Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Report 1
, , PARTIES OF RECORD John Murphy Director of Operations New Home Trends, Inc. 4314 148th Street SE Mill Creek, WA 98012 tel: (425) 953-4719 (party of record) Lorraine Lafoon Berkshire Apartments Manager's Office 1300 Eagle Ridge Drive S Renton, WA 98055 (party of record) C \ 'i \'' ' C '-/ \\, 1' ' Updated: 06/09/10 ' ' EAGLE RIDGE APTS & OFFICES LUA09-150, ECF, PUD ' Chris Koruga Eagle Ridge LLC 5454 30th Avenue SW Seattle, WA 98126 tel: (206) 595-5791 (applicant/ contact) Ben Yu Eagle Ridge HOA 1100 Eagle Ridge Drive S ste: #A Renton, WA 98055 (party of record) ' \ Robert Hancheroff 17710 234th Avenue SE Maple Valley, WA 98038 (owner) Van Hong PO Box 14136 Seattle, WA 98114-0136 tel: (206) 436-9614 (party of record) (Page 1 of 1) .i Denis Law Mayor November 3, 2010 Chris Koruga Eagle Ridge LLC 5454 30th Ave.SW Seattle, WA 98126 -----·---r ,·-t\'-J._.J'. City Clerk -Bonnie I. Walton Re: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 7/12/2010, regarding Eagle Ridge Apartments & Offices PUD, 1600 Benson Rd. S. (File No. LUA-09-150, ECF, PPUD) Dear Appellant: At the regular Council meeting of November 1, 2010, the Renton City Council took action on the referenced appeal by adopting the recommendation of the Planning and Development Committee. Enclosed is copy of the Planning and Development Committee report as adopted. Unless an appeal of the decision of the City Council is filed with King County Superior Court as indicated in Renton Municipal Code, the decision of the City Council is final. If I can provide further information, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, ~-.J.tJ~ Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk Enclosure cc: Mayor Denis Law Council President Don Persson Parties of Record (8) 1055 South Grady Way• Renton, Washington 98057 • (425) 430-6510 / Fax (425) 430-6516 • rentonwa.gov 2,5_) "lJ pj" ffl )> :, ..,, :, © :x, 5 ffi "" <D ~ 0 = s <" ~ = ~: IMl 0 :J g _,, ,. ·;~--. 0 -· .... '< 0 : s -:::0 (ti -a cc. 0 :l 1600 BENSON ROAD SOUTH EAGLE RIDGE APARTMENTS & OFFICE RENTON, WASHINGTON ' / f .:·.:::, / / ; / . rr1 ) ~- ,.J l ' WEISMANDESIGNGROUP i:=, r,=., F""""- 2tJJ :g C') Im "' ~ ,,. :J ~ -.:, :J 0 "° s .... ffl "" ~ JJ -= ...., ~·. ~ cg; = s ~. r+-[Ml 0 0 (g :J :l I I 'I I I ' I ' ' ' ' ;: • 0 I il I w jl ' iP l . ~~..: j ! w I ' ~g; ., l ' " . ' !! i i ., !! BJ J ! I 11 iji6' :1 ~ ~ fl !! I ' ' i I I ' i ' ! 11 " " m m ~ z " " 0 • , 1 ~r~ ~1~1 ~,~i · ! ':'-'!'' ,_,_ ! l; t I~ i~ j! ~; ij! : '"Pi '"g 'li !il! Ji ~ l ' !! !! Ii lj 'I"! ; ,, .. ,.,.( ~ ~~~~~~ I • • • • • • I 'jj'!! 'l l ~ • • ! 1800 BENSON ROAD SO UTH n I! j ,, ' : 1! p •• l I ,, ~! " ' i ~B i ~£ ., ' ~£ ' .! I! I j ! EAGLE RIDGE A PARTMENTS & OFFICE TON RENTON, WASHING WEISMANOESIGNGROUP I= L,., __ I. •.• -F'··--·~ r-- , I I ! ' . \ ' ' I § \ I ' C i I I •, "';. ~' ,. .. .. , ., *' ;-";'> ".' " ' ! ' ' '• ' ' I"' "" ~ _ _ .F'-· -----UH .... \ \ "71) © b 9 ;al; "" F © 1,j) \ °el \ ;al; "" "71) m § ;jg \ m \ \ 1. I I . -'I I i nu1 nnn1~ h ~' f ;~;~~ ~;;;;~ ; I I lilii llilii I' I n ,1~u1 ill 11n; ; -----~---- ,1 II II II II I I I: 1, I. I I D D D L _ _,_ __ _, '"' ·~ ' !; m ~ 0 £ ~ r ~ z § L "' r 0 "' :ill -i:J C') -· g,:t rMl -z 0 ::, s. fi "" s· ~ ::D ,.... rMl ""' -· ('> ~ ~ :s. :I = CE. ,... = 0 0 \fifil ::, :I (Q) r C--------· ) a --, If----~-, '; a C a () w ~ ' \) " z :l z C 0 D § b " () C ' D b r "' C " "' a ' 0--- ! 0-·, 1\ I • EAGLE RIDGE CONDOMINIUMS GARAGE FLOOR PLAN NORTH BLDG ~ cl C') lii" ;:.: ffi :z: :J '< Cl :J 0 (0) <: s· .... ffi -'° ::0 0., 0 (b = ~ < c:g: = ~: ::i = = .... ffi 0 0 :J ::i lg I I I I I I I ' L.....,, ______ ,, 0 T 11 "' ' 1, 0 ,.-z a a ti u () " l> l> " n , " a " 0 ,_ ' "' " " ~~ " [:~~~':~- ' ~ f------·' . f-------i c ""==='1 ·; '1'j I- I i 'f !!t--- r------JI ,I I ! ,~~·~ ;f~ [_ ! . l ~~~~ac;1 p '~ ~~~l i1~-_~~1 '? : ~ . ,. ------i ·". ..,,,_ ----~~ i: -----F f C ' ' ~,---~----------,, ' ' '·~;;;;;;;;;;;;;;:;;;;!I ~ ~--·--_--- ~ - EAGLE RIDGE CONDOM[NlUMS GARAGE FLOOR PLAN SOUTH BLDG ff I n13 SF ~ q " ~ a G u ' F!RST FLOOI-: PLAN -NORT>< BLDG. ve·,1·.0· (~ UN T ':i '3e-':i 5:: DEC< 14 UNITS 1:0':ill SF Wi C:':CKS ccM--::xJ ~2--:;, SF TQTLL ISIS4 S<= City of Renton Planning Division NOV 1 3 2009 ~~CGrE~WfE[Q) g ., .. ;i':<e:1 i::iS: !§! ,. .. : D _j .. L <U"' "'" 0~ ii::~ <U " _,o e,O ..,z <Us z <! a'"' 0 ~..., Q<!) 0 _,I "-f-~ f-0 U,Z ~ "- I ·111, ;,,., d• i! in1:• !1 •• ~!;m l l1i1'1,!;, 1,1 ;,,;! I ;1w:;1 1 ,ih,m1 OoPo ~-)~·09 Sool•--=== Or-<l"n_____;,__Afz_._ Job I ...ll1L_ rw,,,,.,... __ A 3.1 N s ":::'::·.-:'."'". -2.~ ,,,-,,._ l~f-. 'T i 1.::.2 SF :)FFICE I iS.:.8 S-' c=FICE SPAC:' CC::,JRT-.L:.R:;> c=FICE ~ IS::>2 s;:: OFFICE SP4CE TOT ~L COM'10N ~88~ SF FIRST FLOOR 0 L.AN • $OUT~ i3LDG ve•,1-0' C-'FICE 3 ':'l)':'l SF ::JFFICE SFAC:' COURTlARD (; UNITS ::JF"ICES co:-1~01-: -::;TLC. 1,::,1.3; SF .:03<:;; SF ='BB':l S" ~:::,::;:;,o SF City of Renton Planning Division NOV 1 3 1009 IR{ ~~~Il~~[Q) J,/ D:'CKS D __j .. L ,u '" (!) " 0~ n::Z ,u "' _,o "'o "'z .,o u z "' ---' Q_ "' 0 "'---' OcD 0 ---' I "-f-~ f-0 '" '" "' iL . "I 'I I Ml~· ; ! :, ·1·;,1:1 ,,,I:! I iH· 1fU:i .. ,.,.,11 .•.• ,. ' 'II' !'1 11 • ! lj ·~· 1:1:111 :!11:i ···11 : 111•1.•· i;IHi!lmi:tn l !!11'1,!;i ''!'''·· J1H1:!J1 ! ,;!1,1!,1 Oo•• 4·D·09 Soolo_ Dr""""~ Jo~ f ---"-2.L_ ~ov,ooo, __ A 3.1 S c~ '::" ::Ee< -1::::: .~ ~ ... ~ ~·~:-~ '??':l Si= SECOND FLOOR PLAN -NORT~ BLDG. u,,·,,.o· ~i !..NIT 9 138':l SF DECK 1.: l-N TS COMM::''', T0'4L 15-':ll S" Wt DECKS !822 SF 1133 SF City of Renton Planning Division NOV 1 3 2009 ~~(C~~\W'~[Q) ~~ .. -;::~ :~j H~ D ,u"' "'::,; 0~ ocZ ,u;;; ~o e,O .,,z ,uO u z .. ~ 0. t!) ocO 0~ 0 '° ~ LL i::= o"' zO oz u ,u "' l 1,.1·1.i:: Iii ··I·· 1 w:,:.11 I ,lfi,!l:i Doi• _!t:_µ_·.\!L_ 5col•, __ D,owo~ J,:;, ' ___llll___ l'lovoon> __ _ A 3.2 N JS':: S" :=:::·.:=< -: ~-QJ,L______j: ,~N .,. i i.e.& s= ~.Er<. "· I~ L U1~IT 2 -41 S" DECK ;:1 Ji'.I-.<:. 141 SF DEC< 2 L.NIT ';; 141 see DECK 31 SECO"ID FLOOR 0 LAN • 50'JT~ BLDG. 115·,1·.e,• (; l~N TS COM'10·, -c7,:..,_ 103~: SF ~..:.OS" '280:' SF City of Renton Planning Division NOV 1 3 2009 [pa~«;~~VJ~!Q) W: :)ECKS D _j .. L ,u'" '-'::, 0~ a::~ ,u " _,o '-'"' <iz .,3 z <i -' o_ "' ~o 0 -' 0 '° -' LL I f- 0 ~ zO o"' u ,u "' I !i,;,,i:, 1m'•i~• 1 ,,~;i:m ! !t!hll:i ~ot•~ 5colo __ °'""""~ Job f____llll_______ R..,,AOOA~ _ A 3.2 S ·~ ~c~,,~ 'L ___ 1~ TI-IIRD FLOOR FLAN -NORTH BLDC:r. ltl!',1'-0' (; U'.17 l 'SS3 5::: DECK S0 IJNITS IS'Sl' SF IJJi DECKS CC"H"1~c.. 122: Sf= T:'.JT AL 1133 5;: City of Renton Planning Division NOV 1 3 2009 ~~«:!rE~W~[Q) j !~~ "'II.I~ a~ D ,u <fl 0:, 0~ ~~ ,u " _,o 00 ., z ,u 8 z <{ _, Q_ " 0 ~ _, 0 "' 0 _, I LI.. f- ~ C, 0 !":z I f- • l1 ~. !,'.·1·1 ·111:, -·'·11 .. ,,, 'Ii· 1 ~'·1 -l!m in:: ;1~·11! :!:Iii ··111,, 111-., l' di! •. ,,, ' 'I 1··•1• •!'11 :1 11 !:,!!'1 h nt ;, !i!of j 11,j1,I!, I !11:j!!li ! ,l!i,11:! O<>io~ Scolo ____ _ Orawn.__l.&_.__._._ Job. ----1.S:li__ ~.~'400,,> A 3_3 N L! ' I~ l ,c,,s s, ::-==:c:< -= '<.<NIT 2 -:42, s= 'S ;_;: SF ::::·EC< i:~ -~ _/ u·-_i-:, -4~ SF DEC< 31 T .. IRD FLOOR PLAN • $OUT_. BLDG •,t!•.;·.0· (; J"'-5 10:a: SF Wi :)ECK5 :::;:::,,.-"'iQN 2410 Si= TOTAL 32,::;,~ SF City of Renton Planning Division NOV 1 3 2009 [Ri~~[E~~~[g) D ...J " L <LI '" t')"' D => ii::~ ,u "' ~o e,D "z .,o u z <{ -' CL <') 0 "' -' 0 '° 0 -' I ll_ f- => oo ~ 0) I f- • ''I !I l !1lti~ i ! ~i ·,·,,1,1 ,1·"· I ill· 11:i:: ,!t•ill ,;.Eli •1·1· i ''!"' • ~ 1,i 'I ,-1, p1.i11 :,,!-1 ,111·il,;,111:H1, f n.ir ,u,m 11"1"'1"' hlf,!' 11! '·'"','1 !&,11" ! ,!!i,11:i Oo,o~ ~co,e __ Dr<i,..,.,,.,i..&__ Job '____:l.,tiL_ ~·- A 3.3 S Ce, S= ::::::::oe: -..::: L'.J J~-r _. '318 SF '.:)EC< ..1-1 bjelb FOJRTi.. FLOOR Pi.AN -NORT~ BU)C,. W•l'·t'' (i !';,OJI s= llJ/ '.:)EC"-S COMl"'.O', 104b SF -::;-µ,_ 11';,51 SF City of Renton Planning Division NOV 1 3 2009 [R1~(G~~'¥/~[Q) ~i .. i '"'"' !!i::li'a :i: ~~ »ii:; D ,u <I) "'::, 0~ a::Z ,u ,' ~o c,D "'z ,u 0 u z <( ~ "-0 ocO 0~ o"' ~I u_ f- I°' f-0 ocZ C, 0 u_ 1 1 lti!!:!ii 11 .• , •••• 1 ,!!Mm Ool• ...!:12:QL___ Sc,,_, __ _ Orowo~ Job f ___ti2.L_ ~o. ... on, __ A 3.4 N ;:;o; s~ :::c:·::x ~~ ' ------i_ ~.pl) I . / h 'i • ~L--·~=~n L.NIT .;. 881 SF DECK 13 UNIT I~ 041 SF CC:CK 13 FOURT>< FLOOR PLAN · SOUT>< BLDG 118"•"·"'" (; 1)1'.:l"'."S 103'32 SF J..: DEC<S CC..,.MON ~23"-Si" rO'',C.L s0~<0 sr City of Renton Planning Division NOV 1 3 1009 lR1~CG~~W~[Q) ~* "< = "~ ii:I" "'lj,'~ ~!i~ D z « <LI '" _, 0~ a..0 0 :=i n:: 0 o:::ZO_J -0 '° <LI :, _, _JOLLI "'a f-<c: z I=, lU01-0 u "'"' ~ 0 LL I •• , l J1tt~10! 1•1!,•I•' I,, '!'','' ,1-,11. ! ,ili,!1:1 OolO •-a-o; Scolo __ _ Orowo~ Jobi~ ~···- A 3.4 S -..,; "' s 0 dl)J -0 (') m ii5"" ;:;: = :::J '< (0) = :::J 0 < :::, .... m ..... '° '0 0 = 0 :a = ~ ~ <" (t) = = ui" ::l = ffi 6 -0 lg :::, ::l \JJ r~~r~ ~ EAGLE RIDGE D \J1 ]> CONDOMINIUMS z . ROOF PLAN 10l.,.Nl:«12r -NORTH BLDG BOTl<ELL, WA Q80n fil'!J!.'ll11~ LJ cl C) --· n, ~ :, '< :, -· 0 c6 .... 0 ::0 ;:;· (I) iii' :::, -· ~ 0 0 :, :::, 1.--· EAGLE RIDGE D CONDOMINIUMS ,z '1a ,a -;-,0 ~~ '!~ m r" r m m < < "; ~ 9 2 z z () 0 '1 '1 r r i" I" 8 0 "' ~ "O Q ffi ~ n., .... «')) c:, ::, '<: <C ::, ffi -3' 0 (Q -= "'° 0 :0 ~ "-" = ;;,· <'D = ffi = iii. ::i -· .... g 0 0 ::, ::i ~ [Nii :z fi 0 < Im -= = ~ ~ = = = Im lg B :I C') iJ -· -.... ~ '< ='l. 0 (3 -h 0 ::0 <' (t) iii' ::I o· ... 0 ::J ::I • " II • -""-"'"'"-"""-r -: .... ,,_,,, ___ H_ EAGLE RIDGE CONDOMINIUMS ELEVATIONS A SOUTH BLDG lbdll~ l~l~I !§ ,m --~ ;-(J> .~ ,~ "I m ~ r m m < ; ~ 11 \I z z G G ~ 'l I I ~ °' 5 8 "' ::ml -0 (') ffi w ::+' = ::, '< ~ = :::, -< 0 :::, liiiil -· (Q .... = 0 ::0 = ~ ~ < (D = = iii" :I = liiiil o· ..+ 0 {g :::, :I 11 ' ii ij ii ii j '--~-'~ ' __ ,. __ --- e 1, ;! ' • ! j I • ~~ 1:; I i @t 111 ·~ u ' I I I ~ ffi 'I 11 0 I I .. ffi ·; -= I ~1 ~ ffi ~~ I~ J> lg I ;· z z · I n • n ~ :z C, <C ,_ ""' "' = '"' = \'\ I \ 1'. \\ \ \\ I \ \ \ \', ' I: \ \\ I . \ \ C') cl -· JlJ .... ::, '< ::, .s-0 ;o .... D :0 ;;· Cl) iii" ::, -· .... 0 0 ::, ::, ' ·. \ ', I ' ' ' \ \_ -,_ ,- ' ' ' \ '1 ' ' \ .:, ' ' I\ \, \~\ --\ I I ' ' ! . I ! PPl4111-TTTT --~---... -·- 1:•1 i~; .. ---. :_ Iii II' e ' • ! ! I ,•) I I ! d]J I I ; /nij :z: ~ c:, ~ ~ < ffi ,... I I ~ = "'° ~ -= = ffi = (QJ I ' ~-----------------r- \\ I \ ' \ \ \ \ ' \ ' \ ' \ \ lJ (') OJ ;.· :::, '< :::, s· o (Q .... 0 :0 <'" Cl> iii. :::i ---§ 0 :::i ~\ ~~~ I , ' i- ' \ ' \ \ ', \ . ' '. I '" \ \ \ \ ' - -+---': ti! ' ),-1 !P ~\ ~~-if".'·. I +- PPP-88-TTlT I I -~ --- 1 ------- e • ! I I ,• I 111 I g ~ ~ I~ 5-:gJ m (O} m = ~ m (g z 0 < ""' ~ = = = \ \ (') "D -· --,g '< "· 0 :::, -~ :0 -· (I) S. ::, f:!?. ,..... 0 0 :::, ::, I I ~Lj-1 I .. ( I ~'~\"]-I I PPP-8$-TTTT I i I I -IQl!ll£Y•ILUO LOlrJIOllflUY•"1$11 -JIOIIT!T.1•1+tz.21 LOlrl'OIOTn••.._ l"ll!IL\•1+Jil.tl F"ll!IL\•fi- "' !ID' • IIUl N art • lllll ";:~ ':::,: ~ . -· .~,,:, ii ij //~=~ .. -!} !! nu · nu·· ··•· -.. . A,: .., /•· -<::: .-.--· ' -··· ~ + ~ + ! ~ ! ---NORTli BUILDING PROFILE £.11..f:,-~/ft.f'al' -l'l:IITat>•lJl.!111 -"~ ~ .:.,:ai P\1~-,- 1>.!1.·• •lit·. ·1'11 K~ l.1J . !!'._I'll_ "'- .•. . / . ......... ~.: • -! . ~ ~ fj: ·.· ···· 1·· It . ~11 .ii· ,_/ ': -----i~ ~ ... . . . ...... ,r'-• ~-/ -eccc·c,.:,;··••,..,.: + + + + + + +- ~-~= 11111"""'!11.ll. 1,1,e-,11111-141~ u.e..1111 lm4Z-J111-11111 _.... .. _.. --- --- SOUTli BUILDING PROFILE ltN.I: >IOll'..W/Ql'-8 0)1~ ,. ~-- ~ ~~ -""'"\_ -..: _/ • ·:·< . L!IIIJIOIITll£Y•l&a lOIPCIIIT914•ff+ll.l7 l"llffi,·1- l"lllllV• ... .UI. • 7.15 K• 11.tl ... ., \(I. 11•>•cct . ' . 1 I l . t, .... 11· s ! • __, -. D + + + ·-,,.o:, 1}+(11) EAST PARKING PROFILE " ,:,r,if:HOll,1'-#/'01'-' . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .. . ,, ~ ! . .:-.::::::::. . : :U•-UI Q•• .. ···-.... ···-~. : : .: ~,,:, ............... 8 ...... %; N"'·-• ! ! I.! ~ ..• N~-~--i? ; ~ /• / : ...... J ..... : .... .....__ . • • I.Jc .. -[I] ! [] -BOULEVARD ENTRANCE PROFILE DU: 111M. •'•xrra. ,.""'" ,._,,, ~ Ill' I CW£ I -r----1.rJ:= I ! u ·- City of Renton Planning Division NOV 1 3 2009 \Ri~(C~U~~[Q) GRAPHIC SCALE r,,.u• I T (II-) •-·• A GRAPHIC SCALm lo, u l c•-) ·--· ... CALL 8EfPE' lWPO 1-800-424-5555 l'Olllf1WII-CICATICIIIOfUNJEIICIIIOUNO~ PRELIMINARY PUD !Mil.I AmGII!: OFPIOI Atl) CXNXllalUIII _ ........... ~, \ \---T . \ \ ~ I I \ I , , ~ - , : I + I \ \ : ~ ,' \ I : : I - \ \------J '~ EB ,' \ \, I---\\ . ' ' ' \\ \ • • i ' \' \\t\ i, ' \ \ \ : f •:1 , I ,\ ~. /// \ ' y$ / \ I !fl /,' ,/ i \ I /,/ / \\·~y/,,;~I \ \ ! •a; / I I , II , I \ \ 11 \ I ,1 I \ ' I /1 i \\\ /I; I ' / I \ /' \ ~,/' --------·-- HL_·-;' '"I' --"i"' ·, ;, ! . ' ; iii 11' ' ,, ,, ' ,. ,, ,, 1; 1:. ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ••• J ' ' ..... : .. ' ' ' ' I ••••• r I i 1U' 1 9 ,I~~ :: ..... ·: ,, ' .._ I', , '' '' I I, I a ~ • ' ~ i i I I I ''I I ! I '/; .~ ~ I~ I~ .~ I •,' ., ' Ji i .. '' ~: :1111m111 : ' '' -j i" ~ ffi tf?> ffi = ~ ffi lg . ····1 ' ' ' ' :z = < -:,, "-: O:.?. u:;:. p- ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' • -----Q ; : ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' : ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' : : ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' . ' !~rH ' ' 0 • ~------ ~ r i! C') -cl -· -.... ~ '< 2. O ::, ..... lO ::0 g (t) $. :I !!2 . ..... 0 0 ::, :I . ' a .... '····:·· :ji. :~:. • ~11: ' ~ ' : ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' a __ _ ' ' ' : ~ ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' CITY OF RENTON KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT Citv of Renton Planning Division RECORDING NO. BOOK/PAGE "-, "' "' ' ' ' SCALE: =w ' " ' ........ ,,. "\, ' ' 0 2& 50 100 150 , ' PORTION OF' FILE NO: LUA-07-089-LLA NOV 1 3 2009 t "'"" ' LANO RECORD NUMBER: LND-30-0333 fB) ~ (Pu rEfi\\ll~ ff5' : , '~Q,_.. SW 1//-4 OF NW 1/4 SECTION 20, TVoP. 2J N., R. ~ E., W.M. lril ~ \\.,Q ILia ~ 1.5 LY I "' \ ~ NW 1 4 Of SW 1/-' SEC"TIOM 20, TV!f'. 2J N., R. ~ E.. W.M. :,1 I rouNO ~EDAA (MO CAP)\ :J;,~' ~ =~~ml © NOT IE'!.,_ -I 00 '" "' -~ ' \ ~ '\. @(1n· UTlHY EASEl,IENT-THS F"OIJN;l 1/2" FIEllAR MTH cw''\' ~ '' -.,..,, ·=·" '''"' ('lj-,._ ~ LOTA-1 Co\l.CUL,\,lEO POSITION -('~ (IIPl'EJ,RS lllmRIED) \ ' ' ~ _,----,...........--:,..--r--i I , ~ )(~ ' ',....._,_ ,of ;.oi'' e<>' t1.A~.,,,1~ ~t~1 : / I ', "" ', ! ~:\. ~ \ »-''---....._ ----i ~\ // I >':;/ />,'------........... : \ // / --~ =~, V "' -- 1 ~i PDl!NIRTPI.ATNO. / ~A ,fl / F \ / 'IIOM SP 023-fP @ (10' U~CROO'ID / A' ELECTRICAL -THS AREA) / / / ' "e.. ~~~--~ /y /. '-'"-~'® r:. -.// / I .,.L£.,GEN.,,,,D'=::-::::------ \ L.~---..J EASOIENT._ / \ 0 fOUM'.I REBAR 'lllltt ~ CM' ,w ~T "-.f \ I ~~ / <r'T'-91 SqR. / / I (UNI.DiS OTHERW;SE NOlEtl) DIA8UI -SE,\m.E I I I I --® _,.. " FCUIO wc»IUMElH IN CASE TRNGIISSIOII l.:tlE / -I POI A..f NO. :,M04'III pflOPC:,SfJ! !'f!OPOITY UIIE _ ""'°', ) DC)CJ W<ST QIJA!f!ER C(RMER OF SEC1\0H 20 S02.'3&'11"E ,/ ,/ \~ H1 96' _,,--I WDl(Nf ~(lo&# I {GALCUL.AltD POSlna+ ONL't'. ~T \1Sl1m) I ~~, ,.// l';:!..,1 ..,,. / ~ ~o ~ACREST) _\------,;l,o r-sif'\. • REBAIII "MTH CN> STAMPED "EM' 171!179" ... ' ' 11.!Y\ ,,,. ........ I TO !IE SET f'OU..Olll'-'G RECORDINC FllUMl&/&"REBIIR 800' .,; \ \ I / / ' .m!CN'"KOll:29238" l '\' I /r.,, / I -i \ °& / FOUND REBAA {NO CN>) \ ::7) ,, \ ..,.l ,/_.-/---------------,.,·=~=m ---------·-, I'\/ / -i pt}f POSITION \ IJNPIJ,TIED • '(,AY ,, I ofe~, -- " @ I ~~l'EEASEMEHTFY:>R 1/j / l=~-RoA.DsooTH\ ',,d:J'rfl'~ PA.IIIQNGaA.CCESSE.\SEME>IT \ ---i """"'AAY S0ER I/ · ' }V"".(lO'I F'OII THE BDlmT OI' P"°"°5W l<IN(il COUNTY RECORDING / ' I ... ;.o ...... p-· LDT ..__, PD Kl'IG 00.JNTY \ ----- ·-· )/ \)!V~ I"" RECOROING NO ----_ ,,,.,,.,... "'·" / I : " ..---1 -------------/ / I I LOT B-1 ! --__)---_ -..---~ ,&/ , --------I --..-- r ?3 '@I i ~ ,of ~' ~ ) \)\_ / •""'Jf' 1 '" _ -------,. \ _ ..----I . .£11~~1'-I V ·~130· --------"f ~M!!R~~ b~ ~ ~;;,J ~-I I I )~1!~.., 1' -~ -----\ (;F" c:.\l.O.IL.AlED POSITION '' / I I I 0 \ ,·"'"· ~ ,,.;.~,-p --..---I -------· ---1 •\1\":_ J lJ;;~·'l.t' \i -------J ...----- 1...:r.01-~eo-11...i~·ao \~--------__,... -, ----1._,H, ---\') __.-1111... --------I ,.. _. S:t 00 a 20 " 100 THE SW1/4 OF THE NWl/4 AND THE NWl/4 ~ THE SW1/4, SECTION 20, TlillP. 2J N., R. ~ E., W.M. ~ ---(§,_____ ~·· __..--------'I ,. ------t ~ .PLS..lnc. KORUGA LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT -----~ w. 1/4 COIi.. =-~ ff11tW--..----("IIJ ffNml jlilo'/'1Uffl DRAWN BY: KAP CHECKED SY! BW OATE: JOB NO.: DEC 12, 2007 '"" SCALE: SHEET: 1·-50' • " • 2QJ ffi ~ [fiij = ~ [fiij lg z 0 "' -·· ""' ,_, = = = -- \ \ \ ' ' \ __'.\ ~ ' \ ' \ ''\ \ \ \ ' ' ' \ ' \ ' \ ~ I : ;. I ~ ! ....,. mr, PRELIMINARY Cl !1 .. ~ SITE PLAN -!i ~ ~1;1=· " j "' , THE LODGE ~ I !C;! AT EAGLE RIDGE -- REVISIONS • THE LOOGE AT EAGLE RIDGE 1S11 EMU: RIDGE OR. S. RENTI»I, WASHINGTON t % --- 11 - vP"! >~ r.1..v . l@il r.,.2 .. , ~ ~T.l.2'' I j/////// / ,, i'' /. ,, ... . :··. I . I 60 T.l,JJ (I) '" T-L.28 I lillil Id ' -"'1.12 I I f-w <!) ::, 0.. I 3 2009 \ 0.918AG. T.l.$5 , .. IZ28 {335~ ~32~ 1~ I ., _., +, I ,,_ I ,.. \J ~ '.t;;- \"fRO \ \ \ \ \ ;J " TRANSMIS ' (,AJJ/.0 ERl' ,, \\ \\ \\ II \\ II II " , , 11 11 I I .. \~ I I ON 1 I I SE, ---' " ' ' T.cHT.._-+-- C PL IING & DEVELOPMENT COMMI ·E COMMITIEE REPORT November 1, 2010 Eagle Ridge PUD Application Appeal LUA-09-150 PPUD, ECF (Referred 10/4/10) APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL Date II-/-.J.010 The Planning & Development Committee recommends that the full City Council grant the applicant Mr. Chris Koruga's Eagle Ridge PUD Application appeal and reverse the Hearing Examiner's decision to require pitched or peaked roofs at a ratio of 6:12. Specifically, the Hearing Examiner stated in his July 12, 2010, hearing decision, on page 16, recommendation 13 that "[t]he applicant shall provide peaked or pitched roofs as part of his proposal." In the Hearing Examiner's response to the applicant's motion to reconsider, dated August 30, 2010, on page 3, recommendation 16, he stated that "[t]he applicant shall provide pitched or peaked roofs on both buildings at ratio 6:12." The Hearing Examiner erred by requiring the applicant to use pitched or sloped roofs under RMC 4-3-100 (E)(S) Building Roof Lines. RMC 4-3-100 (E)(S), under the subsection entitled "Standards", states that "[a)t least one of the following elements shall be used to create varied and interesting roof profiles." The applicant, Mr. Koruga, had three of the four elements as a part of his design. As a result, the Hearing Examiner exceeded the reasonable use of his discretion under RMC 4-9-150 (C)(3). The committee recommends that recommendation 13 of the July 12, 2010 hearing decision and recommendation 16 of the August 30, 2010 response to the motion for reconsideration be stricken. The Planning & Development Committee further recommends that the Council adopt the remainder of the Hearing Examiner's findings, conclusions and recommendations. Kin~e-hair ~~ Rich Zwicker, Member C: Gera Id Wasser Jennifer Henning Alex Pietsch / Gerald Wasser Development Services Renton, WA 98057 Chris _Koruga Eagle Ridge LLC 5454 30th Ave SW Seattle, WA 98126 / Loraine Lafoon Berks.hire Apartments, Mgr. Office 1300 Eagle Ridge Drive S Renton, WA 98055 ~yren Kittrick Development Services Rerrton, WA98057 /John Minden ™ Architects 1869 E Seltiee Way, Ste. 336 Post Falls, ID 83854 ~enYu Eagle Ridge HOA 1100 Eagle Ridge Drive S, #A Renton, WA 98055 • ~bert Hancheroff 17710 234th Ave SE Maple Valley, WA 98038 /John Murphy New Home Trends, Inc. 4314148th Street SE Mill Creek, WA 98012 /vanHong PO Bo~ 14136 Seattle, WA98114 --------~---------·---· November 1, 2010 APPEAL Planning & Development Committee Appeal: Eagle Ridge PUD, Koruga, LUA-09-150 Renton City Council Minutes Page 348 programs of service: 1) providing free clothing to those in need, 2) funding shoes, socks, underwear, over-sized clothing, athletic equipment, and other items not found at the clothes bank to needy school children, and 3) the Dress for Success program for men and women seeking or returning to work. She noted that while referrals are required, persons may receive referrals from clubs and organizations, churches, schools, or from individuals. Sue Paro (Lynnwood), Executive Director of Renton Communities In Schools (CISR), expressed appreciation for Council's support of Human Services programs. She stated that she was initially disappointed to hear that the funding request for the Family Liaison and Mentor programs had not been recommended because CISR has been a part of the fabric of the Renton community for 16 years, but was pleased that Council was reconsidering their request. Ms. Paro remarked that the City needs human services agencies to serve people, and CISR has stellar programs that serve over 3,000 students in 12 schools. Elaine Purchase (North Bend), Pediatric Interim Care Center of Kent (PICC), stated that she is grateful for the support the organization will receive from the City. She remarked that PICC has served drug-exposed and medically fragile infants in the community for 20 years. Ms. Purchase stated that about 70 of the approximately 1,800 babies born in Renton will be drug-exposed in some way and will require services only PICC can provide. She remarked that narcotic assisted withdrawal programs cost approximately $3,700 per day at hospitals and only $170 per day at PICC from taxpayer money due to funds raised. Ms. Purchase stated that the organization has lost state funding and is requesting assistance from neighboring communities. David Emery (Kent), Spiritual Care Director for Bridge Disability Ministries of Bellevue, stated this his organization provides mobility equipment, including walkers, wheelchairs, motorized chairs, and/or canes, at no cost to those in need. He reported that their guardianship program provides care for individuals who would otherwise be wards of the state, and that there are seven individuals in Renton benefiting from this program. Mr. Emery thanked Council for their support of the guardianship program. Fay Melton (Renton), Director of Provider Services for Child Care Resources, stated that her agency helps families find quality childcare for those who are seeking or maintaining employment. She explained that it is well documented that finding childcare is a barrier to families seeking employment. She also noted that her organization coaches and trains early learning professionals. There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. Planning and Development Committee Chair Briere presented a report regarding the Eagle Ridge PUD application appeal. The Committee recommends that the full Council grant the applicant Mr. Chris Koruga's Eagle Ridge PUD application appeal and reverse the Hearing Examiner's decision to require pitched or peaked roofs at a ratio of 6:12. Specifically, the Hearing Examiner stated in his July 12, 2010 hearing decision, on page 16, recommendation 13, that "[t]he applicant shall provide peaked or pitched roofs I as part of his proposal." In the Hearing Examiner's response to the applicant's November 1, 2010 AUDIENCE COMMENT Citizen Comment: Grimes - Kendall Annexation Address Change Request CONSENT AGENDA Council Meeting Minutes of 10/25/2010 CAG: 10-114, Earlington Park - Pathway Repair & Replacement, Hot Mix Pavers CAG: 09-155, Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park -Asphalt Pathway Repaving, Superior Asphalt Maintenance Community Services: 2010 Neighborhood Grant Applications (second round) Renton City Council Minutes Page 349 motion to reconsider, dated August 30, 2010, on page 3, recommendation 16, he stated that "[t]he applicant shall provide pitched or peaked roofs on both buildings at ratio 6:12. The Hearing Examiner erred by requiring the applicant to use pitched or sloped roofs under RMC 4-3-100.E.5., Building Roof Lines. RMC4-3-100.E.5., under the subsection entitled "Standards," stated that "[a]t least one of the following elements shall be used to create varied and interesting roof profiles." The applicant, Mr. Koruga, had three of the four elements as a part of his design. As a result, the Hearing Examiner exceeded the reasonable use of his discretion under RMC 4-9-150.C.3. The Committee recommends that recommendation 13 of the July 12, 2010 hearing decision and recommendation 16 of the August 30, 2010 response to the motion for reconsideration be stricken. The Committee further recommended that the Council adopt the remainder of the Hearing Examiner's findings, conclusions, and recommendations. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY PARKER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITIEE REPORT. CARRIED. Carol Grimes (Renton) stated that her property was recently annexed to the City and was notified that her address would change. She pointed out that hers is the only home on 158th Ave. SE that was part of the Kendall annexation, and requested that her address remain unchanged until the rest of the homes on her block are annexed and also change address. Community and Economic Development Administrator Alex Pietsch explained City policy regarding street names and recommended that Ms. Grimes' address remain unchanged until the rest of the homes on her block are annexed. Council voiced no objections. Items listed on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. Approval of Council meeting minutes of 10/25/2010. Council concur. Community Services Department submitted CAG-10-114, Earlington Park- Asphalt Pathway Repair and Replacement; and requested approval of the project, commencement of a 60-day lien period, and release of retained amount of $1,283.23 to Hot Mix Pavers, Inc., contractor, if all required releases are obtained. Council concur. Community Services Department submitted CAG-09-155, Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park -Asphalt Pathway Repaving; and requested approval of the project, commencement of a 60-day lien period, and release of retained amount of $4,957.50 to Superior Asphalt Maintenance, Inc., contractor, if all required releases are obtained. Council concur. Community Services Department reported submission of seven grant applications for the 2010 Neighborhood Grant Program (second round), and recommended funding six newsletters in the total amount of $5,512. Refer to Community Services Committee. . PL ~ING & DEVELOPMENT COMM_ .. EE COMMITTEE REPORT November 1, 2010 Eagle Ridge PU D Application Appeal LUA-09-150 PPUD, ECF (Referred 10/4/10) APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL Date ll-1-:zo10 The Planning & Development Committee recommends that the full City Council grant the applicant Mr. Chris Koruga's Eagle Ridge PUD Application appeal and reverse the Hearing Examiner's decision to require pitched or peaked roofs at a ratio of 6:12. Specifically, the Hearing Examiner stated in his July 12, 2010, hearing decision, on page 16, recommendation 13 that "[t]he applicant shall provide peaked or pitched roofs as part of his proposal." In the Hearing Examiner's response to the applicant's motion to reconsider, dated August 30, 2010, on page 3, recommendation 16, he stated that "[t]he applicant shall provide pitched or peaked roofs on both buildings at ratio 6:12." The Hearing Examiner erred by requiring the applicant to use pitched or sloped roofs under RMC 4-3-100 (E)(S) Building Roof Lines. RMC 4-3-100 (E)(S), under the subsection entitled "Standards", states that "[a]t least one of the following elements shall be used to create varied and interesting roof profiles." The applicant, Mr. Koruga, had three ofthe four elements as a part of his design. As a result, the Hearing Examiner exceeded the reasonable use of his discretion under RMC 4-9-150 (C)(3). The committee recommends that recommendation 13 of the July 12,2010 hearing decision and recommendation 16 of the August 30, 2010 response to the motion for reconsideration be stricken. The Planning & Development Committee further recommends that the Council adopt the remainder of the Hearing Examiner's findings, conclusions and recommendations. C: Gerald Wasser Jennifer He~ning Alex Pietsch • ' . ' October { 2Q10 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT CONSENT AGENDA Council Meeting Minutes of 9/27/2010 Appeal: Eagle Ridge PUD, Chris Koruga, LUA-09-150 Renton City Council Minutes Page 307 Councilmember Taylor remarked that he believes that the level of awareness regarding domestic violence must be raised to a higher concern. He stated that it is important to understand that the level of concern typically displayed from women's groups should be shared by men. Mr. Taylor also remarked that he is proud that Council is taking a position to support the efforts of the Eastside Domestic Violence Program, and that he looks forward to the day when the prevalence of domestic violence is eradicated. Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington reviewed a written administrative report summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of its business plan for 2010 and beyond. Items noted: * A free document shredding event will take place at the Sam's Club parking lot, 901 5. Grady Way, on Saturday, October 9, from 9 a.m. to noon (or until the truck is full). Citizens are invited to bring up to five boxes containing paper documents. Boxes should be about 12 inches wide by 15 inches long and approximately 10 inches high, or bring the amount of paper that would fit in a box that size. Documents should be free of paper clips and other metal (staples do not need to be removed). Plastic items such as credit cards, notebooks and CD's cannot be accepted. Iron Mountain will provide the shredding services and the Renton Police Department will provide information related to identity theft. Donations of canned goods will be accepted for the Renton Food Bank. * Transportation Division, in response to requests by a citizen and by the manager of the Renton License Agency, was able to delineate an on-street accessible disabled parallel parking space on Houser Way S. at the intersection with Williams Ave. S. Provision of on-street disabled parking spaces is difficult because of the need to provide a clear space 13-feet wide (normal parking stalls are eight-feet wide). Signing and new crosswalk markings were also installed at that location. The new parking space is the only on-street disabled parking space in the City. * Corridor Design Builders, the contractors for the 1-405 improvement project, scheduled the improvements for the SR 169 on-ramp to southbound 1-405 to start on September 27, and expects to re-open the HOV lane, weather permitting. They will return to install final lane striping after re-opening the ramp. This item is of note because the current restrictions on this on-ramp have been causing backups on southbound Sunset Blvd., and also to traffic heading west down the hill on NE 3rd St. Items listed on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. At the request of Councilmember Zwicker, Item 6.b. was removed for separate consideration. Approval of Council meeting minutes of 9/27/2010. Council concur. City Clerk reported appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision regarding the Eagle Ridge PUD application (LUA-09-150, ECF, PPUD); appeal filed by Chris Koruga, , Eagle Ridge Villas, LLC, accompanied by required fee. Refer to Planning and I Development Committee. ' ' CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Subject/Title: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 7/12/2010 regarding the Eagle Ridge PUD application; 1600 Benson Rd S. (File No. LUA-09- 150 ECF, PPUD) Exhibits: Responses to appeal notice (3) (9/27/2010) City Clerk's appeal notification letter (9/17/2010) Appeal to Council from Chris Koruga, Eagle Ridge Villas, LLC. (9/10/2010) Recommended Action: Refer to Planning and Development Committee. Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required: $ Amount Budgeted:$ Total Project Budget:$ SUMMARY OF ACTION: EXHIBITS CONTINUED: N/A N/A N/A Meeting: Regular Council -04 Oct 2010 Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board: Executive Staff Contact: Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk Transfer Amendment: $ Revenue Generated: $ City Share Total Project: $ Response to Request for Reconsideration (8/30/2010) Request for Reconsideration from Chris Koruga, Eagle Ridge Villas, LLC. (7/26/2010) Hearing Examiners' Recommendation (7/12/2010) N/A N/A NIA Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's Recommendation on the Eagle Ridge Apartments & Offices PUD; 1600 Benson Rd S. was filed on September 10, 2010, by Chris Koruga, Eagle Ridge Villas, LLC., accompanied by the required $250.00 fee. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Council to take action on the Hearing Examiner's Recommendation and the subsequent appeal regarding the Eagle Ridge Apartments & Offices PUD application . • , EAGLE RIDGE VILLAS LLC CITY OF RENTON Renton City Council 1055 South GradyWay Renton, Wa 98057 Dear Council Members, SEP 2. 7 2010 i'!ECE/VEQ CITY CLER~'S OFFICE I am one of the owners of the mixed-use project known as Eagle Ridge Apartments and Offices PUD. A Hearing Examiner's decision of July 12, 201 o has been appealed to the Renton City Council and I would like to take this opportunity to provide comments and support of our position as you prepare to deliberate on this very important matter. Our company has invested three years and over $200,000 in trying to design a project on our property that is both economically feasible as well as aesthetically pleasing to the prospective tenants, neighbors and the public at large. We feel we have accomplished that. The buildings we propose and the amenities we are offering to tenants and the public are creative, innovative and will be a welcome addition to the Benson Hill Neighborhood. The construction and operations of the buildings will provide jobs for dozens of local residents and add thousands of dollars in tax revenues to the City, State and Federal governments. Most importantly they will provide quality, affordable housing, office space and open space to more than 200 residents of the Renton community. We believe strongly that condition #16 of the 23 conditions outlined in the Hearing Examiners Report is unnecessary. This condition requires that we build a 6/12 pitched roof on our buildings and alter the design we have submitted. We concur with the Examiner on all conditions except this one. 5454 JOthAveSW Seattle.WA 98126 206 937-4525 206 595-5791 • EAGLE RIDGE VILLAS LLC The decision to use a pitched roof or a flat roof, provided the code does not exclude one or the other, should be left to the designer and not the Examiner. The Commercial Arterial design guidelines of Renton do not encourage either pitched or flat roofs. The fact is that most CA zoned properties in Renton and other municipalities opt for flat roofs with building details that resemble what we have proposed. · Our project was designed in the spirit of the Burien Town Center which incorporates commercial space and residential living units. Like the Town Center and many CA zoned properties around our City, there is a predominant mix of residential units vis a vis commercial space. Ours is no exception. To reiterate our position we hope the Council will consider the following facts that were presented at the Hearings: 1) Eagle Ridge Villas LLC has presented a creative, innovative mixed use project which has met all but one of the conditions that the Hearing Examiner requested. 2) The City of Renton Building Department had expressed no objection to our proposed flat roof during any of the preliminary applications, during plan review over 2 years, or at either of the Hearings conducted by the Hearing Examiner. 3) The Commercial Arterial Design Criteria does not require pitched roofs even if the predominant component of a project submitted are residential living units. 4) The majority of rooflines in Commercial Arterial Zoned areas are flat. 5) The majority of rooftines in Commercial Arterial Zoned areas along Benson HIii Road S. are flat. 6) The rooffine for these proposed buildings, because of the elevations, is not visible from Benson Hill Road South or from within the proposed project. 7) The only neighbor whose view is impacted by our proposed rooffine is the Lodge at Eagle Ridge. They have expressed no objection to the use of a flat roof. EAGLE RIDGE VILLAS LLC 8) In the spirit of cooperation with our only neighbor who would be impacted by our structures, The Lodge, we have entered into an agreement to protect their views by limiting the height of our buildings. That height limitation is reflected in our proposal. Condition 16 is oppressive and unnecessary. It would force us to take off two floors of our proposed building, eliminate 40% of our units and render the project economically unfeasible. In 2006 we proposed a 29 unit multi family project on this property to the City of Renton and completed preliminary review. The project, which featured 6/12 rooflines, was discouraged, or, perhaps more accurately, redirected towards a higher density use in the pending Commercial Arterial zoning. We were told that the City was encouraging higher density and mixed use projects. We have been guided by the City of Renton Building Department for three years and now find ourselves in the difficult position of having lost our rights to build our initial project, having invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in this project and unsure if we are even going to be able to utilize our land. My partner Dr. Robert Hancheroff and I have a long history in Renton. We have built and managed properties in Renton for over 40 years. This is our community! We believe in Renton and want to continue investing our time and energy in quality projects like the one we have proposed. I hope the council will consider the benefits of this project, its aesthetic validity and the value that it will bring to our community. Sincerely, ·-~ Chris Koruga Eagle Ridge Villas LLC - The Renton City Council 1 055 South Grady Way Renton, Wa 98057 Re: File No. LUA-09-150, PPUD, ECF Sept. 22, 2010 Dear Renton City Council, RECEIVED SEP 2 7 2010 Renton City Council CITY OF RENTON SEP 27 2010 RECEIVED . CITY CLERK'S OFFICE I am writing this letter in support of a mixed-use project that was submitted to the Hearing Examiner and which is being appealed to your office. Over the past two years f have been working alongside John Minden, the lead architect hired by Eagle Ridge Villas LLCf. Part of my responsibility has been to do design and landscape research for the project. Two years ago we met with the Renton Building Department and were furnished with the guidelines for development in the commercial arterial zoning of Renton. At that point we began our preliminary research into structures and site access requirements that would fit within these design guidelines. Over the first year we looked at numerous buildings within the Renton City limits as well as surrounding municipalities like Kent, Burien, Seattle and Bellevue. The nature of this zoning and the desire of the City or Renton to incorporate higher density and mixed uses challenged us to find the right design that would fit on this unique site. We settled on buildings which have many of the characteristics of the award winning Burien Town Center: www.burientownsquare.com/ Our buildings have a modern design with extended soffiting and oversized cedar supports. To add further interest we proposed several different siding materials, colors and transitions. The exterior transitions in this design allow us to keep residents connected to the outside and have a feeling of privacy within a large community. I hope the council can appreciate the efforts John Minden and l have made in the design of this project. We are very proud of the project and hope you will agree it is worth building. Sincerely, ~~· ~~~zy-- Ana Maria Aguirre Koruga U . () . ,· _:. -e._.,.... 1r l ~. l.,. '<> J V ,~· ~-. --l ~r·-:-; \<'..: . .e .. ,,_rr..::., ,..__; ii, I,, I,, !Ji ... ,,!; l,i>1, l .. ii,J, i,.li;, ,i.1,1,Li, I, .. JI/ Renton City Council 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Wa 98057 RE: File No. LUA 09 150 PPUD, EDF Dear City Council, CITY OF RENTON SEP 27 2010 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE · Via C.»14,I I enclose a letter and engineering drawings from TEC engineering group, the principal civil engineers on our project at 1600 S. Benson Hill Rd, currently under appeal to the council. In addition I am enclosing a copy of a View Easement and Restrictive Covenant which was entered into by The Lodge at Eagle Ridge and Eagle Ridge Villas LLC. The intention of this view easement was to protect, to as great a degree as possible, the views of our neighbor, The Lodge at Eagle Ridge. Ultimately we agreed on a height restriction of 226 above sea level which translates into five feet above the grade level of the Lodge. The final easement document signed by the two parties wm be made available to you upon request We thank you for your attention to these details. Over the past several years we have worked closely with our neighbors to create a project that will be welcomed by everyone concerned. There have been no objections to the style of our building or the rooflines by any of the interested parties. Sincerely,c s::2 Chris Koruga Eagle Ridge Villas LLC • Tayl_or . Engmeenng Consultants September 27, 20 I 0 Mr. Chris Koruga 5454 30"' Avenue SW Seattle, WA 98126 Re: Eagle Ridge Apartments/Mixed-Use, impacts ofa gable roof Dear Chris: 485 Rainier Blvd. N, Ste. 102 P.O. Box 1787 Issaquah, WA 98027 phone (425) 391-1415 fax (425)391-1551 ~-tec:civfl.com I have reviewed the sight lines for the proposed Eagle Ridge Apartment/Mixed-Use buildings to determine the visibility of the roof from the Benson Road South frontage as well as the private assisted living facility behind. Attached are two cross sections cut through the proposed facility. These show that the line of sight from the Benson frontage does not provide any visibility of the roof. Similarly, the sight lines from the property behind are such that only the peaked portion of the gable would be visible. As a result, we can conclude that the roof type (gabled roof versus flat) has limited impact on the aesthetic value from the roadway frontage; and the property to the east sits substantially above the project lot so the · aesthetic value of a gabled roof is lost from this perspective. Furthermore, J understand that the owner of this neighboring property is not opposed to a flat roof, and is merely concerned that the maximum building height be no higher than elevation 226. . . In addition to the aesthetic impacts, there is a financial impact resulting from the loss of useable space. · Constructing the zoning code-required 6:12 gabled roof slope results in a 15-foot high gable peak. This. reduces the available building volume by 2 stories, which may make the project financially infeasible. Sincerely, Taylor Engineering Consultants, Inc. William N. Taylor, P.E. Principal \jobs:\307-TfC\lEITER_Oiris KQrUga.doc " 1.1 . ~' ,-1 -r I '.\ i .. ; l / ---i-' . ~ ---:·· i iii I 1"'¥!']--c t-T -~..... l1s;;,.. It I I ~' t..___,, I :-~-= '-[I I . '-1 B . !.-· -· ' '· ·\· ·» .. \ "-1 I f -- 'i--L.J."'\'.'. ~' .):. :· ~--~ L ... . ' ' .......... -_ --. ---~---' 1 ' I -I I ! After Filing Return To: Cairncross & Hempelmann, P .S. Attention: Jeremie Lipton 524 Second Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98104--2323 VIEW EASEMENT AND RESTRICTIVE COVENANT Reference numbers of related documents: 20080513900012 Grantor: Eagle Ridge Villa ILC, a Washington limited liability company Grantee: The Lodge at Eagle Ridge, LLC, a Washington limited liability company Legal Dey:ription (abbreviated): Portion of Lot B. Short Plat No. LUA-06-074-SHPL, REC. 20070308900006, KING COUNTY WASHINGTON Assessor's Tax Parcel ID #'s: Portion of Tax Parcel# 2023059162 {()()9?..9188.IXlC;3 ) VIEW EASEMENT AND RESTRICTIVE COVENANT TIIlS EASEMENT AND RESTRICTIVE COVENANT(" Agreement") is made ihis __ day of · , 2009, by E.agle Ridge Villa, LLC, a Washington limited liability company ("Grantor") and The Lodge at Eagle Ridge, LLC, a Washington limited liability company ("Grantee"). . · RECITALS A. Grantor is the owner of that certain real property described in Exhibit A attached hereto ("Grantor Property''). · · B. Grantee is the owner of that certain real property described in Exhibit B attached hereto ("Grantee Property"). · · · C. The Eastern most 60 feet of the Granter Property as depicted on the. drawing referenced in Exhibit C attached hereto ("Easement Area"), was added to the Grantor Property pursuant to Lot Line Adjustment NO. LUA--07--089-LLA recorded under King County recording No. 20080513900012 ("Lot Line Adjustment"), and was part of the Grantee Property prior to the Lot Line Adjustment. D. Grantee purchased the Grantee Property which included the Easement Area, from Topman Fellow Corporation, a Washington Corporation ("Seller"). · · E. Under the purchase agreement by and between Seller and Grantee, Grantee and Seller agreed that subsequent to approval of the Lot Line Adjustment, Grantee would convey the Easement Area to Seller subject to Seller's grant of the easement included under this Agreement. F. Seller has assigned and transferred all of its rights and obligations arising under the purchase agreement to Grantor including the right to the conveyance of the Easement Area and the obligation to grant the easement contained in this Agreement. AGREEMENT· NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are acknowledged, Grantor and Grantee agree as follows: 1. Height of Structure. Grantor and Grantee agree that the grade-level of the e:,;isting facility on the Grantee Property is 216 feet above sea level. Granto, covenants and agrees that the maximum height of any structure developed on the Easement Area after the date of this Agreement shall not exceed 221 feet above sea level (HHeight Limit"). 2. Run with Land. The covenant contained herein shall run in favor of the Grantee Property .shall run with the land, and be binding on and inure to the benefit of the parties' m=sors and assigns. (00929!88.DOC;3 l I ---------------------. 3. Governing Law. This Agreement ·shall be governed by the laws of the State of Washington. 4. Litigation. If a suit, action, or other proceeding of any narure whatsoever, is instituted in connection with any controversy arising out of this Agreement or to interpret or enforce any rights or obligations hereunder, the substantially prevailing party shall be entitled to recover attorney, paralegal, accountant, and other expert fees and all other fees, costs, and expenses actually incurred and reasonably necessary in connection therewith, as determined by the court at trial oi-on any appeal or review, in addition to all other amounts provided by law. 5. Authority. Each individual signing below represents and warrants _that they have full power, authority and legal right to execute; deliver and perform this Agreement on behalf of the party entering into this Agreement and to pe1:form all of its obligations hereunder. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor and Grantee have executed this Agreement as of the date first above written. GRANTOR EAGLE RIDGE VILLA LLC, a Washington lirnited liability company By: Chris Koruga Its: Manager GRANTEE THE LODGE AT EAGLE RIDGE, LLC, a Washington limited liability company By: Leon Grunstein Its: Co-Manager By: Martin McCurry Its: Co-Manager [Acknowledgmenrs follow on next page/ {0092918&.DOC;3 }2 Denis Law Mayor September 17, 2010 . APPEALFILED BY: City Clerk • Bonnie I. Walton Eagle Ridge Apartments & Offices PUD by Chris Koruga· . . . . . ~E: Appe;,I of Hearing Examiner'sdecision dated July i2;201o;regarciing Preliminary . Planned Urban Development for a mixed-use development including cornm<,.rcial & residential uses, known as Eagle Ridge PUD, 1600 Benson Road S. (File No. LUA-09-150. PPUD, ECF) . . . . ·To Parties of Record: Pursuantt~ Titl~ IV, Chapter 8 1 Renton City C~de of Ordinances, written appeal of the hearing examiner's decisi6.n on the Eagle Ridge PUD has been fried with the City Clerk. · -.-. . .. . . In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-llOF, within. five days of receipt of the . · notice of appeal, or after all appeal periods With the Hearing·Exarniner have expired, the City Clerk shaU notify all parties of record of th!' receipt of the appeal. Other parties of record may submit letters limited to support of their positions regarding the appeal within ten .(10) .days of the date of majling of this notification. The deadline.for submission of additional letters is by 5:00 p.m., Monday, September 27, 2010. · NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN.that the written appeal and other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee. The Council Liaison will notify all parties of record of the dat!' and time of the Planning and Development Committee meeting. The Council Liaison may.be contacted at 425-430-6501. The recomniend 9tion of the · Committee will be presented for consideratiori by the full Council at a subsequent Council meeting. Copy ohhe appeal and the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeal of Hearing Examiner . decisions or recommendations is attached, Please note that the City Councilwili be ··considering the merits of the appeal based upon the written retord. previously established. · 1,Jnless a showing can be made that additional evidence could not reasonably have been available at the prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner, no further e·vidence or testimony · on this matter will be accepted by the City Council.· For additional information or assistance, please cali me at 425-430-6510. · Sincere I y, Bonnie I. Wafton City Clerk Attachments .cc: Council Liaison -. . . . ' . . 1055 S~_uth Grady Way·· Renton, Washington 98057 • (425).430-6510 / Fax (425) 430-6516 • rentonwa.gov APPEAL TO RENTON CITY COUNC1L OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION &fJie.. R,'d-3e.. /fparlmellis<-{}{+'tees flu]) L v A oq -1 ~.., APPLICATION NAME C J,..---, > j:'.::'.o .--~ <ri4 FilENO._,_E..._r_· F-=-~_,ff'-'-P_...,~? fhe undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated f'tv, 3 ., , 20_i:_c,, o l. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT: Name: Lkr-t\. CITYOFRENTON J0:"3~ SEP) 0 20!0-ou'l REPRESENTATIVE (IF ANY): k'. 0 ,... " 1 ft Name: CITY 6!:11i1/~EBmcE Address: SA 54 3s::,+\ A,ve '7\.JAddress: __________ _ 5-e rA-:rtl e \. ,J A q "5 1-z..(c Phone Number: _.:2..=<D:c.· \o=----5'--q-'-"-c;---_.,Gc....l.._.'1.,_f _ Phone Number:------------ Email: 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: Finding of Fact: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's Report) No. Error: ______________________________ _ Correction:----------------------------- Conclusions: No. Error:------------------------------- Correetion: ----------------------------- Other: {'ec.o,..,,.,_e.dA--r,;;,,v. . I . No. Error: f2:~~, -r-\x: 1 ..-0 ,e, :c <.> ,-, b ", l A 14-\,j .._ -(, : I 2.. p ,,,.c.~ ,-t\ rf c:-s \,-'O (::I t) l A-~.,_, u..::. I ,--·, ,<.Jc;. ..Q.. ,· -r :r:+ . A-l'-"' ,+---te... 0 ,-f-s 6> A L' I$ A-,v A,,,$ e.-.-,c...\'-\. u-.,..1 j>\-e.A-5 \ "'"''7 ...f--e"-+<'1..,;, <0,V,,.. C.A-,.,_, <o-t-j-e_e_ -\-1.._...,___ CorrectrOll: rao6l11.&:r' fY's,,,., S+c~@_.-tlt/e19l:\...o,,.../ e·~efe~ . . . e , t., I c,· l I ,., ' "' e,ts t e c"',,, ~ .,. e& n-= I o ,.._, ±le. 1 b ~.~ 'Ei<., e. '"r 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REOUES1ED The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: v-o"'-? (Attach explanation, if desired) Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: Modify the decision or reco=endation as follows: Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: Other: £ L, ,... , N Ar l>'.. C./311'17> , n ;,, ,-.,, ±t. / b O + f".\,;.J,I "e(.o~~=dA--1-1<>.v ,o,+ II ~-\ • ~-,~'--"-r-t--eA-r-1.,.....c; -· · c ... J.,."',:, IL=.,.......,"" A~ntative Signature Type/Printed Name , 2 3, C o ,-.J J 11; ~ ~'I.JS. r:;:: X" A-"' 1 =~r-: :Zf!/lT 10 Z.6/C Date NOTE: Please refer to Title N, Chapter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4-8-l!OF, for specific,.appeal pro~ures. '.[ : L.-,_,c'1 wc...c, = .. 11--('\),. b .. , We.,~ / n"'"; I Wv...ib , c (Sb / ..}e ""''.:: ... -\-1, ""'"4 -C...E -t, / CJ.-.,,o v, "'-e,,..+ CED ) f".'.r-ed hc......d~ -1-\~J".. · --· I Request for Reconsideration: History In 2006 Eagle Ridge Villas LLC completed preliminary review with the City of Renton to build a single family project consisting of 32 town homes on their site at 1600 Benson Hill Rd. South in Renton, Wa. ( Exhibit One, Site Plan for Town home Development ) In that same year we were notified by Neil Watts of the City of Renton that a new zoning was being considered for our property which would significantly increase the density allowed on our property . · This new zoning, Commercial Arterial ( CA) was to be implemented at some time in the near future and, according to Mr. Watts, there would be advantages to submitting a plan that took advantage of that proposed higher density zoning. We agreed and awaited the formal change which took place in 2008 when our property was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 5327. In 2008 we engaged our architects and engineers to study the site and propose a design for a building that would fit into the newly adopted CA zoning. After analyzing the regulations and requirements for a Commercial Arterial project it became apparent that our site was not suited for this zoning. Unlike other CA zoned properties in Renton which are located along flat, more heavily trafficked commercial corridors we were isolated along an arterial that had little or no commercial activity and a significant gradient that made a level commercial frontage impossible. In order to comply with the new zoning we were required to load our commercial space along the gradient of Benson Hill Rd. S. and provide parking within the structure for users of that building. Taylor Engineering, civil engineers for the project, notified us that the only way to satisfy these requirements would be to excavate into the hillside and remove thousands of yards of dirt behind and above the commercial units to create the space necessary for a garage of this magnitude. The actual excavation footprint was 200 feet along Benson Hill Rd. S, 120 feet east into the hillside at depths reaching 30 feet. ( See Exhibit Two, Topo Map ) A similar effort would be required for the second building we proposed. Furthermore, the gradient along Benson, would mean that the finished store fronts would drop 10-12 feet in elevation from the south end of the building to the north end. This would require " "stair stepping " of the commercial store fronts along Benson H Ill Rd. S. ( See Exhibit Two, Topo Map, Elevation changes 160 -170 along Benson ) These options were not attractive, economically feasible or even practical to consider. We returned to the City of Renton for guidance on how to utilize our property to its highest and best use and were directed to apply for a PUD. We directed our architects and engineers to find a plan that could now satisfy the requirements of a PUD. That plan has been submitted, reviewed and comments from the Hearing Examiner as well as Renton Building Officials and the public have been taken into consideration. -There were a number of significant issues in our first proposal that we feel did not get adequate consideration from the Hearing Examiner, perhaps because they were not fully supported by the documentation or testimony or that we were not able to express our position in reference to the voluminous documents that were submitted along with ttiis P UD request. We ask that the Hearing Examiner and the City of Renton Building Department reconsider our proposal with this additional explanation and changes that we submit herein. These changes reflect the concerns, comments and recommendations that were expressed in the findings of the public hearing June 10, 2010 and are attached to this request for reconsideration. Planned Urban Development Regulations: Purposes The two principal purposes of the planned urban development regulations are: 1) to preserve and protect natural features of the land. And, 2) to encourage innovation and creativity in the development of mixed use projects. Preserve and protect and enhance natural features: The site is predominated by two varieties of scrub trees: alder and cottonwood. 70 of the 80 trees delineated on our site are unattractive, have a limited life span and do not contribute to creating a pleasing, natural environment. Our plan introduces 1000 plants, shrubs and trees, including specimen trees along Benson and throughout our site that will transform the grounds into a pleasing, user-friendly, park like environment. This will benefit the public, the residents and commercial tenants. The landscaping will be visibly pleasing to traffic and pedestrians along Benson Hill Rd. S. and relieve the congestion of a building which, under standard regulations of the CA zoning, would be loaded up against the arterial. Further utilizing and protecting natural features we have proposed to landscape the " bowl-shaped " hillside at the north end of the site along Benson, incorporating an environmentally friendly outdoor amphitheatre with granite seating and a stage. The public will be encouraged to stage small productions during the summer and enjoy a peaceful retreat within the most valuable natural feature on our site. To facilitate access we will provide a walking trail from the outdoor cinema area down to the outdoor theatre. Under standard regulations of the CA zoning, this area would qualify as a building site to load commercial units. In fact, this is the most logical place to locate commercial space. It is located next to the dental office building and would be easier to market than if it were isolated up the road along Benson Hill Rd. S. RMC Requirement: "Commercial space must be reserved on the ground floor at a minimum of thirty feet ( 30' ) in depth along any street frontage. Part of the effort in preserving nature is to enhance it wherever possible. Our plan provides for 56,000 square feet of open space. 20,000 square feet of that open space is situated on hillsides or slopes. Under the standard regulations of the CA zoning developers are required to provide 5800 square feet of open space. The site, now comprised of scrub trees and brush, barren hillsides. blackberry bushes and weeds, will be transformed into a healthy, natural landscape which will attract and preserve wildlife, provide seasonal color changes and beautify a once unattractive parcel of land. Of particular benefit to the public will be our landscaping and preservation efforts around the public attractions, like the outdoor theatre, picnic and barbque areas, the pea patches, water fountain, gazebo areas and along Benson Hill Rd. S .. The walking trails will provide connectivity for pedestrians and make the natural areas more accessible. We feel this is a superior approach to the use of the open space that would be otherwise limited by the RMC requirement. In fact, if the units were loaded all along Benson HIii Rd. S., as prescribed in the RMC, the landscaping schedule would be eliminated for most of the 2.8 acre site. Encourage creativity and innovation: Creativity in Building Design: Although we agree that sloped roofs provide a" residential "look that can soften the bulk of a building ,we also recognize that a modern craftsman design with protruding soffits and.cedar bracing, as we have proposed ,is appealing to many people. This a matter of taste. Our only neighbor along Benson, the dental building, has a similar roofline perspective as the one we propose but less detail in soffit and bracing. What seems to override the sloped roof versus non-sloped argument is the fact that the building is situated 50 feet above Benson Hill Road and the roofline is not particularly visible from that perspective. Nor is it visible from the ground floor on any side of the building. If one takes the perspective of the Lodge then is does come into play. The two or three floors of residents who are localed on the west end of that building do look down on it. There is a trade off for the limited number of Lodge residents who can see the top of the building: a flat roof allows greater access to a territorial view of the valley. Assuming the Lodge managers want to keep the dense vegetation at the border between the two properties there would be another natural buffer to mitigate the view of our proposed building The ultimate " look" of the building and its aesthetic appeal lo the public is of great concern to the developers. Most of the buildings in the vicinity, including the Lodge, the dental building to the north and the Eagle Point Apartments to the south have singular or limited siding options and colors. The dental building is a monochromatic grey stucco, The Lodge utilizes " hardiplank" on most of the exterior along with a color change where stucco interrupts the hardi plank The Eagle Ridge apartments, built forty years ago, incorporate cedar siding with a single color treatment. Our proposed project has a number of exterior treatments, undulating exterior walls, five color changes, a bold soffit treatment with massive cedar braces that offer a distinct modern approach to a craftsman style of architecture. Our proposed buildings have interior design which provide not only some of the largest and most comfortable apartment units in the City of Renton but feature attractive hallways that open up to exterior courtyards. From every unit in these two buildings there is a unique and pleasant view. The western exposed units all have views of the valley or Lake Washington. The east facing units look out over green belts within the 56,000 square feet of open space that we have preserved and landscaped. This was accomplished with creativity and innovation and taking full advantage of the topography that existed. Under the standard regulations of a CA zoning we would be required to load our commercial units and, as a consequence, our apartment units up against Benson Hill Road. Creativity and Innovation in Open Spaces The use of open spaces in our proposed plan is superior to the use of these spaces if we were to forced to comply with the standard regulations of the CA zoning. Under standard regulations the garage, front entrance and much of the traffic to the building would be directed in from Benson Hill Rd. S .. Our plan relieves this congestion and allows for greater use of open spaces throughout the site. The creative approach we have taken will be a relief to not only the traffic patterns along Benson but will significantly improve the views and limit sound distractions for the predominant component of this project, our tenants. Many of the ideas that we have incorporated in our building design and open space design can be seen in a completed form by visiting the website for the Burien Town Square project at www.burientownsquare.com/ Surface Parking One of the goals of the Commercial Arterial zoning is to "screen " parking from the public. One of the ways to accomplished this is by creating parking within a structure. We support these goals. Ultimately we too would like to screen as much parking as possible for the aesthetic benefit of the project. It's great for tenants and it is pleasing to the public. It's unfortunate that all of the CA zoned properties along Benson utilize surface parking, most have no interior or screened parking on site. Within the objective of screening parking we must consider several important issues: Is the site serving the needs of the users? Are we providing adequate security for residents and visitors? Can the commercial tenants, their delivery vehicles and clients access the places of business easily and find adequate parking once they arrive? Will the public be able to park safely and enjoy the benefits of the amenities we offer them? Existing surface parking In the site plan that we previously submitted for review, the only surface parking visible to the public is located to the east and south of the south building. Since the building sits 12 feet above Benson Hill Rd. S., none of those parking stalls were visible to the public from the arterial. Stalls that are visible to the public within the site number 35 ( 25% of the total parking provided for the project). Although we feel this surface parking would be a net benefit to the users of our buildings we also recognize that screening, if possible, is a good approach to a mixed use building. To that end we have modified our building and site plan and submit the following changes: Proposed surface parking We are proposing to eliminate 15 surface parking stalls. ( Exhibit Three Revised Site Plan ). In order to accomplish this we will eliminate seven living units on the south end of the first floor and establish interior parking for 16 cars within the building. These units will be provided for visitors to the property. Residential tenants will utilize the two subterranean garages. The redesign will accomplish several objectives: 1) Reduce the number of visible surface stalls from 25% to 8% of the total stalls. 2) Provide interior parking for visitors with easy access to commercial units and the main residential lobby. 3) Screen the remaining surface parking by increasing the size of the landscape buffers between the entry to the interior parking on the first floor and the remaining stalls. 4) The remaining surface parking along the east side of the south building will remain to service the needs of the handicapped, commercial clients, residents and the public. Additional Benefits to the Public To enhance the plan that was previously submitted and clearly establish benefits to the public we offer the following: A) An outdoor theatre with stage that can facilitate small plays and other productions to be located in an area where the landscaping will be enhanced and lighting for productions will be provided. The theatre will feature stone benches or granite sitting rocks and a semi circle stage with backdrop constructed of either cedar, metal or stone pillars. A walking trail from the environmentally friendly theatre will connect the Gazebo area and outdoor cinema location at the north end of the south building on the main floor. Public parking for visitors to be provided at the north end of south building next to the cinema location. See attached photo of similar theatre installed in the High Point development of West Seattle. ( Exhibit 4, Outdoor Theatre ) B) Outdoor Cinema. The existing entertainment room designated for residents at the north end of the south building will be made available to the public during the summer for outdoor cinema features. This area can seat over 75 people and will be an ideal area during warm weather to stage these kinds of shows. Doors to the patio can be opened allowing indoor/outdoor viewing of the theatre screen. Parking for outdoor cinema guests from the public will be conveniently located at the north end of the surface parking for the south building. Reception areas within the building or outside in the Gazebo area as well as the outdoor theatre area will welcome guests and provide an inviting area to socialize before or after the cinema event. C) Sport Court. A Sport court for basketball will be constructed at the south end of the driveway aisle, replacing four surface parking stalls. D) Pea Patch. Pea Patch garden containers will be provided at the east end of the north building. E) An entry fountain water feature with enhanced landscaping will be built at the south end of the property along Benson Hill Rd. S. F) Enhanced Walkways and Trails to connect Eagle Ridge Drive S. to Benson Hill Rd. S. through both the north and south ends of property and integrate the Gazebo and outdoor theatre areas proposed. Planned Urban Development versus Standard CA Development: In reviewing the decision criteria we have several comments pertinent to our specific project and request to qualify as a PUD. At the front of the comments, italicized, are a reference to the decision criteria established by the City of Renton. 1) Applicant must demonstrate that the proposed development will be superior to that which would result without a planned urban development and would not be detrimental to surrounding properties. I believe we have met that burden. Our proposal will not be detrimental to surrounding properties. The design and concept we propose is complimentary to the existing dental and office building to the north. Rooflines are similar, both feature modern architecture, both are situated on steep topography and would be accessed off Benson Hill Rd. S. Our presence along Benson should stimulate business to the Dental practice. Traffic from our residential and commercial tenants will add 140 people to the area along with their guests and clients and the public. The buffers between our proposed building and the only other neighbor we share, The Lodge, is 70 and 120 feet respectively. In addition to that there is a topographic separation and a large landscape buffer. The property to the south is a permanent 100 foot utility easement and the property to the west is a steep sloped CA zoned lot which is vacant, and, like ours, difficult to develop. · In making a determination as to whether this project is " superior "to that which would result without a planned urban development one should consider the points that I have made previously in the summary to assess the " inferior "components of the project under standard CA regulations. Without a planned urban development and under the standard regulations of the Commercial Arterial Zoning this project has some glaring deficiencies: 1) Traffic along the arterial would be impacted. There is no street parking allowed along Benson Hill Rd. S. from Puget Park Drive to the downtown corridor. This encourages high rates of speed on the gradient that exceed the posted 35 mph. Under the standard regulations all users of our building would be required to utilize the subterranean parking garage opening onto the arterial road. RMC 4-3 1 OOE.2.a.ii "the front entry of a building shall not be oriented to a drive aisle, but instead to a public or private street or landscaped pedestrian-only court yard." RMC 4-2-120A "Parking for residential units shall be enclosed within the same building as the unit it serves." 2) Noise and pollution generated from a commercial building along Benson Hill Rd. S. would be increased. 3) A commercial building along Benson Hill Rd. S. in this area will be difficult to tenant and could end up a white elephant. The market for retail and commercial space is depressed, both nationally and locally. Prospective tenants have a lot to choose from and would only choose Benson Hill Rd. S. if it offered a superior location, better access, a better experience for their clients and a better price. We cannot offer any of those benefits for the reasons summarized earlier. 4) With the restrictions of RMC 4-2-120A it would be incumbent upon developers to enclose all residential parking in the same building it serves and direct all tenants to enter and exit immediately off Benson. This appears to be an uncomfortable and much less desirable situation for the tenants than our proposal which creates an open drive aisle with good visibility of the arterial and broad turning radius'. Staff Recommendations We agree with the Hearing Examiner and City of Renton Building Department that a number of improvements to this plan could and should be implemented. In addition to the reduction of surface parking and added public benefits which were detailed in this request we would support and implement all of the following recommendations of staff. 1) Refuse and recyclable areas shall be dimensioned on the revised site plan submitted to the Planning Division project manager for review and approval prior to issuance of builidng permits. ( Continue to ... RMC 4-4-090) 2) The pedestrian walkway system shall be extended to provide connectivity to Benson Road S .. ( Continued ..... to issuance elf building permits) 3) All walkways/crosswalks within parking lots shall be differentiated by material or texture, such as raised and stamped concrete and painted asphalt. ( Continued to .... issuance of building permits) 4) A Final landscape plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division project manager for review, ( Continued to .... more trees in the area of the gazebo, benches and picnic tables) 5) Revised elevations for the south elevation of the North Building and the north elevation of the South Building. ( Continued to .... building permits) 6) Revised elevations shall be submitted to the Planning Dvision project manager for review. ( Continued to ..... parking structure openings ) 7). A revised site plan showing additional walkways and crosswalks to promote pedestrian safety. ( Continued to .... builiding permits. ) 8) A lighting plan shall be submitted to the Planning Divison. ( Continued to ... .landscape and building lighting. 9) A revised site plan and revised elevatibns ..... continued to .... landscaping. 1 O) A rooftop mechanical equipment detail shall be submitted to the Planning Division. Continued to .... building permits. 11) Revised floor plans shall be submitted to the Planning Division ... continued to .... PUD decision criteria. 12) All common facilities, not dedicated to the City, shall be permanently maintained by the PUD owner. 13) The modification to allow grading of the steep slopes shall be submitted to the Planning Division .... continued to .... issuance of building permits. 14) Developers agree that the entry design to both buildings need improvement. The north building should have a more pronounced entry and focal point and the south building would benefit from additional detail. 15) The applicant shall be required to designate five to ten stalls as guest parking. ,, -~ . :: :, .J Y. ;: I' I, l ·_-c, rJ 0 ---------------_-:_-_-:--. ~ ___ --:-_ S...-:"F1~· ..... D.... =ll a. '1-'-....... = ry .,__.,_.~ = > ~~ -;:-.;.,.. ............ ~ ~~->-G "=-.1.-..ri<..1"3, '--,d.-_,6a<!k:,..i.__ \ • n1 -----, I, • ..,:::i,:,i.., .. o .,. G.i."''-'"'-'-""'""' :,~or., ;;;,-,c,,,..-. ,~,,~,,~mw1111 <["' ---\--- \ ~~ .. - ' ' .. '---~: :1: I I i I I City of Renton Municipal Code; Title N, Chapter 8, Section ! IO-Appeals 4-8-110C4 The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 4-1-170, the fee schedule of the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-1 lOF: Appeals to City Council -Procedures 1. Time for Appeal: Unless a specific section or State law providing for review of decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court or any other body, any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the City Council, upon a form furnished by the City Clerk, within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. 2. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. 3. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. 4. Transmittal of Record to Council: Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the City Council all of the pertinent documents, including the written decision or recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report, the notice of appeal, and additional letters submitted by the parties. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-1982) 5. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Couocil. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a sbowing is made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the heariog before the Examiner. lf the Council determines that additional evidence is required, the Couocil shall remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of additional evidence_ The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the applicant. In the absence of an entry upon the record of an order by the City Couocil authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, and a remand to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the bearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord,4389, 1-25-1993) 6. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based sole! y upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties. 7. Findings and Conclusions Required: If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-l-050Fl, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may remand the proceeding to Examiner for reconsideration., or modify, or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly. 8. Council Action: lf, upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner npon· an · application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-l-050F2 and F3, and after examination of the record, tbe Council determines that a snbstantial error in fact or law exists in the record, or that a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified, the City Council may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the application. 9. Decision Documentation: In any event, the decision of the City Couocil shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or a.mended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant (Ord 3658, 9-13-1982) 10. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving, modifying or rejecting a decision of the Examiner shall be final and conclw:ive, unless appealed within the time frames established under subsection GS ofthis Section. (Ord. 4660, 3-17-1997) ~-'..,·-: ~:.-: .-;/:'!'".;::~:.: :3:~: 0'\0 .. ·'.:_ --~-/ .,. ._...._ •• '.'-::~· )~i-? ?;/" ''i-;c;:.~;,.·:·· ,;.:;· \ ::,,}: ",_~;i:\:!"::,-~\~~;c ·;.~·-<\ /';·-~ --. _,;::'_,;·-_. ,,.-:?~=\:\~/)0 ~-\i)<·? -_. ''.\i:_?,t-~)---" ·--,\/{\:_://( ;:1 :~f ~~;-'.,···;~f if i_-:;:;f~1'.~J~:i~~i-~~f ~0!:~~~~~~-/ :;_ <,f'o-~-. '];Jey,,suiw,l\fm>.">.:-·,-,-~,·', ~.:-".:,-,, ,.'"».· · ··.--, ,._ ·_; :--,·-·-_4.-:,0 • ··,-·.,;_;:FtedJ,.-Xaul'llian·· -... '-. - ~--.~~.--·_'·~._:·:_: .-· --~.--,:_·:.~_ .. ,;":::':~ ··,:\ -· ::: ;:-: --.. { -~ .. ~-,.-_·,·.-.. ·_-,·.:. ·-·-.r~~,.-_, ... ·: ',(.:~-.::{tt\, .. '. . '' -~, • ->c-, • -''54{4,'_3(i1h:.t• '$WJ·'( <," -', --------C'S -' • ' '". :,fr>• ,:,_.;;::,;'.'::_j·/;t)/::. --:;; • ·--·.·_ . . _...<.\;._\ · .. :~.·.".·._)/_,_;.·./ .•. -~,·,-_>: .. :.\.·.:" ·~ .. ; . -..--.. ·:· . . . ... . ~' ~ --_, --.. -.:··:. ~ '-.'"'"~-,:~·~::--•,-• ·' . . _ .... :/·_., -· .. ·/:->~,.-;.'·. ·-.:~-.. -~-. . ... ,~ .,.,_ '...:"· t".<<~. <·. ~}-_ .. . ·.c. .. '.' _ ,cllarrge~ mtb_e. s1le' des1gp to create.a mqre IDilOVaf\ve,proJect :with iiddinona.1 pgblic elemepts: ,TJiese· ' , _ ·, _ ;C, ::·:, ;:,:"•.;; 'dfsilfu,"cliiiligl,); iiI~!ude·~ced ~aceparicmg; chahge&to op~µ:space·arrd'ialiiisc,i'.pji,;g;im&thein.dusion '• -• C ;~ ,---~--~' .,., __ ... ~. "''. , -r-..,,) '·~"""· _,,_~, ., ,-'-, ~, _,, --" """-•-', , -~-, ; ; ~ e:,.: . : ii!~~~J.l.ti~,_,'>".,l;iY.WJ to,fiitil':f (~~d_ep;~' anlJ_-th~ ~~tal·publlc .. Thf ~ori~ ai:ea_ in v,bj~fi the ~Ii]1f";'ft'.: . · __ , _ ;::-.; .. s;, .. ,s011gfit gz;ev1e,"!' .was !l,e "."ndition:r~!ittmgtb the fi,rii~~;J>r. ~PP"W:'!Ilf• gf tlie rnof pmfi).<;ii_ of tlie two-: , '.'-;, . , · -· :> .:_ -~--=~·'.' ' .. . '., , ,\' -, -' ·kCf'OIDp~l1_1:1$ r.esillt 'by rcllucipg the,fuunber ofuirits.' _Thifriiiit reduFti.oi:r liJis :fdiiat oiitbouie .. l'be .. . , . :· -· -. , f!~!~!!~~?ii!:i~WS~j~a-zi-~: '.,~:-;}:;,.·-i:e<lJi~d fr~m ;25f~_:0: ~%., .. µ_i,";ildi~oo'to_.~fi\ic!,11~1:ibn.fn .sm:t;a~~·t';f~g tlif ~ppij~t has I?;'{P"sed;._._._ ~-~ _' ·,' -~' . : ;-, ' ; , -J .. enhanced Iandscapmg to scr-een the parking aI',"5: Th_ese changes:ar:e. a vecy,posrtJ.ve.pufcolJle anil _mak-e , · : ... : ·_ ._:· . •. :~· : :; ±( -,T),e·appJifant !\~ ~IDPl?SOO_ "'ri.ufup.~r; of ~~\fitioilhl .=niti~~ _9pen_to:t&j,_ re~iHen~ J!Ilii1:hecge,'!~$I public.' -•. , > .. ·· ....•. ~~i~tz~r~~~~~~~•-r::i.~··. ' .. _ ..... _ ~ -.· --~. -· · \tgficiirJkiiig.' 'thelc1ditio;aL ohtd;,;;r_~&:~;;;~~{sp;e i ~ g5ocfrurdlti;hto ti)~ f6Iripl~i: '.Jt \i'as ii Sf: '. " : clear.if:lli,is'amenity worild.beopenfqthe publicilfotal!aspects of!J,epn,posal need 0 beayiulabl<0t,J ¢:e-· :ie1eriil~ub_lic #{it.¢igbt~~"b.ittercoritrollei!jfit'wrire ny-bpen:{:: 2c · · ; : ..• '.-'-'( '.· : , :/ i. ,: ;~~nrit~1t,pt~t~:ii::;1~tef ;i:tit;j,e;ze~tr-~~titrt1::;6ri;:~zdt~~n·' . . Jandscapin·g. 'A ~ore formal wa~~ feature oi fountain will be protjde9-,atthe en/ntiJce ruong Benion . .)!_ · _will be vis_ible fo thf <:lrivmg and walking pnblicand shoul(ei\hrui"!'·the overall_ aspect o_ftheproposal .. ;··,: :: ·--.... -.-... ' ·,,-\·::-.,'.· , .. ~,·-: .-,·~ ... · -··--·· ·····:'_,·.~·-: .-'.-~-. ,.· ihe·~~iipd._c~ahge s6u~lit by~~{ppli~~t-i; ~~ 69rrditfoni~t:~~-·,d6fliif~bfru~. p;ci~o~afi"Jiw;~;;date . ·sl~pcilrooflllle~.forili;<i ~6 b~itdfugs. While th~ _b;;ildjrigs do 90nhriri-a suiiskntfo'I ariioun(~ff~ru:!e. ' . detajl4Jg, '1!l n9ted fu' the original rel_lort; peaked r_oofs prnvide a more, finished arpearance futh foi;' . • . :-. . passersby ?S•w~U as th6se that wj]Lfop~ d6wn_Eiii, tjie pfoj ,:ct Jrorit 1jie eil/st: • Tl;ie look;_ (l~c:i _s~r€enfioo~.op :. c;_ . . eqriipmen~ "!',d ve11ts. a,riil .stacks ,iii,~}9:IJ:~ris!Ji~ harii_ ~dge ~f J;\leiooflirie,aSpff agr~edwi/lr .tlµs .. -j .: . )i . ··• . assessment and stiggested that the roorpitch pe_6: 12.,wluch seelllSJike!a'.i-~a.sonable. proposal.> . ' • .: .;;:--~~:··.· ·-··~ • ::~~c,--'•,-.-·.,: ·~·, ~ ···:·: \~_<·,~<·: '.; "·,;:<:<(/i:.~:\'./_-!\~t< · C ~--· :;·':;;·-•: ·, ,.:···. •• '\~ :;·,,:_~---'.}:·,i,:·:"~)-:-:~·,." '-'\:~·:·~;:·~.:-.,:· ~· ,, ·; : ,./ · .. ~<:-;-:·.;: -," '.";~.·> )n conclusion; the design changescincluding fhe ,-educed density, and r,diICeq surface parking complement. s< ., !!~a:!fal!&mJ~~;'' · ... ··.. :' .. -' · .. : ;·_ ,., . .-.:: ·>-·.:'~·~-·' .. :::\','-/~'>:.: ·~·: . .-;:::." --'"( REc.oMMENi>ATION=-"'_/·._·,r . . _ ... ,.> _ ·,· _-.-. ,-;·<':,,,~-_ _,._ ,··r;::-~-::: ... ·-·_._ ._, --:...;-, .... -,! __ -_:·~:----~i.::--~·:·;-:-~-~:> ·: -~~ __ ... :1/._.·~'\--~·--. --.: . The rity Council should iipprove t!Ji, pi:op<ised PPDD subject 0 ihe follciwlllg· cpniliticin: ,, """':'._.,;: .. ' ~ --:;"~(-_-?· -.· .. ; .... · ... -1 .·;~.-~--.. ·-.~·;-• :·. _.,. ·.:..· .:_~'!.,,.:·: ..... : .. ;·\:/.:' • • • •• ••• C l :rt~~~;~d: t~;a~il~s: ~~-~ii~llt~; iifuehs·ifaeid{,f rJ~;}fa i\~Jj,1i·sribriiitiid a , t;,.. tii.e 1'1,,;,:ning . oi;·~i~~-pr~fe~t _~age, io/ rey1e,;,,_ ,ii,~ .appr~,;;,i. prior t~. tlie: '._ . 1ssmuice of bi:iildjpg'pei:mits. ·i defui(o_f the)efµse and' r~cyclabfos "11'~ mµst be ". '' , . , All walkways/crosswalks within parking-lots. shall be diffeientiateii by mateiiat·or .... ~~~~~~~~~~; . _ -AFmaJ 1ancls~pe plan ~.hall be. submitted ,t.o; the Planning Dtvfa1~n p(()j"":t mai:ulge, ···.·~'{t'l~~~~~~~~;~?i. 5·. Revised elevations for the :sou.th elevation -Of the'North Building-and :the 'noith . ·!'1ivati8n: of'the south' B\lildihg~hoiviji-£. iu:chlii2tiiral··.fu64/ilatio€:sm'iil;;,: ,o't1ie\~ ,. • ' ' .. , .·'·.·.=:···.!. -. ~~-~>.--' '· .. .-·:.<-·:. ' -,.• _. ·,~·--,··. : ... _ ··> .... ~~,,_; .. -..\ ~~:-.:o,'.-,-: '~ .. , . ··~ .:. ·:(:-~ .L· ..... .. ~:,····<: -"<--· --·,: , .. ,_:},.//•, , .. <·:· ~":-,i .. '·-'(•.;,j~~/: ".j',--_":;·:.-,.-:' '\:c.:: .. :,.--.:.·-"'-'J,},'-'.-~·-,, · , ::;_.·_::..r ~--:"--..,,.,;,~,~--s,;,,,,, ,,., ... -.--.,. ~, ,· --~. ·-:.-.--, • .. ,-;' S.',·a,C: • ._..,, -:•··,.-;,---'.::.~·-.. -.·•-:.:-·-:· :{\~i:.)~\<~·~f'.\\t,· -·.·~j.;·•; .. ;· .• Y:(." .. •;~.-,.., ~J, -t;:."-'-.,.·,:1··.··,.•.·,y ,/,'·,/: .. <\;J "": , ·' :, ... _::~ ; ,;;; ~-·f ·:1 .. -, -, ,~tr),f , ,:' U\?.: ·:_}" '_'_,·_:, __ ._~_~,_. __ ' __ -.'_':_· __ ;_:; ___ :_•_'.-~_~::\:,,:~---·--·.-,.:~--;,::_.·:_: __ · __ ·-·.: __ ,_-i_-._-_:_•_· __ :_ .. (,' __ :_:_[ __ •_._r_:·-;_~.-·•_: __ :,( .. _~_.:i_t __ :_. __ '_j_,_;_;_~:_t_,,-;:~_--__ :_'._.:·~_;_-__ :i_-. __ :_·;_;'.:·,.• __ --i __ :-_-_•-;_-:_~-~-J:}t ':::-r-·-•.-"'' \'-' ;F.i-·.. '-._''.,--~-! -t~?;~;.:··::::·:\1;?_{~ -~·ff\?;~if:t1tJ~t;i:Iit1:~;;,ft;~t~;}iii'?.t::,1:Y;\·-:i: :· :'·:~:_: /., ·;:·.·._ -_' fJ~;;~:'''t,:~i;f~?~°::~~--~~j;',i~{~;~; f {\t{; ; . .. . . .. -:, decdrative, ir6nc\v9rk wciwi ik used ioi 17ofud l;v;r' p'!fking stfiicture'~pe~lngir: ' . '.; : . : ... '.;\:J\;};_::: ;:·. C ·,•.:•; '/i 7; _;;{X.ii{45-~?eiit¢\prah':;:;~ii~i'S·¥dj~s¥(ilti#9'.i~lk~~~/v{ajki.:;t-~l~~i~,;:· ::;:"''.:··' ;·,FI -'., -.• ;, -. . . .__ :, ". : · )i~~s:tfiat\'.Safefy tliibpgliput; tli,~ ·sge,·,_51,1c]i walk_w,a:ys"~hall J:,e·s~~WIJ.-_t? .j:irpviJie· a,-',' · _ . : , :f ~,r·; _. '. ' ; : I/;·\'' ''; ' CC?~~C?(l~ ro' the":dencll/"!ep}c':1 tqfl'j_c,e_ )1;1ilding ;to ,ihf I)Orlh,,_betw~~-:r.assjv~ ;·' : ' : .. : -. ---, . -; . -. r"'?reatwn ar= "'i we]! '!'Fprp~trl/ng c,rosswalks, "'?,oss suffac~ parlcirig· }ots. · ·Jhe; ,-, , .-,, ;;~,c .··.,'· ,. !W1~!ffi.ril~iif ili~l;illi!l~L~{(: . ;f ::1t:~: ... · _ , .: ...... -reviewand,appmvhl:priqr,-~o.utilio/ constrriction~atmdicates pede~au'waU=;ay, _ •. _ · .• ·_.'. .•. ··,< ;· / ·:.:-::: :·. : .-....•:.:ii-.~-~-.::·;_~~.-,'.-, ;_.~·: a ,_;,_ ·.,;.',;/ • :;-;:,;_:; ,;'- -;,·. '.:-;~,.<:-./·,:::. .·.:,·/X. .. ~·;/\f\,, C V • ., -:> : . . '_-.: ,•, ;, project-manager mfreyiefa.:arid' apprqtaf j:irior_fo the~ssuaiice ofbuilding permits' .. -c: .; ' ... . ;.:·_.(_'--: ·-:~_~\1<·'.'~~t~~!J~tJ~s~Ji9~\t~~~~fi~~t~fl~fili~~~~°:fn~~~f~!~~~~;:; __ ~ -.~ :~: .. , ' >' --. . _--. wi¢:ihe dim~nsion and-~iia'r,e' footag~'requke~ent,i'oftlie PJJJ)' ded.si6n-criteiia:··--·· ·:-: ·" " - .. _, 13. , · ;Th~ app!ica,:it,~ruill prpvide.pe_ak~:gr·pifoifod;:90.fs ;as .Prut(?f this'-12ro12osaJ.;_'.· : : ·. ;-: ~ , -: :-. , : •..•. \,A .•••C,;:~~~~1~;:~~.;\"~~~~~;jf 7 • )-:;. •" <-. 1'5.: ·-The ap_pficai,.'f Sh'!ll be.requir~ fu _desigrr~lfi.five•to ten st;,,ll!rasgue,:,tparking_'~: ' "; . _:-, ,' --_ , ·::;··~rt1t~t~~iml~~t~1~i;:. "}' ) ',>. ' .. O ' -•• _. , lliesovth:~~dcif the fjtstflq~rofthe South'Build.ing; :\'IHl.'e~b~h interior'P,iirlririg.fo(, , • '? _ .. ·_ •.. _ .... . ·i.~.:~j :::" >..:""·,: :-:,::·. ''(-~,: _..-,.: ' •• \: C· _., ~. ·!" ·~= .. -:··. =:·;.,.-, . -. -.-... ' ('_:·:. .. •(: ··- 'i./::.::-. . 19. . 'fh<i applfoai:tfsj,~11 provide dihanci\d traili tmi(«irihectEagle Ridge Dri,ve Souilito . ..• i:r:1t~2~;~s~}~1ff !~t:r:~?~fd::i~t;f¥~;?ttl,e,' 10. Thee11tertairunenl r:ooni'and its adjacent plazajocaied!at thei:Jorl!i e1,1dnf tlie south•: .. b~il<ling _sJ,.all ~ico~ci~ti ;eitrng hr OV;;r 75 P'?PPI~ md would: be made available . 21. to the public during sllIIJJiler nionths for use as an -0utdo,oi-cinema.· · . ' ~ -, ·-1 ••••• '-.-:,-~· , • ·-•• ·t:~;·~-- A baisk~iball sp9rl tofut\h~if b~ cciaJtructed at .the sci11th end: /,{the tlri;ew~y. ai~Je/fu •· . ' 'ii:n ar~~foi•;;i.~Jrpio~o~~4 fyr/ourpar~(sfulJi-' > ,:> ·: · ":/ ;-> • · i ', < , • : i . !':fet:}~;;~tii~::r ititrrt~e~t:~~e~en~ or th~t:Pt bti1~~~f ot1f r.·i~~-· t%JfJZ!f !f !i,.~:ti~.iif ttu.1;···· }~~;irl~ s~aQbe o.St it ;;s6uth e11J-o;*~ ·::._·: ;..-. _ _;._._ Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton CITY OF RENTON JUL 2 6 zorn !k_;,J. RECEIVED "]).,ftuer el CITY CLERK'S OFFICE '!; 30 <?IJ'I. Re: Request for Reconsideration of PUD. File No: 09-150, PPUD, ECF July 24, 2010 Dear Mr. Kaufman, Pursuant to the Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 1 OOG of the City code we are requesting reconsideration of the decision which you issued on July 12, 2010 regarding the above mentioned PUD file no .. Enclosed please find a summary of our request for reconsideration with exhibits. Sincerely, Chris Koruga Managing Director Eagle Ridge Villas LLC July 12,2010 OFFICE OF THE HEARlNG EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON Minutes OWNER: APPLICANT/CONTACT: LOCATION: SUMMARY OF REQUEST: SUMMARY OF ACTION: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: PUBLIC HEARING: Robert Rancheroff 17710 234"'Ave SE Maple Valley,' WA 98038 Chris Koruga Eagle Ridge, LLC 5454 30"' Ave SW Seattle, WA 98126 Eagle Ridge PUD File No.: LUA 09-150, PPUD, ECF 1600 Benson Road S Requesting approval of a Preliminary Planned Urban Development, for a mixed-use development including commercial and residential uses. Development Services Recommendation: Approve subject to conditions. The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on June 8, 2010. After reviewing the Development Services Report, exanrining available mformation on file with the application, field checking the property and surrounding area; the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the June 15, 2010 hearing. The legal record is re<;orded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, June 15, 2010, at 9:03 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: Project file containing the original Exhibit No. 2: Neighborhood Detail Map application, proof of posting, proof of publication aud other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit No. 3: Site Plan Exhibit No. 4: Conceotual Landsr•ne Plan Exhibit No. 5: Conceotual Gradin• Piao Exhibit No. 6: South Buildin~ -East aud South Elevations Exhibit No. 7: Elevations · South Building-West aod North Exhibit No. 8: North Building-East aod South Elevations Exhibit No. 9: North Building -West aod North Exhibit No. 10: South Building-Garnoe Floor Piao . Eagle Ridge PUD File No.: LUA 09-150, PPUD, ECF July 12, 2010 Page2 Elevations Exhibit No. 11: South Building-First Floor Plan Exhibit No. 13: South Building Third Floor Plan Exhibit No. 15: South Building Roof Plan Exhibit No. 17: North Building -First Floor Plan Exhibit No. 19: North Building Third Floor Plan Exhibit No. 21: North Building RoofP!an Exhibit No. 23: Map Showing, Olympic Pipe Line, PSE High Voltage Transmission Line, Sewer Easemen~ Existing Paved Access Road, and Hi<>h Voltai>e Lines. Exhibit No. 25: Large Scale Map Showing Park Areas and Pedestrian W alkwavs Exhibit No. 12: South Building-Second Floor Plan Exhibit No. 14: South Builnina Fourth Floor Plan ExhibitNo.16: NorthBuildin~ <'=~0 eF!oorP!ao . Exhibit No. 18: North Building-Second Floor Plan Exhibit No. 20: North Building-Fourth Floor Plan Exhibit No. 22: ZoninaMan Exhibit No. 24: Steep Slope Area Map Exhibit No. 26: Video of Actual Site The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Gerald Wasser Associate Planner, Community and Economic Development Departmen~ City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055. This is a mixed use development. The applicant is requesting a Preliminary Planned Urban Development The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination ofNon-Significance -Mitigated with 7 mitigation measures: No appeals were filed. The soutl! building would consist of 61 residential units and 4,039 square feet of commercial offices. There would be 75 parking spaces total. Thirty-three would be in a garage, 42 would be surface spaces. The north building would consist of 56 residential units with 59 total parking spaces, 39 would be in a garage structure with the remaining as surface parking. Both buildings would have flat roofi; and facade modulation on their east and west facades. The project is proposed to be completed in two phases, Phase One would include the construction of the south building and its parking area and common open space area. Phase Two would include the north building along with its parking and landscaping. The project is located on tl!e east side of Benson Road The Comprehensive Plan designates this as a Commercial Corridor and is zoned Commercial Arterial There is a Medical/Dental office building to the north, a Senior Aparunent Complex is located to the east and an Apartment Complex is located to the northeast The south building would be approximately 48-feet in height and would contain both apartments and commercial space. The north building would contain apartments and parking only. The net density of the project is 56.52 du/ac. Both buildings would be developed witl! contemporary architecture.· The various facade materials would include wood, stucco, cement and cedar siding. The garage level would have stamped or painted concrete with grillwork proposed as vertical bars. There are several man made protected slopes on this site. One steep slope area will not be disturbed. There are six others that were created during the building of tl!e emergency access road and tl!e construction of Benson Road South. Staff requested that the Hearing Examiner make recommendations as to modifications being made to the man made steep slope areas. Access to the site would be via Benson Road South. The intention for the development is to be pedestrian oriented, there are several common open areas that include picnic tables, benches, and gazebos. There are five-foot pedestrian walkways throughout the site. Eagle Ridge PUD File No.: LUA 09-150, PPUD, ECF. July 12, 2010 Page3 Several modifications were requested by the applicant; required location for residential parking, commercial parking spaces to be located outside the office areas, the north building would have no commercial units on the ground floor, slope . modifications, comp;u;t parking spaces, and fiont building entrances. The Examiner questioned wby all the parking was not being located in an underground garage, thus_ leaving more open space on the site. Some of the residential units would be assigned garage-parking spaces and the rest would be outside parking. Mr. Wass er stated that the topography of the site does slope downward from east to west There was concern about massing and the bulking of the building if those parking spaces were provided in a structured unit The assigned parking would be in . accord with the rental rates. The Examiner inquired as to access to the northeast comer of the north brnlding. Mr. Wasser stated that there is access across the emergency access road. Circulation in that area would be through the garage structure with surface level parking to the north. · · The applicant has requested that 40% of the site become compact parking spaces. This is an effort to reduce the impervious area used by the surface parking lots. There are slope issues regarding the front of the buildings making it impossible to locate entrances towards the public street. The applicant has proposed to retain 40 of the 81 trees listed on the site. There would be a very good pedestrian circulation system throughout the project, there is landscaping and screening for the parking areas, there are landscape islands located within the parking areas, and there are wide planter beds that help soften 1he facades of the buildings. The refuse and recycling location and size were not specifically shown on the plan, that would be required and revised plans must be submitted prior to the issuance of building permits. Toe Examiner asked why this was a PUD versus using a straight site plan? There is more surface parking on a steep site reqrnring more grading on the site for parking areas rather than structured parking underneath the buildings, whether at grade level or subterranean The roof treatment is flat rather than having peaks or gables, the roofs in 1he surrounding areas appear to have more interestiug roof designs. Formal entrances for the buildings do not appear to be within the requirements. Toe south building seems to have only parking spaces at the entrance area In order to approve a PUD there needs to be some benefits, which do not appear in what has been presented today. Mr. Wass er stated that there are items that are being thought of in regards to the site topography that may provide a. superior design. The commercial area in the north building has not been provided to make the transition between the commercial and residential area of the neighborhood. If this were a normal CA zone this project could be up to 60 dwelling units per acre if the critical areas were man made and a modification was granted. If those steep slope areas that were man made were not deducted the net density would be closer to 4 3 dwelling units per net acre. Chris Koruga 5454 30th Avenue SW, Seattle 98126 stated that he was the managing partner of Eagle Rjdge Apartment and Office LLC. He stated that he has built two other multi-family properties in the City of Renton. The PUD process is more complicated than a standard building permit process, the City of Renton staff has been exceptionally helpful in moving forward with this project A brief description of the history of this parcel was given. Prior to making a final decision on the type of project to build they did a demographic study on the Senior Market in the City of Renton. They found that Renton projects a population ofover 90,000 people with a median income of over $70,000.00 per year in the next several years. Toe need for affordable housing and affordable commercial space is growing. This proposal does comply with the needs as they have been forecast The property to the south of this site is a PSE High Voltage Easement which most likely will never be developed as well as the Olympic Pipeline to the south_ On the west side of Benson Road there is an RMF zone which has very steep topography and is also problematic, which may never be developed. Eagle Ridge PUD File No.: LUA 09-150, PPUD, ECF July 12, 2010 Page4 The increase in the number of residences on this site would increase business for the dental offices, the Lodge would also benefit The proposed north building would be a natural location for the provision of ADA accessible unit and independent units for seniors. The north building is in a much quieter location, commercial space would not fit into the topography. The access road was actually a required access road for the Dental building, they have rights to use that road for the purposes of this development. There is a significant amount of traffic that comes from the East Hill area, particularly the apartments located close by. There is no sidewalk between Eagle Ridge Drive and Benson Road. Creating an internal, pedestrian friendly system would create a safe pedestrian walkway for all adjoining areas. The recreation and rest areas would give people the ability to take a break and possibly do some exercises while walking in this particular area. He did present a video of the site showing the terrain and the area in the location of the proposed buildings. Open space requirements for this site are 5,800 square feet, the project proposes 52,000 square feet of open space. Some required by steep slope issues but over an acre of open space allows for amenities. John Minden, IM Architects, 1869 E Seltice Way, Ste. 336, Post Falls, ID 83854 stated that he saw no problems in meeting all recommendations presented by Staff The reason for the surface parking and not having all the parking under the buildings is due to the slope of the site and trying to provide more affordable housing. If 1he parking were moved to underground the cost would escalate. With today's market affordable housing is much needed in the area. The area north of the north building is where the underground retention facility for drainage would be located. On the south end of the south building there would be an underground tank for surface water management. The Examiner inquired about how people would enter the buildings besides through the garage entrances. There were some questions as to guest parking as well. Mr. Minden stated that there needed to be a little more design on that, it was previously thought that through the garage would be the main entrances. They could develop an entrance around the south end of the building and include a pedestrian walkway along the south end of the building and enter along the east side. The guest parking would cover more of the surface parking, there are several areas of surface parking that guests would be encouraged to use. The north building might require more surface parking for the guests. Peaked roofs were discussed but it would be difficult to built peaked roofs due to the easement requirements from the Lodge to preserve their views. If peaked roofs were used, they could interfere with those views. Robert Hancheroft: 17710 234,. Avenue SE, Maple Valley 98038 stated that he is a partner in the Eagle Ridge LLC. The site has been his since the early 1980's. Currently the LLC has tried to develop the site with an impact that would benefit the surrounding residences and businesses. He originally developed the property for commercial use and foresaw that the commercial development would be dominant However, it has been a struggle over the years to draw commercial business into this area The lack of drive-by exposure tends to limit the commercial draw. Kayren Kittrick, Community and Economic Development stated that she has visited the site and walked it extensively. As long as the access easement stays open, meaning no parking in that area, the Fire Marshall is good with the plan. It is a lengthy but very nice road and has good sight distance to it It appears to have an access for utility use. The storm system will be by the 1995 Manual due to the age of this project It is very appropriate that it is being split betw.een two sections, it can be developed to whatever the building ends up being, if it needs to be larger, it won't constrain the site. The northerly vault is actually 100' from the pipeline. The easement on the north end will limit what can be done with the property. There is water, City of Renton serves both water and sewer at this location. There is one small glitch, the water service GPM for fire flow is rated at this point as 2500 GPM The Fire Marshal when checking, registered 2,750 GPM Between what can be done with the building and what the final design is like the Fire Marshal expects this number to come down and that they will be able to meet at the 2500 figure. Worse case, they may have to build some additional pipeline. There is no designated guest parking and that should be done. Guests cannot park on the access road and so parking needs to be very specific for guests. Eagle Ridge PUD File No.: LUA 09-150, PPUD, ECF July 12, 2010 Page 5 A short break was taken to set up the video equipment to view the video Mr. Koruga had taken of the site. The video showed the subject site, along Benson Road and the gradient along that roadway, the dental building to the north of the site and the natural area that would be reserved and serves as a stormwater pit for the dental building as well as the new buildings, a view from the north to the south showing the entry sign. to the dental building. It also showed the flat plate where the north building would be situated_ Very few trees would need to be.removed. The various species of trees were seen in the video. Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, mid no further comments from staff The hearing stopped at HJ:41 a.IIL FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: I. The applicant, Chris Koruga for Eagle Ridge, LLC, filed a request for a mixed use Preliminary Planned Urban Development (PPUD). 2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEP A) documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit # 1. 3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official issued a Determination ofNon- Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M). 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. There was no opposition from the public regarding the subject proposal. 6. The subject site is located atl600 Benson Road South. The subject site is located on the eastern side of Benson Road north of its intersection with Eagle Ridge Drive. 7. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan design.ates the area in which the subject site is locaied as .suitable for the development of commercial uses, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. 8. The subject site is currently zoned CA (Commercial Arterial). 9. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 5327 enacted in March 2008. 10. The subject site is approximately 2.89 acres or 125,708 square feet The site is an irregularly shaped parcel with a large panhandle that extends north from its northeast corner. The subject site is approximately 260 feet wide by 670 feet long. 11. The subject site slopes downward toward Benson Road. It slopes downward from east to west approximately 40 to 50 feet from approximately 220 feet to 170 feet The subject site contains two more level areas in the northeast and southwest corners of site. Some of the slopes are protected slopes which staff explained were created when grading for Benson Road occurred and also when an easement access that croS,'es the subject site was created for adjacent property. Initially staffbelieved that these protected slopes could be altered as part of the development process. It was determined that a Hearing Examiner issued modification from the slope protection provisions was required. Staff is to make a recommendation on that issue prior to this decision.. 12. The site contains a total of 81 significant trees. Of those, 32 would be protected trees. The CA zone requires five percent or approximately 2 of those to be retained. The applicant has proposed retaining 40 trees. Eagle Ridge PUD File No.: LUA 09-150, PPUD, ECF July 12, 2010 Page6 13. The subject site is located between two powerline corridors located generally north and south of the subject site. A gas pipeline is also located north of the subject site. 14. The area is a mix of uses including the dental clinic immediately north of the site. Apartments aod a retirement complex are located to 1he east and west of the site with single family uses further to the east. 15. The applicaot proposes developing two buildings aod associated parking on the subject site.· The buildings designated 1he North Building aod 1he South Building would be located more or less on the opposite northeast and southwest comers of1he subject site. Both buildings would be 4-stories tall or approximately 48 feet tall. 16. The applicaot proposes phasing 1he project into two phases. Phase I would consist of the South Building, the access roadway, common open space aod landscaping materials. Phase 2 would finish 1he North Building aod its allied landscaping and parking. 17. The North Building would be located on 1he panhandle portion of the site. It would house some parking uodemeath 1he building at ground level and additional surface/outdoor parking north of the building. The building is approximately 220 feet long by 100 feet wide. The building would be 71,716 gross square feet. It would contain 56 apartment units. The northerly building would have 39 structnred and 20 surface parking spaces. The surface parlcing Jot would be accessed by driving 1hrough the interior garage's parking aisle. The building would meet its requirements for parking categories including compact and handicapped or accessible parking. 18. The South Building would be similarly sized and would be approximately 200 feet long by 100 feet wide. It would contain 78,584 gross square feet. Commercial spaces totaling approximately 4,039 square feet would be located on the eastern facade at ground level. The commercial space would contain approximately 3 offices. The building would also contain 61 apartments in 4-stories. The southerly building would have 33 structnred parking spaces and 42 surface parking spaces. 19. Both buildings will share architectural features. The applicant plans to create contemporary craftsman-style exteriors offset or accented with cedar beams. The larger, prominent east and west facades would have bay windows and balconies spaced between 12 and 24 feet. The applicant would employ Stucco that would be used on 1he first and second floors aod hardiplank or cementious board would provide a horizontal siding look to 1he 11rird and fourth levels. The cedar trim would be used in belly bands, comer boards, trim and support beams. Staff noted 1hat 1here were no distinguishing featnres on 1he north elevation of 1he Sou1h building nor on 1he south elevation of the north building and that these facades face public areas on the property. Staff recommended that the trim details or other exterior features be added to these facades. 20. The CA Zone requires commercial space be located in 1he lower level of any residential developmeot in the CA zone. The applicant has asked for a modification of this requirement due to the site's topography. The applicant proposes commercial spaces in 1he South building but none in the North Building. The commercial component would be located along the eastern facade of the South Building. 21. Staff noted 1hat 1he garage walls would be stamped or stained concrete materials but 1hey recommended that the openings which are proposed to have vertical iron bar grating be replaced with a more decorative treatment 22. Staff recommended 1hat the internal walkways connect the buildings and connect to Benson Road. As proposed access to the northern building would be principally along the access driveway that runs through the building. Staff also recommended that the pedestrian walks be delineated by either raised profiles, texture or materials. 23. The CA zone permits a density range between l O units per acre to a maximmn of 60 units per acre. Density of this site would be based on the acreage less 1he access easemeot and critical slopes, 9,000 square feet and 26,454 square feet, respectively. The result is a net of2.07 acres. The 117 unit project would have a density of 56.52 dwelling u::rnts per acre. 24. The applicant proposes retaining approximately 40 trees including some that would be in the critical areas. In addition, the applicaot has proposed landscaping in larger beds surrounding the buildings including the west facade Eagle Ridge PUD File No.: LUA 09-150, PPUD, ECF July 12, 2010 Page 7 of the south building and the north facade of the north building, and the areas facing the adjacent streets or properties. The snrface parking lots would have perimeter screening. 25. The applicant will be providing sitting areas and a gaz.ebo. Staff noted that the private open space required by code had not been provided to all units andreconunended that the applicant comply with code provisions. 26. Access to the site would be provided by a driveway to Benson near the south end of the property and via an existing private easement (to the adjacent clinic) off of Eagle Ridge Drive. 27. The development will increase traffic approximately 7 trips per unit or approximately 700 to 800 trips for the complex. 28. Stormwater will be conveyed to City systems along Benson. There have been flooding problems downstream which the City hopes will be resolved by current improvement work on l-405. 29. Sewer and water service will be provided by the City. 30. Sections 4-9-150 provide the governing principles of a Planned Urban Development: "4-9-150 PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS: A PURPOSES: There are two (2) principal purposes of the plarmed urban development regulations. First, it is the purpose of these regulations to preserve and protect natural features oftbe land. Second, it is al.so the purpose of these regulations to encourage innovation and creativity in the development of residential, business, manufacturing, or mixed nse developments by permitting a variety in the type, design, and arrangement of structures and improv:ements. In. order to accomplish these purposes, this Section is established to permit development which is not limited by the strict application of the City's zoning, parking, street, and subdivision regulations when it is demonstrated that such new development will be superior to traditional development under standard regulations. In consideration of the latitude given and the absence of conventional restrictions, the reviewing agencies, Hearing Examiner~ and City Council shall have wide discretionary authority in judging and approving or disapproving the innovations which may be incorporated into planned urban developments proposed under this Section. (Ord. 5153, 9-26-2005)" 31. As part of its PPUD request the applicant seeks the following modifications of code requirements to accommodate their proposed complex: · . REQUESTED MODIFICATIONS FROM RENTON MUNICIPAL COOE {RMCJ RMC# Reg,uired 12.er RMC Reg_uested Modification RMC 4-2-12DA: Required Location for Parking for residential units shall be enclosed To provide 72 total structured Parking within the same building as the unit it serves. parking spaces for residents within the buildings in underground/ground floor parking garages and 62 surface parking spaces. RMC 4-2-080: Conditions Associated With Note 18. I To allow stand alone residential Zoning Use Tabfes a. General Re(luirements; Subject to the for the North Building and ground density limits of the development standards floor residential for the North and for this zone and only permitted within a South Buildings. structure containing commercial uses on the Eagle Ridge PUD File No.: LUA 09-150, PPUD, ECF July 12, 2010 Page 8 RMC 4--4--0BOF.8.c.iii: Maximum Number of Compact Spaces Outside of the UC-Nl and UC-N2 Zones RMC 4-3--0SOJ.Sb Protected Slopes- Exceptions through Modification. RMC 4-3-lOOE.2.a.ii RMC 4-3-lOOE.3.a.i 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, except for a residential entry feature linking the residential portion of the development to the street. Compact parking spaces shall not account for more than: • All other uses -not to exceed thirty percent (30%). RMC 4-3--0SOJ.5.a prohibits development on protected slopes {40 % or greater). RMC 4-3- OSOJ.b. allows exceptions through modifications to the prohibition for filling against the toe of natural rock wall or rock wall, or protected slope created by natural resource recovery activities or public or private road installation or widening and related transportation improvements, Design District 'D' Reguested Modifications The front entry of a building shall not be oriented to a drive aisle, but instead a public or private street or landscaped pedestrian- only court-yard A primary entrance of each building shall be located on the facade facing a prominent street, shall be prominent, visible from the street, connected by a walkway to the public sidewalk, and include human-scale elements. To allow up to 40 percent compact parking spaces. The grading of 5 protected slope areas which were created either for the construction of Benson Road S or the private access easement located onsite. Front entry of buildings would be permitted to front parking areas. The primary entrance of each building would face the internal drive aisle. 32. Staff reported that the requested modification to alter the man-made slopes created w:ilh the development of Benson Road and the easement road should be granted. The geotecbnical report demonstrated the alteration would be appropriate and meets sound engineering guidelines. Such slopes are not necessarily pennanently protected since 1hey are not natural and they can be altered to allow gentler or safer grades. Planned Urban Development (FUD) 33. Toe PUD Ordinance contains a long and complex series of criteria that are reviewed. Tuey are included in Section 4-9-150-D: D DECISION CRIIBRIA: The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the following requirements are met. I. Demonstration of Compliance and Superiority Required: Applicants must demonstrate that a proposed development is in compliance with the purposes of this Section and w:ilh the Comprehensive Plan, tha1 the proposed development will be superior to that which would result without a planned urban development, and tha1 the development will not be unduly detrimental to surrounding properties. 2. Public Benefit Required: In addition, applicants shall demonstrate that a proposed • Eagle Ridge PUD File No.: LUA 09-150, PPUD, ECF July 12, 2010 Page9 development will provide specifically identified benefits that clearly outweigh any adverse impacts or lllldesirable effects of the proposed planned urban development, particularly those adverse aod undesirable impacts to surrounding properties, aod 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 developmeJ)t: 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 sigoificant woodlands, native vegetation, topography, or noncritical area wildlife habitats, not otherwise required by other City regulations; or c. Public Facilities: Provides public facilities that could not be required by the City for development of the subject property without a planoed urban development; or . d. Overall Design: Provides a planoed urban development design that is superior in one or more of the following ways to the design that would result from development of the subject property without a planned urban development: 1. Open Space/Recreation: (a) Provides increased open space or recreational facilities beyond standard code requirements and considered equivalent to features that would offset park mitigation fees in Resolution 3082; and (b) Provides a quality environment through either passive or active recreation facilities and attractive common areas, including accessibility to buildings from parking areas and public walkways; or ii. Circulation/Screening: Provides superior circulation patterns or location or screening of parking facilities; or ili. Landscaping/Screening: Provides superior landscaping, buffering, or screening in or .around the proposed planned urban development; or iv. Site and Building Design: Provides superior architectural design, placement, relationship or orientation of structures, or use.of solar energy; or v. Alleys: Provides alleys to at least fifty percent (50%) of any proposed single family detached, semi-attached, or townhouse units. 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planoed urban development shall also be reviewed for consistency with all. of the following criteria: a. Building and Site Design: i. Perimeter: Size, scale, mass, character and architectural design along the planned urban development perimeter provide a suitable transition to adjacent or abutting lower density/intensity zones. Materials shall reduce the potential for light and glare. · 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, detached, attached, townhouses, etc. 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. ii Promotes safety through sufficient sight distance, separation of vehicles from pedestrians, limited driveways on busy streets, avoidance of diffic;uJt turning patterns, and miniminition of steep gradients. iii. Provision of a system of walkways that tie residential areas to recreational areas, transit, public walkways, schools, and commercial activities. • Eagle Ridge PUD File No.: LUA 09-150, PPUD, ECF July 12, 2010 Page 10 iv. Provides safe, efficient access for emergency vehicles. c. Infrastructure and Services: Provides. utility services, emergency services, and other improvements, existing and proposed, which are sufficient to serve the development ct_ 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, 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 aod surrounding properties. Fences, insulation, walks, barriers, aod landscaping are used, as appropriate, for the protection aod aesthetic enhancement of the property, the privacy of site occupants aod surrounding properties, and for screening of storage, mechanical or other appropriate areas, and for the redu_ction of noise. Windows are placed at such a height or location or screened to provide sufficient privacy. Sufficient light aod air are provided to each dwelling unit f. Building Orientation: Provides buildings oriented to enhance views from with.in the site by taking advaotage of topography, building location aod style. g. Parking Area Design: i. Design: Provides parking areas that are complemented by landscaping and not designed in long rows, The size of parlcing areas is minimized in comparison to typical designs, aod each area related to the group of buildings served_ The design provides for efficient use of parking, aod shared parking facilities where appropriate. ti. Adequacy: Provides sufficient on-site vehicular parking areas consistent with the parlcing demand created by the development as documented in a parking analysis approved by the City. Parking management plans shall ensure sufficient resident, employee, or visitor parking standards, and there shall be no reliance on adjacent or abutting properties unless a shared parking arrangement consistent with RMC 4-4-080 is approved, h. Phasing: Each phase of the proposed development contains the required parking spaces, open space, recreation spaces, landscaping and utilities necessary for creating and sustaining a desirable and stable environment, so that each phase, together with pre~ous phases, can stand alone. 4. Compliance with Development Standards: Each plarmed urban development shall demoustrate compliance with the development standards contained in subsection E oftlris Section. (Ord. 5153, 9-26,2005) E DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: I. Common Open Space Standard: Open space shall be concentrated in large usable areas and may be designed to provide eifuer active or passive recreation. Requirements for residentia~ mixed-use, commercial, aod industrial developments are descijbed below. a Residential: For residential developments, open space must be equal to or greater in size than the total square footage of the lot area reductions requested by the planned urban development, as illustrated in Figure I. The open space shall not include a critical area and shall be concentrated in large usable areas. Stormwater facilities may be incorporated with the open space on a case-by-case basis if the Reviewing Official finds: i The storm.water facility utilizes the techniques and landscape requirements set forth in The Integrated Pond, King County Water and Land Rescurces Division, or an equivalent manual, or ii The surface water feature serves areas outside of the planned urbao development aod is appropriate in size and creates a benefit Eagle Ridge PUD File No.: LUA 09-150, PPUD, ECF July 12, 2010 Page 11 Site Area: 1.5 acres · Typical Lot Size: 4,500 sq. ft. Total Number of Lots: 12 Site Area: 1.5 acres Typical Lot Size: 3,500 sq. ft. Total Number of Lots: 12 Open Space: 4,500 s.f minus 3,500 s.f = 1,000 s.f. x 12 lots= 12,000 sq. ft. Standard Subdivision Example Plaoned Ur]Jao Development Approach Figure L Common Open Space Example b. Mixed Use-Residential Portions: Subsections Elbi to v of this Section specify common open space standards for the residential portions of mixed-use developments. i. Mixed use residential aod attached housing developments of ten (1 OJ 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 Reviewing Official. The required common open space shall be satisfied with one or more of the elements listed below. The Reviewing Official may require more than one of the following elements for developments having more thao one hundred (100) units. (a) Cowtyards, plazas, or multipurpose open spaces; (b) Upper level corumon 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) Pedestriau 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 aod 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 comm.on space/recreation area requirement Figure 2. A visible and accessible residential common area containing landscaping aod other amenities. v. Other required landscaping, and sensitive area buffers without common access links, such as pedestriau trails, shall not be included toward the required recreation and common space requirement. c. Mixed Use Nonresidential Portions, or Commercial, or Industrial Uses: The following subsections specify common open space requirements applicable to nonresidential portions of mixed use developmenm or to single use commercial or industrial developments: i. All buildings and deveiopments with over thirty thousand (30,000) square feet ofnonresidential uses (excludes parking garage floorplate areas) shall provide pedestriau-oriented space according to the following formula: l % of the lot area + 1 % of the building area = Minimum amount of pedestrian-oriented space Eagle Ridge PUD File No.: LUA 09-150, PPUD, ECF July 12, 2010 Page 12 Figure 3. Examples of pedestrian-oriented space associated with a large-scale retail building. 11. To qllalify as pedestrian--0riented space, the followiog mllS! be included: (a) Visual and pedestrian access (including barrier-free access) to the abutting structures from the public right-of-way or a courtyard not subject to vehicular traffic, (b) Paved walking smfuces of either concrete or approved uoit paving, ( c) On-site or building-mounted lighting providing at least four ( 4) foot- candles (average) on the ground, and (d) At least three (3) feet of seating area (bench, ledge, etc.) or one individual seat per sixty (60) square feet of plaza area oropen space. llL The following features are encouraged in pedestrian-oriented space and may be required by the Reviewing Official. (a) Pedestrian-oriented uses at the building facade facing the pedestrian- oriented space. (b) Spaces should be positioned in areas with significant pedestrian traffic to provide interest and security-such as adjacent to a building eotry. ( c) Pedestrian-oriented facades on some or all buildings facing the space consistent with Figure 4. (d) Public seating that is durahle or easily replaceable, maintainable, and accessible. Fig11re 4. Pedestrian-oriented spaces, visible from the stree~ including ample seating areas, movable furniture, special paving, landscaping components, and adjacent pedestrian-oriented uses. iv. The following are prohibited within pedestrian-oriented space: (a) Adjacent unscreened parking Jots, (b) Adjacent chain link fences, ( c) Adjacent blank walls, (d) Adjacent dumpsters or service areas, and (e) Outdoor storage (shopping carts, potting soil bags, firewood, etc.) that do not contnbute to the pedestrian environment. cL Open Space Orientation: The location of public open space shall be considered in relation to building orientation, sun and light exposure, and local micro-climatic conditions. e. Common Open Space Guidelines: Common space areas in mixed use residential and attached residential projects should be centrally located so they are near a majority of dwelling uoits, accessible and usable to residents, and visible from surrounding uoits. i Common space areas should be located to take advantage of surrounding features such as building entrances, significant landscaping, uoique topography or architecture, and solar exposure. ii. In mixed use residential and attached residential projects children's play space should be centrally located, visible from the dwellings, and away from hazardous areas like garbage dumpsters, drainage facilities, streets, aod parking areas. 2. Private Open Space: Each residential uoit in a planned urbao development shall have usable private open space (in addition to parking, storage space, lobbies, and corridors) for the exclusive use of the occupaots of that uoit. Each ground floor uois whether attached or detached, shall have private open space, which is contiguous to the uoit and shall be an area of at least twenty percent (20%) of the gross square footage of the dwelling uoits. Toe private open space shall be well demarcated aod at least ten feet ( l 01 in every dimension. Decks on upper floors· can substitute for some of the required private open space for upper floor uoits. For dwelling uoits 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'). 3. Installation aod Maintenance of Common Open Space: a. Installation: All common area and open space shall be landscaped in accordance with Eagle Ridge PlJLl File No.: LUA 09-150, PPUD, ECF July 12, 2010 Page 13 CONCLUSIONS: the landscaping plan submitted by the applicant 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 amouot equal to 1he provisions ofRMC 4-9- 060. Landscaping shall be planted wiJhin one year of the date of final approval of the planned urban development, and maintained for a period of two (2) years 1hereafter prior to 1he 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 fom licensed to do business in the City of Renton is executed aod 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; Laodscaping shall be maintained pnrsuant to requirements ofRMC 4-4- 070, 4. Installation and Maintenance of Common Facilities: a Installation.: Prior to the issuance of ~y occupancy perm.its, 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 Plann.ingllluilding/Public Works Administrator or his/her desigoee, assured through a security device to the City equal to the provisions ofRMC 4-9-060, except for such common facilities that are intended to serve on]y future phases of a planned urbao development. Any common facilities that are intended to serve both the present and future phases of a planned urban development shall be installed or secured with a security instrument as specified above before occupancy of the earliest phase that will be served. At the time of such security and deferral, the City shall determine what portion of the costs of improvements is attributable to each phase of a planned urban development 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 1he 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. (Ord. 5153, 9-26-2005) 1. The proposal is a reasonably good plan for the use of any two acre site. But as a Planned Urban Development it is not highly imaginative and does not appear to embody the "innovation and creativity" enunciated in the PPUD regulations. Frankly, this office is not sure what gains are afforded by allowing the subject site to be developed as a PPUD as opposed to the normal Site Plan criteria. The site's location and topography do suggest that commercial spaces in the north building might be less successful and that modification appears reasonable. But the requested surface parking modification does not appear appropriate. Under the normal Site Plan Review criteria the applicant would be required to provide all of the parking within the two buildings. The two building, four-story desigo does not really offiet the creation of surface parking. While the applicant might have split out the two buildings into more buildings, it is possible that 1hey would have had less of a visual impact since they would have been smaller in scale. The applicant is developing 117 units aJ: a density of 56.52 dwelling units per acre. That is only eight units less 1han might be developed on the subject site at maximum density. The most glaring aspect of the proposal is the large number of surface parking stalls -62. In return for waiving the code mandated indoor parking the applicant is providing exactly what? They may be saving more trees but that is not altogether clear. Surface parking usurps approximately 11,100 square feet or a quarter of an acre of open space and provides asphalt surfaces. The applicant has taken advantage of the two main level areas of the site for its building pads. The applicant noted that providing completely enclosed parking would make it harder to provide affordable units. Obvionsly constructing strm;tured or contained parking-easts mor.e money but surface parking for 62 vehicles is neither creative nor innovative. The applicant has proposed buildings with flaJ: roofs rather than providing peaked or sloping roofs that provide more visible interest. The applicant noted thaJ: they were attempting to preserve views for the easterly neighbors. The fact Eagle Ridge PUD File No.: LUA 09-150, PPUD, ECF July 12, 2010 Page 14 that both buildings ahnost achieve maximum density means that they are both tall buildings. Maximizing or nearly maximizing the density of the parcel compels the taller buildings and the flat roofline rather than compelling a creative.or innovative project 2. Again, Code specifically states: "A PURPOSES: There are two (2) principal purposes of the planoed urban development regulations. First, it is the purpose of these regulations to preserve and protect natural features of the land. Second, it is also lhe purpose of these regulations to encourage innovation and creativity in the development of residential, business, manufacturing, or mixed use developments by permitting a variety in the type, design, and arrangement of structures and improvements. In order to accomplish lhese purposes, this Section is established to permit development which is not limited by the strict application of the City's wning, parl<ing, street, and subdivision regnlations when it is demonstrated th8.t such new deve]opment will be superior to traditional development under standard regnlations. In consideration of the latitude given and the absence of conventional restrictions, the reviewing agencies, Hearing Examiner, and City Conncil shall have wide discretionary aulhority in judging and approving or disapproving the innovations which may be incoi:porated into planned urban developments proposed under this Section. (emphasis supplied)." While lhe applicant has proposed some additional recreation space and landscaping, those features do not appear to adequately oflset providing 62 surface parl<ing stalls, particularly when such parking is normally to be entirely contained inside of lhe structure or structures. The applicant will be providing additional open space for each unit and common areas as well as pedestrian walkways and links to the surrounding sidewalks. The enhanced features proposed could be provided by a normal site plan, too. The applicant did suggest that contained parking is more costly and that would potentially affect the affordability of lhe units. That is a hard choice to make. But should the City abandon reasonable design standards intended to screen parking and move it indoors in order to potentially provide more affordable housing units? This office probably canoot make that determination which is why this recommendation to the City Council will suggest that the design be further analyzed by the City Council. 3. This office believes that it would be appropriate to recommend that the City Council seek a more creative and innovative use of the subject site or more specifically a more creative aod innovative project design. A design where lhe tradeoffs of developing a PPUD provide more tangil,le benefits ralher than allow surface parking and less distinctive architecture. The flat rooflines and the surfuce parking are issues that need to be addressed. At lhe same time this recommendation will provide sufficient information to allow the City Council to approve the project as submitted and subject to lhe additional conditions suggested by Staff. 4. Toe design, while quite reasonable, seems to :full short of what a Planned Urban Development should or could be. That does not mean it is unacceptable but it does mean that it is certainly less than one would anticipate when deviating from the normal review standards. The applicant has placed the City in a Hobson's Choice. Either allow affordable development with reduced aesthetic qualities or perhaps force a better design but create less affordable living choices. Toe plan does protect trees providing a buffer for its residents and buffering others from its mass. But the plan does not really demonstrate Hinnovation and creativity" nor is it really "superior to traditional development." The PPUD does protect trees, provides outdoor seating areas and landscape massing in front of the two buildings. The applicant has worked with the topography of lhe site but has also allowed the topography to limit pedestrian circulation on the site and around the buildings. Neither building has a defined focal point for an entrance and the North Building completely lacks what might be called a front entrance. Staff bad asked that these areas be better delineated and lhe applicant indicated that they would change some design elements. Toe applicant has indicated lhat the appropriate open space in the appropriate dimensions can be provided as required. 5. As noted above, there is nolhing particularly innovative or creative about placing two 4-story, multifamily residential buildings on a parcel and surrounding them wilh sixty-two (62) surface parking stalls. That probably is the most disappointing aspect of this proposal. Site Plan review could have exacted architectural features and open space for residents and the parking would have been under or within the buildings .. Be that as it may, if the Council • Eagle Ridge PUD File No.: LUA 09-150, PPUD, ECF July 12, 2010 Page 15 determines that the project is reasonable, the!) the design does work. The applicant has provided the required parking, although with a higher complement of compact stalls. The landscaping is definitely well-designed and tree preservation is part of the proposal. The longer facades of the two buildings have more than adequate architectural detailing that includes modulations in the form of bays and balconies. Different materials, textures and colors and trim will define the buildings' levels and comer elements. Again, the flat roof is not very characteristic of newer buildings or even neighboring buildings and pitched or peak roofs lend a more finished appearance to buildings and provide a more graceful skylin_e. The applicant should provide peaked or pitched roofs as part of the proposal. 6. The proposed slope modifications are appropriate whether the property is developed as a PPUD or under Site Plan provisions. If surface parlcing is not permitted, there might be a reduced need to altei" some of the steeper slopes or portions of those slopes. 7. In conclusion, the proposal, if it were not submitted as a PPUD would be a reasonable project although, as noted, it would have been required to provide interior or contained parking. It is well-landscaped and the buildings have a reasonable facade treatment The roofline whether a PPUD or a Site Plan is unimaginative and certainly lacks the creativity and innovation a PPUD should exhibit. Circulation for vehicles and pedestrians is reasonable and if staff's recommendations are adhered to, !bey would be more than adequate. The City Council should consider if this proposal bas the merit of a PPUD but this office suggests !be project_ could be improved as noted above. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should require the PPUD to be redesigned to incorporate fully structured parking and pitched or peaked roofs. In the alternative, if the City Council believes this project fulfills the goals and policies of creating an innovative and creative mn<ed use proposal they should approve the two-phase proposal subject to the following conditions: I. Refuse aod recyclables areas shall be dimensioned on the revised site plan submitted to the Planning Division project maoager for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. A detail of the refuse and recyclables areas must be submitted with the site plan iodicating compliance with RMC 4-4-090. 2. The pedestrian walkway system shall be extended to provide connectivity to Benson Road S, between the N ortb and South Buildings, and between !be project site and the dental/medical of&ce building to the north. This extended walkway system sball be indicated on the revised site plan submitted to the Planning Division project manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 3. All walkways/crosswalks within parking lots shall be differentiated by material or texture; snch as raised and stamped concrete or raised and painted asphalt. Such walkways/crosswalks shall be indicated on the revised site submitted to the Planning Division project manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 4. A Final landscape plan shall be submitted to the Planning Div:ision project manager for rev:iew and approval prior to the issuance of building permits that indicates expanded and enhanced landscaping using more trees in the area of the gazebo, benches and picnic tables. 5. Rev:ised elevations for the south elevation of the North Building and the north elevation of the South Building showing architectural modulation similar to the east and west elevations shall be subnutted to the Planning Division project maoager for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 6. Revised elevations shall be submitted to the· Planoing Division project manager for review and appro;rol prior to the issuance of building permits which indicate that decorative ironwork would be used for ground level parldng structure openings. 7. A revised site plan showing additiooal walkways aod crosswalks to promote pedestriao safety throughout the site. Such walkways shall be shown to provide a conoection to the dental/medical office building to the north, between passive recreation areas as well as providing crosswalks across surface Eagle Ridge PUD File No.: LUA 09-150, PPUD, ECF July 12, 2010 Page 16 parking lots. The revised site plan sball be submitted to the Planning Division project manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 8. A lighting plan shall be submitted to lhe Planning Division project manager for review and approval prior to utility construction that indicates pedestrian walkway, landscape, and building lighting. 9. A revised site plan and revised elevations shall be submitted to the Planning Division project manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits indicating that primary entries would have awnings or canopies and be identified with decorative paving_ and/or landscaping. 10. A rooftop mechanical equipment detail sball be submitted to the Planning Division project manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 11. Revised floor plans shall be submitted to the Planning Division project manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits indicating compliance with the dimension and square footage requirements of the PUD decision criteria. 12. Ali common facilities, not dedica!ed to the City, shall be permanently maintained by the PUD owoer. 13. The applicant shall provide peaked or pitched room as part of this proposal. 14. The modification to allow grading of the steep slopes shall be submitted to the Planning Division project manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 15. The applicant shall be required to designate five to ten stalls as guest parking. ORDERED TIITS 12'" day ofJuly 2010. ~Kw~ HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITIED TIITS 12"' day of July 2010 to the parties of record: Gerald Wasser Development Services Renton, WA 98057 Chris Koruga Eagle Ridge LLC 5454 30"' Ave SW Seattle, WA 98126 Loraine Lafoon Berkshire Apartments, Mgr. Office 13 00 Eagle Ridge Drive S Renton, WA 98055 Kayren Kittrick Development Services Renton, WA 98057 JobnMinden JM Architects 1869 E Seltice Way, Ste. 336 Post Falls, JD 83854 Ben Yu Eagle Ridge HOA 1100 Eagle Ridge Drive S, #A Renton, WA 98055 TRANSMITIED THIS 12"' day of July 2010 to the following: Mayor Denis Law Dave Pargas, Fire Robert Haocheroff 17710 234"' Ave SE Maple Valley, WA98038 John Murphy New Home Trends, Inc. 4314 148"' Street SE Mill Creek, WA 98012 Van Hong PO Box 14136 Seattle, WA 98114 Jay Covington, Chief Admimstrative Officer Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission .. Eagle Ridge PUD File No.: LUA 09-150, PPUD, ECF July 12, 2010 Page 17 Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Adnrimstrator Alex Pietsch, Econowc Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services Marty Wine, Assistant CAO . Transportation Division Utilities DivislOn Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services Renton Reporter Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section !OOGofthe City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m.; July 26, 2010. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Exalillller is ambiguous or based on erroneolls procedure, errors of I.aw or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Exalillller within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. · This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may. after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing feeof$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, frrst floor of City Hall An appeal mnst be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., July 26, 2010. · If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the executed Covenants wil1 be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions·. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any <,lecision- maker concerning the proposal. Decision-niakers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Couocil All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication pefllllts all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the in validation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. --------~----- I I . .. CJ) "" I ' ct: {. J_ 0 ---am • - p ' I - -l ~ I I "' i"!Y of Rento s: · Plai"!ring Division\ I-. I 11 w , 11 ~ Hnli l 3 Zll09 1 \ <L· -r ,, : \ \ ~~~HW~!QJ \\ I . . . I I '' \.l. ........... LINCOLN \ "f'R<FERT' 3.65 Ac. .l.86 : --·····-~ . I \ ;;a § ~ ;,a ... F § ""' ~ :,,, "" ffi ,~ ii • § ,------ \ r-- \ I I • I I •- \ I ~& ' I \ \ .,. § ~ 9 ;,a ... F § ""' .,, a& :;a, "" ... § ..: ffi -------------------------- \ -- \ • ------ --------- EAeLE RIDGE Af'AIITMENTS ~ OFFICES SITE PL.AN EXHIBIT 3 -- X3 NO.LVNQ--f~Y IYl NU..L.N.=ltl 3:::n:cHO "'8 S-1.N3W_Lc1VdV 390lli 319"1'3 H.L.J'liOS CIVOE::I NDSN3S cosU. \ \ --~~ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ' \ \ \ \ ' \ \ .. C (C5) = !!J!Jl C) a· -·,:;, ~ ~ C -c,: a., 5 = a: -l!!!Jl = = .,_ = = ~ 0 ·c s;,, >,. = 1.1£11 _. "' 0 D--(Qs. \ \ 1B) ~, I ~ IWl1 ~ = ~ = /1!1d1 I!! = g "'I ' = = ru r, ffE I i I 'II Ii ,~ -'-ii J:1 . " !! " \ \ I t ·r, EB • -• \ " ~ . ., ii: ~ ! ~! ~ \ i~ ~ \ \ \ e I8IHX3 ,,. ' l 1-, 9 ll9IHX3 B I i I I I I I II I [] D D I 1----J!---- I I I L---+---1 I I I I I I I I n I I I B I I I n I n I I I I L--11------ 1 I L_-J.-----1 1' ' ~ g ~ i> 0 ~ i-- I u I I n a u i ff ff n H u 8 ~ I ft ff II I 11 n n " u a ,- If- n n II = = -< >-' = ~ = = = B l .LI8IHX3 r~ rn rn < <5 ~ " CONDOMINIUMS . = EAGLE R!DGE D J M -l=--Et-~-AT..;.IO,;,;.B~.;..bG_A__ =::'-. . '. [ 811BIHX3 = EAGLE RIDGE D Jg· CONDOMINIUMS . -::-l----eELEVATI~ONS Al · -~~~ . NORTH BLDG ~•• -. I ~ 0 32 -· ffi ro '"" z ::, '< 10) a 2. 0 < ffi >-' ::, ..... (Q = 0 :0 = ~ ~ -CD = s. :i = ffi = ~ ..... g 0 g :i 6l.I8IHX3 ,-- I ll I a i a u n u__ I n L_ ! I. I I I I I i I J R l J I n u I ff I D u II u I I ll u ,-- ll n n " u-- I a. I u JI II ll n n n II I u Ir u u n II JI Jr II u I II ' p II ' Jr I '-- i i EAGLE RIDGE CONDDMINfUMS ELEYATJONS B NORTH BLOG i i i f I 1 I r JI-I • Renton City Council 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98056 Dear Sirs; ~,EP 3 0 2010 ~ECEIVEJ;J CITY CLERK'S OFFIC~ No+-+,'me.ly I would like to take a moment of your time to support our appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision of July 12, 2010 regarding the Eagle Ridge Apartments and Offices PUD. As one of the owners of the project, I find the decision to be fair, except for condition number sixteen. This condition requires that we place 6/12 pitched roofs on the buildings, and thusly alter the design of the buildings. I find this requirement to be unnecessary and extremely burdensome. The Commercial Arterial zone does not require pitched or flat roofs, and in fact most of the mixed use projects in the designated Commercial Arterial Zone employ flat roofs. In my opinion, this reduction in density also runs contrary to the intent of Commercial Arterial zonmg. Our initial application in 2006 was for a lower density project with pitched roofs, but we were redirected by the City of Renton to a higher density Commercial Arterial status. After spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in development costs over four years during which the City of Renton has not objected to our proposed design, we are now being redirected to a pitched roof design. Changing the project to pitched roofs, which has an imposed height restriction, will result in a loss of 40% of the units and will deem the project economically unfeasible. A great majority of the Commercial Arterial Zone projects have flat roofs. The only neighbor with any view concerns, The Lodge at Eagle Ridge, has entered into an agreement with us to restrict building heights and have expressed no objection to a flat roof design. Viewing the project from any other angle, one would not notice whether the roof was flat or pitched. My family has been involved in the Renton business community since 1952. Being a member of this community, believing in the future of Renton, I would hope that the Council will reconsider condition sixteen. This project benefits everyone; affordable housing, new jobs, new tax revenue , and open space amenities. Thank you for your consideration ~ ;;;?:_----/~ Robert Hancheroy/ EAGLE RIDGE VILLAS LLC Renton City Council I 055 South Grady Way Renton,Wa 98057 Dear Council Members, ..;,ry OF RENTON SEP 2 7 20i0 r' l'!ECEIVE/J -ITY CLERK'S OFFICE I am one of the owners of the mixed-use project known as Eagle Ridge Apartments and Offices PUD. A Hearing Examiner's decision of July 12, 2010 has been appealed to the Renton City Council and I would like to take this opportunity to provide comments and support of our position as you prepare to deliberate on this very important matter. Our company has invested three years and over $200,000 in trying to design a project on our property that is both economically feasible as well as aesthetically pleasing to the prospective tenants, neighbors and the public at large. We feel we have accomplished that. The buildings we propose and the amenities we are offering to tenants and the public are creative, innovative and will be a welcome addition to the Benson Hill Neighborhood. The construction and operations of the buildings will provide jobs for dozens of local residents and add thousands of dollars in tax revenues to the City, State and Federal governments. Most importantly they will provide quality, affordable housing, office space and open space to more than 200 residents of the Renton community. We believe strongly that condition #16 of the 23 conditions outlined in the Hearing Examiners Report is unnecessary. This condition requires that we build a 6/12 pitched roof on our buildings and alter the design we have submitted. We concur with the Examiner on all conditions except this one. 5454 lOthAveSW Seattle.WA 98126 206 937-4525 206 595-5791 EAGLE RIDGE VILLAS LLC The decision to use a pitched roof or a flat roof, provided the code does not exclude one or the other, should be left to the designer and not the Examiner. The Commercial Arterial design guidelines of Renton do not encourage either pitched or flat roofs. The fact is that most CA zoned properties in Renton and other municipalities opt for flat roofs with building details that resemble what we have proposed. Our project was designed in the spirit of the Burien Town Center which incorporates commercial space and residential living units. Like the Town Center and many CA zoned properties around our City, there is a predominant mix of residential units vis a vis commercial space. Ours is no exception. To reiterate our position we hope the Council will consider the following facts that were presented at the Hearings: 1) Eagle Ridge Villas LLC has presented a creative, innovative mixed use project which has met all but one of the conditions that the Hearing Examiner requested. 2) The City of Renton Building Department had expressed no objection to our proposed flat roof during any of the preliminary applications, during plan review over 2 years, or at either of the Hearings conducted by the Hearing Examiner. 3) The Commercial Arterial Design Criteria does not require pitched roofs even if the predominant component of a project submitted are residential living units. 4) The majority of rooflines in Commercial Arterial Zoned areas are flat. 5) The majority of rooflines in Commercial Arterial Zoned areas along Benson HIii Road S. are flat. 6) The roofline for these proposed buildings, because of the elevations, is not visible from Benson Hill Road South or from within the proposed project. 7) The only neighbor whose view is impacted by our proposed roofline is the Lodge at Eagle Ridge. They have expressed no objection to the use of a flat roof. Pagel EAGLE RIDGE VILLAS LLC 8) In the spirit of cooperation with our only neighbor who would be impacted by our structures, The Lodge, we have entered into an agreement to protect their views by limiting the height of our buildings. That height limitation is reflected in our proposal. Condition 16 is oppressive and unnecessary. It would force us to take off two floors of our proposed building, eliminate 40% of our units and render the project economically unfeasible. In 2006 we proposed a 29 unit multi family project on this property to the City of Renton and completed preliminary review. The project, which featured 6/12 rooflines, was discouraged, or, perhaps more accurately, redirected towards a higher density use in the pending Commercial Arterial zoning. We were told that the City was encouraging higher density and mixed use projects. We have been guided by the City of Renton Building Department for three years and now find ourselves in the difficult position of having lost our rights to build our initial project, having invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in this project and unsure if we are even going to be able to utilize our land. My partner Dr. Robert Hancheroff and I have a long history in Renton. We have built and managed properties in Renton for over 40 years. This is our community! We believe in Renton and want to continue investing our time and energy in quality projects like the one we have proposed. I hope the council will consider the benefits of this project, its aesthetic validity and the value that it will bring to our community. Sincerely, Chris Koruga Eagle Ridge Villas LLC .... 3 Renton City Council 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Wa 98057 RE: File No. LUA 09 150 PPUD, EDF Dear City Council, CITY OF RENTON SEP 27 2010 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE I enclose a letter and engineering drawings from TEC engineering group, the principal civil engineers on our project at 1600 S. Benson Hill Rd, currently under appeal to the council. In addition I am enclosing a copy of a View Easement and Restrictive Covenant which was entered into by The Lodge at Eagle Ridge and Eagle Ridge Villas LLC. The intention of this view easement was to protect, to as great a degree as possible, the views of our neighbor, The Lodge at Eagle Ridge. Ultimately we agreed on a height restriction of 226 above sea level which translates into five feet above the grade level of the Lodge. The final easement document signed by the two parties will be made available to you upon request. We thank you for your attention to these details. Over the past several years we have worked closely with our neighbors to create a project that will be welcomed by everyone concerned. There have been no objections to the style of our building or the rooflines by any of the interested parties. Sincerely,c ~ Chris Koruga Eagle Ridge Villas LLC Taylor Engineering Consultants September 27, 20 I 0 Mr. Chris Koruga 5454 30th Avenue SW Seattle, WA 98126 Re: Eagle Ridge Apartments/Mixed-Use, impacts ofa gable roof Dear Chris: 485 Rainier Blvd. N, Ste. 102 P.O. Box 1787 Issaquah, WA 98027 phone (425) 391-1415 fax(425) 391-1551 WWW .teccivil .com I have reviewed the sigbt lines for the proposed Eagle Ridge Apartment'Mixed-Use buildings to determine the visibility of the roof from the Benson Road South frontage as well as the private assisted living facility behind. Attached are two cross sections cut througb the proposed facility. These show that the line of sight from the Benson frontage does not provide any visibility of the roo[ Similarly, the sight lines from the property behind are such that only the peaked portion of the gable would be visible. As a result, we can conclude that the roof type (gabled roof versus flat) has limited impact on the aesthetic value from the roadway frontage; and the property to the east sits substantially above the project lot so the aesthetic value of a gabled roof is lost from this perspective. Furthermore, 1 understand that the owner of this neighboring property is not opposed to a flat roof, and is merely concerned that the maximum building height be no higher than elevation 226. In addition to the aesthetic impacts, there is a financial impact resulting from the loss of useable space. Constructing the zoning code-required 6:12 gabled roof slope results in a 15-foot high gable peak. This reduces the available building volume by 2 stories, which may make the project financially infeasible. Sincerely, Taylor Engineering Consultants, Inc. William N. Taylor, P.E. Principal \_iobs\.107 ~ TFC\LElTER~ Chris Koruga.doc I ~ I f I I f BENSON RO S { ROW t I ,. / / . / / ,/ .. / BUI FlAT ROOF OPTION, ..-..1" £srotiv'Lost "'™[j ~~>. : <~ : .~flOOf.OP~ .. ;,.,,,,,-. : ... __ .. . . . . .~. " ' I . _..,/ ------r r~:::: ___ _ IL I ---M/11 llll)G .. . --- HEIGHI UNE 226.00 I~ ~REMENI . , . . . , . "'l =uSIRC"'--.;: - . _/": --· -:I: ------r. ' ---- 180 • 1· ,. r EXISl1NG I . . ·: .:...;¥-=:= = ._ W/ FlAT ROOFlJ)lllfJ 4fr,-W" II -~-~ . /v 1r--·-.11 . ', ,/' 1 ... -• ----;-is---. · .. -~; ye' .• -~-:----{ ~---~ -----. . ' ' EXISllflG GIWJE , lll1~ rr ,, f B£11SON RO S { ROW NORTH SECTION SCN.£: ,·-Jo' --! / ,-"---- . ' ' '/ ~-'r. ·----. . . . -_,--,---~- 180• . ]-·~· , I . . --__ j_, -----~ --· -"""'-• SOU1li SECTION SCAl.f: 1 •JO ~ ~ 1'" • 80 tL After Filing Return To: Cairncross & Hempelmann, P .S. Attention: Jeremie Lipton 524 Second Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98104-2323 VIEW EASEMENT AND RESTRICTIVE COVENANT Reference numbers of related documents: 20080513900012 Grantor: Eagle Ridge Villa LLC,a Washington limited liability company Grantee: The Lodge at Eagle Ridge, LLC, a Washington limited liability company Legal Description (abbreviated): Portion of Lot B. Short Plat No. LUA-06-074-SHPL, REC. 20070308900006, KING COUNTY WASHINGTON As.sessor's Tax Parcel ID #'s: Portion of Tax Parcel# 2023059162 (00929188.DOCcl } VIEW EASEMENT AND RESTRICTIVE COVENANT THIS EASEMENT AND RESTRICTIVE COVENANT ("Agreement") is made this __ day of , 2009, by E.agle Ridge Villa, LLC, a Washington limited liability company ("Grantor") and The Lodge at E.agle Ridge, LLC, a Washington limited liability company ("Grantee"). RECITALS A. Grantor is the owner of that certain real property described in Exhibit A attached hereto ("Grantor Property"). B. Grantee is the owner of that certain real property described in Exhibit B attached hereto ("Grantee Property"). C. The Eru.iem most 60 feet of the Grantor Property as depicted on the drawing referenced in Exhibit C attached hereto ("Easement Area"), was added to the Grantor Property pursuant to Lot Line Adjustment NO. LUA-07-089-LLA recorded under King County recorcling No. 20080513900012 ("Lot Line Adjustment"), and was part of the Grantee Property prior to the Lot Line Adjustment. D. Grantee purchased the Grantee Property which included the F..asement Area, from Topman Fellow Corporation, a Washington Corporation ("Seller"). E. Under the purcha,e agreement by and between Seller and Grantee, Grantee and Seller agreed that subsequent to approval of the Lot Line Adjustment, Grantee would convey the Easement Area to Seller subject to Seller's grant of the easement included under this Agreement. F. Seller has assigned and transferred all of its rights and obligations arising under the purchase agreement to Granter including the right to the conveyance of the Easement Area and the obligation to grant the easement contained in this Agreement. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are acknowledged, Grantor and Grantee agree as follows: I. Height of Structure. Grantor and Grantee agree that the grade-level of the ex.isting facility on the Grantee Property is 216 feet above sea level Grantor covenants and agrees that the maximum height of any structure developed on the Ea,ement Area after the date of this Agreement shall not exceed 221 feet above sea level ("Height Limit"). 2. Run with Land. The covenant contained herein shall run in favor of the Grantee Property. shall run with the land, and be binding on and inure to the benefit of the parties' successors and assigns. {00929188.D<x:;3 }l .. 3. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Washington. 4. Litigation. If a suit, action, or other proceeding of any nature whatsoever, is instituted in connection with any controversy arising out of this Agreement or to interpret or enforce any rights or obligations hereunder, the substantially prevailing party shall be entitled to recover attorney, paralegal, accountant, and other expert fees and all other fees, costs, and expenses actually incurred and reasonably necessary in connection therewith, as detennined by the court at trial or on any appeal or review, in addition to all other amounts provided by law. 5. Authority. Each individual signing below represents and warrants that they have full power, authority and legal right to execute, deliver and perform this Agreement on behalf of the party entering into this Agreement and to perform all of its obligations hereunder. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Gran tor and Grantee have executed this Agreement as of the date first above written. GRANTOR EAGLE RIDGE VILLA LLC, a Washington limited liability company By: Chris Koruga Its: Manager GRANTEE THE LODGE AT EAGLE RIDGE, LLC, a Washington limited liability company By: Leon Grunstein Its: Co-Manager By: Martin McCurry Its: Co-Manager [ Acknowledgments follow on next page] {00929188.DOC;J }2 The Renton City Council 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Wa 98057 Re: File No. LUA-09-150, PPUD, ECF Sept. 22, 2010 Dear Renton City Council, RECEIVED SEP 2 7 2010 Renton City Council CITY OF RENTON SEP 27 2010 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE I am writing this letter in support of a mixed-use project that was submitted to the Hearing Examiner and which is being appealed to your office. Over the past two years I have been working alongside John Minden, the lead architect hired by Eagle Ridge Villas LLCf. Part of my responsibility has been to do design and landscape research for the project. Two years ago we met with the Renton Building Department and were furnished with the guidelines for development in the commercial arterial zoning of Renton. At that point we began our preliminary research into structures and site access requirements that would fit within these design guidelines. Over the first year we looked at numerous buildings within the Renton City limits as well as surrounding municipalities like Kent, Burien, Seattle and Bellevue. The nature of this zoning and the desire of the City or Renton to incorporate higher density and mixed uses challenged us to find the right design that would fit on this unique site. We settled on buildings which have many of the characteristics of the award winning Burien Town Center: www.burientownsquare.com/ Our buildings have a modern design with extended soffiting and oversized cedar supports. To add further interest we proposed several different siding materials, colors and transitions. The exterior transitions in this design allow us to keep residents connected to the outside and have a feeling of privacy within a large community. I hope the council can appreciate the efforts John Minden and I have made in the design of this project. We are very proud of the project and hope you will agree it is worth building. Sincerely, Ana Maria Aguirre Koruga EAGLE RIDGE VILLAS LLC Renton City Council I 055 South Grady Way Renton,Wa 98057 Dear Council Members, RECEIVED SEP 2 7 2010 Renton City Council I am one of the owners of the mixed-use project known as Eagle Ridge Apartments and Offices PUD. A Hearing Examiner's decision of July 12, 201 O has been appealed to the Renton City Council and I would like to take this opportunity to provide comments and support of our position as you prepare to deliberate on this very important matter. Our company has invested three years and over $200,000 in trying to design a project on our property that is both economically feasible as well as aesthetically pleasing to the prospective tenants, neighbors and the public at large. We feel we have accomplished that. The buildings we propose and the amenities we are offering to tenants and the public are creative, innovative and will be a welcome addition to the Benson Hill Neighborhood. The construction and operations of the buildings will provide jobs for dozens of local residents and add thousands of dollars in tax revenues to the City, State and Federal governments. Most importantly they will provide quality, affordable housing, office space and open space to more than 200 residents of the Renton community. We believe strongly that condition #16 of the 23 conditions outlined in the Hearing Examiners Report is unnecessary. This condition requires that we build a 6/12 pitched roof on our buildings and alter the design we have submitted. We concur with the Examiner on all conditions except this one. 5454 30th Ave SW Seattle.WA 98126 206 937-4525 206 595-5791 EAGLE RIDGE VILLAS LLC The decision to use a pitched roof or a flat roof, provided the code does not exclude one or the other, should be left to the designer and not the Examiner. The Commercial Arterial design guidelines of Renton do not encourage either pitched or flat roofs. The fact is that most CA zoned properties in Renton and other municipalities opt for flat roofs with building details that resemble what we have proposed. Our project was designed in the spirit of the Burien Town Center which incorporates commercial space and residential living units. Like the Town Center and many CA zoned properties around our City, there is a predominant mix of residential units vis a vis commercial space. Ours is no exception. To reiterate our position we hope the Council will consider the following facts that were presented at the Hearings: 1) Eagle Ridge Villas LLC has presented a creative, innovative mixed use project which has met all but one of the conditions that the Hearing Examiner requested. 2) The City of Renton Building Department had expressed no objection to our proposed flat roof during any of the preliminary applications, during plan review over 2 years, or at either of the Hearings conducted by the Hearing Examiner. 3) The Commercial Arterial Design Criteria does not require pitched roofs even if the predominant component of a project submitted are residential living units. 4) The majority of rooflines in Commercial Arterial Zoned areas are flat. 5) The majority of rooflines in Commercial Arterial Zoned areas along Benson HIii Road S. are flat. 6) The roofline for these proposed buildings, because of the elevations, is not visible from Benson Hill Road South or from within the proposed project. 7) The only neighbor whose view is impacted by our proposed roofline is the Lodge at Eagle Ridge. They have expressed no objection to the use of a flat roof. Page 2 EAGLE RIDGE VILLAS LLC 8) In the spirit of cooperation with our only neighbor who would be impacted by our structures, The Lodge, we have entered into an agreement to protect their views by limiting the height of our buildings. That height limitation is reflected in our proposal. Condition 16 is oppressive and unnecessary. It would force us to take off two floors of our proposed building, eliminate 40% of our units and render the project economically unfeasible. In 2006 we proposed a 29 unit multi family project on this property to the City of Renton and completed preliminary review. The project, which featured 6/12 rooflines, was discouraged, or, perhaps more accurately, redirected towards a higher density use in the pending Commercial Arterial zoning. We were told that the City was encouraging higher density and mixed use projects. We have been guided by the City of Renton Building Department for three years and now find ourselves in the difficult position of having lost our rights to build our initial project, having invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in this project and unsure if we are even going to be able to utilize our land. My partner Dr. Robert Hancheroff and I have a long history in Renton. We have built and managed properties in Renton for over 40 years. This is our community! We believe in Renton and want to continue investing our time and energy in quality projects like the one we have proposed. I hope the council will consider the benefits of this project, its aesthetic validity and the value that it will bring to our community. SincereK Chris Koruga Eagle Ridge Villas LLC Denislaw C"ty f _ _:May:..or ------~. t ~ .. ~lb~l_J-,. .... ) ~......,..,,-. ; I, ( ~ City Clerk -Bonnie LWalton September 17, 2010 APPEAL FILED BY: Eagle Ridge Apartments & Offices PUD by Chris Koruga RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated July 12, 2010, regarding Preliminary Planned Urban Development for a mixed-use development including commercial & residential uses, known as Eagle Ridge PUD, 1600 Benson Road S. (File No. LUA-09-150. PPUD, ECF) To Parties of Record: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the hearing examiner's decision on the Eagle Ridge PUD has been filed with the City Clerk. In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-llOF, within five days of receipt ofthe notice of appeal, or after all appeal periods with the Hearing Examiner have expired, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. Other parties of record may submit letters limited to support of their positions regarding the appeal within ten (10) days of the date of mailing of this notification. The deadline for submission of additional letters is by 5:00 p.m., Monday, September 27, 2010. NOTICE 15 HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeal and other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee. The Council Liaison will notify all parties of record of the date and time of the Planning and Development Committee meeting. The Council Liaison may be contacted at 425-430-6501. The recommendation of the Committee will be presented for consideration by the full Council at a subsequent Council meeting. Copy of the appeal and the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeal of Hearing Examiner decisions or recommendations is attached. Please note that the City Council will be considering the merits of the appeal based upon the written record previously established. l)nless a showing can be made that additional evidence could not reasonably have been available at the prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner, no further evidence or testimony on this matter will be accepted by the City Council. For additional information or assistance, please call me at 425-430-6510. Sincerely, Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk Attachments cc: Council Liaison 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • (425) 430-0510 / Fax (425) 430-0516 • rentonwa.gov September 17, 2010 STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING CERTIFICATE OF MAILING ) ) § ) BONNIE I. WALTON, City Clerk for the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 21 and not a party to nor interested in this matter. That on the 17th day of September, 2010, at the hour of 5:00 p.m. your affiant duly mailed and placed in the United States Post Office at Renton, King County, Washington, by first class mail to all parties of record, notice of appeal filed by Eagle Ridge Apartments & Offices PUD by Chris Koruga of the Hearing Examiner's recommendation regarding the Eagle Ridge PUD. (File No. LUA-09-150, PPUD, ECF} Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk ~UBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 17th,JWX of September, 2010. ,,,,,, ,,,, __ _ -2 .-.~ /~~t..~:.~!?;-~ \ \ ,, ~i· ~\ON ~··., -\ \: lr;;: •' • '::.. \\ \ ~of .n,/>.RY \ ~ <--s • ~ .,,. • " ,, ----::....-'> l •o .,..... :z§ Cynthia 'it Moya __ , '< \ \ P\}6\.,f, ..,_ / f2 f Notary Public in and for the State of ~ .,.;·· •••• 8-'IJ.:~···:~~/ ~ -'ll-, ........ ..~.11 Washington, residing in Renton .._~fl' 'fl._,,,1 1 My commission expires: 8/27/2014 '-'.1# 111 Easy Peel® Labels U<e 0 Av.rv"' T•mplate 5160® Robert Hancheroff 17710 2341h Av SE Maple Valley, WA 98038 John Murphy New Home Trends, Inc. 4314 14s'h Street SE Mill Creek, WA 98012 Van Hong P.O. Box 14136 Seattle, WA 98114 Etiquettes faclles a peler Utilisez le gabarit AVERY® 5160® ' I I I .. I I I I J ' A -feed Paper -- Bend alo11g fine to I expose Pop---Up Edge''"' l Chris Koruga Eagle Ridge LLC 5454 301h Av SE Seattle, WA 98126 Loraine Lafoon Berkshire Apartments, Mgr. Office 1300 Eagle Ridge Drive S Renton, WA 98055 ... Sens de chargement I Repliez a la hachure afln de I ,~v~ler fe rebord Pop-Up"' J I I AVERY@ s160® i John Minden J M Architects 1869 E. Seltice Way, Suite 336 Post Falls, ID 83854 Ben Yu Eagle Ridge HOA 1100 Eagle Ridge Drive 5, #A Renton, WA 98055 www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY .. I I I I .. 1 /1 / 1 ./ 1 v' 1 ,..,7 V'1 ./7 , ( ,/ 1 1 1 City Clerk's Office Distribution List Appeal, Eagle Ridge Apartments & Offices PUD Located at: 1600 Benson Road S File No. LUA-09-lSO, ECF, PPUD Renton Reporter City Attorney Larry Warren City Council • Julia Medzegian CED Alex Pietsch ' Assistant Fire Marshal David Pargas Planning Commission Judith Subia Parties of Record** (see attached list) - PW/ Administration Gregg Zimmerman PW/Development Services Neil Watts Jennifer Henning Stacy Tucker Gerald Wasser Kayren Kittrick Janet Conklin Larry Meckling PW/Transportation Services Connie Brundage PW/Utilities & Tech Services Lys Hornsby LUA-09-150 *City Clerk's Letter & POR List only . E-sy •Ml® Labels -use A'v,iy® T•mplate S160® Robert Hancheroff 17710 234th Av SE Maple Valley, WA 98038 John Murphy New Home Trends, Inc. 4314 1481h Street SE Mill Creek, WA 98012 Van Hong P.O. Box 14136 Seattle, WA 98114 ~tiquettei faciles a peter Utili,ez le gabarit AVERv«> 5160,e ' ' ' ' .. I I I I J ... -' I Bend along line to , expose Pop-Up Edge:tiw l reed Paper · ---- Chris Koruga Eagle Ridge LLC 5454 30th Av SE Seattle, WA 98126 Loraine Lafoon Berkshire Apartments, Mgr. Office 1300 Eagle Ridge Drive S Renton, WA 98055 " Sens. de chargement I Repliez , fa hachure afln de I ii,veler le rebord Pop--Up™ J ' @ AVERY@ s160® l John Minden JM Architects 1869 E. Seit ice Way, Suite 336 Post Falls, ID 83854 Ben Yu Eagle Ridge HOA 1100 Eagle Ridge Drive S, #A Renton, WA 98055 www.avery.com 1-80o-GO·AVERY I I I I .... . "'EAL TO RENTON CITY COUNI ' - OF HEARU :XAMINER'S DECISION/RECO!v _ LNDATION Eojle.-Rid:f· Aparfme1d-s.i. 0((1ces /JUD L.. "A 0<1 -1 1.--0 \PPLICATIONNAME c· J...,,...,> ~--~,1,A FILENO. ECF f".,i> 'he undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated f't"<l 3 , , 20___Lc» 0 CITY OF RENTON 2 -/0., l. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY SEP 1 0 2010 -cMV APPELLANT: Name: Lk.--, '> REPRESENTATIVE (IF ANY): '/ '° ,--"" ,,.__ Name· RECEIVED I<-,., 1 r+ ' GIT¥ GLERI< S OFFICE Address: __ ..:;;5,-,,::A ......... $ce:4f--...;f;z...~ '-'"".'"''---+-_\_+A,=v.,,_e_S W Address: ____________ _ 5:e,\.rtle \,J A 'i -s12.-<.o Phone Number: 2 0 l,, 5 'I c;--G 7 '1/ Phone Number: ____________ _ Emai 1: _ _,L='?-=-""=--.:''--·-=...>ec'CJ-7CLAL--S?.Y,'-->f--"1---"vl:-"'~"-'-'""="-'-' _,(....:cc "') Email: _______________ _ 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) I~ Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: Finding of Fact: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's Report) No. Error:--------------------------------- Correction:------------------------------ Conclusions: No. Error:--------------------------------- Correction:------------------------------ Other: re Lu..., i-t e '~ A--r 1c,V No. __ Error: 12,e~,-, -r-l,.e q,-0 1e,r v . ..., b,., lJ 14-\,i.._ 1. Y,--otf --=~t,\ A-\,-,.._,....:_ ~)..\,)"T""'1fVc 1 '1Q.\'f\,I J:'.+ Ac"'~ -t--L. .. _1r-,._\'-'l v·.v R 1-e.,;,,.,;, ,,..,,.., -+-e,..~,...,, <0,v"'- Correct1on: \".' r O ~ \ 1 v'-l e f Y' P,..., $ ± ce OJ'!i=t=; 4' l f """'11,, A:k r:::e C'91r ... .,...,,. ·-h~ J\,·:t:-1 a r,...J ' ., •'I--'-' ,._,·'It O .+-s 6l A L. C ,.._.., "-' <>"T" j-e,..-_ -t-l... _.,_ {V<:>1<;,bko-; f··-@4,er-. ±l. l b e~ ( .J r ,· ~-c, 1-i e_ '"I A,,-..,., __q -+, 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: V<> c:, -{- (Attach explanation, if desired) Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: , X Other: £1.-, ... ,NA,,;:, c..(}}fJr,,,-,;,,.._, :1:1:-/ b (yf 2 3 A-.v,( .,e L~,·.,...-u, ,{ A"T'\O.v ,o.-('.. /-4-eA,. -/""1r""<j Type/Printed Name c .:;. --~ ,\ t'T. 0 ,'\J'..s C: X ~ "" '"'-'"'-.--_ :Zt~,p-r: ,o zolc; Date NOTE: Please refer to Title IV, Chapter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4-8-1 IOF, for specific appeal pro,edures. Q.e; Lcct,iv.;,._n,~::-~=\\l.._1;,,.,, ~,~f n-,,,IW<clb, CEb/ ~""'J-4e, 1\,,"''""l (_[u::,j~)rc,e V,<\l.t:,-:i CED j f' r <' < \ ~u.J ,..,...._.A"\ -\-\ \::; )'. City of Renton Municipal C Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110 Appe 4-8-l lOC4 The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 4-1-170, the fee schedule of the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-llOF: Appeals to City Council-Procedures I. Time for Appeal: Unless a specific section or State law providing for review of decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court or any other body, any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the City Council, upon a form furnished by the City Clerk, within fourteen ( 14) calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. 2. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. 3. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. 4. Transmittal of Record to Council: Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the City Council all of the pertinent documents, including the written decision or recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report, the notice of appeal, and additional letters submitted by the parties. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-1982) 5. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required, the Council shall remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of additional evidence. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the applicant. In the absence of an entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, and a remand to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 4389, 1-25-1993) 6. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties. 7. Findings and Conclusions Required: If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-0SOFI, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or Jaw exists in the record, it may remand the proceeding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly. 8. Council Action: If, upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-l-050F2 and F3, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, or that a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified, the City Council may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the application. 9. Decision Documentation: In any event, the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord 3658, 9-13-1982) IO. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving, modifying or rejecting a decision of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames established under subsection GS of this Section. (Ord. 4660, 3-17-1997) Christopher T Koruga Thomas E Wall 5454 30th Ave SW Seattle, WA 98126 • 2222 $.,~ l!J.2/1250WA --=--.l----S~-tJ_;__..._Jlc::"'~7:,_,"' I\:, ""' nate Paytotffe /"· , F {2 $ ~ Order of _____ '--'_c__-=-• _;._t"_'i..___,._o,._"'""'-,___,""""ec.o • ..,JT"l"+=X'-',/=----' ..2 ... S"o __ __::::0:::C~..........i~c,:,___t{;+v'k,&.q,,~Q~rt,.,,:,<..dc(__(2________.1'.fi='d+=,::=~::::=:-__ Dollars Bank of America~~~ StoneWay096107 Washington For A ''1eAL 1: ~ 2 50000 2 i.,: 1),,.c tM« - CJ~[; SD [;i.8111 2 2 2 2 A :::::'.', L!.J o,, ...... "" UA !AN SA EII..UE 0 Cash CITY OF RENTON City Clerk Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425-430-6510 ~ --'.-... c;;J CheckNo.-c"'-;~,~' ,.;~'~,-r_' __ 0 Copy Fee 0 Appeal Fee Description: i 'i.\ ,., < .~ -~ \ .. ) ( \ \ ( .'-L \ \ · c_cl -) C: () -,: , ... . ,. Funds Received From: Name Address City/Zip , __ .. \...._ }- \ i \'1. \~'-..J. ~.-c-- -'-\. Receipt 1654 Date Cf i () · /0 D Notary Service o __________ _ ,' 1, \,,,' ,-(_ ,\ Citf, Staff Signature · , EAGLE RIDGE VILLAS LLC 5454 30th Ave SW eactle, Wa 981 26 98057$3"2"32 24 S-EP:2010 1000 The Renton City Council I 055 South Grady Way Renton,Wa 98057 98057 11,1,, In I, II .. ,, l, I, I .. , I,, Ii,,, l, I,, ll,, ,I, I, I, I,, I, i,,,, Ill --. 1\().bv,-J ./-bv1-Chero/l' · ~,~w_...~z:_w~--. .. . 11111 IIIU 1111111 11rr1 C, ~ Avt.-<SL Ma.p/o_ Vo.,l~ I 0../A qgo3 I?' ~~ 1111111111111111111 .c;; 1111111111111111 Ill 7010 0780 0002 3220 8019 :o~:~:::~::, 1111111111111111 Ill 1000 98056 U.S. POSTAGE PAIO LH Qt..JiNTH.CH. 92253 SE"P 27. '10 AMOUNT $3.24- 00069'413-14 R e.vrh VJ C ,& G /,ct1"-I / ,,,, °" "'•, /6% <;;oa#; ~vac.lv Wet<-1 S£p ,?o 2o,;1-, .ci") I . I c/fy f?t;c f\ LJ1itJ V7 b VA-q ~· (:, 5" 6 CLt;FrttE=o r Of'p, •Ct; Af: h I~ /Yo . J.,l,<J}-Q c;. ?~7-pptt)J I £Cr::-11.1 .. 1.;1.11 .... 1.1.1 ... 1 .. 11 ... 1.1 .. 11 ... 1.1.1.1 .. 1.1 .... 111 .,. . .:, .... ,.., . •j'.·l / EAGLE RIDGE VILLAS LLC 5454 30th Ave SW Seattle, Wa 98126 ~ ,:-:-:• •T:• ·-' ~: 1-'•.T"l'.' LC ' ' . . 1.,. i;:·i.,J.):1 •. Sl:6~-s 2:4 s. "·, "" _EF 2:010 City PM ST "'• . S ENro1v ft'!ri;.ovrto fJ : (p 2 J ""&f" 2llfo $1).l\l\ 'i3, o ~ " I I ' . <ci/;f '""''"'. 'o ,ooo 99057 C . ...._ "-" 4-TS'O<'-' ""ice The Renton City Council I 055 South Grady Way Renton,Wa 98057 ·~ c::.\e.~ 9;::.;:-:5-;::z--:,? .. :J? ll , I, , I,, I, I l., .. I , I, I, , , I, , 11,, , I, I , , 11, , , I, I, l, I, , I, I, , , , 111 ~l ("1 tJ'I •·,.I (fJ (,) I\) (,) I\) , < .. • \ i\_' • . --... ·'\... " " ., :~ ( <D '"' 0 en ..., 0 ,o 0 0 , '. J rJ ' \. .. .. . . • ~Y-0 . ~~j CITY t_:~f RENTON Hearing Examiner · Fred J, Kaufman ,~, DenisLaw,Mayoi. "/3N'1'0?-------------------------------;_ ugust 30, 2010 Chris Koruga Managing Director Eagle Ridge Villas, LLC : 5454 30th Ave SW . Seattle, WA 9 8126 Subject: · Eagle Ridge Apartments am! Offices PUD Request for Reconsideration LUA09-150;ECF,PPUD . Dear Mr.Koruga: . This offic~ has reviewed the applicant's Req~est ForReconsideration as wen as the comments that staff. submitted atthis office's request .. ·. . . . This office odginally found that the proposed PPUDlacked innov~tive and creative design den1ents as well as providing too much surface parking in a zone where no surface parking is generally permitted~ In addition, this office required pitched or peaked roofs on the two buildings. · ·. . -,-· .. The applicm1t's request breaks down into two main areas. fa thefrrst, the applicant proposed a ~eries of changes in the site design to create a more.innovative project with additional public elements. These .· design changes inciude reduced surface parking, changes to open space and landscaping and thdnciusion .•.. of amenities a~ailable to future residents and the_ general public. The second area in which the applicarit sought a review was the condition relating to the.finish m appearance ofthe.roofprofiles of the two buildings .. · · · · · · · The r~duction in surface parking is awelcome change in the proposa[ The applicant proposes to accomplish this res_ult by reducing the.number of units. This.unit reduction has a dual outcome. The ·· reduced unit count requires. less overallp~king and the footprint of those units would be convertedto indoor parking for .. sixteen(l6) additional stalls. ·There would be a reduction of15 surface stails.·As staff noted, in their analysis, power lines on the site reduce the development potential and power line corridors . do permit parking, a reasonable tradeoff Staffs analysis shows that visible surface parking would be. reduced from 25% tO 8%. In addition to the reduction in surface p_arking the applicant has proposed .•. enhanced _landscaping to screen the parking areas:_ These changes are a very positive outcome and make the proposal compatible with the goals and objectives. of the Comprehensive Plan and also the criteria of the PUD Ordinance. · · · · · The applicant has prnposeda mimbllr ofadditional amenities open .to theresidents and the general public. The applicant has proposed an_arnphitheatre. It will have a stage and lighting. H coulcJ house small plays or concerts. It will be open to the public. Another public venue that the applicant proposes is ari outdoor cinema.-. It would couple the "entertainment" room along ·the north end of the south building with its adjacent plaza area in the summer n1onths creating a cinema area. . . . .. . ' .-.· The originai proposal incl~ded ~ome sidewalks but that plan has been expanded to include enh!lllc6d piiblicly available trails connecting Eagle Ridge Drive and Benson Road. This would provic!e. an .. alternative walking route away from the busier roadways. ThetraHs would also link together the _ _ . amphitheatre, a gazebo and barbeque area, The appli~ant h,;,; also included a sports courrin_place of_·.· --~-1-0-55.,-_ S_o_u_th.,.Grad~....,y-w-.,-.y-,.-'-R-en-to_n_, W---as-hi-ngt-'-. -on-'-98--'0,--57---(-42'--5-,}-'-43-0--6-'-5-'-15-. -'---~-'---~· ----~---. 6i.') Tois~oercorrra';n~5o·%~mate~.io%coStconsumel' AH-EAD ·oF THE CUR:VE · · surface parking. Th~ additional outdoor recreati6n space is a good addition to the cmnplex. · It was not.·• · clear if this amenity would be open fo the public: Not all aspects of the proposal need be available to the general public and it might be bdter controlled if it were not open. . . The applicant proposes to create some garden space for residents. Thi~ amenitywouldbe located east of the north buHding. Gardening space serves a dual purpose as both practical and open space or additional · landscaping. A more formal water feature or fountain will be provided at the entrance along Benson: It. . will be visible to the driving and walking public and should enhance the overall aspect of the proposal. The second change s~ught by the applicant is the condition that the rnofline of the proposal accommodate sloped rooflines for the two buildings .. While the buildings do contain a substantial amount offacade · detailing, as noted in the original report, peaked roofs provide a mcire finished appearance both for · passersby as well as those that will look down on the project from the east. The look also.screens rooftop . equipment and vents and stacks and softens .the hard edge of th~ roofline. Staff agreed with this · assessment and suggested that the roof pitch be 6: 12 which seems like a reasonable proposal. · . ' ' ' In conclusion, the design changes includi11g the reduced density and reduced surface parking complement as well as the additional amenities suggested by the applicant substantially improve the overall. design of the project and provide a substantial benefit tothe public. These changes satisfy prominent elements in the criteria for revie..ving a PUD .. Therefore, this office recommends that the City Council approve the PPUD after incorporating the elements proposed in the Request}or, Recbrisideration. · · r . • "•• ·• ' RECOMMENDATION: . The City Council should approve the proposed PPtID subject to the following condition: 1. Refuse and recyclables areas ~hall be'~~ensionedonthe.r~vised site plan submitted. to the. Planning Division projectmanager for review anq approval prior to the issuance of building permits. A detail of the refuse and recyclables areas must be submittedwith the•site plan indicating compliance with RMC 4-4,090: . . 2. The pedestrian walkwaysystem sh~Iibe extended to provide connectivity to Benson · Road S, between the North and. South Buildings, andbetween the project site and the . dental/medical office fmilding to the north. This extended walkway system shall be indicated on the revised site plan submitted.to the Plannmg Division project manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. . .. . ,' . 3. All walkways/crosswalks within ~arklrig lots shall be differentiated by material or. · texture, such as raised and stamped concrete or rais.ed arid painted asphalt Such walkways/crosswalks shall b~ indicated on therevised.site submitted to the Planning· Division praject manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. · .. · ... · .· · . ·· ·.. ·.. · . .. ·, ·.. · . . · .· · 4. · . A Finallandscape plan shall be subII1itted to the Planning bi'visi~n project manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of building. permits that indiq.tes expanded and enhanced landscaping using more irees in the area of the gazebo, benches and picnic tables. · · · · · . 5. Revised ele\fations for the south elev;tion of the North Building and the north elevation of the. South Building showing architectural modulation similar to the east . ' .... 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16: 17. 18. and west elevations shaUbe submittedto lhe Planning Division project manager for review and approval priorto the issuance of building permits. · Revised elevations shall be submitted to the. Planning Divisiim-project manager for . review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits which indicate that decorative ironwc;>rk W9uld be used for gro~nd lev_el parking structure openings. · A revised site plitit showing additional walkways and crosswalks tb promote pedestrian safety throughout the site. Such walkways shall be showri to provide a connection to the dental/medical office building .. to th_e north, _between passive recreation areas as well as providing crosswalks across surface parking lots. The · revised site plan shall ·be submitted to the Planning Division project manager for· review and_apprbvalprior to the issuance of building pem1its. · · · A lighting plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division project manager for review and approval prior to utility construction that ind_icates pedestrian walkway; landscape, and building lighting. · · · · A revised site plan ruid revised elevations.shall be subrhitted to tile Planning Division project manager for review and approval prior to .the issuance of building permits indicating that primary entries would have awnings or canopies and be identified with decorative paving and/or landscaping: · · A rooftop mechanical equipment. detail shall be. submitted to the Planning Division project managerfor review and approval prior:to the issuance of building permits. Revised floor plans. shall. be Sl!bmitted to thel'lannirig Divisio~ project man~ger for . feview and approval prior to the -isslJ.arice ofbuilding permits indicating compliance · with the dimension and square footage requirement_s ·of the PUD de_cision criteria. An common facilities, not dedicated to the City,. shall be permane~tly maintained by the PUD owner. The applicanfshall provide peaked 6rpitched:ro6fsa;. part of this prO!lQSaL .· The modification: to allow. grading_ of the steep slopesshaU be submittedto the Planning Divisio~ project manager for review and approval prior to· the issuance. of building permits. : · The applicant shall be ~~quired to designat~ five to ten stalls as guest parking. The applicant shall provide pitched or peaked roofs on both buildings at ratio of6:12 ... The applicant shall reduce the numbet ofresidential uni~s by seven (7) living units ~n . the south end of the first floor of the South Building, and establish interior parking for 16 cars in the same building. A total of 15 parking stalls would be eliminated in surface parking lots .. The remaining parki1J.g shall be screened by enhanced landscape buffers between the entry to the interior parking on the first floor and the remaining parking stalls.. · · · · The applicant shall include aJI outdooramphitheatrefor small plays and other •. · productions. Landscaping would be incorporated as an enhancement; and lighting . · woul_d be provided to theatrical productions .. The design shall incorpornte a~ reasonably appropriate a semi0 circle. stage with backdrop of piHars made of cedar, metal or stone. · · -· 19. The applicant shall provide enhanced trails that connect Eagle Ridge Drive South to . Benson Hill Road, provide connections through both the south and north end of the · property ~d integrate the gazebo/barbeque area and outdoor theatre areas, 20. The entertainment room and its adjacent plaza located at the north end of the south building shall accommodate seating for over 75 people and. would be made available to the public during summer. months for use as an outdoor cinema. · --. •, . . -·. . 21. A basketball sport court shall be constructed at the south end of the driveway aisle, in . . an area formerly proposed for four parkingstaHs. 22. Garden containers shall be provided at the east end of the north building for pea patch gardens for residents. . · · •• • ' ,' ' • • • C • 23. An entry water fountain feature with landscaping shall be built at the south end of the property along Benson Hill Road South, Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner cc: Chip Vincent Jennifer Henning Gerald· Wass er. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: M E M O R A N D U M August 24, 2010 Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner Gerald Wasser, Associate Planner Review of Reconsideration Request for Eagle Ridge PUD, {File LUA09-1SO, PPUD, ECF) On August 2, 2010 you wrote requesting additional input from staff regarding the applicant's request for reconsideration of recommended conditions for the Eagle Ridge Apartments and Offices Planned Urban Development project (LUA09-150, PPUD, ECF). The applicant specifically requests relief from the Examiner's recommendation to the City Council requiring structured parking, and pitched or peaked roofs on the buildings. The applicant has requested to be permitted to provide 32 surface parking stalls (in addition to structured parking), in exchange for a reduction in the number of dwelling units, and the addition of site amenities intended to benefit the public including: an amphitheatre, gazebo and barbeque, a pea patch area, picnic area and benches, sport court, and entry water feature. Staff has considered the applicant's request and revisions and offers the following analysis. REQUEST NO. 1: Reduce parking and add amenities including an amphitheaters, walking trails, spart court, water feature, sports court, pea patch area, walking trails, and public outdoor cinema. Each of these enhancements and amenities is analyzed below. A. Density Reduction!Parkinq Reduction/Landscaping Enhancements. The applicant is proposing to reduce the number of residential units by seven (7) living units on the south end of the first floor of the South Building, and establish interior parking for 16 cars in the same building. A total of 15 parking stalls would be eliminated in surface parking lots. The number af surface parking stalls visible to the public would be reduced from 25% of the total parking to 8%. The remaining parking would be screened by enhanced landscape buffers between the entry to the interior parking on the first floor and the remaining parking stalls. Staff Analysis. Staff supports the elimination of the seven dwelling units, the associated reduction in surface parking stalls, and the enhanced landscaping proposed to diminish the aesthetic impacts of the surface parking. The provision of some surface parking Fred Kaufman Page 2 of 3 August 24, 2010 accommodates public and vendor parking, visitor, and handicapped parking. These revisions result in a superior design, and a public benefit that justifies some surface parking. Some surface parking is appropriate given the site constraints associated with the high tension electrical transmission lines that limit development on portion of the site. Surface parking and landscaping are both allowed in the transmission line easement area. B. Amphitheatre. As port of this request the applicant hos also proposed amenities including an outdoor amphitheatre for small plays and other productions. Landscaping would be incorporated as an enhancement, and lighting would be provided to theatrical productions. The anticipated design is for a semi-circle stage with backdrop of pillars made of cedar, metal or stone. Staff Analysis. Staff supports the addition of the amphitheatre that would be open to the public. Due to the inclusion of design and the inclusion of stage lighting this is a unique amenity that demonstrates public benefit. Staff suggests that a condition of approval be added such that the applicant provides specific design elements during the Final PUD phase. C. Enhanced Walkways & Trails. The proposed enhanced trails would connect Eagle Ridge Drive South to Benson Hill Road, provide connections through both the south and north end of the property and integrate the gazebo/bbq area and outdoor theatre areas. Staff Analysis. Walking trails open to the public would be beneficial and would increase site connectivity and pedestrian access. Staff supports this proposed amenity, and recommends that such trails be a minimum of 5 feet in width. D. Outdoor Cinema. The existing entertainment room located at the north end of the south building would be would be able to seat over 75 people and would be made available to the public during summer months for use as an outdoor cinema. Staff Analysis. Staff supports this creative dual use of the courtyard off of the entertainment room, and believes that this would provide a unique public benefit. E. Sport Court. A basketball sport court is proposed to be constructed at the south end of the driveway aisle, in an area formerly proposed for four parking stalls. Staff Analysis. Staff supports the inclusion of a sport court. Staff is not clear as to whether or not this would be open to the public, or for the exclusive use of residents and guests. Regardless, the inclusion of an active recreation opportunity is beneficial and results in additional open space on the site. F. Pea Patch. Garden containers that could be used for pea patch gardens would be available to residents at the east end of the north building. Staff Analysis. Staff supports this idea, and suggests that raised bed containers be provided for residents to garden. This provides a public benefit of additional green space on site. Fred Kaufman Page 3 of3 August 24, 2010 G. Water Feature. An entry water fountain feature with landscaping is prapased ta be built at the south end of the property along Benson Hill Road South. Staff Analysis. Staff supports the provision of an aesthetic element that is visible to the public as they drive by. In addition, a water feature enhances the auditory aesthetic experience of pedestrians in the area. REQUEST NO. 2: The applicant is requesting relief from the Hearing Examiner's Condition of Approval which requires the redesign the PPUD to incorporate pitched or peaked roofs. Staff Analysis. Staff supports HEX condition of approval and does not find any compelling reason in the applicants request for reconsideration to change this. Staff suggests that the Examiner specify that the roof have a pitch of 6:12 or as approved by working with the Current Planning Project Manager. Summary. Staff is in support of Mr. Koruga's changes as reflected in his reconsideration Request No. 1, Items A-G. The proposal now includes enhanced public benefits including an outdoor amphitheater, sports court, an enhanced pedestrian path/trail system, and a water feature at the project entry. The revised plan also includes more enclosed parking and a reduction in overall residential density as well as enhanced landscaped areas. Given the location of utility lines and easements on the project site, we are supportive of Mr. Koruga's placement of surface parking on the site. We recommend that the Examiner include a condition of approval such that these aspects of the proposal are further refined and detailed drawings be provided to staff as part of the Final PUD process. We do not however, support Request No. 2 to eliminate the requirement for a pitched roof. We believe that the residential character of the surrounding area and the proposed project would be enhanced if the proposed project buildings incorporated a 6:12 roof pitch. CITY ~F RENTON August 2, 20 I 0 · Gerald Wass er Associate Planner Ctimmunity and Econoni,c Division City of Renton Subject: Eagle Ridge Apartments and Offices PUD · LUA09-l50, ECF; PPUD Dear Mr. Wasser: -. . . . Hearing Examiner Fred J. Kaufman This office received the attached Request for Re~onsjderation regarding the Eagle Ridge PUD. The applicanthas proposed a number of changes to the original proposal. Thisoffice is considering the request but would like staffs' inputbefore completing the review.· This offi~e is considering whether the hearing should be reopened to rn:ore fully explore the proposed. changes. In any event, a staff analysis of the changes which includes a reduction in unit cojmt and parking as weil as other changes would be . · appreciated. · · · · · · · Please review the submittal and submit your written coniments as soon as reasonable given the significant . changes proposed. · · sm~~& Fred J. Kaufman · Hearing Examiner cc: Chip Yincent ·. Jennifer Henning attachment · ,-----.,.,-l-05~5-S_o_uth---,G_rac_d..,.~~w-.~y---R.:_en_t.c_on-c,-W--'a~sh_in_gt'--o~n~. -98_0_5.:...7~-.:_(4~25-'-)-4-30~--65_1_5-"-~'----~ .. Ii:!; ~-"--· _:_ __ ,c._ •-• --·-•-__ ..:a_, ,,,;, -------· ·--· AHEAD OF THE CURVE Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton CITY OF RENTON JUL 2 6 zorn #vi RECEIVED 1),,/11)<:Y .,/ CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 'l,30<?,r.. Re: Request for Reconsideration of PUD. File No: 09-150, PPUD, ECF July 24, 2010 Dear Mr. Kaufman, Pursuant to the Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 1 OOG of the City code we are requesting reconsideration of the decision which you issued on July 12, 2010 regarding the above mentioned PUD file no .. Enclosed please find a summary of our request for reconsideration with exhibits. Sincerely, Chris Koruga Managing Director Eagle Ridge Villas LLC Request for Reconsideration: History In 2006 Eagle Ridge Villas LLC completed preliminary review with the City of Renton to build a single family project consisting of 32 town homes on their site at 1600 Benson Hill Rd. South in Renton, Wa. ( Exhibit One, Site Plan for Town home Development) In that same year we were notified by Neil Watts of the City of Renton that a new zoning was being considered for our property which would significantly increase the density allowed on our property . This new zoning, Commercial Arterial ( CA) was to be implemented at some time in the near future and, according to Mr. Watts, there would be advantages to submitting a plan that took advantage of that proposed higher density zoning. We agreed and awaited the formal change which took place in 2008 when our property was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 5327. In 2008 we engaged our architects and engineers to study the site and propose a design for a building that would fit into the newly adopted CA zoning. After analyzing the regulations and requirements for a Commercial Arterial project it became apparent that our site was not suited for this zoning. Unlike other CA zoned properties in Renton which are located along flat, more heavily trafficked commercial corridors we were isolated along an arterial that had little or no commercial activity and a significant gradient that made a level commercial frontage impossible. In order to comply with the new zoning we were required to load our commercial space along the gradient of Benson Hill Rd. S. and provide parking within the structure for users of that building. Taylor Engineering, civil engineers for the project, notified us that the only way to satisfy these requirements would be to excavate into the hillside and remove thousands of yards of dirt behind and above the commercial units to create the space necessary for a garage of this magnitude. The actual excavation footprint was 200 feet along Benson Hill Rd. S, 120 feet east into the hillside at depths reaching 30 feet. ( See Exhibit Two, Topo Map ) A similar effort would be required for the second building we proposed. Furthermore, the gradient along Benson, would mean that the finished store fronts would drop 10-12 feet in elevation from the south end of the building to the north end. This would require " "stair stepping "of the commercial store fronts along Benson HIii Rd. S. ( See Exhibit Two, Topo Map, Elevation changes 160 -170 along Benson ) These options were not attractive, economically feasible or even practical to consider. We returned to the City of Renton for guidance on how to utilize our property to its highest and best use and were directed to apply for a PUD. We directed our architects and engineers to find a plan that could now satisfy the requirements of a PUD. That plan has been submitted, reviewed and comments from the Hearing Examiner as well as Renton Building Officials and the public have been taken into consideration. There were a number of significant issues in our first proposal that we feel did not get adequate consideration from the Hearing Examiner, perhaps because they were not fully supported by the documentation or testimony or that we were not able to express our position in reference to the voluminous documents that were submitted along with this PUD request. We ask that the Hearing Examiner and the City of Renton Building Department reconsider our proposal with this additional explanation and changes that we submit herein. These changes reflect the concerns, comments and recommendations that were expressed in the findings of the public hearing June 10, 201 O and are attached to this request for reconsideration. Planned Urban Development Regulations: Purposes The two principal purposes of the planned urban development regulations are: 1) to preserve and protect natural features of the land. And, 2) to encourage innovation and creativity in the development of mixed use projects. Preserve and protect and enhance natural features: The site is predominated by two varieties of scrub trees: alder and cottonwood. 70 of the 80 trees delineated on our site are unattractive, have a limited life span and do not contribute to creating a pleasing, natural environment. Our plan introduces 1000 plants, shrubs and trees, including specimen trees along Benson and throughout our site that will transform the grounds into a pleasing, user-friendly, park like environment. This will benefit the public, the residents and commercial tenants. The landscaping will be visibly pleasing to traffic and pedestrians along Benson Hill Rd. S. and relieve the congestion of a building which, under standard regulations of the CA zoning, would be loaded up against the arterial. Further utilizing and protecting natural features we have proposed to landscape the " bowl-shaped " hillside at the north end of the site along Benson, incorporating an environmentally friendly outdoor amphitheatre with granite seating and a stage. The public will be encouraged to stage small productions during the summer and enjoy a peaceful retreat within the most valuable natural feature on our site. To facilitate access we will provide a walking trail from the outdoor cinema area down to the outdoor theatre. Under standard regulations of the CA zoning, this area would qualify as a building site to load commercial units. In fact, this is the most logical place to locate commercial space. It is located next to the dental office building and would be easier to market than if it were isolated up the road along Benson Hill Rd. S. RMC Requirement: " Commercial space must be reserved on the ground floor at a minimum of thirty feet ( 30' ) in depth along any street frontage. Part of the effort in preserving nature is to enhance it wherever possible. Our plan provides for 56,000 square feet of open space. 20,000 square feet of that open space is situated on hillsides or slopes. Under the standard regulations of the CA zoning developers are required to provide 5800 square feet of open space. The site, now comprised of scrub trees and brush, barren hillsides. blackberry bushes and weeds, will be transformed into a healthy, natural landscape which will attract and preserve wildlife, provide seasonal color changes and beautify a once unattractive parcel of land. Of particular benefit to the public will be our landscaping and preservation efforts around the public attractions, like the outdoor theatre, picnic and barbque areas, the pea patches, water fountain, gazebo areas and along Benson Hill Rd. S .. The walking trails will provide connectivity for pedestrians and make the natural areas more accessible. We feel this is a superior approach to the use of the open space that would be otherwise limited by the RMC requirement. In fact, if the units were loaded all along Benson HIii Rd. S., as prescribed in the RMC, the landscaping schedule would be eliminated for most of the 2.8 acre site. Encourage creativity and innovation: Creativity in Building Design: Although we agree that sloped roofs provide a " residential " look that can soften the bulk of a building ,we also recognize that a modern craftsman design with protruding soffits and cedar bracing, as we have proposed ,is appealing to many people. This a matter of taste. Our only neighbor along Benson, the dental building, has a similar roofline perspective as the one we propose but less detail in soffit and bracing. What seems to override the sloped roof versus non-sloped argument is the fact that the building is situated 50 feet above Benson Hill Road and the roofline is not particularly visible from that perspective. Nor is it visible from the ground floor on any side of the building. If one takes the perspective of the Lodge then is does come into play. The two or three floors of residents who are located on the west end of that building do look down on it. There is a trade off for the limited number of Lodge residents who can see the top of the building: a flat roof allows greater access to a territorial view of the valley. Assuming the Lodge managers want to keep the dense vegetation at the border between the two properties there would be another natural buffer to mitigate the view of our proposed building The ultimate " look " of the building and its aesthetic appeal to the public is of great concern to the developers. Most of the buildings in the vicinity, including the Lodge, the dental building to the north and the Eagle Point Apartments to the south have singular or limited siding options and colors. The dental building is a monochromatic grey stucco, The Lodge utilizes " hardiplank" on most of the exterior along with a color change where stucco interrupts the hardi plank The Eagle Ridge apartments, built forty years ago, incorporate cedar siding with a single color treatment. Our proposed project has a number of exterior treatments, undulating exterior walls, five color changes, a bold soffit treatment with massive cedar braces that offer a distinct modern approach to a craftsman style of architecture. Our proposed buildings have interior design which provide not only some of the largest and most comfortable apartment units in the City of Renton but feature attractive hallways that open up to exterior courtyards. From every unit in these two buildings there is a unique and pleasant view. The western exposed units all have views of the valley or Lake Washington. The east facing units look out over green belts within the 56,000 square feet of open space that we have preserved and landscaped. This was accomplished with creativity and innovation and taking full advantage of the topography that existed. Under the standard regulations of a CA zoning we would be required to load our commercial units and, as a consequence, our apartment units up against Benson Hill Road. Creativity and Innovation in Open Spaces The use of open spaces in our proposed plan is superior to the use of these spaces if we were to forced to comply with the standard regulations of the CA zoning. Under standard regulations the garage, front entrance and much of the traffic to the building would be directed in from Benson Hill Rd. S .. Our plan relieves this congestion and allows for greater use of open spaces throughout the site. The creative approach we have taken will be a relief to not only the traffic patterns along Benson but will significantly improve the views and limit sound distractions for the predominant component of this project, our tenants. Many of the ideas that we have incorporated in our building design and open space design can be seen in a completed form by visiting the website for the Burien Town Square project at: www.burientownsquare.com/ Surface Parking One of the goals of the Commercial Arterial zoning is to "screen " parking from the public. One of the ways to accomplished this is by creating parking within a structure. We support these goals. Ultimately we too would like to screen as much parking as possible for the aesthetic benefit of the project. It's great for tenants and it is pleasing to the public. It's unfortunate that all of the CA zoned properties along Benson utilize surface parking, most have no interior or screened parking on site. Within the objective of screening parking we must consider several important issues: Is the site serving the needs of the users? Are we providing adequate security for residents and visitors? Can the commercial tenants, their delivery vehicles and clients access the places of business easily and find adequate parking once they arrive? Will the public be able to park safely and enjoy the benefits of the amenities we offer them? Existing surface parking In the site plan that we previously submitted for review, the only surface parking visible to the public is located to the east and south of the south building. Since the building sits 12 feet above Benson Hill Rd. S., none of those parking stalls were visible to the public from the arterial. Stalls that are visible to the public within the site number 35 ( 25% of the total parking provided for the project ). Although we feel this surface parking would be a net benefit to the users of our buildings we also recognize that screening, if possible, is a good approach to a mixed use building. To that end we have modified our building and site plan and submit the following changes: Proposed surface parking We are proposing to eliminate 15 surface parking stalls. ( Exhibit Three Revised Site Plan ). In order to accomplish this we will eliminate seven living units on the south end of the first floor and establish interior parking for 16 cars within the building. These units will be provided for visitors to the property. Residential tenants will utilize the two subterranean garages. The redesign will accomplish several objectives: 1) Reduce the number of visible surface stalls from 25% to 8% of the total stalls. 2) Provide interior parking for visitors with easy access to commercial units and the main residential lobby. 3) Screen the remaining surface parking by increasing the size of the landscape buffers between the entry to the interior parking on the first floor and the remaining stalls. 4) The remaining surface parking along the east side of the south building will remain to service the needs of the handicapped, commercial clients, residents and the public. Additional Benefits to the Public To enhance the plan that was previously submitted and clearly establish benefits to the public we offer the following: A) An outdoor theatre with stage that can facilitate small plays and other productions to be located in an area where the landscaping will be enhanced and lighting for productions will be provided. The theatre will feature stone benches or granite sitting rocks and a semi circle stage with backdrop constructed of either cedar, metal or stone pillars. A walking trail from the environmentally friendly theatre will connect the Gazebo area and outdoor cinema location at the north end of the south building on the main floor. Public parking for visitors to be provided at the north end of south building next to the cinema location. See attached photo of similar theatre installed in the High Point development of West Seattle. ( Exhibit 4, Outdoor Theatre ) B) Outdoor Cinema. The existing entertainment room designated for residents at the north end of the south building will be made available to the public during the summer for outdoor cinema features. This area can seat over 75 people and will be an ideal area during warm weather to stage these kinds of shows. Doors to the patio can be opened allowing indoor/outdoor viewing of the theatre screen. Parking for outdoor cinema guests from the public will be conveniently located at the north end of the surface parking for the south building. Reception areas within the building or outside in the Gazebo area as well as the outdoor theatre area will welcome guests and provide an inviting area to socialize before or after the cinema event. C) Sport Court. A Sport court for basketball will be constructed at the south end of the driveway aisle, replacing four surface parking stalls. D) Pea Patch. Pea Patch garden containers will be provided at the east end of the north building. E) An entry fountain water feature with enhanced landscaping will be built at the south end of the property along Benson Hill Rd. S. F) Enhanced Walkways and Trails to connect Eagle Ridge Drive S. to Benson Hill Rd. S. through both the north and south ends of property and integrate the Gazebo and outdoor theatre areas proposed. Planned Urban Development versus Standard CA Development: In reviewing the decision criteria we have several comments pertinent to our specific project and request to qualify as a PUD. At the front of the comments, italicized, are a reference to the decision criteria established by the City of Renton. 1) Applicant must demonstrate that the proposed development will be superior to that which would result without a planned urban development and would not be detrimental to surrounding properties. I believe we have met that burden. Our proposal will not be detrimental to surrounding properties. The design and concept we propose is complimentary to the existing dental and office building to the north. Rooflines are similar, both feature modern architecture, both are situated on steep topography and would be accessed off Benson Hill Rd. S. Our presence along Benson should stimulate business to the Dental practice. Traffic from our residential and commercial tenants will add 140 people to the area along with their guests and clients and the public. The buffers between our proposed building and the only other neighbor we share, The Lodge, is 70 and 120 feet respectively. In addition to that there is a topographic separation and a large landscape buffer. The property to the south is a permanent 100 foot utility easement and the property to the west is a steep sloped CA zoned lot which is vacant, and, like ours, difficult to develop. In making a determination as to whether this project is" superior" to that which would result without a planned urban development one should consider the points that I have made previously in the summary to assess the " inferior " components of the project under standard CA regulations. Without a planned urban development and under the standard regulations of the Commercial Arterial Zoning this project has some glaring deficiencies: 1) Traffic along the arterial would be impacted. There is no street parking allowed along Benson Hill Rd. S. from Puget Park Drive to the downtown corridor. This encourages high rates of speed on the gradient that exceed the posted 35 mph. Under the standard regulations all users of our building would be required to utilize the subterranean parking garage opening onto the arterial road. RMC 4-3 1 OOE.2.a.ii " the front entry of a building shall not be oriented to a drive aisle, but instead to a public or private street or landscaped pedestrian-only court yard." RMC 4-2-120A "Parking for residential units shall be enclosed within the same building as the unit it serves." 2) Noise and pollution generated from a commercial building along Benson Hill Rd. S. would be increased. 3) A commercial building along Benson Hill Rd. S. in this area will be difficult to tenant and could end up a white elephant. The market for retail and commercial space is depressed, both nationally and locally. Prospective tenants have a lot to choose from and would only choose Benson Hill Rd. S. if it offered a superior location, better access, a better experience for their clients and a better price. We cannot offer any of those benefits for the reasons summarized earlier. 4) With the restrictions of RMC 4-2-120A it would be incumbent upon developers to enclose all residential parking in the same building it serves and direct all tenants to enter and exit immediately off Benson. This appears to be an uncomfortable and much less desirable situation for the tenants than our proposal which creates an open drive aisle with good visibility of the arterial and broad turning radius'. Staff Recommendations We agree with the Hearing Examiner and City of Renton Building Department that a number of improvements to this plan could and should be implemented. In addition to the reduction of surface parking and added public benefits which were detailed in this request we would support and implement all of the following recommendations of staff. 1) Refuse and recyclable areas shall be dimensioned on the revised site plan submitted to the Planning Division project manager for review and approval prior to issuance of builidng permits. ( Continue to ... RMC 4-4-090) 2) The pedestrian walkway system shall be extended to provide connectivity to Benson Road S .. ( Continued ..... to issuance of building permits ) 3) All walkways/crosswalks within parking lots shall be differentiated by material or texture, such as raised and stamped concrete and painted asphalt. ( Continued to .... issuance of building permits ) 4) A Final landscape plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division project manager for review. ( Continued to .... more trees in the area of the gazebo, benches and picnic tables) 5) Revised elevations for the south elevation of the North Building and the north elevation of the South Building. ( Continued to .... building permits ) 6) Revised elevations shall be submitted to the Planning Dvision project manager for review. ( Continued to ..... parking structure openings ) 7). A revised site plan showing additional walkways and crosswalks to promote pedestrian safety. ( Continued to .... builiding permits. ) 8) A lighting plan shall be submitted to the Planning Divison. ( Continued to .... landscape and building lighting. 9) A revised site plan and revised elevations ..... continued to .... landscaping. 10) A rooftop mechanical equipment detail shall be submitted to the Planning Division. Continued to .... building permits. 11) Revised floor plans shall be submitted to the Planning Division ... continued to .... PUD decision criteria. 12) All common facilities, not dedicated to the City, shall be permanently maintained by the PUD owner. 13) The modification to allow grading of the steep slopes shall be submitted to the Planning Division .... continued to .... issuance of building permits. 14) Developers agree that the entry design to both buildings need improvement. The north building should have a more pronounced entry and focal point and the south building would benefit from additional detail. 15) The applicant shall be required to designate five to ten stalls as guest parking. -----------·-----· ,;;, -\\\ :.,r · t VI \ \ / \ \ / \~' l i I () ~ f ...... ,/ .. >" '· u" D - .... ::;; ~:"; \ EAGLE RIDGE OFFICE !. CONDOMINIUMS ·--r ~ 0 ~,...,. pk, 9 1'-~'<-<A. e_ cJ-. 4-,,.,~ e 5> .So ".Li ·-r= N -a ... ~ '3 '-1. ld :"-t 1 f ' ,;,· i I ,! / ' ' D / / / / / lUl.13 f£ 1ro111 Plact &alt Klrli1&.n<I. WA 11$03" / T 411U2D.37£S ; t26U31fM -n•,P..- / / / / t1\ 'X. r· ~ ~ 1' :L ... i (ll (b '"fa ti \"!l 0 "J. - 0 L C "-.ii -. .~ ~ 1...1' L oJ U\ r· c.. r ? G0 i) J;,. rrJ r c Ii) rn 11 ---t -0 V' )> 1J 7' -c ...J) z (0 t. --tJ d -0 ~ ii) \)) 'O Vi -· t ~ ,_... 1" l ,,,.,.,,,,.~ ~-----\;;/:;""' .>• '.~/ ' -. ,--· '' -,Ht.·_ I ·. ·, \;, _._ ~,·,-j.'. ~ ''· ' ~- /,PROPOSED NEV,..·, I ' LOT UNE I - . -' /.,,~ ~ -•....J-L ---~-:I~ r---~--'-,~~ - EAtg.f: ~~-APARTMENT& 4 GfflC!:5 ,TEM PHASE I ~Tl-I 6LDG -4th FLOOR SOJn-1 BLDG • 3rd FLOOR SClUn.l BLDG -2nd FLOOR 50.JTM 6LDG • lllt FLOOFol: SOUTH 8LDG -Cff'ICSS 90.ffi.l BLDG--TOT AL P!-IA.5E 2 NORTI-/ BLDG -<4th FLOOR NORTI-/ BLOG -3rd FLOOR NORTl-t 6l1Xf -2nd FLOOR NORT\-1 el.PG -let FL~ NORTI-/ 6l.DG -TOTAL GRO&& SF. ,...,. -· ~ • , .... n..., Cc::it1"'10,I SF ""' ""' ""' .... 5231 ~· 1'31& ~· 22i3 ..,,, TOTAL FLR AFaf:A (NO~) 50300 ~~"!1Ar,r. • lat"'Yln:>c>IWT ::8 ;&., .-0 - ,1'3bo200f,i;!I ,~~ 2h-4S4 ,7;,~~~> ·U'io';, ,:·,~:-~~;t.1::'b ·~ ~~,,:, f;"'' :1-~1, -• .:t . ,,,I ,+, 1, ,.,., , "'"'r··t'·'\·,,lc: 11·w,,,CT,1-\'~ -• ~-~· • ~~ '~""=.,,..! -"; !V'-uCs-.:...., \ ,;,..;~:,, :· -• . . . __; '.. -\.< ~I ~I~~ l§L __ '-' ______ on~, •~ L )~'.~~ ·-f::,. "::,.. '\· '\. ).->--~-- L:-,=--=----+' ~............--.--' --i--1 [ ti, · I I" I\ I\ I\ ~1~·1 m~ ~\~L ~I zl . . · ·· · ,ocr\1 1Jf"'sOi' Rot,D . ~,rs~~~~ 'eDRH ( l1 II • n " • 11 II • "' , ' ., "" ,-,-- '4 ,. '4 s s s Q ~ ~ ,.___ s __ _ S6 ,0 ALLOWA6LE 6LDG 1-lEIGl-iT !:,,tl'-0" PROPOSED eLOG, I-Ef61.fr '48' .,t;i• AI...LOW,l,.BLE BLDG SETBACK 10' .qr OFEN &PACE-,;;?ECF<EATICN !:>2et:6 ef _.&., Dec O!! OFFICES\ ~CYCLE , __ _ ' 110 .r 112 er ldg, :24'-2" N-Bldg &,o..:_ \ \ / .t:""-~/ . . ''- r·· -~'-// ,2_0 __ ~.1~--S5BfSi"O I I I I -i1[D[U1'JlfJ ~}~,fr][? = t?1~fi1~.&rt [Dff~J[f _ _., -- ~· 51otw;u< '"~.;_K:N(.:, ,;-:.,,-,.. ;:-,,,.~~t,:,;, ~t1(0JIT1l'J!J 8)fl[110i = P~{1A\~.I[ U-~0l(OJ £-?~~-· _::,- ;,-.. ,,,.z,E . ·c-r.<.._ ,-::s-,.,,-.,,.'-c4c,:,- SITE PLAN i.c,:;, .... ,,,- ¢ 1'!Qlill! .... ,.,,ae: .l ··,y·,,._ l',30'-0' ,• I;,~{ ,;~, ,{).~ ~, ~<;'' •. :·.- ,. f ;;;"/" • C ,.,c"""/ " ,, :..:: ,p' "y c/~{Q ·_; ,;.1 '-'.~$ . :; = c ,.., TI<As.< ,.., ,, '"'"' iP t) ·ffe! %1 ,J g ;~ <~ •" ""Q g_,; ~~ ]"' =2 D (J) 0-' IU -' u lL u::: f-1U LL tn (.')Q z G' D <( - a2 '"" -' lL o_ IU <fl (.') -' f-IUD (.') z f--' <( IU -0::, lU~ tn . QC 0 <( tn o_ <( ~ s: ·1•1'11 •,1 '!· ; ! '· . i, . . ' ·, '1'iuj •1•'!, I ,,J, I ,1,. ,!!ll ;I.! !~t~li! ,hni tl!'IM ii!·,! I: :111 •,ll;! 1'!1 · 111•1,1· ',·I •1 1 ''I I ~ !h jl !!ih.l i l:·i1:lj1 i •1!:-:lil .1 h!dm1 1 Dale 10-26-0Q Scola"'" __ Drawn, __ ~ Job t .. 252.1 _ R&~"=0 ~ A 1.S • • AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING ST A TE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. County of King ) Nancy Thompson being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and states: That on the 12th day of July 2010, affiant deposited via the United States Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested a sealed envelope(s) containing a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below entitled application or petition. , 2010. No ry Public inz for the State of Washington Residing at · • ·'VI ~ , therein. Application, Petition or Case No.: Eagle Ridge PUD LUA 10-150, ECF, PPUD The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record. July 12, 20 I 0 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON Minutes OWNER: APPLICANT/CONTACT: LOCATION: SUMMARY OF REQUEST: SUMMARY OF ACTION: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: PUBLIC HEARING: Robert Hancheroff 17710 234th Ave SE Maple Valley, WA 98038 Chris Koruga Eagle Ridge, LLC 5454 30th Ave SW Seattle, WA 98126 Eagle Ridge PUD File No.: LUA 09-150, PPUD, ECF 1600 Benson Road S Requesting approval of a Preliminary Planned Urban Development, for a mixed-use development including commercial and residential uses. Development Services Recommendation: Approve subject to conditions. The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on June 8, 2010. After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining available information on file with the application, field checking the property and surrounding area; the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the June 15, 2010 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, June 15, 2010, at 9:03 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. I: Project file containing the original Exhibit No. 2: Neighborhood Detail Map application, proof of posting, proof of publication and other documentation pertinent to this reouest. Exhibit No. 3: Site Plan Exhibit No. 4: Conceptual Landscape Plan Exhibit No. 5: Conceptual Grading Plan Exhibit No. 6: South Building -East and South Elevations Exhibit No. 7: South Building -West and North Exhibit No. 8: North Building -East and South Elevations Elevations Exhibit No. 9: North Building -West and North Exhibit No. 10: South Building -Garage Floor Plan Eagle Ridge PUD File No.: LUA 09-150, PPUD, ECF July 12, 2010 Page 2 Elevations Exhibit No. 11: South Building -First Floor Plan Exhibit No. 13: South Building -Third Floor Plan Exhibit No. 15: South Building -Roof Plan Exhibit No. 17: North Building-First Floor Plan Exhibit No. 19: North Building-Third Floor Plan Exhibit No. 21: North Building -Roof Plan Exhibit No. 23: Map Showing, Olympic Pipe Line, PSE High Voltage Transmission Line, Sewer Easement, Existing Paved Access Road, and Hi~h Voltaee Lines. Exhibit No. 25: Large Scale Map Showing Park Areas and Pedestrian Walkways Exhibit No. 12: South Building -Second Floor Plan Exhibit No. 14: South Building -Fourth Floor Plan Exhibit No. 16: North Building-Garage Floor Plan Exhibit No. 18: North Buildine -Second Floor Plan Exhibit No. 20: North Building -Fourth Floor Plan Exhibit No. 22: Zoning Mao Exhibit No. 24: Steep Slope Area Map Exhibit No. 26: Video of Actual Site The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Gerald Wasser Associate Planner, Community and Economic Development Department, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055. This is a mixed use development. The applicant is requesting a Preliminary Planned Urban Development. The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated with 7 mitigation measures. No appeals were filed. The south building would consist of61 residential units and 4,039 square feet of commercial offices. There would be 75 parking spaces total. Thirty-three would be in a garage, 42 would be surface spaces. The north building would consist of 56 residential units with 59 total parking spaces, 39 would be in a garage structure with the remaining as surface parking. Both buildings would have flat roofs and facade modulation on their east and west facades. The project is proposed to be completed in two phases, Phase One would include the construction of the south building and its parking area and common open space area. Phase Two would include the north building along with its parking and landscaping. The project is located on the east side of Benson Road. The Comprehensive Plan designates this as a Commercial Corridor and is zoned Commercial Arterial. There is a Medical/Dental office building to the north, a Senior Apartment Complex is located to the east and an Apartment Complex is located to the northeast. The south building would be approximately 48-feet in height and would contain both apartments and commercial space. The north building would contain apartments and parking only. The net density of the project is 56.52 du/ac. Both buildings would be developed with contemporary architecture. The various facade materials would include wood, stucco, cement and cedar siding. The garage level would have stamped or painted concrete with grillwork proposed as vertical bars. There are several man made protected slopes on this site. One steep slope area will not be disturbed. There are six others that were created during the building of the emergency access road and the construction of Benson Road South. Staff requested that the Hearing Examiner make recommendations as to modifications being made to the man made steep slope areas. Access to the site would be via Benson Road South. The intention for the development is to be pedestrian oriented, there are several common open areas that include picnic tables, benches, and gazebos. There are five-foot pedestrian walkways throughout the site. Eagle Ridge PUD File No.: LUA 09-150, PPUD, ECF July 12, 2010 Page 3 Several modifications were requested by the applicant; required location for residential parking, commercial parking spaces to be located outside the office areas, the north building would have no commercial units on the ground floor, slope modifications, compact parking spaces, and front building entrances. The Examiner questioned why all the parking was not being located in an underground garage, thus leaving more open space on the site. Some of the residential units would be assigned garage parking spaces and the rest would be outside parking. Mr. Wasser stated that the topography of the site does slope downward from east to west. There was concern about massing and the bulking of the building if those parking spaces were provided in a structured unit. The assigned parking would be in accord with the rental rates. The Examiner inquired as to access to the northeast comer of the north building. Mr. Wasser stated that there is access across the emergency access road. Circulation in that area would be through the garage structure with surface level parking to the north. The applicant has requested that 40% of the site become compact parking spaces. This is an effort to reduce the impervious area used by the surface parking lots. There are slope issues regarding the front of the buildings making it impossible to locate entrances towards the public street. The applicant has proposed to retain 40 of the 81 trees listed on the site. There would be a very good pedestrian circulation system throughout the project, there is landscaping and screening for the parking areas, there are landscape islands located within the parking areas, and there are wide planter beds that help soften the facades of the buildings. The refuse and recycling location and size were not specifically shown on the plan, that would be required and revised plans must be submitted prior to the issuance of building permits. The Examiner asked why this was a PUD versus using a straight site plan? There is more surface parking on a steep site requiring more grading on the site for parking areas rather than structured parking underneath the buildings, whether at grade level or subterranean. The roof treatment is flat rather than having peaks or gables, the roofs in the surrounding areas appear to have more interesting roof designs. Formal entrances for the buildings do not appear to be within the requirements. The south building seems to have only parking spaces at the entrance area. In order to approve a PUD there needs to be some benefits, which do not appear in what has been presented today. Mr. Wasser stated that there are items that are being thought ofin regards to the site topography that may provide a superior design. The commercial area in the north building has not been provided to make the transition between the commercial and residential area of the neighborhood. If this were a normal CA zone this project could be up to 60 dwelling units per acre if the critical areas were man made and a modification was granted. If those steep slope areas that were man made were not deducted the net density would be closer to 43 dwelling units per net acre. Chris Koruga, 5454 30th Avenue SW, Seattle 98126 stated that he was the managing partner of Eagle llidge Apartment and Office LLC. He stated that he has built two other multi-family properties in the City of Renton. The PUD process is more complicated than a standard building permit process, the City of Renton staff has been exceptionally helpful in moving forward with this project. A brief description of the history of this parcel was given. Prior to making a final decision on the type of project to build they did a demographic study on the Senior Market in the City of Renton. They found that Renton projects a population of over 90,000 people with a median income of over $70,000.00 per year in the next several years. The need for affordable housing and affordable commercial space is growing. This proposal does comply with the needs as they have been forecast. The property to the south of this site is a PSE High Voltage Easement which most likely will never be developed as well as the Olympic Pipeline to the south. On the west side of Benson Road there is an RMF zone which has very steep topography and is also problematic, which may never be developed. Eagle Ridge PUD File No.: LUA 09-150, PPUD, ECF July 12, 2010 Page 4 The increase in the number of residences on this site would increase business for the dental offices, the Lodge would also benefit. The proposed north building would be a natural location for the provision of ADA accessible unit and independent units for seniors. The north building is in a much quieter location, commercial space would not fit into the topography. The access road was actually a required access road for the Dental building, they have rights to use that road for the purposes of this development. There is a significant amount of traffic that comes from the East Hill area, particularly the apartments located close by. There is no sidewalk between Eagle Ridge Drive and Benson Road. Creating an internal, pedestrian friendly system would create a safe pedestrian walkway for all adjoining areas. The recreation and rest areas would give people the ability to take a break and possibly do some exercises while walking in this particular area. He did present a video of the site showing the terrain and the area in the location of the proposed buildings. Open space requirements for this site are 5,800 square feet, the project proposes 52,000 square feet of open space. Some required by steep slope issues but over an acre of open space allows for amenities. John Minden, JM Architects, 1869 E Seltice Way, Ste. 336, Post Falls, ID 83854 stated that he saw no problems in meeting all recommendations presented by Staff. The reason for the surface parking and not having all the parking under the buildings is due to the slope of the site and trying to provide more affordable housing. If the parking were moved to underground the cost would escalate. With today's market affordable housing is much needed in the area. The area north of the north building is where the underground retention facility for drainage would be located. On the south end of the south building there would be an underground tank for surface water management. The Examiner inquired about how people would enter the buildings besides through the garage entrances. There were some questions as to guest parking as well. Mr. Minden stated that there needed to be a little more design on that, it was previously thought that through the garage would be the main entrances. They could develop an entrance around the south end of the building and include a pedestrian walkway along the south end of the building and enter along the east side. The guest parking would cover more of the surface parking, there are several areas of surface parking that guests would be encouraged to use. The north building might require more surface parking for the guests. Peaked roofs were discussed but it would be difficult to built peaked roofs due to the easement requirements from the Lodge to preserve their views. If peaked roofs were used, they could interfere with those views. Robert Hancheroff, 17710 234th Avenue SE, Maple Valley 98038 stated that he is a partner in the Eagle Ridge LLC. The site has been his since the early 1980's. Currently the LLC has tried to develop the site with an impact that would benefit the surrounding residences and businesses. He originally developed the property for commercial use and foresaw that the commercial development would be dominant. However, it has been a struggle over the years to draw commercial business into this area. The lack of drive-by exposure tends to limit the commercial draw. Kayren Kittrick, Community and Economic Development stated that she has visited the site and walked it extensively. As long as the access easement stays open, meaning no parking in that area, the Fire Marshall is good with the plan. It is a lengthy but very nice road and has good sight distance to it. It appears to have an access for utility use. The storm system will be by the 1995 Manual due to the age of this project. It is very appropriate that it is being split between two sections, it can be developed to whatever the building ends up being, ifit needs to be larger, it won't constrain the site. The northerly vault is actually 100' from the pipeline. The easement on the north end will limit what can be done with the property. There is water, City of Renton serves both water and sewer at this location. There is one small glitch, the water service GPM for fire flow is rated at this point as 2500 GPM. The Fire Marshal when checking, registered 2,750 GPM. Between what can be done with the building and what the fmal design is like the Fire Marshal expects this number to come down and that they will be able to meet at the 2500 figure. Worse case, they may have to build some additional pipeline. There is no designated guest parking and that should be done. Guests cannot park on the access road and so parking needs to be very specific for guests. Eagle Ridge PUD File No.: LUA 09-150, PPUD, ECF July 12, 2010 Page 5 A short break was taken to set up the video equipment to view the video Mr. Koruga had taken of the site. The video showed the subject site, along Benson Road and the gradient along that roadway, the dental building to the north of the site and the natural area that would be reserved and serves as a stormwater pit for the dental building as well as the new buildings, a view from the north to the south showing the entry sign to the dental building. It also showed the flat plate where the north building would be situated. Very few trees would need to be removed. The various species of trees were seen in the video. Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing stopped at 10:41 a.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: I. The applicant, Chris Koruga for Eagle Ridge, LLC, filed a request for a mixed use Preliminary Planned Urban Development (PPUD). 2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit # 1. 3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official issued a Determination ofNon- Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M). 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. There was no opposition from the public regarding the subject proposal. 6. The subject site is located atl600 Benson Road South. The subject site is located on the eastern side of Benson Road north of its intersection with Eagle Ridge Drive. 7. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of commercial uses, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. 8. The subject site is currently zoned CA (Commercial Arterial). 9. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 5327 enacted in March 2008. 10. The subject site is approximately 2.89 acres or 125,708 square feet. The site is an irregularly shaped parcel with a large panhandle that extends north from its northeast corner. The subject site is approximately 260 feet wide by 670 feet long. 11. The subject site slopes downward toward Benson Road. It slopes downward from east to west approximately 40 to 50 feet from approximately 220 feet to 170 feet. The subject site contains two more level areas in the northeast and southwest corners of site. Some of the slopes are protected slopes which staff explained were created when grading for Benson Road occurred and also when an easement access that crosses the subject site was created for adjacent property. Initially staff believed that these protected slopes could be altered as part of the development process. It was determined that a Hearing Examiner issued modification from the slope protection provisions was required. Staff is to make a recommendation on that issue prior to this decision. 12. The site contains a total of81 significant trees. Of those, 32 would be protected trees. The CA zone requires five percent or approximately 2 of those to be retained. The applicant has proposed retaining 40 trees. Eagle Ridge PUD File No.: LUA 09-150, PPUD, ECF July 12, 2010 Page 6 13. The subject site is located between two powerline corridors located generally north and south of the subject site. A gas pipeline is also located north of the subject site. 14. The area is a mix of uses including the dental clinic immediately north of the site. Apartments and a retirement complex are located to the east and west of the site with single family uses further to the east. 15. The applicant proposes developing two buildings and associated parking on the subject site.· The buildings designated the North Building and the South Building would be located more or less on the opposite northeast and southwest comers of the subject site. Both buildings would be 4-stories tall or approximately 48 feet tail. 16. The applicant proposes phasing the project into two phases. Phase I would consist of the South Building, the access roadway, common open space and landscaping materials. Phase 2 would finish the North Building and its allied landscaping and parking. 17. The North Building would be located on the panhandle portion of the site. It would house some parking underneath the building at ground level and additional surface/outdoor parking north of the building. The building is approximately220 feet long by 100 feet wide. The building would be 71,716 gross square feet. It would contain 56 apartment units. The northerly building would have 39 structured and 20 surface parking spaces. The surface parking lot would be accessed by driving through the interior garage's parking aisle. The building would meet its requirements for parking categories including compact and handicapped or accessible parking. 18. The South Building would be similarly sized and would be approximately 200 feet long by 100 feet wide. It would contain 78,584 gross square feet. Commercial spaces totaling approximately 4,039 square feet would be located on the eastern facade at ground level. The commercial space would contain approximately 3 offices. The building would also contain 61 apartments in 4-stories. The southerly building would have 33 structured parking spaces and 42 surface parking spaces. 19. Both buildings will share architectural features. The applicant plans to create contemporary craftsman-style exteriors offset or accented with cedar beams. The larger, prominent east and west facades would have bay windows and balconies spaced between 12 and 24 feet. The applicant would employ Stucco that would be used on the first and second floors and hardiplank or cementious board would provide a horizontal siding look to the third and fourth levels. The cedar trim would be used in belly bands, comer boards, trim and support beams. Staff noted that there were no distinguishing features on the north elevation of the South building nor on the south elevation of the north building and that these facades face public areas on the property. Staff recommended that the trim details or other exterior features be added to these facades. 20. The CA Zone requires commercial space be located in the lower level of any residential development in the CA zone. The applicant has asked for a modification of this requirement due to the site's topography. The applicant proposes commercial spaces in the South building but none in the North Building. The commercial component would be located along the eastern facade of the South Building. 21. Staff noted that the garage walls would be stamped or stained concrete materials but they recommended that the openings which are proposed to have vertical iron bar grating be replaced with a more decorative treatment. 22. Staff recommended that the internal walkways connect the buildings and connect to Benson Road. As proposed access to the northern building would be principally along the access driveway that runs through the building. Staff also recommended that the pedestrian walks be delineated by either raised profiles, texture or materials. 23. The CA zone permits a density range between 10 units per acre to a maximum of 60 units per acre. Density of this site would be based on the acreage less the access easement and critical slopes, 9,000 square feet and 26,454 square feet, respectively. The result is a net of2.07 acres. The 117 unit project would have a density of 56.52 dwelling units per acre. 24. The applicant proposes retaining approximately 40 trees including some that would be in the critical areas. In addition, the applicant has proposed landscaping in larger beds surrounding the buildings including the west facade Eagle Ridge PUD File No.: LUA 09-150, PPUD, ECF July 12, 20 I 0 Page 7 of the south building and the north facade of the north building, and the areas facing the adjacent streets or properties. The surface parking lots would have perimeter screening. 25. The applicant will be providing sitting areas and a gazebo. Staff noted that the private open space required by code had not been provided to all units and recommended that the applicant comply with code provisions. 26. Access to the site would be provided by a driveway to Benson near the south end of the property and via an existing private easement (to the adjacent clinic) off of Eagle Ridge Drive. 27. The development will increase traffic approximately 7 trips per unit or approximately 700 to 800 trips for the complex. 28. Stormwater will be conveyed to City systems along Benson. There have been flooding problems downstream which the City hopes will be resolved by current improvement work on 1-405. 29. Sewer and water service will be provided by the City. 30. Sections 4-9-150 provide the governing principles of a Planned Urban Development: "4-9-150 PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS: A PURPOSES: There are two (2) principal purposes of the planned urban development regulations. First, it is the purpose of these regulations to preserve and protect natural features of the land. Second, it is also the purpose of these regulations to encourage innovation and creativity in the development of residential, business, manufacturing, or mixed use developments by permitting a variety in the type, design, and arrangement of structures and improvements. In order to accomplish these purposes, this Section is established to permit development which is not limited by the strict application of the City's zoning, parking, street, and subdivision regulations when it is demonstrated that such new development will be superior to traditional development under standard regulations. In consideration of the latitude given and the absence of conventional restrictions, the reviewing agencies, Hearing Examiner, and City Council shall have wide discretionary authority in judging and approving or disapproving the innovations which may be incorporated into planned urban developments proposed under this Section. (Ord. 5153, 9-26-2005)" 31. As part of its PPUD request the applicant seeks the following modifications of code requirements to accommodate their proposed complex: REQUESTED MODIFICATIONS FROM RENTON M!,!Nl!:;IPAL CODE (RMCl RMC# Reg_uired 11.er RM{;. Reg_uested Modification RMC 4-2-120A: Required Location for Parking for residential units shall be enclosed To provide 72 total structured Parking within the same building as the unit it serves. parking spaces for residents within the buildings in underground/ground floor parking garages and 62 surface parking spaces. RMC 4-2-080: Conditions Associated With Note 18. To allow stand alone residential Zoning Use Tables a. General Requirements: Subject to the for the North Building and ground density limits of the development standards floor residential for the North and for this zone and only permitted within a South Buildings. structure containing commercial uses on the Eagle Ridge PUD File No.: LUA 09-150, PPUD, ECF July 12, 2010 Page 8 RMC 4-4-080F.8.c.iii: Maximum Number of Compact Spaces Outside of the UC-Nl and UC-N2 Zones RMC 4-3-0SOJ.Sb Protected Slopes- Exceptions through Modification. RMC 4-3-lOOE.2.a.ii RMC 4-3-lOOE.3.a.i 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, except for a residential entry feature linking the residential portion of the development to the street. Compact parking spaces shall not account for more than: • All other uses -not to exceed thirty percent (30%). RMC 4-3-0SOJ.5.a prohibits development on protected slopes (40 % or greater). RMC 4-3- OSOJ.b. allows exceptions through modifications to the prohibition for filling against the toe of natural rock wall or rock wall, or protected slope created by natural resource recovery activities or public or private road installation or widening and related transportation improvements. Design District 'D' Reguested Modifications The front entry of a building shall not be oriented to a drive aisle, but instead a public or private street or landscaped pedestrian- only court-yard A primary entrance of each building shall be located on the facade facing a prominent street, shall be prominent, visible from the street, connected by a walkway to the public sidewalk, and include human-scale elements. To allow up to 40 percent compact parking spaces. The grading of 5 protected slope areas which were created either for the construction of Benson Road Sor the private access easement located onsite. Front entry of buildings would be permitted to front parking areas. The primary entrance of each building would face the internal drive aisle. 32. Staff reported that the requested modification to alter the man-made slopes created with the development of Benson Road and the easement road should be granted. The geotechnical report demonstrated the alteration would be appropriate and meets sound engineering guidelines. Such slopes are not necessarily permanently protected since they are not natural and they can be altered to allow gentler or safer grades. Planned Urban Development (PUD) 33. The PUD Ordinance contains a long and complex series of criteria that are reviewed. They are included in Section 4-9-150-D: D DECISION CRITERIA: The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the following requirements are met. I. 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. 2. Public Benefit Required: In addition, applicants shall demonstrate that a proposed Eagle Ridge PUD File No.: LUA 09-150, PPUD, ECF July 12, 2010 Page 9 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 c. Public Facilities: Provides public facilities that could not be required by the City for development of the subject property without a planned urban development; or d. Overall Design: Provides a planned urban development design that is superior in one or more of the following ways to the design that would result from development of the subject property without a planned urban development: i. Open Space/Recreation: (a) Provides increased open space or recreational facilities beyond standard code requirements and considered equivalent to features that would offset park mitigation fees in Resolution 3082; and (b) Provides a quality environment through either passive or active recreation facilities and attractive common areas, including accessibility to buildings from parking areas and public walkways; or ii. Circulation/Screening: Provides superior circulation patterns or location or screening of parking facilities; or m. Landscaping/Screening: Provides superior landscaping, buffering, or screening in or around the proposed planned urban development; or iv. Site and Building Design: Provides superior architectural design, placement, relationship or orientation of structures, or use of solar energy; or v. Alleys: Provides alleys to at least fifty percent (50%) of any proposed single family detached, semi-attached, or townhouse units. 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: 1. 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. 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, detached, attached, townhouses, etc. 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. ii. Promotes safety through sufficient sight distance, separation of vehicles from pedestrians, limited driveways on busy streets, avoidance of difficult turning patterns, and minimization of steep gradients. iii. Provision of a system of walkways that tie residential areas to recreational areas, transit, public walkways, schools, and commercial activities. Eagle Ridge PUD File No.: LUA 09-150, PPUD, ECF July 12, 2010 Page 10 iv. Provides safe, efficient access for emergency vehicles. c. Infrastructure and Services: Provides utility services, emergency services, and other improvements, existing and proposed, which are sufficient to serve the development. d. Clusters or Building Groups and Open Space: An appearance of opermess 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. 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. f. Building Orientation: Provides buildings oriented to enhance views from within the site by taking advantage of topography, building location and style. g. Parking Area Design: i. 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. ii. Adequacy: Provides sufficient on-site vehicular parking areas consistent with the parking demand created by the development as documented in a parking analysis approved by the City. Parking management plans shall ensure sufficient resident, employee, or visitor parking standards, and there shall be no reliance on adjacent or abutting properties unless a shared parking arrangement consistent with RMC 4-4-080 is approved. h. Phasing: Each phase of the proposed development contains the required parking spaces, open space, recreation spaces, landscaping and utilities necessary for creating and sustaining a desirable and stable environment, so that each phase, together with previous phases, can stand alone. 4. Compliance with Development Standards: Each planned urban development shall demonstrate compliance with the development standards contained in subsection E of this Section. (Ord. 5153, 9-26-2005) E DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: I. Common Open Space Standard: Open space shall be concentrated in large usable areas and may be designed to provide either active or passive recreation. Requirements for residential, mixed-use, commercial, and industrial developments are described below. a. Residential: For residential developments, open space must be equal to or greater in size than the total square footage of the lot area reductions requested by the planned urban development, as illustrated in Figure I. The open space shall not include a critical area and shall be concentrated in large usable areas. Stormwater facilities may be incorporated with the open space on a case-by-case basis if the Reviewing Official finds: i. The storm water facility utilizes the techniques and landscape requirements set forth in The Integrated Pond, King County Water and Land Resources Division, or an equivalent manual, or ii. The surface water feature serves areas outside of the planned urban development and is appropriate in size and creates a benefit. Eagle Ridge PUD File No.: LUA 09-150, PPUD, ECF July 12, 2010 Page 11 Site Area: 1.5 acres Typical Lot Size: 4,500 sq. ft. Total Number of Lots: 12 Site Area: 1.5 acres Typical Lot Size: 3,500 sq. ft. Total Number of Lots: 12 Open Space: 4,500 s.f. minus 3,500 s.f. = 1,000 s.f. x 12 lots= 12,000 sq. ft. Standard Subdivision Example Planned Urban Development Approach Figure 1. Common Open Space Example b. Mixed Use -Residential Portions: Subsections Elbi to v of this Section specify common open space standards for the residential portions of mixed-use developments. 1. Mixed use residential and attached housing developments of ten (I 0) 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 Reviewing Official. The required common open space shall be satisfied with one or more of the elements listed below. The Reviewing Official 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. Figure 2. A visible and accessible residential common area containing landscaping and other amenities. v. Other required landscaping, and sensitive area buffers without common access links, such as pedestrian trails, shall not be included toward the required recreation and common space requirement. c. Mixed Use Nonresidential Portions, or Commercial, or Industrial Uses: The following subsections specify common open space requirements applicable to nonresidential portions of mixed use developments or to single use commercial or industrial developments: 1. All buildings and developments with over thirty thousand (30,000) square feet of nonresidential uses (excludes parking garage floorplate areas) shall provide pedestrian-oriented space according to the following formula: 1% of the lot area+ 1% of the building area= Minimum amount of pedestrian-oriented space Eagle Ridge PUD File No.: LUA 09-150, PPUD, ECF July 12, 2010 Page 12 Figure 3. Examples of pedestrian-oriented space associated with a large-scale retail building. u. To qualify as pedestrian-oriented space, the following must be included: (a) Visual and pedestrian access (including barrier-free access) to the abutting structures from the public right-of-way or a courtyard not subject to vehicular traffic, (b) Paved walking surfaces of either concrete or approved unit paving, (c) On-site or building-mounted lighting providing at least four (4) foot- candles (average) on the ground, and (d) At least three (3) feet of seating area (bench, ledge, etc.) or one individual seat per sixty (60) square feet of plaza area or open space. iii. The following features are encouraged in pedestrian-oriented space and may be required by the Reviewing Official. (a) Pedestrian-oriented uses at the building facade facing the pedestrian- oriented space. (b) Spaces should be positioned in areas with significant pedestrian traffic to provide interest and security-such as adjacent to a building entry. (c) Pedestrian-oriented facades on some or all buildings facing the space consistent with Figure 4. (d) Public seating that is durable or easily replaceable, maintainable, and accessible. Figure 4. Pedestrian-oriented spaces, visible from the street, including ample seating areas, movable furniture, special paving, landscaping components, and adjacent pedestrian-oriented uses. 1v. The following are prohibited within pedestrian-oriented space: (a) Adjacent unscreened parking lots, (b) Adjacent chain link fences, (c) Adjacent blank walls, (d) Adjacent dumpsters or service areas, and (e) Outdoor storage (shopping carts, potting soil bags, firewood, etc.) that do not contribute to the pedestrian environment. d. Open Space Orientation: The location of public open space shall be considered in relation to building orientation, sun and light exposure, and local micro-climatic conditions. e. Common Open Space Guidelines: Common space areas in mixed use residential and attached residential projects should be centrally located so they are near a majority of dwelling units, accessible and usable to residents, and visible from surrounding units. i. Common space areas should be located to take advantage of surrounding features such as building entrances, significant landscaping, unique topography or architecture, and solar exposure. ii. In mixed use residential and attached residential projects children's play space should be centrally located, visible from the dwellings, and away from hazardous areas like garbage dumpsters, drainage facilities, streets, and parking areas. 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 and shall be an area ofat least twenty percent (20%) of the gross square footage of the dwelling units. The private open space shall be well demarcated and at least ten feet (10') in every dimension. Decks on upper floors can substitute for some of the required private open space for upper floor units. 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'). 3. Installation and Maintenance of Common Open Space: a. Installation: All common area and open space shall be landscaped in accordance with Eagle Ridge PUD File No.: LUA 09-150, PPUD, ECF July 12, 2010 Page 13 the landscaping plan submitted by the applicant 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 ofRMC 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 ofRMC 4-4- 070. 4. Installation and Maintenance of Common Facilities: CONCLUSIONS: 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 PlanninglBuilding,'Public Works Administrator or his/her designee, assured through a security device to the City equal to the provisions ofRMC 4-9-060, except for such common facilities that are intended to serve only future phases of a planned urban development. Any common facilities that are intended to serve both the present and future phases of a planned urban development shall be installed or secured with a security instrument as specified above before occupancy of the earliest phase that will be served. At the time of such security and deferral, the City shall determine what portion of the costs of improvements is attributable to each phase of a planned urban development. 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. (Ord. 5153, 9-26-2005) 1. The proposal is a reasonably good plan for the use of any two acre site. But as a Planned Urban Development it is not highly imaginative and does not appear to embody the "innovation and creativity" enunciated in the PPUD regulations. Frankly, this office is not sure what gains are afforded by allowing the subject site to be developed as a PPUD as opposed to the normal Site Plan criteria. The site's location and topography do suggest that commercial spaces in the north building might be less successful and that modification appears reasonable. But the requested surface parking modification does not appear appropriate. Under the normal Site Plan Review criteria the applicant would be required to provide all of the parking within the two buildings. The two building, four-story design does not really offset the creation of surface parking. While the applicant might have split out the two buildings into more buildings, it is possible that they would have had less of a visual impact since they would have been smaller in scale. The applicant is developing 117 units at a density of 56.52 dwelling units per acre. That is only eight units less than might be developed on the subject site at maximum density. The most glaring aspect of the proposal is the large number of surface parking stalls -62. In return for waiving the code mandated indoor parking the applicant is providing exactly what? They may be saving more trees but that is not altogether clear. Surface parking usurps approximately 11, I 00 square feet or a quarter of an acre of open space and provides asphalt surfaces. The applicant has taken advantage of the two main level areas of the site for its building pads. The applicant noted that providing completely enclosed parking would make it harder to provide affordable units. Obviously constructing structured or contained parking costs more money but surface parking for 62 vehicles is neither creative nor innovative. The applicant has proposed buildings with flat roofs rather than providing peaked or sloping roofs that provide more visible interest. The applicant noted that they were attempting to preserve views for the easterly neighbors. The fact Eagle Ridge PUD File No.: LUA 09-150, PPUD, ECF July 12, 2010 Page 14 that both buildings almost achieve maximum density means that they are both tall buildings. Maximizing or nearly maximizing the density of the parcel compels the taller buildings and the flat roofline rather than compelling a creative or innovative project. 2. Again, Code specifically states: "A PURPOSES: There are two (2) principal purposes of the planned urban development regulations. First, it is the purpose of these regulations to preserve and protect natural features of the land. Second, it is also the purpose of these regulations to encourage innovation and creativity in the development of residential, business, manufacturing, or mixed use developments by permitting a variety in the type, design, and arrangement of structures and improvements. In order to accomplish these purposes, this Section is established to permit development which is not limited by the strict application of the City's zoning, parking, street, and subdivision regulations when it is demonstrated that such new development will be superior to traditional development under standard regulations. In consideration of the latitude given and the absence of conventional restrictions, the reviewing agencies, Hearing Examiner, and City Council shall have wide discretionary authority in judging and approving or disapproving the innovations which may be incorporated into planned urban developments proposed under this Section. (emphasis supplied)." While the applicant has proposed some additional recreation space and landscaping, those features do not appear to adequately offset providing 62 surface parking stalls, particularly when such parking is normally to be entirely contained inside of the structure or structures. The applicant will be providing additional open space for each unit and common areas as well as pedestrian walkways and links to the surrounding sidewalks. The enhanced features proposed could be provided by a normal site plan, too. The applicant did suggest that contained parking is more costly and that would potentially affect the affordability of the units. That is a hard choice to make. But should the City abandon reasonable design standards intended to screen parking and move it indoors in order to potentially provide more affordable housing units? This office probably cannot make that determination which is why this recommendation to the City Council will suggest that the design be further analyzed by the City Council. 3. This office believes that it would be appropriate to recommend that the City Council seek a more creative and innovative use of the subject site or more specifically a more creative and innovative project design. A design where the tradeoffs of developing a PPUD provide more tangible benefits rather than allow surface parking and less distinctive architecture. The flat rooflines and the surface parking are issues that need to be addressed. At the same time this recommendation will provide sufficient information to allow the City Council to approve the project as submitted and subject to the additional conditions suggested by Staff. 4. The design, while quite reasonable, seems to fall short of what a Planned Urban Development should or could be. That does not mean it is unacceptable but it does mean that it is certainly less than one would anticipate when deviating from the normal review standards. The applicant has placed the City in a Robson's Choice. Either allow affordable development with reduced aesthetic qualities or perhaps force a better design but create less affordable living choices. The plan does protect trees providing a buffer for its residents and buffering others from its mass. But the plan does not really demonstrate "innovation and creativity" nor is it really "superior to traditional development." The PPUD does protect trees, provides outdoor seating areas and landscape massing in front of the two buildings. The applicant has worked with the topography of the site but has also allowed the topography to limit pedestrian circulation on the site and around the buildings. Neither building has a defined focal point for an entrance and the North Building completely lacks what might be called a front entrance. Staff had asked that these areas be better delineated and the applicant indicated that they would change some design elements. The applicant has indicated that the appropriate open space in the appropriate dimensions can be provided as required. 5. As noted above, there is nothing particularly innovative or creative about placing two 4-story, multifamily residential buildings on a parcel and surrounding them with sixty-two (62) surface parking stalls. That probably is the most disappointing aspect of this proposal. Site Plan review could have exacted architectural features and open space for residents and the parking would have been under or within the buildings. Be that as it may, if the Council Eagle Ridge PUD File No.: LUA 09-150, PPUD, ECF July 12, 2010 Page 15 determines that the project is reasonable, then the design does work. The applicant has provided the required parking, although with a higher complement of compact stalls. The landscaping is definitely well-designed and tree preservation is part of the proposal. The longer facades of the two buildings have more than adequate architectural detailing that includes modulations in the form of bays and balconies. Different materials, textures and colors and trim will define the buildings' levels and corner elements. Again, the flat roof is not very characteristic of newer buildings or even neighboring buildings and pitched or peak roofs lend a more finished appearance to buildings and provide a more graceful skyline. The applicant should provide peaked or pitched roofs as part of the proposal. 6. The proposed slope modifications are appropriate whether the property is developed as a PPUD or under Site Plan provisions. If surface parking is not permitted, there might be a reduced need to alter some of the steeper slopes or portions of those slopes. 7. In conclusion, the proposal, if it were not submitted as a PPUD would be a reasonable project although, as noted, it would have been required to provide interior or contained parking. It is well-landscaped and the buildings have a reasonable facade treatment. The roofline whether a PPUD or a Site Plan is unimaginative and certainly lacks the creativity and innovation a PPUD should exhibit. Circulation for vehicles and pedestrians is reasonable and if staffs recommendations are adhered to, they would be more than adequate. The City Council should consider if this proposal has the merit of a PPUD but this office suggests the project could be improved as noted above. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should require the PPUD to be redesigned to incorporate fully structured parking and pitched or peaked roofs. In the alternative, if the City Council believes this project fulfills the goals and policies of creating an innovative and creative mixed use proposal they should approve the two-phase proposal subject to the following conditions: 1. Refuse and recyclables areas shall be dimensioned on the revised site plan submitted to the Planning Division project manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. A detail of the refuse and recyclables areas must be submitted with the site plan indicating compliance with RMC 4-4-090. 2. The pedestrian walkway system shall be extended to provide connectivity to Benson Road S, between the North and South Buildings, and between the project site and the dental/medical office building to the north. This extended walkway system shall be indicated on the revised site plan submitted to the Planning Division project manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 3. All walkways/crosswalks within parking lots shall be differentiated by material or texture," such as raised and stamped concrete or raised and painted asphalt. Such walkways/crosswalks shall be indicated on the revised site submitted to the Planning Division project manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 4. A Final landscape plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division project manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits that indicates expanded and enhanced landscaping using more trees in the area of the gazebo, benches and picnic tables. 5. Revised elevations for the south elevation of the North Building and the north elevation of the South Building showing architectural modulation similar to the east and west elevations shall be submitted to the Planning Division project manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 6. Revised elevations shall be submitted to the Planning Division project manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits which indicate that decorative ironwork would be used for ground level parking structure openings. 7. A revised site plan showing additional walkways and crosswalks to promote pedestrian safety throughout the site. Such walkways shall be shown to provide a connection to the dental/medical office building to the north, between passive recreation areas as well as providing crosswalks across surface Eagle Ridge PUD File No.: LUA 09-150, PPUD, ECF July 12, 2010 Page 16 parking lots. The revised site plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division project manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 8. A lighting plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division project manager for review and approval prior to utility construction that indicates pedestrian walkway, landscape, and building lighting. 9. A revised site plan and revised elevations shall be submitted to the Planning Division project manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits indicating that primary entries would have awnings or canopies and be identified with decorative paving and/or landscaping. l 0. A rooftop mechanical equipment detail shall be submitted to the Planning Division project manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 11. Revised floor plans shall be submitted to the Planning Division project manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits indicating compliance with the dimension and square footage requirements of the PUD decision criteria. 12. All common facilities, not dedicated to the City, shall be permanently maintained by the PUD owner. 13. The applicant shall provide peaked or pitched roofs as part of this proposal. 14. The modification to allow grading of the steep slopes shall be submitted to the Planning Division project manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 15. The applicant shall be required to designate five to ten stalls as guest parking. ORDERED TIDS 12" day ofJuly 2010. FRED I. KAUF1(,«'.N 9 HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED TIDS 12" day of July 2010 to the parties ofrecord: Gerald Wass er Development Services Renton, WA 98057 Chris Koruga Eagle Ridge LLC 5454 30th Ave SW Seattle, WA 98126 Loraine Lafoon Berkshire Apartments, Mgr. Office 13 00 Eagle Ridge Drive S Renton, WA 98055 Kayren Kittrick Development Services Renton, WA 98057 John Minden JM Architects 1869 E Seltice Way, Ste. 336 Post Falls, ID 83854 Ben Yu Eagle Ridge HOA 1100 Eagle Ridge Drive S, #A Renton, WA 98055 TRANSMITTED TIDS 12" day of July 20 IO to the following: Mayor Denis Law Dave Pargas, Fire Robert Hancheroff 17710 234" Ave SE Maple Valley, WA 98038 John Murphy New Home Trends, Inc. 4314 148" Street SE Mill Creek, WA 98012 Van Hong PO Box 14136 Seattle, WA 98114 Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Eagle Ridge PUD File No.: LUA 09-150, PPUD, ECF July 12, 2010 Page 17 Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services Marty Wine, Assistant CAO Transportation Division Utilities Division Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services Renton Reporter Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section IOOGofthe City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., July 26, 2010. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., July 26, 2010. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision- maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. (/) ""-I ~ ~ d a: t --- II - I . I \ . ·,{ J.lSAo- ~~ I , ·l ----~ I .' . I I , . J~ \) C. . G'i ~ '!Y of Rento ft) ,: ' Plah{ling Division 1 -\ I I l t;:; ' \1 · g NOii 1 3 2009 1 \ lo.. f ,, .· I I I [g~~llW/EIQ) \\ I . I \ . I ' 1~ : I ..,~-1- 1 I '-1,, I \) --~- ,-L ..... A LINCOLN \',PROPERT'- EXHIBIT 2 170 ·r.L.112. TRANSMIS 3.&6 ACc .L.88 \ .. •······ II II / I , , 11 ,1 11 .. \ ~ I I QN I I I ~£, ,----------- \ ,-- \ \ ' : ' I. --.. i. ""\, ---------------------EXHIBIT 3 --,-··-··-··-M87-i3'-\I --, I : l _ _J 1--------- --i..l--ll.~ -ill--+1-•-~ ~ --•----~ \ I I -- ------- EAGLE RID9E APARTMENTS & OFFICES SITE PLAN ---- n~~~.~-.II I I \ --"" § ~ ~ ""' F 9. @ ~ :,;; ~ ~:::» ffi a § ~ C') ,:) -· ffl ;;; ~~ (0) "" 2. O ::, ..... ffl .,.. <D .... 0 :0 = -;;:· CD ~ c= ::I E! u;· ffi 0 .... 0 !Q) ::, ::! i • I I ~ r ' ~ ~ • b . • \ ' \ ' \ l \ \ \ I \ T I ' \ \ ', \ I \ \ ~'.Iii §I ,a;; -al ;;;!; '§ IF' g ml "ijj ! Im § ;,;;g m IEI I I \ \ I I 1600 BENSON ROAD sex.rm -- EAGLE RIDGE APARTMENTS & OFFICE RFNTON WA8HINGTON EXHIBIT 4 WEISMANDESIGNGROUP )= F=I=- I I It) t:; r:a 1-1 :c ~ r==.~ •::--, a11w1a, w.••-rn• r.11. .. fJIJ ,--..1 .. ......... _ --- I • r-_!::::Ill,_ I I I I r------ 1 I I I i --- ri~· ---------1 I I I I I I --- I I I ----~ --- GRADING PLAN -.,-:;, zffi ~ (b,~ OKlPBlC SCALI! I-l 1 T c• ... i ·-·· .. 11t1UK1N r..-1D\r1:1- I t I 9-ity of Renton .$ Planning Division NOV 1 3 1009 1-800-424-55!!i5 mil !'Ell UXWJaN a, l.-GIIOUll:I llJUJD ~ ll5Biir" nxl® !Rile{C~fl\lff [Q) ~---~l~ .tr..;;;.:;;.. PRl!UMINARY PUD l!MiL& RIDGE DFF1C11 Nil>CCNXIMINUII aENEfWJZED U1'1.mE8 l'LAN-ll"CJRlrwAffR ~ i • ---1-----u ll n ----u II II g i I n II u II n ll n n I u n II II II II n II ll II n ll n ll II II ll II a II II ll II I n n II ll II n II ll II n II II D u II II -11 n ll II ---lf-----jj Cl Cl Cl I I I H II II II II II EXHIBIT 6 il ' 11 • ii ~ " " ~ g ] w ~· d) '; • EXHIBIT 7 C: C 0 o ..., ·-c: .!!1 Q) ·"' C: 0 Ol ..... C o ·1: ~~ ·-ii (.) 8 0, g -·.,,, -:> = ;z II II II ~I JI II II II II II II u II II II II -i II II II II II II II II 11 R II II II II _ _J g ~ " ~ g ,l w ~ w ~~ z• . ' EXHIBIT 8 ] C:: C ©) 0 0 +a·-™ c:: .!!.1 § Ill .?: ~ er a -"" "' = .... 0, -/!lljJ 0 .s ~~ > g 0 ;z ll!!lJ ·--C) n. g d g Q ~ " J <D ~ ~ ~ ~ z (i (i ~ ~ w ~ w J w ~; ~~ ~-11 ~ ' . ~ ... := D 801\l HHON .ISJJiWC!IH!II g SNOil\iA~l~ -""""'~="""'~--S l'l nI NJ 1'10 Q NO J ;warn ;nslfa I , --,, II II JI JI II II II I II " II II II II II II II II ii II II ·11 II --" II " II _..u H II " " II II II II II II II II II II ii II II II II H II II II ff II II II -11 II " -""! II II II H ii II H II _ _JJ .,; D ~ " ;! I I I t EXHIBIT 9 I • C: C: 0 o .... ·-c: .!!l al .2: a: 0 .... Ol 0 ·'= C: >, C: .... ('J c3 0.. ; I I f = = = ~ I ; .,; D ;,! ~ z i:l F 3! w ~ w 8~ ~· DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: June 25, 2010 TO: Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner FROM: Gerald Wasser, Planning Associat~ SUBJECT; Critical Areas Exception Through Modification for Eagle Ridge PUD, LUA09-150 At the June 15, 2010 public hearing on the above-captioned project you requested information to justify granting a critical areas exception through modification which would allow the regrading of six man-made protected slopes which were created through previous public or private road installation or widening and related transportation improvements. The City Critical Areas Regulations (RMC 4-3-050J.5a) prohibit development on protected slopes. This restriction is not intended to prevent development of property that includes 40% or greater slopes on a portion ofthe site, provided there is enough developable area elsewhere to accommodate building pads. Exceptions to this prohibition may be granted through modification (RMC 4-3- 050J.5.b.ii). Such modifications may be granted for grading to the extent that it eliminates all or portions of a mound to allow reconfiguration of protected slopes created through public or private road installation or widening and related transportation improvements. Each of the six protected slope areas was created as a result of the construction and installation of the paved private access road which traverses the property from northwest to southeast or from road improvements along Benson Road S. RMC Section 4-3-0SON.2.a.ii.(c) allows the grading to the extent that it eliminates all or portions of a mound or to allow reconfiguration of protected slopes created through public or private road installation or widening and related transportation improvements subject to the following procedures: (1) The applicant shall submit a geotechnical report describing any potential impacts of the proposed regarding and any necessary mitigation measures; Comment: A Geotechnical Engineering Reconnaissance prepared by Geotech Consultants, Inc., dated May 19, 2006, analyzed the areas of man-made protected slopes. Fred Kaufinan Page 2 of3 June 25, 2010 (2) All submitted reports shall be independently reviewed by qualified specialists selected by the City at the applicant's expense; Comment: The man-made protected slopes in question were analyzed by the project geologist and reviewed by City staff. A field investigation by Planning Division and Development Services Division staff on May 18, 2010 revealed that the slopes were, indeed, created as a result of the installation of the private paved access easement which transects the subject property and of improvements to Benson Road S. Based on this information, secondary review was waived. (3) The Department Administrator may grant, condition, or deny the request based upon the proposal's compliance with the applicable modification criteria of RMC 4-9-250D; and Comment: The request complies with the modification criteria of RMC 4-9- 250D in that it substantially implements the policy direction of the policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and Community Design Element and the proposed modification is the minimum adjustment necessary to implement these policies and objectives; will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and maintainability intended by Code requirements, based upon sound engineering judgment; will not be injurious to other properties in the vicinity; conforms to the intent and purpose of the Code; can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended; and, will not create adverse impacts to other properties in the vicinity. (4) Any slope which remains 40% or steeper following development shall be subject to all applicable geologic hazard regulations for steep slopes and landslide hazards. Comment: The Geotechnical Engineering Reconnaissance submitted with the project application identifies the one protected slope area on the northeast portion of the project site which will not be disturbed and it would remain subject to Code regulations pertaining to steep slopes and landslide hazards (see attachment). '• Fred Kaufinan Page 3 of3 June 25, 2010 (5) In addition to the criteria of RMC 4-9-2500, Modification Procedures, the following criteria shall apply: The proposed modification is based on consideration ofthe best available science as described in WAC 365-195-905; or where there is no valid scientific information the steps in RMC 4-9-250F are followed. Comment: WAC 365-195-905 identifies valid scientific processes as including peer review, clearly stated information gathering methods which can be replicated, logical conclusions, quantitative analysis, information placed in the proper context and references. The Geotechnical Engineering Reconnaissance submitted with the project application was prepared by a registered professional engineer and includes the components of a valid scientific process. As stated above, secondary reviewed was waived. A field investigation by City staff revealed that there is no uncertainty in the geotechnical engineer's findings. The proposal meets the applicable modification procedures stated in RMC 4-3-0SON and the applicable modification criteria identified in RMC 4-9-2500 as described in the comments above. Based on the comments above, staff recommends that the exception through modification be approved. . • ' ' i I ' I ' ! i ' ' . . ' ' .. ' ' . ' \ I \ ' \ ,_, 1h ' i ~ . 0 ·-' ' ~ . .... );~ ;;,,. +aj-,. -..__ "" ' ' ·~ ' ' If"\:"<.,,, "" -· \. EAGLE RIDGE D APARTMENTS & OFFICES SITE PLAN ,_ _____ _..T ~I ~I June 10, 2010 Chris Koruga Eagle Ridge LLC 5454 30 1h Avenue SW Seattle, WA 98126 Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator SUBJECT: Eagle Ridge Apartments & Offices PUD LUA09-1SO, ECF, PPUD Dear Mr. Koruga: This letter is to inform you that the appeal period ended June 4, 2010 for the Environmental Review Committee's (ERC) Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated for the above-referenced project. No appeals were filed on the ERC determination therefore, this decision is final. The applicant must comply with all ERC Mitigation Measures outlined in the Report and Decision dated May 17, 2010. Also, a Hearing Examiner Public Hearing has been scheduled for June 15, 2010, where Site Plan Conditions may be issued. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant are required to be present. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (425) 430-7382. For the Environmental Review Committee, ~~ Gerald C. Wasser Associate Planner cc: Robert Hancheroff / Owner(s) John Murphy, Lorraine Lafoon, Ben Yu, Van Hong/ Party(ies) of Record Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNTY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT -PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 9th day of June, 2010, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner documents. This information was sent to: Name Chris Koruga Robert Hancheroff John Murphy Ben Yu Lorraine Lafoon Van Hong (Signature of Sender): k ..,uf STATE OF WASHINGTON/ ~c COUNTY OF KING ) ss ) Representing Contact/ Applicant Owner Party of Record Party of Record Party of Record Party of Record $- ff~ ~it I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy M. Tucker '"it1&.1111lltl0>'11" signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: j,r?V£ S :Jo ID Notary Puttcln and for the State of Washington Notary (Print): ___ .....:./-""/ .-'A:.c.... . ...,&'-'. •c.,"<'ec;'-"'"'. -"'"'-'-------------- My appointment expires: A ccfw,+ ;J. 'f, ;;i_ 0 l3 Eagle Ridge Apartments & Offices PUD LUA09-150, ECF, PPUD ' ', ' , . DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING June 15, 2010 AGENDA COMMENCING AT 9:00 AM, COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7TH FLOOR, RENTON CITY HALL The application(s) listed are in order of application number only and not necessarily the order in which they will be heard. Items will be called for hearing at the discretion of the Hearing Examiner. PROJECT NAME: Eagle Ridge Apartments & Offices PUD PROJECT NUMBER: LUA09-150, ECF, PPUD PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting approval of a Preliminary Planned Urban Development (PPUD) for a mixed used development including office and residential uses. The subject site is located at 1600 Benson Road S. The site is composed of two vacant parcels totaling 125,708 square feet (2.89 acres) located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) zone. The applicant has proposed two 4-story buildings with a total of 117 apartment units which would result in a net density of 56.52 units per acre. The applicant has proposed that the project be developed in two phases. Phase One would include the South building comprised of 61 residential units and 4,039 square feet of commercial space. Phase Two would include the North building comprised of 56 residential units. The South building would have 61 residential units, 4,039 square feet of office use on the ground floor, and 75 structured and surface parking spaces. The North building would have 56 residential units with 56 structured and surface parking spaces. HEX Agenda 06-15-10.doc PUBLIC City of Renton HEARING Department af Community and Economic Development PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST: REPORT DATE: June 15, 2010 Project Name: Eagle Ridge PUD Owner: Robert Hancheroff, 1771234'" Avenue SE, Maple Valley, WA 98038 Applicant: Chris Koruga, Eagle Ridge,LLC, 5454 30'" Avenue SW, Seattle, WA 98126 Contact: Same as above Fife Number: LUA09-150, ECF, PPUD Project Manager: Gerald Wasser, Associate Planner Project Description: The applicant is requesting approval of a Preliminary Planned Urban Development {PPUD) for a mixed used development including office and residential uses. The subject site is located at 1600 Benson Road S. The site is composed of two vacant parcels totaling 125,708 square feet (2.89 acres) located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) zone. The applicant has proposed two 4- story buildings with a total of 117 apartment units which would result in a net density of 56.52 units per acre. The applicant has proposed that the project be developed in two phases. Phase One would include the South building comprised of 61 residential units and 4,039 square feet of commercial space. Phase Two would include the North building comprised of 56 residential units. The South Building would have 61 residential units, 4,039 square feet of office use on the ground floor, and 75 structured and surface parking spaces. The North Building would have 56 residential units with 59 structured and surface parking spaces. Phase One would begin shortly after final approval of the PUD and Phase Two would begin approximately one year thereafter. Both buildings would have flat roofs with fa~ade modulation including bay window projections. Access to the site would be gained from Benson Road S and from a private easement that connects to Eagle Ridge Drive S. The Olympic gas pipeline lies to the north of the site and High Voltage Electrical Transmission lines cross the south portion of the property. Project Location: 1600 Benson Road S City of Renton Community and Econom EAGLE RIDGE PUD 1e/opment Department PUBLIC HEARING DA TE: June 15, 2010 !2220002!,S 12l20r>:J250 1~0245 S 16THST .. 0 :! # 20.<3059011 2{.12306!1093 2D230.S9033 W23tl:S9LJ35 2D230fHW32 2£l23D:5YD29 ~0230:59119,' 2.;412.20000 Project Location Map 20231)59086 iminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA09-150, £CF, PPUD Page 2 of 21 SITE City of Renton Community and Econom, ;;•el;;;DP;;;m;;;e;;;n;;t D;;;e;;;P;;;Drt;;m;;;e;;;n;;t========~im;;;i;;na;;;ry=Re;;;P;;Drt;;,;;to;;;t;;;he;;;H;;;e;;;o;;;rin~g;;E;;;xo;;;m;;;i;;;ne;;;r EAGLE RIDGE PUD LUA09-150, ECF, PPUD PUBLIC HEARING DA TE: June 15, 2010 Page 3 of 21 B. HEARING EXHIBITS: C. 1. z. 3. 4. Exhibit 1: Exhibit 2: Exhibit 3: Exhibit 4: Exhibit 5: Exhibit 6: Exhibit 7: Exhibit 8: Exhibit 9: Exhibit 10: Exhibit 11: Exhibit 12: Exhibit 13: Exhibit 14: Exhibit 15: Exhibit 16: Exhibit 17: Exhibit 18: Exhibit 19: Exhibit 20: Exhibit 21 Exhibit 22: Project file ("yellow file") containing the application, reports, staff comments, and other material pertinent to the review of the project. Neighborhood Detail Map Site Plan Conceptual Landscape Plan Conceptual Grading Plan South Building -East and South Elevation South Building -West and North Elevations North Building -East and South Elevations North Building -West and North Elevations South Building -Garage Floor Plan South Building -First Floor Plan South Building -Second Floor Plan South Building -Third Floor plan South Building -Fourth Floor Plan South Building -Roof Plan North Building -Garage Plan North Building -First Floor Plan North Building -Second Floor Plan North Building -Third Floor Plan North building -Fourth Floor Plan North Building -Roof Plan Zoning Map GENERAL INFORMATION: Owner of Record: Robert Hancheroff 17712341 h Avenue SE Maple Valley, WA 98038 Zoning Designation: Commercial Arterial (CA) Comprehensive Plan Designation: Commercial Corridor (CC) Existing Site Use: Vacant City of Renton Community and Economi elopment Department iminary Report to the Hearing Examiner EAGLE RIDGE PUD LUA09-150, £CF, PPUD Page4 af21 PUBLIC HEARING DA TE: June 15, 2010 5. Neighborhood Characteristics; North: Vacant, Olympic Pipeline, and a dental/medical office building (CA zone) Eost: Senior housing (Eagle Ridge Lodge) and multifamily neighborhood (CA and RM-F zones) South:Vacant, high voltage electric transmission line (CA zone) West: Benson Road S, vacant land (CA zone) 6. Proposed Orientation; East/west 7. 8. Site Area: Project Data: Existing Building Area: 125,708 square feet (2.89 acres) N/A D. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND: Action Annexation Comprehensive Plan Zoning Hancheroff Short Plat Hancheroff Lot Line Adjustment Land Use File No. N/A N/A N/A N/A LUA07-089 Ordinance No. 5327 5099 5191 SHP-83-023 N/A Date 03/01/2008 11/1/2004 11/12/2005 05/31/1983 08/14/2008 E. PUBLIC SERVICES: 1. Utilities: Water: This site is served by the City of Renton. There is an existing 8-inch water line along the Benson Road S frontage. There is an additional 8-inch water line in the easement crossing the site; this is part of a looped system serving the Eagle Ridge Lodge development to the east which includes a combination of 8 and 10- inch water lines. Sewer: This site is served by the City of Renton Wastewater Utility. There is an 8-inch sanitary sewer main that crosses the property in the above mentioned easement. Additionally, there is an 8-inch sanitary sewer main in Benson Road S along the entire property frontage. Surface Water/Storm Water: A preliminary technical information report (TIR), which uses the 1995 King County Surface Water Design Manual standards, has been submitted. This has been accepted as a preliminary design. Storm water on the subject site flows into an existing City system which has a history of flooding issues downstream that the current 1-405 project may have resolved. 2. Streets: The site is located on Benson Road S. The proposed project would also tie into an existing private access road terminating at Eagle Ride Road S. Existing improvements include pavement, sidewalk, curb, gutter, and lighting. City of Renton Community and Econom1 EAGLE RIDGE PUD efopment Department Jiminary Report to the Hearing Examiner PUBLIC HEARING DATE: June 15, 2010 3, Fire Protection: City of Renton Fire Department F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE: 1, Chapter 2 Land Use Districts Section 4-2-020: Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts Section 4-2-070: Zoning Use Table LUA09~150, ECF, PPUD Page 5 of 21 Section 4-2-120: Development Standards for Commercial Zoning Designations 2. Chapter 4 Property Development Standards Section 4-4-030: Development Guidelines and Regulations Section 4-4-060: Grading, Excavation and Mining Regulations Section 4-4-080: Parking, Loading and Driveway Regulations Section 4-4-130: Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Regulations 4. Chapter 6 Streets and Utility Standards Section 4-6-060: Street Standards 5. Chapter 9 Procedures and Review Criteria Section 4-9-150: Planned Urban Development Regulations Section 4-9-250: Variances, Waivers, Modifications, and Alternates 6. Chapter 11 Definitions G. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: 1. Land Use Element -Commercial Corridor 2. Community Design Element 3. Environmental Element H. DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS: 1. Project Description/Background The applicant is requesting review of a Preliminary Planned Urban Development (PPUD). The PPUD proposes the construction of two new 4-story buildings. The South Building would consist of 61 apartment units and 4,039 square feet of commercial space and 75 parking spaces, 33 of which would be structured and 42 surface spaces. The North Building would consist of 56 apartment units and 59 parking spaces, 39 of which would be structured and 20 would be surface spaces. The 4-story buildings would have a flat roof and fa~ade modulation with surface texture and color changing approximately every 40-feet. The proposed project would be completed in two phases. Phase One would include the construction of the South Building and the common open space/ landscaped areas; and, Phase Two would include the northerly building and additional landscaping on the northeastern portion of the property. The project site is located on the east side of Benson Road Sand northerly of the intersection of Eagle Ridge Road S and Benson Road S. The site is L-shaped and slopes downward from east to west towards Benson Road S. The subject site is designated as Commercial Corridor on City of Renton Community and Econom EAGLE RIDGE PUD PUBLIC HEARING DA TE: June 15, 2010 relopment Department _fiminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA09-150, ECF, PPUD Page 6 of 21 the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and is zoned Commercial Arterial (CA), in addition to being located within the Urban Design District "D" Overlay. The concept for the PPUD, Eagle Ridge, is to create a development that would facilitate in the transformation of an "island" of CA zoned property on the east side of Benson Road South amid RM-F zoning surrounding it. This "island" of CA zoned property is further isolated by the existence of high voltage transmission lines in the southern portion of the property and the Olympic pipeline to the north. RM-F zoning allows up to 20 dwelling units per net acre and would accommodate apartment structures. The only commercial use on this stretch of Benson Road Sis a dental/medical office building abutting the proposed project site to the north. A multi-family senior housing development exists to the east and an apartment building is farther up the hill to the northeast. The applicant has proposed a 78,584 gross square foot, 48-feet high mixed use building that would be built on the southerly portion of the property; 4,039 square feet of this would be office commercial use and 74,545 square feet would accommodate 61 apartments and approximately 3 offices in 4-stories. The northerly building would have 71,716 gross square feet, would be 48-feet in height, and would include 56 apartment units in 4-stories. The net density of the proposed project is 56.52 dwelling units per net acre. The southerly building would have 33 structured parking spaces and 42 surface parking spaces. Of these total 75 spaces (73 are required) there would be 6 accessible, 51 standard, and 18 compact parking spaces. The northerly building would have 39 structured and 20 surface parking spaces. Of these total 59 spaces there would be 30 standard, 25 compact, and 4 accessible parking spaces. Structured parking would be provided for apartment residents; surface parking would be for residents, their guests, and the public utilizing the commercial and open spaces. Both of the proposed buildings would be developed with a contemporary architectural style; craftsman-style detailing is provided through the use of cedar beams. The use of bay window projections at intervals of 12 to 24-feet would provide architectural modulation on the east and west elevations. However, the north elevation of the South Building and the south elevation of the North Building do not have architectural modulation similar to that of the east and west facades of the buildings. Several different facade materials are proposed including wood, cement, stucco, and cedar siding. Stucco would be used at the first and second levels; hardiplank or cementious board would be used at the third and fourth levels; and cedar would be used art belly bands, corner boards, trim and support beams. The submitted elevations also indicate that the exterior walls of the ground level structured parking would have stamped or stained concrete walls with openings having vertical iron bar grating. There are several man-made protected slopes on the proposed project site. These were created by the construction of Benson Road S and the access easement which bisects the property and provides emergency access to the Eagle Ridge Lodge development to the east of the project site. Grading of these man-made protected slopes would accommodate the main entrance driveway to the project and provide level areas for the proposed structures, parking areas, and internal pedestrian and vehicular circulation. Vehicular access to the site would be provided via a driveway located near the southerly property line. The overall development is intended to be pedestrian-oriented even though the site presents some challenges due to the slope issues; interconnecting 5-foot wide walkways, crosswalks, stairways, and passive recreation areas would create this pedestrian orientation. This pedestrian connectivity would be linked to the dental/medical office building on the property to the north and to the Eagle Ridge Lodge development, via the existing paved access road, to the east. In City of Renton Community and Econom EAGLE RIDGE PUD PUBLIC HEARING DATE: June 15, 2010 ·efopment Department liminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA09-150, ECF, PPUD Page 7 af 21 addition to these pedestrian interconnections, there is an existing sidewalk along Benson Road S for the total length of the project frontage. To the north of the site there is vacant land (zoned RM-F) and an existing dental/medical office building (zoned CA). To the northeast is an existing apartment building (zoned RM-F). To the east is an existing senior housing development (zoned CA). To the west of the proposed project site is vacant land across Benson Road 5. There is vacant land (zoned RM-F) south of the site. 2. Environmental Review Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21C, 1971 as amended), on May 17, 2010, the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M) for the Eagle Ridge PPUD. The DNS-M included 7 mitigation measures. A 14-day appeal period commenced on May 21, 2010 and ended on June 4, 2010. No appeals of the threshold determination have been filed. 3. Compliance with ERC Conditions Based on an analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) issued the following mitigation measures with the Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated: 1. Erosion control shall be maintained for the duration of the project. Weekly status reports shall be submitted to the Development Services Division Plan Review project manager. 2. The applicant shall be required to comply with the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Engineering Reconnaissance, dated May 19, 2006, prepared by Geotech Consultants, Inc. during clearing, grading, and site and building construction. 3. In the event that pile driven foundations are utilized, the applicant shall submit noise and vibration studies and may be restricted to certain days and hours of pile driving activities. 4. The applicant shall pay a Parks Mitigation Fee based on $354.51 per each new multi-family unit which is estimated to be $41,477.67 and is payable prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. In the event that archaeological artifacts are encountered during construction, work shall immediately be stopped and the applicant shall submit an archaeological resource survey of the site. The survey shall conform to the requirements and standards of the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and must be conducted under the supervision of a state- approved archaeologist. Work shall recommence only when approval is received by the State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. 6. The applicant shall pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee in the amount of $75.00 for each new average daily trip prior to the issuance of building permits. The fee is estimated to be $39,192.75. 7. The applicant shall pay a Fire Mitigation Fee based on $388.00 per each new multi-family unit and $0.52 per square foot of office space payable prior to the issuance of building permits. This fee is estimated to be $45,606.00. City of Renton Community and Economv ;;e;;;ID;i;P;;;m;;;en;;;t;;D,;;Jep;;;o;;;rt;;;m;;e;;;nt~=======~li;;;m;;;in;;;ory;b;;R;!ep;;;o;;;rt;;;to;;,,;;;th;;;e;;;H;;;eo;;;n;;;·nge:E;;x;;;om=in;;;,er EAGLE RIDGE PUD LUA09-150, ECF, PPUD PUBLIC HEARING DATE: June 15, 2010 Page 8 of 21 4. Staff Review Comments Representatives from various City departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and address issues raised by the proposed development. These comments are contained in the official file, and the essence of the comments has been incorporated into the appropriate sections of this report and the Departmental Recommendation at the end of the report. 5. a) Consistency with the Planned Urban Development Regulations Compliance with the Underlying Zoning Designation (Code provisions restricted from modification through the PUD process): The subject site is designated CA on the City of Renton Zoning Map. i. Use: A planned urban development may not authorize uses that are inconsistent with those uses allowed by the underlying zone. The applicant is proposing the eventual construction of multi-family dwelling units and a commercial space. The CA zone permits attached-residential, retail, and general office uses. ii. Density: The number of dwellings units shall not exceed the density allowances of the applicable base zone. The allowed density range in the CA zone is a minimum of 10 to a maximum of 60 dwelling units per acre. After deducting 9,000 square feet for private access easements and 26,454 square feet for critical areas (protected slopes) from the 125,708 gross square footage the net square footage of the proposed development would be 90,254 square feet (2.07 net acres). With 117 dwelling units, the proposal would have a net density of 56.52 dwelling units per acre (117 units / 2.07 acres = 56.52 du/ac), which falls within the permitted density range for the CA zone. b} Code Provisions That May Be Modified: In approving a planned urban development, the City may modify any of the standards of Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Chapters 4-2 Zoning Districts-Uses & Standards, 4-4 City-Wide Property Development Standards, and 4-7 Subdivision Regulations, and RMC 4-6-060 Street Standards. City of Renton Community and Econom EAGLE RIDGE PUD relopment Department liminary Report to the Hearing Examiner PUBLIC HEARING DA TE: June 15, 2010 Table A LUA09-150, ECF, PPUD Page 9 of 21 REQUESTED MODIFICATIONS FROM RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE {RMC) RMC# Reg_uired e.er RMC Reg_uested Modifjcation RMC 4-2-120A: Required Location Parking for residential units shall be To provide 72 total for Parking enclosed within the same building as structured parking spaces the unit it serves. for residents within the buildings in underground/ground floor parking garages and 62 surface parking spaces. RMC 4-2-080: Conditions Associated Note 18. To allow stand alone With Zoning Use Tables a. General Requirements: Subject to residential for the North the density limits of the development Building and ground floor standards for this zone and only residential for the North and permitted within a structure South Buildings. 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, except for a residential entry feature linking the residential portion ofthe development to the street. RMC 4-4-080F.8.c.iii: Maximum Compact parking spaces shall not To allow up to 40 percent Number of Compact Spaces Outside account for more than: compact parking spaces. of the UC-Nl and UC-N2 Zones • All other uses -not to exceed thirty percent (30%). RMC 4-3-0SOJ.Sb Protected Slopes-RMC 4-3-0SOJ.5.a prohibits The grading of 5 protected Exceptions through Modification. development on protected slopes (40 slope areas which were % or greater). RMC 4-3-0SOJ.b. allows created either for the exceptions through modifications to construction of Benson Road the prohibition for filling against the 5 or the private access toe of natural rock wall or rock wall, easement located onsite. or protected slope created by natural resource recovery activities or public or private road installation or widening and related transportation improvements. City of Renton Communi'ty and Econom EAGLE RIDGE PUD PUBLIC HEARING DATE: June 15, 2010 RMC 4-3-lOOE.2.a.ii RMC 4-3-lOOE.3.a.i _;;'e;,;loe,;pm=en;,;t;;D;fep;,;o;,;rt;,;m;;en;,;t--------_liminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA09-150, ECF, PPUD Page 10 of 21 Design District 'D' Reguested Modifications The front entry of a building shall not Front entry of buildings be oriented to a drive aisle, but would be permitted to front instead a public or private street or parking areas. landscaped pedestrian-only court- yard A primary entrance of each building The primary entrance of shall be located on the fa~ade facing a each building would face the prominent street, shall be prominent, internal drive aisle. visible from the street, connected by a walkway to the public sidewalk, and include human-scale elements. The applicant has not indicated how the primary residential entrances for each building would be demarcated as a prominent feature of the building. Therefore, staff recommends as a condition of approval that the applicant shall submit revised elevations and floor plans that indicate that such primary entries would have awnings or canopies and be identified with decorative paving and/or landscaping features. If lobby areas are to be provided these must be shown on the revised floor plans. Refuse and recycling areas are indicated on the submitted site plan. However, these areas are not dimensioned. A minimum of 1.5 square feet per residential unit is required for recyclable deposit areas and 3 square feet per unit for refuse areas is required. Office uses require 2 square feet per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for recyclables and 4 square feet per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for refuse deposit areas. The North Building would require 84 square feet of recyclable area and 168 square feet of refuse area. The South Building would require 99.58 square feet for recyclable areas and 107.66 square feet of refuse area. Staff recommends as a condition of approval that the refuse and recyclables areas be dimensioned on a revised site plan. In addition, a detail of the refuse and recyclables areas shall be shown which indicates compliance with RMC 4-4-090. b} PUD Decision Criteria: i. Demonstration of Compliance and Superiority: Applicants must demonstrate that a proposed development is in compliance with the purposes af the PUD regulations and with the Comprehensive Plan, that the proposed development shall be superior to that which would result without a planned urban development, and that the development will not be unduly detrimental to surrounding properties. Comment: If the conditions of approval are met, the applicant will have demonstrated compliance with the PUD regulations and the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant will have demonstrated that the development is superior to that which would result without a PUD and will not be detrimental to surrounding properties. Provided the conditions of approval are complied with the development of this site as a PUD would result in a superior design than would result by the strict application ofthe Development Standards; because the result of the requested modification, to approve stand alone residential on City of Renton Community and Econom EAGLE RIDGE PUD PUBLIC HEARING DA TE: June 15, 2010 •elopment Department liminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA09-150, ECF, PPUD Page 11 of 21 the northern portion of the subject site, provides for a successful transition from CA property to the existing multi-family residential development located to the east and northeast. If the northern portion of the site was required to develop with commercial/retail on the first floor such commercial use would be isolated from Benson Road S and would be virtually inaccessible from Benson Road S. site. ii. Public Benefit: The applicants shall demonstrate that a proposed development will provide specifically identified benefits that clearly outweigh any adverse impacts or undesirable effects of the proposed planned urban development, particularly those adverse and undesirable impacts to surrounding properties, and that the proposed development will provide one or more of the following benefits than would result from the development of the subject site without the proposed planned urban development: > Critical Areas: Protects critical areas that would not be protected otherwise to the same degree as without a planned urban development; or > 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 > Public Facilities: Provides public facilities that could nat be required by the City for development of the subject property without a planned urban development; or > Overall Design: Provides a planned urban development design that is superior in one or more of the following ways to the design that would result from development of the subject property without a planned urban development: • Open Space/Recreation: (a) Provides increased open space or recreational facilities beyond standard code requirements and considered equivalent to features that would offset park mitigation fees in Resolution 3082; and (b) Provides a quality enviranment through either passive ar active recreation facilities and attractive common areas, including accessibility to buildings from parking areas and public walkways; or • Circulation/Screening: Provides superior circulation patterns or location or screening of parking facilities; or • Landscaping/Screening: Provides superior landscaping, buffering, or screening in or around the proposed planned urban development; or • Site and Building Design: Provides superior architectural design, placement, relationship or orientation of structures, or use of solar energy; or • Alleys: Provides alleys to at least fifty percent {50%} of any proposed single family detached, semi-attached, or townhouse units. Comment: The following table contains comments on public benefits. City of Renton Community and Econom EAGLE RIDGE PUD PUBLIC HEARING DATE: June 15, 2010 Table B 1efopment Department liminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA09-150, £CF, PPUD Page 12 of 21 PUBLIC BENEFIT PROVIDED: NATURAL FEATURES & OVERALL DESIGN NATURAL FEATURES: The site contains a total of 81 significant trees; 2 are dead, dangerous or diseased, 27 are in proposed access easements and 20 are critical areas resulting in 32 protected trees on site. The CA zone requires 5 percent tree retention of the 32 protected trees on site. At a 5 percent retention rate, 1.6 trees would be required to be retained. The applicant has identified 40 trees that would be retained. The preservation of these trees would result in an overall development design that would not only provide for growth in an area of the City that has been identified as a Commercial Corridor by the Comprehensive Plan, at the same time preserve the natural features on the site to the extent possible. OVERALL DESIGN: 1. Open Space/Recreation: In addition to private open space, the applicant is proposing to provide public amenities such as picnic tables, benches, a gazebo, and a walkway system that would provide pedestrian connectivity throughout the project site as well as to the surrounding existing development and Benson Road S. The proposed pedestrian system provides for additional active and passive recreation on the site that is not required by code. This 5-foot wide walkway would give the residents of the new development and the patrons of the commercial facility access to places for relaxation and/or exercise. Furthermore, the existing sidewalk along Benson Road S is immediately next to the travel lanes, there is no buffering for the pedestrians from this fast moving street. This does not provide a safe environment for pedestrian mobility in this area. As such, the addition of this internal pedestrian circulation system would provide a safer path for pedestrians to utilize, if they choose to leave the existing concrete sidewalk along Benson Drive South. In order for this path to provide a complete loop, for recreational purposes and for an alternative to walking along Benson Road S, staff recommends as a condition of approval that the applicant extend the pedestrian system so that it provides connectivity to Benson Road Sand between the northerly and southerly buildings and their associated surface parking lots. 2. Circulation: Provided that the conditions of approval are complied with the proposed site plan provides for a superior pedestrian circulation system. In addition to the proposed pedestrian circulation system between the buildings on and off site, the applicant has proposed walkways provide access to the passive, publically accessible recreation areas. In order for these pedestrian walkways to be clearly delineated from the drive aisles and parking spaces, staff recommends a condition of approval that all pedestrian walkways within parking lots be differentiated by material or texture, such as stamped concrete or raised asphalt, from adjacent paving materials. 3. Landscaping/Screening: The proposed landscape plan for the entire site is superior to what is required by the Renton Municipal Code. In addition to the enhanced tree preservation, as discussed above under "Natural Features", the applicant has provided a landscape plan that includes screening landscaping and enhanced landscaping along Benson Road South. City of Renton Community and Econom EAGLE RIDGE PUD PUBLIC HEARING DATE: June 15, 2010 1eJopment Department .liminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA09-150, ECF, PPUD Page 13 of 21 The landscaping adjacent to the buildings would occur in generously sized beds that would seek to highlight the architecture and soften the fa~ade where needed. Surface parking lot areas would be screened from adjacent residential areas through large perimeter landscape strips with trees, shrubs, and groundcover, which would enhance the pedestrian experience along adjacent sidewalks. The interior of the parking lots would be softened with landscape islands that would include trees, shrubs, and groundcover; this would enhance aesthetics while providing solar relief and aiding long-term stormwater management. The provided landscape plan indicated that the following plants would be included in the proposed landscaping: October Red Glory Maple, Vine Maple, Korean Stewartia, and assorted conifer trees; shrubs including Redtwig Dogwood, Yellowtwig Dogwood, Oregon Grape, Pacific Wax Myrtle, Zabel Laurel, and Red Flowering Currant, Kelsey Dogwood, Spirea, and Sword Fern; groundcovers would include Salal, Creeping Oregon Grape, and Wild Strawberry as well as seeded lawn areas with a mix of Perennial Rye, Fine Fescue, and Kentucky Blue Grass. Staff recommends as a condition of approval that the applicant submit a detailed final landscape plan for review and approval by the Planning Division project manager prior to building permit approval that indicates an expanded and enhanced landscaping using more trees in the area of the gazebo, and benches and picnic areas. 4. Site and Building Design: The proposed development is separated into two phases; the multi- family development to the north and the mixed use development to the south. The placement of the North Building on the northerly part of the parcel would allow for utilization of existing grades. In addition the orientation of the building takes advantage of views toward downtown Renton and the Valley to the west. Furthermore, both buildings allow for a transition into the commercial development to the north and residential development to the east. The building design includes horizontal modulation to break down the visual bulk of the building. Such horizontal modulation is accomplished by the use of bay window projects and balconies at each residential unit. These increments are then modulated further with the addition of various surface materials and changes of color. The roofline is flat except for raised parapets at the bay window sections which provide vertical modulation on the east and west facades. However, the north elevation of the South Building and the south elevation of the North Building do not have architectural modulation similar to that of the east and west facades of the buildings. Because these facades face garden areas and would be viewed by those people using these areas for passive recreation, they should have greater architectural modulation. Therefore, staff recommends as a condition of approval that revised elevations showing architectural modulation in a manner similar to the east and west elevations be submitted to the Planning Division project manager prior to the issuance of building permits. The building materials proposed would include hardiplank siding. The exterior walls of the ground floor area parking garages would be comprised of stamped or colored concrete with iron grates for air circulation. Such vertical bars convey an institutional appearance. Therefore, staff recommends as a condition of approval that that revised elevations be submitted to the Planning Division project manager indicating that decorative ironwork would used for ground level parking structure openings. Several paint colors would be used to accentuate the building modulation. City of Renton Community and Econom EAGLE RIDGE PUD PUBLIC HEARING DA TE: June 15, 2010 'elopment Department liminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA09-150, ECF, PPUD Page 14 of 21 The buildings use a contemporary architectural style with some craftsman detailing by the use of cedar beams and corner elements. The commercial space on the first floor of the southerly building is proposed to provide glass storefront windows. The commercial entrance at the main level is designed to have a canopy over the entrance. iii. Building and Site Design: Perimeter: Size, scale, mass, character and architectural design along the planned urban development perimeter provide o suitable transition to adjacent or abutting lower density/intensity zones. Materials shall reduce the potential for light and glare. Comment: The size, scale, mass, character and architectural design of the proposed planned urban development would provide a suitable transition to the commercial building to the north and to the multi-family residential developments to the east and northeast. The materials proposed for the project's two buildings in combination with the building location on the project site at an elevation lower than the existing surrounding multi-family development would reduce the potential for light and glare. The fact that the commercial offices in the South building face eastward may cause a small amount of glare in the morning hours, but because these commercial spaces are at as lower elevation than the residential units in the North building may further reduce the amount of glare experienced. 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. Comment: The two buildings on the project site are similar in architectural character. The existing neighboring development has played a role in locating the buildings. Most of the floor of the South building and all of the floor area of the North building is devoted to residential uses. As such the site has been designed to reflect an integrated living environment while providing the potential for commercial office services. The buildings are linked through the use of similar building materials (stamped or stained concrete at the garage level, stucco at the first and second levels, hardiplank or cementious board at the third and fourth levels, and cedar at belly bands, corner boards and trim, and cedar beams for supports. iv. Circulation: 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. City of Renton Community and Econom v;;e;;fo"'pm=e=n=t=De=p=a=rt=m=en=t==========lim='=·na=ry==Re=p=ort==to=t=he=H=e=a=rin,,,g=E=xa=m=i=ne=r EAGLE RIDGE PUD LUA09-150, ECF, PPUD PUBLIC HEARING DATE: June 15, 2010 Page 15 of 21 Comment: The proposed project includes one main access point on Benson Road S. Emergency access would be provided by the 20-foot wide paved private access which originates in the Eagle Ridge Lodge development to the east and crosses the subject property from southeast to northwest. All drive aisles throughout the site would be 24- feet wide and would provide for two-way traffic circulation. While the submitted landscape plan indicates that there would be a series of 5-foot wide connecting pedestrian walkways throughout the site, staff recommends that additional pedestrian walkways and crosswalks be provided which promote pedestrian safety throughout the site. Such walkways shall be shown to provide a connection to the dental/medical office building to the north, between passive recreation areas as well as providing crosswalks across surface parking lots. Promotes safety: 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. Comment: While parking area bollard lighting is indicated on the submitted site plan, a detailed outdoor lighting plan was not included. Therefore, it is not clear how the proposed and recommended pedestrian walkways and parking lot crosswalks would be illuminated at night. Staff recommends as a condition of approval that the applicant submit a lighting plan for review and approval by the Planning Division project manager prior to utility construction. The lighting shall contain pedestrian walkway lighting in addition to landscape and building lighting if proposed. Along Benson Road S there would be one 26-foot driveway cut which would provide direct access to the proposed project. When the conditions of approval are implemented, the promotion of safety will have been accomplished. Provision of a system of walkways: Walkways that tie residential areas to recreational areas, transit, public walkways, schools, and commercial activities. Comment: The existing street frontage improvements along Benson Road S provide connections to schools, public transit, and other public walkways within the neighborhood. As mentioned earlier in this report proposed and recommended pedestrian walkways would provide additional pedestrian links to such services. Provides safe. efficient access for emergency vehicles: Comment: All private drives would be designed to accommodate emergency vehicle access. A properly recorded fire access easement is required over the abutting parcel to the northwest of the project site in order to p [provide Fire Code approved apparatus access. v. Infrastructure and Services: Provides utility services, emergency services, and other improvements, existing and proposed, which are sufficient to serve the development. Comment: Water and sanitary sewer services would be provided by the City of Renton Water and Waste Water Utilities. Existing water and sewer mains are located within Benson Road S and in the existing paved access easement which crosses the project site. A new water main looped throughout the site would provide domestic water supply and City of Renton Community and Econon velopment Department Jiminary Report to the Hearing Examiner EAGLE RIDGE PUD LUA09-150, ECF, PPUD PUBLIC HEARING DA TE: June 15, 2010 Page 16 of 21 fire flows for the proposed development. Fire protection would be provided by the City of Renton Fire Department. Additional clearing and new impervious surfaces would result in increased surface water and runoff. The developed site drainage system would discharge site runoff to the Benson Road S drainage system. Stormwater detention would be required and is proposed in two separate detention vaults which would function independently. A Final Technical Information Report and design, in compliance with the 1995 King County Surface Water Design Manual would be required prior to final surface water design for the construction permit. The proposed infrastructure and services would be sufficient to serve the proposed development. vi. 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. Comment: The topography of the site includes some steep slope areas presenting some design constraints. Because the site generally slopes downward from east to west, the two proposed buildings would be located at different elevations. The South building containing the commercial space would be located closer to Benson Road S. Open space between the two buildings would be landscaped and would provide public access to pedestrian walkways and passive recreation areas. Surface parking area landscaping would be provided and would provide additional visual relief. The orientation of the buildings provides views primarily to the east and west and would allow for light and air circulation. Views to the east would be of hillside vegetation and landscaped areas and views to the west would be of the valley below. A feeling of openness would be created by the proposed landscaping and recommended pedestrian connections. vii. 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, os 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. Comment: Maximum privacy is provided by taking advantage of the topography of the site. Not only is the South building located at an elevation above Benson Road S, it is also separated by heavily vegetated buffer. Each of the proposed residential units has access to a private deck which would provide light and air to each unit. These private decks/balconies would include glass enclosures would afford future residents the ability to have outside views while providing a more open feeling. The two buildings do not directly face each and are offset on the site so that there are no direct sight lines between units in the separate buildings. City of Renton Community and Econom EAGLE RIDGE PUD PUBLIC HEARING DA TE: June 15, 2010 •elopment Department liminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA09-150, ECF, PPUD Page 17 of 21 Rooftop equipment would be screened. Refuse and recyclables areas are proposed both inside the structured parking areas and in outside areas. As indicated on the landscape plan the outdoor refuse areas would be screened by landscaping. Because refuse and recyclable area screening details were not provided, staff recommends as a condition of approval that prior to building permit issuance the applicant shall provide a screening detail to the Planning Division project manager for review and approval. When the conditions of approval are met compliance with the privacy and building separation criteria will be satisfied. viii. Building Orientation: Provides buildings oriented to enhance views from within the site by taking advantage of topography, building location and style. Comment: Both of the proposed buildings are oriented east/west with the majority of window and door openings on these two facades. The two buildings are offset on the site to take advantage of views, to provide a feeling of openness, and to allow for optimum light and air. ix. Parking Area Design: Design: Provides parking areas that are complemented by landscaping and not designed in long rows. The size of parking areas is minimized in comparison ta 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. Comment: The very limited amount of surface parking near Benson Road S would be screened from pedestrian view by a landscape strip. Surface parking area landscape islands would be provided at every six parking spaces or fewer would provide additional parking area screening and visual relief. The residential component of the South building would utilize the structure parking and would share surface parking spaces with the commercial uses. The residential units in the North building would have a combination of structured and surface parking areas. The structured parking reduces the amount of surface parking which provides for a more efficient use of the proposed project site and a reduction in impervious area. Surface parking spaces would be designated and in proximity to the commercial space to reduce intrusion into the primarily residential character of the project. Adequacy: Provides sufficient on-site vehicular parking areas consistent with the parking demand created by the development as documented in a parking analysis approved by the City. Comment: The proposed 134 parking spaces for the entire project would provide sufficient onsite parking demand. For the South building which contains 61 residential units and 4,039 square feet of commercial space, the applicant proposes 63 spaces for the residential component and 12 parking spaces for the commercial component which includes a6 accessible parking spaces. The North building contains S6 residential units and would have a total of 59 parking spaces including 4 accessible spaces. The applicant has provided parking in compliance with Renton Municipal Code. The overall project would have 2 more parking spaces than is required. City of Renton Community and Econom EAGLE RIDGE PUD PUBLIC HEARING DA TE: June 15, 2010 relopment Department liminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA09-150, £CF, PPUD Page 18of21 x. Phasing: Each phase af the prapased development contains the required parking spaces, open space, recreation spaces, landscaping and utilities necessary for creating and sustaining a desirable and stable environment, so that each phase, together with previous phases, can stand alone. Comment: The applicant has requested the option of phasing the proposed project. Phase One would be the South building, its associated structured and surface parking, as well as all of the landscaped open areas and their associated passive recreation facilities. Phase Two would include the North building, its structured and surface parking, and its associated landscaped areas. Construction of Phase One is anticipated to occur shortly after approval of the Final PUD and Phase Two would begin approximately one year thereafter. Because the public amenities and outdoor open space would be constructed and installed with Phase One, this phase can stand alone. xi. Development Standards Common Open Space Standard: Open space shall be concentrated in large usable areas and may be designed to provide either active or passive recreation. Requirements for mixed-use developments are described below. Residential Portions: 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 Reviewing Official. The required common open space shall be satisfied with one or more of the elements listed below. The Reviewing Official 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. Comment: The proposed 117 unit multi-family development would require 5,850 square feet of common open space. Including landscaped areas which encompass passive recreation, the overall development would have 52,80S square feet of open area. Amenities would include benches, picnic tables, a gazebo structure, barbecue, and pedestrian walkways. Because these common open areas would be accessible to the public, staff recommends as a condition of approval that a revised landscape plan be submitted prior to the issuance of building permits which include enhanced landscaping with more trees planted in the areas containing the gazebo, picnic tables, and benches. City of Renton Community and Economi EAGLE RIDGE PUD PUBLIC HEARING DATE: June 15, 2010 elopment Deportment iminory Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA09-150, £CF, PPUD Page 19 of 21 Mixed Use Nonresidential Portion: Alf buildings and developments with over thirty thousand {30,000} square feet of nonresidential uses (excludes parking go rage floorplote areas) shall provide pedestrian-oriented space according to the following formula: 1% of the lot area + 1% of the building area = Minimum amount of pedestrian-oriented space Comment: The non-residential (commercial) component of the South building would have 4,039 square and, therefore, is not subject to compliance with this requirement. Private Open Space: Each residential unit in a PUD shall have usable private open space (in addition to parking, storage space, and corridors) for the exclusive use of the occupants of thot unit. Each ground f/oar unit, whether attached or detached, shall have private open space which is contiguous to the unit and shall be an area of at least 20% of the gross square footage of the dwelling units. The private open space shall be well demarcated and at feast 10' in every dimension. Decks on upper floors can substitute for some of the required private open space for upper floor units. 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'). Comment: As evidenced by the floor plans, each residential unit would have a private deck. Each of these decks is accessible through its contiguous residential unit. Ground floor decks do not have the minimum dimension of 10-feet and most decks do not comply with the 20 percent gross floor area minimum. Therefore, staff recommends as a condition of approval that the applicant submit revised floor plans which indicate compliance with the dimensional and square footage requirements for private open space. Such floor plans shall be submitted to the Planning Division project manager prior to the issuance of building permits. Installation and Maintenance of Common Open Space: Alf common area and open space shall be landscaped in accordance with the landscaping plan submitted by the applicant and approved by the City. Comment: Prior to the issuance of an 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 final approval of the planned urban development (phasing may be taken into consideration), and maintained for a period of 2 years, thereafter, and prior to the release of the security device. A security device for landscape maintenance may be waived if a landscape 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 in the Planning Division. Installation and Maintenance of Common Facilities: Alf common facilities not dedicated to the City shall be permanently maintained by the planned urban development awner by the property owners' association or the agent(s) thereof. Comment: Staff recommends as a condition of approval that the owner of the PUD be responsible for any common improvements, including but not limited to pedestrian City of Renton Communi'ty and Econom, EAGLE RIDGE PUD PUBLIC HEARING DA TE: June 15, 2010 elopment Department iminary Report to the Hear;ng Examiner LUA09-150, ECF, PPUD Page 20af 21 walkways and shared parking areas within the project. All common facilities, not dedicated to the City, shall be permanently maintained by the PUD owner. I. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the Eagle Ridge PPUD, Project File No. LUA09-150, ECF, PPUD subject to the following conditions: 1. Refuse and recyclables areas shall be dimensioned on the revised site plan submitted to the Planning Division project manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. A detail of the refuse and recyclables areas must be submitted with the site plan indicating compliance with RMC 4-4-090. 2. The pedestrian walkway system shall be extended to provide connectivity to Benson Road S, between the North and South Buildings, and between the project site and the dental/medical office building to the north. This extended walkway system shall be indicated on the revised site plan submitted to the Planning Division project manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 3. All walkways/crosswalks within parking lots shall be differentiated by material or texture, such as raised and stamped concrete or raised and painted asphalt. Such walkways/crosswalks shall be indicated on the revised site submitted to the Planning Division project manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 4. A Final landscape plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division project manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits that indicates expanded and enhanced landscaping using more trees in the area of the gazebo, benches and picnic tables. 5. Revised elevations for the south elevation of the North Building and the north elevatlon of the South Building showing architectural modulation similar to the east and west elevations shall be submitted to the Planning Division project manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 6. Revised elevations shall be submitted to the Planning Division project manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits which indicate that decorative ironwork would be used for ground level parking structure openings. 7. A revised site plan showing additional walkways and crosswalks to promote pedestrian safety throughout the site. Such walkways shall be shown to provide a connection to the dental/medical office building to the north, between passive recreation areas as well as providing crosswalks across surface parking lots. The revised site plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division project manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 8. A lighting plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division project manager for review and approval prior to utility construction that indicates pedestrian walkway, landscape, and building lighting. City of Renton Community and Econom EAGLE RIDGE PUD PUBLIC HEARING DA TE: June 15, 2010 ·elopment Department iminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA09-150, ECF, PPUD Page 21 of 21 9. A revised site plan and revised elevations shall be submitted to the Planning Division project manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits indicating that primary entries would have awnings or canopies and be identified with decorative paving and/or landscaping. 10. A rooftop mechanical equipment detail shall be submitted to the Planning Division project manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 11. Revised floor plans shall be submitted to the Planning Division project manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits indicating compliance with the dimension and square footage requirements of the PUD decision criteria. 12. All common facilities, not dedicated to the City, shall be permanently maintained by the PUD owner. EXPIRATION PERIODS: The developer shall, within two (2) years of the effective date of action by the City Council to approve the preliminary plan, submit to the Planning Division a final development plan showing the ultimate design and specific details of the proposed planned urban development or the final phase or phases thereof. Upon application by the developer, the Hearing Examiner may grant an extension of the approved preliminary plan for a maximum of twelve (12) months. Application for such extension shall be made at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date of preliminary plan approval. Only one such extension may be granted for a planned urban development. If a final development plan is not filed within such two (2) years or within the extended time period, if any, the planned urban development preliminary plan shall be deemed to have expired or been abandoned. t % ---,, .. \ I . I \ . ···{ 1.,SAt- ~:3- I , 'l -------~ I ·' . I I , ' • 0 J~ I I I I 3 2009 .... A I I NCOLN ,.,~ROPE RT' EXHIBIT 2 " II II I I , , ll ,, \ \ •• 1.1 I I TRANSIIIS ON 1 l l SE, ,~ I I "-,, I + I ~.,. I " \) ~ ------- I I ------------- EAGL.e RIDGE APARTMENTS & OFFICES SITE PLAN EXHIBIT 3 ~1~111 ~I 1n,i I EXHIBIT 4 /: ,' , ; ,, / ' ; . _/ / i ', , 7C{(- 2,QJ ""(] C') i>i" ~ m ,;; ::, ='' 0 fl :0 ::, -!iii\\ .,. ~:D -= ,_ -(ti ~ s ~. :, = ~. ,-+ m 0 0 ::, ::l g ' Z' ·-;:. ' i I ' i 11 ~!ti 1600 BENSON ROAD SOUTH WEISMANDESIGNGROUP l EAGLE RIDGE APARTMENTS & OFFICE F F-"" F-' :: i :1 RENTON, WASHINGTON 0 I ! , i I in t:; al 1-1 ::c >< w •==-= ZIii mll1 a. S. Ill. --141& P.O.llo<llll' *"--»1-1!1111 ....., .. _., --- :,:lllf'.:' --------1 ' ' ' ' I L-------_:_: .. C.:..-------------------- (D ------------- ~ - GRADING PLAN zEB scii.Ei-,-.w- ORlPHIC SCALZ J,, LJ-.J I T (•-) ·--· a. -"'!iwtl- GALL !ERllE" 7PU DICJ 1-B00-424-5555 fOll'FIEUl~O.--UIUID ··-~ 1 Ii"J.. I \ // \ I I J: ' C '/ )\ / NOV I 3 1009 fRi/E[;~UW~[Q) PRS.IMINARY Pl.JD EABLI! Rl)QE OFFICE AICI OOPD:MNUM QENERALIZED UTUT1E8 PLAN · 8TCIRIMATEA -~.LJ ttet&:Q'S"m~!- -/,.YMZLL"lillli- II II II II II II II II II II II II -Ii II II II -----lf------J II II II Cl Cl Cl II II II II II II EXHIBIT 6 ' " r A j jl 8 ill § Is ~ ] "i w ~· ~· '!Ii EXHIBIT 7 C c 0 o .... ·-c -~ <I) .2 C: 0 '+-g 0 ·-c >, C .... ~ ·-Q.. u O'> = = ~ .... ..... > 0 = d 0 ~ i' § (S ~ w ~ w ~! a, z• EXHIBIT 8 ] , .. .,,:'\c~; C 9o,g HHON [; lSln~9+tOI -~~ S=NQ=Il'c/=A;J=l;J-_.· s~nrNmOONOJ e90!~ el9~;J C: IQ) 0 C: -tJ .Q /l!Jl1 C: .!!1 = Cl) .2:: = ~ = er a "' .., = .... 0, -l!!!JJ 0 .s C: > g >. C: 0 ..... or CZ l!!!JJ c3 0:: ~ 8 g ill al • ~ oc G ',I z ~ ~ !ai ~ > w w ~ ~ w w ~~ :n ! ~f G·' z, L<oaev:~;., C )8 "';,,; ""'"' EH~··!ll!l!• -~··· ··lili1l·· 8Qlg f'.l~ON g SNO!lV~:iTl S~nINl~OONOJ aMI~ :i19v:i EXHIBIT 9 C: t:: 0 o .... ·-c: .SQ (1,) .::: "0 -0, 0 .S C >, C ... Cil ·-0:: () 2£) C) "1J -· -... !nfil :z: ~ '< ~ C) :, 0 < s· -!nfil -'° ::0 °"' 0 ('I) = ~ ::::· ~ = :::i = cii' = .... !nfil 6' 0 :, :::i lg r-n--- 1 I I I L_,, _____ = L 1 .. ' I I' . . . ' c, ' 1 ' • ~---1 ' )> ~ " ~ " 0 " )> r w w I I J 11 I L--. r --.J [ .. I L_ __ ...., ' I n ~ )> " z 0 )> a 3 z ' Q () )> )> )> n " ' " Q • " " - .. EXHIBIT 10 ,--·---- F . I , I t:= . ' . I ~~ ' I~ 0, ; : ':; I ' ' . ~ ,f ------'1 ~ '-----'-' ~ [ I ' !'-·-----' ti-,-----' .... ,-I t-.... m .... ::c >< w COMMON ROOM CCM~MOl'1 RMS 19130 SF DECK 48'0 OFFICE I I 1548 5F OFFICE SPACE COURTYARD OFFICE 2 1:>52 SF OFFICE SPACE ~ ·-- TOT AL COMMON !;,)38',) 5F FIRST FLOOR PLAN -50.JTH BLDG. 11B0 ,1·-r OFFICE 3 93';:I 5F OFFICE SP.ACE COJRTTARD (; I •, ,1 .~ ~, .. , ,., ,11D UNITS OFFICES COMMOI'< TOTAL l,21131 5F 403':l SF 588':l 5F 20'2l60 5F City of Renton Planning Division NOV 1 3 2009 [Rl~~~ijVJ~[Q) W/ DECKS "''" "'"' 0~ a::~ "'"' Jo "'o <{ z .,o u z <{ J Q_ '" 0 OCJ 0 <D 0 JI IL f-- ~ >---0 "' "' "' IL . "I '11 ~'i1•f ; I !; ·1·~1,1 :l:!i· I I. I',, . 11 ' •• .,... ·•·11· "I!. !'! I · 1 •i I ·p 1: :111 .,;l-1 •!1"11.1· i111:1:1·,· I! n. fHn.l !11,·i1:li1l I ·I'!::, 1 !i!l,1m Pa••-•·l~-OQ Sool•·---- p,-.,.,0,___.I.M:__ Jot, l,....l.aL.._ ~ .... .,., .. __ A 3.1 S N .... t:; al 1-1 ::c >< w UNIT lb 1141 SF DE.:CK 12!;> SECOND FL.OOR PLAN • 50UT..l BLDG. W,',1'•£1' (~ UNITS COMMON TOT .AL 163~2 SF 2410 SF IB.Be,2 SF City of Renton Planning Division NOV 1 3 2009 [R{~((;~~~~[Q) WI DECKS i ,, n D <LI"' {!) :, a2 -z "'-:, ouo _,o <!lz <t 0 "'o z .,: _, "-(!) "'"' 0 _, 0 d) _, u_ I f--- 0 => zO 0 u) l_) <LI u) • 11! ·11 ,,, 'I • I '· • "1 .. ,., ·1·•1 'I '!' !' I , I' I"' • 11 ' •• 'I''' '"II' "II' !'I I j:!:11'i ,!:i!i ··11 • 111·'·1· '1·! •!1 ''I I !!hfllh J 1hil•1:, I !l11:il1 1 h i.li,1:1 o.,, •. ~ 9<olo __ _ Orcw,.....J.!.L_ Jo~f.~ ~·"'""""' A 3.2 S M " ,-.. 1-1 ca 1-1 :c ~ D:':CK 1 UNIT 2 148 5F DECK UNIT 3 141 SF DECK 31 "-" c; Ti,,jlRD FLOOR FLAN · 50UTI-I BLDC. 11&•,r-r COMMON 2410 SF TOTAL 18802 SF City of Renton Planning Division NOV 1 3 2009 ~l~JC~~%'~[Q) ~i "< i'I:~ .,, Ii! D ~ II L ,u'" <!> " o2 -z "'-" "'o _,o "'z <C 0 "-'u z <( _, "-<!> 0 "' _, 0 '° 0 _, I "-f---~ oO ~ 0) I f--- 0011 .....1:11:.QL_ S<ol•-- °'-"____I.AL___ Joi, t,____llii__ H,...,,;on,_ IA 3.3 S 'l:t' ~ I- t-I co t-1 :::c >< w UNIT .2 148 5f DECK FOURTI-I FLOOR PLAN • 50UTI-I BLDG. 1Ja·,r-r (i COMMON TOTAL 2234 5f 18626 SF City of Renton Planning Division NOV l 3 2009 [R3 ~~[~]~[E[Q) I ,, ,, i~ D -1 .. L ., "' '-":,; o2 -z "'-.,~ --'o '-"z ., 0 ., u z ., --' Q_ '-" "' 0 0 _, o"' _, LL I f-- I c, f---0 "'U) C, 0 LL 1, !:il!:11:11 1i1,1•1 1 ,111,I :1 Oo1e.__!.:ll:.Q!__ S<ol•---~-_w__ Joi> t,....lllL.._ ~ ......... A 3.4 S EXHIBIT 15 Jg l) C) rn :z-ill ;:;: (0) c::, :::, '< -<C :::, ffi ,_ s-0 rn -= c..o 0 :0 ~ ,...., g <-t'D ftifO = iii-:i --.... lg 0 0 :, :i I L __ ~ -r-1: : L L ,' I __j -l ' '---- I ,I 's..._ .• .! I ' l •.• i L I L ' L ,- 'I ... i ! :m -0 C1 w ~ \firu :::> :z: 2. 0 C> er» ""' :::> .... -~:D \firu 0,0 -· ~ ~ .._, $. ::i = ~ ~.,.... ffl O 0 :::> ::i ~ l> ~ ~ " 0 " l> C \Q) ~ ~ 1. I •. I r I I L ' .. .r I ' rr' [_L ,r I I L, ·1 I I I ,-J ··1, I I I / I L, I I ' r 0 )> ~ z 0 ~ (1 )> l> 0 ~ " ~ ~ i • ' -: ' ' ' ~ ; z 0 I> ~ 0 ~ . ' lj:~~-----11 ! EXHIBIT 16 !_ ___ f .J D ····· ~fE"lST DOTI-EU., '11,. $81)!1 f-12'~31411 " .-1 I- I-I ca 1-1 J: >< w FIRST FLOOR PLAN -NORT~ BLOC.. ~·,r-0' (; COMMON TOTAL 721:3 SF IBIB4 SF City of Renton Planning Division NOV 1 3 2009 [R1~(C[E~~~[Q) ' ·' "• i;,;' rf; is! D _j L ,u '" (')::, o2 -z "'-.u5 ~o "'z -<o .uu z "" ii'"' 0 "'__, 0 d) 0 ~I IL I- °' I-0 "'z "' u:: ~lii!il ~l!l~- ·1·111·1 'lilt! I. r., I, •• ··,···! ·•·11· ' ·11 • !'I 1 ·1··1'r. ll :QI I , •• ,,1,1 ··1!1· 11· ·1· iilndl ,,i~t I 1 i.,1·1,11• 1•1,•:ll'1 J.t1-1M-1 ,! ,11,l ~ ... ,~ _, ___ _ ----"'--Job 1,____lillL__ ---- A 3_1 N 00 ..-1 ;- 1-1 i:a 1-1 :c X w UNIT 2 ':15':I SF IDECK 63 UNIT 3 '~6':I SF DECK &4 SECOND FLOOR FLAN -NORTl-l BLDu. V8'•1"·&' (; COMMON TOTAL IB22 SF 11133 SF City of Renton Planning Division NOV l 3 1009 [R1 ~(G [~]~~ [Q) J .. ;i"l<~ ,,, ,,, sg! D _j .. L ,u <Jl "'::, " co -z "'-,u::, ~o "'" <{ z ,u 0 u z <{ ~ <L "' "'" 0~ o'° ~ u_ I f-- ""' zO oz u ,u <Jl • ;,! 'I I '•I ·1 ' I •• ' 'I 111'1 ·1·•1 'I 'I' ! I! I' Ill:: .,, .. 11 ····1· ' 'II' 1·1· I i:l:11'i .!;iU •·11 • 111"·1· i;l .. :11 .. ::11 l ll·i!:11 1:1 ! •11•1: I 1 !i!l,d:1 l Do••·~ s.oi •. __ o,o-.....J.AL....... Jwl,....llli....... R•"'""""' A 32 N en ..-1 ... 1-4 cc 1-4 :r. X w UHIT I llel3 SF DECK 40 UNIT II "Jlb 5F IDECK bb THIRD FLOOR PLAN -NORTH BLDG. 118·.r . .,• (; UNIT~ 136~ 5F DECK 14 l!;,ll SF DECK 0i UNITS COMMON TOTAL l!;,~11 $F 1522 SF 11133 5F lLV DECKS City of Renton Planning Division NOV l 3 1009 ~~~©[e~~[e[)) J .. ;i'! • • s! ! D ..J " L ,u"' <!>~ o=> o2~ ,u" _,o e,O .,:Z "-'8 z .,: -' <L (') 0 "' -' 0"' 0 -' I lL I- "' oo ocz I I- ' ''I 'I ! ~1h'! ; ! !- ·,··1'·1 ·1·1!1 l •I' 11 •' . 11 ••• ·1··· ·•·11· "II ' 1·1 I . .. .., 1:l:111 .!;11, ,rd · Jliil:!' 1;lndH11m I l11·,i!:li11 I ·1 ·1·~ 1 !dl,il:1 DQI• ...±ll:QL_ SoQi,,, ___ _ o,o-.....1.AL_ Job 1,...llli...._ ~·-- A 3.3 N ,I 0 N t- 1-f ca 1-f ::c X w FOJRTH FLOOR PLAN • NORTI-I BLDG. 118",l'·V (; UNIT ':'I 13B':'I SF DECK 14 UNIT$ COMMOH TOTAL IS,':'111 SF WI DECKS 164b $F 11!,S.l SF City of Renton Planning Division NOV I 3 2009 [Ri~(C~~~~[?) • •• .. :~; .~. ~2 .. D _j .. L ,u'" "'" o2 -z "'-::, "'o ~o <!lz «o "'u z <( ~ "-"' "'0 0~ 0 ,0 ~I "-f- I°' f-0 "'z ~ 0 "- ' 111 '111 111 ·1 •1: '· ;1··1''·1· :1:111 !•I' !"' . !l ..• ·1··· ••.• ,. ''ii' 1·1•' I• :!:11'i .!;iii •·11 • 111•1l1· l'·i ,,, ''I I , , .. ~, llh - 111,!1ilil I ,i!l,d:J 0010,__±.ll:.Q!_ Scolo, __ _ Or<>*n....J.!.L_ JoOI,~ ·---- A 34 N EXHIBIT 21 rn ;a ~ z z 0 ~ ~ i" ~ !~ z 0 < -= = = 0 !--' I = ., .. D F- C i' I I C ., 0 r i 0 b- 0 r I C I,_ C F' I I C C i' ' 0 = ---~· ] , I ' I L_ I, '1 co ,~ I ~ ~ '1 I .J '9 ' 'i I I ,J C C C C C C C co z S1~SI i ..., ' N E-- =" R-8 ... R-8 ,. CA ,,. (/ _/1' I F4 -17 T23N RSE W 1/2 EXHIBIT 22 . ' l l j R-8 R-8 RM-F RM-F R-8 . RM-F CA RM-F N ~R--8 ~~\ ~--'--"~---'--------'---'~--'-----R--8 __ ___,,,__,.____J t ZONING MAP BOOK PW TECHNICAL SERVICES PRINTED ON 11/13/09 Th1®'urn•o,11,gr,pt"""'"""',.'"'"""' """"""'""''"',..'°''"'"'·'""""°"'""" w .... .,fonmo.,.,.,.,l&bl,.,o!th,dat,,b>...,. T~'"'"'~'"''"'°""""c;tydo,pi..vompom""'' H4 -29 T23N RSE W 1/2 0 200 400 N I Feet 1:4,800 G4 20 T23N RSE W 1/2 5320 j~, 'cJB 1 ll-' I',--' 2ST24N R4E 22N R4E 92 Bz~~~ ,ij3! 2s r;4N.,~~E{ = i~o1~4~:FfuE 94W '' '455W C2, s;C31 RESIDENTIAL 0 (RC) Resource Conservation ~ (R-1) Residential 1 du/ac ~ (R-4) Residential 4 du/ac ~ (R-8) Residential 8 du/ac L§~!'] (RMH) Residential Manufactured Homes ~ (R-10) Residential 10 du/ac l:'2 (R-14) Residential 14 du/ac [iM:=r) (RM-F} Residential Multi-Family jRM-T j (RM-T) Residential Multi-Family Traditional l;;,1-1-u I (RM-U) Residential Multi-Family Urban Center -~-1:----.. r--r,"":Z- 26 T24N RSE 833 ! ' J7 3 T22N ASE ) 2 T22N A5E MIXED USE CENTERS ~ (CV) Center Village iuc-r-11 I (UC-Nl) Urban Center-North 1 luc-f,21 (UC-N2) Urban Center -North 2 0 (CD) Center Downtown COMMERCIAL I coR ; (COR) Commercial/Office/Residential ~ (CA) commercial Arterial ~ (CO} Commercial Office 1··cN 1 (CN) commercial Neighborhood INDUSlRIAL ~ {IL) Industrial -Light ~ {IM) Industrial -Medium 0 {IH} Industrial -Heavy --Renton City Limits --·--Adjact"nl City Limits KROLL PAGE PAGE# INDEX SECT/TOWN/RANGE STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING } AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC NOTICE Linda M Mills, being first duly sworn on oath that she is the Legal Advertising Representative of the Renton Reporter a weekly newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of general circulation and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continuously as a weekly newspaper in King County, Washington. The Renton Reporter has been approved as a Legal Newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County. The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues of the Renton Reporter (and not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a: Public Notice was published on May 21, 2010. The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of $108.50. ~.?~ $:;},,t{L'./ aM. Mills Legal Advertising Representative, Renton Reporter Subscribed and sworn to me this 25th day May, 2010. c for the State of Washington, Residing NOfICEOF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC HEARING RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee has issued a Detennination of Non- Significance-Mirigated for the following project under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. Eagle Ridge Apartments and Offices PUD LUA09-l SO, ECF, PPUD Location: 1600 Benson Road S. Applicant requests SEPA Review and approval of a Preliminary Planned Urban Development for a mixed tise project including residential and office uses on a 2.89 acre parcel in the C-A Zone. Appeals of 1he environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on June 4, 2010. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing ,,,,\\\\\\HI Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 ....._,,, I\. LS r:--I I I I South Grady Way, Renton, WA ...S--() r L.: G I 11 98057. Appeals to the Examiner -1 -...,,,,i\1111 / ed c· ,:: ..f'--''::\~ :::,:;~,'.'1 111 I/ are ~o~ern by tty o,f Renton = ;...:_ /--/' _ ., ·f· \ // Mumc1pal Code Sectton 4-8-~ q:-_;·/J r~~,.r, r --~ ~ ~ .. > 110.B. Additional information ;; ::::=:-,. '.; -;i ,. , o ;;. regarding the appeal process may ~ i (:,__ .. t, j 1---;. be obtained from the Renton City ~ ~-P•c O ~ Clerk'sOffice,(425)430-6510. ,;.-. , ·-<.: .:.....?:: A Public Hearing will be held by 111 ,:;'\. ., _ ,~-s< .--?: the Renton Hearing Examiner in 111 / "'1 r.-___ " . , '('-:::i the Council Chambers, City Hall, I I J 1 ,: u r , on June 15, 20!0 at 9:00 a.m. to 1 I I \ ._ \ \ \ " consider the Preliminary Planned Urban Development. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. Interested parties are invited to attend the public hearing. Published in the Renton Reporter on May 21, 2010. #364347. City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: MAY 10, 2010 APPLICATION NO: LUA09-150, ECF, PPUD APPLICANT: Chris Koruga, Eagle Ridge LLC PROJECT TITLE: Eagle Ridge Apts & Offices PUD SITE AREA: 125,708 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: 1600 Benson Road S PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) 150,300 square feet SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and a Preliminary Planned Urban Development (PPUD) for a mixed used development including office and residential uses. The subject site is located at 1600 Benson Road S. The site is composed of two vacant parcels totaling 125,708 square feet (2.89 acres) located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) zone. The applicant has proposed two 4- story buildings with a total of 117 apartment units which would result in a net density of 43.65 units per acre. The southernmost building would have 61 residential units and 4,039 square feet of office use on the ground floor. The northernmost building would have 56 residential units. A total of 156 surface and garage parking stalls are proposed. Access to the site would be gained from Benson Road Sand from a private easement that connects to Eagle Ridge Drive 5. The applicant has proposed to retain 40 significant trees. The site encompasses areas of erosion hazard, moderate to high landslide hazard, and protected slopes. The applicant intends to seek a Critical Areas "Exception Through Modification" in order to disturb protected slopes created through manmade activity. Approximately 500 cubic yards would be exported and 100 cubic yards of fill imported. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code} COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Element of the Probable Probable Mare En11ironment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Hausinn Air Aesthetics Water Unht/Gfore Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Tronsnortation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Natural Resources Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10~000Feet 14 000 Feet J'-F-1 8. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS we have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional infor. is needed to properly asse his proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date STATE NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION AND PUBLIC HEARING ISSUANCE OF A DITTRMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MmGATED {DNS-M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INnRl:S1tD PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: lOCATION: hell Rld11 A1mtments & Offices PUD tUAQ9-150, Kl', l'PUtl 1600 lu,son Road S DESCRIPTION: The appUcant I, l"tqUHtln1 En•lronmontal !SE.PA} R ... i.w and a Pnonmlnary Plarmed Urban D•nlopment !PPUD) for a mhled u,r,od pn;,J•ct lndudln1 office and mldentlal use1. The Nb)trt •It• Is lai::atMI at 1600 B•n•on Ro;id S. Tha stt. Is a>mpoHd af two vacant l"'rcal• totalln11ZS,7DI squi. .. fNt (2.119 icr.1l lotat1d within the Ccmmerdal "'11rlal (CAI mn,. TliE CITY Of RENTON ENVIRONMENT Al REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACT!ON DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals ofth, 11nvlronmental dt>termlnatlon must be filed In writing cm or before 5:00 p.m. 11n Jun111 4, 2010. ApfMal• mun b1 filed In wrltln11 to,etherwlth the 1'1!qulred fee with: Hearln1 Examiner, Oty of Renton, 1055 Sou1h Gl'lldy Way, Ranlon, WA 98057. Appeals to the Ellamlnar are fOllffl'lid by City of Ranton Munldpal Code Sedion 4-8-110.B. Addltlona[ Information reprdln& the ,ppal process may be obtained from the R1nton Oty Oerk's Offlc1, (4l.S) 431H510, A PUBllC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING lN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE 7TH FLOOR OF CITY HALL, 1055 50UTH GRADY WAY, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON JUNE 15, 2010 AT 9:00 AM TO CONSIDER THE PRELIMINA/1.Y PLANNED URIIAN DMLOPMENT. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, TI-lE APPEAL WILL IIE HEARO AS PART OF THl5 PUBLIC HEARING. ' L ·,:-_ ;:, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE OTV OF RENTON, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AT [425) 430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION PleaH Include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file Identification. CERTIFICATION hereby certify that 3 '=:::... __ ,conspicuous places or nearby the d Signed: ss COUNTY OF KING I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that c; e ,-,, I ,1 C -ln ass et: signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: alt ,-,01 O Notary Public in andTorthe State of Washington Notary (Print): /-1. A My appointment expires: __ ~A~L("'Bt-''~' ~i ~+-~;z-'..,i,~;z~o~i ... ;?~----- \ \ CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT -PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 20th day of May, 2010, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing ERC Determination documents. This information was sent to: Agencies Chris Koruga Robert Hancheroff Lorraine Lafoon Ben Yu Van Hong (Signature of Sender): ,, STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING Name ) ) ss ) Representing See Attached Contact Owner POR POR POR - Notary Pub~c in and for the State of Washington . ....,,, Notary (Print): ____ .;../-1_ . ...;·....._--=(,.;..:.r..:;<'_I:."'. -'-,;"-( ____________ _ My appointment expires: template -affidavit of service by mailing ' Dept. of Ecology ' Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 WSDOT Northwest Region * Attn: Ramin Pazooki King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240 PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers * Seattle District Office Attn: SEPA Reviewer PO Box C-3755 Seattle, WA 98124 Boyd Powers * Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Serv. Attn: SEPA Section 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 Metro Transit Senior Environmental Planner Gary Kriedt 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Seattle Public Utilities Real Estate Services Attn: SEPA Coordinator 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERC DETERMINATIONS} WDFW -Larry Fisher' Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. * 1775 12th Ave. NW Suite 201 Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer Issaquah, WA 98027 39015 -172"d Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 Duwamish Tribal Office * Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program * 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015 172°' Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092-9763 KC Wastewater Treatment Division * Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation* Environmental Planning Supervisor Attn: Gretchen Kaehler Ms. Shirley Marroquin PO Box 48343 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: Steve Roberge Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director 13020 Newcastle Way 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Puget Sound Energy City ofTukwila Municipal Liaison Manager Steve Lancaster1 Responsible Official Joe Jainga 6200 Southcenter Blvd. PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-01 W Tukwila, WA 98188 Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 *Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the checklist, Site Plan PMT, and the notice of application. template -affidavit of service by mailing -----------· r: f City of • ..• r~,t;rrJ .. t [): rJ OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION AND PUBLIC HEARING ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE· MITIGATED (DNS-M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS Of AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: LOCATION: Eagle Ridge Apartments & Offices PUD LUA09•150, ECF, PPUD 1600 Benson Road S DESCRIPTION: The applicant ls requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and a Preliminary Planned Urban Development (PPUD) for a mixed used project Including office and residential uses. The subject site Is located at 1600 Benson Road S. The site Is composed of two vacant parcels totaling 125,708 square feet (2.89 acres) located within the Commerclal Arterial (CA) zone. THE CITY Of RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITIEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed In writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on June 4, 2010. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. A PUBLIC HEARING Will BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE 7TH FLOOR Of CITY HALL, 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON JUNE 15, 2010 AT 9:00 AM TO CONSIDER THE PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT. If THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, THE APPEAL Will BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AT (425) 430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Please include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file identification. Denis Law · · C City of • -____ :M:ay:or~--------.. r) i May 20, 2010 Chris Koruga Eagle Ridge LLC 5454 301h Avenue SW Seattle, WA 98126 ..!~ll'WlJ Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL THRESHOLD (SEPA) DETERMINATION Eagle Ridge Apartments & Offices PUD, LUA09-150, ECF, PPUD Dear Mr. Koruga: This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) to advise you that they have completed their review of the subject project and have issued a threshold Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated with Mitigation Measures. Please refer to the enclosed ERC Report and Decision, Part 2, Section B for a list of the Mitigation Measures. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on June 4, 2010. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8- 110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtain.ed from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. Also, a Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington, on June 15, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. to consider the Preliminary Planned Urban Development. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant is required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you prior to the hearing. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. The preceding information will assist you in planning for implementation of your project and enable you to exercise your appeal rights more fully, if you choose to do so. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at (425) 430-7382. Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Chris Koruga Page 2 of 2 May 20, 2010 For the Environmental Review Committee, ~~ Gerald C. Wasser Associate Planner Enclosure cc: Robert Hancheroff / Owner(s) Lorraine Lafoon, Ben Yu, Van Hong/ Party(ies) of Record ERC Determination Ltr OS-150.doo May 20, 2010 Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator Subject: ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPAi DETERMINATION Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on May 17, 2010: DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED PROJECT NAME: Eagle Ridge Apartments & Offices PUD PROJECT NUMBER: LUA09-150, ECF, PPUD LOCATION: 1600 Benson Road S DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Environmental {SEPAi Review and a Preliminary Planned Urban Development {PPUD) for a mixed used project induding office and residential uses. The subject site is located at 1600 Benson Road S. The site is composed of two vacant parcels totaling 125,708 square feet (2.89 acres) located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) zone. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on June 4, 2010. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8- 110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. Please refer to the enclosed Notice of Environmental Determination for complete details. If you have questions, please call me at (425} 430-7382. For the Environmental Review Committee, ~~ Gerald C. Wasser Associate Planner . Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton,Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Washingto·n State Departme Page 2 of 2 May 20, 2010 Enclosure ,cology cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division Boyd Powers, Department of Natural Resources Karen Walter, Fisheries1 Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Melissa Calvert, Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program Gretchen Kaehler1 Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation Ramin Pazooki, WSDOT, NW Region Larry Fisher, WDFW Duwamish Tribal Office US Army Corp. of Engineers DEPARTMENT OF COMMUN, 1 f AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA09-150, ECF, PPUD APPLICANT: Chris Koruga, Eagle Ridge LLC PROJECT NAME: Eagle Ridge Apartments & Offices PU D DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and a Preliminary Planned Urban Development (PPUD) for a mixed used project including office and residential uses. The site is composed of two vacant parcels totaling 125,708 square feet (2.89 acres) located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) zone. The applicant has proposed two 4-story buildings with a total of 117 apartment units. The southernmost building would have 61 residential units and 4,039 square feet of office use on the ground floor. The northernmost building would have 56 residential units. Access to the site would be gained from Benson Road Sand from a private easement that connects to Eagle Ridge Drive S. The applicant has proposed to retain 40 significant trees. The site has areas of erosion hazard, moderate to high landslide hazard, and protected slopes. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: MITIGATION MEASURES: 1600 Benson Road S The City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division 1. Erosion control shall be maintained for the duration of the project. Weekly status reports shall be submitted to the Development Services Division Plan Review project manager. 2. The applicant shall be required to comply with the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Engineering Reconnaissance, dated May 19, 2006, prepared by Geotech Consultants, Inc. during clearing, grading, site and building construction. 3. In the event that pile driven foundations are utilized, the applicant shall submit noise and vibration studies and may be restricted to certain days and hours of pile driving activities. 4. The applicant shall pay a Parks Mitigation Fee based on $354.51 per each new multi-family unit which is estimated to be $41,477.67 and is payable prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. In the event that archaeological artifacts are encountered during construction, work shall immediately be stopped and the applicant shall submit an archaeological resource survey of the site. The survey shall conform to the requirements and standards of the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and must be conducted under the supervision of a state-approved archaeologist. Work shall recommence only when approval is received by the State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. 6. The applicant shall pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee in the amount of $75.00 for each new average daily trip prior to the issuance of building permits. The fee is estimated to be $39,192.75. 7. The applicant shall pay a Fire Mitigation Fee based on $388.00 per each new multi-family unit and $0.52 per square foot of office space payable prior to the issuance of building permits. This fee is estimated to be $45,606.00. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA09-150, ECF, PPUD APPLICANT: Chris Koruga, Eagle Ridge LLC PROJECT NAME: Eagle Ridge Apartments & Offices PUD DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and a Preliminary Planned Urban Development {PPUD) for a mixed used project including office and residential uses. The site is composed of two vacant parcels totaling 125,708 square feet {2.89 acres) located within the Commercial Arterial {CA) zone. The applicant has proposed two 4-story buildings with a total of 117 apartment units. The southernmost building would have 61 residential units and 4,039 square feet of office use on the ground floor. The northernmost building would have 56 residential units. Access to the site would be gained from Benson Road Sand from a private easement that connects to Eagle Ridge Drive S. The applicant has proposed to retain 40 significant trees. The site has areas of erosion hazard, moderate to high landslide hazard, and protected slopes. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: 1600 Benson Road S The City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes ore supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. Planning: 1. RMC 4-4-030C.2 limits the haul hours between 8:30 am and 3:30 pm Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Planning Division. 2. Commercial, multi-family, new single-family, and other non-residential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between 7:00 am and 8:00 pm Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between 9:00 am and 8:00 pm. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 3. The current Renton School District Impact Fee is $1,258.00 per new multi-family unit and is payable prior to issuance of building permits. Water: 1. The System Development Charge is based on total meter size(s). This fee is payable with the construction permit. ERC Advisory Notes Page 1 of 2 Sanitary Sewer: 1. The System Development Charge is also based on total meter size(s). This fee is payable with the construction permit. Surface Water: 1. A final TIR and design, in compliance with the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual as adopted and amended by the City of Renton, along with any supporting reports or other documents is required with the final surface water design for the construction permit. 2. The Surface Water SDC fee is $0.405 per square foot of new impervious area but not less than $1,012. This fee is collected at the time a construction or utility permit is issued, prior or concurrent to the issuance of the building permit. The fee will be determined based on final plans. 3. Erosion Control is required throughout the project. Transportation: 1. A Traffic Mitigation Fee of $75.00 per additional Average Daily Trip is triggered for this work. See Traffic Mitigation Fee sheet #868 for specifics. 2. A traffic control plan for any work within the right-of-way is required. Plan Review -General: 1. All plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. 2. A construction permit is required. When plans are complete three copies of the drawings, two copies of the drainage report, a construction estimate, application and appropriate fee shall be submitted to the City Hall sixth floor counter. 3. Temporary Erosion Control shall be installed and maintained to the satisfaction of the representative of the Development Services Division for the duration of the project. 4. A construction plan indicating haul route and hours, construction hours and a traffic control plan shall be submitted for approval prior to any permit being issued. Haul hours shall be restricted to 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. unless approved in advance by the Development Services Division. Fire: 1. Fire Mitigation fees are $388.00 per multi-family unit and $0.52 per square foot of office space. 2. The preliminary fire flow is 2,750 gpm. One hydrant is required within 150-feet of each structure and two additional hydrants are required within 300-feet of each structure. A looped water main is required to be installed around the buildings. 3. An approved fire alarm system is required to be installed throughout all buildings per City ordinance. Separate plans and permits are required for the installation of fire sprinkler systems. Direct outside access is required to fire sprinkler riser rooms. 4. Fire Department access roadways are required to within 150-feet of all portions of building exteriors. Roadways are minimum 20-feet in width with a turning radius of 45-feet outside and 25-feet inside. A properly recorded fire access easement is required over the adjacent parcel to the northwest of the project in order to provide fire code approved apparatus access. 5. Prior to final occupancy, an electronic site plan shall be submitted for pre-fire planning purposes. ERC Advisory Notes Page 2 of 2 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS-M) APPLICATION NO(S): LUA09-150, ECF, PPUD APPLICANT: Chris Koruga, Eagle Ridge LLC PROJECT NAME: Eagle Ridge Apartments & Offices PUD DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and a Preliminary Planned Urban Development (PPUD) for a mixed used project including office and residential uses. The site is composed of two vacant parcels totaling 125,708 square feet (2.89 acres) located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) zone. The applicant has proposed two 4-story buildings with a total of 117 apartment units. The southernmost building would have 61 residential units and 4,039 square feet of office use on the ground floor. The northernmost building would have 56 residential units. Access to the site would be gained from Benson Road S and from a private easement that connects to Eagle Ridge Drive S. The applicant has proposed to retain 40 significant trees. The site has areas of erosion hazard, moderate to high landslide hazard, and protected slopes. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: 1600 Benson Road S City of Renton Environmental Review Committee Department of Community & Economic Development The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-6-6 Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on June 4, 2010. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430- 6510. PUBLICATION DATE: DATE OF DECISION: SIGNATURES: Terry Higashiyama, Administrator Community Services Department May 21, 2010 May 17, 2010 Date s-/zofo 7 Date Date DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TO: FROM: MEETING DATE: TIME: LOCATION: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA Gregg Zimmerman, Public Works Administrator Terry Higashiyama, Community Services Administrator Mark Peterson, Interim Fire & Emergency Services Administrator Alex Pietsch, CED Administrator Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager Monday, May 17, 2010 3:00 p.m. Sixth Floor Conference Room #620 THE FOLLOWING IS A CONSENT AGENDA Eagle Ridge Apartments & Offices PUD LUA09-150, ECF, PPUD (Wasser) Location: 1600 Benson Road S. Description: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and a Preliminary Planned Urban Development (PPUD) for a mixed used development including office and residential uses. The site is composed of two vacant parcels totaling 125,708 square feet (2.89 acres) located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) zone. The applicant has proposed two 4-story buildings with a total of 117 apartment units which would result in a net density of 43.65 units per acre. The southernmost building would have 61 residential units and 4,039 square feet of office use on the ground floor. The northernmost building would have 56 residential units. Access to the site would be gained from Benson Road S and from a private easement that connects to Eagle Ridge Drive S. The applicant has proposed to retain 40 significant trees. The site appears to encompass areas of erosion hazard, moderate to high landslide hazard, and protected slopes. Wonderland Estates Utility Replacement (Dolbee) LUA10-008, ECF, CAR Location: 14645 SE Renton-Maple Valley Road. Description: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review for updates/replacement of the storm drainage facilities and other utilities at the Wonderland Estates Mobile Home Park. The subject site is located at 14645 SE Renton-Maple Valley Road, is approximately 12.21 acres, and is zoned Residential Manufactured Home (RMH). The existing site contains space for 108 manufactured homes, no changes are proposed to the number of units at the site. Proposed improvements would include replacement of sanitary sewer system, water, storm drainage, roadways and electrical. As proposed, some utility pipes would exceed 8-inches in diameter. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CO May 17, 2010 PAGE 2 OF 2 rTEE MEETING AGENDA To complete the project approximately 23,850 cubic yards of cut and fill would be required. Other utilities such as telephone, cable, and natural gas would be updated if feasible. A Critical Areas Exemption is requested for the resurfacing of the existing roadway within the buffer of the Category Ill wetland located on the subject site. cc: D. Law, Mayor J. Covington, Chief Administrative Officer S. Dale-Estey, CED Director• W. Flora, Deputy Chief/Fire Marshal • P. Hahn, Transportation Director C. Vincent, CED Planning Director• N. Watts, Development Services Director• L. Warren, City Attorney • F. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner D. Pargas, Assistant Fire Marshal J. Medzegian, Council DEPARTMENT OF COMMUI ( AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT ERC MEETING DATE: Project Name: Owner: Applicant: Contact: Fife Number: Project Manager: Project Summary: Project Location: Exist. Bldg. Area SF: Site Area: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: May 17, 2010 Eagle Ridge PUD Chris Koruga, Eagle Ridge LLC, 5454 301 h Avenue SW, Seattle, WA 98126 Same as abeve Same as above LUA09-150, ECF, PPUD Gerald Wasser, Associate Planner The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and a Preliminary Planned Urban Development (PPUD) for a mixed used project including office and residential uses. The subject site is located at 1600 Benson Road S. The site is composed of two vacant parcels totaling 125,708 square feet (2.89 acres) located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) zone. The applicant has proposed two 4-story buildings with a total of 117 apartment units which would result in a net density of 43.65 units per acre. The southernmost building would have 61 residential units and 4,039 square feet of office use on the ground floor. The northernmost building would have 56 residential units. Access to the site would be gained from Benson Road Sand from a private easement that connects to Eagle Ridge Drive S. The applicant has proposed to retain 40 significant trees. The site has areas of erosion hazard, moderate to high landslide hazard, and protected slopes. 1600 Benson Road S N/A Proposed New Bldg. Area (footprint): Proposed New Bldg. Area (gross): 125,708 sf (2.89 ac) Total Building Area GSF: 38,256 sf 150,300 sf 150,300 sf Staff Recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M). Project location Map Eagle Ridge PUD ERC Report 09-150.doc City of Renton Deportment of Commun EAGLE RIDGE PUD Economic Development onmental Review Committee Report LUA09-150, ECF, PPUD Report of May 17, 2010 Page 2 of8 PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and approval of a Preliminary Planned Urban Development (PPUD) for a mixed use development including office and residential uses on a 2.89 acres site. The proposed project is within the Commercial Arterial {CA) zone. The proposal includes two 4-story (48-foot) buildings with a total of 117 apartment units and 4,039 square feet of office space. The net density of the proposed project would be 43.65 dwelling units per acre. A total of 156 surface and garage parking stalls are proposed. Approximately 500 cubic yards of earth would be exported and 100 cubic yards of fill would be imported. The subject property slopes downward to the west and northwest. Slopes on much of the property exceed 15 percent with some areas of man-made 40 percent or greater slopes which were created during private and public road construction. The site is within a moderate to high landslide hazard area and high erosion hazard area. The applicant will retain 40 of the 81 trees which exist on the site. Landscaping of the proposed project would include the planting of additional trees which include Glory Red Maple, Vine Maple, Korean Stewartia, and Western Red Cedar. A Geotechnical Engineering Reconnaissance, a Preliminary Drainage Report, and a Traffic Report were submitted with the project application materials. I PART TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In compliance with RCW 43.21C.240, the following environmental {SEPA) review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. A. Environmental Threshold Recommendation Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials: Issue a DNS-M with a 14-day Appeal Period. B. Mitigation Measures 1. Erosion control shall be maintained for the duration of the project. Weekly status reports shall be submitted to the Development Services Division Plan Review project manager. 2. The applicant shall be required to comply with the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Engineering Reconnaissance, dated May 19, 2006, prepared by Geotech Consultants, Inc. during clearing, grading, site and building construction. 3. In the event that pile driven foundations are utilized, the applicant shall submit noise and vibration studies and may be restricted to certain days and hours of pile driving activities. 4. The applicant shall pay a Parks Mitigation Fee based on $354.51 per each new multi-family unit which is estimated to be $41,477.67 and is payable prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. In the event that archaeological artifacts are encountered during construction, work shall immediately be stopped and the applicant shall submit an archaeological resource survey ofthe site. The survey shall conform to the requirements and standards of the Washington State Eagle Ridge PUD ERC Report 09-150.doc City of Renton Deportment of Commun EAGLE RIDGE PUD Report of May 17, 2010 Economic Development onmentol Review Committee Report LUA09-150, ECF, PPUD Page3of8 Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and must be conducted under the supervision of a state-approved archaeologist. Work shall recommence only when approval is received by the State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. 6. The applicant shall pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee in the amount of $75.00 for each new average daily trip prior to the issuance of building permits. The fee is estimated to be $39,192.7S. 7. The applicant shall pay a Fire Mitigation Fee based on $388.00 per each new multi-family unit and $0.52 per square foot of office space payable prior to the issuance of building permits. This fee is estimated to be $45,606.00. C. Exhibits Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4 Exhibit 5 Exhibit 6 Vicinity Map Site Plan Site Exploration Map prepared by Geotech Consultants, Inc. Conceptual Grading Plan Conceptual Landscape Plan Zoning Map D. Environmental Impacts The Proposal was circulated and reviewed by various City Departments and Divisions to determine whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development. Staff reviewers have identified that the proposal is likely to have the following probable impacts: 1-Earth Impacts: The site is currently vacant. A Geotechnical Engineering Reconnaissance, dated May 19, 2006, was prepared by Geotech Consultants, Inc. That report states that a majority ofthe site has slopes in excess of 15 percent with most of the property having slopes less than 40 percent. The report identifies five areas of protected slopes {40 percent or greater). These steep slope areas were created by the filling of soil over native ground or by excavating native ground. The geotechnical report further states that these steep slope areas were created during the construction of the driveway that extends through the site. The report states that no construction should occur on Areas 1 and 4. Because Areas 2, 3, and 5 were created for driveway construction, the geotechnical report states these slopes can be reconfigured through grading to allow development. Additionally, the applicant has indentified the five areas described above and two additional areas which have slopes of 40 percent or greater. The applicant contends that these two additional areas which are located along the eastern boundary of the property were created during the construction of Benson Road S. The proposed project site is within a medium to high landslide hazard area and a high erosion hazard area. The geotechnical report states that development on the site would not increase the threat of geological hazard to adjacent properties beyond pre-development conditions, would not adversely impact other critical areas, and could safely be accommodated on the site. Staff recommends a mitigation measure that erosion control shall be maintained for the duration of the project and that weekly reports shall be submitted to the Development Services Plan Review project manager. Eagle Ridge PUD ERC Report 09-150.doc City of Renton Deportment of Commun EAGLE RIDGE PUD Economic Development onmental Review Committee Report WA09-150, ECF, PPUD Report of May 17, 2010 Page 4 of 8 Conventional footing foundations are considered to be adequate for most areas of the proposed project site by the geotechnical report. However, in filled areas, deep foundations consisting of drilled concrete or pile driven steel piles may be needed. The geotechnical report recommends that all permanent cuts into native soil and compacted fill soils be inclined no steeper than 2:1 (horizontal: vertical). It further recommends that no water be allowed to flow over the top of any fill slope. All permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with vegetation to reduce erosion and improve the stability of the surface soil layer. The geotechnical report also recommends the use of footing drains at the base of all footings and backfilled, earth-retaining walls. Such drains should consist of 4-inch diameter, perforated PVC pipe surrounded by at least 6-inches of 1-inch minus, washed rock that is encircled with non- woven, geotextile fabric. At its highest point, the perforated pipe should be at least as low as the bottom of the footing, and it should be sloped for drainage. All roof and surface water drains must be kept separate from the foundation drain system. Further, the geotechnical report recommends that the excavation and the site should be graded in a manner that surface water is directed off-site and away from the tops of slopes all slopes. Water should not be allowed to stand in any area where foundations, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. Final grading in areas adjacent to the proposed buildings should be sloped at least 2 percent away from the building, except where the area is to be paved. Water from roof, storm water, and foundation drains should be tightlined to a suitable outfall away from slopes. Staff recommends that as a mitigation measure that the applicant be required to comply with the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Engineering Reconnaissance, dated May 19, 2006, prepared by Geotech Consultants, Inc. Mitigation Measures: 1. Erosion control shall be maintained for the duration of the project. Weekly status reports shall be submitted to the Development Services Division Plan Review project manager. 2. The applicant shall be required to comply with the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Engineering Reconnaissance, dated May 19, 2006, prepared by Geotech Consultants, Inc. during clearing, grading, site and building construction. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations 2. Water -Storm Water Impacts: A Preliminary Technical Information Report (TIR) prepared by Taylor Engineering Consultants, dated March 12, 2009 was submitted with the application materials. According to the report the site slopes downward to the west and then to Benson Road S. There is a piped storm drain conveyance system along Benson Road S with an overflow to Talbot Road S just north of the proposed project site. The TIR states the proposed project would discharge site runoff to the Benson Road S drainage system. It further states that detention would be required and flow control would be provided in two separate detention vaults which would function independently. The City's Plan Review Section has reviewed the submitted drainage report. As a result of this review a final TIR and design, in compliance with the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual adopted and amended by the City of Renton, is required. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation is recommended. Eagle Ridge PUD ERC Report 09-150.doc City of Renton Department of Commun EAGLE RIDGE PUD Report of May 17, 2010 Economic Development onmental Review Committee Report LUA09-150, ECF, PPUD Page 5 of8 Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations and 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual as adopted and amended by the City of Renton 3. Vegetation Impacts: There are 81 trees on the project site which consist of cottonwoods, maples, hemlocks, and conifers including cedars. The site is zoned Commercial Arterial (CA) and in commercial zones 5 percent of non-excluded trees must be retained. While 1.6 trees must be retained, the applicant proposes to retain 40 trees. The applicant has submitted a conceptual landscape plan with the application materials. The landscape plan indicates that vegetation would include Glory Red Maple, Vine Maple, Korean Stewartia, Western Red Cedar, Redtwig Dogwood, Yellowtwig Dogwood, Oregon grape, Pacific Wax Myrtle, Zabel Laurel, Red Flowering Currant, Kelsey Dogwood, Spirea, Sword Fern, Salal, Creeping Oregon Grape, and Wild Strawberry. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation is recommended. Nexus: N/A 4. Noise Impacts: The Geotechnical Engineering Reconnaissance dated May 19, 2006, prepared by Geotech Consultants, Inc. states that in most areas of the site conventional footing foundations should be adequate. However, in filled areas, deep foundations consisting of drilled concrete or driven steel piles may be needed. Therefore, staff recommends a mitigation measure that in the event pile driven foundations are utilized, the applicant shall submit additional noise and vibration and may be subject to restricted to certain days and hours of pile driving activities. Mitigation Measures: In the event of pile driven foundations are utilized, the applicant shall submit noise and vibration studies and may be restricted to certain days and hours of pile driving activities. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations. 5. Recreation Impacts: While the proposed project would provide some on-site recreation areas, the project is anticipated to generate future demand on existing City parks and recreational facilities and programs. Therefore, staff recommends a mitigation measure requiring that the applicant pay a Parks Mitigation Fee based on $354.51 per each new multi-family unit. The fee is estimated to be $41,477.67 (117 multi-family units x $354.51 = $41,477.67) and would be payable prior to issuance of building permits. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall pay a Parks Mitigation Fee based on $354.51 per each new multi-family unit which is estimated to be $41,477.67 and is payable prior to the issuance of building permits. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations, Resolution 3037 Eagle Ridge PUD ERC Report 09-150.doc City of Renton Department of Commun EAGLE RIDGE PUD Report of May 17, 2010 6. Transportation Economic Development onmental Review Committee Report LUA09-150, ECF, PPUD Page 6 of 8 Impacts: Access to the proposed project would be from Benson Road S. Emergency access would be provided via an existing paved access easement which is located in the eastern part of the project site. It is anticipated that the proposed project would result in impacts to the City's street system. Therefore, staff recommends a mitigation measure requiring the payment of a Traffic Mitigation Fee in the amount of $75.00 for each new average daily trip prior to the issuance of building permits. The Traffic Mitigation Fee is estimated to be $39,192.75 (478.53 residential trips + 44.04 office trips x $75.00 = $39,192.75). Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee in the amount of $75.00 for each new average daily trip prior to the issuance of building permits. The fee is estimated to be $39,192.75. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations, Resolution 3100 7. Fire & Police Impacts: The proposal would add new residential units to the City that would potentially impact the City's Police and Fire Emergency Services. Staff recommends as a mitigation measure that the applicant pay a Fire Mitigation Fee based on $388.00 per each new multi-family unit and $0.52 per square foot of office space. The fee is estimated to be $45,606.00 (117 multi-family units x $388.00 + 4,039 sf of office x $0.52 = $45,606.00}. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall pay a Fire Mitigation Fee based on $388.00 per each new multi-family unit and $0.52 per square foot of office space payable prior to the issuance of building permits. This fee is estimated to be $45,606.00. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations, Resolution 2913 8. Public Services -Schools Impacts: The Renton School District has indicated that students generated by the proposed project would be served by Talbot Hill Elementary School, Dimmitt Middle School, and Renton High School. The School District has also indicated that school transportation may be impacted resulting in the potential need for an additional bus in the morning and afternoon. Currently, the Renton School District Impact Fee is $1,258.00 per each new multi-family unit. This fee is payable prior to the issuance of building permits. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation is recommended. Nexus: N/A E. Comments of Reviewing Departments The proposal has been circulated to City Department and Division Reviewers. Where applicable, their comments have been incorporated into the text of this report and/or "Advisory Notes to Applicant." ,/ Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File and may be attached to this report. Environmental Determination Appeal Process: Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, June 4, 2010. Eagle Ridge PUD ERC Report 09-150.doc City of Renton Department of Commun EAGLE RIDGE PUD Report of May 17, 2010 Economic Development onmentaf Review Committee Report WA09-150, ECF, PPUD Page 7 of 8 Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B governs appeals to the Hearing Examiner. Appeals must be filed in writing at the City Clerk's office along with the required fee. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall -7th Floor, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton WA 98057. ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for the land use actions. Planning: 1. RMC 4-4-030C.2 limits the haul hours between 8:30 am and 3:30 pm Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Planning Division. 2. Commercial, multi-family, new single-family, and other non-residential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between 7:00 am and 8:00 pm Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between 9:00 am and 8:00 pm. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 3. The current Renton School District Impact Fee is $1,258.00 per new multi-family unit and is payable prior to issuance of building permits. Water: 1. The System Development Charge is based on total meter size(s). This fee is payable with the construction permit. Sanitary Sewer: 2. The System Development Charge is also based on total meter size(s). This fee is payable with the construction permit. Surface Water: 1. A final TIR and design, in compliance with the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual as adopted and amended by the City of Renton, along with any supporting reports or other documents is required with the final surface water design for the construction permit. 2. The Surface Water SDC fee is $0.405 per square foot of new impervious area but not less than $1,012. This fee is collected at the time a construction or utility permit is issued, prior or concurrent to the issuance of the building permit. The fee will be determined based on final plans. 3. Erosion Control is required throughout the project. Transportation: 1. A Traffic Mitigation Fee of $75.00 per additional Average Daily Trip is triggered for this work. See Traffic Mitigation Fee sheet #868 for specifics. 2. A traffic control plan for any work within the right-of-way is required. Eagle Ridge PUD ERC Report 09-150.doc City of Renton Department of Communit" & Economic Development EAGLE RIDGE PUD Er .. :ronmental Review Committee Report LUA09-150, ECF, PPUD Report of May 17, 2010 Page 8 of 8 Plan Review -General: 1. All plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. 2. A construction permit is required. When plans are complete three copies of the drawings, two copies of the drainage report, a construction estimate, application and appropriate fee shall be submitted to the City Hall sixth floor counter. Fire: 3. Temporary Erosion Control shall be installed and maintained to the satisfaction of the representative of the Development Services Division for the duration of the project. 4. A construction plan indicating haul route and hours, construction hours and a traffic control plan shall be submitted for approval prior to any permit being issued. Haul hours shall be restricted to 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. unless approved in advance by the Development Services Division. 1. Fire Mitigation fees are $388.00 per multi-family unit and $0.52 per square foot of office space. 2. The preliminary fire flow is 2,750 gpm. One hydrant is required within 150-feet of each structure and two additional hydrants are required within 300-feet of each structure. A looped water main is required to be installed around the buildings. 3. An approved fire alarm system is required to be installed throughout all buildings per City ordinance. Separate plans and permits are required for the installation of fire sprinkler systems. Direct outside access is required to fire sprinkler riser rooms. 4. Fire Department access roadways are required to within 150-feet of all portions of building exteriors. Roadways are minimum 20-feet in width with a turning radius of 45-feet outside and 25-feet inside. A properly recorded fire access easement is required over the adjacent parcel to the northwest of the project in order to provide fire code approved apparatus access. 5. Prior to final occupancy, an electronic site plan shall be submitted for pre-fire planning purposes. Eagle Ridge PUD ERC Report 09-150.doc N \ I I \ . ···i 1.,,At ~~ I , 'l -------~ I ... . I I ; 0 i~ i 0.'318 Ac. I V I I JJ (' (\\ ...i EXHIBIT 1 ' 3.66 Ar, .L.88 : ', --... ~, ..,, ' ' ' \ ' ' ' \ ' ' '-, "-_1 Ii 11 / I \ I \I I I I I .,,_, I I ON 1 I I SE, M t:; ca 1-t ::c >< w ,.,,.. Ca20 LEGEND c:.iiil Test Pit Locations 3' = Depth to Competent Soil Not To Scale -------- ~SSMH SOMH "-SOMH RIM-147.2J ----RIM•151.4B IE(S)m144.2J(B"CMP) IEIE).,.145.1B(12"CMP) 1E(5SE)•14J,5J(12"CMP) IE W)•144.28(12"CMP) IF(SSF).144 J.tfr;•r,pp) IF(Wl-14A.A-'fOIIFRF1 Ow'! ~ RIM•15J.79 IE(S),,.147.0~(B"DI) IE(N)•145.95(B"OI) GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. -----SSMH RIM•174,09 IE(S)• 167.44(B"D1) IE(N) .. 167 .34(8"01} / "l'J.O' ~ SITE EXPLORATION MAP Near Eagle Ridge Dr S @ Benson Rd S Renton, Washington 'ob I Date: -,-Scala: -~ate: 08168 Mey 2006 Not Tc Scale I I ~ t:; al 1-1 ::c >< w -~ llll!Fnmst.l. 1,1. .Q5...Jll-1411 P.0. ... 1197 1o,4a-111-111111 ._.....-1 --- I I I '1 I ' I 1----------,---::ri~-----~ I 'I • \ -------7 \11111 / I lr::i, t 1-r-1· I ,-,.i'i \~ <..- \~; ~.l, i----\ I I _-4--~·--L: .:-..:__:-_: _, ------------- --------- ---------- ------------ GRADING PLAN SCN..i,·;"'=ii'" zffi GRAPHIC SC.U..S ~ l.J--1' I T c•-1 ,--·" (;),~ l!EYl!5ION lllfJMTtl,,,.,,ii II ' Q4l,1, E"QI!' rrN gp 1-800-424-5555 mt F1!lD UlCAfflN OF l.lfDl!IIIGMONI llR1ID ,--® I jj'=, I / --r-) \ / / I NOV 1 3 1009 fR1@:«;~~~~[Q) PRl!LIMINARY PUD ENll.E RIDGE OFFICE AND CCNJOMINUII CCINCEPT\.W. QFWJINGI Pl.AN ::...··· ~ "1J C') -· ~ ~ M ,_. :, -0 :, s. fl "" s ffi "" <D :::0 .... 0 = ~ <'. (I) ~ = a <'=' Ul lFifu 6 0 :, ::l lg ' I I i I I i ' ' "' i " • ! • • 0 · . .,,.. 2, " 7. ', '-%/ ~-' J• c . ~~< .tr 11 ' ?. \ 1600 BENSON ROAD SOUTH EAGLE RIDGE APARTMENTS & OFFICE RENTON, WASHINGTON ' ' ' -1 EXHIBIT 5 _) ~- WEISMANDESIGNGROUP I= L..._, L... .. -r-... ~ r---- ~ ~ co "" R-8 l (/ F4-17 T23N R5E W 1/2 i i ~ I R-8 i IR-8 sin=i RM-F ~ EXHIBIT 6 R R-8 ·,i, / R-8., ; ? ·~· R-8 i:'l I ""' ! I N = "'3 N &1!idiSI ~ \H ~ ~ ~t-----, ~ O'I .... RM-F ~ R-8 ,_ t"l t"l .... N R-8 RM-F , ! 5 ! \ ' •' RM-F . CA • R-8 J R-8 RM-F N ~R-8 ~~~-~~-R-8 -~--'t ZONING MAP BOOK PW TECHNICAL SERVICES PRINTED ON 11/13/09 ''"'""""""'~''"'"~'",....,..,"'""'"""' '"'"""'''""""'""''"'""''""~-··" ... "'" '"'°'""""" .... ~ ..... of'""...,,,-., """"'•~-·'""''"'°' ... '""'"" .. ,.,...,. H4 -29 T23N R5E W 1/2 0 200 400 ~i;J IFeel 1 :4,800 G4 20 T23N RSE W 1/2 5320 74W . 92 i , 93· .· . ;I j . -:B 1 82-~: ( ~9,3~. -~ • ,r ' . -26T24N R4E r 25 T24N fl4'f, ~0:J:24N ASE , 94W >,, , 0J55W c2' 'l:C3/ I 22N R4E RESIDENTIAL ~ {RC) Resource Conservation ~ {R-1) Residential 1 du/ac ~ {R-4) Residential 4 du/ac ~ {R-8) Residential 8 du/ac ~ {RMHJ Residential Manufactured Homes . R-10 I {R-10) Residential 10 du/ac ~ {R-14) Residential 14 du/ac ~-~ {RM-F) Residential Multi-Family I ~M-T I {RM-T) Residential Multi-Family Traditional IRM-u I {RM-U) Residential Multi-Family Urban Center MIXED USE CENTERS ~ (CV) Center Village juc-N1 I (UC-Nl) Urban Center-North 1 luc-N2I (UC-N2) Urban Center-North 2 0 (CD) Center Downtown COMMERCIAL I CDR I (COR) Commercial/Office/Residential CCAJ (CA) Commercial Arterial ~ (CO) Commercial Office 0 (CN} Commercial Neighborhood 806 __ J[1 1--.f=.1 35 T23N ASE 36 833 a: YO\J~ 1 T2' INDU~IAL ~ (IL) Industrial -Light [BJ (IM) Industrial -Medium QQ (IH} Industrial-Heavy -----Renton City Limits __ Adjacent City Limits KROL! PAGE PAGE# INDEX SECTITOWN/R,l,NGE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: May 7, 2010 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: EXISTING CONDITIONS Gerald Wasser, Planning Division Kayren K. Kittrick, Development Engineering Je3 Eagle Ridge Apartments & Office PUD 1600 Benson Road S. LUA-09-lSO WATER -Served by City of Renton Water Utility. There is an existing 8-inch water line both in the frontage along Benson Road 5. and in an easement crossing the parcel. The site is in the 490 Pressure zone. SEWER -Served by City of Renton Wastewater Utility. The parcel is crossed in an easement as well as across the full Benson Road frontage by 8-inch sanitary sewer mains. STORM -A preliminary TIR, per 1995 King County Surface Water Design standards, has been submitted with the application and is acceptable as a preliminary design. The subject site flows into an existing city system with a history of flooding issues downstream that the 1-405 project and a City of Renton project may have resolved, subject to verification. STREETS -The site is located on Benson Road South but will tie into an existing private access road terminating at Eagle Ridge Drive South. Existing improvements include, but are not limited to, pavement, sidewalk, curb, gutter and lighting. CODE REQUIREMENTS WATER 1. The System Development Charge is based on total meter size(s). This fee is payable with the construction permit. SANITARY SEWER 2. The System Development Charge is also based on total meter size(s). This fee is payable with the construction permit. SURFACE WATER 1. A final TIR and design, in compliance with the 1995 King County Surface Water Design manual, along with any supporting reports or other documents is required with the final surface water design for the construction permit. Eagle Ridge Apartments & PUD -LUA 09-150 Page 2 of 2 May 7, 2010 • 2. The Surface Water SDC fee is $0.405 per square foot of new impervious area but not less than $1,012. This fee is collected at the time a construction or utility permit is issued, prior or concurrent to the issuance of the building permit. The fee will be determined based on final plans. 3. Erosion Control is required throughout the project. TRANSPORTATION 1. A Traffic Mitigation Fee of $75.00 per additional Average Daily Trip is triggered for this work. See Traffic Mitigation Fee sheet #868 for specifics. 2. A traffic control plan for any work within the right-of-way is required. PLAN REVIEW -GENERAL 1. All plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. 2. A construction permit is required. When plans are complete three copies of the drawings, two copies of the drainage report, a construction estimate, application and appropriate fee shall be submitted to the City Hall sixth floor counter. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS 1. Temporary Erosion Control shall be installed and maintained to the satisfaction of the representative of the Development Services Division for the duration of the project. 2. Weekly reports on the status and condition of the erosion control plan with any recommendations of change or revision to maintenance schedules or installation shall be submitted by the project Engineer of record to the Public Works Inspector. Certification of the installation, maintenance and proper removal of the erosion control facilities is required prior to Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. 3. A construction plan indicating haul route and hours, construction hours and a traffic control plan shall be submitted for approval prior to any permit being issued. Haul hours shall be restricted to 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. unless approved in advance by the Development Services Division. cc: Neil Watts City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: MAY 10, 2010 APPLICATION NO: LUA09-150, ECF, PPUD DATE CIRCULATED: April 26, 2010 APPLICANT: Chris Koruga, Eagle Ridge LLC PLANNER: Jerry Wasser . PROJECT TITLE: Eagle Ridge Apts & Offices PUD PLAN REVIEWER: Kayren Kittrick SITE AREA: 125,708 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: 1600 Benson Road S PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) 150,300 square feet SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA} Review and a Preliminary Planned Urban Development {PPUD) for a mixed used development including office and residential uses. The subject site is located at 1600 Benson Road S. The site is composed of two vacant parcels totaling 125,708 square feet (2.89 acres) located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) zone. The applicant has proposed two 4- story buildings with a total of 117 apartment units which would result in a net density of 43.65 units per acre. The southernmost building would have 61 residential units and 4,039 square feet of office use on the ground floor. The northernmost building would have 56 residential units. A total of 156 surface and garage parking stalls are proposed. Access to the site would be gained from Benson Road Sand from a private easement that connects to Eagle Ridge Drive S. The applicant has proposed to retain 40 significant trees. The site encompasses areas of erosion hazard, moderate to high landslide hazard, and protected slopes. The applicant intends to seek a Critical Areas "Exception Through Modification" in order to disturb protected slopes created through man made activity. Approximately 500 cubic yards would be exported and 100 cubic yards of fill imported. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code} COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housina Air Aesthetics Water Liaht/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Trans rtation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000Feet 14,000Feet 5 I 7 j-Jc,;. D B. POLICY-RELATEDCOMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Date I 1 I TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION FEE Project Name: Project Address: Contact Person: Permit Number: Project Description: Land Use Type: Eagle Ridge Apartments & Office PUD 1600 Benson Road S Chris Koruga LUA09-150 117 apartments and 4,039 sf Office 2 Phase PUD Method of Calculation: 5#868 X Residential D Retail D ITE Trip Generation Manual, 8'h Edition X Traffic Study X Non-retail X Other {Adjusted for final numbers) (223) Mid-rise Apt 4.09/DU (710) Office 11.01/sf 6/08/2009 William Popp Associates Calculation: 117 X 4.09 = 478.53 4 X 11.01 : 44.04 522.57 ADT 522.57 X $75 : $39,192.75* *These fees based on description of project and rates determined by traffic study. Calculations will be updated with final applications. Transportation Mitigation Fee: Calculated by: 39 192. 75* ----------------Date: I Date of Payment: ---------------------------- City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET --i ' REv1Ew1NG DEPARTMENT: I r<'.,l('E;( y 11 v:chC\ n ' APPLICATION NO: LUA09-150, ECF, PPUD APPLICANT: Chris Koruga, Eagle Ridge LLC PROJECT TITLE: Eagle Ridge Apts & Offices PUD SITE AREA: 125,708 square feet LOCATION: 1600 Benson Road S COMMENTS DUE: MAY 10, 2010 DATE CIRCULATED: April 26, 2010 PLANNER: Jerry Wasser PLAN REVIEWER: Kayren Kittrick EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) 150,300 square feet SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and a Preliminary Planned Urban Development (PPUD) for a mixed used development including office and residential uses. The subject site is located at 1600 Benson Road S. The site is composed of two vacant parcels totaling 125,708 square feet (2.89 acres) located within the Commercial Arterial {CA} zone. The applicant has proposed two 4~ story buildings with a total of 117 apartment units which would result in a net density of 43.65 units per acre. The southernmost building would have 61 residential units and 4,039 square feet of office use on the ground floor. The northernmost building would have 56 residential units. A total of 156 surface and garage parking stalls are proposed. Access to the site would be gained from Benson Road Sand from a private easement that connects to Eagle Ridge Drive S. The applicant has proposed to retain 40 significant trees. The site encompasses areas of erosion hazard, moderate to high landslide hazard, and protected slopes. The applicant intends to seek a Critical Areas "Exception Through Modification" in order to disturb protected slopes created through man made activity. Approximately 500 cubic yards would be exported and 100 cubic yards of fill imported. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housina Air Aesthetics Water Liaht/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transoortation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Natural Resources Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact s where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Date ( A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS "It is anticipated that the proposed development would generate future residents that would utilize existing City park and recreation facilities and programs. The City has adopted a Parks Mitigation Fee of $354.51 per each new multi family unit to address these potential impacts." Parks Mitigation Fee2 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: MAY 10, 2010 APPLICATION NO: LUA09-150, ECF, PPUD DATE CIRCULATED: April 26, 2010 APPLICANT: Chris Koruga, Eagle Ridge LL( PLANNER: Jerry Wasser PROJECT TITLE: Eagle Ridge Apts & Offices PUD PLAN REVIEWER: Kayren Kittrick SITE AREA: 125,708 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: 1600 Benson Road S PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) 150,300 square feet SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and a Preliminary Planned Urban Development (PPUD) for a mixed used development including office and residential uses. The subject site is located at 1600 Benson Road S. The site is composed of two vacant parcels totaling 125,708 square feet (2.89 acres) located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) zone. The applicant has proposed two 4- story buildings with a total of 117 apartment units which would result in a net density of 43.65 units per acre. The southernmost building would have 61 residential units and 4,039 square feet of office use on the ground floor. The northernmost building would have 56 residential units. A total of 156 surface and garage parking stalls are proposed. Access to the site would be gained from Benson Road Sand from a private easement that connects to Eagle Ridge Drive S. The applicant has proposed to retain 40 significant trees. The site encompasses areas of erosion hazard, moderate to high landslide hazard, and protected slopes. The applicant intends to seek a Critical Areas "Exception Through Modification" in order to disturb protected slopes created through manmade activity. Approximately 500 cubic yards would be exported and 100 cubic yards of fill imported. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housina Air Aesthetics Water liaht/Glare Plants Recreation land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Tronsnortation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000Feet 14,000Feet 8. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS lj 77u1,z 0(,/U /0{) cA/YJ'f/// ~~ ;0 / CX"70 We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact dditional information · eeded to properly assess this proposal. :S-b ~10 Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET COMMENTS DUE: MAY 10, 2010 APPLICATION NO: LUA09-150, ECF, PPUD DATE CIRCULATED: April 26, 2010 APPLICANT: Chris Koruga, Eagle Ridge LLC PLANNER: Jerry Wasser PROJECT TITLE: Eagle Ridge Apts & Offices PUD PLAN REVIEWER: Kayren Kittrick SITE AREA: 125,708 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/ A LOCATION: 1600 Benson Road S PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) 150,300 square feet SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and a Preliminary Planned Urban Development (PPUD) for a mixed used development including office and residential uses. The subject site is located at 1600 Benson Road S. The site is composed of two vacant parcels totaling 125,708 square feet {2.89 acres} located within the Commercial Arterial {CA} zone. The applicant has proposed two 4- story buildings with a total of 117 apartment units which would result in a net density of 43.65 units per acrt:;". The southernmost building would have 61 residential units and 4,039 square feet of office use on the ground floor. The northernmost building would have 56 residential units. A total of 156 surface and garage parking stalls are proposed. Access to the site would be gained from Benson Road Sand from a private easement that connects to Eagle Ridge Drive 5. The applicant has proposed to retain 40 significant trees. The site encompasses areas of erosion hazard, moderate to high landslide hazard, and protected slopes. The applicant intends to seek a Critical Areas "Exception Through Modification" in order to disturb protected slopes created through manmade activity. Approximately 500 cubic yards would be exported and 100 cubic yards of fill imported. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT {e.g. Non-Code} COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housina Air Aesthetics Water Liaht/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transnortation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Natural Resources Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000Feet 14,000Feet 8. POLICY-RELATEO COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. ~/i.+/10 I ' Date CITY OF RENTON FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU MEMORANDUM DATE: April 29, 2010 TO: Gerald Wasser, Associate Planner FROM: Corey Thomas, Plans Review Inspector SUBJECT: Comments for Eagle Ridge Apartments & Offices PUD MITIGATION ITEMS; 1. Fire mitigation fees are $388.00 per multi-family unit and $0.52 per square foot of office space. No fees are applicable for parking garages. FIRE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. The preliminary fire flow is 2,750 gpm. One hydrant is required within 150-feet of each structure and two additional hydrants are required within 300-feet of each structure. A looped water main is required to be installed around the buildings. 2. An approved fire alarm system is required to be installed throughout all buildings per city ordinance. Separate plans and permits are required to be submitted to the Renton Fire Department for review and approval. 3. An approved fire sprinkler and standpipe system is required to be installed throughout all buildings. Separate plans and permits are required for the installation of fire sprinkler systems. Direct outside access is required to fire sprinkler riser rooms. 4. Fire Department access roadways are required to within 150-feet of all portions of the building exterior. Roadways are a minimum 20-feet in width with a turning radius of 45-foot outside and 25-foot inside. A properly recorded fire access easement is required over the adjacent parcel to the northwest of the project in order to provide fire code approved apparatus access. 5. Prior to final occupancy, an electronic site plan shall be submitted for pre-fire planning purposes. ... f City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: MAY 10, 2010 APPLICATION NO: LUA09-150, ECF, PPUD DATE CIRCULATED: April 26, 2010 APPLICANT: Chris Koruga, Eagle Ridge LLC PLANNER: Jerry Wasser PROJECT TITLE: Eagle Ridge Apts & Offices PUD PLAN REVIEWER: Kayren Kittrick SITE AREA: 125,708 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: 1600 Benson Road S PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) 150,300 square feet SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and a Preliminary Planned Urban Development (PPUD) for a mixed used development including office and residential uses. The subject site is located at 1600 Benson Road 5. The site is composed of two vacant parcels totaling 125,708 square feet (2.89 acres) located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) zone. The applicant has proposed two 4- story buildings with a total of 117 apartment units which would result in a net density of 43.65 units per acre. The southernmost building would have 61 residential units and 4,039 square feet of office use on the ground floor. The northernmost building would have 56 residential units. A total of 156 surface and garage parking stalls are proposed. Access to the site would be gained from Benson Road Sand from a private easement that connects to Eagle Ridge Drive S. The applicant has proposed to retain 40 significant trees. The site encompasses areas of erosion hazard, moderate to high landslide hazard, and protected slopes. The applicant intends to seek a Critical Areas "Exception Through Modification" in order to disturb protected slopes created through manmade activity. Approximately 500 cubic yards would be exported and 100 cubic yards of fill imported. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housina Air Aesthetics Water Linht/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Trans,..,.,rtation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000Feet 14,000Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS .5 et We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly a sess this proposal. t1v~ Signature of Director or Authorized Representative 'I 7 Date City of ·on Deportment of Community & Economic ,/opment ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: ·vm, :r A CL,\ 6\/CS COMMENTS DUE: MAY 10, 2010 APPLICATION NO: LUA09-150, ECF, PP~D '-.J DATE CIRCULATED: April 26, 2010 APPLICANT: Chris Koruga, Eagle Ridge LLC PLANNER: Jerry Wasser PROJECT TITLE: Eagle Ridge Apts & Offices PUD PLAN REVIEWER: Kayren Kittrick SITE AREA: 125,708 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/ A LOCATION: 1600 Benson Road S PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) 150,300 square feet SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and a Preliminary Planned Urban Development {PPUD) for a mixed used development including office and residential uses. The subject site is located at 1600 Benson Road S. The site is composed of two vacant parcels totaling 125,708 square feet (2.89 acres) located within the Commercial Arterial {CA) zone. The applicant has proposed two 4- story buildings with a total of 117 apartment units which would result in a net density of 43.65 units per acre. The southernmost building would have 61 residential units and 4,039 square feet of office use on the ground floor. The northernmost building would have 56 residential units. A total of 156 surface and garage parking stalls are proposed. Access to the site would be gained from Benson Road Sand from a private easement that connects to Eagle Ridge Drive S. The applicant has proposed to retain 40 significant trees. The site encompasses areas of erosion hazard, moderate to high landslide hazard, and protected slopes. The applicant intends to seek a Critical Areas "Exception Through Modification" in order to disturb protected slopes created through manmade activity. Approximately 500 cubic yards would be exported and 100 cubic yards of fill imported. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housinq Air Aesthetics Water Liaht/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transoortation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000Feet 14,000Feet , '1= . ~ B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date 0 . . NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-M) DATE: !..AND USE NUMBER: PROJECT NAME: A,>ril 26, 2010 LUAO!l-150, ECF, PPUD Ea;la Ridge Apartmeot1 & Qffu:es PUD PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The appllcant Is ,oquesdog Envlronmonto! ($EPA) Rev,""' and a P!'4!11m1n,,<y Plonne,:t Urban DeYe"pmenl(PPUD) kir a mixed u....:t de•eloprn•nt1ro::luding ofllce and "'""'""tiaJ use,. TM subjoclsrtti 19 located al 1600 BenlOl'I Road s. Tha site Is comp,:,sed ol 1:wC vacant parcels lol;lllng 125.706 squ""' feet (2.89 ;,a,,s] located wmn the Cammortlal ,t,rtur\al (CA) Z<Jne. The appl,:ar,1 ha• prcpased two 4-slory buildin;s :"'I" a total of 117 "l""rtment units wt,K:h would mult in e net derisil)r of 43.65 unrt, por 11""1!. The toothemmool bu1klm; would have 61 ,e&idenl>III units end ~.039 square Jeet or office u,s.e on the ground floor. The 1l<>rtf1emrno$1:_bwld"'ll woold ha"" 56 lllllldenlial w,lls A !cl.al of 15/1 ,urfac,, sncl garage parl<,ng stalls ace proposed. J\<;Q'lo5 to the oite would t>o gained from S.,noor, Rood Sand from a pnvat,, eaB11ment that Q:>11ne<:lo W Eaglo Ridge Drive S The appl~! has pro.pooed to "'lain 40 ,._n,r.c..nt ~..... The oiul enoompaoses ar_eM ot ern!U0<1 hazafll, IDQderale tu high IMdslide hazard. and prnlactad 11opn The applicant intel1d• 10 sMl< a Cntical Are ... 0 Ex0flptlon Through Moo'llicatii:m· "' order to dosl:\Jrt, pn,tedod ,iopes·cr9ll~ lhrough manm.,de acliY,ly. App,o»mately 500 cubic yards wooki be expo Med and 100 cubic /ards or ~I imp0f1ed. PROJECT LOCATION: 1600 Benooo Road S OPTIONAL OETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE, Mm GATED !DNS-M): _.... !he Lead /lge!1cy. 111e Clly at Renbn has det..rmined that s1gr,;lk;an1 envi'oomentel ompacts ara uniket)' to "'suit Imm tho proposed project_ Ther-lore. as permitted under lhe RCW 4J.21C 110. the City of RenlOn II uoing the Optional m1S-M process to gf\le nolice tha1, ONS. M ,s n<ely to ti& r,...,ed, Comment periods Jo, Ille p,oject and !he proposed or.S-M ar• lnlegrale([ ln19 a ""1gle ~menl period Toe"' wil be rio o:,mm8"l period followlng Iha luuanee of lhe Threshold Dalermination of New1-Slgnifk:ance- Mibi111ted (ONs-MJ. A 14--<liY appeai p«iod will fOilowlhl !nuance o! Iha PHH,!. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: NOTICE OF coMJ>LETEAl'PLIC.A.TION, Navamber 13, 200S April :16. 2010 APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Chrll Koroga, E•;le Ridge LLC; MM Jij'" AV<1nu• SW. Soottl•, WA 98121 Ponnlta/Rt'IIIW Roquuted: OU,.r POfflllts which may l>a r.qund: Rfl!"'•t.d swdles: LocaUon whtl9 sppllcallon may l>a19Vlawad: PUBLIC HEARING: CON818TENCY OVERVlEW: Zoning/Land UH: Envlronmontol tSEPAI Rtwl,w, J>rotlmlru,ry Planntd Urban D•velopmonl Ravlavr CQn•tnu:Uon and Building P<lnnlt>I G.ou.ohnl~I Study, T,,.mo Impact Analy,,I•, and Draln1g• Rtpor1 Dop•r1m•nt or Community II. fconomlc Dtwtlopmont ICED]-Plannlng Olvl•lon, Slnh Floor R•nlon City Hal~ 1DH 8outn IJ~y Way, R•nton, WA 18(157 Tho subject !lie Is do119ri,,t&d Commercial Conldor (CC) en !he City ot Ranlcn Cr:ompnthenoi>'e Land Use Map am! Commen;lal Arlen .. (CA) on the City's Z:oninv Map. ir you would like to bo mad• a party of r•<onl to re<elve fu1'1hor information on thl• propo,l!d pro)oct, complete thl, lt,rm and return to: City of Renton, CEO -Plannlng ONl,lon, 1C5S So. Grady Way, Ront011. WA 91l(lS7 Nome/file Ne.: East• Ridge Apartrnflnl! !. Ol'll<;es PUD/lUA09-1SO. ECF. PPUD NAME:---------------------------- MAIUNG ADDRESS· THEPHONENO.: ---------- Env!room•nllll Documenle that Evalual• tho Pn>pc,Hd Proj11C!: Oevalopm•nl Roguhtllon• U1ed For ProJtcl Nlttlgatlon: PropoHd Mltlgatlon MaHurH: Env•ronmental (SEPA) Ch«:kllst The Pffll""1 "'111 be subjeci lo the C,ly, SEPA oo:lin,.,,ce, RMC 4-2·120A. RMC 4- J-100. RMC 4-9·150 and clher applicaNe codes and re;ulation• •• iip?r(lflrrate The following M~19al1on Measures wm lll<ely be ;ml)D$<1d on lhe pf<lpo•ed pmj•ct T111)$e reoommende<I Mitigal.Jon Measure, addr••• prnje,;:t 'mpacls not co'lefed by o,os~ng COOes and regula~ons as cited above. The applicanr ... ~ bo n,quirod/JJ pty the approi;ria/8 Transportation /,litiga/1,;n Foo; Tna applicant st,,,H lol!ow Jh9 """""""'nd"~""" or /ho 9Mll9c/rmca/ '8porl /Jf"p,,!Bd by G<late<:I) Camrff"'11~, Inc, de/lid May !9, ~006. and. In 111<, a vent !h8' plro dnvM foundetinns '"' uldi,&d forlhQ projor:t, the oppliconlmoybe wb}t,cr t,:, addl/Jooa/ noise t1nd wbrrllian stud/,1s, and ,my l>e ""'/rt<:te<I ro cs,tom o'loy"""°'1r:1" !JI pi/• dnvrr,g 1c!M'ly; an<I Erosioo i;cntml 1Jh811 t,o lrUlkollli,u,,:I for the dun,t/oo of fll9 r,roi9ct We,,'°)' repoM Ml/JI/ be submrf!9d lo rna Deve/q:llllllnl s,,,..,;,;e, DivlsJon Pion Rovt..w projoct mall8:9(0r: aM stroll/d' Q\lid8n"" of an hisrot1<: site bo foJJno:1 durirrg sifQ ,1,,..,iopm..,,~ WOOi shail 111P •row<ld amt lhe BPPlicanl sh811 submit an orcllaoologics;/ ~ WIV9Y of !/lo SJt9. rho surwy 3/JaN conform lo file n,q<liremMt.s a/Id ,WMIJ/>1, al I/Jo Ws:mingklll Stll/9 0/l'ica or A/<;hHoloVf md Hi>lolic PreMrvo!lon end must bf r:ornluct&d Ufldw rile OJHne supsr,,sior, of a stala-approwd 9/Cha~ost Warlr &/!ff/I '9CO'Mlefl"" -n '1pploval i!I recei-1 l'n>m Iha omcri al An:h"""""li)' and H/3!rm: Prese,va/lon. C<!mmen'"' on 1M abov• appllcatlon mnt be submltt•d In writing lo Garald WHur, Anoclata Planner, CED - Pl1nnlng DM11k>n, 101111 South Grady Way, Ronton, WA 980157, by 5:00 PM on M•y 7, Ill10. Thhl matt•r hi also t•nu.Uvety ..:hltdlJ[ltd lor • publ!c hur1ng on Jun• 1!, 2010, at 9:00 AM. Council C~embers. Sev0l1lt1 Floor. R,,nton Clly Hall, 1055 South Grady W"'f. fl.anion. It y011 arB lnlerested in attel>dln9 Ille hearing. plea"" ,:;ontact tt,e oavetipmanl Servo:"' DMlion to enou"' !hat "'" hearing hao not been reschecilled at (425) 4:J0-7282. Ir comment! ~mot be oubmilted 11 writo10 by Iha data Indicated~-. ycu may otill appaar at the heiring and pre$1!nt your comments"" Uie proper .... bel<u the Hea~ng Examiner. If yuu haY1t quastlol\s about 11\0S p«>P"&al, or w'sh to be mede a party of record ar>d ,e,;aiva addi!looal "1formatlon by mall. pie""" r::onlaci U,,, p«>jecl manager. Al1yono who submits written comments ...,, automa!lcolV become a party of record and wil be notified ot any deciok>n an !his pn,ject. CONTACT PERSON: Gerald Wnsot, Assoclata Planner; Tel: (42/J) 430,7382; gwasser@rentonwa.gov PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE lOENTIFICATlON ;, !' -, 'I I: I SITE .,,. / CERTIFICATION , hereby certify that -;;;.. copies of the above document were posted in~ conspicuous places or nearby the described property on Date: 4-p~j ;J..{,, :Zo!O Signed: ~Li3ah,~ STATE OF WASHINGTON ) COUNTY OF KING ) ss ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that l' c-<-u.. \ 33 a l, e[ signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the es mentioned in the instrument. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Notary (Print): , ; , ,,-, , __ .,.n.w._, _,A::i....,_, ___:lra:...,_(_.,c~a,1o"--"-,e'-I------- My a p poi ntme nt expires =--~"~~e;,A4-"-=-""-:l:.,__--""'2~'1-""';;i."'o"-'-13 ____ _ a I ·., CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT -PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 26th day of April, 2010, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Acceptance Letter, NOA, Environmental Checklist, & Site Plan PMT documents. This information was sent to: Name ,.-. . Representing Agencies -NOA, Env. Checklist, PMT See Attached Chris Koruga Applicant/Contact Robert Hancheroff Owner 300' Surrounding Property Owners -NOA only See attached ~ 7h0.I~ _ .... -·-. (Signature of Sender): ;' Cf = "'= ,/ ( ~-,~:~. STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss COUNTY OF KING !\: ' I certify <ha< I k~ o, h~ sa<i<ac<o~'"''"'°""-M. T-~ signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: 4/:;z(; /::i.c10 I Notary ublic in and for the State of Washington Notary (Print): __ _!:~:i.,Lc.--:::1...a......\.1:..L,aJ...!S~'--------------- My appointment expires: -, o 13 A ' _L ... '', d-' -"'~1.,_,-., c< -c Eagle Ridge Apartments & Offices PUD LUA09-150, ECF, PPUD template -affidavit of service by mailing -' Dept. of Ecology ' Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 WSDOT Northwest Region ,. Attn: Ramin Pazooki King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240 PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers * Seattle District Office Attn: SEPA Reviewer PO Box C-3755 Seattle, WA 98124 Boyd Powers * Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box47015 Olympia, WA 98S04-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Serv. Attn: SEPA Section 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Renton, WA 9805S-1219 Metro Transit Senior Environmental Planner Gary Kriedt 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 Seattle, WA 98104-38S6 Seattle Public Utilities Real Estate Services Attn: SEPA Coordinator 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 AGENCY (DOE) LEITER MAILING (ERC DETERMINATIONS) WDFW -Larry Fisher' 1775 12th Ave. NW Suite 201 Issaquah, WA 98027 Duwamish Tribal Office * 4717 W Marginal Way SW Seattle, WA 98106-1514 KC Wastewater Treatment Division • Environmental Planning Supervisor Ms. Shirley Marroquin 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 City of Newcastle Attn: Steve Roberge Director of Community Development 13020 Newcastle Way Newcastle, WA 98059 Puget Sound Energy Municipal Liaison Manager Joe Jainga PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-OlW Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept.* Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer 39015 -172"d Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program• Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert 39015 172"' Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092-9763 Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation* Attn: Gretchen Kaehler PO Box 48343 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 City of Kent Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP Acting Community Dev. Director 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, WA 98032-5895 City of Tukwila Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 *Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the checklist, Site Plan PMT1 and the notice of application. template -affidavit of service by mailing 1923059090 PUGET SOUND ENERGY/ELEC PROPERTY TAX DEPT PO BOX 90868 BELLEVUE WA 98009 2023059032 FITZPATRICK STANLEY W 1236 BENSON RD S RENTON WA 98055 2023059086 GENCAREINC PO BOX 3525 MCKINNEY TX 75070 2023059113 EPROPERTYTAX INC 1300 EAGLE RIDGE DR S RENTON WA 98055 2023059162 HANCHEROFF ROBERT W & DIANE 17710 234TH AVE SE MAPLE VALLEY WA 98038 2023059029 FITZPATRICK STANLEY W 1234 BENSON RD S RENTON WA 98055 2023059033 AVALOS SALVADOR+RUIZ MANUEL 1216 BENSON RDS RENTON WA 98055 2023059090 CARPINITO BROTHERS INC 1400 TALBOT RD S RENTON WA 98055 2023059116 THOMAS REUTERS PTS (WELLS} N/A WA-WOODCLIFFE 2235 FARADAY AVE SUITE 0 CARLSBAD CA 98008 2141220000 PROPERTY MANAGER 1100 EAGLE RIDGE DR S RENTON WA 98055 2023059031 NGUYEN TERESA 1240 BENSON RD S RENTON WA 98055 2023059035 NEWTON GEORGE R+CHANG M 1228 BENSON RD S RENTON WA 98055 2023059097 RML PROPERTY-RENTON LLC 1611 EAGLE RIDGE DRS RENTON WA 98055 2023059119 LAND AND SEA VENTURES LLC 13665 se 24TH ST BELLEVUE WA 98005 rt.· Cityo( r. ·t:r1 1 tJJJr1 NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-M) DATE: LAND USE NUMBER: PROJECT NAME: April 26, 2010 LUA09-150, ECF, PPUD Eagle Ridge Apartments & Offices PUD PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and a Preliminary Planned Urban Development (PPUD} for a mixed used development including office and residential uses. The subject site is located at 1600 Benson Road S. The site is composed of two vacant parcels totaling 125,708 square feet {2.89 acres} located within the Commercial Arterial {CA) zone. The applicant has proposed two 4-story buildings with a total of 117 apartment units which would result in a net derisity of 43.65 units per acre, The southernmost building would have 61 residential units and 4,039 square feet of office use on the ground floor. The northernmost building would have 56 residential units. A total of 156 surface and garage parking stalls are proposed. Access to the site would be gained from Benson Road S and from a private easement that connects to Eagle Ridge Drive S. The applicant has proposed to retain 40 significant trees. The site encompasses areas of erosion hazard, moderate to high landslide hazard, and protected slopes. The applicant intends to seek a Critical Areas "Exception Through Modification" in order to disturb protected slopes created through manmade activity. Approximately 500 cubic yards would be exported and 100 cubic yards of fill imported. PROJECT LOCATION: 1600 Benson Road S OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED (DNS-M): As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110, the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS-M process to give notice that a DNS- M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Nan-Significance- Mitigated (ONS-M). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: November 13, 2009 April 26, 2010 APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Chris Koruga, Eagle Ridge LLC; 5454 30th Avenue SW, Seattle, WA 98126 Permits/Review Requested: Environmental (SEPA) Review, Prelimlnary Planned Urban Development Review Other Pennits which may be required: Construction and Building Permits Requested Studies: LocatJon where application may be reviewed: PUBLIC HEARING: CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Zoning/Land Use: Geotechnical Study, Traffic Impact Analysis, and Drainage Report Department of Community & Economic Development (CEO) -Planning Division, Sixth Floor Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 Public hearing is tentatively scheduled for June 15, 2010 before the Renton Hearing Examiner in Renton Council Chambers. Hearings begin at 9:00 a.m. on the 7th floor of the new Renton City Hall located at 1055 South Grady Way. The subject site is designated Commercial Corridor (CC) on the City of Renton Comprehensive Land Use Map and Commercial Arterial (CA) on the City's Zoning Map. Jf you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City of Renton, CED-Planning Division, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Name/File No.: Eagle Ridge Apartments & Offices PUD/LUA09-150, ECF, PPUD NAME:---------------------------------- MAI LING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NO.: ------------- I Envlronmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Development Regulatlons Used For Project Mitigation: Environmental (SEPA) Checklist The project will be subject to the City's SEPA ordinance, RMC 4-2-120A, RMC 4- 3-100, RMC 4-9-150 and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate. Proposed Mitigation Measures: The following Mitigation Measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project These recommended Mitigation Measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above. The applicant will be required to pay the appropriate Transportation Mitigation Fee; The applicant will be required to pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee; and The applicant will be required to pay the appropriate Parks Mitigation Fee; and The applicant shall follow the recommendations of the geotechnical report prepared by Geotech Consultants, Inc, dated May 19, 2006; and. In the event that pile driven foundations are utilized for the project, the applicant may be subject to additional noise and vibration studies, and may be restricted to certain days/hours of pile driving activity; and Erosion control shall be maintained for the duration of the project. Weekly reports shall be submitted to the Development Services Division Plan Review project manager; and Should evidence of an historic site be found during site development, work shall be stopped and the applicant shall submit an archaeological resource survey of the site. The survey shall conform to the requirements and standards of the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and must be conducted under the on-site supervision of a state-approved archaeologist. Wark shall recommence when approval is received from the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Comments on the above application must be submitted In writing to Gerald Wasser, Associate Planner, CED - Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, by 5:00 PM on May 7, 2010. This matter Is also tentatively scheduled for a public hearing on June 15, 2010, at 9:00 AM, Council Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. If you are interested in attending the hearing, please contact the Development Services Division to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled at (425) 430-7282. If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above, you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments on the proposal before the Hearing Examiner. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional information by mail, please contact the project manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: Gerald Wasser, Associate Planner; Tel: (425) 430-7382; gwasser@rentonwa.gov PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION /n~~oo,~~ nnal!02:..o ,'1J3t>b~D'1 a-un~~'"-'~3 2D.1..ltffl0(1~~ ,o.Jtll',~~J~ ~U>''.<<H1"'1~7 ..,n.,~~~~~ SITE Denis Law c· M -~M=ayor-----1~1.ltD' t l April 26, 2010 Chris Koruga Eagle Ridge LLC 5454 301h Avenue SW Seattle, WA 98126 Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator Subject: Notice of Complete Application Eagle Ridge Apartments & Offices PUD, LUA09-150, ECF, PPUD Dear Mr. Koruga: The Planning Division of the City of Renton has determined that the subject application is complete according to submittal requirements and, therefore, is accepted for review. It is tentatively scheduled for consideration by the Environmental Review Committee on May 17, 2010. Prior to that review, you will be notified if any additional information is required to continue processing your application. In addition, this matter is tentatively scheduled for a Public Hearing on June 15, 2010 at 9:00 a.m., Council Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. The applicant or representative(s} of the applicant are required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you prior to the scheduled hearing. Please contact me at {425) 430-7382 if you have any questions. Sincerely, ~~ Gerald C. Wasser Associate Planner cc: Robert Hancheroff / Owner(s) Renton City Hall ~ 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Denislaw . r·~· Cityofl -----~M:a:yo:, _____ ............. l .· r · r1 r r rSJ· . · t 1 -_;. April 26, 2010 Department of Community and Economic Development Attn: John Lefotu and Ramin Pazooki Washington State Department of Transportation 15700 Dayton Avenue North PO Box 330310. Seattle, WA 98133-9710 SUBJECT: Dear Sirs: Eagle Ridge Apartments & Offices PUD LUA09-150, ECF, PPUD Alex Pietsch, Administrator Enclosed is a copy of the TIA for the subject land use application along with a copy of the proposed site plan. If you have additional comments or concerns, you may either send them via mail or email them to me at gwasser@rentonwa.gov, The Environmental Review Committee is scheduled for May 17, 2010. I would appreciate your comments prior to the meeting, preferably by May 10, 2010, if possible, so that I may incorporate them into the staff report. Sincerely, ~~ Gerald C. Wasser Associate Planner Enclosures cc: Project File Kayren Kittrick, City of Renton -Plan Review Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov 04-29-·Q; 10:07AM; Denis Law Mayor April 26, 2010 Nancy Rawls · Department of Transportation Renton School.District . 420 Park Avenue N Renton, WA 98D55 Subject: · Eagle Ridge Apartments & Offices PUD LUA09-150, ECF, PPUD ; 4252044465 # 1 / 3 "C7J~t.f:JU ~ /~CV The City of Renton's Department of Community and Economic Development {CED) has received an application for a 117-unit apartment complex located at 1600 Benson Road s. Please see the enclosed Notice of Application for further details. In order to process this application, CEO needs to know which Renton schools· would be · attended by children living in residences at the location indicated above. Please fill· in the appropriate schools on the list below and return this letter to my attention, City of Renton, CED, Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98057 by May 10, 2010. . . - · · Will the schools you have indicated be able to handle the impact of the additional ·· students estimated to come from the proposed developmeriti' Yes No~---- • Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov 04-29-1 0; 1 0: 07AM; Nancy Rawls. Page 2 of 2 April 26, 2010 ; 4252044465 Thank you for prnvidingthis important information. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact me at (425) 430-7382. · Sincerely,· . . -~~ Gerald C. Wa~ser · . Associate Pl!!nner · Enclosure # 2/ 3 Denis Law Mayor December 2, 2009 Chris Koruga Eagle Ridge LLC 5454 301h Avenue SW Seattle, WA 98126 Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator RE: Eagle Ridge Apartments & Offices PUD Renton File No. LUA09-150, ECF, PPUD Dear Mr. Koruga: After reviewing the materials submitted for the Eagle Ridge Apartments & Offices PUD application, staff has determined that the application is incomplete. The following information is required in order to accept the application as complete: 1. Information on Site Plan. Please submit 12 copies of a site plan which clearly indicates: • The width of internal driveways and their connections between the two buildings; • The square footage of the footprint of each building; • The square footage of open space/recreation areas; • The interconnecting pedestrian pathways and their composition; • Vehicular entry points of both buildings. Arrows shown on the east end of the south building appear to cross over a curb; and • The total number of apartment units. The site plan indicates 120 units and other file materials indicate 117 units. [The total number of apartment units should also match the number of units on the floor plans.] Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Eagle Ridge Apartments & Offices. LUA09-150, ECF, PPUD December 2, 2009 Page 2 2. Information on landscape Plan. Please submit 5 copies of a landscape plan which indicates how the open space area would be landscaped, where the pedestrian pathways would be located, the composition of the pathways and how they interconnect to the rest of the project. 3. Elevations. Please submit 5 copies of elevations which indicate primary entrance features. Once the above requested information is received, review of your application will begin. Please contact me if you have any questions at (425) 430-7382. Gerald C. Wasser Associate Planner Cc: C.E. Vincent, Planning Director Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager ~Yellow File City of Renton LAND USE PERMIT ND\/ 'I :~ hii]!l MASTER APPLICATIO~.c' PROPERTY OWNER(S) NAME: ADDRESS: CITY: TELEPHONE NUMBER: ;2 0 (:,-,Y"i? 7-"g-86'? APPLICANT (if other than owner) NAME: COMPANY (if applicable): ADDRESS: CITY: e, I\ tt\ e______ ZIP: q 8 } 2,..(., TELEPHONE NUMBER: 2 O c_. 5 9 ~ 571,7 CONT ACT PERSON ............. l'il"\IVlt::.. COMPANY (if applicable): ADDRESS: CITY: ZIP: TELEPHONE NUMBER AND EMAIL ADDRESS: 20 l,c 59 s-S'°i 4 ,_ C-Ko P. u A 6) ~~o-0 .c H:\CED\Data\Forrns-Templates\.Self-Help Handouts\Planning\masterapp.doc -1 - PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: ~ "'-1 .. D,.l~-ll ,....,..( .I-fl.L:/.., ,_ I PROJrcT/ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE: ) (,.Oo \Sewso~ w I )I RJ. S"" D __ .... -u WA-. . - KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMB!::R(S): 2. 0 2..J Os-9 '<.. "2,0'f 2-o 2-1 e,.r er 1" 2-- EXISTING LAND USE(S): \J A L, 4,..,.,- PROPOSED LAND USE(S): v Se_. M .,,~ EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: c... c_. PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable) NPr EXISTING ZONING: c_j\ PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): SITE AREA (in square feet): l 2. s-, 708 SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED: 0 SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS: &\, 0'() 0 . PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET ACRE (if applicable) ~3.C:>t:. NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable) fJA ·- NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): \ f 7 06/09 P -JECT INFORMATION (conti ~'------------ NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UN, 1 _; (if applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): tJ A SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): OFF'IC SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): NET FLOOR AREA ON NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): b -P::I<'.. f;:.. ~ 0 .J PROJECT VALL.,~. \ I I I{)([) 0 1 <Q 00 IJ , J, IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): f'J A D AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA ONE D AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA TWO D FLOOD HAZARD AREA D GEOLOGIC HAZARD D HABITAT CONSERVATION NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW D SHORELINE STREAMS & LAKES D WETLANDS ___ sq.ft. ___ sq.ft. ___ sq.ft. ___ sq.ft. ____ sq.ft. PROJECT (if applicable): /v A- LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (Attach leaal description on separate sheet with the followina information included) SITUATE IN THE 5 W QUARTER OF SECTION 2.0, TOWNSHIP ZJ_, RANGE _5_, IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES List all land use applications being applied for: 1. CA 3. 2. 4. Staff will calculate applicable fees and postage: $ AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Pri,1t Name/s} JP:, 6 r r f /I"",, .:;;,4(" cc# , deciare under pemdty of µerju1y under the laws of the Stale of Washington that lam (please check one) _k_ the current owner of the property involved in this application or_ the authorized representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the infom,ation herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. (Signature of Owner/Representative) I certify at I know or have satisfactory evidence that 12.og,au-: ~ft=: signed th instrument and acknowtedge it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Ai, IJA .... A..,... Notary (Print) _:,.......,v"'-",v,...___,Vl'-"-1-'-'-' v= V\_ My appointment expires: _....:~::_'...:l..s~e:._· '(O"'---'-- H:\CED\Data\Forms-Templates\Self-Help Handouts\Planning\masterapp.doc -2 -06109 PLANNING DIVISION WAIV.OF SUBMITTAL REQUI MENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS LAND Q~E F'E8M1tSl1BMITTAK :· · . . ~EC!Ul~EMEITTS: . . . Calculations, CplOf~ fll1$p$f&hpi:;p1¥yi••••···• Density Worksheet 4 pi.i.i~g~ ¢q~tpl l?lah f . Drainage Report 2 fotey~l/<)li$, Ar~hit~tJr<ll~ ~;r . Environmental Checklist, Exi.$t!/:l~ ¢oy~@fll$(R~t9rd~~ Cqpy) ( ••• • ) • .. •·• .· . Existing Easements (Recorded Copy), i=1hdc1 8~z.irc1 tl~iaf · Floor Plans , AND, $~pt~qh~iCiil R~b~{tN~3 / . Grading Plan, Conceptual , $ri:i~i@P!<iii; P~t~i1~8 ·•••••• Habitat Data Report 4 irt\pr,:,v"'me~t • P~f"'i~r 2 • Irrigation Plan 4 Landscape Plan, Conceptual, t.il11!1sd~p~•i=>ufo;·p~1~,1~c1,·• Legal Description, Mailing Labels for Property Owners , t>.f.ip Of .[)(iS!ir'l~ Site @onditiohs , . ·Master Application Form, iryt!)nohlen\qarcts (brie per monument) \ Neighborhood Detail Map 4 This requirement may be waived by: 1. Property Services Section 2. Public Works Plan Review Section 3. Building Section 4. Planning Section C: C 0 o ... ·-c: .!Q a, .2: cc 0 .... Ol 0 .5 C >, C ... ro ·-0:: (..) H:\Forms\Planning\waiverofsubmittalreqs.xls WAIVED· .. MOP/FIEP . . BY: ·····< BY: = = = -~ > 0 :z PR@CT NAME: . ' / / C ,C:· ( ' ! C L n n n .1 ~ P/ I! 6 "1· <::::,... DATE: ____ _,L...-+/_·...L..1_,_'---'---~ I/ MJl g Dill IQs 02108 PLANNING DIVISION WAIVEI )F SUBMITTAL REQUIR IENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS J..ANOUSEP~Mt'tsusMtttAL> ····· ··· wAivi::o ~eciu1ReMsijrsr > · ··· •·• 1:11: Parking, Lot Coverage & Landscaping Analysis , ~~frR~Mstl4ri~ /PM11>:H••• >•·••••••••······ Plat Name Reservation , P®i#i~f <·· Site Plan ZAND• ~ti~•d/~~m~·§t~~y;•§1e~~~············· Stream or Lake Study, Supplemental 4 Street Profiles 2 f~1~R~riih~ffi~fFertifi~&it·••····•·•····. Topography Map 3 ,_ ··· 'o ~t8~ilH ·•···· Tr~~ Cutting/Land Clearing Plan 4 Yr~~ ¢#rf~ t>~~i~ri cx,e~~ i,J,~tt;i:t~tjit~•···· · Utilities Plan, Generalized 2 W~tl~@{Mi@~iiq{Ptan .. Fi/lal{•••?>·••···• · Wetlands Mitigation Plan, Preliminary 4 Wireless: Applicant Agreement Statement 2 AND 3 Inventory of Existing Sites 2 AND 3 Lease Agreement, Draft 2 AND 3 Map of Existing Site Conditions 2 AND 3 Map of View Area 2 AND 3 Photosimulations 2 AND 3 l'>foblf'ieo • <esv: < · This requirement may be waived by: 1 . Property Services Section PROJECT NAME: [ ,; ,-, /<' /', 0 • !c [..'. // c, j 2. Public Works Plan Review Section 3. Building Section 4 '<inning Section H:\Forms\Ptanning\waiverofsubmittalreqs.xls DATE: ---~"/~/_1~1--~/_L_' _'! __ _ 02108 DENSITY WORKSHEET City Of,., P· rrent City of Renton Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, WA 98055 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 1an17 ;179 0 . Or , .iv,sion Nov 1 .-2 " 009 1. Gross area of property: 1. I 2 S-: 7 08 square feet 2. Deductions: Certain areas are excluded from density calculations. These include: Public streets•• Private access easements** Critical Areas* Total excluded area: 3. Subtract line 2from line 1 for net area: 4. Divide line 3 by 43,560 for net acreage: 5. Number of dwelling units or lots planned: D square feet C\cc<> square feet 0 square feet 2. q oec square feet 3. \.l\glC'i\ square feet 4. __ Z_, C.O_~--acres 5. __ l_/_7 __ units/lots 6. Divide line 5 by line 4 for net density: 6. :j >, I..'>= dwelling units/acre *Critical Areas are defined as "Areas determined by the City to be not suitable for development and which are subject to the City's Critical Areas Regulations including very high landslide areas, protected slopes, wetlands or floodways." Critical areas buffers are not deducted/excluded. ** Alleys (public or private) do not have to be excluded. R:\PW\DEVSERV\Forms\Planning\density.doc Last updated: 11/08/2004 l City of Renton c'1 T E RETENTI NCityofRenton Planning Division WORKSHEET NOV l 3 1009 1. Total number of trees over 6" in diameter1 on project site: 1. /f?d&i£~llW~s 2. Deductions: Certain trees are excluded from the retention calculation: Trees that are dead, diseased or dangerous2 2- Trees in proposed public streets trees trees ----- Trees in proposed private access easements/tracts Trees in critical areas 3 and buffers __ 2-=-1--trees -~2~o~ trees Total number of excluded trees: 3. Subtract line 2 from line 1: 2. 3. 4"\ trees ] 2--trees 4. Next, to determine the number of trees that must be retained4. multiply line 3 by: 0.3 in zones RC. R-1, R-4, or R-8 0.1 in all other residential zones 0.05 in all commercial and industrial zones 4. --~I~' \o~· ~-trees 5. List the number of 6" or larger trees that you are proposing 5 to retain 4: 5. A,o • 6. Subtract line 5 from line 4 for trees to be replaced: 6. -------L. 0 (Jf line 6 is less than zero, stop here. No replacement trees are required). 7. Multiply line 6 by 12" for number of required replacement inches: 7. ------- 8. Proposed size of trees to meet additional planting requirement: (Minimum 2" caliper trees required) 8. 9. Divide line 7 by line 8 for number of replacement trees 6 : (if remainder is .5 or greater, round up to the next whole number) 1-Measured at chest height. 9. ------- ------- trees trees inches inches per tree trees 2 -Dead, diseased or dangerous trees must be certified as such by a forester, registered landscape architect, or certified arborist, and approved by the City. 3 · Critical Areas, such as wetlands, streams, floodplains and protected slopes, are defined in Section 4-3-050 of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC). 4 · Count only those trees to be retained outside of critical areas and buffers. 5· The City may require modification of the tree retention plan to ensure retention of the maximum number of trees per RMC 4-4-130H7a 6· Inches of street trees, inches of trees added to critical areas/buffers, and inches of trees retained on site that are less than 6" but are greater than 2" can be used to meet the tree replacement requirement. H :\CED\Data \Fonns-T emp lat es \Se! f. Help Handouts\Plann ing\ T reeReten tion Worksheet.doc 12/08 ' Statement addressing Project's Compliance with each of the following Decision Criteria: Purposes of Planned Urban Development Regulations: To protect natural features of the land and encourage innovation and creativity. Our project will be superior to traditional development under standard regulations because: City of R P1 ento,,., anning 0 , . . ,, ·,V1s1on 1) We are able to arranged our structures and common areas to facilitate greater accessibility, accessibility for residents of the building as well and the public who utilize Benson Hill Road South. 2) The proposed design allows us to incorporate elements which will preserve the features of the land by leaving more open spaces along Benson Hill Road South in front of the building as well as more open spaces between our proposed building and the office building to the north. 3) Loading commercial space along Benson would generate significant traffic congestion, noise pollution and distract from the views of residents in the apartment building. A more attractive and functional option, as we propose, would be to load the commercial space at the entry to the building where access and parking accommodate visitors much easier. 4) Loading the commercial space on the street fronting the development would not be economically feasible for tenants who have no benefit of foot traffic. The site location on Benson Hill Road is not populated by commercial businesses, but rather, is isolated from those businesses. Sidewalks do not connect the length of Benson from the City Hall to Puget Park Drive. Furthermore the ability to park cars behind commercial spaces on Benson is severely limited by the natural features of the property. The ability to park cars in front of those spaces does not exist. 5) The development proposal under a PUD would effectively eliminate the need to affect the natural features of the property by excavating thousands of yard of dirt to " bury " the commercial spaces along Benson Hill Road. 6) The proposed development would be significantly less detrimental to surrounding properties as visitors to the commercial space would enter through a boulevard entrance with directional signs to a parking area designated for their specific use .. Public Benefits: I) Less traffic along Benson Hill Road. 2) A more attractive building which is set back from the road 3) Relief and planting zones between Benson Hill Road and the building 4) The natural hillside at north end of building would remain undisturbed and more visibly attractive to public. 5) A stairwell access from Benson to an access road leading to Eagle Ridge Drive South would allow pedestrians to connect to Eagle Ridge Drive and avoid streets without sidewalks. 6) Sound and air pollution would be reduced if commercial space was not located on busy street. 7) The overall design of building is more visible and attractive to public without commercial space attached at the bottom. 8) Superior circulation under the proposed plan would screen parking from the public 9) A greater appearance of openness can be achieved under the proposed plan where buildings incorporate courtyards, open spaces and undulating design, outside common areas have an open feeling and territorial views as well as planting zones that enhance the aesthetic value of the property. 10) The building orientation, under the proposed plan, will allow us to provide enhanced views and a greater feeling of openness to the residents. Additional Review Criteria: a) Building and Site Design: Our proposed building to the north provides a suitable transition to the adjacent Dental Office Building. Both buildings are setback from the road and have a wide natural buffer zone between them. The coordination of materials, roof design and undulating surfaces of the proposed building are designed to create more privacy, less glare and less noise transfer Circulation: By setting building back from Benson we are increasing the circulation of both cars and pedestrians. The vehicle access plan accommodates both resident as well as public and emergency vehicles and limits the impact of this newly added traffic to adjacent properties. This will promote safety of pedestrians along Benson Hill Road as well as those using the proposed buildings. The Boulevard entrance provides a safe and sufficient sight distance for both pedestrians and vehicles and promotes easy turning patterns onto Benson Hill Road South. Infrastructure and Services: Utility services and Emergency services are sufficiently provide for in this plan and will serve both residents as well as visitors. Clusters of Building Groups and Open Space: Our proposed plan of creating two buildings lends itself to more open space, better circulation for the residents and greater access to utilizing the sites amenities and landscape plan. Privacy and Building Separation, Building Orientation: The architectural plan for these buildings is sensitive to providing privacy and a feeling of living in a home rather than a compound. We have sized the units to be considerably larger than the average rental unit in this community and provided storage areas for an added benefit to the user .. The units are staggered and separated to give the impression that the entry to your unit is unique and private. The undulating walls on the exterior give balcony privacy as well as sight privacy from other units. The walkways and breeze ways are designed to accomplish the same feeling of privacy and building separation. The building is oriented on a hill which allows for every unit to have either a territorial view, water view or an open space view with planting. This is possible by both setting the building back from Benson as well as the naturally occurring topography of the site. Parking Design: Interior parking will allow ·residents to park in a dry secure place and access an elevator which can take them directly to the their unit. Each resident will be given one interior parking space with their unit. Exterior parking spaces for residents and the public will be integrated into the landscape plan which will allow us to interrupt long rows of parking. ADA parking spaces and other emergency vehicle parking spaces will be provided as required by law. • City of R P1-. ,enton ann1nn o· . " iv1sion Project Narrative Nov ' 3 zuog Eagle Ridge Apartments and Office is a mixed use project which proposes 117 units of apartments and 4,039 square feet of office space located on the 1600 Block of Benson Hill Road South in Renton, Wa. The project site is zoned Commercial Arterial ( CA) and is located within the Puget Drive Business Zoning overlay. The site is a vacant land parcel approximately 2.8 acres and has no improvements on the.land. There are no wetlands, water bodies or naturally occurring steep slopes greater than 40% on the property. Approximately 1 % of the land has a topography of slopes between 12% and 40%. The soils are composed of medium-dense to dense to dense or denser native soils. See GEOTECH soils report attached to submittaL We propose to build two rectangular buildings with underground parking on the 2.8 acre site in two phases. The first phase SOUTH BUILDING to include 61 apartment residences and 4,039 square feet of office space. The second phase 56 unils of apartment residences. Total impervious surtace coverage of buildings and roadways to cover approximately 60% of the footprint of the land. Access to the property is from Benson Hill Road South and from a private easement that connects to Eagle Ridge Drive South. There are limited off site improvements. Sidewalks and fire hydrants as well as water and sewer mains have already been established. Total estimated costs for construction are $9,000,000. A fair market value of the completed buildings is $11,000,000. Estimated dirt exports during construction are 500 yards. Estimated fill imports are 100 yards of materials approved by Geotech Consultants. Estimated number of trees to be removed are 50 consisting of alder, cottonwood ( 44 ) Fir and Cedar ( 3 ) and Maple (3 ). The majority of these trees are 6-8 inches in diameter. A job shack will be utilized during construction. There are no shoreline issues or modifications being requested. There will be minimal obstruction of views of the apartment units of the Lodge at Eagle Ridge. A height restriction agreement entered into between the Lodge at Eagle Ridge and Eagle Ridge Apartments and Office has been establish. All parties are aware of the finished height of the proposed buildings and agree to that height. City of R . . • Plan . enton Urban Center Design Overlay D1stnct Report nmq D1v1s/on NOV .i .J ZDu9 i~~rc~ow~o Building Location an Orientation: Phase One of project, which includes the ft:» commercial component, will be oriented such that commercial tenants will be visible from the main arterial. Through signage at the entry to the facility as well as from the west side of the building which faces Benson Hill Road South. The buildings will utilize natural light and provide an open space buffer between project phases as well as the dental building to the north. There are no other structures to the south of property. There are strong connections between the buildings and pedestrian walkways both on Benson and within the project site. Pedestrian Building Entries: Entries are located immediately in front of parking and offer both standard and handicapped parking and handicapped unloading. The primary entrance to the building is located on the east side of the building with an additional entry point at the garage level on the south end of the property. Both entry points face a private road within the facility. Phase one and Phase two buildings have a continuous network of pedestrian paths and open spaces that incorporate landscaping around building entries. Entries from the street and main building entries will be clearly marked with signage, architectural elements, lighting and landscaping to identify those areas and facilitate both pedestrians and vehicular traffic. Transition to Surrounding Development: Phase One and Phase Two buildings are designed to differ from the existing commercial building to the north as well as the facility to the east. There are no other structures to the west or south. There are sufficient setbacks to both of these properties to ensure that the bulk of phase one and phase two structures do not impede sunlight transitions into neighboring properties. The setbacks from the facility to the east is over 60 feet and the setback from the building to the north is also over 60 feet. Service areas for project buildings are situated such that they are not visible from street and are screened from pedestrian sight within the building site. Entry to property will feature special landscape treatment as well as architectural detailed signage as well as open spaces on both sides of entry and signage. Parking and Vehicular Access: Parking will be located under and between buildings and between side property line and buildings. Commercial and Residential tenants will share exterior parking. All exterior parking will be landscaped with a landscape buffer between every six parking stalls. Landscaped buffers will feature low growing trees to provide shade and interest. Landscape will separate multiple parking areas. Pedestrian Circulation: The phased buildings are designed to connect pedestrian traffic from the main arterial as well as the interior footprint of the project. Pedestrian walkways run throughout the site and allow users to reach both residential and commercial spaces with ease. The walkways also allow users to reach exterior common areas like picnic areas and the gazebo and facilitate the use of open spaces throughout the property. Sidewalks between buildigs and streets shall be raised above the level of vehicular travel. Pedestrian pathways within parking areas include drop off areas for handicapped users which will be designed and clearly marked with signage and street detail. Buildings will provide pedestrians with overhead weather protection in the form of building overhang and trellis' at entry. Bicycle racks, benches, trash receptacles and other outdoor furniture made of exterior use will be provided. Outdoor group seating at the Gazebo and Picnic areas will be provided. Landscaping and Common Open Space: Over 400 plants, shrubs and trees will be incorporated into the landscape plan. These are designed to provide relief from the main arterial as well and between buildings and along areas where pedestrians would walk. The common areas are designed to encourage communal activities for the community as well as public visitors. Relief of large paved areas will create a visual and climatic relief. Street Trees will be planted between arterial and Benson Hill Road South. The northwest Asian motif of the interiors of the building will translate into a landscaping plan that features plants from the same Japanese theme. See Landscape Plan. One tree for every thirty feet of street frontage will be planted, all shrubs are selected to grow to a maximum of four feet, ground cover will provide at least 90 % coverage of the landscaped areas within three years of installation. Parking lot lighting will be incorporated to meet all foot-candle requirements as well as be architecturally integrated into the building aesthetic Commercial Use through Building Location and Orientation: The proposed buildings are designed to serve the needs of both the residents as well as the commercial tenants. Building orientation lighting, signage and walkways will direct both homeowners, tenants as well as the public into the specific areas of the building they will use. The overall design is intended to serve the users needs in ways that would not be possible under strict compliance with the code. By loading the commercial space within the interior of the property, as proposed, we increase the ability of the commercial tenant to succeed in his or her business efforts. Commercial space along Benson has had a historically high vacancy rate. The dental building immediately to the north of our proposed project has recorded a 20% vacancy rate on average for over 15 years. Dr. Robert Hancheroff, one of the developers of this project, owned and operated that building during those years. Dr. Hancheroff attributes this high vacancy rate to the buildings location which requires clients to drive up a steep, winding, driveway to reach level parking. The topography discourages not only vehicular traffic but makes pedestrian traffic almost impossible. Furthermore there is not a " connection " to other commercial buildings which would bring prospective clients to the site for other reasons., whether by car or on foot. Under the existing requirement of loading the commercial space along Benson Road South the tenant would suffer similar setbacks in efforts to succeed. Such a design would place the commercial space along Benson Road South and the parking for those spaces behind the place of business. Because of the topography of the site the parking for that commercial space would be underground and one level above the place of business. Prospective tenants would need to park underground and then walk down 14 stairs to arrive at their destination. In addition, the business would not be able to avail of any considerable pedestrian traffic along Benson. The sidewalks are not connected from the north and there is no " connection " with other commercial properties. There is not a single commercial property between Renton City Hall and Puget Park South. The buildings location and orientation are critical to the success of this project, particularly as it relates to the success of the commercial tenants. We believe that by locating the commercial space where it can be reached easily by both commercial clients as well as prospective residential tenants the chance of success will be much higher. Furthermore it will allow the developer to construct the property and price the retail square footage at a much more favorable rate. The challenge of constructing a " front loaded " commercial space would be expensive and involve excavating and exporting thousands of yards of dirt to create a level area facing the arterial. Building Character and Massing, Rooflines, Materials: The buildings is unique and easily distinguished for its urban character. The facade has several different modulations which make it interesting and different from other buildings in this urban area of Renton. The ground level is a stamped or stained concrete wall with openings to allow airflow into the garage area. The openings are grilled with attractive and modern ironwork. All building facades include modulations or intervals at no more than 40 feet. The use of several building materials including iron, wood, cement, stucco and cedar create drama and interest. These materials are highlighted by several colors which accentuate the modulations and bring further drama and interest to the building. The entries to the buildings are clearly defined and visibly prominent incorporating recesses, overhangs, trellis' and special landscaping. The road entry to the site is defined by the same special landscaping, architectural monuments and signage. We would like to incorporate artwork or fountains at the front of the building if City of Renton code allows. Signage is an integral part of the design approach and must serve both the residential tenants as well as the commercial tenants, their clients and the public. Corporate signage will be integrated in the the overall design and not stand out from that design. The building has large cedar beams which appear to support the third and fourth stories of the building in Phase One. The beams are tied together with iron cleats and massive saddles that connect it to the building. Building materials repeat throughout the project over similar modulating facades. Construction Mitigation r--... if?i/.f}rt;;,'fff,,IJ[W(}o.. _ All construction of phase one and phase two of Eagle Ridge Apartments and Offices will be 7 .t;[[J) undertaken during permitted construction hours as per the City of Renton Building Department. Normal hours of construction are 7:30 AM to 5 P.M. Monday through Friday. Phase One will commence in the Spring of 2010 and be completed by the Spring of 2011. Phase Two is projected to commence in the Fall of 2010 and complete in the fall of 2011. Developers and Contractors will attempt to mitigate any disturbance to normal traffic by utilizing Eagle Ridge Drive and the private easement into the project site. Additionally we will have the option to use an easement connecting the property to the east at the north end of our property. This will be useful during phase two ofthe project. There will be minimal noise pollution associated with this project as it is being constructed By normal residential construction building methods. Since the building in Phase One is setback from Benson Hill Road we do not anticipate congestion by subcontractors or materials vendors at Benson Hill Road. Deliveries and parking can be arranged inside the site as well as through the Dental Building to the north. PLANNING DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST City of Re ton r,, . -. ._ _________________________ ...lio,ii,i;iiiiilillli"l!~ion City of Renton Planning Division 105 5 South Grady Way-Renton, WA 9805 7 Phone:425-430-7200Fax:425-430-7231 PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: NOV 1 ,3 10D9 The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.2 lC RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NONPROJECT PROPOSALS: -1 -06/09 envchlst-2 A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Eagle Ridge Apartments and Office 2. Name of applicant: Eagle Ridge Villas LLC. Bob Hancheroff, partner and Christopher Koruga, managing partner. 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Christopher Koruga 5454 30th Ave SW Seattle Wa 98126 206 595-5791 4. Date checklist prepared: October 31, 2009 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton Planning Division 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Phase One 2010 Phase Two 2011 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Phase Two 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. NA 9. No Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Do not know. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. This is a mixed use building which will include 117 units of residential apartments and 4,039 square feet of office space combined in two seperate buildings on a 2.8 acre site zoned CA. The CA zoning allows for 60 units of density per acre, our project proposes 43.66 units per acre. -3-06/09 envchlst-2 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The project is located at 1600 Benson Hill Road South. The legal description is the SW Quarter of Section 20, Township 23, Range 5, In the City of Renton, King County, Washington B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one); flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other. ... rolling. Rolling with less than 1% of steep slopes. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope?) 40% c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Clay, sand, gravel. See Soils Report. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Project export of 500 yards of dirt. 100 yards of import of gravel and drainage materials as proposed by Geotech. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. No. -5-06109 envchlst-2 g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? 60% h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: All grading and earthwork to be contained and screened during construction as per recommendation of Geotech and Civil Plan attached in submittal. -6-06109 envchlst-2 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Not known. b. Are there any off-site sources of emission or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: No 3. WATER a. Surface Water: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. None. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. No 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fi II material. No 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? No Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year flood plain? If so, note location on the site plan. No . 7 -06/09 envchlst-2 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No . 8. 06/09 envchlst-2 b. Ground Water: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals ... ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. None c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters, If so, describe. See Drainage Plan of Civil Engineer TEC attached to submittal 2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: As per Civil Engineering Plan TEC 4. PLANTS a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: _x_ deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other __ x evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs grass __ pasture __ crop or grain __ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other __ water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other __ x other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? -9- envchlst-2 06/09 c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: See Landscape Plan 5. ANIMALS a. Circle any birds and animals, which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other __ None Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other None Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other __ None b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain No d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Planting schedule will enhance wildlife by adding 400 new plants shrubs and 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electric or natural gas for heating. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No C. High What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: standard of insulation, windows and weatherizing to be incorporated in construction. Recycling areas provided for tenants. Flourescent lights in common areas. 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEAL TH -10 -06/09 envchlst-2 a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. No 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None -11 -06/09 envchlst-2 b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Benson Hill Road South is a high traffic street. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Construction of buildings approximately 12 months. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any Adhere to hours of construction permitted by City of Renton 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? CA b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No c. Describe any structures on the site. None d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? None e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? CA f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? cc g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? None h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. 1% Steep Slopes, moderate erosion hazard. -12 · 06/09 envchlst-2 i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? 150 j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: NA I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: PUD City of Rentob 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. 117 middle income b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. 0 c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Agreement with neighbor regarding view impacts. 10. AESTHETICS a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material (s) proposed. 40 foot b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Some view from lower floor of building to east. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Agreements with property owners. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE -13 -06/09 envchlst-2 a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Some potential glare from 3rd Floor windows of phase one building to south during summer months. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Glazing schedules will reduce glare on these windows. 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Playground, Barbeque area, walkways connecting buildings and assisted living facility to east. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None -14 -06109 envchlst-2 c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Benson Rd. S. and Eagle Ridge Drive South. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Public bus at Puget Park Drive South. C. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? 156 d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private? No e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. no f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. See Traffic Study submitted with PUD. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: See Traffic Study submitted with PUD 15. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. No b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None. -15 -06/09 envchlst-2 16. UTILITIES a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. All of the above except septic. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. All of above. PSE, City of Renton, Qwest, Comcast. C. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true, correct, and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon this cllecklist_should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful ~: fu~ :1oyre on my part. Proponent Signature: -~"-====-........:~:::::;o-=----- Name Printed: C ,L C.1i K-,.., "t • Date: -16 -06/09 envchlst-2 D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEETS FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (These sheets should only be used for actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs. You do not need to fill out these sheets for project actions.) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, flood plains, or prime farmlands? Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: -17 -06/09 envchlst-2 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true, correct, and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent Signature: CC ; .::> -= \ Name Printed: < \,. ~4 K-cv"'v"r Date: -18 -06/09 envchlst-2 Fo,rm WA-5 (6/76) Commitment Face Page File No,: NCS-400821-WAl City of Renton Planning Division NOV l 3 1009 COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE Issued by /R1~~/E~W'/E[Q) FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY First American Title Insurance Company, herein called the Company, for valuable consideration, hereby commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance, as identified in Schedule A, in favor of the proposed Insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagor of the estate or interest covered hereby in the land described or referred to in Schedule A, upon payment of the premiums and charges therefor; all subject to the provisions of Schedules A and B and to the Conditions and Stipulations hereof. This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the proposed Insured and the amount of the policy or policies committed for have been inserted in Schedule A hereof by the Company, either at the time of the issuance of the Commitment or by subsequent endorsement. This Commitment if preliminary to the issuance of such policy or policies of title insurance and all liability and obligations hereunder shall cease and terminate six ( 6) months after the effective date hereof or when the policy or policies committed for shall issue, whichever first occurs, provided that the failure to issue such policy or policies is not the fault of the Company. This Commitment shall not be valid or binding until countersigned by an authorized officer or agent. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this commitment to be signed and sealed, to become valid when countersigned by an authorized officer or agent of the Company, all in accordance with its By-Laws. This Commitment is effective as of the date shown in Schedule A as "Effective Date." First American Title Insurance Company By: _,,,-'!Ji~~-President Attest: By: ~T ~ Countersigned First American 77tle Insurance Company Fonn WA-5 (6/76) Commitment Rle No.: NC5-400821-WA1 Page No. 1 To: i ,\ :\-1 E I( 1 ,~~ ('~, ~ First American Title Insurance Company National Commercial Services 818 stewart Street, Suite 800, Seattle, WA 98101 (206)728-0400 -(800)526-7544 FAX (206)448-6348 Kart Norambuena (206)615-3026 knorambuena@firstam.com caimaoss & Hempelmann, P.S. 524 Second Avenue, Suite 500, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98104 Attn: Jeremie Lipton SECOND REPORT SCHEDULE A Vincent Nguyenpham (206)615-3267 vnguyenpham@firstam.com File No.: NCS•400821•WA1 Your Ref No.: King County, WA 1. Commitment Date: September 8, 2009 at 7:30 A.M. 2. Policy or Policies to be issued: AMOUNT PREMIUM TAX Standard Owner's Coverage Proposed Insured: $ To Follow $ To Follow $ To Follow To Follow 3. The estate or interest in the land described on Page 2 herein is Fee Simple, and title thereto is at the effective date hereof vested in: The Lodge at Eagle Ridge, LLC, a Washington limited liability company 4. The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: The land referred to in this report is described in Exhibit "A' attached hereto. First American Title Insurance Company Form WA-5 (6{76) Commibnent EXHIBrT'A' LEGAL DESCRIPTION: File No.: NCS-400821-WAl Page No. 2 LOT B-1 OF CITY OF RENTON LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. LUA-07-089-LLA, AS RECORDED MAY 13, 2008 UNDER RECORDING NO. 20080513900012, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. First American Title Insurance Company Form WA-5 (6/76) Commitment SCHEDULE B -SEcnON 1 REQUIREMENTS The following are the Requirements to be complied with: File No.: Ncs-400821-WAl Page No. 3 Item (A) Payment to or for the account of the Grantors or Mortgagors of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured. Item (B) Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record. Item (C) Pay us the premiums, fees and charges for the policy. Item (D) You must tell us in writing the name of anyone not referred to in this Commitment who will get an interest in the land or who will make a loan on the land. We may then make additional requirements or exceptions SCHEDULE B -SEcnON 2 GENERALEXCEPllQNS 1he Policy or Policies to be issued will contain Exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company. A. Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records. B. Any facts, rights, interest, or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of said land or by making inquiry of person in possession thereof. C. Easements, claims of easement or encumbrances which are not shown by the public records. D. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose, and which are not shown by public records. E. (1) Unpatented mining claims; (2) reservations or exceptions in patents or in acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (3) Water rights, claims or title to water; whether or not the matters excepted under (1), (2) or (3) are shown by the public records; (4) Indian Tribal Codes or Regulations, Indian Treaty or Aboriginal Rights, including easements or equitable servitudes. F. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor, materials or medical assistance theretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. G. Any service, installation, connection, maintenance, construction, tap or reimbursement charges/costs for sewer, water, garbage or electricity. H. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgages thereon covered by this Commitment. First American Title Insurance Company Form WA-5 (6{76) Commitment • • File No.: NCS-400821-WAl Page No. 4 SCHEDULE B -SECTION 2 ( continued} SPECAL EXCEPTIONS 1. Lien of the Real Estate Excise Sales Tax and Surcharge upon any sale of said premises, if unpaid. As of the date herein, the excise tax rate for the City of Renton is at 1.78%. Levy/Area Code: 2100 2. For all transactions recorded on or after July 1, 2005: • A fee of $10.00 will be charged on all exempt transactions; • A fee of $5.00 will be charged on all taxable transactions in addition to the exdse tax due. General Taxes for the year 2009. Tax Account No_: 202305-9086-02 Amount Billed: $ 110,572.48 Amount Paid: $ 55,286.24 Amount Due: $ 55,286.24 Assessed Land Value: $ 2,525,100.00 Assessed Improvement Value: $ 8,581,900.00 3. This item has been intentionally deleted. 4. Easement, including terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: October 9, 1922 under Recording No. 1662041 In Favor of: Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company, a corporation For: Telephone and telegraph transmission line Affects: as described therein 5. Easement Resulting from King County Superior Court Condemnation, Including terms and provisions contained therein: 6. Cause No.: 458 In Favor of: For: Affects: The United States of America Electric Transmission Lot A Triangular Tract in the Southwest Corner Easement, including terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: April 18, 1946 under Recording No. 3560496 In Favor of: The Reconstruction Finance Corporation, a Corporation Created by an act of congress For: Transmission line Affects: as described therein Note: The rights of said Easement were later conveyed to the Qty of Seattle by instrument recorded March 7, 1947 under Recording No. 3664560. 7. This item has been intentionally deleted. First American Title Insurance Company Form WA-5 (6/76) Commitment 8. This item has been intentionally deleted. 9. Easement, including terms and provisions contained therein: File No.: NCS-400821-WAI Page No. 5 Recording Information: January 20, 1964 under Recording No. 5689126 In Favor of: City of Renton For: Sewer line across the covington-renton transmission line right of way Affects: as described therein 10. Easement and the terms and conditions thereof: Reserved by: Puget Sound Power & Light company Purpose: Identical Rights and uses as those Granted under Easement recorded under Recording No. 3560496 Area Affected: North 100 feet of said premises and other property Recorded: October 25, 1966 Recording No: 6099137 1 L The terms and provisions contained in the document entitled "Agreement" recorded Not disclosed as Recording No. 6170753 of Official Records. 12. This item has been intentionally deleted. 13. This item has been intentionally deleted. 14. The terms and provisions contained in the document entitled "Agreement on use of City of Seattle Transmission line Easement right of way" recorded March 20, 1978 as Recording No. 7803200597 of Official Records. 15. The terms, provisions and easement(s) contained in the document entitled "Agreement on Use of City of Seattle Transmission Line Easement Right of Way" recorded February 13, 1981 as Recording No. 8102130304 of Official Records. 16. Restrictions, conditions, dedications, notes, easements and provisions, if any, as contained and/or delineated on the face of the SH.PL. -023-83 recorded November 20, 1984 under Recording No. 8411209003, in King County, Washington. 17. Easement, including terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: March 26, 1985 under Recording No. 8503260417 In Favor of: Renton Elks Club For: Sanitary sewer Affects: as described therein 18. Easement, including terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: March 26, 1985 under Recording No. 8503260418 In Favor of: Robert W. Hancheroff For: Water main Affects: as described therein Rrst American Title Insurance Company Foon WA-5 (6/76) Commitment File No.: Ncs-400821-WA! Page No. 6 19. Covenants, conditions, restrictions and/or easements: 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. Recorded: April 5, 1985 Recording No.: 8504050588 Said instrument Supersedes the instrument recorded June 2, 1980 under Recording No. 8006020446. Easement, including terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: November 1, 1985 under Recording No. 8511010605 In Favor of: City of Renton, a municipal corporation For: Public utilities Affects: as described therein Easement, including terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: November 1, 1985 under Recording No. 8511010606 In Favor of: Oty of Renton, a municipal corporation For: Public utilities Affects: as described therein Easement, including terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: December 16, 1985 under Recording No. 8512160332 In Favor of: Puget Sound Power & Light Company, a Washington For: Affects: corporation Electric transmission and/or distribution system as described therein Easement, including terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: December 16, 1985 under Recording No. 8512160931 In Favor of: Puget Sound Power & Light Company, a Washington For: Affects: corporation Electlic transmission and/or distlibution system as described therein This item has been intentionally deleted. The terms, provisions and easement(s) contained in the document entitled "Agreement and Easement for Road" recorded June 6, 1986 as Recording No. 8606060798 of Official Records. Easement, including terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: August 21, 1987 under Recording No. 8708211081 In Favor of: Puget Sound Power & Light Company, a Washington For: Affects: corporation Electric transmission and/or distlibution system as described therein The terms and provisions contained in the document entitled "Agreement for use of the City of Seattle Transmission Line Easement Right of Way" recorded July 28, 1997 as Recording No. 9707280720 of Official Records. First American Title Insurance Company Form WA-5 (6/76) Commitment 28. Easement, including terms and provisions contained therein: File No.: NCS-400821 ·WAl Page No. 7 Recording Information: December 21, 1999 under Recording No. 19991221001345 In Favor of: Oty of Renton, a municipal corporation For: Water line Affects: as described therein 29. The terms and provisions contained in the document entitled "Broadband Right of Entry Agreement" recorded July 17, 2000 as Recording No. 20000717000715 of Official Records. 30. The terms and provisions contained in the document entitled "Regulatory Agreement'' recorded August 11, 2005 as Recording No. 20050811001994 of Official Records. 31. Easement, including terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: November 1, 2006 under Recording No. 20061101001469 In Favor of: Comcast of Washington N, Inc., its successors and assigns For: Broadband communications system Affects: as described therein 32. This item has been intentionally deleted. 33. This item has been intentionally deleted. 34. This item has been intentionally deleted. 35. Evidence of the authority of the individual(s) to execute the forthcoming document for The Lodge at Eagle Ridge, LLC, a Washington limited liability company, copies of the current operating agreement should be submitted prior to closing. 36. lltle to vest in an incoming owner whose name is not disclosed. Such name must be furnished to us so that a name search may be made. 37. Right, title and interest of Gencare Inc. as to the herein described property as disclosed by Tax Roll. We find no record of the party(ies) having an interest in the premises. 38. Unrecorded leaseholds, if any, rights of vendors and security agreement on personal property and rights of tenants, and secured parties to remove trade fDCtures at the expiration of the term. 39. Terms, covenants, conditions and restrictions as contained in recorded Lot Line Adjustment (Boundary Line Revision) LUA·07·089·LLA: Recorded: May 13, 2008 Recording Information: 20080513900012, in Volume 246, Pages 244 · 247 INFORMATIONAL NOTES A. Effective January 1, 1997, and pursuant to amendment of Washington State Statutes relating to standardization of recorded documents, the following format and content requirements must be met. Failure to comply may result in rejection of the document by the recorder. First American Title Insurance Company Form WA-5 (6(76) Commitment File No.: NCS-400821-WAl Page No. 8 B. Any sketch attached hereto is done so as a courtesy only and is not part of any title commitment or policy. It is furnished solely for the purpose of assisting in locating the premises and First American expressly disclaims any liability which may result from reliance made upon it. C. If this preliminary report/commitment was prepared based upon an application for a policy of title insurance that identified land by street address or assessor's parcel number only, it is the responsibility of the applicant to determine whether the land referred to herein is in fact the land that is to be described in the policy or policies to be issued. D. The description can be abbreviated as suggested below if necessary to meet standardization requirements. The full text of the description must appear in the clocument(s) to be Insured. Lot B-1, LLA No. LUA--07--089-LLA, Rec. 20080513900012 APN: 202305-9086-02 E. A fee will be charged upon the cancellation of this Commitment pursuant to the Washington State Insurance Code and the filed Rate Schedule of the Company. END OF SCHEDULE B First Ameriam Title Insurance Company Form WA-5 (6/76) Commibnent 1. ,',. M f; I( I ~""" (· ' ., ~ First American Title Insurance Company National Commercial Services COMMITMENT Conditions and Stipulations File No.: NC5-400821-WA1 Page No. 9 1. The tenn "mortgage" when used herein shall include deed of trust, trust deed, or other security instrument. 2. If the proposed Insured has or acquires actual knowledge of a defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter affecting the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment, other than those shown in Schedule B hereof, and shall fail to disclose such knowledge to the Company in writing, the Company shall be relieved from liability for any loss or damage resulting from any act or reliance hereon to the extent the Company is prejudiced by failure to so disclose such knowledge. If the proposed Insured shall disclosure such knowledge to the Company, or if the Company otherwise acquires actual knowledge of any such defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter, the Company at its option, may amend Schedule B of this Commitment accordingly, but such amendment shall not relieve the Company from liability previously incurred pursuant to paragraph 3 of these Conditions and Stipulations. 3. Liability of the Company under this Commitment shall be only to the named proposed Insured and such parties included under the definition of Insured in the fonn of Policy or Policies committed for, and only for actual loss incurred in reliance hereon in undertaking in good faith (a) to comply with the requirements hereof, or (b) to eliminate exceptions shown in Schedule B, or ( c) to acquire or create the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. In no event shall such liability exceed the amount stated in Schedule A for the Policy or Policies committed for and such liability is subject to the Insuring provisions, exclusion from coverage, and the Conditions and Stipulations of the fonn of Policy or Policies committed for in favor of the proposed Insured which are hereby incorporated by references, and are made a part of this Commitment except as expressly modified herein. 4. Any claim of loss or damage, whether or not based on negligence, and which arises out of the status of the title to the estate or interest or the lien of the Insured mortgage covered hereby or any action asserting such claim, shall be restricted to the provisions and Conditions and Stipulations of this Commitment. First American Title Insurance Comf)ilny Form WA-5 (6/76) Commitment The first American Col1>C)l"ation First American Title Insurance Company National Commercial Services PRIVACY POUCY We Are Comm-to Safeguarding Customer Information File No.: NC5-400821-WA1 Page No. 10 In order to better serve your needs now and in the futuro, we may ask you to provide us with certain information. We understand that you may be concerned about what we will do with such information particularly any personal or financial information. We agree that you have a right to know how we will utilize the personal information you provide to us. Therefore, together with our parent company, The First American Co!poration, we have adopted this Privacy Policy to govern the use and handHng of your personal Information. Applicability This Privacy Policy governs our use of the infonnation which you provide to us. It does not govern the manner in which we may use infonnation we have obtained from any other source, such as information obtained from a public record or from another person or entity. First American has also adopted broader guidelines that govern our use of personal information regardless of its source. Rrst: American calls these guidelines its Fair Infonnation Values, a copy of which can be found on our website at www.firstam.com. Types of Infonnalfon Depending upon which of our services you are utilizing, the types of nonpublic personal Information that we may collect include: • • • Use of Information Information we receive from you on applications, forms and in other communications to us, whether in writing, in person, by telephone or any other means; Information about your transactions with us, our affiliated companies, or others; and· InformatiOn we receive from a consumer reporting agenc:.y . We request infonnation from you for our own legitimate business purposes and not for the benefit of any nonaffiliated party. Therefore, we wiU not release your information to nonaffiliated parties except: (I) as necessary for us to provide the product or service you have requested of us; or (2) as permitted by law. We may, however, store such information indefinitely, including the period after which any customer relattonship has ceased. Such information may be used for any internal purpose, such as quality control efforts or customer analysis. We may also provide all of the types of nonpublic personal information listed above to one or more of our affiliated companies. 5uch affiliated companies include financial service providers, such as title insurers, property and casualty Insurers, and trust and investment advisory companies, or companies involved in real estate services, such as appraisal companies, home warranty companies, and escrow companies:. Furthemlore, we may also provide all the infonnation we collect, as described above, to oompanies that perform marketing services on our behalf, on behalf of our affiliated companies, or to other financial institutions with whom we or our affiliated companies have joint marketing agreements. Former eustomers Even if you are no longer our customer, our PriVacy Policy wHI continue to apply to you. Conlklentlallty and 5ewrity We will use our best efforts to ensure that no unauthorized parties have access to any of your information. We restrict access to nonpublic personal Information about you to those Individuals and entities who need to know that information to provide products or services to you. We wlll use our best efforts to train and oversee our employees and agents to ensure that your information wiH be handled responsibly and in accordance with this Privacy Policy and First American's Fair Information Values. We airrentty maintain physical1 electronic, and procedural safeguards that comply with federal regulations to guard your nonpublic personal Information. c 2001 The First American Corporation -All Rights Reserved First American Tltle Insurance Company LandAmerica Transnation May 4, 2006 Robert Hancheroff 17710 234th Ave SE Maple Valley, WA 98038 Attn.: Reference No. ( s): Order No.: CS -20229330-T23 Property Address: 1611 EAGLE RIDGE DRS, Renton, Washington Buyer/Borrowers: Seller(s): Robert Hancheroff and Diane Hancheroff 14450 N.E. 29th Pl., #200 Bellevue, WA 98007 Phone: 425-451-7301 800-441-7701 Fax: 425-646-8576 In connection with the above referenced Order, we are enclosing documentation as requested. If we may be of further assistance, please feel free to contact any member of the team listed below Title Team Chris Scurti (425) 646-8585 cscurti@landam.com Jessica Rangel ( 425) 646-8572 jrangel@landam.com Shelley Fooks (425) 646-8583 sfooks@landam.com 1-800-441-7701 Fax: (425) 646-8576 We thank you for this opportunity to serve you. Chris Scurti Title Officer Enclosure(s) Cc: Robert Hancheroff Attn: Robert Hancheroff ) " i f j / LandAmerica Transnation Robert Hancheroff 17710 234th Ave SE Maple Valley, WA 98038 REFERENCE NO: / Order No.: 20229330 Liability: Charge: Tax: Total: SUBDIVISION GUARANTEE $10,000.00 $ 350.00 $ 30.80 $ 380.80 Subject to the Exclusions from Coverage, the limits of liability and other provisions of the Conditions and Stipulations hereto annexed and made a part of this Guarantee, and subject to the further exclusion and limitation that no guarantee is given nor liability assumed with respect to the identity of any party named or referred to in Schedule A or with respect to the validity, legal effect or priority of any matter shown therein. Transnation Title Insurance Company a corporation herein called the Company, GUARANTEES the Assured named in Schedule A against actual monetary loss or damage not exceeding the liability amount stated herein which the Assured shall sustain by reason of any incorrectness in the assurances set forth in Schedule A. Dated: April 27, 2006 Transn-atinn Title Insurance Company By~,~~'~~-~~-~~(}:::___) -------'---,- ~horlzed sl'5:::re Subdivision Guarantee GNT004 Page 1 of 6 Order No.: 20229330 SCHEDULE A 1, Name of Assured: Robert Hancheroff 2. Date of Guarantee: April 27, 2006 3. The assurances referred to on the face page hereof are: a. That according to those public records which, under the recording laws, impart constructive notice of matters affecting title to the following described land: See Exhibit A attached hereto. b. Title to the estate or interest in the land is vested in: Robert W. Hancheroff, as his separate estate c. The estate or interest in the land which is covered by this Guarantee is: A fee simple estate Subject to the Exceptions shown below, which are not necessarily shown in order of their priority. EXCEPTIONS: 1. (A) UNPATENTED MINING CLAIMS; (B) RESERVATIONS OR EXCEPTIONS IN PATENTS OR IN ACTS AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE THEREOF; (C) INDIAN TREATY OR ABORIGINAL RIGHTS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, EASEMENTS OR EQUITABLE SERVITUDES; OR, (DJ WATER RIGHTS, CLAIMS OR TITLE TO WATER, WHETHER OR NOT THE MATIERS EXCEPTED UNDER (A), (B), (C) OR (D) ARE SHOWN BY THE PUBLIC RECORDS.' 2. GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES AND SERVICE CHARGES, AS FOLLOWS, TOGETHER WITH INTEREST, PENALTY AND STATUTORY FORECLOSURE COSTS, IF ANY, AFTER DELINQUENCY: (1ST HALF DELINQUENT ON MAY 1; 2ND HALF DELINQUENT ON NOVEMBER 1) TAX ACCOUNT NO.: YEAR 2006 2023059097 BILLED PAID $10,482.55 $0.00 BALANCE $10,482.55 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE, NOT INCLUDING INTEREST AND PENALTY: $10,482.55. LEVY CODE: ASSESSED VALUE LAND: ASSESSED VALUE IMPROVEMENTS: 2110 $713,500.00 $159,800.00 3. EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTEE: PURPOSE: AREA AFFECTED: RECORDED: RECORDING NO.: Subdivision Guarantee GNT004 PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT COMPANY TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH TRANSMISSION LINE A PORTION OF SAID PREMISES DECEMBER 9, 1922 1662041 Page 2 of 6 4. EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: ESTABLISHED IN CAUSE NO.: 458 PURPOSE: AREA AFFECTED: RECORDING NO. TRANSMISSION LINE A PORTION OF SAID PREMISES 3241106 5. EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTEE: PURPOSE: AREA AFFECTED: RECORDED: RECORDING NO.: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ONE OR MORE ELECTRIC POWER TRANSMISSION LINES A PORTION OF SAID PREMISES FEBRUARY 20, 1943 3292927 6. EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTEE: PURPOSE: AREA AFFECTED: RECORDED: RECORDING NO.: RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION TRANSMISSION LINE A PORTION OF SAID PREMISES APRIL 18, 1946 3560496 Order No20229330 GRANTEE'S INTEREST IS NOW HELD BY THE CITY OF SEATILE BY INSTRUMENT RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 3664560. 7. LIQUID PETROLEUM PRODUCTS PIPE LINE PERMIT AGREEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: RECORDED: RECORDING NO.: FEBRUARY 14, 1975 7502140608 8. AGREEMENT ON USE OF CITY OF SEATILE TRANSMISSION LINE EASEMENT RIGHT-OF-WAY P.M. #230520-2-001 AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: RECORDED: RECORDING NO.: MARCH 20, 1978 7803200597 9. ALL COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS, RESERVATIONS, EASEMENTS OR OTHER SERVITUDES, IF ANY, DISCLOSED BY THE SHORT PLAT RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 8411209003. THIS POLICY DOES NOT INSURE THAT THE LAND DESCRIBED IN SCHEDULE A IS BENEFITED BY EASEMENTS, COVENANTS OR OTHER APPURTENANCES SHOWN ON THE PLAT OR SURVEY TO BENEFIT OR BURDEN REAL PROPERTY OUTSIDE THE BOUNDARIES OF SAID LAND. 10. EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: PURPOSE: AREA AFFECTED: RECORDING NO. SANITARY SEWER MAIN A PORTION OF SAID PREMISES 8503260417 11. DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS IMPOSED BY INSTRUMENT RECORDED ON APRIL 5, 1985, UNDER RECORDING NO. 8504050588. Subdivision Guarantee GNT004 Page 3 of 6 Order No20229330 SAID INSTRUMENT SUPERSEDES AND REVOKES INSTRUMENT RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 8006020446. 12. EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTEE: PURPOSE: AREA AFFECTED: RECORDED: RECORDING NO.: CITY OF RENTON PUBLJC UTILJTIES A PORTION OF SAID PREMISES NOVEMBER 1, 1985 8511010605 13. EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTEE: PURPOSE: AREA AFFECTED: RECORDED: RECORDING NO.: CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC UTILJTIES A PORTION OF SAID PREMISES NOVEMBER 1, 1985 8511010606 14. EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTEE: PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT COMPANY PURPOSE: UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION AND/OR DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM AREA AFFECTED: RECORDED: RECORDING NO.: A PORTION OF SAID PREMISES DECEMBER 16, 1985 8512160932 15. AGREEMENT AND EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: RECORDED: JUNE 6, 1986 RECORDING NO.: 8606060798 16. EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTEE: PURPOSE: AREA AFFECTED: RECORDED: RECORDING NO.: PUGET SOUND POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, A WASHINGTON CORPORATION GUY WIRES, POLE AND ANCHORS A PORTION OF SAID PREMISES AUGUST 21, 1987 8708211081 17. AGREEMENT FOR USE OF THE CITY OF SEATILE TRANSMISSION LINE EASEMENT RIGHT-OF-WAY P.M. #230520-2-001 AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: RECORDED: RECORDING NO.: JULY 28, 1997 9707280720 18. UNRECORDED LEASEHOLDS, IF ANY; RIGHTS OF VENDORS AND HOLDERS OF SECURITY INTERESTS ON PERSONAL PROPERTY INSTALLED UPON THE LAND; AND RIGHTS OF TENANTS TO REMOVE TRADE FIXTURES AT THE EXPIRATION OF THE TERM. NOTE 1: THERE MAY BE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE (UCC) SECURITY INTERESTS FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING IN OLYMPIA, AFFECTING PERSONAL PROPERTY, CROPS OR AGRICULTURAL FACILITIES WHICH ARE NOT COVERED BY THE POLICY TO ISSUE. Subdivision Guarantee GNT004 Page 4 of 6 Order No20229330 NOTE 2: BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED TO THE COMPANY, ON THE DATE OF THIS COMMITMENT IT APPEARS THAT THERE IS LOCATED ON THE LAND: COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL STRUCTURE(S) KNOWN AS: 1611 EAGLE RIDGE DR S RENTON, WA 98055 NOTE 3: THE FOLLOWING MAY BE USED AS AN ABBREVIATED LEGAL DESCRIPTION ON THE DOCUMENTS TO BE RECORDED, PER AMENDED RCW 65.04. SAID ABBREVIATED LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR A COMPLETE LEGAL DESCRIPTION WITHIN THE BODY OF THE DOCUMENT. LOT 1 SP NO SH. PL.-023-83 REC NO 8411209003 NOTE 4: WHEN SENDING DOCUMENTS FOR RECORDING, VIA U.S. MAIL OR SPECIAL COURIER SERVICE, PLEASE SEND TO THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS, UNLESS SPECIFIC ARRANGEMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE WITH YOUR TITLE UNIT: COMMONWEALTH LANO TITLE COMPANY OF PUGET SOUND 1501 -4TH AVENUE, SUITE 308 SEATTLE, WA 98101 ATTN: RECORDING DEPT. COMMONWEALTH PRE-ADDRESSED ENVELOPES MAY STILL BE USED WHEN SENDING DOCUMENTS VIA TDS (TITLE DELIVERY SERVICE) TO THE ADDRESS ON THE FACE OF THE COMMITMENT COVER PAGE OR TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. CWC/amh Enclosures: Sketch Vesting Deed Paragraphs all recorded encumbrances Subdivision Guarantee GNT004 Page 5 of 6 Order No.: 20229330 EXHIBIT "A" LOT 1 SHORT PLAT NO. SH. PL.-023-83, RECORDED UNDER KING COUN1Y RECORDING NO. 8411209003; SITUATE IN THE CITY OF RENTON, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. THIS SKETCH IS PROVIDED, WITHOUT CHARGE, FOR YOUR INFORMATION. IT IS NOT INTENDED TO SHOW ALL MATIERS RELATED TO THE PROPERTY INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, AREA, DIMENSIONS, EASEMENTS, ENCROACHMENTS OR LOCATIONS OF BOUNDARIES. IT IS NOT A PART OF, NOR DOES IT MODIFY. THE COMMITMENT OR POLICY TO WHICH IT IS A TI ACHED. THE COMPANY ASSUMES NO LIABILITY FOR ANY MATTER RELATED TO THIS SKETCH.UNLESS SUCH COVERAGE IS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED BY THE COVERED RISKS OF THE POLICY. REFERENCE SHOULD BE MADE TO AN ACCURATE SURVEY FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. SECTION: 20 TOWNSHIP: 23N RANGE: 05E /00 ) /0/j "' "' "' N "' "' 0 u~r-, . vr l•h,.h.l L.. '-'VI 'II'-I 'I I ..., 5'.J.-JJ t.. 1308.03 ' -----+ TO SllO\'I t.r. t J THIS SKETCH IS PROVIDED, WITHOUT CHARGE, FOR YOUR INFORMATION. IT IS NOT INTENDED TO SHOW ALL MATIERS RELATED TO THE PROPERTY INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, AREA, DIMENSIONS, EASEMENTS, ENCROACHMENTS OR LOCATIONS OF BOUNDARIES. IT IS NOT A PART OF, NOR DOES IT MODIFY, THE COMMITMENT OR POLICY TO WHICH IT IS ATIACHED. THE COMPANY ASSUMES NO LIABILITY FOR ANY MATIER RELATED TO THIS SKETCH.UNLESS SUCH COVERAGE IS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED BY THE COVERED RISKS OF THE POLICY. REFERENCE SHOULD BE MADE TO AN ACCURATE SURVEY FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. SECTION: 20 TOWNSHIP: 23N RANGE: 05E ~.F. 3060<191:i z 0 ~ RNSPC21-11 ~ ~ ' ' ' ·--· li51i:!.UL ~~•"•' BOl'KVILLE PO LOT•z• 141120900a " ,iJ,fF A E Easement schedule for Eagle Ridge VIiias LLC Orange areas : ED880198 agreement and easement for road pse 9707280720 seattte city light 8708211081 easement to pse tor guy wires, pole and anchOrs 8606060798 pse agreement and easement for road 8512160332 pse easement for underground electrical system 8511010606 easement for electrical box for dental building Pink Areas: 8503260417 Sewer Easement between Hancheroff and the Elka Lodge. This sewer eaaemant will be changed when new sewer line Is Installed. Blue Areas: 7502140608 Olympic Pipeline 7803200597 Seattle Transmlaslon line easement right of way 7502140608 Portion of Renton R~ocated Diablo-Seattle TransmlSSion Line RW Yellow Areas: 3664560 Tranlfers rights of 3292927 to 3560496 Addltlonal easements: 8511010605 City of Renton Utility Easement Non-binding easements: 8504050588 ElkS Declaration of Restrictive Covenant 7803200597 Parking agreement between The Lodge and OJympic Pipeline 1662041 3241106 and 3292927 PSE Telephone and T~egraph Transmission Line easement from 1922. Wooden poles removed in 1960. City of Renton Planning Division Nov 1 3 zoog Easements were was removed by PSE partial release of easement 20060926000397 September 26, 2006 tor valuable consideration. See copy of release of easement, attached. ' I \ \ I \ \ \ " // ; I/. I / 1- 1 l I I I I I L / Printed: 11-13-2009 Payment Made: CITY OF RENTON 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Land Use Actions RECEIPT Permit#: LUA09-150 Receipt Number: City of R Ptannmr. o en ton ,-1 1v1s,0 ·11 Nov is,,: R0904946 Total Payment: 11/13/2009 12:05 PM 3,000.00 Payee: EAGLE RIDGE VILLA LLC Current Payment Made to the Following Items: Trans Account Code Description Amount 5010 000.345.81.00.0007 Environmental Review 5013 000.345.81.00.0010 PUD 1,000.00 2,000.00 Payments made for this receipt Trans Method Description Amount Payment Check 4243 3,000.00 Account Balances Trans Account Code Description Balance Due ------------------------ 3021 303.000.00.345.85 Park Mitigation Fee .oo 5006 000.345.81.00.0002 Annexation Fees .00 5007 000.345.81.00.0003 Appeals/Waivers .oo 5008 000.345.81.00.0004 Binding Site/Short Plat .oo 5009 000.345.81.00.0006 Conditional Use Fees .00 5010 000.345.81.00.0007 Environmental Review .00 5011 000.345.81.00.0008 Prelim/Tentative Plat .00 5012 000.345.81.00.0009 Final Plat . 00 5013 000.345.81.00.0010 PUD .00 5014 000.345.81.00.0011 Grading & Filling Fees .00 5015 000.345.81.00.0012 Lot Line Adjustment .00 5016 000.345.81.00.0013 Mobile Home Parks .00 5017 000.345.81.00.0014 Rezone .00 5018 000.345.81.00.0015 Routine Vegetation Mgmt .00 5019 000.345.81.00.0016 Shoreline Subst Dev .00 5020 000.345.81.00.0017 Site Plan Approval .00 5021 000.345.81.00.0018 Temp Use, Hobbyk, Fence .00 5022 000.345.81.00.0019 Variance Fees .00 5024 000.345.81.00.0024 Conditional Approval Fee .oo 5036 000.345.81.00.0005 Comprehensive Plan Amend .00 5909 000.341.60.00.0024 Booklets/EIS/Copies .00 5941 000.341.50.00.0000 Maps (Taxable) .oo 5954 650.237.00.00.0000 DO NOT USE -USE 3954 .00 5955 000.05.519.90.42.1 Postage . 00 5998 000.231.70.00.0000 Tax .oo Remaining Balance Due: $0.00