Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHEX Decision Subdivision and PUD -- Whitman Court II 14-0002951 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 1 SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 1 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: Whitman Court PUD Preliminary Plat and Planned Urban Development LUA14-000295, ECF, PP, PPUD )))) ) ) ))) FINAL DECISION SUMMARY The applicant proposes a preliminary plat to subdivide a 5.12 acre parcel into 41 lots to accommodate 40 zero lot line townhomes in ten separate buildings and a commercial bank. A planned urban development (“PUD”) is proposed in order to vary lot, landscaping street, setback, parking, design, and refuse and recycle standards. The preliminary plat and PUD are approved subject to conditions. TESTIMONY Ms. Rocale Timmons, Department of Community and Economic Development, stated that the subject site forms an L-shape, is approximately 5 acres, is zoned commercial arterial, and contains a category 2 wetland as well as a class 4 stream. The site is flat topographically, sloping down from the northeast to the southwest with an approx. 18-foot change in elevation. Ms. Timmons stated that the applicant has requested a preliminary planned urban development, or PUD, as well as a preliminary plat for 41 lots that would be used for 40 homes in addition to an approx. 2,600 foot commercial bank with drive through lanes. Ms. Timmons stated that staff has received one comment from the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division with questions related to the proposed wetland enhancement plan and that is the only comment that the proposal has received. On March 24, 2014, the environmental review committee issued a determination of non-significance with two mitigation measures. One measure is related to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 2 SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 2 recommendations within the provided geotechnical report, and one is related to erosion control in compliance with the current King County Surface Water Design Manual. The appeal period was from April 4 to April 18, 2014, and no appeals were filed. Ms. Timmons stated that the applicant proposes 40 homes, which would mean approximately 11.1 dwelling units per acre. The residential units would be contained within ten separate buildings, and lot sizes are to range from 814 square feet to approx. 1800 square feet. Access to the sites would be via Whitman Court NE, and there would be secondary, limited access via NE Fourth Street. The proposal is for 102 parking spaces on site; the residential units would have garage parking within the structure. There would be 16 surface parking stalls for commercial parking, and there would be 6 auxiliary parking stalls adjacent to a proposed drainage facility. The residential units would be approx. 35 feet tall, and the proposed commercial structure would be approx. 30 feet tall. There is an existing storm water facility on the site; it contains a concrete retaining wall. The mitigation project that came with the Ribera Balko short plat that included this facility has been abandoned. The applicant proposes a plan within their project to enhance the critical areas on site, which would include approx.18,000 square feet of enhancement in addition to approx. 7,200 square feet of enhancement of the existing buffer that was mitigated in the Ribera Balko short plat. Ms. Timmons said that based on comments from the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division, staff has recommended a condition that requires the applicant provide baseline information for the existing mitigation plan that was abandoned. Ms. Timmons stated that Staff found the proposal does comply with the PUD applicability standards outlined in RMC4-9-150 if all recommended conditions of approval are met. Staff believes the development of the site in the proposal results in a superior design than that which would result from a regular, strict application of the development standards; this belief is based on the provisions in the proposal for enhancement to critical areas, the plan in the proposal for additional public facilities that would not have been required by code, and the overall design of the PUD itself. Staff found that the utility services, emergency services, and other improvements are sufficient to serve the proposed project if all recommended conditions of approval are met. Staff asks (1) that the applicant revise the road lay out to make the proposed internal road system a private road network, and (2) that there be a separation for pedestrians as well as a separation for driveways on the site. Ms. Timmons stated that the applicant has expressed concern about the necessity for separation for driveways. Ms. Timmons stated that, with respect to safe routes to school, staff found that portions of the walk from the proposed site to the high school are without a designated walkway, and staff has recommended that the applicant demonstrate that there are safe walking conditions from the site to the school. Students would be required to walk from the site to the school because the school is 1.5 miles from the site, which is the threshold for walking to school. Ms. Timmons stated that the applicant is compliant with the underlying zoning standards for the commercial arterial zone. Staff supports all of the modifications requested with the exception of one for lot coverage; the applicant would like the flexibility to vary the standard for lot coverage beyond 75%, but Staff does not support that given the need for private, open space on the lots, thus staff recommends denial of that specific modification. Ms. Timmons stated that with respect to design standards, the proposal does comply with the design district D standards if all recommended conditions of approval are met. Specifically, staff has requested that the applicant enhance landscaping/screening along northeast Fourth Street for the proposed bank. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 3 SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 3 The proposal is compliant with the development standards that are specific to PUDs with the exception of the standard for private, open space, which is required to have dimensions at 15 feet. The proposal does not meet this requirement, and staff has recommended a condition of approval to address this deficiency, although the applicant has told the staff since the recommendation was provided that this standard would be difficult to achieve. Staff found that the proposal is compliant with preliminary plat review criteria if all recommended conditions of approval are met. In summary, staff recommends approval of the Whitman Court PUD subject to 34 conditions of approval. Mr. Steve Lee, Development Engineering Manager, clarified that this proposal has adequate fire, utilities, and other access amenities, and the proposal includes the necessary off-site traffic measures. Mr. Lee stated that Ms. Timmons mentioned that the applicant has an issue with recommendation of approval number 14, and Mr. Lee explained that the recommendation was made when road B was going to be public, but the proposal has changed to make road B private, thus it is not necessary for there to be the separation that is required in recommendation 14. Applicant Testimony Mr. Evan Mann, ESM Consulting Engineers on behalf of the Whitman Court PUD, stated that the proposal has made an effort to have as much pedestrian access on the site as possible. The project is intended to allow home ownership within Renton, and this home ownership will anchor the area in a beneficial, sustainable way. Mr. Mann stated that the original critical area mitigation plan was not completed; instead, it was constructed but maintenance was not performed. This proposal plans to improve the critical area beyond what was originally proposed, addressing the issue of the earlier, unfinished mitigation. Mr. Mann stated that the project would not have any adverse, increased impact on critical areas. The proposal will mitigate for the work that was done on the wetlands when the short plat was originally approved. Mr. Mann stated that the applicant concurs with condition of approval number 1. The recommendations from the geotechnical report will be incorporated as the project proceeds with construction. The applicant has prepared a letter with some additional information with regard to several conditions of approval, including condition number 2. The applicant concurs with condition number 3. Mr. Mann clarified with respect to condition of approval number 4 that the proposal currently plans to provide signage for the one overlook. Other areas of natural openings will be available, but there is no formal signage proposed in those locations. With respect to condition number 5, the applicant wants to point out that the trail is major public amenity that enhances the overall pedestrian network in the community. The applicant concurs with condition number 6. Mr. Mann stated that condition number 7 is not really necessary, but they will provide the visual barrier that is recommended. The applicant concurs with condition number 8 as well as condition number 9. Mr. Mann stated that the applicant has provided a revised site plan to staff since the Staff Report was prepared that incorporates many of the changes that are recommended in condition number 10, condition number 11, and condition number 12. The applicant concurs with condition number 13. In regard to condition number 14, that has been removed for the reasons that Mr. Lee explained. In regard to condition number 16, the applicant reached out to the school district, and the assistant director of transportation said that all schools would be bussed without regard to distance, thus designated walkways 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 4 SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 4 for walking from the site to the school is not necessary, and the applicant requests therefore that condition number 16 be removed. In regard to condition number 20, the applicant no longer feels that their request for flexibility in lot coverage is necessary, and they strike their request from the proposal. In regard to condition number 21, the applicant is working with waste management to prepare a plan. In regard to condition number 25, curb cuts will be provided when possible. In regard to condition number 32, the applicant plans to use the administrative process to address this condition. Mr. Paul Ebensteiner stated that he is one of the owners of the property that has put this proposal together, and he spoke about his experience in planning developments like this. He submitted to the record a letter dated May 23, 2014, and it was admitted. The letter gives background information on the property, responds to the comment from the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division, and addresses the conditions of approval that staff recommended. Attachment 5 to the letter is the email from the school district assistant director of transportation. Mr. Brett Conway, the architect for Washington Federal, asked, in regard to condition number 22, whether there was latitude for the discussion of security in alignment with the screening of that area. In regard to condition number 26, that has already been provided in the site plans. In regard to condition number 27, it is not in the un-colored exhibits but the bank facades do have contrasting materials Ms. Timmons stated that condition number 22 has flexibility, but the intent behind the condition is to have diverse vegetation that includes shrubbery as well as trees. The only impact from this project on the wetlands would be from the soft surface trail. In general, the enhancements that are proposed are to the benefit of the public. Ms. Timmons stated that staff is okay with modifying the first sentence of condition number 2. In regard to condition number 4, staff believes that signage at the one, northernmost overlook would be sufficient in this case. In regard to condition number 7, staff has already made the buffer shorter than is regularly required. Staff is okay with a modification to condition number 16. In regard to condition number 25, staff is aware that there needs to be flexibility, and it is possible to have some shared curb cuts. In regard to condition number 32, this condition can be modified administratively if necessary. In regard to condition number 27, although the bank facade will have contrasting materials, Staff believes there are opportunities to provide addition visual elements to the facade, and the condition remains important. EXHIBITS Exhibits 1-19, identified at p. 2 of the May 20, 2014 staff report, were admitted into the record at the May 27, 2014 hearing. The following exhibits were also admitted during the May 27, 2014 hearing: Exhibit 20 letter from Mr. Ebensteiner dated May 23, 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 5 SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 5 FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural: 1. Applicants. SB Ribera Balco LLC. 2. Hearing. The hearing on the applications was held on May 27, 2014 at 11:00 am in the City of Renton Council Chambers. Substantive: 3. Project Description. The applicant proposes a preliminary plat to subdivide a 5.12 acre parcel into 41 lots to accommodate 40 zero lot line townhomes in ten separate buildings and a commercial bank. A planned urban development (“PUD”) is proposed in order to vary lot, landscaping street, setback, parking, design, and refuse and recycle standards. The project site is vacant. The development would be comprised of 10 separate multi-family residential structures resulting in a density of 11.4 du/ac and one commercial building. The subject site is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of NE 4th St and Whitman Ct NE. The commercial lot would be accessed from NE 4th St and the remaining residential development would gain access from the existing portion and proposed extension of Whitman Ct NE. There is a Category 2 wetland and Maplewood Creek located on the western portion of the site. The applicant has proposed to preserve the wetland onsite and provide buffer enhancement as part of the proposed PUD public benefit, along with enhanced pedestrian and vehicular circulation, pedestrian amenities, and landscaping. Studies include a stormwater report, traffic study, wetland delineation and enhancement plan, and a geotechnical report. The proposed development would result in approximately 1,800 cubic yards of cut and 8,500 cubic yards of fill. The applicant requests the following development standard modifications through the PUD process: Table A: Requested Modifications from RMC RMC Code Citation Required Standard Requested Modification RMC 4-2-080 Conditions Associated With Zoning Use Tables, Note 18. Residential uses are only permitted within a structure containing commercial uses on the ground floor. Commercial space must be reserved on the ground floor at a minimum of thirty feet (30') in depth along any street frontage. Residential uses shall not be located on the ground floor, Permit standalone residential with units located on the ground floor. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 6 SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 6 except for a residential entry feature linking the residential portion of the development to the street. RMC 4-2-120A Development Standards for Commercial Zoning Designations- Lot Size The minimum lots size for lots created after November 10, 2004 is 5,000 square feet. Permit lots sizes ranging from 814 to 1,497 square feet in size as shown in Finding of Fact 12 above. RMC 4-2-120A Development Standards for Commercial Zoning Designations- Setbacks Setback requirements in the CA zone are as follows: 10 feet minimum for the front yard but may be reduced to zero feet through the Site Plan Review process provided blank walls are not located within the reduced setback; a 15 foot maximum front yard setback; and no rear or side yard setbacks unless the property abuts a residential zoned property then the setback is 15 feet. Proposed Lot 41 would have front yard setback of 28.5 feet. Proposed Lot 34 would have a 10-foot side yard setback from the abutting residential zoned property line. RMC 4-4-090D Refuse and Recyclables The refuse and recyclables deposit area and collection points for multi-family residences shall be apportioned, located and designed as follows a total minimum area of eighty (80) square feet shall be provided for refuse and recyclables deposit areas. The applicant is proposing individual curb-side pickup for residential units. RMC 4-6-060F Street Standards Various: See discussion in staff report Table C: PUD Criteria - Circulation Various: See discussion in staff report Table C: PUD Criteria - Circulation RMC 4-4-070F.4 Landscaping Standards A fifteen-foot (15') wide partially sight- obscuring landscaped visual barrier, or ten-foot (10') wide fully sight-obscuring landscaped visual barrier, is required along the common property line. The eastern portion of the southern property line would have a 5-foot visual barrier between the proposed development and the abutting R-10 single family development to the south. RMC 4-4-080F, Parking, Loading, and Driveway Regulations Bank uses are limited to a maximum number of parking stalls based on a ratio of 5 parking stalls per 1,000 square feet of net floor area. Residential uses are limited to a maximum number of parking stalls The proposal exceeds the maximum parking stall allowance (13 stalls) by three stalls for the bank use and residential maximum parking stall 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 7 SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 7 based on a ratio of 1.75 parking stalls per residential unit. Additionally, 5 stacking spaces per drive-thru window are required unless otherwise determined by the Planning Director. allowance (70) by 16 parking stalls. The proposal would only provide stacking space sufficient for three cars in each lane. RMC 4-3-100 Urban Design Standards Various: See discussion in Table E: Design District ‘D’ Standards Various: See discussion in Table E: Design District ‘D’ Standards 4. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate infrastructure and public services as follows: A. Water and Sewer Service. Water service will be provided by the City of Renton. There is an existing water main in NE 4th St and in Whitman Court NE. Sewer service is provided by the City of Renton. Sewer service is provided by the City of Renton. There is existing sewer main in NE 4th St and on Whitman Ct NE. B. Fire Protection. Fire protection would be provided by the City of Renton Fire Department. C. Drainage. In conjunction with the City’s stormwater regulations, the proposal mitigates all significant drainage impacts. The site is located within the Cedar River drainage basin. The site receives drainage from properties to the north. Currently runoff is collected by a series of catch basins and routed to a detention system/water quality pond, on the southern portion of the site, which is treated and detained prior to discharge downstream. This discharge location is near the southern most property line into Maplewood Creek. Drainage leaves the site and runs approximately 900 feet before tapering down to a smaller swale. Drainage then continues to flow southward for another 300 feet, then spilling into a drainage field, and enters into a 12-inch storm drain and eventually into a ravine more than ¼ mile from the subject site. The applicant submitted a Preliminary Drainage Report prepared by ESM, dated February 18, 2014 (Exhibit 8). The report also includes the previously approved drainage report. The report states that the runoff from the proposed project would continue to be collected and conveyed by a catch basin/pipe network to the existing detention pond. The proposed facility would also continue to discharge into the onsite stream. Through the Ribera Balko Short Plat 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 8 SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 8 (Exhibit 16) staff has treated the proposal as vested to the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual which includes standards for stormwater detention and water quality. The existing 40,754 cubic foot stormwater detention/water quality pond was previously approved and constructed in the southwest portion of the site in anticipation of future development. The applicant has limited impervious surfaces in order to ensure the existing volume of the stormwater pond could accommodate proposed runoff. According to Appendix A of the Drainage Report (Exhibit 8) the pond volume was required to be 38,887 cubic feet. Therefore, the constructed pond is oversized by approximately 4.8%. According to the provided report the pond volume required for the current proposal is less than the previously approved TIR’s required volume. The report states that the project should not pose significant negative impacts to the downstream drainage course. The drainage report is acceptable for preliminary review. The report will be reviewed in full detail at the time the project is submitted for construction permit. The applicant will be required to submit a final comparison between the approved drainage facility (constructed for the Ribera Balko short plat) and the proposed development prior to construction permit approval. The applicant should take note that the geotechnical report (Exhibit 7) mentions that much of the site is underlain by fill material not suitable for infiltration. It is also anticipated that perched ground water could be encountered in excavations during construction. The contractor would be required to be prepared to intercept any ground water seepage entering the excavation and route to suitable discharge location. D. Parks/Open Space. The project provides for adequate parks and open space. As required by City Code, the applicant will be required to pay an appropriate Parks Impact Fee. The fee would be used to mitigate the proposal’s potential impact to City’s Park and Recreation system and is payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code. Multiple open spaces throughout the site are well designed and provide a variety of recreational opportunities both passive and active. The applicant has provided approximately 20,000 square feet of common open space in the form of seven separate open space lawn/plaza areas, which exceeds minimum code requirements by 18,000 square feet. However, the proposal does not meet minimum private open space requirements and the conditions of approval require this deficiency to be remedied. E. Pedestrian Circulation. The proposed preliminary plat provides for an appropriate pedestrian circulation system. The applicant is proposing to provide street improvements which would include the extension of public sidewalks and landscape planters along Whitman Ct NE. Internal to the site pedestrian sidewalks continue throughout the development along the internal street system and through the open space areas. Pedestrian connections are provided 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 9 SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 9 throughout the development including cross walks and connections to parking areas and site amenities. If all conditions of approval are complied with, the pedestrian circulation system throughout the development would be well designed and would encourage walkability throughout the neighborhood, potentially reducing the vehicular traffic and impacts on the neighboring community. F. Interior Vehicle Circulation. In addition to sidewalks and the proposed pedestrian path, the proposed preliminary plat also provides for appropriate vehicle circulation system. The public works department has reviewed and recommended approval of the proposed street improvements, including street alignment, and recommended approval as conditioned by this decision. The proposal includes a looped street system to provide access to the site resulting in a superior circulation pattern to that of a cul-de-sac. The project would provide sufficient vehicle access for the proposed development and the proposed public and private streets could accommodate emergency vehicles and the traffic demand created by the development if all conditions of approval are complied with. The applicant is proposing to provide access to 16 of the 40 residential units from alley access ways (Proposed Lots 1-10 and Lots 15-20). G. Off-Site Traffic Improvements. The proposal fully mitigates all off-site traffic impacts. The applicant submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by TraffEx, dated November 25, 2013 (Exhibit 9). The report states that the proposed development would generate 504 trips average weekday vehicle trips (including 131 passerby trips); 45 weekday peak hour AM trips (including 9 passerby trips); and 85 weekday peak hour PM trips (including 26 passerby trips). The report also analyzed the level of service at the following intersections: NE 4th St/Bank driveway, NE 4th St/Whitman Ct NE, & Whitman Ct NE/ Bank driveway/Post office driveway. The traffic study states that these intersections will continue to operate at an acceptable level of service. Increased traffic created by the development would be mitigated by payment of transportation impact fees as required by City Code. H. Walking Conditions to/from School. Children will be bussed to all schools that serve the project site, so walking conditions is not an issue. See Ex. 20, att. . 5. Adverse Impacts. Since the project provides for adequate infrastructure and public services, the only remaining impacts to be considered are to critical areas. As previously noted, wetlands and a creek are located at the project site. The applicant submitted a Wetland Delineation (Exhibit 5), prepared by Shannon Wilson, Inc. (dated September 7, 2006). The report identified two wetlands on site (Wetlands A and B) and stream (Maplewood Creek). Wetland A (30,612 square feet) is a Category 3 wetland located along the western property boundary and is associated with Maplewood Creek. Wetland B (1,738 square feet) is also classified as a Category 3 wetland, however due to its small size considered exempt. Maplewood Creek was also delineated on the site and it flows in a southerly direction through the west side of the property and is classified as a Class 4 stream. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 10 SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 10 According to the Wetland Delineation Report, Wetland A was primarily vegetated with a variety of shrubs and trees, including: reed canary grass, bent grass, hard hack, red osier, dogwood, willow, ninebark, and red alder. Wetland B was vegetated with willow, snowberry, and Himalaya blackberry. The Ribera Balko short plat (LUA02-129) established Tract A which included all of the critical areas on site (Exhibit 16). The constructed Ribera Balko Short Plat included approximately 5,912 square feet of unavoidable impacts to the wetland/stream buffer in order to construct the existing stormwater pond. Additionally, the roadside ditch along NE 4th St was enclosed in a conveyance. The applicant submitted a copy of the approved Wetland and Stream Buffer Mitigation Plan, dated March 27, 2007, for the Ribera Balko Short Plat impacts (Exhibit 6). The plan mitigated buffer impacts caused by the existing stormwater pond and mitigated tributary impacts caused by the enclosing of the NE 4th St ditch into a conveyance system. The planting plan was installed in September of 2008. However, since the time of installation the property and the mitigation project were abandoned. The City received monitoring reports quarterly for the first year and has not received a monitoring report since 2010. The City has been unable to determine the success of the installed mitigation project. While the applicant is not proposing any additional impacts they are proposing an enhancement plan (Exhibit 3) to increase the function and value of the critical area system and bring current the deferred maintenance. Approximately 18,047 square feet of enhancement is proposed in addition to approximately 7,250 square feet of existing buffer that was formerly enhanced would be maintained and monitored in coordination with the enhancement plan for the proposed PUD. As part of the proposal there would be a significant enhancement and replacing in the wetland buffer as well as the removal of invasive species. There is also a soft 4-foot wide trail being proposed in the outer buffer allowed per RMC 4-3-050. The proposed mitigation beyond what code requires is being offered because of the modifications requested in Table A above. A comment letter was received by Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division (Exhibit 10) with comments related to the relationship between the existing Ribera Balko Short Plat mitigation plan (Exhibit 6) and the proposed enhancement plan (Exhibit 3). In order to address the issues raised by the Muckleshoot letter, a condition of approval, a final wetland mitigation plan including baseline information for the Ribera Balko Wetland and Stream Buffer Mitigation Plan be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit/Final PUD approval whichever comes first. Additionally, in order to preserve and protect the wetland, stream, and associated buffers the applicant will be required, to maintain the Native Growth Protection Easement over that part of the site encompassing the stream/wetland and buffer area. Finally, the applicant would be required to maintain/install any split rail fencing and signage required per RMC 4-3-050 prior to the recording of the Final Plat/Final PUD approval whichever comes first. There are a total of 16 trees located on site of which no trees are proposed to be retained outside of the critical area and its buffer (Exhibit 3). The applicant is required to retain 5 percent of the trees located on site that are not located within critical areas, proposed rights-of-way and access easements. Of the 16 trees located on site none of the trees would be excluded from the tree retention requirements. Therefore, the applicant would be required to retain at least 1 tree on site. When the required number of protected trees cannot be retained, new trees, with a two-inch caliper or greater, shall be planted. The replacement rate shall be 12-caliper inches of new trees to replace each protected tree removed. Therefore a total of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 11 SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 11 12-caliper inches would be required to be replaced on site. The applicant is proposing a more than 50, 2 caliper inch replacement trees, for a total of 100-caliper inches, in order to meet the tree retention/replacement requirement. 6. Superiority in Design. The development of this site as a PUD results in a superior design than what would result by the strict application of the Development Standards for the following reasons: protection of critical areas, provision of public facilities, and overall design. In order to make the site viable for commercial development, the commercial use was sited along the NE 4th St frontage while the remainder of the residential units were separated and placed in the rear of the development. Second, the proposed design provides for a significant amount of landscaping and re-vegetation of the protected critical areas for which mitigation had been abandoned by a previous owner. Since the current proposal will not adversely affect the wetlands, the enhancement and mitigation incorporated into the proposal all exceeds what could be required of the applicant in a subdivision application. Third, the plan provides for both active and passive recreation significantly beyond the standard code requirements. As noted in the staff report, the applicant proposes 20,000 square feet of open space and only 2,000 square feet could be required for a subdivision application. The provided recreation areas would extend benefits beyond the proposed development to the public. This proposed design can provide for the aforementioned amenities because of the modifications requested in Table A of the staff report: Requested Modifications from RMC above. 7. Public Benefit. The proposal provides several public benefits as detailed in pages 10-14 of the Staff Report, adopted and incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Procedural: 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 the hearing examiner to conduct hearings and make final decisions on planned urban development applications. Substantive: 2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The project is zoned Commercial Arterial (CA). The comprehensive plan map land use designation for the project site is Commercial Corridor (CC). 3. Review Criteria. The Renton Municipal Code does not clearly identify the criteria the Examiner must apply in assessing a subdivision or a PUD. Chapter 4-7 RMC governs the criteria for 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 RMC 4-9-150 must be satisfied for preliminary plat and PUD approval. Applicable standards are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 12 SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 12 RMC 4-7-080(B): A subdivision shall be consistent with the following principles of acceptability: 1. Legal Lots: Create legal building sites which comply with all provisions of the City Zoning Code. 2. Access: Establish access to a public road for each segregated parcel. 3. Physical Characteristics: Have suitable physical characteristics. A proposed plat may be denied because of flood, inundation, or wetland Conditions. Construction of protective improvements may be required as a Condition of approval, and such improvements shall be noted on the final plat. 4. Drainage: Make adequate provision for drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies and sanitary wastes. 4. As modified by the PUD regulations, the lots will comply with all requirements of the Zoning Code as outlined in Finding 28, Table D of the staff report, with the modification that the applicant has dropped its request for flexibility in lot coverage (all lots will comply with applicable lot coverage standards). As depicted in Ex. 2, all lots have access to a public street, NE 4th St, although many of the internal roads ultimately connecting to NE 4th St will be private as required by the conditions of approval. 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 provision for drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies and sanitary wastes. RMC 4-7-080(I)(1): …The Hearing Examiner shall assure conformance with the general purposes of the Comprehensive Plan and adopted standards… 5. The proposed preliminary plat is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan as outlined at pages 9-10 of the Staff report, which is incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. RMC 4-7-120(A): No plan for the replatting, subdivision, or dedication of any areas shall be approved by the Hearing Examiner unless the streets shown therein are connected by surfaced road or street (according to City specifications) to an existing street or highway. 6. The internal circulation system of the subdivision connects to NE 4th St., an existing public street. RMC 4-7-120(B): The location of all streets shall conform to any adopted plans for streets in the City. 7. The Staff report and administrative record do not identify any applicable street plan that would compel the connection of the interior streets to any other roads beyond NE 4th Street. Wetlands and existing development prevent the extension of Whitman Ct NE to the southern edge of the property. RMC 4-7-120(C): If a subdivision is located in the area of an officially designed trail, provisions shall be made for reservation of the right-of-way or for easements to the City for trail purposes. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 13 SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 13 8. The Staff report and administrative record do not identify any officially designated trail in the vicinity. RMC 4-7-130(C): A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication shall be prepared in conformance with the following provisions: 1. Land Unsuitable for Subdivision: Land which is found to be unsuitable for subdivision includes land with features likely to be harmful to the safety and general health of the future residents (such as lands adversely affected by flooding, steep slopes, or rock formations). Land which the Department or the Hearing Examiner considers inappropriate for subdivision shall not be subdivided unless adequate safeguards are provided against these adverse Conditions. a. Flooding/Inundation: If any portion of the land within the boundary of a preliminary plat is subject to flooding or inundation, that portion of the subdivision must have the approval of the State according to chapter 86.16 RCW before the Department and the Hearing Examiner shall consider such subdivision. b. Steep Slopes: A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication which would result in the creation of a lot or lots that primarily have slopes forty percent (40%) or greater as measured per RMC 4-3- 050J1a, without adequate area at lesser slopes upon which development may occur, shall not be approved. … 3. Land Clearing and Tree Retention: Shall comply with RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations. 9. The project site is not in a flood plain and does not contain any geologically hazardous areas. RMC 4-4-130(H)(1)(c) requires 5% tree retention in the CA zone and RMC 4-4- 130(H)(1)(e) allows the replacement of trees that cannot be retained at the rate of 12 caliper inches for each protected (more than 2 caliper inches) removed. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, there are 16 trees outside of critical areas that will be removed by the applicant. The 5% retention rate requires the retention of one tree or its replacement with 12 caliper inches of trees. The applicant is proposed 100 caliper inch replacement, which significant exceeds requirements. RMC 4-7-140: Approval of all subdivisions located in either single family residential or multi- family residential zones as defined in the Zoning Code shall be contingent upon the subdivider’s dedication of land or providing fees in lieu of dedication to the City, all as necessary to mitigate the adverse effects of development upon the existing park and recreation service levels. The requirements and procedures for this mitigation shall be per the City of Renton Parks Mitigation Resolution. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 14 SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 14 10. The criterion is inapplicable. The proposal is not located in a single family residential or multifamily residential zone. RMC 4-7-150(A): The proposed street system shall extend and create connections between existing streets unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. Prior to approving a street system that does not extend or connect, the Reviewing Official shall find that such exception shall meet the requirements of subsection E3 of this Section. The roadway classifications shall be as defined and designated by the Department. 11. Public works has reviewed the proposed vehicular circulation system and has recommended approval despite the lack of connection to Whitman Court to the south. The recommendation for approval is construed as approval of this lack of connectivity. Presumably the connection is not possible due to the wetlands located on the south of the project site. RMC 4-7-150(B): All proposed street names shall be approved by the City. 12. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-150(C): Streets intersecting with existing or proposed public highways, major or secondary arterials shall be held to a minimum. 13. The project is limited to two connections to NE 4th St – one from Whitman Court and one from the proposed commercial lot. RMC 4-7-150(D): The alignment of all streets shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. The street standards set by RMC 4-6-060 shall apply unless otherwise approved. Street alignment offsets of less than one hundred twenty five feet (125') are not desirable, but may be approved by the Department upon a showing of need but only after provision of all necessary safety measures. 14. The Public Works Department has reviewed and recommended approval of the street alignment as noted in Finding of Fact No. 4(F). RMC 4-7-150(E): 1. Grid: A grid street pattern shall be used to connect existing and new development and shall be the predominant street pattern in any subdivision permitted by this Section. 2. Linkages: Linkages, including streets, sidewalks, pedestrian or bike paths, shall be provided within and between neighborhoods when they can create a continuous and interconnected network of roads and pathways. Implementation of this requirement shall comply with Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Objective T-A and Policies T-9 through T-16 and Community Design Element, Objective CD-M and Policies CD-50 and CD-60. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 15 SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 15 3. Exceptions: a. The grid pattern may be adjusted to a “flexible grid” by reducing the number of linkages or the alignment between roads, where the following factors are present on site: i. Infeasible due to topographical/environmental constraints; and/or ii. Substantial improvements are existing. 4. Connections: Prior to adoption of a complete grid street plan, reasonable connections that link existing portions of the grid system shall be made. At a minimum, stub streets shall be required within subdivisions to allow future connectivity. 5. Alley Access: Alley access is the preferred street pattern except for properties in the Residential Low Density land use designation. The Residential Low Density land use designation includes the RC, R-1, and R-4 zones. Prior to approval of a plat without alley access, the Reviewing Official shall evaluate an alley layout and determine that the use of alley(s) is not feasible… 6. Alternative Configurations: Offset or loop roads are the preferred alternative configurations. 7. Cul-de-Sac Streets: Cul-de-sac streets may only be permitted by the Reviewing Official where due to demonstrable physical constraints no future connection to a larger street pattern is physically possible. 15. As noted previously, extension of Whitman Court to the south is not possible due to the presence of wetlands and existing single-family development. Consequently, the absence of full grid system connection is authorized by the criterion above. The proposal includes alley access to 16 of the 40 town units as required by the criterion above. The proposal includes a looped road system as encouraged by the criterion above. RMC 4-7-150(F): All adjacent rights-of-way and new rights-of-way dedicated as part of the plat, including streets, roads, and alleys, shall be graded to their full width and the pavement and sidewalks shall be constructed as specified in the street standards or deferred by the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee. 16. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-150(G): Streets that may be extended in the event of future adjacent platting shall be required to be dedicated to the plat boundary line. Extensions of greater depth than an average lot shall be improved with temporary turnarounds. Dedication of a full-width boundary street shall be required in certain instances to facilitate future development. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 16 SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 16 17. As previously determined, there are no feasible street connections to the project other than to NE 4th St as proposed. 4-7-160(A): Blocks shall be deep enough to allow two (2) tiers of lots, except where: 1. Abutting principal arterials defined in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The location and extent of environmental constraints prevent a standard plat land configuration, including size and shape of the parcel. 3. Prior to approval of single-tier lot configuration based on exceptions 1 and 2, the proponent must demonstrate that a different layout or provisions of an alley system is not feasible. 18. The staff report concludes that the standard above is inapplicable, but there is no evident reason why this would be the case. Townhomes can be arranged in blocks just as easily as single-family homes and there is nothing in the code definition of “block” that would limit the concept to single-family development. However, the site constraints of the project parcel, in conjunction with its elongated shape, critical areas and preferred looped road design, preclude the use of a two-tiered block system as authorized by RCW 4-7-160(A)(2). 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 across the width of the block at locations deemed necessary. Such crosswalks or walkways shall be paved for their entire width and length with a permanent surface and shall be adequately lighted at the developer’s cost. 19. There is no information in the record on the issue of crosswalks. Since the intersection of NE 4th St. and Whitman Court is signalized, it would appear that at the least a crosswalk should be placed at this location, but it is unclear from the record whether that is the case. The conditions of approval will require staff to consider the need for crosswalks. RMC 4-7-170(A): Insofar as practical, side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines or radial to curved street lines. 20. As depicted in Ex. 2, the side lines are in conformance with the requirement quoted above. RMC 4-7-170(B): Each lot must have access to a public street or road. Access may be by private access easement street per the requirements of the street standards. 21. Each lot has access to a public or private road and staff has determined that all private roads meet City street standards as modified by this PUD approval. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 17 SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 17 RMC 4-7-170(C): The size, shape, and orientation of lots shall meet the minimum area and width requirements of the applicable zoning classification and shall be appropriate for the type of development and use contemplated. Further subdivision of lots within a plat approved through the provisions of this Chapter must be consistent with the then-current applicable maximum density requirement as measured within the plat as a whole. 22. The lots of the proposal do not meet minimum area standards (5,000 square feet in the CA zone). However, smaller lots are authorized through the PUD modification provisions as addressed in other portions of this decision. There is no minimum lot width required for lots in the CA zone. See RMC 4-2-120A. RMC 4-7-170(D): Width between side lot lines at their foremost points (i.e., the points where the side lot lines intersect with the street right-of-way line) shall not be less than eighty percent (80%) of the required lot width except in the cases of (1) pipestem lots, which shall have a minimum width of twenty feet (20') and (2) lots on a street curve or the turning circle of cul-de-sac (radial lots), which shall be a minimum of thirty five feet (35'). 23. There is no minimum lot width required for lots in the CA zone. See RMC 4-2-120A. RMC 4-7-170(E): All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys, shall have minimum radius of fifteen feet (15'). 24. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-190(A): Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department. 25. Utility easements have not been addressed at this level of preview. Presumably any needed easements will be required during final plat engineering review. RMC 4-7-190(A): Due regard shall be shown to all natural features such as large trees, watercourses, and similar community assets. Such natural features should be preserved, thereby adding attractiveness and value to the property. 26. Maplewood Creek and the wetlands of the property, as well as their buffers, are all set aside in critical area tracts. RMC 4-7-200(A): Unless septic tanks are specifically approved by the Public Works Department and the King County Health Department, sanitary sewers shall be provided by the developer at no cost to the City and designed in accordance with City standards. Side sewer lines shall be installed eight feet (8') into each lot if sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision development. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 18 SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 18 27. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-200(B): An adequate drainage system shall be provided for the proper drainage of all surface water. Cross drains shall be provided to accommodate all natural water flow and shall be of sufficient length to permit full-width roadway and required slopes. The drainage system shall be designed per the requirements of RMC 4-6-030, Drainage (Surface Water) Standards. The drainage system shall include detention capacity for the new street areas. Residential plats shall also include detention capacity for future development of the lots. Water quality features shall also be designed to provide capacity for the new street paving for the plat. 28. A technical information report has been provided establishing conceptual compliance with the standard above and full compliance will be assured during final engineering review. RMC 4-7-200(C): The water distribution system including the locations of fire hydrants shall be designed and installed in accordance with City standards as defined by the Department and Fire Department requirements. 29. Compliance will be assured through final engineer review. RMC 4-7-200(D): All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any utilities installed in the parking strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the planting of trees. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, including all service connections, as approved by the Department. Such installation shall be completed and approved prior to the application of any surface material. Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department. 30. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-200(E): Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line by subdivider as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or alley improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. The cost of trenching, conduit, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore required to bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or land owner. The subdivider shall be responsible only for conduit to serve his development. Conduit ends shall be elbowed to final ground elevation and capped. The cable TV company shall provide maps and specifications to the subdivider and shall inspect the conduit and certify to the City that it is properly installed. 31. As Conditioned. RMC 4-7-210: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 19 SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 19 A. MONUMENTS: Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at each and every controlling corner of the subdivision. Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the Department. All surveys shall be per the City of Renton surveying standards. B. SURVEY: All other lot corners shall be marked per the City surveying standards. C. STREET SIGNS: The subdivider shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision. 32. As Conditioned. RMC 4-9-150(B)(2): Code Provisions That May Be Modified: a. In approving a planned urban development, the City may modify any of the standards of chapter 4-2 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 development… 33. As shown in Finding of Fact No. 3, the requested revisions are limited to the regulations identified in the criterion quoted above with one exception. The one exception is the requested modification to the RMC 4-3-100 requirements. An administrative interpretation, Ex. 15, amends the provision above to include RMC 4-3-100. Since the interpretation has not been appealed, the examiner is bound to follow it. RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the following requirements are met. 1. Demonstration of Compliance and Superiority Required: Applicants must demonstrate that a proposed development is in compliance with the purposes of this Section and with the Comprehensive Plan, that the proposed development will be superior to that which would result without a planned urban development, and that the development will not be unduly detrimental to surrounding properties. 34. The purposes of the PUD regulations, as outlined in RMC 4-9-150, are to preserve and protect the natural features of the land and to encourage innovation and creativity in development of residential uses. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 4 and No. 5, the natural features of the site are protected by open space, buffers and mitigation that significantly exceed code standards. The proposal involves 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 20 SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 20 innovation and creativity via the extensive use of looped road systems and alley access in conjunction with a fully integrated system of sidewalks and pedestrian trails; the integration of the pedestrian network into a trail extending through the wetlands of the site; and the integration of a landscape feature that ties the proposed commercial development into adjoining residential development. The project is consistent with the comprehensive plan as determined in Conclusion of Law No. 5, the project is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 6, the proposal is superior in design to what which would occur without a PUD. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4 and 5 the project will not create any significant adverse impacts and so would not be unduly detrimental to surrounding properties. RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the following requirements are met. … 2. Public Benefit Required: In addition, Applicantss shall demonstrate that a proposed development will provide specifically identified benefits that clearly outweigh any adverse impacts or undesirable effects of the proposed planned urban development, particularly those adverse and undesirable impacts to surrounding properties, and that the proposed development will provide one or more of the following benefits than would result from the development of the subject site without the proposed planned urban development: a. Critical Areas: Protects critical areas that would not be protected otherwise to the same degree as without a planned urban development; or b. Natural Features: Preserves, enhances, or rehabilitates natural features of the subject property, such as significant woodlands, native vegetation, topography, or noncritical area wildlife habitats, not otherwise required by other City regulations; or… e. Overall Design: Provides a planned urban development design that is superior to the design that would result from development of the subject property without a planned urban development. A superior design may include the following: ... 35. The proposal provides for public benefit by providing amenities related to critical areas, open space, landscaping and overall design that significantly exceed code standards as determined in Finding of Fact No. 7. These benefits clearly outweigh any adverse impacts since there are no significant adverse impacts associated with the proposal as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4 and 5. RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the following requirements are met. … 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for consistency with all of the following criteria: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 21 SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 21 a. Building and Site Design: i. Perimeter: Size, scale, mass, character and architectural design along the planned urban development perimeter provide a suitable transition to adjacent or abutting lower density/intensity zones. Materials shall reduce the potential for light and glare. 36. The proposal provides for suitable transition as outlined at page 14-15 of the staff report, incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the following requirements are met. … 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for consistency with all of the following criteria: a. Building and Site Design: … ii. Interior Design: Promotes a coordinated site and building design. Buildings in groups should be related by coordinated materials and roof styles, but contrast should be provided throughout a site by the use of varied materials, architectural detailing, building orientation or housing type; e.g., single family, townhouses, flats, etc. 37. The proposal provides for coordinated site and building design as outlined at page 15 of the staff report, incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the following requirements are met. … 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for consistency with all of the following criteria … b. Circulation: i. Provides sufficient streets and pedestrian facilities. The planned urban development shall have sufficient pedestrian and vehicle access commensurate with the location, size and density of the proposed development. All public and private streets shall accommodate emergency vehicle access and the traffic demand created by the development as documented in a traffic and circulation report approved by the City. Vehicle access shall not be unduly detrimental to adjacent areas. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 22 SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 22 38. The proposal provides for sufficient streets and pedestrian facilities as outlined at pages 15-18 of the staff report, incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the following requirements are met. … 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for consistency with all of the following criteria … b. Circulation: … ii. Promotes safety through sufficient sight distance, separation of vehicles from pedestrians, limited driveways on busy streets, avoidance of difficult turning patterns, and minimization of steep gradients. 39. The circulation system is adequately safe, as outlined at pages 15-18 of the staff report, incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the following requirements are met. … 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for consistency with all of the following criteria … b. Circulation: … iii. Provision of a system of walkways which tie residential areas to recreational areas, transit, public walkways, schools, and commercial activities. 40. The pedestrian circulation system provides for sufficient connectivity, as outlined at pages 15-18 of the staff report, incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the following requirements are met. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 23 SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 23 … 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for consistency with all of the following criteria … b. Circulation: … iv. Provides safe, efficient access for emergency vehicles. 41. The proposed circulation system adequately accommodate emergency access, as outlined at pages 15-18 of the staff report, incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the following requirements are met. … 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for consistency with all of the following criteria c. Infrastructure and Services: Provides utility services, emergency services, and other improvements, existing and proposed, which are sufficient to serve the development. 42. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the proposal is served by sufficient public infrastructure and services to serve the development. RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the following requirements are met. … 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for consistency with all of the following criteria … d. Clusters or Building Groups and Open Space: An appearance of openness created by clustering, separation of building groups, and through the use of well-designed open space and landscaping, or a reduction in amount of impervious surfaces not otherwise required. 43. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the proposal significantly exceeds open space requirements. The multiple open spaces throughout the site are well designed and provide a variety of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 24 SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 24 recreational opportunities both passive and active. The overall project has less impervious surface than otherwise would be expected. Based on the provided TIR the site would contain approximately 45% impervious surfaces for the overall site. This would include building areas, associated walkways, driveways, parking and drive aisles and would total approximately 100,000 square feet of area. The remainder of the site would consist of critical areas, landscaping and other pervious surfaces. RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the following requirements are met. … 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for consistency with all of the following criteria … e. Privacy and Building Separation: Provides internal privacy between dwelling units, and external privacy for adjacent dwelling units. Each residential or mixed use development shall provide visual and acoustical privacy for dwelling units and surrounding properties. Fences, insulation, walks, barriers, and landscaping are used, as appropriate, for the protection and aesthetic enhancement of the property, the privacy of site occupants and surrounding properties, and for screening of storage, mechanical or other appropriate areas, and for the reduction of noise. Windows are placed at such a height or location or screened to provide sufficient privacy. Sufficient light and air are provided to each dwelling unit. 44. The on-site transition between the commercial and residential components of the project would be supported by landscape buffers, separate entry signage as well as building orientations. The proposed development would be designed to building code standards for multi-family and commercial construction. Each residential unit would have a separate exterior entrance with insulated walls separating the units. All residential units and the commercial structure would have access to light and air, as each structure contains windows and some residential units contain Juliet balconies. Proposed Lots 10-20 and (commercial) Lot 41 would also have direct views of the protected critical area while the remainder of the units would have views of the common open space areas and individual private yards. The applicant has indicated the placement of the buildings, oriented to open space, provides separation and privacy for the residents while maintaining a communal atmosphere. As mentioned above the proposed enhancement of the critical area buffer on the west side of the development would provide screening for the proposed residential portion of the development from the existing commercial property to the west. Additionally, the applicant is proposing a 5-foot planter along the east side of the extended portion of Whitman Court NE to buffer the development for the existing post office. Finally, a single-family development to the south of the site would be buffered by a 5-foot visual barrier along the eastern portion of the southern property line if all conditions of approval are met. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 25 SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 25 The applicant did not provide details of roof mounted equipment and/or screening identified for such equipment for the commercial bank. As such, a condition of approval requires that the applicant provide a detailed plan set identifying the location and screening provided for roof mounted equipment for the proposed bank. The detailed plan set shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval for the bank. Screening landscaping and enclosure is required around refuse and recycling facilities. See staff report supplemental discussion in Table E: Design District “D’ Standards. RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the following requirements are met. … 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for consistency with all of the following criteria … f. Building Orientation: Provides buildings oriented to enhance views from within the site by taking advantage of topography, building location and style. 45. The subject site is relatively flat and does not have a view corridor to Mt. Rainer and/or over a valley etc. Proposed Lots 10-20 and (commercial) Lot 41 would have views of the protected critical area and the remainder of the lots would have views of common open space areas as wells as private yards. The overall orientation of the project enhances local views by taking advantage of the site’s natural features. RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the following requirements are met. … 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for consistency with all of the following criteria … g. Parking Area Design: Provides parking areas that are complemented by landscaping and not designed in long rows. The size of parking areas is minimized in comparison to typical designs, and each area related to the group of buildings served. The design provides for efficient use of parking, and shared parking facilities where appropriate. 46. The proposal meets the criterion above as conditioned as outlined at p. 21-22 of the staff report, incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 26 SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 26 RMC 4-9-150(D)(4): Each planned urban development shall demonstrate compliance with the 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 pursuant to subsection B2 of this Section. 47. As discussed below, the proposal complies with all development standards imposed by RMC 4-9- 150(E). As outlined in the staff report, Finding of Fact No. 28, Table D, incorporated and adopted by this reference as if set forth in full, the proposal complies with the underlying zoning except for the PUD modifications approved by this decision. The proposal also complies with NE 4th Business District design standards, as outlined in staff report Finding No. 29, Table E, incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. RMC 4-9-150(E)(1)(b)(i): Mixed use residential and attached housing developments of ten (10) or more dwelling units shall provide a minimum area of common space or recreation area equal to fifty (50) square feet per unit. The common space area shall be aggregated to provide usable area(s) for residents. The location, layout, and proposed type of common space or recreation area shall be subject to approval by the Hearing Examiner. The required common open space shall be satisfied with one or more of the elements listed below. The Hearing Examiner may require more than one of the following elements for developments having more than one hundred (100) units. (a) Courtyards, plazas, or multipurpose open spaces; (b) Upper level common decks, patios, terraces, or roof gardens. Such spaces above the street level must feature views or amenities that are unique to the site and provided as an asset to the development; (c) Pedestrian corridors dedicated to passive recreation and separate from the public street system; (d) Recreation facilities including, but not limited to: tennis/sports courts, swimming pools, exercise areas, game rooms, or other similar facilities; or (e) Children’s play spaces. ii. Required landscaping, driveways, parking, or other vehicular use areas shall not be counted toward the common space requirement or be located in dedicated outdoor recreation or common use areas. iii. Required yard setback areas shall not count toward outdoor recreation and common space unless such areas are developed as private or semi-private (from abutting or adjacent properties) courtyards, plazas or passive use areas containing landscaping and fencing sufficient to create a fully usable area accessible to all residents of the development. iv. Private decks, balconies, and private ground floor open space shall not count toward the common space/recreation area requirement. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 27 SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 27 48. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the proposed development would contain 40 units, which would result in a minimum requirement of 2,000 square feet (40 units x 50 SF = 2,000 SF) of common open space. The applicant has provided approximately 20,000 square feet of common open space in the form of seven separate open space lawn/plaza areas. This exceeds the minimum requirement by 18,000 square feet. RMC 4-9-150(E)(2): Private Open Space: Each residential unit in a planned urban development shall have usable private open space (in addition to parking, storage space, lobbies, and corridors) for the exclusive use of the occupants of that unit. Each ground floor unit, whether attached or detached, shall have private open space which is contiguous to the unit. The private open space shall be well demarcated and at least fifteen feet (15') in every dimension (decks on upper floors can substitute for the required private open space). For dwelling units which are exclusively upper story units, there shall be deck areas totaling at least sixty (60) square feet in size with no dimension less than five feet (5'). 49. Each residential unit appears to have private open space. However, the private open space does not appear to meet the minimum requirement of 15-feet in every dimension. As such, a condition of approval requires that the applicant provide revised site plan demonstrating compliance with the private open space standard of at least 15-feet in every dimension. The revised site plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to Final PUD/building permit approval whichever comes first. If this condition of approval is met the proposal would satisfy this standard. The applicants have requested a modification to the private open space requirement through the PUD modification process. See Ex. 20, att. 5. The request is denied. RMC 4-9-150(B)(3)(c) expressly prohibits the modification of PUD regulations through the PUD waiver process. The applicant asserts that this provision conflicts with RMC 4-9-150(D)(4), which requires that a PUD comply with applicable PUD regulations, “…the underlying zone, and any overlay districts, and any overlay districts; unless a modification for a specific development standard has been requested pursuant to subsection B2 of this Section.” The applicant then suggests that the only way to harmonize these conflicting provisions is to completely ignore the RMC 4-9-150(B)(3)(c) prohibition on modifications to PUD regulations. It is not necessary to render RMC 4-9-150(B)(3)(c) entirely meaningless as suggested by the applicant and it certainly is not within the intent of the PUD provisions. The qualification to RMC 4-9-150(D)(4)(“…unless a modification for a specific development standards has been requested…”) clearly only applies to the requirement that the PUD comply with the underlying zone and any overlay districts. PUD regulations expressly authorize modifications to underlying zoning and overlay district requirements. Obviously, if any such modification is authorized, the PUD should not have to comply with the zoning requirement in its unmodified form. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 28 SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 28 RMC 4-9-150(E)(3): Installation and Maintenance of Common Open Space: a. Installation: All common area and open space shall be landscaped in accordance with the landscaping plan submitted by the Applicants and approved by the City; provided, that common open space containing natural features worthy of preservation may be left unimproved. Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit, the developer shall furnish a security device to the City in an amount equal to the provisions of RMC 4-9-060. Landscaping shall be planted within one year of the date of final approval of the planned urban development, and maintained for a period 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 landscaping maintenance contract with a reputable landscaping firm licensed to do business in the City of Renton is executed and kept active for a two (2) year period. A copy of such contract shall be kept on file with the Development Services Division. b. Maintenance: Landscaping shall be maintained pursuant to requirements of RMC 4-4-070. 50. As Conditioned. RMC 4-9-150(E)(4): Installation and Maintenance of Common Facilities: a. Installation: Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits, all common facilities, including but not limited to utilities, storm drainage, streets, recreation facilities, etc., shall be completed by the developer or, if deferred by the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee, assured through a security device to the City equal to the provisions of RMC 4-9-060… 51. All common facilities must already be completed or bonded prior to final plat approval as required by state and local subdivision regulations. RMC 4-9-150(E)(4): Installation and Maintenance of Common Facilities: … b. Maintenance: All common facilities not dedicated to the City shall be permanently maintained by the planned urban development owner, if there is only one owner, or by the property owners’ association, or the agent(s) thereof. In the event that such facilities are not maintained in a responsible manner, as determined by the City, the City shall have the right to provide for the maintenance thereof and bill the owner or property owners’ association accordingly. Such bill, if unpaid, shall become a lien against each individual property. 52. As a condition of approval, the Applicants are required to establish a home owners’ association for the development, which would be responsible for any common improvements. All common facilities, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 29 SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 29 not dedicated to the City, shall be permanently maintained by the PUD home owners’ association. The CC&Rs shall provide that if the homeowner’s association fails to properly maintain the common facilities the city may do so at the expense of the association. The CC&Rs shall also provide that the provisions pertaining to the obligation to maintain common areas shall not be amended without approval of the City of Renton. Security for landscaping maintenance shall also be provided as outlined at page 41 of the staff report. 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 chapters 4-1, 4-7, 4-8 and 4-9 RMC. 54. No procedural revisions are requested. DECISION The proposed preliminary plat and preliminary PUD, including all development standard modifications identified in Finding of Fact No. 3, are APPROVED. The proposal is subject to the following Conditions of Approval: 1. The applicant shall comply with the two mitigation measures issued as part of the Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated, dated April 21, 2014. 2. A final wetland mitigation plan which integrates the Ribero Balko Wetland and Stream Buffer Mitigation Plan with the Altmann-Oliver Mitigation Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit/Final PUD approval whichever comes first. Additionally, in order to preserve and protect the wetland, stream, and associated buffers the applicant will be required, to maintain the Native Growth Protection Easement over that part of the site encompassing the stream/wetland and buffer area. Finally, the applicant would be required to maintain/install any split rail fencing and signage required per RMC 4-3-050 prior to the recording of the Final Plat/Final PUD approval whichever comes first. 3. The applicant shall submit a screening/fencing detail plan. The screening/fencing detail plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to PUD/Final Plat approval whichever comes first. 4. The applicant shall provide interpretative signage/information at the trail entrance along NE 4th St and at the northern most lookout along the trail. The site plan depicting the signage shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit/Final Plat approval whichever comes first. 5. An easement shall be recorded memorializing the public access to the wetland trail prior to Final PUD/Final Plat Recording whichever comes first. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 30 SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 30 6. The applicant shall provide a final detailed landscape plan for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to Final PUD/construction permit approval whichever comes first. 7. The applicant shall amend the landscape plan to reflect plants with a maturity height of 6- feet and 100% obscurity for the entire length of the modified 5-foot wide visual barrier along the eastern portion of the southern property line. The revised landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit/Final PUD approval whichever comes first. 8. The applicant shall revise the elevation so that garage doors provide additional details and all sides of the building facing the public street and/or internal “street” provide a front door or front porch presence, if this is not achievable an approved landscape screen would be required between the sidewalk and the building. The revised elevations shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to Final PUD/building permit approval whichever comes first. 9. The applicant shall be required to dedicate 1-foot behind the sidewalk for maintenance in addition to right-of-way dedication for existing luminaire foundations along NE 4th St. The revised site plan shall be submitted to, and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager, prior to construction permit/Final PUD approval whichever comes first. 10. A revised site plan1 shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit/Final PUD approval whichever comes first, depicting the following: North of Road ‘A’, the required planter strip adjacent to the bank site would be 8-feet, the sidewalk would be 5 feet, the existing 32-foot paved public road portion would remain to allow the minimum width for the left turn lane at the signal. Right-of-way dedication to the back of the sidewalk would be required; South of Road ‘A’, would be required to remain a private road. The private road would have minimum 26-feet of asphalt curb face to curb face. The cross section would also include a planter strip of 5-feet and a 5- foot sidewalk. The paved width of this portion of the road would be finalized after a turning movement diagram to allow the turning of large trucks serving the post office is provided by the applicant; Signage must be provided by the developer at the transition from the public to the private road. 11. The centerline of Road ‘A’ shall align with the centerline of the main post office driveway across Whitman Court NE. A revised site plan depicting the alignment shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 12. The applicant shall be required to redesign the roads in order to provide a minimum of 20- foot wide paved drive lane, separate from any required sidewalks. The revised site plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit/Final PUD approval whichever comes first. 1 The applicant submitted a revised site plan in response to Conditions 10-12 at the public hearing. See Ex. 20. This revised site plan may meet the conditions, as determined by the Current Planning Manager. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 31 SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 31 13. The applicant shall equip all townhomes with an approved fire sprinkler system due to limited available fire flow and long dead end roadways at this site. 14. A minimum 2 feet of separation would be required between the face of any wall and the applicant would be required to demonstrate proposed common parking spaces have appropriate sight distance. The revised site plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit/Final PUD approval whichever comes first. 15. The project’s bylaws or CC & R’s shall restrict parking across the pedestrian pathways throughout the development. A copy of the bylaws shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit/Final PUD approval whichever comes first. 16. The applicant shall provide a detailed plan set identifying the location and screening provided for roof mounted equipment for the proposed bank. The detailed plan set shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval for the bank. 17. A revised site/landscape plan shall be submitted depicting intervening landscaping at no more than 7 stall intervals in order to reduce the visual impact of surface parking throughout the development. The revised site/landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit/Final PUD approval whichever comes first. 18. The applicant shall submit a revised site plan depicting bicycle parking in conformance with RMC4-4-080F.11. The revised site plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit/Final PUD approval whichever comes first. 19. The applicant shall be required to demonstrate how refuse and recyclables would be picked up and where it would be located on pick-up day to the satisfaction of the Current Planning Project Manager prior to Final PUD approval. 20. The applicant shall be required to revise the landscaping plan to enhance the landscaping/screening along NE 4th St, primarily directly in front of the drive-thru bays. The revised landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to Final PUD/construction permit approval whichever comes first. Staff shall apply this condition in a flexible manner in order to ensure that the security interests of the bank are not compromised. This condition may be revised as necessary by staff to accommodate any administrative waiver to landscaping requirements authorized by City code. 21. The applicant shall be required to submit revised elevations which include the refuse and recyclable enclosure made of masonry, ornamental metal or wood, or some combination of the three, and a roof. The revised elevations shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 22. The refuse and recycling facilities shall be screened with landscaping on a minimum of three sides. The revised landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 32 SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 32 Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit/Final PUD approval whichever comes first. 23. The applicant shall be required to reduce the number of residential curb cuts along the internal road system to the satisfaction of the Current Planning Division. A revised site plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit/Final PUD approval whichever comes first. 24. The applicant shall revise the site plan to depict a differentiation in materials for all pedestrian connections within parking areas and/or drive aisles on site. The revised site plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 25. The applicant shall submit revised elevations depicting added architectural detailing elements including lighting fixtures, contrasting materials, or special detailing along the ground floor of all residential units and the northern and western façades of the commercial building. The revised elevations shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to Final PUD or building permit approval whichever comes first. 26. The applicant shall submit revised elevations depicting the use of the same materials finished on all sides of the building as well as additional changes in materials and color for the residential structures. The revised elevations shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit/Final PUD approval whichever comes first. The applicant may also want to consider the use of the brick, integrally colored concrete masonry, or a similar high quality material, to ground the residential buildings for a height appropriate to the scale of the structure. 27. The applicant shall submit a materials board subject to the approval of the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. Acceptable materials include a combination of brick, integrally colored concrete masonry, pre-finished metal, stone, steel, glass, cast-in-place concrete, or other high quality material. 28. The applicant shall be required to provide a lighting plan that adequately provides for public safety without casting excessive glare on adjacent properties; at the time of building permit review. Pedestrian scale and downlighting shall be used in all cases to assure safe pedestrian and vehicular movement, unless alternative pedestrian scale lighting has been approved administratively or is specifically listed as exempt from provisions located in RMC 4-4-075 Lighting, Exterior On-Site. 29. The applicant shall be required to submit revised elevations depicting additional ornamental lighting fixtures. The revised elevations shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 30. The applicant shall provide revised site plan demonstrating compliance with the private open space standard of at least 15-feet in every dimension. The revised site plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to Final PUD/building permit approval whichever comes first. This condition may be modified as necessary by staff to conform to any administrative waiver to the 15 foot standard granted pursuant to City code. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 33 SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 33 31. Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit, the developer shall furnish a security device to the City in an amount equal to the provisions of RMC 4-9-060. Landscaping shall be planted within one year of the date of final approval of the planned urban development, and maintained for a period of 2 years thereafter prior to the release of the security device. A security device for providing maintenance of landscaping may be waived if a landscaping maintenance contract with a reputable landscaping firm licensed to do business in the City of Renton is executed and kept active for a 2 year period. A copy of such contract shall be kept on file with the Planning Division. 32. The applicant shall create a homeowner’s association to ensure that the private roads and other common facilities are adequately maintained. The CC&Rs shall require the lot owners to maintain the common facilities and shall provide that the City may maintain the facilities at the expense of the lot owners if the lot owners fail to do so after receiving notice from the City. The CC&Rs shall be completed and approved by the City prior to final plat approval. 33. All proposed street names shall be approved by the City. 34. All adjacent rights-of-way and new rights-of-way dedicated as part of the plat, including streets, roads, and alleys, shall be graded to their full width and the pavement and sidewalks shall be constructed as specified in the street standards or deferred by the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee. 35. If staff has not already done so, staff shall assess the need for crosswalks as required by RMC 4-7-160(B) and require crosswalks as circumstances warrant. 36. All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys, shall have minimum radius of fifteen feet (15'). 37. Side sewer lines shall be installed eight feet (8') into each lot if sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision development. 38. All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any utilities installed in the parking strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the planting of trees. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, including all service connections, as approved by the Department. Such installation shall be completed and approved prior to the application of any surface material. Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department. 39. Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line by subdivider as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or alley improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. The cost of trenching, conduit, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore required to bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or land owner. The subdivider shall be responsible only for conduit to serve his development. Conduit ends shall be elbowed to final ground elevation and capped. The cable TV company shall provide maps and specifications to the subdivider and shall inspect the conduit and certify to the City that it is properly installed. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 34 SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND CAO VARIANCE - 34 40. Monumenting and street signs shall be installed prior to final plat approval as required by RMC 4-7-210. DATED this 11th day of June, 2014. City of Renton Hearing Examiner Appeal Right and Valuation Notices RMC 4-8-110(E)(9) provides that the final decision of the Hearing Examiner is subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(9) requires appeals of the Hearing Examiner’s decision to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the Hearing Examiner’s decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing e examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(8) and RMC 4-8-100(G)(4). A new fourteen (14) day appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk’s Office, Renton City Hall – 7th floor, (425) 430- 6510. Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation.