Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDMP Request for Admin Reconsideration - 6/6/2019 CITY OF RENTON i L9I I:( ;�-. d nip, inc. JUN 0 6 2019 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE DALEY-MORROW-POBLETE,INC. ENGINEERING-PLANNING-SURVEYING 726 Auburn Way North Auburn,WA98002 253-333-2200 Phone DATE: June 6, 2019 TO: City of Renton SUBJECT: Wilson Park 2 Final PUD — Request for Reconsideration Introduction This letter is a request for Reconsideration for the Wilson Park II FPUD, LUA19-000086, Approval, issued May 24, 2019. Specifically, the applicant requests reconsideration and elimination of Condition #1. Condition #1 has no reference in the conditions of approval issued by the Hearing Examiner on July 5, 2012. In addition, implementation of the condition runs contrarily the physical topography of the site. The Applicant has provided 4 lots with joint use access based on the reality of the site topography. Servicing additional lots is infeasible due to topographical constraints.. Hearing Examiner As indicated above, the Examiner issued his decision on July 5, 2012. In that decision, the Examiner provided 39 conditions of approval. The issue of Joint use driveways is not raised in any of these conditions. The examiner's decision is attached for your reference. Under RMC 4-7-150 (E): The examiner reviewed the applicable provisions of the code related to grid street patterns. Under subsection 3. (a) (i) Exceptions are given due to the infeasibility of topography. The Wilson Park II site was found to have significant topography. Under subsection 5. Prior to approval of the plat without alley access, the Reviewing Official must determine the infeasibility of ally use. Finding 15 determined that "Alley access is infeasible" due to topographic limitations. Finding 21 indicated that each lot will have access to a public street. The drawing provided showed individual driveway connections. RMC 4-9-150 (D): The City may approve a PUD only if it finds that the following are met. Subsection 1. Demonstration of Compliance and Superiority Required. Then project is superior to that which would be approved without the PUD. Finding #34 indicated that the project, as presented was superior, compatible with its natural features and consistent with the Comp Plan. It was also determined that the project will not create adverse impacts or be detrimental to surrounding properties. This finding of fact was based on an individual driveway access design. No finding of diminished pedestrian or vehicular safety was made. Finding #35. RMC 4-9-150 (D)(2)(e) The proposal was found to provide a public benefit as presented. Subsection 3(a) Site design was also found to be superior. Subsection 3(b) Circulation specifies that the PUD must have sufficient pedestrian and Vehicular access commensurate to its size and location. Streets shall meet traffic demands and Vehicle access must not be detrimental. Finding #38 determined that the above criteria were met with no joint use driveways listed as a condition. Finding #39 further determined that limited driveways on "BUSY STREETS"was also provided as indicated in Finding #4(F). This provision specifically applied to busy through streets. The dead end residential street serving Wilson Park II does not qualify. Access to S 55th St. was prohibited in conformance with Finding #39. Finding #45 indicates that the project has tiered housing extending from north to south. It further acknowledges that the large effect of topography provides little opportunity for enhanced views. The same topographic limitation and "tiered housing" would make wide use of Joint Use driveways impractical. As indicated previously, no condition requiring the use of Joint Use driveways is indicated anywhere in the Examiner's report. In addition, multiple Findings of Fact spell out that various related access provisions are infeasible due to topographic limitations (tiered housing). Further, it is significant that in the Staff Report, Staff specifically requested that the Examiner consider an additional Condition :"staff recommends as a condition of approval that a minimumof 8 of the 10 lots access via joint use driveways . .". The Examiner declined to add such a provision to his decision. To do so would have been contrary to the Findings listed above. The Justification listed in the request was to "meet the intent of the street regulations and limit the number of curb cuts on the street, .". It can only be assumed this was in reference to the code provisions in Finding #39 which relates to "Busy Streets" such as S 55th St and prohibited access to S 55th St. The dead-end internal plat road cannot be considered a "Busy Street" and this reference is inapplicable. SEPA Determination The Environmental Review Committee issued a report on May 7, 2012. With that report the committee issued 7 conditions of approval. Attached to that decision, Staff issued 13 Advisory Notes. Of those conditions and notes, none addressed the issue of Joint Use Driveways. The Conditions and recommendations listed in that document were incorporated into the Examiner's final conditions. The Committee package is attached for your reference. Wilson Park II—Reconsideration Page 12 Final PUD On May 24, 2019 the City of Renton issued a conditional approval of the Wilson Park II Final PUD. In that report, Staff listed 15 Findings of Fact. Under Staff Finding #9. Staff spelled out several elements related to street improvements. The Finding makes several errors as it relates to the nature of alley access and why such access was not part of the original proposal. Please refer the Hearing Examiners discussions on that subject under RMC 4-7-150 (E)3(a) (i) and Finding #15. The examiner found that "Alley access is infeasible" due to topographic limitations. This was unrelated to the expiration of Wilson Park I. The Staff Finding then goes on to make statements of opinion and not of fact as it relates to the limitation of driveway cuts and their impact on pedestrian or vehicular safety. Ten Single family homes generate the same amount of traffic regardless of the number of driveway cuts on a residential street. Staff's request would result in 6 driveway cuts but still 10 driveways. The Applicant's proposal provides 8 driveway cuts. On a short, dead-end residential street such asthis, there is no discernable difference in traffic safety between 6 and 8 driveway cuts. The original 10 driveway cut design was considered safe by the Examiner in Finding #34,35 and 38. The individual driveway design was found to be superior and created no adverse impacts. Finding #39 specified that Limited access was specifically applied to "Busy Streets". The Staff opinion listed in Finding #9 did not properly reference that aspect and inappropriately applied it to the proposed dead- end road. It is also questionable that Staff inserted a request for a new development condition into a Finding of Fact. Specifically, a condition request that had been recommended to the Examiner and then rejected by him. This process would open a development up to endless new conditions and circumvent the Hearing Examiner process. It is our opinion that the project is only subject to the original conditions of approval as described by the Examiner. Staff correctly provided conditional approval or acceptance of the various compliance issues by deferring certain elements to a more appropriate stage of development. There should be a clear distinction between that and the introduction of new development conditions while performing a compliance analysis. Civil Plan Approval The Original Wilson Park I and 2 received Civil Plan approval on June 6, 2014. Exactly 5 years ago. These plans were developed, reviewed and approved under the codes of the City of Renton and the conditions spelled out by the Hearing Examiner. As noted by Staff during the review of the more recent updates to these plans, the Civil Plans must be in conformance with the PUD. I have attached sheet 5 of the original plan set as an example. It should be noted that each lot is depicted with an individual driveway approach. While Wilson Park I has expired and is no longer part of the proposal, it must be noted that it also has individual driveway approaches. This approval of the Civil plans in 2014 without Joint Use driveways further illustrates that the Joint Use issue was not part of the PUD approval and that this it is a new Wilson Park II—Reconsideration Page 13 element. Finally, the addition of Condition #1 to the Final PUD decision directly contradicts the City's own recent positions. During a meeting with Staff on January 15, to discuss the recently submitted Civil Plan revisions, Staff introduced the idea of Joint Use driveways. We discussed this issue and explained the infeasibility due to the site's topographical conditions, and Staff agreed with our position that Joint Use driveways are infeasible. Staff made no indication that any further action or discussion was needed on this issue, and we reasonably relied on the City's representation that the issue had been resolved. The subject did not reappear in subsequent Civil Plan reviews until after the Final PUD decision was issued. At that point, the Civil comment made reference to a need for"consistency with the Final PUD". As previously discussed, there is NO Examiner condition to comply with. Subsequent conversations with Staff have pointed to the Applicant's failure to include an objection to this nonexistent condition when applying for Final PUD compliance review. Furthermore, the Applicant confusion between Civil review and Final PUD compliance review. As indicated above and in the paragraph below, the Joint Use driveyissue has only ever been a Civil Plan comment, never been an Examiner condition and only appeared in the Final PUD decision document. This sets up nothing less than a time paradox. How could the Applicant object to a condition that did not yet exist? After the January 15 meeting, Staff reviewed our plans and PUD submittals, which did not reflect joint use driveways, and at no point did Staff mention the joint use issue throughout the review process. Again, we reasonably relied on the City's conduct as confirmation that the joint use driveway civil issue had been resolved. Based on the City's review and lack of comment, we continued to develop the plans and designs that did not incorporate joint use driveways. We had no reason to believe that the City would request substantial plan revisions to incorporate joint use driveways. The City's addition of Condition #1 to the Final PUD decision directly contradicts its prior conduct. Even if it is technically feasible to incorporate joint use driveways (which is unclear), the amount of work needed to make such revisions would require substantial time and expense. At this point, it would be virtually impossible to make such revisions to the grading plan in time to obtain a Civil Construction Permit by July 31, 2019, as required by the settlement agreement. In short, the last-minute addition of Condition #1 not only contradicts the Examiner's decision and the City's own representation, but also causes substantial injury to the Applicant by placing the Applicant in a position in which it will be unable to fulfill the terms of the settlement agreement. Wilson Park II—Reconsideration Page 14 Summary In closing, the Applicant requests that the City reconsider the addition of Condition #1 to the May 24, 2019 approval of the Wilson Park II Final PUD. The record clearly shows that it was not part of the Examiner's original conditions, it was a rejected suggestion from Staff, and it runs contrary to the Findings listed in the Examiners report and the approved Civil Plans. Moreover, the earlier approvals' implicit rejection of joint use driveways is correct because the requirement for widespread use of Joint use Driveways is "infeasible" due to topographic limitations. Nothing in the minor revisions (made to accommodate the expiration of Wilson Park I)justifies joint use driveways or eliminates the infeasibility due to the site's topographic limitations. The City's addition of Condition #1 is arbitrary and capricious and a breach of the City's duty of good faith and fair dealing in issuing the Final PUD decision under the settlement agreement. The Applicant would like to move swiftly to begin construction on the project and asks for a speedy decision from Staff. Please note that this request for reconsideration is not a waiver of Applicant's right to request reconsideration and/or appeal any other conditions of the Final PUD. Please let us know if you have any questions or require additional information. Sincere , ans A. Korve Planning Manager DMP cc: Bob and Doravin Wilson, Applicant Clara Park, Attorney Steve Beck, Agent Wilson Park II—Reconsideration Page 15 Denis Law Mayor Community&Economic Development C.E."Chip"Vincent,Administrator January 9,2019 Hans Korve Planning Manager, DMP 726 Auburn Way N Auburn,WA 98002 VIA Email: hans@dmp-inc.us RE: Wilson Park II Mr. Korve, Thank you for sending over the revised construction drawings for Wilson Park II. Based on the our very preliminary review of the adjusted plan set you will need to submit a formal revision to your previously approved plan set,construction plans for Safe Route to school,as well as a Final PUD submittal. Reviews of the Final PUD and the Civil Construction Revisions will be concurrent. Please set up an intake appointment for the Civil Construction Revisions with Justin Johnson (425-902-7102)and for the Final PUD with Vanessa Dolbee(vdolbee@rentonwa.gov). We reviewed the materials that you provided at a very preliminary level and noted the following corrections and/or missing information that need to be addressed prior to acceptance of your revised construction plan submittal. Our preliminary comments and required items are noted below: 1. The construction plans shall be revised to provide shared driveways for all but two lots to reduce the number of curb cuts in the project. Lots with shared driveways shall be accessed from the rear(off of the proposed shared driveways). Easements for each of the driveways will need to be recorded on the plat. 2. The City will accept a hammerhead turn around within lots 6 and 7 as long as it meets the requirements of Renton Fire Authority for turn arounds. 3. Underground utilities(proposed water line)are permitted within the Urban Separator provided they are located underground and the surface is revegetated and pervious. Revise the construction plans accordingly. 4. Disturbance to the Urban Separator should be reduced to the maximum extent possible. As such only the water line necessary for Wilson Park II will be allowed to be constructed,and water lines should cross perpendicular to reduce the linear footage of impact. Revise the construction plans accordingly. 5. No development is permitted on Protected Slopes(slopes 40%or greater),this includes any new water lines and/or grading for the road or lots. Please identify areas of Protected Slopes to ensure the off-site site work will not be located within a Protected Slope. 6. The creation of Protected Slopes is not permitted, no grades shall be created that exceed 39.9%. Construction plans shall be evaluated and show that protected slopes are not being created. 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057• rentonwa.aov Mr.Hans Korve January 9,2019 page 2 7. A fence detail is required to be provided and is not in the plan set. In addition the fence shown on the plan set is not in the correct location. Revise location of split rail fence on the construction plans to be located along the edge of the Protected Slope. 8. It is unclear where the Protected Slopes are located on the site on sheet 3 of the plan set(Offe Grading/Erosion Control Plan). This should be added to the plan set to ensure the retaining walls and trail are located in the right location and do not encroach into the Protected Slopes. 9. Lighting is required along the pedestrian path and at the pergola. This lighting plan was to be included with the construction permit and was not included in the material submitted. This is required as part of the revision submittal. 10. The Community Space is required to add a recreational amenity. The staff report suggested elements such as a BBQ area,fire pit,or community garden. Only a pergola is proposed in the provided plan set which is insufficient as a Community Space.Amendments to the plans shall show compliance with this requirement. Furthermore, it appears a portion of the Community Space is located within the Protected Slope,this should be redesigned to not encroach into the Protected Slope. 11. The plans call for the Safe Route to School along South 55`h Street to Talbot,with a reference to a separate civil construction permit(Condition of Approval#8). Construction plans for this walkway shall be submitted with the revision submittal. 12. A Final PUD is required to be submitted with the revision submittal and needs to be processed and approved prior to Civil Construction Permit Issuance. Please note that the Final Plat and PUD will expire if construction is not completed and the Final Plat recorded by July 5,2019. Once the project is completed you will need to submit a clean set of final record drawings(as-builts) which would only include the information of what was constructed in the field. Thank you, ( ,)-QA"AANI Jennifer Henning,AICP Planning Director 0 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057 • rentonwa.gov I TED-40-3735 I ( i I WILSON PARK AND WI SON PARK 2 ( 1/ 720955°Si Pope os e Q ' a Q 'WY;4R g E _� g 'aY�!1 wm6sle _ _ = 4 zzm oz ;e P 6 a r. 15N1A = E ;9I g §-§ 5 94 c a b } Gfm- .7 PA I, i E 3A is a¢mo _ 30 W'' c_ i ;5 gm a�uu�� ' = 3 32326 g N^ - 62t^gg rco m o 3 mm5.. ?!r 52" 9�" n Yin- `�' o o N M immostmormi 2 ameAgiN CL w���M�au.�=�l�a�►„f \ / 0 G�rc_ .mew Sm ��� Salha 3aN3d DOOM ...triE "�Mi'� s nvM iaa anon .,•-°. .7r"-.47„. -......__L_-- 15■me�raiieommsr�mwRmer9sa®eamdgmr.,�n■r.,sss�m+eaaeev� '�` 4 ' f 3J-d Stl3H11W5 '/ ) a'll' Y `'t 'CY,vbsrM' +'uC ""�Y. g 00 1` _ qy� [��p. a ?:' �fi p �� 1 � 'r d R'... aMF �°.a ,;4'''V E I,, P,:f .p^kE''� .>M1k.' " ~ 3 7 _ d,i.tl" .'^ s ti f� .":. " omw HZ ae9 s � , 'S 1 / �,,,, / pill ...N e A I 401.0P147/ 4i , �I/ Lam— 5 3,° 1ST 5 m., 11 Eoa F . w _ 11 IO 5oa "�e�m�� o `_2 , a u> F . 302 8 40 Cl§sg r! w iF_ I 300 o nn� �>n N a;N,� i ,441e '''''11 Q:;?1 1l a l6 S SfO U °^ �N a elk_ 296 � r e EL - APINI 4 // p ag• aa4.aa � w1 � ` — 29 = _Nm z J � II 2 g �_ IF 7004f g� .Milnf9f w� � i VA ��. / ' / BI "- VI 2 „ wr tirm , rynIL.,1 - •. ',O f\ ° C y+/�"! �a ssv+r �i.p, awW u ilifi& 4 f,t',#4. VlanalinNUORUMIPMAliffirManalr. 1474111," Alcir4 1 j:11 "Vgailigdarr_ I i., 't *toe xl -_g" - - ->- ,4ii. rn\ DWI ,- Murf 1m *! °a g" = R59[ i 2h@4S £23'RtYIr� z ! ��4 k` I• �, n� ZA 32 =w� it p _ �/�/ �� 5.d I_i. ♦7t 3x a ;,xr—f-szz_• �1 I E i'..,f__:__\FL___________t_, 0 ----I__ �1 1 r__Jess—l_I l i tee' -t: m 8 e tA ' R! - No„. a We, Nl o a o 2,6 )h; , We; 44#44, W.ar,• . ,2 " 429 2 F,;,;,6 I ., t .:,§ ..., „..t ® p y `a 111 DNA g e os -off;:$- A v " 411 r� t!_ !ib opII !I g- b E i h"'1J zgv, .r 1121q, 14 101! LP 0 kg 0 o tgB a§ a.aoS a�'a..e.d.,AciA I Z99900E1(1# I ZNEItld NOSIIM'9 AlVd NOSIIM ."( CITY OF REI4f;)K I 2 JUL 09 Z012 3 REcovED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 4 5 6 7 8 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON ) 9 RE: Wilson Park 11 ) 10 ) FINAL DECISION ) 11 Preliminary Plat and Planned Urban ) Development ) 12 ) LUA12-013, ECF„PP, PPUD ) 13 14 SUMMARY 15 16 The Applicants propose a preliminary plat to subdivide a 2.15 acre parcel into ten single-family residential lots and one tract for open space. A planned urban development ("PUD") is proposed in 17 order to modify minimum lot sizes and other development standards. The preliminary plat and PUD 18 are approved subject to conditions. TESTIMONY 19 20 Jennifer Henning, Renton Planning Manager, stated Wilson Park II is a preliminary plat and planned urban development located to the east of Talbot Rd S and north of S 55th Street. it is an 21 existing 2.15 acre site with split-zoning. A portion of the site is zoned R-14 which has a maximum of 114 dwelling units per acre, and another portion of the site is zoned R-1 which allows one dwelling 22 unit per acre. The site has an Urban Separator overlay present on an eastern portion of the site in 23 conjunction with steep slopes. The Applicants are proposing to create a subdivision of detached single family homes with 10 lots. The lots would range in size from 5,560 to 6,778 sq ft, and the site 24 would also include a tract set aside for open space and critical areas (Tract A) on the eastern portion of the site. Tract A would be 19,164 sq ft. which is roughly 20 percent of the site (correction to the 25 ' Staff Report which gives the coverage as 50 percent). The city zoning map notes the split zoning of the site (a squiggly line marks the split area). A map of the site shows the protected slopes in bright 26 1, orange and 39 or lower percent slopes in yellow. The site is shown with a dashed dark line and is PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 1 '..Nr roughly square-shaped. South 55 Street is often called the"Snake Road" and is fairly steep. 2 Upon questioning from the Hearing Examiner, Ms. IIenning noted that a geo-tech report was done in 3 2004 by Mr. Carl Zing. Noting plate 2 of the 2004 gee-tech report, Ms. Henning stated that the west side of the site was analyzed in that report with a proposal for 4 lots. Exhibit 18 is a 2012 geo-tech 4 report which supplements the 2004 report. Staff does not feel that the gee-tech reports addressing different lot proposals affect the overall conclusions. There are no streams or coal mine hazards that 5 ' affect the site. There are some steep slopes on the extreme northwest corner of the site and off-site to 6 the west. The presence of the slopes resulted in the city creating the Urban Separator overlay designation. She noted that, in most areas, an Urban Separator will follow the property lines. 7 I However, this site's separator (the Talbot Urban Separator) follows topography lines rather than 1 parcel and zoning lines. Recently, the Talbot Urban Separator language has been clarified to say that 8 I half of the area in the Urban Separator has to be used as open space (instead of half the whole parcel as is the case for other separators). She concluded that the developable part of the site is a moderate slope. 10 In regards to averaging the density, Ms. Hennings stated that if Staff looked at the R-14 zone on its 11 own (with the road taken out) about 1 acre would be left. This would allow for 14 units(which could 12 he duplexes, triplexes, etc.). In the R-1 portion of the site, there could still only be 1 dwelling unit. Thus, if the density was calculated in the original way, there could be up to 15 lots. Staff suggested 13 using the PUD process to look at applying different standards to the entire parcel. Staff decided to average the density across the site (without exceeding the density of one part of the site vs. the other) 14 using an administrative code interpretation. 15 Ms. Hennings testified that Exhibit 2 shows the proposal, including the 10 lots, Tract A, and a central 16 road (Road A). Staff recommends that a covenant he included in the approval that restricts the Applicants to only building detached single-family homes. In Exhibit 2, the R-14 zone is the light 17 brown color while R-1 zone is the green color. Lot 5, 8, and 9 would be split-zoned parcels. Staff is recommending that the plat subscribe to the R-8 zoning standards which arc a residential single 18 family (RSF) designation. Regardless, the plat meets policies of multiple land-use possibilities being I, considered. The R-14 designation is in the Residential Single Family (RSF) while R-1 is in Residential Low Density(RLD) standard. R-8 is within the RSF designation. 20 , The site is served by the Soos Creek Water and Sewer District. The certificate of water availability 21 I became available on June 12th,2012. The site will also use facilities being built for the Wilson Park I 1 site which has already been approved. The Wilson Park I site will provide 26 ft. of paving for road, 22 2-5ft. sidewalks, and a landscape strip. Parking will be allowed on the east side of the street. Exhibit 23 11 depicts the landscape plan with the road in the center. The landscape is shown in green and the road in brown. A walking path, which is a public benefit, will be provided around lot 6. It is a hard- 24 surface path that will lead into the planned gazebo area.. There are street trees being proposed along with trees in the open fence area. A split-rail fence is proposed for the back of the lots. Staff is 25 concerned that the split-rail fence will not provide enough security for future residents and will result 26 in residents building additional fences. Staff is working with the Applicants to find a better solution PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT- 2 • Y 1 for the fencing problem. Staff also asks that the walking path be moved out of the boundaries of Lot 10. There is no design yet for the gazebo, but it is contained in a 350 sq ft area. The Applicants is 2 possibly going to expand this recreation area to the Wilson Park I recreation area to the north. Staff 3 believes that circulation beyond the walking path is necessary for safety and convenience. The nearest bus stop is 700 ft. away. Staff recommends a condition that there be a walking path along S 4 55th St. for kids to safely reach the bus stop. 5 i Ms. Hennings stated that the project went through a SEPA review and has a number of conditions 6 I that must be met as a result of that review. Staff provided a table within the Staff Report that describes what the standards for the two residential zones are, and the required modifications 7 necessary for the proposal to meet the R-8 standards. The lots meet the minimum size standards of the R-8 zone and all meet the width requirements except for Lot I. The R-8 standard currently allows 8 1511 from the garage face to the back sidewalk; however. Staff is recommending 18tt from the back of the garage to the back of the sidewalk for a parking apron area. This is especially necessary because 9 there is limited guest parking. All the setbacks for the rear-yard, design standards, and maximum 10 building coverage work best with the R-8 standard. Staff believes the R-8 standard applied creates a superior plat because of the more uniform lots and homes, more open space and recreation areas. The 11 plan also protects the steep slopes more because it protects a greater area than what would be required : under other zone areas. Exhibit 9 shows the steep slope area with the plan and demonstrates that 12 I approximately a third more area is protected under the R-8 zone plan. 13 Ms. Hennings explained that the City of Renton does not require recreational areas on site because it 14 prefers applicants to pay into the City's park mitigation fund. The proposal, under R-8 zone standards, will require a footpath to the school bus-stop and the recreational walking path. The 15 Applicants are paying the full park impact fee, traffic fee, fire fee, and school impact fee. Staff 16 suggested additional common amenities such as barbecues or fireplaces. There are currently 82 trees on the site,and 21 of the trees will be removed because they are in the section where the public streets 17 will be built (Exhibit 9). There are three trees in the critical areas and buffers which don't count. This leaves 58 trees to consider for zoning standards. Zoning requirements state that 10 trees on-site sbte2rettareiensedp.er T1 ohte. AApdpdliictianontasi arlane dpsrcoappeosiennghtoanoreetamiennttshewinleleebessaadrydeldOatlroenegs anthedbvva.oi lkl be f 18 awiddilinhga vaet It eoa 19 I the lots. Staff is also asking additional trees be planted along the south side of Lot I because of car 20 traffic along that area. A variety of tree types and plant forms will be utilized. 21 Ms. Hennings testified that the homes will be subject to the City's residential design standards. No floor plans or elevations arc available at this time. No alley is needed because of the limited space. 22 Staff is recommending an 8-ft wide landscape strip be included along the south side of Lot 1. The 23 Applicants would also be required to provide curb, gutter and sidewalks and a landscape strip along the extreme eastside of the site which has frontage on S 55th St. The Applicants are not opposed to 24 providing these additional facilities. No lighting plan was provided as part of the proposal. The lighting plan would be needed later in the process. Ms. Hennings noted that the code does not require 25 lighting along the walking path at night. 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 3 s 1 In regard to the emergency vehicle service, Staff is concerned that if Wilson Park I is not constructed there will be no place for the vehicles to turn-around. Staff stated that if Wilson Park I is not constructed first (or at all) an emergency turnaround will need to be provided. A stormwater vault 3 was proposed as part of Wilson Park 1 (Exhibit 13, shown in blue) which would be sufficient to handle any run-off. Additionally, the Applicants are proposing a covenant to limit the amount of 4 pervious surface on each lot. The City provides fire and sewer service. 5 In regard to the plat application, Ms. Hennings noted that Staff believes all of the lots are 6 appropriately sized with suitable orientations except for Lot 1. Staff asks that Lot 1's width be changed because it is a corner lot. All access topography seemed to be fitting and no disruption to 7 other properties was evident. Staff asks that Tract A be placed in a native-growth protection area easement. Staff is recommending that the preliminary plat and PUD be approved, subject to the 18 8 conditions presented in the Staff Report. 9 Jim Hanson, 17446 Ballard Cove's Lane, stated that the Applicants agree the R-8 standards should to ' apply. The Applicants have no objection to the 18ft garage-sidewalk standard change. The PUD process requires the Applicants to provide the open-space and recreation areas that would not be 11 required with the normal R-1 zone. In areas where there is no critical slope, the Applicants are clearing invasive species and enhancing the landscape rather than just leaving it as over-growth. The 12 Applicants believe this type of development is a better transition from the R-14 zone to the R-8 zone 13 to the north and to the R-4 zones to the east and south. Rather than having townhouses and duplexes, the Applicants feel 10 single-family homes are more appropriate. The previous proposals (from 14 2004) had higher density levels(but fewer lots). 15 Upon questioning by the Hearing Examiner, Mr. Hanson noted that the Applicants had not discussed 16 lighting the pedestrian pathway. He noted that it is a wildlife corridor, and the path is not intended for night use. 17 Darrell Offe, Offe Engineers, stated that the 2004 geo-tech report was done for a different property 18 owner. The previous owner only looked at the west side of the property because he believed the 19 entire east side was sensitive areas. The current Applicants have added the east side to the site plans. The Applicants have worked with Staff to establish the 25 percent Urban Separator line as the 20 designation between the R-1 and the R-14. Soos Creek is the purveyor of the water and Renton is the purveyor of the sewer. The 2005 drainage manual (used for Wilson Park I and 2) requires that the 21 detention facility be sized to accommodate 85 percent pervious surface per lot. The code allows the 22 Applicants to restrict themselves to a lower impervious level and lessen the treatment it has to provide. The stormwater facility planned for Wilson Park I will include Wilson Park II along with 23 the restrictive covenants. The Applicants ask that under Condition 8 (which asks for a walking path to the nearest bus stop on 55111 Street), the wording be changed to just say the nearest bus stop. This 24 change is in hope that a new bus stop closer to the site can be created. 25 Ms. Henning's noted that the City has no objections to this change of Condition 8. 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 4 1 Jim Hanson noted that the timing for the PUD expiration is different for the plat expiration. Plats are valid for 9 years while PUDs are only valid for 5 years. The Applicants ask that the expiration of the 2 PUD be increased to 9 years. 3 Jennifer Hennings noted, if the plat was developed under the R-8 standards, the Applicants could 4 build up to 13 lots. Instead, the Applicants are proposing ten lots. If the R-1 and R-14 density standards were used, up to 15 lots could be built with a density of 9.16 per acre. Under the current 5 proposal, there are 6.4 units per acre. 6 EXHIBITS 7 The June 12, 2012 Staff Report in addition to Exhibits 1-21 identified in pages 2-3 of the Staff 8 Report were admitted into the record at the June 12, 2012 hearing. 9 FINDINGS OF FACT 10 Procedural: I 1 12 1. Applicants.Robert and Doravin 13 2. Hearing. The Examiner held a hearing on the subject application on June 12, 2012 at 14 2:00 pm in the City of Renton Council Chambers. 15 Substantive: 16 3. Project Description. The Applicants request preliminary plat approval to subdivide a 2.15 17 acre parcel into ten lots for single-family homes at a proposed density of 6.4 dwelling units per acre. I 8 An open space tract is included in the subdivision. The preliminary application is accompanied by a PUD application requesting deviations to R-1 and R-14 zoning standards, as outlined in Table A of 19 the Staff Report, adopted and incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. All lots will have 20 access to a public street, Road A. The project is divided into two zoning designations: R-14 and R-1. The R-1 Zone comprises 38,326 square feet (including the steep slope area), and the R-14 portion of 21 the site is 55,474 square feet. Proposed density averages 6.4 dwelling units per acre across the site, 22 I with nine lots proposed in the R-14 area and one lot proposed within the R-1. Access would be provided from South 55th Street via a new street constructed as part of the approved Wilson Park 1 23 , plat. The site contains 9,783 square feet of slopes with greater than 40% grade. A small 24 hydrologically isolated, unregulated wetland is located on the western portion of the site. An 1 underground stormwater vault was previously approved for Wilson Park I to be within the roadway 25 on the subject site. The vault is being revised to accommodate the additional stormwater generated 26 by the proposal. A hard-surface walking path leading into a planned gazebo area will be provided as PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 5 1 well as will a soft surface, 3-foot wide walking path around Lot 6-10. There are street trees being 2 proposed along with trees in the open fence area. A split-rail fence is proposed for the back of the lots. 3 ; A portion of the site is subject to the Talbot Urban Separator Overlay Regulations. That portion of 4 the site zoned R-1 is considered to be within the Urban Separator. Per RMC 4-3-110(E)(2)(a)(ii), 5 50% of the area within the Urban Separator must be dedicated as irrevocable open space. The Applicants propose to retain 19,164 square feet, or 50%of the site as open space within Tract A. The 6 application includes a proposal for a planned unit development in order to modify minimum lot size 7 and development standards for both the R-1 and R-14 designations. Proposed lots would range in size from 5,560 square feet to 6,778 square feet. 8 9 10 4. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate it infrastructure and public services as follows: 12 A. Water and Sewer Service. Water and sanitary sewer service for the development would be 13 provided by the Soos Creek Water and Sewer District. A water availability certificate was issued by the Soos Creek Water and Sewer District on June 12, 2012, according to Staff I 4 testimony. Based on the submitted Conceptual Utilities Plan (Exhibit 13), there is an 15 existing sewer main located in 55th Avenue South. The Applicants have proposed to connect to this existing main and extend an 8-inch sanitary sewer line to provide sewer to 16 the development. This plan sheet also identifies an 8-inch water line extension from 55th 17 Avenue South through the subject plat and to the Wilson Park I plat located to the north. With receipt of the water availability certificate, the development would provide sufficient 18 service to the lots_ 19 20 B. Fire Protection. Fire protection would be provided by the City of Renton Fire Department. 21 C. Drainage. In conjunction with the City's stormwater regulations, the proposal mitigates all significant drainage impacts. New impervious surfaces would result in surface water 22 runoff increases. The Applicants submitted a Technical Information Report ("Drainage 23 Report") and Addendum with the project application (Exhibit 21). The original 24 stormwater system for Wilson Park 1 is located within the street that would serve both Wilson Park I and II. This system was sized to accommodate Wilson Park I lots and the 25 new streets including the access street located within this project, Wilson Park II. The 26 Addendum provides calculations intended to evaluate the sizing of the storm treatment PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT 6 facility for the two projects and demonstrates that the facility as revised for Wilson Park 11 2 is sufficient to accommodate both Wilson Park I and Wilson Park II. The City of Renton's 2009 Drainage Manual requires Best Management Practices (BMP's) for new 3 developments. One BMP's is to restrict impervious areas on future lots to help reduce 4 runoff, mitigate for development, and minimize the treatment system needed for the project. This is known as a "Restrictive Covenant"provision and was utilized as part of a 5 preliminary sizing of the future system for both Wilson Park I and II. The Applicants 6 intend to utilize the Restrictive Covenant provision and limit impervious surface on each of the new lots in both Wilson Park I and II to 3,300 square feet per lot. By limiting the 7 impervious area for homes, patios, driveways and walkways, the proposed stormwater 8 vault will be of an appropriate size to accommodate both developments. The Applicants have also intended to develop both plats at the same time. 9 10 D. Parks/Open Space. The project provides for adequate parks and open space. The proposed development is located on a 2.15 acre site. The eastern portion of the site is 11 located in a steep slope critical area. The site contains geotechnical hazards in the form of 12 slopes greater than 40% covering 38,326 sq. ft. within the Talbot Urban Separator. Both the subject plat and Wilson Park I are required to set aside 50% of the area of the site 13 located within the Talbot Urban Separator as a non-revocable open space tract. 14 1 Additionally, the City critical areas regulations provide for protection of steep slopes. RMC 4-9-150(E) requires PUDs to provide large concentrated areas of open space, 15 equivalent to 10% of the site's gross area. The Staff Report notes that the proposed 16 development increases these protections by protecting the steep slope within a tract that 17 would also serve as the common open space and recreation area. The project proposes to set aside 19,164 square feet, or 50% of the Talbot Urban Separator area in Open Space 18 Tract A. The site is 93,801 sq. ft. and the provided open space tract is 19,164 sq.ft, 19 comprising approximately 20% of the site, and exceeding the open space standards by 9,784 sq. ft. A 510 lineal foot (1,530 sq. ft.) looped trail provided on the flat area of Tract 20 A would separate five of the new lots from the steep slope area. The open space tract 21 would also connect to a comparable open space tract on Wilson Park I that was set aside to address requirements of the Urban Separator Overlay Regulations (RMC4-3-110E, 2.a.ii). 22 23 The Applicants have proposed to provide an approximately 350 sq. ft. common park that includes a concrete path, pergola/gazebo and landscaping. The conditions of approval 24 require the proposed development provide 500 sq. fl. of common space or recreation area 25 to meet the 50 sq. ft. required by PUD regulations for each of the ten lots. The proposed park is located along the perimeters of proposed Lots 6-10 and connects to the walking 26 path through the remainder of Tract A. The conditions of approval require that the section PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT- 7 I on the south side of Lot 10 be revised to meander and not abut the edge of the split rail 2 fence. As conditioned, the overall location and design of the park, open space and trail will create quality open space and recreation areas for the development. 3 4 1 Private open space will be provided on each lot through the yard setbacks and limitations in pervious surface. Staff further recommends that a minimum setback of 18 feet be 5 I required from the face of the garage to the back of the sidewalk to allow an appropriate 6 area for parking. This increased setback would also increase the yard space for each lot. 7 The overall passive and active recreation opportunities proposed for the subject 8 development are beyond the standard code requirements. The proposed open space and recreation on the site provide the opportunity for both passive and active recreation. The 9 park area provides for both passive and active recreation by offering both a gazebo/pergola 10 and hard and soft surface trails. The varieties of recreation opportunities proposed throughout the development and in conjunction with Wilson Park I create a mix of 11 choices, appealing to a large spectrum of people. 12 The split-rail fence or pergola/gazebo designs are not reflected on the Landscape Plan or 13 the Plat Plan. The conditions of approval require the Applicants provide a detail of the 14 proposed pergola/gazebo and fence design and location as a part of the final detailed 15 landscape plan. These details shall be submitted and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval. 16 17 E. Pedestrian Circulation. The proposed preliminary plat provides for an appropriate pedestrian circulation system. In addition to the proposed sort surface pedestrian path, 18 discussed above, the Applicants have proposed sidewalks along both sides of Road A 19 consistent with the residential character of the development. As discussed below, pedestrian linkage to the nearest school bus stop is also required. This network of 20 pathways and sidewalks provides for a pedestrian network that ties the residential 21 development to recreational areas and schools. It is unclear from the record whether there are any commercial areas or public transit stops within walking distance; nonetheless the 22 linkage to adjoining sidewalks provides all the linkage that can reasonably be required of 23 the Applicants. 24 As conditioned,pedestrian safety is assured through adequate separation of pathways from 25 motor vehicles and adequate lighting. The conditions of approval require pedestrian separation along South 55th Street with an 8-foot planter strip. Another 8-foot planter 26 strip is required along the "inside" of Road A. Furthermore, the pedestrian looped trail PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 8 1 would provide another means for pedestrian movement throughout the development 2 maintaining sufficient separation from vehicles. 3 A lighting plan was not included in the Applicants' submittal packet; therefore, it is not 4 clear how the proposed pedestrian pathways would be illuminated at night. Although, the soft surface trail should not be lit at night as this may cause additional impacts to open 5 space area, the remainder of the hard surfaced pedestrian pathway and recreation areas 6 should be lit. As a condition of approval, the Applicants shall submit a lighting plan for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to utility construction. 7 The lighting plan shall contain pedestrian lighting in addition to building and landscaping 8 lighting, if proposed. 9 Comments received from surrounding property owners concern the ability of children to 10 safely access a school bus stop (Exhibit 14). The Applicants have observed that presently school buses travel east on South 55th Street in the morning, stopping in South 55th Street 11 to pick-up students. The buses then travel west in the afternoon, stopping in South 55th to 12 drop-off students. While it was originally anticipated that this practice would continue with the project, and that children would wait together for pick-up, an inquiry to the 13 Renton School District (RSD) revealed that these are actually Kent. School District buses, 14 ' which do not serve the subject plat. RSD does not operate on South 55th Street, and would require that students walk approximately 700 feet to the west to be picked up at the 15 corner of South 55th Street and Talbot Road South. in order to provide an appropriate 16 safe route to schools, the conditions of approval request a walking path within the 17 improved right-of-way, with a minimum 5-foot asphalt path from the entrance to the plat to the nearest school bus stop that serves the subdivision. This should be installed at the 18 time that street and utility improvements are being installed. 19 F. Interior Vehicle Circulation. in addition to sidewalks and the proposed pedestrian path, 20 the proposed preliminary plat also provides for appropriate vehicle circulation system. 21 The road system connects with the Wilson Park I Plat located immediately to the north. The road was originally approved as part of Wilson Park I and has not yet been 22 constructed. Wilson Park I is dependent upon the construction of this road, as is Wilson 23 Park II. The internal street is designed to accommodate emergency vehicle access and the traffic generated by the project, provided that the street connects through Wilson Park I. 24 In the event that Wilson Park 1 is not constructed concurrent or prior to Wilson Park II, an 25 emergency turnaround would need to be provided within the subject plat. The conditions of approval require that if Wilson Park iI moves forward prior to Wilson Park I,the public 26 street be constructed with an approved emergency turnaround. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -9 2 Access to the property should not adversely affect adjoining properties and there are no difficult turning patterns. The site access street intersects South 55th Street on the outside 3 of a horizontal curve on South 55th Street to optimize sight distance in both the east and 4 west direction for vehicles entering and exiting the site. Previously, the site distance on South 55th Street was evaluated as part of Wilson Park 1. It was determined then that the 5 City of Renton intersection and stopping sight distance requirements in both the east and 6 west directions would be met. As shown in Ex. 2, the internal road does not traverse any steep gradients and there is no 8 driveway access to any busy streets as there is no driveway access to South 55u1Street. 9 G. Off-Site Traffic Improvements. Frontage improvements are required along South 55th 10 Street. The property has frontage in two locations, where the proposed internal Road A intersects South 55th Street, and where a portion of Tract A fronts on South 55th Street. 11 In both cases, the Applicants are required to construct curb, gutter, 5-foot wide sidewalks, 12 and an 8-foot wide planting strip. The Applicants' proposal indicates a 5-foot wide sidewalk along South 55th Street on the south side of Lot 1. No planting strip is proposed 13 within the South 55th Street right-of-way. No street improvements are proposed within 14 the right-of-way for South 55th Street for the portion where Tract A fronts on the street 5 (Exhibit 2, 11). The conditions of approval require revision of the construction I engineering plans, and final detailed landscape plan to show the required street 16 improvements and landscaping prior to the Final PUB and Final Plat approval process. 17 The Applicants submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis Report (Exhibit 12) prepared by 18 TraffEx. The report indicates that the proposal would utilize the same access to South 19 55th Street as the approved Wilson Park I Plat. The site access street intersects South 55th i Street on the outside of a horizontal curve on South 55th Street to optimize sight distance 20 in both the east and west direction for vehicles entering and exiting the site. The report 21 also indicates that the horizon year for the study is 2014, as this is the year construction of both plats is anticipated. The study determined the Level-of-Service (LOS) with the 22 project will be LOS 13 for future 2014 conditions. This 1.0S satisfies the City's LOS 23 standard and there is no evidence in the record that is contrary to the conclusions of the traffic report on LOS impacts. The project design will ensure intersection and stopping 24 sight distance requirements in both the east and west directions will he met. The report 25 ' has been presumably approved by staff, since it has gone through staff review and Staff have recommended all the conditions of approval they deemed necessary for adequate 26 traffic mitigation in the environmental report. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT- 10 1 2 The Renton School District (RSI)) does not operate on South 55th Street. The closest school bus stop is approximately 700 feet to the west at the corner of South 55th Street 3 and Talbot Road South. In order to provide an appropriate safe route to schools, the 4 conditions of approval require a walking path within the improved right-of-way, with a minimum 5-foot asphalt path to the nearest school bus stop as determined safe by City 5 staff. This should be installed concurrent with street and utility improvements. 6 5. Adverse Impacts. Since the project provides for adequate infrastructure and public services, 7 the only remaining impacts to be considered are to critical areas. All impacts to critical areas have been thoroughly assessed and completely mitigated, as identified in the Environmental Review 8 Report, Ex. 4-6, adopted by this reference as if set forth in full. The mitigation measures 9 recommended by Staff in the Environmental Report are adopted as conditions of approval via adoption of the mitigation measures of the determination of nonsignificance. Adoption of Ex. 6 10 encompasses both the Findings of Fact and the Conclusions of Law of Staff. 11 A. Trees. Loss of trees is an impact that Renton regulations require mitigated. As conditioned, 12 the project will retain trees as required by City standards, although it must be noted that the Staff Report erroneously only requires protection of trees with of a 6-inch caliper or greater 13 whereas it appears that City standards require trees of a 2-inch caliper or greater to be protected. The Staff Report notes that the site contains a total of 82 trees of 6-inch caliper or 14 larger, 21 are within the proposed public right-of-way, and 3 are located in critical areas and their buffers resulting in 58 protected trees on site (Exhibit 9, 10). Of these, 21 trees are 15 within the R-1 zone, and 37 trees within the R-14 zoned portions of the property. The R-I 16 zone requires 30 percent tree retention of the protected trees on site, while the R-14 requires 10 percent tree retention. At a 30 percent retention rate in the R-1 zone, 6 trees of greater than 17 6-inch caliper would be required to be retained. At 10 percent retention rate in the R-14 zone, 4 trees of greater than 6-inch would need to be retained. This is a total of 10 trees of greater 18 than 6-inch caliper required to be retained. The Applicants have identified 10 trees that would 19 be retained thus meeting the requirement for trees of greater than 6-inch caliper. In addition, the Applicants propose to plant 40 new trees on site, which includes street trees within the 20 right-of-way and ornamental trees within Tract 'A', the common open space and Native Growth Protection Area Easement. As noted in the conclusions of law, Renton tree retention 21 standards require the protection of 2-inch caliper trees, not 6-inch trees as suggested in the 22 Staff Report. The conditions of approval will require that the tree retention requirements he applied to trees that are of 2-inch caliper or greater. 23 B. Compatibility with Adjoining Uses. Perimeter screening will ensure compatibility and 24 minimize aesthetic impacts. Proposed landscaping on the south boundary of Lot 10 would 25 provide some screening of when viewed from South 55th Street. Proposed plantings of the southeast corner of Lot I would provide some incremental screening for Lot I when viewed 26 from 55th Avenue South. Additional planting within the right-of-way is required as a PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 11 1 condition of approval along 55th Avenue South. This requires dedication of additional right- of-way along the south boundary of the plat, between the new Road A west to the southwest 2 corner of the site. The PUD revision authorizing R-8 design standards also contributes to 3 compatibility, as many adjoining uses are also zoned R-8. 4 All other adverse impacts discernible from the record are also fully mitigated. 5 6. Superiority in Design. The proposed PUD design is superior to that which would be allowed 6 under applicable subdivision regulations. This finding is based upon Stalls assessment and conclusions. Unfortunately,the record does not directly provide much information on how staff came 7 to its conclusions on superiority in design, but given the Staff's expertise and the lack of any evidence to the contrary the staff conclusions are adopted. 8 At page 11, the Staff Report notes several reasons why the design is superior, but does not link these 9 reasons to any specific design features. First, the Staff Report notes that proposed plat layout 10 provides for the protection of the steep slope area to the east. Given that the PUD proposes that 50% of the open space of the urban separator designation be set aside for open space and that the same II would be required for a subdivision anyway, it is difficult to understand from the record how the PUD 12 protection of the steep slopes is superior to that which would already be required for a subdivision. The Staff Report also notes that the PUD exceeds open space requirements by placing the steep 13 slopes within the open space tract. While the placement of the steep slopes within the open space tract is technically not required, it is difficult to conceive of any set of circumstances for this 14 subdivision where the developer would have any incentive to reduce his developable space by placing the open space away from the steep slopes. The PUD design does provide for a trail along the steep 15 slope that provides separation from five lots beyond that required by the City's critical areas 16 ordinance. Given the amount of open space required already, the trail separation does not appear to be a major improvement over what would be required of a subdivision. 17 Second, the Staff Report notes that as conditioned the PUD would provide for recreational amenities 18 beyond code requirements. Elsewhere, the Staff Report notes that the open space will include a 19 pergola, landscaping, two picnic tables and a soft surface trail system. These are presumably all amenities that exceed code standards and thus support a finding of superior design. 20 Third, the Staff Report notes that the plat layout increases the quality of the internal circulation 21 system throughout the development. This in part appears to be accomplished by an internal pathway 22 that connects the sidewalks of the subdivision. It is not otherwise clear from the record how the quality of internal circulation has been enhanced by the proposed PUD. 23 Fourth, the Staff Report notes that the proposed subdivision is a significant improvement over a 24 design that would meet both the R-1 and R-14 standards. The Staff Report notes that proposed design can provide for the aforementioned amenities because of the development standard 25 modifications recommended by Staff in the Staff Report Table A. The Staff Report does not identify 26 how the modifications result in superior design. A primary design enhancement from the PUD PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT- 12 I modifications appears to be conformance to the residential design standards of the R-8 zone as conditioned, which apparently provides for stricter design guidelines in some respects than that 2 required of the R-1 or R-14 zone, promotes compatibility of design between the interior R-1 and R-14 3 districts (although there is only one lot in the R-1 zone) and also provides for greater compatibility in design with adjoining R-8 uses. The requested lot size and setback modifications allow for a 4 clustered R-8 development that provides increased protection of critical areas creating an appearance of openness. The reduced density applied from the R-8 zone further contributes to this openness. In 5 order to maintain sufficient separation between buildings, the conditions of approval require the 6 Applicants to meet the R-8 side yard setbacks, as such all structures will maintain a minimum of 10 feet of separation. This spacing allows for emergency access and sufficient fire separation. 7 Aesthetics and parking is further enhanced by a condition requiring garage setbacks that exceed those of the R-8 district by three feet. 8 9 7. Public Benefit. The proposal provides several public benefits as detailed in Table B of the Staff Report, adopted and incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full with the caveat that, as 10 previously discussed, the PUD does not appear to provide for more open space than would otherwise already be required for a standard subdivision subject to the Urban Separator designation. 11 12 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 13 Procedural: 14 1. Authority. RMC 4-7-020(C) and 4-7-050(D)(5) provide that the Hearing Examiner shall hold a hearing and issue a final decision on preliminary plat applications. RMC 4-9-150(F)(8) authorizes 15 the Examiner to conduct hearings and make final decisions on planned urban development 16 applications. 17 Substantive: 18 2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The project is divided into two zoning 19 designations: R-14 and R-1. The comprehensive plan map land use designation for the R-14 Zone is Residential Single Family (RSF) while the R-I Zone is Residential Low Density (RLD). 20 3. Review Criteria. The Renton Municipal Code does not clearly identify the criteria the 21 Examiner must apply in assessing a subdivision or a PUD. Chapter 4-7 RMC governs the criteria for 22 subdivision review and RMC 4-9-150 governs PUD criteria. Without any more specific code guidance, the Examiner concludes that he must find that all applicable criteria in Chapter 4-7 and 23 RMC 4-9-150 must be satisfied for preliminary plat and PUD approval. Applicable standards are 24 quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. 25 RMC 4-7-080(B): A subdivision shall he consistent with the following principles of acceptability: 26 1. Legal Lots: Create legal building sites which comply with all provisions of the City Zoning Code. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 13 1 2. Access: Establish access to a public road for each segregated parcel. 2 3. Physical Characteristics: Have suitable physical characteristics. A proposed plat may be denied 3 I because of flood, inundation, or wetland Conditions. Construction of protective improvements may be required as a Condition of approval, and such improvements shall be noted on the final plat. 4 4. Drainage: Make adequate provision for drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water 5 supplies and sanitary wastes. 6 4. As modified by the PUD regulations, the lots will comply with all requirements of the Zoning 7 Code. As noted in the project description, Finding of Fact No. 3, and as depicted in Ex. 2, all lots have access to a public street, Road A. The project is not located within a floodplain and there are no wetlands or streams impacted. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the project makes adequate 9 provision for drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies and sanitary wastes. 10 RMC 4-7-080(I)(1): ...The Hearing Examiner shall assure conformance with the general purposes 11 of the Comprehensive Plan and adopted standards... 12 j 5. The proposed preliminary plat is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan as outlined 13 in Section 6(a)of the Staff Report, which is incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. 14 RMC 4-7-120(A): No plan for the replotting subdivision, or dedication of any areas shall be approved by the Hearing Examiner unless the streets shown therein are connected by surfaced road 15 or street (according to City specifications) to an existing street or highway. 16 6. The internal circulation system of the subdivision connects to South 55th Street,an existing 17 public street. 18 RMC 4-7-120(B): The location of all streets shall conform to any adopted plans for streets in the 19 City. 20 7. The Staff Report and administrative record do not identify any applicable street plan or grid system that would compel the connection of the interior streets to any other roads beyond South 55th 21 Street. The aerial photo on page 2 of the Staff Report shows that there are no other roads in 22 proximity to the project that could be feasibly extended to the project. Given the extreme slopes that adjoin the project it is highly unlikely that any other roads could ever connect to the project from the 23 east. The project is separated from a cul de sac to the northwest by residential development. The 24 Iproject is slated to be connected to Wilson Park l's internal road to the north of the subject property. 25 ' RMC 4-7-120(C): If a subdivision is located in the area of an officially designed trail,provisions 26 shall be made for reservation of the right-of-way or for easements to the City for trail purposes. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 14 •1 8. The Staff Report and administrative record do not identify any officially designated trail in the 2 : vicinity. 3 RMC 4-7-130(C): A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication shall be prepared in conformance with the following provisions: 4 1. Land Unsuitable for Subdivision: Land which is found to be unsuitable for subdivision includes 5 land with features likely to be harmful to the safety and general health of the future residents (such as 6 lands adversely affected by flooding, steep slopes, or rock formations). Land which the Department or the hearing Examiner considers inappropriate for subdivision shall not be subdivided unless 7 adequate safeguards are provided against these adverse Conditions. 8 a. Flooding/Inundation: If any portion of the land within the boundary of a preliminary plat is 9 , subject to flooding or inundation, that portion of the subdivision must have the approval of the State 10 1 according to chapter 86.16 RCW before the Department and the Hearing Examiner shall consider such subdivision. 11 t b. Steep Slopes:A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication which would result in the creation of a 12 lot or lots that primarily have slopes forty percent (40%) or greater as measured per RMC 4-3- 13 050J1a, without adequate area at lesser slopes upon which development may occur, shall not be 14 approved 15 . ... 16 , 3. Land Clearing and Tree Retention: Shall comply with RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations. 17 9. As determined in the Findings of Fact, significant protective measures and safeguards are 18 proposed and conditioned to ensure that the proposed development is adequately protected from the 19 geologic hazards of the site. As proposed and conditioned the project area is appropriate for 20 subdivision. As previously discussed there is no evidence in the record that there is any flooding problem. 21 The property is encumbered by slopes in excess of 40%. As discussed in Findings of Fact No. 5 and 22 6, no lots will be created that are unsuitable for subdivision. The entire slope area will be placed in an 23 open space tract (Tract A). The conditions of approval will require the tract to be placed in a Native Protection Area Easement. 24 In assessing compliance with RMC 4-4-130, the Staff Report only identifies trees on site that are of 6- 25 1 inch caliper or larger. There is nothing in RMC. 4-4-130 that limits tree retention to trees that of 6- 26 inch caliper or higher. RMC 4-11-200 defines a tree as having a caliper of 2 inches or higher and the PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT- IS tree retention requirements of RMC 4-4-130 do not provide for any exceptions for trees smaller than 2 six inches. It is possible that trees between two and six inches are not present on the site, but that's not clear from the record and it would not be reasonable to make that inference. In addition to the 3 additional information recommended by Staff as identified in Finding of Fact No. 4(D), the 4 Conditions of approval will also require that tree retention be applied to all trees with a two inch caliper or greater. 5 RMC 4-7-140: Approval of all subdivisions located in either single family residential or multi- family residential zones as defined in the Zoning Code shall be contingent upon the subdivider's 7 dedication of land or providing fees in lieu of dedication to the City, all as necessary to mitigate the adverse effects of development upon the existing park and recreation service levels. The requirements 8 and procedures for this mitigation shall be per the City of Renton Parks Mitigation Resolution. 9 10. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 4(D), the proposal meets both park and open space 10 requirements. 11 RMC 4-7-150(A): The proposed street system shall extend and create connections between existing 12 streets unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department, Prior to approving a street system that does not extend or connect, the Reviewing Official shall find that such exception shall 13 meet the requirements of subsection E3 of this Section. The roadway classifications shall be as 14 defined and designated by the Department. 15 11. As discussed in Conclusion of Law No. 7, the only street that the project could connect to is 16 South 55th Street. 17 RMC 4-7-150(B): All proposed street names shall be approved by the City. 18 12. As Conditioned. 19 RMC 4-7-150(C): Streets intersecting with existing or proposed public highways, major or 20 secondary arterials.shall be held to a minimum. 21 13, If South 5.5th Street qualifies as an arterial,the project must by necessity connect to it or it would otherwise only have one access point, through Wilson Park I. 22 RMC 4-7-150(D): The alignment of all streets shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works 23 Department. The street standards set by RMC 4-6-060 shall apply unless otherwise approved Street 24 alignment offsets of less than one hundred twenty five feet(125} are not desirable, but may be approved by the Department upon a showing of need but only after provision of all necessary safety 25 measures. 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 16 1 14. The Public Works Department has reviewed and approved the street alignment as noted in 2 Finding of Fact No. 4(G). 3 RMC 4-7-150(E): 4 I ]. Grid:A grid street pattern shall be used to connect existing and new development and shall be the predominant street pattern in any subdivision permitted by this Section. 5 6 2. Linkages: Linkages, including streets, sidewalks,pedestrian or bike paths, shall he provided within 1 and between neighborhoods when they can create a continuous and interconnected network of roads 7 and pathways. Implementation of this requirement shall comply with Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Objective T-A and Policies T-9 through T-16 and Community Design 8 Element, Objective CD-A'!and Policies CD-50 and CD-60, 9 1 3. Exceptions: 10 a. The grid pattern may be adjusted to a 'flexible grid" by reducing the number of linkages or the II alignment between roads, where the following factors are present on site: 12 i. Infeasible due to topographical/environmental constraints;and/or 13 ii. Substantial improvements are existing. 14 4. Connections: Prior to adoption of a complete grid street plan, reasonable connections that link 15 existing portions of the grid system shall be made. At a minimum, stub streets shall be required 16 within subdivisions to allow future connectivity. 17 5. Alley Access:Alley access is the preferred street pattern except for properties in the Residential Low Density land use designation. The Residential Low Density land use designation includes the 18 RC, R-1, and R-4 zones. Prior to approval of a plat without alley access, the Reviewing Official shall 19 evaluate an alley layout and determine that the use of alley(s) is not feasible... 20 6. Alternative Configurations: Offset or loop roads are the preferred alternative configurations. 21 7. Cul-de-Sac Streets: Cul-de-sac streets may only be permitted by the Reviewing Official where due , to demonstrable physical constraints no fitture connection to a larger street pattern is physically 22 possible. 23 15. As discussed in Conclusion of Law No. 7 there are no roads other than South 551h Street and the Wilson Park I internal road with which the project could connect. No grid system is reasonably 24 feasible because existing development and the steep slopes to the east make any additional thru 25 streets impractical. Alley access is infeasible. Topography would make it difficult to configure the plat to allow for alley access of all lots. 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT- 17 • 1 1 RMC 4-7-150(F): All adjacent rights-of-way and new rights-of-way dedicated as part of the plat, I 2 including streets, roads, and alleys, shall he graded to their full width and the pavement and 1 i sidewalks shall be constructed as specified in the street standards or deferred by the 3 i Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee. 4 16. As Conditioned. 5 RMC 4-7-150(G): Streets that may he extended in the event of future adjacent platting shall be 6 i required to be dedicated to the plat boundary line. Extensions of greater depth than an average lot shall be improved with temporary turnarounds. Dedication of a lid/-width boundary street shall he required in certain instances to facilitate future development. 8 17. As discussed in Conclusion of Law No. 7 there are no feasible street connections to the 9 project other than directly to South 55th Street and the Wilson Park I plat as proposed. 10 4-7-160(A): Blocks shall be deep enough to allow two (2) tiers of lots, except where: 11 1 1. Abutting principal arterials defined in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. I 2 2. The location and extent of environmental constraints prevent a standard plat land configuration, 13 including size and shape of the parcel. 14 3. Prior to approval of single-tier lot configuration based on exceptions .1 and 2, the proponent must 15 demonstrate that a different layout or provisions of an alley system is not feasible. 18. The steep slopes and the shape of the parcel could not accommodate two tiers of lots. 16 17 4-7-160(B): Where circumstances warrant, the Reviewing Official may require one or more public crosswalks or walkways of not less than six feet (6) in width dedicated to the City to extend entirely 18 i across the width of the block at locations deemed necessary. Such crosswalks or walkways shall be 19 paved for their entire width and length with a permanent surface and shall he adequately lighted at ! the developer's cost. 20 19. As identified in Finding of Fact 4(E)sidewalks meeting the City's standards will extend along 21 both sides of Road A. There will also he a looped interior trail system. Proposed Road A does not 22 appear to warrant crosswalks due to its short length, but investigation of this issue by staff will be made a condition of approval. 23 RMC 4-7-170(A): Insofar as practical, side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines or radial 24 to curved street lines. 25 1 .1 20. As depicted in Ex. 2,the side lines are in conformance with the requirement quoted above. 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT- 18 1 RMC 4-7-170(B): Each lot must have access to a public street or road. Access may be by private 2 access easement street per the requirements of the street standards. 3 21. Each lot will have access to Road A, which the Staff Report states, when completed, will be a dedicated public road. 4 i RMC 4-7-170(C): The size, shape, and orientation of lots shall meet the minimum area and width 5 requirements of the applicable zoning classification and shall he appropriate for the type of 6 development and use contemplated. Further subdivision of lots within a plat approved through the 7 provisions of this Chapter must be consistent with the then-current applicable maximum density requirement as measured within the plat as a whole. 8 22. The proposed plat results in less than allowable density in the R-14 portion of the lot and the 9 allowable density in the R-1 portion of the lot. As noted in Table A and Table C of the Staff Report, 10 the lot size, width and design will not meet the minimum requirements of the R-1 and R-14 districts. Staff recommends the most appropriate zoning standards for this development conform to the R-8 11 Zone and the deviations approved under the PUD are in line with this recommendation. Any 12 deviations from minimum lot dimensions authorized by this decision are based upon compliance with PUD criteria of RMC 4-9-150. For purposes of RMC 4-7-170(C), deviations approved by the PUD 13 standards should be considered to be consistent with the requirements of the applicable zoning 14 classification. As conditioned, the project will be required to conform to the R-8 Zone development standards. 15 16 RMC 4-7-170(D): Width between side lot lines at their foremost points (i.e., the points where the side lot lines intersect with the street right-of=way line) shall not he less than eighty percent (80%) of 17 the required lot width except in the cases of(I)pipestem lots, which shall have a minimum width of 18 twenty feet (20) and (2) lots on a street curve or the turning circle of cul-de-sac (radial lots), which shall he a minimum of thirty five feet(357. 19 23. The "required lot width" for this project has been reduced by operation of the PUD standards, 20 RMC 4-9-150. As reduced and described in Table C of the Staff Report, the lot widths for each lot 21 are fairly consistent and the foremost lot lines are all at least 80% of lot width. However, proposed Lot 1 has less than the required 60 foot frontage. As modified through the PUD, the criterion is 22 E satisfied. 23 RMC 4-7-17rights-of-way, 0(k'}: All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public except alleys, 24 shall have minimum radius of fifteen feet (159. 25 24. As Conditioned. 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 19 RMC 4-7-190(A): Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as 2 specified by the Department. 3 ! 25. No utility easements were found necessary by the Department. 4 RMC 4-7-190(A): Due regard shall he shown to all natural features such as large trees, watercourses, and similar community assets. Such natural features should be preserved, thereby 5 adding attractiveness and value to the property. 6 26. As conditioned, protected trees shall he retained or replaced as discussed in Finding of Fact 7 No. 5 and Conclusion of Law No. 9. The steep slopes will he protected by the City's critical areas 8 ordinance as well as the open space tract as discussed in Finding of Fact No. 4(D). 9 RMC 4-7-200(A): Unless septic tames are specifically approved by the Public Works Department and the King County Health Department, sanitary sewers shall be provided by the developer at no 10 cost to the City and designed in accordance with City standards, Side sewer lines shall he installed 1 l eight feet (89 into each lot ifsanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision development. 12 13 27. As Conditioned. 14 RMC 4-7-200(B): An adequate drainage system shall be provided fi,r the proper drainage of all surface water. Cross drains shall be provided to accommodate all natural water flow and shall he of 15 sufficient length to permit full-width roadway and required slopes. The drainage system shall he 16 designed per the requirements of RMC 4-6-030, Drainage (Surface Water) Standards. The drainage system shall include detention capacity for the new street areas. Residential plats shall also include 17 ' detention capacity for future development of the lots. Water quality features shall also he designed to 18 'provide capacity for the new street paving for the plat. 19 28. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4(C), the proposal complies with the criterion above. The Staff Report does not identify whether the project will comply with RMC 4-6-030 so compliance 20 will be made a condition of approval. 21 RMC 4-7-200(C): The water distribution .system including the locations of fire hydrants shall be 22 designed and installed in accordance with City standards as defined by the Department and Fire 23 Department requirements. 24 29. As Conditioned. 25 RMC 4-7-200(D): All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any 26 utilities installed in the parking strip shall he placed in such a manner and depth to permit the planting of trees. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, including all PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT-20 1 service connections, as approved by the Department. Such installation shall be completed and 2 approved prior to the application of any surface material. Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department. 3 30. As Conditioned. 4 RMC 4-7-200(E): Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic 5 utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line 6 by subdivider as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or alley 7 improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. Me cost of trenching, conduit, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore required to 8 bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or land owner. The subdivider shall be responsible only for conduit to serve his development. Conduit ends shall be elbowed to final ground elevation and capped. The cable TV company shall provide maps and specifications to the 10 subdivider and shall inspect the conduit and certi6,to the City that it is properly installed. 11 31. As Conditioned. 12 RMC 4-7-210: 13 A. MONUMENTS: 14 Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at each and every controlling corner of 15 the subdivision. Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the Department. All surveys 16 shall be per the City of Renton surveying standards. 17 B. SURVEY: 18 All other lot corners shall he marked per the City surveying standards. 19 C. STREET SIGNS: 20 The subdivider shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision. 21 32. As Conditioned. 22 RMC 4-9-150(8)(2): Code Provisions That May Be Modified: 23 a. In approving a planned urban development, the City may modifY any of the standards of chapter 4- 24 2 RMC, chapter 4-4 RMC, RMC 4-6-060 and chapter 4-7.RMC, except as listed in subsection B3 of this Section. All modifications shall be considered simultaneously as part of the planned urban 25 development 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT-21 I 33. As shown in Table A of the Staff Report, the requested revisions are limited to the regulations 2 identified in the regulation quoted above. 3 RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the following requirements are met. 4 ' 1. Demonstration of Compliance and Superiority Required: Applicants must demonstrate that a 5 proposed development is in compliance with the purposes of this Section and with the Comprehensive 6 Plan, that the proposed development will be superior to that which would result without a planned 1 urban development, and that the development will not be unduly detrimental to surrounding 7 properties. 8 ` 34. The purposes of the PUD regulations, as outlined in RMC 4-9-150,are to preserve and protect 9 i 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 6 the natural features (the steep slope) of 10 the site are protected by open space and an internal trail. The consolidation of the open space 11 requirement with critical area protection, recreational use and the internal trail system involves innovation and creativity. The use of R-8 zoning design standards to promote compatibility within 12 the two zoning designations of the project in addition to surrounding uses is also innovative and 13 I creative. The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as determined in Conclusion of Law 14 I No, 5. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 6, the proposal is superior in design to what which would occur without a PUD. As determined in Finding of Fact No.4 and 5 the project will not create 15 any significant adverse impacts and so would not be unduly detrimental to surrounding properties. 16 RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the following requirements are met. 17 18 2. Public Benefit Required; In addition, Applicants shall demonstrate that a proposed development 19 will provide specifically identified benefits that clearly outweigh any adverse impacts or undesirable effects of the proposed planned urban development, particularly those adverse and undesirable 20 1 impacts to surrounding properties, and that the proposed development will provide one or more of 21 I, the following benefits than would result from the development of'the subject site without the proposed planned urban development: 22 a. Critical Areas: Protects critical areas that would not be protected otherwise to the same 23 degree as without a planned urban development; or 24 b. Natural Features: Preserves, enhances, or rehabilitates natural features of the subject property, such as significant woodlands, native vegetation, topography, or noncritical area 25 wildlife habitats, not otherwise required by other City regulations; or... 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 22 1 e. Overall Design: Provides a planned urban development design that is superior to the design that would result from development of the subject property without a planned urban 2 development. A superior design may include the f011owing: 3 4 35. The proposal provides for public benefit as determined in Finding of Fact No. 7. These benefits clearly outweigh any adverse impacts since there are no significant adverse impacts 5 associated with the proposal as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4 and 5. As previously concluded, 6 the proposal also provides for more protection of steep slopes than otherwise required by the 7 placement of the slopes in a significant amount of open space and as determined in Finding of Fact No. 6,the PIJD provides for a design superior to that which would otherwise be required. 8 RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the 9 following requirements are met.... 10 3. Additional Review Criteria:A proposed planned urban development shall also he reviewed for consistency with all of the following criteria: 12 a. Building and Site Design: 13 i. Perimeter:Size, scale, mass, character and architectural design along the planned urban 14 development perimeter provide a suitable transition to adjacent or abutting lower density/intensity zones. Materials shall reduce the potential for light and glare. 15 36. Proposed landscaping on the south boundary of Lot 10 would provide some screening of when 16 viewed from South 55th Street. Proposed plantings of the southeast corner of Lot I would provide 17 some incremental screening for Lot 1 when viewed from 55th Avenue South. The conditions of approval require additional planting within the right-of-way along 55th Avenue South. This would 18 require dedication of additional right-of-way along the south boundary of the plat, between the new Road A west to the southwest corner of the site. 19 20 As conditioned, the scale, mass, character and architectural design along the perimeter will be of a detached single family residential development consistent with R-8 zoning This creates compatibility 21 with both the interior split zoning and surrounding single-family development. 22 RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the 23 following requirements are met. 24 3. Additional Review Criteria.. A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for 25 consistency with all of the following criteria: 26 a. Building and Site Design: PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT- 23 1 ii. Interior Design: Promotes a coordinated site and building design Buildings in groups should be 3 related by coordinated materials and roof styles, but contrast should be provided throughout a site by the use of varied materials, architectural detailing, building orientation or housing type, e.g., single 4 family, townhouses,flats, etc. 5 37. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 6, the interior site design promotes quality pedestrian 6 circulation, increased critical area protection, and promotes safety by buffering the high landslide hazards. All homes would be required to comply with the R-8 development design standards which 7 would result in coordinated, yet varied roof styles and materials, architectural detailing, and a variety 8 of home styles throughout the development. RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the following requirements are met. 10 11 3. Additional Review Criteria:A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for 12 consistency with all of the following criteria 13 ••. b. Circulation: 14 i. Provides sufficient streets and pedestrian facilities. The planned urban development shall have 15 I sufficient pedestrian and vehicle access commensurate with the location, size and density of the 16 proposed development. Al!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 17 approved by the City. Vehicle access shall not he unduly detrimental to adjacent areas. 18 38. The criterion above is met as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4(E), (F)and ((3). 19 RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the 20 following requirements are met. 21 22 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for consistency with all of the following criteria 23 24 b. Circulation: 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -24 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 2 gradients. 3 39. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4(F), the criterion above is met. 4 RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the 5 following requirements are met. 7 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also he reviewed for 8 consistency with all of the following criteria 9 b. Circulation: 10 11 iii. Provision of a system of walkways which tie residential areas to recreational areas, transit,public 12 walkways, schools, and commercial activities. 13 40. The criterion is met as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4(E). 14 RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the 15 following requirements are met. 16 3. Additional Review Criteria:A proposed planned urban development shall also he reviewed for 17 consistency with all of the following criteria 18 i 19 b. Circulation: 20 21 ' iv. Provides safe, efficient access for emergency vehicles. 22 41. As conditioned and as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4(F), the proposal has sufficient 23 emergency vehicle access. 24 RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the 25 following requirements are met. 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT- 25 1 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for 2 consistency with all of the following criteria 3 I c. Infrastructure and Services: Provides utility services, emergency services, and other improvements, existing and proposed, which are sufficient to serve the development. 4 42. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the proposal is served by sufficient public 5 infrastructure and services. 6 ! RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the 7 following requirements are met. 8 ... 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for consistency with all of the following criteria 10 ... 11 12 d. Clusters or Building Groups and Open Space: An appearance of openness created by clustering, separation of building groups, and through the use of well-designed open space and landscaping, or 13 a reduction in amount of impervious surfaces not otherwise required 14 43. An appearance of openness is created by clustering, open space and conditions requiring 15 building separation as determined in Finding of Fact No. 6. 16 RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the ,following requirements are met. 17 ... 18 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed Jr 19 1 consistency with all of the following criteria 20 ••• 21 e. Privacy and Building Separation: Provides internal privacy between dwelling units, and external 22 privacy for adjacent dwelling units. Each residential or mixed use development shall provide visual and acoustical privacy for dwelling units and surrounding properties. Fences, insulation, walks, 23 barriers, and landscaping are used, as appropriate,for the protection and aesthetic enhancement of the property, the privacy of site occupants and surrounding properties, and for screening of storage, 24 mechanical or other appropriate areas, and for the reduction of noise. Windows are placed at such a ,2 height or location or screened to provide sufficient privacy. Sufficient light and air are provided to 5 1 I each dwelling unit. 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT- 26 I 44. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposal is adequately screened from adjoining development. Within the subdivision, unit to unit privacy would be provided by the side yard setback 2 requirement. Street trees are required either within the required landscape strip or in the front yard of 3 the lot. The required trees would add to the privacy for lots across Road A. As discussed in Finding of Fact Nos. 4(D) and 6, the proposed walkways and landscaping are appropriate for the protection 4 '' and aesthetic enhancement of the property. 5 All homes would be required to be designed to meet the residential design standards for the R-8 zone. 6 These standards would require windows on the front of the home, increasing access to light and air for each dwelling unit. Furthermore, each lot would have private front, side and rear yards,enhancing 7 i each lot with landscaping and access to light and air. 8 RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the 9 following requirements are met. 1 0 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for consistency with all of the following criteria 11 12 13 f Building Orientation: Provides buildings oriented to enhance views from within the site by raking advantage of topography, building location and style. 14 45. The lots are arranged on either side of Road A. The site topography slopes down from south 15 to north, resulting in a tiered housing effect after site grading. The relatively small amount of new 16 housing and the large effect of the topography provide little opportunity for enhanced views from ' within the site. Given the site grading and required building styles, this criterion is met. 17 RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the 18 ''following requirements are met. 19 20 3. Additional Review Criteria:A proposed planned urban development shall also he reviewed for consistency with all of the following criteria 21 22 23 g. Parking Area Design: Provides parking areas that are complemented by landscaping and not designed in long rows. The size of parking areas is minimized in comparison to typical designs, and 24 each area related to the group of buildings served The design provides for efficient use of parking, 25 and shared parking facilities where appropriate. 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT- 27 1 I 46, Required parking would be provided within garages attached to each home. Additional guest parking would be provided on the driveway aprons for each lot, particularly given the condition of 2 approval that requires an additional 3 feet of setback for garages. On-street parking would be 3 provided along the east side of Road A. The proposed parking is designed to provide efficient use of the site and would be appropriately screen by the provided garages. 4 1 5 1 RMC 4-9-150(D)(4): Each planned urban development shall demonstrate compliance with the 6 development standards contained in subsection E of this Section, the underlying zone, and any overlay districts; unless a modification for a specific development standard has been requested 7 pursuant to subsection B2 of this Section. 8 47, As discussed below, the proposal complies with all development standards imposed by RMC 9 4-9-150(E). As previously mentioned, Staff has recommended that the entire site be subject to the development standards of the R-8 zone. The current zones are R-14 and R-1. Only one dwelling unit 10 is proposed for the R-1 zone portion. Nine are proposed for the R-14 zone. The total gross zoning is 11 proposed to be 6.4, well less than the density required for R-8 zone that Staff recommends. As depicted in the plat maps, Ex. 2, the lots comply with the bulk and dimensional requirements of the 12 underlying zone except to the extent modified by the PUD regulations. 13 RMC 4-9-150(E)(1): Common Open Space Standard: Open space shall be concentrated in large 14 usable areas and may be designed to provide either active or passive recreation. Requirements for residential, mixed use, commercial, and industrial developments are described below. 15 16I a. Residential: For residential developments open space must equal at least ten percent (10%) of the development site's gross land area. 17 i. Open space may include, but is not limited to, the following: 18 19 (a)A trail that allows opportunity for passive recreation within a critical area buffer (only the square footage of the trail shall be included in the open space area calculation), or 20 (b)A sidewalk and its associated landscape strip, when abutting the edge of a critical area buffer and 21 when a part of a new public or private road, or 22 ' (c) A similar proposal as approved by the reviewing official. 23 ii. Additionally, a minimum area equal to fifty(50)square feet per unit of common space or 24 recreation area shall be provided in a concentrated space as illustrated in Figure 1. 25 48. In addition to private open space provided on each proposed lot, the Applicants have proposed 26 to provide a passive recreation area primarily located on the eastern portion of the site, and wrapping around the north part of Lot 6 and the south boundary of Lot 10. This 19,164 sq. ft. (0.44 acre) open PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 28 I space would include a pergola structure, landscaping and two picnic tables, a soft surface looped trail 2 system through the development, and would also comprise the steep slope area beyond to the north and east. RMC 4-9-150E requires that PUD's provide large concentrated areas of open space, 3 equivalent to 10% of the site's gross area. The site is 93,801 sq. ft. and the provided open space tract is 19,164 sq. ft, comprising approximately 20%of the site, and exceeding the open space standards by 4 9,784 square feet. The overall location and design of the park, open space and trail are located as to create a quality open space/recreation area for the development, specifically if all conditions of 5 approval are met. 6 7 RMC 4-9-150(E)(2): Private Open Space: Each residential unit in a planned urban development 1 shall have usable private open space (in addition to parking, storage space, lobbies, and corridors) 8 'for the exclusive use of the occupants of that unit. Each ground floor unit, whether attached or 9 detached, shall have private open space which is contiguous to the unit. The private open space shall he well demarcated and at least fifteen feet (15) in every dimension (decks on upper floors can 1 substitute for the required private open space). For dwelling units which are exclusively upper story 11 units, there shall be deck areas totaling at least sixty (60) square feet in size with no dimension less than five,feet(5). 12 13 49. Each lot would have a private yard in both the front and the rear of the lot. The minimum side yard setback in the requested R-8 zoning development standards is Jive feet, which could result in a 14 private open space yard that is less than 15 feet in every dimension. However, the lots sizes are large 15 J enough to meet this standard. As a condition of approval, compliance with this standard shall be required at the building permit stage. 16 RMC 4-9-150(E)(3): Installation and Maintenance of Common Open Space: 17 18 a. Installation: All common area and open space shall be landscaped in accordance with the landscaping plan submitted by the Applicants and approved by the City;provided, that common open 19 space containing natural features worthy of preservation may be left unimproved. Prior to the 20 issuance of any occupancy permit, the developer shall furnish a security device to the City in an r amount equal to the provisions of RMC 4-9-060. Landscaping shall be planted within one year of the 21 date of final approval of the planned urban development, and maintained for a period of two (2) 22 years thereafter prior to the release of the security device. A security device for providing maintenance of landscaping may be waived if a landscaping maintenance contract with a reputable 23 landscaping firm licensed to do business in the City of Renton is executed and kept active for a two 24 (2)year period. A copy of such contract shall be kept on file with the Development Services Division. 25 F b. Maintenance: Landscaping shall be maintained pursuant to requirements of RflIC 4-4-070. 26 50. As Conditioned. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -29 r I RMC 4-9-150(E)(4): Installation and Maintenance of Common Facilities: 2 a. Installation: Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits, all common facilities, including but 3 not limited to utilities, storm drainage, streets, recreation facilities, etc., shall be completed by the developer or, if deferred by the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee, 4 assured through a security device to the City equal to the provisions of RMC 4-9-060... 5 ill 51. As Conditioned. 6 RMC 4-9-150(E)(4): Installation and Maintenance of Common Facilities: 7 8 b. Maintenance: All common facilities no! dedicated to the City shall be permanently maintained by the planned urban development owner, if there is only one owner, or by the property owners' 10 association, or the agents) thereof In the event that such facilities are not maintained in a responsible manner, as determined by the City, the City shall have the right to provide for the 11 maintenance thereof and bill the owner or property owners' association accordingly. Such bill, if 12 unpaid, shall become a lien against each individual property. 13 52. As a condition of approval, the Applicants are required to establish a home owners' 14 association for the development, which would be responsible for any common improvements, including but not limited to the soft surface trail, landscaping, and park within the PUD prior to Final i5 PUD approval. All common facilities, not dedicated to the City, shall be permanently maintained by 16 the PUD home owners' association. 17 RMC 4-9-150(B)(3)(d): The City may not modify any of the procedural provisions of RMC Title 4, including, but not limited to, fees, submittal requirements, and other similar provisions found in 18 chapters 4-1, 4-7, 4-8 and 4-9 RMC. 19 53. The Applicant has requested the Examiner pp q grant an extension of the PUD expiration period to 20 nine years to match the plat expiration period. The Examiner is specifically prohibited from 21 modifying the procedural provisions of RMC Title 4 including RMC 4-9-150(G)(1) Final Plat Review Procedures: Time Limits. 22 DECISION 23 The proposed preliminary plat and preliminary PUD are APPROVED. Requested revisions to 24 development standards are approved to the extent recommended by Staff in Table A of the Staff 25 Report. The proposal is subject to the following Conditions of Approval: 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT- 30 1 1. The Applicants shall comply with the seven mitigation measures issued as part of the 2 Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated,dated May 7,2012. 3 2. The Applicants shall place a restrictive covenant on each of the lots indicating that only detached single family units may be constructed, and any future accessory units allowed per 4 the R-8 Development Regulations. This covenant shall be subject to the review and 5 approval of the Current Planning Project Manager and City Attorney, and shall be recorded prior to the recording of the Final Plat. 6 7 3. The final PUD application shall reflect the minimum dimensional requirements for each lot in conformance with the standards of the R-8 Zone. Specifically, Lot 1 must be a minimum 8 of 60 feet in width with a minimum 15 foot side yard setback along the street in order to conform to the R-8 standards for corner lots. 9 10 4. The final PUD application shall reflect the maximum building coverage and maximum impervious coverage requirements for each lot in conformance with the standards of the R- 11 8 Zone,except where proposed to exceed those requirements. 12 5. The final PUD application shall reflect a minimum setback of 18 feet from the face of the 13 i garage to the back of the sidewalk to allow an appropriate area for parking. Additionally, parking may be allowed on the east side of Road A. No Parking signs shall be installed on 14 the west side, prior to final plat recording. 15 6. The final PUD application shall reflect the five foot setback from Tract A and the 16 pedestrian path within an easement. 17 7. The final PUD application shall reflect the residential and open space requirements in 18 conformance with the standards of the R-8 Zone, which include lot width variation of a minimum ten feet for one of each four abutting street fronting lots, or a minimum of four 19 lot sizes (minimum 400 sq. ft. size difference), or a front yard setback variation of at least 20 five feet for one of each four abutting street fronting lots. 21 ! 8. The final PUD application shall reflect the residential and open space requirements in conformance with the standards of the R-8 Zone, which require a recess for the garage of at 22 least 8 feet from the front of the house, or an extension of the roof of at least 5 feet, or a 23 design that locates the entry away from a public and/or private street or access easement, or 24 such that the width of the garage is no greater than 50% of the front facade at ground level, and that the portion wider than 26 feet wide is set back at least 2 feet. 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 31 1 9. The final PUD application shall reflect the scale, bulk and character standards in conformance with the standards of the R-8 Zone, which require a variety of elevations and 2 models. 3 10. The final PUD application shall reflect the residential design standards in conformance 4 with the standards of the R-8 Zone. 5 11. The Applicants must record a Native Growth Protection Area Easement over Tract A 6 including all critical areas and their buffers. The Applicants shall establish and record a 7 permanent and irrevocable easement on the property title for all critical areas and their buffers prior to Final Plat recording. The protective easement shall be held by current and 8 future property owners; shall run with the land; and shall prohibit development, alteration, 9 and disturbance within the easement except for the purposes of habitat enhancement as a part of an enhancement project, access for the trail users and maintenance, and debris flow 10 mitigation access for landslide events. The NGPE shall be subject to the review and approval of the Current Planning Project Manager and the City Attorney, and shall be 11 recorded prior to recording of the Final Plat. 12 12. The Applicants shall submit a detailed and revised final landscape plan for review and 13 approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval. 14 ' Specifically,the final landscape plan shall include, but is not limited to the following: 15 a. Proposed locations and design details of the pergola/gazebo, split-rail fence and 16 interpretive signage proposed along the soft surface trail. 17 b. Street trees shall be identified within the right-of-way in compliance with the City's • street tree standards. 18 c. The plan shall indicate either 100 percent drought tolerant plantings or the applicant 19 shall provide a final irrigation plan with the final detailed landscape plan. 20 d. Provide a revised Landscape Plan indicating a Common Recreation area that is a 21 minimum of 500 square feet that includes improvements providing for recreation by the public and area residents 22 23 c. Redesign the trail on the south side of Lot 10 such that the trail meanders and is not abutting the edge of the split rail fence on Lot 10. 24 f. Tree retention shall protect all trees with a 2-inch or more caliper. 25 13. The Applicants shall submit detailed and revised construction engineering plans and final 26 • landscape plan for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 32 1 final PUD approval. Specifically, the plans shall reflect the design and construction of 2 curb, gutter. 5-foot wide sidewalks and an 8-foot wide planting strip along the proposed street intersection of Road A and South 55th Street and along the portion of Tract A that 3 fronts South 55th Street. Another 8-foot planning strip is required along the inside of Road A. 5 14. In order to facilitate children walking to and from the school bus stop, the construction engineering plans and final detailed landscape plan must reflect the addition of an asphalt 6 walking path from the entrance of the development to the nearest Renton School District 7 bus stop location. These improvements must be constructed within the improved right of way, with a minimum 5-foot asphalt path separated from the traffic lane by C-curb_ These 8 improvements shall be shown on the final PUD application, and reviewed and approved by 9 the Engineering Plan Review Project Manager prior to final PUD approval. Installation of the improvements must be concurrent with related street and utility improvements 10 consequent of the project. 11 15. The Applicants shall submit a lighting plan for review and approval by the Current 12 Planning Project Manager at the time of the construction permit application submittal. The 13 lighting plan shall reflect illumination of the hard surface portions of the trail and gazebo/pergola area and either minimal or no lighting of the soft surface trail at night. The 14 lighting plan shall contain pedestrian lighting in addition to building and landscaping 15 lighting if proposed. 16 16. A street lighting plan shall be submitted with the construction permit application for review and approval by the Plan Reviewer prior to construction permit approval. 17 18 17. In the event that Wilson Park I is not constructed prior to the beginning of construction for Wilson Park II, the construction engineering plans shall be revised to reflect the 19 construction of an approved emergency turnaround in the public street (Road A). These 20 improvements shall be shown on the final PUBapplication, and reviewed and approved by the Development Services Project Manager and the Fire Marshal prior to final PUD 21 approval. 22 18. The Applicants shall establish a home owners' association for the development, which 23 would be responsible for any common improvements, including but not limited to the soft surface trail, landscaping, and common recreational facilities within the PUD. The draft 24 CCR's shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney, prior to final PUD approval. 25 All common facilities, not dedicated to the City, shall be permanently maintained by the PUD home owners' association. The CCR's shall provide that any covenants required by 26 the City may not be amended without City approval. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT- 33 19. A covenant shall be placed on all tracts restricting their separate sale and giving each lot 2 owner within the plat an undivided interest in the tracts. This covenant should be recorded on the face of the plat, and/or concurrent with the plat recording, noting the recording 3 number on the plat. 4 20.The Applicants shall provide the Current Planning Project Manager, a water line 5 installation plan, which complies with RMC 4-3-050L.8.b.i.(b) for review and approval, 6 prior to final PUD approval. 21. The common boundary between the native growth protection tract and the abutting land 7 must be permanently identified. This identification shall include a permanent wood split 8 rail fence and metal signs on treated or metal posts. The permanent wood split rail fence 9 and signs shall be installed prior to Final Plat recording. 10 22. The following note shall appear on the face of the Final Plat and shall also be recorded as a covenant running with the land on the title of record for all affected lots on the title: 11 "MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY: All owners of lots created or benefitting From this 12 City action abutting or including a native growth protection tract are responsible for maintenance and protection of the tract. Maintenance includes ensuring that no alterations i 3 occur within the tract and that all vegetation remains undisturbed unless the express written 14 authorization of the City has been received." 15 23. All proposed street names shall be submitted to the City and approved by the City prior to 16 final plat approval. 17 24. All subdivision streets shall comply with the street standards of RMC 4-6-060 as contemplated in RMC 4-7-150(D). 18 25. All adjacent rights-of-way and new rights-of-way dedicated as part of the plat, including 19 streets, roads, and alleys, shall be graded to their full width and the pavement and 20 sidewalks shall be constructed as specified in the street standards or deferred by the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee. 21 26. Road A as depicted in Ex. 2 shall be dedicated to the public. 22 23 27. All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys, shall have a minimum radius of fifteen feet(15')as contemplated by RMC 4-7-170(E). 24 28. Sanitary sewers shall be provided by the developer at no cost to the City and designed in 25 accordance with City standards. Side sewer lines shall be installed eight feet (8') into each 26 lot if sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision development. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT- 34 • 29. As contemplated in RMC 4-7-200(B), cross drains shall be provided to accommodate all 2 natural water flow and shall be of sufficient length to permit full-width roadway and required slopes. The drainage system shall be designed per the requirements of RMC 4-6- 3 030, Drainage (Surface Water) Standards. 4 30. The water distribution system including the locations of fire hydrants shall be designed and 5 installed in accordance with City standards as defined by the Department and Fire Department requirements as contemplated in RMC 4-7-200(C). 6 31. All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any utilities installed in the parking strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the 8 planting of trees. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, including all service connections,as approved by the Department. Such installation shall be 9 completed and approved prior to the application of any surface material. Easements may be 10 required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department of 11 Community and Economic Development. 12 32. Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line by 13 subdivider as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or 14 alley improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. The cost of trenching, conduit, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements 15 therefbre required to bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer 16 and/or land owner. The subdivider shall he responsible only for conduit to serve his development. Conduit ends shall be elbowed to final ground elevation and capped. The 17 cable TV company shall provide maps and specifications to the subdivider and shall inspect 18 the conduit and certify to the City that it is properly installed. 19 33. Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at each and every controlling 20 corner of the subdivision. Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the Department of Community and Economic Development. All surveys shall be per the City 21 of Renton surveying standards. All other lot corners shall be marked per the City surveying 22 standards. 23 34. The applicant shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision. 24 , 35. The applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the private open space standards of RMC 4-9-150(E)(2)for each lot prior to and as a requirement for building permit issuance. 25 26 36. Landscaping shall be maintained pursuant to requirements of RMC 4-4-070. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 35 37. Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits, all common facilities, including but not 2 limited to utilities, storm drainage, streets, recreation facilities, etc., shall be completed by the applicant or, if deferred by the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or 3 his/her designee, assured through a security device to the City equal to the provisions of 4 RMC 4-9-060. 5 38. All common area and open space shall be landscaped in accordance with the landscaping plan submitted by the applicant and approved by the City; provided, that common open 6 space containing natural features worthy of preservation may be left unimproved. Prior to 7 the issuance of any occupancy permit, the developer shall furnish a security device to the City in an amount equal to the provisions of RMC 4-9-060. Landscaping shall be planted 8 within one year of the date of final approval of the planned urban development, and 9 maintained for a period of two (2) years thereafter prior to the release of the security device. A security device for providing maintenance of landscaping may be waived if a 10 landscaping maintenance contract with a reputable landscaping firm licensed to do business 11 in the City of Renton is executed and kept active for a two (2) year period. A copy of such 12 contract shall be kept on file with the Development Services Division. 13 39. If circumstances warrant, staff shall require one or more public crosswalks or walkways of not less than six feet (6') in width dedicated to the City to extend entirely across the width 14 of Road A at locations deemed necessary as required by RMC 4-7-160(B). Such crosswalks or walkways shall be paved for their entire width and length with a permanent 15 surface and shall be adequately lighted at the developer's cost. 16 17 DATED this 5' day of July, 2012. 18 19 Phil A. Olbreehts 20 City of Renton Hearing Examiner 21 22 23 24 Appeal Right and Valuation Notices 25 RMC 4-8-110(E)(9)provides that the final decision of the hearing Examiner is subject to appeal to 26 the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(9) requires appeals of the Hearing Examiner's decision PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 36 dr • I to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the Hearing Examiner's decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing e examiner may also be tiled within this 14 day appeal 2 period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(8) and RMC 4-8-100(G)(4). A new fourteen (14) day 3 appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall — 7th 4 floor, (425)430-6510. 5 Aflected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes 6 notwithstanding any program of revaluation. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT- 37 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUP ` City of , AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT ERC MEETING DATE: May 7, 2012 Project Name: Wilson Park II Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Owner: Robert Wilson and Doravin Wilson 24 i60th Street East Lake Tapps, WA 98391 Applicant: Same as owner Contact: Darrell Offee, P.E. Offee Engineers, PLLC 13932 SE 159th Place Renton, WA 98058 File Number: LUA122-013, ECF, PP, PPUD Project Manager: Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager Project Summary: The applicant proposes to subdivide an existing 2.15 acre parcel into 10 lots for the eventual development of detached single family homes, and 1 tract for open space. The site is zoned Residential-14 du/ac(R-14) & Residential - 1 du/ac(R-1). The site contains 9,783 s.f. of protected slopes (>40%). Proposed density averages 6.4 dwelling units per acre across the site, with 9 lots proposed in the R-14 area, & 1 lot proposed within the R-1. A Planned Urban Development is proposed in order to modify minimum lots size within the R-1 Zone and provide larger lots within the R-14 zone. Access would be provided from South 55th Street via new street constructed as part of the approved Wilson Park#1 plat. A small hydrologically isolated, unregulated wetland is located on the western portion of the site. The site contains 82 trees, of which 21 would be removed for the construction of the new street serving Wilson Park#1. Ten (10)trees would be retained, and new trees would be planted including 2 new trees per lot. The project requires Environmental (SEPA) Review,Planned Urban Development(PUD) Review,and Preliminary Plat review. Project Location: 698 South 55th Street Exist. Bldg.Area SF: N/A Proposed New Bldg.Area(footprint): N/A Proposed New Bldg.Area(gross): N/A Site Area: 2.15 acres Total Building Area GSF: 93,801 s.f. STAFF Staff Recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a RECOMMENDATION: Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated (DNS-M). EXHIBIT 4 City of Renton Department of Communit 'conomic Development Er 'mental Review Committee Report WILSON PARK2 PRELIMINARY PLAT&P.IMINARY PUB LUA12-013,PP,PPUD,ECF Report of May7,2012 .Page 2of11 PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ BACKGROUND The applicant proposes to subdivide a 2.15 acre parcel into 10 lots for the eventual development of detached single family homes, and 1 tract for open space. The site is zoned Residential-14 dwelling units per acre (R-14) and Residential—1 dwelling unit per acre(R-1). The R-1 portion of the site is considered to be Urban Separator, and as such 50%of the Urban Separator area is required to be dedicated as open space. . New residential lots would range in size from 5,559 square feet to 6,778 square feet. The open space tract would be 19,164 s.f. in size. Proposed density averages 6.4 dwelling units per acre across the site,with 9 lots proposed for the portion within the R-14 Zone, and 1 residential lot proposed within the R-1 Zone. A Planned Urban Development is proposed in order to modify minimum lots sizes within the R-1 zone and to provide larger lots within the R-14 zone. Access would be provided from South 55th Street via a new street that would be constructed as part of the approved Wilson Park I subdivision (LUA09-140, PP, ECF). The topography of the site slopes upward from the west to the east; an area of steep protected slopes occurs on the eastern portion of the site. Site soils are comprised of Kame Terrace and Ground Moraine which are glacial till soils. Approximately 820 cubic yards of material would be excavated and 11,200 cubic yards of fill would be required to accomplish the project. A small wetland is located on the western portion of the site. This wetland is not regulated per Renton Municipal Code. Of the 82 trees onsite, 21 would be removed for the construction of the new street, 10 would be retained, and new trees would be planted, including 2 new trees per lot. The project requires Environmental (SEPA) Review, Planned Urban Development(PUD) Review, and Preliminary Plat review. 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. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Engineering Study, prepared by Liu &Associates, lnc. dated November 22, 2004 and amended February 15, 2012,for the duration of project construction. 2. The applicant shall provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Plan designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements outlined in Volume II ERC Report.doc • City of Renton Deportment of Communit 'conomic Development E 'mental Review Committee Report WILSON PARK2 PRELIMINARYPL4T&Pn..lMlNARYPUD LUA12-013,PP,PPUD,ECF Report of May 7,2012 Page 3 of 11 of the 2005 Stormwater Management Manual and provide staff with a Construction Mitigation Plan prior to issuance of construction permits. This mitigation measure shall be subject to review and approval of the Development Services Division. 3. The applicant shall provide weekly reports on the status and condition of the erosion control plan with any recommendations of change or revision to maintenance schedules or installation shall be submitted by the Project Engineer of record to the Public Works inspector. 4. Because of moisture-sensitive fine-grained soils mantling the site and the higher gradient areas within the site the geotechnical study recommends that grading and foundation construction be carried out and completed within the dryer period of the year from April 1 through October 31 unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. Therefore, the applicant shall adhere to a construction schedule involving grading and foundation work during the dryer period of the year. 5. The applicant shall pay a Parks Mitigation Fee based on $530.76 per each new single family lot prior to recording the final plat. 6. The applicant shall be required to pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per each new average daily vehicle trip associated with the proposed project prior to recording of the final plat. 7. The applicant shall be required to pay a Fire Mitigation Fee based on $488.00 per each new single family lot prior to recording the final plat. C. Exhibits Exhibit 1 Zoning Map Exhibit 2 PUb/Plat Map Exhibit 3 Grading Plan Exhibit 4 Drainage/Utilities Plan Exhibit 5 Tree Retention Plan Exhibit 6 Landscape Plan Exhibit 7 Comment Letter(dated April 15, 2012) Exhibit 8 Aerial Photo D. Environmental Impacts • The Proposal was circulated and reviewed by various City Departments and Divisions to determine whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development. Staff reviewers have identified that the proposal is likely to have the following probable impacts: 1. Earth Impacts: The subject site is located on a broad moderate to steep westerly-sloping hillside. This downward slope is at grades of 13 to 39 percent. Steeper slopes greater than 40% are located on the eastern portion of the site. The higher gradient portions of the site generally lie within the eastern 100 to 200 feet and the western 150 to 200 feet of the site. Approximately 820 cubic yards ERC Report.doc City of Renton Deportment of Communi :conomic Development E, nmental Review Committee Report WILSON PARK PRELIMINARY PLAT&P..LJMINARYPUD LUA12-013, PP,PPUD,ECF Report of May 7,2012 Page 4 of 11 of earth material would be cut and approximately 11,200 cubic yards of fill would be imported for the proposal. The applicant submitted a Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Liu &Associates, Inc. dated November 22, 2004 and amended February 15, 2012. The report identifies the soils on the site as Kame Terrace deposits underlain by Ground Moraine. Kame Terrace deposits consist mostly of silty sand and gravel to cobble. Locally,they may also contain lenses and pods of till and beds of sand, silt and clay. According to the Geotechnical Report,these isolated lenses were not encountered on the subject site. Kame Terrace deposits are of moderately-high to high permeability and can provide good foundation support to structure in their native undisturbed state. Ground Moraine deposits are mostly thin ablation till over lodgment till, and were deposited during the retreat of glaciers during the last Ice Age, more than 14,000 years ago. Lodgment till is generally a compact mixture of unsorted clay,silt, sand, gravel and cobble, commonly referred to as "hard pan". Ablation Till is similar to lodgment till, but is much less compact and coherent. Lodgment Till is practically impervious, except local lenses of sand and gravel. It has the character of low-grade concrete and can stand in a steep natural or cut slope for long periods. This soil provides excellent foundation support with little settlement expected. Overlying ablation till is generally looser and is more compressible and permeable. The site contains areas of protected slopes (greater than 40%) in the northeastern portion of the property. This area of protected slopes would be contained within Tract A. There is also a cut slope on the west portion of the property that slopes up to about 6 to 12 feet. This slope likely resulted from the original land grading. Subsurface conditions on the site were explored in November 2004 via six(6)test pits on the western half of the site. The test pits sampled soil at depths ranging from 5.0 to 8.0 feet. The test pits identified a layer of loose,organic topsoil from 1.0 to 2.5 feet thick. The topsoil is generally underlain by a layer of brown Ablation Till soils of loose to medium-dense,silty fine sand, with a trace of gravel and occasional cobble and boulder, about 1.0 to 3.2 feet thick. Underlying the Ablation Till to the depths explored is a Lodgment Till deposit of light-brown to light-gray, dense to- very-dense, weakly-cement, silty fine sand with a trace of gravel. Additional test pits were explored for the eastern half of the site in February 2012. These recent test pits included a layer of loose, organic topsoil, from 8 to 10 inches thick,on the surface. The topsoil is underlain by a layer of brown to light-brown ablation till(weathered till) of medium- dense, silty fine sand,with a trace of to some gravel and occasional cobble and boulder, about 3.5 to 4.0 feet thick. Underlying the Ablation Till to the depths explored is a Lodgment Till (fresh till) deposit of light-brown to light-gray,very-dense, weakly-cement, silty fine sand with some gravel. The soil conditions of added land are generally similar to that of the original land. Both report conclude that the subject site is stable and can support the development provided the recommendations of the November 22, 2004 report are fully implemented and observed during construction. The topsoil and loose to medium-dense weathered soils on-site are of low resistance to erosion. Erosion may occur in the weaker surficial soils over the higher gradient areas if they are devoid of vegetation. Progressive erosion can lead to shallow, skin-type mudflows. The geotechnical report recommends preservation and maintenance of vegetation outside of construction limits to mitigate this potential hazard. The study also recommends that concentrated stormwater should not be discharged uncontrolled onto the ground. Stormwater from impervious surfaces should be ERC Report.doc City of Renton Deportment of Commun' Economic Development E +nmental Review Committee Report WILSON PARK 2 PRELIMINARY PLAT&, —.UNWARY PUD LUA12-013,PP,PPUD,ECF Report of May 7,2012 Page 5 of 11 captured by underground drain line systems connected to roof downspouts or by catch basins installed in roadways and driveways. Temporary erasion control measures are also recommended and these include: a thin layer of quarry spalls placed over excavated areas to protect the subgrade soils from disturbance by construction traffic; silt fences installed along the downhill sides of construction areas to prevent sediment from being transported onto adjacent properties or streets; and ditches or interceptor trench drains installed on the uphill sides of construction areas to intercept and drain away storm runoff and near-surface groundwater seepage. In order to mitigate for potential geotechnical impacts such as erosion,staff recommends a mitigation measure which requires compliance with the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Engineering Study, prepared by Liu &Associates, Inc. dated November 22, 2004 and amended February 15, 2012. Staff also recommends that the applicant provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Plan designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements outlined in Volume II of the 2005 Stormwater Management Manual and provide staff with a Construction Mitigation Plan prior to issuance of construction permits. This mitigation measure shall be subject to review and approval of the Development Services Division. Staff further recommends that weekly reports on the status and condition of the erosion control plan with any recommendations of change or revision to maintenance schedules or installation shall be submitted by the Project Engineer of record to the Public Works inspector. Because of moisture-sensitive fine-grained soils mantling the site and the higher gradient areas within the site the geotechnical study recommends that grading and foundation construction be carried out and completed within the dryer period of the year from April 1 through October 31 unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. Staff recommends that as a mitigation measure that the applicant adhere to a construction schedule involving grading and foundation work during the dryer period of the year. • Mitigation Measures: 1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Engineering Study, prepared by Liu&Associates, Inc. dated November 22, 2004 and amended February 15, 2012,for the duration of project construction. 2. The applicant shall provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Plan designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements outlined in Volume Il of the 2005 Stormwater Management Manual and provide staff with a Construction Mitigation Plan prior to issuance of construction permits. This mitigation measure shall be subject to review and approval of the Development Services Division. 3. The applicant shall provide weekly reports on the status and condition of the erosion control plan with any recommendations of change or revision to maintenance schedules or installation shall be submitted by the Project Engineer of record to the Public Works inspector. 4. Because of moisture-sensitive fine-grained soils mantling the site and the higher gradient areas within the site the geotechnical study recommends that grading and foundation construction be carried out and completed within the dryer period of the year from April 1 through October 31 unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. Therefore,the applicant shall adhere to a construction schedule involving grading and foundation work during the dryer period of the year. ERC Report.doc City of Renton Department of Communi Economic Development E nmento!Review Committee Report WILSON PARK 2 PRELIMINARY PLAT&. ...LIMI NAR Y POD L UA12-013,PP,PPUD,ECF Report of May 7,2012 Page 6 of 11 Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations • 2. Storm Water Impacts: A Technical Information Report(dated May 5, 2009)was prepared by Baima and Holmberg Inc,for the previous Wilson Park I Plat. An addendum to this report was prepared by CI* 1109" g on February 28, 2012 to consider the current proposal. The May 2009 report includes an analysis of upstream tributary drainage which states that the parcel to the east drains onto the site, with no problems related to runoff. The Level 1 Downstream Drainage Analysis in the report states that runoff from the site flows west into lots in the adjacent Geneva Court development. The majority of these flows collect in a drain constructed along the back yards of the westernmost lots of the Geneva Court development and then flow into the storm system in South 53rd Place. This flow collects in a stormwater pond/bioswale facility located at the intersection of Talbot Road S and South 53rd Place approximately 750-feet downstream from the site. This facility outfalls through an 18-inch pipe to the west side of Talbot Road S into a poorly defined channel flowing into the woods. The flows then pass through a 12-inch culvert under a walking path and continue to flow west to a wooded wetland area more than a quarter mile downstream from the site. Flows into the ditch along S 55th Street continue west in a rock lined channel along the north side of the street to the intersection of Talbot Road S and S 55th Street. The channel is eroded and shows signs of flowing into the street. Flows from the ditch along Talbot Road S collect in the storm system about 850-feet downstream from the site eventually flowing into Springbrook Creek at about 1,800-feet downstream from the site. The Creek continues flowing west to about one-half mile downstream of the site where it enters a box culvert crossing SR 167. The Technical Information Report indicates that there are no apparent drainage problems. The amended February 28, 2012 report evaluates the addition of the subject 10-lot plat. The original stormwater system for Wilson Park I and located within the street that would serve both Wilson Parkland II was sized to accommodate Wilson Park I lots and the new streets including the access street located within Wilson Park li. The addendum provides calculations intended to evaluate the sizing of the storm treatment facility for the two projects. The report notes that City of Renton's 2009 Drainage Manual requires Best Management Practices(BMP's)for new • developments. One BMP's is to restrict impervious areas on future lots to help reduce runoff, mitigate for development,and minimize the treatment system needed for the project. This is known as a "Restrictive Covenant" provision and was utilized as part of a preliminary sizing of the future system for both Wilson Park I and 11. The applicant intends to utilize the Restrictive Covenant provision and limit impervious surface on each of the new lots in both Wilson Park I and 11 to 3,300 square feet per lot. By limiting the impervious area for homes, patios, driveways and walkways,the proposed stormwater vault will be of an appropriate size to accommodate both developments. The applicant has also intended to develop both plats at the same time. Comments received from surrounding property owners expressed concern as to whether the vault was sized appropriately to accommodate both projects. The applicant has stated that the vault is sized to the 2009 drainage manual and will provide the necessary volume and capacity for both projects. • Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation necessary. Nexus: Not applicable. ERC Report.doc City of Renton Department of Communi .Economic Development E nmental Review Committee Report WILSON PARK 2 PRELIMINARY PLAT&, LIMINARYPUD LUA12-013,PP,PPUD,ECF Report of May 7,2012 Page 7 of 11 3. Water(Wetlands) Impacts: The applicant submitted a letter from Altmann Oliver Associates, LLC, dated March 11, 2011,that documents the wetland reconnaissance conducted on the subject property March 1, 2011. The primary focus of the reconnaissance was to verify the results of a wetland determination report prepared by Alder NW(dated October 19, 2004),which indicated the presence of a small (less than 800 s.f.) hydrologically isolated wet area in the western portion of the site, immediately adjacent to a remnant foundation of an old loafing shed. The Alder NW report previously indicated that this small wetland area was unregulated as it was significantly disturbed. Altmann Oliver's reconnaissance concurred with the previous findings, describing the wetland as a small Category 3 wetland. Altmann also confirmed that the drainage course flowing from east to west through the southern portion of the site is from an outfall of a storm drain line that collects surface water runoff from South 192nd Street. Therefore, the drainage course is not considered to be stream and is not regulated by City of Renton. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required. Nexus: Not applicable. 4. Vegetation Impacts:The applicant submitted a Tree Inventory and Retention Plan and a Tree Retention with the project application. There are 82 total trees on the project site, of which 21 would be removed for construction of the roadway, and 3 trees are within the protected slope area. There are 21 trees within the R-1 zoned area of the site, and 37 trees within the R-14 zoned area. City Code requires that 30% of the trees in the R-1(or 6.3 trees) and 10% of the trees in the R-14 (3.7 trees) be retained. The applicant is proposing to retain 10 trees and plant street trees and provide enhanced landscaping in the open space tract. The portion of the site zoned R-1 is within the Talbot Urban Separator Overlay. The purpose of the Urban Separator Overlay includes providing a continuous open space and wildlife corridor. The applicant proposes to retain trees within the critical area and buffer,to plant two trees per each new lot, and to enhance Tract A with native and ornamental trees, shrubs and groundcover. The enhancement area will be located proximate to the comparable area within Wilson Park I to provide for the continuous open space corridor. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation necessary. Nexus: Not Applicable. 5. Parks and Recreation Impacts: It is anticipated that the proposed development would generate future residents who would use City park and recreation facilities and programs. Staff recommends that the applicant be required to pay a Parks Mitigation Fee based on $530.76 per each new single family lot to be payable prior to recording the final plat. The fee is estimated at$5,307.60 (10 new lots x$530.76 $5,307.60). Mitigation Measures: 1. The applicant shall pay a Parks Mitigation Fee based on $530.76 per each new single family lot prior to recording the final plat. ERC Report.d oc City of Renton Department of Communi Economic Development F )nmental Review Committee Report WILSON PARK 2 PRELIMINARY PLAT& L1MINARYPUD LUA12-013,PP,PPUD,ECF Report of May 7,2012 Page 8 of 11 Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations; Parks Mitigation Fee Resolution No. 3082, Ordinance No. 4527 4. Transportation Impacts: Access to the site would be from S 55th Street via a 50-foot wide right-of-way that was identified on an access easement through the subject site for the Wilson Park I Plat. The roadway would be constructed to serve both plats (Wilson Parkland II) and would be dedicated as a public right-of-way. The roadway will have two 13-foot wide travel lanes, 8-foot planter strips on each side, and 5-foot wide sidewalks. The applicant submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis Report prepared by TraffEx(Northwest Traffic Experts, dated June 23, 2009 and supplemented January 25, 2012). The report indicates that the proposal would utilize the same access to South 55th Street s the approved Wilson Park I Plat. The site access street intersects South 55th Street on the outside of a horizontal curve on South 55th Street to optimize sight distance in both the east and west direction for vehicles entering and exiting the site. The report also indicates that the horizon year for the study is considered to be 2014, as that is the year construction of both plats is anticipated. The study indicated the increase in traffic with the proposal and determined that the traffic would operate at acceptable levels at the intersection of South 55th Street and the new street within the plat. The Level-of-Service (LOS) with the project was determined to be LOS B for future 2014 conditions. Previously,the site distance on South 55th was evaluated as part of Wilson Park I. It was determined then that the City of Renton intersection and stopping sight distance requirements in both the east and west directions would be met. Comments received from surrounding property owners concern the ability of school buses to safely serve the plat. The applicant has observed that presently the Renton School District buses travel east on South 55th in the morning, stopping in South 55th to pick-up students. The buses then travel west in the afternoon, stopping in South 55th to drop-off students. It is anticipated that this practice would continue with the project,and that children would wait together for pick-up. While this is not necessarily a concern for SEPA environmental review; staff will study the issue further and make recommendations to the Hearing Examiner during the Plat and Planned Urban Development Hearing. The proposal would result in an increase in traffic trips to the City's street system. Therefore, staff recommends that the applicant pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee based on a rate of$75.00 per additional average daily vehicle trip. Each new residence is expected to generate 9.57 trips; credit is given for the existing residence on the subject property. The Traffic Mitigation Fee is estimated to be$7,177.50(10 new lots x 9.57 trips x$75.00=$7,177.50)and would be payable prior to recording the final plat. Mitigation Measures: 1. The applicant shall be required to pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per each new average daily vehicle trip associated with the proposed project prior to recording of the final plat. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations;Transportation Mitigation Fee Resolution No. 3100, Ordinance 4527 ERC Report doc irimmiromirmommimmormw City of Renton Deportment of Communi conomic Development Ei ',mental Review Committee Report WILSON PARK 2 PRELIMINARY PLAT&. ..__IMINARYPUD LUA12-013,PP,PPUD,ECF Report of May 7,2012 Page 9 of 11 5. Fire & Police Impacts: Fire Prevention staff indicates that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development subject to the condition that the applicant provides the required improvements and fees. As the proposal could potentially add 10 new residences, staff recommends that the applicant be required to pay a Fire Mitigation Fee in the amount of$488.00 per each new single family lot. The total fee is estimated to be$4,880.00 (10 new lots X$488.00 $4,880.00). Mitigation Measures: 1. The applicant shall be required to pay a Fire Mitigation Fee based on $488.00 per each new single family lot prior to recording the final plat. Nexus:<add Nexus info here> 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. Environmental Determination Appeal Process: Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, May 25,2012. Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B governs appeals to the Hearing Examiner. Appeals must be filed in writing at the City Clerk's office along with the required fee. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall - 7th Floor, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton WA 98057. ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for the land use actions. Planning: 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. 2. Commercial, multi-family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock(7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock(9:00)a.m. and eight o'clock(8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 3. Within thirty(30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or ERC Report.doc • ' City of Renton Deportment of Community&Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report WILSON PARK2 PRELIMINARY PLA7&I MINARYPUD LUA12-013,PP,PPUD,ECF Report of May 7,2012 Page 10 of 11 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 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. 6. 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. Fire Prevention: 1. The Fire Mitigation Fees are applicable at the rate of$488.00 per single family unit. This fee is paid prior to the recording of the plat. 2. The fire flow requirement for a single family home is 1,000 gpm minimum for dwellings up to 3,600 square feet(including garage and basements). If the dwelling exceeds 3,600 square feet, a minimum of 1,500 gpm fire flow would be required. A minimum of one fire hydrant is required within 300-feeet of the proposed buildings and two hydrants if the fire flow goes up to 1,500 gpm. Existing hydrants can be counted toward the requirement as long as they meet current code, including 5-inch storz fittings. 3. Fire Department apparatus access roadways are required to be minimum 20-feet wide fully paved,with 25-feet inside and 45-feet outside turning radius. Fire access roadways shall be constructed to support a 30-ton vehicle with 322-psi point loading. Access is required within150-feet of all points on the buildings. Maximum grade of 15% is allowed. Dead end streets that exceed 150-feet in length require an approved turnaround. Plan Review: Water 1. Water service will be provided by Soos Creek Water and Sewer District.A water availability certificate will be required to be submitted to the City with the site plan application. Plan Review: Sanitary Sewer 1. Extension of an 8-inch sewer main in the new roadway is required.Sewer stubs are required to be provided to each lot. 2. System development fees for sewer are based on the size of the new domestic waters to serve the new homes on the new lots.Sewer fee for a 3 -inch water meter is$1,591.00. Sewer ERC Report.doc City of Renton Department of Community&Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report WILSON PARK 2 PRELIMINARY PLOT& LIMINARY PUD LUA12-013,PP,PPUD,ECF Report of May 7,2012 Page 11 of 11 fee for a 1-inch water meter is$3,977.00. An"approved"water plan from Soos Creek Water and Sewer District will be required to be submitted to the City. Property Services: 1. See attached memo for comments from Property Services. • ERC Report.doc • DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY - D Cityof (----f-r c'ra :/t AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - , ;. ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED (DNS-M) APPLICATION NO(S): LUA12-013, ECF, PP, PPUD APPLICANT: Robert&Doravin Wilson PROJECT NAME: Wilson Park 2 Preliminary Plat&PUD DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to subdivide an existing 2.15 acre parcel into 10 lots for the eventual development of detached single family homes,and 1 tract for open space. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 698 S 55th Street 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 4-6-6 Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on May 25, 2012. 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 City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8- 110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: May 11,2012 DATE OF DECISION: May 7, 2012 SIGNATURES: t,,9_ 'it".':' to ,�- 'ice. �j/2J 'f Z (2 1- Gregg-Zimmer n�mnistrator---- -- - - Mark-?et"2.1 rson;Admiif. 2.1 rator l Public Works D partment Date Fire& Emergency Services Date 5 i 1 i 1-2--.'" (":"...,1. 1.......,..,___4 c-i 7 (Z311Z- Terry Higashiyama,Administrator C.E. "Chip"Vincent, Interim Community Services Department Date Administrator/Planning Director Date Department of Community& Economic Development EXHIBIT 5 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUP . City of AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT entcon DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA12-013, ECF, PP, PPUD APPLICANT: Robert& Doravin Wilson PROJECT NAME: Wilson Park 2 Preliminary Plat& PUD DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to subdivide an existing 2.15 acre parcel into 10 lots for the eventual development of detached single family homes, and 1 tract for open space. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 698 S 55th Street LEAD AGENCY: The City of Renton Department of Community& Economic Development Planning Division MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Engineering Study, prepared by Liu &Associates, Inc.dated November 22, 2004 and amended February 15, 2012, for the duration of project construction. 2. The applicant shall provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Plan designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements outlined in Volume II of the 2005 Stormwater Management Manual and provide staff with a Construction Mitigation Plan prior to issuance of construction permits. This mitigation measure shall be subject to review and approval of the Development Services Division. 3. The applicant shall provide weekly reports on the status and condition of the erosion control plan with any recommendations of change or revision to maintenance schedules or installation shall be submitted by the Project Engineer of record to the Public Works inspector. 4. Because of moisture-sensitive fine-grained soils mantling the site and the higher gradient areas within the site the geotechnical study recommends that grading and foundation construction be carried out and completed within the dryer period of the year from April 1 through October 31.unless otherwise_approved by the Development Services Division. Therefore,the applicant shall adhere to a construction schedule involving grading and foundation work during the dryer period of the year. 5. The applicant shall pay a Parks Mitigation Fee based on $530.76 per each new single family lot prior to recording the final plat. 6. The applicant shall be required to pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per each new average daily vehicle trip associated with the proposed project prior to recording of the final plat. 7. The applicant shall be required to pay a Fire Mitigation Fee based on$488.00 per each new single family lot prior to recording the final plat. EXHIBIT 6 ERC Mitigation Measures Page 1 of 1 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUI... ; City of AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - entaja DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA12-013, ECF, PP, PPUD APPLICANT: Robert& Doravin Wilson PROJECT NAME: Wilson Park 2 Preliminary Plat& PUD DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to subdivide an existing 2.15 acre parcel into 10 lots for the eventual development of detached single family homes, and 1 tract for open space. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 698 S 55th Street LEAD AGENCY: The City of Renton Department of Community& Economic Development Planning Division Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. Planning: 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. 2. Commercial, multi-family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock(8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 3. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work,the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the-site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and - where no further construction work will occur within ninety(90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. 4. A National Permit Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is required when more than one acre is being cleared. 5. The applicant 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. ERC Advisory Notes Page 1 of 2 6. The applicant shall erect and 'ntain six foot (6') high chain link tern iry 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. Fire Prevention: 1. The Fire Mitigation Fees are applicable at the rate of$488.00 per single family unit. This fee is paid prior to the recording of the plat. 2. The fire flow requirement for a single family home is 1,000 gpm minimum for dwellings up to 3,600 square feet (including garage and basements). If the dwelling exceeds 3,500 square feet, a minimum of 1,500 gpm fire flow would be required. A minimum of one fire hydrant is required within 300-feeet of the proposed buildings and two hydrants if the fire flow goes up to 1,500 gpm. Existing hydrants can be counted toward the requirement as long as they meet current code, including 5-inch storz fittings. 3. Fire Department apparatus access roadways are required to be minimum 20-feet wide fully paved, with 25-feet inside and 45-feet outside turning radius. Fire access roadways shall be constructed to support a 30-ton vehicle with 322-psi point loading. Access is required within150- feet of all points on the buildings. Maximum grade of 15%is allowed. Dead end streets that exceed 150-feet in length require an approved turnaround. Plan Review: Water 1. Water service will be provided by Soos Creek Water and Sewer District. A water availability certificate will be required to be submitted to the City with the site plan application. Plan Review: Sanitary Sewer 1. Extension of an 8-inch sewer main in the new roadway is required.Sewer stubs are required to be provided to each lot. 2. System development fees for sewer are based on the size of the new domestic waters to serve the new homes on the new lots. Sewer fee for a 3 -inch water meter is$1,591.00. Sewer fee for a 1-inch water meter is $3,977.00. An"approved" water plan from Soos Creek Water and Sewer - District will be required to be submitted to the City. Property Services: 1. See attached memo for comments from Property Services. ERC Advisory Notes Page 2 of 2 DocuSIZN Envelope ID:050FC8BF-6CBE-4DCA-AFC2-C1 C228983928 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT A. FINAL PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT&DECISION Decision: ❑APPROVED ®APPROVED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS ❑ DENIED Report Date: May 24, 2019 Project File Number: D07-045 Project Name: Wilson Park II Land Use File Number: LUA19-000086, FPUD Project Manager: Angelea Weihs,Associate Planner Owner/Applicant: Bob Wilson, 21703 60th St. E, Lake Tapps, WA 98391 Contact: Hans Korve, BMP Inc., 726 Auburn Way N,Auburn, WA 98002 Project Location: Parcel number 3123059119 (East of 520 S 55th Street) Project Summary: The applicant is requesting Final Planned Urban Development (FPUD) approval in order to subdivide an existing 2.15 parcel into 10 lots for the eventual development of detached family homesacre ,two open space tracts (A and B)and one critical area tract (C). Thesingle siteam is currently located within the Residential-4 (R- 4) & Residential-1 (R-1) zoning designation. At the time of Preliminary PUD application,the site was located within the Residential-14(R-14)& Residential-1 (R- 1) zoning designation. The site contains 10,558 square feet of protected slopes (>40%). The proposed density averages 6.4 dwelling units per net acre across the site, with 9 lots proposed in the currently zoned R-4 area, & 1 lot proposed within the R-1 zone. Access would bet provided from South 55th Street via a new public street that extends from South 55th Street to the north property line. A small hydrologically isolated, unregulated wetland is located on the western portion of the site. The site contains 101 trees, of which 33 would be removed for the construction of the new public street serving the development. The applicant is proposing to retain 14 trees on the project site. Under the approved Preliminary PUD (LUA12-013), the following standards or requirements were permitted to be modified: lot size, lot width, setbacks, building coverage, impervious surface area, lot configuration, and some residential design standards. The applicant received Preliminary Planned Urban Development approval from the City's Hearing Examiner on July 5,2012. Final PUD approval is required prior to obtaining Final Plat approval, as well as building and construction permits. Site Area: 2.25 acres(98,010 square feet) y S e .r"Y lt, sY'4 n� w ray. M; ,yy ;kC . ;'` a. t ' $44p 4 Project Location Map D Admin Report Wilson_Park 11 FPUD DocuSign Envelope ID:050FC8BF-6CBE-4DCA-AFC2-C1C228983928 City of Renton Department of Community&Economic Development Administrative Report&Decision WILSON PARK II FPUD LUA19-000086,FPUD Report of May 24,2019 Page 2 of 16 B. EXHIBITS: Exhibit 1: FPUD Report and Decision Exhibit 2: Neighborhood Detail Map Exhibit 3: Site Plan Exhibit 4: Confirmation of Compliance with Conditions of Preliminary PUD Approval Exhibit 5: Landscape Plan Exhibit 6: Arborist Report prepared by A.B.C. Consulting Arborists LLC, dated February 27, 2019 Exhibit 7: Public Comment Letter, dated May 21, 2019 Exhibit 8: Staff Response Letter to Public Comment, dated May 22, 2019 Exhibit 9: Renton School District Letter(dated February 19, 2019) Exhibit 10: Advisory Comments C.GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Owner(s)of Record: Bob Wilson, 21703 60th St. E, Lake Tapps, WA 98391 2. Zoning Classification: Residential-4(R-4) and Residential-1 (R-1) 3. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: Residential Low Density(LD) 4. Existing Site Use: Vacant 5. Critical Areas: Regulated Slopes and an Unregulated Wetland 6. Neighborhood Characteristics: a. North: Single-family residential; Residential-8(R-8)zone, Residential-1 (R-1)zone, and Residential-14 (R-14)zone. b. East: Single-family residential; Residential-1 (R-1)zone and Residential-8(R-8)zone. c. South: S 55th Street;Single-family residential;Residential-1 (R-1)zone and Residential-8 (R-8)zone. d. West: Single-family residential; Residential-8(R-8)zone. 7. Site Area: 2.15 acres D. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND: Action Land Use File No. Ordinance No. Date Comprehensive Plan N/A 5758 06/22/2015 Zoning N/A 5758 06/22/2015 Annexation (Springbrook) N/A 3268 12/13/1978 Wilson Park II Preliminary LUA12-013, ECF, PP, PPUD N/A 07/05/2012 PUD and Preliminary Plat D Admin_Report Wilson_Park II FPUD DocuSign Envelope ID:050FC8BF-6CBE-4DCA-AFC2-C1C228983928 City of Renton Department of Community&Economic Development Administrative Report&Decision WILSON PARK II FPUD LUA19-000086,FPUD Report of May 24,2019 Page 3 of 16 E. PUBLIC SERVICES: 1. Existing Utilities a. Water: Provided by Soos Creek Water and Sewer District. b. Sewer:Wastewater service is provided by the City of Renton.There is an existing sewer main located in 55th Avenue South. c. Surface/Storm Water: Storm water service is provided by the City of Renton. 2. Streets:The proposed development fronts South 55th Street, which is a Residential Access Street. 3. Fire Protection: Renton Regional Fire Authority(RRFA) F.APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE: 1. Chapter 2 Land Use Districts a. Section 4-2-020: Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts b. Section 4-2-060: Zoning Use Table—Uses Allowed in Zoning Designations c. Section 4-2-110: Residential Development Standards 2. Chapter 3 Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts a. Section 4-3-050: Critical Area Regulations 3. Chapter 4 City-Wide Property Development Standards 4. Chapter 6 Streets and Utility Standards a. Section 4-6-060: Street Standards 5. Chapter 9 Permits—Specific a. Section 4-9-150 Planned Urban Development Regulations 6. Chapter 11 Definitions G.APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: 1. Land Use Element H. FINDINGS OF FACT(FOF): 1. The applicant is requesting Final Planned Urban Development (PUD) approval in order to subdivide an existing 2.15 acre parcel into 10 lots for the eventual development of detached single family homes,two open space tracts and one critical area tract. 2. On May 7, 2012,the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non- Significance- Mitigated (DNS-M)for Wilson Park II Plat and PUD.The DNS-M included seven (7) mitigation measures: 1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Engineering Study, prepared by Liu &Associates, Inc.dated November 22, 2004 and amended February 15, 2012, for the duration of project construction. 2. The applicant shall provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Plan designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements outlined in Volume II of the 2005 Stormwater Management Manual and provide staff with a Construction Mitigation Plan prior to issuance of construction permits. This mitigation measure shall be subject to review and approval of the Development Services Division. D_Admin Report Wilson Park II FPUD k DocuSign Envelope ID:050FC8BF-6CBE-4DCA-AFC2-C1C228983928 City of Renton Department of Community&Economic Development Administrative Report&Decision WILSON PARK II FPUD LUA19-000086,FPUD Report of May 24,2019 Page 4 of 16 3. The applicant shall provide weekly reports on the status and condition of the erosion control plan with any recommendations of change or revision to maintenance schedules or installation shall be submitted by the Project Engineer of record to the Public Works inspector. 4. Because of moisture-sensitive fine-grained soils mantling the site and the higher gradient areas within the site the geotechnical study recommends that grading and foundation construction be carried out and completed within the dryer period of the year from April 1 through October 31 unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. Therefore,the applicant shall adhere to a construction schedule involving grading and foundation work during the dryer period of the year. 5. The applicant shall pay a Parks Mitigation Fee based on $530.76 per each new single family lot prior to recording the final plat. 6. The applicant shall be required to pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee based on$75.00 per each new average daily vehicle trip associated with the proposed project prior to recording of the final plat. 7. The applicant shall be required to pay a Fire Mitigation Fee based on $488.00 per each new single family lot prior to recording the final plat. A 14-day appeal period commenced on May 11, 2012 and ended on May 25, 2012. No appeals of the threshold determination were filed. 3. On July 5, 2012,the applicant received approval from the City's Hearing Examiner for the Preliminary Plat and Planned Urban Development application with 39 conditions of approval,City File number LUA12-013. 4. The Planning Division of the City of Renton accepted the FPUD master application for review on April 24, 2019, and determined the application complete on May 3, 2019. The project complies with the 120-day review period. 5. The FPUD application differs from the Preliminary Planned Urban Development decision as it includes an hammer head emergency turnaround (Exhibit 3), which has been reflected in the Final PUD and Civil Construction Permit Application. Furthermore Wilson Park 1, LUA09-140, has not been developed as oringlay anticiated neccesitating the change in design to accomidate an emergency turnaround. 6. No agency comments were received on the application during the 14-day public comment period. Staff did receive one public comment letter (Exhibit 7) on May 21, 2019, after the 14-day public comment period.The letter expressed conderns regarding safe sign distance for vehicle turning movements at the intersection of the new road and S 55th Street intersection. Staff provided a response (Exhibit 8) to the public comment letter on May 22, 2019. 7. The project site is located east of 520 S 55th Street (Parcel number 3123059119). 8. The project site is currently vacant. 9. Access to the site would be provided from South 55th Street via a new public Residential Access street. Street improvements including curb, gutter, 5-foot sidewalks,an 8-foot planting strip would be provided along both sides of the new public street. Alley access is the preferred street pattern for developments within the Residential-14 (R-14) and Residential-8 (R-8) zoning classification. As noted above the site is vested to R-14 and R-1 split zoning and the preliminary PUD approved the subdivision to be developed to R-8 development standards. However, the original proposal included a public street connection to Wilson Park I, which looped back and connected to S 55th Street, and therefore did not include alley access. Wilson Park I has since expired, and Wilson Park II will now be developed as a dead end street until the property to the north is developed, which may or may not result in an extension to this new road. Like alleys,joint use driveways reduce the number of curb cuts along individual streets and thereby D Admin_Report Wilson_Park_II FPUD DocuSign Envelope ID:050FC8BF-6CBE-4DCA-AFC2-C1C228983928 City of Renton Department of Community&Economic Development Administrative Report&Decision WILSON PARK II FPUD LUA19-000086,FPUD Report of May 24,2019 Page 5 of 16 im limit the number of vehicle on the street,staffrecommends as a condiennof the street regulations and I tl o of approval that a minimum of 8 of the 10 lots access via joint use driveways from the new residential street. The curb cuts shall be identified in the Civil Construction Permit application for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager. The joint use driveway easements shall be identified on the final plat for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager, prior to Plat Recording. 10. The property is located within the Residential Low Density (LD) and Residential Medium Density (MD) Comprehensive Plan land use designations. 11. The site is vested to the Residential-14(R-14) and Residential-1 (R-1) zoning classifications as a result of the 2012 Preliminary Plat application, which was approved x date. 12. There are 101 significant trees located on site of which the applicant is proposing to retain a total of 14 significant trees. 13. The site is mapped with regulated slopes and an unregulated wetland. Please note,the City's critical areas regulations were updated in 2015, and the subject wetland may not be considered unregulated under the current critical areas ordiance adopted by the City. Due to project vesting this wetland remaines to be considered unregulated for the purpose of this application. 14. 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. 15. The proposal requires Final Planned Urban Development Review.The plan shall be reviewed for substantial conformance with the approved preliminary plan and consistency with the purposes and review criteria of RMC 4-9-150G.The following table contains project elements intended to comply with the thirty-nine (39) conditions of approval of the Preliminary Planned Urban Development approval that also include mitigation measures issued as a part of the City's State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA)Threshold Determination: Compliance Final Planned Urban Development Conditions Compliance Analysis 1. The Applicants shall comply with the seven mitigation measures issued as part of the Determination of Non -Significance Mitigated, dated May 7, 2012. 1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Engineering Study, prepared by Liu & Associates, Inc. dated November 22, 2004 and amended February 15, 2012, for the duration of Compliance to project construction. be demonstrated 2. The applicant shall provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Plan at Final Plat, designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Construction, Control Requirements outlined in Volume II of the 2005 Stormwater and Building Management Manual and provide staff with a Construction Mitigation Plan Permits as prior to issuance of construction permits. This mitigation measure shall be noted subject to review and approval of the Development Services Division. 3. The applicant shall provide weekly reports on the status and condition of the erosion control plan with any recommendations of change or revision to maintenance schedules or installation shall be submitted by the Project Engineer of record to the Public Works inspector. D_Admin_Report Wilson_Park II FPUD DocuSign Envelope ID:050FC8BF-6CBE-4DCA-AFC2-C1C228983928 City of Renton Department of Community&Economic Development Administrative Report&Decision WILSON PARK II FPUD LUA19-000086,FPUD Report of May 24,2019 Page 6 of 16 4. Because of moisture-sensitive fine-grained soils mantling the site and the higher gradient areas within the site the geotechnical study recommends that grading and foundation construction be carried out and completed within the dryer period of the year from April 1 through October 31 unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. Therefore,the applicant shall adhere to a construction schedule involving grading and foundation work during the dryer period of the year. 5. The applicant shall pay a Parks Mitigation Fee based on $530.76 per each new single family lot prior to recording the final plat. 6. The applicant shall be required to pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per each new average daily vehicle trip associated with the proposed project prior to recording of the final plat. 7. The applicant shall be required to pay a Fire Mitigation Fee based on $488.00 per each new single family lot prior to recording the final plat. Staff Comment: Mitigation Measures 5 — 7 are no longer applicable as the City has subsequently adopted an impact fee ordinance. The applicant would be required to pay the impact fees in effect at the time of building permit application. 2. The Applicants shall place a restrictive covenant on each of the lots indicating that Compliance to only detached single family units may be constructed, and any future accessory be units allowed per the R-8 Development Regulations.This covenant shall be subject demonstrated to the review and approval of the Current Planning Project Manager and City at Final Plat Attorney, and shall be recorded prior to the recording of the Final Plat. 3. The final PUD application shall reflect the minimum dimensional requirements for each lot in conformance with the standards of the R-8 Zone.Specifically, Lot 1 must be a minimum of 60 feet in width with a minimum 15 foot side yard setback along Condition the street in order to conform to the R-8 standards for corner lots. Satisfied Staff Comment: The provided Site Plan(Exhibit 3)demonstrates compliance with the lot dimensional requirements of the Residential-8 (R-8) zone for each proposed lot. Proposed lot 1 has a lot width of 60 feet, and therefore complies with the corner lot width requirements for the R-8 zone. 4. The final PUD application shall reflect the maximum building coverage and maximum impervious coverage requirements for each lot in conformance with the standards of the R-8 Zone,except where proposed to exceed those requirements. Compliant Staff Comment: The applicant states (Exhibit 4) that the project has not yet been Provided constructed and that no homes are currently proposed at this time. The applicant Condition of requested that compliance with this condition be deferred to Final Plat Recording via a Approval is restriction noted on face of the Final Plat. Staff agrees that the request is reasonable; Met therefore,staff recommends as a condition of approval that the applicant record a note on the face of the plat that identifies the maximum building coverage and maximum impervious coverage requirements for each lot in conformance with the vested standards of the Residential-8(R-8)Zone. Compliant 5. The final PUD application shall reflect a minimum setback of 18 feet from the face Provided of the garage to the back of the sidewalk to allow an appropriate area for parking. Condition of Additionally, parking may be allowed on the east side of Road A. No Parking signs Approval is shall be installed on the west side, prior to final plat recording. Met D_Admin_Report Wilson_Park 11_FPUD DocuSign Envelope ID:050FC8BF-6CBE-4DCA-AFC2-C1C228983928 City of Renton Department of Community&Economic Development Administrative Report&Decision WILSON PARK II FPUD LUA19-000086,FPUD Report of May 24,2019 Page 7 of 16 Staff Comment: The applicant requested(Exhibit 4)that compliance with this condition be deferred to Final Plat Recording via a restriction noted on face of the Final Plat. Staff agrees that the request is reasonable; therefore, staff recommends as a condition of approval that the applicant record a note on the face of the plat that identifies a minimum setback of 18 feet from the face of the garage to allow an appropriate area for parking. 6. The final PUD application shall reflect the five foot setback from Tract A and the pedestrian path within an easement. Staff Comment: The original proposal submitted with the preliminary application included only one open space and critical areas tract, identified as "Tract A"; however, the Final PUD application proposes a total of three tracts: Tracts A, 8, and C. Tract A and B are for open space and do not contain critical areas. Tract C is for the area identified as protected slopes and shall have a Native Growth Protection Easement recorded.A soft-surface,3-foot wide walking path, which is proposed for public benefit, is proposed along the north and east boundaries of Lot 6, and along the east boundary of Lots 7 through 10, within the proposed new Tract A. The path would wrap around the south boundary of Lot 10 and intersect with the sidewalk on the East side of the new Compliant public street. The proposed path will not be located within Tract C. The path is proposed Provided to be within an easement along the north property line of Lot 6 and along the south Condition of property line of Lot 10. Approval is Met The applicant states (Exhibit 4) that the project has not yet been constructed and that no homes are currently proposed at this time. The applicant requests that compliance with this condition be demonstrated at a later stage of construction/land use approval. Staff agrees that the request is reasonable;therefore,staff recommends as a condition of approval that the applicant record a note on the face of the plat that includes the pedestrian path within a public easement, for the purposes of public access. The purpose of the public pedestrian easement shall be provided on the face of the final plat,for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager, prior to final plat recording. In addition, staff recommends as a condition of approval that the applicant record a note of the face of the plat that requires a minimum five foot setback between any primary or accessory structures within Lots 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, and the pedestrian path easement and Tract A. 7. The final PUD application shall reflect the residential and open space requirements in conformance with the standards of the R-8 Zone, which include lot width variation of a minimum ten feet for one of each four abutting street fronting lots, or a minimum of four lot sizes(minimum 400 sq.ft.size difference),or a front yard Condition setback variation of at least five feet for one of each four abutting street fronting Satisfied lots. Staff Comment: A revised Landscape Plan (Exhibit 5) was submitted with the project application. The Landscape Plan depicts the open space and recreation requirements of the Final PUD. In addition, the proposed lots shown in the provided site plan (Exhibit 3) show at least four different lot sizes that are 400 square feet in size difference. Compliant 8. The final PUD application shall reflect the residential and open space requirements Provided in conformance with the standards of the R-8 Zone,which require a recess for the Condition of garage of at least 8 feet from the front of the house, or an extension of the roof of Approval is at least 5 feet,or a design that locates the entry away from a public and/or private Met street or access easement, or such that the width of the garage is no greater than D Admin_Report Wilson_Park_II_FPUD DMP, INC. Engineering - Surveying - Land Planning LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL 726 Auburn Way North CITY OF RENTON AUBURN, WASHINGTON 98002 (253) 333-2200 JUN 0 6 2019 DATE - ��` JOB NO.fir356 FAX (253) 333 2206 ATTE rf eRECEIVED G�/ cleA.K TOy-i ] ep CITY CLERK'S OFFICE RE: (bj15al Fie_ ,Z �` .c�s� / 12 `` '17 r ✓4ert/ —.,-, WE ARE SENDING YOU ❑ Attached ❑ Under separate cover via the following items: > ❑ Shop drawings ❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications ❑ Copy of letter ❑ Change order ❑ COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION 1 cz)A SSa,-e..ccT....,, L GTC . CL)c,! V E-�C.Q.6..n,n,_,,, C e_pci r i. 1/At./ zo 1 Z v n ;r(c �Gu/'�c. , CO"tn 14.4 / 1 ' 't .pl_J r i Me7 4- 20 1 THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: For approval ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit copies for approval XFor your use ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Submit copies for distribution > ❑ As requested ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Return corrected prints ❑ For review and comment ❑ ❑ FOR BIDS DUE ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS COPY TO SIGNED: ,r If enclosures are not as noted,kindly notify u-at once.