partica{larly those adverse and undesirable
22 impacts to surrozrnding properties, and that the proposed development will provide one or more of
thefollowing benefits than would reszrltfi om the development of the sarbject site without the proposed23plannedurbandevelopment:
24
25 b. Natural Features: Preserves, enhances, or rehabilitates naturalfeatures of the subject
properry, such as significant K oodlands, native vegetation, topography, or noncritical area26wildlifehabitats, not otherwise reqz ired by other Ciry regulations; or...
PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT-
14
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
1 e. Overcrll Design: Prvvides a planned z rban dev lo ment design that is sziperior to the
d?sign thal would resultfrom development ofthe subject proyerly withoztt a planned urban
2 dc velopment. A superzor deszgn mczy rnelude thefollowrng.• ...
3
4 6. The proposal provides for public benefit by praviding amenities related to natural features and
5
overall design that significantly exceed code standards as determined in Finding of Fact No. 7. These
benefits clearly outweigh any adverse impacts since there are no sigr ificant adverse impacts
6 associated with the propasal as determined in Finding of FacE No. 4 and 5. The integration of the
natural features af the site with the recreational/open spaces af the site is particularly w ell done and
wilt succeed in providing significant aesthetic and recreational benefits to project residents as well as
g retaining a significant amount of green space and vegetation for the surrounding community.
g RMC 4A-150(D): The City may approve cr nl znned arrban developmerrt only if itfincl.s thcrt the
10 f llax ing rec uirements are met.
ll •••
l 2 3. Aclr itiUnal Revie 'rrteria:A praposecl pl rnnec zrrban devetopment shall crlso be revieu edfor
consistency w ith rll ofthe fi llou=ing critericr:
3
14 zlildi»g anc!Sile Design:
15 i. Perimeter: Size, scale, mass, chaf-acter a»d crrchitectt ral c esign along the plcrnnetl arrbcrn
development perimeter provide a szcitabTe transition tn adjacent or al aatting Iower clensrty/intensiry
ones. Mate ials shcrll redarce the poteniiat_for lr'ght crnd gln e.
17
7. The criterion is met for the reasons identified at page 21 ofthe staff repart.
18
RMC 4-9-150(D}; The City may cr prc ve a planned zirl an development anly if it finds thcrt the
14 follow ing reqarirements ure mc t.
20
21 3. Adr'itionczl Review° Criteria: A pro osed plan rec t-han ctevelopment shczll also he revieti ed for
consistency ith a/1 of thefolloti ing critericr:
22
23 a. Building anr Site Uesign:
z ...
ii. Interior^Design: Promotes u coordinated site cznr l uilclrng desi n. Ba ildings in groarps should be
25 t-elatec!by coorclinatec materials and roofstyles, bart contrast shauld l e provided throughc ut a site by
the use af'varied matericrls, architectural detarling, bz ilding orientation a housrng type,- e.g., single26 amily, townhouses,flals, etc.
PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELQPMENT -
15
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
1
8. The criterion is met for the reasons identified at pages 21-22 of the staff report.2
3 RMC 4-9-150(D): The Ciry may approve a planned zrrban development only ifitfinds that the
following requirements are met.
4
5 3. Additional Review Criteria:A proposedplanned z rban developmerrt shall also be reviewedfor
6 consistency with all of thefollowing criteria
7 ...
b. Circulation:
8
9 i. Provides sarfficient streets and pedestrian facilities. The planned urban development shall have
sz icient pedestrian ancl vehicle access commensurate with the location, size and density of the
p proposed development. All parblic and prrvate streets shall accommodate emergency velzicle access
arrcl the traffic demancl created by the development as documented in a traffic anc circulation report1approveclbytheCiry. Vehicle crccess shall not be un la ly detrimental to adjacent areas.
12 9. The proposal provides for adequate streets and pedestrian facilities as determined in Finding
13 of Fact No. 4.
14 RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a plarrned zirban development only if it fincls thnt the
follolving requirements are met.15
16 ••
3. Additional Reviex Criterin: A proposed planned zrrban development shall also be revietived for
17 corrsistency with all ofthe following criteria
18
9 b. Circulation:
20 ...
21 ii. Promotes safery through szfficient sight distance, separation ofvehicles from pedestrians, limited
22 driveways on busy streets, avoidance ofdiffrcult tzrrning patterns, and minimization ofsteep
gradients.
23
10. The criterion is met for the reasons identified at p. 22-26 of the staff report.
24
25 RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may appYove a planned urban development only if it finds that the
follox ing reqzrirements are met.
26
PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -
16
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
1
3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for2
consistency with all ofthe following criter a
3
4 b. Circzrlation:
5
6
iii. Provision of a system ofwalkK ays which tie residential areas to recreational areas, transit,parblic
walkways, schools, and commercial activities.
g 11. The criterion is met for the reasons identified at p. 22-26 of the staff report.
9
10 RMC 4-9-150(D): The City inay approve a planned zrrban development only ifitfinds that the
following reqzrirements are met.
11
12
3. Adclitional Review Criterin:A proposed planrred urban clevelopment shall also be reviewec for
13 consistency ith all ofthe following criterra
14 ...
b. Circarlation:
15
16
17
iv. Provides s fe, efficient access for emergency vehicles.18
19 12. The proposal provides for safe and efficient access for emergency vehicles as determined in
Finding of Fact No. 4.
20
RMC 4-9-150(D): The Ciry mny approve a planned uYban clevelopmerrt only if itfinds that the21followingreqzrirementsaremet.
22
23 3. Additional Review Criteria:A proposedplanned z rban development shall also be reviewedfor
consistency with all of thefollowing criteria
24
25 c. InfrastrarctuYe and Services: Provides utility services, emergency services, ancl other improvements,
existing andproposed, which are sz cient to serve the development.
26
PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT-
17
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
1 13. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4,the proposal is served by sufficient public
infrastructure and services to serve the development.2
3 RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned zrrbcrn development only if it finds that the
following reqarirements are met.
4
5 3. Aclditional Review Criteria: A proposed planned atrban development shall also be reviewecl for
6 consistency with all ofthe following criteria
7 ...
g d. Clarsters or Barilding Groups and Open Space: An appearance of openness created by clzrstering,
9 separation of building groups, and throargh the use ofwell-designecl open space nnd landscaping, or
a redarction in amount ofimpervious satrfaces not otherwise rec uired.
10
14. The project's principal PUD characteristic is its integration of clustered buildings strategically1Ilocatedadjacenttocombinedandwell-designed open space and critical areas as outlined in Finding
12
of Fact No. 4(D).
13
RMC 4-9-150(D): The Ciry mcry approve a planned urban development only if it fincls that the
14 following reqzrirements are met.
15
16 3. Ac ditional Reviex Criteria:A proposed planned urban development shall also be revietivec for
consistency with all of the following criterin
17
18 ...
19 e. Privacy and Builcling Separation: Provides internal privacy belween dwelling units, and external
privacy for adjacent d elling units. Each residential or mixed use development shall provide visual
2p and acoustical privacy for dwelling zrnits and szrrrozrnding properties. Fences, inszrlation, walks,
barriers, and landscaping are zrsed, as appropriate,for the protection and aesthetic enhancement of21theproperty, the privacy ofsite occupants and surrounding properties, an lfor screening ofstorage,
22 mechanical or other appropriate areas, anc for the redarction ofnoise. Windows are placed at satch a
height or location or screened to provide sufficient privacy. Saffrcient light and air are providec to
23 each dwellirrg zcnit.
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 arrban developrnent only if itfinds that the
26 following requirements are met.
PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -
18
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
l
2 3. Additional Review Criteria:A pYoposed planned zrrban c evelopment shall also be reviewedfor
consistency with all ofthefollowing criteria
3
4
f. Builcling Orientation: Provides bziildings oriented to enharrce viewsfrom within the site by taking5advantageoftopogzaphy, bzrilding location anr sryle.
6
16. 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.
g RMC 4-9-150(D): The Ciry may approve a planned urban development only ifitfinds that the
9 following requirements are met.
10 •••
3. Additional Review Criteria:A proposec planned zrrban development shall also be reviewedfor
11 consistency with all ofthefollowing criteria
12
13
g. Parking Area Design: Provides parking areas that are eomplemented by lancl.seaping crncl not
14 designed in long rows. The size ofparkirtg areas is minimized in comparison to rypical designs, and
each area relatecl to the groarp ofbzrilclings served. The design providesfor efficient use ofparking,i s and shared parkingfacilities where appropriate.
16
17. Parking across the site would be handled in way as to not have large surface parking areas.
17 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 maximum1g
use of parking area and provide clear, safe vehicular circulation that promotes visibility. The use of
19 compact stalls is minimal and is well under the code-required maximums for compact stall counts.
2p RMC 4-9-150(D)(4): Each plannecl atrban development shall demonstrate compliance with the
development stanclards corrtained in sa{bsection E of this Section, the underlying zone, and any21
overlay districts; zrnless a moclification for a specific development standard has been reqarested
22 purszrant to subsection B2 ofthis Section.
23 18. As discussed below, the proposal complies with all development standards imposed by RMC
24 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
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
1 in Finding of Fact No. 29 of the staff report, the proposal is consistent wrth all District B design
2 standards.
RMC 4-9-150(E)(1)» Common Operr Sperce Stanclarc'.• pEn,xpace shall be concentrc ted in large
usable areas anc may be designed tc provide either active or passive recreation. Rec aizrementsfor
4 resic ential, mixecl use, commerczal, anc irrdzistrial c evelopments are clescribec bc la.
a. ResidErntial: For residential deveCoprrrents open space must eqttal at least ten percent(10%) vfthe
develvpment site:s gross land area.
i. Open s ace may include, bzrt is nvt limited to, thc follo ing:
g (a)A trail that allows oppartttnityfc r passive recreation within a cYltical area bzrffer (only the sqasare
footage afthe irail shall be inclarded in thc-oyen space area calculation), vr
p (b)A sia'ewalk and its a,ssocialed lartc scape striE, when abartting the edge f a critical rrea bzrffE'r crnd
when tr part of a new pa blic or privute roac or
ll
12 (c)A similar proposal as approved by the reviewing of cial.
3 ri. Adc itionally, a minrnaum nrecr eqa aC to fifty (SO)sc trarc feet er unit ofcommon spaee vr
recreation area shall be provided in a concerrtrated space a,s ilCustra(ed in Figure 1.
14
19. The 19,795 square feet of community space alone exceeds ten percent of the total 164,827
square feet af the project area. This space, along with other open spaces provided in the project site,
1 alsa satisfies the requirement of SO square feet per dwelling unit, for a tatal of3,700 additional square
feet of open space.
17
l$ RMC 4-9-150(E)(2): Private C7pen Space: Each residential urrit in a planned urban development
1 g shall have zrsable private open space (in addition to arking, starage space, lobbies, anc corridars)
for the exclzrsrve tise of the c cczspants of that afnit. Each gr ound.floor unit, whc>thc r attached or
20 detached, shc ll have pt-ivat open spczce which rs cantiguozes to the atnrt. The rivate en spt ce shczll
21 be x=ell t emarcatec and at least fifteen feet {IS') in every dimension (c'ecks on ttppe floars can
substitaite for the required private open space). For dwelling units which crre exclusively zapper story
zrnits, there shall be deck arens totnlrng at least sixry (6f)) sqzurre.feet in size s ith no dimension less
23 thanfivefeet(S').
24 20. Ground related units do not have their own private open space. A condition of approval
requires that the appIicant provide a revised site plan demonstrating compliance with the private open
25
space standard of at (east 15-feet in every dimension for all graund related un'rts. Not all upper story
26 residential units have private open space dimensioned at 60 feet. A condition of approva! requires
PRELIMIN RY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -
20
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
1 that the applicant pravide revised elevatians for upper floor units demanstrating compliance with the
2 private open space standard of at least 60 square feet ir size with no dimension less tf an S feet.
3 RMC 4-9-150(E)(3): Installation crnd Maintenance of Common Open Space:
4 cr. Installatzon: All common area and open space shnll be land,scaped in accordance with the
landscaping plan sa bmitted by the Applicants ancl approved by the City;provic ec' that commoi7 open
space conlarning nata rcrl,features worthy of pYeservatiorr ntay be left trnimproved. Fric r to the
issarance o.f nn,y° occarperncy permrt, the developer shall,firrnish a security device to the C'ity in an
7
an oa nt equal to the pravisions ofRhIC-1-9-Ob0. Landseaping shall be pinnted x ithin one year ofth
date offinal a pr ovnl nf the lcrnned urhan devErlo ment, and maintcrined far a period of two (2}
8 years thc reafter prior to the release e f the secur•iry devzce. A scjcurity devrce for providing
9 maintenanc of landsca/ing may be waived rf a land,scaping mar"ntenance contraci with a repz table
landscaping.firm ricensed to do hzesiness in the Ciry of Rentorr is executed and kept active for a twv
10 (2)year perzoc. A copy ofsuch cc ntrcrcf slrcrll be kept canfrle with the Dc velopment Services Uivision.
11 h. Maintenanee: Lcrnclseczprng shull be maintciined J zrrsuant to reqzrirements ofRMC'--1-070.
1 21. As Conditioned.
13 RMC 4-9-150(E)(4): Installatian and Maintenance of Common Facilities:
14 cr. Installatir rr: Prior to the issuance f any occzrpancy pef mits, all common,fac°idities, inclarding hut
5 not lirnited to ritilities, .storm drerinage, streets, recrention facilitres, etc., shcrll be complet id hy the
l devc loper or, if cleferrec by the PlanningBtcilding/Pzrblic Works Aclministrator or his/hc r tles ignee,
assrtred thracrgh a secur ty de ice ta thc C'ity ec aral to the provisions o}RMC-9-060...
17
22. As Conditioned.
18
1
RMC 4-9-i50(E}(4): Instaltation and Maintenance of Common Facilities:
20 "..
21 6. Maintc nancc: 111 common facrlities not dec icatcd to the C'ity shr ll l e permanently maintained by
the plannec urban developyrzent awrrer, if there is only ane otiv»er, or by the properry owners'
22 associatit n, or the agent(s) therenf. In the event thnt szrch faczlities are not mcrintainec in a
r•esponsible mcznner, as dc termined by the Citv, the Czry shcrll have the rzght tn providc for the
maintenance ther of and hill the owneY c r praperry owners' association accardrngly. Such bill, if
2 arnpaic', shall become a lien a ainst each inc ividacal property.
25
23. As canditioned.
26
PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT' -
2I
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
1 DECISION
The proposed preliminary PUD meets all applicable criteria quoted in this decision and far that
reason is APPROVED. Requested revisions to deveiopment standards identified in Finding af Fact
No. 3 are all approved except for revisions to RMC 4-9-150.E.2. The applicant's request for an
q. additianal 1.5 feet in building height for the west building as proposed in Ex. 27 is also approved.
The propasal is subject to the following Conditions of Approval:
5
1. The applicant shalt comply with the mitigation measures issued as part of the
Determination ofNon-Si nificance Mitigated ERC ddendum, dated April 7, 2016.
2 The applicant shall be required to recard forma] Lot Combination or Binding Site Plan in
g
order to ensure the proposed buildings are nat bui(t acrass property lines. The instrumertt
shal! be recorded prior ta building permit approval.
3. The applicani shali be required to submit a detailed tandscape plan ta the Current
1 Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approvat complying with RMC 4-
4-070.
1 I 4. The applicant shali be required to subrnit a detailed landscape plan depicting at least 132,
2 two-inch caliper, trees (ar the gross equivalent inches) on site; not including the those
trees located within the Native Grawth Protection Easement. The detailed landscape plan
13 shall be subrnitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to
construction permit approval.
14
5. The appl'scant sha]f submit a revised landscaping plan depicting a mmimum three-foot
15 landscaped setback from the sidewalk at the base of retaining wails abutting, or v=ithin,
public rights-of-way. Landscaping shall include a mixture of shrubs and groundcover
S trees are optional} in conformance with the standards af RMC 4-4-O70F 1, Perimeter
Parking Lot Landscaping. The revised landscaping plan shall be submitted ta, and
approved by,the Current Plannmg Froject Manager prior to engineering permit approval.
i g 6. The applicant shall submit a revised Mitigation plan which addresses the criteria found in
1 RMC 4-3-OSO.H.2 demonstrating the reduced buffer wouldn't negatively irnpact the
function of the stream. The revised rnitigation plan shall be submrtted to, and approved
20 by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering perrnit approva(.
21 7. The applicant shall submit a revised Mitigatian plan which addresses the criteria faund in
RMC 4-3-050.H.2 demonstrating the bridged crossing wouldn't negatively impact the
2 unction of the stream. The revised mitigation plan shall be submitted to, and approved
by,the Current Planning Praject Manager prior t4 engineering permit approval.
23
8. The applicant shatI establish a Native Growth Protection Easement over that part of the
24 site encompassing the stream and buffer area and place split rai[ fencing and signage
along the outer edge of the buffer. The Fina1 Mitigation plan shall include all
25 specifications for fencing and signage and shall be submitted to, and approved by, the
6 Current Pianning Project Manager prior to engineering permit approval.
PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVEL(PMENT' -
22
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
1 9. The applicant shall be required to pravide, to the Current Planning Project Mana}er, tree
retention inspection/monitoring reports after initial clearing, final grading, and annually
z far two years by a qualified professional forester. The inspectionfmonitoring reports shall
3 identify any retained trees that develop problems due to changing site conditians and
prescribe mitigation.
4 20. The appiicant shall pravide interpretive signage/information regarding differentiating
elements {trees, landscaping, drainage, architecture, etc.} of the proposed devetopment at
a strategic place{s) on site. The site plan depicting the signage shall be submitted ta, and
6 approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permitlFinal Plat
approval tivhichever comes first.
7 11. A detailed fencing plan shall be provided identifying the location and specifications for
8 all fencing on site. Ail 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 perrnit approval.
1Q 12. The applicant shall provide a lighting p]an that adequately pravides for public safety
without casting excessive glare Qn adjacent properties; at the time of engineering permitIlV1e,, p destrian scale and down lighting shall be used in all cases ta assure safe
1 pedestrian and vehicular rnovement, unless alternative peclestrian scale lighting has been
approved administratively ar is specifically listed as exempt from pravisions (ocated in
13 RMC 4-4-075 Lighting, Exterior On-Site.
14 13. The applicant shail eliminate the proposed access restr'rctions atong SE 172nd St in order
to provide full access along SE 1 2nd St. A revised site plan shall be submitted to, and
15 approved by, the Plan Reviewer prior to engineering permit approvat.
1 14. Prior ta 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
17 the develaper or, if deferred by the PlanningBuilc ing/Public Works Administrator or
g
his/her designee, assured through a security device to the City equal to the provisions of
RMC 4-9-060.
1 15, A{1 common facilities not dedicated to the City shall be permanently maintained by the
20
planned urban development owner, if there is oniy one awner, or by the property ou.ners'
association, or the agertt{s}thereaf. In the event that such facilities are not maintained in a
21 responsible manner, as determined by the City, the City shall have the right ta provide for
the maintenance thereof and bill the o vner or property awners" association accordingiy.
22 Such bill, if unpaid, shall become a Eien against each individual praperty.
23 16. The appIicant shall create a pubtic outreach sign in caardination 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
2 area; and the safety and mobility effects of the work zone. The sign shalI be placed on site
prior to construction commencement.
PRELIMiNARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT-
23
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
1 17. The applicant shall provide a revised site plan demonstrating compliance with the private
2 open space standard of at least I S-feet in every dimension for all ground related units.
The revised site plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project
3 Manager prior to building permit approval whichever comes first.
4 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
5 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
6 first.
19. Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit, the deve(oper shall furnish a security
device to the City in an amount equal to the provisions of RMC 4-9-060. Landscaping
g 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 the9securitydevice. 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
11 copy of such contract shall be kept on file with the Planning Division.
12 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
13 four and one-half feet (4-l/2') wide. The revised elevations shall be submitted to, and
approved by,the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval.14
21. The app(icant shall be required to submit a revised site and landscaping plan depicting
15 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 submitted16toandapprovedbytheCurrentPlanningProjectManagerpriortobui(ding permit
I 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
18 separate entrances are not feasible prior to bui(ding permit approval.
19 22• The applicant shall submit revised refuse and recycle enclosure elevations which include
a roo£ The revised elevations shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current
20 Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval.
21 23. The applicant shall revise the site plan to depict a differentiation in materiais for all
pedestrian connections within parking areas and/or drive aisles on site. The revised site
22 plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Pianning Project Manager prior to
building/engineering permit approvaL If this condition of approval is met the proposal23
would satisfy this standard.
24 24. The applicant shall provide detailed specifications for all site furniture, and art, in order to
25 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
26 permit approval.
PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT-
24
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
1 25. The applicant shall submit revised elevations depicting entrance detailing/weather
2 protection for ground related units, fencing, pedestrian connectivity, lighting fixtures,
contrasting materials, and/or special detailing along SE 172nd St. The revised elevations
3 shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to
building permit approval whichever comes first.
4
26. The applicant shall submit a materials board subject to the approval of the Current
5 Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. The board shall include
color and materials for the following: guardrails, fa ade treatments, retaining wal(s, raised
6 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
g of the Administrator.
27. The current left turn and right turn southbound lanes from Benson Road South to SR 5159shallberechanneledbytheapplicanttooneleftturnlaneandonecombinedleftturn/right
10 turn lane and the applicant shall also modify the light signal at the Benson Road
South/SR 515 to accommodate the re-channelization.
Il
12
DATED this 24th day of May, 2016.
13
14 r ..-----'
Phi!'A.nlhrechts
IS
16 City of Renton Hearing Examiner
17
18 Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
19 C 4-8-080 provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is subject to appeal to the
20 Renton City CounciL RMC 4-8-110(E)(14) requires appeals of the hearing examiner's decision
to be filed within fourteen (14) ca(endar days from the date of the hearing examiner's decision.
2 A request for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal
period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(13) and RMC 4-8-100(G)(9). A new fourteen (14) day22appealperiodshallcommenceupontheissuanceofthereconsideration. Additional information
regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall —23 tn floor, (425) 430-6510.
24
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
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
DEPARTMENT OF CQM'...lNITY CITY OF
AND fCONG1MIC DEVELOPMENT
r }
A. REPORT TD THE NEARING EXAMINER
HEAR/NG DATE:May 10, 2016
Praject Name; Avana Ridge PUD
Owners: Avana Ridge, L C;9675 SE 36th St, Ste 105; Mercer Islanci,WA 98040
Contact: Justin Lagers;Avana Ridge, LLC; 9675 SE 36th St,Ste 105; Mercer Isiand, WA 98040
File Number: 1UA15-000894, PP, PPUD
Praject Manager: Rocale Timmons,Senior Planner
Froject 5ummary: The appiicant is requesting a Preliminary Planned Urban Developrnent and
Environmental (SEPA} Review for the construction of a multi-family devefapment
cantaining 74 units. The vacant 3.78 acre site is (ocated within the Residential
Multi-Family(RM-Fj zoning classificatian and the Residentia! High Density (NQ) land
use designat'san. The development would be comprised of two separate multi-
family residential structures resulting in a density of 20.21 dujac. The subject site
is franted by three public rights-af-way: SE 172nd 5t, Bensan Rd S {108th Ave SE},
and Benson prive 5 (SR-515}. The applicant is propasing one entrance off of SE
172"St between the proposed buildings, and another entrance off of Benson Rd S.
There is an unnarned stream, classified Ns, bisecting the site which runs from east
ta west. Pursuant to RMC 4-3-050, the applicant is proposing impacts to the
stream buffer through buffer averaging. Additionally, the site contains Coa! Mine
Hazards. 1'he Preliminary PUD would be used to vary street, refuse and recycle,
building height, parking, design, private open space, and retaining wafl standards.
The applicant has praposed ta provide buffer enhancement as part of the
propased PUD public benefit, along with the construction of enhanced open space,
pedestrian amenities, landscaping, and superior site and building design.
Site Area:164,828 SF Tota!8uilding Area GSF:92,899 SF
Project Lacation: 17249 Benson Rd S
I p! JI I.,.k
il
I d
aRR
M
fau,
Project Location Map
HEX Staff Report Avana Ridge PUD LUAIS-000894
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
City ofRenton Department ofCo: unity& Economic Deve%pme t Nearing Examiner Recommendatian
AVANA R/DGE PUD LUA15-000894,PPUD,ECF
Report of May 3, 2016 Page 2 of 44
B. EXH1BlTS:
Exhibit 1: ERC Report,dated Aprii 11,2016
Exhibit 2: Site P(an
Exhibit 3: Landscape Pian
Exhibit 4: Elevations
Exhibit 5: Grading Plan
Exhibit 6: Geotechnical Report, prepared by Earth Solutians NW (dated December 21, 2015)
Exhibit?: Coal Mine Nazard Study, prepared by Icicie Creek Engineers(dated March 22,2004j
Exhibit 8: Coai Mine Hazard Study, prepared by icicie Creek Engineers (dated January 20, 2009)
Exhibit 9: Drainage Repart, prepared by D.R.Strong{dated December 28, 2015)
Supplemental Stream Study, prepared by Sewell Wetland Cansulting(dated December
Exhibit 10:22, 2015j
Conceptual Stream Mitigation Plan prepared by Sewell Wetland Consulting(December
Exhibit 11:28, 2015)
Habitat Data Report, prepared by Sewell Wetland Consulting(dated December 22,
Exhibit 12:2015)
Exhibit 13:Arborist Report, prepared by Greenforest Inc. (dated December 16, 2015j
Exhibit 14:Tree Re#entian Pfan
Exhibit 15:Traffic Impact Analysis(71A}, prepared by TraffEx(dated February 2, 2016)
Exhibit 16;Public Comment LettersJEmails
independent Secandary Review–Traffic Study, prepared by TenW (dated March 21,
Exhibit 17:2016}
Response Memo -independent Secondary Review, prepared by Traffex tdated March
Exhibit 18:26, 2036}
Exhibit 19:Staff Recommendation to the Hearing Examiner, dated May 3, 2016
Exhibit 20:SEPA Determination and Mitigation Measures(dated April 11, 2016
Exhibit 21:CI 73–Residential Building Height
Exhibit 22:Elevation Perspectives
Exhibit 23:Transportation Cancurrency
HEXStaff Report Avana Ridge PUD_LUA15-000894
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
City of Renton Department ofCommunity&Ecanomic Development Hearing Examiner Recornmendatron
AVANA R/DGE PUD LUA15-000894,PPUD,ECF
Pa e 3 of 44ReportofMay3, 2016
C. GENERA!INFQRMATION:
Avana Ridge, LC
1. Owner(s)of Recard: 9675 SE 36th St, Ste 105
Mercer Island,WA 98040
2. Zoning Ciassif+catian: Residential Multi-Family(RMF}
3. Cornprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: Residential High Density(HD
4. Existing Site Use: Vacant
5. Neighborhoad Characteristics:
a. Narth: Existing Sing/e Family Residentrat(R-8 Zone)
b. East: Daycare(RMF ZaneJ
c. Sou#h: Vacant(RMF ZoneJ
d. West: Multi-amily, Public Starage, and a Denta/Office (CA Zone)
6. Site Area: 164,827 SF(3.78 acres)
D. H/STG1R/CALjBACKGROUND:
Action land Use File No. Ordinance No.Date
Comprehensive Plan NJA 5758 06/22/2015
Zoning NJA 5758 06J22f2015
Annexation N/A 5327 03/01/200$
5pringbroak Ridge Apt PUD LUAQ9-Q24 N/A 49/24j2009
Expired}
f_ . __ _ .
E PUSCIC SERVICES:
1. Exis#ing Utilities
a. Water: Water service is provided by Saos Creek Water and Sewer District.
b. Sewer: Sewer service is pravided by Soos Creek Water and Sewer District.
c. SurfacelStorm Water: There is partial starm water conveyance systems along Bensan Drive S,
Benson Rd S,and SE 172"d St.
2. Streets: There are partial street impravements along Bensan Drive S, Benson Rd S, and SE 172°St.
3. Fire Protectian:City of Rentan Fire Department
f APPLfCABLE SECTtQNS OF THE REN7(?N MUNICIPA!CODE.
1. Chapter 2 Land Use districts
a. Section 4-2-020: Purpose and Intent af Zoning Districts
b. Sectian 4-2-070:Zoning Use Table
c. Section A-2-110: Residential Development Standards
Z. Chapter 3 Enviranmental Regulations
HEX Staff Report Avana Ridge PUD LUA15-000894
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
City ofRenton Department of Community&Ecanomic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendatinn
AVANA R/DGE PUD s LUA15-000894,PPUD,ECF
Report of May 3, 2016 Page 4 of 44
a. Section 4-3-100: Urban pesign Regulatians
3. Chapter 4 Property Qevelopment 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
C,. APPLICABLE SECTlONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
1. Land Use Element
H. fINDllUGS Of fAC7'(FQf):
1. The applicant is requesting a Preliminary Planned Urban Development (PPUD) and Environmenta!
SEPA} Review far the construction of a multi-family development containing 74 units, in two four-story
StCUCtlIC S.
2. The subject site is currently vacant.
3. The development would be comprised of two separate multi-family residentiai structures resulting in a
density of 20.21 du/ac. 7he proposed 74 units would be comprised af (28) 1-bedroam units, (29) 2-
bedroorn units, and {17 3-bedroom units.
4, The Planning Division of the City of Renton accepted the above master application far review on
pecember 3p, 2015 and determined the application complete on lanuary 13, 2016. On February 15,
2016 the project was piaced on hold pending receipt of an Independent Secondary Review of the
provided Traffic Study. The applicant submitted ali necessary documentation and on March 3Q, 2016
and the project was taken off haid. 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 Mult's-Family {RM-F) zoning clas ificat"son, the Residential Nigh
Density (NO)Compre rensive Plan land use designation,and Design District 'B'.
7. Surraunding uses include: a daycare facility abutting the property ta the east (zoned RM-F}; existing
single family residences to the north (zaned R-8}; southeast af the site, along 108th Ave SE, a vacant
parcel (zoned RM-F); and across Benson Drive S, to the west, uses cansists of multi-family, public
storage, and a dental office zoned CA).
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 paints 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 tatal of 94 parking staHs waufd be provided in the surface parking area. An add'rtional
20-parking stalls wo ld be provided along the street.
NEX Staff Report Avana Ridge PUD_LUA15-000894
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
City of Renton Department of Community& Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation
AVANA R/DGE PUD LUAIS-000894,PPUD,ECF
Report of May 3, 2016 Page 5 of 44
10. Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmenta) 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
ERC) 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 St 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
172nd 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.
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-inplace 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 4-6-060 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 Rrdge PUD LUA15-000894
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
City ofRenton Department of Community& Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation
AVANA RIDGE PUD LUAIS-000894,PPUD,ECFT_..--- ----
Report of May 3, 2016 Page 6 of 44
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 94
Parking, Loading, and minimum and maximum of 96 parking spaces within surface parking areas.
Driveway Regulations spaces would be allowed in order to The proposal does not comply with
meet code. 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 retainingwalls 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 else intersection is proposed at a height
where 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 the 4,156 SF of private, attached open
exclusive use of the occupants of that space through the use of private
unit in compliance with dimensional balconies for some of the units
standards. 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 retained 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-OS0. 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 LUA15-000894
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
City of Renton Department of Community& Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation
AVANA RIDGE PUD LUA15-000894,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 oflife (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 all conditions of approval are met:
Compliance I Comprehensive Plan Analysis
J
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-51: 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-57: 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 Report Avana Ridge PUD_lUA15-000894
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
City ofRenton Department of Community& Econamic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendotion
AVANA RIDGE PUD LUA15-000894,PPUD,ECF
Report of May 3, 2016 Page 8 of 44
23. 2oning Development Standard Campliance: The RMF Zone provides suitable environments for multi-
family dweliings. It is further intended to conditionaily allow uses that are compatible with and support
a muiti-family environment.The RMF ailaws for the development of bath infill parcels in existing multi-
family districts with campatible projects and other multi-famity 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 approva(
are met:
Comptiance RMF Zone Deve3ap S#andards 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 af sensitive areas, areas
intended for public right-of-way, and private access easements.
Staff Comment: After deducting 2,237 square,feet for access eosements and 4,015
square feet for critica/ areas, fram the 264,827 gross square faotage of the site, the
net square foatage would be 159,574 sguare feet (3.66 net acresJ. The 74 unit
proposa!wauld arrive at a net density of 20.22 dwelling units per acre (74 units j3.66
acres = 20.21 du/ac1, which fa!ls within the permitted c ensity range for the RMF
zoning classifkation.
Lat Dimensians: There is no minimum iot size required in the RMF zone. A minimum
lot width af 25 feet is required (30 feet far corner lats)for townhouse development. A
minimum lot depth af 50 feet is required for townhause development.
Staff Comment: The praposal does not indude a/terations to lot lines.
tot Caverage:The allawed lot coverage is 35°la. A maximum coverage of 4 5°lo may be
allowed thraugh the Hearing Examiner site devefopment plan review pracess.
Staff Comment: The lat coverage for the entire development is at approximately
13.8%.
Setbacks:The rec}uired setbacks attached dwellings in the RMF zone are as follaws:
frant yard is 20 feet, the side yard is 0 feet for the atiached sides and 5 feet far the
unattached sides (per Cl-76}, side yard along the street is 2Q feet, and rear yard is 10
feet.
Staff Comment: The praposed buildings would have a front yard setback af 20feet
andfrom the front(SE 172"St)property line which exceeds the maximum frant yard
Compliant if sefback. The proposed west-bui ding wou/d have a side yard along-a-street setback of
Canditions o, 24 feet from the Bensan Drive/SR 515 which exceeds the maximum side yard a/ong-a-
Approvat is street setback. The side yard setback,from the eastern praperty line is 33 feet and 4-
Mer inehes exceeding the 5foot requirement. 7'here is not a rear yardfor the site g+ven
street frontages surrounding the site.
The project is however proposed to be built across a partian of the common boundary
between existing property lines. Therefare, staff recommends as a condition of
approval the applicant be required to recordformal Lot Cambination or Binding Site
Plan in order to ensure the praposed buildings are not built across property lines. The
instrument shall be recorded prior ta building permit approval.
Requested ta Building Standards. The RMF zane has a maximum impervious surface coverage o#
be Madified 75%a.A Cade Interpretation {Cl-73) {Exhibit 21}was adopted regarding building height
HEX Staff Report Avana Ridge PUp LUA15-000894
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
City ofRentan Department of Community& Ecanomic Developrnent Hearing Examiner Recornmendation
AVANA R/DGE PUD LUA15-000894,PPUD, ECF
Report of May 3, 2016 Page 9 of 44
Through the requirements in residential zanes. In the RMF zone, a maximum building height of 3
v stories with a wali plate height af 3d 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 rooftap features, such as chimneys, may project an
additional four(4}verticai feet from the raof surface. Non-exempt vertical projections
e.g., decks, railings, etc.j shali nat extend above the maximum wall plate height
uniess the projection is stepped back one-and-a-half (1.5) horizontal feet from each
fa ade for each ane (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 maxirrtum 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 resident+a(dweliing structure may be obtained
thraugh the pravisian of additianal amenities such as additianal recreatian faciiities,
underground parking, and additianal landscaped apen space areas; as determined
through the site developmen# plan review pracess and depending on the
compatibility of the propased buildings with adjacen# or abutting existing residential
devefopment. fn no case shall the maximum wali plate height of a residential
structure exceed thirty-five feet(35'}.
Requested to be modified khrough the PUD
Staff Comment: The overall praject has less impervious surface than otherwise wauld
be expected. Based on the provided T R the site wauld contain approximately 40.1%
impervious surfaces for the overall site. This would include building areas, associated
wa/kways, driveways,parking and drive aisles.
The tallest point of the structure would be approximately 46 feet and S-inches fram
average grade to the highest peak af the tallest shed roof element. The PUD seeks ta
modify the minimum pitch from 4:12 to 2:12 as weN as the maximum wall plate
height. The requested mod+fication wou/d stNl give the appearance of pitched shed
rooffrom rhe pedestrian perspective fExhibit 22). The varied cambination af parapet
and roof s/ape, combined with cornice detai/s and trellis elements achieve a visua/ly
interesting break rn the roafline intended ro be created with roof pitch requirement.
The propased roof profiles effective/y achieve the intent of the cade by breaking up the
massing and providing vrsual int-erest to the build+ng raoflines. AdditionaHy, the
proposed height serves to concentrate deve/opment+n orre area of the site preserving
opportunities for meaningfu!open spnce.
Therefore, staff is in suppart of the requested roof pitch and height modification, as
part af the PUD, if all conditions of approval are met.
Landscaping: The City's landscape regulations (ftMC 4-4-07Q} require a 10-foot
landscape strip along all public street frantages. Additiana4 minimum planting strip
widths between the curb and sidewalk are established according to the street
Compliont tf velopment standards of RMC 4-6-Q60.
Canditians o Staff Comment: Tfre applicant i as proposed /andscaping a/onq the frontages of the
Approvat is s,te (Benson Dr+ve S, Benson Rd S, and SE 172°St) exceeding the 10foat landscape
Met requirement. i"he applicant has alsa thougirtfully incorporated landscaping
throughout the s+te in arder ta create active and passive recreatian apportunities as
well as to separate parking and drive aisles into smaller areas.
A conceptual landscape plan was submitted witn the project application (Exhibit 3J.
HEX Staff Report Avana Ridge PUD_LUA15-000894
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
City of Renton Department of Community&Economic Development Nearing Examiner Recommendation
AVANA R/DGE PUD LUA15-000894,PPUD,ECF
Report of May 3, 2016 Page 10 of 44
The landscape plan includes a planting plan which contains severa!different tree and
shrub species but daes not pravide specific detailfar the nurnber or types of trees and
shrubbery. Therefore staff recommends, as a condition af approval, the applicant be
required to submit a detailed/andscape plan to the Current Planning Praject Manager
prior to construction permit approva/complying with RMC 4-4-070.
See additiana! dlscussion betow in fC?F 26: PtJD D C1510n Criteria,
andscaprngjScreening.
Tree Re#ention: The City's adopted Tree Retention and Land Clearing Reguiations
require the retention of 20 percent of trees in a residential development.
Significant trees shall be retained in the fo4lowing priority order:
Priarity One: Landmark trees; significant trees that form a cantinuaus canopy;
significant trees an slopes greater than twenty percent (20°10); Significant trees
adjacent to critical areas and their associated buffers; and Significant trees over sixty
fieet(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 alf other trees have
been evaluated for retention and are nat able to be retained, unless the alders andf
or cottonwoods are used as part of an approved enhancement project within a
critical area or its buffer.
Far 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 af existing
trees, replacement trees, trees required pursuant to RMC 4-4-070F1, Street Frontage
Complianiif andscaping Required,or a combination.
Conditivns af
Appravat is Staff Camment: The site is turrently forested with mixed canapy daminated by
Mer pouglas fir, red cedar, big leaf map/e, Scou/er's willow, and black cattanwood. The
site's understary is dominated by /ndian p/um, hazelnut, Himilayan b/ackberry, sword
fern, and creeping b/ackberry. The applicant pravided a Tree Protectian Plan/Arbarist
Repart, completed by Greenforest Inc., dated December 16, 2015 (Exhibit 13J. Based
on the provided tree inventory, 429 trees are lacated on the subject site. There are
114 trees located in critical areas and associated buffers; 67 trees were identified as
dead, diseased, or dangeraus; and 37 trees wou/d be located within proposed rights-
of-way. This results in the exclusion of 218 trees fram retention calculatians. As such,
211 trees were utilized to calculate retention requirements af 20% of the significant
trees located an the site.
Therefore, the applkant wou/d be required to retarn at least 42 trees on srte. The
provided Tree Retention Plan depicts the retention of 46 trees autside af the critical
areas and their associated buffers which serves to meet tree retent on requirements
Exhib t 13).
Additionally, tite project site is approximately 165,000 SF square feet. As a resu/t, a
total af 132 trees are required to be located on the srte in order to meet tf e tree
density requ+rements of tire cade (165,000 square feet/5,000 square feet x 4 trees =
132 trees). The appJicant's prapased landscape p an inc/udes the p/anting of severa
trees, in addition to the 4b trees proposed for reientfon, but does not pravide specific
detail for the number or rypes of trees. Therefore, staff recommends as a conditio» of
HEX Staff Report Avana Ridge PUp_LUA15-000894
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
City ofRenton Department of Comrr?unity&Economic Develapment Mearing Exarrriner Recamrrtendatian
AVANA R/DGE PUD LUA15-Q00$94,PPUD,ECF
f_ w---.__..__ —.__—._—._,._.—
Report of May 3, 2016 Page 11 af 44
appraval, the applicant be required to submit a detailed landscape p/an depicting at
least 132, twa-inch caliper, trees (or the gross equivalent inchesl on site; nat including
the those trees located within the Native Growth Protection Easement. The detailed
landscape p/an shall be submitted to, and appraved by, the Current Planning Praject
Manager prior to construction permit approval.
Parking. The parking regulations, RMC 4-4-080, require a specific number of aff-
street parking stalls be provided based on number of bedraoms proposed per unit.
Repuested to be modified tF rouph the PUD
Staff Camment. The following ratios would be app icable to the site:
Use residentia/units Ratio Required Spaces
Attached 28—1 bedraoms 1.0 spaces f 1-bedroom 28
Residential 29_2 bedroams 1.4 spaces j2-bedroom 41
Units
17—3 bedrooms 1.6 spaces/3-bedroom 27
ased on the proposed uses, a minimum and rnaximum of 96 parking spaces wauld 6e
required rn order to meet code. The appticant is proposing a total of 94 spaces within
structured and surface parking areas. The praposa/ does not campty with the
minimurra requirements by two statts. 7he appticant r`s proposr'ng to modify the
Requested ta J jmum parking requirements through the PUD.
be Modified
Throuqh the While the proposal does not meet the minimum number of parking stalls required by
PUD cade the requested modification conforms to the intent and purpose of the parking
regulations by providing sufficient on-site parking for the amaunt necessary for the
new development. The applicant is requesting a very small reduction, of/ess rhan 3%.
Additionally, the proposal includes 20 puta ic stalls provided a/ong SE 172"d St which
would serve as overflow parking for the propasal. Therefare, staff is in support of tf e
requested modification, as part of the PUD, if alJ conditions of apprava/are met.
The parking conforms to the minimum requirements for drive aisle, parking stall,
dimensions and the provision af ADA accessible parking stalls.
Per RMC 4-4-080F.I,T the num6er of b+cycle parkir g spaces shal! 6e ane-haif (0.5)
bicycle parking space per dwelling unit for a totat of 37 bicycle parking staNs. The
applitant is propasing 21 bicycle parking spaces within a bike room in the West
building. An additiona! 20 bicycle parking spates would be prauided within a bike
room in the East 6uilding, for a tota/ of 41 spaees. The appticant wr!l be required to
demonstrate spaces meet the requirements of R11rJC 4-4-OSOF.11.c as part of building
permit applrcatrans.
Refuse and Recyctabies: Per RMC 4-4-090 for multi-family developments a minimum
of 1 % square feet per dweliing unit is required for recyclabie deposit areas and a
minimum of 3 square feet per dwelling unit is required for refuse deposit areas.
Requested ta There shall be at least ane deposit area/callectian point for every thirty (30) dwelling
be Modified units,
rhrough the Staff Comment. Based on the praposa!for a total 74 residential units, 333 square feet
PUD of refuse and recyde area us required to be dedkated. The proposal inrludes a 436
square foot area dedicated to refuse and recyde which complies with the area
dedication requirements.
Thraugh the PUD the applrcant is requesting a madificatian in order ta provide a
NEXStaffReport Avana Ridge PUD_LUA15-000894
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
City ofRenton Department of Com.^unity&Economic Deve%pment Hearing Examiner Recommendcrtion
AVANA RIDGE PUD LUA15-OQ0894,PPUD,ECf
Report of May 3, 2Q16 Page 12 of 44
combined refuse/recycle enclosure. The refuse/recyde storage location wou/d be
central/y lacated between both buildings at the center of the site, away from public
view. Ta reduce architectura! bulk and scale the twa separate/y-required storage
locations have been proposed in one enclosure. A single enclosure would provide ease
of access to residents of both buildings in additian to allowing for one, easily-
accessib/e, pickup point for waste management services. Therefore, staff is in support
of the requested modification, as part of the PUD, if all conditians of approval are
met.
See additiona/ discussian be/ow in FOF 29: Design Distrrct Review, Service Eler»ent
Design and Locarion.
Fences and Retaining Watls: In any residential district, the maximum height of any
fence, hedge or retaining wail shali 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
waUs abutting public rights-of-way.
Requested to be modified thrvuqh the FUD.
Staff Comment: The site can best be characterized as hil/y generaCty sloping south
taward the stream on site and Benson Drive S. S/opes on-site range from 8 to 15%
with a topographic relief of approximate/y 35 feet. The steepest slope on the site is
approximately 20°o in the proximity of the stream an site. The proposal complies with
the retaining wa/l height requirements of the cnde with the exceptions of two areas
on site.
A section af the keystone-type wr ll proposed near the manument sign at the Ber son
Road/Benson Drive ir tersectinn is S eet and 6-inches tall. 7his wall would face the
street. Imposing the 4foat maximum height wau/d Fequire a 4foot wide terrace and
Reguested to add 1Q5 linear feet of a 2.0- to 1.5foot ral/ wall. The wal!would a so equire removal
be Modified vf three additiona/trees.
Through the
PUD Additionarly, a section of Che keystane-type wall proposed along the east side of the
east building reaches 6 feet and 6-inches tall, exceeding the 6foot maximum. This
wall would face the proposed building. The excess height +s preferabie to a terraced
confrguration because it provides a contiguaus landscape buffer. The walJ cau/d be
limited to 6feet by steepening the grade of the landscape 6uffer. However, this was
not pursued in an effort to mirrimize vrsual impacts ta the adjacent day care faciliry
thraugh the use of Jandscapirrg.
The requested modifications to the retaining wa/l height requirements are minimal in
bath cases and strict compliance wau/d create impacts such as the removal of existing
vegetation or the interruption of landscape buffer. However, given the location of the
wal/s are adjacent to, or in many cases within, rights-af-way the proposal would very
much benefit from Jandscaping between the sidewalk and praposed retaining walls in
order to provide visua/ relief. The code requires a minimum t hreefoot landscaped
setback at the base of retaining walls abutting public rights-of-way. Therefore staff
recommends, as a conditian af approval, the applicant submit a revised landscaping
p/an depicting a minimum threefaot Jandscaped setback from the sidewalk at the
base of retaininq walls abutting, or within, public rights-of-way. Candscaping shall
include a mixture of shrubs and groundcover(trees are optianatJ in confarmance with
the standards of RMC 4-4-070H4, Perimeter Parking tot Landscaping. The revised
HEX Staf Repart Avana Ridge PUR_LUA15-QQ0894
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
City of Renton Department of Cornmunity&Ecanomic Develapment Hearing Examiner Recommendation
AVANA R/DCyE PUD LUA15-000894,PPUD,EtF
Report of May 3, 2016 Page 13 of 44
landscaping plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project
Manager prior ta engineering permit approval.
Staff is in support o,f the requested madrfrcation for the retaining wa!l heighr, as part
of the PUD, if a!1 canditions of approva/ are complied with indudrng the provision of
andscaping between the sidewaNk and the retaining wcrll.
24. Critical Areas: Project sites which contain critical areas are required to comply with the Critica! Areas
Regulations (RMC 4-3-050). The proposa! is consistent with the Critica! Areas Regulations, if all
conditions of approval are complied with:
Geoiogicaily Nazardous Areas:
Staff Carr ment:A coa/mine was operated historica(ly within the southern partion af
the site, alang the southwesterly property line. According to the Coa/Mine Hazard
Study,prepared by Icide Creek Engineers on January 26, 2009, the coal mine is
designated a High Caa/Mine Hazord(CHJ as defined by RMC 4-3-050(Exhibir 8). The
dassification was affirmed by Earth So/utions IVW in the provided Geotechnical Report
Exhibit 6J.
High Caa!Mine Hazards are considered areas with a6andoned and improperly sealed
mine apenings and areas underlain by mine warkings shallawer than 200 feet in
depth for steeply dipping seams, or shaJlawer than 15 times the thickness of the seam
or workings for gently dipping seams. These areas may 6e trffected by coilapse ar
other subsidence. The rrtain entry and arrshaft for the Springbrook mrne is also
t'ompliant rf located on srte. lcicle Creek Engineers encauntered approximately IS feet of fill at
ronditran of whot ap ears to 6e the mine entry, estimated to be S to S feet in diameter, and
appravat is inclrned at approximately SS to 60 degrees ta the south jExhibit 8).
met Severa/ 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 contralled density fill (Exhibit 8J. However,
these recommendations were based on a former deve/opment praposal which
included structures in the southern portion of the site. The propased deve/opment is
setback approximately 125 feet from rhe coal mine hazard and would likely not have
the same impac#s as the former development. However, there are some grading
activities and smal/er recreational improvements in the proximity of the coal mine
hazard which may patentially be affected by mining re/ated subsidence.
A mitigatian measure was issued requiring an updated Coa/ Mine Hazard Report
demonstrating the proposa/would not increase the threat of the geo/ogical hazard to
adjacent ar abutting properties beyond pre-development conditians and the
deve/opment can be safe/y accommodated on the site(Exhibit 20J.
Streams:
Staff Comment: The applicant submitted a Wet/and and Supplemental Stream Study,
prepared by Ed Sewel/ Consulting Inc., dated December 22, 2015 (Exhibit 10J. The
report states there are na wet/ands located on site. An unnamed seasonal stream
Stream AJ has been identified on the subject site. Stream A bisects the northern and
sauthern 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
flaw and lack of fish use. Class Ns streams have a standard buffer af 50 feet as
measured from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) as well as a 15foat setback
HEX Staff Report Avana Ridge PUD LUA15-000894
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
City of Renton Department ofCommunity& Econamic Development Hearing Examiner Retommendation
AVANA RIDC;E PUD LUA15-000894,PPUD,ECF
Report of May 3, 2016 Page 14 of 44
frnm the edge of the buffer to any structure. The applicant is proposing buffer
averaging for portians of the stream buffer. Additionally, the applicant is propasing
an alteratian within the stream and its associated bufferfar a pedestrian crossing. It
shou/d be noted that the Na6itat Biologist for WDFW concluded the on-site stream is
not a jurisdictional water, or a "water of the state". As a resu/t no Hydraulic Permit
Approval(HPAJ permit is required from Washington Department of Fish& Wild/ife.
Stream Buffer Averaqinq Propospl:
RMC 4-3-OSQ.l,1 allows for critical area buffers to be reduced to no less than a 25-faot
tnrnimum for Type Ns streams. The aaplicant has proposed buffer averaging, with
reductions of the buffer down to 25 eet, for Stream A. Overall the appticant is
proposing buffer reductions in the amount of approxirr ate/y 8,&35 square feet to be
mit gated with buffer additians in the atnount of approximate/y 9,527 square feet.
The applicant is a/sn proposing buffer enhcrncement for those portions of the 6uffer
which would be reduced. Pursuant to RMC, buffer width averaging may be allowed by
the reviewing offida!only where the applicant demonstrates al!of the following:
i. There are existing physical irnprauements in or near the water 6ody and
assaciated riparian area;and
ii. 8uffer width averaging will result +n na net /oss of stream/iakejriparian
eco/ogical function;and
iii. The tota area contained within the buffer after averaging is na /ess than
that contained within the required standard buffer width prior to averaginq;
and
iv. The proposed buffer standard is based on consideratian af the best available
science as described in WAC 365-195-905,•and
v. Where the buffer width is reduced by averaging pursuant ta this subsection,
buffer enhancement shall be rec uired.
The existing stream buffer, whrch separates the north apartment buildrng area frorra
the southern open space, is mostly existing forest (primarily Alder and CottonwaodJ
with an understory dominated by invasive Himalayan b/ackberry. 7he buffer wnuld be
enhanced through the removal of the invasive bCackberries and other undesi ab/e
vegetation and replaced with native understory vegetatian. There are existing road
improvements within the buffer on bath the east and west sides of the stream. The
applicant's Supplementa/ Stream Study conc/uc}ed the buffer reduction, through
averaging, wau/d have the physical characteristics that can protect water quality and
functions of the stream on site(Exhibit 10J.
Staff has reviewed the stream buffer ave aging proposal for Stream A, and agrees
that the proposa/ meets all requirements found in RMC 4-3-D5Q.1.1. However, the
pravided stream study does nox ndude a demonstration of rampliance with criteria
faund in RMC 4-3-OSQ.H.2. Therefore, staff was unable to verify that through the
enhancement of the buffer and the use of low rmpact deve/opment strateg es the
reduced buffer wi!!functian at a higher level than the standard buffer. While staff
believes the proposa!for a reduced buffer wouldn't negatively impact the function of
the stream, this cou/d not be affirmed. As a resu/t staff is recommer ding a condition
of apprava!requiring the applicant subrrait a revised Mi igation lan which ac dresses
the criteria faund in RMC 4-3-OSO.H.2 demonstrating the reduced buffer wauldn't
negatively impact the function af the stream. The revised mitigation plan sha!l be
submitted to, arad approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to
engineering permit approval.
HEX Staff Report Avana Ridge PUD_LUA15-000894
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
City of Rentan Department of Community&Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recornmendation
AVANA RIDGE PUD LUA15-000$94,PPUD,ECF
Report of May 3, 2016 Page 15 of 44
Stream Alteration Proposal:
RMC 4-3-QSO.l.2.a al/ows for the construction of non-vehicu/ar transportatian
crossings. The applicant has prnposed a pedestrian bridge trai'crossing ave Stream
A. Pursuant to RMC, crossings may be permitted by the reviewing official on/y where
the applicant dernonstrates al!of the foltowing:
i. The proposed route is determined to haue the least impact on the
environment, while r»eeting City Camprehensive P1an Transportation
Element requirements and standards in RtV1C 4-6-d6Q;and
ii. The crossing minim+zes interruption of downstream movement af wood and
gravel;and
iii. Transpartation facilities in buffer areas shal not run paralle/ to the water
body; and
iv. Crossings occur as near to perpendicu/ar with the water body as possible;
and
v. Crossings are designed according to the Washingtan Department af Fish and
Wildlife Fish Water Crossing Design Guidelines, 2013, and the National
Marine Fisheries Service Guidelines far 5a/monid Passage at Stream
Crossings, 2000, as may be updated, or equiva/ent manuals as determined
by the Administrator;and
vi. Seasona work wrndows are r etermineci and made a condition of appraval;
and
vii. Mitigation criterra of subsection L af this Sertion are met.
The proposed path wou/d connect the north and south sides af the buffer, crossing
over Stream A, via a pedestrian bridge. The bridge would also serve to cannect ti e
propased structures to the proposed apen space on the souti ern portian of the site.
The bridged trai! crossing would be /ocated within a narrow portion of the stream,
above the ftow path of water, and wou/d be perpendicular to t e water body.
Staff has reviewed the a/teration proposa/for the bridge across Stream A, and agrees
that the proposal meets all requirements found in RMC 4-3-OSO,l.2. However, the
provided stream study does not include a demonstration of compliance with criteria
found in RMC 4-3-QSO.H.2. While staff be/ieves the propased bridged crossing
wouldn`t negatively impact the function of the stream, staff was unable to verify. As a
result staff is recammending a candition af approval requiring the applicant submit a
revised Niitigation p/an which addresses the criteria found in RMC 4-3-OSO.H.2
demonstrating the bridged crossing wou dn't negative y impact the function of the
stream. The revised mitigation plan shall be submitred to, and approved by, the
Current P/anning Project Manager prior to engineering permit approval.
ina/ly, in arder to preserve and protect the stream and its associated buffer staff alsa
recommends the applicant establish a Native Growth Protection Easement over that
part af the site encompassing the stream and buffer prea and place split rail fencing
and signage along the outer edge of the 6uffer. i"he Fina/ Mitigatian p/an shaH
include all specifications far fencing and signage and shall be submitted to, and
approved fay, the Current Planning Project Manager priar ta engineering permit
appraval.
25. PUD Applicabi{ity Standards: Rursuant to RMC 4-9-1508, any applicant seeking to permit development
which is not limited by the strict application af the City's zaning, parking, street, and subdivisian
regulations in a comprehensive manner shall be subject to applicability standards. The follawing table
HEX StaffReport Avana Ridge PUp LUA15-000894
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
City ofRenton Departme t of Community& Econamic Development Nearing Examiner Recommendation
AVANA R/DGE PUD LUA15-000894,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-
1506:
Compliance PUD Appficability Criteria and Analysis
In approving a planned urban development,the City may modify any of the standards
Compilant if of RMC 4-2, RMC 4-3-100, RMC 4-4, RMC 4-6-06Q, and RMC 4-7. All modifications
COA(I1'1Qq5 Of shall be considered simultaneously as part of the planned urban development.
Approval Are St ff eomment:All standards requested ro 6e madified are contarned within the cade
Met sectrons tisted a6ove with the exception af the Private Open Space modification. See
discussion under fiOF 28:PUD Development Standards, Private Qpen Space.
An applicant may request additionai madifications from the requirements of the
Rentan Municipal Code. Approval for modifications other than those specifically
Campliantif described in subsection RMC 4-9-1506.2.a shall be appraved prior to submittal of a
Candittons o preliminary planned urban development plan.
Approva!are
Mer St ff ent: A!! requested modificatians are outlined a6ave under Finding 13.
Staff is in support af al! requested modifications, with the exception of the private
open space request, if all conditians of approval are complied wirh.
A planned urban development may not autharize uses that are inconsistent with
thase uses aliowed by the underlying zane, or averlay district, or other location
i restriction in RMC TitEe 4, including, but not limited to: RMC 4-2-010 to 4-2-080, 4-3-
010 to A-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 dwelEing units shall not exceed the density al(owances of the
applicab(e base or overlay zone or bonus eriteria in chapter 4-2 or 4-9 RMC; hawever,
averaging density acrass a site with multiple zoning classifications may be al#owed if
approved by the Community and Ecanomic Deveiapment Administrator.
Staff Comment: The proposal complies with the density requirements of the zone. See
discussion in FOF 23:Zaning Development Standard Compliance.
26. PUQ Decision Criteria Analysis: Pursuant to RMC 4-9-150D, each planned urban develapment sha l
demonstrate compliance with the Planned Urban Development decision criteria. The following table
contains project elements intended to camply with the Planned Urban Deve{opment decision criteria,
as outlined in RMC 4-9-150D:
Compliance PUD Decisian Criteria and Analysis
Demonstra#ion 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 praposed development wN! be
superior to that which would result withaut a planned urban development, and that
the development will not be unduly detrimental to surrounding properties.
Staff Camment: If the canditions of approval are met, the applicant will have
demanstrated cornpliance with the PUD regu/at+ons and the Comprei ensive P/an. The
applieant will have demonstrated that the development is super+or ta that wftich
wau/d resuJt without a PUD and requested modffications will not 6e detrimenta/ to
surrounding properties. The deve/opmen[ of this site as a PUD results in a super+or
design than what would resu{t by the strict application of the Development Standards
HEX Staff Report Avana Ridge PUD LUA15-000894
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
City of Renton Department of Cornmunity& Economic Development Mearing Examiner Recommendatian
AVANA RIDGE PUD LUA15-000$94,PPUD,ECf
a .-_._--
Report of May 3, Z016 Page 17 of 44
for the fo/lowing reasons: natura/ features, averall design, and buildin and site
design. The proposed design provides far the retention of the natural grade on site,
significant trees and a noteworthy amaunt of landscaping and re-vegetation.
Additionally, the plan provides for bath active and passive recreation spaces
significantly beyond the standard cade requirements. The praposed design can
provide for the aforementioned amenities because of the modifications requested in
F F 13:Requested Modifications from RMC above.
The site is designated Residential Hrgh Density (MD) on the Camprehensive P/an tand
Use Map. See Compreherasive P(an analysis under FQF 22: CQmprehensive Plan
Analysis.
Pubiic Benefit Required: Applicants shall demanstrate that a proposed development will pravide
specifically identified benefits that clearly outweigh any adverse impacts or undesirable effects of the
propased p(anned urban development, particuiarly those adverse and undesirable impacts to
surrounding properties, and that the proposed development will provide one or mare of the foilowing
benefits than would result from the development of the subject site withaut the proposed pianned
urban development:
a. Critical Areas: Protects critica!areas that would nat be protected otherwise to the
N/A same degree as without a planned urban developrr ent.
b. Naturat Features: Preserves, enhances, or rehabilitates natural features of the
subject praperty, such as significant woodlands, native vegetation, tapography,
or noncritical area wildlife habitats, not otherwise required by ather City
regulatians.
Staff Comment: The primary natura/features of the property include retention of 114
existing trees in the critica/ area, in addition to the 46 trees proposed for retention
outside the critical area. The number of trees proposedfar retentian resu/ts 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 starm drainage facilities caused by the destabilization
Compliant i}' of soils. Additional/y, the cluster of trees praposed for retention wou/d serve to abate
Canditian o}' naise, provide wind protection, and reduce air pallution.
Approval is
Met F'n«Y. the large /andscaped eommunity open space provided at the southern portion
of the site totaling 19,795 square feet and the 49,918 square eet o critica(area and
associated buffer wou/d remain in a vegetativejopen space state providing a
sanctuary for the animals that reside in tne area.
The trees proposed for retention may be +rnpacted after initial clearing,final grading,
due ta changing site conditions. Therefore staff recommends, as a conditian af
approval, the applrcant be required ta provide, to the Curre» Planning Praject
Manager, tree retention inspectianjmonitvring reports after initia! cleoring, fina!
grading, and annually for twa years by a quaJified professronal farester. The
inspettianJmonitarrng reports shalt identify any retarned trees that devetap problems
due to changing site conditrans and prescribe mrtigation.
c. Pubfic Facilities: Provides public facilities that could nat be required by the City for
NjA development of the subject property without a planned urban development.
d. Use of Sustainable Development Techniques: Design which results in a
j,q sustainable devefopment; such as LEED certification, energy efficiency, use of
alternative energy resources, low impact development techniques,etc.
HEX Staff Report Avana Ridge PUD_LUA15-000894
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
City of Renton Department of Community& Economic Development Hearing Exominer Recomtnendation
AVANA R/DGE PUD LUA15-000894,PPUD,ECF
Report of May 3, 2p16 Page 18 of 44
e. Overall Design: Pravides a planned urban development design that is superiar to
the design that would resuit from develapment of the subject praperty withaut a
planned urban development.A superiar design may inctude the foliowing:
i.Open SpacelRecreatian.
aj Provides increased open space or recreational facilities beyond standard code
requirements and cansidered equivalent to features that wauld offset park mitigation
fees in Resolution 3082; and
b) Provides a quality environment through either passive or active recreatian facilities
and attractive common areas, including accessibility to buildings from parking areas
and public walkways;or
Staff amment: The applicant has provided a variety of recreation apportunities and
apen spaces throughout the development. Without the use of the proposed PUD the
applicant has indicated that the proposa!wauld have likety elimrnated the opportunity
for a cancentrated recreation space.
The applicant is praposing the construction of a large landscaped community open
space at the southern portion of the site. The community open space incorporates
active and passive space, with a central connecting sidewa/k linking the space to the
public righC-of-way. A central path and complementing pedestrian bridge crossing
wou/d be constructed to create an access point ta the community apen space from the
surface parking lat. The large area wou/d be ample usable space far passive recreation
and special events such as picnics,parties, weddings, movie night in the park, cancerts,
Compliant if etc;. promoting community invo/vement. Additionally, the space would take
Conditions af pdvantage af and dispiay the attractive territarial views ta the West. Finally, the space
Apprava/are w utd serve to preserve and enhance existing vegetation and natura/ character
M= through tree preservatian, remova! of extensive invasive B/ackberries, and
replacement with native understory vegetation to be maintained through the /ife of
the deve/apment.
The space features a large, central, gently sloping /awn for casua! seating and
recreation. The lawn is ariented to s/ope down towards an open pavilion whose
intended use includes perfnrmances, and cammunity gatherings. The pavilion is also
sited to capiure andframe the attractive territoria/views to the West.
A smatl fenced off-Jeash dog run is provrded at the east srde of the site between the
buffer and the parking lot among a grove af existing trees ro 6e preserved. The dog
run would be a pervrous woad-chip surface.
The app/icant has indicated that there is an opporrunity to include interpretive
signage/information regarding differentiating elements (trees, landscaping, drainage,
arci itecture, etc.j of the proposed development at a strategic place(sJ on site. The use
of interpretive signage wau/d result in an increase in public benefit for the overall
project. Ti erefore, staff recommends as a condition of appraval the applicant provide
interpretive signagejinformation regarding differentiating elements (trees,
landscaping, drainage, architecture, etc.) of the praposed development at a strategic
p(ace(s) on site. The site p/an depicting the signage sha l be submitted to, and
approved by, the Current P/anning Project Manager prior to building permit/ina/P/at
apprava/wh+chever comes first.
The resident amenity lounge located on Leve/1 of the West building takes advantage
of outdoor space and integrates an outdoor plaza intended for gathering spaces,
HEX Staff Report Avana Ridge PUD_LUA15-000894
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
City of Rentan Department of Community&Economic Development Hearing ExamiRer Recomrrrendotion
AVANA R/DGE PUD LUA15-OOpS94,PPUD,ECF
Report of May 3, 2016 Page 19 of 44
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 wou/d normal/y be cansidered the "side" elevation of the
project.
ii. Circulation/Screenin: Provides superior circulation patterns or lacation or
screening of parking facilities;or
Staff Comment: The proposal includes through access resulting in a superior circutation
pattern ro that of two separate entrances into the site wfrich do not connect. tn
additian ta through vehicular access the applicant is praposing to provide street
improvements along SE 172r°St, 8enson Road 5, and portions of 8ensan Drive S.
The project wou/d provide sufficient vehicle access for the proposed development and
the proposed public and private streets could accommodate emergency vehicles and
the traffic demand created by the development if all conditians of appraval are
complied with.
Atl surface parking areas are rnterna! to the project and are pulled away from
neigh6oring praperiies. Where grades are steep, landscaping is proposed to screen
sur ace parking as rrruch as possi6le from pedestrian paths atang the perimeter of the
devetopment.
internal to the site, pedestrian pathways continue throughout the deve/opment along
the interna/ caurtyard and through the open space areas. The site design promotes
social interacrion and wou/d promote a leve/of safety achievab/e through the use of a
PUD. If all conditions of approval are complied with, the pedestrian circu/ation system
throughout the development would be well designed, would encourage wa/kability
throughout the neighbarhaod, and potentially reduce the vehicu/ar traffic and impacfis
on the neighboring community.
iii. Landscapin lScreenin: Provides superior landscaping, buffering, ar screening in or
around the propased planned urban development; or
S aff Comment: CanceptualJy, the proposed Jandscape plan for the entire site is
superior to what wauld be required by Rentan's Municipal Code (Exhibir 3).
Thematically the praposed landscapirrg weaves in a cansistent theme thraughout the
deve/opment and ties a!1 proposed open spaces together. The propased /andscape
plan inc/udes diverse candidate planting Jist: vine map/e, coral bark lapanese mapie,
katsura, Autumn briltiance serviceberry, dogwood, Washington hawthorn, flowerrng
crabapple, sargent cherry, Japcxnese snow6etl, A/asko yeNaw cedar, cypress, pine, fir,
Western cedcrr, and rraountain hemlock trees. The pra osed shru6 p/antrng list indudes
more than thirty shru6 options. The applicant would be required ta provide cx detaited
landscaping p/an prior to engineering permit approval with specifrc plant details.
The building and parking Iat/andscaping has been designed to meet severa/objectives
including: reductions in the overall sca/e of the building; breaking up of/arge areas of
parking lot pavement with interiar and perimeter landscaping; perimeter landscape
buffer and screening; help define circulatian routes and frame or enhance views;
provide environmenta benefits such as shade, improved air qua/ity, natural
stormwater treatment, and wildlife habitat.
Underground sprink/er systems are required ta be installed and maintained far al!
landscaped areas. The sprink/er system is required to pravide full water coverage of
the planted areas specified on the plan.
HEX Staff Report Avana Ridge PUD LUA15-000894
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
City of Renton Department ofCommunity&Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendatiar
AVANA R/DGE PUD LUA15-000$94,_PPUD,ECF
Report of May 3, 2016 Page 20 of 44
Details for potential fencing were not provided with the application. Therefore, a
detailed fencing plan shal/ be provided identifying the location and specifications far
a1J fencing on site. A!lfencing shal/be made af quality materia/s in keeping with the
architectural aesthetic of the proposed structures. The fencing plan shal/be submitted
ta, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit
approval.
iv. Site and BuNdin Desi n: Provides superior architectural design, placement,
relationship or orientation of structures,ar use of solar energy;or
Sta{Comment: The p/acement of the bui dings an s+te would al/ow for natural ligirting
opportunities, and is respectfu/ of tfre neighboring residential-sca ed neighbaring
properties througi the use of modest/y-sloped roaf forms and adherence to building
set-back and landscape requ+remer ts.
The building placement al/ows 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 elernents screened.
The architecrural design af the praposed residenticrl building camplements the
character af the surrounding community through the use o residentiaily-scaled
windows, frequent r»odulation of the facades, and pedestrian friendly access points,
signage, and proposed p/an ings.
The p/acement of the buildings a/ong SE 172"Sfi allaws buffers and additiona/distance
from the other two rights-of-way (Benson Rd S and Bensan Drive SJ alang the
perimeters of the deve/apment. The buildings also serve to screen the parking from the
residential properties to the IVarth, and are pulled awayfrom the neighboring day care
property to the East.
The applicant has reduced the scale of the develapment with the use af twa structures
as opposed to the consolidation of units into one structure. The two structures also
serve ta reduce cangestion on the site and allow for multiple views as well as
modulatedfacades cvmpared to one cantinuous structure.
A!f visible buildrng materials would fo!!aw a tohesive calar scheme. A variety of
materials and colors are 6eing prapased as part of the calor palette for the building
design aesfhetic. Materials wauld have a variety of patterns and textures induding
pane! cortfiguration, harizont a! board configuration and revea! patterns consistent
with window placement and proportion. The materia/ palette indudes concrete
masonry, brick, rnetal canopy, cast-in place concrete, fiber cemer t boar d, and waod
e/ements. A!l concrete walls wiN be treated with texturing andJor reveals. Artwark is
also propased throughout the community open space and at speci ic burldrng fa ade
locations.
Hawever, opportunities exist to enhance the building design in order to provide a
superior presence a/ang SE 172"St. As such, staffrecommends a candition of approva!
requiring the provisian of addit+ona/ground leve/details jsee discussian under FO 29:
esign District Review, Ground tevel Detai s).
Building and Site Design.
Compliant if
Candition vf i. Perimeter: Size, scale, mass, character and architeetural design along the planned
Approvat r's urban development perimeter provide a suita6le transition ta adjacent or abutting
Met Iower densityJintensity zanes. Materials shall reduce the patential for light and glare.
HEX Staff Report Avana Ridge PUD_LUA15-000894
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
City of Renton Department of Commu ity& Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation
AVANA R/DGE PUD F LUA15-000894,PPUD,ECF
Report of May 3, 2016 Page 21 of 44
Staff Camment:
The proposal inctudes ample buffers between the proposed structures and property
ines through the use o,f additional setbacks from code rrtinirrrums. 5pecifr"cally, atong
the eastern praperty line the increases in setbacks allow for naturaf daytightrng
opportunities for the daycare. Additronally, landscape buffers wouid provide a soft
transition between building and daycare.
On the south perimeter, the buildings are set back significantly from a/l property lines,
and allow t he park amenity to be unobstructed in its day lighting opportuni#ies. Due to
the location of the buildings to the north af the open space, na shadows from the
proposed buildings wou/d be cast at any time of year or day. !3n tire West perimeter,
the build+ng wou d have minimal impact to views across the site, as bath buildings are
oriented NorthjSouth.
On the North perimeter, the adjacent residential dwellings would be screened from the
surface parking lot thraugh the use of landscape buffers, building modulatian and new
propased street trees. The canceptual landscape plan demonstrates the frequency,
type and number of he street trees and interior p/antings proposed. These techniques
wou/d successful/y serve to mitigate the fength of the two buildings and reduce impact
to existing neighboring properties if al/conditions af approval are complied with.
Comptiance with aN recommended conditions af approvat would provide a suitable
transizion fror» the adjacent lawer density srngle family residential uses to the more
intense commerdal and multi-famrly uses located to the South and West.
tandscaping and rerracing has been incarporated a/ang Benson Drive 5 in order to
detract attention fram the parking area which may be visible fram this paint of view.
The new development is anticipated to fit into the existing developed fabr ic o} the
neighborhood. Staff wi!l be recammertding, as a condition of approvc l, the applicant
pravide a materials board to the satisfaction of the Current P/anning Project Manager
see discussion in FOF 29: Design District Review). The materia/s board would also be
used to canfirm that siding materials are non-reflective whkh wot ld reduce glare.
Each unit would have windows, which could s/ight/y ref/ect light from the building but
nat to an extent beyond any typica!mulrifamily develapment.
The applicant has inditated that the proposa!would not resuit in excessive glare anto
adjacent properties, in the sub+nitted design dfstrict compliance narrative. However, a
lighting ptan was not submirted with the apptication package, as such, staff
recommends a candition of appraval that requires the applicant ta pravide a lighti»g
plan that adequately provides for public safery without casting excessive gtare an
adjacent properties; crt the time of engineering permit review. Pedestrian scale and
dawnGghting shaN be used in alt cases to assure safe pedestrian and vehicutar
movement, un ess alternative pedestrian sca/e righting has been approved
adminrstrative/y or is specifitally listed as exempt from provisions located in RMC 4-4-
Q75 Lighting, Exteriar On-Site.
ii. Interior Desi n: Promotes a coordinated site and building design. Buiidings in
groups should be related by coordinated materials and roof styles, but contrast shouid
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.
Staff Comrnent: The praposed buildings appear to have been designed to be built in a
coordinated fashion, utilizing a cansistent set of materia/s. Differentiation throughout _
NEX Staff Report Avana Ridge PUD LUA15-000894
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
City ofRenton Department of Community& Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation
AVANA RIDCiE PUD LUA15-000894,PPUD,ECF
Report of May 3, 2016 Page 22 of 44
I the design is provided with the use of different materials and colors.
The interior design of both buildings has been integrated with the overall site design.
The primary orientation of the units are to the North and South to take advantage of
daylighting opportunities. Where the buildings meet East/West site borders, dwelling
units have been rotated to face easterly and westerly. The intent of this interior design
technique is to provide visually pleasing elements on allfour sides of the building.
Through the use of roofs s/oped at 2:12, rather than 4:12, the sloped roof portions of
the building reduce the shadow cast on the residentia/properties 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 approval, the
applicant provide a materials board to the satisfaction of the Current Planning Project
Manager (see discussion in FOF 29: Design District ReviewJ. The materials board
wou/d also be used to confirm the use of varied materials and architectural detailing
for the proposal. Additional/y, staff wil/ 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, Ground Level DetailsJ.
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.
Requested to
be Modified iv. Provides safe, efficient access for emergency vehicles.
Throuqh the Reauested to be modified throuph the PUD.
PUD
Staff Comment: The applicant submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis prepored by TraffEx,
dated February 2, 2016(Exhibit 15J. The provided TIA was found to meet the intent of
the TIA guidelines and is generally acceptab/e 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"d St entrance and potential
impacts to the neighboring singlefamily residentia/development to the north as we/l
as additional impacts to queueing delays at Benson Rd 5 and Benson Drive S (Exhibit
15J.
Based on public comments received, staff required an evaluation by an independent
qualified professiona( regarding the app/icant'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
17J. In general, the secondary review affirmed the overall trip distribution patterns.
HEX Staff Report Avana Ridge PUD LUA15-000894
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
Crty of Renton Department of Community& Economic Qeveloprrtent hlearing Examiner Recommendation
AVANA R/06E PUD f lUA15-000894,PPUD,ECf
Report of May 3, 2Q16 Page 23 af 44
The report however, recommended revisions be made to the traffic counts to consider
the worse-case traffic scenaria given the observed intersectian queuing at 108`h Ave 5E
and Benson Rd 5. The applicant provided a memo, dated March 26, 2016, in response
ta the recommendations induded in the secondary review (Exhibit 18J. The memo
generally concurred with the recommendatians of the peer review wrth the exceptian
for the removal of the site driveway access restrictions to SE 172nd Szreet. The
applicant's respanse 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 origina!Traffr'c lmpact Anatysis(Exhibit 15), lndependent Secondary
Review (Exhibit 17), and the applicant's response rrtemo (Exhibit 18) staff provided
applicabte corrtrnents below ar each Transportation subject.
Access: The applicant is proposing twa points of ingress and egress into the site in
order ta meet Fire Department requirements for access. The applicant praposes one
entrance off of SE 172nd St between the praposed buildings, and one entrance aff af
Benson Road South. Ti e two access points converge to farm drive-through access
througi the site, Severa/ public camments were received requesting access be
eliminated from SE 172°d St, in order ta mitigate anticipated cut through traffic on
neighboring roads to the north. In addii-ion, concerns were raised regarding the
b/acking of the propased access, along 8enson ftd S, during PM peak hour traff+c. The
applicant has praposed a driveway configuration which would attempt ta restrict
movements to /eft-injright —out anly as way ta mitigate cut thraugh traffic on
residential streets ta the north.
Access and propased mitigatian, was analyzed as part of the Independent 5econdary
Review prepared by TENW(Exhibit 17J. TENW general/y affirmed the trip distribution
assumptions made by TraffEx and substantiated the need for two access points. With
respect to praposed mitigation, TraffEx determined that the praposed SE 172"d St
driveway configuration would be ineffective in limiting impacts to neighboring
residential streets ta the nnrth. In addition, it is anticipated ihat restrictions to the SE
172"d driveway wauld encourage u-turns and associated impacts to existing residential
driveways a/ong the narth side of 5E 172"d St. Therefare, staff is recommending a
candition af Hearing Examiner approval, the elimination of the proposed access
restrictions alang SE 172"d St in order ta provide ful/access along SE 172"d St. A revised
site plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Plan Reviewer prior ta
engineering permit approva.
In order to address anticipated impacts on neighl oring streets eaused by cut-thraugh
traffic, a traffk ca/ming SEPA mitigatian measure was required in lieu vf the foregoing
site access restriction (Exhibit 20J. Specifically, E/ectranic Speed Radar Signs are
required to be instatled in the northbound direction on both 106kh Ave SE and 104`'Ave
SE.
teve! of Service: It rs anticipated that the proposed develapment would generate
approximately 492 average daily trips with 38 AM peak-haur trips and 4b PM peak-
hour trips. The provided report analyzed three intersectron/ocatrons(Exhibit 15):
Intersection 1: Site Access/SE 172"d St
lntersection 2: 108`h Ave SEjBenson Rd SjSE 172"d St
lntersection 3: Site Access/Benson Rd S/108"'Ave SE
NEX Staff Report Avana Ridge Pl1Q_LUA15-OQ0894
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
City of Renton Department of Comr unity& Ecanomic Qevelopment Hearing Exarniner Recornmendatron
AVAfVR RlDGE PUD LllA15-OQ4894,PPUD,ECF
r
Report of May 3, 2016 Page 24 af 44
The provided analysis notes that al/intersections will operate at an acceptable level of
service with the proposed development. Therefore, the proposa/ wou/d not be
required to mitigate at any intersection. Analysis of future conditior s address
cumu/ative impacts of the proposed project and traffic growth in the study area.
Traffic signal warranty analysis was also provided at the intersection af SE 172 d St and
Bensan Rd 5. The report states there is no need for a signa/ at the intersection as a
result of the project.
Nowever, the 7ranspartation Department conducted a mode! to assess any possible
salution to address the dtizen's concerns regarding the backing af queue on Benson
Road fram the intersection with SR 515 tQ SE 172" Street. tlnfortunately, staff is
unabte to provide an upt ate on the model conducted at this time.
Increased traffic created by ti e development wauld 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 far a building
permit in December of 2015. The fee in 2015 was assessed at $2,214.44 per new
muttifamily unit. The fee is estimated at approximate/y $164,000. The fee shal/ be
payable to the City ai the time of building permit issuance.
Site Distance: The provided 7'raffic Impact Analysis states sight distance requirements
are met at the site access driveway anta SE 172 d St and with vegetation trimming,
within the right of way, at the site access driveway to Benson Rd S(Exhibit 15J.
Street lmprovements: Street Impravements are regulated by RMC 4-6-060 – Street
Standards.See 6elow:
Bensan Drive S – eenson Drive S (SR 515) is a principa/ arteria/ and a state route
roadway a/ong 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 p/anter
strip existing a/ong the Benson Drive 5 street frontage. Per code, frontage
improvements including 0.5 feet wide curb and gutter, an 8foot wide landscaped
planter, an 8foot wide sidewalk, street lighting, and storm water impravements are
required on principal arteria/ streets. The applicant is praposing to maintain the
existing right-of-way. Due ta critical areas along portions of the frontage, the
applicant has requested a modification through the PUD to allaw the sidewa/k to
remain in the current location for thase areas where critica/areas are locared.
Staff is in support of the requested modification. ey maintaining the existing sidewa/k,
the need for terraced retaining walls would be eliminated and impacts to the stream
buffer a/ong Benson Drive 5 wou/d be minimized. The applicant has also proposed a
walking path interna/ ta the site to promote pedestrian connectivity. Staff
recommends a candition of approva/requiring the applicant to dedicate 1foot behind
the sidewalk in addition to right-of-way dedicatian for luminaire foundations along
Benson Drive S. The dedication shall be required prior to temporary occupancy
approval.
Bensan Rd S – &enson Rd S is a minor arteria! atong the projeet's east property 1ine.
Malf-street frontage irrtprovements are required to be provided on the side af the
street fronting the deve/opment. Per code, the minimum right-af-way width required
far a minor arterial is 91 feet. The avaitable right-of-way width on the &ensan Rd S
frontage, per the King County assessor rrtap, is 100 feet and wautd not necessitate
additional rr'ght-of-way dedicatron. 7he required paved width on this street is 44 feet,
which ir c/udes three travel lanes and a Sfoot wide bike /ane ort 6orh sides o the
HEX Staff Repart Avana Ridge PUD LUA15-OQ4894
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
Gty ofRenton Department of Community 8c Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recorrtmendatian
AVANA R/DGE PUD r LlJA15-OQ0894,PPUD,ECF
Report of May 3,2016
iV
Page 25 of 44
street. Frontage improvements wauld include the following: a O.S faot wide curb and
gutter, an 8foot wide landscaped planter, an 8foot wide sidewa/k,street lighting, and
stormwater improvements are required. The applicant is proposing street
improvements along eenson Rd 5 which camply with code.
SE 172"d St-5E 272"d St is a commercial mixed use and industrial access street along
rhe project's north property line. Hat street frontage improverrtents are requrred to be
prc vided on the side of the street fronting the development. Per code, the minrmum
right-ofway width required for a camtnerciat mr"xed use and industrial actess street is
b9 eet. The availab/e right-of-way wrdth on the SE 172"d St frontage, per the King
Caunty assessor map, is 60 feet and would require additional right-of-way dedication.
Frontage improvements would include the foltowing:an 8foot parking lane, a 0.5 foot
wide curb and gutter, an &font wide landscaped planter, a 6foot wfde sidewa/k,
street lighting, and stormwater improvements are required. The applicant is
proposing street impravemen s, along SE .272"d St, whrch comp y with cade. The
applicant however has requested a modificatJon rhrough rhe PUQ to reduce the
required dedication from 4.5 feet to 3 feet. Staff is recommendir g apprnva! of the
requested modification. Staff recommends a condition of approval requiring the
applicant to dedicate 1foot behind the sidewalk in additian to right-of-way dedicatian
for luminaire foundatians olang SE 172"d St. The dedication shall be required prior ta
temporary occupancy approval,
Tem orary /rr+t acts: Given the concentration of deve/opment to occurring in the
immediate vicinity of the praject site, staff anticipates that the propased praject wauld
contribute to shart term impacts to rhe City's street system. Therefore, staff is
recommending a condition af approva! requiring the applicant create a pubJic
outreach sign in coardination with City of Renton ta cammunicate with road users, the
genera!public, area residences and 6usinesses, and appropriate public entities about
praject infarmation;road conditrans rn the wark zone area;and the safety and mabifity
ef,fects of the work zone. The srgn shal! be ptaced an site prior to construction
commencemen.
Pedestrian Impravements: As part of the propased project, sidewa/ks wau/d be
constructed a/ang the frontage af the site and wau/d connect to the existing sidewalk
system. Hawever, safety cancerns have been raised with respect to pedestrian
cannectrvity off site due ta missing sidewa/k linkages approaching the intersectron of
8enson Rd S and SE 172"St. Given the number of units propased it is very like/y that a
large influx af people would utiJize the public sidewa/k system as weN as the
anticipated schaa! 6us stop across 8e»son Rd S. Providing pedestrian connecCions to
abutting properties is an impartant aspett of cannectivity and encourages pedestrian
activity and is required to be considered when reviewing the subject appliration. The
conditio» of tl e existing protruded cur6, approaching the inrersection of SE 172"d St
and Benson Rd S, has been targely disturbed and does not pravide a safe route for
school children and or fesidents watking ta and from the srte. As a resutt, a SEPA
mitigation measure was issued requiring the applrcant to pravide an off-site sidewalk,
along the south side of SE 172"d Sf and the wesi'side of Benson Rd S, approaching the
intersettion (Exhibit 2QJ. A street/rghting analysis is a/so required to be conducted by
the deve/oper at the southwest corner of the intersection af SE 272"d St and Benson Rd
S.
Concurrency-Staff recommends a transportatian concurrency approva/based upon a
test of the citywide Transportatian Plan, cansideration af growth levels included in the
tOS-tested T ansportation Plan, payment of a Transportation Mitigation 'ee, and an
NEX Staff Report Avana Ridge PUQ LfJA15-000894
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
City ofRenton Department of Community& Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation
AVANA RIOGE PUD LUA15-000894,PPUD,ECF
Report of May 3, 2016 Page 26 of 44
I application of site specific mitigation (Exhibit 23J.
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
J
Police and Fire: Police and Fire Prevention staff indicated that sufficient resources exist
to furnish services to the proposed development; if the applicant provides Code
required improvements andfees.
The preliminary fire f/ow 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
connection for standpoints and sprinkler systems.
A Fire Impact Fee, based on new multifamily units is required in order to mitigate the
proposal's potentia/ impacts to City emergency services. The applicant would be
required to pay an appropriate Fire Impact Fee. The fee is payab/e to the City as
specified by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of building permit application. A
i building permit application was submitted in December of 2015. The 2015 fee was
assessed at$463.66 per multifamily.
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 wou/d 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 multifamily unit.
Schools: It is anticipated that the Renton Schoo! District can accommodate all
additional students generated by this proposal at the following schoo/s: Cascade
Elementary (1.2 mi/e from the subject siteJ, Nelson Middle School (0.8 miles from the
subject siteJ and Lindbergh High School(2.1 miles from the subject siteJ.
Future students are designated to be transported to school via bus for Elementary, and
Compliant if High School. Students would be within walking distance to designated midd/e school.
Condition of For safe wa/king conditions, see discussion under FOF 26: PUD Criteria and Analysis,
Approval is ' Circulation.
Met
A School Impact Fee, based on new mulrifamily 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 was submitted in December of 2015. The
2015 fee was assessed at $1,339.00 per multifamily 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 B/ack 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 a/ong the east
HEXStaff Report Avana Ridge PUD LUA15-000894
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
City ofRenton pepartment of Community&Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recammendation
AVANA R/DGE PUD LUA15-000894,PPUD,ECf
Report of May 3, 2016 Page 27 of 44
property line. Runnoff currently discharges at the sites western property line, at two
lacations, and heads north through a conveyance system in Bensan Drive S. The flows
eventually cross under Bensan Drive S and conveyed a westerly direction in a series of
pipes and catch basis eventually autfa/ling into Panther Creek.
This project is required to comply with Che 2009 King County Surface Water Nlanual
and the City of Renton Arnendments to the KCSWM, Chap£er 2 and 2. Based ort the
City's flow contra/ map, this site falls within the Flaw Cantro/ Duration Standard,
Forestec Conditions. This project is subject ta fu/l drainage review. 7he applicant
subm tted a Preliminary Drainage Repart prepared by D.R.Strang, dated Decerra6er 28,
20.25(Exhlblr 9).
The report also+ncludes a detailed summary of the pre and post developed conditions.
The si-armwater detent+on and water qualify treatment wou/d be provided within a
camb+ned detention/water quality vault under the parking area/ocated in the western
portron af the srte. The combined deientionjwater quality vault wauld be followed by a
media filtration system to accommadate the Enhanced Water Quality Treatment
requirerrrents for mult+family deve/opmer r. For water quaNty features that are nat in
the City Amendments or the 2009 KCSWDM, and which have the Genera/ Use Jevel
designatian through the state Department of Ecology's Techno/ogy Assessment
Pratocol — Ecology jTAPE) program, an adjustment pracess request is requtred.
Conditrons assaciated with Frelrminary PUD approva/wii! likely include a requirement
for the subrrrittal, and appraval, of an Adjustment in order to utilize water quality
features whrch are nat in the City Amendments or the 2009 KCSWDM.
Water and Sanitary Sewer.
Staff Comment: Water and sewer service is pravided by Soos Creek Water and Sewer
Distrrct. A water and sewer availability certificate from the Soos Creek uti/ity district
was submitted to the City with the /and use appfication. Approved water and sewer
plans from Soos Creek are required to be pravic ed during utility construction permit
approval.
Ciusters or Building Groups and Open Space: An appearance of openness created by
ciustering, separation of buiiding groups, and through the use of we11-designed open
space and landscaping, or a reductian in amount of imperviaus surfaces not otherwise
required.
Staff Camment: The proposed deve/opment is designed specifica(ly to increase the
access and opportunity for open space. The multiple open spaces throughaut the site
are wel/designed and provide a variety of recreatiana/oppartunities both passive and
active. The proposed structures are clustered to the interiar of the site allowing far
large open spaces.
The Pt1D places the buitdings paraNet to the neighbaring properties to the north. This
rrtaximizes the oppartunity for surface parking screening and a targe, uninterrupted
open space to the south. Due to the presence of a stream a/ong the lawer area of the
site, a natural barder exists. A pedestrian bridge crosses the stream v tink the open
space and the residenria/developments.
The overall project has less impervious surface than otherwise would be expected.
Based an the pravided TIR the site wauld contain appraximately 40.1% impervious
surfaces for the overa l site. This wou/d include building areas, associated wa/kways,
driveways, parking and drive aisles.
HEX StaffReport Avana Ridge PUD_LUA15-000894
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
Crty of Renton Department afCom^+unity&Economic Development Mearing Examrner Reeomrrrendation
AVANA R/DGE PUD L!lA15-000894,PPUD,ECF
Report of May 3,2016 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 praperties. Fences, insulation, walks, barriers, and landscaping are
used, as apprapriate, far the protectian 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. Windaws are
piaced at such a height or location or screened to provide sufficient privacy. Sufficient
iight and air are provided to each dweliing unit.
Staff Comment: Dwelling units are designed such that no two outdoor decks are
directly adjacent to one anather. Decks and buitding moc ulation have been designed
cohesively to allow scr-eening by the bui(ding to decks for resident privacy. Units within
each building are oriented to the narth and south, and mimic the residential character
of the properties to the north.
The applicant has ut+lized /andscaping and building screening techniques throughout
the development to promote privacy and discourage the use of window screening
elements as a privacy-creating element that b/ock apportunities far natural light.
tiving area windows are large and aim to bring as much natura!light inta every unit as
passib/e, whr`le bedroom w+ndorus are adequately sized for Iight while stHl providing
ample privacy through the use of raised sill heights. tandscape buffers aJso exist at
ground-level uses to aid in noise reductran from the street.
The placement of the buildings, oriented to apen space, provides separation and
privacy for the residents while maintaining a communal atmosphere.
See additional discc ssron under FOF 2:Design District Review, Ground Cevel Details.
Building Orientation: Provides buildings oriented to enhance views from within the
site by taking advantage of topography, building location and style.
Staff Comrr ent: The bu ldings are orientated toward the open spaces or toward the
offsite view vistas afforded in the naturally etevated site location. There is mrnimal
orientation toward offsite non view areas.
Parking Area Design: Provides parking areas that are campiemented by landscaping
and not designed in iong raws.The size of parking areas is minimized in comparisan to
typica( designs, and each area related to the group af buiidings served. The design
provides for efficient use of parking, and shared parking facilities where appropriate.
Staff Comment: Parking across the site wou/d be hand/ed in way as to nat have large
surface parking areas. Instead the applicant is proposing the use of parallel parking
stalls a/ong the perimeter of the proposed drive aisle.
The surface parking design is comprised of 9Q-degree statts to moke maxirrturrt use of
parkrng area and peovide clear, safe vehicular circutation that promotes visibrlity. The
use of compact stalls is minimr l and rs well under the code-required maximums for
compact stal/caunts.
Phasing; Each phase of the praposed development contains the required parking
NfA
spaces, apen space, recreation spaces, landscaping and utilities necessary for creating
and sustaining a desirabie and stable environment, so that each phase, together with
previaus phases,can stand alone.
HEX Staff Report Avaraa Ridge PUD_LUA15-OQ0894
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
i
City of Renton DepartmenT of Comrnunity&Economic Development Mearrng Exar»iner Recommendation
AVANA R/DG'E PUD LUA15-QQ0894,PPUD,ECF
Report of May 3, 2016 Page 29 af 44
28. PUp Development Standards: Pursuant ta RMC 4-9-150D.4, each planned urban development shall
demonstrate campliance with the development standards far the Planned Urban Development
regulations. The following table contains project elements intended ta camply with the devetopment
standards of the Planned Urban Development regulations, as outlined in RMC 4-9-150E:
Cornpliance PUD Develapment 5tandard Analysis
L COMMON OPEN SPACE STANQARD: Open space shall be concentrated in (arge usable areas and
may be designed to provide either active or passive recreatian. ftequirements far residential, mixed
use,commercial,and industrial developments are described below.
Standard: Mixed use residential and attached housing developments af ten (10) or
more dwelling units shail provide a minimum area of common space or recreation
area equal to fifty (50} square feet per unit. The common space area sha l be
aggregated to pravide usable area(sj far residents.The location, iayout, and propased
type of common space or recreation area shail be subject ta approval by the Hearing
Examiner. The required common open space sha11 be satisfied with one ar more of
the eiements listed below. The Nearing Examiner may require more than one of the
foliowing elements for developments having more than one hundred (100) units.
a Courtyards, plazas,or multipurpose open spaces;
b} Upper level cammon decks, patios, terraces, ar roaf gardens. Such spaces above
the street level mus# feature views ar amenities that are unique to the site and
provided as an asset to the deveiopment;
cj Pedestrian corridors dedicated ta passive recreation and separate fram the public
street system;
d} Recreation facilities including, but not limited to: #ennis/sports caurts, swimming
paols,exercise areas,game roam, ar other similar facifities;or
ej Chiidren's piay spaces.
Standard: Required landscaping, driveways, parking,or other vet icular use areas shal#
not be caunted toward tl e comman space requirement or be located in dedicated
outdoor recreatian ar cammon use areas.
Standard: Required yard setback areas shail not count toward outdoor recreatian 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 ful(y usabie area accessible to all
residents af the development.
Standard: Private decks, balconies, and private ground floar apen space shall not
count toward the common space/recreatian area requirement.
Standa d: Other required landscaping, and sensitive area buffers withaut comman
access links, such as pedestrian traiEs, sha#I not be included toward the required
recreation and cammon space requirement.
Standard: All buildings and developments with aver thirty thousand (30,000) square
feet af nonresidential uses (excludes parking garage floorplate areas} shall provide
N,q pedestrian-oriented space according to the following formula:
1% o# the lot area + 1% of the building area = Minimum amount of pedestrian-
ariented space.
NEX Staff Report Avana Ridge PUD_LUA15-OQ0894
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
City ofRenton Department of Com^unity&Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation
AVANA RIDGE PUD LUAIS-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 q 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 residentia! units have designated
Compliant if private open space. As such, staff recommends a condition of approva! that the
Conditions of applicant provide a revised site p/an demonstrating compliance with the private open
Approva/ are space standard of at least 15feet in every dimension for all ground related units. The
Met revised site plan sha/l be submitted to, and approved by, the Currenf P/anning Project
Manager prior to building permit approval whichever comes first.
Additional requirements for ground related private open space can be found be/ow
under Ground Level Detai/s.
Compliant ;f 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
Approva! are open space).
Met Staff 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(S').
Staff Comment: Not all upper story residentia/ units appear to have private open
Compliant if space dimensioned at 60 feet. The applicant has requested to vary this standard asConditionsofpprtofthePUD. However, the City is unable to modify any of the provisions of theApprova/ are planned Urban Development Regulations. As such, staff recommends a condition ofMet
ppprova/that the applicant provide revised e/evations 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 comesfirst.
c. Installation and Maintenance of Common Open Space:
i IStandard: 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
HEXStaff Report Avana Ridge PUD_LUA15-000894
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
City ofRentan Department of Community&Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation
AVANA R/DGE PUD 1UA15-000894,PPUD,ECF
Report of May 3, 2016 Page 31 of 44
by the property owners' assaciation, or the agent(sj thereaf. In the event that such
faciiities are not maintained in a responsible manner, as determined by the City, the
City shali have the right to provide for the maintenance thereof and bill the owner ar
property owners' association accordingly. Such bili, if unpaid, shall become a lien
against each individuai praperty.
Staff Comment: Priar to the issuance of any occupancy permit, the developer sha/l
furnish a security aevice to the City ir an amount equal to the provisions of RMC 4-9-
06Q. landscaping sha/l be planted within one year of the date offina/ approval of the
planned urban development, and maintainedfor a period of 2 years thereafter prior to
the re/ease of the security device. A security device for prvviding 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 sha/l be kept on file with the
Planning Division. If this condition of approval is met the proposal would satisfy tnis
standard.
d. instaliatian and Maintenance of Common Facitities:
Standard: prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits, al! comman facilities,
induding but not limited to utilities, storm drainage, streets, recreatian facilities, etc.,
shall be completed by the developer or, if deferred by the Administrator, assured
through a security device to #he City equal to the provisions of RMC 4-9-060, except
for such common facilities that are intended to serve anly future phases of a planned
N/A urban development. Any common facilities that are intended to serve both the
present and future phases af 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 af such security and deferral, the City
shall determine what portion of the costs of improvements is attributable to each
phase of a planned urban devetopment.
Standard: All common faeilities not dedicated ta the Gty shall be permanently
maintained by the pfa ned urban development owner, if there is onfy one owner, or
by the property owners' associatian, 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#or the maintenance thereof and bill the owner or
property owners' association accordingly. Such bill, if unpaid, shalf become a lien
against each individual property.
Staff Comment: Based on the proposed application the anly area to be dedicated ta
the City is the required right-of-way and the drairrage detention pond. As such all
otherfacilities shall be permanentfy maintained by the property awner.
29. Design District Review: The project site is located within Design District 'B'. The following table
contains project elements intended ta comply with the standards of the Design District '6' 5tandards
and guidelines, as outlined in RMC 4-3-100.E:
Compliance Design District Guideline and Standard Anaiysis
1.SITE DESIGN AND BUIIDING LC1CATtON:
ln#ent:To ensure that bui(dings are iacated in relation to streets and other buildings so that the Vision
of the City af Renton can be realized for a high-density urban environment; so that businesses enjoy
visibility from pubiic rights-of-way; and to encaurage pedestrian activity.
HEX Staff Repnrt Avana Ridge PUD LUA15-000894
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
City of Renton Department of Community& Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recornmendation
AVANA R/DGE PUD LUA15-000894,PPUD,ECF
Report of May 3, 2016 Page 32 of 44
a. Building Location and Orientation:
Intent: To ensure uisibility af businesses and to establish active, lively uses along sidewalks and
pedestrian pathways.Ta organize buildings far pedestrian use and so that natural light is availabfe 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,
Guidetines: developments shall enhance the mutual relationship of buildings with each other, as well
as with the roads, open space, and pedestrian amenities whiie working to create a pedestrian
oriented environment. lots shall be canfigured 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 re#lected) and direct sun
exposure to nearby buildings and open space (except parking areasj shall be
cansidered when siting structures.
Standard: Buildings shall be oriented ta the street with clear cannections ta the
sidewalk.
Standard: 7he frant 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 grosand floor residentia! uses raised above street level for
Requested to residents' privacy.
be Modified
Through the $faff Comment: The applicant is propasing ground related residentia/ uses along
PUD var+ous facades. Due ta the unique s+te conditians and tapographic chaNenge.s a/ong
the applicant is proposing to pravide some of the ground floor residential uniLs at or
be/ow grade as part of the PUD. Constructing all ground re/ated units abave grade
would require increases to the herght of the structures and signrficant site disrupt+on.
Therefore, staff is in support of the requested modificatian, through the UD, rf a1J
conditions of apprava!are met.
b. Building Entries:
Intent:Ta make building entrances convenient to (ocate and easy to access, and ensure tha# building
entries further the pedestrian nature af the froniing sidewalk and the urban character af the district.
Guidelines: Primary entries shali face the street, serve as a focal point, and allow space for sacial
interaction. All entries shali include features that make them easily identifiab e whiie 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 shal) be pravided
and shali enhance the overali quality of the pedestrian experience on the site.
Standard: A primary entrance of each building shall be located on the facade#acing a
street, shal! 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
rtt°n°f incorporating architectural features such as a facade overhang, trellis, large entryApprovatis
Met doors, and/or ornamental lighting.
HEX Staff Report Avana Ridge PUD_LUA15-000894
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
City of Renton Department of Com^unity& Econamic Development Nearing Examiner Recommendation
AVANA RIDGE PUD LUA15-000894,PPUD,ECF
Report of May 3, 2016 Page 33 of 44
Staff Comment:5ee Ground Level Details be/ow.
Standard Building entries from a street shali be clearly marked with canopies,
architecturaf elements, ornamental lighting, or landscaping and include weather
protection at least four and one-half feet {4-1j2'} wide. S ildings that are taller than
thir#y feet (3Q') in height shall alsa ensure that the weather pro#ect'san is proportional
to the distance above ground level.
Compliant if Staff Comment: The applicant is proposing ground related residentia/ uses along SE
Condition af 1 2 $t• Staff is recommend+ng a condition of approval requiring entrances and
Approvai is P dest-rian connections from proposed patios to the public sidewa/k system (see
Met discussian below). As a result, staff recommends that building entries from a street be
clearly marked with canopies, architectura/ eJements, arnamenta/ lighting, andjar
landscap+ng and include weather protection at leasr four and one-half feet (4-1j2`J
wide. The revised e/evations shall be submitted to, and appraved by, the Current
Planning Praject Manager priar to bur/ding permit appraval. The applicant is
encouraged to mimic the canopy used for the primary entrances in a smaller
applicatron for ground related unit entrarrtes.
Standard: Building entries fram a parking lot shall be subordinate to those related to
the street.
Standard: Features such as entries, lobbies, and disp€ay windows shall be oriented to
t1tjA a street or pedestrian-oriented space; atherwise, screening or decorative features
shauld be incorporated.
Standard: Muitiple buildings an the same site shall direct views to building entries by
providing a continuous network af pedestrian paths and open spaces that incorparate
landscaping.
Standard: Ground floor residentiaf units that are directly accessible from the street
shall include entries fram 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.
Sta Comment: Ti e applicant is propos+ng ground re/ated residentia/ uses a/ang ti e
5 172°St. The proposal partially complies with the.standard with the use of patios.
Compliant if However, the proposal does not include entrances and pedestrian connections from
Cond+r an o proposed pat+os ro the public sidewalk. Therefore, staff recommends as a condit+on of
ApprovaJ is approval rhe applicant be required to submrt a revised site and landscaping p/an
M depitting entranees and pedestrian cannections fram ground related residential units,
alang SE 172 d St, to the public sidewalk. The revised landscape and site plan sha!l 6e
submrtted ta and approved 6y the Current Planning Froject Manager prior to building
permit approval. Staf is aware there may 6e topographic challenges with entrances
a/ong SE' 172"a St and the applicant is encouraged to pravide stairs to the units or
demonstrate separate entrances are not feasibte prrar to building permit approvat.
If this condition of approval is met the proposa/wou/d satisfy this standard.
c.Transition to Surrounding Development:
in#ent: 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 ta achieve a compatible transition
where new buildings differ from surrounding development in terms of building height, bulk and scale.
HEX Staff Report Avana Ridge PUD LUA15-000894
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
City of Renton Department of Co nunity&Economic Development Nearing Examiner Recommenc ation
AVANA R/DGE PUD LUA15-000894,PPUD,ECf
Report of May 3, 2016 ' Page 34 of 44
Standard: At least one of the fallowing design elements shall be used to promote a
transition to surraunding uses:
1. 8uilding propartions, including step-backs on upper levefs in accordance with the
surraunding planned and existing land use forms;or
2. Building articulation to divide a larger architectural e ement into smaller
increments; or
3, Raof lines, roof pitches, and roo# shapes designed ta reduce apparent bulk and
transition with existing develapment.
Additianaliy,the Administra#or may require increased setbacks at the side or rear af a
building in arder to reduce the bufk and scale af larger buildings andJor so that
sunlight reaches adjacent andJar abutting yards.
d.Service Element Lacation and Design:
Intent: Ta reduce the potential negative impacts of service elements (i.e., waste receptacles, laading
dacks) by Cocating 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
iandscaping and an enclasure with fencing that is made of quality materials.
Standard: Service elements shall be located and designed to minimize the impacts an
the pedestrian environrnent and adjacent uses. Service elements shall be
concentrated and located where they are accessible ta service vehicles and
convenient for tenant use.
Standard: In addition ta standard enclosure requirements, garbage, recyciing
caliection, and utility areas sha(I be enclosed on ali sides, inciuding the roof and
screened around their perimeter by a wall or fence and have seif-c(osing doars.
Complr"ant rf
Candrtivn of Staff Comment: The applicant is proposing a refuse and recycle endosure at a central
Approval is ocation 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 enc/osure e/evations which inc/ude a raof. The revised
e/evatians shal/ be submii ted ta, and approved by, the Current P/anning Praject
Manager prior to building permit approval.
Standard: Service enc(osures shaN be made of masonry, arnamental metal ar wood,
or same combination of#he three {3).
Standard: If the service area is adjacent ta a street, pathway, ar pedestrian-oriented
N/A space, a landscaped planting strip, minimum 3 feet wide, shail be located on 3 sides
of such facility.
2.PARKING AND VENICULAR ACCESS:
Intent: To provide safe, convenient access ta the Urban Center and the Center Village; incorporate
various modes of transpartation, including pubiic mass transit, in order ta reduce traffic volumes and
ather impacts from vehides; ensure sufficient parking is provided, while encouraging creativity in
reducing the impacts of parking areas; allaw an active pedestrian environment by maintaining
contiguous street frontages, withaut parking lot siting a ong 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 Report Avana Ridge PUD LUA15-000894
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
City of Renton Department of Co^unity 8c Econamic Develapment Hearing Exarrtiner Recornmendation
AVANA RIDGE PUD LUA15-OOp894,PPUD,ECF
Report of May 3, 2016 Page 35 of 44
di5triCt.
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. .arge areas of surface parlcing shalf alsa be designed ta
accarnmodate future infill develapment.
S#andard: Parking shall be located sa that no surface parking is located between:
a}A building and the frant property line; andjor
b}A buiiding and the side property line (when on a corner lot).
f Standard: Parking shall be Iocated so that it is screened fram surrounding streets by
buildir gs, landscaping,and/or gateway features as dictated by location.
b. Structured Parking Garages:
Intent: To promote mare efficient use af land needed for vehicle parking; encourage the use of
structured parking; physically and visually integrate parking garages with other uses; and reduce the
overal! impact of parking garages.
Guidelines: Parking garages shail not dominate the streetscape; they shail be designed to be
campiementary with adjacent and abutting buildings. They shall be sited to complement, not
subordinate, pedestrian entries. Similar forms, materials, andjor details ta the primary building(s)
should be used ta 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 (7S%) of the building
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
rcumstances. !f allowed, the structure shall be set back at least six feet (6')from the
sidewalk and feature substantial landscaping. This landscaping shall include a
combinatian af evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs, and ground cover. This
setback shal! be increased to ten #eet (10'} when abutting a primary arteria! andJor
minor arterial.
NfA Standard: Public facing facades shal) be articulated by arches, linteis, masonry trim, ar
other architectural elements andjar materials.
fA S#andard: The entry to the parking garage shall be located away frorrt the primary
street,to either the side or rear af the building.
Standard: Parking garages at grade sha11 include screening ar be endosed from view
NjA with treatment such as wa11s, decorative grilles, trellis with landscaping, or a
combination of treatments.
Standard: 7he Administrator af the Department of Community and Ecanamic
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. Possibfe treatments Co reduce the
setback include landscaping camponents plus one ar more of the fallawing integrated
HEX Staff Report Avana Ridge PUP LUA15-000894
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
City ofRenton Departrnenf of Con^^unity& Econornk Development Hearing Excrminer Recommendatian
AVANAR/DGEPUD LUA15-000894,PPUD,ECF
Report of May 3, 2016 Page 36 af 44
with the architectural design of the building:
a}Ornamentai griilwark{other than vertical bars);
b) Decorative artwork;
c) Risplay windaws;
d) Brick,ti1e,or stone;
ej Pre-cast decorative panels;
f}Vine-covered trellis;
g) Raised landscaping beds with decorative materials; ar
h)Other treatments that meet the intent of this standard..,
c. Vehicular Access:
Intent: To rnaintain a cantiguous and uninterrupted sidewalk by minimizing, consolidating, andJor
el'rminating vehicular access off streets.
Guidelines: Vehicular access to parking garages and parking iots shali not impede or interrupt
pedestrian mobility.The impacts of curb cuts to pedestrian access an sidewalks shali be minimized.
Standard: Access to parking lots and garages shall be from alleys, when available. If
nat available,access shall occur at side streets.
Standard: The number af driveways and curb cu#s shall be minimized, so that
pedestrian circulatian 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 netwarks and by providing strong links from streets and drives ta building
entrances; make the pedestrian environment safer and mare convenient, comforta6le, and pleasant
to waik between businesses, on sidewalks, ta and fram access paints, and through parking (ots; and
promote the use af multi-moda! and public transportatian systems in order ta reduce ather vehicular
traffie.
a. Pedestrian Circulation:
Intent: Ta create a network of linkages for pedestrians ta imprave safety and conuenience and
e hance the pedestrian environment.
Guideiines: The pedestrian environment shall be given priority and importance in the design of
prajects. Sidewaiks and/or pathways shali be provided and shall provide safe access ta buildings from
parking areas. Praviding pedestrian cannections to abutting properties is an important aspect af
connectivity and encourages pedestrian activity and shall be considered. Pathways shali 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 praperties shall be pravided.
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 Avana Ridge PUD_LUA15-000894
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
Crty of Renton Department of Community&Economic Development Nearing Examiner Recommendation
AVANA R/DGE PUD LUA15-000894,PPUD,ECF
Report of May 3, 2016 Page 37 of 44
development.
Standard: Pathways within parking areas shall be pravided and differentiated by
materia! or texture (i.e., raised walkway, stamped concrete, or pavers) fror» abutting
paving materia{s. Permeable materiais are encouraged. The pathways shall be
perpendicular to the applicable building facade and no greater than one hundred fifty
feet(150'}apart.
Comp(iantif Staff Comment: The applicant has proposed a series of pedestrian cannectionsCanditionsof
Approvol are throughout the site however it is unclear if there is a differentiatian of mai-eriats
vret across the drive aisles (Exi ibit 2). Therefore staff recommends, as a condition af
approval, tire applicant revise the site p/an to depict a differentiatian in materials for
all pedestrian connections w+thin parking areas andjor drive a+sles on site. The revised
site p/an shall be submitted ta and approved by the Current P/anning Project Manager
prior to buildingJeng+neering permit approval, If this cond+tian of approval is met the
propasal would satisfy this standard.
Standard;Sidewalks and pathways along the facades af buildings shall be of sufficient
width to accommadate 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 shai! inciude an 8 foat minimum unobstructed
i walking surface.
b) interior pathways shall be provided and shall vary in width to establish a
hierarchy. The widths shall be based an the intended number of users; to be na
sma ler than five feet(5') and no greater than twelve feet(12').
c) For all other interior pathways, the propased walkway shall be of suffident
width to accommodate tne anticipated r umber of users.
NjA 5tandard: Mid-black connections between buildings shail be pravided.
b. Pedestrian Amenities:
tntent: To create attractive spaces that unify the buiiding and street environments and are inviting
and comfortable far pedestrrans; and provide publicly accessible areas that function far a variety af
year-raund activities, under typical seasonal weather canditians.
Guidelines: The pedestrian environment shall be given priority and importance in the design of
prajects. 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 aceessible spaces and at facades alang streets, shafl be
Campliant if provided.
Condition of
Appravatis Met Staff Comment:See Bui/ding Entries and Ground tevel Details discussion below.
Standard: Amenities such as autdoar group seating, benches, transit shelters,
Compliantif
fountains, and public art shail be provided.
condition o}' a) Site furniture shall be made of durable, vandal- and weather-resistant
approva is+vtet materials that da not retain rainwater and can be reasonably maintained over an
extended period af time.
NEX Staff Repart Avana Ridge PUD_LUA15-000894
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
City of Renton Department of Community&Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendatian
AVANA R/DGE PUD LUA15-000894,PPUD, ECF
V._
Report of May 3, 2016 Page 38 of 44
b} 5ite furniture and amenities shall nat impede or block pedestrian access to
public spaces or building entrances.
Staff Comment: The comrrrunity open space includes lawn to allow for active
reereation and more intimate /acations featuring pknic tables and 6enches. Also
included is an ornarr enta! pavition intended to pravrde views from the site and for
public gathering opportunities, ornamental p/ant ngs and scu(ptural facus po nts. The
proposal did not include specifkations for proposed pedestrian c menit es. Therefore
staff was unable to verify the whether site furniture is compliant wrth the standard.
As such, staff recommends a condition of approval requ ring the applicant pravide
detailed specifications for all site furniture, and art, in arder to ensure durab/e, vandal-
and weather-resistant materials ore used. The specificatians shall be subrr itted to,
pnd approved by, the Current P/anning Project Manager priar building permit
approval.
4. RECREATION AREAS AND CaMM(3N OPEN SPACE:
Intent.To ensure tnat areas for bath passive and active recreation are available to residents,warkers,
and visitars and that these areas are of sufficient size for the intended activity and in canvenient
locations. To create usable and inviting open space that is accessible to the public, and to promote
pedestrian activity on streets particularly at street carners.
Guideiines: Develapments lacated at street intersections should provide pedestrian-ariented space at
the street corner to emphasize pedestrian activity (illustration belaw}. Recreation and common open
space areas are mtegral aspects af quality dewelopment that encourage pedestrians and users. These
areas shal! be provided in an amaun#that is adequate ta be functional and usab#e; they shall also be
landscaped and lacated sa that they are appealing to users and pedestrians
Standard: All attached housing developments shall pravide at least one hundred fifty
Requested ta (150) square feet of private usable space per unit. At least one hundred (100) square
be Madified feet of the private space shali abut each unit. Private space may include porches,
Thraugh the balconies,yards, and decks.
PUD
Staff Comment:See discussion above under Private Qpen Space.
5. BUILDING ARCHITECtURAL DESIGN:
Intent:To encaurage building design that is unique and urban in character, comfartabfe on a human
scale, and uses appropriate building materials #hat are suitable for the Pacific Northwest climate. To
discourage franchise retai!architecture.
a. Building Character and Massing:
lntent:To ensure that buildings are not bland and visualfy appear ta be at a human scale; and ensure
that al!sides af a building,that can be seen by the public,are visually interesting.
Guidetines: Building facades sha#I 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, modulatian, and their intervals should create a sense of scale impartant
ta residential buildings.
Standard: All building facades shall include modulation or articulation at intervals of
no mare than twenty feet(20').
Standard: Modulations shatl be a minimum af two feet(2'} in depth and four#ee# {4')
in width.
HEX StaffReport Avana Ridge PUD 1UA15-000894
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
s
City ofRentan Department of Cotrmunity&Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation
AVANA R/DGE PUD LUA15-000894,PPUD,ECF
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 af
the facade; or provide an additianal speciai feature such as a clock tr wer, courtyard,
fountain, or public gathering area.
b.Ground-Level Details:
Intent: To ensure that buildings are visually interesting and reinfarce the intended human-scale
character of the pedestrian environment; and ensure that all sides of a building within near or distant
public view haue visuaf interest.
Guidelines: The use of materia4 variations such as colars, brick, shingles, stucco, and harizontal wood
siding is encouraged. The primary building entrance should be made visibly prominent by
incarporating architectural features such as a facade averhang, trellis, large entry daors, andJar
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.
Standard: Human-scaled elements such as a iighting fixture, trellis, or other landscape
feature shall be provided alang the facade's graund fioor.
Staff Comment: The applicant has proposed some human sca/e elements including
landscape features, large windows and varied material patterns at the primary
entrances. Windaw patterns vary based on interior layout, but all facades feature a
variety af window types. Wall areas visib/e from public streets and sidewa/ks are
treated with trellis elements at the upper Ievels, canopies at pedestrian entries and
ameniry spaces, and with landscaped vinery walls and plantings. Landscaping and
artwork are a/so prapased to break up publicfronting facades where windaws are
impractica/ due to interior configuratians. However, the proposa/ does not comply
with the entrance and connectivity standards for ground re/ated units a/ong SE 172nd
Campliantif St. The ground floor facades, specifical/y the ground related units along SE 172"d St,
Condition of are in need of additional human scale elements in order to reinfarce the pedestrian
ApprovolisMet orientation of the development used to justify the PUD request. Architectural
detai ing elements including entrance detailingjweather protection for graund related
units, fencing, connectivity, lighting fixtures, contrasting mafieria/s, and/or special
detailing would bring the proposa!inta compJiance with the intent of this standard to
create human-sca/e character in the pedestrian environmenfi. Therefore, staff
recommends as a candition of appraval, the applicant submit revised elevations
depicting entrance detailing/weather protection for ground re/ated units, fencing,
pedestrian cannectivity, lighting f+xtures, contrasting materials, andjar special
deta+ling a/ong SE 172"°St. The revised elevations shall be submitted to and approved
by the urrent Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval whici ever
comes first.
If this condition of approva!is met rhe proposal would satisfy this standard.
Standard: C?n any facade visible ta the public, transparent windows andJar doors are
Compliantif req'sred #a comprise at least SQ percent af the portion of the ground floor facade
Condition of that is between 4 feet and 8 feet above ground (as measured on the true elevat'san).
Approva!is Met
Staff Comment:See discussion above.
Standard: lJpper portians of building facades shal! 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 shafl be
5Q percent.
HEX Staff Report Avana Ridge PUP LUA15-000894
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
City ofRenton Department of Co^^unity&Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation
AVANA R/DGE PUD LUA15-000894,PPUD,ECF
Report of May 3, 2016 Page 40 of 44
N/A Standard: Display windows shall be designed for frequent change of inerchandise,
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 visible 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.
Compliantif Standard: Materials shall be durable, high quality, and consistent with more
Condition of traditional urban development, such as brick, integrally colored concrete masonry,
HEX Staff Report Avana Ridge PUD LUAIS-000894
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
City of Renton Department of Community& Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation
AVANA RIDGE PUD LUA15-000894,PPUD,ECF
Report of May 3, 2016 Page 41 of 44
Approval is pre-finished metal, stone, steel,glass and cast-in-place concrete.
J
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 shal/include color and
materia/s for the following: guardrails, fa ade treatments, retaining wplls, raised
planters, siding, windows/frames, and canopies. Acceptab/e materra/s include a
combination of brick, integral/y colored concrete masonry, prefinished metal, stone,
steel, g/ass, cast-in-p/ace concrete, or other superior materials approved at the
discretion of rhe Administrator.
If this condition of approva/is met the proposa/wou/d 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.
l. CONCLUSIONS:-I
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 al 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. RECOMMENDATION•
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 Report Avana Ridge PUD LUAIS-000894
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
City ofRenton Department of Community&Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation
AVANA R/DGE PUD LUA15-000894,PPUD,ECF
Report of May 3, 2016 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.
S. 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-
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.
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.
HEXStaff Report Avana Ridge PUD_LUA15-000894
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
Crty ofRenton Department of Cor munity&Economic Development i hlearing Examiner Recommendatron
AVANA R/DC,E PUD LUA15-Q00894,PPUD,ECF
Report of May 3, 2p16 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 temparary
accupancy approval.
15. The applicant shall dedicate 1-foot behind the sidewalk in addition ta right-of-way dedication far
luminaire ft undations along SE 172nd St, The dedication shall be required prior to temporary
occupancy approval.
16. The appiicant shalt create a public outreach sign in coardination 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 zane.The sign shail be placed on site prior to constructian cammencement.
17. The applicant shall provide a revised site plan demonstrating compliance with the private apen space
standard of at least 15-feet in every dimension far all ground related units. The revised site plan shal!
be submitted to, and appraved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit
approval whichever cames first.
28. The applicant shall provide revised elevatians demonstra#ing campliance with the private apen space
standard af 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 appraved by, the Current Planning Project Manager
prior to building permit appraval v,rhichever cames first.
19. Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit, the developer shall furnish a security device to the City
in an amount equal ta the provisions of RMC 4-9-060. Landscaping shall be planted within one year of
the date of final appraval 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 far providing mainfienance of
landscaping may be waived if a landscaping maintenance contract with a reputabie landscaping firm
licensed to do business in the City of Renton is executed and kept active for a 2 year period. A copy af
such cantract sha11 be kept on file with the Planning Division.
20. The building entries from a street shall be clearly rrrarked with canopies, architectural elements,
ornamental lighting, and/ar landscaping and indude weather pratection at least four and ane-half feet
4-1/2') wide. The revised elevations shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning
Project Manager prior to building permrt approual.
21. The applicant shall be required to submit a revised site and landscaping plan depicting entrances and
pedestrian cannections from ground related residentia! units, along SE 172nd St,to the public sidewalk.
The revised landscape and site plan sha(I be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project
Manager prior to building permit appraval. Staff is aware there may be tapographic ehallenges with
entrances alang SE 172nd St and the applicant is encouraged ta provide stairs ta the units ar
demonstrate separate entrances are not feasible prior ta building permit approval.
22. The applicant shall submit revised refuse and recycle enciosure elevations which include a roof. The
revised elevations shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior
to building permit approvai.
23. The applicant shall revise the site plan to depict a differentiatian in materials far all pedestrian
connections within parking areas andfor drive aisles an site. 7he revised site plan shal! be submitted to
and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager priar to building(engineering permit appraval.
If this condition of approval is met the propasa!would satisfy this standard.
24. The applicant shall provide detaiied specifications for ail site furniture, and art, in arder ta ensure
durable, vandal- and weather-resistant materials are used, The specificat'rons shall be submitted to,
and approved by,the Current Planning Project Manager prior building permit appraval.
NEX Staff Report Avana Ridge PUD LUA15-000894
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
City of Renton Department of Community& Economic Development Hearing Examiner RecommendationAVANAR/DGEPUD LUA15-000894,PPUD,ECF
Report of May 3, 2016 Page 44 of 44
25. The appiicant 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_LUA15-000894
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
EXHIBITS
Project Name: Project Number:
Avana Ridge Preliminary PUD LUA15-000894, ECF, PPUD
Date of Hearing Staff Co tact Project Contact/App icant Project Location
5/10/16 Rocale Timmons lustin Lagers 17249 Benson Rd S Renton,
Senior Planner Avana Ridge,LlC Wq
9675 SE 36th St,Ste 105;
Mercer Island,WA 98040
The following exhibits were entered into the record:
Exhibit 1 ERC Report
Exhibit 2 Site Plan
Exhibit 3 Landscape Plan
Exhibit 4 Elevations
Exhibit 5 Grading Plan
Exhibit 6 Geotechnical Report, prepared by Earth Solutions NW (dated December 21,
2015)
Exhibit 7 Coal Mine Hazard Study, prepared by Icicle Creek Engineers (dated March 22,
2004)
Exhibit 8 Coal Mine Hazard Study, prepared by Icicle Creek Engineers (dated January 20,
2009)
Exhibit 9 Drainage Report, prepared by D.R. Strong (dated December 28, 2015)
Exhibit 10 Supplemental Stream Study, prepared by Sewell Wetland Consulting(dated
December 22, 2015)
Exhibit 11 Conceptual Stream Mitigation Plan prepared by Sewell Wetland Consulting
December 28, 2015)
Exhibit 12 Habitat Data Report, prepared by Sewell Wetland Consulting(dated December
22, 2015)
Exhibit 13 Arborist Report, prepared by Greenforest Inc. (dated December 16, 2015)
Exhibit 14 Tree Retention Plan
Exhibit 15 Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), prepared by TraffEx(dated February 2, 2016)
Exhibit 16 Public Comment Letters/Emails
Exhibit 17 Independent Secondary Review—Traffic Study, prepared by TenW(dated March
21, 2016)
Exhibit 18 Response Memo- Independent Secondary Review, prepared by Traffex (dated
March 26, 2016)
Exhibit 19: Staff Recommendation to the Hearing Examiner, dated May 3, 2016
Exhibit 20: SEPA Determination and Mitigation Measures (dated April 11, 2016)
Exhibit 21: CI 73—Residential Building Height
Exhibit 22: Elevation Perspectives
Exhibit 23: Transportation Concurrency
CITY OF
en on .
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
C4TY QFDEPARTMENTt3FC4MMU.TY r
u--- S-'
AND EC4NOMIC DEVELOPMENT
ENVfR01VMENTA!REVIEW COMMlTTEE REPORT
ERC MEETING DATE: April 11, 2016
Project Name: Avana Ridge PUD
Project Number:LUA15-000894, PPUD,ECF
Project Manager: Racale 7immons,Senior Planner
C?wner: Avana Ridge, LLC;9675 SE 36t"St,Ste 105; Mercer Island,WA 98040
Contoct: Justin lagers;Avana Ridge, LLC;9675 SE 36th St,Ste 105; Mercer Island,WA 98040
ProjecL Locarion: 172 9 8enson Rd S
ProjectSummary: The applicant is requesting a Preliminary Planned Urban Development and
Enviranmental (SEPA) Review far the canstructian af a multi-family development
containing 74 units in two 4-stary structures.The vacant 3.78 acre site is lacated within
the Residential Multi-Family (RM-F) zaning classification and the Residential High
Density (RHD) land use designation. The development would be camprised of two
separate multi-family residential structures resulting in a density of 2p.21 duJac. The
subject site is fronted by three public rights-af-way: SE 172nd St, Benson Rd 5 (108th
Ave SE) and Benson Drive S (SR-515). The applicant proposes ane entrance off of SE
172"a 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. Additionaliy, the site contains criticai slopes and Coal
Mine Hazards. The Preliminary PUD would be used to vary street, buiiding height,
parking, design, open space, and retaining wall standards. The applicant has praposed
to provide buffer enhancement as part af the proposed PUD pubtic benefit, atong with
the construction of enhanced open space, pedestrian amenities, and iandscaping.
Site Area:164,827 SF Total Building Area GSF:92,899 SF
STAFF Staff Recommendx#ha#the fnvironmenta) Review Cammittee issue a Determination
REC MMENDATIaN: af Non-Significance-Mitigated fDNS-M).
yyr:$
y)
Y Er
4 yiF.,,amy:.a. ,.:
EXHIBIT 1
Fu11 Document
Available upon Request Pra,jectcocariontvtap
ERC Report Avona Ridge FFUD 13-Ot 894.pd,f
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
a
u L
i _ .
Q
559.
SAJ'
PRW.
LMIE
r
v
O
ir .
I`—
awc_
w.
c-...
a'
r;
r
c-'+
a_., ' -- --.. ..., , —.._
L
y,
I
r... ___, _ °
V
1".- "
j! ._, . .
ie'
ar
r'
n-
a'
wE^ .
t
ew_' ,._
a _
j---
Y ?
r
u
eMuao
iq
t
b00r10a"
f
r.
wcFa
n°rn
a
nwrurwewHr
M
a
rtwaauc
e
i
wenwnrtwcrxr
i
1.,__
u___.- ' -- ` ,;,,,
s;u _' °'
T ;:
a
iT
r
1 ..' . , . , .-
Y .
u...
y;,,
r
z . '
E . :
r.,._,._,...
1 .
i
LJ .` ..
4
i ! . .._
i..
J.
i'
t..
q
4.
AVANARIDGE
s
x
PLANNED
URBAN
O
j
r-
i ,
i<
i ; ;
DEVELOPMENT
r.
L....}-
1-+--:`: ;,
tostssetrl
d
O
siae
r.
r
raa,
wa
gfr
M",
ww+ !
l
98055
O
f
i
f
O
AVANA
RIDGE,
LLC
l
nf
o ,
d.,
i^
3"
J .
v'
y
I'.` //
o
f
n
i , /! .
NORTH
e.
oarROP,
j/
ena:
r
StTE
PLAN
PUD
EXHIBIT
2
x,,
M ,,,,
w
A1
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
4i.
i
s'
t
s .
f/ ,,
1'
r . ""
4
err
rs
r
c
rc
r
r
rr_
t,
5,.
t
e
a,e4..•
r+... .
k.
y
r
Y •
yi
i:' .
i±:.
4'k.>
a.
R,
iv`
5 '. '
r
p'
k
r:
Ft* .
1,
ir
r
r%
E'
S+
tJr.
K''
t
J'
A
r
r. ,'
ia
Ir`.^__"
4...
l.'.=
aoc
t
i^
y
7
r
T
r
i
sc;. `
y+
i '
y ;
iy
ti,
ii1",=.
a''•
i.,
W
i
s '
Kfl
b __ ' ;
r,
f
i .
i
i
n-
j.++
is
0
ixF
lyalYllis
yg *',
yY
u_s+
F,
i
d,,
c'
fl
w
a.
s; __
n '
u
r,''
r''
r
ry
1.
N
r
j.
y
L.
h.
u
l
O"/
Y
wy:
5,
1:.•
a
r ` `
h._ ..
1
r>„
i •
v,i'.
s
s
y..«'*
FF
c
1
s_<
r., ,,:_ +
u
c:,+"' ;
r
J .
aK
nit
w,
r
r.
whu..
Ka..
au,":.-
t_.
n
iT,
ri. .'
y
f _;.
L.
wauu,'-+
n1'
rt'
e
ey3
a,
6r. '?
r, :
5 ,
p",'s
i' . .
i .:,
7
M
r
r ,
A '
t"
L'' "
w-..
i.,
I"'
l,
i-'`
i*
qr
Mi
yyyS'1
s''+
9D'!'
r •.
t?
iy! .
C'
t ' ,..
r,
f,
b '. ."
y'-
t%
e3
7'
i }:
r `
4
A',
rw
ti
c'"
r.:'"'.
11' +
c«:
w.'`
v :%
a
I%
r
r
A
t
M
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
Full
Document
e__---
uest
on
Req
Available
up
w
r,
I
r--, -
f - - ,
J- .
I
s
i
L o
r- _. _ ,
a
tsw
N'
I
L/
ufe
Kk'Y
Pa
N
9YERALI
EIEYATION.----_._.___.. ,---...
I
a
w»
i
A
r
A.
Si ,
8;
C,
9C.
2;C.
3' '
C.
6;.
C.
B,,
D;
D.
S .
E,'
i
F' '
F3; `
F.
6; '.
G
H
H1fH3;
iH.
e' ,
i , '
I.
S: .'
J ;:.,
J2
J,
3 ;
J6;
J8jK?
iKS' \
L,:•;
M}
1
Nl ,
NSlirp,
j
i
r
K
yi
1
l_;
V_
r
i..,__. . _- "'± . ....._.
AVANA
RIDGE
PLANNED
URBAI
n_
i--._.
I ;
i
DEVELOPMENT
I
I:..
r -- a.
as
esE
rma
z
s
r,
rrrari,
wn
seoss
J
J
j' (
rr-,
i
OVERAlL.
BRE•
SOUTHELEVATION,- _
i
Y ''
f•:
F
t—
r'
t-
I
AVANA
RID
E,
L
a
Nr
w
Ninp
rKur.*
O
iN.
S, '
N
M,
r
L;
K.
S(
K
J.
B,
J.
A(
J
3XJ.
2;;.
J '
IS;
1 ' ;
H.
6`
li
3;
hi
ti(
N'
G '
G
ti
P
1
F/
5
F '
D
5^
D'
C
Ai
C
fi?(
C.
3d,
G2!\
C! '
B'
A.
S;
A
kn`"'++.
iI
i
I
F
r
2___ ..
A
1_'
i.:
T
i "'
i
I
j-
I
v:
i
f—:--
i ' '
j. . _
y -
E ...
Y
y
i...
t'.
i
1wn
1 ' .
WN O
@
r
I,
v
i
11111C_._..___..___ "
rL
0..PROJECT
7,-
C'^-
ELEVATIONS
s'
i
m
ru
miwwionea.
OVERALLSITE-
NORTHELEVATION
I
1
Y
TRTT
301
inmwn.
mar.
im
n
i\
BYi
G.
61:
IP•
f.
p
J"''_
An
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
NGE
5
E.
W.
M,
5 ,
i
S
n
AVAN
H
R1D
1__ --- - _._--------
1
X
sE,
rzr
roS_,..__.+!?—"
a---.
1
X. ,
F -
j -;;'
1--- - - .
1
X _....
fi,
z_._
y
r _
r'--_...
sraua.
a
w
y ..."- _
o
y
t
srauxar
c
t
ti
4
t _ _.._'
t .'
i ' \ '\ ...---"
c"_
W. .. -...'{
1!
f
p
j
y ..
t"
1.
w,
na
w.
Q
M
wv,n _ --,=:_,`
j
I .
inw'
L .-
y •_
l.
S`*
t
Z,`
G.:•
y -
f
r' ,
4,.-...+-""
J;
j;'
i";-."'
k`
f.
t'._'
Ly;,
x.
f
i
fi; ' _
q.: . ',:,. ...
t
ti _ __ _
r,
r„
r'
v.+'&
a
a;
s.•
it
r+''="
aR
4.'
M . _. . '
t
f,-1
1
y
MI
F
t,,:
a
1
yy(,_
y
t,
a
nor
CZL.
w"'--
u
KY
n¢¢
tY!
F+
r
L.
w
M
YP
N
y
ur
d
ms7
l.
lN[
mo+
r..
k
fN
II
K
W
4
MY
IfiC
1
a9
p
V
yy
WliaL1
IRIM¢
xf
A(W1[
SIWRF
O[
MY'
v'
r
1 _'.:.. ..;
urts
W'"
K
Kmen'
K
a
SrsrA
t
y`
wsn','
a."
1'."/
r°
sr
fi+'
r
a
z"
l ;
r
p •
y
u(:
u
pAR— i,
1„,
i
iI(
qy
aI/
SR
i
A .
LL
fJ1M1US
SO£
YVIt
tlTV
YWy/
f
YHMqII
9.
Q
l ._ /
u'" .
l1
P,
tC
RTH
cx ,°°"..
f
i
e '
i 1
EXHIBIT
5
a
tl
1'
t}
1616
f,
AVANA
R1D
P
N
Y
0{"
f:.,==^'
j
T
N
e
E
M
Ri
N.
0
a
P
N
Y
P
f ,
p
ww , "'°"
a.
c1
tio.
tsoae
Ip,—.
s
r;;
oo
ts
D.R.
3T
EERS
t
pr,
7E
MP
t
ao
9
WSM
yYOM
a
f
t' `
i !} .,...:-
OO
f1C.
811
c,,,,
s
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
x z 1 v ' ;;, 1.,
t w
h.
M+;
kry
i
r
f ;
r..,,
Earth
Sotutions r` _K
a j
y „. , ;;
I A`i\..1.! 42 •t t 34 , r • 1- i:
s t: ti';_ •{ t
cy y `
y
x
d:
j.a
d . J,y !. ::;
v•
r ,?
id ' a.a
r}.. a
St
M • {
w.,
jt
y
n '
Vry r:
h:` '`,z: x ,
4 ..
k
r,
q,• .r...<,; ° T .__ _ ...,,.,:
kk
i
x „" `
s.`"I, ,.,,.,.
i
q;- rD`y Ny t„ •.
Y_.
r;se++t'.
e
t,t,„ y"
v',
t*r ',';""'
r."" .,
r . Me.« : ....+ p r i`€,,,. .
y .. ,/" ?, *w {...
k. '1 # r .. f_ ^"""',
C;
r
ti3`,
x
k`
R'$` 'k *"' '?. 'J.
r T""'• wl
s^
rr'J `.
R'+ + '
G
m
b # .J
sy"+
F . 3 Yr.:. t...+- ,: ._ T.'
r`v - t., i. .r..aw,,,,, ,'-+ri ,Z ,a....
t'"y„'l." .r+`ti, ? il' ,,,
f°.a a-.,"ti,;
w'aC"-
3,. -;.-=,.-"--,.:.
r
3
4<
I
w.o'... .
s ^4'T `a"„ , r.
x r
v' . '
t t*. i t '« „a Ar ,;i'(%j« }
Y a<
i};,
f'
if A T_Fl i. .t•; x.
a
rr, ` '"'"'
w
1` ,• '+''
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
Ful1 Document
Available uPan Request
r
Report
Geo3agical Engineering Services
Coal Mine Hazard Assessment
Cugini Property—Northwest Parcel
Renton g County),'Vashington
IViarch 22,2084
ProjectNo..0336-004
Prepared For:
Ateg Cugi i
Pre ared By;
Zcicle Creek Engineers,Tnc.
E HIBIT 7
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
Full Dacument
Avaitabte upon Request
Report
Geotechnical Engineering Services
Proposed Property Development
Springbraok Itidge
Kia County Tax Parcel N+ns.
2923059QU9 and 2Q23459148
Re tou Washingtan
January 2G,20Q9
Praject No.0336-444
Frepared For:
Alex Cugini
Preparcd By:
Icicle Creek Engtueers,Inc.
EXHIBIT 8
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
Full Document
vailabie upon Request
Pretiminary Technical Information Report
TIR}
tor
AVANA RIDGE PUC
17249 Bensan Raad S and i0615 SE 172"d Stree#Renton,Washingtan
OPx S
was C'O
U'
4.
y.`` . '',
d`
Z
e"
T R° G
ki
S NA ti
I.',c>/
DRS Projec# No. i 5U88
Renton File No. PRE15-00 061 i
t?wnerlApp/icant
Avana Ridge, LLC
9725 SE 36`h treet, Suite 214
Mercer lsland, Washingtan 98040
Repart Prepared by
D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers, Inc.
620 7`h Avenue
Kirkland WA 98033
425) 827-3063
Report Issue Date
ecemner 2s, 20 EXHIBIT 9
G}2015 D. R.S1'RflNG Gonsulting Engineers(nc.
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
t tt
II"
t P s.
4` rt Sewa11 Wetland Consult n+. lnc.
r sso a-
FaIl Gty,WA'.98(3Z4
Fult Document
Availabie upon Reques
December 22, 2t 15
Justin Lagers
Avana Ridge, LLC
9675 SE 36 Street, Suite I05
Mercer Island, VVA
RE: Wetland and Supplemental Stream Study-Avana Ridge PUD
City of Renton, Washington
SWC Jab #15-1 S9
Dear Justin,
This report describes our observations ofjurisdictional wetlands, streams
and buffers on or within 10Q' of the propased Avana Ridge PUD project in
the Cit of Renton, Washington €the "site").
u,:,
4
d`
ip45o
T .
Above: tTzcinity Map of site
EXHIBIT 10
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
5£
172NOSTREE'
T ___--------
J
I!
1
L
LM`
I —
i
4
f
9
W,..
r..
u'
S
c
7
y
r`^^.... .. . ..
1..
Y .
EII3TBUIiDING
s
WESTBUIWING
I
L_. ~
I
I'
I ( \
J
i '=
E (
I
i
U
f
t
t . . :
F ;
i
I
I
i
I
i ',
i , ,
L,)
i
Y
f,
i
rtw
w
witWllv
4 ___'
p.
o....
fq'..
i
i
f
ifOOT
J'A
Y,
n..
MT ,, . +;
l.;.
J ',!
rs/
q,
i,
y. .
f'//!
J
ff
i
l/, '
4'
Y/" '
J .."";} '
4
ti`
ay
un
wm
a ` ,
a
s. „''`.
i
o,p
W. "':',%;'.,;!
3..
rF,,
j:,,;+,
svsTuwruinn[,
wwrrehwwn
f
yj
y__
J ' ''!`~.
j
1.
G':/_..
1
v,
Y->-. ,
tj
3
w
sanssnnru
w
st
cainnx
w„
t'=' '\
r
i.
v='.;
i/`'
3
i
t
tl
Z
G
svus
anr
nev+.
rav
f
a
0
t7
1I,
SpeSi(
NW{
NLf#
1!!!
iT
HM1tMRS.
i[
fY(
t.tXl
i
1
w =
uute,
a.
rexawa.
iwert
u+
nslt.
aeo.
uecer,
wi.
s
p^
3 '.
E
OIIIIGLYGiGNM'
rFATWfiFI1WMf3flfiOillll
SFEo[
iAKi!
OPQ
6
I
1
f,
qlwr
M
4
M
k1.?
r._„__....__ ,
t
4_:.-..
a.......,...,.,,...,,.
x
MITIGpTION
PI.
AN
SHEET
INDEX:
a`'a ( ,
wcer
oannwx
1 _ ...- _-.- - —' MMrea
i
r '
amrw+.
na
auswccncw(
na.
nmcs
N- `-__ . .-_- ---
a
rthrmncnr
n.
r
sMmwwawwr[
Mwcc
i '
j ;
J .
rc:'.'
i.:.. , -
ii
i
g`>
MITIGATION
PLAN
NOTES:
I
I
i
CO(+
ISTRUCfiON
SEQUENCE:
i.
m
a
no
urnoroaw
rur+
wcmruxuuoroaennunTMun.
w '
i
j ;
I
GENERAI
N07E5:
w
srwvneowaineorKcasuinneenwx
eu,
c.
Wom
vF.
i.
fUGtMM11CFlLWtiN&
MEA
SIWtIINNK
M.
AMF4\
RIR[
IIFN[
E:
f]
1NlO
IFINMOOIiKCNT
i
i '
f
1.
4lCONST11UCtIDMHIM1
fM111C[
MOIW
M'
RIIOIVIKIIOi11MIC00E5
IIFWNSIMVOAiTfNUME{
UMSfIUCiqNM[
RM'
6WRNOWNFIIANPCTOi
d101NAMQ.
5.
N10AMM]
VEO'
l
MITGOMWIpNS.
I
M
lx1pM
IhWItTOrilMTW51litt
MM.
lONIIqtW19Mi6WFiCSWfliMH1NlIMttNLpMG}
110WN9NTMSdFINLTMGFTMMIpI1fWEf0YFOf331W
lMIfiJOf ]
CMItM%
NaqUfWtE05HM1W115MNTNE
FAtSNOWMINOEfAkI.
i.
lfilM[
TfiE}
TAIROfM1/
COM511WC110N.
S'
llfiON51MKMMIMEflM16MU51
i ,
i
I
I
N[
4U
F1W[!
M
fl1Y
p
MNYW1
iHE
C1M'
M14
ANO
TNkl.
OMAKIM
MEfOLL4VAN0,
1W4{
11"
11',
1N9'
CMOq(
MISNlC9SpMC1UWM6Y19M
11FNN1
it0`
M"
MY'
MOpOW
iW111
mpYT1[
I
itll9N(
tMMt1'
MOIpOU{
WHti/
RY.-.
i::<::,':.
w:,
a.
w.,;
w.
ni3T
TPTiK&
CA7f
ISIGIIYFMW1YtYTif "
LEl
i.
M11TMtKtTMNMtR{
4C51#
ET}
i.
inM/
vaiNEitRAVSMUAtfONT*
N1fiiXRMMEXEY[
lCOM511IUC110NMW
M'
Ifi]
ft
I7013
W
La
IY.$
Sj69liMSyWS
E*[
MfMDFMMM651if
Md3
ESf
MIXIMMf:
4'JS!
S.
VAM41LC11aTMfFOi
lNmry[
EWEffll
OfSKNw.
Ef
ANc
4fT?
pfLL
a.
iMECCkTi3CiWlM;
ltiESF1MNSMlfroI1MOHOWBM[
IXfItTEW£
QIN
S.
OMWN
l:
WK
i.
4GNiM4M60(
MOfit3lMMSt{
L1iflY4ENLFLMOtECTWEF
aYMM[
N,
ilAG6E11fu.
MFMOiHE11NE[
OE6
dE4
V:
FS
i
HCiiRlOi4MWiNOiXWMWWlfM.
K12
lAYfMC1
005N1(
1LOt.
W.
LLf
lNIMOGIIlMC1011MOVNRCMOWG.
f1![
Y
TOIIWIM
YIWHsIOMtlLER111EUf411IALTN
HOSNflYOfTHCtIMIk.
N
DTO
NIIMY
IyYK
MIOW.
MILtkTYq7
MMM.
14W[
IISAW.
NW4NNOG.
iN1FlIIIMMERIOFYFI
fIMYERiMANOlULW16.
M/.
MIIOIHtlFGWt.
M[
I1UfSf1lIOMANO
TflNOMISIfLipNWIYNOWNtX.
lWiCC1
OVlRt'
eMl[
OhNERqMWIt111MfH/
IFqIMMICECfMkMdYt
CiiM{
M1}{
1Y1
x,
wiu
artuuutwaraawruuroMuaeKw+
sRwuwuswaoAww*
rora.
nxxutas
rnw
rtae4+
i
sµ
ownan
luauww4sa.
mwauwnrrwmT
uvtssewtx*
aFwl
n
SitR
PF31"
i
FIMMIIT6(
OMVtkT[
SWRTYqSWMItYObiYdFfMf{
M!
YMnVW1TIMlMiNO
M.
LLTMf
KFIDWLWlMYLMMTWfICfGff110LW
4NCtlYMNMqUfMP110G11GMSaMWINIMMlMY9N
R.
ssor
rnvwnEo
r
wr»
cmacnowrH.
ntiwooEsruu
c
rr
n.
00•
wunwanwnnhucexseamwwn
wunr
ron
cmiw.
xc[
wm
urvuro
u,
unaKmo
aruaum
urwmwunr+
HsrNoc,
uuneMsnessxowna+
nxsauww,
rwn,
fl
qXE0US1!!
d
IYNN6ANMFFMI'
A9IM1K^
Mtl[
NIXMSFM[
NY.
cart
arornauwE.
neaM.
wm
uKsuamea
rrc*
bxawe
rte.
acsASFnar+
mn
wu.
wnorne.
wuxxrnwrncse
nocriaar
rutuaeFewre#
w.ru[
warnwa
aaow
t„
nnmNainnsr.
urvunuctpan
trsa+
u+
Woenx[
vwx
ausiu+
azr
ucnws.
n
unotnenouNo
wrws,
vmcoxatwnor
411tf4
NOL85
NOXIQUSWEEDCONTRQLREQUIREMENTS:
cwnn
nwsw
u
ccorr,
wwrfeuiaEnuro
xncrenosnrcnxata
s "'""
o
N115NA5NtlT'"'
F1f1f0
cor
r,
a
o
aanonuunm
1
OOWNEIITO[
OMI4lRfVfAKDFMOMrt011WG
40WNOM1MMlAN.
1MA11bNAHOMYTW4AYYtFMCLWYE4.
MfIdltlGTf.
YllYil'
IXMtNp.
fHEET
u
o-
aaunvnimeauav
unrsrx
ron
sr.
nacwaic
Z
a
G
ld
C
I
EXHIBIT
11
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
k.- . -~ Sewatl Wetland Cansult nq. 1nc.
PC?Srnc8$U P1:253 853-0525
Fall C3iy,WA 96024
Fult Dacument
Available upan Request
December 22,201 S
Justin Lagers
Avana Ridge,LLC
9 25 SE 3b' Street, Suite 214
Mercer island,`7Vashingtan 98040
RE: Habitat Data Report—Avana Ridge
City ofRenton, Washington
SWC 3ob#15-159
Dear Justin,
This report is in reference to the City of Renton's requirements for a Habitat Assessment
for the Avana Ridge project.
Y4asa
i
w.nin. ,4'..t .
t.
l,OJ .
7.
R f1
3
1065
Above. Vicinity Map of site
Ex ier-r i2
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
t
Greenforest Incorpara ted
Fu11 Docum nt
Available upon Request
December 16, 2015
Justin Lagers
Avana Ridge, LLC
9675 5E 35th St., Suite 105
Mercer !sland, WA 98040
RE:Tree Inspectian; Avana Ridge PPUD, Parcei Nos. 292305-9148, -9009; Rentan WA
Dear Mr. Cagers:
You contacted me and contracted my services as a consuiting arbarist. My assignment is to inspect
and assess fihe conditian af 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. I
visited the site on 10J1S/15 and inspected the trees, which are the subject of this repart.
Neither parcel is developed.The site has a 5W aspect with a stream delineated through the cent r of
the site,east to west. Both parcels are cavered in native vegetation, predaminatefy deciduo ts tree
species with moderate to dense lower understory.
TftEE INSPECT}ON
My inspection is limited to visual observation from the subject parcels and the ights-of-way. Both
health and structure were evaluated.A tree's structure is distinct from its heaith. Structure is the
way the tree is put together ar canstructed, and identifying o6vious defects can be helpfiul in
determining if a tree is predispased ta failure. Hea(th addresses disease and insect infestation.
No invasive procedures were performed on any trees.Th 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
diarneter(DBHj, estimated average dripline and rated the canditian 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 handfu! of bitter cherry are scattered thraughaut the site, and
a!! are viaale. Black cottanwoods daminate the site in numbers, and there are€ar more younger
cottonwoods than older. The oldest and larger trees are in better conditic n overall, Many of
cottonwoods as edge trees lean excessiveiy away from the stand. Nearly a!f the smalfer cattonwoods
are very sfender. A#though they are heaithy and have na visibEe defects,their trunks are toa tall for
4547 South Lucile Street, Seattle, WA 98118 r.
EXNIBIT 13
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
SW
J/
4
SECIttJN
29,
FOt
YSHtP
23
N,
RAN
E
5
E,
W.
M.
X
A
1/
A/
VA
RIDGE
xx x .,
t,.,,
xy
a
SEITINDSTREET
i ` - _.
1..__.`..",-....,..._.. '_ ...
r
w....
L1aGP-
F=
L._...
1
it
y
r:..- _.. .,,
1'
r
r_
l
r ,
1 '
3(
j'.`}
x
easreurcoxvcs(
svesreurcn$(
I
i
ti
i
M`
I '
J '
r..._..__..__::.,.,
r
t _
u,
i,
r
1
i
f
t. .. (,
x;,
y,
d
a.. .. ,<.
r ,
x`.
i
r"
s
w
p,
1-
r<
p
Y',
sw .
1:., .__ .`
1
p '
f'':,
r' -
r
74
tEsc
t
c
m
i
r
M " : .
r,
w`}
r ,
r
Kmn«
ruc:
wnrao° '
7r
Mi '
M1
l! ` ' .',.
n
r:.
r '
i,..,. ..;, ..,, ..
r
n
s's
T' ' ('
i'
j`
n,wn.
nv.
or,+
r.
y`
t
V"_ -
i(' ^ ,
1'
w
f
j_
n
a
u
w*
y J
l
rc.
w
aa,
um
wi
a.waHara
wrn
f
O .,,.
bws.,,
4
Y
rn
nrncw
c
ccuunavs
e
p,
a.
w,.µ
a.,
X
i
4
i
M
T
4LSSS
CnZKllli/
PMG'
3
pXi
M[
S,.....,.; .. , .
a
aM`
AM1FS
N
Q
H
t
1MpDOR
S@
1J ,,.
f
xo
m.
arwrr
rca..
ro
i
I
s
N
O
F2TH
e
uaiPlNE
GIE
Ir
S
h
riGN.
a6fT
AYANA
RIDGE
PUO
tzs.
ie
1
u:*.+
vanwwe•
rdoa"
2
AR.
S7RLN,
t[
3
F ;
I.
s ,
9xmm
I••••`.»,
A
TREEI
TEN
IONBIAlOC[
BAflMOPIAN
811
c
orvaucnvo
r,
rtr
eRs
p
RE
Nrc)
N
IMru
eAw.
lLaokno.
w !
s '
4i
V
r
I
1
I
1
k—
w-„
1
0Fi1M1
ao3aH+.
atwU
4l
xu.
w/
rt'umK
wans
am
o,,,
i
S,
Na. ,
iAl-
1NI
IW
I
EXNIBIT
14
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
Fu Document
Available up, q est
AVANA RiDGE APARTMENTS
REVISED TRAFFIG tMPACT ANALYSIS
c rv aF REr TON
Prepared far
Avana Ridge, l.E.0
9675 SE 36th St Suite 105
Mercer Island, WA 98Q40
Prepared by
1 C7R TN WES T
TR,A F, E P'FR T.S
1141 Q N.E. 4 24"' St., #590
FCirkland, Washington 98Q34
Telephone: 425.522.4'!18
February 2, 2016
EXHISIT 15
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
i
Fuli Document
Available upon Request {
i " fi , y •r m r
ttCi Qt Qt F"' Q • pr tv :: `fa
m cu' 4 l ,Q y°' y a, Q° ,m
C 3`y Q y ` c, 'Z' p F u 4 i afii mD C? . .
t a ty' , L , ro O r i
tiQQ m !1 h Q Q'
2 fi
r m
K
a Hiranaka Daniel 1/31(2016 E X X X '
b Radtke 1uli and Mike 1/31/2016 E X X _ X X X X
c N14ss Mo!!y 2J31j2Q16 E X X X _
r.
d Ridenaur Daniel 1/32J2016 E X X X _—
e Braoker Emiiy 1/31J2016 E X X „_—
f Goods Doug 1J31J2016 E X X X X X
g Byrnes Genevieve 2/1/2016 E X
r
X X
h Miller 1erry 2/IJ2016 E X X X
i Yadack Wendy 2J1j2016 E X X X X
j Heine Molly 2/1/2016 E X X
k Cantu Caryn 2/1/2016 E X X X X X
I Reitz Phillip Z/1/2016 E X X X X X
m Gray Andrew 2/1/2016 E X _X
n (McMullin Kimmie 2/1/2016 E X X _ X
o Murphy Rhonda Rae 2/1j2016 E X X X
p Hanawait (lady 2/1/2Q16 E X X X X
Isk,s a a I l o I I x I I ! I ! X I I ( ! I I !
r Faas Mark 1J3Qi2416 E X X x
s Cramton Dawn 1J30J2416 E X X X
t Hanawalt (lody 2j7J2016 E X —
u Miller 7erry 4/4J2016 t X X X
v Yadock Wendy 4J5/2t316 E X X X
w Cantu fCaryn 4/b/2016 E X X X X X
XI I i
Y I I i N I I I I I I 1 ( I I I 1 I I
I 1 i I i I I I i i I I I j ( I
EXHIBIT 1fi
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
Fult Document
Avai able upon Re,.est TE[y/i/
Transportation Engineering NarfhWest
NIEMORANaUM
DATE:Mcrrch 21,2Q16
TO: Rocale limmans, City of Renton -Current Planning,Senior Pianner
FROM: Michael Read, PE, Principai,TENW
St3B3ECT: Avana Ridge Traffic Impact Stvdy-Peer Review
TENW Project No.34b2
This memorandum docvments my review of #he Avana Rid,ge Apartments Rewrsed Tra c lmpact Study,
February 2, 2016, prepared by TraffEx, site plan anc! site accessjfrontage improvemerrP plans prepared
by DRS Cansulting Engineers, tznd fie!d work conducted in February 201 b refated to existing site frontage
conditions, available sight distance, and a genera4 fieic! conditions ta address trip distribufiian questions
outlined by#he City o Renton.
Avana Ridge TIS Peer Review
The following is c genera' list of assumptions, methads, and canclusians I have verified or recammend
verifica`ion and or modificQtion in review af the Avana Rid,ge Apartmenis Revised TJS, February 2 1 b:
The sludy pplies standard trip generc tion rates as pub'ished by the (nstitute of Tronspartation
Engineers in ihe Trip Generatian Mar uaf, 9' Edition, consistent wi#h standard practice.
The trip dis ribution assumptians appear rec sonab!e ir general, alt'oUgh the overal! tatal in Figure
4 only indicates 99/. The totc! number oE trips during the p.m. peak hour however, appear to be
dis ributed 10 the proposed site c ccess driveways. Given o majorily of trips c re expected to be
clistributed ta/fram the south, the "equitable distribution" of estima#ed trips currently assumed
entering the site frorn SR 515 seems nlikely given that ca mc jarity of parking access wi!I be
accessed via the driveway onto Benson Rood. A directiono) split should be identified 6etween
fhese two access points that reflects the circuitous rouSe" fforded by SE 172"d Street versus the
c irect si e entry onto Bensan Road f both entering c nc exiting tra{{ic. Also, t{e tri c istri ution
figure should be s djusted to better indicate the actua! laccation of the entry driveway onto SE 172 d
Street (immedia ely east of 106 h Avenue SE.
Refated to trip assignment, existing a.m. and p_m. peak hour tra{fic counts between SE 172nd
Street and 10$th Avenue SE should be balanced. !n gsneral, reported troffic counts at the
proposed sike access lacation are directionolly higher along Benson Road at 108rh Avenue SE.
Traffic operational ancrlysis shauld consider the worse-case scenario and given the inlerseckian
Trcnsporfation Planning esigr Traffic lmpacfi 8 Opert tians
PO 8ox 6525d,Seattie,WA 48 i 55 Offtce(206}361-
EXNIBIT 17
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
Full Document
dv a'T'- Available upon Request11410h1E124ttPhore: 425,
Mr. Justin Lagers March 26, 2016
Avana Ridge, LLC
9675 SE 36th St. Suite 1 q5
Mercer Island, WA 9804p
Re: Avana Ridge Apartrnents— City of Renton
Memarandum - Revisions to TIA per Peer Review
Dear Mr. Lagers:
The purpose of this memo is to pravide revisirmns to the Rvana Ridge Tra c
Impact Analysis per the recornmendations 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 172"d St. and also the sharter#rip length us9ng the Bensan Rd. driveway
for south oriented trips
balancing tra c volumes between intersections
revising level of senrice calculations due to new trip distribution
evaluating tra c queues on Benson Rd. from #he SR 515/Benson Rd.
intersection
evaluating left turn lane warrants into the site access driveway from Bensan
taad.
Trip Distribution and Assiqnmen#
Figures R1 and Ft2 shaw the revised trip dis#ribution and assignment ofi site
genera#ed traffic in the AM and PM peak haurs. The revisions refiec# a restricted
access#o SE 1?2n SE. aliowing anly left#ums into the site and right tums out of the site.
A care#ul design af the site access driveway should effectively eliminate mas#site
generated t ips to the west on SE '172" St. and to the nor h an 'i 06', 105' 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 ta SE 172"a
S#reet.
Page 1 EXHIBIT i8
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
t en s Gaw City ofMaor e
Y Y s
ja ae;:,
i '
i t'i pK
April 15, 2016 Community&Ecanomic Development[?epartment
C.E."Chip"Vincent,Administrator
Washington State
Department of Ecology
Environmental Review Section
PO Box 47703
Ofympia, WA 98504-77t}3
5ubje+ct: ENViRaNMENTAt(SEPAI THRESHO D DETERMiNAT10N
Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination for the foilowing
praject reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) an Aprii 11, 2Q16:
SEPA DETERMINATION; Determination of Non-Signi cance Mitigated (DNSM
P4tO,tECT NAME: Avana Ridge UD
PROIECT NUMBER: LUA15-00089d, PPUt?, ECF
Appeats of the environmentai determination must be filed in writ ng on ar before 5.00
p.m. on Apri129, 2016,tage#her with the required fee with: Nearing Examiner, City of
Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appea(s to the Examiner are
governed by RMC 4-8-110 and information regarding the appeai process may be
obtained fram the City Clerk's Qffice, (425) 430-6510.
Please refer ta the enclosed Notice of Environmental Determination for complete
details. !f you have guestions, please call me at {425 434-7219.
For the Environmental Review Cornmittee,
f L.Ld'
Rocale Timmans
Senior Planner
E closure
cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Oivislon Ramin Pazooki,WSDOT,NW Region
Boyd Powers,Department of Natura)Resources Larry Fisher,WDFW
Karen Walter,Fisheries,Muck(eshaat tndian Tribe Duwamish Tribal Office
Me}issa Calvert,Muckleshoot CulLural Resources Frogram US Arrny Corp,of fngineers
Gretchen Kaehler,Off3ce of Archaeology&Historlc PreservatEon
Ful1 Document EXNIBIT 20
Available upan Request
ith Gr dy Way . Renton,Wasfiingtan 9$057 • rentonwa.gov
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
a. ,,.._,.r..
City ofr_
gs.
w_-M-:_.k.-.:
a,
f
A 1-1
Department of Community and Ecanomic Develapment
Planning Division
ADMlNISTRATIVE POLlCY/CQDE INTERPRETATION
ADMINISTRATIVE Futi Document
Po cY/cooE Availabte upan Request
lNTERFRETATt{}N#: CI-73- REVISED
MUNlCIPA!
CODE SECTIONS: 4-2-110.A,4-2-110.6,4-2-110.D, 42-115,4-11-020, and 4-11-23Q
REFERENCE:
SUBJECT: Residential Building Height (RC thru RMF)
BACKGROUND: Erratum Statement: CI-73 implemented changes to the
method af height measurement for structures in the RC
through RMF zones. This erratum statement affects the
two-stary limitation far R-14 zaned properties by
increasing it to three. Dacket#116 advacates for increased
height and story limits for se}ect zones, including the RMF
zane. 7he R-14 zone is transitianal between the R-1Q and
RMF, and therefore R-14 standards are intended to offer a
compromise between the restrictions of the R-10 and the
aflowances of the RMF zone. By limiting wall plate height
to 24' yet allowing three stories, the R-14 zone would
provide an appropriate transitian between the R-10 and
RMF zanes 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 ta roofed buildings is
incansistent and contracfictory with the intent and purpase statements of
Title IV related to residentia! design tRMC 4-2-115). Furth er, regulating
the height of non-roofed structures is unenforceable by Title IV (except
for Building Code). The ambiguity and contradictary aspects of the code
exist for twa reasons:
1. Height is measured to the midpoint of a raof; and
2. Flat roofs are abie to be as tail as buiidings w'rth pitched roofs, which
increases the bui{ding's massing.
H:CED\Planning\Title IV\Oocket\Administrative Policy Code Interpretation\CI-73\Code Int EXHIBIT 21
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
i - -- - - ------
a,_,,u u
I
CT .,,
fl.
II
G
p
i
o
C =
f
j
br
v
m
r
i i
ca
i,
I :;,= ------IAVANA
RfDGE
PI.
ANAIEd
URBAP
YV
ST
BUIEDING
FACi_
NG
NORTHWE$
T____ _ __
WE$
T
B.UILDI.
NG
FACiNG
SOUTHWEST,_._.
E
F
m
I
DEYELQPMENT
I
1D816
SE
i72rtd ''
STREET,
RENTON,
WA
98055
N
I
N
i
N
AVANA
RiDGE,
Lt
wuuro
s
a»°" „
f
ai
I
k
I
r.
1,+
m
I
c— -----,
i
c.
j
E
20N1NG
CODE
Ii
COMPLIANCE-WEST
BUILDING
II
WESTBtlI
QINGFACiNGSQUTNEAST__ . _
WEST_
BUILDINGFACINGNORTHEAST ____.
I
ao.
os
o,
a, ,.,,,
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
DEPARTMENT OF CUMMUNITY
y,,,,.•s '`V'"` { t f`}AND ECC?NOM#C DEVELOPMENT
M E M Ca R A 1 Q U M
DATE: January 11, 2016
TQ: Racale Timmons, Senior Pianner
FROM: Brianne Bannwarth, Development Engineering Manager
SUBIECT. Traffic Concurrency Test—Avana Ridge East and West;
File No. B1S00$865 and 815008867
The applicant is requesting Building Permits for two apartment buiidings under separate
building perrr its. Avana Ridge East is 40 units (Permit No. 615008865} and Avana Ridge West is
34 units (Permit No. 815008867). The subject site is iocated at 10619 SE 1725nd Street. The
vacant site is located within the Residential Multi-Family zoning classificatian.
The propased develapment would generate appraximately 572 ne# new average weekday daily
trips. During the weekday AM peak hour, the project wouid 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 24 outbaund}. The proposed project
passes the ity of Renton Traffic Cancurrency Test per RMC 4-6-07t}.D as follc ws:
Traf c Cancurrency Tes#Criteria Pass
I lmplementation of citywide Transportatian Plan Yes
I
Within aiiowed grawth leveis Yes
Project subject to transpc rtation mitigation or impact fees Yes
Site specific street impravements to be completed by project Yes
Traffic Concurrency Test Passes
Futl Dacument
Avai[able upon Request EXNIBIT 23
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
a.- ''
7
P
4.
J
u,<
L•--
s_____
L_
J'__'
L_-_____»_
i-
J__
j___
l__
r__'
t'___
J---
r_
J
i
f
i
iL
mo _
i
I
i
p
x
v
r
L
i
L
g , ,
I
Q
r--
r__
r --________
z___
z__
s--^
N
j
ti__. _'
L_____
r-
r__.__-
i
L^
II
n
Q
l.
i
1 ,
KEY
LAN
OVERALL
EIEVATION___
sca
3rta_
i,o.
I
I
A
5
OC
C.
3
C
6
C.
D
D.
S
F
3
F.
6
H
H.
1
H.
3
H
6
lO
I
5
OJ
J2
J.
3
J.
6
J.
K
K.
5
OM
ON
N
5
OO
I
i
r, ..
y
r
r..-.. _
ilI
a
t
a'r r
3
y _
U
w
AVANA
RIDGE
t
i ; . ,
u
I
II
PLANNED
URBAN
M1
DEVELOPMENT ,
1 _
1^
t-;-
1 . ; ' .., ..,•
I
70616SE172nd ',
j__ ":.,:..,',.,
I -.._
STREET,
RENTON,
WA
14 ., -. .
98055
r-'
1
e•
m
OVERALL
SITE•
SOUTH
ELEVATION
I
2
II
I'
scn
ms•=
iw•
L,,,,
AVANA
RIDGE,
LLC
OO
N.
5
OM
OL
K.
5
K
J.
8
J.
6
J
3
J2
JQ
I
5
lO
H
3
H
1
H
G
F.
6
F.
3
F
E
D.
5
D
C.
8
C.
B
C
3
C
2
C
8
A.
5
A
Q
O
O
O
OO
O
O
aw..,
m..
O
00
d '
L`
I
L:
R.. -
o
1--
u
T =
r
r,
a
W,
W
r
I
i
I
i
v
C" ` :
k _
wEei
nnE
a.,:
i
G '
OVERALLPROJECTELEVATIONS ,
I
J
L
L ,
vwneoimaixo
vcmwexr ,
I'
9¢
5
o , '
n
OVERALLSITE-
NORTHELEVATION _ _ _
A.
O
scaF
ins•=
ru•
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
I
EXTERIOR
MA7ERIALS
SCHEDULE
V
i
AH
a
na
6
J
a"
f:`„ -_
E. -;
ri,,
o.
i
m-
0
0
w,,
w., '
o"' _
lJ
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
s
I
aw
lo.w.
E...
e
u
wE.,
w .
BUILDINGENVELOPENOTES-
EI.
EVATIONS
KEYNOTES
g
Qg'
ensre
oc-
R.
mE.
oa....
aEo,..
iG
HEIGHT
LIMIT/
I
v
f _-_-
4Z]'-
13132'
J
9
Eo-.
n.
e.
O
I
EASTROOFTOP
y
4l4'-
2]
l
a.
n
c,
y
I
O_
O
mmaruca-
xici...
n•
i [[
e[
oc.
nu-
orr
i
r
EPST_
LEVELS
w
avr
r.
an.
uc
v,[
re,
415'-
9"
O - '_-__
l--_-
O_-..
O..
EAST_
LEVE_L
0
n
p5'-
3'
ll
r----•
O
0
M ,
t
f...._ _
EAST-
LEVEL3
n
I
e,.., ' .
3%._
g.
l
I
O _- '
t-__-_. .
I
i
cPST
BLDG-
AVG
EPST-
L(
3RApE
i
r-,
z
3
I
AVANA
RIDGE
EASTBLDG-
EASTELEVATION
PLANNEDURBAN '
S
E,
e•-,
D•
DEVELOPMENT
O ^ ^
O
O
O
O
10616
SE
172nd
H `
H'
I
H.
3
H
6
I
I
5
J
J2
J
3 ;
J
6
J.
e
K
1
KS
L
M
N
N
5
O
STREET,
RENTON,
WA
98055
O
r
p
P
s,ie,;,*'
ca
r '
m
EPSTBLDG.
f\
i
HEIGHTLIMIT
4 .. • _„:..:
N+
aEM
V
O '
t; :
OO "
OO !,
O
G
ns1"°°`'
ro'
P
AVANA
RIDGE
LLC
V ,
t
aza
s
ie
I
i
a
5.. .
l
EPST
4EVEL5^
onE
T
15-
9'
V
I
i
l'7
J
a {
a
p . - (
1', ";
A ;
G ` °
Q
o
euJ.
a
qn
mMnf
d` '
FAST-
LEVELCdp6-
3'
I
0°
V ° ,'
3`
rl -
u
x
nsaa
e
P
O°
cO
O
i _
EAST-
LEVEL]
J
k,
I
n`j1
a,,
1_'
3%'-
g^
V
O°
O ;.'.
S:,
r;.
C ?
O -
O `
0:
0
Ii
x:
Y
41,,.'
t
i.,,,
t ._.
r.,
z
I
FAST-
LEVEL3BT/
3
i
el
OG_
AlT'1
wsEcin
iw
GRAOEI^
vo
I
Ivl -.
i.
v
aer-
i
arq'
EASTBUILDING
V
i
I
EAST
LEVELIs•
B
ELEVATIONS
b
L
EASTBLDG-
SOUTHELEVATION
I
I
I
SCA
E
1IB'=
0'
I
piu
I
VLWNEDIIRflWDEVEIDpMFM
E„¢,=,.
o.
a ,
m.,,,..,
A3.
10-
E
I
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
II
EJ(
TERIOR
MAIERIALS
SCHEUULE
nw
U
r.
E„
h _
I
M.,
w..
i
Q
i
1
2
3
I'
8
9
10
I;
eN
p --
1.`
w:
a'" - - -
o..
w
M.,. '
E _ ,
N- -'
e " —
T.
E
M
N
R
V
wEEa
IP,,
E....-- -- - ,
wE.,
a
L
Y
7
a
BUIIDING
ENVELOPE
NOTES-
ELEVAlI0N5
KEYNOTES
g
u . .
o
HEIGHTLIMIT/4iT-
1
3132'
J
1
EPSTROOFTOP/
a
LJ
a, ,.
I,
a ,
424
218'
11
e=
ov.xu.
BCE.
Rna[
cvr.nu..
O ;.:
O:-
f
e
f...__......._.
A,'
p
1,;
EAST-
LEVEL._
5.
n
w.
wu.;.
Ew.
xr...
d15'-
9'
V
O
O
O
Irt
j —,
m
oeH
O0.a„vu.E
i' "
l_——__
a...,..
o.,
F
o.
o
v.E.
Ensr-
evE
a
I
r_
e -
I
Q ;
C'
0
EAST-
IEVEL3
I
3%'-
Y
I
EAST-
LEVEL2
i
i
R-t
39T/
S'
T.
EPST
BLOG-
AVG
O
GRADE
i
i
O
R
30T-
1
3132'
EAST-
LEVE
LI
n .
i...
i.
e..•
r _
31T-
g
V
aEciAVANA
RIDGE
Ensre
oc-
wesre
evnnoN
I
PLANNEDURBAN
I
SCA
E,
D•
DEVELOPMENT
i
10616
SE
172nd
i
H
1
98055
RENTON,
WA
I
CO .
5 )
K.
5
CK
J.
8
J
J
I
5
i
O
HJ
CJOO
i
I
cea '
H-
61? " '
I -^
EAST
BLOG
g' ;
Yx . _, .. .:
o__
a£M
O
O ',
t
@+
O
00
O
asr
i`
in"'a
AVANA
RIDGE
LLC
FT
OP'
a'-
li
J
OT
24'-
219•'
J
r
r
E
Q
i
ais
s .
u
o
w
m.
m,
I
i,
II«- «
a
c.
5,
EFST-
LEVELS
r
0
o
f
YF
tP
w
0--_ -`
O .
O.
r, ___
O
O '
r
39 «
i
O
O
s
O
O
6
y
i '
LEVEL3
F
EAST-
i
d
c.
n -._
7".'^
3%
Y
i
n .
u
O -
E
O
O
O
j (
O
O°
O
O
O
FASTBLDG-
AVG
li
E
v-.«
a
L_—_.
GRADE
rro
v-.._.
38T-
1
3(
i
wa[
c
iw
v`
J.
TFAST-
LEV ] 3B'"''
EAST
BUILDING ELEVATIONS
EPST.
LEVELI
J
3.
L
vu
ouxeu,
o
v
cxr
SE
172N0
ST-
EAST
BUILDING
NORTH
ELEVATION'
15
I
scn
E
ve=
ru•
N
e
A3.
11-
E
aa
E,
9g=,..
a,
a ,
m,.,,.
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
I
a..+
EXiERIORMATERIALSSCHEDULE
J
m
nn
I
J
I,
10
9
8
O
J
J
O
3
2
O
w., ..
a
Ur »..,
Ea ',
R
w - - (" - - -- - -- -
a
a
w«'""`.
h
i
u
I
a'
a
w`
s`
Lw"
P >,
E....
w
i
a>
R
aE,
BUILDING
ENVELOPE
NOTES
ELEVATIONS
KEYNOTES
g
I
Y
aE
o.,«
w.
w,,
Ew..
vo:,
E.
E.,
a..>.,
n,
w:.,,:
sE
y;
v
aER,.,
o,:.
G.
u=,
u„
oo.
aE
w.
WESTBIWHEIGHTLIMIT
eoE
cna[
ounru °
eEo+
u
uc
g'}' } _ —
C11'-
4Jl
e
i
WESTROOFTOP/
n,
G
E''
O
009'-
B3I8'
V
L
O
o ,
o
ff,..
U,
u,
E.
bJl
I
v
WEST-
LEVEI.
S
s ,
qEpv,
xuusrcv-
cu
iasa
ert,
ouc.,
Ew,
I
r
O .
x
01'-
3'
I
WEST-
LEVELC
n
I
J91'-
9'
11
O
N6
escE
i
s.,. ..... ..,......
N.
EST-
LEVEL3
I
I
382'-
1
u<
u
m
i
WEST
LEVEL23]2'
Ip
ST'
AVG
m...,. ',
ftADE
3l1'-
d311G
V
AVANA
RIDGE
WEST
BLDG-
EAST
ELEVATION
Z
I
PLANNED
URBAN '
Sc`
E
e• ,•
u
DEVELOPMENT10616
SE
172nd '',
STREEf,
RENTON,
WA '
i
O
O
J .,
a .
O
O
98055
A
A
5
B
C
C
2
C.
3
C.
6 (
C
8
D (
D.
5
E
F
F
3
F.
6
G
I
4x.'` ,
Q
STB1
AVANA
RIDGE,
LLC
I
s.
r ,
g
m"
Ir. ' '•
HEIGHTLIMIT
i-----
1
3 '
r,,,
naoe
Fa
rae
i
J - '
4
0
f ' , __ " '
i
QQ `
0°
1
0
T
n
v:
es
T
4
y
5-
LEVEL5/
auu
ortwrt
m
mii '
M
i.
i' —_ _
z.
i .
L''`
T
S
fi
L
wE
1 _
V
I
U- _ _-
lJ
r'yi
d
d
O
O `
Oi_
O" . ° :
li
A01
3
I
t .
d
f
m
c,
O
C
s
I
o -
f ,."'_
k'
yh.
O4_
KES--
391-
9
V
C
O
0 :
W
O:
c
a,
M,.,-,
a..
t
0
O
ra ,'
T'
cei
O.,
t
a _
O
VJEST-
LE
VEL3
4
O ——
38]•.
3'
1
O__ __
0 ,
yN '
U
Qf `, '
s,
4
G
s—
e
z
o
ii
i
w
ro
WEST-
LEV
EL]
V
3]
3'.
g
V
srEE.
miE
WESGRA
E
WEST
BUILDING
I
3„-.,
ELEVATIONS
WEST-
LEVE
1
I
J63.
9
WESTBLDG-
SOUTFIELEVATION_ _
vux
eouxasxoEVE
orNexr
I
SCALE
II0•-
1•L•
A3.
20-
W
sg=,.-.
a ,
g.,,,,,
n — --
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
i
m
a-- '
EXTERIORMATERIALSSCHEDULE
J
2
3
O
O
O
O
8
9 ,
o
e.,
U
n—
a
y
n
Q
a,
m _
sra-
m';
B— ,
w,
HEIGHT
LIMIT '
x''
1 ..
I
I
I
I
F
F
411'-
A3l
G _
wowcwraa
pvp
Iveap[
rrrw
uurvrtn
a
nrnu
x[
tvnrwri
5
I
Ilsucomma
I
v.
sreoocroP
BUILUINGENVELOPENOTES•
ELEVATIONS
I
YNOTES
L
O. .__- ,
r
O .. '
O ,
9, ---` -
O - - -—
aos•-
ewa•9
i_,
p
I
4...
OM_ ___
VVEST-
L'
ELS
Il .
r.
ec.
E
s>
oxuu. [
cs
v
nuc,
i
j.
J
A
O
0 _ }:?
C
s...
F,...
L
II
f ?_ _ _
VVEST-
LEVEL_
C
n
s
seE,
voa..
wG.
E;
i3 -[
teta.
n
c.
nr
R
w
srr'
seE
c
etw
nu:
xr,
vic•
w.
vuvanunac.
ee.= .
i
J..
391'"
9
V
s
sEpu.
nuc,
rw*
cica.
isrtr..
r
ce .
O
u.E9
I
F
Q
II
I
WEST-
LEVEL
I
382•
3•
i
G
l..... _. .,,.,
c. - ,
N,
EST-
LEVEL2
r - _
3J2_
q'
I
KEST-
AV,
I
O :;.
G °
i ^
GRhDE\
I
t :: ._.
3)
t'-
0]
I1Gd
II
yVEST-
LEVELI_
r_-
I
363'-
3'
hiwv.E
e...... ....... '
wotcrAVANA
RIDGE
WESTBLUG-
WESTELEVATION-
BENSONDR
PLANNEDURBAN '',
E"
a-'°
J
DEVELOPMENT10616
SE
172nd
STREET,
RENTON,
WA
OG
F
6
F
3
OF
OE
C
Op
16C.
8
C.
6
C
3
C.
2
OC
A.
5
Oq
98055
cB ,
y
i » ——
15'-=
O
4
Y
rV`
r
iw<
t '
O.
nt `
0
r,
AVANA
RID
LC ''
O
Q"'""
i"}
iI
409
B
3l9
V
I
0 •
Cv . --_:
t _ • , <
C
U-
U . .
GE
L
WEST
ROOF
TOP
J .—_
I
YVEST-
LEVElS
eiau
artwirt
rmm
401
3•
i
M .,
p
I .:,:
i,',
b,
n
i ; '
i+ ,.
Q -
J_ _
9
@
v,
sr-
tvE
a
91
9
I
Q
s,:,'< , ' af
r
3
lu.,
O ='
a ',
O
C
a '
1_ _ -..
z
R .--
t '
ea '
4
i,
LEVEL
3
ce<
i
2'.
J
I
r:'
t.
y'^
p "•_
O '
O° ';
4
5 :/ '
n '
Va
A,, '
StiV
il
O ..;`
t:°,
lli
O ,
L
I
e
n,
a
4
nw.'.• . '
i._..-. '
e .
wuw
vo
Wfl
r
L '
m
v
YJEST.
LEVEL2(
mo.[
crw
ex '
L
h
3]
2'-
9
V
1
r
i
o :'
C
t
R
wEsa
WEST
BUILDING
ST.,
ELEVATIONS
963.
9•
WEST
BLDG•
NORTH
ELEVA710N-
SE
172ND
ST .
P
O
EM
I
scnie
de=''
u•
J
a,a
E.
9g,
s,.
w,
aa,
a ,
gm,,,,.
n
A3.
21-
W ',
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
i
s
pr- :
I
X*
lA'
t
EK'+
a
a;.,:
I
lI
K,.,
z- .:
t7 .
ax. ,
t
ia`_ -
x":
L@y( ,
tat"`
ik.,'
i. . .'
R£!
t,''!'"""
k
Gt,''+`..
i
a`'.
2$
1
i
6, "`.
t.
r'
t;`
v .
Fy.,.
r
r"
t4"F "
u
e
N.. '-'
3:
Y"'
i! +%,
bL°
s
y'A'',
y `"';
k'„
y --
v
i
f
A
G
r;
iw'i
9
tR
ed` `
a'+'
c
s9',;
p, ......_. ,..:._ :
y
y`
a
e."',"
o''+'
fF;
Af
A
6dr
r+
6t
t
r;;,!
rv. ..' '
F
y,;,
A
n.
zt '
r
dw
a.
r
rcrr..-
V"
i' '
4'"' ,+
A _.,».
a........ . " --...
a.
v.._.
I
p.
3.,
Om`:
Il.,.
lt,„
u .
I
I'
l) -, '^^` ,
1
Y
A,,
y:-
r....._.. .,
g; .
r.%
i
i
Y
l+
r;
ra
4''
i/'
a
k,
a4r/
r>
I .
j `
i
f
r - ,
y,
r -'
r
a °,
i
Y.
r
rt'.'"
w' +
a `
x`
r '
R,
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
W
w
u
d
L
ry
T--
i-
Q
r---=-- - —
559.
883
PROP.
LINE —
L-
L`
w. .......
rww +.
ww=,,.
wr . . — .
4
f
Ly.._
1
I'
M'"`
m..:` :._'
r . .
ov3v'._
i1+ '
lY
f
t. ..}. .
J .
c..
l
y'-.
1*' ,
r....
Y -
i —
1._'
ik {:
j
s
1 .
r1.
PPOG08E04STOPY [.
Ir* \•
PPOPOSEO
StORY
HI '
W
I'
AOJACENTLOT
i':
i'>>.
I
MARTMENTBUILOIN6
i,.
Y.:`'
li
MARTYFMTBUNDBi6
h ;
f
GMCEL19n11591]
6
6YEXWYLRB/
SEMEM
I ,
O
OVEROAYl1tBPSEMENT
s•.
ec,
ra
a,
1iI
R--..._._.
w.
a.
ti
art
r
u,+
pe
p
8
r,:
fti,'
tt
E
o
J
a
a
4 ::<;:
253.
60'
PROP
LINE
je"
vv:
i., ::......_ . ` ";.,..`^-.,
i2z'
h, ,..—
a.+....
aia.-
a
a!
r
ea..
e
n:
er1:.=..
A
r '
d,.:
a ... .:. .,.{;.
r
r_.
r`'
j _, : :.:.?";:;:.
p;,<,,,::
Y:>:
E'
a::?
i.:.:"...
s.;<
i::,
C#
t
4
L;
C '
4 +`
a..
t.. ,
o, „ ,
w.,. ....
1
i* ' , `!
j,,.:.,;
ti•..::.;:,.,
r,
c:
e:::,..;.,,.
AVANA
RIDGE,_
c `,`.'"` ." "'
r ;`"."
a'
PLANNED
URBAN ,
c
w
n.
M:
y..,.,. , '
e
j
j'
i' '
f
DEVELOPMENT
ilt !
10fi16
SE
172nd
I,.'.' //
11
STREET,
RENTON,
WA '
i
98055
s
pP
A
I
F
J,
i
4 ,
I
AVANA
RIDGE,
LLC
i
Y';
t ''.
aw«„
s —
f
r .
a,
E
vn:
v.
c.-:
f
fF . "-.:.. .... __
O %
C '.,''
rw, `" = %,
j
i. '' `
ij.
A
t
NORTH
ji'
v
r'.. ,
r.
61.
00'
PROP.
LINE.'; "
J/
ytEi-
rESITE
PLAN
PUD
euxx
u
xoEraav
wr
s,,,- ;-.,
u ---- ----- ---- -- -- - -
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNi Y C TY OF
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Rentan '}
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT
ERC MEETING DATE: April 11, 2016
Project Name: Avana Ridge PUD
Project Number:LUA15-000894, PPUD, ECF
Project Manager: Rocale Timmons,Senior Planner
Owner: Avana Ridge, LLC;9675 SE 36th St, Ste 105; Mercer Island, WA 98040
Contact: Justin Lagers;Avana Ridge, LLC; 9675 SE 36th St, Ste 105; Mercer Island, WA 98040
Project Location:17249 Benson Rd S
Project5ummary: 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 du/ac. 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 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.
Site Area:164,827 SF Total 8uilding Area GSF:92,899 SF
STAFF Staff Recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination
RECOMMENDATION: of Non-Significance-Mitigated(DNS-M).
ti
Project Location Map
ERC Report
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
City ofRenton Department of Community&E,.. ,omic Development nvironmental Review Committee Report
AVANA RIDGE PUD LUA15-000894,PPUD,ECF
Report of April 11,2016 Page 2 of 13
PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND
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
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 CA).
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 du/ac. The proposed 74 units would be comprised of(28) 1-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.
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
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
City of Renton Department of Community&F omic Development nvironmental Review Committee Report
AVANA R/DGE PUD __ y
LUA15-000894,PPUD, ECF
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
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 St 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 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.
C. Exhibits
Exhibit 1 ERC Report
Exhibit 2 Site Plan
Exhibit 3 Landscape Plen
Exhibit 4 Elevations
Exhibit 5 Grading Plan
Exhibit 6 Geotechnical Report, prepared by Earth Solutions NW(dated December 21, 2015)
Exhibit 7 Coal Mine Hazard Study, prepared by Icicle Creek Engineers (dated March 22, 2004)
ERC Report
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
City ofRenton Department of Cammunity&E,.,,omic Development nviranmental Review Committee Report
AVANAR/DGEPUD LUA15-000894,PPUD,ECF
Report af April 11, 2016 Page 4 of 13
Exhibit 8 Coai Mine Hazard Study, prepared by Icicle Creek Engineers(dated January 20, 2009)
Exhibit 9 Drainage Report, prepared by D.R.Strong (dated December 28, 2015)
Exhibit 10 Supplemental Stream Study, prepared by Sewell Wetland Consulting(dated December
22, 2015)
Exhibit 11 Conceptual Stream Mitigation Plan prepared by 5ewell Wetland Consulting(December
28, 2015)
Exhibit 12 Habitat Qata Report, prepared tay Sewell Wetland Consulting(dated December 22,
2015j
Exhibit 13 Arborist Report, prepared by Greenfarest Inc. (dated December 16, 2015}
Exhibit 14 Tree Retention Pian
Exhibit 15 Traffic impact Analysis{T1A}, prepared by TraffEx(dated February 2, 2016j
Exhibit 16 Public Comment LettersfEmaiis
Exhibit 17 independent Secondary Review—Traffic Study, prepared by TenW(dated March 21,
201fi)
Exhibit 18 Response Memo- Independent Secondary Review, prepared by Traffex(dated March
26, 2016)
D. Enviranmentallmpacts
The Proposa/ was circu/ated and reviewed by various City Departments and Divisians to determine whether rhe
ppplicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated ta accur in conjunction
with the proposed develapment. Staff reviewers have identified that the proposal is likely to have the following
probab/e impacts:
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 tapographic relief af approximately 35 feet. The
steepest siape on the site is approxirnately 20% in the praximity of the stream on site. The applicant is
propasing excavation in the amount of approximate y 11,000 cubic yards. Approximately 3,250 cubic yards
of fiil is proposed, of which 1,000 cubic yards wauld be imported structured fiil. Foilawing construction the
appiicant is prnposing an impervious cover af approximately 53% of the net site area, minus right-of-way
dedicatians 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 canditions on site which would preclude the
propased development and the development would likely be supported by conventional foundatians.
The soils on site were classified as Vashon till, beginning at approximately 2 to 6 feet below grade. Bedrock
was encauntered approximately 22 to 43 feet below grade. No groundwater seepage was faund by Earth
Salutions NW. However, groundwater seepage was encountered by Icicle Creek Engineers during their field
visit, for the coal mine hazard analysis, at ane 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 arder to mitigate potentia! geotechnica!
impacts including: site preparation, structural fill, foundations, drainage cansiderations, hazards including,
and project design and monitoring. The applicant wil! be required to comply with the recommendations
included in the provided Geotechnical Engineering Report (Exhibit 6j,
A coal mine was operated historically urithin the southerr portion af the site, afang the southwesterly
property line. Accarding to the Coal Mine Hazard Study, prepared by fcicle Creek Engineers on lanuary 26,
ERC Report
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
City ofRenton Department ofCommunity&E._,omic Development nvironmental Review Committee Report
AVANA RIDGE PUD LUA15-000894,PPUD, ECF
Report of April 11,2016 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 Geotechnical 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 staff's 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 of fish use. Class Ns
streams have a standard buffer of 50 feet as measured from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) as well
ERC Report
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
City ofRenton Department ofCommunity&E. .omic Development nvironmenta!Review Committee Report
AVANA RIDGE PUD LUA15-000894,PPUD,ECF
Report of April 11,2016 Page 6 of 13
as a 15-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 Avera in Proposal:
RMC 4-3-050.1.1 altows 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:
i. 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 4-3-050.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 4-3-050.1.2.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
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
ERC Report
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
City of Renton Department of Community&E._.omic Development
t _
nvironmental Review Committee Report
AVANA RIDGE PUD LUA15-000894,PPUD,ECF
Report of April 11, 2016 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 S 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 S 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
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
City ofRenton Deportment of Community&t. .,omic Development nvironmental Review Committee Report
AVANA RIDGE PUD LUA15-000894,PPUD,ECF
Report of April 11,2016 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 tndian 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 intrusion and would not
adversely impact habitat connectivity.
Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation needed
Nexus: Not applicable
ERC Report
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
City of Renton Department af Community&c_..omic Development nvironmental Review Committee Report
AVANA R/pGE PUD LUAIS-000894,PPUD,ECF
Report of April 11,2016 Page 9 of 13
5. 7ransportation
Impacts; The applicant submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by TraffEx, dated February 2, 2016
Exhibit 15j. The provided T1A was found to meet the intent of the TIA guidelines and is generally acceptable
for preliminary review. Several traffic related comments iettersJemails have been received by the public.
The comments raise concerns regarding the use of the prapased SE 172"d St entrance and potential impacts
to the neighbaring 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 cansider 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 recommendatians 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 anaiysis af
queuing on Bensan Rd and left turn lane warrants.
After review of the ariginal Traffic Impact Analysis (Exhibit 15), Independent Secondary Review (Exhibit 17),
and the applicant's respanse memo (Exhibit 18) staff provided applicable comments below for each
Transportation subject.
Access: The applicant is proposing two points o# 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 Sauth. The two access points converge to form
drive-through access through the site. Several public comments were received requesting access be
eliminated from SE 172"d St, in order ta mitigate anticipated cut through traffic on neighbaring raads to the
north. In addition, concerns were raised regarding the blocking of the propased access, along Benson Rd 5,
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 prapased mitigation, was analyzed as part of the Independent Secondary Review prepared by
TENW (Exhibit 17}. TENW general4y affirmed the trip distribution assumptions made by TraffEx and
substantiated the need for two access points. With respect to proposed mitigation,TraffEx de#ermined that
the proposed SE 172"d St driveway configuration would be ineffective in limiting impacts to neighboring
residential streets ta the north. In addition, it is anticipated that restrictions to the SE 172"d driveway would
encourage u-turns and assaciated impacts to existing residential driveways along the north side of 5E 172na
St. Therefare, staff will be recommending a condition, of Hearing Examiner approval, the elimination of the
propased access restrictions along SE 172"St, and the entrance will be required ta pravide full access.
In order to address anticipated impacts on neighboring streets caused by cut-through traffic, staff
recammends traffic calming measures be used in lieu of the foregaing site access restrictior. Specifically,
Electronic Speed Radar Signage has been shown ta be effective in reducing traffic speeds and aggressive
driving. Staff recommends, as a mitigation measure,that one 1 Electronic 5peed Radar Sign be installed in
the northbound directian on bath 106th Ave SE and 104th Ave SE, The applicant shall instaU the signs,
mounting poles, and assaciated equipment, at the direction of the City. All improvements shall be induded
in the engineering permit submittal far review and approval, and shall be constructed prior to temporary
occupancy.
ERC Report
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
City of Renton Department of Community&Ec iomic Development ironmental Review Committee Report
AVANA RIDGE PUD LUA15-000894,PPUD, ECF
Report of April 11,2016 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"d St
Intersection 2: 108`h Ave SE/Benson Rd 5/SE 172"d St
Intersection 3: Site Access/Benson Rd 5/108th 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 172"d 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"d 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"d 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 S (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 S 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 S 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 S 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 S which comply with code.
SE 172"d St —SE 172"d 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 172"d St frontage, per the
ERC Report
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
i
City ofRenton Department of Community&Economic Development ivironmental Review Committee Report
AVANA RIDGE PUD LUA15-000894,PPUD,ECF
Report of April 11, 2016 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 stormwater improvements are
required. The applicant is proposing street improvements, along SE 172"d 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 1-foot behind the sidewalk in addition to right-of-way dedication for luminaire
foundations along SE 172"d 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 S and SE 172"d 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"d St and Benson Rd S, 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"d St 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 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.
Concurrencv - 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 of this 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 Apaeal 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—
7tn Floor, (425)430-6510.
ERC Report
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
City of Renton Department of Community, -conomic Deve/opment Environ---nta/Review Committee Report
AVANA RIDCEPUD LUAIS-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. eecause these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for the
land use actions.
Plannin:
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 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 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/or 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.
Draina e:
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 til 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
ERC Report
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
City ofRenton Department of Community&E. 7mic Development nviranmental Review Committee Report
AVANA RID6F PUD LUA15-000894,PPUD,ECF
Report af April 11,2016 Page 13 of 13
construction permit will be appEicable.
Transportation:
1. 7he 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 adjaeent to the site should be ADA compliant. ADA also requires
matching ADA campliant 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 ta be provided on the frantage streets by the praject.
5. The City of Rentan Trench restoration and Street overlay requirements wiil be appiicable for any work in the public
right af way.
Parks:
1. Park Impact Fees per Ordinance 567Q applies.
2. Street trees—6inkgo on SR 515;Ash on Benson Rd.S.;Elm on SE 172nd.Space minimum distance of 5Q feet apart and
not dose than 30 feet from street lights{not a!I lights are shown on plans). Potentia!for one to two more street trees
at NE corner af 5R515 8e Benson Rd. Use only Ginka, Elm,and Ash as street trees.
3. Planting Strip:require a continuous planting strip along all streets,then sidewalk; plan does not shaw this. Dangerous,
fast traffic requires that a planting strip buffer pedestrians fram roadway.
4. Parking lot:some islands are too smalfi far trees;use only vine maple or smaller in those areas.
Generai:
1. Afl canstruction or service u#ility permits#or drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittafs.
A!I utility plans shall canform to the Renton Orafting Standards.Plans shall be prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer.
2. When utility pEans are cnmplete,pfease subrnit four{4}copies of the drawings,two(2}copies af the drainage report,
permft application,an itemized cost of construction estimate,and applicatian fee at the counter on the sixth floor.
ERC Report
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
o ,}
EXHIBITS
Project Name; Project Number:
Avana Ridge Preliminary PUD LUA15-000894, ECF, PPUD
Date of Hearing Staff Contact Project Contact/Appiicant Project Location
tentatively)5/10/16 Rocale Timmons lustin Lagers 17249 Benson Rd S Renton,
Senior Planner Avana Ridge,LLC WA
9675 SE 36th St,Ste 105;
Mercer Island,WA 98040
The following exhibits were entered into the record:
Exhibit 1 ERC Report
Exhibit 2 Site Plan
Exhibit 3 Landscape Plan
Exhibit 4 Elevations
Exhibit 5 Grading Plan
Exhibit 6 Geotechnical Report, prepared by Earth Solutions NW(dated December 21,
2015)
Exhibit 7 Coal Mine Hazard Study, prepared by Icicle Creek Engineers(dated March 22,
2004)
Exhibit 8 Coal Mine Hazard Study, prepared by Icicle Creek Engineers (dated lanuary 20,
2009}
Exhibit 9 Drainage Report, prepared by D.R. Strong (dated December 28, 2015)
Exhibit 10 Supplemental Stream Study, prepared by Sewell Wetland Consulting (dated
December 22, 2015)
Exhibit 11 Conceptual Stream Mitigation Plan prepared by Sewell Wetland Consulting
December 28, 2015)
Exhibit 12 Habitat Data Report, prepared by Sewell Wetland Consulting(dated December
22, 2015)
Exhibit 13 Arborist Report, prepared by Greenforest Inc. (dated December 16, 2015)
Exhibit 14 Tree Retention Plan
Exhibit 15 Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), prepared by TraffEx(dated February 2, 2016)
Exhibit 16 Public Comment Letters/Emails
Exhibit 17 Independent Secondary Review—Traffic Study, prepared by TenW(dated March
21,2016)
Exhibit 18 Response Memo- Independent Secondary Review, prepared by Traffex(dated
March 26, 2016)
CITY OF
en on
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
v
g_
L
S
I
721
1-
S -
EF1` _ _ _ __ _ .-__ __,,_-
r., ,
i–_
L_
P
i ,
l
559AEJ
PROP.
UNE`___—__. ——---- ----------_—.
w .
w .....
w.. '—
Wi,
t -------
aw+,_.
i
i
i i
v.—
n. '
y
w
rxi
w
nr
I
r'_
r
1{ '
1
i
j,..,,..
4 ' ..____ —
i _.
r-- '"
ie-.
f-:
x-
a, _.
Y.__
iBUILqN6 .'__
e_ _^
y)
I
J
y
r
rn
s*
an
rna
oe[
oaeran
q
rualcciCe
oa
n
vAxf
E1
i8
YLxG
w
NiMFNiBualNNi
6
p
I
OVEIIQ{
riliB
ISEYEMT
i _
OVfRMriJTBASENENT
7'
p
f'
i
R
4
t
wm7
J1111; ..; ,
o
a,
I^
i . , ' .
I
i:
b.
I
I
I
I
I .; :..!_
d___
1._....
1..__.:
1.,
1 .,
f
jj :, `
t
1:
1_
TZ.
I. _(
I
11.
1_.
1
1._
lJ.. •. ,;
I .....
a
1_
1__
I_° °
11
T
s `:` `'
j ,
R
f:•
PLANLOPMENT
N
r.
r.. ....
I
o
c
c '.
n `/`
w`„+
ebsc"` (
I
1
I :
I
I
D
j
os
ssEnz
a
o `` .
e-,.,.,.,, /.
STREET,
REMON,
WA
I/
0
l
O:
I
e `.\
i;
I
j%
O
i
AVANA
RIDGE,
LLC
j
4i %
i
I
j
j
i
p?
y,
j
imn
p'
rc
aoun
i!,
i
N•
H
s
e,.
00
r' - ROP.
LHVE-'
I
1—-.
i
I °"
ucc"'------- _
m
I
SITEEPLAN
PUD
EXHIBIT
2
J
i
awew
rkl
ani.,
H`.%'
I
rw.
tNE---
I
IYINIrflu
tlY
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
h,
e
4
Z
yyyyyy .
y :
llly'gi- /' .
T, ...
WRP1
Ird
11Al,
A'..
p
tY" -
w
r '
C
b•L
H .`'
F .
N`
r ":*
r
z:'
rhr.. , .
r. :'.
9:. ..
b,"
ty
I
J_'
lw,..."
i"w..
3e_.._...^.
v.'. +.'_`. _.
y ..
t
tayh
k ' '
Ff
4''
y"' }°
x
ee . '
X.
y.
4
xL+
trs¢"'
4`,
1 : '
f`'°
e ^
s&*,
I{, : ...
3`.
P'd''
r
i
xa
x
IU"
x;:_
x.
iss
a
r.•. _,
C"
a
i
C .
4
ag,
a
4+
i)
w "
F
r
t
y ``
se, "
2 ,.
s•i
t"i
f.'
w +
cr;,'!,
w.
x`
aka,
iii ...
i,--
x...
r
mC
5° '
i` ".,
r`
y ..
fi
3i''
te
F'
4 ;
s
s
w.
s''`"
i
r
r
at`` '
h.
3
Y '
fiis.
d .... . .
m+
b.'-
wr
Jt
t
5`.`"' .
tw.
w.
IX
y,.^`
n»"
r'
g.
e-
P ;
w`.
Sb ' ,
n,
i. .
W
ttNF1W..,
unsRh.,
bft ;
u4
t •.
i'
l
1 ':.
1
hF .
e'F'
p
q
C_) . _ .
a '
w+
nea,
a
i
r.
s
a'
s « .'
w
i
i@e,+',° ... .
F .'
z'
a
w`
l+;;
e
t
g
y'
in
i
Y1 ,
b
L
r ,
I
Y#
Y':,
y,,
d ;,
t
jI ,,$.-
L'
3 ,
s.?
Slre+ .'".' ,.
ya
r
q
y,,",-
9
5 .
rty
s `, ,,
i'
y
a'
yA'
k /''
y
OI
r4b'
A
Y'
y,
g.
v'
s
w50-`" ,^
k' '
m'
I ++,''
w..
r
a''*
sy,/
f
t4`
y.
9
t/%/
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
Full
Document
i
Available
upon
Reques
i
Nx
w
i
j
m
C/
S
1. ..
r--,
r -
r_.--__
i
i
t.—
t_
r— } --
1__
r—
i
8
i
i
i
u
I
i
N:
l.v>
I
M
u
i
i
i
i
r
I
i
i
ir
J
i
i
L__" '`__, . '._"__.
r— ,--
J
i
i._ .__
f' '
1 _ '_"
j
1 " ' "'____" , _ '
i___
1
L
u,
N
u?i
j
L
KEV_
P.LAN
QVERALL
ELEVATIQN.---
SCh.
E
LN'="
0'
w "
I
l
A
A-
Si ,
B
C(
C2
C.
3J (
C.
fij(
C
8j
D,_
5;
E_
F
F.
3
F.
6;
G
H
H.
1,
H,
1
HBj (
I'' ,'
I
5) !
J
J
XJ. `
J.
b)
J
8
Kj(
K
5)
l
M (
N
1 ,)
p)
1 ' '
T'
i
f"+"`
i
i
r' '-+,__._.:,
T __ _ ,
w..l. -
j
J
AVANA
R .....
I
P.
T—.. ;
IDGE
I
L_
i
k:. _
s;.
pT`I
D
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
i —
1.-- -
os
s
se
nz
d
STREET,
RENTON,
WA
r .•
98055
L
OVERAL
SRE-
SOUTHELEVATION_
r2 )
SCA:
E
1ItG•
1-
0'
u
J
AVANA
RIDGE,
LL
o
O
N_
5 (,
N; !
M
L! ,
K.
S
K
J.
B
J.
6,
J.
31
J.
2
J ? (
IS; (
I,
1 (
H.
B
iH.
3
H.
1\
H;'
G
F.
6i (
F,
3
F, (
D.
D
C.
B
C,
6i
C.:,
Q2
C
B
q.>
q
w.
w. ,
i.-
s:
h
i
r--
IM
1
T
1
T;7 1 -^
j
OVERALL
t—
PROJECT
i ,{`'.
l[
1'
1.
I.;.!_
i.
i
ELEVATIONS
L
A3.
01
OVERALL
SITE-
NORTH
ELEVATION ___
rah...
w --- ----- -- - --
scn
Eirg.rp— --
u,
EXHIBIT
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
p,"
L
m
1:` ',;;'.:'; ;,
a
N
s'
a,
m,.
s"'" „ -=-
c„
vr.
a
sa3''
cu
tl
Ag
aad
3'
w
s'°.
i
q»
S
1N
C
Y
5
sx
a
a,,>,,,,
ara,
o,
e +°
m"'
ON
i'
Obd
St10
soo*
N
l
a '
j
i :;."
wvu" '
y
d
j
V
1\`.
n
a
L
N
t;_-:.
4
c
fan
NIA
y
r'.,..=-
W.:.
on";;;;,+
w
p,
ma
n°
s .,
wm.y+
v
s
nd,
ua
a°"
e
m`°"""'
ais"°<
i
is
i`
nvi,
y„
sv
t..
z.. ,
f' ,. .
s,, .
nw
z
qt
EL
M
ap
W
w-:
M
fF,•
H'
JM
o
t
WIY
i
T
u
i+
6
Y""
ra ,
r
c"
a°
A
f,:'
r,'
rW
rw
iayjrio"'"
m„
s'
T",
N
y
oN
V
ei,
o '
s,9,
N
y,
7y .
u< ,,;
I
3J
iq
t
yb
g
s
y3•
a'i ,**'
iY
1
C~N''
W
y ,. _ `
8
f.""_ - - -
4`'
h''
a,
y"
h
st
y
n%
ns
a
A,
1>' '
N
1..^...
R
Y
1 , `
is
M
a•
r-_ -;
a~
9
Y
i
e#
3.
1N:,.
d-°
T-
T ~
G.
w
y
i
9€
dii.
11:
V
r /
il:
F.
l`
sf
hv
y
3,ie[:,,
e
r`^. '
a
a,
e:.
x.
r
f '
i' _- '-- -
Y. _'_'
4
t`}
J
r;
y
l . ..
Y=-/
1y
R _ — \'
c,
Up11f191S
L`
1"
re' - *
f
f`'
f _,. %,
n\` . '
x
J
7
y
4,..__
ti-
y..."`"'-` ..___ _--=.
X
Y
i ..
m+
y('
5_"_
1..,..
i
M
L
o
oKu+
lr '<
f
fi
1'°
M"
1!
3
Yw^
c
a
cs
ti(
1
js
I,,
c
y/
M,' _ ,
rt'
10
8
t
t„ .%
r: ..+.,'"
x
i'
vl ,. ' -="
t
s ,
f_ `
i
I'j... ;
t;,,',,,
l-/
J--""`
yc
as
4
t;
w
y ,
a
S ,
r---
1
L/
J
J
p ' -
a"`".
I
w
tk
I
s- '
i
J\ `
S
NdndN0il
3s
4
t
M
I
YNaZ
iNs
l
5
39N
WM
3
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
f+,.
t- : .,rsi Full Document
Available upon Request
y; . -
F ;
4,
i h
z
Geotechnical Enginee ing
Geoln• ,
Environmental Scientists
Construction 1 lonitorinQ ;
3
f
v.
x-,:
r:`.
ro•y '
r=i.',r''r' rm
s,",,"='s`
f _
A'^`
4
4.
A, w e .,
X p ' } {' }'_,i.. 4' M
d
1' aq:x^tiw iad"' yJw vl l i"!+
r7`,/il, #J',
I^.a'
f
3n'
t"
ww,^^.+
i°'f _'`
r .
N p ' .a,`
y' y
tw
i
4
p '
d. .f . F 'A `Yi'MMf'af A .@''',i 'k ' la F'Y,ay,M r w.
b. N' jj y e t
z wa.o 'm,', . . gy'T F d
y ,.
y , s g t '
y;
r.-
y` , Y`
er 's".'`- ."
v. > .GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY ;. «
AVANA RIDGE
F"
a ..,,.10615 SOUTHEAST 172nd STREET ;.<
RENT N, WASHINGT4N
r
ES-4147
EXHIBIT 6
a T
w.„, .i`
L,i: " ,.:"'", '"`sr
e,,
aC. .. _ _ __ . M.._ .s 4 .` ..
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
Fut1 Document
j Avaitable upon Requesti
Report
Gealogical Engineering Services
Coal Mine Hazard Assessment
Cugini Property—Narthwest Parcel
Renton (King Caunt}, Washingtan
March 22,2U94
Praj ct lvo..0336-004
Prepared For:
AIe ugini
Prenared By;
cicie reek Engineers,Inc.
EXHIBIT' 7
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
Futl Document
Avaitable upon Request
Repc rt
Geotec nical ngineering Services
Praposed Praperty I3ev+opmQnt
5pringbrook Ridge
ing Corunty Tax Parcel Nos.
2923459Q09 and 2023Q59148
Rentan,Washingtan
Janusry 2G,2Q(i9
Project No.4336-004
Prepared For:
Alex Gtcgiu
Prepared By:
Icicle Creek Engineer,Inc.
EXHIBIT $
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
Futi Document
Avaitable upon Request
Preliminary Technical Information Report
T!R}
for
AVANA RIDGE PUD
i7249 Benson Road S and 10615 SE 172"¢Street Renton,Washingtan
p+riE R SflaFws
c c
Uxtt-'
2
jv
30i95 _
SsiorvA.``
G
a•2.,v f
DRS Project No. 15088
Renton File No. PRE15-0 0611
OwnerfAppricarrt
Avana Ridge, LLC
9725 SE 36`h Street, Sui#e 214
Mercer Island, Washington 98040
Repart Prepared by
J
D. R. STRONG Gonsulting Engineers, Inc.
620 7th Avenue
Kirkland WA 9$033
425) 827-3063
Report lssue Date
December 28, 2015 EXNIBIT 9
C3 2015 D. R.STRONG Consuiting Engineers Inc.
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
K.- _-
a-... Sewall Wetland Consulting. lnc.
o sso 2 s-o 7
FallGty.WA;Q24
Futl Document
Available upon Request
December 22, 2015
Justin Lagers
Avana Ridge, LLC
9675 SE 36th Street, Suite 145
Mercer Island, WA
RE: Wetland and Supplemental Stream Study - Avana Ridge PUD
City of Renton, Washington
SWC Job #15-159
Dear Justin,
This repart describes our observations of jurisdictional wetlands, streams
and buffers on or within 100' of the proposed Avana Ridge PUD praject in
the City of Renton, Washington {the "site").
i III
1-
t6i .
l
ssy
I j f
s*
it su
a "
Above: Vicinity Map of site
EXHIBIT 10
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
C
SE172NOSTREET
1_+_
T-',
Y///
A
I
I
I
I
I
I
ou a
i_' —
r-r--______ . _-
i
3
EASTBUILDING
I
d
WESTBUIIDING
I
i
L
V _
U.
I _
I,
1..
ry.
0 ,
i.,.'.....
I
I::::
I:
I '
I
I,:
I...
I
I
3
I
I
I
U
III
E
i .
a
xo
o
70
xr
i
swE
ww[r
pNTWI
IHIFRV
L
3
FOpT
1' RS'
v
J!/
I.. /
s/
eF
G"
C
m
i, '
i '
g
SO'
ST
NOMOSLRE
MlIIiR
IlM11S
Oq2
J+,`/!/!!///' /°
B'
y
r \
C
i
9.,,,,
E.
aEo„
J---- '
l
i
o F=
3
9.
53)
Sf
SIRFAM
sUFFEII
fl(
PANSpN
Q
Q
C
v
8
7
O
n
L
11.
SOOSFFNX
HCEMEN%
ANIWGS-
SEEUFiMLl.
1
a
v
e
m
t
z .
SPU
MkiEHCING
TB11fiEXlIMI151t.
0601i1-
FDET
IL]-
3
C
3
O
C
ARIGLMFASIGtMGf
TlUFFFRLM1f13(
13TOT
L
SEfDfT/
JLi-
3
pQ
Q =
M
W
m
d
3
E
i
2'
OC
a
a
r
Q
a
E
ai u
e
a
r_,_,_..._._
rv,-
J ) '
i.-
1,-.;_
I
2+—
MITIGATION
PLAN
SHEET
INDEX:
i
i)
l
i
s
7
L._.._-.
J .\•
sirF.
rMxrE.
or
arrw
I•.
ll '___....
I
y/
1
SRFPLVI,
N01f1(
IUSWFfO[
ONTXOL,
NOTFS
A
NiING
PIAN,
MONITO0.
HIG
i
MNMEIUNR
l ....\\\. \\ ,/
sf' ' __
MITIGATION
PLAN
NOTES:
CONSTRUCTION
SEQUENCE:
1
iXElOUNMIIY/
fOPOGMqIKMMANO51iE%
AN115EOTOGENEMI[
TNISPIAH
GENERAL
NOTES:
wnscnoHaoeroannarWconsu.
x
eHeir
eeRs,
mc
I
onH
ve.
t
fUG4MIROFGlM1TINGME
KII1kWlO,
WASWHGfON9W33.
5OUPCfMUWIHGSHAVEBEENMOqf1E0FOp
LLCONSiFUCTqNSHAlt0E1NKCOR
NCfW11NCIrypf11FMONCOp[
S,
NSUUFNMNlCEMEMf.
MAPWTEqFFEpENCFI]/}
1
1015
1
PEQUESfANO
TiEHOMEiONSTR11CtIONMEEfINGW
iNaWNfNANOCRYOf
I
OR
IN
xCE5,
N0
VFPOVFOYERMIiCdIq110H5.
M ' -
u
pErvrOx
PRWXiOWANTIN5T
l1AlIqN,
CpNiqplNppp115W[
EOSWIi1MNT1ElUT[
HE
MF
SIqWNIXITIUSDET,
UL
TMGFfNOMIWSWEEOSPEbf55HWN1CLU
E
3
CONTIIOLNONiOUSWfE05VECIESWiiHINTXE
REASSHOWNINOfTMl1-
1
eNOREtHESTARTOiANY[
pNSTRUCIKK1,
p11[{
pHSiqUCIIpMMEEfINGMUSf
I
TNFfIXLVMHG.
ILL[
US{••+•µ
p•
ryppp
y
y
y
HBHONJIFBUUIFDY"
Nq'
CNOMIWSWFFOSIUFNI%
kYpIMF1AlFSTkIHG
OBEIWFFNGTYOfI1EMOM,
iNEOWNER,
ANOTNECONTMCIOq.
I .
r
f
W7111
i1
YSQ3
NEkpCUNIXOLWp11[,
EIIISTINGly
TNEVEGEf
TMINSHASbI-
pAajFPP[${
p/
pµ
E,
LL'
ppUl15'
4.
INST
LLNATIVEPIANTS
SEESXEFi2
OFI
iNESE%
ANSMUSTBFONTHEIOBSITEWHENEVENCONS}
RIICfIpNI51N
MTE
13/]
e/]
O15
W
M[
0[ ,
TNDDFBrtISLULLlE11EMWFOfROM1HE51fE
PROGI1fSi
IOONliMBEX
15-
159 ...
5
PIACFMYLCN
TO
SEOFaIANiS
SEESNFFTII
FSWNBY
Et
6
CLf
N
P
NO
fMO&
LREFROMSIiE
TMECUNTMCTOIISH
l
0ERE5POH510lEfWPROVp(
1(
Ap[
pyTESAfEG11MD5,
DMWNBY
FAqt
1
REDUCETdGI1qViNOiN0Yb115WEED5
K[
FttA&
FMETHpO51N¢
UOF
WALLlENI11
011'
IMCfpqIApUNTEp
qWER,
IXGVATMWIfN
SI
fEiYpEVI[[
S,
PRpTERIVEERUIFMENT,
FLWGEII;
ANOMIYOTHERNEEDEO
N,
M,
bW
LHECIfOY
E5
BUIXEIANpTHUMl,
pW[
115/
iW,
MU5N1qG,
LWFT11pAMEq,
OPFFX5,
G1pPFrtS,
11
HOWWNG,
M,
WPR0VE0fpIML
l
RFQUESTiqOM
NO
nfNDINSPFRIONWIiHOWNEII
SiOPROTERTMFL1iE,
MFALTX,
ANOSAfET'
OFiNEWNN,
N1pT0
norenvxoren
rwcaHxenwNwrrnrxecexvannunceorm
wnx
CeIIMla
yaudp,
Site
Plan,
GRUlOVTIMGfIlOOiGOWNS
W
MNWPOORlYWW
IISINGMWI.
MTIOCII,
MIIASIII,
ORM
qOVEOFpU
I,
1
p
yxE11TOCOMPLETE
S
BUIITANOSUBMrtiO[
i1vOFqENiON
T7FSEOMWINGS
TNnYAWORN
NINIHETMVELEORIGHtdi-
W
V
W
ryL
n
o^
l
SVOTMPLYXODEMHER&(
pETOREGROWlH.
HEqBppESHALIBE
PPIIEUlY
WASHWG
OHST
IELICENSEOCAMMERCI
IMVIKATOp
I
H
TM
iN
EM
xOXM
I
FF
CfL
SHMLpFWM,
FTMFFICCONiqIXNI
Noxiaus
Weed
HAVINGANMENT'
QIIATK"
O
ENOOAiEMFNT
KCORWN[
FWITN
NYMlpAtL[
I}'
IOiIIFlrtpISTANMMS,
TIDNSANDMNUCfEfl5I1GS5XOWNONiHI50MWMIC
IfNlY,
1Y
9[
ONtMCipRTOVqOV
OESYFAROFMNNTFNNiCF11NPEPMRERIONOiOWNFN,
MEBASEOONTHEFlEIOIOCAPONOFTHEAVPMEf?
SIIXfACEENpENCEOF
fuTllqEMAINiEN
NCfiOBEVRWIOE
BYOWNFl1
5
SITE[
ONDRIONSM
YVAqY9A5E00NSEA5aNANp/
pp}
p,
EOfYEM
T+
STRUCfU11fS
THEUHDEIIfiqOUN
RWTINGMIpCOHIXIqNOF
Control,
Notes
NOXIOUSWEEDCONTROLREQUIREMENTS:
o„..
o,:«.«
oM,
E
E.
Eo„
o,
w.
Kw,
rEo,
E„
o„
KK„
eVR1E011T1lRiE5HASNOTBFFNVENFIEOMCdIFIqME0.
MM1pN
LLUT1111Y
0
OWNEq
TO
CAMPLRE
SYEARS
OL
MONR
IIING
V
YOWNONiHISPLW
IOCATIONANOMMPMWf.
UYOEREQlMpEO
FlFIOIOGT[.
VEqIfY
ERNOf,
o
o
ro
xo,
uu.
eirvxa*
ecr.
uiurwriEsmwxraTnennmawaxK
a
2
EXHIBIT
11
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
I
c r „>r
f:. -' Sewall Wetland Consulting. lnc.
PC Box880 I'hone:253-8.59-0615
Fall City,WA 918024
Full Document
Availabie upon Request
December 22, 2015
Justin Lagers
Avana Ridge, LLC
9725 SE 36' Street, Suite 214
Mercer Island, Washington 98040
RE: Habitat Data Report—Avana Ridge
City of Renton, Washington
SWC Job#15-159
Dear Justin,
This report is in reference to the City of Renton's requirements for a Habitat Assessment
for the Avana Ridge project.
4'
i
su
AboUe: Vicinity Map of site
EXHIBIT 12
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
3
Greenfores Incorparated
Full Document
Availabte upon Request
December 16, 2Q15
Justin Lagers
Avana Ridge, LLC
9675 SE 36th St., Suite 1Q5
Mercer Isiand, WA 98040
RE: Tree Inspectian; Avana Ridge PPUD, Parcel Nos. 29230S-91 8, -9009; Renton WA
Dear Mr. Lagers:
You contacted me and cantracted 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 Strang Consulting Engineers, shawing the locations of the surveyed trees. I
visited the site on 10/15/1S and inspected the trees, which are the subject of this report.
Neither parce! is developed. The site has a SW aspect with a sfiream delineated through the center of
the site, east to west. Bath parcels are covered in native vegetation, predaminatefy deciduous tree
species with moderate to dense lawer understory.
TREE lNSPECTION
My inspection is limited to visual abservatian from the subject parcels and the rights-af-way. Both
health and structure were evaluated. A tree's strueture 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 faiiure. Health addresses disease and insect infestation.
Na 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, canfirmed trunk
diameter(DBH), estimated average dripline and rated the condition of each tree.
Bigleaf map(es an this site have a wide age and size range. The largest and aldest maple trees are
generally in the poorest condition.A handfu! of bitter cherry are scattered throughout the site, and
all are viable. Black cottonwoods daminate the site in numbers, and there are far more yaunger
cattanwoods than older. The oldest and larger trees are in better condition overaCl. Many of
cattonwaads as edge trees lean excessively away from the stand. Nearfy all the smafler cottonwoods
are very slender. Althaugh they are healthy and have no visible defects,their trunks are too tali for
4547 South Lucile Street, Seattle, WA 98118 Tel.
EXHIBIT 13
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
SW
1/
4
SEC770N
29,
TOW)
VSHIP
23
N,
RANGE
5
E,
W.
M.
X
A
I/
ANA
RIDGE
x x x
SEIMNDSTREET
y
w
w
aZ _'__..- _...___ __
J
r=;
X
ri -------
i _ —
i ,;,[,
1
I
J£
z \ \\ %'.
T,.*`
X
EqSTBU/
LDINQ
y ,97+`
j
Q
J_
w
WESrBUILD/
N(
a
l
a
T
I
r.-- . .
3£ —--,-_ £ , ` '
1
i
1 , ,
I
i----
i
i
ie` /
k__:._ ;-,—
i._
l —
o
1
i
U
I
i
t
Y---
l.
C9 :.,
1 _
I—
p
M `
r
j %' , ` '
1 /
4-
E,., -
J, %
p .
O'`
A
n
i
C
d,.
r,,'
f
C/
t -
y -
1
i
T -
N
i
i..
in,
u.
i.
i.'. .'.
HI511[
mI5MUC1roV
rtNtY
l
l'
4
O
y "'
x
l£ ,_
M„
oKo
s,
s `
V=' ;,
l
r
1.
7
l
v
1
O/:.,,
ar
n..
E.,"
r".,
ia
Y3,
j."`;% /",/_ _- - '.,;
Q, "
rv :
p/
l
l"
M
S'
P
S,.'
O ,
M
l
f /
O
O.-
a;,
0,
o ..,,.,
s,.,;,,
t
f /,
y ,
f
9
m,
vnav
cn
cu
ananis
c q
a
a""
awa.
a,:
rs
s.,
a.,..,
s.'.
ttm„, ,.
y
X /
6 /
z,
ff.
F
a
ox
r
sa .
o
az .
1
l ` -
f //
Mo
xra
a,
e.
ncr,
w
F'
f
i
a
W: ..
r` .
NORTH ORAPH
9GLE
q
INLn
3
l0
R
plC
Ff
A
AVANA
RIDGE
PUD
iz.
sa.
ia
a
o.
n
wa.
ra
au
i
D.
R.
s7RdJG
pe
I
s
rarm
I^-:`-^••
w^,
8
1
ii
i-
il,',_' ''
l
CONSULTINCiENCiINwEWEHS
1
I
I""
uo ..,....
R
ENT
IV
i'
rr
e
r
rErrnoN
a
umm
c
na
c
Pun
loxr
uw
a
c«
r
ssw`
x.°,` .
I
I
e,
e.
v. ....
I
i
I
m _
I
WYY
wa
n/
e
ea
e/
a
oi<
wo.
k:
osai
I
BY
I
p/
iE
I
MPR
i
3
DRS
PROJECT
N0.
75088
A—
N
N
N
N
A
EXHIBIT
14
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
Full Document
Available upon Request
AVANA RiDGE APARTMENTa
REVISED TRAFFIG IMPACT ANALYSIS
CITY 4F RENTUN
Prepared for
Avana Ridge, LLC
9fi75 SE 36#h St Suite 105
Mercer Isfand, WA 98048
Prepared by
M-.:.
f J+/T/)r,/
F
TV
i.JlC!F7 r'i G r7,_... .-i'e.`.. s:.,
C f..r ./!'f J
11490 N.E. 124th St, #590
Kirkiand, Washingtan 98034
Telephone: 425.522.41'18
February 2, 2016
EXHIBIT 15
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
Full Document
Availabie upon Request
j i
i
C p
1 i V
u "_ Q!_ h
t0 Q d I y
4
tQ Q , Q+ Qi .,
w R m w a, o ti Q y 4°' m a, F Q m a,
o w. Z r 'oa_ ' F i r `' 23
c H y o ` 2, o. ' c; °Q m m m
ic a, -o° r a a, .r° o ° o` a .F mmn, y ' 0 2 O r °'
QQ
m
N y
y 2 U
a Hiranaka Daniel ' 1J31%2016 E X X : X
b IRadtke IJuli and Mike I 1/31/2016 E X X X X X X
Moss. Molly 1/31/2016 E , X X X .
d Ridenour IDaniel 1/31/2016 E X X X
Brooker Emily 1/31/2016 E -X X
f IGoods IDoug 1/31/2016 E X X X X X
g Byrnes 6enevieve ' 2j1/2016 E X X ` . X
h Miller Jerry 2/1/2016 E X X X
i Yadock ` :,Wendy 2/1/2016 E X X X X
Heine IMolly 2/1/2016 E X X
k Cantu Caryn 2/1/2016 E X X X. X X
I ;Reitz Phillip I 2/1/2016 E X X X X X
m IGray Andrew 2/1/2016 E X _ X
n McMullin IKimmie I 2/1/2016 E X X X
Murphy Rhonda Rae 2%1/2016 E X . X X
p Hanawalt IJody 2/1/2016 E X X X X
Skulstad Paul I 2/2/2016 E X X
r Faas Mark 1/30/2016 E X X X
s `Cramton , Dawn _ 1/30/2016 E X X X
t IHanawalt IJody 2/7/2016 E X
u Miller 1erry ` 4/4/2016 L X X X
v IYadock Wendy 4/5/2016 E X X X
w Cantu Caryn . 4/6%2016 E X X X -X X
x
Y I
1
EXHIBIT 16
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
Full Document
Available upon Request TEN W
Transportation Engineering NorfhWest
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 lpa tments Revised Tia c lmpacf Study,
February 2, 201 b, prepared by TraffEx, site plan and site access/frontage improvement plans prepared
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 A ana RidgeApa tments Revised TIS, February 2016:
The study applies standard trip generation rates as published by the Institute of Transportation
Engineers in the Trip Generation Manual, 9'h 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 majoriiy 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 majorily 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 172 d Street versus the
direct site entry onto Benson Road 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 172nd
Street (immediately east of 106rh Avenue SE.
Related to trip assignment, existing a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic counts between SE 172 d
Street and 108rh Avenue SE should be balanced. In general, reported traffic counts at the
proposed site access location are directionally higher along Benson Road at 108rh Avenue SE.
Traffic operational analysis should consider the worse-case scenario and given the intersection
Transportation Planning I Design ( Tra c Impact 8 Operations
PO Box 65254,Seattie,WA 98155 I Office(206)361-
EXHIBIT 17
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
Full Document
Available upon Request1141QNE12t
Phar: 425.v
Mr. Justin Lagers March 26, 2016
Avana Ridge, LLC
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 172"d 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 Assiqnment
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 172"d 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 172"d 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 172"a
Street.
Page 1 EXHIBIT 18
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
Denis Law Clt 7 OfMayor i ti Y {-r i. 'r;
3 s
fr`
NY
April 15, 2016 Community&Economic Develapment Department
C.E."Chip"Vincent,Administrator
Washington State
Department of Ecology
Environmental Review Section
PO Box 47703
Olympia, WA 98504-7703
Subject: ENVIRONMENTAL(SEPA1 THRESHOLD DETERMINATIDN
Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmenta! Qetermination for the following
project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC)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 appea) process may be
abtained 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,
a t K I!%?
Rocale Timmons
Senior Planner
Enclosure
cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Divislon Ramin Pazooki,W5DOT,NW Region
Boyd Powers,Department of Natural Resources Larry Fisher,WDFW
Karen Walter,Fisheries,Muckleshoot Indlan Tribe Duwamish Trlbal Office
Melissa Calvert,Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program US Army Corp.of Engineers
Gretchen Kaehler,Office of Archaeology&Historic Preservation
Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way . Renton,Washington 98057 . rentonwa.gov
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY D ciryof Y '
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT j OU r„ '
ENVlRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE
MITIGATED (DNS-M)
PROJECT NUMBER: LUA15-000894, PPUD, ECF
APPLICANT: Justin Lagers,Avana Ridge, LLC
PROJECT NAME: Avana Ridge PUD
PROIECT 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 du/ac. The subject
site is fronted by three public rights-of-way: SE 172nd St, Benson Rd S (108th Ave 5E) 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 ta 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 Prelirninary 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 4-9-070D 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 far 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.
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
1
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY D cityof
AND ECONOMlC DEVELOPMENT j Q, O n '
PUBLICATION DATE: APRIL 15,2016
DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 11,2016
SIGNATURES:
A. n l i G
Gr'gg Zimm an,mirns r Mafk f rsor,Administrator
Public Works epartment Date Fire& Emergency Services Date
c_.
Kelly Beymer,Administrator C.E. "Chip"Vincent, Administrator'
Community Services Department Date Department of Community& Date
Economic Development
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY rY QF
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ""—""----•'`Renton '
DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNSMj
MITIGATION MEASURES AND ADVISORY NOTES
PROIECT NUMBER:LUA15-000894, PPUD, ECF
APPLICANT: Justin Lagers, Avana Ridge, !LC
PROJECT NAME: Avana Ridge PUD
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The appiicant 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-Fj zoning classification and the Residential High Density
RHD) land use designation. 7he development would be comprised of two separate multi-
family residential structures resulting in a density of 20.21 du/ac. 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 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. Additionafly, 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.
PROIECT IOCATION: 17249 Benson Rd S
LEAD AGENCY: The City of Renton
Department of Community& Economic Development
Planning Division
MITIGATION MEASURES:
1. An updated Coal Mine Hazard Report shall be submitted demonstrating the proposal wiil
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 Pfanning 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, maunting poles, and
associated equipment,at the direction of the City. All improvements shall be included in the
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
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 St 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 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.
ADIVISORY NOTES:
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 processfor the land use acrions.
ADV/SORY NOTES TO APPLICANT
The following notes are supp{emental information provided in conjunction with the administrative
land use action. eecause rhese notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the
appeal p ocess for the land use actions.
Plannins:
1. RMC section 4-4-030.C,2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 330 pm, Monday through Friday unless
otherwise approved by the Developrnent 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 ofthe 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 lst and March 31st of each year.7he
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 5ystem(NPDESj 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 wiN be required to comply with all the code requirements of RMC 4-3-OSO
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 mainte ance and monitorin 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
ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page 2 of3
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
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 oftrees 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 irees.
8. This permit is shall comply with the eald and Goiden Eagle Protection Act. The permitted is responsible for
adhering to the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service Nationai Bald Eagle Management Guidelines(2007)and/or your
U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service permit.
Water:
1. Water Service is provided by Soos Creek Water and Sewer District.
2. A water avaitability 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.
Z. 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.
Drafnaae:
1. A geotechnical report for the site prepared by Earth Solutions Inc.was submitted for the project. The
geotechnical report mentions that the sail is till soil and is not suitable for infiltration. AI!geotechnical
recommendations shall be foliowed.
2. A Construction Storm water General Permit from Department of Ecology is required since grading and clearing
of the site exceeds one ac e
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 ofthe 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 Ifghting 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 SR515&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 isiands 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
submittais.All utility plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards.Plans shalf be prepared by a
licensed Civil Engineer.
2. When utility plans are complete,please submit four(4)copies of the drawings,two(2)copies ofthe drainage
report,permit application,an itemized cost of construction estimate,and application fee at the counter on the
sixth floor.
ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page 3 of 3
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
CITY C}F
1.C 1.
OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
ISSUANCE OF A QETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATEQ(QNS-M)
POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION
PROJECT NAME: Avana Ridge PUD
PROIECT NUMBER:LUA15-000894,PPUD,ECF
LOCATION:17249 Benson Rd S
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 strudures resulting in a density of 20.21 du/ac. The subject site is ftonted by three pu6lic rights-of-
way:SE 17 nd St,Benson Rd S(108th Ave SE)and Benson Drive S(SR-515).The applicant proposes one entrance off of
SE 172nd St between the proposed buildings,and another entrance off of Benson Raad 5.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 af enhanced open space,pedestrian amenities,and landscaping.
THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE(ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT TNE PROPOSED
ACTION HAS PROBABLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT CAN BE MITIGATED THROUGH MITIGATION MEASURES.
Appeals of the environmental determinaticn 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 rady Way,
Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are govemed by City of RMC 4-8-110 and information
regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Qffice,(425)430-6530.
A PUBLIC HEARING W1LL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE
COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE 7TH 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.
tl., ';
x t .a= °' R`
sr;p,,.`." '
rt¢':°-'`.
f='r
A`
i " -
R
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACTTHE 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 CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION.
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)